kelvinator australia pty limited soil vapour ... · parsons brinckerhoff | keswick k3 site vapour...

Kelvinator Australia Pty Limited Soil Vapour Investigations for Identification of Trichloroethene - Ashford Road & Everard Avenue, Keswick, South Australia [K3 site] 26 February 2015

Document information

Client: Kelvinator Australia Pty Limited Title: Soil Vapour Investigations for Identification of Trichloroethene - Ashford Road & Everard Avenue, Keswick, South Australia [K3 site] Document No: Keswick K3 Site Vapour December 2014_2201557b Date: 26 February 2015 Rev Date Details

0 19/02/2015 Draft - Privileged and Confidential

1 26/02/2015 Final

Author, Reviewer and Approver details

Prepared by: Adrian Heggie Date: 26/02/2015 Signature:

Reviewed by: Nivari Jayasinghe Date: 19/02/2015 Signature:

Approved by: Adrian Heggie Date: 26/02/2015 Signature:

Distribution

Kelvinator Australia Pty Limited, Parsons Brinckerhoff file, Parsons Brinckerhoff Library

©Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia Pty Limited 2015

Copyright in the drawings, information and data recorded in this document (the information) is the property of Parsons Brinckerhoff. This document and the information are solely for the use of the authorised recipient and this document may not be used, copied or reproduced in whole or part for any purpose other than that for which it was supplied by Parsons Brinckerhoff. Parsons Brinckerhoff makes no representation, undertakes no duty and accepts no responsibility to any third party who may use or rely upon this document or the information.

Document owner

Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia Pty Limited ABN 80 078 004 798 Level 27 Ernst & Young Centre 680 George Street Sydney NSW 2000 GPO Box 5394 Sydney NSW 2001 Australia Tel: +61 2 9272 5100 Fax: +61 2 9272 5101 www.pbworld.com Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001

Parsons Brinckerhoff | Keswick K3 Site Vapour December 2014_2201557b i

Kelvinator Australia Pty Limited Soil Vapour Investigations for Identification of Trichloroethene - Ashford Road & Everard Avenue, Keswick, South Australia [K3 site]

Contents Page number

Executive summary iv

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Purpose of this report 1

1.2 Background information 1

1.3 Objectives 1

1.4 Scope of works 2

2. Site information 3

2.1 Investigation area identification 3

2.2 Land use 3

2.3 Physical conditions 3

3. Contaminants of interest 4

4. Conceptual model of contaminant migration & exposure pathways 5

5. Sampling plan and methods 6

5.1 Rationale for the selection of sampling methods 6

5.2 Sub-pavement soil vapour sampling plan 6

5.3 Surface mass flux sampling plan 6

5.4 Ambient air sampling plan 7

5.5 Sub-slab soil vapour passive sampling method 7

5.6 Passive flux chamber method 7

5.7 Ambient air sampling method 9

5.8 Groundwater sampling and analysis 9

6. Data quality objectives 10

6.1 Planning process 10

6.2 Data quality control – field and laboratory 10

7. Reference guidance 12

7.1 Soil vapour concentrations 12

7.2 Surface flux rates 12

7.3 Ambient air 13

Parsons Brinckerhoff | Keswick K3 Site Vapour December 2014_2201557b ii


7.4 Groundwater 13

8. Vapour sampling results & discussion 14

8.1 Weather conditions over sampling periods 14

8.2 Sub-pavement conditions 14

8.3 Sub-pavement vapour concentrations 14

8.4 Surface flux calculations 15

8.5 Ambient indoor and outdoor vapour concentrations 18

9. Groundwater sampling results 19

9.1 Groundwater concentrations – K1 site 19

10. Assessment of data quality 21

10.1 Quality assurance – sub-pavement vapours 21

10.2 Quality assurance – flux and ambient air 21

10.3 Conclusion on data quality assurance 22

11. Summary & Conclusions 23

12. Limitations 25

13. References 27

List of tables Page number

Table 7.1 Interim screening level criteria for soil vapour concentrations of chlorinated VOCs. Criteria are applicable to shallow soil (to 1 m below ground/floor level) 12

Table 7.2 Groundwater investigation levels 13 Table 8.1 Toxicity criteria for TCE and PCE 17 Table 8.2 Exposure parameters – commercial/industrial indoor workers 17 Table 9.1 Groundwater and well depths 19 Table 9.2 Concentrations of TCE and PCE in groundwater on the K1 site, Everard Avenue,

Keswick 19

List of appendices Figures Appendix A Sub-slab soil vapour – summary table Appendix B Flux Results - Summary Tables Appendix C Indoor & Outdoor Ambient Air Measurements - Data Summary Table Appendix D Daily Weather Observations - Adelaide Airport, November & December 2014 Appendix E Laboratory Report - Sub-slab soil vapour Appendix F Laboratory Report - Flux and ambient air Appendix G Photographs

Parsons Brinckerhoff | Keswick K3 Site Vapour December 2014_2201557b iii


Parsons Brinckerhoff | Keswick K3 Site Vapour December 2014_2201557b iv


Executive summary In November 2014, Kelvinator Australia Pty Limited (Kelvinator) engaged Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia Pty Limited (Parsons Brinckerhoff), to measure soil vapours at the commercial property 56-60 Everard Avenue, Keswick, South Australia. This report presents the findings of soil vapour, surface flux and indoor air measurements, relating particularly to trichloroethene, in and near to the commercial property. Sampling was carried out over November-December 2014.

A separate and additional component of this report was to carry out another round of sampling of the groundwater at three existing monitoring wells at an adjacent commercial property at 62-70 Everard Avenue, Keswick.

For the purposes of this report, the property subject to the soil vapour investigations was termed the K3 site, while the adjacent property to the east, where groundwater investigations were conducted, was termed the K1 site (refer to Figure 1).

Background Parsons Brinckerhoff understands that Kelvinator was a former owner of the K1 and the K3 sites. The K3 site is currently owned and occupied by a business operating touring coaches.

It is known that the soil and groundwater at the K1 site has been impacted by trichloroethene (TCE), tetrachloroethene (PCE) and some other volatile organic compounds (VOCs) to lesser degrees of impact. Soil vapour investigations conducted by Parsons Brinckerhoff in March 2014 around the perimeter streets of the K1 site indicated that there has been some migration of VOC vapours from the K1 site towards the K3 site.

Because VOCs, particularly TCE, may be migrating away from the K1 site and possibly under the K3 site, and because the former Kelvinator activities on the K3 site are not known with certainty, an assessment of VOC vapours beneath the K3 site was undertaken in November-December 2014 for precautionary purposes.

Investigation objectives The overall objective of the investigations was to ensure that there was no unacceptable health risk to occupants of the commercial building on the K3 site as a consequence of ground vapours, particularly of TCE which was known to be present in the ground vapours beneath the K1 site. A related objective was to assess, to the extent possible given the limited number of sampling locations, whether there were local sources of TCE beneath the K3 site.

Existing groundwater monitoring wells on an adjacent to the K1 site were sampled again to confirm the results reported from sampling 12 months earlier.

Scope of works The scope of works for the vapour measurements on Ashford Road and the K3 commercial building consisted of the following three measurement components:

the measurement of sub-slab VOC vapours at two locations on the footpaths of Ashford Road and at 5 locations within or immediately adjacent to the K3 commercial building;

Parsons Brinckerhoff | Keswick K3 Site Vapour December 2014_2201557b v


the measurement of surface flux of VOC vapours immediately beside each of the sub-slab sampling locations; and

the measurement of ambient air at three locations within the commercial building and at two locations outside the building.

All three measurement regimes were used as lines of evidence for the evaluation of health risks for occupants of the commercial building. At the time of the vapour measurements at the K3 site and in Ashford Road, three existing groundwater monitoring wells at the K1 property were sampled and analysed for VOCs.

Results Retesting of soil vapours along Ashford Road

Beneath the pavement of the footpaths of Ashford Road, concentrations of TCE and PCE were low in so much as they were less than their respective screening level guidance values given in the NEPM 2013 documentation. TCE and PCE were the only chlorinated VOCs detected in the sub-pavement soil vapour.

TCE and PCE concentrations beneath the floor of the K3 site commercial building

Of the five sub-slab soil vapour test points on the K3 site, TCE concentrations exceeded the NEPM 2013 criterion at four locations. Only one location, in the north-western sector (K3SS7a) could be considered significantly high. With the exception of K3SS7a, the relatively even concentrations over the study area suggests the immediate vapour source is TCE in groundwater beneath the K3 site, although from the small number of sampling locations there is only low level confidence in this conclusion. The higher soil vapour concentration recorded at K3SS7a ( 2,300 µg/m3) suggests there may be a local source of TCE impact in soil in the north-western sector of the building.

Surface fluxes of TCE and PCE from the floor of the commercial building

The NEPM criteria for soil vapour concentrations of chlorinated hydrocarbons (NEPM 2013, Schedule B1, Table 1A(2)) are presented in that guidance document as tier 1 screening level criteria, which, if exceeded, indicate a need for a more site specific investigation. That further investigation was carried out in December 2014, concurrently with the sub-slab vapour testing, by means of surface flux measurements and indoor air sampling. The measurement of surface flux beside each of the sub-slab test points showed that fluxes of TCE and PCE through the floor into the building were trivial. When converted into calculated indoor air concentrations the fluxes were found to contribute only a minor amount to the actual indoor air concentrations, which were greatly less than acceptable air concentrations based on literature toxicity values and acceptable risk levels.

Indoor air measurements of TCE and PCE supported the results of the mass flux chamber measurements in so much as measured ambient air concentrations were low, greatly less than acceptable concentrations. Further evidence that the sub-slab TCE vapour is not adversely affecting the indoor air quality can be seen from the ambient air data showing that indoor air concentrations of TCE were essentially not different from outdoor concentrations of TCE.

Conclusions

In summary, the soil vapour testing on Ashford Road and the K3 site indicated:

The concentrations of TCE and PCE in soil vapour beneath Ashford Road are not significantly high, suggesting that the migration of TCE and PCE from the K1 site to the K2 site is weak, if any.

Parsons Brinckerhoff | Keswick K3 Site Vapour December 2014_2201557b vi


The low to moderate concentrations of TCE beneath the floor slab of the commercial building on the K3 make only a very minor contribution to the indoor air concentrations in the building. And ,the measured indoor air concentrations of TCE and PCE are greatly less than the acceptable risk based concentrations derived from the literature (WHO and US EPA IRIS data base).

The relatively low TCE and PCE sub-slab soil vapour concentrations on the K3 site suggest the source is from groundwater and not from local areas of impacted soil. However, the single high concentration in the north-western sector of the building, K3SS7a, indicates a local source may exist in the soil.

Finally, resampling of three existing wells at the K1 site showed that concentrations had not changed significantly since previous sampling 12 months earlier. And, one monitoring well again showed substantially high concentrations of TCE. Direction of groundwater gradient flow cannot be determined from these three wells.

Parsons Brinckerhoff | Keswick K3 Site Vapour December 2014_2201557b 1


1. Introduction 1.1 Purpose of this report In November 2014, Kelvinator Australia Pty Limited (Kelvinator) engaged Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia Pty Limited (Parsons Brinckerhoff), to conduct field investigations in relation to potential soil vapours at the commercial property 56-60 Everard Avenue, Keswick, South Australia. This report presents the findings of soil vapour, surface flux and indoor air measurements, relating particularly to trichloroethene, in and near to the commercial property. Measurements were carried out over November-December 2014.

A separate and additional component of this report was to carry out another round of sampling of the groundwater at three existing monitoring wells at the commercial property at 62-70 Everard Avenue, Keswick.

1.2 Background information Parsons Brinckerhoff understands that Kelvinator was a former owner of the commercial property subject to this investigation, as well as some adjoining and near-by properties. For the purposes of this investigation the property investigated will be referred to as the K3 site. The K3 site is currently owned and occupied by a business operating touring coaches.

The activities conducted on the K3 site during Kelvinator’s former tenure are not currently known with any certainty, however, it is known that the adjacent property to the east, 62-70 Everard Avenue (the K1 site), also formerly owned by Kelvinator, has trichloroethene (TCE), tetrachloroethene (PCE) and some other volatile organic compounds (VOCs) to lesser degrees of impact, in soil and groundwater (BlueSphere Environmental, December 2013; Terra Environment, December 2013). Soil vapour investigations around the perimeter streets of the 62-70 Everard Avenue property conducted by Parsons Brinckerhoff in March 2014 (Parsons Brinckerhoff 28 May 2014), suggest that there has been some migration of VOC vapours from that Everard Avenue property.

Because VOCs, particularly TCE, may be migrating away from the K1 site and possibly under the K3 site, and because the former Kelvinator activities on the K3 site are not known with certainty, an assessment of VOC vapours beneath the K3 site was undertaken for precautionary purposes. The sampling of groundwater was from monitoring wells on the K1 site and on Ashford Road which separates the K1 from the K3 sites.

1.3 Objectives The overall objective of the investigations of soil vapours at the K3 site was to ensure that there was no unacceptable health risk to occupants of the commercial building on the K3 site as a consequence of the possible presence of TCE or other VOC vapours in the ground beneath the building. Such a risk may potentially occur by the intrusion of vapours from the sub-floor soil, through the floor slab and into the building. With respect to this overall objective, the specific objectives of the investigation were to:

compare the measured concentrations of sub-floor TCE vapour against screening level criteria for vapour intrusion health risk evaluation (a Tier 1 assessment of risk),

measure surface flux rates of TCE vapours through the floor into the building so as to calculate the indoor air concentrations of TCE resulting from the floor flux (a Tier 2 assessment of risk), and

measure the actual ambient indoor air concentrations of TCE vapours within the K3 building to allow an assessment of risk to building occupants (a second and parallel Tier 2 assessment of risk).



A related objective was to assess, to the extent possible given the limited number of sampling locations, whether there were local sources of TCE beneath the K3 site.

Limited sampling on the road verge of Ashford Road that separates the K1 site (a source area of TCE) and the K3 site, was also undertaken to further evaluate the significance of TCE vapours found along Ashford Road in the earlier investigations (Parsons Brinckerhoff March 2014).

1.4 Scope of works The scope of works for the vapour measurements on Ashford Road and the K3 commercial building consisted of the following three measurement components:

the measurement of sub-slab VOC vapours at two locations on the footpaths of Ashford Road and at 5 locations within or immediately adjacent to the commercial building;

the measurement of surface flux of VOC vapours immediately beside each of the sub-slab sampling locations; and

the measurement of ambient air at three locations within the commercial building and at two locations outside the building.

All three measurement regimes were used as lines of evidence for the evaluation of health risks for occupants of the commercial building. At the time of the vapour measurements at the K3 site and in Ashford Road, three existing groundwater monitoring wells at the K1 property were sampled and analysed for VOCs.



2. Site information 2.1 Investigation area identification The investigation area was principally the commercial building under use as a coach depot and workshop, goods warehousing and dispatch. The site served as a bus depot, bus servicing facility, parcel dispatch facility, goods warehousing and amenities. The building was located on the corner of Ashford Road and Everard Avenue, Keswick, South Australia. The property address is listed as 56-60 Everard Avenue, Keswick.

The investigation area included the road verge of Ashford Road on the eastern side of the commercial building.

As mentioned earlier in this report, for the purposes of this report, the property has been designated as the K3 site.

2.2 Land use The site is under commercial land use and adjacent properties are also commercial. Further north along Ashford Road is a residential area.

2.3 Physical conditions The topography of the site and surrounding land is almost flat but there is, visually, a very slight slope downwards to the south. Ground cover outside the commercial building in the investigation area consisted of asphalt roads, concrete footpaths on the road reserves and on some stretches of road reserve, gravel/granulated granite or quartz coverage of the natural surface.



3. Contaminants of interest Investigations of soil vapour and groundwater on the K1 site -the recently redeveloped commercial property at 62-70 Everard Avenue, have shown that contaminant impact to the soil and groundwater is predominantly TCE. Some other chlorinated hydrocarbons were present in groundwater, but to a much lesser degree. Those additional compounds were tetrachloroethene (PCE), cis-1,2-dichloroethene (cis-1,2-DCE), vinyl chloride, 1,1-DCA, carbon tetrachloride and trichloromethane (chloroform) (Tierra Environment 18 December 2013). Testing of the soil vapours around the perimeter of the K1 site (Parsons Brinckerhoff 28 May 2014), showed that only TCE and PCE were present in sub-slab soil vapours at concentrations above trace levels.

For the current investigation of the K3 site soil vapours, surface flux and ambient air samples were analysed for a suite of VOCs including those listed above. The analytical suite contains many compounds that may not be associated with the site. The additional analytes have been retained in the analytical suite because it is a standard analytical suite and because they may assist in the interpretation of the data. The analytical suite can be seen in the data summary tables in Appendixes A, B and C. The same analytical suite was used for all analyses – sub-slab soil vapour, flux and ambient air.



4. Conceptual model of contaminant migration & exposure pathways

There are no known investigations of the geological and hydrogeological structure of the K3 site although it is likely to be very similar in its overall characteristics to the K1 site which was subject to groundwater investigations by Tierra Environment, 18 December 2013. From the borehole logs prepared during drilling for the installation of two on-site groundwater monitoring wells (Tierra Environment, 18 December 2013) on the neighbouring K1 site, filling was found in the upper metre of the soil profile, underlain by a deep horizon of silty clay with sandy clay below 12 m. Filling underlain by silty clay was also recorded by BlueSphere Environmental, 17 December 2013, when installing soil vapour bores to depths of 5 m.

The hydrogeological structure has not been adequately defined in the investigations of the K1 site, so the formulation of a conceptual site model for the transport and behaviour of the contaminants on and off-site, is somewhat speculative.

The K1 site is known to be a source area for TCE. Soil vapour measurements at depths of 1.5 m and 5 m (BlueSphere Environmental, 17 December 2013) showed high concentrations of TCE vapours clearly indicative of soils that had been directly impacted by TCE releases. Gauging of groundwater monitoring wells on 10 December 2013 by Tierra Environment showed standing water levels in the two on-site wells, KMW2 and KMW3 to be 13.65 mAHD and 11.48 mAHD, respectively. These two wells are only 13 m apart, so the difference in standing water levels is unexplained. The standing water level for the off-site well on the edge of Ashford Road was much higher at 17.61 mAHD. The large differences in standing water level were found again when Parsons Brinckerhoff re-gauged the three wells on 21 March 2014 and 8 December 2014.

Standing water levels are not necessarily indicative of the depth of the aquifer as the water may have a head pressure. Water strike was indicated at 8.0 m in KMW1, not indicated for KMW2 and saturation was indicated for KMW3 at about 16.5 m below ground level. The depth or depths of the contaminant transport in groundwater is therefore not known.

High concentrations of dissolved phase TCE in groundwater measured in wells KMW2 and KMW3, on-site, indicate the TCE detected in the soil profile has percolated downwards through the soil profile and into the water – the depth of which is unclear. The direction of flow of groundwater cannot be determined from the groundwater gauging data.

Sub-slab soil vapour sampling around the perimeter of the K1 site by Parsons Brinckerhoff in March 2014 showed the presence of TCE in sub-slab vapours on the southern side of the K1 site along Everard Avenue and to a minor degree on Ashford Road between the K1 and K3 sites. Those data suggested that there may be some migration of TCE, in groundwater or only as vapour diffusing through the soil profile, away from the K1 site. The possibility that the K3 site may have been impacted by contaminants in soil or groundwater on the K1 site was considered. The current investigations along Ashford Road and within the K3 building were, in part, designed to address this consideration.

