Preliminary contamination investigation · Preliminary contamination investigation 7 William Maker Drive, Orange NSW Ref: R11554c Date: 3 March 2020 Envirowest Consulting Pty Ltd

Preliminary contamination investigation

7 William Maker Drive, Orange NSW

Ref: R11554c Date: 3 March 2020

Envirowest Consulting Pty Ltd ABN 18 103 955 246

9 Cameron Place, PO Box 8158, Orange NSW 2800 Tel (02) 6361 4954

6/72 Corporation Avenue, Bathurst NSW Tel (02) 6334 3312

Email [email protected] Web www.envirowest.net.au

Environmental Geotechnical Asbestos Services

Page 2

Envirowest Consulting Pty Ltd R11554c

Client: Central West Development Trust PO Box 8360 Orange NSW 2800

Assessor: Leah Desborough BNatRes (Hons)

Senior Environmental Scientist Checked by: Andrew Ruming (BSc) Senior Environmental Geologist Authorising Officer: Greg Madafiglio PhD Senior Environmental Scientist Interested authorities: Orange City Council Report number: R11554c

Date: 3 March 2020

Copyright © 2020 Envirowest Consulting Pty Ltd. This document is copyright apart from specific uses by the client. No part may be reproduced by any process or persons without the written permission of Envirowest Consulting Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. No liability is accepted for unauthorised use of the report.

Summary report

Introduction A residential subdivision is proposed for 7 William Maker Drive, Orange NSW. The site has a land-use history of agricultural grazing and large lot residential. An investigation of the site excluding the existing dwelling is required to determine the soil contamination status and suitability for residential land-use. A desktop study and a review of the available history were undertaken of the site. A walkover and site inspection for evidence of contamination from past activities was conducted on 16 December 2019, 21 January 2020 and 11 February 2020. A site inspection and borehole construction was conducted on 31 January 2020. Soil samples were collected and analysed for metals and persistent pesticides.

Scope The objective was to identify past potentially contaminating activities, identify potential types of contamination, discuss the site condition, provide a preliminary assessment of site contamination and assess the need for further investigation to determine suitability for residential land-use.

Summary The historical land-use at the site was primarily grazing agriculture. A shed and concrete sheep dip are located in the western section of the site. The soil sampling program detected levels of arsenic exceeding the health investigation levels in the area around the sheep dip. The elevated levels of contamination were identified at depths of less than 300mm. Levels of nickel and zinc were detected above the adopted EILs for residential land-use in two samples collected from around the sheep dip depths between 100 and 300mm. Pathways for exposure to contaminants by potential receptors were found to be incomplete and the levels are not expected to impact on the environment. The levels of all substances evaluated in the remaining samples were below the adopted thresholds for residential land-use with access to soil. The soil sampling program did not detect elevated levels of persistent pesticides.

Recommendations Remediation of the arsenic impacted soil is required to enable suitability of the site for the proposed land-use. The works should be undertaken in accordance with a remediation action plan. A validation report should be prepared to confirm the effectiveness of the arsenic impacted soil remediation.

Contents

page

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 5 2. Scope of work ................................................................................................................................ 5

3. Site identification............................................................................................................................ 5 4. Site history ..................................................................................................................................... 5 5. Site condition and environment..................................................................................................... 8

6. Conceptual site model ................................................................................................................... 9 7. Data quality objectives (DQO) ...................................................................................................... 9

8. Sampling analysis plan and sampling methodology .................................................................. 10 9. Quality assurance and quality control ......................................................................................... 13 10. Assessment criteria ..................................................................................................................... 14

11. Results and discussion ................................................................................................................ 16 12. Site characterisation .................................................................................................................... 18 13. Conclusions and recommendations............................................................................................ 19

14. Report limitations and intellectual property ................................................................................ 20 15. References ................................................................................................................................... 21

Figures ................................................................................................................................................. 22 Figure 1. Locality map Figure 2. Proposed site plan and sampling locations Figure 3. Sampling locations Figure 4. Photographs of the site Appendices .......................................................................................................................................... 32

Appendix 1. 1964 Aerial photograph Appendix 2. 1984 Aerial photograph Appendix 3. 2003 Aerial photograph Appendix 4. 2019 Aerial photograph Appendix 5. Sample analysis, quality assurance and quality control (QAQC) report Appendix 6. Section 10.7 Planning Certificate Appendix 7. Field sampling log Appendix 8. Soil analysis results – SGS report number SE201341, SE201780, SE202406, SE202407, SE202757 and chain of custody forms

Page 5


1. Introduction A residential subdivision is proposed for 7 William Maker Drive, Orange NSW. The site has a land-use history of agricultural grazing and large lot residential. An investigation of the site excluding the existing dwelling is required to determine the soil contamination status and suitability for residential land-use. A desktop study and a review of the available history were undertaken of the site. A walkover and site inspection for evidence of contamination from past activities was conducted on 16 December 2019, 21 January 2020 and 11 February 2020. A site inspection and borehole construction was conducted on 31 January 2020. Soil samples were collected and analysed for metals and persistent pesticides.

2. Scope of work Envirowest Consulting Pty Ltd was commissioned by Central West Development Trust to undertake a preliminary contamination assessment, in accordance with the contaminated land management planning guidelines, from the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 and the State Environmental Policy No. 55 (SEPP 55), of 7 William Maker Drive, Orange NSW. The objective was to identify past potentially contaminating activities, identify potential contamination types, discuss the site condition, provide a preliminary assessment of site contamination and assess the need for further investigation or suitability for residential land-use.

3. Site identification Address

7 William Maker Drive Orange NSW

Client

Central West Development Trust

Deposited plans Lot 1 DP 366693

Locality map Figure 1

Site plan

Figures 2 and 3

Photographs

Figure 3

Area

Approximately 0.9ha

4. Site history 4.1 Zoning The site is zoned R1 – Light residential under the Orange Local Environmental Plan (2011). 4.2 Land-use The site is located in a residential area on the northern fringes of Orange. The site was a large residential lot at the time of site inspection. The house and yard area were not included as part of the investigation area.

Page 6


4.3 Summary of council records 4.3.1 Section 10.7 Planning Certificate A planning certificate was obtained for 7 William Maker Drive, Orange NSW (Appendix 6). Orange City Council has not received notice under the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997

that the land is significantly contaminated subject to a management order subject to an ongoing maintenance order subject to a site audit statement.

4.3.2 Environmental protection area The site is mapped in a groundwater sensitive area under the Orange Local Environmental Plan (2011). 4.4 Sources of information Site inspection 16 December 2019, 21 January 2020, 31 January 2020 and 11 February 2020 by Leah Desborough and Joseph Pearce of Envirowest Consulting Pty Ltd NSW EPA records of public notices under the CLM Act 1997 Soil and geological maps Aerial photographs Orange LEP 2011 Orange 8731-3N 1:25000 Topographic map 4.5.1 Historical aerial photographs

Year Visual observations on site Surrounding area

1964 A dwelling and shed has been established in the western section of the lot. The remaining land area appears used for grazing.

No significant change in land-use has occurred since 1954.

1984 No significant change in land-use has occurred since 1964.


2003 A dam has been constructed in the centre of the site. The remaining site area is unchanged in land-use since 1984.


2019 No significant change in land-use has occurred since 2003.

Residential developments have been established to the north, south and west of the site. Land-use to the east remains as grazing.

4.5.2 Topographic map The 1989 topographic map based from the 1982 aerial photograph indicates two buildings are identified on the site. An unsealed rural road occurs to the immediate east of the site. 4.5.3 Interview with site owner Discussions with the current owner indicated they had purchased the site in the early 2000’s. The shed was used to store garden tools and wood. The area to the west of the shed was a chicken coop. The remainder of the site was used for grazing stock.

Page 7


4.5.4 Historical summary The site was historically used as grazing land. The buildings currently located on the site were constructed in the early 1950’s. Relatively few changes have occurred from 1954 to present. 4.6 Buildings and infrastructure Historical imagery shows evidence of dwelling infrastructure on the site from 1954. Present infrastructure includes a shed located in the western section of the site with an abandoned sheep dip located on the eastern side. A dam is located in the centre of the property and fences divide the property into paddocks. 4.7 Contaminant sources Potential exists for contaminating activities to have been undertaken on site which may impact on the suitability for the proposed land-use. The historic agricultural land-use including pesticide treatment of sheep using a sheep dip may have resulted in application of pesticides and contaminating activities. 4.8 Contaminants of concern Based on historical activities and site inspection the contaminants of concern are:

• Heavy metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, nickel, lead, zinc and mercury)

• Organochlorine pesticides (OCP) 4.9 Relevant complaint history Nil 4.10 Contaminated site register The investigation area is not listed on the NSW EPA register of contaminated sites or sites notified to the EPA. 4.11 Previous investigations No previous contamination investigations are known to have been undertaken on the site. 4.12 Neighbouring land-use North- Parkland, developing residential South- Developing residential East- Grazing agriculture West- Developing residential Historical and present neighbouring land-uses are not expected to impact the site. 4.13 Integrity assessment The site history was obtained from a site inspection and history review. The information is consistent with the current site condition and to the best of the assessor’s knowledge is accurate.

