Glenelg East EPA assessment area - Stage 4 environmental ...Glenelg East EPA Assessment Area, Stage...

Q NFELDER ~ Bright People. Right Solutions.

Glenelg East EPA Assessment Area, Stage 4 Environmental Assessment

Government of South Australia Environment Protection Authority

Glenelg East EPA Assessment Area Stage 4 Environmental Assessment

Project No: 20174340.001A

Report Date: 4 August 2017

Glenelg East EPA Assessment Area, Stage 4 Environmental Assessment

Glenelg East, SA, 5045

Kleinfelder Project Number: 20174340.001A

Copyright 2017 Kleinfelder

Prepared for:

Shannon Thompson (Advisor Site Contamination) Environment Protection AuthorityLevel 9, 250 Victoria Square Adelaide SA 5000

Prepared by:

Kleinfelder Australia Pty Ltd,Level 1, 60 Hindmarsh Square Adelaide, SA, 5000 Phone:08 8214 9100 Fax: 08 8232 6083

ABN: 23 146 082 500

Document Control:

Version Description Date

1.0 Draft 20 June 2017

2.0 Final 4 August 2017

Author Project Manager Peer Reviewer

Jody Elsworth Shona Gelsthorpe Jill McKendrick

Only South Australian Environment Protection Authority, its designated representatives or relevant statutory authorities may use this document and only for the specific project for which this report was prepared. It should not be otherwise referenced without permission.

20174340.001A/Glenelg/ADL17R58358 Page i of xi 4 August 2017 Copyright 2017 Kleinfelder

ttan

Rectangle

ttan

Rectangle

ttan

Rectangle

Contents LIST OF ACRONYMS ____________________________________________________ VI

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY _________________________________________________ VIII

1. INTRODUCTION _______________________________________________________ 1

2. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW _________________________________________ 2

3. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING _____________________________________________ 3

3.1 LOCATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION..................................................................... 3

3.2 LAND USE................................................................................................................ 3

3.3 GEOLOGY................................................................................................................ 4

3.4 HYDROGEOLOGY................................................................................................... 4

4. DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES____________________________________________ 6

5. SCOPE OF WORKS ____________________________________________________ 9

6. INVESTIGATION METHODOLOGY _______________________________________ 11

6.1 FIELD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................. 11

6.2 RE-NAMING EXISTING SAMPLING LOCATIONS ................................................. 14

6.3 FIELD QA/QC PROCEDURES ............................................................................... 15

6.4 LABORATORY ANALYSIS ..................................................................................... 16

6.4.1 Soil Sample Analysis 16

6.4.2 Groundwater Sample Analysis 16

6.4.3 Soil Vapour Sample Analysis 17

7. QUALITY ASSURANCE / QUALITY CONTROL (QA/QC) ______________________ 19

7.1 FIELD QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL.................................... 19

7.2 LABORATORY QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL...................... 23

7.3 DATA USABILITY SUMMARY ................................................................................ 28

8. SOIL RESULTS _______________________________________________________ 29

8.1 ENCOUNTERED SOIL CONDITIONS.................................................................... 29

8.2 SOIL FIELD SCREENING ...................................................................................... 29

8.3 SOIL GEOTECHNICAL TESTING .......................................................................... 30

9. GROUNDWATER RESULTS ____________________________________________ 31

9.1 GROUNDWATER ELEVATION AND FLOW........................................................... 31

9.2 GROUNDWATER FIELD PARAMETERS............................................................... 31

9.3 GROUNDWATER BENEFICIAL USE ASSESSMENT ............................................ 32

9.4 GROUNDWATER SCREENING CRITERIA............................................................ 32

9.5 GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS ........................................................... 34

20174340.001A/Glenelg/ADL17R58358 Page ii of xi 4 August 2017 Copyright 2017 Kleinfelder

9.5.1 Chlorinated Hydrocarbons 34

9.5.2 Lateral Extent of CHC in Groundwater 35

9.5.3 Comparison to Previous CHC Concentrations in Groundwater 36

9.5.4 Monitored Natural Attenuation 37

9.6 COMPARISION OF DATA TO EXISTING GROUNDWATER FATE AND TRANSPORT MODEL.................................................................................................. 38

9.6.1 Modelling Approach and Findings 38

9.6.2 Comparison of 2017 Groundwater Results to Past Modelling Results 39

10. SOIL VAPOUR RESULTS______________________________________________ 41

10.1 SOIL VAPOUR SCREENING CRITERIA .............................................................. 41

10.2 SOIL VAPOUR ANALYTICAL RESULTS.............................................................. 41

10.2.1 Lateral Extent of CHC in Soil Vapour 42

10.2.2 Comparison to Previous CHC Concentrations in Soil Vapour 43

11. CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL ___________________________________________ 44

11.1 KNOWN AND POTENTIAL SOURCES ................................................................ 44

11.2 LAND USE IN EPA ASSESSMENT AREA............................................................ 45

11.3 NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION ................................................... 45

11.3.1 Groundwater 45

11.3.2 Soil Vapour 46

11.4 CONTAMINANT TRANSPORT MECHANISM ...................................................... 46

11.5 SENSITIVE RECEPTORS .................................................................................... 47

11.6 POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS ................................................................ 48

11.7 DIAGRAMMATIC REPRESENTATION OF EPA ASSESSMENT AREA ............... 48

12. VAPOUR RISK ASSESSMENT__________________________________________ 49

12.1 GEOTECHNICAL DATA ASSESSMENT .............................................................. 50

12.2 SCREENING LEVEL EVALUATIONS................................................................... 51

12.3 VAPOUR MODELLING......................................................................................... 51

12.3.1 Slab on Grade Home 52

12.3.2 Crawl-space 52

12.3.3 Excavations / trenches 53

12.4 VAPOUR INHALATION RISKS............................................................................. 53

12.4.1 Threshold Risk 53

12.4.2 Calculated Risk 54

12.4.3 Indoor Air Exposure 55

12.5 SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 57

13. CONCLUSIONS______________________________________________________ 59

13.1 DATA GAPS ......................................................................................................... 61

14. REFERENCES_______________________________________________________ 62

20174340.001A/Glenelg/ADL17R58358 Page iii of xi 4 August 2017 Copyright 2017 Kleinfelder

15. LIMITATIONS _______________________________________________________ 64

TABLES (IN TEXT) Table 3.1: EPA Assessment Area Boundaries ................................................................... 3

Table 6.1: Summary of Field Activities ............................................................................. 11

Table 6.2: Re-Named Groundwater Wells........................................................................ 14

Table 6.3: Renamed Soil Vapour Points .......................................................................... 15

Table 6.4: Rationale for MNA Analysis............................................................................. 17

Table 7.1: Field Groundwater QA/QC Summary .............................................................. 20

Table 7.2: Field Soil Vapour QA/QC Summary ................................................................ 22

Table 7.3: Groundwater Laboratory QA/QC Summary ..................................................... 24

Table 7.4: Soil Vapour Laboratory QA/QC Summary ....................................................... 25

Table 7.5: DQI Summary ................................................................................................. 28

Table 8.1: Geotechnical Testing Results Summary.......................................................... 30

Table 9.1: Assessment of Groundwater Beneficial Uses (from Fyfe, 2016)...................... 32

Table 9.2: Sources of adopted criteria for Applicable Beneficial Uses.............................. 34

Table 9.3: Groundwater CHC Analytical Results.............................................................. 35

Table 10.1: Soil Vapour CHC Analytical Results ............................................................... 42

Table 12.1: Summary of calculated vapour risks - 2017 .................................................... 54

Table 12.2: Estimated Indoor air concentrations (slab and crawl-space homes), from each sampling location – 2017 ........................................................................ 56

Figures Figure 1: Site Location and EPA Assessment Area Figure 2: Assessment Point Locations Figure 3: Groundwater Contour Plan Figure 4A: Groundwater PCE concentration Figure 4B: Groundwater TCE concentration Figure 4C: Groundwater cis-1, 2-DCE concentration Figure 5A: Soil Vapour PCE Concentration Figure 5B: Soil Vapour TCE Concentration Figure 6: Conceptual Cross Section

20174340.001A/Glenelg/ADL17R58358 Page iv of xi 4 August 2017 Copyright 2017 Kleinfelder

Tables Table 1: Groundwater Gauging Data Table 2: Groundwater Analytical Data - Field Parameters Table 3: Groundwater Analytical Data - Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Compounds Table 4: Groundwater Analytical Data - Inorganics Table 5: Groundwater Analytical Data - Quality Control Sample Analysis - Chlorinated

Hydrocarbon Compounds Table 6: Historical Groundwater Analytical Data - Field Parameters Table 7: Historical Groundwater Analytical Data - Chlorinated Hydrocarbon

Compounds Table 8: Historical Groundwater Analytical Data - Inorganics Table 9: Soil Vapour Analytical Data Table 10: Soil Vapour Analytical Data - Quality Control Sample Analysis Table 11: Historical Soil Vapour Analytical Data Table 12: Geotechnical Data

Appendices Appendix A: Soil Bore Logs and Soil Core Photos Appendix B: Kleinfelder Standard Operating Procedures Appendix C: Groundwater Gauging and Sampling Logs Appendix D: Laboratory Analytical Reports Appendix E: Survey Data Appendix F: Well Permits Appendix G: Waste Transport Certificates Appendix H: Calibration Certificates Appendix I: Trend Graphs Appendix J: Vapour Risk Assessment - enRiskS

20174340.001A/Glenelg/ADL17R58358 Page v of xi 4 August 2017 Copyright 2017 Kleinfelder

LIST OF ACRONYMS

AHD ALS ANZECC

ARMCANZ

ASC NEPM

ASTM BUA CHC COC CoPC CSM DCE DEWNR DNAPL DQI DQO EC enRiskS EPA eV GDA GILs GPA Ha HHRA HI HIL IBC inHG J&E JSA km Kleinfelder

Australian Height Datum Australian Laboratory Services Australia and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999 (amended 2013) American Society for Testing and Materials Beneficial Use Assessment Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Compound Chain of Custody Chemicals of Potential Concern Conceptual Site Model Dichloroethene Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources Dense Non-aqueous Phase Liquid Data Quality Indicator Data Quality Objective Electrical Conductivity Environmental Risk Services Pty Ltd Environment Protection Authority Electron Volt Geocentric Datum of Australia Groundwater Investigation Levels Groundwater Prohibition Area Hectare Human Health Risk Assessment Hazard Index Health Investigation Levels Integrated Bulk Container Inch of Mercury Johnson and Ettinger Job Safety Analysis Kilometres Kleinfelder Australia Pty Ltd Litres

20174340.001A/Glenelg/ADL17R58358 Page vi of xi 4 August 2017 Copyright 2017 Kleinfelder

L

LFG Landfill gas analyser LOR Limit of Reporting m Metre mBGL Metres below ground level mBTOC Metres below top of casing m/year Metres per year mg/L Milligrams per litre µg/L Micrograms per litre µg/m3 Micrograms per cubic metres MNA Monitored Natural Attenuation NATA National Association of Testing Authorities NHMRC National Health and Medical Research Council NRMMC National Resource Management Ministerial Council PID Photo Ionisation Detector PCE Tetrachloroethene ppm Parts per million PQL Practical Quantification Limit QA/QC Quality Assurance / Quality Control RPD Relative Percent Difference SOP Standard Operating Procedures TCE Trichloroethene TDS Total Dissolved Solids US EPA United States Environment Protection Agency VC Vinyl Chloride VOC Volatile organic compound °C Degrees Celsius > Greater than < Less than % Per cent

20174340.001A/Glenelg/ADL17R58358 Page vii of xi 4 August 2017 Copyright 2017 Kleinfelder

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Kleinfelder Australia Pty Ltd (Kleinfelder) was commissioned by the South Australian Kleinfelder Australia Pty Ltd (Kleinfelder) was commissioned by the South Australian Environment Protection Authority (EPA) to undertake the Stage 4 environmental assessment of the EPA designated assessment area located within Glenelg East, South Australia (Figure 1). This Stage 4 environmental assessment follows previous phases of work conducted within the EPA Assessment Area since 2014. Previously, chlorinated hydrocarbon compounds (CHC) were detected within groundwater and soil vapour within the EPA Assessment Area. The CHC impacts are associated with a former dry cleaning facility located at 37-41 Cliff Street, Glenelg East.

The objectives of the Stage 4 environmental assessment were to:

• Delineate the extent of the chlorinated hydrocarbon contamination in both groundwater and soil vapour, associated with the former dry-cleaning site.

• Update the vapour intrusion/human health risk assessment based on the new data set.

• Provide further confidence in the groundwater modelling to assist the EPA with the determination of an area for the future prohibition of groundwater.

Kleinfelder performed field work associated with the Stage 4 environmental assessment between March and May 2017. The scope of the assessment included installation of seven new groundwater monitoring wells and 10 new soil vapour bores, collection of groundwater and soil vapour samples from new and existing sampling locations for laboratory analysis, refinement of the Conceptual Site Model (CSM) and update of the vapour risk assessment.

Based on the findings of this assessment the following can be concluded:

• The natural soil conditions encountered while drilling primarily consisted of sandy and silty clay, consistent with previous intrusive investigations. With the exception of a slight hydrocarbon odour identified in the soil at 0.5 meters below ground level (mBGL) in SGP37 (located in the southern portion of the EPA Assessment Area) no evidence of contamination was noted through field screening and observations.

• The depth to groundwater ranged from 2.825 to 4.091 meters below top of casing (mBTOC). Groundwater flow is inferred to be in a north-westerly direction with a gradient of approximately 0.003, consistent with previous investigations.

20174340.001A/Glenelg/ADL17R58358 Page viii of xi 4 August 2017 Copyright 2017 Kleinfelder

• CHC including tetrachloroethene (PCE) trichloroethene (TCE), cis & trans 1, 2 dichloroethene (DCE) and vinyl chloride (VC) were detected in groundwater and appear to be associated with the source site, a former dry-cleaning facility located at 37-41 Cliff Street. PCE and TCE groundwater impacts extend to the north-west along the hydraulic gradient across the EPA Assessment Area. The plumes have been delineated in all directions with the exception to the north-west where relatively low concentrations of TCE (1.4 micrograms per litre (µg/L)) and PCE (11 µg/L) were detected in the western most groundwater monitoring well (GW32) located in a carpark south west of the City of Holdfast Bay Sporting Complex.

• While the presence of PCE daughter products in groundwater indicate breakdown of CHC through reductive dechlorination, a review of both primary and secondary lines of evidence for natural attenuation of the CHC plumes beneath the EPA Assessment Area did not identify conclusive evidence that either the plumes are reducing in concentrations or extent, or that the aquifer conditions are conducive of significant reductive dechlorination. It is therefore considered that limited data is available to provide further confidence in the groundwater fate and transport model.

• Concentrations of cis-1, 2-DCE, PCE, TCE and VC in groundwater exceeded the adopted assessment criteria for primary contact recreation in 13 of the 38 wells sampled, thereby indicating that groundwater in these areas would be unsuitable for recreational uses such as the filling of swimming pools.

• Concentrations of cis-1,2-DCE, PCE and TCE in groundwater exceeded the adopted assessment criteria for marine ecosystem protection in seven of the 38 wells sampled, thereby potentially affecting the marine ecosystems at the point of discharge (i.e. at the Gulf St Vincent). However, as discussed in Section 11.5, the Gulf is located 1.65km west of the site and the groundwater is likely to be altered by natural processes before it discharges at this point.

• The results of groundwater fate and transport modelling performed previously, that was based on groundwater data collected over three monitoring rounds between July 2014 and November 2015, may have underestimated the future extent of the PCE and TCE plumes. PCE and TCE were detected in groundwater during this investigation at distal locations beyond the modelled future extent of the plume.

• CHC including PCE, TCE, DCE and VC were detected in soil vapour from samples collected to a depth of up to 1.5 mBGL. The extent of soil vapour impacts generally corresponds with the groundwater impacts, and the extent has been delineated in all

20174340.001A/Glenelg/ADL17R58358 Page ix of xi 4 August 2017 Copyright 2017 Kleinfelder

directions except to the west. PCE and TCE concentrations in the western most soil vapour bore (SGP36) were 120 and 28 micrograms per cubic metres (µg/m3) respectively.

• PCE concentrations in soil vapour were generally lower during this investigation than reported during previous investigations.

• Concentrations of PCE, TCE and cis-1, 2-DCE in soil vapour exceeded the Tier 1 screening criteria for commercial/industrial and residential use in 16 of the 35 soil vapour bores sampled.

• A vapour intrusion risk assessment was performed for the following receptors\exposure scenarios: residential properties constructed with slab on grade residential properties constructed on piers with a crawl-space and trench/maintenance workers. The results of the risk assessment concluded:

• Predicted concentrations of TCE in indoor air in slab on grade homes and in homes constructed on piers with a crawl-space are all within the EPA response range for TCE requiring no action, which is considered safe.

• Predicted concentrations of PCE and DCE in indoor air in slab on grade homes and in homes constructed on piers with a crawl-space are all well below ambient air guidelines based on the protection of public health.

• On this basis exposures in residential properties to TCE, PCE and DCE derived from subsurface contamination in the EPA Assessment Area are considered to be safe.

• For workers undertaking intrusive works for the installation and maintenance of subsurface services, vapour exposures and risks are low.

• Where all the soil vapour data is considered, from 2014 to 2017 (detailed in the risk assessment), the soil vapour concentrations were observed to be generally increasing from 2014 to 2015, however the concentrations reported in 2017 are lower.

• Where exposures are considered as a longer-term average over all the sampling rounds, the maximum predicted indoor air concentration of TCE remains less than 2 µg/m3. TCE levels in indoor air that are less than 2 µg/m3 are in the SA EPA response range requiring validation, which is considered to be safe.

• No further assessment of residential homes constructed with basements has been undertaken, as no new soil vapour data from depth (2.5 to 3 m) has been collected. Review of the previous assessment (Fyfe 2016) identified that in some areas, additional investigation would better characterise these risks for these buildings. However, it is noted

20174340.001A/Glenelg/ADL17R58358 Page x of xi 4 August 2017 Copyright 2017 Kleinfelder

that soil vapour concentrations at 1.5 m depth are lower in 2017. Hence it is likely that vapour inhalation risks for basement buildings may also be lower.

Based on the conclusions of this assessment, the following data gaps have been identified:

• The western extent of the CHC impacts has not been fully delineated.

• A limited data set for groundwater contamination leads to greater uncertainty in the trend analysis for groundwater concentrations of Chemicals of Potential Concern (CoPC), which also limits the ability to validate the fate and transport model undertaken in 2016.

• Limited data relating to monitored natural attenuation (MNA) parameters leads to greater uncertainty on primary and secondary lines of evidence for natural attenuation of the CHC plumes in groundwater beneath the EPA Assessment Area and assessing whether the aquifer conditions are conducive of significant reductive dechlorination.

• The potential risks posed by the reported VC LORs being greater than the assessment criteria for recreational use (primary contact).

• The potential risks posed by the two soil vapour locations SGP01 and SGP37 due to reporting LORs greater than the assessment criteria for VC. In addition, the risks posed by SGP37 due to reporting LORs greater than the assessment criteria for cis-1,2-DCE, PCE and TCE.

• Where the long-term average of the predicted indoor air concentrations are considered, all CHC risks are low and acceptable with the exception of TCE which has a maximum predicted indoor air concentration remaining above non-detect and below 2 µg/m3, falling in the validation range of the TCE action levels, although is considered to be safe.

• The risk assessment did not consider basements in the 2017 assessment as deeper soil vapour bores were not sampled as part of this scope of works. Kleinfelder understands that a previous assessment / property survey only identified one basement at a property on Cliff Street, however the use of this basement is unknown. It is noted from Fyfe (2016) that there were no identified vapour intrusion risks to basements.

20174340.001A/Glenelg/ADL17R58358 Page xi of xi 4 August 2017 Copyright 2017 Kleinfelder

1. INTRODUCTION

Kleinfelder Australia Pty Ltd (Kleinfelder) was commissioned by South Australian Environment Protection Authority (EPA) to undertake Stage 4 environmental assessment activities of the EPA designated assessment area located within Glenelg East, South Australia. The Stage 4 assessment works are referred to herein as “EPA Assessment Area”. The location of the EPA Assessment Area is shown in Figure 1(denoted as “EPA Assessment Area”).

Stage 4 of the environmental assessment progresses the Glenelg East EPA assessment program which commenced in 2014. The assessment program has the primary focus of determining the human health risks to sensitive receptors (if any) from contamination emanating from the former dry cleaning facility located at 37-41 Cliff Street, Glenelg East.

The objectives of the Stage 4 environmental assessment are to:

• Delineate the extent of the chlorinated hydrocarbon contamination in both groundwater and soil vapour, associated with the former dry-cleaning site.

• Update the vapour intrusion/human health risk assessment based on the new data set.

• Provide further confidence in the groundwater modelling to assist the EPA with the determination of an area for the future prohibition of groundwater.

20174340.001A/Glenelg/ADL17R58358 Page 1 of 64 4 August 2017 Copyright 2017 Kleinfelder

2. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW

Previous environmental assessment works undertaken within EPA Assessment Area are summarised in the Stage 3 environmental assessment report (Fyfe, 2016). Previously, CHC has been detected within groundwater and soil vapour in the EPA Assessment Area. The CHC impacts are associated with a former dry cleaning facility located at 37-41 Cliff Street, Glenelg East (referred to herein as the “source site”). Figure 1 references the source site location and EPA Assessment Area.

Tetrachloroethene (PCE) and petroleum hydrocarbons were known to be stored at the source site in above-ground and underground storage tanks. PCE and its breakdown products trichloroethene (TCE), cis & trans 1, 2 dichloroethene (DCE), vinyl chloride (VC) and other breakdown products have since been identified in soils at the source site and in the shallow groundwater aquifer beneath the source site. Impact to groundwater extends off-site in a general west to north-westerly direction following the hydraulic gradient, resulting in elevated concentrations of CHCs in soil vapour.

Stage 4 of the environmental assessment program was initiated since the extent of the groundwater and soil vapour plumes, and their potential associated risk to human health and/or the environment had not yet been fully delineated. The Stage 4 assessment work included the following activities: installation of seven new groundwater monitoring wells (list wells) and 10 new soil vapour bores located within the western portion of the EPA Assessment Area), groundwater and soil vapour sampling and analysis of the groundwater and soil vapour monitoring network, and updates to the vapour intrusion / human health risk assessment (HHRA) based on the new data set.


3. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

3.1 LOCATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION

The current Glenelg East source site boundary and EPA Assessment Area is shown on Figure 1. The source site boundary and EPA assessment area covers an area of approximately 36.5 hectares (ha) and is bound by the streets outlined in Table 3.1:

Table 3.1: EPA Assessment Area Boundaries

Item Description

North Rugless Terrace, Farr Terrace and Allen Terrace

South Kipling Avenue, Meredith Avenue and Tennant Street

East Watt Street, Buttrose Street, Marryat Street

West Conrad Street, Diagonal Road and Brighton Road

The boundaries of the EPA Assessment Area were established by the EPA based on the following:

• The previous identification of soil, soil vapour and/or groundwater CHC contamination associated with the source site.

• The identification of an inferred (general) north-westerly groundwater flow direction within the uppermost aquifer.

• The inferred extent of CHC in soil, soil vapour and groundwater beneath the source site and/or extending off-site to the west and north-west.