For the occupants of the commercial property of the K3 site, the pathway for potential health risk from TCE, or other contaminant vapour, is vapour intrusion from the sub-grade, through the concrete floor and into the indoor air of the building.



5. Sampling plan and methods 5.1 Rationale for the selection of sampling methods As previously stated in section 1.3, the overall objective of the investigations of soil vapours at the K3 site was to ensure that there was no unacceptable health risk to occupants of the commercial building on the K3 site as a consequence of the possible presence of TCE or other VOC vapours in the ground beneath the building. Such a risk may potentially occur due to the intrusion of vapours from the sub-floor soil, through the floor slab and into the building. The approach taken to the testing of that potential risk was to measure the contaminants, if present, at three points along the exposure pathway – firstly in soil vapour beneath the floor slab, secondly in the flux of the contaminant vapours passing through the floor slab, and thirdly in the concentration of contaminant vapours in the indoor air of the building. This approach could demonstrate that even if contaminant vapours are present beneath the concrete flooring of the building, the presence of those vapours may not pose an unacceptable risk to building occupants. Low flux rates of contaminants entering the building through the floor and low indoor air concentrations, would demonstrate that the vapour intrusion pathway is incomplete.

Guidance criteria on acceptable vapour concentrations of chlorinated volatile compounds, available in the National Environment Protection Council (NEPC) 2013, National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Amendment Measure 2013 (No. 1) apply only to the concentrations of certain individual chlorinated VOC compounds in the soil vapour within the shallow soil profile or directly beneath a floor slab. The criteria are presented as Tier 1 screening level values which, if exceeded, indicate a need for a tier 2, more site specific or a more direct measurement of actual risk posed by the vapours. For the K3 site investigating that tier 2 higher level assessment comprised the measurement of surface flux through the building floor and the measurement of indoor air concentrations of the contaminants of interest. The tier 2 measurements were undertaken concurrently with the sub-slab soil vapour testing on the basis that there was a reasonable probability that soil vapour concentrations would exceed the very conservative criterion for TCE given in the NEPM 2013 guidance document.

5.2 Sub-pavement soil vapour sampling plan VOCs, including the contaminants of interest for this investigation were measured by inserting passive soil vapour sampling tubes (WMS_LU) into sampling holes drilled through the concrete flooring of the commercial building on the K3 site at three location and at a further two locations immediately outside the building wall within pavement. A further two locations were installed into the footpaths along Ashford Road between the K1 site (a known source of TCE vapours) and the K3 site building. Locations are shown in Figure 2.

5.3 Surface mass flux sampling plan The surface mass flux of VOCs was measured by passive flux chambers at each of the seven locations at which sub-slab vapour tube implants were placed.

The five flux chambers on the K3 site were placed on the concrete floor of the building, while the two flux chambers on Ashford Road were placed on the unpaved ground on the road reserves.

For the current investigation, two different types of sampling tubes were used for flux measurements. For the two chambers in the public area of Ashford Road, short duration sampling tubes of the thermal desorption type (TD code 145) were used. This was necessary as the chambers could not be left unattended on public footpaths beyond the eight hours on the sampling day. For the flux chambers in the



commercial building solvent desorption tubes (SD code 130) were used. Deployment time for these tubes is not critical, and usually periods of two to three weeks are used. For this investigation the chambers were deployed for 21 days.

Locations of the flux chambers are shown in Figure 2.

5.4 Ambient air sampling plan Ambient air concentrations of the contaminants of interest were measured at three locations within the commercial building of the K3 site and at two locations immediately outside the building – the latter two located to obtain background ambient air concentrations.

5.5 Sub-slab soil vapour passive sampling method The passive soil vapour sampling tube type used was the Waterloo Membrane Sampler – Low Uptake (WMS_LU™), developed by the University of Waterloo. The sampler has been specifically designed and developed to allow quantification of volatile organic compounds in the soil pore space. The WMS_LU™ sampler is a passive sampler, containing an absorptive carbon medium within a small glass vial with a permeable membrane at the end of the glass vial. A description of the method of passive soil vapour sampling using the WMS samplers is given in McAlary et al., 2009.

The method allows for the calculation of actual concentrations in the soil gas on account of two critical features of the method. Firstly, the samplers are designed to maintain a constant but low uptake rate which, consequently, establishes the second critical factor – prevention of the depletion of the target analyte concentrations (the VOCs in the soil void), i.e., a ‘starvation effect’ is avoided and a constant uptake rate onto the sampler is maintained. Uptake rates for the sampler have been empirically derived and the method has been validated against the TO-15 active sampling method.

Data are expressed also as calculated concentrations of soil vapour, in the unit of µg/m3. The calculation was performed using the manufacturer’s published uptake rates which are specific for each compound and for the type of sampler used (i.e. the WMS_LU™). Expression of the data in concentration terms allows direct comparison of the measured concentrations against health investigation levels (HILs) for soil vapour published in NEPM, 2013.

5.5.1 Method of sample deployment, duration and tube recovery

Pavements were drilled using a 20 mm diameter drill bit on a hand held electric drill to depths of 300 mm below the top of the pavement. For the deploy the WMS-LU™ tubes in the holes, the tubes were first wrapped in metal flyscreen to protect the sampling tube from direct contact with soil. A tube was then lowered into the drilled hole attached by a wire. The holes were sealed using a sand-cement grout to provide an air and water seal. The grout plug was finished flush with the pavement surface.

Sampling tubes were recovered from the sampling holes after three weeks of deployment by pulling up the sampler by the attached wire after breaking the grout seal. Sampling tubes were placed in their glass vials and sent under chain of custody to the analytical laboratory, SGS - Leeder Consulting.

5.6 Passive flux chamber method The passive flux chamber involves the placement of a high uptake rate sorption tube within the void of a stainless steel chamber located directly on the ground surface or pavement. After the predetermined deployment period – typically 8 hours for thermal desorption tubes and three weeks for solvent desorption



tubes, the passive sorption tube was collected for laboratory analysis involving thermal desorption followed by GC-MS analysis.

For the current investigation, two types of Radiello solvent desorption tubes were used. In the public space of the footpaths of Ashford Road thermal desorption tubes (ID code 145 cartridge) were used, allowing a detection limit of 0.005 µg/tube (5 nanograms). These tubes are suitable for deployment periods of several hours to one day. The detection limit, expressed as a calculated flux, is proportional to the deployment (sampling) time. In the commercial building of the K3 site solvent desorption tubes (ID code 130 cartridge) were used. These tubes are suitable for deployment periods of one to several weeks. Like the thermal tubes, the detection limit is proportional to the deployment time. For the 20 day deployment of flux chambers in the commercial building the detection limit was 50 nanograms for most compounds. The detection limits equate to very low flux rates which could be described as trivial in terms of consequential risk.

Radiello sampling tubes are described in: Radiello Fondazione Salvatore Maugeri-IRCCS, http://www.radiello.it/index.html

The principal of operation of the passive flux chamber is that the VOC mass absorbed onto the passive tube placed within the chamber void is a close approximation of the total VOC mass flux into the chamber from the surface on which the chamber is placed. For the mass collected on the sampling sorption tube to be approximately equal to the mass flux into the chamber, a concentration depression within the chamber must be maintained. This is achieved through the high sorption rates (sampling rates) of the Radiello sampler which has a capacity to absorb contaminants at a greater rate than the flux into the chamber. Essentially, the Radiello sampler ‘captures’ the mass flux into the chamber from the ground surface. The concentration depression is maintained unless the sorption tube becomes saturated. Saturation of the sorption tube would not occur under normal sampling conditions. Maintenance of the concentration depression has been previously demonstrated and reported in Heggie & Stavropoulos 2010.

Flux into the passive chamber can thus be expressed as:

Flux (µg/m2/h) = mass on tube (µg) x 1/chamber footprint (m2) x 1/ sampling duration (h)

5.6.1 Deployment method – passive flux chambers

The stainless steel passive flux chambers, 0.35 m in diameter and 8 L capacity, were seated on either a natural surface of the road reserve (i.e., beside the paved footpaths) or on concrete. A Radiello passive absorptive sampling tube was suspended within the void of the chamber. To ensure no advective exchange of air occurred between the ambient air (the atmosphere) and the air within the chamber sand and local surface soil was placed around the rim of the chambers placed on nature surfaces. For the chamber placed on a concrete surface, Blu-Tack™ was placed around the rim of the chamber to provide the seal.

After the predetermined deployment (i.e. sampling) time, the sampling tubes were removed from the chambers and placed in sealed glass vials for transport to the analytical laboratory.

5.6.2 Analytical methodology – passive flux chambers

The sorbent tubes were returned to the laboratory where they were solvent desorbed and analysed by GC-MS.

The masses of a range of VOCs on the tubes is determined by the laboratory analysis.



5.7 Ambient air sampling method Ambient air was sampled using Radiello code 130 solvent desorption tubes. The sorption tubes consist of activated carbon housed in a cylindrical steel gauze. The Radiello tubes were designed for the sampling of volatile organics in ambient air.

Sampling tubes located outside the building were placed within cassette holders and suspended within rain shelters and affixed to fences or other structures around the perimeter of the building at heights of about 1.5 m. Sampling tubes located inside the building were identically housed except the rain shelters were not required.

Deployment period for ambient air sampling is not critical and for ambient air sampling is normally conducted over periods of days or weeks. Providing the tubes remain dry (sheltered from rain), the length of exposure is not crucial to effective sampling. For the investigations at the K3 site the ambient air sampling tubes were deployed for a period of 20 days.

At the completion of the sampling period, the sorption tubes were recovered from the Radiello cassette holders and placed into dedicated glass vials for transport to the analytical laboratory. Analysis of the passive samplers was performed by solvent desorption and gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC-MS). Detection limits are typically around 0.05 µg/tube which equates to about to around 0.03 µg/m3 or less for the 20 day deployment times.

5.8 Groundwater sampling and analysis The three groundwater wells at the K1 site were sampled by disposable bailers after purging dry the water column. Field parameters of pH, electrical conductivity, redox potential and temperature were measured during purging and recorded. Water samples were collected from the wells after the field parameters had stabilised. Samples were analysed for a standard suite of VOCs and for major cations and anions.



6. Data quality objectives Schedule B2 of the NEPM 2013, recommends that a systematic planning process is used for defining the objectives of the assessment and the sampling plan that can meet those objectives. The NEPM 2013 states:

“In its simplest form, the planning process should consider:

the overall objective of the site assessment

the decision(s) to be made on the basis of the site assessment findings

the constraints on the assessment (financial, time and logistical) and

the degree of flexibility to conduct follow-up investigations.”

The intent of the above planning process is to identify the methodologies needed to undertake measurements that are achievable and collect data that are adequate to meet the study objectives. A second aspect of data quality control is the process of assuring the quality of the data collected which in turn involves the controls on how samples are collected. A third aspect is the means by which the reliability of the analytical results is quantified.

6.1 Planning process With regard to controls on project quality planning and design, the following comments are relevant.

The overall and principal objective of the work planned and undertaken in December 2014 by Parsons Brinckerhoff at and near to the K3 site, were to identify the possible presence of chlorinated solvent soil vapours in the sub-floor-slab soils, in the floor flux and in the ambient indoor air. The data were required to be sufficient to show whether or not there was an unacceptable health risk to building occupants from sub-floor vapours intruding into the building.

With regard to the decisions to be made on the basis of the findings, the results may assist in any considerations of possible further work or in any control measures if unacceptable risks were indicated by the data.

Restrictions to available sampling locations were a constraint on the sampling design. However, the final locations used for sampling vapours were considered suitable for the objectives.

6.2 Data quality control – field and laboratory 6.2.1 Surface flux measurements

Field data quality control for passive flux chambers is a relatively simple process that involves:

proper handling of the sampling tubes to avoid contaminating the tubes during deployment into the chambers and collection from the chambers, and avoiding any exposure of the sampling tubes to contaminants other than during the deployment within the chambers. This process is easily achieved by the use of clean nitrile gloves when handling the tubes and avoiding any contact of the tubes by hand.

careful handling of the cleaned flux chambers to ensure the internal chamber surface remains untouched during transport and deployment;



ensuring no gap exists between the chamber rim and the ground surface through which an advective air exchange could occur;

taking duplicate samples within one or more of the chambers to provide a measurement of the precision of the measurements. For the current investigation duplicate tubes were placed in one of the flux chambers. There are no Australian reference guidelines for the acceptable degree of difference (as measured as relative percent difference (RPD)) for flux measurements, nor even for soil vapour concentration measurements. Acceptability of an RPD value is dependent on measured mass, relative to the detection limit. Generally, where the measured mass is more than one order of magnitude greater than the detection limit, RPDs within 100% are acceptable.

analysing one trip blank to quantify any background contaminants on the sampling tubes.

These actions to ensure the quality of the field samples are not difficult to achieve and certainty in their achievement is easy to verify at the time of the field sampling.

Laboratory quality control can be evaluated by the results from method blank testing and from recoveries from spiked samples. For the current investigation the analytical laboratory undertook one method blank analysis and one method spike analysis – conducted in duplicate. Two types of sampling tubes were used in the flux measurements, thermal desorption and solvent desorption. One method blank was analysed for each type of tube.

6.2.2 Sub-slab vapour measurements

Field data quality control for sub-slab vapour measurements is, like the process for flux, a relatively simple process that involves:

proper handling of the sampling tubes to avoid contaminating the tubes during deployment into the drilled holes and collection from the holes at conclusion of sampling, and avoiding any exposure of the sampling tubes to contaminants other than during their deployment. This process is easily achieved by the use of clean nitrile gloves when handling the tubes and avoiding any contact of the tubes by hand.

Deploying the sampling tubes into the drilled holes in a manner that protects the tubes from direct contact with soil and water; and the sealing of the holes to prevent the entry of air or water for the duration of the sampling period.

taking duplicate samples within one or more of the soil vapour testing holes to provide a measurement of the precision of the measurements. For the current investigation duplicate tubes were placed in four of the sub-slab drilled holes. There are no Australian reference guidelines for the acceptable degree of difference (as measured as relative percent difference (RPD)) for soil vapour concentration measurements. Acceptability of an RPD value is dependent on measured mass, relative to the detection limit. Generally, where the measured mass is more than one order of magnitude greater than the detection limit, RPDs within 100% are acceptable.

It is critical to ensure that any supporting materials deployed with the sampling tubes – such as the protecting wire screen in which the sampling tubes are wrapped before deployment into the holes, is laboratory tested to ensure it is free from VOCs.

Upon collection of the sampling tubes from the holes, placement of the tubes immediately into their vials and ensuring complete sealing of the vials.

Laboratory quality control can be evaluated by the results from method blank testing and from recoveries from spiked samples. For the current investigation the analytical laboratory undertook one method blank analyses and one method spike analysis.



7. Reference guidance 7.1 Soil vapour concentrations Relevant screening level (tier 1) guidelines, for human health effects, relating to soil vapour concentrations are Interim soil vapour health investigation levels for volatile organic chlorinated compounds (HILs) presented in Schedule B1 Investigation Levels for Soil and Groundwater in the NEPM. HILs for the contaminants of interest for this investigation are listed in Table 7.1.

Table 7.1 Interim screening level criteria for soil vapour concentrations of chlorinated VOCs. Criteria are applicable to shallow soil (to 1 m below ground/floor level)

Chemical Interim soil vapour HIL (µg/m3)

Commercial/industrial land use Low density residential land use

tetrachloroethene 8,000 2,000

trichloroethene 80 20

cis-1,2-dichloroethene 300 80

vinyl chloride 100 30

Of the HILs the NEPM states:

“Interim HILs for VOCs are conservative soil vapour concentrations that can be adopted for the purpose of screening sites where further investigation is required on a site-specific basis. They are based on the potential for vapour intrusion using an indoor air-to-soil vapour attenuation factor of 0.1...”

Thus the guideline can be interpreted to mean that a sub-slab concentration of 80 µg/m3 of TCE may result (taking a conservative statistical approach) in an indoor air concentration of 8 µg/m3, which, if exceeded, would represent a possible health risk to building occupiers.

7.2 Surface flux rates There are no published reference values for flux rates. It would not be appropriate to produce and present such reference values as the effect of the flux is dependent on the resulting concentration which itself is dependent on the mixing rate within the receiving air (such as a room within a building).

For the present investigation, flux has been used for two purposes, firstly to identify the presence or absence of detectable VOC vapours (TCE was of principle interest) in the soil profile, and secondly to provide an indication of whether, if present, TCE represented a potential health risk, via the vapour intrusion process, for occupants of the on-site building.

With regard to the use of flux as a method to evaluate and quantify potential vapour intrusion health risks, both Australian and overseas guidance refers to surface flux as a further line of evidence and allows a measurement near to the end of the vapour intrusion pathway.



7.3 Ambient air There are no published Australian reference values for indoor ambient air concentrations of chlorinated VOCs other than reference concentrations published by the NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water in the document Vapour Intrusion: Technical Practice Note, September 2010. The document lists a reference concentration for TCE of 23 µg/m3. The value is referenced as being sourced from WHO 2000 and is derived from a 1 x 10-5 risk level and a carcinogen unit risk of 4.3 x 10-7 per µg/m3. Although not discussed in the reference document, the value of 23 µg/m3 listed for acceptable ambient air, applies to a 24 hour per day exposure for a person’s lifetime. Without adjustment for a typical commercial worker’s period of exposure, this value is highly conservative.

Usually when evaluating the vapour intrusion risk to which a commercial worker may be exposed, the acceptable value is calculated from the chosen unit risk value for the chemical of concern, the acceptable risk level for a health effect and the time of exposure.

7.4 Groundwater Reference guidelines used for the evaluation of groundwater quality should relate to the use and potential use of the groundwater and to the use of receiving water bodies – streams, lakes, estuarine and marine waters. Monitoring of the three groundwater wells on the K1 site was to confirm earlier results (Terra Environment, 18 December 2013). The fate of the impact to groundwater is currently not known, nor are the receptors. Consequently, appropriate water quality criteria for the groundwater has not been identified (with respect to groundwater beneath that site). Nevertheless, for the purpose of providing reference values, both ecological and drinking water guidelines are presented here for selected chlorinated VOCs.

Table 7-1 summarises the groundwater assessment criteria used in this investigation.

Table 7.2 Groundwater investigation levels

Analyte A – Freshwater Ecosystem (µg/L)

B – Marine Water Guidelines (µg/L)

C – Drinking Water Guidelines (µg/L)

Site Assessment Criteria

TCE 3301 3301 20# 20

PCE 701 701 50 50

cis-1,2-DCE - - 60 60

Vinyl Chloride 1001 1001 0.3 0.3

1,2-dichloroethane - - 3 3

1,1,2-trichloroethane 6,500 1,900 - 1,900

1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane - - - -

(1) No investigation level available. (2) A. Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (ANZECC/ARMCANZ, 2000) Trigger values for

freshwater, 95% level of protection. (3) B. Guidelines for recreational water quality and aesthetics (ANZECC/ARMCANZ, 2000). (4) C. Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (NHMRC, 2011). (5) # WHO 2004 interim guideline. (6) 1. Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (ANZECC/ARMCAN Z, 2000). Low Reliability

trigger values for freshwater.



