keswick assessment stage 2 (part b), july 2018€¦ · ©jbs&g australia pty ltd | 54378-115327...

FINAL REPORT

Environment Protection Authority South Australia

Keswick Stage 2 (Part B) Environmental Assessment Work

EPA Reference: 05/23762

18 July 2018

54378-115327 RP02 (Rev0)

©JBS&G Australia Pty Ltd | 54378-115327 RP02 (Rev0) i

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ ix

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

1.1 Background and Overview ................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Objective............................................................................................................................. 1

2. Summary of Previous Investigations ............................................................................................ 2

2.1 List of Previous Reports ...................................................................................................... 2

2.2 Summary of Key Findings of Previous Reports ................................................................... 3

2.2.1 Site History .......................................................................................................... 3

2.2.2 Soil ....................................................................................................................... 3

2.2.3 Groundwater ....................................................................................................... 4

2.2.4 Soil Vapour .......................................................................................................... 5

2.2.5 Indoor Air ............................................................................................................ 6

2.2.6 Human Health Risk Assessment .......................................................................... 6

3. Chemicals of Interest .................................................................................................................... 8

4. Summary of Geological and Hydrogeological Conditions ............................................................ 9

5. Scope of Work............................................................................................................................. 10

6. Groundwater Investigation ......................................................................................................... 11

6.1 Methodology .................................................................................................................... 11

6.1.1 Groundwater Well Installation ......................................................................... 11

6.1.2 Groundwater Sampling ..................................................................................... 13

6.1.3 Hydraulic Conductivity Testing ......................................................................... 15

6.2 Groundwater Tier 1 Screening Levels............................................................................... 15

6.2.1 Overview ........................................................................................................... 15

6.2.2 Sources of Tier 1 Screening Levels .................................................................... 15

6.3 Groundwater Quality Assurance / Quality Control .......................................................... 16

6.4 Groundwater Results ........................................................................................................ 17

6.4.1 Field Observations ............................................................................................ 17

6.4.2 Standing Water Levels & Hydrogeology ........................................................... 17

6.4.3 Water Quality Parameters ................................................................................ 17

6.4.4 Analytical Results .............................................................................................. 18

6.4.5 Hydraulic Conductivity Testing Results ............................................................. 20

7. Soil Vapour Investigation ............................................................................................................ 22

7.1 Methodology .................................................................................................................... 22

7.1.1 Soil Vapour Probe Installation .......................................................................... 22

7.1.2 Soil Vapour Sampling ........................................................................................ 24

©JBS&G Australia Pty Ltd | 54378-115327 RP02 (Rev0) ii

7.2 Soil Vapour Tier 1 Screening Levels .................................................................................. 26

7.2.1 Australian Screening Levels .............................................................................. 26

7.2.2 United States Environment Protection Agency ................................................ 26

7.3 Soil Vapour Quality Assurance / Quality Control ............................................................. 26

7.4 Soil Vapour Results ........................................................................................................... 27

7.4.1 Field Measurements ......................................................................................... 27

7.4.2 Analytical Results .............................................................................................. 27

8. Geotechnical Parameter Results ................................................................................................ 29

9. Discussion ................................................................................................................................... 30

9.1 Q1 Aquifer Vs Perched Aquifer ........................................................................................ 30

9.2 Temporal Trends .............................................................................................................. 30

9.2.1 Groundwater ..................................................................................................... 30

9.2.2 Soil Vapour ........................................................................................................ 31

9.3 Groundwater Vs Soil Vapour Plume Concentrations ....................................................... 32

9.4 Source Areas ..................................................................................................................... 32

10. Conceptual Site Model ............................................................................................................... 34

10.1 Content ............................................................................................................................. 34

10.2 Site Location ..................................................................................................................... 34

10.3 Topography....................................................................................................................... 34

10.4 Nearest Significant Surface Water Bodies ........................................................................ 34

10.5 Keswick Creek ................................................................................................................... 34

10.6 Known and Potential Sources of Contamination ............................................................. 35

10.7 Extent of Environmental Impact ...................................................................................... 37

10.7.1 Soil ..................................................................................................................... 37

10.7.2 Groundwater ..................................................................................................... 37

10.7.3 Soil Vapour ........................................................................................................ 38

10.8 Preferential Pathways ...................................................................................................... 38

10.9 Building Design ................................................................................................................. 38

10.10 Potential Human Receptors ............................................................................................. 39

10.11 Potential Ecological Receptors ......................................................................................... 39

10.12 Potential Human Exposure Pathways .............................................................................. 39

10.13 Cross Section .................................................................................................................... 39

11. Human Health Risk Assessment ................................................................................................. 40

11.1 Overview and Identification of Complete Exposure Pathways Requiring Risk Assessment ....................................................................................................................... 40

11.2 Parameters Adopted in Modelling ................................................................................... 43

11.2.1 Exposure Factors ............................................................................................... 43

11.2.2 Estimation of Inhalation Exposure .................................................................... 43

©JBS&G Australia Pty Ltd | 54378-115327 RP02 (Rev0) iii

11.2.3 Characterisation of Exposure Areas .................................................................. 44

11.2.4 Characterisation of Site Physical Parameters ................................................... 45

11.2.5 Characterisation of Chemical Constituents ...................................................... 46

11.2.6 Source Concentrations ...................................................................................... 46

11.2.7 Use of RISC Modelling Package ......................................................................... 47

11.3 Fate and Transport Modelling Outcomes – Calculation of Indoor Air Concentration ................................................................................................................... 47

11.4 Assessment of Risk ........................................................................................................... 47

11.4.1 Adopted Criteria for the Assessment of Risk .................................................... 47

11.4.2 Risk Assessment Calculation ............................................................................. 47

11.5 Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis ................................................................................ 48

11.5.1 Site Specific Alpha Assessment ......................................................................... 48

11.5.2 Source Concentration Data ............................................................................... 49

11.5.3 Site Physical Parameter Data ............................................................................ 49

11.5.4 Exposure Parameters to Characterise Receptors ............................................. 50

11.5.5 Commercial Building and Excavation Parameters ............................................ 50

11.5.6 Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis Conclusions ............................................. 50

11.5.7 Modelling Package ............................................................................................ 50

11.6 HHRA Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 50

12. Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 52

13. Data Gap Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 54

14. Limitations .................................................................................................................................. 55

15. References .................................................................................................................................. 56

©JBS&G Australia Pty Ltd | 54378-115327 RP02 (Rev0) iv

List of Tables

Table 2.1: Summary of Soil Investigations .............................................................................................. 4

Table 3.1: Summary of the Properties of the Chemicals of Interest ...................................................... 8

Table 6.1: Groundwater Well Construction Details .............................................................................. 13

Table 6.2: Groundwater Concentrations Exceeding Tier 1 Screening Levels – Q1 Aquifer .................. 19

Table 6.3: Groundwater Concentrations Exceeding Tier 1 Screening Levels – Perched Aquifer .............................................................................................................................. 20

Table 6.4: Summary of Hydraulic Conductivity ..................................................................................... 20

Table 7.1: Soil Vapour Probe Construction Summary (VP01-VP16) ..................................................... 24

Table 7.2: Soil Vapour Concentrations Exceeding Adopted Screening Levels ...................................... 28

Table 8.1: Summary of Geotechnical Parameter Results ..................................................................... 29

Table 9.1: Summary of Groundwater TCE Concentrations Reported in Nested Groundwater Well Pairs .......................................................................................................................... 30

Table 9.2: Summary of Groundwater TCE Concentrations Reported to Date (Groundwater Wells with Data from Three or More Monitoring Events) ............................................... 31

Table 9.3: Summary of Soil Vapour TCE Concentrations Reported to Date (Soil Vapour Probes Sampled Previously) ............................................................................................. 31

Table 9.4: Summary of Inferred Source Areas within the Keswick Assessment Area .......................... 33

Table 10.1: Summary of Known / Potential TCE Source Areas ............................................................. 36

Table 10.2: Summary of Maximum Soil Vapour Concentrations in Residential and Commercial / Industrial Landuse Areas – February / March 2018 .................................. 38

Table 11.1: Summary of Potential Receptors, Exposure Pathways and Consideration in Risk Assessment ....................................................................................................................... 41

Table 11.2: Exposure Parameters – Commercial Worker ..................................................................... 43

Table 11.3: Exposure Parameters – Subsurface Maintenance / Construction Worker ........................ 43

Table 11.4: Summary of Adjustment Factors for Inhalation Exposure ................................................. 44

Table 11.5: Summary of Adopted Building Parameters – Commercial Building .................................. 44

Table 11.6: Summary of Adopted Building Parameters – Subsurface Maintenance Trench / Excavation ........................................................................................................................ 45

Table 11.7: Summary of Adopted Site Physical Parameters ................................................................. 46

Table 11.8: Summary of Toxicity and Background Intakes for Chemicals of Interest .......................... 46

Table 11.9: Summary of Adopted Soil Vapour Concentrations ............................................................ 47

Table 11.10: Predicted Indoor Air Concentrations (µg/m3) .................................................................. 47

Table 11.11: Summary of ILCR Calculations (Carcinogenic Endpoints) ................................................ 48

Table 11.12: Summary of HI Calculations (Non-carcinogenic Endpoints) ............................................ 48

Table 11.13: Sensitivity Analysis – Predicted Indoor Air Concentrations with Alternate Physical Parameter Data (µg/m3) ..................................................................................... 50

©JBS&G Australia Pty Ltd | 54378-115327 RP02 (Rev0) v

List of Figures

Figure 1 – Site Location Plan ................................................................................................................. 59

Figure 2 – Groundwater Well Locations: Q1 Aquifer ............................................................................ 60

Figure 3 – Groundwater Well Locations: Perched Aquifer ................................................................... 61

Figure 4 – Inferred Groundwater Flow: Q1 Aquifer – 26 February 2018 ............................................. 62

Figure 5 – Inferred Groundwater Flow: Perched Aquifer – 26 February 2018 ..................................... 63

Figure 6 – TCE Groundwater Concentrations: Q1 Aquifer – February / March 2018 ........................... 64

Figure 7 – TCE Groundwater Concentrations: Perched Aquifer – February / March 2018 .................. 65

Figure 8 – Soil Vapour Investigation Locations – February / March 2018 ............................................ 66

Figure 9 – Geotechnical Sample Locations – February 2018 ................................................................ 67

Figure 10 – TCE Soil Vapour Concentrations – February / March 2018 ............................................... 68

Figure 11 – Landuse of the Keswick Assessment Area ......................................................................... 69

Figure 12 – Identified Source Areas ...................................................................................................... 70

Figure 13 – Cross Section of Site ........................................................................................................... 71

©JBS&G Australia Pty Ltd | 54378-115327 RP02 (Rev0) vi

Appendices

Figures

Groundwater Results Summary Tables

Soil Vapour Results Summary Tables

QA / QC Summary Tables

Appendix A Groundwater Well Permits (GW15-GW25, GWP09 and GWP10)

Appendix B Groundwater Well Logs and Groundwater Well Construction Details

Appendix C Photographs of Soil Cores

Appendix D Calibration Certificates

Appendix E Waste Disposal Certificates

Appendix F Groundwater Well Installation Development Field Sheets (GW15-GW25, GWP09 and GWP10)

Appendix G Survey Data

Appendix H Groundwater Field Sampling Sheets

Appendix I Data Quality Indicators and Quality Assurance / Quality Control Review

Appendix J Standing Water Level and Reduced Water Level Data (26 February 2018)

Appendix K Groundwater Laboratory Certificates of Analysis and Chain of Custody Documentation

Appendix L Hydraulic Conductivity Test Analysis

Appendix M Soil Vapour Probe Logs and Soil Vapour Probe Construction Detail

Appendix N Soil Vapour Field Sampling Sheets

Appendix O Soil Vapour Laboratory Certificates of Analysis and Chain of Custody Documentation

Appendix P Geotechnical Sample Laboratory Certificates of Analysis

Appendix Q Bureau of Meteorology Rainfall Data for February 2018

Appendix R Soil Vapour Fate and Transport Model Input and Output

Appendix S Sensitivity Analysis US EPA Model

©JBS&G Australia Pty Ltd | 54378-115327 RP02 (Rev0) vii

Abbreviations Term Definition

AHD Australian Height Datum

ANZECC Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council

API American Petroleum Institute

AS Australian Standards

ASC NEPM National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure

AST Aboveground Storage Tank

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

BTEX Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylenes

CBD Central Business District

CEs Chlorinated Ethenes

COC Chain of Custody

CRC CARE Cooperative Research Centre for Contamination Assessment and Remediation of the Environment

CSM Conceptual Site Model

DCA Dichloroethane

DCE Dichloroethene

DEWNR Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources

DO Dissolved Oxygen

DQIs Data Quality Indictors

EA Environmental Assessment

EC Electrical Conductivity

EPA Environment Protection Authority South Australia

EPP South Australian Environment Protection (Water Quality) Policy 2003

GIL Groundwater Investigation Level

GME Groundwater Monitoring Event

HHRA Human Health Risk Assessment

HIL Health Investigation Level

HSL Health Screening Level

inHg Inches of Mercury

IP Interface Probe

ITRC Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council

JBS&G JBS&G Australia Pty Ltd

km Kilometres

LDPE Low Density Polyethylene

LOR Limit of Reporting

m metres

mbgl metres below ground level

mTOC Metres Below Top of Casing

©JBS&G Australia Pty Ltd | 54378-115327 RP02 (Rev0) viii

Term Definition

mg/kg Milligrams per Kilogram

mg/L Milligrams per Litre

ml Millilitres

NAPL Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid

NATA National Association of Testing Authorities

NEPC National Environmental Protection Council

NHMRC National Health and Medical Research Council

NSW DECCW New South Wales Department for Environment, Climate Change and Water

NWC National Water Commission

PARCCS Precision, Accuracy, Representativeness, Comparability and Completeness and Sensitivity

PCA Potentially Contaminating Activity

PCE Tetrachloroethene

PID Photoionisation Detector

ppm Parts Per Million

QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control

RPD Relative Percent Difference

RSLs Regional Screening Levels

RWL Reduced Water Level

SCAO Site Contamination Assessment Order

SHE Standard Hydrogen Electrode

SWL Standing Water Level

TCA Trichloroethane

TCE Trichloroethene

TDS Total Dissolved Solids

TRH Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons

USCS Unified Soil Classification System

US EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

UST Underground Storage Tank

uPVC Unplasticised Polyvinyl Chloride

VC Vinyl Chloride

VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds

WHO World Health Organisation

WMS Waterloo Membrane Sampler

µg/L Micrograms per litre

µg/m3 Micrograms per cubic metre

- On tables is "not calculated", "no criteria" or "not applicable"

©JBS&G Australia Pty Ltd | 54378-115327 RP02 (Rev0) ix

Executive Summary

JBS&G Australia Pty Ltd (JBS&G) was engaged by the Environment Protection Authority South Australia (EPA) to undertake the Keswick Stage 2 Part B Environmental Assessment (EA) works for the Assessment Area in Keswick, South Australia (Keswick Assessment Area).

Trichloroethene (TCE) has been identified in soil, soil vapour and groundwater at a former manufacturing facility which comprises multiple allotments of land in Keswick (herein referred to the K1, K2 and K3 sites). In 2016, the EPA issued a Site Contamination Assessment Order (SCAO) to include off-site works, however the order was not complied with by the appropriate person. To this end, EPA has undertaken the Keswick Stage 2 Part B EA works to determine is a human health risk exists.

The main chemical of interest (and driver of risks at the site) has been identified as TCE, however, TCE breakdown products (cis-1,2-dichloroethene [cis-1,2-DCE], trans-1,2-dichloroethene [trans-1,2-DCE], 1,1-dichloroethene [1,1-DCE] and vinyl chloride [VC]) have also been identified as chemicals of interest. In addition, TCE parent product tetrachloroethene (PCE), which is often a minor component of primarily TCE solvents, and also carbon tetrachloride and chloroform (breakdown product of carbon tetrachloride) have been identified as chemicals of interest for the Keswick Stage 2 Part B EA works.

The assessment works previously completed at the K1, K2 and K3 sites included a site history review, various site investigation works (soil, groundwater, soil vapour, vapour flux and indoor air) and human health risk assessment (HHRA) works. The EA works previously commissioned by EPA included the Stage 1 EA works (vapour survey across the Keswick Assessment Area to identify areas of highest TCE soil vapour concentration) and the Keswick Stage 2 Part A EA works, which consisted of a detailed review of the geological and hydrogeological conditions.

The objective of the Keswick Stage 2 Part B EA works was to assess the nature and extent of site contamination (groundwater and soil vapour) within the Keswick Assessment Area.

The works undertaken to address the above objective included the installation of 13 additional groundwater wells and 16 additional soil vapour probes, a groundwater monitoring event (GME) of 35 selected groundwater wells, a soil vapour monitoring event of 21 selected soil vapour probes, collection of geotechnical samples from six selected locations and hydraulic conductivity testing of 11 selected groundwater wells. Following the receipt of the laboratory results, a Conceptual Site Model (CSM), HHRA and a data gap analysis were completed.

Subject to the limitations in Section 14 of this report, the following was concluded:

• Groundwater in both the Q1 aquifer and Perched aquifer has been inferred to flow in a north-westerly direction, as consistent with historical groundwater monitoring events and the Keswick Stage 2 Part A EA works;

• PCE, TCE, cis-1,2-DCE, trans-1,2-DCE, 1,1-DCE, VC, 1,2-dichloroethane (1,2-DCA), carbon tetrachloride, benzene and F1 (total recoverable hydrocarbons [TRH] carbon fraction C6-C10 minus benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes [BTEX]) were reported at concentrations above the LOR and adopted Tier 1 groundwater screening levels. In addition, eight chemicals (1,1,2-trichloroethane [1,1,2-TCA], 1,1-dichloroethane [1,1-DCA], dichloromethane, trichlorofluoromethane, chloroform, TRH C16-C34, 1,4-dichlorobenzene and chlorobenzene) were reported above the laboratory limit of reporting (LOR) but below the adopted Tier 1 groundwater screening levels with the exception of trichlorofluoromethane and TRH C16-C34 for which no Tier 1 groundwater screening levels are available;

• Hydraulic conductivity ranged between 1.09*10-5 m/sec and 2.5*10-8 m/sec in the Q1 aquifer (ten groundwater wells assessed), with the majority of Q1 aquifer groundwater wells

©JBS&G Australia Pty Ltd | 54378-115327 RP02 (Rev0) x

reporting hydraulic conductivity in the order of 1.5*10-7 m/sec to 9.4*10-7 m/sec. Hydraulic conductivity in the Perched aquifer ranged between 1.88*10-7 m/sec and 4.14*10-7 m/sec (two groundwater wells assessed). It is noted the reported hydraulic conductivity was consistent with sampling observation;

• Where historic data was present, there was some variability in concentrations reported between groundwater monitoring events. With the exception of GW09 (within the source area of the K1 site), no groundwater well reported an increasing trend across two consecutive GMEs;

• The extent of the groundwater TCE plume has not been delineated to the east of the K1 site (east of the Keswick Assessment Area boundary) and south-west of the K2 site;

• Trans-1-2-DCE, 1,1-DCE and chloroform were reported above the LOR but below the adopted soil vapour Tier 1 screening levels. VC and carbon tetrachloride were reported below the LOR at all sample locations. PCE, TCE and cis-1,2-DCE were reported at concentrations above the LOR and the adopted soil vapour Tier 1 screening levels in areas of commercial landuse, however, below the adopted soil vapour Tier 1 screening levels in areas of residential landuse;

• The extent of the soil vapour TCE plume has not been laterally delineated to the east, north-east or west of the K2 site, however, the extent in vicinity of the K1 and K3 sites is understood;

• Where nested groundwater well pairs were present, higher TCE concentrations were generally reported in the Q1 aquifer groundwater wells with the exception of the nested pair of GW08/GWP08 where the higher TCE concentration was reported in the groundwater well targeting the Perched aquifer. This trend in Q1 aquifer concentration vs Perched aquifer concentration was generally consistent with that reported for TCE for the other chemicals of interest with the exception of a much higher cis-1,2-DCE concentration in the Perched aquifer at nested pair location GW14/GWP10 – this may be attributed to a soil source in this area;

• Soil vapour concentrations were broadly consistent with the groundwater concentrations with the exception of the northern portion of the K2 site and the northern portion of the K3 site. There may be a contribution from a soil source in these areas;

• Four known / potential source areas have been identified to date, as follows:

o Source Area #1: Approximate centre of the K1 site (confirmed source);

o Source Area #2: Northern portion of the K3 site (likely source);

o Source Area #3: Northern portion of the K2 site (likely source); and

o Source Area #4: Western portion of the K2 site (probable source).

• Commercial workers, residents, customers of commercial premises and subsurface maintenance / construction workers were identified as relevant receptors in the Keswick Assessment Area. On review of site data, no further assessment of risks was required for residents, however, further assessment was required for commercial workers, customers of commercial premises and subsurface maintenance / construction workers. Based on the data collected to date, no unacceptable risks were identified during the HHRA for the above receptors where further assessment was required. It is noted commercial buildings with basements were not assessed, nor were subsurface trenches / excavations to depths greater than 1 metre below ground level (mbgl).

©JBS&G Australia Pty Ltd | 54378-115327 RP02 (Rev0) xi

The following data gaps were identified following completion of the Keswick Stage 2 Part B EA works:

• Accurate geological data for groundwater wells;


• The TCE groundwater plume has not been vertically delineated;

• The extent of the soil vapour TCE plume has not been laterally delineated to the east, north-east or west of the K2 site. It is noted the areas east and north-east of the K2 site are outside of the Keswick Assessment Area boundary;

• Limited indoor air monitoring has been completed for the K3 site historically and hence validation of the vapour intrusion modelling undertaken in the HHRA is limited;

• Limited temporal data is available (groundwater, soil vapour and geotechnical); and

• The potential influences of preferential pathways are not understood.

©JBS&G Australia Pty Ltd | 54378-115327 RP02 (Rev0) 1

1. Introduction

1.1 Background and Overview

JBS&G Australia Pty Ltd (JBS&G) was engaged by the Environment Protection Authority South Australia (EPA) to undertake the Keswick Stage 2 Part B Environmental Assessment (EA) works for the Assessment Area in Keswick, South Australia (Keswick Assessment Area). The location of the EPA Assessment Area for Keswick is shown in Figure 1 (attached).

It is understood that trichloroethene (TCE) has been identified in soil, soil vapour and groundwater at a former manufacturing facility which comprises multiple allotments of land in Keswick (herein referred to the K1, K2 and K3 sites). The location of the K1, K2 and K3 sites is shown in Figure 1 (attached). In 2016, the EPA issued a Site Contamination Assessment Order (SCAO) to include off-site works, however the order was not complied with by the appropriate person. To this end, EPA has undertaken the Keswick Stage 2 Part B EA works to determine is a human health risk exists.

The main chemical of interest (and driver of risks at the site) has been identified as TCE, however, TCE breakdown products (cis-1,2-dichloroethene [cis-1,2-DCE], trans-1,2-dichloroethene [trans-1,2-DCE], 1,1-dichloroethene [1,1-DCE] and vinyl chloride [VC]) have also been identified as chemicals of interest. In addition, TCE parent product tetrachloroethene (PCE), which is often a minor component of primarily TCE solvents, and also carbon tetrachloride and chloroform (breakdown product of carbon tetrachloride) have been identified as chemicals of interest for the Keswick Stage 2 Part B EA works.

The assessment works previously completed at the K1, K2 and K3 sites included a site history review, various site investigation works (soil, groundwater, soil vapour, vapour flux and indoor air) and human health risk assessment (HHRA) works. The EA works previously commissioned by EPA included the Stage 1 EA works (vapour survey across the Keswick Assessment Area to identify areas of highest TCE soil vapour concentration for further assessment) and the Keswick Stage 2 Part A EA works (a detailed review of the geological and hydrogeological conditions – summarised in Section 4 herein). The Keswick Stage 2 Part B EA works investigation locations were based on the existing data and the conceptual site model (CSM), detailed in Section 10.

This report presents the background, methodology and results of the Keswick Stage 2 Part B EA works.

1.2 Objective

The objective of the Keswick Stage 2 Part B EA works was to assess the nature and extent of site contamination (groundwater and soil vapour) within the Keswick Assessment Area.


2. Summary of Previous Investigations

2.1 List of Previous Reports

As outlined in Section 1, a number of environmental investigations have been completed for the former Kelvinator sites (K1, K2 and K3 sites) and Keswick Assessment Area between 2008 and early 2018. The following reports pertain to these works and have been reviewed by JBS&G:

• Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment for 62-70 Everard Avenue, Keswick, SA, Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia Pty Ltd, 3 November 2008 (PB 2008);

• Keswick U-Store It, Tank Pit Soil Testing Report, Tierra Environment Pty Ltd, 20 November 2013 (Tierra 2013a);

• Keswick U-Store It, Grid Based Testpits Soil Testing Report, Tierra Environment Pty Ltd, 20 November 2013 (Tierra 2013b);

• Soil Vapour Investigation at U-Store-It Keswick, BlueSphere Environmental, 17 December 2013 (BlueSphere 2013);

• 62-70 Everard Avenue, Keswick, Limited Groundwater Investigations Monitoring Report, Tierra Environment Pty Ltd, 18 December 2013 (Tierra 2013c);

• Indoor Air Sampling, Stage 1 Building, Keswick, BlueSphere Environmental, 4 February 2014 (BlueSphere 2014a);

• Human Health Risk Assessment – 62-70 Everard Avenue, Keswick, SA, Proposed Stage 2 Building, BlueSphere Environmental, 16 April 2014 (BlueSphere 2014b);

• Surface Mass Flux and Subslab Soil Vapour Measurements for Identification of Trichloroethene, Keswick, SA, Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia Pty Ltd, 28 May 2014 (PB 2014);

• Further Indoor Air Investigations – 62-70 Everard Avenue, Keswick, SA, Stage 1 Building, BlueSphere Environmental, 11 September 2014 (BlueSphere 2014c);

• Results from Environmental Testing, Lot 1 Anzac Highway, Mott McDonald, 12 September 2014 (Mott McDonald 2014);

• Soil Vapour Investigations for Identification of Trichloroethene: Ashford Road & Everard Avenue, Keswick, South Australia (K3 Site), Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia Pty Ltd, 26 February 2015 (PB 2015a);

• Sub-Floor Vapour Mitigation System Commissioning Report, BlueSphere Environmental, 13 May 2015 (BlueSphere 2015a);

• Vapour Intrusion Mitigation System Operational Environmental Management Plan, Stage 2 Building, 62-70 Everard Avenue, Keswick, SA, BlueSphere Environmental, 4 June 2015 (BlueSphere 2015b);

• Targeted Indoor Air Sampling and Activity-Based Sampling in the Stage 1 Building at Keswick, BlueSphere Environmental, 10 July 2015 (BlueSphere 2015c);

• Soil Vapour and Groundwater Investigations for Identification of Trichloroethene: Everard Avenue, Keswick, South Australia (K2 Site), Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia Pty Ltd, 30 September 2015 (PB 2015b);

• Groundwater and Soil Vapour Investigations of Trichloroethene: Stage 4 Ashford Road & Everard Avenue, Keswick, SA, WSP|Parsons Brinckerhoff, 18 April 2016 (WSP|PB 2016a);

• Testing Trichloroethene in Ambient Air, Lighting Showroom, 29 Anzac Highway, Keswick, South Australia, WSP|Parsons Brinckerhoff, 22 April 2016 (WSP|PB 2016b);


• Stage 1 Environmental Assessment, Keswick EPA Assessment Area, Senversa, 1 May 2017 (Senversa 2017); and

• Hydrogeological Assessment – EPA Assessment Area, Keswick – Revision E, 31 January 2018, Groundwater Science (GS 2018).

The key findings of the above reports are outlined below in Section 2.2. The reports summarising the installation / commissioning and operation of the subslab vapour mitigation system installed for the western portion of the K1 site building have not been summarised, however, risks associated with this portion of the Keswick Assessment Area are discussed in Section 2.2.6. The hydrogeological assessment formed Part A of the Keswick Stage 2 EA works and has been discussed in greater detail in Section 4.

2.2 Summary of Key Findings of Previous Reports

2.2.1 Site History

A site history of the K1 site (PB 2008) identified the following of interest:

• The site was owned by Kelvinator between 1940 and 1985, and by Le Cornu between 1985 and 2000;

• Historical potentially contaminating activities (PCAs) which were confirmed to have occurred at the K1 site included:

o Use of imported fill;

o Presence of electrical transformers; and

o Presence of a small above ground storage tank (AST) used for storage of solvents.

• PCAs which may have occurred at the K1 site included:

o Manufacture of appliances; and

o Termite treatments.

• Evidence of historical spills were noted within the warehouse at the time of inspection;

• The EPA Section 7 Search did not identify any records relating to the site; and

• The dangerous goods search by SafeWork SA did not identify any licences to store registered dangerous goods.

2.2.2 Soil

Limited soil investigation works have been undertaken within the Keswick Assessment Area, as summarised below in Table 2.1.


Table 2.1: Summary of Soil Investigations

Area and Year

Reference Description Detail

K1 site, late 2013

Tierra (2013a)

Validation soil sampling following removal of an underground storage tank (UST).

The UST was in the approximate centre of the western boundary of the K1 building, in close proximity to Ashford Road. Following removal of the UST, soils were excavated to the north and east until there were no visual / olfactory signs of contamination, however, the extent of excavation to the south, west and at the base was limited due to the presence of council owned infrastructure.

Elevated total recoverable hydrocarbon (TRH) carbon fraction C10-C36 concentrations (i.e. above the laboratory limit of reporting [LOR]) were reported in five samples (maximum concentration of 8,600 mg/kg), however, TCE was not reported above the LOR (although volatile organic compounds [VOCs] were analysed in one sample only).

K1 site, late 2013

Tierra (2013b)

Installation of six test pits in the approximate centre of the K1 site due to observation of odours following removal of concrete.

