the site - Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning

Transcription

ADDITIONAL
ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
YEERONGPILLY LANDING DEVELOPMENT
FAIRFIELD ROAD
YEERONGPILLY
Prepared for
Department of Infrastructure and Planning
Project No. 009-173A, April 2010
Yeerongpilly Landing Development
Fairfield Road, Yeerongpilly
Project No. 009-173A
April 2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 5
1.1
Project ................................................................................................................ 5
1.2
Background Information ..................................................................................... 5
1.3
Proposed Scope of Work .................................................................................... 6
1.4
Commission ........................................................................................................ 7
1.5
Technical Framework ......................................................................................... 7
SECTION 2 - THE SITE .................................................................................................................................. 8
2.1
Site Identification ................................................................................................ 8
2.2
Site Description .................................................................................................. 8
2.2.1 Northern Landing Area ............................................................................ 8
2.2.2 Northern Car Park Areas ......................................................................... 8
2.2.3 In-filled Gully Area ................................................................................... 8
2.2.4 DIP Site Balance ..................................................................................... 9
2.3
Government Records ......................................................................................... 9
2.4
Published Information ....................................................................................... 10
2.4.1 Fire Ants ................................................................................................ 10
2.4.2 Geology ................................................................................................. 10
2.5
Hydrogeology/Hydrology .................................................................................. 10
2.6
Site Inspection .................................................................................................. 10
SECTION 3 - SITE HISTORY........................................................................................................................ 12
3.1
Historical Site Review ....................................................................................... 12
3.1.1 Historical Activities ................................................................................ 12
3.1.2 Landfix Report, October 2000 ............................................................... 12
3.1.3 GHD Report, April 2006 ........................................................................ 13
3.1.4 Butler Partners Report, 23 November 2006 (Gully Investigation) .......... 14
3.1.5 Butler Partners Road Easement Validation, October 2007 ................... 15
3.2
Aerial Photograph Review ................................................................................ 15
SECTION 4 - FIELDWORK ........................................................................................................................... 17
4.1
Ground Magnetics Survey ................................................................................ 17
4.2
Drilling and Sampling Methods ......................................................................... 17
4.3
Test Locations and Supervision........................................................................ 18
SECTION 5 - INVESTIGATION RESULTS ................................................................................................... 19
5.1
Results ............................................................................................................. 19
5.2
Laboratory Testing............................................................................................ 19
5.3
Subsurface Conditions ..................................................................................... 19
5.3.1 Northern Landing Area .......................................................................... 20
5.3.2 Northern Car Park Areas ....................................................................... 20
5.3.3 In-filled Gully Area ................................................................................. 20
5.3.4 DIP Site Balance ................................................................................... 20
5.4
Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Methods ...................................... 20
SECTION 6 - ENVIRONMENTAL DISCUSSION .......................................................................................... 26
6.1
Contaminated Land .......................................................................................... 26
6.1.1 Potential Contamination Sources .......................................................... 26
6.1.2 Results and Assessment Criteria .......................................................... 26
6.1.2.1
Soil Assessment Criteria ...................................................... 26
April 2010
6.2
6.1.3 Aesthetic Evaluation for Soil .................................................................. 27
6.1.4 Comparison of Results to Assessment Criteria ..................................... 28
6.1.4.1
Metals ................................................................................... 28
6.1.4.2
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH)............................. 28
6.1.4.3
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) .................................. 28
6.1.4.4
Benzene, Toluene, Ethyl benzene and Xylene (BTEX) ........ 28
6.1.4.5
OC/OP‟s ............................................................................... 29
6.1.4.6
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB) .......................................... 29
6.1.4.7
Asbestos............................................................................... 29
6.1.4.8
Leachability .......................................................................... 29
6.1.4.9
QA/QC .................................................................................. 30
Northern Landing Area DDT Delineation .......................................................... 30
SECTION 7 - DATA QUALITY ...................................................................................................................... 32
7.1
Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Methods ...................................... 32
7.1.1 Completeness ....................................................................................... 32
7.1.2 Accuracy ............................................................................................... 32
7.1.3 Precision ............................................................................................... 34
7.1.4 Sensitivity .............................................................................................. 34
7.1.5 Laboratory Blanks ................................................................................. 35
7.1.6 Holding times......................................................................................... 35
7.1.7 Field Duplicates ..................................................................................... 35
7.1.8 Representativeness............................................................................... 36
SECTION 8 - REMEDIATION DISCUSSION ................................................................................................ 37
8.1.1 Leave the Site on DERM‟s EMR with an Approved SMP ...................... 37
8.1.2 Remove the site from DERM‟s EMR ..................................................... 37
8.1.2.1
Subsurface Conditions ......................................................... 38
8.1.2.2
Remediation Area 1 .............................................................. 38
8.1.2.3
8.1.2.4
8.1.2.5
8.1.2.6
8.1.2.7
8.1.2.8
8.1.2.9
8.1.2.10 Remediation Area 9 .............................................................. 42
8.1.2.11 Additional Areas ................................................................... 42
8.1.3 Remove a Portion of the Site from DERM‟s EMR ................................. 43
SECTION 9 - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................... 44
9.1
Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 44
9.2
Recommendations............................................................................................ 44
butlerpartners.com.au
Page 3
April 2010
TABLES:
Table 1: Summary of Registered Plan and Current Title Search Information ............................ 8
Table 2: Analytical Results for Soil (Total Concentrations) ..................................................... 22
Table 3: TCLP Analytical Results (Heavy Metals) ................................................................... 25
Table 4: TCLP Analytical Results (Organics) .......................................................................... 25
Table 5: Soil Investigation Criteria for Asbestos Fragments .................................................... 27
Table 6: Northern Landing DDT Delineation Results .............................................................. 31
Table 7: Duplicate Samples Greater than 50% RPD............................................................... 36
ATTACHMENTS:
Drawing No. 1
Drawing No. 2
Drawing No. 3
Drawing No. 4
Drawing No. 5
Drawing No. 6
Drawing No. 7
Drawing No. 8
Drawing No. 9
Drawing No. 10
Drawing No. 11
Drawing No. 12
Drawing No. 13
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Locality Plan & Site Layout
Contamination Investigation Areas
1946 Aerial Photograph
Gully Areas from 1946 Aerial Photo
Test Locations
Soil Exceedences
Location of Buried Waste Material
Proposed Remediation Areas
Site Plan and Additional Test Locations and Exceedance Results
Sections 1A-2A and 1B-2B
Sections 5A, 5B and 6A
Sections 4A, 7A and 8A
Sections 9A and 9B
Remediation Cost Estimate
Current Land Title, Registered Plan and EMR Search Response
GAP Geophysics Ground Magnetics Survey
Bore and Test Pit Report Sheets with Explanatory Notes
Laboratory Documentation
Page 4
April 2010
SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION
1.1
Project
It is understood that the Yeerongpilly Landing Site (the site) is proposed to be redeveloped. To support the
site‟s redevelopment removal of the land from the Department of Environment and Resource Management‟s
(DERM) Environmental Management Register (EMR) is required. The site is described as Lot 566 on
SP214202 (681 Fairfield Road, Yeerongpilly) and occupies an area of 14.6021ha.
Re-titling of the site occurred on 1 December 2008 following soil remediation and construction of a road
reserve (King Arthur Terrace and Mooney Street) transecting the site. The road reserve occupies an area of
2.025ha through the northern portion of the site. A locality plan and general site layout are presented in
Drawing No. 1.
1.2
Background Information
Butler Partners is aware of four historical contaminated land investigations that have been undertaken on all,
or part of the site. These investigations have been undertaken at the site by Landfix Environmental Services
(Landfix), GHD Pty Ltd (GHD), and Butler Partners Pty Ltd (Butler Partners), and are reported in the
following documents:
Landfix
Contamination Assessment & Remediation Plan
Animal Research Institute at
Ortive Street Tennyson, Queensland
October 2000
GHD
Tennyson Power Station Redevelopment
Department of Primary Industries Animal Research Institute
Proposed Access Road Site Contamination Assessment
April 2006
Butler Partners
Soil Assessment (Gully Investigation)
Tennyson DPIF and ARI Site
681 Fairfield Road, Tennyson
23 November 2005, Job No. 06155B
Page 5
April 2010
Validation Report Lot 566 on SP104107 (Road Easement Validation)
Tennyson DPIF and ARI Site
681 Fairfield Road, Tennyson
October 2007, Job No. 06155C
Note: The GHD 2006 and Butler Partners 2007 report predominately relate the roadway which is not part of the subject
site.
Copies of these reports were previously provided to Butler Partners by the Department of Infrastructure and
Planning (DIP) for use as background information in the development of an additional contaminated land
investigation program for the site. Information contained in these reports is discussed further in Section 2.1.
1.3
Proposed Scope of Work
To determine the nature of remediation works required at the site, the following scope of work was proposed:
A compilation of historic data from previous contaminated land investigation and remediation reports for the
site. In addition to the historic site use information in these reports, a review of activities at the site since the
historic investigations were performed was undertaken to assess the potential for further contamination of
the site from recent site activities. The aim of this review was to identify the following:
previously remediated areas;
areas of known soil contamination;
areas of potential soil contamination requiring further assessment for remediation; and
areas unlikely to have been impacted from historical site activities (background areas).
The design of intrusive investigation program at the site was based on the results of the information obtained
from the investigations discussed above. The program involved the collection and analysis of fill and natural
soil materials on a 50m grid spacing in background areas of the site and a 30m grid in areas of the site with
reported or potentially contaminating activities.
The areas of contamination known to exist at the site as indicated on Drawing No. 2 included:
northern Gully and Dam infilled with non-inert waste and soil impacted by heavy metals and
pesticides;
cattle dip areas;
ash burial area;
former underground fuel storage tank location;
incinerator ash burial area;
area north of the underground spring containing heavy metals;
chemical burial area;
hay shed areas; and
western gully area.
Page 6
April 2010
The outcome of the program was to produce a site assessment report that identifies and delineates the
areas of contamination requiring remediation prior to the site being removed from the EMR. This will include
a Stage 2 ESA report incorporating site history review information completed based upon the Queensland
DERM guidelines. An estimate will be provided for further delineation work to refine remediation volumes
where the initial remediation volumes and available access restrictions indicate further sampling may reduce
the remediation volumes.
