St George Hospital Site Investigations & Campus ...

St George Hospital Site Investigations & Campus Infrastructure Masterplan

Element 1 - Desktop & Site Assessment Report / Risk Assessment Report

CH2M HILL Australia Pty Ltd Contamination

Date: 21 May 2014

Revision: 2 (Final)

Document number: SICIM-Element1-CON-Desktop & Site Assessment Report

St George Hospital SICIM - Element 1 – Desktop & Site Assessment Report / Risk Assessment Report

Page 1


CONTENTS DOCUMENT CONTROL ................................................................................................................................................................ ....3

1 Overview ................................................................................................................................................................ .......................4

2 Reference Documents ..............................................................................................................................................................5

2.1 National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999 (2013 amendment) ......................................................................................................................................................................................5

2.2 Guidelines for Consultants Reporting on Contaminated Sites ......................................................................5

2.3 Guidelines for the NSW Site Auditor Scheme (2nd Edition) ............................................................................5

2.4 Guidelines for the Assessment and Management of Groundwater Contamination .............................5

2.5 Guidelines for Implementing the Protection of the Environment Operations (Underground Petroleum Storage Systems) Regulation 2008 ...................................................................................................................5

2.6 Notice of Variation of Licence No. 6547 .................................................................................................................5

2.7 Waste Management Guidelines for Health Care facilities ...............................................................................5

2.8 Acknowledgement of Notification of Dangerous Goods on Premises ........................................................5

2.9 Commercial Trade Wastewater Permit ..................................................................................................................5

2.10 Kogarah City Council Contaminated Land Policy ...............................................................................................5

2.11 Kogarah City Council Asbestos Management Policy .........................................................................................5

2.12 Preliminary Stage 1 Environmental Site Assessment for Proposed Alterations and additions at St George Hospital, Kogarah, NSW ...........................................................................................................................................6

2.13 Remedial Action Plan for Proposed New Emergency Department development at St George Hospital, Kogarah, NSW ...............................................................................................................................................................6

2.14 Geotechnical Investigation for Proposed Alterations & Additions at St George Hospital, Gary Street, Kogarah, NSW ....................................................................................................................................................................6

2.15 Supplementary Geotechnical Investigation St George Hospital, Gary Street, Kogarah, NSW ..........6

2.16 Hazardous Materials Risk Assessment Report ....................................................................................................6

2.17 References...........................................................................................................................................................................6

3 Stakeholder Consultation .......................................................................................................................................................7

4 Assumptions ................................................................................................................................................................................8

5 Findings of Desktop Review and Site Assessment .......................................................................................................9

5.1 Currency, completeness and accuracy of documentation...............................................................................9

5.2 Disagreements between Desktop Review and Site Assessment ..................................................................9

5.3 Analysis of the campus capacity ................................................................................................................................9

5.4 Desktop Study ................................................................................................................................................................ ...9

5.4.1 Preliminaries ............................................................................................................................................................9

5.4.2 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 12

5.4.3 Background ............................................................................................................................................................ 12

5.4.4 Objectives ............................................................................................................................................................... 12

5.4.5 Scope of Work ....................................................................................................................................................... 12

5.5 SITE DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................................................................................... 12

5.5.1 Site Location and Identification ..................................................................................................................... 12

Table 5-1: Site Identification ....................................................................................................................................................... 12

Table 5-2: Lot Details ...................................................................................................................................................................... 12

5.5.2 Site Features and Condition ............................................................................................................................ 13

5.5.3 Surrounding Land Use ....................................................................................................................................... 13

5.5.4 Topography ............................................................................................................................................................ 13

5.5.5 Soil Profiles ............................................................................................................................................................ 13

5.5.6 Acid Sulfate Soils .................................................................................................................................................. 14

5.5.7 Geology .................................................................................................................................................................... 14

5.5.8 Hydrology and Drainage ................................................................................................................................... 14

5.5.9 Hydrogeology ........................................................................................................................................................ 14

5.6 SITE HISTORY ................................................................................................................................................................ . 15

5.6.1 Aerial Photographs ............................................................................................................................................. 15

5.6.2 Certificates of Title .............................................................................................................................................. 15

5.6.3 Historical Land Use ............................................................................................................................................. 15

5.6.4 Workcover NSW Records ................................................................................................................................. 16

Table 5-3: Current Storage Depots ............................................................................................................................................ 16

Table 5-4: Historical Dangerous Goods Storage .................................................................................................................. 16

5.6.5 NSW EPA Contaminated Lands and Regulatory Records ................................................................... 17

Table 5-5: List of Contaminated Sites Notified to the NSW EPA ................................................................................... 17

Table 5-6: EPLs for St George Hospital Site ........................................................................................................................... 17

Table 5-7: Properties with an EPL within 1km of the Site .............................................................................................. 18

5.6.6 Section 149 Certificate ...................................................................................................................................... 18

5.7 Hospital Records and Interviews ........................................................................................................................... 18

5.7.1 Interviews with St George Hospital Personnel ....................................................................................... 18

5.7.2 Trade Waste Agreements ................................................................................................................................. 19

5.8 Previous Investigations .............................................................................................................................................. 19

5.8.1 Hazardous Materials Risk Assessment Report 2011 ............................................................................ 19

5.8.2 Preliminary Stage 1 Environment Site Assessment for Proposed Alterations and Additions at St George Hospital, Kogarah. NSW, 2011 ................................................................................................................. 19

5.8.3 Preliminary Soil Contamination Investigation and Waste Classification for Proposed Alterations and Additions at St George Hospital, Kogarah, January 2012) .................................................... 20

Page 2

St George Hospital SICIM - Element 1 – Desktop & Site Assessment Report / Risk Assessment Report 5.8.4 Remedial Action Plan for Proposed New Emergency Department Development 2012 ........ 20

5.8.5 Geotechnical Investigations 2011/2012 ................................................................................................... 21

5.9 Hazardous Material Survey ...................................................................................................................................... 21

5.10 Conceptual Site Model ................................................................................................................................................ 22

5.10.1 Potential Contamination Sources ................................................................................................................. 22

5.10.2 Contamination Pathways ................................................................................................................................. 23

5.10.3 Potential Receptors ............................................................................................................................................ 23

5.10.4 Discussion of CSM ............................................................................................................................................... 24

6 Required updates to the base survey ............................................................................................................................. 25

7 Outstanding / Omitted Works ........................................................................................................................................... 26

7.1 Previous Reports ........................................................................................................................................................... 26

7.2 Remediation status of contaminated soil within new Emergency Department Footprint ............ 26

7.3 Status of Various Potentially Contaminating Activities ................................................................................ 26

7.4 St George Hospital Waste Management Plan .................................................................................................... 26

8 Drawings, Schematics & Layouts ..................................................................................................................................... 27

9 Risk Assessment ...................................................................................................................................................................... 28

9.1 Underground Storage Tanks .................................................................................................................................... 28

9.2 Hazardous Building Materials ................................................................................................................................. 28

9.3 Contaminated Fill .......................................................................................................................................................... 28

9.4 Un-located Infrastructure .......................................................................................................................................... 28

10 Appendices ................................................................................................................................................................ ........... 29

CH2M HILL Australia Pty Ltd

Level 7, 9 Help Street

CHATSWOOD, NSW, 2067

Phone 02 9950 0200

Fax 02 9950 0600

This Report is given for the benefit of NSW Health and Health Infrastructure (ABN 89 600 377 397) and any Tenderer, as defined in Section 4, to NSW Health or Health Infrastructure for the provision of works or services in any way in connection with this Project. This document may only be used for the purpose for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of Engagement for the commission. Any third party that receives a copy of this document, does so subject to the limitations referred to herein.

Reproduction of this document is prohibited without the express, written approval of CH2M HILL Australia Pty Ltd.

DOCUMENT CONTROL

REVISION NUMBER

DATE

REVIEWED BY

APPROVED FOR ISSUE

DISTRIBUTION – NUMBER OF COPIES

Client

Council

Other

CH2M File

0 14 Feb 2014 L Clements S Barnes 1 (e) 1 (e) 1 8 April 2014 L Clements S Barnes 1 (e) 1 (e) 2 21 May 2014 S Barnes S Barnes 1 (e) 1 (e)

Page 3


1 OVERVIEW This section is an executive summary of the report, providing an overview of the main site constraints and risks to the successful delivery of both the Project and the Campus Development Control Plan.

CH2M HILL Australia Pty Ltd (CH2M HILL) has been commissioned by Health Infrastructure (HI) to conduct a Desktop and Site Assessment (DSA) of the St George Hospital Campus in Kogarah (the Site). The Site is located at Gray Street, Kogarah, NSW.

The Site forms a large part of the St George Hospital (SGH) campus, with buildings south of Short Street being excluded from the scope. HI is currently implementing a whole-of-Campus project to identify and mitigate the risk of latent site conditions impacting on future capital works programs, covering projects to be delivered in the short and long term. As such HI has assembled a panel of 13 consultants with a variety of specialities to provide a complete picture of the status of the hospital campus. This panel includes CH2M HILL as the environmental consultant conducting an environmental assessment with respect to potential contamination on the Site, including hazardous materials. This panel also includes a dedicated surveyor (Lockley Land Title Solutions [LLTS]) to provide continuity of survey information across the disciplines.

As part of the request for tender briefing HI provided an overview of the hospital campus masterplan, including identifying regions of the campus ear-marked for development in the short and long term. As such these portions have received focused attention throughout the investigation.

The environmental assessment is separated into five Elements and this report forms the first element of the environmental contamination assessment.

The objectives of this DSA are to:

• Generate an understanding of potential contamination issues and associated risks using non-intrusive means; and

• To inform the requirement for and scope of subsequent site investigations (Element 2).

In order to meet the objectives listed above, CH2M HILL performed the following scope of work:

• Preparation of a Service Delivery Plan for the project, including scope, programme and resourcing requirements;

• Requests for and compilation of relevant information from the Local Health District (LHD), HI, other Project Consultants and publically available sources;

• Review and analysis of information for currency, accuracy and completeness and to establish potential or actual sources of contamination/hazardous materials;

• Completion of a site walkover to verify desktop information and further assess the potential for contamination/hazardous materials; and

• Preparation of this DSA Report.

Based on the information gathered as part of this DSA CH2M HILL has identified the following potentially contaminating activities on the Site, which are also considered to pose a potential risk to the successful implementation of various stages of the masterplan:

• Underground Storage Tanks;

• Hazardous Building Materials;

• Potentially Contaminated Fill Material; and

• Un-located infrastructure (radioactive waste tanks, silver recovery pit and xylene recovery system).

Page 4


2 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS This section lists documentation used specifically by the Consultant to develop this report. Consultant is required to describe and explain what specific information was used in the documents.

The following documentation was used by CH2M HILL to develop this report.

2.1 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION (ASSESSMENT OF SITE CONTAMINATION)

MEASURE 1999 (2013 AMENDMENT) Published by the National Environment Protection Council (NEPC) in 2013, the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999 (2013 Amendment) [NEPM 1999, (2013 Amendment)] provides guidance on what is to be included in reports of this nature. It also provides guidance on how to plan the contaminated land assessment, investigation, remediation and validation process and how to interpret results of field investigations and laboratory analysis.

2.2 GUIDELINES FOR CONSULTANTS REPORTING ON CONTAMINATED SITES Published by the New South Wales (NSW) Office of Environment & Heritage1 (NSW OEH) in 2011,the Guidelines for Consultants Reporting on Contaminated Sites 1997 (2011 Update) (NSW OEH, 2011) provides guidance on the four possible reporting stages of contaminated land investigations; 1. Preliminary site investigation, 2. Detailed site investigation, 3. Site remedial action plan (RAP) and 4. Validation and site monitoring reports. It also provides guidance on what information is to be reported at each stage.

