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]
181
Embed
SGM081577 Environmental Audit Report -Audit Area 1D Gen ... · Environmental audit reports are stored digitally by EPA in three parts: the audit report (part A), report appendices
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
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.
I, Andrew Paul Nunn of JBS&G Australia Pty Ltd, 38 Dequetteville Terrace, Kent Town, Adelaide,
South Australia, 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 Glen Dyke of Sinclair Brook Pty Ltd to issue a certificate of environmental audit in relation to the site known as Audit Area 1D of the Gen Fyansford Development located at 50 Hyland Street, Fyansford, Victoria for the land identified as Part of Parcel 21 on Plan of Subdivision TP568016C, Volume 2181 Folio 086 ('the site') owned/occupied by ICD Property,
2. had regard to, amongst 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) 2002, State Environment Protection Policy (Groundwaters of Victoria) 1997, State Environment Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria) 2003, Environment Protection (Industrial Waste Resource) Regulations 2009, Industrial Waste Management Policy (Waste Acid Sulphate Soils) 1999, State Environment Protection Policy (Air Quality Management) 2001 and State Environment Protection Policy (Ambient Air Quality) 1999.
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 Sensitive use (other), Sensitive use (High
density), Recreation / Open space use, Commercial and Industrial subject to the following
conditions attached thereto:
Condition 1: Groundwater at the site is polluted and must not be extracted for the beneficial
uses of: agriculture, parks and gardens, stock watering; primary contact recreation
or industrial water use.
Condition 2: The Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) prepared by ESG
Environmental, Version 3.1 January 2015 must be implemented. (Annexure 2).
Condition 3: An environmental Auditor (appointed under Part IXD of the Environmental
Protection Act 1970) must confirm in writing to EPA and the planning authority that
the final surface levels have been achieved in accordance with the CEMP
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:
Groundwater at the site would need to be remediated to restore all beneficial uses.
Aesthetically impacted fill material would need to be removed from site.
Other Related Information:
The Environment Protection Authority (EPA) has determined that groundwater has been
cleaned up to the extent practicable.
The Environment Protection Authority (EPA) has also determined that the site is located
within a Groundwater Quality Restricted Use Zone (GQRUZ).
The beneficial use of groundwater for which the auditor considers the site to be suitable is Maintenance of Ecosystems.
In accordance with clause 19(3) of the State Environment Protection Policy (Groundwaters
of Victoria), the Authority may require periodic reassessment of the practicability of
groundwater clean up.
Specialist advice should be sought in determining the geotechnical suitability of any fill material for its intended purpose;
If excavation or other activities are undertaken generating surplus soils requiring off‐site disposal, the waste soils must be managed in accordance with relevant EPA guidelines;
If materials are imported to the site, they must be verified as being consistent with the definition of ‘Fill Material’ in IWRG 621 or its relevant future revision; and
In accordance with Section 53ZE of the Environment Protection Act 1970, the owner/occupier of the site must provide a copy of this Statement to any person who becomes or proposes to become an occupier of the site.
1.8 SITE SPECIFIC TRAINING ...................................................................................... 5 1.8.1 Induction ....................................................................................................... 5 1.8.2 Suitable Construction and Waste Management Training for On-‐Site Contractors ............................................................................................................... 5 1.8.3 First Aid ......................................................................................................... 5
1.9 RELEVANT SITE CONTACT INFORMATION ........................................................... 7 1.10 CEMP SPECIFIC REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES ................................................ 7
Fyansford Development CEMP V3– ICD Property Page i ESG 2013-‐033
Appendix A Figures
Figure 1 -‐ ICD Staging Plan Figure 2 -‐ Stage 1 Layout Figure 3 -‐ Concrete Crushing Plan Figure 4 -‐ Proposed River Sample Locations
Appendix B Incident Form Templates Sample Soil Tracking Unexpected Finds Procedure SEMP Incident Reporting Forms Appendix C Section of October 2014 Arborist Report
Appendix D Compliance Monitoring Check List
Fyansford Development CEMP V3.1 – ICD Property Page 1 ESG2013-‐033
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Document Control
The previous version of this document was a Site Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). This current document is referred to as a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and aims to refine the contents of the original document to those currently underway on the Fyansford development site. Activities taking place on the site over the next six months are related to pre-‐construction and construction activities.
The CEMP is subject to a document control procedure, to ensure that all CEMP holders have only up-‐to-‐date document versions.
The initial version of the document is designated as Version 0. As the CEMP is updated or supplemented, replacement and new pages will be designated Version 1, 2, 3, etc. Old pages must be removed and stored. Minor updates will be designated as x.1, x.2 etc. Whole number revisions will be designated to major updates.
A record of the up-‐to-‐date version of the document must be maintained using the format below. The Construction Project Manager or its representative, is responsible for ensuring that the CEMP is kept up-‐to-‐date and must sign the record to confirm that replacement and new pages have been incorporated into the CEMP.
Pages Version Date of Issue
Issued By Issued To
All 0 1 October
2010 Environmental Strategies (ES)
Moltoni Corporation
All 1 4 March 2014
ES
ICD Property
St Quentins
SinclairBrook
Those related to stormwater, noise, air and concrete crushing activities: 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 14, 15, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26,
27, 28, 31 and 32. Figures 1 – 3.
2 25 July 2014
ES
ICD Property
St Quentins
SinclairBrook
Page 5 2.1 25 July 2014
ES
ICD Property
St Quentins
SinclairBrook
Page 5, 11, 13,15, 16,21,25 and those where roles and
responsibi l i t ies are
2.2 27
November 2014
ESG Environmental
(ESG)
ICD Property
St Quentins
SinclairBrook
Fyansford Development CEMP V3.1 – ICD Property Page 2 ESG2013-‐033
clarif ied
Removal of completed/irrelevant
act iv it ies
Reformat
Rework of management measures
Reporting requirements
Inclusion of comments from
auditor
Compliance checkl ist
3 10
December 2014
ESG
ICD Property
St Quentins
SinclairBrook
Drapers
Inclusion of f inal levels as per earthworks
specif icat ions
3.1 19 January
2015 ESG
ICD Property
St Quentins
SinclairBrook
Drapers
1.2 Responsible parties
The responsible parties of the implementation and management of the CEMP is ICD Property (ICD), the Construction Contractor appointed by ICD (the Construction Contractor) and any of their subcontractors.
1.3 Site description
ICD owns the land located at 50 Hyland St, Fyansford VIC 3221 (hereafter referred to as ‘the Site’), referred to as Stages 1 – 9, as shown in Figure 1, Appendix A . The development s approximately 100 hectares in size.
Stage 1 and 2 of the development is shown in Figure 2, Appendix A occupies an area of approximately 23 hectares and is bounded by the Moorabool River to the west, open grassed field to the north, McCurdy Road and Hunt Road to the east and Deviation Road and Hyland Street to the south.
The Site is disused land, following the closure of the cement-‐manufacturing factory in 2001. North of Hyland Street, the Site boundary is situated approximately 500 metres from the nearest residential areas located between Hunt Road and McCurdy Road.
To the south of Hyland Street, towards McCurdy Road, the Site boundary is situated within 50m of residential areas.
From a human receptor perspective, the most sensitive existing surrounding land use is the residential housing to the east of the Site. The Moorabool River to the west of Stage 1 and 2 is likely to be the most sensitive ecological feature adjacent to the site.
Fyansford Development CEMP V3.1 – ICD Property Page 3 ESG2013-‐033
1.4 PURPOSE
The purpose of this CEMP is to identify potential environmental issues and mitigation measures together with corrective actions if an undesirable impact or unforeseen level of impact occurs during the pre-‐construction and construction phases of the Site.
1.5 OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the CEMP are to:
! Provide evidence of practical and achievable plans for the management of the Site to ensure that environmental requirements are complied with;
! Set out control measures and contingency arrangements required to minimise adverse environmental and human health effects, both on and off the Site, from the Site remediation and construction operation;
! Outline the responsibilities of all stakeholders and the procedures to be followed in preparing the Site for future use;
! Provide ICD and its contractors with a framework to confirm compliance with relevant environmental policies and requirements; and
! Provide the community with evidence of the management of the project in an environmentally acceptable manner.
The CEMP will be reviewed and periodically updated, if necessary, to reflect knowledge gained during the course of operations. Changes to the CEMP will be implemented in consultation with the relevant authorities and stakeholders where necessary.
1.6 CEMP IMPLEMENTATION & USE
This CEMP has been prepared to control and manage environmental issues at the Site during the pre-‐construction and and civil construction works. Site development will follow a staged development layout identified by ICD. A copy of the current layout for Stage 1, as of July 2014, is provided in Figure 2, Appendix A.
Concrete crushing activities are shown in Figure 3, Appendix A.
ICD, or a representative of ICD, will manage the redevelopment of the Site. Contractors engaged in construction activities on the Site must implement the requirements of this CEMP. The Construction Contractor may refine this CEMP with site-‐specific or specific task and activity information, but its overall concept and minimum level of environmental protection must remain the same.
The Construction Contractor may use their own Environmental Management Plan, only if their management plan:
! Complies with this CEMP as a minimum and manages the same environmental issues; and
! Is approved by ICD prior to commencement of construction activities at the Site.
This CEMP presents the management and waste minimisation measures associated with redevelopment of the Site, as they relate to land contamination matters, which includes
Fyansford Development CEMP V3.1 – ICD Property Page 4 ESG2013-‐033
potentially impacted soil. The measures addressed are based on general requirements for other similar projects and from ESG’s experience on similar projects within Victoria.
The environmental protection procedures required for construction activities are provided in Environment Protection Authority (EPA) Publication 480, Environmental Guidelines for Major Construction Sites, dated February 1996 and Publication 275, Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution Control, dated May 1991. It should be noted that, while this CEMP is designed to facilitate compliance with these publications, compliance with this CEMP in no way negates the contractor’s obligations to comply with the requirements contained in these publications themselves or any statutory requirements.
This document provides a clear demonstration of how certain environmental management/control measures associated with construction tasks will be implemented and managed.
This CEMP will cover the following stages of the project:
! Stage 1 (Sub Stages 1A to 1H)
! LSIO and Reserve Area (Stage 1)
! Stage 2
! Stage 3
! Stage 4
! Stage 5
Due to the extent and maturity of development planning, this version (Version 3) of the CEMP will focus on Stage 1 and Stage 2.
1.7 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
1.7.1 Construction Project Manager
The Construction Project Manager has overall responsibility for the management of environmental issues at the Site, ensuring the CEMP is implemented and maintained, as well as conducting periodic reviews of Site contractors.
The Construction Project Manager is responsible for the main construction activities at the Site, and will be responsible for the implementation of the CEMP for all aspects of this work. This role may be delegated to other company employees as long as the employee delegated has an understanding of the potential environmental impacts associated with the construction activities and a sufficient level of authority to order changes to work practices and stop work if considered necessary.
The Construction Project Manager/foreman (or the designated representative) is responsible for:
! Complying with the CEMP within the framework of the document control procedure;
! Ensuring that the CEMP is current and accurate, by conducting risk assessments for new environmental hazards with the development of appropriate environmental actions when new issues arise;
! Ensuring that the management measures identified in the CEMP are carried out;
Fyansford Development CEMP V3.1 – ICD Property Page 5 ESG2013-‐033
! Implementing the inspection and monitoring requirements as well as the environmental incident and complaints handling procedures;
! Ensuring all construction site workers and external contractors are aware of the CEMP and adhere to its requirements;
! Carrying out periodic audits to ensure that the CEMP is being implemented at the Site;
! Periodically reviewing and updating the CEMP to reflect changes in operations at the Site; and
! Ensuring all documentation associated with the CEMP is maintained and all inspection and monitoring records are available to ICD, or designated representative, for review as and when required.
1.8 SITE SPECIFIC TRAINING
1.8.1 Induction
The contents of this CEMP are to be addressed as part of a Site induction so that Site construction employees are aware and informed of the Site issues and the management procedures associated with them.
1.8.2 Suitable Construction and Waste Management Training for On-‐Site Contractors
It will be the responsibility of the Construction Project Manager to ensure that all Site workers and external contractors are aware of the CEMP, its contents and impact on their work methods, before work is commenced.
The most appropriate method of achieving this will depend on the Site activities and staff structure. Induction training prior to commencement of Site works will ensure that the requirements specified in the CEMP are known and further training sessions when changes have been made will be useful in ensuring that procedure updates are known and implemented into site management plans.
The exact training content and schedule will be developed upon award of contracts for construction. The training will, however, include the following as a minimum:
! The role of the CEMP in managing environmental impacts;
! Roles and responsibilities of all site personnel as they relate to the environment;
! Personal responsibilities for environmental management; and
! Emergency procedures, including the use of a chemical spill control/clean-‐up kit (if fuel is kept on-‐Site).
1.8.3 First Aid
The Construction Contractor will provide a comprehensive first aid kit, which will be kept on-‐Site. It is expected that at least one of the construction contractor’s field personnel on Site for the work will be qualified to perform first aid -‐ a minimum of emergency first aid – 1 Day.
Fyansford Development CEMP V3.1 – ICD Property Page 6 ESG2013-‐033
The construction contractor is to provide details of first aid personnel and facilities to be present on-‐Site during works.
Fyansford Development CEMP V3.1 – ICD Property Page 7 ESG2013-‐033
1.9 RELEVANT SITE CONTACT INFORMATION
Contact Details Contact Number
ICD Development Manager – Alice Smith
ICD Assistant Development Manager – Roscoe Power
0439 348 571
03 9629 3507
Contract superintendent – St Quentins -‐ Geoff Foster
0438 021 677
Construction Contractor Project Manager – St Quentins – Paul Klei jn
0418 535 799
Site Supervisor – St Quentins -‐ Lindsay Hunter 0403 124 022
Concrete Contractor: Regional Recycle – Dick Lewis (Manager)
The following table provides a summary the standards and guidelines that have been utilised for this CEMP.
Fyansford Development CEMP V3.1 – ICD Property Page 8 ESG2013-‐033
Issues Regulation/Guideline
General Environmental Guidelines for Major Construction Sites February 1996. EPA Publication 480.
Environment Protection Act (Vic) 1970. National Standard for Construction Work [NOHSC:1016(2005)].
National Code of Practice for Induction for Construction Work (May 2007).
Air Quality National Environment Protection (Ambient Air Quality) Measure (as amended, 2003) for ambient air quality.
State Environment Protection Policy (Air Quality Management) State Environment Protection Policy (Ambient Air Quality) Environment Protection (Vehicle Emissions) Regulations 2003
Adopted National Exposure Standards For Atmospheric Contaminants In The Occupational Environment [NOHSC:1003(1995)]
Guidance Note on the Interpretation of Exposure Standards for Atmospheric Contaminants in the Occupational Environment 3rd Edition [NOHSC:3008(1995)] (HTML)
Dangerous Goods
WorkSafe Victoria Safe Handling of Industrial Waste, dated 2003 (as amended)
Hazardous Substances (Code of Practice No. 24, 2000)
Dangerous Goods Storage and Handling (Code of Practice No.27, 2000)
WorkSafe, Chemicals Management in the Workplace, A Step by Step Guide for (2002)
National Standard for the Storage and Handling of Workplace Dangerous Goods [NOHSC:1015(2001)]
National Code of Practice for the Storage and Handing of Dangerous Goods [NOHSC:2017(2001)]
AS 2931: 1999 Selection and Use of Emergency Procedure Guides for Transport of Dangerous Goods.
Noise & Vibration
Road Management Act 2004, Code of Practice for Worksite Safety -‐ Traffic Management
VIC EPA State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Noise from Commerce, Industry and Trade)
2.5 ASBESTOS MANAGEMENT 2.6 TRUCKING MOVEMENT MANAGEMENT 2.7 EROSION MANAGEMENT 2.8 WATER CONTAMINATION MANAGEMENT 2.9 AIR QUALITY-‐ DUST AND EMISSIONS 2.10 NOISE MANAGEMENT 2.11 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT 2.12 GENERAL WASTE MANAGEMENT 2.13 CHEMICALS AND DANGEROUS GOODS 2.14 HEALTH AND SAFETY 2.15 INCIDENTS AND COMPLAINTS
Each of the above sections deals with the following issues in relation to the respective matter:
! Environmental objectives;
! Management measures
! Monitoring and reporting;
The relevant incident response forms are located within Appendix B .
2.2 SOIL MANAGEMENT PLAN
In order to manage the environmental and social issues specifically applicable to the relocation of contaminated and non-‐contaminated material across the Site, a soil management plan (SMP) has been prepared and is outlined in Section 2.3 to 2.5. The purpose of this SMP is to describe how imported, excavated clean and excavated contaminated soil will be relocated and managed across the Site, and the environmental protocols for managing temporary stockpiles of such materials before they are relocated.
2.2.1 Management of Remedial Works
Fyansford Development CEMP V3.1 – ICD Property Page 11 ESG2013-‐033
Specific procedures have been prepared which will be followed by the Construction Project Manager to ensure all Site works are undertaken in a safe and effective manner and in accordance with environmental approvals. These are outlined below.
! Soil tracking form (STF) to ensue all the imported and excavated material is accounted for and relocated to an appropriate location as well as tracking the sampling program employed for each type of material and the allocated material ID;
! Internal waste handling procedures for management of excavations, stockpiling, spreading, sampling and covering of the imported and excavated materials;
! Off-‐site waste disposal procedures for the transportation and disposal of waste material off-‐Site to designated disposal facilities;
! Importation of clean fill where required due to a shortage of clean fill materials on-‐Site to ensure only acceptable fill is used as cover of the contaminated material; and
! Environmental incident report forms to keep records of environmental incidents and resulting remediation plans prepared by the Construction Project Manager after such an event occurs.
! Each procedure will address the objectives and provide actions to achieve the objectives, targets, monitoring programs and potential corrective actions to remediate the issue specified, should a problem arise.
Specific management of visible asbestos containing material (ACM) is described separately in the asbestos waste management section of the CEMP.
Fyansford Development CEMP V3.1 – ICD Property Page 12 ESG2013-‐033
! To monitor and record all material brought onto or relocated within the Site boundaries to ensure clean and contaminated fill is appropriately contained, treated and re-‐used.
Management Measures:
! To facilitate the development of the Site, all material being brought into or being relocated within the boundaries of the Site will be monitored. Any excavated, potentially contaminated soil will be relocated to a stockpile area designated by the Environmental Consultant (ESG) and the Geotechnical Consultant unless the material has previously been validated whereby it will be relocated to a designated deposition area and depth, as determined by the Site Classification Plan. The Site Classification Plan will be designated by the Construction Project Manager in consultation with the Environmental Consultant prior to commencement of Site works and will be monitored by the Environmental Consultant and reported to the Environmental Auditor.
! Clean ground must not inadvertently be covered by impacted material as part of the relocation exercises and thereby such areas (clean and contaminated) will be designated within the Site Classification Plan prior to commencement of Site works to prevent this from occurring.
! Where unexpected contamination is encountered (visual or olfactory) observations or suspected asbestos, the unexpected finds procedure in Appendix B will be used to record the material and actions taken.
! The STF (soil tracking form) will be used to manage and monitor the movement and placement of all material being brought into or moved on-‐Site. The STF will:
– Record and document the internal transfer of each soil load and monitor movement of materials brought onto site, denoting approximate volumes being moved and notations of the origin and destination.
– Materials brought onto site will be placed in a holding area if validation sampling is needed before movement, or will be relocated to the appropriate area as designated by the Site plan if validated as clean by visual /photographic log. If double handling is required both the initial and final locations will be noted by way of recorded GPS co-‐ordinates.
– Provide record of accidental placement of waste material on natural ground. This includes soil movement as well as chemical or waste spills on site. The corrective action for when material has been accidentally placed on natural ground or ground that has previously been validated as not requiring further remediation, the Construction Project Manager will be required to remove the waste as described in Section 2.4.1. Any subsequent movement of the soil should be noted on the STF as well as the Environmental Incident Report form to ensure location of the contaminated soil is known and remediation can be completed.
Fyansford Development CEMP V3.1 – ICD Property Page 13 ESG2013-‐033
! The following actions are to be used to effectively manage the movement of material across and into the Site:
– The Site will be classified using a grid format system. The grids will be given relative numbers with the numbers relating to origin and destination of the material being stated on the STF when soil is excavated, moved or brought onto Site.
– An initial site induction for all personnel involved with the movement and relocation of the waste. They will be informed of the site/location of waste and transport routes to be used, as well as the grid system and how this applies to different types of material.
! Each truck is to be checked by the inspector prior to entering Site to verify the material being imported. Specific unloading instructions are described below:
– Only material pre-‐classified as Fill Material under the Victorian EPA’s Industrial Waste Resource Guidelines and approved by ICD’s Environmental Consultant may be imported to the Site.
– Once the material has been verified as clean fill import material it will be moved to the appropriate area as designated by the Construction Project Manager. Destination, classification and amount of material being imported should be noted on the STF.
– Material to be imported to the Site will be visually checked by the Contractors spotter prior to, and during, unloading. Should fill be observed to contain inert wastes or other unsuitable material, unloading and importation into the Site will cease until the source of the material can be verified.
– Trucks are to use an internal track which is to be wide enough to allow the safe passing of vehicles, the track is to be clearly defined with signage where required and kept damp to prevent nuisance dust.
– A speed limit of 30 km/h will apply to all traffic on tracks.
Monitoring and Reporting:
! STFs are to be kept up to date and submitted monthly and as requested by either the Contract Superintendent or Environmental or Geotechnical Consultant. All STF’s are to be summarised at the completion of the remediation phase for inclusion into the Remediation and Validation Report.
! Routine random checks of the STF’s will be undertaken by the Construction Project Manager to ensure all details are being completed and that material is being relocated to the appropriate areas as stated on the STF.
! To facilitate the development of the Site, all material being moved off-‐Site will be monitored. The excavated contaminated soil and aesthetically unacceptable material that cannot be reused on-‐Site will require to be classified under the EPA Industrial
Fyansford Development CEMP V3.1 – ICD Property Page 14 ESG2013-‐033
Waste Resource Guidelines and scheduled for disposal. The disposal location will be designated by the Construction Project Manager and waste soils will be required to be disposed of at appropriate EPA licensed facilities. All soils being moved off-‐Site are required to be accompanied with an assessment and classification under the EPA Industrial Waste Resource Guidelines.
! Clean ground must not inadvertently be covered by impacted material as part of the relocation exercises.
Management Measures:
! The STF (Soil Tracking Form) will be used to manage and monitor the movement and placement of all material being moved from Site. The STF will:
– Record and document the external transfer of each soil load using a logging sheet denoting estimated volumes leaving the Site and the intended destination.
– Soil to be transferred off site will be placed in a stockpiling area. If validation sampling is needed before movement and transportation for disposal it will be arranged once the laboratory results and classification of material, in the form of a waste classification letter to be submitted with the material to the landfill, have been completed.
– Record and document the location of material that is odorous or aesthetically unacceptable. Such material will be stockpiled in designated areas so that classification can be performed and remediation or disposal plan determined. If classified as needing disposal transportation will be arranged.
– Provide record of accidental placement of waste material on natural ground. This includes soil movement as well as chemical or waste spills on site. The corrective action for when material has been accidentally placed on natural ground or ground that has previously been validated as not requiring further remediation, the Construction Project Manager will be required to remove the waste as described in Section 2.4.1. Any subsequent movement of the soil should be noted on the STF as well as the Environmental Incident Report form to ensure location of the contaminated soil is known and remediation can be completed.
! The following actions are to be used to effectively manage the movement of material across and out of the Site:
– Site locations will be classified using a grid format system. The grids will be given relative numbers with the numbers relating to origin and destination of the material being stated on the STF when soil is excavated or moved. The landfill where the material is being taken for disposal should also be noted on the STF.
– An initial Site induction for all personnel involved with the movement and relocation of the waste. They will be informed of the site/location of waste and transport routes to be used, as well as the grid system and how this applies to different types of material.
! Each truck is to be checked by the Site Supervisor prior to leaving the Site to ensure that the material is specified on EPA waste transport certificates (WTCs) and that the loads are covered. Specific loading instructions are described below:
Fyansford Development CEMP V3.1 – ICD Property Page 15 ESG2013-‐033
– Material that is to be transported off-‐Site is to be accompanied by an EPA WTCs that details the source, vehicle registration, time, check of load, landfill destination, volume of waste and contaminant codes. The certificates will be in duplicate. Once signed as received by the landfill operator the original will be retained by the landfill operator and the duplicate retained by Construction Project Manager.
– Each WTC is to be signed by Construction Project Manager’s representative at the last shift of each working day. All off-‐site WTCs are to be compiled in a summary sheet once the original copy has been received back from the landfill operator.
– Construction Project Manager will inspect and classify the entire Site (to be depicted in the Site Classification Plan) prior to commencement of Site works. Random audits will be undertaken of the administration of the STF.
Monitoring and Reporting:
! STFs are to be kept up to date and submitted monthly and as requested by either the Contract Superintendent or Environmental or Geotechnical Consultant. All STF’s and landfill WTCs are to be summarised at the completion of the remediation phase for inclusion into the Remediation and Validation Report.
! Routine random checks of the STF will be undertaken by Construction Project Manager to ensure all details are being completed and that material is being relocated as stated on the STF.
! To ensure that the handling of all soil and concrete materials on-‐Site is undertaken in a safe and environmentally responsible manner;
! To ensure that final material levels, quantities and quality are acceptable.
Management Measures:
! The following actions are to be used to ensure that all soil and concrete materials are being handled in a safe and environmentally responsible manner:
– Training of relevant personnel and implementation of safe work practices for minimising the risk of spillage and cross-‐contamination when soil is being moved around the Site.
– Site induction of all employees, suppliers and contractors in their environmental protection responsibilities.
– Site induction informs of the dangers of asbestos containing materials, how to recognise asbestos products and the procedures to follow should asbestos be uncovered.
– Material suspected of being contaminated with asbestos should be handled according to the asbestos management procedure.
Fyansford Development CEMP V3.1 – ICD Property Page 16 ESG2013-‐033
– Remediation of newly or previously contaminated land will be undertaken using the most appropriate method available as designated by Construction Project Manager, to achieve required guideline validation results.
! The following actions are to be used for managing the excavation, transfer onto and around Site, stockpiling and sampling of excavated material, concrete and/or new material being brought into the Site:
– Excavations:
– All material being excavated will be assessed for visual and olfactory contamination. The material will be relocated to areas as specified on the Site classification map based on this initial assessment. The excavation walls and base are to be sampled for validation purposes and remain open with appropriate fencing where required until Construction Project Manager provides waste classification information based on receipt of the laboratory results or the area has been validated by visual/photographic log. Each excavation, and resulting stockpiled material, should be given a specific label as well as the grid notation and noted on the STF to further facilitate the soil tracking process.