5. Site condition and environment 5.1 Surface cover Surface cover on the site consisted of pasture grasses including rye grass, red grass and phalaris. Water tolerant juncus species were also present around the dam. Weeds included flatweed, plantain and thistle. Ornamental tree and shrub species were present in the western section. 5.2 Topography

Page 8


The site is on a mid-slope with inclines of approximately 1% south. Elevation ranges between 888 and 893 metres above sea level. 5.3 Soils and geology The site is located in the North Orange Soil Landscape (eSPADE 2019). The North Orange Soil Landscape is characterised by red earths, shallow lithosols, yellow earths, brown solodic and yellow solodic soils. Other soils include non-calcic brown soils, red and brown podzolic soils, gravelly earths and yellow solonetzic soils. The North Orange Soil Landscape geology comprises the Molong Geanticline with parent rock comprising of medium to soft metasediments including slates, phyllites and siltstones. Parent material is in situ and alluvial-colluvial materials derived from parent rock (eSPADE 2019). 5.4 Water 5.4.1 Surface water Surface water on the majority of the site flows into a dam located in the central section of the site before flowing south into a stormwater drain located along the southern boundary. 5.4.2 Groundwater One bore is known to be located on the site. The NSW Office of Water groundwater database identifies three bores within 500m of the site. A summary of bore details is given in Table 1. Table 1. Groundwater bores within 500m of the site

No. Date drilled Location SWL (m) Use Status GW070889 30/11/1992 On site 10.0 Stock, domestic Current GW019049 01/02/1961 230m SE 12.8 Stock, domestic Current GW090102 17/05/2011 280m SE 18.37 Monitoring bore - GW066747 04/01/1991 340m S 14.15 Stock -

6. Conceptual site model 6.1 Contaminant sources Potential exists for contaminating activities to have been undertaken on site which may impact on the suitability for the proposed land-use. The historic agricultural land-use including pesticide treatment of sheep using a sheep dip may have resulted in application of pesticides and contaminating activities. 6.2 Contaminants of concern Based on historical activities and site inspection the contaminants of concern are:

• Heavy metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, nickel, lead, zinc and mercury)

• Organochlorine pesticides (OCP) 6.3 Potential receptors The proposed land-use of the site is residential. The site has historically been used as grazing land. Human receptors include:

• Residents

• Visitors

• Construction workers

• Intrusive maintenance workers

Page 9


Ecological receptors include

• Flora and fauna on the site and adjacent to the site

• Aquatic receptors

6.4 Exposure pathways Pathways for exposure to contaminants are:

• Dermal contact following soil disturbance

• Ingestion and inhalation after soil disturbance

• Surface water and sediment runoff into waterways

• Leaching of contaminants into the groundwater

• Direct contact of flora and fauna with the soil

6.5 Source receptor linkages Potential source pathway receptor linkages are identified to enable evaluation of any adverse impact on human health or ecology. The proposed land-use of the site is residential and human receptors to the investigation area are likely. Proposed users of the site may have a risk of exposure if contaminants are present and the soil is disturbed. Construction workers, visitors, intrusive maintenance workers and residents to the site may potentially be receptors to soil contaminants through direct contact to soil which includes ingestion and dermal contact. Inhalation of soil material is not considered a source receptor linkage. Inhalation may occur as a result of soil disturbance and dust production. Major soil disturbance before and after the development of the site is considered unlikely. Soil disturbance during construction and development of the site is expected to be accompanied by erosion control measures which will reduce the incidence of dust production. Vegetation on the site may be potential receptors to soil contamination through direct uptake of contaminants. The source receptor linkage to aquatic organisms and ecosystems is considered incomplete as the site is well vegetated and movement of sediments from the site is unlikely. During construction work it is expected that erosion control measures will be implemented and movement of sediment off site will be unlikely. Following development of the site it is expected that vegetation will be re-established and will control sediment movement from the site. Groundwater is not identified as a potential receptor to contamination as the groundwater level at the site is approximately 10m below the soil surface where contaminants are likely to originate from.

Source/contaminants

Transport Potential exposure pathways Receptors

Use of pesticides (heavy metals and OCP)

Sedimentation Groundwater

Direct contact (ingestion and absorption) (human and environment) Inhalation Runoff Leaching

Construction workers Residents Visitors Intrusive maintenance workers Vegetation Aquatic receptors

Potential, unknown/unlikely

7. Data quality objectives (DQO) 7.1 State the problem

Page 10


The site is a proposed residential subdivision. Land-use will change from rural-residential to residential which will include dwellings, residential yards and streets. The property has historically been used as grazing land which may have resulted in application of pesticides and contaminating activities. A sheep dip was identified in the western section of the site. The site requires investigation to ensure suitability for the proposed land-use. 7.2 Identify the decision The land-use proposed is residential and the levels of contaminants should be less than the thresholds listed in Section 10. The decision problem is, do the levels of potential contaminants exceed the assessment criteria listed in Section 10. 7.3 Identify the inputs decision Investigations of the site is required to identify any potential contaminants from historical land-use. 7.4 Define the boundaries of the study The investigation area is Lot 1 DP 366693, 7 William Maker Drive, Orange NSW. The current dwelling and house yard located on the lot do not form part of the investigation area. 7.5 Develop a decision rule The initial guidelines for soil were the health and ecological investigation levels for residential land-use (NEPC 1999). If soil contamination was identified then the contaminant source and extent of contamination was determined. 7.6 Specify acceptable limits on the decision errors. The 95% upper confidence limit of average levels of samples collected is less than the threshold levels and the results are less than 250% of relevant thresholds. 7.7 Optimize the design for obtaining data Soil samples were collected from the proposed residential lots on an approximate 20m grid pattern and combined to form composite samples. Discrete soil samples were collected from around the shed, sheep dip and from the dam. Analytes evaluated included heavy metals and OCP.

8. Sampling analysis plan and sampling methodology 8.1 Sampling strategy 8.1.1 Sampling design 8.1.1.1 General site area A systematic sampling pattern was adopted to assess the probable location of contamination. Review of aerial photographs indicates uniform management practices are expected to have occurred across the site. The site has been historically managed as part of a single unit and is expected to have been treated similarly. Potential hot-spot areas were assessed separately. 8.1.1.2 Dam sample

Page 11


A judgmental sampling pattern was adopted to assess the probable location of contamination in the dam on-site. 8.1.1.3 Garden shed A systematic sampling pattern was adopted to assess the probable location of contamination around the shed. 8.1.1.4 Sheep dip A systematic sampling pattern was adopted to assess the probable location of contamination around the sheep dip. 8.1.2 Sampling locations 8.1.2.1 General site area Discrete soil samples were collected from the proposed residential lots on an approximate 20m grid pattern. Four discrete samples were combined to form a composite soil sample. A total of 16 discrete soil samples were collected and combined to form four composite samples for analysis. Four discrete samples were collected for analysis. The sampling locations are described in Figure 2. 8.1.2.2 Dam sample

One discrete sample was collected from the north eastern section of the dam. The sampling location is described in Figure 2. 8.1.2.3 Shed Four discrete samples were collected from the area surrounding the garden shed on an approximate 5m grid pattern. The sampling locations area described in Figure 2.

8.1.2.4 Sheep dip

Sixteen discrete samples were collected from the area surrounding the suspected sheep dip. Soil was

sampled at depths of 0 to 100 and 300mm on an approximate 2m grid pattern.

The sampling locations area described in Figure 3.

8.1.3 Sampling density

8.1.3.1 General site area The sampling density can detect a potential hot spot across the proposed residential lots with a radius of 12m at a 95% level of confidence. The sampling frequency is slightly less than the minimum recommended by EPA (1995). This is justified by the lack of evidence of historical or recent contaminating activities, the uniform land-use throughout the site and the preliminary nature of the investigation. Potential hot-spot areas were sampled. 8.1.3.2 Dam sample A potential hot spot area was identified within the dam on site. One sample was collected. The sampling frequency is considered adequate to enable characterisation of the area. 8.1.3.3 Shed

Page 12


A potential hot spot area was identified associated with the garden shed on-site. The sampling density can detect a potential hot spot within a radius of 2.9m at a 95% level of confidence.

8.1.3. Sheep dip

A potential hot spot area was identified as the concrete sheep dip on-site. The sampling density can

detect a potential hot spot within a radius of 1.2m at a 95% level of confidence.

8.1.4 Sampling depth Any heavy metals or persistent pesticides present are generally immobile and expected to be contained in the 0-100mm soil layer which was the target sampling depth as minimal soil disturbance has occurred and contaminants originate from the surface. Boreholes were constructed to a depth of 300mm in the area surrounding the sheep dip on-site to assess the depth to which soil was impacted. 8.2 Analytes 8.2.1 General site area Composite soil samples collected from the general site area were evaluated for arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, zinc and mercury. Discrete samples were analysed for OCP. Heavy metals and OCP were identified as the contaminants of concern possibly present as a result of previous activities. 8.2.2 Dam sample The discrete soil sample collected from the dam was evaluated for arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, zinc, mercury and OCP as these were identified as the contaminants of concern possibly present as a result of previous activities (Table 2). 8.2.3 Shed The discrete soil samples collected from around the garden shed were evaluated for OCP as these were identified as the contaminants of concern possibly present as a result of previous activities (Table 2). 8.2.4 Sheep dip The discrete soil samples collected from around the sheep dip were evaluated for heavy metals as these were identified as the contaminants of concern possibly present as a result of previous activities (Table 2). 8.3 Sampling methods Soil samples were taken using a stainless-steel soil push corer and a hand shovel. Soil was taken at each individual sampling location below the vegetated and detrital layer. A stainless-steel hand auger was used to collect the 100mm and 300mm samples in the area around the sheep dip on-site. Soil was taken at each individual sampling location below the vegetated and detrital layer. The soil was transferred to a clean plastic bag, mixed and transferred to a solvent rinsed glass jar with a Teflon lid. Combining 4 discrete samples made a composite sample for chemical analysis. Discrete soil samples were transferred directly to a solvent rinsed glass jar with a Teflon lid. Tools were decontaminated between sampling locations to prevent cross contamination by: brushing to remove caked or encrusted material, washing and allowing to air dry or using a clean towel.

Page 13


Table 2. Schedule of samples and analyses

9. Quality assurance and quality control 9.1 Sampling design The sampling program is intended to provide data as to the presence and levels of contaminants. Discrete soil samples were collected across the proposed residential lots on a systematic pattern of 20 metres. A minimum of one sample was collected from each lot. This sampling density will enable the detection of an area with an elevated concentration on a radius of 12 metres in the proposed residential lots with a 95% confidence level. The number of sampling locations is less than the recommended density in the EPA sampling guidelines. This is justified by the lack of evidence of historical or present contaminating activities occurring on the site as well as the preliminary nature of the investigation. “Hot-spots” smaller than the sampled grid were assessed. No other “hot-spots” are expected from the site inspection and historical review. 9.2 Field

Sample ID

Location Depth Discrete sample ID (Figures 2 and 3)

Date collected

Analysis undertaken

WC1 General site area 100 11, 12, 13, 14 16/12/2019 Arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), lead (Pb), nickel (Ni), zinc (Zn), mercury (Hg)