2.3 GUIDELINES FOR THE NSW SITE AUDITOR SCHEME (2ND EDITION) Published by the Department of Environment and Conservation NSW in 2006 the Guidelines for the NSW Site Auditor Scheme (NSW DEC, 2006) provides guidance to contaminated land site auditors on how to conduct site audits and how to assess the investigation, remediation and management of contaminated sites. CH2M HILL utilises Section 4: Contamination Assessment, Remediation and Management to anticipate the needs and requirements of site auditors (should they be required) and to provide additional guidance and clarification of inputs into the reporting and contaminated land assessment process.

2.4 GUIDELINES FOR THE ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF GROUNDWATER

CONTAMINATION Published by the Department of Environment and Conservation NSW in 2007 the Guidelines for the Assessment and Management of Groundwater Contamination (NSW DEC, 2007) provides guidance on what is required for a groundwater contamination assessment. The assessment process ranges from preliminary stages through to risk assessment, contaminant fate and transport modelling, management and plume containment and remediation.

2.5 GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT OPERATIONS

(UNDERGROUND PETROLEUM STORAGE SYSTEMS) REGULATION 2008

1 In September 2003, the NSW Environment Protection Authority (NSW EPA) became a part of the NSW Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW DEC), on 27th April 2007, the NSW DEC was renamed as the NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change (NSW DECC) with the department changing to the NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW) in August 2009. On 4 April 2011, the NSW DECCW was abolished with the majority of its functions

Published by the NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change in 2008 the Guidelines for Implementing the Protection of the Environment Operations (Underground Petroleum Storage Systems) Regulation 2008 (UPSS 2008) aim to promote the adoption of best industry practice in the design, installation and ongoing operation of underground storage tanks used to store petroleum products or petroleum waste products.

2.6 NOTICE OF VARIATION OF LICENCE NO. 6547 Issued by the NSW EPA under Section 55 Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, the Notice of Variation of Licence No. 6547 under Notice Number 1044557 is the environmental protection licence (EPL) issued to South Eastern Sydney and Illawarra Area Health Service trading as St George Hospital. The EPL was reviewed in order to inform CH2M HILL of the activities undertaken at St George Hospital that have the potential to cause environmental contamination. The EPL is discussed further in Section 5.6.5.2.

2.7 WASTE MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR HEALTH CARE FACILITIES Published by the Ministry for Health, NSW in August 2008, the Waste Management Guidelines for Health Care Facilities were referenced in the St George Hospital EPL. The guidelines were utilised to inform CH2M HILL of possible waste streams on the Site and methods for their handling, management and disposal. Accidents, spills, incorrect disposal or historical disposal methods have the potential to cause environmental contamination.

2.8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF NOTIFICATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS ON PREMISES Provided by WorkCover NSW to South Eastern Sydney Local Health District, the Acknowledgement of Notification of Dangerous Goods is an acknowledgement of the proof of annual notification of the dangerous goods stored on the Site as required by the provisions of the Occupational Health & Safety Act 2000. The Dangerous Goods Notification is utilised to identify potential contaminants on the Site. The Dangerous Goods search is discussed further in Section 5.6.4.

2.9 COMMERCIAL TRADE WASTEWATER PERMIT Provided by Sydney Water to South Eastern Sydney and Illawarra Health Service (St George Hospital) the Commercial Trade Wastewater Permit provides St George Hospital with the authority to discharge trade wastewater to the sewer. This document was reviewed to inform CH2M HILL of potential sources of contamination from blockages or leaks in the disposal system from activities included in the permit.

2.10 KOGARAH CITY COUNCIL CONTAMINATED LAND POLICY Published by the Kogarah City Council (KCC) in 2009 the Contaminated Land Policy (KCC, 2009) forms the basis for KCC’s management of land contamination within Kogarah City Council local government area. CH2M HILL undertook a review of the document to incorporate KCC requirements (if needed) into the contaminated land investigations.

2.11 KOGARAH CITY COUNCIL ASBESTOS MANAGEMENT POLICY Developed by KCC, the Asbestos Management Policy accessed at http://www.kogarah.nsw.gov.au/building/development-applications/preparing-your-da-

transferred to the new NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH), a division in the Department of Premier and Cabinet. However, certain statutory functions and powers continue to be exercised in the name of the NSW EPA. The use of the names OEH, DECCW, DECC, DEC and EPA in this report are considered interchangeable and are to be interpreted as one and the same.

Page 5

http://www.kogarah.nsw.gov.au/building/development-applications/preparing-your-da-introduction/asbestos-management-policy

St George Hospital SICIM - Element 1 – Desktop & Site Assessment Report / Risk Assessment Report introduction/asbestos-management-policy, was reviewed to incorporate KCC’s requirements (if needed) into the hazardous materials and contaminated land investigations for the project.

2.12 PRELIMINARY STAGE 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT FOR PROPOSED ALTERATIONS

AND ADDITIONS AT ST GEORGE HOSPITAL, KOGARAH, NSW Produced by Environmental Investigation Services (EIS) for Health Infrastructure (NSW) in November 2011 this preliminary site investigation (PSI) was reviewed by CH2M HILL as part of this desktop assessment and provides lines of evidence for potential contamination of land and/or groundwater. Certificates of Title, Section 149 Certificates, Dangerous Goods documents provided in the PSI have been used and replicated in this report. A summary of the main points from the PSI are summarised in Section 9.3.2 of this report.

2.13 REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN FOR PROPOSED NEW EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT

AT ST GEORGE HOSPITAL, KOGARAH, NSW Produced by EIS for Health Infrastructure (NSW) in January 2012 the Remedial Action Plan (RAP) was reviewed by CH2M HILL as part of this desktop assessment. The RAP provides lines of evidence for potential or actual contamination of land and/or groundwater. A summary of the main points from the RAP are summarised in Section 9.3.3 of this report.

2.14 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR PROPOSED ALTERATIONS & ADDITIONS AT ST GEORGE

HOSPITAL, GARY STREET, KOGARAH, NSW Produced by Jeffrey and Katauskas Pty Ltd (J&K) for Health Infrastructure NSW in November 2011, the Geotechnical Investigation Report was reviewed by CH2M HILL as part of this desktop assessment. The geotechnical report may provide additional information regarding ground conditions, including depth and type of fill materials, details of the natural lithologies and depth to groundwater. They may also provide observations of obvious contaminants noted during the logging process.

2.15 SUPPLEMENTARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION ST GEORGE HOSPITAL, GARY STREET, KOGARAH, NSW

Produced by J&K for Health Infrastructure NSW in January 2012, the Supplementary Geotechnical Investigation Report was reviewed by CH2M HILL as part of this desktop assessment. The geotechnical report may provide similar information to the geotechnical report noted above.

2.16 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT Produced by Noel Arnold & Associates for Health Department South Eastern Sydney Local Health District in mid-2011 the Hazardous Materials Risk Assessment (HMRA) provides a risk assessment for most of the buildings on the St George Hospital site. This report was reviewed by CH2M HILL as part of this desktop assessment. A summary of the main points from the HMRA are provided in Section 9.3.1 of this report. Further details of the HMRA conducted for this assessment can be found in Section 5.8.

2.17 REFERENCES This section provides a list of documents that were referenced within the text.

• Billard Leece Partnership, 2011, St George Hospital Kogarah Development control Plan – December 2011, provided as part of the Request for Tender documentation;

• Chapman et al, 1983, Sydney, Soil Landscape Series, Sheet 9130, 1:100,000, Sydney: Soil Conservation Service of N.S.W;

• Herbert, C., 1983, Sydney, Geological Series Edition 1, Sheet 9130, 1:100 000, Sydney: NSW Department of Mineral Resources;

• LLTS, 2010, Plan of Detail and Levels Over Lot 1-6 DP1130879 & LOT 12 DP800476 known as “St George Hospital” at Kogarah, provided as part of the Request For Tender documentation;

• Murphy, C.L., 1997, Botany Bay, Acid Sulfate Soil Risk Map – Edition Two, Sheet 9130S3, 1:25,000, Department of Land and Water Conservation;

• NSW Health, 1998, Waste Management Guidelines for Health Care Facilities – August 1998, NSW Health Department; and

• National Environment Protection Council (NEPC), 1999, National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure (2013 amendment).

Page 6

http://www.kogarah.nsw.gov.au/building/development-applications/preparing-your-da-introduction/asbestos-management-policy


3 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION This section lists all stakeholders contacted as part of the preparation of this report, and the information provided by the stakeholder, which informed this report.

The following stakeholders were consulted by CH2M HILL during this assessment:

• Department of Finance & Services – Land & Property Information – were contacted and provided aerial photographs;

• Gary Dower – Engineering Department St George Hospital – was interviewed and emailed to provide information on the location and status of potentially contaminating activities, along with general hospital functions;

• Erin McKay – Radiation Safety Officer St George Hospital – was interviewed to provide information on the radiation dilution tank and the process for disposing of radiological waste;

• Zoran Markovski - Corporate Services St George Hospital - was interviewed to clarify St George Hospitals processes for waste disposal and the waste streams produced;

• Lockley Land Title Solutions – were engaged by HI to complete survey plans for the Site;

• Coffey – provided information on previous geotechnical reports; and

• Artefact – provided information on potential heritage permit requirements for intrusive works.

Page 7


4 ASSUMPTIONS Consultant is required to list in this section all assumptions made for the preparation of this report, where information was not available.

During the compilation of this report, CH2M HILL has made the following assumptions:

• As part of this desktop assessment CH2M HILL utilised previous reports and data produced by others to assist in our desktop characterisation of the Site. CH2M HILL assumes that the reports were conducted to relevant industry standards and the information contained within the reports is representative of the Site conditions;

• The Lot and Deposited Plan information presented in EIS 2011 provided sufficient information for the whole Site. Given the historical ownership of the Site is relatively well known, and the Lots excluded from the EIS 2011 search comprise a small percentage of the Site land area, CH2M HILL considered that the existing title search provided sufficient information on the previous ownership of the Site. As such no further search was undertaken as part of this assessment;

• The Section 149 information presented in EIS 2011 provided sufficient information for the whole Site. Given the remaining lots on the Site are zoned as Health Services Facilities, CH2M HILL considers it unlikely that the Section 149 certificates from the remaining lots will contain novel information. As such no further Section 149 certificates were obtained for this investigation; and

• As part of this desktop study CH2M HILL assumed that information provided by St George Hospital personnel was correct and accurate information.

In addition to the assumptions listed above, this desktop site assessment report is given strictly in accordance with, and subject to, the following limitations:

• This Report is given for the benefit of: (a) NSW Health and Health Infrastructure (ABN 89 600 377 397); and (b) any Tenderer (meaning any tenderer whether as an individual, and entity, a joint venture, a partnership or a consortium) to NSW Health or Health Infrastructure for the provision of works or services in any way in connection with the Project.)

• CH2M HILL assumes no responsibility for conditions we were not authorised to investigate or conditions not generally recognised as environmentally unacceptable when the services were performed;

• This report is based, in part, on unverified information supplied to CH2M HILL from several sources during the project research. Therefore, CH2M HILL does not guarantee its completeness or accuracy, and assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions related to this externally supplied information;

• This report was prepared in accordance with, and by reference to, the applicable EPA and industry standards, guidelines and assessment criteria as listed in this report;

• An understanding of the site conditions depends on the integration of many pieces of information, some regional, some site specific, some structure-specific and some experienced-based;

• Any opinions or recommendations presented herein apply to site conditions existing when services were performed. CH2M HILL is unable to report on or predict events that may change the site conditions after the described services are performed, whether occurring naturally or caused by external forces;

• Given the limited Scope of Works, CH2M HILL has only assessed the potential for contamination resulting from past and current known uses of the site;

• No sampling or laboratory analysis has been undertaken by CH2M HILL as part of this desktop site investigation. CH2M HILL does not guarantee that contamination does not exist at the site; and

• This report should not be altered, amended or abbreviated, issued in part and issued incomplete in any way. CH2M HILL accepts no responsibility for any circumstances that arise from the issue of the report which has been modified as outlined above.