3.2 LAND USE

The source site is reported to have been occupied by a dry cleaning facility (Glenelg Dry Cleaners) from 1940s-1950s until about 2006 (Fyfe, 2016). It is currently used as a commercial premise comprising a giftware shop and caravan storage facility.

The remainder of the EPA Assessment Area is primarily occupied by residential dwellings, commercial businesses and suburban streets. The commercial properties within the remainder of the EPA Assessment Area include the Hawkes Garage (mechanical workshop and service station) at 2 Cliff Street and a shopping centre on the corner of Cliff Street and Diagonal Road, which comprises a grocery store, bakery, take-away food shops and newsagency.


The north-western portion of the assessment area includes City of Holdfast Bay Sporting Complex and Glenelg Primary School. A retail petrol station is located adjacent to the western boundary of the assessment area on the corner of Diagonal Road and Brighton Road.

3.3 GEOLOGY

According to the Adelaide geological map, 1: 250,000 (zones 5 & 6) Sheet SI 54-9 (Geological Survey of South Australia, Department of Mines, 1969), a succession of Tertiary and Quaternary aged grey fluviatile silts, sands and gravels underlie the EPA Assessment Area. The deposition of riverine sediments were subsequently overlain by a thick sequence of alluvial clays with lenses of sand and gravel. These units deposited within the Tertiary and Quaternary times have formed a series of aquifers and confining layers (Fyfe, 2016).

During previous intrusive investigations undertaken within the EPA Assessment Area, fill material was generally encountered extending to depths between 0.05 and 0.45 mBGL. The fill material consisted of a range of soil types including gravels, sands, and clays with minimal waste inclusions (i.e. plastic and bitumen fragments). The underlying natural soil generally comprised interspersed layers of grey, orange and red-brown silty or sandy clay with occasional calcareous gravel inclusions (Fyfe, 2016).

The soil conditions identified during the Stage 4 environmental assessment are detailed in Section 8.1. In summary, fill material was generally encountered to depths less than 0.5m bgl and was consistent with the fill material encountered during the 2016 investigation. In addition, the natural material underlying the fill generally comprised of interbedded layers of low to medium plasticity, red brown silty clay, medium grained, red brown, well graded sandy clay and medium plasticity, orange brown to red brown clayey sand, similar to that encountered during the 2016 event.

3.4 HYDROGEOLOGY

The nearest surface water bodies are St Vincent Gulf, located approximately 1.65 kilometres (km) west of the source site, Patawolonga Creek approximately 1.7 km to the north-west and the Sturt River is located approximately 1.2 km east of the site.

Up to six aquifers exist within the Quaternary aged sediments of the Adelaide Plains, within the coarser interbedded silt, sand and gravel layers of the Hindmarsh Clay Formation. The uppermost aquifer (Q1) is typically located at depths of between 3 and 10 mBGL. Groundwater within the Q1 aquifer is typically of relative low salinity due to direct recharge mechanisms


from surface drainage and from lateral inflow from fractured rock aquifers within the Mount Lofty Ranges to the east.

During previous investigations within the EPA Assessment Area, the depth to groundwater within the Q1 ranged between approximately 3 to 4 mbgl. Groundwater elevations ranged between approximately 3.3 to 4.7 meters Australian Height Datum (mAHD), and groundwater flow was interpreted to the towards the north-west. Kleinfelder is not aware of any previous investigations being performed on deeper aquifers within the EPA Assessment Area.

A search of the registered bore database maintained by the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources (DEWNR, 2016) identified 46 bores across the general area, 10 of which are located within the EPA Assessment Area (Fyfe, 2016). Some of the registered bores in the EPA Assessment Area are listed as being for irrigation and domestic use. More information on the potential use of groundwater extracted from these bores in included in Section 9.3.

Review of the bore search information and previous groundwater investigation reports indicated groundwater salinity beneath the EPA Assessment Area is within the range 1,000 – 3,000 milligrams per litre (mg/L) total dissolved solids (TDS) and the depth to the regional groundwater is approximately 2.0 to 9.0 mBGL.


4. DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES

Schedule B2 of the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999 (amended 2013) (ASC NEPM) describes the Data Quality Objective (DQO) process and its importance in contaminated site assessment programs. The DQO process involves a seven step iterative planning approach which incorporates the following:

• Step 1: State the problem.

• Step 2: Identify the decision/goal of the study.

• Step 3: Identify the information inputs.

• Step 4: Define the boundaries of the study.

• Step 5: Decision Rule.

• Step 6: Decision Error Tolerances.

• Step 7: Optimisation of the Sample Collection Design.

The components for the DQO process required for the Stage 4 assessment are detailed below.

Step 1: State the Problem

The source site located at 37-41Cliff Street in Glenelg East formerly operated as a dry cleaning facility, and during this time CHC was stored and used at the site (primarily PCE). PCE and its breakdown products have been identified in soil, soil vapour and groundwater beneath the former dry cleaning site. Impact to groundwater extends off-site in a general west to northwesterly direction following the groundwater flow direction. This has resulted in elevated concentrations of CHCs in soil vapour and poses a potential health risk to local residents. The extent of the groundwater and soil vapour plumes are not delineated in the north-west direction.

Step 2: Identify the Decision/Goal of the study

The overarching goal of this study is to determine the level of risk (if any) to sensitive communities within the EPA Assessment Area, considering various exposure pathways.


Secondary objectives of this study are to:

• Further assess the extent of the CHC contamination in both groundwater and soil vapour, associated with the former dry cleaning site.

• Update the soil vapour intrusion/HHRA based on the new data set.

• Provide further confidence in the groundwater modelling to assist the EPA with the determination of a groundwater prohibition area (GPA).

Step 3: Identify the Information Inputs

The data required to complete this investigation are as follows:

• Physical and chemical data to be collected as outlined in Sections 8 - 10.

• Relevant assessment criteria as listed in Sections 9 and 10.

The collected data, as well as physical observations regarding the geology and possible preferential contaminant pathways, was used to determine potential risks to human health via refinement of the conceptual site model (CSM) and update to the vapour intrusion model.

Step 4: Define the boundaries of the study

The lateral EPA Assessment Area boundaries are presented on Figure 1 and listed in Table 3.1. The vertical boundary of the investigation area are formed by the groundwater wells installed to maximum depth of 6.5 mbgl.

Step 5: Decision Rule

Analytical results will be compared to the assessment criteria as described in Sections 9 and 10. The acceptable levels for QA / QC samples are described in Section 7. Predicted indoor air concentrations of CHC derived from the vapour intrusion modelling will be compared against adopted response levels as outlined in Section 12 and Appendix J.


Step 6: Decision Error Tolerances

Tolerances are established to control the acceptable level of uncertainty upon which decisions can be made, and avoid using unrepresentative data in the decision making process. Quality Assurance (QA) activities and quality control (QC) acceptance criteria will be measured to evaluate the quality of the data used for making decisions.

Step 7: Optimisation of the Sample Collection Design

The investigation will be aligned with the scope and methodology outlined in Section 5 and 6. Sampling during this investigation will be performed from both existing and newly installed groundwater monitoring wells and soil vapour bores. The locations for the new sampling locations installed during this investigation were determined by the EPA.


5. SCOPE OF WORKS

The scope of work undertaken by Kleinfelder was generally consistent with the scope provided in Part B of the EPA request for tender documentation and Kleinfelder’s tender submission documentation. Some modifications to the original scope of works, as agreed with the EPA, are discussed further in the following section.

Kleinfelder performed the following scope of work to meet the objectives of the Stage 4 assessment program:

• Developed a project health and safety plan and job safety analysis (JSA) prior to commencement of work.

• Obtained groundwater well construction licences from DEWNR and obtain approval from City of Holdfast Bay to drill and install moinitoring locations along public roads and streets.

• Obtained and reviewed underground utility maps from ‘Dial Before You Dig’ and engaged a third party utility mark out company to locate underground services in the vicinity of the drilling locations.

• Carried out a letter drop on behalf of the EPA to inform the community of the Stage 4 environmental assessment (outside of the original scope of works).

• Drilled and installed seven new groundwater monitoring wells and 10 new soil vapour bores.

• Collected soil samples while drilling and submitted five core samples for geotechnical analysis.

• Developed the seven newly installed groundwater wells using a metal bailer and developed five existing groundwater wells using the metal bailer to reduce the turbidity of the water within the existing wells (outside of the original scope of work).

• Engaged a licenced surveyor to survey the location and elevation of the top of the newly installed groundwater monitoring wells and soil vapour bores.

• Gauged the depth to groundwater in all monitoring wells using a decontaminated oil/water interface probe.

• Collected groundwater samples from a total of 38 monitoring wells (31 existing and 7 new) and submitted the samples for analysis of CHC at a National Assoication of Test Authority


(NATA) accredited laboratory. Samples from 10 selected monitoring wells were also analysed for natural attenuation parameters.

• Collected soil vapour samples from 35 soil vapour bores (25 existing and 10 new) using summa canisters and back up carbon tubes. Soil vapour samples were submitted to a NATA accredited laboratory for analysis of CHC. The number of soil vapour samples collected deviates from the forty soil samples listed in the original scope of works (30 existing and 10 new) due to samples not being able to be collected from five existing locations (SGP02, SGP03, SGP06, SGP10 and SGP12). With the exception of SGP02, the samples could not be collected due to the vapour bores being lost and assumed to have been destroyed during resurfacing works or poor maintenance (following several attempts to locate). Soil vapour bore SGP02 was not sampled due to the bore being blocked.

• Presented the findings of the investigation, including refinement of the CSM, and an update to the vapour intrusion model and HHRA in this report.


6. INVESTIGATION METHODOLOGY

6.1 FIELD ACTIVITIES

Field methodologies employed by Kleinfelder during the Stage 4 assessment are summarised in Table 6.1 below.

Table 6.1: Summary of Field Activities Activity Description

Date of Works

• Soil vapour bore & groundwater monitoring well installation: 4th – 7th April 2017.

• Groundwater monitoring well development: 7th and 10th April 2017. • Groundwater and soil vapour sampling: 18th – 21st and 26th April 2017. • Survey of new monitoring locations: 9th May 2017.

Traffic Management

Kleinfelder engaged a licensed traffic management company (Work Zone) to provide traffic management services for all drilling works conducted on or adjacent to public roads. Work Zone developed traffic management plans for each drilling location and, set up road signage and control vehicle movement along streets in the vicinity of the works, as required.

Location Mark Out and Underground services in the vicinity of each bore location and service Underground connection to the site were identified by a licensed underground service location Service specialist (VAC Group) using non-destructive technology. Clearance

Hand Clearance A total of 17 drilling locations (GW32-GW38 and SGP31-SGP40) were cleared of underground services by hand auguring to a depth of 1.0 m bgl.

Drilling

Following hand clearance, soil vapour bores were advanced using direct push techniques to a depth of 1.5 mbgl. Groundwater monitoring wells were advanced to a depth of 6.0 mbgl using a combination of direct push drilling and solid auger drilling. All drilling was performed by a licensed drilling contractor (WB Drilling). The location of the newly installed soil vapour bores and groundwater monitoring wells are presented on Figure 2.

Soil Loggingand Screening

Soil encountered during drilling was logged by the Kleinfelder supervisor overseeing the drilling work. Soil logging was performed in accordance with Australian Standard AS17261993. Any pertinent features such as soil moisture, inclusion of anthropogenic material, evidence of contamination (odours, staining etc.) or variations in lithology that may act as preferential pathways for contaminant migration were noted on the drilling log. A photographic log of the retrieved soil core was also maintained. The Kleinfelder site supervisor performed field screening of the retrieved soil cores using a photo ionisation detected (PID) fitted with a 10.6 electron volt (eV) lamp. Drilling logs and soil core photographs are provided in Appendix A.


Activity Description

Soil Sampling

Geotechnical soil samples were retrieved adjacent to the following five new soil vapour bores using direct push drilling techniques: • GT01 and SGP31. • GT02 and SGP30. • GT03 and SGP34. • GT04 and SGP38. • GT05 and SGP36. Geotechnical samples were collected from between the surface and 1.5 m bgl in a 1.5 m sealed plastic liner to retain moisture content. Geotechnical analysis was conducted by SMS Geotechnical on samples in the natural soil below the fill ranging in depth from 0.25 – 1.45 m bgl. Soil sampling locations are presented on Figure 2. Geotechnical results are summarised in Tables 12. The detailed geotechnical testing report is attached in Appendix D.

Surveying

A licenced surveying company (360 Surveying) surveyed the location of all newly installed groundwater wells and soil vapour bores relative to Geocentric Datum of Australia (GDA) 1994 and the elevation of the top of each well/bore relative to Australian Height Datum (AHD) with an accuracy of +/- 0.001m. Survey data are attached in Appendix E.

Groundwater Monitoring WellInstallation and Development

Groundwater well permits were obtained from DEWNR prior to well installation. Copies of the well permits are included in Appendix F. Groundwater monitoring wells (GW32-GW38) were installed as follows: • Mechanical drilling using 150 mm solid augers to the target depth. • Installation of class 18 uPVC 50 mm slotted screen (3 m) and blank casing.

The slotted screen was installed between 3 and 6 mBGL to intersect the groundwater encountered zone.

• Installation of a filter pack comprising clean graded sands within the annular space between the borehole and the well casing and extending from the base of the screened interval to approximately 0.5 m above the top of the slotted casing.

• Installation of a 1 m thick bentonite seal, comprising granular or pelleted bentonite above the filter pack to prevent water seepage downward along the well casing or borehole.

• Completion of each monitoring well with a ground flush mounted lockable steel gatic cover.

Further information relating to Kleinfelder’s standard operating procedures (SOP) for Soil Boring and Monitoring Well Installation is provided in Appendix B. Groundwater wells were developed using a metal bailer. Groundwater was purged from the well via bailer until four well bore volumes were removed and groundwater parameters had stabilised. In addition to development of the seven new groundwater wells, development was undertaken on five existing groundwater monitoring wells (GW16, GW26, GW27, GW29 and GW30) as groundwater from these wells was noted to be of high turbidity during a previous sampling event. Groundwater monitoring well construction details, for wells GW32-38 are presented on the logs provided in Appendix A.



Soil VapourPoint Installation

Soil vapour bores were drilled by a licensed contractor (WB Drilling) using a combination of hand augering and direct push techniques. Teflon tubing attached to a soil vapour probe was inserted to the base of each soil vapour bore, which had been prefilled with approximately 0.05 m of clean filter pack sand. An additional 0.20 m of sand was then added to the hole and topped by a bentonite plug seal of approximately 1.25 m thickness. The installation was completed with grout to surface, topped with a standard flush-mounted lockable gatic cover. The soil vapour bore construction is presented on the borehole logs, provided in Appendix A. Soil vapour bores were installed in accordance with the procedure outlined in the CRC Care Technical Report No. 23; Appendix D (CRC Care, 2013). Further information relating to Kleinfelder’s SOP for soil boring is provided in Appendix B.

Groundwater Monitoring

The depth to groundwater was gauged at each well using an oil-water interface probe. Groundwater samples were collected using low-flow sampling techniques, with the exception of two wells (GW12 and GW23) which were partially blocked preventing use of the low-flow pump. HydraSleeveTM sampling technique was adopted in both these wells. Groundwater sampling locations are presented on Figure 2. Groundwater gauging and sampling field observations are presented in Appendix C. The Kleinfelder SOPs for groundwater gauging, low-flow sampling and HydrasleeveTM sampling are presented in Appendix B.

Soil VapourMonitoring

The company SGS Leeder were engaged to collect soil vapour samples from the 35 soil vapour bores (25 existing and 10 new). Samples were collected in 1.4 litres (L) stainless steel canisters which were connected to the teflon tubing extending from the soil vapour bore. A soil vapour sampling train was used to restrict flow to a maximum rate of 200 mL/min. Vacuum pressure in the canisters was monitored during sampling to enable calculation of the volume of sample drawn into the canister. Canisters remained under a small amount of pressure at the end of the sampling procedure and during transportation. Canister pressures were then measured in the laboratory to check if any leaks occurred during transit. Helium gas leak testing was undertaken in field at 35 locations to establish the integrity of the soil vapour bores and the sampling train prior to commencing the soil vapour sampling. SGS Leeder followed the Kleinfelder SOP for soil vapour sampling (as presented in Appendix B), with the exception of: • A 300ml purge was undertaken prior to sampling rather than use of the

landfill gas analyser (LFG) analyser. This was avoided so that flow rates complied with guidance documents that recommend a maximum sampling rate of 200ml/min or less (the LFG analyser typically flows at a rate of approximately 500ml/min or more). The LFG readings were therefore recorded post sampling and recorded on the field notes.

• T-pieces were not used in the collection of field duplicates and they were collected in series using the same gas train that was connected to the tubing with the addition of the duplicate canister after the primary sample has been collected.

Soil vapour sampling locations are presented on Figure 2. Soil vapour sampling results are summarised in Tables 9, 10 and 11. The detailed SGS Leeder analytical reports are attached in Appendix D.



InvestigationDerived Waste

All waste soil, drilling fluids, purged groundwater and water derived from decontamination activities were collected and temporarily stored at a central and secure location away from easy public access prior to disposal to a suitably licenced waste facility (Cleanaway). Soil cuttings were stored in 200L drums and water was stored in a 1,000L intermediate bulk container (IBC). All waste storage containers were appropriately labelled. Waste disposal documentation is presented in Appendix G.

6.2 RE-NAMING EXISTING SAMPLING LOCATIONS

Groundwater monitoring wells installed during the Stage 3 environmental assessment were named with the prefix “MW” whereas monitoring wells installed during preceding investigation stages were named with the prefix “GW”. To ensure consistency and to avoid any confusion for future sampling events, the groundwater wells installed during the Stage 3 environmental assessment have been renamed as outlined in Table 6.2 below.

Table 6.2: Re-Named Groundwater Wells

Pervious Groundwater Well Identification (Stage 3)

Re-Named Groundwater Well Identification (Stage 4)

MW24 GW24 MW25 GW25 MW26 GW26 MW27 GW27 MW28 GW28 MW29 GW29 MW30 GW30 MW31 GW31

Soil vapour bores installed during the Stage 3 environmental assessment were named with the prefix “SVP” whereas soil vapour bores installed during preceding investigation stages were named with the prefix “SGP”. To ensure consistency and to avoid any confusion for future sampling events, the soil vapour bores installed in the Stage 3 environmental assessment have been renamed as outlined in Table 6.3 below.


Table 6.3: Renamed Soil Vapour Points

Previous Soil Vapour Bore Identification(Stage 3)

Re-Named Soil Vapour Bore Identification(Stage 4)

SVP01 SGP22 SVP02 SGP23 SVP03 SGP24 SVP04 SGP25 SVP05 SGP26 SVP06 SGP27 SVP07 SGP28 SVP08 SGP29 SVP09 SGP30

6.3 FIELD QA/QC PROCEDURES

The following field QA/QC procedures were adopted during the field investigation:

• All field equipment (such as PIDs, gas meters and water quality meters) were calibrated by the equipment supplier before use and then calibrated on-site in accordance with the frequency specified by the manufacture. Records of equipment calibration are presented in the Appendix H.

• All down hole drilling equipment or non-dedicated sampling equipment (such as oil/water interface probes and pumps) were decontaminated using phosphate free detergent (Decon90TM) and potable water. A rinsate sample was collected each day of well installation using laboratory supplied water over decontaminated field equipment and analysed for CHCs to confirm the effectiveness of the decontamination procedures.

• The less impacted wells (down-gradient) were gauged before wells within the source areas to reduce the risk of cross-contamination.

• Disposable nitrile gloves were changed between handling of each soil and groundwater sample.

• Well-dedicated tubing and HydraSleeve were used during groundwater sampling and development to prevent cross-contamination between wells.

• Soil and groundwater samples were collected in laboratory supplied and appropriately preserved sample containers and placed on ice prior to shipment to the laboratory under standard chain of custody (COC) protocols.


• Samples remained on ice during overnight transport to the laboratory. The laboratory recorded the ambient temperature inside the cooler upon receipt and documented it on the sample receipt notification.

• One trip blank sample per cooler was provided by the laboratory and returned to the laboratory with the collected groundwater and soil samples. Trip blanks were analysed for CHC.

• Intra-laboratory and inter-laboratory duplicate samples were collected at a rate of 1 in 20 primary samples. Duplicate sample results were compared to primary sample results to calculate the relative percent difference (RPD) and evaluate the accuracy and precision of the laboratory. The results of this QA/QC analysis is provided in Section 7.

6.4 LABORATORY ANALYSIS

6.4.1 Soil Sample Analysis

A total of five geotechnical soil samples (GT01 – GT05) were collected and submitted to the geotechnical testing laboratory, SMS Geotechnical. Soil samples were analysed for:

• Moisture Content.

• Specific Gravity.

• Dry Bulk Density.

• Particle Size Distribution.

• Porosity (total, water and air filled).

Geotechnical soil sampling locations are presented on Figure 2. Geotechnical data are presented in Table 12. Geotechnical laboratory analysis reports are attached in Appendix D and the results are described in Section 8.3.

6.4.2 Groundwater Sample Analysis

A total of 38 primary groundwater samples (GW01-GW38) were collected by Kleinfelder personnel and submitted to Eurofins (primary laboratory) for analysis. All groundwater samples were analysed for CHCs including PCE, TCE, DCE and VC.

Samples from 10 selected groundwater wells were also analysed for Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) parameters including: major cations (calcium, magnesium, potassium, and 20174340.001A/Glenelg/ADL17R58358 Page 16 of 64 4 August 2017 Copyright 2017 Kleinfelder

sodium) major anions (chloride, sulphate), alkalinity, nitrate/nitrite, dissolved oxygen, dissolved carbon dioxide, ferrous/ferric iron and manganese. The basis for selection of specific samples for analysis of MNA parameters is described in Table 6.4 below. The wells selected for MNA analysis were generally consistent with the previous monitoring event (November 2015) for comparative purposes. The selected wells are presented in Figure 2.

Table 6.4: Rationale for MNA Analysis Groundwater Well Rationale

GW02 Located hydraulically up gradient of the plume

GW13 Located at the source site, within the plume

GW20 Located external to the plume to the north-east

GW22 Located within the plume north-west of the source site

GW32 Located down gradient to the source site in the western portion of the EPA Assessment Area

GW25 Located external to the plume

GW26 Located near the periphery of the plume to the north




In addition to the primary groundwater samples, two field duplicate, three rinsate and three trip blank samples were collected and submitted to Eurofins for analysis. Two field triplicate samples were also submitted to Australian Laboratory Services (ALS), for quality control purposes.

Groundwater analytical data is summarised in Tables 2 through Table 8. Groundwater laboratory analytical data is provided in Appendix D and the data is summarised in Section 9.

6.4.3 Soil Vapour Sample Analysis

A total of 35 soil vapour samples were collected and analysed by SGS Leeder for CHCs including PCE, TCE, DCE and VC. Soil vapour sampling locations are illustrated on Figure 2.

Soil vapour samples were collected using summa canisters and analysed using United States Environment Protection Agency (US EPA) TO-15 methodologies (summa canisters). Each canister was cleaned and certified by SGS Leeder prior to use and coconut shell carbon sorbent tube samples were also collected and analysed.

In addition to the 35 primary soil vapour samples, four field duplicate samples (SGP32_FIELD_DUP, SVP7_FIELD_DUP, SGP08_FIELD DUP and SDP04_FIELD_DUP)


were collected and analysed by SGS for the same analytes as the primary samples. Further information relating to the QA/QC samples is discussed in Section 7.2.

Analytical data are summarised in Table 9, 10 and 11. Soil vapour point purging logs and analytical data are provided in Appendix D and soil vapour analytical data is summarised in Section 10.