WC2 General site area 100 21, 22, 23, 24 16/12/2019 As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn, Hg WC3 General site area 100 31, 32, 33, 34 16/12/2019 As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn, Hg WC4 General site area 100 41, 42, 43, 44 16/12/2019 As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn, Hg WD1 Garden shed 100 1 16/12/2019 OCP WD2 Garden shed 100 2 16/12/2019 OCP WD3 Garden shed 100 3 16/12/2019 OCP WD4 Garden shed 100 4 16/12/2019 OCP WD5 Sheep dip 100 5 21/01/2020 As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn, Hg WD11 General site area 100 11 16/12/2019 OCP WD21 General site area 100 21 16/12/2019 OCP WD31 Dam 100 31 16/12/2019 As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn, Hg, OCP WD41 General site area 100 41 16/12/2019 OCP WM1-100 Sheep dip 100 WM1 31/01/2020 As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn, Hg WM1-300 Sheep dip 300 WM1 31/01/2020 As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn, Hg WM2-100 Sheep dip 100 WM2 31/01/2020 As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn, Hg WM2-300 Sheep dip 300 WM2 31/01/2020 As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn, Hg WM3-100 Sheep dip 100 WM3 31/01/2020 As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn, Hg WM3-300 Sheep dip 300 WM3 31/01/2020 As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn, Hg WM4-100 Sheep dip 100 WM4 31/01/2020 As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn, Hg WM5-300 Sheep dip 300 WM5 31/01/2020 As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn, Hg WM6-100 Sheep dip 100 WM6 31/01/2020 As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn, Hg WM6-300 Sheep dip 300 WM6 31/01/2020 As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn, Hg WM7-100 Sheep dip 100 WM7 31/01/2020 As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn, Hg WM7-300 Sheep dip 300 WM7 31/01/2020 As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn, Hg WM8-100 Sheep dip 100 WM8 31/01/2020 As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn, Hg WM8-300 Sheep dip 300 WM8 31/01/2020 As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn, Hg WMD11 General site area 100 11 11/02/2020 Ni, Zn WMD12 General site area 100 12 11/02/2020 Ni, Zn WMD13 General site area 100 13 11/02/2020 Ni, Zn WMD14 General site area 100 14 11/02/2020 Ni, Zn

Page 14


The collection of samples was undertaken in accordance with accepted standard protocols (NEPC 1999). Composite sampling was undertaken to reduce the cost of chemical analysis. Combining equal amounts from four discrete samples created the composite samples. A composite sample represents the average concentration of the sub-sample. The rules for composite sampling were observed (EPA 1995). All composite samples were analysed for arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, zinc and mercury. Selected discrete soil samples collected from the area were analysed for metals and OCP. Discrete soil samples collected from around the sheep dip were analysed for heavy metals. Sampling equipment was decontaminated between each sampling event. The appropriate storage conditions and duration were observed between sampling and analysis. A chain of custody form accompanied the samples to the laboratory (Appendix 3). A single sampler was used to collect the samples using standard methods. Soil collected was a fresh sample from a hand shovel. After collection the samples were immediately placed in new glass sampling jars and placed in a cooler. Two duplicate samples were collected. No field blank, rinsate, trip blank or matrix spikes were submitted for analysis. Some samples from all batches did not contain contaminants which confirm the absence of cross contamination during transport and storage. A field sampling log is presented in Appendix 2. 9.3 Laboratory Chemical analysis was conducted by SGS Laboratories, Alexandria, which is NATA accredited for the tests undertaken. The laboratories have quality assurance and quality control programs in place, which include internal replication and analysis of spike samples and recoveries. Method blanks, matrix duplicates and laboratory control samples were within acceptance criteria. The quality assurance and quality control report is presented together with the laboratory report as Appendix 3.

9.4 Data evaluation The laboratory quality control report indicates the data variability is within acceptable industry limits. The data is considered representative and usable for the purposes of the investigation. Data quality indicators are presented in Appendix 1.

10. Assessment criteria The proposed land-use is a residential subdivision. The laboratory results were assessed against the proposed land-use of residential with access to soil (HIL A). The health-based investigation levels of contaminants in the soil for residential sites, for the substances for which criteria are available, are listed in Table 3, as recommended in the NEPM (1999). Ecological investigation levels (EIL) have been developed for the protection of terrestrial ecosystems for selected metals and organic substances in the soil in the guideline (NEPC 1999). The EILs consider the properties of the soil and contaminants and the capacity of the local ecosystem to accommodate

Page 15


increases in contaminant levels. Typical CEC value for the site is >10-15cmol(+)/kg and pH values of between 6 and 7 (eSPADE 2019). The proposed land-use is residential (urban residential areas and open space). The contaminants have been identified in the soil for at least two years and are considered aged. Background concentrations of zinc, copper and nickel were established from an analysis of soil samples collected from the woodland area to the north of the site. The assessment was undertaken by Envirowest Consulting Pty Ltd in 2013 (report number R13208c). The area sampled had a historical land-use at the time of sampling as low intensity grazing of open woodland. Potential contaminant input is expected to be low. Levels of zinc, copper, nickel and lead are expected to be representative of natural ambient background concentrations (ABCs). EILs vary with land-use and apply to contaminants up to 2m depth below the surface. The EILs for residential land-use are listed in Table 2. The investigation threshold was adjusted to enable the detection of an individual location being diluted in the composting process (EPA 1995). For composite sampling, the analyte result was divided against the number of discrete samples making up the composite. This is based on a worst-case scenario in which one sample has a high concentration whilst other discrete samples have zero concentration. This is a conservative approach. Chromium is analysed as total chromium which is the sum of chromium (III) and chromium (VI). Chromium (VI) is a potential contaminant from industrial processes including ferrochrome production, electroplating, pigment production and tanning (WHO 1998) and is not expected to occur in agricultural sites. Chromium (VI) is reduced to chromium (III) when it comes into contact with organic matter in biota, soil and water. No threshold has been set for total chromium on agricultural sites as it is ubiquitous in the environment and is almost always present in the trivalent state (WHO 1998). Chromium (III) is poorly absorbed by any route therefore toxicity of chromium is mainly attributable to chromium (VI) (ATSDR 2013). Table 3. Soil assessment criteria metals and OCPs (mg/kg)

Analyte HIL A – Residential EIL – Urban residential and public open space

Discrete Samples Composite Samples Discrete Samples Composite Samples

Arsenic 100 25 100 25

Cadmium 20 5 - -

Chromium (total) -* -* -* -*

Copper 6,000 1,500 250 62.5

Lead 300 75 1,100 275

Nickel 400 100 258 64.5

Zinc 7,400 1,850 450 112.5

Mercury 40 10 - -

OCP -DD’s

- 240

- -

- 180

- -

* Not applicable due to low human toxicity of Cr(III) and non-industrial site, HIL- human investigation level, EIL- ecological investigation level.

Table 4. EIL Calculation sheet, residential land-use

Page 16


Analyte Rationale ACL (mg/kg) ABC (mg/kg) EIL (mg/kg)

Zinc CEC 15cmol/kg, pH 6.5 420 30 450 Copper CEC 15cmol/kg, pH 6.5 210 40 250 Nickel CEC 15cmol/kg, pH 6.5 240 18 258 Lead Generic 1,100 NA 1,100 Arsenic Aged 100 NA 100 DDT Aged 180 NA 180

ACL - added contaminant limit, ABC - ambient background concentration, EIL- Ecological investigation limit (ACL+ABC), NA- The EIL for arsenic and DDT is not dependent on background concentrations.

11. Results and discussion Surface cover on the site consisted of pasture grasses including rye grass and phalaris. Water tolerant juncus species were also present on site. Weeds included flatweed, plantain and thistle. Ornamental tree and shrub species were present in the western section of the site. Vegetation cover on-site was generally 100%. A review of historical imagery indicated that the predominant historical land-use at the site involved grazing agriculture. An inspection of the site identified a sheep dip on the eastern side of a shed located in the western section of the site. The soil sampling program detected levels of arsenic exceeding the health investigation levels in the area around the sheep dip. Samples WD5 and WM7-100 detected elevated levels of arsenic in the area to the south of the sheep dip. Sample WM5-100 detected elevated levels of arsenic adjacent the western side of the sheep dip. The elevated levels of contamination were identified at depths of less than 300mm. Levels of nickel and zinc in samples WD5 and WM1-300 were detected above the adopted EILs for residential land-use in the area to the south and east of the sheep dip at depths between 100 and 300mm (Table 6). The levels of all substances evaluated in the remaining samples were below the adopted thresholds for residential land-use with access to soil. The soil sampling program did not detect elevated levels of persistent pesticides. Table 6. Analytical results and threshold concentrations – Heavy metals and OCP (mg/kg)

Page 17


ND = not detected at the detection limit, * Not applicable due to low human toxicity of Cr(III) and non-industrial site. Results in bold exceed HIL, results in italics exceed EIL

12. Site characterisation

Sam

ple

ID

Dep

th

(mm

)

Sam

ple

ty

pe

Ars

enic

Cad

miu

m

Ch

rom

ium

(t

ota

l)

Co

pp

er

Lea

d

Nic

kel

Zin

c

Mer

cury

OC

P

(To

tal)

DD’s

WC1 100 Composite 5 ND 190 49 19 74 120 ND - -

WC2 100 Composite 4 ND 18 32 11 7.3 34 ND - -

WC3 100 Composite 5 ND 94 40 16 29 91 0.07 - -

WC4 100 Composite 6 ND 21 34 12 6.9 37 ND - -

WD11 100 Discrete - - - - - - - - ND ND

WD21 100 Discrete - - - - - - - - ND ND

WD31 100 Discrete 4 ND 28 50 14 37 50 0.06 ND ND

WD41 100 Discrete - - - - - - - - ND ND

WD1 100 Discrete - - - - - - - - ND 0.1

WD2 100 Discrete - - - - - - - - ND ND

WD3 100 Discrete - - - - - - - - ND ND

WD4 100 Discrete - - - - - - - - ND ND

WD5 100 Discrete 190 3.5 300 69 170 110 980 ND - -

WM1-100 100 Discrete 13 0.3 170 56 100 78 270 ND - -

WM1-300 300 Discrete 6 ND 600 71 5 270 29 ND - -

WM2-100 100 Discrete 68 1.4 180 65 66 80 310 ND - -

WM2-300 300 Discrete 34 0.6 420 76 20 160 110 ND - -

WM3-100 100 Discrete 14 0.6 150 200 92 56 290 ND - -

WM3-300 300 Discrete 4 ND 110 96 17 50 87 ND - -

WM4-100 100 Discrete 4 ND 150 51 50 62 72 ND - -

WM5-100 100 Discrete 160 2.9 360 66 20 130 240 ND - -

WM5-300 300 Discrete 86 1.9 290 67 34 110 380 ND - -

WM6-100 100 Discrete 53 5.5 290 65 66 110 280 ND - -

WM6-300 300 Discrete 6 ND 560 85 7 210 66 ND - -

WM7-100 100 Discrete 130 2.2 160 57 29 54 300 ND - -

WM7-300 300 Discrete 31 0.5 40 140 11 24 77 ND - -

WM8-100 100 Discrete 42 0.9 210 63 46 72 220 ND - -

WM8-300 300 Discrete 14 ND 96 95 13 48 87 ND - -

WMD11 100 Discrete - - - - - 30 290 - - -

WMD12 100 Discrete - - - - - 150 370 - - -

WMD13 100 Discrete - - - - - 67 160 - - -

WMD14 100 Discrete - - - - - 12 31 - - -

Health Investigation Levels - Residential land-use threshold (NEPC 1999)

Discrete 100 20 -* 6,000 300 400 7,400 40 - 240

Composite 25 5 -* 1,500 75 100 1,850 10 - -

Ecological Investigation Levels – Urban residential and public open space land-use threshold (NEPC 1999) Discrete 100 - -* 250 1,100 258 450 - - 180 Composite 25 - -* 62.5 275 64.5 112.5 - - -

Page 18


12.1 Environmental contamination Levels of arsenic in the samples collected from around the sheep dip exceeded the adopted health investigation level for residential land use. Levels of arsenic, nickel and zinc from samples around the sheep dip were above the adopted ecological investigation levels. 12.2 Chemical degradation production Heavy metals do not degrade in the soil. 12.3 Exposed population 12.3.1 Human health The proposed land-use of the site is residential and human receptors to the investigation area are likely. Proposed users of the site may have a risk of exposure if contaminants are present and the soil is disturbed. 12.3.2 Environmental Vegetation at the sampling location did not appear adversely impacted by arsenic, nickel or zinc. No localised impacts on vegetation are expected. The area is well vegetated and movement in sediments is unlikely. Mobilisation of the metals will only occur by soil disturbance. Soil disturbance during site development is expected to be managed by sediment and erosion control plans.