Page 8


5 FINDINGS OF DESKTOP REVIEW AND SITE ASSESSMENT This section details main site constraints and risks to the successful delivery of both the Project and the Campus Development Control Plan.

5.1 CURRENCY, COMPLETENESS AND ACCURACY OF DOCUMENTATION In compiling this report CH2M HILL has utilised information gathered during a previous investigation. As such, the following information is current as of 2011:

• Section 149 Certificate; and

• Certificate of Title.

5.2 DISAGREEMENTS BETWEEN DESKTOP REVIEW AND SITE ASSESSMENT These sub-section records disagreements between information obtained during the desktop review and the information found on-site during the site assessment.

The information gathered during the desktop review generally agreed with that established during the walkover.

5.3 ANALYSIS OF THE CAMPUS CAPACITY Consultants with an area of technical responsibility focussed on asset and services are required to provide in this section their demand and capacity analysis (location, sizing, connectivity, etc.) of campus infrastructure systems for existing conditions.

An analysis of the campus capacity is not applicable to contamination or hazardous materials.

5.4 DESKTOP STUDY The following sections provide details of the desktop study provided as Element 1 of the Contaminated Site Assessment.

5.4.1 PRELIMINARIES The following section includes lists of tables, figures, appendices and abbreviations referred to or used within the desktop study. Figures are provided in Section 8 and Appendices are provided in Section 10.

List of Tables within the Text

Table 5-1: Site Identification ....................................................................................................................................................... 12

Table 5-2: Lot Details ...................................................................................................................................................................... 12

Table 5-3: Current Storage Depots ........................................................................................................................................... 16

Table 5-4: Historical Dangerous Goods Storage .................................................................................................................. 16

Table 5-5: List of Contaminated Sites Notified to the NSW EPA ................................................................................... 17

Table 5-6: EPLs for St George Hospital Site ........................................................................................................................... 17

Table 5-7: Properties with an EPL within 1km of the Site .............................................................................................. 18

List of Figures

Figure 1: Site Layout Plan

Figure 2: Borehole Locations from Previous Investigations

List of Appendices

Appendix A: Title Search Documentation

Appendix B: Site Lot and Plan Map

Appendix C: Site Photographs

Appendix D: St George Hospital Map

Appendix E: Groundwater Bore Summary, Map and Information Sheets

Appendix F: Aerial Photographs and Photograph Review

Appendix G: Dangerous Goods Search Documentation

Appendix H: Section 149 Certificate and Reference Material

Appendix I: Interview Records

Appendix J: Trade Waste Agreements

Appendix K: Desktop Review of Existing Hazardous Material Reports

Page 9


Abbreviations and Definitions

ASS Acid Sulfate Soil

AST Aboveground Storage Tank

bsl below surface level

B(a)P Benzo(a)pyrene

BTEX Benzene, Ethyl benzene, Toluene and Xylenes

CH2M HILL CH2M HILL Australia Pty Ltd

CSM Conceptual Site Model

DP Deposited Plan

DSA Desktop Site Assessment

ED Emergency Department

EIS Environmental Investigation Services

EMP Environmental Management Plan

EPA Environment Protection Authority

EPL Environment Protection Licence

HI Health Infrastructure

HIL Health Investigation Level

LHD Local Health District

LLTS Lockley Land Title Solutions

NEPM National Environmental Protection Measures

NSW New South Wales

NSW DEC NSW Department of Environment and Conservation

OCP Organochlorine Pesticides

OPP Organophosphate Pesticides

PAH Polyaromatic Hydrocarbon

PCB Polychlorinated biphenyls

POEO Act Protection of the Environment Operations Act

PPIL Provisional Phyto-toxicity Investigation Levels

PSI Preliminary Site Investigation

RAP Remediation Action Plan

SGH St George Hospital

SMF Synthetic Mineral Fibre

TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon

UST Underground Storage Tank

VOC Volatile Organic Compounds

Page 11


5.4.2 INTRODUCTION CH2M HILL has been commissioned by HI to conduct a DSA of the St George Hospital Campus in Kogarah (the Site). The Site is located at Gray Street, Kogarah, NSW.

5.4.3 BACKGROUND The Site forms a large part of the St George Hospital campus, with buildings south of Short Street and east of South Street being excluded from the scope. HI is currently implementing a whole-of-Campus project to identify and mitigate the risk of latent site conditions impacting on future capital works programs, covering projects to be delivered in the short and long term. As such HI has assembled a panel of 13 consultants with a variety of specialities to provide a complete picture of the status of the hospital campus. This panel includes CH2M HILL as the environmental consultant conducting an environmental assessment with respect to potential contamination on the Site, including hazardous materials. This panel also includes a dedicated surveyor (LLTS) to provide continuity of survey information across the disciplines.

As part of the request for tender briefing HI provided an overview of the hospital campus masterplan, including identifying regions of the campus ear-marked for development in the short and long term. As such these portions have received focused attention throughout the investigation. Refer to Figure 1 for an outline of these areas.

The environmental assessment is separated into five Elements as follows;

1. Desktop and Site Assessment;

2. Site Investigations;

3. Supplementary Site Investigations;

4. Campus Infrastructure Masterplanning; and

5. Campus Enabling Works Scope.

This report forms the first element of the contamination environmental assessment.

CH2M HILL is aware of a number of previous environmental investigations, and one hazardous materials assessment, having previously been conducted at the Site. Further information on these investigations is provided in Section 5.7. In order to avoid duplication CH2M HILL has utilised information presented in those reports, and this is referenced within the text when it occurs.

5.4.4 OBJECTIVES The objectives of this DSA are to:

• Generate an understanding of potential contamination issues and associated risks using non-intrusive means; and

• To inform the requirement for and scope of subsequent site investigations (Element 2).

5.4.5 SCOPE OF WORK In order to meet the objectives listed above, the following scope of work was undertaken by CH2M HILL as part of this assessment:

• Preparation of a Service Delivery Plan for the project, including scope, programme and resourcing requirements;

• Requests for and compilation of relevant information from the Local Health District (LHD), HI, other Project Consultants and publically available sources;

• Review and analysis of information for currency, accuracy and completeness and to establish potential or actual sources of contamination/hazardous materials;

• Completion of a site walkover to verify desktop information and further assess the potential for contamination/hazardous materials; and

• Preparation of this DSA Report.

5.5 SITE DESCRIPTION Observations made during the site walk over and information from published sources regarding the environmental setting of the Site are summarised in the following sections.

5.5.1 SITE LOCATION AND IDENTIFICATION The Site is located at Gray Street, Kogarah, approximately 13 kilometres (km) south-southwest of Sydney’s central business district. The area surrounding the Site is utilised predominantly for commercial and residential purposes. St George’s Private Hospital and St Patricks Primary School are located immediately to the east of the Site with James Cook Boys Technical High School approximately 250m east of the Site. Kogarah Village is immediately north of the Site with Kogarah Railway Station located approximately 500 metres (m) to the north.

The Site is comprised of 19 separate Lot and Deposited plans. Tables 5-1 and 5-2 provides a summary of the Site identification information, with the title documents presented in Section 10, Appendix A.

Table 5-1: Site Identification

Street Address See Table 5-2

Property Description See Table 5-2

Area in square meters (m2) Approximately 51,730

Current Zoning Special Uses 5(a) – Special Uses (General) Zone

Current Land Use Health Services Facilities

Proposed Land Use Health Services Facilities

Local Government Area Kogarah City Council

Parish St George

County Cumberland

Table 5.2 below presents the Lot and Deposited Plan details. A map of the lot and deposited plan is presented within Section 10, Appendix B.

Table 5-2: Lot Details

Page 12


DP Number Lot Number Area Street Address

DP 800476 12 42,760m2 16 Kensington & 11 South Streets

DP 1130879 1 to 6 1,165 m2 18 Kensington Street

DP 791072 1 2,505 m2 28A Gray Street

DP 976627 1 Section C 704 m2 28-30 Gray Street

DP 976627 2 & 3 Section C 1,420 m2 30 Gray Street

DP 971931 4 353 m2 34 Gray Street

DP 973811 1 349 m2 36 Gray Street

DP 973811 2 330 m2 38 Gray Street

DP 971532 1 323 m2 40 Gray Street

DP 976627 9 Section C 446 m2 1A Short Street

DP 976627 8 Section C 410 m2 1 short Street

DP 1105995 7 401 m2 3 Short Street

DP 976627 1 Section F 562 m2 30 Chapel Street

5.5.2 SITE FEATURES AND CONDITION On 18 March 2014 CH2M HILL visited the Site to conduct a walkover. Photographs of the Site are included in Section 10, Appendix C and the site layout plan is presented on Figure 1. Building names and gate numbers have been sourced from “St George Hospital Location Map, 2012” presented in Section 10, Appendix D.

The following features were noted during the site walkover and from data provided to CH2M HILL.

• The Site was well developed with the various departments of the hospital occupying buildings covering most of the Site footprint;

• External areas generally consisted of;

o Asphalt car parks (Photo 1, Appendix C); o Sealed driveways and access roads (Photo 2, Appendix C), o Concrete sealed footpaths connecting the various departments (Photo 3, Appendix C), and o Courtyards with a combination of concrete, paving and grassed surfaces, some of which provide

seated areas and shade (Photos 4, 5 & 6 Appendix C); and o Trees and shrubs of a variety of sizes were present across the Site, predominantly within the

courtyard areas but some were present in other areas (Photo 7, Appendix C).

• According to Billard Leece Partnership the buildings on the Site vary in age from Pathology Collection (Building 14) and Rose Cottage (Building 19) which are 80 years old, to the new mental health unit completed in 2013. In general:

o Buildings in the north of the Site around the current emergency department are demountables aged around 15 years or less. Three buildings [Building 4 (20 years), Building 5 (30 years) and Building 6 (65 years)] are constructed of masonry and aged 20 years or more;

o Buildings in the south of the Site are generally older in age than the masonry buildings in the north, with the exception of the Mental Health Centre which is around 5 years of age, and Buildings 17 and 18 which are demountables and around 10 years of age. The remaining six buildings in the area are constructed from masonry and range in age from 50 to 80 years.

o Buildings in the central portion of the Site around Ward Block Building 1 range in age from less than five years to 40 years. The new Services Centre Building 24 is less than five years old and constructed of concrete, masonry and steel. The Information Booth Building 39 located at Gate 1 is a demountable of around 25 years age. The Cancer Care Centre Building 2 constructed of concrete and masonry is approximately 10 years old. The Staff Car Park Building 23 is a multi-storey car park constructed of concrete and is around 25 years old. The remaining buildings 1, 3 and 31 are constructed of masonry and concrete and are between 30 and 40 years old.

• The natural topography was undetermined as ground surfaces sloped towards artificial drainage systems (Photo 7, Appendix C);

• An underground storage tank (UST) to supply the emergency generator was located in the northeast of the Site adjacent to Clinical Services Building 3 as noted on Figure 1 (Photo 8, Appendix C). A subsurface concreted area providing access to the morgue adjacent to the UST was noted to have what appeared to be a blocked drain (Photo 9, Appendix C),

5.5.3 SURROUNDING LAND USE The Site is located within a mixed commercial/residential area with various surrounding land uses. At the time of this investigation the relevant immediately surrounding land uses were:

• North: Directly north of the site across Kensington Street is Kirk Place Presbyterian Church and mixed commercial and residential land uses. Beyond these is the Kogarah Village commercial centre and Kogarah Train Station.

• East: Directly east of the Site is the St George Private Hospital and St Patrick’s Primary School. Beyond that and across Princes Highway is James Cook Boys Technology High School and residential areas;

• South: Directly south of the Site (across Short and Chapel Street) are additional St George Hospital buildings and residential areas. Beyond those and across Princes Highway is a small commercial area and residential areas; and

• West: Directly west and adjacent to the Site is the Kogarah Fire Station. Beyond that and across Gray Street are residential areas.

