13055aRP03 GME (Rev0) - Prysmian Australia Pty Ltd » … Power Cables & Systems Australia Pty Ltd,...

es EnvironmentalStrategiesPROVIDING BENEFITS

www.environmentalstrategies.com.au

> PROVIDING BENEFITSes

Prysmian Power Cables & Systems Australia Pty Ltd, December Groundwater Monitoring Event, 1 Heathcote Road, Liverpool, NSW 13055a

Document Information

Client: Prysmian Power Cables & Systems Australia Pty Ltd

Project: February 2014 Groundwater Monitoring Event (GME) ‐ Liverpool

Project Number: 13055a

Report Title: Groundwater Monitoring Event. 1 Heathcote Road, Liverpool NSW

Date: 21 March 2014

Document Name: 13055aRP03_FINAL

Revision Number Revision 0

Written By:

Colin Biggs

Environmental Scientist

Reviewed By:

Dean Stafford

Senior Environmental Scientist

Prysmian Power Cables & Systems Australia Pty Ltd, December Groundwater Monitoring Event, 1 Heathcote Road, Liverpool, NSW 13055a

Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................... i

1 Introduction ................................................................................... 1

2 Site Condition and Surrounding Environment ................................. 4

3 Sampling and Analysis Plan and Sampling Methodology ................ 6

4 Field Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) .................... 7

5 Laboratory QA/QC .......................................................................... 8

6 Assessment Criteria ........................................................................ 9

7 Results ......................................................................................... 11

8 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................. 13

9 References ................................................................................... 14

Appendices Appendix A Figures Appendix B Groundwater Result Summary Tables Appendix C Groundwater Field Sheets Appendix D Groundwater RPD Summary Tables Appendix E Laboratory Certificates

Prysmian Power Cables & Systems Australia Pty Ltd, February 2014 Groundwater Monitoring Event, 1 Heathcote Road, Liverpool, NSW i 13055a

Executive Summary

Environmental Strategies Pty Limited (ES) was commissioned by Prysmian Cables & Systems Australia Pty Ltd (Prysmian) to conduct several Groundwater Monitoring Events (GMEs) as specified in an ES (November 2013) Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for a portion of the site located at 1 Heathcote Road, Liverpool NSW (the site). The site location is provided on Figure 1, Appendix A and the site layout in Figure 2, Appendix A.

A coolant leak was first identified in February 2012 within Factory 2 of the site with an estimated 10,000 – 11,000L of coolant (hydrocarbon/water mixture) lost to the subsurface due to a fault that had developed within an in‐ground concrete pit.

Prysmian have made a commitment to to conduct monthly monitoring of groundwater around the in‐ground pit for three (3) months. If, at the end of the three months of monitoring, the data trends indicate that the groundwater is not impacted by the leaking pit then less frequent monitoring will be justified. If groundwater either after the three (3) months of monitoring, or at any time following this, is shown to have been impacted by the contaminants of concern as triggered by the assessment criteria, then contingency options will be assessed.

This report presents the results of the third GME.

The results of the GME can be summarised as follows:

Groundwater analytical results reported all contaminants of concern (total recoverable hydrocarbons (TRH), benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, xylenes and naphthalene (BTEXN) and heavy metals) below laboratory detection limits and the adopted groundwater acceptance criteria (GAC) with the exception of copper and zinc which reported concentrations marginally above the GAC. ES consider that the concentrations of copper and zinc detected in groundwater are unlikely to pose a risk to human health and the environment and are likely representative of local background levels; and

Given that no hydrocarbons were reported above the adopted groundwater criteria, this indicates that groundwater has not been impacted by the leaking coolant tank.

Based on the above conclusions, and the results of the ES (June 2013) Supplementary Soil and Groundwater Investigation, ES consider that the coolant leak has not impacted the underlying groundwater and recommends that no further groundwater monitoring (other than that conducted as part of the facility’s due diligence) is required.

Prysmian Power Cables & Systems Australia Pty Ltd, February 2014 Groundwater Monitoring Event, 1 Heathcote Road, Liverpool, NSW 1 13055a

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

Environmental Strategies Pty Limited (ES) was commissioned by Prysmian Cables & Systems Australia Pty Ltd (Prysmian) to conduct several Groundwater Monitoring Events (GMEs) as specified in an ES (November 2013) Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for a portion of the site located at 1 Heathcote Road, Liverpool NSW (the site). The site location is provided on Figure 1, Appendix A and the site layout in Figure 2, Appendix A.

A coolant leak was first identified in February 2012 within Factory 2 of the site with an estimated 10,000 – 11,000L of coolant (hydrocarbon/water mixture) lost to the subsurface due to a fault that had developed within an in‐ground concrete pit. Following submission of a pollution incident report and sampling plan by MJM Environmental, Benbow Environmental (BE) were commissioned in July 2012 to undertake an Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) to investigate the extent of the release.

Investigations of soil and groundwater were undertaken by Benbow Environmental Pty Ltd (BE) and ES in 2013.

The results of the BE (January 2013) Environmental Site Assessment and the ES (June 2013) Supplementary Soil and Groundwater Investigation can be summarised as follows:

Soil results as reported by BE showed that sample locations 7, 8 and 9 contained contaminant concentrations below health based criteria but exceed the NEPM (2013) Commercial/Industrial Management Limits for coarse soil at depths ranging between 2 and 4.5m below ground level (bgl);

Impacted soils are localised to the southern and eastern portion of the in‐ground pit, between 2 and 4.5m bgl;

The results of the ES soil investigation reported no exceedances of hydrocarbons in soil above the adopted criteria (or concentrations above laboratory detection limits) at depths greater than 4.5m bgl;

Groundwater analytical results reported all contaminants of concern (TRH, BTEX, PAH and heavy metals) below laboratory reporting limits and the adopted groundwater acceptance criteria (GAC) with the exception of copper and zinc, for which reported concentrations were marginally above the GAC. ES consider that the concentrations of copper and zinc detected in groundwater are unlikely to be related to the coolant use/spill. The concentrations of copper and zinc are likely representative of local background levels and are unlikely to pose a risk to human health and the environment;

No TRH concentrations were reported above the adopted groundwater criteria indicating that groundwater had not been impacted by the leaking coolant tank; and

The soil and groundwater around the tank were considered suitable for the continued commercial/industrial land use.

Following the submission of BE (January 2013), ES (June 2013) and a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) prepared by Prysmian (June 2013), the NSW EPA voiced concerns that the identified petroleum hydrocarbons in soil may migrate to underlying groundwater.

A letter report was prepared by ES (August 2013) discussing the hydrocarbon impacted soil and its potential to migrate to the underlying groundwater. ES concluded that the hydrocarbons in soil have not impacted underlying groundwater and are unlikely to migrate into the deeper soil profile. Nevertheless, as a due diligence measure, the Remedial Action Plan (RAP) prepared by Prysmian Group (June 2013) recommended that ongoing


groundwater monitoring be incorporated into the site’s EMP with a contingency plan should groundwater impact be detected from this event in the future.

This GME aims to address the monitoring requirement presented in the ES (25 November 2013) EMP to show that the underlying groundwater remained unimpacted.

Prysmian have made a commitment to to conduct monthly monitoring of groundwater around the in‐ground pit for three (3) months. If, at the end of the three months of monitoring, the data trends indicate that the groundwater is not impacted by the leaking pit then less frequent monitoring will be justified. If groundwater either after the three (3) months of monitoring, or at any time following this, is shown to have been impacted by the contaminants of concern as triggered by the assessment criteria, then contingency options will be assessed.

This report presents the results of the third GME.

1.2 Objective

Within the original scope provided, the objective of the GME was to:

Determine whether groundwater had been impacted from localised leak of ‘coolant’ and if these impacts, if present, exceeded the adopted human health and environmental criteria or otherwise.

