Preliminary and Detailed Site Investigation...Preliminary Site Investigation and Detailed Site...

Preliminary and Detailed Site Investigation 25 Ulyatt Road, Napier

Bupa Care New Zealand


25 Ulyatt Road Napier PSI-DSI (final V2).docx Page 2 17 October 2017

Record of review

Roles Person responsible Position Relevant experience Accreditation Signature

Report Preparation

Jim Summers Project Scientist

2 years

Report Review

Dr. Dave Bull Contaminated Site Specialist

12 years



Report checklist Summary contaminated sites report checklist Report contained in this document

Report sections and information to be presented PSI SIR RAP SVR MMP

Executive summary R R R R R

Scope of work R R R R R

Site identification R R R R R

Site history R S S S S Site condition and surrounding environment R S S S S Geology and hydrology A R S S S Sampling and analysis plan and sampling methodology A R X R R

Field quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) N R X R S Laboratory QA/QC N R X R X

QA/QC data evaluation N R X R X

Basis for guideline values R R R R R

Results A R R R S

Site characterisation R R R R R

Remedial actions X X R S S

Validation X X X R S

Site management plan X X R S S

Ongoing site monitoring X X X N R

Conclusions and recommendations R R R R R

Key: R - the corresponding heading and details are required A - readily available information should be included S - a summary of this section’s details will be adequate if detailed information has been included in an available referenced report N - include only if no further site investigation is to be undertaken. X - not applicable and may be omitted. Ref: MfE1



Contents Record of review ........................................................................................................................... 2 Report checklist ............................................................................................................................ 3 Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 6 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 7

1.1 Purpose ........................................................................................................................ 7 1.2 Scope of work ............................................................................................................... 7

2. Site Identification ...................................................................................................................... 8 2.1 Site details .................................................................................................................... 8 2.2 Site layout ..................................................................................................................... 8 2.3 Surrounding areas ......................................................................................................... 8 2.4 Proposed development ................................................................................................... 9 2.5 Anecdotal information .................................................................................................... 9 2.6 Local geology and hydrology ........................................................................................ 10

3. Site History .............................................................................................................................. 14 3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 14 3.2 Ownership .................................................................................................................. 14 3.3 Aerial photograph review .............................................................................................. 14 3.4 Napier City Council....................................................................................................... 15 3.5 Hawkes Bay Regional Council ....................................................................................... 15

4. Initial Conceptual Site Model ................................................................................................. 16 4.1 Potential sources and contaminants ............................................................................... 16 4.2 Transport and exposure pathways ................................................................................. 16 4.3 Sensitive receptors....................................................................................................... 17 4.4 Initial conceptual site model ......................................................................................... 17

5. Soil Sampling and Analysis ................................................................................................... 17 5.1 Sampling plan ............................................................................................................. 17 5.2 Data quality objectives ................................................................................................. 17 5.3 Sampling methodology ................................................................................................. 17 5.4 Field observations ........................................................................................................ 19 5.5 Laboratory analysis ...................................................................................................... 20 5.6 Basis for guideline values ............................................................................................. 20 5.7 Results ....................................................................................................................... 21 5.8 Quality assurance and quality control ............................................................................ 22

6. Site Characterisation .............................................................................................................. 22



6.1 Revised conceptual site model ...................................................................................... 22 6.2 Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 22 6.3 Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 22

7. Limitations ............................................................................................................................... 23 8. References .............................................................................................................................. 23

Figures Figure 1: Site location plan ................................................................................................. 12 Figure 2: Site layout plan ................................................................................................... 13 Figure 3: Sample location plan ............................................................................................ 18

Tables Table 1: Site details ................................................................................................................ 8 Table 2: Agrichemicals held onsite ......................................................................................... 10 Table 3: Agrichemicals used by the spray contractor ................................................................ 10 Table 4: Site ownership ......................................................................................................... 14 Table 5: Summary of field observations .................................................................................. 19 Table 6: Summary results for surface soil samples ................................................................... 21

Appendices Appendix A: Proposed Development ..................................................................................... 25 Appendix B: Site Photographs ............................................................................................... 26 Appendix C: Aerial Photographs ............................................................................................ 28 Appendix D: Laboratory Certificates and Chain of Custody Documentation ...................... 29 Appendix E: Certificates of Title ............................................................................................. 30



Summary Bupa Care NZ Ltd (BUPA) are looking to purchase and develop land located at 25 Ulyatt Road, Taradale, Napier (‘the site’) to build an aged care facility. The site is currently used by a commercial turf company for growing turf. This activity and previous land uses may have resulted in persistent agrichemical residues in site soils. Accordingly, BUPA commissioned HAIL Environmental Limited to complete a Preliminary Site Investigation and Detailed Site Investigation at the site. The purpose of the investigation was to document the site history and determine if agrichemical use had resulted soil quality impacts. In addition, the information obtained would be used to define any consenting requirements associated with the development of potentially contaminated land. The collection and analysis of a soil samples on-site indicates that common agrichemicals are present at concentrations typical of natural background levels for the region. Concentrations were also well below SCS criteria for a residential and high density residential end use. Based on these findings, it is highly unlikely that there will be a risk to human health during and following the residential development proposed. In consideration of Clause 5(9) of the NES:CS, given the concentrations of contaminants in the samples are typically comparable to the background range for the region, the NES does not apply: consent for disturbing soils or changing use of a potentially contaminated site is not required. It is possible the development earth works could trigger Rule 48 of the RRMP.



1. Introduction 1.1 Purpose

Bupa Care NZ Ltd (BUPA) are looking to purchase and develop land located at 25 Ulyatt Road, Taradale, Napier (‘the site’) to build an aged care facility. The site is currently used by a commercial turf company (Instant Green) for growing turf. This activity and previous land uses may have resulted in persistent agrichemical residues in site soils. Accordingly, BUPA commissioned HAIL Environmental Limited to complete a Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI) and Detailed Site Investigation (DSI) at the site. The purpose of this combined PSI/DSI was to:

• Determine if the land has been used for activities or industries that have the potential to result in contamination.

• Determine whether soil quality on the site could result in a risk to human health or the environment following development into an aged care facility.

• Identify potential consenting requirements under the Resource Management (National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health) Regulations 2011 (‘the NES:CS’).

1.2 Scope of work The scope of work comprised:

• Desktop survey including a review of the Napier District Council (NDC) property file for the site

• Reviewing relevant information held by the HBRC • Reviewing historic certificates of title • Reviewing available historic aerial photographs • Interviewing with previous and current land owners • A site walkover inspection including soil sampling and laboratory analysis.

This report has been prepared in general accordance with the NES:CS, and with Ministry for the Environment contaminated land management guidance documents Reporting on contaminated sites in New Zealand (Ref: MfE2) and Site investigation and analysis of soils (Ref: MfE3). In accordance with the requirements of Regulation 3 of the NES:CS this document is certified by a suitably qualified and experienced practitioner (see record of review above).



