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: environmental.audit@epa.vic.gov.au
 @k' "el - wz*- -S~m3

uglas ParCners
@ @ ~ t e ~ k ~E~vdfo~m@nB
i@$ * @r~#fld~af#f

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

PROPOSED AQUAVlSlTA DEVELOPMENT

LOT 11
NEW QUAY, DOCKLANDS

For
Meinhardt (Vic) Pty Ltd

On behalf of
MA6 CORPORATION

PROJECT :42055
8 August, 2005
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No .
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... 1
SITE DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................. 2
2.1 Background ................................................................................................ 3
GEOLOGY ............................................................................................................3
METHOD OF INVESTIGATION.......................................................................... 4
4.1 Subsurface Investigation ............................................................................... 4
4.2 Laboratory Testing......................................................................................... 5
RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION.............................................................................6
5.1 Subsurface Conditions .................................................................................. 6
5.2 Groundwater Conditions ................................................................................ 8
5.3 Laboratory Testing ......................................................................................... 9
5.4 Groundwater Quality...................................................................................... 9
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................ 10
SITE PREPARATION........................................................................................... 10
EXCAVATION STABILITY.................................................................................... 11
FOOTING SYSTEMS ..........................................................................................12
9.1 General Comment ...................................................................................... 12
9.2 Shallow Footings ......................................................................................... 12
9.3 Driven Piles ................................................................................................. 12
9.4 Non Displacement Piles......................................................................... 14
9.4.1 Bored Piles ....................................................................................... 14
9.4.2 Auger Type Piles ..............................................................................15
9.5 Negative Skin Friction.................................................................................. 16
9.6 Lateral Resistance.......................................................................................18
9.6.1 Pile Caps..........................................................................................18
9.6.2 Piles .................................................................................................18
9.7 Effects of Piling on Utilities .......................................................................... 19
EARTHQUAKE LOADING .................................................................................... 20
10.1 Site Factor ..................................................................................................20
10.2 Pile Response ............................................................................................. 20
10.3 General Comments ..................................................................................... 20
GROUND FLOOR SLABS .................................................................................... 20
11.1 Surface Settlements ....................................................................................20
11.2 Slab Design............................................................................................... 21
PAVEMENTS ....................................................................................................... 22
OTHER MATTERS ............................................................................................... 22
13.1 Groundwater Aggressiveness ...................................................................... 22
13.2 Acid Sulphate Soils...................................................................................... 23
13.3 Gas Drainage .............................................................................................. 23
13.4 Surface Surcharges.................................................................................. 23
Appendices

Appendix A Drawings

Appendix B Boreholes Logs

Photographs of Rock Core
Notes Relating To This Report

Appendix C Laboratory Test Certificates

 8 August, 2005
Project : 420551MYBINA:ae

REPORT ON
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED AQUAVISTA DEVELOPMENT
NEW QUAY, DOCKLANDS
For
MEINHARDT (VIC) PTY LTD
On behalf of
MAB CORPORATION

1. INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation undertaken by Douglas

Partners Pty Ltd (DP) for the proposed Aquavista development at New Quay in the
Docklands, Melbourne. The investigation was commissioned by Meinhardt (Vic) Pty Ltd,
consulting engineers for the development, on behalf of MAB Corporation, and authorised by
the former in correspondence on 17 June 2005.

It is understood that the development will comprise a 15 storey reinforced concrete structure
with a suspended ground floor slab. The new building will comprise a combination of retail
and office space and up to six levels of above ground carparking. A new road to sewice the
development will also be constructed. The geotechnical investigation was required for
design documentation and construction purposes.

The agreed scope and specific tasks of the investigation were detailed in DP's
correspondence of 1 June 2005 (Option B), and can be summarised as follows:

? Review available geotechnical information within the vicinity of the subject site
? Drill and sample 2 bores, terminating 5 m to 10 m in rock
? Drill a series of shallow solid flight auger bores to penetrate through filling and into natural
soils
? Carry out laboratory testing to assess relevant engineering properties of the materials
encountered
 Page 2

? Prepare a report presenting the factual findings, together with design and construction
comments on:
- Subsurface, soil, rock and groundwater conditions
- Site preparation procedures
- Subgrade design CBR for proposed pavements and anticipated subgrade
improvement requirements
- Appropriate footing systems to support the structure
- Foundation design parameters
- Assessment of ultimate and serviceability loads for piles
- Assessment of downdrag forces, tension and lateral load capacities of piles
- Settlement predictions of footings and long term surface settlements
- Influence of groundwater on design and construction
- Stability of temporary excavations
- Aggressivity of groundwater towards steel and concrete
- Seismic site factor
- Anticipated construction difficulties.

2. SITE DESCRIPTION

The location of the proposed development is shown on Drawings 1 and 2, in Appendix A.

The site is located on the southeast corner of Docklands Drive and Dopel Way and is
bounded by Caravel Lane to the south. The site dimensions are about 45 m by 50 m, with a
total area of 2250 m2.

At the time of investigation the southern half of the site was largely covered by asphalt and
the northern half by a combination of asphalt, waste concrete and loosely placed surface
filling including fine crushed rock, sand, garden wood chips and topsoil. Two concrete slabs
were visible at the surface positioned towards the centre of the site. One located towards the
western half, about 2.5 rn x 5 m in dimension and the other extending from the centre of the
site to the eastern edge, about 4 m x 20 m in dimension. An approximate 300 mm wide steel
expansion joint was located through the middle of the site, running east west.

Repod on Geotechnical lnvesfigation Project: 42055

Proposed Aquavista Development 8 August 2005
Lot 11 New Quay, Docklands
 Page 3

2.1 Background

The Docklands area in general has a varied and somewhat complex industrial history. Pre
the industrial age it formed part of the low lying West Melbourne swamp land, which has
since been reclaimed through the placement of imported filling. The precinct has been used
for various purposes mostly related to Port activities including goods storage and handling
and general warehousing facilities. Previous investigation in the area has shown the near
surface profile to comprise a mixture of reasonably well compacted crushed rock filling of 1 m
to 2 m depth with embedded concrete slabs commonly between 0.5 m to l m below surface.

The topography across the precinct is relatively flat, hence drainage is poor. Areas that have
been more recently developed are likely to have a greater thickness of crushed rock filling
compared to other parts.

3. GEOLOGY

According to the Surface and Subsurface Geological map of the Central Melbourne Area
(1989 scale 1:5000) produced by the Geological Survey of Victoria and our experience in the
immediate area, the site is expected to be underlain by Quaternary Age Yarra Delta Group
deposits and the Silurian Age Melbourne Formation.

In this part of the Docklands the Yarra Delta Group is expected to comprise the following
units, described in increasing depth order.

Coode Island Silt - Normally to slightly over-consolidated silty clay typically soft to
(CIS) firm becoming firm to stiff with depth, of high plasticity and
high compressibility.

Fishermens Bend Silt - Generally an over-consolidated silty clay that becomes sandy
(FBS) with depth, although in strength terms it is often
indistinguishable from Coode Island Silt over the transition
zone.

Moray Street Gravels - Predominantly granular deposits consisting of sand-gravel

(MSG) mixtures but clay interbeds are not uncommon.

A variable thickness of heterogeneous non-engineered filling and crushed rock is anticipated

to overlie the natural soils.

Report on Geotechnical investigation Project : 42055.

Proposed Aquavista Development 8 August 2005
Lot 11 New Quay, Docklands
 Page 4

The Melbourne Formation forms the regional bedrock and consists of a folded sequence of
siltstone and mudstone with subordinate thin sandstone beds, weathered under a chemically
reducing environment. Intrusive igneous dykes, commonly wholly decomposed to soil-like
material, are occasionally encountered either singularly or in clusters. Typically the dykes
are sub-vertical with true widths of c l m to a few metres. Dykes have been encountered on
adjacent sites.

Deposits belonging to the Tertiary Older Volcanics Basalt andlor the underlying Tertiary Age
Werribee Formation (sand, silt and clay), intercalated between the Yarra Delta Group and the
Melbourne Formation, have been encountered sporadically in the general area.

4. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION

4.1 Subsurface Investigation

The subsurface conditions were assessed by drilling and sampling two deep bores
designated BHI to BH2, and drilling eight shallow bores designated BH3 to BHIO to assess
near surface conditions.

Locations of the bores are shown on Drawing 2 in Appendix A.

The deep bores were terminated after a nominal 5 m penetration into the Melbourne
Formation bedrock. The depths of the bores were 34.8 m and 35.2 m below existing surface
level.

The deep bores were drilled using solid flight augers to penetrate the filling and wash boring
techniques through soil strata and NQ3 (wireline) diamond coring in weathered rock.
Undisturbed 64 mm tube samples were taken in cohesive soil horizons and pocket
penetrometer tests were performed to assist the assessment of consistency. Standard
penetration tests (SPTs) were performed in granular horizons, or occasionally in cohesive
soils, to measure the relative density of the soils and obtain disturbed samples for
examination. The interval for samplingltesting was nominally 1.5 m.

Continuous diamond coring was performed to recover samples of the rock. The core was
sealed in plastic tubing and appropriately stored to preserve the integrity of the material.
Selected sub-samples of rock core were taken for determination of saturated moisture
content and point load index testing where appropriate. The bores were backgrouted using a
cementlbentonite mix to minimise interconnectivity between aquifers.

Report on Geotechnical Investigation Project : 42055

Proposed Aquavista Development 8 August 2005
Lot I 1 New Quay, Docklands
 Page 5

The shallow bores were advanced using continuous solid flight augers to a nominal depth of
3 m. Disturbed samples were collected from filling and natural soil horizons for identification
purposes.

The co-ordinates of the test sites were determined using a hand held GPS unit with an
estimated positional accuracy of k5 m, whilst the reduced levels were measured using
conventional surveying techniques from a known bench mark. (Refer to Dwg 2).

Groundwater monitoring standpipes were installed in boreholes BHI and BH5. The
standpipe construction details are provided on the respective borehole log sheets. The
standpipes were installed to 4.5 m depth into the CIS and screened over a 1.5 m interval.
Standing water levels in the standpipes were measured on 19 July and 29 July 2005. A
groundwater sample was obtained from borehole BH5 after the standpipe was suitably
purged and developed. The sample was stored in a cool container and delivered to Ecowise
Pty Ltd for analysis.

The field work was performed over a six day period from 13 to 19 July and later on 4 August
2005. The field work was supervised by an experienced company engineer who logged the
conditions encountered, collected the soil and rock samples and surveyed the test locations.
A DP senior engineering geologist examined selected samples recovered from the deep
bores.

4.2 Laboratory Testing

Selected samples from the subsurface investigation were tested in DP's NATA accredited
laboratory to determine the following properties, viz:

? Point load strength index and saturated moisture content of rock core samples.
? In-situ moisture content of the Coode Island Silt and Fishermens Bend Silt soils.

The results of the above tests are presented on the report certificates in Appendix C.

Report on Geotechnical Investigation Project : 42055

Proposed Aquavista Development 8 August 2005
Lot 11 New Quay, Docklands
 Page 6

5. RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION

5.1 Subsurface Conditions

Detailed descriptions of the ground conditions encountered in the bores are presented on the
borehole logs in Appendix B. These should be read in conjunction with The Notes Relating
To This Report, also in the same Appendix. Coloured photographs of the rock core from the
bores are presented in Appendix B.

An inferred geological cross section A-A' that represents conditions encountered in the bores
together with extra~olationsbetween these known points is shown on Drawing 3 in Appendix
A. The plan position of the cross section line is shown on Drawing 2.

The subsurface conditions encountered in the boreholes are considered to be consistent with
the anticipated geology. Soil units belonging to the Yarra Delta sequence, comprising Coode
Island Silt, Fishermens Bend Silt and Moray Street Gravels were intersected overlying the
Melbourne Formation bedrock. The core recovery in the rock ranged from 71% to 100% but
was typically 100%. The Rock Quality Designation (RQD) values ranged from 36% to 98%,
with a median of about 80% indicating good quality rock.

Filling was encountered at all borehole locations overlying the natural soils.

Engineering descriptions for the materials encountered in each of the inferred statigraphic
units are provided in Table 1.

The presence of hydrogen sulphide gas odour emanating from the CIS was noted in the
deep bores. Loss of drilling fluid occurred in the gravelly sand at 25 m depth in BHI,
suggesting the granular horizons are highly permeable.

Report on Geotechnical Investigation Project : 42055

Proposed Aquavista Development 8 August 2005
Lot I f New Quay, Dockiands
 Page 7

Table 1 : Subsurface Conditions in Deep Boreholes

concrete slab or a hard cement treated layer,

then gravel and clay mixed soils.

Coode Island Silt

shell fragments. Hydrogen sulphide odour.

brown or grey with faint iithorelics at transition

with CIS. Progressively becomes sandy with

Variable but predominantly granular horizons

consisting of silty sands (SP-SM), gravelly sands
(SW) and sands. SPT ' N values typically 20-30
ie. medium dense, but range from 5 to >60.
Very dense zones associated with gravel
horizons. Some clay beds present estimated up
to 1.5 m thick.

Melbourne Typically moderately~to slightly weathered 30.0 - 30.5

Formation, Silurian becoming slightly weathered with depth, dark
(s) grey interbedded siltstone with subordinate
sandstone. Strength typically low to medium.
Bedding dips at l o 0 to 15" below the horizontal.

In the bore samples the statigraphic distinction between the CIS and FBS units was made on
the basis of textural differences and verified by the appreciably lower moisture content of the
FBS. Reference to the pocket penetrometer tests on undisturbed samples indicate the CIS
and FBS to be of similar strength over the transition zone between the two units.

The near surface conditions encountered in the series of shallow bores are summarised in
Table 2. The filling typically consisted of fine crushed rock overlying a concrete slab or
cement treated layer overlying sandy gravellgravelly claylsandy clay. In BHIO the concrete
slab was resting directly on the CIS subgrade. The fill material beneath the concealed
concrete slab was commonly wet and black, suggesting it may contain some unspecified
level of contamination. The depth to CIS varied from 1.3 m (BH 6) to 2.0 m (BH 1).
 Page 8

Table 2 : Summary of Ground Conditions in Shallow Boreholes

Layer Typical Description Depth to top of

layer below
existing surface
and thickness
range [ I
(m)
Asphalt Generally in good condition with a maximum 0
particle size of 10 mm. Estimated thickness
ranged from 50 mm to 100 mm but generally
100 mm. Largely present over southern half of
site and small portions of the northern half.

Fine crushed Appeared to be well compacted, dark grey with 0.1

rock a maximum particle size of 20 mm. [0.5 to I ]

Concrete Presented as a hard layer difficult to drill. 0.7 to 1.2

(inferred) Reinforcement identified in drill cuttings of [0,2 - 0,31
boreholes BH2 and BH4.

Sandy Gravel1 Dark grey and brown, appeared to well to 0.9 to 1.5
Gravelly Clay I moderately compacted and moist to wet. [0,3 to 0,91
Sandy Clay Cohesive material appeared to include reworked
CIS containing varying proportions of sand and
gravel.

Coode Island As described in Table 1. 1.3-2

Silt

5.2 Groundwater Conditions

The standing water level in the CIS was reported to vary from 1.81 m to 1.58 m below ground
surface, with perched water in the filling underlying the concealed concrete slab. Refer to
Table 3.

This accords with our experience in that groundwater level in the CIS in the Docklands is
generally about 0 to 0.5 m AHD, with variable perched water conditions in the filling. It
should be noted that groundwater levels may be possibly affected by manmade conditions
causing local draw-down.

Repori on Geotechnicai invastigatlon Project : 42055

Proposed Aquavista Development 8 August 2005
Lot 11 New Quay, Docklands
 Page 9

Table 3 : Groundwater Level Data

BHI BH5
Depth t o RL of Depth t o RL of
Date
SWL SWL SWL SWL

(m) (mAHD) (m) (m AHD)

19/07/05 1.81 0.49 1.62 0.09

29/07/05 1.60 0.70 1.58 0.13
SWL = standing water level

5.3 Laboratory Testing

Detailed results of the laboratory tests are presented on the report sheets in Appendix C and
summarised in the following sections.

Seven point load strength tests were performed and the results are given in Table 4.

Table 4 : Point Load Strength Index

Is (50) Saturated Moisture Content

Sample Rock Description
MPa (%)
I BHI. 30.64 - 30.75 m I Siltstone (SW)
. . I 0.09 I 3.5 I
BHI, 32.78 - 32.89 m Siltstone (SW) 0.54 3.1
BHI, 34.76 - 34.80 m Siltstone (SW) 1.94 2.5
BH2, 30.53 - 30.66 m Siltstone (MW) 0.45 5.6
. .
-
BH2, 31.72 - 31.82 m~. Siltstone (MW) 1.37 4.5
BH2, 32.91 - 33.02 m Siltstone (SW) 1.40 3.7
BH2, 35.10 - 35.20 m Siltstone (SW) 1.72 3.4
MW = Moderately Weathered, SW = Slightly Weathered.

5.4 Groundwater Quality

A groundwater sample collected from BHI returned the following results. The Ecowise Pty
Ltd certificate is presented in Appendix C.

pH Sulphate Chloride
6.4 2,500 mglL 19,000 mglL

Report on Geotechnical investigation Project : 42055

ProposedAquavista Development 8 August 2005
Lot I 1 New Quay, Docklands
E l trrJuslas Par--,
1
,.*m.z -*,-,

Page I0

6. PROPOSEDDEVELOPMENT

It is understood the proposed development comprises a 15 storey reinforced concrete

structure with a suspended ground floor slab accommodating retail areas, carparking up to
level 6 and office space above. No basements are proposed.

It is understood that the working compression loads of the columns range from approximately
3,200 kN to 11,750 kN. The total working compression load in the core is approximately
75,000 kN.

Development will include construction of Rakaia Way along the east site boundary.

7. SITE PREPARATION

The near surface tilling comprises crushed rock overlying a concrete slab in turn overlying
variable clayey filling which could include reworked CIS material. The soil materials are
expected to be readily excavatable using conventional earthmoving plant such as hydraulic
excavators, backhoes etc. The handling and disposal of these soils would have to comply
with an environmental management plan and Victoria EPA requirements.

The natural subgrade underlying the filling consists of son to firm (CIS) silty clay. This
material is likely to be encountered in excavations for pile caps, lift over runs and other
deepenings. The CIS is readily excavatable.

The surface of the natural clay is not expected to be traffickable by conventional plant in the
first instance. Experience has shown that traffickability of the subgrade generally improves
after exposure, although still only restricted to low ground bearing pressure plant. Seepages
from perched water in the filling may inhibit the drying out. The exposed subgrade is liable to
deteriorate significantly under frequent construction traffic which would cause pumping of the
subgrade. To overcome this it is recommended that a compacted crushed rock layer be
maintained to protect the subgrade and act as a working platform. In our experience a
crushed rock layer of 400 mm thick placed over geotextile would be required for standard
construction plant (eg. single axle trucks). For typical piling rigs, which require say a bearing
resistance of 200 kPa beneath the tracks, a working platform at least 750 mm thick is
recommended.

Report on Geotechnical Investigation Project: 42055

Proposed Aquavista Development 8 August 2005
Lot 11 New Quay, Docklands
 Page 11

8. EXCAVATION STABILITY

Construction of the lift core will require bulk excavation to yet to be specified levels to allow
for casting of the base slab. The proposed ground support method is not known although
two approaches can be considered, viz:

Open excavation with battered slopes with or without benches

Fully supported excavation using internally braced sheet piling.

The appropriateness of either method will depend on the overall height of excavation, depth
of penetration into the CIS, allowance for surcharges and the need to control lateral ground
movements. Whilst both methods have been used on other projects in the Docklands, based
on our experience it is recommended that fully supported excavations be adopted where
appreciable excavation depths are planned. This approach will minimise the lateral thrust on
piles due to soil movements in the soft CIS.

Unsupported battered excavations require special consideration be given to the construction

sequence, any surcharges imposed by plant or stockpiled materials, and the likely effects
these would have on previously installed piles. This method is generally only applicable to
excavations of relatively shallow depth. In cases where movements around battered
excavations are critical it is recommended that ground support be provided. Where ground
movements are non-critical the depth of unsupported excavations into CIS should be
restricted to a maximum of 1 m and any deeper excavations would necessitate specific
analysis.

In instances where excavations are carried out around piles it is recommended that the piles
should be S u ~ e y e din terms of position and verticality, both prior to and post the
excavations, to establish whether any displacement has occurred.

Groundwater inflows from the CIS into open excavations are likely to be minor and
manageable using conventional sump pumps. Greater inflows are likely if' perched water is
encountered in the permeable crushed rock filling, particularly where the permeable filling
extends below groundwater level.

Report on Geotechnical Investigation Project : 42055

Pro~osedAquavista Develo~menf 8 August 2005
~ o t 1 1New ~ u a y~ocklands
,
 Page 12

9. FOOTING SYSTEMS

9.1 General Comment

CIS was found to underlie the surface filling across the site. As a foundation material the CIS
is only suitable for supporting light weight non-settlement sensitive structures due to its soft-
firm consistency and high compressibility. The proposed multi-storey structure will have to
be supported on piles.

Pile types considered to be suitable include driven piles founding in the siltstone, bored or
continuous flight auger (CFA) piles socketed into the siltstone. Driven reinforced concrete
piles are generally economic in these ground conditions, but noise or ground vibration
constraints need to be assessed.

For heavily loaded structural columns (in compression or tension), bored or augered piles
may be worthy of consideration as alternatives to large (driven) pile groups.

9.2 Shallow Footings

The on-site filling and Coode Island Silt are considered unsuitable as foundation materials
except for lightly loaded non-sensitive structures. Spread footings founded in these materials
may be proportioned on the following maximum allowable bearing pressures :

Filling 50 kPa
Coode Island Silt 25 kPa

Where the thickness of crushed rock filling beneath shallow footings is limited, the strength of
the underlying layers will influence the allowable bearing pressure. In order to adopt the
above bearing pressure there should be a minimum crushed rock filling thickness of 1.58
@=footing width) beneath the footing. Confirmation of the nature and thickness of filling
should be undertaken at each specific location.

9.3 Driven Piles

To develop the required load capacities and comply with serviceability (settlement)
requirements it is anticipated that the piles supporting significant structures will have to
penetrate through the Moray Street Gravels and found in siltstone rock.

Report on GeotechnicalInvestigation Project: 42055

Pro~osedAquavista Develo~rnent 8 August 2005
~ o t ' l New
l huay, ~ockfands
 Page 13

Using modern pile driving equipment and taking piles to effective refusal, the maximum axial
load capacity of a pile will depend on the structural capacity of the shaft. It is expected that
single 300 mm, 350 mm and 400 mm square precast concrete piles driven to refusal would
typically provide maximum working load capacities of 1200 kN, 1800 kN and 2200 kN
respectively.

Theoretically, the effect of a pile group on the quoted capacity of individual piles driven to
refusal is not significant where common pile spacings are adopted, say 4d (d = pile
diameter). If the spacing is appreciably less, construction related problems may arise due to
ground heaving in the toe region of the piles possibly causing loss of toe contact in adjacent
piles, or the inability of piles to penetrate the Moray Street Gravels unit, or creating excessive
lateral soil displacements. Preboring through the filling and partially into the CIS could be
carried out to alleviate initial driving and pile positioning problems and reduce the extent of
lateral soil displacements. Monitoring of as-driven pile levels should be undertaken and any
affected piles will require additional re-driving and/or testing to confirm capacities.

It is recommended that the pile design capacities should be verified using dynamic testing
techniques coupled with CAPWAP prediction or an equivalent wave equation analysis.
Guidelines on the frequency of pile testing are presented in the Australian Standard Piling
Code AS 2159 and the commentary to the Code, the Austroads Bridge Design Code and the
Australian Standard Bridge Code AS 5100. It is suggested that 10% of piles be dynamically
tested and subject to computer wave equation analysis in order to utilise upper bound
capacity resistance factors.

The settlement of driven piles will depend on the group configuration (number of piles,
spacing, loads, etc), sectional area of the pile and founding conditions. Because of the
anticipated length of the piles, elastic compression is likely to be an important component of
settlement. For a four-pile group (350 mm square section concrete) with piles driven to
effective refusal, the anticipated toe displacement is expected to be about 5 mm under
normal working loads.

Pile uplift will develop side resistance along the sides of piles through the CIS, FBS and MSG
soils. If bitumen coating to reduce negative skin friction forces is adopted, no side resistance
development should be allowed over the coated length. Factored design side resistances
(uncoated piles) for uplift are as follows:

? Coode Island Silt 15 kPa (average over full depth of unit)

? Fishermens Bend Silt 20 kPa
? Moray Street Gravels 40 kPa

Repod on Geotechnical investigation Project: 42055

Proposed Aquavista Development 8 August 2005
Lot 11 New Quay, Dockiands
 Page 14

Additional uplift resistance may be available but would need to be demonstrated by testing,
with allowance for pile set-up.

The standard practice for a project of this type is for specialist piling contractors to submit
their own designs. Accordingly, this geotechnical report should be made available to
selected piling contractors in order for them to nominate pile capacities, target founding
levels and estimated settlements.

9.4 Non Displacement Piles

9.4.1 Bored Piles

Bored piles socketed into the siltstone rock may be a suitable alternative to driven piles to
support heavily loaded elements or to resist high lateral or tension loads.

Based on the borehole information the siltstone rock is expected to be of sound quality, being
moderately or slightly weathered beneath a minor layer of more weathered material. The
Melbourne Formation has weathered under a chemically reducing environment that has
produced a uniform dark grey colour across all grades of rock weathering. Hence, logging of
the rock requires an experienced geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist to correctly
assess the key attributes as reliance on weathering or colour alone may be a poor indicator
of rock strength. Logging is often done in conjunction with moisture content testing since
there is generally a reliable correlation with compressive strength. It is recommended that an
experienced engineerlgeologist should log representative samples from the excavated pile
shafts to provide a design strength profile for socket design purposes.

For preliminary proportioning of rock sockets the parameters presented in Table 5 are
recommended.

Table 5 : Recommended Bored Pile Design Parameters

Weathering Grade of Siltstone Allowable Side Resistance Allowable End Bearing
(kpa) @Pa)
EWorEW-HW
HW
HW - MW
MW
MW-SW
SW

EW = extremely weathered MW = moderately weathered

HW = highly weathered SW = slightly weathered

Report on Geofechnical Investigation Projecf : 42055

Proposed Aquavista Development 8 August 2005
Lot 11 New Quay, Docklands
 Page 15

As indicated in the above table, it is assumed that only highly or less weathered material will
contribute to pile load capacity. Further, the quoted allowable end bearing values have been
downgraded by 50% to take into account base cleanliness and construction related effects.
A lower reduction may be considered where it can be demonstrated that the pile bases are
not significantly disturbed and free from debris. The allowable side resistance values
assume that the pile shafts are rough and free from remoulded material.

The minimum socket length should be two (2) pile diameters, with the top of socket being
into highly or less weathered material.

The tension load capacity of bored piles may be assessed by applying a 20% reduction to
the side resistance values given in Table 5.

The settlement of a rock socketed bored pile can be estimated using elastic theory or more
recent design methods developed at Monash University, which take non-linear effects into
account. The latter analyses allow a more realistic assessment of the sharing of side and
base components of socket resistance. Douglas Partners can undertake more detailed
settlement and capacity analyses using the Monash approaches if required. For preliminary
estimates the settlement of rock socketed piles, taken at top of socket, is expected to be of
the order of 0.5% of pile diameter at normal working loads.

With regard to the construction of bored piles, temporary support will be needed to maintain
shaft integrity and stability during drilling and concreting. Stability can be achieved by drilling
under bentonite mud or using a segmental (watertight) steel casing advancer system,
although the latter still requires a water head to control base stability. Appropriate base
cleaning buckets and socket roughening tools will be needed to ensure good pile
construction practices are achieved.

9.4.2 Auger Type Piles

Non displacement continuous flight auger (CFA) or displacement type auger concrete
injection piles could be considered as alternatives to other piles.

These piles can be installed through saturated soils without the need for temporary casing
since the augered column provides the necessary shaft stability. Socketing into the rock is
feasible using special cutting equipment and installation depths of 35 m, or greater, are
achievable. Advice from specialist piling contractors should be sought on these matters,
particularly to assess the capacity of boring machines to effectively penetrate into weathered
rock.

Report on Geotechnical investigation Project : 42055

ProposedAquavista Development 8 August 2005
Lot 11 New Quay, Docklands
 Page 16

The capacity of augered concrete injected piles is generally developed by socketing into rock
to develop base resistance in addition to the friction contribution from the overlying soil
horizons. For preliminary design the recommended end bearing values in Table 5 may be
used. The base resistances may need to be reduced due to the inability to verify base
cleanliness and the anticipated 'softer' toe response. Specialist piling contractors should be
consulted with regard to the overall pile design. The designs should be submitted to DP for
review.

It is recommended that the load capacity of non-displacement or semi-displacement augered

piles should be verified using dynamic testing techniques as outlined in Section 9.3. The
frequency of testing will depend on several factors including design methods, selection of
design parameters, construction control measures and available test data for piles installed
in similar ground conditions. Where upper bound strength reduction factors are utilised it is
recommended that at least 15% of the piles be dynamically tested.

9.5 Negative Skin Friction

Because of the occurrence of highly compressible CIS at this site, piles should be designed
for negative skin friction. Negative skin friction load should be considered in terms of pile
structural strength and serviceability. The effect of negative skin friction on ultimate
structural capacity is different to that for geotechnical ultimate capacity because for the pile to
fail geotechnically it must move down relative to the soil. Once this occurs, negative skin
friction loads are relieved. This is why negative skin friction is considered to be a
serviceability issue in terms of geotechnical performance of the piles and must be assessed
separately to the ultimate geotechnical capacity.

The ultimate geotechnical pile capacity should be assessed without downdrag allowance.
For preliminary design, unfactored negative skin friction loads of 375 C, kN per pile apply,
where C, is the pile perimeter in metres. A load factor of 1.2 should be applied to the
unfactored negative skin friction loading in assessing pile structural capacity.

In effect, to meet the serviceability requirement piles will be required to mobilise, below the
neutral plane, a factored ultimate resistance of 1.7 times the permanent load combination, ie.
dead load plus negative skin friction load plus long term live load. This will need to be
demonstrated by appropriate testing during construction. The load used for the serviceability
check including allowance for downdrag effects is not equivalent to the nominal pile working
load.

Report on Geotechnical Investigation Project: 42055

Proposed Aquavista Development 8 August 2005
Lot 11 New Quay, Docklands
 Page 17

Although not specifically provided for by the Australian Piling Code AS 2159, DP suggest that
short duration loads (earthquake, wind, transient live load) be excluded from the load
combinations in which negative skin friction loads are considered. This is consistent with the
treatment of negative skin friction in some other international geotechnical codes.

For pile-to-pile spacings of greater than 5 times the pile width in a group, the negative skin
friction loads are the same as for individual piles. For closer spacings, the inner piles in the
group will attract smaller negative skin friction loading. For example, for 350 mm by 350 mm
square section piles spaced at 3 times the pile width, the inner piles of the group will attract
an unfactored negative skin friction load of 350 kN per pile, compared with 525 kN for widely
spaced or single piles.

The maximum serviceability load will be reduced to a degree by negative skin friction loads.
As a guide for 350 by 350 mm or 400 by 400 mm high strength reinforced concrete piles
driven to practical refusal in the weathered siltstone, the maximum se~iceabilityload is likely
to be approximately 1400 - 1500kN per pile, including negative skin friction effects. In the
case of 400 by 400 mm square section piles, the increase in serviceability load afforded by
the larger cross-sectional area is offset by the larger piie perimeter over which negative skin
friction resistances act. Testing should be carried out to confirm appropriate serviceability
performance. Specialist piling contractors should be required to submit detailed calculations
to support adoption of higher serviceability loadings.

For bored piles, the maximum serviceability load will depend on socket capacity. Preliminary
calculations show that negative skin friction effects lead to a reduction in the normal
serviceability limit state pile resistance of 20% to 25%. Further guidance on the appropriate
allowance for negative skin friction forces can be provided when pile diameters and loadings
are available.

It is suggested that the pile configuration be initially proportioned on the basis of

serviceability loading considerations and then the pile structural capacity be checked for the
most adverse factored permanent and long-term live load combination, plus the factored
negative skin friction loading.

It is expected that dynamic testing will be used to validate pile capacity. The skin friction
mobilised over the depth of CIS should be deducted when assessing pile capacity below this
unit. The piie structural capacity should then be assessed to resist the total factored
permanent and long-term live load combinations plus the factored negative skin friction load.
 Page 18

Negative skin friction loads may be minimised through the use of a low friction bituminous
coating applied to the pile through the CIS layer. If such a coating were used, negative skin
friction loads would be reduced to a nominal value of approximately 10% of the negative skin
friction loadings calculated without the coating.

Care should be taken to avoid scraping off the bituminous coating through the gravelly fill
layers. A length of temporary casing augered out through the fill could be used to overcome
this problem as it will not be practical to remove the filling in the area of piling.

9.6 Lateral Resistance

Any filling (mainly crushed rock) remaining after site preparation works and the underlying
CIS will provide lateral resistance to the piles. The CIS is sufficiently thick that no significant
lateral loading is expected below the base of this layer.

9.6.1 Pile Caps

The lateral resistance offered by the filling will depend on the position of the pile cap in
relation to the design water table position and the depth of the pile cap. The factored lateral
resistance in the granular filling over the depth of the pile cap may be taken as linearly
increasing from zero at the ground surface, at a rate of 45 times the depth in metres to the
level of the water table. Units are kPa/m over the width of the pile cap. Reduced lateral
resistance will be available in the granular fill below the water table. In the case of stiff clay
filling an average factored lateral resistance of 75 kPa can be adopted. Below this depth in
the naturalsoil the factored lateral resistance may be taken as 30 kPa.

9.6.2 Piles

It is suggested that the factored limiting lateral resistance of single piles be taken as 708 kN
per metre length down the pile, commencing at the base of the tilling, where B is the pile
breadth In metres.

For assessing the elastic stiffness of the foundation to lateral loading, it is assumed that the
piles will be modelled as linear elements with lateral spring stiffness (K) per metre length of
the pile. If K is expressed in kN per mm of lateral displacement at each spring node, a value
of 4.58 kN/mm may be assigned through the CIS, where B is the pile breadth expressed in
metres. However, spring forces should be limited in accordance with the previously given
factored limiting lateral resistance value i.e. maximum spring force should not exceed 708 kN
per metre along the pile. It is suggested that the structural analysis be checked using K
values of 50% and 200% of the value given above to account for possible variations. This

Report on Geotechnical Investigation Project : 42055

Proposed Aquavista Development 8 August 2005
Lot I 1 New Quay, Docklands
 Page 19

method of analysis takes no account of pile interaction. A more rigorous analysis may be
performed for a pile group, in which the stiffness matrix of the group can be calculated and
used as an input to the structural analysis. This is beyond the scope of the present work but
can be carried out if required.

Raked piles are not recommended for resisting lateral loadings due to the long-term
settlement of the CIS, which will impose additional bending moments on the piles.

9.7 Effects of Piling on Utilities

Where piling is carried out in close proximity to utilities the effects of lateral ground
displacements and ground vibrations should be considered.

Vibrations developed by piling operations will propagate through soils as compression (P)
waves and shear (S) waves. In addition a surface Rayleigh wave will propagate. Most of the
energy is contained within the Rayleigh wave, hence this is the most damaging form of wave.
Theoretically the P&S waves attenuate with the square of the distance at ground surface and
linearly with distance within the soil mass. The Rayleigh wave attenuates more slowly with
the square root of distance at ground surface but rapidly with depth.

Assessment of vibration levels from sources containing several frequencies such as pile
driving relies on past experience and measurement and cannot be calculated with accuracy.
Peak ground vibrations are anticipated whilst driving through the crushed rock fill (unless
prebored), the Moray Street Gravels unit and near top of rock when the piling hammer is
operating at full energy. Previous driving studies in similar ground conditions have indicated
peak particle velocity vibration levels of the order of 20 mmlsec at radii of about 5 m from the
pile location for hard driving conditions. At 15 m radius vibrations of the order of 10 mmlsec
or less are anticipated.

Damage to adjacent services may also be caused by soil movements and heave, particularly
in the case of large pile groups. To avoid problems of ground heave and vibration it is
recommended that pre-boring through the fill be performed for piles adjacent to sensitive
services unless it can be demonstrated via testing that no adverse effects will occur. Pre-
boring will be necessary to remove obstructions in the filling such as the concrete slabs. To
confirm the actual site response to pile driving trial vibration monitoring would be necessary.

Report on Geofechnical Investigation Projecf : 42055

Proposed Aquavista Development 8 August 2005
Lot 11 New huay, Docklands
 Page 20

10. EARTHQUAKE LOADING

10.1 Site Factor

The investigation indicates that there is an appreciable thickness of clay material with an
undrained shear strength of about 50 kPa indicated at 20 m depth. Based on conventional
correlations, clay soils of this strength at this depth can be expected to have a shear wave
velocity of the order 150 mlsec. From Table 2.4(a) in AS 1170.4, the appropriate site factor
is 2.0, as there is more than 12 m of soil with a shear wave velocity of less than 150 mlsec.

For the type of earthquakes commonly experienced around the Melbourne area it is
considered that the subsurface conditions are not susceptible to liquefaction.

10.2 Pile Response

Pile design for lateral loading depends on the selection of appropriate soil stiffness factors.
lrvine and Hutchinson (1993) show that under earthquake type dynamic loading the lateral
pile head stiffness is essentially the same as that applicable to static loading. Recognising
the accuracy of predictions of lateral pile stiffness, no soil stiffness adjustments need to be
made for structural analysis of piles under the action of earthquake developed forces.

10.3 General Comments

Earthquake loading can introduce overturning moments and uplift forces into pile groups. It
is important that pilelpile cap reinforcement is designed to carry this loading. Similarly,
consideration must be given to the lateral connection of pile caps to ensure appropriate load
sharing under lateral earthquake loading.

11. GROUND FLOOR SLABS

11.1 Surface Settlements

From observations of ground levels throughout South Melbourne and wherever there are
significant thicknesses of CIS, ongoing settlements have been recorded over extended
periods of time. The long term settlements could be due to the self weight induced creep of
the CIS or occur as a result of settlement under the weight of filling placed over it many years
previously.

Report on GeotechnicalInvestigation Project: 42055

Proposed Aquavista Development 8 August 2005
Lot 11 New Quay, Docklands
 Page 21

A study of building settlement behaviour in the areas of South Melbourne and West
Melbourne where the CIS is greater than about 6 m thick shows ongoing long term
settlements which average out at about 10 mm per year over the last 100 years. Highly
accurate surveys in South Melbourne during the early 1980's confirmed long term creep
rates varying from nearly zero up to 15 mm per year.

For any structure on deep piles significant differential settlements between the structure and
the surrounding ground will develop. Any additional filling placed for road embankments,
ground slabs, landscaping, etc, will accelerate the settlement process. It is generally
accepted that filling more than 0.6 m - 1.0 m thick (equivalent to 15 to 20 kPa surcharge) will
generate disproportionate settlements to the ongoing long term settlements.

As an example, for filling up to 0.6 m thick placed for say landscaping purposes, DP estimate
that under this loading additional settlements of approximately 50 mm will occur, over and
above the general area long term creep settlements. Based on a detailed surface settlement
analysis carried out by DP for the New Quay development, which involved a series of
consolidation tests, the following points are made:

Within the next 10 years, average creep settlements of about 10 mm per year are likely to
develop, without any additional loading.
Beyond the next 10 years, the consolidation tests suggest a gradual reduction in creep
rate such that in the 50 years following, total creep settlements of about 75 mm are
expected, with no additional loading.

Service connections to buildings and the surrounding pavement and landscaping finishes
should be detailed to minimise stepping or rupture due to differential settlements between
pile supported structures and the surrounding ground.

11.2 Slab Design

It is understood that ground floor level will be designed as a suspended slab. No special
subgrade preparation procedures are considered necessary for construction of the
suspended slab, apart from light rolling of the subgrade to check support for formwork.

In terms of the proposed development critical points need to be identified where differential
settlements could adversely affect the serviceability, eg. points of service entry to the building
founded on piles, below slab services, connections to slab etc.