– Once the excavation area has been validated it will be backfilled with clean fill imported to the Site or Site soil previously assessed and deemed suitable for re-‐use as fill within that location of the Site by the Environmental Consultant and Geotechnical Engineer. The STF will be used to monitor relocation of such materials.
– Information related to sampling of the excavation areas, excavated materials and clean fill materials imported to the Site should be noted on the STF. Construction Project Manager representative will conduct the sampling of such materials.
– Excavated contaminated material is to be placed directly into trucks for immediate transfer to a temporary stockpile area as designated by the Site Classification Plan, or to the designated landfill. While minimal transfer frequency of removed soil is preferred, if no truck is available at the time of excavation the material can be stockpiled next to the excavation until relocation is possible.
– Stockpiles:
– The Construction Project Manager will identify stockpile locations for imported clean fill material prior to commencement of works on the Site. Stockpile locations will be identified by signage as to the status (type of fill) so that relocation to appropriate positions as specified in the Site Classification Plan is efficient to implement.
– The Construction Project Manager will identify stockpile locations for suspected contaminated material prior to commencement of works. Stockpile locations will be identified by signage as to the status (i.e. for on-‐site or off-‐site disposal) as well as the grid ID associated with the origin of the material.
– Material that is odorous or aesthetically unacceptable will be stockpiled in designated areas so that classification can be performed. The material will subsequently be remediated or disposed of off-‐Site as assessed by the Construction Project Manager. Remediation of such material on-‐Site will be
Fyansford Development CEMP V3.1 – ICD Property Page 17 ESG2013-‐033
decided by the Construction Project Manager and Environmental Consultant, and will be reported to the Environmental Auditor.
– All temporary stockpile locations are to be inspected daily by the Construction Project Manager’s representative and managed appropriately.
– Runoff from the stockpiled material is to be managed in accordance with the Water Contamination Management Plan described below.
– Dust suppression techniques are to be used on the temporary and long-‐term stockpiles in accordance with the requirements of this section.
– Concrete Crushing:
– Concrete crushing activities will be undertaken as detailed in Figure 3, Appendix A. Management of concrete is to be undertaken in accordance with soil management requirements above.
– Placement of soils:
– All material classified as suitable to use as deep fill material on-‐Site or being remediated in a designated area is to be spread in a damp condition to reduce the potential for dust generation as per the requirements of this section.
– Clean fill material that is being used to cap deep fill material must be spread evenly over the deeper material, covering it completely and extending 3m above the deep fill material surface.
– Sampling:
– All excavated or imported material that is being moved around the Site is required to be sampled for classification purposes. All excavations are required to be validated by sampling and visual inspection of the walls and base before they can be backfilled.
– The STF will record the information related to sampling of the excavated materials and clean fill materials brought onto Site, conducted by the Construction Project Manager’s representative, including laboratory analysis suite, date, time, sample ID and requested turn around times for the receipt of results. Sampling frequency will be determined according to the amount of material and required frequency as stated in the EPA IWRG guidelines (EPA IWRG Publication 702).
– All sampling is to be performed by a suitably qualified environmental consulting firm as designated by ICD’s Project Manager. Appropriate sampling procedures will be employed with attention to personal protection from potentially contaminated material.
– Cover:
– If excavated material is particularly odorous it should be stockpiled in designated areas. Following sampling, the material should be covered with black plastic (if safe to do so), or soil, to prevent further exposure to the unknown contaminants until the laboratory results are received. Once the results are received the Construction Project Manager will specify the intended management strategy,
Fyansford Development CEMP V3.1 – ICD Property Page 18 ESG2013-‐033
whether the material is re-‐used or remediated on-‐Site or if it requires off-‐Site disposal.
– If awaiting laboratory results for material that is particularly odorous the excavation from whence the material originated must also be sampled and covered in black plastic (if safe to do so), or filled in with soil, to prevent further exposure to the unknown contaminants until validation of the area has been confirmed.
– Contaminated soil placed on validated clean ground:
– Where material has been accidentally placed on natural ground or ground that has been previously validated as not requiring further remediation, Construction Project Manager will be required to remove the waste including the underlying 0.1m of in-‐situ ground beneath the fill. The Construction Project Manager’s and Environmental Consultant’s representatives will visually assess the adequacy of the removal. If the potential for cross contamination is suspected, validation soil samples will be collected from the natural ground beneath the misplaced soil and tested for the contaminants of concern to ensure contaminant levels are below the environmental guidelines.
– Once this material has been excavated it should be transported to its original intended location, with both this intermediate and final locations noted on the STF.
! Final achieved levels and reuse criteria (as per earthworks contractor specifications):
– Filling within the site shall be formed as detailed on the construction drawings and completed in accordance with the Earthworks Clauses of the Technical Specification.
– All filling exceeding 300mm in depth, shall be undertaken to specifications satisfying the requirements of AS 3798 – 1996 “Guidelines on Earthworks for Commercial and Residential Development”.
– All such filling works shall be undertaken with supervision to the standard detailed as “Level 1” in Appendix B of AS 3798 – 1996, such that the Geotechnical Testing Authority will issue a “Level 1 fill report” detailing that the works comply with the specifications and drawings.
– Before any filling is placed the area shall be stripped of all topsoil, soft material and vegetation growth to a firm base approved by the Superintendent.
– Base levels shall be recorded by the Contractor’s surveyor and forwarded to the Superintendent after which approved filling material shall be placed and compacted.
– Apart from the top 0.75m below finished surface level, fill material should be placed in a maximum loose thickness of 300mm. Each layer should be compacted to a minimum Dry Density Ratio (AS 1289 5.4.1) of 95% Standard Compaction using a vibrating pad foot roller for cohesive soil and a vibrating smooth drum roller for cohesionless soil. The top 0.75m should consist of best excavated or
Fyansford Development CEMP V3.1 – ICD Property Page 19 ESG2013-‐033
imported material, compacted in layers to a minimum Dry Density Ratio (AS 1289 5.4.1) of 98% Standard Compaction.
– Any material deemed unsatisfactory for filling by either the Superintendent or the Project Environmental Consultant shall be stockpiled on site for treatment and/or removal by ICD as directed by the Superintendent.
– All works associated with filling including compaction testing shall be included in the tendered rates.
– Acceptable Materials
– Material to be used for fill construction shall satisfy the requirements of AS 3798 – 1996 “Guidelines on Earthworks for Commercial and Residential Developments”.
– Any fill materials brought onto the site will require to be compliant and have sufficient supporting information to prove compliance to the satisfaction of the ICD nominated Environmental Consultant, with the EPA Victoria Industrial Waste Resource Guidelines (IWRG), or its amendments.
! Site Specific Soil Reuse Criteria
– Based on discussions with the EPA approved Environmental Auditor for the site, the agreed site specific soil reuse criteria adopted for the site will be based on depth below final finish level.
–
– Depth Below Final Finish Level (m)
–
– Adopted Criteria
–
– 0 to 1.0
– Soils with contaminant concentrations not exceeding NEPM 1999 (as amended 2013) EIL
levels and HIL A /HSL A levels
– No unaesthetically (i.e. offensive to human senses) acceptable materials or particles of
inert waste
–
–
– 1.0 to 3.0
– Soils or engineered fill with contaminant concentrations not exceeding NEPM 1999 (as
amended, 2013) HIL A/HSL A levels
– May be blended materials but must be aesthetically acceptable (i.e. not offensive to
human senses).
–
– >3.0 – Soils or engineered fill with contaminant concentrations not exceeding NEPM 1999 (as
amended, 2013) HIL B/HSL B levels
Fyansford Development CEMP V3.1 – ICD Property Page 20 ESG2013-‐033
Monitoring and Reporting:
! Once this material has been excavated it should be transported to its original intended location, with both this intermediate and final locations noted on the STF.
! Accidents involving the spillage of contaminated material from trucks, or the accidental placement of contaminated soil on natural or clean ground, and the corrective action undertaken for each situation is to be reported in an Environmental Incident Report form.
! Earthmoving and traffic accidents are to be reported verbally and in writing directly to the Construction Project Manager immediately following the incident.
! Routine random checks on the waste handling practices will be undertaken by the Construction Project Manager’s representative to ensure implementation and conformance to these procedures is being completed.
! To ensure that the transportation and handling of all soil materials off-‐Site is undertaken in a safe and environmentally responsible manner.
Management Measures:
! The following actions are to be used for managing the off-‐Site disposal of any material:
– Record and document the location of material that is odorous or aesthetically unappealing. Such material will be stockpiled in designated areas so that classification can be performed and a remediation or disposal plan determined. If classified as needing disposal, transportation will be arranged.
– Stockpiles of material designated for off-‐Site disposal, as determined by the Construction Project Manager’s representative, will be classified in accordance with the EPA Industrial Waste Resource Guidelines (Publications 621 and 702). The sampling suite for these materials will be determined by the Environmental Consultant.
– Material being loaded into trucks for off-‐Site disposal will require verification and confirmation by the Construction Project Manager’s representative as the material specified on the disposal forms prior to removal off-‐Site.
– All contaminated material is to be removed from Site in a damp condition covered with tarpaulins to reduce the potential for dust generation as per the requirements of the Air Quality Management Plan, and to prevent material from falling out whilst in transit to the disposal destination.
– Materials may require management due to aesthetics such as engineered fill comprising
concrete or limestone.
Fyansford Development CEMP V3.1 – ICD Property Page 21 ESG2013-‐033
– Material that has been spilt off-‐Site is to be cordoned off and the relevant authorities notified immediately. A spill response team will be used to recover material as soon as possible.
– All truckloads are to be within legal weight limits when removed from Site. Trucks are to be road worthy and operated in accordance with transport regulations.
– Before the trucks are authorised to leave the Site they will be required to enter either a “wash down” area or rumble strip. This is to ensure that any soil material that is present on the truck body will be removed prior to its leaving the Site, and thereby preventing the tracking of soil material outside the Site, other than the material that has been classified and appropriately contained in the truck.
– The Construction Project Manager will continuously monitor the road condition at the entrance/exit to the work Site and arrange to sweep/wash as deemed necessary.
Monitoring and Reporting:
! STFs are to be kept up to date and submitted monthly and as requested by either the Contract Superintendent or Environmental or Geotechnical Consultant.
! Accidents involving the spillage of material from trucks and the corrective action undertaken is to be reported in an Environmental Incident Report form.
! Traffic accidents are to be reported to the Police as well as verbally and in writing to the superintendent immediately following the accident.
! Routine random checks of truck loading and security of material will be performed by the Construction Project Manager to ensure conformance with procedures designated above. Such events will be noted in the site monitoring log book.
2.5 ASBESTOS MANAGEMENT
Objective:
! To manage materials potentially containing asbestos on and off the Site as well as to prevent any incidents of contact with asbestos contamination during site work activities occurring on-‐Site.
Management Measures:
! Strategies for the prevention of asbestos contact and containment of asbestos material will include:
– Identify to the Construction Project Manager areas potentially contaminated with asbestos.
– Daily checking of excavations in potential asbestos areas by the Project Manager to confirm absence of asbestos.
– All workers will undergo a site induction, which informs them of the dangers of asbestos, how to recognise potential asbestos containing products and the procedures to follow should potential asbestos containing materials be uncovered.
Fyansford Development CEMP V3.1 – ICD Property Page 22 ESG2013-‐033
– Conduct asbestos fibre monitoring in the vicinity of areas on the Site with a potential for asbestos.
– Prevent dust emissions as per the requirements of the Air Quality Management Plan.
– Where asbestos containing materials are visibly encountered during remedial activities, excavation must cease and the excavation cordoned off to prevent access to impacted soils.
– The asbestos must be removed in accordance with WorkSafe Victoria Managing Asbestos in Workplaces – Compliance Code, 18 September 2008. Minor quantities of non-‐friable asbestos (less than 10 m2 and less than 1 man-‐hour per week to remove) can be removed by a suitably trained person identified by the Construction Project Manager.
– If asbestos removal requires more than one-‐man hour in one week, or exceeds 10m2, then a class-‐A removalist must be engaged to remove the asbestos. A final clearance inspection and issue of a clearance certificate by the Environmental Consultant or other suitably competent person will be required following the removal of the asbestos.
! The following actions are to be undertaken to prevent the release of asbestos fibres and to remove the asbestos:
– Wet material with low-‐pressure water and/or a suitable wetting agent for dust suppression and then cover the exposed asbestos with a suitable cover such as builder’s plastic.
– The contaminated area will be cordoned off and declared as an asbestos exclusion zone. This will be achieved by constructing a physical boundary surrounding the area with star-‐pickets and coloured warning tape outlining the presence of asbestos. This boundary will be at least 10m away from the location of any other active excavations with warning signs placed at the boundary of the exclusion zone.
– Where friable asbestos is encountered (as opposed to non-‐friable asbestos cement products) the Site must be registered with WorkSafe. The removal of fibrous asbestos must be conducted by a licensed class-‐A removalist, under the authority and with the involvement of WorkSafe who will determine the appropriate level of PPE.
– Only personnel with the appropriate PPE and training will be allowed to work inside the asbestos exclusion zone. The minimum protective equipment to be worn by personnel will be as required in WorkSafe Victoria Managing Asbestos in Workplaces – Compliance Code including coveralls, appropriate footwear, gloves and respiratory protection.
– The asbestos material will be placed by hand into plastic bags that are impermeable to asbestos dust. The bags will be doubled bagged and appropriately signed according to Australian Standard AS 1319 Safety Signs for the Occupational Environment. Earthmoving machinery will endeavour to minimise ground disturbance, dust generation and damage to asbestos containing materials.
Fyansford Development CEMP V3.1 – ICD Property Page 23 ESG2013-‐033
Material will be sprayed with low-‐pressure water as it is disturbed. Asbestos containing materials will be disposed of off-‐Site to a landfill licensed to accept asbestos wastes in accordance with the relevant guidelines.
– A decontamination facility and procedure is to be provided for personnel that are exposed to the asbestos contaminated material to ensure safe removal of their PPE.
– Used disposable coveralls and masks are to be removed prior to exiting the exclusion zone, double bagged in marked bags for disposal along with other asbestos waste.
– Trucks will be washed down before leaving the Site in the designated wash-‐down area within the asbestos exclusion zone.
Monitoring and Reporting:
! The presence of asbestos fibres will be monitored during all earthwork activities relating to asbestos on-‐Site. Monitoring at the boundary of specified asbestos exclusion zones will be performed to ensure personnel working outside of the asbestos exclusion zone have not been exposed to levels in excess of the capacity of their PPE.
! All site personnel must inform the Construction Project Manager immediately when asbestos contamination is suspected or identified at the Site. The Construction Project Manager will maintain records of any contamination incidents or discovery of potentially asbestos contaminated soil as well as the containment and remediation procedures employed.
2.6 TRUCKING MOVEMENT MANAGEMENT
Objective:
! To manage trucking movements during the site works and to minimise local complaints, road accidents and the impacts on the environment.
Management Measures:
! Truck access to the Site will be limited to the Hyland Street entrances at the commencement of site works with further entrances added in the future if Site access in other areas is needed. No other roads will used for access to and from the Site unless specified in writing by the Construction Project Manager.
! The speed of vehicles will be limited to 30 km/h within the Site area.
! Users of the Site are notified in writing of these requirements at induction.
! Warning signs alerting motorists that trucks are entering the road system and using Hyland Street will be erected at the intersections with adjoining roads.
! Hyland Street is kerbed and drained, and is generally in a good structural condition. It is considered, therefore, that with the above controls in place the impact of truck traffic on residents living within the vicinity of Hyland Street should be minimised. However this would be monitored by the Construction Project Manager and should further
Fyansford Development CEMP V3.1 – ICD Property Page 24 ESG2013-‐033
management measures be required, e.g., additional signage and/or entrances, these would be implemented to the satisfaction of the local council.
! In accordance with Australian Safety Standards, all reversing vehicles are required to be fitted with audible warning signals.
! In terms of the EPA noise control guidelines, the hours of operation of the Site will be 7.00 am to 5.30 pm Monday to Friday and 8.00 am to 2.00 pm Saturdays. Should these hours need to be varied, permission should be obtained from the Geelong City Council in writing. The Site is not open on Sundays and public holidays.
Monitoring and Reporting:
! The Construction Project Manager and the Construction Contractor will conduct regular weekly internal auditing of the Site’s trucking operations.
! The OHS construction representative will report to the Contract Superintendent on a weekly basis on any trucking movements that need to be addressed. External complaints will be dealt with on a case by case basis.
2.7 EROSION MANAGEMENT
Objective:
! To prevent incidences of accelerated erosion as a result of the site work activities on-‐Site and thereby limit the environmental impact on soil and other receiving environments within and surrounding the Site area.
Management Measures:
! The Construction Contractor will be required to provide site specific plans for erosion and surface water control for the Site.
! Measures to be taken to minimise erosion and sediment movement to include the following:
– Infrastructure and Development – Limit the amount of progressive clearing and area being disturbed prior to
construction activities commencing. Minimise the period that bare soil is left exposed to erosion.
– Safeguarding the surface layer by stripping and stockpiling useable topsoil prior to construction. Reuse of stored topsoil in revegetation and landscaping activities.
– Using temporary soil diversion mounds to control runoff within and divert water away from the construction site. Use sediment traps/silt fences etc., to minimise off-‐Site effects of erosion.
! Procedures for the construction and maintenance of the sediment traps will include the following:
– Sediment traps will be preferably excavated below the natural ground surface. Where it is necessary to construct embankments to form a sediment trap, embankments will to be adequately compacted with batter slopes commensurate with the available materials.
Fyansford Development CEMP V3.1 – ICD Property Page 25 ESG2013-‐033
– Sediment traps will include a high flow 'spillway' outlet to safely pass floods without breaching the basin.
– Sediment traps will include adequate provisions for access for regular monitoring and maintenance to clean out captured sediments.
– Subject to constraints of available space and topography, sediment traps will be constructed with a plan shape aspect ratio of at least 3 to 1 (length measured from inlet to outlet in relation to width).
– Stockpiles will have silt fences installed around concrete and other stockpiles designed to prevent contaminated stormwater from exiting the site. Contaminated water (which includes silt laden stormwater) will not be allowed to drain off the site prior to the installation and operation of adequate stormwater management systems.
– Construction Road and Temporary Access Tracks
– Provide efficient surface drainage from roads within the Site to prevent run-‐off eroding either the road surface or the adjacent land.
– Where necessary, low mounds angled across the track will be constructed to divert runoff (at a non erosive velocity) into adjacent areas.
– Where table drains need to be established, they will be designed to a broad dish shape, grassed or lined appropriately, to prevent erosion.
– All temporary construction tracks and laydown areas will be removed and rehabilitated when construction is completed.
– Vegetation Clearing
– Limit the disturbance of vegetation in construction areas to a minimum where possible. Following the completion of site construction works any vegetation areas that have been disturbed should be remediated. The Construction Project Manager will assess the need for specific remediation plans, after site works have been completed.
Monitoring and Reporting:
! The Construction Project Manager shall conduct regular inspections of construction areas and assess the environmental condition and operability of Site drains and erosion mitigation measures. Inspections shall be conducted on a weekly basis during winter months as well as after each significant rainfall event.
! The Construction Contractor will report monthly to the Construction Project Manager on the following:
– Compliance with approved erosion and sediment control plan as well as specific instances of erosion.
– Results of weekly inspections. – Results of any corrective actions.
Fyansford Development CEMP V3.1 – ICD Property Page 26 ESG2013-‐033
2.8 WATER CONTAMINATION MANAGEMENT
Objective:
! To monitor water (groundwater, stormwater and waste water) quality to ensure that site works are not impacting the environment through these receptors.
! To prevent the direct or indirect release of contaminated waters into the water receptors surrounding and on the Site. Elimination or containment of potential contamination sources created by the activities occurring on the Site.
Management Measures:
! Actions relating specifically to groundwater contamination management are:
– A groundwater monitoring program will be implemented to assess the groundwater quality prior to, during and post site works. The monitoring will also be undertaken on a quarterly basis following commencement of site works. Groundwater monitoring will be conducted throughout the project by the Environmental Consultant (ESG).
– Induction of employees, suppliers and contractors in their environmental protection responsibilities. This includes the protection of groundwater monitoring wells throughout the duration of the project as defined by ESG.
– Training of relevant personnel and implementation of safe work practices for minimising the risk of spillage. Training will include spill management and clean up procedures.
! Should unacceptable groundwater quality be detected the following actions will be undertaken:
– Re-‐sampling of the particular groundwater monitoring well/wells identified as unacceptable to confirm initial result.
– Re-‐sampling of the well 3 months after previous round to confirm initial rounds of sampling.
– If the elevated contaminant concentrations have been deemed as a direct result of works occurring on site an appropriate remediation plan will be determined and implemented by the Construction Project Manager.
! Actions relating specifically to waste water and stormwater contamination management are:
– Any discharges to sewer from the Site will require approval of either the local Water Authority (Barwon Water) or approval for connection into the sewer under a Trade Waste Agreement. Any discharge requirements set must be complied with.
– No uncontrolled discharge of stormwater or wastewater will be allowed from the site. Any discharges to the Moorabool River from the Site will require to be directed through a suitable stormwater management system. Discharge water will be required to comply with, and be monitored in accordance with, the current EPA guidance (EPA Publication 480 Environmental Guidelines for Major Construction Sites).
Fyansford Development CEMP V3.1 – ICD Property Page 27 ESG2013-‐033
– In order to ensure that the stormwater collection and treatment systems are achieving the objectives, a monitoring program compliant with EPA guidelines will be required to be implemented. The program will involve the monitoring and collection of stormwater samples entering and leaving the Site. Stormwater monitoring will be required in retention ponds prior to discharge. This will determine whether there has been any impact from the activities on-‐Site on stormwater quality. The monitoring program required to be implemented by the Construction Contractor will also be determined by the requirements of the discharge authority.
– Monitoring of the turbidity and volume of water for discharge will be required by the Construction Contractor.
– Clean water diversion drains will be installed to divert clean stormwater flow from undisturbed areas away from the sediment traps. Diversion drains will also be installed as necessary to direct sediment laden stormwater flow to the sediment traps.
! Actions relating to all forms of water contamination management are:
– Provide bunded storage areas for fuels and dangerous goods required for construction equipment with spill clean-‐up kits (located nearby) in accordance with the requirements of AS 1940:1993 and AS 3780:1994.
– Implement controls to ensure all transfer of fuels and chemicals is managed to prevent spillage and should a spill occur that it is contained within the bunded areas.
– Diversion bunds, silt fences and/or sediment traps to be installed downstream of all work areas draining to the natural drainage system. Stormwater controls should be maintained and repaired when necessary.
– Areas containing water receptors should be appropriately managed as “sensitive” and environmental harmful activities will be restricted from occurring within the direct vicinity of these areas, with appropriate management and treatment systems around them.
– General housekeeping to prevent general rubbish and contaminants entering the stormwater runoff from the Site.
– Water quality in the Moorabool River in areas upsteam, adjacent to, and downstream of the Site will be undertaken to gain an understanding of baseline water quality conditions, and provide a regular update to changes, and possible reasons for any changes, if related to the construction activities on the Site. Water quality will be compared to relevant standards as required by the Corangamite Catchment Management Authority and other applicable standards. Sampling locations are shown in Appendix A.
Monitoring and Reporting:
! The Construction Project Manager will monitor water contamination levels continually until the completion of the site works. They will also monitor the implementation of the proper prevention of contamination procedures related to water sources thereby
Fyansford Development CEMP V3.1 – ICD Property Page 28 ESG2013-‐033
ensuring that environmental harm through water receptors is prevented. Discharge standards will comply with EPA guidelines and the CSIRO Urban Stormwater Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines.
! Monthly water quality monitoring will be undertaken by the environmental consultant at three locations in the Moorabool River. Upstream, mid-‐site and downstream of the site locations as showing in Appendix A, Figure 4.
! The results of each monitoring event are to be reported within three months of completion, with a full comprehensive report prepared after the competition of site works. Results will be provided to ICD.
! Any spills or suspected contamination near water receptors should be reported to the Construction Project Manager immediately.
2.9 AIR QUALITY-‐ DUST AND EMISSIONS
Objective:
! To mitigate air quality impacts by managing dust and other emissions generated from Site activities.
Management Measures:
! Actions to be undertaken to control air quality during site works include the following: – Implement mitigation measures in accordance with the EPA Victoria Information
Bulletin 275, dust management at the Site needs to address dust from access roads, stockpiles, cleared areas and the overall site. In order to minimise the release of dust and emissions to air from areas where site works are occurring.
– Reschedule vegetation clearing activities or earthworks during periods of low wind or employ other dust suppression techniques if visible dust is blowing off the Site.
– Regular watering or other treatment of haul roads and exposed construction areas subject to vehicle and machinery movements.
– Ensuring that vehicles and equipment are appropriately maintained to minimise air emissions. All machinery operating at the Site will have exhaust systems that comply with the appropriate Australian Standards.
– Vehicle speeds in construction areas will be limited to a maximum of 30 km/h. – Concrete crushing activities will be undertaken in a designated area as far as
practicable from residential areas to reduce the impact of dust travel. Dust should not be observed beyond the site boundary. Water sprays will be used to dampen the concrete prior to and during the crushing process (at the jaw crusher), and the subsequent stockpiling process.
– Soil and crushed concrete stockpiles will be dampened or stabilised with an appropriate surface cover as required. Other exposed surfaces and stockpiles will also be watered or sprayed as required.
– Dust control equipment will be installed on all major plant and equipment generating significant point sources of dust. Any conveyor belts will be covered to minimise dust emissions.
– Water sprays will be used (as required) across work zones and unsealed areas to suppress dust. The water will be applied by to ground surfaces whenever the surface has the potential to generate excessive levels of dust.
Fyansford Development CEMP V3.1 – ICD Property Page 29 ESG2013-‐033
– Any long-‐term stockpiles will be stabilised using fast-‐seeding, locally common grass. Exposed areas will be minimised through progressive rehabilitation as soon as practicable.
– All major haul roads will be regularly watered and vehicle speeds on unsealed roads will be controlled to minimise dust. Haul trucks will pass through the “wash down” area before they leave the site. Haul trucks will have their loads covered to prevent dust generation.
Monitoring and Reporting:
! Visual inspections will be undertaken by the Construction Project Manager to check for evidence of excessive dust generation.
! The Construction Project Manager will prepare reports of dust and air emissions produced by construction activities. The reports will be submitted to the ICD.
2.10 NOISE MANAGEMENT
Objective:
! To ensure that noise levels from Site activities do not exceed 10 dB(A) above ambient noise levels at the boundary of the residential area adjacent to McCurdy Road.
! To minimise any potential noise impacts that would result from exposure to noise emissions.
Management Measures:
! The following strategies will be implemented to aid in noise management throughout Site works: – In accordance with the SEPP, where possible every effort will be made to minimise
noise at the Site boundaries by restricting Site activities to the following working hours: Monday to Friday between 07:00 and 18:00 hours with scheduling of “noisy” activities after 9am;Saturday between 07:00 and 13:00 with scheduling of “noisy activities” after 10am; and the Site will not operate on Sundays or public holidays. Should these working hours need to be varied, permission should be obtained from the Greater Geelong City Council.