2. Site Identification 2.1 Site details

Table 1: Site details

Site name 25 Ulyatt Road Address 25 Ulyatt Road

Taradale Napier

Relevant authorities Napier District Council Hawkes Bay Regional Council

Legal description Lot 1 DP 423183 and part Lot 2 DP423183 Zoning Main Rural under the Napier City Plan Elevation The site is flat and at an elevation of 10.5 m amsl General description Commercial turf production

The location and layout of the site is depicted in Figure 1. The layout of the proposed aged care facility development is provided in Appendix A.

2.2 Site layout A site walkover was completed by HAIL Environmental on 22 September 2017 accompanied by the current owner, Mr Currie. The following observations were noted during the inspection. Site photographs are provided in Appendix B.

• The site is accessed from Ulyatt Road via a gravel driveway. • The site is generally used for the commercial production of turf.

Approximately 40 percent of the northern part of the site was exposed soil, with 60 percent of the central and southern parts being close to full growth at the time of the site inspection.

• The top 30 mm of soil is stripped in the process of collecting the turf. • Site topography is flat.

2.3 Surrounding areas The site lies approximately 6 km to the south of Napier’s town centre. Land uses adjacent to the site predominantly comprise: North – residential dwellings along Clarence Cox Crescent. East – Ulyatt Road, with residential buildings beyond. South – a turf storage building is located past the southern border of the site on Lot 2. This had a concrete floor and was noted to be in good condition. Imported topsoil was stored inside, Mr. Currie stated this is sold with turf and is not used onsite. Spray equipment, a rotary hoe and grass seeds were stored there at the time of the visit. No leaks from any equipment was evident. No fuel is stored onsite. Other key features noted on Lot 2 include:

• An administration office is located to the west of the turf storage building.



• A small spray storage shed is located to the west of the office. This had a wooden floor and was noted to be in overall poor condition. No evidence of spills was noted within the shed. Details in relation to agrichemicals stored within this shed are provided in Table 2.

• To the north of the administration office is an equipment storage yard which contained machinery associated with the hydro seeding as well as a quad used by the spray contractor.

• Open storage area containing mulched tree bark is to the north of the turf storage building.

West – roadside drain with Napier Hastings Expressway beyond.

2.4 Proposed development The proposed aged care facility development plans are provided in Appendix A. The plans include a total of 99 villa-type residential dwellings. The size and location of each dwelling were not known to HAIL Environmental at the time of this report. Drawings provided by the client indicate access will be from Ulyatt Road. it is expected that soil will be disturbed as part of the development. At the time of this report there was no detail regarding proposed earthworks activities.

2.5 Anecdotal information The current site owner Leighton Currie provided the following information during the site inspection on 21 September 2017:

• The site was purchased by Mr. Currie of Instant Green in September 2005. Before being used as a commercial turf site, the site was used for pastoral grazing.

• Mr. Currie stated that turf takes approximately 12 months to grow, this is then stripped and the remnant soils tilled to a depth of approximately 0.15 m.

• As part of the interview a spray storage shed, that is located off-site, was inspected. Mr. Currie stated sprays held in the spray storage shed are only very rarely used onsite as the spray contractor uses his own. Table 2 provides list of the agrichemicals stored in the spray shed.

• Mr. Currie stated that there have never been any spills onsite. • The previous site owner passed away in 2007. A phone interview was held

with his son Andreas Paxie on 21 September 2017. Mr. Paxie stated the site was used for maize and pastoral grazing. No sheep or cattle dipping was ever undertaken onsite, this was done at a property approximately 1 km southwest of the site. Mr. Paxie did not know of an airstrip which appeared to be visible on the 1949 aerial image. He stated his father purchased the land in the 1960s.

• Grant Morton is the spray contractor who has operated onsite for over 30 years. Mr. Morton has been contacted regarding sprays used onsite; however, he has yet to respond. Table 3 shows what sprays Mr. Currie believes to be used onsite.



Table 2: Agrichemicals held onsite

Name Active ingredients Quantities

AGPRO Meturon Metsulfuron Methyl -

Agritone ® 750 750 g/L MCPA present as the dimethylamine salt 17 L

Attack Pirimiphos-methyl Permethrin, Calcium dodecylbenzene sulphonate

1 L

Bacseal Super Tebuconazole 1 L

Carbendazim Carbendazim 3 L

Dew 600 Diazinon 1 L

Excel Disodium Phosphate, Modified Coco Diethanolamide

1 L

Hattrick MCPA Ester, Fluroxypyr 1-methylheptyl ester, Clopyralid

2 L

Lambda Cyhalothrin Lambda Cyhalothrin 1 L

Pulse Penetrant Polyether modified polysiloxane 2 L

Ridomil Gold Metalaxyl-M 1 kg

Weedmaster® TS540 540g/L glyphosate as the potassium and ammonium salts

19 L

Dessicate 2 Silica gel 13 L

Table 3: Agrichemicals used by the spray contractor

Name Active ingredients

Ammonium Sulphate Ammonium Sulphate

Cropmaster DAP Diammonium Hydrogen Phosphate

Expo 500 Ethofumesate

Nitrophoska Ammonium Nitrate

Urea Urea

2.6 Local geology and hydrology Soils at the site are mapped as Motukarara family; deep, poorly-drained, saline gley loam with medium phosphate retention (Ref: Landcare). HBRC soil mapping confirms the majority of the site to be clay with parts of the eastern site being sand (Ref: HBRC). These observations were consistent with what was encountered during the exploratory investigation.



The national 1:250,000 geological map (Ref: GNS) specifically indicates that the deposits underlying the site are gravel, sand, silt and mud forming alluvial terraces. HBRC GIS mapping indicates there are no groundwater bores within 1 km of the site. Roadside drains are located approximately 30 m away from north and western site boundaries. HBRC mapping indicates the drain stretches 10 km before discharging into the Purimu Stream. Due to the distance from the site this is not considered to be a sensitive receptor.

Figure 1 - Site Location Plan25 Ulyatt Road, Taradale, Napier

0 1 2 3

Kilometres

Scale = 1:50000 (A4)

NapierLOCATION

Auckland

Wellington

© LINZ Data Service

LOCATION

Lot 1 DP 423183

NAPI

ERHA

STIN

GSEX

PRES

SWAY

(SH5

0)

ULY

ATT

RO

AD

ATHE

RFO

RDCR

ES

CLARENCE COX CRES

WAVERLEY

ROAD

TIFFEN PL

Figure 2 - Site Layout Plan25 Ulyatt Road, Taradale, Napier

0 20 40 60 80 100

Metres

Scale = 1:2000 (A4)

HastingsHavelockNorth

50

2

2

LOCATIONHawkes Bay Rural Aerial Photography 2010/11

Source: LINZ Data Service

Napier

N



3. Site History 3.1 Introduction

Publicly available records for the area and information held by Napier District Council (NDC) for the site have been reviewed. The purpose of the review was to identify historic and current land use activities that have the potential to result of contamination, and where relevant, to identify potential areas and contaminants of concern. Sections 3.2 through 3.5 present the findings of this review.