Elevated TCE concentrations (i.e. above the LOR) were reported in soils at all six test pit locations (maximum concentration of 6.4 mg/kg).

K2 site, mid 2014

Mott McDonald (2014)

Installation of 20 soil boreholes and collection of soil samples during the installation of ten groundwater wells across the K2 site.

TCE was analysed at a limited number of soil borehole locations (a total of four soil borehole locations and all ten groundwater well locations). An elevated concentration of TCE (i.e. above the LOR) was reported at one location only; BH13 in the north-eastern portion of the site (TCE concentration of 6.7 mg/kg).

2.2.3 Groundwater

A number of groundwater wells are present within the Keswick Assessment Area which were installed in four stages between 2013 and 2016 (Tierra 2013c, Mott McDonald 2014, PB 2015b and WSP|PB 2016a). The groundwater wells include shallow wells (installed to depths between 7 mbgl and 13 mbgl) and deeper wells (installed to depths between 15 mbgl and 19 mbgl). The groundwater wells were installed at locations targeting the three former Kelvinator sites (K1, K2 and K3 sites). It is noted all shallow groundwater wells were installed adjacent to a deeper groundwater well as a nested pair, however, there are more deeper groundwater wells than shallow groundwater wells and hence some deeper groundwater wells were installed as independent groundwater wells (i.e. not as a nested pair).

The maximum TCE groundwater concentration reported within the Keswick Assessment Area was in the approximate centre of the K1 site in deeper groundwater well GW09 (28.56 mg/L reported in March 2016). There was no Perched aquifer groundwater well present at this location.

The maximum TCE concentration reported on the K2 site was 0.21 mg/L in deeper groundwater well GW01 (August 2015). The maximum TCE concentration reported on the K2 site in shallow groundwater wells was 0.16 mg/L in shallow groundwater well GWP01, which is a nested pair with GW01. GW01/GWP01 are present on the south-western boundary of the K2 site, in close proximity to Day Avenue.

The maximum TCE concentration reported at the K3 site was 0.24 mg/L (March 2016) in deeper groundwater well GW14, however, it is noted this was the only groundwater well present on the K3 site. GW14 is present in the northern portion of the K2 site.

Where nested pairs were present, all shallow groundwater wells reported lower TCE concentrations than the adjacent deeper groundwater well with the exception of GW08/GWP08 where the shallow


groundwater well reported a higher TCE concentration than the deeper groundwater well (0.18 mg/L in the shallow groundwater well vs 0.13 mg/L in the deeper groundwater well in March 2016).

The shallow and deeper groundwater TCE plumes had not been delineated laterally.

Carbon tetrachloride and chloroform were also reported at elevated concentrations in groundwater at the K1 site, however, the distribution was not consistent with the TCE groundwater impacts.

2.2.4 Soil Vapour

2.2.4.1 Total Concentration

As the chemicals of interest are volatile chemicals, soil vapour investigations have also been completed. The soil vapour investigations undertaken to date have included both active sampling methods (Summa canisters) and passive sampling methods (Waterloo membrane samplers [WMS]). It is noted that WMS are considered semi-quantitative data, while Summa canisters are considered quantitative data to be used for risk assessment purposes.

Elevated TCE concentrations were reported in the western half of the K1 site (referred to as the ‘Stage 2 building’), with the highest TCE concentration (13,000 mg/m3, November 2013 – Summa canister data) reported in the approximate centre of the K1 site in close proximity to the area where elevated TCE concentrations were reported in soil and groundwater.

Elevated TCE concentrations were also reported at the K2 site with the highest TCE concentration (110 mg/m3, May 2014 – Summa canister data) reported in the approximate centre of the northern portion of the K2 site. This concentration was not replicated during the August 2015 monitoring event however the highest TCE concentration (86 mg/m3 – WMS data) was reported near the south-western boundary, in close proximity the area of highest groundwater concentration.

Elevated TCE concentrations were also reported at the K3 site, however, at significantly lower concentrations than those reported at the K1 and K2 sites. The highest TCE concentration (19 mg/m3, March 2016 – WMS data) was reported in the approximate centre of the northern portion of the K3 site in close proximity to the laneway running north-south in the centre of the K3 site.

The WMS investigation undertaken in March / April 2017 (Senversa 2017) was the first stage of investigation work completed by EPA, and included the collection of WMS samples from 33 locations across the Keswick Assessment Area. The key objective of the WMS investigation was to identify areas with elevated CE soil vapour concentrations in the Keswick Assessment Area. The majority of sample locations reported TCE concentrations below LOR of approximately 0.003 mg/m3 with the exception of the following:

• SV24 (0.14 mg/m3), SV30 (0.035 mg/m3) and SV31 (0.14 mg/m3) present in the south-western / northern boundary of the K2 site; and

• SV22 (0.093 mg/m3) present on the western boundary of the K1 site.

2.2.4.2 Flux

Flux investigations were also completed for the K1, K2 and K3 sites. The measured flux was used to calculate an indoor air concentration based on the following building parameter assumptions:

• Floor area: 400 m2 (NEPC 2013)1;

• Ceiling height: 3 m (NEPC 2013);

1 National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure, National Environment Protection Council, 1999 as

amended 2013 (NEPC 2013).


• Air exchanges per hour: 1.24 (consultant assumption).

No flux sampling was completed within the K1 building, however, flux sampling was completed around the perimeter of the building in road reserves. The highest flux in close proximity to the K1 building was reported south of the building, in close proximity to the K2 site (north of the K2 site). A TCE flux concentration of 0.208 µg/m2/h was reported. This resulted in the calculation of an indoor air concentration of 0.056 µg/m3 for a commercial building.

Flux sampling was completed at a number of locations within the K2 site building. The highest flux reported within the K2 site buildings was 17.75 µg/m2/h in the north-western portion of the western building. This resulted in the calculation of an indoor air concentration of 4.77 µg/m3 for a commercial building. It is noted adoption of the average flux resulted in the calculation of an indoor air concentration of 0.69 µg/m3 for a commercial building.

Flux sampling was completed within both buildings of the K3 site. For the eastern building of K3 site, the highest flux was 0.065 µg/m2/h. This resulted in the calculation of an indoor air concentration of 0.017 µg/m3 for a commercial building. For the western building of K3 site, the highest flux was 24.12 µg/m2/h in northern portion of building. This resulted in the calculation of an indoor air concentration of 6.48 µg/m3 for a commercial building. It is noted adoption of the average flux resulted in the calculation of an indoor air concentration of 1.90 µg/m3 for a commercial building

2.2.5 Indoor Air

Indoor air monitoring has been completed for the K1, K2 and K3 site buildings.

The indoor air monitoring completed at the K1 site included the Stage 1 building where no vapour mitigation system is present. No indoor air monitoring was completed for the Stage 2 building as a vapour mitigation system is present beneath this building. TCE concentrations above the adopted indoor air screening criteria were reported within three storage lockers within the Stage 1 building (highest TCE concentration of 78 µg/m3). It is noted the adjacent storage lockers to the north and south reported TCE concentrations below the LOR and hence the extent of elevated TCE indoor air concentrations appears to be limited to a maximum of five storage lockers. Indoor air samples from the office, stair well and corridors all reported significantly lower TCE concentrations which were below the adopted indoor air screening criteria. Activity based indoor air sampling was also completed for the K1 building, with 2-hour samples collected from storage units to replicate use of a storage unit (previous sampling was based on an 8-hour working day exposure) – all TCE concentrations were below the LOR and the adopted indoor air screening criteria. Indoor air monitoring undertaken following completion of the adjacent Stage 2 building with vapour mitigation system demonstrated the Stage 2 building vapour mitigation system did not appear to have an impact on the Stage 1 building indoor air concentrations.

Indoor air monitoring was completed for the K2 site buildings. A maximum TCE indoor air concentration of 2.2 µg/m3 was reported for the K2 site. The indoor air results were compared with outdoor air TCE concentrations which were negligible, and it was concluded that vapour intrusion was likely to be occurring (i.e. the elevated TCE indoor air concentrations were the result of vapour intrusion).

Indoor air monitoring was completed for the K3 site in the eastern building. A maximum TCE indoor air concentration of 2.1 µg/m3 was reported.

2.2.6 Human Health Risk Assessment

Limited HHRA works have been undertaken to date, with the main body of HHRA works focussed on the Stage 2 building at the K1 site. Prior to the construction of the building, these HHRA works modelled future indoor air concentrations from soil vapour data using the building design parameters, and adopted a standard worker exposure (i.e. 8 hour day, 240 days/year over 30 years). The HHRA determined intrusion of vapour could pose an unacceptable level of risk to future users of


the building if constructed as designed. Given the above, the vapour mitigation system was designed and implemented for the Stage 2 building.

In addition to the above, HHRA works were completed on the basis of the flux results for the K2 and K3 buildings. These HHRA works determined an indoor air concentration from the reported flux results, and then adjusted this exposure concentration on the basis of a standard worker exposure (i.e. 8 hour day, 240 days/year over 30 years). It was concluded the risk and hazard were within acceptable limits.


3. Chemicals of Interest

As outlined in Section 1, the chemicals of interest for the Keswick Stage 2 Part B EA works are CEs including TCE (the key chemical of interest and deriver of risks at the site), TCE breakdown products (cis-1,2-DCE, trans-1,2-DCE, 1,1-DCE and VC), and TCE parent product PCE (often a minor component of primarily TCE solvents), and also carbon tetrachloride and chloroform (breakdown product of carbon tetrachloride).

The properties of the chemicals of interest (RAIS 2018)2 are summarised in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1: Summary of the Properties of the Chemicals of Interest

Chemical Properties Henry’s Law Constant at 25°C (-)

Diffusivity in Air (cm2/s)

Diffusivity in Water (cm2/s)

Water Solubility (mg/L)

Organic Carbon Partitioning Coefficient (L/kg)

PCE 0.724 5.05*10-2 9.46*10-6 206 94.9

TCE 0.403 6.87*10-2 1.02*10-5 1,280 60.7

cis-1,2-DCE 0.167 8.84*10-2 1.13*10-5 6,410 39.6

trans-1,2-DCE 0.383 8.76*10-2 1.12*10-5 4,520 39.6

1,1-DCE 1.07 8.63*10-2 1.10*10-5 2,420 31.8

VC 1.14 0.107 1.20*10-5 8,800 21.7

Carbon tetrachloride 1.13 5.71*10-2 9.78*10-6 793 43.9

Chloroform 0.15 7.69*10-2 1.09*10-5 7,950 31.8

2 Risk Assessment Information System, accessed online 16 May 2018.


4. Summary of Geological and Hydrogeological Conditions

GS (2018) completed a review of the geological and hydrogeological conditions prior to the commencement of the Keswick Stage 2 Part B EA works in order to inform the most appropriate groundwater investigation locations. The key outcomes of the review are summarised below:

• Keswick is present within the St Vincent Basin, a Tertiary to Quaternary aged sedimentary basin. The Keswick EPA Assessment is present approximately 1,500 m east of the Para Fault South Splinter and thus structural offsetting is unlikely to result in geological complexity within Quaternary units;

• The surface 30 m of soils beneath the Keswick Assessment Area consist of the Pooraka Formation (predominantly clays with gravel lenses), Keswick Clay (high plasticity clay, likely to be an aquitard between the surface and first Quaternary aquifer [Q1 aquifer]) and Hindmarsh Clay (clay / sandy clay with gravels);

• A perched aquifer is evident in the top 8 m of sediment within the Pooraka Formation, with standing water levels (SWLs) ranging from 4 mbgl to 8 mbgl in groundwater wells screened across this unit. Groundwater within this unit was fresh to brackish, with an approximate total dissolved solids (TDS) of 1,200 mg/L. The inferred groundwater flow direction for the Perched aquifer was to the north-west;

• The Q1 aquifer was encountered at depths from 12 mbgl to 18 mbgl, below the Keswick Clay / Hindmarsh Clay aquitard, within thin sand and gravels beds within the Hindmarsh Clay. SWLs ranged between 10 mbgl and 15 mbgl for groundwater wells screened across this unit, and the approximate TDS was 1,700 mg/L. The inferred groundwater flow direction for the Q1 aquifer was to the north-west; and

• A downward gradient of 5 m to 8 m water level difference was reported between the Perched aquifer and the Q1 aquifer, indicating the potential for downward leakage from the Perched aquifer to the Q1 aquifer. The downward gradient could be the result of recharge of the Perched aquifer on the southeast end of the investigation area in the form of runoff to an unpaved surface on the edge of Anzac Highway, leakage from stormwater drains or leakage from Keswick Creek (concrete lined drain, however, some leakage is likely). Although there is a downward gradient, downward leakage through clay is likely to be less than 1 mm per year with interconnectivity more likely due to anthropogenic pathways (i.e. poorly constructed bores, old waste pits / sumps, deep excavations that have been backfilled with more permeable materials) or natural preferential pathways (i.e. erosional scours of Keswick Creek).

The following data gaps were identified by GS (2018):

• Accurate geological data – all groundwater wells were installed using solid augers and hence the soil logging data is not accurate. Recommendation was made for locations included within the Keswick Stage 2 Part B EA works to be drilled initially with direct push methods in order to obtain a more accurate soil core of logging; and

• Hydraulic conductivity data for groundwater wells installed in the Perched and Q1 aquifers.


5. Scope of Work

The following scope of work was undertaken by JBS&G in order to meet the objectives of the Keswick Stage 2 Part B EA works:

• Installation of a total of 13 groundwater wells between February and May 2018, as follows:

o 11 groundwater wells installed within the Q1 aquifer (GW15-GW25) to depths between 14 mbgl and 18 mbgl; and

o Two groundwater wells installed within the Perched aquifer (GWP09 and GWP10) to depths between 9 mbgl and 10 mbgl.

• Sampling of a total of 35 groundwater wells with low flow methods, including 25 groundwater wells installed within the Q1 aquifer (GW01-GW25) and 10 groundwater wells installed within the Perched aquifer (GWP01-GWP10). All groundwater wells were sampled in February / March 2018 with the exception of GW25 which was installed and sampled as a standalone task in an attempt to delineate the plume to the west (installed in May 2018 and sampled in June 2018);

• Installation of 16 soil vapour probes (VP01-VP16) to a depth of 1.5 mbgl in February / March 2018;

• Collection of geotechnical samples from a total of six locations (VP01, VP02, VP04, VP06, VP09 and VP11) during installation of soil vapour probes. Cores from depths of 0.9 mbgl to 1.3 mbgl were retained for geotechnical testing;

• Sampling of a total of 21 soil vapour probes (existing soil vapour probes GP03, GP04, GP08, GP11 and GP12 on the K2 site, and newly installed soil vapour probes VP01-VP16) with Summa canister methods. This was undertaken over two monitoring events, with 16 soil vapour probes (existing soil vapour probes GP03, GP04, GP08, GP11 and GP12, and newly installed soil vapour probes VP01-VP11) sampled in February 2018 and the additional five soil vapour probes (VP12-VP16) installed and then sampled in March 2018;

• Laboratory analysis of groundwater and soil vapour samples for the chemicals of interest;

• Geotechnical analysis of six soil cores (VP01, VP02, VP04, VP06, VP09 and VP11) for geotechnical parameters;

• Survey of all newly installed groundwater wells (GW15-GW25, GWP09 and GWP10) and all newly installed soil vapour probes (VP01-VP16);

• Completion of hydraulic conductivity testing on 12 selected groundwater wells (Q1 aquifer groundwater wells GW15-GW24, and Perched aquifer groundwater wells GWP09 and GWP10) in March 2018;

• Development of a CSM;

• HHRA; and

• Data gaps analysis.


6. Groundwater Investigation

6.1 Methodology

All groundwater works were undertaken in accordance with the methodologies outlined in the following guidance documents:

• ASC NEPM (NEPC 2013);

• Regulatory monitoring and testing - Groundwater sampling, Environment Protection Authority South Australia, 2007 (EPA 2007);

• AS/NZS 5667.1: Water quality – Sampling, Part 1: Guidance on the design of sampling programs, sampling techniques and the preservation and handling of samples, Australian / New Zealand Standards, 1998a (Australian / New Zealand Standards 1998a); and

• AS/NZS 5667.11: Water quality – Sampling, Part 11: Guidance on sampling of groundwaters, Australian / New Zealand Standard, 1998b (Australian / New Zealand Standards 1998b).

6.1.1 Groundwater Well Installation

A total of 13 groundwater wells were installed between February and May 2018, as follows:

o 11 groundwater wells were installed within the Q1 aquifer (GW15-GW25); and

o Two groundwater wells were installed within the Perched aquifer (GWP09 and GWP10).

The following installation methodology was undertaken:

• Well permits were obtained from the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources (DEWNR). Well permits are included in Appendix A;

• The locations of the groundwater wells were marked and cleared by a professional underground service locator following review of dial before you dig plans;

• Downhole drilling equipment was decontaminated prior to the commencement of drilling at each groundwater well location to minimise the potential for cross contamination. Rinsate samples were collected in order to validate decontamination techniques on all days of drilling;

• The Q1 aquifer groundwater wells (GW15-GW25) were drilled to depths between 14 mbgl and 18 mbgl, while the Perched aquifer groundwater wells (GWP09 and GWP10) were drilled to depths between 9 mbgl and 10 mbgl. All groundwater wells were drilled using solid auger techniques by a Class 1 licensed driller;

• The soils encountered during drilling of groundwater wells were logged in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) by an experienced environmental scientist. Soil logs are included in Appendix B. Photographs of the soils encountered are included in Appendix C. Soil samples were collected from the top of each lithological layer encountered for field screening of VOCs using a photoionisation detector (PID). The PID was calibrated using isobutylene to 100 parts per million (ppm) at the commencement of each week of sampling. The PID calibration records are included in Appendix D.

• Excess soil cuttings were placed in drums on portable bunds at a designated storage site, and classified for offsite disposal. All drums were disposed by a licenced contractor following completion of the Keswick Stage 2 Part B EA works field program – waste disposal documentation is included in Appendix E;

• Following completion of drilling, groundwater wells were installed as follows:


o The groundwater wells were constructed using 50 mm Class 18 unplasticised polyvinyl chloride (uPVC) screen and casing (pressure rated to conform to AS1477). The National Water Commission (NWC)3 recommends Class 12 is used for most bore construction applications, with Class 9 suitable for some shallow bores. Class 18 as used in construction of groundwater wells at the site is considered suitable. The uPVC screen and casing pipe had machine cut threads with rubber o-rings to ensure a tight seal between casing lengths and to avoid the use of glues / lubricants in constructing the groundwater well. The uPVC is inert and compatible with the chemicals of interest. Screen lengths of 6 m were installed in all Q1 aquifer groundwater wells, while screen lengths of 4 m were installed in both Perched aquifer groundwater wells. A summary of the groundwater well construction details are included below in Table 6.1;

o A graded sand pack was installed from the bottom of the drilled borehole to approximately 0.5 m above the screened interval;

o A bentonite seal of a minimum of 0.5 m was installed above the sand layer;

o The groundwater well was completed to the surface with cement / bentonite grout and was finished at the surface with a flush mounted gatic cover concreted into the surface;

o A lockable end cap was fitted over the top of the groundwater well (beneath the gatic cover) to prevent any ingress of water to the groundwater well; and

o Metal labels (to ensure no volatile chemicals are introduced) with the groundwater well ID were included inside the gatic cover of each well (within the concrete at the base of the groundwater well).

• All newly installed groundwater wells were developed within 24 hours of installation to ensure adequate hydraulic connection with the aquifer using low density polyethylene (LDPE) tubing and footvalves. The development of the groundwater wells consisted of purging the wells dry at least four times, or purging eight casing volumes, with greater volumes purged if fine sand / silt / clay was still evident or field parameters had not stabilised (three consecutive bore volumes) within the ranges presented by EPA (2007). Development sheets for all newly installed groundwater wells are included in Appendix F; and

• All 13 newly installed groundwater wells (GW15-GW25, GWP09 and GWP10) were surveyed by a licensed surveyor. It is noted that five existing groundwater wells (GW08, GW11, GW12, GW14 and GWP08) were also surveyed following identification of inconsistencies on review of the 2018 survey data against historical survey data. The 2018 survey data for these five existing groundwater wells indicated the historic survey data was out by approximately 1.5 m – it has been inferred the historic survey data may not have been corrected for the height of the dumpy. To this end, all historic survey data has been corrected by 1.5 m and should be used with caution. The 2018 survey data is included in Appendix G.

The locations of the groundwater wells are shown in Figure 2 (Q1 aquifer) and Figure 3 (Perched aquifer), attached.

The construction details are summarised below in Table 6.1. Groundwater well construction details and the log of the soils encountered are included in Appendix B.

3 Minimum Construction Requirements for Water Bores in Australia, National Water Commission, February 2012 (NWC 2012).


Table 6.1: Groundwater Well Construction Details

Well ID Date Installed Installed depth Screened Interval SWL (26-Feb-18)

mbgl mbgl mTOC

Q1 Aquifer

GW15 28-Feb-18 16.8 10.8 to 16.8 13.080 (7-Mar-18)#1

GW16 22-Feb-18 16.3 10.3 to 16.3 13.819

GW17 20-Feb-18 17.8 11.8 to 17.8 13.602

GW18 16-Feb-18 15.5 9.5 to 15.5 11.628

GW19 19-Feb-18 18.0 12.0 to 18.0 14.390

GW20 15-Feb-18 16.2 10.2 to 16.2 12.430

GW21 21-Feb-18 16.1 10.1 to 16.1 13.295

GW22 21-Feb-18 17.0 11.0 to 17.0 13.717

GW23 22-Feb-18 16.0 10.0 to 16.0 14.180

GW24 16-Feb-18 14.0 8.0 to 14.0 12.810

GW25 29-May-18 16.0 10.0 to 16.0 13.239 (05-Jun-18) #2

Perched Aquifer

GWP09 20-Feb-18 9.0 5.0 to 9.0 4.031 (7-Mar-18) #3

GWP10 13-Feb-18 10.0 6.0 to 10.0 7.800

Abbreviations:

mTOC: metres below top of casing.

Notes:

#1:GW15 was installed on 28 February 2018 and hence was not present during the gauging event on 26 February 2018.

#2:GW25 was installed on 29 May 2018 and hence was not present during the gauging event on 26 February 2018.

#3:Access to GWP09 was not available during the gauging event on 26 February 2018 as GWP09 is present within Croydon Road.

6.1.2 Groundwater Sampling

A total of 35 groundwater wells, including 25 groundwater wells installed within the Q1 aquifer (GW01-GW25) and 10 groundwater wells installed within the Perched aquifer (GWP01-GWP10), were sampled between February and June 2018. It is noted all groundwater wells with the exception of GW25 were sampled in a single monitoring event in February / March 2018; GW25 was sampled in June 2018 following installation of this groundwater well in late May 2018. Low flow techniques were selected as the primary groundwater sampling technique, as consistent with the method implemented historically at the site. Hydrasleeve snap samplers were selected as the contingency sampling method, where low flow was not possible. The following methodology was undertaken for the sampling of groundwater wells:

• All newly installed groundwater wells were sampled a minimum of seven days following installation;

• The Interface Probe (IP) and low flow pump were decontaminated using phosphate free detergent, followed by rinsing with deionised water prior to the commencement of sampling at each groundwater well location. A rinsate sample was collected off the clean low flow pump to validate decontamination procedures on every day of groundwater sampling;

• A gauging event was completed using the IP to measure the depth to water, depth to non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL), if present, and total depth of each groundwater well. The gauging event was undertaken within a 4-hour period on 26 February 2018, prior to the commencement of sampling of groundwater wells;


• Groundwater wells were then sampled using low flow techniques, as follows:

o Dedicated LDPE twin tubing was attached to the low flow pump. The low flow pump was lowered into the groundwater well so that the pump intake point was set in the approximate centre of the water column. It is noted the entire water column was within the screened interval for each groundwater well. The depth of the base of the pump (intake point) was recorded on the field sampling sheets;

o The low flow pump was then used to purge the groundwater well at a rate to establish a stabilised pumping rate while minimising drawdown. A maximum drawdown of 100 mm was adopted for the investigation;

o Following the establishment of the flow rate, water quality parameters (including dissolved oxygen [DO], redox potential, electrical conductivity [EC], temperature and pH) were measured to determine when purging was complete (i.e. when water quality parameters were considered stable in accordance with EPA SA [2007]). Water quality parameters were recorded every 3 minutes along with the depth to water and time on the groundwater field sampling sheets (included in Appendix H). The presence or absence of visual and/or olfactory evidence of contamination, turbidity and colour were also noted on the field sampling sheets. The water quality meter was calibrated prior to sampling, with the calibration record provided in Appendix D; and

o Following stabilisation, a primary groundwater sample was collected in appropriately preserved sample bottles (provided by the laboratory) for the chemicals of interest, using the same method employed throughout purging. Duplicate samples were also collected in this manner.

• Eight groundwater wells (GW02, GW04, GW09, GW10, GW20, GW23, GW24 and GWP10) were unable to be sampled using low flow techniques due to low yield. These eight groundwater wells were sampled using Hydrasleeve Snap samplers, consistent with the proposed contingency sampling method. The following sampling method was undertaken for groundwater wells sampled using Hydrasleeve methods:

o The Hydrasleeve sampler (a flexible 4 mm thick lay-flat polyethylene sleeve with a weight on the bottom and check value on the top) was lowered into the groundwater well to the centre of the approximate centre of the water column. It is noted the entire water column was within the screened interval for all eight groundwater wells where Hydrasleeve sampling methods were undertaken;

o The Hydrasleeve sampler was then pulled up through the water column to the surface and the recovered water sample decanted into appropriately preserved sample bottles for the chemicals of interest (provided by the laboratory); and

o Water quality parameters (including DO, redox potential, EC, temperature and pH) were measured following collection of the sample using a downhole water quality meter. The water quality meter was calibrated prior to sampling, with the calibration record retained on the JBS&G calibration register.

• All samples were transported in a chilled cool box, along with trip blank samples and trip spike samples, to the laboratory for selected chemical analysis under chain of custody (COC) documentation. All groundwater samples were analysed for VOCs (includes all chemicals of interest outlined in Section 3) and TRH.


6.1.3 Hydraulic Conductivity Testing

Hydraulic conductivity testing was completed on 12 selected groundwater wells (Q1 aquifer groundwater wells GW15-GW24, and Perched aquifer groundwater wells GWP09 and GWP10) in March 2018. The following methodology was undertaken:

• The SWL was measured prior to and following placement of a submersible pressure transducer (data logger) within the groundwater well;

• The data logger (set to record at 1 second intervals) was started and left for approximately 2 minutes running to establish steady state readings;

• A disposable bailer was dropped into the groundwater well and removed whilst the data logger was running; and

• The logger was left running until the standing water level recovered to its original levels (viewed in current time on a field lap top).

6.2 Groundwater Tier 1 Screening Levels

6.2.1 Overview

The risk based approach for assessing groundwater contamination outlined in the ASC NEPM (NEPC 2013) is based on protection of relevant (i.e. current or realistic) uses of groundwater.

The South Australian Environment Protection (Water Quality) Policy 2003 (EPP) identifies a range of protected beneficial uses of underground waters in South Australia, as follows:

• Aquatic ecosystem (marine and freshwater);

• Recreation and aesthetics;

• Drinking water for human consumption;

• General use (primary industries);

• Irrigation (primary industries);

• Drinking water for livestock (primary industries); and

• Aquaculture and human consumption of aquatic foods (primary industries).

In addition, the following non-beneficial use scenarios are required to be considered:

• Human health in non-use scenarios (i.e. exposure to volatile chemicals via vapour intrusion); and

• Buildings and structures, including the potential for degradation of building materials through contact.

In order to ensure conservatism, all of the above beneficial uses have been considered as potentially relevant at the site.

6.2.2 Sources of Tier 1 Screening Levels

Groundwater results were compared against the following Tier 1 screening levels (listed in order of hierarchy of adoption):

• ASC NEPM (NEPC 2013)

- Groundwater Investigation Levels (GILs) – drinking water, marine water, freshwater; and

- Groundwater Health Screening Levels (HSLs) for Vapour Intrusion (sand, depth to groundwater of 4 to <8m [Perched aquifer groundwater wells] and 8 m+ [Q1 aquifer


groundwater wells) – it is noted sandy soils have been selected for Tier 1 screening purposes in order to ensure the most conservative outcome.

• Australia Drinking Water Guidelines, National Health and Medical Research Council, 2011 updated 2016 (NHMRC 2016);

• Australia and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (marine ecosystem, freshwater ecosystem, irrigation, livestock, aquaculture), Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council, 2000 (ANZECC 2000); and

• Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality, World Health Organisation, 2011 (WHO 2011).

It is noted the above guidelines do not provide Tier 1 screening levels for all chemicals of interest for all potential beneficial uses of groundwater, however, Tier 1 screening levels for all chemicals of interest (i.e. those outlined in Section 3) are available for drinking water, freshwater and marine water (with the exception of 1,2-DCE for freshwater and marine water). Given the properties of the chemicals of interest, their toxicity and mode of action, the Tier 1 screening levels for drinking water, freshwater and marine water are likely to be protective of the potential beneficial uses of groundwater / exposure pathways where specific Tier 1 screening levels are not available (recreation and aesthetics, irrigation, livestock and aquaculture) with the exception of the inhalation pathway. The absence of freshwater and marine water Tier 1 screening levels for 1,2-DCE will not impact on the outcomes of this investigation as all other CEs analysed (PCE, TCE, 1,1-DCE and VC) have freshwater and marine water Tier 1 screening levels and these Tier 1 screening levels are higher than those for drinking water.

A major exposure pathway associated with the CE impacted groundwater is volatilisation of chemicals from groundwater. Whilst screening levels are provided within the ASC NEPM (NEPC 2013) for some chemicals (petroleum hydrocarbons and TRH C6-C16) to screen potential vapour intrusion risks from the reported groundwater concentration, these criteria are not available for the chemicals of interest (i.e. those outlined in Section 3). This is not considered to impact on the outcomes of this assessment as a significant volume of soil vapour data has been collected for the site, and risks via the inhalation pathway have been assessed directly using this soil vapour data (Section 7).