– Machinery will be maintained and operated in a manner that limits noise emissions. Where possible the Construction Project Manager should arrange to use low noise emitting equipment as well as properly maintained equipment to prevent noise emissions while completing Site works. As well, turning equipment off when not in use and lowering throttle settings if possible will also help in reducing the amount of noise produced on-‐Site.
– Wherever possible the construction laydown area and designated Site entrances should be located away from noise sensitive locations, such as residential areas. In general, the instance and duration of noisy works should be minimised. As well, the layout can be arranged to avoid the need for truck reversing on-‐Site.
– Concrete crushing, and other similar activities should take place as far as practicable from the residential areas to the east of the site to mitigate noise impacts on the residents of these areas.
Fyansford Development CEMP V3.1 – ICD Property Page 30 ESG2013-‐033
– Where appropriate, an area away from residential dwellings should be nominated for off-‐Site truck parking when vehicles arrive before Site operating hours and thereby limiting the exposure of nearby residents to noise outside the normal works hours.
– Schedule noisy works to provide respite and avoid sensitive times, particularly during night and other times out of normal working hours. On a working day, shorter respite periods should be provided where possible, especially during very noisy works.
– If a noise complaint is received control measures will be reviewed to prevent recurrences and, where necessary, additional control and mitigation measures will be investigated and installed.
Monitoring and Reporting:
! Should a justifiable noise complaint be received, an appropriately designed monitoring program will be implemented by the Construction Project Manager. Any monitoring conducted will be in accordance with the Australian Standard 1055 Acoustics -‐ Description and Measurement of Environmental Noise AS 1055.1 -‐ 1997.
! Any noise complaints will be documented and reported to the Construction Project Manager. The results of any monitoring undertaken by the Construction Contractor will also be reported to ICD.
2.11 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT
Objective:
! To minimise the impact of Site work activities on vegetation within and adjacent to Site areas.
! To prevent the spread of weeds resulting from the frequent movement of soil material around the Site.
Management Measures:
! Construction activities will be limited to designated construction areas unless approved by ICD’s Project Manager and the total area to be cleared for construction will be restricted to the minimal area required.
! Prior to clearing areas, the Construction Project Manager will consult with a site-‐planning consultant to determine if the vegetation to be cleared has inherent heritage or biological value. Areas that are approved for clearing will be identified and clearly marked to ensure that only previously assessed areas are cleared and to prevent construction vehicles from having an adverse impact on adjacent undisturbed vegetation.
! Unless specifically stated, dead egetation identified as potentially valuable habitat (e.g. hollow logs) may be stockpiled for use in erosion and sediment control works or in site rehabilitation.
! Cleared vegetation will also be re-‐used on-‐Site where possible. It will be stockpiled in appropriate areas prior to use. Possible uses include: chipping of material to use in composting and soil cover, or use in rehabilitation of previously disturbed areas within
Fyansford Development CEMP V3.1 – ICD Property Page 31 ESG2013-‐033
the Site. Specific uses for such materials will be designated by the Construction Project Manager.
! A weed control program will be established. It will involve the periodic (monthly) inspection of the construction sites and downstream areas and control of any infestations of declared environmental weeds. The source of any infestation will be investigated and the most appropriate control technique will be implemented.
! The riparian vegetation of the Moorabool River is to be protected from construction activities and dumping.
! Vegetation identified as important to retain by sections of the arborist report refer to Appendix C
Monitoring and Reporting:
! Monitoring of vegetation health adjacent to the construction activity area will be undertaken during and after construction activities.
! Monthly inspection for weed infestation of the construction site and/or downstream areas.
! The Construction Contractor will report any incidents of vegetation disturbance outside of designated areas or weed infestation to Construction Project Manager.
2.12 GENERAL WASTE MANAGEMENT
Objective:
! Achieving cost effective and environmentally sustainable waste management by:
– Minimising waste generation;
– Maximising waste re-‐use;
– Maximising recycling; and
– Safely managing, treating and disposing of all non-‐reusable and non-‐recyclable materials.
Management Measures:
! The following actions will be implemented for general waste management:
– Identify and categorise all wastes produced across the Site and designate specific storage areas, prior to disposal, for each category of waste produced. Ensure appropriate maintenance of these designated disposal areas to prevent unnecessary environmental harm due to exposure to potentially hazardous substances.
– Perform risk assessments on all storage, transport and disposal of all waste produced.
– Ensure appropriate re-‐use, storing, recycling and disposal of the following wastes:
– Waste oil will be collected for transport and disposal off-‐Site;
– Aluminium cans will be provided to the local Council for recycling;
– Batteries will be collected and transported off-‐Site for disposal; and;
Fyansford Development CEMP V3.1 – ICD Property Page 32 ESG2013-‐033
– Tires will be stockpiled pending the development of an appropriate disposal strategy or disposed of to a suitable waste management facility.
– Concrete stockpiles should be processed and reused appropriately.
– Identify and implement other feasible waste reduction strategies as the project develops.
Monitoring and Reporting:
! The following waste streams will be measured and reported:
– Waste generation.
– Waste re-‐use
– Waste recycling
– Waste treatment and on-‐Site remediation if possible.
– Waste disposal, including the off-‐Site facilities the materials are sent transported to.
– During Site works the Construction Project Manager will report at monthly intervals to ICD on the results of the waste monitoring program and other relevant waste management issues.
2.13 CHEMICALS AND DANGEROUS GOODS
Objective:
! To safely manage, purchase, store, handle and dispose of fuels and chemicals used on-‐Site and to prevent the uncontrolled release of chemicals into the environment.
! Compliance with relevant Australian Standards (e.g. for the storage and handling of flammable and combustible liquids and dangerous goods) including:
– AS 4452 The Storage and Handling of Toxic Substances;
– AS 1940 The Storage and Handling of Flammable and Combustible Liquids; and
– AS 3740 The Storage and Handling of Corrosive Substances.
! No spills of chemicals or release of chemicals to the environment.
Management Measures:
! The following actions will be implemented for chemical and dangerous goods management: – Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) of all chemicals used on-‐Site will be compiled
in a register by the Construction Project Manager as well as records on the existing inventory, storage location, personnel training and disposal of waste instructions for all chemical and dangerous goods used on-‐Site.
– The Construction Project Manager and Construction Contractor will have procedures in place regarding emergencies relating to chemicals and dangerous goods and will implement controls to ensure all transfer of fuels and chemicals is managed to prevent spillage and should any spill occur that it is contained within a bunded area.
Fyansford Development CEMP V3.1 – ICD Property Page 33 ESG2013-‐033
– All relevant construction and site workers will be trained in appropriate handling, storage and containment practices for chemicals and dangerous goods as is relevant to their position and chemicals that they will be in contact with on-‐Site.
– All fuels and chemicals will be stored in accordance with the requirements of the relevant Australian Standard.
– Provide bunded storage areas for fuels and dangerous goods required for construction equipment with spill clean-‐up kits.
– Implement controls to ensure all transfer of fuels and chemicals is managed to prevent spillage and occurs inside bunded areas.
– Any spills to be cleaned up immediately. Contaminated runoff and contaminated soil will be collected and remediated or disposed of at a licensed facility as designated in the soils handling management procedures.
– Location and details of spills to be recorded in the site logbook.
Monitoring and Reporting:
! Inspections of storages tanks, bulk containers and the integrity of bunded areas, pavement and associated containment systems will be conducted on a monthly basis.
! The Project Manger will record and sign off on monthly inspections of containers, bund integrity, valves and storage and handling areas. Spills will be reported to the Construction Project Manager including actions taken to minimise the impacts immediately.
2.14 HEALTH AND SAFETY
Objective:
! To ensure that the operation does not adversely affect the health of the employees, contractors or the general public.
Management Measures:
! The following actions will be implemented for health and safety management:
– Safety training will be implemented through both general site safety induction as well as area specific inductions.
– The Site will be fenced along the northern, eastern and southern sides, prior to commencement of operations. The fencing will restrict pedestrian and public access to the Site, in the interests of public safety. Fencing will be maintained at all times and incorporate lockable gates.
– Site workers access to the Site will be restricted by the time restrictions, Site fencing, landscaping and designated points of entry to be specified in the site plan.
– Signage on the roads approaching the Site entrances will be erected to warn other vehicles of entering and slow moving trucks in the area.
– Speed limits on-‐Site will be restricted to 30 km per hour, with all other Victorian traffic road rules to be adhered to when driving within the Site boundary.
Fyansford Development CEMP V3.1 – ICD Property Page 34 ESG2013-‐033
– Authority to drive road vehicles on-‐Site is to be provided by the site supervisor or Project Manager.
– All vehicles driven within the site boundary are to have a prominent vehicle safety light displayed.
– Job Hazard Analyses (JHA) of Site Specific Work Methods (SSWM) will be undertaken as required for specific tasks associated with the Site and will be used to develop Standard Operating Procedures to ensure compliance with the ICD standards and site personnel safety.
! The list below details some of the site requirements to consider when completing a JHA/SSWM:
– Personal protection equipment: wearing high visibility clothing, protective foot wear and glasses at all time whilst on site.
– Familiarisation with and adherence to site activities and site OHS procedures.
– Isolation and tagging, manual handling, confined spaces, and height safety.
– Procedures that should be followed on-‐Site to ensure personal safety include:
– Inform site safety contact of proposed Site activities and barricade and sign post work areas if necessary. Observe access authorisation/permission conditions and familiarisation self with emergency alarm system and procedures.
– Observe caution by carrying relevant MSDS when working on-‐Site and avoiding exposure to soil and groundwater wherever possible.
– Ensure mobile phones are not used within the Site unless prior approved by the Construction Project Manager, or in designated areas.
– Personnel should be instructed to report the presence of noxious or hydrocarbon/petroleum odours within soils or other visibly unusual materials on-‐Site to the Construction Project Manager, if identified.
– All personnel are required to ensure that they maintain a high standard of hygiene maintenance at the Site. This includes:
Monitoring and Reporting:
! The Construction Project Manager will conduct regular internal auditing (weekly) of the Site’s health and safety health systems.
! Fencing will be regularly assessed (weekly) to monitor the need for maintenance.
! The OHS construction representative will report to the Construction Project Manager on a weekly basis on any health and safety issues that need to be addressed. The results of all health and safety audits will be reported to ICD.
2.15 INCIDENTS AND COMPLAINTS
Objective:
! To manage environmental or social incidents and complaints.
Fyansford Development CEMP V3.1 – ICD Property Page 35 ESG2013-‐033
Management Measures:
! The Construction Project Manager report all incidents and complaints to the Contract Superintendent and will manage all incidents or complaints about either environmental or social issues.
! If further complaints are received in relation to previous occurrences and investigation into why the incident/complaint was not addressed within the specified time frame.
! The following points must be followed upon complaint receipt:
– Take any necessary immediate action.
– Report the incident or complaint (including to Council if necessary).
– Undertake an investigation.
– Determine root causes.
! This procedure requires the following actions to be undertaken:
– Undertake any necessary corrective or preventative actions.
– Monitor action implementation.
– Audit effectiveness of action.
Monitoring and Reporting:
! The Construction Project Manager shall monitor compliance against the targets.
! The Construction Project Manager will record all incidents and complaints. Reports of all incidents and complaints will be submitted to ICD. The complainant will be advised of what action, if any, is taken as a result of the complaint.
Fyansford Development CEMP V3.1 – ICD Property Page 36 ESG2013-‐033
3 CEMP REVIEW The Construction Project Manager will review the CEMP prior to works commencing on Site, periodically (6-‐monthly) or following a failure of compliance detailed in the above tables to ensure that it is:
o Up-‐to-‐date with design and associated, potential environmental impacts.
o Current with other organisational changes, such as changes to the Construction Contractor team.
Amendments to the CEMP must be carried out in accordance with the document control procedure discussed in Section 1.
ESG and ICD, may periodically audit the implementation of the CEMP in relation to the site construction works that are being carried out. Such a review may result in a requirement for the Construction Contractor Project Manager to initiate a review and an update of the CEMP.
Appendix A
Figures
ESG2013-033: ICD Fyansford Development
Figure 4: Fyansford Development Proposed River Samples Locations
Approximate Proposed Surface Water Sample Point Location
LEGEND
Approximate Boundary of Stage Areas 1, 2, 2A, LSIO and Reserve
Photographs Showing Proposed River Surafce Sample Lcations
Upstream Sampling Location
On-Site Sampling Location
Downstream Sampling Location
Scale (metres)0 25 75 10050
Moorabool RiverMoorabool River
Hyland StHyland St
Hamilton HwyHamilton Hwy
Appendix B
Incident Form Templates
Unexpected Finds Procedure Form – Fyansford Project, ICD Property
Date of Inspection: / / Time of inspection: am/pm
Inspection Conducted by: UFP No:
Item 1 Unexpected or suspect material encountered? Y / N -‐ details:
2 Contact: Head Contractor Environmental Consultant Site Supervisor
Y / N Y / N Y / N
3 Location of unexpected/suspect material, dimensions, depth, GPS coordinates and sketch:
4 Asbestos/Suspected asbestos containing material present? Y / N -‐ Description:
5 Odour (do not sniff soil) or Staining observe Y / N -‐ Description:
6 Material deemed high risk and barricaded off? Y / N -‐ Description:
7 Material sampled? Date: Y / N -‐ Description:
8 Description/ Outcome of sampling/Analysis Date of results:
9 Fate of material:
10 Copy of UFP Form provided to: Head Contractor Site Supervisor Environmental Consultant
Y / N Date: Y / N Date: Y / N Date:
SEMP Incident Reporting Forms Rev 1 3 March 2014
Pages Included in this report: General Information Company Vehicle Non Company Vehicle Injury /Illness Environmental External Assessment Witness / External Investigator or Adjuster Property / Equipment Damage
Section 1 General Information
1.1 Incident Type, Date and Time InformationIncident Type Check any that apply Date and Time Information
Incident Plant Involved Note: Date Format 01-Jul-08 Time Format 24 hr: 18:00 Near Miss Date Time
Occurrence Date and Time:Primary Incident Type Secondary Incident Type(s)
Injury Illness Injury Illness Date and Time Reported: Vehicle Environmental Environmental Property / Equip
DamageIncident Reported By:
Property / EquipDamage
External Assessment
External Assessment Supervisor's Name in charge ofwork activity at time of incident:
Person Completing Form: Risk Assessment
Risk Assessment Performed Prior to Incident?
Was Risk Assessment Documented?
Person Completing Form Phone Number:
1.2 Incident Location & Responsible Business Unit
Location Type:Occurrence Site (describe where the incident occurred)
Region:
Address of incident
After completing this form, submission to the Project Manager is required
1.3 Description of Incident Brief Description:
Detailed Description
After completing this form, submission to the Project Manager is required
Section 2 Vehicle Incident Details Note: Any vehicle where a company employee is driving, is considered a "company vehicle" If more than one company vehicleis involved, make copies of this page.Check any that apply:
Company Vehicle Involved (Complete 2.1) Non Company Vehicle Involved (Complete 2.2)
2.1 Company Vehicle Vehicle InformationVehicle VIN Vehicle Make
Company Number Vehicle Model
License Number: Vehicle Type
Vehicle a Rental? Yes No If Yes, Company:
Driver License No. State / Country
Expiry Date d/m/y City, State Nearest the placewhere the incident occurred:
Company or Non Company Driver and/or passenger informationCompany Employee? Y/N Last Name First name Emp. Number Seat Belt Worn?
Driver: Yes No
Passenger 1 Yes No
Passenger 2 Yes No
Passenger 3 Yes No
Passenger 4 Yes No
Passenger 5 Yes No
Damage to Company Vehicle:Recordability: Company Reportable Company Recordable
Documentation Only
Vehicle weight more than 4550 kg? YesWas Vehicle transporting Hazardous Material? YesVehicle designed to transport 16 + passengers? Yes Company Vehicle Towed From Scene? Yes Non Company Veh Towed From Scene? Yes
Hazardous Chemical Spilled? (other than fuel from the fuel tanks) Yes Any party receive medical treatment away from the scene? Yes Were there any fatalities? Yes
Describe Damage to Company Vehicle:
Drugs & Alcohol InformationWas a drugs & alcohol testadministered?
No Yes - within 2 hours Yes - within 8 hours Yes within 32 hours (drugs only)
If no drugs & alcohol test was administered, give details asto why not:
After completing this form, submission to the Project Manager is required
Section 2 Vehicle Incident Details - Continued
2.2 Non Company Vehicle If more than one non-company vehicle was involved, make additional copies of this page.
Vehicle InformationVehicle VIN Vehicle Make
License Number: Vehicle Model
State of issue: Vehicle Type
Non Company vehicle towed from scene? Yes Any indications of drugs and/or alcohol? YesMedical treatment away from Scene? Yes
Non Company Vehicle - (Driver Information) Last Name: First Name:
Address:
Drivers License InformationNumber State / Country Expiry Date (01-JAN-99)
Insurance Company Address and Phone Number Policy Number
Injury details of non-company personsName: Nature of Injury Address / Phone Number
Name: Nature of Injury Address / Phone Number
Name: Nature of Injury Address / Phone Number
After completing this form, submission to the Project Manager is required
Section 3 Injury / Illness Incident Details
Check all that apply Company Employee (Complete 3.1) Client Employee
Sub Contractor Employee (Complete 3.2) Member of Public (Complete 3.3) Casual / Temporary / Contract Employee
3.1 Company Employee Details For Additional Injuries associated with this incident, make copies of this page.
Recordability: Check applicable recordability First Aid Case Non-Recordable MedicalRestricted Work Case Lost Time Case Medical Case Fatality Case
Non-Occupational Restricted Work Case Non-Occupational Lost Time Case Non-Occupational Medical Case Non-Occupational Fatality Case
Injured Party InformationLast Name: First Name: Emp. Number:
Job Task: Job Activity:
Body Part(s): Nature of injury:
Body Part(s): Nature of injury:
Additional Comments:
Justification for “First Aid” or “Non Recordable Medical” Recordability Class
Administering Tetanus ImmunizationCleaning, Flushing or Soaking Wounds on the Surface of the Skin Drilling Fingernail / Toenail to Relieve Pressure or Draining Fluid from a BlisterNo Treatment Given (Diagnostic Only)Remove Foreign Bodies from the Eye using only Irrigation or Cotton SwabRemove Splinters / Foreign Material from Areas Other Than the Eye by Simple MeansUse of Nonprescription Medication at Nonprescription StrengthUse of Hot or Cold TherapyUsing any Non Rigid Means of Support (i.e. Elastic Bandages)Using Finger Nail GuardsUsing MassagesUsing Wound Coverings such as Bandages, Gauze Pads or Butterfly Bandages
Drugs & Alcohol Information
Was a drugs & alcohol test administered?
No Yes - within 2 hours Yes - within 8 hours Yes within 32 hours (drugs only)
If no drugs & alcohol test was administered, give details as to why not:
After completing this form, submission to the Project Manager is required
Section 3 Injury / Illness Incident Details - Continued
3.2 Other Involved Parties Check applicable person type: Note: for additional parties, make copies of this page
Injured Party Information Last Name: First Name: Company:
Phone Address
Job Task: Job Activity:
Insurance "Causes":
Body Part(s):
Left Right
Nature of injury:
Body Part(s):
Left Right
Nature of injury:
Additional Comments:
3.3 Member of Public Injured Party DetailsLast Name: First Name: Task at time of incident:
Phone Address
Body Part(s):
Left Right
Nature of injury:
After completing this form, submission to the Project Manager is required
Section 4 Environmental Incident Details
Check all that apply: Agent Medium Effect
Substance Air PeopleExplosion Ground Water VegetationLight Soil AnimalsNoise Surface Water StructuresDust EquipmentVibration Materials
Substance InformationName of Substance ( Specify Material Name ) Amount Unit of Measure
Describe Response Details
After completing this form, submission to the Project Manager is required
Section 5 External Assessment
Check any that apply Notice of Violation Audit Self Reported Other Administrative Order Inspection Regulatory Investigation
Describe the Assessment, If there are specific comments made by anyone, include those in Section 6, Witnesses / External Investigator.
After completing this form, submission to the Project Manager is required
Section 6 Witnesses / External Investigator
Person 1 Last Name: First Name: Company:
Phone Address
Comments
Person 2 Last Name: First Name: Company:
Phone Address
Comments
After completing this form, submission to the Project Manager is required
Section 7 Property / Equipment Damage
Who Owns the Property / Equipment:
Company Client / Contractor Third Party
Equipment type:
Examples: Tank, Building, Trailer, Fork Lift etc Type of Damage
Structural Mechanical Process Failure Theft Sabotage Fire
Natural Causes (Earthquake, Flood, etc.)
Description of Damage:
Provide details of the Type of Property and Equipment (with serial numbers etc., if applicable), and describe what happened andthe extent of damage. If possible, provide an estimate of the cost of the damage.
After completing this form, submission to the Project Manager is required
Frequency of ESG monitoring event (ongoing for Drapers) Comment
Responsible party Corrective action Assigned to Date completed
Soil tracking management
On site soil tracking (imported soil and internal movements) Induction of personnel Weekly Drapers
Site Classification Plan to be developed Weekly DrapersSoil tracking forms updated daily Weekly DrapersWeekly review of soil tracking forms Weekly ESG
Imported soils assessment
Source site assessment for imported soils to meet acceptance criteria Weekly ESG
Off site soil tracking Induction of personnel Weekly Drapers
Assessment and classification for offsite disposal Weekly ESGSoil tracking forms updated with each soil load Weekly DrapersEPA Waste Transport Certificates to be completed for each truck Weekly DrapersWeekly review of soil tracking forms Weekly ESG
Soil handling management
On site soil handling management Induction of personnel Weekly Drapers
Stockpiles managed and labelled (grid notation) and separated as per requirements of Site Classification Plan Weekly DrapersWeekly review of stockpile management Weekly ESG
Final levels
Final levels and adopted criteria to be complied with as per Auditor requirements. See last page of compliance monitoring report for detail. Weekly Drapers, ESG
Concrete crushing
Concrete crushing to be undertaken only in Area 10 (northwest corner). Weekly Drapers
SamplingExcavated soil to be sampled prior to moving to allow correct classification. Weekly ESGExcavations to be validated before backfilling Weekly ESG
Unexpected findsContaminated material
Contaminated material to be stockpiled in designated covered with black plastic. Contaminated soil to be recorded on "Unexpected Finds" form Weekly DrapersAssessment and classification of contaminated material Weekly ESG
Asbestos management
Prevention of contact and containment of ACM
Ongoing monitoring of excavations and other earthwork activities for ACM Weekly DrapersACM identification, documentation and management containment procedures to be followed as per Worksafe standards and recorded on Contaminated soil to be recorded on "Unexpected Finds" form. Weekly Drapers
Truck movement management
Control of truck movements Speed limits of 30km/h in place. Weekly Drapers
Relevant safety signage and traffic signage in place for truck movements. Weekly Drapers
Erosion managementControl of erosion
Progressive clearing to be undertaken to minimise exposed areas. Weekly DrapersVegetation clearing to be kept to a minimum Weekly Drapers
Sediment traps will be preferably excavated below the natural ground surface. Where it is necessary to construct embankments to form a sediment trap, embankments will to be adequately compacted with batter slopes commensurate with the available materials. Weekly DrapersSediment traps will include a high flow 'spillway' outlet to safely pass floods without breaching the basin. Weekly Drapers
Stockpiles will have silt fences installed around concrete and other stockpiles designed to prevent contaminated stormwater from exiting the site. Contaminated water (which includes silt laden stormwater) will not be allowed to drain off the site prior to the installation and operation of adequate stormwater management systems. Weekly Drapers
Water Contamination Management
Groundwater contamination management
Groundwater monitoring to be undertaken as per groundwater contamination management plan Weekly
Surface water contamination management
No uncontrolled release of surface water (stormwater or other) will be allowed from the site. Weekly Drapers
Frequency of ESG monitoring event (ongoing for Drapers) Comment
Responsible party Corrective action Assigned to Date completed
Any discharges to sewer from the Site will require approval of either the local Water Authority (Barwon Water) or approval for connection into the sewer under a Trade Waste Agreement. Any discharge requirements set must be complied with. Weekly Drapers
Any discharges to the Moorabool River from the Site will require to be directed through a suitable stormwater management system. Discharge water will be required to comply with, and be monitored in accordance with, the current EPA guidance (EPA Publication 480 Environmental Guidelines for Major Construction Sites). Weekly DrapersWater quality will be monitored in the Moorabool River upstream, onsite, and downstream of the site. Weekly ESGMonitoring of the turbidity and pH of water for discharge will be required by the Construction Contractor. Weekly Drapers
Prevention of contamination from hazardous materials
Provide bunded storage areas for fuels and dangerous goods required for construction equipment with spill clean-‐up kits (located nearby) in accordance with the requirements of AS 1940:1993 and AS 3780:1994. Weekly Drapers
Air Quality
Control of dust and emissions generation from site traffic
Reschedule vegetation clearing activities or earthworks during periods of low wind or employ other dust suppression techniques if visible dust is blowing off the Site. Weekly DrapersRegular watering or other treatment of haul roads and exposed construction areas subject to vehicle and machinery movements Weekly DrapersVehicle speeds in construction areas will be limited to a maximum of 30 km/h. Weekly DrapersEnsuring that vehicles and equipment are appropriately maintained to minimise air emissions. All machinery operating at the Site will have exhaust systems that comply with the appropriate Australian Standard(s). Weekly Drapers
Control of dust from stockpiles and related works
Soil and crushed concrete stockpiles will be dampened or stabilised with an appropriate surface cover as required. Other exposed surfaces and stockpiles will also be watered or sprayed as required Weekly DrapersDust control equipment will be installed on all major plant and equipment generating significant point sources of dust. Any conveyor belts will be covered to minimise dust emissions. Weekly DrapersLong-‐term stockpiles (2months or more) will be stabilised using fast-‐seeding, locally common grass. Exposed areas will be minimised through progressive rehabilitation as soon as practicable. Weekly Drapers
Noise Management
Control of noise from site activities
Noise levels from Site activities do not exceed 10 dB(A) above ambient noise levels at the boundary of the residential area adjacent to McCurdy Road. Weekly DrapersNo personnel injuries to site personnel relating to exposure to high levels of noise emissions from Site activities. Weekly Drapers
Working hours to be adhered to: Monday to Friday between 07:00 and 18:00 hours with scheduling of “noisy” activities after 9am;Saturday between 07:00 and 13:00 with scheduling of “noisy activities” after 10am; andThe Site will not operate on Sundays or public holidays.
