August 2007

VICTORIA�S AUDIT SYSTEM

An environmental audit system has operated in

Victoria since 1989. The Environment Protection Act
1970 (the Act) provides for the appointment by the
Environment Protection Authority (EPA Victoria) of
environmental auditors and the conduct of
independent, high quality and rigorous environmental
audits.

An environmental audit is an assessment of the

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

Under the Act, the function of an environmental

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

A certificate indicates that the auditor is of the opinion

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

Any individual or organisation may engage appointed

environmental auditors, who generally operate within
the environmental consulting sector, to undertake
environmental audits. The EPA administers the
environmental audit system and ensures its ongoing
integrity by assessing auditor applications and
ensuring audits are independent and conducted with
regard to guidelines issued by EPA.

AUDIT FILES STRUCTURE

Environmental audit reports are stored digitally by

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

Report executive summaries, findings and

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

AUDIT REPORT CURRENCY

Audit reports are based on the conditions encountered

and information reviewed at the time of preparation
and do not represent any changes that may have
occurred since the date of completion. As it is not
possible for an audit to present all data that could be
of interest to all readers, consideration should be
made to any appendices or referenced documentation
for further information.

When information regarding the condition of a site

changes from that at the time an audit report is
issued, or where an administrative or computation
error is identified, environmental audit reports,
certificates and statements may be withdrawn or
amended by an environmental auditor. Users are
advised to check EPA�s website to ensure the currency
of the audit document.

PDF SEARCHABILITY AND PRINTING

EPA Victoria can only certify the accuracy and

correctness of the audit report and appendices as
presented in the hardcopy format. EPA is not
responsible for any issues that arise due to problems
with PDF files or printing.

Except where PDF normal format is specified, PDF files

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

This PDF has been created using the Adobe-approved

method for generating Print Optimised Output. To
assure proper results, proofs must be printed, rather
than viewed on the screen.

This PDF is compatible with Adobe Acrobat Reader

Version 4.0 or any later version which is downloadable
free from Adobe�s Website, www.adobe.com.

FURTHER INFORMATION

For more information on Victoria�s environmental

audit system, visit EPA�s website or contact EPA�s
Environmental Audit Unit.

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

Email: environmental.audit@epa.vic.gov.au
AV Jenl~ings
AV 6 September 2006
3 1
Hampstead Road, Maidstone, Victoria API'ENDIX
A

APPENDIX A
Attachments

Attachment 1
:
Site 1,ocation
Plan
Attachment 2: Site Property Report and Planning Scheme Map
Attachment 3: Proposed Development Plans
Attachment 4: Site Layout and Sa~-t~pling

Locations
Attachment 5: Pre 1
Post Remediation Survey Plans
Attachment 6: Remediation
Photographs
Attachment 7: Summary
of Soil Ai~alytical
Results

S:WnvironVobs\Coombes
-Maidstone->Z-OOi8'~eportsU2.00IS
-Environmental .Audit
Report
for
3 1
EIarnpstead
Road, Maidstone, Victoria final.doc
ENVlROK
AV Jennings
AV 6 September2006
3 1
T-Iampstead Road, Maidstone, Victorin
APPENDIX A

Attachment
l
Site Location
Plan

S:\EnvironUobs\Coombeu
-Maidslone
-32-0018\Repurts\32.0018
EnEnvironmental
Audit keport
for 3
1
Hampstead Road, Maidstone, Victoria finnI.doc
ENVIRON
DlOMlDES
ttants
i
JOB:
31 Hampstead Road,
M
aidstone, Victoria
JOE3
No DA 1255
..I-.UCI--CIIIIIII)IIIII---l...IIIII
DATE: April, 2006

IFIGURE
l

LOCALITY PLAN
AV J enni~igs
AV J 6 September 2006
31 Hm~pstead
Road, Maidstone, Victoria APPENDIX A

Attachment 2
Site Property
Report and Planning Scheme Map

/
S~En~ironUobs~,Coornbes

-Maidstone -32-001 S\RepomUZ

0018

En\iironn>cntal
Audit Report for 31
Hn~npstead
Road,
Maidstone, Victorin
final.doc
ENVlROW
?I
1
Pr~perfy
Report
from www.land.vic.gov.au
on
27 M~Y

2005 It21
AM

Address: 31 HAMPSTEAD ROAD MAIDSTONE3012

Lot and Plan Number: Lot A PS443690
Standard Parcel
Identme~
(Sf
l): A\PS443690
Local Government(Council): MARIBYRNONG Council
Property Number: 8405364014
f)irect~ry
Reference: Melway 2769,27H9,27GI 0,27HI 0

State
Electorates
Legislative Council: MELBOURNE WEST (2001)
Legislative Assembiy
: FOOTSCRAY
(200 1
)

Utilities

Metro
Water Business: City West Water
Ruraf
Water Business: Southern Rural Water
Melbourne
Water: inside drainage boundary
Power Distributor:AGL (Information about
choosing an electricity
retailer
)

Planning Zone Summary

Planning Zone: COMMONWEALTHLAND NOT CONTROLLEDBY PLANNING SCHEME (CA)
Planning Overlay:
DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY -SCHEDULE 1 (DD01
)

DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONSPLAN OVERLAY -SCHEDULE 2 (DCP02)

This report is not a substitute for a Planning Certificate.
For Planning Certificate

PIannina
Certificates Ontine
For Planning Details
Planning Schemes Online
Area Map

Copyright O

State Government of Victoria

Disclaimer: This content is provided for information purposes only. No claim is
made as to the accuracy or
authenticity of the content. The Victorian Government does not accept any
liability to any
person for the
information provided. Read the full disclaimer at www.land.vic.gov.au/disclaimer
MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME
LOCAL PROVISION

MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME

LOCAL PROVISION
LEGEND Part of Planning Scheme Map4

7
7
Residential
1
Zone

AMENDMENT C38

Mixed Use
Zone

PREPARED BY:
PLANNING DATA AND MAPPING TEAM
Geographical 1nforma)ion
System

UEPARTMENT
OF
SUSTAINABf
LITY
AND ENVIRONMENT
AV Jennings
AV 6 September 2006
31 Han~~stead
APPENDIX A

Road, Maidstone. Victoria

Attachment
3
Proposed Development Plans

S.\EnvironUobs\Cw~nbes
-hlaidstone
-Audit
Report
for 31 Hmpstcad
Road, Maidstone,Victoriafit~al
doc
ENVIRON

32-0018\Repons\31!
0018
-Environl~~u~tal
Gas Easement

Australia Post

Depot

Telstra
Site

Maidstone

44
?%%isford
Strast
PC! Bux
926
Shewarton
WC
3632 TB1
3 563;
4113
F B1
3 5351
4US

Enphcrrlns
Survcylng
rlrnnlng
Urban Wlpn
Lurdrcapc
&mh#w~rs
Suafaln.blllty and knvironrnant
Rgrlbuafn*ms
Pmjmct
Man.o.m.nt

(
Development Plan -31 Hampstead Road, Maidstone

I
O~~rrCumk~~~piylrd
AV Jctlnings
AV 6 September 2006
3 1 Hampstead
Road, Maidstone, Victoria APPENDlX
A

Attachment 4
Site Layout
and Sampling Locations

S.\B~viron?fubsKoo~nbes
Mrttdsto~ie
-32-001
8Repor.ts\32.0013
-Envi!o~~mcnlal
EhVIRON

Audit Reporl For

31 Hanlpstead
Road. hlaidslone,
VictOri~
Anal.doc
AV Jennings
AV
31 Hamvstead
Road. Maidstone. Victoria

Attachment
5
Pre I
Post
Remediation
Survey Plans

S:\Efi~~~ronUobs\Coombes

-Maidslone
32-001 8?Rgorbi32
0018
-Environmental
Audit Rcpm
for
3 1 Hmpstead
Road, Maidsto~le,
\'ictoria
final.doc
ENVLKON
AV Jennings
AV 6 September2006
3 1
Hampstead
Road, Maidstone, Vicloria
APPENDIX A

Attachment 6
Remediation
Photographs

S:\EnvironUob$\Coombes
-Maidslone

32-0018U<eportsU:!
0018 -Environmei~tal
Audit Reponfcn-32
Han~psiead
Road, Maidstone,
Victoria find.doc
ENVIRON
.
.
m

Auditor Photo 1 -Initial excavation using excavator prior to hand removal of fill,
Sub-Area 4

Auditor Photo 2 -Natural soils and boulders, western boundary, Sub-Area 3

+.-
.h.
. -S-.-;
. i:s-.
?.;'
A-
-* * -. ,.-&-*:
Auditor Photo 4 -exposed boulders and natural soils, southern boundary, Sub-Area 4
AV Jennings
AV 6 Septcrnber
2006
3 1 Hampstead Road, Maidstone, Victoria APPENDIX A

Attachment 7

Summary ofSoil Analytical Results

S:LEnvironUobs\Cootnbes
Maidstone 32-0018\Reports~32.0Ol8
-En~ronniental
Audit Reportfor 31 Hampstead Road, Maidstone, Vi~toldr
fmal.doc
EWIRON
SUMMARYCOMPOSITE LABORATORY RESULTS (GAS EASEMENT)

SUMMARYCOMPOSITE LABORATORY RESULTS (GAS EASEMENT)

Ethion
Ethoprop
fenitrothion
Fensulfothion
f
1
I
c
0.2
0.2
0.2
c
0.2
Fenthion
Merphos
Methyl azinphos
Methyl parathion
Mevinphos
Naled
Phorale
Ronnel
Tokulhion
Trichlwonate
----p----
I
!
.c
0.2 1
c02
c02
c02
40.2 1
c
0.2.
c
02 1
0.2
0.2
Arodot-l018
Amclor-l 221
Arodor-1232
~ro~lor-1242
f
1
1
I
I
<U2
--
c 02
<
0.2
c
02
c02
1
c02
.-v
c
0.2
c
0.2
<
0.2
c
0.2
Arodor-1248
Arodor-1254
Aroctor-1260
Total
PCB
I I
1
c0.2
c
0.2
<
0.2
<
0.2
c
0.2
c0.2-
.E
0.2
c 0.2
c
0.2
c
0.2
c 0.2
<
02
c 09
<
0.2
C
0.1
c
0.1
<
0.1
c 0.1
5
c02
0.2
c
0.2
02
2
0.2
c
02
<
02
1
c02
j
c02
i
<
0.1
1
c0.1
1
<
0.1
1
q0.1
0.2
<
0.2
c
0.2
<
0.2
c
0.2
Acenaphthene
c
0.1
'
c02
<
02
c
0.2
0.2
c
0.2
0.2
c
0.2
<
0.2
<
0.2
<
0.f
-CO,%
0.1
<
0.1
l
<
0.1 c
0.1
c
0.1
c
0.1
<
1
c02
(
<
0.2
<02
1
<
0.2
c02 1
<0.2
<
0.2 l
<
0.2
c
0.2 1
<
0.2
c
0.2 1
c
0.2
<
0.2 (
c
0.2
C 0.1
0.1
c
0.1
c
0.2
0.2
2 0.2
c
0.2
<
0.2
c
0.2
c
0.2
c
0.2
c
0.2
0.2
<
0.1
c 0.7
c
0.1
cO.1
,
c
0.2
<
0.2
c
0.1
c
0.1
c
0.1
<
0.1
:
0.1
<
0.1
<
0.1
c
0.1
<
0.1
<
0-1
I
3.3
c
0.2
<
0.2
c
0.2
c
0.2
c
0.2
c
0.2
0.2
c
0.2
c
0.2
<
0.1
c
0.1
c
0.1
I
c
0.1
c
0.1
l
0.2
0.2
I
c
0.1 f
c
0.1 1
s
0.1
c 0.1
l
cO.1
1
<
0.1
c
0.1 ]
<
0.1
cl
1
cl
0.1
Total PAH
c 0.1
c
0.1
c
1
c
0.1
0.1
c
0.1
<
0.1
c 0.1 l
c
0.1
10
Acensphthykne
1
Anlhracene
Benz(a)anlhracene
[
Benzo(a)pyrene
l
f
Benzo@)fluoranthene
1
Benzotg .h.i)perylene 1
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
1
Chryseae
Dbenr(a.h)anlhracene
Flt~oranthene
Fluorene
Indeno(l.2.3-cd)pyrene
Naphlhalene
Phenanlhrnne
Pyrene
c
0.1 <
0.1
l 1
<
0.1
<l
I
<l
8.71
10 j8.71100
0.5 0.33
c
0.1
c
0.1
c
0.1
0.1
I
<
0.1 1
0.1
l I
0.1
l 1
<
0.1
0 1
<
0.1
c
0.1 I
c 0.1
c
0.1
<
0.1
67 j
~1.6
1
cl.6
c
0.1
0.1
.C
0.1
c
0.1
c
0.1
c
0.1
c 0.1
c
0.1
<
0.1
<
0.1
<
0.1
c1.6
c
1.6 cf.6
<0.1
I
0.1 c
0.1
1 I cO.1
<
0.1
c
0.1
c0.i
c 0.1
c 0.1
I
I
1
1
c
0.1
c
0.1
<
0.1 <
0.1 c
0.1
<
0.1 c
0.1 c
0.1
<
0.1 <
0.1 0.1
<
0.1 I
<
0.1 I
<
0.1
c
0.1 <
l I
0.1
cO.1
I--
.S
0.1
l I
c 0.1
c 0.1 I
c 0.1
0.1
c
0.1
c 0.1 c
0.1
, c
0.1
c
0.1
!
i
CO.$
c
0.1 <
0.1
I
c
0.1 1
c
0.1
S
0.1 j
c 0.1
c
0.1 ]
<
0.1
<
0.1 ]
<
0.1
, <
0.1 1
c
0.1
1
1
<
0.1
c
0.1
2
0.1
c
0.1
<
0.1
l
c
0.1 1
<
0.1
I
c0.1
1
cO.1
1
c0.1
1
cO.1
1
c
0.1 1
c
0.1
I
c0.1
I
cO.1
c
0.1
c
0.4
c
0.1
c
0.1
c 0.1
DlOMiDES
AND ASSOCIATES PTf
LTD
SUMMARY COMWStTE
SUMMARY LABORATORYRESULTS (GAS EASEMENT)

for 31
Hampstead Road, Maidstone

DlOMlDES
AND ASSOCIATES PTY
LTD
SUMMARY INDIVIDUAL LABORATORY RESULTS(GAS EASEMENT)

SUMMARY INDIVIDUAL LABORATORY RESULTS(GAS EASEMENT)

DlOMlDES
AND ASSOCIATES PTY
LTD
SUMMARY INDIVIDUAL
SUMMARY LABORATORY RESULTS(GAS EASEMENT]

for 31 Hampstead Road, Maidstone

MOMIDES
AND ASSOCIATES
PN LTD
SUMMARY
INDlVlDUAL
LABORATORY RESULTS (GAS EASEMENT)

for 31 Hampstead Road, Maidstone

MOMIDES
AND ASSOCIATES PTY
LT0
SUMMARY INDIVIDUALLABORATORYRESULTS (GAS EASEMENT)

SUMMARY INDIVIDUALLABORATORYRESULTS (GAS EASEMENT)

DlOMlDfS
AND ASSOCtAfES
PN
LTD
Page 1 of 1

Teresa
Page 1 of 1
Baker

From: Carotine
Kirkby
fckirkby@environcorprpcom.au]
Sent: Tuesday, 22August 2008
l
1:17 AM
To: Teresa Baker

Subject: Payment recieved

from Furst:

Hi Teresa
f
havereceived a cheque in the mail today from
Furst for Invoice 32-H14-039
for $15524.19
I think you asked me to let you know
Regards

Cardine
Kirkby
Boarckeeper
ENVXRON
Australia Pty
Ltd

Tel:
-tdf
8 9225 5199
Fax:
61
8
9225 5155
e-mail: cki&by@
,envimnco~.c~m.au

DISCLAIMER NOTICE

This message contains information

which may be confidential,
privileged or
otherwise protected by law from
disclosure. It is intended for the exclusive use
of the Addressee(s).
Unless you
are the addressee'or
authorized agent
of the
addressee, you may not
review, copy, distribute or disclose to
anyone the
message
or any information
contained within. If
you
have received this message in error,
please contact
the sender by electronic reply
to ckirkby@environcorp.corn.r=u
and
immediately
delete
-32.1
copies of the
message.
Fust
Realty
Pty
Ltd July 2006
Environmental Audit Report -66-68A Brunswick Road, Brunswick, Vic.
Page 30

14 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the findings of the Audit, the Auditor concludes the following:

The Consultant adequately identified potential historic potentially contaminating

activities
which occurred at the Site and undertook appropriate investigations to assess the
areas and
contaminants of concern associated with these historic potentially contaminating
activities;
The Consultant's investigations revealed:

Benzo(a)pyrene,
Total PAHs and TPH C10-C36
levels within the fill material may pose a
significant risk to humans if exposed through dermal contact, ingestion or
inhalation (dust);

Lead and zinc concentrations within portions of the fill may be phytotoxic
to sensitive plant
species;

Due to the
nature of the proposed development (i.e. cover of entire Site with concrete
pavement), the Auditor considers that the identified potential health and
ecological risks are
not significant and do not preclude the proposed Site use;

The potential for

groundwater beneath the Site to have been contaminated as a result of Site
activities is considered to be low and no assessment of groundwater contamination
is required.

The Auditor considers that the Site is suitable for the proposed high density
residential use under the
current zoning subject to the conditions presented in the attachment Statement of
Environmental
Audit.

Statement of EnvironmentalAudit Summary

Concentrations of TPH C10-C36,

benzo(a1pyrene
and PAHs exceed the human health criteria and
some heavy metal compo~lnds
exceed the NEPM
(1999) EILs
in the shallow filling at the Site.
Therefore, the soils are potentially detrimental to both human health and
maintenance of ecosystems.
Accordingly, a Certificate
of Environmenlal
Aadit
cannot be issued.

Consequently a Statement of Environmental Audit with the following conditions has

been attached to
this report. The conditions include:

1.
The entire Site is capped with concrete or pavement to prevent occupiers gaining
access to the
soil;
2.
Should soils be exposed during landscaphg
activities, any landscaped/exposed
soil areas should be
covered with at least 0.5m
fill material as defined by EPA Pub 448.1 (2004)
3.
Any imported soil bought onto the Site must be shown to have contaminant
concentrations
below the EPA criteria for "fill material "contained in EPA Bulletin No 448.
4.
Future works requiring the breach of the concrete pavement should be undertaken in

consultation with suitably qualified and experienced occupation health and

environmental
consultants. Excavated materials should be appropriately handled and managed in
accordance
with relevant Victorian Legislation, Regulations and Guidelines, and
the pavement should be
appropriately reinstated following completion of the works;
5.
If groundwater is to be extracted from the Site for any purpose in the future,
advice must first
be sought from a suitably qualified and experienced consultant (e.g. contamination

scientist/engiixeer).
S:\Envbn\Jobs\Funt
-Brunswick

32401
4\Repcrts\32_0014
Site Audit Report (Final).doc

ENVIRON
1
I 63~8.l.'