Assessment of risks to buildings and structures, including the potential for degradation of building materials through contact, is beyond the scope of the Keswick Stage 2 Part B EA works.

6.3 Groundwater Quality Assurance / Quality Control

The data quality indictors (DQIs) are summarised in Appendix I, I1. A detailed review of the quality assurance / quality control (QA/QC) measures implemented during the Keswick Stage 2 Part B EA works groundwater investigation program to address the DQIs are included in Appendix I, I.2.

Based on the results of the evaluation of the QA/QC data for groundwater, it is considered that:

• The field and laboratory quality assurance measures implemented provide an acceptable level of confidence that the data collected and reported is appropriately complete, comparable and representative; and

• The field and laboratory quality control measures implemented provide an acceptable level of confidence that the data collected and reported is appropriately accurate and precise.

Therefore, the data collected for the groundwater investigations is considered to be reliable and suitable for the assessment of the condition of the site.


6.4 Groundwater Results

6.4.1 Field Observations

The following key field observations were made during the Keswick Stage 2 Part B EA works groundwater monitoring program:

• NAPL was not observed in any groundwater well;

• No obvious odour or sheen was observed in any groundwater well;

• The majority of groundwater wells reported a sustainable yield above 100 ml/min, as follows:

- Q1 aquifer groundwater wells: between approximately 120 ml/min and 390 ml/min (average of 200 ml/min); and

- Perched aquifer groundwater wells: between approximately 100 ml/min and 190 ml/min (average of 130 ml/min).

The maximum yield observed in four groundwater wells (GW02, GW04, GW09, GW10) during low flow sampling attempts was below 50 ml/min. In addition, four groundwater wells (GW20, GW23, GW24 and GWP10) were observed to have slow recharge during development and were likely to have a maximum yield below 50 ml/min, however, low flow sampling was not attempted for these groundwater wells; and

• Groundwater was observed to be of moderate to low turbidity in the majority of groundwater wells, however, one groundwater well (GW08) reported high turbidity.

6.4.2 Standing Water Levels & Hydrogeology

The SWL in the majority of groundwater wells (both Q1 aquifer and Perched aquifer groundwater wells) was measured within a 4-hour period on 26 February 2018. It is noted groundwater wells GW15 (installed following the gauging event), GW25 (installed following the gauging event) and GWP09 (no access at the time of the gauging event [within Croydon Road]) were unable to be included in the gauging event and hence have been excluded.

The SWLs were reduced to Australian Height Datum (AHD) to derive reduced water levels (RWLs) to allow the interpretation of the groundwater flow direction and hydraulic gradient across the site. As outlined in Section 6.1.1, following identification of inconsistencies on review of the 2018 survey data against historical survey data, five existing groundwater wells (GW08, GW11, GW12, GW14 and GWP08) were surveyed and this survey data indicated historic survey data was out by approximately 1.5 m – it has been inferred the historic survey data may not have been corrected for the height of the dumpy. To this end, all historic survey data has been corrected by 1.5 m. The SWL and RWL data is included in Appendix J.

Groundwater in both the Q1 aquifer and Perched aquifer has been inferred to flow in a north-westerly direction, as consistent with historical groundwater monitoring events and GS (2018). The inferred groundwater flow is shown in Figure 4 (Q1 aquifer) and Figure 5 (Perched aquifer), attached.

6.4.3 Water Quality Parameters

Water quality parameters including DO, redox potential, pH, EC and temperature were collected during sampling of all groundwater wells. A summary of the field parameters has been included in the Summary Tables attached to this report, and the field sampling sheets are included in Appendix H.

The following groundwater conditions were noted for the Q1 aquifer:


• DO was generally between 0.6 ppm and 3 ppm with the exception of five groundwater wells (GW03, GW05, GW12, GW24 and GW25) where DO between 4 ppm and 6 ppm was reported;

• Redox potential results were greater than 200 mV (Standard Hydrogen Electrode - SHE) in all groundwater wells, indicating oxidising conditions were present across the site in the Q1 aquifer;

• The pH of the groundwater ranged between 7.11 pH units and 8.83 pH units, indicating neutral to slightly alkaline pH; and

• EC was generally between 820 µS/cm and 5,000 µS/cm (approximately 450 mg/L to 2,800 mg/L TDS) with the exception of GW24 were an EC of approximately 6,380 µS/cm (approximately 3,580 mg/L TDS) was reported.

The following groundwater conditions were noted for the Perched aquifer:

• DO was generally between 0.5 ppm and 2.5 ppm with the exception of GWP05 which reported a lower DO of 0.15 ppm;

• Redox potential results were greater than 200 mV (Standard Hydrogen Electrode - SHE) in all groundwater wells, indicating oxidising conditions were present across the site in the Perched aquifer;

• The pH of the groundwater ranged between 7.31 pH units and 8.24 pH units, indicating neutral to slightly alkaline pH; and

• EC was generally between 860 µS/cm and 2,700 µS/cm (approximately 470 mg/L to 1,500 mg/L TDS) with the exception of the following groundwater wells:

o GWP02 reported EC of approximately 3,850 µS/cm (approximately 2,140 mg/L TDS); and

o GWP06 reported EC of approximately 5,930 µS/cm (approximately 3,330 mg/L TDS).

6.4.4 Analytical Results

The groundwater laboratory certificates of analysis and COC documentation are included in Appendix K. Analytical results from the groundwater monitoring events have been tabulated and are included in the Summary Tables attached to this report. Groundwater TCE concentrations for all groundwater wells sampled in the Keswick Stage 2 Part B EA works are shown in Figure 6 (Perched aquifer) and Figure 7 (Q1 aquifer), attached.

PCE, TCE, cis-1,2-DCE, trans-1,2-DCE, 1,1-DCE, VC, 1,2-dichloroethane (1,2-DCA), carbon tetrachloride, benzene and F1 (TRH C6-C10 minus BTEX) were reported at concentrations above the LOR and adopted Tier 1 groundwater screening levels. In addition, eight chemicals (1,1,2-trichloroethane [1,1,2-TCA], 1,1-dichloroethane [1,1-DCA], dichloromethane, trichlorofluoromethane, chloroform, TRH C16-C34, 1,4-dichlorobenzene and chlorobenzene) were reported above the LOR but below the adopted Tier 1 groundwater screening levels with the exception of trichlorofluoromethane and TRH C16-C34 for which no Tier 1 groundwater screening levels are available.

Table 6.2 (Q1 aquifer) and Table 6.3 (Perched aquifer) summarise the groundwater wells and concentrations exceeding the Tier 1 screening levels, and concentrations which exceeded the LOR for which no Tier 1 groundwater screening levels are available (trichlorofluoromethane and TRH C16-C34).

The extent of the groundwater TCE plume has not been delineated to the east of the K1 site (east of the Keswick Assessment Area boundary) and south-west of the K2 site.


Table 6.2: Groundwater Concentrations Exceeding Tier 1 Screening Levels – Q1 Aquifer

Chemical Groundwater Well ID Concentration µg/L

Tier 1 Groundwater Screening Level Exceeded

TCE GW01 210 • Drinking Water: 20 µg/L

GW03 140

GW04 22

GW08 35

GW15 22

GW22 190

GW02 380 • Drinking Water: 20 µg/L

• Freshwater: 330 µg/L

• Marine water: 330 µg/L

GW09 34,000

GW10 1,200

GW11 680

GW12 1,300

GW14 1,500

1,2-DCE GW03 110 (cis-1,2-DCE)

<1 (trans-1,2-DCE)

• Drinking Water: 60 µg/L

GW09 180 (cis-1,2-DCE)

16 (trans-1,2-DCE)

GW14 440 (cis-1,2-DCE)

<1 (trans-1,2-DCE)

GW22 73 (cis-1,2-DCE)

<1 (trans-1,2-DCE)

1,1-DCE GW09 36 • Drinking Water: 30 µg/L

VC GW01 0.45 • Drinking Water: 0.3 µg/L

GW14 8.2

Carbon tetrachloride GW8 26 • Drinking Water: 3 µg/L

GW9 15

GW15 4

GW22 20

GW10 1,100 • Drinking Water: 3 µg/L



GW11 250

GW12 4,500

GW14 310

F1 (TRH C6-C10 minus BTEX)

GW10 1,800 • Inhalation, Residential: 1,000 µg/L

GW12 3,000

GW14 2,500

GW09 31,000 • Inhalation, Residential: 1,000 µg/L

• Inhalation, Commercial: 7,000 µg/L

Benzene GW09 5 • Drinking Water: 1 µg/L

GW14 510 • Drinking Water: 1 µg/L





Table 6.3: Groundwater Concentrations Exceeding Tier 1 Screening Levels – Perched Aquifer



PCE GWP09 110 • Drinking Water: 50 µg/L



GWP10 72

TCE GWP01 160 • Drinking Water: 20 µg/L

GWP08 140

GWP10 550 • Freshwater: 330 µg/L


1,2-DCE GWP10 6,900 (cis-1,2-DCE)

200 (trans-1,2-DCE)

• Drinking Water: 60 µg/L

VC GWP01 1.3 • Drinking Water: 0.3 µg/L

GWP05 12

GWP08 28

Carbon tetrachloride GWP08 27 • Drinking Water: 3 µg/L

F1 (TRH C6-C10 minus BTEX)

GWP10 5,800 • Inhalation, Residential: 1,000 µg/L

6.4.5 Hydraulic Conductivity Testing Results

Hydraulic conductivity testing was completed on 12 selected groundwater wells (Q1 aquifer groundwater wells GW15-GW24, and Perched aquifer groundwater wells GWP09 and GWP10). The data was assessed using the Bouwer Rice4 method for determining hydraulic conductivity. Hydraulic conductivity analysis is included in Appendix L. Hydraulic conductivity data for the selected groundwater wells is summarised below in Table 6.4. It is noted the reported hydraulic conductivity was consistent with sampling observations and expectations for a sandy clay aquifer.

Table 6.4: Summary of Hydraulic Conductivity

Groundwater Well ID Aquifer Targeted Hydraulic Conductivity (m/sec)

GW15 Q1 2.60*10-6

GW16 Q1 6.16*10-7

GW17 Q1 1.09*10-5

GW18 Q1 4.05*10-7

GW19 Q1 2.33*10-7

GW20 Q1 1.96*10-7

GW21 Q1 9.41*10-7

GW22 Q1 3.14*10-7

GW23 Q1 1.38*10-7

4 A slug test method for determining hydraulic conductivity of unconfined aquifers with completely or partially penetrating wells,

Bouwer H & Rice RC, Water Resources Research, Vol 12 (3), pp. 423-428, 1976 (Bouwer & Rice 1976).


Groundwater Well ID Aquifer Targeted Hydraulic Conductivity (m/sec)

GW24 Q1 2.50*10-8

GWP09 Perched 4.14*10-7

GWP10 Perched 1.88*10-7


7. Soil Vapour Investigation

7.1 Methodology

All soil vapour investigation works were undertaken in accordance with the methodologies outlined in the following guidance documents:

Australian Guidelines

• ASC NEPM (NEPC 2013);

• Technical Report No. 13 - Field Assessment of Gas, Cooperative Research Centre for Contamination Assessment and Remediation of the Environment (CRCCARE), 2009 (CRCCARE 2009); and

• Vapour Intrusion: Technical Practice Note Installation of Soil Gas Probes, New South Wales Department for Environment, Climate Change and Water (NSW DECCW), 2010 (NSW DECCW 2010).

International Guidelines

• Collecting and Interpreting Soil Gas Samples from the Vadose Zone, Publication Number 4741, American Petroleum Institute (API), 2005 (API 2005);

• Standard Practice for Active Soil Gas Sampling in the Vadose Zone for Vapour Intrusion Evaluations, American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 2008 (ASTM 2008); and

• Technical and Regulatory Guidance - Vapour Intrusion Pathway: A Practical Guideline, Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council (ITRC), 2007 (ITRC 2007).

7.1.1 Soil Vapour Probe Installation

A total of 16 soil vapour probes (VP01-VP16) to a depth of 1.5 mbgl were installed in February / March 2018 in two installation events, as follows:

• 11 soil vapour probes (VP01-VP11) were installed between 8 and 14 February; and

• Five additional soil vapour probes (VP12-VP16) were installed on 8 March 2018 following receipt of results from the sampling of GP03, GP04, GP08, GP11, GP12 and VP01-VP11.

The following methodology was undertaken for the installation of the soil vapour probes:

• The locations of the soil vapour probes were marked and cleared by a professional underground service locator following review of dial before you dig plans;

• Downhole drilling equipment was decontaminated prior to the commencement of drilling at each investigation location to minimise the potential for cross contamination for locations VP01-VP11, with rinsate samples collected to validate decontamination techniques. It is noted locations VP12-VP16 were installed during direct push techniques with dedicated plastic liners and hence decontamination and rinsate sampling was not required;

• All soil vapour probes were installed by a truck mounted drill rig using push tube techniques or direct push techniques to depths between 1.55 mbgl and 1.6 mbgl. It is noted undisturbed soil cores from 0.9 mbgl to 1.3 mbgl from six locations (VP01, VP02, VP04, VP06, VP09 and VP11) were retained in the geoprobe plastic sleeve (sealed with end caps) for geotechnical analysis;

• The soils encountered during the drilling of the soil vapour probes (excluding the portion retained for geotechnical analysis from VP01, VP02, VP04, VP06, VP09 and VP11) were logged in accordance with the USCS by an experienced environmental scientist. Soil logs are included in Appendix M. Photographs of the soils encountered are included in Appendix C.


Soil samples were collected from the top of each lithological layer encountered for field screening of VOCs using a PID. The PID was calibrated using isobutylene to 100 ppm at the commencement of each week of sampling. The PID calibration records are included in Appendix D;

• Excess soil cuttings were placed in drums on portable bunds at a designated storage site, and classified for offsite disposal. All drums were disposed of by a licenced contractor following completion of the drilling program – waste disposal documentation is included in Appendix E;

• Following the drilling and soil logging / geotechnical sampling, soil vapour probes were installed in all boreholes as follows:

o A stainless-steel vapour probe with ¼ inch Teflon tubing connected was lowered so that the tip of the probe was just above the base of the borehole (i.e. at a depth of approximately 1.5 mbgl);

o The bore annulus was backfilled with a clean washed sand pack to create a total sand pack interval of approximately 35 cm to 40 cm (i.e. from 1.2 mbgl to the base of the borehole);

o Approximately 5 cm of dry bentonite was placed above the sand pack;

o A slurry of cement powder, bentonite powder and water was used to backfill the borehole to a depth of approximately 0.2 mbgl;

o The soil vapour probe was completed with a flush mounted gatic cover; and

o Metal labels (to ensure no volatile chemicals are introduced) with the soil vapour probe ID were included inside the gatic cover of each probe.

• All newly installed soil vapour probes were surveyed by a licensed surveyor. The survey data is included in Appendix G; and

• The geotechnical samples from VP01, VP02, VP04, VP06, VP09 and VP11 were transported to the laboratory for geotechnical analysis on the day of drilling, immediately following completion of fieldwork that day. The geotechnical samples were analysed for the following:

o Particle size distribution (AS1289 3.6.1);

o Moisture content including degree of saturation (AS1289 2.1.1);

o Dry density (AS1289 5.1.1); and

o Specific gravity/soil particle density (AS1289 3.5.1).

The locations of the soil vapour probes are shown in Figure 8 (attached). The geotechnical sample locations are shown in Figure 9 (attached).

The construction details of the soil vapour probes are summarised below in Table 7.1. Detailed soil vapour probe construction logs are included in Appendix M.


Table 7.1: Soil Vapour Probe Construction Summary (VP01-VP16)

Soil Vapour Probe ID

Date Installed Total Depth of Borehole

Depth of Base of Probe

Sand Interval Total Length of Teflon Tubing

m

VP01 08-Feb-18 1.55 1.50 1.20 to 1.55 1.80

VP02 12-Feb-18 1.55 1.50 1.20 to 1.55 1.80

VP03 12-Feb-18 1.55 1.50 1.20 to 1.55 1.80

VP04 12-Feb-18 1.55 1.50 1.20 to 1.55 1.80

VP05 12-Feb-18 1.55 1.50 1.20 to 1.55 1.80

VP06 08-Feb-18 1.55 1.50 1.20 to 1.55 1.80

VP07 08-Feb-18 1.55 1.50 1.20 to 1.55 1.80

VP08 08-Feb-18 1.55 1.50 1.20 to 1.55 1.80

VP09 14-Feb-18 1.55 1.50 1.20 to 1.55 1.80

VP10 08-Feb-18 1.55 1.50 1.20 to 1.55 1.80

VP11 14-Feb-18 1.60 1.50 1.20 to 1.60 1.80

VP12 08-Mar-18 1.60 1.50 1.20 to 1.60 1.80

VP13 08-Mar-18 1.60 1.50 1.20 to 1.60 1.80

VP14 08-Mar-18 1.60 1.50 1.20 to 1.60 1.80

VP15 08-Mar-18 1.60 1.50 1.20 to 1.60 1.80

VP16 08-Mar-18 1.60 1.50 1.20 to 1.60 1.80

7.1.2 Soil Vapour Sampling

A total of 21 soil vapour probes (existing soil vapour probes GP03, GP04, GP08, GP11 and GP12, and newly installed soil vapour probes VP01-VP16) were sampled in two monitoring events, as follows:

• Initial monitoring event: 16 soil vapour probes (existing soil vapour probes GP03, GP04, GP08, GP11 and GP12, and newly installed soil vapour probes VP01-VP11) between 19 and 20 February 2018; and

• Monitoring event of additional soil vapour probes (VP12-VP16): 13 March 2018.

The soil vapour samples were collected in specially prepared 1 L Summa canisters supplied by Envirolab (primary laboratory). The canisters were fitted with a calibrated regulator (flow controller) that when opened, allows air to be drawn in at a pre-set constant flow rate. The adopted flow rate for the investigation was 80 ml/min (approximate 10 minute sample time for the 1 L Summa canister). The following sampling methodology was undertaken for the sampling of the soil vapour probes:

• All soil vapour probes were sampled a minimum of five days following installation;

• The gatic cover was removed from the soil vapour probe and a visual inspection of the Teflon tubing conducted in order to detect any damage to the tubing. It is noted no damage was observed to any of the soil vapour probes included in the Keswick Stage 2 Part B EA works monitoring event;

• A pressure test was conducted to ensure a significant vacuum was not formed when purging soil vapour (i.e. ensure there was sufficient soil vapour present to sample) and ensure no water was present in the soil vapour probe. This was undertaken using a hand pump with pressure gauge, with the approximate volume of the Teflon tubing of the soil vapour probe removed, followed by monitoring of the pressure relax. A vacuum was reported in ten soil


vapour probes (GP08, VP01, VP02, VP04, VP06, VP09, VP11 and VP14-VP16), however, no water / moisture was noted and hence sampling proceeded;

• A leak test of the soil vapour probe was undertaken using helium. A background measurement of helium in ambient air was first recorded followed by a background measurement of helium in the soil vapour probe. A shroud of volume 35 L was placed over the soil vapour probe and helium was pumped into the shroud at a rate of 15 L/min for five minutes with the helium detector connected for the entire period and helium measurements recorded at 1-minute intervals. It is noted that the shroud was flush with ground level, with no significant gaps present between the shroud and ground. The helium concentration within the shroud was recorded following the leak testing of the soil vapour probe. If there was greater than 10 % helium in the sampling line, then the soil vapour probe was deemed compromised and was not sampled. It is noted that this did not occur at any location;

• The Summa canister pressure was measured using the laboratory supplied pressure gauge and the reading compared to the initial canister pressure recorded by the laboratory. This ensures the canister has not had significant ingress of ambient air in the transit period. No sample is collected with canisters with vacuum less than -25 inches of mercury (inHg);

• The Summa canister was fitted with a flow controller and connected to the soil vapour probe. A sponge soaked with isopropanol (approximately 20 mL) was placed in a small zip lock bag, open at the top, inside the shroud with the Summa canister and flow regulator connected to the soil vapour probe. Soil vapour was then sampled, and the start sampling time was recorded;

• Duplicate samples were collected with a Summa canister prepared in the same way as detailed above, using a stainless steel duplicate sampling bar (provided by the laboratory) to connect both Summa canisters (each with its own flow controller) to the soil vapour probe;

• Shroud samples were collected to assess the concentration of isopropanol within the shroud. Shroud samples were collected with a Summa canister prepared in the same way as detailed above. The Summa canister was placed inside the shroud, along with the primary sample Summa canister. Sampling occurred for the same period as the primary soil vapour sample at that location, with the same rate on the flow controller to enable comparison between isopropanol concentrations within primary samples and the shroud sample;

• Once the pressure reading on the flow regulator was between -5 and -10 inHg, sampling was ceased and the canister valve closed tight to prevent sample loss. It is noted this was not possible for six locations (VP04, VP06, VP11 and VP14-VP16) due to low vapour yield (further discussion in Appendix I). The end sampling time was recorded;

• A post sampling canister pressure check was then undertaken using the laboratory supplied pressure gauge;

• Post sampling general gas readings (carbon dioxide, methane, oxygen, hydrogen sulphide, carbon monoxide and balance) were measured with a landfill gas meter (GA2000), firstly in ambient air and then in the soil vapour probe. The soil vapour probe was also screened using a PID at this time. Soil vapour probes were purged with the GA2000 and PID for a minimum of 30 seconds, or until measurements stabilised; and

• Soil vapour samples were transported to the laboratory for selected chemical analysis under COC documentation. All primary and duplicate soil vapour samples were analysed for the chemicals of interest outlined in Section 3 and isopropanol (for QC purposes), while the shroud samples were analysed for isopropanol only.

The soil vapour field sampling sheets are included in Appendix N.


7.2 Soil Vapour Tier 1 Screening Levels

7.2.1 Australian Screening Levels

Investigation levels presented within the ASC NEPM (NEPC 2013) were adopted in the first instance to assess potential inhalation risks to site users.

The ASC NEPM (NEPC 2013) provides Interim Soil Vapour Health Investigation Levels (HILs) for Volatile Organic Chlorinated Compounds for selected volatile chlorinated compounds (PCE, TCE, cis-1,2-DCE], VC and 1,1,1-trichloroethane [1,1,1-TCA]) which are specific to various ASC NEPM (NEPC 2013) land use scenarios. The derivation of these HILs is simple though conservative and is based on acceptable indoor air concentrations (based on US EPA guidelines) with an attenuation factor of 0.1 applied to account for the attenuation factor between concentrations in soil gas immediately below the building foundation and indoor air concentrations.

ASC NEPM (NEPC 2013) land use scenario A / B (residential land use) and land use scenario D (commercial / industrial) have been adopted for assessing the potential risks to human health via the vapour inhalation pathway. The HILs are based on generally conservative assumptions for the estimated allowable exposure dependant on land use. An exceedance of a screening level does not indicate that there is a definite risk to human health, but rather that further site-specific assessment is required to quantify the potential risk to human health in the selected land use scenario.

It is noted that neither the ASC NEPC (NEPC 2013) nor the US EPA5 (discussed further below) provide criteria for trans-1,2-DCE. In the absence of Tier 1 screening levels for trans-1,2-DCE, assessment against the Tier 1 screening level adopted for cis-1,2-DCE (that provided within the ASC NEPM [NEPC 2016]) has been undertaken. This is considered to be conservative, given the relative toxicity of trans-1,2-DCE compared to cis-1,2-DCE.

7.2.2 United States Environment Protection Agency

The US EPA (2016) provides Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) for a large number of chemicals. In the absence of criteria in the ASC NEPM (NEPC 2013) for 1,1-DCE, carbon tetrachloride and chloroform, the RSL (US EPA 2016) for residential air and commercial / industrial air has been adopted as the Tier 1 screening level for these chemicals. RSLs (US EPA 2016) for noncarcinogenic endpoints have been adopted as 1,1-DCE, carbon tetrachloride and chloroform are not considered to be mutagens by US EPA (2016). A hazard index of 0.1 has been adopted for screening purposes in order to assess potential additive effects between chemicals.

The RSLs (US EPA 2016) are for ambient air rather than soil vapour. An attenuation factor has been applied to the ambient air guidelines using a soil vapour to indoor air attenuation factor of 0.1, as consistent with that adopted in the ASC NEPM (NEPC 2013) for the derivation of the HILs. The result of this is that the Tier 1 soil vapour screening level adopted for this assessment is 10 times greater than the RSL presented by the US EPA (2016) for ambient air. It should be noted that the ASC NEPM (NEPC 2013) attenuation factor of 0.1 was based on draft US EPA guidance where the final version adopted an attenuation factor of 0.03 (i.e. adoption of an attenuation factor of 0.1 as has been completed herein is conservative).

7.3 Soil Vapour Quality Assurance / Quality Control

The DQIs are summarised in Appendix I, I1. A detailed review of the QA/QC measures implemented during the Keswick Stage 2 Part B EA works soil vapour program to address the DQIs are included in Appendix I, I.3.

Based on the results of the evaluation of the QA/QC data for soil vapour, it is considered that:

5 OSWER Technical Guide for Assessing the Vapor Intrusion Pathway from Subsurface Vapor Sources to Indoor Air, United States

Environment Protection Agency, 2016 (US EPA 2016).


• The field and laboratory quality assurance measures implemented provide an acceptable level of confidence that the data collected and reported is appropriately complete, comparable and representative; and

• The field and laboratory quality control measures implemented provide an acceptable level of confidence that the data collected and reported is appropriately accurate and precise.

Therefore, the data collected for the soil vapour investigation is considered to be reliable and suitable for the assessment of the condition of the site.

7.4 Soil Vapour Results

7.4.1 Field Measurements

Measurements of general gases (carbon dioxide, methane, oxygen, hydrogen sulphide, carbon monoxide and balance), and VOCs (collected via a PID) were recorded as part of the monitoring procedure. These measurements have been summarised in the Summary Tables attached to this report. The following was noted:

• Methane was reported at negligible concentrations, with a maximum concentration of 0.1 %v/v reported at location VP15;

• Carbon dioxide was generally reported at elevated concentrations between 1 %v/v and 8 %v/v, consistent with expectations of soil vapour at depths of 1.5 mbgl. Lower carbon dioxide concentrations, ranging between 0.3 %v/v and 0.5 %v/v were reported at four locations (VP02 and VP04-VP06);

• Oxygen was reported at reduced concentrations as compared to ambient air, generally ranging between 13 %v/v and 20 %v/v, however, one location (VP03) reported very reduced oxygen (8.6 %v/v);

• Carbon monoxide was reported at concentrations below 9 ppm;

• Hydrogen sulphide was reported at negligible concentrations, with a maximum concentration of 3 ppm reported; and

• PID measurements ranged between 0 ppm and 43.1 ppm. A summary of the PID measurements is included in the Summary Tables.

7.4.2 Analytical Results

The soil vapour laboratory certificates of analysis and COC documentation is included in Appendix O. Analytical results from the soil vapour monitoring events have been tabulated and are included in the Summary Tables attached to this report. Soil vapour TCE concentrations for all soil vapour probes sampled as part of the Keswick Stage 2 Part B EA works are shown in Figure 10 (attached).

PCE, TCE and cis-1,2-DCE were reported at concentrations above the LOR and the adopted soil vapour Tier 1 screening levels, while trans-1-2-DCE, 1,1-DCE and chloroform were reported above the LOR but below the adopted soil vapour Tier 1 screening levels. VC and carbon tetrachloride were reported below the LOR at all sample locations. It is noted the majority of exceedances of soil vapour Tier 1 screening levels were in commercial landuse areas, with all but one soil vapour probe present in residential areas reporting concentrations of all chemicals of interest below the soil vapour Tier 1 screening levels. Table 7.2 summarises the sample locations and concentrations exceeding the soil vapour Tier 1 screening levels.

The extent of the soil vapour TCE plume has not been laterally delineated to the east, north-east or west of the K2 site, however, the extent in vicinity of the K1 and K3 sites (and adjacent residential areas to the north and north-west of the K1 and K3 sites) is understood.


Table 7.2: Soil Vapour Concentrations Exceeding Adopted Screening Levels

Chemical Soil Vapour Probe ID Concentration µg/m3

Tier 1 Soil Vapour Screening Level Exceeded

Residential Landuse

TCE VP12 37#1 • Residential: 20 µg/m3

Commercial Landuse

PCE VP03 11,000 • Commercial: 8,000 µg/m3

TCE GP03 53,000 • Commercial: 80 µg/m3

GP04 1,000

GP08 360

GP11 108,000#1

GP12 20,000

VP02 150

VP03 180,000

VP04 200

VP06 190

VP07 1,800

VP09 2,400

VP11 600

VP15 6,900

cis-1,2-DCE VP03 16,000 • Commercial: 300 µg/m3

Notes:

#1: Concentration reported in duplicate sample displayed as this concentration was higher than that reported in the primary sample.


8. Geotechnical Parameter Results

As outlined in Section 7, geotechnical samples were collected for analysis from depths between 0.9 mbgl to 1.3 mbgl at six soil vapour probe locations (VP01, VP02, VP04, VP06, VP09 and VP11). Results of the analysis are included in the laboratory certificates of analysis in Appendix P, and are summarised below in Table 8.1.

Table 8.1: Summary of Geotechnical Parameter Results

Sample Location

Bulk Density (t/m3)

Moisture (%)

Dry Density (t/m3)

Void Ratio Degree of Saturation (%)

Porosity Spec Gravity (t/m3)

VP01 2.01 19.1 1.68 0.58 87.6 0.37 2.66

VP02 1.99 20.0 1.66 0.57 91.4 0.36 2.61

VP04 1.94 21.8 1.59 0.63 89.6 0.39 2.59

VP06 1.65 21.9 1.65 0.60 97.0 0.37 2.64

VP09 1.95 22.1 1.59 0.66 88.2 0.40 2.65

VP11 1.96 23.9 1.58 0.69 93.0 0.38 2.67

Average 1.92 21.5 1.63 0.62 91.1 0.38 2.64


9. Discussion

9.1 Q1 Aquifer Vs Perched Aquifer

A total of eight nested groundwater well pairs were present. TCE concentrations for the nested pairs are summarised below in Table 9.1.