1.3 Scope of Works

ES completed the following scope of works:

Preparation of a Job Hazard Analysis (JHA);

Gauging to depth of water (and light non‐aqueous phase liquids (LNAPLs) if present) in five (5) monitoring wells;

Measurement of field groundwater quality parameters (dissolved oxygen (DO), electrical conductivity (EC), pH, redox potential (Eh) and temperature) of stabilised purged groundwater;

Sampling of groundwater from all accessible groundwater monitoring wells using micro‐purge pump and submitted to NATA accredited laboratory Envirolab for analysis of Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons (TRH C6‐C40), Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylenes and naphthalene (BTEXN) and Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead, Mercury, Nickel, Zinc (Metals);

Collection of Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) (collected at a rate of 1:20) including one duplicate, one triplicate and forward these to a NATA accredited laboratory for analysis;

Assessment of analytical data against the following guidelines:

‐ NEPM (2013) Investigation Levels for Soil and Groundwater; and

‐ ANZECC (2000) 95% freshwater guidelines

Preparation of a report detailing the findings of the GME.

1.4 Limitations

This report is based on the Scope of Work outlined in Section 1.3. ES prepared this report in a manner consistent with the normal level of care and expertise exercised by members of the environmental assessment profession.


This report relates only to the objectives stated and does not relate to any other work undertaken for the Client. It is a report based on the concentrations of contaminants observed in groundwater only as reported to ES. These conditions stated in this report may change with time and space. The stated absence of any identified hazardous or toxic materials on any part of the subject property should not be interpreted as a guarantee that such materials do not exist on the site.

All conclusions regarding the property area are the professional opinions of ES, subject to the qualifications in the report. Whilst normal assessments of data reliability have been made, ES assumes no responsibility or liability for errors in any data obtained from regulatory agencies, statements from sources outside of ES, or developments resulting from situations outside the scope of this project. The client acknowledges that this report is for the exclusive use of the client.


2 Site Condition and Surrounding Environment

2.1 Site Identification

The site occupies an area of approximately 15.3 hectares and is currently owned by Prysmian.

The site location is shown in Figure 1, Appendix A and the site layout at time of sampling is shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3, Appendix A.

Table 2.1 provides a summary of the site details. Result summary tables are included in Appendix B.

Table 2.1: Summary of Site Details

Characteristic Detail

Property Street Address 1 Heathcote Road, Liverpool, NSW

Property Lot / DP Lot 200, DP1009044

Property Local Government Area

Liverpool City Council

Property Current Land use Commercial/Industrial

Property Area 15.3 Ha

Property Zoning Light Industrial (IN2)

Coordinates for the approximate corners of the subject site

(MGA 56)

Easting: 308697.509

Northing: 6244183.467

Easting: 308723.284

Northing: 6244172.381

Easting: 308678.953

Northing: 6244144.078

Easting: 308705.477

Northing: 6244132.76

Subject Site Area 1,120m2

The property is bounded to the south by Newbridge Road beyond which lies Moorebank Avenue, Georges River to the west, Joyce’s Foam products and Bridgewater Business Estate to the east and vacant land to the north.

The subject site is bounded by Factory 1 to the west, the centre line of Factory 2 to the east, the access road to the south and the third bay (as specified by the saw tooth roofing panels) of Factory 2 to the North. The subject site area is 1,120m2.

2.2 Possible Contaminant Sources on the Site

An inspection was limited to Factory 2 (the cable drawing building), refer to Figure 2, Appendix A for site layout. Possible contamination sources in this area included the coolant tank (which was replaced immediately after the leak was notified in February 2012) and the coolant mixture itself (Houghto Draw WD4100) which is stored in drums along the south wall, near to the second entrance door. The composition of the coolant includes several petroleum based compounds and additives and requires dilution with water. The time weighted exposure limit for Houghto Draw WD4100 is listed as 5 mg/m3.


Other potential sources on site include the copper wire which is used in the copper drawing process.

2.3 Location of Chemical Spills On‐site

Excluding the coolant leak under investigation, no additional spills are known to have occurred within Factory 2 of the Prysmian facility.

2.4 Local Sensitive Environments

The nearest sensitive environmental receptors to the site are:

Georges River located immediately to the west of the site; and

Reserve land located immediately to the north of the site.

2.5 Local Hydrogeology

Standing groundwater onsite was on average approximately 6m below ground surface. Following survey of the wells groundwater was calculated to flow in a north westerly direction towards the Georges River.


3 Sampling and Analysis Plan and Sampling Methodology

This section outlines the methodology adopted by ES during the GME. This section also provides details on the sampling and analysis, description of field equipment used, decontamination procedures, field and laboratory quality assurance and control, laboratory analytical methods and sample preservation.

3.1 Groundwater

3.1.1 Groundwater Gauging, Purging and Sampling

Groundwater gauging, purging and sampling was completed by ES’ Environmental Scientist Colin Biggs on 24th February 2014.

Samples were collected from the five (5) wells in the vicinity of the reported coolant leak. Refer to Figure 3, Appendix A.

Prior to sampling, all wells were gauged with an interface probe to measure groundwater levels and detect the presence of phase‐separated hydrocarbons (PSH). All monitoring wells were then purged using a peristaltic pump to ensure minimal losses of volatile organic compounds.

Water quality parameters recorded included pH, redox potential (Eh), electrical conductivity, dissolved oxygen and temperature. All wells were purged until groundwater parameters stabilised to within 10% of the previous reading.

Samples were placed directly into appropriately preserved laboratory supplied sampling containers. The sample for metals analysis was filtered in the field using a 0.45micron millipore filter unit prior to analysis.

Disposable tubing was used at each monitoring well and the interface probe was thoroughly decontaminated between gauging events with a phosphate free detergent (Decon 90) and rinsed with potable water. Field records of purging and sampling event are provided in Appendix C.

3.1.2 Field QA/QC

The following procedures were followed during fieldwork to ensure quality control:

Water samples were collected in laboratory supplied bottles with Teflon seals;

Samples were collected from disposable equipment to prevent cross contamination between sampling locations;

Samples were placed in an ice‐filled esky to keep them below 4oC in accordance with US EPA SW 846 and AS4482‐2 (2005); and

Samples were transferred to the laboratory under a completed chain‐of‐custody.


4 Field Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC)

4.1 Chain of Custody

Samples were transferred to the laboratory under chain‐of‐custody procedures. The details included on the chain‐of‐custody forms included the following:

Job name and number Date results are required List of samples Preservation method Analysis required Release signature and date Date sampled Acceptance signature and date

4.2 Statement of Duplicate Frequency

The following are QA/QC samples were collected for this project:

DUP1 and TRIP1 were a groundwater intra‐laboratory and inter‐laboratory duplicate of MW4.

All RPDs for groundwater were within acceptable ranges as shown in Table 1, Appendix D with the exception of the samples listed below, calculated RPDs were reported within the acceptable range for all primary, duplicate and triplicate samples.

Zinc (145%) between MW4 and TRIP1.

Where contaminant concentrations were more than ten times the laboratory limit of reporting, the RPD exceedances were likely to be caused by sample heterogeneity. Furthermore, no elevated RPD value for any primary sample, intra‐laboratory or inter laboratory sample, exceeded the GAC, and therefore ES considers the elevated RPD values do not affect the validity of the data collected

Overall, there is an acceptable level of agreement between original and duplicate samples indicating that field procedures were adequate in obtaining representative samples and minimising the potential for cross‐contamination.

4.3 Background Sample Results

Background samples were not collected as part of this investigation.

4.4 Rinsate Sample Results

A rinsate sample was collected from the final decontamination of the interface probe and purged water bucket. The rinsate sample reported all analytes below laboratory detection limits indicating that adequate decontamination procedures, dedicated sampling materials and best practice sampling methods were adequate to prevent the potential for cross contamination to occur during groundwater sampling.

4.5 Trip Blank

Trip Blank samples were not collected as part of this investigation.

4.6 Trip Spike Results

Trip Spike samples were not collected as part of this investigation.

4.7 Field Instrument Calibration

Field instruments were calibrated prior to use on site.


5 Laboratory QA/QC

Chain‐of‐custody forms are included in Appendix E.

5.1 Holding Times

Holding times are included on the laboratory reports in Appendix E. All samples were received and analysed within the specified holding times.

5.2 Laboratory Analytical Methods

The analytical methods used by Envirolab are summarised below:

Table 5.2: Laboratory Methods for Water

Analyte Method PQL (ug/kg)

BTEXN Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene Xylene Naphthalene

Org‐016 Water samples are analysed directly by purge and trap GC‐MS

1 1 1 3 1

TRH C6‐C10 >C10‐C16 >C16‐C34 >C34‐C40

Org‐016 Water samples are analysed directly by purge and trap GC‐MS GC.3 Water samples are extracted with Dichloromethane and analysed by GC‐FID.

