Environmental Baseline Study for JTC Cleantech 3

SINGAPORE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANCY AND SOLUTIONS PTE LTD
1 Sunview Road,
#08-66, Eco-Tech
Singapore 627615
Tel : +65 6471 3316
Fax :+65 6471 3396
Report Title Environmental Baseline Study for JTC

Cleantech 3
Client Tiong Aik Construction Pte Ltd
Job No 180012
Date 2 February 2018
1
Client
Tiong Aik Construction Pte Ltd

Report Title
Environmental Baseline Study for JTC Cleantech 3

Authors Approved by
Donald Folkoff Tony Teo

Director Environmental Services Principal Environmental Consultant
(Singapore Environmental Consultancy & Solutions (Singapore Environmental Consultancy & Solutions
Pte Ltd) Pte Ltd)
Distribution Medium Copies

Tiong Aik Construction Pte Ltd Digital 4
This report is prepared by Singapore Environmental Consultancy and Solutions Pte Ltd with all
diligence, careful considerations and reasonable skills with the terms of the Contract with the client,
incorporating our General Terms and Conditions of Business and taking account of the resources
dedicated to it by agreement with the client. In all events, SECS disclaim any responsibility to the client
and others or any matters outside the scope of the above.
2
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................... 4
1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................ 7
1.1 Purpose and Objective ............................................................................................................ 7
1.2 Scope of Work........................................................................................................................ 7
1.3 Assessment Criteria and Report Structure .............................................................................. 8
2.0 Site Settings ................................................................................................ 9
2.1 Site Location and Layout ....................................................................................................... 9
2.3 Surrounding Land Use ......................................................................................................... 10
2.4 Physical Settings .................................................................................................................. 10
2.4.1 Physiograph/Surface Drainage ........................................................................................ 10
2.4.2 Soil Stratigraphy/Geology................................................................................................ 10
2.5 Site History........................................................................................................................... 11
3.0 Site Inspection .......................................................................................... 12
3.1 General ................................................................................................................................. 12
3.2 Surface Conditions and Drainage ......................................................................................... 12
3.3 Hazardous Substances and Waste Management ................................................................... 12
3.4 Physical Evidence of Contamination .................................................................................... 12
3.5 Potential Areas of Concern and Contaminants of Concern .................................................. 12
4.0 Field Program and Analytical Parameters ........................................... 13
4.1 General ................................................................................................................................. 13
4.2 Number and Location of Boreholes ..................................................................................... 13
4.3 Soil Sampling ....................................................................................................................... 14
4.4 Groundwater Sampling and Well Construction.................................................................... 16
4.5 Groundwater Hydrology ...................................................................................................... 16
4.6 Laboratory Testing Program ................................................................................................ 18
5.0 Results from the Soil and Groundwater Sampling Program .............. 19
5.1 Soil Quality Assessment ....................................................................................................... 19
5.2 Groundwater Quality Assessment ........................................................................................ 21
5.3 Sample QA/QC .................................................................................................................... 22
6.0 Conclusions ............................................................................................... 24
7.0 Recommendations .................................................................................... 26
Tables
Table 1 – Summary of Soil Sample Description
Table 2 – Groundwater Elevation Data
Table 3 – Soil Quality Assessment of Metals and Metalloids
Table 4 – Groundwater Quality Assessment of Metals and Metalloids
Figures
Figure 1 – Locality Map
Figure 2 – Site Layout Plan with Monitoring Well Locations
Figure 3 – Groundwater Contour Map
Appendices
Appendix A – Boring Logs and Site Survey Data
Appendix B – Laboratory Test Report
Appendix B1 – Summary of RPD for Duplicate Samples
Appendix C – Photographs
Appendix D – JTC Guideline on EBS
Appendix E – NEA List of Consultants For Site Assessment/Site Remediation
3
Executive Summary
Singapore Environmental Consultancy and Solutions (SECS) was engaged by Tiong
Aik Construction in January 2017 to perform an environmental baseline study (EBS)
for the development of JTC Cleantech 3 along Cleantech Loop in the western part of
Singapore. This report details the EBS investigation undertaken at the property and
conforms to the reporting structure outlined in the recent JTC “Guideline On
Environmental Baseline Study (2015) Edition”. The analytical suite follows the 2000
Dutch Soil Guidelines as detailed in the 2015 guidelines.
The purpose of this investigation was to establish the level of toxic contamination, if
any in the soil and groundwater by testing the concentrations of selected chemicals of
concern in samples collected from the site to establish the baseline conditions beneath
the property and also assesses any contamination of the soil and groundwater that may
have resulted from historical land use including site development. The objective of the
EBS is to conform to the JTC requirements to undertake the EBS study as part of the
lease transfer agreement.
The program for this investigation consisted of the following tasks.
• Site reconnaissance to determine the borehole locations and interview.

• Drilling of four boreholes to termination depths of 6.25m below ground level (bgl).
• Completion of the boreholes as groundwater monitoring wells.
• Submission of thirteen (13) soil samples and five (4) sets of groundwater samples
to the laboratory for analysis inclusive of one soil and one groundwater duplicate
in accordance to the analytical suite detailed target and intervention values detailed
under the 2000 Dutch Standards with the exception of organotin compounds and
extractable organic halogens.
An initial site inspection and cable detection were conducted prior to the
commencement of the drilling works. The drilling works was carried out between 17th
and 19th January 2018 while groundwater samples were collected on 19th January 2018.
A summary of the findings from this investigation is as follows.
• It is our understanding that the site will be used for development of JTC Cleantech
3, conceived as a gateway to Cleantech Park for research laboratories and start-ups.
• According to the 1958 URA Master Plan, the site and its surroundings were
previously an agricultural zone. A review of the 1966 One Historical Map shows
that the site was north of Gek Poh Road and south of Jalan Bahar. By 1975, there
was further construction of Lorong Tawas. According to the client, JTC is likely to
be the first industrial occupant at the site.
• Based on the four borelogs of the monitoring wells fill material is approximately
1.7m to 2.5m thick. The fill material consisted of firm to stiff Sandy Clayey SILT,
with hardcores. Beneath the fill material to the termination depth of 6.25 metres
4
below ground level (m bgl) consist of stiff, Sandy Clayey SILT and Sandy Silty
CLAY, typical of the characteristics of the Jurong formation soil.
• The static water table was measured at depths of from 0.23m to 2.43m below
ground level and the well yields were low indicative of the low permeability
saturated zone soils. Based on the reduced level measurements groundwater is
flowing in a north- southeast direction.
• The sampling and analysis program consisted of submission of ten soil samples and
four sets of groundwater samples inclusive of one soil and groundwater duplicates
to the laboratory for analysis in accordance to the JTC EBS requirements.
• A review of the laboratory analysis results for the soil samples tested showed that
none of the samples tested exceeded their respective Dutch Intervention Values
except Copper in BH3-S3 (446.01mg/kg), which exceeded the DIV of 190mg/kg.
• A review of the laboratory analysis results for the groundwater samples tested
showed that none of the samples tested exceeded their respective Dutch
Intervention Values.
To further evaluate the results of this study for the contaminants of concern (COC)
which exceeded the Dutch Intervention Value, we have applied a risk based
assessment. The purpose of the risk based site assessment is to provide guidance for
sites where some contamination has been identified and help decide what corrective
action, if any, is necessary to protect human health and the environment. The Dutch
Intervention Value assumes a scenario of multifunctional land use and is based on
accessing both the human health and ecological risk factor which gives an overly
conservative assessment criterion for an industrial land application.
The US State of Texas Resource Conservation Commission Protective

Concentration Levels (PCL) derives generic risk based screening levels for soil and
are cited in the American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM) “Standard Guide For
Risk Based Corrective Action at Chemical Release Sites E-2081-00” under example
approaches, provides a more appropriate target value for industrial land. The
assessment of the values of the Copper concentration detected on the site indicates that
the maximum detected value is lower than the Texas PCL. Below are the comparisons
of the parameters between the two standards:
Dutch
Maximum Concentration Texas PCL
Parameter Intervention
detected at site (mg/kg) (mg/kg)
Value (mg/kg)
Copper 446.01 190 94,000a
a
Commercial/ Industrial PCL for a combination of inhalation, ingestion and dermal pathways used
Based on the analytical data, physical site features, geologic settings and land use
scenario there would be no need to undertake any form of remediation as the analytical
5
results for the soil and groundwater indicate no critical issues of concern to the site
occupants or neighbouring facilities based on the present land use scenario.
6
1.0 Introduction
Singapore Environmental Consultancy and Solutions (SECS) was engaged by Tiong
Aik Construction in January 2017 to perform an environmental baseline study (EBS)
for the development of JTC Cleantech 3 along Cleantech Loop in the western part of
Singapore. This report details the EBS investigation undertaken at the property and
conforms to the reporting structure outlined in the recent JTC “Guideline On
Environmental Baseline Study (2015) Edition”. The analytical suite follows the 2000
Dutch Soil Guidelines as detailed in the 2015 guidelines.
1.1 Purpose and Objective
The purpose of this investigation was to establish the level of toxic contamination, if
any in the soil and groundwater by testing the concentrations of selected chemicals of
concern in samples collected from the site to establish the baseline conditions beneath
the property and also assesses any contamination of the soil and groundwater that may
have resulted from historical land use including site development. The objective of the
EBS is to conform to the JTC requirements to undertake the EBS study as part of the
lease transfer agreement.
The schedule of standards used to evaluate the analytical results for this study are the
Dutch RIVM Soil and Groundwater Target and Intervention Values for 2000 (Dutch
Standards) which are the standards adopted by the JTC as specified in the 2015 EBS
Guidelines as a means of determining the contamination status of the soil and
groundwater samples tested.
1.2 Scope of Work
The program for this investigation consisted of the following tasks.
• Site reconnaissance to determine the borehole locations and interview.