Where nested groundwater well pairs were present, higher TCE concentrations were generally reported in the Q1 aquifer groundwater wells with the exception of the nested pair of GW08/GWP08 where the higher TCE concentration was reported in the groundwater well targeting the Perched aquifer (GWP08).

The trend in Q1 aquifer concentration vs Perched aquifer concentration for the other chemicals of interest was generally consistent with that reported for TCE with the exception of a much higher cis-1,2-DCE concentration in the Perched aquifer at nested pair location GW14/GWP10. It is noted the laboratory double checked and confirmed the elevated cis-1,2-DCE concentration reported at GWP10.

Table 9.1: Summary of Groundwater TCE Concentrations Reported in Nested Groundwater Well Pairs

Nested Pair of Groundwater Wells TCE Concentration (µg/L)

Perched Aquifer Q1 Aquifer

GWP01 / GW01 160 210

GWP03 / GW02 19 380

GWP04 / GW03 7.9 140

GWP05 / GW04 0.4 22

GWP06 / GW07 0.28 <1

GWP08 / GW08 140 35

GWP09 / GW15 2.9 22

GWP10 / GW14 550 1,500

9.2 Temporal Trends

9.2.1 Groundwater

Including the February / March 2018 GME undertaken as part of the Keswick Stage 2 Part B EA works, groundwater data from four monitoring events was available for three groundwater wells (GWP08, GW09 and GW10) and groundwater data from three monitoring events was available for seven groundwater wells (GWP01-GWP05, GW05 and GW06). Groundwater data was available for one or two monitoring events only for the remaining 25 groundwater wells (GWP06, GWP07, GWP09, GWP10, GW02-GW04, GW07, GW08 and GW11-GW25). For the groundwater wells where data is available for three or more monitoring events, TCE concentrations for all GMEs to date have been summarised below in Table 9.2.

There was some variability in concentrations reported between groundwater monitoring events, however, no groundwater well reported an increasing trend in two consecutive GMEs with the exception of GW09, which is present within the source area of the K1 site.


Table 9.2: Summary of Groundwater TCE Concentrations Reported to Date (Groundwater Wells with Data from Three or More Monitoring Events)

Groundwater Well ID

TCE Concentration (µg/L)

Mar-13 Dec-13 May-14#1 Dec-14 Aug-15 Mar-16 Feb-18 / Mar-18

Perched Aquifer

GWP01 100 - - - 160 - 160

GWP02 52 - - - 44 - 160

GWP03 43 - - - 29 - 19

GWP04 - - 48 - 6 - 7.9

GWP05 - - <1 - 2 - 0.4

GWP08 - 180 - 264 - 180 140

Q1 Aquifer

GW05 - - 2 - <1 - -

GW06 - - <1 - <1 - -

GW09 - 22,000 - 16,300 - 28,560 34,000

GW10 - 2,400 - 1,380 - 1,800 1,200

Notes:

#1:It should be noted the Mott McDonald (2014) report is brief and lacks a QA/QC assessment, field sampling sheets and a detailed

sampling methodology. This data should be viewed as qualitative.

9.2.2 Soil Vapour

Limited historical soil vapour data is available for the site, with existing soil vapour probes GP03, GP04, GP08 and GP11 sampled once previously (May 2014). All remaining soil vapour probes (VP01-VP16 and GP12) were sampled as part of the Keswick Stage 2 Part B EA works only (February / March 2018). Where historical data is available (i.e. for GP03, GP04, GP08 and GP11), TCE concentrations have been summarised below in Table 9.3. Given the limited data set available at this time, trend analysis has not been undertaken.

Table 9.3: Summary of Soil Vapour TCE Concentrations Reported to Date (Soil Vapour Probes Sampled Previously)

Soil Vapour Probe ID TCE Concentration (µg/m3)

May-14#1 Feb-18

GP03 17,000 53,000

GP04 1,600 1,000

GP08 510 360

GP11 110,000 108,000#2

Notes:

#1:It should be noted the Mott McDonald (2014) report is brief and lacks a QA/QC assessment, field sampling sheets and a detailed

sampling methodology. This data should be viewed as qualitative.

#2:Concentration reported in duplicate sample displayed as this concentration was higher than that reported in the primary sample.


9.3 Groundwater Vs Soil Vapour Plume Concentrations

The groundwater TCE concentrations reported as part of the Keswick Stage 2 Part B EA works are shown in Figure 6 (Q1 aquifer) and Figure 7 (Perched aquifer), attached. The soil vapour TCE concentrations reported as part of the Keswick Stage 2 Part B EA works are shown in Figure 10 (attached).

Soil vapour TCE hotspot areas were reported beneath the northern portion of the K2 site (in vicinity of GP03, GP11 and GP12) and beneath the northern portion of the K3 site (in vicinity of VP03 and VP15). The Q1 and Perched aquifer TCE groundwater concentrations beneath the northern portion of the K2 site were not indicative of a groundwater hotspot area and hence the elevated soil vapour TCE concentrations reported in this area may be indicative of a soil source. The Q1 and Perched aquifer TCE groundwater distributions identified elevated groundwater TCE concentrations in both aquifers beneath the northern portion of the K3 site, however, the magnitude of the soil vapour concentrations vs groundwater concentrations in this area were potentially indicative of contribution from a shallow soil source.

No soil vapour monitoring was completed for the K1 site with the exception of boundary monitoring to the north and west of the site (i.e. no soil vapour monitoring was completed in vicinity of the groundwater source area in the centre of the K1 site).

9.4 Source Areas

The Keswick Stage 2 Part B EA works have confirmed the presence of elevated groundwater and/or soil vapour concentrations of the chemicals of interest which are potentially indicative of source areas at several areas within the Keswick Assessment Area, as summarised below in Table 9.4.


Table 9.4: Summary of Inferred Source Areas within the Keswick Assessment Area

Inferred Source Area Location

JBS&G (2018) Results Source Area Media Discussion

Approximate centre of the K1 site

• As consistent with historic results, Q1 aquifer groundwater wells GW09 and GW10 reported elevated TCE concentrations in the Keswick Stage 2 Part B EA works (34,000 µg/L and 1,200 µg/L, respectively).

• No soil vapour monitoring was completed in vicinity of this source area as part of the Keswick Stage 2 Part B EA works.

• These results are likely to be indicative of CE soil and groundwater impacts

• The highest groundwater TCE concentrations were present in this source area.

Northern portion of the K3 site

• Existing Q1 aquifer groundwater well (GW14) and the newly installed Perched aquifer groundwater well (GWP10) reported elevated TCE groundwater concentrations (1,500 µg/L and 550 µg/L, respectively). In addition, the relative concentration of cis-1,2-DCE:TCE reported in these groundwater wells was significantly higher than that reported in groundwater wells in other source areas.

• Although not a chemical of interest for the Keswick Stage 2 Part B EA works, elevated benzene concentrations were reported in the Q1 aquifer at groundwater well GW14 (520 µg/L). The extent of the benzene impacts appears limited as, with the exception of relatively low concentrations within the source area on the K1 site (at GW09 and GW10), all other groundwater wells reported benzene below the LOR.

• Elevated soil vapour TCE concentrations were reported at VP03 (180,000 µg/m3) and VP15 (6,900 µg/m3).

• These results are likely to be indicative of CE soil and groundwater impacts.

• Despite being down-hydraulic gradient of the K1 and K2 sites, this source area appears separate to those on the K1 and K2 sites as different relative concentrations of cis-1,2-DCE:TCE were reported in this area. In addition, groundwater and soil vapour concentrations reported between the K1/K2 and K3 sites were significantly lower than those reported in the K1, K2 and K3 source areas.

Northern portion of the K2 site

• Neither the Perched aquifer groundwater wells (GWP02 [16 µg/L] and GWP04 [7.9 µg/L]) nor the Q1 aquifer groundwater well (GW03 [140 µg/L]) within this area reported significantly elevated groundwater TCE concentrations. However, it is noted these concentrations are slightly elevated and elevated TCE concentrations have not been reported in groundwater up-hydraulic gradient of this area.

• Elevated TCE soil vapour concentrations were reported in this area at GP03 (53,000 µg/m3), GP11 (100,000 µg/m3) and GP12 (20,000 µg/m3).

• These results are likely to be indicative of CE soil impacts and minor groundwater impacts.

Western portion of the K2 site

• Elevated TCE groundwater concentrations were reported in this area at Q1 aquifer groundwater wells GW01 (210 µg/L) and GW02 (380 µg/L) and Perched aquifer groundwater well GWP01 (160 µg/L).

• Elevated TCE soil vapour concentrations, consistent with the reported groundwater concentrations, were reported in this area at VP09 (2,400 µg/m3) and GP04 (1,000 µg/m3).

• While these groundwater and soil vapour TCE concentrations are not significantly high, elevated TCE concentrations have not been reported in groundwater or soil vapour up-hydraulic gradient of this area.

• This source area is likely to consist of CE impacted groundwater, however, CE soil impacts may also be present in this area.


10. Conceptual Site Model

10.1 Content

The ASC NEPM (NEPC 2013) identifies a CSM as a representation of site related information regarding contamination sources, receptors and exposure pathways between those sources and receptors. The development of a CSM is an essential part of all site assessments.

The ASC NEPM (NEPC 2013) outlines the essential elements of a CSM as including the following:

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

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

• Building design;

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

• Human and ecological receptors; and

• Potential and complete exposure pathway.

Site setting information is presented below in Section 10.2 to Section 10.5. The essential elements of the CSM are summarised in Section 10.6 to Section 10.12.

10.2 Site Location

The Keswick Assessment Area is located approximately 2.6 km south-west of the central business district (CBD) of Adelaide. The Keswick Assessment Area is approximately 243,500 m2 in area.

The Keswick Assessment Area includes a mix of commercial and residential landuse, with the south-eastern portion and that along Croydon Road and Richmond Road consisting predominately of commercial use and the portion within consisting predominately of residential landuse. A figure showing the various land use areas in the Keswick Assessment Area and adjacent land is included in Figure 11 (attached).

10.3 Topography

The Keswick Assessment Area is generally flat with a gradual fall in elevation to the north-west, with an elevation of approximately 30 m AHD at the south-eastern extent and an elevation of approximately 21 m AHD at the north-western extent (Google Earth 2018).

10.4 Nearest Significant Surface Water Bodies

The closest significant surface water bodies to the site are as follows:

• The River Torrens (freshwater), located approximately 2.8 km north-east (up-hydraulic gradient) at its closet point of the site and 3.8 km north-west (down-hydraulic gradient) of the site; and

• Gulf St Vincent (marine water), located approximately 6.6 km west (down-hydraulic gradient) of the site.

It should be noted Keswick Creek (concrete lined drain, discussed further below in Section 10.5) runs through the Keswick Assessment Area.

10.5 Keswick Creek

Keswick Creek is a concrete lined drain which runs through the Keswick Assessment Area. The final discharge point of the Keswick Creek is Patawolonga Creek, present approximately 5.5 km south-west of the site. Patawolonga Creek discharges to Gulf St Vincent (marine water).


Within the Keswick Assessment Area, Keswick Creek can be observed on Chatham Road with the base evident approximately 3 mbgl. Given the above, the creek is above the level of both the Perched aquifer (where present; SWL at depths of greater than 4.8 mbgl) and the Q1 aquifer (SWL at depths of greater than 11.6 mbgl) and hence no groundwater discharge to Keswick Creek will occur at the site.

Despite Keswick Creek being a concrete lined drain, some leakage is likely. No evidence of significant loss from Keswick Creek was noted in the Q1 or Perched aquifer, with the groundwater level data showing groundwater flow to the north-west and no mounding in vicinity of the creek. However, the groundwater well network is limited in the vicinity of Keswick Creek and the gauging event was undertaken on 26 February 2018 during a period of low rainfall (2.8 mm of rainfall was recorded for the month of February – rainfall data included in Appendix Q). Given the above, the potential influence of loss from Keswick Creek to groundwater is not well understood at this time.

10.6 Known and Potential Sources of Contamination

As outlined in Section 9.4, several potential TCE source areas have been identified within the Keswick Assessment Area by review of historical reports and the data collected to date. These potential source areas are summarised below in Table 10.1 and shown in Figure 12.


Table 10.1: Summary of Known / Potential TCE Source Areas

Name Known / Potential CE Source Area

Likelihood Associated Groundwater Well(s) / Soil Vapour Probe(s)

Details

Source Area #1 Approximate centre of the K1 site Confirmed GW09 and GW10 • Source area identified previously.

• Likely to include both soil and groundwater impacts.

Source Area #2 Northern portion of the K3 site Likely GWP10, GW14, VP03 and VP15

• Source area identified as part of the Keswick Stage 2 Part B EA works.

• Likely to include both soil and groundwater impacts.

Source Area #3 Northern portion of the K2 site Likely GWP02, GWP04, GW03, GP03, GP11 and GP12

• Likely source area identified previously.

• Likely to include more significant soil impacts and minor groundwater impacts.

Source Area #4 Western portion of the K2 site Probable GWP01, GW01, GW02, VP09 and GP04

• Probable source area identified previously.

• Minor source area (groundwater and potentially soil).


10.7 Extent of Environmental Impact

10.7.1 Soil

No soil investigation works for the chemicals of interest were completed as part of the Keswick Stage 2 Part B EA works.

As outlined in Section 2.2, limited direct soil investigation works for the chemicals interest have been completed within the Keswick Assessment Area to date, as follows:

• Six test pits installed in the centre of the K1 site (i.e. Source Area #1) in 2013: Elevated TCE concentrations were reported at all six locations in Source Area #1. The highest TCE concentration reported was 6.4 mg/kg; and

• Soil samples analysed from 14 locations across the K2 site in 2014. All samples reported TCE below the LOR with the exception of one sample in the north-eastern portion of the site (6.7 mg/kg).

In addition to the above, validation sampling for petroleum hydrocarbons following the removal of the UST on the western boundary of the K1 site was completed in 2013. Elevated concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons remain in-situ to the south, west and base of the excavation.

10.7.2 Groundwater

Shallow groundwater (the Perched aquifer and the Q1 aquifer) has been impacted by CEs, with one confirmed source on the K1 site (Source Area #1), two likely sources (one on the K3 site [Source Area #2) and the other on the K2 site [Source Area #3]), and one probable source on the K2 site (Source Area #4).

The following maximum CE groundwater concentrations were reported within the Keswick Assessment Area in the Q1 aquifer in the February / March 2018 GME:

• PCE: 20 µg/L at GW09 (K1 site, Source Area #1);

• TCE: 34,000 µg/L at GW09 (K1 site, Source Area #1);

• cis-1,2-DCE: 44 µg/L at GW14 (K3 site, Source Area #2);

• trans-1,2-DCE: 16 µg/L at GW09 (K1 site, Source Area #1);

• 1,1-DCE: 36 µg/L at GW09 (K1 site, Source Area #1); and

• VC: 8.2 µg/L at GW14 (K3 site, Source Area #2).

The following maximum CE groundwater concentrations were reported within the Keswick Assessment Area in the Perched aquifer in the February / March 2018 GME:

• PCE: 110 µg/L at GWP09 (Croydon Road, up-hydraulic gradient of the K1 site);

• TCE: 550 µg/L at GWP10 (K3 site, Source Area #2);

• cis-1,2-DCE: 6,900 µg/L at GWP10 (K3 site, Source Area #2);

• trans-1,2-DCE: 200 µg/L at GWP10 (K3 site, Source Area #2);

• 1,1-DCE: <50 µg/L at GWP10 (K3 site, Source Area #2); and

• VC: 28 µg/L at GWP08 (Ashford Road, between the K1 and K3 sites).

No investigation of the deeper aquifers (i.e. below Q1 aquifer) has been undertaken to date.


10.7.3 Soil Vapour

Elevated soil vapour concentrations have been reported above the groundwater plumes. The maximum soil vapour concentrations for the chemicals of interest reported in February / March 2018 within the Keswick Assessment Area in residential and commercial / industrial areas are summarised in Table 10.2.

Table 10.2: Summary of Maximum Soil Vapour Concentrations in Residential and Commercial / Industrial Landuse Areas – February / March 2018

Chemical

Maximum Soil Vapour Concentration (µg/m3)

Reported Within / Adjacent to Residential Land Use Area#1

Reported Within / Adjacent to Commercial / Industrial Land Use Area

PCE 5 (VP01) 11,000 (VP03: K3 site, Source Area #2)

TCE 37#2 (VP12) 180,000 (VP03: K3 site, Source Area #2)

cis-1,2-DCE <LOR (all locations) 16,000 (VP03: K3 site, Source Area #2)

trans-1,2-DCE <LOR (all locations) 280 (VP03: K3 site, Source Area #2)

1,1-DCE <LOR (all locations) 390 (VP03: K3 site, Source Area #2)

VC <LOR (all locations) <LOR (all locations)

Carbon tetrachloride <LOR (all locations)#3 <LOR (all locations)#4

Chloroform 24 (VP13) 370 (VP03: K3 site, Source Area #2)

Notes:

#1:VP01 and VP12-VP14 are present in close proximity to areas of residential landuse.


#3: LOR elevated (12 µg/m3) above the Tier 1 screening level for residential landuse of 4.7 µg/m3 at one location.

#4: LOR elevated (31 µg/m3 / 160 µg/m3) above the Tier 1 screening level for commercial landuse of 20 µg/m3 at nine locations.

10.8 Preferential Pathways

A range of preferential pathways are potentially present within the Keswick Assessment Area as associated with service corridors (i.e. drainage lines, sumps, pits etc.) and fill materials. These preferential pathways may affect both groundwater contamination and soil vapour migration. Detailed mapping of all services within the Keswick Assessment Area was not part of the scope of the Keswick Stage 2 Part B EA works.

The geology of the site consists of clays with coarser lenses. These coarser lenses may create preferential pathways for both groundwater and soil vapour contamination migration. Given the broad scale of the groundwater data and the potential for numerous sources within the Keswick Assessment Area, the significance of preferential pathways (service corridors and naturally occurring coarser lenses within the aquifer) is unknown at this time.

The distribution of soil vapour is affected by the presence of preferential pathways above the groundwater table, including fill materials, coarser lenses and service corridors. The data obtained to date is insufficient to characterise fill depths and its effects on the distribution of vapours. Furthermore, like groundwater, the soil vapour data is on a broad scale and hence the influence of coarser lenses and service corridors as potential preferential pathways on the vapour distribution is unknown at this time.

10.9 Building Design

No building survey works have been completed for the Keswick Assessment Area. As outlined in Section 10.2, the Keswick Assessment Area includes a mix of commercial and residential landuse, with the south-eastern portion and that along Croydon Road and Richmond Road consisting


predominately of commercial use and the portion within consisting predominately of residential landuse.

10.10 Potential Human Receptors

The following potential human receptors associated with the Keswick Assessment Area were identified:

• Commercial workers;

• Residents;

• Customers of commercial premises; and

• Subsurface maintenance / construction workers.

10.11 Potential Ecological Receptors

No surface water bodies occur within close proximity to the Keswick Assessment Area with the exception of Keswick Creek. As discussed in Section 10.5, within the Keswick Assessment Area, Keswick Creek is above the level of both the Perched aquifer and the Q1 aquifer and hence no groundwater discharge to Keswick Creek will occur.

As outlined in Section 10.4, the closest surface water bodies down-hydraulic gradient of the Keswick Assessment Area were as follows:

• The River Torrens (freshwater), located approximately 2.8 km north-east (up-hydraulic gradient) at its closet point of the site and 3.8 km north-west (down-hydraulic gradient) of the site; and

• Gulf St Vincent (marine water), located approximately 6.6 km west (down-hydraulic gradient) of the site.

10.12 Potential Human Exposure Pathways

The following potential human exposure pathways associated with the Keswick Assessment Area were identified:

• Ingestion of soil;

• Dermal contact with soil;

• Inhalation of dust;

• Ingestion of groundwater;

• Dermal contact with groundwater;

• Inhalation of vapours as generated from impacted soil and/or groundwater; and

• Ingestion of fruit / vegetables irrigated with groundwater.

10.13 Cross Section

A cross section of the site has been included as Figure 13 (attached).


11. Human Health Risk Assessment

11.1 Overview and Identification of Complete Exposure Pathways Requiring Risk Assessment

A HHRA is required as several chemicals of interest have been reported at concentrations exceeding the adopted groundwater and/or soil vapour Tier 1 screening levels.

A review has been completed to determine which receptor-exposure pathways are complete, and which of these potentially complete pathways may result in an unacceptable risk to the identified receptor/s. Where a receptor-exposure pathway is complete, but site data demonstrates all concentrations of the chemicals of interest are below the adopted Tier 1 screening levels, it is concluded this receptor-exposure pathway does not require further assessment.

The assessment of receptor-exposure pathways is presented below in Table 11.1. The following pathways were identified as complete and requiring further assessment:

• Commercial workers – inhalation (soil vapour);

• Customers (commercial sites) – inhalation (soil vapour); and

• Subsurface maintenance / construction workers – direct contact with soils and inhalation (soil vapour and dust).

Direct assessment of customer (commercial sites) exposure via inhalation will not be undertaken at this time; rather, this receptor will be assessed via the assessment completed for commercial workers. This is considered to be conservative as the exposure duration for a commercial worker can reasonably be assumed to be significantly longer on average than that of a customer.

In addition, given the primary pathway of concern associated with TCE (the primary chemical of interest) is the inhalation pathway and that limited soil data is available, further assessment of exposure of subsurface maintenance / construction workers will be completed on the basis of the inhalation (soil vapour) pathway only. The margin of safety (MOS) will be assessed to determine whether the addition of exposure via direct contact and inhalation of dust may result in an unacceptable risk to this receptor.

It is noted the K1 site has been excluded from this HHRA as there is a vapour mitigation system present beneath the western portion of the K1 building (managed via BlueSphere [2015b]) and significant HHRA works have been completed for the K1 site previously (BlueSphere 2014b and PB 2014).

Table 11.1 presents a discussion of source-pathway-exposure linkages which are of relevance for the purposes of the HHRA.


Table 11.1: Summary of Potential Receptors, Exposure Pathways and Consideration in Risk Assessment

Potential Receptor

Discussion Complete Exposure Pathways and Source

Exceedance of Tier 1 Screening Levels?#1

Quantitative Estimate of Risk Required?

Inhalation Oral Dermal

Commercial workers

• Given that site occupiers within the Keswick Assessment Area have been advised not to extract / use groundwater for “any purpose in the short or long-term”, it is considered reasonable to assume that direct contact with groundwater is not a complete exposure pathway for commercial workers.

• Direct contact with soils is not a relevant exposure pathway for this receptor as regular contact (i.e. chronic exposure) with soils is not expected to occur for a commercial worker completing their normal tasks.

• Inhalation of volatile chemicals via vapour intrusion is a relevant exposure pathway for commercial workers as elevated concentrations of volatile chemicals have been reported in groundwater, soil and soil vapour within the Keswick Assessment Area. Inhalation of dust is not relevant as the areas where potential soil sources have been identified are completely sealed with concrete and/or bitumen.

Yes (soil vapour)

No No Yes Yes

Residents • Given that residents within the Keswick Assessment Area have been advised not to extract / use groundwater for “any purpose in the short or long-term”, it is considered reasonable to assume that direct contact with groundwater is not a complete exposure pathway for residents.

• Direct contact with soils is a relevant exposure pathway for this receptor as some contact with soil may occur as part of daily tasks (i.e. gardening, children at play).

• Inhalation of volatile chemicals via vapour intrusion is a relevant exposure pathway for residents as elevated concentrations of volatile chemicals have been reported in groundwater and soil vapour with residential areas of the Keswick Assessment Area. Inhalation of dust is also relevant for residents as unsealed areas are present in residential areas.

Yes (soil vapour and dust)

Yes (soils) Yes (soils) Yes (soil vapour)

No (soils are unlikely to be impacted beneath residential areas)

No – although one soil vapour probe (VP12) adjacent to the residential area reported a TCE concentration slightly above the soil vapour Tier 1 screening levels for residential landuse (37 µg/m3 in VP12 vs 20 µg/m3) this is not considered to be likely to be indicative of a potential risk given the conservatism of the adopted criteria. Furthermore, risk assessment to residential areas was beyond the scope of the Keswick Stage 2 Part B EA works.


Potential Receptor

Discussion Complete Exposure Pathways and Source

Exceedance of Tier 1 Screening Levels?#1

Quantitative Estimate of Risk Required?

Inhalation Oral Dermal

Customers (commercial landuse areas)

• Direct contact with groundwater is not a complete exposure pathway for customers as it is considered reasonable to assume that this exposure will not occur for this receptor.

• Direct contact with soils is not a complete exposure pathway for customers as it is considered reasonable to assume that this exposure will not occur for this receptor.

• Inhalation of volatile chemicals via vapour intrusion is a relevant exposure pathway for customers as elevated concentrations of volatile chemicals have been reported in groundwater, soil and soil vapour within the Keswick Assessment Area. Inhalation of dust is not relevant as the areas where potential soil sources have been identified are completely sealed with concrete and/or bitumen.

Yes (soil vapour)

No No Yes (no specific criteria; assessment based on Tier 1 screening levels for commercial workers)

No (further assessment completed via quantitative estimate of risk for commercial workers; this receptor-exposure pathway requires assessment only where an unacceptable risk is determined for commercial workers)

Subsurface maintenance / construction workers

• Direct contact with groundwater is not a complete exposure pathway for subsurface maintenance / construction workers as these works are assumed to extend to a maximum depth of 1 mbgl (i.e. the depth at which a worker can safely enter a trench). Given groundwater in the Perched aquifer is encountered at depths greater than 4.8 mbgl, direct contact with groundwater will not occur.

• Direct contact with soils is a complete exposure pathway for subsurface maintenance / construction workers.

• Inhalation of volatile chemicals via vapour intrusion is a relevant exposure pathway for subsurface maintenance / construction workers as elevated concentrations of volatile chemicals have been reported in groundwater, soil and soil vapour within the Keswick Assessment Area. Inhalation of dust is relevant.

Yes (soil vapour and dust)

Yes (soils) Yes (soils) Yes (no specific criteria; assessment based on Tier 1 screening levels for commercial workers)

Yes


11.2 Parameters Adopted in Modelling

11.2.1 Exposure Factors

The adopted exposure factors for a commercial worker are summarised below in Table 11.2.

Table 11.2: Exposure Parameters – Commercial Worker

Exposure Parameter Units Factor Reference

Exposure Frequency days/year 240 NEPC (2013)

Exposure Time (Indoors) hours 8 NEPC (2013)

Exposure Duration years 30 NEPC (2013)

Averaging Time – non Threshold years 70 NEPC (2013)

Averaging Time – Threshold years 30 NEPC (2013) - consistent with exposure duration

The adopted exposure factors for a subsurface maintenance / construction worker are summarised below in Table 11.3.

Table 11.3: Exposure Parameters – Subsurface Maintenance / Construction Worker

Exposure Parameter Units Factor Reference

Exposure Frequency (EF) days/year 20 CRC (2011)6

Exposure Time, Indoors (ET) hours 8 CRC (2011)

Exposure Duration (ED) years 30 CRC (2011)

Averaging Time (AT) – non Threshold years 70 CRC (2011)

Averaging Time (AT) – Threshold years 30 CRC (2011) - consistent with exposure duration

11.2.2 Estimation of Inhalation Exposure

Inhalation exposures have been estimated by the approach outlined by US EPA (2009)7. Equations are provided below for estimating exposure concentrations for assessing cancer risks and for calculating hazard quotients from chronic exposures:

EC = (CA * ET * EF * ED)/AT (cancer risks)

EC = (CA * ET * EF * ED)/AT (hazard quotients)

Where: EC – exposure concentration (µg/m3);

CA – contaminant concentration in air (µg/m3);

ET – exposure time (hours/day)

EF – exposure frequency (days/year)

ED – exposure duration (years)

AT – averaging time, cancer risks (lifetime in years * 365 days/year * 24 hours/day)

6 Technical Report No. 10: Health screening levels for petroleum hydrocarbons in soil and groundwater. Part 1: Technical development

document. Cooperative Research Centre for Contamination Assessment and Remediation of the Environment, September 2011 (CRC CARE 2011).

7 Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part F, Supplemental Guidance for Inhalation Risk Assessment), United States Environment Protection Agency, January 2009 (US EPA 2009).


AT – averaging time, hazard quotient (ED in years * 365 days/year * 24 hours/day)

The adjustment factors for inhalation exposure, as calculated based on the above equations and exposure factors outlined in Section 11.2.1, are summarised below in Table 11.4.

Table 11.4: Summary of Adjustment Factors for Inhalation Exposure

Receptor Cancer Risks (EC) Hazard Quotients (EC)

Commercial Worker EC = 9.4*10-2 * CA EC = 0.22 * CA

Sub-Surface Maintenance Worker EC = 7.8*10-3 * CA EC = 1.8*10-2 * CA

11.2.3 Characterisation of Exposure Areas

Commercial Buildings

Commercial buildings within the Keswick Assessment Area have been characterised as slab on grade structures. As outlined in Section 10.9, a building survey has not been completed however, basements have not been observed during site works on the K1, K2 and K3 sites (i.e. the areas with the most significant contamination). To this end, basements have not been included in the assessment of risks via inhalation.

The adopted commercial building parameters are summarised below in Table 11.5. Fate and transport to buildings of slab on grade construction has included assessment of diffusive and advective vapour movement.