3.2 Ownership The current Certificate of Title (CT), and two historic CTs, were obtained and reviewed to identify site ownership. These documents are summarised in Table 4 below and copies are included in Appendix E. The reduction of area noted in 2010 is due to the site being subdivided into Lot One (the site) and Lot Two. It should be noted that the proposed development also comprises part of Lot 2 423183, and comprises a total area of 49,997 m2. Table 4: Site ownership

Date Owner Area

21 July 1946 Arthur Andrew Paxie and Gerald George McKay 12.8 ha

31 January 1975 Leighton Arthur Currie and Lisa Michelle Currie 9.6 ha

18 January 2010 Leighton Arthur Currie, Lisa Michelle Currie and John Leonard Raikes

4.0 ha

3.3 Aerial photograph review Available aerial photographs were reviewed to help determine past and current site layout and usage, as well as changes in surrounding properties. The aerial photographs are contained in Appendix C. Review of the photographs revealed that:

• 1949 – the site appears to be pastoral grazing. A possible airstrip is located just outside the northern boundary. Surrounding land use appears to be pastoral grazing.

• 1964 – the site and the surrounding land use remains pastoral grazing. Ulyatt Road has been constructed to the east. A probable commercial building is located to the east of Ulyatt Road. The possible airstrip noted in the 1949 image is no longer apparent.



• 1972 – (blurred image) The site appears generally consistent with the 1965 image. Napier-Hastings Expressway (SH50) has been constructed to the west of the site. Land use to the north comprises residential dwellings located along Clarence Cox Crescent, Harold Holt Avenue and Bill Hercock Street.

• 1977– (blurred image) the site is generally consistent with the 1972 image. Surrounding land use to the west of the site appears to be residential.

• 1978 – The site is accessed via Ulyatt road on the south-east boundary. Probable cattle can be seen grazing on the site. Surrounding land use to the north and west has more residential dwellings under construction.

• 1980 - 2004 The site layout is generally consistent with the 1978 image. Two new probable residential dwellings are located to the east of the site.

• 2010 – 2011 – the site forms part of a larger site used for commercial turf cropping. The site appears to be in various stages of growth. Land use to the south west on the other side of Waverly Road appears to be used for turf growing.

3.4 Napier City Council The property file was obtained from Napier City Council on 20 September 2017. A review of this file did not reveal any salient information.

3.5 Hawkes Bay Regional Council HBRC confirmed the site is not listed on their HAIL register. No areas of ecological significance have been identified in the site vicinity. Consents and groundwater abstraction information in close proximity to the site included:

• A discharge consent (RC: DP050213W) located south west of the site for the discharge of stormwater from pastoral farming;

• A groundwater take consent (WP:050457Ta) from well no. 5189 (100 mm diameter) at 35 Ulyatt Road for irrigation; and

• A groundwater take consent (WP:060658Ta) used for public water supply and located approximately 250 m to the north east of the site of Harold Holt Avenue.



4. Initial Conceptual Site Model 4.1 Potential sources and contaminants

Historically, the site appears to have been in a range of pastoral and horticultural uses, including grass/maize production and pastoral grazing up until 2005. Since 2005 the site has been used for turf growing. Herbicides are used on the turf to suppress weed growth; none of the herbicides identified at the site are considered to be persistent in soil environments. The principal herbicide in current use, ethofumesate, appears to have a relatively short soil half-life of around 90 days, and low human toxicity (data from www.pesticideinfo.org, apparently taken from an United States Environmental Protection Agency evaluation). Tilling is expected to reduce the concentration of any residual contaminate associated with turf production. Potential risks of leaching to groundwater beneath the site is considered to be low. Low human toxicology Eco-SGVs (Ref: Landcare2) were used to assess future risks for copper. Cadmium from phosphate fertilisers and zinc may also be present onsite as well as DDT as super phosphate. These are moderately to highly toxic and ecotoxic. Small quantities of ’Attack ‘(1 L) are stored in the spray storage shed, the active ingredient being permethrin. Permethrin is a common chemical used in domestic and commercial/industrial spaces to control insects. While the New Zealand Environmental Protection Authority (NZ EPA) has developed an Environment Exposure Limit (EEL) (i.e. the maximum allowable concertation in particular media) for permethrin, it has not developed a Tolerable Expose Limit (TEL) for the substance. Potential impacts to the environment from residual contaminants are expected to be low given the current relatively undisturbed state. However, given roadside drains are located approximately 30 m to the west and north of the site boundary, the risk of mobilising in heavy rainfall events during the proposed development earthworks is considered to be high, unless appropriate erosion and sediment control measures are put in place.

4.2 Transport and exposure pathways Site runoff, and any entrained contaminants, would be expected to be directed west and north into the roadside drain. Given the geology of the site (clay) the contaminants of interest would be expected to be immobile in these soils. Furthermore, approximately 30 mm are stripped during the collection of the turf and the exposed soils tilled, further mixing and reducing any contaminant concentrations. Any persistent pesticide residues still present are likely to be retained in shallow topsoils.



4.3 Sensitive receptors The critical receptors appear to be residents in future use. Key exposure pathways to these receptors are expected to include inadvertent ingestion of soil and dust, and potentially the consumption of home-grown vegetables. Generally speaking, development workers in ground contact are expected to be at much lower risk, as they are exposed for a much shorter period. Shallow groundwater does not appear sensitive; only deeper aquifers are likely to have extractive use.

4.4 Initial conceptual site model In the context of the proposed residential subdivision, the only potentially complete source-pathway-receptor linkages involve ethofumesate, copper, cadmium and DDT, from pesticides and herbicides used onsite. These contaminants of interest could pose a risk to future users through direct contact and produce consumption.

5. Soil Sampling and Analysis 5.1 Sampling plan

The intrusive programme was completed on 21 September 2017 and comprised the selection of twelve soil samples for laboratory analysis. Sample locations SP1 – SP12 were selected to determine residual agrichemicals in soil associated with spray application. Soil sample locations are presented in Figure 3.

5.2 Data quality objectives Analytical data was required to be reproducible within 30 % (refer MfE4), with reported limits of detection no greater than one-third the assessment criterion for the contaminant. Detection limits for all laboratory testing are required to be above applicable standards. The laboratory and the methods used are to be accredited for the tests completed. A field duplicate sample is required to assess contaminant variability across sample locations.

