68411-1 Environmental Audit Report

INFORMATION REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT REPORTS August 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AUDIT REPORT CURRENCY

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

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

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

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

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

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

FURTHER INFORMATION For more information on Victoria’s environmental audit system, visit EPA’s website or contact EPA’s Environmental Audit Unit.

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

Email: [email protected]

http://www.epa.vic.gov.au/envaudit/environmental_audits.asp

http://www.adobe.com/

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

mailto:[email protected]?subject=Electronic Audit Report Enquiry - PDF Info Sheet

68411-1 Environmental Audit Report 36 - 40 Hawthorn Road, Caulfield North, VIC

Prepared for: Kehilat Nitzan Conservative (Masorti) Community Inc PO Box 2313 Caulfield Junction, VIC 3161 20 October 2011

Distribution

m10216_009_rpt_20oct11 i

Distribution

Environmental Audit Report, 36 - 40 Hawthorn Road, Caulfield North, VIC 20 October 2011

Copies Recipient Copies Recipient

1 hard copy, 1 disc

Zvi Civins President Kehilat Nitzan Conservative (Masorti) Community Inc PO Box 2313 Caulfield Junction, VIC 3161

1 hard copy, 1 disc

Manager Environmental Audit Environmental Performance Unit EPA Victoria GPO Box 4395QQ Melbourne Vic 3001

1 hard copy, 1 disc

Paul Iacuone Senior Town Planner Glen Eira City Council Corner Glen Eira and Hawthorn Roads, Caulfield PO Box 42 Caulfield South 3162

1 electronic copy

Senversa Project File

This Environmental Audit report is issued subject to the limitations noted in Section 10.

Senversa Pty Ltd ABN: 89 132 231 380 Ground Floor, 51 Clarke Street, Southbank Vic 3006 tel: + 61 3 9606 0070; fax: + 61 3 9606 0074 www.senversa.com.au

Michael Rehfisch Environmental Auditor (appointed pursuant to the Environment Protection Act, 1970)

http://www.senversa.com.au/

Executive Summary

m10216_009_rpt_20oct11 ii

Executive Summary

This Environmental Audit report and Statement of Environmental Audit (see Appendix A) was prepared in response to a request by Kehilat Nitzan Conservative (Masorti) Community Inc (Kehilat Nitzan). Kehilat Nitzan requested that a Certificate of Environmental Audit be issued, in accordance with EPA Victoria regulations and guidelines, for the property located at 36 – 40 Hawthorn Road, Caulfield North, Victoria (the site). Refer to Figure 1 for the site location.

Mr Michael Rehfisch, an employee of Senversa Pty Ltd (Senversa) and an Environmental Auditor appointed pursuant to the Environment Protection Act, 1970, performed this Environmental Audit in accordance with the Environmental Auditor (Contaminated Land) Guidelines for Issue of Certificates and Statements of Environmental Audit (EPA Publication 759.1).

Information relating to the site and the Environmental Audit process is summarised as follows:

Summary of Audit Information

EPA file reference no. 68411-1

Auditor Mr Michael Rehfisch

Auditor Term of Appointment 9 May 2011 to 9 August 2013

Name of person requesting audit Initially Mr John Furstenberg, then Mr Zvi Civins

Relationship to premises/location Owner’s representative and President of Kehilat Nitzan Conservative (Masorti) Community Inc

Date of request 3 September 2010

Date EPA notified of audit 7 September 2010

Completion date of the audit 20 October 2011

Reason for audit Requirement of Planning Permit for the redevelopment of the site.

Current land use zoning Business Zone 2

EPA region South Metropolitan

Municipality City of Glen Eira

Dominant — Lot on plan Lot 1 TP587176

Additional — Lot on plan(s) -

Site/premises name -

Building/complex sub-unit No. -

Street/Lot — Lower No. 36

Street/Lot — Upper No. 40

Street Name Hawthorn

Street type (road, court, etc) Road

Street suffix (North, South etc) -

Suburb Caulfield North

Executive Summary

m10216_009_rpt_20oct11 iii


Postcode 3161

GIS coordinate of site centroid Latitude (GDA94) Longitude (GDA94)

-37.869036° 145.025146°

Site area (hectares) 0.0815 ha

Members and categories of support team utilised

Nil

Outcome of the audit Statement of Environmental Audit

Further work or requirements

As detailed in the Statement of Environmental Audit for the site (see Appendix A), whereby site to be developed in accordance with Council endorsed plans and maintenance of full and permanent paving of the site. Any landscaped area or garden bed must have at least 0.5m thickness of ‘Fill Material’ soil below the finished surface.

Nature and extent of continuing risk The site fill soil reporting elevated heavy metals and organic contaminants including total recoverable hydrocarbons and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.

Site aquifer formation Brighton Group Formation

Average depth to groundwater 1.4-2.4 m below top of casing (bTOC)

Groundwater segment A

Groundwater flow direction North to northeast

Past use/site history The site was used as a motor and tyre repair workshop from 1939 until at least 1989.

Surrounding land use North: Residential South: Commercial East: Residential and commercial West: Residential

Proposed future use Place of worship including a community centre with childcare with full and permanent paving. No underground structures such as basements or car parks are proposed.

The site has historically been used as a tyre repairer from 1939 and has subsequently also been used for tyre retreading until at least 1989 when it was sold. Council records indicated the site use as nominated by the owner to be tyre repairs, sales and garage. At the time of the audit the site was unused however, the residual building infrastructure from the historical use remained.

The primary on-site contamination sources identified was three underground petroleum storage tanks and associated infrastructure. Fill soil was also identified and covered the majority of the site to depths of 0.6 m bgl. Natural soil surrounding the underground tanks was found to be impacted by petroleum hydrocarbons. The fill soil was found to be impacted by lead, petroleum hydrocarbons, PAHs, including the individual PAH benzo(a)pyrene which were potentially detrimental to human health at the site. Barium, copper, lead and zinc were present in fill at concentrations that were potentially detrimental to sensitive ecosystems at the site. Aesthetically limited material was also present in shallow fill soils.

Primary sources of contamination (underground petroleum storage tanks) and impacted soil was removed as part of the demolition process. A 300 mm thick scrape of surface fill soils were also

Executive Summary

m10216_009_rpt_20oct11 iv

removed from the site in preparation for the redevelopment of the site. The excavated removed soil was segregated, classified and disposed of offsite.

Given that the site will be completely covered by the building footprint as part of the proposed development for a place of worship and the contaminants are not volatile, the Auditor considers that impacted fill remaining at the site will not pose an unacceptable health risk to future site users or the environment, provided that the fill is managed. Residual fill (post development) is to be managed by full and permanent covering by the built form.

Groundwater at the site was encountered within the Brighton Group aquifer at depths of generally 1.2 - 1.9 m bgl. Groundwater has been classified as Segment A (TDS 0 - 1,000 mg/L), as defined in the SEPP (GoV), with the following beneficial uses protected:

• Maintenance of ecosystems (marine at the point of discharge).

• Potable water supply.

• Potable mineral water supply.

• Agriculture parks and garden

• Stock watering.

• Industrial water use.

• Primary contact recreation.

• Buildings and structures.

Groundwater contains naturally elevated arsenic in concentrations that may expose humans to risk if groundwater is extracted for drinking water use. However, this chemical is consistent with background of the Brighton Group aquifer of this area (and not as a result of site activities resulting in pollution. Investigations of groundwater quality beneath the site did not indicate levels of contamination associated with onsite sources that would preclude protected beneficial uses at the site, and hence constitute pollution. However, chemicals including TRHs, heavy metals (copper, lead and zinc) ammonia (as N), nitrate (as N) and cyanide were detected in groundwater at concentrations less than the extractive beneficial use objectives. If groundwater extraction is ever considered at the site, these results should be considered with respect to potential use of the water. This is consistent with consideration of groundwater use for any application in an urbanised area.

In the Auditor's opinion, the quality and reliability of information generated from the investigations undertaken were sufficient for the purposes of this Environmental Audit.

Based on the identified impacts on the protected beneficial uses of the land, a Certificate of Environmental Audit cannot be issued for the site. Therefore, the Auditor has issued a Statement of Environmental Audit which sets out the beneficial uses of land for which the site is suitable, subject to conditions. The conditions apply to the site are as follows:

1. This Statement is linked to the pattern of use defined in the Development Plans [submitted with Glen Eira City Council planning permit approved 27 November 2009, as amended and endorsed by Glen Eira City Council] attached to this Statement. Any substantive change/s (e.g. coverage of paved area, building footprint) must be reviewed by an environmental auditor appointed under Part IXD of the Environment Protection Act, 1970, and advised in writing to EPA and the planning authority.

2. Any landscaped area or garden bed must have at least 0.5m thickness of soil below the finished surface, which is demonstrated to be suitable for the site and consistent with EPA Publication IWRG621 Soil Hazard Categorisation and Management as ‘Fill Material’.

Whilst this Executive Summary has endeavoured to accurately summarise the key points of the Environmental Audit report, the latter shall take precedence and the Executive Summary must be read in conjunction with the full report (Senversa document ref. M1021620_009_RPT_20Oct11) and the Statement of Environmental Audit (Appendix A).

Contents

m10216_009_rpt_20oct11 v

Contents

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................................................. ii

List of Acronyms ...................................................................................................................................................................... ix

1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background................................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Site Description ............................................................................................................................................................ 2

2.0 Audit Framework and Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 4 2.1 Environmental Audits (Contaminated Land) ............................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Data Quality Objectives ................................................................................................................................................ 5

2.2.1 Guidance Documents ......................................................................................................................................... 5 2.2.2 Legislation .......................................................................................................................................................... 6

2.3 Audit Methodology ....................................................................................................................................................... 6

3.0 Information Sources ..................................................................................................................................................... 7 3.1 Site Assessors .............................................................................................................................................................. 7 3.2 Site Inspections ............................................................................................................................................................ 7 3.3 Consultation with Expert Support Team Members ..................................................................................................... 8

4.0 Site History and Environmental Setting ...................................................................................................................... 9 4.1 Site History ................................................................................................................................................................... 9 4.2 History of Surrounding Land Use .............................................................................................................................. 10 4.3 Environmental Audits Completed in the Vicinity of the Site .................................................................................... 11 4.4 Current Site Use.......................................................................................................................................................... 11 4.5 Proposed Development .............................................................................................................................................. 11 4.6 Topography and Surface Waters ............................................................................................................................... 11 4.7 Geology ....................................................................................................................................................................... 12 4.8 Vegetation ................................................................................................................................................................... 12 4.9 Hydrogeology ............................................................................................................................................................. 12

4.9.1 Groundwater Flow System ............................................................................................................................... 12 4.9.2 Regional Groundwater Use .............................................................................................................................. 13

5.0 Protected Beneficial Uses .......................................................................................................................................... 14 5.1 Beneficial Uses of Land ............................................................................................................................................. 14

5.1.1 Regulatory Framework ..................................................................................................................................... 14 5.1.2 Likely Land Use ................................................................................................................................................ 14 5.1.3 Protected Beneficial Uses ................................................................................................................................ 14 5.1.4 Soil Quality Objectives ..................................................................................................................................... 15 Adopted Soil Beneficial Use Objectives ........................................................................................................................ 15

5.2 Beneficial Uses of Groundwater ................................................................................................................................ 16 5.2.1 Regulatory Framework ..................................................................................................................................... 16 5.2.2 Relevant Segment ............................................................................................................................................ 16 5.2.3 Protected Beneficial Uses ................................................................................................................................ 17 5.2.4 Groundwater Quality Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 17

Executive Summary

m10216_009_rpt_20oct11 vi

6.0 Assessment of Environmental Quality of the Site .................................................................................................... 19 6.1 Potential Sources of Contamination.......................................................................................................................... 19

6.1.1 On-Site Sources ............................................................................................................................................... 19 6.1.2 Off-Site Sources ............................................................................................................................................... 19

6.2 Nature and Extent of Contamination ......................................................................................................................... 19 6.2.1 Soil Investigations Undertaken ......................................................................................................................... 19

6.3 Soil Condition Prior to Remediation .......................................................................................................................... 20 6.4 Remedial Works Undertaken and Waste Disposal ................................................................................................... 21

6.4.1 Underground Storage Tank Removal ............................................................................................................... 21 6.4.2 Removal of Surface Fill .................................................................................................................................... 22 6.4.3 Waste Disposal ................................................................................................................................................ 22 6.4.4 Importation of Fill Soil ....................................................................................................................................... 22

6.5 Soil Condition Post Remediation ............................................................................................................................... 23 6.6 Impacts on Protected Beneficial Uses of Land ......................................................................................................... 24 6.7 Nature and Extent of Groundwater Contamination .................................................................................................. 24

6.7.1 Groundwater Investigations Undertaken ........................................................................................................... 24 6.7.2 Groundwater Contamination Present ................................................................................................................ 25 6.7.3 Significance (Risk) of Groundwater Impact ....................................................................................................... 26 6.7.4 Assessment of Source of Chemical Indicators in Groundwater ......................................................................... 27 6.7.5 Clean-Up to the Extent Practicable ................................................................................................................... 27

7.0 Quality of Information................................................................................................................................................. 29 7.1 Historical Information ................................................................................................................................................. 29 7.2 Soil Investigation Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 29 7.3 Groundwater Investigation Methodology .................................................................................................................. 32 7.4 Laboratory Analyses and Quality Control ................................................................................................................. 35 7.5 Auditor’s Assessment of Adequacy .......................................................................................................................... 37

8.0 Summary of Risks Posed by the Condition of the Site ............................................................................................ 38 8.1 Human Health Risk ..................................................................................................................................................... 38

8.1.1 Soil ................................................................................................................................................................... 38 8.1.2 Groundwater .................................................................................................................................................... 38

8.2 Environmental Risk .................................................................................................................................................... 38 8.2.1 Soil ................................................................................................................................................................... 38 8.2.2 Groundwater .................................................................................................................................................... 39

9.0 Auditors Conclusions................................................................................................................................................. 40

10.0 Limitations .................................................................................................................................................................. 42

11.0 References .................................................................................................................................................................. 43

Executive Summary

m10216_009_rpt_20oct11 vii

Figures Figure 1: Site Location Plan Figure 2: Soil Validation Locations – Site Wide Figure 3: Soil Samples Exceeding Adopted Criteria – Site Wide Figure 4: Soil Samples Exceeding Adopted Criteria – Former Tank Pit

Appendix A: Statement of Environmental Audit (including Title and Development Plans)

Appendix B: Title Information

Appendix C: VCAT Extract

Appendix D: Plans for the Proposed Development

Appendix E: Auditor Verification Sample Results and Laboratory Test Certificates

Attachment 1 – Assessment Consultants Reports (refer CD)

List of Acronyms

m10216_009_rpt_20oct11 ix

List of Acronyms

Acronym Definition

Audit Herein refers to a statutory Environmental Audit conducted in accordance with the Victorian Environment Protection Act, 1970

ASLP Australian Standard Leaching Procedure

BTEX Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes

CCME Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment

CUTEP Clean-up to the Extent Practicable

BW Beveridge Williams Pty Ltd

EIL Ecological Investigation Level

EPA Victorian Environment Protection Authority

ESA Environmental site assessment

DNRE Department of Natural Resources and Environment

DSE Department of Sustainability and Environment

HIL Health based investigation level, as defined under the NEPM

IWRG Industrial Waste Resource Guidelines

m AHD Elevation in metres relative to the Australian Height Datum

MMBW Melbourne Metropolitan Board of Works

m bgl Relative elevation in metres below ground level

NEPM National Environment Protection Measure. Typically referred to is the Site Contamination NEPM issued by the National Environment Protection Council

OCP Organochlorine pesticides

OPP Organophosphate pesticides

PAH Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon

PCB Polychlorinated biphenyls

SEPP State Environment Protection Policy. Commonly used SEPPs include:

- Protection and Management of Contamination of Land (SEPP PMCL) - Groundwaters of Victoria (SEPP GoV) - Waters of Victoria (SEPP WoV)

TDS Total dissolved solids

TRH Total recoverable hydrocarbons, a typical analytical result for petroleum hydrocarbons

USEPA United States Environment Protection Authority

UST Underground storage tanks

List of Acronyms

m10216_009_rpt_20oct11 x

Acronym Definition

VOCs Volatile organic compounds

SVOCs Semi-volatile organic compounds

Introduction

m10216_009_rpt_20oct11 1

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Background

This Environmental Audit report and Statement of Environmental Audit (see Appendix A) were prepared in response to a request by Kehilat Nitzan Conservative (Masorti) Community Inc (Kehilat Nitzan) that a Certificate of Environmental Audit be issued, in accordance with Environment Protection Authority Victoria (EPA) regulations and guidelines, for the property located at 36 – 40 Hawthorn Road, Caulfield North, Victoria ‘the site’ (Refer Appendix B for title information). Refer to Figure 1 below for the site location.