Table 11.5: Summary of Adopted Building Parameters – Commercial Building

Parameter Adopted Value Reference

Enclosed floor length 20 m CRCCARE (2011)

Enclosed floor width 20 m CRCCARE (2011)

Enclosed space height 3 m CRCCARE (2011)

Foundation thickness 15 cm CRCCARE (2011)

Ventilation / air exchanges (building) 0.83 h-1 CRCCARE (2011)

Fraction of foundation present as cracks

0.001 CRCCARE (2011)

Porosity in foundation cracks 0.38 CRCCARE (2011)

Water content in foundation cracks 0.12 CRCCARE (2011)

Qsoil:Qbuilding 0.005 CRCCARE (2011)

Sub-Surface Maintenance Trenches / Excavations

The adopted parameters for subsurface maintenance trenches / excavations are summarised below in Table 11.6.


Table 11.6: Summary of Adopted Building Parameters – Subsurface Maintenance Trench / Excavation


Enclosed floor length 10 m CRCCARE (2011)

Enclosed floor width 1 m CRCCARE (2011)

Enclosed space height 1 m CRCCARE (2011)

Foundation thickness 0.001 (i.e. no foundation) CRCCARE (2011)

Ventilation / air exchanges (building) 87.5 h-1 CRCCARE (2011)

Fraction of foundation present as cracks

1 (i.e. no foundation) CRCCARE (2011)

Porosity in foundation cracks 1 CRCCARE (2011)

Water content in foundation cracks 0 (i.e. all air) CRCCARE (2011)

11.2.4 Characterisation of Site Physical Parameters

Soils at the site were observed to consist to coarse material (i.e. sands and gravels) to depths of approximately 0.25 mbgl, underlain by silty clays to the depth of soil vapour probes at 1.5 mbgl. Based on the above, the following soil parameters have been adopted for the two scenarios:

• Commercial Building: Soil parameters consistent with sand have been adopted to characterise the surficial 0.25 m, with site geotechnical data adopted to characterise the silty clays from 0.25 mbgl to 1.5 mbgl. Vapour fate and transport modelling was undertaken on the basis of the depth at which the soil vapour sample was collected (i.e. soil vapour probe depth of 1.5 mbgl).

• Excavation to 1 mbgl: As it has been assumed trenches will extend to a depth of 1 mbgl, the soils underlying the trench have been assumed to consist of silty clays. Site geotechnical data has been adopted to characterise the silty clays from 1 mbgl to 1.5 mbgl (0 m to 0.5 m below the trench once installed). Vapour fate and transport modelling was undertaken on the basis of the depth at which the soil vapour sample was collected (i.e. 0.5 m below the base of the trench).

In regard to the site geotechnical data (Section 8), in order to ensure a conservative approach, the highest total porosity and lowest degree of saturation have been adopted. The adopted site physical parameters are summarised below in Table 11.7.


Table 11.7: Summary of Adopted Site Physical Parameters


Sand / Gravel: 0 mbgl to 0.25 mbgl (Commercial Building Model Only)

Total porosity 0.387 CRC (2011)

Water filled porosity 0.130 CRC (2011)

Air filled porosity 0.257 CRC (2011)

Bulk Density 1.625 t/m3 CRC (2011)

Silty Clay: 0.25 mbgl to 1.5 mbgl (Both Commercial Building Model and Excavation Model)

Total porosity 0.400#1 Site data (Section 8)

Water filled porosity 0.350#2 Site data (Section 8)

Air filled porosity 0.050#2 Site data (Section 8)

Bulk Density 1.920 t/m3 #3 Site data (Section 8)

Notes:

#1:Highest reported total porosity.

#2:Based on the lowest reported degree of saturation of 87.6 %.

#3:Average bulk density.

11.2.5 Characterisation of Chemical Constituents

Physical properties used to characterise the chemicals of interest assessed by the risk assessment are as per Section 3.

NEPC (2013) presents toxicity and background intake data for all chemicals requiring further assessment in the HHRA. This data is summarised below in Table 11.8.

Table 11.8: Summary of Toxicity and Background Intakes for Chemicals of Interest

Chemical Inhalation TRV (mg/m3) Background

(% of TRV) Carcinogenic Endpoints

(mg/m3)-1

Non-Carcinogenic Endpoints

(mg/m3)

PCE N/A#1 0.2#1 10

TCE 0.004 0.002 10

cis-1,2-DCE N/A#2 0.007 0

Notes:

#1:Classified as ‘probably carcinogenic to humans, based on limited evidence in humans and sufficient evidence in experimental animals’

– the adopted threshold inhalation TRV was considered protective of key endpoints including carcinogenicity by NEPC (2013).

#2:Classified as ‘inadequate information to assess the carcinogenic potential’ – NEPC (2013) states it is appropriate that a threshold

dose-response (i.e. non-carcinogenic) approach is adopted.

11.2.6 Source Concentrations

Only chemicals of interest exceeding the Tier 1 soil vapour screening criteria for the receptor-exposure pathways requiring further assessment (commercial workers and subsurface maintenance / construction workers via the inhalation pathway) have been included in the quantitative assessment of risk. Soil vapour data is the most appropriate data type to assess inhalation exposure and hence modelling from groundwater data has not been undertaken. As there are no Tier 1 screening criteria for the exposure of subsurface maintenance / construction workers via the inhalation pathway for the chemicals of interest, the same chemicals and source concentrations as those included to assess commercial worker exposure have been adopted as these are the key chemicals of concern at the site.


The maximum soil vapour concentrations reported have been adopted in the fate and transport modelling. As noted previously, the K1 site has been excluded from this HHRA as there is a vapour mitigation system present beneath the western portion of the K1 building and significant HHRA works have been completed for the K1 site previously. The concentrations of the chemicals of interest adopted in the risk assessment are summarised below in Table 11.9.

Table 11.9: Summary of Adopted Soil Vapour Concentrations

Chemical Adopted Concentration (µg/m3) Sample ID

PCE 11,000 VP03 (K3 site; Source Area #2)

TCE 180,000 VP03 (K3 site; Source Area #2)

cis-1,2-DCE 16,000 VP03 (K3 site; Source Area #2)

11.2.7 Use of RISC Modelling Package

The RISC V.5.03 modelling package has been utilised for the fate and transport modelling. The RISC model uses Johnson & Ettinger relationships in estimating transport of volatile constituents into human breathing zones. US EPA (2004) reports that the use of Johnson & Ettinger relationships is appropriate in undertaking human health risk assessments. Exposure parameters, site physical parameters and chemical parameters have been updated as outlined in Section 11.2.1, Section 11.2.2, Section 11.2.4, and Section 11.2.5.

11.3 Fate and Transport Modelling Outcomes – Calculation of Indoor Air Concentration

Model output sheets are provided as Appendix R. The predicted indoor air concentrations for both scenarios are summarised below in Table 11.10.

It is noted the predicted indoor air concentrations are similar, albeit slightly higher, to those reported during indoor air and ambient air sampling of the K3 site (PB 2015a).

Table 11.10: Predicted Indoor Air Concentrations (µg/m3)

Chemical Exposure Scenario

Commercial Building Excavation to 1 mbgl (Indoors)

PCE 0.02 µg/m3 1.5*10-3 µg/m3

TCE 0.51 µg/m3 0.04 µg/m3

cis-1,2-DCE 0.07 µg/m3 5.0*10-3 µg/m3

11.4 Assessment of Risk

11.4.1 Adopted Criteria for the Assessment of Risk

As consistent with NEPC (2013), the following criteria have been adopted:

• Carcinogens – an acceptable increased lifetime cancer risk (ILCR) of 1:100,000; and

• Non-carcinogens – an acceptable HI (total) of 1.

11.4.2 Risk Assessment Calculation

Risk assessment calculations have been completed based on the following:

• Estimate of inhalation exposures for each population (Section 11.2.1 and Section 11.2.2);

• Unit risk and reference concentrations for each chemical (Section 11.2.5); and

• Fate and transport modelling outcomes (Section 11.3).

Risk and hazard calculation spreadsheets are included in Appendix R and summarised below in Table 11.11 (ILCR) and Table 11.12 (HI).


The calculated ILCR (for carcinogenic endpoints) and HI (for non-carcinogenic endpoints) were below the adopted criteria and hence no unacceptable risks for either of the receptors (commercial workers and subsurface maintenance / construction workers) were identified via the inhalation pathway. The MOS was greater than 50 for carcinogenic endpoints and greater than 12 for non-carcinogenic endpoints. Given the major pathway of concern associated with the chemicals of interest is the inhalation pathway, the MOS is considered sufficient to conclude it is unlikely there would be an unacceptable risk to subsurface maintenance / construction workers due as a result of all exposure pathways (i.e. inhalation of soil vapour and dust, and direct contact with soil).

Table 11.11: Summary of ILCR Calculations (Carcinogenic Endpoints)

Chemical PCE TCE cis-1,2-DCE Acceptable ILCR

Commercial Worker N/A 1.9*10-7 N/A 1*10-5

Subsurface Maintenance / Construction Worker

N/A 1.1*10-9 N/A 1*10-5

Table 11.12: Summary of HI Calculations (Non-carcinogenic Endpoints)

Chemical PCE TCE cis-1,2-DCE Total HI Acceptable HI

Commercial Worker 2.4*10-5 6.2*10-2 2.2*10-3 6.5*10-2 1.0

Subsurface Maintenance / Construction Worker

1.5*10-7 3.6*10-4 1.3*10-5 3.8*10-4 1.0

11.5 Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis

The major uncertainties and sensitivities associated with the HHRA are as follows:

• Levels of chemicals as estimated by the sampling programs completed at the site;

• Characterisation of the site physical parameters; and

• Exposure parameters to characterise the receptors;

• Commercial building and trench parameters; and

• Use of modelling package.

These factors are discussed in greater detail below.

11.5.1 Site Specific Alpha Assessment

The site-specific alpha value (steady state attenuation factor between soil vapour and indoor air) for TCE (i.e. the risk driving contaminant of concern) was 2.8*10-6. This alpha is lower (i.e. indicative of greater attenuation between soil vapour and indoor air) than the default range provided by US EPA for a commercial building for the reported soils (sand to 0.25 mbgl underlain by clay to 1.5 mbgl). This is considered to be defensible on the basis of the following:

• The default range does not consider all possible scenarios (i.e. this range represents indicative guidance values);

• Modelling has been undertaken on the basis of site specific soil properties data rather than relying upon default guidance which is intended to be conservative for a broad range of potential conditions; and

• The most reliable site specific assessments of alpha are considered to be derived through the comparison of indoor air data and soil vapour data for locations beneath or immediately adjacent to a building where indoor air data was collected. The predicted indoor air concentrations are similar, albeit slightly higher, to those reported during indoor air and ambient air sampling of the K3 site (PB 2015a). As such, an alpha calculated based upon the


available soil vapour and indoor air data is more comparable to the calculated alpha values than the default range cited by US EPA.

11.5.2 Source Concentration Data

Soil vapour data utilised for the risk assessment has been obtained from the Keswick Stage 2 Part B EA works program completed by JBS&G in 2018. The sampling locations were based on historical data (soil, groundwater, soil vapour and indoor air data). Based on the data collected to date, it is considered likely the key source areas and representative level of the source concentrations have been identified.

As outlined in Section 11.2.6, the maximum soil vapour concentrations reported within the Keswick Assessment Area (excluding the K1 site where a vapour mitigation system is present beneath the western portion of the K1 building and significant HHRA works have been completed previously) have been adopted as the source concentration data for modelling indoor air concentrations. The adoption of the maximum concentrations is a conservative measure, with the alternative being to adopt the average concentration. It is acknowledged that the soil vapour data is on a large spatial scale and hence there is potential for higher concentrations of the chemicals of interest to be present in vicinity of VP03. However, given the MOS calculated on the basis of the VP03 source concentration data, this is unlikely alter the conclusions of the HHRA (it is noted increasing the source concentration by a factor of 10 results in an acceptable risk and hazard).

11.5.3 Site Physical Parameter Data

As outlined in Section 11.2.4, site specific data collected during the Keswick Stage 2 Part B EA works program was adopted as the soil data for the deeper soils at the site (predominately clay). Predominately clayey soils were observed to be present from depths between 0.1 mbgl and 0.25 mbgl to the depth of installation of the soil vapour probes (1.5 mbgl). The locations where geotechnical samples were collected and the location from which the soil vapour source concentration data was adopted (VP03) reported this silty clay layer to be dry / below the plastic limit. Given the above, the adoption of the geotechnical data from 0.9 mbgl to 1.3 mbgl is considered appropriate to represent the silty clay between depths of 0.25 mbgl and 1.5 mbgl. As no geotechnical testing was completed for the shallow soils, data from CRC (2011) has been adopted to describe these soils.

In order to assess the sensitivity of the model to the site specific geotechnical data, CRC (2011) parameters for clayey soils have been adopted for soils between depths of 0.25 mbgl and 1.5 mbgl as follows:

• Total porosity: 0.447;

• Water filled porosity: 0.300;

• Air filled porosity: 0.147; and

• Bulk density: 1.466 t/m3.

The adoption of the above alternate physical parameters results in significantly higher indoor air concentrations for both commercial buildings and trenches (summarised below in Table 11.13). These indoor air concentrations result in an exceedance of the HI for commercial workers (combined HI of 1.5), however, the ILCR for both commercial workers and subsurface maintenance / excavation workers and HI for subsurface maintenance / excavation workers was acceptable (i.e. was not indicative of unacceptable risks). The alpha value for TCE for the above alternate soil parameter data was within the default range provided by US EPA for a commercial building for the reported soils (sand to 0.25 mbgl underlain by clay to 1.5 mbgl).


Table 11.13: Sensitivity Analysis – Predicted Indoor Air Concentrations with Alternate Physical Parameter Data (µg/m3)

Chemical

Exposure Scenario

Commercial Building Excavation to 1 mbgl (Indoors)

Physical Parameters Adopted in HHRA

Sensitivity Analysis Physical Parameters

Physical Parameters Adopted in HHRA

Sensitivity Analysis Physical Parameters

PCE 0.02 µg/m3 0.52 µg/m3 1.5*10-3 µg/m3 0.04 µg/m3

TCE 0.51 µg/m3 11.62 µg/m3 0.04 µg/m3 0.86 µg/m3

cis-1,2-DCE 0.07 µg/m3 1.30 µg/m3 5.0*10-3 µg/m3 0.1 µg/m3

11.5.4 Exposure Parameters to Characterise Receptors

As outlined in Section 11.2.1, the exposure factors adopted are consistent with those adopted in the ASC NEPM (NEPC 2013). Acknowledging the potential to work longer hours, the following exposures have been assessed:

• Commercial works: 288 days/year (6 days/week with 4 weeks leave), 10 hours/day, 30 years; and

• Subsurface maintenance / excavation worker: 48 days/year (6 days/week for 8 weeks), 10 hours/day, 30 years.

The above increased exposure does not alter the conclusions of the HHRA (i.e. risk is below 1:100,000 and HI is below 1 – no unacceptable risk).

11.5.5 Commercial Building and Excavation Parameters

As outlined in Section 11.2.3, the building and excavation parameters adopted are consistent with CRC (2011). It is noted that by changing the floor area of a commercial building (i.e. a 5 m by 5 m room) or the lateral extent of an excavation (i.e. 5m length), the predicted indoor air concentrations are not altered.

11.5.6 Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis Conclusions

There are several factors which may have caused the risk and hazard estimates provided in this risk assessment to be underestimated. However, it is likely that any underestimation has been overcome by the use of conservative assumptions throughout the assessment.

The most significant factor in altering the outcomes of the HHRA is the adoption of site specific data vs published data for the site physical parameters. It is noted that the building in closest proximity to the location where the highest soil vapour concentrations were reported has had indoor air monitoring completed historically (PB 2015a), with results similar (albeit slightly lower) than those predicted herein. Both the reported indoor air concentrations (PB 2015a) and the indoor air concentrations predicted herein were below the appropriate criteria for commercial landuse.

11.5.7 Modelling Package

As outlined in Section 11.2.7, the RISC V.5.03 modelling package has been utilised for the fate and transport modelling. The US EPA J&E spreadsheet (Version 6.0, 2017) has also been used for the fate and transport modelling, with the modelled indoor air TCE concentration for a commercial building replicated. The sensitivity analysis US EPA J&E spreadsheet is included in Appendix S.

11.6 HHRA Conclusion

Based on the data collected to date, and subject to the limitations in Section 14, no unacceptable risks were identified to the following receptors where further assessment was required:

• Commercial workers;


• Customers (commercial sites); and

• Subsurface maintenance / construction workers.

It is noted commercial buildings with basements have not been assessed, nor have subsurface

trenches / excavations to depths greater than 1 mbgl.


12. Conclusions

Subject to the limitations in Section 14 of this report, the following was concluded:

• Groundwater in both the Q1 aquifer and Perched aquifer has been inferred to flow in a north-westerly direction, as consistent with historical groundwater monitoring events and the Keswick Stage 2 Part A EA works;

• PCE, TCE, cis-1,2-DCE, trans-1,2-DCE, 1,1-DCE, VC, 1,2-DCA, carbon tetrachloride, benzene and F1 (TRH C6-C10 minus BTEX) were reported at concentrations above the LOR and adopted Tier 1 groundwater screening levels. In addition, eight chemicals (1,1,2-TCA, 1,1-DCA, dichloromethane, trichlorofluoromethane, chloroform, TRH C16-C34, 1,4-dichlorobenzene and chlorobenzene) were reported above the LOR but below the adopted Tier 1 groundwater screening levels with the exception of trichlorofluoromethane and TRH C16-C34 for which no Tier 1 groundwater screening levels are available;

• Hydraulic conductivity ranged between 1.09*10-5 m/sec and 2.5*10-8 m/sec in the Q1 aquifer (ten groundwater wells assessed), with the majority of Q1 aquifer groundwater wells reporting hydraulic conductivity in the order of 1.5*10-7 m/sec to 9.4*10-7 m/sec. Hydraulic conductivity in the Perched aquifer ranged between 1.88*10-7 m/sec and 4.14*10-7 m/sec (two groundwater wells assessed). It is noted the reported hydraulic conductivity was consistent with sampling observation;

• Where historic data was present, there was some variability in concentrations reported between groundwater monitoring events. With the exception of GW09 (within the source area of the K1 site), no groundwater well reported an increasing trend across two consecutive GMEs;


• Trans-1-2-DCE, 1,1-DCE and chloroform were reported above the LOR but below the adopted soil vapour Tier 1 screening levels. VC and carbon tetrachloride were reported below the LOR at all sample locations. PCE, TCE and cis-1,2-DCE were reported at concentrations above the LOR and the adopted soil vapour Tier 1 screening levels in areas of commercial landuse, however, below the adopted soil vapour Tier 1 screening levels in areas of residential landuse;

• The extent of the soil vapour TCE plume has not been laterally delineated to the east, north-east or west of the K2 site, however, the extent in vicinity of the K1 and K3 sites is understood;

• Where nested groundwater well pairs were present, higher TCE concentrations were generally reported in the Q1 aquifer groundwater wells with the exception of the nested pair of GW08/GWP08 where the higher TCE concentration was reported in the groundwater well targeting the Perched aquifer. This trend in Q1 aquifer concentration vs Perched aquifer concentration was generally consistent with that reported for TCE for the other chemicals of interest with the exception of a much higher cis-1,2-DCE concentration in the Perched aquifer at nested pair location GW14/GWP10 – this may be attributed to a soil source in this area;

• Soil vapour concentrations were broadly consistent with the groundwater concentrations with the exception of the northern portion of the K2 site and the northern portion of the K3 site. There may be a contribution from a soil source in these areas;

• Four known / potential source areas have been identified to date, as follows:


o Source Area #1: Approximate centre of the K1 site (confirmed source);

o Source Area #2: Northern portion of the K3 site (likely source);

o Source Area #3: Northern portion of the K2 site (likely source); and

o Source Area #4: Western portion of the K2 site (probable source).

• Commercial workers, residents, customers of commercial premises and subsurface maintenance / construction workers were identified as relevant receptors in the Keswick Assessment Area. On review of site data, no further assessment of risks was required for residents, however, further assessment was required for commercial workers, customers of commercial premises and subsurface maintenance / construction workers. Based on the data collected to date, no unacceptable risks were identified during the HHRA for the above receptors where further assessment was required. It is noted commercial buildings with basements were not assessed, nor were subsurface trenches / excavations to depths greater than 1 mbgl.


13. Data Gap Analysis

The following data gaps were identified following completion of the Keswick Stage 2 Part B EA works:

• Accurate geological data for groundwater wells;


• The TCE groundwater plume has not been vertically delineated;

• The extent of the soil vapour TCE plume has not been laterally delineated to the east, north-east or west of the K2 site. It is noted the areas east and north-east of the K2 site are outside of the Keswick Assessment Area boundary;

• Limited indoor air monitoring has been completed for the K3 site historically and hence validation of the vapour intrusion modelling undertaken in the HHRA is limited;

• Limited temporal data is available (groundwater, soil vapour and geotechnical); and

• The potential influences of preferential pathways are not understood.


14. Limitations

This report has been prepared for use by the client who has commissioned the works in accordance with the project brief only, and has been based in part on information obtained from the client and other parties.

The advice herein relates only to this project and all results conclusions and recommendations made should be reviewed by a competent person with experience in environmental investigations, before being used for any other purpose.

JBS&G accepts no liability for use or interpretation by any person or body other than the client who commissioned the works. This report should not be reproduced without prior approval by the client, or amended in any way without prior approval by JBS&G, and should not be relied upon by other parties, who should make their own enquires.

Sampling and chemical analysis of environmental media is based on appropriate guidance documents made and approved by the relevant regulatory authorities. Conclusions arising from the review and assessment of environmental data are based on the sampling and analysis considered appropriate based on the regulatory requirements.

Limited sampling and laboratory analyses were undertaken as part of the investigations undertaken, as described herein. Ground conditions between sampling locations and media may vary, and this should be considered when extrapolating between sampling points. Chemical analytes are based on the information detailed in the site history. Further chemicals or categories of chemicals may exist at the site, which were not identified in the site history and which may not be expected at the site.

Changes to the subsurface conditions may occur subsequent to the investigations described herein, through natural processes or through the intentional or accidental addition of contaminants. The conclusions and recommendations reached in this report are based on the information obtained at the time of the investigations.

This report does not provide a complete assessment of the environmental status of the site, and it is limited to the scope defined herein. Should information become available regarding conditions at the site including previously unknown sources of contamination, JBS&G reserves the right to review the report in the context of the additional information.


15. References

American Petroleum Institute (2005) Collecting and Interpreting Soil Gas Samples from the Vadose Zone, Publication Number 4741.

American Society for Testing and Materials (2008) Standard Practice for Active Soil Gas Sampling in the Vadose Zone for Vapor Intrusion Evaluations.

Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (2000) Australia and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality.

Australian / New Zealand Standard (1998a) Water quality – Sampling, Part 1: Guidance on the design of sampling programs, sampling techniques and the preservation and handling of samples. AS/NZS 5667.1.

Australian / New Zealand Standard (1998b) Water quality – Sampling, Part 11: Guidance on sampling of groundwater. AS/NZS 5667.11

BlueSphere Environmental (2015a) Sub-Floor Vapour Mitigation System Commissioning Report.

BlueSphere Environmental (2015b) Vapour Intrusion Mitigation System Operational Environmental Management Plan, Stage 2 Building, 62-70 Everard Avenue, Keswick, SA.

BlueSphere Environmental (2015c) Targeted Indoor Air Sampling and Activity-Based Sampling in the Stage 1 Building at Keswick.

BlueSphere Environmental (2013) Soil Vapour Investigation at U-Store-It Keswick.

BlueSphere Environmental (2014a) Indoor Air Sampling, Stage 1 Building, Keswick.

BlueSphere Environmental (2014b) Human Health Risk Assessment – 62-70 Everard Avenue, Keswick, SA, Proposed Stage 2 Building.

BlueSphere Environmental (2014c) Further Indoor Air Investigations – 62-70 Everard Avenue, Keswick, SA, Stage 1 Building.

Cooperative Research Centre for Contamination Assessment and Remediation of the Environment (2011) Technical Report No. 10: Health screening levels for petroleum hydrocarbons in soil and groundwater. Part 1: Technical development document.

Cooperative Research Centre for Contamination Assessment and Remediation of the Environment (2009) Technical Report No.13: Field Assessment of Gas.

Environment Protection Authority South Australia (2007) Regulatory monitoring and testing - Groundwater sampling.

Groundwater Science (2018) Hydrogeological Assessment – EPA Assessment Area, Keswick – Revision E.

Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council (2007) Technical and Regulatory Guidance - Vapor Intrusion Pathway: A Practical Guideline.

Mott McDonald (2014) Results from Environmental Testing, Lot 1 Anzac Highway.


National Environment Protection Council (1999 as amended 2013) National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure.

National Health and Medical Research Council (2011 updated 2016) Australia Drinking Water Guidelines.

National Water Commission (2012) Minimum Construction requirements for water bores in Australia.

New South Wales Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (2010) Vapour Intrusion: Technical Practice Note.

Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia Pty Ltd (2015a) Soil Vapour Investigations for Identification of Trichloroethene: Ashford Road & Everard Avenue, Keswick, South Australia (K3 Site).

Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia Pty Ltd (2015b) Soil Vapour and Groundwater Investigations for Identification of Trichloroethene: Everard Avenue, Keswick, South Australia (K2 Site).

Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia Pty Ltd (2014) Surface Mass Flux and Subslab Soil Vapour Measurements for Identification of Trichloroethene, Keswick, SA.

Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia Pty Ltd (2008) Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment for 62-70 Everard Avenue, Keswick, SA.

‘Risk Assessment Information System (RAIS) Database’, as accessed online 16 May 2018.

Senversa (2017) Stage 1 Environmental Assessment, Keswick EPA Assessment Area.

Tierra Environment Pty Ltd (2013a) Keswick U-Store It, Tank Pit Soil Testing Report.

Tierra Environment Pty Ltd (2013b) Keswick U-Store It, Grid Based Testpits Soil Testing Report.

Tierra Environment Pty Ltd (2013c) 62-70 Everard Avenue, Keswick, Limited Groundwater Investigations Monitoring Report.

United States Environment Protection Agency (2017) Regional Screening Levels.

United States Environment Protection Agency (2016) OSWER Technical Guide for Assessing the Vapor Intrusion Pathway from Subsurface Vapor Sources to Indoor Air.

United States Environment Protection Agency (2009) Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part F, Supplemental Guidance for Inhalation Risk Assessment.

World Health Organisation (2011) Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality.

WSP|Parsons Brinckerhoff (2016a) Groundwater and Soil Vapour Investigations of Trichloroethene: Stage 4 Ashford Road & Everard Avenue, Keswick, SA.

WSP|Parsons Brinckerhoff (2016b) Testing Trichloroethene in Ambient Air, Lighting Showroom, 29 Anzac Highway, Keswick, South Australia.

©JBS&G Australia Pty Ltd | 54378-115327 RP02 (Rev0)

Figures

Job No: 54378

Client: EPA SA

Version: FINAL

Drawn By: AS

Date: 18-Jul-2018

Checked By: KL

Scale at A4

Coor. Sys. GDA 1994 MGA Zone 54

FIGURE 1

Keswick, South AustraliaSITE LOCATION

Document Path: S:\Projects JBSG\Adelaide\1. PROJECTS BY CLIENT\EPA SA\Keswick\1. ArcGIS\Maps\Stage B\Site Location.mxdImage Reference: www.nearmap.com© - Imagery Date: 2 October 2017 & Google Maps © 2017

Legend:

ANZAC HIGHWAY

RICHMOND ROAD

KENT ROAD

CHATHAM ROAD

FARNHAM ROAD

CROYDON ROAD

MARLOW ROAD

MARLESTON AVENUE

EVERARD AVENUE

ALEXAN

DER AVE

NUE

ASHFORD ROAD

HAMPTO

N ROAD

Z0 100 200

metres

!( Site LocationEPA Assessment AreaK1 Site BoundaryK2 Site BoundaryK3 Site BoundaryRoad

1:6,000

&<

&<&<

&<

&<

&<

&<

&< &<

&<

&<

&<

&<

&<

&<

&<&<

&<

&<

&<

&<

&<

&<

&<

&<

ANZAC HIG

HWAY

ALEXANDER AVENUE

ETON ROAD

DAY AVENUE

FARNHAM ROAD

KENT ROAD

SURREY ROAD

CROYDON ROAD

CHATHAM ROAD

MARLESTON AVENUE

MARLOW ROADALE

XANDER

AVENUE

ASHFORD ROAD

EVERARD AVENUE

HAMPTO

N ROAD

ETON ROAD

GW8

GW7GW6

GW5

GW4GW3GW2

GW1

GW25

GW23

GW22

GW21

GW20

GW19

GW18

GW17 GW16

GW15

GW14

GW13

GW12

GW10

GW9

GW24

GW11

Z0 100 200

metres

Document Path: S:\Projects JBSG\Adelaide\1. PROJECTS BY CLIENT\EPA SA\Keswick\1. ArcGIS\Maps\Stage B\Groundwater Locations - Q1.mxdImage Reference: www.nearmap.com© - Imagery Date: 2 October 2017

EPA Assessment AreaK1 Site BoundaryK2 Site BoundaryK3 Site BoundaryRoad

Groundwater Monitoring Well&< Q1 Aquifer

Job No: 54378

Client: EPA SA

Version: FINAL

Drawn By: AS

Date: 18-Jul-2018

Checked By: KL

Scale at A4


FIGURE 2

Keswick, South AustraliaGROUNDWATER WELL LOCATIONS: Q1 AQUIFER

Legend:

1:5,000

&< &<

&< &<

&<

&<

&<

&<

&<

&<

ALEXANDER AVENUE

ETON ROAD

DAY AVENUE

SOUTH ROAD

RICHMOND ROAD

ANZAC HIGHWAY

FARNHAM ROAD

EVERARD AVENUE

KENT ROAD

SURREY ROAD

HAMPTO

N ROAD

ASHFORD ROAD

CROYDON ROAD

CHATHAM ROAD

MARLESTON AVENUE

ALEXAN

DER AVE

NUE

MARLOW ROAD

ANZAC HIGHWAY

GWP9

GWP8

GWP7

GWP6

GWP5GWP4GWP3

GWP2GWP1

GWP10

ETON ROAD

Z0 100 200

metres

Document Path: S:\Projects JBSG\Adelaide\1. PROJECTS BY CLIENT\EPA SA\Keswick\1. ArcGIS\Maps\Stage B\Groundwater Locations - Perched.mxdImage Reference: www.nearmap.com© - Imagery Date: 2 October 2017


Groundwater Monitoring Well&< Perched Aquifer

Job No: 54378

Client: EPA SA

Version: FINAL

Drawn By: AS

Date: 18-Jul-2018

Checked By: KL

Scale at A4


FIGURE 3

Keswick, South AustraliaGROUNDWATER WELL LOCATIONS: PERCHED AQUIFER

Legend:

1:5,000

&<

&<&<

&<

&<

&<

&<

&< &<

&<

&<

&<

&<

&<

&<

&<&<

&<

&<

&<

&<

&<

&<

&<

&<

ANZAC HIG

HWAY

13

1211

109GW25

ALEXANDER AVENUE

ETON ROAD

DAY AVENUE

FARNHAM ROAD

KENT ROAD

SURREY ROAD

CROYDON ROAD

CHATHAM ROAD

MARLESTON AVENUE

MARLOW ROADALE

XANDER

AVENUE

ASHFORD ROAD

EVERARD AVENUE

HAMPTO

N ROAD

ETON ROAD

GW8

GW7GW6

GW5

GW4GW3GW2

GW1

GW24GW23

GW22

GW21

GW20

GW19

GW18

GW17 GW16

GW15

GW14

GW13

GW12

GW10

GW11

GW9

9.0847.788

7.821 8.635

11.049

10.082

10.759

12.166

13.719

11.087

11.612

11.88912.028

12.450

13.60612.491

13.86513.724

13.832

13.08113.69013.588

13.830Z

0 100 200

metres

Document Path: S:\Projects JBSG\Adelaide\1. PROJECTS BY CLIENT\EPA SA\Keswick\1. ArcGIS\Maps\Stage B\Groundwater Flow - Q1 - Feb 2018.mxdImage Reference: www.nearmap.com© - Imagery Date: 2 October 2017



Inferred Groundwater ContourReduced Groundwater Level (mAHD)

Job No: 54378

Client: EPA SA

Version: FINAL

Drawn By: AS

Date: 18-Jul-2018

Checked By: KL

Scale at A4


FIGURE 4

Keswick, South AustraliaINFERRED GROUNDWATER FLOW: Q1 AQUIFER - 26 FEBRUARY 2018

Legend:

1:5,000

Inferred Groundwater FlowDirection

9.108

Note: GW15 and GW25 excluded as these groundwater wells were not gauged on 26 February 2018.