l
l
l
t

6
~ 639 Aq
~ Uo!i3e~j
8Z3-S13
Htll

i
By/Bw
39
UOIWe-IJ
PL3-OL.3
Htll

I
!
1
1
. -..-"-----pp
SO I0001
OOC "W
6
~ 6~39 4
uo!PW
63-93 H81
---A
I--
.---p
I
.. ..
. .. . ____-._...-__._
.-I--.
...
. HVd
lelol
.-m
8~a~kd
~
!
BYl8~u
aua~wueuaud
l6Y/fi"J
~~~I~W~BN

---
-
.

-
--
p

W-.-U

p
"..--.--.

-p
SUMMARY SOIL
INDIVIDUAL VALIDATION LABORATORY RESULTS
for 31 Hampstead Road, Maidstone

WL-
..".7---p
MGT

DIOMIDES

..
. .-.-m
...,
MAIDSTONE DAI
255

Tin
Vanadium

Zinc

-,*..m-,..
-m,----.

Benzene

-.U-,"
S,--,
--
Toluene
A~japhthene

mgkg
Acenaphthylene mgkg
Benz(a)anthracene

. .-
. ..

Benzo(a)pyrene

Dibenz(a.h)anthracene
Fluoranthene

p--

--
--,,, -.--.

20 200

1
20
.--p-p

TRH C649
Fractionby GC mgikg

--..-p
TRH C29-C36Fraction by GC I
mglkg
1
--
--v
c '00
c 100
c 100
-A-.------. 4-
TRH C9 I
mgtq
1000/
10000 l000
I
c250
250c250
l
1
I
DlOMfDES
AND ASSOCIATESPTY LTD
--.-!
--.-
I i
1
l BylOUJ
l
1
--.--m-
I
I
I
I
1
I I
1
/000~
I
I
+
"-1
I
1
p------
P9
OODOL
-..-
.---
---p.
0001
.-M
L
I
I
I
l
i
I I
OOOL
OF
!
I
I
l
1
I
OOC
OZ
I
4
/
6w6wr
1
6
~ 6 ~
1
BY/B~
OZ
-I---
HVd
IaWl
auaQ
63 HZU.
39
Aq UOPwd 9E3-6Z3 Ha1
33 h
U0113W 823313 H81
I
D~13.u
\
B'Ilfi
16~16~
I
~W~UJ
/
6
~ 6 ~
1
6
~ 6 ~
-.".-.,.T"-----
1
aua1~l)ueuayd
au8lWlUdeN
aua~Ad(p-c-~.
l)ouapul
auaonld
30 A9 UOPe-lj 913-0 C3 HU
39
UO!I~WZI
63-93 H81
---F*2ur"
I /
By/&
1
auaylue~anlj
1
1
~y/Bw
l
eua~wyiue(y.~)meq!a
I 1
Sy/Sw
l
auaskq3
t
6wBu'
aue~uawny(y)ontaa

1
I
OE l
BY16u
auanlol
I I
OS 1
6'llBw
auazueq1hu3
.

I 1
eue@ad(!.yd)ozueg
1
6~18~
auazuag

3u!z
wn!peuen

p----
,,

Pm1
zz
l-l_l.ll
OOOL
001
f%eu
laddo3
1
oos
~wtlru
11eqo3
----L 16~6~
(IA) lun!wo~y3
hns~ayy
oooe
oo~
l
ooe oos
1
I

--.
ool
l
OOoC

-P
W

k---on ! 001.

I t
1001
, I
1
I
l
I ~OOOOZL
DOP
BY/Bw
l
tlll) wn!uoJY3
l I I
OOGZ
OSZ
i
SMW
1
(lelolf
run!wo~qg

--"W

l
. 0
S
0
E 6~lBui
wnlwpe3
.

wnuag

-.-U
I
s] 000
Oc:
OOL
I oz
6Ylf'w!
quaslv
I 1
I
l
-A--

sotsaqsv
i
----W--
--v
IwnFN
ImnPN
UntsN
IunwN
/
PnleN
iwnw
j
IwnleN
/
IernieN
/
lerrpe~--lerv~
wn
Wieuv
---i
EQLW~V-m
ZEL~-O~V~-SQ
I
CELW~V-W
IOELW~V-W
GZLW~VQO
[~ZLPO~V-90
LZL~~V-90
~~ZLPO~W-m
ISZLW~V-SO
[PZLPO~V-go
EZLPO~V-90
I
I
1
l
I
1
I
MSN i
S371 7llA
1
V 1lH
)
f
l3
iw
99ZlVU
3NOlSOIVYY
SZE
H3 N-ZE
H3 N-E
H3 1
62
H3 S-22
H3 N-ZZ
H3 ]
S-81H3 I
M-L1 H3 j
3-L1 H3 1
S-L1 H3 ~3alyy0la
, IOW
19W
LOW
I
lOW
. 19W
. L3W 18W
1
I9N
1
19W
1
19W 1
SUMMARY SOIL
SUMMARY COMPOSITE VALIDATION LABORATORY RESULTS

for 31 Hampstead Road, Maidstone

DIOMIDES
MAIDSTONE DAI
255
Adopted Criteria .--
MGT
COMP B
06-JN04763
.-
.---
Analyte
Chromium (Total)
Chromium (Ill)
Chromium (V!)
Mod.
LLCS
Mod.
EIL
--
Unit
mglkg
mglkg
mg/kg
(3 Part)
Fill
MGT
COMP G
06-JN04766
MGT
SCPE
06-JN04764
(3
part)
833..
(2 part)
200
Mod.
EIL
MGT
COMP F
06:JN_94765
(2 Part) (3 Part)
1'<:.I
.<lw-
<\lb
0.5
(3 part)
133
Mod.
HIL A
(3
0.3
(2 part)
60000
Mod.
HIL A
Fill Fill
I
50
(3 part)
40000
Fill
33.3
Mod.
LLCS
Mod. /
Mod.
l
1
, l
Fill
(2 part)
--
1250
Fill
(2 part) (3 part)
j
L.
I---11
I
125 1
83.3
1
DI0MIC)ES
AND ASSOCIATES PN LTD
AV Jennings 6 September 2006
3 1 Hampstead Road, Maidstone, Victoria APPENDIX B

AV Jennings 6 September 2006

3 1 Hampstead Road, Maidstone, Victoria APPENDIX B
APPENDIX B

Statement of Environmental Audit (Dr. Wayne Drew

9 May 2002),
and excerpt from EGlS
(2002) Environmental Audit, Maidstone
Laboratory, Hampstead Road, Maidstone, Victoria
( ref
: VP80
1 7,9
May 2002)

S-\Et~vironUobsK:oombes
Maidstone -32-0018VZeports\32.001S

Ensironmcl~tal
Audit Rcpon
for 31 Hampstead Road, Maidstone, Victada
finrrl.doe
EWIRON
D

Environmental Audit

Maidstone Laboratory
Hampstead Road

Maidstone, Victoria

Volume I .

MAY 2002

Project No: VP8017

AFN cIaO
912 s3D
ABM
18
W
912 630

the austral /an

groupe
egk
company
TELSTRA
CORPORATtON
LIMITED
Environmental
Audit, Maidstone Laboratory, Hampstead Rcf,
Maidstone,
Victoria

EXECUTlVE
SUMMARY

General Background

Dr Wayne Drew, an appointed environmental auditor under section 53s

of the
Environment Protection Act 1970,
was requested to undertake an environmental audit of
the former Telstra
Maidstone Laboratory Site
at 31 Hampstead Road, Maidstone, Victoria.
The land is currently owned by the Commonwealth of Australia and it is understood
that
the site, or parts of the
site, are proposed to be rezoned
for high density residential,
commercial and industrial use under the Maribyrnong
City Council Planning Scheme as
part: of its future sale and redevelopment. This report summarises the
jnvestigations
cdmpleted,
and the results and outcomes of the environmentalaudit of the site.

Site
Assessment

The site
assessment completed by GH2M
Hill was undertaken over a period
of
approximately four years between 1998 and 2002, and comprised preliminary site
characterisation, a detailed site
histaty
review to determine the nature of Defence use of
the
site, followed
by site remediation
and validation.

The L-shaped audit site occupies an area of approximately 9.7 hectares

and is currently
unoccupied. The site is located in a predorninantiy
mixed use area, and is currently
designated as Commonwealth land. For
the purposes of the investigation the south-east
part of
the
site is referred to as Lot
1,
and the north-west part is referred to as Lot 2. The
Lot 1 portionof the site is bordered by the Midway Migrant Hostel to the north,
Hampstead
Road to the east, the Australia Post Mail Exchange to the south, and Brwin
Street
(unconstnrcted
road reserve) to the west. The Lot 2 portion of the site is bordered by the
Medway Golf Club
to the west, recently sub-divided open land to the north, a student
village owned by the Victoria University of Technology to the east, and Almer
Street
{unconstructed
road reserve)to the south.

Preliminary investigations completed in June and July 1998 comprised a site

history
review, grid-based and targeted sampling programs at surface and 0.5m
depths, and
analysis for EPA screening parameters. Preliminary soil remediation
in October 1998
focussed
on sol
located below
former dieset
above ground storage tanks and a cinder
track located
near the perimeter of sections of
the site.

Additional site history investigations by the auditor had revealed former

Department of
Defence (ie.
pyrotechnics manufacture) use of the land, and supplementary work was
compieted
in March 1999 to test site soils for explosive residues,
and to validate clean up
of an additional section of cinder track.

~OO118~700

D:1Envir~nmentat\Projects\vp~Ol
1 ,dot
VP8017.001 .Rev0
9May 2002

Page
TELSf

Environmental
Audit
Maidstone Laboratory, Hampstead Rd,
Maidstone,
Victoria

6gis

Further site history investigations were undertaken in September 1999 to clarify

the nature
of site activities during
Defence use of the land: These investigatibns
confirmed
that the
site had previously formed
part of the pyrotechnics section of the Explosives Fadory
Maribyrnong.
In 1960 the lsnd
was transferred to the Post Master General(PMG)(later
Australia
Post and Telstra),
andthe pyrotechnic
facilities remained on site. In addition, site
investigation undertaken by Harris
Asbestos Management during 1998,together with soil
analyses by CHZM
Hill, had identified that site soils contained asbestos fibres and
asbestos cement sheet fragments.

The site remediation

and validation investigation by CH2M
Hill addressed -the
contamination issues identified,
including asbestos clean up and unexploded
ordnance
(UXO).
Both targeted and grid-based sampling programs were used to assess the status
of the site
in terms of
chemical end asbestos contamination-UXO
investigations were
conducted
by Milsearch
Pty
Ltd
both before and after asbestos clean up. The results of
these investigations are discussed separatelybelow.

Soil
Contamination
Assessment

On the basis of the environmental assessment findings, it

has been specifically
identified
that concentrations of some inorganic parameters exceeded the ANZECC B
Environmental fnvestigation
Levels as follows:

Elevated concentrations of arsenic, mercury and zinc at on'e

location each, and copper

at three locations, were considered to be associated with minor residual

soil

contamination and were isolated in extent.

Slightly elevated concentrations of arsenic, chromium, copper, nickel and zinc

identified in individual and composite samples were considered
to be naturally
occurring, and in an inert, mineralised form.
Statistical analysis of the results for arsenic, chromium, copper, mercury, nickel
and

zinc
showed that the 95% UCL
concentration
for these parameters was below the

respective ANZECC B environmentalinvestigation level.

Ail results were well

below
the respective health investigation levels, and are considered
unlikely
to be associatedwith adverse environmental impads.

UXO
Investigations

Milsearch's
UXO
investigations were c~nduded
over three stages. Stage 7
involved a
preliminary investigation (Stage la)
to charaderise
the site, and a screening investigation
(Stage ib)
for large UXO
which may have been encountered
during asbestos clean up.
Stage 2 covered all accessibIe
areas of the site and was completed following site
stripping to remove asbestos material and the majority
of previously detected metallic
items. Stage 3 was completed after demolition of the remaining structures provided

access to the rest of

the site.

9
May 2002
Page ii
TELSTRA CORPORAT[QN UMfTED
TELSTRA CORPORAT[QN
Enyironmenbt
Audit, irpafdst~ne
Laboratory, Hampstead
Rd, Maidstone, Victoria

Overail,
UXO
investigations at
the site
cornptised
a comprehensive site
history compiled
by CH2M
Hill from records and interviews with former employees, the electromagnetic
survey by ~ilsearch;
and intrusive
work
completed both as part of environmental

investigations, and as confirmation of the depth profile investigated.

Excavations occurred across the site, which provide a substantial body of evidence
from
which to assass
the
potential
for UXOs
to
remain
on site. Excavations that allowed
inspection of site conditions below the surface are lsted
in Table 9
of this audit report.

At the conclusion of their Milsearch data quality control review, CH2M

Hill
identified that of
the 2,168 potential munitions target items in the four grid areas examined, a
minimum of
99.3% were either removed or included
as part of an additional survey arid
investigation.
The remaining 0.7% could not be confirmed as removed either due to their
incidental
removal during site works beiween
Milsearch's
Stage 2 and Stage 3 investigations, or due
to
a change in the refe~ence
coordinates used in the Stage 3investigations. In the two
grid areas (B7 and F8)
where no demolition and clean up had
occurred, and search
coordinates had not changed, ail targets were identified to have been re-detected
and

removed.

Site areas were identified by CH2M

Hill that had not
been fully investigated by Milsearch,
in terns
of vertical extent, due to the presence of filling placed by Telstra
[(or Telstra
predecessors, PMG
and Telecorn)
over the site suiface
that was present during Defence
use of the land: These site areas were subsequently further investigated by CHZM
Hill
ether
by test pits or by surface stepping,
to
confirm the absence of any evidence of waste
burial
pits that coufd
contain
UXQs.

Site
areas nut
futly
investigated by Milsearch in terms of
lateral extent are as follows:

She
communications tower site and easement
along the north-eastern boundary of Lot
1,
identified on Plan af
Subdivision PS 443690
Y
attached
to the Statement of
Environmental
Audit;
A im
wide strip of land
on Lot 1,
running from
Hampstead Road to the
communications tower at the north-east of Lot 1,
where the presence of an optic fibres
cable interfered with
detection and couM
not be excavated, identified as Area 1
on the
Plan of Survey attached to the Statement of Environmental
Audit; and
A 6m wide strip of land adjacent to the northern site boundary on Lot 2 where a
high

pressufe
gas mains interfered with detection and could not be excavated identified as

Area @I
the Plan
of Survey attached to the Statement of
Environmental Audit.

The auditor'sreview of all the available information

regarding the UXO
survey and
clean-up at the site has shown that

The
three site areas where UXO
survey yas
not effectively completed can be clearly
identified.
These areas are (l)the easement
along the northeastern
site boundary on
9
May 2002
Page iii
PEMTRA
Environmeritai
Audit,
Maidstone Laboratory.
Hampstead R&
Maidstone, Victoria
&sis

Lot
l,
between Hampstead Road and including the communicationstower, (2)
a a
.Om
wide strip of iand
running from
Hampstead Rdad to the communications tower et
the
north-east
of Lot 1,
and (3) a B.Om
wide strip of land across the northern
site boundary
on Lot 2.These areas havebeen excluded from
the audit.

Areal
search coverage of the site, other than known areas of limited
survey, was

reported by Milsearch to have been achieved with a reliability of 99.97

%;

In site areas where a UXO

survey was completed over a site surface present during
Defence use of the land, the vertical extent of investigations was limited to a
depth of
220mm
for potential targets of 2.5cm (i
inch) signal cartridge equivalent, 310mm
for
targets of No 69 grenade fuse equivalent, and 425mm
for targets of 5 cm (2 inch)
mortar bornb equivalent;

+
In
site areas where the UXO
survey was undertaken over filling placed.subsequent to
Defence use of the site, further invesegations
completed
by CH2M
Hill have prov'Kfed
sacient
evidence, based on observations,
tcl
confirm
that there are unlikely
to be
burial pits containing UXOs
present.
The Milsearch
UXO
investigations have been supplementedby CH2M
Hill
and Harris
Asbestos investigations, which have been used to provide further infoimation
regarding the absence of ordnance items, possible burial pitss,
and the depth
extent of
Milsearch investigations.
Potential
targets were re-detected with a minimum reliability of
99.3%, and that
this is
fikely
to bea conservative
estimate.

+
Givsn
that
site
dean up was lirnifed
to the
title boundaries, there remains a potential
for UXUs
to be present in
off-site soils adjacent to the site boundaries.
On
the basis of the above assessment, it is considered that the Environmental
Management Plans (EMPs)
developed by CH2M
Hill
for the site provide the basis for
management of the site in the cantext
of future development
in that they control sub-
surface access and limit
devefopment
and access in the vicinity of the site boundaries.

The principal
soil contaminant of concern at the site was asbestos.
A clean up consisting
of
excavation and off-site disposal of
asbestos
rnateriat
and
asbestos contaminated soil
to
[andfill
was implemented. Nc
asbestos fibres were detected in soil
validation samples or
during air rnonitaflng,
and all
visible fragments
of asbestos containing material
were

removed during detailed visual

inspections. However, CH2M
Hill acknowledge that it is
possible for fragments of asbestos containing material, identified as asbestos
cement

sheet, to rekain
within site soils,as follows:

Where
deeper excavations extended to the natural
bass#
rock, the extent of soil
excavation was limited by the presence of the iocks.
CH2M
Hill
reported that the
D:\Envi~nment~ItPrajecZ$tvp~Ol7\003\8017Q01
VP8027.001 .Rev0
9 May 2002

.&c

Page jv
TELSTIU
CORPORATlUN
LIMITED

Envirpnmental
Audit, Maidstone hburatory,
Hampstead Rd, Maidstone, Victoria

south-west tip site is considered to contain remnant asbestos within residual

soils,

particularly in the crevices between rucks.

Following clean up, vatidation

sampling and inspection of all excavations indicated the
absence of asbestos. However, during
subsequent detailed
visual inspections,
asbestos fragments were observed at the surface of areas previously identified to
be
free of
asbestos c;ontarnination.
CH2M
t-fill;
considered this to
be due to the difficulty in
identifying asbestos fragments within dayey
soils. Under normal
weather conditions of
rain followed by wind and drying of site soils, asbestosfragments could be exposed
at
the site surface.

Site specific criteria for asbestos were set by the Department of Human Services
(DHS)
forthe site as follows:

Demonstration
that no
visible asbestos material
is present on site;and
W
Demonstration that the measured density of residuat
asbestos in soil across the site
can be demonstratedto be less that 0.0001% by
weight.

The quantification calculations completed by CHZM

Hill as part of the validation program

identifiedthat the quantity of asbestos remaining on site, with the exception of

the south-
west tip site area, was well below the level of 0.0001
%
(wfw]
considered to be acceptable

by the DHS.
The average quantity of asbestos was calculated to range from 0.00002 to
0.00007 %
(wlw),
and the 95 %
VCL
of the average quantity of asbestos ranged from
0.00002
to 0.00008
% [wlw),
excluding the south-west tip site area. .

In the total
south-west tip site
area the quantity of asbestos remaining was calculated to
be 0.0001 %
(wfw),
equal to the level set by DHS
in their wwntten

communication of 6
August 2001.
However, in a sub-area wvering
25 m2
(WA
11) the
residual asbestos
level was calculated to be 0.00015 5%
wlw
(average) and D.00017
% wlw
(95 56
UCL),
indicatingthe potential for residual
asbestos levels
to exceed the DHS
accepted levet.

The sampling protocols

adopted by CH2M
Hill in reaching
the above conclusions are
summarisedin Table
El.

Table Ef
:
~sbestos
Sampling Prutocots
Site
strippingta
100
mm depth;

Air monitoring for asbestos fibres

Visual inspection of all excavations

Cable
pits and conduits removal;

during and at the

conclusion of dean

asbestos fibres;

55 test pits excavated on each of Lot l

and
Lot
2 an a 30 x
30 m grid,
t6
a depth of 0.5m.

D:\~nvironnentat\PmjeCts\vp~803~001~01?~01
VP8017.001
.Rev@
9 May 2002

.dot

Page v
TELSTRA CORPQRATlON
TELSTRA LIMITED
Environmentat
Audit, @aidstone
Laboratory,Hampstead Rd,Maidstone, Victoria

boundary where this fa

outside the
fence
asbestos fibres;

Visual
inspection
c~f
5-6m
wide strips by
four
people in bath
north-south and.
east-west direction,

Repeat inspection, as above, fdiowing

soil turning;
Detaiied
inspection of south west tip

site and
Buildinglfootprint;

CalIet;tion/rernoval
of all asbestos,
Visual
inspection and colfedion
of
asbestos fragments fram
each QAVA
for weighing;

+
Repeat inspection following raking of
surface soil and coiIection
of asbestos
fragments for weighing.
Visugd
iospection
and
colle&on
of
asbestos
fragments for weighing.
h,
,
,

i,
20
test pits to a minimum
depth of trn
to
natural soil;
Detailed site wafk~~er

six sub areas, each 20

X
20
m;
Soils were turned
over to a depth
of 500
mm
and
the walkover was repeated, as above:
r
Additional dean up ofsouth-wetit tip
site and
Building ?
footprint.

Quant~cation
of Residual
Asbestos

Ten Quantitative Asbestos Vatidation

Areas
(QAVAs),
each 5m
X
5m (25 m2)staked out
followed
by a detaiied
walkover;

*
Hand raking of each QAVA .Followed
by a
second&
walkover,

Quantifcalion
of
Residual Asbestos
-South
West
Tip
Site
Ams

The auditor's evaluation of

the results of asbestos clean up at the site, considering the
advice provided by DHS,
hasshown that

1
The .clean
up work, as determined by valid~tion
sampling and detailed inspections,
has removed
_the
majority
of asbestos from the
site.

Residual asbestos in Lot 1 and, exduding

the south-west tip site area, in tot
2 is
below the DHS
accepted level
of O.M)01
%
(WM.

Residual
asbestos in the south-west tip site area has the potential
to
exceed the DHS
accepted
level of 0.0001
% (wlw).
These residual asbestos levels
also do not
meet the
NSW
EPA
guideline of NOasbestos in the surface to 1.Om
depth range.
The ernpfing
protocols
adopted
by CH2M
Hill in quantifying the level of residual
asbektos
on site are sufficient to characterise the current condition of
the land, and to
assgs 2nd
manage any risks posed by residuaf
asbestos
material.
i

~h&e
remains a potential for asbestos cm&t
sheet fragments within
the near
sudace
layer of sol to be exposed due to soil
erosion (wind and rain);: and soil
mqbernents
(traffic),
and this does
not meet
the DHS advicaof
'no visible asbestos'.
r

9May 2002
Page vi
TELSTRA
LIMITED
Environmentai
Audit.
Maidstone Laboratory,Hampstead Rd.
Maidstone, Victoria

Given that site clean up was limited to the title boundaries, there remains a
potential
for
asbestos material to be present in off-site soils adjacent to the site boundaries.

On the basis of the above assessment, it is considered that the EMPs

developed by
CH2M
Hill for the site provide the basis for
management of the site in the context of high
den%%
residential, commercial and industrial development in that they control
sub-surface
access and limit
development and access in the vicinity of the site boundaries.

Aesthetic Assessment

Minor quantities of building rubble, including asbestos cement sheet

fragments, remain on

site. In addition, minor staining and odour remain below the concrete base of the
former

accumulators area at
a depth of approximately
1.5m
below the final
(ba~kfilled)
site
surface. Further investigations confined
that odours in a gravel layer were slight and

staining was limited in extent.

ft
is considered that the area of soil
discalouratiun
and odour noted
above and the
amounts of building
debris remaining on site are minor in extent
and not significant
in
aesthetic
terms for future development of the site for high density residential, commercial
and industfiat
use.
Groundwater
Assessment

The CH2M
Hill
environmental investigations identified that
no storage
tanks containing
potential
contaminants were present on site. Groundwater
investigations co
m pleied
by
CH2M
Hill at the site comprised the installation
of five groundwater
bores: three
in April
2000
(GW1
to GW3),
one in February 2001 (MWS)
and one in May 2001 (GW4).
CH2M
Hill reported that groundwater is approximately 30m
below the site within
silty
clays
beneath the basalt rock,
and flows in a southe,dy
direction towards Port Phillip
Bay.
Groundwater
samples were recovered from GW1
to GW3 in two sampling rounds, May
2000
and October
2000,
and fram
GW4 in May 2001. Groundwater
was nut
intercepted in
bore MWS
installed in February 2001.
Analysis of groundwater
samples identified
elevated concen~~ations

of arsenic, copper, lead, nickel, zinc

and TPH, in groundwater
below the site, exceeding freshwater ecosystem protection criteria.

Based on a review of the information presented in the CH2M

Hilf
environmental site
assessment, it was considered unlikely
fur
groundwater
paltutian
to Rave occurred
at the
site or in the vicinity of the site as a result of site activities, for the
fallowing
reasons:

No USTs
were identified sn
site, and no external evidence af
USTs
was identified on

properties in close proximity to the site.

It was confirmed
in May 2001
that groundwater
contamination
resulting from
potential
spitiages
or leakages from the
former accumulator
pump area (Area 43) had not
occurred. Test pitting around this area, and observations during drilling of the
groundwater
bore confirmed that the
slight odours and discatouration
identified were
limited in both lateral and vertical extent.

9
May 2002
Page vii
TEtSTRA
LIMITED
Environmental
Audit, Maidstone Laboratory,
Hampstead Rd,
Maidstone, V[cf;oria

While a diesel spill was identified to have occurred in Area 28 at the site, this
was
found to be generally limited to the highty
permeable bedding sands around
a
stormwater
drain. Migration of diesel into the underlying natural clay soil was reported
to be
limited, and the clays were free of odour. A fourth groundwater
bore was
installed to a depth of
30.3m
in
the vicinity of Area 28.While groundwater
was nut
intersected at this location, PID
readings and observations of the lithology
confirmed
contamination
had nut migrated through the sub-surface.

TPH contamination in two

groundwater
samples, GW1
and GW2
recovered in the May
2000 sampling round was considered to be the result of laboratory contamination
{refer to Section 5.3.1).
A second round of groundwater
sampling and analysis
confirmed the absence of
TPH contamination.

Soil
contamination
identified during the various environmental investigations was
confined to
prior filling and near surface disturbed natural soils. Undisturbed natural
clays
below the diling
and disturbed material
were reported
not to be impacted by the
identified contamination
in overlying
soils.
Slight[y
elevated concentrations of arsenic, chromium, nickel and zinc in natural soils
at the site are
considered to
be a natural occurrence.
Naturally occurring
inorganic
parameters are most
iikely
to be in rin
inert. mineralised form, and therefore not readily
leachable
into the underlying groundwater.

'The
depth to groundwater
is
approximately 30m
below the sulface
of the site, and
groundwater
is expected to be protected by
the layers of low permeability clay soils
and weathered basalt
found
at
the site.

Concentrationsof arsenic, copper, lead, nickel and zinc repprted

in groundwater
below
the site are considered to
be representative of
local groundwater
qualty
in the vicinity
of the site. Groundwater
quality in the down gradient bores, GW3 and GW4,
did not
differ significantlyfrorn
the up gradient bores, W1
and GW2.

CH2M
Hi[[
undertook a review of groundwater
quality
in the region. A report by Shugg
(1981)
identifisd
average concentrations of heavy metals in the New Volcanics
consistent with
or exceeding those reported at the site. Mean concentrations of
cadmium, chromium, copper and lead exceeded concentrations reported at the site,
and the mean concentrationof zinc was consistent with those reported at the site.
On the basis of the above
information it is concluded that the groundwater has not
been
impacted by
on-site or off-site contamination, and that elevated concentrations of arsenic,
copper, lead, nickel and zinc in groundwater
below
the site are representative of the
backgrounj
groundwater
quality in the
vicinity of the site.

~:~nvir~nme~tal\~roject:~~~p\8017\~01~601
TOO
.doc
VPB017.001
.Rev0
9
May 2002
Page viii
TELSTRA
CORPORAT!ON
LIMITED

Environmental Audit, Maidstone Laboratory, Hampstead Rd, Maidstone, Victoria

Audit Conclusions

On the basis of
the above assessment it has been concluded that
a Statement of

Environmental Audit can be issued with the following conditions

to manage
residual

asbestos contamination at the site. and to manage the residual risk from
undetected

unexplclded
ordnance.

*
The condiditions
below musi
be read in conjunction with the attached environmental
managementplans prepared by CH2M
Hill (May 2002):
P
Teistra
Corporation, Maidstone Laboratory
Si
Remediation
and Site Validation,
Environmental Management Plan -Development of the Site (Reference:
l01 387.0a6Rev4);
and

Telstra
Corporation, Maidstone Laboratory Site Rernediatian
and Site Validation,
EnvironmentalManagement Plan -Future Site Use(Reference: 101387.007Rev4).
These management plans include procedures for the safe handling and disposal of
any

asbestos containing
material
andh
any ordnance items that
may be
found during
earthworks,
and must be implemented at the commencement
of site development

works, and shall remain in place to

cover excavation an the site during its ongaing
use.

Prior to
any development work commencing, a layer of
clean fill
matsial
must be placed
over residual soils across
the site, with the exception of the soutkwest
tip site, to
a
minimum
depth of 0.3m
to achieve the DHS
'no visible asbestos' criterion.
At the
conclusion of
development works, including building, fill
to
a minimum depth
of O+Sm
must be placed
over all unsealed areas,
including garden areas around buiidhgs,
with
the exception of the south-west tip site.
The south-west tip site area, identified as Area 3 on the Pfan
of Survey
(Drawing No.
0499005f03),
a copy of
which is attached to
the
Statement of
Environmental Audit, must
have clean fill material
placed,and maintained, to a minimum depth of
1.0rn.

ke
site boundaries must be securely
fenced, and excavation work
near the site

boundaries must be managed, such that site users do

not come into
contact with off-site
soil, and off-site soil
does not contaminate the audit site.

No
development should be undertaken in Areas 1
and 2, currently excluded. from
the
audit
and
identified on he
Plan
of Sutvey,
until
this land has been fully investigated to
confirm the absence of UXOs.
These
areas must subsequently be subject to an
envimnmerrtal
audit by an EPA accredited environmental auditor (Contaminated
land},
and a Certificate or Statement
of EnvironmentaL
Audit issued for
Arealand Area 2,

O:\Enviranmnta~~Projects~vp\B~17~001t8017001
9 May 20Q2

.dw
VP8017.001
.Rev0

Page ix
ENWRUNMENT
PRt3fEGTCON
ACT 4
970

STATEMENT OFENVIRONMENTAL AUDiT

I, Dr
Wayne Drew of Egis
Consulting
Australia Pty
Limited, a person
appointed by the

Environment Protection Authority (?he

Authority') under the Environment Protection Act
1970

('the Act) as an environmental auditor for the purposes of the Act, having

been requested by Mr
George
Thhalas
of Telstra
Corporate Property Services
to ksu&
a

certificate of environmental audit in relation to the site located at 31 Hampstead

Road,

Maidstone. (+the
site') (Certificate of
Ttle
Volume 10272. Fol.
749. Parish of Cut Paw
Paw, County of Bourke)
owned by Telstra
Corporation Limited (see Plan
of Subdjvision,
and Plan of Audit Area (Figure l),
attached)

had
regard to, amongst other things,

guidelines issued by the Authority for the purposes af Part IXD of the Act,

the benefidal
uses that may bemade ofthe site, and
relevant State environment protection policieslindustrial
waste management policies,
namely
the State Environment
Protection
Policy (Waters of Vidoria),
State Environment
Protection Policy rhe
Air Environment),and
the State Environment Protection Policy
(Groundwaters
of
Victoria),

in making a total assessment of the nature and extent of any ham or detriment
caused
to,
orthe risk cf
any
possible ham or detriment which may be causedto, any beneficial
use
made of the site
by any industrial proesses
or activity,
waste W
substance
(including
any chemical substance),
and

completed an environmental audit report in accordance with Section

53X of the Act, a
copy of which has been sent to the Authority.

HEREBY STATE thatIam of the opinion that

The site
is suitable forlhe
following beneficiai
uses subject to
the conditions attached thereto:

Maintenance of modified ecosystems, human heath,

buildings and structures
and
aesthetics in
the context of high density
residential, commafcial
and industrial development, subject ta
the
following
conditions:

A layer of clean fill material

must be placed over residual soils across
the site. with the
exception of the southvest
tip site, to a minimum
depth of 0.3m
immediately and prior to
any site
activity
to achieve a criterion of
'no visible asbestos' set by the Department of
Human Services (DHS)
fur
the site. At the conclusion of development works, including any
buildings, clean MI
material
to a minimum
depth of 0.5m
must be placed over all unsealed
areas, includinggarden areas around residences,with the exception of the
south-west tip
site. The purpose of this layer is to ensure the DHS criterion of 'no visible
asbestos' can be
managed into
the future.
The
south-west tip site area, identified
as Area 3 on the
Plan of Survey (Dradng
No.
0499005103),
a copy of which is attached to the Statement of Environmental Audit, must
have clean fill material
placed, and maintained,to a minimum depth of 1.0m.
Any development
must be
undertaken in accordance with the attached environmental
management plans (EMPs)
prepared by CH2M
Hill
(May 2002);

;
Telstra
Corporation, Maidstone Laboratory Site

Remediation
and Site Validation,
Environmental Management Plan -Development of the
Site (Reference:
4
04
387.006Rev4);
and
;
Teistra
Corporation,