The site owner/occupier (Kehilat Nitzan) intends to redevelop the site for use as a place of worship including a community centre with childcare. The environmental audit is a requirement of a planning permit granted by Glen Eira City Council.

Figure A – Site Location

Mr Michael Rehfisch, an employee of Senversa Pty Ltd (Senversa) and an Environmental Auditor appointed pursuant to the Environment Protection Act 1970, performed this audit in accordance with the Environmental Auditor (Contaminated Land) Guidelines for Issue of Certificates and Statements of Environmental Audit (EPA Publication 759.1).

Site

Introduction

m10216_009_rpt_20oct11 2

1.2 Site Description

Information relating to the site and the Environmental Audit process is summarised in the table below.



EPA file reference no. 68411-1

Auditor Mr Michael Rehfisch

Auditor Term of Appointment 9 May 2011 to 9 August 2013

Name of person requesting audit Initially Mr John Furstenberg, then Mr Zvi Civins

Relationship to premises/location Owner’s representative and President of Kehilat Nitzan Conservative (Masorti) Community Inc

Date of request 3 September 2010

Date EPA notified of audit 7 September 2010

Completion date of the audit 20 October 2011

Reason for audit Requirement of Planning Permit for the redevelopment of the site.

Current land use zoning Business Zone 2

EPA region South Metropolitan

Municipality City of Glen Eira

Dominant — Lot on plan Lot 1 TP587176

Additional — Lot on plan(s) -

Site/premises name -

Building/complex sub-unit No. -

Street/Lot — Lower No. 36

Street/Lot — Upper No. 40

Street Name Hawthorn

Street type (road, court, etc) Road

Street suffix (North, South etc) -

Suburb Caulfield North

Postcode 3161

GIS coordinate of site centroid Latitude (GDA94) Longitude (GDA94)

-37.869036° 145.025146°

Site area (hectares) 0.0815 ha

Members and categories of support team utilised

Nil

Introduction

m10216_009_rpt_20oct11 3


Outcome of the audit Statement of Environmental Audit

Further work or requirements

As detailed in the Statement of Environmental Audit for the site (see Appendix A), whereby site to be developed in accordance with Council endorsed plans and maintenance of full and permanent paving of the site. Any landscaped area or garden bed must have at least 0.5m thickness of ‘Fill Material’ soil below the finished surface.

Nature and extent of continuing risk The site fill soil reporting elevated heavy metals and organic contaminants including total recoverable hydrocarbons and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.

Site aquifer formation Brighton Group Formation

Average depth to groundwater 1.4-2.4 m below top of casing (bTOC)

Groundwater segment A

Groundwater flow direction North to northeast

Past use/site history The site was used as a motor and tyre repair workshop from 1939 until at least 1989.

Surrounding land use North: Residential South: Commercial East: Residential and commercial West: Residential

Proposed future use Place of worship including a community centre with childcare with full and permanent paving. No underground structures such as basements or car parks are proposed.

Audit Framework and Methodology

m10216_009_rpt_20oct11 4

2.0 Audit Framework and Methodology

2.1 Environmental Audits (Contaminated Land)

As defined in the Environment Protection Act 1970, an Environmental Audit is:

“a total assessment of the nature and extent of any harm or detriment caused to, or the risk of any possible harm or detriment which may be caused to, any beneficial use made of any segment of the environment by any industrial process of activity, waste, substance (including any chemical substance) or noise”.

The relevant segment of the environment for the purposes of an environmental audit (contaminated land) is the ‘site’ which is defined in terms of a parcel of land and all elements of the environment associated with the land within the boundary of the parcel of land.

An Environmental Audit (contaminated land) results in the issue of a Certificate of Environmental Audit (‘Certificate’). If the Auditor determines that a Certificate cannot be issued then he/she must issue a Statement of Environmental Audit (‘Statement’).

As described in the guideline Environmental Auditing of Contaminated Land (EPA Publication 860) a Certificate indicates that the Auditor is of the opinion that the site is suitable for any beneficial use; that there is no restriction on use of the site due to its environmental condition. A Statement indicates that the Auditor is of the opinion that there is, or may be, some restriction on the use of the site due to its environmental condition.

Depending upon the condition of the site, a statement may indicate that the site is:

a. Not suitable for any use;

b. Suitable for specific uses (that is, not detrimental to the beneficial uses associated with the nominated land use) without further conditions or limitations; or

c. Suitable for specific uses (that is, not detrimental to the beneficial uses associated with the nominated land use) subject to conditions and/or limitations related to its use and management.

The audit system has a particular focus on ensuring that sites proposed for redevelopment for a sensitive use are suitable for that use. This focus is reflected in Minister’s Direction No.11, which was established in 1990. Minister’s Direction No.1 requires planning authorities, when considering a planning scheme amendment that would have the effect of allowing potentially contaminated land to be used for a sensitive use, to be satisfied that the site is suitable for the use. The audit system is the mechanism by which a planning authority must be satisfied (EPA Publication 759.1).

When undertaking an Environmental Audit, the Auditor must first satisfy him/herself as to whether the environmental condition of the land is suitable to issue a Certificate. This involves the following:

• An evaluation of the environmental quality of the site.

• An assessment of whether the condition of the site is detrimental or potentially detrimental to the beneficial uses of the site or any other segment of the environment.

• An assessment of whether any clean up is required to the site.

• If any clean up is required, providing recommendations relating to the clean up of the site.

Such work usually involves consideration of historical practices of the site and surrounds which may have given rise to contamination and an investigation to assess the environmental condition of soil

1 Pursuant to the Planning and Environment Act, 1987.


m10216_009_rpt_20oct11 5

and/or groundwater. The significance of the results of the investigation work is used to determine the need for clean up works and if a Certificate can be issued.

2.2 Data Quality Objectives

In completing this Environmental Audit, the Auditor has drawn upon a range of data in forming an opinion regarding the environmental condition of the site. The amount, quality and nature of the data required to form this opinion is consistent with that recommended in relevant guidelines and standards. In particular key guidance documents for environmental auditing may be found at www.epa.vic.gov.au/envaudit/publications.asp.

Specific data quality objectives used for this audit, together with a discussion regarding the degree of compliance in relation to specific elements of this Environmental Audit, are provided in Section 7.0 of this audit report.

2.2.1 Guidance Documents

Key guidance document for environmental auditing of contaminated land is:

• EPA Publication 759.1, Environmental Auditor (Contaminated Land) Guidelines for

Issue of Certificates and Statements of Environmental Audit, (September 2007).

Other guidance documents are:

• National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure

(National Environment Protection Council, 1999).

• Australian Standard (AS 4482.1) - Guide to the Investigation and Sampling of Potentially Contaminated Soil, Part 1: Non-volatile and Semi-volatile compounds (Standards Australia, 2005).

• Australian Standard (AS 4482.2) - Guide to the Sampling and Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Soil, Part 2: Volatile Substances (Standards Australia, 1999).

• Australian Standard (AS 4439.1) – Wastes, sediments and contaminated soils Part 1: Preparation of leachates – Preliminary Assessment (Standards Australia, 1999).

• EPA Publication IWRG701 - Sampling and Analysis of Waters, Wastewaters, Soils and Wastes (EPA Victoria, June 2009).

• EPA Publication 668 – Hydrogeological Assessment (Groundwater Quality) Guidelines (EPA Victoria, 2006).

• EPA Publication 669 – Groundwater Sampling Guidelines (EPA Victoria, 2000).

• EPA Publication 1147 – Environmental Auditor Guidelines – Provision of Environmental Audit Reports, Certificates and Statements (EPA Victoria, 2002).

• EPA Victoria – Auditors Email 200810-01: Audits General – Non-site Groundwater Issues.

http://www.epa.vic.gov.au/envaudit/publications.asp


m10216_009_rpt_20oct11 6

2.2.2 Legislation

When conducting an Environmental Audit (contaminated land), the following key pieces of legislation (including subordinate legislation) need to be considered:

• Environment Protection Act, 1970.

• State environment protection policy (Prevention and Management of Contamination of Land).

• State environment protection policy (Groundwaters of Victoria).

• State environment protection policy (Waters of Victoria), and its Schedules, in particular for this audit Schedule F6 Waters of the Port Phillip Bay, 1997.

• State environment protection policy (Air Quality Management).

• Environment Protection (Industrial Waste Resource) Regulations, 2009.

2.3 Audit Methodology

In conducting this Environmental Audit, the Auditor has:

• Reviewed and evaluated relevant site assessment reports and additional background information to gain an understanding of the environmental condition of the site and the completeness / adequacy of the site assessment.

• Identified the beneficial use(s) of land and groundwater requiring protection as defined by relevant State Environment Protection Policies (SEPP).

• Reviewed and provided comments on investigation and clean up works provided by the site assessor.

• Inspected the condition of the site and satisfied himself of the environmental condition of the site at the time of the completion of the Audit.

• Assessed the harm, detriment or risk posed by the condition of the site to beneficial uses to be protected.

• Prepared this audit report and Statement of Environmental Audit (Appendix A) and concluded as to the suitability of the site in its final condition for its proposed use.

Information Sources

m10216_009_rpt_20oct11 7

3.0 Information Sources

3.1 Site Assessors

Beveridge Williams Pty Ltd (BW) was originally engaged as the assessment consultant and was responsible for site investigation works prior to November 2010, including removal of the underground storage tanks form the site. After this time, Alliance Environmental Engineering and Consulting Pty Ltd (Alliance) assumed responsibility for all assessment works, at the request of Kehilat Nitzan.

BW and Alliance supplied the primary sources of information that the Auditor used to form an opinion regarding the environmental condition of the site, and to complete this environmental audit. This information comprised the following:

• Beveridge Williams Pty Ltd (26 November 2010), Final - Contamination Assessment and Remediation, 36-40 Hawthorn Road, Caulfield North.

• Alliance Environmental Engineering and Consulting Pty Ltd (22 September 2011), Site Condition Summary - Final, 36-40 Hawthorn Road, Caulfield North, VIC.

• Various discussions between the Auditor, BW, Alliance and Kehilat Nitzan.

• Copies of work plans, preliminary results and preliminary assessment reports.

The Auditor provided regular written feedback to the assessment consultant regarding the adequacy of this information for the purposes of completing an environmental audit.

Copies of the assessment reports are provided in Attachment 1.

3.2 Site Inspections

A series of site inspections by the Auditor and / or his representatives were conducted as follows:

• 3 September 2010 – Auditor and auditor representative (Belle Casement) initial site inspection.

• 22 September 2010 – Auditor and auditor representative (Belle Casement) inspection to observe UST removal by BW.

• 12 November 2010 – Auditor site inspection to observe soil following concrete slab removal

• 22 November 2010 - Auditor site inspection with builder and civil earthworks contractor regarding soil removal works.

• 26 November 2010 – Auditor representative (Belle Casement) inspection to observe Alliance sampling groundwater.

• 31 January 2011 – Auditor site inspection with Alliance to discuss additional soil characterisation and clean up requirements.

• 4 February 2011 - Auditor representative (Belle Casement) inspection to observe Alliance carrying out follow up soil clean up/removal and validation works.

• 11 October 2011 - Auditor representative (Belle Casement) inspection to complete verification sampling of imported fill used to backfill former underground storage tanks.

• 20 October 2011 – Auditor final site inspection to confirm condition of site upon completion of the audit.

Information Sources

m10216_009_rpt_20oct11 8

The purposes of the site inspections were:

• To become familiar with the site and surrounding area.

• To assess the layout and condition of the site during site investigations and remedial works carried out by the assessment consultant; and

• To review field investigation techniques used by the assessment consultant and for the Auditor to collect Auditor verification (quality control) samples.

3.3 Consultation with Expert Support Team Members

The Auditor relied on his own expertise to complete the audit. Support was provided by Belle Casement who is a Senversa staff member.

Site History and Environmental Setting

m10216_009_rpt_20oct11 9

4.0 Site History and Environmental Setting

4.1 Site History

A review of historical developments and activities that have taken place on the site is documented in the report provided by BW (Attachment A). The report also included a review of audits completed in the surrounding area. Based on the environmental investigation reports and additional site history review by the Auditor, the history of the site can be broadly summarised as follows:

• Historical Melbourne Metropolitan Board of Works (MMBW) plans and street directories reviewed by the Auditor indicated that in the early 1900s that the site was used for a private residence ‘The Pines’. Land surrounding the site was observed to be either vacant or used for private residences. An extract of the 1906 MMBW plan showing the site (MMBW plan identifier bw1150) is presented below:

Figure B – MMBW Plan

• Historical aerial photographs reviewed by BW indicate that from 1945 the majority of the site was occupied by one large building. A smaller out building and garden was in the western portion of the site. By 1960 the garden area was occupied by an extension to the main building. By 1980 the small outbuilding had been removed and replaced with a garden. The site appears relatively unchanged from 1980 onwards. The historical aerial photographs indicated that the area has historically been dominated by residential and light commercial use.

• The historical Sands and McDougall Directory of Victoria review indicated that the property was first listed in 1921 and appeared to be used for a private residence. In 1940 the property is noted as being occupied by a motor tyre repair shop and a boot repair shop. From 1963 only motor tyre repair was listed, until the end of the publication of the directory in 1974. The listings of surrounding properties included fuel merchants, fish monger, confectionary manufactures and private residences.

• Historical certificates of title indicated that the site was sold to a tyre repairer in 1939. The site appears to have subsequently been used by tyre repairs and tyre retreading until at least 1989 when it was sold. No intervening use for the site is known until to the current owner purchased the site in 2008 for redevelopment. Council records indicated the site use as nominated by the owner


m10216_009_rpt_20oct11 10

to be tyre repairs, sales and garage. It is understood that Stephen Malcolm Woolnough operated a tyre business at 36-40 Hawthorn Road from 1939. As discussed in Section 6.4, three underground petroleum storage tanks were removed from the site. No bowser was observed, however during the initial site inspection a bowser base was observed within the building.

• A search of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission website show that the name Tom and Anne Woolnough Pty Ltd (formerly Woolnough Tyre Service Pty Ltd) was deregistered in 2003, potentially providing a rough indication of when operations ceased on site.

• Four of audits have been completed within the vicinity (200 – 900 m) of the site. The audits were required by planning requirements for the redevelopment of the sites. Further information obtained from the surrounding audits is detailed in Section 4.3.

The site history information indicated that potential point sources of contamination may exist at the site from tyre repair and garage services. Site inspections and ground penetrating radar survey indicated the presence of underground storage tanks (USTs) relating to the sites former uses.

4.2 History of Surrounding Land Use

Surrounding land uses are understood to have been predominantly been residential and commercial. Previous land uses in the vicinity of the site are summarised below:

• An extract of an administrative appeals tribunal case for a nearby property (41 – 43 Hawthorn Road) provided by Kehilat Nitzan details witness testimony providing additional information of the site and the surrounding businesses. A copy of the record is provided in Appendix C. Information relevant to the audit is detailed below:

45 Hawthorn Road was used as a butcher’s shop until 1962. Activities at 43 Hawthorn Road included the sale of petrol (garage), panel beating and the

servicing and repair of motor vehicles until 1962. It is understood that petrol pumps for this site were in the street.

In 1955, 41 Hawthorn Road was being used as a wood yard, a fuel depot and an ice works. A small stable was also present.

• The Caulfield Motor Body Works panel beater currently occupies 41-45 Hawthorn Road.

• The auditor also reviewed information on the history of the nearby Caulfield Park, the details provided in the attached link http://www.caulfieldpark.com/history-of-the-park.html. This information indicates that the Park was formerly known as Paddy’s Swamp and in the late 1860’s peat and sand was extracted from the wetland.

A general internet search by the Auditor identified that the adjacent property on the southern boundary was formerly National Licorice Pty Ltd a confectionery manufacturer which occupied 42 – 58 Hawthorn Road (http://blahx32.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/nigger-boy-licorice/ Accessed July 2011).

http://www.caulfieldpark.com/history-of-the-park.html

http://blahx32.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/nigger-boy-licorice/


m10216_009_rpt_20oct11 11

4.3 Environmental Audits Completed in the Vicinity of the Site

As indicated in Section 4.1 a number of audits have been completed within 500 m of the site. BW (section 4.4 of the ESA, 2010) reviewed the following audits completed in the vicinity of the site:

• 2-4 Wanda Road, Caulfield, Hyder Environmental, January 1997 – Certificate (EPA Ref: 29493-1).

• 75 – 87 Kooyong Road, North Caulfield, CMPS&F Environmental, February 1996 – Certificate (EPA Ref: 29629-1).

• 175 Balaclava Road, North Caulfield, Noel Arnold and Associated, 2008 – Statement (EPA Ref: 63001-1).

• 153-163 Hawthorn Road, North Caulfield, Hyder December 1998 – Certificate (EPA Ref: 47939-1).

The sites listed above are at distances of greater than 200 m from the site, therefore limiting specific environmental data pertaining to the site. However, the reports provided general background information and the environmental setting of the Caulfield North area.