13. Conclusions and recommendations 13.1 Summary The historical land-use at the site was primarily grazing agriculture. A shed and concrete sheep dip are located in the western section of the site. The soil sampling program detected levels of arsenic exceeding the health investigation levels in the area around the sheep dip. The elevated levels of contamination were identified at depths of less than 300mm. Levels of nickel and zinc were detected above the adopted EILs for residential land-use in two samples collected from around the sheep dip depths between 100 and 300mm. Pathways for exposure to contaminants by potential receptors were found to be incomplete and the levels are not expected to impact on the environment. The levels of all substances evaluated in the remaining samples were below the adopted thresholds for residential land-use with access to soil. The soil sampling program did not detect elevated levels of persistent pesticides. 13.2 Assumptions in reaching the conclusions It is assumed the sampling sites are representative of the site. An accurate history has been obtained and typical past farming practices were adopted. 13.3 Extent of uncertainties The analytical data relate only to the locations sampled. Soil conditions can vary both laterally and vertically and it cannot be excluded that unidentified contaminants may be present. The sampling density was designed to detect a ‘hot spot’ in the proposed residential lots within a radius of approximately 12 metres and with a 95% level of confidence. Identified hot spots were assessed separately.

Page 19


13.4 Suitability for proposed use of the site The site is expected to be suitable for residential land-use following remediation and validation works. 13.5 Limitations and constraints on the use of the site The site is not currently suitable for residential land-use. 13.6 Recommendation for further work Remediation of the arsenic impacted soil around the sheep dip is required to enable suitability of the site

for the proposed land-use. The works should be undertaken in accordance with a remediation action

plan.

A validation report should be prepared to confirm the effectiveness of the clean-up of the arsenic impacted

soil.

Page 20


14. Report limitations and intellectual property This report has been prepared for the use of the client to achieve the objectives given the clients requirements. The level of confidence of the conclusion reached is governed by the scope of the investigation and the availability and quality of existing data. Where limitations or uncertainties are known, they are identified in the report. No liability can be accepted for failure to identify conditions or issues which arise in the future and which could not reasonably have been predicted using the scope of the investigation and the information obtained. The investigation identifies the actual subsurface conditions only at those points where samples are taken, when they are taken. Data derived through sampling and subsequent laboratory testing is interpreted by geologists, engineers or scientists who then render an opinion about overall subsurface conditions, the nature and extent of the contamination, its likely impact on the proposed development and appropriate remediation measures. Actual conditions may differ from those inferred to exist, because no professional, no matter how well qualified, and no sub-surface exploration program, no matter how comprehensive, can reveal what is hidden by earth, rock or time. The actual interface between materials may be far more gradual or abrupt than a report indicates. Actual conditions in areas not sampled may differ from predictions. It is thus important to understand the limitations of the investigation and recognise that we are not responsible for these limitations. This report, including data contained and its findings and conclusions, remains the intellectual property of Envirowest Consulting Pty Ltd. A licence to use the report for the specific purpose identified is granted for the persons identified in that section after full payment for the services involved in preparation of the report. This report should not be used by persons or for purposes other than those stated and should not be reproduced without the permission of Envirowest Consulting Pty Ltd.

Page 21


15. References Central Mapping Authority of NSW (1988) Orange 8731-4-S 1:25000 Topographic map 1st edition. (Department of lands) EPA (2017) Contaminated Sites: Guidelines for the NSW Site Auditors Scheme (Environmental Protection Authority, NSW.) Environment.nsw.gov.au, 'eSPADE | NSW Environment & Heritage' Version 2. N.p., 2019. Web. 15 October 2019. Environment Protection Authority (1995) Contaminated sites: Sampling Design Guidelines (NSW Environment Protection Authority, Chatswood) NEPC (1999 revised 2013) National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999 (National Environment Protection Council Service Corporation, Adelaide)

Figures

Figure 1. Site locality


Envirowest Consulting Pty Ltd

Job: R11554c Drawn by: JP Date: 17/12/2019

Approximate investigation area

Legend Sampling location Shed Lot boundary Proposed subdivision

Figure 2. Sampling locations




WD1

WD2

WD3

WD4

11 12

13 14 21 22

23

24

31

32

33

34

41

42

43

44

Proposed access road

Approximate Scale 1: 600

0 6 12 24m

WD5

Not assessed

Page 31


WM1

WM2

WM3

WM4 WM5

WM6

WM7

WM8

Figure 3. Sheep dip sampling locations and exceedances




Legend

Sampling location and depth Shed Sheep dip

Approximate Scale 1: 200

0 2 4 8m

WD5

100mm Arsenic 160mg/kg

100mm Arsenic 130mg/kg

100mm Arsenic 190mg/kg Zinc 980mg/kg

300mm Nickel 270mg/kg

Page 31


Figure 3. Photographs of the site

The suspected sheep dip identified adjacent the garden shed

Looking south over the garden shed

Looking east over the subdivision area from the house

The interior of the garden shed

Looking north over the eastern section Looking west over the site

Page 31


Appendices

Page 31


Appendix 1. 1964 Aerial photograph




Approximate site boundary

Page 31




















Appendix 5. Sample analysis, quality assurance and quality control (QAQC) report

1. Data quality indicators (DQI) requirements 1.1 Completeness A measure of the amount of usable data for a data collection activity. Greater than 95% of the data must be reliable based on the quality objectives. Where greater than two quality objectives have less reliability than the acceptance criterion the data may be considered with uncertainty. 1.1.1 Field

Consideration Requirement

Locations and depths to be sampled Described in the sampling plan. The acceptance criterion is 95% data retrieved compared with proposed. Acceptance criterion is 100% in crucial areas.

SOP appropriate and compiled Described in the sampling plan. Experienced sampler Sampler or supervisor Documentation correct Sampling log and chain of custody completed

1.1.2 Laboratory


Samples analysed Number according to sampling and quality plan Analytes Number according to sampling and quality plan Methods EPA or other recognised methods with suitable PQL Sample documentation Complete including chain of custody and sample description Sample holding times Metals 6 months, OCP 14 days

1.2 Comparability The confidence that data may be considered to be equivalent for each sampling and analytical event. The data must show little or no inconsistencies with results and field observations. 1.2.1 Field


SOP Same sampling procedures to be used Experienced sampler Sampler or supervisor Climatic conditions Described as may influence results Samples collected Sample medium, size, preparation, storage, transport

1.2.2 Laboratory


Analytical methods Same methods, approved methods PQL Same Same laboratory Justify if different Same units Justify if different

1.3 Representativeness The confidence (expressed qualitatively) that data are representative of each media present on the site. 1.3.1 Field


Appropriate media sampled Sampled according to sampling and quality plan or in accordance with the EPA (1995) sampling guidelines.

All media identified Sampling media identified in the sampling and quality plan. Where surface water bodies on the site sampled.


1.3.2 Laboratory Consideration Requirement

Samples analysed

Blanks

1.4 Precision A quantitative measure of the variability (or reproduced of the data). Is measured by standard deviation or relative percent difference (RPD). An RPD analysis is calculated and compared to the practical quantitation limit (PQL) or absolute difference AD.

• Levels greater than 10 times the PQL the RPD is 50% • Levels between 5 and 10 times the PQL the RPD is 75% • Levels between 2 and 5 times the PQL the RPD is 100% • Levels less than 2 times the PQL, the AD is less than 2.5 times the PQL

Data not conforming to the acceptance criterion will be examined for determination of suitability for the purpose of site characterisation. 1.4.1 Field

Consideration Requirement Field duplicates Frequency of 5%, results to be within RPD or discussion required

indicate the appropriateness of SOP

1.4.2 Laboratory


Laboratory and inter lab duplicates Frequency of 5%, results to be within RPD or discussion required. Inter laboratory duplicates will be one sample per batch.

Field duplicates Frequency of 5%, results to be within RPD or discussion required Laboratory prepared volatile trip spikes One per sampling batch, results to be within RPD or discussion

required

1.5 Accuracy A quantitative measure of the closeness of the reported data to the true value. 1.5.1 Field


SOP Complied

Inter laboratory duplicates Frequency of 5%. Analysis criterion 60% RPD for levels greater than 10 times the PQL 85% RPD for levels between 5 to 10 times the PQL 100% RPD at levels between 2 to 5 times the PQL Absolute difference, 3.5 times the PQL where levels are, 2 times PQL

1.5.2 Laboratory Recovery data (surrogates, laboratory control samples and matrix spikes) data subject to the following control limits:

• 60-140% acceptable data • 20-60% discussion required, may be considered acceptable • 10-20% data should considered as estimates • 10% data should be rejected



Field blanks Frequency of 5%, <5 times the PQL, PQL may be adjusted Rinsate blanks Frequency of 5%, <5 times the PQL, PQL may be adjusted Method blanks Frequency of 5%, <5 times the PQL, PQL may be adjusted Matrix spikes Frequency of 5%, results to be within +/-40% or discussion required Matrix duplicates Sample injected with a known concentration of contaminants with tested.