Report on Geotechnical Investigation Project : 42055

ProposedAquavista Deveioornent 8 Ausust 2005
~ot1' lNew buay, ~ocklands
 Page 22

12. PAVEMENTS

An investigation was previously performed by DP for the Stage 3 internal road pavements
which essentially encompasses Lot 11. The findings of the investigation were presented in
the Docklands Stage 3 Internal Road Pavements report, reference 32047E 8 April, 2002.
The report includes testing and characterisation of the existing fill and CIS subgrade
materials. Designs were provided for both flexible and rigid pavements together with
comments on subgrade preparation procedures.

13. OTHER MATTERS

13.1 Groundwater Aggressiveness

Based on previous investigations in the Docklands area it is known that the CIS unit is
potentially aggressive towards steel and concrete. Other key findings are:

? The most chemically aggressive naturally occurring unit in the Yarra Delta sequence is
the CIS.
? The CIS has a moderate to high concentration of chloride ions
? The CIS can have elevated sulphate ions.

According to AS 5100.5 - 2004 Bridge Design, Table 4.3 the ground is considered
aggressive if the soil pH is less than 4 or the groundwater contains more than 1 g per litre of
sulphate ions.

The Concrete Structures Code, AS3600 - 2001, contains no specific requirements for
exposure to sulphates, however, Table 4.3 "Exposure Classifications" states in Note 3 that
permeable soils with a pH < 4.0, or with groundwater containing more than 1 g per litre of
sulphate ions would be considered aggressive.

The Australian Standard Piling Code - Design and Installation, AS2159 - 1995 Table 6.1
"Exposure Classification for Concrete Piles", classifies exposure conditions according to
sulphate, pH and soil condition (permeability). The available water quality data from BHI
indicates the groundwater sampled has a moderate classification for low permeability soils.

It is recommended that the top pile joints with segmental driven piles be located no less than
10 m below ground level unless approval is obtained from DP to vary this.

Report on Geotechnical investigation Project : 42055

Proposed Aquavista Development 8 August 2005
Lot 11 New Quay, Dockiands
 Page 23

13.2 Acid Sulphate Soils

The CIS is potentially an acid sulphate soil due to the occurrence of iron sulphide minerals.
Exposure of the sulphides in this soil to oxygen by drainage or excavation may lead to the
generation of sulphuric acid. Accordingly, an environmental management plan will be
needed for the proposed works to cover OH&S aspects, excavation, groundwater control,
drainage and offsite disposal.

13.3 Gas Drainage

The CIS formation is known to contain some gas, as was encountered during the drilling.
The gas is expected to be a mixture of hydrogen sulphide, carbon dioxide and possibly
methane (the last two gases are non-odorous), although no analysis has been performed.
Consideration should be given to the need for a gas drainage layer to be incorporated below
ground floor levels to capture and vent any accumulated gases, particularly where
excavations extend into the CIS.

13.4 Surface Surcharges

Careful construction practices need to be followed when using lifting or piling plant on weak
subgrade. To avoid developing a circular type bearing failure in the CIS it will be necessary
to limit the ground bearing pressures beneath such plant. The limiting value will depend on
several factors including thickness and nature of the existing filling, width of loaded area and
loading intensity. Prior to establishing such plant on site DP should be consulted for specific
advice. However, as a guide the applied bearing pressure at the top of the CIS should be
limited to a maximum of about 75 kPa for temporary works. Heavy lifts should be subject to
special consideration.

Douglas Partners Pty Ltd

Michael Broise
Principal

Reference : H.l~ine& G.Hutchinson (1993): Australian Earthquake Engineering Manual

Report on Geotechnicalinvestigation Project : 42055

Pro~osedAouavista Develoornent 8 August
. 2005
~ o t ' l New
l huay, ~ockfands
APPENDIX A

Drawings
 LEGEND:-

0 SITE LOCATION

COPYRIGHIMELWAYS
EDKION29, REPRODUCEDWITH
PERMlSSlON

SyUnw, N w ~ U * . Slfl~I.Lon,Czm&dh%vnr
Douglas Partners m a a n & uemourno, TomruHI* ~ l l m r ,
-
Qunkchnlw fm;mnmanI Grou~~dwaf~r f*-Lh, DaMI*m W ~ P ~ wUn 9S
me GENERAL LOCALITY PLAN
PROPOSED AQUAVISTA DEVELOPMENT (LOT I t )
NEW QUAY, DOCKLANDS
MEINNARDT IVIC.) PnLTD oFF'CE MELBOURNE
DRAWNBY: NA SCALE: NTS PROJECTNO.:42055 DF!AWINGNo.:
APPRUVED BY!
OAT= AUGUST 2005
 APPENDIX B

Borehole Logs
Photographs Rock Core
Notes Relating To This Report
 BOREHOLE LOG
CLIENT! Meinhardt MC.) Pty Ltd SURFACE LEVEL: 2.30 m AHD BORE No! BHI
PROJECT: Aquavista Development (Lot 11) EASTING: 318583 PROJECT No: 42055
LOCATION! New QUEIY, Docklands NORTHING; 5812570 DATE: 13-15 July 05
DIPIAZIMUTH: 90"l- SHEET 1 OF 4

Hydrogen Sulphide odwr

No Sample R~mwIy

RIG: Ploneef DRILLER: Urban Dfilling LOGGED: NA CASING: HI2 to dm, NQ to 30m
WPE OF BORING: SFA lo 4.5m. Washboring to 30.5m, NQ3 Coringfo34.8m
WATER OBSERVATIONS: Obscured by drilling fluid below 4.5m
REMARKS: AGO 66. Zone 55 -
26m east of Dopel Way, 17m north of Caravel Lane.

A
D
AU wmrnple
oiB?~B#SBmlB
SAMPLING 8 IN SlTUFzAg$ L&~;~~mc(wa~
D Pho~lnnllabOdBYMi
8 8~IXlamplv
LL TYWBBmpls ~mrndla)
W WUr~rmplo
S Shn34M BnBVBU:nlBII
PL '~lnllb&mnglh lli(J0) MPa
V Sh881V8n8lW4
Douglas Partners
C ComdnlRg C, WaI~rseep ? Waleilwsl
Geolechnlcs Fnvironmenl Grouniiwaler
 BOREHOLE LOG
CLIENT: Meinhardt (Vlc.) Pty Ltd SURFACE LEVEL: 2.30 rn AHD BORE No: BH1
PROJECT: Aquavista Development (Lot 11) EASTING: 318583 PROJECT No; 42055
LOCATION: New Quay, Docklands NORTHING: 5812590 DATE: 13-15 July 05
DIPIAZIMUTH: 9001- SHEET 2 OF 4

Dascription o Sanwllng &In Sltu TesUng Well

DepUl
2 (m) Of Conslruciion
Strata Details
low
SlLTf CLAY (CH): Firm. darkarw, shellfragmenk. 4 I -1'3.1 PO = 50 !@a
-v 1 I u,
1 1 -
10.5
I
I
-1%
I
I I
-11
-. I I/

RIG: Pioneer DRILLER: Urban Drilling LOGBED: NA CASING: HQto 4m.NQ to 30m
TYPE01: BORLNG: SFA t04.$m, Washborino to 30.5111,NQ3 Coring 10 3 4 . 8 ~
WATEROBSERVATIONS: Obscured by drilling flUld below4.5m
REMARICS! AGD 66.Zone 55 -
Z6m east of Dopel Way, 17m north of Caravel Lane.
SAMPLING & IN SlTU TESTING LEGEND
A Au iuc6am~1a PacUeIpe?slmsler wa]
0 ~)iLlbtdaBme 0 P h M bnBBllondsVLcW
6 BuMlmple
u Tubsebmpla m m m als.)
5 ~ l a m ~ p m m ul om 2
PL ~ e i n l l8VBng011#[501
~ MPB Douglas Partners
ul wamrms
c [~~B~MIUIO
v XMVVme0179
D wsleraesp ? W~IO~IWI .
Geolblennics. Envlranmenl Groundwater
 BOREHQLE LOG
CLIENT: Meinhardt (Vic.) Ply Ltd SURFACE LWEL: 2.30 m AHD BORE No: BHI
PROJECT: Aquavista Development (Lot 11) EASTING: 318583 PROJECT No: 42055
LOCATION: New Quay, Docklands NORTHING: 5812570 DATE: 13-15 July 05
DlPIAZIMUTH: 90'1- SHEET 3 OF 4

Description Sernpling & In S i Teeling well

DWlh
,! (m) of Consfruction
Strata Details
SlLW CLW (CL-C!): SW, dark grey, tmoe of Sne 4 1
-?. gra~nedsand. (wnf~nued) i I
I -20.5 pp = 170-180 kPa
MC = 229%
I I
I I u4.
-21
I I -21.0 -21
Slighmy sandy at Zlm. I I

294 -22
~':7

-23

N6SampIC R c h v

-24

9,tZ11
Nm2s
"'O Ddlingfluldloeanobdst rZ5
medium
deniarg quartz and siltsfonegravel,medium lo 23.5~lozsm
cwrse gralned sand, sllghtlysilu.

'26

6.1.4
N=S

-27

6,9,18
N-22 -za

-20

626.35
N-51

RIG: Pl0n881 DRILLER: Urban Drililng LOOCIED: NA CASING: HQ (0 4m, NQ to 30m

TlPE OF BORING: SFA lo 4.5m,Washboring to 30.5m,NQ3 Coring b34.8m
WATER OBSERVATIONS: Obscured by drilling fluid bslow 4.5m
REMARKS: AGD 86, Zone 55 - 26m east of Dopel Way, 17m north of Caravel Lane.
SAMPLING b IN 3lTU TES$$lN&Eg,N$srap.,
A h srnanplo
D ~iJUlbddam~1~ K O PblmlminllUon dmln&r
B BYMS~P:~
h ~ u b sample
5 ~umeatdanaMWhhal
PL wncdsB.Veng~h(m)wa Douglas Partners
.
e ptmneia)
W WBIOIP~D
-0 mndnare
v
b
mservsna (wa)
WBWS~~D :wafeti~~el .
Goofethnics Environmeni Groundwafor
 BOREHOLE LOG
CLIENT: Meinhardt (Vie.) Pty Ltd SURFACE LEVEL: 2.30 m AHD BORE No: BHI
PROJECT: Aquavista Development (Lot 11) EASTING; 318583 PROJECT No: 42055
LOCATION: New Quay. Docklands NORTHING: 5812570 DATE
~ .. . .JIIIV
..-. 13-15 .-. 05
DIPIAZIMUTH: 90% SHEET 4 OF 4 ' - -

RIG: Pioneer DRILLER: Urban Drllllng LOGGED: NA CASING HQto 4m, NQ to 30m
rYPE OF BORING: SFA 10 4.5m, Washboring to30.5m, NP3 Corlng to34.8m
WATER OBSERVATIONS: ObsCured by drilling fluid bebw 4.5m
REMARKS: AGD 66,Zone 55 - 26m east of Dopel Way, 17m north 01Caravel Lane.

SAMPLING &IN 6mU TESTING LEGEND

A AUgvHmplO P P x B l p~noWnslerap@
D D'hluhdrqplo P b PMl?lonlmUmnddoElw
PL ~Ck~lO~bnglh Douglas Partners
.
3 SLWdsld c W 4 8 4&(HI]
1 b S I M78
~$u~Zfmdle) v
y b I W.!~IISVPI
%arVm*P*
WBldftb.~
Geobchnics Environment. Groundwater
 BOREHOLE LOG
CLIENT: Meinhardt (Vic) Pty Ltd SURFACE LEVEL: 1.95 m AHD BORE No: BH2
PROJECT Aquavista Development (Lot 11) EASTING: 318570 PROJECT No: 42055
LOCATION: New Quay, Docklands NORTHING: 5812594 DATE: 15-19 July 05
OIPIMMUTH: 90'1- SHEET 1 OF 4

HYdtOQensurpniue ocour.

RIG: Ploneer DRILLER: Urban Drilling LOGGED: NA CASING: Hat0 1.5m. NQ to 30m
TYPE OF BORING: SFA to 3m, Washboring to morn, NQ3 Coring lo 35.21".
WATER OBSERVATIONS: Obscured by drillingfluldbelow 3m.
REMARKS: AGD 66, Zone 55 -
21.5m east of Dopel Way,1 7 . 5 ~south of Dooklands Drive.
SAMPLING B I N SLTU TESTING LEGEND
A
D
AUgBlldmplB
Dislum8as~m~ie
~7 ~~~=l~~nPOOm~l~rlw~l
D Phdolonldnndplq~~
B Eulkzalw~o slonasm cnelsbntsr~
u rubs amm wmmf~.)
vi ~awrample
B
PL ~ o i n t ~ ~ ~ ldco)
B ~ Mpa
h ~ ~ l h Douglas Partners
C Camdlhg
v shsrvvmmpa)
0 welareem i wrlcr#~~l
.
Geotachnics fivimnment Groundwater
 BOREHOLE LOG
CLIENT: Meinhardt (Vic.) Pty Ltd SURFACE LEVEL: 1.95 m AHD BORE No: BH2
PROJECT: Aquavista Development (Lot II) EASTINO; 318570 PROJECT No: 42055
LOCATION: New Quay, Docklands NORTHING: 5812584 DATE: 15-19 July 05
DIPIAZIMUTH: 90'1- SHEET 2 OF 4

RIG: Pioneer DRILLER: Urban Drilling LOGGED: NA CASING: HCL LO 1.5m, NCI to 30m
TVPEOF BORING; SFA to 3rn. Washboring to 3 0 . 0 ~ NQ3
. Coring lo 35.2m.
WATER OBSERVATIONS: Obscured by drilling fluid below 3m.
REMARKS: AGD 68,Zone 55 - 21.5m east Of Dopel Way, 17.5m SOUUS Of Rocklands D r i i .
SAMPLING
A IN SlTU TES~$~~~lN~~m,D,,
AYgBrsBmPIe
o ola~umeosewle Y!SO SeoEatdpeFeUarae
~ t m ~ o b m s d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E '
wt
Douglas Partners
C
%$!&rnmaia)
Cand"linp
PL PdnlI~~~~sn~lhl~l$O)MPa
: @KEwd? wmr~ml
. -
Geotechnios Environment Groundwater
 BOREHOLE LOG
CLIENT: Meinhardi (Vie.) Pty Ltd SURFACE LEVEL: 1.95 rn AHD BORE No: BH2
PROJECT: Aquavlsta Development (Let 11) EASTING: 318570 PROJECT No: 42055
LOCATION: New Quay, Docklands NORTHING: 5812584 DATE: 15-19 July 05
OIPIAZIMUTH: 90'1- SHEET 3 OF 4

Desvlption .-
u Samrrline B IP Sib Teeting Well
kPb
(m) of
Strata
---
E~uils.
ommen=
1 Construdion
Details

3.4.6
N=lO

-21

Very Mf,eand increasingat 22m.

PP -
aoo k ~ a
MC = zs.a-6 -22

-23

81112
NrZ3

-24

11.10.19
-26
N=29

-a

q2.18.40
N=58

-27

6.8.12
N=20 -28

-28

5,9,17
N=Z6

MC = 5.6%.

RIG: Pioneer DRILLER: Urban Drilling LOGGED: NA CASINF; HP to 1.5rn, NQ Lo 30m

W E OF BORING: SFA to 3m. Washboring to 30.0m. NQ3 Coring to 35.2m.
WATER OBSERVATIONS; Obscured by drilling fluid below 3m.
REMARKS: AGO 66, Zone 55 -
21.5m east of Dopel Way, 17.5m south of Oodclands Drive.
SAMPLING &IN SlTU TESTING LEGEND
A Awelem~le byo mP ha dopl c~nhon~ ml ~dewchr
makr(wq
o USNRBESS~~IS ~li~
s svlnam ensmuonlee
B
u
auikawple
~ (2 mm aia)
T U umpla FL ~~ininll~~8~bqm ~ s ( ~ o ) w a Douglas Partners
4
C
Wawr$ampla
Corc~llng
V
b
ShsarVmm @Pa)
n'amrmlip ? Walailwel .
Geokohnics .Efl~ifonmenl.Groundwater
 BOREHOLE LOG
CLIENT: Melnhardt (Vic.) Pty Ltd SURFACE LEVEL: 1.95 m AHD BORE No: BH2
PROJECT: Aquavista Development (Lot 11) EASTINO. 318570 PROJECT No: 42055
LOCATION; New Quay, Docklands NORTHING: 5872594 DATE: 15-19 July 05
DIPIAZIMUTH: Boo/- SHEET 4 OF 4

RIG: Pioneer DRILLER: Urban Dfllling LOGGED: NA CASING: HQfo 1.5m,NQ to 30m
TYPE OF BORINt: SFAfo 3m,Washboring to 30.0rn. NQ3 CodnQ- to 35.2m.
WATER OBSERVATIONS: Obscured by drilling fluid below3m.
REMARKS: AGD 66,Zone55 -
21.5m east of Dopel Way, 17.5m south of Docklands Drive.
SAMPLING &IN SITUTESTING LEGEND
A A" rrrmpl. PO P M B I ~ B ~ B V ~ ~ ~ I ~ , ( ~ )
o a&aa,.~~ Pi0 PhmllNbSGMdalddC
B BulklmpP
U T*n=rnpln l x r n m a )
vJ
C
rnkrswpb
CO,a.¶"l1m
6 S m ~ r n ~ n n w m ~ e ~
PL Punllo~d8MfiOUI II(Ec))MPr
V 8hmrvmewa)
Douglas Partners
6 Waietlmsl
4 Groundwater
D WBIB1688P
G @ o / ~ c ~ Environm~ni
~~os
 BOREHOLE LOG
CLIENT: Meinhardt (Vic.) Pty Lid SURFACE LEVEL: 2.31 m AHD BORE No: BH3
PROJECT: Aquavista Development (Lot 11) EASTING: 318574 PROJECT No: 42055
LOCATION: New Quay, Docklands NORTHING: 5812581 DATE: 4 Aug 05
DIPIAZIMUTH: 90"/-- SHEET 1 OF 1

Coode Island Sill

Dahgrey at 1.8m.

RJm Pianeer DRILLER: Urban Drliling LOGGED: NA CASING

TYPEOF BORING: SOlld Fllghl Auger
W A E R OBSERVATIONS: Water Seep at 1.6m
REMARKS: -
ADD %,Zone55 10.5m bast Of Dopel Way, 8.5m north of Caravel Lane
SAMPLING & IN SlTU TESTlNG LEGFNP
A AVQBrBBmolB
D Dlwmea ssmp~iis !yD pBpg,"~",m;;~&~I
B Bldkssmws s sunu~w~~n~~a~~~~nsi
U
d
0
Tlde sampk b m m ma.)
waeraample
oasdrilrw
PL POI~llO~~lV~n9U116l501
v M B C V ~[Wa)
O
MFB
I WBIB,I(~BI
Douglas Parfners
?
! WBVJliieSO
Geofechnlcs Envlronmenl .Groundwafer
 BOREHOLE LOG
CLIENT: Meinhardt (Vie.) Pty Ltd SURFACE L N E L : 2.19 rn AHD BORE No: BH4
PROJECS: Aquavista Development (Lot 11) EASTING: 318568 PROJECT No: 42055
LOCATION: New Quay, Docklands NORTHING! 58125B2 DATE: 4 Aug 05
DIPIAZIMUTH: 90%- SHEET 1 OF 1

RIG: Ploneet DRILLER: Urban Drilllng LOGGED: NA CASING:

T P E OF BORING: Solid Flight Auger
WATER OBSERVATIONS: Water Seep at 1.5m
REMARKS: -
AGD 66, Zone 55 10.5m east of DopelWay, 27m norlh of Caravel Lane
SAMPLING & IN S I T U TES~~Tl,p"EG;~;er
A AUQslTmPIo
D cktuaodz~plm EDp ~ o b ~ n a a oa en u I E )
0 0skr=mplo S SsMsa ~ w V B l l m m ~ 1
Douglas Partners
U
vJ
C
lMBSBmpIe
wmrasmple
Cmamoo
IXmmdl&) PL ~ o i n l l m t 3 h O g ~ t( s PM) P ~
v
P
shnarvama &?a)
Walaracap a Wawrlevs .
Geoleclnim Environment. Groundwater
 BOREHOLE LOG
CLIENT: Msinhardt (Vie.) Pty Ltd SURFACE LEVEL: 1.71 m AHD BORE No: BH5
PROJECT: Aquavista Development (Lot 11) EASTINO: 318560 PROJECT No: 42055
LOCATION: New Quay, Docklands NORTHING: 5812616 DATE: 19 July 05
DIPIAZIMUTH: 90'1-- SHEET I OF 1

Coode Island Sllt

RIG; Pioneer DRILLER: Urban Drilling LOGGED: NA CASING:

W E OF BORING: Solid Fl$ht Auger
WATER OBSERVATIONS: Waier Seep at 1.5m
REMARKS: -
AGD 66, Zone 55 13.5m east of Dopel Way, 10.5m south of DoctlandsDrive..
SAMPLING &IN SITU ~ST~~,".",~T;~i(LPs)
A Awe,sswle
0 OBlUn)e6PBmP40 LID Pll~l~ionlBBUon~slBmr
B
U.
w
~ u m p l e
fib zrrnpk (u mm 6s)
W P W I ~ P ~
S Sbndtd nal+alibnlest
v
PL ~ m t l o ~ f i a n g L h l 1 ( 5 0 ) ~ ~ s
G n o i l r V ~ ~ ( k P walarleval
4~
Douglas Partners
C are M l t n ~ b WSIBITCOP Geokchnics Efl!dronmenl. Groundwafer
 BOREHOLE LOG
CLIENT: Meinhardt (Vie.) Pty Ltd SURFACE LEVEL: 2.04 m AHD BORE No: BH6
PROJECT: Aquavista Development (Lot 11) EASTING: 318580 PROJECT No: 42055
LOCATION; New Quay, DocWands NORTHING: 5812624 DATE: 4 Aug 05
DIPIAZIMUTH: 90"l- SHEET 1 OF 1

dark grey, moist, basalflc,20mm mm. size.

Coode Island Sill

RIG: Pioneer DRILLER: Urban Drilling LOGGED: NA CASING:

TYPE OF BORING: Solid Flight Augec
WATER OBSERVATIONS: Water Seep at t.8m
REMARKSI AGD 66, Zone 55 -
34.5111east of bopelWay, 13.5111souih of OocKlands Drive

Douglas Partners
.
Geofechnics Environment -Groundwater
 BOREHOLE LOG
CLIENT: Meinhardt (Vlc.) Pty Ltd SURFACE LEVEL: 2.16 m AHD BORE No: BH7
PROJECT: Development (Lot 11)
Aquavista EASTING: 318589 PROJECT No: 42055
LOCATION: ~ e auay,
w Docklands NORTHING: 5812608 DATE: 4 A U 05
~
DIPIAZIMUTH: 90'1-- SHEET 1 OF I

dark grey, moist, ba6alb'o. ZOmm max. size.

Coode Island Sllt

RIG: Pioneer DRILLER: Urban Drllllng LOGGED: NA CASING:

TYPE OF BORING: SOlld Flight Auger
WATEROBSERVATIONS: Water Seep at 1.5m
REMAN:
--
AGD 6 6 . Z o n e 55 -
42.5111east of Dopel Way, 28m north of Caravel Lano
SAMPLING & IN SlTU ;IESTl{G$E$:$nr(w
A AUPBlsamflB
D OtB~sblBmPIe P ~ OP h m lbnbUadole&:'
B Bukasmple
u
d
C
rubs armfila (xmn ais.)
watnaample
Ewl6rn"D
S Sbndudponolrs6on lOLl
V 6nsrrVonshPa)s wa,w laml
h h1Pa
PL P 0 l m L ~ a 6 U B n ~lk[fOl Douglas Partners
b m,"rioop
Geoieohnics Environment. Groundwater
 BOREHOLE LOG
CLIENT: Meinhardt vic.)Pty Ltd SURFACE LEVEL: 2.24 rn AHD BORE No: BHB
PROJECT: Aquavista Development (Lot II) EASTING: 318598 PROJECT No: 42055
LOCATION: New Quay. Docklands NORTHING: 5812601 DATE: 4 Aug 05
DIPIAZIMUTH: 80'1-- SHEET 1 OF 1

RIG: Pioneer DRILLER: Urban Dfilling LOWED: NA CASING:

lYPE OF BORING: Solid Flight Auger
WATER OQSERVATIONS: Water Seep at 1.6m
REMARKS: AGD 66.Zone55 - 42.5m east of Dopel Way, 8.5m mrth of Caravel Lane.

Douglas Partners ,
.
Geofechnlcs Environment = Groundwafer
 BOREHOLE LOG
CLIENT: Meinhardt (Vic.) Pty Ltd SURFACE LEVEL: 2.20 rn AHD BORE NO: BHB
PROJECT: Aquavista Development (Lot 11) EASTING: 318577 PROJECT No: 42055
LOCATION: New Quay, Docklands NORTHING; 5812603 DATE: 4Aug 05
DIPIAZIMUTH: 90'1- SHEET I OF 1

RIG: Pioneer DRILLER Urban Dlilllng LOGGED: NA

TYPE OF BORING: Solid FlightAuger
WATER OBSERVATIONS: Water Seep al1.6m
REMARKS: -
AGD 66, Zone 55 26rn east of DopelWay, 27m norlh of Caravel Lane
SAMPLING &INSlTU TESTING LEGEND
A A" "rsmpl. PWkcIPensMmBWriUPal
D m8Lb6d'8Llrnpld Ph~rnlmI~~U~d-~
8
u,
8~8801pl8
r u a e a s w ~ e(xmm aia)
S SUVII(BM BneVaGmlal(
Douglas Partners
-
h ~ ~LIPa
PL ~ 6 m l l b a ~ ~I.(~Q l h
W WsDrsmple V Sbarvana @pa)
C CPreCmnn~ D WBYXLldeP ? W.l~rbunl
Geotechnlcs Envlronmenl .Groundwater
 BOREHOLE LOG
CLIENT: Meinhardt Wc.) Pty Ltd SURFACE LEVEL: 2.36 m AHD BORE No: BHlO
PROJECT: Aquavista Development (Lot 11) EASTING: 318571 PROJECT No: 42055
LOCATION: New Quay, Docklands NORTHING: 5812612 DATE: 4 Aug 05
DIPIAZIMUTH: 90'1- SHEET I OF 1

RIO: Pl0n~el DRILLER.Urban Drilling LOGGED: NA CASING:

lYPE OF BORING: Solid Flight Auger
WATER OBSERVATIONS: Water Seep at l.5m
REMARKS: AGD 66, Zone 55 - 26m east of Dopel Way. 34.5m north of Caravel Lane.

U]Douglas
)
. Partners
-
Geoleohnies Environment Groundwater
MA6 Docklands - Lot I 1 Project : 42055

MAB Docklands - Lot I 1

Douglas Partners
. .
Ceofechnics Fnvironmenl Groundwafer
 Douglas Partners
Geotechnics Environment Groundwater
NOTES RELATING TO THIS REPORT
Introduction Rock types are classified by their geological names.
Where relevant, further information regarding rock
These notes have been provided to amplify the
classification is given on the following sheet.
geotechnical report in regard to classification methods.
specialist field procedures and certain matters relating to
the Discussion and Comments section. Not all, of course, Sampling
are necessarily relevant to all reports.
Sampling is carried out during drllling to allow
Geotechnical reports are based on information gained
engineering examination (and laboratory testing where
from limited subsurface test boring and sampling,
required) of the soil or rock.
supplemented by knowledge of local geology and
Disturbed samples taken during drilling provide
experience. For this reason, they must be regarded as
information on colour, type, inclusions and, depending
interpretive ratherthan factual documents, limited to some
upon the degree of disturbance, some infomation on
extent by theswpe of information on which they rely.
strength and structure.
Undisturbed samples are taken by pushing a thin-
walled sample tube into the soil and withdrawing with a
Description and Classification M e t h o d s sample of the soil in a relatively undisturbed state. Such
The methods of description and classification of soiis samples yield information on structure and strength, and
and rocks used in this report are based on Australian are necessary for laboratory determination of shear
Standard 1726, Geotechnical Site Investigations Code. In strength and compressibility. Undisturbed sampling is
general, descriptions cover the following properties - generally effective only in cohesive soils.
strength or density, colour, structure, soil or rock type and Details of the type and method of sampling are given in
inclusions. the report.
Soil types are described according to the predominating
particle size, qualified by the grading of other particles
present (eg. sandy clay) on the following bases: Drilling Methods.
The following is a brief summary of drilling methods
Soil Classification Particle Size
currently adopted by the Company and some comments
Clay less than 0.002 mm
on their use and application.
Silt 0.002 to 0.06 mm
Sand
Gravel
0.06 to 2.00 mm
2.00 to 60.00 mm
Test Pits - these are excavated with a backhoe or a
tracked excavator, allowing close examination of the
Cohesive soiis are classified on the basis of strength in-situ soils if it is safe to descent into the pit. The depth of
either by laboratory testing or engineering examination. penetration is limited to about 3 m for a backhoe and up to
The strength terms are defined as follows. 6 m for an excavator. A potential disadvantage is the
disturbance caused by the excavation.
Undrained
Classification
Very soft
Shear Strength kPa
less than 12
Large Diameter Auger (eg. Pengo) -
the hole is
advanced by a rotating plate or short spiral auger.
Soft 12-25 generally 300 mm or larger in diameter. The cuttings are
Firm 25-50 returned to the surface at intervals (generally of not more
Stiff 50-100 than 0.5 m) and are disturbed but usually unchanged in
Very stiff loo--200 moisture content. Identification of soil strata is generally
Hard Greater than 200 much more reliable than with continuous spiral flight
Non-cohesive soils are classified on the basis of relative augers, and is usually supplemented by occasional
density, generally from the results of standard penetration undisturbed tube sampling.
tests (SPT) or Dutch cone penetrometer tests (CPT) as
below:
Continuous Sample Drilling -the hole is advanced by
pushing a 100 mm diameter socket into the ground and
SPT CPT withdrawing it at intervals to extrude the sample. This is
Relative Density " N Value Cone Value the most reliable method of drilling in soils, since moisture
(blows1300 mm) (q, - MPa) content is unchanged and soil structure, strength, etc. is
Very loose less than 5 less than 2 only marginally affected.
Loose 5--10 2-5
Medium dense 1&30 5-1 5 Continuous Spiral Flight Augers - the hole is
Dense 30-50 15-25 advanced using 90-115 mm diameter continuous spiral
Very dense greater than 50 greater than 25 flight augers which are withdrawn at intervals to allow
sampling or in-situ testing. This is a relatively economical

Issued: October 1998 Page 1 of 4

 Douglas Partners
GeOtecnnlm. Environment Groundwater
means of drilling in clays and in sands above the water
table. Samples are returned to the surface, or may be
collected after withdrawal of the auger flights, but they are
very disturbed and may be contaminated. Information
from the drilling (as distinct from specific sampling by
SPTs or undisturbed samples) is of relatively lower
reliability, due to remoulding, contamination or softening of
samples by ground water.
Noncore Rotary Drilling -
the hole is advanced by a
rotary bit, with water being pumped down the drill rods
and returned up the annulus, carrying the drill cuttings.
Only major changes in stratification can be determined
from the cuttings, together with some information from
'feel' and rate of penetration.
Rotary Mud Drilling - similar to rotary drilling, but using
drilling mud as a circulating fluid. The mud tends to mask
the cuttings and reliable identification is again only
possible from separate intact sampling (eg. from SPT).
Continuous Core Drilling - a continuous core sample
is obtained using a diamond-tipped core barrel, usually
50 mm internal diameter. Provided full core recovery is
achieved (which is not always possible in very weak rocks
and granular soils), this technique provides a very reliable
(but relatively expensive) method of investigation.
Standard Penetration Tests
Standard penetration tests (abbreviated as SPT) are
used mainly in non-cohesive soils, but occasionally also in
cohesive soils as a means of determining density or
strength and also of obtaining a relatively undisturbed
sample. The test procedure is described in Australian
Standard 1289, "Methods of Testing Soils for Engineering
Purposes" -Test 6.3.1.
The test is carried out in a borehole by driving a 50 mm
diameter split sample tube under the impact of a 63 kg
hammer with a free fall of 760 mm. It is normal for the
tube to be driven in three successive 150 mm increments
and the 'N' value is taken as the number of blows for the
last 300 mm. In dense sands, very hard clays or weak
rock, the full 450 mm penetration may not be practicable
and the test is discontinued.
The test results are reported in the following form.
In the case where full penetration is obtained with
successive blow counts for each 150 mm of say 4, 6
and 7
as 4, 6 , 7
N=13
In the case where the test is discontinued short of full
penetration, say afler 15 blows for the first 150 mm and
30 blows for the next 40 mm
as 15, 30140 mm.
The results of the tests can be related empirically to the
engineering properties of the soil.
Occasionally, the test method is used to obtain samples
in 50 mm diameter thin walled sample tubes in clays. In
Issued: October 1998
such circumstances, the test results are shown on the
borelogs in brackets.
C o n e Penetrometer Testing and lnterpretation
Cone penetrometer testing (sometimes referred to as
Dutch cone - abbreviated as CPT) described in this
report has been carried out using an electrical friction
cone penetrometer. The test is described in Australian
Standard 1289, Test 6.4.1.
In the tests, a 35 mm diameter rod with a cone-tipped
end is pushed continuously into the soil, the reaction
being provided by a specially designed truck or rig which
is ftted with an hydraulic ram system. Measurements are
made of the end bearing resistance on the cone and the
friction resistance on a separate 130 mm long sleeve.
immediately behind the cone. Transducers in the tip of the
assembly are connected by electrical wires passing
through the centre of the push rods to an amplifier and
recorder unit mounted on the control truck.
As penetration occurs (at a rate of approximately
20 mm per second) the information is plotted on a
computer screen and at the end of the test is stored on
the computer for later plotting of the results.
The information provided on the plotted results
comprises: -
Cone resistance -the actual end bearing force divided
by the cross sectional area of the cone - expressed in
MPa.
Sleeve friction - the frictional force on the sleeve
divided by the surface area -expressed in kPa.
Friction ratio - the ratio of sleeve friction to cone
resistance, expressed in percent.
There are two scales available for measurement of
cone resistance. The lower scale (0-4 MPa) is used in
very sofl soils where increased sensitivity is required and
is shown in the graphs as a dotted line. The main scale
( G 5 0 MPa) is less sensitive and is shown as a full line.
The ratios of the sleeve friction to cone resistance will
vary with the type of soil encountered, with higher relative
friction in clays than in sands. Friction ratios of 1%-2%
are commonly encountered in sands and very sofl clays
rising to 4%-10% In stiff clays.
In sands, the relationship between cone resistance and
SPTvalue is commonly in the range:-
q, (MPa) = (0.4 to 0.6) N (blows per 300 mm)
In clays, the relationship between undrained shear
strength and cone resistance is commonly in the range:-
q, = (12to 1 8 ) ~ "
lnterpretation of CPT values can also be made to allow
estimation of modulus or compressibility values to allow
calculation of foundation settlements.
Inferred stratification as shown on the attached reports
is assessed from the cone and friction traces and from
experience and information from nearby boreholes, etc.
This information is presented for general guidance, but
must be regarded as being to some extent interpretive.
The test method provides a continuous profile of
engineering properties, and where precise information on
Page 2 of 4
tn
f ) Douglas Partners
Geolechnln~Envimnment Gro~ndwdler
soil classitication is required, direct drilling and sampling
may be preferable.
Hand Penetrometers
Hand penetrometer tests are carried out by driving a
rod into the ground with a falling weight hammer and
measuring the blows for successive 150 mm increments
of penetration. Normally, there is a depth limitation of
1.2m but this may be extended in certain conditions by
the use of extension rods.
Two relatively similar tests are used.
Perth sand penetrometer - a 16 mm diameter flat-
ended rod is driven with a 9 kg hammer, dropping
600 mm (AS 1289. Test 6.3.3). This test was
developedior testing the density bf sands (originating in
Perth) and is mainly used in granular soils and filling.
Cone penetrometer (sometimes known as the Scala
Penetrometer) - a 16 mm rod with a 20 mm diameter
cone end is driven with a 9 kg hammer dropping
510 mm (AS 1289, Test 6.3.2). The test was
developed initially for pavement subgrade
investigations, and published correlations of the test
results with California bearing ratio have been
published by various Road Authorities.
Laboratory Testing
Laboratory testing is carried out in accordance with
Australian Standard 1289 "Methods of Testing Soil for
Engineering Purposes". Details of the test procedure
used are given on the individualreport forms.
Bore Logs
The bore logs presented herein are an engineering
andlor geological interpretation of the subsurface
conditions, and their reliability will depend to some extent
on frequency of sampling and the method of drilling.
Ideally, continuous undisturbed sampling or core drilling
will provide the most reliable assessment, but this is not
always practicable, or possible to justify on economic
grounds. In any case, the boreholes represent only a very
small sample of the total subsurface profile.
Interpretation of the information and its application to
design and construction should therefore take into
account the spacing of boreholes, the frequency of
sampling and the possibility of other than 'straight line'
variations between the boreholes.
Ground Water
Where ground water levels are measured in boreholes.
there are several ~otenlialprobems;
In low permeability soils. ground water although
present, may enter the hole slowly or perhaps not at all
during the time it is left open.
A localised perched water table may lead to an
erroneous indication of the true water table.
Issued: October 1998
. Water table levels will vary from time to time with
seasons or recent weather changes. They may not be
the same at the time of construction as are indicated in
the report.
The use of water or mud as a drilling fluid will mask any
ground water inflow. Water has to be blown out of the
hole and drilling mud must first be washed out of the
hole if water observations are to be made.
More reliable measurements can be made by installing
standpipes which are read at intervals over several days,
or perhaps weeks for low permeability soils. Piezometers,
sealed in a particular stratum, may be advisable in low
permeability soils or where there may be interference from
a perched water table.
Engineering Reports
Engineering reports are prepared by qualified personnel
and are based on the information obtained and on current
engineering standards of interpretation and analysis.
Where the report has been prepared for a specific design
proposal (eg. a three storey building), the information and
interpretation may not be relevant if the design proposal is
changed (eg. to a twenty storey building). If this happens,
the Company will be pleased to review the report and the
sufficiency of the investigation work.
Every care is taken with the report as it relates to
interpretation of subsurface condition, discussion of
geotechnical aspects and recommendations or
suggestions for design and construction. However, the
Company cannot always anticipate or assume
responsibilityfor:
unexpected variations in ground conditions - the
potential for this will depend partly on bore spacing and
sampling frequency
changes in policy or interpretation of policy by statutory
authorities
the actions of contractors responding to commercial
pressures.
If these occur, the Company will be pleased to assist
with investigationor advice to resolve the matter.
Site Anomalies
In the event that conditions encountered on site during
construction appear to vary from those which were
expected from the information contained in the report, the
Company requests that it immediately be notified. Most
problems are much more readily resolved when conditions
are exposed than at some later stage, well afler the event.
Reproduction of Information for
Contractual Purnoses
Attention is drawn to the document "Guidelines for the
Provision of Geotechnical Information in Tender
Documents", published by the Institution of Engineers.
Australia. Where information obtained from this
investigation is provided for tendering purposes, it is
Page 3 of 4
 Douglas Partners
Ceoterhnl~~.
Fnvlmnmbnt. GmYndwt#r

recommended that all information, including the written

report and discussion, be made available. In
circumstances where the discussion or comments section
is not relevant to the contractual situation, it may be
appropriate to prepare a specially edited document. The
Company would be pleased to assist in this regard andlor
to make additional- report copies available for contract
purposes at a nominal charge.

Site Inspection
The Company will always be pleased to provide
engineering inspection services for geotechnical aspects
of work to which this report is related. This could range
from a site visit to confirm that conditions exposed are as
expected, to full time engineering presence on site.