Surface impacts were identified across most sites to an average depth of 0.7 m bgl in the area, which was variously impacted by metals, TRH and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), with the majority requiring impacted soil removal prior to the completion of the audits. The natural soils of the area were generally logged as orange, brown, red and grey sandy clay.

Only two of the audits included a groundwater investigation, those carried out at 175 Balaclava Road and 75-87 Kooyong Road. Groundwater at these sites was encountered within the Brighton Group at depths ranging from 3-6 m bgl. Perched water at 0.5-0.7 m was also identified at 75-87 Kooyong Road. Groundwater flow direction could not be accurately assessed in any of the audits carried out due to screen length and well locations; however flow direction was consistently inferred to be toward Port Phillip Bay to the southwest. All audit sites were located cross or down gradient of the site.

The 175 Balaclava Road, Caulfield North audit identified elevated groundwater concentrations of heavy metals, nitrate, ammonia and cyanide which were not considered to be sourced from the site.

Summaries of the findings of the above reports are included in section 4.6 of the BW ESA (refer Attachment 1).

4.4 Current Site Use

The site is currently vacant and has not been in used since the tyre retail operations ceased.

4.5 Proposed Development

The site is proposed to be developed for a ‘Place of Worship’ being a synagogue including a community centre with child care facilities. The proposed building footprint will cover the entire site with the exception of a small fully and permanently paved courtyard in the western portion of the site, where no direct access to soil will be provided. A copy of the development plans is provided in Appendix D.

4.6 Topography and Surface Waters

The site is generally flat with a slight slope down to the south. The nearest surface water receptors to the site with the potential to receive groundwater include:

• Artificial lake at Caulfield Park located approximately 300 m to the south east.

• Port Philip Bay located approximately 4.5 km to the west.


m10216_009_rpt_20oct11 12

4.7 Geology

A review of the Geological Survey of Victoria “Ringwood” map (1:63,360 scale) indicated that the site is underlain by the Tertiary aged Brighton Group, specifically the Red Bluff sands comprising fine to coarse grained sands and minor poorly sorted gravels.

Based on the bore logs provided in the BW (November, 2010) and Alliance (22 September, 2011) reports, the generalised soil profile can be summarised as follows:

Generalised Soil Profile

Approximate Depth (from/to) (m bgl)

Lithological Descriptions

0 to 0.1 m Concrete

0.1 to 0.6 m Fill – Silty sand, brown, containing medium gravels and some anthropogenic materials (e.g. brick, concrete and metal fragments). Deeper fill to 1.6 m was observed adjacent the former vehicle service pit area.

0.6 - 1.3 m Sand – Silty sand, black/dark grey, fine to medium grained, moist.

1.3 - to depth of investigation (up to 7.5 m)

Sand to Clayey Sand – Silty sand, yellow to pale brown, fine to medium grained.

4.8 Vegetation

During the site inspection and assessment works, only the backyard contained vegetation in an unsealed area of the site. The yard was mostly grassed with some bare areas. Vines were observed growing up the rear of the buildings. The vegetation did not appear to be stressed.

4.9 Hydrogeology

The Groundwater Resources Victoria (1982) map indicates that the uppermost aquifer beneath the site is the Red Bluff Sands aquifer within the Brighton Group. The Water Table Aquifers Map of South Western Victoria produced by the DNRE shows the site to be underlain by groundwaters with total dissolved solids (TDS) ranging from 1,001 to 3,500 mg/L, which would classify the groundwater as Segment B under the State Environmental Protection Policy (SEPP).

Chemical testing results from the last groundwater sampling round completed as part of the Alliance site investigation, reported TDS concentrations in the groundwater below the site to be between 212 mg/L and 630 mg/L. This is consistent with previous assessment at the site. In accordance with the SEPP (Groundwaters of Victoria) groundwater at the site is considered to fall within Segment A.

The Geological Survey Report (Leonard, 1992) states that the Red Bluff Sands are made up of coarse sands or fine gravels, with expected moderate to high permeability. The layer is generally located near the base of the Brighton Group (an aquifer with a generally low permeability). Given groundwater wells on site were installed to depth of 6.5 – 7.5 m bgl, do not appear to have intersected the Red Bluff Sands. Standing water levels with the three wells were generally measured at 1.2 – 1.9 m bgl. The water within the Brighton Group Aquifer varies from being confined to semi-confined (Leonard, 1992).

4.9.1 Groundwater Flow System

Based on the groundwater contour plans produced from the onsite wells, groundwater flow direction is towards the north east. However, the Auditor notes that based on the local topography, regional groundwater flow is likely to be south to south westerly, towards Port Phillip Bay. Of the four surrounding audit sites within 500 m of the site (listed in Section 0), variable groundwater flow directions were reported.


m10216_009_rpt_20oct11 13

A nearby audit located at 107 Neerim Road, Glen Huntly, (approximately 2 km south east of the site) undertaken by Coffey Environments in 2003, was reviewed in order to substantiate the assumption of regional groundwater flow. The assessment of the site involved the installation and gauging of 19 groundwater monitoring wells in the upper aquifer. The groundwater elevation contours indicated that groundwater flow was expected to be towards the south - southeast.

4.9.2 Regional Groundwater Use

BW (2010) engaged Sinclair Knight Merz (SKM) to undertake a search of the Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) Victorian Groundwater Database in June 2011. The search identified approximately 200 registered bores within 2 km of the site, which were predominantly registered as stock/domestic use.

The Auditor reviewed the DSE Victorian Water Resources data base information provided in the BW (November, 2010) report, focusing on bores within a 500 m radius of the site. The three wells within this area were all located cross or down gradient of the site and constructed to depths of between 10 - 62 m bgl. Two were registered for domestic use, whilst one use is unknown.

Protected Beneficial Uses

m10216_009_rpt_20oct11 14

5.0 Protected Beneficial Uses

5.1 Beneficial Uses of Land

5.1.1 Regulatory Framework

State Environment Protection Policy (Prevention and Management of Contamination of Land), 2002 (SEPP (PMCL)) sets out the regulatory framework for the prevention and management of contaminated land within the State of Victoria. The goal of the policy is:

“to maintain and where appropriate and practicable improve the condition of the land environment sufficient to protect current and future beneficial uses of land from the detrimental effects of contamination by:

a) preventing contamination of land; and

b) where pollution has occurred, adopting management practices that will ensure:

i) unacceptable risks to human health and the environment are prevented;

and

ii) pollution is cleaned up or otherwise managed to protect beneficial uses.”

The SEPP (PMCL) identifies land use categories and protected beneficial uses for each of these categories. Land (soil) is considered polluted where current and/or future protected beneficial uses for the relevant land use categories are precluded. Beneficial uses of land are considered precluded when relevant soil quality objectives set out in the SEPP (PMCL) have been exceeded.

5.1.2 Likely Land Use

As discussed in Section 4.5, the proposed development at the site is for a ‘Place of Worship’ including a community centre with child care. The development proposes to fully and permanently pave the entire site.

Whilst there is limited potential for soil access of the proposed development scenario, and in accordance with the SEPP (PMCL) and Environmental Auditor Guidelines (EPA Publication 759.1), the proposed development land use can be categorised as ‘Sensitive use - High density’, the Auditor has, due to the place of worship including community centre with childcare community centre use, conservatively categorised the site as ‘Sensitive use – Other’, which includes child care centre use.

5.1.3 Protected Beneficial Uses

All protected beneficial uses of land have to be considered when undertaking a contaminated land Environmental Audit and when determining whether a Certificate of Environmental Audit can be issued. In accordance with the SEPP (PMCL) they are:

• Maintenance of natural ecosystems.

• Human health.


• Aesthetics.

• Production of food, fibre and flora.

In the context of the proposed ‘Place of Worship’ use all protected beneficial uses have been considered.


m10216_009_rpt_20oct11 15

5.1.4 Soil Quality Objectives

In accordance with the SEPP (PMCL), soil quality objectives for the beneficial uses were primarily sourced from the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure (NEPC, 1999) (‘the NEPM’), specifically those provided in Schedule B(1) of the NEPM, Guideline on the Investigation Levels for Soil and Groundwater. The specific objectives used for each protected beneficial use identified in Section 5.1.3 are described in the table below.

Adopted Soil Beneficial Use Objectives

Beneficial Use Adopted Guideline Source

Maintenance of ecosystems Schedule B(1) of the NEPM provides a range of investigation levels for the protection of ecosystems, referred to as Ecological Investigation Levels (EILs). The following should be noted: • A limited range of EILs is provided, and only for metals/metalloids (no regional-based EILs

are currently available). These values are based on consideration of phytotoxicity, ‘ANZECC B’ levels (ANZEC/NHMRC, 1992) and soil survey data from urban residential properties in four Australian capital cities; and

• The EILs do not currently discern between natural, modified and highly modified ecosystems, as defined in the SEPP (PMCL).

EILs have been used to assess the suitability of the site for the maintenance of ecosystems (modified and highly modified ecosystems) beneficial use, by direct comparison with soil concentrations found at each sampling location across the site (refer Section 6.3).

Human health Schedule B (1) of the NEPM provides a range of investigation levels for the protection of human health, referred to as Health Investigation Levels (HILs). HILs are provided for four exposure settings based on land use. These are:

• Setting A - ‘Standard’ residential with garden/accessible soil (home-grown produce contributing less than 10% of vegetable and fruit intake; no poultry). This category includes children’s day-care centres, kindergartens, preschools and primary schools.

• Setting D – Residential with minimal opportunities for soil access. Includes dwellings with fully and permanently paved yard space such as high-rise apartments and flats.

• Setting E – Parks, recreational open space and playing fields. Includes secondary schools.

• Setting F – Commercial/industrial. Includes premises such as shops and offices as well as factories and industrial sites.

It is emphasised within the NEPM that HILs are not intended for use as default remediation trigger criteria, but are intended to prompt an appropriate site-specific assessment when they are exceeded. The SEPP (PMCL) also states that beneficial use objectives may be set using a risk assessment methodology described in the NEPM. For the purposes of an Environmental Audit the Setting A HILs have been used for initial comparison with actual soil conditions at the site. The Auditor considers the ‘Place of Worship’ exposure setting to be equivalent to a ‘High Density Residential’ land use, and as such the Setting D HILs have also been used for comparison against the soil results. The NSW EPA Guidelines for Assessing Service Station sites (1994) have also been consulted in the consideration of TPH impacts. The quality of soils against this protected beneficial use is discussed in Section 6.7.

Buildings and structures The SEPP (PMCL) states, “Contamination must not cause the land to be corrosive to or adversely affect the integrity of structures or building materials.” The potential for the condition of soils at the site to adversely impact upon buildings includes:

• Elevated sulphate concentrations or acidic (low pH) soil conditions which are detrimental to some concrete structures.

• Ingress of contaminants into subterranean service lines (such as ingress into water supply pipelines).

Australian Standard 2159 – Piling Design and Installation (2009) has also been considered in assessing this beneficial use. The potential for the condition of soils at the site to adversely impact upon buildings and structures is discussed in Section 6.7.


m10216_009_rpt_20oct11 16


Aesthetics The SEPP (PMCL) states, “Contamination must not cause the land to be offensive to the senses of human beings.” The aesthetic quality of soils at the site is discussed in Section 6.7.

Production of food, fibre and flora

The SEPP (PMCL) states “Contamination of land must not:

• Adversely affect produce quality or yield; and • Affect the level of any indicator in food, flora and fibre produced at the site (or that

may be produced) such that the level of that indicator is greater than that specified by the Australia New Zealand Food Authority, Food Standards Code”.

Specifically derived soil quality objectives are not currently available for the protection of this beneficial use. In their absence, NEPM EIL guideline values have been used to assess this beneficial use.

5.2 Beneficial Uses of Groundwater

5.2.1 Regulatory Framework

The SEPP (GoV) applies to management of groundwater contamination issues in Victoria. The goal of the policy is:

“to maintain and where necessary improve groundwater quality sufficient to protect existing and potential beneficial uses of groundwaters throughout Victoria”

The key policy objectives relevant to pollution of groundwater are defined in the Groundwater SEPP, and include the following:

• Environmental policy goals, including the principles of “polluter pays”, “intergenerational equity” and the “precautionary principle”.

• Definitions of beneficial uses of groundwater to be protected (based on background salinity or total dissolved solids (TDS)), groundwater quality indicators and objectives.

• The policy objective that non aqueous phase liquid must be removed unless the Authority (EPA) is satisfied that there is no unacceptable risk to posed to any beneficial use.

• The method by which the Authority identifies a groundwater quality restricted use zone.

Groundwater is considered polluted where the objectives for indicators of a beneficial use are exceeded, or where non-aqueous phase liquid is present. Where groundwater has been polluted it must be cleaned up such that the protection of beneficial uses is restored, or if this is not possible, groundwater must be cleaned up to the extent practicable.

5.2.2 Relevant Segment

The groundwater analytical results collected during the BW (November, 2010) and Alliance (22 September, 2011) reports indicated that groundwater within the aquifer contained TDS concentrations of 200 – 630 mg/L.

Based on the TDS range, the site has been considered by the Auditor under Segment A of the SEPP (GoV).


m10216_009_rpt_20oct11 17

5.2.3 Protected Beneficial Uses

The protected beneficial uses for Segment A groundwater are:

• Maintenance of ecosystems (marine at the point of discharge).

• Potable water supply.

• Potable mineral water supply.

• Agriculture parks and garden

• Stock watering.

• Industrial water use.

• Primary contact recreation.


5.2.4 Groundwater Quality Objectives

In accordance with the SEPP (GoV), groundwater quality objectives for beneficial uses are primarily sourced from the Australian Water Quality Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Waters, published by the Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC, 1992 and 2000).

Given that groundwater at the site has been assessed as Segment A and considering the beneficial uses listed in the above sections, the Auditor has referenced the following groundwater quality objectives in order to assess impact to potential groundwater beneficial uses:

Adopted Guidelines for Groundwater Beneficial Uses


Maintenance of Ecosystems

For maintenance of ecosystems, the State Environment Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria) (SEPP (WoV) and its schedules apply. The SEPP (WoV) adopts surface water objectives from Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality, (ANZECC/ARMCANZ, 2000). The receiving waters of groundwater down gradient of the site is likely to be Port Phillip Bay, considered to be the Inshore Segment of SEPP (WoV) – Schedule F6 Port Philip Bay. The Inshore Segment is defined as a ‘Substantially natural ecosystem with some modification’ according the SEPP (WoV) and as such the 95% level of ecosystem protection has been adopted as per the policy variations outlined in Part 3 of SEPP (WoV) and ANZECC/ARMCANZ, 2000. For particular chemicals where high and moderate reliability trigger values are not available in ANZECC/ARMCANZ, 2000, low reliability trigger values have been used for comparison with concentrations of contaminants. Where low reliability trigger values have been adopted, these have been used as an indicative interim working level only, in accordance with ANZECC/ARMCANZ, 2000.

Potable water supply – desirable and acceptable

For potable water supply, the SEPP (GoV) applies. The SEPP (GoV) specifies indicators and investigation levels from ANZECC, 1992 in the first instance as follows: 1. ANZECC, 1992. Raw Water for Drinking Water Supply. 2. NHMRC, 2004. Australian Drinking Water Guidelines – Health. 3. WHO, 2004. Guidelines for Drinking Water – Health. 4. USEPA, 2009. Regional Screening Levels – Tap Water.

Potable Mineral Water Supply

This beneficial use is unlikely to be realised given the location of the site as it is not within a known mineral water province and groundwater does not have mineral water characteristics as defined in SEPP (GoV). As such this beneficial use is not considered further.

Agriculture, parks and gardens

For agriculture, parks and gardens, the SEPP (GoV) applies. The SEPP (GoV) specifies indicators and investigation levels from ANZECC, 1992 in the first instance as follows: 1. ANZECC, 1992. Agricultural Water Uses – Guidelines for Irrigation Water Quality. More recent guidelines have been considered as follows. 2. ANZECC/ARMCANZ, 2000. Primary Industries guidelines – Water Quality of Irrigation and General Water Use.


m10216_009_rpt_20oct11 18


Stockwatering For stock watering, the SEPP (GoV) and its schedules apply. The SEPP (GoV) specifies indicators and investigation levels from ANZECC (1992). As the ANZECC (1992) guidance has been superseded by ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000), the more recent guidelines have been referenced in the first instance as follows: 1. ANZECC/ARMCANZ, 2000. Primary Industries – Livestock Drinking Water Quality. For contaminants for which no livestock drinking water quality criteria are provided, ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) recommends that drinking water guidelines for human health be adopted. Drinking water guidelines to supplement the above values were adopted from the following sources (in order of preference): 2. NHMRC, 2004. Australian Drinking Water Guidelines – Health. 3. WHO, 2008. Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality. 4. USEPA, 2010. Regional Screening Levels – Tap Water.