10 50 100 100

Metals As Ca Cr Cu Ni Pb Zn Hg

Metals‐022 ICP‐MS Determination of various metals by ICP‐MS. Metals‐021 CVAAS Determination of Mercury by Cold Vapour AAS.

1 0.1 1 1 1 1 1

0.05

5.3 Laboratory Accreditation for Analytical Methods Used

The primary laboratory used for this project was Envirolab Services (Envirolab). Envirolab is accredited by NATA to ISO 17025, accreditation number 2901

The secondary laboratory used was Advanced Analytical Australia. AAA are accredited by NATA to ISO 17025, accreditation number 15109.

5.4 Percent Recoveries of Spikes and Surrogates

Laboratory QA/QC is provided on the laboratory reports in Appendix E. All spikes and surrogates were within acceptable ranges.

5.5 Laboratory duplicate results

All Envirolab laboratory duplicates were within acceptable ranges. All AAA laboratory duplicates were within acceptable ranges.

5.6 Laboratory blank results

All Envirolab and AAA laboratory blank results were within acceptable ranges.


6 Assessment Criteria

6.1 Rationale for Selection of Water Assessment Criteria

In accordance with the NEPM (2013) Schedule B(6) The Framework for Risk Based Assessment of Groundwater Contamination it was necessary to determine the relevant environmental values and hence appropriate guideline assessment criteria for the site.

To determine the most appropriate groundwater guideline the following environmental values have been considered and are presented in Table 6.2. These have been referenced from Appendix 2 of NSW DEC (2007) Guidelines for the Assessment and Management of Groundwater Contamination and the NEPM (2013) Schedule B (6).

Table 6.2 Assessment of Environmental values Associated with Site Groundwater

Environmental Values

ES Comment

Aquatic Ecosystems (Freshwater)

The closest surface water receptor is the Georges River located along the western boundary of the site. The Georges River would be classed as a beneficial receptor of groundwater and should be protected. This is classed as a freshwater environment.

Human Uses (Drinking Water)

No registered groundwater bores for domestic use were identified within 500km of the site. EC measurements of the groundwater monitoring bores indicated a TDS <2,000mg/L. This suggests it may be a potable resource and however, given the site is located in a largely industrial based area near to the Georges River it is unlikely a groundwater bore would be installed onsite, or in the vicinity which would produce sufficient yields to warrant abstraction for use.

Agricultural Use – Stock Watering and Irrigation

A review of groundwater bore information indicates that superficial groundwater within the area is potentially suitable for either stock watering or irrigation purposes.

Cultural and Spiritual Values

ES is not aware of any cultural / spiritual values associated with the surface and / or groundwater in this area.

Bearing the above in mind, ES consider that for the protection of environmental values the most appropriate guideline values to be applied in relation to the site is the ANZECC (2000) Freshwater Criteria using 95% Limit of Protection and Revised (NEPM) 2013 – Assessment of Site Contamination Schedule B(1) Assessment of Groundwater Contamination.

Adopted criteria presented in Table 6.3 below lists the adopted groundwater assessment criteria for the site.


Table 6.3 Groundwater Assessment Criteria

Analyte RAC (ug/L) at Depth Source

4 to <8m

Benzene

Toluene

Ethylbenzene

Xylene

5,000

NL

NL

NL

NEPM (2013) HSL D 1

NEPM (2013) HSL D 1

NEPM (2013) HSL D 1

NEPM (2013) HSL D 1

TRH C6‐C10 (minus BTEX)

TRH >C10‐C16 (minus naphthalene)

6,000

NL

NEPM (2013) HSL D 1

NEPM (2013) HSL D 1

Naphthalene 16 ANZECC (2000) 95% Freshwater

Arsenic (V)

Cadmium

Chromium (VI)

Copper

Lead

Nickel

Zinc

Mercury

24

0.7

27

1.3

4.4

7

15

0.1

ANZECC (2000) 95% Freshwater







ANZECC (2000) 95% Freshwater Notes: 1 The site’s geology consists of clayey sand. The HSLs for a sand matrix have been adopted for all depth profiles for the sake

of conservatism NL – Non‐limiting. No limit specified. HSL – Health Based Screening Level. Site standing groundwater is at approximately 5.86 to 6.25m below ground level. The 4 to <8m category has been adopted.


7 Results

The following section presents an overview of the field observations for groundwater encountered during the second GME. Copies of groundwater sampling field sheets are included in Appendix C.

7.1 Groundwater Gauging Results

Groundwater gauging results are summarised below:

PSH was not detected in any of the monitoring wells sampled; and Depth to groundwater ranged between 5.761m below top of casing (btoc) at MW1 and

6.287m btoc at MW4. Refer to Table 1 Appendix B for corrected water relative levels (RLs).

7.2 Groundwater Quality Results

During sampling the groundwater was observed to be slightly turbid with a light brown colour and odourless. No sheens were observed in any of the purged water. The groundwater field parameters for the site are summarised in Table 7.2 below:

Table 7.2: Physiochemical Field Parameters

Monitoring well ID

Date Temp (oC)

pH

pH units

Dissolved Oxygen (ppm)

Redox/ORP (mV)

Conductivity

(µS/cm)

MW1 24/2/14 22.0 5.73 1.61 233 767

MW2 24/2/14 22.0 5.92 1.47 199 560

MW3 24/2/14 26.1 5.71 0.51 217 579

MW4 24/2/14 22.3 5.50 0.29 244 313

MW5 24/2/14 24.9 5.54 0.22 210 314

Table 7.2 indicates the following groundwater conditions: The temperature of the groundwater ranged from 22.0 to 24.9oC; pH ranged from 5.50 to 5.92 pH units indicating slightly acidic groundwater conditions; Dissolved oxygen in the groundwater ranged from 0.22 and 1.61 ppm indicating

anaerobic conditions in monitoring wells MW4 & MW5 and aerobic conditions in MW1, MW3 and MW3;

ORP (oxidation reduction potential) levels measured from 199 to 244mV (using a Ag/AgCl electrode), which indicates oxidising conditions. ORP (or Redox) is a measure of a water system’s capacity to either release or gain electrons in chemical reactions. The process of oxidation involves losing electrons while reduction involves gaining electrons; and

Conductivity levels were between 313 and 767 (µS/cm), which indicates fresh groundwater conditions.

The following presents a summary of results for groundwater samples. Result summary tables are included in Appendix B, with copies of laboratory certificates included in Appendix E.


7.3 Groundwater Analytical Results

7.3.1 Heavy Metals

Concentrations of heavy metals in all groundwater samples submitted for analysis were reported below the GAC with the exception of:

Concentrations of copper in MW1 (2µg/L) and MW4 (4µg/L); and Concentrations of zinc in MW1 (23µg/L).

7.3.2 BTEXN

Concentrations of BTEXN in all groundwater samples submitted for analysis were reported below laboratory detection limits and the adopted GAC.

7.3.3 TRH

Concentrations of TRH in all groundwater samples submitted for analysis were reported below laboratory detection limits and the adopted GAC.

7.3.4 Discussion

The results of this investigation indicate that no detectable petroleum hydrocarbon contamination was present in any of the up‐gradient or down‐gradient monitoring well locations above the adopted groundwater acceptance criteria (GAC). However, concentrations of copper and zinc were reported above the GAC. Copper and zinc are ubiquitous within the urban environment and commonly used as a pigment in paints, in metallic structures, electrical wiring, underground services and pipes. It is considered therefore, that the identified groundwater copper and zinc concentrations are potentially the result of long‐term weathering of metal‐based paints, metal coatings, metallic structures and pipes in the local urban area, and not necessarily attributable onsite contamination sources i.e associated with the copper drawing process. Furthermore, the site surface is sealed and no potentially pathways to the subsurface were evident at the time of the visit.

The recent groundwater monitoring data was compared to that of the previous GME event that occurred in September 2013 and December 2013 and Table 3 Appendix B shows a comparison of analytical results from these two rounds.