5.3 Sampling methodology Test pits were hand excavated with a stainless-steel spade until the light brown sand base was encountered beneath surface soils, approximately 0.2 – 0.4 m below ground level (bgl). A stainless-steel trowel was used to cut a layer of topsoil from just beneath surface (approximately 0.02 m thick) down into the jar positioned in the base of the test pit, thereby collecting a representative sample across the topsoil profile, while minimising soil handling. Sampling equipment was decontaminated between locations by washing with Decon-90® detergent and rinsing with tap water from pressurised spray vessels. Disposable gloves were worn during sampling and disposed of between sample locations to avoid cross contamination. Soil was placed directly into laboratory supplied containers. Samples were held in cool dark conditions until they were couriered to the laboratory, RJ Hill Laboratories Ltd. (‘Hills’) on the 26 September 2017 under full chain of custody documentation. Chain of custody documentation is included in Appendix D.

!?

!?

!?

!?

!?

!?

!?

!?!?

!?!?

!?

Lot 1 DP 423183

NAPI

ERHA

STIN

GS

EXPR

ESSW

AY(S

H50)

ULY

ATT

RO

AD

ATHE

RFO

RDC

RES

CLARENCE COX CRES

WAVERLEY

ROAD

TIFFEN PL

Open equipment storage

Turf storage building

Office

Spray storage

CURRENT BOUNDARY

ADJUSTED BOUNDARY

SP9 SP8

SP7

SP6

SP5

SP4

SP3

SP2

SP1

SP12

SP11 SP10

Figure 3 - Sample Location Plan25 Ulyatt Road, Taradale, Napier

0 20 40 60 80 100

Metres

Scale = 1:2500 (A4)


50

2

2



Napier

N

REFERENCESample Location!?



5.4 Field observations Field observations are presented in Table 5, geology encountered in the north of the site (SP1 – SP7) was generally clay with underlying sand from 0.2 m bgl. The southern part of the site was generally sand with rare pockets of firm clay from 0.02 – 0.35 m bgl (SP8 – SP12). Table 5: Summary of field observations

Sample location

Depth of sample (m)

Geology encountered

SP1 0.0 – 0.2 Dark brown firm moist CLAY

0.2 – 0.4 Light brown silty SAND with orange mottling

SP2 0.0 – 0.2 Dark brown firm moist CLAY with rare sub angular gravel


SP3 0.0 – 0.2 Dark brown stiff moist CLAY


SP4 0.0 – 0.2 Dark brown stiff moist CLAY


SP5 & Duplicate

0.0 – 0.2 Dark brown firm moist CLAY


SP6 0.0 – 0.2 Dark brown stiff dry CLAY


SP7 0.02 – 0.2 Turf over dark brown stiff dry CLAY


SP8 0.02 – 0.2 Turf over dark brown fine to medium SAND






SP11 0.02 – 0.2 Turf over dark brown fine to medium SAND with rare pockets of firm clay


SP12 0.02 – 0.2 Turf over dark brown fine to medium SAND with rare pockets of firm clay




5.5 Laboratory analysis Soil samples were analysed by Hill Laboratories Ltd, Hamilton. The laboratory certificates are included in Appendix D. Surface samples SP1 – SP12 were dried at 103 °C, sieved to



5.7 Results Table 6 presents lab results from the investigation, metals/metalloid concentrations are well below SCS criteria for both residential with 10% produce and high density residential use. The results are also below background range for the Hawkes Bay region. Suites of organonitrogen & organophosphorus pesticides (ONOP) were tested for in two composite samples comprising discrete samples SP1 - SP6, and SP7 - SP12. These results were all below the laboratory method detection limit. Table 6: Summary results for surface soil samples

Contaminant1 As Cd Cr Cu Pb Ni Zn

SP1 8 0.12 22 11 17.1 16 75

SP2 6



5.8 Quality assurance and quality control As no gross contamination was observed, rinsate blanks were not collected. Control samples were not collected since local natural background concentration ranges are available. DQOs were achieved. Samples SP5 and SP5D were duplicate samples. Mean relative percent difference was 8 % across the duplicate metals analyses. Hill Laboratories is accredited by International Accreditation New Zealand (IANZ), which represents New Zealand in the International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC). Through the ILAC Mutual Recognition Arrangement (ILAC-MRA) this accreditation is internationally recognised. Analyses were performed in accordance with the terms of accreditation. The laboratory method detection limits were all under the applicable soil contaminant standards.

6. Site Characterisation 6.1 Revised conceptual site model

All contaminants of interest are well below SCS and within background ranges for the Hawkes Bay region, or (for herbicides and pesticides) were not detected.

6.2 Conclusions Based on the scope of work performed, HAIL Environmental has determined that the site was converted from pastoral grazing land to commercial turf site around 2005. The collection and analysis of a soil samples on-site indicates that common agrichemicals are present at concentrations typical of natural background levels for the region. Concentrations were also well below SCS criteria for a residential (10% produce) and high density residential end use. Based on the above, the following conclusions are made:

• It is highly unlikely that there will be a risk to human health during and following the residential development proposed.

• In consideration of Clause 5(9) of the NES:CS, given the concentrations of contaminants in the samples are typically comparable to the background range for the region, the NES does not apply: consent for disturbing soils or changing use of a potentially contaminated site is not required.

• It is possible the development earth works could trigger Rule 48 of the RRMP

6.3 Recommendations No further investigation is deemed necessary.



7. Limitations Because of the limited scope of work performed and the errors and omissions inherent in available historical and anecdotal records, HAIL Environmental cannot reach unqualified conclusions about soil contamination at the site:

• HAIL Environmental cannot validate that all anecdotal information is accurate

• Conclusions based on review of representative regional land uses and their impacts cannot ensure that impacts from a particular site agree with these regional norms

• Some site conditions may be undetectable by the limited scope of work performed.

• The locations of apparent current and historical HAIL activities are used to target soil sampling locations. Unreported activities may have occurred on other areas of the site, and the condition of soils in such areas is unknown.

• Systematic soil sampling does not ensure that localised hotspots do not exist between sample locations.

8. References GNS: GS Leonard, JG Begg, CJN Wilson, compilers. Geology of the Hawkes Bay area: scale 1:250,000 geological map 5. Institute of Geological & Nuclear Sciences Limited. Lower Hutt. 2010. HBRC: Soil mapping. Hawkes Bay Regional Council online mapping viewer. Accessed online at https://hbmaps.hbrc.govt.nz/mapviewer/?map=5cfc9ed2a4624eb1ad0954a1a717fe22 October 2017. Hawkes Bay Regional Council Landcare1: S-map Online national soil map. Landcare Research New Zealand Limited. Accessed October 2017. Landcare2: Landcare Research (2016) Development of soil guideline values for the protection of ecological receptor (Eco-SGVs): technical document (LC2605) MfE1: Hazardous activities and industries list (HAIL). Revised edition. Ministry for the Environment. Wellington. 2011. MfE2: Contaminated land management guideline No. 1: Reporting on contaminated sites in New Zealand. Revised edition. Ministry for the Environment. Wellington. 2011. MfE3: Contaminated land management guideline No. 5: Site investigation and analysis of soils. Revised edition. Ministry for the Environment. Wellington. 2011. MfE4: Methodology for deriving standards for contaminants in soil to protect human health. Ministry for the Environment. Wellington. 2011. MfE5: Ambient concentrations of selected organochlorines in soils. SJ Buckland, HK Ellis, RT Baker. Ministry for the Environment. Wellington. 1998.