Industrial Water Use

No guidelines have been adopted based on the wide range of possible industrial uses of water. This beneficial use is generally assessed when an existing, proposed or likely industrial use is known. Groundwater TDS, pH, sulphate, chloride are some indicators that may be used in establishing the inherent capability of groundwater for industrial applications. For the purpose of this audit, groundwater quality screening criteria for other uses are expected to be protective of this beneficial use.

Primary Contact Recreation For primary contact recreation, the SEPP (GoV) and its schedules apply. The SEPP (GoV) specifies indicators and investigation levels from ANZECC (1992). As the ANZECC (1992) guidance has been superseded by ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000), the more recent guidelines have been referenced in the first instance, as follows: 1. ANZECC/ARMCANZ, 2000. Guidelines for Recreational Water and Aesthetics.

For contaminants for which no primary contact recreation guidelines are provided, ANZECC (2000) recommends that drinking water guidelines for human health be adopted. Drinking water guidelines to supplement the above values were adopted from the following sources (in order of preference): 2. NHMRC, 2004. Australian Drinking Water Guidelines – Health and Aesthetics. 3. WHO, 2008. Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality. 4. USEPA, 2010. Regional Screening Levels – Tap Water.

Buildings and Structures

Specific guidelines for buildings and structures are not available, however Australian Standard (AS2159-1995) – Piling – Design and Installation was referred to for the protection of building and structures. The potential for groundwater to affect buildings and structures is discussed in Section 6.7. In particular, the effects of pH, chloride, sulphate and redox need to be considered.

Where groundwater quality objectives cannot be sourced from the above mentioned documents, alternative sources of information are used. These sources include but are not limited to the World Health Organisation, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), United States Environment Protection Authority (USEPA) and Dutch Intervention Values.

Assessment of Environmental Quality of the Site

m10216_009_rpt_20oct11 19

6.0 Assessment of Environmental Quality of the Site

6.1 Potential Sources of Contamination

6.1.1 On-Site Sources

On the basis of historical information (refer Section 4.1) and observations made during site investigations, the primary sources of contamination at the site are summarised as follows:

Summary of Potential On-Site Sources of Contamination

Potential Sources of Contamination Chemicals of Potential Concern

Previous site uses (on-site) - Tyre retreading - General automotive maintenance - Underground fuel/oil storage and distribution

Petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), solvents, metals, chlorinated hydrocarbons.

Fill - Wastes from local industries (see below) and

other unidentified imported sources.

Variable, however commonly metals, TPH, PAHs, organochlorine pesticides (OCPs), organophosphate pesticides (OPPs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), asbestos.

Previous and current buildings Asbestos.

6.1.2 Off-Site Sources

The predominant off-site source of contamination are thought to be the commercial properties to the east of the site, with notable listings in Sands and McDougall Directory of Victoria from 1940 onwards including a fuel merchant and a motor garage. The chemicals of concern for these trades are consistent with the chemicals of potential concern noted for site sources. The majority of the land surrounding the site has been used for residential purposes and therefore no additional significant off-site sources of contamination have been identified. The adjacent property on the southern boundary was identified by the Auditor to be National Licorice Pty Ltd a confectionery manufacturer which occupied 42 – 58 Hawthorn Road. Specific activities at the site are unknown.

6.2 Nature and Extent of Contamination

6.2.1 Soil Investigations Undertaken

The Auditor is not aware of any previous soil investigation undertaken at the site prior to assessment by BW (November, 2010).

All soil investigation results that were relied upon by the Auditor are detailed within the BW contamination assessment report (November, 2010) and the subsequent investigations in the Alliance (22 September, 2011) report, copies of which are included in Attachment 1. BW completed the following phases of investigation works:

• A ground penetrating radar survey completed across the site to identify potential contamination sources. The survey identified the USTs and suspected service pit and drainage lines.

• The preliminary soil investigation was undertaken by BW on 17 November 2009, with eight boreholes (BH1-BH8) hand augured across the site, generally to a depth of 1.0 m bgl. Six boreholes were positioned in a grid, and the remaining targeting the former spray room and an area of brick paving.


m10216_009_rpt_20oct11 20

• Additional works were carried out by BW in August 2010 with three soil bores (SB1-SB3) and three groundwater monitoring wells (MW1-MW3) mechanically drilled. The soil bores, advanced to 4 m, targeted the USTs and the stormwater drainage pit. Surface samples (SS1-SS8) were also collected beneath the stained brickwork, located beside a leaking downpipe.

• A total of 25 soil samples were submitted for analysis, across a range of depths within differing fill material profiles and the underlying natural soils, and six QC samples (three duplicates and three triplicates). Samples were analysed for potential chemical of concern including metals, TRH, PAHs and monoaromatic hydrocarbons (MAHs). Limited analysis was also undertaken for EPA 621 screen, (arsenic, cadmium, chromium (total and hexavalent), copper, lead, mercury, nickel, tin, selenium, silver, zinc, cyanide, fluoride, phenolic compounds, PCBs, chlorinated hydrocarbons, OCPs, OPPs), volatile halogenated organics, pH and sulfates. Three samples also underwent the Australian standard leaching procedure (ASLP) and were analysed for the heavy metals cadmium, lead and zinc or PAHs.

• BW also supervised the initial removal of three underground petroleum storage tanks and completed initial validation works (refer Section 6.4.1 for details).

Alliance was then engaged to complete additional infill sampling and analysis requested by the Auditor and supervision of the excavation and removal of impacted soil from the UST excavations as follows:

• Additional soil characterisation sampling to confirm site conditions at initial locations BH2, BH5, BH6 and further characterisation of fill soils at the rear of the property with analysis for a suite of metals, PAHs and TRH.

• Collection of soil samples beneath a former service pit with analysis for a suite of metals, PAHs, TRH and VOCs.

• Vertical and lateral delineation of PAHs/TRH impact in the vicinity of initial surface soil sample location SS1 with analysis for PAHs and TRH.

• Validation of final soil conditions following the removal of odorous soils from the former UST area and the removal of shallow soils across the site as part of preparation for the resurfacing of the site as part of the development. Details of these activities are detailed in table 5 of the Alliance report (22 September, 2011) and Section 6.4 of this report.

6.3 Soil Condition Prior to Remediation

Following the completion of the above soil investigation works, the following indicators were identified on-site at concentrations in excess of soil quality objectives:

Summary of Exceedences of Soil Quality Objectives

Chemical Total No. of Samples Analysed

Concentration Range (mg/kg)

Location Depth of Maximum Concentration

No. Of Samples with Chemical Concentration Above Objectives

Soil Quality Objectives Exceeded

Type mg/kg

Barium 10 <5 to 370 BH1 (0.2-0.3, fill) 1 EIL 0

Lead

12 <5 to 620

BH1 (0.2-0.3, fill) 1 EIL 0

1 HIL A 0

Zinc 12 <5 to 1600 BH3 (0.15 – 0.25, fill)

3 EIL 200


m10216_009_rpt_20oct11 21

Chemical Total No. of Samples

Concentration Range (mg/kg)

Location Depth of Maximum

No. Of Samples with Chemical

Soil Quality Objectives Exceeded

TRH (C15 – C28) 17 <50 to 1,900

SS3 (0.1 – 0.15, fill)

2 EIL 0

TRH Total (C10 – C36)

17 < 120 to 3,230

SS3 (0.1 – 0.15, fill)

1 NSWEPA 1000

Benzo(a) pyrene

20 <0.1 to 75 SS3 (0.1 – 0.15, fill)

6 HIL A

4 HIL D

Total PAHs 20 <0.1 to 670 SS3 (0.1 – 0.15, fill)

6 HIL A 20

3 HIL D 80

Underlying natural soils were not found to be impacted by site activities. No asbestos was identified during the intrusive works.

Based on the status of soil contamination and the presence of USTs, a number of protected beneficial uses were precluded warranting remedial works.

6.4 Remedial Works Undertaken and Waste Disposal

Details of the remediation works are provided within the BW and Alliance reports which are provided in Attachment 1. The following sections summarise the works which comprised:

• Removal of three USTs and associated pipework and impacted soils.

• Surface scrape to remove the top 300 mm of soil in preparation for the development working levels and recasting a concrete slab across the site.

6.4.1 Underground Storage Tank Removal

The initial UST removal and validation was conducted by BW on 22 November 2010. However, due to elevated TPH results returned from various validation samples taken during the initial soil removal, additional excavation and validation was carried out by Alliance.

Details of the tank removal works undertaken are provided within the BW contamination assessment report (November, 2010) which is provided within Attachment 1. A summary of the UST type and state upon removal is presented below.

Tank Approximate Dimensions (m)

Approximate Volume (L)

Contents Condition Samples

1 1.23 x 1.20 1,000 Approximately 25 cm of oil

Average, some rusting on tank surface

2209-V1 to 2209-V4

2 1.82 x 0.92 1,200 Dry Poor, some rusting on tank surface and holes on the tank wall

2209-V5 to 2209-V8

3 2.45 x 1.54 4,500 Approximately 43 cm of oily water

Good, no rusting or holes observed

2209-V9 to 2209-V14

Prior to the USTs’ excavation, the two USTs containing liquid, as well as the underground service pit and drainage pit, were pumped dry by a licensed liquid waste contractor.


m10216_009_rpt_20oct11 22

Tanks 1 and 2 were surrounded by brown silty sand, with no visual or olfactory impacts noted. One excavation along the southern boundary was created for the removal of the two tanks. Tank 3 was surrounded by light brown coarse packing sand which was noted to contain a hydrocarbon-like odour. Some black staining was observed on the base of the Tank 3 excavation. An additional 1.9 m trench (TP1) was installed west of the USTs along the southern boundary and was used to support the ground penetrating radar survey of the site to confirm that no other tanks were present in this area.

Over two rounds of sampling and excavation, validation samples were collected from the walls and base of each excavation. The soil was removed based on visual and olfactory evidence of impact. At the completion of works, a limited volume of impacted soil was unable to be removed beneath the southern wall of the property based on the advice of a structural engineer. The extent of the impact was delineated and confirmed to be approximately 1.2 m below ground level and extend not greater than 0.7 – 0.8 m into the wall in areas localised to validation sampling locations VS1 and VS13 with >C10 fraction TPH at a concentration of 4,610 and 20,600 mg/kg respectively. Details of the works are presented in section 8 and 10 of the Alliance (22 September, 2011) report.

All other samples reported non-odorous soils with analytical results in concentrations less than the adopted criteria

The approximate dimensions of the excavations are shown in Figure 4.

The UST destruction certificates have been provided in the Alliance (22 September, 2011) report.

6.4.2 Removal of Surface Fill

As part of the preparation of the site for redevelopment, the former flooring and approximately 300 mm of soil was excavated and transported off-site. This activity removed shallow PAH and metal impacted soil identified at the site in preparation for the reinstatement of a concrete slab floor across the site. The following samples have then been used to characterise the final condition of the site:

• Initial BW (November 2010) deeper soil sample results from samples locations BH2, BH3, BH4, BH7, BH8.

• Alliance (22 September, 2011) validation sample locations VS1 and VS2, VS8 through VS37. Note that samples VS3 through VS7 were not analysed as the soil corresponding at these locations was removed during the remedial works.

Figures 3 and 4 show the final sample locations and samples exceeding the adopted criteria.

6.4.3 Waste Disposal

Following the completion of the remediation works to following waste soil was classified according to the EPA IWRG (2009) guidelines and removed from site:

• 6.7 tonnes of Category B Contaminated Soil disposed of by Lyndhurst landfill by B&H Grech to Sita Environmental Solutions waste disposal facility in Dandenong South.

• 150 tonnes of Category C Contaminated Soil was disposed of by KMA Construction Pty Ltd to Maddingley Brown Coal Pty Ltd waste disposal facility in Bacchus March.

The EPA Waste Transport Certificates for disposal of Contaminated Soil are provided in Appendix K of the Alliance report (22 September, 2011) included in Attachment 1.

6.4.4 Importation of Fill Soil

Following removal of underground storage tanks and impacted soil from the site, approximately 45m3 of quarry sourced material comprising stabilised sand and crushed rock was imported to the site for backfilling. Details on the material are provided in Appendix L of the Alliance report (22 September, 2011) included in Attachment 1. As insufficient information on the chemical quality of this material was provided to the Auditor, the Auditor completed verification sampling to assess the suitability of the


m10216_009_rpt_20oct11 23

material for use as backfill. On 11 October the Auditor’s representative collected and submitted three soil samples from the backfill area for analysis for an EPA IWRG 621 ‘screen’. The material was visually consistent with the descriptions provided by the suppliers. The results of the analysis reported with the exception of arsenic in concentrations up to 26 mg/kg, concentrations consistent with ‘Fill Material’ and indicated the material to be suitable for use. The marginally elevated arsenic is considered unlikely to pose a risk to maintenance of ecosystems given the nature of the development. The tabulated results and laboratory certificates of analysis for the verification samples are included in Appendix E of this report.

6.5 Soil Condition Post Remediation

Following the clean up works comprising the removal USTs and shallow surface fill contaminated fill remains at the site. Details of remaining soil contamination at the time of completion of this audit are as follows:

• Elevated arsenic (up to 26 mg/kg in imported fill) barium (up to 390 mg/kg), copper (up to 130 mg/kg), lead (up to 1,070 mg/kg) and zinc (up to 648 mg/kg) concentrations above the EIL are present within the revised fill surface at sampling locations VS23 and VS32 in the rear of the site. Deeper samples (collected from 0.5 m bgl) from at both locations were reported to be below the adopted criteria.

• Elevated TPH (C10 – C36) result above the NSW EPA threshold concentration for sensitive use from the southern wall of the tank pit excavation (VS1, VS2, VS8, VS13). The extent of the impact was delineated and confirmed vertically to be approximately 1.2 m below ground level and extend not greater than 0.7 – 0.8 m into the wall in areas localised to validation sampling locations VS1 and VS13 with >C10 fraction TPH at a concentration of 4,610 and 20,600 mg/kg respectively. Samples collected beyond this distance (VS12, VS33 and VS34) were reported to be below the adopted criteria for a sensitive land use setting. Given the battering of this soil against the southern boundary to ensure structural integrity of the building, the impact appears to extend to the property boundary and potentially off-site by less than 0.5 m.

• Elevated TPH (C10 – C36) at a concentration of 1,320 mg /kg was reported above the NSW EPA threshold concentration for sensitive use within the surface fill (VS32) in the rear of the site. A sample collected from 0.5 m bgl was reported to be below the adopted criteria.

• Lead at a concentration of 1,070 mg/kg above NEPM HIL A, but below NEPM HIL D was reported in fill at sample location VS23 in the rear of the site.

• Elevated PAH concentrations, including the individual PAH benzo(a)pyrene are present in concentrations above the NEPM HIL A, but below NEPM HIL D in the revised fill surface at sample locations VS10, VS23, VS29, VS32 and beneath pavement at BH8. Deeper samples at all locations analysed reported concentrations below the adopted criteria.

Visual observations by the Auditor and his representative during the remediation works indicated that the majority of impacted fill had been removed from the site. The completion of the UST removal works has reduced the risk posed to land and groundwater at the site. Select fill samples were analysed for leachable PAHs and metals which reported low concentrations and generally less than the ASLP Category C criteria outlined in EPA Publication IWRG621. This publication provides leachable criteria for the consideration of the mobility of contaminants. Additionally, deeper soil samples reported concentrations of chemicals of concern below the adopted criteria indicating the risk to groundwater to be low. The results of groundwater monitoring at the site discussed in Section 6.7 also suggest that the residual material poses a low risk to groundwater.


m10216_009_rpt_20oct11 24

6.6 Impacts on Protected Beneficial Uses of Land

Based on the SEPP (PMCL) the impacts on the following beneficial uses of land at the site are detailed in the table below:

Summary of Impacts to Protected Beneficial Uses of Land

Beneficial Use Beneficial Use Potentially Precluded?

Comment / Rationale

Maintenance of Ecosystems and Production of Food Fibre and Flora

Yes The fill soils contain concentrations of barium, copper, lead and zinc above the EILs, which may have an adverse impact on some sensitive ecosystems.

Human Health Yes The fill soils contain concentrations of lead, TPH, Total PAH and benzo(a)pyrene concentrations above the Setting A HILs and NSW EPA – ‘Sensitive Land Use’.

Buildings and Structures

No Indicators of the corrosive nature of soil (i.e. pH and sulfate) were not analysed during the site assessment. The natural soils at the site (i.e. sands) do not present aggressive characteristics to the concrete foundation system proposed.

Aesthetics Yes Minor oily/hydrocarbon-like odours along the southern wall of the tank pit excavation and minor coaly/ashy visually impacted material at the rear of the site may be considered to be aesthetically unacceptable.