8. Vapour sampling results & discussion

8.1 Weather conditions over sampling periods Weather conditions may influence shallow soil vapour concentrations and fluxes. For that reason weather records for November and December 2014, which cover the period leading up to and during the sampling time, have been included in Appendix C. The magnitude of the effect of changes in soil vapour concentration in response to changes in soil moisture content has not been clearly established in the literature. However, increasing moisture content in the soil profile is expected to have a minor impact on soil vapour concentrations but for diffusive mass flux rates the influence of increasing moisture within the soil profile may be significant. Five of the seven flux measurement locations were within the commercial building on the K3 site, so for those measurements the influence of recent rainfall was negligible.

In the 48 hours leading up to the measurement of flux on the road reserve of Ashford Road, no rainfall was recorded at the Adelaide Airport weather station (Appendix D). In the three weeks prior to sampling a total of 25.2 mm fell. Over that three week period evaporation was considerably greater at 148.4 mm, indicating that soil conditions were relatively dry in the upper horizon during the sampling period (25 November 2014). It was observed that the natural surface of the road reserve – gravel and crushed rock, was dry at the time of deployment of the flux chambers.

Temperature of the soil profile also has an effect on soil pore vapour concentrations, although the effect is relatively small. The expected seasonal range in profile temperature, of about 5 oC would result in a change of about 25% in vapour concentration. The temperature of the soil profile will also influence the mass flux through the profile such that rates of flux will increase with temperature.

The weather conditions prevailing during the period leading up to the vapour testing and during the time of the testing are considered to be normal and typical for the early summer season. Accordingly, the vapour results can be considered to be representative of normal conditions.

8.2 Sub-pavement conditions Because the vapour investigation for the current study involved surface flux and sub-slab soil vapour measurements, the soil profile was not examined. Information on the soil profile just beyond the boundary of the site along Ashford Street is available from a borehole log in a report prepared by Tierra Environment dated 18 December 2013. The borehole log shows a profile of silty clay from the surface to 11 m below ground level at which depth a clayey silty sand horizon was encountered. The log records saturation at a depth of 8 m.

8.3 Sub-pavement vapour concentrations Soil vapour concentrations were measured at two locations along the footpaths of Ashford Road and at three locations within the commercial building on the K3 site and a further two immediately outside the western wall of the building. All sub-slab vapour samples were analysed for a suite of 48 volatile organic compounds comprising chlorinated compounds and petroleum hydrocarbons. Results for all sampling locations are tabulated in Table A1 of Appendix A. Concentrations of TCE and PCE are shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4, respectively. Figures 3 and 4 also show results for surface fluxes which were measured alongside each of



the sub-slab testing points. An interpretation of the flux results is discussed in section 8.4. Ambient air results are also shown in the two figures.

The contaminant of greatest interest to the investigation was TCE which is known to be present in soil vapour on the K1 site. PCE was also found in soil vapour on the K1 site (BlueSphere 17 December 2013). In March 2014 Parsons Brinckerhoff tested sub-slab soil vapour along Ashford Road between the K1 and K3 sites and found both TCE and PCE at low concentrations, albeit, one marginally exceeded the NEPM 2013 interim health screening level criterion for TCE. In the December 2014 sampling, one sampling point on the Ashford road footpath, K3SS1a, was installed in the same location as sample SS10 from the March 2014 sampling. In March concentrations were: TCE 100 µg/m3; PCE 6.6 µg/m3. In December the concentrations were not significantly different with TCE 49 µg/m3 and PCE 16 µg/m3.

For the current investigation of sub-slab soil vapour concentrations in the commercial building on the K3 site, and on the road verge of Ashford Road, sampling locations and results for TCE and PCE are shown in Figures 3 and 4, respectively. Results for all analytes are listed in Table A1, Appendix A.

In terms of relative concentrations and extent of occurrence, TCE was the dominant compound and PCE was also consistently detected, but a lower concentrations. The NEPM 2013 criterion for TCE vapours in shallow soil, i.e. the “interim soil vapour health investigation level”, was exceeded at four of the five sub-slab sampling locations in or adjacent to the commercial building on the K3 site. Although slightly exceeding the reference criterion of 80 µg/m3, the TCE concentrations were characteristically 1,000 to 10,000 times lower than those measured on the K1 site by BlueSphere, 17 December 2013.

As can be seen from Figure 3, the highest measured TCE concentration was found at location K3SS7a with a value of 2,300 µg/m3. Other values were around 10 times lower.

With the exception of K3SS7a, the relatively even concentrations over the study area suggests the immediate vapour source is TCE in groundwater beneath the K3 site, although from the small number of sampling locations there is only low level confidence in this conclusion. The higher soil vapour concentration recorded at K3SS7a suggests there may be a local source of TCE impact in soil.

TCE concentrations in the two sub-slab sampling locations on Ashford Road did not exceed the criterion.

As stated above, four of the five locations showed TCE at concentrations exceeding the interim health based criterion of 80 µg/m3. Whether or not the measured concentrations presented an actual unacceptable health risk from vapour intrusion into the building was examined further by surface flux measurements (described in section 8.4 below) and by indoor air measurements (section 8.5).

The measured concentrations of PCE in the test points on the K3 site and in Ashford road were greatly lower than the NEPM 2013 interim criterion (8,000 ug/m3) and can be considered of no consequence with respect to human health risks from intrusion into the commercial building. The highest measured value of PCE was 50 µg/m3 at K3SS7a.

8.4 Surface flux calculations 8.4.1 Detected contaminants on flux sampling tubes

Results of the laboratory calculations of the mass of contaminants on the tubes within the flux chambers are tabulated in Table B1, Appendix B. The values listed in Table B1 are not flux values, but rather, the mass collected on the absorbtion tubes placed within the flux chambers over the duration of the chamber deployment. The magnitude of the values are comparable between compounds and thus show the relative strengths of the fluxes through the pavement or flooring. However, it should be noted that the two flux chambers on Ashford Road used short duration sampling tubes (TD code 145 tubes) with deployment period of 9.5 hours while the flux chambers on the K3 property used longer duration SD code 130 tubes. The data



are normalised between TD and SD tubes through the process of calculating the mass flux rates which is expressed as mass per unit time per unit area. The process of calculating flux and the resulting risk levels is presented in section 8.4.2.

Data in Table B1, Appendix B is presented primarily to provide a documented record of results. Fluxes have been calculated for only the compounds of interest – TCE and PCE. It is apparent from the low mass collected on the sampling tubes in the flux chambers that flux rates were low in all locations. This observation applies not just to the contaminants of interest, but to all analyte compounds. Calculated fluxes for TCE and PCE are presented in Table B2 of Appendix B. The flux data for TCE and PCE are also presented alongside the sub-slab concentration results in Figures 3 and 4.

Other detected compounds

Daughter compounds, derived from the degradation of TCE are, firstly, cis-DCE and vinyl chloride. Neither was detected in any flux chamber.

One other chlorinated VOC, trichloromethane, commonly known as chloroform, was detected as a flux in four of the 7 flux chambers, but only just over the detection limit. Chloroform occurs naturally in the soil profile (Hoekstra et al, 1998), and it is not uncommon to find it as a soil vapour in Australian soils. It is thus reasonable to assume it is not related to the site’s former use. In any case, the amount of chloroform detected can be considered trace. Similarly, carbon tetrachloride was detected just above the laboratory detection limit at four locations. Carbon tetrachloride occurs as a background contaminant in the atmosphere, which the likely source – i.e. through sorption into the concrete slab, followed by ‘off-gassing’ as a flux into the chamber.

Several VOCs associated with petrol, in particular, benzene and 2-methylbutane, were present in most of the flux chambers. Some, if not most of these detected VOCs may have had their origin in the atmosphere. Petrol fuelled vehicles in the workshop is the likely major source.

8.4.2 Measured surface flux rates and risk evaluation

As mentioned earlier in section 5 Sampling Methodology, the mass collected on the passive sampling tube within the flux chamber can be expressed as a mass per unit area per unit time as:

Flux (µg/m2/h) = mass on tube (µg) x 1/chamber footprint (m2) x 1/ sampling duration (h)

Flux chamber primary measurement data – i.e. mass of each analyte compound on the sorption tube, as listed in Table B1, show no strong fluxes. All could be considered very weak. Flux rates for only the two contaminants of interest, TCE and PCE have been calculated and are presented in Table B2 of Appendix B.

For vapour intrusion investigations, mass flux measurements are used to calculate indoor air concentrations. Indoor air concentrations were calculated using the following equation.

rateexchangeairVAFlux

Cbuilding

floorair

where, Cair = concentration in indoor air (µg/m3) Flux = measured flux (µg/m2/h) Afloor = floor area of the office or warehouse (m2) Vbuilding = floor area x ceiling height (m3) air exchange rate = volume exchange per hour (h)



Flux rates for TCE, and all other VOCs, were very low, thus the indoor air concentrations resulting from the fluxes were also low. To illustrate this condition, the highest measured flux for TCE (0.065µg/m2/h) measured at K3PF5a, was converted to an indoor air concentration.

The area of the floor is not a critical variable if it is assumed that the flux is equal over the entire floor area, because the factor cancels out in the equation. The volume term in the equation is set by assuming a ceiling (i.e., mixing) height and an air exchange rate. For commercial buildings NEPM, 2013 recommends a ceiling height of 3 m and an air exchange rate of 1.24 volumes per hour. Using those assumptions the resulting indoor air concentration of TCE would be 0.017 µg/m3. To place this very low concentration into a human health risk context, using World Health Organisation (WHO) 2000 toxicity and risk guidance values (a unit risk of 4.3 x10-7) at a risk level of 10-5, the acceptable ambient (indoor) air concentration, without exposure adjustment, is 23 µg/m3. The US EPA’s IRIS data base lists a lower value for unit risk (a more stringent criterion) at 4.1 x 10-6. Using this ‘toxicity’ derived value and an acceptable risk level of 10-5, an acceptable indoor air concentration of 2.4 µg/m3 is derived. The flux derived indoor air concentration of 0.017 µg/m3 is also much lower than the IRIS derived indoor air acceptable concentration.

The carcinogenic risk resulting from the flux calculated indoor air concentration of 0.017 µg/m3 is determined using the equation:

Risk = the exposure adjusted concentration x unit risk

The adjustment used in the risk calculations is in accordance with the referenced factors listed in Table 8.2 and the equation for the conversion of indoor air concentrations (Cair) to exposure concentrations (EC) is:

EC = Cair x ET x EF x ED / AT

Toxicity values are listed in Table 8.1 and exposure adjustment factors for indoor commercial/industrial workers are shown in Table 8.2.

Table 8.1 Toxicity criteria for TCE and PCE

Compound Reference Unit risk (carcinogens) (risk per µg/m3)

Reference dose (non-carcinogens)

units: µg/m3) TCE US EPA IRIS database 4.1 x 10-6 2

WHO 4.3 x 10-7 not given

PCE US EPA IRIS database 2.6 x 10-7 40

WHO 2010 not classified as a carcinogen

250

Table 8.2 Exposure parameters – commercial/industrial indoor workers

Exposure parameter

Unit Value Reference Note

Exposure time (ET) h/day 8 CRC CARE (2011)

Exposure frequency (EF)

days/year 240 CRC CARE (2011) Working days per year

Exposure duration (ED)

years 30 CRC CARE (2011) Number of years in one occupation

Averaging time for carcinogenic effects (ATc)

years 82 CRC CARE (2011) Life expectancy (enHealth (2012))



Exposure parameter

Unit Value Reference Note

Averaging time for non-carcinogenic effects (ATnc)

years 30 CRC CARE (2011) set equal to the exposure duration

In accordance with the exposure factors listed in Table 8.2, the factors to adjust the ambient air concentration to the exposure adjusted concentration are 0.08 for carcinogens and 0.22 for non-carcinogens. The potential indoor air concentration determined from the highest measured flux rate, i.e., 0.017 µg/m3 , adjusted for exposure becomes 0.0014 µg/m3 .

Risk of excess cancer effects is determined from the equation:

Risk = Unit Risk x exposure adjusted concentration in air

And risk of non-cancer health effects is determined by the equation:

Risk = exposure adjusted concentration in air / Reference Dose

Using the WHO Unit Risk value of 4.7 x 10-7, the excess cancer risk from an exposure adjusted concentration of TCE of 0.0014 µg/m3 is 6.0 x 10-10, which is more than four orders of magnitude below the acceptable risk level of 10-5. Using the US EPA IRIS data base Unit Risk of 4.1 x 10-6 the resultant cancer risk is still very low and acceptable at 5.7 x 10-9.

The US EPA IRIS data base lists a reference dose for TCE of 2 µg/m3. WHO does not list a reference dose for non-cancer health effects. The exposure adjusted concentration of TCE in air was greatly less than the US EPA reference dose.

These calculations show that there is no indication of an unacceptable health risk from the vapour intrusion pathway into the commercial building on the K3 site, and in fact, the contribution of sub-floor contaminant vapours to indoor air is negligible.

8.5 Ambient indoor and outdoor vapour concentrations Ambient air concentrations of a suite of VOCs, including the compounds of interest, TCE and PCE, were sample at three indoor and two outdoor locations at the K3 commercial building. Sampling locations are shown in Figure 2. Compared to the health risk based acceptable air concentrations derived from toxicity values published by WHO and US EPA, 23 µg/m3 and 2.4 µg/m3, respectively, the measured concentrations of TCE were very low. The highest TCE concentration measured was 0.11 µg/m3. PCE concentrations in ambient indoor and outdoor air were similarly low.

Concentrations of TCE and PCE were not consistently different between indoor and outdoor sample locations and all locations showed very similar concentrations. This result indicates that TCE and PCE vapours in the sub-floor soil profile are not contributing significantly to the indoor air load of those compounds. This result also supports the finding of the flux measurements which identified very low flux rates through the flooring.



9. Groundwater sampling results

9.1 Groundwater concentrations – K1 site Three existing wells on the K1 site were sampled on 8 December 2014 in order to confirm earlier sampling on 10 December 2013 by Terra Environment. Terra Environment had installed the three groundwater monitoring wells prior to the redevelopment of the site. The wells were preserved and remain in operational condition post redevelopment, however, the original levels of the well heads for the KMW2 and KMW3 wells have been altered to fit the current ground or floor levels of the new building. Thus, the depths to water should not be compared for those two wells, between the two sampling occasions. However, well KMW1 is located on the road verge of Ashford Road and the level of that well head has not changed. Monitoring well locations are shown on Figure 5.

Groundwater well depths and depths to water for the two sampling rounds have been tabulated in Table 9.1

Table 9.1 Groundwater and well depths

Gauging date KMW1 KMW2 KMW3

Depth of well (m) 8 December 2014 12.0 16.6 17.7

10 December 2013 12.0 15.3 16.5

Depth to water (m) 8 December 2014 7.830 13.595 14.748

10 December 2013 7.625 11.673 13.890

Note:

8 December 2014 – sampled by Parsons Brinckerhoff (current investigation)

10 December 2013 - sampled by Terra Environment (report dated 18 December 2013)

Concentrations of TCE and PCE are shown in Table 9.2 and in Figure 5.

Table 9.2 Concentrations of TCE and PCE in groundwater on the K1 site, Everard Avenue, Keswick

Compound Sampling date Units KMW1 KMW2 KMW3

TCE 8 December 2014 µg/L 264 16,300 1,380

10 December 2013 µg/L 180 22,000 2,400

PCE 8 December 2014 µg/L 7 19 <5

10 December 2013 µg/L 26 37 5

Cis-1,2-DCE 8 December 2014 µg/L 34 80 25

10 December 2013 µg/L 26 88 2

Note:

8 December 2014 – sampled by Parsons Brinckerhoff (current investigation)

10 December 2013 - sampled by Terra Environment (report dated 18 December 2013)



It is not the intention of this report to consider the risks associated with the groundwater impacts, but rather to confirm the existence of significant concentrations measured in the earlier round of sampling.

The concentrations measured in the 8 December 2014 sampling round had not significantly changed since the previous sampling event one year earlier. The concentrations of TCE measured in KMW2 can be described as being at significant concentrations in terms of potential ecological and human health effects.

Large differences in standing water levels in each of the three wells indicates the water in each well may be in unconnected or poorly connected water bearing zones. Similar differences in water levels occurred in the earlier sampling round (Terra Environment, 10 December 2013). Accurate measurement of the inter-well differences in standing water levels can only be made after the wells have been resurveyed following the changes made during site rebuilding works.



10. Assessment of data quality 10.1 Quality assurance – sub-pavement vapours One duplicate sample pair was analysed. The duplicate pair – for sample location K3SS5 in the commercial building, showed detections of three compounds, TCE, PCE, 1,1,1-trichloroethane and total recoverable hydrocarbons in the carbon 6 to carbon 10 chain length (TRH C6-C10).

The highest RPD measured was an acceptable value of 44 % (TRH C6-C10). For the contaminants of interest, TCE and PCE, the greatest RPD was 9 % which represents very close agreement between pairs. As stated in the above section on data quality control planning, there are no Australian guidelines for acceptable values of RPDs for soil vapour measurements. For this study an RPD of 100 % is considered acceptable where the values are greater than 10 times the detection limit. As the highest RPD for all compounds analysed was 44 %, it is concluded that the measurement and analytical methods produced reliable replicable results. Results of the RPD calculations are shown in Table A2 of Appendix A.

One trip blank was analysed and no compound was detected. However, TRH C6-C10 was detected marginally above the detection limit. Results are shown in Table A3 of Appendix A.

The laboratory performed one method blank analysis to test that the extraction and analytical procedures did not introduce any false positives into the results. There were no detections in the blank.

To test the recovery of the extraction process, the laboratory performed one spike recovery analysis in duplicate. Percentage recoveries all fell within an acceptable range, from a low of 96% to a high of 101 %.

Results for the laboratory analyses of method blanks and recoveries are given in the laboratory reports included in Appendix E.

10.2 Quality assurance – flux and ambient air The sampling tubes used for flux chambers in the commercial building and for the ambient air measurements in and around the building were of the same type and from the same batch and analysed in the same run (Radiello SD code 130, solvent desorption). Consequently, the quality assurance measures apply equally to both.

The two flux chambers in Ashford Road used thermal desorption tubes (Radeillo TD code 145 thermal desorption) were different and the quality assurance was assessed separately to the solvent tubes.

One duplicate sample was run for the solvent tubes – at location K3PF3a – a flux chamber on the floor of the commercial building. RPDs were very low for all of the 28 compounds with detections. The highest measured RPD was 17% for benzene. For the contaminants of concern, TCE and PCE, only TCE had a detected flux and the RPD was 0%. Results are shown in Table B3 of Appendix B.

A duplicate flux was not run for the two TD tube type flux chambers on Ashford Road.

Trip blanks were analysed for the SD and the TD tube samples. The SD blank showed no detection of any compound. The TD blank showed a value of 9 µg/tube for toluene. Although the detection is undesirable, the value was very low and would correspond to a trivial flux of no consequence.

Method blanks were analysed for the SD and the TD tubes. There were no detections of any compound in either of the analyses.