Based on the outcome of these investigations, areas of impact requiring remediation have been identified. It
should be noted that as the investigations have been based on a broad grid based sampling pattern with
some infill investigations as a result of site history investigations, the extent of the remediation areas are
approximate only and further works would be required to provide a more accurate assessment of the volume
of soil requiring off-site remediation.
1.4
Commission
Based on the proposed nature of the development, the anticipated subsurface conditions and the scope of
work, a fee to undertake the investigation was presented in a proposal of 21 January 2009.
Butler Partners Pty Ltd were subsequently commissioned by the Department of Infrastructure and Planning
(DIP) to conduct the environmental investigation as proposed.
1.5
Technical Framework
In general, this ESA has been carried out in accordance with:
Draft Guidelines for the Assessment and Management of Contaminated Land in Queensland,
May 1998;
Draft Investigation Thresholds for Underground Storage Tanks, January 1999;
Australian Oil Industry Environmental Guidelines Working Group document Guidelines for the
Management of Petroleum Hydrocarbon Impacted Land, April 1999;
Australian Standard AS 4482.1-2005 Guide to the Sampling and Investigation of Potentially
Contaminated Soil – Part 1: Non-volatile and Semi-volatile compounds; and
National Environmental Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999 (National
Environment Protection Council).
Page 7
April 2010
SECTION 2 - THE SITE
2.1
Site Identification
Details of the site are presented in Table 1.
information are presented in Appendix A.
Copies of the Current Land Title and Registered Plan
Table 1: Summary of Registered Plan and Current Title Search Information
Real Property Description
Registered Owner
Current Land Use
(at the time of investigation)
Area
Local Government
2.2
Parish of Yeerongpilly, County of Stanley
Lot 566 on SP214202
The State of Queensland (represented by Department of Primary Industries and
Fisheries)
Department of Infrastructure and Planning (DIP) Research Facility
14.6ha
Brisbane
Site Description
The site described as Lot 566 on SP214202 is currently an operational Department of Infrastructure and
Planning (DIP) (formerly the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries (DPIF)) Animal Research
Institute facility comprising, research laboratories, office and administration buildings, animal holding pens
and buildings and animal paddocks. King Arthur Terrace transects the north of the site separating two
portions of land from the main lot as shown on Drawing No. 1. For the purpose of investigation the site has
been divided into four main areas as follows as shown on Drawing No. 1.
2.2.1
Northern Landing Area
The northern landing area is located in the north western corner of the site and bound by the Brisbane River
to the north, King Arthur Terrace to the south and residential land uses to the east and west. An electrical
easement transects the southern portion of the northern landing area with a pedestrian footpath joining with
the northern car park areas. A large gully is located in the north western corner extending from the Brisbane
River to the northern edge of the electrical easement.
2.2.2
Northern Car Park Areas
The northern car park area contains two sealed car parks in the north eastern corner of the site bound by
Ortive Street to the north, King Arthur Terrace to the south, Fairfield Road to the east and residential land
use to the west. The two car parks are divided by Mooney Street which connects Ortive Street and King
Arthur Terrace.
2.2.3
In-filled Gully Area
The in-filled gully area is located in the north western portion of the main DIP site and comprises land
previously occupied by fenced agricultural paddocks. The topography is varied, indicating the filled nature of
the area, but in general slopes in a southerly direction towards a former low point. Several small structures
(animal shelters) are still present scattered across the area.
Page 8
April 2010
2.2.4
DIP Site Balance
The balance of the DIP site comprises agricultural paddocks located in the south western portion of the site
as well as research laboratories, office, administration buildings and car parking located in the central and
eastern portions of the site.
An aerial photograph of the site is presented as Photograph 1.
Photograph 1: Current aerial photograph view of the site
2.3
Government Records
A search of the DERM‟s Environmental Management Register (EMR) and Contaminated Land Register
(CLR) indicates that Lot 566 on SP214202 is listed on the EMR as a „Managed‟ site.
Page 9
April 2010
Lot 566 on SP214202 is a child parcel of Lot 566 on SP195275. Lot 566 on SP195275 was listed on the
EMR as a „Managed‟ site with an approved SMP. A SMP was approved for Lot 566 on SP195295 on
12 August 2008. The SMP identified that the land now known as King Arthur Terrace had been remediated
and was suitable for any use. The remainder of the lot, now Lot 566 on SP214202 (the subject site), had not
been investigated or remediated and no comment on the suitability of this land for use was provided.
2.4
Published Information
2.4.1
Fire Ants
Review of the Department of Primary Industries Fire Ant Eradication and Surveillance Zone Plan updated 13
May 2009, indicates the site is not located in a Fire Ant infested area.
2.4.2
Geology
Reference to the Geological Survey of Queensland‟s 1:31,680 Brisbane Map Sheet 3 indicates that the site
is mapped on the boundary of land underlain by the Tennyson Formation comprising semi-consolidated
sandy clay, sand and conglomerate, the Tingalpa Formation comprising carbonaceous shale, lithic
sandstone with minor conglomerate and coal and the Moorooka Formation comprising massive siliceous
conglomerate and sandstone with major shale.
The sub-surface profile across the majority of the site consisted of topsoil and natural silty clayey soils.
Alluvial sandy soils were encountered along the northern banks of the site. Fill material encountered on site
was heterogeneous in nature is dominated by silty and sandy clays with varying quantities of gravel as well
as building rubble, comprising both inert and non-inert construction and demolition waste.
2.5
Hydrogeology/Hydrology
The regional hydrogeology of the area surrounding the site is described on the 1:2,500,000 map of
Groundwater Resources of Queensland as having a very low bore yield of <5 litres per second and
groundwater salinity varying between 500mg/L and 5,000mg/L, considered suitable for most purposes,
marginal for human consumption and low salt tolerant crops. During well development and purging of
groundwater wells installed at both the DPIF ARI site and the neighbouring power station site, eight of the
eleven groundwater monitoring wells purged dry with a relatively low recharge (<5 L per second), which is
similar to the groundwater aquifer yield estimate referred to on the Groundwater Resources of Queensland
map.
2.6
Site Inspection
A site inspection was undertaken on 24 July 2009 and comprised a site walkover. Inspection within site
structures was not undertaken. The following observations were made:
A metal above ground tank stand within a concrete bund was located to the south of the former cattle
dip and spray race in the vicinity of Area 6 (Drawing No. 2). No tank was present and the likely
former contents is undetermined;
The former incinerator was located within a structure to the east of Area 3 and to the north of Area 5.
The rear of the incinerator was located at a lower elevation than surrounding area suggesting either
cutting or filling had occurred within the area;
Page 10
April 2010
A retaining wall and embankment was located along the southern boundary of Area 6 extending to
the location of the incinerator suggesting cutting or filling had occurred within the area;
The chemical store building identified in Area 7 was surrounded on the northern, eastern and
southern sides by an open concrete drain. Surface waters from the southern portion of Area 7
drained into an interception pit, however surface waters from the northern portion drained to the
north west corner from which they entered a grassed spoon drain continuing west towards a grassed
area;
The northern car park area (defined on Drawing No. 1) north of King Arthur Drive was predominantly
sealed as car parking, with limited landscaping located around the perimeters.
Page 11
April 2010
SECTION 3 - SITE HISTORY
3.1
Historical Site Review
Previous investigations undertaken at site are listed in Section 1.2, with a summary of the findings of the
reports presented below. Analytical results presented in the Landfix and GHD investigations are considered
to be indicative only due to the limited investigation extent, incomplete Quality Assurance/Quality Control
(QA/QC) measures implemented and laboratory limit of reporting (LOR) exceeding the soil investigation
criteria adopted for the site (Table 5).
3.1.1
Historical Activities
Previous site history investigations indicate that the site was originally occupied by a Stock Experimentation
Station from 1909 to 1941 with the establishment of an animal disease laboratory and later a veterinary
school in 1933. This facility was closed between 1941 and 1945 when the site is believed to have been
occupied by the US Army Medical Corps. Since 1945 the site has operated as an Animal Research Facility
conducting research on animal diseases, vaccinations and improving general animal health and production.
Current practices include the management of waste streams through heat treating of fluid waste prior to
sewer disposal, autoclaving of solid waste prior to disposal by a licensed operator and the collection of
general refuse by waste contractors (including Brisbane City Council). Details of historic waste disposal
practices are not known.
3.1.2
Landfix Report, October 2000
Landfix identified ten „hot spot‟ areas where potentially contaminating activities were conducted within the
boundaries of the site as shown on Drawing No. 2. These areas were defined as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Underground Spring Filled Area – reported uncontrolled fill (lead glass fragments) in the north
eastern corner of the site (cnr Fairfield Road and Ortive Street);
Hay Shed – storage of animal feed and chemicals including pesticides;
Incinerator Ash Dump – residual ash from the incineration of animal wastes and other materials
dumped in this area;
Catchment Tanks for Effluent – storage of effluent from animal pens;
Disused Underground Fuel Storage Tank (UST) Area – UST reported to contain diesel fuel;
Cattle Dip and Spray Race – plunge dip, drying area and spray race;
Chemical Storage Building – storage of chemicals;
Chemical Burial Area – possible burial of chemicals;
Central Drainage Point – catchment of runoff from surrounding areas; and
Filled Gully Area – large gully area filled with dredge spoil and non-inert waste material (estimated to
be up to 9m in depth).
Anecdotal evidence collected during the site history review indicated that Area 10 (filled gully area) was
originally filled with dredge spoil from the Brisbane River, and was subsequently filled with inert and non-inert
building rubble including asbestos cement sheeting and soil fill.
Page 12
April 2010
Landfix undertook a test pitting and soil sampling program on a 50m x 50m grid across the site, with
additional investigation undertaken in the ten identified „hot spot‟ areas. Samples were analysed for a
combination of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH), Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH),
Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB), Arsenic (As), Cadmium (Cd), Chromium (Cr), Copper (Cu), Lead (Pb) and
asbestos. Evidence of contamination was not identified in hot spot locations 3, 5, 7 8 and 9. Assessment of
soil samples for Pb reported results that exceeded the adopted soil investigation criteria (defined in Table 5)
at locations A1-1 (750mg/kg) and A7 (2,400mg/kg). Assessment of soils for Organochlorine Pesticides
(OCPs) reported elevated DDT (and derivatives) that exceeded the adopted soil investigation criteria at
locations A9-1 (2.9mg/kg), A9-3 (117mg/kg), A34-1 (0.49mg/kg), A35-1 (2.39mg/kg), A38-1 (0.78mg/kg) and
A45-1 (1.4mg/kg). Assessment of soils for asbestos reported the presence of asbestos at sample location
A70-3. The approximate locations with results exceeding the adopted soil investigation criteria are
presented on Drawing No. 5 and Drawing No. 6.
A number of limitations have been identified in the Landfix report and include:
areas beneath existing buildings were not investigated due to access restrictions;
soil sampling was not undertaken at depths greater than 1.5m below ground surface levels, with the
collection of soil samples limited to 0-0.3m, 0.7-1.0m and 1.2-1.5m depth intervals;
laboratory analysis did not include Mercury (Hg), Nickel (Ni) or Zinc (Zn);
laboratory detection levels for OCPs were at or above the adopted soil investigation criteria; and
QA/QC measures were not adequately implemented or reported.
As discussed above, it is considered that the information presented in the Landfix report should only be used
as an indication for the presence of soil contamination. Identified concentrations of contaminants of concern
above established site investigation levels may be indicative of soil contamination, however, due to the
elevated laboratory detection levels, limited QA/QC measures and limited analysis suite, any conclusions
from this investigation must be treated with caution.
3.1.3
GHD Report, April 2006
GHD undertook a site contamination assessment comprising a review of available site history information
and a limited programme of soil sampling within the proposed road easement (King Arthur Terrace) to
assess the contamination status and develop remedial options prior to construction of the roadway. In
addition to the Landfix report, GHD identified two additional hot spot areas as shown on Drawing No. 2,
these are as follows:
11.
12.
Northern Gully Area – large gully area filled with non-inert waste material; and
Coal Stockpile Spill – area of reported spill of coal stockpile from the neighbouring Tennyson Power
Station site. The location of Area 12 falls outside the current investigation site boundary and is
therefore not discussed in this report or included on Drawing No. 2.
GHD undertook further site history investigations including interview with site personnel. During these
interviews it was established that internal access roads across the site may comprise coal ash. No ash was
identified within GHD‟s limited investigation areas and further investigation should be undertaken to assess
the presence of ash material.
Page 13
April 2010
In general, investigation was limited to the proposed road easement (now King Arthur Terrace and Mooney