6.7 Nature and Extent of Groundwater Contamination

6.7.1 Groundwater Investigations Undertaken

Three groundwater monitoring wells were installed on the site to investigate potential groundwater contamination within the vicinity of the USTs and service pit and for general site coverage. The groundwater monitoring wells were installed by BW in August 2010 (prior to UST removal) to 6.5 to 7.5 m bgl within the upper aquifer (Brighton Group aquifer).

One round of groundwater sampling was undertaken on 12-13 August 2010 by BW. Three rounds of groundwater sampling were undertaken by Alliance on 26 & 29 November 2010, 15 April 2011 and 11 May 2011. The sampling and analytical program included:

• Water level gauging to estimate groundwater flow direction and sampling from the MW1, MW2 and MW3. The wells were sampled by low flow pump technique using dedicated sampling equipment.

• August 2010 sampling round: Groundwater samples collected from the three monitoring wells and analysed for an equivalent to the EPA 621 ‘Clean Fill Screen’ soil screen - (heavy metals, OCPs, PCBs, chlorinated hydrocarbons, TRHs, MAHs, PAHs, volatile halogenated organics (VHO), cyanide, phenols, chromium VI and fluoride. Additional samples were collected in September 2010 from MW01 and MW03 in order to re-analyse samples for heavy metals and acetone (MW01), and TRH (MW03).

• November 2010 sampling round: Groundwater samples collected from the three monitoring wells and analysed for heavy metals, TRHs, MAHs, PAHs, nitrate, nitrite as, ammonia and acetone.

• April 2011 sampling round: Groundwater samples collected from the three monitoring wells and analysed for TRHs, MAHs, PAHs and TDS.


m10216_009_rpt_20oct11 25

• May 2011 sampling round: Groundwater samples collected from the three monitoring wells and analysed for TRHs, PAHs (filtered and unfiltered). Filtration of samples for PAH analysis was completed to assess the potential for reported PAHs to be held in fine suspended material entrained in the groundwater samples during their collection, rather than the results indicating truly dissolved PAHs.

6.7.2 Groundwater Contamination Present

Groundwater samples collected from the groundwater monitoring wells during the final monitoring round recorded chemical indicator concentrations below the relevant groundwater quality objectives, with the exception of the following:

Chemical Concentration (mg/L) Range

Wells Reporting Concentration Exceedences

Groundwater Investigation Levels Exceeded and Criteria (µg/L)

Arsenic* 0.010 MW1 Maintenance of Ecosystems - ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) Marine (Low reliability) (0.0023) Potable Water Supply - NHMRC 2004 Drinking Water – Health (0.007)

Copper* 0.006 – 0.009 MW1, MW2, MW3 ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) Marine (95%) (0.0013)

Zinc* 0.019 – 0.087 MW1, MW2, MW3 ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) - Marine (95%) (0.015)

Ammonia as N

0.360 – 0.520 MW2, MW3 ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) - Marine (95%) (0.091)

Nitrate as N* <0.010 – 7.5 MW2, MW3 ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) Marine (Low Reliability) (0.160)

Cyanide (free)

0.014 MW3 ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) Marine (0.007)

Note: * Nitrate and heavy metals were not analysed in the May or April 2011 monitoring rounds, so result exceedences are based on those reported from the November 2010 monitoring round.

With the exception of arsenic, elevated heavy metals and are reported in concentrations that preclude the maintenance of ecosystem beneficial use only. This beneficial use is considered at the point of discharge which is likely to be Port Phillip Bay, some 4.5 km to the west of the site. Based on the concentrations and significant distance to receiving waters the Auditor considers the impact is highly unlikely to preclude this beneficial use. Additionally, the reported inorganic contaminants such as zinc are relatively typical of shallow unconfined aquifer systems in urban environments where there are a multitude of diffuse sources of impact. Reported arsenic concentrations are likely to be attributable to background conditions of the Brighton Group aquifer. This is further supported by the site history and soil sampling which did not identify elevated arsenic at the site. This is consistent with arsenic concentrations from nearby audits.

Similarly for free cyanide, MW3 reported a concentration above maintenance of ecosystems criteria during one monitoring round only. Ammonia and nitrate concentrations were also reported across the site in concentrations above the maintenance of ecosystems criteria. No source of cyanide, ammonia and nitrate was identified during the site history or soil sampling and the Auditor considers the impact is highly unlikely to represent pollution at the assumed receiving waters (Port Phillip Bay). Ammonia and nitrate impacts are also common groundwater contaminants in urban areas and likely to be attributable to the proximity of sewers in the area and other diffuse sources typical in an urban environment (e.g. fertiliser application). A review of nearby environmental audits (refer Section 4.3) indicated impacts of this nature in the region.


m10216_009_rpt_20oct11 26

In addition to the above, it was noted that the groundwater contained relatively neutral pH levels (6.0- 7.0). Low sulfate concentrations were also reported across the site. In accordance with Table 6.1 of AS2169 (1995) – Piling – Design and Installation, the exposure classification of the sub-surface environment is classified as ‘non-aggressive’ to building and structures in relation to pH (and sulfate?).

Over the course of the sampling rounds, low level PAHs were reported in all monitoring well locations at concentrations close to the laboratory level of reporting (e.g. 1.46 ug/L total PAHs at MW2 compared to maintenance of ecosystem criteria of 3 ug/L and an LOR of 0.005 ug/L. During the final sampling round for comparative purposes, unfiltered and filtered (through a 0.45 um filter) samples were analysed to assess the potential for PAH entrainment during sampling associated with fine sediment from the monitoring well soils. Laboratory filtered samples did not report any PAHs above the laboratory level of reporting. The Auditor considers the earlier sampling round reported PAHs on unfiltered samples to be associated with fine suspended material entrained with groundwater during sampling and not dissolved PAHs. Based on this the Auditor does not consider groundwater to be contaminated by PAHs.

The Auditor notes also that undifferentiated TRH (>C10 fraction) was reported in concentrations representative of pollution in sampling rounds one and two (up to 1.69 mg/L or 2.3 mg/L using the Auditor verification sample result, compared with the Dutch intervention guideline concentration of 0.6 mg/L) at monitoring well MW3 adjacent the former UST location. However, in sampling round three no TRH was reported in concentrations above the laboratory level of reporting. Up to 0.55 mg/L TRH was reported in the final sampling round (round 4) at MW 3. No C6-C9 fraction TRH or BTEX has been reported above laboratory levels of reporting in any sampling rounds. Based on four rounds of sampling, the Auditor does not consider the TRH contamination to represent pollution. The decrease in TRH concentrations is likely to be at least in part attributable to the clean up efforts undertaken at the site.

6.7.3 Significance (Risk) of Groundwater Impact

Based on the SEPP (GoV) and results of the groundwater investigation (Alliance, 2011), the impacts on the protected beneficial uses of groundwater can be summarised as follows.

Summary of Potentially Precluded Beneficial Uses

Protected Beneficial Use Potentially Precluded

Beneficial Use Potentially Precluded

Comment/Rationale

Maintenance of Ecosystems - Marine

Yes – at site Concentrations of arsenic, copper, zinc, ammonia (as N), nitrate (as N) and cyanide (free) were reported above relevant objectives. See note below in Section 6.7.4 on the occurrence of naturally elevated arsenic.

Potable Water Supply

No Concentrations of arsenic reported above adopted criteria, however with reference to note below in Section 6.7.4 on the occurrence of naturally elevated chemicals this impact is not considered pollution.

Irrigation, Park and Gardens

No No exceedences reported.

Stockwatering No No exceedences reported.

Primary Contact Recreation

No No exceedences reported.


m10216_009_rpt_20oct11 27


Beneficial Use Potentially Precluded

Comment/Rationale


Potentially The water quality required depends upon the specific industrial use. ANZECC indicates that TDS values of less than 1,000 mg/L are generally used for industrial water use. Given that residential and commercial buildings occupy the surrounding area and a commercial building development encompassing the entire site footprint is proposed at the site, it is unlikely that groundwater at the site will be extracted for industrial use.

Building & Structures

No Groundwater pH is relatively neutral and not considered corrosive and the Brighton Group aquifer is not generally recognised as corrosive.

6.7.4 Assessment of Source of Chemical Indicators in Groundwater

In summary, for reasons provided above, the Auditor considers that the concentrations of arsenic in the groundwater are indicative of background groundwater quality. In accordance with SEPP (GoV) c.10(2)(c), where background concentrations of analytes are higher than the objective in the policy then the background concentration becomes the objective i.e. these concentrations do not represent pollution.

However, the Auditors considers the concentrations of ammonia (as N) copper, zinc, nitrate (as N) and cyanide (free) are indicative of diffuse regional pollution and as considered further in the following section.

6.7.5 Clean-Up to the Extent Practicable

With reference to Section 13.7 of the auditor guidelines, where polluted groundwater exists the auditor must be satisfied that Clean-up to the Extent Practicable (CUTEP) has been achieved.

The auditor may consider that CUTEP has been achieved and not be required to seek advice from EPA prior to completing the environmental audit, provided that the following conditions are satisfied:

a) The site is not the source (or likely source) of the pollution;

b) Beneficial uses of the groundwater are not ‘relevant’;

c) Pollution of groundwater does not affect the beneficial uses of the land; and

d) Access to the site is not required to effect the only practicable clean-up options to protect surface water from the effects of groundwater pollution.

The auditor considers that groundwater at the site is polluted by ammonia (as N), nitrate (as N) and cyanide (free). The Auditor considers that Condition (a) has already been satisfied (refer to Section 6.8.3). With respect to Condition (b) the relevance of each potentially precluded groundwater beneficial use is discussed in the following table.


m10216_009_rpt_20oct11 28

Assessment of Relevance of Groundwater Beneficial Uses


Relevance of Beneficial Use

Comment/Rationale

Maintenance of Ecosystems - Marine

Not relevant on-site; Relevant off- site

No aquatic ecosystem is present on-site. The nearest expected receiving water is Port Phillip Bay some 4.5 km to the west of the site and given attenuation processes it is considered unlikely that the reported concentrations would result in unacceptable concentrations at the point of discharge. Additionally, the site is not considered the source of the pollution and this beneficial use is not realised at the site.

Potable water supply Not relevant Given the full and permanent paving of the site and proposed commercial use and the availability of a reticulated water supply, the probability of realisation of this beneficial use is considered unlikely. This interpretation is consistent with the requirements of EPA Victoria broadcast email 200810-01: Audits General – Non-site Groundwater Issues, October 2008 where the relevancy of protected beneficial uses is considered at the site.


Not relevant Given that residential and commercial buildings occupy the surrounding area and a commercial building development encompassing the entire site footprint is proposed at the site, it is unlikely that groundwater at the site will be extracted for industrial use.

With respect to Condition (c), is the Auditor considers that the pollution of groundwater does not affect the beneficial uses of land due to the absence of elevated VOCs in soil and groundwater.

Concentrations of organic chemicals have been compared to ‘Health screening levels for petroleum hydrocarbons in soil and groundwater’ published by CRC Care (CRC Care, 2011). This document has been recommended by the EPA when considering potential petroleum hydrocarbon impacts. These screening levels are considered an appropriate tool for a first tier assessment of potential vapour risk posed by groundwater contamination detected at the site. The measured groundwater concentrations were less than the health screening levels and indicate that vapours are unlikely to be detrimental to the health of future site occupants.

With respect to Condition (d), the Auditor considers that access to the site is not required to effect the only practicable clean-up options to protect surface water (Port Phillip Bay) from the effects of groundwater pollution, particularly as the impact is most likely a combination of background conditions and diffuse pollution typically associated with urban areas and there is the potential to intercept impacted groundwater at locations between the site and point of discharge, if required.

As the Auditor considers that conditions (a), (b), (c) and (d) described above have been satisfied, the Auditor therefore considers that CUTEP has been achieved.

Quality of Information

m10216_009_rpt_20oct11 29

7.0 Quality of Information

7.1 Historical Information

Guidance on undertaking historical reviews for the purposes of identifying potential land contamination issues of a site and surrounding land is provided in the following documents:

• Australian Standard (AS 4482.1) - Guide to the Investigation and Sampling of sites with Potentially Contaminated Soil Part 1: Non-volatile and semi-volatile compounds, (Standards Australia, 2005).

• Australian Standard (AS 4482.2) - Guide to the Sampling and Investigation Potentially Contaminated Soil Part 2: Volatile substances, (Standards Australia, 1999).

• National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure (National Environment Protection Council, 1999).

An historical review of the site and surrounding area was undertaken by BW (November, 2010) and summarised briefly within the Alliance Report (22 September, 2011).

The sources of historical information included published information on the geology and hydrogeology in the area, historical titles, historical aerial photographs, review of Council records, a review of the previous uses of the area (Sands and McDougall) and a review of environmental audits carried out nearby. As indicated also in Section 4.1, the Auditor also completed independent review of historical information sources including Melbourne Metropolitan Board of Works plans, and general internet information on Caulfield Park.

The auditors considers the review of the historical information provided by BW is a reasonable basis for the assessing potentially contaminating activities. Given that the site history is generally not site-specific and broad in nature, the selected soil samples were analysed for a broad suite of analytes. In addition, with the exception of the USTs and suspected service pit, no potentially contaminating infrastructure was intersected as part of the intrusive investigations. A ground penetrating radar survey completed across the site did not detect any other potential contamination sources than the USTs and pits identified. Given that the sample location frequency for the environmental investigation and the targeting of potential sources of contamination with a broad suite of analytes, the Auditor considers that historical review undertaken by BW was sufficient to fulfil the purpose of this audit.

7.2 Soil Investigation Methodology

Guidance on undertaking field investigations for the purposes of undertaking an environmental site assessment is provided in the following documents:

• State environment protection policy (Prevention and Management of Contamination of Land).

• Australian Standard (AS 4482.1) - Guide to the Investigation and Sampling of sites with Potentially Contaminated Soil Part 1: Non-volatile and semi-volatile compounds, (Standards Australia, 2005).

• Australian Standard (AS 4482.2) - Guide to the Sampling and Investigation Potentially Contaminated Soil Part 2: Volatile substances, (Standards Australia, 1999).

• National Environment Protection Council (NEPC), 1999, Guideline on Data Collection, Sample Design and Reporting (Schedule B (2)), National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure.

• Environment Protection Authority Publication IWRG701 (2009), A Guide to the Sampling and Analysis of Waters, Wastewaters, Soils and Wastes.

Soil investigations undertaken are documented in the BW (November, 2010) and Alliance (22 September 2011, 2011) reports and summarised in Section 6.2.


m10216_009_rpt_20oct11 30

Primary components of a field investigation relevant to this audit, together with the Auditor’s observations and comments in relation to works conducted, are summarised as follows:

Auditor Comments on Field Investigation – Soil Investigation

Component of Field Investigation and DQI2

Auditor’s Observations and Comments

Soil sampling coverage AS4482.1 and AS4482.2

ESA sampling In accordance with AS4482.1, a sampling density comprising a total of six sampling locations is recommended for a site of 815 m2 (based on a square grid systematic sampling pattern for the detection of circular hot spots). The initial BW investigation advanced six soil bores in a grid across the site, plus two targeted bores. At the recommendation of the Auditor, Alliance collected samples from additional seven locations (excluding tank pit validation works) across the site. The soil samples were not collected from an equal square grid and therefore a 95% confidence of detecting a circular hotspot of 15.2 m cannot be applied. However, as the number of samples was greater than required in AS4482.1 and were collected in a systematic manner and approximately equidistant across the site, with no more than 13 m between sample locations the Auditor considers that the lateral extent of soil sampling was sufficient to characterise the site. Grid and target samples were terminated in natural soil with the exception of BH3 which could not be extended due to crushed rock at a depth of 0.5 m bgl. No structures were present in this area and overall the results and findings of the soil sampling works by BW, supplemented by Alliance indicated that vertical soil sampling coverage was sufficient. Additional soil sampling works at two locations where localised TRH impact was identified were extended laterally from within the tank pits. Test pit excavation to the west of the UST excavation was completed to confirm no additional tanks were located at the site. A ground penetrating radar survey completed across the site did not detect any other potential contamination sources than the USTs and pits identified. The results and findings of these soil sampling works indicated that lateral soil sampling coverage was sufficient. Validation sampling Samples were collected from the base and each wall from the remedial areas at spacings of less than 5 metres (often 1 – 2 metre spacing along walls). Soil samples were collected from the centroid point on the excavation walls and the floor. Taking into account the multiple rounds of validation sampling, the Auditor considers that the horizontal and vertical sampling and validation coverage was adequate for the purposes of this investigation. Summary of Sampling Coverage The Auditor considers that the sampling coverage overall was sufficient for the Auditor to form an opinion of the contamination status of the site.