Spike samples were analysed for SD and TD tubes, in duplicate. For the TD tubes, percentage recoveries were analysed for the contaminants of interest, TCE and PCE, and a range of other VOCs. Recoveries were between 98% and 102%, indicating very good recovery. For the SD tubes, recoveries were analysed for BTEX compounds, but not TCE and PCE (a function of laboratory quality assurance protocols and procedures). Recoveries for the BTEX compounds were very good, ranging from 97% to 108%.

10.3 Conclusion on data quality assurance The laboratory quality assurance results were sufficiently good to provide confidence in the accuracy of the measurements. While the detection of low concentrations of TRH C6-C10 in the blank tube for the sub-slab sampling tubes and toluene in the TD flux tubes was undesirable, those occurrences were of little consequence due to their low values. Furthermore, the contaminants of interest showed no detections on the blank samples.

Of more importance to the overall assessment of quality assurance was the close agreement between the duplicate pairs for flux and for sub-slab soil vapour concentrations, and the good results for method blanks and spike recoveries.



11. Summary & Conclusions Field testing of the possible presence of TCE and PCE vapours in soils beneath the commercial property 56-60 Everard Avenue, Keswick, and beneath adjacent Ashford Road was conducted in November – December 2014. The overall objective of the investigations was to ensure that there was no unacceptable health risk to occupants of the commercial building on that property (i.e. the K3 site) as a consequence of ground vapours. Retesting of groundwater at existing monitoring wells on the adjacent commercial property, designated the K1 site in this report, was also carried out.

Vapour testing consisted of measuring the sub-slab vapour concentrations of TCE and PCE (and a range of other VOCs which were included in the analytical suite) at seven locations, plus measuring the contaminant flux rates through the pavement surface at those same seven locations. The same VOCs were monitored in ambient air, inside the commercial building on the K3 site and in outdoor air.

Beneath the pavement of the footpaths of Ashford Road, concentrations of TCE and PCE were very low in so much as they were less than their respective screening level guidance values given in the NEPM 2013 documentation. TCE and PCE were the only chlorinated VOCs detected in the sub-pavement soil vapour.

Of the five sub-slab soil vapour test points on the K3 site, TCE concentrations exceeded the NEPM 2013 criterion at four locations. Only one location, in the north-western sector (K3SS7a) could be considered significantly high. With the exception of K3SS7a, the relatively even concentrations over the study area suggests the immediate vapour source is TCE in groundwater beneath the K3 site, although from the small number of sampling locations there is only low level confidence in this conclusion. The higher soil vapour concentration recorded at K3SS7a (2,300 µg/m3) suggests there may be a local source of TCE impact in soil.

The NEPM criteria for soil vapour concentrations of chlorinated hydrocarbons (NEPM 2013, Schedule B1, Table 1A(2)) are presented in that guidance document as tier 1 screening level criteria, which, if exceeded, indicate a need for a more site specific investigation. That further investigation was carried out in December 2014, concurrently with the sub-slab vapour testing, by means of surface flux measurements and indoor air sampling. The measurement of surface flux beside each of the sub-slab test points showed that fluxes of TCE and PCE through the floor into the building were trivial. When converted into calculated indoor air concentrations the fluxes were found to contribute only a minor amount to the actual indoor air concentrations, which were greatly less than acceptable air concentrations based on literature toxicity values and acceptable risk levels.

Indoor air measurements of TCE and PCE supported the results of the mass flux chamber measurements in so much as measured ambient air concentrations were low, greatly less than acceptable concentrations. Further evidence that the sub-slab TCE vapour is not adversely affecting the indoor air quality can be seen from the ambient air data showing that indoor and outdoor concentrations of TCE are not different.

In summary, the soil vapour testing on Ashford Road and the K3 site indicated:

The concentrations of TCE and PCE in soil vapour beneath Ashford Road are not significantly high, suggesting that the migration of TCE and PCE from the K1 site to the K2 site is weak, if any.

The low to moderate concentrations of TCE vapours beneath the floor slab of the commercial building on the K3 site make only a very minor contribution to the indoor air concentrations in the building. And, the measured indoor air concentrations of TCE and PCE are greatly less than the acceptable risk based concentrations derived from the literature (WHO and US EPA IRIS data base).

The relatively low TCE and PCE sub-slab soil vapour concentrations on the K3 site suggest the source is from groundwater and not from local areas of impacted soil. However, the single high concentration in the north-western sector of the building, K3SS7a, indicates a local source may exist in the soil.



Finally, resampling of three existing wells at the K1 site showed that concentrations had not changed significantly since previous sampling 12 months earlier. And, one monitoring well again showed substantially high concentrations of TCE. Direction of groundwater gradient flow cannot be determined from these three wells.



12. Limitations Scope of Services

This soil vapour measurement report (‘the report’) has been prepared in accordance with the scope of services set out in the contract, or as otherwise agreed, between the Client and PB (‘scope of services’). In some circumstances the scope of services may have been limited by a range of factors such as time, budget, access and/or site disturbance constraints.

Reliance on Data

In preparing the report, PB has relied upon data, surveys, analyses, designs, plans and other information provided by the Client and other individuals and organisations, most of which are referred to in the report (‘the data’). Except as otherwise stated in the report, PB has not verified the accuracy or completeness of the data. To the extent that the statements, opinions, facts, information, conclusions and/or recommendations in the report (‘conclusions’) are based in whole or part on the data, those conclusions are contingent upon the accuracy and completeness of the data. PB will not be liable in relation to incorrect conclusions should any data, information or condition be incorrect or have been concealed, withheld, misrepresented or otherwise not fully disclosed to PB.

Environmental Conclusions

In accordance with the scope of services, PB has relied upon the data and has conducted environmental field monitoring and/or testing in the preparation of the report. The nature and extent of monitoring and/or testing conducted is described in the report.

On all sites, varying degrees of non-uniformity of the vertical and horizontal soil or groundwater conditions are encountered. Hence no monitoring, common testing or sampling technique can eliminate the possibility that monitoring or testing results/samples are not totally representative of soil vapour, soil and/or groundwater conditions encountered. The conclusions are based upon the data and the environmental field monitoring and/or testing and are therefore merely indicative of the environmental condition of the site at the time of preparing the report, including the presence or otherwise of contaminants or emissions.

Also, it should be recognised that site conditions, including the extent and concentration of contaminants, can change with time.

Within the limitations imposed by the scope of services, the monitoring, testing, sampling and preparation of this report have been undertaken and performed in a professional manner, in accordance with generally accepted practices and using a degree of skill and care ordinarily exercised by reputable environmental consultants under similar circumstances. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made.

Report for Benefit of Client

The report has been prepared for the benefit of the Client and no other party. PB assumes no responsibility and will not be liable to any other person or organisation for or in relation to any matter dealt with or conclusions expressed in the report, or for any loss or damage suffered by any other person or organisation arising from matters dealt with or conclusions expressed in the report (including without limitation matters arising from any negligent act or omission of PB or for any loss or damage suffered by any other party relying upon the matters dealt with or conclusions expressed in the report). Other parties should not rely upon the report or the accuracy or completeness of any conclusions and should make their own enquiries and obtain independent advice in relation to such matters.



Other Limitations

PB will not be liable to update or revise the report to take into account any events or emergent circumstances or facts occurring or becoming apparent after the date of the report.

The scope of services did not include any assessment of the title to or ownership of the properties, buildings and structures referred to in the report nor the application or interpretation of laws in the jurisdiction in which those properties, buildings and structures are located.



13. References BlueSphere Environmental, 17 December 2013, Re: Soil Vapour Investigation at U-Store-It Keswick, Letter report to John Eastwood, U-Store-It Pty Ltd.

CRC Care September 2011. Health screening levels for petroleum hydrocarbons in soil and groundwater. Part 1: Technical development document. CRC CARE Technical Report No 10. CRC for Contamination Assessment and Remediation of the Environment, Adelaide, Australia.

Hoekstra, E.J; De Leer, E. W. B; Brinkman, U. A. T.h. Natural formation of chloroform and brominated trihalomethanes in soil. Environ. Sci, Technol. 1998, 32,3724 – 3729

McAlary, T; Groenevelt, H; Gorecki, T; Seethapathy, S. PDMS Membrane Samplers for Quantitative Passive Monitoring of Soil Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air. A&WMA ‘Vapor Intrusion 2009’, January 27-30, San Diego, CA Heggie, A. C; Stavropoulos, B. Evaluating vapour intrusion risk using comparative dynamic and passive flux chambers at a TCE impacted site in Sydney, Australia. A&WMA Vapor Intrusion 2010, September 2010

National Environment Protection Council (NEPC) 2013, National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Amendment Measure 2013 (No. 1)

Parsons Brinckerhoff, 28 May 2014, Surface Mass Flux & Sub-slab Soil Vapour Measurements for Idenfication of Trichloroethene, March 2014 Keswick, South Australia

Terra Environment, 18 December 2013, 62-70 Everard Avenue, Keswick Limited Groundwater Investigations Monitoring Report Prepared for JE Pty Ltd.

US EPA, 2004 User’s guide for evaluating subsurface vapour intrusion into buildings, prepared by Environmental Quality Management Inc., North Carolina

US EPA Guidance for the Data Objective Process and Data Quality Objectives Process for Hazardous Waste Site Investigations, January 2000, EPA/600/R-00/007

USEPA EPA On-line tools for Site Assessment Calculation http://www.epa.gov/Athens/learn2model/part-two/onsite/esthenry.html World Health Organisation Regional Office for Europe, WHO guidelines for indoor air quality: selected pollutants, Denmark, 2010

World Health Organisation Regional Office for Europe, Air quality guidelines for Europe, second edition, WHO regional publications, European series, no 91, Copenhagen, 2000

Figures

Figu

re 1

Inve

stig

atio

n ar

ea, D

ecem

ber 2

014

Ever

ard

Aven

ue K

esw

ick,

Sou

th A

ustr

alia

Kel

vina

tor A

ustra

lia P

ty L

imite

d

Bas

e m

ap s

ourc

e: G

oogl

e E

arth

Pro

LEG

END

Pro

perty

bou

ndar

ies

K3

Com

mer

cial

build

ing

K1 si

teK3

site

EVER

AR

D S

TREE

T, K

ESW

ICK

SOU

TH A

UST

RA

LIA

Kel

vina

tor P

ty L

td

Source: Image @ 2014 Aerometrex/@ 2014 Google Earth Pro

EV

ER

AR

D A

VE

NU

E

ASHFORD ROAD

CROYDON ROAD

HAM

PTON

RO

AD

Pre

vile

ge

d a

nd

co

nfi

de

nti

al:

pre

par

ed in

co

ntem

pla

tion

of

leg

al p

roce

edin

gs

EV

ER

AR

D A

VE

NU

E

030m

N

xx

8

Sub

-sla

b sa

mpl

ing

loc-

atio

n

Flux

sam

plin

g lo

catio

n

Am

bien

t air

sam

plin

glo

catio

n

Figu

re 2

. Sam

plin

g lo

catio

ns fo

r tric

hlor

oeth

ene

inve

stig

atio

ns a

t Eve

rard

Ave

& A

shfo

rd R

d, K

esw

ick

SA (K

3 Si

te),

Dec

embe

r 201

4

AVEN

UE,

Lege

nd

HeggieA

Text Box

Kelvinator Australia Pty Limited

Figu

re 3

Con

cent

ratio

ns o

f sub

-sla

b va

pour

s; s

urfa

ce fl

ux ra

tes

and

ambi

ent a

ir fo

r TC

E D

ecem

ber 2

014

Ever

ard

Aven

ue K

esw

ick,

Sou

th A

ustr

alia

Kel

vina

tor A

ustra

lia P

ty L

imite

d

Bas

e m

ap s

ourc

e: G

oogl

e E

arth

Pro

)LE

GEN

DP

rope

rties

Sub-

slab

vapo

ur te

st p

oint

Surf

ace

flux

test

poi

nt

K3SS

7a2,

300

µg/m

3

K3PF

7a0.

003

µg/m

2 /h

K3SS

5a28

0 µg

/m3

K3SS

6a25

0 µg

/m3

K3SS

4a73

µg/

m3

K3SS

3a16

0 µg

/m3

K3SS

1a49

µg/

m3

K3SS

2a6.

3 µg

/m3

K3PF

6a0.

052

µg/m

2 /h

K3PF

5a0.

065

µg/m

2 /h

K3PF

3a0.

002

µg/m

2 /h

K3PF

4a0.

004

µg/m

2 /h

K3PF

1a<0

.005

µg/

m2 /

h

K3PF

2a0.

018

µg/m

2 /h

Ambi

ent

air s

ampl

e

K3AA

40.

09 µ

g/m

3

K3AA

30.

11 µ

g/m

3

K3AA

20.

09 µ

g/m

3

K3AA

50.

07 µ

g/m

3

K3AA

10.

11 µ

g/m

3

K3 S

ite

Com

mer

cial

Bu

ildin

g

K1 S

ite

Figu

re 4

Con

cent

ratio

ns o

f sub

-sla

b va

pour

s; s

urfa

ce fl

ux ra

tes

and

ambi

ent a

ir fo

r PC

ED

ecem

ber 2

014

Ever

ard

Aven

ue K

esw

ick,

Sou

th A

ustr

alia

Kel

vina

tor A

ustra

lia P

ty L

imite

d

Bas

e m

ap s

ourc

e: G

oogl

e E

arth

Pro

)LE

GEN

DP

rope

rties

Sub-

slab

vapo

ur te

st p

oint

Surf

ace

flux

test

poi

nt

K3SS

7a50

µg/

m3

K3PF

7a0.

003

µg/m

2 /h

K3SS

5a12

µg/

m3

K3SS

6a12

µg/

m3

K3SS

4a3.

9 µg

/m3

K3SS

3a15

µg/

m3

K3SS

1a16

µg/

m3

K3SS

2a<1

.5 µ

g/m

3

K3PF

6a0.

003

µg/m

2 /h

K3PF

5a0.

005

µg/m

2 /h

K3PF

3a<0

.001

µg/m

2 /h

K3PF

4a0.

005

µg/m

2 /h

K3PF

1a0.

009

µg/m

2 /h

K3PF

2a<0

.000

5 µg

/m2 /

h

Ambi

ent

air s

ampl

e

K3AA

40.

15 µ

g/m

3

K3AA

30.

14 µ

g/m

3

K3AA

20.

13 µ

g/m

3

K3AA

50.

14 µ

g/m

3

K3AA

10.

13 µ

g/m

3

K3 S

ite

Com

mer

cial

Bu

ildin

g

K1 S

ite

Figu

re 5

TC

E &

PCE

conc

entra

tions

in G

roun

dwat

er.

Sam

plin

g in

Dec

embe

r 201

4

Ever

ard

Aven

ue K

esw

ick,

Sou

th A

ustr

alia

Kel

vina

tor A

ustra

lia P

ty L

imite

d

Bas

e m

ap s

ourc

e: G

oogl

e E

arth

Pro

LEG

END

Pro

perti

es

Gro

undw

ater

mon

itorin

g w

ell

KMW

3

KMW

2KM

W1

K3

Com

mer

cial

build

ing

K1 si

te

TCE

1,3

80 µ

g/L

PCE

<5

µg/L

TCE

16,

300

µg/L

PCE

19

µg/L

TCE

264

µg/

LPC

E 7

µg/

L

K3 si

te

Appendix A

Sub-slab soil vapour – summary table

Table A1Sub-slab Soil Vapour ConcentrationsK3 Commercial Building & Ashford Road, KeswickDecember 2014

Units K3SS1a K3SS2a K3SS3a K3SS4a K3SS5a K3SS5a dup K3SS6a K3SS7a

Benzene µg/m3 <2.6 6.2 <2.6 <2.7 <2.9 <3 <3.2 <3.22-butanone(MEK) µg/m3 <4.9 <4.9 <4.9 <5.2 <5.5 <5.8 <6.2 <6.2n-Butylbenzene µg/m3 <0.95 <0.95 <0.95 <1 <1.1 <1.1 <1.2 <1.2Carbon tetrachloride µg/m3 <4 8.9 <4 <4.2 <4.5 <4.7 <5 <5Chloroethane µg/m3 <6.4 <6.4 <6.4 <6.8 <7.1 <7.6 <8 <8Chloromethane µg/m3 <6.4 <6.4 <6.4 <6.8 <7.1 <7.6 <8 <8Cyclohexane µg/m3 <3.4 <3.4 <3.4 <3.6 <3.8 <4 <4.2 <4.2n-Decane µg/m3 <29 <29 <29 <30 <32 <34 <36 <36Dibromochloromethane µg/m3 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <2 <2.2 <2.3 <2.4 <2.41,2-Dibromoethane µg/m3 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <2 <2.2 <2.3 <2.4 <2.4Dichlorodifluoromethane µg/m3 <34 <34 <34 <36 <38 <40 <42 <421,1-Dichloroethane µg/m3 <6.4 <6.4 <6.4 <6.8 <7.1 <7.6 <8 <81,2-Dichloroethane µg/m3 <2.6 <2.6 <2.6 <2.7 <2.9 <3 <3.2 <3.21,1-Dichloroethene µg/m3 <7.5 <7.5 <7.5 <7.9 <8.4 <8.9 <9.4 <9.4cis-1,2-Dichloroethene µg/m3 <3.3 <3.3 <3.3 <3.4 <3.6 <3.8 <4.1 9.8trans-1,2-Dichloroethene µg/m3 <3.4 <3.4 <3.4 <3.6 <3.8 <4 <4.2 <4.22,4-dimethylpentane µg/m3 <3.4 <3.4 <3.4 <3.6 <3.8 <4 <4.2 <4.2n-Dodecane µg/m3 <290 <290 <290 <300 <320 <340 <360 <360Ethylbenzene µg/m3 <1.4 <1.4 <1.4 <1.5 <1.5 <1.6 <1.7 <1.7Ethylcyclohexane µg/m3 <3.4 <3.4 <3.4 <3.6 <3.8 <4 <4.2 <4.2n-Heptane µg/m3 <3.4 <3.4 <3.4 <3.6 <3.8 <4 <4.2 <4.2n-Hexane µg/m3 <34 <34 <34 <36 <38 <40 <42 <42Isopropanol µg/m3 <490 <490 <490 <520 <550 <580 <620 <620Isopropylbenzene µg/m3 <1.4 <1.4 <1.4 <1.5 <1.6 <1.7 <1.8 <1.84-Isopropyltoluene µg/m3 <1.4 <1.4 <1.4 <1.5 <1.6 <1.7 <1.8 <1.82-Methyl butane µg/m3 <34 <34 <34 <36 <38 <40 <42 <42Methyl tert-butyl ether µg/m3 <3.4 <3.4 <3.4 <3.6 <3.8 <4 <4.2 <4.2Methylcyclohexane µg/m3 <3.4 <3.4 5.4 <3.6 <3.8 <4 <4.2 <4.22-Methylhexane µg/m3 <3.4 <3.4 <3.4 <3.6 <3.8 <4 <4.2 <4.23-Methylhexane µg/m3 <3.4 <3.4 <3.4 <3.6 <3.8 <4 <4.2 <4.22-Methylpentane µg/m3 <3.4 <3.4 <3.4 <3.6 <3.8 <4 <4.2 <4.23-Methylpentane µg/m3 <3.4 <3.4 <3.4 <3.6 <3.8 <4 <4.2 <4.2Naphthalene µg/m3 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.8 <1.9 <2 <2.2 <2.2n-Nonane µg/m3 <1.4 <1.4 <1.4 <1.5 <1.6 <1.7 <1.8 <1.8n-Octane µg/m3 <3.4 <3.4 <3.4 <3.6 <3.8 <4 <4.2 <4.2n-Pentane µg/m3 <34 <34 <34 <36 <38 <40 <42 <42propylbenzene µg/m3 <1.4 <1.4 <1.4 <1.5 <1.6 <1.7 <1.8 <1.8Tetrachloroethene µg/m3 16 <1.5 15 3.9 12 11 12 50Toluene µg/m3 <1.7 6.6 <1.7 <1.8 <1.9 <2.1 <2.2 <2.21,1,1-trichloroethane µg/m3 <4.9 <4.9 7.9 <5.2 7.7 9.3 <6.2 <6.21,1,2-trichloroethane µg/m3 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <2 <2.2 <2.3 <2.4 <2.4Trichloroethene µg/m3 49 6.3 160 73 280 280 250 2300Trichloromethane µg/m3 <3.2 <3.2 <3.2 <3.4 <3.6 <3.8 <4 5.61,2,4-Trimethylbenzene µg/m3 <0.95 <0.95 <0.95 <1 <1.1 <1.1 <1.2 <1.21,3,5-Trimethylbenzene µg/m3 <0.95 <0.95 <0.95 <1 <1.1 <1.1 <1.2 <1.2n-Undecane µg/m3 <9.5 <9.5 <9.5 <10 <11 <11 <12 <12Vinyl Chloride µg/m3 <12 <12 <12 <13 <14 <15 <15 <15o-Xylene µg/m3 <1.4 <1.4 <1.4 <1.5 <1.6 <1.7 <1.8 <1.8m&p-Xylenes µg/m3 <1.4 1.7 <1.4 <1.5 <1.6 <1.7 <1.8 <1.8TRH C6-C10 µg/m3 240 190 220 370 660 420 740 2600TRH > C10-C16 µg/m3 <1400 <1400 <1400 <1500 <1600 <1700 <1800 <1800