5.5.4 TOPOGRAPHY The Sydney 1:100 000 Geological Series Sheet 9130 (Herbert, 1983) indicates that the Site has an elevation of between 20m and 40m Australian Height Datum (AHD) and the surrounding area slopes gradually towards Botany Bay to the southeast. A survey of the Site conducted by LLTS confirmed that the ground level at the Site ranges from approximately 31m AHD at the northwest corner near the Kogarah fire station to 21mAHD in the southeast corner indicating the natural topography was generally sloping from the northwest down towards the southeast.

5.5.5 SOIL PROFILES The Sydney 1:100 000 Soil Landscape Series Sheet 9130 (Chapman et al, 1983) indicates that the landscape of the Site and immediate surrounds is comprised of gently undulating crests and ridges on plateau surfaces

Page 13


of the Mittagong Formation formed from alternating bands of shale and fine-grained sandstones. Soils are moderately deep, between 50 and 150cm with hardsetting Yellow Podzolic and Yellow Soloth soils and Yellow Earths on outer edges of crests. This landscape is consistent with stony soil, low soil fertility and low available water capacity.

5.5.6 ACID SULFATE SOILS The Botany Bay 1:25 000 Acid Sulfate Soil Risk Map – Edition Two (Murphy, 1997) indicates the Site is located in an area with no known occurrence of acid sulfate soils. Murphy 1997 noted that land management activities are not likely to be affected by acid sulphate soil materials.

5.5.7 GEOLOGY The Sydney 1:100 000 Geological Series Sheet 9130 (Herbert, 1983) indicates the Site is underlain by Middle Triassic Hawkesbury Sandstone consisting of medium to course-grained quartz sandstone with very minor shale and laminate lenses.

It is noted from Herbert 1983 that the Site is located close to the geological boundary of the Hawkesbury Sandstone and Quaternary sediments consisting of medium to fine grained “marine” sand with podsols. It is therefore possible that the underlying geology at the Site may be mixed and may contain Quaternary sediments overlying the sandstone.

Bore logs from the EIS 2011 investigation (also presented within the J&K geotechnical investigation dated 2 November 2011 and supplementary report dated January 2012) indicate that fill material was encountered at all 13 boreholes. The fill material consisted of gravelly sand, silty sand, sandy gravel, and gravelly clayey sand of variable colour with inclusions of igneous, ironstone and sandstone gravels, concrete fragments, ash and slag gravel. The fill was up to 1.3m in depth. The natural soils beneath the fill material were typically orange brown and or light grey to grey clay and extended to a maximum depth of 3.1m. The bedrock beneath the soils consisted of shale and or sandstone and was typically light grey, orange brown and or red brown and extended to the termination depth of the boreholes.

The description of the natural soils and bedrock were consistent with the expected geology described in Herbert 1983.

5.5.8 HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE Based on observations of the topography of the Site and the survey data provide by LLTS the surface drainage of the Site is anticipated to flow from the northwest to the southeast. However the surface of the Site is generally covered with bitumen or concrete with localised drainage to stormwater pits.

Drainage lines and the associated backfill sands can provide a pathway for the migration of contaminants (if any) across the Site. As such CH2M HILL was provided with stormwater surveys dated 2010 (LLTS, 2010), and have summarised the drainage lines across the Site as detailed below:

• Drainage from the area between Radiology (II) Building 4 and Clinical Services Building 3 is undetermined from survey plans. It appears that there are stormwater pipes north towards Kensington Street and pipes west towards Gray Street however blocked lines mean connections to either of these are undetermined;

• Drainage from the northwest corner of the Site (former Griffith House and Clinical Services Building 3 area) is likely to be to the south towards the stormwater detention tanks below the bitumen driveway at the main entrance;

• Drainage of the area between Clinical Services Buildings 3 and Ward Block Building 1 also appears to run south towards the stormwater detention tanks below the driveway at the main entrance;

• Drainage from the bitumen driveway at the main entrances appears to be south towards the corner of Gray and Short Streets.

• Drainage from the centre of the Site between Radiology (I) Building 4 and the Cafeteria adjacent to Ward Block Building 1, is initially east towards a central point and then southeast towards the “Lawns”. At the “Lawns” the underground pipe turns east to the Site boundary and exits the Site at the stormwater easement between the St George Private Hospital and St Patrick’s Church. It should be noted that this area has undergone significant redevelopment since the survey plans were drawn up in 2010, with the construction of the new Services Centre Building 24 and Mental Health Unit. Stormwater drainage systems may have been redesigned in this area, and this will be determined by others during the next Element of the project;

• Beneath Banksia House Building 17 there appears to be an open pit from which pipes run in a northerly direction with possible discharge into the stormwater system at South Street. In addition the area beneath Building 17 is unsealed;

• Drainage of the northern part of the Site around the current Emergency Department Building 5 and the Prince William Wing Building 6 is undetermined however it is likely to be the stormwater pits along Belgrave and Kensington Streets that are noted on the survey plans.

• It was noted on the survey plans that there were several places where stormwater pipes were blocked and access could not be gained by the surveyors.

5.5.9 HYDROGEOLOGY The hydrogeology of the Site and the surrounding area is dominated by the Hawkesbury Sandstone. The capacity of the massive units of the Hawkesbury Sandstone to contain and transmit groundwater is generally low. However, where jointing is well developed and bedding planes are present, the ability for groundwater to migrate through the bedrock is significantly higher.

Groundwater in the sandstone bedrock underlying the Site is expected to be confined to zones of relatively higher permeability within jointing, bedding planes, fractures and weathered features or where blasting may have created fractures in the sandstone. Areas of weathered sandstone and shale laminates within these features, in shallow bedrock, are likely to cause both vertical and horizontal groundwater flow.

The Site is situated on a topographical high with a ridge sloping gently away and running north parallel to the railway line and south along Rocky Point Road. Local and shallow groundwater is expected to either;

• Flow east towards Botany Bay. Shallow groundwater may daylight at the Scarborough Park ponds; or

• Flow south southwest towards Kogarah Bay. The low ridge along Rocky Point Road may provide a catchment divide between Kogarah and Botany Bays.

A search of the NSW Register of Licensed Groundwater Bores was undertaken on 14 March 2014 to identify the presence of licensed bores within a designated radius of the Site. The information provided can be useful in estimating depth to groundwater and groundwater flow of the local area.

A copy of the registered bore map and bore summary sheets are included in Section 10, Appendix E, and indicates the presence of 18 bores within a 500m radius of the Site, of which all are down gradient of groundwater flow. Section 10, Appendix E also provides a summary of these bores.

Page 14


The results of the groundwater bore search indicate that the majority of the bores have been installed for domestic purposes. The total depth of the bores range from 3.6m to 8.0m below surface level (bsl), with the depth to water at 2.0mbsl.

During the EIS 2011 previous investigation groundwater was encountered at one borehole (BH01) at a depth of 5m with remaining boreholes dry on completion.

The information provided indicates that groundwater at the Site is likely to be encountered at around 5m below ground level, and that the domestic use of groundwater appears to be likely within the vicinity of the Site.

5.6 SITE HISTORY The following section provides detail regarding the historical use of the Site, with information gathered from published sources.

5.6.1 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS As part of this investigation, CH2M HILL undertook a review of aerial photographs of the Site, and surrounding areas, commencing with an image taken in 1930 and followed by images from 1943, 1955, 1961, 1970, 1982, 1994, 2001 and 2012. The source, description and interpretation of each aerial photograph inspected (including the Site and adjoining properties) is provided in Section 10, Appendix F along with the photographs.

The aerial photograph review indicates that the Site was already partially developed in 1930. Since that time the Site has expanded with older buildings being replaced by new structures on several occasions and across the whole Site. Significant infilling of open space has occurred resulting in little existing unsealed ground on the Site.

5.6.2 CERTIFICATES OF TITLE To identify historical potentially contaminating activities at the Site CH2M HILL utilised the historical title search previously conducted by EIS (EIS, 2011) to ascertain previous owners of the Site. Site ownership and associated occupation can provide an indication of historical site use, and hence potential contaminating activities.

The EIS 2011 historical land title search was performed by Advanced Legal Searchers Pty Ltd, and was limited to:

• Lot 12 in DP800476 (16 Kensington and 11 South Streets);

• Lot 6 in DP1130879 (18 Kensington Street); and

• Lots 1 to 3 (inclusive) in Section C of DP976627 (28-30 Gray Street).

Given the historical ownership of the Site is relatively well known, and the Lots excluded from the above list comprise a small percentage of the Site land area, CH2M HILL considered that the existing title search provided sufficient information on the previous ownership of the Site. As such no further search was undertaken as part of this assessment.

5.6.2.1 Historical Registered Owners Lot 12 DP 800476 Lot 12 DP 800476 has been formed by the consolidation of many smaller lots over more than a century. The main activities were noted below:

• The earliest mention of a hospital on the Site is 1899 with the Kogarah Cottage Hospital as the registered owner of Reserve Section F Bowen Park Estate. The St George District Hospital became the registered of this parcel of land in 1938.

• From the early 1900’s parcels of land within the current Lot 12 DP 800476 were transferred into the name of the Trustees of The St George Cottage Hospital from various individuals. These parcels were then transferred to The St George District Hospital in 1938/39 and The St George Hospital in 1962.

• From the early 1900’s parcels of land within the current Lot 12 DP 800476 were transferred into the name of The Minister for Public Works from various individuals. These parcels of land were transferred to The St George Hospital in 1962/64.

• In 1938 and again during the early to mid-1960s several parcels of land were transferred from individuals to The St George Hospital.

• In 1964 the various parcels of land in the name of The St George District Hospital and The St George Hospital were consolidated into the current Lot 12 DP 800476 and in 2005 were transferred to the current owner South Eastern Sydney and Illawarra Area Health Service.

• The professions of some of the previous individual owners were; chef, undertaker, building contractor, tub maker, carpenter, ship’s plumber, accountant, inspector of schools, sanitary inspector, innkeeper, farmer, bank manager, ironworker, painter, sheetmetal worker and motor mechanic.

5.6.2.2 Historical Registered Owners Lots 1-6 DP 1130879 • From 1898 to 1908 Mary Maria Morse, the wife of a Railway employee, owned a portion of this parcel

of land.

• The land was transferred into the name of The Minister for Public Works of the State of New South Wales in 1908.

• From 1908 to 1953 additional parcels of land were added to what was to become the current Lots in the name of The Minister for Public Works of the State of New South Wales.

• In 1953 the parcel of land was transferred into the names of the trustees of the Methodist Church Property Act and was held in these names until 1972.

• From 1972 to 1986 the parcels of land were in the name of Methodist Church (NSW) Property Trust.

• In 1986 the parcels of land were transferred to The St George Hospital with additional parcels and in 1989 were consolidated into the current Lot 1-6 DRP 1130879 in the name of The St George Hospital which is the current registered owner.

5.6.2.3 Historical Registered Owners Lots 1-3 Section C DP 976627 • From 1908-1977 the parcels of land were registered in the name of The Congregational Union of New

South Wales.

• In 1977 the land was transferred into the name of The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust and was held as such until 1986.

• In 1986 the land was transferred into the name of The St George Hospital who is the current registered owner.

Copies of the current and historical titles can be found in Section 10, Appendix A.

5.6.3 HISTORICAL LAND USE There has been a hospital on the Site since at least 1899 as indicated by the information provided in the Certificates of Title (Section 5.6.2). The land has been owned by the St George Hospital, its Trustees, the Minister for Public Works or individuals and there is no indication of significant industry in the area. Apart from some of the hospital activities themselves, there is little evidence from aerial photographs or Certificates of Title that would indicate the likelihood of significantly contaminating activities in the area.

Page 15


5.6.4 WORKCOVER NSW RECORDS CH2M HILL conducted a review of the Workcover NSW Dangerous Goods Search undertaken for the PSI in 2011 (EIS 2011) and the current Acknowledgement of Notification of Dangerous Goods on Premises document provided by HI. The response from Workcover NSW to queries in 2011 advised that a search of the Stored Chemical Information Database and microfiche records indicated 13 depots registered within the Site through licence number 35/010367. Since that time a number of changes have been made to the nature and extent of dangerous goods stored on the Site with 12 depots now recorded, some of which are the same, some are new and some have been transferred to new locations. Table 5-3 provides detail on the current depots and Table 5-4 lists historical depots.