Maidstone Laboratory
Sjte

Remediation
and Site Validatian,
Environmental
Management Plan

Future Site Use (Reference: 101

387.007Rev4).
These management plans include identification of a bcdy
corporate (W
equivalent) which
is responsible for implementation of
the management plan, and procedures for the safe
handling and disposal of any asbestos containing material ador
any ordnance items that
may
be found during earthworks.
The plans must
be implemented at the commencement
of site
development works,
and shall remain
io
place to cover occupation and maintenance
of the site during its ongoing use. If at any time
the site is
subject
to the issue of rezoning
and redevelopment plans, a revised
EM?
may need to be prepared by an appointed
environmental
auditor for the site

Upon determination of a development plan for the site, an EPA accredited

environmental
auditor (Contaminated Land) must be appointed to observe, verify and
document that the
relevant
Environmental Management Plans
are implemented as folIaws:

'1.
Prior to any development work commencing, and during construction activties,
ie.
in
accordance with
the
Environmental Management Plan

Development
of
the
Site
(Reference: 1
01
387.006Rev4);
2.
Prior
to occupancy, ie.
in accordance with the Environmental Management Plan
-
Future Site Use (Reference:1 01
387.007Rev4);
and
3.
If any redevelopment
of
the site for similar purposes is proposed, ie. in accordance
with each of the jabovementioned
plans as appropriate.
The site boundark3
must be securely fenced to
prevent access to adjacent land by site
occupants, and excavation work near the
site boundaries must
be managed, such that site
users do not come
into contact with
off-site soil, and off-site soil does not contaminate the
audit
site*
The
condition of the site is detrimentalorpotentially detrimental
to any (one
or more) beneficial
use
of the site. Accordingly, I have nut issued a Certificate of
Environmental Audit
for the site
in
its
current condition, the reasons for which are presented in the environmental audit
report.
me
terns
and conditions that need to be complied with before a Certificate of Environmental

Audit may be issued are set out

as follows:

Site soiis
to a depth confirmed as undisturbed natural
soil, or to bedrock, including soils
between rocks, must be cleaned up to
remove any remaining fragments of asbestos
material and to confirm that unexpladed
ordnance associated with pyrotech
nic
devices are
not present.
*
In
the context of ensuring
no residual aesthetic issues remain on site, building rubble and
other I-ernnanfs
of site
structures should
be excavated and
removed
off-site.
Other related information:

Two
areas
within the title
bsundary
of
the site have been wtuded
from
the audit
These areas
are
ident'fied
as Area 1 and Area 2 on the Plan
of Survey, and on the Plan
of
Audit Area
(Figure 1
),
attached.

If
excavation is
undertaken
generating surplus soiI
requiring disposal off-site,
then
these suits
need to bt3
managed in accordance ~4th
refevant
EPA guidelines.

The
total volume of
saiI
which
may remain on site
impacted by asbestos material, ordnance
related
items, and remnant building material is wt
accurately known and can only be
determined
once excavation works are undertaken. It
is known
that the remains of a concrete
slab appmximately
30 m long and 10
m wide is located between 1.2 and 1.5 m depth .below
fie
final site surface on the
south eastern portion
of the site (refer to CH2M
Hill report, Nay

2002).

Given that site clean up was limited to the title

boundaries, there remains a potential for

asbestos material and ordnance items

to be present in off-site saiils
adjacent to
the site
boundaries.
This Statement fams
part of
environmental
audit report Egis
Consulting Australia Pty Limited,
Maidstone laboratoty,
Hampstead Road, Maidstone,
Victoria, VP8017.001
.WO,
May 2002.
DR WAYNE
DREW
ENVIRONMENT' AUDfTQR
AREA 2'
AREA LOCATION OF DRAIN
AND GAS MAINS Sm
WlDE
[EXCLUDED) LEGEND _II__
LOT 2'
gg;g~g~~~
EXCLUDED AREAS OF LlMlSED
INVESTIGATION
DUE
10
PRESENCE
OF
UNDERGROUND SERVICES
y///A
AREA 3'
AUDIT AREA
TEiSTRA
COMMUNICATIONS
TOWER AND ANCILLARY BUILO1NG
{EXCLUDED}
AUDIT AREA
LOT l2
SOUTH WEST T[P
SlTE
AREA 1'
LQCATION
OF
FIBRE OPTICS
CABLE Im
WlDE
(EXCLUDED)
EXISTING EASEMENT FOR
UNDERGROUND
HIGH
I
VOLTAGE POWER
LWE
20
C1
20
40
60 80
METRES
NOTES:
1. THE TERMINOLOGY 'AREA' RELATES '10
PORTIONS
OF THE SITE
WHICH
HAVE
BEEN EITHER EXCLUDED
FROM THE AUDIT
SlTE
OR TREATED SEPARATELY (I.E. AS FOR AREA 31 FROM THE TOTAL SITE,
2. THE TERMiNOLOGY
'LOT' WAS
USED TO SEPARATE THE TOTAL SITE
INTO
TWO CONVENIENT PORTIONS
DURING
THE ASSESSMENT PHASE OF THE
PROJECT.
TELSTRA
CORPORATION
ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT
MAIDSTONE LABORATORY SlTE
A utmIia
S~TE
PLAN OFAUDIT AREA
\/PBM7-FlG1
VP8917.001
Rev0
FlGURE
l
h
AV J
AV ennings
6 September2006
3 1
Halnpstead
Road, Maidstone, Victoria APPENDIX C

APPENDIX C

Statement of
Environmental Audit (Mr. Richard Graham

7
November 2005) ,and excerpt from Sinclair
Knight Mertz
(2005)
Report of
Environmental Audit, 31 Hampstead
Road,
Maidstone
(ref: WC02362,7
November
2005)

S.'EnvironUobs'Cwrnbes
-Maidstune

32-0018\Reports\32
0018 -Environmental
Audit Report for 3 i
Hampstead Road, Maidstone.Victoria tinaf.doc
ENVIRON
Report of Enviroilmental
Report of Audit:
31 Hampstead Road, Maidstone
Coornes
Consulting Group and
AVJennings
Limited

November 2005

GOPYRIGHR
The concepts
and information
containedin
this
document are the propsTty
of
Sixlair
ICnighI
Merr
Pty
Ltd.
Use or copying af
this document in whole or h part
wiihout
the
written
permission of
Sinclair
Knight Men
constiiutes
an infringement of
copyright
Summary of Environmental
Audit

Background to Environmental
Audit

An environmental audit has been completed in accordance with

Pa~t
ED
of
the
Environment
Protection
Act 1970, for
the site located
at 31 Hampstead Road,
Maidstone, Victoria. The site is defined by Certificate oFTitle
Vol
10580 FoT
422 and
is Lot A on Plan of Subdivision PS 443690Y.
The site
occupies a
total
ar~a
of 9.785
ha.

The audit site was

formerly
Comm~nwealth
Government
land, Being used for
pyrotechnics
manufacture as part ofthe
Department of Defence's
Ex~losives
Factory
Maribymong
(EFM)
in the 1940s-1950s and
then
as an experimental
centre for Telstra
and its predece$sos
bodies from 1958 to the late 1990s.
The site was subsequently
acquired by AVJennings
Limited,
which proposes to subdivide and develop
the site
for
standard and medium density residential use, with a public open space component.
The development layout, subdivisian
@an
and title details for
the future devebpment
011
the
audit site are not
yet available.

AVJennings
proposes to undertake site development works, including earthworks
and
construction
of services and other facilities. This approach
has the advantage
of
allowing a higll
degree
of conti-01
over
soil
placement, site levels, management of
~ontalninated
soil (if my)and response to envjronmental
issues which may arise.

. .

. .

, '.. :
. .. . .

To
acl&ve
planning
approval, AVJennings
requires that a statutory environmental
audit
be.conducted,
with the issue
of
a Certificate or
Statement of EnvinmrnentaI
~u.dii
the effect that the site is suitable For
the proposed use
or uses (subject to
condition'sif necessary).
Mr
Richard
Gral~am
of Sinclair
Knight Men
was
engaged as
the
auditor ill
November 2002 for
this purpose.
Previous Assessment, Remediation and Audit

Prior to divestment, Tclstra

undertook
a process ~f
site clearance, demoIition
and
remediation,
site contamination assessnlent
and Validation (by
consultants CWM
Will
and others) and a statutory
environmental
audit (by Dt
Wave
Drew
of
Egis
Consulting)
aver the period 1998-2002.
This process is described in a series of reports
by CH2M
Hill (1
999-2002) and Bgis
Consulting (May 2002).

The outcome of this process was confinnation

by the auditor (Dr
Drew) that the site is
suitable
for high density residential, commercial or ind~~strial
use,
subject to
a number
of conditions
on
site deveIapment
and management,principally dated
to the
presence
of nsbestos
residues
and possibly pyrotechi~ics
and
uexploded
clrdllance
(WXO)
items
on the
site.

SpecifimIly,
the auditor requited
that a layer
of 0.3m
of
clean soil bct
placed over the
site prior
to development, and increased in depth to a minimum O.5m
and maintained
in exposed soil areas post-development. The
purpose of this clem
soil layer was to
provide an
effective barrier over soil potentially containing
asbestos fragments and
UXO
resjducs,
and specifically to comply with the
adopted "no visible asbestos"
requirement. The auditor also required that construction
and
fiiture
rise
bc
managed
in
accordance with Environmental Management Plans (EblPs)
respectively for
the
site

F.,,."
,a**N*..,w.%*-.,'.,,,
.... *,..
. h.... ... L*,-
m-,."---,--.*.+.-.--.-
m+----
-~,..~.".~..--.~~,~-""--."

---.L*.)..
b."*-+...,.---,-.."

---.

WC02362:ROl
f?AGCCGS.DOC
PAGE 4
construction
and future site use stages. These
EMPs
were prepared by CH2M
Hill
and '
endursed
by
Dr
Drew. The EMPs
(among other things) provided controls over
dist~~rbance

ofsoils below the clean surface layer, procedures for the safe handling
and
disposal ofasbestos or
UXQ
in the event that sucb
materials are uncovered on the site
and
EMP
imple~~~entatiun

though a:
body corporate or similar armngement.

It
is noted that the actual nature of the development was not h~.owh
at that
time,
and
the audit did not address &c
suitability or otherwise af
the site for
low
or medium
density residential or upm
space uses (the uses now proposed). Even if the
audit
outcome
were to be applied to the proposed development, ~~Jenninffs

and Coomes
Consulting consider that some
of the audit requirements
are
impractical
and
inappropriate.
The
present re-audit of the site was therefore intended to
result
in the
issue OF
an~tl~er
Audit which' is

audit report md
Statement af Environmental
compatible with
the
proposed
site develupmnt
and
long-term tnanagement.
The
EMPs
were alw
to be revised
accordingly.

.:

. ..

. . .

~ev/ew&f
Site ~ssessmentand
. .
.
'
.
.

Audit Reports.
::

hi
present
auditor has reviewed
the available relevant reports
describing the staged
site' investigations, ren-iediation,
validation and
audit
which were undertaken fur
Telstra
over
the
period 1
998-2002,
specifically the assmsment
and remediation reports
by consulianls
CH2M
Hill (1999-2002),
bXQ
consuItants/contractors
Milsearclh

(200U),

asbestos consultants/conatrs
Harris
Asbestos Management Consultants
(200U)
and envii-onmen
tal auditor Dr
Wayne
Drew of Egis
Consulting (May
2002).
,

. . . . . . .

.'
.:..
. . . .
~asih
on this review,,the
process appears to
l~ave
be&
conducted
and &umented
in

. ,.'+
. -.
. . ith6rough:'wd
pmfessional
manner, in accordance with current gbod
practice and

I.
.

reikvah.
legislation, standards, policies
and guidelines. Properly qualified and

i~~&i~~edcorisultant~con~a~tors

were engaged for

the specinlist
roles df
asbestos
and UXO
investigation and management. The auditor was involved from
early
in fhe
process (October 1
998),
and his requirements have been satisfactorily met-
Accordingly, ihe
present auditor is confident
that the data and information presented
in the
available reports is reliable
for the
burposc
of this
further audit
of the site
(subject to cllanges
in site
conditions or environmental standards which may hove
crcc~~ned

in the periud
which
has elapsed since completion af
the earlier audit in May

2002).
. ,

Outline,'uf
Key Issues

Asbestos Residues

The mast significant contamination issue 1-elnajning

on the site is that of asbestos
residues
on the site s~lrf'ace
anhr
]in
the
sail profife.
Asbestos residues
are present
l)seduminantly
in the EOMI
of Frrgn.lmts
or small
pieces of asbestos-cemeht
(bonded
asbestos) sheeting
or
pipes, wllich
remain from
the historical or recent demolition
of
buildings and other
struchres
on the site.

Although extensive clean-up of

waste deposits, fit1
or soil containing asbestos residues
has been undertaken, the final. site validation
in mid-2000 found that same
asbestos
residues
remain
on
the site surface or embedded in near-surfacesoils randomly across
much of
the site
[mainly
thc
northern
half, referred to as Lot 2).
A higher
concentration
of asbestos sesidues
was reported to remain in the south-west tip site

, ....._.
-..-
-_I_.-
*--.--
,--~-,V--TP~.U
r---.r..*r.
*.-m,.-
-S.
.,
....
.-...-.P
-.
r
..
-.+
--A
..r
.,v+-
-.,.-.,-c--.
.,
--,,.,,.
.-.--,
..*,
,--.-r
.*-.

WC02362:ROf
PAGCCG3.DpC
PAGE S

..,.
-.
..
..
area
(SWTSA) in the sout11-west
corner of Lot 2, where
they are lodged within basalt
rocksand could not pmctica2ly
be ren~oved.

Overall, the
final
validation results (before
backfilling
of some areas) suggest that
there is
a low density of about one visible asbestos-cement hgment
per 10-100ir?
cf
site area.
Inspections of the walls
of test pits across the site during the stages cif
validation testing did not
report
any visible
asbestos fi-agn~a-its
below
the
si
tr:
surface
layer, nor did laboratory analysis of soil samples from
validation test pits detect
asbestos fibres in
soil. These findings indicate
that asbestos material
is generally ugly
present in the form
of asbestos-cement fragments scattered across the soil surface and
embedded
in
the
top Xayer
of soil. This asbestos material does not
present a significnnt
actual
health
risk, except in the extremely ~~nlikely

event that
the bonded
asbestus'
cement
material is eroded or broken up to
release asbestos fibres into the
air, which
are
then inhaled in significant numbers..
....

. .

...

..

. .
Quantification of
asbestos cbncentratidn
in soil
reported that no area
contained
more
than 0.0001%
asbestos, other
than th
SWTSA
which:
contained about
0.000f.
-

0.0002% asbestos. No airborne

fibres were detected
by air quality
monitoring during

the
remediation
and assessment program.

The extensive remediation

program
gives a high degree of
co&dence
that
no
sjgnificsmt
undiscovered waste deposits containing asbestos tnaterial
remain
on the
. $it&.';
Remediation and investigation .to the site boundary
showed
that asbestos
. . finyients
remain present in soils off-site, particularly to the south and south-west.

. . . ,

.
j
t.
, .

. . S
.

.
:
....... .......
to
ketemi~le
the acceptability
or otherwise of tl,e
final site conditions,tile

. ...
In'
order
. : :
previous:,
auditor, Dr
Drew, considered relevant guidelines and advice.fbm
the

. ,

regil1aibr-y'
authorities, specifically the
Victorian Department of' Human Servites'
.
(which was endorsed by
the EPA).
The key guidefines
reconmended
by DHS
to be
met for
this site aye:
. .
U
No visible bbestos
material is to be present on site (nominally in the top one
1riet1.e)
to give confidence that
no asbestas
material is uncovered by residents
during day-to-day gardening activities
on standard residential sites. Other
pote1'1tia31y
exposed
persons or groups,
including construction workers, are to be -
protected by appropriate
standards .
n
The
estimated asbestos in soif
concentration
of. ~0.0001%
is considered
conservative, as it
represents a safety factor of fOx
on
available guibmce
levels.
.

To
implement these guidelines through
the conditions of a Staten~ent
of
E~~vironrnental
Audit and a site Constcuction
Environmental Management Plan, Dr
Drew
required a layer of cfean
soil to be placed and
maintained over the
site
surface as
the means of
preventing
discovery
of visible asbestos
illaterid
by site occupmts.

The presait
auditor bndntook
a further
site conditio~~s

verification program in May

2003, which
included inspection of
the site surface and subs~rfiacc
at 20 test pits
excavated
at selected locations across the
sik.
Asbestos-cement pieces were found m
the site surface
in the southern
part of Lot 2, but
no visible asbestos was identified
beneath ihe
surface in any test pit, and lnboratory
analysis did not detect asbestos
fibres inhriy
of the 17
soil samples analysed.

....l....,..
+..-.rr..--
...........
*-.---
x--
ru=-*l....rrrrr-Cpc-u
......I
r-,,u*MY.,IL,w,w..~'C1
.,.+"1I._i.^Lr-*-
rl.U*.*,-.C"CI*

"r<--V.y---..
llr**,.",*).irr
a

WCD2362:ROI
RAGCCG3.DOC
PAGE6
In
addition,
no asbestos residues
were reported
during the
environmental assessment
of
the fibw
optic cabte
easement
in May 2005.

Pyrotechnics and UXO

Resldues

The site was formerly

used for
the assembly of pryotechi~s
devices. The site history
information indicates that
the explosives used in these devices
were
manufactured
elsewl~ere,
but
wastes or
surplus
productiui~
items
were
likelyto have been disposed of
(by
burial or b~~ming)

on.
Zl1e
site or on
adjacent Iand.
Thk
site potentidly
contains
residues of these
pyrotechnics devices oi*
explosive
material
(collectiLely
referred
to as
. UXU)
which required identificatiun
and clearance by removal
to render
the site safe
for future develapment
and use.

A comprehensive and staged UXO

survey and remediation
program was undertaken
'by
specialists Milsearcb
in 1999-2000,
based
on a site-wide geophysical
(electromagnetic) survey, excavation of identified targets
(potential UXO)
ad
their
removal
from
the site.
Very few actual
UXO
w
UXO-related
items were discovered.
Twoitems contaixsing
live esplosive
crmtnt,
incfudiag
one Iivc
2" mortar bomb, were
found
and removed, as well as a nuinber
of not%-hazarclous
items such
as
small
anns
stmmuni
tion
ar
casings.

Following the completion

of Be
survey and clean-up, Milsearch
certified (to a
confidmce
level
of 99.97%) that
the;
site is free
of UIYO
or related items to specified
depths between
220 and 425mm
depending on
the size of the
potential item.
The
previous auditor (Dr
Drew) accepted that the
UXO
removal was
completed in
accordance with
best
practice
and concluded
that
tI1a-e
was a very
low risk that
significant
UXO-related
item5
remain on
the site.

. .

The hi$h'pressure
gas pipeline and fibre optic cable
casements
within the audit
site
boundaries were
not surveyed or cleared for UXO
prior to
the completion of the 2002
audit,
and'so
the certification given
by Milsearch did not apply to these casements.
Fallowing
removal
of the
fibre
optic cables from thr:
casement
in the
south-enstern
area
ofthe site in early
2005, Milsearch ~~ndertook

UXQ
clearance
of
this easement
in
ader
for a soil sampling program
to proceed.
No UXO-rclated
items were reported,
5011
Contamination

The
assessment and past-remediation validation program by CW2M
Hill included
comprehensive testing
of site soils for
chemical conttuniz~aticsn,
including an
appropriate range
of
potential inorganicand organic contaminants,

The
auditor confirmed that no contaminants we
present in site soils at concentrations
which pose sipificant
risks to
human
health or the environment under any of the
site
uses
for
which #be
Statement of Environmental Audit applied, tl~at
is high
density
residentiai,
commercial or
indus&ial
use. Minor cxceedences
of eculrtgical
investigation levels for
some
rnctal$metalloids
were not coasjdesed
significant. No
explosive residuts
were detected
in any sample analysed.

The
pyesent
auditor's review of the previous data and reports indicates;
that the sm
concIusion
may be reached for IOW
or
medium density residential or .open
spacehecreation
land
uses, as proposed by AVJennirigs-
To confirm this conclusion, a
furth$s
site
soif.
quality verification progran1
was conducted by the present
env,irunmental
auditor and support staff from
Sinclair
Knight Men
in May 2003.

. ..,,
".\-r...-5--.,--?.--..,.-,.~
-"--l
*Ir.-.-"--.*.-l..-,--..~
^.,*..*..YTf_.w,.*,.y,*~,~"-,+."%.,.*-*
C,
1.
..

-....,*S
"..N...*.
.?.,
-*,.,-
,,-,,,
>r-,.L
*..,-
--.
. ..,-.

WC02362:RUl
RAGCCG3,DOC
PAGE 7
from
20 test pits excavated across the
site did not find any
si~ificant
soil contzrmiqation,
and the auditor concludes
that soil contaminant
concentrations
dc,
not present
a signjfica~zt
risk to 11uman
health or the envhnrnet~t
under any feasible future site use.

Environmental
assessment of the fumer
fibi-t
optic
cable easement
in May 2005
reported similar
uncontaminated conditions in .fill
and natural
soils. The auditor
tl~erefore
makes the
same conclusion in relation
to this casement.

Groundwater
Contamf
nation

Groundwater
at the site was investigated by CH2M
Hill by installation
and n~onituring
of five groundwater
bores in
2000-2001.
The
watertable
is at a considerabIe
depth of
>30m
and
there were few
potential sources
af
groundwater
contamination
at the site.
Based on the
findings of the @-uundwrate~
investigation, tb
previous auditor
concluded that the groundwater
at
the site is not contaminated Trom
any
past site use
or activity.
Cmei~hati~lls

of
sonic
metals
(arsenic, ,copper,
lead,
nickel
and zinc)
exceeded surface water
ecosyste11-1
protection
guidelines, but are attributable
to
naturally-occurring levels in the basalt aquifer,

The present
auditor endorses
these conclusions and did not require
further
poundwater
investigation or remediation.

Aesthetic
Conditions

The' demonstrated presence of residual asbestos-cement pieces on the site is

cbnxidered
to be an aesthetic constraint on the future
site use. Future residents may
be
:
concerned at
the potential for adverse health
effects in
the event that asbestos-
containing
material
is discovered during site activities such as gardening, not
withstanding that the actual
health risk would
be negligible. The
manageinent
measures prop~sed
to
he
implemented tl~o11g11
are designed to
the
cohstntction
EMP
reduce the risk of discovery of asbestos to
acceptably low levels.
As part
ofthe future
site managen~ent,
information will also
be provided in a future
use EMP
to future
landowners and ofher
site users on the risks of asbestos and other potentially
hezardous
materials which may
be encountered
on the
site,
which wilI
assist in putting
any aesthetic concerns into
context,

The
site contains
the u~ldergound
concrete
conduit fomterly
containing the fibre optic
cables,
and a concrete
slab at i
.5m
depth in the central-eastern part of Lot 1, under
which
some stained and
slightly odorous
soil
remains. Minor amounts of demolition
debris (including biick,
concrete, metal, plastic
and wire
remain On
the site
or
embedded
in site soils. These conditions
will
be addressed during the site
development. Tilere
are; no
other significant aesthetic
concerns
on the
site. .
Management of Health, Amenity and Environmental Risks

The present a~~ditor

has considered the

available information on site conditions and the
potential
for adverse effects oh
human health,
the amenity of future site occupantsand
on the environment, and is ofthe upinion
that the significant
issuesare c~nfi~t(3d

to
the
presence of residual asbestos and (to a lesser extent) possible UXO
residues
and the
aesthetic cand.-tion
of the
site due to other remiant
items from
past site
uses or
demolition.

W-.
..,.
..
.... '".-
---W...
.*,.,.h.--
.-y
r.
S.,
. 4,.
..I..*
.II,*.rn-'
.TA-&*&.
, 4.
*--c,,
, m-..*rtr.+.-.c,.
.re,
,--r-..*r,r

'"1.
'-_~-l,,

..M*
--.m.rrr
.',
-.-

MIC02362:ROl
~GCCG3.DM;
PAGE 8
his
opinion, will
provide a suitably high
level
of risk
mmiagement
wit11
respect to asbestos residues. Tltese
guidelines and t11e
options for complimce
wit11
them
are described in this audit report and summa~ised
below:

D
A quantitative guideline of
<0.0001%
asbestos
in
soil has been de~~~anstrated

to
be met
on the site
in its current
condition, otl~er
th
potentiallyin the
~0~1th-west
area
of
Lot
2, where firtwe
placement of a clean soil
layer will
have
the
effect at'
achieving this guidance level
ir.1
the surface soil layer.

o
No visible
asbestos is to remain or be
present in the top
one metre
of soil 011
~rnpaved
areas of standard residential
land (residential lots ofarea X
00n12).
This
condition may be met in a number
of ways, at the discretion of ihe
developer.

These options include by excavation

to a clem
undisturbed
natura'i
soil
surface, or

by placement of thespecified depth

of clean fill or
tupsoiI
m
the
site. .It
is noted

that some areas bf

the
site already have
a clean fill
layer
of varying depths, which

may comply with

this guideline.
. .

o
No visible asbestos is to remain
or be
in the top 0.5m
of soil on
unpaved

areas of medium
or high
density residential land (lots
of area <300m2).
The
redi~ced
depth requirement is consistent with the reduced opportunity for
exposure: of soils
to
depth during
landscslpil~g
or other activities
in smafl
wurtyard-type
private
gardens on higher
density dwelli~lgs.
The
options
.hr.
compliance are simi
br
to those. outli
ned
above for
standard residential lots.

Public
open space or secreation
nn?u
are to have
a cleari
soil cover, with no

. visible asbestos, of
at last
O.Sm.
Excavation to
beyond this depth.which
may e

. . occur inpost-development landscape

activities will be
cbnducted
by Council staff

:.
+
'

or
coi-hctors,
who will be provided
with
npprbpriaie
advice in regard to
risks .

and
response
in the event that asbestos residues
ore
found:

Paved
roadways
and similar
do not require additional constxr~ctlon
or
management controls, such PS clean soil
placement,
prior to cbnstxuction.
Irnplemcntation
of these guidelines will have the effect or
Furtl~er
reducing the
already
very
low
risks of
disco~cry
of UXO
residues, shauf
d any
remain
on
the 'land. In any
areas
where excavation to a clcan,
undisturbed natural
soil surface takes place, fhese
~isk$
would
be
~onsidered~to

be effectively
removed.

Conclusions and Statement of Environmental Audit

The aitditor
is of
the opinion
that
the
risks to the safe future
site development and
use
from
the presence
of ask~tus
residues are low, but justify the issue of a conditional
Staten~ent
of'Environmenta1
Audit rather thm
an
unconditional Certificate
of
Enviroomentol~
Audit. The risks assooiated
with asbestos and other potentially

,
hazardous dterials
which
may ~enlain
on site should bc
addressed by site
makagement
controls
during both the development construction
stage (in accardancc
wikh
an appropriate Construction EMP),
and future
site use
(by means of a future use
EMP
to inforin
site owners and users). These EMPs
witl
be given effect
tlro~tgh
section 173 agreemelts
between the
responsible planning authority and
the developer
and
fir
ture
oivnefs,
occupiersand semi
cing
authox-ities
or their
conbactors.

After considering thd

issues described in this
audit rqo&
and having
prepared this
audit report in accordince
with
Section 53X
of the
Environment Protection
Act 1970,

...--.
a...
-<-..',-;Px..'-~-~~Ps.~'Y--.*,C-.

. ,...*--r-r.-*'.
-C.-....r*-r.v,-r~..C-r"rr.--.:r..-r.a,."
.,.,,
ii
i.:,i.-C.~C.L..,* >*
.-....I
<v...,',-
VL~C~~~C~~:RO?RAGCCG~.DOQ
PAGE B

*,:
....*..-.--....
.-r
envir011rnenta'I
auditar
is of the opini~n
that the site subject to thrs
audit is
detrim'ental
or potentially detrimental to some beneficial uses of the site. Accordingly,
the auditor has
not issued a Certificate of
EnvironnzenhI
Audit for this
site.

The auditor has issued a Statement

ofEnvironmental Audit in accordance with Section
532 of the Act. The Statement confirms that the
site is suitable
for the beneficial uses
associated
with the land uses of sensitive (all
firms
of residential), public upen
space,
cumercial
w
industrial,
subject
to conditions
related to the management
or
residual
asbestos on or in site soils.

The Statement of
Envkonmentsll
Audit is attached
to this audit report (following
Section 7).

Environmental Management Plans

The health,
amenity and e11v
ironmental
risks identified and discussed above
require
management
during and a.k
develcrpment
of the
site. The proposed
ineans
of risk

management is through a two-stage environmental management process:

(a)
a Conshuctiun
Bnvironmemtal
Management Plan
which will identify
ttzc
relevant
issues and
risks, and
provide measures :for
the management of these
risks during
the site construction phase, so that the development may proceed without
un~cceptnble
risks to the
health or amenity of workers and future site occupants;
and :
.
(b)
a future use Envimnniental
Management
Plan, which will
provide advice on site
.
. conditions
and appropriate response md
site management measures ta
be followed
in
the
eeent
that asbestos material
or UXO
debris
is discovered on site.

The previous
audit (Egis
2002)
adopted this approach, and two EMPs
were
prepared,.
and re�en-ed
to in the
Statenlent
of Environmental Audit, . for respectively the
consb-uction
stage of the
development (CW2M
Hill
2002b)
and the
fiztul-e
site
use
(CH2M
Hill
2002~3,

The
objectives of the
two
EMPs
are u~~tlined

bdow.

Thc:
present auditor
is of the opinioil
that the risks of discovery of and harm fiom
potentially hazardous materials wilt
be primarily and effectively addxessed
though a

C~i~struction

EMF,
which
will provide environmental mmagement
measures
for the
initial site constmction
by AVJennings,
its
contractors and
servicing authorities. It
is
anticipated (but
not confimed)
that AVJennings
and
its contractors will'undertake
all
site devel
apment
works, inc
tuding
ea~thwurlcs,
site level
modi
ficatiorl
(cut or fill),
services
installation and road construction (but not individual house construction).
This approach
is
considered to have the advantageof alloxving
a high degree
of control
over soil placement, site levels, management
6f
contaminated
soils (if any) and
response to environmental issues
which may arise.

A revised Consfruct.io~~

EMP has been prepared for AVJei~nings

by CH2M
Hill
(October 20051,
and reviewed and approved by the auditor.
The Cmstructlon
EMP is
attached as Appendix I to this audit report.

It is also recognised that

subsequent works by builders, servicing authorities and
landu\mers
or occtlpants
may involve excavation to depths
of potential
concern (one
metre
ur
more in
standard residential land
and O.Sm
or more
in medium or
high
density
residential, commercial or industrial land, on areas ~vberr:
there is some
potential for
asbestos
or WXO
residues to remain),
for
example for
constructio~~

of
swimming
pools, cellars

basements,
m foundations for
structurtes.
It
is appropriate
that these parties be advised of the Oow)
potential for discovery of asbestos or
UXO
residues, and the procedures to
follow
in the
event of such
discove~y.
It is
proposed
that
this
advice be given through a future use E~~vironmental
Management Plan,
which will provide lmdowners
with information
on site conditions, risks
and
responses in the event of discovery of waste residues on
the
site. AVJennings
has
prepared a revised future
use EMP (C.oomes
Consulting Group, October 2005) \vhich
has been reviewed and approved by the auditor. A copy of the future use:
EMP is
atbched
in Appendix 1
of
this
audit report.
The
Maribymong
City Council
proposes
to enter inkto
agreements in
accordatice
with
section 273
of the Planning and
Entfiranment
Act. 1987,
with
the
currmf
site owner
(AVJennings)
and future
landowners,
to give effect to the environmental
management
plans far site development and
future use.
EMRONMENT
PROmCTIUN
ACT 1970

STATEMENT OF EN~ONM]ENTAX(
AUDIT

I,
RlCHARD
ALnN
GMAM
of
Wail-
bight
Merz,
590
Orrong
Road,
hdale,
Victoria 3143, a person
appointed by the Environment Protection Authority
CLthe
Authority")
under the Environment Protection
Act 1970
("the
Act") as an
environmentall
auditor for the purposes of the Act, having:-

I)
been requested by Mr
Mark Roberts
of Coomes
ConsultingGroup Pty
Ltd,
acting
on behalf of AVJennings
Limited, to issue a Certificate of Environn~ental
Audit
in relation
to
the site located at
3 1
Hampstead Road, Maidstone, Victoria, 3012,
being the site defined
by Certificate of Title Vol 10580 Fol422,
and being
Lot A
on Plan of Subdivision PS 443690Y
("the site"), as
shown
on the attached site
plan,
owned and occupied by AVJennings
Limited;

2)
had regard to, among
other
things, -

a)
guidelines issued by tlie
Authority for the
purposes of Part UCJ>
of the;
Act;

b)
the beneficial