NOTE:Compounds of interest

K3 Site and Ashford Road, Keswick; December 2014

Compound Units K3SS5a K3SS5a dup RPD (%)

Benzene µg/m3 <2.9 <3 -2-butanone(MEK) µg/m3 <5.5 <5.8 -n-Butylbenzene µg/m3 <1.1 <1.1 -Carbon tetrachloride µg/m3 <4.5 <4.7 -Chloroethane µg/m3 <7.1 <7.6 -Chloromethane µg/m3 <7.1 <7.6 -Cyclohexane µg/m3 <3.8 <4 -n-Decane µg/m3 <32 <34 -Dibromochloromethane µg/m3 <2.2 <2.3 -1,2-Dibromoethane µg/m3 <2.2 <2.3 -Dichlorodifluoromethane µg/m3 <38 <40 -1,1-Dichloroethane µg/m3 <7.1 <7.6 -1,2-Dichloroethane µg/m3 <2.9 <3 -1,1-Dichloroethene µg/m3 <8.4 <8.9 -cis-1,2-Dichloroethene µg/m3 <3.6 <3.8 -trans-1,2-Dichloroethene µg/m3 <3.8 <4 -2,4-dimethylpentane µg/m3 <3.8 <4 -n-Dodecane µg/m3 <320 <340 -Ethylbenzene µg/m3 <1.5 <1.6 -Ethylcyclohexane µg/m3 <3.8 <4 -n-Heptane µg/m3 <3.8 <4 -n-Hexane µg/m3 <38 <40 -Isopropanol µg/m3 <550 <580 -Isopropylbenzene µg/m3 <1.6 <1.7 -4-Isopropyltoluene µg/m3 <1.6 <1.7 -2-Methyl butane µg/m3 <38 <40 -Methyl tert-butyl ether µg/m3 <3.8 <4 -Methylcyclohexane µg/m3 <3.8 <4 -2-Methylhexane µg/m3 <3.8 <4 -3-Methylhexane µg/m3 <3.8 <4 -2-Methylpentane µg/m3 <3.8 <4 -3-Methylpentane µg/m3 <3.8 <4 -Naphthalene µg/m3 <1.9 <2 -n-Nonane µg/m3 <1.6 <1.7 -n-Octane µg/m3 <3.8 <4 -n-Pentane µg/m3 <38 <40 -propylbenzene µg/m3 <1.6 <1.7 -Tetrachloroethene µg/m3 12 11 9%Toluene µg/m3 <1.9 <2.1 -1,1,1-trichloroethane µg/m3 7.7 9.3 19%1,1,2-trichloroethane µg/m3 <2.2 <2.3 -Trichloroethene µg/m3 280 280 0%Trichloromethane µg/m3 <3.6 <3.8 -1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene µg/m3 <1.1 <1.1 -1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene µg/m3 <1.1 <1.1 -n-Undecane µg/m3 <11 <11 -Vinyl Chloride µg/m3 <14 <15 -o-Xylene µg/m3 <1.6 <1.7 -m&p-Xylenes µg/m3 <1.6 <1.7 -TRH C6-C10 µg/m3 660 420 44%TRH > C10-C16 µg/m3 <1600 <1700 -Note:

Compounds of interest

Table A2 Relative Percent Differences for Sub-slab Vapour Duplicate Samples

K3 Site & Ashford Road, Keswick; December 2014

Units PQL Trip Blank 1Benzene µg total 0.05 nd2-butanone(MEK) µg total 0.05 ndn-Butylbenzene µg total 0.05 ndCarbon tetrachloride µg total 0.05 ndChloroethane µg total 0.05 ndChloromethane µg total 0.05 ndCyclohexane µg total 0.05 ndn-Decane µg total 5 ndDibromochloromethane µg total 0.05 nd1,2-Dibromoethane µg total 0.05 ndDichlorodifluoromethane µg total 0.05 nd1,1-Dichloroethane µg total 0.05 nd1,2-Dichloroethane µg total 0.05 nd1,1-Dichloroethene µg total 0.05 ndcis-1,2-Dichloroethene µg total 0.05 ndtrans-1,2-Dichloroethene µg total 0.05 nd2,4-dimethylpentane µg total 0.05 ndn-Dodecane µg total 25 ndEthylbenzene µg total 0.05 ndEthylcyclohexane µg total 0.05 ndn-Heptane µg total 0.05 ndn-Hexane µg total 1 ndIsopropanol µg total 0.05 ndIsopropylbenzene µg total 0.05 nd4-Isopropyltoluene µg total 0.05 nd2-Methyl butane µg total 0.5 ndMethyl tert-butyl ether µg total 0.05 ndMethylcyclohexane µg total 0.05 nd2-Methylhexane µg total 0.05 nd3-Methylhexane µg total 0.05 nd2-Methylpentane µg total 5 nd3-Methylpentane µg total 0.05 ndNaphthalene µg total 0.05 ndn-Nonane µg total 0.05 ndn-Octane µg total 0.05 ndn-Pentane µg total 1 ndpropylbenzene µg total 0.05 ndTetrachloroethene µg total 0.05 ndToluene µg total 0.05 nd1,1,1-trichloroethane µg total 0.05 nd1,1,2-trichloroethane µg total 0.05 ndTrichloroethene µg total 0.05 ndTrichloromethane µg total 0.05 nd1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene µg total 0.05 nd1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene µg total 0.05 ndn-Undecane µg total 0.2 ndVinyl Chloride µg total 0.05 ndo-Xylene µg total 0.05 ndm&p-Xylenes µg total 0.05 ndTRH C6-C10 µg total 15 17TRH > C6-C10 µg total 15 nd

Table A3 Sub-slab trip blank (mass on tube (µg))

Appendix B

Flux Results - Summary Tables

Units PQL1 K3PF1a K3PF2a PQL2 K3PF3a K3PF3a dup K3PF4a K3PF5a K3PF6a K3PF7a

Benzene µg/tube 0.005 0.019 0.016 0.05 0.22 0.26 0.42 0.66 0.36 0.56

2-butanone(MEK) µg/tube 0.005 nd nd 0.05 0.5 0.48 0.88 4.2 0.58 1.5

n-Butylbenzene µg/tube 0.005 nd nd 0.05 nd nd 0.36 0.48 0.06 nd

Carbon tetrachloride µg/tube 0.005 nd nd 0.05 nd nd 0.14 0.08 0.08 0.24

Chloroethane µg/tube 0.005 nd nd 0.05 nd nd nd nd nd nd

Chloromethane µg/tube 0.005 nd nd 0.05 nd nd nd nd 0.18 nd

Cyclohexane µg/tube 0.005 nd nd 0.05 0.56 0.48 1.3 1.3 0.96 0.84

n-Decane µg/tube 0.005 nd nd 1 6 6 13 27 9 15

Dibromochloromethane µg/tube 0.005 nd nd 0.05 nd nd nd nd 0.14 nd

1,2-Dibromoethane µg/tube 0.005 nd nd 0.05 nd nd nd nd nd nd

Dichlorodifluoromethane µg/tube 0.005 nd nd 0.05 nd nd nd nd nd nd

1,1-Dichloroethane µg/tube 0.005 nd nd 0.05 nd nd nd nd 0.3 nd

1,2-Dichloroethane µg/tube 0.005 nd nd 0.05 nd nd nd nd nd nd

1,1-Dichloroethene µg/tube 0.005 nd nd 0.05 nd nd nd nd 1 nd

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene µg/tube 0.005 nd 0.008 0.05 nd nd nd nd nd nd

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene µg/tube 0.005 nd nd 0.05 nd nd nd nd nd nd

2,4-dimethylpentane µg/tube 0.005 nd nd 0.05 nd nd 0.22 0.2 nd nd

n-Dodecane µg/tube 0.005 nd nd 5 48 46 84 69 55 75

Ethylbenzene µg/tube 0.005 nd nd 0.05 2.6 2.5 19 1.8 0.84 0.8

Ethylcyclohexane µg/tube 0.005 nd nd 0.05 nd nd 0.22 0.58 0.14 0.12

n-Heptane µg/tube 0.005 nd nd 0.05 0.82 0.88 1.9 1.9 1.4 1.2

n-Hexane µg/tube 0.005 0.013 0.006 0.05 0.98 1 3.3 2.3 1.9 1.8

Isopropanol µg/tube 0.050 nd nd 5 nd nd nd nd nd nd

Isopropylbenzene µg/tube 0.005 nd nd 0.05 0.3 0.32 3.1 0.28 0.1 0.14

4-Isopropyltoluene µg/tube 0.005 nd 0.005 0.05 0.16 0.16 1.4 0.82 0.32 0.28

2-Methyl butane µg/tube 0.005 0.034 0.035 0.5 1.4 1.4 5 4.9 2.4 3.6

Methyl tert-butyl ether µg/tube 0.005 nd nd 0.05 nd nd nd nd nd nd

Methylcyclohexane µg/tube 0.005 nd nd 0.05 0.3 0.3 0.84 0.96 0.62 0.54

2-Methylhexane µg/tube 0.005 nd nd 0.05 0.44 0.42 1.1 1.1 0.82 0.82

3-Methylhexane µg/tube 0.005 nd nd 0.05 0.48 0.46 1.3 1.2 0.9 0.9

2-Methylpentane µg/tube 0.005 0.02 0.007 0.05 0.78 0.86 2.5 2.6 1.5 1.8

3-Methylpentane µg/tube 0.005 0.008 nd 0.05 0.5 0.46 1.5 1.1 0.8 0.88

Naphthalene µg/tube 0.005 nd nd 0.05 nd nd 0.44 0.52 0.28 0.22

n-Nonane µg/tube 0.005 nd nd 0.05 0.52 0.52 2.1 2.8 1.2 1.1

n-Octane µg/tube 0.005 nd nd 0.05 1 1 0.78 1.5 0.72 0.5

n-Pentane µg/tube 0.005 0.034 0.028 0.5 1.4 1.4 2 3 1.8 2.2

propylbenzene µg/tube 0.005 nd nd 0.05 0.32 0.34 2.8 0.7 0.26 0.22

Tetrachloroethene µg/tube 0.005 0.008 nd 0.05 nd nd 0.22 0.22 0.16 0.12

Toluene µg/tube 0.005 0.021 0.043 0.05 2.3 2.2 8 13 3.3 4.6

1,1,1-trichloroethane µg/tube 0.005 nd nd 0.05 nd nd nd 0.1 nd nd

1,1,2-trichloroethane µg/tube 0.005 nd nd 0.05 nd nd nd nd 0.18 nd

Trichloroethene µg/tube 0.005 nd 0.062 0.05 0.08 0.08 0.18 3 2.4 0.12

Trichloromethane µg/tube 0.005 nd nd 0.05 0.18 0.18 0.42 nd nd 0.34

1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene µg/tube 0.005 nd nd 0.05 1.4 1.3 10 6.9 1.7 1.5

1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene µg/tube 0.005 nd nd 0.05 0.52 0.5 4.4 2.2 1.3 0.42

n-Undecane µg/tube 0.005 nd nd 0.05 27 25 43 42 38 44

Vinyl Chloride µg/tube 0.005 nd nd 0.05 nd nd nd nd nd nd

o-Xylene µg/tube 0.005 nd nd 0.05 16 16 96 3.3 1.1 1.2

m&p-Xylenes µg/tube 0.005 nd 0.005 0.05 20 19 110 7.6 2.7 2.7

TRH C6-C10 µg/tube 5.0 98 110 440 230 76 100

TRH >C10-C16 µg/tube 5.0 1700 1700 2800 2000 1800 2300Notes:Bold: detected compoundChlorinated solvent compounds of interestPQL1 for thermal tubesPQL2 for solvent tubes

Table B1Surface Flux Chambers: Mass on sampling tubes K3 Site & Ashford Road, Keswick; December 2014

Table B2Surface flux of TCE & PCE (µg/m2/h) K3 Site & Ashford Road, Keswick: December 2014

Analyte Units K3PF1a K3PF2a K3PF3a K3PF3a duplicate K3PF4a K3PF5a K3PF6a K3PF7a

Trichloroethene µg/m2/h <0.005 0.018 0.002 0.002 0.004 0.065 0.052 0.003Tetrachloroethene µg/m2/h 0.009 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001 0.005 0.005 0.003 0.003

Table B3


Benzene ng 0.22 0.26 17%

2-butanone(MEK) ng 0.5 0.48 4%

n-Butylbenzene ng nd nd -

Carbon tetrachloride ng nd nd -

Chloroethane ng nd nd -

Chloromethane ng nd nd -

Cyclohexane ng 0.56 0.48 15%

n-Decane ng 6 6 0%

Dibromochloromethane ng nd nd -

1,2-Dibromoethane ng nd nd -

Dichlorodifluoromethane ng nd nd -

1,1-Dichloroethane ng nd nd -

1,2-Dichloroethane ng nd nd -

1,1-Dichloroethene ng nd nd -

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ng nd nd -

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ng nd nd -

2,4-dimethylpentane ng nd nd -

n-Dodecane ng 48 46 4%

Ethylbenzene ng 2.6 2.5 4%

Ethylcyclohexane ng nd nd -

n-Heptane ng 0.82 0.88 7%

n-Hexane ng 0.98 1 2%

Isopropanol ng nd nd -

Isopropylbenzene ng 0.3 0.32 6%

4-Isopropyltoluene ng 0.16 0.16 0%

2-Methyl butane ng 1.4 1.4 0%

Methyl tert-butyl ether ng nd nd -

Methylcyclohexane ng 0.3 0.3 0%

2-Methylhexane ng 0.44 0.42 5%

3-Methylhexane ng 0.48 0.46 4%

2-Methylpentane ng 0.78 0.86 10%

3-Methylpentane ng 0.5 0.46 8%

Naphthalene ng nd nd -

n-Nonane ng 0.52 0.52 0%

n-Octane ng 1 1 0%

n-Pentane ng 1.4 1.4 0%

propylbenzene ng 0.32 0.34 6%

Tetrachloroethene ng nd nd -

Toluene ng 2.3 2.2 4%

1,1,1-trichloroethane ng nd nd -

1,1,2-trichloroethane ng nd nd -

Trichloroethene ng 0.08 0.08 0%

Trichloromethane ng 0.18 0.18 0%

1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ng 1.4 1.3 7%

1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ng 0.52 0.5 4%

n-Undecane ng 27 25 8%

Vinyl Chloride ng nd nd -

o-Xylene ng 16 16 0%

m&p-Xylenes ng 20 19 5%

TRH C6-C10 µg 98 110 12%

TRH >C10-C16 µg 1700 1700 0%

Italics: A value equal to the PQL has been used for the calculation of RPDsBOLD RPD exceeds acceptable levels.

