clovelly park/mitchell park

Transcription

CLOVELLY PARK/MITCHELL PARK
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AUTHORITY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA
REF: 05/17900, 61324
3 DECEMBER 2014
VOLUME 1 REPORT
FINAL REPORT
EPA REF 05/17900, 61324
VOLUME 1 REPORT
PREPARED FOR  Environment Protection Authority, South Australia
PREPARED BY  Fyfe Pty Ltd
ABN  57 008 116 130
ADDRESS  L3, 80 Flinders Street, Adelaide SA 5000
CONTACT  Mr Marc Andrews, Division Manager - Environment
TELEPHONE  direct 08 8201 9794 mobile 0408 805 264
FACSIMILE  61 8 8201 9650
EMAIL  [email protected]
DATE  3/12/2014
REFERENCE  80276-2 REV0
©Fyfe Pty Ltd, 2014
Proprietary Information Statement
The information contained in this document produced by Fyfe Pty Ltd is solely for the use of the Client identified on the cover sheet for
the purpose for which it has been prepared and Fyfe Pty Ltd undertakes no duty to or accepts any responsibility to any third party who
may rely upon this document.
All rights reserved. No section or element of this document may be removed from this document, reproduced, electronically stored or
transmitted in any form without the written permission of Fyfe Pty Ltd.
Document Information
Report prepared by: Dean Noske
Senior Environmental Geologist, Fyfe Pty Ltd
Date: 3 December 2014
VIRA prepared by: Dr Sim Ooi
Principal, Salcor Consulting
Reviewed by: Dr Ruth Keogh
Principal Environmental Scientist, Fyfe Pty Ltd
Approved by: Marc Andrews
Division Manager - Environment, Fyfe Pty Ltd
Client receipt by: Danielle Torresan
Senior Advisor, Site Contamination, SA EPA
Revision History
Revision
Revision Status
Date
Prepared
Reviewed
Approved
REV 0
Final
3 December 2014
DAN / SO
RK
MJA
EPA REF 05/17900, 61324 FINAL REPORT
CONTENTS
Page
VOLUME 1
LIST OF ACRONYMS
vi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ix
1.
INTRODUCTION
1
1.1
Purpose
1
1.2
General background information
1
1.3
Definition of the assessment area
2
1.4
Identification of contaminants of potential concern
3
1.5
Objectives
3
1.6
Site contamination audits and industrial licenses
4
2.
CHARACTERISATION OF THE ASSESSMENT AREA
5
2.1
Site identification
5
2.2
Regional geology and hydrogeology
5
2.3
Historical information
8
2.4
Registered groundwater bore search
13
2.5
Data quality objectives
15
3.
SCOPE OF WORK
17
3.1
Preliminary work
17
3.2
Field investigation and laboratory analysis program
17
3.3
Data interpretation
20
4.
METHODOLOGY
21
4.1
Occupational health and safety
21
4.2
Intrusive investigation works
21
4.3
Laboratory analysis
30
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
I
5.
QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL
31
5.1
Field QA/QC
31
5.2
Laboratory QA/QC
35
5.3
QA/QC summary
36
6.
RESULTS
37
6.1
Surface and sub surface soil conditions
37
6.2
Soil field results
38
6.3
Groundwater field measurements
38
6.4
Geotechnical testing results
42
6.5
Soil analytical results
43
6.6
Groundwater analytical results
43
6.7
Soil vapour analytical results
49
6.8
Passive air sampling results
55
7.
GROUNDWATER FATE AND TRANSPORT MODELLING
57
8.
VAPOUR INTRUSION RISK ASSESSMENT
58
8.1
Objective
58
8.2
Areas of interest
58
8.3
Risk assessment approach
58
8.4
Tier 1 assessment
59
8.5
Tier 2 assessment
60
9.
CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL
68
10.
CONCLUSIONS
76
11.
REFERENCES
79
12.
STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS
83
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1
Table 2.2
Summary of existing information for the Assessment Area
Summary of registered (potentially) down-gradient bores within a 2 km radius
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
9
14
PAGE
II
Table 2.3
Table 3.1
Table 3.2
Table 4.1
Table 5.1
Table 5.2
Table 5.3
Table 5.4
Table 5.5
Table 6.1
Table 6.2
Table 6.3
Table 6.4
Table 6.5
Table 6.6
Table 6.7
Table 6.8
Table 6.9
Table 6.10
Table 8.1
Table 8.2
Table 8.3
Table 8.4
Table 9.1
Data Quality Objectives
15
Scope of field investigation program
17
Scope of laboratory testing program
20
Summary of field methodologies
23
Field QA/QC procedures - Soil
32
Field QA/QC procedures - Groundwater
33
Field QA/QC procedures – Soil vapour
34
Field QA/QC procedures – Indoor and outdoor air sampling
35
Laboratory QA/QC procedures
36
Groundwater elevation summary
39
Groundwater Concentration Summary – COPC
44
Soil vapour concentration summary: 2m depth – COPC
49
50
51
52
Soil vapour concentration summary: targeted locations – COPC
53
Comparison of Monroe and former MMAL TO-17 and TO-15 data – COPC
54
Comparison of Mitchell Park TO-17 and TO-15 data – COPC
55
55
Summary of soil parameters adopted for vapour intrusion modelling
63
Summary of building assumptions adopted for the vapour intrusion modelling for slab-onground
63
Summary of building assumptions adopted for the vapour intrusion modelling for crawl
space
64
Summary of chemical parameters adopted for vapour intrusion modelling
66
68
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 6.1
Figure 8.1
Piper Diagram – Total Data
TCE indoor air screening criteria and the corresponding site-specific response levels*
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
48
62
PAGE
III
FIGURES
Figure 1
Figure 2A
Figure 2B
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5A
Figure 5B
Figure 5C
Figure 5D
Figure 6A
Figure 6B
Figure 7
Follow Page 84
Site Location and Assessment Area
Assessment Point Locations
Assessment Point Locations – Relocation Area and Surrounds
Groundwater Elevation Contour Plan
Groundwater TCE Concentration Plan
Soil Vapour TCE Concentration Plan – 2 m
Predicted TCE Indoor Air Concentrations (Modelled)
Predicted TCE Indoor Air Concentrations (Modelled) – Relocation Area
Geological Cross Section – Assessment Area
VOLUME 2
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Appendix G
Appendix H
Appendix I
Appendix J
Appendix K
Appendix L
Appendix M
Appendix N
Appendix O
Appendix P
Appendix Q
Appendix R
Appendix S
Appendix S1
Appendix S2
Appendix T
Historical Report Summary
EPA Summary of Investigations for Sites Surrounding the Assessment Area
Additional Information Supplied by the EPA
DEWNR Registered Groundwater Database Search Results
Radiello Sampling Information
Field Sampling Sheets, Survey Data and Hydraulic Conductivity Calculations
Borehole Log Reports
Equipment Calibration Records
Certified Laboratory Certificates and Chain of Custody Documentation
Drill Core Photographs
Tabulated Results – Soil, Groundwater, Soil Vapour and Geotechnical
Bluesphere Environmental Groundwater Fate and Transport Modelling Report
Tabulated Results – Indoor and Outdoor Air Samples
Tier 1 Assessment – Monroe and Eastern RA/MMAL sites, Clovelly Park
Tier 1 Assessment – Clovelly Park Residential Area
Tier 1 Assessment – Mitchell Park Residential Area
Geotechnical Parameters
Building Construction Plan
Vapour Intrusion Model – Source Vapour (Soil Vapour)
Soil Vapour Source Model – Slab-on-Ground
Soil Vapour Source Model – Crawl Space
Summary of Vapour Attenuation Factors
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
IV
Appendix U
Appendix V
Appendix W
Appendix X
Appendix Y
Appendix Z
Appendix Z1
Appendix Z2
Appendix AA
Appendix BB
Appendix CC
Model Validation
Soil Vapour Validation
Tier 2 Assessment (Soil Vapour) – Monroe and Eastern RA/MMAL sites, Clovelly Park
Tier 2 Assessment (Soil Vapour) – Clovelly Park Residential Area
Tier 2 Assessment (Soil Vapour) – Mitchell Park Residential Area
Vapour Intrusion Model – Source Groundwater
Groundwater Source Model – Slab-on-Ground
Groundwater Source Model – Crawl Space
Tier 2 Assessment (Groundwater) – Monroe and Eastern RA/MMAL sites, Clovelly Park
Tier 2 Assessment (Groundwater) – Clovelly Park Residential Area
Tier 2 Assessment (Groundwater) – Mitchell Park Residential Area
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
V
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ACH
Air Exchange per Hour
AHD
Australian Height Datum
ALS
Australian Laboratory Services
ASTM
American Standard Testing Material
BGL
Below Ground Level
BTEX
Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylenes
BTOC
Below Top of Casing
COC
Chain of Custody
COPC
Contaminants of Potential Concern
CSM
Conceptual Site Model
CT
Certificate of Title
1,1-DCA
1,1-dichloroethane
1,2-DCA
1,2-dichloroethane
1,1-DCE
1,1-dichloroethene
1,2-DCE
1,2-dichloroethene
DEWNR
Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources
DNAPL
Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid
DO
Dissolved Oxygen
DPTI
Department for Planning, Transport and Infrastructure
DQI
Data Quality Indicator
DQO
Data Quality Objective
EC
Electrical Conductivity
EoH
End of Hole
EPA
Environment Protection Authority
FID
Flame Ionisation Detector
GDA
Geocentric Datum of Australia
GPA
Groundwater Prohibition Area
GPR
Ground Penetrating Radar
HIL
Health Investigation Level
IPA
Isopropyl Alcohol
ITRC
Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council
J&E
Johnson and Ettinger
LL
Liquid Limit
LOR
Limit of Reporting
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
VI
LS
Linear Shrinkage
MMAL
Mitsubishi Motors Australia Limited
MQO
Measuring Quality Objectives
NAPL
Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid
NATA
National Association of Testing Authorities
ND
Non Detect
NDD
Non Destructive Digging
NEPM
National Environment Protection Measure
ORP
Oxidation-Reduction Potential (redox)
PAH
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
PCA
Potentially Contaminating Activity
PCBs
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
PCE
Tetrachloroethene
PI
Plasticity Index
PID
Photoionisation Detector
PL
Plastic Limit
PQL
Practical Quantification Limit
PSD
Particle Size Distribution
QA
Quality Assurance
QC
Quality Control
RA
Relocation Area
R&C
Reckitt and Colman
RB
Rinsate Blank
RFT
Request for Tender
RPD
Relative Percentage Difference
SAGASCO
South Australian Gas Company
SA EPA
South Australian Environment Protection Authority
SAHC
South Australian Health Commission
SAQP
Sampling and Analysis Quality Plan
SCAR
Site Contamination Audit Report
SVOC
Semi-Volatile Organic Compound
SWL
Standing Water Level
TB
Trip Blank
TCA
1,1,1-trichloroethane
TCE
Trichloroethene
TDS
Total Dissolved Solids
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
VII
TOC
Total Organic Carbon
TRH
Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons
US EPA
United Stated Environment Protection Agency
UST
Underground Storage Tank
VC
Vinyl Chloride
VHC
Volatile Halogenated Compounds
VIRA
Vapour Intrusion Risk Assessment
VOC
Volatile Organic Compound
WHO
World Health Organisation
1
1
TRH = TPH (measurable amount of petroleum-based hydrocarbon = complex mixture of crude oil and natural gas (> 250 compounds),
including aromatics, aliphatics, paraffins, unsaturated alkanes and naphthalenes) plus various other compounds, including fatty
acids, esters, humic acids, phthalates and sterols.
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
VIII
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Identification of the Assessment Area
An approximately 123.6 ha Assessment Area, located within the suburbs of Clovelly Park and Mitchell Park,
has been defined by the South Australian Environment Protection Authority (EPA). It is bounded by Main
South Road to the east and south-east, Alawoona Ave (and a line representing its eastern extension through
the former Mitsubishi Motors Australia (MMAL) property) to the north, Sturt River to the west and Sturt
Road to the south.
The Assessment Area has been subdivided into two main areas, identified as the Clovelly Park area and the
Mitchell Park area and separated by the Tonsley rail line. Within the Clovelly Park area, the northern portion
of the residential area (i.e. north of Ash Avenue) has been identified as the Relocation Area, comprising the
Eastern Relocation Area (Eastern RA) and the Precautionary Relocation Area (Precautionary RA).
Background information
The following three areas of existing/former industrial site use have been identified within the Assessment
Area:

The current Monroe site, previously owned/operated by WH Wylie, has been used for the manufacture
of motor vehicle parts since the 1950s.

The former MMAL site (of which only the southernmost section (Section 14) is located within the
Assessment Area) was used for the manufacture of motor vehicles from the early 1960s until 2009. The
site was sold in 2010 and is currently being redeveloped by Renewal SA for mixed use (including
commercial and residential) purposes.

The Eastern RA was owned/occupied by Reckitt and Colman (R&C), a chemical manufacturer, from 1963
to 1969. It was subsequently purchased by Chrysler Australia Limited (Chrysler – precursor of MMAL).
Site use by Chrysler and/or WH Wylie from the late 1960s until the 1980s is considered likely to have
involved various industrial activities.
Previous investigations across these areas, as well as the adjoining northern residential area of Clovelly Park
(the Precautionary RA), have identified chlorinated hydrocarbon contamination within soil, groundwater
and/or soil vapour, resulting in concerns regarding potential impacts on human health due to vapour
intrusion.
Site conditions
Soil
Subsurface geological conditions are generally consistent across the Assessment Area
and are dominated by the clays and silty clays of the Hindmarsh Clay
formation. Although present, structural defects (fractures and voids) have not been
identified as to have a significant influence on vertical vapour migration. By contrast,
the presence of discontinuous sand and gravel lenses could be enabling some
preferential lateral vapour migration, particularly in the vicinity of the Monroe
property and Eastern RA.
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
IX
Groundwater
Depth to groundwater across the Assessment Area ranged from approximately 9 to
13 m below ground level (BGL) and the inferred flow direction was towards the west
to north-west. Groundwater chemistry indicated that all wells were installed within a
single aquifer, characterised by salinity levels of between 400 to 13,100 mg/L total
dissolved solids (TDS), the latter indicating considerable variation across the
Assessment Area and the potential for localised recharge zones.
Contaminants of Potential Concern
Contaminants of Potential Concern (COPC), as identified by the EPA for the Assessment Area include the
following chlorinated hydrocarbon compounds: trichloroethene (TCE), tetrachloroethene (PCE), 1,2dichloroethene (1,2-DCE: cis- and trans-) and vinyl chloride (VC). These COPC were confirmed by the Fyfe
investigations, with TCE identified as the main contaminant in groundwater and soil vapour and the main
driver in terms of potential human health risks associated with vapour intrusion into indoor air spaces.
Scope of work
A detailed soil, soil vapour and groundwater investigation program was undertaken across the Assessment
Area between August and November 2014. It involved the following scope of work:

installation of 34 groundwater monitoring wells into the uppermost aquifer – locations included
roadways, council verges, reserves and the Eastern RA

installation of soil vapour bores at 103 locations, including individual, clustered and nested bores to
depths of <1 to 10 m BGL (171 soil vapour probes in total) – locations included suburban streets, council
verges, reserves, service trenches associated with stormwater and sewer mains, residential properties
within the Precautionary RA and the Tonsley rail corridor

drilling of 25 soil bores to a nominal depth of 6 m BGL within the Relocation Area and the southern part
of the MMAL site

gauging of the 34 newly installed groundwater wells and 39 existing wells on the Monroe and former
MMAL properties

sampling of 66 groundwater wells, including 30 new wells, 35 existing wells on the Monroe and former
MMAL properties and one private (disused) bore in Mitchell Park, for COPC analysis

sampling of 135 soil vapour probes (36 probes could not be sampled due to the tightness of the clays)
for COPC and general gas analysis (TO-17 and, to a lesser extent, TO-15 analytical methods)

analysis of selected soil samples from soil bore, groundwater monitoring wells and soil vapour bores for
COPC analysis

passive indoor and outdoor (ambient) air sampling at selected residential and reserve area locations for
COPC analysis

hydrogeological (aquifer) testing of 20 monitoring wells to establish aquifer hydraulic conductivity; and

collection of soil samples from four additional locations for geotechnical analysis.
The data were used to undertake a Vapour Intrusion Risk Assessment (VIRA), to predict indoor air
concentrations of TCE, as well as for the purpose of groundwater fate and transport modelling to support
with the determination of a Groundwater Prohibition Area (GPA).
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
X
Identified impacts
Soil
The results of the soil sampling and laboratory testing program have not resulted in
the identification of any concentrations of COPC that exceeded the laboratory limits of
reporting.
Groundwater
The main COPC, TCE and 1,2-DCE (cis- and trans-), were commonly encountered within
groundwater across the Assessment Area. Three separate plumes have been
identified:

Plume A: centred on GW20 on the south-western portion of the Monroe property
and extending beneath the Eastern RA.

Plume B: centred on MWS14_01 on the south-western portion of the former
MMAL property.

Plume C: located in the vicinity of MW_EPA16, on the western boundary of the
former MMAL property and south of Alawoona Ave.
Plume migration appears to be in the same general west to north-westerly direction as
groundwater flow and impacts have extended beneath adjacent residential areas of
both the Clovelly Park and Mitchell Park areas.
Soil vapour
A definite correlation between the configuration of the groundwater chlorinated
hydrocarbon plumes and the observed soil vapour concentrations (at various depths),
as well as a general increase in soil vapour concentrations with depth through the soil
profile, has been identified. The exception, comprising one location just inside the
western boundary of the Monroe property, could be indicative of a soil source, or
lateral vapour migration at a shallow depth.
Targeted soil vapour investigations undertaken along lengths of the sewer and
stormwater mains within Chestnut Court and Ash Ave, Clovelly Park, have not
identified the associated service trenches as significant preferential pathways for
lateral soil vapour migration.
Concentrations of TCE within soil vapour at sub-slab locations beneath selected
residences on Chestnut Court and Ash Ave were generally consistent with those
obtained from road verges and reserves elsewhere within the Relocation Area.
Since a soil vapour concentration detected at 2 m BGL in the southern portion of the
Mitchell Park area does not coincide with the location of any identified groundwater
chlorinated hydrocarbon contamination, this is considered likely to reflect a separate
source, possibly located along nearby Sturt Road.
Passive air
sampling
Passive indoor and outdoor air sampling at six selected properties and one reserve
area in Clovelly Park, as well as a reserve in Mitchell Park, was undertaken in
association with the sub-slab soil vapour bore investigation in support of the VIRA
modelling. The results indicated that there was a general correlation between the
predicted indoor air concentrations, as determined by the VIRA and the measured
indoor air concentrations. The results also correlate with the expected distribution of
soil vapour in relation to groundwater source areas on the adjoining existing/former
industrial properties.
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
XI
Assessment of risk:
Natural
attenuation of
groundwater
impacts
The presence of TCE daughter products, including 1,2-DCE and VC, within the
uppermost aquifer beneath the Assessment Area is considered indicative of TCE
breakdown via reductive dechlorination. However, the degree to which natural
attenuation is occurring in groundwater across the Assessment Area is considered
likely to be highly variable.
Groundwater fate
and transport
modelling
The groundwater fate and transport modelling indicated that the chlorinated
hydrocarbons are expected to continue to migrate in the medium and long term such
that detectable concentrations of these contaminants could reach the location of the
Sturt River (approximately 0.7 km west of the MMAL site), and areas further west, in
approximately 20 years. The groundwater modelling assumed on-going source
contribution(s) from the industrial areas of Clovelly Park.
It is understood that the EPA will use this information to establish an appropriate GPA,
or restriction area, in accordance with the provisions of Section S103S of the
Environment Protection Act 1993.
Vapour intrusion
risks
The VIRA involved a two-tier assessment approach. Whereas the Tier 1 screening risk
assessment compared the measured soil vapour TCE concentrations to an adopted
guideline value, the Tier 2 risk assessment involved the application of the US EPA
(2004) Johnson and Ettinger vapour intrusion model to predict indoor air TCE
concentrations for residences (of both slab-on-ground and crawl space construction)
across the Assessment Area. Site-specific geological, hydrogeological and 2 m soil
vapour data (collected in sub-slab and external locations) were used in the modelling,
the latter aimed at providing a level of conservatism to the VIRA.
The results of the Tier 2 risk assessment were used to infer concentration contours
between the soil vapour sampling locations. The predicted indoor air TCE
concentrations were assessed against the adopted indoor air criteria or response
levels developed by the EPA and SA Health.
The results for predicted indoor air concentrations of TCE within the Clovelly Park
Relocation Area indicated the following:
3
 six residential properties: 20 to <200 µg/m response level
3

14 residential properties: 2 to <20 µg/m response level; and

nine residential properties: non-detect to <2 µg/m response level.
3
The results for predicted indoor air concentrations of TCE in close proximity to the
 one residential property on southern side of Ash Avenue, Clovelly Park: 2 to
3
<20 µg/m response level
 two residential properties on Mimosa Terrace, Clovelly Park: >non-detect to
3
<2 µg/m response level; and
 12 residential properties along Woodland Avenue, Mitchell Park: >non-detect to
3
<2 µg/m response level.
The predicted levels of TCE in indoor air for the remaining properties in the southern
Clovelly Park and Mitchell Park areas correspond to the safe (i.e. nothing detected)
response level.
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
XII
1.
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Purpose
Fyfe Pty Ltd (Fyfe) was commissioned by the South Australian Environment Protection Authority (SA EPA,
referred to herein as the EPA) to undertake a detailed soil, soil vapour and groundwater investigation and risk
assessment program within an EPA designated assessment area (herein referred to as the Assessment Area)
located within the suburbs of Clovelly Park and Mitchell Park, South Australia. The extent of the Assessment
Area referenced within this document is identified on Figure 1.
1.2
General background information
2
The EPA was first notified in late 2008 of groundwater chlorinated hydrocarbon contamination beneath the
southernmost portion of the former Mitsubishi Motors Australia Limited (MMAL) industrial site. Since that
time, numerous soil, groundwater, soil vapour and indoor air assessment activities have been undertaken by
others, as detailed in Appendix A. This has included work on the former MMAL and adjacent Monroe
Australia (Monroe) industrial properties. Localised work has also been undertaken by the EPA, SA Health and
others within an area of residential land use bounded by the Monroe property to the east, the former MMAL
property to the north, Birch Ave (and adjoining rail lines) to the west and residential properties along the
southern side of Ash Avenue in Clovelly Park – this area is referred to herein as the Relocation Area of Clovelly
Park, as depicted on Figure 1, and comprises two sub-areas, identified as the Eastern Relocation Area (Eastern
RA) and the Precautionary Relocation Area (Precautionary RA), as follows:

Eastern RA: The easternmost portion of this residential area in (northern) Clovelly Park, bounded by
Chestnut Court to the west and Ash Ave to the south, was formerly owned and occupied by the Reckitt
and Colman (R&C) industrial facility (for a six year period during the 1960s) as well as Chrysler (precursor
of MMAL) until the 1980s. During the early 1980s, the existing buildings on this area (i.e. the original
R&C laboratory buildings) were converted to residential use. A small area north of the buildings
remained as vacant land and was developed into the Chestnut Court Reserve. Residents located in this
area were relocated in 2010, following the identification of concerns regarding indoor air quality.
Further assessment by others has subsequently been undertaken to better understand the chlorinated
hydrocarbon contamination of the soil, groundwater and soil vapour in this area, and the implications
for indoor air quality.

Precautionary RA: The remaining vacant land, west of the Eastern RA, was developed for residential use
during the late 1980s by the SA Housing Trust. Following a review by the EPA and SA Health of the most
recently completed assessment work undertaken by Monroe in May 2014, SA Health advised that a
2
Site Contamination is defined by the Environment Protection Act 1993 as existing if chemical concentrations are present on or below
the surface of a site in concentrations above background, the contaminants are there as a result of activity at the site, or elsewhere,
and their presence has resulted in actual or potential harm (that is not trivial) to the health and safety of human beings, taking into
account current and proposed land uses, or water or the environment.
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
1
potential risk to human health was associated with vapour intrusion into indoor air from the identified
chlorinated hydrocarbon contamination. As a precautionary measure, voluntary relocation was
therefore recommended to residents within the remaining Housing SA properties along Chestnut Court
and the northern side of Ash Avenue in Clovelly Park.
Based on the assessment work undertaken by others (refer to Appendix A), it was predicted that there was
also some potential for a chlorinated hydrocarbon groundwater contaminant plume to extend in a general
westerly direction from the former MMAL property towards the residential suburb of Mitchell Park. The
extent of the groundwater plume, its likely source area/s and the potential associated risks to human health
and/or the environment had not been fully established. As a result, the EPA initiated this recent work
(completed in late 2014). The main objective of this work was to assess and better characterise the potential
human health risk posed by vapour intrusion emanating from the groundwater and/or possible soil
3
(i.e. source area/s), chlorinated hydrocarbon impacts .
1.3
Definition of the assessment area
As detailed on Figure 1, the current Assessment Area covers an area of approximately 123.6 ha within the
suburbs of Clovelly Park and Mitchell Park. It is bounded by Main South Road to the east and south-east,
Alawoona Ave (and a line representing its eastern extension through the former MMAL property) to the
north, Sturt River (concrete culvert) to the west and Sturt Road to the south.
The boundaries of the Assessment Area were established by the EPA on the basis of the following:

the previous identification of soil, soil vapour and/or groundwater chlorinated hydrocarbon
contamination on both the Monroe property and the southern portion of the former MMAL property

the identification of an inferred (general) west to north-westerly groundwater flow direction, from the
former MMAL and Monroe properties towards the residential areas of Clovelly Park and Mitchell Park

the previous identification of soil, soil vapour, groundwater and/or indoor air concentrations of
chlorinated hydrocarbons within a portion of the residential area of Clovelly Park (as discussed in
Section 1.2) that was considered to be of potential concern with respect to human health; and

the results of a series of unrelated investigations on properties that bordered the current Assessment
Area, whereby groundwater investigations had not identified any evidence of chlorinated hydrocarbon
contamination – the results of these investigations have been summarised by the EPA (as presented in
Appendix B).
3
Note that the term “impact” has been used by Fyfe to indicate identified concentrations of compounds (specifically chlorinated
hydrocarbons) that are not naturally occurring (i.e. concentrations above background that have resulted from anthropogenic
activities). The use of this term does not denote that the presence of these compounds represents a risk to either human health or the
environment and the term “impact” is therefore not directly interchangeable with the term “Site Contamination”, the latter defined
under the Environment Protection Act 1993 to include actual or potential harm to human health and/or the environment.
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
2
1.4
Identification of contaminants of potential concern
The contaminants of potential concern (COPC) for the Assessment Area comprise a number of chlorinated
hydrocarbon compounds. The main COPC identified to date is trichloroethene (TCE). TCE was widely used as a
solvent (e.g. for degreasing activities) in industrial facilities prior to the 1990s, at which point its potential
detrimental effects on human health and its persistence in the environment was recognised and its use was
phased out in favour of less harmful chemicals.
Although TCE can be present in the environment as a primary contaminant, it can also occur as a breakdown
product of tetrachloroethene (PCE), the latter also formerly used for industrial purposes (e.g. degreasing, dry
cleaning) and identified by others (refer to Appendix A) as a contaminant on the Monroe property. Additional
COPC identified for the assessment area include the breakdown products of TCE, namely 1,2-dichloroethene
(1,2-DCE: cis- and trans-) and vinyl chloride (VC).
Although the EPA requested that chloroform be included within the analytical suite adopted by Fyfe, this
does not represent a COPC specific to the Clovelly Park/Mitchell Park area. Chloroform is used in a number of
industrial processes (e.g. in the production of refrigerants and plastics and as a solvent) and can occur as a
breakdown product of chlorine-containing compounds (e.g. chlorinated drinking water). The inclusion of
chloroform in the list of COPC for the Assessment Area is understood to be part of a broader study of
groundwater quality within South Australia currently being undertaken by the EPA.
1.5
Objectives
The key objectives of the recent environmental assessment program are as follows:

to determine the nature and extent of groundwater contamination within the Assessment Area for the
identified COPC

to determine the nature and extent of soil contamination within a selected portion of the Assessment
Area (i.e. potential source area/s mainly associated with former industrial activities) for the identified
COPC

to determine the nature and extent of soil vapour contamination within the Assessment Area for the
identified COPC

to identify potential sources of chlorinated hydrocarbon impacts identified within soil, soil vapour
and/or groundwater within the Assessment Area

to use collected data to undertake vapour intrusion modelling and risk assessment with respect to
chlorinated hydrocarbon impacts within the Assessment Area

to prepare a detailed conceptual site model (CSM)
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
3

to provide information to support the definition (extent and geometry) of a Groundwater Prohibition
Area (GPA), including a buffer zone, to be designated by the EPA within the Assessment Area, in
accordance with the provisions of Section S103S of the Environment Protection Act 1993.
1.6
Site contamination audits and industrial licenses
Work by others is continuing on both the Monroe and former MMAL properties and is largely overseen by
three Site Contamination Auditors, including Mr Phil Hitchcock (Australian Environmental Auditors) and
Mr Adrian Webber (Mud Environmental) for the former MMAL property (i.e. currently being redeveloped by
Renewal SA as the Tonsley Park Redevelopment site) and Mr Steve Kirsanovs (Kirsa Environmental) for the
Monroe property.
Although these auditors have been commissioned by either Renewal SA or Monroe, they are accredited
under the Environment Protection Act 1993 to act in an independent capacity and oversee the assessment of
the nature and extent of any site contamination present at these properties.
The former MMAL site, occupied by a car manufacturing facility from about 1964 to 2009, is no longer used
for industrial activities and is currently in the process of being redeveloped for mixed use
(retail, TAFE facilities, light industrial, and residential) purposes. By comparison, the Monroe property hosts
an on-going industrial facility that is currently licensed (EPA licence 1136) for manufacturing and mineral
processing (surface coating), waste treatment and disposal and fuel burning.
The Commissioner of Railways also holds a current EPA licence (29702) for materials handling and
transportation along the Tonsley rail line, passing between the suburbs of Clovelly Park and Mitchell Park and
along the western boundary of the former MMAL property.
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
4
2.
CHARACTERISATION OF THE ASSESSMENT AREA
2.1
Site identification
For the purpose of this investigation program, the Assessment Area (as defined in Section 1.2 and Figure 1)
has been subdivided into two main areas, identified as the Clovelly Park area and the Mitchell Park area and
separated by the Tonsley rail line:

The Clovelly Park area includes the southern portion of the former MMAL (current Renewal SA)
property, the existing Monroe property and an adjoining residential area, the latter bordered by Sturt
Road to the South, Main South Road to the south-east, the Tonsley rail line to the west and the former
MMAL and Monroe properties to the north and east. The northern portion of the Clovelly Park area
includes Relocation Area.

The Mitchell Park area encompasses a portion of the suburb of Mitchell Park (southern Mitchell Park)
bounded by the Tonsley rail line to the east, Sturt River to the west, Alawoona Avenue to the north and
Sturt Road to the south.
2.2
Regional geology and hydrogeology
Information regarding regional geological and hydrogeological conditions has been sourced from Selby and
Lindsay (1982), Belpario and Rice (1989), the South Australian Department of Mines and Energy (1962, 1992)
and Green et al. (2010).
2.2.1
Geology
The southern suburbs of Clovelly Park and Mitchell Park lie within the Golden Grove - Adelaide Embayment
area of the St. Vincent Basin, which consists of a succession of Tertiary and Quaternary age sediments. The
sediments were first deposited in swamps and from streams draining from the highlands, followed by various
cycles of marine deposition which occurred as the ocean advanced and retreated over the land surface.
Tectonic activity during the late Tertiary and early Quaternary periods resulted in variations within the
thickness of the strata, with uplifting (mountain building) and subsequent erosion resulting in the deposition
of riverine sediments, including sands and gravels, which were subsequently overlain by a thick sequence of
alluvial clays with lenses of sand and gravel. These units deposited within the Tertiary and Quaternary times
have formed a series of aquifers and confining layers (aquitards). The recent geological evolution of the area
has largely been controlled by global sea level fluctuations.
The natural soils underlying the fill material in the Assessment Area are typified by the Quaternary age soils
and sediments of the Adelaide Plains, which generally include Callabonna Clay, Keswick Clay, Pooraka
Formation and Hindmarsh Clay:
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
5

Callabonna Clay represents the uppermost unit of the Adelaide Plains and consists of dark red-brown
clays, sandy clays and clayey sands. The thickness of the Callabonna formation is not known and it has
not been identified by Fyfe in the Assessment Area.

Keswick Clay comprises generally silty to sandy clays which tend to be massive (poorly bedded) and can
range in thickness from about 0.5 to 6.8 m. They have generally been described as mottled clays (yellowgreys to green-greys with reddish to yellowish mottles) and include sand lenses and silty zones proximal
to ephemeral river lines. Fyfe have also not identified Keswick Clay in the Assessment Area.

The underlying Pooraka Formation, which has a general thickness of at least 4 m, consists of
unconsolidated red-brown poorly sorted clayey sand/silts, gravel, conglomerate and breccia (as colluvial
sheet wash). The depositional environment of the Pooraka Formation is typically associated with alluvial
fan and residual lag deposits, forming extensive, coalesced, low-angle fans, interbedded occasionally
with more porous lenses and channels of fine sands and silts. Being more porous than the surrounding
clays/silts, these sand/silt lenses act as underground drainage channels and are generally more
saturated than the surrounding clays. Therefore, where contamination exists, these lenses typically
provide preferential pathways for contaminant migration. If present (i.e. possibly on the Monroe
property – refer to Appendix A), the extent of the Pooraka Formation is considered likely to be of limited
extent within the Assessment Area.

Underlying the Pooraka Formation, and making up the basal unit of the Adelaide Plains soils and
sediments, is the Hindmarsh Clay which has a maximum general thickness of more than 100 m. The
Hindmarsh Clay unit comprises a basal gravel layer, a middle layer of mottled red-brown to orange clay
and an upper layer of fluvial and alluvial red-brown silty sand. This unit is considered to be the
predominant soil type encountered in the Assessment Area.
The Quaternary age sediments of the Adelaide Plains are underlain in sequence by a succession of Tertiary
age sediments, including the Hallett Cove Sandstone, Port Willunga Formation and South Maslin Sands. These
sedimentary units are in turn underlain by metamorphosed basement rock of the Proterozoic Umberatana
Group.
The Eden Burnside Fault, located to the east of the Assessment Area, represents a threshold between the
fractured Precambrian basement rocks of the Mount Lofty Ranges and the Tertiary/Quaternary sedimentary
deposits of the Adelaide Plains.
2.2.2
Hydrogeology
The aquifers identified within the Quaternary age sediments of the Adelaide Plains are typically found within
the coarser interbedded silt, sand and gravel layers of the Hindmarsh Clay formation and vary greatly in
thickness (typically from 1 to 18 m), lithology and hydraulic conductivity. Confining beds between the
Quaternary aquifers consist of clay and silt layers and range in thickness from 1 to 20 m. These confining beds
vary in terms of the amount of coarser grained material they contain, their bulk hydraulic conductivity and/or
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
6
the presence and density of fractures. In addition, their absence in some areas allows direct hydraulic
connection between the aquifers.
In total, six Quaternary aquifers have been identified within the Adelaide region and are numbered Q1 to Q6,
although the sixth (Q6) aquifer typically does not occur in the vicinity of the Assessment Area:

The Q1 aquifer is the uppermost aquifer in the Adelaide region and is typically located at depths of
between 3 and 10 m below ground level (BGL), with an average thickness of 2 m. Generally, the Q1
aquifer contains water of low salinity, believed to be due to active recharge from surface drainage and
from lateral inflow from the fractured rock aquifer within the Mount Lofty Ranges to the east of the
Assessment Area. The gradient of the Q1 aquifer is generally flat and flow direction is typically towards
the north-west.