uses that may
be made of the
site; and

c)
relevant
State en?lironimnt
protection
polieiedindustrial
ivaste
management
policies, namely the
State environment protection
policies for
tbe
Prmntion
and Management
of Co~~tamination

of Land, VCTaters
of Victoria,
Groundwaters
of Victoria, Ambient Air Quality
and Air Quality
Management, and the industrial
waste management policy for Prescribed
Industrial Waste,

in making a tatal
assessment
of the nature
and extent of any harm
or
detriment
caused to, or
the
risk of any possible hamr
or
dch-imnent
which
may be caused to,
any beneficial
use
made of
the
site by any industrial processes or activity, waste
or substance (including any chemical substance); ancl

completed an envlr~nmerttal
audit
report in accordance wit11
Section 53X of the
Act, a copy of which
has
been sent
to ffle
Authority and the relevant planningand
responsible authority.
IWWY
STATE that I am
of the opinion that:

The site (excluding the gas pipeline easelnent

shown
as Area 2 on the attachedsite
plan
and referred to in Other Related
Information
below) is suitable .for
the beileficial
uses
associated wit11
theland usm of standard sensitive (residential), high density
sensitive (residential), recreationlopen
space, com~ercial
and industrial, subjectto the
fo
tlo~ving
cm$iti
ans:

a)
During site development and priorto occup~tfon
of the site for the specified futui'~r
land
uses, the
developer shall
provide a minin~um
depth of clean soil
or fill, free
of
visibfe
asbestos
~sidues,
on
afE
areas of the site 'whicl~
are to be unsealed
residential gardens, recreational open space:
or
landscaped areas in comnzercial
or
industrial lots, as follows:

.-..,l-
-r--.n..
-r
.,+.-.r-r**CI

.-
wc.1
...rrr
.urr.^rrr*r-.<..,Cr
...>A
u-
i
A.-.-r-er..
C..
+._rrr*
,u-
..-.-"..,#-.P.
..X.....
C'*.
C^,*"
1
h?,.">*^
--.U-*---..
..... '*,
*.--

WC02362;
R01
RATG3.DOC
PAGE57
(i)
minimum 1.0 meke
on
standard rresidential
lots of lot area 300 rn2
a
greater
(ii)
minimum 0.5 metre on medium or high density residential lots
of lot area
less than 300 m2
(iii)
minimum0.5 metre on (unsealed) public open space areas
(iii)
minimum 0.5 metre on (unsealed) landscaped areas in
commercial or
industrid
tots.
Condition a) may be complied with by one or more of the following
means:
(i)
excavation
of soil which potentially contains
asbestos residws
to
the
mdcrlying
clean undisturbed natural soil
surface
(ii)
placement of clean soil or fill to achieve the specified depth of clean
rnatexial
(iii)
confirmation that a layer of clean soil or fill
is present over the
depth
~ntewa't
which
potentiallycontains asbestosresidues, OS
(iv)
confirmation
that the existing surface is clean undisturbed +qatural
soil
which
is free from
visible asbestos residues.
The
selection of n
conlpliance
option or options is at the
discretion
of the

developer. Works for implementationof the preferred compliance option shall be

in accordance with the Conshuction

Environmental Management Plan for the site
developmentreferred to in Condition d) below. .

c)
The developrne~lt
and future
use of the site shall
be subject to tile
folollowing
control S:

Development of the
site sllall
be subject to an agreement
between the
developer (AVJennings
or subsequent owner/developer)
and the
responsible
planning authority under section
173 of the Planning and Environment Act
1987
(or altemetive
mechanism at
the
discretion of the planning
authority),
which will
give effect to
the requirements of this
Statement ofEnvironmental
Audit, and in particular place obligations on.the developer to implement the
actions
specified in Conditious
a) and b)
above through
a Construction
~nvironmental
Management Plan, as referred to
in Condition
d)
below.

site In particular, the agreement

will placo
obligatio~~s
landowners and occupiers of potentially
affected areas(as defmed
in condition
g)
below) to manage the site in accordance with an Environmental
Management Plan for future site use (as referred to in Condition g}
bebelow),
which will provide information on past site uses and present site conditions,
and advice on fhe
appropriate response in
the
event
that asbestos or UXO
residue is found on the site.

Use of the land in the future (postdevelopment)

shall be subject to an
agreement between landowners and the responsible planning authoriy
under
section 173
of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (or
alternative
mechanism at the
discretion of the planning authority), which will give effect
to the requirements
of this Statement of
Environmental
Audit relevant to
f~~fwe
use. on

d) The site development .must

be
undertaken in wcwdanee
with tl~e
Constructign
. Enviranrnental
Management Plm
(EW)
wbich
is attached to the environmental
audit report of which this
Statement of Enviro~~mnenhl

Audit is part (Reference:

*--W+*.,

. .,..

----""d*"-*-b"

.*--
."8-%,-
--"&--","..4
->*..
..*.,+&.+..A
..W.-!
.-+."->-,,,.",v,..---c.-
"*'.,-a
.*..,,
-.*,'+*~-.-*"
,v-T.

-.-.
"&..,,,"."--+,*

WGD2362:RO-I
RAGCCGB.DQC
PACE 58
CH2M
Hill (2005). Foime~
TeIstra
Sire, 31 Road
Maidstone,

HDI~~S~EW~
ficloiin.
Consd~~rcthn
~azmgen~en
The site owner,

E?zvir*~~~marttnl
t
Plan).

developer,and contractors engaged by those parties are responsible for

the
implementation
of
the Construction
EMP.

e)
Prior to commen~emmf
of developlnent
works on the site, m
EPA-appointed
en~ironmenfal
auditor must
be engaged
to observe, verify
and confirm in writing

that
the Construction EMP (as relevant to site contamination)
is properly

implementad
to the
satisfaction of the
auditar.
Tl~e
auditor shall undertake this
responsibility during
and up to the %me
of completion
of the site development
stage
when responsibility
for development land
will be assumed by future
ownersbuilders
(or others) and for road casements
and open space areas by the
Maribymong
City Coullcil
(OF
others).

f)
The devteiupment
work
at the site
boundaries
is to be managed so that: site
occupants and other users do not cm
into
contact with potentially contaminated
soil
beyond tile
site boundaries, and
o.ff-site
soil does not contaminate the stite
subject to this
audit.

g}
Use of the fancl
in that
area
of the site iu
which
there is potential for
asbestos or
UXO
residues
to remain after
site development has been undertaken in
accordance wit11
Conditiions
a),
b) and
d)
above (the
"putentiaTly.
affected area")
shall be subject to the future
use Environmental Management
Plan (Em)
which
is attached
to the environmental audit report of which
this
Statement is part
{Reference: Comes
Consulting Group (20
05). I;zt~nre
Uva
2?tzvit-o~lincn~a?
Ilfanagemozt
Phn:
Mnidslowe
Residerrtial
and
Service
Atit/~oirilies.

The condition of the site is detrimental or potentially

detirnental
to
any (anc
or more)
beneficial uses of
the site. Accordingly, X have
not
isstied
a Certificate of
Environmental Audit: for the site in
its current
canditioa,
the
reasons for
which are
presented in the envirunmentriil
audit report.
The
tcims
aad
conditions
that need
to be
complied i.th
before
a Certificate of Enviroqmental
Audit may be issued are set out
as follows:

a)
Site soils to
a depth
confirmed as undisturbed natural
sail
or rock, including soil
between
rocks,
must
be removed or cleaned
up fo
remove any remaining visible
asbestos resid~~es,

b)
Toensure that no aesthetic constraintson any
site use ramin,
potentially
offensive or objectionable demolition debris and any soil containing odours or
staining whichisderived from
contaminationare to
be removed
from
the:
site.

Other Related Information:

The site subject to
this audit has been subject to
a previous environmental audit, with
the
&iue
of an environmental audit report
and Statement of Environmental Audit
(Reference:
Dr
Wayne
Drew of Egis Consulting
(May
2002). Envil-utzrneMial
Azrdit:
Mrrid~ne
Laboratory,
Hanlpstend
Road, MMaidsto~ze,
Victoria).
That audit report and

suppodg
documents should be referred to for information
relevant to this present
audit report.
The outcome of this present
audit differs
insome respects
to
the
outcome
of tlzt:
May
2002 audit, for
the
reasonsexplainedin this audit report.

-,.-"-r-...,.r
."crC,-.-,..-c-..~*..*~.--ce-*%w*~~-r..-."
..t.-*ru
,*
.,
-.,
, ,.L-
.I..,
**.-C(^..
--.".-v-.
v--m-*-,
I.*.--y~.~--~.*-w,~>-,-NCC'

WC02362:RQ1RAGCCG3.DOC
PAGE
50
eorn
the site during site development, and which contains or
potentially contains
asbestos residues,
Inay
be
reused on the site beneath concrete
building
slabs or
roadways
or ather
permanentpavementsor alternatively
disposed off
site in accordam
with relevant Authority guidelines and policies.

The site contains a high pressure gas pipdine

emenzent
shown
as Area 2 on the
attached site plaa.
The land within this emaent
has lot
been assessed or remediated
fur asbestos, unexploded
ordnance or
~he~nical

contamination
of soils, and so
calznot
be cohed
as suitable for any beneficial
use in its
present
condition, or included in
the area
subject to
this Statement. Before
this easement
nrea
can be considered to be
suitable fur one
or
more beneficial uses,
it must be assessed, and (if necessary)
remediated
and validated
to
a standard consistent with
protection of those uses. This
easement
area
may be
subject to a hrther
cnvimnxmial
audit at the
discretion of
the
responsible planning authority.

This Statement
foms
part of the envi~onrnental
audit repart
prepared by.Sinclair
Knight Men
Pty
Ltd
for
AVJennings
Limited, Report of
E?~vt'ro~tr~ze~zlat

Azrdit:
31

Hanpstend
Road,
&!dslone.
Sinclair
Knight Ret
WC02362,
November 2005.
Further details regarding the condition of the site may
be found in the environnlental
audit report.

7r/

2o-e:r-

DATED: ..............
.....Q
.*.....
..
........*.........

SIGNED: ...........
. -. .

Y
W

R A Graham
Environmental Auditor
(appointed
pursuant
to the Envii-onn~ent
Protection Act 1970)

r..."r..r."-T
..... -..-lI."".l.-,-&.l*-,a.I.
...... .-4"~-.",I-411YU_.*h-X
4--
4.-
W.-*>
..-
................... .....

. --.".
I.-rrX.a*Y.
"-....--U-*.-.-
+,.,'&".,"

WC02362;RO
t
RAGCCG3.DOC
PAGE f%
z
0
Site Audit Area
31 Hampstead Road, Maidstone . I Attachment to
statement
of Environmental Audit
$KM
Ref. WC02362,
November 2005 l
89'12'kO"

AREA 2

S
LEGEND
AREA
1
AREA
2
AREA
3
ul

yr

PJ

yr
=?

P
5

S8'5D'l
U''

----.W-

33 -!

4
N

0.
I
P
W

I:
m:$

elm

17

LOT A
ON
PS443690Y
9*7'85ha
I
I
TELSTRA
COMMUN1CATIQNS
TOWER &
ANCILLARY
SUILDlNG
I'
N
a9*1;3~
4
.O
I 157.06
1
AREA g&I
3, ex,
'&g,,.
QW
C
LY
~J7.7~
hJ
---;-Ej
4.
I??
60
116-99
C
Zb9'19'40"
L
g
W "2
0%
ALMER ;
13c:
E--
STREET I-
7
W
V1
tT
z
d
3
l
Cr:
177.35
269'58'4
0'
LAM5
CoHTAtNING
UNOERGROUND
QPTiCAL
FIBRE
IWiDTli
1
METRE1
LANQ
CONTAlNLVG
HIGH
PRESSURE
GAS MAM (WiOTH
6
METRES)
SOUTH
WEST TIP
SITE
~ERLVED
FROM
INFORMATION
2b7-16'
f
PRQVIDEO
BY CH?#
NIL1
AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
1
3.02
A

4 ..

,+:gigg+,+*
Former ~elstri
Experimental

-**+*.)*++.+*r,i?
S*+.++*+-
Fisher Stewar
t
-
LaboratoryCornpiex

*+G**
sumay
&
Mapping Gmup
31 Hampstread
Road, Maidstone
Melbourne

Tell3517
9213
Plan of Sunrey
ShowSng
Areas 1,2
&
3

Drawing No. 0499005103 Rev C

Sheet No. l
01
1
90Q6-03.dqn

@
Flrtwr
Slwrpt
ABM
Ui
oD7
015 %5
A3

Scale
AV Jennings
AV 6 September2006
3 1 Hampstead Road, Maidstone, Victoria
APPENDIX D

APPENDIX D

Diornides & Associates (2006a)

Soil Contamination Assessment,
Gas Easement
Area, 31 Hampstead
Road, Maidstone,
Victoria ( ref
:
DAI
2551 CD1 11
5,19
April 2006)

Letter to Mr Phillip Hitchcock of Environ Australia Pty

Ltd
from Mr
Stephen
Diomides of Diomides &
Associates Pty Ltd titled 'RE:
Response to Phillip Hitchock's Email
of June 73, 2006,
Property:
Gas Easement area -31
Hampstead
Road,
Maidstone: dated 21
June 2006
(ref:
DAI
25)

Letter to Mr Phillip Hitchcock of Environ Australia Pty Ltd from Mr

Michael B. Ransom of Milsearch
Pty Ltd titled 'Certificate of UXO
Clearance

Maidstone
Gas Easement', dated 26 June 2006

S:\EnvironUobs\Coo~tlbes
-Maidstone
-32-001SUleports\j2.0018
-Environmental Audil
Report
for 31 Hampstead
Rond,
Maidstone.
\'lctoria
finul.doc
EhT'IRON
April 19,2006 ii.
DlOMlDES
April 19,2006 ii.
& ASSOCiATES
PTY LTD
Environmental
Consultants
JOB:
31 Hampstead R&,
Maidstone,Victoria
.-*"-.."..-.---.-..-.--a.-
JOB No DA 1255
DATE: April, 2006

LIST OF TABLES
Tabfe 1
Potential Contaminants of Interest
Table2 Details of Composite Soil Samples
Table 3 Range and Number of Chemical Analyses Performed
LIST
OF FIGURES
Figurel Locality Plan
Figure 2 Site Plan
LIST
OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A Land Victoria Property Report
APPENDIX B Test Pit Logs
APPENDIX C Summary of Soil Laboratory Results
APPENDtX
D Laboratory Reports for Soil Samples

I
LOCALIN
PLAN I
I
FIGURE?

DIOMIDES
&
ASSOCIATES PTY LTD
April 19,2006 1.
April 19,2006 DAl255/CD1115

1.0
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of a soil contamination assessment carried out by

Diomides &Associates Pty Ltd in the area of a gas easement

located along the northern
boundary of Lot 2 at 31 Hampstead Road, Maidstone, Victoria. A locality plan has
been
included showing the location of the subject site in Figure l,

Diomides 8(
Assodates
Pty
Ltd was commissioned by Coomes
Consulting Group Pty

LM, to conduct the soil contamination assessment and to prepare this report. The

investigations were carried out generally in accordance with the Dimides

&
Associates

proposal dated March 24, 2006. The work was authotised

by Mr Mark Robwts
of

Cmmes
Consulting Group Pty
Ltd on behalf of A V Jennings Limltd, by written
authorisationdated April 3, 2006.

Mr Raberts
also appointed EPA Contaminated Land Auditor Mr Phillip Hitchcock to
conduct a statutory environmental audit of the subject area of the site, induding
an audit
of the work
being conducted
by Diomides & Associates, with a view to issuing a
Certificate or Statement of Environmental Audit for the subject area of
the site in

accwdance
with Part IXD
of the Environment Protection Act 1970 of Victoria.

A report and Statement of Environmental Audit

were previously issued for the
majmity
of the subject site -excluding the area of the gas easement. The audit was
completed by Dr
Wayne Drew of Egis Consulting Australia Pty Limited in May 2002.
A number of assessment reports including site remediation reports,
validation reports
DIOMlDES
& ASSOCIATESPTY LTD

April 19,2006 2. DA1255lCDlI

15

and environmental management plans for the subject site were also previously
prepared by CHMn
HILL
Australia Pty Ltd. The material presented in the

abovementioned
reports has not been repeated in this report.

The objectives of the current soil contamination assessment are:

to investigate the chemical nature and general distribution of any subsurface

contamination within the area of the gas easement
of the site by irnpiementing
an
excavation, soil
sampling, and chemicaI
analysis programme; and,

to report on the results of investigations, including field observations, results

of

chemical analyses and an appraisal of the significance of any possible

contaminant levels, and the implications of these, together with any relevant

recommendations.

2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 General
The property which is the subject of this soif
contamination assessment is located
on the
north-westernside of Hampstead Road, Maidstone and is more commonly referred
to
as 31 Hampstead Road, Maidstone, as defined by the Land Victoria Property Report
which is attached as Appendix A. It is important to note that the area of the
subjed
site currently being investigated is the gas easement area only. This area is
located
along the northern boundary of Lot 2, see Figure 2 -Site Plan. The gas easement
DIOMIDES
&
ASSOCIATES PTY LT0
April 19,2006

---p

carries a high-pressure gas pipeline within it of approximatety 500 millimetre

diameter,
covers a total area of approximately 4,050 square metres within the site, runs
approximately175 metres along the northern boundary of Lot 2 and is approximately
6
metres wide. The site is currently vacant. All buildings, pavements, and concrete
having been demdished
and removed from the site.

It is understood that a residential development is to be constructed

on the subject
property and that the Responsible Authority requires a Certificate or Statement of

Environmental Audit be issued before construction works can commence on the site
for
the purpose of a sensitive use such as residential.

2.2 Contaminants of Interest

Contaminants of interest associated with the past and present activities conducted
on
the subject site have been summarised in Table 1.

TableI.Potential Contaminants of lnterest

Activity Potential Contaminants

Demolition of former buildings Asbestos cement sheeting

Potentially imported fill material Metals screen induding mercury, OC, OP,
PCB,
PAH &
TPH

DlOMlDES
8
ASSOCIATES PTY LTD

April 19,2006

3.0 FIELD
INVESTIGATION
3.1 General
An experienced project manager and an environmental scientist from Diomides &
Associates Pty
Ltd were responsible for all fieldwork including the selection of sampling
locations along the gas easernent, collection of soil samples for soil
contamination
assessment, logging of soil profiles, providing field contamination readings and
ensuring
that all samples were delivered to the specified NATA registered analytical
laboratories
without delay. Directions were provided to the relevant laboratories by the
Project
Manager, giving details of analyses required for each sample.

3.2 Soil
Contamination Assessment
On March 28, 2006, a mechanical excavator was used to excavate a total of tweive
test
pits at the locations selected and marked out by Diomides &
Associates in accordance
with the agreed work plan approved by the EPA appointed auditor Mr Hitchcock. Each

of the test pits was located

directly over the high-pressure gas pipeline and
approximatdy
14.6 metres apart within the easement area. The locations of all test pits
are shown on the attached Site Plan, Figure 2.

In each case before excavation of test pits commenced a UXO

search was conducted
by an experienced consultant from Milsearch and all excavation work
was guided by a T
Squared Alliance (formerly TXU) fidd
supervisor. Each of the twelve test pits was

DlOMlDES
&
ASSOCIATES PTY
LTD
April 19,2006 5. DAl255lCD1115
April 19,2006 5.

excavated to depths ranging from approximately 0.7 metres to 2.5 metres, down to
the
top of the gas pipdine.
Natural soils were only recovered in two test pits due to the
aresence,
size, and fragility of the high-pressure gas pipeline, Discreet samples of fill
were recovered from
each test pit at various depths. Descriptions of materials
encountered and depths at which samples were collected are presented in Appendix B

-Test Pit Logs.

In accordance with our quality assurance procedures and instructions from the
Project
Manager, all
primary soil samples collected
were submitted to MGT Environmental
Consulting Laboratories. For quality assurance purposes three split soil samples
and
three blind replicate soil samples were recovered during the soil contamination

assessment sampling program. The blind replicate samples were submitted to MGT.
The blind replicate
and split samples were taken from a larger than normal
quantity of
soil or
fill collected from the same sampling point, mixed as thoroughly as practicable,
and divided into separate vessels. The blind replicate samples and split samples
were
sourced from the following test pit locations:

BLINDland SPLIT 1 were sourced from TP 16

at a depth of 1.6 metres;
BLIND 2 and SPLIT 2 were sourced from TP 17 at a depth of 1.6 metres;
-BLIND 3 and SPLIT 3 were sourcedfrom TP 18
at a depth of 1.0 metre.
The three split samples were submitted
to a second NATA registered laboratory

(AMDEL)
for analysis. The three sptit
samples and the three blind replicate samples

were subsequently cornposited

as a composite split and composite blind respectively,
and were analysed by the respective laboratories. A summary of laboratory results
for
DlOMlDES
& ASSOCIATES PTY LTD

April 19,2006 6. DAl255/CDl115

the site contamination assessment has been tabulated in Appendix C. The full
laboratory results for the soil contamination assessment are attached as Appendix
D -
Laboratory Reports for Soil Samples.

All samples were recovered using dean latex gloves and stored in pre-washed glass
jars under cool conditions prior to delivery to the laboratory for chemical
analysis. Each
sample jar was clearly labelled with the following information:

DA1255
(Job Number);

Sample Number;

Depth of sample; and,

Sampling Date.

During the site contamination assessment sampling, particular note was taken of
possible contamination, as evidenced by visual and odour criteria. A method of
field
contamination assessment for soii
was utilised, based on these criteria.
The system
of classification is summarised below:

Rank Description
0
No odour or visual evidence of contamination
1
Slight odour andlor
slight visual evjdence
of contamination
2 Visual evidence of contamination and tor
odour
3 Obvious visual evidence of contamination andlor
strong odour

The rank of each soil sample is presented in Appendix B-Test Pit logs.

DlOMlDES
8
ASSOCIATES PTY
LT0
April 19,2006 7. DA1255lCD1115
April 19,2006 7.

Measurement of volatile
organic hydrocarbon concentrations were not conducted in the
fidd
using a photo-ionisation detector for this assessment work since previous work by
others indicated that volatile organic hydrocarbon contamination was not an issue
within
the subject site.

4.0 CHEMICAL ANALYSES

All soil samples were submitted to MGT as the primary laboratory and AMDEL
as the
secondary laboratory, for compositing of selected
soil samples, analysis of all composite
soil samples plus selected individual soil samples.

In accordance with instructions from the Project Manager, MGT formed ten composite

soil samples, as described in Tabje

2.

DlOMlDES
& ASSOCIATESPTY LTD

April 19,2006 8. DA12551CD1

l l
5

TABLE 2. Details of Composite Soil Samples

Composite Sourceof Samples (Sample No's) &

Sample
No. Depth of Samples Bebw
Ground Level (in metres)

COMP A TP 13 (0-0.15 m) +
TP 14 (0-0.015 m) + TP 15 (0-0.15m)
COMP B TP 16 (0-0.15 m) +
TP 17 (0-0.15 m) +
TP 18 (0-0.15
m)
COMP C TP 19 (0-0.15 m) + TP 20 (0-0.15
m) + TP 21 (0-0.15 m)
COMP D TP 22 (0-0.1 5 m) + TP 23 (0-0.15
m) + TP 24 (0-0.15m)
COMP E TP 14 (2.0
m) +TP 15(1.0 m)
COMP F TP-l6(1.6m)+TP17(1.6m)+TP18(1.0m)
COMP G TP lg(1.3
m)+ TP20(1.4m)+
TP21
(1.3 m)
COMP H TP 22 (1.4 m) + TP 23 (l.5
m) + TP 24 (1.4 m)
COMP l TP14(2.4m)+TP15(1.9m)+TP18(1.4m)
COMP BLIND BLIND 1 +BLIND 2+
BLIND
3

MGT has advised that it is NATA registered for all chemical analyses required in
this
investigation, except for certain organophosphorous
pesticides. Three split samples
were submitted to a second NATA registered laboratory (AMDEL)
for analysis. The
three split samples were cornposited
as a composite split sample, and analysed by
AMDEL.
A summary of laboratory resuts
has been presented in Appendix C for all soil
samples. The full results of laboratory analyses for soil samples are presented in

Appendix D with details of the laboratory quality assurance procedures in all

cases.

The range and number of chemical

analyses performed on soil samples for this

investigation are indicated in TaMe

3.
DlOMlDES
& ASSOCIATES PTY LTD
TABLE 3. Range and Number of Chemical Analyses Performed

Constituent Corn posite Individual SPLIT/

Soil Soil BLIND

Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium

Cobalt

Copper
Lead
Mercury
Molybdenum

Nickel
Selenium
fin
Vanadium
Zinc

PAH
OP Pesticides
OC Pestiddes
PCBs

Asbestos
TPH

DIOMIDES &
ASSOCIATESPTY LTD

April 19, 2006 10.

DA1255/CD1115

5.0 RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION

5.1 Hydrogeology
The 1-63,360 Geological Survey of Victoria Melbourne Sheet indicates that the site
is
underlain by Quaternary basaltic deposits
associated with the newer volcanics
group.

5.2 SubsurfaceConditions
The investigation of subsurface conditions conducted during the soil contamination

assessment
for this project found that the area of the gas easement
is overlain
by
variable depths of fill. Underlying the surface was a layer of fill that variously
contained
light brown/yellow
silty clay and extended down to depths of up to 0.5 metres below
ground level. This was underlain by a second layer of fill that variously
contained light
greybrown
silty clay extending down to depths of up to 2.3 metres below ground level.
An approximately 0.3 metre thick layer of light brown, fine silty crushed rock,
was found
surrounding the gas pipe, immediately below the fill layers. Once the fine silty
crushed
rock was reached the excavator operator was requested to cease further excavation
to
prevent damaging the gas pipe
and for safety reasons. Consequently, it was not
possible to obtain samples of the natural soil profile beneath the gas pipe in
most cases.

However, in two cases the natural soils were sampled in areas where the gas pipe
was
absent or taken from a side wall by penetrating laterally, just above the pipe.
The
natural soils consisted of greylbrown
residual basalticclays.

DIOMIDES
&
ASSOCIATES PTY LTD
g
6
2

'6
g
3

g_E,

.G
3

.-�BE

2
E .E

m
ob

zsi!

'6

.E r
E
.-
S
3

U
=-

ID,

(U '"
$
.-

5
.E
g
m$

XiE

-G
E
2

'
YE

'F

.g@?
-

U
-
f-

8
"a

p-$

m
5
.S
X
22Q.
a

3zc
,."

'g
3
l! (U

2?
.-.G

.-

$
f"

.g
W
E 3
.-
E
om

2
.S
U
$98

-8
1
-0
m
v,

g!!?"'

g$*
5
m

.-

-$G

$33
!Ea
8

ss"$
April 19,2006
April DAI 255iCD1
l
15

The results of chemical analysis of individual soil

samples indicated:

total chromium concentrations ranging from 14 mg/kg

in TP 15 at a depth of 1.75
metres in natural soil, up to 58 mg/kg
in TP 13 at a depth of 0.5
metres in natural
soil;

total cobalt concentrations ranging from 5 mgkg

in TP 15 at a depth of 1.75
metres in natural soil, up to l1
mgkg
in TP 13 at a depth of 0.5 metres in natural
soil;

total copper
concentrations ranging from 7.6 mgkg
in TP 15 at a depth of 1.75
metres in natural soil, up to 18 mgkg
in TP l3
at a depth of 0.5 metres in natural
soil;

total lead concentrations ranging from 5.5 mgkg

in TP 15 at a depth of 1.75
metres in natural sdl,
up to 7.4 mgikg
in TP 13 at a depth of 0.5 metres in natural
soil;

total nickel concentrations ranging from 8.6

mg/kg
in TP 15 at a depth of 1.75
metres in natural soil, up to 32 rng~kg
in TP 13 at a depth of 0.5 metres in natural
soil;

total tin concentrations

ranging from below the method detection limit of 10 mgfkg
in TP 15 at a depth of 1.75 metres in natural soil, up to 11 mgkg
in TP 13
at a
depth of 0.5 metres in natural soil;

DIOMIDES
&
ASSOCIATES PTY LTD

April 19,2006 14. DAI 255lCD1115

total vanadium concentrations ranging from 20 mg/kg
in TP 15 at a depth of 1.75
metres in natural soil,
up to 45 mglkg
in TP 13 at a depth of 0.5 metres in natural
soil;

total zinc concentrations ranging from 7.6 mg/kg

in TP 15 at a depth of 1.75
metres in natural sail, up to 49 rnglkg
in TP 13 at a depth of 0.5 metres in natural
soil; and that,

concentrations of all other contaminants measured in individual samples were

below the respective method detection limits including asbestos that was not
detected in any individual sample.

6.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

The guidelines for performance of a site contamination assessment which apply in
Australia are those published in the "National Environment Protection (Assessment
of
Site Contamination) Measure 1999, plus the "Guidelines for the Assessment and
Management of Contaminated Sites" (January 1992),
Auslralian
and New Zealand
Environment Council, and the National Health and Medical Research Council
(NH&MRC)
known as the ANZECC guidelines.

In performing the soil

contamination assessment for this project, Diomides
&
Associates Ry Ltd has had regard to the State Environment Protection Pdicy
(Prevention and Management of Contaminated Land) and various guidelines including

DIOMIDES
8 ASSOCIATES PTY LTD
April 19,2006
April DAI 255,'CD1115

the
Natiana!
Environment Protection
Measure (NEPM), the ANZECC guidelines, the
~nvlmrmen~

Auditor (Contaminated hd)

Guidelines fa Issue
of Certificates
and
Shtements
of
Environmental Audit, and the Austrdan
Standard -Guide to
the sampling
and investigation d
potentially contaminated sail,
AS 4482,l
1997 and AS 4482.2 -
1999. The results of the chemical analyses have been cornpared
with the soil
investigation levels
adapted under
the NEPM guldelinss.

In accordance with the NEPM guidelines, Dimides

B
Associates
has adoptedthe
Ecological investigation
Levds
(Ells) for an urban setting, the Health Investigation
Level (HlL
As) which apply for 'standard' residenfjal
use with garden/accessiMe
soil.
plus the
NSW EPA Guidelines for
Assessing Service Slation
Sites for petroleum
hydrocarbon and BTU(
levels
in soil. The results of all chemical
analyses wnducted
duing
this inwstigafion
havebeen ampared
with these
criteria.

Section
2.1 of
EPA Information Bulletin, Publication
448 titled "[=lsssificaticm
of
Wastes:
covers Fill
Material and provides a Table
2 titled, "Maximum Concentrations
of Contaminants Allowed in Soil to be Disposed
of as Fill material".
The
Information
Bulletin states, "Contaminant levels
must be below
those specified in Table 2,
otherwise the material must be classified as prescribedwaste. The results of
cbmical
analyses conducted
during this inveetigatibn
have also
been compared
with these

criteria.

MT
carried out
internal quality assurance procedures involving the analyds
of
spike
and duplicate
sdl
samples. For this
investigation, MGT reported
internal duplicate
relative percent difference
(RPD)
values between cl
%
and 25 % with tOO
%
QF

DlOMlDES
&
ASSOCIATES PTY
LTD

April 19,2006
16. OAI
2551CD.113
5

duplicate RPD values within the +/-

50
%
acceptance criteria, Percentage spike
smvery
values ranged from
76 % ta
126 %
with approximately 99 % of percentage
spike recovery values within
the 75 t~
125
?h
acceptance
aiteria, Laboratory results for
all soil samples are attachedas Appendix D.

The summary tables

presented in Appendix C provide
an evaluatian
of laboratory
analysis results fw
quality cantrol
samples. Ths
RPDs listed in Appendix C have been
calculated in
accordance
with Australian Standards AS 44821 -1997: Guide to the
sampling and investigation of potentially contaminated soil. All RPDs have been
compared
with the acceptance
criteria set wt in Australian Standard AS 4482.q
-1997,
which states that typical RPD vdues
for quality conbol
samples
should be between 30
to
50
per cent of the
mean ancentration
of analyte.

The
RPDs presented in Appendix
C, far the blind re@icate composite soil
sample
{COMP F versus COMPBLIND) range from O
per cent for most
parameters, up to 43.9
per cent in the case of lead,
One hundred percent of the
blind
replicate
RPD
calculations for the composite
sal
sample mFdy
with the criteria far quality control
samples.
The
RPDs for
the split composite
soil sample (COMP F versusCOMP SPLIT)
range from 0
per cent fw
most parameters, up to 94.7 per cent in the
case of arsenic,
Approximately 97% of the split composite
soil RPDcalculations comply
with the criteria
fa
quality control
samples.

The RPDs presented in Appendix C, for the

individual Mind replicate sal samples and
the individual split soil samples all complied with
thecriteria for quality control
samples.

DIOMIDES
&
ASSOCIATES PTY
LID
U
b

3
3
r
3

.S
0

E
'S
3

.-

Cl -U

gikb

W-

-=%

gs,

.-

--.Q

ggg
.-
EPZ
;I
g
p3

.-

c
eo
.-

2
+

W
J3ui

cn
E?

n
S

0
P
3325
c

Ul
D

c
me

CJ
.E
.g
;

$$'E9

352?
,,.
,.. .

negligible, or no
risks to
health and safety of
workmen.&e
ta
soil contamination
during any construction
work
w
during repair or replacement
of
undergrwnd
services
within the easement;

negligiwe,
or m
adverse
effects to health and safety of future residents and
visitors, and especially
young children,
if the easement area is b