Sample collection techniques AS4482.2

Initial BW soil sampling was completed using hand auger which is inconsistent with AS4482.2 when attempting to minimise volatile losses for organic analyses. Subsequent verification and infill sampling undertaken by Alliance was completed using a ‘dormer’ split core sampler to overcome hand auger sampling limitations. Soil samples during UST validation works were collected as a subsample directly obtained from bulk undisturbed materials contained in the excavator bucket using disposable nitrile gloves which is consistent with referenced guidance. Soil samples collected from stockpiled material were collected directly into laboratory supplied sample containers using disposable nitrile gloves. Soil sampling techniques, with the exception of initial BW sampling, were observed first-hand by the Auditor or Auditor’s representative and noted that they were consistent with the referenced guidelines.

2 DQI refers to Data Quality Indicator that the Auditor has assessed as part of the site assessor field program.


m10216_009_rpt_20oct11 31



Sampling equipment decontamination AS4482.1

Sampling equipment decontamination across the site investigation programs consisted of washing all equipment with a phosphate free detergent followed by a fresh water rinse before the commencement of the next sampling location.

The Auditor’s representative observed both BW and Alliance’s decontamination techniques first-hand and noted that they were consistent with the referenced guidelines.

Field measurements AS4482.2

All soil samples, with the exception of the eight surface samples, were collected using a portable PID.

The Auditor observed first-hand the field screening techniques and noted that they were consistent with operational guidelines.

Calibration certificates for the operation of the PID were provided by BW and Alliance in the final reports.. Visual and olfactory identifiers were also used as indicators of potential contamination.

Field documentation (i.e. field notes, bore logs and chain-of-custody records) AS4482.1, AS4482.2, NEPM B2

All field documentation, including borelogs and chain of custody documents, was completed to a satisfactory standard to enable the Auditor to interpret the data.

In addition to field documentation prepared by the assessment consultant, the Auditor also conducted observations of the soil conditions encountered during soil investigation works and these were consistent with descriptions provided within the relevant reports.

Sample handling, preservation and storage AS4482.2, EPA 441.7 and NEPM B2

Soil samples were observed by the Auditor to be collected in sample jars which were prepared and supplied by the laboratory. Collected samples were subsequently stored and transported in chilled containers. The procedures are considered adequate and consistent with the referenced guidelines. Where provided in laboratory reports, batches were noted as having an ‘attempt to chill evident.’

The Auditor considers the samples to be representative and suitable for use.

Number and type of quality control samples AS4482.1 and AS4482.2

Blind Replicate and Split Samples Three duplicate samples and three split samples were analysed during the BW soil investigation, one each for each round of sampling activities, which given the small number of samples collected during each mobilisation, is sufficient to satisfy the requirements AS4482.1 & 2 of 1 in 20 samples.

Three duplicates, one Alliance triplicate and one auditor collected split sample was collected during the soil investigation. Given a total of 32 primary samples were submitted for analysis, the Auditor considers quality control samples sufficient satisfy the requirements AS4482.1 & 2 of 1 in 20 samples.


m10216_009_rpt_20oct11 32



Rinsate Blank Samples

Three rinsate blank samples were collected by BW during the initial soil bore sampling and monitoring well installation. Three analytes, toluene, tin and zinc report results above the LORs in one or more rinsate samples. BW attributed this to contaminated rinsate water supplied by the laboratory. The Auditor also notes that no toluene was reported in soil and/or groundwater results for the site.

Two rinsate blank samples were collected by Alliance during the initial validation sampling. Concentrations of metals were below the laboratory limit of reporting.

Given sampling equipment and methodologies observed resulted in a minimal chance of cross-contamination and the results of the rinsate blanks, the Auditor considers the number and type of QC rinsate blank samples collected during the Audit were sufficient for interpretive purposes.

Trip Blank Samples No trip blanks were collected by BW. One trip blank per batch was submitted for analysis by Alliance.

Given the presence of volatile contaminants at the site was limited to the area around the USTs and that the trip blank samples did not indicate field or laboratory handling cross contamination, the Auditor considers the number and type of QC trip blank samples collected during the Audit were sufficient for interpretive purposes

Summary

For the completion of this investigation program, QC duplicate samples and rinsate blanks were generally collected at the recommended frequency, however trip blanks were collected at below the recommended frequency. However, based on the information presented above, the Auditor considers that the number and type of QC samples collected during the audit was sufficient to allow interpretative use of the data generated during the initial assessment and the remediation of the UST area.

Selection of chemical analytes AS4482.1 and AS4482.2

In addition to contaminants identified by site history information, a broad suite of contaminants was used to supplement the understanding of the contaminants of potential concern. Taking into account the additional sampling and analysis undertaken by Alliance at the request of the Auditor, he considers that the range and frequency of chemical indicators selected for analysis in soil samples were appropriate, based on the site history and the results and findings of surrounding audits.

7.3 Groundwater Investigation Methodology

Guidance on undertaking field investigations for the purposes of undertaking an environmental site assessment is provided in the following documents:

• State Environment Protection Policy (Groundwaters of Victoria).

• National Environment Protection Council (NEPC) - Guideline on Data Collection, Sample Design and Reporting (Schedule B (2)). National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure, 1999.


m10216_009_rpt_20oct11 33

• National Environment Protection Council (NEPC), Guideline on Data Collection, Sample Design and Reporting (Schedule B (6))’. National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure, 1999.

• EPA Publication 668 – Hydrogeological Assessment (Groundwater Quality) Guidelines, 2006.

• EPA Publication 669 - Groundwater Sampling Guidelines, 2000.

• EPA Publication IWRG701 - A Guide to the Sampling and Analysis of Waters, Wastewaters, Soils and Wastes, July 2009.

Groundwater investigations undertaken are documented in the BW (November, 2010) and Alliance (22 September, 2011) reports and summarised in Section 6.7.

Primary components of a field investigation relevant to this audit, together with the Auditor’s observations comments in relation to works conducted are summarised as follows:

Auditor Comments on Field Investigation – Groundwater Investigation



Groundwater bore coverage and construction EPA 668 and EPA 759.1

Three monitoring well were installed at the site to target to provide overall coverage of the site and target the USTs and the service pit. The Auditor considers the number and location of the wells sufficient based on the size of the site and the nature of potential contaminants to characterise groundwater quality on the site.

A review of the monitoring well construction log indicated that the well was screened within Brighton Group aquifer. The stabilised water levels were below the screened intervals during sampling rounds, enabling the measurement of LNAPL, if present. No LNAPL was detected and there were no field observations during drilling or groundwater monitoring to suggest the potential presence of LNAPL.

The groundwater wells were constructed in accordance with the document ‘Minimum Construction Requirements for Water Bores in Australia - Land and Water Biodiversity Committee, 2003).

The Auditor notes that BW surveyed and measured the depth of groundwater from the TOC (m) to an accuracy of ±0.01m. It is standard practice to measure the depth of groundwater to an accuracy of ±0.001m. Given the gradient observed between monitoring wells this accuracy is not considered to have affected the interpretation of groundwater elevation and inferred flow direction.

Sample collection techniques EPA 669 and 441.7

The groundwater sampling technique adopted was MicroPurge® low flow technique, consistent with the EPA prescribed methods.

The Auditor observed the groundwater sampling technique first hand and it was consistent with the referenced guidelines. The Auditor is satisfied that sufficient care was taken to adequately purge the wells and minimise the loss of volatiles during the sampling process.

Sampling equipment decontamination EPA 669

The assessment report noted that the low flow sampling was applied, using disposable tubing and sample bladders. The Auditor considers that these are appropriate measures to minimise the introduction of chemical artefacts during the sampling process.

3 DQI refers to Data Quality Indicator that the Auditor has assessed as part of the site assessor field program.


m10216_009_rpt_20oct11 34



Field measurements EPA 668 and 669

A water quality meter was used to measure water quality parameters during purging. The Auditor notes that calibration certificates for the operation of the water quality meters were provided in the assessment reports.

Field documentation (i.e. field notes, bore logs and chain-of-custody records) EPA 668 and 669

Field documentation was completed to a satisfactory standard to enable the Auditor to interpret the data.

Sample handling, preservation and storage EPA 669 and 441.7

The assessment report stated that all groundwater bottles were obtained from the laboratory and contained the appropriate preservatives for the chemicals analysed. Laboratory certificate state that the samples were received at the laboratory at temperature of between 0.6°C to 0.8 °C, which is within the acceptable range.

Number and type of quality control samples AS4482.1 and AS4482.2

Blind Replicate and Split Samples

One split sample, but no duplicate sample was collected by BW during their single groundwater monitoring event. During the three Alliance groundwater sampling rounds, three duplicate and three split samples (one collected by the Auditor’s representative and doubling as a verification sample) were collected. Despite BW not collecting a duplicate sample, the Auditor considers the number of duplicate and split samples sufficient for the purposes of this audit.

Rinsate and Trip Blank Samples No rinsate or trip blanks were collected during the groundwater sampling undertaken by BW. A rinsate blank was collected for each of the three groundwater monitoring rounds undertaken by Alliance, as well as the transportation of trip blanks.

One rinsate sample was reported to contain naphthalene at 0.2mg/L. No other chemicals of concern were reported rinsate or trip blanks, indicating the potential for cross contamination to be low.

Summary Although AS 4482.1 applies to the sampling of soils, the Auditor considers AS4482.1 appropriate for groundwater QC/QC purposes. The Auditor considers that the number and type of QC samples collected during the audit was sufficient.

Selection of chemical analytes EPA 668 and 669 Also adopted consistent approach with soils (AS4482.1 and AS4482.2)

Groundwater was analysed for chemicals of concern based on the presence of USTs (i.e., organic chemicals of a volatile and semi-volatile nature). The range of chemical indicators selected for analysis was appropriate based on the site history and the results and findings of surrounding audits.


m10216_009_rpt_20oct11 35

7.4 Laboratory Analyses and Quality Control

Guidance on undertaking laboratory analyses and interpreting quality control results for the purposes of undertaking an environmental site assessment is provided in the following documents:

• EPA Publication IWRG701 - A Guide to the Sampling and Analysis of Waters, Wastewaters, Soils and Wastes, July 2009.

• National Environment Protection Council (NEPC), 1999, Guideline on Laboratory Analysis of Potentially Contaminated Soil (Schedule B (3)), National Environment Protection Measure (Assessment of Site Contamination), 1999.

• Australia Standard (AS 4482.1) - Guide to the Investigation and Sampling of sites with Potentially Contaminated Soil Part 1: Non-volatile and semi-volatile compounds, (Standards Australia, 2005).

• Australia Standard (AS 4482.2) - Guide to the Sampling and Investigation Potentially Contaminated Soil Part 2: Volatile substances, (Standards Australia, 1999).

Primary components of laboratory analysis relevant to this audit, together with the Auditor’s observations in relation to works conducted, are summarised as follows:

Auditor Comments on Laboratory Analysis

Component of Laboratory Analysis and QC including DQI4

Auditors Observations and Comments

NATA Accreditation Laboratory analysis was undertaken by:

• BW primary - ALS and Ecowise Environmental • BW secondary – mgt Labmark. • Alliance primary – ALS • Alliance Secondary – mgt Labmark

A review of the analytical reports noted that these laboratories were accredited by NATA to perform the analyses required.

Sample holding times EPA 441.7, AS4482.1 and AS4482.2

Soil and groundwater samples were analysed within samples holding times specified within the above reference documents except in the case of a groundwater split sample re-test for cyanide at the request of BW. The re-test reported cyanide below the LOR. The initial result was considered a laboratory error and is not considered to affect the data interpretation.

Based on this, the Auditor does not consider the holding time exceedence to affect interpretation of site conditions.

Use of correct groundwater/soil quality objectives

The soil and groundwater results were generally compared to the correct soil and groundwater quality objectives. Some errors in the adoption of guidelines were drawn to the attention of Alliance and corrected.

Laboratory reporting limits EPA 441.7, AS4482.1 and AS4482.2

Review of the soil investigation results noted all laboratory limits of reporting were appropriate for their respective soil quality indicators.

Laboratory levels of reporting (LORs) for anthracene exceed the groundwater quality objectives. However, it is noted that: • Anthracene groundwater quality objectives are ‘low reliability’ concentrations. • Anthracene is relatively insoluble and would have to be present at very high

4 DQI refers to Data Quality Indicator that the Auditor has assessed as part of the site assessor’s laboratory program.


m10216_009_rpt_20oct11 36



concentrations in soil to give rise to significant groundwater contamination, rather than the relatively low concentrations detected. The Auditor notes also that deeper soil samples did not report detectable anthracene. Should anthracene be present in groundwater, other more water soluble PAHs would also be expected to be detected at significant concentrations, which was not the case.

• When groundwater samples were filtered prior to analysis, anthracene concentrations were found to be below LOR, indicating that anthracene was likely to be associated with fine suspended material entrained in groundwater and not present as free compounds.

On this basis, the Auditor does not consider that these results affect the outcome of this audit.

Intra-laboratory (blind) duplicates AS4482.1 and AS4482.2

A review of the data validation tables provided in the assessor reports noted that the intra-laboratory (blind) duplicates generally recorded RPD within acceptable limits, with some exceptions. These non-compliances did not affect the data interpretation as the highest results were adopted for interpretative use.

BW and Alliance attributed difference in soil RPDs to the heterogeneity of the soil and not the sampling technique or laboratory precision. Alliance reported no groundwater RPD exceedences for duplicated samples (BW did not submit a groundwater duplicate).

The Auditor agrees with the BW and Alliances assessment and does not consider the non-compliances to have affected the outcome of the assessment.

Inter-laboratory (split) duplicates AS4482.1 and AS4482.2

A review of the data validation tables provided in the assessor reports noted that the inter-laboratory (split) duplicates generally recorded RPDs within acceptable limits, with some exceptions.

BW and Alliance attributed difference in soil RPDs to the heterogeneity of the soil and not the sampling technique or laboratory precision. Alliance reported no groundwater RPD exceedences for split sample. BW reported three elevated RPDs.

The Auditor agrees with the BW and Alliances assessment and does not consider the non-compliances to have affected the outcome of the assessment.

Assessor/Auditor verification samples EPA 759.1

The following Auditor verification split samples were collected: • UST validation - VS02-V11. • Groundwater sampling – VS03_MW03.

• Soil scrape validation – QC4. The Auditor soil verification sample recorded four RPD results outside acceptable limits (>50%) for soil and one RPD result outside acceptable limits (>50%) for groundwater. The results of the soil sample exceedences were within the range encountered across the phases of the investigation and can be attributed to the heterogeneity of the soil samples. The groundwater RPD exceedence was for total TRH. Given both results were above the relevant guideline and the highest result was adopted for interpretative use, the Auditor does not consider the RPD exceedences to have affected the outcome of the audit.

Sample results are presented within the assessment reports, which are included as Attachment 1. (Laboratory certificates of analysis, tabulated data and calculated RPDs for Auditor verification samples are provided in Appendix E).


m10216_009_rpt_20oct11 37



Laboratory generated quality control data

The Auditor conducted a review of laboratory generated quality control data, inclusive of: • Frequency of control testing • Method blanks;

• Internal laboratory duplicates;

• Matrix spikes; • Surrogate spikes. The review noted non-compliances were consistent with BW findings presented in the report (November 2010), with the exception of surrogate spikes and matrix blanks, which were not reviewed in the report. The non-compliances were not considered by the Auditor to affect the data interpretation.

Alliance did not make comment regarding the specific non-compliances of the laboratory QA/QC results.

A review of the non-compliances indicated that the majority of primary laboratory matrix spike and surrogate recoveries that could not be met were determined to be due to sample matrix interference or elevated background chemical concentrations within the primary samples. The non-compliances were not considered by the Auditor to affect the data interpretation.

Reporting of unusual or anomalous results

No unusual or anomalous results were identified by the Auditor.

7.5 Auditor’s Assessment of Adequacy

In summary, sufficient sampling was undertaken over the course of initial and remedial investigations and during remediation works to provide the Auditor with assurance regarding the quality of data and to form an opinion on the contamination status of the site. In the Auditor’s opinion, the quality and reliability of information generated from the investigations undertaken taking into account all limitations as identified in previous sections, were sufficient for the purposes of this Environmental Audit.

5 DQI refers to Data Quality Indicator that the Auditor has assessed as part of the site assessor’s laboratory program.

Summary of Risks Posed by the Condition of the Site

m10216_009_rpt_20oct11 38

8.0 Summary of Risks Posed by the Condition of the Site

8.1 Human Health Risk

8.1.1 Soil

As discussed in Section 6.6, the site contains elevated TRH (C10 – C36), lead and PAHs (including the individual PAH benzo(a)pyrene) concentrations that are potentially detrimental to beneficial uses of land that could be made at the site and therefore preclude the issue of a Certificate of Environmental Audit. Chemicals of concern were reported at concentrations above the Setting A HIL adopted for the proposed use - ‘Place of Worship’ including a community centre with child care). These concentrations are present mostly in surface material at the rear of the property, with concentrations also present at 1.2 m below ground level along isolated sections of the southern boundary wall of the existing property. However, given that the contaminants are not volatile and the site will be completely covered by the building footprint as part of the proposed development, the Auditor considers that the contaminated fill will not pose an unacceptable health risk to future site users. Residual fill (post development) is to be managed by full and permanent covering by the built form.