ES consider that the concentrations of copper and zinc detected in groundwater are unlikely to pose a risk to human health and the environment.


8 Conclusions and Recommendations

8.1 Conclusions

The following conclusions can be made from the GME conducted at the site located at 1 Heathcote Road, Liverpool:

Groundwater analytical results reported all contaminants of concern (TRH, BTEXN and heavy metals) below laboratory detection limits and the adopted groundwater acceptance criteria (GAC) with the exception of copper and zinc which reported concentrations marginally above the GAC. ES consider that the concentrations of copper and zinc detected in groundwater are unlikely to pose a risk to human health and the environment and are likely representative of local background levels;

No TRH concentrations were reported above the adopted groundwater criteria indicating that groundwater has not been impacted by the leaking coolant tank; and

This GME is the third monitoring event after the preparation of the RAP, however, it represents the fourth round of monitoring (conducted in February 2014) and confirms the findings of the ES (June 2013) report, that the groundwater has not been impacted by the leaky coolant tank.

8.2 Recommendations

Based on the above conclusions, and the results of the ES (June 2013) Supplementary Soil and Groundwater Investigation, ES consider that the coolant leak has not impacted the underlying groundwater and recommends that no further groundwater monitoring (other than that conducted as part of the facility’s due diligence) is required.

8.3 Extent of Uncertainties in the Results

The sampling methodologies used by ES during this assessment have been designed to limit uncertainty in the results. ES is confident that the results of this assessment give an accurate representation of the current status of the site but note that in all subsurface investigations the potential remains for variation between sampling points and conditions different from that reported here may exist on site.


9 References

Australian (2004) Drinking Water Guidelines

ANZECC (2000) Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council & National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia;

ANZECC/NHMRC (1992) Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for the Assessment and Management of Contaminated Sites;

Benbow Environmental Pty Ltd (January 2013) Environmental Site Assessment, 1 Moorebank Road, Liverpool, NSW 121081_Rep_Final

Department of Environment and Climate Change (2009) Guidelines on the Duty to Report Contamination Under the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997;

Environmental Strategies Pty Ltd (20 June 2013) Supplementary Soil and Groundwater Investigation, 1 Heathcote Road, Liverpool NSW. Ref:13055RP01_FINAL.

Environmental Strategies Pty Ltd (6 November 2013) Groundwater Monitoring Event, 1 Heathcote Road, Liverpool NSW.Ref: 13055aRP01_FINAL

National Environment Protection Council (1999) Revised National Environment Protection Measure (NEPM) 2013 – Assessment of Site Contamination Schedule B (1) and B (2);

NSW Environment Protection Authority (2006) Guidelines for the Site Auditor Scheme Environment Protection Authority;

NSW Environment Protection Authority (1995) Sampling Design Guidelines. Environment Protection Authority, Chatswood;

NSW DEC (2007) Guidelines for the Assessment and Management of Groundwater Contamination;

NSW DECC (2009) Guidelines on the Duty to Report Contamination under the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997.

APPENDIX A Figures

1 FIG

UR

ESite Location

HA1 Hand Auger Location

KEY

N

TP24

TP23TP22

TP21

TP19 TP18

TP16TP17

TP2TP3

TP7

TP6

TP8

TP4

TP12 TP11 TP10TP14

BH1/MW1

BH2/MW2

BH5/MW5

TP13

SP1SP2

BH4/MW4

Prysmian 1 Heathcote Road, Liverpool NSW

Site Location

SITE LOCATION

N

2Site Layout

Prysmian1 Heathcote Road, Liverpool, NSW

FIG

UR

E

Groundwater Monitoring Well

New Groundwater Monitoring Well

Site Boudary

MW17

MW6

MW7

MW4

MW32

MW10A

MW8

MW9MW31

MW15

MW11MW5

MW14 MW13

MW1

MW3

MW2A

MW33

MW22

MW18

MW19 MW21

MW20

MW23

MW24

MW23MW25

MW26MW27

Ė ŌMÕŘPÑ Concentration (ug/L)

Benzene 65

Toluene 514

Ethylbenzene 558

Xylene 2840

Naphthalene 112

ĖŌMÕŘPÑ Concentration (ug/L)

Benzene 92

Toluene 454

Ethylbenzene 55

Xylene 443


Benzene 59

Toluene 249

Ethylbenzene 50

Xylene 313

MW12


Benzene 2150

Toluene 7480

Ethylbenzene 1580

Xylene 6700

Naphthalene 223


Benzene 92

Toluene 454

Ethylbenzene 55

Xylene 443


Benzene 637

Toluene 1690

Ethylbenzene 434

Xylene 3670

Naphthalene 128


Benzene 5740

Toluene 10400

Ethylbenzene 1020

Xylene 8780

Naphthalene 136


Benzene 12800

Toluene 26000

Ethylbenzene 1420

Xylene 14000

Naphthalene 246


Benzene 37000

Toluene 63100

Ethylbenzene 2360

Xylene 15500

Naphthalene 301


Benzene 16300

Toluene 53200

Ethylbenzene 2300

Xylene 15500

Naphthalene 235

MW29Ė ŌMÕŘPÑ Concentration (ug/L)

Benzene 16000

Toluene 31400

Ethylbenzene 2480

Xylene 13800

Naphthalene 222


Benzene 2240

Toluene 6660

Ethylbenzene 923

Xylene 9850

Naphthalene 228


Benzene 7030

Toluene 12300

Ethylbenzene 1150

Xylene 9360

Naphthalene 165


Benzene 17400

Toluene 34900

Ethylbenzene 2280

Xylene 13790

Naphthalene 236


Benzene 748

Toluene 609

Ethylbenzene 204

Xylene 1270

Naphthalene 81


Benzene 69

Toluene 525

Ethylbenzene 337

Xylene 1729

Naphthalene 65


Benzene 65

Toluene 514

Ethylbenzene 558

Xylene 2840

Naphthalene 112


Benzene 85

Toluene 605

Ethylbenzene 136

Xylene 725

Naphthalene 33

0 50

Metres

SCALE

Ĩ Ĭ Ģ İ OÒŃÔŌÑŒŒ ĂÖ Å

0.71


5.79


0.008

MW30


0.015

Factory 3

KEY

Factory 4 Factory 6 Factory 6 Factory 6

Factory 1

Factory 2

Factory 3 Factory

4

Factory 5

Factory 6 Factory

7

Factory 6

Factory 6 Factory

7

Area of Concern

APPENDIX B Groundwater Results Summary Tables

Table 1: Survey Data

Well ID TOC (m BGL) RL (Assumed Height Datum) DTW (m bTOC) Water RL

MW1 0.015 8.23 5.761 2.469

MW2 0.01 8.329 6.25 2.079

MW3 0.023 8.179 5.937 2.242

MW4 0.015 8.551 6.287 2.264

MW5 0.016 8.483 6.274 2.209

TOC ‐ Top of casing

RL ‐ Relative Level

bTOC ‐ below top of casing

BGL ‐ below ground level

13055aGroundwater Monitoring Event

Prysmian - 1 Heathcote Road, Liverpool NSW

Table 2: Summary Analyticl Results for the February 2014 GME

Ars

en

ic (

Fil

tere

d)

Ca

dm

ium

(F

ilte

red

)

Ch

rom

ium

(II

I+V

I) (

Fil

tere

d)

Co

pp

er

(Fil

tere

d)

Le

ad

(F

ilte

red

)

Me

rcu

ry (

Fil

tere

d)

Nic

ke

l (F

ilte

red

)

Zin

c (

Fil

tere

d)

C6

-C1

0

C6

-C1

0 l

es

s B

TE

X (

F1

)

>C

10

-C1

6

>C

10

-C1

6 l

es

s N

ap

hth

ale

ne

(F

2)

>C

16

-C3

4

>C

34

-C4

0

Be

nze

ne

Eth

ylb

en

zen

e

To

lue

ne

Xy

len

e (

m &

p)

Xy

len

e (

o)

Na

ph

tha

len

e

ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/LEQL 1 0.1 1 1 1 0.05 1 1 10 10 50 50 100 100 1 1 1 2 1 1ANZECC 2000 FW 95% 24 0.7 27 1.3 4.4 0.1 7 15 16