Street), however, test location SB5 was located to the north of the road reserve adjacent to the former cattle
dip drying pad as shown on Drawing No. 5 and Drawing No. 6. Analytical results from SB5 reported
concentrations of DDT (and derivatives) above the adopted soil investigation criteria (up to 31.1mg/kg).
GHD installed two groundwater monitoring wells, one located within the former gully area (MW19 as shown
on Drawing No. 5) and one adjacent to the former cattle dip (within the road easement). Analytical results
reported concentrations of As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni and Zn above the laboratory‟s LOR, with concentrations of Pb
and OCPs reported below the laboratory‟s LOR.
A Remediation Action Plan (RAP) was prepared by GHD in May 2006, establishing remedial methodologies
and remediation criteria for the road easement.
3.1.4
Butler Partners Report, 23 November 2006 (Gully Investigation)
To assess the contamination status and extent of filling in the former gully area, Butler Partners excavated
fifteen test pits, drilled twenty soil bores and installed 2 groundwater monitoring wells in the gully area.
Information obtained from this investigation was used to determine the distribution of identified OCP
contamination at the site, as well as, the locations of the interface between fill material and natural soils in
the vicinity of the filled gullies (Areas 10 and 11). Sample locations are presented on Drawing No. 5.
The area south of the road easement was found to contain visible waste materials at test location BPB2,
BPTP9 and BPTP11. Assessment of soils for OCPs reported concentrations of DDT (and derivatives)
exceeding the adopted soil investigation criteria at test location BPTP9 (0.449mg/kg). Assessment of soils
for Cd reported concentrations that exceeded the adopted soil investigation criteria at test location BPB5
(4mg/kg). Assessment of soils for Zn reported concentrations that exceeded the adopted soil investigation
criteria at test locations BPB2 (580mg/kg) and BPB5 (420mg/kg). An isolated fragment of fibrous cement
sheeting containing chrysotile asbestos was identified in fill at test location BPTP9.
The area north of the road easement contained buried fill forming a former „dam‟ wall behind which dredge
spoil was reportedly placed. Visible waste material comprising inert and non-inert materials was identified at
test locations BPTP1, BPTP2, BPTP4, BPTP5 and BPTP6.
Assessment of soils reported concentrations of DDT above the adopted soil investigation criteria at location
BPB11 (0.382mg/kg). An electrical easement transects this area, running east west to the north of the road
easement, and as such the electrical easement was not investigated.
Two groundwater wells were installed, BPMW1 (BPB5) located within the infilled gully area and BPMW2
(BPB8) located in the northern landing area as shown on Drawing No. 5. Analytical results reported
concentrations of As, Ni and Zn above the laboratory‟s LOR.
Results from the soil investigation located within the current investigation area are presented in Table 2, with
test locations and soil exceedences shown on Drawing No. 5 and Drawing No. 6.
Page 14
April 2010
3.1.5
Butler Partners Road Easement Validation, October 2007
Contaminated soil material within the road easement (King Arthur Terrace and Mooney Street) was
excavated and removed from site in accordance with the approved RAP resulting in the removal of the road
easement from DERM‟s EMR (Note: this land is not part of the subject site). During remediation work,
validation samples were collected from the walls of the remediation areas. Results located along the
boundary or within the current investigation area are presented in Table 2, with test locations and soil
exceedences shown on Drawing No. 5 and Drawing No. 6.
3.2
Aerial Photograph Review
As part of the current investigation, a historical aerial photograph review was undertaken of available aerial
photographs taken between 1946 and 2007 with the specific focus of identifying buildings constructed or
demolished in the vicinity of the ten „hot spot‟ areas. This information was then used during field geophysical
investigations and additional soil sampling to assess if impacts potential extend beneath current site
structures and facilities.
In addition, a high resolution 1946 aerial photograph was reviewed enabling the following additional site
observations to be made:
-
-
a gully was located in the north eastern portion of the site, beginning at Fairfield Road (to the south
of Area 1) and continuing in a north westerly direction towards the end of Ortive Street. The gully
then trended south west and joined with Area 11 before entering the Brisbane River; and
Area 9 (central drainage point) formerly connected to Area 10 (filled gully area) and extended
approximately 100m further east than previously recorded. In addition, the higher resolution image
enabled the extents of the former gully to be more accurately mapped.
Drawing No. 3 (attached) shows an extract from the 1946 aerial photograph, with the approximate extent of
gully areas shown on Drawing No. 4 (attached). A summary of the historical photograph observations
recorded for the filled gully area (Area 10) is presented below:
Page 15
April 2010
1946
1955
1968
1970
1974
1978
1983
1987
A tree lined gully extends from the western portion of the site northwards to the Brisbane River.
Similar to the 1946 aerial photograph, however, the majority of the trees have been cleared and
some minor filling may have occurred.
Similar to the 1955 aerial photograph, however, due to the poor resolution of the image the gully
extent can‟t be accurately identified.
The central portion of the gully is clearly defined, however, the gully does not appear to extend
northwards beyond the location of the current dam wall to connect with the Brisbane River. Some
minor filling of the gully may have occurred.
The gully is no longer visible and appears to have been filled with the exception of the southern most
area of the main gully which appears to have been partially filled.
Several stockpiles of material appear to have been placed over the location of the former filled gully
area, however, the southern portion still appears to only be partially filled.
The stockpiles are no longer visible and the southern portion remains similar to the 1978 aerial
photograph.
The partially filled southern area is no longer visible and appears to have been filled. The central
drainage point identified as Area 9 is visible and appears consistent with the current topography of
the site. The remaining photographs reviewed from 1990, 1993, 1994, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004,
2005 and 2007 appear similar to the 1987 aerial photograph.
Page 16
April 2010
SECTION 4 - FIELDWORK
4.1
Ground Magnetics Survey
GAP Geophysics Australia Pty Ltd (GAP Geophysics) were commissioned to undertake a magnetometer
survey across the site to aid in the identification of disturbed and filled areas across the site. The use of a
magnetometer survey was proposed to detect changes in magnetic character of ground conditions
associated with buried ferrous material previously identified within site fill. Due to interference by metallic
objects and access restrictions the survey was limited to open areas across the site. A copy of the GAP
Geophysics report is attached in Appendix B, with areas of identified fill shown on Drawing No. 7.
Interpretation of the magnetometer survey data undertaken by GAP Geophysics identified 23 objects or
areas of interest, of these the following were selected for further investigation:
Area
1
2
3
14
15
16
17
18
19
23
GAP Geophysics Recommendation
In-filled gully area comprising areas of varying magnetic
character
Small area amongst trees, interference by fencing
Adjacent to Area 1 with magnetic character not reflective of
background
Single item or burial pit
Single item or burial pit
Worth investigating
Linear feature (service?)
Large mono-polar response
Possible “Dirty Fill”
Possible imported fill
Additional Investigation Undertaken
further investigation comprised TP6, TP7 and
TP40 – TP44
Identified as metal objects on the surface (fencing)
further investigation comprised TP7
Identified as a service pit cover
Identified as a service pit cover
Further investigation comprised TP26
Consistent with Gas and Water mains located in
this vicinity
Fenced area containing water and fire hydrant
mains
Further investigation comprised TP18 – TP20
Further investigation comprised TP33 – TP34 and
B65
Areas 4-13 and 20-22 were not selected for further investigation as they generally comprised known objects
not associated with filling activities. Further explanation of these areas is provided in the GAP Geophysics
report attached in Appendix B.
4.2
Drilling and Sampling Methods
Fieldwork was undertaken on 30 November, 1 December and 8 December 2009, and comprised the
excavation of forty seven test pits (TP1 to TP47) and drilling of nineteen bore holes (B48 to B66).
Bores were drilled using a Gemco HP7 operating solid flight augers, with strata identification and soil
samples taken from the auger flights. Test pits were excavated using a Cat 428B backhoe to a depth of
3.4m, with strata identification from material brought to the surface in the backhoe bucket and also by
observation in the walls of the pit.
Page 17
April 2010
To minimise the potential for cross contamination of samples, each sample was collected using disposable
gloves, which were replaced between the collection of each sample.
Samples were placed immediately into laboratory prepared jars that were sealed, labelled with a unique
identifier and placed into a chilled ice chest. Each sample was immediately recorded on a chain of custody
register, which was used to track the movement of the samples. The samples remained in the chilled ice
chest and were transported to the analytical laboratory for analysis.
4.3
Test Locations and Supervision
Bore and test pit locations were set-out by direct measurement from existing site boundaries in conjunction
with a GPS unit accurate to 2m. Ground surface levels at test locations were interpolated from HPA
Architects „Remediation Plan‟, Drawing No. 00-SK0030 dated December 2005.
An experienced environmental scientist set out the test locations, logged the stratigraphy encountered in the
test pits and bores, and undertook the in-situ sampling and testing program.
Page 18
April 2010
SECTION 5 - INVESTIGATION RESULTS
5.1
Results
The subsurface conditions encountered at the bore and test pit locations are provided in detail on Bore and
Test Pit Reports presented in Appendix C, using classification and descriptive terms defined in attached
notes.
5.2
Laboratory Testing
In general, soil samples from each 0.5m depth interval and/or from each strata unit down the soil profile until
natural soils were encountered, were submitted to Australian Laboratory Services (ALS), a laboratory
registered by NATA for the analyses required. Based on site history and fieldwork observations soil samples
were submitted for a combination of the following analyses:
Heavy metals – representative samples from each location and strata unit;
PAH – in areas where ash or dark discolouration was observed;
TPH – in areas previously noted as being impacted or where visual or olfactory observations
indicated the potential presence of hydrocarbons;
MAH as benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene and xylenes (BTEX) – as for TPH;
Organochlorine/Organophosphorus pesticides (OC/OP) – representative samples from each location
and strata unit
PCB – in areas where former electrical components were observed; and
Asbestos – in areas where potential asbestos containing material was observed.
A summary of the laboratory results for this additional ESA is given in Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4 and the
laboratory reports are provided in Appendix D. Results from previous investigations by Landfix, GHD and
Butler Partners (gully investigation and road easement validation) are presented given in Table 2.
Laboratory documentation from previous investigations have not been included in this report
5.3
Subsurface Conditions
The subsurface conditions encountered at the test locations are given in detail on the attached bore and test
pit report sheets (Appendix C), using classification and descriptive terms defined in attached notes. To
permit the logical discussion of the results of the investigation, the site has been divided into four
assessment areas:
Page 19
April 2010
5.3.1
Northern Landing Area
Extensive filling has occurred within two former gullies located along the eastern and western boundaries of
the Northern Landing Area. Investigation was undertaken to a maximum depth of 7.5m, with fill reported to a
depth of 2.5m. However, fill is anticipated to be up to 7m in depth in the western gully and up to 3m in depth
in the eastern gully based on historical information available of the original ground surface levels. Fill
material comprised silty clays and silty sands with concrete, timber, metal, plastic, brick, fibrous cement
sheeting, glass, coal, coral, cobbles, gravel. An electrical easement runs through the south portion of the
northern landing area, and is likely to contain fill material, however, no assessment has been undertaken
within the easement. Natural soils comprised brown silty clays and silty sand clays.
5.3.2
Northern Car Park Areas
It is understood that minor earthworks were undertaken during the construction of the two northern car parks,
with the placement of a road base material beneath the asphalt layer, however, specific information was
unavailable at the time of reporting. Fill material was identified to a depth of 1.2m in the westernmost car
and to a depth of 0.6m in the easternmost car park. Fill generally comprised roadbase material overlying
grey and brown silty clays, however, brick was identified at test locations B50 and B52, and traces of coal
were identified at test location B53. Natural soils comprised brown silty clays, sandy clays and silty sandy
clays.
5.3.3
In-filled Gully Area
Extensive filling has occurred within the in-filled gully to a depth of 4.2m and it appears that filling may have
occurred over a period of time. Investigations are consistent with reports that the gully was originally filled
with dredge spoil material with building rubble and soil fill placed over the top. Fill comprising building
rubble, incinerator waste (ash with unburnt materials) and charcoal were identified in the northern and
southern portions of the in-filled gully area as highlighted on Drawing No. 7. Dredge spoil and natural soils
were often difficult to distinguish as both comprised brown and grey silty clays and silty sand clays.
5.3.4
DIP Site Balance
In general, the balance of the DIP site was underlain by natural brown silty clays and silty sandy clays, with
shallow fill at a number of locations. Larger areas of fill were identified in portions of the site, with fill