7. QUALITY ASSURANCE / QUALITY CONTROL(QA/QC)

The QA/QC processes implemented by Kleinfelder during this investigation were conducted in general accordance with the following guidelines:

• Standards Australia (1999) Guide to the Sampling and Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Soil Part 2: Volatile Substances. AS4482.2-1999.

• Standards Australia (2005) Guide to the investigation and sampling of sites with potentially Contaminated Soil Part 1: Non-Volatile and Semi-Volatile Compounds. AS4482.1-2005 Homebush NSW.

• ASC NEPM.

Further information relating to Kleinfelder’s QA / QC SOP is attached Appendix B.

7.1 FIELD QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL

The field considerations used to assess the field QA/QC procedures implemented during the Stage 4 assessment are summarised in Table 7.1 (groundwater) and Table 7.2 (soil vapour) below.


Table 7.1: Field Groundwater QA/QC Summary

Field Considerations

Assessment of Compliance

Compliant? Comment

Experiencedfield personnel Y Groundwater sampling was conducted by a suitably qualified and

experienced Kleinfelder field scientist.

Field equipment calibration Y

Field equipment was received from the supplier calibrated.

Calibration of field equipment was performed as required and in accordance with instructions provided by the equipment supplier.

Calibration certificates and records are attached in Appendix H.

Samplecollection and preservation

Y Samples were collected in clean, laboratory-supplied and appropriately preserved sampling containers.

Sample storage and transport Y

Samples were kept chilled on ice in insulated containers at all times, during storage and transport to the laboratories. Laboratory certificates indicate that the attempt to chill the samples was evident, however three of the four sample batches sent to Eurofins had temperatures ranging from 10 – 17.4 degrees Celsius (°C).

Samples were transported to the laboratory under Kleinfelder COC protocols. COCs are attached in Appendix D.

DrillingEquipment Decontaminatio n

Y

Three rinsate blanks (RB01 – RB03) were collected during each day of drilling works. Rinsate samples were collected by passing laboratory supplied rinse water over the decontaminated drilling rods between the drilling of the monitoring wells and soil vapour bores. Rinsate blanks were analysed for CHCs to confirm the effectiveness of the decontamination procedures.

The analytical results are summarised in Table 5 and in the certificates of analysis presented in Appendix D.

The reported concentrations of analytes for all the rinsate blanks were below the laboratory’s LOR, indicating decontamination processes were acceptable.

Field Documentation Y

Field notes were collected and reviewed by senior Kleinfelder personnel. Groundwater well construction logs are attached in Appendix A and groundwater sampling logs are presented in Appendix C.

QA/QCGroundwater Samples

Y

The number of all QA/QC samples meet the requirements as per the DQOs in Section 4.

Field and Secondary Duplicates

38 primary groundwater samples were analysed by Eurofins.

Two field duplicate (intra-laboratory) samples (QA01 and QA02) and three secondary duplicate (inter-laboratory) samples (QA01A and QA02A) were analysed during the investigation.

The number of field intra-laboratory duplicates and secondary inter-laboratory duplicated collected and analysed meets the minimum requirement of 1 per 20 primary samples for the 38 samples tested.


Field Considerations


Compliant? Comment

QA/QCGroundwater Y

RPDs calculated between primary and duplicate results were within the acceptable range (less than (<) 30 per cent (%)) with the exception of the following: • Cis 1, 2-dichloroethene – GW24 and QA01A (43%) • Tetrachloroethene – GW24 and QA01A (51%) • Trichloroethene – GW24 and QA01A (53%) • Cis 1, 2-dichloroethene – GW08 and QA02A (45%) • Tetrachloroethene - GW08 and QA02A (178%) • Trichloroethene - GW08 and QA02A (39%) • Vinyl Chloride - GW08 and QA02A (54%)

Numerous RPDs could not be calculated due to sample concentrations being below the LOR in both the primary and duplicate (intra and inter) samples. The consistent below LOR results indicate sufficient correlation between the QA/QC samples. In addition, elevated RPDs occurred when analyte concentrations were reported close to the laboratory LOR where accuracy and precision are inherently low. Calculations of the RPDs between the primary samples and the corresponding field duplicates and secondary duplicates are summarised in Table 5.

Samples Trip Blanks

Three laboratory supplied water trip blanks (TB01 – TB03) accompanied each batch of groundwater samples (one per batch) during transport to the laboratory to assess the potential for cross contamination between samples during transport. Trip blanks were analysed for CHCs. The reported concentrations of analytes for all three trip blanks were below the laboratory’s LOR, indicating that no cross-contamination occurred during transport to the laboratory. Trip Blank results are summarised in Table 5.

Rinsate Blanks

Five rinsate blanks (RB01 – RB05) were prepared by passing laboratory supplied rinse water across the decontaminated interface probe during the sampling. Rinsate blanks were analysed for CHCs to confirm the effectiveness of the decontamination procedures. The reported concentrations of analytes for all the rinsate blanks were below the laboratory’s LOR, indicating decontamination processes were acceptable. The analytical results are summarised in Table 5.


Table 7.2: Field Soil Vapour QA/QC Summary

Field Assessment of Compliance Considerations Compliant? Comment

Experiencedfield personnel Y Soil vapour sampling was conducted by a suitably qualified and

experienced SGS Leeder field scientist.

Field equipment calibration Y

Field equipment was received from the supplier calibrated.

Calibration of field equipment was performed as required and in accordance with instructions provided by the equipment supplier.

Calibration certificates and records are attached in Appendix H.

Samplecollection and preservation

Y Samples were collected in specially prepared summa canisters and carbon tubes supplied by SGS Leeder. The summa canisters were fitted with a regulator which controlled the flow rate to 200ml/min.

Sample storage and transport Y

Samples were stored in specifically designed storage cases and transported to the SGS Leeder laboratory at ambient temperature under SGS Leeder COC protocols.

COCs are attached in Appendix D.

QA/QC Soil Vapour Samples Y

Field Duplicates

35 primary samples were analysed by SGS Leeder.

Four field duplicate samples (SGP32_FIELD_DUP, SVP7_FIELD_DUP, SGP08_FIELD DUP and SDP04_FIELD_DUP) were collected and analysed by SGS for the same analytes as the primary samples. Further information relating to the QA/QC samples is discussed in Section 7.2.

The number of field intra-laboratory duplicates collected and analysed meets the minimum requirement of 1 per 10 primary samples for the 35 samples tested.

Field Documentation Y

Field notes were collected from SGS and reviewed by senior Kleinfelder personnel. Soil vapour bore construction logs are attached in Appendix A and soil vapour sampling field sheets (i.e. COCs) are presented in Appendix D.


7.2 LABORATORY QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL

Routine quality assurance practices are used by the laboratories during analysis to ensure the accuracy and reliability of analytical results. The adequacy of the laboratory quality assurance practices is measured by field and laboratory quality control procedures.

The controls used to measure and assess the laboratory QA/QC procedures implemented during this sampling and analysis program are summarised in Table 7.3 (groundwater) and Table 7.4 (soil vapour) below. Copies of the final NATA endorsed laboratory reports; including internal QA/QC results and COC documentation for all laboratories are attached as Appendix D.


Table 7.3: Groundwater Laboratory QA/QC Summary

LaboratoryConsiderations


Compliant? Comment Analytical methods and sample analyses

Y Samples were sent to NATA accredited laboratories. All analytical methods were NATA accredited.

Sample holdingtimes Y All samples were received at the laboratories, extracted, and analysed

within the respective holding times.

LOR Y

The LOR, also known as the Practical Quantification Limit (PQL), is the minimum concentration that an analyte that can be measured with a high level of confidence.

The LORs are presented in the laboratory certificates of analysis (Appendix D) and are lower than the adopted assessment criteria for CoPC analysed in groundwater with the exception of the LORs for VC which exceeded the assessment criteria of 0.3 μg/L for the following samples:

• GW13 - < 20 μg/L

• GW19 - < 1 μg/L

• GW21 - < 1 μg/L

• GW22 - < 4 μg/L

• GW24 - < 8 μg/L

• GW25 - < 1 μg/L

• GW28 - < 5 μg/L

• GW29 - < 1 μg/L

The VC LOR exceeded the assessment criteria in wells located within the source area and the eastern portion of the assessment area (east of well GW28 on Williams Avenue), and generally corresponded to locations where other CHCs were detected. VC was not detected in the western (down gradient) portion of the assessment area and the LOR was below the assessment criteria in these down gradient wells. There is not enough historical data to extrapolate to make a comment on the potential risk posed at locations where the VC LOR exceeded the assessment criteria.

LaboratoryDuplicates Y No laboratory duplicate outliers were reported.

Method Blanks Y No method blank outliers were reported.

LaboratoryControl Samples Y No laboratory control sample outliers were reported.

Matrix Spikes N

No matrix spike outliers were reported with the exception of Report 543271: Spike % recovery was 48% (acceptable range was 70 – 130%).

The accuracy of the data is assessed as adequate based on available matrix spike data, method blank and laboratory control spike data.

SurrogateSpikes Y No surrogate spike outliers were reported.


Table 7.4: Soil Vapour Laboratory QA/QC Summary



Compliant? Comment Analytical methods and sample analyses

Y Samples were sent to a NATA accredited laboratories and all analytical methods were NATA accredited.

ReceiptPressure of Samples (SummaCanister Samples)

Y

The pre-sampling pressure was between ‐30 and ‐27 inch of mercury (inHg) for all canisters used in the sampling, indicating negligible loss of pressure between shipping from the laboratory to receipt for sampling. The post‐sampling pressure was compared to the final laboratory receipt pressure, with the difference less than 3.39 inHg.

The results indicate acceptable low loss of pressure and low potential for ambient air ingress during transit.

The pre‐and post‐sampling pressure, and the final pressure of the passivated canisters on receipt at the laboratory are presented in the certificates of analysis in Appendix D.

Integrity Testing– Helium Leak Test

Y

Three helium shroud samples were collected in Tedlar bags and analysed for helium. The shroud helium concentrations reported were as 91 %v/v, 81 %v/v and 93 %v/v.

The lowest shroud sample helium concentration (81 %v/v) has been adopted to assess the integrity of the soil vapour samples collected onsite. The helium concentration in the soil vapour samples was compared to the acceptable concentration (10 % of that reported in the shroud sample – 8.1 %v/v).

The range of concentrations reported in the samples were <0.01 – 2.8 %v/v.

All soil vapour samples passed the helium leak test indicating acceptable low ingress of ambient air during sampling.

Helium leak test results are included in laboratory certificates of analysis (Appendix D) and summarised in Table 10 and Table 11.




Compliant? Comment

Integrity Testing– Isopropanol Y

Three shroud samples (carbon tubes) were collected during the soil vapour monitoring event and analysed for isopropanol. The shroud isopropanol concentrations reported were as follows:

• 218187 – 19,000,000 µg/m3

• 109013 – 70,000,000 µg/m3

• 108186 – 43,000,000 µg/m3

The lowest shroud sample isopropanol concentration (19,000,000 µg/m3) has been adopted to assess the integrity of the soil vapour samples collected onsite. The concentration of isopropanol within the soil vapour samples was compared to the acceptable concentration (10 % of that reported in the shroud sample – 190,000 µg/m3).

The range of concentrations reported in the samples (above detection limits) was 220 µg/m3 (SGP11) - 370 µg/m3 (SGP19).

Leak Test It should be noted that the reported concentration of isopropanol at SGP37 was <43,000 µg/m3. The LOR for this sample was raised due to interference from petroleum hydrocarbons in the sample. Although the LOR still falls beneath the acceptable concentration of 190,000 µg/m3, it is considered to not accurately represent the range of concentrations reported.

All soil vapour samples passed the isopropanol leak test indicating acceptably low ingress of ambient air during sampling.

Isopropanol leak test results are included in laboratory certificates of analysis (Appendix D) and summarised in Table 10 and Table 11.

In addition to the IPA shroud tests, a carbon tube was also used as a field blank and analysed for IPA. The reported concentrations was non-detect. The results of the QA/QC test are presented in laboratory certificates of analysis (Appendix D).

Field duplicates& secondaryduplicates

Y

The RPDs calculated between primary and duplicate sample results were within the acceptable range with the exception of TCE between SGP32 and SGP32 Field Dup (56%). This elevated RPD occurred when analyte concentrations were reported close to the laboratory LOR where accuracy and precision are inherently low.

Calculations of the RPDs between the primary samples and the corresponding field duplicates and secondary duplicates are summarised in Table 10.




Compliant? Comment

Laboratory Limit of Reporting(LOR)

Y

The LOR is the minimum concentration that an analyte that can be measured with a high level of confidence. The LORs are presented in the laboratory certificates of analysis (Appendix D).

With the exception of the soil vapour concentrations reported in SGP37, all LORs were lower than the adopted assessment criteria for CoPC analysed in soil vapour. The LORs that exceeded the assessment criteria for SGP37 were as follows:

• cis-1,2-Dichloroethene – LOR of 2,500 μg/m3 exceeded the residential HIL criteria of 80 μg/m3 and the commercial / industrial HIL criteria of 300 μg/m3

• PCE – LOR of 3,400 μg/m3 exceeded the residential HIL criteria of 2,000 μg/m3 and the commercial / industrial HIL criteria of 8,000 μg/m3

• TCE – LOR of 2,200 μg/m3 exceeded the residential HIL criteria of 20 μg/m3 and the commercial / industrial HIL criteria of 80 μg/m3

• VC – LOR of 1,200 μg/m3 exceeded the residential HIL criteria of 30 μg/m3 and the commercial / industrial HIL criteria of 100 μg/m3

The elevated LORs were reported for SGP37 due to interference from high concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons in the sample.

In addition to SGP37, the LOR for VC reported at SGP01 (40 μg/m3) exceeded the residential HIL of 30 μg/m3.

There is not enough historical data to extrapolate for either SGP37 or SGP01 to make a comment on the potential risk posed by these LOR exceedances.

LaboratoryInternal QC Y

SGS Leeder undertook internal QA procedures and internal QC testing, including laboratory method blank, spike and duplicate samples. Reported results from all samples were within the acceptable range, and area presented in the laboratory certificates of analysis (Appendix D).


7.3 DATA USABILITY SUMMARY

Data Quality Indicators (DQI) evaluated as part of the DQO process are discussed in Table 7.5 below.

Table 7.5: DQI Summary

DQI Element Comment

Completeness

Of the 38 primary groundwater samples and 35 primary soil vapour samples submitted for analyses, acceptable analytical results were reported for all samples (100%), which satisfies the acceptance criterion of 95%.

Precision and accuracy

Generally, where elevated RPDs (greater than (>) 30%) were reported, analytical results were close to the LOR where accuracy and precision are inherently low. Therefore, the elevated RPDs were considered acceptable for this assessment. Accuracy of the laboratory results were evaluated based on results of matrix spike and duplicate matrix spike. RPD results indicated acceptable accuracy and precision for the analysed samples.

Comparability The 2017 results are of the same order of magnitude when compared to the 2016 for similar sampling activity.

Representativeness The review of field and laboratory QA/QC results indicated that the reported analytical data are representative of the samples taken and the data are adequately reliable for the intended purposes.

Based on satisfying the relevant DQIs, the data presented in this report is considered to be of acceptable accuracy and reliability for use in furthering understanding of the site’s CSM and risk profile.


8. SOIL RESULTS

8.1 ENCOUNTERED SOIL CONDITIONS

The soil conditions encountered while drilling during this investigation are summarised below:

• Asphalt was encountered at the surface in eight investigation locations (GW32, GW35, GW37, GW38, SGP32, SGP36, SGP38 and SGP40) that were drilled through roads and streets.

• Brick pavers were encountered at surface in two investigation locations (GW36 and SGP39) that were drilled through the pedestrian side walk.

• Fill material was encountered at all investigation locations, generally extending to less than 0.5 mbgl. Fill material observed generally consisted of silts, sands, clays and gravels or a mixture of two or more.

• The natural material underlying the fill generally comprised of interbedded layers of the following:

• Low to medium plasticity, red brown silty clay.

• Medium grained, red brown, well graded sandy clay.

• Medium plasticity, orange brown to red brown clayey sand.

The borehole logs and photographs of the drill cores depicting the encountered geology are presented in Appendix A and investigation locations are presented in Figure 2.

8.2 SOIL FIELD SCREENING

Soil samples were collected at various depths and placed in zip-lock bags for field testing for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) using a PID fitted with a 10.6 eV lamp and calibrated to isobutylene (100 parts per million (ppm). With the exception of SGP37, there were no visual or olfactory field indications of soil impact and the PID headspace screening results ranged from 0.1 ppm to 0.5 ppm (considered to be representative of background conditions). At location SGP37, a slight hydrocarbon odour was noted and an elevated PID reading was measured (15 ppm at 1.0 m depth). PID headspace results are displayed on the borehole logs presented in Appendix A.


8.3 SOIL GEOTECHNICAL TESTING

Soil core samples collected while drilling five of the new soil vapour bores were submitted to SMS Geotechnical for analysis. A summary of the soil geotechnical results is presented in Table 12 and copies of the laboratory reports are attached in Appendix D. The geotechnical sampling locations are presented in Figure 2.

Table 8.1 below summarises the results of the geotechnical analysis. The geotechnical data obtained during this investigation has been incorporated into the vapour intrusion modelling and is discussed further in Section 12 and Appendix J.

Table 8.1: Geotechnical Testing Results Summary

SampleLocation/ID

Depth(m) Classification Moisture

(%)

SpecimenDry

Density(t/m3)

Total Porosity

(unit-less)

Water Porosity

(unitless)

Air Porosity

(unitless)

Geotech 1 (SGP31) 1.0 – 1.45 Clayey SAND 14.2 1.81 0.28 0.26 0.02

Geotech 2 (SGP32) 0.8 – 1.25 CLAY 21.2 1.57 0.34 0.33 0.01

Geotech 3 (SGP34) 0.9 – 1.2 CLAY 12.3 1.52 0.39 0.19 0.2

Geotech 4 (SGP38)

0.25 – 0.55 Sandy CLAY 17 1.72 0.31 0.29 0.02

Geotech 5 (SGP36) 0.6 – 0.9 CLAY 21.2 1.61 0.38 0.34 0.04


9. GROUNDWATER RESULTS

9.1 GROUNDWATER ELEVATION AND FLOW

The depth to groundwater ranged from 2.825 mBTOC in GW30 to 4.091 mBTOC in GW037. Relative groundwater elevations ranged between 2.515 mAHD (GW32) and 4.925 mAHD (GW10). The recorded groundwater elevations are presented in Table 1. The groundwater elevations and interpreted groundwater elevation contours are presented in Figure 3. Based on groundwater elevation contours represented, the groundwater flow is inferred to be in a north-westerly direction beneath the EPA Assessment Area with a gradient of approximately 0.003. The groundwater elevation, flow direction and gradient measured during this investigation was similar to that measured during previous investigations (Fyfe, 2016).

9.2 GROUNDWATER FIELD PARAMETERS

Physio-chemical groundwater parameters including Electrical Conductivity (EC), temperature, pH, redox potential and dissolved oxygen were measured in all monitoring wells in the field prior to collection of groundwater samples. These field measured groundwater parameters are provided in Table 2 and summarised below.

• Groundwater pH ranged from 6.23 (GW26) to 7.18 (GW38), indicating generally near neutral groundwater conditions.

• EC ranged from 2,467 (GW31) to 5,944 (GW32) µS/cm indicating groundwater beneath the EPA Assessment Area is generally moderately saline.

• Redox ranged from -86.7 (GW28) to 119 (GW13) mV. With the exception three monitoring wells (GW02, GW28 and GW31), positive redox measurements were recorded indicating slightly oxidising conditions.

• Dissolved oxygen ranged from 0.11 (GW24) to 2.91 (GW36) mg/L indicating poorly to moderately oxygenated groundwater conditions.

• Groundwater temperature ranged between 20 (GW01, GW02, GW04, GW06, GW07, GW09, GW10, GW13, GW14) and 30 (GW28) °C.

The field parameters listed above are generally consistent with those identified during the previous investigations (Fyfe, 2016), with the exception of the redox and DO readings which are lower than those previously identified. This observation of field parameters may be due to differences in sampling procedures, i.e. agitating the water less during one sampling event


compared to the other event, or it may be used as a second line of evidence of natural attenuation. Further interpretation of this cannot be made based upon existing data.

9.3 GROUNDWATER BENEFICIAL USE ASSESSMENT

A Beneficial Use Assessment (BUA) was conducted by Fyfe (Fyfe, 2016) in accordance with ASC NEPM Schedule B (6); The Framework for Risk Based Assessment of Groundwater Contamination and SA EPA (2009a); Guidelines for the Assessment and Remediation of Groundwater Contamination to assess both the current and realistic future uses of groundwater within the uppermost aquifer beneath the EPA Assessment Area. The findings of the Fyfe 2016 BUA are summarised in Table 9.1 below and are considered to remain applicable for the Stage 4 assessment.

Table 9.1: Assessment of Groundwater Beneficial Uses (from Fyfe, 2016)

Environmental Values/Beneficial Uses

Water QualityEPP (SA EPA

2015)Environmental

Values

SA EPA (2009a)

Potential Beneficial Uses

Beneficial Use Assessment

Considered Applicable

Aquatic Ecosystem

Marine - Yes Yes

Fresh - Yes No

Recreation &

Aesthetics

Primary Contact - Yes Yes

Aesthetics - Yes Yes

Potable - Yes No

Agriculture

Irrigation - Yes Yes Livestock - Yes No

Aquaculture - Yes Yes

Industrial - Yes No

9.4 GROUNDWATER SCREENING CRITERIA

Based upon the CoPCs and the BUA, groundwater analytical results were compared to the following screening criteria:

• ASC NEPM Groundwater Investigation Levels (GILs) for marine water.

• National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) (2008) National Water Quality Management Strategy, Guidelines for Managing Risks in Recreational Water.


• Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC) (2000) Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality:

o 95% species protection for marine environments.

o Irrigation values.

o Aquaculture.

It is noted that the NHMRC (2008) guidelines reference the NHMRC/ / National Resource Management Ministerial Council (NRMMC) 2004 National Water Quality Management Strategy, Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (Health/Aesthetic), however given the more current NHMRC/NRMMC (2011, updated November 2016) Drinking Water Guidelines have been released, they have been referenced over the NHMRC/NRMMC (2004) Drinking Water Guidelines.

In accordance with the NHMRC/NRMMC (2008), the drinking water criteria for non-volatile chemicals are to be adjusted by a factor of 10 to take account of accidental ingestion rates, as opposed to deliberate ingestion, during recreational activities. This conversion does not apply to volatile components as inhalation may represent a source of exposure with respect to volatile contaminants.

In the absence of a NHMRC/NRMMC drinking water guideline for TCE, the Australia and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC) / Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand (ARMCANZ) (2000) recreational criterion of 30µg/L has been adopted. Additional consideration has also been given to the following guidelines where no criteria is available in the NHMRC/NRMMC (2008) Guidelines:

Volatilisation of CHCs from groundwater is an important exposure pathway associated with CHC impacted groundwater. During this investigation, the assessment of risks through inhalation pathways associated with volatilisation of CHCs in groundwater has been performed through direct measurement of CHC concentrations in soil vapour (Section 10) and though vapour intrusion modelling and HHRA (Section 12 and Appendix J).

Screening levels have not been included for major anions and cations, nor for natural attenuation parameters, as these chemicals have been included to assess the physio‐chemical properties of the shallow aquifer and the potential for natural attenuation rather than as chemicals released due to historical activities.