Compounds of interest

Relative Percent Differences for Flux Duplicate SamplesMass on tube (ng)

Compound Units K3PF3a K3PF3a dup RPD %


Compound Units PQL Trip BlankBenzene ng 5 nd

2-butanone(MEK) ng 5 nd

n-Butylbenzene ng 5 nd

Carbon tetrachloride ng 5 nd

Chloroethane ng 5 nd

Chloromethane ng 5 nd

Cyclohexane ng 5 nd

n-Decane ng 5 nd

Dibromochloromethane ng 5 nd

1,2-Dibromoethane ng 5 nd

Dichlorodifluoromethane ng 5 nd

1,1-Dichloroethane ng 5 nd

1,2-Dichloroethane ng 5 nd

1,1-Dichloroethene ng 5 nd

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ng 5 nd

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ng 5 nd

2,4-dimethylpentane ng 5 nd

n-Dodecane ng 5 nd

Ethylbenzene ng 5 nd

Ethylcyclohexane ng 5 nd

n-Heptane ng 5 nd

n-Hexane ng 5 nd

Isopropanol ng 5 nd

Isopropylbenzene ng 5 nd

4-Isopropyltoluene ng 5 nd

2-Methyl butane ng 5 nd

Methyl tert-butyl ether ng 5 nd

Methylcyclohexane ng 5 nd

2-Methylhexane ng 5 nd

3-Methylhexane ng 5 nd

2-Methylpentane ng 5 nd

3-Methylpentane ng 5 nd

Naphthalene ng 5 nd

n-Nonane ng 5 nd

n-Octane ng 5 nd

n-Pentane ng 5 nd

propylbenzene ng 5 nd

Tetrachloroethene ng 5 nd

Toluene ng 5 9

1,1,1-trichloroethane ng 5 nd

1,1,2-trichloroethane ng 5 nd

Trichloroethene ng 5 nd

Trichloromethane ng 5 nd

1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ng 5 nd

1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ng 5 nd

n-Undecane ng 5 nd

Vinyl Chloride ng 5 nd

o-Xylene ng 5 nd

m&p-Xylenes ng 5 nd

Table B4 Trip blank (mass on tube (ng)), Radiello TD Code 145 tube


Compound Units PQL Trip BlankBenzene µg 0.05 nd2-butanone(MEK) µg 0.05 ndn-Butylbenzene µg 0.05 ndCarbon tetrachloride µg 0.05 ndChloroethane µg 0.05 ndChloromethane µg 0.05 ndCyclohexane µg 0.05 ndn-Decane µg 1 ndDibromochloromethane µg 0.05 nd1,2-Dibromoethane µg 0.05 ndDichlorodifluoromethane µg 0.05 nd1,1-Dichloroethane µg 0.05 nd1,2-Dichloroethane µg 0.05 nd1,1-Dichloroethene µg 0.05 ndcis-1,2-Dichloroethene µg 0.05 ndtrans-1,2-Dichloroethene µg 0.05 nd2,4-dimethylpentane µg 0.05 ndn-Dodecane µg 5 ndEthylbenzene µg 0.05 ndEthylcyclohexane µg 0.05 ndn-Heptane µg 0.05 ndn-Hexane µg 0.05 ndIsopropanol µg 5 ndIsopropylbenzene µg 0.05 nd4-Isopropyltoluene µg 0.05 nd2-Methyl butane µg 0.5 ndMethyl tert-butyl ether µg 0.05 ndMethylcyclohexane µg 0.05 nd2-Methylhexane µg 0.05 nd3-Methylhexane µg 0.05 nd2-Methylpentane µg 0.05 nd3-Methylpentane µg 0.05 ndNaphthalene µg 0.05 ndn-Nonane µg 0.05 ndn-Octane µg 0.05 ndn-Pentane µg 0.5 ndpropylbenzene µg 0.05 ndTetrachloroethene µg 0.05 ndToluene µg 0.05 nd1,1,1-trichloroethane µg 0.05 nd1,1,2-trichloroethane µg 0.05 ndTrichloroethene µg 0.05 ndTrichloromethane µg 0.05 nd1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene µg 0.05 nd1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene µg 0.05 ndn-Undecane µg 0.05 ndVinyl Chloride µg 0.05 ndo-Xylene µg 0.05 ndm&p-Xylenes µg 0.05 nd

Table B5 Trip blank (mass on tube (µg)), Radiello SD Code 130 tube [for ambient air and SD flux tubes]

Appendix C

Indoor & Outdoor Ambient Air Measurements - Data Summary

Table

Table C1Indoor and Outdoor ambient air concentrations of volatile organic compounds (µg/m3)K3 Site, Commercial Building, Everard Ave, Keswick South Australia

Compound Units K3AA1 Building NE

K3AA2Building store

area south

K3AA3 Building admin

area

K3AA4 Outdoor north

western

K3AA5Outdoor SE on

fenceBenzene µg/m3 0.54 0.82 0.65 0.29 0.342-butanone(MEK) µg/m3 0.05 0.33 0.13 <0.02 <0.02n-Butylbenzene µg/m3 0.07 0.07 0.05 <0.03 <0.03Carbon tetrachloride µg/m3 0.5 0.42 0.47 0.5 0.5Chloroethane µg/m3 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02Chloromethane µg/m3 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02Cyclohexane µg/m3 4.1 2.5 3.4 0.36 0.32n-Decane µg/m3 2.7 1.6 1.9 <0.80 <0.81Dibromochloromethane µg/m3 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.031,2-Dibromoethane µg/m3 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03Dichlorodifluoromethane µg/m3 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.051,1-Dichloroethane µg/m3 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.021,2-Dichloroethane µg/m3 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.021,1-Dichloroethene µg/m3 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02cis-1,2-Dichloroethene µg/m3 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02trans-1,2-Dichloroethene µg/m3 0.17 0.07 0.09 <0.02 <0.022,4-dimethylpentane µg/m3 0.75 0.51 0.66 <0.03 <0.03n-Dodecane µg/m3 <22 <22 <22 <22 <22Ethylbenzene µg/m3 1.5 1.6 1.4 0.32 0.33Ethylcyclohexane µg/m3 0.4 0.2 0.38 0.04 0.04n-Heptane µg/m3 12 6 9.6 0.42 0.29n-Hexane µg/m3 14 7.4 12 0.51 0.35Isopropanol µg/m3 <3.3 <3.3 <3.3 <3.3 <3.3Isopropylbenzene µg/m3 0.16 0.16 0.13 <0.03 0.044-Isopropyltoluene µg/m3 0.13 0.18 0.13 0.07 0.092-Methyl butane µg/m3 4.8 6.6 5.6 2.4 2.3Methyl tert-butyl ether µg/m3 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03Methylcyclohexane µg/m3 4.8 2.3 3.6 0.2 0.172-Methylhexane µg/m3 5.6 3.1 4.6 0.29 0.253-Methylhexane µg/m3 6.4 3.6 5.3 0.32 0.272-Methylpentane µg/m3 5.9 4.2 5.5 0.6 0.623-Methylpentane µg/m3 3.2 2.1 3 0.3 0.28Naphthalene µg/m3 <0.07 <0.07 <0.07 <0.07 <0.07n-Nonane µg/m3 2.3 1.2 1.4 0.2 0.14n-Octane µg/m3 1.8 0.86 1.1 0.17 0.16n-Pentane µg/m3 2.3 3 2.8 1.1 1propylbenzene µg/m3 0.32 0.36 0.29 0.06 0.06Tetrachloroethene µg/m3 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.14Toluene µg/m3 6.6 10 7.9 1.6 1.71,1,1-trichloroethane µg/m3 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.031,1,2-trichloroethane µg/m3 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03Trichloroethene µg/m3 0.11 0.09 0.11 0.09 0.07Trichloromethane µg/m3 0.1 0.1 0.09 0.06 0.061,2,4-Trimethylbenzene µg/m3 1.9 2.1 1.7 0.36 0.431,3,5-Trimethylbenzene µg/m3 0.66 0.65 0.57 0.11 0.12n-Undecane µg/m3 3.5 2.4 2.4 0.58 0.52Vinyl Chloride µg/m3 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02o-Xylene µg/m3 1.5 2 1.6 0.3 0.32m&p-Xylenes µg/m3 4.5 5.6 4.5 0.79 0.86

NOTES:Compounds of interest

Method: Radiello Code 130 solvent desorption tubesSampling period: 25 November - 15 December 2014

December 2014

Appendix D

Daily Weather Observations - Adelaide Airport, November &

December 2014

Ad

elai

de

Air

po

rt, S

ou

th A

ust

ralia

No

vem

ber

201

4 D

aily

Wea

ther

Ob

serv

atio

ns

Obs

erva

tions

are

mad

e ab

out 1

km

eas

t of t

he c

oast

.

IDC

JDW

5001

.201

411

Pre

pare

d at

13:

05 U

TC

on

3 F

eb 2

015

Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

5 B

urea

u of

Met

eoro

logy

Use

rs o

f th

is p

rod

uct

are

dee

med

to

hav

e re

ad t

he

info

rmat

ion

an

dac

cep

ted

th

e co

nd

itio

ns

des

crib

ed in

th

e n

ote

s at

htt

p:/

/ww

w.b

om

.go

v.au

/clim

ate/

dw

o/ID

CJD

W00

00.p

df

Obs

erva

tions

wer

e dr

awn

from

Ade

laid

e A

irpor

t {st

atio

n 02

3034

}

Clim

ate

aver

ages

are

bas

ed o

n th

e 19

55-2

003

Airp

ort r

ecor

d fr

om a

site

1 k

ilom

etre

s fu

rthe

r in

land

than

the

exis

itng

site

. Dai

ly m

axim

um a

nd m

inim

um te

mpe

ratu

res

are

with

in a

deg

ree

- w

ith th

e cu

rren

t site

bei

ng s

light

ly m

ore

mod

erat

e. T

here

is li

ttle

varia

tion

in r

ainf

all a

t the

two

site

s.

3pm

9am

Max

win

d g

ust

Su

nE

vap

Rai

nT

emp

sD

ayD

ate

MS

LP

Sp

dD

irn

Cld

RH

Tem

pM

SL

PS

pd

Dir

nC

ldR

HT

emp

Tim

eS

pd

Dir

nM

axM

inhP

akm

/hei

ghth

s%

°ChP

akm

/hei

ghth

s%

°Clo

cal

km/h

hour

sm

mm

m°C

°C

1018

.333

SW

233

17.3

1015

.041

SW

450

15.2

03:0

961

SW

11.6

9.2

2.2

18.1

13.5

Sa

110

24.7

26W

SW

143

17.0

1026

.613

SE

842

14.5

00:1

741

SS

W9.

37.

40

20.3

12.7

Su

210

17.2

19N

W8

1725

.010

21.1

24N

E8

2820

.210

:05

46N

NE

10.2

7.4

027

.39.

8M

o3

1019

.137

SW

843

19.2

1017

.031

SS

W7

7118

.316

:05

56S

W11

.78.

80

20.3

16.6

Tu

410

21.3

31S

W7

4918

.110

23.7

17S

SE

451

15.1

15:5

846

SW

11.6

7.6

019

.29.

3W

e5

1014

.411

WN

W7

1926

.610

17.7

13N

NE

736

17.2

09:0

530

N11

.17.

60

30.0

9.0

Th

610

10.4

31N

W7

1033

.110

12.7

24N

NE

713

29.7

08:2

443

N11

.08.

00

34.8

16.4

Fr

710

20.4

26S

W7

6617

.910

16.8

22S

W7

7719

.811

:09

44S

SW

3.4

9.8

020

.419

.5S

a8

1023

.035

SW

154

19.3

1025

.019

SS

E6

5216

.815

:33

50S

SW

13.5

7.2

0.8

21.0

9.5

Su

910

22.9

30S

W1

4722

.510

25.9

19S

SE

154

17.6

12:5

144

SW

13.5

7.2

025

.110

.7M

o10

1018

.419

WS

W7

5521

.210

22.7

6N

W2

4918

.023

:16

31S

E9.

97.

80

24.9

8.9

Tu

1110

12.1

11S

W5

1132

.010

15.5

7N

NE

123

24.7

10:1

522

NN

W12

.25.

20

33.3

11.7

We

1210

06.0

30N

NW

710

35.0

1009

.019

NN

E8

1031

.515

:47

56W

SW

7.5

10.2

037

.821

.4T

h13

1011

.920

SE

751

21.8

1012

.017

E7

4122

.001

:47

50S

SW

0.4

10.4

022

.818

.8F

r14

1006

.213

WS

W7

5322

.410

10.0

7S

W7

5219

.417

:40

44S

SW

3.4

5.4

026

.014

.5S

a15

1016

.617

WS

W3

4918

.610

17.1

28S

W6

5615

.223

:54

48S

W10

.85.

48.

619

.412

.4S

u16

1018

.920

WS

W3

5719

.410

19.3

19S

W6

6417

.023

:01

35W

SW

11.8

6.0

020

.515

.0M

o17

1020

.915

SW

651

18.5

1023

.19

SS

W7

5217

.110

:27

30W

SW

8.0

5.6

020

.412

.5T

u18

1011

.822

NN

W6

1231

.110

16.6

9N

542

20.3

12:4

435

WN

W11

.55.

00

32.4

10.2

We

1910

07.3

31N

NW

777

23.7

1009

.06

NN

W8

6622

.912

:05

46N

NW

3.0

10.4

024

.020

.1T

h20

1011

.411

WS

W6

3624

.110

13.5

13W

NW

356

17.8

23:2

231

SS

W12

.54.

48.

025

.615

.2F

r21

1006

.79

SS

W7

8920

.510

09.5

11N

884

19.0

04:2

854

N5.

37.

21.

624

.917

.6S

a22

1012

.617

W7

5521

.510

12.1

4E

SE

163

19.5

13:2

328

W10

.43.

26.

227

.912

.2S

u23

1015

.135

SW

352

20.4

1012

.322

SS

W3

5020

.317

:32

52W

SW

11.0

5.6

021

.517

.7M

o24

1022

.622

SW

243

18.5

1023

.211

SW

758

16.9

15:0

339

WS

W11

.79.

20

20.3

11.3

Tu

2510

21.3

33S

W2

5421

.210

24.1

13S

E5

4917

.714

:03

44S

W13

.87.

60

25.0

10.6

We

2610

20.5

28S

W0

4724

.510

23.9

6S

SW

156

18.4

12:4

537

SW

13.8

8.0

028

.314

.0T

h27

1016

.424

SW

758

23.4

1019

.911

W4

4519

.813

:21

33W

SW

12.0

8.4

026

.411

.9F

r28

1008

.211

WS

W7

1033

.110

11.7

6N

367

22.8

17:0

030

SW

9.1

7.8

033

.613

.5S

a29

1006

.026

WS

W2

6923

.410

05.4

24N

W4

2826

.407

:03

48N

W12

.811

.00

27.6

22.4

Su

30S

tati

stic

s fo

r N

ove

mb

er 2

014

1015

.423

544

23.0

1017

.015

549

19.7

9.9

7.5

25.3

14.0

Mea

n10

06.0

9S

SW

010

17.0

1005

.44

ES

E1

1014

.50.

43.

218

.18.

9Lo

wes

t10

24.7

37S

W8

8935

.010

26.6

41S

W8

8431

.561

SW

13.8

11.0

8.6

37.8

22.4

Hig

hest

297.

822

4.0

27.4

Tot

al

http://www.bom.gov.au/

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/dwo/IDCJDW0000.pdf

Ad

elai

de

Air

po

rt, S

ou

th A

ust

ralia

Dec

emb

er 2

014

Dai

ly W

eath

er O

bse

rvat

ion

sO

bser

vatio

ns a

re m

ade

abou

t 1 k

m e

ast o

f the

coa

st.

IDC

JDW

5001

.201

412

Pre

pare

d at

16:

05 U

TC

on

2 F

eb 2

015

Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

5 B

urea

u of

Met

eoro

logy

Use

rs o

f th

is p

rod

uct

are

dee

med

to

hav

e re

ad t

he

info

rmat

ion

an

dac

cep

ted

th

e co

nd

itio

ns

des

crib

ed in

th

e n

ote

s at

htt

p:/

/ww

w.b

om

.go

v.au

/clim

ate/

dw

o/ID

CJD

W00

00.p

df

Obs

erva

tions

wer

e dr

awn

from

Ade

laid

e A

irpor

t {st

atio

n 02

3034

}

Clim

ate

aver

ages

are

bas

ed o

n th

e 19

55-2

003

Airp

ort r

ecor

d fr

om a

site

1 k

ilom

etre

s fu

rthe

r in

land

than

the

exis

itng

site

. Dai

ly m

axim

um a

nd m

inim

um te

mpe

ratu

res

are

with

in a

deg

ree

- w

ith th

e cu

rren

t site

bei

ng s

light

ly m

ore

mod

erat

e. T

here

is li

ttle

varia

tion

in r

ainf

all a

t the

two

site

s.

3pm

9am

Max

win

d g

ust

Su

nE

vap

Rai

nT

emp

sD

ayD

ate

MS

LP

Sp

dD

irn

Cld

RH

Tem

pM

SL

PS

pd

Dir

nC

ldR

HT

emp

Tim

eS

pd

Dir

nM

axM

inhP

akm

/hei

ghth

s%

°ChP

akm

/hei

ghth

s%

°Clo

cal

km/h

hour

sm

mm

m°C

°C

1009

.219

SS

W3

5321

.410

10.2

15W

776

18.2

05:0

137

WN

W6.

17.

60

22.4

17.4

Mo

110

09.0

17S

W7

6921

.810

10.1

19S

SW

659

20.5

12:0

430

WS

W5.

25.

80

27.5

12.4

Tu

210

06.9

19W

SW

143

28.7

1007

.720

NE

343

27.4

17:0

539

SW

12.5

3.8

030

.019

.0W

e3

1012

.624

SW

165

21.1

1013

.622

SW

774

19.6

16:4

839

SW

10.1

10.2

022

.618

.2T

h4

1011

.030

SW

359

21.9

1012

.519

SS

W7

5919

.314

:50

44W

SW

10.7

6.6

022

.717

.3F

r5

1010

.524

SE

746

21.7

1012

.426

SS

E6

6518

.513

:25

43S

SE

9.2

7.4

023

.516

.2S

a6

1007

.231

SW

664

21.4

1009

.019

SS

W7

8018

.316

:26

44S

W9.

77.

20

23.8

16.0

Su

710

10.3

37S

W3

5723

.310

11.2

11S

SW

666

20.1

11.1

6.8

024

.716

.0M

o8

1011

.226

SW

359

25.3

1012

.89

W1

6020

.812

:55

33S

W12

.78.

00

26.9

13.0

Tu

910

11.7

19S

E7

7919

.410

11.0

9S

SW

757

21.7

18:4

443

S0.

38.

00

21.7

17.2

We

1010

16.9

24S

144

24.0

1016

.330

SE

156

18.7

06:4

459

SE

12.8

3.2

1.4

25.5

16.3

Th

1110

15.6

28S

W1

5224

.910

18.8

7E

NE

044

22.1

05:4

041

ES

E13

.08.

80

29.6

13.3

Fr

1210

08.9

20N

W1

1134

.110

12.1

26N

022

27.6

17:2

144

WS

W12

.810

.40

34.8

15.9

Sa

1310

09.8

26S

W1

5723

.910

10.1

15W

SW

138

23.9

10:4

337

SW

12.9

8.8

0.4

24.6

20.0

Su

1410

04.0

28S

W0

4924

.010

07.7

4E

NE

348

20.1

17:3

043

SW

12.8

10.2

024

.614

.2M

o15

1005

.548

SW

148

21.1

1003

.022

NW

672

20.1

13:5

861

SW

10.5

8.0

023

.112

.6T

u16

1009

.113

WS

W2

3420

.610

11.7

9N

W7

5217

.111

:00

30W

9.9

8.4

022

.311

.7W

e17

1013

.035

SW

348

21.6

1011

.328

W5

5619

.411

:04

48W

SW

9.8

6.8

023

.116

.3T

h18

1020

.326

WS

W2

4720

.510

20.3

15S

SW

248

17.9

17:5

943

SW

12.0

9.2

021

.911

.6F

r19

1015

.320

SW

139

24.6

1019

.67

ES

E0

5419

.511

:59

30S

W12

.07.

80

30.6

11.9

Sa

2010

09.7

22S

SW

617

32.1

1011

.222

NN

E3

1830

.209

:40

46N

6.8

7.6

034

.015

.4S

u21

1007

.213

S8

6024

.210

07.0

9E

NE

857

24.1

08:0

535

WN

W0.

010

.40

25.4

21.3

Mo

2210

15.6

33S

SW

759

20.6

1013

.020

SS

W7

6919

.512

:02

54S

SW

9.1

2.6

1.6

22.9

18.1

Tu

2310

15.3

33S

W3

4721

.110

18.0

19S

SE

748

18.0

16:4

346

SW

11.2

7.4

022

.811

.3W

e24

1013

.333

SW

761

19.8

1014

.615

WS

W7

5817

.316

:29

50S

W7.

69.

40

22.7

12.4

Th

2510

18.4

35S

W1

3521

.110

20.4

22S

SW

551

15.9

14:3

057

SS

W10

.87.

80

22.5

10.7

Fr

2610

18.3

28S

W1

4721

.610

21.1

7S

SW

149

18.4

15:3

037

SS

W12

.48.

60

23.0

12.6

Sa

2710

10.5

15W

SW

148

23.5

1015

.27

NN

W0

4721

.516

:05

35S

W11

.88.

60

25.6

11.4

Su

2810

10.4

35W

SW

150

20.9

1008

.148

WS

W7

9117

.208

:07

69W

SW

10.7

7.8

1.4

21.9

14.8

Mo

2910

16.1

28S

W3

5921

.910

15.9

28S

W8

6418

.606

:15

46W

SW

7.5

9.6

023

.116

.3T

u30

1013

.724

SW

551

22.8

1017

.69

N3

6018

.414

:29

35S

W12

.35.