extending to a depth of 1.4m. Fill comprising building rubble, ash and charcoal were identified in the
northern portions of the area along King Arthur Terrace, with isolated areas located across the remainder of
the site as highlighted on Drawing No. 7.
5.4
Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Methods
Soil samples were dispatched under Chain of Custody documentation provided in Appendix D in order to
identify sample movements. The laboratory‟s internal QA/QC measures included spike analyses, method
blanks and duplicates. The laboratory‟s internal QA/QC results for each batch are included in the laboratory
reports.
Page 20
April 2010
Blind (inter-laboratory) and split (intra-laboratory) duplicate samples were collected at a rate of approximately
one duplicate for every 20 primary samples. In general, primary and blind duplicate samples were submitted
to Australian Laboratory Services (ALS), with split duplicate samples submitted to Advanced Analytical
Australia (AAA) for the requested analyses. The analytical results for each duplicate were compared to the
primary sample results using Relative Percent Differences (RPD). The RPD is defined as the absolute
difference between two values, divided by their mean values and expressed as a percentage. Where either
the primary or duplicate sample (or both) have concentrations below the laboratory‟s LOR, the RPD is not
calculated. The calculated RPD values of 50% or less are typically considered acceptable.
To ensure the integrity of data transfer the electronic data supplied by the laboratory has been used to
develop the results summary tables. A detailed QA/QC review is provided in Section 7.1.
Page 21
geotechnical • geo - environmental • groundwater
Table 2: Analytical Results for Soils (Total Concentrations)
PAH
Sample Date
Company
Sample
Duplicate
Sample
Number
Sample Depth
Material Type
Asbestos
Total
Background Levels
-
Benzo (a)
pyrene
C6-C9
C10-C14
C15-C28
C29-C36
Inorganics (mg/kg)
Metals
Pesticides
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylene
Total BTEX
Aldrin &
Dieldrin
Chlordane
Total OPs
PCB
Cd
Total Cr
Cu
Pb
Hg
Ni
Zn
0.2-30
0.001-0.1
2-400
2-180
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.04-2
0.5-110
1-190
<2-200
-
-
100 1
-
1000 1
-
1000 1
-
-
-
-
7
0.2
-
0.2
-
-
1
20
3
400*
60
300
1
60
200
1
100 1
-
1
20
-
-
-
-
-
10
50
200
10
-
10
100
20
12%
1,000
300
15
600
7000
Phytotoxicity Levels
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
200
-
-
-
400
DERM HIL-D (mg/kg)
-
80
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
40
200
800
40
-
40
400
80
48%
4,000
1,200
60
2400
28000
Laboratory Level of Reporting (mg/kg)
-
8
0.5
10
50
100
100
0.2
0.5
0.5
1.0
2.2
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.1
1.4
0.1
5
1
2
5
5
0.1
2
5
NAD
NAD
NAD
NAD
-
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
259.9
<LOR
<LOR
15.4
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
8
8
<LOR
<LOR
8.8
<LOR
<LOR
13.9
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
-
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
19.6
<0.5
<0.5
1.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
-
<10
<10
<10
<10
<25
<10
<10
<10
<10
-
<50
<50
<50
<50
<50
<50
<50
<50
<50
-
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
-
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
-
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
-
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
-
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
-
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
-
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
-
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
-
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
-
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
1.19
<LOR
<LOR
0.3
<LOR
<LOR
0.35
<LOR
1.4
0.97
<LOR
<LOR
0.31
<LOR
2.22
0.4
0.62
<LOR
0.45
0.49
0.6
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
0.3
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
-
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
-
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
-
<0.10
<0.10
-
9
<5
8
8
7
5.9
9
6
7
6
6
8
5
21
19
11
5
13
6
5
9
<5
6
7
7
14
6
6
16
9
<5
6
5
5.2
<5
6
7
7
9
<5
8
7
8
9
5
6
<5
6
13
8
6
39
5
8
10
6.5
6
6
6
<5
6
7
9
8
7.7
6
6
<5
5
<5
6
6
<5
<5
6
20
40
9
6
6
5
5
4.9
7
6
6
7
7
8
<5
6
6
5
8
<5
5
6
5
<5
5
5
9
8
8
8.3
5
<5
<5
<5
9
8
8
6
7
6
5
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1.0
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1.0
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1.0
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1.0
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1.0
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1.0
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
1
<1
<1
<1.0
<1
<1
<1
<1
5
1
9
6
<1
<1
<1
50
28
49
44
49
44
41
42
40
48
40
26
46
72
69
53
74
40
36
53
44
23
29
46
50
30
14
50
31
34
32
38
41
43
9
3
56
46
36
17
30
11
13
42
48
15
48
18
33
48
40
22
47
26
34
35
41
44
45
48
25
59
36
40
39
44
37
62
31
46
27
56
32
7
24
146
161
33
48
58
31
30
38
29
44
33
37
40
28
13
39
33
23
32
12
32
38
25
4
44
40
41
35
41
41
46
45
35
34
36
40
26
28
41
40
43
21
17
22
30
29
29
33
23
41
29
27
18
30
22
23
22
18
23
19
15
24
20
15
18
32
38
72
26
34
25
21
22
22
22
<5
13
23
28
38
13
25
27
89
35
14
18
25
23
77
99
26
390
15
32
32
35
17
17
15
12
20
15
34
32
29
15
25
15
22
16
16
19
18
6
18
26
41
40
18
16
18
19
19
26
15
36
15
11
37
24
18
24
22
22
9
27
26
40
21
23
26
53
51
42
45
26
23
24
22
37
41
131
115
38
28
27
31
11
37
20
15
12
54
13
27
12
10
16
12
44
39
30
23
32
13
13
36
61
65
26
59
11
44
11
47
25
16
20
14
8.5
<5
7
108
16
52
9
40
34
188
351
10
43
76
96
256
516
41
241
11
205
189
260
33
30
48
16
84
36
49
48
45
24
64
11
40
11
46
16
16
19
26
21
15
42
23
21
19
23
19
34
17
36
28
19
40
17
12
45
74
69
41
26
86
29
9
9
20
45
37
54
31
8
7
19
14
216
224
320
130
33
16
9
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
0.5
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.1
0.15
<0.1
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
20
6
24
37
28
32
28
28
39
33
35
18
36
27
24
18
14
78
28
13
20
12
15
15
18
18
16
38
17
21
30
26
26
24
6
<2
20
34
28
5
16
7
7
24
13
10
25
10
16
16
15
15
24
16
17
17
16
13
16
19
16
34
16
17
19
16
14
12
16
10
9
30
10
3
11
100
108
17
14
15
18
17
19
15
22
41
8
7
18
9
15
8
9
15
5
24
28
15
4
18
26
26
24
24
27
32
32
23
23
18
18
11
18
32
33
23
62
9
89
96
81
80
124
49
156
70
62
58
69
71
58
45
14
164
40
14
83
80
91
42
118
51
245
83
271
181
86
109
95
73
46
9
107
130
129
20
150
168
107
172
52
276
164
162
575
1350
61
173
34
346
403
290
179
48
72
17
96
42
74
79
87
30
262
20
67
18
79
46
35
41
83
76
134
1600
49
16
55
59
54
97
23
93
30
13
197
81
27
54
75
109
59
122
84
106
44
48
83
456
516
410
390
58
53
79
51
1070
1850
3020
749
143
78
51
Butler Partners - Additional ESA (Current Investigation)
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
Blind
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
Split
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
Blind
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
Split
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
Blind
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
Split
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
Blind
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
Split
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
Blind
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
Split
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
Blind
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
Split
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
Blind
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
Split
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
-
TP1-1
TP2-2
TP3-1
TP4-2
DUP100
DUP100
TP5-1
TP5-5
TP6-1
TP6-4
TP6-6
TP7-1
TP7-6
TP8-1
DUP101
DUP101
TP8-2
TP9-1
TP9-2
TP9-3
TP10-1
TP11-1
TP11-2
TP12-1
TP13-1
TP14-1
TP14-2
TP14-3
TP15-1
TP15-2
TP15-3
TP16-1
TP16-2
DUP102
DUP102
TP16-3
TP17-1
TP17-2
TP17-4
TP18-1
TP18-2
TP19-1
TP20-1
TP20-2
TP20-3
TP20-4
TP21-1
TP21-2
TP21-3
TP22-1
TP22-2
TP22-3
TP23-1
TP23-2
TP23-3
TP24-1
DUP103
DUP103
TP24-2
TP25-2
TP25-3
TP25-4
TP26-1
TP26-2
TP27-1
DUP104
DUP104
TP27-2
TP28-1
TP28-2
TP29-1
TP29-2
TP30-1
TP30-2
TP31-1
TP32-1
TP32-2
TP33-1
TP33-2
TP33-3
TP33-4
TP33-5
TP34-1
DUP105
DUP105
TP34-2
TP34-4
TP35-1
TP35-2
TP35-3
TP36-1
TP36-2
TP36-3
TP37-1
TP37-2
TP37-3
TP37-4
TP38-1
TP38-2
TP39-1
TP39-2
TP39-3
TP40-1
TP40-3
TP40-4
DUP106
DUP106
TP40-6
TP40-9
TP41-1
TP41-2
TP41-4
TP41-5
TP41-6
TP41-7
TP41-8
TP42-1
TP42-2
0-0.1
0.2-0.4
0-0.1
0.2-0.4
0.2-0.4
0.2-0.4
0-0.1
1.1-1.3
0-0.1
0.8-1.2
1.8-2.0
0-0.1
1.8-2.2
0-0.2
0-0.2
0-0.2
0.3-0.5
0-0.2
0.5-0.7
1.0-1.2
0-0.2
0-0.2
0.6-0.8
0-0.2
0-0.2
0-0.2
0.4-0.6
0.8-1.0
0-0.2
0.4-0.6
0.8-1.0
0-0.2
0.4-0.6
0.4-0.6
0.4-0.6
0.9-1.0
0-0.2
0.3-0.5
1.0-1.2
0-0.2
0.4-0.6
0-0.2
0-0.2
0.2-0.3
0.3-0.5
0.6-0.8
0-0.2
0.2-0.4
0.6-0.8
0-0.1
0.2-0.4
0.5-0.7
0-0.2
0.3-0.5
0.6-0.8
0-0.2
0-0.2
0-0.2
0.2-0.4
0.2-0.4
0.6-0.8
0.8-1.0
0-0.2
0.2-0.4
0-0.2
0-0.2
0-0.2
0.2-0.4
0-0.2
0.3-0.5
0-0.2
0.4-0.6
0-0.2
0.4-0.6
0-0.2
0-0.1
0.2-0.4
0-0.1
0.2-0.4
0.4-0.6
0.8-1.0
1.0-1.2
0-0.2
0-0.2
0-0.2
0.4-0.6
0.8-1.0
0-0.2
0.3-0.5
0.6-0.8
0-0.1
0.2-0.4
0.4-0.6
0-0.2
0.2-0.6
0.8-1.0
1.0-1.2
0-0.1
0.2-0.4
0-0.2
0.2-0.4
0.4-0.6
0-0.2
0.6-0.8
0.8-1.2
0.8-1.2
0.8-1.2
1.6-1.8
2.6-3.0
0-0.2
0.2-0.4
1.0-1.4
1.6-2.0
2.2-2.4
2.6-3.0
3.2-3.4
0-0.2
0.4-0.6
Silty Sandy Clay
Silty Sandy Clay
Silty Sandy Clay
Fill
Duplicate of TP4-2
Duplicate of TP4-2
Fill
Silty Clay
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Silty Clay
Silty Sandy Clay
Duplicate of TP8-1
Duplicate of TP8-1
Silty Clay
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Silty Sandy Clay
Silty Sandy Clay
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Silty Sandy Clay
Fill
Fill
Duplicate of TP16-2
Duplicate of TP16-2
Fill
Fill
Fill
Silty Sandy Clay
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Silty Clay
Fill
Fill
Silty Clay
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Silty Sandy Clay
Fill
Duplicate of TP24-1
Duplicate of TP24-1
Silty Clay
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Duplicate of TP27-1
Duplicate of TP27-1
Fill
Fill
Silty Clay
Fill
Silty Clay
Fill
Silty Clay
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Silty Clay
Fill
Duplicate of TP34-1
Duplicate of TP34-1
Fill
Silty Clay
Fill
Silty Sandy Clay
Silty Clay
Fill
Fill
Silty Clay
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Silty Clay
Fill
Fill
Silty Clay
Fill
Fill
Fill
Duplicate of TP40-4
Duplicate of TP40-4
Silty Sandy Clay
Silty Sandy Clay
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Silty Clay
Silty Clay
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
As
-
-
-
Heptachlor
No Detection
-
-
DDT
DERM HIL-A (mg/kg)
DERM EIL (mg/kg)
0.95-5
Organics (mg/kg)
BTEX
TPH
Page 22
PAH
Sample Date
Company
Sample
Duplicate
Sample
Number
Sample Depth
Material Type
Asbestos
Total
Background Levels
-
Benzo (a)
pyrene
C6-C9
C10-C14
C15-C28
C29-C36
Inorganics (mg/kg)
Metals
Pesticides
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylene
Total BTEX
Aldrin &
Dieldrin
Chlordane
Total OPs
PCB
Cd
Total Cr
Cu
Pb
Hg
Ni
Zn
0.2-30
0.001-0.1
2-400
2-180
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.04-2
0.5-110
1-190
<2-200
-
-
100 1
-
1000 1
-
1000 1
-
-
-
-
7
0.2
-
0.2
-
-
1
20
3
400*
60
300
1
60
200
1
100 1
-
1
20
-
-
-
-
-
10
50
200
10
-
10
100
20
12%
1,000
300
15
600
7000
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
200
-
-
-
400
DERM HIL-D (mg/kg)
-
80
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
40
200
800
40
-
40
400
80
48%
4,000
1,200
60
2400
28000
-
8
0.5
10
50
100
100
0.2
0.5
0.5
1.0
2.2
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.1
1.4
0.1
5
1
2
5
5
0.1
2
5
01-Dec-09
01-Dec-09
01-Dec-09
01-Dec-09
01-Dec-09
01-Dec-09
01-Dec-09
01-Dec-09
01-Dec-09
01-Dec-09
01-Dec-09
01-Dec-09
01-Dec-09
01-Dec-09
01-Dec-09
01-Dec-09
01-Dec-09
01-Dec-09
08-Dec-09
08-Dec-09
08-Dec-09
08-Dec-09
08-Dec-09
08-Dec-09
08-Dec-09
08-Dec-09
08-Dec-09
08-Dec-09
08-Dec-09
08-Dec-09
08-Dec-09
08-Dec-09
08-Dec-09
08-Dec-09
08-Dec-09
08-Dec-09
08-Dec-09
08-Dec-09
08-Dec-09
08-Dec-09
08-Dec-09
08-Dec-09
08-Dec-09
08-Dec-09
08-Dec-09
08-Dec-09
08-Dec-09
08-Dec-09
08-Dec-09
08-Dec-09
08-Dec-09
08-Dec-09
08-Dec-09
08-Dec-09
08-Dec-09
08-Dec-09
08-Dec-09
08-Dec-09
08-Dec-09
08-Dec-09
08-Dec-09
08-Dec-09
08-Dec-09
08-Dec-09
08-Dec-09
08-Dec-09
08-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
Butler Partners - Gully Investigation
28-Jul-06
BP - Gully Investigation
28-Jul-06
28-Jul-06
28-Jul-06
28-Jul-06
28-Jul-06
28-Jul-06
28-Jul-06
28-Jul-06
28-Jul-06
28-Jul-06
31-Jul-06
31-Jul-06
31-Jul-06
31-Jul-06
31-Jul-06
31-Jul-06
31-Jul-06
31-Jul-06
31-Jul-06
31-Jul-06
31-Jul-06
31-Jul-06
31-Jul-06
31-Jul-06
31-Jul-06
31-Jul-06
02-Aug-06
02-Aug-06
02-Aug-06
02-Aug-06
02-Aug-06
02-Aug-06
02-Aug-06
02-Aug-06
02-Aug-06
02-Aug-06
02-Aug-06
02-Aug-06
02-Aug-06
02-Aug-06
02-Aug-06
02-Aug-06
02-Aug-06
02-Aug-06
02-Aug-06
02-Aug-06
02-Aug-06
02-Aug-06
02-Aug-06
02-Aug-06
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
As
-
-
-
Heptachlor
No Detection
-
-
DDT
DERM HIL-A (mg/kg)
DERM EIL (mg/kg)
0.95-5
Organics (mg/kg)
BTEX
TPH
Blind
Split
Blind
Split
Blind
Split
Blind
Split
Blind
Split
Blind
Split
-
TP43-1
TP43-2
TP43-4
TP43-5
TP44-1
TP44-3
TP44-5
TP44-6
TP45-1
TP45-3
TP45-4
DUP107
DUP107
TP46-1
TP46-3
TP47-1
DUP108
DUP108
B48-2
B49-1
B49-2
DUP109
DUP109
B50-2
B50-3
B51-1
B51-2
B52-1
B52-2
B52-3
B53-1
B53-3
B53-4
B54-2
DUP110
DUP110
B54-4
B54-5
B55-2
B56-1
B56-2
B56-4
B57-2
B57-3
B58-1
B58-2
B59-1
B59-2
B60-1
DUP111
DUP111
B60-2
B61-1
B61-2
B62-1
B62-2
B63-1
B63-2
B64-1
B64-2
B65-1
B65-2
B65-3
B65-4
DUP112
DUP112
B66-1
0-0.2
0.2-0.6
1.2-1.6
1.8-2.0
0-0.2
0.6-1.0
1.4-1.6
1.8-2.0
0-0.2
0.8-1.2
1.4-1.6
1.4-1.6
1.4-1.6
0-0.2
0.6-0.8
0-0.2
0-0.2
0-0.2
0.4-0.6
0.1-0.3
0.3-0.5
0.3-0.5
0.3-0.5
0.2-0.4
0.4-0.6
0.1-0.3
0.3-0.5
0.02-0.2
0.2-0.4
0.4-0.6
0.02-0.2
0.6-0.8
1.2-1.4
0.2-0.4
0.2-0.4
0.2-0.4
0.8-1.0
1.2-1.4
0.2-0.4
0.02-0.2
0.2-0.4
1.2-1.4
0.3-0.5
0.6-0.8
0-0.2
0.2-0.4
0-0.2
0.3-0.5
0.1-0.3
0.1-0.3
0.1-0.3
0.4-0.6
0-0.2
0.2-0.4
0.1-0.3
0.4-0.6
0-0.2
0.3-0.5
0-0.2
0.3-0.5
0-0.2
0.2-0.4
0.6-0.8
1.2-1.4
1.2-1.4
1.2-1.4
0-0.2
Fill
Fill
Fill
Silty Clay
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Silty Clay
Duplicate of TP45-4
Duplicate of TP45-4
Fill
Silty Clay
Silty Clay
Duplicate of TP47-1
Duplicate of TP47-1
Silty Clay
Fill
Silty Clay
Duplicate of B49-2
Duplicate of B49-2
Fill
Silty Clay
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Silty Sandy Clay
Fill
Duplicate of B54-2
Duplicate of B54-2
Fill
Silty Clay
Silty Clay
Fill
Fill
Silty Clay
Sandy Clay
Silty Clay
Fill
Silty Clay
Fill
Silty Clay
Fill
Duplicate of B60-1
Duplicate of B60-1
Silty Clay
Fill
Silty Clay
Fill
Silty Clay
Fill
Fill
Fill
Silty Clay
Fill
Fill
Fill
Silty Clay
Duplicate of B65-4
Duplicate of B65-4
Silty Clay
-
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
-