However, should any landscaped area or garden bed be developed at the site, then it will be a requirement that these areas have at least 0.5 m thickness soil below the finished surface, which is demonstrated to be suitable for the site and consistent with EPA Publication (IWRG621) Soil Hazard Categorisation and Management as ‘Fill Material’.

8.1.2 Groundwater

As discussed in Section 6.7, groundwater contains naturally elevated arsenic in concentrations that may expose humans to risk if groundwater is extracted for drinking water use. However, this chemical is consistent with background of the Brighton Group aquifer of this area (and not as a result of site activities resulting in pollution).

Given that the site will be completely capped by the development, the Auditor considers that it is unlikely that groundwater would be extracted at the site indicating the risk to human health to be low.

Investigations of groundwater quality beneath the site did not indicate levels of contamination associated with onsite sources that would preclude protected beneficial uses at the site, and hence constitute pollution. However, chemicals including TRH, heavy metals (copper, lead and zinc), ammonia (as N), nitrate (as N) and cyanide (free) were detected in groundwater at concentrations less than the extractive beneficial use objectives. If groundwater extraction is ever considered at the site, these results should be considered with respect to potential use of the water. This is consistent with consideration of groundwater use for any application in an urbanised area.

8.2 Environmental Risk

8.2.1 Soil

As discussed in Section 6.6, the site contains elevated barium, copper, lead and zinc that are potentially detrimental to sensitive ecosystems and the production of food, fibre and flora, precluding the issue of a Certificate of Environmental Audit. Given that the entire site will be covered by the building footprint as part of the proposed development (i.e. no trees or plants will be planted within the sub-surface soils), the presence of these indicators are not considered by the Auditor to pose an unacceptable environmental risk. The potential for soil to leach and mobilise contaminants to groundwater is minimal and will be further reduced by the proposed development for the site.

Summary of Risks Posed by the Condition of the Site

m10216_009_rpt_20oct11 39

However, should any landscaped area or garden bed be developed at the site, then it will be a requirement that these areas have at least 0.5 m thickness soil below the finished surface, which is demonstrated to be suitable for the site and consistent with EPA Publication (IWRG621) Soil Hazard Categorisation and Management as ‘Fill Material’.

8.2.2 Groundwater

Groundwater beneath the site contains elevated heavy metals (arsenic, copper, and zinc), ammonia (as N), nitrate (as N) and cyanide above relevant (off-site) maintenance of aquatic ecosystem protection objectives. As discussed in Section 6.7, the Auditor considers this to be indicative of either diffuse regional pollution with the urban area or background conditions in the aquifer. Elevated chemicals are expected to attenuate prior to discharge to surface waters and the risk to aquatic ecosystems is likely to be low.

Auditors Conclusions

m10216_009_rpt_20oct11 40

9.0 Auditors Conclusions

The property subject to this Environmental Audit is the land at 36 – 40 Hawthorn Road, Caulfield North. The owner Kehilat Nitzan Conservative (Masorti) Community Inc, proposes to redevelop the site for a ‘Place of Worship’ including a community centre with child care. The conclusions of this Environmental Audit can be summarised as follows:

• The site has historically been used as a tyre repairer from 1939 and has subsequently also been used for tyre retreading until at least 1989 when it was sold. Council records indicated the site use as nominated by the owner to be tyre repairs, sales and garage. At the time of the audit the site was unused however, the residual building infrastructure from the historical use remained.

• The primary on-site contamination sources identified was three underground petroleum storage tanks and associated infrastructure. Fill soil was also identified and covered the majority of the site to depths of 0.6 m bgl. Natural soil surrounding the underground tanks was found to be impacted by petroleum hydrocarbons. The fill soil was found to be impacted by lead, petroleum hydrocarbons, PAHs, including the individual PAH benzo(a)pyrene which were potentially detrimental to human health at the site. Barium, copper, lead and zinc were present in fill at concentrations that were potentially detrimental to sensitive ecosystems at the site. Aesthetically limited material was also present in shallow fill soils.

• Primary sources of contamination (underground petroleum storage tanks) and impacted soil was removed as part of the demolition process. A 300 mm thick scrape of surface fill soils were also removed from the site in preparation for the redevelopment of the site. The excavated removed soil was segregated, classified and disposed of offsite.

• Given that the site will be completely covered by the building footprint as part of the proposed development for a place of worship and the contaminants are not volatile, the Auditor considers that impacted fill remaining at the site will not pose an unacceptable health risk to future site users or the environment, provided that the fill is managed. Residual fill (post development) is to be managed by full and permanent covering by the built form.

• Groundwater at the site was encountered within the Brighton Group aquifer at depths of generally 1.2 – 1.9 m bgl. Groundwater has been classified as Segment A (TDS 0 – 1,000 mg/L), as defined in the SEPP (GoV), with the following beneficial uses protected:

Maintenance of ecosystems (marine at the point of discharge). Potable water supply. Potable mineral water supply. Agriculture parks and garden Stock watering. Industrial water use. Primary contact recreation. Buildings and structures.

• Groundwater contains naturally elevated arsenic in concentrations that may expose humans to risk if groundwater is extracted for drinking water use. However, this chemical is consistent with background of the Brighton Group aquifer of this area (and not as a result of site activities resulting in pollution. Investigations of groundwater quality beneath the site did not indicate levels of contamination associated with onsite sources that would preclude protected beneficial uses at the site, and hence constitute pollution. However, chemicals including TRHs, heavy metals (copper, lead and zinc) ammonia (as N), nitrate (as N) and cyanide were detected in groundwater at concentrations less than the extractive beneficial use objectives. If groundwater extraction is ever considered at the site, these results should be considered with respect to potential use of the

Auditors Conclusions

m10216_009_rpt_20oct11 41

water. This is consistent with consideration of groundwater use for any application in an urbanised area.

• In the Auditor’s opinion, the quality and reliability of information generated from the investigations undertaken were sufficient for the purposes of this Environmental Audit.

Based on the identified impacts on the protected beneficial uses of the land, a Certificate of Environmental Audit cannot be issued for the site. Therefore, the Auditor has issued a Statement of Environmental Audit which sets out the beneficial uses of land for which the site is suitable, subject to conditions. The Statement of Environmental Audit is provided as Appendix A. The conditions apply to the site are as follows:

1. This Statement is linked to the pattern of use defined in the Development Plans [submitted with Glen Eira City Council planning permit approved 27 November 2009, as amended and endorsed by Glen Eira City Council] attached to this Statement. Any substantive change/s (e.g. coverage of paved area, building footprint) must be reviewed by an environmental auditor appointed under Part IXD of the Environment Protection Act, 1970, and advised in writing to EPA and the planning authority.


Limitations

m10216_009_rpt_20oct11 42

10.0 Limitations

This audit report and attached Statement of Environmental Audit were prepared for Kehilat Nitzan Conservative (Masorti) Community Inc in accordance with Part IXD of the Environment Protection Act 1970. The Audit Report has been prepared to satisfy an element of the redevelopment agreement requirements of the site.

In reaching their conclusions about the site, Kehilat Nitzan Conservative (Masorti) Community Inc, Glen Eira City Council and EPA Victoria may use this audit report and Statement of Environmental Audit. The scope of work performed as part of the audit process may not be appropriate to satisfy the needs of any other person. Any other person’s use of, or reliance on, the audit document and report, or the findings, conclusions, recommendations or any other material presented to them, is at that person’s sole risk.

The audit is based on a review of the condition of the site at the time of assessment, as described in the assessment reports attached to the audit report and site inspections conducted by the Auditor and his representatives.

The audit and this report are limited by and rely upon the review’s scope, the information provided by Kehilat Nitzan Conservative (Masorti) Community Inc and its consultants (Beveridge Williams & Co Pty. Ltd. and Alliance Environmental Engineering and Consulting Pty Ltd) through the documents provided to the Auditor. The Auditor used reasonable care to avoid reliance upon data and information that may be inaccurate. The Auditor’s conclusions presented in this report are therefore based on the information made available to him and on his own observations during the audit.

The Auditor notes that subsurface conditions can vary over short distances. The actual characteristics of sub-surface and surface materials may vary significantly between adjacent sampling locations and intervals.

References

m10216_009_rpt_20oct11 43

11.0 References

Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC), 1992. Australian Water Quality Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Waters. November 1992.

Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC), 2000. Australian and New Zealand for Fresh and Marine Water Quality. October 2000.

‘Caulfield Park’ website http://www.caulfieldpark.com/history-of-the-park.html Accessed July 2011.

Douglas, J.G, and Ferguson, J.A, 1988. Geology of Victoria. Geological Survey of Victoria, 1988. Environment Protection Authority Victoria, 2000a.

Environment Protection Authority Victoria 2000. Guide to the Sampling and Analysis of Waters, Wastewaters, Soils and Wastes. Publication 441.7, March 2000.

Environment Protection Authority Victoria, 2000b. Groundwater Sampling Guidelines. Publication 669, April 2000.

Environment Protection Authority Victoria, 2006a. Hydrogeological Assessment (Groundwater Quality) Guidelines. Publication 668, September 2006.

Environment Protection Authority Victoria, 2006. Environmental Auditor (Contaminated Land) Guidelines for Issue of Certificates and Statements of Environmental Audit. Publication 759.1, September 2006b.

‘Health screening levels for petroleum hydrocarbons in soil and groundwater’ published by CRC Care (CRC Care, 2011).

National Health and Medical Research Council, Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand (NHMRC, 1996). Australian Drinking Water Guidelines.

NSW Environment Protection Authority (NSW EPA), 1994. Guidelines for Assessing Service Station Sites. 1994.

Geological Survey Report - Preliminary Assessment of the groundwater Resources in the Port Phillip Region, Department of Minerals and Energy, J. G. Leonard, 1992.

State Government of Victoria, Department of Primary Industries, 2007. Explore Victoria Online – GeoVic map (http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/dpi/index/htm) 2007.

National Environment Protection Council (NEPC), 1999. National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure. December 1999.

‘Nigger Boy Licorice’ website http://blahx32.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/nigger-boy-licorice/ Accessed July 2011

Standards Australia (AS), 2005. Guide to the investigation and sampling of sites with potentially contaminated soil Part 1: Non-volatile and semi-volatile compounds. Publication AS 4482.1, 2005.

Standards Australia (AS), 1999. Guide to the Sampling and Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Soil, Part 2: Volatile Substances. Publication 4482.2, 1999.

State Environment Protection Policy, Prevention and Management of Contamination of Land. Victoria Government Gazette. No. S 95 Tuesday 4 June 2002.

State Environment Protection Policy, Groundwaters of Victoria. Victoria Government Gazette. No. S 160 Wednesday 17 December 1997.

http://www.caulfieldpark.com/history-of-the-park.html

http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/dpi/index/htm

http://blahx32.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/nigger-boy-licorice/

Figures

m10216_009_rpt_20oct11

Figures

Figure 1: Site Location Plan

Figure 2: Soil Validation Locations – Site Wide

Figure 3: Soil Samples Exceeding Adopted Criteria – Site Wide

Figure 4: Soil Samples Exceeding Adopted Criteria – Former Tank Pit

DESIGNED:

DRAWN:

CHECKED:

SCALE:

DATE:

SOURCE:

FILENAME:

NO:

TITLE:

PROJECT:

CLIENT:

CLIENT

ADDRESS:

LEGEND:

S

e

nv rSa

e

Ground Floor, 51 Clarke Street

Southbank VIC 3006

t: 03 9606 0070

f: 03 9606 0074

www.senversa.com.au

1 : 1000 (A3)

29/08/2011

NearMap Aerial Photography

E. Vella

E. Vella

M. Rehfisch

M1021620_Fig1_29Aug11

Site Location

Figure 1

Site Location Plan

Environmental Audit Report

36 - 40 Hawthorn Road,

Caulfield North, Vic

Kehilat Nitzan Conservative (Masorti)

Community Inc

PO Box 2313

Caulfield Junction, Vic

0 30 60

Metres

2010

H

A

W

TH

O

R

N

R

O

A

D

N

A

R

O

N

G

R

O

A

D

M

A

LA

K

O

FF

S

TR

E

E

T

IN

K

E

R

M

A

N

R

O

A

D

CAULFIELD

NORTH

CAULFIELD PARK

PAVILLION

DESIGNED:

DRAWN:

CHECKED:

SCALE:

DATE:

SOURCE:

FILENAME:

NO:

TITLE:

PROJECT:

CLIENT:

CLIENT

ADDRESS:

LEGEND:

S

e

nv rSa

e

Ground Floor, 51 Clarke Street

Southbank VIC 3006

t: 03 9606 0070

f: 03 9606 0074

www.senversa.com.au

As shown

29/08/2011

Alliance Environmental

Engineering and Consulting

Pty Ltd

E. Vella

E. Vella

M. Rehfisch

M1021620_Fig4_29Aug11

Figure 4

Soil Samples Exceeding

Adopted Criteria - Former

Tankpit

Environmental Audit Report

36 - 40 Hawthorn Road,

Caulfield North, Vic

Kehilat Nitzan Conservative (Masorti)

Community Inc

PO Box 2313

Caulfield Junction, Vic


m10216_009_rpt_20oct11


ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ACT 1970

STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT

I, Michael Rehfisch of Senversa Pty Ltd, a person appointed by the Environment Protection Authority (‘the Authority’) under the Environment Protection Act 1970 (‘the Act’) as an environmental auditor for the purposes of the Act, having

1. been requested by Mr John Furstenberg of Kehilat Nitzan Conservative (Masorti) Community Incorporated to issue a certificate of environmental audit in relation to the site located at 36-40 Hawthorn Road, Caulfield North, 3161 corresponding to Lot 1 TP587176 (‘the site’) owned/occupied by Kehilat Nitzan Conservative (Masorti) Community Incorporated (details of the site boundary are attached to this Statement)

2. had regard to, among other things,

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

ii. the beneficial uses that may be made of the site, and

iii. relevant State environment protection policies / industrial waste management policies, namely

• State environment protection policy (Prevention and Management of Contamination of Land);

• State environment protection policy (Groundwaters of Victoria);

• State environment protection policy (Waters of Victoria); and

• Environment Protection (Industrial Waste Resource) Regulations.

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

3. completed an environmental audit report in accordance with section 53X of the Act, a copy of which has been sent to the Authority and the relevant planning and responsible authority.

HEREBY STATE that I am of the opinion that

The site is suitable for the beneficial uses associated with residential (including a place of worship), commercial, and industrial land uses subject to the following conditions attached thereto:

1. This Statement is linked to the pattern of use defined in Development Plans [submitted with Glen Eira City Council planning permit approved 27 November 2009, as amended and endorsed by Glen Eira City Council] attached to this Statement. Any substantive change/s (e.g. coverage of paved area, building footprint) must be reviewed by an environmental auditor appointed under Part IXD of the Environment Protection Act, 1970, and advised in writing to EPA and the planning authority.


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

(i). Residual polluted land remaining on-site is remediated such that all beneficial uses of land

are restored, or it is demonstrated that all elements of land at the site do not pose an unacceptable human health and/or environmental risk through appropriate risk-based assessment.

Other related information:

(i). Some soil/fill may contain odours (oily/hydrocarbon-like) and elevated concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons in isolated areas at depths of 1.2 m below ground level adjacent and beneath the footings of the southern boundary wall in the central area of the site. This material is not considered to represent a health or ecological risk based on the proposed use of the site, but may cause a noticeable odour if exposed during development or occupation of the site.

(ii). Groundwater at the site reports elevated concentrations of heavy metals (arsenic, copper, and zinc) ammonia (as N), nitrate (as N) and cyanide which are considered to be the a combination of either background levels or diffuse regional contamination typical of urbanised areas. Petroleum hydrocarbons were also reported at concentrations less than water quality criteria. If groundwater extraction is ever considered at the site, these results should be considered with respect to potential use of the water. This is consistent with consideration of groundwater use for any application in an urbanised area.

(iii). The Auditor is satisfied that pollution of groundwater has been cleaned up to the extent practicable.

(iv). Any material excavated from the site and disposed off site must be categorised and managed in accordance with relevant statutory regulations and EPA guidelines.

(v). Any fill or soil imported to the site shall be chemically tested soil or fill that classifies as “fill material” in accordance with relevant EPA guidelines.

(vi). The three groundwater monitoring bores (MW1, MW2, MW3) present at the site should be decommissioned in accordance with the requirements of “Minimum Construction Requirements for Water Bores in Australia”, published by the Land and Water Biodiversity Committee (as amended).

(vii). In accordance with Section 53ZE of the Environment Protection Act, 1970, the occupier of the site must provide a copy of this Statement to any person who proposes to become an occupier of the site.