A summary of the sources of the adopted criteria for each applicable BUA, where criteria have been provided, are presented in Table 9.2.

Table 9.2: Sources of adopted criteria for Applicable Beneficial Uses

Environmental Values/Beneficial Uses Reference

Aquatic Ecosystem Marine

ASC NEPM Groundwater Investigation Levels (GILs) for marine water

ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality - 95% level of

species protection and Low Reliability Trigger Values

Recreation & Aesthetics

Primary Contact NHMRC (2008) Guidelines for Managing Risks in

Recreational Water and NHMRC (2011) Drinking Water Guidelines for health and aesthetics.

ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality - Recreational

criterion of 30µg/L has been adopted for TCE. Aesthetics

Agriculture

Irrigation ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) Australian and New Zealand

Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality - Irrigation Long term

Aquaculture ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) Australian and New Zealand

Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality - Aquaculture (tainting of fish flesh)

9.5 GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS

The groundwater analytical results are presented in Tables 2 through 8, and PCE, TCE and cis 1, 2-DCE concentration contour plans are presented as Figures 4A through 4C. Copies of the laboratory analytical reports are attached in Appendix D. An overview of the analytical results is presented below.

9.5.1 Chlorinated Hydrocarbons

A summary of the PCE, TCE, cis 1, 2-DCE and VC analytical results from this investigation is presented in Table 9.3 below.


Table 9.3: Groundwater CHC Analytical Results

Analyte Number of Samples Analysed

ReportedConcentration Range (µg/L)

AdoptedCriteria (µg/L) (1)

Wells ExceedingAdopted Criteria(1)

PCE 38 <LOR to 419 50 GW04, GW08, GW13, GW22, GW24, GW27, GW28, GW29, GW36

TCE 38 <LOR to 533 30 GW04, GW08, GW09,

GW13, GW15, GW19, and GW24

cis 1,2-DCE 38 <LOR to 1,500 60 GW08, GW09, GW13,

GW15, GW17, GW19 and GW22

VC 38 <LOR to 0.52 0.3 GW08 Notes:

1. See Section 9.3 and 9.4 for further information on the adopted assessment criteria.

9.5.2 Lateral Extent of CHC in Groundwater

As shown on Figure 4A, the lateral extent of PCE in groundwater beneath the EPA Assessment Area has been delineated to below the LOR to the east (GW03 and GW10), northeast (GW20 and GW33) and south (GW25 and GW37). PCE impacts have not been delineated immediately south and south-east (up gradient) of the source site with relatively low PCE concentrations detected in GW02 (1.2 µg/L) and GW07 (1.6 µg/L). Further, PCE has not been delineated to the north-west of the EPA Assessment Area with PCE detected in GW30 (0.91 µg/L) and GW34 (4.5 µg/L), nor has PCE been delineated to the west of the EPA Assessment Area with PCE detected in GW32 (11 µg/L).

As shown on Figure 4B, the lateral extent of TCE in groundwater beneath the EPA Assessment Area has been reasonably well delineated in all directions with the exception of to the west and north-west with TCE detected (albeit at relatively low concentrations) in GW30 (0.53 µg/L) and GW32 (1.4 µg/L).

As shown on Figure 4C, the lateral extent of the cis 1, 2-DCE in groundwater beneath the EPA Assessment Area has been reasonably well delineated in all directions with the exception of to the north of the source site at GW18 (3.6 µg/L), and to the west and north-west with cis 1, 2-DCE detected (albeit at relatively low concentrations) in GW30 (0.79 µg/L) and GW32 (1.8 µg/L).

The elevated concentration of VC was only reported at one location and is considered to have been delineated. The location was GW08 (0.52 µg/L) within the source site area.


9.5.3 Comparison to Previous CHC Concentrations in Groundwater

The 2017 groundwater CHC results were compared with the previous groundwater results from the April and November 2015 investigations. The CHC groundwater analytical results from both this investigation and previous investigations are presented in Table 7 (attached), and trend analysis graphs are attached in Appendix I. The trend graphs have been developed from monitoring wells with three rounds of data collected between April 2015 and April 2017 (GW01 to GW23 and GW29). These monitoring wells are located within the source site and within the eastern portion of the EPA Assessment Area.

A qualitative review of these concentration trend charts suggests PCE concentrations have decreased in a number of monitoring wells at or within the vicinity of the source site including; GW06 (600 to <8 µg/L), GW11 (230 to <5 µg/L), GW12 (540 to < 20 µg/L) and GW14 (4 to 1.5 µg/L). Generally PCE concentrations in groundwater during the Stage 4 assessment (April 2017) were lower than during the Stage 2 assessment (April 2015), but higher than during the Stage 3 assessment (November 2015).

The TCE concentration in GW08, located in the down gradient portion of the source site, has increased since April 2015 (67 to 533 µg/L). The cis 1, 2-DCE concentration in GW13 which located in the central portion of the source site has increased (1,100 to 1,500 µg/L) since April 2015. However, cis 1, 2-DCE has decreased in GW15 (320 to 280 µg/L), GW16 (63 to 17 µg/L), GW17 (190 to 100 µg/L) and GW19 (130 to 100 µg/L). In GW29 which is located approximately 300 m down gradient of the source site, increasing concentrations of cis 1,2DCE (<1 to 11 µg/L), TCE (<1 to 5.8 µg/L) and PCE (<1 to 66 µg/L) have been reported since November 2015. Similarly in GW28 which is which is located approximately 380 m down gradient of the source site, increasing concentrations of cis 1,2-DCE (2 to 7.1 µg/L), TCE (3 to 27 µg/L) and PCE (37 to 120 µg/L) were reported between November 2015 and April 2017.

Concentrations can vary based on a number of factors including change in depth to groundwater, change in the height of the sampling pump, sampling methodology, plume degradation, freshwater recharge and other seasonal factors.

A review of the groundwater elevation levels, DO concentrations and seasons in which the assessments have been undertaken during Stage 2 to Stage 4, did not indicate a correlation between the factors mentioned above and the decrease in concentrations of some CHCs in some of the wells during Stage 3. It is therefore considered that the likely reason for the reported concentrations of PCE and TCE to be lower in the Stage 3 assessment is due to the placement of the sampling pump being higher in the water column during the monitoring event. CHCs are denser than groundwater and so the placement depth of the pump when sampling


heavily influences the results. It is likely that the highest results are at the base of the water column.

With the exception of the changes in concentrations of specific CHCs outlined above, CHC impacts to groundwater identified during this investigation is generally consistent with the findings of previous groundwater monitoring. Concentrations are generally within the same order of magnitude reported during previous investigations and the plume geometry and extent has remained largely unchanged since November 2015.

It should be noted that although the concentrations have fluctuated between the assessment stages, the shape of the plume (Figures 4A and 4B) have generally remained the same. Further monitoring would assist with the determination of long-term trends.

9.5.4 Monitored Natural Attenuation

The primary lines of evidence for natural attenuation are provided by observed reductions in impacted area geometry and contaminant concentrations. A shrinking or stable plume is evidence of natural attenuation, while for an expanding plume, the mass loading rate of the contaminants exceeds the natural attenuation rate. As outlined in Section 9.5.3, while PCE and cis 1,2-DCE concentrations have decreased in a number of wells in and around the source site, concentrations of PCE, TCE and cis 1,2-DCE have increased in other wells, including GW29 and GW28 which are located 300 and 380 m down gradient of the source site respectively. Based on the data available to date, there is not considered to be sufficient primary lines of evidence to conclusively support an overall reduction in plume size or contaminant mass.

Reductive dechlorination is the most important process in the degradation of CHCs. Reductive dechlorination occurs when microorganisms at the contaminated site consume CHCs through various fermentation reactions. The dechlorinating bacteria use hydrogen as an electron donor, ultimately replacing chlorine atoms in the chloroethenes with hydrogen atoms via hydrogenolytic reductive dechlorination. When sufficient organic electron donors are available and the appropriate strains of bacteria exists, this process can proceed until all of the chlorine atoms are removed. Through this degradation process, PCE is dechlorinated completely via TCE, DCE and VC to ethene and ethane. As indicated above, it is estimated that the degradation of PCE and TCE to below detection limits may take up to 26 and 29 years, respectively.

Concentrations of various electron receptors utilised during anaerobic reactions (nitrate, ferric iron, sulphate and carbon dioxide) in monitoring wells GW02, GW12, GW13, GW20, GW22, GW25, GW26, GW27, GW29, GW31 and GW32 and are summarised in Table 8. An analysis 20174340.001A/Glenelg/ADL17R58358 Page 37 of 64 4 August 2017 Copyright 2017 Kleinfelder

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermentation_(biochemistry)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethene

of the concentrations of these electron receptors in monitoring wells located within and outside of the CHC plumes did not identify any specific trends to indicate dehalogenation of CHC within groundwater.

While the presence of PCE daughter products in the groundwater are indicative of PCE breakdown via reductive dechlorination, an evaluation of the ratio of TCE, DCE and VC to PCE in specific monitoring wells GW02, GW12, GW13, GW20, GW22, GW25, GW26, GW27, GW29, GW31 and GW32 located within and down gradient of the source site did not identify conditions that are considered to be indicative of significant ongoing dehalogenation of the CHC in groundwater (i.e. increasing trends in concentrations of daughter products were not widely observed).

A secondary line of evidence as to whether natural attenuation is likely to be occurring at the site is through the evaluation of geochemical indicators of the biodegradation process. It has been noted that dissolved oxygen data collected during groundwater sampling existed in the range of 0.11 – 2.91 mg/L, and as such is prevalent across the site. As oxygen is available it will be used for the aerobic degradation of CHCs as the first of a series of preferential electron acceptors. Where fresh groundwater mixes on the plume fringe there is the potential for aerobic degradation to occur again. Limited data prevents further assessment of anaerobic biodegradation.

9.6 COMPARISION OF DATA TO EXISTING GROUNDWATER FATE AND TRANSPORT MODEL

Fyfe (2016) prepared a preliminary fate and transport model of CHC impacted groundwater emanating from the source site. The objective of the model was to provide a preliminary estimate of the future extent of CHC impacted groundwater within the EPA Assessment Area to allow appropriate groundwater restrictions to be applied by the EPA to protect human health via the definition of a GPA.

9.6.1 Modelling Approach and Findings

To project how far along a path the PCE and TCE plumes might expand, the modelling was performed by adopting a concentration versus distance method. The analysis estimated the timeframe for CHC to degrade to concentrations below the detection limits using attenuation rate constants (related to CHC half-lives). Attenuation rate constants were calculated from concentration versus distance plots. The distance each CHC will migrate during this time period was then calculated by applying the CHC velocity. The attenuation rate constants were calculated using groundwater data obtained in July 2014 (Greencap, 2015a), April 2015 (Greencap, 2015b) and November 2015 (Fyfe, 2016). The CHC velocities were modelled to 20174340.001A/Glenelg/ADL17R58358 Page 38 of 64 4 August 2017 Copyright 2017 Kleinfelder

reduce, relative to the average groundwater velocity, by sorption and desorption to organic carbon (i.e. hence retardation factors were applied – 1.84 for PCE and 1.54 for TCE). Compared to an estimated groundwater velocity of 26 metres per year (m/year), the PCE and TCE velocities were calculated to be 14 m/year and 17 m/year, respectively.

Based on the CHC concentrations from the Fyfe 2016 investigation, the attenuation rate constants calculated from the above-mentioned data sets as well as the CHC velocities, it was calculated that both the TCE and PCE plumes will attenuate to concentrations below the detection limit (1 ug/L) within 30 years. The model calculated TCE and PCE concentrations in GW27 and GW28 would attenuate to below 1 ug/L within approximately 12 to 13 years, and during this time PCE would migrate around 171 to 183 m further down gradient of GW27 and GW28. The modelled extent of the TCE plume was less than the extent of the plume Fyfe measured during their November 2016 groundwater assessment. It was concluded that the TCE plume was likely to continue to contract spatially.

9.6.2 Comparison of 2017 Groundwater Results to Past Modelling Results

The groundwater modelling performed by Fyfe (2016) relied on three rounds of groundwater monitoring conducted between July 2014 and November 2015. Analysis was performed on concentration trends during this period (by plotting concentration verses time charts). It was shown that PCE concentrations had decreased over time in all locations, with the exception of MW18 (where PCE had increased slightly but was generally stable), and TCE concentrations generally mimicked the trends observed for PCE (Fyfe, 2016).

The continuing decreasing concentration trends observed between July 2014 and November 2015 were plotted and used to calculate contaminant attenuation rate constants, half-lives and first order rate consents based on the slope of the inferred contaminant concentration trend lines. The parameters were then used as (or to derive) model inputs.

As outlined in Section 9.5.3, PCE and TCE concentrations during the most recent monitoring event (conducted by Kleinfelder in 2017) were generally higher in most wells than during the November 2015 monitoring event performed by Fyfe. The higher concentrations of PCE and TCE detected in groundwater in 2017 are expected to result in a flattening of the concentration trend slopes, resulting in a higher calculated half-life and lower first order decay constant for TCE and PCE. As a result, the model is likely to have underestimated the potential future plume extent and time necessary for the plume to attenuate.

The modelling predicted the extent of the PCE plume (at concentrations exceeding 1 µg/L) may extend to distances of approximately 171 to 183 m downgradient of monitoring wells 20174340.001A/Glenelg/ADL17R58358 Page 39 of 64 4 August 2017 Copyright 2017 Kleinfelder

GW27 and GW28. During the 2017 GME, the PCE concentration in the newly installed well (GW32) located approximately 260 to 290 m down gradient of GW27 and GW28 was 11 µg/L. This result confirms the model may have underestimated the potential future extent of the PCE plume.

The modelling also predicted TCE concentrations would continue to decrease and the plume would contract spatially into the future. However, as outlined in Section 9.5.3, the 2017 groundwater monitoring results demonstrated higher TCE concentrations both in wells located within the source site (GW08) and wells located down gradient of the source site (GW28 and GW29). TCE was also detected during the 2017 groundwater monitoring event in the newly installed well GW32 (with a concentration of 1.4 µg/L), which is located approximately 350 m further down gradient from the calculated migration distance determined through the modelling.


10. SOIL VAPOUR RESULTS

10.1 SOIL VAPOUR SCREENING CRITERIA

Investigation and screening levels presented within the ASC NEPM were adopted in the first instance to assess potential inhalation risks to site users. The ASC NEPM provides Interim Soil Vapour Health Investigation Levels (HILs) for Volatile Organic Chlorinated Compounds for selected volatile chlorinated compounds (PCE, TCE, cis‐1,2‐DCE], VC and 1,1,1‐trichloroethane [1,1,1‐TCA]) which are specific to various NEPM landuse scenarios. The derivation of these HILs is simple though conservative and is based on acceptable indoor air concentrations (based on US EPA guidelines (US EPA 2015) with an attenuation factor of 0.1 applied to soil vapour results to account for the attenuation factor between concentrations in soil vapour immediately below the building foundation and indoor air concentrations.

The HILs provided in the ASC NEPM are based on generally conservative assumptions for the estimated allowable exposure dependant on landuse. An exceedance of a screening level does not indicate that there is a definite risk to human health, but rather that further site‐specific assessment is required to quantify the potential risk to human health in the selected landuse scenario. This further site-specific assessment has been performed through vapour intrusion modelling and is further described in Section 12 and Appendix J.

10.2 SOIL VAPOUR ANALYTICAL RESULTS

The soil vapour analytical results are presented in Tables 9 through 10 and PCE and TCE concentration contour plans are presented in Figures 5A and 5B. Copies of the laboratory analytical reports are attached in Appendix D. An overview of the analytical results is presented in Table 10.1 below.


Table 10.1: Soil Vapour CHC Analytical Results

Analyte Number of Samples Analysed

ReportedConcentration Range (µg/m3)

Adopted Criteria(µg/m3) (1)

Locations Exceeding AdoptedCriteria

PCE 35 <LOR to 91,000 2,000

SGP01, SGP05, SGP07, SGP08, SGP17, SGP18, SGP19, SGP22,

SGP25 and SGP26 SGP37 LOR (3,400 µg/m3)

exceeded the adopted criteria*

TCE 35 <LOR to 6,000 20

SGP01, SGP04, SGP05, SGP07, SGP08, SGP09, SGP11, SGP16,

SGP17, SGP22, SGP24 and SGP36.

SGP37 LOR (2,200 µg/m3) exceeded the adopted criteria*

cis-1,2DCE 35 <LOR to 24,000 80

SGP01, SGP04, SGP09, and SGP17

SGP37 LOR (2,500 µg/m3) exceeded the adopted criteria*

VC 35 <LOR to 17 30 SGP37 LOR (1,200 µg/m3) and

SGP01 LOR (40 µg/m3) exceeded the adopted criteria*

Notes:

1. See Section 10.1 for further information on the adopted assessment criteria.

* Further discussion relating to the LORs and adopted criteria is presented in Table 7.4.

1, 2 dichloroethane was detected in four soil vapour bores located in the central and western portions of the EPA Assessment Area (SGP25, SGP27, SGP34 and SGP35). Concentrations ranged between 6.6 µg/m3 in SGP27 to 450 µg/m3 in SGP36. It is noted that 1, 2 dichloroethane is not a breakdown product of chlorinated ethenes and does not appear to be associated with the source site due to its presence in isolated locations.

10.2.1 Lateral Extent of CHC in Soil Vapour

As shown on Figure 5A, the lateral extent of PCE in soil vapour beneath the EPA Assessment Area has been delineated to below the LOR to the north (SGP15, SGP30, SGP31 and SGP33) and to the south (SGP13 and SGP23). PCE impacts have not been delineated to the east (up gradient) of the source site with PCE concentrations detected in SGP08 (5,200 µg/m3). Further, PCE has not been delineated to the west of the EPA Assessment Area with PCE detected in SGP36 (120 µg/m3) and SGP40 (32 µg/m3).

As shown on Figure 5B, the lateral extent of TCE in soil vapour beneath the EPA Assessment Area has been reasonably well delineated to the north (SGP14, SGP15, SGP29, SGP30, SGP33 and SGP35) and to the south (SGP 13, SGP18, SGP38 and SGP39). It is noted that TCE was detected in soil vapour in SGP34 (14 µg/m3) which is location in the northern portion


of the EPA Assessment Area. TCE impacts have not been delineated to the east (up gradient) of the source site with TCE concentrations detected in SGP08 (150 µg/m3). TCE was also detected in soil vapour in SGP34 (14 µg/m3) which is located in the northern portion of the EPA Assessment Area.

10.2.2 Comparison to Previous CHC Concentrations in Soil Vapour

The 2017 soil vapour CHC results were compared with the results from the April and November 2015 investigations. The current and historical results are presented in Table 11 and trend analysis graphs are attached in Appendix I. Concentration trend graphs have been generated for existing soil vapour bores, generally located in the eastern and central portions of the EPA Assessment Area.

A qualitative review of these concentration trend charts suggests PCE concentrations have decreased in most soil vapour bores since November 2015. TCE, cis-1, 2-DCE and VC concentrations were generally similar or lower to that detected during November 2015.


11. CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL

The development of a CSM is an essential part of all site assessments and presents information regarding contamination sources, receptors and exposure pathways between those sources and receptors.

The ASC NEPM identified the essential elements of a CSM as including:

• Known and potential sources of contamination and contaminants of concern including the mechanism(s) of contamination.

• Potentially affected media (soil, sediment, groundwater, surface water, indoor and ambient air).

• Building design.

• Any potential preferential pathways for vapour migration (if potential for vapours identified).

• Human and ecological receptors.

• Potential and complete exposure pathway.

Fyfe (2016), presented a detailed CSM for the EPA Assessment Area on the basis of historical information from past reports and site data collected during their November 2015 investigations. The CSM presented herein builds upon the previous CSM prepared by Fyfe and summarises the key elements of the CSM, incorporating the data from the Stage 4 assessment works.

11.1 KNOWN AND POTENTIAL SOURCES

Previous investigation works have identified the premises located at 37-41 Cliff Street as the source of dissolved phase CHC contamination (Figure 1).

The source site is reported to have been occupied by a dry-cleaning facility (Glenelg Dry Cleaners) from the 1940s-1950s until about 2006, and to have hosted a factory building and spirit store as well as various aboveground and underground tanks used for the storage of PCE and petroleum hydrocarbons (i.e. petrol and diesel). Site investigations conducted to date have identified the presence of PCE as well as its break-down products, TCE and DCE, within soil and the uppermost (shallow) groundwater aquifer beneath the site.


Groundwater impacts were found to extend off-site in a general west to north-westerly direction and to have resulted in the generation of soil vapour containing elevated concentrations of CHC. The extent of off-site groundwater migration has defined the EPA Assessment Area designated by the EPA (as shown on Figure 1).

11.2 LAND USE IN EPA ASSESSMENT AREA

The source site remains a commercial premise (currently a giftware shop and caravan storage facility). The site is surrounded by low to medium density residential properties. The EPA Assessment Area is predominantly low to medium density residential land use, with some of these properties also including backyard swimming pools. Some commercial premises are located in the area, specifically on the intersection of Diagonal Road and Cliff Street. The Glenelg Primary School is located in the north-western portion of the EPA Assessment Area near the intersection of Diagonal Road and Brighton Road, with a recreational area comprising City of Holdfast Bay Sporting Complex located in the north-western corner of the EPA Assessment Area.

The residential properties located in the EPA Assessment Area include older homes constructed on piers with a crawl-space, with newer homes and extensions typically constructed as slab on grade. A survey of residential homes presented by Fyfe (2016) identified that with the exception of a single property at Cliff Street, no underground structures (i.e. basements) were identified and none of the surveyed residents had plans to construct underground structures.

11.3 NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION

The main CoPC for the EPA Assessment Area comprise a number of CHCs. The main CoPC identified to date are PCE and TCE, both of which were used as solvents in dry cleaning businesses although TCE can also occur as a break-down product of PCE. Additional CoPC identified for the EPA Assessment Area include the breakdown products of PCE and TCE, namely 1, 2-dichloroethene (1, 2-DCE: cis- and trans-) and VC.

11.3.1 Groundwater

Investigations undertaken in the EPA Assessment Area, including investigations in 2017, have identified the presence of dissolved phased concentrations of PCE, TCE, cis-1, 2-DCE and trans-1, 2-DCE in groundwater, migrating from the source site to the north-west. Figures 4A and 4B show the dissolved phase PCE and TCE plumes in the EPA Assessment Area, based on data collected in 2017. The results of the 2017 groundwater investigation have confirmed the PCE and TCE plumes extend beyond GW32 (located approximately 30 m 20174340.001A/Glenelg/ADL17R58358 Page 45 of 64 4 August 2017 Copyright 2017 Kleinfelder

east of Brighton Road). The down gradient extent of CHC impact has not been delineated to the west.

11.3.2 Soil Vapour

Soil vapour has been measured from a number of soil vapour bores within the EPA Assessment Area, for the purpose of characterising CHCs in the vapour phase at various depths. Soil vapour data collected by Fyfe in 2015 involved the sampling of a number of wells from 1.5m depth, with soil vapour also sampled from 2.5m depth at some locations (SGP05, SGP11, SGP13, SGP18 and SGP19). The wells sampled from 2.5m depth are located close to the source site, where higher concentrations of CHCs were reported in soil vapour at 1.5m depth.