be used for
residentialpurposes;

negligible, or fow adverse effects on plants and other vegetationwhich constitute

any
site landscaping within the easement; and,

negligible,or no impact on the

surrounding environment due to possible lexhing
of any contaminants present in soil or fill, into
road side drains w
into
grwndwaer.

Basedon the results of this investigation, we recornmeml

that no dean up of the
gas
easement ama
af subject site is necessary prior
to the issue of
a Certificate or
Statement of
Environmental Audit permitting residential
development within the gas
easement area of
the subject site.

DIOMIDES
&ASSOCIATES
PTY
LTD
April 19,2006 20.

8.0 LlMtTATlONS
OF TW1S
REPORT
Soil and rodc
formations are variable, The soil logs
indicate whet are cansidered
to
tx
the prevailing subsurfaceconditions within tk
dte,
Boundaries between zones on the
lags are often not distinct,
but rather are transitional
and have been interpreted. The
precision with which subsusface
condilions
are indicated depends largely on W
frequency and method of sampling, and the unifmity
d
subsurfax
conditions.

A soil contamination assessment

necessarily involves the investigation of subsurface
conditions
at a sib
for
a limited
number
of and
the interpretation of data

locations
dlected
frm
a specified
range of
analyses, and a limited
number of sail samples
recovered from those
locations.
Chemical conditions
described
in this report
refer only
to those conditions indiceted by analysis of soil samples obtained at the points
and
under the circumstances noted in the report
ad
are reievant
only
to
the conditions
which pertained at the Brne
of
this
investigation. These conditions
may vary due to the
variability ofcontaminant
wwentrations
in soit
as a consequenceof activitieson the site
W
adjacent sites.

Should there b
revealed at sma
future time that cwltaminant
concentratitions
in soil
encountered at the
site differ significantly frm
those indicafed
by the results in his
report,
either due to
natural variability of sub surface conditiara
or above
ground
activities, it is strongly recommended that Diomides
&
Assodates
Pty
Ltd be notified d
ik
differences ad
wvided
wil
an oppwturity
to assess the
significance of
such
difierences
and to povide
appropriate advice.

DlOMlDES
&
ASSQCIATES
PlY
LTD
6
21. DAI
2551C01115

Due care and skill have been applied in carrying out and reportiw
on
this wk,
The
findings, wndusions
and comments contained in this repwt
represent professional
estimates andopinions and are not to be read as facts unless the cantext
makes it clear
to the contrary. In general, statements of fact are confined to statementsasto mat

was
dwle
andiw
what was observed, Other
statements
have been base#
on professional
judgement

This
report is prepared solely fw the use d
the person, company or
organisatim
b
whom it is addressed and must not be reproduced in whole w in pae
or
includedin any
othw
document without our
expressed permissionin writing.
No responsibility
or fiability
is accepted to any third pay
for any damges
hwsc>evsr
arising out oF
the use of W
reliance on
the M
e Many part of thisreportby any third party.

This report has been prepared on the

basis of specific Instruclions
and information

providedby or onbehalf of
the party to whomit is ddressed
andfor use by that party
in

its particularcircumstances and fw

Its particular
purpose. Its contents and conclusions

may therefore be inappropriate

far
any third party in
the context of that lhird
party's

pdcular
purposes and circumstances. Any third
party should obtain its own
independentreport w
other professional advice rather than rely on this repar&.

DlOMlDES
& ASSOCIATES PTY
LTD

COSTA DIOMIDES
STEPHEN
DlOMlDES

Environmental Sdentist
Director
Senior Envimnmental
Auditor -Contaminated
Land
RegistrationNo. 045455
QSA Registerof Certified
Auditam

April 19,2006 DAI 255~CD1115

9.0 REFERENCES
+
Australian and New Zealand
Environment and Conservation Cwncil
[ANZECCIAational
Health and Medical Research Coundl
[N
HMRG},
Australianand New Zealgnd Guidelines for the Assessment and Management
of Contaminated Sites, 1992.
CH2M
Hill, Maidstone
Laboratory
and Radio Tower
Phase l 81
2 Sib
Assessment, Final Report Ref. 101340 Rev2,
to
Telstra Corporation. April
1999,

+
CMZM
Hill, Maidstone Laboratory and
Radio Tower Phase 3 Remediation
of
Contaminated Soils. Final Report Ref. 101
387 Revl
, to
Telstra Corporation,
April 1999.
CH2M
HiII,
Maidstone Validation: Further Environmental Site investigation.
Supplementary Pttase
lReport Ref,
101387,03
Revl, to Tdstra
Corporation,
September 1999.
r
CH2M
Hill, Maidstone Laboratory
Slte
Phase 3 Remediation of
Contaminated
Soits
Related to
the Former Cinder Track. Final Supplementary Repd
Ref.
101387.002 Revl, to Tdstsa
Ccrporatian,
April 2001.

DlOMlDES
& ASSOCIATES PTY
LID
April 19,2006
23. RA1
255KD1
l 15

-.

CH2M
Hill, Maidstone Laboratory Site Remediation
and Site Validation
Assessment. Find Report Ref. 101387,005 Rev5,
to
Telstra Corporation,
April
2002.
CH2M
Hill, Maidstone Laboratory Site: Environmental Management Plan -
Development of the Site. Final Report ref.
101387.006 Rev5,
to Telstra
Corporation, May 2002.
W

CH2M
Hili,
Maidstone Labwatary
Site: Environmental Management
Plan -
Future Site Use. Final
Report Ref. 101307.007 Revs,
to Telstra Corporation,
May 2002.

CH2M
Hill, Environmental Testing of Medway
Golf Course. Letter Report
Ref.
31 1271 to Caornes
Consulting, 5 August 2003.

W
CW2M
Hill, farmer
Telstra Site,
31 Hampstead Road, Maidstone, Vietwb:
Cmstmetion
Environmental Management Plan. Final Repart
Ref.
31 127 1.009.,
prepared for Coomes
Consulting, 2003.
r
Egis
Consulting Australia, Environmental Audit: Maidstone Laboratory,
Hampstead Road, Maidstone, Victoria. Report of Prcject
No. VP8017
to
Telslra
Carporation
Limited, May 2002.

4
EPA NSW, Contaminated Sites
-Guidelines
for hsessing
Setvice
Station Sites,
1994.

DIOMIDES
l?
ASSOCIATES PTY
LTD

April 19,2006
24. DAl2551CD9
l15

1
EPA Victoria,
Classification of Wastes, EPA Information Bulletin, Publication
448,
I, 2004.

EPA Victoria, Environmental Auditor (Contaminated Land) Guidelines for

Issue
of
Certificatesand Statementsof Environmental /Wit,
Publication 759b,
2002.
4
Gedogical
Survey
of Victoria, f
-250,000 Ceo!cgical
Map Series -Melbourne,
May 1997.

4
National Environment Protection
Council,
National Envirament
Protection
(Assessment of Site Cmtamination)
Measure 2999.
I,
Standards Australia, Australian Standard

Guide to the sampling and

investigation of potetntialty
contaminated
soil, Part 1: Non-volatile and Semi-
vdatile
Compounds,
AS 4482.3 -1997.
Standards Australia, Australian Standard -Guide ta
the samging
and
investigation of patenfially
contaminated sail,
Part 2: Volatile Substances,
AS
4482.2-1999.
r
State Environment Protection
Pdicy
(Prevention and Management
of
C~niarninated
Land], 2002.

DlOMlDES
& ASSOCIATES PTY
LTD
PL
. . .

Pl~perfy
Report fromwww.lmd.vle.gav..u
an27 ay
2005
I 1121
AM

Addresa
31 HAMPSTEAD ROAD MAIDSTONE 3012
Lot
and Plan Numbat:
Lot A PS443690
StandardParcel ldentlfler
(SPI):
APS443ti90
Lam!
Government (Councl]:
MARIBYRNONG
Councll
Property Elumkr:
8405364014
Dlreetcrry
Reference:
Melway
27G9,27W9,27610,27H10

State Electorates
Lsglslaltve
Councll:
MELBOURNE WEST (20011
Lsgislallve
Asstlmbly:
FOQTSCRAY
(2Q05)

Utilities
Metrowater
Business: City West Water
Rural Watrrr
Business: Southern Rural
Water
Melbourne Water:
inside drainage bwndary
Power
Dlstrlbutoc
AGL (Information
about

Plannlng
Zone
Summary
PhllJllng
LCintr:
COMMONWEALTH
LAND NOT
CONTROLLED
BY PLANNING SCHEME
(CA)
Planning
Overlay:
DESIGN
AND DEVELOPMENTOVERLAY
-SCHEDULEl (0001)
DEVELOPMENT
CONTRIBUTIONSPLAN OVERLAY

SCHEDULE 2 (DCPO2)
APPENDIX B

This
report
Is
nd
a substitute
for a Planning I=ertifica&.
ForPlanning Certifiate

Pbnnlng
thrtlftcates
Onlln
e
For Planning Details

pbnnlnq
$cherries
Onllne

TEST PIT LOGS

Area Map

Copyright @

State Governmentof Vtctorta

Disclaimer: This
conlent
hryided
(m
infarmaEa
purpirr
any.
No
cl*
Is
made as $0
lhe
rmvaey
or
sllthenileltv
of the content,
e VlcLortan Gweinrnenl does nolaccepl
any llabilily
to any wrson
for he
'%fha<oi
provided. Read ihe
fuit
disclaimer
at
ww..land~k.~ov.a~IdiS~Iaimer
i
Location: JOB NO: DA
~5
6
B_IOMIDES
4%
ASSOCIATES PrY
LTQ
31 Hampslead
Road, DATE: 28-Mar46
Envkonmental
Qnsultants
Maitlstone,
Victoria
Method:
Excavator
Test Pit No.:TP 21

Location: JOB NO: DA

1355
&
ASSOCIATES
PTY
Lm
,31
Hampstead Road, DATE: 2&Mat46
Environmental Consultants
Maidstone,Victoria Method: Excavator
Test Fb
No.: TP 22

TEST
PIT LOG

End of
lest pit an g35 pipe line

TEST PIT L00

Depth Samptet

Description

{mm)

or
Test
i
DescripljohlRank
Lighl
bmwnlyellw

-SiRy
day
No od~w
-Light greymown
Silly
day
-NO
odoW
Light bmn
Fine slty
mhed
rod
No odow

Conlamjnation
Ranking:
0
=
No odour
or vlsual
emencc
otconlsminalbn

1 =
SBgM
odow
and&
-1
visual ewdcncc of mntamination

2 = Visual ed&nce
oiconlamlnalion andfor odour

3 =
Dbvfous
visual
rvidcna
olm~amlnation
andhslro~odour

Conlaninalion
rank in^
=
0

nation
Ranking
=D
ES
ASWE$
PTY
LTQ
Environmental hnsuttants
Location:
31 HampsteadRoad,
Maidstcm.
Victwle
JOB
NO:
DA Y
365
DATE: 28-Mar46
Method: Excavator
Test Pi No.:
TP
23

TESTPIT LOG
TESTPIT LOG

'~ocat~on:
JOB NO: DA
1365
DIOMIDES
81
ASSOCIATES PP(.
LTQ 31 Harnpslead
Road. DATE: Mar4R
Envlrrrnmenta!
Consultants Maidstaw,
Vioria
Method; Excavator
Test Pit
No.:
TP 24

-Light
brWnlydl~
ConbnJnnUon
Renking
=
D
-sap
ctay

-No odolr
FII
-Finebrwvn
Light silty
crushed rock
No adwr

F11
Lightbrown

End d
test
pll
onpas pipe line
APPENDIX D

LABORATORYREPORTS FOR
SOIL
SAMPLES

Environmental
Consulting
Pty.
Ltd.

3 Kingston
Tovm
Close, Oakleigh,
Viclorja
3166,Austraka
Postat
addmrr
P. Q.
Box
278.
Oakls~
h, Viciona
31M,
Aurtralra
?&Phone
103)
9%
7055

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS

Diomides
&
Associates Pty.
Ltd. Report
Number: 192571 Page 1
of 35
l 'l
Conway
Ave

Order Number: Mar 29,2006

Date Received:
Donvale

Date Sampled: Mar28,2006

Victoria 31 'l
3
bate Reported: Apr,7,
2006

Site: MAIDSTONE
DA1255

Contact: Stephen
D~omlbes

Methods
USEPA 6010B
Heavy Melals
&
USEPA 747Offl

Mercury

USEPA BOB2
Pdychl~rinated
Biphenyis
USEPA 814iA
Or~anophosphoms
Pesticides
USEPA 8081A
Organochtorlne
Pestlcldes
USEPA 8270C
Polyc
clic Aromatic H drocarbons
MGTI
MA-GC
Total Rewvereble
Hyd&carbons
Method I02
ANTECC
-% Mddure
Comments

Please note asbestosresults are from

Noel Amdd
reference
no 47774-4
and Naia
AmedUalion
No 5450

Notes

1,
The results in Ws
repart supersede any previously corresponded
results.

2.
Alt
Soil Resultsare repolied
on a dty
basis.
3. Samples are analysed on an as receivedbasis.
ABBREVIATKINS
mgkg
:milligrams per kilograms, mgR
:
rniltigrams
per litre, ppm
: parts per miltion,
LOR
: Limit
p�
Reporting
RPD: Relat~ve
Percent Difference
CRM
:
Clsrlified
Reference
Meierlal
LCS
: laboratory
Control Sample

Michacl
IVright

NATA Signatory

T
,nhnrnlnrv
Rlannger
Report Numbec
192571

NATA
lrbrmry
,w~,d

Kmmhrr
1161

~th.*~Cllibllbm1a~rd-.1~~011d~hda.~nrnf
-10
PrATA~rqpv~~

hiwtuv
pmiv~wd
~lt.&ll~~
*~uchmduJCUY
rqujrm~rd
WKC
I)(r?Sudmcaw~blrearlpwl
wd&zfrse*r.rpLThnkm~

h.rryw
mWirLI1
Um RvmtM.lm7i

Um RvmtM.lm7i
I A.... I I I I I

. .

-8;
Im
*WE$
i9ZR

Apr
28
dS
DIOMIDES & ASSOCIATES PTY L TD
DIOMIDES & ASSOCIATES PTY L ,L::;

g:
z:
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Phone: (03) 9842 2000
1l Conway
Avenue, Danvale
Victoria 31l l fax:
103)
9842 0322

TO: Environ
Australia Pty
Ltd
ATTENTION: Mr Phillip
Hitchcock DATE:
June 21,2006
FROM: Costa Diomides
Our Ref: DA1255

RE: RESPONSE TO FHllLlP HITCHCOCK'S EMAlL

OF JUNE 13,2006
PRQPERW
GAS EASEMENT
AREA 31 HAMPSTEAD RAOD,
MAIDSTONE

Further to your email

of June 13, 2006, the following are the clarification points
requested by Phillip Hitchcock for the Gas Easement
area of 31 Hampstead Road,
Maidstone.

Samples have been analysed

for total chromium
and Diomides 8(
Associates
have assumed that all
chromium present is in the trivalent form and applied
the
NEPM (1999) HlLs
and f
lLs
for trivalent
chromium. As previously stated,
the
Auditor does not consider this to be an appropriate approach. As such, the
Auditor considers that at least 50% of the composite samples
should
be
analysed for chromium VI;

Diomides &
Associates have organised for appmximateiy
half
of the
composite samples
to
be analysed
for chromium
(VI)
as requested. The
results for this will be forwarded along
with our letter
report
when completed.

The Auditor does not consider that the discussion provided regarding the
elevated heavy metals
concentrations in the corn
posited fill samples (i.e.
above
modified El
Ls and modified Clean
Fill
criteria) adequately addresses the issue.
Diomides &
Associates have stated that if
the individual
samples
were analysed
the heavy metals
results
would
most
likely
be below the Clean Fill criteria and
that the EIL
exceedances are not significant. This justification for the
exceedances is not considered to be adequate and additional laboratory analysis
is required to
assess the significance of the EIL and Clean Fill criteria
exceedances in the composite samples;

Diomides &
Associates have organised for selected
samples
to be analysed
for various metals
to address this concern as requested. The results for this
will
be forwarded
aiong
with our letter
report when completed.
DIOMIDES
&ASSOCIATES
PTY
LTD
Section 3.0
Section -Paragraph 4 -the Auditor notes that two Environmental Audits
have previously been undertaken for
the majority of the Site including, the
majority of the Site excluding the gas easernent and fibre optic easernent in 2002

by Dr. Wayne Drew of Egis, and the rnajoriiy

of the Site excluding the gas
easernent in 2005 by Mr. Rick Graham of SKM;

This comment is correct. Dr

Wayne Drew undertook an audit of the majority
of the site excluding the fibre optic easernent and the gas easernent and Mr
Rick Graham undertook an audit of the fibre optic easernent area.

Section 3.2-Paragraph 3 Please provide brief discussion on

why no wash
blanks, trip spikes or trip
bTanks
were used;
A wash blank sample was not
recovered during our field work because no
sampling equipment was used to obtain the soil samples. All samples were
collected directly from the sidewall
of the test pit using the sample jars or in
deeper test pits
the samples were collected from
the centre of
the excavator
bucket, Trip spikes and trip
blanks on this occasion were omitted.

Section 3.2
-Paragraph 5 -were the soil samples collected from the centre of
the excavator bucket?;

As mentioned above, all samples were collected directly

from the sidewall
of

the test pit using the sample jars or in deeper test pits the samples were
collected from the centre of the
excavator bucket.

m
Table
3 -Were the samples composited
in accordance with the relevant
guidelines?;

Ail
samples were composited
in accordance with the relevant guidelines by
the relevant
analytical laboratories. However, it should be
noted
that
composite samples have only been used as a screening tool.
In cases where
composite results
above adopted criteria
were recorded, further individual
analyses were considered.

Sedion
6.0-Paragraph 2, last
sentence -which NEPM guidelines have the
results been compared to?;

The
results have been compared to the NEPM EIL
and Hlt
A guidelines as
discussed
in paragraph 3 of
Section 6.0.

Section 6.0
-Paragraph 5 -were the laboratory analysis methods used
appropriate?
Diomides
&
Associates believe that the
relevant
laboratories have used
appropriate laboratory analysis
methods in accordance with their NATA
accreditation.

DIOMIDES
&
ASSOClATES
PTY LTD
Section 6.0 -Paragraph 5 -Please discuss laboratory quality assurance
methods (i.e.
Section 6.0 -Paragraph 5 -Please discuss laboratory quality assurance
methods analysed within recommended holdings times etc.)

The primary laboratory, MGT, reported all results

in 10
days and the
secondary laboratory, AMDEL,
reported
all results in 23 days. According to
the maximum sample
holding times reported in Table
3of AS 4482.1 -2005
all analyses undertaken for this site assessment were within the maximum
allowable holding
times.

Section 6.0 -Paragraph 5 -MGT also

used method blanks and surrogates,
please discuss;

Diomides &
Associates believe that most method
blanks and surrogates
reported by MGT are within the required acceptable limits as required by their
NATA accreditation.

Section 6.0 -Paragraph 5 -Which OPP

compounds are MGT not NATA
accredited for? Please discuss the significance of MGT not being NATA
accredited for some OPP
compounds;
Diomides &
Associates have been advised by MGT that the following
organophosphorous pesticides: cournaphos,
dichiowos,
ethion,
ethoprop,
phorate,
ronnet,
trichlorinate
are not NATA accredited analyses. However,
MGT
is accredited for all other organophosph~mus
pesticides. The
significance of MGT not
being NATA accredited for
the seven mentioned
organophosphorous pesticides would
appear to be low given that all
organophosphorous pesticides analyses were reported below
the
method
detection limit in each case. From
these resufts
it would appear that
organophosphorouspesticides are not an issue on the subject site.

Section
6.0
-Paragraph 5-What about Amdel
internal QNQC?
Please discuss;
AMDEL
carried out internal quality assurance procedures involving
the analysis
of spike and duplicate soil samples. For this investigation, AMDEL
reported
internal duplicate relative percent difference(RPD) values between
4
.Cl
%
and

29.2% with 100

% of duplicate RPD values within the H-
50 % acceptance
criteria. Percentage spike recovery values ranged from 74.3 O/a
to 118
%
with
approximately 94
% of percentage spike recovery
vaiues
within the 75 to
125
%
acceptance criteria. Diomides &
Associates believe
that
most method blanks
and surrogates reported by AMDEL
are within the required acceptable limits
as required by their
NATA accreditation.
Section 6.0 -Paragraph 4 1
-Please
discuss fill
vs. natural soils
resuks.
FilI
material identified as COMP A to I variously exhibited marginally elevated
concentrations of arsenic, nickel and zinc above modified EIL
and in some
case
above modified EPA clean fill criteria. However, these elevated concentrations

DlOMlDES
&
ASSOCIATES PTY LTD
1
above modified
EPA
clean fill
criteria
and
vanadium was efevated
in most
composite
samples above modified ELL
criteria.
It is considered that these soils do not pose a significant health risk to future
residents or to the environment given the low concentrations and it
is likely that
individual analyses of these composite samples would result in concentrations
below EPA
clean fill criteria. individual
samples of naturalsoil indicated that the
results were
below the laboratory method
detedion
limits
in many cases with
only some metals detected in tow
concentrations. All natural samples exhibited
concentrations below
the
adoptd
EIL,
HIL
A, NSW �?A
and EPA
Fill criteria.

Based on the above mentioned comments, the Auditor recommends that the
folIowing
analysis be undertaken:

COMP B, CQMP E, COMP F and COMP G for chromium VI;

One sample
from
COMPB
for
arsenic and vanadium;
One sample from COMPD
for
arsenic, nickel, vanadium and zinc;
One sample from COMPE
for nickel and vanadium;
One sample from
COMPl
for cobalt
and nickel.
The
results of this analysis should be provided to the Auditor in a brief letter
report with appropriate discussion of the results (i.e.
comparison to NEPM ElLs
and Clean Fill criteria) and the quality ofthe data.

Our company has instructed MGT to proceed with these lab analyses as you
have requested. A brief letter report with appropriate discussion of
results wiH
be forwarded to the auditor when analysis resuk
have been produced by
MGT.

The Auditor is awaiting a copy of the report prepared by Milsearch

regarding the
unexploded
ordnances
investigation undertaken within the easement.

Please contact Mark Roberts

in regards to obtaining a copy of the Miisearch
report.

Yourssincerely,
DlOMlDES
& ASSOCIATES PTY
LTD

DR COSTA DlOMlDES
Environmental Scientist

DIOMIDES
8r
ASSOCIATES PTY LTD
CMAiN
OF CUSTODY
Page 3 of 9
Attention:
MGT CM�
MCAL
ANALYSfi
Client Diornides
&
Associates

DCOMJDES
&
ASSOCiATES
PTYL7D
Location;
MaJdetohe

ENVlRUNbIEMCAL
CONSULT'IVjlS

LCN.
6%
CS?
W
Sample Type@):

ProjecVNo:
DA
4255

Ph:
(03)
9842 2WO

Date
Sampled:
28103&J6

Fax:
(03)
a342
OW!

Total M.
ol
Containers
Sampled
by: mmor
nides
Relinquished by: Stephen
Oiomides
Organisaflon:
Diomides
S
A$s
Recelvad
by:

L.
Organisation:
Dab: 29103106
Time: 9.30am Date: 21-C-5
5%~:
Relfnquished
by; Orlynlsatlon:
Received by:
Organbation:
Date: Time:
. Date:
Tlme:
8r
SERVICES
Proprietry
iN
DE-MINING
AND
Limited UNEXPLODEDORDNANCE

Head
Offrce
Address
Haad
Uffico
ishanetF3x
Lao
PDR Vierlnane
Qfficz
ill'::
4
5. 30
!dav:son
Place
Tat-
02.52868299
:
lr:::
G!
-21
Tei:
858-Zf.35161)8
idG?is~n.
ACT 2507 !vl~biln:
elf
19-94.$397
[II?!:
61
-4i9)
Tel:Fc?s:
356-21.351609
f-'

PSS:G$
Ad31
CGS:
Fax,
CZ-G2958265
clni.
67
-2-j
.r,,o~l~.
656 90
5i
2O5?
?Cl
Do:,
637
. Ma1.vso1:
ACT,
e-i;~::ii.
coi.n.ag

~i!nlinartck@in~Isea~ch
Lj~?;t
9,
Bait
Sapacpbng
AbSTRALiA
2807
iPG
Box 1321;
Vienlane.
Lao
PDii
+SN.
44
007
l It6
Zei
e.jnar
l. miiiao@laol.;&
ccr;?

CERTIFICATE OF UXO
CLEARANCE

MAIDSTONE GAS EASEMENT

A gas easement running along the Northern boundary of the former Pyrotechnic
Manufacturing facility at Maidstone was subjected to a soil sample
characterisation prior to
removal.

To meet the requirements of the appointed EPA Site Auditor and to ensure a
construction
work-site free of any potential munition hazards, Milsearch
provided an Explosive
Ordnance (EO) Technician to safeguard invasive test work associated with the
characterisationand soil removal within the pegged gas easement footprint as
follows:

a. Manual investigation of anomalies was by Foerster

4.032 Analogue Magnetometers
and Minelab
Electronics F3 Metal
Detectors under supervision of a former military EOD
qualified technician.
b. Safeguarding services were provided on the 23 March 2006and also 10
May 2006.
No explosive ordnance (EO), unexploded
ordnance (UXO)
and or evidence of explosive
residue or associated explosive ordnance waste (EOW) was discovered. No deeper
caches or burials within the equipment search specifications were located. Only
scrap
items of building and consiruction
waste were uncovered.
In Milsearch's
professional opinion, the soil removed from that pegged area within the gas
easement located within the former Pyrotechnic Manufacturing
facility at Maidstone is free
from explosives. Also, that soil remaining within the gas easement footprint that
was
subjected to a UXO
search prior to invasive investigations is also certified as free of
explosives.

Michael
B. Ransom
Principal Operations Manager

26 June 2006

Military Land Decontamination, * Unexpioded

Ordnance Disposal, *
De-mining,
Sub-SurfaceDetection of
Metallic
..l
Items, *
Rehabilitation of Active Defence
Live-Firing Ranges, '
Geophysicai
Surveys on Land and Underwater
AV Jennisgs
AV 6
September2006
3 1
Hampstead Road,
Mnidstane,
Victoria APPENDIX E

APPENDIX E

Diomides &
Associates (2006) Diomides &
Associates (2006) Site
Clean Up &
Supplementary Site Contamination Assessment, 31
Hampstead Road, Maidstone, Victoria
(ref:
DAI
2551CDl
l22, l
September 2006).

S:Wvir~UobsKoombes
-Maidstone 32-0018UCeportsU2.0018

En~immentst
Audit Rcport
fof
31 Mampstcad
Road, Maidstoae,
viaoria
final doc
ENVIRON
September 1,2006 1.
September 1,2006 DA12551CD1122

This
report
presents the results of a site clean up validation and supplementary site
contamlnatbn
assessment carried
out by Diomides & Associates Ply
Ltd
at
31
Hampstead Road, Maidstone, Victoria. A locality plan has been included showing
the
location af
the subject site in Figure 1.

Diomides &
Associates Pty
Ltd was commissioned by Coomes Consulting G~oup
Piy
Ltd
on behalf of A V Jennings
Limited, to conduct the site
dean up validation and
supplementary site contarnhation
assessment and to prepare this report. The
lnvestlgations
were
carrid
out generally in accordance with the Diomides &
Associates
proposal dated March 24, 2006, and additional smpe
of
work
provided by Coornes on
July 24, 2006.
The work was authorised by Mr
Mark Roberts
of Caomes Consulfing
Group Ply
Ltd,
by wtittien
authorisation dated April
3, 2006,
and memorandum
dated
July 28,2006.

Coomes Consulting Group also appointed EPA Contaminated Land Auditor Mr Philllp
Hitchcock
to conduct a statubry
environmental audit of the subject she,
including an
audit af
the work being conducted by Dimides
&
Associates,
with a view to issuing a
Certificate Environmental Audit far lhe
subject site in accordance
with Part IXD
of the
Environment Protection Act 1970 of Wctorla.

An audit report and Statement of Environmental Audit were previousty

issued for the

majority of the subject

site. The original audit was completed by Dr
Wayne
Drew of
DIOMIDES
&
ASSOCIATES PTY
LTD

September1,2006 2. DA12WCD1
i
22

P
P

Egis Consulting Australia

Pty
Limited in May 2002,
A number of assessment repwts
induding
site remediation
reports, validation repor&
and environmental management
plans for the subject site were also previously prepared by CH2M
HILL
Australia Pty
Ltd. An
additionalaudit report wasprepared by Mr Rick Graham for the subject site,
including the fibre optic easernent area, In November 2005,
Diomides & Associates
also completed two soil contamination assessment
reparts
-one for the fibre optic
easement
area and one for the
gas easement
area of the subject site. These reports
were completed in May 2005 and April 2006 respectivdy.
The material presented in
the abovementioned reports has not
been repeated in this report. The previous

reports have been referenced in Section 10.0

of this report.

The objectives of the current site clean up vaMatton

and supplementary site

contamination assessment are:

to investigate the chemical nature and general distribution of any subsurface

contamination within various areas of the site by implementing a soil sampling,
and chemical
anafysis
programme:

b
validate site clean up work
conducted by others FIX
the entire area of the site
after removd
of any potentially asbestoscontaining fill material; and,

to
report
on
the results of investigations, including field observations, results of
chemical analyses and an appraisal of the significance of
any
possible
contaminant levels, and the implications of
these, trylether
with any relevant
recommendations.

DIOMIDES
&
ASSOCIATES PW
LTD
September I,
September 2006 3.
DA3
253CD1122

2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 General
The
property which
is the subject d
this site
clean up vaklatian
and supplementarysite
contamination assessment
is located
on the north-western side
of Hampstead Road,
Maidsfone
and is more
commonly referred to
as 31 Hampstead Road, Maidstone, as
defiwd
by the Land Victoria Property Report which is attached as Appendix A,
Certificate of Title
documentation
has not been appended in this report as it has been
previousty
reportedin the mentionedaudits and variws
assessment reports.
The site is
currently
vacant.
All buikiings,
pavements, and concrete have been demolished and
removed from the site.

It is understood that a residential development is to k

constructed on the subject
propertyand that the RespmsiMe
Authority requiresa Certificate af
Environmental
Audit
to
be issued
bebe
construction works can
commence
on the site for the proposed
residential development. In this case, a SIatement
of Envlmnmenlal
audit has already
been issued for the subject site, however,
the chit
arcanged
for the clean up of the
subjed
site in order to secure a Certificate of EnvironmentalAudit*

DlOMlDES
&
ASSOCIATES PTY
LTD

September 1,2006 4.
DA12551CO1122

2.2 Contaminants of Interest

Cantarninants
of
interest associated wlth
the
past and present activities conducted on
the subject sitehave been summarisedin Tablel.

Tablel. Potenflal
Contaminantsof Interest

Activity
PotentialContaminants

Demolition of
former
buildings
Asbestos cement

lmpclrted
fill
material
Metals screen incjuding
mercury, OC,
OP,
PCB,
PAH, TPH &
MAH

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF SITE REMEDIATION

WORKS
Diamides &
Associates
Ply
Ltd,
as environmental
consultants for this project, provided
expert advice to Coomes
Consulting Group Pty
Ltd
who are the project managers.
Coomes
se[ecbd,
engaged and supervised the earthworks
contractors
who excavated
and removed all fill material from the site. The fill material consistedof an
approximately

0.5
metre
thick surfae
layer which extended to
significantly graater
depths in same
areas of
the sife.
On May 8, 2006,
fhe excavation and stripping of fill material commenced on the
subject site. The work started from the rear of
the site, in Area l,and progressively
moved towards
the front
OF
the
slte.
Into
Area 8. Figure 2 -Site Plan shows the

DIOMIDES
& ASSOCIATES PTY LTD
September1,2006 5. OAl255r'CD1122
September1,2006 5.

boundaries of Areas lto 8 of the subjed

site. The excavation contractors were
instructed to remove all fill material !hat
covered the entire area of the subject site. It
is understood that the fill material removed off site was to
be reused for a nan-
sensilive
land use. In all
cases the fjll
material was stripped down to the natural
clays. Remediation
works were completed on August 18,2006,

During the site remediation

works, sub consulfanb,
AZCOR
Consultants Pty
Ltd
(AZGOR)
were carnmissitlned
by Coames
to condud
air quality monitoring of
asbestos fibres during the excavation and removal of fill material
frm
the
subject
site. The ATCOR
asbestos air monitoring
report indicatedthat all resub
were
beiow
the detection level d
0.01 fibres of asbestos per millilitre of
air
for the
fourteen days
of air quality monitoring conducted
during the sib
remediation works. A copy
of the
AZCOR asbestos
air monitoring
report has been attachedas Appendix B,

4.0 FIELD LNVESTtGATlON

4.1 General
An experienced project manager and an environmental scientist hrn
Dimides
8.

Associates Ply
Ltd
were responsible
for all fieldwork induding
the selection
of sampling
l0c8tionsl
mllection
of soil samptes
induding
sail clean up validationwwk, logging
of sal1
profiles,
providing field
contamination readings and ensuring that all ssmples were
delivered to
the specified
NATA registered analytical laboratories
without belay.

Directions were provided to the relevant laboratories

by the Project Manager, giving

detailsof analyses
requiredfor each sample.

DlOMlDES
&
ASSOCIATES PW
LTD

September l,
2006 6.

4.2 SupplementarySite Contamination

Assessment
On August 16,2008, fourleen
sol1
samples were recovered
from the natural clay surface,
following the completed remediation
works. These soil samples
were llocated
and
marked
out by Diornides
&Associates
in consultation with the EPA appointed auditor Mr
Hitchwck
in locations previously sampled by the
pdevlous
consultants. The EPA
appointed auditor Mc
Hitchcock
requested the supplementary samples jn
order b
adequately characterise the natural clay remaining on
the

surface. These
supplementary sail samples have been labelled with the prefix 'CH" corresponding
to
the approximate localions
of the
previous assessor's soil sampk
lacatlons.
The
approximate bwt[ons
where supplementaiy soil samples were collected are shown
on
the attached Site Plan, Figure 2.

In addition, three
additionat
scril
sampks
were recovered
from road base material
that

was laid down by the excavation contractors

In order to traffic excavationvehicles, The
EPA appointed auditor Mr Hitchcock
requested the
samples of raad
base in order to
adequately characterise the material irnpomd
on to the site, These three samples were
lebdkd
with
the prefix "ROAD" and were sampbd in the areas shown on the attached

Site Plan, Figure 2.

M1