• Drilling of four boreholes to termination depths of 6.25m below ground level (bgl).
• Completion of the boreholes as groundwater monitoring wells.
• Submission of thirteen (13) soil samples and five (5) sets of groundwater samples
to the laboratory for analysis inclusive of one soil and one groundwater duplicate
in accordance to the analytical suite detailed target and intervention values detailed
under the 2000 Dutch Standards with the exception of organotin compounds and
extractable organic halogens.
An initial site inspection and cable detection were conducted prior to the
commencement of the drilling works. The drilling works was carried out between 17th
and 19th January 2018 while groundwater samples were collected on 19th January 2018.
7
1.3 Assessment Criteria and Report Structure
In Singapore no legislation exists addressing soil and groundwater quality criteria. The
JTC have adopted the 2000 Dutch (RIVM) guidelines that were derived using a
comprehensive risk based toxicological model. These criteria when compared to the
concentrations of compounds measured in the soil and groundwater samples collected
during the field program can give a preliminary contamination status of the site. The
Dutch Values specify two levels, which are defined in the Netherlands as follows:
• an S or Target value that represents the target or background concentration and

below which would indicate that the land is multifunctional;
• an I, or Intervention, level above which indicates some levels of serious
contamination exists and that of some form of remediation would be required which
could range from natural attenuation and further monitoring to a risk assessment
and/or active remediation that may include soil/groundwater removal or treatment.
The analytical results of this investigation have been compared to the Intervention
Values as a means of determining the potential contamination status for the soil and
groundwater samples tested.
This report documents the findings of the non-intrusive investigation and describes the
methodology used for the field program and laboratory testing. The analytical results
for the soil and groundwater are assessed as a means of determining the contamination
status of the site. Based on the findings and conclusions, recommendations for future
action are detailed. Site location plans with sample locations indicated and groundwater
contour maps are included under the figures attached to the report. The appendix
section includes the boring logs, certified laboratory reports and photographs.
8
2.0 Site Settings

2.1 Site Location and Layout
The site for the proposed JTC Cleantech 3 is located along Cleantech Loop in the
western part of Singapore. The property occupies a plot of an area of approximately
29,050 square metres (m2). The site area is relatively flat and overgrown shrubs and
grasses was in the process of being cleared at the point of inspection.
Figure 1 - Location Map
9
2.2 Site Activities
No industrial activities were observed at site during time of site visit. The site is
currently an open grass field with no prior developments.
2.3 Surrounding Land Use
The property is located in the Western Water Catchment Planning Area, within the
Western Region of Singapore in an area zoned for business park uses.
Current land uses immediately adjacent to the facility are described as follows:
• North – Cleantech Loop, beyond which is JTC Cleantech 2
• South – Lorong Tawas, beyond which is Jalan Bahar Clay Studios
• East – Cleantech Loop, beyond which is the Pan Island Expressway and Westwood
residences
• West – JTC Launchpad @ Jurong Innovation District
The nearest sensitive receptor to the site would be the dormitories at Kranji Lodge 1,
approximately 560m to the southeast. The nearest water body is the Straits of Johor
directly north of the site.
2.4 Physical Settings
2.4.1 Physiograph/Surface Drainage

The terrain of the subject facility is characterised by a generally flat relief. There is no
drain network, hence rainwater will infiltrate into the ground.
2.4.2 Soil Stratigraphy/Geology

A review of the Geological Map of Singapore, Sheet 1, Lim Chu Kang (Defence
Science and Technology Agency, 2009) indicate that the site and the nearby area is
underlain by the Tengah Facies of the Jurong Formation. The Tengah Facies is
described as muddy marine sandstone with occasional grit beds and conglomerate,
usually deeply weathered.
Based on the four borelogs of the monitoring wells fill material is approximately 1.7m
to 2.5m thick. The fill material consisted of firm to stiff Sandy Clayey SILT, with
hardcores. Beneath the fill material to the termination depth of 6.25 metres below
ground level (m bgl) consist of stiff, Sandy Clayey SILT and Sandy Silty CLAY,
typical of the characteristics of the Jurong formation soil.
The static water table was measured at depths of from 0.23m to 2.43m below ground
level and the well yields were low indicative of the low permeability saturated zone
soils. Based on the reduced level measurements groundwater is flowing in a north-
southeast direction.
10
2.5 Site History
According to the 1958 URA Master Plan, the site and its surroundings were previously
an agricultural zone. A review of the 1966 One Historical Map shows that the site was
north of Gek Poh Road and south of Jalan Bahar. By 1975, there was further
construction of Lorong Tawas. According to the client, JTC is likely to be the first
industrial occupant at the site.
11
3.0 Site Inspection

3.1 General
A site inspection and cable detection was carried out prior to the field program for the
installation of the monitoring wells to assess for any visual contamination in terms of
stressed vegetation, stained ground or waste material of which there were no
indications.
3.2 Surface Conditions and Drainage
The site was undeveloped and overgrown with grasses and shrubs. It had no drainage
system.
3.3 Hazardous Substances and Waste Management
At the time of the investigation, no storage tanks or containers for hazardous material
were found no the site.
3.4 Physical Evidence of Contamination
No significant staining, odours or stressed vegetation were noted during the site
inspection and field program. There are no storage pits, ponds or lagoons on the site.
3.5 Potential Areas of Concern and Contaminants of Concern
As the site was allocated for industrial usage and the environmental baseline study
being executed under JTC’s requirement, a comprehensive range of contaminants are
being tested for as detailed by the JTC 2015 EBS Guidelines.
Based on the site inspection, neighbouring properties and site history, the potential
areas of concern would be limited. The neighbouring properties do not appear to be of
any critical concern.
The discussion of the sampling and analysis program is detailed in section 4.0 (Field
Program and Analytical Parameters) of this report.
12
4.0 Field Program and Analytical Parameters

4.1 General
A field program of soil and groundwater sampling was proposed to obtain soil and
groundwater samples from the site. The drilling works was carried out between 17th
and 19th January 2018 while groundwater samples were collected on 19th January
2018. The drilling contractor under instruction of an Environmental Engineer from
SECS carried out the soil sampling. The program consisted of the installation of three
boreholes with the submission of three soil samples from the boreholes for analytical
testing. The borings were completed with water standpipes to act as groundwater
monitoring wells for the collection of groundwater samples and the measurement of
static groundwater levels to determine the direction of groundwater flow. Soil and
groundwater samples were analysed by Marchwood Laboratory Services Pte Ltd a
SAC/Singlas accredited laboratory for the parameters detailed in the JTC Guideline on
Environmental Baseline Study - Table A6.
4.2 Number and Location of Boreholes
Three boreholes designated as BH1 to BH4 were drilled to termination depth of 6.25m
bgl. The borings were completed as groundwater monitoring wells with slotted UPVC
casings installed in the borehole and the annulus backfilled with filter sand and annular
seals. The borings were located to represent a geographic spread across the site. These
locations were as follows:
• MW/BH-1 located at the southeast portion of the site.

• MW/BH-2 located at the northeast of the site.
• MW/BH-3 located at the northwest border of the site
• MW/BH-4 located at the southwest portion of the site, next to proposed hoarding
The well locations are shown in Figure 2 below.
13
Figure 2 Site Layout Plan with Monitoring Well Locations
4.3 Soil Sampling
The borehole was drilled using a full set of hand auger equipment including PVC
casings to stabilize the borehole below the water table where the borehole begins to
collapse. The hand auger method allows for dry drilling with no water or drilling fluid
used. Soil samples were collected for testing and logging at each sampling interval from
the inner core of the hand auger barrel. The drilling, sampling and logging of the soil
borings are carried out in accordance with the following protocols
• BS EN 1997-2:2007 EN7 Part 2 (Code of Practice for Site Investigations &

Testing)
• ASTM D5730 Site Characterization for Environmental Purposes With
Emphasis on Soil, Rock, the Vadose Zone and Groundwater,
• ASTM D4700 Standard Guide for Soil Sampling from the Vadose Zone
• USEPA Environmental Response Team SOP 2012 (Soil Sampling)
14
The soil samples are collected at 0.5m bgl, and then at each subsequent 1.5m interval
until the termination depth is reached.
Upon retrieval of the auger, the soil is removed from the auger barrel and transferred
into a clean soil jar with a tight fitting screw top lid. Clean aluminium foil was used to
ensure an air tight seal. Samples were stored on site in cooler boxes with frozen blue
ice bricks.
All drilling implements such as steel casings, and bits were decontaminated prior to
their insertion into the boreholes by rinsing with potable water followed by a soap water
wash with brushes and a final potable water rinse.
The sampling equipment was cleaned before use and between samples. This include
the auger barrel, thin wall tube samplers, spatulas, trowels, scoops and any other
equipment used. All cleaning are performed on a clean surface, such as a plastic sheet.
The field engineer/scientist wears clean rubber gloves when handling soil samples and
cleaned equipment.
The cleaning procedures for all sampling equipment involved:

• Washing in tap water removing gross contamination
• Washing in DECON 90 solution (phosphate-free laboratory detergent)
• Rinsing copiously with tap water
• Rinsing with de-ionised water
Soil samples from each boring were logged with respect to soil classification and
observations of any obvious contamination properties such as odour or staining were
noted. The soil profiles are displayed as a Log of Boring and presented in Appendix
A.
Table 1 summarizes the descriptions of the soil samples selected for laboratory
analysis.
Table 1 Summary of Soil Sample Description

Sample Depth
BH No. Description
No. m bgl
Firm to stiff reddish yellow and brownish
BH-1 S1 0.50-0.75
yellow Sandy SILT, with hardcores. (Fill)
Stiff reddish brown and brownish yellow very
BH-1 S2 1.50-1.75 Sandy SILT. (Residual, Old Alluvium
Formation)
Stiff light reddish orange to yellow gravelly
BH-1 S3 3.00-3.25 very Sandy SILT. (Residual, Old Alluvium
Formation)
Firm to stiff light reddish yellow Sandy SILT,
BH-2 S1 0.50-0.75
with hardcores. (Fill)
15

Formation)
Stiff light reddish orange to yellow very
Formation)
Firm to stiff reddish yellow and brownish
BH-3 S1 0.50-0.75
yellow Sandy SILT, with hardcores. (Fill)
Formation)
Stiff light reddish orange to yellow very
Formation)
4.4 Groundwater Sampling and Well Construction
Groundwater monitoring wells were installed in all the boreholes after the drilling
termination depth is reached. A 50mm diameter UPVC riser pipe with slotted screen
was installed in the borehole. The annular space around the slotted interval was
backfilled with coarse silica sand to act as a filter medium. The top of the filter sand
was backfilled to at least 0.5m above the top of the slotted interval and a minimum
0.5m thick bentonite seal was placed above the top of the filter pack. The wells
standpipes were left with a 0.3m stick up above the ground level or cut off at ground
level and protected with a steel box.
Prior to sample collection the monitoring wells were purged three well volumes or until
dry using an HDPE water well bailer and then allowed to recharge to ensure samples
representative of the water in the saturated zone soils was collected. The samples for
laboratory analysis were collected using dedicated bailers and transferred from the
bailer, into clean sample containers containing the appropriate preservative and into
40ml vials for volatile organic compounds. A bottom-emptying device was used to
empty the bailer to minimize the loss of volatile species. Groundwater samples will be
stored in a cooler box when on site and during transport to the laboratory. Procedures
followed during the groundwater sampling are in accordance to USEPA Environmental
Response Team SOP 2007 for groundwater sampling.
4.5 Groundwater Hydrology
Depth to groundwater was determined by using a clean water level indicator after bore
development and prior to sampling, allowing sufficient time for the static groundwater
levels to be established. The static water table depths when referenced to the surveyed
reduced ground levels allows the hydraulic gradient between the wells to be calculated
and the general groundwater flow direction to be determined. Table 2 presents the
reduced ground levels, static water table depths and reduced water table elevations.
16
Table 2 Groundwater Elevation Data