Copyright O 1998 Douglas Partners Ply Ltd

Issued: October 1998 Page 4 of 4

 APPENDIX C

Laboratory Test Certificates

 Douglas Partners FfyUd P O Box 4155
ABN 75 053980 717 Richmond VIC 3127
Douglas Partners
Geotechnics .Environment .@foundwater
mBfiQhton,, Phone (03) 9428 1831
,
Richmond viC 3727 F ~ : (03) 9428 7841
Upmelb@d~uef8spsfloe~.m.a~1

RESULTS OF POINT LOAD STRENGTH INDEX TEST

CIient: Meihhardt Project No: 42055

Report No: m0505202
Project: Aquavista (Lot 1 I ) Report Date: 27-Jul-2005

Date Sampled: 13-Jul-2005

Locatioil: New Quay, Docklands Date of Test: 26-JuI-2005
Page: lofl

Saturated
Description Failure Moisture
'Ore
Depth Of
Test Failure
I Load 1. ( J
content
(m) Rock Type Mode
Pit (N)
(MPa) (MPa,
(%I
30.64-
30.75
Siltstone A 164 P 0.094 0.09 3.5
32.78-
32.89
Siltstone A 904 M 0.602 0.54 3.1.
34.76-
34.80
Siltstone A 3863 M 2.070 1.94 2.5

BH2 30.53-
30.66 Siltstone A 740 M 0.514 0.45 5.6
32.72-
BH2 31.82 Siltstone A 2548 M 1.493 1.37 4.5
32.91-
BH2 33.02 Siltstone A 2383 M 1.560 1.40 3.7
BH2 35.1-35.2 Siltstone A 2466 M 2.022 1.72 3.4

-
Test Method(s):AS4133.4.1 1993,AS 1289.1.3.1~Clause3.1.6.3
i Sampling Tecknlque: Dlamond CO(ing

Remark: Failure Mode: T v ~ eof Test

*
P = Plane ofweakness A-kial
ze B = Bedding
M = Matrix
D- Diameiral
L - Lump
z
-, C = Combination
;
2
5 Approved Signatory:
NATAAooredited Laboratory
Nvmbec 517 Michael Braise
~Isaoarrneasnail n a b s
NATA~nd~~cdlcnr~portl
reprw~eea,ezcepl h rull,
 Douglas Partners Pty Ltd PO BOX 4755
ABN 75 053980 71 7 Richmond VIC 3227
Doug!as Partners mBm&et
Rlchmond VIC 3127
tio one (03) 9428 7837
F (03)9428 7841
Geofechnics Environment Groundwatsr Avslralia dpmefb@~ou~las~aw~~~s,mm.au

RESULTS OF MOISTURE CONTENT TEST

Client: Meinhardt Project No: 42055

Report No: m0505201
Project: Aquavista (Lot 11) Report Date: 1-Aug-2005

Date Sampled: 13-Jul-2005

Location: New Quay, Docklands Date of Test: 25-Jul-2005
Page: 1of1

TEST DEPTH MOISTURE

LOCATION (m) DESCRIPTION CONTENT
("4
BHT 4-4.5 Silty CLAY, dark grey 39.0
BH1
BH1
--
7 7.5
11.5 12.0
Silty CLAY, darkgrey
Silty CLAY, dark grey
77.1
72.0
BHI -
16 16.5 Silty CLAY, dark grey 75.5
BHI -
17.5 18.0 Silty CLAY, dark brown 28.6
BH1 -
20.5 21.O Silty CLAY, brownlgrey 22.9
BH2 14.5 - 14.55 Silty CLAY, dark grey 60.2
BH2 16.0 - 16.4 Silty CLAY, dark grey 80.6
BH2
BH2 --
17.5 18.0
22.0 22.35
Silty CLAY, dark grey
Silty CLAY, greylbrown
29.4
25.8

;
0
Test Method(s): AS 1289.2.1.1
Sampling Method@): AS 1289.1.3.1-Clause 3.1.3.2, AS 1289.1.1-2001
8
3 Remarks:
iIw
B

Approved Signatory:
NATA Accredited Laboratory
Number: 517
N A T A ~ M O ~ Sicsircport.
;~ ~ i u aocurnsni
s shell oa be Michael Broise
B rwD6,tea. exc$ptiniuU
 Your Ref: 42055
5 August 2005
Douglas Partners Pty Lfd OrderNo: 56845
68 Brighton Street
Date Received: 2W0712005
RICHMOND VIC 3121

Attention: Mr. Nioholas Alexander

Certificate of Analysis
WSL Report Number: 842325

Chloride APHA 4500 CL-.B

pH APHA 4500 H B
Sulphate APHA.4500-S04.E

Results partain to samples as received

Details of this report were e-mailed on: 5/05/2005

Yours faithfully
WSL consultants Pty Ltd

Michael Clahsen
Cllent Manager

This laboratoryis accredited by the NationalAasooiation of

Testing Auihwifies, Australla. The tests reported herein have
beon perlofmed in aomrdan~ewith its terms af accreditallon.
This dacumenl shall not be reproduced except in hrll.
Amditetlon No 1205
WSL Consul!nu& Pty.Ltd. mdhg ZB Em+@ !&&onmental
ABN 49 004752 676 Page 1 of 2
2 4 Harvey S b e e t B k b m d dVim& 3 1 2 1 , A u s ~ A NATA Accredited hb-inv
Telephone C613 9429 4666 Fw'eesimie +613 9429 2294 An A p p d EPA Auditoz Aodpz
melboume@emwiac.mm.au Web P w www,cco.aisc.-eu
 Health-Based Soil Investiaation Levels

Table I l - A

Proposed Health-baseda Soil Guidelines for Individual Substances

Substance Health-based Investigation ~ e v e l s ~ Health-based
(mg/kg) Response Levels
(ma/&)
A BC cd D E P
A k i n + Dieldrin 10 40 20 50
Arsenic (total) 100 400 200 500
Benzo(a) pyrene 1 4 2 5
Beryllium 20 80 40 100
Boron 3000 12000 6000 15000
Cadmium 20 80 40 100
Chlordane 50 200 100 250
Chromium(1II)~' 12% 48% 24% 60%
Chromium (VI) 100 400 200' 500
Cobalt 100 400 200 500
Copper 1000 4000 2000 5000
Cyanides (complexed)Q 500 2000 1000 2500
Cyanides (free) Q 250 1000 500 1250
DDT+DDD+DDE 200 800 400 1000
Heptachlor 10 40 20 50
Lead 300 1200 600 1500
Manganese 1500 6000 3000 7500
M e t h y l mercuryh 10 40 20 50
Mercury (inorganic)* 15 60 30 75
Nickel 600 2400 6001 3000
Polycyclic aromatic 20 80 40 100
hydrocarbons (PAHs)
PCBs (total) 10 40 20 50
Phenol ' 8500 34000 17000 42500
Total petroleum
hydrocarbonsk
iC16-C35 aromatics 90 360 180 450
bC16-C35 aliphatics 5600 22400 11200 28000
iC35 aliphatics 56000 224000 112000 280000
Zlnc 7000 28000 14000 35000

= A draft methodology for the derivation of Ecological InvestigationLevels is available from Environment Australia
See exoosuresettinqsdetailed in Section 11 and Tavlor and Lanqlev- .(1998)
S tc and contaminail spec3f.c: on-sltc samp ing lsihe preferreo approach for cstlrnatlng po.. try an0 p.ant uprake. Exposure
estlrnates may rhcn becompared lo lne relevant ADS. P1W.s an0 GDs.
"Site and contaminant specific: on-site samolina is the oreferred aooroach for estimatins - .plant uotake. Exposure estimates mav
then bc compare0 to me relcvant ADis. 6iWi an0 GDS
" Neea to ensure valcncy srate by site htsrory/ anaiys s/ mowlcdgc of cnvlronmental benav our
f Soil Uiscoiourationmav occur at these concentrations
' Skin contact resulting in exacerbation of pre-existing skin sensitisation is the critical effect and recreational use is considered
the same as residential use because ofthe skin contact opportunities
-
See Cvanides [free and comolexed) oq 29. The nature of the cyanides on a site must be assessed. To use the HIL for comolexed
cyarl dcs, no more than a flve per cent of frcc cyanides shoulo be present (and v cc versa for frcc cyantdes)
" Neell to cnsure form of s-bnance by s re n story/ analysts/ knowledge of envlronmcnlal bcnavlour
1 Odours and skin irritation mav occur at lower, as vet undetermined, concentrations. PVC pipes . . -
may be affected at hiqh
concentrations with possible aiverse effects on the water therein.
*These HlLs refer to the noncarcinogenic component and should be used according to the two-stage framework detailed on

Schedule B (7A) - Guideline on Health Based Investigation Levels 11

28 October 2005
Project No. 43294855
HLA-Envirosciences Pty Ltd
46 Clarendon Street
South Melbourne, VIC, 3205

Attention: Michael Seignoir

EPA Auditor (Contaminated Land)

Dear Michael,
Subject: MAB Aquavista Development - Background Groundwater Quality

As discussed during the meeting of 4&October 2005, HLA-Envirosciences Pty Ltd

(HLA) requires information regarding the background groundwater quality in the
Newquay Precinct of Docklands in order to determine whether a CUTEP submission to
EPA is likely to be required. URS Australia Pty Ltd V S ) is pleased to present this
summary letter and background groundwater information for the Newquay Precinct.

Background Groundwater Quality Information

In addition to information previously provided to HLA by URS, namely:
Extracts of URS reports for adjacent MAB developments (Lot 10, Lot 617, Lot 12,
Lot 2);
Volume 1 of Assessment of Land Contamination at the Business Park Precinct;
and
Extract of the Groundwater Investigation MAB Newquay Precinct.
The following documents are provided:
1. Groundwater Monitoring Event (GME) July 2001, MAB Newquay Precinct; and
2. Groundwater Management Strategy Northern Area, Docklands.
The July 2001 GME provides useful information in relation to the hydrogeology,
groundwater flow direction, and groundwater quality of the precinct. The groundwater
flow directions presented in this report indicate that it is likely that groundwater in the
Coode Island Silt flows in a westerly direction on the eastern boundary of the Aquvista

URS Ausiraha Pty Ltd (ABN 46 OW 691 6901

Level 6. 1 Southbank Blvd
Southbank, Vlctnria 3006 Australia
Tel: 61 3 8690 7500
Fax: 61 3 8600 7550

JUOBM3294855lREWRTINGILTR LO17 WCKGROUNO GROUNDWATER QUWTY 27-1005 DOC\

Michael Seignoir
HLA-Envirosciences Pty Ltd
28 October 2005
Page 2

site. Groundwater flow is however variable and influenced by local recharge and
discharge features.
This GME reported that groundwater quality is typically characterised by total cyanide,
and TPH (C10-C36) at elevated concentrations. There were also more isolated occurrences
of free cyanide and naphthalene in the groundwater which were believed to be associated
with gasworks waste found during the soil investigations on Lots 617.
Section 4.1 of the 2002 Grouhdwater Management Strategy provides information on the
nature, extent and likely sources of groundwater contamination in this area. The report
states that 'Regionally, the groundwater is contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons
(TPHs), metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), armmoniacal nitrogen and
occasionally cyanide. The Groundwater Management Strategy also provides guidance on
how the regional groundwater quality of this area should be managed in a regulatory
context.

Soil and Groundwater Data for Aquavista

Preliminary soil and groundwater data for the Aquavista site is attached to this letter.
This information consists of:
1. Draft Figures, including site plans and groundwater flow contours;
2. Preliminary soil sampling results fkom test pit samples collected on the 2d
September 2005 and on the 18" October 2005;
3. Preliminary groundwater sampling results &om groundwater sampling event
conducted on 1 3 September
~ ~ 2005; and
4. Draft borelogs.
On the 1 3 September
~ 2005 six Coode Island Silt groundwater bores (MW1 to MW6) and
three 'Fill' groundwater bores W 2 a to MW4a) were gauged. All of these bores were
sampled with the exception of MW3a, MW4a and MW6 which were either dry or near
dry. Based on the gauging and field parameter measurements taken the following
preliminary findings are presented:
The groundwater within the Coode Island Silt is likely to be largely influenced by
local recharge and discharge features including construction activities,
underground services and the highly variable geological profile. There is a
general westerly flow dvection with northern and southern vectors as indicated on
the contour plan attached.

J UOBS\43284855!REFURTlNGUTR LO17 BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER QUALITY 21-10.05 DOC\

Michael Seignoir
HLA-Envirosciences Pty Ltd
28 October 2005
Page 3

The salinity within the Coode Island Silt has an average TDS of approximately
18,000 m&. There was a lower reading of 2,120 mg/L recorded in MW4,
however this is thought to be due to a stormwater pipe located adjacent to the
screen of this bore. The ionic components of this bore water tend to support a
local 'kesher' water influence on this bore. Therefore, using a TDS value of
18,000 mg/L this places the groundwater in Segment D of the SEPP
(Groundwater of Victoria). The beneficial uses to be protected are 'Maintenance
of Ecosystems', 'Industrial Water Use', and 'Buildingsand Structures'.
0 The groundwater within the 'Fill' bores is discontinuous as shown by MW3a
being dry and MW4a being near dry.
The soil results indicate that there are areas of PAH contamination approaching or
marginally above the NEPM F criteria on the southem part of the site, and an area of
PAH and TPH contamination significantly above the NEPM F criteria on the northern
central part of the site. The contamination in all of these areas occurs in the Fill layer
beneath the buried concrete slab which generally occurs at l m below ground surface. The
contamination appears to be limited vertically to this fill layer, as the Coode Island Silt
below the fill layer did not report elevated concentrations of these contaminants.
Groundwater conkmination in the Coode Island Silt aquifer appears to be limited to TPH
(>C9), total cyanide, and metals (copper, lead and zinc). There are also concentrations of
anthracene and phenanthrene above the limits of reporting; however no reliable
acceptance criteria exist for these chemicals. Free cyanide was detected in one
monitoring well (MWl) at a concentration equal to the adopted investigation level for
ecosystem protection

Assessment of the Requirement for CUTEP

In determining whether CUTEP is required, an assessment as to whether the groundwater
contamination on site constitutes pollution is needed. This requires an assessment as to
whether the beneficial use 'Protection of Ecosvstems' is exceeded at the ooint of
d .
discharge to Victoria Harbour. Secondly, if groundwater is deemed to be polluted then an
assessment as to whether the Aquavista site is the source of the groundwater pollution is
required.
In determining whether beneficial use 'Protection of Ecosystems' is exceeded at the point
of discharge, an assessment of the degree of attenuation of the identified contaminants is
required. The degree of attenuation is uncertain at this time, however due to the slow
movement of groundwater through the Coode Island Silt and the presence of a sheet pile
wall along the New Quay waterffont, it is reasonable to assume that a significant degree
of attenuation would occur.

J:UOBSW3294855\REPORTlNGURLO17 BACXGROUND GROUNDWATER QUALITY 21-1045 WC\

Michael Seignoir
HLA-Envirosciences Pty Ltd
28 October 2005
Page 4

If it can be demonstrated that groundwater contaminants at the site do not exceed the
Groundwater Quality Objectives for maintenance of ecosystems at the point of discharge,
pollution is not occurring and CUTEP not required.
Based on a preliminary assessment of the soil and groundwater data collected for the
Aquavista site, and background information reviewed for the area, it is considered more
likely that the groundwater contamination from metals, cyanide and TPH ( X 9 ) detected
in groundwater on-site is derived from off-site sources. This preliminary assessment is
based on the following:
a The groundwater flow direction indicates that upgradient groundwater appears to
originate &om the east of the Aquavista site. Previous investigations of other
sites in the New Quay area identified gasworks waste on Lots 6 and 7. In
addition it is likely that potential sources of groundwater contamination exist in
areas adjacent to these lots such as under roadways.
a The elevated concentrations of PAHs detected in soil on the northern part of the
site (at TP13) appear to be limited in vertical extent as the underlying Coode
Island Silt did not report elevated levels of PAHs. Also, the downgradient
groundwater bore from this location (MW5) did not report PAHs above the limits
of reporting. Therefore the elevated PAH contamination at TP13 is not expected
to be impacting groundwater quality. However, given the high concentrations of
PAH and TPH contamination reported at TP13, it is recommend to remediate
(remove) this area of contaminated fill. In addition it may be prudent to remove
contaminated fill material in the vicinity of TP10, TP12 and along the
stormwaterlwater trench where PAHs near or above the NEPM F criteria were
reported.
a The concentrations of the contaminants of concern in the groundwater are largely
consistent with the concentrations reported for the Business Park Precinct.
The Environmental Site Assessment for the Aquavista site is currently being prepared.
This report will fuaher assess the status of contamination on site and halise the
-

preliminary conclusions presented above.

J U O E S ! E N G U LO17 BACKGROUND GROUNDWATER QUALrR 21-1045 DOC\

Michael Seignoir
HLA-Envirosciences Pty Ltd
28 October 2005
Page 5

If you require additional information or Ikther assistance please contact Anthea Humme
or myself on 8699 7500.
Yours sincerely,
URS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD

w
Stephen atnbridge
Senior Environmental Engineer
~arryl>tmdwick
Principal Hydrogeologist

cc - Paris Lechte (MAB Delivery Pty Ltd) -Letter and attachments 1 to 6.

Attachments:
1. Figure 1 - Site Locality Map (Draft)
2. Figure 2 - Site Layout Map (Draft)
3. Figure 3 - Inferred Groundwater Contour Map (Draft)
4. Groundwater Analytical Results (Tables 1 to 4) (Draft)
5. Soil Analytical Results (Tables 1 to 3) (Draft)
6. Borelogs (Draft)
7. Groundwater Monitoring Event (GME) July 2001, MAB Newquay Precinct
8. Groundwater Management Strategy Northern Area, Docklands

J UOBFM3294855\REWRTING\LTRLO19 BACKGROUM) GROUNDWATER OU4LlTY 27-1005 WGI

ENVIRONMENTAL STE ASSESSMENT,
AQUAVISTA, NEWQUAY
 - , . <"A C
'

. D O C K L A N D S

ri
i
$ LEGEND:

i
%
18I
$
18[
E~gmonitoringwdl
Newmorii* w.U (&ode bland Silt)

-i5 aient
Nwmmi~weU~iU)
0TT.stpitB.beledaseitherhPW~rP)
pmjd
, . ..
Note Building planshnvnis pmpoaedPquavis$gmurdEwr @an.
~tle
MAE DELIVERY PTY LTD ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT, SITE LAYOUT PLAN
AQUAVISTA. NEWQUAY
i
1e URS hB&. I
S.C C W .
bsvn: LB.B (lippmvad:
IDak 25HOR005 I Ffie No. Figure?
I mhls: ~ m n I bbw.: 4-5 Agure: 2
Rev. A
A4
 -

1
9

\.
-

cz
C;
I - D R l V
I

r
f9
-.

-7 I
.I

j"

LEGEND:
7

i.
2!
New monitoring well (Coo& Island Silt)

0TTest pit (Labeledas either MW or TP)

i -
0.-
-
0.6-
Mened groundwater mntomm(AHD)
,
u& wd mmtm COD^ m<-)

i- 2
0 .
Gromdwam flow direction
Omundwaterelcvationm(AHD)
Date data mlledsd.
la?SeptemberZWS. Note: Buildingplans h m ispmposedAquavistagmundRwrplan.
Pmjea Ttle

[ clientwwa m y Pn m ENIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT,

AQUAVISTA, NEWQUAY
INFERRED GROUNDWATER
CONTOUR M A P
!
ig URS Dsr
w :S.C
I
c m
o m : ~ 8 . 8 ~ppwed:
I oat. ~
I sw
1
rat
0 I F~I m,~ figure
5 3
I ~ o a ~ o 43294855
.:
Figure: 3
Rsu. A
A4
 PRELIMINARY ONLY

Table 2
Groundwater Analytical Results- PAHs & Phenolics
-
'
MAB Aquavista
NewQuay

-W'"d

' ANZECC 2000 on i c so b ulggc l a .er (sno. a oe cons oerec an 70 cai.e nlenm no* l g cue I

Aquavirla Gwater Tables 13-lOd5.xis

 PRELIMINARY ONLY

Table 3
Groundwater Analytical Results- SVOCl VOC Scan
dMAB Aquavista
New Quay

URS Page 1 of 3 Aquavista Gwater Tables 13-lOd5.xls

 PRELIMINARY ONLY

Table 3
Groundwater Analytical Results SVOCl VOC Scan
MAB Aquavista
New Quay

1
Sample ID MWiL1319m5 MWJMWJ1??3105
Date Sampled 14109R005 ( 14109n005
Sample Type I
Pnmarysample Pmaw Sample
Primaly Sample ID MW11319105I MW3_1?iS105

Aquavista Gwater Tables 1 3 - 1 0 4 5 . ~ 1 ~

 PRELIMINARY ONLY

.
Table 3
Groundwater Analytical Results- SVOCI VOC Scan
MAE Aquavista
New Quay

URS Aquavtsta Gwater Tables 13-1005 xls

-- - - -
 PRELIMIN/\RY ONLY

Table 1
Groundwater Analytical Resultr Nutrients, Alkalinity, Major Ions, Metals, TPH 8 BTEX
MAE Aquavista
New a"&

Page 1 of 1 Aquavista Gwaler Tables 13-106511s

-
 PREUMINARY ONLY

NEPM- F
CommentaVhdus

hopmdonrea
asrraUahIwk
and hchmbtd .l0a
"" GUldslbe,
lsss

URS AusbayI Ply Lid

 PREUMINARY ONLY

-
IEPM F
m d u u
I:he-

I pran*sa such m
.Dopa and olRcss

tdustrhl .itss
Gukkllna
1899

.-
-
Orester man NEPM Marbn UIban E L Gvidelherr 1899
 .
-
On Slte Sol1halytkd R e s u b lnaganlc
-
MAE NeWOusY Lot 11 (Aqtmvtsta)
Wll Wll TP12 W12 lPlS TPlS
WII-09-1.0 rni-is-z.o~ici.e.1.7 ~ ~ 1 z z n - z . 1TPIS-I.&1.1 ~~13-1.e-1.7
18/10RW5 lW10RM)S l&rlOmWM 18Homxl5 18HoRW6 1WI0RW5

HLL Guidelines

-
M A'Standani' midsntialrim garddaccaulbb I
juidelineb 19%
M - F Commwc
1s and offieas a
juidslines 199l
 PREUMINARYONLY

Table 3
-
On Slte Soil Analytical Results Psstlcldes, Volatile HalogenatedCompounds and TBT
-
MAE NewQuay Lot 11 (Aquavista)
!. . .
MWI

NEPM - -
NEPM F
Iwwirn Urban :ommereisVlnd
rial: includes
premises auch as
shops and otlic-
as well es lsctol
and industrial si
HIL Guiddine
1909

p
HIL C

URS Australia Pty Ltd Page 2 p12

 PRELIMINARYONLY

Table 3
-
On Slte Soil Analytical Results Pestlcldes, Volatlle HalogenatedCompounds and TBT
-
MAE NewQuay Lot 11 (Aquavlsta)

Commaniallln(

1 premises a u as~
shops end otf-
a s well es fact0 .
and industrial z
HIL GuideJim
. , ;;'.,
i
; .
f.

URS M a Fly Ltd

 PREUMINARYONLY

Table 3
-
On Slte Soil Analytical Results Psstlcldes, Volatile HalogenatedCompounds and TBT
-
MAE NewQuay Lot 11 (Aquavista)
!. . .
MWI

NEPM - -
NEPM F
Iwwirn Urban :ommereisVlnd
rial: includes
premises auch as
shops and otlic-
as well es lsctol
and industrial si
HIL Guiddine
1909

p
HIL C

URS Australia Pty Ltd Page 2 p12

I Sheet I of I \

URS
URS Awbalia Pty Lid Phone 86997500 Pmjed
MONITORING WELL MWOI
Aquavista
-
Level 6.1 S o m a * Boulemrd. SouUlbankViC 3006 ax 85997550 Name: Client: MAE Delivery Ply Ltd
DMng Conbaaat: South Western Dtillino and Sonley Civil Lootion: Lot $1,New Quay, Docklands
Pmjen No.: 43294855
Lagged By: AC, SC Bore Sm: 75- Relave Leu& 2 2 2 mRL Drill Type: Hollow stem auger
ChRkedEy SC TaralDeptk L W m Coomnmats: 5812579.10 mN
Dnll Mod& Geopmbe
Date Started: 020905 Casing Size: m 318574.10 mE
Drill Fluid: none
Date Finbhed: 024905 PermitNo: 9023458
>

USC DESCRlPllON OF STRATA WELL CONSTRUCllON DETAILS

moisture mnient, consistency Idensty,

and additional observations

CLtB lhreaded 50m

r Sheet 1 of 1

URS
URS &%bliaPly Ltd Phone86997500 Pmjed
MONITORING WELL MW02
Aquavista
?r,

~eve16.1
southbank ~ o u l e ~ nsoinhbankvic
i. 30s FS 8699 7550 Neme: Client MAB Delivery Ply LM 4
Drilling C o n b a a South Westem Drilling and Soniey Civil Ladon: Lot 11, New Quay, Docklands
Pmject No.: 43294855

LoggedBy: AC,SC Boreshe: 75- Rels6veLW 1.91 mRL DriIlType: Hollow stem auger
Checked By: SC Tow Depm: ZCQm Cwdnates: 5812604.10 mN
Drill Model: Geoprobe
ale ~ k d : 02-09-05 Caring S i e : mm 318561.60 mE
Dale Rnished: 02-09-05 PermhNo: 9023458 Drill nuid: none
I

USC DESCRIPTION OF S m T A WELL CONSTRUCllONDETAILS

As above, fine sand

r Sheet 1of I*

.I.
URS
' ~ s ~ u s t m i witd
ia Phone86997500 Pmjed
MONITORING WELL MW02a
Aquavista
Leuel 6.1 SouthbankBoulevad,so!~bankVlC~ M S FS 86997550 Name: Client MA6 Delivery Ply Ltd
Ddling Contactor. South Westem Dlilling and Sonley Civil Lodon: Lot 11, New Quay, Docklands
PmjectNo.: 43294855
ioggedsy AC,SC Bwe Sae: 75 m Reldue L e a : 1.94 mRL DnllType: Hollow stem auger
ChedredBy: SC TOM Depk 1.90 m C o o d ~ t e r : 5812603.10 mN
Drill Mod* Geapmbe
Datestuted: 026965 Casing Sre: mn 318561.90 mE
DateRnished: 026905 mil nuid: none
Permit No:
,

USC DESCWPTION OF STRATA WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS

and additional observations

I Sheet I of' 1

URS
URSAu*lla Fiy Ltd
,
Phone 8899 7500 Prqed
MONITORING WELL MW03
Aquavista
1.

~ w e l 6isouthbank'aoulevd. sombankvlc 3006 ax 8699 7550 Name client MAB Delivery Ply LM
Dnlrng contradm So& Western Drilling and Sonley Civil iomtlon: Lot 11, New Quay, Docklands
PmiedNo.: 43294855
I lagged By. AC,SC I Borewe: 75- I ReIahLwei: 1.95mRL I DrinType: Hollow stem auger I
I
ChekedBy.
Date %!led:
Datemished:
SC
02-09-05
02-09-05
T&l Depm: 600 m
W n g Sbe: m
ICoomnats

PmitNo:
5812634.80
318587.70 rnE
9023458
mN
Drill Mod&

Drin Fiuid:
Geopmbe

none
 I
Sheet 1 of l\

J\
URS
URSAustralia WLtd Phone86997500 Projed
MONITORING WELL MW03a
+
Aquavista
Level 6. I Sournbank Boulevm5. S a v V i W V i C 3005 ax 8699 7550 Name: Ciient MAE D e l i ~ e l yPty LM
Diiliing Conbador: South Western Drilling and Sonley Civil Lodim: Lot 11, N e w Quay, Docklands
PmjptNo.: 43294855
LosgedSy AC,SC Boreshe: 75- RelidiveLe~I: 2.05 rnRL DdiTyp: Hollow stem auger
Check& By: SC Tobl dep~1: 1.6Om Coominates: 5812633.80 mN
Date Sbiied: 024945 Onli Model: Geopmbe
CasingSe: mn 378588.00 mE
Date Finished: 024945 P m i t No: Dfli Fluid: none
,

usc DESCRIPTIONOFS ~ T A WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS

-- ~ ~~
I Sheet I of i >

URS
URSAusbalia WLtd Phone 9999 7500 Pmjea
MONITORING WELL MW04
Aquavista
\

Level 6 . 1 s o u t h w ~ou~evard,
s m b a n k v ~ c3006 ax 8 ~ 9 9,550 Name: Client MAB Delivery Pty Ltd
D"lling Conbador: South Westem Drilling and Sonley Civil LoMon: Lot 11, New Quay, Docklands
PmjebNo.: 43294855
iqgdev: SC,AC hresae: 75- Reia6veL-L 2.00 mRL DriUType: Hollowstem auger
Checkedev: SC TOMDepth: 5.OUrn Cmrdinater: 5812609.80 mN
Dtill M d 4 : Geopmbe
Datestarted: 0209-05 Caring Size: mn 318598.50 mE
DateFinished: 026905 Permit No: 9023458 Dtill Fluid: none
,

USC DESCWPTION OF STRATA

CL18 threaded 50m

-
-

- -
-
7:

- -
- 8:

? - -

? L 9:
?I
5- -
i:
ii-
! Remarks: Note: this location was test pitied to 1.3m to break thmugh !he subsurface concrete s i b . No samples were taken atthis location. The rnonnoting well
b was installed thmugh the bacMilledtest pit

??
1
i >
 t sheet? oil'
"j

--
,'
.URS
\,

URSAurtialia Pty Ltd

Leud 6.1 SouVlbank Blvd. SouVlbankVIC300
Phone: 88997500 Equipment Excavator
Far 8699 7550
TEST PIT TPOI
Pmied
Name: Aquavista
Exavziiao kmbacblr Sonley Ciil Fiy Ud Bucket GOOmm PmjeaNo.: 43294855
She: mm
Lagged Bs AC, SC Test Fit ienm: 1% rn Relave Lev& mRL uimt MAR Delivery Pty Ltd
Checked By: SC Tert Pit WidW 8Mnmrn Cooidinates: mN
Date Staned: 020905
Location: Lot 11, New Quay, Docklands
Tert R Depm: 3.5 rn mE
DateFinished: 020905 Permit No:
2

DESCRIPTION OF STRATA

0
s
>
Z
!A

c'
n
d
!?
,

~~-
 URS
URS Aurmlia WLtd Phone: 85997500 Equipment Excavator
TEST PIT TP02
Pmjea
LBY~6.1 Sournbank B C ~southbankv~c
. 30 F= 8699 7550 Name: . Aquavista
W o n Conbador Soniey Civil Ply Lid Buck* 600mm PWedNo.: 43294855
s mm

Lagged 6x

I
CheckedBy:
Datesttrted:
DateRnished:
AC, SC
SC
02-0905
020905
I TestPitLength: 1.5m m
Ted PII WWI:
TertPiDepdx
gYkrm m
I m
1
1 Relasue level.
Cwrrlinates.

Perm%No:
~ R L

2 1 Client

Lodon:
KWB Delivery Pty Ltd
Lot 11. New Quay, Docklands
I
 Sheet 1 of 1

TEST PIT TP03

URS ~usiialia~ f ~y t d Phone: 6699 7500 ~quipmene Excavator
Lev& 5.1 SouVibank Elvd, SouthbankVlC 300 Far 6699 7550 A~u=v~&
ExcavaSm Conbador: Sonley Civil Fty Ltd Bucket 60Omm Pmjea No.: 43294855
sae: mm
LoggedBy. AC,SC TenFit Lenm: 3.5m m Rela6ve Lev& mRL sent MAB Delivery Fty Ltd
ChRLedBy. SC TertPitWidth: 80armm Cwrdinales mN
Lomiion: Lot 11, New Quay, Docklands
Dale W e d : 02-09-05 Test W m : 3.6 m mE
Date mished: 020905 Permit No:
 Sheet I of I '
n
TEST PIT TP04 #

I-
URSAumiia Pty Ltd Phone: 8699 7500 Equipment ExcaMtor Pmjea
Level 6, 1 SoulhbankBlvd. SouVlbankVIC 30 F x 66997550 Name- Aciuav'h 1
Ex-tim Canbaaor Sonley Civil Ply LM Bucket 600mm PmjedNo.: 43294855
She: mm
LoggedBy.

I
Cheded By:
Date Stmed:
Dalemished:
AC
SC
05-0945
05-09-05
Test PitLenm: I5mm
TeriPllMdth:
Teat pit Depm:
1 Reidve Leuel:
8Wmnrn Coodnstes:
4m
Permit No:
mRL

2 (
Ciient

Lodm
MAB Delivev Ply LM
M11, ~ e Quay,
w ~oiklanb
 Sheet 7 o i i '

TEST PIT TP05

Level 6 . 1 Southbank Bivd, SouthbankViCYlO
Phone: 8699 7500 Equipment:
Far 6699 7550
Excavator
Ez: Aquavista
Excava6on Conbaam Sonley Civil Ply Lid Bucket 600mm Pmjed No.: 43294855
Sie: mm
Lqsedey: AC ~ & v i i ~ e n m :l . h m w a t v e ~ e ~ &~ R L Client MAE Delivety phi LM
Test PllWdih: BMRmm Cmidinat+: mN
Loetion: Lot 11, New Quay, Docklands
Test FilDepth: 4.2m mE
Pwm* No:
J
I
Sheet 1 of 1-

URS
URSAuswiis Pty Ltd Phone: 86997500 Equipment Excavator
TEST PIT TP06
Projed
.s
. ?

i/

Level 6, 1 SovthbankBlvd.SouthbankVIC300 Fax 8699 7550 Name: Aquavista

Excava6ao C o n m c ~ Sonley
~ Civil Ph/ U d ~ucket 600mm ~ m j e d ~ o .43294855
:
sze: mm
LqildBi. AC w
~ e s t Lenm: i.smrn ~e~dve~evei:
~ R L oent MN3 Delivery Ply LM
ChKkedBy: SC TestPltUdU~ 8Mmnrn Cwdnales: mN ladon: Lot 11, New Quay, Docklands
Date Started: 050905 Test ViDeplh: 4.3 rn mE
Datemished: 05-09-05 Perm%No:
#

DESCRIPTION OF STRATA

............................
.
AS above, Some fine sand

............................
Cwde Island S i t grey, lau piasticity, smooth, moist

3
L
Z

-I
L
-
3
\ 2
, Sheet 1 of 1
L
J.~
TEST PIT TP07
I
h URS Aurtiala Ply Ltd Phone: 85997500 Equiprneot Excavator P*ct
Lev& 6.1 SouihbankBivd,SouthbankwC30 F a 86997550 Name: Nuavi*
Excsvation Mnbabor Sonley Civil Ply Ltd Bucket 600mm Pmjed No.: 432W,
She: mm
Logeedm AC TertPtLen@~ i . m m ~ e i d v e wm m Uimt MPB Delivery Pty Ltd
Checked By: SC TertPltWlmh: 8 M m m m Coamnatps: mN Lo-on: Lot 11, New Quay, Docklands
Date Stuted: OM905 TertPitDeph: 4m mE
DateFiniaed: OM905 : Permit No:
J
 Sheet 1 of 1
,
URS
URSAvNalia Pty Ltd
I
Phone: 86997500 Equipment Excavator
TEST PIT TP08
Projed
4

Level 6 . 1 Southbank Blvd. SouthbankVlC 30 F a r 86997550 A~u~v~s~A 4

-tian Conbador: Soniey Civil Ply Ltd Bucket 6DOmm Pmject No.: 43294855
si: rnm
@uodW AC T& P ~ L ~ ~ Q4 %
.hm
: ~ ~ i ~ 6 u e lm
e ~ab Client MA5 Delively PQ Ltd

I
Checked 6y SC TertPltWdET 8Wnmm
Date Staried: 05-0905 Test Pit kpET 41 rn
Date Finished: 05-09-05 P m i i No:

DESCRIPTION OF STRATA

?k
5
5
c'
:::
1
 Sheet Iof 1

TEST PIT TP09

URS AusVaiis ply ~ t d
" Phone: 8699 7500 ~quipment Excavator Pmject
Level 6 . 1 SovVlbank Blvd, SouthbankVIC300 FS 86997550 Name: Aquavista
Excavflian Conbactor. Sonley Civil Fly LM Buckel 600mm PmjedNo.: 43294855
Sne: mm
Loseedey AC TestPiI Lenm: 1.smm ~da6ve~evel~ R L client W E Deliiely P@LM
CWedW SC TestPltiA4dh KCmnm Coadin- mN Ldon: Lot 11, New Quay, Docklands
Date Started: OM905 Test PLDeph: 42m mE
Dale hished: 054905 PermlNo:
2

DESCRIPTION OF STRATA

............................
Coode Island Silt: dark grey, l o w p l a s t i ~smooth,
, shells

u
k'

*
t Sheetl of 1\
'

URS
URsAurbAia ply ~ t d
..
Phone: 88997500 ~quipment Excavator
TEST PIT TPI 0
Pmjed
Wuavffita
F,
.l,,

Level 6.1 SouthbsnkBlvd. Southbank~1~300 Far 8699 7550 7

W a n Conbdor. Kingston Plant Hire Bucket 60Omm p e e d NO.: 43294855

She: mm
LcggedEy. AS TestPitlenm: h m ~ e l a ~ v e ~ e u mRL
et Client MAE Delivery Pky Ltd
CheckedBy: SC TertPitWim: 8mm Coordinatw: mN LocaSon: Lot 11, New Quay, Docldands
D*SMed: 18-1005 Test P
iDepm 4m mE
Date Rnirhed: 18-1005 Permit No:
\ I

DESCRIPTIONOF STRATA

............................
End of hole at 4m

3
Z
Z

-I
x
-
"
-
< 2
 S h e e t 1 of l

TEST PIT TPI 1

,i GR S A ~~ ~t LU y~ I ~ ~ . . ... ~ Phone: 8699 7 5 w Equipment ~xcavator
Lev9 6 . 1 s o u ~ l b a n ~ ~ isv?dm
, bankwc~o Fax 86997550 :P w e a Aquavista
E x d m Canbactot. Kingston Plant Hire Bucket 600mm PmjeaNa.: 43294855
Sae: rnm
LoggedBy: AS ~ e s~t ' Length:
fi h rn Relave~ e w t ~ R L teem MAB Delivery Pty Ltd
CheckedBy. SC TertPltlMdh e a r n Cooidinaier: mN
i d ~ m Lot 11, New Quay, Docklands
M e Sbrted: 18-1045 Test P~DepW 2 m rnE
DateRnirhed: 18-1045 Permit No:
I

- URS TEST PIT TP12

.
Sheet 1 of 1' '

j. J

URS Auslmlia Fty Lld Phone: 8699 7500 Equipment Excavator P

Level 8.1 Southbank Blvd. SouthbankVlC 30 Far 8699 7550 Aquavista p;,f
&&am Canbactor. Kingston Piant Hire , Bucket 600mm PiajectNo.: 43294855
She: mm
Lagged Bi: AS TertPitLenm: Jmm Reld~Level ~ R L Client MAB Deiivery Ltd
C h d e d By SC TertPltWdL SWm Cwdinster: m~
Dale Started: 18-'1005 Test Pit Depm: 4.( m
Loeiion: Lot 11, New Quay, Docklands
mE
Dale Rnished. 18-1005 Fern%No:

DESCRIPTION OF STRATA

- .-
 Sheet 1 of1
TEST PIT TPI 3
URS Aumalia Ltd Phone: 8599 7500 Equipment Excavator
!?'Lev=i ? somhbank Eava,so~hbinkuc mcq! ~ a 8699
r 7550 '2: Aquavisk
Exwa6mConbada: Kingston Plant Hire Bucket 6ODmm PmiectNo.: 43294855
She: mm
LogsedsY AS Test PitLenm: 3mm RWY~LW ~ R L Ciimt MAB Delivery Pty Lfd
Ter;tPitNdh 8mm cmdiiats mN Locaiion: Lot 11, New Quay, Docklands
Test W Depm: 3.8 m mE
Peron No:
REPORT e2a
l
a?
\94743

Groundwater Monitoring Event (GME)

July 2001
MAB Newquay Precinct

URS AUSTRALIA
Melbourne bta~

Prepared for

MAB Corporation
Level 1
54 St Kilda Road
St Kilda, Vic, 3182

30 July 2001
 Contents

1.1 Background
1.2 Objectives
1.3 Scope of Works

2.1 Soil and Groundwater Assessment

2.2 Groundwater Investigation

3.1 Site Description

3.2 Regional Geology
3.3 Regional Hydrogeology
3.4 Tidal Effects

Field Investigations
Standing Water Levels
Development and Purging of Wells
Aquifer Tests
Laboratory Analysis
Data Quality
Assessment Guidelines
Groundwater Analytical Results -July 2001 GME
4.8.1 Nature, Extent and Significance of Groundwater contamination
 List of Tables, Figures, & Appendices

Tables
Table 1 Groundwater Levels
Table 2 Groundwater Analytical Results - TPH, BTEX
Table 3 Groundwater Analytical Results -Inorganic Analytes
Table 4 Comparison of Cyanide and TPH Results

Figures
Figure 1 Site Locality Plan
Figure 2 Locations of Groundwater Monitoring Wells
Figure 3 Groundwater Contours from Previous Groundwater Investigations by Woodward
CyldeIGolder Associates, 1997
Figure 4 Groundwater Contours -3 1/1/01
Figure 5 Groundwater Contours - 11/7/01
Figure 6 Comparison of Groundwater Levels

Appendices
Appendix A Aquifer Testing Results
Appendix B Chain of Custody Documentation
Appendix C Laboratory Analytical Results
Appendix D Data Validation Tables
Appendix E Piper Plot Diagrams
lntroducti~n SECTION I

1.I Background
URS Australia Pty Ltd (URS) was commissioned by MAB Corporation (MAB) to conduct a Groundwater
Monitoring Event (GME) at the MABDocklands Newquay Precinct (the site).