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
-
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
-
<50
<50
<50
<50
<50
<50
<50
-
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
-
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
<100
-
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
-
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
-
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
-
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
-
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
-
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
0.33
0.79
0.44
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
-
9
15
<5
<5
7
6
6
5
9
10
7
7
5.9
39
6
7
8
5.6
6
21
7
6
6
22
6
13
5
16
7
<5
25
<5
<5
9
<5
8.7
<5
6
7
19
<5
6
<5
5
13
7
<5
<5
13
12
18
<5
<5
<5
25
7
11
9
14
<5
<5
<5
<5
5
5
6.3
5
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1.0
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1.0
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1.0
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1.0
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1.0
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1.0
<1
26
18
26
29
38
46
45
49
31
25
44
46
43
27
48
53
54
49
32
31
55
60
51
25
63
26
15
23
30
30
26
32
36
9
6
14
37
36
43
28
30
37
32
36
42
48
61
57
25
28
33
54
6
35
14
37
221
31
17
31
29
32
34
39
62
43
31
26
13
12
10
52
29
28
28
19
27
27
28
28
24
28
16
19
20
14
47
12
11
11
34
22
38
27
33
19
15
57
18
20
6
<5
7.6
18
24
24
50
19
23
19
20
32
18
19
18
82
78
110
21
26
13
56
18
75
92
32
14
21
20
23
25
25
30
23
19
31
12
8
34
9
9
9
16
17
17
15
10
13
12
23
24
23
44
14
16
20
14
22
137
8
14
9
16
12
8
19
10
12
5
6.5
14
11
11
10
16
12
10
10
102
42
15
14
6
6
8.6
19
8
14
13
14
10
46
18
10
17
15
19
25
56
33
22
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.4
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
13
8
5
5
27
28
33
38
13
14
35
34
32
18
24
15
16
17
7
24
4
3
4.7
18
5
18
20
16
14
7
21
22
24
4
2
5.4
24
19
22
22
21
24
23
17
20
31
24
28
21
36
30
17
9
16
5
10
14
39
14
14
21
21
22
26
28
28
20
53
51
13
13
98
60
55
56
38
42
79
88
72
52
45
40
39
46
99
77
55
50
46
58
42
53
40
57
43
22
64
58
54
16
<5
16
51
46
56
61
54
49
52
46
170
62
33
37
32
55
49
26
53
28
13
23
58
132
62
24
75
66
102
79
78
85
88
Blind
Split
Blind
Split
Blind
Split
Blind
Split
Blind
Split
Blind
Split
Blind
Split
Blind
Split
Blind
Blind
Split
Blind
Split
-
BPB1-1
BPB1-1
BPB1-1
BPB1-5
BPB1-10
BPB2-1
BPB2-1
BPB2-1
BPB2-4
BPB2-13
BPB3-1
BPB3-1
BPB3-1
BPB3-4
BPB4-1
BPB4-3
BPB4-6
BPB4-6
BPB4-6
BPB5-1
BPB5-1
BPB5-1
BPB5-3
BPB5-4
BPB5-10
BPB5-10
BPB5-10
BPB6-1
BPB6-3
BPB6-3
BPB6-3
BPB6-7
BPB7-1
BPB7-1
BPB7-1
BPB7-3
BPB8-1
BPB8-8
BPB8-8
BPB9-1
BPB9-1
BPB9-1
BPB9-5
BPB10-1
BPB10-4
BPB10-4
BPB10-4
BPB11-1
BPB11-3
BPB15-1
BPB15-9
0-0.2
0-0.2
0-0.2
1.6-2.0
4.3-4.5
0-0.2
0-0.2
0-0.2
1.8-2.0
4.2-4.5
0-0.2
0-0.2
0-0.2
1.2-1.5
0-0.2
0.5-1.0
2.0-2.5
2.0-2.5
2.0-2.5
0-0.2
0-0.2
0-0.2
0.8-1.2
1.4-1.8
4.5-5.0
4.5-5.0
4.5-5.0
0-0.2
0.5-1.0
0.5-1.0
0.5-1.0
2.5-3.0
0-0.2
0-0.2
0-0.2
0.6-1.0
0-0.2
3.0-3.5
3.0-3.5
0-0.2
0-0.2
0-0.2
1.6-2.0
0-0.2
1.0-1.5
1.0-1.5
1.0-1.5
0-0.2
0.5-1.0
0-0.2
3.5-4.0
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Silty Clay
Fill
Fill
Fill
Silty Clay
Silty Clay
Fill
Fill
Fill
Silty Clay
Fill
Silty Clay
Silty Clay
Silty Clay
Silty Clay
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Silty Clay
Silty Clay
Silty Clay
Silty Clay
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Silty Clay
Silty Clay
Silty Clay
Silty Clay
Silty Clay
Silty Clay
Silty Clay
Silty Clay
Fill
Fill
Fill
Silty Clay
Fill
Silty Clay
Silty Clay
Silty Clay
Fill
Fill
Fill
Silty Clay
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
0.041
<LOR
-
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
-
0.036
<LOR
<LOR
0.043
0.382
<LOR
-
<LOR
<0.05
<0.05
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
-
-
-
5.4
2.5
<5
4.2
3.4
3.7
5.2
<5
9.6
3.9
9.9
8
8
4.9
9.6
5
4
3.7
<5
8.1
3.6
<5
2.9
6.5
5.9
4.9
5
3.1
4.1
4.2
<5
3.1
3.8
4
<5
3.7
4.1
3.9
3.8
3.3
3.9
<5
3.7
4.7
3.8
3.9
<5
6
4.5
4.7
3.7
<0.5
<0.5
<1
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
1
<1
1
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<1
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<1
<0.5
<0.5
<1
4
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<1
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<1
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<1
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<1
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<1
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
56
39
30
52
43
35
50
32
50
42
51
44
45
42
17
47
46
47
40
43
40
20
21
51
45
31
34
30
43
44
37
41
37
38
31
40
40
44
44
39
39
35
45
34
47
46
37
30
37
44
46
30
19
27
26
22
25
41
23
43
24
28
24
41
73
21
27
23
23
24
22
20
13
75
19
58
43
32
14
21
21
24
19
18
18
22
18
19
20
19
18
18
21
17
14
20
19
22
14
36
19
19
15
18
15
11
10
43
120
14
120
12
16
15
11
17
33
19
13
11
10
33
11
8
50
41
35
31
238
9.7
11
11
10
10
14
13
14
9.6
14
10
9.9
11
12
11
9.7
26
11
11
9
21
51
12
10
-
51
12
6
38
36
21
29
30
37
41
45
38
46
30
12
35
40
42
28
22
43
7
28
25
30
21
26
20
31
32
31
31
27
28
27
29
30
32
32
29
30
28
29
15
32
32
30
16
39
33
34
93
29
15
69
62
81
220
73
580
81
95
84
70
78
73
97
70
67
57
73
62
33
320
98
420
430
240
48
64
65
63
60
59
60
60
58
78
58
56
57
60
60
57
290
66
64
60
53
170
65
58
Page 23
PAH
Sample Date
Company
Sample
Duplicate
Sample
Number
Sample Depth
Material Type
Asbestos
Total
Background Levels
-
Benzo (a)
pyrene
C6-C9
C10-C14
C15-C28
C29-C36
Inorganics (mg/kg)
Metals
Pesticides
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylene
Total BTEX
Aldrin &
Dieldrin
Chlordane
Total OPs
PCB
Cd
Total Cr
Cu
Pb
Hg
Ni
Zn
0.2-30
0.001-0.1
2-400
2-180
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.04-2
0.5-110
1-190
<2-200
-
-
100 1
-
1000 1
-
1000 1
-
-
-
-
7
0.2
-
0.2
-
-
1
20
3
400*
60
300
1
60
200
1
100 1
-
1
20
-
-
-
-
-
10
50
200
10
-
10
100
20
12%
1,000
300
15
600
7000
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
200
-
-
-
400
DERM HIL-D (mg/kg)
-
80
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
40
200
800
40
-
40
400
80
48%
4,000
1,200
60
2400
28000
-
8
0.5
10
50
100
100
0.2
0.5
0.5
1.0
2.2
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.1
1.4
0.1
5
1
2
5
5
0.1
2
5
02-Aug-06
03-Aug-06
03-Aug-06
03-Aug-06
03-Aug-06
Butler Partners - Road Easement Validation
18-Jul-07
BP - Road Easement
18-Jul-07
BP - Road Easement
18-Jul-07
BP - Road Easement
17-Jul-07
BP - Road Easement
17-Jul-07
BP - Road Easement
18-Jul-07
BP - Road Easement
18-Jul-07
BP - Road Easement
18-Jul-07
BP - Road Easement
12-Jul-07
BP - Road Easement
11-Jul-07
BP - Road Easement
11-Jul-07
BP - Road Easement
06-Jul-07
BP - Road Easement
06-Jul-07
BP - Road Easement
09-Jul-07
BP - Road Easement
10-Jul-07
BP - Road Easement
10-Jul-07
BP - Road Easement
10-Jul-07
BP - Road Easement
10-Jul-07
BP - Road Easement
10-Jul-07
BP - Road Easement
10-Jul-07
BP - Road Easement
20-Jul-07
BP - Road Easement
20-Jul-07
BP - Road Easement
20-Jul-07
BP - Road Easement
20-Jul-07
BP - Road Easement
25-Jul-07
BP - Road Easement
25-Jul-07
BP - Road Easement
01-Aug-07
BP - Road Easement
01-Aug-07
BP - Road Easement
31-Jul-07
BP - Road Easement
31-Jul-07
BP - Road Easement
31-Jul-07
BP - Road Easement
30-Jul-07
BP - Road Easement
28-Jun-07
BP - Road Easement
28-Jun-07
BP - Road Easement
28-Jun-07
BP - Road Easement
02-Jul-07
BP - Road Easement
02-Jul-07
BP - Road Easement
02-Jul-07
BP - Road Easement
29-Jun-07
BP - Road Easement
28-Jun-07
BP - Road Easement
28-Jul-06
31-Jul-06
02-Aug-06
03-Aug-06
03-Nov-06
03-Nov-06
03-Nov-06
28-Jun-07
28-Jun-07
28-Jun-07
29-Jun-07
29-Jun-07
29-Jun-07
02-Jul-07
02-Jul-07
02-Jul-07
06-Jul-07
06-Jul-07
06-Jul-07
09-Jul-07
09-Jul-07
09-Jul-07
10-Jul-07
10-Jul-07
10-Jul-07
11-Jul-07
11-Jul-07
11-Jul-07
12-Jul-07
12-Jul-07
12-Jul-07
17-Jul-07
17-Jul-07
17-Jul-07
18-Jul-07
18-Jul-07
18-Jul-07
20-Jul-07
20-Jul-07
20-Jul-07
25-Jul-07
25-Jul-07
25-Jul-07
30-Jul-07
30-Jul-07
30-Jul-07
01-Aug-07
01-Aug-07
01-Aug-07
30-Nov-09
01-Dec-09
08-Dec-09
BP - Road Easement
BP - Road Easement
BP - Road Easement
BP - Road Easement
BP - Road Easement
BP - Road Easement
BP - Road Easement
BP - Road Easement
BP - Road Easement
BP - Road Easement
BP - Road Easement
BP - Road Easement
BP - Road Easement
BP - Road Easement
BP - Road Easement
BP - Road Easement
BP - Road Easement
BP - Road Easement
BP - Road Easement
BP - Road Easement
BP - Road Easement
BP - Road Easement
BP - Road Easement
BP - Road Easement
BP - Road Easement
BP - Road Easement
BP - Road Easement
BP - Road Easement
BP - Road Easement
BP - Road Easement
BP - Road Easement
BP - Road Easement
BP - Road Easement
BP - Road Easement
BP - Road Easement
BP - Road Easement
BP - Road Easement
BP - Road Easement
BP - Road Easement
BP - Road Easement
BP - Road Easement
BP - Road Easement
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
BP - Additional ESA
NOTES:
1
1
1
20
<LOR
100 1.
400*
NAD
CH, A
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
As
-
-
-
Heptachlor
No Detection
-
-
DDT
DERM HIL-A (mg/kg)
DERM EIL (mg/kg)
0.95-5
Organics (mg/kg)
BTEX
TPH
Blind
-
BPB15-1
BPTP1-1
BPTP6-1
BPTP6-2
BPTP9-1
0-0.2
0-0.5
0.2-0.6
1.0-1.4
0.2-0.6
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
0.449
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
-
-
8.7
13
5
5.8
5.2
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
1
35
23
19
20
35
19
25
12
22
49
37
76
14
35
91
-
15
14
18
28
23
60
130
55
67
230
Blind
Split
Blind
Split
Blind
Split
Blind
Split
Blind
Split
-
WV-A3
WV-A4
WV-A5
WV-A8
WV-A9
WV-A10
WV-A10
WV-A10
WV-B1
WV-B2
WV-B31
WV-B4
WV-B5
WV-B9
WV-B10
WV-B10
WV-B10
WV-B11
WV-B12
WV-B13
WV-C1
WV-C1
WV-C1
WV-C2
WV-C3
WV-C4
WV-C8
WV-C9
WV-C10
WV-C10
WV-C10
WV-C11
WV-D1
WV-D2
WV-D3
WV-D4
WV-D4
WV-D4
WV-D5
WV-D6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
2.8
2.8
2.8
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
3
2.5
2
2
3
3
3
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Silty Clay
Silty Clay
Silty Clay
Silty Clay
Fill
Silty Clay
Silty Clay
Silty Clay
Silty Sandy Clay
Silty Sandy Clay
Silty Sandy Clay
Fill
Silty Sandy Clay
Silty Sandy Clay
Silty Sandy Clay
Silty Sandy Clay
Silty Sandy Clay
Silty Sandy Clay
Silty Sandy Clay
Silty Sandy Clay
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill/Silty Clay
Fill/Silty Clay
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Silty Sandy Clay
Silty Sandy Clay
Silty Sandy Clay
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
NAD
NAD
NAD
NAD
NAD
NAD
NAD
NAD
NAD
NAD
NAD
NAD
NAD
NAD
NAD
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
0.00359
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
0.133
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
0.64
1.25
0.41
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
0.38
<LOR
0.02
<LOR
15.1
<LOR
<LOR
0.42
216.1
299.6
40.693
0.14
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
-
-
5
7.2
5.2
8.9
210
6.8
8.7
6
4.7
4.4
6.9
9.8
8.1
4
4.7
4.4
<5
4.3
3.8
4.4
5.3
5.4
<5
32
5.5
9.8
7.9
6.9
3.6
4.2
<5
6.7
5
5.9
7.4
15
11
11
9.3
<3
<1
<1
<1
<1
6
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
29
29
28
42
130
31
41
32
29
34
44
33
47
50
34
29
39
34
29
33
42
42
33
36
35
31
41
37
31
34
23
18
43
47
45
40
40
31
25
16
6.9
9.9
6
12
760
9.1
10
12
17
17
35
34
26
20
17
17
20
16
18
20
23
21
23
61
63
30
31
37
17
17
17
46
19
23
26
22
20
19
16
9.6
12
14
13
18
4600
12
16
11
15
7.7
32
88
46
8.8
8.7
8.3
8
8.7
7.4
7.7
15
12
17
49
19
37
43
39
15
12
10
110
9.6
11
11
8.6
8.8
6
11
8.1
<0.05
0.06
<0.05
<0.05
0.32
<0.05
<0.05
<0.1
0.08
0.06
0.34
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.05
<0.05
<0.1
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
0.06
<0.05
<0.1
<0.05
<0.05
0.06
0.56
0.19
0.05
0.06
0.1
0.42
<0.05
0.06
0.1
<0.05
<0.05
<0.1
<0.05
<0.05
4.8
2.7
2.3
2.4
150
<2
<2
3
21
24
28
17
34
28
23
22
26
18
20
18
28
26
24
20
27
11
22
24
12
13
10
9.8
30
36
37
24
25
25
8.8
2.6
33
29
16
26
7600
19
22
20
69
53
130
100
86
58
50
44
50
43
59
46
200
83
90
190
100
94
98
170
27
34
25
360
66
72
87
130
90
84
31
17
-
Trip Blank
Trip Blank
Trip Blank
Trip Blank
Rinsate Blank
Field Blank
Trip Blank
Field Blank
Rinsate Blank
Trip Blank
Trip Blank
Field Blank
Rinsate Blank
Trip Blank
Field Blank
Rinsate Blank
Trip Blank
Field Blank
Rinsate Blank
Trip Blank
Field Blank
Rinsate Blank
Trip Blank
Field Blank
Rinsate Blank
Trip Blank
Field Blank
Rinsate Blank
Trip Blank
Rinsate Blank
Field Blank
Field Blank
Rinsate Blank
Trip Blank
Trip Blank
Field Blank
Rinsate Blank
Trip Blank
Field Blank
Rinsate Blank
Trip Blank
Rinsate Blank
Field Blank
Trip Blank
Field Blank
Rinsate Blank
Trip Blank
Rinsate Blank
Field Blank
Rinsate Blank
Rinsate Blank
Rinsate Blank
-
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<20
<20
<50
<50
<100
<100
<50
<50
<1
<1
<5
<5
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<1
-
<0.5
0.69
<0.5
<0.5
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.0003
<0.0001
0.0001
<0.5
1.4
<0.5
<0.5
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
2.3
1.8
2.5
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<2
6
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.52
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
6
2.1
1.9
1.7
1.9
1.1
<1
<5
<5
<5
140
30
54
6.2
7.1
9.3
<5
<5
<10
<5
<5
6.2
15
7.4
10
<5
6
5
<5
11
7.7
<5
<5
<5
0.135
<0.005
0.06
QA/QC Samples
TRIP 1
TRIP 2
TRIP3
TRIP4
RB-031106
FB-031106
TB-031106
FB-280607
RB-280607
TB-280607
TB-290607
FB-290607
RB-290607
TB-020707
FB-020707
RB-020707
TB-060707
FB-060707
RB-060707
TB-090707
FB-090707
RB-090707
TB-100707
FB-100707
RB-100707
TB-110707
FB-110707
RB-110707
TB-120707
RB-120707
FB-120707
FB-170707
RB-170707
BLANK
TB-180707
FB-180707
RB-180707
TB-200707
FB-200707
RB-200707
TB-250707
RB-250707
FB-250707
TB-300707
FB-300707
RB-300707
TB-010807
RB-010807
FB-010807
RB-301109
RB-011209
RB-081209
Organics (ug/L)
<2
<2
Inorganics (mg/L)
<0.5
<0.5
0.97
<0.5
1.1
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<2
<1
<2
<1
<2
<1
<2
<1
<2
<1
<2
<1
<2
<1
<2
<1
<2
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<2
<1
<2
<1
<2
<1
<2
<1
<2
<1
<2
<1
2
<1
<2
<1
<2
<1
<2
<1
<2
<1
<2
<1
<2
<1
<2
<1
<2
<1
<2
<1
<2
<1
<2
<1
<2
<1
<2
<1
<2
<1
<2
<1
<2
<1
<2
<1
<2
<1
<2
<1
<2
<1
0.003
0.002
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
Analyte exceeds the adopted Soil Investigation Criteria
Analyte exceeds the HIL-D Guideline Criteria
QA/QC Sample exceeds laboratory's LOR
RAP Remediation / Validation Criteria
Below the limit of reporting
QLD EPA Draft Investigation Thresholds for Underground Storage Tanks - January 1999
Specifically agreed with TPR
No Asbestos Detected
Chrysotile (CH) and Amosite (A) Asbestos Detected
Not analysed
Page 24
April 2010
Table 3: TCLP Analytical Results (Heavy Metals)
Inorganics (mg/L)
Sample
Date
Sample
Number
Company
Sample
Depth
Material
Type
Metals
As
Cd
Total Cr
Landfill Criteria - Unlined (mg/L)
0.5
0.1
Landfill Criteria - Maximum (mg/L)
5.0
0.5
0.01