80

24.9

11.8

We

31S

tati

stic

s fo

r D

ecem

ber

201

410

11.8

263

5023

.110

13.0

174

5620

.39.

97.

725

.014

.9M

ean

1004

.013

#0

1119

.410

03.0

4E

NE

018

15.9

0.0

2.6

21.7

10.7

Low

est

1020

.348

SW

879

34.1

1021

.148

WS

W8

9130

.269

WS

W13

.010

.41.

634

.821

.3H

ighe

st30

6.3

238.

64.

8T

otal

http://www.bom.gov.au/

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/dwo/IDCJDW0000.pdf

Appendix E

Laboratory Report - Sub-slab soil vapour

Chartered Chemists

A.B.N. 44 000 964 2783 - 5, 18 Redland DriveMitcham, Vic, 3132Telephone: (03) 9874 1988Fax: (03) 9874 1933

Level 27/680 George StreetSydneyNSW 2000Attention: Adrian Heggie

SAMPLES:

DATE RECEIVED:

DATE COMMENCED:

METHODS:

RESULTS: Please refer to attached pages for results.

REPORTED BY:

Ernst & Young Centre

18-Dec-2014

Nine samples were received for analysis

18-Dec-2014

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS

Evan Jones

See Attached Results

Laboratory Manager

Note: Results are based on samples as received at SGS Leeder Consulting's laboratoriesResults in airbourne concentrations are calculated using data provided by the client

Parsons Brinckerhoff

14-Jan-2015

REPORT NUMBER:

Site/Client Ref:

Order No: 2201557B

M142557

2201557B

NATA Accredited Laboratory Number: 14429

Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025.

Page 1 of 16

(I) RESULTS Report N°: M142557

Matrix: Passive Sampler

Method: MA-5.WL.06 Volatile Organics (w/v)

Sample units are expressed in µg/m³

Analyte Name PQL

Client ID

Leeder ID

<2.6

<4.9

<0.95

<4

<6.4

<6.4

<3.4

<29

<1.9

<1.9

<34

<6.4

<2.6

<7.5

<3.3

<3.4

<3.4

<290

<1.4

<3.4

<3.4

<34

<490

<1.4

6.2

<4.9

<0.95

8.9

<6.4

<6.4

<3.4

<29

<1.9

<1.9

<34

<6.4

<2.6

<7.5

<3.3

<3.4

<3.4

<290

<1.4

<3.4

<3.4

<34

<490

<1.4

<2.6

<4.9

<0.95

<4

<6.4

<6.4

<3.4

<29

<1.9

<1.9

<34

<6.4

<2.6

<7.5

<3.3

<3.4

<3.4

<290

<1.4

<3.4

<3.4

<34

<490

<1.4

<2.7

<5.2

<1

<4.2

<6.8

<6.8

<3.6

<30

<2

<2

<36

<6.8

<2.7

<7.9

<3.4

<3.6

<3.6

<300

<1.5

<3.6

<3.6

<36

<520

<1.5Isopropylbenzene

Isopropanol

n-Hexane

n-Heptane

Ethylcyclohexane

Ethylbenzene

n-Dodecane

2,4-dimethylpentane

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene

1,1-Dichloroethene

1,2-Dichloroethane

1,1-Dichloroethane

Dichlorodifluoromethane

1,2-Dibromoethane

Dibromochloromethane

n-Decane

Cyclohexane

Chloromethane

Chloroethane

Carbon tetrachloride

n-Butylbenzene

2-butanone(MEK)

Benzene

K3SS4aBld SE side

1408-AN-LU-54

2014025254

K3SS3aBld NE side

1408-AN-LU-53

2014025253

K3SS2aAshford Rd east1408-AN-LU-52

2014025252

K3SS1aAshford Rd west1408-AN-LU-51

2014025251

Page 2 of 16





Analyte Name PQL

Client ID

Leeder ID

<1.4

<34

<3.4

<3.4

<3.4

<3.4

<3.4

<3.4

<1.7

<1.4

<3.4

<34

<1.4

16

<1.7

<4.9

<1.9

49

<3.2

<0.95

<0.95

<9.5

<12

<1.4

<1.4

<1.4

<34

<3.4

<3.4

<3.4

<3.4

<3.4

<3.4

<1.7

<1.4

<3.4

<34

<1.4

<1.5

6.6

<4.9

<1.9

6.3

<3.2

<0.95

<0.95

<9.5

<12

<1.4

1.7

<1.4

<34

<3.4

5.4

<3.4

<3.4

<3.4

<3.4

<1.7

<1.4

<3.4

<34

<1.4

15

<1.7

7.9

<1.9

160

<3.2

<0.95

<0.95

<9.5

<12

<1.4

<1.4

<1.5

<36

<3.6

<3.6

<3.6

<3.6

<3.6

<3.6

<1.8

<1.5

<3.6

<36

<1.5

3.9

<1.8

<5.2

<2

73

<3.4

<1

<1

<10

<13

<1.5

<1.5m&p-Xylenes

o-Xylene

Vinyl Chloride

n-Undecane

1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene


Trichloromethane

Trichloroethene

1,1,2-trichloroethane


Toluene

Tetrachloroethene

propylbenzene

n-Pentane

n-Octane

n-Nonane

Naphthalene

3-Methylpentane

2-Methylpentane

3-Methylhexane

2-Methylhexane

Methylcyclohexane

Methyl tert-butyl ether

2-Methyl butane

4-Isopropyltoluene

K3SS4aBld SE side

1408-AN-LU-54

2014025254

K3SS3aBld NE side

1408-AN-LU-53

2014025253


2014025252


2014025251

Page 3 of 16





Analyte Name PQL

Client ID

Leeder ID

<2.9

<5.5

<1.1

<4.5

<7.1

<7.1

<3.8

<32

<2.2

<2.2

<38

<7.1

<2.9

<8.4

<3.6

<3.8

<3.8

<320

<1.5

<3.8

<3.8

<38

<550

<1.6

<3

<5.8

<1.1

<4.7

<7.6

<7.6

<4

<34

<2.3

<2.3

<40

<7.6

<3

<8.9

<3.8

<4

<4

<340

<1.6

<4

<4

<40

<580

<1.7

<3.2

<6.2

<1.2

<5

<8

<8

<4.2

<36

<2.4

<2.4

<42

<8

<3.2

<9.4

<4.1

<4.2

<4.2

<360

<1.7

<4.2

<4.2

<42

<620

<1.8

<3.2

<6.2

<1.2

<5

<8

<8

<4.2

<36

<2.4

<2.4

<42

<8

<3.2

<9.4

9.8

<4.2

<4.2

<360

<1.7

<4.2

<4.2

<42

<620


Isopropanol

n-Hexane

n-Heptane

Ethylcyclohexane

Ethylbenzene

n-Dodecane

2,4-dimethylpentane



1,1-Dichloroethene

1,2-Dichloroethane

1,1-Dichloroethane


1,2-Dibromoethane


n-Decane

Cyclohexane

Chloromethane

Chloroethane


n-Butylbenzene

2-butanone(MEK)

Benzene

K3SS7aDriveway west side north

1408-AN-LU-57

2014025258

K3SS6aDriveway west side south

1408-AN-LU-56

2014025257

K3SS5aBld Store at south Dup

1408-AN-LU-58

2014025256

K3SS5aBld Store at south1408-AN-LU-55

2014025255

Page 4 of 16





Analyte Name PQL

Client ID

Leeder ID

<1.6

<38

<3.8

<3.8

<3.8

<3.8

<3.8

<3.8

<1.9

<1.6

<3.8

<38

<1.6

12

<1.9

7.7

<2.2

280

<3.6

<1.1

<1.1

<11

<14

<1.6

<1.6

<1.7

<40

<4

<4

<4

<4

<4

<4

<2

<1.7

<4

<40

<1.7

11

<2.1

9.3

<2.3

280

<3.8

<1.1

<1.1

<11

<15

<1.7

<1.7

<1.8

<42

<4.2

<4.2

<4.2

<4.2

<4.2

<4.2

<2.2

<1.8

<4.2

<42

<1.8

12

<2.2

<6.2

<2.4

250

<4

<1.2

<1.2

<12

<15

<1.8

<1.8

<1.8

<42

<4.2

<4.2

<4.2

<4.2

<4.2

<4.2

<2.2

<1.8

<4.2

<42

<1.8

50

<2.2

<6.2

<2.4

2300

5.6

<1.2

<1.2

<12

<15

<1.8

<1.8m&p-Xylenes

o-Xylene

Vinyl Chloride

n-Undecane



Trichloromethane

Trichloroethene



Toluene

Tetrachloroethene

propylbenzene

n-Pentane

n-Octane

n-Nonane

Naphthalene

3-Methylpentane

2-Methylpentane

3-Methylhexane

2-Methylhexane

Methylcyclohexane


2-Methyl butane

4-Isopropyltoluene


1408-AN-LU-57

2014025258


1408-AN-LU-56

2014025257


1408-AN-LU-58

2014025256


2014025255

Page 5 of 16



Method: MA-5.WL.05 Volatile Organics

Sample units are expressed in µg total

Analyte Name PQL

Client ID

Leeder ID

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

0.12

nd

nd

0.11

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd0.05Isopropylbenzene

5Isopropanol

0.5n-Hexane

0.05n-Heptane

0.05Ethylcyclohexane

0.05Ethylbenzene

15n-Dodecane

0.052,4-dimethylpentane

0.05trans-1,2-Dichloroethene

0.05cis-1,2-Dichloroethene

0.051,1-Dichloroethene

0.051,2-Dichloroethane


0.05Dichlorodifluoromethane

0.051,2-Dibromoethane

0.05Dibromochloromethane

1n-Decane

0.05Cyclohexane

0.05Chloromethane

0.05Chloroethane

0.05Carbon tetrachloride

0.05n-Butylbenzene

0.052-butanone(MEK)

0.05Benzene

K3SS4aBld SE side

1408-AN-LU-54

2014025254

K3SS3aBld NE side

1408-AN-LU-53

2014025253


2014025252


2014025251

Page 6 of 16





Analyte Name PQL

Client ID

Leeder ID

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

0.52

nd

nd

nd

1.3

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

0.19

nd

nd

0.16

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

0.06

nd

nd

nd

0.08

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

0.48

nd

0.08

nd

4.1

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

0.12

nd

nd

nd

1.8

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd0.05m&p-Xylenes

0.05o-Xylene

0.05Vinyl Chloride

0.5n-Undecane

0.051,3,5-Trimethylbenzene


0.05Trichloromethane

0.05Trichloroethene

0.051,1,2-trichloroethane


0.05Toluene

0.05Tetrachloroethene

0.05propylbenzene

0.5n-Pentane

0.05n-Octane

0.05n-Nonane

0.05Naphthalene

0.053-Methylpentane

0.052-Methylpentane

0.053-Methylhexane

0.052-Methylhexane

0.05Methylcyclohexane

0.05Methyl tert-butyl ether

0.52-Methyl butane

0.054-Isopropyltoluene

K3SS4aBld SE side

1408-AN-LU-54

2014025254

K3SS3aBld NE side

1408-AN-LU-53

2014025253


2014025252


2014025251

Page 7 of 16





Analyte Name PQL

Client ID

Leeder ID

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

0.12

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd


5Isopropanol

0.5n-Hexane

0.05n-Heptane


0.05Ethylbenzene

15n-Dodecane










1n-Decane

0.05Cyclohexane

0.05Chloromethane

0.05Chloroethane


0.05n-Butylbenzene

0.052-butanone(MEK)

0.05Benzene


1408-AN-LU-57

2014025258


1408-AN-LU-56

2014025257


1408-AN-LU-58

2014025256


2014025255

Page 8 of 16





Analyte Name PQL

Client ID

Leeder ID

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

0.35

nd

0.07

nd

6.5

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

0.31

nd

0.08

nd

6.1

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

0.32

nd

nd

nd

5.1

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

1.3

nd

nd

nd

46

0.07

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd0.05m&p-Xylenes

0.05o-Xylene

0.05Vinyl Chloride

0.5n-Undecane




0.05Trichloroethene



0.05Toluene


0.05propylbenzene

0.5n-Pentane

0.05n-Octane

0.05n-Nonane

0.05Naphthalene

0.053-Methylpentane

0.052-Methylpentane

0.053-Methylhexane

0.052-Methylhexane



0.52-Methyl butane



1408-AN-LU-57

2014025258


1408-AN-LU-56

2014025257


1408-AN-LU-58

2014025256


2014025255

Page 9 of 16





Analyte Name PQL

Client ID

Leeder ID

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd


5Isopropanol

0.5n-Hexane

0.05n-Heptane


0.05Ethylbenzene

15n-Dodecane










1n-Decane

0.05Cyclohexane

0.05Chloromethane

0.05Chloroethane


0.05n-Butylbenzene

0.052-butanone(MEK)

0.05Benzene

Blank

Method

2014025260

TRIP BLANK1408-AN-LU-59

2014025259

Page 10 of 16





Analyte Name PQL

Client ID

Leeder ID

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd0.05m&p-Xylenes

0.05o-Xylene

0.05Vinyl Chloride

0.5n-Undecane




0.05Trichloroethene



0.05Toluene


0.05propylbenzene

0.5n-Pentane

0.05n-Octane

0.05n-Nonane

0.05Naphthalene

0.053-Methylpentane

0.052-Methylpentane

0.053-Methylhexane

0.052-Methylhexane



0.52-Methyl butane


Blank

Method

2014025260


2014025259

Page 11 of 16



Method: MA-30.AIR.04 Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons


Analyte Name PQL

Client ID

Leeder ID

240

<1400

190

<1400

220

<1400

370

<1500>C10-C16

C6-C10

K3SS4aBld SE side

1408-AN-LU-54

2014025254

K3SS3aBld NE side

1408-AN-LU-53

2014025253


2014025252


2014025251




Analyte Name PQL

Client ID

Leeder ID

660

<1600

420

<1700

740

<1800

2600

<1800>C10-C16

C6-C10


1408-AN-LU-57

2014025258


1408-AN-LU-56

2014025257


1408-AN-LU-58

2014025256


2014025255

Page 12 of 16





Analyte Name PQL

Client ID

Leeder ID

7

nd

6

nd

6

nd

10

nd50>C10-C16

5C6-C10

K3SS4aBld SE side

1408-AN-LU-54

2014025254

K3SS3aBld NE side

1408-AN-LU-53

2014025253


2014025252


2014025251




Analyte Name PQL

Client ID

Leeder ID

17

nd

10

nd

17

nd

61

nd50>C10-C16

5C6-C10


1408-AN-LU-57

2014025258


1408-AN-LU-56

2014025257


1408-AN-LU-58

2014025256


2014025255

Page 13 of 16





Analyte Name PQL

Client ID

Leeder ID

17

nd

nd

nd50>C10-C16

5C6-C10

Blank

Method

2014025260


2014025259

Page 14 of 16

(II) QUALITY CONTROL Report N°: M142557



Quality Control Results are expressed in Percent Recovery of expected result

Analyte Name PQL

Client ID

Leeder ID

96

96

102

96

97

101Isopropanol

Ethylbenzene

Benzene

Spike Duplicate

Method

2014025262

Spike

Method

2014025261




Analyte Name PQL

Client ID

Leeder ID

99

99

99

100

101

100m&p-Xylenes

o-Xylene

Toluene

Spike Duplicate

Method

2014025262

Spike

Method

2014025261

Page 15 of 16

Report N°: M142557

Q U A L IF IE R S / N O T E S FO R R E P O R T E D R E SU L T S P Q L P ra ctical Q uan ti tat ion L imit is In su ff ic ien t S am ple to pe rfo r m this analys is. T T e n tative ide n tific ation ba sed on c ompu ter l ib ra ry se ar ch o f m ass spe ctra . N D N ot D ete cted – T he analy te w as no t dete cted above the re po rte d P Q L . N C N ot ca lc u lated , R esu lts be low P Q L nr N o t Re ques ted fo r a na lysis . R R eje cted Re su lt – r esu lts fo r th is ana lys is f ai led Q C che cks. S Q S em i- Q uan ti tat ive r esu lt – quan ti ta t ion base d on a gene ric response fa cto r fo r th is c la ss o f ana ly te . IM Ina pp rop r iate me thod o f ana lys is f o r th is c om pound U U na b le to p rov ide Q ua li ty C ontro l da ta – h igh le vels o f com pounds in sam ple in ter fer ed w ith ana lys is o f

Q C r esu lts. U F U na b le to p rov ide Q ua li ty C ontro l da ta- Sur roga te s fa i le d Q Cc hec ks due to sa mple m atrix e ffe cts L A na ly te dete cted at a le vel above the line ar re sponse o f c alib ra tion cu rve . E E s tima te d r esu lt . N A T A ac cr ed itat ion doe s no t c over e st im ated re sults . C 1 T he se com pounds c o -elu te. C 2 T he se com pounds c o -elu te. C T E leva ted conc en tra tion . R esu lts re ported fr om ca rbon tube a nalys is ** S am ple show s non-petro le um hydroc arbon p rof ile

This document is issued, on the Client 's behalf, by the Company under its General Conditions of Service available on request and accessible at http://www.sgs .com/en/Terms-and-Conditions/General-Conditions-of-Services-English.aspx . The Client's at tention is drawn to the limitation of liability, indemnificat ion and jurisdictionissues defined therein. Any other holder of this document is advised that information contained hereon reflects the Company's f indings at the t ime of its intervent ion only and within the limits of Client's instructions , if any. The Company's sole responsibility is to its Client and this document does not exonerate parties to a transaction from exercising all their rights and obligations under the transact ion documents This report must not be reproduced, except in full.