Weekly Drapers
Machinery will be maintained and operated in a manner that limits noise emissions. The Construction Project Manager, if possible, should arrange to use low noise emitting equipment as well as properly maintained equipment to prevent noise emissions while completing Site works. As well, turning equipment off when not in use and lowering throttle settings if possible will also help in reducing the amount of noise produced on-‐Site. Weekly Drapers
Frequency of ESG monitoring event (ongoing for Drapers) Comment
Responsible party Corrective action Assigned to Date completed
Should a justifiable noise complaint be received, an appropriately designed monitoring program will be implemented by the Construction Project Manager. Any monitoring conducted will be in accordance with the Australian Standard 1055 Acoustics -‐ Description and Measurement of Environmental Noise AS 1055.1 -‐ 1997. Weekly Drapers
Vegetation management
Control of invasive species
Weed infestations to be monitored and removed as per weed identification programme Weekly Drapers
Protection of important vegetation and habitats
Vegetation to be kept to be clearly demarcated as per arborist report. Weekly DrapersVegetation clearing to be kept to a minimum, no clearing to take place outside construction envelope. Weekly Drapers
Vegetation identified as potentially valuable habitat (e.g. hollow logs) may be stockpiled for use in erosion and sediment control works or in site rehabilitation. Cleared vegetation will also be re-‐used on-‐Site where possible. It will be stockpiled in appropriate areas prior to use. Possible uses include: chipping of material to use in composting and soil cover, or use in rehabilitation of previously disturbed areas within the Site. Weekly Drapers
General waste management
Waste stream identification
All waste streams to be identified and planned for. Monthly Drapers
Recycling and waste reduction
Waste separation on site, recycling contractors to be identified. Weekly DrapersRecycling of waste oil, cans, batteries, tires and concrete stockpiles. Weekly DrapersIdentify other waste reduction strategies and implement. Weekly Drapers
Chemicals and dangerous goods
Safe storage and use of hazardous materials
Ensure compliance with • AS 4452 The Storage and Handling of Toxic Substances; • AS 1940 The Storage and Handling of Flammable and Combustible Liquids; and • AS 3740 The Storage and Handling of Corrosive Substances.
Monthly DrapersMaterial Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) of all chemicals used on-‐Site will be compiled in a register by the Construction Project Manager as well as records on the existing inventory, storage location, personnel training and disposal of waste instructions for all chemical and dangerous goods used on-‐Site. Monthly Drapers
Health and Safety
Health and safety procedures
Safety training will be implemented through both general site safety induction as well as area specific inductions. Weekly DrapersSignage on the roads approaching the Site entrances will be erected to warn other vehicles of entering and slow moving trucks in the area. Weekly DrapersAll vehicles driven within the site boundary are to have a prominent vehicle safety light displayed. Weekly DrapersContractor to submit a HSSE plan to be approved by ICD Monthly Drapers
Incidents and complaintsIncident reporting
All incidents to be recorded within 24 hours of occurrence Weekly DrapersImmediate action undertaken as soon as possible and within 24 hours of receipt of a complaint. Investigations completed within 7 days of receipt of a complaint. All corrective actions implemented by the due date. Weekly Drapers
Frequency of ESG monitoring event (ongoing for Drapers) Comment
Responsible party Corrective action Assigned to Date completed
Based on discussions with the EPA approved Environmental Auditor for the site, the agreed site specific soil reuse criteria adopted for the site will be based on depth below final finish level.
Depth Below Final Finish Level (m) Adopted Criteria
Soils with contaminant concentrations not exceeding NEPM 1999 (as amended 2013) EIL levels and HIL A /HSL A levels
0 to 1.0No unaesthetically (i.e. offensive to human senses) acceptable materials or particles of inert waste
Soils or engineered fill with contaminant concentrations not exceeding NEPM 1999 (as amended, 2013) HIL A/HSL A levels
1.0 to 3.0May be blended materials but must be aesthetically acceptable (i.e. not offensive to human senses).
Soils or engineered fill with contaminant concentrations not exceeding NEPM 1999 (as amended, 2013) HIL B/HSL B levelsMaterials may require management due to aesthetics such as engineered fill comprising concrete or limestone.
Date EPA Notified of Audit 7/7/2008 (original notification for the larger Fyansford Development Site)
16/01/2015 (subsequent notification for Audit Area 1D and 1E combined)
16/10/2015 (subsequent notification for Audit Area 1D only)
Audit Service Order Number 8004568
Person and Organisation requesting Audit
Mr Will Neething of Moltoni Corporation (original notification)
Mr Glen Dyke of Sinclair Brook (subsequent notification for Audit Area 1D)
Relationship of Person Requesting Audit to Site
Development Project Manager (Sinclair Brook) on behalf of the site owner
Date of Auditor Engagement 3/7/2008
Completion date of the audit 13/5/2016
Reason for Audit To comply with Condition 47 of Planning Permit 701/2009/C Dated 21 January 2010 issued by the City of Greater Geelong Council
The site forms a portion of a much larger property which is proposed to be developed over several stages for residential use. This report addresses the stage of development referred to as Audit Area 1D.
Audit Categorisation Risk
Environmental Segments Air, Land, Groundwater, Surface Water
Current Land Use Zoning General Residential
EPA Region South West
Municipality City of Greater Geelong
Dominant Lot on Plan Part of Parcel 21 on Plan of Subdivision TP568016C, Volume 2181 Folio 086
Additional Lot on Plan(s) NA
Site Premises name Former Australian Portland Cement Company/Adelaide Brighton Cement Company
Plan of site/premises showing the audit site boundary attached
Annexure 1 of the Statement of Environmental Audit
Plan of site/premises showing the audit site boundary attached in a spatial data format
Attached electronically
Members and Categories of Support Team Utilised
NA
Further works or requirements Groundwater must not be extracted for the precluded beneficial uses listed below
Nature and extent of continuing risk Subject to the conditions of the attached Statement of Environmental Audit being adhered to, there is no unacceptable continuing risk to the environment or human health for the proposed residential development.
Outcome of the audit Statement
Has EPA determined CUTEP at this site?
Yes
Has the Auditor determined CUTEP at this site?
No
Has a GQRUZ been identified at the site/beyond the site by EPA?
Yes
Does NAPL remain at the site? No
Please indicate which of the Protected Beneficial Uses of Groundwater are precluded due to pollution
Groundwater at the site is impacted by on‐site and off‐site sources of contamination.
Protected Use Precluded?
Maintenance of Ecosystems No
Potable Water Supply (Desirable) NA
Potable Water Supply (Acceptable) NA
Potable Mineral Water Supply NA
Agriculture, Parks and Gardens Yes
Stock Watering Yes
Primary Contact Recreation Yes
Industrial Water Use Yes
Buildings and Structures Yes
Historical Land Use Approximately 100 years of cement manufacturing
Surrounding Land Use ‐ North Vacant land comprising Audit Area 1E of the Gen Fyansford Development is located to the north of the site, followed by vacant land
Surrounding Land Use ‐ South Audit Areas 1C and 1B of the Gen Fyansford Development are located to the south followed by Hyland Street
Surrounding Land Use ‐ East Vacant land comprising Reserve No.1 of the Gen Fyansford Development is located to the east of the site followed by Hyland Street
Surrounding Land Use ‐ West Vacant land comprising Audit Area 1E is located to the west of the site, followed by LSIO and the Moorabool River
Proposed Land Use Zoning Residential
Nearest Surface Water Receptor Moorabool River
Nearest Surface Water Receptor ‐ Distance (m)
120 m
Nearest Surface Water Receptor ‐ Direction
West
Likely Point of Groundwater Discharge
Moorabool River
Site Aquifer Formation Quaternary Alluvium Aquifer
Groundwater Flow Direction Westerly
Groundwater TDS Range (mg/L) 4,100 to 10,000
Groundwater Segment Segment C has been adopted for consistency with the remaining areas of the Gen Fyansford Development
Are there Multiple Aquifers Impacted by Pollution at the Site?
Zone of Groundwater Plume Influence (m from site boundary)
The nitrate groundwater plume is also impacting adjacent land hydraulically down gradient Audit Area 1E which will be addressed in a separate Environmental Audit Report prepared for this site.
Year Groundwater Last Monitored 2016
Have you Attached Electronic Copies of Current Groundwater Analytical Results Presented as a Summary Table
Table of Contents List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................. vii
4.6 Aesthetic Condition of Site Soils ....................................................................................... 20
4.7 Evaluation of Beneficial Uses ........................................................................................... 21
4.7.1 Maintenance of Modified Ecosystems and Maintenance of Highly Modified Ecosystems ....................................................................................................................... 21
4.7.2 Human Health ................................................................................................... 21
10.6 Risks to Beneficial Uses of Land ....................................................................................... 45
10.6.1 Maintenance of Modified Ecosystems and Maintenance of Highly Modified Ecosystems ....................................................................................................................... 45
10.6.2 Human Health ................................................................................................... 45
10.6.3 Buildings and Structures ................................................................................... 45
Mr Andrew Nunn is an appointed Environmental Auditor under Section 53(S) of the Environment Protection Act 1970 and was requested to undertake an environmental audit of a portion of the Gen Fyansford Development known as Audit Area 1D. The site was historically occupied by the Fyansford Cement Works and is located at 50 Hyland Street, Fyansford Victoria. A site location plan is provided as Figure 1 of this report.
A statutory environmental audit was required to be completed in accordance with Part IXD of the Environment Protection Act 1970 in order to comply with Planning Conditions issued by the City of Greater Geelong which indicate that the site is subject to an Environmental Audit Overlay (EAO).
The report was completed in accordance with the guidelines issued by the EPA for the environmental audit of contaminated sites as referenced in Section 1.2 of this report.
Copies of the Certificates of Title and surveyed plans of the site boundaries are provided in Attachment A.
The site is proposed to be developed for low density residential land use. A plan of the proposed development is provided in Attachment B.
This report details the outcome of the environmental audit of the subject site. Relevant details associated with the audit are presented in Table 1. The site layout is shown as Figure 2.
Table 1 ‐ Summary of Audit Information Category Details
Name of Auditor Mr Andrew Nunn
Term of Appointment 25/6/2020
Person and Organisation requesting Audit Mr Will Neething of Moltoni Corporation (Original Notification) Mr Glen Dyke of Sinclair Brook (Subsequent Notification for Audit Area 1D)
Date Environmental Audit Requested 3 July 2008 (Original notification), 16th January 2015 (Subsequent notification for combined Audit Areas 1D and 1E) and 16th October 2015 (Subsequent notification for Audit Area 1D)
Certificate of Title/Property Description Part of Parcel 21 on Plan of Subdivision TP568016C, Volume 2181 Folio 086
Site Area Approximately 3.1 hectares
Current Site Zoning General Residential
Local Government Authority City of Greater Geelong
Current Site Owner Fyansford East Pty Ltd
Current Site Use Vacant
Completion Date of Audit 13 May 2016
1.2 Guidance Documents
The following published guidelines and standards were considered during the environmental audit of the subject site:
Australian & New Zealand Environment & Conservation Council (1992). Australian Water Quality Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Waters. National Water Quality Management Strategy.
Australian & New Zealand Environment & Conservation Council and Agriculture & Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand (2000). Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality. National Water Quality Management Strategy.
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines.http://www.ccme.ca/en/resources/canadian_environmental_quality_guidelines/index.html
EPAV (2000). Groundwater Sampling Guidelines. Publication 699, April 2000.
EPAV (2009). Industrial Waste Resource Guidelines. Sampling and Analysis of Waters, Wastewaters, Soils and Wastes. EPA Publication IWRG701 ‐ June 2009.
EPAV (2014). The Clean Up and Management of Polluted Groundwater. EPA Publication 840.1 February 2014.
EPAV (2015). Environmental Auditor (Contaminated Land) Guidelines for Issue of Certificates and Statements of Environmental Audit, Publication 759.3, December 2015.
EPAV (2015). Environmental Auditor Guidelines, Provision of Environmental Auditor Reports, Certificates and Statements. EPA Publication 1147.2, December 2015.
National Environment Protection Council (2013). National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999, as amended 2013.
National Health and Medical Research Council (2008) Guidelines for Managing Risks In Recreational Water.
National Health and Medical Research Council and Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council (2016). Australian Drinking Water Guidelines 6 2011 Version 3.2 Updated February 2016. National Water Quality Management Strategy.
Standards Australia (2005). Australian Standard, Guide to the sampling and investigation of potentially contaminated soil, Part 1: Non‐volatile and semi‐volatile compounds. AS4482.1 ‐ 2005.
Standards Australia, (1999). Australian Standard, Guide to the sampling and investigation of potentially contaminated soil. AS4482.1 – 1997, Part 2: Volatile Substances. AS4482.2 – 1999.
Victorian Government, (1997). State Environment Protection Policy (Groundwaters of Victoria). Victorian Government Gazette No. S160 17 December 1997.
Victorian Government, (2002). State Environmental Protection Policy (Prevention and Management of Contamination of Land). Victorian Government Gazette No. S95 4 June 2002.
Victorian Government, (2003). State Environment Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria). Victorian Government Gazette No. S107 Wednesday 4th June 2003.
Victorian Government (2009). Environment Protection (Industrial Waste Resource) Regulations 2009.
World Health Organisation (2008) Petroleum Products in Drinking Water, Background Document for Development of WHO Guidelines for Drinking‐Water Quality (WHO/SDE/WSH/05.08/123).
1.3 Documents Reviewed
The primary documents reviewed for the purposes of this audit were as follows:
GHD Pty Ltd (November 1999). Geelong Cement, Factory Closure, Draft Report on the Environmental Investigation of the Works Area. It is noted that the copy of the report provided to the Auditor was incomplete and was missing NATA Laboratory Reports and Borelogs and many pages of the assessment report. This report has been reviewed by the Auditor however is not attached because the report is incomplete.
GHD Pty Ltd (May 2001). Geelong Cement, Cement Works, Report on Factory Closure ‐ Hydrogeological Investigations. This report has been reviewed by the Auditor however is not attached because the investigations did not include Audit Area 1D.
Lane Consulting (July 2001). Auditor's Review Report. Factory Closure Fyansford for Geelong Cement. Ref: 272rep01a.doc. This report was prepared by Anthony Lane at the request of the client (Geelong Cement) to determine whether the larger cement manufacturing site could be made suitable for residential purposes. The Auditor has reviewed this report, however, the findings and conclusions of the report do not specifically relate to Audit Area 1D and therefore this report is not attached.
Environmental Resources Management (ERM) Australia (September 2004). Draft Former Geelong Cement Factory, Additional Soil Investigation. Reference 0012907R01. A complete copy of this report is provided as Attachment C.
Environmental Strategies Global Ltd (7 March 2014). Historical Summary Report, Fyansford Development, Fyansford, Victoria. A complete copy of this report is provided as Attachment D.
Environmental Strategies Global Ltd (21 March 2014). Summary of Imported Fill, Fyansford Green, Fyansford, Victoria. A complete copy of this report is provided as Attachment E.
Environmental Strategies Global Ltd (October 2015). Audit Area 1D Environmental Site Assessment, Fyansford Development, Fyansford, Victoria. A complete copy of this report is provided as Attachment F.
ESG Environmental Pty Ltd (12 October 2015). Audit Area 1D CUTEP Assessment, Fyansford Development, Fyansford, Victoria. A complete copy of this report is provided as Attachment G
ESG Environmental Pty Ltd (12 February 2016). Audit Area 1D – Post Remedial Monitoring, ICD Fyansford Development, Hyland Road, Fyansford. A complete copy of this report is provided as Attachment H.
JBS&G Pty Ltd (2 March 2016). Clean Up to the Extent Practicable (CUTEP) Submission, Audit Area 1D Gen Fyansford Development, Fyansford. A complete copy of this report is provided as Attachment I.
Environmental Protection Authority. CUTEP Correspondence dated 15th April 2016. A copy of this correspondence is provided as Attachment J.
The Auditor was involved in the following activities:
Review site history and previous investigations relating to the site, provided by the site consultants.
Reviewed data relating to the proposed reuse of site derived soils;
Review of the various site investigation data to gain an understanding of the environmental condition of the site and to identify potential data gaps and the requirement for additional information and/or investigations.
Review of various site consultant work plans.
Undertaken a number of site inspections over the period 2008 to 2010 and 2013 to 2015 to review the works undertaken at the site and to inspect soil and groundwater sampling procedures adopted by WSP (assessment consultant engaged during 2008 to 2010 site works) and ESG (assessment consultant engaged during 2013 to 2015 site works).
Review of the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP).
Undertaken regular site inspections on at least a fortnightly basis to inspect the placement of fill across the site in accordance with a CEMP established for the larger Gen Fyansford development.
Prepared a CUTEP Submission for site sourced hexavalent chromium and nitrate groundwater contamination. A complete copy of this report is provided as Attachment I.
In accordance with Section 53X (d) of the Environment Protection Act (1970), provide an environmental audit report on the condition of the Site; and
Determine whether a Certificate of Environmental Audit (Certificate) or Statement of Environmental Audit (Statement) should be issued.
The Gen Fyansford Development site is located approximately 4.5 km west of the Geelong Town Centre. The area of the Gen Fyansford Development comprises approximately 115.46 hectares.
The site comprises the former Australian Portland Cement Company Ltd/Adelaide Brighton Cement Co Ltd cement manufacturing works site situated at 50 Hyland Street, Fyansford, Victoria. A plan of the Audit Area 1D site including historical structures is provided as Figure 2 of this report.
It is understood that no major below ground facilities (including below ground fuel storage tanks, pits, sumps or waste treatment containment facilities) have been identified within the Audit Area 1D site.
Audit Area 1D is located within the central northern portion of the larger Gen Fyansford development site to the north of Hyland Street and East of the Moorabool River. The site comprises unsealed vacant land.
The site is subject to an Environmental Audit Overlay (EAO) which has been triggered as part of a proposed low density residential development.
2.2 Surrounding Land Use
The site is bounded by the following land uses:
North Vacant land comprising Audit Areas 1E of the Gen Fyansford Development is located to the north of the site, followed by vacant land.
South Audit Areas 1D and 1B of the Gen Fyansford Development are located to the south followed by Hyland Street.
East Vacant land comprising Reserve No.1 of the Gen Fyansford Development is located to the east of the site followed by Hyland Street.
West Vacant land comprising Audit Area 1E is located to the west of the site, followed by LSIO and the Moorabool River.
2.3 Geology and Hydrogeology
2.3.1 Geology and On‐site Soils
The Geelong 1:63,360 geological map sheet indicates that the site is underlain by Quaternary alluvial gravels, sands and silts. The alluvial sediments have been characterised into two distinct lithological units as follows:
Quaternary aged sediments (Q3) ‐ comprising sands, silts and gravels representing high level river terraces and alluvium deposited following drainage (Moorabool River) damming by lava flows, which occur at the site as rounded and sub‐rounded quartz‐feldspar gravels with silt and sand; and
Recent deposits (R2) ‐ river alluvial deposits, which occur at the site as silty clays.
In some areas these Quaternary sediments unconformably overly a thin sequence of calcareous and limestone sands of Tertiary age termed the Moorabool Viaduct Sand, although this has not been identified in the investigation area. The Moorabool Viaduct Sand in turn unconformably overly the Newport Silt (Fyansford Formation) comprising calcareous clays and marls, which are known locally as Fyansford Clays near Orphanage Hill.
The Fyansford Formation outcrops extensively along the Moorabool River banks and is exposed along Hyland Street cutting where it has been uplifted by movement along the north‐south orientated Lovely Banks Monocline, of which the southern‐most points axis is less than 500 m to the east of the site. The Fyansford Formation and Moorabool Viaduct Sand are overlain by the Quaternary age Newer Volcanics basalt, which occurs immediately west of the Moorabool River and on the top of Herne Hill.
The geomorphic evolution in the immediate area of the site was controlled by the Lovely Banks Monocline and the basalt flow to the west of the site. The flow(s) blocked the Moorabool River and recent activity along the Lovely Banks Monocline has resulted in the Moorabool River reactivation and cutting the deep valley present at the site today.
The soil profile encountered during investigations of the site by ESG comprised fill soils at depths between 0.2 and 6.5 m comprising an assortment of materials including clay, gravel, gravelly clay and sands with inclusions of concrete and brick fragments and gravels. This was underlain by natural orange brown silty clays or orange brown clays at depths between 1 and 4.3 m
2.3.2 Hydrogeology
The uppermost groundwater aquifer present in the vicinity of the site is the unconfined Quaternary Alluvium Aquifer which comprises the Recent deposits (R2) and Quaternary sediments (Q3). Quaternary sediments (Q3) are derived from high level alluvium deposits comprising outwash sand, gravel and clay and were the predominant unit encountered at the site. More recent deposits (R2) are present in the lower reaches of the Moorabool River valley and are comprised of sand, gravel and clay and in places, swamp deposits. The R2 unit was not encountered during investigations of the Audit Area 1D site.
Two distinct lithologies were encountered during the drilling of the Q3 unit: the first comprising silty/clay to clayey silt; and, the second comprising gravel to clayey gravel.
Gravelly sediments within the Q3 unit appear to directly overly the Fyansford Formation. The Q3 gravels are not uniformly present across the site and do not have a uniform thickness. The Q3 unit thickness ranges between 0.5 and 5 m and in some locations is present as sands rather than gravels. The measured watertable occurred within or on top of the Q3 gravels (where present), therefore the Q3 gravels are likely to represent an unconfined aquifer.
The Quaternary Alluvium Aquifer was underlain by a less permeable, calcareous clay (marl) unit. The marl unit, which is part of the Fyansford Formation is considered to act as an aquitard. Measured groundwater levels indicate this unit is likely to be confined or semi‐confined. Based on the site investigations it appears that the Fyansford Formation was encountered at depths between 8 and 14 m below ground surface. The Fyansford Formation was not encountered during investigations undertaken within Audit Area 1D.
As part of the groundwater investigation works, a total of thirty nine groundwater monitoring wells were installed across the Audit Area 1D site (MW214 and replacement well MW214A, MW224, MW226, MW254 and replacement well MW254A, MW256 to MW260, MW278 to MW291, MW293, MW295 to MW297, MW299 to MW308).
The shallow aquifer encountered on site and investigated as part of the hydrogeological assessment was encountered at between between 5.675 and 19.554 m below ground surface within the Quaternary Alluvium Aquifer.
The groundwater level contours and inferred groundwater flow direction were developed based on the results of gauging data from several rounds of monitoring undertaken during the site investigations. The standing water levels in the wells were reduced to the Australian Height Datum (AHD) levels to allow for the assessment of the groundwater flow direction and hydraulic gradient
across the site. The inferred direction of groundwater flow was in a westerly direction towards the adjacent Moorabool River which is located approximately 120 m west of Audit Area 1D.
The hydraulic gradient was variable across the site with an approximate average of 0.006 m/m. Although the depth of the Moorabool River in this area is not known, based on river water level measurements (between 1.3 and 1.5 m AHD) and given that there will be some degree of sub‐river bed flow, it appears likely that the groundwater beneath the site and the Moorabool River systems are connected.
The hydraulic gradient was variable across the site and ranged between 0.035 m/m in the eastern portion of the site to 0.006 m/m in the central and western portion of the site.
Various assessment consultants undertook hydraulic conductivity testing (slug testing) for a number of groundwater monitoring wells across the development wide monitoring network in 2001 (GHD) and November 2013 (Environmental Strategies [ES]). The hydraulic conductivity results were reported to range between 2.6 x 10‐8 and 1.2 x 10‐5 m/sec. The results indicate that the lowest hydraulic conductivities were reported for wells screened within the Fyansford Formation and the highest hydraulic conductivities were reported for wells screened within the Q3 formation.
Piper plots of major ion data indicate that the groundwater is sodium‐chloride type dominated, although an anionic trend toward higher sulphate compositions was noted. Generally, groundwater collected from wells screened in the Fyansford Formation are strongly sodium‐chloride dominant.
2.4 Groundwater Database Search
A search of the Victorian Department of Environment and Primary Industries groundwater bore database was undertaken by ESG as part of the current investigations (2013 to 2016) which identified a total of 43 groundwater wells within a 2 km radius of the site. Of these, 31 wells were registered for non‐groundwater purposes, 6 wells were registered for investigation purposes and 1 well was registered for domestic or stock watering purposes. The use of the remaining 5 wells was not reported.
There are no registered groundwater wells occurring down gradient of the site.
The depth to groundwater in the vicinity of the site was reported to be generally between 8.629 and 12.950 m and the wells were installed to depths of between 6 and 10 m. No further information regarding groundwater quality was available.
The closest registered groundwater well to the site with a known use (domestic and stock) is located approximately 1.70 km north. This well is located up‐hydraulic gradient of the site and has a reported total depth of 39.01 m, therefore is likely to be screened within a deeper aquifer.
The total depth of the wells installed in the vicinity of the site was between 6.7 and 37.5 metres. No further information regarding groundwater quality was available.
The site history review undertaken by ESG included:
a review of site and operational plan documentation;
a review of historical aerial photographs between 1947 and 2011;
a review of historical photographs of the site and structures;
a historical Title search;
a review of local Council information;
a review of local site history including "A Journey to Destiny 1890 to 1990, 100 Years of Cement Manufacturing at Fyansford" by John McNeil.
a review of previous investigations undertaken at the site and available site history information which included interviews with persons previously employed at the site;
a review of issued Certificates and Statements of Environmental Audit completed in the vicinity of the site;
The key findings of the review of information relevant to the northern side of Hyland Street in the vicinity of Audit Area 1D are summarised as follows:
In 1890, the Australian Portland Cement Company Ltd constructed a small cement manufacturing factory on the south side of Hyland Street. The factory consisted of a series of six small vertical kilns installed along the side of the Herne Hill escarpment, leading to a single chimney stack. Limestone was delivered to the factory from the Batesford Quarry, located approximately 3 km to the north west, by horse‐drawn wagons.
In 1924, the new plant began construction on the north side of Hyland Street (current vicinity of Audit Area 1H) and a fourth rotary kiln was installed. Three rotary kilns were installed between 1912 and 1922 on the southern side of Hyland Street (off‐site).
Between 1921 to 1925 the works were modernised, and in order to supply all kilns with limestone a narrow gauge rail line was constructed from the Batesford Quarry to the new cement plant. The railroad was initially operated using coal‐fired steam engines.
The land to the north of Hyland Street (current vicinity of Audit Area 1D) was mainly used as the railway loop, for receiving limestone from Batesford Quarry. The aerial ropeway for delivery of limestone was abandoned in 1924.
The No.5 Kiln was commissioned on the northern side of Hyland Street in 1957.
Diesel electric rail units were introduced in 1957 replacing the coal‐fired engines.
Kiln No.6 was commissioned in 1958 on the northern side of Hyland Street.
During the 1960's, excess limestone was stockpiled in the area inside the rail loop and a below ground stockpile feed conveyor was constructed beneath the limestone stockpile to increase delivery speed to the cement works. The western stockpile comprised a premium grade limestone. A second lower grade limestone stockpile was constructed on the eastern side of the storage area in the mid 1970s.