This Statement forms part of environmental audit report (Senversa Pty Ltd), Environmental Audit Report, 36 – 40 Hawthorn Road, Caulfield North, Victoria (M1021620_RPT_20Oct11.doc). Further details regarding the condition of the site may be found in the environmental audit report.

Dated: 20 October 2011 Signed: Michael W. Rehfisch

ENVIRONMENTAL AUDITOR

fall

fall

fall

fall

16˚ f

all

30˚ f

all

30˚ fall

2˚ fall

fall

fall

fall

2700 CH

2850 CH

A AC DB C DB

1

2

1

2

3

4

5

3

4

5

6

7

1819

1

23

4

5

678

9

1011

1213

1415

1617

30˚ fall

2850

CH

2850 CH

1

23

4

5

678

9

1011

2850

CH

1100

1045

a

a

a

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1516

1718

19

a

a

a

a

a

12

34

56

78

DELETED

a

lift

col.

Provide floor surface tactile indicators to the top and bottom of all stairs, steps and ramps to comply with AS 1428.4 2002.Black rubber tiles: 600x300, code:1060, available from Comcork Flooring, ph: 9544 2288.

box gutter

F-

F-

non-slip vinyl

carpet tile

floor mat

non-slip vinyl

concrete

non-slip vinyl

non-slip vinyl

vinyl

carpettile

carpettile

carpettile

vinyl

rubberrock

carpet

non-slipvinyl carpet

carpet

anti-static vinyl

carpet

sink

cleaners'sink

accesshatchover

box gutter

high

light

win

dow

high

light

win

dow

high

light

win

dow

highlight window

line of first floor above

truss above

truss above

truss above

truss above

clear

stor

y ab

ove

clear

stor

y ab

ove

sink

Proposed First Floor Plan1:100Proposed Ground Floor Plan

1:100

non-slip vinyl

milksink

sinkdishwasher

under

handbasin

rang

ehoo

dov

er

milkfridge

fridge

non-slipvinyl

acoustic operable wall

void

non-slipvinyl

over

high

light

win

dow

operable wall

over

over

E-

E-

D-

D-

A-C -C -

C-

B-

B - B -

A-

A-

truss

above

above

above

truss

truss

truss

over

over

overover

over

over

over

Select surface mounted baby change station.

New brick veneer wall to entry airlock.

canopy above canopy above

floormat

floormat

Trim back existing wall as necessary to allow sufficient space for fire exit door.

concrete

gard

en b

edga

rden

bed

garden bed

above

above

above

above

above

above

Provide floor waste under washbasins.

Provide floor waste under washbasins.

Reinstate footpath, garden bed and kerb to match existing and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Fall new concrete slab to street

level.

Floor mat as specified set down flush with the finished floor (typical).

190 reinforced blockwork to lift shaft surround to Eng. details.

Timber stairs, handrail and balustrate to detail.

Acoustic insulation to bathroom walls.

Infill exsting openings where necessary. Refer to elevation for extent.

Disabled bathroom sign.

New skylight as scheduled.


New brick cavity wall.

New garden tap.

Acoustic fence to detail.

New brick cavity wall.

Acoustic fence on title boundary to detail.

Floor mat as specified set down flush with the finished floor (typical).New water tap in garage.

9mm flush jointed Villaboard lining to conceal steel column and sewer grade PVC downpipe, paint finish.

9mm flush jointed Villaboard lining to conceal steel columns, paint finish.

Provide 90min fire rated plasterboard cladding around two steel columns supporting first floor on Gridline 2 in Area 10. Refer to CSR specifications and method.

Existing brick wall at boundary.


Existing brick wall at boundary.

Top hung bi-fold doors to storage as scheduled. Recess a bottom door guide flush with the finshed floor level.

New double brick wall at boundary. 9mm Villaboard on Rondo 308 battens @ 450 crs, paint finish internally.

Existing brick wall.

10mm plasterboad lining on pack out to conceal steel column, paint finish.

A new verandah constructed across the entire frontage of the site extending to 750mm from the face of the kerb to provide weather protection. Refer to section drawings for detail.

Glazed canopy to detail.

New brick cavity wall at boundary.

Hebel PowerPanel shall comply with 90/90/90 FRL rating externally. Joints, gaps need to be appropriately fire rated. Vertical control joints shall be sealed with fire rated sealant and horizontal joints must be blocked with compressible fire rated material to manufacturer's specification.Render finish externally, plaster/paint finish internally.Refer to specifications for the Certificate of Test.

Existing parapet wall.

Mirror glass across the entire frontage of the site as scheduled.

Silvertop Ash vertical timber lining boards as specified on Rondo 308 battens @ 450 crs fixed to the masonry walls - south and west walls of Area 1. Stain finish.

Plasterboard lining on Rondo 301 battens @ 450 crs to outside face of lift shaft's masonry walls.

Fire rated door as scheduled.

Ensure a smooth floor level transition from the Hall to the Garage.

Stormwater pit, refer to Services Eng. documentation for detail.

Automated louvre windows as scheduled to the southern side of the clerestory.

Fixed windows as scheduled to the northern and western sides of the clerestory.

Fall the rubber rock away from building, towards the gardenbeds. Refer to landscaping plan.

Hufcor operable wall panel as scheduled.

sump & dp

dp

sump & dp

sump & dp

sump & dp

sump & dp

Box Gutter

Eave

Gut

ter

Eave Gutter

Box

Gut

ter

exitdoor

garage door exitdoor

exitdoor

5

2

1

3

4

6

7

9

8

10

11

12

13

14

15 16

17

18

19

col.col.

col.

3a

col.

exitdoor

col.

col.col.

col.

col.

col.

exitdoor

col.col.

col.col.

col.

col.

col.

col.

col. col.col.

col.

col.

col.

col.

col.

Eave

Gut

ter

11

col. col.

col.

col.

FW

dpdp

dpdp

RWH & dp

3b

FW 14a

sky-light

dp

13a

watertap

garden tap

nature strip

footpath

sump & dp

dp

Box

Gut

ter

Box

Gut

ter

Box

Gut

ter

Box

Gut

ter

dp

dp

dp

dp

dp

dp

col.col.

col.

pit

fall

fall

pop

dp

Eave

Gut

ter

Connect the eave gutter downpipe to the box gutter downpipe.

fall

fall

FFL 43.50 AHD

FFL 43.32 AHD

6

7

DG07

GG01

DG08

WG01

WG02

WG03

DG15

DG14

WG07

DG06

W101

W102

GG02

GG03

DG01

DG02

DG03

DG05

DG04

DG10

DG11

DG12

DG13

DG16

DG17

DG18

DG09

WG05

W108

D101 D

102

D103

D104

W108

W104

W113

W113

W112

W111

W105

W106

W107

W109

W110

W111

W112

WG06

WG04

SG01

W106

W107

W105

W104

W109

W110

FFL 46.66 AHD

fallC

-B-

A-

Tactile indicators as noted elsewhere.

Dashed line indicates the existing brick wall under new. Pack out surface to align with the new wall.

Secondary stair to be located clear of steel columns cladding with a clear travel distance of 1.0m.

10mm Plasterboad wall lining on 90mm stud wall enclosing the staircase.

Box out around steel column and downpipe, plasterboard/paint finish. Typical unless otherwise noted.

* Sewer grade PVC to all internal downpipes.

plasterboard lining to conceal steel column, paint finish.

existing fence line18.29 0˚28'

43.6

990

˚28'

30"

18.22 180˚00'

43.8

427

0˚23

'

18.29 0˚28'

43.6

990

˚28'

30"

18.22 180˚00'

43.8

427

0˚23

'

Stair & handrail to be located clear of column cladding. verify dimension on site.

Carry plasterboard pack out to steel column surround up to first floor ceiling level.

LIFT (must comply with AS1735.12)

Schindler 5300 model or similar with:- 675kg capacity for 1600x1750 shaft- 1200(width)x1400(depth) cart- 900 door width- 2300 door height- max. 9 passengers.Headroom height for this lift is 3400 afl and stays within the proposed roof space.

Pack out this section of wc to provide a flat wall.90 min FRL cladding to steel column.

New cavity brick wall to align with front glazing frame. Provide 90min fire rated plasterboard cladding around steel columns next to the boundary walls. Refer to CSR specifications and method.

190

Extend wall framing to provide ~190mm clearence for the louvre windows.

6375

6500

255

255

255

6500

~ 25

010

065

00

Provide framing to both sides of the column.

75 p

ost

c.o.s.c.o.s.

garage door

70

mech.switch board

elec.switch board

tel, security

existing fence line

exis

ting

fenc

e lin

e

exis

ting

fenc

e lin

e

garden bed

Air-conditioning and ventilation systems' ductworks to services Eng.'s specification and details.

lift

4a

DG19

nature strip

footpath

c.o.s.

c.o.s.

Recess D/G01 to allow it to swing in the direction of egress. 9mm flush jointed Villaboard lining to new stud walls, paint finish.

gard

en b

ed

corridor

D/G12

FIRE PROTECTION FOR STEEL COLUMNS



9mm flush jointed Villaboard lining to new stud walls, paint finish.

New brick cavity wall at boundary.

* Surface water must be diverted away from the building, so that the adjacent external finished surfaces surrounding the building are drained to move surface water away from the building and graded to give a slope of not less than 50mm over the first 1m from the building.

W114

W115

W116

D105

to s

uit 9

20do

ors

250

4285

7506850 5390

9170

6762

6762

6762

6762

6465

2123

012

215

~ 10

190

c.o.

s.10

9555

052

7555

052

7552

75~

2160

1680

WG

01W

/G02

W/G

03W

/G05

W/G

06

4363

5

100

2090

90

1195

7175

2590

460

9056

0027

0

270

4035

9090

1050

9010

5516

8014

560

1680

~ 13

395

1680

200

W/G

06

2490

3100

D/G

15c.

o.s.

D/G

08D/

G05

area

3ar

ea 3

bar

ea 1

0ar

ea 1

1

area

12

140

exte

rnal

ove

rall

inte

rnal

inte

rnal

colu

mn

grid

lines

exte

rnal

ove

rall

wind

ows

inte

rnal

area

9ar

ea 7

area

6ar

ea 6

area

5ar

ea 2

area

1lift

sha

ftar

ea 1

312

215

c.o.

s.column gridlines

external overall

windows

internal

~ 18290

3935 475 3025 ex opening 490 2770 ex opening 435 960 460G/G01 W/G07 G/G02 G/G03 D/G01

to s

uit 8

20do

ors

to s

uit 8

20do

ors

to s

uit 9

20do

ors

area 1 area 3 area 4~ 5240 4180 230 ~ 7905

90 2000 90 ~ 2090 230

D/G07~ 2860 1880

90 to suit920

doors

12515 c.o.s.~ 1480

c.o.

s.~ 1205

270 1530 1680 805~ 540~ 40

W/G03 W/G04

2701100 11009815 c.o.s.

D/G18

~ 18280

5765 3910 4200 4405column gridlines

external overall

windows

area 13

2500

area

4ar

ea 1

0 &

11

windows/ internal

6850 5390 ~ 5450column gridlines

external overall

windows

internal

18290 c.o.s.

270 17755 c.o.s.W101

9170

6762

6762

6762

6762

colu

mn

grid

lines

exte

rnal

ove

rall

inte

rnal

620

100

2245

190

1600

190

~ 14

7075

905

815

6465

setb

ack

area

15

lift s

haft

arae

14

~ 82

85

270

270area 15 area 14a area 16 area 19

2110 90 1735 90 3000 90 ~ 10635 270

190

9170

6762

6762

6762

6762

6465

colu

mn

grid

lines

exte

rnal

ove

rall

inte

rnal

205

9540

Hebe

l pa

nel

arae

16

arae

19

corri

dor

arae

18

arae

17

18280 c.o.s.

5765 3910 4200 4405 column gridlines

external overall

windows

area 13

windows

75 4125 75clerestory

columnscolumns

LCLC

1400 1400W/104

365

6030

9034

250

140

2490

270

100

340

9045

0090

90

90to

sui

t82

0do

ors

to s

uit

920

door

s

90

to suit820

doors

2600

2400

3660

9071

5027

018

2034

00

230

945

230250

270

2625

190

1600

190

5085

230

2080

270

2625

190

1600

190

5085

280

land

ing

~ 1000

28002600

~ 18

25

c.o.s.

3945~ 850c.o.s.

c.o.s.

5480250 ~ 300

350

600

~ 13

5

c.o.

s.75

10

area

7

9090

9090

975

200

1465902500

2180

~ 33

05

to s

uit

920

door

s

500

900160027090

1465

10001500

1200

land

ing

~ 19

20

90

to s

uit

920

door

s

260

101090

1430252090

3510

stai

rs

20

1255

area

14a

1255

arae

14

1350

9025

6590

2556

2556

165

~ 1290 ~ 470

~ 4370~ 9635

330

1400 400W/105W/106

690 1400W/102

9830

W02

GROUND FLOOR PLANFIRST FLOOR PLAN

KNS HR-W01a-02a-plans.mcd

PRINT DATE:

AMEND. DATE:

a 17/Mar -Update specification for the lift.-Update location of floor surface tactile indicators.-Relocation of D/G01 to allow it to swing in the direction of egress; hence change the location of D/G02, and the secondary stair.-Additional door D/G19 to Area 4a, D/105 to Area 19.-Removal of skylight S/G01 in Area 9.-Widen garden bed next to the western boundary to cater for larger plants.-Additional windows to first floor.

NO: DATE: ITEM:

AMENDMENTS

AMEND:BUILDING PERMIT ISSUENot for construction

a

KEHILAT NITZAN SYNAGOGUE36-40 Hawthorn Road, Caulfield North

PerkinsArchitects

153 High Street(Enter off Macquarie Street)Prahran Victoria 3181

T 03 9510 9697F 03 9510 8858E [email protected]

Perkins Architects Pty LtdABN 85 007 172 670

Documentation Architect

GREG SHALIT ARCHITECT

10/2 Grattan StreetHawthorn VIC 3122

T 0419 560 539F (03) 9818 4432E [email protected]

ABN 50 775 106 120

DESIGN ARCHITECT

Scale: as shown @ A1

Area Legend 01 Entry airlock 14 Corridor 202 Lobby 14a Tea Point03 Kitchen 15 Staff Bathroom03a Cool Room 16 Office 103b Milk Kitchen 17 Office 204 Loading Bay 18 Data Room04a Store 19 Liabrary05 Disabled Bathroom06 Female Bathroom07 Male Bathroom08 Corridor 109 Children's Space10 Hall11 Sanctuary12 Storage 113 Courtyard13a Path

These drawings shall be read in conjunction with the Architectural Specification, Structural and Services Engineers' documentation, Land Survey, Geotechnical report and other reports as listed in the Specification.

Check and verify all dimensions, levels and implied conditions on site before commencing any work. Report any discrepancies to the Architect prior to commencing that section of work.

Dimensions on drawings to take precedence over scale.

Stairs to have min. 250mm treads and max. 190mm risers. Handrails to be min. 1000mm above floor level and stair landings, and min. 865mm above line of stair nosings. Max. 125mm spacing between balusters.

Provide impervious floors to bathrooms, laundry and toilets and impervious walls to showers, baths, basins, sinks and troughs in accordance with the B.C.A.

Flash junction of all wet area benchtops with walls via plastic angle let into joinery and under tiles. Silicon seal tile to benchtop junction.

Provide mechanical ventilation to each bathroom and toilet and provide fixed inlet ventilation. Provide artificial light to all rooms.

Soil classification: CLASS P. Refer to the Geotechnical Report.

All new glazing to comply with AS 1288.

Unless stated otherwise, provide reflective foil sarking with R1.8 to all external walls, and Aircell Insulbreak 65 sarking with R3.2 to all new roof spaces as specified. Refer to Section J report for extent.

Provide noggings within walls as required to ensure a solid fixing for all fittings and fixtures.

Allow to coach scew and use concealed fixings to all exposed/visible timber connections. Do not use nail plates for exposed connections.

Allow to provide stainless steel screw fixings to all decking.

All exposed timber is to be smooth dressed for paint or oil finish unless otherwise noted. Reeded timber is not to be used.

Moisture test decking timbers prior to installation to ensure minimal shrinkage and expansion.

All tannin staining from external timbers is to be cleaned or painted out prior to completion and, if required, prior to the end of the defects liability period.

General notes

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

Provide access throughout the building in accordance with AS1428.1.

Provide tactile indicators as required by AS1428.4 to top and bottom of stairs.

Provide non slip nosings to all stairs or all timber stairs to be treated in Durapol 1012 Semi Gloss by Polycure or similar product to provide non slip finish.

1.

2.

3.

For Commercial Projects:

22 Mar 2010

22 Mar 2010

tel: + 61 3 9606 0070 fax: + 61 3 9606 0074 [email protected] www.senversa.com.au Ground Floor, 51 Clarke Street, Southbank VIC 3006 Senversa Pty Ltd ABN 89 132 231 380`