The GME was conducted in order to progress the Statement of Environmental Audit for Lot 617 and
specifically to monitor the cyanide and TPH impacts in groundwater beneath Lot 6 and the whole of the
Newquay Precinct.

Dr James Mantle of PPK Environment and Infrastructure Pty Ltd (PPK) was engaged by MAB to conduct
a Statutory Environmental Audit of the site in accordance with Section 57AA of the Environrnerlt
Protectiorz Act 1970.

This report outlines the results of the July 2001 GME, including the field investigations, analysis
analytical results and comparisons with the January 2001 GME.

1.2 Objectives
The objectives of the July 2001 GME were to:

. Conduct a round of groundwater sampling from the twelve existinz wells, plus two wells installed
during ESA works on Lot 12.

Further characterise the aquifer properties by conducting short term aquifer tests at the three nested
well locations:

Assess any trends in the physical and chemical groundwater environment beneath the site.

1.3 Scope of Works

The scope of work undertaken by URS to address the above mentioned objectives comprised the
following components:

Collection of groundwater samples and field parameters from the fourteen groundwater monitoring
wells;

Analysis of groundwater samples for TPWBTEX, Total Cyanide, Free Cyanide, TDS, Anions and
Cations;

Short term aquifer testing at the three nested well locations;

Assessment of results and preparation of a report detailing the above.

Previous Investigation Woik SECTION 2

2.1 Soil and Groundwater Assessment

Previous site assessments were carried out on Lot 10 and Lot 617 of the Newquay Precinct by URS in
2000. NO significant soil or groundwater impacts were detected at the Lot 10 site and a Statement of
Environmental Audit was issued. At lot 6, a layer of gasworks type fill containing elevated concentrations
of total cyanide, TPH and PAH was identified in the north west comer of the Lot. The results indicated
that the identified.contamination was impacting soil and groundwater at the site with total cyanide, PAH
and TPH exceeding the adopted guidelines levels.

Soil remediation and validation works conducted by URS and other parties in October 2000 resulted in
the removal and off site disposal of the vast majority of the identified contamination from Lot 6. Residual
amounts of TPH, PAH and total cyanide in soil remained at the edge of the remediated area.

2.2 Groundwater Investigation

A groundwater investigation of the MAB Newquay precinct was conducted in January 2001 to determine
the potential impacts of cyanide and TPH to the receiving waters of Victoria Harbour. A total of twelve
long term monitoring wells were installed a nine locations across the precinct. At each of the nine
locations, a shallow monitoring well was installed to 2m bgs in the upper permeable fill material. At three
locations, a second well was installed to 5m depth to target groundwater in the Coode Island Silt.

The results of the groundwater investigation indicated the following:

Total Cyanide impacts to groundwater were detected in all wells, however free cyanide was only
detected in one well (MW06 0.017 mg/Lj, located in the previously contaminated area of Lot 6. Free
cyanide was not detected in groundwater wells close to the discharge interface with Victoria Dock;

Groundwater in the three deeper wells had significantly lower concentrations of total cyanide than. the
corresponding shallow wells. This was probably due to the difference in groundwater heads between
the two layers. The difference in head may have minimised the potential for downward migration of
contaminants during aquifer recharge;

TPH C 1 0 - c was
~ ~ detected in a number of groundwater hells at the Newquay precinct. The majority
of these impacts are located c!ose to Lot 6, however impacts above the adopted criteria for TPH
(Dutch Intervention Levels) were also detected at MW02 and MW08;

TPH Clo-C36 impacts to groundwater were detected in the three deeper monitoring wells targeting
goundwater in the CIS. These impacts were greater than in the corresponding tested shallow wells

Site wide TPH Clo-C3aimpacts to groundwater were detected in groundwater present within the fill
material and underlying natural CIS. The presence of TPH in groundwater is not confined tb the
Newquay precinct, suggesting that TPH is an area wide issue;
Previous Investigation Work SECTION2

PAHs were not detected in any of the Newquay precinct monitoring wells, which suggests that the
source of PAH in contamination in groundwater identified as part of the Lot 617 ESA has been
removed.
Site Conditions SECTION 3

3.1 Site Description

The site is located adjacent to Victoria Dock and forms part of the MAB Newquay Precinct of the
Melbourne Docklands redevelopment (formerly known as Business Park Precinct). A site plan showing
the location of the site is shown in Figure 1.

At the time of the July 2001 GME fieldwork, construction of the Arkley Tower (Lot 10) and the Palladio
and the Boyd (Lot 617) was underway.

3.2 Regional Geology

The site is underlain by a variable layer of fill material comprising dredged Coode Island Silts (CIS),
crushed rock coke, brick, asphalt, gravel, sand, scrap metal, glass, engineered soils, concrete slabs and
hard rock pieces. A layer of reinforced concrete is present beneath parts of the site at a depth of
approximately 1 metre. The concrete layer is approximately 0.15m thick.

Quaternary Aged CIS deposits underly the fill materials at the site. The CIS extends to approximately
v m below ground level. Quaternary aged Fishermans Bend Silt and Moray Street Gravels in turn,
underlie the CIS beneath the site.

3.3 Regional Hydrogeology

The near surface aquifer unit is likely to be consistent with the fill material that extends from the surface
to generally 2 to 4 metres below ground level. This shallow groundwater body is likely to be limited in
extent. The underlying CIS is generally regarded as an aquitard due to its low permeability. However, the
CIS can possess zones of higher sand content and may therefore posses limited zones of higher
permeability and may act as a local aquifer. The Moray Street Gravels are belived to be the first major
aquifer resource beneath the site.

Based on previous work at the site, it is likely that the regional groundwater flow would be in a southerly
direction towards the dock. However groundwater contours measured during the January 2001 GME
indicated a groundwater high surrounding MW05. It is that this mound was due to enhanced
recharge of the area due to remediation works during October 2000.

A difference in groundwater levels was also noted between monitoring bores screened in the fill and CIS.
Based on measured standing water levels, the groundwater level is higher in the deep CIS than in the
shallow fill.

3.4 Tidal Effects

The influence of tidal effects in the monitoring wells was not monitored in this GME. However a detailed
monitoring program and assessment was conducted in February 2001.
I Site Conditions SECTION 3

In summary, the tidal gauging indicated that the tidal influence on the groundwater levels is not
1 significant. Groundwater levels beneath the Newquay Precinct show a total variation of 0.01-0.02m. In
comparison the seawater control bore showed a tatal variation of approximately 0.6-0.7m. Tidal

1 influence on groundwater flow direction is therefore expected to be minimal.

Investigation R e s u l t s SECTION 4

4.1 Field Investigations

On 9 and 10 July 2001, groundwater from each well was purged and sampled using disposable bailers
All wells bailed dry during purging except for MW04 and MW13 that appeared to recover quickly.
Monitoring well MW03 was not sampled as the well was found to be inaccessible at the time of
monitoring.

During each purging and sampling event, the following field parameters were measured:

electrical conductivity (EC);

redox potential (redox);

pH;
dissolved oxygen (DO); and

Temperature (T).

Non-disposable equipment (such as water level probes) used, were decontaminated before each sampling
and gauging event.

Rinsate blank samples were collected by rinsing decontaminated sampling equipment (disposable bailer
and water level probe) with laboratory supplied water.

All samples were collected in appropriate containers supplied by the primary laboratory. Samples were
immediately stored and transported in insulated containers with ice. As required, water samples were
collected with the appropriate preservative agents. Samples were transported to the laboratory under URS
standard chain of custody documentation.

4.2 Standing Water Levels

Standing water level (SWL) gauged in January 2001, February 2001, April and July 2001 are summarised
in Table 1 and graphs showing the comparisons of standing water levels are shown on Figure 6.

Groundwater contours from previous investigations are shown in figures 3 and 4. Inferred potentiometric
contours based on data collected from the July 2001 GME are presented on Figure 5. The groundwater
contours from the three rounds of monitoring show a dynamic charging water table. Hydraulic gradients,
flow direction and groundwater highs appear to have changed significantly since the January 2001 GME.

However, points to note include:

It appears that the groundwater high in the vicinity of monitoring bore MW05 has reduced from a RL
of 1.08m to 0.74m between January 2001 and July 2001. The groundwater high was orgnally
probably due to enhanced recharge of the area caused by soil excavation during remediation activities
 1 Investigation Results SECTION 4

in October 2000. As the area is now sealed, recharge in this area has reduced and the SWL is leveling
back to background levels.

A groundwater high has appeared in the vicinity of monitoring bore MW07 in the July 2001 GME.
The reason for the high is not known, however deep piling works may have contributed to recharge of
this area.

1 j
A significantly reduced groundwater level is noted in MWOl in the July 2001 GME as compared with
previous GMEs. The cause could be due to significant amounts of underground infrastructure works

I] that have been installed along Dudley Street. At the time of gauging, shallow trenching along the
northern side of Dudely Street and deeper sewer excavation work along the centre of Dudley Street
were underway. It is possible that these activities are changing the groundwater flow in the local area.
11
I! A difference in groundwater levels is noted between shallow wells screened in the fill and deeper
wells screened in the CIS. Based on measured standing water levels, groundwater head is higher in

I! the deep CIS wells than in the shallow wells. This is consistent with results obtained from the January
2001 GME.

J!
4.3 Development and Purging of Wells

I] i
The low yield characteristics of the Coode Island Silts (CIS) were confirmed during the groundwater
development, purging and sampling activities, with all three deep wells and nine of the eleven shallow
wells bailing dry and recovering relatively slowly.
_1 :
The groundwater removed was generally dark brown in colour and turbid.

Groundwater parameters measured during the purging and development of each well are presented below:
, .

MW05 9 July 2001 1 (dry) 33 6.9 16.8 19 0.58

MW06 9 July 2001 4 (dry) 19.61 6.39 17.6 45 2.67

Investigation Results SECTION 4

DO levels recorded in all wells are generally between 1-3 mg/L, which is consistent with the recorded
low redox potential values. This indicates mild to moderately reducing waters.

There are no notable differences in the field chemistry of the nested shallow (MW04, MW05, MW07)
and deep bores (MWIO, MW11, MW12). As expected the electrical conductivity in the deeper wells is
higher as the salinities of groundwater in the Coode Island Silts approach that of sea water. DO levels in
the deeper wells are slightly higher than the shallow wells.

4.4 Aquifer Tests

A short duration draw down and recovery test was conducted in the three deeper wells (MWIO, M W l l
a n d ' M ~ 1 2to
) determine indicative transmissivity values for the CIS and to investigate connectivity
between the fill and the CIS layers.

The results of the aquifer tests is shown in Appendix A. The results indicate that.the CIS layer has a
relatively low transmissivity with values ranging from 0.06-0.07 m?/day.

4.5 . Laboratory Analysis

The groundwater samples were submitted to Australian Laboratory Services (ALS) for analyses. ALS is a
NATA accredited analytical laboratory.

The following groundwater samples were collected:

Investigation R e s u l t s SECTION 4

Fourteen primary field samples;

two duplicate pairs;

three rinsate blanks; and

One trip blank per esky (total of four trip blanks).

All groundwater samples were analysed for the following:

TPWBTEX

Total Cyanide;

Free Cyanide; and

TDS, major anions and cations.

Trip blank samples were tested for TPH C6-C9 and BTEX only

Samples selected for analysis are outlined in the chain of custody documentation presented in Appendix
B. The detailed'results of the NATA certificates together with the internal quality assurance conducted by
ALS are presented in Appendix C.

4.6 Data Quality

On the basis of the analytical data validation procedure employed, the overall quality of the analytical
data produced is considered to be of an acceptable standard for interpretive use. However, the following.
should be noted:

Rinsate blank QCOlP17101 returned positive results for sodium and free cyanide. Rinsate blanks
QC02-9/7/01 and QC10-1017/01 returned positive results for TDS and sodium. These concentrations
are low and close to the laboratory limits of detection and are therefore likely to reflect the
background quality of the rinsate water rather than the occurrence of any cross-contamination.

There was a high Relative Percentage Difference (RPD) calculated between MB 13-10/7/01 and field
duplicate QC03-10/7/01 for TPH C29Cj6 fraction. Field duplicates generally display greater
variability than other laboratory data as they are a measure of both field and laboratory precision.

A high RPD was calculated between MB13-10/7/01 and laboratory duplicate MB13_10/7CHK for
TPH C29-C36fraction. This variation is due to a small difference between low concentrations,
elevating the RPD result.

It was noted on the laboratory report that the ionic balance for samples MB5, MB8, MB9 and MB17
were out of acceptable limits due to analytes not quantified in this report. All other samples reported
ionic balances within the acceptable range.
Investigation Results SECTION 4

Data validation summary tables and RPD reports are provided in Appendix D.

4.7 Assessment Guidelines

".
In accordance with previous assessments at the Newquay site, the approach adopted for the assessment of
groundwater is that proposed by ANZECC and NHMRC in the "Australian and New Zealand Guidelines
for the Assessment and Management of Contaminated Sites" (1992). Supplemented with the State
Environment Protection Policy (SEPP) Groundwaters of Victoria (1997) and the State Environment
Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria) Schedule F7: Waters of the Yarra Catchment (1999).

The groundwater SEPP has been used to classify the beneficial use of groundwater on the basis of
background TDS and the sustainablegroundwater yields available from the aquifer.
'. a

Estimated TDS results range from 695 to 42,100 m&, with an average of 15,034 mgL. Based on this
TDS range, the following potential beneficial uses were identified:

/ maintenance of marine ecosystems;

I!

{ recreational use of edible fish;

II
industrial use; and
i'protection of buildings and structures
'/
Given the low yields encountered at the site and the proposed future use of the site, it is unlikely that
groundwater beneath the site would be used for industrial purposes. Therefore, this beneficial use has not
been assessed further.

Groundwater beneath the site is discharging to the waters of Victoria Dock. Accordingly, the primary
groundwater quality guideline adopted for the site is the Australian Water Quality Guidelines - Protection
of Aquatio Ecosystems (Marine) (ANZECC, 1992).

The ANZECC guidelines do not provide an exhaustive list of potential contaminants. In relation to the
groundwater assessment, there is limited guidance provided by the ANZECC guidelines for the
assessment of TPH fractions. In this instance, the Dutch Intervention Level (DL) of 0.6 m& TPH Clo -
C36has been used to provide a qualitative assessment of the contamination encountered. The Dutch
Intervention guidelines for groundwater are protective of both human health and the environment and
would represent a conservative basis for screening the site data.

The recreational use of edible fish caught in Victoria Dock is a possible beneficial use. Limited additional
guidance is provided in the ANZECC 1992 guidelines for protection of human consumers of fish for the
contaminants of concern, therefore it is considered that the Australian Water Quality Guidelines -
Protection of Aquatic Ecosystems and the Dutch Intervention Level guidelines provide an adequate
guideline for assessment of this beneficial use.
Investigation Results SECTION 4

4.8 Groundwater Analytical Results -July 2001 GME

Analytical results for groundwater are summarised in Tables 2 and 3. Results above the adopted
investigation levels have been highlighted. Chain of custody documentation is presented in Appendix B
while laboratory analysis reports are presented in Appendix D.

Cyanide

Total cyanide was not detected above the LOR in wells MWlO, MWI 1 and MTV12.

Total cyanide concentrations above the LOR ranged from 0.008 m g L ((MW08) to 1.49 mg/L (MW06).

Free cyanide above the LOR (0.005 m&) was detected in three wells including MW06 (0.021 mgL),
MW09 (0.02 mg/L) and MW14 (0.033 mg/L). These free cyanide concentrations exceed the ANZECC
guideline level of 0.005 mglL.

TPH

TPH C6-C9 was not detected above the laboratory LOR in any wells.

T P H Cl(i-C36 was not detected above the laboratory LOR in wells MW04, and MW09.

TPH CI0-Cj6concentrations above the LOR ranged from 121 pg/L (MW13) to 3333 pg/L ((MW05). TPH
C10-C;6was detected above the Dutch Intervention Level (DL) (600 pfi) in wells MWOI, MW02,
MW05, MW06, MW07, MW10, MWI 1 and MW12.

BTEX
Individual BTEX compounds were not detected above the laboratory LOR in any wells.

Major Anions and Cations

The geochemistry of the groundwater has,been plotted on Piper Diagrams shown in Appendix E. Piper
Diagrams showing all groundwater wells have been provided along with individual plots comparing the
nested wells.

The Piper Plots show that the groundwater across the NewQuay precinct is predominately a sodium
chloride type water. The shallow and deeper wells are essentially the same water type, with the only
significant difference being that the groundwater in the deeper wells is more saline with salinities
approaching that of seawater. The lack of significant difference in water type between the CIS and fill
groundwater samples suggest that the formations are hydraulically connected.
1 Investigation ~ e s u l t s SECTION 4

4.8.1 Nature, Extent a n d Significance of Groundwater Contamination

1
_I
Comparison results for TPH and cyanide (total and free) from the January 2001 GME and the July 2001

I GME is shown in Table 4.

Cyanide
1
J The January 2001 GME indicated cyanide impacted groundw&er was detected in all wells, however free
cyanide was only detected in one well (MW06 0.017 m&).
1 The ~ u l y2001 GME indicated cyanide impacted groundwater was detected in all shallo~monitoring
wells. Total cyanide concentrations in the deeper wells had reduced and were below LOR. The results
I indicated concentrations of totalcyanide had reduced in all wells, except for MW09 were total cyanide
increased from 0.075 m a to 0.142 m a .
1
_I The July 2001 GME indicated free cyanide impacted groundwater was detected in MW06, MW09 and
MW14. The free cyanide concentrations from MW06 and MW09 had increased slightly (MW14 was not

1 tested in the January 2001 GME). Although the free cyanide impact to MW06 remains relatively
unchanged free cyanide concentrations in down gradient wells remain below LOR, indication that free
cyanide is not currently discharging into Victoria Harbour.
I
7
TPH
The January 2001 GME indicated TPH CIO-C;~ was detected in all groundwater wells at the Newquay
precinct with the exception of MWOl, MW04 and MW09. Concentrations of TPH CIO-C;~ in groundwater
were greater than the DIL in five of the twelve wells.

The July 2001 GME indicated TPH C10-c;~was detected in all monitoring wells except for MW04 and
1;
.Ji :
MW09. Concentrations of TPH C]0-C36 in groundwater were greater than the adopted criteria in eight of
the thirteen wells. In general concentrations of TPH CIO'C;~increased bitween January 2001 and July
2001 in all of the monitoring wells.
li
Jl Examination of the TPH chromatograms for the Newquay precinct wells (see Appendix D) indicates that
the TPH detected is mainly in the Cisto Cg range, and is highly weathered. The exception is from the
-Ii chromatogram for MWOl which indicates TPH is in the Cloto C14range. Comparison of the July 2001
GME chromatograms with those for the January 2001 GME shows the following:

li A significant increase of TPH Clo-C14in well MWOl

A increase in TPH C2s-C36fraction and a decrease TPH CIS-CZ8fraction in well MW02.

A significant increase in TPH C29-C36fraction,was noted in MW05 with several high peaks in the
Investigation Results SECTION 4

The chromatograms from wells MW04, MW06, MW07, MW09 and MWlO appear unchanged.
Chromatograms for MWS, MWl I, MW12, MW13 and MW14 were not available for the January
2001 GME. These chromatograms for the July 2001 GME appear similar to that detected in other
wells at the Newquay precinct.

TPH CIOCj6 impacts to groundwater in the three deeper monitoring wells were greater than in the
corresponding tested shallow wells which is consistent with the January 2001 GME.

The presence of TPH in groundwater is not believed to be confined to the Newquay precinct. The
historical use of gasworks waste at the Docklands and the likelihood of upgradient sources of TPH north
of Dudley Street (ie USTs), suggest that TPH is an area wide issue. As the source of TPH from Lot 6 has
been removed to the extent practicable, it is considered, that Lot 6 is not significantly contributing to
groundwater TPH concentrations of the site.
1 Conculsions and Recornendations SECTION 5

The following conclusions are presented based on the results of the July 2001 groundwater monitoring
] event of groundwater at MAB Newquay Precinct:

The results of field investigations indicated standing water levels in all wells have varied considerably
since the January 2001 GME. The groundwater high previously noted surrounding MWO5 has
reduced, however a groundwater high is now noted surrounding monitoring bore MW07.
1
1
_]i 0. A groundwater low is noted surrounding MWOI, and is probably due to underground infrastructure
works occurring along Dudley Street.
li
Ji Short duration aquifer tests were conducted in the three deeper wells (MW10, MWll and MW12)
and the results indicate the Coode Island Silt layer has a low transrnissivity ranging from 0.06-0.07
mz/day.

' Cyanide impacts in groundwater were detected in all shallow moilitoring wells. Total cyanide
concentrations in the deeper wells had reduced and were below LOR. The results indicated total
cyanide concentrations had reduced in all wells except for MW09 were total cyanide concentrations

]! had increased from 0.075 m g L to 0.142 mgL.

Free cyanide impacts'to groundwater were detected in MW06, MW09 and MW14. The free cyanide

1: concentrations from MW06 and MW09 had increased slightly. Although the free cyanide impact to
MW06 remains relatively unchanged, free cyanide concentrations in the down gradient wells remain
below LOR, indicating that free cyanide is not currently discharging into Victoria Harbour.

1 TPH CIO-Ci6impacts were detected in all monitoring wells except for MW04 and MW09.
Concentrations of TPH C1O-Cjgin groundwater were greater than the adopted criteria in eight of the
thirteen wells. In general concentrations of TPH C&j6 increased in all of the monitoring wells.
Limitations SECTION 6

This report has been prepared in accordance with an agreement between MAB Corporation (MAB) and
URS Australia Pty Ltd (URS). The services performed by URS have been conducted in a manner
consistent with the level of quality and skill generally exercised by members of its profession and
consulting practice. No warranty or guarantee of site conditions is intended.

This report is solely for the use of MAB and sub-contractors appointed by MAB specifically in relation to
the proposed development works at the site as described in Section 1. Any reliance of this report by third
parties shall be at such party's sole risk and may not contain sufficient information for purposes of other
parties or for other uses. This report shall only be presented in full and may not be used to support any
other objectives than those set out in the report, except where written approval with comments are
provided by URS.

The information in this report is considered to be accurate at the date of issue in accordance to the current a

conditions of the site. Sub-surface conditions can vary across a particular site that cannot be explicitly
defined by investigation. Therefore, it is unlikely that the results and estimations expressed in this report .
will represent the extremes of conditions within the site. Sub-surface conditions including contaminant
concentrations can change in a limited period of time. This should be considered if the report is used
after a significant delay in time
 References SECTION 7

Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC) and National
Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for the
Assessment and Management of Contaminated Sites. January 1992.

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

EGIS Australia pty Ltd. Business Park Groundwater Assessment, 1998

Environment Protection Authority (Victoria), 1997. State Environment Protection Policy,

Groundwaters of Victoria. Victoria Government Gazette. No. S 160. December 1997.

Environment Protection Authority (Victoria), EPA Information Bulletin - Classification of Wastes.

Publication 448. September 1995.

Environment Protection Authority (Victoria), EPA Information Bulletin -Management of Waste

Contaminated Soil and Low Level Contaminated Soil. Publication 626, October 1998.

~ ~Protection ~ ~~ t h ~(Victoria),
~ i i t y EPA Information
~ Bulletin
~ Acid Sulfate
~ Soil and~Rock. ~
Publication 655, August 1999.

National Enviro-ental Health Forum (NEW), Health-Based Soil Investigation Levels. National
Environmental Health Forum Monographs, Soil Series No. 1.2nd Edition. Imray, P, and Langley, A.
Eds., South Australian Health Commission 1998

URS Australia pty Ltd Environmental Site Assessment, MAB Business Park Lot 617, November 2000

U w Australia pty ~ t Remediation

d and Validation Works, Lot 6, MAB Newquay Precinct, May 2001.

U M Australia pty Ltd Draft Report, Groundwater Investigation, MAB Newquay Precinct, May 2001.

Woodward-Clyde pty Ltd and Golder Associates, Assessment of Soil and Groundwater Contamination
at Business Park Precinct, November 1997

Woodward-Clyde Pty Ltd, Golder Associates and CHZMHILL Pty Ltd, Assessment of Soil and
Groundwater Contamination at Victoria Harbour Precinct, December 1997

Woodward-Clyde pty ~ t dEnvironmental

. Site Assessment, MAB Business Park Lot 10, January 2000
(A3 1/01444/003ESA/REPORT~B.doc).

Woodward-Clyde pty Ltd, Environmental Management Plan for MAB Docklands Business Park
Precinct (BPEMP), February 2000.

.I Woodward-Clyde Pty Ltd, Work Plan, Environmental Site Assessment, Business Park Lot 617.

Victorian Channel Authority. Tidal Chart 20012001-Williamstown gauge

Investigation Results SECTION 5

Examination of the TPH chromatograms for the Newquay precinct wells (see Appendix D) indicates that
the TPH detected is mainly in the Clj to C2*range, and is highly weathered. Comparison of the Newquay
precinct chromatograms with those for the Lot 6 ESA wells shows the following:

TPH CIO-C36impact at ESA (Lot 617) well MW05 is different to that detected in all other
groundwater wells during the ESA of Lot 617 and Newquay precinct monitoring program.

TPH Clo-C36impact detected in ESA wells MWOl, MW07, and W 1 0 (no chromatogram provided
for MW08) is similar to that detected in all wells during the Newquay precinct monitoring program.

Newquay precinct well MW06 is located in the previously contaminated area around ESA well
MW05. The TPH chromatogram for MW06 has a few small peaks at the start of the CIO-C14 mark.
These peaks are not present in any of the other chromatograms except for MW07 and MWlO. These
peaks may represent low levels of residual impact to groundwater due to the gasworks waste
previously surrounding ESA well MW05.

Contouring of the TPH Cl0-C36 impact was not possible, and the distribution of impacts detected indicate
that the TPH C10C36 measured in groundwater at MAB Newquay precinct is unlikely to be due to a single
source. Removal of the fill material surrounding ESA well MW05 has resulted in removal of a significant
proportion of the TPH C10-C36impacted soils from Lot 6. This should result in a gradual reduction in
TPH CIo'C36 impacts to shallow groundwater in the vicinity of Lot 6.

TPH CIOC36 impacts to groundwater were detected in the three deeper monitoring wells targeting
groundwater in the CIS. These impacts were greater than in the corresponding nested shallow wells. This
distribution of TPH may be consistent with TPH impacted groundwater in the CIS, which has migrated to
the upper fill layer due to the greater head in the CIS aquifer.

The presence of TPH in groundwater is not believed to be confined to the Newquay precinct. The
historical use of gasworks waste at the Docklands and the likelihood of upgradient sources of TPH north
of Dudley Street (ie USTs), suggest that TPH is an area wide issue. As the source of TPH from Lot 6 has
been removed to the extent practicable, it is considered, that Lot 6 soils are not significantly contributing
to groundwater contamination of the site.

PAH

The Lot 617 ESA identified PAH impacts to groundwater at MW05 that were almost exclusively
associated with naphthalene. PAHs were not detected in any of the other monitoring wells at Lot 6. The
PAH impact that was measured at MW05 was believed to be due to the presence of high naphthalene
concentration gasworks waste surrounding MW05. This material was removed during the October 2000
remediation works. A number of isolated pockets of fill material containing PAHs remained at Lot 6
following remediation works. The potential for these fill materials to act as a source for contamination of
groundwater was considered to be low.

PAHs were not detected in any of the Newquay precinct monitoring wells, which suggests that the source
of contamination has been removed.
Tables
 Table 1 : Groundwater Levels
MAE Groundwater Investigation
July 2 0 0 1

Notes:
(1) (mAHD) metres above Australian Height Datum
* MW03 could not be gauged on 11/07/01 as it was covered by a containerlshed
** MW06 could not be gauged on 05/04/01 as the PVC cap could not be removed
*** 'MW12 could not be gauged on 05/04/01 as it was covered by scaffolding . '

URS Australia Pty Ltd 11 s:/projicts/44869 MAB/013/report/table.swl

Table 2
-
GroundwaferAnolyllcal Results TPH, BTEX
MAB Groundwater

Dupllcote FD - Fleld Dupllcote,

RB - Rlnsate Blonk TB - TrlD Blonk

URS Australia Pty. Ltd. Page 1 of 3

FINAL REPORT

Environmental Site Assessment

MAB NewQuay Precinct
Lot 11 - Aquavista

Prepared for

MAB Delivery Pty Ltd

Level 1
54 St Kilda Road
St Kilda, VIC, 3182

February 2006

R002.DOC
 Contents

1 Introduction ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1-1

1.1 Background 1-1

1.2 Objectives 1-1
1.3 Scope of Work 1-1
1.4 Proposed Development 1-2

2 Site Description ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2-1

2.1 Site Description 2-1

2.2 Surrounding Land Uses 2-1
2.3 Planning Scheme Zoning 2-1
2.4 Existing Site Activities 2-1
2.5 Topography and Surface Drainage 2-1
2.6 Regional Geology 2-2
2.7 Regional Hydrogeology 2-2
2.8 Site History 2-3
2.9 Previous Site Assessments 2-4

3 Potential Contamination Issues---------------------------------------------------------------------- 3-1

3.1 Nature of Fill 3-1

3.2 Previous Use of the Site 3-1
3.3 Groundwater 3-1
3.4 Potential Acid Sulphate Soils 3-2
3.5 Structural Durability 3-2
3.6 Exposure Pathway Analysis 3-2
3.6.1 Potential Human Exposure Pathways 3-2
3.6.2 Potential Environmental Exposure Pathways 3-3

4 Site Investigation Methodology ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 4-1

4.1 Field Work 4-1

4.2 Soil Investigation 4-1
4.3 Groundwater Investigation 4-2
4.4 Laboratory Analysis 4-3
4.4.1 Laboratories Selected 4-3
4.4.2 Soil Analysis 4-4
4.4.3 Groundwater 4-6

5 Site Subsurface Conditions --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5-1

5.1 Geology 5-1

5.2 Hydrogeology 5-1
5.2.1 Standing Water Levels 5-3
5.2.2 Tidal Effects 5-5
5.2.3 Development and Purging of Wells 5-5

6 Investigation Results ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 6-1

6.1 Data Quality 6-1

6.1.1 Analytical Data Quality – Soils 6-1

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

i
 Contents

6.1.2 Analytical Data Quality – Groundwater 6-4

6.2 Soil Contamination 6-6
6.2.1 Contamination Assessment Guidelines 6-6
6.2.2 Chemical Analysis Results 6-7
6.3 Groundwater Contamination 6-8
6.3.1 Contaminant Assessment Guidelines 6-8
6.3.2 Chemical Analysis Results 6-9
6.4 Nature, Extent, Sources and Significance of Contamination 6-11
6.4.1 Soil Contamination 6-11
6.4.2 Groundwater Contamination 6-12
6.4.3 Potential Exposure Pathways 6-13
6.4.4 Removal of Hotspot Area 6-13

7 Remediation and Validation Works ----------------------------------------------------------------- 7-1

7.1 Scope of Work 7-1

7.2 Summary of Fieldwork 7-1
7.3 Excavation and Earthworks Methodology 7-2
7.4 URS Validation Sampling 7-2
7.5 Laboratory Analysis 7-3
7.6 Analytical Data Quality 7-4
7.7 Soil Remediation Validation 7-5
7.7.1 Remediation Validation Guidelines 7-5
7.7.2 Soil Analytical Results 7-5
7.8 Off Site Disposal of Contaminated Soil 7-6
7.9 Backfill Materials 7-6

8 Significance of Site Contamination----------------------------------------------------------------- 8-1

8.1 Beneficial Use 8-2

9 Conclusions and Recommendations -------------------------------------------------------------- 9-1

10 Limitations of Report -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------10-1

11 References -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------11-1

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

ii
 List of Tables, Figures, Plates & Appendices

Tables

Table 1 Well Gauging Details

Table 2 Well Purging Details
Table 3 Soil Analytical Data - Inorganic
Table 4 Soil Analytical Data – Organic
Table 5 Soil Analytical Data – Pesticides, VHCs and Tri-butyl Tin
Table 6 Groundwater Analytical Data – Metals, Nutrients, TPH and BTEX
Table 7 Groundwater Analytical Data –PAHs and Phenols
Table 8 Groundwater Analytical Data – SVOC, VOC
Table 9 Soil Validation Analytical Data
Table 10 QAQC

Figures

Figure 1 Site Locality Plan

Figure 2 Site Location – MAB NewQuay Precinct.
Figure 3 Regional Groundwater Contours
Figure 4 Site Investigation Plan
Figure 5 Monitoring Well Locations “The Nolan”
Figure 6 Groundwater Contours
Figure 7 Identification of Hotspot Area and Validation Sample Locations

Plates

Plate 1 Site Viewed to South

Plate 2 Site Viewed to West
Plate 3 Profile of Test Pit 8
Plate 4 Drilling of Monitoring Well MW1
Plate 5 Stormwater Pit on Northern Side of Site
Plate 6 Contaminated Soil Excavation Viewed to North-West
Plate 7 Contaminated Soil Excavation Viewed to East
Plate 8 Hotspot of Slag in Contaminated Soil Excavation
Plate 9 Contaminated Soil Excavation Viewed to South
Plate 10 Contaminated Soil Excavation Viewed to West

Appendices

Appendix A Proposed Plan of Subdivision

Appendix B Aerial Photographs from Woodward Clyde 1997 Report
Appendix C Plans of Soil Contamination across the Business Park Precinct from Woodward Clyde
1997 Report
Appendix D Soil and Groundwater Logs Including Surveyors Report – Site Assessment
Appendix E Chain of Custody and Laboratory Analytical Reports – Site Assessment
Appendix F Data Validation Tables – Site Assessment
Appendix G Chain of Custody and Laboratory Analytical Reports – Remediation Works
Appendix H Data Validation Tables – Remediation Works
Appendix I Laboratory Analytical Reports for Off-Site Soil Disposal - EnviroProtect
Appendix J Waste Transport Certificates and Equipment Calibration Certificates
Appendix K Laboratory Reports from Nolan Groundwater Monitoring Event (September 2005)

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

iii
 List of Tables, Figures & Appendices

Appendix L Piper Plot

Appendix M Groundwater Purging Sheets
Appendix N Regional Groundwater Concentration Summary Tables

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

iv
Introduction SECTION 1

1 Introduction

1.1 Background
URS Australia Pty Ltd (URS) was commissioned by MAB Delivery Pty Ltd (MAB) to undertake an
Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) at Lot 11 which forms part of the MAB NewQuay Precinct at
Docklands (see Figure 1).

MAB was the successful tenderer for the right to develop several portions of the North West precinct of
the Melbourne Docklands. As a condition of development proceeding, the Victorian Urban Development
Authority (VicUrban) required MAB to obtain a Statement of Environmental Audit (a Statement) for each
development site.

This report presents environmental data for review by an Environment Protection Authority (EPA)
accredited Environmental Auditor (the Auditor) in consideration of the site for a Certificate or Statement
of Environmental Audit, for the proposed redevelopment of the site. URS considers that the condition of
the site following remediation works undertaken would be suitable for a Statement of Environmental
Audit to be issued.

The Auditor appointed by MAB for the Lot 11 site is Michael Seignior of HLA-Envirosciences Pty Ltd
(HLA).

1.2 Objectives
The objectives of this ESA were to:

• Assess the potential for soil and groundwater contamination to exist at the site;

• Assess potential exposure pathways for identified contamination;

• If required, supervise soil and/or groundwater remediation; and

• Access the impact of identified contamination on beneficial uses of the site and adjacent Victoria
Harbour.

1.3 Scope of Work

MAB has undertaken to provide a Statement of Environmental Audit confirming that the land is suitable
for the proposed development and land use, as is provided for in Section 57AA of the Environment
Protection Act 1970.

The scope of work undertaken by URS to address the above mentioned objectives comprised the
following components:

• Review of existing information including site maps, past investigations (where available), other
surveys and other relevant records;

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

1-1
Introduction SECTION 1

• Review of the site history providing a chronological listing of the sites activities which may have
included the use or storage of hazardous substances;

• Excavation and sampling of 16 test pits to investigate the soil quality beneath the site;

• Drilling and sampling of 6 groundwater wells and sampling 5 existing groundwater wells (2 on-site
and 3 off-site) to investigate the groundwater quality beneath, and in the vicinity of the site;

• Oversee remediation including supervision of site works and validation sampling; and

• Preparation of a report describing the above findings.

1.4 Proposed Development

The proposed development for the site is the construction of a multi-storey structure that will consist of a
15 level commercial office building with ground floor entry lobby and retail/offices. The development
will also include car parking over 6 levels above the ground floor.

The majority of the structure will be constructed over the fill materials that formed the former port
operations area. The foundation system will be a series of driven concrete piles founded on the Silurian
bedrock.

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

1-2
Site Description SECTION 2

2 Site Description

2.1 Site Description

The site is located adjacent to the Victoria Harbour and forms part of the MAB NewQuay precinct of the
Melbourne Docklands redevelopment (see Figure 3). The site is to the immediate north of ‘The Nolan’
(Lot 12) and in the vicinity of the other NewQuay developments along Victoria Harbour waterfront: The
Arkley (Lot 10), St Elia/Palliado/Boyd (Lot 6/7), and the Conder (Lot 2).

The site is approximately 3,173m2 and is bounded on all three sides by roadways with a proposed
roadway to be constructed on the eastern boundary of the site. At the time of commencement of the
Environmental Site Assessment the site was vacant with a mixture of hardstand capping (asphalt and
concrete) and gravel covering the surface.

The property boundary of Lot 11 is currently defined by the proposed Plan of Subdivision as presented in
Appendix A.

2.2 Surrounding Land Uses

The land surrounding Lot 11 has previously been used for port operations. The adjacent waters of
Victoria Harbour are currently used for limited mooring of vessels. Land to the west of the site is
currently being development for a commercial landuse, the land to the south is a mixture of retail and
residential developments, the land to the west and north of the site is currently being used for car parks.

2.3 Planning Scheme Zoning

In accordance with the provisions of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, the site is subject to the
controls of the Melbourne Planning Scheme. Under the provisions of the scheme, the site is located
within the Docklands Business Park Zone -DZ1.

2.4 Existing Site Activities

At the time of site investigations, the majority of the site was disused while the western portion of the site
was used for the storage of building material. The installation of reinforced concrete piles commenced
part way through the environmental site assessment. The second groundwater monitoring event was
conducted after the commencement of pile driving.

2.5 Topography and Surface Drainage

The site is relatively flat with an elevation of approximately 1.6-2.2m relative to the Australian Height
Datum (AHD). The surface grade slopes gradually from the south to the north of the site with surface
drainage likely to run-off the site into the roadside drains surrounding the site and eventually drain into
Victoria Harbour.

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

2-1
Site Description SECTION 2

2.6 Regional Geology

The stratigraphic sequence in the site area consists of fill materials overlying Quaternary sediments which
in turn lie unconformably on the local Silurian basement.

The anticipated regional geological sequence is outlined below.

Fill (Approximately 0.0-3.0 m below ground level)

The distribution, thickness, composition and nature of fill across the area is variable, although fill is
present across the entire area. The fill is mostly associated with land reclamation of swampy ground,
waste disposal and docklands development. Fill deposits over the Yarra Delta are highly variable and
include dredged Coode Island Silts, coke, slag, brick, asphalt, gravel, sand, scrap metal, glass, engineered
soils, concrete slabs and hard rock pieces. A layer of reinforced concrete up to 1 metre thick (possibly a
former slab) is present beneath the Newquay Precinct at a depth of approximately 1 metre.

Coode Island Silt (to approximately 20m below ground level)

Coode Island Silt (CIS) deposits date to the Quaternary and are inferred to be of a marine or estuarine
origin. The deposits are typically dark grey silty clays with lesser silts and sand lenses. CIS is found
beneath the fill across the entire Business Park Precinct.