Table 5-3: Current Storage Depots

Depot No. Type of Store Maximum Size Contains Location

1B AST 33,000L Refrigerated Liquid Oxygen

New Services Centre

1C AST 5,000L Refrigerated Liquid Oxygen

New Services Centre

4 Roofed Store 5,000L Ethanol Clinical Services Building

5 Cylinder Store 15,000L Compressed Air & Nitrogen

New Services Centre

5 Cylinder Store 8,000L Compressed Oxygen & Nitrous

Oxide

New Services Centre

5.1 Cylinder Store 8,000L Compressed Argon

New Services Centre

7 Flammable Liquids Cabinet

(FLC)

250L Ethanol (formerly also

acetone, diethyl ether & alcohol)

Pharmacy – Ward Block 1

8 UST 10,000L Diesel Northeast Corner of Clinical Services Building

11 AST 7,000L Diesel Adjacent to Gray Street Car Park Building 23

12 Cylinder Store 750L Acetylene, Dissolved Hydrogen,

Compressed Propane

Location un known as not recorded on plan

13 FLC 500L Ethanol & Turpentine Substitute

Painters Store in New Services Centre

The storage depots listed in Table 5-4 have been classed as ‘historical’ as they are either no longer in the location marked on the Dangerous Goods Register Map (i.e. the former services area is being redeveloped as part of the new Emergency Department [ED]) or they do not appear on the list of depots but documentation was previously provided by WorkCover. It has not been assumed that depots from the second category have been decommissioned, removed from Site or any contamination associated with them remediated.

Table 5-4: Historical Dangerous Goods Storage

Depot No. Date Noted Type of Store Size Contains Location

1 2009 AST 18,000L Liquid Oxygen Former Services Centre (now ED redevelopment)

1A 2009 AST 1,300L Liquid Oxygen Former Services Centre (now ED redevelopment)

2 2009 Roofed Store 1,000L Ethanol & Turpentine Substitute

Former Services Centre (now ED redevelopment)

5.2a 1999 Exempt – Storage Area

15m3 Compressed oxygen


5..2b 1999 Cylinder Store 24m3 Dissolved acetylene


5.3 2009 Cylinder Store 467m3 Nitrous Oxide Former Services Centre (now ED redevelopment)

5.4 2009 Cylinder Store 464m3 Compressed nitrogen & carbon dioxide


5.5 2009 Cylinder Store 45m3 Propane, dissolved acetylene & compressed hydrogen


Page 16


Depot No. Date Noted Type of Store Size Contains Location

9 2009 AST 5,000L Diesel Former Services Centre (now ED redevelopment)

10 2009 FLC 250L Petrol Former Services Centre (now ED redevelopment)

Pathology 2009 Process Location

250L Ethanol Pathology – Clinical Services

A copy of Workcover NSW’s response from EIS 2011 can be found in Section 10, Appendix G.

5.6.5 NSW EPA CONTAMINATED LANDS AND REGULATORY RECORDS The following sections provide information on the NSW EPA Contaminated Lands Records and Protection of the Environment Operations (POEO) Public Register as relevant to the Site and surrounding land. Should contamination be detected on the Site, these records may be of use in identifying the source, particularly in establishing if contamination has originated on Site or migrated onto the Site from an offsite source.

5.6.5.1 NSW EPA Contaminated Lands Records The NSW EPA publishes a register of Contaminated Land Record of Notices where the EPA has issued a regulatory notice in relation to contamination at a site. The Record of Notices Register was accessed online on 14 March 2014 (http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/prclmapp/). No notices or declarations were listed for the Site or the Kogarah area.

In addition to the Contaminated Lands Records the NSW EPA publishes a register of a List of NSW Contaminated Sites Notified to EPA, and provides a listing of the management class of the site. The Site Notified to the EPA Register was accessed on 14 March 2014 (http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/clm/publiclist.htm). No notices or declarations were listed for the Site; however, three properties in Kogarah were noted as listed in Table 5-5.

Table 5-5: List of Contaminated Sites Notified to the NSW EPA

Site Address Activity That Caused Contamination

Distance From Site

EPA Site Management Class*

EPA Initial Assessment

Caltex Service Station 29 President Ave

Service Station 700m NE

B In progress.

7-Eleven Service Station 736 Princes Highway

Service Station 450m NE

G Completed.

Scarborough Park South Production Avenue

Landfill 1,500m SE

H Completed.

Site Address Activity That Caused Contamination

Distance From Site

EPA Site Management Class*

EPA Initial Assessment

* Explanation of Class:

A: The contamination is being assessed by the EPA. Sites which have yet to be determined as significant enough to warrant regulation and may result in no further regulation.

B: The EPA is awaiting further information to progress its initial assessment of the site.

C: the contamination is or was regulated under the CLM Act 1997

D: the contamination of this site is or was regulated under the POEO Act 1997

E: The premises features an operational underground petroleum storage system.

F: The contamination of this site is managed by a planning approval process.

G: The contamination of the site is considered by the EPA to not be significant enough to warrant regulatory intervention.

H: Initial assessment completed. Contamination of the site is to be regulated by the EPA.

The potentially contaminated properties listed above are a significant distance from the Site and located either cross gradient or down gradient of likely groundwater flow. Therefore they are not expected to impact the Site.

5.6.5.2 NSW EPA POEO Public Register The NSW EPA public register under the POEO Act contains, amongst other items, a list of issued Environment Protection Licenses (EPLs). The register was accessed on 18 March 2014 (http://epa.nsw.gov.au/prpoeoapp/default.aspx) and indicates that there are two EPLs for the Site as listed in Table 5-6.

Table 5-6: EPLs for St George Hospital Site

Name Location Activity Related Hazardous and/or industrial and/or group A waste

HCOA Operations (Australia) Pty Limited Licence No. 1066826 Issued 03 Nov 2006

St George Hospital, 1 South Street, Kogarah, NSW, 2217

Hazardous, Industrial or Group A Waste Generation or Storage >100-500 T

Clinical and related wastes and waste pharmaceuticals, drugs and medicines

South Eastern Sydney and Illawarra Area Health Service Licence No. 1044557 Issued 10 May 2005

St Georges Hospital, Gray Street, Kogarah, NSW, 2217

Hazardous, Industrial or Group A Waste Generation or Storage (73) >100-500 T

Grease trap waste Waste pharmaceuticals, drugs and medicines, Waste chemical substances arising from research and development or teaching activities

A search of EPLs within a 1km radius of the Site was also conducted and it was found that EPLs exist for two properties surrounding the Site, as listed in Table 5-7.

Page 17

http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/prclmapp/

http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/clm/publiclist.htm

http://epa.nsw.gov.au/prpoeoapp/default.aspx


Table 5-7: Properties with an EPL within 1km of the Site

Name Location Distance from Site Activity

Calvary Health Care Sydney Limited

91 Rocky Point Road, Kogarah, NSW, 2217

1,000m South

Hazardous, Industrial or Group A Waste Generation 0-10T

Pathology Services Pty Limited

79 Princes Highway, Kogarah, NSW, 2217

350m northeast

Hazardous, Industrial or Group A Waste Generation >10-100T

The properties with EPLs listed above are cross gradient of likely groundwater flow from the Site and therefore are unlikely to be contributing to contamination (if any) at the Site.

5.6.6 SECTION 149 CERTIFICATE The three Section 149 Certificates for three of the Lots (Lot 12 of DP800476, Lot 1-6 of DP1130879 and Lot 2&3 Section C of DP976627) were obtained from EIS 2011 and are presented in Section 10, Appendix H. Section 149 Certificates for six Lots (listed below) dated 11 March 2014 were provided to CH2M HILL by HI/LLTS on 03 April 2014.

• Lot 12 of DP800476

• Lot 1 of DP1130879

• Lot 2 of DP1130879

• Lot 3 of DP1130879

• Lot 4 of DP1130879

• Lot 5 of DP1130879

These were reviewed by CH2M HILL as part of this DSA. No changes to the clauses within the Section 149 Certificates had been made since 2011.

Given the remaining lots on the Site are zoned as Health Services Facilities, CH2M HILL considers it unlikely that the Section 149 certificates from the remaining lots will contain novel information. As such no further Section 149 certificates were obtained for this investigation. Notable inclusions within the Section 149 Certificates from 2011 include:

• Within the meaning of Section 59(2) of the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 the Site was not:-

o Significantly contaminated land o Subject to a management order o The subject of an approved voluntary management proposal o Subject to an ongoing maintenance order; nor o Subject of a site audit statement

• For buildings constructed prior to 1987, an asbestos survey prepared by a suitably qualified and experience professional may be required for certain works, including demolition.

5.7 HOSPITAL RECORDS AND INTERVIEWS

The following sections provide details of information regarding the Site gathered from St George Hospital records and or interviews with HI personnel.

5.7.1 INTERVIEWS WITH ST GEORGE HOSPITAL PERSONNEL The following sections provide transcripts of interviews with Site personnel with regards to current and historical practices and policies. Interviews were conducted either face-to-face or via telephone, and subsequent email correspondence with site personnel can be found in Section 10, Appendix I.

5.7.1.1 Engineering Department On 27 March 2014 CH2M HILL conducted an interview with Mr Gary Dower from the Engineering Department at SGH. The key points from this meeting were:

• There is no environmental incident register or management system in place at SGH;

• It was indicated that there are minor drainage issues with regards to stormwater, with pooling of water around stormwater pit grates. Mr Dower mentioned that pipe breakages cause issues;

• The stormwater detention tanks under the driveway and in the southwest corner of the Site are used for water retention only and not specifically for water treatment. Stormwater from the Site is not collected and reused;

• Apart from the radiation dilution tanks (discussed further in Section 5.7.3.2) SGH does not have radioactive waste;

• Mr Dower was not aware of any reportable incidents from breaches of the EPL or accidents notified to the EPA;

• Mr Dower was aware of one diesel spill of approximately 20L that occurred around four years ago in the vicinity of the new ED development site. The spill was successfully cleaned up at the time of release;

• There is a policy for asbestos management at the Site;

• The location of the 1947 concrete pit for minerals spirits noted on the 2011 Dangerous Goods Register is unknown. The mortuary marked on the associated plan is an unhelpful landmark as there have been a number of different mortuaries over the years;

• Mr Dower suggested the UST listed as 2,500L may in fact be 2,500 gallons, and this UST was removed and reinstalled as the current 10,00L UST;

• The 20,000L UST mentioned in the Dangerous Goods Search from 2011 was historically used for fuel oil to power the heating system, and was removed sometime between 1980-1989;

• There have been no significant fires requiring the use of fire retardant foam to extinguish the fire in the last 30 years; and

• There are underground service tunnels beneath Ward Block Building 1 however these are not designed for use by people.

5.7.1.2 Radiation Safety Officer On 1 April 2014 CH2M HILL conducted a telephone interview with Mr Erin McKay PhD, the Radiation Safety Officer at SGH. An email clarifying details of the interview can be found in Section 10, Appendix I. The key points from this meeting were:

• SGH administers Iodine-131 (I-131) as treatment for thyroidectomy patients. A very large dose is applied to the patient and approximately 90% of that is excreted in the urine. I-131 has a half-life of 8 days and if allowed to decay for six months approximately 0.14 parts per million (ppm) of the initial radioactive material remains;

Page 18


• There are dedicated bathrooms for the thyroid patients to use which are plumbed into the radiation dilution tanks;

• There are two dilution tanks; one is sitting full while the other one is filling. The detention time in the full tank is 6-8 months to allow for the decay of the isotope. The tanks are located under 72 Ward Block;

• The treated wastewater is released to the sewer system under a trade waste agreement with Sydney Water (presented in Section 10, Appendix J and discussed in Section 5.7.3.1 below); and

• Initially, upon installation during the leak testing, the tanks leaked as the membrane was incorrectly applied. This was repaired and no leaks have been detected since installation. Leak testing is done via volume measurement of the incoming versus outgoing wastewater using an electronic wet gauge mounted within the tank during the six month decay phase.