&< &<

&< &<

&<

&<

&<

&<

&<

&<

21

201918

ALEXANDER AVENUE

ETON ROAD

DAY AVENUE

GWP9

GWP7

GWP6

GWP5GWP4GWP3

GWP2GWP1

GWP10

GWP817.000

17.585

21.283

20.975

20.79821.41319.662

20.18719.546

SOUTH ROAD

RICHMOND ROAD

ANZAC HIGHWAY

FARNHAM ROAD

EVERARD AVENUE

KENT ROAD

SURREY ROAD

HAMPTO

N ROAD

ASHFORD ROAD

CROYDON ROAD

CHATHAM ROAD

MARLESTON AVENUE

ALEXAN

DER AVE

NUE

MARLOW ROAD

ANZAC HIGHWAY

ETON ROAD

Z0 100 200

metres

Document Path: S:\Projects JBSG\Adelaide\1. PROJECTS BY CLIENT\EPA SA\Keswick\1. ArcGIS\Maps\Stage B\Groundwater Flow - Perched - Feb 2018.mxdImage Reference: www.nearmap.com© - Imagery Date: 2 October 2017



Inferred Groundwater ContourReduced Groundwater Level (mAHD)

Job No: 54378

Client: EPA SA

Version: FINAL

Drawn By: AS

Date: 18-Jul-2018

Checked By: KL

Scale at A4


FIGURE 5

Keswick, South AustraliaINFERRED GROUNDWATER FLOW: PERCHED AQUIFER - 26 FEBRUARY 2018

Legend:

1:5,000

Inferred Groundwater FlowDirection

9.108

Note: GWP9 excluded as this groundwater well was not gauged on 26 February 2018.

&<

&<&<

&<

&<

&<

&<

&< &<

&<

&<

&<

&<

&<

&<

&<&<

&<

&<

&<

&<

&<

&<

&<

&<

ANZAC HIG

HWAY<0.01

GW25

ALEXANDER AVENUE

ETON ROAD

DAY AVENUE

FARNHAM ROAD

KENT ROAD

SURREY ROAD

CROYDON ROAD

CHATHAM ROAD

MARLESTON AVENUE

MARLOW ROADALE

XANDER

AVENUE

ASHFORD ROAD

EVERARD AVENUE

HAMPTO

N ROAD

ETON ROAD

<117

19

<1

<1

22

35

22

190

1.1

9.7

680

5.5140380

210

0.61

1,5001,300

1,200

0.28

<0.01

<0.01

34,000

GW8

GW7GW6

GW5

GW4GW3GW2

GW1

GW24GW23

GW22

GW21

GW20

GW19

GW18

GW17 GW16

GW15

GW14

GW13

GW12GW11

GW10

GW9

Z0 100 200

metres

Document Path: S:\Projects JBSG\Adelaide\1. PROJECTS BY CLIENT\EPA SA\Keswick\1. ArcGIS\Maps\Stage B\Groundwater TCE Plume - Q1 - Feb 18.mxdImage Reference: www.nearmap.com© - Imagery Date: 2 October 2017



TCE (ug/L)

Job No: 54378

Client: EPA SA

Version: FINAL

Drawn By: AS

Date: 18-Jul-2018

Checked By: KL

Scale at A4


FIGURE 6

Keswick, South AustraliaTCE GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATIONS: Q1 AQUIFER - FEBRUARY / MARCH 2018

Legend:

1:5,000

140

Inferred TCE Concentration ug/L0 - 10001000 - 20002000 - 34003400 - 46004600 - 58005800 - 69006900 - 81008100 - 92009200 - 1040010400 - 1160011600 - 1270012700 - 15000>15000

Notes: GW25 sampled June 2018.

&< &<

&< &<

&<

&<

&<

&<

&<

&<

ALEXANDER AVENUE

ETON ROAD

DAY AVENUE

SOUTH ROAD

RICHMOND ROAD

ANZAC HIGHWAY

FARNHAM ROAD

EVERARD AVENUE

KENT ROAD

SURREY ROAD

HAMPTO

N ROAD

ASHFORD ROAD

CROYDON ROAD

CHATHAM ROAD

MARLESTON AVENUE

ALEXAN

DER AVE

NUE

MARLOW ROAD

ANZAC HIGHWAY

19

16

550

2.9

140

0.47.9

1600.11

0.28

ETON ROAD

GWP9

GWP8

GWP7

GWP6

GWP5GWP4GWP3

GWP2GWP1

GWP10

Z0 100 200

metres

Document Path: S:\Projects JBSG\Adelaide\1. PROJECTS BY CLIENT\EPA SA\Keswick\1. ArcGIS\Maps\Stage B\Groundwater TCE - Perched - Feb 18.mxdImage Reference: www.nearmap.com© - Imagery Date: 2 October 2017



TCE (ug/L)

Job No: 54378

Client: EPA SA

Version: FINAL

Drawn By: AS

Date: 18-Jul-2018

Checked By: KL

Scale at A4


FIGURE 7

Keswick, South AustraliaTCE GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATIONS: PERCHED AQUIFER - FEBRUARY / MARCH 2018

Legend:

1:5,000

140

!A!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A!A

!A !A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!AVP16

VP15

VP14

VP13

VP12

VP11

VP10VP09

VP08VP07

VP06

VP05

VP04

VP03

VP02

VP01

GP12

GP11

GP08

GP04 GP03EVERARD AVENUE

KENT ROAD

ASHFORD ROAD CROYDON ROADDAY AVENUE

ANZAC HIGHWAY

HAMPTO

N ROAD

ALEXAN

DER AVE

NUE

ANZAC HIGHWAY

MARLOW ROAD

Z0 30 60

metres

Document Path: S:\Projects JBSG\Adelaide\1. PROJECTS BY CLIENT\EPA SA\Keswick\1. ArcGIS\Maps\Stage B\Soil Vapour Locations.mxdImage Reference: www.nearmap.com© - Imagery Date: 2 October 2017

EPA Assessment AreaK1 Site BoundaryK2 Site BoundaryK3 Site Boundary

Soil Vapour Probe!A Existing!A Installed February / March 2018

Job No: 54378

Client: EPA SA

Version: FINAL

Drawn By: AS

Date: 18-Jul-2018

Checked By: KL

Scale at A4


FIGURE 8

Keswick, South AustraliaSOIL VAPOUR INVESTIGATION LOCATIONS- FEBRUARY / MARCH 2018

Legend:

1:2,000

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(VP11

VP09

VP06

VP04VP02

VP01

EVERARD AVENUE

KENT ROAD

ASHFORD ROAD CROYDON ROADDAY AVENUE

ANZAC HIGHWAY

HAMPTO

N ROAD

ALEXAN

DER AVE

NUE

ANZAC HIGHWAY

MARLOW ROAD

Z0 30 60

metres

Document Path: S:\Projects JBSG\Adelaide\1. PROJECTS BY CLIENT\EPA SA\Keswick\1. ArcGIS\Maps\Stage B\Geotechnical Sample Locations.mxdImage Reference: www.nearmap.com© - Imagery Date: 2 October 2017


!( Geotechnical Sample Location

Job No: 54378

Client: EPA SA

Version: FINAL

Drawn By: AS

Date: 18-Jul-2018

Checked By: KL

Scale at A4


FIGURE 9

Keswick, South AustraliaGEOTECHNICAL SAMPLE LOCATIONS- FEBRUARY 2018

Legend:

1:2,000

!A!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A!A

!A !A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!AVP16

VP15

VP14

VP13

VP12

VP11

VP10VP09

VP08VP07

VP06

VP05

VP04

VP03

VP02

VP01

GP12

GP11

GP08

GP04 GP03

1.5m - 4

1.5m - 4

1.5m - 511.5m - 18

1.5m - 36

1.5m - 20

1.5m - 20

1.5m - 600

1.5m - 190

1.5m - 2001.5m - 150

2.0m - 360

1.5m - <6.4

1.5m - 6,900

1.5m - 2,400

1.5m - 1,800

1.5m - 1,000

0.5m - 20,000

1.5m - 180,000

1.5m - 100,0000.6m - 53,000

Z0 30 60

metres

Document Path: S:\Projects JBSG\Adelaide\1. PROJECTS BY CLIENT\EPA SA\Keswick\1. ArcGIS\Maps\Stage B\Soil Vapour TCE - Feb18.mxdImage Reference: www.nearmap.com© - Imagery Date: 2 October 2017


Soil Vapour Probe!A Existing!A Installed February / March 2018

Depth, TCE Concentration (ug/m3)TCE Concentration ug/m3

0 - 2020 - 10001000 - 1000010000 - 2000020000 - 5000050000 - 100000100000 - 150000>150000

Job No: 54378

Client: EPA SA

Version: FINAL

Drawn By: AS

Date: 18-Jul-2018

Checked By: KL

Scale at A4


FIGURE 10

Keswick, South AustraliaTCE SOIL VAPOUR CONCENTRATIONS- FEBRUARY / MARCH 2018

Legend:

1:2,000

140

ANZAC HIG

HWAY

ALEXANDER AVENUE

ETON ROAD

DAY AVENUE

FARNHAM ROAD

KENT ROAD

SURREY ROAD

CROYDON ROAD

CHATHAM ROAD

MARLESTON AVENUE

MARLOW ROADALE

XANDER

AVENUE

ASHFORD ROAD

EVERARD AVENUE

HAMPTO

N ROAD

ETON ROAD

Z0 100 200

metres

Document Path: S:\Projects JBSG\Adelaide\1. PROJECTS BY CLIENT\EPA SA\Keswick\1. ArcGIS\Maps\Stage B\Landuse.mxdImage Reference: www.nearmap.com© - Imagery Date: 2 October 2017


Land UseCommercial / IndustrialResidential

Job No: 54378

Client: EPA SA

Version: FINAL

Drawn By: AS

Date: 18-Jul-2018

Checked By: KL

Scale at A4


FIGURE 11

Keswick, South AustraliaLANDUSE OF THE KESWICKASSESSMENT AREA

Legend:

1:5,000

Note: Land Use Generalised 2017 data obtained fromLocation SA Viewer provided by DPTI.

ANZAC HIG

HWAY

ALEXANDER AVENUE

ETON ROAD

DAY AVENUE

FARNHAM ROAD

KENT ROAD

SURREY ROAD

CROYDON ROAD

CHATHAM ROAD

MARLESTON AVENUE

MARLOW ROADALE

XANDER

AVENUE

ASHFORD ROAD

EVERARD AVENUE

HAMPTO

N ROAD

ETON ROAD

#1#2

#3#4 Z

0 100 200

metres

Document Path: S:\Projects JBSG\Adelaide\1. PROJECTS BY CLIENT\EPA SA\Keswick\1. ArcGIS\Maps\Stage B\Source Areas.mxdImage Reference: www.nearmap.com© - Imagery Date: 2 October 2017

EPA Assessment AreaK1 Site BoundaryK2 Site BoundaryK3 Site BoundarySource AreasRoad

Job No: 54378

Client: EPA SA

Version: FINAL

Drawn By: AS

Date: 18-Jul-2018

Checked By: KL

Scale at A4


FIGURE 12

Keswick, South AustraliaIDENTIFIED SOURCE AREAS

Legend:

1:5,000

Note: Status of source areas: - Confirmed: Source Area #1; - Likely: Source Area #2 and Source Area #3; and - Probable: Source Area #4.

Document Path: S:\Projects JBSG\Adelaide\1. PROJECTS BY CLIENT\EPA SA\Keswick\1. ArcGIS\Maps\Stage B\Cross Section of Site.mxdImage Reference: www.nearmap.com© - Imagery Date: 2 October 2017


Groundwater Monitoring Well&< Perched Aquifer&< Q1 Aquifer!A Soil Vapour Probe

CSM Transect Line

Job No: 54378

Client: EPA SA

Version: FINAL

Drawn By: AS

Date: 18-Jul-2018

Checked By: KL


FIGURE 13

Keswick, South AustraliaCROSS SECTION OF SITE

Legend:

!A!A

!A

!A!A

!A!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A!A

!A !A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

&< &<

&< &<

&<

&<

&<

&<

&<

&<

&<

&<

&<&<

&<&<

&<

&< &<

&<

&<&<

&<

&<

&<

&<

&<

&<

&<

&<

&<

ANZAC HIG

HWAY

A

A'

GW8

GW7GW6GW4

GW3GW1

GW25 GW22

GW21

GW20GW18

GW15

GW14

GW13

GW12GW10

GW2

GW11

GW9

GWP9

GWP8

GWP6GWP5

GWP13

GWP10

GWP4GWP3

GWP2

VP16VP13VP15

VP14

VP12

VP10VP09

VP08VP07

VP06

VP05

VP04VP03

VP02

VP01

GP12GP11

GP08

GP04 GP030 100 200

metres

!Z

Well ID TCE µg/L Vapour ID TCE µg/m3

GWP06 0.28 VP03 180,000GWP08 140 VP06 190GWP10 550 VP12 36

GW06 5.5GW07 <0.01GW08 35GW09 34,000GW14 1,500GW25 <0.01

Perched Aquifer

Q1 Aquifer

Vapour

Hindmarsh ClayDiscontinuous Perched Aquifer

Standing Water Level (SWL)

Soil ContaminationGroundwater Contamination

Pooraka FormationKeswick Clay

Possible Vapour MigrationSource Area #1Source Area #2

Scale as Shown15m

20m

10m

25m

5m

0m0m 350m175m 700m525m

30m

Metre

s AHD

GW25: 16mGW14: 19m GW08: 19m

GWP10: 10m

VP03: 1.5m VP06: 1.5mVP12: 1.5m

GWP08: 12m

GW09: 15m

GW06: 13mGW07: 15m

GWP06: 10.7m

K3 SITE K1 SITE K2 SITEEPA ASSESSMENT AREA

COMMERCIALRESIDENTIAL

Concrete LinedDrain


Groundwater Results Summary Tables

SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER FIELD PARAMETERS: FEBRUARY TO JUNE 2018Project Number: 54378Project Name: Keswick Stage 2 Part B

LNAPL SWL (26‐Feb‐18) RL RWL Total Depth Dissolved Oxygen Conductivity Redox Redox Temperature

mTOC mTOC mAHD mAHD mTOC ppm mS/cm mV SHE oC

Q1 Aquifer

GW01 01‐Mar‐18 ‐ 12.300 26.130 13.830 17.455 Gatic 0.96 1.368 7.67 45.3 244.3 23.5 Low flow methods: total of 2.8 L purged over 18 minutes (approx flow rate of 150 ml/min), no drawdown.

No odour, no sheen

GW02 05‐Mar‐18 ‐ 12.152 25.740 13.588 16.065 Gatic 1.84 1.124 8.29 7.2 206.2 19.1 Hydrasleeve methods: submersion depth of 15.5 m (low flow attempted, however, maximum drawdown was exceeded at a flow rate of <50ml/min).

No odour, no sheen


No odour, no sheen


No odour, no sheen


No odour, no sheen


No odour, no sheen

GW07 27‐Feb‐18 ‐ 12.375 26.240 13.865 13.380 Gatic 1.43 4.972 7.59 36.2 235.2 23.2 Low flow methods: total of 4.0 L purged over 18 minutes (approx flow rate of 220 ml/min), no drawdown.

No odour, no sheen


No odour, no sheen

GW09 05‐Mar‐18 ‐ 12.764 26.370 13.606 16.500 Gatic 1.93 3.413 7.80 30.1 229.1 20.1 Hydrasleeve methods: submersion depth of 15 m (low flow attempted, however, maximum drawdown was exceeded at a flow rate of <50ml/min).

No odour, no sheen


No odour, no sheen


No odour, no sheen

GW12 02‐Mar‐18 ‐ 13.315 25.204 11.889 18.800 Gatic 4.53 3.296 7.44 59.5 258.5 26.3 Low flow methods: total of 4 L purged over 18 minutes (approx flow rate of 220 ml/min), no drawdown.

No odour, no sheen


No odour, no sheen


No odour, no sheen

GW15 07‐Mar‐18 ‐ 13.080 (7‐Mar‐18)

25.655 12.575 16.550 Gatic 0.77 2.631 7.26 50.3 249.3 23.2 Low flow methods: total of 4 L purged over 18 minutes (approx flow rate of 220 ml/min), no drawdown.

No odour, no sheen


No odour, no sheen


No odour, no sheen


No odour, no sheen


No odour, no sheen

GW20 06‐Mar‐18 ‐ 12.430 24.586 12.156 16.000 Gatic 1.23 0.820 7.76 53.7 252.7 23.4 Hydrasleeve methods: submersion depth of 14.5 m (low flow not attempted, well observed to have slow recharge during development following installation by JBS&G).

No odour, no sheen


No odour, no sheen


No odour, no sheen

GW23 05‐Mar‐18 ‐ 14.180 23.264 9.084 15.850 Gatic 1.07 4.178 7.27 15.0 214.0 19.6 Hydrasleeve methods: submersion depth of 15 m (low flow not attempted, well observed to have slow recharge during development following installation by JBS&G).

No odour, no sheen

GW24 06‐Mar‐18 ‐ 12.810 23.859 11.049 13.810 Gatic 6.17 6.384 7.69 36.4 235.4 24.6 Hydrasleeve methods: submersion depth of 13.5 m (low flow not attempted, well observed to have slow recharge during development following installation by JBS&G).

No odour, no sheen

GW25 05‐Jun‐18 ‐ 13.239 (05‐Jun‐18)

22.887 9.648 15.840 Gatic 4.09 1.641 7.06 9.3 208.3 19.5 Low flow methods: total of 4 L purged over 18 minutes (approx flow rate of 220 ml/min), no drawdown.

No odour, no sheen

Completion Sample ObservationsSample InformationDateWell ID pH

SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER FIELD PARAMETERS: FEBRUARY TO JUNE 2018Project Number: 54378Project Name: Keswick Stage 2 Part B

LNAPL SWL (26‐Feb‐18) RL RWL Total Depth Dissolved Oxygen Conductivity Redox Redox Temperature

mTOC mTOC mAHD mAHD mTOC ppm mS/cm mV SHE oC

Completion Sample ObservationsSample InformationDateWell ID pH

Perched Aquifer

GWP01 01‐Mar‐18 ‐ 6.544 26.090 19.546 14.160 Gatic 1.73 1.449 7.87 39.3 238.3 29.1 Low flow methods: total of 2.2 L purged over 18 minutes (approx flow rate of 120 ml/min), no drawdown.

No odour, no sheen


No odour, no sheen

GWP03 27‐Feb‐18 ‐ 6.018 25.680 19.662 10.530 Gatic 1.02 0.975 7.31 44.1 243.1 25.1 Low flow methods: total of 3.4 L purged over 18 minutes (approx flow rate of 190 ml/min), no drawdown.

No odour, no sheen

GWP04 05‐Mar‐18 ‐ 4.827 26.240 21.413 8.680 Gatic 0.98 1.346 7.78 14.5 213.5 20.0 Low flow methods: total of 1.9 L purged over 18 minutes (approx flow rate of 100 ml/min), 5 mm drawdown.

No odour, no sheen


No odour, no sheen


No odour, no sheen


No odour, no sheen


No odour, no sheen

GWP09 07‐Mar‐18 ‐ 4.031 (7‐Mar‐18)

25.611 21.580 8.880 Gatic 0.49 1.807 7.97 48.1 247.1 24.2 Low flow methods: total of 3.4 L purged over 18 minutes (approx flow rate of 190 ml/min), no drawdown.

No odour, no sheen

GWP10 06‐Mar‐18 ‐ 7.800 24.800 17.000 9.840 Gatic 0.81 2.355 8.24 67.5 266.5 23.0 Hydrasleeve methods: submersion depth of 9 m (low flow not attempted, well observed to have slow recharge during development following installation by JBS&G).

No odour, no sheen

GROUNDWATER RESULTS SUMMARY: FEBRUARY TO JUNE 2018Project Number: 54378Project Name: Keswick Stage 2 Part B

Tetrachloroe

then

e

Trichloroe

then

e

cis‐1,2‐dichloroethe

ne

tran

s‐1,2‐dichloroethe

ne

1,1‐dichloroethe

ne

Viny

l Chloride

3‐chloroprop

ene

4‐chlorotoluen

e

cis‐1,3‐dichloroprop

ene

tran

s‐1,3‐dichloroprop

ene

1,1,1,2‐tetrachloroe

than

e

1,1,1‐trichloroe

than

e

1,1,2,2‐tetrachloroe

than

e

1,1,2‐trichloroe

than

e

1,1‐dichloroetha

ne

1,2,3‐trichlorop

ropa

ne

1,2‐dichloroetha

ne

1,2‐dichloroprop

ane

1,3‐dichloroprop

ane

Brom

ochlorom

etha

ne

Carbon

tetrachloride

Chloroetha

ne

Chlorometha

ne

Dichlorod

ifluo

rometha

ne

Dichlorom

etha

ne

Trichlorofluorom

etha

ne

Brom

odichlorom

etha

ne

Chloroform

Dibromochlorom

etha

ne

Tribromom

etha

ne

mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L0.00002 0.00001 0.00001 0.001 0.001 0.00005 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.00001 0.001 0.00001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.00002 0.001 0.001 0.01 0.001 0.001

NEPC (2013) ASC NEPM 2013 GILs ‐ Drinking Water 0.05 0.03 0.0003 0.003 0.003 0.004 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25NHMRC (2017) Australian Drinking Water Guidelines ‐ AestheticsNHMRC (2017) Australian Drinking Water Guideline – Health 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.0003 0.003 0.003 0.004 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25NEPC (2013) ASC NEPM 2013 GILs ‐ Freshwater 6.5ANZECC (2000) Freshwater (low reliability) 0.07 0.33 0.7 0.1 0.003 0.27 0.4 0.09 0.24 4 0.37NEPC (2013) ASC NEPM 2013 GILs ‐ Marinewater 1.9ANZECC (2000) Marinewater (95% level of species protection)ANZECC (2000) Marinewater (low reliability) 0.07 0.33 0.7 0.1 0.003 0.27 0.4 0.25 0.24 4 0.37ANZECC (2000) Aquaculture (tainting of fish flesh)

Field ID Sample Date Lab Report NumberPerched Aquifer

GWP01 01‐Mar‐18 587755 0.00023 0.16 0.041 <0.001 <0.001 0.0013 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.00001 <0.001 0.00007 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.00002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001GWP02 01‐Mar‐18 587755 <0.00002 0.016 0.018 <0.001 <0.001 <0.00005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.00001 <0.001 <0.00001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.00002 0.004 <0.001 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001GWP03 27‐Feb‐18 587318 0.00009 0.019 0.00049 <0.001 <0.001 <0.00005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.00001 <0.001 <0.00001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.00002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001GWP04 05‐Mar‐18 588277 <0.001 0.0079 0.0021 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001GWP05 01‐Mar‐18 587755 <0.00002 0.0004 0.011 0.01 <0.001 0.012 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.00001 <0.001 <0.00001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.00002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001GWP06 27‐Feb‐18 587318 0.00004 0.00028 0.00014 <0.001 <0.001 <0.00005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.00001 <0.001 <0.00001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.00002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001GWP07 27‐Feb‐18 587318 0.00004 0.00011 0.00006 <0.001 <0.001 <0.00005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.00001 <0.001 <0.00001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.00002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001GWP08 02‐Mar‐18 587755 0.003 0.14 0.017 <0.001 <0.001 0.028 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.00001 <0.001 0.00009 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.027 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.00074 <0.001 <0.001 0.075 <0.001 <0.001GWP09 07‐Mar‐18 588187 0.11 0.0029 0.0029 <0.001 <0.001 <0.00005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.00001 <0.001 <0.00001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.00002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001GWP10 06‐Mar‐18 588277 0.072 0.55 6.9 0.2 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

Q1 AquiferGW01 01‐Mar‐18 587755 0.0004 0.21 0.045 <0.001 <0.001 0.00045 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.00003 <0.001 0.00013 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.00002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001GW02 05‐Mar‐18 588277 <0.001 0.38 0.0089 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001GW03 01‐Mar‐18 587755 0.00022 0.14 0.11 <0.001 <0.001 <0.00005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.00014 <0.001 0.00034 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.00002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001GW04 05‐Mar‐18 588277 <0.001 0.022 0.0054 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001GW05 01‐Mar‐18 587755 <0.00002 0.00028 0.00002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.00005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.00001 <0.001 <0.00001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.00002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001GW06 01‐Mar‐18 587755 0.00003 0.0055 0.0022 <0.001 <0.001 <0.00005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.00002 <0.001 0.00002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.00002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001GW07 27‐Feb‐18 587318 0.00004 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.00005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.00001 <0.001 <0.00001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.00002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001GW08 02‐Mar‐18 587755 0.00015 0.035 0.00072 <0.001 <0.001 <0.00005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.00002 <0.001 0.00013 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.026 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.0002 <0.001 <0.001 0.02 <0.001 <0.001GW09 05‐Mar‐18 588277 0.02 34 0.18 0.016 0.036 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.048 0.013 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.015 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.016 <0.001 <0.001GW10 06‐Mar‐18 588277 0.0022 1.2 0.022 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 1.1 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.022 <0.001 0.029 <0.001 <0.001GW11 01‐Mar‐18 587755 0.00039 0.68 0.012 <0.001 <0.001 <0.00005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.002 0.00004 <0.001 0.00009 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.25 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.00002 0.002 <0.001 0.016 <0.001 <0.001GW12 02‐Mar‐18 587755 0.0047 1.3 0.019 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 4.5 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.05 <0.001 0.2 <0.001 <0.001GW13 05‐Mar‐18 588277 0.014 0.0097 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001GW14 06‐Mar‐18 588277 0.015 1.5 0.44 <0.001 0.009 0.0082 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.007 0.0038 <0.001 0.044 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.31 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.012 <0.001 0.19 <0.001 <0.001GW15 07‐Mar‐18 588187 0.0031 0.022 0.00054 <0.001 <0.001 <0.00005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.00001 <0.001 <0.00001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.004 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.00002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001GW16 06‐Mar‐18 588277 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001GW17 06‐Mar‐18 588277 <0.001 0.0011 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001GW18 27‐Feb‐18 587318 0.00008 0.00061 0.0004#1 <0.001 <0.001 <0.00005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.00001 <0.001 <0.00001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.00002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001GW19 27‐Feb‐18 587318 0.00005 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.00005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.00001 <0.001 <0.00001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.00002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001GW20 06‐Mar‐18 588277 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001GW21 06‐Mar‐18 588277 <0.001 0.019 0.012 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001GW22 06‐Mar‐18 588277 <0.001 0.19 0.073 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.02 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.016 <0.001 <0.001GW23 05‐Mar‐18 588277 <0.001 0.017 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001GW24 06‐Mar‐18 588277 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001GW25 05‐Jun‐18 0.00004 0.00005#1 <0.00001 0.00002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.00005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.00001 <0.001 <0.00001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.00002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001

Env Stds Comments

Data Comments

EQL

NEPC (2013) ASC NEPM Groundwater HSLs for Vapour Intrusion, Commercial Landuse (sand, depth to groundwater 4m to 8m)#1

NEPC (2013) ASC NEPM Groundwater HSLs for Vapour Intrusion, Residential Landuse (sand, depth to groundwater 4m to 8m)#1