Frequency of 5%, results to be within +/-40% or discussion required Surrogate spikes QC monitoring spikes to be added to samples at the extraction process in the

laboratory where applicable. Surrogates are closely related to the organic target analyte and not normally found in the natural environment. Frequency of 5%, results to be within +/-40% or discussion required

Laboratory control samples Externally prepared reference material containing representative analytes under investigation. These will be undertaken at one per batch. It is to be within +/-40% or discussion required

Laboratory prepared spikes Frequency of 5%, results to be within +/-40% or discussion required

2. Laboratory analysis summary Four analysis batches were undertaken over the preliminary investigation program. Samples were collected on 16 December 2019, 21 January 2020, 31 January 2020 and 11 February 2020. A total of 32 samples were submitted for analytical testing. The samples were collected in the field by an environmental scientist from Envirowest Consulting Pty Ltd, placed into laboratory prepared receptacles as recommended in NEPC (1999). The samples preservation and storage was undertaken using standard industry practices (NEPC 1999). A chain of custody form accompanied transport of the samples to the laboratory. The samples were analysed at the laboratories of SGS, Alexandria, NSW which is National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA) accredited for the tests undertaken. The analyses undertaken, number of samples tested and methods are presented in the following tables: Laboratory analysis schedule

Sample id. Number of samples

Duplicate Analyses Date collected

Substrate Laboratory report

WD1, WD2, WD3, WD4, WD11, WD21, WD41

7 1 OCP 16/12/2019 Soil SE 201341

WD31 1 0 OCP, As, Cd, Cr (total), Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn, Hg

16/12/2019 Soil SE 201341

WC1, WC2, WC3, WC4 4 0 As, Cd, Cr (total), Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn, Hg

16/12/2019 Soil SE 201341

WD5 1 0 As, Cd, Cr (total), Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn, Hg

21/01/2020 Soil SE201780

WM1-100, WM1-300, WM2-100, WM2-300, WM3-100, WM3-300, WM4-100, WM5-100, WM5-300, WM6-100, WM6-300, WM7-100, WM7-300, WM8-100, WM8-300

15 1 As, Cd, Cr (total), Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn, Hg

30/01/2020 Soil SE202406 SE202407

WMD11, WMD12, WMD13, WMD14

4 0 Ni, Zn 11/02/2020 Soil SE202757


Analytical methods

Analyte Extraction Laboratory methods

Metals USEPA 200.2 Mod APHA USEPA SW846-6010

Chromium (III) - APHA 3500 CR-A&B & 3120 and USEPA SW846-3060A

Chromium (VI) USEPA SW846-3060A USEPA SW846-3060A

Mercury USEPA 200.2 Mod APHA 3112

TPH(C6-C9) USPEA SW846-5030A USPEA SW 846-8260B

TPH(C10-C36), PAH Tumbler extraction of solids USEPA SW 846-8270B

PCB Tumbler extraction of solids USEPA SW 846-8270B

OC Pesticides Tumbler extraction of solids USEPA SW 846-8270B

3. Field quality assurance and quality control

One intra laboratory duplicate sample was collected for the investigation. The frequency was 14% which is higher than the recommended frequency. Table A1 outlines the samples collected and differences in replicate analyses. Relative differences were deemed to pass if they were within the acceptance limits of +/- 40% for replicate analyses or less than 5 times the detection limit. Field duplicate frequency

Sample id. Number of samples

Duplicate Frequency (%) Date collected Substrate Laboratory report

WD1, WD2, WD3, WD4, WD5, WD11, WD21, WD41, WD31, WC1, WC2, WC3, WC4, WM1-100, WM1-300, WM2-100, WM2-300, WM3-100, WM3-300, WM4-100, WM5-100, WM5-300, WM6-100, WM6-300, WM7-100, WM7-300, WM8-100, WM8-300, WMD11, WMD12, WMD13, WMD14

32 2 6 16/12/2019, 21/01/2020, 30/01/2020, 11/02/2020

Soil SE201341 SE201780 SE202406 SE202407 SE202757

Table A1. Relative differences for intra laboratory duplicates

WD11, WA WM6-100, WA

Relative difference (%)

Pass/Fail Relative difference

(%) Pass/Fail

Arsenic - - 28 Pass

Cadmium - - 149 Fail*

Chromium - - 27 Pass

Copper - - 16 Pass

Lead - - 34 Pass

Nickel - - 31 Pass

Zinc - - 24 Pass

OCP (total) - NA - -

DD’s - NA - -


NA – relative difference unable to be calculated as results are less than laboratory detection limit, * result less than 10 times the adopted threshold not expected to affect results.

No trip blanks or spikes were submitted for analysis. This is not considered to create significant uncertainty in the analysis results because of the following rationale:

• The fieldwork was completed within a short time period and consistent methods were used for soil sampling.

• Soil samples were placed in insulated cooled containers after sampling to ensure preservation during transport and storage.

• The samples were placed in single use jars using clean sampling tools and disposable gloves from material not in contact with other samples. This reduces the likelihood of cross contamination.

• Samples in the analysis batch contain analytes below the level of detection. It is considered unlikely that contamination has occurred as a result of transport and handling.

• Target analytes not volatile

4. Laboratory quality assurance and quality control Sample holding times are recommended in NEPC (1999). The time between collection and extraction for all samples was less than the criteria listed below:

Analyte

Maximum holding time

Metals, cyanide 6 months OCP, TRH, BTEXN, PAH 14 days

The laboratory interpretative reports are presented with individual laboratory report. Assessment is made of holding time, frequency of control samples and quality control samples. No significant outliers exist for the sampling batches. The laboratory report also contains a detailed description of preparation methods and analytical methods. The results, quality report, interpretative report and chain of custody are presented in the attached appendices. The quality report contains the laboratory duplicates, spikes, laboratory control samples, blanks and where appropriate matrix spike recovery (surrogate).

5. Data quality indicators (DQI) analysis 5.1 Completeness A measure of the amount of usable data for a data collection activity (total to be greater than 95%). The data set was found to be complete based on the scope of work. No critical areas of contamination were omitted from the data set.


5.1.1 Field

Consideration Accepted Comment

Locations to be sampled Yes In accordance with sampling methodology, described in the report. Sampling locations described in figures.

Depth to be sampled Yes In accordance with sampling methodology SOP appropriate and compiled Yes In accordance with sampling methodology

Sampled with a stainless-steel push corer and hand spade into lab prepared containers, decontamination between samples, latex gloves worn by sampler

Experienced sampler Yes Same soil sampler, environmental scientist Documentation correct Yes Sampling log completed

Chain of custody completed

5.1.2 Laboratory


Samples analysed Yes All critical samples analysed in accordance with chain of custody and analysis plan

Analytes Yes All analytes in accordance with chain of custody and analysis plan Methods Yes Analysed in NATA accredited laboratory with recognised methods and

suitable PQL Sample documentation Yes Completed including chain of custody and sample results and quality

results report for each batch Sample holding times Yes Metals less than 6 months. OCP, PAH, BTEXN, TRH 14 days.

5.2 Comparability The confidence that data may be considered to be equivalent for each sampling and analytical event. The data sets were found to be acceptable. 5.2.1 Field


SOP Yes Same sampling procedures used and sampled on one date Experienced sampler Yes Experienced scientist Climatic conditions Yes Described in field sampling log Samples collected Yes Suitable size, storage and transport

5.2.2 Laboratory


Analytical methods Yes Same methods all samples, in accordance with NEPC (1999) or USEPA

PQL Yes Suitable for analytes Same laboratory Yes SGS is NATA accredited for the tests undertaken Same units Yes -

5.3 Representativeness The confidence (expressed qualitatively) that data are representative of each media present on the site. The data sets were found to be acceptable.


5.3.1 Field Consideration Accepted Comment

Appropriate media sampled Yes Sampled according to sampling and quality plan All media identified Yes Soil

Sampling media identified in the sampling and quality plan

5.3.2 Laboratory

Consideration Accepted Comment Samples analysed Yes Undertaken in NATA accredited laboratory. No blanks analysed.

Samples in the analysis batch contain analytes below the level of detection. It is considered unlikely that contamination has occurred as a result of transport and handling.

5.4 Precision A quantitative measure of the variability (or reproduced of the data). The data sets were found to be acceptable.

5.4.1 Field Consideration Accepted Comment

SOP Field duplicates

Yes Yes

Complied Collected

5.4.2 Laboratory Consideration Accepted Comment

Laboratory and inter lab duplicates

Yes Frequency of 5%, results to be within +/-40% or discussion required.

Field duplicates Yes Frequency of 5%, results to be within +/-40% or discussion required Laboratory prepared volatile trip spikes

NA Not collected due to the preliminary nature of the investigation

5.5 Accuracy A quantitative measure of the closeness of the reported data to the true value. The data sets were found to be acceptable. 5.5.1 Field


SOP Yes Complied Field blanks NA Frequency of 5%, <5 times the PQL, PQL may be

adjusted Rinsate blanks NA Frequency of 5%, <5 times the PQL, PQL may be

adjusted

5.5.2 Laboratory


Method blanks Yes Frequency of 5%, <5 times the PQL, PQL may be adjusted

Matrix spikes Yes Frequency of 5%, results to be within +/-40% or discussion required.

Matrix duplicates Yes Frequency of 5%, results to be within +/-40% or discussion required.

Surrogate spikes Yes Frequency of 5%, results to be within +/-40% or discussion required


Laboratory control samples Yes Frequency of 5%, results to be within +/-40% or discussion required

Laboratory prepared spikes Yes Frequency of 5%, results to be within +/-40% or discussion required

No trip blanks, field spikes or sample rinsates were submitted for analysis. This is not considered to create significant uncertainty in the analysis results because of the following rationale:

• The fieldwork methods used for soil sampling were consistent throughout the project with all in situ samples collected from material which had not been subject to exposure.

• The fieldwork was completed within a short time period and consistent methods were used for soil sampling.

• Soil samples were placed in insulated cooled containers as quickly as possible, with the containers filled to minimize headspace. The sample containers were sealed immediately after the sample was collected and chilled in an esky containing ice.

• The samples were stored in a refrigerator and transported with ice bricks to ensure preservation during transport and storage.

• The samples were placed in single use jars using clean sampling tools and disposable gloves from material not in contact with other samples. This reduces the likelihood of cross contamination.

• Samples in the analysis batches contained analytes below the level of detection. It is considered unlikely that contamination has occurred as a result of transport and handling.

• Target analytes not volatile

6. Conclusion All media appropriate to the objectives of this investigation have been adequately analysed and no area of significant uncertainty exist. It is concluded the data is usable for the purposes of the investigation.