5.7.1.3 Waste Management On 1 April 2014 CH2M HILL conducted a telephone interview with Zoran Markovski of Corporate Services at SGH to enquire about waste management. The key points from this meeting were:

• SGH has a waste management plan;

• Solid waste is collected from across the Site and held in the Services Centre for off-site disposal by a licensed contractor; and

• There have not been any breaches of the waste management plan that Mr Markovski is aware of.

Further information on waste management, including a copy of the waste management plan, was requested from SGH and was pending at the time of writing.

5.7.2 TRADE WASTE AGREEMENTS CH2M HILL understands SGH holds two trade waste agreements; one with Sydney Water for liquid waste disposal and another with an unknown company for solid waste disposal (yet to be sighted by CH2M HILL). The pertinent information from these agreements is summarised below.

5.7.2.1 Sydney Water Trade Wastewater Permit Sydney Water regulations require that all discharge of trade wastewater to the sewer from the Site be authorised by written consent. The Trade Wastewater Permit dated 28 June 2006 provided to CH2M HILL by HI (Section 10, Appendix J) authorised for the continuing discharge to the sewer with certain conditions, including pre-treatment prior to discharge. The following pre-treatments are listed in the permit;

• Seven plaster arrestors located in various department to filter solids from the wastewater prior to discharge to the Site’s sewer system;

• Two cooling pits, one in the old boiler room and one in the current boiler room;

• Two 1,000L and five 100L balancing/dilution pits in radiology, x-ray, Clinical Services and James Laws House;

• Two grease traps, one in the cafeteria/hospital kitchen and one in the kiosk;

• A 1000L pit in the paint workshop;

• Eight silver recovery units;

• Xylene recovery system located in Clinical Services; and

• Two further plant cooling towers.

The permit states that the discharge point at the Site should be through a boundary trap and can include domestic sewage.

Following further consultation with SGH Engineering Department (email correspondence included within Section10, Appendix I) CH2M HILL understands that:

• The location of the five 100L balancing/dilution pits is currently unknown;

• The 1000L pit in the paint workshop was removed as part of the ED development currently being undertaken; and

• The silver recovery units were located on the lower ground floor of the Radiology building and are no longer in use.

Of the items listed on the trade wastewater agreement, CH2M HILL considers the following to be potentially contaminating and require further investigation:

• Five 100L balancing/dilution tanks;

• Silver recovery units; and

• Xylene recovery system.

These are discussed further in the conceptual site model (CSM) (Section 5.10).

5.8 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS There have been a number of previous environmental and hazardous materials assessments completed at the Site. A total of three previous reports were available to CH2M HILL at the time of writing, and these are summarised below. In addition at least one further report (Environmental Investigation Services, Preliminary Soil Contamination Investigation and Waste Classification for Proposed Alterations and Additions at St George Hospital, Kogarah January 2012) is known to have been commissioned at the Site, however this was not available at the time of writing.

Figure 2 in Section 8 provides locations of the boreholes drilled for the previous EIS/J&K investigations below.

5.8.1 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT 2011 In September 2011 Noel Arnold & Associates completed a Hazardous Materials Risk Assessment (HMRA) for a majority of buildings that form the St George Hospital (Noel Arnold Report 2011). This report has been reviewed as part of this investigation, and further information from the review can be found in Section 5.9 below.

5.8.2 PRELIMINARY STAGE 1 ENVIRONMENT SITE ASSESSMENT FOR PROPOSED ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS AT ST GEORGE HOSPITAL, KOGARAH. NSW, 2011

In November 2011, EIS published a preliminary site assessment (PSI) for the then proposed alterations and additions to the Site (including the new ED and Sub-Acute Mental Health building) which was prepared for the lodgement of a Part 3A Development Application to the Department of Planning.

The primary objectives of the PSI were to:

• Assess the potential risk of significant, widespread soil and groundwater contamination being present at the site;

Page 19


• Make a preliminary assessment of the soil contamination conditions in the vicinity of the proposed development areas; and

• Undertake a waste classification assessment for off-site disposal of excavated soil associated with the proposed redevelopment works.

The report noted in an interview with Peter Schumacher (the hospital’s chief engineer) that there was a single UST at the Site that contained diesel for the backup generators and a small above ground diesel tank attached to a secondary generator adjacent to the UST. It was also noted that a radiation dilution tank was located beneath the main building. Mr Schumacher also indicated that no other fuel, chemical or dangerous substances relevant to the PSI were stored onsite.

Soil samples were collected from 13 sampling locations (BH1 to BH13 inclusive) concentrated in areas that were relevant to the new developments. Field screening of soil samples for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) produced a maximum reading of 5.9 parts per million (ppm). Bore logs indicate that fill material was found at all 13 boreholes. The fill material consisted of gravelly sand, silty sand, sandy gravel, and gravelly clayey sand of variable colour with inclusions of igneous, ironstone and sandstone gravels, concrete fragments, ash and slag gravel. The fill was up to 1.3m in depth. The natural soils beneath the fill material were typically orange brown and or light grey to grey clay and extended to a maximum depth of 3.1m. The bedrock beneath the soils consisted of shale and or sandstone and was typically light grey, orange brown and or red brown and extended to the termination depth of the boreholes. Groundwater in BH1 was encountered at a depth of 5m with remaining boreholes dry on completion.

Elevated concentrations of contaminants were not encountered in the soil samples analysed for the investigation. Reported results were below the site assessment criteria for NEPM 1999 Health Investigation Level (HIL) F. Except for the area around BH10 at which the presence of asbestos was noted in the fill, the soils were classified as general solid waste. It was noted that elevated concentrations of arsenic and nickel were encountered in several samples that were above the Provisional Phyto-toxicity Investigation Levels (PPILs) listed in the Site Auditor Guidelines (NSW DEC, 2006).

EIS concluded that, based on soil analysis and site history, the potential for significant, widespread soil and/or groundwater contamination at the site was low to moderate. It was considered that soil contamination maybe encountered at discrete locations across the Site and would most likely be associated with unidentified USTs, the existing 10,000L UST and/or asbestos from former building/demolition activities.

A groundwater assessment was not conducted as part of the scope.

5.8.3 PRELIMINARY SOIL CONTAMINATION INVESTIGATION AND WASTE CLASSIFICATION FOR PROPOSED ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS AT ST GEORGE HOSPITAL, KOGARAH, JANUARY 2012)

Following the EIS 2011 report, EIS were commissioned to undertake a waste classification of soils intended for excavation and off-site removal during the construction of the new Emergency Department. A copy of this report was not available to CH2M HILL at the time of writing, however the report is summarised within the Remedial Action Plan (RAP) report (referenced in Section 5.7.4) and the following information was sourced from that summary.

Six boreholes were drilled as part of the investigation. Of these one sample at BH101 reported elevated concentrations of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) (C10-C36), total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and benzo(a)pyrene (B(a)P). EIS concluded this contamination was likely the result of uncontrolled

filling practices and recommended delineation of the impacted fill material, followed by preparation of a RAP, and remediation.

5.8.4 REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN FOR PROPOSED NEW EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT 2012 EIS were commissioned to prepare a RAP for the proposed new emergency department. The boundary of the RAP was restricted to: part Lot 1 in DP791072; part Lot 1, Section C in DP976627; part Lot 12 in DP800476; and part Lots 1, 5 and 6 in DP1130879.

EIS understood that the proposed development included demolition of the existing buildings and associated structures and construction of a new one to two storey building, ambulance hardstand area and car park.

EIS recommended that implementation of an Additional Environmental Works Plan would provide for better site characterisation and would also provide the information required to make a decision regarding the preferred remedial strategy for the site. The Additional Environmental Works Plan was designed to be implemented following demolition and prior to any excavation works at the site.

Based on the investigation data available EIS considered there to be two viable options for remediating the site:

• Consolidation and isolation of the contaminated soil on-site by containment within a properly designed barrier (‘Cap and contain’); or

• Excavation of the contaminated material and disposal to an approved site or facility, followed where necessary by replacement with clean material (‘Excavation and off-site disposal’);

EIS discussed that the cap and contain approach would require the least additional work as the remediation area (based on the existing contamination data) was predominantly located beneath an area of the proposed building that would be filled and/or covered by a concrete slab. However, in the event that the ‘cap and contain’ approach was selected, the site would subsequently be managed via the implementation of an Environmental Management Plan (EMP). The applicability of both remediation options would have been dependent on the findings of the additional environmental works.

The remediation options were considered suitable due to the following:

• The soil contamination identified in BH101 was considered to be associated with slag and therefore bound in a relatively insoluble matrix;

• The remedial strategies would align relatively closely with the proposed construction activities and would not require significant, additional work; and

• The EMP would provide a mechanism to manage any future intrusive works at the site (applicable to the cap and contain option).

Remediation of groundwater was not considered necessary at the time of the RAP. In the event that groundwater contamination was identified during the additional environmental works, a groundwater remediation strategy would need to be prepared and implemented.

EIS were of the opinion that the site could be made suitable for the proposed development provided the measures outlined in the RAP were successfully implemented.

It should be noted that since the publication of the EIS RAP the Emergency Department development has progressed, including the demolition of existing structures and partial construction of a new building. At the time of writing CH2M HILL did not have information on the remediation works carried out (if any) or if the recommendations regarding further investigation were carried out.

Page 20


5.8.5 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS 2011/2012 In November 2011 and January 2012 J&K published one geotechnical report and one supplementary report on geotechnical investigations undertaken for the then proposed alterations and additions at SGH entitled;

• Geotechnical Investigation for Proposed Alternations and Additions at St George Hospital, Gray Street, Kogarah, NSW (Ref: 25264Zrpt) (2 November 2011);and

• Supplementary Geotechnical Investigation St George Hospital, Gray Street, Kogarah (Ref: 25264Z Let2) (12 January 2012).

A summary of these reports, as they pertain to environmental contamination, is provided below. CH2M HILL understands the geotechnical consultant (Coffey) will be reviewing these reports with respect to geotechnical investigations of the Site as part of their Element 1 report.

The main points pertinent to this environmental contamination investigation from the 2011 report are;

• Fourteen boreholes were drilled (BH1 to BH14);

• The investigation revealed a generalised subsurface profile comprising fill over residual clays with sandstone bedrock at relatively shallow depth;

o Fill, comprised of sands, gravelly sand, silty sand, clayey sand and clays, was encountered in all boreholes between depths of 0.2m (BH7) and 1.3m (BH6).

o BH4 refused on a buried obstruction at several locations at a depth of 0.2mbsl. BH10 refused on an obstruction in the fill at several locations at 0.8mbsl;

o Residual silty and sandy clays were encountered below the fill in all locations, except BH4. The clays were of medium plasticity and very stiff;

o Sandstone bedrock was encountered in all boreholes, except BH4, at depths of between 0.55m (BH7) and 3.1m (BH2 and BH5). In general, the sandstone on first contact was of very low or low strength, and improved to medium and high strength with depth.

• For BH1 and BH3 in the northeast of the Site the following subsurface profile was encountered;

o Fill, comprising silty sand, gravelly sand, and sandy clay with gravel and brick fragment inclusions was encountered to depth of 0.7-0.8mbsl.

o Residual silty or silty sandy clay was encountered below the fill. Clays had variable plasticity and a very stiff strength;

o Shale bedrock was encountered at a depth of 1.65mbsl in BH1 and extended to a depth of 3.7m. The shale was of extremely low to low strength and was underlain by a 0.5m thick band of interbedded shale and sandstone; and

o Sandstone bedrock was encountered at a depth of 4m below the interbedded shale and sandstone in BH1 and at 1.6m below the residual sandy clay in BH3.