Laboratory Level of Reporting (mg/L)
Cu
Pb
Hg
Ni
Zn
0.5
10
0.5
0.01
0.5
50
5.0
200
5.0
0.1
5.0
500
0.005
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.0001
0.01
0.1
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
TP14-2
0.4-0.6
Fill
-
-
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
TP20-2
0.2-0.3
Fill
-
-
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
TP20-3
0.3-0.5
Fill
-
-
-
-
<0.1
-
-
-
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
TP22-2
0.2-0.4
Fill
-
-
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
TP23-2
0.3-0.5
Fill
<0.1
-
-
0.1
-
-
-
-
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
TP33-2
0.2-0.4
Fill
<0.1
-
-
-
-
-
<0.1
-
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
TP33-3
0.4-0.6
Fill
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
TP41-5
1.6-2.0
Fill
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
9.8
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
TP41-6
2.2-2.4
Fill
-
<0.05
-
<0.1
<0.1
-
-
7.5
NOTES:
1
Analyte exceeds the Unlined Landfill Criteria
1
Analyte exceeds the Lined Landfill Criteria
-
Not analysed
Table 4: TCLP Analytical Results (Organics)
Organics (mg/L)
Sample Date
Company
Sample
Number
Sample
Depth
Material
Type
PAH
Pesticides
Total
Benzo (a)
pyrene
Aldrin &
Dieldrin
Chlordane
DDT
Heptachlor
Landfill Criteria - Unlined (mg/L)
0.1
0.002
0.001
0.006
0.003
0.003
Landfill Criteria - Maximum (mg/L)
1.0
0.02
0.03
0.1
2.0
0.03
0.0155
0.0005
0.0001
0.0001
0.001
0.0001
Laboratory Level of Reporting (mg/L)
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
TP14-2
0.4-0.6
Fill
0.1205
<0.0005
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
TP20-2
0.2-0.3
Fill
<LOR
<0.0005
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
TP20-3
0.3-0.5
Fill
-
-
-
-
-
-
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
TP22-2
0.2-0.4
Fill
-
-
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
30-Nov-09
BP - Additional ESA
TP23-2
0.3-0.5
Fill
-
-
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
TP33-2
0.2-0.4
Fill
-
-
-
-
-
-
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
TP33-3
0.4-0.6
Fill
-
-
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
TP41-5
1.6-2.0
Fill
-
-
-
-
-
-
01-Dec-09
BP - Additional ESA
TP41-6
2.2-2.4
Fill
-
-
-
-
-
-
NOTES:
1
Analyte exceeds the Unlined Landfill Criteria
1
Analyte exceeds the Lined Landfill Criteria
<LOR
-
Not analysed
Page 25
April 2010
SECTION 6 - ENVIRONMENTAL DISCUSSION
6.1
Contaminated Land
6.1.1
Potential Contamination Sources
Potentially contaminating activities identified in the site history review and observations made on site include:
storage and use of pesticides, chemicals and petroleum hydrocarbons (small volumes);
operation of a cattle dip and spray race;
filling of the site
Contaminants of Potential Concern (CPC) associated with the identified potentially contaminating activities
listed above comprise:
heavy metals;
total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH);
benzene, ethyl-benzene, toluene and xylene (BTEX);
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH); and
organochlorine and organophosphorus pesticides (OC/OP).
6.1.2
Results and Assessment Criteria
6.1.2.1 Soil Assessment Criteria
To assess the suitability of the site for its proposed use, assessment criteria are required for the identified
CPC‟s. The soil investigation criteria presented in Table 5 below have been developed for heavy metals,
PAH and OC/OP based on the Queensland DERM‟s Draft Guidelines for the Assessment and Management
of Contaminated Land in Queensland, May 1998 (‘the Guidelines’) with soil investigation criteria for TPH and
BTEX based on Queensland DERM‟s Draft Investigation Threshold for Underground Storage Tanks –
January 1999.
Page 26
April 2010
Table 5: Soil Investigation Criteria for Asbestos Fragments
Contaminant
Adopted Soil Investigation Criteria (mg/kg)
TPH (C6-C9)
100
TPH (C10-C14)
100
TPH (C14-C28)
1000
TPH (C29-C36)
1000
Benzene
1
BTEX
7
Benzo(a)pyrene
1
Total PAHs
20
Arsenic (As)
100
Cadmium (Cd)
3
Chromium (Cr)
400
Copper (Cu)
200
Lead (Pb)
300
Mercury (Hg)
1
Nickel (Ni)
60
Zinc (Zn)
400
Cobalt (Co)
100
Aldrin and Dieldrin
0.2
DDT, DDE and DDD
0.2
Asbestos
0.001% w/w asbestos for friable asbestos and asbestos fibres in soil
0.01% w/w asbestos for asbestos in asbestos containing materials*
Notes: * Based on the Western Australian Health Commission Guidelines for the Assessment, Remediation and
Management of Asbestos-Contaminated Sites in Western Australia, May 2009
6.1.3
Aesthetic Evaluation for Soil
For the purposes of removing the site from DERM‟s EMR Aesthetic Guidelines discussed in Section 3.5,
Schedule 1B of the NEPM state that soils should not be discoloured, malodorous (including when dug over
or wet) nor of abnormal consistency.
According to the DERM‟s operational policy (Licensing requirements for construction and demolition wastes,
2002) inert waste material, suitable for use as backfill on-site is classified as:
I.
II.
III.
Bricks, pavers and ceramics
Concrete (including embedded steel reinforcing rods), pulverised to a maximum 300mm nominal
size; and
Clean earthen fill (no identified contamination).
Other elements generally identified as construction and demolition waste not considered to be inert waste
under the operational policy, include, inter alia:
Glass;
Green Waste;
Plastics;
Page 27
April 2010
Metal;
Plasterboard;
Cardboard/paper; and
Timber.
6.1.4
Comparison of Results to Assessment Criteria
The results of the laboratory analyses from the current investigation along with previous investigations by
Butler Partners have been compared with the assessment criteria and the results are summarised below.
6.1.4.1 Metals
Arsenic (As) – one of the two hundred and seventy-nine samples tested returned concentrations
above the adopted soil investigation criterion;
Cadmium (Cd) – five of the two hundred and seventy-nine samples tested returned concentrations
Chromium (Cr) – all of the two hundred and seventy-nine samples tested returned concentrations
below the adopted soil investigation criterion;
Copper (Cu) – two of the four hundred and thirty-seven samples tested returned concentrations
Lead (Pb) – four of the two hundred and seventy-nine samples tested returned concentrations above
the adopted soil investigation criterion, with one of these samples the HIL-D criterion;
Mercury (Hg) - all of the two hundred and twenty-three samples tested returned concentrations
below the adopted soil investigation criterion;
Nickel (Ni) – three of the two hundred and seventy-nine samples tested returned concentrations
above the adopted soil investigation criterion; and
Zinc (Zn) – fifteen of the two hundred and seventy-nine samples tested returned concentrations
above the adopted soil investigation criterion.
6.1.4.2 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH)
Total PAH – six of the thirty-five samples tested returned concentrations above the laboratory‟s limit
of reporting (LOR), with one of these samples above both the adopted soil investigation criterion and
the HIL-D criterion; and
Benzo(a)pyrene (B(a)P) – two of the forty-seven samples tested returned concentrations above the
laboratory‟s LOR, with both samples exceeding the adopted soil investigation criterion and one of
these samples exceeding the HIL-D criterion.
6.1.4.3 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH)
All of sixteen samples tested returned concentrations of all TPH fractions below the laboratory‟s LOR and the
respective adopted soil investigation criteria.
6.1.4.4 Benzene, Toluene, Ethyl benzene and Xylene (BTEX)
All of the sixteen samples tested returned concentrations of all BTEX compounds below the laboratory‟s
LOR and the respective adopted soil investigation criteria.
Page 28
April 2010
6.1.4.5 OC/OP’s
Aldrin and Dieldrin – two of the one hundred and seventy-nine samples tested returned
concentrations above the laboratory‟s LOR, with all samples below the adopted soil investigation
criterion;
Chlordane and Heptachlor – all of the one hundred and seventy-nine samples tested returned
concentrations below the laboratory‟s LOR. No adopted soil investigation criterion was adopted for
chlordane and heptachlor, however, as no samples reported concentrations above the laboratory‟s
LOR it is considered that further investigation is not required; and
DDT – thirty two of the one hundred and seventy-nine samples tested returned concentrations above
the laboratory‟s LOR, with twenty seven of these samples above the adopted soil investigation
criterion.
6.1.4.6 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)
Both of the two samples tested returned concentrations below both the laboratory‟s LOR and the adopted
soil investigation criterion.
6.1.4.7 Asbestos
All of the nineteen soil samples tested returned no detectable traces of asbestos. Four samples of fibrous
cement sheeting products were submitted for asbestos analysis. Of these samples all of the four samples
were reported to contain both chrysotile and amosite asbestos fibres within the cement matrix.
6.1.4.8 Leachability
The Heavy metal Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) analysis results for samples TP14-2,
TP20-2, TP20-3, TP22-2, TP23-2, TP33-2, TP33-3, TP41-5 and TP41-6 were below the generally accepted
unlined landfill acceptance criteria. Based on these heavy metal results, if this soil was to be disposed to
landfill it would most likely be classified as suitable for unlined landfill disposal.
The OC Pesticides TCLP analysis results for samples TP14-2, TP20-2, TP22-2, TP23-2 and TP33-3 were
below the unlined landfill acceptance criteria. Based on these OC pesticides results, if this soil was to be
disposed to landfill it would most likely be classified as suitable for unlined landfill disposal. However,
previous investigations identified concentrations of DDT of up to 300mg/kg with no TCLP results available for
these samples. Further discussion is provided in Section 6.2.
The B(a)P TCLP analysis results for samples TP14-2 and TP20-2 were below the generally accepted
unlined landfill acceptance criterion. Based on these B(a)P results, if the soil were to be disposed to landfill it
would most likely be classified as suitable for unlined landfill disposal.
The PAH TCLP analysis results for samples TP20-2 and TP14-2 found that the soil represented by TP20-2
would most likely require unlined landfill disposal and the soil represented by TP14-2 would most likely
require lined landfill disposal.
Page 29
April 2010
6.1.4.9 QA/QC
Two of the three rinsate blanks collected during field work reported concentrations of heavy metals above
the laboratory‟s LOR (Table 2), indicating that samples may be biased high due to insufficient equipment
decontamination or sampling techniques. The rinsate blank collected on 30 November 2009 reported a
concentration of Cd, Cu, Pb, Ni and Zn above the laboratory‟s LOR, suggesting that results may have been
biased high for these heavy metals. The rinsate blank collected on 8 December 2009 reported a
concentration of Cd and Zn above the laboratory‟s LOR, suggesting that results may have been biased high
for these heavy metals. However, a review of sample results for these days found that all samples returned
concentrations below the adopted assessment criteria.
It is noted that disposal sampling equipment was used in the collection of samples comprising nitrile gloves
and plastic spatulas (where required).
Based on the discussion above the identified impacts in the rinsate water have not adversely affected the
analytical results for this investigation.
6.2
Northern Landing Area DDT Delineation
In order to delineate the DDT contamination identified above the maximum landfill disposal concentrations at
test locations A9 and WV-D4 in the Northern Landing area, eleven additional bores were drilled (B67 to
B77). The investigation was limited due to access restrictions within an electrical easement and a pedestrian
footpath transecting the investigation area. However, bores were able to be drilled to the south, south-east
and north of the DDT impact area, at increasing distance from the identified impact. Five of the nineteen
additional samples analysed returned concentrations above the adopted soil investigation criterion, but all
samples results are below the maximum landfill disposal concentration of 50mg/kg. Results from the
additional testing are presented in Table 6, with a summary of results presented on Drawing No. 9.
Laboratory report sheets are presented in Appendix D. The results indicate that the volume of contaminated
soil requiring treatment due to DDT impacts exceeding the maximum landfill disposal has been delineated as
shown on Drawing No. 9. Further discussion on remediation requirements for this area are provided in
Section 8.1.2.3 of this report.
Page 30
April 2010
Table 6: Northern Landing DDT Delineation Results
Organics (mg/kg)
Sample
Date
Sample
Duplicate
Sample
Number
Sample
Depth
Pesticides
Material Type
Aldrin &
Dieldrin
Chlordane
DDT
Heptachlor
0.2
-
0.2
-
DERM HIL-D (mg/kg)
40
200
800
40
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.1
Soil Investigation Criteria (mg/kg)
Butler Partners - Landing Area DDT Delineation
19-Jan-10
-
B67-1
0.3-0.7
Sandy Clay
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
19-Jan-10
Blind
DUP113
0.3-0.7
Duplicate of B67-1
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
19-Jan-10
-
B67-2
0.9-1.2
Sandy Clay
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
19-Jan-10
-
B69-1
0.4-0.6
Fill
<LOR
<LOR
5.75
<LOR
19-Jan-10
-
B69-2
0.8-1.1
Fill
<LOR
<LOR
1.68
<LOR
19-Jan-10
-
B69-3
1.4-1.6
Sandy Silt
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
19-Jan-10
-
B73-4
1.9-2.1
Sandy Silt
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
19-Jan-10
-
B74-1
0.4-0.6
Sandy Silt
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
19-Jan-10
-
B74-2
0.9-1.1
Sandy Silt
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
19-Jan-10
-
B74-3
1.1-2.0
Sandy Silt
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
19-Jan-10
-
B75-1
0.3-0.6
Sandy Silt
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
19-Jan-10
-
B75-2
0.8-1.1
Sandy Silt
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
19-Jan-10
-
B75-3
1.4-1.6
Sandy Silt
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
19-Jan-10
-
B77-3
1.8-2.4
Sandy Silt
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
19-Jan-10
-
B68-1
0-0.6
Fill
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
19-Jan-10
-
B68-2
0.6-1.2
Sandy Clay
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
<LOR
19-Jan-10
-
B76-1
0.3-0.6
Fill
<LOR
<LOR
0.32
<LOR
19-Jan-10
-
B76-2
0.9-1.2
Fill
<LOR
<LOR
0.31
<LOR
19-Jan-10
-
B76-3
1.4-1.8
Fill
<LOR
<LOR
4.12
<LOR
NOTES:
1
Analyte exceeds the adopted Soil Investigation Criteria
1
Analyte exceeds the HIL-D Guideline Criteria
20
Soil Investigation Criteria
<LOR
Page 31
April 2010
SECTION 7 - DATA QUALITY
7.1
Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Methods