supplementary soil samples were recovered from the surface soil byer from the
subject
site in each case. Descriptions
of materials encountered and depths at which
sampfeswere cdleded
are presentedin Appendix C -Sail
Logs.

OlOMlDES
&
ASSOCIATES PTY
LTD
September1,2006 7. DA1255!CDI
September1,2006 7. 122

In amrdance
with our quality assurance procedures
and instructions from
the Project
Manager, the soil samples colbcted
were submitted to MGT Environmental Consulting
Laboratories. A summary of laboratory resub
for
the supplementarysite contamination
assessment have been tabulated in Appendix D. The full laboratory
results for the
supplementary site cantamination
assessmentare attached
as Appendix E -Laboratory
Reports for Soil Sampbs.

4.3
Soil Clean Up Validation Sampling
An experienced project
manager and an environmental scientist from Diomides
&
Associates conducted the sampling required in order to
validate
the clean up of the
subject site. Valdaticln
of the cleaned up areas of the site consisted
of lwo validation
samples recovered from each d
the &M
areas of the subject site as shown in Figure 2

-Site!
Plan. In some cases the sait
clean up validation sampling and supplementary soil
sampling locations
coincided and single samples were recovered in order to
avow
duplication.

A series of representative soil samptes

were colkcted
by Dicrmides
& Associates from
the excavated areas of the site. A total of fifteen
clean up validation samples were
cdbcted
and anaiyslsd
during the course
of this project. Descriptions of materials
encountered
and depths at which dean up validation samples were collected
are
presented in Appendix C -Soil Logs. The localions
af
the clean
up validation samples
recavered
are shwn
In
Figure 2 -Site Plan.

DIOMIDES
&
ASSOCIATES PN LTD

September 3,2006 8. DA12551CDl122

P--

All validation samplesfor this project

were identified with theprefix'AREA' for validation
sampfes
taken from
he
excavated areas
of the site, The results of
all analyses for clean
up vakiation
samples are summarised
in Appendix D. The full laboratory reports are
attached as Appendix
E

Laboratory Reports for Soil Samples.

All samples were recovered
using clean latex gloves
and stored in pdevvashed
gtass
jars under cml condiions prior to delivery to the
laboratwy
for chemical analysis.

Each sample jar was clearIy

labelled with the following information:

DAI
255 (Job Number);
Sample Number;
Depth of sample; and,
Sampling Date.

During the site clean up validation and supplementary site wntaminaUon

assessment,
particubr note was faken
of possible contamination,
as evidenced by
visual
and odour
criteria. A rnelhod
of field contamination assessment
for soif
was utilised, based on
these criteria, The system of classillcation
is summarised below:

Rank Description
0
No odour or visualevidence of contamination
1 Slight
odour ancVor
slight visual evidence of contamination
2 Visual evidence of contamination
and /or
odour
3 Obvious visual evidence
of contamination andhr
strong odour

The rank of each soil sample is presented In AppendixC -Soil logs.

DIOMIDES
&
ASSOCIATES PTY
LTD
Seplemkr
2006
9.
DAI
2551CD
t
122

Measurement
of volatile
organic hydrocarbon
concentrations
were not conducted in the
kld
using a photo-ionisation detector
for this
assessment work since
previous work by
others
indicated that volatile organic hydrocarbon contamination was not an issue within
the subject site.

5.0 CHEMICAL ANALYSES

All soil samples were submitted to MGT as !he
primary laboratory for cornpositing
of
selected soil samples, analysis of all composite soil samples
plus selected indMdual
soil
samples previously recovered
during the soil contamination assessment of the gas
easernent
area, site dean up validalion and supplementary site contamination
assessment work, Four extra soil
samples recavered
from
the previous soil
cantarnmation
assessment of !he
gas easernent area conducted by Diomides
&
Assbetates
were also analysed for various metals in order
to
more
th~roughly
characterisethe fill
material remaining within the
gas easement
area of
the subject site.

In accordance
with
instructions from the Project Manager, MGT previously formed ten
composite soil samples as part of the soil
contamination assessment for the gas
easement area. Four of these
ten composites were subsequently analysed for
hexavalent chromium at the
request of the EPA appointed environmental
auditor Mr
Witchcock.
The four composite sampbs analysed during this assessmentwork are as
described
in Table 2.

DIOMIDES
& ASSOCIATES PTY
LTD

September 1,2008
lQ. DA3
255JCD1122

TABLE 2.
Details of Composite Soil Samples

Composite Source of Samples (Sample No's) &

Sample No. Depth of
Samples
Below
Ground Level ((in
metres)

COMP 8
COMP E
COMP F
COMP G

MGT has advised ihat

it is NATA registered for all chemical analyses required in this
investigation. All
asbestos icientification
work
was conducted by Environmental &
Safety
Professionals(ESP). A summary of
laboratory resultshas been presentedin Appendix
D for all soil samples. The full results of laboratory
analyses for soil samples are
presented in Appendix E with details of the laboratory quality assurance
procedures
in
aIl
cases.

The range and number of chemical analyses performed on soil samples for this
investigationare indicated in Table 3.

DIOMIDES
&
ASSOCIATES PTY
LTD
September 1,2006 If.
September 1,2006 DA12551CD
1
122

TABLE 3. Range and Numberof Chemical Analyses Performed

Constituent Composite IndividuaI

Validation
Soil Soil Soil

P
P

Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium

Chromium (Total)
Chromium 011)

Cobalt
Copper

Lead
Mercury
MalyWnum

Nlckel

Weim
Tin
Vanadium
Zinc

PAH

OP
Pestkides

OC
Pesticides

PCBs

Ahtw
BTEX
TPH

DlOMlDES
&
ASSOCIATES PTY
LTD

September 1,2006 12.

DA12551CD1122

6.0 RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION

The 543,360
Geological
Survey of Victoria
Melbourne Sheet indicates that
the site is
underiain
by
Quaternary basaltic deposits associated with the newer volcanics
group.

6.2
Subsurface Conditions
The investigation of'subsurface
conditions conducted during the site clean up validation
and supplementary site contamination assessment fcrr
this project found that the fill
material over
the
entire area of
the subject site had been successfully
removed, except
for some minor
fill material remaining within the
gas easernent
area of the
site.
Underlying
fhe
surface were
the natural
soils consisting of light brown to grey residua!
basalticclays.

The subsurface conditions encountered at each of the

soil sample locations are
presented in Appendix C. The resutts
of the fidd
ranking
based on visual and olfadory
assessment conducted during the soil
sampling program are also
includedin Appendix
C,

DIOMjDES
&
ASSOCIATES PTY LTD
September1,2006 15.
September1,2006 DA1255KD1
i
22

7.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

The
guidelines for perfarmance
of a site contamination assessment which apply in
Australia are hose
published in W
"National Environment Pmtection
{Assessment of
Site
Contamination) Measure 1999, plus the "Guidelines for the Assessment and
Management of Contaminated
Sites"
{January 1992),
Australian and New Zealand
Environment Council, and the
Nationd
Wealth and
Medical Research Council
(NHICMRC)
known
as the ANZECC
guidelines.

In perfQrming
the site clean up validation and supplementary site contamination
assessment for this project, Diomides & Associates Pty
Lid
has had regard ta
the State
Environment Protection Policy
(Prevention
and Management of
Contaminated Land)
and various guidelines including the National
Environment Protection Measure
(NEPM), the ANZECC
guidelines, the Environmental Auditor
(Contaminated Land)
Guidelines for Issue of Cerlificates
and Statements of Environmental Audit, and the
Australian Standard -Guide to the
sampling and investigation of potentially
contaminated sdl, AS 4482.1
2005 and AS 4482.2 -1999,
The resub
af
the
chemical analyws
have been compared with the sol1 lnvestigation bvels adopted
under the NEPM guidelines.
In accordance with the NEPM guidelines, Diomides
& Associates has adopted the
Ewbgical
Investigation Levels {Elk)
for an urban setting, the Health Investigation
Levd
(HIL
As) which
apply for 'standard' residential use with gardenlamssible
wil,
plus the
NSW EPA Guidelines for Assessing Senrice
Station Sites for petroleum hydrocarbon
and ETEX
levels in soil. The results of
all chemical analyses conducted
duriw
ihis
investigation have been compared
with these dteria.

September 1,2006 16.

DAI 255tCD1122

Sedion
2.1 of EPA Informalion
Bulletin, Publication 448 fied
"Classification of
Wastes", covers Fill Material and provides a Table 2 tiled,
"Maximum Concentrations
of Contaminants Allwed in Soil to be
Disposed of as Fill material". The Information
Bulletin states, "Contaminant levels must be below those
specified in Table 2,
otharwlse
the material
must be classified as prescribed
waste. The results d
chemical
analyses conducted during this
investigation have also been campared
with these
criteria.

MGT
carried out Internal
quality assurance procedures involving the analysis of
spike
and duplicate soil samples, For this investigation, MGT
reported internal duplicate
relative percent difference [RPD)
values between c1
% and 9.2 % with 100
% of
dupfite
RPD
values within W
+/-50 % acceptance criteria. Percentage spike
recovery values
ranged from 75 %
ta
129 %
with approximately 97.3 % of
percentage
spike recovery
values within the 75 to 125 % acceptance criteria. Diornides
&
Associates believe that most method blanks and surrogates reported by MGT are
within the required acceptable limils
as required by their NATA
accreditation.
Laboratory
resub
for all sail samphs
are attached as Appendix E.

Contaminant occurrences
are presented in Appendix D which show any elevated
concentrationin shaded format, indicating that a partidar
contaminant
is above one or
more of the adopted criteria.

DlOMlDES
& ASSOCIATES PTY
LTD
September1,2006 19.
September1,2006 DAt25WDI
l22

negligible, or bw
adverse effects on plants and other vegetstion
which constitute
any site landscaping within the sik:
and,

negligible. or
no impact on the surrounding environment
due to
possible leaching
of any contaminants present in sol
or
ml,
into road gide
drains or into
groundwater.

Based an the
results of this investigaflon,
we recommend
that no furlher
dean up of the
subject site is necessary prior to the issue of a Certificate of Enviranmenfat
Audit
permittingresidential development within the subject site.

DlOMlDES
&
ASSOCIATES PM
LTD

September 1,2006 20. DA12551CD1122

9.0 LIMITATIONS OF
THIS
REPORT
Soil and rock formations am
variable. The soil logs indicate what are considered to be
the prevaihg
subsurface conditions within the site. Boundaries between zones on the
lags
are often not distinct, but rather are kansitional
and have been interpreted. The
precision with which subsurface conditions are indicated depends largely on
the
frequency and method of sampling, and the uniformity of subsurface conditions.

A soil
contamination
assessment
necessarily
involves the Investigation of subsurface
conditions at a site
for a limited number of locations and the interpretation
of data
collected
from a specified range of analyses, and a limited number of soil samples
recovered
from those locations.
Chemical conditions descnied
in this report refer only
to
those
conditions indicated by analysis of
soil samples obtained
at the points and
under the circumstances noted in the report and are relevant
only to the conditions
which pertained at the lime
of this investgation.
These conditions may vary
due
to the
variabiiity
of contaminant concentrations in soil
as a consequence of
activities an the site
or adjacent sites,

Should there be revealed at same future time that contaminant

concentrations in soil
encountered at
the site differ significantly from
those
indicated by the results
in this
report, either due to natural variabirity
of sub surface conditions or above ground
activities,
it is strongly recommended
that Dibmides
&
Associates
Piy
Ltd
be notified of
the differences and provided with an opportunity
ta
assess
the significance of such
diff~~ences

and to provide appropriateadvice.

DlOMlDES
&
ASSOCIATESPTY LTD
September 1,2006 21. DAt2551CDl122
September 1,2006 21.

Due care ard

skill have been applied in carrying
out
and reporting
an
this
work. The
findings, mnduslons
and camments
contained in this report represent
professional
estimates ancl
opinions and are not to
be read as facts unless the context makes it clear

to the contrary. In general, statements of fact are confined to statements as to

what was
done
andlor
what was abserved.
Other statements
have been based on professional
judgement.

This report is prepared solely for the

use of the peraon,
company or organisation
to
whom it is addressed and must not be reproduced in whole
or in part or includedin any
other document without our expressed permission in
writing. No
responsibiti
or liability
is accepted to any third party for any damages howsoever arising out of the use of

or
reliance on thewhole or
any part of this repwt
by any third party.

This
report has been prepared on the basis of
specific instructions
and information
provided
by or on behalf of the parly
to whom it is addressed and
for use by that party in
its particular cjrcurnstances
and for
its particular purpose. Its cantents
and conclusions
may therefore be
Inappropriate for any lhird
party in the context
of
that fhird
party's
particular purposes and circumstances.
Any
third party shwld obtain its own
independent report or 0th
professionaladvice raiher
than rely on this report

DIOMIDES
LASSOCIATES PTY
LTD

DR COSTA DIOMEDES
STEPHEN DlOMlDES
EnvironmentalScientist Director

Senior Environmental Auditor

-Contaminatecl
Land

Registration
No.
005155

QSA
Register of Certifiid
Auditors

September t
,2006
22. DA1255iCD1122

10.0 REFERENCES
Australian and New Zealand Environment and Consetvation
Council
[ANZECC)INational
Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC),
Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for the Assessment and Management
of Contaminated Sites, 1092.
Diamides
&
Associates Pty
Ltd, Report to Coomes
Consulting Group Pty
Ltd,
Soiil
Contamination Assessment (Fibre Optic Easement Area). 31 Hampstead
Road, Maidstone. Report
Ref. DAl2551CD1097,
May 2005.
W

Diomides 8
Associates Pty
Ctd,
Report to Coames Cansultlng Group Pty Ltd,
Soil
Contamination Assessment, Gas Easement
Area, 31 Hampstead Road,
Maidstone. ReportRef. DA1255iCD1106,
April 2006.

CHZM
Hill, Maidstone Laboratory
and Radio Tower Phase
1 & 2 Site
Assessment. Final Report Ref. 101340 Rev2, to Telstra Corporation, April
1999.

CHZM I-lill,
Maidstone Laboratory and Radio
Tower Phase 3 Remediation of
Contaminated Soils. Final Report Ref. 101387 Rev1,
to
Telsfra
Corporation,
April 1999.
DIOMIDES
&
ASSOCIATESPTY LTD
APPENDIX A

LAND VICTORIA PROPERTYREPORT

Property
Rep013
kmww.land.vlc.govYau
on27 May 2005
II:ZI
AM

Address: 31 HAMPSTEAD ROAD MAIDSTONE 30j2

lot
and
Plan Number: Lot
A PS443690
Standard
Parcel Identlfler
ISPI):
A\PS443690
Local Government (Cotrncll):
MARIBYRNUNG
Council Property Number: 8405384014
Directory
Refenncc:
Mehvay
27G9,27H9,27GIO,
27HlO

State Electorates
Legislative Council:MELBOURNE WEST (20031
Legislaave
Assembly: FOOTSCRAY
(2001)

Utilities
Metro Water Business: City West Water
Rural Water Buslness:
SouthernRural Water
Melbourne Water: inside drainage
boundary
Power Kjistrtbutor:
AGL (hfarmatloil
about-

Planning Zone Summary

Planning Zone: COMMONWEALTHLAND NOT CONTROLLED
BY PLANNING SCHEME(CA]
Planning Overlay: DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY -SCHEDULE1 (DDOI)

DEVELOPMENT
CONTRIBUTIONS
PUN
OVERLAY
SCHEDULE 2 (DCP02)

mk
repor1
is not a aubslilule
for
a Planning Cerlcate.
Far
Pknning
Certificate
Plannincr
CMificales
Online
Wr
Planning Detalls

Plannino
Schemes Online

Area Map

Copyright@
State
Governmentof VlcWria
Disddmer:
This
content
is rwkled
tor
infurmation
purposes onty.
No daim is made as to
the
accuracyw
aulhmtielty
of the
cmanL
$9
Vicbloriaa
Gwmenl
does
not
accept
any
rabiilty
to
any person
for lha
informalin
provided. Read
Ule
full disclaimer a1
m.land.ric,gw.auldiscIaimer
Address: DEVELOPMENT $IQ

31 HAMPSTEAD
R0
MAlOSKlNE
VIC

Date:
Raport
Issua
Date:
BAQ(GROUt46
air
monitoriog
during the
w~ilv4tbn
and
or removal of soll,

Remwal
Contractor: BMD
Cllent:
Comes
C~multing
Group Pty LM

Monitwing
Method:
In House
Method No. P7.1

NOHSC
3003 Guidance
Note 2005.

Rle
No: 33836

CC: CPclrnes
Cansulting
Group
Pty
Ltd
APPENDIX B

AZCQR
AWESTOS
AIR MONITORING REPORT
MOMTdRLOC4nON
ON
i
OFF
SAMPLE
IDNO.
!
FIBRE5
PER100
FIELD5
RESULTT
FIARE#CNL.
MR
l.
REAR OF 1WEI
ST
HOUSES OH WIRE RNCE
l020
1600 33833 0
cD.01
2. AVSTRAUA
PUT
FENCE WSf
1022 1602
33834 0
<0.01
3. AREA 2 WEST
ON WIRE FENCE 1023 3603
33835 0
<O.Ol
4. AUSTRALIA
POST FENCE E4ET
1025 2604
33836 I)
<0.01
5. WA
2 EAST ON WIRE
FENCE 1027
frsos
3837
a <D.OI

NOTE: These
results am
below the
detectian ltwal (0.01 fibresper mlllllitre
of air)
fnr
thls methnd,

JTm
Gough
A
MATA
~WiW?WE
M91
W

ZEGEE

TO'Q>

EGSI

ZCTT

Z
W
W'6

33N33
3UW
NO

TO'O>

BEIT

C)

33N33
aUIM
NO lS3M
Z:
YMtl
'+

IE6fE

6*ST

W....

TO'O>
SCE1

RTT

3tlN3d
3dIM
ND
SXflOH
IS
NIMUI
dO
MEIY
'E

WEE

p-
p-.___._.

SD'O>

626EE

?C41

ZEII

33NU
=!M
NO EX3
Z
WW
'5
33N3d
3'LIIM
NO I9h4
L
Wan#
'C
10'0>
....
TObO>
+"
TO'O,
~0~02
IO'D>
71J/'S3Zif8Id
SL7nS38
0
S89EE
0
CQQEE
OZZT
8IZT
-
OIL0
o
ETLQ
0
0
E88EE
ZB~EE
18B��
SU73Ij
OOT
H3d
S3HBId
33NY
3Y1M
M
S3SnOH
IS
NMYI
30
'E
MM
32~33
ISM
vm-usnv
*I
lStR
=Nil4
lSOd
YIIWLSDW
'1
+TtrT
ZTZI
DTZI
SOLD
EOLO
00L0
NQf1b307
HOUNOW
NQ
'ON
01
37dWE
JJO
1

ro -~> o
: 8~6~s
WGT
OETT
~913
3~~

3
sod
YI~ZUS~V
-T

NOfiW7
UOUhlOW
Address:

Date:
Report Issue Dam:

Removal Contraacir:
Client:

Modtoring
Method:

File No:

CC:
AS8
ESTOS
AIR
MONITORING REPORT

DEVELOPMENT SITE
31 HAMPSIEAD
R0

BACKGROUND ak monitoring during the

excavationand or remval
Of soil,

MD

Coanes
C~gnsuking
Gmup Ply
Lld
In Hwu#
Method No. P7.1

NOHX
W3
Guldance
Mote 2005.
33982

Ca~rnes
Consulting
Group Pty
ttd

Address:
Date:
Report Issue Date:

Description:
Removal
f3r'itrattor:
Ciient:

Monitoring Method:
File No:

CC:
ASBESTOS
A/R
MONlTORlNG
REPORT

DEVELOPMENT SITE
31 HAMPSFEAD
RD
MAIDSTONE
WC

BACKGROUND air
monitoring durlng
the excavation and or removal of sol[,

BMD
Comes Comldting
Qmup
Ply Lld
1n
House
Method
No, P7.1

NOHX
Xi03
Guidance
Note
2005,
34054
Coomes
Consulting
Gmup Pty Ltd

1,
AUSTRALIAPOST FENCE EAST 1030 1534 33977 1.5 ~0.01
. MONITOR LOCATJON

FI13RES

ON

RESULTS

OFF

SAMPLE

ID NO.

C7DREVML

'F:!:,","

ATR
.

.-

1.
AUSTRALIA PO=
FENCE M
<0,(11

Ill45

1600

341149

---p-

1046

1602
34050

<0,01

3. REAR OF IRWIN ST HOUSES

ON WIRE FENCE
1048

1605

34051

cU.01

4. AREA
2 WESTON
WIRE
FENCE
1055

1610

34052

<0.01
5. AREA 2EAST ON
WfRE
FENCE
0

<D.O1

2. AUWA
PO=
FENCE WEET
1031 1536 33978 tl
~0.Dl
m,..
, .
3. REAR
OF ~RWIN
ST
HOUSES ON WIRE FENCE
1032

1537
33979 a <O,OI
----p

4. AREA 2 WESTON WIRE FENCE

1035

1538

33980

<0.01
-.

5.
AREA 2
ON WIRE
FENCE 1
1037
1539

33981

<0.01
NOTE:
These resukts
am
below
the daection
level
(0.0k
fibres
per mlllilltre
af
alr)
for thls
method.

NOTE: These results are belowthe detection level (O.Bl

fibres
per mlllllllre
OF
air]
for this mathod.

Jirn
Gouah

Jim Gough

lhH
bbonxry
Ir
rsret%o3

M
Habcaal
Pucdrtbn
01
my
&DioWca
*mwalla.
711s
Ir%ramy
lr
exrdted
by
ma
Raliaodl
UmaMn
cl
Tsdm
khQa
haaka.
fha
tws
reportwj
hmln
ksvr
km
pvtmma
In cld~rit.
nm
la
row
cl r:cndmubn.
tbs
tan
fwbrtad
horrln
Mve
hen
Wumrd
Inmdnnct
h kap
d
e-e:crtdicatlon.
114
dotursw
stall
not k RPC~W. acrg:
10
1WI.
nrlr
dacurnmt
rlmd
nct
k
rnprd~d.
warn
fd.
0
~0.01
ASBESTOS ASBESTOS
A /R
MONITORING REPORT AIR MONiTORlNG
REPORT

Address;

Address: DWELOPMHVT
SITE
31 tlAMPStEAI)
RD
MAIDGONE
VIC

Date:

Date:
Report
Xwe
Date:

Report
I5sue
Date:

BACKGROUND air monltorlng

durirrg
the excavation
arrd
or
removal
of soil,

BAQCGRDUN~
air
rnonit~ring
during the excavation md
w
removal
of
soil.

Removal
Contractor:
mD

BMD
Client;
Comes ConsuiUng
Gmup Ply Ltd

AV
Jenrings
Ply
lld

Monitoring Method:
In
House Method No. P7.1 -NOHX
3003 Guidance Note 2005. Monitoring Method: In HDUW
Method No.
P7.1
-NOHSC
3003 Guldance
Note 2005.

34190 File
NO: 34235

Caornes
Consulllng
Graup
Pty Led
CC: Cmes
Consulting coup
Pty
Ltd

. .

MONITOR
LOCATION ON OFF i
SAMPLE FIBRES
RESULTS
1
ID
NO. FIBRES.ML

FIELDS h7~

-,
... .

1,
AUSTRALIA WST
FENCE EAST
D935
1420
34185
0
<D,01
MmOR
LOaT;ION
ON
0s
WPLE
10
NO.
FIBRES
loo
. FIELD5
RESULfS
FIBREsi,ML
l. AUSTRALIA m
F f
NE
0930 1340 34230 2
<0.01
2.AUSTRALIA PET
FENCE WKT
D931 1342 34231 0.5 <0.01
3.
REAR OF IRWIN
ST
HOUSES ON WIRE FENCE
0933 1344 34232 0
<0.01
4.
AREA 2 WEST ON WIRE FENCE 0935 1350 34233 0 <O.M
5. AREA 2 EA!X
ON
WIRE FENCE 0937 1351 34234 0
K0.01

2,
AUSTRALIA POST
FENCE WEST
0937

1421

34186

........._____I_._._.-

3. REAR
OF IRWIN
ST HQUS&S
ON WIRE FENCE
0940

34187

1424

4. AREA
2 WE=
ON WIRE FENCE
5. AREA 2
EAST
ON
WIREFENCE
0

cD.01
NOTE:
These results are below the detection level (0.01
nbres
per ndlillltre
of alr)
for thls
method. NOTE:
These
results
are beDow
the
detactlon
level (0.01
flbras
per millilitre of air] for thls method.

Jim Gwgh
~tknr
Urorw
:%",:T&:""k%YJmZ
WTA
CauntPr
&
HWy
WOWI1
Thlr
I&~rcbrj
Is
wrodiSOd
hr
NaI1caa1
A&166bW
dl
TtWw
*.l&orltm
~JSIT~II~.
lhis
laWrYS+I
Is
mxlr((.trd
by bl11a&~341
Aa?OCIaMn
olSnUrq
,bdwW~lsr
Awbrllr.
lhb
tb$u
nportrd
W
n krvr
km
yrlmmtd
In aawr(ancr
prim
la
xopc
fd
accradimlla~.
hvdn
hrr
ken
&cfrmd
In
raordmca
KI~

Lb
Plcrpl
d
YCNamum.
lilts
d~u~m
lhull
npt
b.
nprdd.
m+pL
in Id.
W�
dxurnMl
rlwU
nsl
k
1-d.
ucapeln
hi!.

A
. ....
';;c?*

NATA

v ~~RK),~WI,~~
WCWSWE
M4WB
ASBESTOS
AIR MONITORING
REPORT

Data:
Rapart
Issue
Date:

BACKGROUND alr
mtlnltoring
during
the axcavatbn
and or removal of
~ll.
Remaval
Contractor; BMD
Client: AV
Jennings
Ply Lld

Ia
House
Method No. P7,1
-MQHSC
3003
Guidance Note 2005.
Re No; 34295

CC:
Caomes Consulting Gwup
Pty
Ltd
ON OFF
SAMPLE FIBRES REWLTS

ID
NO. F"f3
100
FIBRES/ML

FIELDS
AIR

1.
AUSTRALIA POST FENCE EASF
1005
1428 )
34290 0 <0.01
2.
AUmlA
POST
FENCE
WEST
1006 1429 <0.01
34291 0
f
m
3. REAR OF lRWN
ST
HOUSES ON WIRE FENCE l008
1432 34292
,
0
~0.01
4. AREA 2
WEST ON WIRE FENCE
'
iOl2
1437 34293
D
<0.01.
5,
AREA 2 EASt
ON WIRE
RNCE
I014
1438 34294 Q <0.01
W

NOTE: Thmr
rewlts
am belw
the
detectloo
level (0.01
fibres
per rnfllllltre
of air) for
this
method.

Jirn Gaugh

~mbpm

Mlaw
PIWb
(aHS)
OlpT114W)
c~r6iblnalOt6)
IkWNhs
NLTA
ePmW
br
Yw'*Yv
WGftl

ASBESTOS

ACR
MONITORING REPORT

DEVELOPMENTSITE

31
HAMPSEAD
RD

MAIDmNE
VIC

Daa:
29/U6/2006
Report Issue
Date: 30/06/20D6

Description:
BACKGROUND air monitoringduring the
axcavation
and or removal
of soil,

Removal antractor:
BMD
Cllant:
AV
Jennings
Ply itd

M~nitoring
Metbd:
Irr
Hwse
Method No. P7.1 -PIOtlSC
3003 Guidance Nate 2005.

File
No: 34333

cc:
Coclrnas
Consulting Gtaup
Pty
Ltd
MONIRIR
LOCA-ROM
l. AUSTRALIAPOST FENCE
EAST
2.
AUSTRALIA
POST
FENCE
WEST
3. REAR OF IRWIN
ST
HOUSfS
ON WIRE FENCE
ON OFF SAMPLE
l0
NO,
FlBRES
$::$",o
RESULTS
FIBRfS/blL
AlR
t
4. AREA
2 WEST
ON WIRE FENCE 1017 1459 34331 Q
5.
AREA 2 EAST
ON WIRE FENCE 0
0
0
0
<0,01
<O*Dl
c0.01
<O.Dl
<O.D1
NOTE:
These results are below
the detection
level (0.01
flbres
per millilitreofalr) forthls mathod.

Jlm
Gough
Qprnsons
Dlrula
UUkh
10tiS)
OlpNHWS)
CrrcT~ner(OH5~

G?fWrWW&a$
WTA
Courcr
$L
Slgwmy
M4D1

nc
labaw*ry
Is IssrrdZd
by
m.
nmcn~l
Lbbbahn
ol~~sbrrp

&dmr*rlcr
dumalw.
lhr
tart
Wnbd
Wn
krr8
km pdarmd
In accoiemrt
VIM
jla
rcqx
d
errtrrmm.
hldxurm:
shall natk
nprtrduml,
urrrg:
fn
W!.
AZCOR

ASBESTOS ASBESTOS
AIR MONITORING REPORT AIR MONITORING REPORT

Address:
DEVELOPMENT SITE
Address: DEVELOPMENT SlTE
31
HAMPSTEAD
RD
31
HAMPmAD
RD
MAID5TONE
WC
MAIDSFONE
WC

Date:

Date:
Report Issue Dale:

Report Issue Date:

WaCGROUND
air rnonitorlng durlng the
excavation and or removal of soil.

BACKGROUND air monitoring during the excavation

awl
or removal of
soil.

Removal
Contractor: BMD
Removal Cbntrattbr:
6MD
Client:
AvJenrdngs
Pty
tld
Chat:
AV
Jendngs
Ply Lid
Mmitoring
Method:
In How
Method No. P7.1

NOHX
3003 Guidance Note
2005.
Monitoring Method: In Hwse Method No. 97.1
NOHSC
3003 Guidance Note 2005.

NOTE: These
results are below
the detection
level (O,OL
fibres
par millliltre
of air) fDr
this method.
NOTE: These results are below
the detectfan
level
(0.01
Rbr~s
par rnillllitre
d
air) far tbis
method.

Jim Gwoh

File No: 34384

cc:
Cmlts
ConsuIting
Gmup
Pty Ltd
5~AJRU~
LOCATION ON OFF MblPLE
ID NO.
1.
AUSTRALIA WET
FENCE W
1052 1525 34379
2, AUSTRALIA POST
FENCE!
WEST 1054
1526 34380
3, REPR
OF IRWIN
5T
WUSES
ffl WlRE
FENCE 1056
1527 34381
4. AREA 2 WEST ON WIRE FEN=
1108 1528 34382
5.
AREA 2 M
ON WIRE FENCE . 1111
1529
34383

Fiie
No:
34432

CC:
Cooms
Consulting
Gmup Pty
Ltd
FIBRE5
RESULTS

ON

OFF
SAMPLE

FIBRES

RESULTS
PER
100
FI8RE$/ML

D
.
FIBnEUML

FIELDS
NR

3. REAR OF IRWIN
ST
HOU5E4
ON WIRE FENCE
2. AUSTRALIA POST
FENCE WEST
3..
AUSTRALIA W51'
FENCE
ERST

,
g;:,","

AiR

I)

1.5

O
f
<0.01
4. AREA 2 WEST ON WIRE FENCE

o
I
<o.al
5. AREA 2 EAST
CHY
WIRE FENCE 1056
ASBESTOS
AIR MONITORING REPORT

Date:
Repart
issue Date:
BACKGROUND air monitoring during the excavationand or remvd
of soll.

R8mval
Cantractor:
BMD
Client: AvJennings
Ply Ltd

Monitoring Method:
In
House Method NQ,
P7.1

FKIHSC
3003 Guidance Note 2005.
34508

Comes ConsrtTtlng Group Pty Ltd

SAMPLE

FIBRES
ID
NO.

MOFUrOR
LUC4T70N

ON

OFF

PER
100

FIfLDs

1,
AUSTRALIA POST FENCE E4!3
345153

1000

1445

1003

1.447

2. AUSTRAUA
POSTFENCEWEST
34504

---p-

3. REAR OF lRWlN
W
HOUSES
ON WIRE FENCE
1006

1450

34505

W.+,....

4.
AREA 2 WEST ON
WIRE
FENCE
0

5,
AREA 2 EAST
ON WIRE
FENCE
U

RESULTS

FIBREStHL
1
A3R
.

<O.OX

4.01

<0,01

<0.01
<0.01
HDN~OR
LOCA~ON

t.
AU!YIWLIA
WST
FENCE
2. AUSTRALIA
FENCE WEST
3,
REAR
OF IRWIN ST HOUSES
ON WIRE
FENCE

4,
AREA 2 WEST ON WIRE FENCE
5,
AREA 2 W
ON WIRE
FENCE

ON

OFF

1049

1535

1052

1536
1056

1537

1102

1539

-.
....

1104

1540

SAMPLE

ID
MO.

34519
34520

34521

34522
34523

FIBRES

RESULTS

PER

REJRES/ML
FIELDS

AW

<O.I)l

0
:
40.01
I]
<0.01
0
<0.51
0

4l.01

NOTE:
Thasa
rns~lts
are below
the detection level (0.01
fibres per rnillllitra
of air) hr thls method.

ASBESTOS
AIR MONITORING
REPORT

Address;
DEVELOPMENT WTE
32
HAMP5EAD
RD

MAIDSKIN�
M(:
Date:
Reprt
Issue Date:
Description: BACKGROUND alr
mnlkoring
during the excavation
and or removal of soil,

Removal Contractor; BMD

Cllent:
AV
Jmtings
Pty LW

MonitoringMethod:
In
House Method
NO.
P7.1

NOHX
3003 Guidance Not@
2009,
File
NO:
34524

CC:
Coomes
Consulting Gmup
Pty Ltd
NOTE: These
results
are
below
the
detection
level (0.01
fibres par mlllllara
of alr)
far thls
method.

Jim Gwgh

Jlm
G~ugh

mntmns
Rtwbr

Cpnntmna
Rr*

mprw
ICNS)
waqwt

OIwm
l=)
~lWQHS)

C~~nrr(MS1

&rWrPcZ.v~s

CerflmlWCm)
mfc4rPflMdr
tararter&
ta war my
MUGUI

tHTh
CowW
Ih
~F~=IY
MG1H

MS
ICLlOnW I5 IXWM
by
mHnllbtndl
WW&a11
dTmb~
Ad*rUr.
AsWlu.
Ws
Ia%W
l$
rtttcdit4.5
Wf
'I
HnadPnal
&maton
gfTtru~r;lPud*rr~~

&;vrrlrs.
Thn
WD
n;#d
hufln
have btrn
ptprp~md
In raorda~~
wtd~
lu
+cap
at
nccndbUon.
Tnr
M5
rapmrJ
here4
have
#an
pcrlumcd
is 4Wnnsr
\rill
lu
uop
cl.
s:arj,hbon.
MS
sxumilt
&l1
act
br
rtprtdu&,
axc+rx
In
Iut+

mls
dxumcnr
shall nn
ba
ngrc2uceU,
=Alp
iul.

"A
,.,,,.

P?.
... ...

NATA
dQ$<i+

WATA
*j:;c'

W
mabmw
1t#JZ
S'WFi

,c-*,
,L,,,

. q.'2
S
AIR MONRORNG
REPORT

Address:
DEVELOPMENT SITE
31 HAMPSTEAD RD

Date: 27/07/2006 (Last day)

Reprt
Issue
Data: 28/0712006

WMGROUND
air monitoring during the L?Xcavatlorr
and or nmwal
of sdl.

Remwal
Contractor:
BMD
Client: AvJenrdngs
Ply
Lld

Monitoring Method:
In ~ouse
Method No. P7,2

NQHX
3003
Guidsnca
Note 2905.
me
NO:
34549

cc:
Cwmes
Consulting Group
Pty
Ltd
MOWOR
tom no^
ON
OFF
WWLE
FIBRES

RESULTS
IDNO.
EJ?lao
FIaRES.ML

FIELDS

<0,01

APPENDIX C

2.
AUSTRALIA
PO-
FENCE WEST
1059

1536

34545

1
0

<0.01
3. REAR OF IRWN
ST
HOUSES
UN
WIRE
ENCE
c0.01

-,

4. AREA 2 WE5TW
WIRE
FENCE
<[1.01

SOIL
LOGS
5. AREA 2 EAST ON WIRE
FENCE
<15.01
NOTE: These results are below the detection
level
[Q.OI
fibres par mlllilltce6f
air)
for
thk
method.

1.
AUSTRALlA
POST FENCE EAST
ThB
tabDRmw
b
rxradktd

me
HSenaiAsg-rm~
alfbsbw
duh~*+l
kutbal~a.
Thwtam
mwt4J
hdn
bra
Wn
Wdetmrd
Id
lem%nrt
uim
Its
raw
sl
sctmdima;sn.
brwW
shall
nH
h
m-
Wept
In Ml.
SUMMARY OF SOIL
LABORATORY RESULTS
CHAIN OF CUSTODY

Page
1
of
I
Attention: MGT CHEhWAL
ANALYSIS
Cllmf:
Momldm
&
Assdcbbes

nsoMm&s&
mcu
m
PTY
LT&

EN~4UNMfV#~AL

CmSdk,YMS

Locailon:
Malrlme

A.W
(US
r.r&
PrnJrctMo:
DA
1255

l1
Ccuway
Abmlm

Sample Typ@{a):
&!l

Ph:f63)QfU2ZWb

M~lart~3lll
Far:
CC~)
9842ddt2

Data
Barnpled:
l
ySfllPk

Pa
tc:
Time:
..
...i:
4 ;
. .. . :
' .
r. ..:

L
.
,::..,>; :
J
-.

c--..--
. . ..i.,.*..;.--
!!i
l

. r
---,-.,...._--
.i
....,
,. :
:

-
?\. . -
.
' 1

U_
, . ..
. :

,
. .
.. .:
I

'
:I.J
.-.

I
.:
.

8
.
. . ."
..
-..-..
4
--.---,.
..P
..
,.....

. . '

'S.'

Ci
:
.:
. ::
i
. 1
:.

V.'

4
4

*i

;
.,...,.
,...
i..i..i..-C..;
;.
.i.
.i.,;.n
..,
!--*..,~--f

:
-
8 i
,.
,
<

.
I ).:'
. .FT
i

. ,

. .

.ii..

...----......

,..

-,,..,..
;

-,..L
,,.,
"!,

1..

.....;...A..!.

...,,.
.

2.-!
.-..

,.

.
b.
:
. , :
i i
i
i

'

-
>
. '
i
.:
3
:

...

.&..
.....
.;

,,

.---

....-.*..,
:.
..--.L.--#,.,
Envir~nmental
Consulting Pty.
LCd.

3 Kngslon
Taw
Cloae,
OaWeigh,
Iricloria
3166,Auslnrlia
Poalel
addrass;
F. 0.
Box 276, adklei
h Uclda
3166 AstnUt

$kieohom:
-1031
$584
7055
Fax:
(03j
0564
7190
Wl;
mQl~glenv.corn.au

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS

biomides
&
Associates Pty. Ltd. Report Number: 195851Page 1of 4
11
Conway
Ave , Order Humber:

Date Received: Jul4,2006

Donvale

Date Sampled:Jul4,2006

Victoria 31 'l
1

Date Reporhd:
Jul
11,2006

Site:MAIDSTONE DA1255
Contact: Stephen
Dlornldes

Methods
Meihod
102 -ANZECC

%
Moisture
APHA 3500-CrHexamlent Chromlum
Comments

Notes

1. The results in this

repon surrsede any pevbvsly
corresponded
results.
2.
All Soil Results
are repme
on a dry basis.
3. Sampk
are analysed
on an as received basis.
ABBREVIATONS

mghg
:milligramsper kilograms,
mg/L
:milligramsper lilfe,
ppm
:parts permllllon,

LOR
:
Limit of Reporling
RPD
:
Relative Percent Difference
CRM
:Certified Reference Matedal

LCS : Laboratory
Control Sample

M icltii~l
Wright
NATA Sig~~ntary
t,ahnmtnrv
Mnn~gcr
Report Number:
195811
---
---
~tr1wm-mr'
SIN YJ7RaFM3
7YJnl3ldMOWdNX
UTAM
SB1WJ0SSY
BS5B/ibWiU

............,..$.l..
.

.-'C
.

',
, . W"
.

. ,.
,,
. .

....... ,

.... .:4.

L.
-
'i.
-
. ::,
*.
. .
Enviro
nmental Consulti
ng Pty.
Ltd.

3
Kjngstan
Town Clms
Oaklbigh
Viria
3165
Australia

CHAIN OF CUSTODY

Attention: ESP

................
........
-.
.......

CHFhllG
AL ANALYSIS
Clio~lt;
13lbmltlos
8
4ssocIatas
Localion:
MaIds1n1w
I
:

P~ojccVNo
-DA 1255

S~rt~rle
j
j
j

Typo(&)r
Scli]

l,
a'
!
: Dntn
Samplrd:
@7b
I

2.
:
;
i
7,'
SAMPLE It3ENf
kTY

.....
....
.........................
.......
..........
......

.........

. ...........-.---..-...
:.
.......
..........
......

.......L..
I....

."..,."
..,--.--
..
-,,..-.--.-,..
;
.......
...............

. ,-
..............................
............
. .....

l
C

..............

............
...........

,,

A..

....

.
.......................
...............

,-.-.-
1

a-
E

...-.......,..................
............

.........
........

..................
.....

. .
..............
.....................
: ............
.
'
.................................
:
.........
.l.
....
.h.
,.
.,..
A... .:
.......
............
;
,.
................
... ....
. ...........................
1
......
*.....
..;
;
..........
i
8
.....................
J...:
.................

.......

1ul~1
8

No d
Cocita!m?is

Snlrwlcd
h:
St.;~~t!c.r..Q%.ud&.'.
-.
Organiartion:
~~~;l~:~&.fi~~
:fijri.,.$::~Or~l"i~~~tl~r~
...-~i.~