The top of the Q2 aquifer generally occurs at a depth of between 16 and 30 m BGL within the vicinity of
the Assessment Area. Its thickness ranges from 0.5 to 10 m, with an average of 2 m. The Q2 aquifer
demonstrates a wide range of salinity values, from less than 500 mg/L to over 29,000 mg/L total
dissolved solids (TDS). The general flow direction of the Q2 aquifer is towards the north-west.

Depths to the Q3 aquifer within the vicinity of the Assessment Area range from 31 to 45 m BGL. The Q3
aquifer consists of gravel and sand and has an average thickness of 3 m. The salinity of the Q3
groundwater within the vicinity of the Assessment Area ranges from approximately 1,500 to 2,500 mg/L
TDS. The general flow direction of the Q3 aquifer is towards the north-west, consistent with the two
overlying aquifers.

The Q4 aquifer within the vicinity of the Assessment Area occurs at depths of between 46 and 60 m BGL
and consists mainly of gravels and sands. Salinity readings within the Q4 aquifer are typically low and
range from approximately 600 to 900 mg/L TDS. This suggests that recharge occurs via lateral flow from
another (possible Tertiary) aquifer.

The depth of the Q5 aquifer within the vicinity of the Assessment Area is between 65 and 80 m BGL,
with an average thickness of 2 m. Salinities within the Q5 aquifer are generally between 1,000 and
5,000 mg/L TDS.
Aquifers within the Hindmarsh Clay formation are known to be slow to recharge as a result of low
permeability. In addition, it has been queried as to whether a laterally discontinuous perched aquifer is
present in the vicinity of the Monroe site, particularly at its western end and off-site to the west (i.e. within
the adjoining residential area). If this is the case, it could be indicative of differential depositional
environments having resulted in the contemporaneous formation of gravel or sandy deposits at some
locations (e.g. along former river lines), with silt or clay deposits at others.
The specific effects (if any) of the Eden-Burnside Fault on the behaviour of groundwater within the
Assessment Area have not been determined. However, it is reported that active stresses within the fault have
resulted in a highly fractured “zone of breakage” which creates “exceptional” conditions for groundwater
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
7
flow both across and along it. In addition, cross fault fractures may enhance or inhibit groundwater flow
(depending on their orientation relative to the hydraulic gradient), thereby acting as either preferential flow
paths or zones of restricted flow, collectively enabling flow in the direction of the regional hydraulic gradient
along the length of the fault. Groundwater flow across the fault is considered to be spatially highly variable
due to the variability of rock types, geological structures, fracture aperture sizes and fracture density; this is
made more unpredictable by the highly conductive nature of the fault and its “zone of breakage”. In addition,
a downward hydraulic gradient from the Quaternary to the Tertiary aquifers may be resulting in at least
partial recharge of the Tertiary aquifers.
2.3
Historical information
Prior to commencement of site works, Fyfe personnel undertook a detailed review of numerous assessment
reports compiled by others (and provided by the EPA) that pertained to various portions of the Monroe and
4
former MMAL properties as well as the adjoining residential area of Clovelly Park . This (northern) residential
area of Clovelly Park was subject to the following former land uses:

The former R&C property, bounded by Chestnut Court to the west and Ash Avenue to the south, is
currently identified as the Eastern RA. It hosts a northern reserve/playground (the Chestnut Court
Reserve) and an adjoining Housing SA property (to the south of the reserve), the latter occupied by the
slabs of the demolished R&C buildings. The former laboratory buildings were converted into the Unity
Housing Apartments and Housing Units and used for residential purposes from the mid-1980s to mid2009. Two vacated Housing SA residences (Nos. 22A and 22B), fronting Ash Avenue (further to the
south), were developed in the early 2000s.

In the late 1960s, subsequent to the use by R&C, the land was owned by Chrysler. This included both the
Eastern RA and the Precautionary RA, the latter currently occupied by residential dwellings along
Chestnut Court and the northern side of Ash Avenue. It is not know what activities Chrysler undertook
on this land.
Fyfe also received information from the EPA that included historical and stereographical reviews of aerial
imagery pertaining to the broader areas of Clovelly Park and Mitchell Park as well as the main existing and
former industrial facilities in the area (the Monroe, former MMAL and Eastern RA). The additional
information compiled and supplied by the EPA is provided in Appendix C.
Information pertinent to the Assessment Area, as collated by Fyfe from a review of the existing assessment
reports and the information provided by the EPA, is presented in Appendix A and has been summarised in
Table 2.1.
4
This area was bounded by the Monroe property to the east, the former MMAL property to the north, Birch Ave (and the adjoining
Tonsley rail line) to the west and residential properties along the southern side of Ash Avenue (Nos. 1 to 21) and the northern portion
of Mimosa Terrace (Nos. 9 and 11) – identified as the Eastern RA and the Precautionary RA.
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
8
Table 2.1
Topic
Summarised Information
Local geology
Within the Monroe property, the soil profile has been described as including up to 3.8 m of
imported/reworked fill material associated with historical levelling of the naturally sloping
ground. Natural soils comprise Pooraka Formation (calcareous zone) overlying Hindmarsh Clay
(predominantly low to high plasticity silty and sandy clays with lesser inclusions of sands and
gravels), with the latter encountered at depths of between 0.35 and 6.5 m BGL. Occasional
layers, pockets and thin lenses of gravelly clay, gravels (calcareous, siltstone or ironstone)
and/or sands have been encountered within the Hindmarsh Clay and diagonal fissures have also
been identified in high plasticity clay layers. Although the surface of the Hindmarsh Clay unit
generally dips towards the north-west (consistent with topography), it has an undulating
interface with the Pooraka Formation (where the latter is present in the Assessment Area – e.g.
on the Monroe property).
Topographically, the southernmost portion of the MMAL property, located to the north of the
Clovelly Park residential area and identified as Section 14, is approximately 10 m lower than the
adjoining Monroe property. Soils have been described as comprising fill materials (including
sandy gravels, sands with various silt, clay and/or gravel contents and/or silty to sandy clays), to
depths of up to 1.1 m BGL at some locations. Underlying natural soils generally comprise sandy
or clayey silts interspersed with low to high plasticity silty and sandy clays, the latter often noted
to have a firm to stiff consistency, to contain variable amounts of gravel and calcareous material
and to sometimes grade into clayey sands (also with minor gravel contents). Discrete lenses of
sand and/or gravel have been identified within clay layers and, although these lenses appear to
be generally quite thin (≤ 0.1 m), gravel/sand beds of over 1 m in thickness have also been
identified. Clay layers have been described as visibly fractured in some instances.
Limited work undertaken within the Eastern RA and the Precautionary RA indicate a similar soil
profile to Section 14 of the MMAL site (and the natural soils of the Monroe site), whereby the
soil profile is dominated by low to high plasticity silty and sandy clays (with variable gravel and
calcareous contents), grading to clayey sands in places. A series of gravel bands, located within a
high plasticity silty clay layer, were encountered at depth in the northern portion of the Eastern
RA (i.e. the Chestnut Court Reserve).
Local hydrogeology
Within the Monroe property, shallow perched groundwater has been identified beneath some
areas, ranging in depth from approximately 0.6 m BGL on the eastern side of the property to
5.9 m BGL on the western side. Perched groundwater is considered to be associated with the fill
materials and more permeable calcareous materials of the Pooraka Formation (immediately
overlying the Hindmarsh Clay). Given the difference in elevation between the Monroe and
former MMAL properties, this shallow perched aquifer does not extend onto the latter but is
expected (although has not been observed) to “daylight” at the unsealed face of the
embankment above MMAL Section 14.
Within the Monroe property, the deeper (i.e. uppermost Quaternary) aquifer has been
encountered at depths of between approximately 10.5 and 15 m BGL (i.e. beneath the
constructed site level). Although it has a general west to north-westerly flow direction, a
potential for localised variations in flow direction (due to preferential flow paths through higher
permeability zones – i.e. natural or associated with leaking services) has been identified. This
aquifer is considered to be semi-confined by lower permeability clay strata. The maximum
hydraulic conductivity of the uppermost (continuous) Quaternary aquifer beneath the Monroe
site has been estimated as 0.037 m/day. An estimated (horizontal) groundwater seepage
velocity of 2 to 20 m/year has been calculated, noting that contaminant migration rates are
likely to be lower. Based on an assumed effective porosity of 2 to 20%, a hydraulic gradient of
-4
0.06 and an assumed hydraulic conductivity range of 1.1 x 10 to 0.037 m/day, the porewater
velocity was subsequently inferred to be 0.01 to 4.1 m/y.
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
9
Groundwater within the uppermost aquifer beneath the southern portion (Section 14) of the
former MMAL site is considered to flow in a general westerly direction. Some localised
mounding (presumably due to infiltration from leaking services) has been identified in the
north-western portion of Section 14. Within Section 14, measured depth to groundwater ranges
from approximately 5.3 m BGL (i.e. near the eastern site boundary – although this could
represent perched water, it was not identified as such) to 14.5 m BGL (i.e. south-central and
western portions of Section 14). Possible perched water has also been identified at a depth of
approximately 7.4 m BGL to the north of the western portion of Section 14. Groundwater has
been interpreted to be present within sandy/silty clay layers in the Hindmarsh Clay formation,
although interbedded sandy gravel layers have also been identified. Hydraulic conductivity
measured in one well located on the western side of Section 14 was interpreted to be
-3
2.4 x 10 m/day.
Groundwater within the uppermost aquifer beneath the residential area (i.e. the Eastern RA and
Precautionary RA) of Clovelly Park (adjacent to the former MMAL and Monroe properties) has
been interpreted to be present at depths of between 10.5 and 22.8 m BGL, but mostly between
about 14 and 15 m BGL. The maximum depth was identified on the Eastern RA, to the east of
22A and 22B Ash Ave. Groundwater was inferred to flow in a general west to north-westerly
direction, including towards the south-western portion of MMAL Section 14. Groundwater in
this area is considered to occur as either an unconfined upper regional water bearing unit or a
deeper semi-confined zone. Where encountered, water has been identified within a thin band
of gravelly clay, located above a dry clay layer. Perched water has also been encountered in this
area, occurring at depths of between 3 and 4.7 m BGL along Ash Ave (i.e. immediately south of
No. 6 Ash Avenue). Yield is considered to be generally low, with many wells found to be dry
subsequent to installation.
Based on laboratory data, as well as measured electrical conductivity readings, the salinity of
groundwater within the uppermost (continuous) aquifer within this area, has been interpreted
to range from about 230 to 15,600 mg/L TDS, and to generally increase with depth.
Bands of relatively low salinity groundwater have been identified as passing through the former
MMAL property (from north-east to west), with generally higher salinity groundwater beneath
the Monroe property and in the vicinity of the Eastern RA. This higher salinity has been
interpreted to indicate slow porewater movement (i.e. consistent with lower permeability)
although it could also be related to the estuarine depositional environment. An additional band
of lower salinity groundwater beneath the Monroe site has been interpreted as related to
possible infiltration from a large leaking stormwater drain that extends in a south-westerly to
north-easterly direction beneath the property.
Local hydrology
The closet surface water body to the Assessment Area is the Sturt River, located within a
concrete culvert approximately 0.7 km to the west of the western boundary of the former
MMAL property and comprising part of the Patawalonga River catchment.
Until 1964, the north-eastern portion of the former MMAL property (i.e. distant from Section
14) was cross-cut by a tributary of the Sturt River but flow was diverted into two buried
concrete pipes. These pipes ultimately empty into the Sturt River, downstream of the property.
The Warriparinga Wetlands (part of the Sturt River that has reportedly been stocked with native
vegetation and fish and represents an area of cultural significance for the Kaurna people) are
located approximately 0.85 km to the south-west but may not be directly down-gradient (i.e.
too far south) of the Monroe and former MMAL properties.
Two stormwater detection basins (ponds) have been identified in the vicinity of Bradley Grove
in Mitchell Park. Based on their apparent depth, relative to the depth of the uppermost aquifer
in this area, it is considered unlikely that they represent receiving bodies for groundwater
discharge.*
A stereoscopic review of the 1959, 1969 and 1979 aerial images by the EPA (as detailed in
Appendix C) indicates that there were a series of possible surface drainage lines located on the
Monroe property. These appeared to extend in a general westerly direction onto the south-
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
10
eastern portion of the former MMAL site (i.e. Section 14) and possibly also through the Eastern
RA and adjoining residential area of Clovelly Park. Another possible surface drainage line was
visible in the south-western corner of the former MMAL property and an area of surface soil
staining was noted in the western corner of the Monroe site, at the suspected location of the
Monroe ‘graveyard area’.
History of land use
The approximately 8 ha Monroe facility commenced operations in the late 1950s under the
control of WH Wylie and Sons (WH Wylie) and is still operational. It was sold to Monroe in 1977.
Although the site has largely been owned by WH Wylie/Tenneco/Monroe since the 1950s, a
small northern portion was owned by Chrysler/MMAL between 1963 and 1989, although it is
believed to have remained undeveloped. The site has been used predominantly for the
manufacture of motor vehicle parts and, although there were numerous extensions and
modifications to buildings between the 1960s and 1990s, potentially contaminating activities at
the site have remained fairly consistent over time. These activities have included solvent
storage, bulk fuel storage, wastewater/stormwater treatment, chrome plating, waste disposal
and site development (including filling). Chemicals identified as having been used on the site
included TCE, 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA) and dimethyl chloride (dichloromethane). Whereas
the use of TCE was phased out from about 1987 and TCA washes were made obsolete in 1994,
dimethyl chloride continued to be used into the late 1990s. A “graveyard” area, used for the
dumping of old equipment and possibly other materials, is understood to have been located
immediately adjacent to the south-eastern corner of former MMAL Section 14. A stereoscopic
review of the 1959 aerial image by the EPA (as detailed in Appendix C) indicates that a small
(apparent) excavation area was present at the current location of the waste treatment plant on
the Monroe property.
The approximately 64 ha MMAL site was purchased by Chrysler/Mitsubishi in a piecemeal
fashion between the early 1960s and 1995. The car manufacturing facility commenced
operation in 1964 under the management of Chrysler. A portion of the broader site was owned
by WH Wylie (and subsequently Monroe) between 1957 and 1994, although specific activities
undertaken on this area have not been determined. Car manufacturing operations ceased in
about 2009 and the site is currently being redeveloped for mixed use (retail, TAFE facilities, light
industrial and residential) purposes. The southernmost portion of the site (i.e. Section 14) was
purchased by Chrysler between 1961 and 1964. It comprised the “southern pad” area of the
facility and was largely unpaved until the mid- to late-1980s. It was used primarily for the
storage of dies, equipment and waste steel, the unboxing of car parts, the temporary stockpiling
of oil impacted soils and the overflow storage of new vehicles. It was also occupied by a
construction shed and compound used for metal fabrication and chemical storage. An unpaved
“graveyard” area was reported to have formerly been located in the south-western corner of
Section 14, immediately adjacent to the north-western (residential) portion of Clovelly Park.
Although the use of solvents has not been identified on Section 14, the former “graveyard” area
was used for the storage of oil-coated waste steel and equipment, possible drums of
chemicals/fuel and the temporary storage of an old floor removed from the Plating Shop.
Reckitt & Colman (R&C), a chemical (i.e. health, hygiene and home products) manufacturing
company, purchased the area to the west of the Monroe property and south of the MMAL
property in 1963 and occupied the land until 1969. The land was purchased by Chrysler in 1969,
who appear to have used the area primarily for car storage purposes, and then to the South
Australian Housing Trust (Housing SA) in 1984. Anecdotal information also indicates that the
Eastern RA may have been used (at least partly) by WH Wylie until the 1980s although there is
no formal verification of this use or the activities undertaken (may have included die casting and
a mechanical laboratory). The southern boundary of the Eastern RA (as described in Certificate
of Title Volume 3314 Folio 125) appears to have extended along the northern side of Ash Ave, as
far as the western side of No. 18. The western boundary extended north, along the western
fence line of No. 18 Ash Ave and through the western portions of Nos. 12 and 15 Chestnut
Court. Specific chemical use by R&C has not been determined.
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
11
Distribution of
identified
contaminants
Within the north-eastern part of the Clovelly Park residential area (i.e. the Eastern RA), TCE has
been detected in soil at depths of approximately 0.2-0.4 m BGL and 5-5.1 m BGL. This area was
identified as a former storage area located to the north-east of the former laboratory building
(i.e. where areas of surface staining were evident in aerial photographs taken in the 1960s and
1970s) and soil vapour results have indicated the presence of a “hotspot” of TCE in soil, with
maximum soil vapour readings at about 4 m BGL. Elsewhere on the Eastern RA, soil vapour
monitoring detected increasing total ethene concentrations with depth, interpreted to possibly
be indicative of a groundwater (as opposed to a soil) vapour source. Across the adjoining
residential area (i.e. Ash Ave and Chestnut Court within the Precautionary RA), soil vapour
screening has identified the main chemical of concern to be TCE (i.e. 96% of impacts), followed
by 1,2-DCE (cis- and trans-) as well as lesser PCE and VC. Where nested vapour bores were
installed in the residential area (e.g. No. 10 Chestnut Court), the results have indicated
increasing TCE concentrations (i.e. based on interpretation from photoionisation detector (PID)
readings obtained at 1, 2, 4, 7 and 10 m BGL) with depth and groundwater impacts in this area
are also characterised by the presence of TCE, PCE and 1,2-DCE. Soil vapour impacts at Nos. 22
and 24 Ash Ave, as well as Nos. 10 and 21 Chestnut Court, have also been identified as elevated
(i.e. compared to the remainder of the residential area).
Indoor air monitoring of residences located on, and in the immediate vicinity of, the Eastern RA
3
resulted in the detection of elevated TCE concentrations (up to 50 µg/m ) within the former
Unity Housing Apartments (7 Chestnut Court) and Unity Housing units (22, 24 and 26 Ash Ave) –
these residences have since been vacated and/or demolished. Further investigation of possible
preferential pathways for vapour intrusion at 7 and 24 Ash Ave identified elevated TCE
3
concentrations (up to 10,000 µg/m ) in an outdoor stormwater drain and yard sink as well as a
sewer access ports and various indoor plumbing traps. Subsequent indoor air monitoring results
for residences along Chestnut Court indicated that the highest concentrations of TCE were
present in the vicinity of the Chestnut Court bend (i.e. Nos. 6, 8, 9 and 10) as well as the northwestern end of the street (No. 21). The latter adjoined groundwater and soil vapour impacts
detected in the south-western corner of former MMAL Section 14. A maximum concentration of
3
84 µg/m was detected in the closed bedroom of the unoccupied residence at 10 Chestnut
Court.
On the adjoining Monroe site, elevated concentrations of TCE and PCE have been detected in
soil (i.e. multiple locations, including the rear of the western building, the northern building, the
duck pond, between the pond and the central roadway, inside and outside the southern
building, the shipping container storage area, the aftermarket loading area and the former oil
store). Additional chlorinated compounds used on the site and/or present in groundwater
include PCE, chloromethane, 1,1-dichloroethene (1,1-DCE), 1,1-dichloroethane (1,1-DCA), 1,2dichloroethane (1,2-DCA) and TCA. Based on the detected concentrations of TCE in
groundwater, the presence of dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) is suspected and the
monitoring of soil vapour bores has identified elevated TCE, cis-1,2-DCE, VC and/or PCE
concentrations across seven areas of the site.
With respect to the MMAL site, groundwater impacts have been identified as occurring across
Section 14 and include TCE, cis-1,2-DCE, VC and PCE. The highest groundwater concentrations of
all these chemicals have been detected in the westernmost potion although impacts are also
present beneath the eastern portion (i.e. adjacent to the Monroe site). Soil vapour monitoring
results, which included elevated concentrations of TCE, 1,2-DCE, VC and PCE, are reported to be
higher than would be expected with a groundwater source (i.e. which would be expected to
have largely attenuated between the depth of the water table and 4 m BGL) and to therefore be
indicative of vapour migration through soil, but occurring at a different rate than groundwater –
this has yet to be confirmed. Concentrations were also stated to increase with depth in the soil
profile and decrease with distance from the southern and eastern site boundaries.
Groundwater contaminant concentrations, particularly with respect to the Monroe site, have
been stated to be relatively stable over time although some decreasing concentrations have
been identified in the south-western portion of the former MMAL site. The latter is considered
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
12
to possibly be due to dilution as a result of increased recharge and higher groundwater levels.
Identified
contaminant source
areas
Although no actual soil chlorinated hydrocarbon impacts have been identified on the former
MMAL property, and a specific source area(s) cannot therefore be designated, the distribution
of the chlorinated compounds in groundwater has been delineated as four distinct plumes
(although delineation between plumes 1 and 4 is impeded by the presence of the main building
on the MMAL site):
1. northern portion of Monroe site, extending off-site to the west, beneath the eastern
portion of the former MMAL site (i.e. Sections 11 and 8 to the north of the eastern portion
of Section 14)
2. southern portion of Monroe site, extending off-site to the west, beneath the south-eastern
portion of MMAL Section 14, the Eastern RA and the eastern end of Chestnut Court
3. south-western corner of MMAL Section 14, immediately north of the residential area and
adjacent to the railway line to the west – in some cases, the impacts in this south-western
corner of the MMAL site have been attributed to an off-site source, located within the
Eastern RA/Precautionary RA to the south-east; and
4. approximately 200 m north of plume 3, and west of the main MMAL building on Section 18
(i.e. north of the western portion of Section 14), adjacent to the railway line to the west –
this plume appears to be fully contained within the MMAL site and does not extend to the
currently identified area of impact.
Soil chlorinated hydrocarbon impacts have been identified in the northern and southern
portions of the Monroe site (i.e. source areas for plumes 1 and 2) as well as the northern
portion of the Eastern RA, although it is currently unclear whether the latter is actually
contributing to groundwater impacts. Based on elevated soil vapour results, possible localised
soil sources are also suspected in the vicinity of Nos. 10 and 21 Chestnut Court, located in the
Precautionary RA.
Note: *Reduced water levels within potential receiving water bodies, relative to groundwater levels, have not been determined.
2.4
Registered groundwater bore search
A recent (2014) search of the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources (DEWNR) database
(WaterConnect), undertaken by Fyfe, indicates that there are 65 registered groundwater wells within a 500 m
radius of the residential area of Clovelly Park (i.e. centred on No. 10 Chestnut Court, Clovelly Park), including
a number of wells located on the Monroe and former MMAL properties. Drilled depths range from
approximately 7 to 35 m BGL and, where recorded, wells were cased to depths of between approximately 1
and 23 m BGL. Standing water levels (SWLs) recorded between 1963 and 2011 for 14 bores ranged from 1.97
to 15.24 m BGL, whereas yield in four wells (recorded in 1963) ranged from 0.13 to 0.25 L/sec. Of the 65
bores, 55 were installed for the purpose of investigation although six were dry and one was backfilled. Of the
remaining 10 bores, for which the purpose was not listed, one had been abandoned, two were backfilled,
four were listed as of unknown status and the status of two was not recorded. Salinity readings obtained in
1963 for four bores ranged from 3,546 to 3,831 mg/L TDS.
A broader search of the DEWNR database for a 2 km radius identified 405 registered bores, including a
number that were recorded as having been installed for irrigation or domestic purposes. In terms of bores
that could potentially be located hydraulically down-gradient of the Monroe and former MMAL properties,
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
13
those listed in Table 2.2 are noted to be of potential interest, although some were identified as having been
drilled in a deeper (possible Tertiary T1) aquifer.
The results of the DEWNR groundwater database searches are included in Appendix D. However, based on
the results of an EPA letter-drop survey, only one private domestic bore has been identified within the
Assessment Area.
Table 2.2
Bore
No
Summary of registered (potentially) down-gradient bores within a 2 km radius
Approximate
location*
Purpose
Status
Cased depth
(m BGL)
SWL
(m BGL)
Salinity
(mg/L TDS)
6627-1781
0.75 km SW
Town water
supply
Operational
72
30.5
1,170
6627-7016
1.5 km SW
Irrigation
Operational
41
14
1,513
6627-7316
1.4 km SW
Domestic
Operational
27
15
1,132
6627-7317
1.2 km SW
Domestic
Operational
23
12
719
6627-7892
1.6 km WSW
Domestic
Operational
18
11.5
1,479
6627-8075
0.7 km NW
Domestic
Operational
21
10
3,195
6627-8162
0.95 km W
Town water
supply
Operational
39
23
1,457
6627-8523
1.5 km NW
Domestic
Operational
18
13.5
1,312
6627-8558
1.4 km W
Town water
supply
Operational
25
14
1,017
6627-8602
1.2 km WSW
Town water
supply
Operational
39
18
918
6627-8812
1.4 km SW
Irrigation
36
1,317
6627-8914
1.25 km NW
Domestic
18
2,704
6627-9201
1.9 km W
Domestic
31
1,193
6627-9219
1.75 km W
Domestic
27
6627-9331
1.5 km NW
Domestic
24
899
6627-9415
1.7 km W
Domestic
30
1,105
6627-10182
1.5 km SW
Domestic
29
19.5
1,586
6627-10881
1.5 km NW
Domestic
12
10
1,116
6627-11016
1.8 km NW
Domestic
24
12
1,429
6627-14193
0.8 km NNW
Irrigation
4
6.2
6627-14197
0.85 km NNW
Irrigation
4
6.2
6628-19799
1.8 km NNW
Irrigation
45
17
Operational
15
Comments
Deeper
aquifer
Deeper (T1)
aquifer
1,222
1,083
Deeper (T1)
aquifer
Note: *relative to 10 Chestnut Court, Clovelly Park
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
14
2.5
Data quality objectives
The Data Quality Objective (DQO) process, as described in Australian Standard AS4482.1-2005 and the
National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure (ASC NEPM, 1999)
5
Schedule B2 Guideline on Data Collection, Sample Design and Reporting, and more fully documented in the
NSW DEC (2006) Guidelines for the NSW Site Auditor Scheme, involves a seven-step iterative approach that
was initially developed by the United States Environment Protection Agency (US EPA) to facilitate the
systematic planning and verification of contaminated sites assessment projects.
As stated in ASC NEPM (1999) Schedule B2, the first six steps of the DQO process comprise the development
of qualitative and quantitative statements that define the objectives of the site assessment program and the
quantity and quality of data needed to inform risk-based decisions. These steps enable the project team to
communicate the goals, decisions, constraints (e.g. time, budget) and uncertainties associated with the
project and detail how they are to be addressed. The seventh step comprises the development of a Sampling
and Analysis Quality Plan (SAQP) to generate the data required to adequately characterise any site
contamination issues and assess their associated potential environmental and human health risks under the
proposed land use scenario.
The DQOs defined for the Assessment Area are summarised in Table 2.3.
Table 2.3
5
Data Quality Objectives
Objective
Comment
Step 1 – Statement of the Problem
The problem is that historical potentially contaminating activities (PCAs), and
other activities of significance for possible site contamination, have
historically been undertaken on portions of the Assessment Area and/or
adjacent to the Assessment Area. Where identified, these PCAs are described
in the historical assessment reports reviewed by Fyfe and summarised in
Appendix A. Based on the review of the reports, the potential exists for soil,
groundwater and soil vapour contamination to have occurred within the
Assessment Area as a result of both on-site and off-site sources.
Step 2 – The Decision that Needs
to Result from the Investigation
The assessment works commissioned by the EPA were necessitated to
determine the contamination status of site soils and groundwater and to
understand the risk to public health from potential soil vapour generation. In
doing this, Fyfe have undertaken soil vapour modelling and vapour intrusion
risk assessment works aimed at evaluating whether concentrations of
identified soil, groundwater or vapour contaminants (if any) pose an
unacceptable risk to human health.
Step 3 – Inputs to the Decision
The information that was required to resolve the decision statement includes
the collection of physical and chemical data from across the Assessment Area.
The collected data, as well as physical observations regarding the geology of
the area and possible preferential contaminant pathways, was used to
determine potential risks to human health via groundwater fate and
transport and vapour intrusion modelling.
All references to the ASC NEPM (1999) refer to the version amended on 16 May 2013.
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
15
Objective
Comment
Step 4 – Boundaries of the
Investigation
The lateral boundaries of the Assessment Area are as defined in Section 1.3
and depicted on Figure 1. Vertically, the investigations extended as far as the
maximum drilled depth (20 m BGL).
Step 5 – Decision Rules
The decision rule will be based upon the identification of predicted indoor air
concentrations of TCE, associated with groundwater and soil vapour impacts,
which exceed adopted response levels.
Step 6 – Decision Error Tolerances
The purpose of establishing decision error tolerance is to control the
acceptable degree of uncertainty upon which decisions are made, in order to
avoid the making of an incorrect decision and to enable identification of
additional investigation, monitoring or remediation activities required, on the
basis of accurate data, for protection of human health.
The Measuring Quality Objectives (MQO) include the quality assurance (QA)
activities that were conducted during the assessment, and the quality control
(QC) acceptance criteria adopted for data quality indicators (DQIs) applicable
to the assessment.
Step 7 – Optimisation of the
Sample Collection Design
Data collection was undertaken in general accordance with the
methodologies outlined in the ASC NEPM (1999) as well as AS4482.1-2005,
AS4482.2-1999, AS/NZS 5667.1:1998, AS/NZS 5667.11:1998, SA EPA (2007)
and CRC CARE (2013).
As determined by the EPA, the data collection design included systematic and
targeted sampling patterns to investigate, and delineate, areas of potential
contamination impacts identified on the basis of historical investigation
results.
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
16
3.
SCOPE OF WORK
The scope of work undertaken by Fyfe was generally consistent with that requested within the original EPA
request for tender (RFT), dated 22 July 2014. Some modifications to the original workscope occurred based
on site findings and additional site information was collected, where required, in order to achieve project
objectives.
3.1
Preliminary work
Preliminary work involved the following:

review and summation of all available historical reports (as supplied by the EPA) pertaining to the
Monroe and former MMAL properties as well as the adjoining residential area of Clovelly Park (Eastern
RA and Precautionary RA) – refer to Section 2.3 and Appendix A

development of a preliminary CSM based on a review of the historical data

preparation of a detailed health and safety plan covering all aspects and stages of the work

detailed planning with all key stakeholders prior to the execution of the field investigation program.
3.2
Field investigation and laboratory analysis program
The scope of the field investigation program undertaken by Fyfe between 29 August and 12 November 2014
is summarised in Table 3.1. The scope of the laboratory testing program is summarised in Table 3.2.
Plans showing the soil bore, groundwater monitoring well, soil vapour bore and passive air sampling locations
are included as Figure 2A, 2B, 3 and 5A to 5D.
Table 3.1
Scope of field investigation program
Scope Item
Description of works
Date of works
Monitoring well
drilling and
installation
Individual groundwater well permits, as obtained from DEWNR, were
provided to Fyfe by the EPA prior to well installation.
Groundwater monitoring wells were installed to depths of between 9 and
20 m BGL at 34 locations across the Assessment Area.
Of the 34 locations, eight were sited across the Clovelly Park area, within
roadways, council verges, reserves and the Eastern RA.
The remaining 26 wells were located across the Mitchell Park area, within
roadways, council verges and reserve areas.
29 August to
1 October 2014
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
17
Date of works
Scope Item
Soil vapour bore
drilling and
installation
Clovelly Park
29 August to
16 October 2014
Clustered soil vapour bores were installed at 15 systematic locations to
nominal depths of 2, 4, 8 and 10 m BGL. Of the 15 locations, four were
situated within the former MMAL property and three were on the Monroe
property. Some locations (SV_EPA 21 to 23 and SV_EPA 72) did not contain
all of the designated sample points due to groundwater occurrence at the
nominated depth.
In addition to the clustered locations:
 individual shallow soil vapour bores were installed to 2 m BGL at 17
systematic locations, within council verges and nature strips and on the
former MMAL property
 21 soil vapour bores were installed to a depth of approximately 2 m BGL
on an approximate 40 m wide spacing along the length of the SA Water
sewer and stormwater mains on Chestnut Court, Ash Avenue and a
portion of Mimosa Terrace in Clovelly Park – this was aimed at assessing
backfill material surrounding the underground service as a potential
vapour migration pathway*
 six nested soil vapour bores (12 vapour probes in total) were installed to
depths of 1 and 2 m BGL within six residential properties (i.e. 4, 9, 15 and
16 Chestnut Court as well as 4 and 6 Ash Avenue) – this was aimed at
assessing vapour migration within the sub-surface beneath the concrete
slabs of the residences; and
 one nested soil vapour bore (three vapour probes in total) was installed
to depths of 0.5, 2 and 4 m within the Eastern RA.
Mitchell Park
Clustered soil vapour bores were installed at 14 locations to nominal depths
of 2, 4 and 8 m BGL within suburban streets, council verges, reserves and the
Tonsley rail corridor.
In addition to the clustered locations:
 individual shallow soil vapour bores were installed to 2 m BGL at 26
systematic locations, within suburban streets, council verges and reserve
areas
 two clustered vapour bores (six vapour probes in total) were installed to
depths of 2, 4 and 8 m BGL within council verges on the western and
northern sides of the Mitchell Park Kindergarten (and community centre),
located on the corner of Lanark Ave and Cumbria Court; and
 one clustered vapour bore (three vapour probes in total) was installed to
depths of 2, 4 and 8 m BGL within the Tonsley rail corridor, adjacent to
the residential property on 11 Woodland Road (i.e. due to the proximity
of the south-western corner of the former MMAL property)
Whereas the clustered soil vapour bores comprised a line of individual drill
holes spaced at approximate 2 m intervals, the six nested bores within the
Clovelly Park residential properties comprised multiple vapour probes within
a single drill hole.
Soil bore drilling and
sampling
A total of 25 soil bores were drilled to a nominal depth of 6 m BGL within the 30 August to
Clovelly Park area. These soil bores were located in the vicinity of the Eastern 15 September
RA and the southern part of MMAL Section 14.
2014
Soil samples were collected at regular intervals throughout the soil profile
and at intervals where changes in lithology were noted.
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
18
Scope Item
Date of works
Groundwater
well development
All 34 newly installed groundwater monitoring wells were developed
following the completion of the well installation program.
6 to 13 October
2014
Groundwater
gauging
All 34 newly installed monitoring wells, as well as 39 existing wells, were
12 to 13 October
gauged to assess total well depth, SWL and the presence/absence of non
2014
aqueous phase liquid (NAPL). This was undertaken as a discrete event prior to
the commencement of groundwater sampling.
Groundwater
sampling
Groundwater sampling involved a total of 66 wells, including:



30 of the newly installed wells
35 existing wells within the former MMAL, Monroe and Eastern RA
properties; and
one disused well located on a private property within the Mitchell Park
area.
14 October to 12
November 2014
Soil vapour
sampling
Sampling of all soil vapour bores was undertaken by SGS Leeder Consulting
(SGS Leeder) using TO-17 sample collection methods. In total, vapour
samples were able to be extracted from 135 locations.
Additional samples were collected using TO-15 methods for comparison
purposes and Tedlar bag samples were collected for general gas assessment.
Air sampling
Passive indoor and outdoor (ambient) air sampling was undertaken within the 21 to 28 October
Clovelly Park and Mitchell Park areas using Radiello samplers deployed over a 2014
seven day period. Selected locations, as detailed in Appendix E, included:
Indoor Air Sampling (selected bedrooms)
 4 Ash Avenue
 6 Ash Avenue
 4 Chestnut Court
Outdoor Air Sampling (backyards of houses/temporary fenced locations in
reserves)