The samples were dispatched under Chain of Custody documentation provided in Appendix D in order to
identify sample movements. To ensure the integrity of data transfer the electronic data supplied by the
laboratory has been used to develop the results summary tables.
Data quality is assessed with respect to completeness, accuracy, precision, sensitivity, laboratory blanks,
holding times, field duplicates and representativeness. The QA parameters are discussed in what follows as
indicators of data quality.
The data quality assessment has been undertaken for the current investigation only, comprising the
analytical results from locations TP1 to TP47 and B48 to B66. Data quality assessment for previous
investigations undertaken by Butler Partners are included in the reports identified in Section 2.1.
7.1.1
Completeness
The following information is required to check for completeness of data sets:
chain-of-custody forms (signed by Butler Partners and the laboratory);
sample receipt forms;
all sample results reported;
all blank data reported;
all lab duplicates reported and relative percent differences (RPDs) calculated;
all surrogate spike data reported;
all matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) data reported and RPDs calculated; and
NATA stamp on reports.
The results of this check indicated that required documentation and data has been reported on NATA
approved reports.
7.1.2
Accuracy
Accuracy is a measure of the agreement between an experimental determination and the true value of the
parameter being measured. The determination of accuracy can be achieved through the analysis of known
reference materials or assessed by the analysis of matrix spikes. Spiking of reference materials into an
actual sample matrix is the preferred technique because it provides a measure of the matrix effects on the
analytical accuracy. Accuracy is measured in terms of percentage recovery as defined by the following
equation:
%R =
SSR - SR
X 100
SA
Page 32
April 2010
where:
%R = percentage recovery of the spike
SSR = spiked sample result
SR = sample result (native)
SA = spike added
Laboratory personnel calculate percentage recoveries of spiked compounds, which are evaluated against
control or acceptance limits taken from the appropriate NATA approved method. If the spike recovery for a
sample does not fall within the prescribed control limits, laboratory based corrective action is taken, although
the sample is not necessarily reanalysed.
Surrogate spikes consist of spiking non-target compounds into the sample prior to analysis. The spiked
compounds are expected to behave during analysis in the same way as the target compounds. Every
sample is spiked prior to extraction or analysis with surrogate compounds that are representative of the
analysis. If surrogate spike recovery does not meet the prescribed control limits, samples are generally
reanalysed.
Matrix spikes and matrix spike/matrix spike duplicates (MS/MSDs) are analysed at a frequency of one in ten
samples or one per analytical batch, whichever is more frequent. Matrix spike/matrix spike duplicates are
analysed by splitting a field sample. Each portion is spiked with known quantities of the target compound in
order to ascertain the effects of the specific sample matrix on the recovery of analytes.
The sample batch may contain samples from other sources. Therefore, MS/MSDs may be analysed on
other samples from the batch or on a „clean‟ matrix (e.g. distilled water). However, the laboratory‟s QA/QC
procedures require all batch MS/MSDs to conform to the prescribed criteria. The laboratory may report this
analysis as laboratory control samples, which may be used to assess the laboratory‟s methods and
procedures.
According to guidelines, sample results are qualified when a matrix spike recovery is below or above the QA
acceptance criteria. Typically, results are qualified when percentage recovery is below QA acceptance
criteria, indicating that sample results may be biased low. However, results are also qualified when
percentage recovery is above QA acceptance criteria, indicating that sample results may be biased high.
Samples EB0919030-063 (Aldrin, Dieldrin, Prothiofos) and EB0919030-088 (Aldrin) recorded a recovery less
than the lower data quality objective indicating results were biased low.
Samples EB0919637-011 (Zn), EB0919030-063 (Heptachlor) and ES0918322-001 (Prothiofos) recorded a
recovery greater than the upper data quality objective indicating sample results were biased high.
These exceedences of DQOs suggests about a 1.4% DQO failure rate (0.8% biased low and 0.6% biased
high) and occurred due to the elevated concentrations in the samples.
Samples EB0918929-054 (Zn) and EN0902256-001 (Cu) failed to record a recovery due to background
levels of the target analyte being greater than or equal to 4 times the spike level.
Page 33
April 2010
7.1.3
Precision
Precision is a measure of the ability to reproduce results, and is assessed on the basis of agreement
between a set of replicate results obtained from duplicate analyses. The precision of a duplicate
determination can be measured as relative percentage difference (RPD), and is calculated from the following
equation:
RPD =
where:
X1 - X2
X1 X 2
2
100
X1 is the first duplicate value
X2 is the second duplicate value
Laboratory personnel calculate the RPDs of laboratory duplicates and matrix spike/matrix spike duplicates.
Control or acceptance limits are taken from the appropriate method. If the RPD for a sample does not fall
within the control limits, laboratory based corrective action is taken; however, the sample is not necessarily
reanalysed. All laboratory duplicates and matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate RPDs were reported within
prescribed limits.
As previously noted, a laboratory batch may contain samples from other sources. Therefore, laboratory
duplicates and MS/MSDs may be analysed on other samples from the batch. However, the laboratory‟s
QA/QC procedures require all batch laboratory duplicates and MS/MSDs to conform to prescribed criteria.
Samples EB0918929-082 (Cu, Pb), EB0918929--036 (Ni, Zn) and EB0919030-054 (Zn), exceeded the LOR
based limits for the nominated analytes. These occurred due to raised LORs occurring from the elevated
concentrations in the samples.
7.1.4
Sensitivity
Sensitivity criteria are used to monitor achievement of quantification using method detection limits. Method
detection limits depend on the method of analysis, the instrument's ability to measure analytes and the
sample matrix; in particular, background interferences.
When interferences are present in the sample, a loss of sensitivity can occur resulting in an increase in the
method detection limit. In some instances (e.g. where one or more compounds have particularly high
concentrations) the sample must be diluted for analysis. This increases the method detection limit by the
dilution factor.
Method detection limits for soil/sediments are based on „wet weight‟. Actual detection limits are calculated
on a „dry weight‟ basis and are higher. The detection limits achieved by the laboratory were below the site
criteria for all analytes.
Page 34
April 2010
7.1.5
Laboratory Blanks
Laboratory blanks monitor externally introduced contaminants that potentially derive from glassware,
cleaning reagents and digestion reagents during the analysis process. The blank consists of water and
digestion reagents prepared in the laboratory. The laboratory blank is treated as a sample in the laboratory,
going through the same sample preparation and analysis procedures as corresponding samples.
To meet the QC acceptance criteria the laboratory blanks should have no detectable concentrations of the
target compounds. The laboratory blank results are presented in the laboratory analytical reports. All
laboratory blank results were reported within prescribed acceptance criteria.
7.1.6
Holding times
Holding times from field sampling to laboratory analysis must be minimised to ensure the representativeness
of the result obtained. Delays between sampling and analysis can lead to analytes changing due to
processes such as volatilisation, mineralisation, and biological modification.
Where standard holding times are exceeded, professional judgement as to the integrity of the data will be
required, taking into account such factors as field storage, laboratory storage and even sample bottle
characteristics.
Samples from work order EB0919741 exceeded the analysis holding times for moisture content by up to
seven days and TCLP leach by up to one day. Samples exceeding the prescribed holding times for the
TCLP leach were analysed for PAH, OCPs, As and Cu, with all results reported below the laboratory‟s LOR.
As the LOR for each of the analytes are below the respective adopted TCLP criteria, it is not considered that
an exceedance of one day on the holding time would have greatly influence the reported results. All
remaining analytical testing was completed within the prescribed holding times for the specific test.
7.1.7
Field Duplicates
Blind duplicates were collected and the pairs of samples (i.e. duplicate and primary) were submitted for
analysis for the contaminants of concern. Blind and split duplicate sample (pairs) were collected at a rate of
one set of duplicate samples for twenty primary samples. The duplicate analytical results were compared to
the primary results using relative percentage difference (RPD). The RPD is the absolute difference between
two results divided by their mean values and expressed as a percentage. Where either primary or duplicate
results have concentrations below the laboratory level of reporting, the RPD was not calculated. A RPD
value of below 50% is considered an acceptable data quality objective (DQO) (refer to Table 7).
A total of thirteen split field duplicate samples and thirteen blind field duplicate samples were collected and
analysed for a total of one hundred and eighty-five samples analysed. This is within the DQO of one pair of
duplicate samples per twenty primary samples.
RPDs for As, Pb, Hg, Ni and Zn in soil samples found to be above the 50% range are summarised in
Table 7. These exceedences are likely to be caused by the heterogeneous nature of the fill materials. A
disturbance of natural material along with natural mineralisation of natural soils could also contribute to the
exceedences observed. In addition, small differences in results at low concentrations approaching the LOR
can produce high RPDs not reflective of data errors, such as the RPD reported for Hg in sample TP27-1.
Page 35
April 2010
The remainder of the primary and duplicate concentrations for each of the analytes tested were either below
the level of reporting (LOR), or within the acceptable RPD range and as such, the QC results are considered
acceptable based on this analysis. A full set of RPD calculations are provided in Appendix D.
Table 7: Duplicate Samples Greater than 50% RPD
Sample
Number
Analyte
Primary Sample
(mg/kg)
Duplicate
Sample
(mg/kg)
Duplicate
Type
RPD
(%)
TP8-1
As
21
11
Split
63
Split
Blind
81
52
82
59
53
53
77
TP16-2
Pb
20
9
TP27-1
Hg
0.2
0.1
TP45-4
Pb
17
Pb
12
10
5
7
B54-2
B60-1
B65-4
7.1.8
Ni
4
2
Split
Blind
Split
Blind
Ni
Zn
Pb
21
32
25
36
55
56
Blind
Blind
Blind
67
67
Representativeness
Representativeness expresses the degree to which sample data accurately and precisely represents a
characteristic of a population, parameter variations at a sampling point, or an environmental condition.
Representativeness is primarily dependent on the design and implementation of the sampling program and
is partially ensured by the avoidance of contamination, adherence to sample handling and analysis
protocols, and use of proper chain-of-custody and documentation procedures. Blanks, holding times and
field duplicates are all QA parameters that can assist in the analysis of representativeness.
The QA/QC evaluation presented in this report generally confirms the representativeness of the samples
analysed. Therefore, the analytical data reported is considered suitable for the assessment of the site.
Page 36
April 2010
SECTION 8 - REMEDIATION DISCUSSION
Based on the results of the additional ESA and the understanding of DIP‟s intentions for the site, three
options are presented below for the management of contaminated soil on Lot 566 on SP214202.
8.1.1
Leave the Site on DERM’s EMR with an Approved SMP
If the entire site is to remain on DERM‟s EMR with an approved Site Management Plan (Note – low density
residential landuse will not be permitted), then the following steps will be required to adequately manage
contaminated soil material with consideration for ongoing protection of the environment and human health:
1.
2.
8.1.2
The current Site Management Plan (SMP) will be required to be amended for Lot 566 on SP214202
outlining the extent and nature of contamination in addition to management controls to be
implemented on the site (e.g. restrictions on landuse, capping etc). In order to facilitate this,
additional soil and groundwater investigations are likely to be required to accurately delineate the
impacts on the site, as well as permit the development of suitable management controls.
Depending on the final land use(s) proposed for the site, elevated concentrations of contaminants
(namely PAH, B(a)P, Pb and DDT) will need to be reassessed against the health based investigation
levels applicable for the proposed land use and potential environmental impacts, with materials
found non compliant removed, remediated or contained in a suitable area (e.g. contaminant cell)
within the site‟s boundaries.
Remove the site from DERM’s EMR
If it is proposed to remove the entire site from DERM‟s EMR, then contaminated soil above the developed
remediation criteria for the site along with all soil material failing the aesthetic soil criteria will be required to
be removed from site or adequately remediated and validated.
In order to facilitate the remediation of the site, a RAP will be required to be developed to detail the
remediation strategies for the site. Additional soil investigation will be required to further define areas of
identified contamination. Validation sampling will be required to confirm that contaminated material has
successfully been removed/remediated, enabling the site to be removed from the EMR.
Based on the results of the current investigation, eight areas of the site have been identified as requiring
remediation, should the site be required to be removed from the EMR. Remediation areas have been based
on an investigation grid of either 30m x 30m or 50m x 50m and as such, it is recommended that additional
testing be undertaken to further delineate the horizontal and vertical extent of the identified contamination.
The extent and depth of contamination described in the sections below have been calculated from current
available information and are estimates only. Estimated remediation areas are presented on Drawing No. 8,