The initial test‐firings of Kiln No.4 using fuel oil, as an alternative to coal, were conducted in 1963. During this time, Kiln No.7 was also commissioned on the northern side of Hyland Street.
In 1967, Kiln No.8 (the final kiln to be installed) had been commissioned on the northern side of Hyland Street and was producing cement clinker. Also during this time, an overland conveyor belt system was commissioned for the direct delivery of limestone to the cement works from the quarry. The rail‐line was made redundant.
In 1970, all kilns were operating on fuel oil, stored in a large tank adjacent to Kiln No.8, although the power station remained coal‐fired. The railway line was removed and the limestone stockpiles increased in size.
The first kiln was converted to natural gas in 1972. The entire factory, including the power station and boiler were also converted to gas the following year.
The cement works was acquired by Adelaide Brighton Cement Co Ltd in 1975 and the brand name was changed to Geelong Cement.
In 1983, the gas fired power station was closed in favour of direct electricity supply from the then State Electricity Commission of Victoria (SECV) grid.
Geelong cement works (operated by Adelaide Brighton Cement) was closed in 2001 and an initial stage of demolition/deconstruction works was tendered to Moltoni Demolition Pty Ltd (Perth).
During the period 2004 to 2010, above ground structure removal/demolition was undertaken, environmental site assessments and partial level 1 geotechnical and environmental reinstatement of the main factory area was undertaken as part of the site redevelopment by Moltoni Corporation.
In 2010, rehabilitation works were suspended due to financial constraints and the land has remained vacant until the present time.
The following historical structures and activities were identified to have taken place within or in the immediate vicinity of Audit Area 1D:
Railway line;
Limestone stacker and reclaimer;
Limestone storage;
Storage of bauxite and ironstone;
Storage of imported fill;
Portion of the former above ground bulk oil and drum storage area (predominantly situated within Audit Area 1C); and
A historical farmhouse.
Figure 2 depicts the locations of historical structures present on Audit Area 1D.
3.1 Cement Manufacturing Process
The cement manufacturing process undertaken across the larger property was described by GHD (1999) and is briefly summarised as follows:
Limestone was supplied via an overhead conveyor from the Batesford Quarry located approximately 6 km west of the former cement works.
Limestone was blended with iron oxide and bauxite and the mixture was ground to a slurry through the addition of water.
The slurry was homogenised and fed into a rotary kiln. Within the kiln the slurry was progressively dried by gradually increasing flame temperatures as it passed along the length of the kiln.
During the firing process, the limestone slurry was converted to clinker.
After leaving the kiln, the clinker was cooled and then crushed with gypsum (calcium sulphate) in the cement mill to form cement.
Pre‐calcinated limestone, also known as kiln dust, was a by‐product of the cement manufacturing process.
3.2 EPA Priority Sites Register
The Auditor conducted a review of the EPA Victoria Priority Sites Register for the subject property on 14 April 2016. The search results indicated that the site is not listed on the Register and no sites have been listed in the proximity of the site.
3.3 Issued Certificates/Statements of Environmental Audit
The sites that have been issued with a Certificate or Statement of Environmental Audit within the Fyansford area are located within the Gen Fyansford Development Area and include Audit Areas 1A, 1B, 1C and 1H.
In addition, a historical Statement of Environmental Audit was issued for a portion of the riverbank area of the current Gen Fyansford Development site, the findings of which are summarised as follows.
3.3.1 Moorabool River Waterfront‐Fyansford, August 2001 (CARMS No: 45134‐1)
This Audit was completed by Mr Anthony Lane for a strip of property comprising 1.47 hectares, located adjacent to the Moorabool River bank and appears to coincide with a portion of a proposed Land Subject to Inundation (LSIO) Area of the Gen Fyansford Development.
Investigations undertaken across the site reported concentrations of arsenic (up to 38 mg/kg), copper (up to 500 mg/kg), mercury (up to 1.2 mg/kg), nickel (up to 75 mg/kg) and zinc (up to 490 mg/kg) exceeding the NEPM EILs for a number of soil samples collected across the site.
A groundwater investigation was not undertaken for this portion of the site, however Mr Lane reviewed the groundwater investigations undertaken up‐gradient of the site (current LSIO Area) which indicated that concentrations of nickel (0.044 mg/L) and cobalt (0.011 mg/L) exceeded the adopted Ecosystem Protection Screening values.
The Auditor concluded that based on the information available, the groundwater at the site was not contaminated to an extent that would restrict the beneficial uses of the land and that the site is not a source of groundwater contamination off‐site.
A Statement of Environmental Audit was issued for the subject property which indicated that the site was suitable for residential, parks and reserves, agriculture, recreation/open space, commercial and industrial uses. No conditions were included in the Statement of Environmental Audit.
3.4 Groundwater Quality Restricted Use Zone
An EPA CUTEP determination was undertaken for Audit Areas 1A, 1D and 1H due to the presence of nitrate and/or hexavalent chromium groundwater contamination. As a part of this process, EPA identified the larger cement works site as a Groundwater Quality Restricted Use Zone (GQRUZ), the extent of which is depicted in Figure 3 of this report.
3.5 Potential for Site Contamination
Several areas of concern were identified during the various assessments undertaken at the site. These are summarised in Table 2 below.
Table 2 ‐ Potential Areas of Concern Identified by ESG Areas Potential Contaminating Activity Chemicals of Potential Concern
Audit Area 1D
Whole site Wastes from cement operations Metals, pH and sulphates
Limestone delivery railway Limestone spillage, herbicide and pesticide control, leakage of diesel engines, generation of coal and coal ash
pH, metals, PAH, TRH, and asbestos
Limestone/cement/bauxite/ironstone handling and storage
Limestone and cement clinker, raw materials storage and handling
pH, TRH, metals and sulphates
Farmhouse Farming activities including agriculture, pest control and septic tank use.
pH, nitrate, pesticides, PAH, metals
Portion of above ground bulk oil and drum storage area
Storage and handling of fuels and chemicals
pH, TRH, BTEX, PAH and metals
The Auditor concurs with the major potential sources of contamination provided by ESG. It is also noted that the soil investigation undertaken at the site included the analysis of a broad range of organic and inorganic contaminants which discounted a range of potential contaminants of concern.
3.6 Previous Investigations
A number of previous investigations were undertaken over the period November 1999 to December 2004 by GHD and ERM to ascertain remediation options for the larger development site prior to demolition works. The results of the investigations undertaken are summarised in this section, however it is noted that subsequent to these investigations (between 2008 and 2010), Moltoni Corporation undertook demolition of above and underground structures. In addition, approximately 100,000 m3 of clean fill material was imported and used across the larger development site to raise the surface levels, however the exact volume used in Audit Area 1D was not reported and is not known with any degree of accuracy.
In addition, as part of the final development works undertaken by the current developer (ICD Property) over the period 2014 to 2016, between 0.5 and 6 metres of fill (comprising site derived materials and imported clean fill) was placed across the site in accordance with a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) developed for the site.
Therefore the results summarised below do not pertain to the final condition of the site soils, however provide an indication of the condition of the site prior to redevelopment works and also identify potential sources of contamination requiring further consideration.
3.6.1 Former Geelong Cement Factory Additional Soil Investigation (September 2004)
ERM summarised all available GHD results and provided a plan with GHD sampling locations as part of the additional investigations undertaken at the site. It appears that GHD undertook additional sampling as part of their initial environmental investigations because ERM have referred to a GHD report dated 2001. It is noted that an earlier draft version (November 1999) of the GHD report, was provided to the Auditor for review, however this report was missing most of the appendices including borelogs and laboratory certificates of analysis and therefore the results of this investigation could not be verified and therefore have been considered on a qualitative basis only.
A plan of the GHD sampling locations is provided as Figure 4 of this report.
According to the information provided by ERM, eleven testpits (GHDTP128, GHDTP129, GHDTP130, GHDTP141, GHDTP142, GHDTP151, GHDTP152, GHDTP153, GHDTP157, GHDTP158 and GHDTP159) were drilled by GHD across the Audit Area 1D site, also known as portions of Area 5 (limestone Stockpiles) and Area 10 (main factory area) during the ERM investigation. All sampling locations were targeted to potential areas of concern, in particular the limestone stockpiles. A total of 24
soil samples were collected from depths between 0.2 and 3.0 metres below ground surface and submitted for laboratory analysis. Samples were analysed variously for metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, tin and zinc), TPH, PAH, pH and sulphate. Concentrations of all contaminants were reported to be below the adopted ecological and human health screening values with the exception of slightly elevated concentrations of arsenic (between 24 and 35 mg/kg), nickel (81mg/kg) and zinc (320 mg/kg) reported to depths of approximately 2 metres for one or more sampling locations.
ERM completed additional soil investigations to undertake grid sampling in accordance with the minimum density recommended in AS4482.1 for the detection of circular hotspots with a 95% degree of confidence.
The ERM investigations included twenty grid test pit sampling locations (ERMTP015, ERMTP84, ERMTP85, ERMTP89, ERMTP93, ERMTP94, ERMTP95, ERMTP96, ERMTP102, ERMTP103, ERMTP104, ERMTP106, ERMTP107, ERMTP108, ERMTP109, ERMTP110, ERMTP111, ERMTP112, ERMTP113, ERMTP114) excavated across accessible areas of the Audit Area 1D site. A total of forty soil samples were collected from depths between 0.2 and 4.3 metres below ground surface and analysed for a range of contaminants including: metals (aluminium, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, hexavalent chromium, copper, mercury, lead, selenium, tin, zinc), TPH, PAH, SVOCs, sulphate and pH. Concentrations of all contaminants were reported to be below the adopted ecological and human health screening values with the exception of slightly elevated concentrations of arsenic up to 30 mg/kg), nickel (75 mg/kg), zinc (up to 300 mg/kg), hexavalent chromium (2 to 18 mg/kg) reported to depths of approximately 2.5 metres for one or more sampling locations.
A plan of the ERM sampling locations is also provided as Figure 4 of this report.
3.7 Potential Off Site Sources of Contamination
The larger former Cement Works site is likely to pose various potential point sources of groundwater contamination, predominantly nitrate, sulphate and hexavalent chromium, which has been identified in soil and/or groundwater across the majority of the Gen Fyansford Development site.
3.8 Conclusion
It is concluded that the site history information provided by ESG was undertaken in accordance with the ASC NEPM and is considered to be sufficient to identify potentially contaminating activities associated with historical activities at the site and in the immediate vicinity of the site.
Soil and groundwater investigations undertaken by GHD (1999) and ERM (2004) across the Audit Area 1D site have indicated that various activities and processes undertaken at the site during the historical operation of the cement manufacturing facility are likely to have caused soil and/or groundwater contamination at the site. For Audit Area 1D, the main potential sources of contamination are considered to be associated with the operation of the cement kilns No. 4, 5, 6 and 7 in Audit Area 1H and the presence of a historical farmhouse.
Nitrate was not identified as a chemical used in cement manufacture. The potential nitrate sources identified at the site included historical septic tanks and aerial dispersion through stack emissions on the adjacent Audit Area 1H site.
3.9 Contaminant Transport Pathways and Mechanisms
The main contaminant source pathway is expected to be migration of nitrate and hexavalent chromium from historical manufacturing to soils and groundwater, due to the high solubility of these contaminants. Contaminant transport once in groundwater is through advection with ultimate discharge to the Moorabool River.
The Auditor considers that the primary human receptors of concern are the construction workers involved in redevelopment of the Site and future users of the site post redevelopment.
The Auditor considers that the primary ecological receptor of concern is the adjacent Moorabool River located approximately 120 m west of the Audit site.
3.11 Conceptual Site Model
A conceptual site model has been derived using the site information available. The key features of the CSM for the larger development have been included in Figure 5.
In Victoria, the protected beneficial uses for the specific segments / land uses are outlined in the State Environmental Protection Policy, Prevention and Management of Contamination of Land (No. S95, June 2002), hereafter referred to as the Land SEPP and summarised in Table 3 below:
Table 3 ‐ Protected Beneficial Uses of Land
Beneficial Use Parks & Reserves
Agricultural
Sensitive
Use
(High Density)
Sensitive
Use (Other)
Recreation/O
pen
Space
Commercial
Industrial
Maintenance Of Ecosystems Natural Ecosystems Modified Ecosystems Highly Modified Ecosystems Human Health Buildings and Structures Aesthetics
Production of Food, Flora and Fibre
The proposed development of the site comprises low density residential use. On this basis, the required land use has been assumed to be Sensitive Use (Other) and the following beneficial uses of the site are required to be protected:
Maintenance of Ecosystems (modified and highly modified);
Human Health;
Buildings and Structures;
Aesthetics; and
Production of Food, Flora and Fibre.
In accordance with EPA requirements, all beneficial uses have been considered as part of the audit. Therefore the Auditor’s assessment includes consideration of the following:
Ecological impacts with respect to contaminant effects on ecosystems;
Ecological impacts and Human Health impacts with respect to contaminant effects on the production of food, flora and fibre;
Human health issues associated with the chemical quality of the soils as a result of human contact with the soils or from vapours generated from the soils;
Aesthetic considerations associated with the physical nature of the residual soils, including olfactory and visual impacts and the presence of anthropogenic materials such as building rubble and gravel; and
Concentrations of contaminants (pH and sulphate) which may become corrosive to concrete structures and TRH concentrations based on ASC NEPM (2013) management limits.
Certain contaminants, for example heavy metals, are phytotoxic and human health based levels may not afford protection to some species of plants if grown on the site. In order to consider the potential for phytotoxicity, contaminant concentrations have been initially compared to the EILs presented in Schedule B1 Guideline on Investigation Levels for Soil and Groundwater included in the ASC NEPM.
Schedule B1 of the ASC NEPM provides ecologically‐based investigation levels (EILs) for selected metals and organic substances that are applicable for assessing risk to terrestrial ecosystems. In particular, EILs have been derived for arsenic, copper, chromium (III), nickel, lead, zinc, DDT and naphthalene for three generic land use settings as follows:
Areas of ecological significance (99% level of species protection);
Urban residential areas and public open space (80% level of species protection); and
Commercial and industrial land uses (60% level of species protection).
The EILs are used as screening values, below which indicates that ecological impacts are unlikely to occur. Should guideline values be exceeded then further investigation and evaluation may be necessary.
Similarly, ecological screening levels (ESLs) provided in Schedule B1 of the ASC NEPM have been adopted for petroleum hydrocarbons that are applicable for assessing potential risks to terrestrial ecosystems. It is noted that ESLs broadly apply to coarse and fine grained soils and various land uses. They are generally applicable to the top 2 m of soil.
Where EIL/ESL values have not been defined in the ASC NEPM or where site‐specific EILs for certain inorganic parameters have not been derived as part of the assessment process, other criteria have been adopted from the following sources:
Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines (SQGs) for the Protection of Environmental and Human Health; and
United States Environmental Protection Authority (USEPA) Ecological Soil Screening Levels (Eco‐SSLs).
The use of the Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines (SQGs) for initial screening of soil quality data is considered appropriate where EILs/ESLs are unavailable as these values have been derived using a comparable methodology to the ASC NEPM approach, utilising a risk based species sensitivity distribution methodology based on land use as follows:
Agricultural (75% level of species protection);
Residential/Parkland (75% level of species protection);
Commercial (50% level of species protection); and
Industrial (50% level of species protection).
In the absence of available Canadian SQGs, the lowest USEPA Eco‐SSLs have been adopted. The Eco‐SSLs were derived using a less preferred geometric mean method and are not risk‐based. For that reason the Eco‐SSLs are generally more conservative than the Canadian SQGs
4.2.2 Human Health Guidelines
The ASC NEPM HILs have been developed for a broad range of inorganic and organic substances. The HILs are applicable for assessing human health risk via all relevant pathways of exposure. The
HILs are generic to all soil types and apply generally to a maximum depth of 3 m below the surface for residential use.
HSLs have been developed for selected petroleum compounds and fractions and are applicable to assessing human health risk via the inhalation and direct contact pathways. The HSLs are dependent upon specific soil physicochemical properties, land use scenarios, and the characteristics of building structures. They apply to different soil types, and depths below ground surface up to a maximum depth of 4 m.
The health investigation and screening levels are provided for a range of land uses including:
HIL A: Residential with garden/accessible soil (home grown produce <10% fruit and vegetable intake, (no poultry), also includes children’s day care centres, preschools and primary schools;
HIL B: Residential with minimal opportunities for soil access includes dwellings with fully and permanently paved yard space such as high‐rise buildings and flats;
HIL C: Public open space such as parks, playgrounds, playing fields (e.g. ovals), secondary schools and footpaths. It does not include undeveloped public open space (such as urban bush land and reserves) which should be subject to a site‐specific assessment where appropriate; and
HIL D: Commercial/industrial such as shops, offices, factories and industrial sites.
The HIL ‘A’ values have been adopted as appropriate human health screening criteria for the assessment of the proposed residential land use in this case given the proposed low density development.
The following asbestos screening values have been adopted for residential land use as provided in the ASC NEPM:
0.01% w/w asbestos in soil for bonded Asbestos Containing Material (ACM) for residential sites, equivalent to land use setting HIL 'A';
0.001% w/w asbestos in soil for friable asbestos (FA) and asbestos fines (AF) for all site uses’
No visible asbestos in surface soils for all site uses.
4.2.3 Soil Guideline Summary
The soil guidelines and the order in which they have been adopted for screening purposes were as follows:
4.2.3.1 Ecological
The EILs and ESLs provided in the ASC NEPM;
In addition, site specific EILs were derived by ESG for chromium (III), copper, nickel and zinc using the methodology provided in the ASC NEPM;
Canadian Council of Ministers for the Environment (CCME), Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines (SQGs) for the Protection of Environmental and Human Health; and
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Ecological Soil Screening Levels (Eco‐SSLs).
Chemical substance EIL/ESL HIL 'A' for Standard Residential with Garden/Accessible Soil
HIL 'B' for Residential with Minimal Opportunities for Soil Access
Inorganics / Metals
Miscellaneous
Cyanide ‐ 250 300
Phosphorous 2,000 ‐ ‐
Sulphur 600 ‐ ‐
Sulphate 2,000 ‐ ‐
pH 6‐8 (1) ‐ ‐ Notes: (1) ANZECC/NHMRC (1992) Environmental Investigation ‘B’ Levels (2) Canadian Council of Ministers for the Environment (CCME), Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines (SQG) for the Protection of
Environmental and Human Health ‐ Residential/Parkland (3) Site Specific EIL derived by ESG (4) ASC NEPM 2013 Generic ESL for Urban Residential and Public Open Space for fine soils (5) Soil HSLs for Vapour Intrusion for silty soils (6) United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Ecological Soil Screening Levels (Eco‐SSLs)
4.3 Soil Investigation
Field investigations were carried out in various stages between May 2014 and April 2015 and represent the condition of the soils across the Audit Area 1D site prior to the completion of bulk earth works which included the placement of between 0.5 and 6.0 metres of fill to achieve the final finish levels for the site development. These investigations were reported as follows:
Environmental Strategies Global (October 2015). Audit Area 1D Environmental Site Assessment, Fyansford Development, Fyansford, Victoria. A complete copy of this report is attached as Attachment F.
A summary of the investigations are provided in the sections below.
4.3.1 Environmental Site Assessment (October 2015)
The Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was undertaken by ESG in order to determine the contamination status of soils present across the site prior to the bulk earth works and placement of fill. The ESA included various stages of investigations as follows:
Targeted sampling was undertaken in the immediate vicinity of the following historical structures:
o Railway line;
o Limestone stacker and reclaimer;
o Limestone storage;
o Storage of bauxite and ironstone;
o Storage of imported fill; and
o A historical farmhouse (located within the former rail circle).
o In addition, soil sampling was undertaken at 25 locations using a 5m x 5m grid in the vicinity of MW289 using XRF technology, in order to determine the potential source of hexavalent chromium groundwater contamination reported at this location.
Forty five grid based sampling locations were arranged on an approximate grid across the site in order to provide a sufficient sampling density to comply with AS4482.1 minimum density requirements for the broader site.
A plan of the Audit Area 1D soil sampling locations is provided as Figure 6 of this Audit Report.
A summary of the analytical results obtained during the investigation is provided in the Summary Results Tables appended to this report.
4.3.2 Laboratory Analysis
A total of 176 samples were analysed from both fill and natural soils across the site during the ESA investigations. Soil samples were analysed for a range of contaminants as summarised in Table 5 below:
Table 5 ‐ Summary of Laboratory Analysis Analyses No of Samples
Arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc 110
Hexavalent chromium 110
Molybdenum, selenium, silver and tin 7
Total recoverable/ petroleum hydrocarbons (TRH / TPH) 106
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) 106
Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene (BTEX), 8
The adopted analytical schedule was considered acceptable to confirm the presence of a wide range of potential contaminants of concern identified at the site.
4.3.3 Adequacy of Assessor’s Investigation Program
Audit Area 1D comprises an area of approximately 3.1 hectares. For this area, the Australian Standard (AS4482.1) indicates that to detect circular hot spots of contamination of less than 32.4 m diameter with a confidence of 95%, that forty sampling locations arranged in a regular grid over the site are required.
Testing was conducted at forty five grid locations by ESG, therefore this sampling density complied with the requirements of the Australian Standard. In addition, nine targeted locations were also investigated by ESG, which were located in the immediate vicinity of historical structures. Therefore the overall sampling density and coverage across the broader site is considered adequate to identify potential sources of contamination identified in the site history review.
The Auditor considers the grid sampling density and the targeted soil locations undertaken across Audit Area 1D to be sufficient in order to assess the contamination status of soils at the site.
A plan of all the ESG soil sampling locations is provided as Figure 6 of this report.
Soil samples were collected from both fill and natural soils generally at depth intervals of approximately 0.2 m, 0.5 m, 1.0 m and then at 1.0 m intervals to a maximum depth of approximately 11 m.
ESG did not identify any odours in any soil samples obtained from the site. All samples were tested with a calibrated Photo‐Ionisation Detector (PID) for the potential presence of volatile compounds. All readings reported concentrations between 0 and 2.5 ppm indicating there were no elevated concentrations of volatile organic compounds in the soil samples taken.
4.4 Status of On‐Site Soils Prior to Bulk Earthworks
One hundred and seventy six soil samples were collected for laboratory analysis across the various rounds of investigations undertaken by ESG. The results of the testing have shown that soils
remaining on‐site reported contaminant concentrations for all analytes below the adopted ecological screening levels and the adopted human health screening levels with the exception of the following:
An elevated copper concentration (270 mg/kg), exceeding the site specific EIL range for fill materials (203‐263 mg/kg) was reported for the sample collected at a depth of 1.2 m from sampling location SB1C50. All remaining samples, including underlying natural clay soils reported copper concentrations below the adopted EILs.
ASLP testing conducted on the same sample which reported the elevated copper concentration indicated that the mobility of the copper is low (<0.01 mg/L) and therefore is not likely to be bioavailable or pose a risk to the underlying groundwater.
A statistical assessment of the copper concentrations within fill soils was undertaken, with the average copper concentration calculated to be 30.12 mg/kg, the standard deviation of the copper concentrations was calculated to be 34.65 mg/kg and the 95% Upper Confidence Level of the mean (95% UCLmean) was calculated to be 44.65 mg/kg. All values were below the site derived ASC NEPM EILs and the HIL ‘A’ of 6000 mg/kg and therefore on this basis the slightly elevated copper concentration reported at one location is considered unlikely to pose a potential ecological risk. All copper results were well below the NEPM 'A' HIL and on that basis, the copper concentrations are not considered to pose a significant risk to future residents of the site in a residential setting or maintenance and construction workers.
Low concentrations of nitrate (between 5.3 and 140 mg/kg) for fill materials and between 6.1 and 120 for natural soils were reported for several sampling locations across the site. The nitrate concentrations remaining in soils are likely to be representative of a residual source zone. Due to the high solubility of nitrate, it appears that the source of nitrate in the soils has migrated to the underlying watertable, therefore remaining nitrate concentrations are considered unlikely to pose a significant contribution to the existing nitrate groundwater plume.
A summary of the soil analytical results is provided in the Summary Results Tables appended to this report.
4.5 Asbestos Containing Materials
No visible asbestos or potential ACM was observed within the soils across the Audit Area 1D site and any visible ACM fragments identified during development works were removed by Hazard Alert Pty Ltd as part of the screening process. These materials were appropriately sealed in bags and removed off‐site in accordance with EPA requirements.
4.6 Aesthetic Condition of Site Soils
As a result of filling works undertaken by the site developer to raise the levels of the site, a significant quantity of fill material has been identified at the site at depths up to 6.0 metres below ground surface. The majority of the site fill materials comprised a combination of clayey silt, limestone, silty sand, clay, silt, gravel and sand with inclusions of concrete fragments.
A CEMP has been prepared to ensure that the final surface levels are achieved as per the proposed development and that the filling of the site is undertaken with suitable materials to ensure there is no adverse risk posed to future residents or the environment. However aesthetically unacceptable materials, predominantly comprising large concrete fragments are likely to remain at depths greater than 3 metres below the final finish levels. Standard residential excavations are considered unlikely to occur at depths greater than 3 metres, therefore on this basis the materials are also considered unlikely to pose an aesthetic risk to future occupants of the site.
In accordance with EPA requirements, the Auditor has considered the potential beneficial uses of land defined in the Land SEPP. A summary of the Auditor’s assessment of beneficial uses is provided below. It is noted that Maintenance of Natural Ecosystems is not considered to be a relevant beneficial use due to the significant human disturbance of the site by historical activities and the unlikely establishment of natural ecosystems following the proposed redevelopment of the site.
4.7.1 Maintenance of Modified Ecosystems and Maintenance of Highly Modified Ecosystems
The site is likely to contain ecosystems which have been modified by the historical use of the site. Therefore Maintenance of Highly Modified Ecosystems and Maintenance of Modified Ecosystems are considered to be beneficial uses requiring protection at the site.
Concentrations of copper exceeded the adopted EIL at one sampling location at a depth of 1.2 metres below current surface level. A statistical assessment of the concentrations indicated that the mean, standard deviation and 95% UCLmean for copper did not exceed the site specific ASC NEPM EIL values. On this basis it was concluded that the beneficial uses Maintenance of Modified Ecosystems and Maintenance of Highly Modified Ecosystems are not precluded at the site.
4.7.2 Human Health
The proposed development of the site comprises a low density residential development. Exposure to the soils at the site by future occupants and or construction and maintenance workers may occur and so Human Health is considered to be a beneficial use requiring protection at the site.
Concentrations of all contaminants tested for were reported to be below the ASC NEPM 'A' HILs/HSLs and the ASC NEPM 'B' HILs/HSLs. Therefore the beneficial use of Human Health is not precluded for all potential land uses.