Reduced Level at Static Water Table Water Table
Borehole
top of standpipe Depth Date Reduced Level
Number (m) RL
(m) RL (m TOC) Of Measurement
MW/BH-1 110.423 1.34 02/12/2017 109.081
MW/BH-2 110.256 1.02 02/12/2017 109.232
MW/BH-3 110.107 1.32 02/12/2017 108.792
RL – Reduced Level
TOC- top of UPVC casing (standpipe)
Thus, based on the Reduced Levels, the general groundwater flow direction is towards
the southeast. The highest point with respect to the groundwater gradient is at MW/BH-
4 and flow of the groundwater follows the gradient in a southeast direction. Figure 3
is a map of the water table contours and indicates the groundwater flow direction.
Figure 3 - Groundwater Contour Map
17
4.6 Laboratory Testing Program
Chain of Custody
All soil and groundwater samples were collected under chain of custody protocols.
Each sample jar was labelled with the following information:
• Job number
• Project name
• Date of sampling
• Sample Number
• Depth of sample
Chain-of custody documentation was completed on site. This included the information
listed above and if appropriate, the chemical analysis required for each sample. The
field engineer/scientist signed the appropriate section of the chain-of-custody form
before handing over the samples to the laboratory.
Analytical Testing
The analytical testing suite undertaken for the soil and groundwater samples collected
for this investigation was in accordance to the JTC Guideline On Environmental
Baseline Study. A summary of the parameters tested is as follows:
• Heavy Metals and Metalloids (12 elements) by USEPA 3051(soil digestion) and
APHA-AWWA analytical methods for ICP/AAS.
• Aromatic Compounds (Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)) by USEPA method
8260.
• Aromatic Compounds (Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOC)) by USEPA
method 8270.
• Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) by UESPA method 8270.
• Chlorinated Hydrocarbons (Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)) by USEPA
method 8260.
• Chlorinated Hydrocarbons (Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOC)) by
USEPA method 8270.
• Pesticides by USEPA method 8270.
• Pesticides (maneb) by BCTD/Env/IHM011/2000 (rev (0)).
• Other Pollutants (Volatile Organic Compounds) by USEPA method 8260.
• Other Pollutants (Phthalates and Pyridine) by USEPA method 8270.
• Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) by USEPA method 8015 GC.
• Organic Matter – soils only by BS 1377 Pt 2.
• Moisture Content – soils only by BS1377 Pt 3.
• Anions and Chemical Parameters – groundwater only (BOD, COD, TAN, TOC, F,
Cl, Br, PO4, SO4) by APHA- AWWA standard methods.
A total of 13 soil samples and 5 water samples inclusive of one soil and one
groundwater duplicate were submitted to the laboratory for the parameters detailed
above. The individual compounds tested and analytical results are detailed in Appendix
B (Laboratory Test Report).
18
5.0 Results from the Soil and Groundwater Sampling Program
The Dutch Soil and Groundwater target and intervention values are defined under
Section 1.3 of this report and form the basis for determining the site’s contamination
status. Comparison of the analytical results to the Dutch Intervention Values gives the
preliminary indication of the contamination status of the site.
5.1 Soil Quality Assessment
A review of the laboratory analysis results for the soil samples tested showed that none
of the samples tested exceeded their respective Dutch Intervention Values except
Copper in BH3-S3 (446.01mg/kg), which exceeded the DIV of 190mg/kg.
Metals and Metalloids

Analyses of metals were carried out for 13 soil samples inclusive of one duplicate soil
sample submitted from four boreholes. The 12 heavy metal and metalloids specified
under the Dutch standards were tested for, and the results can be summarized as follows:
Table 3 Soil Quality Assessment of Metals and Metalloids

Dutch Dutch
Range of
Metals and Target Intervention
values Assessment
metalloids Value Value
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg) (mg/kg)
Arsenic (As) 9.01 – 33.24 29 55
Antimony (Sb) <1.2 3 15
Barium (Ba) 2.68 – 38.86 160 625 All results are
Cadmium (Cd) <0.06 – 0.99 0.8 12 below DIV.
Chromium (Cr) 0.41 – 22.92 100 380
Cobalt (Co) <0.15 – 6.59 9 240
All results
below DIV
Copper (Cu) 1.84 – 446.01 36 190
except BH3-S3
(446.01mg/kg).
Mercury (Hg) <0.03 – 0.13 0.3 10
Lead (Pb) 2.29 – 48.43 85 530
Molybdenum 0.17 – 128.33 3 200 All results are
(Mo) below DIV.
Nickel (Ni) <0.30 – 5.36 35 210
Zinc (Zn) 0.61 – 606.64 140 720
Total Cyanide
None of the soil samples analysed for total cyanide had concentrations above the
laboratory detection limit of 1.0mg/kg which is below the DTV of 1mg/kg.
19
Volatile Aromatic Compounds BTEX

No volatile aromatic compounds (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene and styrene)
were detected above the laboratory detection limit in the soil samples tested. The
laboratory detection limits are below the DIV.
Aromatic Compounds
The soil samples analyzed for the aromatic semi-volatile organic compounds specified
under the Dutch Standards were all below the laboratory detection limits. The
laboratory detection limits are below the DIV.
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH)

None of the soil samples analyzed for the polycyclic aromatic semi-volatile organic
compounds specified under the Dutch Standards had total PAH concentrations above
the DTV of 1mg/kg except BH3-S3 (0.4mg/kg), which was below the DIV of 40mg/kg.
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons
None of the 29 chlorinated hydrocarbons tested were detected above the laboratory
detection limit for the ten samples tested. All laboratory detection limits are below the
DIV.
Pesticides
The soil samples analyzed for the various pesticide compounds specified under the
Dutch Standards were all below the laboratory detection limits. The laboratory
detection limit is below the DIV.
Total Phthalates
None of the soil samples tested for phthalates had concentration above the laboratory
detection limit of 0.2mg/kg except BH2-S1 (0.3mg/kg), BH2-S2 (0.5mg/kg), BH3-S2
(0.3mg/kg), BH3-S3 (1.0mg/kg), and BH4-S1 (0.3mg/kg).
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH)

The Dutch Target and Intervention Values are derived for mineral oil also referred to
as TPH and is a measure of the petroleum hydrocarbon compounds principally being
the aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons. These compounds can be measured using
different techniques which can result in very different results for the same sample
depending on the method used. The most common techniques used are either by gas
chromatograph (GC) or infrared spectrophotometer (IR), of these techniques the GC
method determines the more specific hydrocarbon compound and is less prone to
interference from any natural organics in the sample. The GC method was used for this
investigation.
The soil samples analyzed for TPH compounds specified under the Dutch Standards
were all below the laboratory detection limits. The laboratory detection limit is below
the DIV.
20
Other Pollutants (VOC)

Concentrations of the other volatile organic pollutants specified under the Dutch
Standards and include cyclohexanon, tetrahydrofuran, tertahydrothiophene and
tribromomethane and pyridine (SVOC) were all below the laboratory detection limits.
The laboratory detection limits are below the DIV.
5.2 Groundwater Quality Assessment
A review of the laboratory analysis results for the groundwater samples tested showed
that none of the samples tested exceeded their respective Dutch Intervention Values.
Metals and Metalloids

Analyses of metals were carried out for the four samples inclusive of one duplicate
sample collected from each of the three monitoring wells. The 12 heavy metal and
metalloids specified under the Dutch standards were tested for, and the results can be
summarized as follows:
Table 4 Groundwater Quality Assessment of Metals and Metalloids

Metals and Range of DTV DIV
Assessment
metalloids values (g/L) (g/L) (g/L)
Arsenic (As) 2.6 – 20.2 10 60
Antimony (Sb) <1.0 – 10.8 - 20
Barium (Ba) 16.0 – 82.0 50 625
Cadmium (Cd) <0.25 0.4 6
Chromium (Cr) <0.1 – 6.2 1 30
Cobalt (Co) <1.0 – 13.4 20 100 All results were
Copper (Cu) 2.3 – 23.5 15 75 below DIV.
Mercury (Hg) 0.10 – 0.24 0.05 0.3
Lead (Pb) <1.5 – 19.3 15 75
Molybdenum 0.5 – 289.2 5 300
(Mo)
Nickel (Ni) <1.5 – 6.0 15 75
Zinc (Zn) 3.4 – 34.2 65 800
Total Cyanide
Total cyanide was not detected above the laboratory detection limit of 20g/L in any
of the samples tested. The DTV for total cyanide is 5.0g/L.
Volatile Aromatic Compounds BTEX

No BTEX compounds or styrene were detected above their respective laboratory
detection limits in all the samples except Toluene in MW1 (28g/L) and its QC
(25g/L), which is below its DIV of 1,000g/L.
Aromatic Semi-Volatile Compounds
21
No aromatic semi-volatile compounds were detected at concentrations above their

respective laboratory detection limits except Phenol in MW4 (1.8g/L) and Cresol in
MW1 (4.4g/L), its QC (4.8g/L) and MW2 (2.6g/L). These values are below their
respective DIV.
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH)
No PAH compounds were detected at concentrations above their respective laboratory
detection limits.
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons
No chlorinated hydrocarbons were detected at concentrations above their respective
laboratory detection limits.
Pesticides
The water samples analyzed for the various pesticide compounds specified under the
Dutch Standards were all below their respective laboratory detection limits.
Total Phthalates
No aromatic phthalate compounds were detected at concentrations above their
respective laboratory detection limits.
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH)

No TPH compounds were detected at concentrations above their respective laboratory
detection limits.
Other Pollutants (VOC)

Concentrations of the other volatile organic pollutants specified under the Dutch
Standards include cyclohexanone, tetrahydrofuran, tertahydrothiophene;
tribromomethane and pyridine (SVOC) were all below the laboratory detection limits.
Anions and Chemical Analysis