5000 6000 16

Field ID Sampling Date SampledMW1 MW1 24/02/2014 <1 0.1 <1 2 <1 <0.05 4 23 <10 <10 <50 <50 <100 <100 <1 <1 <1 <2 <1 <1MW2 MW2 24/02/2014 <1 <0.1 <1 1 <1 <0.05 2 9 <10 <10 <50 <50 <100 <100 <1 <1 <1 <2 <1 <1MW3 MW3 24/02/2014 <1 <0.1 <1 1 <1 <0.05 2 9 <10 <10 <50 <50 <100 <100 <1 <1 <1 <2 <1 <1MW4 MW4 24/02/2014 <1 <0.1 <1 4 <1 <0.05 2 5 <10 <10 <50 <50 <100 <100 <1 <1 <1 <2 <1 <1MW5 MW5 24/02/2014 <1 <0.1 <1 <1 <1 <0.05 1 4 <10 <10 <50 <50 <100 <100 <1 <1 <1 <2 <1 <1Dup1 MW4 24/02/2014 <1 <0.1 <1 4 <1 <0.05 2 5 <10 <10 <50 <50 <100 <100 <1 <1 <1 <2 <1 <1

Statistical SummaryNumber of Results 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6Number of Detects 0 1 0 5 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Minimum Concentration <1 <0.1 <1 <1 <1 <0.05 1 4 <10 <10 <50 <50 <100 <100 <1 <1 <1 <2 <1 <1Minimum Detect ND 0.1 ND 1 ND ND 1 4 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDMaximum Concentration <1 0.1 <1 4 <1 <0.05 4 23 <10 <10 <50 <50 <100 <100 <1 <1 <1 <2 <1 <1Maximum Detect ND 0.1 ND 4 ND ND 4 23 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDAverage Concentration 0.5 0.06 0.5 2.1 0.5 0.025 2.2 9.2 5 5 25 25 50 50 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5Median Concentration 0.5 0.05 0.5 1.5 0.5 0.025 2 7 5 5 25 25 50 50 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5Standard Deviation 0 0.02 0 1.6 0 0 0.98 7.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Number of Guideline Exceedances 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Number of Guideline Exceedances(Detects 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8 HM in water - dissolved TRH Water(C6-C40) BTEXN in Water

HSL-A/B, 4m to <8m, GW in Sand Soils

13055aGroundwater Monitoring Event

Prysmian - 1 Heathcote Road, Liverpool NSW

Table 3: Summary Groundwater Results

Ars

enic

(F

ilte

red

)

Cad

miu

m (

Fil

tere

d)

Ch

rom

ium

(II

I+V

I) (

Fil

tere

d)

Co

pp

er (

Fil

tere

d)

Lea

d (

Fil

tere

d)

Mer

cury

(F

ilte

red

)

Nic

kel

(Fil

tere

d)

Zin

c (F

ilte

red

)

C6-

C10

C6-

C10

les

s B

TE

X (

F1)

>C

10-C

16

>C

10-C

16 l

ess

Nap

hth

alen

e (F

2)

>C

16-C

34

>C

34-C

40

Ben

zen

e

Eth

ylb

enze

ne

To

luen

e

Xyl

ene

(m &

p)

Xyl

ene

(o)

Xyl

enes

Nap

hth

alen

e

ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/L ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/LEQL 1 0.1 1 1 1 0.05 10 1 10 10 50 50 100 100 1 1 1 2 2 3 1ANZECC 2000 FW 95% 24 0.7 27 1.3 4.4 0.1 7 15 16

HSL-A/B, 4m to <8m, GW in Sand Soils 6000 5000

Field_ID LocCode Sampled_DateMW1 MW1 27/09/2013 <1 <0.1 <1 <1 <1 <0.05 3 6 <10 <10 <50 <50 <100 <100 <1 <1 <1 <2 <2 <3 <1MW2 MW2 27/09/2013 <1 <0.1 1 2 <1 <0.05 2 3 <10 <10 <50 <50 <100 <100 <1 <1 <1 <2 <2 <3 <1MW3 MW3 27/09/2013 <1 <0.1 <1 <1 <1 <0.05 3 4 <10 <10 <50 <50 <100 <100 <1 <1 <1 <2 <2 <3 <1MW4 MW4 27/09/2013 <1 <0.1 <1 35 <1 <0.05 3 4 <10 <10 <50 <50 <100 <100 <1 <1 <1 <2 <2 <3 <1MW5 MW5 27/09/2013 <1 <0.1 <1 2 <1 <0.05 1 11 <10 <10 <50 <50 <100 <100 <1 <1 <1 <2 <2 <3 <1OMW6 OMW6 27/09/2013 <1 <0.1 <1 2 <1 <0.05 1 3 <10 <10 <50 <50 <100 <100 <1 <1 <1 <2 <2 <3 <1MW1 MW1 18/12/2013 <1 <0.1 <1 <1 <1 <0.05 3 6 <10 <10 <50 <50 <100 <100 <1 <1 <1 <2 <2 <3 <1MW2 MW2 18/12/2013 <1 <0.1 <1 1 <1 <0.05 2 3 <10 <10 <50 <50 <100 <100 <1 <1 <1 <2 <2 <3 <1MW3 MW3 18/12/2013 <1 <0.1 <1 <1 <1 <0.05 2 4 <10 <10 <50 <50 <100 <100 <1 <1 <1 <2 <2 <3 <1MW4 MW4 18/12/2013 <1 <0.1 <1 5 <1 <0.05 2 4 <10 <10 <50 <50 <100 <100 <1 <1 <1 <2 <2 <3 <1MW5 MW5 18/12/2013 <1 <0.1 <1 <1 <1 <0.05 1 4 <10 <10 <50 <50 <100 <100 <1 <1 <1 <2 <2 <3 <1MW1 MW1 24/02/2014 <1 0.1 <1 2 <1 <0.05 4 23 <10 <10 <50 <50 <100 <100 <1 <1 <1 <2 <1 <3 <1MW2 MW2 24/02/2014 <1 <0.1 <1 1 <1 <0.05 2 9 <10 <10 <50 <50 <100 <100 <1 <1 <1 <2 <1 <3 <1MW3 MW3 24/02/2014 <1 <0.1 <1 1 <1 <0.05 2 9 <10 <10 <50 <50 <100 <100 <1 <1 <1 <2 <1 <3 <1MW4 MW4 24/02/2014 <1 <0.1 <1 4 <1 <0.05 2 5 <10 <10 <50 <50 <100 <100 <1 <1 <1 <2 <1 <3 <1MW5 MW5 24/02/2014 <1 <0.1 <1 <1 <1 <0.05 1 4 <10 <10 <50 <50 <100 <100 <1 <1 <1 <2 <1 <3 <1

Statistical SummaryNumber of Results 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16Number of Detects 0 1 1 10 0 0 16 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Minimum Concentration <1 <0.1 <1 <1 <1 <0.05 1 3 <10 <10 <50 <50 <100 <100 <1 <1 <1 <2 <1 <3 <1Minimum Detect ND 0.1 1 1 ND ND 1 3 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDMaximum Concentration <1 0.1 1 35 <1 <0.05 4 23 <10 <10 <50 <50 <100 <100 <1 <1 <1 <2 <2 <3 <1Maximum Detect ND 0.1 1 35 ND ND 4 23 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDAverage Concentration 0.5 0.053 0.53 3.6 0.5 0.025 2.1 6.4 5 5 25 25 50 50 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 0.84 1.5 0.5Median Concentration 0.5 0.05 0.5 1 0.5 0.025 2 4 5 5 25 25 50 50 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 1 1.5 0.5Standard Deviation 0 0.013 0.13 8.5 0 0 0.89 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.24 0 0Number of Guideline Exceedances 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Number of Guideline Exceedances(Detects Only) 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Note:Highlighted values exceed adopted criteria

8 HM in water - dissolved TRH Water (C10-C40) BTEXN in Water

APPENDIX C Groundwater Field Sheets

APPENDIX D Groundwater RPD Calculations

Table 1: RPD Calculations SDG 105591 105591 105591 Interlab_DField ID MW4 Dup1 RPD MW4 TRIP1 RPDDate Sampled 24/02/2014 24/02/2014 24/02/2014 24/02/2014