Fishermans Bend Silt (to approximately 30 m below ground level)

Fishermans Bend Silt dates to the Quaternary and is typically fissured marine silty or sandy clay which is
grey or yellow brown in colour. The Fishermans Bend Silt underlies the CIS beneath the site.

Moray Street Gravels (to approximately 32-35 m below ground level)

Moray Street Gravels are typically quartz sand and gravel with some clay and are a high permeability
formation inferred to be of fluvial origin. This unit is found underlying Fishermans Bend Silt.

Melbourne Formation

The Melbourne Formation dates to the Silurian and is the basement rock across the site. The formation is
typically interbedded siltstone with lesser interbedded fine sandstone.

2.7 Regional Hydrogeology

The site is located within the region of the Yarra Delta Sediments and several aquifer units are likely to be
present.

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

2-2
Site Description SECTION 2

The near surface aquifer unit is likely to be within the fill material adjacent to Victoria Harbour that
extends from the surface to generally 2 to 4 metres below ground level. This shallow groundwater body
is likely to be limited in extent and was not found to extend onto this site.

The underlying CIS is generally regarded as an aquitard due to its low permeability. However, the CIS
can possess zones of higher sand content and may therefore possess limited zones of higher
permeabilities, over a range of permeabilities, and may act as a local aquifer. The Moray Street Gravels
are believed to be the first major aquifer resource under the site. Salinities approaching that of seawater
have been noted in the CIS.

Based on previous work at the site, it is likely that the regional groundwater flow would be in a south to
south-westerly direction towards Victoria Harbour. Groundwater monitoring conducted across the
NewQuay precinct indicate that anomalies such as groundwater mounding are occurring. It is likely these
anomalies are due to local recharge and discharge influences such as construction activities, leaking water
services, and sub-surface drainage features.

The proximity to estuarine water systems means that it is likely that groundwater quality will be highly
saline, and in some cases approaching that of sea water (approximately 35,000 mg/L total dissolved
solids, TDS). It has been reported that seepage of groundwater from the Coode Island Silt can posses
salinities in excess of 40,000 mg/L TDS in shallower groundwater systems.

A search of the state groundwater database in February 2006 indicated no registered extraction bores to
be located within 500 metres of the site. It is noted that numerous investigation monitoring wells (known
and unknown) have been installed within 500m of the site.

2.8 Site History

The site history has been summarised from previous site investigations (see Section 2.9).

Prior to development, the site formed part of the West Melbourne swamplands that were located along the
margins of the Yarra River.

General reclamation of the area probably commenced in the latter stages of the 19th century and may have
been undertaken using material dredged from the adjacent Victoria Harbour area and materials from the
nearby Melbourne Gasworks and Spencer Street rail yards. Port operations around the margins of
Victoria Harbour are believed to have commenced at this time.

Government cool stores were erected in the vicinity of the site in approximately 1912 with this use
continuing until 1978.

The berths to the west of the site were used for bulk coal storage from 1917 to 1960 and it is possible that
coal was also stored either on or near the site.

Stockyards were constructed to the west of the cool stores by 1957.

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

2-3
Site Description SECTION 2

It is unclear when the stockyards and cool stores were demolished. They are present in aerial photos from
1968. However, aerial photography from 1992 shows several smaller existing site buildings with
container and truck operations under way. Port operations ceased in the vicinity of Lot 11 within the last
7 years.

Aerial photographs are presented in Appendix B.

2.9 Previous Site Assessments

The results and conclusions of the most recent environmental site assessments are outlined below.

Woodward-Clyde/Golder Associates - November 1997

Woodward-Clyde (now URS) and Golder Associates conducted comprehensive soil investigation across
the Business Park Precinct (now known as North West Precinct) in November 1997. This investigation
covered an area of approximately 40 hectares. Site plans showing contaminant concentrations in the soil
profile are presented in Appendix C. The Lot 11 site is located in the vicinity of borehole BH028 on
these plans.

The relevant findings of this assessment are outlined below:

• Concentrations of contaminants (typically PAHs and metals) were reported above the adopted
industrial land use criteria in the fill material from 0 – 1.0m below ground surface across the western
and northern portions of the Business Park Precinct.

• Concentrations of contaminants (typically PAHs and metals) were reported above the adopted
industrial land use criteria in the fill material from 1.0 – 2.0m below ground surface across the
western portion of the Business Park Precinct.

• Concentrations of contaminants (typically PAHs and metals) were reported above the adopted
industrial land use criteria from 2.0 – 3.0m below ground surface across the northern and north-
western portion of the Business Park Precinct.

• One soil bore (BH028) was drilled within or near the Lot 11 footprint. Fill at 0.8-1.0m depth reported
low level concentrations of PAHs (7.2 mg/kg) and TPH (891 mg/kg).

URS Newquay Precinct GME - July 2001

A groundwater monitoring event (GME) was conducted in July 2001 to assess any trends in the physical
and chemical groundwater environment beneath the precinct. The results of the GME indicated the
following:

• Standing water levels in all wells have varied considerably since the January 2001 GME.

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

2-4
Site Description SECTION 2

• Short duration aquifer tests were conducted in the three deeper wells and the results indicate the
Coode Island Silt layer has a low transmissivity ranging from 0.06-0.07 m2/day.

• Cyanide impacts in groundwater were detected in all shallow monitoring wells. Total cyanide
concentrations in the deeper wells had reduced and were below LOR.

• Free cyanide impacts to groundwater were detected in three wells. The free cyanide concentrations
from two wells had increased slightly.

• TPH C10-C36 impacts were detected in all monitoring wells except for MW04 and MW09.
Concentrations of TPH C10-C36 in groundwater were greater than the adopted criteria in eight of the
thirteen wells. In general concentrations of TPH C10-C36 increased in all of the monitoring wells.

Groundwater Investigation MAB NewQuay Precinct – August 2001

URS were commissioned by MAB Corporation to undertake a groundwater assessment across the
Newquay Precinct of Docklands. This comprised a review of existing groundwater analytical data across
all precincts.

The findings for the Business Park precinct are outlined below:

• Groundwater levels in the twelve wells were not subject to tidal influence.

• Groundwater in the NewQuay Precinct should be considered as potentially aggressive to concrete.

• Cyanide concentrations across the Newquay Precinct are approximately 10 times less than at Lot 6.
This would suggest that the main source of cyanide impact to groundwater at Newquay was the
gasworks waste identified and removed from the north part of Lot 6.

• TPH (C10 – C36) was detected in all groundwater wells at the Newquay Precinct.

Environmental Site Assessment Lot 10 (The Arkley) URS 2000

Woodward-Clyde (now URS) conducted soil, groundwater and sediment investigations across the nearby
Newquay Lot 10 in January 2000 (ref A31/01444/003ESA/REPORT_B.doc).

The relevant findings of this assessment are outlined below:

• Analysis of soils from Lot 10 indicated contaminant concentrations were generally below the
ANZECC B/Dutch B guideline values. All soil contaminant concentrations were below the NEHF D
Guidelines for residential use with limited soil contact;

• The soil contamination identified on Lot 10 was not considered to pose a constraint to the proposed
development, due to low concentrations and the lack of contaminant exposure pathways.

• Analytical results indicated the Coode Island Silts may be a Potential Acid Sulphate Soil.

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

2-5
Site Description SECTION 2

• Limited groundwater contamination was identified beneath Lot 10 with several instances of metal
impact above the adopted guideline values.

Environmental Site Assessment Lot 6/7 (St Elia/Palliado/Boyd) URS 2000

Woodward-Clyde (now URS) conducted soil, groundwater and sediment investigations across the nearby
Newquay Lot 6/7 in November 2000 (ref 44869-005-561\5001\r057-c.doc).

The relevant findings of this assessment are outlined below:

• Analysis of soils from Lot 6/7 indicated a layer of gasworks type fill in the north east portion of the
site. This layer contained elevated concentrations of total cyanide, TPH and PAH. These
concentrations exceeded the NEHF D Guidelines for residential use with limited soil contact;

• The gasworks waste identified in the north eastern portion of Lot 6/7 was considered to pose a
constraint on the proposed development due to the possibility of vapour migration and the likely
impact on groundwater.

• Groundwater contamination was identified beneath Lot 6 with total and free cyanide, PAH and TPH
concentrations exceeding the adopted guideline values.

• Soil remediation and validation works conducted by URS and others parties in October 2000 resulted
in the removal and off site disposal of the vast majority of the identified contamination from Lot 6.
Residual amount of TPH, PAH and total cyanide, above the adopted criteria in soil remained at the
edge of the remediated area.

• With the removal of the PAH and TPH contaminated soils, the significance of the remaining PAH
and TPH impact at Lot 6 was considered to be minimal.

Environmental Site Assessment Roads and Infrastructure Works, MAB, NewQuay,

Docklands URS 2001

URS conducted soil investigations across the Newquay area in November 2001 (ref 44869-011-
561\5001\Report-B.doc).

The relevant findings of this assessment are outlined below:

• Validation samples collected from the fill removed from 0-1.5m depth during the installation of a
drainage trench through the Lot 11 site reported elevated results of PAHs. The concentrations for
PAHs including benzo(a)pyrene were greater than the NEPM-F criteria for Commercial/Industrial
use. Concentrations of 7.3 and 15 mg/kg were reported for benzo(a)pyrene and up to 175 mg/kg for
total PAHs.

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

2-6
Site Description SECTION 2

Environmental Site Assessment Lot 12 (The Nolan) URS 2002

URS conducted soil and groundwater investigations across the adjoining Newquay Lot 12 in May 2002
(ref 44869-012-561\5001\ESAReportLot12.doc).

The relevant findings of this assessment are outlined below:

• In general soil contamination was encountered in a hotspot to the north east corner of the site.
Contamination occurred in a distinct layer of fine crushed rock and coke/ash material that was
approximately 0.5m thick and located at a depth of approximately 1.2-1.4m below ground surface.
Soil remediation works (off-site removal) were conducted at this location.

• Validation samples collected on the northern and western site boundaries reported elevated
concentrations of TPH, PAHs and heavy metals.

• Elevated free cyanide was encountered in two monitoring wells and elevated TPH (>C9) was reported
in five monitoring wells on site.

Environmental Site Assessment Lot 2 (The Conder) URS 2004

URS conducted soil and groundwater investigations across the nearby Newquay Lot 2 in March 2004 (ref
44869-015-561\5001\URS Report_Final.doc).

The relevant findings of this assessment are outlined below:

• A number of exceedances of the adopted NEPM D and F HIL were reported for several parameters
including lead, total cyanide and PAHs.

• Soil contamination at the site included a layer of green/brown fill detected in the north east corner of
the site which reported elevated concentrations of cyanide (total and free), PAHs and TPH (C10 –
C36). It is believed that the historical placement of gasworks waste was the source of this
contamination. Elevated PAHs were also detected in fill material beneath the concrete slab on the
eastern portion of the site.

• Significant concentrations of naphthalene, TPH, PAH and cyanide (total and free) were detected in
groundwater monitoring wells in the immediate vicinity of the contaminated soil layer in the north
east corner of the site.

• Soil remediation works were conducted at the site to remove the identified soil contamination in the
north east corner of the site. Further remediation of the fill beneath the second concrete slab layer in
the eastern part of the site was not conducted due to limited exposure and groundwater in down
gradient wells was not impacted with heavy metals or PAHs.

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

2-7
Potential Contamination Issues SECTION 3

3 Potential Contamination Issues

Based on the site history and the contaminants identified in previous assessments, the following potential
contamination issues have been identified

3.1 Nature of Fill

Filling of the site has occurred in several episodes across the site for at least 100 years. Potential sources
of fill include dredging from the Victorian Harbour, waste from the former Melbourne gasworks,
materials from local industries and other unidentified sources.

Previous investigations in the vicinity of the site indicate that there is heavy metals, TPH and PAH
contamination in the fill. Based on the possible fill material sources, the potential exists for the presence
of contaminants particularly Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH’s), cyanide and phenol
compounds.

3.2 Previous Use of the Site

The various industrial uses of the site may have resulted in the contamination of soil and groundwater.
Impact is likely to have occurred due to the leakage and/or spillage of chemicals during site operations.
The previous uses of the site and potential contaminants of concern are summarised below.

• Stockyards – ammonia, nitrate;

• Coolrooms – ammonia (historically used as refrigerant); and

• Port operations – TPH (from port vehicles), heavy metals and organo-tins (from ship/vehicle
maintenance and painting.

3.3 Groundwater
Only limited perched groundwater was detected in fill material that underlies the site. The fill materials
ranged in thickness from 1m to 2.5m below ground surface.

The underlying Coode Island Silts are generally regarded as an aquitard due to their low permeability. In
the region of the site, the Coode Island Silts are believed to be in the order of 20 metres thick. At some
limited locations within this unit, the Coode Island Silt may possess a higher sand content and may
therefore possess limited zones of higher permeability. At these locations, the Coode Island Silt may act
as a localised aquifer system. However, these areas are likely to exist as discrete systems that may be
localised in extent and may not necessarily have any defined path flow.

Previous investigations conducted on surrounding lots indicate groundwater in the shallow fill aquifer and
CIS aquifer is contaminated with TPHs, heavy metals and cyanide (total and free).

The low permeability of the Coode Island Silt strata is likely to have restricted any significant impact on
the deeper Moray Street Gravel aquifer.

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

3-1
Potential Contamination Issues SECTION 3

3.4 Potential Acid Sulphate Soils

The CIS underling the site are a recognised potential acid sulphate soil.

CIS samples were analysed for acid sulphate soil properties in the previous site assessments on Lot 10
and Lot 6/7. The results indicated that there is a potential for acidity through the oxidation of pyrite and
therefore the CIS was classified as potential acid sulphate soil.

3.5 Structural Durability

The chemical properties of the soils and groundwater, particularly pH, sulphate and chloride, may have an
impact on the durability of the proposed construction.

3.6 Exposure Pathway Analysis

Limited potential exposure pathways were identified for the site chemicals of potential concern, based on
available site assessment data as described in the above sections. The following sections identify the
human and environmental receptors, which may be potentially exposed to chemicals of concern, in
addition to describing the potential pathways via which exposure may occur.

3.6.1 Potential Human Exposure Pathways

As discussed, the identified sources of soil contamination are assessed to be primarily associated with fill
materials used in previous site development.

Under the proposed land use scenario (ie. commercial with no soil access), likely human receptors
exposed to potential contamination arising from the site include:

• future construction workers;

• future maintenance workers; and

• future site workers.

The primary contaminant exposure pathways of concern for these receptors are likely to be:

• the inhalation of fugitive dusts generated during construction;

• direct dermal contact with contaminated soil and/or groundwater during construction;

• incidental ingestion of contaminated soil and/or groundwater during construction; and

• inhalation of volatile vapours which enter buildings or excavations.

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

3-2
Potential Contamination Issues SECTION 3

Exposure to contaminated soil and groundwater was not considered to be an exposure pathway of concern
for the future site occupiers and /or workers as there will be no exposed soils or groundwater following
completion of construction.

The significance of potential impact to identified human receptors is dependent on whether the identified
pathways are found to be complete and on the degree and extent of any potential sources of exposure (ie.
contaminated soil and groundwater).

3.6.2 Potential Environmental Exposure Pathways

The site is located in a former port operations area and does not contain any significant areas of natural
vegetation.

Consideration of potential ecological receptors is therefore limited to the aquatic ecosystems of the
nearby Victoria Harbour.

The primary pathways by which site contaminants may impact on the environment of Victoria Harbour:

• discharge of groundwater;

• surface water and/or sediment run off (via stormwater) during construction where significant soil
contamination is present; and

• flow of groundwater via preferrential pathways, such as the stormwater line and water main, and then
discharging to Victoria Harbour.

The significance of potential impact to the identified environmental receptors is dependent on the degree
and extent of contamination.

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

3-3
Site Investigation Methodology SECTION 4

4 Site Investigation Methodology

4.1 Field Work

The following scope of work was conducted to allow a detailed assessment of the identified potential
environmental issues identified with Lot 11. The scope of work was reviewed by the Auditor prior to
commencement.

All site work was undertaken under a project specific health and safety plan. Qualified URS
environmental staff supervised all fieldwork activities.

4.2 Soil Investigation

The soil investigation was conducted in two stages. The first stage was conducted between 2nd and 5th
September, 2005 and involved the drilling of seven boreholes that were subsequently converted into
groundwater monitoring wells (MW1 to MW4, and MW2A to MW4A). These bores were drilled to
depths ranging from 1.6m to 5.0m. The geology of each borehole was logged, with soil samples collected
from bores MW1 to MW3. Soil samples were not collected from the shallow bores due to the immediate
proximity to the corresponding deeper bores.

Test pits were also conducted between 2nd and 5th September, 2005 and involved the excavation, logging
and sampling of nine test pits (TP1 to TP9). These test pits were excavated to depths ranging from 1.0m
to 4.3m. Soil samples were collected from all test pits.

A second stage of soil investigation was required to further investigate soil contamination identified
during the initial soil sampling. The second stage of soil investigation was conducted on 18th October
2005 and involved the excavation of four additional test pits (TP10 to TP13) to depths ranging from 2.0m
to 4.0m. The scope of this second stage of test pits also encompassed delineating any potentially
contaminated soil adjacent to the previously installed stormwater drain (which was identified during the
Infrastructure works in 2001), however due to the uncertainty with respect to the location of the water
main on-site, test pits in these locations were not conducted.

The bores from which soil samples were obtained (MW1 to MW3) were drilled using a Geoprobe drill rig
using hollow flight augers. The locations of the soil bores are shown on Figure 4.

Soils were sampled using a split spoon sampler for the drill rig samples, and sampled from an undisturbed
portion of a bulk soil sample from the excavator bucket for those samples obtained from the test pits. Soil
samples were placed in acid washed solvent rinsed 250ml glass jar provided by the laboratory. The
sample jars were labelled and stored in an iced esky prior to dispatch to the laboratory under chain of
custody documentation.

All soil samples were screened on site for the presence of volatile organic compounds by performing
headspace readings using a portable photoionisation detector (PID). The PID was calibrated with 100ppm
isobutylene ‘standard gas’, which has a similar response to benzene. The results are reported in parts per
million (ppm) isobutylene equivalents, representing the total quantity of volatile organic compounds

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

4-1
Site Investigation Methodology SECTION 4

(VOC’s) present. The PID headspace testing provides semi-quantitative data that assists in the
development of the laboratory analysis program.

The results of the borehole logs and PID readings are presented in Appendix D.

The augers used were decontaminated between sampling locations using a phosphate free detergent
(DECON-90) solution prior to being thoroughly rinsed with potable water. The excavator bucket was
agitated between sampling locations to dislodge the majority of attached soils. Samples from the
excavator bucket were taken from a bulk sample not touching the sides of the bucket.

Field duplicate and field split samples were collected for quality assurance purposes at a frequency of at
least one for every 20 soil samples collected.

The Auditors representative collected check soil sampling during the first stage of the soil investigation.

4.3 Groundwater Investigation

Seven groundwater wells (MW1 to MW4 and MW2A to MW4A) were installed to investigate the
underlying groundwater. Three shallow wells (MW2A to MW4A) targeted the fill materials while four
deeper wells (MW1 to MW4) targeted the Coode Island Silt. The groundwater wells were drilled using a
geoprobe with hollow flight augers at the locations shown on Figure 4.

In addition two existing monitoring wells (MW5 and MW6 as labelled by URS) were found to already
exist on site. These monitoring wells were approximately 5m in depth and are likely to be monitoring
wells installed by Douglas Partners as part of the geo-technical investigation (BH5 and BH1
respectively).

Soils were sampled during selected monitoring well installation (MW1 to MW3) using a split spoon
sampler as outlined in Section 4.2. The wells were constructed with 50mm gauge PVC with threaded
connections, screened intervals in the water bearing aquifer and blank pipe to the surface, sand pack,
bentonite seal, spoil and cement grout to the surface. Well construction details are shown on the borehole
logs in Appendix D. The wells were finished with flush mounted gatic covers.

It is noted that the sand packing and well screen for the deeper Coode Island Silt wells are screened
partially within the fill layer overlying the Coode Island Silt for all wells except MW4. The groundwater
represented in MW1 and MW2 is therefore likely to include groundwater occurring in both the fill and
Coode Island Silt.

The wells were developed using a disposable bailer following installation. The wells were bailed until
three well volumes had been removed or the wells bailed dry.

Two sampling events were carried out as part of the investigation. The first sampling event occurred on
2nd September 2005. The second event was conducted on 16th November 2005 targeting the accessible
Coode Island Silt wells (MW1 to MW4) and off-site down-gradient monitoring wells on the neighbouring

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

4-2
Site Investigation Methodology SECTION 4

site, ‘The Nolan’ (MW26, MW27 and MW30). The locations of these monitoring wells are presented on
Figure 5.

The construction details of the off-site monitoring wells and the existing wells on-site are summarised as
follows:

Groundwater samples were collected after a minimum period of seven days to allow for aquifer
stabilisation. The wells were purged using low flow sampling for the first monitoring round until stable
groundwater conditions (pH, conductivity, redox, dissolved oxygen (DO) and temperature) were
measured or the wells purged near dry. The low flow pump, reel and oil/water interface probe were
decontaminated between monitoring wells using a Decon 90 solution and rinsing in potable water.
Disposable tubing and bladders were also used for each well.

Due to the slow recharge of the wells (generally about 2 to 3 hours), the wells were purged using a
disposable bailer for the second monitoring round. It is noted that the use of bailer’s is not a
recommended method for sampling for the analysis of volatile chemicals, however volatile chemicals
were not detected during the first monitoring round (using the low flow method), and was therefore
essentially eliminated as potential contaminants of concern. To minimise the effects of loss of potential
volatile substances and reduce the introduction of ambient air into the water column during bailing, care
was taken to not purge the wells completely dry, and sampling was undertaken in a controlled, slow
manner with the use of a volatile sampler fitting attached to the end of the bailer. This option was
discussed with the Auditor prior to commencement and the potential limitations of the method discussed.

Groundwater quality parameters (pH, conductivity, redox, dissolved oxygen (DO) and temperature were
also measured during the second sampling event. Groundwater samples for metals analysis were filtered
in the field with disposable 0.45 micron filters. Groundwater samples were placed in laboratory prepared
bottles. The bottles were labelled and stored in a cooled esky prior to dispatch to the laboratory under
chain of custody documentation.

The following quality assurance samples were also collected:

• Two duplicate samples (one collected from each sampling event)

• Two triplicate samples (one collected from each sampling event)

• Rinsate samples (collected during each sampling event)

• Trip blanks (analysed for each sampling event)

4.4 Laboratory Analysis

4.4.1 Laboratories Selected

Soil and groundwater samples were sent to the following analytical laboratories:

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

4-3
Site Investigation Methodology SECTION 4

First soil sampling event and first GME:

• Primary Laboratory –Australian Laboratory Services (ALS).

• Secondary Laboratories – MGT Laboratories Pty Ltd (MGT).

Second soil sampling event and second GME:

• Primary Laboratory – MGT Laboratories Pty Ltd (MGT).

• Secondary Laboratories – Australian Laboratory Services (ALS).

MGT were chosen as the primary laboratory for the second sampling events due to due the shortened time
frames required for reporting of results.

Both laboratories are NATA accredited for all completed analyses. All samples were sent to the
laboratory under a chain of custody procedure. The chain of custody documentation for the site
assessment is presented in Appendix E.

4.4.2 Soil Analysis

A total of 39 soil samples (including field duplicates and triplicates) were submitted for analysis. Of these
the following analytes were selected during the various stages of investigation:

Stage 1 (2nd September and 5th September 2005)

• Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH)/Benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, xylene (BTEX) – 24

samples;

• Heavy Metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, nickel, mercury, lead, zinc) – 20 samples;

• Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) – 22 samples;

• Cyanide – 20 samples;

• Extended metals (Beryllium, molybdenum, antimony, selenium, tin) – 4 samples;

• Tributyl-tin – 2 samples;

• Fluoride – 2 samples;

• OC/OP Pesticides – 3 samples;

• Phenols – 4 samples;

• PCBs – 5 samples;

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

4-4
Site Investigation Methodology SECTION 4

• Chlorinated Hydrocarbons – 4 samples;

• Chloride, sulphate, pH, ammonia/nitrate– 6 samples; and

• Asbestos – 5 samples.

Stage 2 (18th October 2005)

• TPH/BTEX – 11 samples;

• Heavy Metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, nickel, mercury, lead, zinc) – 11 samples;

• Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) – 11 samples;

• Cyanide – 11 samples; and

• Phenols, pH, sulphate and nitrogen compounds– 4 samples.

The total number of soil samples submitted to the laboratories for specific analyses are tabulated below.
Specific samples selected for analysis are outlined in the chain of custody documentation presented in
Appendix E.

Summary of Soil Analysis Conducted

Analyte Number of Number of Number of

primary duplicate triplicate
samples samples samples
analysed analysed analysed

TPH/BTEX 29 3 3

Metals (As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Pb, Ni, 25 3 3

Zn)

PAH 27 3 3

Cyanide 25 3 3

Extended Metals (Be, Mo, Sb, Se, 4 - -

Sn)

Sulphate, pH, Nitrogen Compounds 10 - -

PCBs 5 - -

Phenols 8 - -

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

4-5
Site Investigation Methodology SECTION 4

Analyte Number of Number of Number of

primary duplicate triplicate
samples samples samples
analysed analysed analysed

OC/OP Pesticides 3 - -

Chloride 6 - -

Volatile Chlorinated Hydrocarbons 4 - -

Flouride 2 - -

Asbestos 5 - -

Tributyl-tin 2 - -

4.4.3 Groundwater

A total of 17 groundwater samples (including field duplicates and triplicates) were submitted for analysis.
The rationale for groundwater analysis was to analyse all wells for the ‘target’ contaminants of concern;
these included TPH, BTEX, metals, PAHs, cyanide and nitrogen compounds. The target contaminants
of concern were based on site history information, including previous filling at the Docklands area which
in some locations included gasworks wastes. Also required was analysis for additional chemicals (tri-
butyl tin, PCBs, SVOCs and VOCs) of a ‘broad contaminant suite’ at an up-gradient well and a down-
gradient well, with a provision for further analysis of other wells to follow if any contaminants in the
broad contaminant suite were detected above the adopted investigation criteria. That subsequent analysis
was not required. The following analytes were selected during the various stages of investigation.

Sampling Event No 1 (13th September 2005)

Groundwater samples were analysed for the following:

• TPH/BTEX – 7 samples;

• Heavy Metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, nickel, mercury, lead, zinc) – 7 samples;

• Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) – 5 samples;

• Cyanide (total and free) – 7 samples;

• TDS/major anions and cations – 8 samples;

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

4-6
Site Investigation Methodology SECTION 4

• Nitrogen compounds – 7 samples;

• Tributyl-tin – 2 samples;

• PCBs – 2 samples;

• Semi-volatile organic compound scan – 2 samples; and

• Volatile organic compound scan – 2 samples.

Sampling Event No 2 (16th November 2005)

• Groundwater samples were analysed for the following:

• BTEX – 5 samples;

• TPH without Silica gel scrubbing – 1 sample;

• TPH with Silica gel scrubbing – 5 samples;

• Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) – 8 samples;

• Cyanide (total and free) – 4 samples;

• TDS – 8 samples; and

• Metals – 8 samples.

The total number of groundwater samples submitted to the laboratories for specific analyses are tabulated
below. Specific samples selected for analysis are outlined in the chain of custody documentation
presented in Appendix E.

Summary of Groundwater Analysis Conducted

Analyte Number of Number of Number of

primary duplicate triplicate
samples samples samples
analysed analysed analysed

TPH/BTEX 5 1 2

TPH – Silica gel clean-up 4 - 1

Metals 11 2 2

PAH 9 1 1

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

4-7
Site Investigation Methodology SECTION 4

Analyte Number of Number of Number of

primary duplicate triplicate
samples samples samples
analysed analysed analysed

Cyanide (total and free) 9 1 1

TDS 12 2 2

Major cations and anions 6 1 1

Nitrogen compounds 6 1 1

Tri-butyl tin 2 - -

PCBs 2 - -

Semi-volatile organic compounds 2 - -

Volatile organic compounds 2 - -

Rinsate samples were collected by rinsing decontaminated sampling equipment with laboratory supplied
water. Rinsate samples were collected from the nitrile gloves use to sample soils and from the low flow
pump disposable bladder and a disposable bailer for the groundwater sampling. In total four rinsate
samples were collected and analysed for the following:

• TPH/BTEX – 3 samples;

• PAH – 1 sample; and

• Heavy Metals (8) – 3 samples.

Trip blank samples travelled with the primary and secondary groundwater samples and were analysed for
TPH (C6-C9) and BTEX.

In total 6 trip samples were analysed.

Field QA/QC results are presented in Table 10 attached. Laboratory QA/QC is summarised in the data
validation reports presented in Appendix F, with the full laboratory QA/QC reports provided in
Appendix E.

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

4-8
Site Subsurface Conditions SECTION 5

5 Site Subsurface Conditions

5.1 Geology
The geology encountered in the investigation was consistent with the regional geology (see Section 2.6).

Dark grey to black fill materials were encountered overlying the CIS. The total depth of the fill varied
from approximately 1.2m to 2.3m. The fill existed in two distinct layers; one layer from near surface
down to approximately 1.0 metre below ground surface, and a second layer under a buried concrete slab,
with this fill varying in thickness from 0.3m to 1.0m. The upper layer of fill was compromised of crushed
rock and gravels. A layer of concrete 0.2-0.3m thick was intersected at most locations below the upper
layer of fill.

Fill material beneath the buried concrete slab (secondary fill layer) in the vicinity of test pit TP13
comprised black sandy gravel and ash. This is believed to be a gas works waste commonly known as
‘slag’.

The Coode Island Silt (CIS) was encountered beneath the fill materials in all bores. The CIS was a soft,
dark grey to light grey, medium plasticity with traces of organic matter.

A review of the geo-technical logs (Douglas Partners, 2005), indicated that the sub-surface condition of
the site as described in those logs was consistent with the URS observations and logs. No previously
unidentified sub-surface features or fill was noted on the geo-technical logs. There were two locations (in
the vicinity of test locations TP5 and MW3), where the buried concrete slab was discontinuous, however
this is not considered to be significant with respect to any unidentified potentially contaminating sub-
surface features.

5.2 Hydrogeology
The description of the site-specific hydrogeology is based on observations made during monitoring well
installation and subsequent groundwater sampling. This information is summarised in the Table below.

Site-Specific Hydrogeology

Activity Description

Depth to Groundwater Groundwater was intercepted during drilling at depths of between 1.5-
2.5mBGL. Stabilised standing water levels (SWLs) ranged between
1.13mBTOC and 1.51mBTOC for the shallow Fill monitoring wells (with one
well being dry) and 0.772mBTOC and 2.43mBTOC for the deeper CIS
monitoring wells.

Details of gauging are presented in Table 1 attached.

Groundwater The fill material contained limited perched groundwater at some locations.
Occurrence Water was encountered in two of three wells targeting the fill aquifer across

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

5-1
Site Subsurface Conditions SECTION 5

Activity Description

the site, however only one well (MW2A) contained sufficient water to obtain
samples. Given the discontinuous and transitory nature of the groundwater in
the fill and based on field observations, groundwater in the fill would provide
insufficient yield for groundwater use.

The underlying CIS is generally regarded as an aquitard due to its low

permeability. Monitoring wells installed in the CIS generally purged dry and
recovered slowly (approximately 2 to 3 hours). Monitoring well MW4 was the
exception to this, which recharged quickly enough to allow low flow sampling
without draw down of the water table. It appears that MW4 is being
recharged by a localised freshwater source of water due to the higher
recharge and lower TDS. A stormwater pipe in the immediate vicinity of the
MW4 screen is likely to be the source of this recharge.

Gradient and Inferred groundwater contours indicate that the hydraulic gradient is within the
Groundwater Flow order of 0.01 (south-west) to 0.04 (north-west) for the CIS. Based on gauging
Direction data, and with consideration of regional flow data that indicates a general
south-west flow direction, groundwater in the CIS is inferred to flow in south-
westerly direction towards Victoria Harbour. There also appears to be a local
discharge feature to the north of the site which is drawing groundwater on the
northern portion of the site in this direction.

Groundwater contours for the CIS are presented on Figure 6.

Hydraulic Conductivity According to Egis (1998), horizontal hydraulic conductivities for CIS in the
Docklands area have been reported between 0.0003m/day – 2.42m/day, with
vertical hydraulic conductivities reported between 9.5e-6m/day – 1.9e-6m/day.

Groundwater Flow The calculation of a meaningful travel time for groundwater to Victoria
Velocity Harbour is problematic based on the large variability of hydraulic data for the
CIS. Using the maximum gradient observed on site (0.04), the range of
hydraulic conductivities reported for the CIS and assuming an effective
porosity of 2%, a groundwater seepage velocity in the range of 6 x 10-4 m/day
to 4.8 m/day is calculated.

mBGL – metres below ground level

mBTOC – metres below top of casing

As previously stated, monitoring wells MW1 to MW3 are screened within the Coode Island Silt and
partially within the overlying fill layer. Monitoring well MW4 was screened only within the Coode
Island Silt and the screen separated from the overlying fill layer by a bentonite seal. Based on the
standing water level within MW4 and MW4a being identical for both monitoring events and the
observation that draw-down occurred in MW4a during purging of MW4, it is considered likely that there
is a degree of hydraulic connection between groundwater in the fill layer and the Coode Island Silt.
Interaction between the perched groundwater and the CIS groundwater may include movement through

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

5-2
Site Subsurface Conditions SECTION 5

the buried slab where it is breached (or non-existent). Test pit construction which breached the buried
slab may have promoted these interactions at point locations. It is also noted that groundwater in the fill
layer is discontinuous across the site (as was shown by monitoring well MW3a being dry). However, also
noted in regard to MW3 and MW3a is that the SWL of MW3 coincided with the screened interval of
MW3a, yet MW3a was dry, inferring that at this location there is a degree of hydraulic separation
between the fill and CIS.

Mixing of groundwater in the CIS and Fill material is confirmed by the results from MW4. It is therefore
considered that the data implications from MW1 and MW3 being screened across both layers are not
significant, as at certain locations groundwater in the CIS is expected to reflect the condition of any
perched groundwater occurring in fill material.

5.2.1 Standing Water Levels

Standing water levels were gauged on 2nd September, 28th September, and 16th November 2005 and are
presented in Table 1 attached.

MW3A was a dry well with no water observed at this location in the shallow fill aquifer during drilling or
groundwater sampling.

Inferred potentiometric contours based on data from this investigation are presented in Figure 5 and
Figure 6. Figure 5 shows the groundwater contours for the second gauging event in which both on-site
and off-site wells were gauged. Figure 6 shows the groundwater contours from the first gauging event in
which data from the on-site wells only were obtained. The contours from the first gauging event are
considered to be more representative of the local groundwater flow directions as these SWLs were
measured prior to the commencement of on-site construction activities. These construction activities
included sub-surface disturbance including pile driving, excavations for the pile caps, and removal of the
buried slab at certain areas. The SWLs from the fill wells were not contoured, on the basis of the
discontinuous nature of groundwater within these wells.

The plotted contours indicate that groundwater flow in the Coode Island Silt is generally south-west
(approximate gradient of 0.01) with a localised north-west flow vector on the northern portion of the site
(approximate gradient of 0.04). Victoria Harbour is considered to be the point of discharge for
groundwater. This is consistent with the expected regional groundwater flow from previous assessments.
However the following should be noted:

• Due to the very limited groundwater observed in the fill wells, this stratigraphy is not considered to
be a permanent aquifer, therefore groundwater contours have not been plotted.

• Standing water levels for wells MW3A, MW4A, MW5 and MW6 were not recorded during the last
gauging event, due to construction activities limiting the access to these wells.

• MW06 had been destroyed during the initial construction activities.

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

5-3
Site Subsurface Conditions SECTION 5

• A local freshwater recharge of groundwater in the CIS in the vicinity of monitoring well MW4 is
likely to occur. This assertion is supported by the concentration of ions within the monitoring wells
on site as shown in the Piper Plot presented in Appendix L.

• A water main located between test pit TP7 and monitoring well MW3 was damaged during the initial
construction activities. This occurred approximately 1 week before the second groundwater
sampling event. It is possible that this influx of fresh water may have influenced the groundwater
flow within the Coode Island Silt.

• The standing water level for MW2 increased significantly between GMEs. In addition the TDS
dropped significantly between GMEs in this monitoring well. This is likely to be due to the impacts
of a burst water main which occurred on the northern portion of the site at this time.

• The drop in standing water level between GMEs for MW3 cannot be readily explained. A possible
explanation is that it was associated with the commencement of construction activities on site during
this period.

• The degree of hydraulic connection between the CIS aquifer and the fill layer is likely to have
influenced the SWLs recorded across the site. Variabilities in the degrees of hydraulic connection
were observed (as stated above, the standing water levels observed at MW3 and MW3A infer a
hydraulic barrier between the fill material and Coode Island Silts at this location, while at MW4 /
MW4A, hydraulic connection is inferred), and it is likely that such variabilities exist elsewhere
across the site. In addition, those wells targeting CIS that include screened interval across both CIS
and fill (MW1, MW2 (and MW3)) would indicate groundwater elevations accordingly, possibly
slightly higher or lower than indicated in wells screened across CIS alone.

• MW6 and MW5 are screened only across the CIS, as is MW4. Considering data from 12 September
2005 (Figure 6) from these wells alone, components of groundwater flow in the CIS from MW4
towards MW6 (west-southwest) and from MW4 (and MW6) towards MW5 (northwest) are
indicated. These flow components are consistent with the contours shown in Figure 6, which are
based on data from all wells targeting the CIS. On this basis, it is considered that the contours are
likely to be a reasonable interpretation of CIS groundwater flow directions, despite that the actual
effects of screening across both horizons at certain locations are not fully understood, and that
varying degrees of hydraulic connection between these horizons was observed. We further note that
the north-western flow vector is likely to be temporary, possibly due to construction activities
occurring in this area.

• As discussed previously, data for MW5 and MW6 were not available for the 16 November 2005
monitoring event (Figure 5), so similar analysis is not possible for that gauging event. It is noted that
the groundwater elevation at MW3, which would indicate a strong groundwater sink at the north-
eastern area of the site, was not included in contouring of Figure 5 as that standing water level (sink)
was inconsistent with previously observed levels, and is considered anomalous.

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

5-4
Site Subsurface Conditions SECTION 5

5.2.2 Tidal Effects

The influence of tidal effects in the monitoring wells was not monitored as part of this investigation.
However a detailed monitoring program and assessment was conducted during the groundwater
investigation of Newquay in August 2001 (URS, 2001).

In summary, the tidal gauging indicated that the tidal influence on the groundwater levels is not
significant. Groundwater levels beneath Newquay show a total variation of 0.01-0.02m. In comparison
the seawater control bore showed a total variation of approximately 0.6-0.7m. Tidal influence on
groundwater flow direction is therefore expected to be minimal.

5.2.3 Development and Purging of Wells

The low yielding characteristics of the CIS were confirmed during the groundwater development, purging
and sampling with most of the wells bailing dry and recovering slowly.

The groundwater removed was generally brown or yellow in colour and turbid. One monitoring well on
site (MW2) was observed to have a hydrogen sulphide odour, whilst all three monitoring wells at ‘The
Nolan’ were observed to have this odour. This odour is considered to be due to the natural chemical
composition of the Coode Island Silt.

Groundwater parameters measured during the purging and development of each well are presented in
Table 2 attached and summarised below:

• Groundwater pH concentrations in the CIS ranged from 6.3 to 7.0. These pH concentrations indicate
slightly acidic water.

• Redox potential (Eh) levels in the CIS ranged from –187 mV to 113 mV. Generally most of the
redox readings were negative indicating that water is strongly reducing, which is supported by the
identified hydrogen sulphide odours observed as some wells.

• The measured dissolved oxygen (DO) levels in the CIS ranged from 0.1mg/L to 6.5mg/L. DO
readings within the CIS are relatively high compared to expected background (0-1.0mg/L).

• Electrical conductivity (EC) readings in the CIS ranged from 18.41mS/cm to 39.5mS/cm (with MW4
an outlier with a reading of 3.31mS/cm). The EC indicates very saline groundwater, with salinities
increasing with proximity to Victoria Harbour.