Page 16 of 16

APPENDIX ONE. CHAIN OF CUSTODY DOCUMENT

Appendix F

Laboratory Report - Flux and ambient air

Chartered Chemists



SAMPLES:

DATE RECEIVED:

DATE COMMENCED:

METHODS:


REPORTED BY:


28-Nov-2014

Three samples were received for analysis

28-Nov-2014


Evan Jones


Laboratory Manager

VOC uptake rates are attached at the end of the report

Note: Results are based on samples as received at SGS Leeder Consulting's laboratories


5-Dec-2014

REPORT NUMBER:

Site/Client Ref:

Order No: 2201557B

M142414

2201557B



Page 1 of 6


Matrix: Thermal Desorption Radiello

Method: TO-17.09 Volatile Organics

Sample units are expressed in ng total

Analyte Name PQL

Client ID

Leeder ID

19

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

13

nd

nd

16

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

8

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

6

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd5Isopropylbenzene

50Isopropanol

5n-Hexane

5n-Heptane

5Ethylcyclohexane

5Ethylbenzene

5n-Dodecane

52,4-dimethylpentane

5trans-1,2-Dichloroethene

5cis-1,2-Dichloroethene

51,1-Dichloroethene

51,2-Dichloroethane

51,1-Dichloroethane

5Dichlorodifluoromethane

51,2-Dibromoethane

5Dibromochloromethane

5n-Decane

5Cyclohexane

5Chloromethane

5Chloroethane

5Carbon tetrachloride

5n-Butylbenzene

52-butanone(MEK)

5Benzene

Blank

Method

2014023688

TRIP BLANKOM828

2014023687

K3PF2aAshford Rd east side

OM827

2014023686

K3PF1aAshford Rd west side

OM826

2014023685

Page 2 of 6




Sample units are expressed in ng total

Analyte Name PQL

Client ID

Leeder ID

nd

34

nd

nd

nd

nd

20

8

nd

nd

nd

34

nd

8

21

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

5

35

nd

nd

nd

nd

7

nd

nd

nd

nd

28

nd

nd

43

nd

nd

62

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

5

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

9

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd5m&p-Xylenes

5o-Xylene

5Vinyl Chloride

5n-Undecane



5Trichloromethane

5Trichloroethene



5Toluene

5Tetrachloroethene

5propylbenzene

5n-Pentane

5n-Octane

5n-Nonane

5Naphthalene

53-Methylpentane

52-Methylpentane

53-Methylhexane

52-Methylhexane

5Methylcyclohexane

5Methyl tert-butyl ether

52-Methyl butane

54-Isopropyltoluene

Blank

Method

2014023688

TRIP BLANKOM828

2014023687

K3PF2aAshford Rd east side

OM827

2014023686

K3PF1aAshford Rd west side

OM826

2014023685

Page 3 of 6





Analyte Name PQL

Client ID

Leeder ID

96

87

94

76

80

96

97

89

91

92

78

96

82

80

76

99

88

96

79

82

97

99

93

93

95

73

98

84

83

80n-Hexane

n-Heptane

Ethylcyclohexane

Ethylbenzene

n-Dodecane



1,1-Dichloroethene

1,2-Dichloroethane


n-Decane

Cyclohexane


2-butanone(MEK)

Benzene

Spike Duplicate

Method

2014023690

Spike

Method

2014023689

Page 4 of 6





Analyte Name PQL

Client ID

Leeder ID

84

77

82

83

75

101

96

96

101

98

98

77

73

98

97

88

81

84

84

80

103

101

99

105

102

100

78

75

100

99m&p-Xylenes

o-Xylene

Vinyl Chloride

n-Undecane

Trichloromethane

Trichloroethene



Toluene

Tetrachloroethene

n-Pentane

n-Octane

n-Nonane

Methylcyclohexane


Spike Duplicate

Method

2014023690

Spike

Method

2014023689

Page 5 of 6

Report N°: M142414




Page 6 of 6

APPENDIX TWO

Chartered Chemists



SAMPLES:

DATE RECEIVED:

DATE COMMENCED:

METHODS:


REPORTED BY:


18-Dec-2014

Twelve samples were received for analysis

18-Dec-2014


Evan Jones


Laboratory Manager

Note: Results are based on samples as received at SGS Leeder Consulting's laboratoriesResults in airbourne concentrations are calculated using data provided by the client


15-Jan-2015

REPORT NUMBER:

Site/Client Ref:

Order No: 2201557B

M142558

2201557B



Page 1 of 18


Matrix: Radiello Tube

Method: MA-5.RAD.09 Volatile Organics (w/v)


Analyte Name PQL

Client ID

Leeder ID

0.54

0.050

0.070

0.50

<0.02

<0.02

4.1

2.7

<0.03

<0.03

0.050

<0.02

<0.02

<0.02

<0.02

0.17

0.75

<22

1.5

0.40

12

14

<3.3

0.16

0.82

0.33

0.070

0.42

<0.02

<0.02

2.5

1.6

<0.03

<0.03

0.050

<0.02

<0.02

<0.02

<0.02

0.070

0.51

<22

1.6

0.20

6.0

7.4

<3.3

0.16

0.65

0.13

0.050

0.47

<0.02

<0.02

3.4

1.9

<0.03

<0.03

0.060

<0.02

<0.02

<0.02

<0.02

0.090

0.66

<22

1.4

0.38

9.6

12

<3.3

0.13

0.29

<0.02

<0.03

0.50

<0.02

<0.02

0.36

<0.80

<0.03

<0.03

0.050

<0.02

<0.02

<0.02

<0.02

<0.02

<0.03

<22

0.32

0.040

0.42

0.51

<3.3


Isopropanol

n-Hexane

n-Heptane

Ethylcyclohexane

Ethylbenzene

n-Dodecane

2,4-dimethylpentane



1,1-Dichloroethene

1,2-Dichloroethane

1,1-Dichloroethane


1,2-Dibromoethane


n-Decane

Cyclohexane

Chloromethane

Chloroethane


n-Butylbenzene

2-butanone(MEK)

Benzene

K3AA4 outdoornorth-western

LO570

2014025270

K3AA3 buildingadmin area

LO567

2014025269

K3AA2 buildingstore area south

LO566

2014025268

K3AA1building indoor NE

LO565

2014025267

Page 2 of 18





Analyte Name PQL

Client ID

Leeder ID

0.13

4.8

<0.03

4.8

5.6

6.4

5.9

3.2

<0.07

2.3

1.8

2.3

0.32

0.13

6.6

<0.03

<0.03

0.11

0.10

1.9

0.66

3.5

<0.02

1.5

4.5

0.18

6.6

<0.03

2.3

3.1

3.6

4.2

2.1

<0.07

1.2

0.86

3.0

0.36

0.13

10

<0.03

<0.03

0.090

0.10

2.1

0.65

2.4

<0.02

2.0

5.6

0.13

5.6

<0.03

3.6

4.6

5.3

5.5

3.0

<0.07

1.4

1.1

2.8

0.29

0.14

7.9

<0.03

<0.03

0.11

0.090

1.7

0.57

2.4

<0.02

1.6

4.5

0.070

2.4

<0.03

0.20

0.29

0.32

0.60

0.30

<0.07

0.20

0.17

1.1

0.060

0.15

1.6

<0.03

<0.03

0.090

0.060

0.36

0.11

0.58

<0.02

0.30

0.79m&p-Xylenes

o-Xylene

Vinyl Chloride

n-Undecane



Trichloromethane

Trichloroethene



Toluene

Tetrachloroethene

propylbenzene

n-Pentane

n-Octane

n-Nonane

Naphthalene

3-Methylpentane

2-Methylpentane

3-Methylhexane

2-Methylhexane

Methylcyclohexane


2-Methyl butane

4-Isopropyltoluene


LO570

2014025270


LO567

2014025269


LO566

2014025268


LO565

2014025267

Page 3 of 18





Analyte Name PQL

Client ID

Leeder ID

0.34

<0.02

<0.03

0.50

<0.02

<0.02

0.32

<0.81

<0.03

<0.03

0.050

<0.02

<0.02

<0.02

<0.02

<0.02

<0.03

<22

0.33

0.040

0.29

0.35

<3.3

0.040Isopropylbenzene

Isopropanol

n-Hexane

n-Heptane

Ethylcyclohexane

Ethylbenzene

n-Dodecane

2,4-dimethylpentane



1,1-Dichloroethene

1,2-Dichloroethane

1,1-Dichloroethane


1,2-Dibromoethane


n-Decane

Cyclohexane

Chloromethane

Chloroethane


n-Butylbenzene

2-butanone(MEK)

Benzene

K3AA5 outdoorsouth-east on fence

LO568

2014025271

Page 4 of 18





Analyte Name PQL

Client ID

Leeder ID

0.090

2.3

<0.03

0.17

0.25

0.27

0.62

0.28

<0.07

0.14

0.16

1.0

0.060

0.14

1.7

<0.03

<0.03

0.070

0.060

0.43

0.12

0.52

<0.02

0.32

0.86m&p-Xylenes

o-Xylene

Vinyl Chloride

n-Undecane



Trichloromethane

Trichloroethene



Toluene

Tetrachloroethene

propylbenzene

n-Pentane

n-Octane

n-Nonane

Naphthalene

3-Methylpentane

2-Methylpentane

3-Methylhexane

2-Methylhexane

Methylcyclohexane


2-Methyl butane

4-Isopropyltoluene


LO568

2014025271

Page 5 of 18



Method: MA-5.RAD.08 Volatile Organics


Analyte Name PQL

Client ID

Leeder ID

1.2

0.12

0.12

0.96

nd

nd

6.4

3

nd

nd

0.14

nd

nd

nd

nd

0.44

1.3

nd

3.0

0.76

20

27

nd

0.26

1.9

0.76

0.12

0.82

nd

nd

3.9

2

nd

nd

0.14

nd

nd

nd

nd

0.18

0.86

nd

3.2

0.38

10

14

nd

0.26

1.5

0.30

0.08

0.92

nd

nd

5.3

2

nd

nd

0.16

nd

nd

nd

nd

0.24

1.1

nd

2.8

0.72

16

23

nd

0.22

0.66

nd

nd

0.96

nd

nd

0.56

nd

nd

nd

0.12

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

0.62

0.08

0.70

0.98

nd


5Isopropanol

0.05n-Hexane

0.05n-Heptane


0.05Ethylbenzene

5n-Dodecane










1n-Decane

0.05Cyclohexane

0.05Chloromethane

0.05Chloroethane


0.05n-Butylbenzene

0.052-butanone(MEK)

0.05Benzene


LO570

2014025270


LO567

2014025269


LO566

2014025268


LO565

2014025267

Page 6 of 18





Analyte Name PQL

Client ID

Leeder ID

0.22

9.2

nd

9.3

9.4

11

12

6.5

nd

3.1

2.8

5.0

0.52

0.22

14

nd

nd

0.22

0.22

2.7

0.96

2.4

nd

2.9

9.2

0.30

13

nd

4.5

5.2

6.0

8.6

4.2

nd

1.6

1.3

6.5

0.60

0.22

22

nd

nd

0.18

0.22

3.1

0.94

1.7

nd

3.7

11

0.22

11

nd

6.8

7.7

8.9

11

6.0

nd

2.0

1.6

6.0

0.48

0.24

17

nd

nd

0.22

0.20

2.5

0.82

1.7

nd

2.9

9.1

0.12

4.5

nd

0.38

0.48

0.54

1.2

0.60

nd

0.28

0.26

2.3

0.10

0.26

3.4

nd

nd

0.18

0.12

0.52

0.16

0.40

nd

0.56

1.60.05m&p-Xylenes

0.05o-Xylene

0.05Vinyl Chloride

0.05n-Undecane




0.05Trichloroethene



0.05Toluene


0.05propylbenzene

0.5n-Pentane

0.05n-Octane

0.05n-Nonane

0.05Naphthalene

0.053-Methylpentane

0.052-Methylpentane

0.053-Methylhexane

0.052-Methylhexane



0.52-Methyl butane



LO570

2014025270


LO567

2014025269


LO566

2014025268


LO565

2014025267

Page 7 of 18





Analyte Name PQL

Client ID

Leeder ID

0.78

nd

nd

0.96

nd

nd

0.50

nd

nd

nd

0.12

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

0.64

0.08

0.48

0.66

nd

0.06

0.22

0.50

nd

nd

nd

nd

0.56

6

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

48

2.6

nd

0.82

0.98

nd

0.30

0.26

0.48

nd

nd

nd

nd

0.48

6

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

46

2.5

nd

0.88

1.0

nd

0.32

0.42

0.88

0.36

0.14

nd

nd

1.3

13

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

0.22

84

19

0.22

1.9

3.3

nd

3.10.05Isopropylbenzene

5Isopropanol

0.05n-Hexane

0.05n-Heptane


0.05Ethylbenzene

5n-Dodecane










1n-Decane

0.05Cyclohexane

0.05Chloromethane

0.05Chloroethane


0.05n-Butylbenzene

0.052-butanone(MEK)

0.05Benzene

K3PF4abuilding SE

FJ014

2014025274

K3PF3a DUPbuilding NE

FJ013

2014025273

K3PF3abuilding NE

FJ012

2014025272


LO568

2014025271

Page 8 of 18





Analyte Name PQL

Client ID

Leeder ID

0.14

4.4

nd

0.32

0.42

0.46

1.3

0.56

nd

0.20

0.24

2.2

0.10

0.24

3.6

nd

nd

0.14

0.12

0.62

0.18

0.36

nd

0.60

1.7

0.16

1.4

nd

0.30

0.44

0.48

0.78

0.50

nd

0.52

1.0

1.4

0.32

nd

2.3

nd

nd

0.08

0.18

1.4

0.52

27

nd

16

20

0.16

1.4

nd

0.30

0.42

0.46

0.86

0.46

nd

0.52

1.0

1.4

0.34

nd

2.2

nd

nd

0.08

0.18

1.3

0.50

25

nd

16

19

1.4

5.0

nd

0.84

1.1

1.3

2.5

1.5

0.44

2.1

0.78

2.0

2.8

0.22

8.0

nd

nd

0.18

0.42

10

4.4

43

nd

96

1100.05m&p-Xylenes

0.05o-Xylene

0.05Vinyl Chloride

0.05n-Undecane




0.05Trichloroethene



0.05Toluene


0.05propylbenzene

0.5n-Pentane

0.05n-Octane

0.05n-Nonane

0.05Naphthalene

0.053-Methylpentane

0.052-Methylpentane

0.053-Methylhexane

0.052-Methylhexane



0.52-Methyl butane


K3PF4abuilding SE

FJ014

2014025274


FJ013

2014025273

K3PF3abuilding NE

FJ012

2014025272


LO568

2014025271

Page 9 of 18





Analyte Name PQL

Client ID

Leeder ID

0.66

4.2

0.48

0.08

nd

nd

1.3

27

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

0.20

69

1.8

0.58

1.9

2.3

nd

0.28

0.36

0.58

0.06

0.08

nd

0.18

0.96

9

0.14

nd

nd

0.30

nd

1.0

nd

nd

nd

55

0.84

0.14

1.4

1.9

nd

0.10

0.56

1.5

nd

0.24

nd

nd

0.84

15

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

75

0.80

0.12

1.2

1.8

nd

0.14

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd


5Isopropanol

0.05n-Hexane

0.05n-Heptane


0.05Ethylbenzene

5n-Dodecane










1n-Decane

0.05Cyclohexane

0.05Chloromethane

0.05Chloroethane


0.05n-Butylbenzene

0.052-butanone(MEK)

0.05Benzene

TRIP BLANKFJ018

2014025278

K3PF7a buildingwest wall north

FJ017

2014025277

K3PF6abuilding west wall south

FJ016

2014025276

K3PF5abuilding store area south

FJ015

2014025275

Page 10 of 18





Analyte Name PQL

Client ID

Leeder ID

0.82

4.9

nd

0.96

1.1

1.2

2.6

1.1

0.52

2.8

1.5

3.0

0.70

0.22

13

0.10

nd

3.0

nd

6.9

2.2

42

nd

3.3

7.6

0.32

2.4

nd

0.62

0.82

0.90

1.5

0.80

0.28

1.2

0.72

1.8

0.26

0.16

3.3

nd

0.18

2.4

nd

1.7

1.3

38

nd

1.1

2.7

0.28

3.6

nd

0.54

0.82

0.90

1.8

0.88

0.22

1.1

0.50

2.2

0.22

0.12

4.6

nd

nd

0.12

0.34

1.5

0.42

44

nd

1.2

2.7

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd0.05m&p-Xylenes

0.05o-Xylene

0.05Vinyl Chloride

0.05n-Undecane




0.05Trichloroethene



0.05Toluene


0.05propylbenzene

0.5n-Pentane

0.05n-Octane

0.05n-Nonane

0.05Naphthalene

0.053-Methylpentane

0.052-Methylpentane

0.053-Methylhexane

0.052-Methylhexane



0.52-Methyl butane


TRIP BLANKFJ018

2014025278


FJ017

2014025277


FJ016

2014025276


FJ015

2014025275

Page 11 of 18





Analyte Name PQL

Client ID

Leeder ID

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd


5Isopropanol

0.05n-Hexane

0.05n-Heptane


0.05Ethylbenzene

5n-Dodecane










1n-Decane

0.05Cyclohexane

0.05Chloromethane

0.05Chloroethane


0.05n-Butylbenzene

0.052-butanone(MEK)

0.05Benzene

Blank

Method

2014025279

Page 12 of 18





Analyte Name PQL

Client ID

Leeder ID

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd

nd0.05m&p-Xylenes

0.05o-Xylene

0.05Vinyl Chloride

0.05n-Undecane




0.05Trichloroethene



0.05Toluene


0.05propylbenzene

0.5n-Pentane

0.05n-Octane

0.05n-Nonane

0.05Naphthalene

0.053-Methylpentane

0.052-Methylpentane

0.053-Methylhexane

0.052-Methylhexane



0.52-Methyl butane


Blank

Method

2014025279

Page 13 of 18





Analyte Name PQL

Client ID

Leeder ID

120

130

93

180

100

160

16

120>C10-C16

C6-C10


LO570

2014025270


LO567

2014025269


LO566

2014025268


LO565

2014025267




Analyte Name PQL

Client ID

Leeder ID

13

120>C10-C16

C6-C10


LO568

2014025271

Page 14 of 18





Analyte Name PQL

Client ID

Leeder ID

180

89

140

120

160

110

24

815>C10-C16

5C6-C10


LO570

2014025270


LO567

2014025269


LO566

2014025268


LO565

2014025267




Analyte Name PQL

Client ID

Leeder ID

20

81

98

1700

110

1700

440

28005>C10-C16

5C6-C10

K3PF4abuilding SE

FJ014

2014025274


FJ013

2014025273

K3PF3abuilding NE

FJ012

2014025272


LO568

2014025271

Page 15 of 18





Analyte Name PQL

Client ID

Leeder ID

230

2000

76

1800

100

2300

nd

nd5>C10-C16

5C6-C10

TRIP BLANKFJ018

2014025278


FJ017

2014025277


FJ016

2014025276


FJ015

2014025275




Analyte Name PQL

Client ID

Leeder ID

nd

nd5>C10-C16

5C6-C10

Blank

Method

2014025279

Page 16 of 18





Analyte Name PQL

Client ID

Leeder ID

100

104

102

100

98

101Isopropanol

Ethylbenzene

Benzene

Spike Duplicate

Method

2014025281

Spike

Method

2014025280




Analyte Name PQL

Client ID

Leeder ID

105

108

107

97

101

101m&p-Xylenes

o-Xylene

Toluene

Spike Duplicate

Method

2014025281

Spike

Method

2014025280

Page 17 of 18

Report N°: M142558




Page 18 of 18

Appendix G

Photographs

Kelvinator Pty Limited Soil Vapour Investigations for Identification of Trichloroethene - Ashford Road & Everard Avenue, Keswick, South Australia [K3 site] - Privileged & Confidential: Prepared in contemplation of legal proceedings

Parsons Brinckerhoff | Keswick K3 Site Vapour December 2014_2201557b | Privileged and confidential: Prepared in contemplation of legal proceedings G-1

Photo 1. Flux location K3PF1a on the road verge of Ashford Road, eastern side of K3 site

Photo 2. Flux location K3PF2a, adjacent to monitoring well KMW1, on road verge of Ashford Road, adjacent to K1 site boundary



Photo 3. Sub-slab and flux locations in the commercial building on K3 site

Ambient air sampling tube



Photo 4. Sub-slab vapour test point K3SS7a in driveway on western side of K3 commercial building



Photo 5. Monitoring well KMW1 on Ashford Road

Photo 6. Monitoring well KMW2 inside building on K1 site

kelvinator australia pty limited soil vapour ... · parsons brinckerhoff | keswick k3 site vapour...

Documents