4.7.3 Aesthetics
Fill materials encountered across the site comprised a combination of clayey silt, limestone, silty sand, clay, silt, sand and gravel with inclusions of concrete fragments. Aesthetically unacceptable materials may remain at depths greater than 3 metres below final finish levels, however this is considered to be beyond the depth of practical excavations under a standard residential scenario and therefore are considered unlikely to preclude the aesthetic amenity of the site for low density residential purposes.
4.7.4 Buildings and Structures
Soil analytical results for pH and sulphate reported concentrations within the respective screening range for this beneficial use, therefore the beneficial use Buildings and Structures is unlikely to be precluded at the site.
4.7.5 Production of Food, Flora and Fibre
Garden areas may be established as part of the development of the site for residential purposes. Concentrations of a range of contaminants did not exceed the respective ASC NEPM EIL screening values with the exception of copper (270 mg/kg) at one sampling location which was considered to be localised in extent and therefore on this basis it was concluded that the beneficial use Production of Food, Flora and Fibre is not precluded at the site
4.7.6 Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP)
In order to achieve the final finish levels for the site development, the developer is currently undertaking bulk earth works across Audit Area 1D and the larger Gen Fyansford development which comprises the placement of up to 6.0 metres of fill material on top of the current site
surface. In order to manage this process, a CEMP has been prepared for the site to ensure that materials placed comply with ASC NEPM EILs, ASC NEPM 'A' HILs and also meet aesthetic criteria to ensure the final site surface is suitable for residential purposes. A copy of the CEMP is attached to the Statement of Environmental Audit. It is noted that an Environmental Auditor will be required to provide written confirmation that the final surface levels have been achieved as outlined in the CEMP. This has been included as a Condition of the Statement of Environmental Audit
The beneficial uses of groundwater to be protected in the State of Victoria are provided in the Groundwater SEPP. The protected beneficial uses of the groundwater are primarily based on the salinity of the groundwater measured as TDS.
Based on the TDS concentration, groundwater is classified into one of five Segments (A1, A2, B, C, D), as shown in Table 6, for which certain beneficial uses are nominated for protection.
Table 6– Groundwater Beneficial Use Segments Segment A1 A2 B C D TDS (mg/L) <500 501 – 1,000 1,001 – 3,500 3,501 – 13,000 >13,000
The laboratory derived TDS of the groundwater at the site for all rounds of monitoring were determined to be between 4,100 and 10,000 mg/L. Therefore, the groundwater at the site is expected to be classified as Segment C however, Segment B has been adopted for consistency with the remaining areas of the Gen Fyansford Development. Therefore the beneficial uses to be protected are:
Maintenance of Ecosystems;
Mineral Water Supply;
Agriculture, Parks and Gardens;
Stock Watering;
Primary Contact Recreation;
Industrial Water Use; and
Buildings and Structures.
The EPA may determine that these beneficial uses do not apply to groundwater where:
There is insufficient yield;
The background level of a water quality other than TDS precludes a beneficial use;
The soil characteristics preclude a beneficial use; or
A GQRUZ has been declared.
The larger former cement manufacturing site has recently been declared a GQRUZ by EPA and therefore groundwater is currently restricted for the following uses: drinking water, stock watering, agriculture, parks and gardens, primary contact recreation and industrial purposes. An assessment of the risk to potential beneficial uses nominated under Segment B has been made by the Auditor in the following sections.
5.2 Adopted Screening Criteria
The adopted groundwater screening criteria for each beneficial use are provided below.
5.2.1 Maintenance of Ecosystems
The Moorabool River is located approximately 120 m to the west north‐west of the site at its closest point and groundwater emanating from the site is expected to eventually discharge to this water body. Therefore, the beneficial use Maintenance of Marine Water Ecosystems requires protection.
The Cleared Hills and Coastal Plains segment of the SEPP Waters of Victoria is relevant. This document generally refers to the toxicant values included in the prevailing surface water guidelines, with the exception of nutrients, arsenic, cadmium, chromium and zinc concentrations. The prevailing surface water guidelines are the Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (ANZECC, 2000). The level of ecosystem protection for this Segment is considered to be 95% for slightly to moderately modified aquatic ecosystems.
5.2.2 Mineral Water Supply
The site is not located within a recognised mineral water province and therefore this potential use of groundwater has not been considered further.
5.2.3 Agriculture, Parks and Gardens
The ANZECC 2000 irrigation trigger long term values have been adopted as the appropriate screening criteria for the beneficial use Agriculture, Parks and Gardens.
5.2.4 Stock Watering
The ANZECC 2000 guidelines for livestock have been adopted as the appropriate screening criteria at this site for the beneficial use stock watering.
The ANZECC guidelines do not provide livestock drinking water guidance for organic contaminants. As a conservative measure, the livestock drinking water criteria for organic contaminants have been adopted from the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (updated February 2016).
5.2.5 Primary Contact Recreation
To assess risks to primary contact recreation users of groundwater (e.g. persons swimming in pools filled using a groundwater bore) or surface water which receives groundwater, the NHMRC Guidelines for Managing Risks in Recreational Water (2008) have been adopted. It is noted that for chemical toxicants this reference refers to the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (updated February 2016).
5.2.6 Industrial Water Use
In the absence of more recent screening values, the ANZECC 1992 criteria for industrial use have been adopted as the appropriate screening criteria for this beneficial use.
5.2.7 Buildings and Structures
The Groundwater SEPP indicates that pH, sulphate and redox values need to be considered to assess the potential impact to buildings and structures.
5.3 Groundwater Investigations
A total of thirty nine groundwater monitoring wells were installed to depths of between 7.5 and 21 m across the site. A plan of the groundwater monitoring well locations is provided as Figure 7. All wells were appropriately screened to detect the presence of light non aqueous phase liquids (LNAPL) with the exception of wells MW260, MW254A, MW278, MW281, MW283 and MW291 which have been screened below the water table. This was not considered to be of concern for the reason that TRH was not identified to be a potential contaminant of concern and during the drilling and installation of the wells no odours or stained materials were encountered, therefore LNAPL was also unlikely to be encountered.
Groundwater beneath the site was encountered within the Quaternary Alluvium Aquifer at depths between 5.675 and 19.554 metres below ground surface.
Prior to sampling, wells were gauged for depth to groundwater and selected field parameters including dissolved oxygen, electrical conductivity, redox potential, pH and temperature were recorded. TDS concentrations were reported to be between 4,100 and 10,000 mg/L.
The Auditor considered the location of the groundwater wells was appropriate to target the potential sources of groundwater contamination identified at the site.
5.4 Standing Water Levels
The standing water levels (SWL) in the wells were measured for all rounds of groundwater monitoring. The SWLs were reduced to AHD level to allow the assessment of the groundwater flow direction and hydraulic gradient across the site. The groundwater level contours and inferred groundwater flow direction were developed based on the results of gauging data from several rounds of groundwater monitoring undertaken at the site.
The location of the monitoring wells, the inferred level contours and the direction of groundwater flow across the site is provided in Figure 8. The inferred direction of groundwater flow was in a westerly direction towards Moorabool River which is located approximately 120 m to the west of the site. The inferred groundwater flow direction is consistent with the expected regional flow and discharge mechanisms.
5.5 Sampling and Analysis
Groundwater samples were collected on a number of occasions from various wells comprising the monitoring well network. Groundwater samples were collected subsequent to purging using low flow sampling methodology. Collected groundwater samples were analysed for a range of parameters as summarised in Table 7.
Pre‐Remediation April 2014 MW214 (replaced by MW214A),
MW254 and MW258 Metals (aluminium, arsenic, cadmium, chromium (III & VI), copper, iron, lead, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, silver, tin and zinc), TRH, BTEX, PAH, VOC, OC pesticides, phenols, PCB, solvents, major anions and cations
6th June 2014 MW224 and MW226 Metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium (III & VI), copper, lead, mercury, nickel and zinc) and major anions and cations, ammonia, nitrate, nitrite and sulphate
17th June 2014 MW214, MW224 and MW226 Metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium (III & VI), copper, lead, mercury, nickel and zinc) and major anions and cations, ammonia, nitrate, nitrite and sulphate
February 2015 MW224 and MM226
Metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium (III & VI), copper, lead, mercury, nickel and zinc) and major anions and cations, ammonia, nitrate, nitrite and sulphate
April ‐ May 2015 MW214A, MW224, MW226 and MW254, MW256, MW257, MW258, MW259 and MW260
Metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium (III & VI), copper, lead, mercury, nickel and zinc), ammonia, nitrate, nitrite and sulphate
20th August 2015 MW257 and MW258 Chromium (III & VI), nitrate, nitrite and ammonia
26th August 2015 MW257 and MW258 Chromium (III & VI), nitrate, nitrite and ammonia
2nd September 2015 MW254, MW257 and MW258 Chromium (III & VI), nitrate, nitrite and ammonia
10th September 2015 MW254, MW257 and MW258 Chromium (III & VI), nitrate, nitrite and ammonia
18th September 2015 MW257 and MW258 Chromium (III & VI), nitrate, nitrite and ammonia
25th September 2015 MW257 and MW258 Chromium (III & VI), nitrate, nitrite and ammonia
1st October 2015 MW257 and MW258 Chromium (III & VI), nitrate, nitrite and ammonia
13th October 2015 MW254, MW257, MW258, MW280, MW281, MW282 and MW283
Metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium (III & VI), copper, lead, mercury, nickel and zinc), ammonia, nitrate, nitrite and sulphate
Metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium (III & VI), copper, lead, mercury, nickel and zinc), ammonia, nitrate and sulphate
19th November 2015 Mw254, MW258, MW285, MW289, MW290,
Chromium (III & VI), nitrate, nitrite and ammonia
26th November 2015 MW254, MW258, MW282, MW290 Chromium (III & VI), nitrate, nitrite and ammonia
3rd December 2015 MW254, MW258, MW280, MW282, MW285, MW289, MW290,
Chromium (III & VI), nitrate, nitrite and ammonia
11th December 2015 MW254, MW282, MW285, MW289, MW290
Chromium (III & VI), nitrate, nitrite and ammonia
17th December 2015 MW254, MW282, MW289, MW280, MW290
Chromium (III & VI), nitrate, nitrite and ammonia
12th January 2016 MW254, MW280, MW282, MW289, MW290
Chromium (III & VI), nitrate, nitrite and ammonia
The analytical schedule adopted for groundwater samples was considered appropriate to determine the presence or otherwise of the main potential contaminants of concern identified at the site.
5.6 Discussion of Pre‐Remediation Groundwater Monitoring Results
The results of groundwater testing obtained prior to remediation works are discussed below and a summary of groundwater analytical results obtained for all rounds of monitoring are provided in the Tables attached to this Audit Report.
5.6.1 Copper
Most wells installed across the site reported concentrations of copper (between 0.002 and 0.007 mg/L) exceeding the ANZECC (2000) Freshwater 95% Ecosystem Protection trigger value of 0.0014 mg/L for one or more rounds of groundwater monitoring The reported copper concentrations are generally consistent with concentrations reported in groundwater both up‐gradient and down‐gradient of the site. In addition, the reported copper concentrations did not display any identifiable trend across the site, therefore indicating that these slightly elevated concentrations are most likely associated with regional groundwater quality.
The soil investigations undertaken across the Audit Area 1D site did not report significant concentrations of copper within site soils, with all concentrations reported to be below the ASC NEPM EILs and/or ASC NEPM HIL ‘A’ with the exception of one sampling location SB1C50‐01 which reported a slightly elevated copper concentration (270 mg/kg) exceeding the adopted ASC NEPM EIL screening value. Therefore on this basis, Audit Area 1D is not considered to be a source of copper groundwater contamination, the elevated copper concentrations are likely to be associated with regional pollution associated with other areas of the Gen Fyansford development.
5.6.2 Hexavalent Chromium
Several groundwater monitoring wells (MW214, MW214A, MW224, MW226, MW256, MW257, MW280, MW282, MW284, MW285, MW286, MW290, MW292, MW295 and MW299) reported concentrations of Cr(VI) (between 0.003 and 0.025 mg/L) exceeding the ANZECC (2000) Freshwater 95% Ecosystem Protection trigger value of 0.001 mg/L. In addition, well MW289 also reported a significant concentration (2 mg/L) of Cr(VI) for the round of monitoring undertaken on 12 November 2015. Subsequent monitoring undertaken on 19 November 2015 reported a lower Cr(VI) concentration of 0.87 mg/L. Several delineation wells (MW284, MW292, MW293, MW294, MW295, MW296, MW297, MW298 and MW299) were installed in the vicinity of MW289 in order
to delineate the lateral extent of the reported Cr(VI) contamination. (It is noted that delineation wells MW292, MW294 and MW298 were located within the adjacent Reserve No.1 Audit Area.) Wells MW291 (0.005 mg/L) and MW299 (0.018 mg/L) reported slightly elevated Cr(VI) concentrations similar to those reported for other wells across the 1D site.
Extensive soil investigations comprising 25 locations (SB289‐01 to SB289‐25) were undertaken on a 5m x 5m grid in the vicinity of the MW289 which included screening using X‐ray fluorescence (XRF) and the submission of the highest concentrations reported by XRF screening for verification by an analytical laboratory. In addition, soil samples were also collected for laboratory analysis during the installation of delineation wells MW284, MW292, MW293, MW294, MW295, MW296, MW297, MW298 and MW299. The depth of the boreholes ranged between 6.5 and 12 metres.
All Cr(VI) concentrations were reported to be below the laboratory detection limits with the exception of soil samples collected from MW298 located approximately 35 m north and cross gradient of MW289 within the adjacent Reserve No.1 Audit Area. Soil samples from MW298 reported slightly elevated Cr(VI) concentrations between 3.7 and 17 mg/kg collected for soil samples between depths of 3 and 7 metres below ground surface. Therefore these slightly elevated Cr(VI) are considered unlikely to be the source of Cr(VI) groundwater contamination reported at MW289.
The source of the Cr(VI) groundwater contamination appears to be associated with atmospheric distribution/fallout from the former cement manufacturing processes located within Audit Area 1H because no remaining soil sources have been identified at the site.
The distribution of Cr(VI) concentrations in groundwater pre‐remediation is provided as Figure 9 of this report.
5.6.3 Nickel
Most wells installed across the site reported concentrations of zinc (between 0.016 and 0.07 mg/L) exceeding the ANZECC (2000) Freshwater 95% Ecosystem Protection trigger value of 0.008 mg/L. The reported zinc concentrations were generally consistent with concentrations reported in groundwater both up gradient and down gradient of the site. In addition, the reported zinc concentrations did not display any identifiable trend across the site, therefore indicating that these slightly elevated concentrations are most likely associated with regional groundwater quality.
The soil investigations undertaken across the Audit Area 1D site did not report significant concentrations of zinc within site soils with all concentrations reported below the adopted EIL screening value. Therefore on this basis, Audit Area 1D is not considered to be a source of zinc groundwater contamination and the elevated zinc concentrations are likely to be associated with regional pollution in other areas of the Gen Fyansford development.
5.6.4 Zinc
Most wells installed across the site reported concentrations of zinc (between 0.016 and 0.07 mg/L) exceeding the ANZECC (2000) Freshwater 95% Ecosystem Protection trigger value of 0.008 mg/L. The reported zinc concentrations were generally consistent with concentrations reported in groundwater both up gradient and down gradient of the site. In addition, the reported zinc concentrations did not display any identifiable trend across the site, therefore indicating that these slightly elevated concentrations are most likely associated with regional groundwater quality.
The soil investigations undertaken across the Audit Area 1D site did not report significant concentrations of zinc within site soils with all concentrations reported below the adopted EIL screening value. Therefore on this basis, Audit Area 1D is not considered to be a source of zinc groundwater contamination and the elevated zinc concentrations are likely to be associated with regional pollution in other areas of the Gen Fyansford development.
Concentrations of nitrate (as nitrate) (between 34.1 and 753.1 mg/L) exceeded the screening criterion for Freshwater Ecosystem Protection (31.9 mg/L) and/or the Primary Contact Recreation screening value of 50 mg/L and/or the long term trigger value for irrigation water (22.15 mg/L) and/or the lower range trigger values for short term irrigation (between 110 to 533 mg/L).
Nitrate concentrations reported across the site were higher than those reported for other identified source areas of the site including Audit Area 1A and Audit Area 1H, therefore, on this basis, Audit Area 1D was also considered to be a potential source of nitrate groundwater contamination.
The distribution of nitrate concentrations in groundwater pre‐remediation is provided as Figure 10 of this report.
5.6.6 Ammonia (as N)
Most wells installed across the site reported ammonia (as N) concentrations ( up to 0.76 mg/L) exceeding the Primary Contact Recreation screening value of 0.5 mg/L. In addition wells MW56, MW256 and MW280 reported ammonia concentrations between 1.1 and 10.674 mg/L exceeding the ANZECC (2000) Freshwater 95% Ecosystem Protection trigger value of 0.9 mg/L, the highest concentrations reported on‐site. On this basis it was concluded that Audit Area 1D was likely to pose a source of ammonia groundwater contamination.
5.6.7 Chloride
Chloride concentrations (up to 3,400 mg/L) exceeded the screening criteria for most irrigation purposes (between <175 mg/L to 700 mg/L) for a number of monitoring wells within Audit Area 1D. Elevated concentrations of chloride are considered to be associated with elevated TDS values and the dominance of sodium chloride ions within the regional groundwater. Therefore, elevated chloride concentrations are likely to be associated with the natural chemistry of the groundwater in the vicinity of the site.
5.6.8 Sodium
Sodium concentrations (up to 1,800 mg/L) exceeded the screening criteria for most irrigation purposes (between <175 to 700 mg/L) and Primary Contact Recreation purposes (180 mg/L) for a number of monitoring wells within Audit Area 1D. Elevated concentrations of sodium are considered to be associated with elevated TDS values and the dominance of sodium chloride ions within the regional groundwater. Therefore, elevated sodium concentrations are likely to be associated with the natural chemistry of the groundwater in the vicinity of the site.
5.6.9 Sulphate
Elevated concentrations of sulphate (up to 1,000 mg/L) exceeded the screening criterion for Primary Contact Recreation (500 mg/L) for most groundwater monitoring wells installed across the site. The reported sulphate concentrations are generally consistent with concentrations reported in groundwater both up‐gradient and down‐gradient of the site. In addition, the reported sulphate concentrations did not display any identifiable trend across the site, therefore indicating that these slightly elevated concentrations are most likely associated with regional or off‐site groundwater quality.
Soil investigations undertaken across the site indicated that concentrations of sulphate did not exceed the adopted EIL of 2,000 mg/kg, therefore it is concluded that Audit Area 1D is unlikely to the source of elevated sulphate concentrations reported in groundwater.
A summary of pre‐remediation groundwater analytical results is provided in the Summary Results Tables attachment of this report.
All remaining analytes were not reported at concentrations exceeding the laboratory reporting limits and/or the adopted groundwater screening criteria.
Concentrations of contaminants were reported to be below the ASC NEPM EILs and/or ASC NEPM HIL ‘A’ with the exception of a slightly elevated copper concentration (270 mg/kg) exceeding the adopted EIL at one sampling location. A statistical analysis indicated that the copper concentration was not significant and on this basis it was concluded that soil cleanup was not required.
In addition, low concentrations of nitrate were reported in soils across the site, therefore indicating that significant sources of nitrate contamination are not present at the site. The high solubility of nitrate suggests that contamination has migrated from the soils to the groundwater. On this basis, it was concluded that no soil remediation was required to be undertaken.
6.2 Groundwater Cleanup
The historical site activities undertaken across the larger cement manufacturing site are likely to have contributed to the groundwater contamination identified at the site namely: ammonia, nitrate and hexavalent chromium. On this basis and given that the Audit Area 1D site is located approximately 120 metres east of the Moorabool River, groundwater remediation was undertaken in order to attempt to restore the beneficial uses of groundwater and mitigate the discharge of contaminated groundwater to the ecosystem of the nearby Moorabool River environment.
The following sections provide further information with respect to the Groundwater Cleanup activities undertaken at the site.
6.2.1 Introduction
In accordance with EPA Publication 840.1 an assessment of the practicability of the clean‐up of polluted groundwater was undertaken by the assessment consultant. The practicability assessment process involved the following:
The selection of potentially feasible remediation technologies based on the elimination of technologies considered to be unsuitable based on experience, knowledge of each technology and suitability for application to the known site conditions;
Ranking of potentially suitable technologies based on technical, logistical and financial considerations, and;
Evaluation of the benefit of groundwater remediation commensurate with the significance of the risk posed.
6.2.2 Technology Review
A remediation technology review was undertaken by ESG and is summarised below. The review considered the demonstrated performance of the remediation technology for treating dissolved Cr(VI) and nitrate in water. Ammonia impacts were considered likely to be addressed in conjunction with the nitrate clean‐up.
The review included a screening level assessment of possible remediation technologies which identified four viable technologies as follows:
In‐situ enhanced biodegradation which involves the injection of reactive materials to biologically oxidise or reduce dissolved contaminants into an inert or less toxic form;
In‐situ chemical oxidation/reduction which involves the injection of chemically reactive materials to oxidise or reduce dissolved contaminants into an inert or less toxic form;
Permeable reactive barrier (PRB) which involves the construction of an in‐situ treatment zone that passively captures contaminated groundwater in a single or multiple‐stage system and contains biological and/or chemical amendment materials to facilitate degradation or removal of contaminants;
Hydraulic containment which involves the interception of a plume of contaminants through pumping wells to prevent further spreading/migration.
On the basis of technical, logistical, financial considerations and timing constraints, in‐situ chemical oxidation/reduction was chosen as the preferred remediation strategy to be adopted at the site.
Laboratory and field trials were undertaken to evaluate the effectiveness of several reagents including: Hydrogen Release Compound (HRC), molasses and sucrose. Molasses was identified as the preferred reagent to be used for full scale remediation works.
6.2.3 Full Scale Remediation
The results obtained during the laboratory and field trials indicated that the molasses reagent was out performing the HRC reagent with respect to decreasing the concentrations of Cr(VI) and nitrate within a relatively short timeframe. It is noted that HRC is designed for extended release and therefore is likely to provide more favourable results over the longer term.
For this reason and due to the restricted availability of bulk quantities of HRC within the timeframe for remedial works and the high viscosity making the HRC slow to inject, it was decided to complete the full scale remediation program using the molasses substrate.
The injection was undertaken using a Geoprobe to depths of 7.5 m, 8 m and 8.5 m at each location to allow injected of diluted molasses into the required horizon. The injection program was completed in stages over the period over the period August 2015 to January 2016.
The results of the field trial indicated that a radius of influence >4m was being achieved through the injection points. Therefore it was determined that the full scale remediation program would require injection in a 6m x 6m grid within the plume area.
A total of 284 injection points were distributed on an approximate 6m x 6m grid over the remediation area. Approximately 250L containing 20% molasses solution was injected at each injection point, including those which were initially injected with HRC. This equated to a total volume of approximately 71,500L of 20% molasses solution over the 1D plume area. Approximately 14,200L of this volume comprised molasses material.
Figure 11 depicts the groundwater remediation area and the location of the injection points.
The post‐injection concentrations of Cr(VI), nitrate and other parameters were monitored on a weekly basis to assess the performance of the reagent over time.
The results of the full scale remediation program to date are summarised as follows:
Significant decreases in groundwater redox and dissolved oxygen values were observed in most wells post‐injection, therefore an anaerobic and reducing environment has been established across the remediation area, creating favourable conditions to promote further decreases in contaminant concentrations.
Pre‐injection Cr(VI) concentrations of between 0.003 and 0.87 mg/L have decreased to below laboratory detection limits for all wells with the exception of well MW290. This may be attributed to the elevated elevated redox and dissolved oxygen values at this location which may be preventing the reduction of Cr(VI) to Cr(III), as this environment is unlikely to be conducive to the microbial organisms required for the reduction to occur. This may
remain the case, however it is considered unlikely to pose a significant risk because the remaining aquifer appears to be responding well to the injection program.
In addition, pre‐injection nitrate (as NO3) concentrations of between 101.8 and 416.4 mg/L have reported significant decreases for most wells to below laboratory detection limits or to below the relevant beneficial use screening values with the exception of wells MW254, MW280 and MW282. The dissolved oxygen values remain elevated for both of these wells, therefore the reducing environment does not appear to have been sufficiently established. This may remain the case, however it is considered unlikely to pose a significant risk because the remaining aquifer appears to be responding well to the injection program.
Pre‐injection ammonia concentrations of between 0.02 and 0.92 mg/L have reported decreases for most wells with the exception of MW289 where no significant changes in ammonia concentrations have been reported.
A summary of the analytical results for the full scale remediation program are provided in the Summary Results Tables attached to this report.
In addition, a summary of the most recent round of monitoring undertaken at the site is provided in Table 8.
1– Limited off‐site up gradient concentrations were available for comparison, therefore data collected for on‐site up gradient wells were used for comparison purposes.
2 – Low, Moderate or High reliability criteria (95%, or 99% for bioaccumulative chemicals) presented in Section 8.3.7 of Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council, and Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand (2000) National Water Quality Management Series, Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality
3 – Section 4.2.4 of Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council, and Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand (2000) National Water Quality Management Series, Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality
4 – Section 4.3 of Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council, and Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand (2000) National Water Quality Management Series, Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality and/or National Health and Medical Research Council, National Resource Management Ministerial Council (Updated February 2016) Australian Drinking Water Guidelines Paper 6 National Water Quality Management Strategy
5 – Section 5.2.3 of Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council, and Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand (2000) National Water Quality Management Series, Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality and/or National Health and Medical Research Council, National Resource Management Ministerial Council (Updated February 2016) Australian Drinking Water Guidelines Paper 6 National Water Quality Management Strategy
6.3 Assessment of Risks to Beneficial Uses of Groundwater
A number of contaminants including copper, hexavalent chromium, nickel, zinc, chloride, nitrate, ammonia, sulphate and sodium have been reported in the groundwater beneath the site exceeding the adopted criteria for one or more beneficial uses. Of these contaminants, nitrate, ammonia and hexavalent chromium are considered to be derived from historical activities undertaken on Audit Area 1D or adjacent sites. The remaining contaminants (copper, nickel, zinc, chloride, sodium and sulphate) are considered to be associated with off‐site pollution or background aquifer conditions.
The following sections provides a discussion relevant to the beneficial uses of the groundwater following groundwater remediation works undertaken across the Audit Area 1D site.
Figures 13 and 13 depict the concentrations of nitrate and Cr(VI) remaining in groundwater following remediation works.
6.3.1 Maintenance of Ecosystems
No aquatic ecosystems occur at the site. The relevant surface water body to be considered for the beneficial use of Maintenance of Ecosystems is the Moorabool River, located approximately 120 m to the west of the site. Groundwater from the site is likely to discharge to the River.