Chlorinated Alkanes TrihalomethanesChlorinated Ethenes Chlorinated Alkenes

NEPC (2013) ASC NEPM Groundwater HSLs for Vapour Intrusion, Commercial Landuse (sand, depth to groundwater 8m+)#2

NEPC (2013) ASC NEPM Groundwater HSLs for Vapour Intrusion, Residential Landuse (sand, depth to groundwater 8m+)#2

0.06

0.06


#1:Adopted for assessment of Perched Aquifer well data.#2:Adopted for assessment of Q1 Aquifer well data.#3:TV May not protect key species from chronic toxicity, refer to ANZECC & ARMCANZ (2000) for further guidance.#4:Adopted from US EPA RSL ‐ Tapwater (November 2015),Target HI=0.1


NEPC (2013) ASC NEPM 2013 GILs ‐ Drinking Water NHMRC (2017) Australian Drinking Water Guidelines ‐ AestheticsNHMRC (2017) Australian Drinking Water Guideline – HealthNEPC (2013) ASC NEPM 2013 GILs ‐ FreshwaterANZECC (2000) Freshwater (low reliability)NEPC (2013) ASC NEPM 2013 GILs ‐ MarinewaterANZECC (2000) Marinewater (95% level of species protection)ANZECC (2000) Marinewater (low reliability)ANZECC (2000) Aquaculture (tainting of fish flesh)


GWP01 01‐Mar‐18 587755GWP02 01‐Mar‐18 587755GWP03 27‐Feb‐18 587318GWP04 05‐Mar‐18 588277GWP05 01‐Mar‐18 587755GWP06 27‐Feb‐18 587318GWP07 27‐Feb‐18 587318GWP08 02‐Mar‐18 587755GWP09 07‐Mar‐18 588187GWP10 06‐Mar‐18 588277

Q1 AquiferGW01 01‐Mar‐18 587755GW02 05‐Mar‐18 588277GW03 01‐Mar‐18 587755GW04 05‐Mar‐18 588277GW05 01‐Mar‐18 587755GW06 01‐Mar‐18 587755GW07 27‐Feb‐18 587318GW08 02‐Mar‐18 587755GW09 05‐Mar‐18 588277GW10 06‐Mar‐18 588277GW11 01‐Mar‐18 587755GW12 02‐Mar‐18 587755GW13 05‐Mar‐18 588277GW14 06‐Mar‐18 588277GW15 07‐Mar‐18 588187GW16 06‐Mar‐18 588277GW17 06‐Mar‐18 588277GW18 27‐Feb‐18 587318GW19 27‐Feb‐18 587318GW20 06‐Mar‐18 588277GW21 06‐Mar‐18 588277GW22 06‐Mar‐18 588277GW23 05‐Mar‐18 588277GW24 06‐Mar‐18 588277GW25 05‐Jun‐18 0.00004

Env Stds Comments

Data Comments

EQL







romatic Hy

C6‐C9 Fractio

n

C10‐C1

4 Fractio

n

C15‐C2

8 Fractio

n

C29‐C3

6 Fractio

n

C10‐C3

6 Fractio

n (Total)

>C10

‐C16

Fraction

>C16

‐C34

Fraction

>C34

‐C40

Fraction

>C10

‐C16

less Nap

htha

lene

(F2)

C6‐C10

Fraction

C6‐C10

less BTE

X (F1)

Benzen

e

Ethy

lben

zene

Toluen

e

Xylene

(o)

Xylene

(m & p)

Xylene

(Total)

Nap

htha

lene

1,2,4‐trim

ethy

l ben

zene

1,3,5‐trim

ethy

l ben

zene

Brom

oben

zene

Isop

ropy

lben

zene

Styren

e

1,2‐dibrom

oethan

e

2‐Bu

tano

ne (M

EK)

4‐Methy

l‐2‐pen

tano

ne (M

IBK)

Brom

ometha

ne

Dibromom

etha

ne

Iodo

metha

ne

mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L0.02 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.01 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001

0.001 0.3 0.8 0.6 0.03 0.0010.003 0.025 0.02 0.004

0.001 0.3 0.8 0.6 0.03 0.001 0.0010.95 0.35 0.016

0.08 0.18

0.5#3 0.05#3

0.7 0.070.5 0.005 0.18 0.35

0.25 0.25 1 0.25 0.25NL 6 5 NL NL NL NL

1 1 0.8 NL NL NL NL

NL 7 5 NL NL NL NL

1 1 0.9 NL NL NL NL

0.18 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 0.18 0.18 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.003 <0.01 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.0010.04 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 0.04 0.04 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.003 <0.01 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001<0.02 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 <0.02 <0.02 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.003 <0.01 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.0013#1 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001<0.02 <0.05 0.3 <0.1 0.3 0.05 0.2 <0.1 0.05 <0.02 <0.02 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.003 <0.01 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001<0.02 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 <0.02 <0.02 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.003 <0.01 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001<0.02 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 <0.02 <0.02 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.003 <0.01 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001<0.02 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 <0.02 <0.02 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.003 <0.01 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.0010.21 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 0.21 0.21 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.003 <0.01 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.0010.12 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 0.12 0.12 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.003 <0.01 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.0015.8 <0.05 0.2 <0.1 0.2 0.13 0.1 <0.1 0.13 5.8 5.8 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.1 <0.15 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

0.21 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 0.21 0.21 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.003 <0.01 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.0010.39 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 0.39 0.39 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.003 <0.01 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.0010.19 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 0.19 0.19 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.003 <0.01 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.0010.03 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 0.03 0.03 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.003 <0.01 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001<0.02 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 <0.02 <0.02 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.003 <0.01 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001<0.02 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 <0.02 <0.02 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.003 <0.01 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001<0.02 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 <0.02 <0.02 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.003 <0.01 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.0010.06 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 0.06 0.06 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.003 <0.01 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.00131 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 31 31 0.005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.003 <0.01 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.0011.8 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 1.8 1.8 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.003 <0.01 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.0010.76 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 0.76 0.76 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.003 <0.01 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.0013 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 3 3 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.003 <0.01 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

0.03 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 0.03 0.03 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.003 <0.01 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.0013 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 3 2.5 0.51 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.003 <0.01 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

0.03 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 0.03 0.03 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.003 <0.01 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001<0.02 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 <0.02 <0.02 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.003 <0.01 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001<0.02 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 <0.02 <0.02 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.003 <0.01 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

0.025#1 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 0.026#1 0.026#1 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.003 <0.01 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.0018#1 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001<0.02 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 <0.02 <0.02 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.003 <0.01 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001<0.02 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 <0.02 <0.02 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.003 <0.01 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.0010.03 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 0.03 0.03 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.003 <0.01 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.0010.27 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 0.27 0.27 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.003 <0.01 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001<0.02 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 <0.02 <0.02 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.003 <0.01 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001<0.02 <0.05 0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.18 0.1 <0.1 0.18 <0.02 <0.02 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.003 <0.01 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001<0.02 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 <0.02 <0.02 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.002 <0.003 <0.01 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

TPHs (NEPC 1999) TRHs (NEPC 2013) BTEX Monocyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Miscellaneous Hydrocarbons


NEPC (2013) ASC NEPM 2013 GILs ‐ Drinking Water NHMRC (2017) Australian Drinking Water Guidelines ‐ AestheticsNHMRC (2017) Australian Drinking Water Guideline – HealthNEPC (2013) ASC NEPM 2013 GILs ‐ FreshwaterANZECC (2000) Freshwater (low reliability)NEPC (2013) ASC NEPM 2013 GILs ‐ MarinewaterANZECC (2000) Marinewater (95% level of species protection)ANZECC (2000) Marinewater (low reliability)ANZECC (2000) Aquaculture (tainting of fish flesh)


GWP01 01‐Mar‐18 587755GWP02 01‐Mar‐18 587755GWP03 27‐Feb‐18 587318GWP04 05‐Mar‐18 588277GWP05 01‐Mar‐18 587755GWP06 27‐Feb‐18 587318GWP07 27‐Feb‐18 587318GWP08 02‐Mar‐18 587755GWP09 07‐Mar‐18 588187GWP10 06‐Mar‐18 588277

Q1 AquiferGW01 01‐Mar‐18 587755GW02 05‐Mar‐18 588277GW03 01‐Mar‐18 587755GW04 05‐Mar‐18 588277GW05 01‐Mar‐18 587755GW06 01‐Mar‐18 587755GW07 27‐Feb‐18 587318GW08 02‐Mar‐18 587755GW09 05‐Mar‐18 588277GW10 06‐Mar‐18 588277GW11 01‐Mar‐18 587755GW12 02‐Mar‐18 587755GW13 05‐Mar‐18 588277GW14 06‐Mar‐18 588277GW15 07‐Mar‐18 588187GW16 06‐Mar‐18 588277GW17 06‐Mar‐18 588277GW18 27‐Feb‐18 587318GW19 27‐Feb‐18 587318GW20 06‐Mar‐18 588277GW21 06‐Mar‐18 588277GW22 06‐Mar‐18 588277GW23 05‐Mar‐18 588277GW24 06‐Mar‐18 588277GW25 05‐Jun‐18 0.00004

Env Stds Comments

Data Comments

EQL







1,2‐Dichlorob

enzene

1,3‐dichlorobe

nzen

e

1,4‐dichlorobe

nzen

e

Chlorobe

nzen

e

2‐Prop

anon

e (Acetone

)

Carbon

disulfid

e

mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L µg/L mg/L0.001 0.001 0.00001 0.00001 1.00 0.0011.5 0.04 0.3

0.001 0.02 0.003 0.011.5 0.04 0.3 14000#4

0.16 0.26 0.06

0.25 0.02

<0.001 <0.001 0.00001 <0.00001 <1 <0.001<0.001 <0.001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <5 <0.001<0.001 <0.001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <1 <0.001<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <1 <0.001<0.001 <0.001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <5 <0.001<0.001 <0.001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <1 <0.001<0.001 <0.001 0.00002 0.00004 <5 <0.001<0.001 <0.001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <5 <0.001<0.001 <0.001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <1 <0.001<0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <50 <0.05

<0.001 <0.001 0.00001 <0.00001 <1 <0.001<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <1 <0.001<0.001 <0.001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <1 <0.001<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <5 <0.001<0.001 <0.001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <1 <0.001<0.001 <0.001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <1 <0.001<0.001 <0.001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <1 <0.001<0.001 <0.001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <1 <0.001<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <1 <0.001<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <1 <0.001<0.001 <0.001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <1 <0.001<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <1 <0.001<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <1 <0.001<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <50 <0.001<0.001 <0.001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <1 <0.001<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <1 <0.001<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <1 <0.001<0.001 <0.001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <1 <0.001<0.001 <0.001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <5 <0.001<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <1 <0.001<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <1 <0.001<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <1 <0.001<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <1 <0.001<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <5 <0.001<0.001 <0.001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <1 <0.001

OtherChlorinated Benzenes


Soil Vapour Results Summary Tables

SUMMARY OF SOIL VAPOUR FIELD PARAMETERS: FEBRUARY / MARCH 2018Project Number: 54378Project Name: Keswick Stage 2 Part B

Post Sampling Pressure

Sampling Flow Rate

Volume Purged Prior

CH4 CO2 O2 Balance H2S CO PID

‐inHg mL/min mL %v/v %v/v %v/v %v/v ppm ppm ppm

GP03 20‐Feb‐18 No 10:57 11:08 11 minutes ‐4.0 80.0 252.0 0.0 1.0 20.0 79.0 1.0 0.0 9.7 ‐

GP04 19‐Feb‐18 No 13:26 13:36 10 minutes ‐5.0 80.0 252.0 0.0 3.5 18.0 78.5 1.0 0.0 0.1 ‐

GP08 20‐Feb‐18 Yes 9:20 9:54 34 minutes ‐5.0 80.0 252.0 0.0 6.4 12.9 80.8 0.0 0.0 0.8 ‐

GP11 20‐Feb‐18 No 11:59 12:10 11 minutes ‐6.0 80.0 252.0 0.0 3.4 16.1 80.5 1.0 1.0 21.5 ‐

GP12 20‐Feb‐18 No 11:11 11:23 12 minutes ‐5.0 80.0 252.0 0.0 1.4 19.4 79.1 1.0 0.0 3.4 GP12 sampled in lieu of GP07 which could not be located (appeared to be beneath a pile of building rubbish).

VP01 19‐Feb‐18 Yes 9:23 17:04 7 hours, 41 minutes ‐10.0 80.0 252.0 0.0 1.5 18.4 80.1 3.0 0.0 3.5 Sampling took longer than it should have based on flow rate and canister volume ‐ low vapour yield. Vaccum recorded during post sampling PID measurement ‐ low vapour yield.


VP03 19‐Feb‐18 No 12:06 12:16 10 minutes ‐5.0 80.0 172.0 0.0 8.0 8.6 83.3 0.0 2.0 43.1 ‐


VP05 19‐Feb‐18 No 11:34 11:45 11 minutes ‐4.0 80.0 252.0 0.0 0.5 19.9 79.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 ‐


VP07 19‐Feb‐18 No 14:01 14:12 11 minutes ‐5.0 80.0 252.0 0.0 3.3 16.8 80.0 3.0 0.0 0.4 ‐

VP08 19‐Feb‐18 No 15:28 15:38 10 minutes ‐5.0 80.0 252.0 0.0 1.5 17.8 80.6 3.0 1.0 0.0 ‐

VP09 20‐Feb‐18 Yes 8:31 10:05 1 hour, 34 minutes ‐5.5 80.0 332.0 0.0 3.7 15.0 81.3 1.0 0.0 0.6 Sampling took longer than it should have based on flow rate and canister volume ‐ low vapour yield. Vaccum recorded during post sampling PID measurement ‐ low vapour yield.

VP10 20‐Feb‐18 No 12:37 12:48 11 minutes ‐5.0 80.0 252.0 0.0 5.1 16.3 78.7 2.0 0.0 0.0 ‐

VP11 20‐Feb‐18 No 8:46 16:37 6 hours, 51 minutes ‐24.0 80.0 332.0 0.0 1.5 18.6 79.9 3.0 3.0 0.7 Sampling took longer than it should have based on flow rate and canister volume ‐ low vapour yield. Vaccum recorded during post sampling PID measurement ‐ low vapour yield.

VP12 13‐Mar‐18 No 11:52 12:52 10 minutes ‐6.0 80.0 112.0 0.0 4.7 16.3 79.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 ‐

VP13 13‐Mar‐18 No 12:19 12:51 32 minutes ‐7.0 80.0 112.0 0.0 3.5 17.5 78.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sampling took longer than it should have based on flow rate and canister volume ‐ low vapour yield.

VP14 13‐Mar‐18 Yes 12:39 17:08 4 hours, 29 minutes ‐25.0 80.0 208.0 0.0 1.0 19.5 79.5 3.0 1.0 0.2 Sampling took longer than it should have based on flow rate and canister volume ‐ low vapour yield. Vaccum recorded during post sampling PID measurement ‐ low vapour yield.



Notes and ObservationsSampling DateSoil Vapour Probe ID

Start Sampling Time

End Sampling Time

Total Sampling TimeVacuum Recorded During Vacuum Test?

SOIL VAPOUR RESULTS SUMMARY: FEBRUARY / MARCH 2018Project Number: 54378Project Name: Keswick Stage 2 Part B

Tetrachloroe

then

e

Trichloroe

then

e

cis‐1,2‐dichloroethe

ne

tran

s‐1,2‐dichloroethe

ne

1,1‐dichloroethe

ne

Viny

l Chloride

Carbon

tetrachloride

Chloroform

µg/m3 µg/m3 µg/m3 µg/m3 µg/m3 µg/m3 µg/m3 µg/m33.40 1.60 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.80 3.10 2.40

NEPC (2013) ASC NEPM Interim HILs, Commercial / Industrial D ‐ Soil Vapour 8,000 80 300 300#2 100

880#3 440#3 430#3

2,000 20 80 80#2 30

210#3 100#3 100#3

Field_ID Sample Date Area Lab Report Number

GP03#1 20‐Feb‐18 Commercial#3 185724 260 53,000 <100 <100 <100 <40 <160 <120

GP04#1 19‐Feb‐18 Commercial#3 185724 20 1,000 10 20 <8 <3 <12 10

GP08#1 20‐Feb‐18 Commercial#3 185724 <170 360 <100 <100 <100 <40 <160 <120

GP11#1 20‐Feb‐18 Commercial#3 185724 680 108,000#5 <100 <100 <100 <40 <160 97.6#5

GP12#1 20‐Feb‐18 Commercial#3 185724 <170 20,000 <100 <100 <100 <40 <160 <120VP01 19‐Feb‐18 Residential#4 185724 5 20 <2 <2 <2 <0.8 <3.1 10

VP02#1 19‐Feb‐18 Commercial#3 185724 <13 150 <8 <8 <8 <3 <12 <10

VP03#1 19‐Feb‐18 Commercial#3 185724 11,000 180,000 16,000 280 390 <40 <160 370

VP04#1, #2 19‐Feb‐18 Commercial#3 185724 37 200 <20 <20 <20 <8 <31 <24VP05 19‐Feb‐18 Commercial#3 185724 45 20 10 <2 <2 <0.8 <3.1 <2.4

VP06#2 19‐Feb‐18 Commercial#3 185724 92 190 <20 <20 <20 <8 <31 <24

VP07#1 19‐Feb‐18 Commercial#3 185724 35 1,800 <8 <8 <8 <3 <12 <10VP08 19‐Feb‐18 Commercial#3 185724 9 4 <2 <2 <2 <0.8 <3.1 <2.4

VP09#1 20‐Feb‐18 Commercial#3 185724 46 2,400 <8 <8 <8 <3 <12 27VP10 20‐Feb‐18 Commercial#3 185724 5 4 <2 <2 <2 <0.8 <3.1 3

VP11#2 20‐Feb‐18 Commercial#3 185724 110 600 <20 <20 <20 <8 <31 40VP12 13‐Mar‐18 Residential#4 187281 <3.4 37#3 <2 <2 <2 <0.8 <3.1 8VP13 13‐Mar‐18 Residential#4 187281 <3.4 18 <2 <2 <2 <0.8 <3.1 24

VP14#2 13‐Mar‐18 Residential#4 187281 <13 <6.4 <8 <8 <8 <3.2 <12 10

VP15#2 13‐Mar‐18 Commercial#3 187281 140 6,900 120 <20 71 <8 <31 29VP16 13‐Mar‐18 Commercial#3 187281 30 51 <2 <2 <2 <0.8 <3.1 10

Env. Standards Comments#1:Factor of 10 used to convert indoor air criteria provided by US EPA (2016) to soil vapour criteria (i.e. attenuation factor of 0.1 applied, consistant with NEPC [2013]).#2:NEPC (2013) ASC NEPM HIL for cis‐1,2‐DCE adopted in the absence of criteria provided in the ASC NEPM or by US EPA for trans‐1,2‐DCE.#3:US EPA (2016) RSL adopted in the absence of criteria provided by NEPC (2013).

Data Comments#1:LORs raised due to high levels of TCE in sample.#2:LORs raised due to low sample volume.#3:Soil vapour probe present within commercial area ‐ results compared against criteria for commerical landuse.#4:Soil vapour probe present within / adjacent to a residential area ‐ results compared against criteria for residential landuse.#5:Concentration reported in duplicate sample displayed as this concentration was higher than that reported in the primary sample.

US EPA (2016) RSL for Indoor Air x10, Resident, Non‐carcinogenic, HI=0.1#1

Chlorinated Alkenes Other

EQL

NEPC (2013) ASC NEPM Interim HILs, Residential A/B ‐ Soil VapourUS EPA (2016) RSL for Indoor Air x10, Worker, Non‐carcinogenic, HI=0.1#1


QA / QC Summary Tables

RINSATE SAMPLE RESULTS SUMMARYProject Number: 54378Project Name: Keswick Stage 2 Part B

Lab Report Number 584779 584779 584779 585950 585950 585950 585950 585950 586716 586716 587318 587318 587318 587755 587755 588277Field ID RB01 RB02 RB03 RB04 RB05 RB06 RB07 RB08 RB09 RB10 RBA RBB RBC RBD RBE RBFSample Date 08‐Feb‐18 12‐Feb‐18 13‐Feb‐18 14‐Feb‐18 15‐Feb‐18 16‐Feb‐18 19‐Feb‐18 20‐Feb‐18 21‐Feb‐18 22‐Feb‐18 26‐Feb‐18 27‐Feb‐18 28‐Feb‐18 01‐Mar‐18 02‐Mar‐18 05‐Mar‐18Works Install Install Install Install Install Install Install Install Install Install GME GME Install GME GME GMESample Type Rinsate Rinsate Rinsate Rinsate Rinsate Rinsate Rinsate Rinsate Rinsate Rinsate Rinsate Rinsate Rinsate Rinsate Rinsate Rinsate

Chem_Group ChemName Units EQLBTEX Benzene mg/l 0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Ethylbenzene mg/l 0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Toluene mg/l 0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Xylene (o) mg/l 0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Xylene (m & p) mg/l 0.0002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 Xylene (Total) mg/l 0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003

Chlorinated Alkanes 1,1,1,2‐tetrachloroethane mg/l 0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 1,1,1‐trichloroethane mg/l 0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 1,1,2,2‐tetrachloroethane mg/l 0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 1,1,2‐trichloroethane mg/l 0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 1,1‐dichloroethane mg/l 0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.001 1,2,3‐trichloropropane mg/l 0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 1,2‐dichloroethane mg/l 0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.001 1,2‐dichloropropane mg/l 0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 1,3‐dichloropropane mg/l 0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Bromochloromethane mg/l 0.0005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Carbon tetrachloride mg/l 0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Chloroethane mg/l 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Chloromethane mg/l 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Dichlorodifluoromethane mg/l 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Dichloromethane mg/l 0.00002 <0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005 0.00018 0.00017 <0.00002 <0.00002 <0.00002 <0.00002 <0.00002 <0.001 Trichlorofluoromethane mg/l 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Chlorinated Alkenes 1,1‐dichloroethene mg/l 0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 3‐chloropropene mg/l 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 4‐chlorotoluene mg/l 0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 cis‐1,2‐dichloroethene mg/l 0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.001 cis‐1,3‐dichloropropene mg/l 0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Tetrachloroethene mg/l 0.00002 0.00017 0.00018 0.00016 0.00016 0.00019 <0.00002 <0.00002 <0.00002 <0.00002 <0.00002 <0.00002 <0.00002 <0.001 trans‐1,2‐dichloroethene mg/l 0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 trans‐1,3‐dichloropropene mg/l 0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Trichloroethene mg/l 0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.001 Vinyl Chloride mg/l 0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005 <0.001

Chlorinated Benzenes 1,2‐Dichlorobenzene mg/l 0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 1,3‐dichlorobenzene mg/l 0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 1,4‐dichlorobenzene mg/l 0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.001 Chlorobenzene mg/l 0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.001

Miscellaneous Hydrocarbons 1,2‐dibromoethane mg/l 0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 2‐Butanone (MEK) mg/l 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 4‐Methyl‐2‐pentanone (MIBK) mg/l 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Bromomethane mg/l 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Dibromomethane mg/l 0.0005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Iodomethane mg/l 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Monocyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 1,2,4‐trimethyl benzene mg/l 0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 1,3,5‐trimethyl benzene mg/l 0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Bromobenzene mg/l 0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Isopropylbenzene mg/l 0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Styrene mg/l 0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Organic Sulfur Compounds Carbon disulfide mg/l 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Naphthalene mg/l 0.001 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Solvents 2‐Propanone (Acetone) µg/l 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

TRHs (NEPC 2013) >C10‐C16 Fraction mg/l 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 >C16‐C34 Fraction mg/l 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 >C34‐C40 Fraction mg/l 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 >C10‐C16 less Naphthalene (F2) mg/l 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 C6‐C10 Fraction mg/l 0.01 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 C6‐C10 less BTEX (F1) mg/l 0.01 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02

Trihalomethanes Bromodichloromethane mg/l 0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Chloroform mg/l 0.0005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 Dibromochloromethane mg/l 0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Tribromomethane mg/l 0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

VOC Total MAH* mg/l 0.003

RINSATE SAMPLE RESULTS SUMMARYProject Number: 54378Project Name: Keswick Stage 2 Part B

Lab Report NumberField IDSample DateWorksSample Type

Chem_Group ChemName Units EQLBTEX Benzene mg/l 0.0001 Ethylbenzene mg/l 0.0001 Toluene mg/l 0.0001 Xylene (o) mg/l 0.0001 Xylene (m & p) mg/l 0.0002 Xylene (Total) mg/l 0.003

Chlorinated Alkanes 1,1,1,2‐tetrachloroethane mg/l 0.0001 1,1,1‐trichloroethane mg/l 0.0001 1,1,2,2‐tetrachloroethane mg/l 0.0001 1,1,2‐trichloroethane mg/l 0.0001 1,1‐dichloroethane mg/l 0.00001 1,2,3‐trichloropropane mg/l 0.0001 1,2‐dichloroethane mg/l 0.00001 1,2‐dichloropropane mg/l 0.0001 1,3‐dichloropropane mg/l 0.0001 Bromochloromethane mg/l 0.0005 Carbon tetrachloride mg/l 0.0001 Chloroethane mg/l 0.001 Chloromethane mg/l 0.001 Dichlorodifluoromethane mg/l 0.001 Dichloromethane mg/l 0.00002 Trichlorofluoromethane mg/l 0.001

Chlorinated Alkenes 1,1‐dichloroethene mg/l 0.0001 3‐chloropropene mg/l 0.001 4‐chlorotoluene mg/l 0.0001 cis‐1,2‐dichloroethene mg/l 0.00001 cis‐1,3‐dichloropropene mg/l 0.0001 Tetrachloroethene mg/l 0.00002 trans‐1,2‐dichloroethene mg/l 0.0001 trans‐1,3‐dichloropropene mg/l 0.0001 Trichloroethene mg/l 0.00001 Vinyl Chloride mg/l 0.00005

Chlorinated Benzenes 1,2‐Dichlorobenzene mg/l 0.0001 1,3‐dichlorobenzene mg/l 0.0001 1,4‐dichlorobenzene mg/l 0.00001 Chlorobenzene mg/l 0.00001

Miscellaneous Hydrocarbons 1,2‐dibromoethane mg/l 0.0001 2‐Butanone (MEK) mg/l 0.001 4‐Methyl‐2‐pentanone (MIBK) mg/l 0.001 Bromomethane mg/l 0.001 Dibromomethane mg/l 0.0005 Iodomethane mg/l 0.001

Monocyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 1,2,4‐trimethyl benzene mg/l 0.0001 1,3,5‐trimethyl benzene mg/l 0.0001 Bromobenzene mg/l 0.0001 Isopropylbenzene mg/l 0.0001 Styrene mg/l 0.0001

Organic Sulfur Compounds Carbon disulfide mg/l 0.001

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Naphthalene mg/l 0.001

Solvents 2‐Propanone (Acetone) µg/l 1

TRHs (NEPC 2013) >C10‐C16 Fraction mg/l 0.05 >C16‐C34 Fraction mg/l 0.1 >C34‐C40 Fraction mg/l 0.1 >C10‐C16 less Naphthalene (F2) mg/l 0.05 C6‐C10 Fraction mg/l 0.01 C6‐C10 less BTEX (F1) mg/l 0.01

Trihalomethanes Bromodichloromethane mg/l 0.0001 Chloroform mg/l 0.0005 Dibromochloromethane mg/l 0.0001 Tribromomethane mg/l 0.0001

VOC Total MAH* mg/l 0.003

588277 588187 600725 601763RBG RBH RB01 RB02

06‐Mar‐18 07‐Mar‐18 29‐May‐18 05‐Jun‐18GME GME Install GME

Rinsate Rinsate Rinsate Rinsate

<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001<0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002<0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003

<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001<0.001 <0.00001 <0.001 <0.001<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001<0.001 <0.00001 <0.001 <0.001<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001<0.001 <0.00002 <0.001 <0.001<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001<0.001 <0.00001 <0.001 <0.001<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001<0.001 <0.00002 <0.001 <0.001<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001<0.001 <0.00001 <0.001 <0.001<0.001 <0.00005 <0.001 <0.001

<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001<0.001 <0.00001 <0.001 <0.001<0.001 <0.00001 <0.001 <0.001

<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

<1 <1 <1 <1

<0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1<0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05<0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02<0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02

<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001<0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

<0.003 <0.003

GROUNDWATER RPD VALUE SUMMARY: FEBRUARY TO JUNE 2018Project Number: 54378Project Name: Keswick Stage 2 Part B

Lab Report Number 587318 Intra‐Lab Dup 587318 Intra‐Lab Dup 601763 Intra‐Lab Dup 13191 Inter‐Lab Dup 13191 Inter‐Lab DupField ID GW18 DUP01 RPD GWP3 DUP02 RPD GW25 DUP01 RPD GWP3 Split01 RPD GW18 Split02 RPDSample Date 27‐Feb‐18 27‐Feb‐18 27‐Feb‐18 27‐Feb‐18 05‐Jun‐18 05‐Jun‐18 27‐Feb‐18 27‐Feb‐18 27‐Feb‐18 27‐Feb‐18