....

Rt?cci*cd
by:
Date;
---A
7i.r~
:..Time:
,..2:.4..'i.pr:s,
,..
sew~rkl~
M:
-d.?L
.......-.............
a
: . .......--...
.....
.........

RuceW+d
4%
._
. atganl~ati~t~:
.-."
...,..-
-.W+
..........
............

Dale:
,..-v
..............
~f~~e:
.-,.
~LQ:
..--
l-~t~~:

PosW
address:
P, 0.
Box 276:
0akk
h:
~a
3166:
Aushala
?elephms:
(m)
9SB(
7055
FM:
103)
$564
7190
Email:
mgl@nglonv.wrn.eu

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS

Diornides
8
Asswbbs
Pty.
Ltd. Report Number: 197585 Page 3 of 14
l f
Conway
Ave
Order
Number:
Donvale
Pate Received: Aug 18,2006

Victoria 31 11

Date Sampled: Aug16,2006

Date
Reported: Aug28,2006

Sile:
MAIDSTONE DA1255

Contact: Stephen Diomides

Methods
USEPA 6O1IlB
Heavy Metals &lfSEPA7470fll
MercuryUSEFA
8270C
Polycyclic
Asomatic
H drocarbons
USEPA 8260B
-MOT
3JOA
~~rocy$c

Aromatic
Hydrocarbons
MGT100A-GC
Total Recoverable
M dmcarbons
USEPA BOlOB
Heavy
Metals
&
US&A
77470nl

kg3102
ANZECC
%
Moisture
APWA 3500-Cr Hexavalent
Chromium

Comments

Notes

l.The results in this report su ersede

any previouslycorresponded
results,
2. All Soil
Results
are repmelon
a drybasis.
3. Samplesareanalysed on an as receivedbasis.
mghg
: milligrerns
per kilograms,
mgR
:
milligramsper litre, ppm
:parts per million,
LOR
:Limit pf
ReportingRPD: Relatlve
Percent Difference
CRM
: Cerlified
Reference
Material
LCS
:Laboratory Conlrol
Sample

Michacl
Wright
NATA
Signatory
I.ahoratnrvM~nngcr
Report
Number: 197585

;.:$G\
,.:;;?'
8

V'.

-.

'2

X
AV Jcnnings
AV 6 September2006
31 kfarnpstead
Road, Maidstone, Victoria APPENDIX F

APPENDIX F
Threshold Criteria

S:EnvirmUobsiCabmbes
-Maidstone

3290lS\ReponsU2.0018
-Environmental
Audil
Rqm
for 3 1
Hsmpstcad
Rond.
Maidstone, Viclmia
final.doc
ENVIRQN
National EnvironmentProtection Council (1999) National
National EnvironmentProtection Council (1999)
Environment Protection (Assessment of Site
Contamination)Measure
Schedule B(1)
Guideline onthe Investigation
LeveIs
for Soil and
Groundwater
Table 5 -A Soil InvestigationLevels
Table 5-A

Table 5-A Investigation

Levels (mgkg)

I
[
lwnari
cxpcr~urc
setting
hwd
on land
use have
ken established
for Hlls
(~~Tat~Lor

and Lrurdn.
1998).
niesc
arc:

A. Standnrii*
ddcntia]
wit11
~'d~n/.accessiblv
soil
(home-
mn
pducc
cm;hibutini
less
.than
110%
uf
rqctnblc
md
fruit
inakrr
M
odtw):
Ilir
okgorv
irxlus
n
rlu
then's
dav-care
rcntres!$xndergItrknS,
mrschoo1s
and
nman
uharl9.
B.
Reiictintinl
wikh
qlaitai>tirl
vgetsblegardr~i
(co~rtribu&ng
mm.
o!vegeiable
10%
u
and
Lit
iniake)
and/or
poultry
puvidinl;
niy
qg

rcr
poultr\-
mi=at
daclary
mtakr.
C Rcsirte~dal
with
substintial
vegetable gwdm
ccn-ttzibt~
tin 1Qf
rr
mare
of vpgetaMc
and
fruit
illrake);
poulhv
r.xrludt*l.

D. iinidrnlial
with
~ninimnl
nppomtunitie.
for so$
accw
ircftdes
dwcllillgr
with lull!^
rind
pcmnmtly
paved
tud
space
surlr
as
lii@~-rire
npi~rbnctlts
and flats.
L Parks,
rmrcatid
opm
spacc
anti
playing
fields: i~rcludm secondary
scltouls.

F. Contln~lrcial/
tnrirrstriid:
jr~cludc~
factoria
4
ii~dusbjal
premiss
swlt
as shops and
officesas wdl
ir~
sites.
(I!I-I~

details
tin
dcriuation
of HIL
fw
human
exposurc
settings
bascd
m
lad usc
see *k~iolc
?
Site
and
ra~kaminw~k
referred
npprnam
for
otitnitling
pM!t

specific:on site
Snnr
ling
is the uptake.tixprurr
estinulrr
my
thcn
1*
conhparc~l
to the rrlmw~t
ADk,
&IS
nd
G&
Site
ali~i
mnlanrimilt
specific:
on site sanr
lin is
the prcfcmed
approach
for
cstinlating
plant
uptake, , Expmurc
tstimatcs
may
the11
hr

~mpareii
It
* t
~ u YIWL
sluik~S:
rricnrlt
ADL~
l'l~csc
will h
iic\.clopii
tnr
rqionaj
arcas
bv
ju~Isliiction5as
r
lnlerlrn
ElLs
tpr
klir urban wthw
qe
based
bncomidrrrtimr
2$$itoririw,
hNZECC
B lcvek,
and sd
ilaurw?.
data fran
urban
rsid~ntial

ro
crties
in Four
Awhatiailcapital
citia.
hc&~ounr{
IM

where
HlLs
or
FlLI
arc
set,
are lakcn
from
tlr
Field
timlog)lt%
Mnnurl
compiled
h
I1
h HoWi)
Thlnl
Editin11
1%
Pebl9llgr
-~lle
&
MefaUyrs.
Tl&
ppublicationraatah
infckahon
on i
more exlerlsi?$
list
of soil
dr.nre~!k
qustqlasiall
lmtibk
ol
Millin

Uian
u
rnr~cluPnl
m
thu
'lbble.
AnoUyr
source
8f
~nbmatlop
IS CmuMnatmj
Skta
Mmojppl~
No.4: Tmcr
Umienl
Goncrnanlicns
an hl.

hurl
Rural
&
Urban Arcas
d
Ausbaha.
1995. Soutlr
Australran
WcnLlh
Cnllwsrion.
i
V~IBIWL)

stattb twt bistftiguisl~rd

expected m
Cr
{Ill).
l'hc
carbtnl
nunikr
b
ail
'~'quivalent
carbon
numbcr'
based
on
a method
hit
shndard&s
a~ordik
to
bdiiing
puint.
It
is a tnrthrd
uwri
bv

s~11lmn
n,d!.ticil
Ialantc,rics
to
report crrh
nu111ben
far dmnfcnls
waluafd
m
n
bahng
polnl
CX?colutnn-

Slicdule
R (1)

Guiddinc
on
Inv~stigation
L~vcls
for Suil
and Grtrundwater
NSW E PA (1994) Contaminated Sites: Guidelines for
NSW E PA (1994) Contaminated Sites: Guidelines Assessing
Service Station Sifes

Table 3

Threshold Concentrations
for Sensitive
Land Use

Soils
.-
.-
toxicol~gical
data
for fish,
Table 3
Threshold
concentrations
for sensitive
[and
use -soils

""3

Analp
Threshold concentrationsa Sources
(mglkg
dry
wt)
TPM C
: CM9
65 sett
note
TPHX
1
@-C40
(C
l &C
14,
C
l
5-C28.
C29440)
1,000 see nor#
*
Benzene l ANZECC
INHMRC
1992
Tohene
1-4ri
130~
Netherlands 1994
Ethyl benzene
3.1 '/SOi
Netfierlands
1994
Total Xylenes
14k/2Si
Netherlands
1994
Phenol -1
d
I
Total
Lead 300 ANZECC INHMRC
1992
Benzo{a}pyrane
1
ANZECC
INHMRC
l992
Total PAHs
m
20 ANZECC INHMRC
1992
m.
.. .
Scientifically
iurtined
alcermtive
threshold concsncrari~ns
may be acceptable.
Thresholdsmay be
reviewed as
new sciondfi inforrnatien bceames
available.
NB.

Explanatory notes
farTable 3

a
Refer
to
relevant source documents
fur detalk.

Deflnicfons
of terms used in discussion
of Netherlands criteria (Dennenun
1993)
are:

r
The maximum permissible
concentratioh
(MPC)
is
the 'concenu;lti~n
of a toxic rubsance
chat
fully
protects 95% ofthe species in an
ecosystem'.

The intervention
level
rcptesenu;
'a level where action is
waded
became
impermissible risk
may
occur.
It
depends on other
than
checmtcal
chmctcrlstics
if action
shdd
nke
$ace
immdlately
or not'. in the
case
of ecolcigictl
rkk,
the
inrervention
level 'folly
protects
50% d
che
specim
in an tcosysrem'.

Further information regarding MPCr

ancl
intcnreniion
levels
may be
found in Dcnnerntrr
&
vrn
den Berg
1993.