• The Coode Island Silt wells were generally screened below the final standing water levels, which
may present limitations for the assessment of phase separated hydrocarbons (where they occur).
However, the occurrence of phase separated hydrocarbons is considered to be unlikely based on the
dissolved phase concentrations of TPH (C6-C9) and BTEX reported on site and based on site
observations during drilling, purging and sampling which did not record any hydrocarbon odours. It
is therefore considered that well construction has not affected the extent to which the investigation
addresses potential occurrence of phase separated hydrocarbons.

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

5-5
Investigation Results SECTION 6

6 Investigation Results

6.1 Data Quality

Analytical data validation is the process of assessing whether the data is in compliance with method
requirements and project specifications. The primary objectives of this process are to ensure that data of
known quality are reported, and to identify if the data can be used to fulfil the overall project objectives.

The data validation guidelines adopted are based upon data validation guidance documents published by
the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) February 1994. The process involves
checking of analytical procedure compliance and an assessment of the accuracy and precision of
analytical data from a range of quality control measurements, generated from both the field sampling and
analytical programs.

Specific elements that have been checked and assessed for this project include:

• preservation and storage of samples upon collection and during transport to the laboratory;

• sample holding times;

• use of appropriate analytical and field sampling procedures;

• required limits of reporting;

• frequency of conducting quality control measurements;

• field and trip blank results;

• laboratory blank results;

• field duplicate results;

• laboratory duplicate results;

• matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) results;

• surrogates spike results; and

• the occurrence of apparently unusual or anomalous results, e.g., laboratory results that appear to be
inconsistent with field observations or measurements.

6.1.1 Analytical Data Quality – Soils

On the basis of the analytical data validation procedure employed, the overall quality of the soil analytical
data produced is considered to be of an acceptable standard for interpretive use. However, the following
should be noted:

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

6-1
Investigation Results SECTION 6

• Field Sampling Procedures. All field samples for the soil sampling works were collected in
accordance with standard URS field sampling procedures as outlined in Section 4 of this report. The
sampling methods employed are considered sufficient in order to meet the data quality objectives of
this investigation.

• Sample Preservation and Handling. All field samples for the remediation works were handled and
preserved in accordance with standard URS quality procedures as outlined in Section 4 of this report.
All sample handling and preservation methods employed are considered sufficient in order to meet
the data quality objectives of this investigation.

• Sample Holding Times. All field samples were tested within acceptable holding times for the
relevant analysis requested.

• Required Limits of Reporting (LORs). LORs were raised 2 times the original LOR for PAHs for
sample TP11_0.9-1.0. The raised LOR is not expected to impact on the overall quality of the data
for interpretive use.

• Frequency of Quality Control Measurements. The frequency of QAQC samples collected

throughout the entire sampling event was in accordance with project specifications.

• Trip Blank Results. A summary of the trip blank results are presented in Table 10 attached. All
trip blank results were below the relevant laboratory limits of reporting for the analytes tested.

• Rinsate Blank Results. A summary of the rinsate blank results are presented in Table 10 attached.
Rinsate blank, QC07_5/9/05 collected off a glove during the soil sampling program, returned a
positive concentration for zinc (0.068 µg/L). This concentration is low and close to the LOR and is
likely attributable to background concentrations of the analyte in the rinsate water, rather than
indicated the occurrence of cross contamination.

• Field Duplicate Results.

– All field duplicates were within the acceptable ranges with the exception of the following
sample pairs:

– Elevated RPDs were calculated between TP12_1.6-1.7 and field duplicate, QC02_18/10/05
for moisture content, anthracene, and phenanthrene. The RPD for anthracene is due to results
between 10 and 20 times the LOR with an RPD that exceeds the 50% acceptance criteria.
The RPD for phenanthrene is due to results greater than 20 times the LOR with an RPD
greater than 30%. This is most likely due to the sample matrix variation as the corresponding
RPD for moisture content suggests this. Therefore the highest results should be adopted for
interpretive use (QC02_18/10/05 for anthracene and phenanthrene).

RPDs are included in Appendix F.

• Field Triplicate Results.

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

6-2
Investigation Results SECTION 6

All field triplicates were within the acceptable ranges with the exception of the following sample
pairs:

– An elevated RPD was calculated between MW2_2.5-2.6 and field triplicate, QC3_2/9/05 for
nickel. This was due to results greater than 20 times the LOR with an RPD greater than 30%
and is attributable to sample heterogeneity. Results were confirmed by re-digestion and re-
analysis by both laboratories. Therefore, to be conservative, the highest result should be
adopted for interpretive use (adopt field triplicate result of 120 mg/kg).

– An elevated RPD were calculated between TP12_1.6-1.7 and field triplicate, QC03_18/10/05
for benzo(k)flouranthene, chrysene, fluoranthene, phenanthrene, and pyrene. This was due to
results greater than 20 times the LOR with an RPD greater than 30% and may be due to sample
heterogeneity and differing laboratory methodologies. Therefore, the highest results should be
adopted for interpretive use (adopt TP12_1.6-1.7 results).

RPDs are included in Appendix F.

• Laboratory Duplicate Results.

All laboratory duplicates RPDs were within the acceptable ranges with the exception of the following
pairs:

– An elevated RPD was calculated between TP4_0.1-0.2 and TP4_0.1-0.2CHK for nickel. This
was due to concentrations more than 20 times the LOR with an RPD greater than 30%. This is
likely due to sample heterogeneity and the results were confirmed by ALS as noted on the
laboratory report. Therefore, to be conservative the highest result should be adopted for
interpretive use (adopt TP4_0.1-0.2CHK result of 77 mg/kg).

– Elevated RPDs were calculated between TP10_1.5-1.6 and TP10_1.5-1.6CHK for zinc and
phenanthrene. These RPDs are due to results greater than 20 times the LOR with RPDs that
exceed the 30% acceptance criteria. Therefore, the highest results should be adopted for
interpretive use (TP10_1.5-1.6CHK for zinc and TP10_1.5-1.6 for phenanthrene).

RPDs for laboratory duplicates are included in the laboratory reports in Appendices F.

• Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate (MS/MSD) Results.

A Not Determined 'ND' matrix spike was reported for MW2_0.5-0.6 for free cyanide. This was due
to sample matrix interference. A low recovery was reported for MW2_2.5-2.6 for
pentachlorophenol. This is not uncommon due to the nature and stability of the compound.

MS/MSD results are included in the laboratory reports in Appendices F.

• Surrogates Spike Results.

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

6-3
Investigation Results SECTION 6

A low surrogate recovery was reported for TP8_1.8-1.9 for 4-Bromofluorobenzene. It was noted on the
laboratory report that this was due to the excess moisture content in the sample. The low surrogate
recovery is unlikely to impact on the quality of data for interpretive use.

Surrogate results are included in the laboratory reports in Appendices E.

6.1.2 Analytical Data Quality – Groundwater

On the basis of the analytical data validation procedure employed, the overall quality of the groundwater
analytical data produced is considered to be of an acceptable standard for interpretive use. However, the
following should be noted:

• Field Sampling Procedures. All field samples for the groundwater sampling were collected in
accordance with standard URS field sampling procedures as outlined in Section 4.1 of this report.
The sampling methods employed are considered sufficient in order to meet the data quality
objectives of this investigation.

• Sample Preservation and Handling. All field samples for the remediation works were handled and
preserved in accordance with standard URS quality procedures as outlined in Section 4.1 of this
report. All sample handling and preservation methods employed are considered sufficient in order to
meet the data quality objectives of this investigation.

• Sample Holding Times. All field samples were tested within acceptable holding times for the
relevant analysis requested.

• Required Limits of Reporting LORs were raised for various SVOC/VOC compounds for sample
MW1_13/9/05 (primary groundwater sample) due to insufficient sample available for analysis. The
following compounds had LORs greater than the Groundwater Quality Objectives: benzo(a)pyrene,
fluoranthene, endrin and chlorpyrifos. Lower limits of reporting were used for the second
groundwater monitoring event (below or close to the Groundwater Quality Objectives), and all
results were below the LOR. Therefore the elevated LORs for the first sampling event are not
considered likely to impact on the use of this data for interpretive purposes. No pesticides were
detected during either GME above the laboratory LORs and pesticides are not considered to be a
likely source of groundwater contamination in this area.

• Frequency of Quality Control Measurements. The frequency of QAQC samples collected

throughout the entire sampling event was in accordance with project specifications.

• Trip Blank Results. A summary of the trip blank results are presented in Table 10 attached. All
trip blank results were below the relevant laboratory limits of reporting for the analytes tested.

• Rinsate Blank Results. A summary of the rinsate blank results are presented in Table 10 attached.
The rinsate blank QC05_13/9/05 reported a concentration for copper of 0.002 mg/L. This
concentrations is low and close to the laboratory LOR and is likely attributable to the background
concentration of the analyte in the rinsate water, rather than cross contamination.

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

6-4
Investigation Results SECTION 6

• Field Duplicate Results.

All field duplicates were within the acceptable ranges with the exception of the following sample
pairs:

– Elevated RPDs were calculated between MW1_16/11/05 and QC02_16/11/05 for TPH fractions
within the C15 to C36 bands during the second monitoring event. In addition, all of the monitoring
wells sampled during the first monitoring event report concentration of TPH fractions within the
C15 to C36 above the laboratory LORs (up to 4,750 ug/L). Subsequent to these results being
reported, the secondary laboratory (ALS) was requested by URS to perform a ‘silica gel clean-up’
on sample QC02_16/11/05 prior to re-analysis for TPH. The reported results for TPH (C10 to C36
bands) after the silica gel clean-up were below the laboratory LORs. The silica gel clean-up
removes any organic based TPH, therefore it is likely that the positive concentrations of TPH
reported for QC02_16/11/05 are organic based TPH, possible occurring naturally within the
Coode Island Silt groundwater.

– An elevated RPD was calculated between MW4_13/9/05 and QC03_13/9/05 for ionic balance.
The difference between the ionic balances for these samples however was minimal and is not
considered to significant with respect to the ionic balance being used an indication of general
groundwater conditions.

– Elevated RPDs were calculated between MW1_16/11/05 and QC01_16/11/05 (for arsenic and
nickel). These elevated RPDs are due to results that are more than 20 times the LOR with an
RPD greater than 30%. Therefore, the highest result should be adopted for interpretive use (adopt
duplicate sample results).

RPDs are included in Appendix H.

• Field Triplicate Results.

All field triplicates were within the acceptable ranges with the exception of the following sample
pairs:

– Elevated RPDs were calculated between MW4_13/9/05 and QC04_13/9/05 for potassium,
sulphate and nitrate. These elevated RPDs are due to results that are more than 20 times the LOR
with an RPD greater than 30%. Therefore the highest result is adopted for interpretive use (adopt
primary sample for potassium and sulfate and field triplicate result for nitrate).

– Elevated RPDs were calculated between MW1_16/11/05 and QC02_16/11/05 (for arsenic,
chromium and nickel). These elevated RPDs are due to results that are more than 20 times the
LOR with an RPD greater than 30%. Therefore, the highest result should be adopted for
interpretive use (adopt primary sample results).

RPDs are included in Appendix F.

• Laboratory Duplicate Results.

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

6-5
Investigation Results SECTION 6

All laboratory duplicates RPDs were within the acceptable ranges.

RPDs for laboratory duplicates are included in the laboratory reports in Appendices E.

• Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate (MS/MSD) Results.

– Low recoveries were reported for MW2_13/9/05 for total cyanide. This low recovery is most
likely due to sample matrix interference and is not considered to impact on the quality of the data
for interpretive use.

– A matrix spike was reported as Not Determined for MW2_13/9/05 for ammonia. It was noted on
the laboratory report that this was due to matrix interferences. This should not impact the quality
of the data for interpretive use.

MS/MSD results are included in the laboratory reports in Appendices E.

• Surrogates Spike Results. The results for the surrogate recoveries were reported as being within the
acceptable ranges for all samples.

Surrogate results are included in the laboratory reports in Appendices E.

6.2 Soil Contamination

6.2.1 Contamination Assessment Guidelines

The National Environment Protection Council (NEPC) issued the National Environment Protection
(Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure in December 1999 to provide an approach for the
assessment, management and remediation of contaminated land (referred to as the NEPM for
contaminated land). The NEPM for contaminated land includes threshold concentrations in soils for a
range of common contaminants (Table 5A of Schedule B(1)), above which further investigation of a site
should be considered for the protection of the environmental and human health. The guideline values
outlined in Table 5A are referred to herein as the “NEPM Guidelines”.

Ecologically Based Investigation Levels (EIL) will be developed at a regional level. In the interim it is
proposed that generic EILs are set for urban (comprising city, suburban and industrial areas) land use.
The interim EILs for an urban setting are based on considerations of phytotoxicity and soil survey data
from four Australian Capital Cities.

The NEPM Guidelines provide a risk-based Health Investigation Level (HIL) for selected organic and
inorganic chemicals. These levels are provided for a variety of exposure settings. As the proposed future
use of the site is for a carpark and commercial offices, the appropriate comparison guideline is considered
to be the NEPM_F (Commercial/industrial; includes premises such as shops and offices as well as
factories and industrial sites.).

Based on this land use, the proposed primary contamination guidelines are the NEPM_EIL and NEPM_F
guidelines for consideration of potential impacts to the ecosystem and human health.

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

6-6
Investigation Results SECTION 6

In the case where no NEPM guidelines have been set for particular analytes, results have been compared
with the Dutch B guidelines, particularly for petroleum hydrocarbon compounds.

6.2.2 Chemical Analysis Results

Analytical results for soils are summarised in Tables 3 to 5 attached. Results above the adopted
investigation levels have been highlighted. Chain of custody documentation and laboratory analysis
reports are presented in Appendix E. Field headspace readings (PIDs) for soil samples collected are
shown on the soil borehole logs in Appendix D. The summary of the soil results is shown in the table
below.

Soil Analytical Results Summary

Analyte Min Max Samples Exceeding Investigation Levels

Concentrati Concentrati
on (mg/kg) on (mg/kg)

Ammonia <20 40 No adopted investigation levels

Nitrate <0.1 <5 No adopted investigation levels

Total Cyanide <1 10 No exceedances of investigation levels

Free Cyanide <1 <5 No exceedances of investigation levels

BTEX <0.2 0.7 No exceedances of investigation levels

TPH C6-C9 <2 <20 No exceedances of investigation levels

TPH C10-C36 <200 94,800 TP13_1.0-1.1 exceeding NEPM F criteria.

Total PAH <1.6 19,000 TP13_1.0-1.1 exceeding NEPM F criteria.

Benzo(a)pyren <0.1 1,200 TP10_1.5-1.6 and TP13_1.0-1.1

e

Asbestos Not detected Not detected No microscopic asbestos was detected by the laboratory
and no macroscopic asbestos was observed in the field.

Arsenic <1 18 No exceedances of investigation levels

Cadmium <0.5 4 TP5_0.7-0.8 exceeding NEPM EILs.

Chromium <5 63 No exceedances of investigation levels

Copper <5 78 No exceedances of investigation levels

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

6-7
Investigation Results SECTION 6

Analyte Min Max Samples Exceeding Investigation Levels

Concentrati Concentrati
on (mg/kg) on (mg/kg)

Lead <5 120 No exceedances of investigation levels

Mercury <0.1 <0.5 No exceedances of investigation levels

Nickel <5 128 MW1_0.5-0.6, QC3_2/9/05, MW3_0.2-0.3, TP1_0.1-0.2,

TP2_0.5-0.6, TP3_0.1-0.2, TP4_1.7-1.8, TP5_0.7-0.8,
TP6_0.1-0.2, TP7_0.2-0.3, TP8_0.1-0.2, TP11_0.5-0.6,
TP11_0.9-1.0 exceeding NEPM EILs

Zinc 19 204 TP7_1.7-1.8 exceeding NEPM EILs

A number of exceedances of the adopted EIL criteria were reported for several parameters including
cadmium, nickel, and zinc. These elevated concentrations tended to occur in samples collected at depths
less than 1.0m. There was one reported exceedance of the adopted NEPM F HIL criteria for TPH C10-C36
and total PAHs at location TP13. These results were at least 2 orders of magnitude greater than the
NEPM F HILs. Benzo(a) pyrene was reported at concentrations exceeding the NEPM F HIL criteria at
two locations. There was one result in exceedance of the adopted Dutch Interventions guidelines for TPH
compounds.

Analytical results for OC Pesticides, PCBs, volatile chlorinated hydrocarbons (VHCs), tributyl-tin, and
cyanide (total and free) reported results generally below or close to the laboratory detection limits.
Analytical results for phenols and sulphate were below the adopted investigation levels.

6.3 Groundwater Contamination

6.3.1 Contaminant Assessment Guidelines

In accordance with previous assessments at the NewQuay site, the approach adopted for the assessment of
groundwater is that proposed by ANZECC and NHMRC in the "Australian and New Zealand Guidelines
for the Assessment and Management of Contaminated Sites" (1992), supplemented with the State
Environment Protection Policy (SEPP) Groundwaters of Victoria (1997) and the State Environment
Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria) Schedule F7: Waters of the Yarra Catchment (1999). Victoria
Harbour is defined as ‘Highly Modified’ in this Policy, therefore a 90% protection level has been
adopted, consistent with the level of protection adopted for other Audit sites in the New Quay Precinct.

The SEPP has been used to classify the beneficial use of groundwater on the basis of background TDS
and the sustainable groundwater yields available from the aquifer.

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

6-8
Investigation Results SECTION 6

The laboratory TDS results reported ranged from approximately 2,120 to 32,000 mg/L with an average of
18,025 mg/L. Based on the average TDS, the following beneficial uses were identified:

• maintenance of marine ecosystems;

• industrial use; and

• protection of buildings and structures.

However, given the low yields encountered at the site and the proposed future use of the site, it is unlikely
that groundwater beneath the site would be used for industrial purposes. Therefore, this beneficial use
has not been assessed further.

Groundwater beneath the site is likely to be discharging to the waters of Victoria Harbour. Accordingly,
the primary groundwater quality guideline adopted for the site is the Australian Water Quality Guidelines
- Protection of Aquatic Ecosystems (Marine) (ANZECC, 2000).

The ANZECC guidelines do not provide an exhaustive list of potential contaminants. In relation to the
groundwater assessment, there is limited guidance provided by the ANZECC guidelines for the
assessment of TPH fractions. In this instance, the Dutch Intervention Levels (2000) for TPH C10 – C36 and
BTEX have been used to provide a qualitative assessment of the contamination encountered. The Dutch
Intervention guidelines for groundwater are protective of both human health and the environment and
would represent a conservative basis for screening the site data.

6.3.2 Chemical Analysis Results

Analytical results for groundwater are summarised in Tables 6 to 8 attached. Results above the adopted
investigation levels have been highlighted. Chain of custody documentation and laboratory reports are
presented in Appendix E. The results are summarised in the table below.

Groundwater Analytical Results Summary

Analyte Min Max Samples Exceeding Adopted

Concentrati Concentrati Investigation Levels
on (mg/L) on (mg/L)

Ammonia 1.3 44.7 All wells

Nitrate <0.01 7.84 No exceedances of adopted investigation levels

Total Cyanide <0.005 0.301 No adopted investigation levels

Free Cyanide <0.005 0.007 No exceedances of adopted investigation levels

(note: sample MW1_13/9/05 was equal to the
investigation level)

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

6-9
Investigation Results SECTION 6

Analyte Min Max Samples Exceeding Adopted

Concentrati Concentrati Investigation Levels
on (mg/L) on (mg/L)

Benzene <1 ug/L <1 ug/L No exceedances of adopted investigation levels

Toluene <1 ug/L 3 ug/L No exceedances of adopted investigation levels

Ethyl benzene <1 ug/L <2 ug/L No exceedances of adopted investigation levels

Total Xylenes <1 ug/L <2 ug/L No adopted investigation levels

TPH C6-C9 <20 ug/L <20 ug/L No adopted investigation levels

TPH C10-C36 <200 ug/L 4,750 ug/L All wells

Total PAH <1 ug/L 13 ug/L No adopted investigation levels

Anthracene <1 ug/L 8 ug/L MW1_13/9/05 and MW3_13/9/05

Benzo(a)pyrene <0.5 ug/L <4 ug/L No exceedances of adopted investigation levels

Phenanthrene <1 ug/L 5 ug/L MW1_13/9/05

Arsenic 0.001 0.045 No adopted investigation levels

Cadmium <0.0001 0.0065 No exceedances of adopted investigation levels.

Chromium 0.002 0.11 MW1_16/11/05, QC01_16/11/05,

MW3_16/11/05, MW4_16/11//05,
MW26_16/11//05, MW27_16/11//05,
MW30_16/11//05

Copper 0.004 0.064 All wells

Lead <0.001 0.026 MW1_13/9/05, MW3_13/9/05, MW4_13/9/05,

QC03_13/9/05, QC04_13/9/05, MW5_13/9/05.

Mercury <0.0001 0.0003 No exceedances of adopted investigation levels.

Nickel 0.008 0.102 No exceedances of adopted investigation levels

Zinc 0.005 1.42 MW1_13/9/05, MW2_13/9/05, MW3_13/9/05,

MW4_13/9/05, QC03_13/9/05, QC04_13/9/05,
MW5_13/9/05, MW26_13/9/05, MW27_13/9/05

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

6-10
Investigation Results SECTION 6

A number of exceedences of the Groundwater Quality Objective (GWQO) for ecosystem protection were
reported for several parameters, including chromium, copper, lead, zinc, ammonia and PAHs (anthracene
and phenanthrene). One sample for free cyanide was equal to this GWQO.

In addition, the GWQOs for the beneficial use ‘buildings and structures’ were exceeded in several
samples for pH, chloride and sulfate.

Groundwater analytical results for phenols, OC Pesticides, PCBs, Semi Volatile Organic Scan (SVOC)
and Volatile Organic Scan (VOC) reported results below the laboratory detection limits.

6.4 Nature, Extent, Sources and Significance of Contamination

This section discusses the findings of the investigation with respect to locations, nature and possible
sources of the soil and groundwater contamination at the site. In addition, the nature and possible extent
of soil and groundwater contamination remaining at the site is discussed. The significance of the
contamination potentially remaining is assessed in relation to the proposed use of the site.

6.4.1 Soil Contamination

Soil contamination above the Health Investigation Levels (HILs) for Commercial/Industrial use consists
of hydrocarbons in the form of PAH and TPH. Soil contamination above the Ecological Investigation
Levels (EILs) consists of cadmium, nickel and zinc. The metal contaminants are below the HIL F
criteria.

The PAH and TPH contamination occurred in a distinct layer of fine crushed rock and slag/ash material
that is approximately 0.5m thick and located at a depth of approximately 1.0-1.5m below ground surface.
It is likely that the source of the contamination is due to historical placement of fill during land
reclamation, as gas works waste is commonly encountered in the Docklands area it is considered that the
source of the contaminated fill most likely to be gasworks waste.

A layer of black silty gravel fill was encountered in test pits TP4, TP7, TP9, TP10, TP12 and TP13.
Analytical results above the HIL F criteria were reported in the contaminated fill layer at locations TP10
and TP13. The analytical results for TP10 at 1.5 to 1.6m depth for benzo(a)pyrene exceeded the HIL F
criteria by a factor of 2. The analytical results for TP13 at 1.0 to 1.1m depth for benzo(a)pyrene exceeded
the HIL F criteria by a factor of 240.

The contamination in the fill layer was considered not to be a risk to human health for occupiers of the
future development due to the absence of an exposure route. However, based on the high concentrations
of TPHs and PAHs reported for test pit TP13, it was considered that this fill could be a source of
groundwater contamination and should be removed. The PAH contamination reported at other locations,
such as TP10 was not considered to represent a potential source of groundwater contamination.

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

6-11
Investigation Results SECTION 6

6.4.2 Groundwater Contamination

In accordance with the SEPP for groundwater a number of beneficial uses have been identified, including:

• Protection of aquatic ecosystems (marine);

• protection of buildings and structures; and

• industrial water use.

Groundwater concentrations in excess of the GWQOs were encountered on the Lot 11 site, as detailed
below:

• Metal contamination in the form of chromium, copper, lead and zinc was reported in the majority of
wells sampled on and off-site at concentrations exceeding the ANZECC 2000 Ecosystem Protection
Levels for Marine Waters (90% Protection of Species).

• PAH contamination in the form of anthracene and phenanthrene was reported during the first
groundwater monitoring event in wells MW1 and MW3 at concentrations exceeding the ANZECC
2000 Ecosystem Protection Levels for Marine Waters (90% Protection of Species). The criteria
adopted for these PAHs are lower reliability trigger levels.

• Parameters relating to the protection of building and structures may classify the subsurface
environment as ‘moderate’ to ‘very severe’ in the exposure classification of the Australian Standard
for Piling Design and Installation (AS2159 – 1995) – Table 6.1. This exposure classification is in
relation to the concentrations of chloride and sulphate and the past disposal of contaminated waste at
the site. The pH concentrations do not appear to be of concern in relation to the concrete pile and
steel corrosion.

• Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (C10-C36) concentrations exceeded the Dutch Intervention Criteria for
all monitoring wells in the first groundwater monitoring event. The Dutch criteria are used in the
absence of any other published criteria.

• Ammonia exceeded the adopted investigation criteria for Ecosystem Protection in all wells on site.

Applying the relevant criteria to each beneficial use indicates that some beneficial uses of groundwater at
the site may be affected. In assessing whether the Ecosystem Protection beneficial use is affected, an
assessment is required of the likelihood of the metals and PAH contamination exceeding the GWQOs at
the point of discharge (Victoria Harbour). Due to the low groundwater flow velocity and relatively high
organic content in the Coode Island Silt, some attenuation of metals and PAHs is anticipated to occur as
groundwater moves through the formation. In addition a sheet pile wall exists in the NewQuay precinct
adjacent to Victoria Harbour approximately 80m to the south of the site. Although there is likely to be
some hydraulic connection (ie leakiness) between the north side of this wall and Victoria Harbour, it is
reasonable to assume that this wall would retard the flow rate of groundwater and therefore increase the
degree of attenuation within the Coode Island Silt.

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

6-12
Investigation Results SECTION 6

The contamination of groundwater by PAHs was marginally above the GWQOs for one monitoring event
in two bores on site. As the concentrations were not observed off site in the direction of groundwater
flow, or on site in the second monitoring event, it is considered unlikely that PAHs would be exceeding
the GWQOs at the point of discharge. With respect to metals contamination, the site is not likely to be a
source of the contamination. Therefore, it is considered that the metal contamination beneath the site
does not constitute groundwater pollution.

Ammonia concentrations in groundwater beneath the site are considered to be indicative of naturally
occurring background levels within the Coode Island Silt. This is further discussed in Section 8 of this
report.

The reported results of chloride and sulphate are likely to be indicative of the natural chemical state of the
Coode Island Silt groundwater. These results do however need to be considered with respect to the long
term durability of any concrete or steel likely to come into contact with the groundwater within the Coode
Island Silt.

Due to the low yield of groundwater within the Coode Island Silt, extraction of groundwater for industrial
water use is not feasible.

6.4.3 Potential Exposure Pathways

The potential for contact between contaminated soil or groundwater and future occupiers, maintenance
workers and/or users of the site is considered to be low. As the site is to be fully capped with a concrete
slab as part of construction, no reasonable exposure pathway is likely to exist for direct contact with
impacted soil and groundwater.

During construction and maintenance work, several exposure pathways may exist such as direct contact
with soil and groundwater and dust inhalation; however, these shall be short term and should not be a
constraint to development if adequate management strategies are employed during construction.

6.4.4 Removal of Hotspot Area

As discussed, a hotspot area was identified in the northern portion of Lot 11. Elevated concentrations of
TPH and PAH were encountered in a distinct layer of fill located approximately 1.0 to 1.5m below
ground surface at test pit TP13. It is possible this soil contamination is contributing the concentrations of
PAHs and TPH in the groundwater beneath the site.

Therefore it was recommended by URS that the identified hotspot in the northern portion of Lot 11 be
excavated and removed.

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

6-13
Remediation and Validation Works SECTION 7

7 Re me diation and Validation Works

7.1 Scope of Work

Results of the soil investigations indicated remediation works were required at the identified hotspot area,
located in the northern portion of the site based on the PAH and TPH concentrations reported for sample
TP13_1.0-1.1. The hotspot area is shown on Figure 7.

The objective of the remediation works was to remove the layer of identified contamination and remove a
potential source of groundwater contamination from site. Various parties were engaged to conduct the site
works, as detailed below. The works commenced on 13th December 2005.

The head contractor for overseeing construction works for the site was L.U.Simon who engaged Detail
Excavations Pty Ltd (Detail) to carry out the earthworks, including:

• Excavation of the identified layer of contaminated soil;

• Excavation of all pile caps across the Lot 11 site, to remove any obstructions; and

• Removal of the excavated soil stockpile for the appropriate disposal off-site.

L.U.Simon engaged EnviroProtect to undertake stockpile sampling and classification for off-site disposal
of contaminated soil.

URS were engaged by MAB to:

• Direct the extent of remediation required;

• Validate the environmental quality of the soils remaining on site following completion of the
remediation; and

• Consolidate data collected during the remediation works.

The scope of works undertaken by URS to achieve these objectives were:

• Liaison with MAB, the Auditor and site contractors on the extent of remediation works;

• Obtain soil validation samples from the remediated excavation; and

• Presentation of validation results and material tracking.

URS were present during the excavation of the ‘hot spot’ of contamination on the northern portion of the
site.

7.2 Summary of Fieldwork

The objective of the remedial works was to remove the identified layer of soil contamination. The
activities carried out by each of the parties to achieve this objective are listed below:

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

7-1
Remediation and Validation Works SECTION 7

• Excavation, removal and reuse on site of asphalt and underlying concrete and other inert material
(Detail Excavations);

• Excavation of pile caps in areas outside the hot spot area (Detail Excavations);

• Direction of extent of excavated ‘hot-spot’ (URS);

• Testing of excavated material for classification as LLCS, CS or fill (EnviroProtect);

• Off site disposal of all soil and fill in excess of site requirements (Detail Excavations); and

• Collection of validation samples from the walls and base of the excavated area at a minimum
frequency of 1 sample per 10m grid on the base and 1 sample per 10m on the walls (URS).

7.3 Excavation and Earthworks Methodology

The excavation of the contaminated soil layer occurred on the 13th December 2005. The extent of
excavations was directed by URS. The final excavation depth was approximately 1.6 mbgs.

During the excavation works, several ‘pockets’ of the observed slag material was encountered in the
excavation. This material was vertically contained within the fill layer below the buried concrete slab and
above the Coode Island Silt. The material observed within the final extent of the walls of the excavation
was generally a gravely or clay fill. Two samples (VS104 and VS109) reported minor occurrences of
slag remaining in the walls.

EnviroProtect collected soil samples for L.U. Simon during the excavation work of the hot spot to classify
the soil for off site disposal. The EnviroProtect testing report is presented in Appendix I. In its report
EnviroProtect concluded that the material in the stockpile excavated from the identified contaminated
zone on the northern portion of the site is classified as Prescribed Waste (Low Level Contaminated Soil)
and Prescribed Waste (Contaminated Soil) for offsite disposal.

The approximate dimensions of the excavation were 12-14m diameter by 1.6m deep. Approximately 118
tonnes (75 tonnes of low level contaminated soil and 43 tonnes of contaminated soil) was disposed of
from site. The waste transport certificates are provided before in Appendix J.

7.4 URS Validation Sampling

Validation of the excavation involved sampling of soils from the base and walls of the excavation at a
minimum frequency of 1 sample per 10m grid on the base and at 10m intervals along the walls. The wall
samples were collected from approximately 1.2m depth (or the approximate depth of encountered
contamination). The base samples were collected from the underlying Coode Island Silt to confirm that
the contaminated fill layer had been adequately removed.

A total of nine validation samples (VS101 to VS109) were collected during the excavation works of the
contaminated zone. These samples were collected to confirm the elevated TPH and PAH concentrations

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

7-2
Remediation and Validation Works SECTION 7

reported at test pit TP13 were removed. The locations of the validation samples are shown on Figure 8.
Photos taken during various stages of the remediation works are shown in the plates section of this report.

Validation samples were obtained either by using a clean spade or by collecting a grab sample. The direct
handling of soil was performed using a clean pair of disposable nitrile gloves. Sampling equipment was
decontaminated between sampling locations using DECON-90 detergent and potable water.

Validation samples were placed into 250ml acid washed, solvent rinsed glass jars provided by the
laboratory. The sample jars were stored and transported in chilled eskies. Transportation to the laboratory
was conducted under URS standard chain of custody procedures. The COC documentation for the
remediation works is presented in Appendix G.

7.5 Laboratory Analysis

Soil validation samples were sent to the following analytical laboratories:

• Primary Laboratory – MGT Environmental Pty Ltd (MGT).

• Secondary Laboratories – Australian Laboratory Services Pty Ltd (ALS)

Both laboratories are NATA accredited for all completed analyses. All samples were sent to the
laboratory under a chain of custody procedure. The chain of custody documentation for the remediation
works is presented in Appendix G.

The number of soil samples submitted to the laboratory for specific analyses are tabulated below:

Analyte Number of Number of Number of

primary duplicate triplicate
samples samples samples
analysed analysed analysed

TPH 8 1 1

PAH 8 1 1

Metals (As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, 1 - -

Hg, Pb, Zn)

One rinsate sample was collected by running laboratory supplied water over the decontaminated spade
into the sample containers. One trip blank was analysed as part of the remediation works. The process for
analytical data validation has been detailed in section 7.6.

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

7-3
Remediation and Validation Works SECTION 7

7.6 Analytical Data Quality

On the basis of the analytical data validation procedure employed, the overall quality of the analytical
data produced is considered to be of an acceptable standard for interpretive use. However, the following
should be noted:

• Anomalous Results. A review of the analytical results relative to observations made during the
fieldwork program did not identify any anomalous results.

• Frequency of Laboratory Quality Control Measurements. The primary laboratory, MGT, did not
report control samples for all analytes. Therefore the performance of these methods could not be
assessed. The secondary laboratory, ALS did not report matrix spikes for PAHs. URS considers this
to be acceptable as this batch contains only one sample. Therefore, the frequency of laboratory
QAQC was generally in accordance with Schedule B(2) of the NEPM 1999 “Guideline on Laboratory
Analysis of Potentially Contaminated Soils”.

• Frequency of Field Quality Control Measurements. All field samples were collected in accordance
with standard URS field sampling procedures, which are consistent with the Australian Standards
AS4482.1 and AS4482.2 and Schedule B (2) of the NEPM 1999 “Guideline on Data Collection,
Sample Design and Reporting”.

• Sample Preservation and Handling. All field samples were handled and preserved in accordance
with standard URS quality procedures, which are consistent with USEPA guidelines and Schedule
B(2) of the NEPM, 1999.

• Sample Holding Times. All field samples were tested within acceptable holding times for the
relevant analysis requested, based on holding times recommended by the USEPA and the Victorian
EPA.

• Limits of Reporting. All limits of reporting for the various analyses undertaken were found to be
consistent between all samples and analysis batches performed. The limits of reporting were
sufficiently low to enable a meaningful comparison between results and contamination guideline
values, where applicable.

• Field and Laboratory RPDs. Calculated RPDs for field duplicates, field triplicates and laboratory
duplicates were generally within acceptable limits of 30% and 20%, respectively.

• Matrix Spike and Surrogate Recoveries. Matrix spike and surrogate recoveries were reported
within the acceptable laboratory guideline limits suggesting that analyte loss during
extraction/analysis steps did not occur.

• Potential for Cross Contamination: Results for the rinsate blank (QC3_13/12/05), trip blank
sample (QC4_13/12/05) and laboratory method blanks were below the limits of reporting for the
analytes tested.

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

7-4
Remediation and Validation Works SECTION 7

On the basis of the analytical data validation procedure employed, the overall quality of the analytical
data produced is considered to be of an acceptable standard for interpretive use. Data validation summary
tables and RPD reports are provided in Appendix H.

7.7 Soil Remediation Validation

7.7.1 Remediation Validation Guidelines

The guidelines adopted for remediation works are the same as the guidelines adopted for the site
assessment, as detailed in Section 6.2.

As the proposed future use of the site is commercial, the appropriate comparison guideline is considered
to be the NEPM EILs and the NEPM F.

It should be noted that the NEPM guidelines do not provide an exhaustive list of potential contaminants.
In relation to remediation works, there is limited guidance provided by the NEPM for the assessment of
TPH fractions and BTEX. In this instance the results have been compared with the Dutch Intervention
Guideline of 2000.

For the purposes of off site disposal of excavated material, stockpile sampling results were compared by
EnviroProtect to “fill” and “low level contaminated soil (LLCS)” disposal criteria published in
Environment Protection Authority (EPA) Bulletin 448.1. These criteria values were used by
EnviroProtect to classify the soils to ensure appropriate transport and disposal of soils in accordance with
the requirements of EPA.

7.7.2 Soil Analytical Results

The analytical results for validation samples are summarised in Table 9. Sample locations are indicated
on Figure 7. The detailed laboratory analytical results are presented in Appendix G. The results are
discussed in further detail below:

PAH Compounds

• The laboratory results for total PAH concentrations ranged from below the limits of reporting up to
58 mg/kg. All of these results are below the NEPM F HIL. The PAH concentrations within the base
validation samples taken from the Coode Island Silt were all below the laboratory limits of reporting.

• Benzo(a)pyrene concentrations were reported above the NEPM F HIL in samples VS102 and VS104
with concentrations of 5.4 mg/kg and 8.5 mg/kg respectively. The samples were collected in the
contaminated fill layer underneath the buried concrete slab on the northern wall of the excavation as
shown on Figure 7.

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

7-5
Remediation and Validation Works SECTION 7

TPH/BTEX

• Analyses of results show individual BTEX concentrations below the laboratory detection limit of 0.2
mg/kg. These concentrations are below the adopted criteria.

• Analyses of results show TPH C6-C9 and TPH C10-C14 fraction concentrations below the laboratory
detection limit of 2 mg/kg.

• Analyses of results show TPH C15-C36 fraction concentrations below the laboratory limits of
reporting with the exception of samples VS102 and VS104. The samples reported concentrations of
280 mg/kg and 660 mg/kg respectively which are below the adopted investigation criteria of 5,000
mg/kg.

Metals

As metal concentrations were reported at concentrations well below the NEPM HIL ‘A’ criteria in the
sample which reported high PAH and TPH concentrations at TP13, metals were not considered to be a
chemical of concern for the remediation works. Therefore only one validation sample was analysed for
metals. This sample reported results below the NEPM HIL ‘A’ and ‘F’ criteria.

7.8 Off Site Disposal of Contaminated Soil

As discussed the results of the validation sampling conducted by EnviroProtect indicated that the
contaminated fill stockpile was classified as low level contaminated soil (LLCS) for the southern half of
the stockpile and contaminated soil (CS) for the northern half of the stockpile.

Approximately 118 tonnes (75 tonnes of low level contaminated soil and 43 tonnes of contaminated soil)
was disposed of from site. The waste transport certificates are provided before in Appendix J.

7.9 Backfill Materials

The results of the sampling conducted by URS during the Environmental Site Assessment works
indicated that the crushed rock fill material in the uppermost 1m of the site was suitable for reuse as
backfill in the excavations. These results were below the NEPM HIL ‘A’ criteria. Backfilling of the
remediated excavation was conducted on 13th December 2005.

The following materials were backfilled into the remediated area:

• Approximately 300m3 of crushed rock backfill sourced from the Lot 11 site. All of this material was
the crushed rock that was overlying the buried concrete slab above the contaminated soil layer in the
area of contamination on the northern portion of the site. The crushed rock was stripped from the
area, stockpiled to the side of the excavation, and then placed back into the excavation once
validation samples had been collected.

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

7-6
Remediation and Validation Works SECTION 7

• Approximately 50 m3 of broken concrete from site. The buried concrete slab that was encountered at
approximately 1.0m depth was broken up, stockpiled to the side of the excavation, and then used to
backfill the excavation.

• L.U. Simon reported that no imported fill material was used to backfill this excavation. Due to the
bulking of the overlying gravel during excavation and backfilling, and the bulking of broken
concrete used as backfill, the final backfill level was close to the initial ground surface level. URS
understands that some surface grading was required in preparation of the ground floor concrete slab,
such that importation of backfill material was not required.

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

7-7
Significance of Site Contamination SECTION 8

8 Significance of Site Contamination

An extensive investigation of soil and groundwater quality beneath the site has been conducted. The
results of these investigations have detected a contaminated soil area that was subsequently remediated.
Validation sampling indicated that the highly contaminated material in the vicinity of test pit TP13 had
been removed and was not present at the boundaries of the excavation. Lower concentrations of PAHs
were reported for some of the wall validation samples; however these concentrations were significantly
less than reported at test pit TP13.