with further discussion of each area provided below.
Page 37
April 2010
8.1.2.1 Subsurface Conditions
As an aid to stratigraphic interpretation at the site, ten cross sections (Sections 1A-2A, 1B-2B, 4A, 5A, 5B,
6A, 7A, 8A, 9A and 9B) have been drawn through each of the proposed remediation areas (excluding
Remediation Area 3), with the sections shown on Drawing No. 10 to Drawing No. 13, attached. For a
detailed description of the subsurface conditions encountered at the test locations, the Bore and Test Pit
Report sheets should be consulted. Further discussions of the subsurface conditions are presented below.
8.1.2.2 Remediation Area 1
Uncontrolled fill (including building rubble) has been placed in the former gully during construction of a „dam
wall‟ and subsequent filling behind the dam wall as well as within the gully to the north of the dam wall. The
base of fill material behind the dam wall was not determined due the large amount of building rubble
intercepted. Concentrations of heavy metals above the adopted soil investigation criteria were detected in
surface fill material located to the north of the dam wall. Drawing No. 10 presents two cross-sections through
Remediation Areas 1 and 2 (Sections 1A-2A and 1B-2B) indicating the location of uncontrolled fill material
and identified soil contamination. Investigation has not been undertaken within the electrical easement,
which is likely to contain fill materials, in order for this area to be investigated, temporary termination and rerouting of the high voltage electrical cables would be required and is likely to incur significant cost.
The cross-sections highlight the filled gully and the highly variable nature of the fill material. It indicates that
both aesthetically unsuitable material and contaminated fill are present at the ground surface in this area.
This indicates that if excavation of this material to remediate this area is not undertaken, works will be
required to manage the area and make it suitable for its future land use (note – the land would remain on the
EMR as a „managed‟ site).
Remediation
Extent
20m x 30m
50m x 40m
Contaminant
Heavy metals (Pb)
Uncontrolled fill
(Building rubble,
asbestos cement
sheeting)
Excavation
Depth
0 – 0.5m
Unknown: estimated to
between 5.0 and 7.0m depth
Remediation Options
Landfill disposal (lined)
Asbestos impacted material disposed
to landfill
Building rubble not containing asbestos
or contamination to be managed in
accordance with Section 6.1.3. Inert
and non-inert building rubble to be
separated from soil material and
disposed to landfill. Separated soil
material to be stockpiled and sampled
to determine final disposal destinations.
Page 38
April 2010
Comprises land to the north of the former cattle dip and spray race and includes uncontrolled filling in two
former gullies located along the north eastern and south western boundaries of Area 2. Concentrations of
DDT above the adopted soil investigation criteria have been detected in fill and natural soils to greater than
1.5m depth. Drawing No. 10 presents two cross-sections through Remediation Areas 1 and 2 (Sections 1A2A and 1B-2B) indicating the location of uncontrolled fill material and identified soil contamination.
Investigation has not been undertaken within the electrical easement, which is likely to contain fill material
and elevated concentrations of DDT. For this area to be investigated, temporary termination and re-routing
of the high voltage electrical cables would be required and is likely to incur significant cost.
The cross-sections highlight the filled gully and the highly variable nature of the fill material. It indicates that
both aesthetically unsuitable material and contaminated fill are present at the ground surface in this area. As
a result, if excavation of this material to remediate this area is not undertaken, works will be required to
manage the area and make it suitable for its future land use (note – this will result in the land remaining on
the EMR as a „managed‟ site).
DDT at test locations A9 and WV-D4 returned concentrations above landfill disposal licensing agreements
limiting off-site disposal options.
Remediation Extent
50m x 60m
Contaminant
DDT, As, PAH
Uncontrolled fill
(Building rubble,
asbestos cement
sheeting)
Excavation Depth
0 – 2.0m
- Eastern gully – 0m1.5m
- Western (main)
gully - estimated 0m7.0m
70m x 40m
DDT (exceeding
landfill disposal
criterion)
0.3 – 2.0m
Remediation Options
Landfill disposal (lined and unlined)
Asbestos impacted material disposed to
landfill
and non-inert building rubble will be
disposed to landfill.
Separated soil
material will be stockpiled and sampled
to determine final disposal destinations.
On-site treatment or off-site treatment at a
licensed facility.
Uncontrolled fill comprising building rubble was identified to a depth of up to 3.0m within an infilled gully.
During remediation of the road easement (King Arthur Terrace), fill material containing building rubble and
asbestos cement sheeting was identified to remain in the vicinity of Remediation Area 3 to a depth of 3.0m,
with material removed during the road construction reported to contain concentrations of heavy metals and
DDT above the adopted remediation criteria. No investigation was undertaken during the most recent works
in this area due to access restrictions and the presence of a pedestrian footpath, as such no cross-section
has been drawn through Remediation Area 3.
Page 39
April 2010
Remediation Extent
120m x 15m
Contaminant
Uncontrolled fill
(Building rubble,
asbestos cement
sheeting)
Excavation Depth
0 – 3.0m
Remediation Options
landfill
Separated soil
material to be stockpiled and sampled to
determine final disposal destinations.
Fill was identified to a depth of 1.2m, with elevated concentrations of heavy metals identified at test location
A1 between 0 to 0.3m, and at 0.6m at test location WV-A9. Drawing No. 12 presents a cross-section
through Remediation Area 4 indicating the location and depth of identified soil contamination. It can be seen
from the cross-section that the identified contamination is related to fill material.
Remediation Extent
30m x 40m
Contaminant
Heavy metals
Excavation Depth
0 – 0.8m
Remediation Options
Uncontrolled fill (including building rubble and asbestos cement sheeting) has been placed in the former
gully to a depth greater than 4.2m. The base of uncontrolled fill material was not determined due the large
amount of building rubble intercepted. Fill has been identified to a depth of 4.2m with elevated
concentrations of heavy metals and DDT identified within fill and natural soils. Drawing No. 11 shows two
sections through Remediation Area 5 (Sections 5A and 5B) indicating the location of uncontrolled fill along
with identified soil contamination. These sections indicate that the aesthetically unsuitable material is
generally near the top of the fill profile with contamination mainly associated with deeper fill and natural soil,
detected in BPB5 only.
Remediation Extent
50m x 60m
50m x 60m
100m x 60m
Contaminant
DDT
Heavy metals
Uncontrolled fill
(Building rubble,
asbestos cement
sheeting)
Excavation Depth
0 – 2.5m
0 – 5.0m
0 – 4.2m
Remediation Options
Landfill disposal (lined and unlined)
Landfill disposal (unlined)
landfill
Separated soil
Page 40
April 2010
Uncontrolled fill (including building rubble and asbestos cement sheeting) has been placed in the former
gully to a depth of approximately 1.6m. Drawing No. 11 presents cross-sections through Remediation Area
6 (Sections 5A and 6A) indicating the location of uncontrolled fill.
Remediation Extent
100m x 80m
Contaminant
Uncontrolled fill
(Building rubble,
asbestos cement
sheeting)
Excavation Depth
0 – 3.0m
30m x 40m
Asbestos
1.0m – 1.5m
Remediation Options
landfill
Separated soil
Landfill disposal (asbestos)
Uncontrolled fill (including building rubble, asbestos cement sheeting and ash) was identified to a maximum
depth of approximately 1.4m throughout the entire area. Elevated concentrations of PAH, DDT and heavy
metals were identified in fill materials. Drawing No. 12 shows a section through Remediation Area 7 (Section
7A) indicating the location of uncontrolled fill along with identified soil contamination. This section indicates
that contamination is generally restricted to surface fill materials in this area. A localised area of unsuitable
fill has been identified at TP16 at the western end of Remediation Area 7.
Remediation Extent
280m x 60m
Contaminant
DDT
Uncontrolled fill
(Building rubble,
asbestos cement
sheeting)
Excavation Depth
0 – 0.8m
0 – 1.4m
200m x 60m
80m x 40m
20m x 30m
Heavy metals
Asbestos
PAH
0 – 0.8m
0 – 0.8m
0.3m – 0.6m
Remediation Options
landfill
Separated soil
Landfill disposal (asbestos)
Page 41
April 2010
Uncontrolled fill (including building rubble and asbestos cement sheeting) was identified to a depth of 1.0m,
with building rubble containing asbestos cement sheeting identified between 0.5m to 0.8m depth.
Drawing No. 12 presents a cross-section through Remediation Area 8 (Section 8A) indicating the location of
uncontrolled fill along with identified soil contamination. This cross-section indicates that the uncontrolled fill
thickness decreases moving south from the road as the natural topography rises. TP25 within Remediation
Area 8 contained aesthetically unsuitable material and further investigation of this area to assess the extent
of this material is necessary.
Remediation Extent
80m x 40m
8.1.2.10
Contaminant
Uncontrolled fill
(Building rubble,
asbestos cement
sheeting)
Excavation Depth
0.5m – 0.8m
-
Remediation Options
landfill
Separated soil
Remediation Area 9
Uncontrolled fill was identified to a depth of 1.3m, with elevated concentrations of Ni identified between 0m to
0.5m depth and burnt timber and charcoal between 0.5m to 0.9m depth. Drawing No. 13 presents two
cross-sections through Remediation Area 9 indicating the location of uncontrolled fill along with identified soil
contamination. These cross-sections indicate that the fill material identified at TP9 may be a localised
occurrence. It also indicates that the contamination is restricted to surface fill and aesthetically unsuitable
material lies beneath. This may indicate a burial pit used for demolition material and covered over with more
suitable fill. Further delineation of this area would be beneficial.
Remediation Extent
80m x 70m
8.1.2.11
Contaminant
Ni
Timber/Charcoal
Excavation Depth
0.0 – 0.5m
0.5 – 0.9m
Remediation Options
To be managed in accordance with Section
6.1.3. Inert and non-inert building rubble to
be separated from soil material and
disposed to landfill. Separated soil material
to be stockpiled and sampled to determine
final disposal destinations.
Additional Areas
Fill comprising coal, ash and traces of brick were identified at test locations TP11, TP26, TP31, TP32, TP37,
TP39, TP45 and B53 as shown on Drawing No. 7. Although the material observed is not considered to
require remediation, additional investigations should be undertaken to further characterise the composition
and extent of fill material in these locations.
Page 42
April 2010
8.1.3
Remove a Portion of the Site from DERM’s EMR
An alternative to removing the entire site from the EMR would be to subdivide and leave on the EMR, with an
approved SMP, portions of the site that are not commercially viable to remediate to a standard that would
permit removal from the EMR. The „clean‟ portions of the site that have been subdivided from the „Managed‟
areas could then be removed from the EMR.
Please note the subdivided land that remains „Managed‟ and on the EMR may still require remediation
works, however, depending on the proposed land use the remediation works may not be as extensive for
removal of the land from the EMR. For this strategy to proceed it will be necessary to develop the
remediation plan in close consultation with the development plans for the site. New SMPs would be required
at the completion of works. It should also be noted that DERM will not approve a low density residential
landuse for Managed sites.
Page 43
April 2010
SECTION 9 - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
9.1
Conclusions
Based on the work undertaken in this Stage 2 ESA, it is concluded that:
the site is listed on the EMR for the Notifiable Activity of „Livestock dip or spray race – operating a
livestock dip or spray race facility‟;
extensive uncontrolled fill has occurred over portions of the site, including building rubble, incinerator
waste, ash, coal and asbestos cement sheeting;
concentrations of B(a)P, DDT, As, Cd, Cu, Pb, Ni and Zn were identified above the adopted
investigation criteria in fill and natural soils;
concentrations of PAH, B(a)P and Pb were identified above the adopted investigation criteria and
above the HIL-D criteria for ongoing use as medium to high density residential landuses, in fill
material;
concentrations of DDT were identified above the maximum disposal concentration for landfill
licensing agreements; and
other contaminants analysed were within the adopted investigation criteria.
9.2
Recommendations
Several areas of contamination have been identified within the boundaries of the site. Potential remediation
of these areas is discussed in Section 8.0. Based on the results of this investigation and an understanding
of DIP‟s plans for the site, the following recommendations are made:
1.
Given the size and complexity of the site, a Third Party Reviewer (TPR) should be commissioned in
order to facilitate matters relating to contaminated land on behalf of DERM.
2.
Additional investigation will be required in areas unable to be assessed during the current site
investigation including areas beneath and surrounding existing site structures (buildings) and within
site easements.
3.
In order to further assess the extent of contamination for the purposes of calculating proposed
remediation volumes and associated costs, it is recommended that additional testing be undertaken
to more accurately define the vertical and lateral extent of identified contamination.
4.
Additional groundwater investigation should be undertaken at the site to assess the potential
contamination of groundwater beneath the site from site activities. As part of this, additional
groundwater wells should be installed in the vicinity of areas of identified contamination, potential
environmental receptors and site boundaries to augment existing groundwater wells located within
the site.
Page 44

the site - Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning

Transcription

Similar documents

Sunset trail of gold

amnesty international

THE GUN - University of California, Irvine

AutTtED - DepEd Quezon City

View file - The Library - University of California, San Diego

Columbia Chronicle (03/05/1984) - Digital Commons @ Columbia

INTELLIFLO® - Kreepy Krauly

New Expression: February 1997 - Digital Commons @ Columbia

Legacy 2004-2005 - KnowledgeExchange@Southern

the rocketeer