The Netherlands rourced

vrluss
in Table
2 refzr
to soil
with 10%
natuml
organic matter contenr
These
thmshold
concentr;ltians
must
be adjusted for
the particular
natural
organk
mamr
cantent
of the spectnc
slrc.
The
natural organic
matter contenr In soil may
be derermined
using
the Walkiey
and Black Method.
AS IZB9.D
I. 1-1977,
Peterminutiun
of the
Organic Matu
Content
ofa
kil
(Srondurd
Method),
The threshold concentrations for ethyl benzene ad
Mmes
to
protect terrestrial
organisms
have been derived
from nquatlc
roxicabgllal
data using equilibriumpartitioning. tmrstiptlons
have shown (Van
Gestal&
Ma
1993) that
in the case of
aarrhworms,
toxicity is related
to
the
pore mter
contaminznc concentrxtion. The
LC,,
pore water concentmtions
for several cornpun&
hwe
been favourabEy
compared with LC, aquatic
Explanatary
notes for Table 3 (cont.)

The derivations of
criteria adopted as threshold concentrati~rts
have not expltcirly tiiken
account
of chemical
mixtures. The potential impcr
d
mixrures
of chemicals should be assessed on a site-specific basis.

The potenrial
for
the generation
of odours may mean chat lower threrholds
than those listed in Table 2 are
required for volati
la
compounds.

b
Total petrolturn
hydrocarbons

c
Approximate range d
petroleum hydrocarbon fractions:
petrol CK9,
kcrwene
Cl
6-C
18. diesel C1 2-
C18
and lubricating oils above Cl
8.

d
The TPH C6-C9
threshold concenrmtlon,
Le.
55
m&&
applies to soil
conralnlng
10% natunl
organic
nutter. This cancenuation
has been calculated
awmlng the following

that there has been a fresh spill dpetrgl

that the
aromatic
conrent
ofthe petrol is 30%
+
that the rcrulunt
BTEX
soils concentration5
are at
their tower rhresholdt,
TPH C6X9
concentrationr
above
the
rekvant
thrcsheld
may indicate that BTEX
cancentrations
are
above
ckir
thresholds.This threshold concentration cho~~ld

be interpreted as only an
approximate
potential indicator of
concamination

e The TPH C L0440

threshold cancentratisn
is based on
a consideration
both of the
Netherlands
intervenrion
Levet
for the
TPH C IM40
range and on commonly reported analytkal
dccectlon
limits. The
Netherlands lnrcrwndan value is
5.000
mdkg
dry wdghr.

f
A lower benzene
rhrcrbtd
ccotlctntntkn
may be medad
to pratecc groundwater.

g
The toluene
threshold concentration
is
the Netherlands MPC to prorect terrestrial organisms In
soil. This
value
ms
obnined
by applying a US EPA assessmenr
factor to terre~trisl
chronk No Qbewcd
Effect
concentration
(NOEC)
data, The MPC is an
'indicative'
due
(Van be
Plarrche
et at
1993:
Van de
Plassche
&
Bockcjng
1993).

h
Human health md
~ologkally
bred
protection level for rduene.
The rhreshdd
carrcentratian
presented
here is
the Netherlands intervention value
for the
pmtacci~n
of ctrreraiat
organism. Other
considerations such as odwrr
and
the protection ofgroundwater may require a lower
remediarim
cherion.

I
The
erhyt
benzene
chrtshrrld concentracfan is che
Netherlands
MPC for the protection ef
terrcrMa1
organisms in sail. No terrestrial ecoto~ieologlcal
data could be found for use in the Netherlands criteria
derivation
Therefore. equilibrium
partitioning
has
been
applied to
the
MPC for mter
to obtain estimates
of the
MPC kr
soil. The MPC forwatcr
has been
derived from aquatic ecoroxicdgical
data
pan da Plassche et d.
1993:
Van de Plasscha
&
Bocktlng
19931.

Human health based protection level for

ethyl bemene or total
ylenes
as shown,The chreshdd
concentration
presentedhere is the Netherlandsintervention value.
Other considerations
such as adours
and the protection of groundwater may require a lowet remediation criterion
k
The xylenc rhreshald concentration is the Netherlands MFC
for the
protection of rerrestrhl organisms in
soil. No
temestrlal ecotoxicotagical data
could
be found for me
in the Netherbhds
criteria derivation.
Therefare,
equilibrium parrittlanlng
has been
applied to
the MK for water to
obtainan esejrnate
of the
MPC for roll. The MPC for
water has been derived from aquadt
c~~toxlcolo&~I

data. The concentration

shown
applies to
total xyltnes
and is basedon the arithmetic average of
the
individual xylene
MPCs
(Van
de Plache
et al. 1993;
Van de
Plassche
& Bocksing
1993).

1
Phenol contarninatbat
is not
expected t~
be signincant
at service
starion
sits
Phenol has been included in
the
rnalyte
list because iris a
potential conrdruent
of
waste oil The potential impact of phenol should k
evaluated on a site-specific basis. Phenol may have o
sigrrificant
impact on waters.

m
PolpycIic
aromatic hydrocarbons
AV Jcnnings
AV
3 I
tlampstead
Road, Maidstone, Victoria
B September 2OOG
APPENDIX G
APPENDIX G
Auditor's Verification
Sampling
Laboratory Analytical
Certificate

S:Ewi-ironU&\Coombtx
-Xlaidsrlrne
32-0OlZ\RcportsU,7.0Q18
Environmental
Adit
Repori
far 31 Hmpstcld
Road. Maidstanc,
Victoria
final.doc
ENVIRON
CERTfFICA
TE
OF ANALYSIS

CtiOnl
: EWlRON
AUSTRALLA
PTY
LT0
:
AM
Environmnbl Sydq p*
: loF5
: MR PHlL
MTCXCDCK

:
Gmg
V*l
:PO BOX 664
HAIllAND
NSW
AUSTRALIA

:
277-219
Wo~dpark
Road Smbhfiekl
NSW
2320

AustnPa
2tW

E-msir
: phi~~ck@onrlrocorp.epm.mu
Telephone :
M 49W
4354
F a&mk
:
14934
4359
Pmject
:
32-0018
Oats
mcHW
: 20 Jun
2006
Onfernumber
;
-Not
prorldcd

Dale
fssurd
: 29 JlmSQI)b
C-@C
~~
:
+Not
provldod

No.otsilmple~
-RswW
: 1
S#@
:
Nat pmvldcd

Andysad
: r

ALSE

ExcctEencc
in
AnOIyt~caf
Testing
TMsdrxuM
has been dlgltally
signed by those
new
Wappearcn
this
report
md
are Iht
authodsed
slgnalorb.
Digital signing

MTAAccndlwodbonlory
a25

been unfed
M
In
cwnplancewilh
procedures spccllkd
h 21 CFR Pan
11.

Podh
Department

scuwdancrwll
HATKs

NATA
826 [l0911
$ydI'I~y)
Nanthfrl CbHpammpll Bcnlw Imrganlc Chomlrt Inorganlw
-NATA
S25 (1DDll
-Sydney)
Potor
DRkomon
Smnlor
Spoelrptcopkl
hwganlw
Lab~ratwy
Manager OrganIec

NATA
826
(I0911
-Sydney)
~ccra#~hd
mscm
Aywbl
Organks
Ioreomplhnc*
wlih
Sonlar Organlc Chsrnlst

NATA
825
{1OBll
-Sydney)
IKXlEC
l7D26.
WWOlder
: ESOBP7577
#US
Zmulmm

Comments

This reporl
for
W
ALSE
referem
E-577
supersede9
any ptevbus
reprls
w(th
Ws
reference.
Ranrlb
apply to the
sample
as subrnllled.
Allpages ofIhis roporl have barn
checked
and
appmved
lor
release.

This
reporl
mnlahs
he
following
inlormallon:
Anrlytlcrl m8ub lor
rmnpk
subn~bd
When ma!slure
dstermlnauon
has been perloned,
WL
us
reported ona dry wdght
bads.
Men
a nporlad
less U~i~n'muIt

Is
hluherlhan
the LOR,
Vlb
may be due to prlmary
sarrgce
extracWdlgwlion
dihth
andror
insufliinl
sample
arnounl
for rtnapis.
Surmgele
Recovery
Lbnlls
are stab
and
bated
on
USEPA SW046
or
ALSWEN38
un
Lhe
absence
01 spedfied
USEPA IMb).
Where
LOR ol
reported result
diIfu
Imrn
stnrrdafd
LOR, lhki
may be dub
to hQh
mobtw,
reduced sample
ornount
w
nulrlx
inlrrlerence.
When
dale(s)
andlor
lirnef.s)
are
shown t#aclrctsd.
lhsse
have
been assumed by
thelaboratory m
pram
purposes, Abbrevbtions:
CAS
number = Chemlcal
Absbacl
Selvicctc
number,
LOR
= Llmll
01
Reporting,

Indlcales
failed
Surrogate
Recoveries.
r
Surroaat*
control lldb

The ana1ylkal
pmcedures
used
by ALS Envkomntal
are bared
on cstabIished
1nternatk)nalfv-recognlred
pmcedures
such
m
lho~

publ[shed
by the US E
Pit.
APHA
AS and NEPM. In house
pro~edure
are employsd
InLe absence ddocurnented
standards or by cBwl
request. The folow-q
tepoct
provldas
brlef
UescrlpUons ol the
arralytlcal
pmcsduw
empkyed
for resulls apded
hmin.
Reletem
rneUldds
from
which
ALSE
methods are based are pfovid~d
in
piirwltheslr.
Pegs
NUmbUf
:3 ol
l
Cht
:
EHVlRON
AUSTRALIA PTY
LTD
W
Uttier
:
E50807577

ClIbntlrmpro
ID:

Analytical Results

SmlbfilbUixT~~dIDllcllpUon:

W
we
I "
1
EM401
: Total
Sulphate
by EPAES
Supndi'ii'm
2-t40W7W
100
1
I
mghg
I
820
.,'.
EQOO3R
Total
Mabls
by
lCPdfS
!
.,
.-U
h6nlc
74413-36-2
5 ""'rnskg
--
d
----." .
Cadmium
741043-0
mghg
+1
cmiurn
7440479
2 mgmg
49
cww
7440-50-8
5
mem
11
--p
Lwd
743~~-I
5 mgag
B
. ..
..
Nicket
7440.DZ.D
2
mg&l
23 L
p-
....
DI~G
7~066.6
,
5
mffM
18
EGD3m
T&!
krtury
by NWlS
Msrarry
7439.974
0.7
r g.1
I I I-:
'
EG~SOG:
~walrnt
~h&mlum
by
Dlrcmic
Aralyller
H&umbni
Chrunom
-Soh#.
1.0
ITQ'kg
<!.O
I--.
I,
1-
I

4
fa**
<.r2*.-
L-l*'-.+.,

,;,
EP0761SM)k
Pdynucl~u
&mrUc
Hydrocrrbrs
---p
v--
-77-
P--------
--p--
. ----
--m----
, . ,
--
p
Wphthalcno
01-20-3
4.5
mg_-
-
.
MnrphlhylmQ
20ES8
0.5 mgkg
0s
B-
Fbom
88.73-7
0.5 mgw
Phl~ranthmn~
0.5 m
Anihnwmo
12!2-12.7
0.5 mg&g
Fkromrlh~n~
2064.0
0.5 m
a c
'f'Ybd
120-wO'".
0.5 mglg
a,
S
_I
G5
w.5
4.5
c0.5
SOS
a.5
<D
5
8wu[a)anthmsno
m55-3
0.5
mgRg
Xhpw
218-M-9 0.5
mgk0-
Bsnur[b)llum~ne
20588-2
.OS
. mg4
Bonra[k)flr#mMha~
207-08-9
D5
m&
BmmYf-
W324
0.5
IllgfWJ
Indmo(l.2
3.
cdJp)lmno
183-W5
0.5
L)lbonz[a.h)anlhmaule
53-70-3
0.5
m$
~Bmm&.h
Ijp~l6ns
191 -24-2
0.5
rngllcg
, a.5
.,,
t
.
<D
5
45
*05
40
5
+.OS
q.5
. . ---
---
-W v.
---p-
EPO80IOH:
Total Potcotmm
Hydrocarbens
a-w*
c9-
Cl0
-C14
F-
60
I
1
I . -2-
Paw
lvumbur
: 4
of
5
Ck'ent
.'
ENVlRbM
AUSTRALIA
PTY
LTD
WorK
Omi
:
ESOB07377

Chnl
Sunpk
ID:
Analytical
Resuffs
SmNs
MaM(
Type1
Dsrcrplton
:
Ssmpk
P&!
lime
:
~ebomw
ssmplr
m
:
W
CAsa~mbw
LOR
Wnllr
v1
FOIL
20
Jun
2WB
t6,oO
ISObO76774Dt
EPDLW1:
Tolal
Petroleum Hydrourbonr
ClS.
C24 Fmbn
$00
mpnto
I 400
CZP
C93
Fmdm
~~
.W@
I
-=l
W
l
1
-m-..-----
-P
. ...
..M--
---
p-----
U080:
ETEX
Bmnm
7143-2
0.2
W.
"Tdwno
108-W
0.2
nrg(Yg
Etblbm
100414,, 0.2 m@kg
mtr-
S
paraxvlpnm
106-g3
0.2 mm
106.42-3
,
amxyian,
9547-6
0.2 mgkg
su.2
c02
a.2
a.2
sD.2
EWWSIM~S:
Phoncrlk
Compound Surroglb
2.Fhf0mphml
367-1
24
0.1 %
phcnol.c#
13in-sg3
0.1
?4
"'~~hlomphmot.D4
93951-73.1
al.
%
24 ET-~nbromqrhenol
11
B-m6
0.1 %
QV
3
t
W
1
OS
78.1
-.
t
W
&pO76fSIM)T:
PAH
SutMgatH
.ZFluwobtpherlyl
321-60-8
0.1 . %
Pin-10
1719-06-8
d.1.
%
115
101
4-Tmphenyl.dl4
ln8-53-0
0.1
fb
122
EP@W%
TPH(VlfBTE%
Surrogates
I 2Dkhloro~lhar#-D4
-lm60-074
D.1
%
ToTuma~Q~
2037-265
D.I %
s.&#ndllrsmbsnmm
1M
108
A--
460-004
0.r
% 101
mm
?&a:
SOIL-
Swtogsls
conm
UdrJ
swm(yrdc
cmm
Umllr
1-
l
AWIHO~WX
I b
w r 1
wwrm
EPO75(SlM):
PAHJPhmnoC
(SII*)
&Po?S{SlM)S:
Phendl:
Ccdnpnd
&.mDplos
2.Fluomghenol
25,.
, . , , 121
Phsmld6
. 24 113
2Ghb~hsnol-DQ
23
2%
ALS
muarmnmenra1

INTERPRE7M
QUAUrY
CONTROL
REPORT
CLnt
:
ENWRON
AEJSTMUA
PNLTD Labotatoy
: ALS
Envin#lment~l
Sydney
Pauc
:
lbb
Contact : MR PHlL HITCHCOCK ~ontac~
: '=regVDOPl
&ddrprs
:
PO
BOX
584
MAKIAND
NEW
AUSTRALIA2320 Addrem
: 277-289
Woodpark
Road SmiWeld
NSW Austmlla
2184
Work order
Amondmnntlkr.
:
Prw
: 32-0018 Quota
numkr (WE
mtcwed
:
MJun2OM
Ordsr
number
: No1
provided Ekto
lrsuod
: 29
JunZOOB
COG
number
: -Nol
provldab
slto
:
Not pwvid~a
E-mall : phlt~hcock@m&mp.~m.a~
Emall
: Greg.VogeME!dkenvirO.m
WO. of
samples
Telophono
:
E24934
5354
Tolapbno
:
61-2-87848555
Rccuhd
: 1
FacslrnW
: 02 4834
4359 Frcrlmllo
: 81-2-87M8500
Anrtysod
:
1

Thit
Interpretbe
QuaUly
Coolrol
Report wet
ksued
on 29 Jun
MOB
for the
ALS
W
order
rskrsncs
ESOM7577
and supersedes
any pmrlous
reporb
with thi
reference.
This report
conlalnr
Ihc
lollwing
ihalio~
m Analysis
Holding
'Time Cornpllanc
Iluatily
Conlrol
Type
Frequency Compliance
Summary of all IXlnIlly
Conlrol
Oulliers
Brlel
Mew
Sumrntlries
CU~N
:
AUSTMLTA
PTY
LTP
wDrtCordtr
:
ESWOT~
~l~~~u~kr

E NV~ROH
:
2~6
~JKI
:
92-0018
ALS
OuotrRrI*lm
: -Issue
Dale
: 20
JUO
2M)6

Interpmtive
Qualify Control
Report Analysis
Holding
Time

dOm
of
IIxMuIw
QTanaIpls
andpmcluba
subroqunldi~tlo~c
mm=.
Inlamatim
b
aLPo
WdW
n
h,
lanpls
mrn'mf
[pfamalh)
fmm
Vmlclr
Ihs
w~le

Th+
iolmg
rdpW
sum-
mIrdmI
prcpmtbn
and anltyrin
timoz
mnd
a-
wllh
d hoYing
Umur
Dot=
m
d rqmsob
i~rrt
and

dlquotwma
lamn.
Wapd
Ume
toano3.1Is
mpmh
time
Imm
samplln
Vmera
no extradim
l digo;liOn
i8
hwbM
W
Uma
lromo*lmfliontdig&Mws
Wr
k
prcserk
ForampDwtm
aarnplor.
snmpling
dptotlinxr
h trkn
rr
htol
h
ddodsamp(o
mlribullng
lo
Vlat~~~rilP.

Saraph
drlortrma
Fx
labomluy
prcdmd
forcho5
ore
hkw,
lnm
B8
axn@~&~
daMim,d
Vlb
bathing
pm$,
Outlirrr
rff
holdrnp
Umo
ambaled m
VSEPASWBW,
APH4.
AS end NEPM
11999).
Fnled
~lan.
refer
to
UIO
'Summy
of OulIiwra:

.... . ,,
.. ."
. . . ,.
. ,.
-,.
.-.
,

EGO3ST:
Total Mmq
ly
FlHS
SdlGlr~~&f-

Unprcrmod

. A....
.

, ..
"....
EP071:
TPH -S8mivdfle
mdko
$on
Glut
Ju-
Unpmromd

..
. ....

v1

-.-..

bmo:
PH
V&l'iTU(
. .
561
bhsr
,tar

Unpnwn*d
v1
I
zr~uniw6
ZZJU~ZM
(
1
P-
I
~
~~,. I
~ PM=
z

I
4~~120~
M ,w~
Clru
ENWRON
AUSTRALU
PTY
LTD
Work01dY
: E50607577
PrgrYumL~
;
3018
PmJeet
:
32.0318
ALSQuolc-c.
: -Irwrrkh
:
29JunZOW
AU
mwmm~1~

Interpretive
Quality
Contmi
Repor?
Frequency
of
Quality
Control
Samples

equal
b
the
bxpxted
rals.
Tha
kdowirrg
mmfl
summIkie4
Ulr
Imqusmf
c4
bhatW
QC
srnwbs
analmd
wlhln
lho
an-l
MS)
in whtch
lrwarlt
OM
wm
pro~e&sd.
Adud
mtharlb
bo
gm&r
Vlan

E NVlRON
AUSTFUUA
PTY
L'ID
+mj&
:
324018
MSQuofaRd6nnw
:
-bwtOh
:
29Jun2006
U
mtfimm~m

lnferpretive
Quality
Control
RepoH

Summary
of Out!iers
Tho
ldWf!g
ropcilhi@tlighb~irllhr
llamob
on
Uw
'Guhtity
Conlrd
RspPrC
Sumplo
mwy
lhL
am rUIkmncl
b
W m
USEPA
SW646
orALS4'VYVENRO
(in the
abwm
of qpwirr
USEM
li}.
Amnymous
Clknl
Slmple
IDr
rshr
lb
sanpleswhjeh
are nol1p1~4fii!y
wd
of
Lhb
W&
onkr
but fom#d
parld
Vn
PC m51
M

m
Forall
rnableet,
no RPP
rccwary
0rNtm
occur
for
lhu
dupmle
anabsk.
Forall
mablcor,
no mthod
bbnk
result
crutlbn
occur.

For
mll
rnatlce~,
no
kboratory
splke
recoveder
hacW
occur.
sumg#&
EPWRSIWE
FAH
SumiwJm
I
SOL
l
ESSP~WS~OO~
1v1
2.fluwoblphanyl
Puffier5
:
The
$Hp
mpart
hbMlghb
wbbn
wkim
IhiL'lnbQmlivs
Quality Conbol
Row-
Fmqucncy
d
Clunk$
Control
W.

+
Hs
lreqaency
outlb~
wcut.
Uknl
ENVlRON
AUSTRALIAPN LTD
Prow
:
329018
hwau~w~ot
: -Isrw
l)zh
: 29 Sun 20W

Method
Reference
Summary

ALS
E~yIrwrmcntrI
nre
bomd
m
Wvhd
inIpm1tiOnalb)-r~nkd
poccdms
W&
as
those
pubHahvd
by h4
US EPA.
APM
PS
andNEPM. In
ham
pdum
am
dm#ey@
h
Iho
rt#snccaf
bamprYad
ctpMdr
orby cMi
qumt.
Ths
folowtm
rep#tprwMw
briol
dswiHcm
d
me
anmlythl
mdures
cmplqrod
tar
mb
mpwbd
hsmil.
Reforooedl
moWr
Imm
rrhlch
ALSE
m&4mh
nm
bswd
rm
pvidod
in prrenbsk
1
h
analybcal
pwwdms
ud

khk
ry'w
sou.

EH24
:HCI Dl~mt.
Ig
of
sol1
is digesled
In 30
mlo13096 HCI an&
the
nsullanl
digest
bulked and
filtered
for analysis by ICP.

EW
:
1:5
soad
t
war
Rach
for
soluMe
rnalybr

10 g of
soil
Is
mixed
Hith
50
mL
d e88Ullad
walsr
ad
turnbled
end over
end for 1hour. Wer
solubk salts areleached irnm
ths
sol1
by Ihe
mntlpuous
suspsns'm.
Samples
are selttd
and ths
water
fllered
df
tor
mtysk.
EN6U
:Hot llock
Dlu~rt
br
metals
In rolls rcdhnts
and studgm
-USEPA 2002
MW
Hot Block
Acld
Dlgestlm
l.@

Ol
sampleis healed with
Nilrlc
and HydmcNodc ackls. then cooled.
PeroxIde
k
added and samples bated and
wk?d
again bef~re
being fikfed
and bulked
to voturne lor analysis. Mgesl
Is appmpriale lw clelminallon of selected
metals
insludge, sedirnenls,
and soils.
mid
metW
is mmpllanl
withNEPM (IDQ9)
Scbedde
q3)
{MeUmd
202)

6RGlB
: Mcthmok
Esbacllon
of
Solls
lor
Purge and Pnp-
(USEPA
SW 846
-9304
Sg
ofsolid Is&i&en
with suh0p;lk
and 1DmL
meVlpnol pdor to a~tysk
by Puye ahd
Trap

GCMS.

OR0f7B
:
Tumbler ExtracUon
ur
5olidr
[Optlon
B

Hon-emrntratlngl-
Irkhouse, Mechanlwl egttatbn
(lumtder),
Yql
of smplt.
NaPSO4
and surrogale
am
mtmckd
with ZOmL
1:1
OGMIAcslons
by end ow
end tumble. me
solwen1
Is Lrmterred
directly
to
r
GC vial fw
amlysla.
W002
:pH (1Sj
(APHA
;Mth
cd..
4500H*)
pH is
determinrd
on SOD sample0 alter
a 15
SdVwater
leach,
This meUlod
is mptiant
with
NEPM (1999) Schedule w3)
{Method
103)

a1
$03-l05 degwss
C. Thk
methoci
is compllanlwith
NEPM [lsD5)
Wub
B(3J
(MelW
1021

EWDT
: Sulpbato
#
SM
2-Total

EAD66-l03
: ~oim
CbniPnt
-A gravirrretrlc
@we
based
on welghl
loss
over
a 12 hwrdrylng

In-hwi?.
Tolal
Sulphateh ~teminrd
olf
a HCI
digestion by
lCPAES
as
3,
end
reporled
as
S04
EOODST
: TOW
Metab
by tCP-AES
-(APHA
20th
ed., 3120; USEPASW
E46 -6010)
(ICPAES) Metals are delerrnbrtd
lbtlowinp
m
~pproprlate
add d$estlm
01
the
soil.
The ICPAfS lechnique
Wies
iampb
In
a plasma, emitli
a char&edstk
speclrum
based on metals
prssent,
Inlensltks
at selected mveknglhs nm
mpand agalnst Ulose
of
malrix
nralctted
standards. Thfs
method
is complianl
Mlh
NEPM i3999)
Schedule 813)

EGOJET
: Tml
Mooreury
by R?#
-AS
3550, #HA3112
Hg -B
Qh-InJection {SRcE](Co# Vapour general&)
MS) FIM-AA8
Is an autornaled fhmelus atQmic absorplion
tachnlque,
Meravy
in
sdkls
are detehned
lollwing
an appcoprbtt acid d'ieslbn. lonle rnerwy
$
wduced onlhc to alornlcmercuty vepw
by SnU2
which
k
thm
purged Inlo
a heatedquartz m!.
Quanlllicalion
is
by comparing
&&am
agalnst
;I
caUbratlon
cum
This
rneYrOd
Is
complknt
vrllh
NEPM (1999)
Scheduk
813)

EGWC
: Hlrxavatent
Solublo
By Dlssmts Analyser -APHA
201h
ed..
350D
Cr-A& B. Hexavaknt
ehmium
Is delermlned
dkeclly
cm
walwsarnple
byseal
WelE
Analyser
aa
recejved
by pH
dustmenl
Bnd
wlour dsvdopmenl using
dephmylcarb&W.
Each
tun
or
samplesis measwed
a@nsl
e live-pdnt
callbratbn
curve.
ThB
melhod
is wmplintnith
NEPM (1999)
Schedule
B(3)
IAPPdX.
2)

BP071
: TPH
-SoMokllle
FracUw

(USEPA SW 84B
80154
Sample extncls are analysed by Cmpllrry GClFlDarrd quanlilied agalnsl alkane
slanriarcls wer be wwe
ClU
C36.
This
method is
cmplfanlwilh
NEPM (1999) Schedule
813)
IMelhod
506.1)

Wo7SlSlM)
: PAHlPhDnolr
[SlM)
(USEPA SW ME
3270B)
Extracts are
analysed
by Capllary
GUMS In
Sebcthre
)on
Mode
{SIM)
and quantYleallon
Is
by comparison
agahst
an srtabtished
5
point callbration Gum-
This
meU1wr.I
is
owngiant
with NEPM (I-)
SchWe
B(3)
(MeUmd
602
and507)

clml
: ENVIRON
AUSTRALLA
PTY
LlU
WoWDI*Oruu
;
�SO607577
pqj~umhr
: 6016
Proyct
:
324018
auu~*twmot
: -IWEW
:
@hrnmW
m
mumrmm-

~~
Tyjlv:
;.SOIL
MwffmdRafvonca
SURMlary

(USEPA SW848
-82608)
Extract5
are analysed by Purge
and Trap, Capllary
GUMS. Quan~calii
cune.
Thin
method
b wrnplant
wfth
NSW
(f
W)
SChaUlltll3~3f
{Method Sal)
EWML
:TPH V~IPUIU~BTEX
k by comparison agahst
an eslabl[shed
5 polnl caEbtath
AUSTRALMN
SAFER ENVIRONMENT &
TECHNOLOGYYTY LTD

AL1N
36 018
095 1
I2

Our wT:
ASEI'
8934/
12082 1
1 -l
Your rcf:
Wlj07577
NATA
Accredilation
No: 14484

27 June
2006

Auslniian
Laboratory Services
Pty.
Ltd.
277 Woodpurk
Road
Smihflcld
NSW 2
lG4

Asbcstos
LdentiRcntion

lhis
report
paznls
he
rcsuhs
of
onc
sample,
Fonuonld
by Auslmlian
Lubontoy
Serviccs
Ply.
Ltd
on 23 June
2006.
Tor analysis
for asbestos.

marnincd
and
mlyscd
for Ihc
prcscm
af
ILS~FSLOS.
I.lnlmdurtion:0nc
samplc
forrvonid

2,
Methods
:
Thc
samplc
ww
amincd
undcr
a Stcrco
Mjcroscop
and
rclcctcd
nbrcs
vcrc
melyscd
by FolW
Light
Microscopy
in cwrjunction
with Dhprsion
Sraining
mcthod
[Snfcr
Environment Melhd
1.)

3. Results
: Sample
No. 1. ASET
8334
f
12082 1
1. ES0607577
-001-V1
Appmx
dirnasims
5.5 cm x
3.0 m
X
2.0 cm
Ihc
wmplc
consisted
ola
mixiurc
of clayish
soil md
plant
moncr.
No asbestos
dctccted.
Analyscd
and reported
by,

Keru Jayasundara.
BSc (Hons)
MAus
1MM.
Mincrnlogist
/
Chartered Professional
of GeoIqy
Approved
Signatory.

UNL'T7
LEYEL
Z.
I LEWARD
SIXWT.
HORNSBY
NSW 2077
-PTO.
WX
L644
HORNSBY
NOKI'HCIA'I'E
h'SW
I635
PHONE;
l02>9YI172l$3
PAX;
[M)R%7215I
EMAIL:
H'EBSLTE:
a~r.r
u.&~l~~g~