12 to 29 October
2014
4 Ash Avenue
4 Chestnut Court
15 Chestnut Court
16 Chestnut Court
Chestnut Court Reserve
Harken Avenue Reserve, Mitchell Park
Surveying
The locations of all monitoring well, soil bore and soil vapour bore locations
3 to 7 November
were surveyed relative to Geocentric Datum of Australia (GDA) by a Fyfe
2014
licensed surveyor. The elevations of the monitoring wells were also surveyed,
relative to Australian Height Datum (AHD). Survey data are included in
Appendix F.
Aquifer testing
Hydrogeological (aquifer) testing was attempted on 20 wells but, due to a
combination of poor recovery, insufficient water and/or too rapid recharge,
only 11 rising head (slug) tests could be successfully completed. Data was
subsequently evaluated by Fyfe to estimate the hydraulic conductivity of the
aquifer beneath the Clovelly Park and Mitchell Park areas and provided to
BlueSphere Environmental (BlueSphere) for use in the groundwater fate and
transport modelling (refer to Section 7).
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
6 to 7 November
2014
PAGE
19
Scope Item
Date of works
Additional
geotechnical testing
Additional drilling works were undertaken at four locations for the specific
purpose of collecting soil geotechnical information. Drill sites included two
locations in Clovelly Park and two locations in the Mitchell Park areas to a
maximum depth of 8 m BGL.
11 and
12 November
2014
Note: *Although it was proposed to install 22 soil vapour bores, one location (SVS_EPA11) met with refusal and could not be installed
Table 3.2
Scope of laboratory testing program
Scope Item
Soil testing
Soil samples were collected from groundwater monitoring wells, soil bores and deeper soil
vapour bore locations in Clovelly Park as well as selected individual shallow soil vapour bore
locations across the Assessment Area.
Of the soil samples collected, 314 primary soil samples were analysed for COPC, including:
 72 samples from soil bores within the Clovelly Park area (three samples per bore)
 125 samples from groundwater monitoring wells within both the Clovelly Park and Mitchell
Park areas (approximately four samples per bore); and
 117 samples from soil vapour bores (targeted and systematic).
Geotechnical
testing
A total of 31 soil core samples from both the Clovelly Park and Mitchell Park areas were
analysed for:
 atterberg limits (liquid limit, plastic limit, plasticity index, linear shrinkage)
 moisture content; and
 particle size distribution (PSD).
Groundwater testing Groundwater samples from 66 existing and newly installed monitoring well were analysed for:




COPC
TDS
major cations and anions (calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, chloride and alkalinity);
and
natural attenuation parameters (nitrate, sulfate, ferrous iron, methane).
Soil vapour testing
All 135 soil vapour samples (TO-17 and TO-15) were analysed for COPC.
Tedlar bag and TO-15 samples were analysed for general gases (helium, hydrogen, oxygen,
nitrogen, methane, carbon dioxide, ethane, argon, carbon monoxide and ethylene).
Air testing (Radiello)
All 12 Radiello samples were tested for COPC (except VC, although this was originally requested
by Fyfe).
Note: COPC included TCE, PCE, 1,2-DCE (cis- and trans-), VC and chloroform.
3.3
Data interpretation
Following the receipt and collation of the field and laboratory data, hydrogeological (fate and transport) and
vapour intrusion risk assessment (VIRA) modelling (refer to Sections 7 and 8, respectively) was undertaken to
enable an assessment of risk and to refine the CSM (Section 9).
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
20
4.
METHODOLOGY
4.1
Occupational health and safety
4.1.1
Site walk over and service location
Prior to the commencement of intrusive investigation works, both Fyfe and EPA personnel walked over the
Assessment Area to consider and discuss the practicability and accessibility of each proposed sampling
location, as originally designated in the EPA RFT. SA Health attended the site walk over and observed some of
the proposed sampling locations in the Clovelly Park and Mitchell Park areas.
Once agreed, each proposed drilling location was cleared of underground services by a professional service
location company (APMS) using conventional (electronic) service detection methods as well as Ground
Penetrating Radar (GPR – considered to be a suitable method for determining service locations in sensitive
settings such as residential road verges). A Fyfe representative was present during the service location
process.
Where underground or overhead services were present and/or deemed to be a potential safety risk during
drilling activities, the location of the hole(s) was moved to an area considered by the Fyfe representative and
service locator to be safe. All changes to drilling locations were recorded on a site plan for future reference.
Any subsequent work undertaken by Fyfe (i.e. additional to the requirements of the EPA RFT) was subjected
to similar controls (where relevant).
4.1.2
Traffic management
Given that works were largely undertaken within suburban streets, Fyfe employed the services of a qualified
traffic management company (Workzone) in order to ensure safety for pedestrians and road users, minimal
disruption to traffic flow and the provision of a safe working environment.
4.2
Intrusive investigation works
4.2.1
Non-destructive digging (NDD)
Following the identification and marking of all underground services, each drilling location was hand augered
to a depth of 1 m BGL as an additional measure to ensure the safety of staff and underground assets. In
discussions with the EPA it was considered that hand clearance was the most suitable approach given
standard NDD vacuum truck methods could reduce the integrity of the soil screening/vapour assessment and
the upper metre of the soil profile was deemed important to log based on the potential presence of fill
materials and to investigate potential shallow source areas.
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
21
All spoil that resulted from hand augering was placed within core trays for logging, field screening, sampling
and photography.
4.2.2
Mechanical drilling
As proposed, Fyfe utilised the following drilling methodologies for various phases of work. All mechanical
drilling was supervised by senior Fyfe personnel at all times.
4.2.2.1
Sonic Drilling
At the specific request of EPA, sonic drilling methods were utilised for the drilling of all 34 groundwater
monitoring wells, the 25 soil bores and the 10 m deep soil vapour bores within the Clovelly Park Area. The
sonic drilling services were provided by Numac Australia Pty Ltd (Numac).
General Methodology
Sonic drilling is a technique that relies on audio frequencies (50-120 Hz) to allow penetration of the stratum
and is noted as being one of the most advanced drilling methods currently available. It is essentially a soil
penetration technique that applies the principles of Bingham’s findings on the fluidisation of porous materials
in combination with the laws of inertia (Hutter, 1997). As the drill string and head vibrate, a thin layer of
surrounding soil is liquefied along the rods to penetrate with minimal push. In the Clovelly Park area it was
noted that there was some compaction and also stretching of returned drill core in certain locations. The
compaction was likely due to the vibrations resulting in the loss of structure of the clays changing it to a
higher density material with a lower porosity. Stretching of the core was evident where rotation, in addition
to vibration, was required to penetrate harder clay/calcrete units. As rotation was required, water was added
to cool the drill bit. This water was pumped under pressure and the majority was retained by the formation,
entering the pore space of the clay during the loss of structure and having a swelling effect.
Core samples were extruded into clear plastic sleeves, minimising the loss of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) and reducing the potential for operator exposure to in-ground contaminants. Cores recovered from
the sonic rig were placed in labelled core trays for detailed logging, sampling and photographing.
4.2.2.2
Push tube drilling
Push tube drilling methodologies were utilised for the drilling and installation of the 2, 4 and 8 m deep soil
vapour bore locations within both the Clovelly Park and Mitchell Park areas. Drilling contractors used for the
push tubing works were Aussie Probe (2, 4 and 8 m holes), A&S Drilling (8 m holes) and Drilling Solutions (2, 4
and 8 m holes).
General Methodology
Direct push sampling is the simplest and most common method used to collect undisturbed soil profiles from
the surface down to the depth of interest. The collected profiles can readily provide visual evidence of soil
contamination as well as a record of lithology versus depth.
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
22
Direct push sampling utilises a percussive top drive hammer to drive a dual tube sampling system into
unconsolidated formations. The core is undisturbed and either collected in a clear 1.2 m long liner (A&S
Drilling and Drilling Solutions) or discharged directly into a core tray (Aussie Probe) for direct qualitative
observation, field screening and sampling.
The push tube method was implemented by Fyfe for the soil vapour work, over the alternative solid auger
method, for its speed, retention of sample integrity, reduced cost of managing and removing drilling spoil,
and its easy and accurate bore lithology profiling.
4.2.3
General field methodologies
General field methodologies employed by Fyfe during the installation/construction of the groundwater wells
and soil vapour bores, as well as sampling of various media, are detailed in Table 4.1. Relevant field sampling
sheets are included in Appendix F and borehole log reports are presented in Appendix G.
Table 4.1
Summary of field methodologies
Activity
Details
Groundwater well
installation
Each borehole, after completion of drilling using Sonic methods, was fitted with 50 mm
class 18 uPVC casing with a basal section of slotted well screen, the extent of the latter
dependent on conditions encountered during drilling. A filter pack, comprising clean graded
sands of suitable size to provide sufficient inflow of groundwater, was installed within the
annular space between the borehole and the well casing and extended from the base of the
screened interval to approximately 0.5 m above the termination of the slotted casing. A
minimum 0.5 m long bentonite collar, comprising pelleted or granulated bentonite, was
placed above the filter pack to prevent water seepage downward along the well casing or
borehole from ground surface. Each well was grouted up to surface level and fitted with a
ground flush-mounted (lockable) steel gatic cover. Care was taken to ensure that the gatic
was installed flush mounted to prevent tripping and lawn mowing hazards.
Sonic drilling utilises a positive method of constructing monitoring wells by building the well
inside the drill riser pipe. The casing, screen, bentonite seal and grout were inserted in the
riser pipe and the pipe was then vibrated out of the ground. The vibrations additionally
helped to centre the well screen and casing as well as eliminate potential bridging by the
bentonite.
Soil vapour bore
installation
Clustered soil vapour bores
Within each soil vapour bore, teflon tubing attached to a soil vapour probe was inserted to
the base of the hole, which had been prefilled with approximately 0.05 to 0.1 m of clean
filter pack sand. An additional 0.4 to 0.45 m of sand (i.e. approximately 0.5 m in total) was
then added to the hole and topped by a bentonite plug seal of approximately 0.5 m
thickness. A bentonite slurry and a grout/cement mix was added to surface. The soil vapour
bore was completed with a standard flush-mounted gatic cover.
Nested soil vapour bores (within single drill hole) beneath residences
After concrete coring through the hardstand slab, each borehole was hand augered to 2 m
depth and the first (deepest) probe installed at approximately 2 m BGL. The hole was then
completed to 1 m depth (as above) and the second (shallower) probe was installed at this
depth. The borehole was then completed to surface (as described above).
Nested soil vapour bore (within single drill hole) on Eastern RA
At one location (SV_EPA3) on the Eastern RA, a nested soil vapour bore was installed that
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
23
Activity
Details
included three vapour probes within a single drill hole. This location targeted the slab of the
former Unity Housing flats/laboratory building and included vapour probes placed at depths
of approximately 0.6, 2 and 4 m BGL. The soil vapour bore was then completed to surface
(as described above).
Soil logging
On completion of the drilling ‘run’, the drill core was discharged from the plastic sleeving or
push tube into a clean core tray. The core was firstly measured and inspected for any
obvious shrinkage (core loss) or stretching (core gain). Particular attention was paid to the
physical description of the core as the physical nature of the soils was deemed paramount
in understanding the movements of contaminants in the subsurface. As such, logging was
undertaken in accordance with the ASC NEPM (1999), which endorses AS1726-1993.
In addition to the requirements of AS17726-1993, particular attention was paid during
logging to any lithological variations such as sand/gravel lenses or secondary porosity (such
as clay fracturing) which may act as potential preferential pathways for contaminant
vapour/groundwater migration through the sub-surface. Any identified olfactory or visual
evidence of contamination was clearly identified on the borehole log sheet, along with the
presence of any fill material and/or any other evidence of contamination. Additional
significant features observed (clay fracturing) were also noted on the log sheet and were
sketched and photographed.
Core photography
Following completion of drilling at each location, each core box was photographed under
natural light conditions, prior to the collection of samples. Care was taken to ensure that
the natural soil conditions (including in situ colour, weathering condition, void filling etc.)
were clearly evident and that any structural features were clearly exposed.
Field screening of soils
Field screening of individual soil layers was undertaken at all drilling locations and involved
the use of either a photionisation detector (PID) unit or a flame ionisation detector (FID)
unit. Units used for the work program were especially fitted with an 11.7 eV lamp which
was considered suitable for the detection of chlorinated compounds. Units were calibrated
on a daily basis against an isobutylene calibration gas of known concentration.
Field screen samples were collected with care to ensure the sample was representative of
the soil stratum from which it was collected and experienced minimal loss of volatile
compounds.
The soil material was placed immediately into a zip lock bag and sealed, ensuring the bag
was half filled (i.e. such that the volume ratio of soil to air was equal). Soil clumps within the
bag were manually broken up and the bag was left to rest for a minimum of five minutes
but no longer than 20 minutes. Prior to testing, the bag was shaken vigorously to release
any vapours within the soil. To test, the tip of the PID/FID probe was inserted into the bag
and the maximum VOC reading recorded after a nominal 10 second period or when the
reading had peaked. Results were recorded on the appropriate bore log sheets.
Sample nomenclature
Boreholes
The following nomenclature was used over the duration of the work program for soil bores,
soil vapour locations and groundwater monitoring wells:
 SB_EPA – Soil bores
 MW_EPA – Groundwater monitoring wells
 SV_EPA – Soil vapour bores (clustered, nested and single)
 SVT_EPA – Targeted soil vapour locations (houses (nested sub-slab), Clovelly Park); and
 SVS_EPA – Targeted soil vapour locations (services (stormwater and sewer), Clovelly
Park).
Clustered and nested soil vapour locations were typically labelled A to D in the Clovelly Park
area and A to C in the Mitchell Park area, where:
 A – represents a 2 m soil vapour bore
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
24
Activity
Details



B – represents a 4 m soil vapour bore
C – represents an 8 m soil vapour bore, and
D – represents a 10 m soil vapour bore.
The exceptions were:
 SVT_EPA (trench) soil vapour bores: A represents 1 m whereas B represents 2 m BGL;
and
 SV_EPA3A to C: A represents 0.6 m, B represents 2 m and C represents 4 m BGL.
Details of bore installation are provided on the bore log sheets in Appendix G.
Samples
Environmental samples were labelled in a manner consistent with both Fyfe and EPA
databases. Each soil/groundwater/vapour sample was given a unique sample number
based on the borehole type and the location.
Soil Samples
Borehole_EPA Number/Sample Range, for example:
 SB_EPA1/0.5-0.6 for sample from soil bore 1, taken from between 0.5 m to 0.6 m BGL
 MW_EPA1/0.5-0.6 for sample from monitoring well 1, taken from between 0.5 m to
0.6 m BGL

SV_EPA1D/0.5-0.6 for sample from the deepest clustered/nested soil vapour probe
(10 m) installed at soil vapour bore location 1, taken from between 0.5 m to 0.6 m BGL;
and
 SVT_EPA1/0.5-0.6 for sample from a targeted soil vapour bore location 1, taken from
between 0.5 m to 0.6 m BGL.
Inter- and intra-laboratory duplicate samples were given extraneous identifiers so as to
disguise to the laboratory that they were duplicate samples. Duplicate sample numbers
were recorded on the bore log sheet.
Groundwater Samples
Groundwater samples were listed by their monitoring well ID.
Inter- and intra-laboratory duplicate samples were given extraneous numbers prefixed by
‘QC’. The duplicate sample numbers were recorded on the groundwater field sampling
sheets.
Vapour Samples
Vapour samples were labelled by the borehole ID, with the sample depth reflected in the
associated letter (A to D), for example:
 SV_EPA20D is a soil vapour sample collected from the 10 m soil vapour bore SV_EPA20.
Duplicate samples were clearly nominated as such, for example – if the above soil vapour
sample was SV_EPA20, the duplicate soil vapour sample was labelled as SV_EPA20 dup.
Radiello
Radiello samples were supplied with unique identifiers by the manufacturer and were
maintained during the sampling process.
Blanks
Trip blanks were labelled with the precursor ‘TB’, whereas equipment rinsate blanks were
labelled ‘RB’.
Soil bore sampling
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
Soil sampling was undertaken in general accordance with AS4482.1-2005 and AS4482.21999.
Sampling of soil core and hand auger cuttings was undertaken directly from a clean
(decontaminated) or new soil core tray.
PAGE
25
Activity
Details
Soil samples were typically recovered from the following (approximate) intervals:
 Groundwater monitoring wells: 1.0 m intervals
 Soil bores: varied intervals, and
 Soil vapour wells: varied intervals.
Based on the above, soil samples from soil bores and selected soil vapour locations (i.e.
deeper sonic drilled locations and shallow holes not adjacent to monitoring wells) were
generally collected at the following nominal depth intervals:
 surface to 0.15 m BGL
 0.45 to 0.6 m BGL
 0.85 to 1.0 m BGL; and
 1.0 m intervals thereafter.
Sampling intervals were adjusted accordingly to ensure that discrete soil/fill types, and/or
layers showing evidence of contamination (i.e. odour, staining and/or elevated PID/FID
readings) were sampled.
Given the absence of detectable volatile concentrations in the field screening (PID) results,
soil samples selected for analysis were typically chosen on a random basis to ensure
coverage across the entire strata. However, where potential preferential pathways were
encountered (e.g. calcrete and gravel lenses, sand lenses and fractures) samples from these
areas were often included for analysis in preference to other samples.
Hand equipment and recycled core boxes used to recover the core soil samples were
cleaned prior to each location, in accordance with the following procedures:
 adhered soil and/or other matter were removed by scrubbing and flushing with clean
water; and
 sampling equipment was scrubbed in phosphate free detergent solution before being
rinsed in clean water.
Disposable nitrile gloves worn by field personnel were changed between the collection of
each soil sample.
Environmental soil samples were collected in laboratory supplied screw top jars with
minimal (if any) headspace allowed. The jars were tightly closed and kept on ice in a
portable cooler until delivery to the laboratory under Fyfe chain of custody procedures.
Collection of geotechnical Geotechnical samples of core and soil cuttings were collected using hand auger, sonic rig,
soil samples
and push tube sampling methodologies. Core samples collected via sonic and push tube
techniques (i.e. undisturbed samples) were collected as follows:

An appropriate representative core length (greater than 40 cm) of the strata to be
tested was selected from the core tray as soon as possible after removal from the core
barrel and wrapped in plastic cling wrap to retain moisture content. The sample was
then placed within a plastic poly weave bag and labelled with the sample number and
corresponding depth.
Samples of cuttings from the hand auger (disturbed samples) were collected as follows:
 The strata to be tested were segregated within the core tray immediately following
discharge from the auger. Care was taken to ensure lithological boundaries were not
crossed during sampling. An appropriate soil volume (generally 1 kg) was placed within
a green plastic or plastic poly weave bag and clearly labelled with the sample number
and corresponding depth.
Each sample was placed within a chilled insulated box (esky) and transported to the
geotechnical laboratory for the required testing.
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
26
Activity
Details
Groundwater well
development
Groundwater wells were developed using a steel bailer. The bailer was repeatedly lowered
into the screened portion of the well and then rapidly pulled upwards. This rapid movement
draws water in through the screened portion of the well with the purpose being that the
higher velocities entrain silt particles that may be trapped in the sand pack or screen and
draw them into the well.
Groundwater gauging
Groundwater levels in the newly installed and existing monitoring wells within the Clovelly
Park and Mitchell Park areas were gauged over a two day period using an interface probe
prior to the commencement of the groundwater sampling program. All monitoring wells
were gauged for SWL and the presence of NAPL. In addition to SWL, the total well depth
was also gauged and labelled on the gauging sheet as the ‘end of hole’ (EoH) measurement.
If a monitoring well was deemed not serviceable, dry, inaccessible or unable to be located,
this information was also noted.
Groundwater sampling
Groundwater sampling within both the Clovelly Park and Mitchell Park areas was
undertaken in general accordance with AS/NZS 5667.1:1998, AS/NZS 5667.11:1998 and SA
EPA (2007) using a combination of:
 conventional low flow sampling in areas which were deemed appropriate (i.e. higher
recharge rates)
 manual bailing; and
 collection of grab samples using low flow techniques.
Bailing and grab sampling were only undertaken in areas of lower flow rate where
conventional low flow technologies were not viable.
Regardless of the sampling methodology, the sampling equipment used to recover the
groundwater samples was cleaned or replaced prior to each sample being taken in
accordance with the following procedures:

the stainless steel micropurge pump casing used for low flow sampling was scrubbed in
phosphate free detergent solution before being deionised in clean water; and
 disposable sample tubing, air tubing, pump bladders and bailers were replaced prior to
the purging and sampling of each well.
Disposable nitrile gloves worn by field personnel were changed prior to the collection of
each sample.
Groundwater samples were collected in laboratory-supplied screw top bottles, containing
appropriate preservative (if required) with no headspace allowed. The bottles were tightly
closed and kept on ice in a portable cooler until delivery to the laboratory under Fyfe chain
of custody procedures.
Conventional Low Flow Methodology
Conventional low flow sampling techniques, using micropurge equipment, were adopted
predominantly in the western portion of the Mitchell Park area where higher flow rates
were encountered.
Low flow sampling comprises sampling the monitoring well from within the depth of the
well screen at a flow rate that is below the recharge capacity of the formation. The specific
rate of pumping typically does not exceed 1 L/min. By purging at low flow rates, only
groundwater that enters through the well screen is purged from the well. Because
“stagnant” water located above and below the pump intake in the bore casing is not drawn
into the pump, the entire casing volume is not required to be purged prior to sampling.
The flow rate used on site was dependent on the hydraulic performance of each well and
the desire to minimise the mobilisation of suspended colloidal material (turbidity). The flow
rate for low flow sampling in any given well was based on the ability to establish a low rate
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
27
Activity
Details
at an acceptable level of drawdown (i.e. up to 0.1 m), which was monitored constantly
using an electronic water level meter.
During purging, indicator parameters such as pH, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, and
oxidation-reduction potential (ORP, or “redox”) were monitored and recorded for every
(approximate) litre of purged water, using a 90FLMVI water quality meter and a flow cell.
The indicator parameters were used to identify relative changes in water chemistry.
An initial change in the water chemistry measurements typically indicates that water is
being drawn from a different source (“active” versus “stagnant” water), and stabilisation of
these parameters indicates that the water is coming from a steady-state source, namely the
formation immediately surrounding the monitoring well screen near the pump intake. Once
the indicator parameters were observed to have stabilised over three consecutive readings,
samples were collected by disconnecting the sample tube from the flow cell and filling the
sample bottles.
Grab Sample Collection Using Low Flow Methodology
This method utilised the basic principles of low flow sampling (as described above) but with
the following exemptions:
 The purge rate was started at the lowest setting and drawdown was observed,
recording the field parameters as per usual.
 If drawdown exceeded the 0.1 m mark, purging continued, recording the parameters as
per above until stabilisation was reached. A sample was then collected using the
methodology described for conventional low flow sampling.

The field sampling sheet was clearly annotated that the well was grab sampled. This
methodology, as opposed to manual purge methods using disposable bailers, was
preferred as it resulted in generally less (or equal) disturbance of the water column.
Bailing Method
Bailing methods were utilised in some areas of Clovelly Park and Mitchell Park and were
generally only suitable/practical when a reasonably small volume of water was to be
removed from the monitoring well. Wells were typically purged dry and allowed to recharge
over night prior to sampling.
Care was taken during the purging to ensure minimal agitation of the water column whilst
lowering and raising the bailer. During purging, water quality parameters were recorded at
set intervals which were dependant on the volume of water required for removal and/or
the recharge rate.
During sampling of the recharged monitoring well, additional care was taken to minimise
the amount that the sample was agitated when it was removed from the well. In order to
achieve this, the bailer was lowered into the well carefully so that it did not splash when
contacting the water. When the bailer was fully lowered to the depth where the sample
was to be collected, it was removed from the monitoring well with a constant steady
motion.
Once the bailer had been removed from the monitoring well, the sample was decanted into
the sample vessel by inserting a device into the bottom of the bailer. This device gently lifts
the check valve from the bailer’s valve seat, allowing a stream of water to flow out of the
bottom of the bailer through the device, thereby minimising exposure to the atmosphere.
Hydraulic testing
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
Slug tests were undertaken to estimate the hydraulic conductivity (K) of the aquifer within
various portions of the Assessment Area. The tests involved removing a slug of water from
each well, following which recovery of the groundwater level was recorded using an
electronic water level instrument set to record water levels at approximate pre-planned
intervals (as required for computer analysis).
PAGE
28
Activity
Details
Soil vapour sampling
Soil vapour sampling was undertaken in general accordance with CRC CARE (2013) and
ASTM (2001, 2006) guidance.
All soil vapour sampling works were undertaken by SGS Leeder who have extensive
experience in soil vapour monitoring events similar to the works completed at Clovelly Park
and Mitchell Park. Suitably trained and experienced personnel were utilised to undertake all
soil vapour sampling. SGS holds National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA)
accreditation for all soil vapour sampling and laboratory analytical works.
Following collection, soil vapour samples were kept on ice in a portable cooler until delivery
to the laboratory under SGS Leeder chain of custody procedures.
TO-17 Methodology
The sampling methodology is outlined in the ASTM Guide D5314-92 (2006).
Teflon tubing, attached to the soil gas probe within the bore, was connected directly to the
sampling equipment. The soil gas samples for VOC analysis were collected onto Solid
Sorbent Air Toxics Thermal Desorption Sampling Tubes using an SKC constant flow airsampling pump. A back-up sample was also collected onto a carbon sorbent tube. Samples
for general gas analysis were collected into Tedlar bags. Where flow was restricted due to
geological conditions Tedlar bags were used to decant samples directly to reduce ‘stripping’
of sample tubes.
Samples were collected from the sample point directly into the sorbent sampling tubes. It
should be noted that the sample did not pass though the pump, rotameter or plastic tubing
which all have the potential to contaminate the samples. A lung sampler was used to collect
Tedlar bag samples for general gas analysis.
Tracers were employed to ensure ambient drawdown did not occur when sampling shallow
soil vapour locations. A shroud was set up around the sampling point and tracer chemicals
were introduced at high concentrations by flooding the shroud with helium and placing a
cloth soaked in isopropyl alcohol (IPA) into the shroud. The Tedlar bag samples were
analysed for helium (as part of the general gas suite) whereas thermal desorption tube
analysis included IPA.
The sampling flow rates of the pump were set at the commencement of sampling and
monitored during sampling to ensure flow was maintained and that the formation was
capable of sustaining the removal of the sample from the boreholes. A vacuum gauge was
also included in the sampling train and was monitored during sampling to ensure vacuum
did not exceed five inches of mercury (as outlined in ITRC (2007)). The sampling period was
accurately recorded to enable the calculation of the sample volume collected on each of the
sorbent sampling tubes.
Rotameters used to measure the flow rates were calibrated on-site each day using a
primary standard. Vacuum gauges were checked during the shut-in test at each sample
location.
The thermal desorption sampling tubes were individually desorbed and analysed prior to
sampling to confirm the tubes were not contaminated and were capable of achieving the
desired detection limits for the compounds of interest, in accordance with US EPA TO-17.
A trip blank was included with the thermal desorption sampling tubes prepared and sent to
site, and returned with the samples for analysis (i.e. to ensure the samples were not
contaminated during transport).
TO-15 Methodology
For comparison purposes (i.e. with previous sampling results), eight soil vapour points (four
each within Clovelly Park and Mitchell Park) were also sampled using the TO-15
methodology.
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
29
Activity
Details
The EPA TO-15 method utilises a passivated 1 L stainless steel canister (Summa), connected
to a sample train, to collect a vapour sample.
Air sampling
Passive diffusive air sampling can yield qualitative and/or quantitative information for many
individual compounds and chemical classes (e.g. VOCs). Sampling with passive diffusive
devices, such as Radiello, yields several benefits — no sampling pump is required, it is
discreet and it can achieve low reporting limits.
Passive air samplers such as Radiellos are typically used when assessing long-term (i.e. more
than 24 hours) indoor/ambient air quality. Based on this, the Radiellos were placed in
nominated locations inside and outside selected residential properties and reserve areas
(refer to Table 3.1). During deployment and across the duration of the sampling period, the
weather conditions were monitored using a portable weather station supplied by the EPA.
After seven days, the passive samplers were removed from their locations and submitted
for laboratory TO-17 analysis.
Waste water disposal
Waste water was stored within plastic bulk water containers in a designated off-site
location prior to removal/disposal by a licensed waste removal company. The off-site
location was arranged by the EPA and was located at the Department for Planning,
Transport and Infrastructure (DPTI) works depot on Sturt Road.
Waste soil disposal
All surplus soil cores and cuttings were stored off-site within an industrial waste disposal bin
(as supplied by Southern Waste ResourceCo and located within the DPTI works depot on
Sturt Road), prior to disposal. Analytical results pertaining to the soils have been forwarded
to the licensed receiving facility and all of the soil has been classified as ‘Waste Fill’, in
accordance with the Environment Protection Regulations 2009.
Note: The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) is an internationally recognised source of testing methods.
4.3
Laboratory analysis
The following laboratories were used for the analysis of the environmental samples:

all primary soil and groundwater samples were forwarded to Australian Laboratory Services (ALS), whilst
secondary samples were forwarded to Envirolab Group (Envirolab)

soil vapour samples collected by SGS Leeder, including samples for TO-15, TO-17 and general gas
analysis, were analysed at their laboratory whereas secondary vapour samples were forwarded to
Eurofin Air Toxics (in the United States) for TO-17 analysis

geotechnical soil samples were analysed by Coffey Geotechnics

Radiello samples were analysed at the SGS Leeder laboratory.
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
30
5.
QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL
Data quality is typically discussed in terms of accuracy, precision and representativeness. In order to assess
the quality of the data collected during the Fyfe investigation program, specific QA/QC procedures were
implemented during both the field sampling and laboratory analysis programs, as detailed in the following
sections.
5.1
Field QA/QC
Field QA procedures generally include the collection of the following QC samples, aimed at assessing possible
errors associated with cross contamination as well as inconsistencies in sampling and/or laboratory analytical
techniques:

intra-laboratory duplicate (duplicate) samples: submitted to the same (primary laboratory) to assess
variation in analyte concentrations between samples collected from the same sampling point and/or the
repeatability (precision) of the analytical procedures

inter-laboratory duplicate (split or triplicate) samples: submitted to a second laboratory to check on the
analytical proficiency (accuracy) of the results produced by the primary laboratory

equipment rinsate blank samples: used to assess whether decontamination procedures have been
sufficient and/or whether cross-contamination may have occurred between samples

trip blank samples: used to assess whether cross-contamination may have occurred between samples
during transport.
Whereas analyte concentrations within both the rinsate and trip blank samples should be below the
laboratory limits of reporting (LORs), the inter- and intra-laboratory duplicate sample results are assessed via
the calculation of a relative percentage difference (RPD), as follows:
RPD =
(Concentration 1 − Concentration 2) x 100
(Concentration 1 + Concentration 2) / 2
A maximum RPD within the range of 30% to 50% is generally considered acceptable, with higher RPD values
often recorded for organic compounds and where low concentrations of an analyte are recorded.
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
31
5.1.1
Soil
Table 5.1 presents conformance to field QA/QC procedures undertaken as part of the soil investigations.
Table 5.1
Field QA/QC procedures - Soil
QA/QC Item
Detail
Field procedures
Field procedures were undertaken in accordance with ASC NEPM (1999), Australian
Standards AS4482.1-2005 and AS4482.2-1999 and Fyfe standard field operating
procedures. Details are provided in Table 4.1.
Calibration of field
equipment
Documentation regarding the calibration of field equipment is included in Appendix H.
Decontamination of
equipment
All equipment that was in contact with soil cores prior to sampling (core trays and drill
core barrels) were decontaminated between sampling locations using potable water
and Decon 90™ phosphate free detergent.
Sample tracking
Chain of Custody (COC) documentation was used for the transport of all samples to the
laboratory and is included in Appendix I.
Sample preservation and
storage
Samples were kept in laboratory supplied containers in a chilled insulated box (esky)
prior to, and during, transport to the laboratory.
Duplicate samples
In total, 22 intra-laboratory and 25 inter-laboratory duplicate samples were analysed
with respect to 314 primary soil samples, thereby constituting a ratio of approximately
one duplicate per seven primary samples (or 22%).
Inter- and intra-laboratory duplicate RPDs could not be calculated as all soil
concentrations were below the laboratory LORs.
Rinsate blank samples
An equipment rinsate blank sample was collected from the decontaminated core
barrels at the commencement of each day of sampling and analysed for the COPC to
confirm the effectiveness of the decontamination procedures.
The analytical results obtained for the rinsate blank samples were all below the
laboratory LORs, thereby indicating that the decontamination practices during the soil
sampling program were acceptable.
Trip blank samples
A trip blank sample was included within each container (esky) of sample jars provided
by the analytical laboratory and returned to the analytical laboratory. Trip blank
samples were analysed for the COPC.
The analytical results obtained for the trip blank samples were all below the laboratory
LORs, thereby indicating that there was no impact on sample quality during storage or
transport to the analytical laboratory.
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
32
5.1.2
Groundwater
Table 5.2 presents conformance to field QA/QC procedures undertaken as part of the groundwater
investigations.
Table 5.2
Field QA/QC procedures - Groundwater
QA/QC Item
Detail
Field procedures
Field procedures were undertaken in accordance with ASC NEPM (1999),
Australian/New Zealand standards AS/NZS 5667.1:1998 and AS/NZS 5667.11:1998, SA
EPA (2007) and Fyfe standard field operating procedures. Details are provided in
Table 4.1.
Calibration of field
equipment
Documentation regarding the calibration of field equipment is included in Appendix H.
Decontamination of
equipment
All disposable equipment (tubing, pump bladders, plastic bailers and bailer cord) were
replaced between wells. Re-usable equipment (micropurge pump) was
decontaminated between sampling locations using potable water and Decon 90™
phosphate free detergent.
Sample tracking
COC documentation was used for the transport of all samples to the laboratory and is
included in Appendix I.
storage
Samples were kept in laboratory supplied containers in an esky prior to, and during,
transport to the laboratory.
Duplicate samples
In total, eight intra-laboratory and five inter-laboratory duplicate samples were
analysed with respect to 66 primary groundwater samples, thereby constituting a ratio
of approximately one duplicate per five primary samples (or 19%).
Intra- and inter-laboratory duplicate sample RPDs were calculated where both data
sets had a reported concentration above the specific analyte laboratory LOR. In total,
132 data pairs had calculated RPDs, of which only 14 were able to be calculated for
COPC. All calculated RPDs for COPC were within the acceptable range. In total, eight
calculated RPDs were found to exceed the acceptable range for nitrate, ferrous iron
and alkalinity.
Rinsate blank samples
An equipment rinsate blank sample was collected from the internal surface of a
bladder (prior to use) and/or the pump housing at the commencement of each day of
sampling and analysed for the COPC to confirm the effectiveness of the
decontamination procedures.
The analytical results obtained for the rinsate blank samples were all below the
laboratory LORs, thereby indicating that the decontamination practices during the
groundwater sampling program were acceptable.
Trip blank samples
A trip blank sample was included within each container (esky) of sample bottles
provided by the analytical laboratory and returned to the analytical laboratory. Trip
blank samples were analysed for COPC.
The analytical results obtained for the trip blank samples were all below the
Laboratory LORs, thereby indicating that there was no impact on sample quality during
storage or transport of the samples to the analytical laboratory.
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
33
5.1.3
Soil vapour
Tables 5.3 presents conformance to field QA/QC procedures undertaken as part of the soil vapour
investigations.
Table 5.3
Field QA/QC procedures – Soil vapour
QA/QC Item
Detail
Field procedures
Field procedures were undertaken in accordance with ASC NEPM (1999) as well as
ASTM (2001, 2006), IRTC (2007) and CRC CARE (2013) guidance. Details (as provided by
SGS Leeder) are included in Table 4.1.
Sample tracking
Chain of Custody documentation was used for the transport of all samples to the
storage
Samples were kept in laboratory supplied containers in an esky prior to, and during,
transport to the laboratory.
Duplicate samples
In total, 40 intra-laboratory and nine inter-laboratory duplicate samples were analysed
with respect to 139 primary soil vapour samples, thereby constituting a ratio of
approximately one duplicate per two to three primary samples (or 35%).
Inter- and intra-laboratory duplicate RPDs were calculated where both data sets had a
reported concentration above the specific analyte LOR. In total, 227 data pairs had
calculated RPDs, of which eight intra-laboratory and five inter-laboratory duplicate
sample pairs were found to exceed the acceptable range (50% for field duplicates, as
advised by SGS Leeder, based on California EPA (2012)) for COPC and/or general gases.
Leeder SGS have advised that such RPD exceedances are not unusual and no concerns
have been raised regarding the overall quality of the data.
Trip blank samples
Trip blank samples were included within containers (eskies) of samples provided by the
analytical laboratory and returned to the analytical laboratory. Trip blank samples
were analysed for COPC.
The analytical results obtained for the trip blank samples are included in the certified
laboratory reports in Appendix I. The results were all below the laboratory LORs,
thereby indicating that there was no impact on sample quality during storage or
transport of the samples to the analytical laboratory.
Leak detection analysis
The analytical results obtained for the helium blank samples (Tedlar bags) and the
concentrations of IPA within the thermal desorption tube samples were all below the
laboratory LORs, thereby indicating that there were no significant leaks or ambient air
drawdown.
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
34
5.1.4
Indoor and outdoor air
Table 5.4 presents conformance to field QA/QC procedures undertaken as part of the passive indoor and
outdoor air sampling program.
Table 5.4
Field QA/QC procedures – Indoor and outdoor air sampling
QA/QC Item
Detail
Field procedures
Field procedures were undertaken in accordance with the Radiello manual produced
the supplier.
Nitrile gloves were worn during deployment and collection of the Radiellos and
particular care was taken to ensure that the adsorbing cartridge was not touched.
Samplers were located at a consistent height of approximately 1.5 m and left in place
for a period of seven days.
Care was taken to ensure that each label was completed correctly (with start and end
time and dates) and that the label accompanied the adsorbing cartridge at all times.
Sample tracking
Chain of Custody documentation was used for the transport of all samples to the
storage
Samples were kept in glass vials (when not deployed) and were transported to the
laboratory in an esky, but at ambient temperature.
Duplicate samples
Duplicate Radiello samplers were deployed at 4 Chestnut Court (indoor air) and the
Harken Avenue Reserve in Mitchell Park (outdoor air). The results indicated good
correlation between the primary and duplicate samples.
5.2
Laboratory QA/QC
Laboratory QA procedures generally include the performance of a number of internal checks of data precision
and accuracy that are aimed at assessing possible errors associated with sample preparation and analytical
techniques. Specific types of QC samples analysed by laboratories, and the relevant acceptance criteria are as
follows:

internal laboratory replicate samples: maximum RPD values of 20% to 50%

spike (matrix and surrogate ) recoveries: recoveries of between 70% and 130%, although this varies
depending on practical quantification limits (PQLs)

laboratory control blanks: results below the laboratory LORs.
6
7
6
7
A matrix spike is prepared by splitting a field sample and spiking each portion with a known quantity of a target compound to
ascertain the effects of the specific sample matrix on the recovery of the analyte.
A surrogate spike comprises a sample spiked with a pure substance that has similar chemical properties to the target analyte, but is
unlikely to be found in the environment, such that the spike compound is expected to behave, during analysis, in the same way as the
target compound.
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
35
Table 5.5 presents conformance to laboratory QA/QC procedures undertaken as part of the overall
investigation program.
Table 5.5
Laboratory QA/QC procedures
QA/QC Item
Detail
Samples analysed and
extracted within relevant
holding times
Soil, groundwater and soil vapour samples were generally analysed within specified
holding times.
The exception was VC analysis in the first two batches of soil samples (ALS reports
EM1409099 and EM1409247) whereby holding times were exceeded by up to five days
due to miscommunication with the analytical laboratory. Advice obtained from ALS
indicates that there is a potential for this holding time exceedance to result in
decreased VC concentrations. However, since no other volatile contaminants
(including parent products of VC) were detected in any of the soil samples, it is
considered unlikely that detectable concentrations were present (i.e. and underestimated).
Laboratories used and
NATA accreditation
The laboratories used (ALS, EnviroLab, SGS Leeder and Coffey Geotechnics) were NATA
accredited for the analyses undertaken.
Appropriate analytical
methodologies used*
Refer to the laboratory reports in Appendix I.
Laboratory LORs
The laboratory LOR is simply the minimum concentration of a substance in a sample
that can be reliably detected by a laboratory. The LORs are presented in the laboratory
certificates of analysis (Appendix I) and are considered to be generally appropriate**.
Laboratory internal QC
analyses
Results obtained for the laboratory internal QC samples were within the acceptable
limits of repeatability, chemical extraction and detection.
Full details regarding laboratory QA/QC procedures and results are presented in the
certified laboratory certificates contained in Appendix I.
Notes: *In accordance with Schedule B3 of ASC NEPM (1999).
**Ultra-trace analysis for VC (although not requested by the EPA) in groundwater would have resulted in a lower LOR.
5.3
QA/QC summary
In summary, it is considered that:

the field QA/QC programs were generally undertaken with regard to relevant legislation, standards
and/or guidelines and were sufficient for obtaining samples that are representative of site conditions;
and

the overall laboratory QA/QC procedures and results were adequate, such that the laboratory analytical
results obtained are of acceptable quality for addressing the key objectives outlined in Section 1.5.
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
36
6.
RESULTS
6.1
Surface and sub surface soil conditions
Soil borehole, groundwater well and soil vapour borehole log reports are included in Appendix G and provide
details of natural soil and fill types encountered at each of the sampling locations. Photographs of drill cores
obtained as a part of the intrusive investigation works are included as Appendix J.
6.1.1
Fill materials
Fill material was encountered at the surface in the majority of systematic sampling locations and comprised
predominantly gravels and sands used as sub-grade beneath existing hardstand areas and extending to
depths of less than 0.3 m BGL. At some locations, fill material consisted of re-worked clays and/or sandy silts
utilised as topsoil material. Waste inclusions (e.g. bricks, asphalt and/or ash and charcoal) were present in a
limited number of fill layers.
Fill material, consisting of cobbles, gravel, sand and clay, was also encountered from surface to depth within
targeted soil vapour bores installed within service trenches associated with the sewer and stormwater mains
in Clovelly Park.
6.1.2
Natural soils
Natural soils encountered during the drilling works were considered to be indicative of the Quaternary
(Pleistocene) Hindmarsh Clay layer which underlies the majority of the Adelaide metropolitan area. These
clays were encountered within all boreholes and were generally identified as silty clay with varying amounts
of sand and/or gravel, often containing continuous and discontinuous lenses of this material where fluvial
influences were particularly pronounced.
The clays encountered during the work program were predominantly logged as being red brown or mottled
red brown, yellow brown, brown, white and/or grey. The consistencies of the clays were typically very stiff to
hard, but they were also often observed to be softer, and occasionally friable, near the top of the unit (i.e.
upper 1 to 2 m). This is likely due to weathering and/or the presence of increased sand content within the
upper portion of the profile.
Although the Hindmarsh Clay unit is traditionally noted as being highly plastic (Selby and Lindsay, 1982), the
plasticity was found to vary between low and high in the Assessment Area and was directly proportionate to
the ratio of secondary components (i.e. silt, sand and gravel) to clay observed within the core. This was
confirmed by both the geotechnical testing results undertaken by Fyfe, as well as works undertaken by Selby
and Lindsay (1982), which suggest that the Hindmarsh Clay formation within the Assessment Area is likely to
be composed of 50 to 70% clay.
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
37
According to Stapledon (1971), the Hindmarsh Clay unit typically contains many structural features and
defects which greatly influence the vertical permeability of the clay mass, including joints, fissures and other
minor defects formed post-deposition (e.g. root/tube casts, sinkholes etc.). Given the fact that jointing is
typically only identifiable within open excavated faces, it was difficult to determine whether steeply or gently
dipping joints were intersected during the drilling works.
Sonic drill core collected from between 6 and 12 m BGL within Clovelly Park monitoring wells MW_EPA1,
MW_EPA2 and MW_EPA3, as well as soil vapour bore SV_EPA18D, were re-inspected several days after
drilling. On drying, it was observed that the core ‘broke’ into prismatic blocks of between 20 and 200 mm in
width on the intersection of visible planes. Closer observation and measurement indicated that planes were
dipping at angles of between approximately 65 and 88°, confirming the likely presence of steeply dipping
jointing and other structural defects within the Hindmarsh Clay formation.
6.2
Soil field results
During the course of the drilling works, no odours, elevated PID readings or visual indicators of chlorinated
hydrocarbon impact were detected. Although two field screen soil samples collected from shallow soil vapour
drill holes were noted to contain an organic odour, further investigation indicated that these odours were
indicative of degraded heavy end petroleum hydrocarbon, and not chlorinated hydrocarbon, impact. Similar
odours were not identified at adjacent sample locations.
6.3
Groundwater field measurements
6.3.1
Groundwater elevation and flow direction
Groundwater levels were gauged using an interface probe, prior to purging and sampling. All 34 newly
installed wells, as well as the 39 existing wells (located on the Monroe and former MMAL properties as well
as the Relocation Area), were gauged for SWL and the presence of NAPL (both light and dense). In addition to
SWL, the total well depth was also gauged and labelled on the gauging sheet as the EoH measurement.
If a well was not serviceable, dry or inaccessible, or if it was unable to be located, this information was clearly
noted on the gauging sheet. The well elevations, depths and comments regarding the serviceability of each
well are provided in Appendix F. Of the 34 wells installed by Fyfe, four wells (MW_EPA3, MW_EPA6,
MW_EPA7 and MW_EPA9) were dry at the time of gauging. Of the 39 existing wells, four wells (Monroe:
GW17 and GW25; MMAL: MWS14_05 and MM GW06) were unable to be sampled. Whereas monitoring well
GW17 was located beneath an existing large container, GW25 was found to be blocked by tree roots, MM
GW06 was unable to be located and MWS14_05 was buried beneath newly laid asphalt.
Groundwater elevation contours constructed from the gauging data and corrected water elevations (m AHD)
confirmed that the overall groundwater flow direction across the Assessment Area was west to north-
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
38
westerly and generally consistent with both historical data and regional groundwater flow. Groundwater
contours and the inferred flow direction are shown on Figure 3.
Groundwater depths for each portion of the Assessment Area are summarised in Table 6.1. The average
depth to water within the uppermost aquifer across the Assessment Area ranged from approximately 9.3 to
8
13.2 m below top of casing (BTOC) and appears to be indicative of the shallow aquifer typically present
within the Hindmarsh Clay formation.
Table 6.1
Groundwater elevation summary
Area
Well/Minimum
(m BTOC)
Well/Maximum
(m BTOC)
Average
(m BTOC)
Monroe
GW15 (9.658)
GW27 (17.758)
12.616
Former MMAL
URS04 (4.91)
URS03 (12.608)
9.315
Relocation Area
W7 (11.526)
W6 (15.896)
13.191
Clovelly Park
MW_EPA5 (10.717)
MW_EPA6 (15.936)
13.172
Mitchell Park
MW_EPA25 (5.81)
MW_EPA11 (13.0)
9.637
6.3.2
Field parameters
Field measurements were recorded during the purging and sampling of all monitoring wells. These
measurements may be used as an indication of the physical and chemical state of the groundwater and can
also be used to assist in the interpretation of in situ biodegradation. The final field parameter readings
recorded prior to sampling are included on Table 1 (Appendix K) whilst the purging and sampling records for
the October/November 2014 groundwater monitoring event are included in Appendix F.
The groundwater field parameters from each portion of the Assessment Area are summarised below:
6.3.2.1
Existing Wells - Monroe Site

Groundwater pH ranged from 4.89 to 7.74, thereby indicating acidic to slightly alkaline conditions.

Electrical conductivity (EC) measurements ranged from 2,432 to 9,420 µS/cm and were found to be
reasonably consistent across the site, thereby indicating that it is underlain by moderately saline water.
The field EC readings were generally consistent with the salinity (TDS) data obtained from the analytical
laboratory.

Redox concentrations ranged from -48 to 178 mV, thereby indicating moderately reducing to strongly
oxygenating conditions.

Measured dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations ranged from 1.2 to 6 ppm, indicating moderately to
highly oxygenated water, consistent with the observed redox readings.
8
As the monitoring wells were all installed with flush mounted gatic covers, BTOC was essentially equivalent to BGL.
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
39

o
Temperature ranged from 20.8 to 24.7 C.
6.3.2.2
Existing Wells - MMAL Site

Groundwater pH ranged from 6.02 to 7.91, thereby indicating slightly acidic to slightly alkaline
conditions.

Field EC measurements ranged from 440 to 13,140 µS/cm and, with the exception of MWS14_10, were
reasonably consistent across the site, thereby indicating that it is underlain by moderately to highly
saline water. The field EC readings were generally consistent with TDS data obtained from the analytical
laboratory.

Redox concentrations ranged from -162 to 175 mV, thereby indicating strongly reducing to strongly

Measured DO concentrations ranged from 0.3 to 7.1 ppm indicating poorly to highly oxygenated water,
consistent with redox readings.

Temperature ranged from 20.5 to 25 C.
o
6.3.2.3
Existing Wells - Relocation Area

Groundwater pH ranged from 5.84 to 6.91, thereby indicating slightly acidic to neutral conditions.

Field EC measurements ranged from 1,515 to 13,310 µS/cm and, with the exception of MWS14_13,
were reasonably consistent across the site, thereby indicating that it is underlain by highly saline water.
The EC data recorded for MWS14_11 and MWS14_13 were not consistent with corresponding
laboratory TDS readings and could be indicative of a fault with the EC probe at these locations. Other
field EC readings obtained from the Relocation Area were generally consistent with the TDS data
obtained from the analytical laboratory.

Redox concentrations ranged from -122 to 83 mV, thereby indicating strongly reducing to moderately

Measured DO concentrations ranged from 2.1 to 7.5 ppm, indicating highly oxygenated water.

Groundwater temperature generally ranged from 22.1 to 24.4 C. Although the temperature reading
o
o
obtained from well W5 was above 30 C, this reading was considered to be indicative of a temperature
probe malfunction and is therefore deemed to be erroneous.
6.3.2.4

Newly Installed Wells – Clovelly Park
Groundwater pH ranged from 5.89 to 7.78, thereby indicating slightly acidic to slightly alkaline
conditions.
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
40

Field EC measurements ranged from 7,500 to 13,490 µS/cm and were reasonably consistent across the
site, thereby indicating that it is underlain by typically highly saline groundwater. The field EC readings
were generally consistent with the TDS data obtained from the analytical laboratory.

Redox concentrations were found to range from -168 to 83 mV, indicating that groundwater within the
broader Clovelly Park area ranges from strongly reducing to moderately oxygenating.

Measured DO concentrations ranged from 0.08 to 6.6 ppm, indicating poorly oxygenated to highly
oxygenated water, consistent with redox readings.

Groundwater temperature ranged from 17.5 to 24.4 C.
o
6.3.2.5
Newly Installed Wells – Mitchell Park

Groundwater pH ranged from 6.58 to 7.65, thereby indicating slightly basic to slightly alkaline conditions
within newly installed wells within the Mitchell Park area.

Field EC measurements ranged from 2,530 to 11,770 µS/cm and were reasonably consistent across the
site, thereby indicating that groundwater beneath the broader Mitchell Park area is moderately to highly
saline. The field EC readings were generally consistent with the TDS data obtained from the analytical
laboratory.


Redox concentrations ranged from -61 to 184 mV, indicating that groundwater within the broader
Mitchell Park area ranges from moderately reducing to strongly oxygenating.
Measured DO concentrations ranged from 0.77 to 7.9 ppm, indicating that groundwater within the
broader Mitchell Park area ranges from poorly to highly oxygenated, generally consistent with redox
readings.

o
Groundwater temperature ranged from 20.5 to 25.9 C. Although several temperature readings
o
obtained from the Mitchell Park area were above 30 C, these readings are considered to be indicative of
a temperature probe malfunction and are therefore deemed to be erroneous.
6.3.3
Hydraulic conductivity
Hydraulic conductivity (K) for the uppermost aquifer within the Hindmarsh Clay formation was calculated by
Fyfe on the basis of the hydraulic (slug) testing undertaken on 20 selected wells across the Assessment Area.
The results, included in Appendix F, indicated that data for only 11 of the wells were considered relevant.
-3
Calculated K values ranged from 4.05 x 10 to 0.429 m/day.
This information was supplied to BlueSphere for use in their groundwater fate and transport model (refer to
-4
Section 7 and Appendix L), whereby a range of suitable down gradient hydraulic conductivity values (4.3 x 10
-5
to 2.9 x 10 cm/sec, equivalent to 0.03 to 0.37 m/day) were adopted.
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
41
6.4
Geotechnical testing results
Tables of geotechnical testing results are presented in Appendix K and copies of certified laboratory reports
are included in Appendix I.
6.4.1
Particle size distribution (PSD)
The results indicate that, of the 31 samples submitted for PSD analysis, the predominant grading was CLAY
with varying quantities of sand, silt and gravel.
Samples of natural soil were classified as CLAY or Silty CLAY, although clay was the predominant fraction in all
samples. Backfill materials encountered within the services trenches associated with the sewer and
stormwater mains in Clovelly Park consisted of sands and silty sands, overlain by clayey silts and silty clays
(containing varying amounts of gravel/cobbles).
The classifications obtained from the laboratory were deemed to be consistent with soils logged by Fyfe.
6.4.2
Moisture content
The moisture content results indicate that core samples obtained by Sonic drilling methods have lower
moisture contents than those obtained by other more traditional drilling methods. This is most likely due to
the additional heat generated when rotation was required to penetrate harder units. The average moisture
content reported from core obtained by the sonic drill rig was 7.9%, whereas the average moisture content of
core obtained from conventional push tube and hand auger methods was 12.5%.
Moisture content, with respect to soil type, depth and location, was considered in more detail for the
purposes of the vapour intrusion risk assessment, as detailed in Section 8.
6.4.3
Liquid limit
The liquid limit (LL) is often conceptually defined as the water content at which the behaviour of a clayey soil
changes from plastic to liquid. Soil is placed into the metal cup portion of the measuring device and a groove
is made down its centre with a standardized tool of 13.5 mm width. The cup is repeatedly dropped 10 mm
onto a hard rubber base at a rate of 120 blows per minute, during which the groove closes up gradually as a
result of the impact. The number of blows for the groove to close is recorded.
Within the 10 samples tested, the LL ranged from 34 to 68%.Although this is lower than that predicted by Kay
and Cavagnaro (1984) for the Hindmarsh Clay (i.e. 80 to 100%), it may be due to the higher silt and sand
components in the soils tested for the Assessment Area.
6.4.4
Plastic limit
The plastic limit (PL) is determined by rolling out a thread of the fine portion of a soil on a flat, non-porous
surface. If the soil is plastic, this thread will retain its shape down to a very narrow diameter. The sample can
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
42
then be remoulded and the test repeated. As the moisture content falls due to evaporation, the thread will
begin to break apart at larger diameters. The plastic limit is defined as the moisture content where the thread
breaks apart at a diameter of 3.2 mm.
Within the 10 samples tested, the PL ranged from 12 to 23%, indicative of moderately to highly plastic clays.
6.4.5
Plastic index
The plasticity index (PI) is a measurement of the range of water content where the soil exhibits plastic
properties and is defined as the difference between the liquid limit and the plastic limit (PI = LL-PL). Soils with
a high PI tend to be clay, those with a lower PI tend to be silt, and those with a PI of 0 (non-plastic) tend to
have little to no silt or clay.
The PI readings obtained for the 10 samples are indicative of moderately to highly plastic clays, consistent
with the Fyfe field logging results.
6.4.6
Linear shrinkage
The linear shrinkage limit (LS) is the water content where further loss of moisture will not result in any more
volume reduction and is essentially equivalent to the minimum water content.
The LS readings were found to range between 8 and 16.5%, which is generally consistent with silty and sandy
clay soil types.
6.5
Soil analytical results
Tables of soil analytical results are included in Appendix K and copies of certified laboratory reports are
included in Appendix I.
Of the soil samples collected from the soil bores, soil vapour bores (targeted and systematic) and
groundwater wells, 314 primary samples were selected for analysis of the COPC, the concentrations of which
were all below the laboratory LORs.
6.6
Groundwater analytical results
Tables of groundwater analytical results are included in Appendix K and copies of certified laboratory reports
6.6.1
Contaminants of Potential Concern (COPC)
Of the 66 groundwater samples obtained from the newly installed and existing wells across the Assessment
Area, all samples were selected for the analysis of COPC. Concentration ranges are summarised in Table 6.2
and a plan showing the distribution of TCE in groundwater across the Assessment Area is included as Figure 4.
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
43
Table 6.2
Groundwater Concentration Summary – COPC
Analyte
Minimum
(µg/L)
Maximum (Location)
(µg/L)
% Samples
> LOR
PCE
<5
28 (GW20)
17%
TCE
<5
10,700 (GW20)
67%
DCE (cis)
<5
11,100 (GW19)
50%
DCE (trans)
<5
110 (GW26)
33%
<50*
800 (GW26)
25%
<5
<5
0%
PCE
<5
8 (URS05)
6%
TCE
<5
2,640 (MWS14_01)
65%
DCE (cis)
<5
749 (URS05)
53%
DCE (trans)
<5
21 (URS05)
24%
VC
<50
<50
0%
Chloroform
<5
<5
0%
PCE
<5
<5
0%
TCE
<5
1,690 (MWS14_11)
57%
DCE (cis)
<5
1,010 (MWS14_11)
57%
DCE (trans)
<5
26 (MWS14_11)
43%
VC
<50
<50
0%
Chloroform
<5
6 (MW_EPA2)
14%
PCE
<5
<5
0%
TCE
<5
1,180 (MW_EPA1)
25%
DCE (cis)
<5
188 (MW_EPA1)
25%
DCE (trans)
<5
5 (MW_EPA1)
25%
VC
<50
<50
0%
Chloroform
<5
<5
0%
PCE
<5
<5
0%
TCE
<5
2,630 (MW_EPA12)
58%
DCE (cis)
<5
172 (MW_EPA11)
35%
DCE (trans)
<5
6 (MW_EPA12)
8%
VC
<50
<50
0%
Monroe Site (12 samples)
VC
Chloroform
Former MMAL Site (17 samples)
Eastern RA (7 samples)
Clovelly Park (4 samples)
Mitchell Park (25 samples)
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
44
Analyte
Minimum
(µg/L)
Maximum (Location)
(µg/L)
% Samples
> LOR
<5
<5
0%
PCE
-
<5 (MW_PB)
-
TCE
-
145 (MW_PB)
-
DCE (cis)
-
23 (MW_PB)
-
DCE (trans)
-
<5 (MW_PB)
-
VC
-
<50 (MW_PB)
-
Chloroform
-
<5 (MW_PB)
-
Chloroform
Private bore – MW_PB (1 sample)
Note: An ultra-trace detection limit for VC was not requested by the EPA.
The summary results presented in Table 6.2, and depicted on Figure 4 (TCE only), show the spread of the
COPC in groundwater across the Assessment Area and the relative percentages of impacts involving the main
primary contaminant (TCE) and its daughter products, namely DCE (cis- and trans-) and VC, as formed through
the process of reductive dechlorination (refer to Section 6.6.2).
Detectable concentrations of PCE were present within two wells (GW20 and GW27) on the Monroe property,
as well as one well (URS05) on the former MMAL property boundary (i.e. directly adjacent to the Monroe
property). In addition, VC was only encountered within groundwater below the Monroe site.
6.6.2
Natural attenuation parameters
Natural attenuation processes result in the reduction in mass or concentration of a compound in
groundwater over time or distance from the source. Attenuation of contaminant mass or plume size will
occur under suitable conditions through a combination of naturally occurring physical, chemical and
biological processes, including biodegradation, dispersion, dilution, adsorption and volatilisation.
Primary lines of evidence of natural attenuation occurring can be drawn from historical groundwater and/or
soil chemistry data that demonstrate a clear and meaningful trend of declining contaminant mass and/or
concentrations. Primary lines of evidence are used to determine whether plumes are shrinking, stable or
increasing.
Secondary lines of evidence include data that indirectly demonstrate the type of natural attenuation
processes active at the site. Such an assessment can be achieved by analysis of physical and chemical
indicators of biodegradation processes such as levels of DO, nitrate, ferrous iron (Fe(II)), sulphate, methane,
carbon dioxide and other parameters.
According to Wiedemeir et. al. (1998), the most important process in the degradation of the chlorinated
compounds is the process of reductive dechlorination. During this process, microbes present within the
substrate utilise the chlorinated compound as an electron acceptor (something to breath), whilst carbon
(sourced from natural organic matter, fuel hydrocarbons or other anthropogenic organic compounds) are
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
45
utilised as a food source. During the process of reductive dechlorination a chlorine atom is removed and
replaced with a hydrogen atom, thereby producing a daughter product. Generally, reductive dechlorination
occurs by sequential dechlorination from PCE to TCE to DCE to VC to ethene. During reductive dechlorination,
all three forms of DCE (cis-1,2-DCE, trans-1,2-DCE, 1,1-DCE) can theoretically be produced. However,
cis-1,2-DCE is typically a more common intermediate product than trans-1,2-DCE. Hydrogen is typically the
preferred electron donor during dechlorination. There are several competing microbial processes which
utilise available hydrogen including de-nitrification, ferric iron (Fe(III)) reduction, sulfate reduction and
methanogenesis. These processes typically occur prior to, or concurrent with, the formation of daughter
products.
Therefore, the presence of several specific chemical species in groundwater samples can be used to infer
biodegradation processes. For example, under anaerobic conditions, low concentrations of nitrate typically
indicate that de-nitrification or nitrate reduction is occurring whereas reduced sulphate concentrations in
impacted samples may indicate sulphate reducing activities. Since Fe(III) is reduced to Fe(II) during the
process of iron reduction, elevated levels of Fe(II) in the groundwater may be indicative of microbial iron
reduction.
6.6.2.1
Assessment of Natural Attenuation Data
Utilising the Bio-attenuation Screening Process developed by Wiedemeir et. al. (1998) a first pass screening
assessment of the COPC and natural attenuation parameter data has been undertaken.
The screening process requires comparison of collected chemical data against a weighted table of values for
each parameter/analyte. The final score is then graded from 0 to >20 and a result of inadequate evidence
(0 to 5), limited evidence (6 to 14), adequate evidence (15 to 20) or strong evidence (>20) is obtained.
Based on a review of the data obtained by Fyfe, the strongest evidence of biodegradation occurring, although
rated only as adequate evidence in accordance Wiedemeir et. al. (1998), was identified in well MWS14_07,
located on the former MMAL property. The data for MWS14_07 have been interpreted as follows:
o

the temperature reading was >20 C, indicating suitable temperature conditions

the ORP reading was <-100 mV, suggesting that a reductive pathway is likely

the Fe(II) level was >1 mg/L, suggesting that a reductive pathway is likely

the nitrate concentration was <1 mg/L – concentrations exceeding 1 mg/L may result in completion with
a reductive pathway

the methane concentration was >0.5 mg/L, implying methanogenesis may be occurring

the chloride concentration was twice that of the background concentrations (assumed from the most
westerly down-gradient wells) – elevated chloride concentrations are the likely daughter product of
organic chlorine
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
46

DCE was present – if cis-DCE is > 80% of the total DCE, it is likely to be a daughter product of TCE (rather
than a primary contaminant).
In addition, there was limited evidence of natural attenuation occurring at the following locations:

GW27 (Monroe)

MWS14_04 (former MMAL)




GW32 (Relocation Area)
W6 (Relocation Area).
In accordance with the screening process, there was inadequate evidence of biodegradation occurring across
the remainder of the Assessment Area. This indicates that biodegradation is probably not occurring or is
occurring too slowly to produce sufficient concentrations of natural attenuation indicators to draw any
definitive conclusions.
6.6.3
Water quality (anions, cations, total dissolved solids)
The groundwater ionic data obtained from across the Assessment Area is graphically represented on a Piper
diagram in Figure 6.1. Piper diagrams show the relative concentrations of seven to eight ions in solution – in
this case, the cations Ca, Mg, Na and K and the anions Cl, SO4, CO3 and HCO3. In most natural waters, these
ions make up 95% to 100% of the ions in solution.
The Piper diagram includes two trilinear plots, one for anions (on the lower right) and one for cations (on the
lower left). For each sample, the information from each trilinear diagram is projected up into the central
quadrilateral. Therefore, each sample will plot in each frame of the Piper, once representing cations, once
representing anions, and once representing the combination. The results indicate a relatively consistent
groundwater composition across the Assessment Area, with groundwater being sodium/potassium and
chloride predominant. This in turn suggests that the groundwater sampled across the Assessment Area is
most likely derived from a single aquifer.
Measured salinity levels across the Assessment Area ranged from approximately 400 to 13,100 mg/L TDS and
were generally consistent with the field EC readings. Lower salinities (<1,000 mg/L TDS) were recorded within
the former MMAL property and may be indicative of localised recharge (e.g. subsurface stormwater pipe
leakage). Higher salinities (>7,000 mg/L TDS) were detected within the Clovelly Park area, including the
Eastern RA and Monroe properties, whereas salinities within the Mitchell Park area were generally lower
(<7,000 mg/L TDS). It should be noted that wells located adjacent to the Sturt River had measured TDS levels
significantly lower than those obtained elsewhere in Mitchell Park, potentially indicating that some
groundwater recharge could be occurring from the Sturt River.
Ionic charge balance ranged from 0.03 to 6.68%, with higher concentrations of cations and anions observed
beneath the Relocation Area.
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
47
Figure 6.1 Piper Diagram – Total Data
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
48
6.7
Soil vapour analytical results
Tables of soil vapour analytical results are included in Appendix K and copies of certified laboratory reports
Of the 139 soil vapour thermal tube samples obtained from across the Assessment Area, all samples were
selected for the analysis of COPC. Samples were unable to be gathered from 36 soil vapour sampling
locations due to the tightness of the formation and the potential for the increased vacuum to damage the
sample tubes as well as the possibility of stripping volatiles from the soil (i.e. as opposed to measuring actual
soil vapour).
6.7.1
Soil vapour TO-17 results
The analytical data obtained during the TO-17 soil vapour sample analysis program are summarised in Tables
6.3 to 6.7, in accordance with depth.
Table 6.3
Analyte
Minimum
3
(µg/m )
Maximum (Location)
3
(µg/m )
% Samples
> LOR
PCE
<5
1,900 (SV_EPA20A)
33%
TCE
<5
1,300,000 (SV_EPA20A)
33%
DCE (cis)
<5
63,000 (SV_EPA20A)
33%
DCE (trans)
<5
6,600 (SV_EPA20A)
33%
VC
<5
320 (SV_EPA)
33%
Chloroform
17
470 (SV_EPA20A)
100%
PCE
<5
38 (SV_EPA60A)
67%
TCE
<5
110,000 (SV_EPA67)
55%
DCE (cis)
<5
<5
0%
DCE (trans)
<5
9.3 (SV_EPA67)
11%
VC
<5
<5
0%
Chloroform
<5
10 (SV_EPA72A)
22%
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
49
Analyte
Minimum
3
(µg/m )
Maximum (Location)
3
(µg/m )
% Samples
> LOR
PCE
<5
500 (SV_EPA3B)
22%
TCE
<5
140,000 (SV_EPA3B)
28%
DCE (cis)
<5
6,500 (SV_EPA1)
22%
DCE (trans)
<5
490 (SV_EPA3B)
17%
VC
<5
41 (SV_EPA1)
11%
Chloroform
<5
75 (SV_EPA1)
39%
PCE
<5
320 (SV_EPA40A)
11%
TCE
<5
940 (SV_EPA33A)
28%
DCE (cis)
<5
<17
0%
DCE (trans)
<5
7.3 (SV_EPA40A)
3%
VC
<5
<17
0%
Chloroform
<5
470 (SV_EPA25)
22%
Table 6.4
Analyte
Minimum
3
(µg/m )
Maximum (Location)
3
(µg/m )
% Samples
> LOR
PCE
<5
230 (SV_EPA20B)
50%
TCE
36
79,000 (SV_EPA20B)
100%
DCE (cis)
<5
950 (SV_EPA20B)
50%
DCE (trans)
<5
340 (SV_EPA20B)
50%
VC
<5
<6.3
0%
Chloroform
20
110 (SV_EPA20B)
50%
PCE
19
73 (SV_EPA65B)
100%
TCE
91
290,000 (SV_EPA64B)
100%
DCE (cis)
<5
28 (SV_EPA64B)
67%
DCE (trans)
<5
46 (SV_EPA64B)
33%
VC
<5
<5
0%
Chloroform
<5
10 (SV_EPA64B)
67%
MMAL Site (3 samples)
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
50
Analyte
Minimum
3
(µg/m )
Maximum (Location)
3
(µg/m )
% Samples
> LOR
PCE
<5
760 (SV_EPA3C)
40%
TCE
<5
240,000 (SV_EPA3C)
20%
DCE (cis)
<5
6,100 (SV_EPA3C)
20%
DCE (trans)
<5
1,000 (SV_EPA3C)
20%
VC
<5
40 (SV_EPA3C)
20%
Chloroform
<5
74 (SV_EPA3C)
40%
PCE
<3.8
18 (SV_EPA40B)
30%
TCE
<3.8
2,200 (SV_EPA33B)
60%
DCE (cis)
<3.8
18 (SV_EPA34B)
10%
DCE (trans)
<3.8
<6.3
0%
VC
<3.8
<6.3
0%
31 (SV_EPA73B)
40%
Chloroform
Table 6.5
<3.8
Analyte
Minimum
3
(µg/m )
Maximum (Location)
3
(µg/m )
% Samples
> LOR
PCE
-
540 (SV_EPA20C)
-
TCE
-
250,000 (SV_EPA20C)
-
DCE (cis)
-
2,800 (SV_EPA20C)
-
DCE (trans)
-
980 (SV_EPA20C)
-
VC
-
16 (SV_EPA20C)
-
Chloroform
-
210 (SV_EPA20C)
-
PCE
<13
94 (SV_EPA65C)
50%
TCE
2,100
55,000 (SV_EPA72C)
100%
DCE (cis)
45
4,200 (SV_EPA72C)
100%
DCE (trans)
5.7
180 (SV_EPA72C)
100%
VC
<5
1,600 (SV_EPA72C)
50%
Chloroform
14
87 (SV_EPA72C)
100%
Monroe Site (1 sample)
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
51
Analyte
Minimum
3
(µg/m )
Maximum (Location)
3
(µg/m )
% Samples
> LOR
PCE
<5
2,000 (SV_EPA18C)
33%
TCE
<5
1,100,000 (SV_EPA18C)
33%
DCE (cis)
<5
92,000 (SV_EPA18C)
33%
DCE (trans)
<5
5,200 (SV_EPA18C)
33%
VC
<5
630 (SV_EPA18C)
33%
Chloroform
<5
440 (SV_EPA18C)
67%
PCE
6.1
92 (SV_EPA40C)
100%
TCE
1,700
7,900 (SV_EPA40C)
100%
DCE (cis)
<5
880 (SV_EPA34C)
75%
DCE (trans)
<5
35 (SV_EPA34C)
25%
VC
<5
<8.3
0%
Chloroform
7.8
140 (SV_EPA57C)
100%
Table 6.6
Analyte
Minimum
3
(µg/m )
Maximum (Location)
3
(µg/m )
% Samples
> LOR
PCE
-
4,300 (SV_EPA20D)
-
TCE
-
1,800,000 (SV_EPA20D)
-
DCE (cis)
-
110,000 (SV_EPA20D)
-
Monroe Site (1 sample)
-
11,000 (SV_EPA20D)
VC
-
450 (SV_EPA20D)
-
Chloroform
-
710 (SV_EPA20D)
-
PCE
12
510 (SV_EPA62D)
100%
TCE
3,900
240,000 (SV_EPA64D)
100%
DCE (cis)
16
2,600 (SV_EPA62D)
100%
DCE (trans)
<5
640 (SV_EPA64D)
67%
VC
<5
<33
0%
Chloroform
6.4
150 (SV_EPA64D)
100%
DCE (trans)
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
52
Analyte
Minimum
3
(µg/m )
Maximum (Location)
3
(µg/m )
% Samples
> LOR
PCE
<5
86 (SV_EPA12D)
60%
TCE
<5
67,000 (SV_EPA12D)
40%
DCE (cis)
<5
1,700 (SV_EPA12D)
20%
DCE (trans)
<5
450 (SV_EPA12D)
20%
VC
<5
2,400 (SV_EPA12D)
20%
Chloroform
<10
46 (SV_EPA14D)
80%
Table 6.7
Soil vapour concentration summary: targeted locations – COPC
Analyte
Minimum
3
(µg/m )
Maximum (Location)
3
(µg/m )
% Samples
> LOR
Targeted 1 m Locations – Houses (6 samples)
PCE
<5
470 (SVT_EPA3A)
67%
TCE
<5
170,000 (SVT_EPA3A)
67%
DCE (cis)
<5
2,100 (SVT_EPA3A)
50%
DCE (trans)
<5
640 (SVT_EPA3A)
50%
VC
<5
<8.3
100%
Chloroform
<5
<8.3
0%
Targeted 2 m Locations – Houses (6 samples)
PCE
<5
700 (SVT_EPA3B)
67%
TCE
<5
240,000 (SVT_EPA3B)
83%
DCE (cis)
<5
4,500 (SVT_EPA3B)
50%
DCE (trans)
<5
1,000 (SVT_EPA3B)
50%
VC
<5
<8.3
0%
Chloroform
<5
15 (SVT_EPA3B)
17%
Targeted – Sewer and Stormwater Mains Service Trenches (21 samples)
PCE
<5
790 (SVS_EPA15)
52%
TCE
<5
180,000 (SVS_EPA3)
86%
DCE (cis)
<5
8,200 (SVS_EPA1)
43%
DCE (trans)
<5
770 (SVS_EPA1)
43%
VC
<5
<8.3
0%
Chloroform
<5
84 (SVS_EPA2)
71%
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
53
The summary results presented in Tables 6.3 to 6.7, and depicted on Figures 5A to 5D (which do not depict
the service trench results) show the spread of the COPC within soil vapour across the Assessment Area and
the relative percentages of impacts involving the main primary contaminant (TCE) and its daughter products,
namely DCE (cis- and trans-) and VC, as formed through the process of reductive dechlorination (refer to
Section 6.6.2).
Vinyl chloride was only detected in shallow (2 m) systematic soil vapour bores on the Monroe property and
within part of Clovelly Park as well as deeper bores (8 to 10 m) on the Monroe and former MMAL properties
and part of Clovelly Park. No VC was detected in any of the targeted soil vapour bores.
6.7.2
Comparison of TO-17 and TO-15 data
Six TO-15 canister samples were collected from across the Assessment Area to enable a direct comparison to
be made with the TO-17 thermal tube results. Analytical results and RPD calculations for the TO-17 and TO15 samples are summarised in Tables 6.8 and 6.9.
The comparison of the two forms of sampling and analysis indicates the following:

laboratory LORs for the TO-15 methodology are generally higher than for the TO-17 method; and

where COPC concentrations are elevated, there is some indication of increased variability between the
two methodologies, as reflected by the high RPDs calculated for some of the samples collected from the
Monroe and former MMAL properties.
Table 6.8
Comparison of Monroe and former MMAL TO-17 and TO-15 data – COPC
Sample
Method
Chloroform
3
(µg/m )
cis-1,2 DCE
3
(µg/m )
trans-1,2 DCE
3
(µg/m )
PCE
3
(µg/m )
TCE
3
(µg/m )
VC
3
(µg/m )
SV_EPA 20D
TO-17
710
110,000
11,000
4,300
1,800,000
450
SV_EPA 20D
TO-15
RPD
800
60,000
6,500
5,900
1,400,000
260
12%
59%
51%
31%
25%
54%
SV_EPA 62D
TO-17
28
2600
230
510
98,000
<25
SV_EPA 62D
TO-15
<1,100
6,900
610
2,400
350,000
<500
-
91%
90%
130%
113%
-
RPD
SV_EPA 64D
TO-17
150
2,100
640
390
240,000
<33
SV_EPA 64D
TO-15
<1,200
3,800
1,100
1,400
720,000
<520
-
58%
53%
113%
100%
-
RPD
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
54
Table 6.9
Comparison of Mitchell Park TO-17 and TO-15 data – COPC
Sample
Method
Chloroform
3
(µg/m )
cis-1,2 DCE
3
(µg/m )
trans-1,2 DCE
3
(µg/m )
PCE
3
(µg/m )
TCE
3
(µg/m )
VC
3
(µg/m )
SV_EPA 35A
TO-17
<5
<5
<5
<5
86
<5
SV_EPA 35A
TO-15
<8.8
<7.8
<5.9
<11
95
<3.9
-
-
-
-
10%
-
RPD
SV_EPA 54B
TO-17
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
SV_EPA 54B
TO-15
<9.7
<8.6
<6.4
<12
11
<4.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
RPD
SV_EPA 68C
TO-17
52
22
<5.8
6.1
1,800
<5.8
SV_EPA 68C
TO-15
41
27
<6
<11
2,100
<4
24%
20%
-
-
15%
-
RPD
6.8
Tables of passive indoor and outdoor air sampling analytical results are included in Appendix M and copies of
certified laboratory reports are included in Appendix I.
The results of the passive air sampling works, where Radiello samples had detectable analyte concentrations,
are summarised in Table 6.10.
Table 6.10
Sample number
3
Location
Concentrations (µg/m ) > LOR
Indoor Air
PCE
TCE
cis-DCE
trans-DCE
Chloroform
-
-
-
-
642HG
4 Ash Avenue
-
643HG
6 Ash Avenue
-
-
-
-
0.13
627HG
4 Chestnut Court
-
3.6
-
-
0.29
628HG
9 Chestnut Court
0.17
30
0.63
0.15
0.18
XN358
15 Chestnut Court
-
5.1
-
-
-
16 Chestnut Court
-
0.34
-
-
0.16
641HG
4 Ash Avenue
-
-
-
-
-
626HG
4 Chestnut Court
-
0.26
-
-
-
XN359
15 Chestnut Court
-
0.37
-
-
-
XN357
16 Chestnut Court
-
-
-
-
-
625HG
644HG
Chestnut Court Reserve
-
0.62
-
-
-
XN356
Outdoor Air
Harken Ave Reserve, Mitchell Park
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
-
-
-
-
-
PAGE
55
The results of the passive air sampling program indicate that concentrations of TCE, and to a lesser extent PCE
and DCE, were detected in indoor air within the Chestnut Court, but not the Ash Avenue, residences.
Concentrations of TCE were also detectable within the Chestnut Court outdoor air samples (i.e. apart from
No. 16 Chestnut Court).
This was a limited sampling program aimed specifically at assessing the potential correlation between the
indoor air and soil vapour results from the six Clovelly Park residences (where sub-slab vapour measurements
were also undertaken) to support assumptions made during the VIRA (refer to Section 8).
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
56
7.
GROUNDWATER FATE AND TRANSPORT MODELLING
BlueSphere were commissioned by Fyfe (on behalf of the EPA) to undertake preliminary fate and transport
modelling of the groundwater chlorinated hydrocarbon impacts detected within the Assessment Area. The
BlueSphere report is included as Appendix L.
The aim of the modelling was to provide a preliminary estimate of the future extent of chlorinated
hydrocarbon impacted groundwater within the Clovelly Park/Mitchell Park area in order that groundwater
restrictions can be applied by the EPA to protect human health (i.e. via the definition of a GPA by the EPA).
The scope of work undertaken by BlueSphere included the application of an analytical solute transport model
(BIOCHLOR) for PCE, TCE, DCE and VC within the surficial unconsolidated sedimentary aquifer. It was assumed
that four groundwater plumes are present, as identified by URS (2014b) and discussed in Table 2.1 (Identified
contaminant source areas) and Appendix A. Two of these plumes, originating in the vicinity of existing well
locations MWS18-06 and MWS14-01, located on the former MMAL property and considered to extend
beyond the property boundaries (into the Mitchell Park area), were identified as Models A and B,
respectively. These plumes were selected for modelling purpose as they represented the most westerly
extent of the groundwater chlorinated hydrocarbon impacts identified by URS (2014b).
Details regarding the parameters used within the two models are presented in Appendix L and, based on
generally limited evidence that natural anaerobic biodegradation (i.e. reductive dechlorination) is occurring
(as also identified by Fyfe – refer to Section 6.6.2), the source area contaminant decay component was not
used. In addition, as source area characterisation data were not available, it was assumed that on-going
(perpetual) sources of contamination were present. Future groundwater concentrations along the mid-lines
of the two plumes, assuming a general north-westerly groundwater flow direction, were predicted over time
periods of 20 years (i.e. until 2034) and 100 years (until 2114) in order to assess medium and longer term
risks to the environment as a result of plume migration. Two wells (MW_EPA23 and MW_EPA24) installed by
Fyfe within the Mitchell Park area and currently containing chlorinated hydrocarbon concentrations below
the laboratory LORs, were used as sentry wells to predict plume migration over time.
The results of the modelling indicated that the lateral extent of the PCE, TCE, DCE and VC impacts are likely to
increase in the medium to long term such that detectable concentrations of these contaminants will migrate
beyond the sentry wells and reach the Sturt River in approximately 20 years. In addition, it was considered
that groundwater impacts may potentially migrate beyond the Sturt River to commercial and residential
areas located further to the west. Although the Sturt River may act to limit plume migration, as the hydraulic
connectivity between the uppermost aquifer and Sturt River (i.e. present as a concrete lined culvert in this
area) is not known, this has not been assumed as part of the model predictions.
The BlueSphere report states that, although further information is required to establish a GPA beyond the
known areas of groundwater impact, it would be reasonable to consider the restriction of groundwater use in
a hydraulic down-gradient direction from the identified areas of impact to the Sturt River (i.e. the western
extent of the Assessment Area).
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
57
8.
VAPOUR INTRUSION RISK ASSESSMENT
The VIRA presented in the following sections was undertaken by Dr Sim Ooi of Salcor Consulting, on behalf of
Fyfe. Although the VIRA has considered historical background information obtained for the area (as
summarised in Appendix A), the assessment of risk has been based solely on the field and analytical data
obtained by Fyfe and presented in this report.
8.1
Objective
The main objective of the VIRA was to evaluate the potential risk to human health from vapour intrusion due
to the concentrations of COPC identified in soil and/or groundwater within the residential areas of Clovelly
Park and Mitchell Park that formed part of the Assessment Area.
8.2
Areas of interest
The following three areas of specific interest (i.e. located within the Assessment Area) were identified for the
purpose of this VIRA:

existing/former industrial properties in Clovelly Park – these include the southern portion (Section 14) of
the former MMAL property, the existing Monroe site and the Eastern RA

the residential area of Clovelly Park, bordered by Sturt Rd to the South, Main South Road to the east,
the Tonsley rail line to the west and the remainder of the MMAL site to the north

the residential area of Mitchell Park, bordered by the Tonsley rail line to the east, Sturt River to the
west, Alawoona Avenue to the north and Sturt Road to the south.
8.3
Risk assessment approach
The VIRA was conducted in accordance with the ASC NEPM (1999), with specific reference to Section 4.4 in
Schedule B4 Guideline on Health Risk Assessment Methodology. Australian guidance documents, including the
updated enHealth risk assessment guidelines, as well as guidance documents issued by the US EPA and other
international regulatory agencies have also been referred to, where applicable.
The conduct of the risk assessment was based on a multiple lines of evidence approach, using the available
site-specific information collected as part of the scope of works detailed in Section 3.2.
The following information was used as a basis for the VIRA:

Chlorinated hydrocarbons, including TCE, PCE, DCE (1,2-cis- and 1,2-trans-) and VC, were identified in
soil vapour and groundwater within the Assessment Area. The analytical data indicated that TCE
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
58
constituted an average of 80% of the chlorinated hydrocarbons identified in the groundwater and 95%
in the soil vapour.

Based on the toxicity and concentrations of TCE in soil vapour and groundwater, it has been identified as
the risk driver and selected as the surrogate COPC for the VIRA.

The chlorinated hydrocarbon compounds (including TCE) identified within the Assessment Area are
volatile chemicals and could potentially pose a risk to human health via the vapour intrusion pathway. In
the absence of known sources of the chlorinated hydrocarbons within the residential assessment areas
of Clovelly Park and Mitchell Park, the concentrations observed in the groundwater and soil vapour are
considered likely to have originated from locations outside the residential areas, potentially including
the Eastern RA, former MMAL and/or Monroe sites.

The natural soils underlying the fill material in the Assessment Area are typified by the Quaternary soils
and sediments of the Adelaide Plains, dominated by the Hindmarsh Clay formation. Information from
the borelogs indicated that the natural soil profile comprised mostly silty clay, whereby the presence of
sand and gravel components/lenses or secondary porosity (such as clay fracturing) at depth could
potentially result in pathways of low resistance for contaminant vapour/groundwater migration
vertically or laterally.

The groundwater, soil vapour and soil geotechnical data collected by Fyfe, as discussed in Sections 6.6
and 6.7 and summarised in Appendix K, have been used for the VIRA.
A two-tier approach was adopted for the VIRA. The first tier (herein referred to as the Tier 1 assessment) was
conducted by comparing the measured soil vapour TCE concentrations to the ASC NEPM (1999) guideline
value. The second tier (herein referred to as the Tier 2 assessment) involved the comparison of predicted
indoor air TCE concentrations to adopted indoor air criteria or response levels.
8.4
Tier 1 assessment
8.4.1
Tier 1 assessment criteria
The Tier 1 (screening risk) assessment, involved comparing measured soil vapour TCE concentrations with the
ASC NEPM (1999) interim soil vapour health investigation level (HIL). Given that the development of the
interim soil vapour HILs was based on very conservative assumptions, the Tier 1 assessment provided an
initial screening assessment of the data to determine if further risk assessment is required.
3
The soil vapour interim HIL for TCE is 20 µg/m , applicable for the assessment of soil vapour at 0 to 1 m
3
beneath the floor of a residential building. In this assessment, an additional soil vapour criterion of 200 µg/m
was adopted to assess the soil vapour TCE concentrations measured at 2 m across the Assessment Area. This
conservative approach was agreed by EPA, SA Health and Salcor Consulting (on behalf of Fyfe) for initial
screening purposes of the current Assessment Area only.
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
59
8.4.2
Results of Tier 1 assessment
The Tier 1 assessment, based on the soil vapour TCE concentrations measured at various locations within the
three areas of interest, is presented in the following appendices:

Appendix N: Industrial land use


Appendix O: Clovelly Park
Appendix P: Mitchell Park
The results identified the following locations with exceedances of the Tier 1 soil vapour screening assessment
criterion:

the maximum exceedances were identified within the Monroe and the Eastern RA and MMAL sites at
Clovelly Park, including SV_EPA1, SV_EPA2, SV_EPA3, SV_EPA20, SV_EPA64, SV_EPA65 and SV_EPA67 –
refer to Appendix N

15 exceedances within the residential area of Clovelly Park (SV_EPA18, SVS_EPA1 to SVS_EPA8 and
SVS_EPA 12 to SVS_EPA 17 – refer to Appendix O; these soil vapour bores are located either within the
northern portion of the Precautionary RA (bordered by the former MMAL site) or along its eastern
boundary (bordered by the Eastern RA)

sub-slab TCE concentrations within four residential properties (4, 9, 15 and 16 Chestnut Court) in
Clovelly Park – refer to Appendix P

two locations within the residential area of Mitchell Park (SV_EPA 33 and SV_EPA 34) – refer to
Appendix P.
The Clovelly Park and Mitchell Park locations that exceeded the Tier 1 soil vapour screening assessment
criterion were identified as requiring further assessment and were subjected to a Tier 2 VIRA (refer to
Section 8.5).
8.5
Tier 2 assessment
8.5.1
Tier 2 assessment criteria
The Tier 2 risk assessment criteria adopted are the site-specific indoor air screening criteria, along with the
corresponding response levels, developed by the EPA and SA Health. The following exert from EPA (2014), as
provided to Fyfe by the EPA, summaries the approach taken to develop the TCE indoor air screening criteria
and indoor air response range level:
“The indoor air level response range was developed following a review of international standards and
research for TCE.
A joint workshop between SA Health, EPA, the Clovelly Park Mitchell Park Project Team, and the
consultants undertaking the environmental investigations and human health/vapour intrusion risk
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
60
assessment, was held to develop this indoor air level response range. The workshop considered the
scientific evidence for health effects from TCE exposure and reviewed various guidance on TCE action
levels from around the world. Agreement was reached at the workshop to establish ranges using levels
prescribed by the US EPA as the lower limit and those of the World Health Organisation (WHO) as the
upper limit for the ranges.
The basis of the agreement was taking a sensible balance between the highly conservative approach of
the US EPA, with the widely validated approach of the WHO. These guidance levels are intended to be
protective against cancer and other health risks over the course of a lifetime of continuous TCE
exposure (70 years).
This approach is also consistent with Australian approaches to chemical assessment and regulation
where the WHO is identified as a preferred source of guidance, in an absence of national regulatory
standards.
3
While there is international consensus around the reference concentration of 2 μg/m of TCE in indoor
air as the trigger for further investigation, decision making frameworks for levels above this vary
considerably and are the subject of ongoing scientific and public debate.
3
For the purposes of this investigation, 2 μg/m of TCE in indoor air has been adopted as the level above
which further action is necessary.
The ranges adopted above this level to determine differences in the nature and timing of the actions
3
3
3
are based on increasing levels of health risk between levels such as 2 μg/m , 20 μg/m and 200 μg/m .
Within the designated ranges it is very difficult to scientifically determine the differences in possible
3
3
health risks within the particular action level ranges (e.g. between 3 μg/m and 17 μg/m ).
It is also important to note the science and understanding of the health effects of TCE are constantly
evolving. Adjustments to the response levels may be appropriate as new information comes to hand.
The associated actions that accompany the ranges are intended to ensure that any potential risks to
health from a contaminant, present at that level, are managed as far as possible.”
Figure 8.1 was provided by the EPA, and represents the ranges of TCE indoor air screening criteria with the
corresponding response levels (as established and adopted for this project only). The TCE indoor air
screening criteria, in conjunction with the measured or model predicted indoor air TCE concentrations, are
used to determine the required site-specific response levels.
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
61
Figure 8.1
TCE indoor air screening criteria and the corresponding site-specific response levels*
*This figure was provided to Fyfe by the EPA
Note: The no action response level is applicable where a soil vapour concentration is below the laboratory LOR (i.e. ND or “nondetect”).
8.5.2
Vapour intrusion modelling
The Tier 2 risk assessment involved an initial estimation of TCE concentrations in indoor air based on the
measured soil vapour TCE concentrations. The indoor air concentrations were then predicted using vapour
attenuation factors generated by the US EPA (2004) Johnson and Ettinger (J&E) vapour intrusion model. The
vapour attenuation factor (α) is the ratio of the indoor air concentration to the soil vapour concentration
below the slab or crawl space of a home. The data obtained for the 2 m soil vapour bores recently installed
along road verges, reserves or roadways was used for modelling purposes, as being representative of
conditions below the slab or crawl space of a dwelling within the Assessment Area.
The following factors were taken into considerations when conducting the vapour intrusion modelling:
8.5.2.1
Site-specific soil profile and geotechnical parameters.
Soil samples were collected from various locations (including sub-slab) within Clovelly Park and Mitchell Park
for geotechnical analysis. The data adopted for the vapour intrusion modelling is presented in Appendix Q
and summarised in Table 8.1. It should be noted that the site-specific porosity parameters adopted were
primarily derived from the site-specific geotechnical parameters adjusted with respect to the moisture
content of soil collected from sub-slab areas within residential properties.
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
62
The drier moisture content collected sub-slab also provides an indication of the potential variability of soil
moisture below, and external to, the slab of a house. Using the average site-specific moisture data collected
sub-slab and applying ’sand’ as the soil type immediately under a slab provides a level of conservatism to the
modelling undertaken (i.e. drier soils with a greater air porosity) provides a level of conservatism to the
modelling undertaken.
Table 8.1
Summary of soil parameters adopted for vapour intrusion modelling
Stratum
Depth
Moisture
Dry Density
Total Porosity
Water Porosity
Air Porosity
(t/m )
(unitless)
(unitless)
(unitless)
Average Soil
Temperature
(°C)
(m)
(%)
B
0-0.3
5.4
1.62
0.4
0.087
0.313
22
>0.3-1.2
14
1.62
0.4
0.227
0.173
22
C
>1.2
17
1.62
0.4
0.275
0.125
22
A
8.5.2.2
3
Residential dwellings with slab-on-ground construction
The type of construction is a primary consideration in the vapour intrusion modelling. Of the locations
requiring a Tier 2 assessment at Clovelly Park, only residential dwellings with slab-on-ground construction
were identified. By comparison, locations requiring a Tier 2 assessment in Mitchell Park included both slabon-ground and crawl space constructions. A plan showing the distribution of residences with slab-on-ground
versus crawl space construction is included in Appendix R.
A vapour attenuation factor (α) was derived from the vapour intrusion model for a slab-on-ground building
construction. The assumptions and input parameters adopted for the vapour intrusion modelling are
presented in Appendix S and summarised in Table 8.2. The results of the modelling and the attenuation
factors generated for slab-on-ground construction are presented in Appendices S1 and T, respectively.
Table 8.2
Summary of building assumptions adopted for the vapour intrusion modelling for slab-on-ground
Building Parameters
Slab-on-ground
Building length (m)
15
Building width (m)
10
2
Source
EnHealth (2012a, 2012b)
1
Building area (m )
150
Building height (m)
2.4
EnHealth (2012a)
Slab thickness (m)
0.1
AS2870-2011
Air exchange per hour (ACH)
0.6
EnHealth (2012a)
Crack (%)
0.1
Assumption
Qsoil/Qbuilding
0.03
95 percentile for US EPA (2012) empirical
5
data
2
3
4
th
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
63
Notes:
1.
The building area and the resultant volume based on building area and height are within the average values for residential
dwellings, as published in enHealth (2012a, 2012b).
2.
The building height of a dwelling with slab-on-ground construction was adopted as a standard minimum height of a
residential building in Australia (enHealth, 2012a).
3.
This is based on the midpoint of the range for ‘closed’ Australian dwellings. EnHealth (2012b) indicates that air changes will
be higher with open doors/windows, ceiling fans and air conditioning.
4.
Agreed assumption of a 0.1% crack in slab, equivalent to 0.33 cm floor-wall seam crack width adopted in the vapour
intrusion model for slab-on-ground construction (refer to Appendix S1).
5.
Qsoil/Qbuilding can be representative of the attenuation factor for sub-slab air to indoor air. The value adopted for this
assessment is based on the 95th percentile of the sub-slab attenuation factor derived from analysis of empirical data by US
EPA (2012).
8.5.2.3
Residential dwellings with crawl space construction
The J&E vapour intrusion model was developed for the assessment of slab-on-ground building construction,
with and without a basement. In the absence of a vapour intrusion model for constructions with a crawl
space, the J&E vapour intrusion model was manipulated to represent a crawl space building construction. In
this case, the J&E model assumes that there is no significant different between the sub-surface soil and the
building and there is no barrier between the crawl space and the indoor environment. Hence, diffusion is the
only transport mechanism by which TCE vapours emanating from the source migrate into the building.
A vapour attenuation factor (α) was derived from the vapour intrusion model for a crawl space building
construction. The assumptions and input parameters adopted for the vapour intrusion modelling are
presented in Appendix S2 and summarised in Table 8.3. The results of the modelling and the attenuation
factors generated for crawl space construction are presented in Appendices S2 and T, respectively.
Table 8.3
Summary of building assumptions adopted for the vapour intrusion modelling for crawl space
Building Parameters
Crawl Space
Building length (m)
15
Building width (m)
10
2
Building area (m )
150
Building Height (m)
2.4
Slab thickness (m)
0
Source
EnHealth (2012a, 2012b)
EnHealth (2012a)
3
0.6
EnHealth (2012a)
Crack (%)
100
Assumption
1
Assumption
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
2
Assumption
Air exchange per hour (ACH)
Qsoil/Qbuilding
1
4
5
6
PAGE
64
Notes:
1.
The building area and the resultant volume based on building area and height are within the average values for residential
dwellings, as published in enHealth (2012a, 2012b).
2.
The building height of a dwelling with slab-on-ground construction was adopted for a dwelling with crawl space. This is
based on adopting a crawl space to indoor air attenuation factor of 1 (US EPA, 2012) (i.e. assuming no suspended floor is
present to act as a vapour barrier) for the vapour intrusion modelling, and that chemical vapour volatilised from the soil will
emit (without any barrier) into, and equilibrate with, the internal space of the dwelling.
3.
In the absence of a slab for a dwelling with a crawl space, a zero (i.e. 0 m) slab thickness was applied to remove the slab
from the model (refer to Appendix S2).
4.
This is based on the midpoint of the range for ‘closed’ Australian dwellings. enHealth (2012b) indicate that air changes will
be higher with open doors/windows, ceiling fans and air conditioning. For dwellings with crawl space, the ACH of 0.6 is
likely to be conservative given much higher ventilation rates in the crawl space have been reported (Olweny and
Williamson, 1998).
5.
To assume the absence of a slab for a dwelling with a crawl space, a crack ratio of 100% was adopted in the modelling. Note
that the 100% crack ratio is equivalent to the 3.1 m of floor-wall seam crack width adopted in the vapour intrusion model
for crawl space construction (refer to Appendix S2).
6.
The value adopted for this assessment is based on the 95th percentile of the crawl space to indoor air attenuation factor
derived from analysis of empirical data by US EPA (2012).
7.
Based on the 95th percentile of the crawl space attenuation factor derived from analysis of empirical data by US EPA (2012).
In the absence of the slab for a crawl space dwelling construction, the soil-building differential pressure (ΔP)
2
was set to zero (i.e. 0 g/cm-s ) to remove pressure differences normally caused by the presence of a slab.
2
-32
Note that the ΔP of 0 g/cm-s is represented as the smallest number possible (1 x 10 ) for modelling
9
purposes .
8.5.2.4
Validation of vapour intrusion model
The vapour intrusion model was developed with the use of the site-specific geotechnical (Table 8.1) and
building (Tables 8.2 and 8.3) parameters. The model was subject to validation using the measured indoor air
and sub-slab soil vapour data collected from six residential properties in Clovelly Park. For the purpose of
model validation, an air exchange rate per hour of 0.2 was adopted given that the measurements were
conducted in totally closed and unoccupied dwellings with minimum ventilation.
The results are presented in Appendix U and indicate that the disparity observed in the correlation between
the measured sub-slab soil vapour concentrations and the indoor air concentrations was also observed for
the model predicted concentrations. Notably, the vapour intrusion model developed for this assessment
tends to over-predict the indoor air concentrations of TCE.
The conservatism of the vapour intrusion model is also reflected in the validation analysis using external (i.e.
not sub-slab) soil vapour data for predicting the TCE indoor air concentrations. The results, as presented in
9
This is an arbitrary number selected to represent zero as it is not possible to enter zero into the model.
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
65
Appendix V, indicated that although disparity was also observed when comparing the predicted to the
measured TCE indoor air concentrations, the conservatism towards over-estimation is preserved
8.5.2.5
Chemical parameters
The chemical parameters for TCE in the J&E model were updated with the following (Table 8.4) from the
chemical database in the Risk Assessment Information System (RAIS, 2014).
Table 8.4
Summary of chemical parameters adopted for vapour intrusion modelling
Chemical
TCE
8.5.3
Diffusivity in Air
Dair
2
(cm /s)
Diffusivity in
Water Dwater
2
(cm /s)
Water Solubility
S
(mg/L)
Henry’s Law
Constant
(unitless)
Source
0.0687
0.0000102
1,280
0.403
RAIS (2014)
Assessment of vapour intrusion from soil vapour
The US EPA (2004) soil source J&E vapour intrusion model was used to predict soil vapour intrusion into
indoor air.
The results (refer to Appendix T) indicated that similar attenuation factors have been derived for both the
slab-on-ground and crawl space settings based on the assumptions adopted for the vapour intrusion
modelling. This suggests that a single attenuation factor may be adopted to assess the vapour intrusion risks
for both the slab-on-ground and the crawl space settings.
The assumptions of low crawl space ventilation and no vapour attenuation between the crawl space and the
indoor air provides a level of conservatism to the modelling as it assumes direct vapour intrusion from the
subsurface with primarily building height and ventilation primarily affecting dilution.
Indoor air TCE concentrations at the locations requiring a Tier 2 assessment were predicted using the modelgenerated attenuation factors and the measured soil vapour concentrations. The results are presented in
Appendices W to Y and can be summarised as follows:
3

An indoor air TCE concentration exceeding the 20 µg/m response level was predicted at one location
within the Monroe property (SV_EPA20A).

TCE concentrations within the 2 to <20 µg/m response level were predicted at three locations within
the Eastern RA (SV_EPA1, SV_EPA2 and SV_EPA3B).

Within the residential area of Clovelly Park (i.e. the Precautionary RA), two locations (SVT_EPA4B and
3
SVT_EPA2B at 4 and 15 Chestnut Court, respectively) were identified to have predicted indoor air TCE
3
concentrations within the 2 to <20 µg/m response level. One location (SVT_EPA3B, located at 9
3
Chestnut Court) was predicted to be within the 20 to <200 µg/m response level.
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
66

At Mitchell Park, none of the residential properties (either slab-on-ground or crawl space) were
3
predicted to have indoor air TCE concentrations above 2 µg/m .
8.5.4
Assessment of vapour intrusion from groundwater
In the absence of groundwater screening criteria suitable for the assessment of vapour intrusion, the
groundwater analytical data were subjected to a Tier 2 assessment. To assess vapour intrusion from
groundwater, the US EPA (2004) groundwater source J&E vapour intrusion model was used. The parameters
adopted for the modelling of soil vapour intrusion were used in this assessment, with adjustment and
additional consideration given to the depth of groundwater and the presence of a capillary fringe (refer to
Appendices Z1 and Z2 for slab-on-ground and crawl space construction, respectively).
The results are presented in Appendices AA to CC, and can be summarised as follows:

The predicted indoor air TCE concentrations at the existing/historical industrial sites (Monroe and
former MMAL properties as well as the Eastern RA) within Clovelly Park were consistent with those
observed with the soil vapour assessment. However, the lower concentrations predicted from the
impacted groundwater suggest a contribution to the vapour intrusion risks from sources other than
groundwater (i.e. potentially shallow soil sources).

Impacts observed in the groundwater are considered to be a contributor to the soil vapour impacts
observed in the residential area of Clovelly Park. At the eastern portion of the residential area (i.e.
Precautionary RA) closest to the existing/historical industrial sites (Monroe and former MMAL
properties as well as the Eastern RA), such impacts may be overshadowed by soil vapour migrated from
other sources and preferential pathways above the saturated zone.