No Dutch guidelines exist for the anions and other chemical analysis which include
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), Total
Organic Carbon (TOC), Total Ammonical Nitrogen (TAN), Fluoride (F), Chloride
(Cl), Bromide (Br), Sulphate (SO4) and Phosphate (PO4). However, the results
obtained from the assessment would be helpful to serve as a baseline data on the quality
of the groundwater.
5.3 Sample QA/QC
The QA/QC procedures undertaken in the field program consisted of the submission of
field duplicate samples to the laboratory to check the consistency of the results. The
field duplicate samples were not made known to laboratory personnel. One duplicate
soil sample from BH-1, S1 designated as QC-1 and one duplicate groundwater sample
from MW1 designated as QC-2 were submitted to the laboratory.
22
To assess the precision or the agreements among a set duplicate analysis a calculation
of the relative percent difference (RPD) was applied to the sample and its replicate.
The RPD values are determined as follows:
RPD = {(Result 1 - Result 2) / Average} x 100.
The results for the duplicate analysis are attached in the Appendix B1.
The RPD results are below 30%, which is the accepted level of precision for field
duplicate samples.
The surrogate spikes, matrix spikes and matrix spike duplicates for the VOC and SVOC
are presented in Appendix B. The surrogate and spike recoveries were generally within
acceptable limits and the RPD values for the duplicate spikes were generally within the
30% criteria.
23
6.0 Conclusions
A summary of the findings from this investigation is as follows.
• It is our understanding that the site will be used for development of JTC Cleantech
3, conceived as a gateway to Cleantech Park for research laboratories and start-ups.
• According to the 1958 URA Master Plan, the site and its surroundings were
previously an agricultural zone. A review of the 1966 One Historical Map shows
that the site was north of Gek Poh Road and south of Jalan Bahar. By 1975, there
was further construction of Lorong Tawas. According to the client, JTC is likely to
be the first industrial occupant at the site.
• Based on the four borelogs of the monitoring wells fill material is approximately
1.7m to 2.5m thick. The fill material consisted of firm to stiff Sandy Clayey SILT,
with hardcores. Beneath the fill material to the termination depth of 6.25 metres
below ground level (m bgl) consist of stiff, Sandy Clayey SILT and Sandy Silty
CLAY, typical of the characteristics of the Jurong formation soil.
• The static water table was measured at depths of from 0.23m to 2.43m below
ground level and the well yields were low indicative of the low permeability
saturated zone soils. Based on the reduced level measurements groundwater is
flowing in a north- southeast direction.
• The sampling and analysis program consisted of submission of ten soil samples and
four sets of groundwater samples inclusive of one soil and groundwater duplicates
to the laboratory for analysis in accordance to the JTC EBS requirements.
• A review of the laboratory analysis results for the soil samples tested showed that
none of the samples tested exceeded their respective Dutch Intervention Values
except Copper in BH3-S3 (446.01mg/kg), which exceeded the DIV of 190mg/kg.
• A review of the laboratory analysis results for the groundwater samples tested
showed that none of the samples tested exceeded their respective Dutch
Intervention Values.
To further evaluate the results of this study for the contaminants of concern (COC)
which exceeded the Dutch Intervention Value, we have applied a risk based
assessment. The purpose of the risk based site assessment is to provide guidance for
sites where some contamination has been identified and help decide what corrective
action, if any, is necessary to protect human health and the environment. The Dutch
Intervention Value assumes a scenario of multifunctional land use and is based on
24
accessing both the human health and ecological risk factor which gives an overly
conservative assessment criterion for an industrial land application.
The US State of Texas Resource Conservation Commission Protective

Concentration Levels (PCL) derives generic risk based screening levels for soil and
are cited in the American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM) “Standard Guide For
Risk Based Corrective Action at Chemical Release Sites E-2081-00” under example
approaches, provides a more appropriate target value for industrial land. The
assessment of the values of the Copper concentration detected on the site indicates that
the maximum detected value is lower than the Texas PCL. Below are the comparisons
of the parameters between the two standards:
Dutch
Maximum Concentration Texas PCL
Parameter Intervention
detected at site (mg/kg) (mg/kg)
Value (mg/kg)
Copper 446.01 190 94,000a
a
Commercial/ Industrial PCL for a combination of inhalation, ingestion and dermal pathways used
25
7.0 Recommendations
Based on the analytical data, physical site features, geologic settings and land use
scenario there would be no need to undertake any form of remediation as the analytical
results for the soil and groundwater indicate no critical issues of concern to the site
occupants or neighbouring facilities based on the present land use scenario.
26
Appendix A – Boring Logs and Site Survey Data
27
PROJECT: BORING ID:
EBS BH 1
LOCATION: WELL ID:
Cleantech loop Road MW 1

DRILLING CONTRACTOR: NORTHING: EASTING:
37241.343 12542.593
DRILLING EQUIPMENT: GROUND SURFACE ELEV.: TOC ELEVATION:
117.224 117.634
DRILLING METHOD: TOTAL DEPTH: DEPTH TO WATER:
Auger 6.25 114.794
LOGGED BY: SAMPLING METHOD: DATE STARTED: DATE COMPLETED:
MIN HAN HTUN UD Tube 17/01/2018 17/01/2018
Sample No.
Depth (m)
# Blows
Graphic
USCS
Description
Log
Well Construction
0 Firm to stiff reddish brown and brownish yellow slightly Sandy

Clayey SILT, with hardcores. (FILL)
S1
50mm diameter PVC riser
ML
1
S2
Stiff light reddish yellow and mottled light grey slightly Sandy
2 Clayey SILT. (Residual, JURONG FORMATION)
50mm diameter PVC
slotted pipe
ML
3
S3
Firm to stiff dark grey and brownish grey slightly Sandy

Clayey SLIT. (Residual, JURONG FORMATION)
4
ML
S4
Stiff light grey and brownish yellow slightly Sandy Silty CLAY.
5 (Residual, JURONG FORMATION)
CL
6 Well installed to 6m bgl

S5
Hole Terminated at 6.25m
Well Construction Legend
7
Solid riser
Grout
Bentonite seal
Screen
8 Filter pack
end cap
Soil
Cap
9 Outside grout
Outside bentonite seal
Slough
Outside casing
10
PROJECT: BORING ID:
EBS BH 2
LOCATION: WELL ID:

37348.266 12589.006
119.089 119.519
Auger 6.25 118.859
Sample No.
Depth (m)
# Blows
Graphic
USCS
Description
Log
Well Construction

ML
S1
Firm to stiff reddish yellow and brownish grey slightly Sandy
1 Clayey SILT. (FILL)
ML S2
2 50mm diameter PVC

slotted pipe
Clayey SILT. (Residual, JURONG FORMATION)
3
S3
ML
4
S4
5
CL

S5
7
Solid riser
Grout
Bentonite seal
Screen
8 Filter pack
end cap
Soil
Cap
9 Outside grout
Slough
Outside casing
10
PROJECT: BORING ID:
EBS BH 3
LOCATION: WELL ID:

37386.531 12496.751
120.471 120.931
Auger 6.25 118.201
Sample No.
Depth (m)
# Blows
Graphic
USCS
Description
Log
Well Construction

ML S1
1
Clayey SILT. (FILL)
S2
ML
2 50mm diameter PVC
slotted pipe
3 ML S3
4 Firm to stiff dark grey and brownish grey slightly Sandy

S4
5 CL

S5
7
Solid riser
Grout
Bentonite seal
Screen
8 Filter pack
end cap
Soil
Cap
9 Outside grout
Slough
Outside casing
10
PROJECT: BORING ID:
EBS BH 4
LOCATION: WELL ID:

37308.357 12449.559
121.393 121.833
Auger 6.25 120.213
Sample No.
Depth (m)
# Blows
Graphic
USCS
Description
Log
Well Construction

ML S1
1
Clayey SILT. (FILL) S2
ML
2 50mm diameter PVC
slotted pipe
3
S3
ML
4
S4
5
CL

S5
7
Solid riser
Grout
Bentonite seal
Screen
8 Filter pack
end cap
Soil
Cap
9 Outside grout
Slough
Outside casing
10
Appendix B – Laboratory Test Report
28
Appendix B1 – Summary of RPD for Duplicate Samples
29
Summary of Relative Percent Difference (RPD) for Duplicate Sample
Parameter Replicate 1 Replicate 2 %RPD Comments
Soil
Arsenic 17.79 17.09 4.0
Barium 6.72 5.06 28.2
Cadmium 0.11 0.10 9.5
Chromium 1.44 1.41 2.1
Copper 4.05 3.77 7.2
Lead 4.43 4.36 1.6
Molybdenum 0.18 0.17 5.7
Nickel 0.67 0.65 3.0
Zinc 4.06 4.13 1.7
% moisture 27.66 27.79 0.5
pH 7.7 7.6 1.3
QC1 duplicate sample of BH1,S1
Groundwater
Arsenic 7.2 6.9 4.3
Antimony 2.8 2.7 3.6
Barium 16.0 15.8 1.3
Cobalt 13.4 13.5 0.7
Copper 20.1 20.7 2.9
Lead 19.3 19.5 1.0
Nickel 5.5 5.8 5.3
Zinc 34.2 35.2 2.9
TOC 1.3 1.7 26.7
Chloride 7.2 7.9 9.3
Sulphate 8.9 7.6 15.8
pH 5.1 5.8 12.8
QC2 duplicate sample of MW1
Appendix B-1
Appendix C – Photographs
Photograph 1: Monitoring Well MW/BH1

30

31
Appendix D – JTC Guideline on EBS
32
Appendix 4C
GUIDELINE ON ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE STUDY (2015 EDITION)
1.0 Introduction
An Environmental Baseline Study (EBS) is an intrusive soil and

groundwater investigation conducted to establish the baseline level of
potential contaminants in soils and groundwater beneath a concerned
site and to assess the extent of contamination of the site.
The EBS efforts shall determine the environmental setting and hydro-
geological condition of the site at the time of site assessment.
Basically, the study shall provide an overall picture of the existing soil
and groundwater conditions in the context of subsurface
contamination. Each study is to be planned as part of the continual
monitoring program through which changes in conditions at the site can
be documented, assessed and updated.
This Guideline is developed to provide the responsible parties

necessary guidance for conducting EBS for assessing contamination of
a site. This Guideline shall be read in conjunction with Section 7,
Control of land pollution and remediation of contaminated sites, of
Code of Practice on Pollution Control.
2.0 Recommended EBS procedure
2.1 The six-step EBS procedure
An environmental baseline study may include the following six steps:
Step 1. Collection and review of existing site information
 Site location
 Site layout
 Current use of the site and records of waste management
 Historical Use of the site
Step 2. Site reconnaissance
 Verification of the collected site information

 Identification of potential contaminants of concern (COCs)
 Identification of areas of potential contamination
Step 3. Collection of existing site hydro-geological information
 Surface conditions (eg. coverings, drainage, potential contaminant

pathways)
 Subsurface conditions (eg. soil type, fill material, local geology,
regional geology (eg. reclaimed land), water table elevation,
1
hydraulic gradient)
Step 4. Characterisation of subsurface condition
 Installation of boreholes and groundwater monitoring wells

 Soil and groundwater sampling and analyses
Step 5. Determination of nature and extent of subsurface

contamination
 Determination and assessment of unsaturated zone contamination,

if any
 Determination and assessment of saturated zone contamination, if
any
Step 6. Preparation of EBS report
 Executive summary, introduction, field work, quality assurance

programme, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and
supporting documents
 Analytical data for the soil and groundwater samples tested in the
excel spreadsheet template provided.
2.2 Acquisition of data or information
The data or information needed to conduct an EBS can be acquired

from the following sources, but not limited to:
 Clients: building plans, permits and licences, manufacturing

processes, historical use etc.
 SLA: land title records
 MINDEF: aerial photographs, topography maps, and road maps
 Other government departments and statutory boards, e.g. PCD of
NEA.
EBS data or information acquisition is generally an iterative process.