Appendix 6. Planning Certificate Section 10.7


Appendix 7. Contamination bore log sheet

Bore Log Sheet Job:11554

Client: Central West Development Trust

Site: 7 William Maker Drive, Orange NSW

Borehole No: 1

Location: Eastern side of sheep dip

Sampling method: Hand Auger

Logged by: JP

Date:31/1/2020

Dep

th (

m)

Gra

phic

Log

SOIL DESCRIPTION

Soil type/rock, grain size, structure, colour, minor

components

Wel

l con

stru

ctio

n

Uni

fied

sym

bol

Sam

ples

COMMENTS

SANDY SILT, light brown

ML D SANDY CLAY, reddish brown CL D End of hole at investigation depth 0.5 1.0 Slope/nature of surface: 2% south

Ground water: No free water identified in soil profile

Remarks (fill, odour, root holes): Nil

Envirowest Consulting Pty Ltd, 9 Cameron Place, Orange NSW

Bore Log Sheet Job: 11554



Borehole No: 2

Location: Eastern side of sheep

dip, north of BH2


Logged by: JP

Date:31/1/2020

Dep

th (

m)

Gra

phic

Log

SOIL DESCRIPTION


components

Wel

l con

stru

ctio

n

Uni

fied

sym

bol

Sam

ples

COMMENTS


SM D SANDY CLAY, reddish brown CL D End of hole at investigation depth 0.5 1.0 Slope/nature of surface: 2% south








Borehole No: 3

Location: North west of sheep dip


Logged by: JP

Date:31/1/2020

Dep

th (

m)

Gra

phic

Log

SOIL DESCRIPTION


components

Wel

l con

stru

ctio

n

Uni

fied

sym

bol

Sam

ples

COMMENTS


ML D SANDY CLAY, yellowish brown CL D End of hole at investigation depth 0.5 1.0 Slope/nature of surface: 2% south







Borehole No: 4

Location: Inside shed


Logged by: JP

Date:31/1/2020

Dep

th (

m)

Gra

phic

Log

SOIL DESCRIPTION


components

Wel

l con

stru

ctio

n

Uni

fied

sym

bol

Sam

ples

COMMENTS

SANDY CLAY, light brown

CL D End of hole, refusal on rock 0.5 1.0 Slope/nature of surface: 2% south








Borehole No: 5

Location: Between sheep dip and

shed


Logged by: JP

Date:31/1/2020

Dep

th (

m)

Gra

phic

Log

SOIL DESCRIPTION


components

Wel

l con

stru

ctio

n

Uni

fied

sym

bol

Sam

ples

COMMENTS


ML D CLAYEY SAND, light brown SC D End of hole at investigation depth 0.5 1.0 Slope/nature of surface: 2% south







Borehole No: 6

Location: South east of sheep dip


Logged by: JP

Date:31/1/2020

Dep

th (

m)

Gra

phic

Log

SOIL DESCRIPTION


components

Wel

l con

stru

ctio

n

Uni

fied

sym

bol

Sam

ples

COMMENTS


ML D SANDY CLAY, yellowish brown CL D End of hole at investigation depth 0.5 1.0 Slope/nature of surface: 2% south








Borehole No: 7

Location: South west of sheep dip


Logged by: JP

Date:31/1/2020

Dep

th (

m)

Gra

phic

Log

SOIL DESCRIPTION


components

Wel

l con

stru

ctio

n

Uni

fied

sym

bol

Sam

ples

COMMENTS


ML D SILTY CLAY, yellowish brown CI D End of hole at investigation depth 0.5 1.0 Slope/nature of surface: 2% south






Site: 7 William Maker Drive

Borehole No: 8

Location: South of BH7


Logged by: JP

Date:31/1/2020

Dep

th (

m)

Gra

phic

Log

SOIL DESCRIPTION


components

Wel

l con

stru

ctio

n

Uni

fied

sym

bol

Sam

ples

COMMENTS


ML D SILTY CLAY, light brown CI D End of hole at investigation depth 0.5 1.0 Slope/nature of surface: 2% south





Appendix 8. Field sampling log Sampling log

Client Central West Development Trust

Contact Barney Hayes

Job number 11554

Location 7 William Maker Drive Orange NSW

Date 16 December 2019

Investigator Leah Desborough, Joseph Pearce

Weather conditions Fine, sunny

Sample ID Matrix Date Analysis required Observations/comments

WC1 Soil 16/12/2019 Arsenic (As), cadmium (Ca), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), lead (Pb), nickel (Ni), zinc (Zn), Mercury (Hg)

Composite 11,12, 13,14

WC2 Soil 16/12/2019 As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn, Hg Composite 21, 22, 23, 24



WD1 Soil 16/12/2019 Organochlorine pesticide (OCP) Discrete shed area sample

WD2 Soil 16/12/2019 OCP Discrete shed area sample



WD11 Soil 16/12/2019 OCP Discrete 11 WD21 Soil 16/12/2019 OCP Discrete 21

WD31 Soil 16/12/2019 OCP, As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn, Hg Discrete 31- Dam sample

WD41 Soil 16/12/2019 OCP Discrete 41

WA Soil 16/12/2019 OCP Duplicate of WD11

Sampling log



Job number 11554


Date 21 January 2020




WD5 Soil 21/01/2020 As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn, Hg Sheep dip sample


Sampling log Client Central West Development Trust


Job number 11554


Date 31 January 2020




WM1-100 Soil 31/01/2020 As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn, Hg Sheep dip sample






WM4-100 Soil 31/01/2020 As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn, Hg Sheep dip sample WM5-100 Soil 31/01/2020 As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn, Hg Sheep dip sample








WA-100 Soil 31/01/2020 As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn, Hg Duplicate of WM6-100

Sampling log



Job number 11554


Date 11 February 2020




WMD11 Soil 11/02/2020 As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn, Hg Discrete 11 WMD12 Soil 11/02/2020 As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn, Hg Discrete 12

WMD13 Soil 11/02/2020 As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn, Hg Discrete 13

WMD14 Soil 11/02/2020 As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn, Hg Discrete 14


Appendix 9. Soil analysis results – SGS report number SE201341, SE201780, SE202406, SE202407, SE202757 and chain of custody forms

Accreditation No. 2562

Date Reported

Contact

SGS Alexandria Environmental

Unit 16, 33 Maddox St

Alexandria NSW 2015

Huong Crawford

+61 2 8594 0400

+61 2 8594 0499

[email protected]

13

SGS Reference

Email

Facsimile

Telephone

Address

Manager

Laboratory

11554

11554

[email protected]

(Not specified)

61 2 63614954

PO BOX 8158

ORANGE NSW 2800

ENVIROWEST CONSULTING PTY LIMITED

Joe Pearce

Samples

Order Number

Project

Email

Facsimile

Telephone

Address

Client

CLIENT DETAILS LABORATORY DETAILS

27/12/2019

ANALYTICAL REPORT

SE201341 R0

Date Received 18/12/2019

COMMENTS

Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 - Testing. NATA accredited laboratory 2562(4354).

Dong LIANG

Metals/Inorganics Team Leader

Ly Kim HA

Organic Section Head

SIGNATORIES

Member of the SGS Group

www.sgs.com.aut +61 2 8594 0400

f +61 2 8594 0499

Australia

Australia

Alexandria NSW 2015

Alexandria NSW 2015

Unit 16 33 Maddox St

PO Box 6432 Bourke Rd BC

Environment, Health and SafetySGS Australia Pty Ltd

ABN 44 000 964 278

Page 1 of 727/12/2019

SE201341 R0ANALYTICAL RESULTS

OC Pesticides in Soil [AN420] Tested: 20/12/2019

WD1 WD2 WD3 WD4 WD11

SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL

- - - - -

16/12/2019 16/12/2019 16/12/2019 16/12/2019 16/12/2019

SE201341.005 SE201341.006 SE201341.007 SE201341.008 SE201341.009

Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Alpha BHC mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Lindane mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Heptachlor mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Aldrin mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Beta BHC mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Delta BHC mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Heptachlor epoxide mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

o,p'-DDE mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Alpha Endosulfan mg/kg 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Gamma Chlordane mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Alpha Chlordane mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

trans-Nonachlor mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

p,p'-DDE mg/kg 0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Dieldrin mg/kg 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Endrin mg/kg 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

o,p'-DDD mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

o,p'-DDT mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Beta Endosulfan mg/kg 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

p,p'-DDD mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

p,p'-DDT mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Endosulfan sulphate mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Endrin Aldehyde mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Methoxychlor mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Endrin Ketone mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Isodrin mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Mirex mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Total CLP OC Pesticides mg/kg 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

UOMPARAMETER LOR

Page 2 of 727/12/2019


OC Pesticides in Soil [AN420] Tested: 20/12/2019 (continued)

PARAMETER UOM LOR

WD21 WD31 WD41 WA

SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL

- - - -

16/12/2019 16/12/2019 16/12/2019 16/12/2019

SE201341.010 SE201341.011 SE201341.012 SE201341.013

Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Alpha BHC mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Lindane mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Heptachlor mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Aldrin mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Beta BHC mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Delta BHC mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Heptachlor epoxide mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

o,p'-DDE mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Alpha Endosulfan mg/kg 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Gamma Chlordane mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Alpha Chlordane mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

trans-Nonachlor mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

p,p'-DDE mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Dieldrin mg/kg 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Endrin mg/kg 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

o,p'-DDD mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

o,p'-DDT mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Beta Endosulfan mg/kg 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

p,p'-DDD mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

p,p'-DDT mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Endosulfan sulphate mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Endrin Aldehyde mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Methoxychlor mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Endrin Ketone mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Isodrin mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Mirex mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Total CLP OC Pesticides mg/kg 1 <1 <1 <1 <1

UOMPARAMETER LOR

Page 3 of 727/12/2019


Total Recoverable Elements in Soil/Waste Solids/Materials by ICPOES [AN040/AN320] Tested: 20/12/2019

WC1 WC2 WC3 WC4 WD31


- - - - -

16/12/2019 16/12/2019 16/12/2019 16/12/2019 16/12/2019

SE201341.001 SE201341.002 SE201341.003 SE201341.004 SE201341.011

Arsenic, As mg/kg 1 5 4 5 6 4

Cadmium, Cd mg/kg 0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3

Chromium, Cr mg/kg 0.5 190 18 94 21 28

Copper, Cu mg/kg 0.5 49 32 40 34 50

Lead, Pb mg/kg 1 19 11 16 12 14

Nickel, Ni mg/kg 0.5 74 7.3 29 6.9 13

Zinc, Zn mg/kg 2 120 34 91 37 50

UOMPARAMETER LOR

Page 4 of 727/12/2019


Mercury in Soil [AN312] Tested: 20/12/2019

WC1 WC2 WC3 WC4 WD31


- - - - -

16/12/2019 16/12/2019 16/12/2019 16/12/2019 16/12/2019

SE201341.001 SE201341.002 SE201341.003 SE201341.004 SE201341.011

Mercury mg/kg 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.07 <0.05 0.06