Method_Type ChemName Units EQLArsenic (Filtered) ug/L 1 (Primary): 20 (Interlab) <1.0 <1.0 0 <1.0 <20.0 0Cadmium (Filtered) ug/L 0.1 (Primary): 1 (Interlab) <0.1 <0.1 0 <0.1 <1.0 0

Chromium (III+VI) (Filtered) ug/L 1 (Primary): 2 (Interlab) <1.0 <1.0 0 <1.0 <2.0 0 Copper (Filtered) ug/L 1 (Primary): 2 (Interlab) 4 4 0 4 4 0 Lead (Filtered) ug/L 1 (Primary): 6 (Interlab) <1.0 <1.0 0 <1.0 <6.0 0 Mercury (Filtered) ug/L 0.05 (Primary): 0.1 (Interlab) <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.1 0 Nickel (Filtered) ug/L 1 (Primary): 3 (Interlab) 2 2 0 2 <3.0 0 Zinc (Filtered) ug/L 1 (Primary): 5 (Interlab) 5 5 0 5 32 145

C10-C16 ug/L 50 <50.0 <50.0 0 <50.0 <50 0C16-C34 ug/L 100 <100.0 <100.0 0 <100.0 120 0

C34-C40 ug/L 100 <100.0 <100.0 0 <100.0 <100 0 F2-NAPHTHALENE ug/L 50 <50.0 <50.0 0 <50.0 C10 - C14 µg/L 50 <50.0 <50.0 0 <50.0 <50.0 0 C15 - C28 µg/L 100 <100.0 <100.0 0 <100.0 <100.0 0 C29-C36 µg/L 100 <100.0 <100.0 0 <100.0 <100.0 0

Benzene µg/L 1 <1.0 <1.0 0 <1.0 <1.0 0Ethylbenzene µg/L 1 (Primary): 2 (Interlab) <1.0 <1.0 0 <1.0 <2.0 0

Naphthalene µg/L 1 (Primary): 4 (Interlab) <1.0 <1.0 0 <1.0 <4.0 0 Toluene µg/L 1 (Primary): 2 (Interlab) <1.0 <1.0 0 <1.0 <2.0 0 C6 - C9 µg/L 10 (Primary): 25 (Interlab) <10.0 <10.0 0 <10.0 <25.0 0 Xylene (m & p) µg/L 2 (Primary): 4 (Interlab) <2.0 <2.0 0 <2.0 <4.0 0 Xylene (o) µg/L 1 (Primary): 2 (Interlab) <1.0 <1.0 0 <1.0 <2.0 0 C6-C10 less BTEX (F1) ug/L 10 <10.0 <10.0 0 <10.0 C6-C10 ug/L 10 <10.0 <10.0 0 <10.0*RPDs have only been considered where a concentration is greater than 1 times the EQL.**High RPDs are in bold (Acceptable RPDs for each EQL multiplier range are: 100 (1-5 x EQL); 75 (5-10 x EQL); 30 ( > 10 x EQL) )***Interlab Duplicates are matched on a per compound basis as methods vary between laboratories. Any methods in the row header relate to those used in the p

8 HM in water - dissolved

TRH Water(C10-C40) NEPM

vTRH & BTEXN in Water NEPM

APPENDIX E Laboratory Certificates

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 105591

Client:

Environmental Strategies Pty Ltd

Suite 15201, Locomotive Workshop

2 Locomotive St

Eveleigh

NSW 2015

Attention: Deam Stafford

Sample log in details:

Your Reference: 13055a, Prysmian Liverpool

No. of samples: 7 Waters

Date samples received / completed instructions received 25/02/14 / 25/02/14

Analysis Details:

Please refer to the following pages for results, methodology summary and quality control data.

Samples were analysed as received from the client. Results relate specifically to the samples as received.

Results are reported on a dry weight basis for solids and on an as received basis for other matrices.

Please refer to the last page of this report for any comments relating to the results.

Report Details:

Date results requested by: / Issue Date: 4/03/14 / 4/03/14

Date of Preliminary Report: None Issued

NATA accreditation number 2901. This document shall not be reproduced except in full.

Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025. Tests not covered by NATA are denoted with *.

Results Approved By:

Page 1 of 8Envirolab Reference: 105591

Revision No: R 00

Client Reference: 13055a, Prysmian Liverpool

vTRH(C6-C10)/BTEXN in Water

Our Reference: UNITS 105591-1 105591-2 105591-3 105591-4 105591-5

Your Reference ------------- MW1 MW2 MW3 MW4 MW5

Type of sample ------------ Water Water Water Water Water

Date extracted - 26/02/2014 26/02/2014 26/02/2014 26/02/2014 26/02/2014

Date analysed - 27/02/2014 27/02/2014 27/02/2014 27/02/2014 27/02/2014

TRH C6 - C9 µg/L <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

TRH C6 - C10 µg/L <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

TRH C6 - C10 less BTEX (F1) µg/L <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

Benzene µg/L <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Toluene µg/L <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Ethylbenzene µg/L <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

m+p-xylene µg/L <2 <2 <2 <2 <2

o-xylene µg/L <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Naphthalene µg/L <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Surrogate Dibromofluoromethane % 92 86 87 100 89

Surrogate toluene-d8 % 95 95 95 94 96

Surrogate 4-BFB % 99 98 98 99 98

vTRH(C6-C10)/BTEXN in Water

Our Reference: UNITS 105591-6 105591-7

Your Reference ------------- Dup1 Rinsate

Type of sample ------------ Water Water

Date extracted - 26/02/2014 26/02/2014

Date analysed - 27/02/2014 27/02/2014

TRH C6 - C9 µg/L <10 <10

TRH C6 - C10 µg/L <10 <10

TRH C6 - C10 less BTEX (F1) µg/L <10 <10

Benzene µg/L <1 <1

Toluene µg/L <1 <1

Ethylbenzene µg/L <1 <1

m+p-xylene µg/L <2 <2

o-xylene µg/L <1 <1

Naphthalene µg/L <1 <1

Surrogate Dibromofluoromethane % 102 100

Surrogate toluene-d8 % 94 94

Surrogate 4-BFB % 98 98


Revision No: R 00


svTRH (C10-C40) in Water




Date extracted - 28/02/2014 28/02/2014 28/02/2014 28/02/2014 28/02/2014

Date analysed - 01/03/2014 01/03/2014 01/03/2014 01/03/2014 01/03/2014

TRH C10 - C14 µg/L <50 <50 <50 <50 <50

TRH C15 - C28 µg/L <100 <100 <100 <100 <100

TRH C29 - C36 µg/L <100 <100 <100 <100 <100

TRH >C10 - C16 µg/L <50 <50 <50 <50 <50

TRH >C10 - C16 less Naphthalene

(F2)

µg/L <50 <50 <50 <50 <50

TRH >C16 - C34 µg/L <100 <100 <100 <100 <100

TRH >C34 - C40 µg/L <100 <100 <100 <100 <100

Surrogate o-Terphenyl % 97 106 116 104 113

svTRH (C10-C40) in Water




Date extracted - 28/02/2014 28/02/2014

Date analysed - 01/03/2014 01/03/2014

TRH C10 - C14 µg/L <50 <50

TRH C15 - C28 µg/L <100 <100

TRH C29 - C36 µg/L <100 <100

TRH >C10 - C16 µg/L <50 <50

TRH >C10 - C16 less Naphthalene

(F2)

µg/L <50 <50

TRH >C16 - C34 µg/L <100 <100

TRH >C34 - C40 µg/L <100 <100

Surrogate o-Terphenyl % 107 110


Revision No: R 00


HM in water - dissolved




Date prepared - 26/02/2014 26/02/2014 26/02/2014 26/02/2014 26/02/2014

Date analysed - 26/02/2014 26/02/2014 26/02/2014 26/02/2014 26/02/2014

Arsenic-Dissolved µg/L <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Cadmium-Dissolved µg/L 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Chromium-Dissolved µg/L <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Copper-Dissolved µg/L 2 1 1 4 <1

Lead-Dissolved µg/L <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Mercury-Dissolved µg/L <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

Nickel-Dissolved µg/L 4 2 2 2 1

Zinc-Dissolved µg/L 23 9 9 5 4

HM in water - dissolved




Date prepared - 26/02/2014 26/02/2014

Date analysed - 26/02/2014 26/02/2014

Arsenic-Dissolved µg/L <1 [NA]

Cadmium-Dissolved µg/L <0.1 [NA]

Chromium-Dissolved µg/L <1 [NA]

Copper-Dissolved µg/L 4 [NA]

Lead-Dissolved µg/L <1 <1

Mercury-Dissolved µg/L <0.05 [NA]

Nickel-Dissolved µg/L 2 [NA]

Zinc-Dissolved µg/L 5 [NA]


Revision No: R 00


Method ID Methodology Summary

Org-016 Soil samples are extracted with methanol and spiked into water prior to analysing by purge and trap GC-MS.