Soil vapour data collected by Kleinfelder in 2017 involved the sampling of existing soil vapour bores (where these could be located) as well as new soil vapour bores installed in 2017. The wells sampled were all at 1.5m depth, with the exception of SGP01, located beneath the slab of the source site, where the soil vapour was sampled from 0.5m depth. Figures 5A and 5B show the extent of PCE and TCE reported in soil vapour at 1.5m depth in 2017. The vapour plumes largely mirror the extent of the subsurface groundwater plumes presented in Figures 4A and 4B.

Table 11 presents a summary of the soil vapour concentrations reported by Fyfe (collected in 2015), and Kleinfelder in 2017. In general, the soil vapour concentrations reported in 2017 are lower than 2015.

11.4 CONTAMINANT TRANSPORT MECHANISM

Fyfe (2016) identified the following potential contaminant transport mechanisms associated with the CHC-impacted groundwater identified within the uppermost aquifer beneath the EPA Assessment Area:

• Flow through the aquifer to a hydraulically down-gradient surface water body and/or downgradient groundwater bores.

• Vapour generation and/or flow via subsurface preferential pathways (e.g. service trenches, more permeable soils).

• Downward movement into underlying aquifers (e.g. dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL)).


In addition, the CHC impacted soils located on the source site could (and in some cases already have) result in the following:

Leaching into underlying soils and groundwater.

Surface water run-off (if surface soils are involved and areas of the sites are unpaved).

Dust generation (if surface soils are involved and areas of the sites are unpaved).

Vapour generation, including via subsurface preferential pathways for vapour migration (e.g. service trenches, more permeable soils).

The Kleinfelder investigation did not identify any significant changes to the environmental setting (i.e. hydrogeology and land use) of the EPA Assessment Area and so the contaminant transport mechanisms are considered to be consistent with those listed above. As noted in Section 11.3.1 and 11.3.2, the nature and extent of CHC impacts beneath the EPA Assessment Area have been further refined based on the findings of this most recent investigation, with CHC impacts in soil vapour and groundwater inferred to extend to within the vicinity of Brighton Road. As stated in Section 9.6, there is currently a limited data for sufficient trend analysis to provide further confidence in the groundwater fate and transport of CoPCs.

11.5 SENSITIVE RECEPTORS

Based on the results of the recent Kleinfelder investigation and the fact that no significant changes in land use have occurred within the EPA Assessment Area, the following sensitive receptors have been identified as potentially relevant:

Ecological:

Groundwater ecosystems within the EPA Assessment Area as far Brighton Road, and possibly also further west (i.e. as the western extent of the groundwater CHC plume has not yet been determined).

The marine environment of Gulf St Vincent (although at a distance of 1.65km from the source site, groundwater is likely to be much altered by natural processes before it discharges at this point).


Human:

• Current and future occupants of, and visitors to, residential properties as well as other sensitive use sites such as the Glenelg Primary School.

• Current and future workers on the source site and other commercial/industrial properties within the area.

• Current and future recreational users of the City of Holdfast Bay Sporting Complex.

• Current and future maintenance and construction workers.

• Down-gradient groundwater bore users.

It should be noted that the plumes have been delineated in all directions with the exception to the west of Brighton Road. It is therefore considered that the human sensitive receptors noted above should also be considered for land beyond the western boundary of the EPA Assessment Area.

11.6 POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS

Based on the results of the recent Kleinfelder investigation, the following complete exposure pathways are considered possible for the EPA Assessment Area:

• Direct contact through extraction and use of impacted groundwater for domestic (i.e. irrigation or filling swimming pools) or recreation (i.e. irrigating sporting grounds) purposes.

• Vapour intrusion into indoor air within commercial and residential properties located within the footprint of CHC impacts to groundwater and soil vapour.

• Exposure to future subsurface maintenance workers at the source site through inhalation, ingestion and dermal contact with impacted media.

Further assessment and quantification of risks to human health associated with vapour intrusion into indoor air is provided in Section 12 and Appendix J.

11.7 DIAGRAMMATIC REPRESENTATION OF EPA ASSESSMENT AREA

A diagrammatic representation (conceptual cross section) of the EPA Assessment Area is provided as Figure 6.


12. VAPOUR RISK ASSESSMENT

Kleinfelder engaged Environmental Risk Sciences Pty Ltd (enRiskS) to undertake a vapour risk assessment to address potential vapour intrusion risk issues within the EPA Assessment Area. Vapour intrusion risks were previously evaluated as part of the 2016 Stage 3 environmental assessment (Fyfe, 2016). The vapour risk assessment has been updated by enRiskS based on additional data collected during 2017 Stage 4 of the environmental assessment. The enRiskS vapour risk assessment is provided as Appendix J and summarised below.

The objectives of the vapour risk assessment were:

• To conduct an assessment of vapour intrusion risk issues in relation to CHC contamination for the following receptors\exposure scenarios:

o Residential properties constructed on a slab.

o Residential properties constructed on piers with a crawl-space.

o Trench/maintenance works.

• Where required, based on the vapour risk assessment undertaken, identify the need to obtain additional data or implement risk management measures.

The quantitative assessment of human health risks has been undertaken in accordance with the following guidelines/protocols:

• enHealth, Environmental Health Risk Assessment, Guidelines for Assessing Human Health Risks from Environmental Hazards (enHealth 2012b).

• enHealth, Australian Exposure Factor Guide (enHealth 2012a).

• ASC NEPM, including:

o Schedule B1 Investigation Levels for Soil and Groundwater.

o Schedule B4 Guideline on Health Risk Assessment Methodology.

o Schedule B7 Guideline on Health-Based Investigation Levels.

• Technical guidance in relation to the assessment of vapour risks (CRC CARE 2011, 2013; Davis, Wright & Patterson 2009).


In addition, protocols and guidelines developed by international agencies such as the US EPA and the WHO have been used (and referenced1) to provide supplementary guidance where required.

The scope of work has included the following:

• A review of the previous investigations and data with the aim of developing an appropriate conceptual site model.

• Conduct of screening level evaluations of potential vapour intrusion risks, relevant to the 2017 data and identification of CoPC.

• Characterisation of vapour intrusion risks, that includes quantification of exposure (utilising vapour intrusion modelling), toxicity (hazards posed by the CoPC) and characterisation of risk.

• Evaluation of uncertainties and model sensitivity relevant to the assessment of vapour intrusion risks.

• Conclusions of the vapour intrusion risks with consideration of the assessment presented and the uncertainties identified.

12.1 GEOTECHNICAL DATA ASSESSMENT

In relation to assessing vapour intrusion risks, the characteristics of the local subsurface geology in the vadose zone, that influence the permeability and movement of air, are of importance. Soil samples from the vadose zone have been collected during previous investigations (Fyfe, 2016) and during Stage 4 work activities to further characterise the geotechnical properties of the subsurface.

Review of the data collected in 2017, indicates variable results between the samples and in the soil profile to 1.45 m depth. The range of dry bulk density was similar to that reported in previous investigations (Fyfe, 2016), however the total porosity was slightly lower.

In terms of evaluating vapour risks the total porosity and air-filled porosity of soil in the subsurface is of most importance. The higher the air-filled porosity the greater the potential for more mass of vapour to be able to be present in the soil zone. The greater the total porosity, the greater the potential for vapours to more quickly and effectively move in the subsurface,

1 Please refer to the HHRA presented in Appendix J for the full reference list. 20174340.001A/Glenelg/ADL17R58358 Page 50 of 64 4 August 2017 Copyright 2017 Kleinfelder

resulting in a higher mass flux. The greater the mass flux, the greater the potential for vapour intrusion and higher concentrations to be present in indoor air.

The geotechnical parameters reported at location Geotech 3 (SGP34) were similar to that assumed by Fyfe (2016) for soil in the zone >0.5 m to 2.5 m depth from data predominantly collected from the central and eastern site of the EPA Assessment Area.

Soil characterised by lower air-filled porosity and lower total porosity was reported in the western and north-western portions of the EPA Assessment Area. In these areas, there is the potential for a lower mass flux of vapours to occur through the soil profile, and lower vapour risks.

The parameters adopted by Fyfe (2016) for vapour modelling, remain at the conservative end of the geotechnical data collected from all rounds of sampling, including the data collected in 2017. For the purpose of this assessment, the conservative parameters presented by Fyfe (2016) have been adopted in this assessment.

12.2 SCREENING LEVEL EVALUATIONS

The maximum concentrations of 1, 2-DCE (as a sum of cis- and trans-DCE), PCE and TCE reported beneath the source site and within the EPA Assessment Area exceed the screening criteria for commercial/industrial use and residential use. The maximum concentrations of 1, 2-dichloroethane reported in the EPA Assessment Area areas also exceeds the adopted screening criteria for residential land use. It is noted that 1, 2-dichloroethane is not a breakdown product of the chlorinated ethenes (from the source site) but is commonly present as a contaminant from its former use as an additive to fuels. The isolated locations where 1, 2-dichloroethane has been detected in air does not suggest the presence of a plume.

In general, there are decreasing concentrations of PCE with distance from the source. TCE and DCE also indicate a decrease in concentrations, however these are also degradation byproducts and the TCE and DCE concentrations downgradient are variable.

12.3 VAPOUR MODELLING

The residential properties located in the EPA Assessment Area include older homes constructed on piers with a crawl-space, with newer homes and extensions typically constructed as slab on grade. A survey of residential homes presented by Fyfe (2016) identified that with the exception of a single property at Cliff Street, no underground structures


(i.e. basements) were identified and none of the surveyed residents had plans to construct underground structures.

Summaries of the modelling scenarios undertaken is presented in the following sections. Further information relating to the model parameters / assumptions is provided in Section 3, of the risk assessment provided in Appendix J.

12.3.1 Slab on Grade Home

Vapour intrusion into the on-site building has been quantified using the Johnson & Ettinger (J&E) Vapour Model (US EPA 2004), consistent with the modelling undertaken in the previous assessment (Fyfe 2016).

This model has the potential to evaluate vapour intrusion that is characterised by both diffusive and advective (pressure driven) processes. Chronic exposures should be evaluated on the basis of diffusive processes, while consideration of advection will provide an upper estimate of a peak concentration that may occur where pressure driven migration occurs into the building.

12.3.2 Crawl-space

Modelling of vapour intrusion into a home constructed on piers with a crawl-space has been undertaken using a highly simplistic model generally consistent with the model used in the previous assessment (Fyfe 2016). The J&E Vapour Model (US EPA 2004) has been modified to address a crawl-space home in the following way:

• The presence of a crawl-space will prevent the potential for advective (pressure driven) vapour intrusion into the home, hence only diffusion vapour migration processes are considered.

• There is no covering on the ground surface in the crawl-space.

• The crawl-space is assumed to be enclosed such that vapours that enter the crawl-space only mix within the home, and are not vented out of the crawl-space prior to any potential movement into the living areas of the home. This assumption is consistent with the maximum attenuation factor of 1 for crawl-space to indoor air identified by the USEPA (US EPA 2015).


12.3.3 Excavations / trenches

Vapour migration that may occur into an excavation or trench has been modelled using the outdoor air model presented in the Risk Based Corrective Action at Petroleum Release Sites (American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) 2002). This is a box model where vapours diffuse from the subsurface soil into the excavation, which is considered to be a box, in which the vapour mix, and where workers may be exposed.

12.4 VAPOUR INHALATION RISKS

12.4.1 Threshold Risk

The quantification of potential exposure and risks to human health associated with the presence of key chemicals in surface soil at the site has been undertaken by comparing the estimated intake (or exposure concentration) with the threshold values adopted that represent a tolerable intake (or concentration), with consideration for background intakes. The calculated ratio is termed a Hazard Index (HI), which is the sum of all ratios (termed hazard Quotients [HQ]) over all relevant pathways of exposure. These are calculated using the following equations for inhalation exposures:

The interpretation of an acceptable HI needs to recognise an inherent degree of conservatism that is built in to the establishment of appropriate guideline (threshold) values (using many uncertainty factors) and the exposure assessment. Hence, in reviewing and interpreting the calculated HI the following is noted:

• A HI less than or equal to a value of 1 (where intake or exposure is less than or equal to the threshold) represents no cause for concern (as per risk assessment industry practice, supported by protocols outlined in enHealth (enHealth 2012b) and ASC NEPM.

• A HI greater than 1 requires further consideration within the context of the assessment undertaken, particularly with respect to the level of conservatism in the assumptions adopted for the quantification of exposure and the level of uncertainty within the toxicity (threshold) values adopted.


Non-threshold carcinogenic risks for the assessment of contaminated land ASC NEPM is defined as an acceptable non-threshold carcinogenic risk (as a sum over all non-threshold chemicals and exposure pathways) is 1x10-5. On this basis, a total Target Risk value of >1 x 10-5 has been adopted as indicating conditions that would warrant further assessment.

Risks values ≤1 x 10-5 are considered to be representative of acceptable risks.

12.4.2 Calculated Risk

Table 12.1 presents a summary of the non-threshold risk and threshold HQ for each pathway assessed and the total HI calculated for all exposures evaluated in relation to potential exposures by residents and intrusive workers.

The values presented in Table 12.1 (and all other risk calculations) are rounded to 1 or 2 significant figures reflecting the level of certainty inherent in risk calculations. Detailed calculations are presented in Appendix J.

Table 12.1: Summary of calculated vapour risks - 2017 Receptor / Exposure Pathway Non-Threshold Risk Threshold Risk (HI)

Inhalation exposures in residential homes

Slab on grade home: diffusion dominated VI 1.4 x 10-8 0.0036

Slab on grade home: advection dominated VI 3.7 x 10-7 0.094

Crawl-space home 3.3 x 10-7 0.084

Inhalation exposures in excavations/trenches

Workers in excavations 9.9 x 10-10 0.00029

Acceptable Risk ≤1 x 10-5 ≤1

Based on the calculations presented in Table 12.1, the following is noted:

• Inhalation risks posed to residents within the EPA Assessment Area, in slab on grade homes and in homes with a crawl-space, are low and acceptable.

• Inhalation risks posed to workers undertaking excavations in the off-site residential areas are low and acceptable.

Review of the calculated risks, indicates that the total HI for all scenarios is dominated by TCE (49% of the total HI) and PCE (32% of the total HI) with a lower contribution from 1,2-DCE (19% of the total HI). When evaluating the total risk of vapour intrusion it is important to


consider exposures to all the CoPC, in particular the chlorinated ethenes derived from the source site, not only TCE.

12.4.3 Indoor Air Exposure

The assessment presented in Table 12.1, relates to risks posed to residents and workers in excavations in areas overlying the maximum concentrations reported in soil vapour, assuming these occur at the same location. The calculations undertaken indicate that threshold risks (HI) are of most significance and that the calculated HI for a slab on grade home, where advection is significant, is essentially the same as that for a home constructed with a crawlspace.

A further assessment of potential exposures in all locations within the EPA Assessment Area has been undertaken. For this assessment, the attenuation factor (soil vapour to indoor air) modelled for the slab on grade home with advection (which is essentially the same as that for a crawl-space home) has been used along with the measured concentrations in soil vapour at all locations sampled in 2017, to estimate indoor air concentrations.

The calculated indoor air concentrations have been compared with indoor air guidelines relevant to the assessment of TCE, PCE and 1, 2-DCE, as presented in Table 12.2. Note that no further assessment of 1, 2-dichloroethane has been included here, as the risks posed by this volatile chemical are very low (negligible) and it is not a volatile compound associated with the CHC plume derived from the source site.


Table 12.2: Estimated Indoor air concentrations (slab and crawl-space homes), from each sampling location – 2017

Location PCE TCE Cis-1,2-DCE trans-1,2-DCE

Air Guidelines 40-200 As below 7 70

Response ranges for TCE:

No Action ND (<0.1)

Validation <2

Investigation <20

Intervention <200

Accelerated intervention >200

SGP08 1.1 0.045 0.0015 0.0011

SGP20 0.0096 0.0012 0.0015 0.0011

SGP15 0.0013 0.0012 0.0015 0.0011

SGP07 7.2 0.0071 0.0031 0.0023

SGP05 4.8 0.039 0.0015 0.0011

SGP04 0.19 0.095 0.032 0.0011

SGP21 0.077 0.00089 0.0015 0.0011

SGP11 0.081 0.051 0.0015 0.0011

SGP13 0.0011 0.00089 0.0015 0.0011

SGP18 0.88 0.0012 0.0015 0.0011

SGP19 6.1 0.0028 0.0031 0.0023

SGP22 0.46 0.083 0.026 0.0021

SGP16 0.15 0.0092 0.0015 0.0087

SGP09 0.0011 0.0065 0.14 0.026

SGP14 0.0011 0.00089 0.0015 0.0011

SGP23 0.0011 0.0012 0.0015 0.0011

SGP17 1.3 0.071 0.050 0.0023

SGP24 0.21 0.023 0.0029 0.0011

SGP29 0.0024 0.00089 0.0015 0.0011

SGP34 0.0014 0.0042 0.0042 0.0018

SGP37

SGP25 0.61 0.0023 0.0015 0.0011

SGP27 0.15 0.0036 0.0015 0.0011

SGP35 0.0026 0.0012 0.0015 0.0011

SGP33 0.0011 0.0012 0.0015 0.0011

SGP38 0.0017 0.0012 0.0015 0.0011

SGP26 0.7 0.0048 0.0015 0.0011

SGP28 0.0022 0.0012 0.0015 0.0011

SGP32 0.11 0.0039 0.0011 0.0011


Location PCE TCE Cis-1,2-DCE trans-1,2-DCE

SGP30 0.0013 0.0012 0.0015 0.0011

SGP31 0.0011 0.00089 0.0015 0.0011

SGP40 0.0070 0.00089 0.0015 0.0011

SGP39 0.31 0.0012 0.0015 0.0011

SGP36 0.026 0.0083 0.0042 0.0023

Average of max 2014-2017* 12 0.34 0.16

Notes: All units in µg/m3 Air concentrations in grey have been calculated on the basis of the LOR as the compound was not detected in soil vapour * Long term average if maximum concentrations reported in 2014, 2015 and 2017.

In relation to the indoor air concentrations calculated in the residential areas based on soil vapour data from 2017, the following should be noted:

• All indoor air concentrations for TCE are predicted to be below 0.1 µg/m3, and fall into the SA EPA category for no further action.

• All indoor air concentrations for PCE are well below the adopted criteria of 40 µg/m3 and 200 µg/m3 and hence do not require any further action or investigation.

• All indoor air concentrations for 1, 2-DCE are well below the adopted criteria and hence do not require any further action or investigation.

The predicted indoor air concentrations in the EPA Assessment Area are lower in 2017, when compared against air concentrations estimated on the basis of data from 2014 and 2015 (as presented by Fyfe 2016).

12.5 SUMMARY

A summary of the conclusions in relation to vapour inhalation exposures in the EPA Assessment Area is presented below:

• Predicted concentrations of TCE in indoor air in slab on grade homes, and in homes constructed on piers with a crawl-space are all within the EPA response range for TCE requiring no action.

• Predicted concentrations of PCE and DCE in indoor air in slab on grade homes, and in homes constructed on piers with a crawl-space are all well below ambient air guidelines based on the protection of public health.


• On this basis exposures in residential properties to TCE, PCE and DCE derived from subsurface contamination in the EPA Assessment Area are considered to be safe.


Where all the soil vapour data is considered, from 2014 to 2017, the following can be concluded:

• Soil vapour concentrations were observed to be generally increasing from 2014 to 2015, however the concentrations reported in 2017 are lower.

• Where exposures are considered as a longer-term average over all the sampling rounds, the maximum predicted indoor air concentration of TCE remains less than 2 µg/m3. TCE levels in indoor air that are less than 2 µg/m3 are in the SA EPA response range requiring validation, considered to be safe.

• No further assessment of residential homes constructed with basements has been undertaken, as no new soil vapour data from depth (2.5 to 3 m) has been collected. Review of the previous assessment (Fyfe 2016) identified that in some areas, some additional investigation would better characterise these risks for these buildings. However, it is noted that soil vapour concentrations at 1.5 m depth are lower in 2017. Hence it is likely that vapour inhalation risks for basement buildings may also be lower.


13. CONCLUSIONS

Kleinfelder performed the Stage 4 environmental assessment within the Glenelg East EPA Assessment Area between March and May 2017. The scope of the assessment included installation of new groundwater monitoring wells and soil vapour bores, collection of groundwater and soil vapour samples from new and existing sampling locations for laboratory analysis, refinement of the CSM, and update of the vapour intrusion model and HHRA.

Based on the findings of this investigation the following can be concluded:

• The natural soil conditions encountered while drilling primarily consisted of sandy and silty clay, consistent with previous intrusive investigations. With the exception of a slight hydrocarbon odour identified in the soil at 0.5 meters below ground level (mBGL) in SGP37 (located in the southern portion of the EPA Assessment Area) no evidence of contamination was noted through field screening and observations.

• The depth to groundwater ranged from 2.825 to 4.091 mBTOC. Groundwater flow is inferred to be in a north-westerly direction with a gradient of approximately 0.003, consistent with previous investigations.

• CHC including PCE, TCE, DCE and VC were detected in groundwater and are associated with the suspected source site, a former dry cleaning facility located at 37-41 Cliff Street. PCE and TCE groundwater impacts extend to the north-west along the hydraulic gradient across the EPA Assessment Area.

• The plumes have been delineated in all directions except to the north-west of the EPA Assessment Area where relatively low concentrations of TCE (1.4 µg/L) and PCE (11 µg/L) were detected in the most western well (GW32). This monitoring well is located within a carpark south-west of the City of Holdfast Bay Sporting Complex.

• Although there have been some fluctuations in concentrations of PCE and DCE in groundwater between the assessment stages there are no obvious trends of natural attenuation. Overall, concentrations of CHC in groundwater are of a similar order of magnitude and the plume geometry remains similar to previous investigations.

• Concentrations of cis-1, 2-DCE, PCE, TCE and VC in groundwater exceeded the adopted assessment criteria for recreation use (primary contact) in 13 of the 38 wells sampled, thereby indicating that groundwater in these areas would be unsuitable for recreational uses such as the filling of swimming pools.


• Concentrations of cis-1,2-DCE, PCE, and TCE in groundwater exceeded the adopted assessment criteria for marine ecosystem protection in seven of the 38 wells sampled, thereby potentially affecting the marine ecosystems at the point of discharge (i.e. at the Gulf St Vincent. However, as discussed in Section 11.5, the Gulf is located 1.65km west of the site and the groundwater is likely to be altered by natural processes before it discharges at this point.

• While the presence of PCE daughter products in groundwater indicate breakdown of CHC through reductive dechlorination, limited primary and secondary lines of evidence of natural attenuation of CHCs in groundwater were identified during this investigation.

• The results of groundwater fate and transport modelling performed previously, that was based on groundwater data collected over three monitoring rounds between July 2014 and November 2015, may have underestimated the future extent of the PCE and TCE plumes. PCE and TCE were detected in groundwater during this investigation at distal locations beyond the modelled future extent of the plume.

• CHC including PCE, TCE, DCE and VC were detected in soil vapour from samples collected to a depth of up to 1.5 mBGL. The extent of soil vapour impacts generally correspond with the groundwater impacts, and the extent has been delineated in all directions except to the west. PCE and TCE concentrations in the western most soil vapour bore (SGP36) were 120 and 28 µg/m3 respectively.

• PCE concentrations in soil vapour were generally lower during this investigation than reported during previous investigations.

• Concentrations of PCE, TCE and cis-1, 2-DCE in soil vapour exceed the Tier 1 screening criteria for commercial/industrial and residential use in 16 of the 35 soil vapour bores sampled. However, results of the HHRA indicate inhalation risk is low and acceptable.