UOMPARAMETER LOR

Page 5 of 727/12/2019


Moisture Content [AN002] Tested: 20/12/2019

WC1 WC2 WC3 WC4 WD1


- - - - -

16/12/2019 16/12/2019 16/12/2019 16/12/2019 16/12/2019

SE201341.001 SE201341.002 SE201341.003 SE201341.004 SE201341.005

% Moisture %w/w 1 7.1 8.5 12.8 6.8 6.1

UOMPARAMETER LOR

WD2 WD3 WD4 WD11 WD21


- - - - -

16/12/2019 16/12/2019 16/12/2019 16/12/2019 16/12/2019

SE201341.006 SE201341.007 SE201341.008 SE201341.009 SE201341.010

% Moisture %w/w 1 10.2 6.4 4.7 7.4 13.5

UOMPARAMETER LOR

WD31 WD41 WA

SOIL SOIL SOIL

- - -

16/12/2019 16/12/2019 16/12/2019

SE201341.011 SE201341.012 SE201341.013

% Moisture %w/w 1 21.2 3.5 8.5

UOMPARAMETER LOR

Page 6 of 727/12/2019

SE201341 R0METHOD SUMMARY

METHOD METHODOLOGY SUMMARY

The test is carried out by drying (at either 40°C or 105°C) a known mass of sample in a weighed evaporating

basin. After fully dry the sample is re-weighed. Samples such as sludge and sediment having high percentages of

moisture will take some time in a drying oven for complete removal of water.

AN002

A portion of sample is digested with nitric acid to decompose organic matter and hydrochloric acid to complete the

digestion of metals. The digest is then analysed by ICP OES with metals results reported on the dried sample

basis. Based on USEPA method 200.8 and 6010C.

AN040/AN320

A portion of sample is digested with Nitric acid to decompose organic matter and Hydrochloric acid to complete the

digestion of metals and then filtered for analysis by ASS or ICP as per USEPA Method 200.8.

AN040

Mercury by Cold Vapour AAS in Soils: After digestion with nitric acid, hydrogen peroxide and hydrochloric acid ,

mercury ions are reduced by stannous chloride reagent in acidic solution to elemental mercury. This mercury

vapour is purged by nitrogen into a cold cell in an atomic absorption spectrometer or mercury analyser .

Quantification is made by comparing absorbances to those of the calibration standards. Reference APHA

3112/3500

AN312

SVOC Compounds: Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs) including OC, OP, PCB, Herbicides, PAH,

Phthalates and Speciated Phenols in soils, sediments and waters are determined by GCMS /ECD technique

following appropriate solvent extraction process (Based on USEPA 3500C and 8270D).

AN420

FOOTNOTES

*

**

NATA accreditation does not cover

the performance of this service.

Indicative data, theoretical holding

time exceeded.

-

NVL

IS

LNR

Not analysed.

Not validated.

Insufficient sample for analysis.

Sample listed, but not received.

Unless it is reported that sampling has been performed by SGS, the samples have been analysed as received.

Solid samples expressed on a dry weight basis.

Where "Total" analyte groups are reported (for example, Total PAHs, Total OC Pesticides) the total will be calculated as the sum of the individual

analytes, with those analytes that are reported as <LOR being assumed to be zero. The summed (Total) limit of reporting is calculated by summing

the individual analyte LORs and dividing by two. For example, where 16 individual analytes are being summed and each has an LOR of 0.1 mg/kg,

the "Totals" LOR will be 1.6 / 2 (0.8 mg/kg). Where only 2 analytes are being summed, the " Total" LOR will be the sum of those two LORs.

Some totals may not appear to add up because the total is rounded after adding up the raw values.

If reported, measurement uncertainty follow the ± sign after the analytical result and is expressed as the expanded uncertainty calculated using a

coverage factor of 2, providing a level of confidence of approximately 95%, unless stated otherwise in the comments section of this report.

Results reported for samples tested under test methods with codes starting with ARS -SOP, radionuclide or gross radioactivity concentrations are

expressed in becquerel (Bq) per unit of mass or volume or per wipe as stated on the report. Becquerel is the SI unit for activity and equals one

nuclear transformation per second.

Note that in terms of units of radioactivity:

a. 1 Bq is equivalent to 27 pCi

b. 37 MBq is equivalent to 1 mCi

For results reported for samples tested under test methods with codes starting with ARS -SOP, less than (<) values indicate the detection limit for

each radionuclide or parameter for the measurement system used. The respective detection limits have been calculated in accordance with ISO

11929.

The QC and MU criteria are subject to internal review according to the SGS QAQC plan and may be provided on request or alternatively can be

found here: www.sgs.com.au.pv.sgsvr/en-gb/environment.

This document is issued by the Company under its General Conditions of Service accessible at www.sgs.com/en/Terms-and-Conditions.aspx.

Attention is drawn to the limitation of liability, indemnification and jurisdiction issues defined therein.

Any holder of this document is advised that information contained hereon reflects the Company 's findings at the time of its intervention only and

within the limits of Client's instructions, if any. The Company's sole responsibility is to its Client only. Any unauthorized alteration, forgery or

falsification of the content or appearance of this document is unlawful and offenders may be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law .

This report must not be reproduced, except in full.

UOM

LOR

↑↓

Unit of Measure.

Limit of Reporting.

Raised/lowered Limit of

Reporting.

Page 7 of 727/12/2019


Date Reported

Contact



Alexandria NSW 2015

Huong Crawford

+61 2 8594 0400

+61 2 8594 0499

[email protected]

1

SGS Reference

Email

Facsimile

Telephone

Address

Manager

Laboratory

11554-1

11554-1

[email protected]

(Not specified)

61 2 63614954

PO BOX 8158

ORANGE NSW 2800


Joe Pearce

Samples

Order Number

Project

Email

Facsimile

Telephone

Address

Client


21/1/2020

ANALYTICAL REPORT

SE201780 R0


COMMENTS


Dong LIANG


Ly Kim HA

Organic Section Head

SIGNATORIES


www.sgs.com.aut +61 2 8594 0400

f +61 2 8594 0499

Australia

Australia

Alexandria NSW 2015

Alexandria NSW 2015




ABN 44 000 964 278

Page 1 of 621/01/2020


OC Pesticides in Soil [AN420] Tested: 15/1/2020

WD5

SOIL

-

9/1/2020

SE201780.001

Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) mg/kg 0.1 <0.1

Alpha BHC mg/kg 0.1 <0.1

Lindane mg/kg 0.1 <0.1

Heptachlor mg/kg 0.1 <0.1

Aldrin mg/kg 0.1 <0.1

Beta BHC mg/kg 0.1 <0.1

Delta BHC mg/kg 0.1 <0.1

Heptachlor epoxide mg/kg 0.1 <0.1

o,p'-DDE mg/kg 0.1 <0.1

Alpha Endosulfan mg/kg 0.2 <0.2

Gamma Chlordane mg/kg 0.1 <0.1

Alpha Chlordane mg/kg 0.1 <0.1

trans-Nonachlor mg/kg 0.1 <0.1

p,p'-DDE mg/kg 0.1 <0.1

Dieldrin mg/kg 0.2 <0.2

Endrin mg/kg 0.2 <0.2

o,p'-DDD mg/kg 0.1 <0.1

o,p'-DDT mg/kg 0.1 <0.1

Beta Endosulfan mg/kg 0.2 <0.2

p,p'-DDD mg/kg 0.1 <0.1

p,p'-DDT mg/kg 0.1 <0.1

Endosulfan sulphate mg/kg 0.1 <0.1

Endrin Aldehyde mg/kg 0.1 <0.1

Methoxychlor mg/kg 0.1 <0.1

Endrin Ketone mg/kg 0.1 <0.1

Isodrin mg/kg 0.1 <0.1

Mirex mg/kg 0.1 <0.1

Total CLP OC Pesticides mg/kg 1 <1

UOMPARAMETER LOR

Page 2 of 621/01/2020



WD5

SOIL

-

9/1/2020

SE201780.001

Arsenic, As mg/kg 1 190

Cadmium, Cd mg/kg 0.3 3.5

Chromium, Cr mg/kg 0.5 300

Copper, Cu mg/kg 0.5 69

Lead, Pb mg/kg 1 170

Nickel, Ni mg/kg 0.5 110

Zinc, Zn mg/kg 2 980

UOMPARAMETER LOR

Page 3 of 621/01/2020



WD5

SOIL

-

9/1/2020

SE201780.001

Mercury mg/kg 0.05 <0.05

UOMPARAMETER LOR

Page 4 of 621/01/2020



WD5

SOIL

-

9/1/2020

SE201780.001

% Moisture %w/w 1 8.8

UOMPARAMETER LOR

Page 5 of 621/01/2020






AN002




AN040/AN320



AN040





3112/3500

AN312

SVOC Compounds: Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs) including OC, OP, PCB, Herbicides, PAH,

Phthalates and Speciated Phenols in soils, sediments and waters are determined by GCMS /ECD technique

following appropriate solvent extraction process (Based on USEPA 3500C and 8270D).

AN420

FOOTNOTES

*

**




time exceeded.

-

NVL

IS

LNR

Not analysed.

Not validated.




















11929.


found here: www.sgs.com.au.pv.sgsvr/en-gb/environment.







UOM

LOR

↑↓

Unit of Measure.

Limit of Reporting.


Reporting.

Page 6 of 621/01/2020


Date Reported

Contact



Alexandria NSW 2015

Huong Crawford

+61 2 8594 0400

+61 2 8594 0499

[email protected]

2

SGS Reference

Email

Facsimile

Telephone

Address

Manager

Laboratory

11554-2

11554-2

[email protected]

(Not specified)

61 2 63614954

PO BOX 8158

ORANGE NSW 2800


Joe Pearce

Samples

Order Number

Project

Email

Facsimile

Telephone

Address

Client


6/2/2020

ANALYTICAL REPORT

SE202406 R0


COMMENTS


Dong LIANG


Kamrul AHSAN

Senior Chemist

SIGNATORIES


www.sgs.com.aut +61 2 8594 0400

f +61 2 8594 0499

Australia

Australia

Alexandria NSW 2015

Alexandria NSW 2015




ABN 44 000 964 278

Page 1 of 56/02/2020



WM8-300 WA

SOIL SOIL

- -

31/1/2020 31/1/2020

SE202406.001 SE202406.002

Arsenic, As mg/kg 1 14 40

Cadmium, Cd mg/kg 0.3 <0.3 0.8

Chromium, Cr mg/kg 0.5 96 380

Copper, Cu mg/kg 0.5 95 76

Lead, Pb mg/kg 1 13 47

Nickel, Ni mg/kg 0.5 48 150

Zinc, Zn mg/kg 2 87 220

UOMPARAMETER LOR

Page 2 of 56/02/2020



WM8-300 WA

SOIL SOIL

- -

31/1/2020 31/1/2020

SE202406.001 SE202406.002

Mercury mg/kg 0.05 <0.05 <0.05

UOMPARAMETER LOR

Page 3 of 56/02/2020



WM8-300 WA

SOIL SOIL

- -

31/1/2020 31/1/2020

SE202406.001 SE202406.002

% Moisture %w/w 1 13.9 14.4

UOMPARAMETER LOR

Page 4 of 56/02/2020






AN002




AN040/AN320



AN040





3112/3500

AN312

FOOTNOTES

*

**




time exceeded.