Water samples are analysed directly by purge and trap GC-MS. F1 = (C6-C10)-BTEX as per NEPM B1

Guideline on Investigation Levels for Soil and Groundwater.

Org-013 Water samples are analysed directly by purge and trap GC-MS.

Org-003 Soil samples are extracted with Dichloromethane/Acetone and waters with Dichloromethane and analysed by

GC-FID.

F2 = (>C10-C16)-Naphthalene as per NEPM B1 Guideline on Investigation Levels for Soil and Groundwater.

Note Naphthalene is determined from the VOC analysis.

Metals-022 ICP-MS Determination of various metals by ICP-MS.

Metals-021 CV-

AAS

Determination of Mercury by Cold Vapour AAS.


Revision No: R 00


QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate

Sm#

Duplicate results Spike Sm# Spike %

Recovery

vTRH(C6-C10)/BTEXN in

Water

Base ll Duplicate ll %RPD

Date extracted - 26/02/2

014

[NT] [NT] LCS-W1 26/02/2014

Date analysed - 27/02/2

014

[NT] [NT] LCS-W1 27/02/2014

TRH C6 - C9 µg/L 10 Org-016 <10 [NT] [NT] LCS-W1 93%

TRH C6 - C10 µg/L 10 Org-016 <10 [NT] [NT] LCS-W1 93%

Benzene µg/L 1 Org-016 <1 [NT] [NT] LCS-W1 83%

Toluene µg/L 1 Org-016 <1 [NT] [NT] LCS-W1 91%

Ethylbenzene µg/L 1 Org-016 <1 [NT] [NT] LCS-W1 97%

m+p-xylene µg/L 2 Org-016 <2 [NT] [NT] LCS-W1 97%

o-xylene µg/L 1 Org-016 <1 [NT] [NT] LCS-W1 96%

Naphthalene µg/L 1 Org-013 <1 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Surrogate

Dibromofluoromethane

% Org-016 84 [NT] [NT] LCS-W1 103%

Surrogate toluene-d8 % Org-016 94 [NT] [NT] LCS-W1 100%

Surrogate 4-BFB % Org-016 98 [NT] [NT] LCS-W1 98%


Sm#


Recovery

svTRH (C10-C40) in

Water

Base ll Duplicate ll %RPD

Date extracted - 28/02/2

014

105591-1 28/02/2014 || 28/02/2014 LCS-W1 28/02/2014


014

105591-1 01/03/2014 || 01/03/2014 LCS-W1 01/03/2014

TRH C10 - C14 µg/L 50 Org-003 <50 105591-1 <50 || <50 LCS-W1 101%



TRH >C10 - C16 µg/L 50 Org-003 <50 105591-1 <50 || <50 LCS-W1 101%



Surrogate o-Terphenyl % Org-003 100 105591-1 97 || 98 || RPD: 1 LCS-W1 100%


Sm#


Recovery

HM in water - dissolved Base ll Duplicate ll %RPD

Date prepared - 26/02/2

014

105591-1 26/02/2014 || 26/02/2014 LCS-W1 26/02/2014


014

105591-1 26/02/2014 || 26/02/2014 LCS-W1 26/02/2014

Arsenic-Dissolved µg/L 1 Metals-022

ICP-MS

<1 105591-1 <1 || <1 LCS-W1 101%

Cadmium-Dissolved µg/L 0.1 Metals-022

ICP-MS

<0.1 105591-1 0.1 || 0.1 || RPD: 0 LCS-W1 97%

Chromium-Dissolved µg/L 1 Metals-022

ICP-MS

<1 105591-1 <1 || <1 LCS-W1 97%

Copper-Dissolved µg/L 1 Metals-022

ICP-MS

<1 105591-1 2 || 2 || RPD: 0 LCS-W1 102%

Lead-Dissolved µg/L 1 Metals-022

ICP-MS

<1 105591-1 <1 || <1 LCS-W1 101%


Revision No: R 00



Sm#


Recovery

HM in water - dissolved Base ll Duplicate ll %RPD

Mercury-Dissolved µg/L 0.05 Metals-021

CV-AAS

<0.05 105591-1 <0.05 || <0.05 LCS-W1 96%

Nickel-Dissolved µg/L 1 Metals-022

ICP-MS

<1 105591-1 4 || 4 || RPD: 0 LCS-W1 99%

Zinc-Dissolved µg/L 1 Metals-022

ICP-MS

<1 105591-1 23 || 21 || RPD: 9 LCS-W1 100%

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS Dup. Sm# Duplicate Spike Sm# Spike % Recovery

svTRH (C10-C40) in Water Base + Duplicate + %RPD

Date extracted - [NT] [NT] 105591-2 28/02/2014

Date analysed - [NT] [NT] 105591-2 01/03/2014

TRH C10 - C14 µg/L [NT] [NT] 105591-2 92%

TRH C15 - C28 µg/L [NT] [NT] 105591-2 106%

TRH C29 - C36 µg/L [NT] [NT] 105591-2 125%

TRH >C10 - C16 µg/L [NT] [NT] 105591-2 92%

TRH >C16 - C34 µg/L [NT] [NT] 105591-2 106%

TRH >C34 - C40 µg/L [NT] [NT] 105591-2 125%

Surrogate o-Terphenyl % [NT] [NT] 105591-2 120%

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS Dup. Sm# Duplicate Spike Sm# Spike % Recovery

HM in water - dissolved Base + Duplicate + %RPD

Date prepared - [NT] [NT] 105591-2 26/02/2014

Date analysed - [NT] [NT] 105591-2 26/02/2014

Arsenic-Dissolved µg/L [NT] [NT] 105591-2 103%

Cadmium-Dissolved µg/L [NT] [NT] 105591-2 99%

Chromium-Dissolved µg/L [NT] [NT] 105591-2 94%

Copper-Dissolved µg/L [NT] [NT] 105591-2 91%

Lead-Dissolved µg/L [NT] [NT] 105591-2 97%

Mercury-Dissolved µg/L [NT] [NT] 105591-2 96%

Nickel-Dissolved µg/L [NT] [NT] 105591-2 94%

Zinc-Dissolved µg/L [NT] [NT] 105591-2 97%


Revision No: R 00


Report Comments:

Asbestos ID was analysed by Approved Identifier: Not applicable for this job

Asbestos ID was authorised by Approved Signatory: Not applicable for this job

INS: Insufficient sample for this test PQL: Practical Quantitation Limit NT: Not tested

NA: Test not required RPD: Relative Percent Difference NA: Test not required

<: Less than >: Greater than LCS: Laboratory Control Sample

Quality Control Definitions

Blank: This is the component of the analytical signal which is not derived from the sample but from reagents,

glassware etc, can be determined by processing solvents and reagents in exactly the same manner as for samples.

Duplicate : This is the complete duplicate analysis of a sample from the process batch. If possible, the sample

selected should be one where the analyte concentration is easily measurable.

Matrix Spike : A portion of the sample is spiked with a known concentration of target analyte. The purpose of the matrix

spike is to monitor the performance of the analytical method used and to determine whether matrix interferences exist.

LCS (Laboratory Control Sample) : This comprises either a standard reference material or a control matrix (such as a blank

sand or water) fortified with analytes representative of the analyte class. It is simply a check sample.

Surrogate Spike: Surrogates are known additions to each sample, blank, matrix spike and LCS in a batch, of compounds

which are similar to the analyte of interest, however are not expected to be found in real samples.