At Mitchell Park, groundwater concentrations at all sample locations (except MW_EPA12) were
3
predicted to result in indoor air TCE concentrations of < 2 µg/m . The predicted indoor air TCE
3
3
concentration at MW_EPA12 was 3.2 µg/m (i.e. within the 2 to <20 µg/m response level). Further
analysis of the soil vapour data in close proximity to MW_EPA12 (i.e. at SV_EPA34 and SV_EPA74)
3
indicated non-detectable levels at SV_EPA74 and a concentration below 2 µg/m (by Tier 2 assessment)
at SV_EPA34. Therefore, it is considered that the results reflect the conservatism of the model when
considering the sub-surface soil properties (i.e. of the natural Hindmarsh Clay formation).
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
67
9.
CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL
As detailed in Table 9.1, a CSM has been developed for the Assessment Area on the basis of historical
information (as summarised in Section 2.1 and Appendices A and C) as well as the data obtained during the
recent Fyfe investigation program.
Table 9.1
Topic
Site characterisation:
Identification of
Assessment Area
An approximately 123.6 ha Assessment Area, located within the suburbs of Clovelly Park and
Mitchell Park, has been defined by the EPA. It is bounded by Main South Road to the east and
south-east, Alawoona Ave (and a line representing its eastern extension through the former
MMAL property) to the north, Sturt River to the west and Sturt Road to the south.
History of land use
The suburbs of Clovelly Park and Mitchell Park comprised predominantly rural agricultural land
until about the 1950s-1960s, at which time residential development commenced across the
majority of the area. During this period, the following industrial facilities were also developed
within the north-eastern portion of the Assessment Area:
 Former MMAL property (i.e. the current Renewal SA Tonsley Park Development site): The
broader MMAL site was purchased by Chrysler/Mitsubishi between the early 1960s and
1995 and car manufacturing was undertaken between about 1964 and 2009. The site is
currently being redeveloped for mixed use (retail, TAFE facilities, light industrial, and
residential) purposes. The southernmost portion of the site (i.e. Section 14) was purchased
by Chrysler in the early 1960s and comprised the “southern pad” area of the facility. It was
largely unpaved until the mid- to late-1980s and used primarily for storage and unboxing
purposes. An unpaved “graveyard” area was reported to have formerly been located in the
south-western corner of Section 14, immediately adjacent to the north-western (residential)
portion of Clovelly Park (i.e. Precautionary RA).
 Monroe industrial facility: This was originally owned by WH Wylie and Sons, who
commenced operations in the late 1950s for the manufacture of motor vehicle parts. A
“graveyard” area was reported to have been located immediately adjacent to the southeastern corner of former MMAL Section 14 and the eastern boundary of the Eastern RA.
 An area of land to the west of the Monroe property and south of the MMAL property (i.e.
the Eastern RA) was owned by R&C, a chemical (i.e. health, hygiene and home products)
manufacturing company, from 1963 until 1969. The land was subsequently purchased by
Chrysler, and there is also anecdotal information suggesting that it may have been used (at
least partly) by WH Wylie until the 1980s. The land was sold to the SA Housing Trust in 1984
and the southern portion was subsequently occupied by the Unity Housing Apartments and
Housing Units (i.e. former R&C buildings) as well as two separate (purpose-built) residences.
The SA Housing Trust residences, developed here in the 1980s, were vacated in 2010 due to
concerns raised by the EPA and SA Health regarding indoor air quality. The northern portion
of the Eastern RA is currently occupied by the Chestnut Court Reserve whereas the southern
portion is vacant. Some SA Housing Trust residences have been demolished whereas others
are still standing but unoccupied.
The residential area of Clovelly Park, located to the west of the Eastern RA and bounded by Ash
Ave to the south, is referred to as the Precautionary RA. In July 2014, residents were advised by
SA Health and the EPA of a potential risk to human health associated with TCE vapour intrusion.
Precautionary relocation was recommended to residents, to be undertaken over a six month
time-frame. Although a number of these properties have now been vacated, some remain
occupied.
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
68
Topic
Historical
investigations
Reports provided to Fyfe by EPA, that pertain to historical investigations undertaken within the
Assessment Area, have been reviewed and summarised in Section 2.1 and Appendix A.
Local geology
A geological cross-section through the Assessment Area is included as Figure 7.
Natural soils encountered from the surface/near surface to the maximum drill depth of 20 m
BGL across the Assessment Area were considered to be indicative of the Quaternary
(Pleistocene) Hindmarsh Clay formation. This is generally the most expansive Adelaide Plains
sequence (i.e. underlying the majority of the Adelaide metropolitan area). Gerges (1999)
describes Hindmarsh Clay as comprising a mottled brown to pale olive grey, predominantly clay,
formation that becomes green grey towards the basal section (approximately 16 to 20 m BGL)
and is characterised by an increasing gravel content with depth. This description generally
concurs with Fyfe’s field observations during drilling activities.
Hindmarsh Clay was encountered at all drilling locations across the Assessment Area and was
generally identified, and reported from geotechnical testing, to comprise predominantly clay
(i.e. 42 to 75%), with a significant silt component (i.e. 13 to 33%). Coarser fractions were also
encountered in the majority of soil cores, and included sand (4 to 30%) and/or gravel (0 to 42%).
It should be noted that gravelly clay was the minority fraction encountered and that the
majority of the clays, silty clays and sandy clays contained little (<10%) or no gravel.
The consistency of the clays was typically very stiff to hard, although they were often observed
to be softer, and occasionally friable, near the top of the unit (top 1 to 2 m). This is likely due to
weathering and/or the presence of increased sand content within the upper portion of the
profile. Relict soil horizonation and cyclic layers of carbonate segregations (containing nodules
and concretions), typically between 20 and 100 mm in thickness, were common in the upper 1
to 3 m, probably indicating past surficial pedogenic processes (Gerges, 1999).
Although the Hindmarsh Clay unit is traditionally noted as being highly plastic, soil plasticity was
found to vary between low and high and to be generally directly proportionate to the ratio of
secondary components (silt, sand and/or gravel) observed within the core. This was confirmed
by both the geotechnical testing results obtained by Fyfe and literature-derived information
which suggests that the Hindmarsh Clay formation is likely to be composed of 50 to 70% clay.
According to Stapledon (1971), the Hindmarsh Clay unit typically contains many structural
features and defects which greatly influence its vertical permeability, thereby resulting in
potential preferential pathways for the vertical and lateral movement of soil vapour and
groundwater. The predominant structural features typically found within the Hindmarsh Clay
include discontinuous steeply dipping joints (dipping between 60 and 90°), gently dipping joints
(dipping between 20 and 60°), fissures (which are typically smaller joints formed during
deposition) and other minor defects formed post deposition (e.g. root/tube casts, sinkholes
etc.). As discussed in Section 6.1.2, since jointing is typically only identifiable within open
excavated faces, it was difficult to determine whether steeply or gently dipping joints were
intersected within the Assessment Area during drilling. However, a re-inspection of selected
sonic drill cores after they had been left to dry out indicated a prismatic blocky structure as a
result of breakage along identifiable steeply dipping joint planes.
Hydrogeology
In accordance with Gerges (1999), and his classification of the Adelaide metropolitan area into a
number of zones based on their individual hydrogeological characteristics, the Assessment Area
is located on the south-western boundary of Zone 2. This zone lies between the Eden-Burnside
Fault to the south-east and the Para Fault to the north-west and covers the area between
Brown Hill Creek and Gulf St. Vincent. It contains between two and four Quaternary aquifers
and between three and four Tertiary aquifers.
Hodgkin (2004) suggests that groundwater occurrence within the Quaternary age sediments of
the Golden Grove - Adelaide Embayment area is restricted to the fluvial and alluvial origin
Pooraka (north of the Adelaide CBD) and Hindmarsh Clay formations, where groundwater
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
69
Topic
typically exists in a number of inter-bedded sandy aquifers that are extremely variable in
thickness (typically 2 to 3 m) and not laterally extensive. The field observations gained through
the drilling works in the Assessment Area suggest that, although groundwater occurrence in the
Hindmarsh Clay was in some cases associated with an increased coarse fraction content within
the clay, or with discrete discontinuous sand/gravel lenses, in the majority of locations there
were no distinct lenses or increased coarse fraction components identified. Rather,
groundwater occurrence (particularly within the western portion of the Assessment Area) was
identified through increased moisture content within the Hindmarsh Clay, with groundwater
likely utilising structural defects within the clay as a preferential pathway.
Given the variability reported by Hodgkin (2004) in the depth and thickness of the Quaternary
aquifers, it is not possible to clearly state within this report the precise depths of the uppermost
aquifer and any potential underlying aquifers. However, based on average depth to
groundwater, it is hypothesised that the average depth to the uppermost aquifer in the Clovelly
Park area was approximately 13 m BGL, whereas the average depth to the uppermost aquifer
within the Mitchell Park area was approximately 10 m BGL.
It has been suggested by Gerges (1996) that the aquifers encountered within the Quaternary
Hindmarsh Clay are low yielding (< 3 L/s) and variable in nature, reflecting low aquifer
transmissivity and inhomogeneity. The most transmissive sections of these aquifers are usually
located adjacent to major bedrock structures or surface drainage (for the shallowest aquifers).
Gerges (1996) also suggested that lower salinities encountered within the upper Quaternary
aquifers are often attributable to recharge areas.
This information was confirmed by sampling and hydrological testing works undertaken by Fyfe
who encountered high aquifer transmissivities in monitoring wells MW_EPA23, MW_EPA24,
MW_EPA25 and MW_EPA28 located along the westernmost boundary of the Mitchell Park area,
adjacent to the Sturt River, and lower transmissivities in the central portion of the Assessment
Area. Wells MW_EPA23, MW_EPA24, MW_EPA25 and MW_EPA28 also contained significantly
lower TDS readings, averaging 1,550 mg/L, compared to 3,280 mg/L encountered within the
remainder of the Mitchell Park area. It is therefore possible that the Sturt River may act as a
groundwater recharge area, rather than a discharge area, thereby potentially buffering the
westward migration of contaminants. This has not been confirmed.
The depth to water in the Assessment Area, is generally greater (i.e. typically more than 11 m
BGL) within the Monroe and Clovelly Park (including the Eastern RA) areas and shallower (i.e.
typically less than 10 m BGL) within the former MMAL and Mitchell Park areas. Groundwater
gradients of 0.014 to 0.018 have been calculated (refer to Appendix L) and the inferred flow
direction is generally towards the west to north-west.
Based on the field quality data, groundwater within the Assessment Area may be described as
being moderately acidic to slightly alkaline and moderately saline. It displays strongly reducing
to strongly oxygenated characteristics and is anaerobic to aerobic in terms of its DO content,
thereby indicating a high degree of variability.
A recent (2014) search of the DEWNR registered bore database identified 405 groundwater
bores within a 2 km radius of the Clovelly Park residential area, a number of which were
installed for irrigation or domestic purposes and were listed as being located in a potentially
down-gradient direction (hydraulically) from the Monroe and former MMAL properties, as well
as the Eastern RA. Based on the results of an EPA letter-drop survey, only one private domestic
bore has been identified within the Assessment Area.
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
70
Topic
Hydrology
The closet surface water bodies, relative to the Monroe and former MMAL properties, are as
follows:
 Sturt River, located within a concrete culvert approximately 0.7 km to the west of the
western boundary of the former MMAL property and comprising part of the Patawalonga
River catchment
 Warriparinga Wetlands (part of the Sturt River), located approximately 0.85 km to the
south-west and therefore not likely to be directly down-gradient of the historical/existing
industrial section of the Assessment Area; and
 two stormwater detention basins (ponds) in the vicinity of Bradley Grove in Mitchell Park –
based on their apparent depth, relative to the depth of the uppermost aquifer in this area, it
is considered unlikely that they represent receiving bodies for groundwater discharge.
Although current stormwater run-off within the Assessment Area is expected to be collected by
localised (and engineered) drainage systems, a series of surface drainage lines, extending in a
general westerly direction, appear to have previously been present within the Monroe and
former MMAL properties, extending across the Eastern RA and possibly also onto the adjoining
Clovelly Park residential area (i.e. the Precautionary RA).
Fyfe investigation results:
Soil impacts
The results of the soil sampling and laboratory testing program have not resulted in the
identification of any concentrations of COPC across the Assessment Area that exceeded the
laboratory LORs. This could indicate that historical sources within the soil profile have volatilised
(i.e. given the age and volatile nature of the contaminants) and/or have migrated downward
through the Hindmarsh Clay to groundwater. Alternatively, this could be (at least partly)
associated with the stretching/loss of structure that can occur within the soil cores during sonic
drilling (refer to Section 4.2.2.1), thereby potentially resulting in the loss of volatiles.
Groundwater impacts The main COPC, TCE and DCE (cis/trans), were commonly encountered within groundwater
across the Assessment Area. Given that cis-DCE dominated the total DCE concentrations
detected, it is considered to be a daughter product of the identified TCE. Likewise, the VC
detected in groundwater beneath the Monroe site is considered to represent a daughter
product of DCE in this area. The presence of PCE within two wells on the Monroe property and
one well on the former MMAL property boundary, the latter located directly adjacent to the
Monroe property, could be indicative of historical PCE usage on the Monroe site.
Three separate groundwater chlorinated hydrocarbon plumes have been identified by Fyfe. As
depicted in Figure 4, the suspected source areas are as follows:
 Plume A: centred on GW20 on the south-western portion of the Monroe property and
extending beneath the Eastern RA – this appears to be equivalent to Plume 2 identified by
URS (2014b), as described in Table 2.1
 Plume B: centred on MWS14_01 on the south-western portion of the former MMAL
property – this appears to be equivalent to Plume 3 identified by URS (2014b), as described
in Table 2.1; and
 Plume C: located in the vicinity of MW_EPA16, on the western boundary of the former
MMAL property and south of Alawoona Ave – this plume appears to correspond to Plume 4
identified in the URS (2014b) report, the latter identified to the north of Section 14 on the
MMAL site but not delineated as far north as recently installed monitoring well MW_EPA16.
Plume migration appears to be in the same general west to north-westerly direction as
groundwater flow and impacts have extended beneath adjacent residential areas of both the
Clovelly and Mitchell Park areas. The lateral extent of the impacts identified in association with
Plume A (and possibly also Plume B) also appears to follow the path of historical drainage lines
identified by the EPA via the stereoscopic analysis of aerial photographs (refer to Appendix C
and Table 2.1).
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
71
Topic
Soil vapour impacts
The results of the soil vapour investigations have indicated that there is a definite correlation
between the groundwater chlorinated hydrocarbon plumes and the observed soil vapour
concentrations (at various depths), particularly within the Monroe and Eastern RA areas (Plumes
A and B) and the north-eastern portion of the Mitchell Park area (Plume C). The soil vapour
concentrations have been found to generally increase with depth through the soil profile, with
the exception of SV_EPA20, located just inside the western boundary of the Monroe property,
where a decreasing concentration with depth could be indicative of a soil source, or lateral
vapour migration at a shallow depth, in this area.
3
The soil vapour concentration (19 µg/m ) detected at 2 m BGL within SV_EPA37, located in the
southern portion of the Mitchell Park area, does not coincide with the location of any identified
groundwater chlorinated hydrocarbon contamination, or the results obtained for the remaining
systematic soil vapour bores in this area. This result is considered likely to reflect a separate
source, possibly located along nearby Sturt Road.
Although there is some potential for vapours from groundwater to migrate vertically through
structural defects (e.g. fractures) within the Hindmarsh Clay, there is no evidence that these
structural features are sufficiently continuous throughout the vertical soil profile to result in
their acting as significant preferential pathways for vapour migration. By contract, it is
considered that the presence of discontinuous sand and gravel lenses throughout the
subsurface clay formation could be enabling some preferential lateral vapour migration,
particularly in the vicinity of the Monroe and Eastern RA properties.
The targeted investigation of soil vapour undertaken along the sewer and stormwater mains in
Clovelly Park identified elevated soil vapour concentrations of TCE and DCE at the majority of
locations where vapour probes were located within backfill material. In addition, concentrations
of PCE were detected in two locations closest to the Monroe property, in close proximity to the
former graveyard area. Although elevated, these targeted data appear consistent with the
broader concentrations measured at 2 m depth within natural soil material across the
Assessment Area. Based on this limited targeted assessment, it is hypothesised that the service
trenches associated with the sewer and stormwater mains are not acting as preferential
pathways for soil vapour movement into the southern Clovelly Park and Mitchell Park areas.
Detectable TCE vapour concentrations were present beneath five of the six Chestnut Court and
Ash Ave properties in the Clovelly Park Relocation Area, where sub-slab nested soil vapour bores
were installed. The exception was soil vapour bore SVT_EPA6A/B, located at 6 Ash Avenue.
Whereas four of the locations had elevated concentrations at both 1 and 2 m BGL, soil vapour
bore SVT_EPA5A/B, located at 4 Ash Avenue, only contained an elevated TCE concentration at 2
m BGL, with the result for 1 m BGL below the laboratory LOR. The results were generally
consistent with those obtained from road verges and reserves within the Relocation Area.
Passive indoor air
sampling results
The results of the passive indoor air sampling work undertaken at six selected properties in
Clovelly Park (coinciding with the sub-slab soil vapour investigation) indicated that there is a
general correlation between the predicted indoor air concentrations, as determined by the VIRA
(refer to Section 8) and the measured indoor air concentrations. In addition, the detection of
contaminant concentrations in indoor air within the Chestnut Court, but not the Ash Ave
properties, coincides with expectations regarding the distribution of soil vapour as related to
groundwater source areas on the adjoining existing/former industrial properties.
Potential exposure pathways:
Contaminants of
Potential Concern
Based on the results of historical investigations, the EPA identified a number of chlorinated
hydrocarbon compounds as being of concern for the Assessment Area. The main COPC was
identified as TCE, previously noted to comprise up to 96% of soil vapour (URS, 2013). Additional
COPC include PCE, 1,2- 1,2-DCE (cis- and trans-) and VC. Further detail is provided in Table 2.1
and Appendix A.
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
72
Topic
These COPC were confirmed by the Fyfe investigations, with TCE identified as the main
contaminant in groundwater and soil vapour and representing the main driver in terms of
potential human health risks associated with vapour intrusion into dwellings within the
Assessment Area (refer to Section 8).
Affected media
As detailed above, the Fyfe investigation results identified impacts within groundwater and soil
vapour in the Assessment Area.
Suspected primary
and secondary
sources
The majority of the soil vapour impacts appear to have derived from groundwater (i.e.
increasing concentrations of contaminants in soil vapour with depth). Groundwater is
considered to be the primary source of the soil vapour impacts within the Assessment Area.
One location on the westernmost portion of the Monroe site displayed a decreasing
concentration of TCE with depth. This appears to be representative of potential secondary
source area associated with historical industrial activities although it could also reflect lateral
vapour migration in shallow soils.
Sensitive receptors
The following sensitive receptors have been identified as potentially relevant to the Assessment
Area:
Ecological:
 Sturt River, located approximately 0.7 km to the west of the western boundary of the
former MMAL property
 Warriparinga Wetlands, located approximately 0.85 km to the south-west (may not be
directly down-gradient)
 soil and groundwater ecosystems within the investigation area
Human:
 current and future occupants/users of properties located within the Assessment Area
 current and future users of the reserve/playground located in the north-eastern corner of
the Eastern RA
 current and future maintenance and construction workers within the Assessment Area
 down-gradient groundwater (domestic/irrigation) bore users – although the DEWNR
registered bore search (Appendix D) indicates that groundwater users are located at a
minimum distance of 0.7 km in a potential down-gradient (north-westerly) direction, an EPA
letter-box survey only identified a single private groundwater bore within the Assessment
Area.
Contaminant
transport
mechanisms
Possible contaminant transport mechanisms associated with impacted soil (none of which was
identified during the Fyfe investigation program) include:
 leaching into underlying soils and groundwater
 surface water run-off (if surface soils were involved)
 dust generation (if surface soils were involved)
 vapour generation, including via subsurface preferential pathways for vapour migration (e.g.
service trenches, more permeable soils)
Possible contaminant transport mechanisms associated with impacted groundwater include:
 flow via aquifer to down-gradient surface water body and/or groundwater bores
 vapour generation and/or flow via subsurface preferential pathways (e.g. service trenches,
more permeable soils)
 downward movement into underlying aquifers (e.g. DNAPL)
Exposure
mechanisms
Possible exposure mechanisms associated with impacted soil (none of which was identified
during the Fyfe investigation program) include:
 direct contact with surface/subsurface soils
 ingestion of soils or dust – either incidental (e.g. attached to home-grown vegetables,
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
73
Topic
remnant soil on hands after gardening) or deliberate (e.g. pica behaviour in children)
inhalation of dust or vapours
Possible exposure mechanisms associated with impacted groundwater include:
 direct contact (e.g. during use of down-gradient bores for domestic/irrigation purposes)
 ingestion – incidental (e.g. during use of down-gradient bores for domestic/irrigation
purposes)
 inhalation of vapours
 ecosystems associated with the Sturt River to the west, possibly including the Warriparinga
Wetlands to the south-west

Assessment of risk:
Natural attenuation
of groundwater
impacts
The presence of TCE daughter products, including 1,2-DCE and VC, within the uppermost aquifer
beneath the Assessment Area is considered to be indicative of TCE breakdown occurring
through the process of reductive dechlorination.
Chlorinated solvent plumes can exhibit three types of behaviour (Type 1 to Type 3) depending
on the amount of solvent, the amount of biologically available organic carbon in the aquifer, the
distribution and concentration of natural electron acceptors and the types of electron acceptors
being used (Wiedemeir et. al. 1998). Individual plumes may also exhibit all three types of
behaviour in different portions of the plume.

Type 1 behaviour occurs where the primary substrate is anthropogenic carbon (e.g. BTEX
(benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes) compounds or landfill leachate) and microbial
degradation of this anthropogenic carbon drives reductive dechlorination.
 Type 2 behaviour dominates in areas that are characterised by relatively high concentrations
of biologically available native organic carbon and microbial utilisation of this natural carbon
source drives reductive dechlorination
 Type 3 behaviour dominates in areas that are characterised by inadequate concentrations of
native and/or anthropogenic carbon as well as concentrations of DO that are greater than 1
mg/L. Under these aerobic conditions, reductive dechlorination will not occur and the most
significant natural attenuation mechanisms for PCE, TCE, and DCE will be advection,
dispersion, and sorption.
 With respect to mixed behaviour, as mentioned above, a single chlorinated solvent plume
can exhibit all three types of behaviour in different portions of the plume. This can be
beneficial for the natural biodegradation of chlorinated hydrocarbon plumes.
Lines of evidence obtained during the Fyfe investigations suggest that there is adequate
evidence that natural attenuation of the chlorinated hydrocarbon plume is occurring at location
MWS14_07, on the former MMAL property, whilst there is limited evidence that natural
attenuation is occurring at six other locations on the Monroe property, the former MMAL site
and the Eastern RA. Of the remainder of the wells located within the identified groundwater
plume areas, there was inadequate evidence of biodegradation occurring. This suggests that
biodegradation is probably not occurring or is occurring too slowly to produce sufficient
concentrations of natural attenuation indicators to draw any definitive conclusions.
Based on the results obtained by Fyfe, and the mixture of land uses (i.e. residential and
commercial/industrial) associated with the Assessment Area, it is likely that the groundwater
chlorinated hydrocarbon plumes are displaying mixed behaviour. Where adequate and limited
lines of evidence for natural attenuation were obtained, it is possible that the chlorinated
impacts in these areas are displaying Type 1 behaviour (i.e. where petroleum hydrocarbons
are/have been historically present). Groundwater within the remainder of the chlorinated
hydrocarbon plume areas appears to be displaying Type 3 behaviour, given the likely low to
negligible organic carbon content of groundwater within these areas and the absence of direct
lines of evidence of natural attenuation.
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
74
Topic
Groundwater fate
and transport
modelling
The results of the groundwater fate and transport modelling undertaken by BlueSphere
indicated that the chlorinated hydrocarbons in groundwater can be expected to continue to
migrate such that detectable concentrations of these contaminants will reach the Mitchell Park
sentry wells (MW_EPA24 and MW_EPA25) and reach the Sturt River in approximately 20 years.
It was also concluded that the groundwater impacts may potentially migrate beyond the
location of the Sturt River, further to the west, with time. The modelling assumed on-going
source contribution(s) from the industrial areas of Clovelly Park.
Although there is a possibility that the Sturt River may be acting as a groundwater recharge
point, thereby potentially limiting plume migration, potential hydraulic connectivity between
the Sturt River and the uppermost aquifer has not yet been determined.
Vapour intrusion risks The results of the VIRA (refer to Section 8 and Appendixes N to CC), undertaken to assess
potential risks to human health from the intrusion of chlorinated hydrocarbon vapours
(primarily TCE) into indoor air from groundwater and soil vapour, are represented in the data
tables on Figures 6A and 6B.
Based on the predicted indoor air concentrations from soil data collected at individual sample
point locations, concentration contours have been inferred between these locations in order to
support the derivation of response levels at individual properties within the assessment Area.
These contours are depicted in Figures 6A and 6B.
The results for predicted indoor air concentrations of TCE within the Relocation Area indicated
the following:
 six residential properties: 20 to <200 µg/m3 response level
 14 residential properties: 2 to <20 µg/m3 response level; and
 nine residential properties: >non-detect to <2 µg/m3 response level.
The results for predicted indoor air concentrations of TCE within other areas (i.e. in close
proximity to the Relocation Area) indicated the following:
 one residential property, on the southern side of Ash Avenue, Clovelly Park: 2 to <20 µg/m3
response level
 two residential properties on Mimosa Terrace, Clovelly Park: > non-detect to <2 µg/m3
response level; and
 12 locations along Woodland Avenue, Mitchell Park area (either slab-on-ground or crawl
3
space): >non-detect to <2 µg/m response level.
The predicted levels of TCE in indoor air for all remaining properties in the southern Clovelly
Park and Mitchell Park areas correspond to the safe (nothing detected) response level.
Complete exposure pathways:
Identified pathways Based on the results of the recent Fyfe investigations, including the VIRA and groundwater fate
and areas of potential and transport modelling and taking into account available historical information, the complete
risk
exposure pathways that have been identified for the Assessment Area are as follows:
 vapour intrusion into indoor air in the northern Clovelly Park residential area (north of Ash
Avenue), including the Eastern RA and the Precautionary RA*
 down-gradient groundwater users within the Clovelly Park and Mitchell Park areas; and
 the Sturt River to the west of the Assessment Area (i.e. within the next 20 years), noting that
potential hydraulic connectivity is unknown at this stage.
Note: *Although the VIRA also identified a vapour intrusion risk for the Monroe and former MMAL properties, modelling was undertaken
for residential (rather than commercial/industrial) land use scenarios.
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
75
10.
CONCLUSIONS
Between August and November 2014, Fyfe undertook a detailed investigation of potential soil, soil vapour
and groundwater chlorinated hydrocarbon impacts within an EPA-designated Assessment Area located across
the suburbs of Clovelly Park and Mitchell Park, South Australia. The approximately 123.6 ha Assessment Area
is bounded by Main South Road to the east and south-east, Alawoona Ave (and a line representing its eastern
extension through the former MMAL property) to the north, Sturt River (concrete culvert) to the west and
Sturt Road to the south.
The results of the investigations undertaken by Fyfe have been used to assess potential vapour intrusion to
indoor air risks within residential properties as well as the likely lateral migration of the groundwater impacts
over time. An updated CSM has been developed from the field, analytical and modelling results (refer to
Section 9).
The following conclusions have been reached regarding the Assessment Area:

Subsurface geological conditions are generally consistent across the Assessment Area and are
dominated by the clays and silty clays of the Hindmarsh Clay formation. Calcrete segregations were not
uncommon within the upper 1 to 3 m of the soil profile and variable coarse fraction (sand and gravel)
components, as well as minor structural defects (fractures and voids), were also present. While there is
a potential for structural defects to act as preferential pathways (lateral and vertical) for soil vapour
movement, the results of the investigations have indicated that these features are not sufficiently
continuous throughout the soil profile to have a significant influence on vertical vapour migration. By
contrast, the presence of discontinuous sand and gravel lenses could be enabling some preferential
lateral vapour migration, particularly in the vicinity of the Monroe property and Eastern RA.

Depth to groundwater across the Assessment Area ranged from approximately 9 to 13 m BGL and
groundwater was inferred to flow in a general west to north-westerly direction. Groundwater chemistry
indicated that all wells were installed within a single aquifer, likely to comprise the Quaternary Q1
aquifer in this area and characterised by salinity levels of between 400 to 13,100 mg/L TDS, the latter
showing considerable variation across the Assessment Area (i.e. likely to be a result of localised
recharge).

The soil testing results did not identify any detectable concentrations of chlorinated hydrocarbon
compounds within the Assessment Area.

Three separate groundwater chlorinated hydrocarbon plumes have been identified on the basis of the
recent investigations, as depicted in Figure 4. The suspected source areas are as follows:
― Plume A: centred on GW20 on the south-western portion of the Monroe property and extending
beneath the Eastern RA
― Plume B: centred on MWS14_01 on the south-western portion of the former MMAL property; and
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
76
― Plume C: located in the vicinity of MW_EPA16 located on the western boundary of the former MMAL
property, south of Alawoona Ave.

As depicted on Figure 4, the current extent of the groundwater chlorinated hydrocarbon impacts has
been delineated as extending beneath the Monroe property, the southern portion of the MMAL site,
the Eastern and Precautionary RAs and the eastern and northern portions of the Mitchell Park area.
Initial groundwater fate and transport modelling indicates that the lateral extent of the impacts are
likely to increase in the medium to long term. It has been predicted that groundwater, containing
detectable concentrations of chlorinated hydrocarbons, could reach the Sturt River in approximately 20
years and could also potentially migrate beyond, to commercial and residential areas located further to
the west. Although the Sturt River may act to limit plume migration, the hydraulic connectivity (and
interaction) between the uppermost aquifer and Sturt River is not known. It is understood that the EPA
will use this information to establish an appropriate Groundwater Prohibition Area (GPA) or restriction
area in accordance with the provisions of Section S103S of the Environment Protection Act 1993.

As depicted on Figures 5A to 5D, the results of the soil vapour investigations have indicated a definite
correlation between the groundwater chlorinated hydrocarbon plumes and the observed soil vapour
concentrations (at various depths), particularly within the Monroe and Eastern RA areas (Plumes A and
B) and the north-eastern portion of the Mitchell Park area (Plume C). The soil vapour concentrations
generally increase with depth through the soil profile, thereby indicating a likely groundwater source
(i.e. as the primary source contributing to the soil vapour plume). By comparison, a single location just
inside the western boundary of the Monroe property displayed higher soil vapour concentrations at
shallower depths, thereby possibly indicating a soil source and/or lateral vapour migration at a shallow
depth (i.e. a suspected secondary source location).

Targeted soil vapour investigations undertaken along lengths of the sewer and stormwater mains within
the Clovelly Park residential area have not identified the associated service trenches as significant
preferential pathways for soil vapour migration.

As depicted on Figures 6A and 6B, the results for predicted indoor air concentrations of TCE within the
3
― six residential properties: 20 to <200 µg/m response level
3
― 14 residential properties: 2 to <20 µg/m response level; and
3
― nine residential properties: >non-detect to <2 µg/m response level.

As depicted on Figures 6A and 6B, the results for predicted indoor air concentrations of TCE within other
areas (i.e. in close proximity to the Relocation Area) indicated the following:
3
― one residential property, on the southern side of Ash Avenue, Clovelly Park: 2 to <20 µg/m response
level
3
― two residential properties on Mimosa Terrace, Clovelly Park: >non-detect to <2 µg/m response
level; and
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
77
― 12 residential properties along Woodland Avenue, Mitchell Park (either slab-on-ground or crawl
3
space): >non-detect to <2 µg/m response level.

The predicted levels of TCE in indoor air for properties in the southern Clovelly Park (i.e. south of the
Relocation Area, with the exception of the property on the south-western corner of Ash Ave and
Mimosa Terrace) and Mitchell Park areas correspond to the safe response level.

The results of passive indoor air sampling within six (vacant) Clovelly Park residences, undertaken to
assess the correlation between sub-slab soil vapour and indoor air concentrations (i.e. to validate the
modelling approach adopted for soil vapour intrusion risk assessment), indicated that there is a general
correlation between the predicted indoor air concentrations, as determined by the VIRA, and the
measured indoor air concentrations. In addition, the detection of contaminant concentrations in indoor
air within the Chestnut Court, but not the Ash Ave houses, coincides with expectations regarding the
distribution of soil vapour, as related to groundwater source areas on the adjoining existing/former
industrial properties.