-

NVL

IS

LNR

Not analysed.

Not validated.




















11929.


found here: www.sgs.com.au/en-gb/environment-health-and-safety .







UOM

LOR

↑↓

Unit of Measure.

Limit of Reporting.


Reporting.

Page 5 of 56/02/2020


Date Reported

Contact



Alexandria NSW 2015

Huong Crawford

+61 2 8594 0400

+61 2 8594 0499

[email protected]

14

SGS Reference

Email

Facsimile

Telephone

Address

Manager

Laboratory

11554-2

11554-2

[email protected]

(Not specified)

61 2 63614954

PO BOX 8158

ORANGE NSW 2800


Joe Pearce

Samples

Order Number

Project

Email

Facsimile

Telephone

Address

Client


6/2/2020

ANALYTICAL REPORT

SE202407 R0


COMMENTS


Dong LIANG


Kamrul AHSAN

Senior Chemist

SIGNATORIES


www.sgs.com.aut +61 2 8594 0400

f +61 2 8594 0499

Australia

Australia

Alexandria NSW 2015

Alexandria NSW 2015




ABN 44 000 964 278

Page 1 of 56/02/2020



WM1-100 WM1-300 WM2-100 WM2-300 WM3-100


- - - - -

31/1/2020 31/1/2020 31/1/2020 31/1/2020 31/1/2020

SE202407.001 SE202407.002 SE202407.003 SE202407.004 SE202407.005

Arsenic, As mg/kg 1 13 6 68 34 14

Cadmium, Cd mg/kg 0.3 0.3 <0.3 1.4 0.6 0.6

Chromium, Cr mg/kg 0.5 170 600 180 420 150

Copper, Cu mg/kg 0.5 56 71 65 76 200

Lead, Pb mg/kg 1 100 5 66 20 92

Nickel, Ni mg/kg 0.5 78 270 80 160 56

Zinc, Zn mg/kg 2 270 49 310 110 290

UOMPARAMETER LOR

WM3-300 WM4-100 WM5-100 WM5-300 WM6-100


- - - - -

31/1/2020 31/1/2020 31/1/2020 31/1/2020 31/1/2020

SE202407.006 SE202407.007 SE202407.008 SE202407.009 SE202407.010

Arsenic, As mg/kg 1 4 4 160 86 53

Cadmium, Cd mg/kg 0.3 <0.3 <0.3 2.9 1.9 5.5

Chromium, Cr mg/kg 0.5 110 150 360 290 290

Copper, Cu mg/kg 0.5 96 51 66 67 65

Lead, Pb mg/kg 1 17 50 20 34 66

Nickel, Ni mg/kg 0.5 50 62 130 110 110

Zinc, Zn mg/kg 2 87 72 240 380 280

UOMPARAMETER LOR

WM6-300 WM7-100 WM7-300 WM8-100

SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL

- - - -

31/1/2020 31/1/2020 31/1/2020 31/1/2020

SE202407.011 SE202407.012 SE202407.013 SE202407.014

Arsenic, As mg/kg 1 6 130 31 42

Cadmium, Cd mg/kg 0.3 <0.3 2.2 0.5 0.9

Chromium, Cr mg/kg 0.5 560 160 40 210

Copper, Cu mg/kg 0.5 85 57 140 63

Lead, Pb mg/kg 1 7 29 11 46

Nickel, Ni mg/kg 0.5 210 54 24 72

Zinc, Zn mg/kg 2 66 300 77 220

UOMPARAMETER LOR

Page 2 of 56/02/2020



WM1-100 WM1-300 WM2-100 WM2-300 WM3-100


- - - - -

31/1/2020 31/1/2020 31/1/2020 31/1/2020 31/1/2020

SE202407.001 SE202407.002 SE202407.003 SE202407.004 SE202407.005

Mercury mg/kg 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

UOMPARAMETER LOR

WM3-300 WM4-100 WM5-100 WM5-300 WM6-100


- - - - -

31/1/2020 31/1/2020 31/1/2020 31/1/2020 31/1/2020

SE202407.006 SE202407.007 SE202407.008 SE202407.009 SE202407.010

Mercury mg/kg 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

UOMPARAMETER LOR

WM6-300 WM7-100 WM7-300 WM8-100

SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL

- - - -

31/1/2020 31/1/2020 31/1/2020 31/1/2020

SE202407.011 SE202407.012 SE202407.013 SE202407.014

Mercury mg/kg 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

UOMPARAMETER LOR

Page 3 of 56/02/2020



WM1-100 WM1-300 WM2-100 WM2-300 WM3-100


- - - - -

31/1/2020 31/1/2020 31/1/2020 31/1/2020 31/1/2020

SE202407.001 SE202407.002 SE202407.003 SE202407.004 SE202407.005

% Moisture %w/w 1 7.9 14.7 10.9 16.4 7.5

UOMPARAMETER LOR

WM3-300 WM4-100 WM5-100 WM5-300 WM6-100


- - - - -

31/1/2020 31/1/2020 31/1/2020 31/1/2020 31/1/2020

SE202407.006 SE202407.007 SE202407.008 SE202407.009 SE202407.010

% Moisture %w/w 1 11.1 7.9 12.8 10.3 12.3

UOMPARAMETER LOR

WM6-300 WM7-100 WM7-300 WM8-100

SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL

- - - -

31/1/2020 31/1/2020 31/1/2020 31/1/2020

SE202407.011 SE202407.012 SE202407.013 SE202407.014

% Moisture %w/w 1 16.5 10.3 14.6 15.5

UOMPARAMETER LOR

Page 4 of 56/02/2020






AN002




AN040/AN320



AN040





3112/3500

AN312

FOOTNOTES

*

**




time exceeded.

-

NVL

IS

LNR

Not analysed.

Not validated.




















11929.









UOM

LOR

↑↓

Unit of Measure.

Limit of Reporting.


Reporting.

Page 5 of 56/02/2020


Date Reported

Contact



Alexandria NSW 2015

Huong Crawford

+61 2 8594 0400

+61 2 8594 0499

[email protected]

4

SGS Reference

Email

Facsimile

Telephone

Address

Manager

Laboratory

11554-3

11554-3

[email protected]

(Not specified)

61 2 63614954

PO BOX 8158

ORANGE NSW 2800


Joe Pearce

Samples

Order Number

Project

Email

Facsimile

Telephone

Address

Client


19/2/2020

ANALYTICAL REPORT

SE202757 R0


COMMENTS


Kamrul AHSAN

Senior Chemist

SIGNATORIES


www.sgs.com.aut +61 2 8594 0400

f +61 2 8594 0499

Australia

Australia

Alexandria NSW 2015

Alexandria NSW 2015




ABN 44 000 964 278

Page 1 of 419/02/2020



WMD11 WMD12 WMD13 WMD14

SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL

- - - -

11/2/2020 11/2/2020 11/2/2020 11/2/2020

SE202757.001 SE202757.002 SE202757.003 SE202757.004

Nickel, Ni mg/kg 0.5 30 150 67 12

Zinc, Zn mg/kg 2 290 370 160 31

UOMPARAMETER LOR

Page 2 of 419/02/2020



WMD11 WMD12 WMD13 WMD14

SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL

- - - -

11/2/2020 11/2/2020 11/2/2020 11/2/2020

SE202757.001 SE202757.002 SE202757.003 SE202757.004

% Moisture %w/w 1 21.4 17.8 12.3 16.1

UOMPARAMETER LOR

Page 3 of 419/02/2020






AN002




AN040/AN320



AN040

FOOTNOTES

*

**




time exceeded.

-

NVL

IS

LNR

Not analysed.

Not validated.




















11929.









UOM

LOR

↑↓

Unit of Measure.

Limit of Reporting.


Reporting.

Page 4 of 419/02/2020

Chain of Custody Form – Ref 11554 Sheet 1 of 1 Ref: Investigator: Telephone: Email: Contact Person: Invoice:

11554 Envirowest Consulting 9 Cameron Place PO Box 8158 ORANGE NSW 2800 (02) 6361 4954 [email protected] Joe Pearce [email protected]

Sample matrix Sample preservation Analysis

SGS Method Code

CL2 OCP

Laboratory:

Quotation #: Courier/CN:

SGS SYDNEY 16/33 Maddox Street ALEXANDRIA NSW 2015

Water Soil Sludge Cool HNO3/HCl

Unpre-served

8 M

etal

s

OC

P

Sample ID Container* Sampling Date/Time

WC1 A 16/12/2019 X X X X WC2 A 16/12/2019 X X X X WC3 A 16/12/2019 X X X X WC4 A 16/12/2019 X X X X WD1 A 16/12/2019 X X X X WD2 A 16/12/2019 X X X X WD3 A 16/12/2019 X X X X WD4 A 16/12/2019 X X X X WD11 A 16/12/2019 X X X X WD21 A 16/12/2019 X X X X WD31 A 16/12/2019 X X X X X WD41 A 16/12/2019 X X X X WA A 16/12/2019 X X X X

Investigator: I attest that the proper field sampling procedures were used during the collection of these samples.

Sampler name: Joseph Pearce Date: 16/12/2019 Time: 1300-1500

Relinquished by: (print and signature)

Virginia Bragg Date 17/12/2019 Time 16:00

Received by: (print and signature)

Date Time

Please return completed form to Envirowest Consulting, *A = Solvent rinsed glass jar with Teflon lined lid and green label, B= Plastic with green label, C= Amber with green label, D= Vial with white label, E= Plastic with red label

Documents

Preliminary contamination investigation · Preliminary contamination investigation 7 William Maker Drive, Orange NSW Ref: R11554c Date: 3 March 2020 Envirowest Consulting Pty Ltd