Adequacy of data or information should be constantly reviewed and
evaluated. When data or information is lacking or missing, additional
data or information acquisition shall be considered.
To streamline an EBS, baseline data or information shall be collected

according to the following criteria:
 Baseline data or information should include the normal range of

physical, chemical, or biological conditions of the assessment area
with statistical descriptions of that variability. Causes of extreme or
unusual value in baseline data or information should be identified
and noted;
 Baseline data or information collection should focus on parameters

that are directly related to the area being assessed and be as
2
accurate, complete and representative as possible;
 Baseline data or information shall be able to provide sufficient

assessment of the nature and extent of any site contamination, and
shall be able to provide basic information for performing
environmental site assessment of the site;
 Baseline data or information shall meet the minimum quality

assurance and quality control (QA/QC) criteria as defined in this
document as well as any additional site specific criteria established
by the responsible parties.
3.0 Implementation of the recommended EBS procedure
This section discusses the practical issues for implementing the

recommended six-step EBS. The responsible parties may also wish to
consult two publications prepared by the American Society for Testing
and Materials (ASTM) for further information:
 ASTM E 1527-00 “Standard Practice for Environmental Site

Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process” or
its latest edition
 ASTM E 1903-97 “Standard Guide for Environmental Site

Assessments: Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Process” or
its latest edition
These ASTM environmental documents were created to help with the

resolution of some of the competing interests that may arise during a
real estate transaction and can be used to conduct an EBS.
3.1 Engagement of a qualified consultant
An EBS shall be carried out by the responsible parties who may

appoint a qualified consultant to undertake the EBS on their behalf.
The responsible parties should check that their consultants are
qualified and have proven capability and experience in the site
assessment work (including EBS) or other relevant works. The
qualified consultants shall be responsible for providing technical
support and supervision throughout the progress of the work. The
responsible parties or their consultants shall also ensure that only
accredited laboratory is to be engaged for the analyses. A list of third
party specialist consultants is provided by the NEA and can be found at
http://www.nea.gov.sg/docs/default-source/anti-pollution-radiation-
protection/central-building-planning/list-of-consultants-with-expertise-in-
conducting-site-assessment-studies-and-remedying-contaminated-
sites.pdf
3.2 Step 1 - Collection and review of existing site information
3
The purpose for the collection of existing site information is to help
identify the potential contamination problems. The following
information shall be obtained:
 Site location
 Site layout, including the aboveground and underground facilities
and natural features
 Current and historical use, if available, of the site, including the
types of industry, activities, unit operations and chemicals used
 Current and past waste management practices, if available, that
document conditions under which hazardous waste has been
managed
Tables A.1 and A.2 of the attached Appendix list the information that is
important for conducting the first step of an EBS.
3.3 Step 2 - Site reconnaissance
The purpose of site reconnaissance is to assess whether any visibly

discernible signs or sources of contamination problems exist on the
subject site. The following activities can be conducted during a site
reconnaissance:
 Verify that the information collected during the desktop review is

reliable and accurate, eg. current physical setting of the site
including the presence of unrecorded structures, topography, etc.
The verification shall also check whether there is any change of site
use
 Inspection of the surface conditions/coverings (surface material and
condition, effect on the potential for contaminant ingress)
 Identify potential contamination problems based on visual
observations of the site and surrounding area
 The site reconnaissance should provide a general characterization
of the property, including an inspection of the entire perimeter of the
site. The property should be visually inspected for signs of: open
burning or dumping; trash; any areas of dead, distressed, or dying
vegetation; stained soils; impoundments; seeps; oil slicks or
discolorations on surface waters; discernible chemical odours;
aboveground storage tanks; vertical pipes; wells casings, or
indications of the presence of septic tanks; leach fields and/or
underground storage tanks; drums; electrical transformers; and
recent soil disturbances such as grading or filling
 Where necessary, interview other JTC lessees in the
neighbourhood to check if there is any information that has been
left out from the existing records
3.4 Step 3 - Collection of existing site hydro-geological information
The purpose for collecting existing site hydro-geological information is

to identify the general surface and subsurface conditions of the site.
The following information shall be acquired:
4
 Surface conditions, such as the original and current physical site
condition, surface drainage condition (eg. surface types and
surface drainage network) and possible exposure pathways
 Subsurface conditions, including the general information on
stratigraphy, lithology, structural geology and hydro-geology
3.5 Step 4 - Characterisation of subsurface condition
The purpose of this exercise is to fill up the possible gaps between the
collected information and the actual hydro-geological conditions and to
assess the types and concentrations of contaminants in subsurface if
present. The characterisation work includes the following activities:
 A Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) that indicates number of

samples required, type of samples, sampling methods, location of
sampling, contaminants of concern, detection limit of analytical
instrument, etc. shall be prepared. A minimum reasonable number
of boreholes (in accordance with requirements outlined in Section
3.5.1 below) shall be drilled and the temporary groundwater
monitoring wells are constructed to allow the collection of soil and
groundwater samples.
3.5.1 Determination of number of boreholes and soil drilling
An integrated approach shall be adopted to determine the number of

boreholes together with the intervals and depths of soil and
groundwater sampling. Depending on the accuracy tolerance, a trade-
off analysis should be carried out to determine the number of
boreholes, number of monitoring wells, and sampling interval and
depth along borehole. To design a statistically defensible sampling
plan, the responsible parties can consult “Statistical Methods for
Environmental Pollution Monitoring” (Gilbert, 1987) for detailed
information. Although intuitive sampling plans based on best
judgement by technical experts can yield good data, this guideline
recommends that the responsible parties develop their own technically
feasible and economically effective sampling approach. Practically, the
number of boreholes shall be at least 3. Table 1 suggests the minimal
borehole numbers required for different land sizes. Note that in some
cases a greater number of sampling locations may be warranted,
depending on specific site conditions.
Table 1. Recommended minimal borehole numbers
Total Land Area No. of Boreholes No. of Piezometer

(ha) Standpipes
<2 3 3
2 < 10 4 4
10 – 50 6 4–6
50 – 100 10 6–8
> 100 15 8 – 10
5
The boreholes and monitoring well locations should be selected on the
basis of providing an accurate assessment of the site characteristics by
the responsible parties and their qualified consultants. Groundwater
monitoring wells should be constructed to establish baseline
groundwater data related to priority pollutants and other possible
contaminants.
3.5.2 Sampling interval and depth
Sampling interval shall be decided on the basis of hydro-geological

characteristics of the subsurface strata. The sampling depths, intervals,
and testing should be sufficient to enable the assessment and
delineation of any potential contaminants identified. For the purpose of
EBS, the following sampling scheme is recommended based on
sampling practice and the knowledge of subsurface hydro-geological
conditions in Singapore.
For each borehole at all sites, the first soil sample shall be taken
between 0.3 and 0.5 m below ground level (bgl). Subsequent samples
in the borehole shall be taken at every 1.5 m interval (ie. 1.5 m, 3 m,
4.5 m, etc.) up to 6 m bgl. In the event where groundwater level is
deeper than 6 m, additional samples shall be taken at every 2.5 m
interval until 20 m bgl or until 2 m below groundwater, whichever is
shallower. For each borehole where groundwater is encountered, the
borehole should be converted to a monitoring well. One groundwater
sample should be collected from each monitoring well within 2 m below
groundwater level for further analysis. Specific mention should be
made within the sampling plan for assessing the presence of any
contaminants, notably phase separated hydrocarbons (PSH) or
indication of similar non-aqueous phase liquids that may float on the
water table. In addition, there might be some seasonal or tidal
fluctuation in the water table. This should be assessed and
commented, where applicable.
Due to heterogeneity and stratified nature of subsurface geology, the

exact subsurface hydro-geological conditions will only be known during
drilling. The pre-determined sampling depth and sampling interval
shall be adjusted if necessary as work progresses. If the baseline data
obtained from the site characterisation are doubtful or disputable,
additional site characterisation may be necessary.
To facilitate laboratory analysis, only part of the samples collected

would be tested. For each borehole, the sampling for analysis/test shall
include but not limited to:
(a) one near surface top layer soil sample (0.3 to 0.5m);
(b) one soil sample per every stratum (in addition to (a), particularly
including the upper boundary of any layers of low relative
permeability (eg. clay), since there is typically a higher potential for
6
contaminants to accumulate there;
(c) one soil sample from the saturated zone near the boundary with the
unsaturated (ie. the vadose zone – where the water table is first
encountered), since there is a potential for contaminants which are
insoluble in water (eg. phase separated hydrocarbons) to
accumulate there; and
(d) one groundwater sample.
More samples shall be taken for testing as deemed necessary by the

responsible parties and their qualified consultants.
For reclaimed sites where the depth of fill material is more than 6 m,
two (2) additional soil samples shall be taken, in addition to soil
sampling mentioned above, at the immediate next soil stratum
encountered for analysis/test. The first of the 2 additional soil samples
shall be taken at the upper boundary of the said soil stratum and the
other at 2 m below the upper boundary of the soil stratum.
3.5.3 Sampling methodology and Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Soil and groundwater sampling shall be performed with due

consideration of the material compatibility between the major
contaminants of concern and the sampler, container and well screen
used. The sampling tools and samplers shall be decontaminated prior
to and between use as contamination from sampling equipment may
contribute significant errors to sampling results. Sampling errors may
also be introduced during the sampling steps. During sample
collection, cross-contamination may result from poor equipment and
apparatus handling or the use of preservatives.
Appropriate QA/QC procedures should be included in the EBS to allow

for assessment of the quality of the data collected. The QA/QC
measures may include, for example, written field sampling protocol,
decontamination procedures, instrument calibration, the preparation
and analysis of trip blanks, equipment blanks, duplicate samples and
holding times for sample analysis.
3.5.4 Sample handling and preservation
Sample container shall be free of contaminants prior to use and the

container material shall be compatible with the sample. Each soil or
groundwater sample shall be properly labelled, sealed, preserved and
kept following the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
standard procedures. A suitably qualified and accredited laboratory
should provide the appropriate bottles and sample containers for
sampling.
3.5.5 Sample analyses
After being delivered to the laboratory, the samples shall be extracted