NDC: Napier District Council online mapping viewer. Accessed online at westernbay.govt.nz, October 2017. Napier District Council. NEPC: Low density residential assessment of site contamination. National Environment Protection Council. Amended 11 April 2013. NES-CS: Resource Management (National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health) Regulations. 2011.



Appendix A: Proposed Development

ApprovedApprovedBupa Napier25 Ulyatt Rd Meeanee Napier 4112 New ZealandSite Plan

JT / SVZJob 1763

Sheet No: Rev:

Master Planning Concept 21.08.17Check all dimensions on site.Do not scale from plans.If in doubt consult architect.Read in conjunction with all consultants drawings.

Wedn

esda

y, Au

gust

23, 2

017 @

8:57

AM Y:

\Data\

1763

Bupa

Napie

r\06 D

rawing

s\Arch

icad\2

017.0

8.21 S

ite M

aster

plan.p

ln Sa

m

A1001jerram + tocker + barron architects ltdbox 302 | studio 180 bridge street | nelson

[email protected] | www.jtbarchitects.co.nztel 64 3 5488781 | fax 64 3 5488782

WIND ZONE: HEXPOSURE ZONE: CEQ ZONE: 3All Dimensions to be checked on site.

All drawings to be read in conjunction withJTB architectural specifications and drawings

RevID ChID Revision Date

1 2 3 4 56

N

1234567

7 8 9 10 1112

891011121314

12

34

5

12

34

5

1213

1415

1617

1819

12

34

56

78

910

11

13 14 15 16 17 18

7,00

0

7,00

0

7,00

0

4,000

6,00

06,0

00

3,000

SIGNAGE

FENCING

APARTMENT WING

CARE WING

CU

RR

ENT

BOU

ND

ARY

ADJU

STED

BO

UN

DAR

Y

ULYATT ROAD

NAPIER HASTING EXPY

SECURE GARDEN

LANDSCAPE ZONE

LANDSCAPE ZONE

GAR

DEN

&BL

OKE

SH

ED

BINSTORE

STAFF PARKING

TRANS

RESIDENTS GARAGES

RESID

ENTS G

ARAG

ES

LANDSCAPE ZONE LANDSCAPE ZONELANDSCAPE ZONE

VISITORPARKING

VILL

AGE

PARK

ING

VILLAGEPARKING

1 BEDROOM

2 BEDROOM

2 BEDROOM + STUDY

SITE PLAN KEY

Villa Types:

CURRENT BOUNDARIES

ADJUSTED BOUNDARIES

BOUNDARY SETBACKS

SITE PLAN NOTES

Site Address: 25 Ulyatt Rd Meeanee Napier 4112 NewZealand

Legal Description:Lot 1 DP 423183

Zone: Main Rural

Site Area: 49,997m2

Max Permitted Building Height: 9m

Wind Zone: High

Village Quantities:

Carparks: 42

Residents Garages: 19

Quantities

11

42

46

TOTAL 99

Site Plan1:500



Appendix B: Site Photographs

Figure B1: Image taken near southern part of the site facing east. Turf ready

for removal is visible in the foreground.

Figure B2 – Image is taken from the centre of the site facing north.



Figure B3 – Image is taken from the northern side of the site looking south.

Figure B4 – Image shows soil encountered at location SP1.



Appendix C: Aerial Photographs

Lot 1 DP 423183

ULY

ATT

RO

AD

ATHE

RFO

RD

CRES

WAVERLEY

ROAD

TIFFEN PLNA

PIER

HAST

INGS

EXPR

ESSW

AY(S

H50)

CURRIESTREET

TAIT

DRIV

E

HAROLD HOLT AVE

CLA

REN

CE

CO

XC

RES

BILL

HER

CO

CK

STR

EET

Aerial Imagery - May 194925 Ulyatt Road, Taradale, Napier

0 50 100 150

Metres

Scale = 1:3000 (A4)


50

2

2

LOCATION

Napier

N

Photo Number SN540/B8, 1949Source: OPUS International Consultants

Lot 1 DP 423183

ULY

ATT

RO

AD

ATHE

RFO

RD

CRES

WAVERLEY

ROAD

TIFFEN PLNA

PIER

HAST

INGS

EXPR

ESSW

AY(S

H50)

CURRIESTREET

TAIT

DRIV

E

HAROLD HOLT AVE

CLA

REN

CE

CO

XC

RES

BILL

HER

CO

CK

STR

EET

Aerial Imagery - August 196425 Ulyatt Road, Taradale, Napier

0 50 100 150

Metres

Scale = 1:3000 (A4)


50

2

2

LOCATION

Napier

N

Photo Number SN1647/B2, 1964Source: OPUS International Consultants

Lot 1 DP 423183

ULY

ATT

RO

AD

ATHE

RFO

RD

CRES

WAVERLEY

ROAD

TIFFEN PLNA

PIER

HAST

INGS

EXPR

ESSW

AY(S

H50)

CURRIESTREET

TAIT

DRIV

E

HAROLD HOLT AVE

CLA

REN

CE

CO

XC

RES

BILL

HER

CO

CK

STR

EET

Aerial Imagery - December 197225 Ulyatt Road, Taradale, Napier

0 50 100 150

Metres

Scale = 1:3000 (A4)


50

2

2

LOCATION

Napier

N

Photo Number 3611/A3, 1972Source: Retrolens licensed by LINZ CC-BY 3.0

Lot 1 DP 423183

ULY

ATT

RO

AD

ATHE

RFO

RD

CRES

WAVERLEY

ROAD

TIFFEN PLNA

PIER

HAST

INGS

EXPR

ESSW

AY(S

H50)

CURRIESTREET

TAIT

DRIV

E

HAROLD HOLT AVE

CLA

REN

CE

CO

XC

RES

BILL

HER

CO

CK

STR

EET

Aerial Imagery - September 197725 Ulyatt Road, Taradale, Napier

0 50 100 150

Metres

Scale = 1:3000 (A4)


50

2

2

LOCATION

Napier

N

Photo Number 5135/F1, 1977Source: Retrolens licensed by LINZ CC-BY 3.0

Lot 1 DP 423183

ULY

ATT

RO

AD

ATHE

RFO

RD

CRES

WAVERLEY

ROAD

TIFFEN PLNA

PIER

HAST

INGS

EXPR

ESSW

AY(S

H50)

CURRIESTREET

TAIT

DRIV

E

HAROLD HOLT AVE

CLA

REN

CE

CO

XC

RES

BILL

HER

CO

CK

STR

EET

Aerial Imagery - October 197825 Ulyatt Road, Taradale, Napier

0 50 100 150

Metres

Scale = 1:3000 (A4)