• Groundwater was not encountered during or on completion of augering any of the boreholes. Water was added to the borehole to facilitate the coring process and J&K believed that the groundwater level measured at BH3 and BH7 on completion of coring probably does not represent the natural groundwater level. Long term groundwater monitoring was not undertaken.

• The borelogs record groundwater levels as follows;

o BH1 at approximately 4.7m after two hours; o BH3 at approximately 2.5m on completion of coring; and o BH7 at approximately 2.0m (time not stated but log indicates coring at this depth).

The main points pertinent to this environmental contamination investigation from the 2012 report are;

• An additional six boreholes were drilled (BH101 to BH106);

• The investigation revealed a generalised subsurface profile comprising fill over residual clays with sandstone bedrock at relatively shallow depth;

o Fill, from 0.3m (BH101) to 0.7m (BH103) depth comprising of concrete (reinforced), gravelly sand with gravel slag and igneous inclusions;

o Residual sandy clays, clayey sands, silty sand and silty clay were encountered below the fill, some with ironstone gravel; and

o Sandstone bedrock was encountered at depths of between 1.0mbsl to 1.3mbsl in BH103 and BH101 respectively.

• The borelogs indicate groundwater was not encountered except at BH103 at approximately 0.5mbsl(although this appears to be cored which requires the addition of drilling mud and therefore may not be reflective of the true depth to groundwater).

5.9 HAZARDOUS MATERIAL SURVEY As part of this investigation CH2M HILL engaged P. Clifton and Associates Pty Ltd (P. Clifton) to undertake a review of the hazardous materials survey completed by Noel Arnold in 2011 (Noel Arnold Report 2011). The survey was conducted on a total of 29 buildings across the entire campus. The survey focused on the presence of asbestos (bonded and friable), PCBs, lead paint and synthetic mineral fibre (SMF).

P. Clifton reviewed these documents to:

• Ascertain the completeness of the inspection;

• Identify data gaps, including spaces that were not included or analytes that were not tested for.

In completing this review P. Clifton gave particular attention to the portions of the Site where future development is likely to take place, based on the masterplan provided by HI during the tender. This includes portions of buildings that will remain on Site but become tie-in locations to other new buildings, as demolition may be required in these spaces.

The buildings that were given particular attention include:

• Those associated with the new “Acute IPU Block”:

o 1 – Ward Block; o 26 – Research Institute; o 4 – Radiology; o 5 – Emergency; o 32 – EMU & QRP; o 6 – Prince William Wing; o Radiology III; o Clinical Services Building; and o Cardiac Catheter Lab.

• Those associated with the new “South Block, TTR, Oncology and Mental Health Expansion”:

o 2 – Cancer Care Centre; o 10 – Pitney Building; o 16 – JH Laws House;

Page 21


o 15 – Demountable; o 17 – Banksia House o 18 – Demountable; and o 19 – Rose Cottage.

The complete review is presented in Appendix K and the points below provide a summary:

• In general the Noel Arnold Report 2011 was considered to be comprehensive, with the large number of samples taken giving confidence in the information presented;

• The SMF materials are mostly listed as being “assumed” present, whereas the photographs presented appear to be conclusively SMF material. This will be verified during the Element 2 inspection;

• The report for Building 15 – EMR and IED notes the presence of friable asbestos containing materials in poor condition, and recommends removal. CH2M HILL understands from SGH Engineering that portions of this asbestos have been removed, however some sections (including that within the join of Building 15 to James Laws House) are still present. This will be verified during the Element 2 inspection;

• A number of locations through each of the buildings are listed as “inaccessible” and further inspections (and possibly further sampling) are required to verify the accessibility of these areas and the potential hazardous materials they may contain;

• The buildings within the masterplan footprint recommended to have a further inspection include:

o 4 – Burt Nielson Wings – particularly in the northern section where the intended new building will tie-in

o 5 – Emergency Department; o 6 - Prince William Wing ; o 32 – EMU and QRP Building; o 1 – Ward Block – particularly in the southern section where the intended new building will tie-in o 10 - Pitney Building; o 15 - Demountable; o 17 - Banksia House – particularly on the western wall where the intended new building may tie-

in; and o 18 – Demountable.

• The buildings outside of the masterplan footprint recommended to have a further inspection include:

o 14 – Pathology Collection; o 23 – Gray Street Parking Station;

When comparing the buildings included within the Noel Arnold Report 2011 to the planned area of influence of the future developments, CH2M HILL considers that the relevant buildings were included in the 2011 survey.

An inspection and sampling plan (if required) will be prepared during Element 2 of this project.

5.10 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL The following sections outline the source-pathway-receptor linkages identified at the Site during the DSA, in order to form a conceptual site model (CSM). The NEPM 1999 (2013 amendment) considers the development of a CSM as an “essential part of all site assessments and provides the framework for identifying how the site became contaminated and how potential receptors may be exposed to contamination either in the present or the future..”

As such CH2M HILL has developed this CSM in general accordance with NEPM 1999 (2013 amendment), and anticipate this CSM will be updated throughout the subsequent elements of the project. The following sections outline the source-pathway-receptor linkages identified at the Site during the DSA, and include a discussion of these linkages with respect to the ongoing use of the Site as a Health Services Facility in general, and with respect to the proposed masterplan in particular.

5.10.1 POTENTIAL CONTAMINATION SOURCES Based on information gathered during the desktop site history component of this DSA, part of the Site has been used as a hospital since 1899. Other portions of the Site were originally privately owned and were transferred to the hospital over the years between 1899 and 1986/1989. The aerial photographs suggest that the Site was partially developed by 1930 with several structures present and existing surrounding roads established.

Intrusive works from previous investigations (EIS 2011) indicated that fill materials are present across the Site. The fill materials appear to be comprised of two distinct types; surface materials for landscaping such as asphalt, concrete, brick pavers or mulch and reworked/imported soils with inclusions. The surface fill materials were encountered to depths of up to 0.1 metres below surface level (mbsl) and these were underlain by the reworked soils encountered to depths of up to 1.3 mbsl. The reworked/imported fill materials consisted of gravelly sand, silty sand, sandy gravel, gravelly clayey sand of variable colour with inclusions of igneous, ironstone and sandstone gravels, concrete fragments, ash and slag gravel.

The source of the fill is unknown and from the desktop site history there are no obvious local sources in the immediately surrounding area. However, it is well known that fill in the Sydney area was historically sourced from industrial and power generation sites which may have contained contaminants prior to importation onto another Site.

The RAP (EIS 2012) highlighted that intrusive works conducted for the new ED development indicated elevated concentrations of TPH and B(a)P above investigation criteria in the fill material along the Gray Street boundary. The presence of B(a)P and TPH is often associated with slag and therefore the slag gravel found in the fill may be one source of these contaminants.

From discussions during the site walkover, and from the dangerous goods register documentation, one active 10,000L UST is located onsite which contains diesel for the backup generators. It is possible the UST was re-located on site from a former location to its current position around 30 years ago. Aged USTs can be subject to corrosion and leakage, causing contamination in the surrounding soil and possibly groundwater beneath the UST. Depending on subsurface conditions, the TPH contamination may migrate away from the location of the UST and offsite. Depending on the condition of the UST located near the Clinical Services Building, it has the potential to be a source of both soil and groundwater contamination both on and off site.

Additionally there are four other USTs mentioned in the 2011 Dangerous Goods Register, the fate and exact location of which are unknown. It appears likely that the 2,500L tank was incorrectly listed on the register, and was actually a 2,500 gallon tank that was decommissioned and reinstalled as the currently active 10,000L UST. In addition, it is likely the 20,000L UST was installed in the north eastern corner of the Site, and very little information is available regarding the decommissioning of this tank. If this and the other two unaccounted-for USTs have not been decommissioned, removed, investigated for contamination and/or if required, remediated, then they may continue to be a source of contamination on the Site.

Hospitals use radioisotopes for diagnosis and therapeutic applications. If the waste has not been subject to safe management and disposal, this waste has the potential to cause overexposure of radiation to Site users

Page 22


and the environment. The PSI completed in 2011 (EIS, 2011) mentioned the presence of a radiation dilution tank beneath the main building of the hospital, and these tanks have been confirmed to be underneath Ward Block 1. The Trade Waste Agreement also mentions a further five 100L dilution tanks, the location of which was unknown at the time of writing. The two large tanks have leak testing and management plans in place, and are not considered to be potentially contaminating. However as the presence, location and state of repair of the smaller tanks is currently unknown these are a potentially contaminating activity and require further investigation.

The Trade Waste Agreement lists both a silver recovery unit within the Radiology building, and a xylene recovery unit. The silver recovery unit is likely to have recovered silver from x-ray films, using a process that utilised cyanide as a reactant or solvent for the silver. Both silver and cyanide are toxic to organisms. While the silver recovery unit is no longer in use, if the system was leaking, or historical waste disposal of the silver or cyanide were inadequate this system may have contaminated the underlying soil and groundwater.

The location or operation of the xylene recovery unit was unknown at the time of writing, although it has been suggested it may be located within Laboratory Services (building unknown). Xylene is a volatile solvent, and can present a risk to human health through the inhalation of vapours if it is present beneath buildings. Should the xylene recovery unit have leaked, or historical disposal practices be inadequate there is a potential for xylene to have migrated through building foundations and into the soil below. As such, CH2M HILL consider the xylene recovery unit a potentially contaminating activity that requires further investigation, including verifying the location, operational status and operating procedure.

The previous hazardous material survey for the Site (Noel Arnold Report 2011), along with the review of that report conducted for this assessment, identified a number of buildings across the Site that contain, or may contain, hazardous building materials including asbestos (bonded and friable), SMF, PCBs and lead paint and dust. If those current buildings (or other previous buildings) were renovated or demolished without appropriate controls for the hazardous materials, those materials may have contaminated the surrounding soils. In addition the hazardous materials themselves may present a direct risk to human health by inhalation or ingestion if they are disturbed or demolished incorrectly.

Based on the information collected as part of this desktop assessment, CH2M HILL has identified the following potentially contaminating activities that occurred at the Site:

• Historical demolition and/or construction of buildings with hazardous materials;

• Uncontrolled filling;

• The use and storage of fuels within USTs;

• The storage and disposal of radioactive material within the unlocated 100L tanks;

• Silver recovery system within Radiology;

• Xylene recovery system; and

• Migration of contaminated groundwater onto the Site.

As such, the following chemicals have been identified as potential contaminants of concern in soils, as they are commonly found in uncontrolled fill or may be indicators of general chemical contamination:

• Heavy metals – arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), total chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), lead (Pb), mercury (Hg), nickel (Ni) and zinc (Zn);

• TPH fractions;

• Benzene, toluene, ethyl-benzene and xylene (BTEX) compounds;

• PAH compounds;

• Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) compounds; and

• The presence/absence of asbestos and SMF.

In addition the following chemicals have been identified as potential contaminants of concern in soils based on site specific information gathered during this DSA:

• Low level radioactive waste;

• Silver;

• Cyanide; and

• Xylene.

Similarly, the following chemicals have been identified as potential contaminants of concern in groundwater, as they are commonly associated with uncontrolled fill:

• Heavy metals – As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Hg, Ni and Zn;

• TPH fractions and BTEX compounds.

In addition the following chemicals have been identified as potential contaminants of concern in groundwater based on site specific information gathered during this DSA:

• Low level radioactive waste; and

• Silver;

• Cyanide; and

• Xylene.

5.10.2 CONTAMINATION PATHWAYS CH2M HILL has identified the following pathways through which potential contamination may reach receptors (as listed in Section 5.9.5 below):

• Direct contact during site works;

• Vapour intrusion into buildings, basements, car parks or services;

• Radiation intrusion into buildings, basements, car parks or services;

• Vertical migration from soil into groundwater; and

• Migration of groundwater off-site.

5.10.3 POTENTIAL RECEPTORS When discussing potential receptors the guidelines (NEPM 1999, 2013 amendment) divide receptors into two categories; human receptors and ecological receptors. The primary potential on site receptors identified during this DSA are:

• Site workers performing intrusive works, including demolition works associated with the masterplan;

• Site users within buildings; and

• Soil flora and fauna.