7
and analysed within the specified acceptable holding time for the
particular analyte. Samples which exceed the relevant holding times
will be rendered unsuitable for analysis due to the potential for the
physicochemical and biological properties to change with time to a
state which is not representative of actual site conditions and should
not therefore be analysed. Samples selected for analysis which
exceed their respective holding times before analysis, will need to be
recollected.
3.5.6 Determination of COCs for sample analyses
For the EBS purpose, contaminants of concern (COCs) are typically

identified on the basis of a site inspection, review of available
information, and a site history review. Given that the investigation
required is an environmental baseline study, analytes covering known
future or expected chemicals to be used on the site (not necessarily
used on the site in the past or at the time of the EBS investigation)
should also be included in the analytical regime, where possible.
COCs shall include those chemicals suggested in Table A.3 and those
compounds used by the industries that have currently and previously
occupied the site. Table A.4 lists the possible COCs of some typical
industries in Singapore, including refineries, electronics, shipbuilding,
wood-based furnishing, petrol stations, electro-plating, and waste
treatment factories. It is worth to note that the listed COCs are not
exhaustive. In the cases where the industries or manufacturing-
specific chemicals are not listed in this Guideline, the responsible
parties and their qualified consultants shall determine the COCs based
on their best professional judgement.
3.5.7 Methods of analysis
In general, contaminants present in the samples shall be analysed

using established methods as recommended by the US EPA and/or
ASTM. Table A.5 lists the methods of analysis documented by various
institutions.
Note: The concentrations of contaminants analysed shall be presented

in tabulated form. The following information shall be provided:
 Parameters
 Unit of measurement
 Reference method of analysis
 Detection limit
 Values for each sample or composite sample analysed (values
exceeding the Dutch Standards intervention values shall be
highlighted)
 Remarks (if any)
3.6 Determination of extent of subsurface contamination
8
The concentrations of COCs determined are then compared with the
standard values to determine the extent of contamination of the site for
both unsaturated and saturated zones.
3.6.1 Standards of assessment
Standard values are needed whereby the chemical compound levels

found in the soil and groundwater can be matched. The comparison
between the actual levels found and the standard values will determine
the level and extent of contamination of the site and the appropriate
remedial actions to take.
For the EBS purpose, the Dutch Standards (2000 edition or its latest
edition) are adopted for assessing land contamination and remediation.
The Dutch Standards specify two sets of limits for heavy metals,
inorganic compounds, aromatic compounds, hydrocarbons, pesticides
and other pollutants in both soils and groundwater as follows (see
Table A.6):
 Intervention Values: When concentration level is above the

intervention value, the soil/sediment/groundwater is considered as
seriously contaminated and clean up of the site is required.
 Target Values: When concentration level is below the target value,

the soil/sediment/groundwater is considered as unpolluted.
If the concentration level lie between the intervention value and target
value, the site is considered contaminated, but the contamination may
not be serious enough to warrant a clean up. Further investigation of
the site including a risk assessment study is required to resolve
uncertainties with respect to the possible pollution and its associated
risks to determine the need to carry out a clean up. Detailed
information for conducting a risk assessment study can be found in the
following document:
 American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) E 1739-95

“Standard Guide for Risk-Based Corrective Action at Petroleum
Release Sites" or its latest edition.
 American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) E 2081-00

“Standard Guide For Risk-Based Corrective Action at Chemical
Release Sites” or its latest edition.
 Guidelines for Assessing and Managing Petroleum Hydrocarbon

Contaminated Sites in New Zealand, Ministry of the Environment,
August 1999, Wellington, New Zealand.
3.7 Remediation
If the site is found contaminated, the responsible parties involved shall

be required to remediate the property by restoring it to either:
9
 the standards required by relevant authorities or in the absence of
such requirement, the prevailing Dutch Standards; or
 the first EBS level (if any) at the commencement of the original
lease term,
whichever is less stringent.
However, if the original lease already contains a stipulation that
decontamination back to the first EBS level at the commencement of
lease is required, no option will be given to comply with whichever
standard that is less stringent. Besides, it is necessary to remediate
any off-site adjacent contaminated land so long as the contaminant
emanated from the subject site.
3.8 Certification of Remediated Sites
The remediated sites shall be certified by an independent third party

expert/specialist consultant to meet the standards required.
The certification shall contain the following:
(a) a statement that the subject site has been remediated to meet
the standards required; and
(b) a statement that the certification given is a true and unbiased
representation of the facts and that all reasonable professional
skill, care and diligence have been taken in checking the facts
The originals or authenticated copies of the certification shall be

submitted to JTC Corporation for review and approval.
3.9 Preparation of EBS report
An EBS report shall include, but not limited to, coverage of the major
components listed below:
 Executive Summary
 Introduction
 Site Setting
 Site Inspection
 Field Work
 Results/Findings
 QA/QC programme and results
 Conclusion
 Recommendation
 Supporting Documents
The following summarises a recommended format of an EBS report:
(a) Executive Summary
(b) Introduction
 Background
10
 Client’s business operation
 Objectives
 Scope of works
 Assessment methodology
 Structure of the report
(c) Site Setting

 Site location and characteristics
 Site layout and features
 Site activities
 Surrounding land uses
 Topography, geology, soils, fill, hydrology and hydrogeology
 Site history
(d) Site Inspection

 Boundary conditions
 Surface conditions
 Storage tanks
 Other chemical use and storage
 Drainage
 Stains, odours and stressed vegetation
 Potential COCs and areas of Concern
 Sampling and analysis plan
(e) Field Work

 Borehole installation
 Soil sample collection
 Monitoring well construction and ground water levels (RL)
 Groundwater sample collection
 Laboratory analyses
(f) Findings
 Results and discussion of soil sample analysis
 Results and discussion of groundwater sample analysis
 Determination of level of contamination and assessment of
potential impact
(g) Conclusions
 Potential contamination and impact to the site based on
laboratory analytical results, site inspection and other
available information
 Likely nature and extent of any identified contamination and
impact
(h) Recommendation
 Requirements for remediation, if any
 Follow-up actions, if any
(i) Supporting Documents

11
 Driller’s logs/reports
 Site location plan
 Site layout plan and photos indicating major/relevant
features (eg. buildings, surface coverings/materials,
underground/aboveground storage tanks, chemical handling
and storage areas, etc.)
 Plan showing sampling locations including all borehole,
monitoring well, test pit, etc., locations and known or
anticipated groundwater flow direction. Also include any pre-
existing wells.
 Field documentation
 Calibration certificates
 Inventory of chemicals used in client’s operation
 Laboratory analytical reports results (including internal
laboratory QA/QC analysis and results)
 Chain of custody documentation
 Version of the JTC EBS Guideline used for the EBS
4.0 Conclusions
The above information is a brief guidance on conducting environmental

baseline study assessment. It should be noted that the various tests
and experiments conducted shall be accurate and professionally done
so as to achieve a satisfactory environmental baseline study.
5.0 Recommended References
ASTM (1998). "ASTM E 1527-00: Environmental Site Assessments:

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process." Annual Book of
ASTM Standards, ASTM, Philadelphia, Pa.
ASTM (1998). "ASTM E 1903-97: Environmental Site Assessments:

Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Process." Annual Book of
ASTM Standards, ASTM, Philadelphia, Pa.
Gilbert, R.O. (1987). “Statistical Methods for Environmental Pollution

Monitoring.” Van Nostrand Rehihold Co., New York, New York.
ASTM, (1995), “ASTM E 1739-95E1: Standard Guide for Risk-Based

Corrective Action Applied at Petroleum Release Sites.” Annual Book of
ASTM Standards, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA.
12
APPENDIX
TABLE A.1. SOME IMPORTANT SITE INFORMATION FOR EBS

Item Specific Information
Site location Topographic map, including contours, map scale and date, flood
plain areas, surface waters, springs and intermittent streams, and
site legal boundaries, regional hydraulic gradients.
Site map, including injection and extraction wells on site and off
site; buildings and recreation areas, access and internal roads; site
drainage, sanitary, and process sewerage systems; and fire control
facilities.
Location of past and/or present operation units and equipment

cleaning areas, ground-water monitoring wells, delineation of waste
management units, and site modifications.
Surrounding area land use patterns.
Vegetation (ie. trees, shrubs and grasses).
TABLE A.2. SOME WASTE MANAGEMENT INFORMATION FOR EBS
Category Item Specific Information

History of Years in operation and annual Records of measured annual
waste quantity of waste generated waste quantity (weight/volume)
application and/or disposed of. over life of site Including
hazardous and non-hazardous
wastes managed at the same
Placement of waste. site.
Records of quantity
(weight/volume), and location of
Size of waste unit(s) each waste disposal action.
Area and depth.

History of Waste analyses. Periodic analyses of hazardous
waste quality wastes.
Unit processes.
History of unit processes
employed in the generation and
Disposal areas. treatment of wastes.
Pits, ponds, lagoons, landfills,

storage tanks, and wastewater
treatment plant locations
(present and historical).
13
TABLE A.3. TEST PARAMETERS FOR SOIL AND GROUNDWATER
SAMPLES
(For Non-Restricted Future Uses)
Test Parameters Soil Groundwater
Metals Refer to Table A.6 Refer to Table A.6
Inorganic Compounds Refer to Table A.6 Refer to Table A.6
Aromatic Compounds Refer to Table A.6 Refer to Table A.6
Polycyclic Aromatic Refer to Table A.6 Refer to Table A.6

Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
Chlorinated Refer to Table A.6 Refer to Table A.6

Hydrocarbons
Pesticides Refer to Table A.6 Refer to Table A.6
Other Pollutants Refer to Table A.6 Refer to Table A.6
Conventional Organic matter Total petroleum

hydrocarbons
Total petroleum (TPH)
hydrocarbons
(TPH) pH, BOD, COD, TOC, F,
CI, Br, SO42- ,PO43-
Moisture content
Total ammoniacal
nitrogen (TAN)
Raw materials and Raw materials and