50

2

2

LOCATION

Napier

N

Photo Number 5305/A8, 1978Source: Retrolens licensed by LINZ CC-BY 3.0

Lot 1 DP 423183

ULY

ATT

RO

AD

ATHE

RFO

RD

CRES

WAVERLEY

ROAD

TIFFEN PLNA

PIER

HAST

INGS

EXPR

ESSW

AY(S

H50)

CURRIESTREET

TAIT

DRIV

E

HAROLD HOLT AVE

CLA

REN

CE

CO

XC

RES

BILL

HER

CO

CK

STR

EET

Aerial Imagery - August 198025 Ulyatt Road, Taradale, Napier

0 50 100 150

Metres

Scale = 1:3000 (A4)


50

2

2

LOCATION

Napier

N

Photo Number 5752/J18, 1980Source: Retrolens licensed by LINZ CC-BY 3.0

Lot 1 DP 423183

ULY

ATT

RO

AD

ATHE

RFO

RD

CRES

WAVERLEY

ROAD

TIFFEN PLNA

PIER

HAST

INGS

EXPR

ESSW

AY(S

H50)

CURRIESTREET

TAIT

DRIV

E

HAROLD HOLT AVE

CLA

REN

CE

CO

XC

RES

BILL

HER

CO

CK

STR

EET

Aerial Imagery - December 199625 Ulyatt Road, Taradale, Napier

0 50 100 150

Metres

Scale = 1:3000 (A4)


50

2

2

LOCATION

Napier

N

Photo Number 9585/B9, 1996Source: Retrolens licensed by LINZ CC-BY 3.0

Lot 1 DP 423183

ULY

ATT

RO

AD

ATHE

RFO

RD

CRES

WAVERLEY

ROAD

TIFFEN PLNA

PIER

HAST

INGS

EXPR

ESSW

AY(S

H50)

CURRIESTREET

TAIT

DRIV

E

HAROLD HOLT AVE

CLA

REN

CE

CO

XC

RES

BILL

HER

CO

CK

STR

EET

Aerial Imagery - January 200425 Ulyatt Road, Taradale, Napier

0 50 100 150

Metres

Scale = 1:3000 (A4)


50

2

2

LOCATION

Napier

N

Photo Number 50520/B11, 2004Source: Retrolens licensed by LINZ CC-BY 3.0

Lot 1 DP 423183

ULY

ATT

RO

AD

ATHE

RFO

RD

CRES

CLA

REN

CE

CO

XC

RES

WAVERLEY

ROAD

TIFFEN PLNA

PIER

HAST

INGS

EXPR

ESSW

AY(S

H50)

CURRIESTREET

BILL

HER

CO

CK

STR

EET

TAIT

DRIV

E

HAROLD HOLT AVE

Aerial Imagery - 2010/1125 Ulyatt Road, Taradale, Napier

0 50 100 150

Metres

Scale = 1:3000 (A4)


50

2

2



Napier

N



Appendix D: Laboratory Certificates and Chain of Custody Documentation

Job Information Summary Page 1 of 2

Client:

Contact: Jim Summers

C/- Hail Environmental

PO Box 13113

Tauranga Central

Tauranga 3141

Hail Environmental Lab No:Date Registered:

Priority:Quote No:

Order No:Client Reference:

Submitted By:

185008827-Sep-2017 8:53 am

High87958

25 Ulyatt Road, Napier

Jim Summers

Charge To: Hail Environmental

R J Hill Laboratories Limited

28 Duke Street Frankton 3204Private Bag 3205 Hamilton 3240 New Zealand

0508 HILL LAB (44 555 22)

+64 7 858 [email protected]

T

TEW

Add. Client Ref:

Target Date: 03-Oct-2017 4:30 pm

No Sample Name Sample Type Containers Tests Requested

Samples

1 SP1 22-Sep-2017 9:49 am Soil PSoil250, GSoil300 Heavy Metals, Screen Level; Composite Environmental Solid Samples






7 SP7 22-Sep-2017 12:00 pm Soil PSoil250, GSoil300 Heavy Metals, Screen Level; Composite Environmental Solid Samples






13 SP5 Dulicate 22-Sep-2017 11:12am

Soil PSoil250, GSoil300 Heavy Metals, Screen Level

14 Composite of SP1, SP2, SP3, SP4,SP5 & SP6

Soil cGSoil Organonitro&phosphorus Pesticides Screen in Soil by GCMS

15 Composite of SP7, SP8, SP9,SP10, SP11 & SP12

Soil cGSoil Organonitro&phosphorus Pesticides Screen in Soil by GCMS

Lab No: 1850088 Hill Laboratories Page 1 of 2

The following table(s) gives a brief description of the methods used to conduct the analyses for this job. The detection limits given below are those attainable in a relatively clean matrix.

Detection limits may be higher for individual samples should insufficient sample be available, or if the matrix requires that dilutions be performed during analysis.

S U M M A R Y O F M E T H O D S

Sample Type: Soil

Test Method Description Default Detection Limit Sample No

1-13Heavy Metals, Screen Level Dried sample, < 2mm fraction. Nitric/Hydrochloric acid digestion US EPA 200.2. Complies with NES Regulations. ICP-MS screen level, interference removal by Kinetic Energy Discrimination if required.

0.10 - 4 mg/kg dry wt

14-15Organonitro&phosphorus Pesticides Screen in Soil by GCMS

Sonication extraction, Dilution cleanup, GC-MS analysis. Tested on as received sample Analysis performed at 1 Clyde Street, Hamilton

-

Sample Type: Soil

Test Method Description Default Detection Limit Sample No

14-15Dry Matter (Env) Dried at 103°C for 4-22hr (removes 3-5% more water than air dry) , gravimetry. (Free water removed before analysis, non-soil objects such as sticks, leaves, grass and stones also removed). Analysis performed at 1 Clyde Street, Hamilton. US EPA 3550.

0.10 g/100g as rcvd

1-12Composite Environmental Solid Samples

Individual sample fractions mixed together to form a composite fraction. Analysis performed at 1 Clyde Street, Hamilton.

-

Lab No: 1850088 Hill Laboratories Page 2 of 2

R J Hill Laboratories Limited28 Duke Street Frankton 3204Private Bag 3205Hamilton 3240 New Zealand

0508 HILL LAB (44 555 22)+64 7 858 [email protected]

TTEW

This Laboratory is accredited by International Accreditation New Zealand (IANZ), which represents New Zealand inthe International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC). Through the ILAC Mutual Recognition Arrangement(ILAC-MRA) this accreditation is internationally recognised.The tests reported herein have been performed in accordance with the terms of accreditation, with the exception oftests marked *, which are not accredited.