It is apparent that there is a relative reduction in chlorinated hydrocarbon concentrations as soil vapour
migrates upwards from the unconfined aquifer and travels through the soil profile, thereby resulting in
the lower concentrations identified closer to the ground surface. There were, however, higher soil
vapour concentrations reported within the Monroe area at shallower depths that are potentially due to
the combined effect of shallow soil impacts as well as impacted (underlying) groundwater.
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
78
11.
REFERENCES
ASTM (2001) Standard Practice for Active Soil Gas Sampling in the Vadose Zone for Vapor Intrusion
Evaluations. ASTM Guide D7663-12.
ASTM (2006) Standard Guide for Soil Gas Monitoring in the Vadose Zone. ASTM Guide D5314-92.
Australian/New Zealand Standard (1998) Water Quality Sampling, Part 1: Guidance on the Design of Sampling
Programs, Sampling Techniques and the Preservation and Handling of Samples. AS/NZS 5667.1:1998.
Australian/New Zealand Standard (1998) Water Quality Sampling, Part 11: Guidance on Sampling of
Groundwaters. AS/NZS 5667.11:1998.
Belpario A.P. Rice R.L. (1989) Stratigraphic Investigation of the Gillman Investigation Site, Port Adelaide
Estuary. Geological Survey, Department of Mines and Energy South Australia.
California EPA (2012) Advisory Active Soil Gas Investigations. Department of Toxic Substances Control, Los
Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board and San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board, April
2012.
CRC CARE (2013) Petroleum Hydrocarbon Vapour Intrusion Assessment – Australian Guidance. CRC CARE
Technical Report No. 23, July 2013.
Department for Health and Ageing (2012) Report on the Site Contamination Investigations Conducted by the
Department for Health and Ageing in Clovelly Park, South Australia (2008-2011). Report No. eA768188, dated
September 2012.
enHealth (2012a) Australian Exposure Factor Guidance- Guidelines for assessing human health risks from
environmental hazards. Commonwealth of Australia.
enHealth (2012b) Environmental Health Risk assessment- Guidelines for assessing human health risks from
environmental hazards. Commonwealth of Australia.
Environmental Protection Act 1993.
Environmental Protection Regulations 2009.
Gerges N.Z. (1996) Overview of the Adelaide Metropolitan Area. South Australian Department of Mines and
Energy Report Book 1997/003.
Gerges N.Z. (1999) The Geology and Hydrogeology of the Adelaide Metropolitan Area. Flinders University
(South Australia). Ph.D. thesis (unpublished).
Golder Associates (2012) 22A and 22B Ash Avenue, Clovelly Park, South Australia: Preliminary Environmental
Investigation Report. Report to Housing SA, dated 12 December 2012.
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
79
Green G., Watt E., Alcoe D., Costar A. and Mortimer L. (2010) Groundwater Flow Across Regional Scale Faults.
Department of Water Technical Report DFW 2010/15.
Hodgkin T. (2004) Aquifer Storage Capacities of the Adelaide Region. South Australia. Department of Water,
Land and Biodiversity Conservation Report 2004/47.
Hutter K. (1997) Order and Disorder in Granular Materials – Experiment and Theory, Darmstadt University of
Technology, Germany.
ITRC (2007) Vapor Intrusion Pathway - A Practical Guidance.
Kay J. and Cavagnaro R. (1984) Settlement of Raft Foundations. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering.
NEPM (1999) National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure, Schedules B1 to
B9. National Environment Protection Council, Australia.
NSW DEC (2006) Guidelines for the NSW Site Auditor Scheme (2nd edition).
Olweny M.R.O. and Williamson T.J. (1998) An Investigation of the Thermal Performance of Suspended Timber
Floors. Proceedings of the 32nd International ANZAScA Conference, Wellington, New Zealand.
Parsons Brinckerhoff (2008a) Stage 1 Environmental Site Assessment – Mitsubishi Motors Production Plant,
Tonsley Park, South Australia. Report to MMAL, dated 20 May 2008.
Parsons Brinckerhoff (2008b) Stage 2 Environmental Site Assessment – Mitsubishi Motors Production Plant,
Tonsley Park, South Australia. Report to MMAL, dated 8 August 2008.
Parsons Brinckerhoff (2009a) Section 14 Assessment Report – MMAL Tonsley Park. Report to MMAL, dated 13
March 2009.
Parsons Brinckerhoff (2009b) Quantitative Health Risk Assessment – Mitsubishi Tonsley Park – Section 14,
South Australia. Report to MMAL, dated 19 August 2009.
Parsons Brinckerhoff (2009c) Groundwater Assessment – MMAL Tonsley Park. Report to MMAL, dated 12
October 2009.
PPK Environment & Infrastructure (1995) Environmental Audit of Mitsubishi Motors Australia Limited, Tonsley
Park Plant. Report to MMAL, dated 5 September 1995.
RAIS (2014) Chemical Specific Parameters for Trichloroethylene. Risk Assessment Information System, Office
of Environmental Management, U.S. Department of Energy.
Rust PPK (1995) Site Contamination Assessment Clovelly Park. Report to Monroe Australia Pty Ltd, dated 31
January 1995.
Rust PPK (1996) Stage II Site Contamination Assessment, Clovelly Park. Report to Monroe Australia Pty Ltd,
dated 5 March 1996.
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
80
SA Department of Mines and Energy (1962) 1:250,000 Barker Geological Map Sheet. Sheet S1 54-13.
SA Department of Mines and Energy (1992) Groundwater in the Adelaide Metropolitan Area. Information
Sheet No. 21.
SA EPA (2007) Regulatory Monitoring and Testing Groundwater Sampling.
SA EPA (2014) Clovelly Park Mitchell Park Project Management Team Assessment Program Flip Book.
November 2014.
Selby J. and Lindsay J. (1982) Engineering Geology of the Adelaide City Area. South Australian Department of
Mines and Energy Bulletin No. 51.
Standards Australia (1993) Geotechnical Site Investigations. AS1726-1993.
Standards Australia (2011) Residential Slabs and Footings. AS2870-2011.
Standards Australia (1999) Guide to the Sampling and Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Soil Part 2:
Volatile Substances. AS4482.2-1999.
Standards Australia (2005) Guide to the Sampling and Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Soil Part 1:
Non-Volatile and Semi-Volatile Compounds. AS4482.1-2005 Homebush NSW.
Stapledon D.H (1971) Changes and Structural Defects Developed in some South Australian Clays and their
Engineering Consequences. Proceedings of Symposium on Soils and Earth Structures in Arid Climates,
Adelaide, 1970.
URS (2009a) Monroe Clovelly Park Facility Stage 1 Environmental Site Assessment. Report to Monroe Australia
Pty Ltd, dated 13 March 2009.
URS (2009b) Monroe Clovelly Park Facility – Groundwater Monitoring, January 2009. Report to Monroe
Australia Pty Ltd, dated 9 June 2009.
URS (2009c) Monroe Clovelly Park Facility – Stage 2 Environmental Site Assessment. Report to Monroe
Australia Pty Ltd, dated 16 December 2009.
URS (2010) Monroe Clovelly Park Facility – Stage 3 Environmental Site Assessment. Report to Monroe
Australia Pty Ltd, dated 8 October 2010.
URS (2011) Monroe, Clovelly Park Facility – Soil and Soil Vapour Investigations, April to June 2011. Report to
Monroe Australia Pty Ltd, dated 19 September 2011.
URS (2012) Monroe, Clovelly Park Facility – On-site and Off-site Groundwater Investigations, October to
December 2011. Report to Monroe Australia Pty Ltd, dated 9 March 2012.
URS (2013) Final Report Monroe Clovelly Park Facility – Environmental Investigations, May 2012 to March
2013. Report to Monroe Australia Pty Ltd, dated 6 September 2013.
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
81
URS (2014a) Monroe, Clovelly Park Facility – Off-site Vapour Investigations, August to November 2013. Report
to Monroe Australia Pty Ltd, dated 18 March 2014.
URS (2014b) Chlorinated Solvent Vapour Intrusion Risk Assessment Clovelly Park. Draft report to Monroe
Australia Pty Ltd, dated 16 May 2014.
US EPA (2004) User’s Guide for Evaluating Subsurface Vapor Intrusion into Buildings. Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response. Washington D.C.
US EPA (2012) EPA’s Vapor Intrusion Database: Evaluation and Characterization of Attenuation Factors for
Chlorinated Volatile Organic Compounds and Residential Buildings.
Wiedemeir T. Swanson M., Moutoux D., Gordon E., Wilson J., Wilson B., Kampbell D., Haas P., Miller R.
Hansen J. And Chapelle F. (1998) Technical Protocol for Evaluating Natural Attenuation of Chlorinated
Solvents in Ground Water. National Risk Management Research Laboratory Office of Research and
Development, US EPA.
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
82
12.
STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS
The opinions and conclusions presented in this report are specific to the conditions of the Assessment Area
and the state of legislation currently enacted as at the date of this report. Fyfe does not make any
representation or warranty that the opinions and conclusions in this report will be applicable in the future as
there may be changes in the condition of the Assessment Area, applicable legislation or other factors that
would affect the opinions and conclusions contained in this report.
Fyfe has used the degree of skill and care ordinarily exercised by reputable members of our profession
practising in the same or similar locality. This report has been prepared for the South Australian Environment
Protection Authority, for the specific purpose identified in the report. Fyfe accepts no liability or
responsibility to any third party for the accuracy of any information contained in the report or any opinion or
conclusion expressed in the report. Neither the whole of the report nor any part or reference thereto may be
in any way used, relied upon or reproduced by any third party without Fyfe’s prior written approval. This
report must be read in its entirety, including all tables and attachments.
The VIRA was conducted based on the information provided to Salcor by Fyfe at the time of the assessment,
and provides an interpretation of risks to address a specific objective in accordance with industry practices.
The VIRA requires a number of assumptions regarding site conditions, human exposure and chemical toxicity.
Even though site-specific parameters may be considered (e.g. soil profile and analytical data), it is not
possible to fully describe site conditions and human activities at the site for the entire period of time
considered in the risk assessment. The assumptions considered for this VIRA were generally conservative in
nature, to account for uncertainty in the parameter estimates and to protect public health by providing a
deliberate margin of safety.
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
83
FIGURES
Figure 1 – Site Location and Assessment Area
Figure 2A – Assessment Point Locations
Figure 2B – Assessment Point Locations – Relocation Area and Surrounds
Figure 3 – Groundwater Elevation Contour Plan
Figure 4 – Groundwater TCE Concentration Plan
Figure 5A – Soil Vapour TCE Concentration Plan – 2 m
Figure 5B – Soil Vapour TCE Concentration Plan – 4 m
Figure 5C – Soil Vapour TCE Concentration Plan – 8 m
Figure 5D – Soil Vapour TCE Concentration Plan – 10 m
Figure 6A – Predicted TCE Indoor Air Concentrations (Modelled)
Figure 6B – Predicted TCE Indoor Air Concentrations (Modelled) – Relocation Area
Figure 7 – Geological Cross Section – Assessment Area
80276-2 REV0  3/12/2014
PAGE
84
AV ENU
E
BARKUN A AV
ENUE
DEEPDENE AV
FORMER MITSUBISHI
MOTORS AUSTRALIA
LIMITED (MMAL)
E DRIVE
RO AD
UE
MALD ON AV EN
WO OD LAND
GR OV E
ENUE
KELSEY AV
PARKWOOD
WETT AVENUE
OV E
BRAD LEY GR
HAND LEY AV
HE
KENM AY AV EN
MITCHELL PARK
AREA
UE
AYLIFF ES ROAD
CLOVELLY PARK
AREA
EN UE
AD
GR EENGLAD
ENUE
RO
ET
GEOR GE STRE
N
AI
M
CO
U
AV
E
NU
Y COURT
M
AI
NU
BU
ES
C
CR
CH
BIR
E
NU
AV
E
E
LYN
OV
GR
TT
ON
MAPLE AV EN
EY
L
RN
SU
OAK AV EN UE
TO
N
E
BU
NE
VE
YA
STURT ROAD
RO
AD
0
30
60
90
120 150
m
1:6,000 @ A3
CLIENT
SA EPA
E
NU
VE
UNIVERSITY DRI
ER
UE
IN
MC
UE
TWEED AV EN
CL
OS
EPA ASSESSMENT AREA
KELVIN RO AD
EDISO N ROAD
MA
MILL TER RACE
E
AC
RR
D
LEGEND
TE
EN
T
E
MYRTLE GROV
A
OS
OA
LYN NE CO URT
EM
RO
IM
M
KE
E
AB
BE
YR
E
AD
OT
E
RA
VE
LLY
T
TILLEY CO UR
STE
TO
TIM
NU
HE
DS
N
CO
UR
AS H AV ENUE
HY
E
AV
E
GR
OV
LE
AD
L RO AD
DA
RO
EDISO N ROAD
T
NT
R
RIVE
BE
LN
RELOCATION
AREA
TIM OTH
E
NU
E
IN
AV
E
RK
K
I TH
RT
HA
AN
URT
NR
RB
E
CRESC
VA CO
PE
CO
MONROE
SITE
CHESTNUT
COURT
GEN E
LI
N
SHEPHERDS HIL
KARU
AV ENUE
STURT
MARIO N RO AD
TROWBRID GE
SO
UT
H
UE
LA NARK AV EN
AD
NORFOLK RO
EMAIL: [email protected]
SOUT H RO AD
E CO URT
CO NSTABL
PH: (08) 8232 9088
O ON A
ASSESSMENT AREA
THE CRESCENT
ALAW
UE
PROJECT
ENUE
RONALD AV
EPA ASSESSMENT AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CLOVELLY PARK / MITCHELL PARK, SA
THE PAR KWAY
TITLE
ER
FF
LA
AV ENUE
DR
IV
E
FIGURE 1: SITE LOCATION
AND ASSESSMENT AREA
HUGH CAIRNS
FA X : ( 0 8 ) 8 2 3 2 9 0 9 9
UE
BAHLO O AV EN
ADELAIDE
80276_201_Figure 1 - Site Location and Assessment Area.ai
80276
REV 3 > 01.12.14
L E V E L 3 , 8 0 F L I N D E R S S T R E E T, A D E L A I D E S A 5 0 0 0 .
FI
NN
IS
S
MI NKIE AV EN
ST
R
EE
UE
KIR RA AV EN
T
AV ENUE
PAUL STREET
MCFARLANE
WEB: fyfe.com.au
ABN: 57 008 116 130
FIGURE 1: SITE LOCATION
AND ASSESSMENT AREA
ENUE
BARKUNA AV
AURICCHIO
AVENUE
EN UE
DEEP DENE AV
DRIVE
UE
OVE
BRADLEY GR
MALD ON AVEN
UE
HEWETT AVEN
ENUE
HANDLEY AV
UE
MITCHELL PARK
AREA
UE
KENMAY AVEN
AYLIFFES ROAD
CLOVELLY PARK
AREA
UE
LANARK AVEN
AV
E
NU
E
YC
OU
R
T
NT
E
AV
E
T
RE
SC
EN
BIR
CH
C
E
LYN
TO
N
AV
EN
U
E
AC
YG
LE
N
SU
T
OAK AVENUE
TO
N
note: refer to specific plans for naming of locations
RO
AD
0
30
60
90
120
150
m
STURT ROAD
UN IVERSITY DRIVE
N
ER
UE
IN
MC
UE
MAPL E AVEN
TWEED AVEN
EM
MA
CL
OS
E
E
MYRTLE GROV
RR
TE
OA
D
LYNNE COURT
R
BU
H
E
EY
R
VE
RO
SO
UT
NU
A
OS
AB
B
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLS (FYFE)
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLS (EXISTING)
SOIL BORE
SOIL VAPOUR BORE (2m)
E
SOIL VAPOUR BORE (4m, 8m, 10m) MILL TERRAC
SOIL VAPOUR BORE (1m + 2m SUB SLAB)
INDOOR
/AD
OUTDOOR AIR SAMPLE
KELVIN RO
EPA ASSESSMENT AREA
IM
M
KE
LLY
G
HE
STE
R
LEGEND
ASH AVENUE
TIM
OT
H
RO
VE
R
RIVE
EA
VE
NU
N
IN
M
AI
RK
L ROAD
HA
RIT
HC
OU
RT
RO
AD
PE
N
RO
AD
SHEPHERD S HIL
RT
N
URT
CHESTNUT CO
AVEN UE
E
CR ESC
KARU
GENE
VA CO
U
BE
DA
L
TILLEY COURT
NC
OL
TROWBRIDGE
STURT
MARION ROAD
AD
NORFOLK RO
LI
ENUE
U
EN
AV
EY
1:5,000 @ A3
STURT ROAD
CLIENT
RONALD AV
E
SA EPA
PROJECT
THE PARKWAY
DR
IV
FF
E
R
AVENUE
LA
Y
WA
GA
MARION ROAD
R IN
IPA
RR
WA
E
TITLE
HUGH CAIRN S
FA X : ( 0 8 ) 8 2 3 2 9 0 9 9
OVE
PARKWOOD GR
ROAD
WOODLAND
KELSEY AVEN
GREENGLADE
FIGURE 2A:
ASSESSMENT POINT LOCATIONS
80276_202_Figure
2A - Assessment Point Locations.ai
ST
UR
TD
REV 2 > 01.12.14
RIV
E
80276
WEB: fyfe.com.au
SOUTH ROAD
E COURT
CONSTABL
ET
GEORGE STRE
THE CRESCEN T
ONA A
VEN UE
AL AWO
PH: (08) 8232 9088
UE
ABN: 57 008 116 130
ENUE
BROOKMAN AV
UE
BAHLOO AVEN
ST
RE
ET
FIGURE 2A:
ASSESSMENT POINT LOCATIONS
MINKIE AVEN
FIN
NI
SS
AVENUE
PAUL STREET
MCFARL ANE
MWS18_03
SV_EPA31
URS01
MWS14_06
MWS13_01
SV_EPA35A
SV_EPA35B
SV_EPA35C
MW-EPA13
SV_EPA52
MW-EPA32
CLOVELLY PARK
AREA
SV_EPA63
SV_EPA29
SV_EPA62A
SV_EPA62B
SV_EPA62C
SV_EPA62D
SV_EPA61
SV_EPA54A
SV_EPA54B
SV_EPA54C
MWS14_01
SV_EPA74A
SV_EPA74B
SV_EPA74C
SV_EPA51
SB_EPA21
SB_EPA22
SV_EPA66
SB_EPA6
SVS_EPA2
MWS14_13
SB_EPA24
SB_EPA14
SB_EPA16
SV_EPA64A
SB_EPA15
SV_EPA64B
SV_EPA64C
SV_EPA64D
SB_EPA25
MWS14_09
SV_EPA26
MW-EPA11
TIM
OT
H
YC
OU
RT
SV_EPA38A
SV_EPA38B
SV_EPA38C
MW-EPA10B
SVT_EPA_2A
SVT_EPA_2B
SVS_EPA4
W5
SVS_EPA3
SB_EPA4
PRECAUTIONARY
GW16
GW17
GW22
W6
SV_EPA2
GW19
SV_EPA3
SB_EPA3
MW-EPA3
RELOCATION AREA
SVT_EPA_5A
SVT_EPA_4A
SVT_EPA_5A
SB_EPA11
SVT_EPA_4B
SVT_EPA_6A
AS
SB_EPA10
H
SVT_EPA_6B
SB_EPA8
SVS_EPA17
MW-EPA1 AV
SB_EPA9
SV_EPA12B EN
SVS_EPA18
SVS_EPA8
U
SV_EPA18A
SVS_EPA20
SV_EPA4 SVS_EPA21
SV_EPA12C
E
SVS_EPA7
GW32
SV_EPA18B
SV_EPA12D
SVS_EPA19
SV_EPA17 SV_EPA18C
SVS_EPA9
W7
SV_EPA12A
SVS_EPA22
SV_EPA18D
SV_EPA72A
SV_EPA72B
SV_EPA72C
SB_EPA1
SV_EPA23A
MWS14_02
MWS14_07
EASTERN
RELOCATION
SVS_EPA5
AREA
SVS_EPA6
SB_EPA13
SB_EPA12
SB_EPA7
SVS_EPA10
URS05
URS04
MWS14_11
SB_EPA5
SVT_EPA_1A
SVT_EPA_1B
SV_EPA65A
SV_EPA65B
SV_EPA65C
SV_EPA65D
SV_EPA1
SB_EPA2
SVS_EPA1
SB_EPA23
URS03
SV_EPA67
MWS14_08
MW-EPA2
SVT_EPA_3A
SVT_EPA_3B
MWS14_04
SV_EPA34A
SV_EPA34B
SV_EPA34C
MW-EPA12
URT
CHESTNUT CO
MITCHELL PARK
AREA
GW23
MM GW06
SB_EPA17
SB_EPA18
SB_EPA19
SB_EPA20
SV_EPA27
SV_EPA56
MW-EPA19
URS06
URS02
SV_EPA60A
SV_EPA60B
SV_EPA60C
SV_EPA60D
SV_EPA28
MWS14_05
LEGEND
GW26
GW25
SV_EPA20A
SV_EPA20B
SV_EPA20C
SV_EPA20D
SOIL BORE
GW20
SVS_EPA16
SVS_EPA15
SOIL VAPOUR BORE (4m, 8m, 10m)
GW27
SVS_EPA13
SVS_EPA14
SOIL VAPOUR BORE (1m + 2m SUB SLAB)
INDOOR / OUTDOOR AIR SAMPLE
GW46
MAIN STORMWATER SERVICE TRENCH
GW21
SVS_EPA12
MAIN SEWER SERVICE TRENCH
EPA ASSESSMENT AREA
MW-EPA9
SV_EPA5
GW15
SV_EPA21B
SV_EPA21A
GW31
40
50
m
PROJECT
RO
AD
TH
SO
U
M
OA
K
AI
FIGURE 2B: ASSESSMENT POINT
LOCATIONS - RELOCATION AREA
AND SURROUNDS
SU
T
TO
N
SV_EPA8
SV-EPA11
TITLE
N
AV
EN
U
E
E
AC
T
MW-EPA4
RR
TE
RE
SC
EN
30
SA EPA
SV_EPA14A
SV_EPA14B
SV_EPA14C
SV_EPA14D
A
OS
BIR
CH
C
20
CLIENT
IM
M
SV_EPA25
SV_EPA13A
SV_EPA13B
SV_EPA13C
SV_EPA13D
MW-EPA7
SV_EPA6
MW-EPA5
10
1:2,000 @ A3
SV-EPA7
E
MYRTLE GROV
0
RO
AD
80276_202_Figure 2B - APL - Relocation Area.ai
REV 2 > 01.12.14
80276
FA X : ( 0 8 ) 8 2 3 2 9 0 9 9
MWS18_04
WEB: fyfe.com.au
SV_EPA30
PH: (08) 8232 9088
OVE
BRADLEY GR
MWS14_10
ROAD
WOODLAND
ENUE
HANDLEY AV
SV_EPA49
ABN: 57 008 116 130
FIGURE 2B: ASSESSMENT POINT
LOCATIONS - RELOCATION AREA
AND SURROUNDS
SV_EPA36A
SV_EPA36B
SV_EPA36C
MW-EPA14
SV_EPA55
MW-EPA31
(
!
MW-EPA11
YC
OU
R
(
!
TIM
OT
H
(
!
GROUNDWATER
FLOW DIRECTION
MW-EPA7
MW-EPA4
(
!
RO
AD
(
!
MILL TE
RRACE
KELVIN ROAD
20
INFERRED GROUNDWATER ELEVATION CONTOUR (m AHD)
- OCT 2014
EPA ASSESSMENT AREA
TO
N
RO
AD
note: This is one interpretation only. Other interpretations possible.
0
30
60
90
120
150
m
STURT ROAD
U
EN
AV
EY
UN IVERSITY DRIVE
N
ER
UE
IN
MC
UE
STURT ROAD
SO
UT
SU
T
MW-EPA8
N
(
!
DRY / BLOCKED WELLS
46
OAK AVENUE
28
(
!
44
MW-EPA6
32
YG
LE
(
!
40
(
!
LYN
TO
N
EM
MA
CL
OS
E
(
!
(
!
MW-EPA5
RD
LEGEND
GW15
GW31
38
E
AV
EN
UE
(
!
H
E
GW21
(
!
NU
MW-EPA18
44
DS
TO
N
GW46
(
!
ENUE
1:5,000 @ A3
CLIENT
RONALD AV
E
SA EPA
PROJECT
THE PARKWAY
DR
IV
R
AVENUE
FF
E
HUGH CAIRN S
LA
Y
WA
GA
MARION ROAD
R IN
IPA
RR
WA
E
TITLE
FIGURE 3: GROUNDWATER
ELEVATION CONTOUR PLAN
80276_203_Figure
3 - Groundwater Elevation Contour.ai
ST
UR
TD
REV 2 > 01.12.14
RIV
E
80276
ABN: 57 008 116 130
WEB: fyfe.com.au
42
M
AI
(
!
ED ISON ROAD
28
(
!
MW-EPA9
AV
E
N
R
BU
GW36
GW20
(
!
GW27
ASH AVENUE
MAPL E AVEN
TWEED AVEN
VE
RO
OA
D
GW19
GW26 !
(
From top of monitoring well casing /
approximate ground level
Australian Height Datum
(
!
GW25
E
AC
(
!
MW-EPA28
(
!
GW32
MW-EPA3
2
RR
TE
EY
R
W7
(
!
(
!
1
MWS14_02
A
OS
AB
B
(
!
MWS14_09
MW-EPA1
BIR
CH
CR
ES
CE
NT
HE
STE
R
(
!
MWS14_11
W6
MWS14_07
(
!
FA X : ( 0 8 ) 8 2 3 2 9 0 9 9
MW-EPA10A(B)
E
LY
G
MW-EPA27
(
!
(
!
PH: (08) 8232 9088
(
!
MWS14_04
URS03
(
!
W5
(
!
MWS14_13
MWS14_08
GW16
GW17
(
!
IM
M
(
!
KE
L
E
TILLEY COURT
(
!
MW-EPA12
MW-EPA2
E
(
!
(
!
GW23
(
!
URS04
URS05 !
((
!
GW22
AV
EN
U
MW-EPA19
MM GW06
(
!
MWS14_01
(
!
K
(
!
NU
RO
VE
EA
VE
NU
MWS14_06
URS06
(
!
AV
E
(
!
URS02
RIT
HC
OU
RT
IN
MWS13_01
MWS14_05
MW-EPA29
PE
N
RK
(
!
BA
N
(
!
MWS18_04
ED ISON ROAD
BE
DA
L
LYNNE COURT
(
!
MW-EPA13
(
!
HA
URS01
(
!
MWS14_10
36
RT
(
!
MW-EPA32
NT
R
RIVE
E
CR ESC
KARU
GENE
VA CO
U
(
!
(
!
(
!
CLOVELLY PARK
AREA
MWS18_03
URT
CHESTNUT CO
AVEN UE
MW-EPA25
MW-EPA14
34
MW-EPA33
TROWBRIDGE
(
!
(
!
GROUNDWATER
FLOW DIRECTION
ENUE
HANDLEY AV
MITCHELL PARK
AREA
UE
MW-EPA15
46
MW-EPA26
( HEWETT AVENUE
!
KENMAY AVEN
MW-EPA31
30
26
(
!
OVE
BRADLEY GR
UE
MALD ON AVEN
STURT
MARION ROAD
AD
NORFOLK RO
MW-EPA22
MW-EPA24
UE
LANARK AVEN
(
!
(
!
ROAD
WOODLAND
(
!
(
!
MW-EPA30
UE
OVE
PARKWOOD GR
(
!
40
KELSEY AVEN
(
!
DRIVE
MW-EPA16
42
MW-EPA_PB
GREENGLADE
(
!
EN UE
DEEP DENE AV
MW-EPA21
T
(
!
(
!
MW-EPA20
BU
R
AV
MW-EPA23 BARKUNA
38
ENUE
(
!
ET
GEORGE STRE
36
E COURT
CONSTABL
MW-EPA17
34
(
!
32
30
28
26
ONA A
VEN UE
M
AI
ST
RE
ET
UE
AL AWO
Groundwater
Standing Corrected
Monitoring Well Water
Water Elevation
Level 1
(mAHD2)
MW_EPA30
10.360
28.159
MW_EPA31
10.745
28.052
MW_EPA32
11.790
28.014
ENUE
BROOKMAN AV
MW_EPA33
7.294
27.124
MW_EPA_PB
8.975
MWS13_01
7.770
36.564
MWS14_01
10.682
32.626
MWS14_02
9.466
42.770
MWS14_04
14.900
31.907
MWS14_06
10.000
37.994
MWS14_07
8.610
42.416
MWS14_08
12.100
31.936
MWS14_09
11.800
31.062
MWS14_10
11.726
31.136
UE
CCHIO AVEN
MWS14_11
14.128 AURI
34.157
MWS14_13
11.832
34.655
MWS18_03
12.330
30.109
MWS18_04
9.950
33.047
GW15
9.658
47.893
GW16
11.210
46.183
GW19
13.236
44.231
GW20
13.514
43.894
GW21
11.150
43.401
GW22
13.220
43.933
GW23
13.452
43.928
GW26
13.408
43.264
GW27
17.758
39.198
AYLIFFES ROAD
GW31
13.454
41.917
GW32
12.263
37.071
GW46
9.698
43.082
URS01
9.415
35.385
URS02
11.213
34.955
URS03
12.608
33.390
URS04
4.910
42.917
URS05
5.413
42.454
URS06
5.201
42.839
W5
13.498
33.404
W6
15.896
33.464
W7
11.526
35.4
THE CRESCEN T
UE
BAHLOO AVEN
Corrected
Water Elevation
(mAHD2)
32.419
36.292
41.215
39.590
28.245
35.999
28.165
31.164
28.771
31.927
30.565
28.464
30.635
30.700
30.206
28.138
28.138
26.962
25.126
27.314
24.213
25.567
26.981
26.356
27.824
28.029
27.329
SOUTH ROAD
Groundwater
Standing
Monitoring Well Water
Level 1
MW_EPA1
12.668
MW_EPA2
12.115
MW_EPA4
12.531
MW_EPA5
10.717
MW_EPA6
15.936
MW_EPA8
15.066
MW_EPA10A
12.410
MW_EPA10B
9.411
MW_EPA11
13.000
MW_EPA12
10.145
MW_EPA13
11.245
MW_EPA14
12.465
MW_EPA15
9.670
MW_EPA16
9.226
MW_EPA17
9.715
MW_EPA18
11.465
MW_EPA19
12.430
MW_EPA20
10.019
MW_EPA21
8.485
MW_EPA22
9.346
MW_EPA23
6.592
MW_EPA24
5.870
MW_EPA25
5.810
MW_EPA26
7.900
MW_EPA27
8.258
MW_EPA28
7.490
MW_EPA29
9.780
ELEVATION CONTOUR PLAN
MINKIE AVEN
FIN
NI
SS
AVENUE
PAUL STREET
MCFARL ANE
(
!
EN UE
DEEP DENE AV
MW-EPA21
MW-EPA16
NO DATA
COLLECTED
100
10
0
2,00
(
!
PE
N
nd
RK
IN
AV
E
NU
(
!
MW-EPA10A
E
(
!
(
!
MW-EPA1
W7
(
!
TIM
OT
H
YC
OU
R
(
!
MWS14_09
GW32
GW20
(
!
0
9
M
AI
DS
TO
N
E
MW-EPA7
(
!
MW-EPA5
(
!
MW-EPA4
OAK AVENUE
GW15
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
LYN
INFERRED GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION CONTOUR (μg/L)
- OCT 2014
EPA ASSESSMENT AREA
20
TO
N
RO
AD
0
30
60
90
120
150
m
STURT ROAD
U
EN
AV
EY
UN IVERSITY DRIVE
N
ER
ENUE
1:5,000 @ A3
CLIENT
RONALD AV
E
SA EPA
PROJECT
THE PARKWAY
EPA ASSESSMENT AREA ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION
DR
IV
FF
E
R
AVENUE
LA
Y
WA
GA
MARION ROAD
R IN
IPA
RR
WA
E
TITLE
HUGH CAIRN S
E
MILL TERRAC
DRY / BLOCKEDKEWELLS
LVIN ROAD
UE
IN
MC
UE
STURT ROAD
RO
AD
LEGEND
SU
T
MW-EPA8
>nd to <20
20 to <100
100 to <500