Page 23


It should be noted that the site users within the buildings are both hospital staff, hospital patients and any visitors or temporary maintenance workers. It should also be noted that hospital patients may reside in the hospital for long periods (months to years) and may also be immune-suppressed. In both these cases the hospital patients may be considered to be more sensitive receptors than the hospital staff or other site users and may require the site assessment criteria to be adjusted accordingly. This will be further discussed within the Element 2 report.

The potential off-site environmental receptors are:

• Scarborough Park wetlands; and

• Botany and Kogarah Bays.

5.10.4 DISCUSSION OF CSM Based on the information collected as part of this DSA, CH2M HILL considers there are six primary potential sources of contamination; uncontrolled fill materials, TPH within soils and groundwater from the active and former USTs, radioactive waste, silver, cyanide, xylene and hazardous building materials.

Of these, the active diesel 10, 000L UST, the (possibly decommissioned) 20,000L UST and the xylene recovery system present the highest priority as there is little information on the status of this infrastructure, or on the origin, installation date and method, and integrity. In addition no soil or groundwater monitoring has occurred specifically to target these features. Should the tanks be leaking there may be soil or groundwater impacts. These impacts may be encountered during site works, or may migrate underneath buildings and present a risk to human health from vapour intrusion. Further information is required on the integrity of the infrastructure and the contamination status of the soil and groundwater surrounding them.

Further, it is understood by CH2M HILL that the UST is not registered, and does not comply with the Guidelines for Implementing the Protection of the Environment Operations (Underground Petroleum Storage Systems) Regulation 2008 (UPSS 2008). In particular CH2M HILL notes that there does not appear to be mandatory pollution protection equipment installed, such as groundwater monitoring wells and there is no evidence of a specific Environment Protection Plan relevant to the UST. It should be noted that there are penalties and offences listed within the UPSS 2008 associated with non-compliance.

The hazardous materials within certain buildings on the Site are a priority, although they appear to be currently actively managed by the Hospital Engineering department. While these materials remain in place and undisturbed, they are unlikely to present a risk to human health (with the possible exception of the friable asbestos material within Building 15 as previously mentioned). However, renovation or demolition of these buildings will require specific hazardous materials controls, contractors and licences, and this will incur costs.

In regards to the masterplan, and the future demolition or renovation of buildings with hazardous materials, the previous reports indicate that hazardous materials are present within the majority of buildings intended for future works.

Based on the contaminated fill material reported by EIS 2011 it is likely that uncontrolled filling occurred across the Site and may have elevated concentrations of a range of chemicals. However, it does not appear to be grossly contaminated, and the contaminants detected by EIS 2011 are only considered likely to pose a potential human health risk through direct contact. As the Site is predominantly covered with buildings or landscaping the likelihood of direct contact from general site users is low. There is a moderate likelihood of direct contact with the fill material during site works involving excavations. However the fill material is

most likely to impact future developments at the Hospital during waste classification and disposal. If concentrations within the fill material exceed the relevant assessment criteria, the cost of excavation and disposal may be elevated compared to the cost of the same activities for General Solid Waste.

The potential radioactive waste, silver, cyanide and xylene contamination sources require further information, including confirming the location and operational status of the facilities, before their potential priority for investigation can be established. Should any one of these facilities be leaking it is possible that the contaminants have migrated into the soil and groundwater and pose a risk to either on or off-site receptors.

Further discussion on the possible risks posed to the masterplan development by potential site contamination is presented in Section 9.

Page 24


6 REQUIRED UPDATES TO THE BASE SURVEY This section lists all gaps in information in reviewed documentation and describes the scope of the survey requested in Element 2. The process to interact with the surveyor for this stage to obtain scale layout plans are described in the Inception Meeting minutes and reproduced here for convenience:

• Surveyors will make multi-disciplinary “master” survey available to all consultants. It is likely to be the same survey provided in the RFT Information Documents.

• Consultants may request from the surveyor a version of the dwg or pdf files with only their relevant layer showing (e.g. electrical infrastructure).

• During Element 1, the surveyor will seek out the latest survey information for recently completed developments (e.g. WAE drawings) and update the survey drawings where applicable.

• Consultants are then responsible for reviewing all available information, and identifying any information missing from the survey plans which can be added to the plans during Element 1. The consultants must prepare a package of supporting information to inform the surveyor of the changes/updates to the base survey which are required, and provide that package to the surveyor by Friday 28 March. The package must include any necessary notations or comments to be made on the plan/s indicating gaps in information, risk areas, areas for further investigation etc.

• The surveyor will then create a new layer for any additions for each consultant team, clearly showing the status on any additions (e.g. not verified by survey, diagrammatic only etc.).

• The surveyor will prepare a plan/s for each consultant team at the end of Element 1 for inclusion in the consultant’s report, showing the updated status of that consultant’s system/network/features on the Campus, and can provide that in CAD or pdf format. Consultants should not generally be preparing any survey/CAD plans for publishing under the Consultants logo.

• The surveyor will then prepare and make available a multi-disciplinary CAD file showing all services/features layers.

• The consultant will then inform the surveyor at the conclusion of Element 1 of its survey requirements for Element 2.

During this investigation CH2M HILL has noted the location of various features of interest and marked these on the survey plans presented within Section 8.

Page 25


7 OUTSTANDING / OMITTED WORKS This section lists all items or areas that the Consultant has not had the opportunity to investigate.

7.1 PREVIOUS REPORTS CH2M HILL is aware of at least two other previous environmental investigations that have been undertaken at the Site that were unavailable at the time of writing. These are:

• Preliminary Soil Contamination Investigation and Waste Classification for Proposed Alterations and Additions at St George Hospital, Kogarah, January 2012;

• J&K previous environmental samples (date and title unknown, sample plan supplied by HI);

7.2 REMEDIATION STATUS OF CONTAMINATED SOIL WITHIN NEW EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT

FOOTPRINT At the time of writing CH2M HILL understood from anecdotal sources that the contaminated soil identified within the EIS 2012 investigation report as being within the new ED footprint had undergone remediation, possibly including encapsulation.

CH2M HILL understands that the validation report is currently being endorsed by the Site Contamination Auditor and a draft copy is available from the ED development. Given the information within the validation report would be presented for completeness only CH2M HILL will obtain a copy of the validation report and include a summary within the Element 2 report.

7.3 STATUS OF VARIOUS POTENTIALLY CONTAMINATING ACTIVITIES The location and operational status of the five radioactive waste tanks, a UST, the silver recovery unit and xylene recovery unit were unknown at the time of writing. Further liaison with SGH staff will be carried out, and upon receipt of this information CH2M HILL will review and incorporate relevant information into the Element 2 report.

7.4 ST GEORGE HOSPITAL WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN At the time of writing the solid waste management plan, including the solid trade waste agreement was yet to be received from the hospital. Upon receipt of this plan CH2M HILL will review and incorporate a summary into the Element 2 report.

Page 26


8 DRAWINGS, SCHEMATICS & LAYOUTS This section includes:

- a scale site layout plan identifying all notable features related to the Consultant’s discipline and relevant issue and risk areas requiring surveyor’s update in Element 2;

- schematic plan (for Consultants with an area of technical responsibility focussed on asset and services technical);

- updated survey from the Surveyor; - any other relevant drawings and layouts.

FIGURE 1 – SITE LAYOUT

FIGURE 2 – PREVIOUS SAMPLING PLAN BOREHOLE LOCATIONS (pending)

Page 27


9 RISK ASSESSMENT This section captures risks to the successful delivery of this Project and the future Campus developments as set out in the Campus Development Control Plan.

The following section presents the potential contamination and hazardous materials information in the context of the risk these may pose to the enacting of the masterplan.

9.1 UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS As discussed in Section 5.10.4 the there is little information on the status of the existing diesel UST, or on the origin, installation date and method, and integrity.

If the UST were compromised and diesel fuel had entered the soil and groundwater, this may present a risk to human health (through either vapour intrusion or direct contact during site works) within the vicinity of the UST.

In addition, the current status of the UST and associated monitoring (or lack of) does not comply with the “Requirements for ‘old’ UPSS” within Section 1.5 of UPSS 2008. There are penalties and offences listed within the UPSS 2008, and there is a risk that fines or orders mandating action may be enacted on the Hospital or responsible person.

While possible contamination resulting from the UST leaking is not likely to pose a direct risk to the development masterplan, CH2M HILL considers the currently unknown contamination status of the UST to require further investigation, from both a human health and legal perspective.

Additionally, the unknown status of the 20,000L tank in the north east of the Site requires further investigation, including an intrusive investigation, to commence characterising the risk to the hospital and the masterplan.

The 10,000L UST is unlikely to present a risk to the masterplan stages, as construction within the vicinity has already been undertaken during the new ED construction. Further works in this area are planned above ground, and therefore buried infrastructure will have little impact.

The 20,000L UST may present a risk to the planned construction within the south of the Site, particularly involving Banksia House. If the UST is still in place, or there is remnant soil or groundwater contamination this may cause delays, additional earthworks or increase costs.

9.2 HAZARDOUS BUILDING MATERIALS The presence of hazardous building materials within certain buildings across the Site is well known. These materials present a risk to the development masterplan by potentially:

• Increasing the cost of demolition or renovation, by requiring specific hazardous materials controls, contractors and licences; and

• Increasing the time for demolition or renovation of certain buildings (including partial demolition for tie-ins) due to implementing the abovementioned controls.

Hazardous building materials have the potential to present a risk to all stages of the masterplan, including those involving vertical extensions to the new ED building.

9.3 CONTAMINATED FILL

The presence of uncontrolled contaminated fill is likely across the Site. This fill material may have elevated concentrations of a range of chemicals, however it does not appear likely to be grossly contaminated.

If concentrations within the fill material exceed the relevant assessment criteria the cost of excavation and disposal may be elevated compared to General Solid Waste, which may present a risk to the stages of the masterplan that involve at-ground works or building demolition.

9.4 UN-LOCATED INFRASTRUCTURE As mentioned in Section 5.10.4 the location and operational status of a number of pieces of infrastructure (radioactive waste tanks, silver recovery unit and xylene recovery unit) is currently unknown, and requires further investigation.

If the location of any of these pieces of infrastructure is concurrent with a building planned to be demolished or renovated, this may impact the construction. This may include consideration of decommissioning, disposal of potentially hazardous chemicals, or consideration of the load bearing capacity (i.e. the maximum height of the building) with a tank underneath.

If any one of these pieces of infrastructure has leaked, or historical disposal practices were inadequate, there may be associated soil and groundwater contamination. This may impact the planned construction by requiring remediation of soil or groundwater, increasing potential soil disposal costs, or (in the case of extensive xylene contamination) influencing the design of buildings to minimise the risk of vapour intrusion.

As the location of this infrastructure is currently unknown, the risk to specific portions of the masterplan is currently also unknown.

Page 28


10 APPENDICES

Page 29

Figures

PLAN OF EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE FORCONTAMINATION CONSULTANCY ELEMENT 1 REPORT ATST. GEORGE HOSPITAL, KOGARAH

THIS IS THE PLAN REFERRED TOIN MY LETTER DATED:

Registered Surveyor NSW

Drawing title

Client HEALTH INFRASTRUCTURE40676-CONTreference numberproject number

33459

SHEET

site AreaN/A

datumAHD

date of survey08/04/14

scale@A1

LGAKOGARAH OF 2 SHEETS

Registered Surveyors NSWLOCKLEY

www.ltsl.com.au

Suite 1, Level 1810 Pacific HighwayGordon NSW 2072Locked Bag 5Gordon NSW 2072P 1300 587 000F 02 9499 7760 1

1:500

CONTAMINATION SERVICES

ELEMENT 1 - CONTAMINATION

Appendix A: Title Search Documentation

St George Hospital Site Investigations & Campus ...

Documents

Transcript of St George Hospital Site Investigations & Campus ...