A N A L Y S I S R E P O R T Page 1 of 4Client:Contact: Jim Summers

C/- Hail EnvironmentalPO Box 13113Tauranga CentralTauranga 3141

Hail Environmental Lab No:Date Received:Date Reported:Quote No:Order No:Client Reference:Submitted By:

185008826-Sep-201702-Oct-201787958

25 Ulyatt Road, NapierJim Summers

SPv1

Sample Type: SoilSample Name:

Lab Number:

SP1 22-Sep-20179:49 am

SP2 22-Sep-201710:00 am

SP4 22-Sep-201710:21 am

SP5 22-Sep-201711:10 am

1850088.1 1850088.2 1850088.3 1850088.4 1850088.5

SP3 22-Sep-201710:47 am

Heavy Metals, Screen Level

mg/kg dry wt 8 6 8 7 7Total Recoverable Arsenicmg/kg dry wt 0.12 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10Total Recoverable Cadmiummg/kg dry wt 22 19 22 22 23Total Recoverable Chromiummg/kg dry wt 11 10 12 11 11Total Recoverable Coppermg/kg dry wt 17.1 15.2 18.6 17.5 18.4Total Recoverable Leadmg/kg dry wt 16 14 16 16 17Total Recoverable Nickelmg/kg dry wt 75 70 79 75 78Total Recoverable Zinc

Sample Name:

Lab Number:

SP6 22-Sep-201711:28 am

SP7 22-Sep-201712:00 pm

SP9 22-Sep-201712:26 pm

SP1022-Sep-2017

12:39 pm1850088.6 1850088.7 1850088.8 1850088.9 1850088.10

SP8 22-Sep-201711:45 am


mg/kg dry wt 7 6 6 8 7Total Recoverable Arsenicmg/kg dry wt 0.10 < 0.10 0.12 < 0.10 < 0.10Total Recoverable Cadmiummg/kg dry wt 21 18 21 22 21Total Recoverable Chromiummg/kg dry wt 11 10 11 11 11Total Recoverable Coppermg/kg dry wt 17.9 14.4 16.5 18.1 16.1Total Recoverable Leadmg/kg dry wt 16 14 15 16 16Total Recoverable Nickelmg/kg dry wt 76 65 75 77 72Total Recoverable Zinc

Sample Name:

Lab Number:

SP1122-Sep-2017

11:06 am

SP1222-Sep-2017

12:50 pm

Composite ofSP1, SP2, SP3,SP4, SP5 & SP6

Composite ofSP7, SP8, SP9,SP10, SP11 &

SP121850088.11 1850088.12 1850088.13 1850088.14 1850088.15

SP5 Duplicate22-Sep-2017

11:12 am

Individual Tests

g/100g as rcvd - - - 77 80Dry Matter


mg/kg dry wt 7 7 8 - -Total Recoverable Arsenicmg/kg dry wt < 0.10 < 0.10 0.12 - -Total Recoverable Cadmiummg/kg dry wt 22 22 23 - -Total Recoverable Chromiummg/kg dry wt 11 11 13 - -Total Recoverable Coppermg/kg dry wt 18.8 17.2 19.8 - -Total Recoverable Leadmg/kg dry wt 18 17 17 - -Total Recoverable Nickelmg/kg dry wt 75 70 79 - -Total Recoverable Zinc


Lab Number:

SP1122-Sep-2017

11:06 am

SP1222-Sep-2017

12:50 pm



SP121850088.11 1850088.12 1850088.13 1850088.14 1850088.15


11:12 am

Organonitro&phosphorus Pesticides Screen in Soil by GCMS

mg/kg - - - < 0.07 < 0.06Acetochlormg/kg - - - < 0.05 < 0.05Alachlormg/kg - - - < 0.07 < 0.06Atrazinemg/kg - - - < 0.07 < 0.06Atrazine-desethylmg/kg - - - < 0.13 < 0.12Atrazine-desisopropylmg/kg - - - < 0.04 < 0.03Azaconazolemg/kg - - - < 0.13 < 0.12Azinphos-methylmg/kg - - - < 0.04 < 0.03Benalaxylmg/kg - - - < 0.13 < 0.12Bitertanolmg/kg - - - < 0.07 < 0.06Bromacilmg/kg - - - < 0.07 < 0.06Bromopropylatemg/kg - - - < 0.07 < 0.06Butachlormg/kg - - - < 0.13 < 0.12Captanmg/kg - - - < 0.07 < 0.06Carbarylmg/kg - - - < 0.07 < 0.06Carbofuranmg/kg - - - < 0.07 < 0.06Chlorfluazuronmg/kg - - - < 0.07 < 0.06Chlorothalonilmg/kg - - - < 0.07 < 0.06Chlorpyrifosmg/kg - - - < 0.07 < 0.06Chlorpyrifos-methylmg/kg - - - < 0.13 < 0.12Chlortoluronmg/kg - - - < 0.07 < 0.06Cyanazinemg/kg - - - < 0.08 < 0.08Cyfluthrinmg/kg - - - < 0.07 < 0.06Cyhalothrinmg/kg - - - < 0.15 < 0.15Cypermethrinmg/kg - - - < 0.07 < 0.06Deltamethrin (including Tralomethrin)mg/kg - - - < 0.04 < 0.03Diazinonmg/kg - - - < 0.07 < 0.06Dichlofluanidmg/kg - - - < 0.2 < 0.2Dichloranmg/kg - - - < 0.09 < 0.09Dichlorvosmg/kg - - - < 0.09 < 0.09Difenoconazolemg/kg - - - < 0.13 < 0.12Dimethoatemg/kg - - - < 0.13 < 0.12Diphenylaminemg/kg - - - < 0.07 < 0.06Diuronmg/kg - - - < 0.07 < 0.06Fenpropimorphmg/kg - - - < 0.07 < 0.06Fluazifop-butylmg/kg - - - < 0.07 < 0.06Fluometuronmg/kg - - - < 0.07 < 0.06Flusilazolemg/kg - - - < 0.05 < 0.05Fluvalinatemg/kg - - - < 0.04 < 0.03Furalaxylmg/kg - - - < 0.07 < 0.06Haloxyfop-methylmg/kg - - - < 0.07 < 0.06Hexaconazolemg/kg - - - < 0.04 < 0.03Hexazinone

mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.4 < 0.3IPBC (3-Iodo-2-propynyl-n-butylcarbamate)

mg/kg - - - < 0.04 < 0.03Kresoxim-methylmg/kg - - - < 0.07 < 0.06Linuronmg/kg - - - < 0.07 < 0.06Malathionmg/kg - - - < 0.07 < 0.06Metalaxyl (Mefenoxam)mg/kg - - - < 0.4 < 0.3Methamidophosmg/kg - - - < 0.05 < 0.05Metolachlormg/kg - - - < 0.07 < 0.06Metribuzinmg/kg - - - < 0.13 < 0.12Molinatemg/kg - - - < 0.07 < 0.06Myclobutanilmg/kg - - - < 0.4 < 0.3Naled

Lab No: 1850088 v 1 Hill Laboratories Page 2 of 4


Lab Number:

SP1122-Sep-2017

11:06 am

SP1222-Sep-2017

12:50 pm



SP121850088.11 1850088.12 1850088.13 1850088.14 1850088.15


11:12 am

Organonitro&phosphorus Pesticides Screen in Soil by GCMS

mg/kg - - - < 0.13 < 0.12Norflurazonmg/kg - - - < 0.07 < 0.06Oxadiazonmg/kg - - - < 0.04 < 0.03Oxyfluorfenmg/kg - - - < 0.07 < 0.06Paclobutrazolmg/kg - - - < 0.07 < 0.06Parathion-ethylmg/kg - - - < 0.07 < 0.06Parathion-methylmg/kg - - - < 0.07 < 0.06Pendimethalinmg/kg - - - < 0.03 < 0.03Permethrinmg/kg - - - < 0.07 < 0.06Pirimicarbmg/kg - - - < 0.07 < 0.06Pirimiphos-methylmg/kg - - - < 0.4 < 0.3Prochlorazmg/kg - - - < 0.07 < 0.06Procymidonemg/kg - - - < 0.04 < 0.03Prometrynmg/kg - - - < 0.07 < 0.06Propachlormg/kg - - - < 0.2 < 0.2Propanilmg/kg - - - < 0.04 < 0.03Propazinemg/kg - - - < 0.05 < 0.05Propiconazolemg/kg - - - < 0.07 < 0.06Pyriproxyfenmg/kg - - - < 0.07 < 0.06Quizalofop-ethylmg/kg - - - < 0.07 < 0.06Simazinemg/kg - - - < 0.07 < 0.06Simetrynmg/kg - - - < 0.4 < 0.3Sulfentrazone

mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.13 < 0.12TCMTB [2-(thiocyanomethylthio)benzothiazole,Busan]

mg/kg - - - < 0.07 < 0.06Tebuconazolemg/kg - - - < 0.07 < 0.06Terbacilmg/kg - - - < 0.07 < 0.06Terbufosmg/kg - - - < 0.07 < 0.06Terbumetonmg/kg - - - < 0.04 < 0.03Terbuthylazinemg/kg - - - < 0.07 < 0.06Terbuthylazine-desethylmg/kg - - - < 0.07 < 0.06Terbutrynmg/kg - - - < 0.4 < 0.3Thiabendazolemg/kg - - - < 0.07 < 0.06Thiobencarbmg/kg - - - < 0.04 < 0.03Tolylfluanidmg/kg - - - < 0.07 < 0.06Triazophosmg/kg - - - < 0.07 < 0.06Trifluralinmg/kg - - - < 0.07 < 0.06Vinclozolin


The following table(s) gives a brief description of the methods used to conduct the analyses for this job. The detection limits given below are those attainable in a relatively clean matrix.Detection limits may be higher for individual samples should insufficient sample be available, or if the matrix requires that dilutions be performed during analysis.

S U M M A R Y O F M E T H O D S

Sample Type: SoilTest Method Description Default Detection Limit Sample No

1-13Heavy Metals, Screen Level Dried sample, < 2mm fraction. Nitric/Hydrochloric aciddigestion US EPA 200.2. Complies with NES Regulations. ICP-MS screen level, interference removal by Kinetic EnergyDiscrimination if required.

0.10 - 4 mg/kg dry wt

14-15Organonitro&phosphorus PesticidesScreen in Soil by GCMS

Sonication extraction, Dilution cleanup, GC-MS analysis. Testedon as received sample Analysis performed at 1 Clyde Street,Hamilton

-

14-15Dry Matter (Env) Dried at 103°C for 4-22hr (removes 3-5% more water than airdry) , gravimetry. (Free water removed before analysis, non-soilobjects such as sticks, leaves, grass and stones also removed).Analysis performed at 1 Clyde Street, Hamilton. US EPA 3550.

0.10 g/100g as rcvd

1-12Composite Environmental SolidSamples*

Individual sample fractions mixed together to form a compositefraction. Analysis performed at 1 Clyde Street, Hamilton.

-

These samples were collected by yourselves (or your agent) and analysed as received at the laboratory.

Samples are held at the laboratory after reporting for a length of time depending on the preservation used and the stability ofthe analytes being tested. Once the storage period is completed the samples are discarded unless otherwise advised by theclient.

This report must not be reproduced, except in full, without the written consent of the signatory.

Ara Heron BSc (Tech)Client Services Manager - Environmental




Appendix E: Certificates of Title

25 Ulyatt Road Napier PSI-DSI (final V2)1. Introduction1.1 Purpose1.2 Scope of work

2. Site Identification2.1 Site details2.2 Site layout2.3 Surrounding areas2.4 Proposed development2.5 Anecdotal information2.6 Local geology and hydrology

Site Locality_25 Ulyatt Road, Taradale, NapierSite Layout_25 Ulyatt Road, Taradale, Napier25 Ulyatt Road Napier PSI-DSI (final V2)3. Site History3.1 Introduction3.2 Ownership3.3 Aerial photograph review

25 Ulyatt Road Napier PSI-DSI (final V2)3. Site History3.4 Napier City Council3.5 Hawkes Bay Regional Council

4. Initial Conceptual Site Model4.1 Potential sources and contaminants4.2 Transport and exposure pathways4.3 Sensitive receptors4.4 Initial conceptual site model

5. Soil Sampling and Analysis5.1 Sampling plan5.2 Data quality objectives5.3 Sampling methodology

Sample Location_25 Ulyatt Road, Taradale, Napier25 Ulyatt Road Napier PSI-DSI (final V2)5. Soil Sampling and Analysis5.4 Field observations

25 Ulyatt Road Napier PSI-DSI (final V2)5. Soil Sampling and Analysis5.5 Laboratory analysis5.6 Basis for guideline values5.7 Results5.8 Quality assurance and quality control

6. Site Characterisation6.1 Revised conceptual site model6.2 Conclusions6.3 Recommendations

7. Limitations8. References

25 Ulyatt Road Napier PSI-DSI (final V2)2017.08.21 Bupa Napier Master Planning Site PlanBupa Napier - 2017.08.21 Master Planning Site PlanA1001 Site Plan

25 Ulyatt Road Napier PSI-DSI (final V2)1949_25 Ulyatt Road, Taradale, Napier1964_25 Ulyatt Road, Taradale, Napier1972_25 Ulyatt Road, Taradale, Napier1977_25 Ulyatt Road, Taradale, Napier1978_25 Ulyatt Road, Taradale, Napier1980_25 Ulyatt Road, Taradale, Napier1996_25 Ulyatt Road, Taradale, Napier2004_25 Ulyatt Road, Taradale, Napier2011_25 Ulyatt Road, Taradale, Napier25 Ulyatt Road Napier PSI-DSI (final V2)1850088 - COC+Summary1850088-SP-125 Ulyatt Road Napier PSI-DSI (final V2)490318HBF2295HBF4118

Preliminary and Detailed Site Investigation...Preliminary Site Investigation and Detailed Site...

Documents

Transcript of Preliminary and Detailed Site Investigation...Preliminary Site Investigation and Detailed Site...