Specific products products
that the company will be that the company will be
handling and producing handling and producing
14
TABLE A.4. TYPES OF INDUSTRIES AND THEIR POSSIBLE COCS
Types of Contaminants of Concern
Industry
Electronics carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, 1,1-dichloroethane, 1,2-
dichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethylene, cis-1,2-
dichloroethlene, trans-1,2-dichloroethlene, trichloroethane,
trichloroethylene, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, nickel,
zinc
Other compounds not listed
Electro-Plating 1,1-dichloroethane, 1,2-dichloroethane, arsenic, chromium,
cadmium, lead, copper, nickel, acids and bases
Petrol Stations TPH, Benzene, ethyl benzene, toluene, xylene (BTEX)
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Phenols
Lead
Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether
Petrochemicals benzene, carbon tetrachloride, chlorobenzenes, chloroform,
1,1-dichloroethane, 1,2-dichloroethane, 1,1-
dichloroethylene, cis-1,2-dichloroethlene, trans-1,2-
dichloroethlene, ethyl benzene, hexachlorobenzene,
hexachlorobutadiene, hexachloroethylene, phenol, styrene,
tetrachloroethane, tetrachloroethyene, trichloroethane,
trichloroethylene, 2,4,6-trichlorophenil, polychlorinated
biphenyls, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury,
nickel, zinc
Refineries benzene, toluene, xylene, total petroleum hydrocarbons,
carbon tetrachloride, 1,1-dichloroethane, 1,2-
dichloroethane, phenol, polychlorinated biphenyls,
cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, zinc, PAHs
Shipbuilding Heavy metals
Volatile organics (solvent/paint)
Semi-volatile organics
Transformers Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
/electrical
substations
Waste Disposal 1,1-dichloroethane, 1,2-dichloroethane, cadmium,
Site chromium, copper, lead, nickel
Wood-based Heavy metals
PAHs
Pentachorophenols
Note: The above listed chemicals are some typical contaminants of concern
and are not exhaustive.
15
TABLE A.5. METHODS OF COCs ANALYSIS
Compound Analysis Methods
1. USEPA Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes, Physical/Chemical
Methods, SW-846, 3rd Edition, November 1990
Volatile Organics Method 5021 (Extraction)
Method 8260B (GC/MS)
Semi-Volatile Organics Solid Samples:
Method 3545 (Extraction)
Method 8270C (GC/MS)
Liquid Samples:
Method 3510 (Separating Funnel
Liquid-Liquid Extraction)
Method 8270 C (GC/MS)
Heavy Metals 3050B (Acid Digestion) or
3051 (Microwave Assisted Acid
Digestion)
Mercury (Hg):
Cold Vapour Atomic Absorption
Spectrophotometry
Other elements:
Inductive Coupled Plasma, Flame
Atomic Absorption Spectrometry &
Hydride Generation Atomic Absorption
Spectrometry
2. USEPA Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, EPA-600/4-79-

020, Revised March 1983
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons Method TPH 418.1(IR
Spectrophotometry) or
APHA 5520 (B): 20th Edition and EPA
8440
BTEX Method EPA 8260B
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons Method EPA 8310 (HPLC)
Method EPA 8270C (GC/MS)
3. BS 1377:1996
Methods of Test for Soil for Civil Engineering Purposes
Organic Matter Method Test 3
Determination of the Organic Matter
Content
4. APHA-AWWA-WEF Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater, 20th Edition, 1998
pH Method 4500-H+ B
Electrometric Method
Biochemical Oxygen Demand Method 5210B
5-Day BOD Test
Chemical Oxygen Demand Method 5220B
Open Reflux Method
Total Organic Carbon Method 5310C
Persulfate-UV Oxidation Method
Method 3510 (B) High Temperature
16
Combustion Method
Fluoride
APHA 4110 (B) (Ion Chromatography
with Chemical Suppression of Eluent
Conductivity
Or
APHA 4500-F- (C) (Ion-Selective
Electrode Method).
Chloride
APHA 4500-Cl- (B) (Argentometric
Method); APHA 4500-Cl- (D)
(Potentiometric Method) ;APHA 4110
(B) (Ion Chromatography with
Chemical Suppression of Eluent
Conductivity).
Bromide
Method); APHA 4500-Br- (B) (Phenol
Red Colorimetric Method).
Sulphate
APHA 4500-SO42- (C) (Gravimetric
Method with Ignition of Residue) ;
with Chemical Suppression of Eluent
Conductivity).
Phosphorus APHA 4500-P (B) (Sample

Preparation)
APHA 4500-P (C)
(Vanadomolybdophosphoric Acid
Colorimetric Method); APHA 4500-P
(E) (Ascorbic Acid Method);
APHA 4500-P (G) (Flow Injection
Analysis for Orthophosphate;
APHA 4500-P (H) (Manual Digestion
and Flow Injection Analysis for Total
Phosphorus & APHA 4110 (B) ((Ion
Chromatography with Chemical
Suppression of Eluent Conductivity).
Ammoniacal Nitrogen
APHA-4500NH3 (C) (Titrimetric
Method); APHA 4500-NH3 (F) (Phenate
Method) &
APHA 4500-NH3 (H) (Flow Injection
Analysis).
Cyanide
APHA 4500-CN- (C) (E) (Colorimetric
Method); APHA 4500-CN-(N) (Total
17
Cyanide after Distillation, by Flow
Injection Analysis) & APHA 4500-CN-
(O) (Total Cyanide and Weak Acid
Dissociable Cyanide by Flow Injection
Analysis).
18
TABLE A.6. STANDARD CHEMICAL COMPOUND VALUES BASED ON DUTCH
STANDARDS 2000
Soil/Sediment
(mg/kg dry weight) Ground Water (µg/l)
Target Value Intervention Value Target Value Intervention Value
Standard Soil Standard Soil
Metals
As 29 55 10 60
Sb 3 15 / 20
Ba 160 625 50 625
Cd 0.8 12 0.4 6
Cr 100 380 1 30
Co 9 240 20 100
Cu 36 190 15 75
Hg 0.3 10 0.05 0.3
Pb 85 530 15 75
Mo 3 200 5 300
Ni 35 210 15 75
Zn 140 720 65 800
Inorganic
Compounds
free cyanide 1 20 5 1,500
cyanide-complex
1
(pH<5) 5 650 10 1,500
cyanide-complex
(pH>=5) 5 50 10 1,500
thiocyanate (sum) 1 20 / 1,500
Aromatic
Compounds
benzene 0.01 1 0.2 30
ethylbenzene 0.03 50 4 150
toluene 0.01 130 7 1,000
xylene (sum) 0.1 25 0.2 70
styrene
(=vinylbenzene) 0.3 100 0.6 300
phenol 0.05 40 0.2 2,000
cresol (sum) 0.05 5 0.2 200
catechol (o-
dihydroxybenzene) 0.05 20 0.2 1,250
resorcinol (m-
dihydroxybenzene) 0.05 10 0.2 600
hydroquinone (p-
dihydroxybenzene) 0.05 10 0.2 800
Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons (PAH)
naphthalene / / 0.01 70
anthracene / / 0.0007 5
phenantrene / / 0.003 5
fluoranthene / / 0.003 1
benzo(a)anthracene / / 0.0001 0.5
chrysene / / 0.003 0.2
19
benzo(a)pyrene / / 0.001 0.05
benzo(g,h,i)perylene / / 0.0003 0.05
benzo(k)fluoranthene / / 0.0004 0.05
indeno(1,2,3-
c,d)pyrene / / 0.0004 0.05
3
Sum PAH (soil with
up to 10% OM) 1 40 / /
3
Sum PAH (soil with
OM between 10% and
30%)
3
Sum PAH (soil with
OM above 30%) 3 120
Chlorinated
Hydrocarbons
vinylchloride 0.01 0.1 0.01 5
dichloromethane 0.4 10 0.01 1000
1,1 dichloroethane 0.02 15 7 900
1,2 dichloroethane 0.02 4 7 400
1,1-dichloroethene 0.1 0.3 0.01 10
1,2-dichloroethene
(sum cis and trans) 0.2 1 0.01 20
dichloropropanes 0.002 2.0 0.8 80
trichloromethane
(=chloroform) 0.02 10 6 400
1,1,1-trichloroethane 0.07 15 0.01 300
1,1,2-trichloroethane 0.4 10 0.01 130
trichloroethene (Tri) 0.1 60 24 500
tetrachloromethane
(Tetra) 0.4 1 0.01 10
tetrachloroethene
(Per) 0.002 4 0.01 40
3
chlorobenzene
(sum mono, di, tri, 0.03 30 / /
tetra, penta, hexa)
monochlorobenzene / / 7 180
dichlorobenzenes
(sum) / / 3 50
trichlorobenzenes
(sum) / / 0.01 10
tetrachlorobenzenes
(sum) / / 0.01 2.5
pentachlorobenzenes
(sum) / / 0.003 1
hexachlorobenzenes
(sum) / / 0.00009 0.5
3
chlorophenols (sum
mono, di, tri, tetra, 0.01 10 / /
penta)
monochlorophenols
(sum) / / 0.30 100
dichlorophenols
(sum) / / 0.20 30
trichlorophenols
(sum) / / 0.03 10
20
tetrachlorophenols
(sum) / / 0.01 10
pentachlorophenol / / 0.04 3
chloronaphtalene / 10 / 6
monochloroanilines 0.005 50 / 30
polychlorobiphenyls
(sum of PCB 28, 52,
0.02 1 0,01 d 0.01
101, 118, 138, 153,
180)
4
EOX (Extractable
Organic Halogenetic 0.3 /
Compounds)
Pesticides
sum DDT/DDD/DDE 0.01 4 0,004 ng/l 0.01
sum aldrin, dieldrin,
endrin 0.01 4 / 0.1
aldrin 0.00006 / 0,009 ng/l /
dieldrin 0.0005 / 0,1 ng/l /
endrin 0.00004 / 0,04 ng/l /
sum
HCHHCHHC
HHCH 0.01 2 0.05 1
a-HCH 0.003 / 33 ng/l /
b-HCH 0.009 / 8 ng/l /
g-HCH 0.00005 / 9 ng/l /
atrazin 0.0002 6 29 ng/l 150
carbaryl 0.00003 5 2 ng/l 50
carbofuran 0.00002 2 9 ng/l 100
chloordaan 0.00003 4 0,02 ng/l 0.2
endosulfan 0.00001 4 0,2 ng/l 5
heptachloor 0.0007 4 0,005 ng/l 0.3
heptachloor-epoxide 0.0000002 4 0,005 ng/l 3
maneb 0.002 35 0,05 ng/l 0.1
5
MCPA 0.00005 4 0.02 50
organotin
6
compounds (sum) 0.001 2.5 0,05-16 ng/l 0.7
Other Pollutants
cyclohexanone 0.1 45 0.5 15,000
phtalates (sum) 0.1 60 0.5 5
2
mineral oil 50 5,000 50 600
pyridine 0.1 0.5 0.5 30
tetrahydrofuran 0.1 2 0.5 300
tetrahydrothiophene 0.1 90 0.5 5,000
tribromomethane - 75 - 630
Standard Standard Soil/Sediment values apply to soil with 10% organic matter and 25% clay
Soil/Sediment: content
Source: Staatscourant
24 febr. 2000, nr 39
Footnotes:
1 pH (0,01 M CaCl2). To determine the pH>=5 and pH<5, the 90 percentile value of the measured values
21
applies
2
Mineral oil applies to the total of (branched) alkanes. If the concentration consists of a mixture (gasoline or
domestic fuel) then both the alkaline concentration and the PAH concentration must be determined. For
practical reasons, the total parameter is used.
3 The total value for PAHs, chlorophenols and chlorobenzenes in soil/sediment applies to the total
concentration of the compounds of the different groups. In this case, the contamination is caused by one
compound, the intervention value of this particular compound applies. In the case of two or more
compounds the total value of these values is applied.
For soil/sediment the effect can be directly summed (1 mg of substance A has the same effect as 1 mg of
substance B). The total value can be used to establish exceedance. For ground water, the effects are
indirect, and summarised as a fraction of the individual components. In other words, 0,5 x intervention value
of substance A has the same effect as 0,5 x the intervention value of substance B mentioned groups. It is
the intervention value for this substance.
Test is optional unless the site is known to be contaminated by chlorinated or other extractable
4 organic halides.
5 Test is optional unless the site is known to be contaminated by MCPA.
6 Test is optional unless the site is known to be contaminated by organotin compounds.
22
Appendix E – NEA List of Consultants For Site Assessment/Site