• Predicted concentrations of TCE in indoor air in slab on grade homes, and in homes constructed on piers with a crawl-space are all within the EPA response range for TCE requiring no action, which is considered safe.

• Where exposures are considered as a longer-term average over all the sampling rounds, the maximum predicted indoor air concentration of TCE remains less than 2 µg/m3. TCE levels in indoor air that are less than 2 µg/m3 are in the SA EPA response range requiring validation, which is considered to be safe.

• Predicted concentrations of PCE and DCE in indoor air in slab on grade homes, and in homes constructed on piers with a crawl-space are all well below ambient air guidelines based on the protection of public health.



13.1 DATA GAPS

The following data gaps have been identified:

• The western extent of the CHC impacts has not been fully delineated.

• A limited data set for groundwater contamination leads to greater uncertainty in the trend analysis for groundwater concentrations of Chemicals of Potential Concern (CoPC), which also limits the ability to validate the fate and transport model undertaken in 2016.

• Limited data relating to monitored natural attenuation (MNA) parameters leads to greater uncertainty on primary and secondary lines of evidence for natural attenuation of the CHC plumes in groundwater beneath the EPA Assessment Area and assessing whether the aquifer conditions are conducive of significant reductive dechlorination.

• The potential risks posed by the concentration of VC in groundwater at locations where the LORs were greater than the assessment criteria for recreational use (primary contact).

• The potential risks posed by the concentration of CHCs in soil vapour at two sampling locations SGP01 (VC) and SGP37 (cis-1,2-DCE, PCE, TCE and VC) due to reporting LORs at concentrations greater than the assessment criteria.

• Where the long-term average of the predicted indoor air concentrations are considered, all CHC risks are low and acceptable with the exception of TCE which has a maximum predicted indoor air concentration remaining above non-detect and below 2 µg/m3, falling in the response range requiring validation, although is considered to be safe.

• The risk assessment did not consider basements in the 2017 assessment as deeper soil vapour bores were not sampled as part of this scope of works. Kleinfelder understands that a previous assessment / property survey only identified one basement at a property on Cliff Street, however the use of this basement is unknown. It is noted from Fyfe (2016) that there were no identified vapour intrusion risks to basements.


14. REFERENCES

ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality.

ASTM (2002) Standard Guide for Risk-Based Corrective Action Applied at Petroleum Release Sites.

CRC CARE (2011) Health Screening Levels for Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil and Groundwater– Australian Guidance. CRC CARE Technical Report No. 10, September 2011.

CRC CARE (2013) Petroleum Hydrocarbon Vapour Intrusion Assessment – Australian Guidance. CRC CARE Technical Report No. 23, July 2013.

Davis, GB, Wright, J & Patterson, BM (2009) Field assessment of vapours, CRC for Contamination Assessment and Remediation of the Environment. Adelaide.

Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources (DEWNR) (2016) Master Register of All Bores. Primary Industries and Resources South Australia.

enHealth (2012a) Australian Exposure Factor Guidance - Guidelines for assessing human health risks from environmental hazards. Commonwealth of Australia.

enHealth (2012b) Environmental Health Risk Assessment - Guidelines for assessing human health risks from environmental hazards. Commonwealth of Australia.

Fyfe (2016) Glenelg East EPA Assessment Area, Stage 3 Environmental Site Assessment. Report to South Australian Environment Protection Authority, dated 8 April 2016.

Geological Survey of South Australia Department of Mines (1962) 1: 250,000 Adelaide Geological Map Sheet (Zones 5 & 6), Series Sheet SI 54-9.

Greencap (2015a) Environmental Assessment Works – South Australian Environment Protection Authority, 37 – 41 Cliff Street, Glenelg East, dated January 2015

Greencap (2015b) Environmental Assessment Works – Stage 2, South Australian Environment Protection Authority, 37 – 41 Cliff Street, Glenelg East, dated June 2015.


NEPM (1999) National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure, Schedules B1 to B9. National Environment Protection Council, Australia.

NHMRC (2008) Guidelines for Managing Risks in Recreational Waters.

NHMRC/NRMMC (2011) Australian Drinking Water Guidelines.

SA Department of Mines and Energy (1969) 1:250,000 Adelaide Geological Map Sheet. Sheet S1 54-9.

SA EPA (2009) Guidelines for the Assessment and Remediation of Groundwater Contamination.

SA EPA (2015) Environment Protection (Water Quality) Policy.

Standards Australia (1999) Guide to the Sampling and Investigation of Potentially

Contaminated Soil Part 2: Volatile Substances. AS4482.2-1999.

Standards Australia (2005) Guide to the investigation and sampling of sites with potentially Contaminated Soil Part 1: Non-Volatile and Semi-Volatile Compounds. AS4482.1-2005 Homebush NSW.

US EPA (2004) User’s Guide for Evaluating Subsurface Vapor Intrusion into Buildings. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Washington D.C.

US EPA (2015) OSWER Technical Guide for Assessing and Mitigating the Vapour Intrusion

Pathway from Subsurface Vapour Sources to Indoor Air.


15. LIMITATIONS

The conclusions/analysis presented in this report are relevant to the conditions of the site and the state of legislation currently enacted in the relevant jurisdiction in which the site is located as at the date of this report.

No representation or warranty is made that the conclusions/analysis in this report will be applicable in the future as there may be changes in the condition of the site, applicable legislation or other factors that would affect the conclusions/analysis contained in this report.

This report and the works performed have been undertaken in good faith, with due diligence and with the expertise, experience capability and specialized knowledge necessary to perform the Work in a good and workmanlike manner and within all accepted standards pertaining to providers of environmental services. Conclusions from field work are an expression of opinion based on representative samples or locations at the site. The Report accordingly is not operating as a guarantee that the condition of the site could not be different at intermediate points between sampling locations or at different parts of the site. Thus, due to the inherent variability in natural soils and [site] conditions it is therefore unlikely that the results, assumptions and conclusions set out in this report will represent the extremes of conditions at any location removed in time and/or place from the specific points of sampling.

Findings and conclusions are made assuming that the soil and chemical conditions detailed within this report are accurate and remain applicable to the site at the time of writing. No other warranties are made or intended.

Kleinfelder has used a degree of skill and care ordinarily exercised by reputable members of our profession practicing in the same or similar locality.

This report has been prepared exclusively for use by the South Australian Environment Protection Authority (SA EPA). This report cannot be reproduced without the written authorisation of Kleinfelder or SA EPA and then can only be reproduced in its entirety.


20174340.001A/Glenelg/ADL17R58358 4 August 2017 Copyright 2017 Kleinfelder

FIGURES

ADELAIDE

SOURCE SITE

FILE NAME:

20174340.001A.dwg

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

DATE DRAWN:

PROJECT:

www.kleinfelder.com

The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of

sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or

warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of

such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it

designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information

contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the

information.

PLO

TT

ED

: 11-Jul-2017, 10:36A

M, lziem

elis

AT

TA

CH

ED

IM

AG

ES

: "region.jpg"

20174340.001A

20.06.17

LZ

TA

SITE LOCATIONAND ASSESSMENT AREA

EPA GLENELG EAST ASSESSMENT AREA

STAGE 4 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

GLENELG, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

1

ME

LB

OU

RN

E, A

U

FIGURE

0

SCALE

80 160 240 320 400

1:8000 (A4)

METRES

SITE

SOURCE: NEARMAP.COM, DATED 17.03.17

EPA ASSESSMENT AREA

BR

IG

HT

ON

R

OA

D

D

I

A

G

O

N

A

L

R

O

A

D

CLIF

F S

TR

EE

T

MA

XW

ELL T

ER

RA

CE

BR

OA

DW

AY

GW27

GW28

GW30

GW31

SGP23

SGP25

SGP26

SGP27SGP28

SGP29

SGP30

GW32

GW33

GW34

GW35

GW36

GW37

GW38

SGP31

SGP32

SGP33

SGP34

SGP35

SGP36

SGP37

SGP38

SGP39

SGP40

GW23

GW21

GW19

GW17

GW16

SGP18

SGP19

SGP20

GW24

SGP22

SGP24

SGP10

SGP16

SGP09

SGP14

SGP13

SGP17

GT01

GT02

GT03

GT05

GT04

GW25

GW26

GW29

GW22

GW20

GW15

GW14

GW13

GW12

GW11

GW10

GW09

GW08

GW07

GW06

GW05

GW04

GW03

GW02

GW01

GW18

SGP21

SGP06

SGP07

SGP01

SGP08

SGP03

SGP05

SGP02

SGP04

SGP11

SGP12

SGP15

0

SCALE

30 60 90 120 150

1:3000 (A3)

METRES

LEGEND

NOTE: ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.

DIMENSIONS IN METRES (m).







information.

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

DATE DRAWN:

PROJECT:

www.kleinfelder.com

FILE NAME:

20174340.001A.dwg

PLO

TT

ED

: 11-Jul-2017, 10:36A

M, lziem

elis

AT

TA

CH

ED

IM

AG

ES

: "region.jpg"

20174340.001A

20.06.17

LZ

TA

ASSESSMENT POINT LOCATIONS




2

ME

LB

OU

RN

E, A

U

FIGURE

GW

EXISTING MONITORING WELL

EXISTING SOIL VAPOUR BORE

SGP

NEW SOIL VAPOUR BORE

SGP

GW

NEW MONITORING WELL

GEOTECHINCAL SOIL SAMPLE

GT

A

A'

EPA ASSESSMENT BOUNDARY

SOURCE SITE BOUNDARY

SH

OR

T A

VE

NU

E

D

I

A

G

O

N

A

L

R

O

A

D

WIL

SO

N T

ER

RA

CE

CLIF

F S

TR

EE

T

KIP

LIN

G A

VE

NU

E

St. P

ET

ER

S S

TR

EE

T

WILLIA

MS

A

VE

NU

E

Y

O

U

N

G

S

T

R

E

E

T

BR

IG

HT

ON

R

OA

D

MNA SAMPLE LOCATIONS

GW27

GW28

GW30

GW31

GW32

GW33

GW34

GW35

GW36

GW37

GW38

GW23

GW21

GW19

GW17

GW16

GW24

GW25

GW26

GW29

GW22

GW20

GW15

GW14

GW13

GW12

GW11

GW10

GW09

GW08

GW07

GW06

GW05

GW04

GW03

GW02

GW01

GW18

GW27

0

SCALE

30 60 90 120 150

1:3000 (A3)

METRES

LEGEND









information.

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

DATE DRAWN:

PROJECT:

www.kleinfelder.com

FILE NAME:

20174340.001A.dwg

PLO

TT

ED

: 11-Jul-2017, 10:36A

M, lziem

elis

AT

TA

CH

ED

IM

AG

ES

: "region.jpg"

20174340.001A

20.06.17

LZ

TA

GROUNDWATER CONTOUR PLAN




3

ME

LB

OU

RN

E, A

U

FIGURE


3.8

INFERRED GROUNDWATER FLOW

DIRECTION

INFERRED GROUNDWATER

ELEVATION CONTOUR (mAHD)

NEW MONITORING WELL

NOTE: GW27 LEVEL NOT USED

IN CONTOUR CALCULATIONS

GW

GW

SH

OR

T A

VE

NU

E

D

I

A

G

O

N

A

L

R

O

A

D

WIL

SO

N T

ER

RA

CE

CLIF

F S

TR

EE

T

KIP

LIN

G A

VE

NU

E

St. P

ET

ER

S S

TR

EE

T

WILLIA

MS

A

VE

NU

E

Y

O

U

N

G

S

T

R

E

E

T

BR

IG

HT

ON

R

OA

D



WELL NOT USED FOR CONTOURING

GW

GW27

GW28

GW30

GW31

GW32

GW33

GW34

GW35

GW36

GW37

GW38

GW23

GW21

GW19

GW17

GW16

GW24

GW25

GW26

GW29

GW22

GW20

GW15

GW14

GW13

GW12

GW11

GW10

GW09

GW08

GW07

GW06

GW05

GW04

GW03

GW02

GW01

GW18

0

SCALE

30 60 90 120 150

1:3000 (A3)

METRES

LEGEND









information.

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

DATE DRAWN:

PROJECT:

www.kleinfelder.com

FILE NAME:

20174340.001A.dwg

PLO

TT

ED

: 11-Jul-2017, 10:36A

M, lziem

elis

AT

TA

CH

ED

IM

AG

ES

: "region.jpg"

20174340.001A

20.06.17

LZ

TA

GROUNDWATER PCE CONCENTRATION




4A

ME

LB

OU

RN

E, A

U

FIGURE


NEW MONITORING WELL

3.7

<1.0

110

120

8.8

56

66

11

8.9

4.5

0.91

4.5

<0.02

47

<0.02

2.2

28

<1.0

180

419

27

40

39

3.5

<1.0

344*

<20

<5.0

1.5

<8.0

120

77

<1.0

1.2

43

2.2

9.8

1.6

GW

GW

GROUNDWATER PCE CONCENTRATION

1.0 TO <20µg/L

20 TO <100µg/L

>100µg/L

PCE CONCENTRATION (µg/L)120

DUPLICATE/TRIPLICATE RESULT USED*

SH

OR

T A

VE

NU

E

D

I

A

G

O

N

A

L

R

O

A

D

WIL

SO

N T

ER

RA

CE

CLIF

F S

TR

EE

T

KIP

LIN

G A

VE

NU

E

St. P

ET

ER

S S

TR

EE

T

WILLIA

MS

A

VE

NU

E

Y

O

U

N

G

S

T

R

E

E

T

BR

IG

HT

ON

R

OA

D



GW27

GW28

GW30

GW31

GW32

GW33

GW34

GW35

GW36

GW37

GW38

GW23

GW21

GW19

GW17

GW16

GW24

GW25

GW26

GW29

GW22

GW20

GW15

GW14

GW13

GW12

GW11

GW10

GW09

GW08

GW07

GW06

GW05

GW04

GW03

GW02

GW01

GW18

0

SCALE

30 60 90 120 150

1:3000 (A3)

METRES

LEGEND









information.

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

DATE DRAWN:

PROJECT:

www.kleinfelder.com

FILE NAME:

20174340.001A.dwg

PLO

TT

ED

: 11-Jul-2017, 10:36A

M, lziem

elis

AT

TA

CH

ED

IM

AG

ES

: "region.jpg"

20174340.001A

20.06.17

LZ

TA

GROUNDWATER TCE CONCENTRATION




4B

ME

LB

OU

RN

E, A

U

FIGURE


NEW MONITORING WELL

<1.0

<1.0

0.76

27

4.3

12

5.8

1.4

3.9

6.8

0.53

5.7

<0.02

34

0.01

6.4

2.0

<1.0

15

31

24

<1.0

97

1.8

<1.0

533*

<20

7.3

<1.0

17

110

400

<1.0

2.3

87

<0.01

0.02

<0.02

GW

GW

GROUNDWATER TCE CONCENTRATION

1.0 TO <20µg/L

20 TO <100µg/L

>100µg/L

TCE CONCENTRATION (µg/L)120


SH

OR

T A

VE

NU

E

D

I

A

G

O

N

A

L

R

O

A

D

WIL

SO

N T

ER

RA

CE

CLIF

F S

TR

EE

T

KIP

LIN

G A

VE

NU

E

St. P

ET

ER

S S

TR

EE

T

WILLIA

MS

A

VE

NU

E

Y

O

U

N

G

S

T

R

E

E

T

BR

IG

HT

ON

R

OA

D



GW27

GW28

GW30

GW31

GW32

GW33

GW34

GW35

GW36

GW37

GW38

GW23

GW21

GW19

GW17

GW16

GW24

GW25

GW26

GW29

GW22

GW20

GW15

GW14

GW13

GW12

GW11

GW10

GW09

GW08

GW07

GW06

GW05

GW04

GW03

GW02

GW01

GW18

0

SCALE

30 60 90 120 150

1:3000 (A3)

METRES

LEGEND









information.

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

DATE DRAWN:

PROJECT:

www.kleinfelder.com

FILE NAME:

20174340.001A.dwg

PLO

TT

ED

: 11-Jul-2017, 10:36A

M, lziem

elis

AT

TA

CH

ED

IM

AG

ES

: "region.jpg"

20174340.001A

20.06.17

LZ

TA




4C

ME

LB

OU

RN

E, A

U

FIGURE


NEW MONITORING WELL

<1

<1

<0.01

7.1

2.7

41

11

1.8

9.6

18

0.79

15

<0.01

100

<0.01

17

<1

<1

65

59*

100

<1

280

3.6

<1

1,450*

<20

<5

<1

11

59

1,500

<1

0.7

110

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

GW

GW

GROUNDWATER cis-1,2-DCE CONCENTRATION

1.0 TO <20µg/L

20 TO <100µg/L

>100µg/L

TCE CONCENTRATION (µg/L)120


SH

OR

T A

VE

NU

E

D

I

A

G

O

N

A

L

R

O

A

D

WIL

SO

N T

ER

RA

CE

CLIF

F S

TR

EE

T

KIP

LIN

G A

VE

NU

E

St. P

ET

ER

S S

TR

EE

T

WILLIA

MS

A

VE

NU

E

Y

O

U

N

G

S

T

R

E

E

T

BR

IG

HT

ON

R

OA

D



SGP23

SGP25

SGP26

SGP27SGP28

SGP29

SGP30

SGP31

SGP32

SGP33

SGP34

SGP35

SGP36

SGP37

SGP38

SGP39

SGP40

SGP18

SGP19

SGP20

SGP22

SGP24

SGP10

SGP16

SGP09

SGP14

SGP13

SGP17

SGP21

SGP06

SGP07

SGP01

SGP08

SGP03

SGP05

SGP02

SGP04

SGP11

SGP12

SGP15

0

SCALE

30 60 90 120 150

1:3000 (A3)

METRES

LEGEND









information.

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

DATE DRAWN:

PROJECT:

www.kleinfelder.com

FILE NAME:

20174340.001A.dwg

PLO

TT

ED

: 11-Jul-2017, 10:36A

M, lziem

elis

AT

TA

CH

ED

IM

AG

ES

: "region.jpg"

20174340.001A

20.06.17

LZ

TA

SOIL VAPOUR PCE CONCENTRATION




5A

ME

LB

OU

RN

E, A

U

FIGURE


>50,000µg/m³

32

1,400

7.8

3,200

10

2,800

690

<3,400

<5.0

5,900

970

11

120

510

12

6.2

<5.0

<6.0

<5.0

<5.0

<5.0

690

2,100

28,000

4,000

<5.0

44

350

33,000

5,200

91,000

22,000

870

370

<6.0


SGP

SGP

SOIL VAPOUR PCE CONCENTRATION

5.0 TO <200µg/m³

200 TO <2000µg/m³

2000 TO <20,000µg/m³

20,000 TO <50,000µg/m³

PCE CONCENTRATION (µg/m³)870

NOT SAMPLED

SGP

SGP06

SGP03

SGP02

SGP12

SGP10

N/S

N/S

N/S

NOT SAMPLEDN/S

SH

OR

T A

VE

NU

E

D

I

A

G

O

N

A

L

R

O

A

D

WIL

SO

N T

ER

RA

CE

CLIF

F S

TR

EE

T

KIP

LIN

G A

VE

NU

E

St. P

ET

ER

S S

TR

EE

T

WILLIA

MS

A

VE

NU

E

Y

O

U

N

G

S

T

R

E

E

T

BR

IG

HT

ON

R

OA

D



N/S

N/S

SGP23

SGP25

SGP26

SGP27SGP28

SGP29

SGP30

SGP31

SGP32

SGP33

SGP34

SGP35

SGP36

SGP37

SGP38

SGP39

SGP40

SGP18

SGP19

SGP20

SGP22

SGP24

SGP10

SGP16

SGP09

SGP14

SGP13

SGP17

SGP21

SGP06

SGP07

SGP01

SGP08

SGP03

SGP05

SGP02

SGP04

SGP11

SGP12

SGP15

0

SCALE

30 60 90 120 150

1:3000 (A3)

METRES

LEGEND









information.

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

DATE DRAWN:

PROJECT:

www.kleinfelder.com

FILE NAME:

20174340.001A.dwg

PLO

TT

ED

: 11-Jul-2017, 10:36A

M, lziem

elis

AT

TA

CH

ED

IM

AG

ES

: "region.jpg"

20174340.001A

20.06.17

LZ

TA

SOIL VAPOUR TCE CONCENTRATION




5B

ME

LB

OU

RN

E, A

U

FIGURE



<3.0

<4.0

<4.0

16

<4.0

7.6

12

<2,200

3.9

240

78

<3.0

28

0.013*

<4.0

14

<4.0

<3.0

<3.0

22

31

280

9.3

<4.0

<3.0

<4.0

<3.0

24

150

6,000

130

320

170

<4.0

SGP

SGP

SOIL VAPOUR TCE CONCENTRATION

5.0 TO <200µg/m³

200 TO <2000µg/m³

2000 TO <20,000µg/m³

TCE CONCENTRATION (µg/m³)870

NOT SAMPLED

SGP

SGP03

SGP02

SGP12

SGP10

SGP06


N/S

N/S

N/S

NOT SAMPLEDN/S

SH

OR

T A

VE

NU

E

D

I

A

G

O

N

A

L

R

O

A

D

WIL

SO

N T

ER

RA

CE

CLIF

F S

TR

EE

T

KIP

LIN

G A

VE

NU

E

St. P

ET

ER

S S

TR

EE

T

WILLIA

MS

A

VE

NU

E

Y

O

U

N

G

S

T

R

E

E

T

BR

IG

HT

ON

R

OA

D



<5.0

N/S

N/S

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 9000

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

SG

P36

GW

32

SG

P28

GW

31

GW

28

SG

P25

GW

29

SG

P17

GW

22

SG

P22

GW

24

GW

17

SG

P04

GW

08

SG

P01

SG

P08

GW

10

DISTANCE (m)

ELE

VA

TIO

N (m

AH

D)

10.0

ASSESSMENT AREA

GLENELG OVAL & PRIMARY SCHOOL

RESIDENTIAL

RESIDENTIAL

SOURCE SITE

GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION

SILTY SANDY CLAY

FILL

0.0

A A'







information.