It is possible that small pockets of PAH and TPH contaminated soil still exist on site. However, as the
soil sampling density provided good coverage of the site, it is considered likely that the majority of the
highly contaminated material has been removed from site. The residual PAH contamination is not
considered to be a risk to future occupiers of the site.

A review of groundwater quality and chemical concentrations was subsequently conducted to determine
the range of concentrations of the chemicals of concern in the Business Park Precinct. This review
consisted of data from the following sources:

1. All Audits completed on other sites in the New Quay Precinct; and

2. The groundwater monitoring conducted as part of the 1997 Business Park Precinct.

The groundwater data from these investigations is summarised and presented in Appendix N.

Groundwater contamination was encountered on the Lot 11 site, as detailed below:

• Elevated concentrations of TPH (C10-C36) were detected in all wells during the first groundwater
monitoring event. These concentrations were above the Dutch Intervention criteria. The presence of
TPH (C10-C36) in groundwater is ubiquitous to the NewQuay area. The source of this contamination
is unknown, however for the Lot 11 site, it is probable that the TPH concentrations are indicative of
naturally occurring ‘non-petroleum’ hydrocarbons within the Coode Island Silt. This conclusion is
supported by the removal of the ‘non petroleum’ hydrocarbon TPH concentrations by the ‘Silica Gel
Scrub’ process used by the laboratories for the second groundwater monitoring event, and a
comparison of these results with the concentrations of TPH reported when the ‘Silica Gel Scrub’
process was not used. The range of TPH (C10-C36) concentrations identified in groundwater at the
site (<250 to 4,750 ug/L) were in the range of concentrations reported at surrounding sites (6 to
7,463 ug/L). Regional TPH (C10-C36) concentrations in groundwater are presented in Appendix N.

• Metal contamination in the form of chromium, copper, lead and zinc was reported in the majority of
wells sampled on and off-site at concentrations exceeding the ANZECC 2000 Ecosystem Protection
Levels for Marine Waters (90% Protection of Species). Due to the generally consistent
concentrations of these metals across the site and off-site, and based on previous Environmental Site
Assessments conducted in the NewQuay precinct, it is considered likely that the metal contamination
is due to naturally occurring levels within the Coode Island Silt, or due to historical filling of the
Business Park Precinct. It is noted that the range of lead and zinc concentrations identified in
groundwater in the current investigation were in the ranges identified at surrounding sites.
Chromium and copper were up to an order of magnitude higher than at surrounding sites, however

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

8-1
Significance of Site Contamination SECTION 8

both showed concentrations with the same order of magnitude as those reported for groundwater
across the wider Business Park Precinct. Regional metal concentrations in groundwater are
presented in Appendix N.

• PAH contamination in the form of anthracene and phenanthrene was reported during the first
groundwater monitoring event in wells MW1 and MW3 at concentrations exceeding the ANZECC
2000 Ecosystem Protection Levels for Marine Waters (90% Protection of Species) lower reliability
trigger levels. The significance of the PAHs detected in the groundwater is considered to be low, as
PAHs were not detected in the second groundwater monitoring event either on or off site. The
concentrations of PAHs reported on site are the same as, or less than the ranges reported across the
Business Park Precinct. Regional PAH concentrations in groundwater are presented in Appendix N.

• Ammonia was reported at concentrations exceeding the adopted investigation criteria for Ecosystem
Protection in all wells on site. An extensive review of Audit reports of surrounding sites and other
investigations previously conducted, indicates that ammonia is ubiquitous in groundwater across the
Business Park Precinct. In general ammonia may be derived from gas-works waste or occur
naturally within the Coode Island Silt. The soil samples analysed for ammonia on Lot 11 indicate
that the ammonia occurs within the Coode Island Silt. Ammonia was not detected within the sample
of ‘slag’ at TP13-1.0-1.1. Ammonia was detected in one fill sample on-site, however this occurred
immediately above the CIS as a clay, possibly including a CIS component. The range of ammonia as
nitrogen results reported for groundwater at the site (1.3 to 44.7 mg/L) is within the range reported
for surrounding sites (6-83 mg/L). The regional concentrations of Ammonia are presented in
Appendix N.

• Parameters relating to the protection of building and structures may classify the subsurface
environment as ‘moderate’ to ‘very severe’ in the exposure classification of the Australian Standard
for Piling Design and Installation (AS2159 – 1995) – Table 6.1. This exposure classification is in
relation to the concentrations of chloride and sulphate and the past disposal of contaminated waste at
the site. The pH concentrations do not appear to be of concern in relation to the concrete and steel
corrosion.

8.1 Beneficial Use

The environmental quality of the soils encountered at the site would indicate that the site is suitable for its
intended land use (ie commerical landuse with no likely exposure to residual soil contamination).

In accordance with the SEPP for groundwater the following beneficial uses have been identified:

• Protection of aquatic ecosystems (marine);

• Industrial water use; and

• Protection of buildings and structures.

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

8-2
Significance of Site Contamination SECTION 8

Applying the relevant criteria to each beneficial use indicates that two of the beneficial uses of
groundwater at the site may be affected. As discussed, the results indicate that the adopted assessment
criteria for the maintenance of aquatic ecosystems have been exceeded in at least one groundwater
monitoring event for heavy metals (chromium, copper, lead and zinc) and PAHs (anthracene and
phenanthrene).

In assessing whether the Ecosystem Protection beneficial use is affected, an assessment is required as to
whether the metals and PAH contamination is exceeding the GWQOs at the point of discharge (Victoria
Harbour). Due to the low groundwater flow velocity and relatively high organic content in the Coode
Island Silt, attenuation may occur as groundwater moves through the formation. In addition a sheet pile
wall exists in the NewQuay precinct adjacent to Victoria Harbour approximately 80m to the south of the
site. Although there is likely to be some hydraulic connection between the north side of this wall and
Victoria Harbour, it is reasonable to assume that this wall would retard the flow rate of groundwater and
therefore increase the degree of attenuation within the Coode Island Silt.

The contamination of groundwater by PAHs was marginally above the GWQOs for one monitoring event
in two bores on site. As the concentrations were not observed off site in the inferred direction of
groundwater flow, or in on site bores in the second monitoring event, it is considered unlikely that PAHs
would be exceeding the GWQOs at the point of discharge.

With respect to metals contamination, the concentrations on and off-site are reasonably consistent. This
may indicate that attenuation of metals is not occurring as groundwater moves towards Victoria Harbour.
Therefore it is likely that these metals are exceeding the GWQOs at the point of discharge to Victoria
Harbour. However, as the site is not likely to be a source of the metal contamination, then these
concentrations beneath the site are considered not to constitute groundwater pollution.

The beneficial use of ‘Buildings and Structures’ needs to be addressed with respect to the reported results
of chloride and sulphate. Although the concentrations of chloride and sulphate are likely to be indicative
of the natural chemical state of the Coode Island Silt groundwater, these results do need to be considered
with respect to the long term durability of any concrete or steel likely to come into contact with the
groundwater within the Coode Island Silt. A full assessment of the possibility of corrosion due to sub-
surface conditions, and the design implications for the development are beyond the scope of this
investigation.

The TPH (C10-C36) and ammonia concentrations reported in groundwater are considered to be due
naturally occurring concentrations with the Coode Island Silt.

Due to the low yield of groundwater within the Coode Island Silt, extraction of groundwater from this
geological unit for industrial water use is not feasible.

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

8-3
Conclusions and Recommendations SECTION 9

9 Conclusions and Re comme ndations

The following conclusions are presented based on the results of the environmental site assessment and
remediation works at MAB Lot 11 site in NewQuay, Docklands:

• The site has a history comprising of land reclamation, and various port operations.

• The site is underlain by a layer of variable fill materials overlying natural Coode Island Silt
sediments.

• Groundwater was encountered at shallow depths with a standing water level 1.5-2.5m below ground
surface. Groundwater exhibited high salinity with a flow direction generally to the south west
towards Victoria Harbour.

• Analysis of soils indicated a number of heavy metal concentrations exceeding the NEPM EIL
guidelines however the results are below the NEPM A HIL. The exceedance of the NEPM EILs is
not considered to be of significance when the proposed development of the site is considered (ie
complete capping with concrete for a carpark).

• Two soil sampling locations reported concentrations of PAHs above the NEPM F criteria. This
contamination occurred within the fill material underlying the second concrete slab. This fill
material generally occurred at a depth of 1.0 – 1.5m below ground surface. The PAH and TPH
concentrations reported at test pit TP13 at 1.0-1.1 m depth were well in excess of the NEPM F
criteria and any other soil contamination detected on site.

• The results of the soil investigations indicated remediation works were required in the vicinity of test
pit TP13. This judgement was based on the potential for the soil contamination to be a source of
ongoing groundwater contamination. Due to the proposed site development effectively
encapsulating the underlying soil, any exposure pathways from soil to humans in the building will be
negligible. This is further supported by the low volatility of the soil contamination detected on the
northern portion of the site.

• The remediation involved the excavation and off-site removal of the identified layer of
contamination. The crushed rock fill located above the contaminated layer was excavated and
stockpiled during remediation for future reuse as backfill. Validation samples were collected from
the walls and base of the remediated area.

• Two validation samples collected on the north and north-west excavation boundaries reported
concentrations of benzo(a)pyrene above the NEPM ‘F’ criteria for commercial land use. These
concentrations were, however, two orders of magnitude lower than the concentrations of PAHs
reported in test pit TP13. The residual PAH contamination marginally above the NEPM F criteria
within the north and west walls of the excavations is not considered to be a significant source of
PAH contamination in the groundwater.

• Following remediation works, the excavation was backfilled with crushed rock fill material from the
uppermost 1m on site. The analytical results reported for this material were below the NEPM ‘A’
criteria; therefore the material is considered to be chemically suitable for reuse as backfill.

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

9-1
Conclusions and Recommendations SECTION 9

• The environmental quality of the soils encountered at the site (following remediation) would indicate
that the site would be suitable for its intended land use (ie commercial with no likely exposure to
residual soil contamination).

• The groundwater results indicate that the adopted Groundwater Quality Objectives for the
maintenance of aquatic ecosystems have been exceeded for heavy metals (chromium, copper, lead
and zinc), ammonia and PAHs (anthracene and phenanthrene). The beneficial use for buildings and
structures protection (from corrosion of concrete and steel), may also be affected based on the
chloride and sulphate concentrations within the Coode Island Silt groundwater. Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbons (TPH C10-C36) exceeded the Dutch Intervention Criteria for one sampling event.

• Applying the relevant criteria to each beneficial use indicates that the GWQO exceedances may
impact upon two beneficial uses of groundwater at the site, that is, maintenance of ecosystems and
buildings and structures. Exceedance of the metal GWQO’s may be occurring at the point of
discharge to Victoria Harbour. The concentrations of metals on site are however likely to be
indicative of concentrations within the general area (ie NewQuay precinct) and not derived from site.
Therefore the metal concentrations beneath the site are not considered to constitute pollution from
the site.

• As the concentrations of PAHs reported off-site in the direction of groundwater flow were below the
laboratory limits of reporting, it is considered that the exceedance of the Groundwater Quality
Objectives in the first monitoring event is unlikely to be occurring at the point of discharge to
Victoria Harbour. Therefore the PAH concentrations in groundwater beneath the site are not
considered to constitute pollution.

• A review of historical groundwater data for the New Quay and Business Park Precincts has indicated
that TPH (C10-C36) PAHs, ammonia, metals (chromium, copper, lead and zinc) commonly occur
within groundwater in this region at similar concentrations to those observed on site. Based on this
information, and the concentrations in monitoring well MW3 (the closest bore to the hydraulic up-
gradient boundary), the concentrations of these chemicals identified in groundwater are not
considered to be attributable to the site. Further, it is considered likely that the TPH (C10-C36) and
ammonia concentrations in groundwater are due to the natural occurrence of these chemicals in the
Coode Island Silt associated with organic matter within this stratigraphic unit.

• The beneficial use of ‘Buildings and Structures’ may be affected based on the reported results of
chloride and sulphate. These results need to be considered with respect to the long term durability of
any concrete or steel likely to come into contact with the groundwater within the Coode Island Silt.
A full assessment of the possibility of corrosion due to sub-surface conditions, and the design
implications for the development are beyond the scope of this investigation.

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

9-2
Limitations of Report SECTION 10

10 Limitations of Re port

This report has been prepared in accordance with an agreement between MAB Delivery Pty Ltd (MAB)
and URS Australia Pty Ltd (URS). The services performed by URS have been conducted in a manner
consistent with the level of quality and skill generally exercised by members of its profession and
consulting practice. No warranty or guarantee of site conditions is intended.

This report is solely for the use of MAB and sub-contractors appointed by MAB specifically in relation to
the proposed development works at the site as described in Section 1. Any reliance of this report by third
parties shall be at such party’s sole risk and may not contain sufficient information for purposes of other
parties or for other uses. This report shall only be presented in full and may not be used to support any
other objectives than those set out in the report, except where written approval with comments are
provided by URS.

The information in this report is considered to be accurate at the date of issue in accordance to the current
conditions of the site. Sub-surface conditions can vary across a particular site that cannot be explicitly
defined by investigation. Therefore, it is unlikely that the results and estimations expressed in this report
will represent the extremes of conditions within the site. Sub-surface conditions including contaminant
concentrations can change in a limited period of time. This should be considered if the report is used
after a significant delay in time.

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

10-1
References SECTION 11

11 Re ference s

Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC) and National
Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for the
Assessment and Management of Contaminated Sites. January 1992.

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

Douglas Partners Pty Ltd, Report on Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Aquavista Development, Lot
11, New Quay Development. 2005.

EGIS Australia Pty Ltd, Business Park Groundwater Assessment, 1998

Environment Protection Authority (NSW), Guidelines for Assessing Service Station Sites, EPA
94/119, 1994

Environment Protection Authority (Victoria), 1997. State Environment Protection Policy,

Groundwaters of Victoria. Victoria Government Gazette. No. S 160. December 1997.

Environment Protection Authority (Victoria), EPA Information Bulletin - Classification of Wastes.

Publication 448.1. May 2004.

Environment Protection Authority (Victoria), EPA Information Bulletin – Management of Waste

Contaminated Soil and Low Level Contaminated Soil. Publication 626, October 1998.

Environment Protection Authority (Victoria), EPA Information Bulletin Acid Sulfate Soil and Rock.
Publication 655, August 1999.

Netherlands Government Gazette Dutch Intervention Levels, no 39, February 2000.

URS Australia Pty Ltd Environmental Site Assessment, MAB Business Park Lot 6/7, November 2000

URS Australia Pty Ltd Remediation and Validation Works, Lot 6, MAB Newquay Precinct, May 2001.

URS Australia Pty Ltd Groundwater Investigation, MAB Newquay Precinct, August 2001.

URS Australia Pty Ltd Groundwater Monitoring Event (GME), MAB Newquay Precinct, July 2001

Woodward-Clyde Pty Ltd and Golder Associates, Assessment of Soil and Groundwater Contamination
at Business Park Precinct, November 1997

Woodward-Clyde Pty Ltd, Environmental Site Assessment, MAB Business Park Lot 10, January 2000
(A31/01444/003ESA/REPORT_B.doc).

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

11-1
 Tables

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

Table 1
Well Gauging Details
Aquavista

Corrected
Total Top-of-Casing Screened Depth to Depth to PSH Groundwater Groundwater
Well Date Well Depth* Elevation Interval Water PSH Thickness Elevation Elevation
No. Measured (mTOC) (mAHD) (mTOC) (mTOC) (mTOC) (m) (mAHD) (mAHD)
MW1 2-Sep-05 5.00 2.215 2 to 5 1.74 ND ND 0.48 0.48
28-Sep-05 5.00 2.215 2 to 5 1.701 ND ND 0.51 0.51
16-Nov-05 5.00 2.215 2 to 5 1.385 ND ND 0.83 0.83
MW2 2-Sep-05 5.00 1.905 2 to 5 1.15 ND ND 0.76 0.76
28-Sep-05 5.00 1.905 2 to 5 1.184 ND ND 0.72 0.72
16-Nov-05 5.00 1.905 2 to 5 0.772 ND ND 1.13 1.13
MW2A 2-Sep-05 1.90 1.94 0.9 to 1.9 1.19 ND ND 0.75 0.75
28-Sep-05 1.90 1.94 0.9 to 1.9 1.227 ND ND 0.71 0.71
16-Nov-05 1.90 1.94 0.9 to 1.9 1.13 ND ND 0.81 0.81
MW3 2-Sep-05 5.00 1.95 2 to 5 1.24 ND ND 0.71 0.71
28-Sep-05 5.00 1.95 2 to 5 2.43 ND ND -0.48 -0.48
16-Nov-05 5.00 1.95 2 to 5 1.775 ND ND 0.18 0.18
MW3A 2-Sep-05 1.60 2.045 0.6 to 1.6 Dry ND ND
28-Sep-05 1.60 2.045 0.6 to 1.6 Dry ND ND
16-Nov-05 1.60 2.045 0.6 to 1.6 Inaccessible ND ND
MW4 2-Sep-05 5.00 2 2 to 5 1.241 ND ND 0.76 0.76
28-Sep-05 5.00 2 2 to 5 1.51 ND ND 0.49 0.49
16-Nov-05 5.00 2 2 to 5 1.252 ND ND 0.75 0.75
MW4A 2-Sep-05 1.60 2 0.6 to 1.6 1.241 ND ND 0.76 0.76
28-Sep-05 1.60 2 0.6 to 1.6 1.51 ND ND 0.49 0.49
16-Nov-05 1.60 2 0.6 to 1.6 Inaccessible ND ND
MW5 2-Sep-05 5.00 1.655 Unknown 1.205 ND ND 0.45 0.45
28-Sep-05 5.00 1.655 Unknown 1.321 ND ND 0.33 0.33
16-Nov-05 5.00 1.655 Unknown Inaccessible ND ND
MW6 2-Sep-05 5.00 2.19 Unknown 1.521 ND ND 0.67 0.67
28-Sep-05 5.00 2.19 Unknown 1.508 ND ND 0.68 0.68
16-Nov-05 5.00 2.19 Unknown Inaccessible ND ND
MW26 16-Nov-05 5.50 2.622 3.5-6.0 2 ND ND 0.62 0.62
MW27 16-Nov-05 5.00 2.271 3.0-5.0 1.74 ND ND 0.53 0.53
MW30 16-Nov-05 8.00 3.44 6.0-8.0 2.925 ND ND 0.52 0.52

Notes:
(1) Corrected groundwater elevation based on free product thickness multiplied by 0.78
(2) (mAHD) m Australian Height Datum
(3) ND Not Detected
(4) * Total bore depth during drilling

URS Australia Pty Ltd Page 1 Tables 1 and 2 - Groundwater field parameter and gauging Tables.xls
Table 2
Well Purging Details
Aquavista

Electrical Estimated Dissolved Redox pH Temperature Comments (colour, turbidity, odours, etc)
Well Date Conductivity TDS* Oxygen Potential ~
No. Measured (uS/cm) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mV) (oC)
MW1 2-Sep-05 20540 13351 6.5 54 6.6 16.5 Yellow to grey, cloudy
16-Nov-05 22800 14820 0.5 -91 6.6 17.8 Turbid, brown/grey, no odour
MW2 2-Sep-05 18500 12025 1.2 14 6.3 15.7 Yellow to brown, low turbidity
16-Nov-05 22800 14820 2.8 -85 6.4 17.6 Turbid, brown, with hydrogen sulphide odour
MW2A 2-Sep-05 18410 11967 1.3 -178 8.3 15.1 Light yellow, moderate turbidity
MW3 2-Sep-05 25200 16380 3.4 113 6.5 15.7 Brown, silty and turbid
16-Nov-05 33100 21515 2.3 -187 6.5 17.2 Turbid, brown, no odour
MW3A 2-Sep-05 - - - - - - Well dry
MW4 2-Sep-05 3310 2152 0.2 108 6.4 14.2 Yellow-grey, low to moderate turbidity, no odour
16-Nov-05 2920 1898 1.3 -8 7.3 16.8 Light brown, moderate turbidity, no odour
MW4A 2-Sep-05 - - - - - - Insufficient water obtained to sample
MW5 2-Sep-05 32200 20930 3.1 -49 6.5 16.6 Yellow, low turbidity
16-Nov-05 - - - - - - Well inaccessible due to construction works
MW6 2-Sep-05 36800 23920 0.1 -112 6.8 15.7 Light brown to clear, low turbidity
16-Nov-05 - - - - - - Well inaccessible due to construction works
MW26 16-Nov-05 35600 23140 1.4 -33 6.8 16.9 Turbid, brown, with hydrogen sulphide odour
MW27 16-Nov-05 23500 15275 1.2 -29 6.6 18.2 Turbid, brown, with hydrogen sulphide odour
MW30 16-Nov-05 39500 25675 1.4 -49 7.0 17.4 Light brown with strong hydrogen sulphide odour
Notes:
(1) * Estimated TDS based on electrical conductivity multiplied by 0.65
(2) mg/L = milligrams per litre
(3) uS/cm = microseimen per centimetre
(4) mV = millivolts
o
(5) C = degrees celsius
~
(6) Redox potential converted from Ag/AgCl electrode to H2 electrode

URS Australia Pty Ltd Page 2 Tables 1 and 2 - Groundwater field parameter and gauging Tables.xls
Table 3
Soil Analytical Data - Inorganic
MAB NewQuay - Lot 11 (Aquavista)

Location MW1 MW1 MW2 MW2 MW2 MW2_2.5-2.6 MW2_2.5-2.6 MW3 MW3 MW3 TP1 TP1 TP2 TP3 TP4
Sample ID MW1_0.5-0.6 MW1_2.2-2.3 MW2_0.5-0.6 MW2_1.4-1.5 MW2_2.5-2.6 QC2_2/9/05 QC3_2/9/05 MW3_0.2-0.3 MW3_1.0-1.1 MW3_2.0-2.1 TP1_0.1-0.2 TP1_1.6-1.7 TP2_0.5-0.6 TP3_0.1-0.2 TP4_0.1-0.2
Date Sampled 2/09/2005 2/09/2005 2/09/2005 2/09/2005 2/09/2005 2/09/2005 2/09/2005 2/09/2005 2/09/2005 2/09/2005 2/09/2005 2/09/2005 2/09/2005 2/09/2005 5/09/2005
QAQC Sample Type Field Duplicate Field Triplicate

NEPM - NEPM - A NEPM - F

Interim Urban 'Standard' Commercial/Indust
EIL residential with rial: includes
Guidelines garden/accessible premises such as
1999 soil HIL shops and offices
Guidelines 1999 as well as factories
and industrial sites
HIL Guidelines
1999
Analyte LOR Units
General
Moisture Content 0.1 % 9.4 4.4 4.5 20.6 37.8 36.1 39 5.5 17.5 23.9 7.6 31.3 5.7 7 5.6
pH Unit 0.1 9.8 7.9 9.2 8
Inorganics
Ammonia as N 20 mg/kg <20 30 <20 40
Free Cyanide 1 mg/kg 250 1250 <1 <1 <1 <1 <5 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Total Cyanide 1 mg/kg 500 2500 <1 <1 <1 <1 <5 <1 <1 4 <1 <1
Nitrite as N 0.1 mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Nitrate as N 0.1 mg/kg 0.2 <0.1 0.5 0.2
Fluoride 40 mg/kg
Sulphase as SO4 2- 50 mg/kg 2000 <50 180 <50 340
Chloride 10 mg/kg 60 2200 30 1530
Metals
Arsenic 5 mg/kg 20 100 500 <5 <5 10 6 3.1 <5 <5 <5 6 <5 <5 <5
Barium 10 mg/kg 300 10 20 20
Beryllium 1 mg/kg 20 100 <1 <1 <1
Boron 50 mg/kg 3000 15000 <50 <50 <50
Cadmium 1 mg/kg 3 20 100 <1 <1 <1 <1 <0.5 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Chromium (III) 2 mg/kg 400 12% 60% 11 8 26 21 33 12 3 15 18 10 16 11
Cobalt 5 mg/kg 100 500 17 19 2
Copper 5 mg/kg 100 1000 5000 23 16 11 8 28 26 51 33 5 18 41 23
Lead 5 mg/kg 600 300 1500 <5 <5 10 9 9 <5 47 44 6 <5 83 <5
Manganese 5 mg/kg 500 279 313 27
Mercury 0.1 mg/kg 1 15 75 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Nickel 2 mg/kg 60 600 3000 72 46 17 12 120 78 18 75 8 76 82 56
Vanadium 5 mg/kg 50 5 6 26
Zinc 5 mg/kg 200 7000 35000 34 25 41 27 62 34 101 69 46 34 83 30

LEGEND
Greater than NEPM - Interim Urban EIL Guidelines 1999

Greater than NEPM - A 'Standard' residential with

garden/accessible soil HIL Guidelines 1999
Greater than NEPM - F Commercial/Industrial: includes
premises such as shops and offices as well as factories and
industrial sites HIL Guidelines 1999

- Not Analyzed

URS Australia Pty Ltd Page 1 of 6 Tables 3 to 5 CrossTableOutputSoil_OnSite.xls

Table 3
Soil Analytical Data - Inorganic
MAB NewQuay - Lot 11 (Aquavista)

Location TP4 TP5 TP6 TP6 TP7 TP7 TP8 TP8 TP8 TP8 TP8_2.8-2.9 TP8_2.8-2.9 TP9 TP10 TP10 TP11
Sample ID TP4_1.7-1.8 TP5_0.7-0.8 TP6_0.1-0.2 TP6_2.5-2.6 TP7_0.2-0.3 TP7_1.7-1.8 TP8_0.1-0.2 TP8_0.7-0.8 TP8_1.8-1.9 TP8_2.8-2.9 QC8_5/9/05 QC9_5/9/05 TP9_2.0-2.1 TP10_1.5-1.6 TP10_2.0-2.1 TP11_0.5-0.6
Date Sampled 5/09/2005 5/09/2005 5/09/2005 5/09/2005 5/09/2005 5/09/2005 5/09/2005 5/09/2005 5/09/2005 5/09/2005 5/09/2005 5/09/2005 5/09/2005 18/10/2005 18/10/2005 18/10/2005
QAQC Sample Type Field Duplicate Field Triplicate

NEPM - NEPM - A NEPM - F

Interim Urban 'Standard' Commercial/Indust
EIL residential with rial: includes
Guidelines garden/accessible premises such as
1999 soil HIL shops and offices
Guidelines 1999 as well as factories
and industrial sites
HIL Guidelines
1999
Analyte LOR Units
General
Moisture Content 0.1 % 14.9 5.2 6.3 26.2 5.1 40.7 7.5 15.2 36 40.6 41.2 43 27.2 21 31 4.9
pH Unit 0.1 7.5 9 9.1
Inorganics
Ammonia as N 20 mg/kg 40 <20 35
Free Cyanide 1 mg/kg 250 1250 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <5 <1 <5 <5 <5
Total Cyanide 1 mg/kg 500 2500 <1 <1 <1 10 <1 <1 <1 <1 <5 2 <5 <5 <5
Nitrite as N 0.1 mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <5
Nitrate as N 0.1 mg/kg 0.2 <0.1 <5
Fluoride 40 mg/kg 160 300
Sulphase as SO4 2- 50 mg/kg 2000 70 <50 33
Chloride 10 mg/kg 2560 40
Metals
Arsenic 5 mg/kg 20 100 500 <5 <5 <5 <5 13 <5 8 7 16 16 13 6 7 4.5 <2
Barium 10 mg/kg 300 50
Beryllium 1 mg/kg 20 100 <1
Boron 50 mg/kg 3000 15000 <50
Cadmium 1 mg/kg 3 20 100 <1 4 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <0.5 <1 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
Chromium (III) 2 mg/kg 400 12% 60% 13 10 16 10 29 15 14 22 31 31 33 20 41 22 17
Cobalt 5 mg/kg 100 500 21
Copper 5 mg/kg 100 1000 5000 31 26 16 20 12 54 78 15 11 11 28 19 67 17 29
Lead 5 mg/kg 600 300 1500 45 <5 <5 7 8 52 24 17 6 6 9 88 120 20 <5
Manganese 5 mg/kg 500 402
Mercury 0.1 mg/kg 1 15 75 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
Nickel 2 mg/kg 60 600 3000 72 128 70 66 42 76 43 28 17 18 21 24 54 17 72
Vanadium 5 mg/kg 50 14
Zinc 5 mg/kg 200 7000 35000 102 56 28 50 204 64 84 46 48 50 47 72 96 48 40

LEGEND
Greater than NEPM - Interim Urban EIL Guidelines 1999

Greater than NEPM - A 'Standard' residential with

garden/accessible soil HIL Guidelines 1999
Greater than NEPM - F Commercial/Industrial: includes
premises such as shops and offices as well as factories and
industrial sites HIL Guidelines 1999

- Not Analyzed

URS Australia Pty Ltd Page 2 of 6 Tables 3 to 5 CrossTableOutputSoil_OnSite.xls

Table 3
Soil Analytical Data - Inorganic
MAB NewQuay - Lot 11 (Aquavista)

Location TP11 TP11 TP12 TP12 TP13 TP13

Sample ID TP11_0.9-1.0 TP11_1.9-2.0 TP12_1.6-1.7 TP12_2.0-2.1 TP13_1.0-1.1 TP13_1.6-1.7
Date Sampled 18/10/2005 18/10/2005 18/10/2005 18/10/2005 18/10/2005 18/10/2005
QAQC Sample Type

NEPM - NEPM - A NEPM - F

Interim Urban 'Standard' Commercial/Indust
EIL residential with rial: includes
Guidelines garden/accessible premises such as
1999 soil HIL shops and offices
Guidelines 1999 as well as factories
and industrial sites
HIL Guidelines
1999
Analyte LOR Units
General
Moisture Content 0.1 % 6.3 16 26 44 15 44
pH Unit 0.1 7.6
Inorganics
Ammonia as N 20 mg/kg <5
Free Cyanide 1 mg/kg 250 1250 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5
Total Cyanide 1 mg/kg 500 2500 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5
Nitrite as N 0.1 mg/kg <5
Nitrate as N 0.1 mg/kg <5
Fluoride 40 mg/kg
Sulphase as SO4 2- 50 mg/kg 2000 28
Chloride 10 mg/kg
Metals
Arsenic 5 mg/kg 20 100 500 <2 3.9 2.8 18 <2 10
Barium 10 mg/kg 300
Beryllium 1 mg/kg 20 100
Boron 50 mg/kg 3000 15000
Cadmium 1 mg/kg 3 20 100 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
Chromium (III) 2 mg/kg 400 12% 60% 16 11 13 63 <5 39
Cobalt 5 mg/kg 100 500
Copper 5 mg/kg 100 1000 5000 31 <5 31 23 8.2 11
Lead 5 mg/kg 600 300 1500 <5 11 42 17 8.4 10
Manganese 5 mg/kg 500
Mercury 0.1 mg/kg 1 15 75 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
Nickel 2 mg/kg 60 600 3000 76 <5 50 21 <5 18
Vanadium 5 mg/kg 50
Zinc 5 mg/kg 200 7000 35000 45 19 110 52 19 91

LEGEND
Greater than NEPM - Interim Urban EIL Guidelines 1999

Greater than NEPM - A 'Standard' residential with

garden/accessible soil HIL Guidelines 1999
Greater than NEPM - F Commercial/Industrial: includes
premises such as shops and offices as well as factories and
industrial sites HIL Guidelines 1999

- Not Analyzed

URS Australia Pty Ltd Page 3 of 6 Tables 3 to 5 CrossTableOutputSoil_OnSite.xls

Table 4
Soil Analytical Data - Organic
MAB NewQuay - Lot 11 (Aquavista)

Location MW1 MW1 MW2 MW2 MW2 MW2_2.5-2.6 MW2_2.5-2.6 MW3 MW3 MW3 TP1 TP1 TP2 TP3 TP4 TP4 TP5 TP6 TP6 TP6 TP7 TP7 TP8
Sample ID MW1_0.5-0.6 MW1_2.2-2.3 MW2_0.5-0.6 MW2_1.4-1.5 MW2_2.5-2.6 QC2_2/9/05 QC3_2/9/05 MW3_0.2-0.3 MW3_1.0-1.1 MW3_2.0-2.1 TP1_0.1-0.2 TP1_1.6-1.7 TP2_0.5-0.6 TP3_0.1-0.2 TP4_0.1-0.2 TP4_1.7-1.8 TP5_0.7-0.8 TP6_0.1-0.2 TP6_1.1-1.2 TP6_2.5-2.6 TP7_0.2-0.3 TP7_1.7-1.8 TP8_0.1-0.2
Date Sampled 2/09/2005 2/09/2005 2/09/2005 2/09/2005 2/09/2005 2/09/2005 2/09/2005 2/09/2005 2/09/2005 2/09/2005 2/09/2005 2/09/2005 2/09/2005 2/09/2005 5/09/2005 5/09/2005 5/09/2005 5/09/2005 5/09/2005 5/09/2005 5/09/2005 5/09/2005 5/09/2005
QAQC Sample Type Field DuplicateField Triplicate

NEPM - NEPM - A NEPM - F Dutch Intervention

Interim Urban 'Standard' Commercial/Indust Guidelines 2000
EIL residential with rial: includes
Guidelines garden/accessible premises such as
1999 soil HIL shops and offices
Guidelines 1999 as well as factories
and industrial sites
HIL Guidelines
1999
Analyte LOR Units
TPH
TPH (C6-C9 Fraction) 2 mg/kg <2 <2 <2 <2 <20 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2
TPH (C10-C14 Fraction) 50 mg/kg <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50
TPH (C15-C28 Fraction) 100 mg/kg <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 180 160 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100
TPH (C29-C36 Fraction) 100 mg/kg <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 160 110 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100
Total TPH (C10-C36) mg/kg 5000 340 270
BTEX
Benzene 0.2 mg/kg 1 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.05 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2
Toluene 0.2 mg/kg 130 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.05 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2
Ethylbenzene 0.2 mg/kg 50 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.05 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2
m- & p-Xylene 0.2 mg/kg <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.05 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2
25
o-Xylene 0.2 mg/kg <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.05 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2
Total BTEX mg/kg
PAHs
Acenaphthene 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.1 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
Acenaphthylene 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.1 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
Anthracene 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.1 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 1.3 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
Benz(a)anthracene 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.1 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 3.8 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.5 mg/kg 1 5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.1 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 4 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.1 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 4 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.1 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 2.4 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.1 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 1.7 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
Chrysene 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.1 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 3.8 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.1 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.8 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
Fluoranthene 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.1 <0.5 <0.5 0.9 <0.5 <0.5 0.7 6.7 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.6
Fluorene 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.1 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
Indeno(1.2.3.cd)pyrene 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.1 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 2 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
Naphthalene 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.1 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
Phenanthrene 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.1 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 2.4 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
Pyrene 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.1 <0.5 <0.5 0.8 <0.5 <0.5 0.6 7.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.6
Total PAHs mg/kg 20 100 40 2.2 1.3 41.4 1.2
Phenols
Phenol 0.5 mg/kg 40 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
2-Chlorophenol 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
2-Methylphenol 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
3- & 4-Methylphenol 1 mg/kg <0.5 1.1 <1.0 <1.0
2-Nitrophenol 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
2.4-Dimethylphenol 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 0.8 <0.5 <0.5
2.4-Dichlorophenol 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 0.5 <0.5 <0.5
2.6-Dichlorophenol 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 0.7 <0.5 <0.5
4-Chloro-3-Methylphenol 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 1.1 <0.5 <0.5
2.4.6-Trichlorophenol 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 1 <0.5 <0.5
2.4.5-Trichlorophenol 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 1.2 <0.5 <0.5
Pentachlorophenol 1 mg/kg <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Total Phenols mg/kg 8500 42500 6.4

LEGEND
Greater than NEPM - Interim Urban EIL Guidelines 1999

Greater than NEPM - A 'Standard' residential with

garden/accessible soil HIL Guidelines 1999
Greater than NEPM - F Commercial/Industrial: includes
premises such as shops and offices as well as factories
and industrial sites HIL Guidelines 1999
Greater than Dutch Intervention Guidelines 2000

- Not Analyzed

URS Australia Pty Ltd Page 4 of 6 Tables 3 to 5 CrossTableOutputSoil_OnSite.xls

Table 4
Soil Analytical Data - Organic
MAB NewQuay - Lot 11 (Aquavista)

Location TP8 TP8 TP8 TP8_2.8-2.9 TP8_2.8-2.9 TP9 TP10 TP10 TP11 TP11 TP11 TP12 TP12 TP13 TP13
Sample ID TP8_0.7-0.8 TP8_1.8-1.9 TP8_2.8-2.9 QC8_5/9/05 QC9_5/9/05 TP9_2.0-2.1 TP10_1.5-1.6 TP10_2.0-2.1 TP11_0.5-0.6 TP11_0.9-1.0 TP11_1.9-2.0 TP12_1.6-1.7 TP12_2.0-2.1 TP13_1.0-1.1 TP13_1.6-1.7
Date Sampled 5/09/2005 5/09/2005 5/09/2005 5/09/2005 5/09/2005 5/09/2005 18/10/2005 18/10/2005 18/10/2005 18/10/2005 18/10/2005 18/10/2005 18/10/2005 18/10/2005 18/10/2005
QAQC Sample Type Field Duplicate Field Triplicate

NEPM - NEPM - A NEPM - F Dutch Intervention

Interim Urban 'Standard' Commercial/Indust Guidelines 2000
EIL residential with rial: includes
Guidelines garden/accessible premises such as
1999 soil HIL shops and offices
Guidelines 1999 as well as factories
and industrial sites
HIL Guidelines
1999
Analyte LOR Units
TPH
TPH (C6-C9 Fraction) 2 mg/kg <2 <2 <2 <20 <2 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
TPH (C10-C14 Fraction) 50 mg/kg <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 2800 <50
TPH (C15-C28 Fraction) 100 mg/kg <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 280 <100 <100 <100 <100 130 <100 71000 <100
TPH (C29-C36 Fraction) 100 mg/kg <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 160 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 21000 <100
Total TPH (C10-C36) mg/kg 5000 440 94800
BTEX
Benzene 0.2 mg/kg 1 <0.2 <0.2 0.3 <0.05 <0.2 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.47 <0.05
Toluene 0.2 mg/kg 130 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.05 <0.2 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.2 <0.05
Ethylbenzene 0.2 mg/kg 50 <0.2 <0.2 0.4 <0.05 <0.2 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.2 <0.05
m- & p-Xylene 0.2 mg/kg <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.05 <0.2 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.2 <0.05
25
o-Xylene 0.2 mg/kg <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.05 <0.2 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.2 <0.05
Total BTEX mg/kg 0.7 0.47
PAHs
Acenaphthene 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.1 <0.5 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.2 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 180 <0.1
Acenaphthylene 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.1 <0.5 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 510 <0.1
Anthracene 0.5 mg/kg 0.6 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.1 <0.5 1.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.2 <0.1 0.8 <0.1 1100 <0.1
Benz(a)anthracene 0.5 mg/kg 0.9 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.1 1.3 8.4 <0.1 <0.1 <0.2 <0.1 2.3 <0.1 1100 <0.1
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.5 mg/kg 1 5 0.8 <0.5 0.5 <0.5 <0.1 1.2 12 <0.1 <0.1 <0.2 <0.1 3.1 0.1 1200 0.1
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.5 mg/kg 0.8 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.1 1.1 7.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.2 <0.1 1.8 <0.1 800 <0.1
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.5 mg/kg 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.1 0.9 7 <0.1 <0.1 <0.2 <0.1 1.6 <0.1 600 <0.1
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.1 0.9 8.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.2 <0.1 2.4 <0.1 660 <0.1
Chrysene 0.5 mg/kg 1 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.1 1.5 7.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.2 <0.1 2.4 <0.1 960 <0.1
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.1 <0.5 1.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.2 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 180 <0.1
Fluoranthene 0.5 mg/kg 2 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.1 3.1 16 0.2 <0.1 <0.2 <0.1 5.5 <0.1 3200 <0.1
Fluorene 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.1 <0.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.2 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 950 <0.1
Indeno(1.2.3.cd)pyrene 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.1 0.7 6.8 <0.1 <0.1 <0.2 <0.1 1.3 <0.1 650 <0.1
Naphthalene 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.1 <0.5 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 470 <0.1
Phenanthrene 0.5 mg/kg 1.6 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.1 0.8 2.9 <0.1 <0.1 <0.2 <0.1 2.4 <0.1 4000 0.1
Pyrene 0.5 mg/kg 1.8 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.1 2.7 16 0.2 <0.1 <0.2 <0.1 6.2 <0.1 2800 <0.1
Total PAHs mg/kg 20 100 40 10 0.5 14.2 95 1.8 <1.6 <3.2 <1.6 31 <1.6 19000 <1.6
Phenols
Phenol 0.5 mg/kg 40 <0.1 6.5
2-Chlorophenol 0.5 mg/kg <0.1 <0.5
2-Methylphenol 0.5 mg/kg <0.1 3.2
3- & 4-Methylphenol 1 mg/kg <0.1 4.4
2-Nitrophenol 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <2
2.4-Dimethylphenol 0.5 mg/kg <0.1 11
2.4-Dichlorophenol 0.5 mg/kg <0.1 <0.5
2.6-Dichlorophenol 0.5 mg/kg <0.1 <0.5
4-Chloro-3-Methylphenol 0.5 mg/kg <0.1 <2
2.4.6-Trichlorophenol 0.5 mg/kg <0.1 <0.5
2.4.5-Trichlorophenol 0.5 mg/kg
Pentachlorophenol 1 mg/kg <0.5 <2
Total Phenols mg/kg 8500 42500 25.1