Laboratory Acceptance Criteria

Duplicate sample and matrix spike recoveries may not be reported on smaller jobs, however, were analysed at a frequency

to meet or exceed NEPM requirements. All samples are tested in batches of 20. The duplicate sample RPD and matrix

spike recoveries for the batch were within the laboratory acceptance criteria.

Filters, swabs, wipes, tubes and badges will not have duplicate data as the whole sample is

generally extracted during sample extraction.

Spikes for Physical and Aggregate Tests are not applicable.

For VOCs in water samples, three vials are required for duplicate or spike analysis.

Duplicates: <5xPQL - any RPD is acceptable; >5xPQL - 0-50% RPD is acceptable.

Matrix Spikes, LCS and Surrogate recoveries: Generally 70-130% for inorganics/metals; 60-140%

for organics and 10-140% for SVOC and speciated phenols is acceptable.

In circumstances where no duplicate and/or sample spike has been

reported at 1 in 10 and/or 1 in 20 samples respectively, the sample

volume submitted was insufficient in order to satisfy

laboratory QA/QC protocols.

When samples are received where certain analytes are outside of

recommended technical holding times (THTs), the analysis has

proceeded. Where analytes are on the verge of breaching THTs,

every effort will be made to analyse within the THT or as

soon as practicable.


Revision No: R 00

REPORT OF ANALYSIS

Laboratory Reference: A14/1032 [R00 ]

Order No:Client: Environmental Strategies Pty Ltd

2 Locomotive St Sample Type: Water

EVELEIGH NSW 2015 No. of Samples: 1

Date Received: 26/02/2014

Contact: Dean Stafford Date Completed: 20/03/2014

Project: Water Analysis - 13055a Prysmiam Liverpool

Laboratory Contact Details:

Client Services Manager: Martin Ryland-Adair

Technical Enquiries: Ian Eckhard

Telephone: +61 2 9888 9077

Fax: +61 2 9888 9577

Email: [email protected]

Attached Results Approved By:

Comments:

All samples tested as submitted by client. All attached results have been checked and approved for release.

This is the Final Report and supersedes any reports previously issued with this reference number.

Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025. This document shall not be reproduced, except in full.

Page 1 of 421 March 2014Issue Date:

Advanced Analytical Australia Pty ltd Ph: + 61 2 9888 9077

ABN 20 105 644 979 Fax: + 61 2 9888 9577

11 Julius Avenue, [email protected]

North Ryde NSW 2113 Australia www.advancedanalytical.com.au



Laboratory Reference: - - /1

Client Reference: - - TRIP1

Date Sampled: - - 24/2/14

Analysis Description Method Units

Trace Elements

Arsenic - Dissolved 04-003 mg/L <0.02

Cadmium - Dissolved 04-003 mg/L <0.001

Chromium - Dissolved 04-003 mg/L <0.002

Copper - Dissolved 04-003 mg/L 0.004

Nickel - Dissolved 04-003 mg/L <0.003

Lead - Dissolved 04-003 mg/L <0.006

Zinc - Dissolved 04-003 mg/L 0.032

Mercury

Mercury - Dissolved 04-009 mg/L <0.0001

BTEX & Naphthalene

Benzene 04-021 µg/L <1.0

Toluene 04-021 µg/L <2.0

Ethyl Benzene 04-021 µg/L <2.0

m+p xylenes 04-021 µg/L <4.0

o-xylene 04-021 µg/L <2.0

Total BTEX 04-021 µg/L <11

Naphthalene 04-047 µg/L <4.0

Surrogate 1 Recovery 04-021 % 115



Date Extracted 04-021 - 28/02/2014

Date Analysed 04-021 - 28/02/2014

Total Recoverable

Hydrocarbons

TRH C6-C10 04-021 µg/L <25

TRH >C10-C16 04-030 µg/L <50

TRH >C16-C34 04-030 µg/L 120

TRH >C34-C40 04-030 µg/L <100

Surrogate Recovery 04-030 % 118

Date Extracted 04-030 - 28/02/2014

Date Analysed 04-030 - 04/03/2014



ABN 20 105 644 979 Fax: + 61 2 9888 9577





Method Method Description

04-003 Metals by ICP-OES

04-009 Mercury by CVAAS, mg/L or µg/L

04-021 TRH C6-9 & BTEX by P&T GCMS, µg/L

04-047 VOC compounds by P&T GCMS, µg/L

04-030 TRH by GC-FID, µg/L

Result Comments

[<] Less than

[INS] Insufficient sample for this test

[NA] Test not required

*Analyte is not covered by NATA scope of accreditation.

Sample 1for Ni is lower than the LOR. Background correction. MM 20/3/14



ABN 20 105 644 979 Fax: + 61 2 9888 9577





QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORT

TEST UNITS Blank Duplicate Sm# Duplicate Results Spike Sm# Spike

Results

Arsenic - Dissolved mg/L <0.02 A14/1032-1 <0.02 || <0.02 [NA] 103%

Cadmium - Dissolved mg/L <0.001 A14/1032-1 <0.001 || <0.001 [NA] 104%

Chromium - Dissolved mg/L <0.002 A14/1032-1 <0.002 || <0.002 [NA] 101%

Copper - Dissolved mg/L <0.002 A14/1032-1 0.004 || 0.005 || RPD:

22

[NA] 97%

Nickel - Dissolved mg/L <0.003 A14/1032-1 <0.003 || <0.003 [NA] 99%

Lead - Dissolved mg/L <0.006 A14/1032-1 <0.006 || <0.006 [NA] 97%

Zinc - Dissolved mg/L <0.005 A14/1032-1 0.032 || 0.032 || RPD: 0 [NA] 105%


Results

Mercury - Dissolved mg/L <0.0001 [NT] [NT] A14/0895-B-2 110%


Results

Benzene µg/L <1.0 [NT] [NT] External 101%

Toluene µg/L <2.0 [NT] [NT] External 96%

Ethyl Benzene µg/L <2.0 [NT] [NT] External 98%

m+p xylenes µg/L <4.0 [NT] [NT] External 102%

o-xylene µg/L <2.0 [NT] [NT] External 101%

Total BTEX µg/L <11 [NT] [NT] External [NA]

Naphthalene µg/L <4.0 [NT] [NT] External 100%

Surrogate 1 Recovery % 117 [NT] [NT] External 115%




Results

TRH C6-C10 µg/L <25 [NT] [NT] External 79%

TRH >C10-C16 µg/L <50 [NT] [NT] External 91%



Surrogate Recovery % 89 [NT] [NT] External 102%

Comments:

RPD = Relative Percent Deviation

[NT] = Not Tested

[N/A] = Not Applicable

'#' = Spike recovery data could not be calculated due to high levels of contaminants

Acceptable replicate reproducibility limit or RPD: Results < 10 times LOR: no limits.

Results >10 times LOR: 0% - 50%.

Acceptable matrix spike & LCS recovery limits: Trace elements 70-130%

Organic analyses 50-150%

SVOC & speciated phenols 10-140%

Surrogates 10-140%

When levels outside these limits are obtained, an investigation into the cause of the deviation

is performed before the batch is accepted or rejected, and results are released.



ABN 20 105 644 979 Fax: + 61 2 9888 9577



es EnvironmentalStrategiesPROVIDING BENEFITS

Sydney

T +61 (0)2 9690 2555Suite 15201, Locomotive Workshop 2 Locomotive Street, Eveleigh NSW 2015

Melbourne

T +61 (0)3 9029 730028A, Blazey StreetRichmond, Victoria 3121

www.environmentalstrategies.com.au

Dunsborough

T +61 (0)8 97 553 69817/31 Dunn Bay Road / PO Box 731Dunsborough, Western Australia 6281

Fremantle

Suite 15 & 16,Ground Floor, 185 High Street,Fremantle, Western Australia 6160

13055aRP03 GME (Rev0) - Prysmian Australia Pty Ltd » … Power Cables & Systems Australia Pty Ltd,...

Documents

Transcript of 13055aRP03 GME (Rev0) - Prysmian Australia Pty Ltd » … Power Cables & Systems Australia Pty Ltd,...