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

DATE DRAWN:

PROJECT:

www.kleinfelder.com

FILE NAME:

20174340.001A.dwg

PLO

TT

ED

: 11-Jul-2017, 10:36A

M, lziem

elis

AT

TA

CH

ED

IM

AG

ES

: "region.jpg"

20174340.001A

20.06.17

LZ

TA

CONCEPTUAL CROSS SECTION (A-A')




6

ME

LB

OU

RN

E, A

U

FIGURE

LEGEND

FILL

SILTY SANDY CLAY

VAPOUR RISING

SOIL VAPOUR BORE

GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL WITH SCREEN

GROUNDWATER ELEVATION

µg/L

PCE 11

TCE 1.4

µg/L

PCE 8.8

TCE 4.3

µg/L

PCE 120

TCE 27

µg/L

PCE 66

TCE 5.8

µg/L

PCE 180

TCE 15

µg/L

PCE 419

TCE 31

µg/L

PCE 27

TCE 24

µg/L

PCE 344

TCE 533

µg/L

PCE <1

TCE <1

µg/m

3

PCE 120

TCE 28

µg/m

3

PCE 10

TCE <4

µg/m

3

PCE2,800

TCE 7.6

µg/m

3

PCE5,900

TCE 240

µg/m

3

PCE2,100

TCE 280

µg/m

3

PCE 870

TCE 320

µg/m

3

PCE91,000

TCE6,000

µg/m

3

PCE5,200

TCE 150

VERTICAL CHC MIGRATION THROUGH UNSATURATED SOIL

CHC MIGRATION IN GROUNDWATER

CONCRETE

20174340.001A/Glenelg/ADL17R58358 4 August 2017 Copyright 2017 Kleinfelder

TABLES

Table 1Groundwater Gauging Data

Glenelg East EPA Assessment Area

Elevation TOC

Screened Interval DTW DTLNAPL LNAPL

ThicknessWater Table

Elevation

mAHD m mBTOC mBTOC m mAHD25-Nov-15 4.021 ND NC 4.66421-Apr-17 3.921 ND NC 4.76425-Nov-15 4.186 ND NC 4.68418-Apr-17 3.974 ND NC 4.89625-Nov-15 4.051 ND NC 4.74118-Apr-17 3.935 ND NC 4.85725-Nov-15 3.790 ND NC 4.64518-Apr-17 3.582 ND NC 4.85325-Nov-15 3.910 ND NC 4.63318-Apr-17 3.705 ND NC 4.83825-Nov-15 4.278 ND NC 4.66318-Apr-17 4.068 ND NC 4.87325-Nov-15 4.121 ND NC 4.64518-Apr-17 3.925 ND NC 4.84125-Nov-15 4.145 ND NC 4.71018-Apr-17 3.944 ND NC 4.91125-Nov-15 3.860 ND NC 4.60218-Apr-17 3.670 ND NC 4.79225-Nov-15 4.111 ND NC 4.70718-Apr-17 3.912 ND NC 4.90625-Nov-15 3.860 ND NC 4.70018-Apr-17 3.635 ND NC 4.92525-Nov-15 4.030 ND NC 4.58521-Apr-17 3.780 ND NC 4.83525-Nov-15 3.920 ND NC 4.60518-Apr-17 3.732 ND NC 4.79325-Nov-15 4.106 ND NC 4.66221-Apr-17 3.905 ND NC 4.86325-Nov-15 4.158 ND NC 4.63921-Apr-17 3.930 ND NC 4.86725-Nov-15 3.650 ND NC 4.54821-Apr-17 3.465 ND NC 4.73325-Nov-15 3.580 ND NC 4.34521-Apr-17 3.379 ND NC 4.54625-Nov-15 3.505 ND NC 4.45521-Apr-17 3.298 ND NC 4.66225-Nov-15 3.607 ND NC 4.56821-Apr-17 3.384 ND NC 4.79125-Nov-15 3.646 ND NC 4.04921-Apr-17 3.487 ND NC 4.20825-Nov-15 3.782 ND NC 4.26821-Apr-17 3.590 ND NC 4.46025-Nov-15 3.193 ND NC 4.29221-Apr-17 3.024 ND NC 4.46125-Nov-15 3.748 ND NC 4.16721-Apr-17 3.560 ND NC 4.35525-Nov-15 3.860 ND NC 4.48521-Apr-17 3.667 ND NC 4.67825-Nov-15 3.325 ND NC 4.39021-Apr-17 2.960 ND NC 4.75525-Nov-15 3.085 ND NC 4.03321-Apr-17 2.928 ND NC 4.19025-Nov-15 3.576 ND NC 3.92218-Apr-17 3.440 ND NC 4.05825-Nov-15 3.448 ND NC 3.71121-Apr-17 3.711 ND NC 3.44825-Nov-15 3.870 ND NC 3.61721-Apr-17 3.760 ND NC 3.72725-Nov-15 3.623 ND NC 3.80821-Apr-17 3.484 ND NC 3.94725-Nov-15 2.924 ND NC 3.33118-Apr-17 2.825 ND NC 3.43025-Nov-15 3.332 ND NC 3.51221-Apr-17 3.214 ND NC 3.630

GW32 273713.737 6125875.616 6.055 3.0 to 6.0 18-Apr-17 3.540 ND NC 2.515GW33 274156.241 6125874.034 7.918 3.0 to 6.0 18-Apr-17 3.795 ND NC 4.123GW34 274020.958 6125909.254 6.824 3.0 to 6.0 18-Apr-17 2.997 ND NC 3.827GW35 273908.270 6125898.272 6.655 3.0 to 6.0 18-Apr-17 3.183 ND NC 3.472GW36 273786.502 6125749.078 6.459 3.0 to 6.0 18-Apr-17 3.270 ND NC 3.189GW37 273745.140 6125710.824 7.180 3.0 to 6.0 18-Apr-17 4.091 ND NC 3.089GW38 273866.326 6125695.967 6.948 3.0 to 6.0 18-Apr-17 3.405 ND NC 3.543

Notes:DTW = Depth to waterDTLNAPL = Depth to phase-separated hydrocarbonsLNAPL = Phase-separated hydrocarbonsmBTOC = metres below top of casingm = MetresND = Not detectedNM = Not measuredNK = Not Known

273907.363 6125981.543 6.255 3.5 to 6.5

273921.666 6125814.090 6.844 2.5 to 5.5

273935.647 6125755.156 7.487 3.0 to 6.0

274013.528 6125767.466 7.431 3.0 to 6.0

274089.118 6125868.333 7.498 3.0 to 6.0

273988.769 6125812.666 7.159 3.5 to 6.5

274199.331 6125662.161 7.715 3.5 to 6.5

274059.529 6125649.737 7.118 3.5 to 6.5

274130.210 6125714.230 7.915 3.0 to 6.0

274241.120 6125626.690 8.345 3.0 to 6.0

274217.340 6125775.450 8.050 3.0 to 6.0

274156.040 6125658.300 7.485 3.0 to 6.0

274287.800 6125669.770 8.175 3.0 to 6.0

274112.350 6125766.430 7.695 3.0 to 6.0

274212.510 6125720.630 7.925 3.0 to 6.0

274231.140 6125664.940 7.960 3.0 to 6.0

274278.996 6125610.026 8.797 2.5 to 7.0

274265.558 6125667.996 8.198 4.0 to 7.0

274275.389 6125630.187 8.525 4.2 to 7.2

274307.593 6125633.614 8.768 2.5 to 7.0

274321.585 6125634.194 8.560 4.3 to 7.3

274278.884 6125626.643 8.615 4.1 to 7.1

274287.122 6125651.827 8.462 NK

274309.675 6125621.630 8.818 4.3 to 7.3

NK

274299.080 6125599.949 8.855 NK

274293.051 6125631.738 8.543 3.0 to 6.0

274288.318 6125607.089 8.941 NK

274314.551 6125654.074 8.435 3.0 to 6.0

GW28

GW29

GW13

GW14

GW15

GW16

GW17

GW08

GW09

GW10

GW11

GW12

GW03

GW04

GW05

GW06

GW07

274287.754 6125625.185 8.766

GW30

GW31

GW23

GW24

GW25

GW26

GW27

GW18

GW19

GW20

GW21

GW22

Well ID Date

DC01

GW01

GW02

Easting Northing

274293.766 6125625.669 8.685 9.5 to 12.5

274296.534 6125605.929 8.870 3.0 to 6.0

274325.723 6125619.773 8.792 3.0 to 6.0

20174340.001A/Glenelg/ADL17R58358 Page 1 of 12

Table 2Groundwater Analytical Data - Field Parameters


Total dissolved solids Temperature Dissolved

OxygenElectrical

Conductivity pH Redox

µg/L °C mg/L µS/cm pH Units mVWell ID Sample DateGW01 20-Apr-17 3,323 20 1.44 5,185 6.79 81GW02 20-Apr-17 3,467 20 0.12 5,329 6.69 -22GW03 26-Apr-17 3,554 21 1.84 5,050 6.95 80GW04 21-Apr-17 3,344 20 0.45 4,628 6.85 81GW05 20-Apr-17 3,382 29 1.23 5,203 6.83 78GW06 21-Apr-17 3,418 20 0.86 5,261 6.79 32GW07 20-Apr-17 3,419 20 0.9 5,249 6.86 93GW08 26-Apr-17 3,462 21 0.47 4,928 6.91 77GW09 21-Apr-17 3,651 20 0.32 5,727 6.71 72GW10 21-Apr-17 3,722 20 0.29 5,727 6.70 72GW11 21-Apr-17 3,283 21 0.68 5,051 6.88 74GW13 20-Apr-17 3,622 20 0.27 5,523 6.69 119GW14 21-Apr-17 3,251 20 1.03 4,491 6.91 76GW15 21-Apr-17 3,404 22 0.98 4,948 6.85 78GW16 21-Apr-17 4,858 22 0.26 3,382 6.84 85GW17 21-Apr-17 3,468 23 0.17 5,141 6.86 73GW18 21-Apr-17 3,252 24 1.11 4,866 6.88 85GW19 19-Apr-17 2,967 22 1.31 4,304 6.91 64GW20 19-Apr-17 3,244 22 0.59 4,991 6.67 80GW21 20-Apr-17 3,393 23 0.75 4,988 6.84 69GW22 20-Apr-17 3,539 21 0.84 4,983 6.92 78GW24 20-Apr-17 3,445 23 0.11 5,089 6.84 64GW25 20-Apr-17 3,346 23 0.44 4,977 6.85 74GW26 19-Apr-17 3,329 23 0.58 5,124 6.23 89GW27 19-Apr-17 2,759 23 0.78 4,118 6.97 54GW28 19-Apr-17 2,386 30 0.59 3,989 6.92 -87GW29 20-Apr-17 2,272 21 1.52 3,222 6.91 78GW30 19-Apr-17 3,397 22 0.6 4,945 6.66 101GW31 19-Apr-17 1,620 24 0.32 2,467 6.77 -72GW32 19-Apr-17 3,859 23 0.3 5,944 6.88 90GW33 19-Apr-17 3,392 24 0.87 5,193 6.93 87GW34 19-Apr-17 3,736 23 0.58 5,748 6.82 85GW35 19-Apr-17 3,069 25 0.4 4,718 6.83 67GW36 20-Apr-17 2,893 24 2.91 4,324 7.10 72GW37 26-Apr-17 3,191 22 0.56 4,589 6.79 100GW38 26-Apr-17 2,982 22 0.22 4,282 7.18 75

Notes:µg/L - Micrograms per litre°C - Degrees celsiusµS/cm - Microsiemens per centimetermV - Millivolts

Analyte

Units

Field Parameters


Table 3Groundwater Analytical Data - Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Compounds


1,1,

1,2-

Tetra

chlo

roet

hane

1,1,

1-Tr

ichl

oroe

than

e

1,1,

2,2-

Tetra

chlo

roet

hane

1,1,

2-Tr

ichl

oroe

than

e

1,1-

Dic

hlor

oeth

ane

1,1-

Dic

hlor

oeth

ene

1,2-

Dic

hlor

oeth

ane

1,2,

3-Tr

ichl

orop

ropa

ne

1,3-

Dic

hlor

opro

pane

Brom

omet

hane

Car

bon

tetra

chlo

ride

Chl

orom

etha

ne

cis-

1,2-

Dic

hlor

oeth

ene

trans

-1,2

-Dic

hlor

oeth

ene

Dib

rom

omet

hane

Dic

hlor

omet

hane

Iodo

met

hane

Tetra

chlo

roet

hene

Tric

hlor

oeth

ene

Tric

hlor

oflu

orom

etha

ne

Viny

l chl

orid

e

1,2-

Dic

hlor

oben

zene

1,3-

Dic

hlor

oben

zene

1,4-

Dic

hlor

oben

zene

Chl

orob

enze

ne

Brom

odic

hlor

omet

hane

Brom

ofor

m

Chl

orof

orm

Dib

rom

ochl

orom

etha

ne

1,2-

Dib

rom

oeth

ane

1,2-

Dic

hlor

opro

pane

cis-

1,3-

Dic

hlor

opro

pene

trans

-1,3

-Dic

hlor

opro

pene

µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L

1900

270 250 700 1900 1900 4000 70 330 100 60 55 370

250 20

30 3 3 60(1) 60(1) 4 50 30(2) 0.3 1500 40 300 3

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 20 0.3 10 (3) -- -- -- -- --

Well ID Sample Date

GW01 20-Apr-17 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 0.01 < 1 < 0.01 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 0.01 < 1 < 1 < 0.02 < 1 9.8 0.02 < 1 < 0.05 < 1 < 1 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

GW02 20-Apr-17 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 0.01 < 1 < 0.01 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 0.7 < 1 < 1 < 0.02 < 1 1.2 2.3 < 1 0.21 < 1 < 1 0.02 < 0.01 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

GW03 26-Apr-17 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 0.05 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

GW04 21-Apr-17 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 59 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 20 120 110 < 4 < 0.05 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 5 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4

GW05 20-Apr-17 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 0.01 < 1 < 0.01 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 0.01 < 1 < 1 < 0.02 < 1 2.2 < 0.01 < 1 < 0.05 < 1 < 1 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

GW06 21-Apr-17 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 11 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 17 < 8 < 0.05 < 8 < 8 < 8 500 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8

GW07 20-Apr-17 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 0.01 < 1 < 0.01 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 0.01 < 1 < 1 < 0.02 < 1 1.6 < 0.01 < 1 < 0.05 < 1 < 1 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

GW08 26-Apr-17 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 1,450 * < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 344 * 533 * < 20 0.52 < 20 < 20 < 20 290 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20

GW09 21-Apr-17 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 110 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 20 43 87 < 4 0.09 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 5.0 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4

GW10 21-Apr-17 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 0.22 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

GW11 21-Apr-17 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 7.3 < 5 < 0.05 < 5 < 5 < 5 300 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5

GW12 26-Apr-17 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 0.05 < 20 < 20 < 20 680 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20

GW13 20-Apr-17 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 1,500 < 20 < 20 < 200 < 20 77 400 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20

GW14 21-Apr-17 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 1.5 < 1 < 1 < 0.05 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

GW15 21-Apr-17 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 280 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 20 39 97 < 4 0.17 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 5 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4

GW16 21-Apr-17 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 17 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 2.2 6.4 < 1 < 0.05 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

GW17 21-Apr-17 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 100 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 20 27 24 < 4 0.05 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 5 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4

GW18 21-Apr-17 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 3.6 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 3.5 1.8 < 1 < 0.05 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

GW19 19-Apr-17 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 100 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 47 34 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

GW20 19-Apr-17 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 0.01 < 1 < 0.01 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 0.01 < 1 < 1 < 0.02 < 1 < 0.02 0.01 < 1 < 0.05 < 1 < 1 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

GW21 20-Apr-17 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 28 2.0 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

GW22 20-Apr-17 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 65 < 4 < 4 < 40 < 4 180 15 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 5 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4

GW23 21-Apr-17 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 40 < 1 < 1 < 0.05 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

GW24 20-Apr-17 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 59 * < 8 < 8 < 80 < 8 419 * 31 * < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8

GW25 20-Apr-17 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

GW26 19-Apr-17 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 0.01 < 1 < 0.01 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 15 < 1 < 1 < 0.02 < 1 4.5 5.7 < 1 < 0.05 < 1 < 1 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

GW27 19-Apr-17 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 0.02 < 1 < 0.01 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 41 < 1 < 1 < 0.02 < 1 56 12 < 1 < 0.05 < 1 < 1 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

GW28 19-Apr-17 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 7.1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 120 27 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

GW29 20-Apr-17 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 11 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 66 5.8 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Trihalomethanes Fumigants

Units

Analyte

Chlorinated MAHs

NHMRC (2011) Recreational Water - Aesthetics

ASC NEPM GIL - Marine Water

NHMRC (2011) Recreational Water - Health (Primary Contact)

ANZECC (2000) Marine Waters - 95% level of species protection

ANZECC (2000) Marine Waters - Low Reliability

ANZECC (2000) Aquaculture (tainting of fish flesh)

ANZECC (2000) Irrigation - Long term

Halogenated Aliphatic Compounds

Page 3 of 12 20174340.001A/Glenelg/ADL17R58358

Table 3Groundwater Analytical Data - Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Compounds


1,1,

1,2-

Tetra

chlo

roet

hane

1,1,

1-Tr

ichl

oroe

than

e

1,1,

2,2-

Tetra

chlo

roet

hane

1,1,

2-Tr

ichl

oroe

than

e

1,1-

Dic

hlor

oeth

ane

1,1-

Dic

hlor

oeth

ene

1,2-

Dic

hlor

oeth

ane

1,2,

3-Tr

ichl

orop

ropa

ne

1,3-

Dic

hlor

opro

pane

Brom

omet

hane

Car

bon

tetra

chlo

ride

Chl

orom

etha

ne

cis-

1,2-

Dic

hlor

oeth

ene

trans

-1,2

-Dic

hlor

oeth

ene

Dib

rom

omet

hane

Dic

hlor

omet

hane

Iodo

met

hane

Tetra

chlo

roet

hene

Tric

hlor

oeth

ene

Tric

hlor

oflu

orom

etha

ne

Viny

l chl

orid

e

1,2-

Dic

hlor

oben

zene

1,3-

Dic

hlor

oben

zene

1,4-

Dic

hlor

oben

zene

Chl

orob

enze

ne

Brom

odic

hlor

omet

hane

Brom

ofor

m

Chl

orof

orm

Dib

rom

ochl

orom

etha

ne

1,2-

Dib

rom

oeth

ane

1,2-

Dic

hlor

opro

pane

cis-

1,3-

Dic

hlor

opro

pene

trans

-1,3

-Dic

hlor

opro

pene

µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L

1900

270 250 700 1900 1900 4000 70 330 100 60 55 370

250 20

30 3 3 60(1) 60(1) 4 50 30(2) 0.3 1500 40 300 3

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 20 0.3 10 (3) -- -- -- -- --

Trihalomethanes Fumigants

Units

Analyte

Chlorinated MAHs


ASC NEPM GIL - Marine Water


ANZECC (2000) Marine Waters - 95% level of species protection

ANZECC (2000) Marine Waters - Low Reliability




GW30 19-Apr-17 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 0.01 < 1 < 0.01 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 0.79 < 1 < 1 < 0.02 < 1 0.91 0.53 < 1 < 0.05 < 1 < 1 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

GW31 19-Apr-17 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 0.01 < 1 < 0.01 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 2.7 < 1 < 1 < 0.02 < 1 8.8 4.3 < 1 0.13 < 1 < 1 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

GW32 19-Apr-17 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 0.01 < 1 < 0.01 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 1.8 < 1 < 1 < 0.02 < 1 11 1.4 < 1 < 0.05 < 1 < 1 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

GW33 19-Apr-17 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 0.01 < 1 < 0.01 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 0.01 < 1 < 1 < 0.02 < 1 < 0.02 < 0.01 < 1 < 0.05 < 1 < 1 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

GW34 19-Apr-17 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 0.01 < 1 < 0.01 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 18 < 1 < 1 < 0.02 < 1 4.5 6.8 < 1 < 0.05 < 1 < 1 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

GW35 19-Apr-17 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 0.01 < 1 < 0.01 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 9.6 < 1 < 1 < 0.02 < 1 8.9 3.9 < 1 < 0.05 < 1 < 1 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

GW36 20-Apr-17 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 0.01 < 1 < 0.01 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 0.01 < 1 < 1 < 0.02 < 1 110 0.76 < 1 < 0.05 < 1 < 1 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

GW37 26-Apr-17 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 0.05 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

GW38 26-Apr-17 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 3.7 < 1 < 1 < 0.05 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1Notes: Criteria:< - Less than laboratory limit of reporting (1) NHMRC 2008 1,2-DCE criteria adopted LOR - Laboratory limit of reporting (2) In the absence of a NHMRC/NRMMC drinking water guideline for TCE, the ANZECC / ARMCANZ (2000) recreational criterion of 30µg/L has been adoptedµg/L - Micrograms per litreBold indicates a detection above the laboratory limit of reporting"*" denotes duplicate/triplicate sample result adopted for analytical use due to RPD >30%

Page 4 of 12 20174340.001A/Glenelg/ADL17R58358

Table 4Groundwater Analytical Data - Inorganics


Ferric Iron Ferrous Iron Sodium Calcium Magnesium Potassium Sulphate Chloride Nitrite as N Nitrate as N Total Ammonia Nitrogen

Bicarbonate Alkalinity as

CaCO3

Carbonate Alkalinity as

CaCO3

Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 Iron Manganese Dissolved

OxygenTotal Carbon

Dioxide as CO2

mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/LWell ID Sample DateGW02 20-Apr-17 0.78 0.09 410 200 180 8.2 180 1,100 0.07 0.74 0.04 570 < 10 570 0.87 2.6 6.7 540GW13 20-Apr-17 < 0.05 < 0.05 450 210 170 9.7 180 1,200 < 0.02 3.1 < 0.01 550 < 10 550 < 0.05 0.17 6.7 540GW20 19-Apr-17 < 0.05 < 0.05 440 170 160 17 220 950 < 0.02 4.8 - - - 610 < 0.05 0.009 8.2 570GW22 20-Apr-17 < 0.05 < 0.05 430 220 180 25 210 1,200 < 0.02 3.6 < 0.01 470 < 10 470 < 0.05 0.008 7.0 450GW25 20-Apr-17 < 0.05 < 0.05 410 210 170 5.6 190 1,100 < 0.02 2.9 < 0.01 490 < 10 490 < 0.05 < 0.005 7.2 470GW26 19-Apr-17 < 0.05 < 0.05 440 190 160 18 200 1,000 < 0.02 5.0 - - - 640 < 0.05 < 0.005 8.3 640GW27 19-Apr-17 < 0.05 < 0.05 410 160 140 11 170 750 < 0.02 4.1 - - - 620 < 0.05 < 0.005 8.5 580GW29 20-Apr-17 < 0.05 < 0.05 350 110 120 17 120 450 < 0.02 7.4 < 0.01 770 < 10 770 < 0.05 0.005 7.3 730GW31 19-Apr-17 < 0.05 3.2 290 56 85 3.6 90 330 < 0.02 < 0.02 - - - 650 3.1 2.7 8.1 620GW32 19-Apr-17 < 0.05 < 0.05 600 180 170 13 220 1,200 0.08 9.9 - - - 570 < 0.05 0.022 8.3 530

Notes:- - Not analysed< - Less than laboratory limit of reportingLOR - Laboratory limit of reportingµg/L - Micrograms per litreBold indicates a detection above the laboratory limit of reporting

Metals

Units

Analyte

Anions and Cations Alkalinity


Table 5Groundwater Analytical Data - Quality Control Sample Analysis - Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Compounds


1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane

1,1,1-Trichloroethane

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane

1,1,2-Trichloroethane

1,1-Dichloroethane

1,1-Dichloroethene

1,2-Dichloroethane

1,2-Dichloroethene,

total

1,2,3-Trichloropropane

1,3-Dichloropropane Bromomethane

µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/LSample Name Sample Date Sample Type

TB02 18-Apr-17 Trip Blank < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 - < 1 < 1 < 1TB01 19-Apr-17 Trip Blank < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 0.01 < 1 < 0.01 - < 1 < 1 < 1TB03 21-Apr-17 Trip Blank < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 0.01 < 1 < 0.01 - < 1 < 1 < 1RB01 05-Apr-17 Rinsate - - - - - < 0.1 - < 0.1 - - -RB02 06-Apr-17 Rinsate - - - - - < 0.1 - < 0.1 - - -RB03 07-Apr-17 Rinsate - - - - - < 0.1 - < 0.1 - - -RB01 18-Apr-17 Rinsate < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 - < 1 < 1 < 1RB02 19-Apr-17 Rinsate < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 - < 1 < 1 < 1RB03 21-Apr-17 Rinsate < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 0.01 < 1 < 0.01 - < 1 < 1 < 1RB04 21-Apr-17 Rinsate < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 0.01 < 1 < 0.01 - < 1 < 1 < 1RB05 21-Apr-17 Rinsate < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 0.01 < 1 < 0.01 - < 1 < 1 < 1GW24 20-Apr-17 Primary < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 - < 8 < 8 < 8QA 01 20-Apr-17 Duplicate < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 - < 8 < 8 < 8

NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NCGW24 20-Apr-17 Primary < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 - < 8 < 8 < 8QA01A 20-Apr-17 Triplicate - < 0.1 - - < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 60 - - < 0.5

NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NCGW08 26-Apr-17 Primary < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 - < 20 < 20 < 20QA02 26-Apr-17 Duplicate < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 - < 20 < 20 < 20

NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NCGW08 26-Apr-17 Primary < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 - < 20 < 20 < 20QA02A 26-Apr-17 Triplicate - - - - - 1.7 - - - - -

NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC

Notes:- - Not analysed< - Less than laboratory limit of reportingLOR - Laboratory limit of reportingNC - Not calculatedµg/L - Micrograms per litreHalf the laboratory limit of reporting used when calculating RPDRPD - Relative Percentage Difference

Relative Percentage Difference




Units

Analyte





Sample Name Sample Date Sample TypeTB02 18-Apr-17 Trip BlankTB01 19-Apr-17 Trip BlankTB03 21-Apr-17 Trip BlankRB01 05-Apr-17 RinsateRB02 06-Apr-17 RinsateRB03 07-Apr-17 RinsateRB01 18-Apr-17 RinsateRB02 19-Apr-17 RinsateRB03 21-Apr-17 RinsateRB04 21-Apr-17 RinsateRB05 21-Apr-17 RinsateGW24 20-Apr-17 PrimaryQA 01 20-Apr-17 Duplicate

GW24 20-Apr-17 PrimaryQA01A 20-Apr-17 Triplicate

GW08 26-Apr-17 PrimaryQA02 26-Apr-17 Duplicate


Notes:- - Not analysed< - Less than laboratory limit of reportingLOR - Laboratory limit of reportingNC - Not calculatedµg/L - Micrograms per litreHalf the laboratory limit of reporting used when calculating RRPD - Relative Percentage Difference





Units

Analyte Carbon tetrachloride Chloromethane cis-1,2-

Dichloroethene Dibromomethane Dichloromethane Iodomethane Tetrachloroethene trans-1,2-Dichloroethene Trichloroethene Trichlorofluoromethane Vinyl chloride

µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L

< 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1< 1 < 1 < 0.01 < 1 < 0.02 < 1 < 0.02 < 1 < 0.01 < 1 < 0.05< 1 < 1 < 0.01 < 1 < 0.02 < 1 < 0.02 < 1 < 0.01 < 1 < 0.05- - < 0.1 - - - < 0.05 < 0.1 < 0.05 - < 0.3- - < 0.1 - - - < 0.05 < 0.1 < 0.05 - < 0.3- - < 0.1 - - - < 0.05 < 0.1 < 0.05 - < 0.3

< 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1< 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1< 1 < 1 < 0.01 < 1 < 0.02 < 1 < 0.02 < 1 < 0.01 < 1 < 0.05< 1 < 1 < 0.01 < 1 < 0.02 < 1 < 0.02 < 1 < 0.01 < 1 < 0.05< 1 < 1 < 0.01 < 1 < 0.02 < 1 < 0.02 < 1 < 0.01 < 1 < 0.05< 8 < 8 38 < 8 < 80 < 8 250 < 8 18 < 8 < 8< 8 < 8 37 < 8 < 80 < 8 240 < 8 18 < 8 < 8NC NC 3% NC NC NC 4% NC 0% NC NC< 8 < 8 38 < 8 < 80 < 8 250 < 8 18 < 8 < 8

< 0.05 - 59 - < 1 - 419 0.7 31 < 0.5 < 0.3NC NC 43% NC NC NC 51% NC 53% NC NC< 20 < 20 920 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 360 < 20 0.52< 20 < 20 880 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 340 < 20 0.5NC NC 4% NC NC NC NC NC 6% NC 4%< 20 < 20 920 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 360 < 20 0.52

- - 1,450 - - - 344 2.5 533 - < 0.3NC NC 45% NC NC NC 178% NC 39% NC 54%





Sample Name Sample Date Sample TypeTB02 18-Apr-17 Trip BlankTB01 19-Apr-17 Trip BlankTB03 21-Apr-17 Trip BlankRB01 05-Apr-17 RinsateRB02 06-Apr-17 RinsateRB03 07-Apr-17 RinsateRB01 18-Apr-17 RinsateRB02 19-Apr-17 RinsateRB03 21-Apr-17 RinsateRB04 21-Apr-17 RinsateRB05 21-Apr-17 RinsateGW24 20-Apr-17 PrimaryQA 01 20-Apr-17 Duplicate


GW08 26-Apr-17 PrimaryQA02 26-Apr-17 Duplicate


Notes:- - Not analysed< - Less than laboratory limit of reportingLOR - Laboratory limit of reportingNC - Not calculatedµg/L - Micrograms per litreHalf the laboratory limit of reporting used when calculating RRPD - Relative Percentage Difference





Units

Analyte 1,2-Dichlorobenzene

1,3-Dichlorobenzene

1,4-Dichlorobenzene Chlorobenzene Bromodichloro

methane Bromoform Chloroform Dibromochloromethane

1,2-Dibromoethane

1,2-Dichloropropane

cis-1,3-Dichloropropene

trans-1,3-Dichloropropene

µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L

< 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1< 1 < 1 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1< 1 < 1 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - -

< 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1< 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1< 1 < 1 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1< 1 < 1 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1< 1 < 1 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1< 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8< 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC< 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8 < 8

< 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.59 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC< 20 < 20 < 20 290 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20< 20 < 20 < 20 270 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20NC NC NC 7% NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC< 20 < 20 < 20 290 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20

- - - - - - - - - - - -NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC

Trihalomethanes FumigantsChlorinated MAHs


Table 6Historical Groundwater Analytical Data - Field Parameters


Total dissolved solids Temperature Dissolved

OxygenElectrical

Conductivity pH Redox

mg/L °C mg/L µS/cm pH Units mVWell ID Sample Date

DC01 28-Nov-15 - 22 6.06 3,760 7.17 5927-Nov-15 - 20 3.05 4,860 7.16 13320-Apr-17 3,323 20 1.44 5,185 6.79 8126-Nov-15 - 20 1.19 4,710 6.84 4420-Apr-17 3,467 20 0.12 5,329 6.69 -22.225-Nov-15 - 21 2.33 5,380 6.78 21526-Apr-17 3,554 21 1.84 5,050 6.95 8028-Nov-15 - 21 1.64 4,530 7.42 8121-Apr-17 3,344 20 0.45 4,628 6.85 8127-Nov-15 - 20 2.8 4,840 7.06 14420-Apr-17 3,382 29 1.23 5,203 6.83 7828-Nov-15 - 21 1.68 4,840 6.92 14821-Apr-17 3,418 20 0.86 5,261 6.79 3227-Nov-15 - 21 1.67 4,810 7.04 13320-Apr-17 3,419 20 0.9 5,249 6.86 9325-Nov-15 - 20 2.3 4,670 6.92 17426-Apr-17 3,462 21 0.47 4,928 6.91 7727-Nov-15 - 20 7.26 4,760 7.25 15721-Apr-17 3,651 20 0.32 5,727 6.71 7227-Nov-15 - 21 1.89 5,210 6.88 15121-Apr-17 3,722 20 0.29 5,727 6.7 7226-Nov-15 - 21 1.19 3,260 6.84 17021-Apr-17 3,283 21 0.68 5,051 6.88 74

GW12 26-Nov-15 - 20 3.95 4,910 6.93 9225-Nov-15 - 21 4.23 5,120 6.85 11720-Apr-17 3,622 20 0.27 5,523 6.69 11927-Nov-15 - 21 1.67 4,800 7.06 17421-Apr-17 3,251 20 1.03 4,491 6.91 7627-Nov-15 - 22 3.38 4,930 6.93 14821-Apr-17 3,404 22 0.98 4,948 6.85 78

GW16 21-Apr-17 4,858 22 0.26 3,382 6.84 8527-Nov-15 - 23 0.66 4,730 6.99 13521-Apr-17 3,468 23 0.17 5,141 6.86 7325-Nov-15 - 22 5.3 4,930 7.1 14721-Apr-17 3,252 24 1.11 4,866 6.88 8527-Nov-15 - 21 2.22 4,360 7.01 15819-Apr-17 2,967 22 1.31 4,304 6.91 6426-Nov-15 - 20 3.29 4,390 7.31 13619-Apr-17 3,244 22 0.59 4,991 6.67 8025-Nov-15 - 22 3.34 4,890 6.96 12920-Apr-17 3,393 23 0.75 4,988 6.84 6926-Nov-15 - 21 2.41 5,210 7.06 14520-Apr-17 3,539 21 0.84 4,983 6.92 78

GW23 27-Nov-15 - 21 0.8 4,700 6.88 16625-Nov-15 - 23 6.24 5,010 7.18 13520-Apr-17 3,445 23 0.11 5,089 6.84 6426-Nov-15 - 23 0.68 4,790 7.06 14720-Apr-17 3,346 23 0.44 4,977 6.85 74

GW26 19-Apr-17 3,329 23 0.58 5,124 6.23 89GW27 19-Apr-17 2,759 23 0.78 4,118 6.97 54

27-Nov-15 - 23 5.93 3,230 7.57 3619-Apr-17 2,386 30 0.59 3,989 6.92 -86.726-Nov-15 - - - 2,620 6.83 13620-Apr-17 2,272 21 1.52 3,222 6.91 7827-Nov-15 - 22 4.64 3,100 7.59 12219-Apr-17 3,397 22 0.6 4,945 6.66 10126-Nov-15 - 21 3.11 2,370 7.16 11619-Apr-17 1,620 24 0.32 2,467 6.77 -72.1

GW32 19-Apr-17 3,859 23 0.3 5,944 6.88 90GW33 19-Apr-17 3,392 24 0.87 5,193 6.93 87GW34 19-Apr-17 3,736 23 0.58 5,748 6.82 85GW35 19-Apr-17 3,069 25 0.4 4,718 6.83 67GW36 20-Apr-17 2,893 24 2.91 4,324 7.1 72GW37 26-Apr-17 3,191 22 0.56 4,589 6.79 100GW38 26-Apr-17 2,982 22 0.22 4,282 7.18 75PB01 26-Nov-15 - 23 - 5,33 7.2 159PB03 18-Jan-16 - - 7.16 2,104 6.37 188PB04 18-Jan-16 - - 6.69 2,520 4.99 175PB05 19-Jan-16 - - 2.27 4,600 6.77 126PB06 18-Jan-16 - - 3.4 3,480 6.94 243PB07 18-Jan-16 - - 3.02 2,980 6.9 165

Notes:- - Not analysedmg/L - Milligrams per litre°C - Degrees celsiusµS/cm - Microsiemens per centimetermV - MillivoltsBold indicates a detection above the laboratory limit of reporting

Field Parameters

GW02

GW03

GW04

GW05

GW06

Analyte

GW13

GW01

Units

GW14

GW15

GW17

GW18

GW07

GW08

GW09

GW10

GW11

GW25

GW28

GW29

GW30

GW31

GW19

GW20

GW21

GW22

GW24


Table 7Historical Groundwater Analytical Data - Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Compounds


1,1-Dichloroethene

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene Tetrachloroethene Trichloroethene Vinyl chloride

µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L

700 1900 70 330 100

30 60(1) 60(1) 50 30(2) 0.3

-- -- --

Well ID Sample DateDC01 28-Nov-15 < 1 51 < 1 28 2.0 < 0.3

20-Apr-15 < 1 < 1 < 1 77 < 1 < 0.0527-Nov-15 < 1 < 1 < 1 3.0 < 1 < 0.320-Apr-17 < 1 < 0.01 < 1 9.8 0.02 < 0.0520-Apr-15 < 1 < 1 < 1 1.0 2.0 < 0.0526-Nov-15 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 1.0 < 0.320-Apr-17 < 1 0.7 < 1 1.2 2.3 0.2120-Apr-15 < 1 < 1 < 1 2.0 < 1 < 0.0525-Nov-15 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 0.326-Apr-17 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 0.0520-Apr-15 < 1 120 < 1 160 87 < 128-Nov-15 < 1 130 < 1 99 80 < 0.321-Apr-17 < 4 59 < 4 120 110 < 0.0520-Apr-15 < 1 < 1 < 1 15 < 1 < 0.0527-Nov-15 < 1 < 1 < 1 2.0 < 1 < 0.320-Apr-17 < 1 < 0.01 < 1 2.2 < 0.01 < 0.0520-Apr-15 < 1 2.0 < 1 600 6.0 < 128-Nov-15 < 1 5.0 < 1 420 12 < 0.321-Apr-17 < 8 11 < 8 < 8 17 < 0.0520-Apr-15 < 1 < 1 < 1 7.0 < 1 < 0.0527-Nov-15 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 0.320-Apr-17 < 1 < 0.01 < 1 1.6 < 0.01 < 0.0520-Apr-15 2.0 1,240 < 1 420 67 < 0.325-Nov-15 1.0 670 14 110 280 < 0.326-Apr-17 1.7 * 1,450 * 2.5 * 344 * 533 * 0.5220-Apr-15 < 1 67 < 1 160 40 < 127-Nov-15 < 1 20 < 1 9.0 9.0 < 0.321-Apr-17 < 4 110 < 4 43 87 0.0920-Apr-15 < 1 1.0 < 1 2.0 < 1 < 127-Nov-15 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 0.321-Apr-17 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 0.2220-Apr-15 < 1 < 1 < 1 230 2.0 < 126-Nov-15 < 1 < 1 < 1 160 2.0 < 0.321-Apr-17 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 7.3 < 0.0520-Apr-15 < 1 1.0 < 1 540 5.0 < 126-Nov-15 < 1 < 1 < 1 270 3.0 < 0.326-Apr-17 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 0.0520-Apr-15 3.0 1,100 < 1 190 500 < 125-Nov-15 2.0 1,300 1.0 75 310 < 0.320-Apr-17 < 20 1,500 < 20 77 400 < 2020-Apr-15 < 1 < 1 < 1 4.0 < 1 < 0.0527-Nov-15 < 1 < 1 < 1 2.0 < 1 < 0.321-Apr-17 < 1 < 1 < 1 1.5 < 1 < 0.0520-Apr-15 < 1 320 < 1 74 95 < 127-Nov-15 < 1 290 < 1 23 83 < 0.321-Apr-17 < 4 280 < 4 39 97 0.1720-Apr-15 < 1 63 < 1 11 19 < 0.0528-Nov-15 < 1 46 < 1 4.0 13 < 0.321-Apr-17 < 1 17 < 1 2.2 6.4 < 0.0520-Apr-15 < 1 190 < 1 49 19 < 127-Nov-15 < 1 160 < 1 28 17 < 0.321-Apr-17 < 4 100 < 4 27 24 0.0520-Apr-15 < 1 9.0 < 1 5.0 8.0 < 0.0525-Nov-15 < 1 3.0 < 1 15 5.0 < 0.321-Apr-17 < 1 3.6 < 1 3.5 1.8 < 0.0516-Apr-15 < 1 130 < 1 73 37 < 127-Nov-15 < 1 120 < 1 27 24 < 0.319-Apr-17 < 1 100 < 1 47 34 < 120-Apr-15 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 0.0526-Nov-15 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 0.319-Apr-17 < 1 < 0.01 < 1 < 0.02 0.01 < 0.05



GW16

GW17

GW18

GW04

GW05

GW06

GW07

GW08

GW09

GW10

GW13

GW01

GW02

GW03

Analyte

ASC NEPM GIL - Marine WaterANZECC (2000) Marine Waters - 95% level of species protectionANZECC (2000) Marine Waters -

Low Reliability




Units

GW19

GW20

GW14

GW15

GW11

GW12


Table 7Historical Groundwater Analytical Data - Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Compounds


1,1-Dichloroethene

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene Tetrachloroethene Trichloroethene Vinyl chloride

µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L

700 1900 70 330 100

30 60(1) 60(1) 50 30(2) 0.3

-- -- --

Well ID Sample Date



Analyte

ASC NEPM GIL - Marine WaterANZECC (2000) Marine Waters - 95% level of species protectionANZECC (2000) Marine Waters -

Low Reliability




Units

20-Apr-15 < 1 1.0 2.0 140 5.0 < 125-Nov-15 < 1 < 1 < 1 25 2.0 < 0.320-Apr-17 < 1 < 1 < 1 28 2.0 < 116-Apr-15 < 1 98 < 1 500 34 < 126-Nov-15 < 1 88 < 1 140 18 < 0.320-Apr-17 < 4 65 < 4 180 15 < 420-Apr-15 < 1 < 1 < 1 140 1.0 < 127-Nov-15 < 1 < 1 < 1 30 < 1 < 0.321-Apr-17 < 1 < 1 < 1 40 < 1 < 0.0525-Nov-15 < 1 97 < 1 160 12 < 0.320-Apr-17 < 8 59 * 0.7 * 419 * 31 * < 826-Nov-15 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 0.320-Apr-17 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 126-Nov-15 < 1 13 < 1 1.0 2.0 < 0.319-Apr-17 < 1 15 < 1 4.5 5.7 < 0.0528-Nov-15 < 1 14 < 1 29 5.0 < 0.319-Apr-17 < 1 41 < 1 56 12 < 0.0527-Nov-15 < 1 2.0 < 1 37 3.0 < 0.319-Apr-17 < 1 7.1 < 1 120 27 < 526-Nov-15 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 0.318-Jan-16 < 1 8.0 < 1 41 4.0 < 120-Apr-17 < 1 11 < 1 66 5.8 < 127-Nov-15 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 0.319-Apr-17 < 1 0.79 < 1 0.91 0.53 < 0.0526-Nov-15 < 1 2.0 < 1 4.0 1.0 < 0.319-Apr-17 < 1 2.7 < 1 8.8 4.3 0.13

GW32 19-Apr-17 < 1 1.8 < 1 11 1.4 < 0.05GW33 19-Apr-17 < 1 < 0.01 < 1 < 0.02 < 0.01 < 0.05GW34 19-Apr-17 < 1 18 < 1 4.5 6.8 < 0.05GW35 19-Apr-17 < 1 9.6 < 1 8.9 3.9 < 0.05GW36 20-Apr-17 < 1 < 0.01 < 1 110 0.76 < 0.05GW37 26-Apr-17 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 0.05GW38 26-Apr-17 < 1 < 1 < 1 3.7 < 1 < 0.05PB01 26-Nov-15 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 0.3PB02 27-Nov-15 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 0.3PB03 18-Jan-16 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1PB04 18-Jan-16 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1PB05 19-Jan-16 < 1 < 1 < 1 82 4.0 < 1PB06 18-Jan-16 < 1 < 1 < 1 120 2.0 < 1PB07 18-Jan-16 < 1 < 1 < 1 3.0 < 1 < 1

Notes:- - Not analysed< - Less than laboratory limit of reportingLOR - Laboratory limit of reportingµg/L - Micrograms per litreBold indicates a detection above the laboratory limit of reporting"*" denotes duplicate/triplicate sample result adopted for analytical use due to RPD >30%RPD - Relative Percentage DifferenceCriteria:(1) NHMRC 2008 1,2-DCE criteria adopted (2) In the absence of a NHMRC/NRMMC drinking water guideline for TCE, the ANZECC / ARMCANZ (2000) recreational criterion of 30µg/L has been adopted

GW29

GW30

GW31

GW24

GW25

GW26

GW27

GW28

GW21

GW22

GW23


Table 8Historical Groundwater Analytical Data - Inorganics


Ferric Iron Ferrous Iron Sodium Calcium Magnesium Potassium Sulphate Chloride Nitrite as N Nitrate as N Total Ammonia Nitrogen

Bicarbonate Alkalinity as

CaCO3

Carbonate Alkalinity as

CaCO3

Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 Iron Manganese Dissolved

OxygenTotal Carbon

Dioxide as CO2

mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L

Well ID Sample Date

26-Nov-15 - < 0.1 420 220 170 5.7 510 1,100 0.11 1.4 - - - 530 0.19 1.9 - -

20-Apr-17 0.78 0.09 410 200 180 8.2 180 1,100 0.07 0.74 0.04 570 < 10 570 0.87 2.6 6.7 540

GW12 26-Nov-15 - < 0.1 420 160 140 6.2 430 1,100 < 0.01 5.0 - - - 490 0.22 0.009 - -

GW13 20-Apr-17 < 0.05 < 0.05 450 210 170 9.7 180 1,200 < 0.02 3.1 < 0.01 550 < 10 550 < 0.05 0.17 6.7 540

26-Nov-15 - < 0.1 440 170 150 6.7 390 900 < 0.01 6.0 - - - 520 1.0 0.013 - -

19-Apr-17 < 0.05 < 0.05 440 170 160 17 220 950 < 0.02 4.8 - - - 610 < 0.05 0.009 8.2 570

26-Nov-15 - < 0.1 420 220 170 7.1 470 1,200 < 0.01 4.3 - - - 470 0.14 0.009 - -

20-Apr-17 < 0.05 < 0.05 430 220 180 25 210 1,200 < 0.02 3.6 < 0.01 470 < 10 470 < 0.05 0.008 7.0 450

26-Nov-15 - < 0.1 400 210 160 6.6 420 1,100 0.08 2.2 - - - 500 0.42 0.12 - -

20-Apr-17 < 0.05 < 0.05 410 210 170 5.6 190 1,100 < 0.02 2.9 < 0.01 490 < 10 490 < 0.05 < 0.005 7.2 47026-Nov-15 - < 0.1 430 170 160 10 520 1,100 0.31 4.6 - - - 560 0.14 0.34 - -19-Apr-17 < 0.05 < 0.05 440 190 160 18 200 1,000 < 0.02 5.0 - - - 640 < 0.05 < 0.005 8.3 640

GW27 19-Apr-17 < 0.05 < 0.05 410 160 140 11 170 750 < 0.02 4.1 - - - 620 < 0.05 < 0.005 8.5 58026-Nov-15 - < 0.1 350 160 140 6.5 380 800 0.45 3.2 - - - 530 1.1 0.021 - -20-Apr-17 < 0.05 < 0.05 350 110 120 17 120 450 < 0.02 7.4 < 0.01 770 < 10 770 < 0.05 0.005 7.3 73026-Nov-15 - < 0.1 270 70 74 3.6 250 340 0.02 0.43 - - - 540 0.17 1.3 - -19-Apr-17 < 0.05 3.2 290 56 85 3.6 90 330 < 0.02 < 0.02 - - - 650 3.1 2.7 8.1 620

GW32 19-Apr-17 < 0.05 < 0.05 600 180 170 13 220 1,200 0.08 9.9 - - - 570 < 0.05 0.022 8.3 530

Notes:- - Not analysed< - Less than laboratory limit of reportingLOR - Laboratory limit of reportingmg/L - Milligrams per litreBold indicates a detection above the laboratory limit of reporting

Metals

Analyte

Anions and Cations Alkalinity

Units

GW29

GW31

GW02

GW20

GW22

GW25

GW26


Glenelg East EPA assessment area - Stage 4 environmental ...Glenelg East EPA Assessment Area, Stage...

Documents

Transcript of Glenelg East EPA assessment area - Stage 4 environmental ...Glenelg East EPA Assessment Area, Stage...