Following groundwater remediation, nitrate (as nitrate) concentrations (between 66.40 and 340.86 mg/L), Cr(VI) concentrations (up to 0.012 mg/L) and ammonia (up to 5.4 mg/L) exceeded the respective screening criteria for Freshwater Ecosystem Protection for a number of monitoring wells. The groundwater remediation program undertaken across the site has reduced the total contaminant mass within the groundwater aquifer. Therefore any residual nitrate, Cr(VI) and ammonia remaining, is likely to disperse through remediated areas, therefore reducing the mass further prior to discharge to the Moorabool River system. In addition, it is noted that further groundwater remediation is planned to be undertaken for Audit Area 1E located down gradient of the site. Therefore on this basis, it is concluded that the beneficial use Maintenance of Ecosystems is unlikely to be precluded by residual nitrate, Cr(VI) and ammonia groundwater contamination.
6.3.2 Agriculture, Parks and Gardens
Following remediation, a number of groundwater monitoring wells reported nitrate (as nitrate) concentrations exceeding the long term trigger value for irrigation water (22.15 mg/L) and also the lower range of trigger values for short term irrigation between 110 to 533 mg/L. Therefore, on this basis it is concluded that the beneficial use Agriculture, Parks and Gardens is likely to be precluded by elevated nitrate concentrations reported in the groundwater at the site. It is also noted that naturally elevated concentrations of sodium and chloride in groundwater beneath the site are also likely to preclude this potential use of groundwater.
6.3.3 Stock Watering
Concentrations of nitrate (as nitrate) did not exceed the stock watering screening value of 400 mg/L, however the reported sulphate and TDS concentrations in groundwater are likely to preclude the use of groundwater for this purpose for most animals.
The proposed high density development and the zoning of the Fyansford development area is not compatible with the keeping of livestock, therefore the beneficial use Stock Watering is not likely to be realised at the site.
6.3.4 Primary Contact Recreation
Following remediation, concentrations of nitrate (as nitrate) exceeded the nitrate screening values for Primary Contact Recreation (50 mg/L) provided in the NHMRC Guidelines for Managing Risks in Recreational Water (2008) for wells MW254A, MW257, MW280 and MW282. The possibility of installing swimming pools within the development and using groundwater for swimming pool
makeup purposes is unlikely to occur since the entire development site has been identified as a GQRUZ.
The potential impact to the surface water body of the Moorabool River (and the associated use of Primary Contact Recreation) has been considered. The groundwater remediation program undertaken across the site has reduced the total contaminant mass within the groundwater aquifer. Therefore any residual nitrate and ammonia remaining, is likely to disperse through remediated areas, therefore reducing the mass further prior to discharge to the Moorabool River system. In addition, it is noted that further groundwater remediation is planned to be undertaken for Audit Area 1E located down gradient of the site. Therefore on this basis, it is concluded that the beneficial use Primary Contact Recreation is unlikely to be precluded by residual nitrate and ammonia groundwater contamination.
It is also noted however, that elevated regional concentrations of sodium, chloride and sulphate are likely to preclude this potential use of groundwater.
6.3.5 Industrial Water Use
Industrial water uses defined in the ANZECC 1992 (Industrial Water Quality) are generic process which include heating and cooling; hydro‐electric power generation; textile industry; chemical and allied industry; food and beverage industry; iron and steel industry; tanning and leather industry; pulp and paper industry and the petroleum industry.
However, it is noted that reported TDS values and sulphate concentrations are likely to preclude the use of groundwater for most industrial water purposes. Also, industrial uses typically require large water volumes and the low yield obtainable from the shallow aquifer would prevent extraction of high flow rates of groundwater. Therefore, this beneficial use is unlikely to be realised at the site.
6.3.6 Buildings and Structures
The Groundwater SEPP states that introduced contaminants shall not cause groundwater to become corrosive to structures or building materials and particularly refers to pH, sulphate and redox potential. Localised areas of slightly elevated sulphate concentrations have been reported in groundwater beneath the site.
Therefore, the beneficial use Buildings and Structures may be precluded at the site, however it is noted that the elevated sulphate concentrations are not considered to be derived from the site and these are attributable to background or offsite impacts. In addition, structures at the site are considered unlikely to encounter groundwater present at depths between 5.675 and 19.554 m below ground surface.
Table 9 below provides a summary of the precluded beneficial uses following clean up.
7. Clean up to the Extent Practicable (CUTEP) Determination
The auditor provided a cleanup to extent practicable (CUTEP) submission to EPA on 2nd March 2016, with additional clarification provided on 5th April 2016 (Attachment I).
The Auditor had considered that the very low risks associated with potential extractive uses of
groundwater on‐site would be best managed by restriction of groundwater for extractive use. No
monitoring of groundwater conditions was proposed.
Subsequently, on 15th April 2016, EPA determined that groundwater pollution at the site has been cleaned‐up to the extent practicable. The EPA CUTEP letter is included in Attachment J. EPA has also declared a Groundwater Quality Restricted Use Zone (GQRUZ), the extent of which is provided in Figure 3 of this report.
The Authority has determined that the following beneficial uses were precluded at the site:
Precluded Beneficial Use Contaminant(s)
Agriculture, parks and gardens Nitrate Stock watering Sulphate
Primary contact recreation Nickel, nitrate, ammonia and sulphate Industrial water use Nitrate and sulphate
Buildings and structures Sulphate
7.1 Management of Polluted Groundwater
The Auditor considers that the polluted groundwater identified at the site can be managed appropriately into the future as follows:
The audit site has been identified as a GQRUZ to prevent future installation of groundwater wells for extractive use on the site;
The following condition has been included in the Statement of Environment Audit to ensure that future occupiers of the site are aware of the restrictions as follows:
Groundwater at the site is polluted and must not be extracted for the beneficial uses of; agriculture, parks and gardens; stock watering; industrial water use; or primary contact recreation.
The ESA reports prepared by ESG appropriately outlined the Data Quality Objectives (DQO) process presented in AS 4482.1, which is also presented in the ASC NEPM, including the 7 step DQO process. As part of determining the adequacy of the investigations, the Auditor reviewed the DQOs using the 7 step process, as detailed below:
1. State the Problem: The primary objective of the investigations was to characterise the nature and extent of potential contamination issues identified during the Site History Review and previous investigations of the site to the extent that there is a defensible basis for assessing the ultimate goal of the study (see Point 2).
2. Identify the Decision/Goal of the Study: The ultimate goal of the environmental investigation is to determine:
a. whether or not the condition of the Site is detrimental to the objectives of SEPP (Land), SEPP (Groundwaters), SEPP (Waters), SEPP (Ambient Air) and SEPP (Air Quality);
b. whether the condition of the Site precludes the proposed development; and
c. if the condition of the Site is detrimental to the objectives of SEPPs and/or preclusive of the proposed development, what clean up work is necessary.
3. Identify the Information Inputs:
a. On the basis of the investigations undertaken, the primary media of concern are soil (inclusive of soil gas) and groundwater. As previously stated, a broad range of potential contaminants are a concern due to the nature of the potentially contaminating activities.
b. A tiered risk assessment approach is conducted in accordance with the ASC NEPM.
To assess soil contamination, Tier 1 criteria are sourced from SEPP (Land) and guidance documents referred to in SEPP (Land).
To assess groundwater contamination, Tier 1 criteria are sourced from a range of references based upon SEPP (Groundwater), SEPP (Waters) and guidance documents referred to in these SEPPs.
Where Tier 1 criteria are not available for a particular contaminant and/or exposure scenario, alternative Tier 1 criteria are sourced or qualitative assessments are relied upon on a case by case basis.
4. Define the Boundaries of the Study:
a. The spatial boundaries of the study are the boundaries of the Site and any land affected by contamination emanating from the Site.
b. The temporal boundaries of the study are from the time the Audit commenced to the time of this report.
5. Develop the Analytical Approach:
a. The analytical results are initially compared to Tier 1 criteria on a sample by sample basis.
b. Where Tier 1 criteria are exceeded, consideration is given to discretisation of the data set by area/lithology and summary statistics (i.e. average, standard deviation, magnitude above Tier 1 criteria).
c. Risks will be deemed acceptable without further assessment where:
i. All results are below Tier 1 criteria;
ii. Where Tier 1 criteria are exceeded in individual samples, for each discretised set of data the average concentration is less than the Tier 1 criteria, the standard deviation is less than 50% of the average and the magnitude of the exceedance is less than 250% (for soil only).
d. Where further assessment is necessary, the need for surface water and/or air investigations is initially assessed using a qualitative approach on a case by case basis.
6. Specify Performance or Acceptance Criteria: The Auditor established a set of Data Quality Indicators (DQIs) on the basis of the ASC NEPM. These DQIs are defined in Table 11.
7. Develop the Plan for Obtaining Data: On the basis of steps 1‐6, the Auditor considered that the most effective sampling and analysis design would be as follows (detail only provided for aspects of DQIs which are project specific):
a. Soil:
i. A probability based investigation was deemed most appropriate to investigate the Audit Area 1D site larger area of the site. For a property with the area of the Audit Area 1D Site (3.1 hectares), AS4482.1 recommends forty locations in order to determine detect representative circular hotspots using a square grid with 95% confidence. The Auditor determined that forty five grid based locations would be appropriate in this case. In addition, nine sampling locations were also targeted to potential areas of concern identified in the site history specifically former structures.
ii. The boreholes should be extended to the depth necessary to delineate the vertical extent of fill material, and if necessary the vertical extent of any natural soils displaying visual/olfactory evidence of contamination.
iii. Sample analysis should be predominantly focused on metals, nitrate and sulphate, with a broader range of organic contaminants to also be assessed at lower rates.
iv. To allow for the derivation of site specific Ecological Investigation Levels (EILs), representative fill material and natural samples should be analysed for % clay, Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) and pH.
b. Groundwater:
i. To assess the contamination status of groundwater, a number of appropriately spaced groundwater monitoring wells should be installed in order to assess the groundwater flow direction and contamination concentrations at up gradient/down gradient locations. Groundwater wells should also be located in identified areas of potential concern.
ii. Due to the broad range of contamination concerns associated with offsite sources, groundwater samples should be analysed for a suite of metals and non‐metallic inorganics (e.g. nitrogen species, cyanide, major ions).
iii. At least two rounds of groundwater monitoring should be conducted.
The Auditor has undertaken a review of the Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) documentation presented by ESG and reviewed their procedures to verify the integrity of the data presented. A detailed summary of this review is provided in Table 10 overleaf.
9.1 Conclusions on QA/QC
It is concluded that the overall data quality is acceptable and is considered reliable to draw conclusions regarding the environmental condition of the site.
Table 10 ‐ Review of QA/QC QA/QC Item Information Provided by Assessment Consultant Auditor’s comments
Work Plan A work plan was provided for the various stages of investigation undertaken by ESG. The Auditor was engaged subsequent to the investigations undertaken by GHD (1999) and ERM (2004) and therefore was unable to provide comments specifically associated with the investigations undertaken at that time.
Following the incorporation of amendments recommended by the Auditor, the work plan prepared by ESG was considered to be adequate for the purposes of the audit.
Field Procedures ESG standard field procedures were provided in the ESA reports and the Auditor observed adopted sampling procedures during the inspections of the site.
The Auditor reviewed ESG sampling procedures and is satisfied that these were consistent with current industry practice.
Laboratories used and NATA accreditation
Eurofins MGT was used as the primary laboratory for the analysis of soil and groundwater samples collected by ESG during the ESA. Envirolab and ALS were used as secondary or quality control laboratories. Laboratory Reports are provided in the appendices of the ESA reports prepared by ESG.
NATA certification stamps were present on all laboratory reports.
Holding times The laboratory reports provided in the appendices of the ESG report indicate whether samples have been received and/or extracted/analysed within specified holding times.
All of the collected samples were extracted and analysed within specified holding times with the exception of the following: Soil samples MW213‐01, MW213‐03, MW213‐04, MW214‐01/1C32 and MW214‐03/1C32
(16/04/14) for pH (1‐2 days) and %clay (13‐14 days); Soil samples SB1C16‐01, SB1C16‐02, SB1C17‐01, SBC1C17‐03, SB1C27‐01 and SB1C27‐02 for
cyanide (9 days) and pH (15 days). The Auditor notes that most of contaminants were not volatile and therefore the holding
time breaches are considered unlikely to have affected the results obtained to a significant degree. Volatile organics were not identified as potential contaminants of concern and therefore the breach of holding times for VOC analysis is unlikely to impact the outcome of the assessment undertaken by the consultant and therefore the Audit.
QC Testing – Blind Duplicate Soil Samples
Nine blind duplicate pairs of soil samples were collected during the various investigations undertaken by ESG.
Soil blind duplicate samples were analysed variously for metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, hexavalent chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel and zinc), TRH, BTEX, PAH, sulphate and nitrate. Blind duplicates were analysed at the minimum 5% required in AS4482.1‐2005. All reported RPDs, where they could be calculated, were within the acceptable range provided in AS4482.1‐2005, with the exception of the following:
Arsenic (52%) for sample pair MW260‐0.15 and QCP10;
Copper (67%) for sample pair 1ESB01‐0.15 and QCP08; and
QA/QC Item Information Provided by Assessment Consultant Auditor’s comments
Nitrate (as N) for sample pair !ESB04‐0.15 and QCP09. In all cases it was noted that elevated RPDs were attributed to small differences in reported low contaminant concentrations and/or sample heterogeneity and therefore were considered unlikely to affect the results of the assessment.
QC Testing – Split Duplicate Soil Samples
Nine split duplicate pairs of soil samples eere collected during the various Investigations undertaken by ESG.
The soil split duplicate samples were analysed variously for metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, hexavalent chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel and zinc), TRH, BTEX, PAH, and nitrate. Split duplicates were analysed at the minimum rate of 5% as required in AS4482.1‐2005. All reported RPDs, where they could be calculated, were within the acceptable range provided in AS4482.1‐2005 with the exception of the following:
Lead (52%) for sample pair MW255‐0.15 and QCS02;
Sulphate (69 to 124%) for sample pairs MW260‐0.15 and QCS10, SB1C18‐0.15 and QCS01, SB1C62‐0.15 and QCS06;
Sulphate (as S) for sample pairs MW260‐0.15 and QCS10, SB1C18‐0.15 and QCS01;
Copper (94 to 98%) for sample pair SB1C09‐2.0 and QCS03, 1ESB01 and QCP08; and
Nickel (54 to 67%) for sample pair SB1C62‐0.15 and 1ESB01‐0.15.
In all cases it was noted that elevated RPDs were attributed to small differences in reported low contaminant concentrations and/or sample heterogeneity, all results were below the adopted EIL and HIL screening values and therefore were considered unlikely to affect the results of the assessment.
QC Testing – Blind Duplicate Groundwater Samples
Blind duplicate samples have been collected for each round of groundwater monitoring in accordance with the rate recommended in AS4482.1‐2005. Fifteen blind duplicate pairs of groundwater samples were collected during the various monitoring events undertaken by ESG.
The groundwater blind duplicate samples were analysed variously for: ammonia, nitrate, sulphate, phosphate, chloride and metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, hexavalent chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc). All reported RPDs, where they could be calculated, were within the acceptable range provided in AS4482.1‐2005 with the exception of the following:
Ammonia as N (67%) for sample pair MW224 and QCPGW03;
Zinc (59%) for sample pair MW231 and QCPOGW02; and
Chloride (193%) for sample pair MW246 and QC1.
In all cases it was noted that elevated RPDs were attributed to small differences in reported low contaminant concentrations and therefore were considered unlikely to affect the results of the assessment. The results of the blind duplicate testing program indicated that good reproducibility of results was obtained by the primary laboratory.
QC Testing – Split Duplicate Groundwater Samples
Split duplicate samples have been collected for each round of groundwater monitoring in accordance with the rate recommended in AS4482.1‐2005. Fifteen split duplicate pairs of groundwater samples
The groundwater split duplicate samples were analysed variously for: ammonia, nitrate, sulphate, phosphate chloride and metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, hexavalent chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc). All reported RPDs, where they could be calculated, were within the acceptable range provided in
QA/QC Item Information Provided by Assessment Consultant Auditor’s comments
were collected during the various rounds of monitoring undertaken by ESG.
AS4482.1‐2005 with the exception of the following:
Copper (53 to 80%) for sample pair MW224 and QCSGW03, MW253 and QCSGW04, MW214 and QCSGW05
Hexavalent chromium (60 to 125%) for sample pairs MW224 and QCSGW03, MW245A and QCS_100915;
Nickel (53 and 167%) for sample pair QW30 and QC015, MW253 and QCSGW04;
Ammonia as N (55 to 150%) for sample pairs QW30 and QC015, MW271 and QCS_190815, MW245A and QCS_180915, MW271 and QCS070815;
Nitrate as N (61 to 67%) for sample pairs MW253 and QCSG04, MW245A and QCS01;
Zinc (67%) for sample pairs GW30 and QC015, MW246 and QC2;
In most cases it was noted that elevated RPDs were attributed to small differences in reported low contaminant concentrations and therefore were considered unlikely to affect the results of the assessment.
Laboratory Internal QC Laboratory reports were provided in the appendices of the ESG ESA reports. All laboratories performed internal QC procedures, including adequate testing for method blanks, laboratory duplicates and matrix spikes.
The results of the internal laboratory QC testing were generally considered acceptable and can be summarised as follows: ‐ RPD values for duplicate sample testing were all between 0 and 30%,some elevated RPDs were noted to occur.. It was noted that elevated RPDs were attributed to small differences in reported low contaminant concentrations and therefore were considered unlikely to affect the results of the assessment. ‐ blank sample analytical results were all below the LORs. ‐ spike recoveries ranged from 70 to 130%. Some exceptions were noted, however these were considered unlikely to affect the reported results because the outliers were reported for contaminants which were not of potential concern at the site predominantly PAH, VOC and phenol constituents.
Rinsate Blanks Eleven rinsate blanks were collected as part of the various stages of soil and groundwater investigations undertaken by ESG.
Rinsate blanks were analysed variously for: BTEX, metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, hexavalent chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc), PAH, TPH and phenols. All results were below laboratory detection limits and therefore indicate that decontamination procedures were undertaken appropriately.
Trip Blanks Eleven trip blanks were collected as part of the various stages of soil and groundwater investigations undertaken by ESG.
Rinsate blanks were analysed variously for: BTEX, ammonia, , nitrate, , metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, hexavalent chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc), PAH, TPH and phenols. All results were below laboratory detection limits and therefore indicate that there was no potential for cross contamination during the storage and transportation of samples.
Sample Tracking Chain of Custody documents were provided in the appendices of the Alpha Environmental reports.
Chain of Custody forms were all present and completed correctly.
Sample Preservation and Storage
ESG standard field procedures were provided in the assessment reports.
The standard field procedures specified appropriate sample preservation and storage methods.
QA/QC Item Information Provided by Assessment Consultant Auditor’s comments
Volatile Losses ESG have described their field procedures within the assessment report.
ESG field procedures specified sampling methodologies to minimise the loss of volatiles.
Data Transcription Summary Results Tables provided within the ESG reports.
Laboratory reports were generally correctly transcribed into the summary table. Where errors were noted these did not affect the conclusions of the assessment.
Laboratory Detection Limits Laboratory reports are provided in the appendices of the assessment report.
All detection limits were appropriate to determine the contamination status of soils and groundwater across the site.
The Auditor has reviewed the environmental investigations of a portion of the Gen Fyansford Development known as Audit Area 1D completed by ESG which has provided objective information upon which judgment can be made regarding the suitability of the site for the intended use.
A statutory environmental audit was required to be completed in accordance with Part IXD of the Environment Protection Act 1970 in order to comply with Planning Conditions issued by the Greater Geelong City Council which indicate that the site is subject to an EAO and therefore, to determine the suitability of the site for its proposed use.
The site is proposed to be developed for low density residential use.
10.1 Site History
The site history completed by ESG indicated that the site has a long history associated with the manufacture of cement. The original factory was established in 1890 on the south side of Hyland Street.
In 1924, the new plant began construction on the north side of Hyland Street (current vicinity of Audit Area 1H).
Geelong cement works (operated by Adelaide Brighton Cement) was closed in 2001 and an initial stage of demolition/deconstruction works was tendered to Moltoni Demolition Pty Ltd.
During the period 2004 to 2010, above ground structure removal/demolition was undertaken, environmental site assessments and partial level 1 geotechnical and environmental reinstatement of the main factory area was undertaken as part of the site redevelopment by Moltoni Corporation.
In 2010, rehabilitation works were suspended due to financial constraints and the land has remained vacant until the present time.
10.2 Data Quality
The QA/QC activities undertaken by ESG provide confidence that the testing of the soils, and groundwater was adequately representative of the conditions at the site and enabled the conclusions reached herein.
10.3 Soil Assessment
The investigation of the Audit Area 1D site comprised the collection of soil samples at forty five grid and nine targeted locations across the site. Samples were collected from both fill and natural soils across the site to a maximum depth of approximately 11 m and analysed for a broad range of inorganic and organic contaminants. The soil investigation and sampling density for the broader site adopted by ESG complied with the minimum requirement for site characterisation stipulated in AS4482.1.
The grid sampling and analysis program undertaken by ESG was considered appropriate to identify broad scale contamination identified in the site history review.
10.4 Current Status of On Site Soils
The results of the soil testing across the site have shown that soils remaining on‐site reported contaminant concentrations for all analytes below the adopted ecological screening levels (ASC NEPM EIL) and the adopted human health screening levels (ASC NEPM ‘A’ and ‘B’ HILs), with the exception of a slightly elevated copper concentration (270 mg/kg) at a depth of 1.2m at sampling location SB1C50. This minor and localised impact was not considered to pose a risk to the environment or human health.
No visible asbestos or potential ACM was observed within the soils remaining across the Audit Area 1D site. ACM materials identified within site derived stockpiles was appropriately removed by Haz Alert Pty Ltd and disposed off‐site following screening of oversized materials.
10.6 Risks to Beneficial Uses of Land
In accordance with EPA requirements, the Auditor has considered all potential beneficial uses of the land. A summary of the Auditor’s assessment of beneficial uses is provided below. It is noted that Maintenance of Natural Ecosystems is not considered to be a relevant beneficial use due to the significant human disturbance of the site by historical activities and the unlikely establishment of Natural Ecosystems following the redevelopment of the site.
10.6.1 Maintenance of Modified Ecosystems and Maintenance of Highly Modified Ecosystems
The site is likely to contain ecosystems which have been modified by the historical use of the site. Therefore Maintenance of Highly Modified Ecosystems and Maintenance of Modified Ecosystems are considered to be beneficial uses requiring protection at the site.
Concentrations of copper exceeded the adopted EIL at one sampling location within surficial soils. A statistical assessment of the concentrations indicated that the mean, standard deviation and 95% UCLmean for copper did not exceed the site specific ASC NEPM EIL values. On this basis it was concluded that the beneficial uses Maintenance of Modified Ecosystems and Maintenance of Highly Modified Ecosystems are not precluded at the site.
10.6.2 Human Health
The proposed development of the site comprises a low density residential development. Exposure to the soils at the site by future occupants and/or construction and maintenance workers may occur and so Human Health is considered to be a beneficial use requiring protection at the site.
Concentrations of all contaminants were reported to be below the ASC NEPM 'A' HILs and the ASC NEPM 'B' HILs. Therefore the beneficial use of Human Health is not precluded for each potential land use considered in the ASC NEPM.
10.6.3 Buildings and Structures
Soil analytical results for pH and sulphate reported concentrations within the respective screening range for this beneficial use, therefore the beneficial use Buildings and Structures is unlikely to be precluded at the site.
10.6.4 Aesthetics
As a result of filling works undertaken by the site developer to raise the levels of the site, a significant quantity of fill material has been identified at the site at depths up to 6.0 metres below ground surface. The majority of the site fill materials comprised a combination of clayey silt, limestone, silty sand, clay, silt, gravel and sand with inclusions of concrete fragments (generally less than 1%) and therefore are considered unlikely to preclude the aesthetic amenity of the site for low density residential purposes.
Aesthetically unacceptable materials predominantly comprising large concrete fragments, may remain at depths greater than 3 metres below final finish levels, however this is considered to be beyond the depth of practical excavations under a standard residential scenario and therefore are considered unlikely to preclude the aesthetic amenity of the site for low density residential purposes
Garden areas may be established as part of the development of the site for residential purposes.
Concentrations of a range of contaminants did not exceed the respective ASC NEPM EIL screening values with the exception of copper (270 mg/kg) at one sampling location which was considered to be localised in extent and therefore on this basis it was concluded that the beneficial use Production of Food, Flora and Fibre is not precluded at the site.
10.7 Risks to Beneficial Uses of Groundwater
Groundwater was sampled and tested at thirty nine on‐site locations over numerous rounds of monitoring undertaken both pre‐remediation works and post‐remediation works. The results of groundwater testing undertaken post‐remediation works have indicated that concentrations of hexavalent chromium have decreased to below the laboratory detection limits or below the relevant beneficial use screening values for all wells across the site and concentrations of nitrate have decreased to below the relevant beneficial use screening values for most wells across the site.
The following table provides a summary of the assessment of beneficial uses with respect to reported contamination in groundwater at the site following the completion of remediation works.
Table 11 ‐ Groundwater Beneficial Use Summary Protected Beneficial Use
Contaminants Exceeding Relevant Screening Values
Relevance of Beneficial Use Existing Use
Beneficial Use Precluded by Pollution
Maintenance of Ecosystems
Copper, nickel and zinc Groundwater from the site is likely to discharge to Moorabool River located approximately 120 m to the west of the site.
Yes No. The site was determined not to be a source of copper, nickel, and zinc groundwater contamination.
Mineral Water Not applicable The site is not located within a recognised mineral water province.
No Not applicable
Agriculture, Parks and Gardens
Nitrate, sodium and chloride
The potential low aquifer yield makes this use unlikely. However, the proposed low density development indicates that groundwater at the site may potentially be used for irrigation purposes, however the natural chloride concentrations within groundwater are likely to preclude most irrigation uses because is likely to be suitable for very salt resistant crops/plants only. In addition, the presence of a reticulated water system indicates that this use of groundwater is unlikely to be realised on the site.
No Yes. However, the site was determined not to be a source of sodium and chloride contamination. It is noted that this potential use of groundwater would be precluded by nitrate contamination reported at the site.
Stock Watering Sulphate and TDS Unlikely to be realised in an urban environment and is not consistent with the designated zoning of the site. The groundwater database search results indicate that 1 well within a 2 km radius of the site is registered for domestic and/or stock watering use. However, the well was located 1.72km north and upgradient of the site, therefore groundwater emanating from the site is unlikely to impact groundwater extracted from this well.
Yes Yes. However, the site was determined not to be a source of sulphate and TDS contamination.
Industrial Use Nitrate, sulphate and TDS The potential low aquifer yield makes industrial use of water unlikely.
No Yes. However, the site was determined not to be a source of sulphate and TDS groundwater contamination.