Remediation
33
Updated as of 24 Oct 2017
Table A: Consultants For Both Site Assessment and Site Remediation
SITE ASSESSMENT STUDIES AND REMEDIATION OF

CONTAMINATED SITES CONSULTANTS
AECOM (Singapore) Pte Ltd Arcadis Consultancy Pte Ltd

300 Beach Road #03-00 1 Magazine Road
The Concourse #06-01 Central Mall
Singapore 199555 Singapore 059567
Tel: 6299 2466 Tel: 6239 8525
Fax: 6299 0297 Fax: 6224 7089
(Mr Fandy H. Suradji) (Ms Isheté Chellaiah)

Email: fandyhendrian.suradji@aecom.com Email: ishita.chelliah@arcadis.com
CH2M Hill CPG Consultants Pte Ltd

150 Beach Road 1 Gateway Drive
Gateway West 34th Floor #24-01 Westgate Tower
Tel: 6391 0350 Tel: 6357 4853 / 6357 4784
Fax: 6299 4739 Fax: 6357 4616
(Ms Catherine Baldedara) (Ms Zhang Yan)

Email: catherine.baldedara@ch2m.com / Email: zhang.yan@cpgcorp.com.sg
jiuntau.law@ch2m.com /
christopher.romero@ch2m.com
DOWA Eco-System Singapore Pte Ltd Environmental Resources Management

No. 13 Benoi Crescent Jurong (S) Pte Ltd (ERM)
Singapore 629976 120 Robinson Road #10-01
Tel: 6261 7366 Singapore 068913
Fax: 6261 8723 Tel: 63249636
Fax: 62261636
(Mr Ong Aik Hwa)
Email: ah-ong@dowa.com.sg (Mr Alastair Scott)
Email: alastair.scott@erm.com
EnviroSolutions & Consulting Golder Associates Pte Ltd

(Singapore) 18 Ah Hood Road
81 Kampong Bahru Road #10-51 Hiap Hoe Building
Singapore 169378 Zhong Shan Park
Tel: 6243 1174 Singapore 329983
Fax: 6449 8027 Tel: 6546 6318
Fax: 6546 6319
(Mr Andrew Young)
Email: enquiries@envirosc.com (Dr Indrayogan Yogarajah / Mr Edwin
Leong / Ms Benica Pasaporte)
Email: indrayogan@golder.com.sg /
edwin@golder.com.sg /
bpasaporte@golder.com.sg
Intergeo (Singapore) Pte Ltd MWH Consultants (S) Pte Ltd

491B River Valley Road 100 Beach Road #31-08
#08-03A Shaw Tower
Valley Point Singapore 189702
Singapore 248373 Tel: 6333 1677
Tel: 6235 2012 Fax: 6333 1622
Fax: 6235 7283
(Ms Mia A.Lindsey)
(Dr Heinrich Wallner / Mr Edwin T.F. Khew
/ Dr Hanns Schnepf / Dr Armin Kohler / Dr
Willibald Sapusek)
*Parsons Brinckerhoff Pte Ltd Ramboll Environ Singapore Pte Ltd

300 Beach Road #05-00 21 Biopolis Road
The Concourse #06-01 Nucleos (North Tower)
Tel: 6533 7333 Tel: 6469 9918
Fax: 6533 7707 Fax: 6369 9163
(Mr Philip Wong) (Ms Juliana Ding)

Email: Jaya.p@pbworld.com Email: jding@environcorp.com
Note: * - Projects will only be approved by

PCD on a case-by-case basis.
Shell Global Solutions (Singapore) Pte Singapore Environmental Consultancy

Ltd and Solutions Pte Ltd
3rd Floor West Wing 1 Sunview Road #08-66
UE Square Office Tower Eco-Tech @ Sunview
83 Clemenceau Avenue Singapore 627615
Singapore 239920 Tel: 6471 3316
Tel: 6384 8806 Fax: 6471 3396
Fax: 6384 8819
(Mr Donald William Folkoff)
(Mr Ko Swee Chay) Email: donald@secs.sg / leongsf@secs.sg
/ arnankoh@secs.sg
TÜV SÜD PSB Pte Ltd

1, Science Park Drive,
Singapore 118221
Tel: 6885 1214
Fax: 6778 4301
(Mr Choong Yan Thim / Dr Chen Huayi / Dr

Yang Lei)
Email: yan-thim.choong@tuv-sud-psb.sg /
huayi.chen@tuv-sud-psb.sg /
lei.yang@tuv-sud-psb.sg
Table B: Consultants For Site Assessment Only
SITE ASSESSMENT STUDIES CONSULTANTS
ALS Technichem (S) Pte Ltd Analytical Laboratories (Singapore) Pte

121 Genting Lane #04-01 Ltd
ALS Building Singapore 349572 No. 8 Kaki Bukit Place
Tel: 6589 0118 Singapore 416186
Fax: 6283 9689 Tel: 6746 0886
Fax: 6746 3830
(Mr Tan Teong Huat)
Email: teonghuat.tan@alsglobal.com / (Mr Liew Kok Yen)
alssg@alsglobal.com.sg Email: liewky@analabs.com.sg
(Mr Jonathan Goh)

Email: jgoh@analabs.com.sg
Asia Georesearch Agency Corporation DHI Water & Environment (S) Pte Ltd
Pte Ltd 1 Cleantech Loop
120 Lower Delta Road #03-05 CleanTech One
#02-12 Cendex Centre Singapore 637141
Singapore 169208 Tel : 6777 6330
Tel: 6538 0400 Fax : 6777 3537
Fax: 6538 0422
(Ms Stéphanie Groen)
(Mr Akira Wada) Email: dhi@dhi.com.sg
Emerge Services Pte Ltd GBAD Services Pte Ltd

10, Anson Road No. 1 Bukit Batok Crescent
#26-04, International Plaza #09-24, WCEGA Plaza
Tel: 6711 3192 Tel: 6899 5020/6899 5022
Fax: 6725 8325 Fax: 6562 0630
(Mr Johnson Khor) (Mr Soh Shee Yoong)

Email: khorhc@emergeservices.com.sg Email: sohsy@gbadservices.com
STATS Asia Pacific Pte Ltd

71 Toh Guan Road East
#02-01/06, TCH Techcentre
Singapore 608598
Tel: 6252 6686
Fax: 6252 6166
(Mr Tony Teo)

Email: tonyteo@statsasiapac.com

Environmental Baseline Study for JTC Cleantech 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Environmental Baseline Study for JTC Cleantech 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SINGAPORE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANCY AND SOLUTIONS PTE LTD

Report Title Environmental Baseline Study for JTC

Tiong Aik Construction Pte Ltd

Environmental Baseline Study for JTC Cleantech 3

Donald Folkoff Tony Teo

Distribution Medium Copies

The program for this investigation consisted of the following tasks.

• Site reconnaissance to determine the borehole locations and interview.

A summary of the findings from this investigation is as follows.

The US State of Texas Resource Conservation Commission Protective

1.1 Purpose and Objective

1.2 Scope of Work

The program for this investigation consisted of the following tasks.

• Site reconnaissance to determine the borehole locations and interview.

1.3 Assessment Criteria and Report Structure

• an S or Target value that represents the target or background concentration and

2.0 Site Settings

Figure 1 - Location Map

2.2 Site Activities

2.3 Surrounding Land Use

2.4 Physical Settings

2.4.1 Physiograph/Surface Drainage

2.4.2 Soil Stratigraphy/Geology

2.5 Site History

3.0 Site Inspection

3.2 Surface Conditions and Drainage

3.3 Hazardous Substances and Waste Management

3.4 Physical Evidence of Contamination

3.5 Potential Areas of Concern and Contaminants of Concern

4.0 Field Program and Analytical Parameters

4.2 Number and Location of Boreholes

• MW/BH-1 located at the southeast portion of the site.

The well locations are shown in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2 Site Layout Plan with Monitoring Well Locations

4.3 Soil Sampling

• BS EN 1997-2:2007 EN7 Part 2 (Code of Practice for Site Investigations &

The cleaning procedures for all sampling equipment involved:

Table 1 Summary of Soil Sample Description

Stiff reddish brown and brownish yellow very

4.4 Groundwater Sampling and Well Construction

4.5 Groundwater Hydrology

Table 2 Groundwater Elevation Data

Figure 3 - Groundwater Contour Map

4.6 Laboratory Testing Program

5.0 Results from the Soil and Groundwater Sampling Program

5.1 Soil Quality Assessment

Metals and Metalloids

Table 3 Soil Quality Assessment of Metals and Metalloids

Volatile Aromatic Compounds BTEX

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH)

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH)

Other Pollutants (VOC)

5.2 Groundwater Quality Assessment

Metals and Metalloids

Table 4 Groundwater Quality Assessment of Metals and Metalloids

Volatile Aromatic Compounds BTEX

Aromatic Semi-Volatile Compounds

No aromatic semi-volatile compounds were detected at concentrations above their

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH)

Other Pollutants (VOC)

Anions and Chemical Analysis

5.3 Sample QA/QC

RPD = {(Result 1 - Result 2) / Average} x 100.