500 to <1,000
1,000 to <5,000
5,000 to <10,000
10,000 + above
nd = non-detect
ED ISON ROAD
MW-EPA6
TO
N
(
!
GW31
RO
AD
GW36
00
8,0 00
7,0
GW46
(
!
N
TCE
CONCENTRATIONS (μg/L)
(
!
(,000
!
(
!
20
nd
NC
OL
GW19
GW26 !
(
(
!
GW27
0
E
AC
YG
LE
MWS14_02
GW25
100
MAPL E AVEN
TWEED AVEN
EM
MA
CL
OS
E
3,0
0
GW21
E
AV
EN
UE
(
!
MW-EPA3
(
!
NU
MW-EPA18
(
!
(
!
ASH AVENUE
MW-EPA9
AV
E
2,0
0
RR
TE
OA
D
(
!
(
!
1,000
MWS14_11
W6
MWS14_07
(
!
A
OS
AB
B
(
!
MW-EPA11
GW16
GW17
(
!
1,0
0
0
(
!
LI
GW23
(
!
URS04
URS05 !
((
!
GW22 500
MW-EPA2
MWS14_04
URS03
(
!
W5
MWS14_08
BIR
CH
CR
ES
CE
NT
RO
VE
LY
G
HE
STE
R
N
R
BU
(
!
( MWS14_13
!
MW-EPA28
VE
RO
(
!
MW-EPA12
(
!
MM GW06
500
2,
5
(
!
T
HA
MW-EPA19
RIT
HC
OU
RT
EY
R
(
!
MWS14_01
00
(
!
(
!
317
<5
<5
1,620
<5
20
100
MWS14_05
URS06
100
URS02
URS05
URS06
W5
W6
W7
nd
20
1,500
20
MWS14_06
(
!
nd
IM
M
(
!
MW-EPA27
MWS13_01
H
(
!
KE
L
E
TILLEY COURT
(
!
( 500
!
58
<5
145
<5
2,640
ED ISON ROAD
EA
VE
NU
MWS18_04
0
4,00
5,000
6,000
RT
(
!
MW-EPA13
1,000
MW-EPA29
NT
R
RIVE
E
CR ESC
KARU
GENE
VA CO
U
URS01
(
!
MWS14_10
URT
CHESTNUT CO
AVEN UE
MW-EPA25
(
!
100
nd
MWS18_03
E
TROWBRIDGE
(
!
(
!
(
!
20
MW-EPA32
CLOVELLY PARK
AREA
MW-EPA14
ENUE
HANDLEY AV
MITCHELL PARK
AREA
MW-EPA33
(
!
SO
UT
MW-EPA26
UE
MW-EPA31
N
MW-EPA22
( HEWETT AVENUE
!
BE
DA
L
LYNNE COURT
nd
(
!
KENMAY AVEN
MW-EPA15
20
OVE
BRADLEY GR
UE
MALD ON AVEN
STURT
MARION ROAD
AD
NORFOLK RO
(
!
MW-EPA24
UE
LANARK AVEN
(
!
MW-EPA30
ROAD
WOODLAND
(
!
(
!
(
!
UE
OVE
PARKWOOD GR
0
M
AI
(
!
DRIVE
KELSEY AVEN
GREENGLADE
BU
RB
AN
MW-EPA_PB
TCE CONCENTRATION PLAN
80276_204_Figure
4 - Groundwater TCE.ai
ST
UR
TD
REV 2 > 01.12.14
RIV
E
80276
ABN: 57 008 116 130
WEB: fyfe.com.au
(
!
(
!
MW-EPA20
AV
MW-EPA23 BARKUNA
FA X : ( 0 8 ) 8 2 3 2 9 0 9 9
ENUE
(
!
ET
GEORGE STRE
PH: (08) 8232 9088
MW-EPA17
RO
AD
(
!
20
AV
EN
U
nd
E COURT
CONSTABL
ONA A
VEN UE
K
ST
RE
ET
UE
AL AWO
THE CRESCEN T
UE
BAHLOO AVEN
TCE Concentration Groundwater
TCE Concentration
(µg/L)
Monitoring Well (µg/L)
1,180
MWS14_02
773
993
MWS14_04
22
<5
MWS14_06
<5
<5
MWS14_07
8 ENUE
BROOKMAN AV
<5
MWS14_08
562
61
MWS14_09
1,150
<5
MWS14_10
<5
1,170
MWS14_11
1,690
2,630
MWS14_13
<5
396
MWS18_03
<5
<5
MWS18_04
<5
65
GW15
<5
117
GW16
<5
<5
GW19
6,380
<5
GW20
10,700
AVENUE
AURICCHIO
<5
GW21
93
63
GW22
14
145
GW23
415
193
GW26
2,800
<5
GW27
927
<5
GW31
<5
<5
GW32
244
8
GW36
14
<5
GW46
<5
<5
URS01
6
72
URS02
83
15
URS03
1,210
17
URS04
5 LIFFES ROAD
AY
SOUTH ROAD
Groundwater
Monitoring Well
MW_EPA1
MW_EPA2
MW_EPA4
MW_EPA5
MW_EPA8
MW_EPA10A
MW_EPA10B
MW_EPA11
MW_EPA12
MW_EPA13
MW_EPA14
MW_EPA15
MW_EPA16
MW_EPA17
MW_EPA18
MW_EPA19
MW_EPA20
MW_EPA21
MW_EPA22
MW_EPA23
MW_EPA24
MW_EPA25
MW_EPA26
MW_EPA27
MW_EPA28
MW_EPA29
MW_EPA30
MW_EPA31
MW_EPA32
MW_EPA33
MW_EPA_PB
MWS13_01
MWS14_01
TCE CONCENTRATION PLAN
MINKIE AVEN
FIN
NI
SS
AVENUE
PAUL STREET
MCFARL ANE
( SV_EPA33A
!
EN UE
SV_EPA73A
ROAD
WOODLAND
( SV_EPA40A
!
SV_EPA49
nd
nd
( SV_EPA74A
!
T
YC
OU
R
TIM
OT
H
RE
SC
EN
T
E
AV
EN
U
LYN
TO
N
( SV_EPA14A
!
SOIL VAPOUR BORE
(2m SUB SLAB)
NOT ABLE TO BE SAMPLED
(
!
SV-EPA11
KELVIN ROAD
INFERRED SOIL VAPOUR
CONTOUR (μg/m³) - OCT 2014
200
SU
T
TO
N
RO
AD
ASSESSMENT WORK AREAS
>nd to <200
200 to <2k
2k to <20k
20k to <50k
50k to <100k
0
30
60
( SV_EPA10
!
90
120
150
m
STURT ROAD
U
EN
AV
EY
ENUE
1:5,000 @ A3
CLIENT
RONALD AV
E
SA EPA
PROJECT
THE PARKWAY
DR
IV
FF
E
R
AVENUE
LA
Y
WA
GA
MARION ROAD
R IN
IPA
RR
WA
E
TITLE
HUGH CAIRN S
ACE
MILL TE
100k
toRR
<200k
200k to <500k
500k to <1,000k
1,000k + above
nd = non-detect
UN IVERSITY DRIVE
UE
N
ER
! SV_EPA19
(
STURT ROAD
SV_EPA8
OAK AVENUE
( SV_EPA15A
!
SOIL VAPOUR TCE
CONCENTRATIONS (μg/m³)
ED ISON ROAD
( SV_EPA9
!
( SV_EPA24
!
( SV_EPA37
!
( SV_EPA21A
!
( SV-EPA7
!
(
!
( SV_EPA16A
!
nd
IN
MC
UE
SV_EPA59
(
!
MAPL E AVEN
TWEED AVEN
N
R
BU
(
!
SV_EPA25
OA
D
YG
LE
OVE
MYRTLE GR
( SV_EPA6
( SV_EPA13A !
!
RD
LEGEND
nd
SV_EPA71
VE
RO
20,0
00
2,00
0
200
SV_EPA5
BIR
CH
C
RO
VE
KE
LLY
G
E
EM
MA
CL
OS
E
E
50,000
NU
SV_EPA50A
DS
TO
N
100,000
( SV_EPA39
!
AV
E
M
AI
200,000
L ROAD
(
!
( SV_EPA18A
!
( SV_EPA4 ASH AVENUE !
!
( SV_EPA17
( SV_EPA72A
!
E
AC
LYNNE COURT
200
RO
AD
( SV_EPA22A
!
RR
TE
EY
R
( SV_EPA3B
!
( SV_EPA20A
!
( SVT_EPA_4B
!
( SVT_EPA_5B
!
( SVT_EPA_6B
!
N
SV_EPA23A
A
OS
AB
B
SV_EPA12A !
(
500,00
( SV_EPA2
!
IM
M
SV_EPA48
nd
( SVT_EPA_1B
!
NC
OL
ED ISON ROAD
HE
STE
R
SV_EPA26
( SV_EPA1
( SVT_EPA_3B!
!
COURT
SV_EPA38A
NT
(
!
( SV_EPA67
!
( SV_EPA64A
!
E
(
!
E
( SV_EPA66
!
( SV_EPA51
!
AV
E
NU
EA
VE
NU
(
!
SVT_EPA_2B
LI
E
IN
00
50,0
0
,00
100 00
,0
0
0
2
<5
86
1,500
18,000
240,000
48,000
11
<5
SHEPHERD S HIL
RK
( SV_EPA34A
!
SV_EPA 72A
SV_EPA 74A
SVT_EPA 1B
SVT_EPA 2B
SVT_EPA 3B
SVT_EPA 4B
SVT_EPA 5B
SVT_EPA 6B
0
HA
2,0 00
,0
20
( SV_EPA65A
!
0
SV_EPA56
RIT
HC
OU
RT
00
200
( SV_EPA27
!
SV_EPA58
TILLEY COURT
( SV_EPA61
!
( SV_EPA54A
!
RT
BE
DA
L
! SV_EPA60A
(
( SV_EPA28
!
PE
N
nd
( SV_EPA62A
!
0CHESTNUT
E
CR ESC
KARU
R
RIVE
AD
NORFOLK RO
GENE
VA CO
U
( SV_EPA63
!
0
,0
50
AVEN UE
( SV_EPA47
!
( SV_EPA29
!
00
0,
20
TROWBRIDGE
STURT
MARION ROAD
(
!
UE
( SV_EPA68A
!
LANARK AVEN
( SV_EPA69A
!
( SV_EPA35A
!
RO
AD
( SV_EPA52
!
SV_EPA46
NO DATA
COLLECTED
( SV_EPA30
!
AV
EN
U
UE
KENMAY AVEN
61
940
920
95
<5
19
<5
<4.5
H
UE
( NDLEY AVENUE
!
HA
( SV_EPA31
!
K
OVE
BRADLEY GR
( HEWETT AVEN UE
!
CLOVELLY PARK
AREA
! SV_EPA36A
(
( SV_EPA55
!
SV_EPA41
nd
SO
UT
MITCHELL PARK
AREA
MALD ON AVEN
(
!
( SV_EPA32
!
UE
OVE
PARKWOOD GR
( SV_EPA53A
!
BA
N
DRIVE
nd
SV_EPA45
200
KELSEY AVEN
GREENGLADE
NO DATA
COLLECTED
N
( SV_EPA42
!
( SV_EPA57A
!
DEEP DENE AV
FIGURE 5A: SOIL VAPOUR TCE
CONCENTRATION PLAN (2m)
80276_205_Figure
5A - Soil Vapour TCE 2m.ai
ST
UR
TD
REV 2 > 01.12.14
RIV
E
80276
ABN: 57 008 116 130
WEB: fyfe.com.au
SV_EPA44
BU
R
(
!
M
AI
ET
GEORGE STRE
200
ENUE
BARKUNA AV
SOUTH ROAD
nd
FA X : ( 0 8 ) 8 2 3 2 9 0 9 9
! SV_EPA43
(
E COURT
CONSTABL
PH: (08) 8232 9088
ONA A
VEN UE
UE
AL AWO
THE CRESCEN T
UE
BAHLOO AVEN
TCE Concentration Soil Vapour TCE Concentration
(µg/m³)
(µg/m³)
Bore (2m)
43,000
SV_EPA 40A <5
130,000
SV_EPA 41
<5
140,000
SV_EPA 42
12
AVENUE
<8.3
SV_EPA
43 AN <4.5
BROOKM
<5
SV_EPA 44
<5
<5
SV_EPA 45
<5
<10
SV_EPA 46
<6.7
<5
SV_EPA 47
<5
<5
SV_EPA 48
<5
<5
SV_EPA 49
<5
<5
SV_EPA 51
<5
<5
SV_EPA 52
<5
<5
SV_EPA 53A <5
<6.3
SV_EPA 54A <5
<5
SV_EPA 55
<5
AVENUE
AURICCHIO
20
SV_EPA 57A 36
1,200
SV_EPA 59
<5
<5
SV_EPA 60A 130
1,300,000
SV_EPA 61
<5
<5
SV_EPA 62A <5
<5
SV_EPA 63
<5
<5
SV_EPA 64A 1,700
<17
SV_EPA 65A 520
<5
SV_EPA 66
37
<5
SV_EPA 67
110,000
10
SV_EPA 68A <3.8
26
SV_EPA 69A <3.8
<5
SV_EPA 71
<3.8
LIFFES ROAD
AY
MAIN S
OUTH R
OAD
FIN
NI
SS
Soil Vapour
Bore (2m)
SV_EPA 1
SV_EPA 2
SV_EPA 3B
SV_EPA 4
SV_EPA 6
SV_EPA 7
SV_EPA 8
SV_EPA 9
SV_EPA 10
SV_EPA 11
SV_EPA 12A
SV_EPA 13A
SV_EPA 14A
SV_EPA 15A
SV_EPA 16A
SV_EPA 17
SV_EPA 18A
SV_EPA 19
SV_EPA 20A
SV_EPA 21A
SV_EPA 22A
SV_EPA 24
SV_EPA 25
SV_EPA 27
SV_EPA 28
SV_EPA 29
SV_EPA 30
SV_EPA 31
SV_EPA 32
SV_EPA 33A
SV_EPA 34A
SV_EPA 35A
SV_EPA 36A
SV_EPA 37
SV_EPA 38A
SV_EPA 39
FIGURE 5A: SOIL VAPOUR TCE
MINKIE AVEN
ST
RE
ET
AVENUE
PAUL STREET
MCFARL ANE
nd
E COURT
CONSTABL
200
ENUE
BARKUNA AV
( SV_EPA33B
!
EN UE
( SV_EPA73B
!
DRIVE
SOUTH ROAD
nd
ROAD
WOODLAND
20
0
MALD ON AVEN
( SV_EPA40B
!
AYLIFFES ROAD
! SV_EPA36B
(
OVE
BRADLEY GR
UE
HEWETT AVEN
ENUE
HANDLEY AV
T
YC
OU
R
TIM
OT
H
nd
T
KE
LLY
G
E
OA
D
E
AV
EN
U
RO
AD
E
KELVIN ROAD
200
SU
T
OAK AVENUE
( SV_EPA16B
!
TO
N
SV_EPA15B
RO
AD
>nd to <200
200 to <2k
2k to <20k
20k to <50k
50k to <100k
0
30
60
90
120
150
m
U
EN
AV
EY
UN IVERSITY DRIVE
N
ER
ENUE
1:5,000 @ A3
CLIENT
E
PROJECT
RONALD AV
THE PARKWAY
DR
IV
R
FF
E
LA
Y
WA
GA
MARION ROAD
R IN
IPA
RR
WA
E
TITLE
AVENUE
100k to <200k
200k to <500k
500k to <1,000k
1,000k + above
nd = non-detect
STURT ROAD
SA EPA
HUGH CAIRN S
E
MILL TERRAC
UE
IN
MC
UE
STURT ROAD
SOIL VAPOUR TCE
ED ISON ROAD
LYN
TO
N
( SV_EPA13B
!
RO
AD
LEGEND
E
AC
N
R
BU
( SV_EPA14B
!
MAPL E AVEN
TWEED AVEN
YG
LE
E
MYRTLE GROV
SV_EPA21B
RR
TE
RE
SC
EN
SV_EPA50B
LYNNE COURT
VE
RO
E
20,000
NU
EM
MA
CL
OS
E
DS
TO
N
SV_EPA72B
A
OS
EY
R
M
AI
IM
M
AB
B
AV
E
( SV_EPA22B
!
SV_EPA18B
ASH AVENUE
BIR
CH
C
RO
VE
E
HE
STE
R
( SV_EPA3C
!
( SV_EPA20B
!
L ROAD
EA
VE
NU
SV_EPA12B !
(
00
ED ISON ROAD
0
0,0
AV
EN
U
( SV_EPA64B
!
SV_EPA23B
SHEPHERD S HIL
0
0,
00
20
20
00
E
00
2,
20
0
NU
0
nd
AV
E
50,0
IN
URT
CHESTNUT CO
AVEN UE
RK
500,00
RO
AD
0
20
,00
0
50
,0
00
( SV_EPA34B
!
SV_EPA74B
N
2,00
100,000
HA
20
0
FA X : ( 0 8 ) 8 2 3 2 9 0 9 9
( SV_EPA65B
!
RIT
HC
OU
RT
NC
OL
M
AI
( SV_EPA54B
!
PE
N
LI
N
SV_EPA60B
! SV_EPA38B
(
BE
DA
L
H
( SV_EPA62B
!
NT
R
RIVE
E
CR ESC
KARU
RT
UE
SV_EPA68B
LANARK AVEN
( SV_EPA69B
!
K
TROWBRIDGE
STURT
MARION ROAD
GENE
VA CO
U
CLOVELLY PARK
AREA
nd
( SV_EPA35B
!
SO
UT
20
0
BA
N
UE
MITCHELL PARK
AREA
UE
KENMAY AVEN
TILLEY COURT
200
SV_EPA53B
UE
OVE
PARKWOOD GR
AD
NORFOLK RO
2,000
KELSEY AVEN
GREENGLADE
NO DATA
COLLECTED
( SV_EPA57B
!
DEEP DENE AV
BU
R
ET
GEORGE STRE
ABN: 57 008 116 130
ONA A
VEN UE
FIGURE 5B: SOIL VAPOUR TCE
80276_205_Figure
5B - Soil Vapour TCE 4m.ai
ST
UR
TD
REV 2 > 01.12.14
RIV
E
80276
PH: (08) 8232 9088
UE
AL AWO
(µg/m³)
WEB: fyfe.com.au
UE
BAHLOO AVEN
TCE Concentration
240,000
<5
<5
<5
<5
79,000
36
2,200
1,400
58
<8.3
<5
830
11
140
91
290,000
1,300
19
<5
Soil Vapour
Bore (4m)
SV_EPA 3C
SV_EPA 12B
SV_EPA 13B
SV_EPA 14B
SV_EPA 16B
SV_EPA 20B
SV_EPA 22B
SV_EPA 33B
SV_EPA 34B
SV_EPA 35B
SV_EPA 36B
SV_EPA 38B
SV_EPA 40B
SV_EPA 54B
SV_EPA 57B
SV_EPA 62B
SV_EPA 64B
SV_EPA 65B
SV_EPA 69B
SV_EPA 73B
FIN
NI
SS
AVENUE
FIGURE 5B: SOIL VAPOUR TCE
MINKIE AVEN
ST
RE
ET
MCFARL ANE
AL AWO
O
NA AVE
N UE
E COURT
CONSTABL
6,700
7,900
1,700
2,100
2,100
11,000
55,000
nd
WEB: fyfe.com.au
ENUE
BARKUNA AV
SV_EPA33C
EN UE
KELSEY AVEN
SV_EPA73C
OVE
BRADLEY GR
UE
HEWETT AVEN
( SV_EPA34C
!
IN
AV
E
200,000
SV_EPA74C
SV_EPA64C
NU
E
T
YC
OU
R
TIM
OT
H
RO
VE
KE
LLY
G
T
RE
SC
EN
BIR
CH
C
E
SV_EPA13C
KELVIN ROAD
200
SU
T
OAK AVENUE
( SV_EPA16C
!
TO
N
SV_EPA15C
RO
AD
>nd to <200
200 to <2k
2k to <20k
20k to <50k
50k to <100k
0
30
60
90
120
150
m
U
EN
AV
EY
UN IVERSITY DRIVE
N
ER
ENUE
1:5,000 @ A3
CLIENT
E
PROJECT
RONALD AV
THE PARKWAY
DR
IV
R
FF
E
LA
Y
WA
GA
MARION ROAD
R IN
IPA
RR
WA
E
TITLE
AVENUE
100k to <200k
200k to <500k
500k to <1,000k
1,000k + above
nd = non-detect
STURT ROAD
SA EPA
HUGH CAIRN S
E
MILL TERRAC
UE
IN
MC
UE
STURT ROAD
SOIL VAPOUR TCE
ED ISON ROAD
AV
EN
U
LEGEND
E
AC
LYN
TO
N
SV_EPA14C
RO
AD
L ROAD
(
!
ED ISON ROAD
E
MYRTLE GROV
RR
TE
N
R
BU
0
MAPL E AVEN
TWEED AVEN
YG
LE
50
,0
0
E
A
OS
OA
D
LYNNE COURT
EM
MA
CL
OS
E
0
20
0,0
10
00
0,0
00
IM
M
SV_EPA50C
DS
TO
N
1,00
0,00
0
0
EY
R
VE
RO
0
200
nd
AB
B
H AVENUE
AS!
( SV_EPA72C
20
,0
0
2,00
E
M
AI
! SV_EPA18C
(
SV_EPA12C
NU
SV_EPA22C
( SV_EPA20C
!
00
0,
AV
E
SV_EPA23C
50
HE
STE
R
RO
AD
E
RK
N
SHEPHERD S HIL
HA
RIT
HC
OU
RT
NC
OL
AV
EN
U
PE
N
LI
FA X : ( 0 8 ) 8 2 3 2 9 0 9 9
(
!
SV_EPA54C
NT
E
H
SV_EPA65C
URT
CHESTNUT CO
AVEN UE
E
CR ESC
KARU
R
RIVE
EA
VE
NU
200
2,000
20,000
50,000
100,000
N
SV_EPA60C
SV_EPA38C
BE
DA
L
SO
UT
SV_EPA62C
K
TROWBRIDGE
UE
( SV_EPA68C
!
LANARK AVEN
( SV_EPA69C
!
RO
AD
CLOVELLY PARK
AREA
SV_EPA35C
M
AI
UE
STURT
MARION ROAD
RT
NO DATA
COLLECTED
SV_EPA36C
ENUE
HANDLEY AV
MITCHELL PARK
AREA
GENE
VA CO
U
SOUTH ROAD
ROAD
WOODLAND
2,
00
0
UE
TILLEY COURT
0
20
MALD ON AVEN
( SV_EPA40C
!
KENMAY AVEN
AD
NORFOLK RO
UE
OVE
PARKWOOD GR
SV_EPA53C
DRIVE
BA
N
GREENGLADE
NO DATA
COLLECTED
( SV_EPA57C
!
DEEP DENE AV
BU
R
ET
GEORGE STRE
FIGURE 5C: SOIL VAPOUR TCE
80276_205_Figure
5C - Soil Vapour TCE 8m.ai
ST
UR
TD
REV 2 > 01.12.14
RIV
E
80276
PH: (08) 8232 9088
UE
SV_EPA 34C
SV_EPA 40C
SV_EPA 57C
SV_EPA 65C
SV_EPA 68C
SV_EPA 69C
SV_EPA 72C
ABN: 57 008 116 130
UE
BAHLOO AVEN
ST
RE
ET
Soil Vapour TCE Concentration
(µg/m³)
Bore (8m)
SV_EPA 14C <5
SV_EPA 16C <5
SV_EPA 18C 1,100,000
AVENUE
SV_EPA
KMAN250,000
BROO20C
FIGURE 5C: SOIL VAPOUR TCE
MINKIE AVEN
FIN
NI
SS
AVENUE
PAUL STREET
MCFARL ANE
ONA A
VEN UE
E COURT
CONSTABL
EN UE
DEEP DENE AV
ENUE
HANDLEY AV
RK
IN
AV
E
( SV_EPA64D
!
NU
E
T
YC
OU
R
T
RE
SC
EN
nd
BIR
CH
C
E
AV
EN
U
200
( SV_EPA16D
!
RO
AD
H
KELVIN ROAD
200
SU
T
OAK AVENUE
( SV_EPA15D
!
TO
N
RO
AD
>nd to <200
200 to <2k
2k to <20k
20k to <50k
50k to <100k
0
30
60
90
120
150
m
U
EN
AV
EY
UN IVERSITY DRIVE
N
ER
ENUE
1:5,000 @ A3
CLIENT
E
PROJECT
RONALD AV
THE PARKWAY
DR
IV
R
FF
E
LA
Y
WA
GA
MARION ROAD
R IN
IPA
RR
WA
E
TITLE
AVENUE
100k to <200k
200k to <500k
500k to <1,000k
1,000k + above
nd = non-detect
STURT ROAD
SA EPA
HUGH CAIRN S
E
MILL TERRAC
UE
IN
MC
UE
STURT ROAD
SOIL VAPOUR TCE
ED ISON ROAD
LYN
TO
N
( SV_EPA13D
!
E
AC
N
R
BU
( SV_EPA14D 2,000
!
RR
TE
YG
LE
RO
AD
LEGEND
20,00
0
E
MYRTLE GROV
MAPL E AVEN
TWEED AVEN
EM
MA
CL
OS
E
E
A
OS
OA
D
00
BU
RB
AN
TIM
OT
H
RO
VE
KE
LLY
G
E
LYNNE COURT
DS
TO
N
1,000
,0
500,0
00
200
50,00 10
0
0,000 ,000
NU
EY
R
VE
RO
ASH AVENUE
M
AI
IM
M
AB
B
AV
E
SV_EPA22D
( SV_EPA20D
!
L ROAD
E
HE
STE
R
00
ED ISON ROAD
EA
VE
NU
RO
AD
1,000,0
SV_EPA18D
( SV_EPA12D
!
N
FA X : ( 0 8 ) 8 2 3 2 9 0 9 9
HA
NC
OL
E
PE
N
NT
R
RIVE
BE
DA
L
TILLEY COURT
( SV_EPA65D
!
RIT
HC
OU
RT
LI
SHEPHERD S HIL
RT
00
URT
CHESTNUT CO
AVEN UE
E
CR ESC
KARU
GENE
VA CO
U
SV_EPA60D
500,0
SO
UT
TROWBRIDGE
STURT
MARION ROAD
AD
NORFOLK RO
( SV_EPA62D
!
CLOVELLY PARK
AREA
nd
20
0
2,0
00
20
50
,00
100
,00
,00
0
0
200
0
,00
0
N
UE
LANARK AVEN
NO DATA
COLLECTED
M
AI
UE
MITCHELL PARK
AREA
UE
KENMAY AVEN
AYLIFFES ROAD
AV
EN
U
OVE
BRADLEY GR
MALD ON AVEN
UE
HEWETT AVEN
SOUTH ROAD
UE
OVE
PARKWOOD GR
K
DRIVE
ROAD
WOODLAND
KELSEY AVEN
GREENGLADE
WEB: fyfe.com.au
ENUE
BARKUNA AV
ET
GEORGE STRE
FIGURE 5D: SOIL VAPOUR TCE
80276_205_Figure
5D - Soil Vapour TCE 10m.ai
ST
UR
TD
REV 2 > 01.12.14
RIV
E
80276
PH: (08) 8232 9088
UE
AL AWO
ABN: 57 008 116 130
UE
BAHLOO AVEN
ST
RE
ET
Soil Vapour TCE Concentration
(µg/m³)
Bore (10m)
SV_EPA 12D 67,000
SV_EPA 13D <5
SV_EPA 14D 100
SV_EPA
15D <5 ENUE
BROOKMAN AV
SV_EPA 16D <5
SV_EPA 20D 1,800,000
SV_EPA 62D 350,000
SV_EPA 64D 720,000
SV_EPA 65D 3,900
FIGURE 5D: SOIL VAPOUR TCE
MINKIE AVEN
FIN
NI
SS
AVENUE
PAUL STREET
MCFARL ANE
( SV_EPA33
!
EN UE
KELSEY AVEN
UE
MITCHELL PARK
AREA
UE
TROWBRIDGE
( SV_EPA47
!
E
CR ESC
KARU
GENE
VA CO
U
( SV_EPA30
!
( SV_EPA52
!
UE
( SV_EPA68A
!
LANARK AVEN
( SV_EPA69A
!
SV_EPA56
PE
N
RIT
HC
OU
RT
HA
RK
IN
(
!
SV_EPA38A
( SV_EPA66
!
T
YC
OU
R
10
2
50
100
150
( SV_EPA3B
!
( SV_EPA20A
!
NU
E
50
20
10 2
nd
(
!
T
(
!
E
AV
EN
U
LYN
TO
N
U
EN
AV
EY
! SV_EPA19
(
STURT ROAD
LVIN ROAD
KE
EPA ASSESSMENT
AREA
SU
T
TO
N
INFERRED INDOOR AIR CONTOUR (μg/m³) - OCT 2014
20
RO
AD
0
30
60
( SV_EPA10
!
90
120
150
m
STURT ROAD
ENUE
1:5,000 @ A3
CLIENT
RONALD AV
E
SA EPA
PROJECT
THE PARKWAY
DR
IV
FF
E
R
AVENUE
LA
Y
WA
GA
MARION ROAD
R IN
IPA
RR
WA
E
TITLE
HUGH CAIRN S
E
MILL TERRAC
UN IVERSITY DRIVE
N
ER
UE
IN
MC
UE
( SV_EPA24
!
( SV_EPA37
!
SOIL VAPOUR BORE (2m SUB SLAB)
ED ISON ROAD
( SV_EPA9
!
! SV-EPA11
(
OAK AVENUE
( SV_EPA15A
!
MAPL E AVEN
TWEED AVEN
YG
LE
( SV_EPA14A
!
( SV_EPA8
!
( SV_EPA16A
!
SV_EPA21A
( SV-EPA7
!
E
AC
( SV_EPA71
!
RE
SC
EN
SV_EPA25
OA
D
RN
BU
OVE
MYRTLE GR
( SV_EPA6
( SV_EPA13A !
!
SV_EPA22A
non-detect (nd)
>nd to < 2
2 to <20
20 to <200
200 + above
LEGEND
SV_EPA5
SV_EPA50A
EM
MA
CL
OS
E
(
!
nd
nd
0.2
2.2
28.8
5.8
nd
nd
PREDICTED INDOOR
AIR CONCENTRATIONS (μg/m³)
100
TIM
OT
H
( SVT _EPA_4B
!
( SVT _EPA_5B
!
( SVT _EPA_6B
!
nd
( SV_EPA18A
!
SV_EPA4
(
!
ASH AVENUE !
(
SV_EPA17
( SV_EPA72A
!
( SV_EPA39
!
AV
E
SV_EPA23A
RR
TE
EY
R
( SV_EPA12A
!
(
!
( SV_EPA2
!
20
A
OS
AB
B
SV_EPA26
SVT _EPA_1B
BIR
CH
C
RO
VE
KE
LLY
G
HE
STE
R
( SV_EPA1
!
( SVT _EPA_2B
!
( SV_EPA67
!
( SV_EPA64A
!
E
( SV_EPA65A
!
IM
M
( SV_EPA48
!
SV_EPA59
20
nd
2
10
SVT _EPA_3B
(
!
AV
E
NT
R
RIVE
E
(
!
( SV_EPA61
!
( SV_EPA34A
!
( SV_EPA74A
!
SV_EPA51
NU
EA
VE
NU
VE
RO
! SV_EPA60A
(
! SV_EPA27
(
nd
(
!
LYNNE COURT
( SV_EPA62A
!
( SV_EPA54A
!
SV_EPA58
TILLEY COURT
( SV_EPA63
!
( SV_EPA29
!
( SV_EPA28
!
RT
BE
DA
L
( SV_EPA35A
!
URT
CHESTNUT CO
AVEN UE
STURT
MARION ROAD
(
!
SV_EPA46
SV_EPA49
( NDLEY AVENUE
!
HA
( SV_EPA31
!
RO
AD
( HEWETT AVEN UE
!
H
OVE
BRADLEY GR
SV_EPA41
CLOVELLY PARK
AREA
! SV_EPA36A
(
( SV_EPA55
!
KENMAY AVEN
AD
NORFOLK RO
ROAD
WOODLAND
( SV_EPA40A
!
MALD ON AVEN
(
!
SV_EPA45
( SV_EPA32
!
UE
OVE
PARKWOOD GR
( SV_EPA53A
!
SO
UT
DRIVE
N
GREENGLADE
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd RICCHIO AVENUE
AU
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
0.2
0.1
nd
13.2
nd
nd
AYLIFFES ROAD
nd
M
AI
( SV_EPA42
!
( SV_EPA57A
!
DEEP DENE AV
SV_EPA 49
SV_EPA 51
SV_EPA 52
SV_EPA 53A
SV_EPA 54A
SV_EPA 55
SV_EPA 57A
SV_EPA 59
SV_EPA 60A
SV_EPA 61
SV_EPA 62A
SV_EPA 63
SV_EPA 64A
SV_EPA 65A
SV_EPA 66
SV_EPA 67
SV_EPA 68A
SV_EPA 69A
SV_EPA 71
SV_EPA 72A
SV_EPA 74A
SVT_EPA 1B
SVT_EPA 2B
SVT_EPA 3B
SVT_EPA 4B
SVT_EPA 5B
SVT_EPA 6B
FIGURE 6A: PREDICTED TCE INDOOR
AIR CONCENTRATIONS (MODELLED)
80276_206_Figure
6A - Predicted TCE Indoor Air.ai
ST
UR
TD
REV 2 > 01.12.14
RIV
E
80276
ABN: 57 008 116 130
WEB: fyfe.com.au
SV_EPA44
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
0.1
nd
156.0
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
0.113
0.110
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
BARKUNA AV
(
!
SV_EPA 11
SV_EPA 12A
SV_EPA 13A
SV_EPA 14A
SV_EPA 15A
SV_EPA 16A
SV_EPA 17
SV_EPA 18A
SV_EPA 19
SV_EPA 20A
SV_EPA 21A
SV_EPA 22A
SV_EPA 24
SV_EPA 25
SV_EPA 27
SV_EPA 28
SV_EPA 29
SV_EPA 30
SV_EPA 31
SV_EPA 32
SV_EPA 33A
SV_EPA 34A
SV_EPA 35A
SV_EPA 36A
SV_EPA 37
SV_EPA 38A
SV_EPA 39
SOUTH ROAD
nd
ENUE
ET
GEORGE STRE
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
FA X : ( 0 8 ) 8 2 3 2 9 0 9 9
! SV_EPA43
(
E COURT
CONSTABL
SV_EPA 44
SV_EPA 45
SV_EPA 46
SV_EPA 47
SV_EPA 48
PH: (08) 8232 9088
ONA A
VEN UE
Soil Vapour
Indoor Air
Bore (2m)
Concentration (μg/m³)
SV_EPA 40A
nd
SV_EPA 41
nd
SV_EPA 42
nd
UE
SV_EPA
ndAVEN
OOKMAN
BR43
FIN
NI
SS
UE
AL AWO
Indoor Air
5.2
15.6
16.8
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
THE CRESCEN T
UE
BAHLOO AVEN
Soil Vapour
Bore (2m)
SV_EPA 1
SV_EPA 2
SV_EPA 3B
SV_EPA 4
SV_EPA 6
SV_EPA 7
SV_EPA 8
SV_EPA 9
SV_EPA 10
MAIN S
OUTH R
OAD
FIGURE 6A: PREDICTED TCE INDOOR
AIR CONCENTRATIONS (MODELLED)
MINKIE AVEN
ST
RE
ET
AVENUE
PAUL STREET
MCFARL ANE
CLOVELLY PARK
AREA
!
( SV_EPA63
!
( SV_EPA29
nd
!
( SV_EPA62A
2
!
( SV_EPA60A
!
( SV_EPA28
10
!
( SV_EPA61
!
( SV_EPA54A
!
( SV_EPA65A
20
!
( SV_EPA27
nd
2
nd
SV_EPA56
SVT _EPA_3B
!
( SV_EPA34A
!
( SV_EPA1
10
20
50
SVT _EPA_2B
!
( SV_EPA74A
!
( SV_EPA66
!
( SV_EPA51
20
SVT _EPA_1B
!
( SV_EPA64A
10
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
0.2
0.1
nd
13.2
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
0.2
2.2
28.8
5.8
nd
nd
150
!
( SV_EPA3B
!
( SV_EPA20A
2
!
( SV_EPA38A
SVT _EPA_4B
SVT _EPA_5B
SV_EPA26
SVT _EPA_6B
nd
!
( SV_EPA12A
ASH AVENUE
!
( SV_EPA4
YC
OU
RT
!
( SV_EPA18A
LEGEND
100
!
( SV_EPA17
TIM
OT
H
INFERRED INDOOR AIR
2
2
nd
EPA ASSESSMENT AREA
SV_EPA5
!
( SV_EPA21A
!
( SV-EPA7
RO
AD
TH
SO
U
M
OA
K
AI
N
AV
EN
U
E
T
E
AC
RE
SC
EN
20
30
40
50
m
SA EPA
RR
TE
BIR
CH
C
10
CLIENT
A
OS
!
( SV_EPA13A
!
( SV_EPA6
0
1:2,000 @ A3
!
( SV_EPA14A
IM
M
E
MYRTLE GROV
!
( SV_EPA25
non-detect (nd)
>nd to < 2
2 to <20
20 to <200
200 + above
20
10
PREDICTED INDOOR
AIR CONCENTRATIONS (μg/m³)
SOIL VAPOUR BORE
(2m SUB SLAB)
50
!
( SV_EPA72A
TO
N
!
( SV-EPA11
PROJECT
TITLE
FIGURE 6B: PREDICTED TCE
INDOOR AIR CONCENTRATIONS
(MODELLED) - RELOCATION AREA
SU
T
!
( SV_EPA8
RO
AD
ABN: 57 008 116 130
SV_EPA 49
SV_EPA 51
SV_EPA 52
SV_EPA 53A
SV_EPA 54A
SV_EPA 55
SV_EPA 57A
SV_EPA 59
SV_EPA 60A
SV_EPA 61
SV_EPA 62A
SV_EPA 63
SV_EPA 64A
SV_EPA 65A
SV_EPA 66
SV_EPA 67
SV_EPA 68A
SV_EPA 69A
SV_EPA 71
SV_EPA 72A
SV_EPA 74A
SVT_EPA 1B
SVT_EPA 2B
SVT_EPA 3B
SVT_EPA 4B
SVT_EPA 5B
SVT_EPA 6B
100
!
( SV_EPA2
!
( SV_EPA67
URT
CHESTNUT CO
MITCHELL PARK
AREA
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
0.1
nd
156.0
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
0.113
0.110
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
WEB: fyfe.com.au
!
( SV_EPA35A
!
( SV_EPA52
SV_EPA 11
SV_EPA 12A
SV_EPA 13A
SV_EPA 14A
SV_EPA 15A
SV_EPA 16A
SV_EPA 17
SV_EPA 18A
SV_EPA 19
SV_EPA 20A
SV_EPA 21A
SV_EPA 22A
SV_EPA 24
SV_EPA 25
SV_EPA 27
SV_EPA 28
SV_EPA 29
SV_EPA 30
SV_EPA 31
SV_EPA 32
SV_EPA 33A
SV_EPA 34A
SV_EPA 35A
SV_EPA 36A
SV_EPA 37
SV_EPA 38A
SV_EPA 39
FA X : ( 0 8 ) 8 2 3 2 9 0 9 9
OVE
BRADLEY GR
!
( SV_EPA30
Indoor Air
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
!
( SV_EPA31
Soil Vapour
Bore (2m)
SV_EPA 40A
SV_EPA 41
SV_EPA 42
SV_EPA 43
SV_EPA 44
SV_EPA 45
SV_EPA 46
SV_EPA 47
SV_EPA 48
80276_206_Figure 6B - Predicted TCE Indoor Air.ai
REV 2 > 01.12.14
80276
PH: (08) 8232 9088
ROAD
WOODLAND
ENUE
HANDLEY AV
!
( SV_EPA49
Indoor Air
5.2
15.6
16.8
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
FIGURE 6B: PREDICTED TCE
INDOOR AIR CONCENTRATIONS
(MODELLED) - RELOCATION AREA
!
( SV_EPA36A
!
( SV_EPA55
Soil Vapour
Bore (2m)
SV_EPA 1
SV_EPA 2
SV_EPA 3B
SV_EPA 4
SV_EPA 6
SV_EPA 7
SV_EPA 8
SV_EPA 9
SV_EPA 10
FIGURE 7: GEOLOGICAL CROSS
SECTION - ASSESSMENT AREA
CLOVELLY
PARK AREA
ABN: 57 008 116 130
B
58
56
54
46
MWS14_011
42
MW_EPA32
40
MW_EPA29
38
MW_EPA26
A
DRY
36
34
34
DRY
32
(mAHD)
(mAHD)
44
32
30
30
28
28
26
26
24
24
1
CROSS SECTION
2
HORIZONTAL SCALE
0
1:2,500
@ A3
A
15
30
(
!
45
VERTICAL SCALE
60
75
m
1:250
@ A3
0
1.5
3
4.5
6
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
MWS18_03
(
!
(
!
MWS14_10
MWS18_04
(
!
MW-EPA13
MWS13_01
(
!
MW-EPA29
URS06
URS02
MW-EPA33
MW-EPA19
(
!
(
!
(
!
MW-EPA12
MWS14_08
(
!
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
(
!
(
!
(
!
MWS14_04
MWS14_11
( W6
!
MWS14_07
(
!
URS03
(
!
W5
(
!
MWS14_13
SANDY CLAY (CH)
CLAYEY SILT (ML)
SILTY SAND (SM)
FILL
CLAYEY SAND (SC)
STANDING WATER LEVEL
(
!
MW-EPA3
(
!
GW19
GW26 !
(
(
!
GW25
GW20
(
!
0
30
60
90
120
150
m
note: This is one interpretation only.
Other interpretations possible.
CLIENT
SA EPA
PROJECT
MWS14_02
MWS14_09
1:5,000
@ A3
(
!
URS04
URS05 !
((
!
GW22
MW-EPA2
(
!
MW-EPA11
(
!
MM GW06
(
!
MWS14_01
(
!
MW-EPA10A(B)
SILTY CLAY (CH)
NO DATA AVAILABLE
MWS14_06
MWS14_05
(
!
GRAVELLY SAND (SW)
URS01
(
!
MW-EPA32
(
!
LEGEND
7.5
m
MW-EPA26
(
!
Source: PB, March 2009
Source: URS, December 2009
B
TITLE
FIGURE 7: GEOLOGICAL CROSS
SECTION - ASSESSMENT AREA
80276_207_Figure 7 - Geological Cross Section.ai
REV 1 > 02.12.14
80276
48
FA X : ( 0 8 ) 8 2 3 2 9 0 9 9
50
MWS14_041
SB_EPA21
MITCHELL
PARK AREA
WEB: fyfe.com.au
52
PH: (08) 8232 9088
GW252
MW_EPA3
GW202

clovelly park/mitchell park

Transcription

Similar documents

Angiosperm Latin Name: Cyperus involucratus Common Name

Angiosperm Latin Name: Clivia miniata Common Name: Kaffir Lily

Voter Guide

D260 front.ai

Technical Sheet - Microbes Biosciences

soil penetrant - Green As It Gets

Opossum Creek Drum Site Info

ADIOS drain fly repellent is a thick gel that clings to pipes and drains

Brian Bond (SWEPCO) Tuesday, October 7 12:00 PM Eagle Hall

HOW MUD BRICKS WORK: A YEAR OF RESEARCH