Primary Contact Recreation
Nitrate It is possible that swimming pools may be constructed within the low density residential development proposed for the site, therefore the potential use of groundwater for swimming pool makeup cannot be discounted. In addition, the Moorabool River is located approximately 120 m west of the site, therefore this is also a relevant beneficial use of groundwater.
Yes Yes. However, as discussed previously, nitrate groundwater contamination reported at the site is unlikely to reach the Moorabool River, the likely point of discharge at concentrations exceeding the relevant beneficial use criteria because further remediation works are also being undertaken downgradient of the site and and therefore contaminants would need to migrate through further remediated zones prior to reaching the river environment Should offsite use of groundwater occur for this use, it is considered unlikely that groundwater contamination from the site would impact off‐site properties because all residential areas are located upgradient of the site. It is noted that this potential use of groundwater would be precluded at the site by
Sulphate Excavations and footings are unlikely to encounter groundwater at the site
No Yes. However the site was determined not to be a source of sulphate groundwater contamination.
10.8 CUTEP Determination
The auditor provided a cleanup to extent practicable (CUTEP) submission to EPA on 2nd March 2016, with additional clarification provided on 5th April 2016 (Attachment I).
The Auditor had considered that the very low risks associated with potential extractive uses of groundwater on‐site would be best managed by restriction of groundwater for extractive use. No monitoring of groundwater conditions was proposed.
Subsequently, on 15th April 2016, EPA determined that groundwater pollution at the site has been cleaned‐up to the extent practicable. The EPA CUTEP letter is included in Attachment J. EPA has also declared a Groundwater Quality Restricted Use Zone (GQRUZ), the extent of which is provided in Figure 3 of this report.
10.9 Air Quality
No contamination has been identified which warrants air investigations. The Auditor considers that the condition of the Site is not detrimental to the objectives of SEPP (Ambient Air) and SEPP (Air Quality).
10.10 Surface Water Quality
No surface water bodies were identified within the site boundaries. The nearest surface water body is the Moorabool located approximately 120 m to the west of the site. No significant soil contamination was identified within surface soils which may lead to run off into surface water bodies. Audit Area 1D was considered to be the source of nitrate and Cr(VI) groundwater contamination identified beneath the site. The residual concentrations of nitrate reported at some monitoring wells is considered unlikely to significantly migrate and impact the Moorabool River environment for the following reasons:
Groundwater remediation comprised injection of molasses at 284 injection points on a grid of approximately 6 m x 6 m, therefore a significant mass of contaminants has been removed from the aquifer.
Any residual contamination remaining in the aquifer is likely to disperse through the remediated areas and therefore reduce concentrations even further.
Additional groundwater remediation is proposed to be undertaken on the adjacent down gradient Audit Area 1E and the LSIO site and therefore contaminants would need to migrate through further remediated zones prior to reaching the river environment.
10.11 Geotechnical Issues
This Environmental Audit report does not address the geotechnical issues associated with development of the site. The site owner is therefore advised to seek independent geotechnical advice regarding the suitability of the site for its intended use and the suitability of any placed, backfill materials, or any other matters relevant to the geotechnical stability of the site.
The Auditor is therefore of the opinion that the site is suitable for the beneficial uses associated with Sensitive use (other), Sensitive use (High density), Recreation / Open space use, Commercial and Industrial subject to the following conditions attached thereto:
Condition 1: Groundwater at the site is polluted by off‐site sources and must not be extracted for
the beneficial uses of: agriculture, parks and gardens, stock watering; primary
contact recreation or industrial water use.
Condition 2: The Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) prepared by ESG
Environmental, Version 3.1 January 2015 must be implemented. (Annexure 2).
Condition 3: An environmental Auditor (appointed under Part IXD of the Environmental
Protection Act 1970) must confirm in writing to EPA and the planning authority that
the finish surface levels have been achieved in accordance with the CEMP.
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:
Groundwater at the site would need to be remediated to restore all beneficial uses.
Aesthetically impacted fill material would need to be removed from site.
Other Related Information:
The Environment Protection Authority (EPA) has determined that groundwater has been
cleaned up to the extent practicable.
The Environment Protection Authority (EPA) has also determined that the site is located
within a Groundwater Quality Restricted Use Zone (GQRUZ).
The beneficial use of groundwater for which the auditor considers the site to be suitable is Maintenance of Ecosystems.
In accordance with clause 19(3) of the State Environment Protection Policy (Groundwaters
of Victoria), the Authority may require periodic reassessment of the practicability of
groundwater clean up.
Specialist advice should be sought in determining the geotechnical suitability of any fill material for its intended purpose;
If excavation or other activities are undertaken generating surplus soils requiring off‐site disposal, the waste soils must be managed in accordance with relevant EPA guidelines;
If materials are imported to the site, they must be verified as being consistent with the definition of ‘Fill Material’ in IWRG 621 or its relevant future revision; and
In accordance with Section 53ZE of the Environment Protection Act 1970, the owner/occupier of the site must provide a copy of this Statement to any person who becomes or proposes to become an occupier of the site.
Australian & New Zealand Environment & Conversation Council and Agriculture & Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand (2000). Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality. National Water Quality Management Strategy
EPAV (2015). Environmental Auditor (Contaminated Land) Guidelines for Issue of Certificates and Statements of Environmental Audit, Publication 759.3, December 2015.
EPAV (2009). Industrial Waste Resource Guidelines. Sampling and Analysis of Waters, Wastewaters, Soils and Wastes. EPA Publication IWRG701 ‐ June 2009.
EPAV (2009). Industrial Waste Resource Guidelines. Sampling and Analysis of Waters, Wastewaters, Soils and Wastes. EPA Publication IWRG701 ‐ June 2009.
EPAV (2014). The Clean Up and Management of Polluted Groundwater. EPA Publication 840.1. February 2014.
EPAV (2015). Environmental Auditor Guidelines, Provision of Environmental Auditor Reports, Certificates and Statements. EPA Publication 1147.2, December 2015.
EPAV (2015). Environmental Auditor (Contaminated Land) Guidelines for Issue of Certificates and Statements of Environmental Audit, Publication 759.3, December 2015.
MHSPE (2009). Soil Remediation Circular 2009, Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment.
National Health and Medical Research Council and Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council (2016). Version 3.2 updated February 2016. Australian Drinking Water Guidelines 2011. National Water Quality Management Strategy.
National Environment Protection Council (NEPC 2013). National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999, as amended 2013.
Standards Australia (2005). Australian Standard, Guide to the sampling and investigation of potentially contaminated soil. Part 1: Non‐volatile and semi‐volatile compounds. AS4482.1 ‐ 2005.
Standards Australia (1999). Australian Standard, Guide to the sampling and investigation of potentially contaminated soil. Part 2: Volatile Substances. AS4482.2 ‐ 1999.
Victorian Government (1970). Environment Protection Act 1970: Act No. 8056/1970. Printing and Publishing Services Victoria.
Victorian Government (1997). State Environment Protection Policy ‐ Groundwaters of Victoria. Victorian Government Gazette No. S160 17.
Victorian Government (2002). State Environmental Protection Policy (Prevention and Management of Contaminated Land). Victorian Government Gazette No. S95.
NEPM ESLs for Urban Residential and Public Open Space for Fine Soils
Inorganics Petroleum Hydrocarbons
AA1D
CRC CARE HSL-A Residential (Low Density) Direct Contact
NEPM 2013 Residential B SoilNEPM 2013 Recreational C SoilNEPM 2013 Commercial/ industrial D SoilNEPM HSL-A/B, 0 to <1m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-A/B, 1m to <2m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-A/B, 2m to <4m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-A/B, 4m to <8m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 0 to <1m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 1m to <2m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 2m to <4m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 4m to <8m, Clay Soils for Vapour Intrusion
CRC CARE HSL-B Residential (High Density) Direct Contact
NEPM ESLs for Urban Residential and Public Open Space for Fine Soils
Inorganics Petroleum Hydrocarbons
AA1D
CRC CARE HSL-A Residential (Low Density) Direct Contact
NEPM 2013 Residential B SoilNEPM 2013 Recreational C SoilNEPM 2013 Commercial/ industrial D SoilNEPM HSL-A/B, 0 to <1m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-A/B, 1m to <2m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-A/B, 2m to <4m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-A/B, 4m to <8m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 0 to <1m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 1m to <2m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 2m to <4m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 4m to <8m, Clay Soils for Vapour Intrusion
CRC CARE HSL-B Residential (High Density) Direct Contact
NEPM ESLs for Urban Residential and Public Open Space for Fine Soils
Inorganics Petroleum Hydrocarbons
AA1D
CRC CARE HSL-A Residential (Low Density) Direct Contact
NEPM 2013 Residential B SoilNEPM 2013 Recreational C SoilNEPM 2013 Commercial/ industrial D SoilNEPM HSL-A/B, 0 to <1m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-A/B, 1m to <2m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-A/B, 2m to <4m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-A/B, 4m to <8m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 0 to <1m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 1m to <2m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 2m to <4m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 4m to <8m, Clay Soils for Vapour Intrusion
CRC CARE HSL-B Residential (High Density) Direct Contact
ND -‐ Not Detected1 Exceeds EIL of 232-‐242 mg/kg for Fill/Disturbed/Disturbed Soil for Silt
CRC-‐CARE: Friebel, E and Nadebaum, P 2011, Health screening levels for petroleum hydrocarbons in soil and groundwater. Summary Cooperative Research Centre for Contamination Assessment and Remediation of the Environment Technical Report 10. HSL-‐A/B residential, HSL-‐C recreational/open space, HSL-‐D commercial/industrial land use
NEPM: National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Amended Measure 2013, Schedule B1 Guideline on investigation levels for soil and groundwater. HIL-‐A residential (low density), HIL-‐B (high density), HIL-‐C (recreational), HIL-‐D (commercial/industrial) land use.
Appendix J - Table J1
Summary of Soil Analytical Results - AA1D
Asb
esto
s
AA1D/E NEPM 2013 Calculated EILs - Undisturbed
Field ID Sample Depth (m)
PID (ppm) Sample Type Sampled Date Lab Report Number
NEPM ESLs for Urban Residential and Public Open Space for Fine Soils
AA1D
CRC CARE HSL-A Residential (Low Density) Direct Contact
NEPM 2013 Residential B SoilNEPM 2013 Recreational C SoilNEPM 2013 Commercial/ industrial D SoilNEPM HSL-A/B, 0 to <1m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-A/B, 1m to <2m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-A/B, 2m to <4m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-A/B, 4m to <8m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 0 to <1m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 1m to <2m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 2m to <4m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 4m to <8m, Clay Soils for Vapour Intrusion
CRC CARE HSL-B Residential (High Density) Direct Contact
NEPM ESLs for Urban Residential and Public Open Space for Fine Soils
AA1D
CRC CARE HSL-A Residential (Low Density) Direct Contact
NEPM 2013 Residential B SoilNEPM 2013 Recreational C SoilNEPM 2013 Commercial/ industrial D SoilNEPM HSL-A/B, 0 to <1m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-A/B, 1m to <2m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-A/B, 2m to <4m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-A/B, 4m to <8m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 0 to <1m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 1m to <2m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 2m to <4m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 4m to <8m, Clay Soils for Vapour Intrusion
CRC CARE HSL-B Residential (High Density) Direct Contact
NEPM ESLs for Urban Residential and Public Open Space for Fine Soils
AA1D
CRC CARE HSL-A Residential (Low Density) Direct Contact
NEPM 2013 Residential B SoilNEPM 2013 Recreational C SoilNEPM 2013 Commercial/ industrial D SoilNEPM HSL-A/B, 0 to <1m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-A/B, 1m to <2m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-A/B, 2m to <4m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-A/B, 4m to <8m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 0 to <1m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 1m to <2m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 2m to <4m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 4m to <8m, Clay Soils for Vapour Intrusion
CRC CARE HSL-B Residential (High Density) Direct Contact
ND -‐ Not Detected1 Exceeds EIL of 232-‐242 mg/kg for Fill/Disturbed/Disturbed Soil for Silt
CRC-‐CARE: Friebel, E and Nadebaum, P 2011, Health screening levels for petroleum hydrocarbons in soil and groundwater. Summary Cooperative Research Centre for Contamination Assessment and Remediation of the Environment Technical Report 10. HSL-‐A/B residential, HSL-‐C recreational/open space, HSL-‐D commercial/industrial land use
NEPM: National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Amended Measure 2013, Schedule B1 Guideline on investigation levels for soil and groundwater. HIL-‐A residential (low density), HIL-‐B (high density), HIL-‐C (recreational), HIL-‐D (commercial/industrial) land use.
NEPM ESLs for Urban Residential and Public Open Space for Fine Soils
AA1D
CRC CARE HSL-A Residential (Low Density) Direct Contact
NEPM 2013 Residential B SoilNEPM 2013 Recreational C SoilNEPM 2013 Commercial/ industrial D SoilNEPM HSL-A/B, 0 to <1m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-A/B, 1m to <2m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-A/B, 2m to <4m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-A/B, 4m to <8m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 0 to <1m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 1m to <2m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 2m to <4m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 4m to <8m, Clay Soils for Vapour Intrusion
CRC CARE HSL-B Residential (High Density) Direct Contact
NEPM ESLs for Urban Residential and Public Open Space for Fine Soils
AA1D
CRC CARE HSL-A Residential (Low Density) Direct Contact
NEPM 2013 Residential B SoilNEPM 2013 Recreational C SoilNEPM 2013 Commercial/ industrial D SoilNEPM HSL-A/B, 0 to <1m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-A/B, 1m to <2m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-A/B, 2m to <4m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-A/B, 4m to <8m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 0 to <1m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 1m to <2m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 2m to <4m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 4m to <8m, Clay Soils for Vapour Intrusion
CRC CARE HSL-B Residential (High Density) Direct Contact
NEPM ESLs for Urban Residential and Public Open Space for Fine Soils
AA1D
CRC CARE HSL-A Residential (Low Density) Direct Contact
NEPM 2013 Residential B SoilNEPM 2013 Recreational C SoilNEPM 2013 Commercial/ industrial D SoilNEPM HSL-A/B, 0 to <1m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-A/B, 1m to <2m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-A/B, 2m to <4m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-A/B, 4m to <8m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 0 to <1m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 1m to <2m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 2m to <4m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 4m to <8m, Clay Soils for Vapour Intrusion
CRC CARE HSL-B Residential (High Density) Direct Contact
ND -‐ Not Detected1 Exceeds EIL of 232-‐242 mg/kg for Fill/Disturbed/Disturbed Soil for Silt
CRC-‐CARE: Friebel, E and Nadebaum, P 2011, Health screening levels for petroleum hydrocarbons in soil and groundwater. Summary Cooperative Research Centre for Contamination Assessment and Remediation of the Environment Technical Report 10. HSL-‐A/B residential, HSL-‐C recreational/open space, HSL-‐D commercial/industrial land use
NEPM: National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Amended Measure 2013, Schedule B1 Guideline on investigation levels for soil and groundwater. HIL-‐A residential (low density), HIL-‐B (high density), HIL-‐C (recreational), HIL-‐D (commercial/industrial) land use.
NEPM ESLs for Urban Residential and Public Open Space for Fine Soils
AA1D
CRC CARE HSL-A Residential (Low Density) Direct Contact
NEPM 2013 Residential B SoilNEPM 2013 Recreational C SoilNEPM 2013 Commercial/ industrial D SoilNEPM HSL-A/B, 0 to <1m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-A/B, 1m to <2m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-A/B, 2m to <4m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-A/B, 4m to <8m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 0 to <1m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 1m to <2m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 2m to <4m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 4m to <8m, Clay Soils for Vapour Intrusion
CRC CARE HSL-B Residential (High Density) Direct Contact
NEPM ESLs for Urban Residential and Public Open Space for Fine Soils
AA1D
CRC CARE HSL-A Residential (Low Density) Direct Contact
NEPM 2013 Residential B SoilNEPM 2013 Recreational C SoilNEPM 2013 Commercial/ industrial D SoilNEPM HSL-A/B, 0 to <1m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-A/B, 1m to <2m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-A/B, 2m to <4m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-A/B, 4m to <8m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 0 to <1m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 1m to <2m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 2m to <4m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 4m to <8m, Clay Soils for Vapour Intrusion
CRC CARE HSL-B Residential (High Density) Direct Contact
NEPM ESLs for Urban Residential and Public Open Space for Fine Soils
AA1D
CRC CARE HSL-A Residential (Low Density) Direct Contact
NEPM 2013 Residential B SoilNEPM 2013 Recreational C SoilNEPM 2013 Commercial/ industrial D SoilNEPM HSL-A/B, 0 to <1m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-A/B, 1m to <2m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-A/B, 2m to <4m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-A/B, 4m to <8m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 0 to <1m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 1m to <2m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 2m to <4m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 4m to <8m, Clay Soils for Vapour Intrusion
CRC CARE HSL-B Residential (High Density) Direct Contact
ND -‐ Not Detected1 Exceeds EIL of 232-‐242 mg/kg for Fill/Disturbed/Disturbed Soil for Silt
CRC-‐CARE: Friebel, E and Nadebaum, P 2011, Health screening levels for petroleum hydrocarbons in soil and groundwater. Summary Cooperative Research Centre for Contamination Assessment and Remediation of the Environment Technical Report 10. HSL-‐A/B residential, HSL-‐C recreational/open space, HSL-‐D commercial/industrial land use
NEPM: National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Amended Measure 2013, Schedule B1 Guideline on investigation levels for soil and groundwater. HIL-‐A residential (low density), HIL-‐B (high density), HIL-‐C (recreational), HIL-‐D (commercial/industrial) land use.
NEPM ESLs for Urban Residential and Public Open Space for Fine Soils
AA1D
CRC CARE HSL-A Residential (Low Density) Direct Contact
NEPM 2013 Residential B SoilNEPM 2013 Recreational C SoilNEPM 2013 Commercial/ industrial D SoilNEPM HSL-A/B, 0 to <1m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-A/B, 1m to <2m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-A/B, 2m to <4m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-A/B, 4m to <8m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 0 to <1m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 1m to <2m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 2m to <4m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 4m to <8m, Clay Soils for Vapour Intrusion
CRC CARE HSL-B Residential (High Density) Direct Contact
NEPM ESLs for Urban Residential and Public Open Space for Fine Soils
AA1D
CRC CARE HSL-A Residential (Low Density) Direct Contact
NEPM 2013 Residential B SoilNEPM 2013 Recreational C SoilNEPM 2013 Commercial/ industrial D SoilNEPM HSL-A/B, 0 to <1m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-A/B, 1m to <2m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-A/B, 2m to <4m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-A/B, 4m to <8m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 0 to <1m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 1m to <2m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 2m to <4m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 4m to <8m, Clay Soils for Vapour Intrusion
CRC CARE HSL-B Residential (High Density) Direct Contact
NEPM ESLs for Urban Residential and Public Open Space for Fine Soils
AA1D
CRC CARE HSL-A Residential (Low Density) Direct Contact
NEPM 2013 Residential B SoilNEPM 2013 Recreational C SoilNEPM 2013 Commercial/ industrial D SoilNEPM HSL-A/B, 0 to <1m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-A/B, 1m to <2m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-A/B, 2m to <4m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-A/B, 4m to <8m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 0 to <1m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 1m to <2m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 2m to <4m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 4m to <8m, Clay Soils for Vapour Intrusion
CRC CARE HSL-B Residential (High Density) Direct Contact
ND -‐ Not Detected1 Exceeds EIL of 232-‐242 mg/kg for Fill/Disturbed/Disturbed Soil for Silt
CRC-‐CARE: Friebel, E and Nadebaum, P 2011, Health screening levels for petroleum hydrocarbons in soil and groundwater. Summary Cooperative Research Centre for Contamination Assessment and Remediation of the Environment Technical Report 10. HSL-‐A/B residential, HSL-‐C recreational/open space, HSL-‐D commercial/industrial land use
NEPM: National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Amended Measure 2013, Schedule B1 Guideline on investigation levels for soil and groundwater. HIL-‐A residential (low density), HIL-‐B (high density), HIL-‐C (recreational), HIL-‐D (commercial/industrial) land use.
NEPM ESLs for Urban Residential and Public Open Space for Fine Soils
AA1D
CRC CARE HSL-A Residential (Low Density) Direct Contact
NEPM 2013 Residential B SoilNEPM 2013 Recreational C SoilNEPM 2013 Commercial/ industrial D SoilNEPM HSL-A/B, 0 to <1m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-A/B, 1m to <2m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-A/B, 2m to <4m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-A/B, 4m to <8m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 0 to <1m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 1m to <2m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 2m to <4m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 4m to <8m, Clay Soils for Vapour Intrusion
CRC CARE HSL-B Residential (High Density) Direct Contact
NEPM ESLs for Urban Residential and Public Open Space for Fine Soils
AA1D
CRC CARE HSL-A Residential (Low Density) Direct Contact
NEPM 2013 Residential B SoilNEPM 2013 Recreational C SoilNEPM 2013 Commercial/ industrial D SoilNEPM HSL-A/B, 0 to <1m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-A/B, 1m to <2m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-A/B, 2m to <4m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-A/B, 4m to <8m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 0 to <1m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 1m to <2m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 2m to <4m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 4m to <8m, Clay Soils for Vapour Intrusion
CRC CARE HSL-B Residential (High Density) Direct Contact
NEPM ESLs for Urban Residential and Public Open Space for Fine Soils
AA1D
CRC CARE HSL-A Residential (Low Density) Direct Contact
NEPM 2013 Residential B SoilNEPM 2013 Recreational C SoilNEPM 2013 Commercial/ industrial D SoilNEPM HSL-A/B, 0 to <1m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-A/B, 1m to <2m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-A/B, 2m to <4m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-A/B, 4m to <8m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 0 to <1m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 1m to <2m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 2m to <4m, Clay Soils for Vapour IntrusionNEPM HSL-D, 4m to <8m, Clay Soils for Vapour Intrusion
CRC CARE HSL-B Residential (High Density) Direct Contact
ND -‐ Not Detected1 Exceeds EIL of 232-‐242 mg/kg for Fill/Disturbed/Disturbed Soil for Silt
CRC-‐CARE: Friebel, E and Nadebaum, P 2011, Health screening levels for petroleum hydrocarbons in soil and groundwater. Summary Cooperative Research Centre for Contamination Assessment and Remediation of the Environment Technical Report 10. HSL-‐A/B residential, HSL-‐C recreational/open space, HSL-‐D commercial/industrial land use
NEPM: National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Amended Measure 2013, Schedule B1 Guideline on investigation levels for soil and groundwater. HIL-‐A residential (low density), HIL-‐B (high density), HIL-‐C (recreational), HIL-‐D (commercial/industrial) land use.
DELTA in Conc. (Pre to Present) % = Percentage change in concentration between most relevant Pre-injection result and latest post-injection validation result
Date EPA Notified of Audit 7/7/2008 (original notification for the larger Fyansford Development Site)
16/01/2015 (subsequent notification for Audit Area 1D and 1E combined)
16/10/2015 (subsequent notification for Audit Area 1D only)
Audit Service Order Number 8004568
Person and Organisation requesting Audit
Mr Will Neething of Moltoni Corporation (original notification)
Mr Glen Dyke of Sinclair Brook (subsequent notification for Audit Area 1D)
Relationship of Person Requesting Audit to Site
Development Project Manager (Sinclair Brook) on behalf of the site owner
Date of Auditor Engagement 3/7/2008
Completion date of the audit 13/5/2016
Reason for Audit To comply with Condition 47 of Planning Permit 701/2009/C Dated 21 January 2010 issued by the City of Greater Geelong Council
The site forms a portion of a much larger property which is proposed to be developed over several stages for residential use. This report addresses the stage of development referred to as Audit Area 1D.
Audit Categorisation Risk
Environmental Segments Air, Land, Groundwater, Surface Water
Current Land Use Zoning General Residential
EPA Region South West
Municipality City of Greater Geelong
Dominant Lot on Plan Part of Parcel 21 on Plan of Subdivision TP568016C, Volume 2181 Folio 086
Additional Lot on Plan(s) NA
Site Premises name Former Australian Portland Cement Company/Adelaide Brighton Cement Company
Plan of site/premises showing the audit site boundary attached
Annexure 1 of the Statement of Environmental Audit
Plan of site/premises showing the audit site boundary attached in a spatial data format
Attached electronically
Members and Categories of Support Team Utilised
NA
Further works or requirements Groundwater must not be extracted for the precluded beneficial uses listed below
Nature and extent of continuing risk Subject to the conditions of the attached Statement of Environmental Audit being adhered to, there is no unacceptable continuing risk to the environment or human health for the proposed residential development.
Outcome of the audit Statement
Has EPA determined CUTEP at this site?
Yes
Has the Auditor determined CUTEP at this site?
No
Has a GQRUZ been identified at the site/beyond the site by EPA?
Yes
Does NAPL remain at the site? No
Please indicate which of the Protected Beneficial Uses of Groundwater are precluded due to pollution
Groundwater at the site is impacted by on‐site and off‐site sources of contamination.
Protected Use Precluded?
Maintenance of Ecosystems No
Potable Water Supply (Desirable) NA
Potable Water Supply (Acceptable) NA
Potable Mineral Water Supply NA
Agriculture, Parks and Gardens Yes
Stock Watering Yes
Primary Contact Recreation Yes
Industrial Water Use Yes
Buildings and Structures Yes
Historical Land Use Approximately 100 years of cement manufacturing
Surrounding Land Use ‐ North Vacant land comprising Audit Area 1E of the Gen Fyansford Development is located to the north of the site, followed by vacant land
Surrounding Land Use ‐ South Audit Areas 1C and 1B of the Gen Fyansford Development are located to the south followed by Hyland Street
Surrounding Land Use ‐ East Vacant land comprising Reserve No.1 of the Gen Fyansford Development is located to the east of the site followed by Hyland Street
Surrounding Land Use ‐ West Vacant land comprising Audit Area 1E is located to the west of the site, followed by LSIO and the Moorabool River
Proposed Land Use Zoning Residential
Nearest Surface Water Receptor Moorabool River
Nearest Surface Water Receptor ‐ Distance (m)
120 m
Nearest Surface Water Receptor ‐ Direction
West
Likely Point of Groundwater Discharge
Moorabool River
Site Aquifer Formation Quaternary Alluvium Aquifer
Groundwater Flow Direction Westerly
Groundwater TDS Range (mg/L) 4,100 to 10,000
Groundwater Segment Segment C has been adopted for consistency with the remaining areas of the Gen Fyansford Development
Are there Multiple Aquifers Impacted by Pollution at the Site?
Zone of Groundwater Plume Influence (m from site boundary)
The nitrate groundwater plume is also impacting adjacent land hydraulically down gradient Audit Area 1E which will be addressed in a separate Environmental Audit Report prepared for this site.
Year Groundwater Last Monitored 2016
Have you Attached Electronic Copies of Current Groundwater Analytical Results Presented as a Summary Table