Chem_Group ChemName Units EQLChlorinated Alkanes 1,1,1,2‐tetrachloroethane mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.0001 0 <0.001 <0.0001 0 1,1,1‐trichloroethane mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.0001 0 <0.001 <0.0001 0 1,1,2,2‐tetrachloroethane mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.0001 0 <0.001 <0.0001 0 1,1,2‐trichloroethane mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.0001 0 <0.001 <0.0001 0 1,1‐dichloroethane mg/l 0.00001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) <0.00001 <0.00001 0 <0.00001 <0.00001 0 <0.00001 <0.00001 0 <0.00001 <0.0001 0 <0.00001 <0.0001 0 1,2,3‐trichloropropane mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.0001 0 <0.001 <0.0001 0 1,2‐dichloroethane mg/l 0.00001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) <0.00001 <0.00001 0 <0.00001 <0.00001 0 <0.00001 <0.00001 0 <0.00001 <0.0001 0 <0.00001 <0.0001 0 1,2‐dichloropropane mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.0001 0 <0.001 <0.0001 0 1,3‐dichloropropane mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.0001 0 <0.001 <0.0001 0 Bromochloromethane mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.0005 (Interlab) <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.0005 0 <0.001 <0.0005 0 Carbon tetrachloride mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.0001 0 <0.001 <0.0001 0 Chloroethane mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.002 (Interlab) <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.002 0 <0.001 <0.002 0 Chloromethane mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.002 (Interlab) <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.002 0 <0.001 <0.002 0 Dichlorodifluoromethane mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.002 (Interlab) <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.002 0 <0.001 <0.002 0 Dichloromethane mg/l 0.00002 <0.00002 <0.00002 0 <0.00002 <0.00002 0 <0.00002 <0.00002 0 Trichlorofluoromethane mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.002 (Interlab) <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.002 0 <0.001 <0.002 0

Chlorinated Alkenes 1,1‐dichloroethene mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.0001 0 <0.001 <0.0001 0 3‐chloropropene mg/l 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 4‐chlorotoluene mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.0001 0 <0.001 <0.0001 0 cis‐1,2‐dichloroethene mg/l 0.00001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) 0.0001 0.0001 0 0.0005 0.0005 0 0.00002 <0.00001 67 0.0005 <0.0001 132 0.0001 0.0004 120 cis‐1,3‐dichloropropene mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.0001 0 <0.001 <0.0001 0 Tetrachloroethene mg/l 0.00002 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) 0.0001 0.0001 0 0.00009 0.00002 133 0.00004 0.00005 22 0.0001 <0.0001 0 0.0001 <0.0001 0 trans‐1,2‐dichloroethene mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.0001 0 <0.001 0.0005 0 trans‐1,3‐dichloropropene mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.0001 0 <0.001 <0.0001 0 Trichloroethene mg/l 0.00001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) 0.0006 0.0006 0 0.019 0.019 0 <0.00001 <0.00001 0 0.019 0.0003 194 0.0006 <0.0001 144 Vinyl Chloride mg/l 0.00005 (Primary): 0.0003 (Interlab) <0.0001 <0.0001 0 <0.0001 <0.0001 0 <0.0001 <0.0001 0 <0.0001 <0.0003 0 <0.0001 <0.0003 0

Trihalomethanes Bromodichloromethane mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.0001 0 <0.001 <0.0001 0 Chloroform mg/l 0.005 (Primary): 0.0005 (Interlab) <0.005 <0.005 0 <0.005 <0.005 0 <0.005 <0.005 0 <0.005 <0.0005 0 <0.005 <0.0005 0 Dibromochloromethane mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.0001 0 <0.001 <0.0001 0 Tribromomethane mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.0001 0 <0.001 <0.0001 0

TPHs (NEPC 1999) C6‐C9 Fraction mg/l 0.02 (Primary): 0.01 (Interlab) <0.02 <0.02 0 <0.02 <0.02 0 <0.02 <0.02 0 <0.02 <0.01 0 <0.02 0.025 22 C10‐C14 Fraction mg/l 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 C15‐C28 Fraction mg/l 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0 <0.1 <0.1 0 <0.1 <0.1 0 <0.1 <0.1 0 <0.1 <0.1 0 C29‐C36 Fraction mg/l 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0 <0.1 <0.1 0 <0.1 <0.1 0 <0.1 <0.1 0 <0.1 <0.1 0 C10‐C36 Fraction (Total) mg/l 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0 <0.1 <0.1 0 <0.1 <0.1 0

TRHs (NEPC 2013) >C10‐C16 Fraction mg/l 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 >C16‐C34 Fraction mg/l 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0 <0.1 <0.1 0 <0.1 <0.1 0 <0.1 <0.1 0 <0.1 <0.1 0 >C34‐C40 Fraction mg/l 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0 <0.1 <0.1 0 <0.1 <0.1 0 <0.1 <0.1 0 <0.1 <0.1 0 >C10‐C16 less Naphthalene (F2) mg/l 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 C6‐C10 Fraction mg/l 0.02 (Primary): 0.01 (Interlab) <0.02 <0.02 0 <0.02 <0.02 0 <0.02 <0.02 0 <0.02 <0.01 0 <0.02 0.026 26 C6‐C10 less BTEX (F1) mg/l 0.02 (Primary): 0.01 (Interlab) <0.02 <0.02 0 <0.02 <0.02 0 <0.02 <0.02 0 <0.02 <0.01 0 <0.02 0.026 26

BTEX Benzene mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.0001 0 <0.001 <0.0001 0 Ethylbenzene mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.0001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 Toluene mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.0001 0 <0.001 <0.0001 0 Xylene (o) mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.0001 0 <0.001 <0.0001 0 Xylene (m & p) mg/l 0.002 (Primary): 0.0002 (Interlab) <0.002 <0.002 0 <0.002 <0.002 0 <0.002 <0.002 0 <0.002 <0.0002 0 <0.002 <0.0002 0 Xylene (Total) mg/l 0.003 <0.003 <0.003 0 <0.003 <0.003 0 <0.003 <0.003 0

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Naphthalene mg/l 0.01 (Primary): 0.001 (Interlab) <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.001 0 <0.01 <0.001 0

Monocyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 1,2,4‐trimethyl benzene mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.0001 0 <0.001 <0.0001 0 1,3,5‐trimethyl benzene mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.0001 0 <0.001 <0.0001 0 Bromobenzene mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.0001 0 <0.001 <0.0001 0 Isopropylbenzene mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.0001 0 <0.001 <0.0001 0 Styrene mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 0.0013 26 <0.001 0.0018 57

Miscellaneous Hydrocarbons 1,2‐dibromoethane mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.0001 0 <0.001 <0.0001 0 2‐Butanone (MEK) mg/l 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 4‐Methyl‐2‐pentanone (MIBK) mg/l 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 Bromomethane mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.002 (Interlab) <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.002 0 <0.001 <0.002 0 Dibromomethane mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.0005 (Interlab) <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.0005 0 <0.001 <0.0005 0 Iodomethane mg/l 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0

Chlorinated Benzenes 1,2‐Dichlorobenzene mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.0001 0 <0.001 <0.0001 0 1,3‐dichlorobenzene mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.0001 0 <0.001 <0.0001 0 1,4‐dichlorobenzene mg/l 0.00001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) <0.0001 <0.0001 0 <0.0001 <0.0001 0 <0.0001 <0.0001 0 <0.0001 <0.0001 0 <0.0001 <0.0001 0 Chlorobenzene mg/l 0.00001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) <0.0001 <0.0001 0 <0.0001 <0.0001 0 <0.0001 <0.0001 0 <0.0001 <0.0001 0 <0.0001 <0.0001 0

Solvents 2‐Propanone (Acetone) µg/l 1 <1.0 <1.0 0 <1.0 <1.0 0 <1.0 <1.0 0

Organic Sulfur Compounds Carbon disulfide mg/l 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0 <0.001 <0.001 0*Elevated RPDs are in bold (acceptable RPDs considered to be 0 % to 30 % as consistant with the ASC NEPM [NEPC 2013]).**Interlab Duplicates are matched on a per compound basis as methods vary between laboratories. Any methods in the row header relate to those used in the primary laboratory.

GROUNDWATER RPD VALUE SUMMARY: FEBRUARY TO JUNE 2018Project Number: 54378Project Name: Keswick Stage 2 Part B

Lab Report NumberField IDSample Date

Chem_Group ChemName Units EQLChlorinated Alkanes 1,1,1,2‐tetrachloroethane mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) 1,1,1‐trichloroethane mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) 1,1,2,2‐tetrachloroethane mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) 1,1,2‐trichloroethane mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) 1,1‐dichloroethane mg/l 0.00001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) 1,2,3‐trichloropropane mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) 1,2‐dichloroethane mg/l 0.00001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) 1,2‐dichloropropane mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) 1,3‐dichloropropane mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) Bromochloromethane mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.0005 (Interlab) Carbon tetrachloride mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) Chloroethane mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.002 (Interlab) Chloromethane mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.002 (Interlab) Dichlorodifluoromethane mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.002 (Interlab) Dichloromethane mg/l 0.00002 Trichlorofluoromethane mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.002 (Interlab)

Chlorinated Alkenes 1,1‐dichloroethene mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) 3‐chloropropene mg/l 0.001 4‐chlorotoluene mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) cis‐1,2‐dichloroethene mg/l 0.00001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) cis‐1,3‐dichloropropene mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) Tetrachloroethene mg/l 0.00002 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) trans‐1,2‐dichloroethene mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) trans‐1,3‐dichloropropene mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) Trichloroethene mg/l 0.00001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) Vinyl Chloride mg/l 0.00005 (Primary): 0.0003 (Interlab)

Trihalomethanes Bromodichloromethane mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) Chloroform mg/l 0.005 (Primary): 0.0005 (Interlab) Dibromochloromethane mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) Tribromomethane mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab)

TPHs (NEPC 1999) C6‐C9 Fraction mg/l 0.02 (Primary): 0.01 (Interlab) C10‐C14 Fraction mg/l 0.05 C15‐C28 Fraction mg/l 0.1 C29‐C36 Fraction mg/l 0.1 C10‐C36 Fraction (Total) mg/l 0.1

TRHs (NEPC 2013) >C10‐C16 Fraction mg/l 0.05 >C16‐C34 Fraction mg/l 0.1 >C34‐C40 Fraction mg/l 0.1 >C10‐C16 less Naphthalene (F2) mg/l 0.05 C6‐C10 Fraction mg/l 0.02 (Primary): 0.01 (Interlab) C6‐C10 less BTEX (F1) mg/l 0.02 (Primary): 0.01 (Interlab)

BTEX Benzene mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) Ethylbenzene mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) Toluene mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) Xylene (o) mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) Xylene (m & p) mg/l 0.002 (Primary): 0.0002 (Interlab) Xylene (Total) mg/l 0.003

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Naphthalene mg/l 0.01 (Primary): 0.001 (Interlab)

Monocyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 1,2,4‐trimethyl benzene mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) 1,3,5‐trimethyl benzene mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) Bromobenzene mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) Isopropylbenzene mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) Styrene mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab)

Miscellaneous Hydrocarbons 1,2‐dibromoethane mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) 2‐Butanone (MEK) mg/l 0.001 4‐Methyl‐2‐pentanone (MIBK) mg/l 0.001 Bromomethane mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.002 (Interlab) Dibromomethane mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.0005 (Interlab) Iodomethane mg/l 0.001

Chlorinated Benzenes 1,2‐Dichlorobenzene mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) 1,3‐dichlorobenzene mg/l 0.001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) 1,4‐dichlorobenzene mg/l 0.00001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab) Chlorobenzene mg/l 0.00001 (Primary): 0.0001 (Interlab)

Solvents 2‐Propanone (Acetone) µg/l 1

Organic Sulfur Compounds Carbon disulfide mg/l 0.001 *Elevated RPDs are in bold (acceptable RPDs considered to be 0 % to 30 % as consistant with the ASC NEPM [NEPC 2013]).**Interlab Duplicates are matched on a per compound basis as methods vary between laboratories. Any methods in the row header relate to those used in the primary laboratory.

601763 Inter‐Lab DupGW25 Split01 RPD

05‐Jun‐18 05‐Jun‐18

<0.001 <0.0001 0<0.001 <0.0001 0<0.001 <0.0001 0<0.001 <0.0001 0

<0.00001 <0.0001 0<0.001 <0.0001 0

<0.00001 <0.0001 0<0.001 <0.0001 0<0.001 <0.0001 0<0.001 <0.0005 0<0.001 <0.0001 0<0.001 <0.002 0<0.001 <0.002 0<0.001 <0.002 0

<0.001 <0.002 0

<0.001 <0.0001 0

<0.001 <0.0001 00.00002 <0.0001 133<0.001 <0.0001 00.00004 <0.0001 86<0.001 <0.0001 0<0.001 <0.0001 0

<0.00001 <0.0001 0<0.0001 <0.0002 0

<0.001 <0.0001 0<0.005 <0.0005 0<0.001 <0.0001 0<0.001 <0.0001 0

<0.02 <0.01 0<0.05 <0.05 0<0.1 <0.1 0<0.1 <0.1 0

<0.05 <0.05 0<0.1 <0.1 0<0.1 <0.1 0<0.05 <0.05 0<0.02 <0.01 0<0.02 <0.01 0

<0.001 <0.0001 0<0.001 <0.0001 0<0.001 <0.0001 0<0.001 <0.0001 0<0.002 <0.0002 0

<0.01 <0.001 0

<0.001 <0.0001 0<0.001 <0.0001 0<0.001 <0.0001 0<0.001 <0.0001 0<0.001 <0.0001 0

<0.001 <0.0001 0

<0.001 <0.002 0<0.001 <0.0005 0

<0.001 <0.0001 0<0.001 <0.0001 0<0.0 <0.0001 0<0.0 <0.0001 0

GROUNDWATER TRIP BLANK SAMPLE RESULTS SUMMARYProject Number: 54378Project Name: Keswick Stage 2 Part B

Lab Report Number 587318 587755 588277 588187 601763Field ID TB01 TB02 TB03 TB04 TB01Sample Date 26‐Feb‐18 01‐Mar‐18 21‐Feb‐18 07‐Mar‐18 05‐Jun‐18Sample Type Trip Blank Trip Blank Trip Blank Trip Blank Trip Blank

Chem_Group ChemName Units EQLBTEX Benzene mg/l 0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Ethylbenzene mg/l 0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Toluene mg/l 0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Xylene (o) mg/l 0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Xylene (m & p) mg/l 0.0002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 Xylene (Total) mg/l 0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003

Chlorinated Alkanes 1,1,1,2‐tetrachloroethane mg/l 0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 1,1,1‐trichloroethane mg/l 0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 1,1,2,2‐tetrachloroethane mg/l 0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 1,1,2‐trichloroethane mg/l 0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 1,1‐dichloroethane mg/l 0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.001 <0.00001 <0.001 1,2,3‐trichloropropane mg/l 0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 1,2‐dichloroethane mg/l 0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.001 <0.00001 <0.001 1,2‐dichloropropane mg/l 0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 1,3‐dichloropropane mg/l 0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Bromochloromethane mg/l 0.0005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Carbon tetrachloride mg/l 0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Chloroethane mg/l 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Chloromethane mg/l 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Dichlorodifluoromethane mg/l 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Dichloromethane mg/l 0.00002 <0.00002 <0.00002 <0.001 <0.00002 <0.001 Trichlorofluoromethane mg/l 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Chlorinated Alkenes 1,1‐dichloroethene mg/l 0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 3‐chloropropene mg/l 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 4‐chlorotoluene mg/l 0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 cis‐1,2‐dichloroethene mg/l 0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.001 <0.00001 <0.001 cis‐1,3‐dichloropropene mg/l 0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Tetrachloroethene mg/l 0.00002 <0.00002 <0.00002 <0.001 <0.00002 <0.001 trans‐1,2‐dichloroethene mg/l 0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 trans‐1,3‐dichloropropene mg/l 0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Trichloroethene mg/l 0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.001 <0.00001 <0.001 Vinyl Chloride mg/l 0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005 <0.001 <0.00005 <0.001

Chlorinated Benzenes 1,2‐Dichlorobenzene mg/l 0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 1,3‐dichlorobenzene mg/l 0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 1,4‐dichlorobenzene mg/l 0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.001 <0.00001 <0.001 Chlorobenzene mg/l 0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.001 <0.00001 <0.001

Miscellaneous Hydrocarbons 1,2‐dibromoethane mg/l 0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 2‐Butanone (MEK) mg/l 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 4‐Methyl‐2‐pentanone (MIBK) mg/l 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Bromomethane mg/l 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Dibromomethane mg/l 0.0005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Iodomethane mg/l 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Monocyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 1,2,4‐trimethyl benzene mg/l 0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 1,3,5‐trimethyl benzene mg/l 0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Bromobenzene mg/l 0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Isopropylbenzene mg/l 0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Styrene mg/l 0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Organic Sulfur Compounds Carbon disulfide mg/l 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Naphthalene mg/l 0.001 <0.01 <0.01

Solvents 2‐Propanone (Acetone) µg/l 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

TRHs (NEPC 2013) >C10‐C16 Fraction mg/l 0.05 <0.05 >C16‐C34 Fraction mg/l 0.1 <0.1 >C34‐C40 Fraction mg/l 0.1 <0.1 >C10‐C16 less Naphthalene (F2) mg/l 0.05 <0.05 C6‐C10 Fraction mg/l 0.01 <0.02 <0.02 C6‐C10 less BTEX (F1) mg/l 0.01 <0.02 <0.02

Trihalomethanes Bromodichloromethane mg/l 0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Chloroform mg/l 0.0005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 Dibromochloromethane mg/l 0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Tribromomethane mg/l 0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

VOC Total MAH* mg/l 0.003 <0.003

GROUNDWATER TRIP SPIKE SAMPLE RESULTS SUMMARYProject Number: 54378Project Name: Keswick Stage 2 Part B

Lab Report Number 587318 587755 588187 601763Field ID WSP5913 WSP5917 WSP5918 WSP6097Sample Date 21‐Feb‐18 21‐Feb‐18 21‐Feb‐18 05‐Jun‐18Sample Type Trip Spike Trip Spike Trip Spike Trip Spike

Chem_Group ChemName Units EQLBTEX Benzene % 1 120 110 82 110 Ethylbenzene % 1 98 81 78 110 Toluene % 1 96 89 95 110 Xylene (o) % 1 100 97 94 110 Xylene (m & p) % 1 90 81 74 110 Xylene (Total) % 1 93 86 81 110

Chlorinated Alkanes 1,1,1‐trichloroethane % 1 120 1,2‐dichloroethane % 1 110

Chlorinated Alkenes 1,1‐dichloroethene % 1 110 Trichloroethene % 1 100

Chlorinated Benzenes 1,2‐Dichlorobenzene % 1 110

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Naphthalene % 1 82 98 94

TRHs (NEPC 2013) C6‐C10 Fraction % 1 83 76 77

HELIUM LEAK TEST RESULTS SUMMARYProject Number: 54378Project Name: Keswick Stage 2 Part B

Backgrou

nd Helium (A

mbien

t Air)

Backgrou

nd Helium (W

ithin Soil V

apou

r Prob

e) ‐ Prior to Ad

ditio

n of Helium

Maxim

um Helium Rep

orted Ove

r 5

Minutes of A

ddiiton

of H

elium

Helium Lev

el Abo

ve Backgroun

d

Shroud

Helium Con

centratio

n

Percen

tage

Helium in

Sam

ple

Leak Test A

ssessm

ent

ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm % ‐

Field ID Sample DateGP03 20‐Feb‐18 0 0 0 0 900,000 0 PassGP04 19‐Feb‐18 0 0 0 0 900,000 0 PassGP08 20‐Feb‐18 0 0 0 0 900,000 0 PassGP11 20‐Feb‐18 0 0 0 0 900,000 0 PassGP12 20‐Feb‐18 0 0 0 0 900,000 0 PassVP01 19‐Feb‐18 0 0 0 0 900,000 0 PassVP02 19‐Feb‐18 0 0 0 0 900,000 0 PassVP03 19‐Feb‐18 0 0 0 0 900,000 0 PassVP04 19‐Feb‐18 0 0 0 0 900,000 0 PassVP05 19‐Feb‐18 0 0 0 0 900,000 0 PassVP06 19‐Feb‐18 0 0 0 0 900,000 0 PassVP07 19‐Feb‐18 0 0 0 0 900,000 0 PassVP08 19‐Feb‐18 0 0 0 0 900,000 0 PassVP09 20‐Feb‐18 0 2,000 2,000 0 900,000 0 PassVP10 20‐Feb‐18 0 0 0 0 900,000 0 PassVP11 20‐Feb‐18 0 0 2,000 2,000 900,000 0.2 PassVP12 13‐Mar‐18 0 0 0 0 500,000 0 PassVP13 13‐Mar‐18 0 0 0 0 500,000 0 PassVP14 13‐Mar‐18 0 0 0 0 900,000 0 PassVP15 13‐Mar‐18 0 0 0 0 200,000 0 PassVP16 13‐Mar‐18 0 0 3,000 3,000 300,000 1.0 Pass

ISOPROPANOL LEAK TEST RESULTS SUMMARY: FEBRUARY / MARCH 2018Project Number: 54378Project Name: Keswick Stage 2 Part B

2‐Prop

anol

Percen

tage

Isop

ropa

nol in Sample

Leak Test A

ssessm

ent

µg/m3 % ‐1.2 ‐ ‐

Field ID Sample Date Laboratory Lab Report NumberShroud01#1 19‐Feb‐18 Envirolab 185724 240,000 - -

Shroud02#2 20‐Feb‐18 Envirolab 185724 2,700,000 - -

Shroud01#3 13‐Mar‐18 Envirolab 187281 1,800,000 - -GP03 20‐Feb‐18 Envirolab 185724 <600 0.02 % PassGP04 19‐Feb‐18 Envirolab 185724 70 0.03 % PassGP08 20‐Feb‐18 Envirolab 185724 200,000 7.41 % PassGP11 20‐Feb‐18 Envirolab 185724 1200 0.04 % PassGP12 20‐Feb‐18 Envirolab 185724 <600 0.02 % PassVP01 19‐Feb‐18 Envirolab 185724 80 0.03 % PassVP02 19‐Feb‐18 Envirolab 185724 3,600 1.50 % PassVP03 19‐Feb‐18 Envirolab 185724 150 0.06 % PassVP04 19‐Feb‐18 Envirolab 185724 <120 0.05 % PassVP05 19‐Feb‐18 Envirolab 185724 190 0.08 % PassVP06 19‐Feb‐18 Envirolab 185724 440 0.18 % PassVP07 19‐Feb‐18 Envirolab 185724 <50 0.02 % PassVP08 19‐Feb‐18 Envirolab 185724 20 <0.01 % PassVP09 20‐Feb‐18 Envirolab 185724 <50 <0.01 % PassVP10 20‐Feb‐18 Envirolab 185724 130 <0.01 % PassVP11 20‐Feb‐18 Envirolab 185724 400 0.02 % PassVP12 13‐Mar‐18 Envirolab 187281 220 0.01 % PassVP13 13‐Mar‐18 Envirolab 187281 <12 <0.01 % PassVP14 13‐Mar‐18 Envirolab 187281 61,000 3.39 % PassVP15 13‐Mar‐18 Envirolab 187281 130 <0.01 % PassVP16 13‐Mar‐18 Envirolab 187281 <12 <0.01 % PassDUP03 20‐Feb‐18 Envirolab 185724 220,000 8.15 % PassDUP04 20‐Feb‐18 ALS EN1801792 <24 <0.01 % PassDUP01 13‐Mar‐18 Envirolab 187281 50 <0.01 % Pass

Notes:#1:Isopropanol concentration reported in this sample adopted to assess soil vapour samples collected on 19 February 2018 (GP04 and VP01‐VP08).#2:Isopropanol concentration reported in this sample adopted to assess soil vapour samples collected on 20 February 2018 (GP03, GP08, GP11, GP12, VP09‐VP11, DUP03 and DUP04).#3:Isopropanol concentration reported in this sample adopted to assess soil vapour samples collected on 13 March 2018 (VP12‐VP16 and DUP01).

EQL

SOIL VAPOUR RPD VALUE SUMMARY TABLE: FEBRUARY/MARCH 2018Project Number: 54378Project Name: Keswick Stage 2

Lab Report Number 185724 Intra‐Lab Dup 187281 Intra‐Lab Dup 185724 Inter‐Lab DupField ID GP08 DUP03 RPD VP12 DUP01 RPD GP11 DUP04 RPDMedia Soil Vapour Soil Vapour Soil Vapour Soil Vapour Soil Vapour Soil VapourSample Type Summa Canister Summa Canister Summa Canister Summa Canister Summa Canister Summa CanisterSample Date 20‐Feb‐18 20‐Feb‐18 13‐Mar‐18 13‐Mar‐18 20‐Feb‐18 20‐Feb‐18

Chem_Group ChemName Units EQLOrganic Alcohols Isopropyl alcohol µg/m3 12 200000.0 220000.0 10 220.0 50.0 126 1200.0 <24.0 192

Chlorinated Alkanes Carbon tetrachloride µg/m3 3.1 <160.0 <160.0 0 <3.1 <3.1 0 <160.0 <62.0 0

Chlorinated Alkenes 1,1‐dichloroethene µg/m3 2 <100.0 <100.0 0 <2.0 <2.0 0 <100.0 <40.0 0cis‐1,2‐dichloroethene µg/m3 2 <100.0 <100.0 0 <2.0 <2.0 0 <100.0 <40.0 0Tetrachloroethene µg/m3 3.4 <170.0 <170.0 0 <3.4 <3.4 0 680.0 298.0 78trans‐1,2‐dichloroethene µg/m3 2 <100.0 <100.0 0 <2.0 <2.0 0 <100.0 <40.0 0Trichloroethene µg/m3 1.6 (Primary): 1.1 360.0 270.0 29 36.0 37.0 3 100000.0 108000.0 8Vinyl Chloride µg/m3 0.8 (Primary) <40.0 <40.0 0 <0.8 <0.8 0 <40.0 <26.0 0

Trihalomethanes Chloroform µg/m3 2.4 <120.0 <120.0 0 8.0 8.0 0 <120.0 97.6 0*Elevated RPDs are in bold (acceptable RPDs considered to be 0 % to 30 % as consistant with the ASC NEPM [NEPC 2013]).**Interlab Duplicates are matched on a per compound basis as methods vary between laboratories. Any methods in the row header relate to those used in the primary laboratory.

SOIL VAPOUR SUMMA CANISTER SAMPLE PRESSURE SUMMARY: FEBRUARY / MARCH 2018Project Number: 54378Project Name: Keswick Stage 2 Part B

Pressure at L

aboratory

Pre Sampling Pressure

Post Sam

pling Pressure

Fina

l Lab

oratory Re

ceipt P

ressure

Pressure Differen

ce Betwee

n Labo

ratory and

Pre‐Sam

pling

Pressure Differen

ce Betwee

n Po

st‐

Sampling an

d Fina

l Lab

oratory

Total P

ressure Differen

ce

Leak Test A

ssessm

ent

Sample ID Laboratory Sampling Date Lab ReportGP03 20‐Feb‐18 Envirolab 185724 ‐30.0 ‐30.0 ‐4.0 ‐3.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 PassGP04 19‐Feb‐18 Envirolab 185724 ‐30.0 ‐30.0 ‐5.0 ‐7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PassGP08 20‐Feb‐18 Envirolab 185724 ‐30.0 ‐30.0 ‐5.0 ‐6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PassGP11 20‐Feb‐18 Envirolab 185724 ‐30.0 ‐30.0 ‐6.0 ‐6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PassGP12 20‐Feb‐18 Envirolab 185724 ‐30.0 ‐30.0 ‐5.0 ‐3.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 PassVP01 19‐Feb‐18 Envirolab 185724 ‐30.0 ‐30.0 ‐10.0 ‐10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PassVP02 19‐Feb‐18 Envirolab 185724 ‐30.0 ‐30.0 ‐5.0 ‐7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PassVP03 19‐Feb‐18 Envirolab 185724 ‐30.0 ‐30.0 ‐5.0 ‐6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PassVP04 19‐Feb‐18 Envirolab 185724 ‐30.0 ‐30.0 ‐29.0 ‐27.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 PassVP05 19‐Feb‐18 Envirolab 185724 ‐30.0 ‐30.0 ‐4.0 ‐4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PassVP06 19‐Feb‐18 Envirolab 185724 ‐30.0 ‐30.0 ‐26.0 ‐26.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PassVP07 19‐Feb‐18 Envirolab 185724 ‐30.0 ‐30.0 ‐5.0 ‐6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PassVP08 19‐Feb‐18 Envirolab 185724 ‐30.0 ‐30.0 ‐5.0 ‐6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PassVP09 20‐Feb‐18 Envirolab 185724 ‐30.0 ‐30.0 ‐5.5 ‐8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PassVP10 20‐Feb‐18 Envirolab 185724 ‐30.0 ‐30.0 ‐5.0 ‐5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PassVP11 20‐Feb‐18 Envirolab 185724 ‐30.0 ‐30.0 ‐24.0 ‐24.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PassVP12 13‐Mar‐18 Envirolab 187281 ‐30.0 ‐30.0 ‐6.0 ‐7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PassVP13 13‐Mar‐18 Envirolab 187281 ‐30.0 ‐30.0 ‐7.0 ‐8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PassVP14 13‐Mar‐18 Envirolab 187281 ‐30.0 ‐30.0 ‐25.0 ‐26.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PassVP15 13‐Mar‐18 Envirolab 187281 ‐30.0 ‐30.0 ‐29.0 ‐29.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PassVP16 13‐Mar‐18 Envirolab 187281 ‐30.0 ‐30.0 ‐15.0 ‐15.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PassDUP03 20‐Feb‐18 Envirolab 185724 ‐30.0 ‐30.0 ‐18.0 ‐17.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 PassDUP04 20‐Feb‐18 ALS EN1801792 ‐30.0 ‐30.0 ‐5.0 ‐6.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 PassDUP01 13‐Mar‐18 Envirolab 187281 ‐30.0 ‐30.0 ‐6.0 ‐7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pass

Shroud01 19‐Feb‐18 Envirolab 185724 ‐30.0 ‐30.0 ‐4.0 ‐3.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 PassShroud02 20‐Feb‐18 Envirolab 185724 ‐30.0 ‐30.0 ‐4.0 ‐3.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 PassShroud01 13‐Mar‐18 Envirolab 187281 ‐30.0 ‐30.0 ‐5.0 ‐7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pass

keswick assessment stage 2 (part b), july 2018€¦ · ©jbs&g australia pty ltd | 54378-115327...

Documents