LEGEND
Greater than NEPM - Interim Urban EIL Guidelines 1999

Greater than NEPM - A 'Standard' residential with

garden/accessible soil HIL Guidelines 1999
Greater than NEPM - F Commercial/Industrial: includes
premises such as shops and offices as well as factories
and industrial sites HIL Guidelines 1999
Greater than Dutch Intervention Guidelines 2000

- Not Analyzed

URS Australia Pty Ltd Page 5 of 6 Tables 3 to 5 CrossTableOutputSoil_OnSite.xls

Table 5
Soil Analytical Data - Pesticides, Volatile Halogenated Compounds and TBT
MAB NewQuay - Lot 11 (Aquavista)

Location MW1 MW2 MW3 TP1 TP6 TP8 TP8 TP8

Sample ID MW1_0.5-0.6 MW2_1.4-1.5 MW3_0.2-0.3 TP1_1.6-1.7 TP6_1.1-1.2 TP8_0.1-0.2 TP8_0.7-0.8 TP8_1.8-1.9
Date Sampled 2/09/2005 2/09/2005 2/09/2005 2/09/2005 5/09/2005 5/09/2005 5/09/2005 5/09/2005
QAQC Sample Type

NEPM - NEPM - A NEPM - F

Interim Urban 'Standard' Commercial/Indust
EIL residential with rial: includes
Guidelines garden/accessible premises such as
1999 soil HIL shops and offices
Guidelines 1999 as well as factories
and industrial sites
HIL Guidelines
1999
Analyte LOR Units
Pesticides
alpha-BHC 0.05 mg/kg <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) 0.05 mg/kg <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
beta-BHC 0.05 mg/kg <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
gamma-BHC 0.05 mg/kg <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
delta-BHC 0.05 mg/kg <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
Heptachlor 0.05 mg/kg 10 50 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
Aldrin 0.05 mg/kg 10 50 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
Heptachlor epoxide 0.05 mg/kg <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
trans-Chlordane 0.05 mg/kg 50 250 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
alpha-Endosulfan 0.05 mg/kg <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
cis-Chlordane 0.05 mg/kg 50 250 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
Dieldrin 0.05 mg/kg 10 50 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
4.4’-DDE 0.05 mg/kg 200 1000 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
Endrin 0.05 mg/kg <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
beta-Endosulfan 0.05 mg/kg <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
4.4’-DDD 0.05 mg/kg 200 1000 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
Endrin aldehyde 0.05 mg/kg <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
Endosulfan sulfate 0.05 mg/kg <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
4.4’-DDT 0.2 mg/kg 200 1000 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2
Endrin ketone 0.05 mg/kg <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
Methoxychlor 0.2 mg/kg <0.2 <0.2 <0.2
PCBs
Total Polychlorinated biphenyls 0.1 mg/kg 10 50 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Organotins
Tributyltin 0.2 µgSn/kg 3.8 0.3
VHCs
2.2-Dichloropropane 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
1.2-Dichloropropane 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
cis-1.3-Dichloropropylene 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
trans-1.3-Dichloropropylene 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
1.2-Dibromoethane (EDB) 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
Dichlorodifluoromethane 5 mg/kg <5 <5 <5 <5
Chloromethane 5 mg/kg <5 <5 <5 <5
Vinyl chloride 5 mg/kg <5 <5 <5 <5
Bromomethane 5 mg/kg <5 <5 <5 <5
Chloroethane 5 mg/kg <5 <5 <5 <5
Trichlorofluoromethane 5 mg/kg <5 <5 <5 <5
1.1-Dichloroethene 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
Iodomethane 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
trans-1.2-Dichloroethene 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
1.1-Dichloroethane 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
cis-1.2-Dichloroethene 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
1.1.1-Trichloroethane 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
1.1-Dichloropropylene 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
Carbon Tetrachloride 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
1.2-Dichloroethane 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
Trichloroethene 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
Dibromomethane 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
1.1.2-Trichloroethane 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
1.3-Dichloropropane 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
Tetrachloroethene 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
1.1.1.2-Tetrachloroethane 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
trans-1.4-Dichloro-2-butene 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
cis-1.4-Dichloro-2-butene 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
1.1.2.2-Tetrachloroethane 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
1.2.3-Trichloropropane 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
Pentachloroethane 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
1.2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
Hexachlorobutadiene 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
Chlorobenzene 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
Bromobenzene 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
2-Chlorotoluene 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
4-Chlorotoluene 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
1.3-Dichlorobenzene 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
1.4-Dichlorobenzene 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
1.2-Dichlorobenzene 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
1.2.4-Trichlorobenzene 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
1.2.3-Trichlorobenzene 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
Chloroform 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
Bromodichloromethane 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
Dibromochloromethane 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
Bromoform 0.5 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

LEGEND
Greater than NEPM - Interim Urban EIL Guidelines 1999

Greater than NEPM - A 'Standard' residential with

garden/accessible soil HIL Guidelines 1999
Greater than NEPM - F Commercial/Industrial: includes
premises such as shops and offices as well as factories and
industrial sites HIL Guidelines 1999

- Not Analyzed

URS Australia Pty Ltd Page 6 of 6 Tables 3 to 5 CrossTableOutputSoil_OnSite.xls

Table 6
Groundwater Analytical Data - Metals, Nutrients, TPH & BTEX
MAB Aquavista
New Quay

Sample ID MW1_13/9/05 MW1_16/11/05 QC01_16/11/05 QC02_16/11/05 MW2_13/9/05 MW2_16/11/05 MW2a_13/9/05 MW3_13/9/05 MW3_16/11/05 MW4_13/9/05 QC03_13/9/05 QC04_13/9/05 MW4_16/11//05 MW5_13/9/05 MW26_16/11/05 MW27_16/11/05 MW30_16/11/05
Date Sampled 14/09/2005 16/11/2005 16/11/2005 16/11/2005 14/09/2005 16/11/2005 14/09/2005 14/09/2005 16/11/2005 14/09/2005 14/09/2005 13/09/2005 16/11/2005 14/09/2005 Date* Date* Date*
Sample Type Primary Sample Primary Sample Duplicate Sample Triplicate Sample Primary Sample Primary Sample Primary Sample Primary Sample Primary Sample Primary Sample Duplicate Sample Triplicate Sample Primary Sample Primary Sample Primary Sample Primary Sample Primary Sample
Primary Sample ID MW1_16/11/05 MW1_16/11/05 MW4_13/9/05 MW4_13/9/05

ANZECC Buildings and Industrial Dutch

2000 - Marine Structures Water Use Intervention
Water - 90% Guidelines
2000
Analyte LOR Units
Physico-Chemical Parameters
Total Dissolved Solids 1 mg/L 9160 6100 5600 26900 4000 17900 27600 25000 2120 2550 1800 3400 32000 32000 34000 41000
pH 6.6-8.5 6.6-8.5 6.5 8.3 6.7 6.4 6.7
Nutrients
Ammonia as N 0.01 mg/L 1.2 11.1 18 32.9 1.5 1.49 1.3 44.7
Nitrate as N 0.01 mg/L 3.4 1.82 0.313 <0.01 0.108 0.133 0.25 0.054
Nitrite + Nitrate as N 0.01 mg/L 2.88 0.367 <0.01 0.539 0.561 0.054
Nitrite as N 0.01 mg/L 1.06 0.054 <0.01 0.43 0.428 <0.01
Alkalinity
Bicarbonate as CaCO3 1 mg/L 435 267 114 1920 87 92 72 1820
Carbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 1 mg/L <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <0.5 <1
Hydroxide Alkalinity as CaCO3 1 mg/L <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Total Alkalinity 1 mg/L 435 267 114 1920 87 92 1820
Major Ions
Calcium 1 mg/L 415 1870 1570 432 76 77 70 457
Chloride 1 mg/L 2000 3680 8520 4260 14000 793 751 700 17400
Magnesium 1 mg/L 249 579 193 1110 36 36 36 1390
Potassium 1 mg/L 115 150 91 251 26 24 17 287
Sodium 1 mg/L 1420 2550 1710 5380 550 554 480 6740
Sulphate 1 mg/L 375 514 1050 615 887 380 383 120 1160
Total Anions 0.01 meq/l 123 267 135 451 32 31 552
Total Cations 0.01 meq/l 106 256 171 353 31.3 31.5 437
Ionic Balance 0.01 % 7.52 2.26 11.6 12.2 1.1 0.81 11.6
Metals (Dissolved)
Arsenic 0.001 mg/L 0.003 0.014 0.021 0.001 0.005 0.043 0.006 0.032 0.013 0.013 0.015 0.012 0.021 0.037 0.039 0.045
Cadmium 0.0001 mg/L 0.014 0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0001 0.0001 <0.0002 0.0005 <0.0002 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0005 <0.0002 0.0065 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002
Chromium 0.001 mg/L 0.02 0.003 0.056 0.054 0.008 0.002 0.056 0.009 0.064 0.002 0.002 0.0021 0.064 0.02 0.079 0.096 0.11
Copper 0.001 mg/L 0.003 0.017 0.008 0.012 0.007 0.037 0.008 0.217 0.013 0.016 0.015 0.01 0.003 0.053 0.02 0.023 0.024
Cyanide (free) 0.005 mg/L 0.007 0.007 <0.005 0.006 <0.005 0.005 0.006 <0.005 0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
Total Cyanide 0.005 mg/L 0.221 0.019 0.301 <0.005 0.005 0.006 0.112 0.112 <0.005 0.093 <0.005 0.03 0.006 0.031
Lead 0.001 mg/L 0.0066 0.026 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.002 <0.001 0.01 <0.001 0.009 0.009 0.0092 0.001 0.01 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Mercury 0.0001 mg/L 0.0007 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0003 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0001 <0.0001 0.0002 0.0002 <0.0001
Nickel 0.001 mg/L 0.2 0.033 0.014 0.021 0.008 0.102 0.025 0.054 0.02 0.058 0.056 0.061 0.017 0.026 0.019 0.025 0.024
Zinc 0.005 mg/L 0.023 0.067 0.005 0.005 0.007 0.095 0.013 0.209 0.002 0.078 0.074 0.065 0.008 0.087 0.049 0.048 0.001
Miscellaneous Organics
Tributyltin 2 ngSn/L <2 <2
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
TPH C6-C9 Fraction 20 µg/L <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
TPH C10-C14 Fraction 50 µg/L 110 <50 170 100 <50 <50 <50 110 160 150 110
TPH C15-C28 Fraction 100 µg/L 1200 1000 2000 2900 500 500 200 2600 1400 1400 1100
TPH C29-C36 Fraction 50 µg/L 530 280 700 1580 350 400 <100 2040 1680 920 730
Total TPH C10-C36 µg/L 600 1840 1280 2870 4580 850 900 200 4750 3240 2470 1940
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons with Silica Gel Clean-up
TPH C6-C9 Fraction 20 µg/L <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
TPH C10-C14 Fraction 50 µg/L <50 <50 <50 <200 <200
TPH C15-C28 Fraction 100 µg/L <100 <100 <100 <500 <500
TPH C29-C36 Fraction 50 µg/L <100 <50 <100 <500 <500
Total TPH C10-C36 µg/L 600 <250 <200 <250 <1200 <1200
BTEX Compounds
Benzene 1 µg/L 900 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Toluene 2 µg/L 130 <2 <1 <2 <1 <2 <1 <2 <2 <1 3
Ethylbenzene 2 µg/L 50 <2 <1 <2 <1 <2 <1 <2 <2 <1 <1 <2
m&p-Xylene 2 µg/L <2 <1 <2 <1 <2 <1 <2 <2 <1 <1 <2
o-Xylene 2 µg/L <2 <1 <2 <1 <2 <1 <2 <2 <1 <2

Legend
Exceeds the ANZECC/ARMCANZ 2000 Trigger values for marine water ecosystems - Level of
protection 90% species

Exceeds Buildings and Structures Guidelines

Exceeds Industrial Water Use Guidelines

Exceeds Dutch Intervention Guidelines 2000

Not analysed
* Samples collected on 16/11/05 for metals and PAHs. (See Appendix E for laboratory reports).
* Samples collected on 27/9/05 for TPH and Cyanide for the Nolan Body Corporate (see Appendix K for laboratory reports)

URS Page 1 of 5 Tables 6 to 8 Aquavista Gwater Tables for both GMEs.xls

Table 7
Groundwater Analytical Data - PAHs & Phenolics
MAB Aquavista
New Quay

Sample ID MW1_13/9/05 MW1_16/11/05 QC01_16/11/05 QC02_16/11/05 MW2_13/9/05 MW2_16/11/05 MW3_13/9/05 MW3_16/11/05 MW4_13/9/05 MW4_16/11/05 MW5_13/9/05 MW26_16/11/05 MW27_16/11/05 MW30_16/11/05
Date Sampled 14/09/2005 16/11/2005 16/11/2005 16/11/2005 14/09/2005 16/11/2005 14/09/2005 16/11/2005 14/09/2005 16/11/2005 14/09/2005 16/11/2005 16/11/2005 16/11/2005
Sample Type Primary Sample Primary Sample Duplicate Sample Triplicate Sample Primary Sample Primary Sample Primary Sample Primary Sample Primary Sample Primary Sample Primary Sample Primary Sample Primary Sample Primary Sample
Primary Sample ID MW1_16/11/05 MW1_16/11/05

ANZECC 2000
- Marine
Water - 90%
Analyte LOR Units
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
2-Chloronaphthalene 2 µg/L <4 <2
2-Methylnaphthalene 2 µg/L <4 <2
3-Methylcholanthrene 2 µg/L <4 <2
7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene 2 µg/L <4 <2
Acenaphthene 0.5 µg/L <4 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Acenaphthylene 0.5 µg/L <4 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Anthracene 0.5 µg/L 1.5* 8 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 3 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Benz(a)anthracene 0.5 µg/L <4 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.3 µg/L 0.4* <4 <1 <1 <1 <0.5 <1 <2 <1 <0.5 <1 <0.5 <1 <1 <1
Benzo(b&k)fluoranthene 4 µg/L <8 <1 <1 <1 <1 <4 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.5 µg/L <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.5 µg/L <4 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.5 µg/L <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Chrysene 0.5 µg/L <4 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.5 µg/L <4 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Fluoranthene 0.5 µg/L 1.7* <4 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Fluorene 0.5 µg/L <4 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.5 µg/L <4 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
N-2-Fluorenylacetamide 2 µg/L <4 <1 <1 <2 <1 <1
Naphthalene 0.5 µg/L 90 <4 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Phenanthrene 0.5 µg/L 4* 5 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 3 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Pyrene 0.5 µg/L <4 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Total PAHs 13 6
Phenolic Compounds
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 2 µg/L <4 <2
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 2 µg/L <4 <2
2,4-Dichlorophenol 2 µg/L <4 <2
2,4-Dimethylphenol 2 µg/L <4 <2
2,6-Dichlorophenol 2 µg/L <4 <2
2-Chlorophenol 2 µg/L <4 <2
2-Methylphenol 2 µg/L <4 <2
2-Nitrophenol 2 µg/L <4 <2
3- & 4-Methylphenol 2 µg/L <4 <2
4-Chloro-3-Methylphenol 2 µg/L <4 <2
Pentachlorophenol 4 µg/L 33 <8 <4
Phenol 2 µg/L 520 <4 <2

Legend
Exceeds the ANZECC/ARMCANZ 2000 Trigger values for marine water ecosystems -
Level of protection 90% species
* ANZECC 2000 low reliability trigger values (should be considered an indicative interim working level)

Not analysed

URS Page 2 of 5 Tables 6 to 8 Aquavista Gwater Tables for both GMEs.xls

 Table 8
Groundwater Analytical Data - SVOC, VOC
MAB Aquavista
New Quay

Sample ID MW1_13/9/05 MW3_13/9/05

Date Sampled 14/09/2005 14/09/2005
Sample Type Primary Sample Primary Sample
Primary Sample ID MW1_13/9/05 MW3_13/9/05

ANZECC
2000 - Marine
Water - 90%
Analyte LOR Units
Organochlorine Pesticides (OC)
4,4-DDD 2 µg/L <4 <2
4,4-DDE 2 µg/L <4 <2
4,4-DDT 4 µg/L <8 <4
a-BHC 2 µg/L <4 <2
Aldrin 2 µg/L <4 <2
b-BHC 2 µg/L <4 <2
d-BHC 2 µg/L <4 <2
Dieldrin 2 µg/L <4 <2
Endosulfan 1 2 µg/L <4 <2
Endosulfan 2 2 µg/L <4 <2
Endosulfan sulfate 2 µg/L <4 <2
Endrin 2 µg/L 0.01 <4 <2
g-BHC 2 µg/L <4 <2
Heptachlor 2 µg/L <4 <2
Heptachlor epoxide 2 µg/L <4 <2
Organophosphorus Pesticides (OP)
Chlorfenvinphos 2 µg/L <4 <2
Chlorpyrifos 2 µg/L 0.04 <4 <2
Chlorpyrifos-methyl 2 µg/L <4 <2
Diazinon 2 µg/L <4 <2
Dichlorvos 2 µg/L <4 <2
Dimethoate 2 µg/L <4 <2
Ethion 2 µg/L <4 <2
Fenthion 2 µg/L <4 <2
Malathion 2 µg/L <4 <2
Pirimphos-ethyl 2 µg/L <4 <2
Prothiofos 2 µg/L <4 <2
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Polychlorinated biphenyls 1 µg/L <2 <1
Anilines and Benzidines
2-Nitroaniline 4 µg/L <8 <4
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine 2 µg/L <4 <2
3-Nitroaniline 4 µg/L <8 <4
4-Chloroaniline 2 µg/L <4 <2
4-Nitroaniline 2 µg/L <4 <2
Aniline 2 µg/L <4 <2
Carbazole 2 µg/L <4 <2
Dibenzofuran 2 µg/L <4 <2
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 5 µg/L 140 <4 <2
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 5 µg/L <4 <2
1,3-Dichlorobenzene 5 µg/L <4 <2
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 5 µg/L <4 <2
Hexachlorobenzene 4 µg/L <8 <4
Hexachlorobutadiene 5 µg/L <4 <2
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 10 µg/L <20 <10
Hexachloroethane 2 µg/L <4 <2
Hexachloropropylene 2 µg/L <4 <2
Pentachlorobenzene 2 µg/L <4 <2
Haloethers
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 2 µg/L <4 <2
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 2 µg/L <4 <2
Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane 2 µg/L <4 <2
Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether 2 µg/L <4 <2
Miscellaneous Compounds
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 2 µg/L <4 <2
1,3,5-Trichlorobenzene 2 µg/L <4 <2
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol 2 µg/L <4 <2
cis-Isosafrole 2 µg/L <4 <2
Diallate 2 µg/L <4 <2
Methanesulfonate ethyl 2 µg/L <4 <2
Methanesulfonate methyl 2 µg/L <4 <2
Safrole 2 µg/L <4 <2

URS Page 3 of 5 Tables 6 to 8 Aquavista Gwater Tables for both GMEs.xls

 Table 8
Groundwater Analytical Data - SVOC, VOC
MAB Aquavista
New Quay

Sample ID MW1_13/9/05 MW3_13/9/05

Date Sampled 14/09/2005 14/09/2005
Sample Type Primary Sample Primary Sample
Primary Sample ID MW1_13/9/05 MW3_13/9/05

ANZECC
2000 - Marine
Water - 90%
Analyte LOR Units
trans-Isosafrole 2 µg/L <4 <2
Nitroaromatics and Ketones
1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene 2 µg/L <4 <2
1-Naphthylamine 2 µg/L <4 <2
2,4-Dinitrotoluene 4 µg/L <8 <4
2,6-Dinitrotoluene 4 µg/L <8 <4
2-Picoline 2 µg/L <4 <2
4-Aminobiphenyl 2 µg/L <4 <2
4-Nitroquinoline-N-oxide 2 µg/L <4 <2
5-Nitro-o-toluidine 2 µg/L <4 <2
Acetophenone 2 µg/L <4 <2
Azobenzene 2 µg/L <4 <2
Chlorobenzilate 2 µg/L <4 <2
Dimethylaminoazobenzene 2 µg/L <4 <2
Isophorone 2 µg/L <4 <2
Nitrobenzene 2 µg/L <4 <2
Pentachloronitrobenzene 2 µg/L <4 <2
Phenacetin 2 µg/L <4 <2
Pronamide 2 µg/L <4 <2
Nitrosamines
Methapyrilene 2 µg/L <4 <2
N-Nitrosodibutylamine 2 µg/L <4 <2
N-Nitrosodiethylamine 2 µg/L <4 <2
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine 2 µg/L <4 <2
N-Nitrosodiphenyl & Diphenylamine 4 µg/L <8 <4
N-Nitrosomethylethylamine 2 µg/L <4 <2
N-Nitrosomorpholine 2 µg/L <4 <2
N-Nitrosopiperidine 2 µg/L <4 <2
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine 4 µg/L <8 <4
Phthalate Esters
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 20 µg/L <40 <20
Butyl benzyl phthalate 2 µg/L <4 <2
Diethyl phthalate 2 µg/L <4 <2
Dimethyl phthalate 2 µg/L <4 <2
Di-n-butyl phthalate 2 µg/L <4 <2
Di-n-octylphthalate 2 µg/L <4 <2
Chlorinated Aliphatic Compounds
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 5 µg/L <5 <5
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 5 µg/L <5 <5
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 5 µg/L <5 <5
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 5 µg/L 5800 <5 <5
1,1-Dichloroethane 5 µg/L <5 <5
1,1-Dichloroethene 5 µg/L <5 <5
1,1-Dichloropropylene 5 µg/L <5 <5
1,2,3-Trichloropropane 5 µg/L <5 <5
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 5 µg/L <5 <5
1,2-Dichloroethane 5 µg/L <5 <5
1,3-Dichloropropane 5 µg/L <5 <5
Bromomethane 50 µg/L <50 <50
Carbon Tetrachloride 5 µg/L <5 <5
Chloroethane 50 µg/L <50 <50
Chloromethane 50 µg/L <50 <50
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 5 µg/L <5 <5
cis-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene 5 µg/L <5 <5
Dibromomethane 5 µg/L <5 <5
Dichlorodifluoromethane 50 µg/L <50 <50
Hexachlorobutadiene 5 µg/L <5 <5
Iodomethane 5 µg/L <5 <5
Pentachloroethane 5 µg/L <5 <5
Tetrachloroethene 5 µg/L <5 <5
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 5 µg/L <5 <5
trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene 5 µg/L <5 <5
Trichloroethene 5 µg/L 400* <5 <5
Trichlorofluoromethane 50 µg/L <50 <50

URS Page 4 of 5 Tables 6 to 8 Aquavista Gwater Tables for both GMEs.xls

 Table 8
Groundwater Analytical Data - SVOC, VOC
MAB Aquavista
New Quay

Sample ID MW1_13/9/05 MW3_13/9/05

Date Sampled 14/09/2005 14/09/2005
Sample Type Primary Sample Primary Sample
Primary Sample ID MW1_13/9/05 MW3_13/9/05

ANZECC
2000 - Marine
Water - 90%
Analyte LOR Units
Vinyl chloride 50 µg/L <50 <50
Chlorinated Aromatic Compounds
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 5 µg/L <5 <5
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 5 µg/L 140 <5 <5
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 5 µg/L <5 <5
1,3-Dichlorobenzene 5 µg/L <5 <5
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 5 µg/L <5 <5
2-Chlorotoluene 5 µg/L <5 <5
4-Chlorotoluene 5 µg/L <5 <5
Bromobenzene 5 µg/L <5 <5
Chlorobenzene 5 µg/L <5 <5
Fumigants
1,2-Dibromomethane 5 µg/L <5 <5
1,2-Dichloropropane 5 µg/L <5 <5
2,2-Dichloropropane 5 µg/L <5 <5
cis-1,3-Dichloropropylene 5 µg/L <10 <10
trans-1,3-Dichloropropylene 5 µg/L <10 <10
Monocyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 5 µg/L <5 <5
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 5 µg/L <5 <5
Isopropylbenzene 5 µg/L <5 <5
n-Butylbenzene 5 µg/L <5 <5
n-Propylbenzene 5 µg/L <5 <5
p-Isopropyltoluene 5 µg/L <5 <5
sec-Butylbenzene 5 µg/L <5 <5
Styrene 5 µg/L <5 <5
tert-Butylbenzene 5 µg/L <5 <5
Oxygenated Compounds
2-Butanone (MEK) 50 µg/L <50 <50
2-Hexanone (MBK) 50 µg/L <50 <50
4-Methyl-2-pentanone 50 µg/L <50 <50
Vinyl Acetate 50 µg/L <50 <50
Sulfonated Compounds
Carbon disulfide 5 µg/L <5 <5
Trihalomethanes
Bromodichloromethane 5 µg/L <5 <5
Bromoform 5 µg/L <5 <5
Chloroform 5 µg/L <5 <5
Dibromochloromethane 5 µg/L <5 <5

Legend
Exceeds the ANZECC/ARMCANZ 2000 Trigger values for marine water ecosystems -
Level of protection 90% species
* ANZECC 2000 low reliability trigger values (should be considered an indicative interim working level)

URS Page 5 of 5 Tables 6 to 8 Aquavista Gwater Tables for both GMEs.xls

Table 9
Soil Validation Analytical Data - Metals, TPH, BTEX and PAH
MAB NewQuay - Lot 11 (Aquavista)

Location West Wall NW Wall Base Nth Wall West Wall Sth Wall Base East Wall VS109 VS109
Sample ID VS101 VS102 VS103 VS104 VS105 VS106 VS107 VS109 QC01_13/12/05 QC02_13/12/05
Date Sampled 13/12/2005 13/12/2005 13/12/2005 13/12/2005 13/12/2005 13/12/2005 13/12/2005 13/12/2005 13/12/2005 13/12/2005
QAQC Sample Type Field Triplicate Field Duplicate

NEPM - NEPM - A NEPM - F Dutch

Interim Urban 'Standard' Commercial/Indust Intervention
EIL residential with rial: includes Guidelines -
Guidelines garden/accessible premises such as 2000
1999 soil HIL Guidelines shops and offices
1999 as well as factories
and industrial sites
HIL Guidelines
1999
Analyte LOR Units
General
Moisture Content 0.1 % 30 26 28 35 31 26 38 31 23.9 7.6
TPH
TPH (C6-C9 Fraction) 2 mg/kg < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 <2 < 20
TPH (C10-C14 Fraction) 50 mg/kg < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50
TPH (C15-C28 Fraction) 100 mg/kg < 100 160 < 100 380 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
TPH (C29-C36 Fraction) 100 mg/kg < 100 120 < 100 280 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100
Total TPH (C10-C36) mg/kg 5000
BTEX
Benzene 0.2 mg/kg 1 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.2 < 0.05
Toluene 0.2 mg/kg 130 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.2 < 0.05
Ethylbenzene 0.2 mg/kg 50 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.2 < 0.05
m- & p-Xylene 0.2 mg/kg < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.2 < 0.05
25
o-Xylene 0.2 mg/kg < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.2 < 0.05
Total BTEX mg/kg
PAHs
Acenaphthene 0.5 mg/kg < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 <0.5 < 0.1
Acenaphthylene 0.5 mg/kg < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.3 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 <0.5 < 0.1
Anthracene 0.5 mg/kg < 0.1 0.2 < 0.1 0.3 0.2 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 <0.5 0.1
Benz(a)anthracene 0.5 mg/kg 0.3 1.9 < 0.1 4.8 0.8 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.1 1.1 0.4
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.5 mg/kg 1 5 0.6 5.4 < 0.1 8.5 1 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.2 1 0.5
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.5 mg/kg 0.4 4.1 < 0.1 6.8 0.8 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.2 0.7 0.5
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.5 mg/kg 0.4 4.2 < 0.1 7.8 0.5 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.4
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.5 mg/kg 0.2 1.9 < 0.1 3.4 0.5 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 <0.5 0.3
Chrysene 0.5 mg/kg 0.4 2.3 < 0.1 5.2 0.9 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.2 1.1 0.4
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.5 mg/kg < 0.1 0.9 < 0.1 1.5 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 <0.5 < 0.1
Fluoranthene 0.5 mg/kg 0.3 2 < 0.1 4 2.2 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.3 <0.5 1
Fluorene 0.5 mg/kg < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 <0.5 < 0.1
Indeno(1.2.3.cd)pyrene 0.5 mg/kg 0.3 2.7 < 0.1 4 0.4 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 <0.5 0.3
Naphthalene 0.5 mg/kg < 0.1 0.2 < 0.1 0.5 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 <0.5 < 0.1
Phenanthrene 0.5 mg/kg < 0.1 0.5 < 0.1 1 0.6 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 1.3 0.4
Pyrene 0.5 mg/kg 0.8 3.5 < 0.1 9.2 1.9 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.3 2.5 1
Total PAHs mg/kg 20 100 4.4 30 < 1.6 58 10 < 1.6 < 1.6 2.3 8.4 5.8
Metals
Arsenic 5 mg/kg 20 100 500 3.7
Cadmium 1 mg/kg 3 20 100 < 0.5
Chromium (III) 2 mg/kg 400 12% 60% <5
Copper 5 mg/kg 100 1000 5000 74
Lead 5 mg/kg 600 300 1500 40
Mercury 0.1 mg/kg 1 15 75 0.1
Nickel 2 mg/kg 60 600 3000 25
Zinc 5 mg/kg 200 7000 35000 120

LEGEND
Greater than NEPM - Interim Urban EIL Guidelines 1999

NEPM - A 'Standard' residential with garden/accessible soil

HIL Guidelines 1999
NEPM - F Commercial/Industrial: includes premises such as
shops and offices as well as factories and industrial sites HIL
Guidelines 1999
Greater than Dutch Intervention Levels - 2000

- Not Analyzed

URS Australia Pty Ltd Page 1 of 1 Table 9 - Remediation table.xls

Table 10
QAQC Analytical Results
MAB Aquavista
New Quay

Sample ID QC01_2/9/05 QC06_2/9/05 QC07_5/9/05 QC10_5/9/05 QC01_13/9/05 QC02_13/9/05 QC05_13/9/05 QC01_18/10/05 QC03_16/11/05 QC04_16/11/05
Date Sampled 2/09/2005 2/09/2005 5/09/2005 5/09/2005 13/09/2005 13/09/2005 13/09/2005 18/10/2005 16/11/2005 16/11/2005
Sample Type Trip Blank Rinsate Blank Rinsate Blank Trip Blank Trip Blank Trip Blank Rinsate Blank Trip Blank Trip Blank Rinsate Blank

Analyte LOR Units

Metals (Dissolved)
Arsenic 0.001 mg/L - - <0.001 - - - <0.001 - - <0.001
Cadmium 0.0001 mg/L - - <0.0001 - - - <0.0001 - - <0.0001
Chromium 0.001 mg/L - - <0.001 - - - <0.001 - - <0.001
Copper 0.001 mg/L - - 0.001 - - - 0.002 - - 0.002
Lead 0.001 mg/L - - <0.001 - - - <0.001 - - <0.001
Mercury 0.0001 mg/L - - <0.0001 - - - <0.0001 - - <0.0001
Nickel 0.001 mg/L - - <0.001 - - - <0.001 - - <0.001
Zinc 0.005 mg/L - - 0.061 - - - <0.005 - - <0.005
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
C6-C9 fraction 20 µg/L <20 <20 - <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20
C10-C14 fraction 50 µg/L - <50 - - - - <50 - - <50
C15-C28 fraction 100 µg/L - <100 - - - - <100 - - <100
C29-C36 fraction 50 µg/L - <50 - - - - <50 - - <50
BTEX Compounds
Benzene 1 µg/L - <1 - - - - <1 - - <1
Toluene 2 µg/L - <2 - - - - <2 - - <2
Ethylbenzene 2 µg/L - <2 - - - - <2 - - <2
m&p-Xylene 2 µg/L - <2 - - - - <2 - - <2
o-Xylene 2 µg/L - <2 - - - - <2 - - <2
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Acenaphthene 0.5 µg/L - - - - - - - - - <1
Acenaphthylene 0.5 µg/L - - - - - - - - - <1
Anthracene 0.5 µg/L - - - - - - - - - <1
Benz(a)anthracene 0.5 µg/L - - - - - - - - - <1
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.3 µg/L - - - - - - - - - <1
Benzo(b&k)fluoranthene 4 µg/L - - - - - - - - - <1
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.5 µg/L - - - - - - - - - <1
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.5 µg/L - - - - - - - - - <1
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.5 µg/L - - - - - - - - - <1
Chrysene 0.5 µg/L - - - - - - - - - <1
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.5 µg/L - - - - - - - - - <1
Fluoranthene 0.5 µg/L - - - - - - - - - <1
Fluorene 0.5 µg/L - - - - - - - - - <1
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.5 µg/L - - - - - - - - - <1
N-2-Fluorenylacetamide 2 µg/L - - - - - - - - - <1
Naphthalene 0.5 µg/L - - - - - - - - - <1
Phenanthrene 0.5 µg/L - - - - - - - - - <1
Pyrene 0.5 µg/L - - - - - - - - - <1

- Not analysed

URS Page 1 of 2 Table 10 QAQC.xls

 Figures

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

 N

SITE LOCATION
This drawing is subject to COPYRIGHT. It remains the property of URS Australia Pty Ltd.

Source: COPYRIGHT C MELWAYS PUBLISHING PTY LTD. 100 0 100 200 300 400 500

Metres

Client Project Title

MAB DELIVERY PTY LTD ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT, SITE LOCALITY MAP
AQUAVISTA, NEWQUAY

Designed: S.C Checked: Date: 07/02/2006 File No. Figure 1 Rev. A

Figure: 1
Drawn: L.B.B Approved: Status: FINAL Job No.: 43294855 A4
This drawing is subject to COPYRIGHT. It remains the property of URS Australia Pty Ltd.

D
O
N C
K
LA
N
D
S

E
IV
DR

H
IG
H
W
S

A
ND

Y
A
C KL
DO

2
Lot
NE
LA

L
11 VE 6
Lot
A
Lot C AR
SITE LOCATION

10 7
L ot Lot

12
L ot

Victoria Dock

0 20 40 60 80 100
Approximate Scale in Metres

Client Project Title

MAB DELIVERY PTY LTD ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT, SITE LOCATION -
AQUAVISTA, NEWQUAY MAB NEWQUAY PRECINCT

Designed: S.C Checked: Date: 07/02/2006 File No. Figure 2 Rev. A

Figure: 2
Drawn: L.B.B Approved: Status: FINAL Job No.: 43294855 A4
 N

TP6 MW3

TP7
MW5 MW3a

TP13

TP2 TP3

MW2
TP8 TP1

(PROPOSED)
MW2a

TP9

MW4
TP4 TP12 TP5
MW4a

TP10
MW6

TP11
MW1
This drawing is subject to COPYRIGHT. It remains the property of URS Australia Pty Ltd.

LEGEND:
Existing monitoring well
New monitoring well (Coode Island Silt)
New monitoring well (Fill)
Test pit (Labeled as either MW or TP)
Approximate location of stormwater drain
Approximate location of water main
Note: Building plan shown is proposed Aquavista ground floor plan.
Client Project Title
MAB DELIVERY PTY LTD ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT, SITE INVESTIGATION PLAN
AQUAVISTA, NEWQUAY

Designed: S.C Checked: Date: 07/02/2006 File No. Figure 4 Rev. A

Figure: 4
Drawn: L.B.B Approved: Status: FINAL Job No.: 43294855 A4
 N

?
?
?

0.7
0.6
0.5
?

MW3
? TP6
(0.71)
TP7
? MW5 MW3a
(0.45)
TP13

TP2 TP3
?
TP8
MW2
(0.76)
TP1

(PROPOSED)
MW2a
?

TP9
? MW4
(0.76)
TP4 TP12 TP5
MW4a

TP10
MW6
(0.67) 0.7
TP11
MW1
(0.45) 0.6
?
0.5
?

?
LEGEND:
Existing monitoring well
This drawing is subject to COPYRIGHT. It remains the property of URS Australia Pty Ltd.

New monitoring well (Coode Island Silt)

New monitoring well (Fill)
Test pit (Labeled as either MW or TP)
0.5 Inferred groundwater contour m(AHD)
0.5 Assumed inferred groundwater contour m(AHD)
Groundwater flow direction
Date data collected:
(0.47) Groundwater elevation m(AHD) 12th September 2005. Note: Building plan shown is proposed Aquavista ground floor plan.
Client Project Title
MAB DELIVERY PTY LTD ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT, INFERRED GROUNDWATER
AQUAVISTA, NEWQUAY CONTOUR MAP

Designed: S.C Checked: Date: 07/02/2006 File No. Figure 6 Rev. A

Figure: 6
Drawn: L.B.B Approved: Status: FINAL Job No.: 43294855 A4
 N
This drawing is subject to COPYRIGHT. It remains the property of URS Australia Pty Ltd.

VS109
Note: Building plan shown is proposed Aquavista ground floor plan.
Client Project Title
MAB DELIVERY PTY LTD ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT, MAB LOT 11 -
AQUAVISTA, NEWQUAY REMEDIATION PLAN

Designed: S.C Checked: Date: 07/02/2006 File No. Figure 7 Rev. A

Figure: 7
Drawn: L.B.B Approved: Status: FINAL Job No.: 43294855 A4
 Plates

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

 Plate 1:
Site Viewed to South

Plate 2:
Site Viewed to West

Plate 3:
Profile of Test Pit 8

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\PLATES FOR R001.DOC\21-DEC-05

 Plate 4:
Drilling of Monitoring Well MW1

Plate 5:
Stormwater Pit on Northern Side of
Site

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\PLATES FOR R001.DOC\21-DEC-05

 Plate 6:
Contaminated Soil Excavation
viewed to NW

Plate 7:
Contaminated Soil Excavation
Viewed to East

Plate 8:
Hotspot of Slag in Contaminated Soil
Excavation

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\PLATES FOR R001.DOC\21-DEC-05

 Plate 9:
Contaminated Soil Excavation
viewed to South

Plate 10:
Contaminated Soil Excavation
viewed to West

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\PLATES FOR R001.DOC\21-DEC-05

 Appendix A
Proposed Plan of Subdivision

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

 Appendix B
Aerial Photographs from Woodward
Clyde 1997 Report

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

 Appendix C
Plans of Soil Contamination across the
Business Park Precinct from Woodward
Clyde 1997 Report

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

 Appendix D
Soil and Groundwater Logs Including
Surveyors Report

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

 Appendix E
Chain of Custody and Laboratory
Analytical Reports – Site Assessment

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

 Appendix F
Data Validation Tables – Site Assessment

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

 Appendix G
Chain of Custody and Laboratory
Analytical Reports – Remediation Works

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

 Appendix H
Data Validation Tables – Remediation
Works

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

 Appendix I
Laboratory Analytical Reports for Off-Site
Soil Disposal - EnviroProtect

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

 Appendix J
Waste Transport Certificates and
Equipment Calibration Certificates

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

 Appendix K
Reports from Nolan Groundwater
Monitoring Event (2005)

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

 Appendix L
Piper Plot

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

 Appendix M
Groundwater Purging Sheets

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06

 Appendix N
Regional Groundwater Concentration
Summary Tables

J:\JOBS\43294855\REPORTING\FINAL REPORT\FINAL LOT 11 R002.DOC\17-FEB-06