Summary of Site Condition and Suitability for Use Kingswood Golf Course, 179-217 Centre Dandenong Road, Dingley Village Prepared for: AS Residential Property No.1 Pty Ltd

Introduction

m1107408_004_rpt_rev0 i

Distribution

Summary Site Condition and Suitability for Use Kingswood Golf Course, 179-217 Centre Dandenong Road, Dingley Village 19 April 2017

Copies Recipient Copies Recipient

1 PDF

ASRP1 Pty Ltd C/o ISPT Pty Ltd

1 PDF Senversa Project File

1 Reliance - This document has been prepared solely for the use of AS Residential Property No.1 Pty Ltd. No responsibility or liability

to any third party is accepted for any damages arising out of the use of this document by any third party.

2 Copyright and Intellectual Property – © Senversa Pty Ltd. Intellectual property in relation to the methodology undertaken during

the creation of this document remains the property of Senversa.

3 Principles and Limitations of Investigation - This document is issued subject to the technical principles, limitations and assumptions provided in Section 9.0.

4 Confidentiality – This report was prepared for AS Residential Property No.1 Pty Ltd and may contain confidential information.

Permission from Senversa and AS Residential Property No.1 Pty Ltd should be sought before any written reference to the contents

of this report is made public that identifies any people, person, address or location named within or involved in the preparation of this

report.

Senversa Pty Ltd ABN: 89 132 231 380 Level 6, 15 William Street, Melbourne VIC 3000 tel: + 61 3 9606 0070; fax: + 61 3 9606 0074 www.senversa.com.au

Primary Author

Qualified

Signatory

Christopher Sandiford Senior Associate Certified Practitioner: Site Assessment and Management (SCP Australia)

Michael Rehfisch Senior Principal

Introduction

m1107408_004_rpt_rev0 ii

Contents

1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 About Senversa ............................................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Background and Objectives ......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Summary of Investigation Works Completed ............................................................................................................. 2

2.0 Site Assessment Works Completed ............................................................................................................................ 3 2.1 Overview of Studies ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 NAA Site Assessment Works ....................................................................................................................................... 3

2.2.1 Preliminary Site Investigation ............................................................................................................................. 3 2.2.2 Targeted Soil Contamination Assessment .......................................................................................................... 4

2.3 Senversa Supplementary Environmental Site Assessment Works ........................................................................... 5 2.3.1 Preliminary Landfill Gas Assessment ................................................................................................................. 5 2.3.2 Supplementary Environmental Site Assessment ................................................................................................ 5 2.3.3 Further Environmental Site Assessment ............................................................................................................. 6

2.4 Off-site Assessment Undertaken – Former Spring Road Landfill.............................................................................. 6

3.0 Conclusions and Recommendations .......................................................................................................................... 8 3.1 Overall Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................................... 8 3.2 Conclusion on Need for Environmental Audit ............................................................................................................ 8 3.3 Recommendations ........................................................................................................................................................ 9

4.0 Principles and Limitations of Investigation .............................................................................................................. 11

Figure Figure 1: Assessment Location Plan

Introduction

m1107408_004_rpt_rev0 1

1.0 Introduction

Senversa Pty Ltd was engaged to assist AS Residential Property No.1 Pty Ltd (ASRP1) with contaminated land advice and identification of land use constraints in relation to the proposed redevelopment of the Kingswood Golf Course, 179-217 Centre Dandenong Road, Dingley Village (the site).

1.1 About Senversa

Senversa is a specialist environmental consulting firm. Our key staff members provide high quality skills and experience in soil and groundwater contamination assessment, landfill gas and soil vapour risk assessment, management and remediation and have a proven track record in building high quality consulting teams. Senversa has a strong knowledge of regulatory requirements associated with contaminated land assessment and has 10 EPA-appointed Environmental Auditors (six of which are Victoria appointed). Senversa is also a member of the Australian Contaminated Land Consultants Association as well as having individual memberships with the Australasian Land & Groundwater Association, which are considered to be Australia’s peak industry bodies of land assessment and remediation.

1.2 Background and Objectives

ASRP1 purchased the site in early 2015 and propose to redevelop the site into a mixed use residential development (including low density), potentially with some commercial buildings.

The site has been used as a golf course since approximately 1937 with facilities including; 18 hole course, several surface water bodies of which stormwater from surrounding streets feed into, club house with grease trap and maintenance facilities including storage sheds and offices, workshop, bunded above-ground fuel storage, vehicle/chemical wash down area with triple interceptor trap (TIT) and pesticide / herbicide storage areas. Further, the site is located within a region of historical municipal landfilling (either solid inert or putrescible waste), including the former Spring Road Landfill, located immediately east of the site over Spring Road.

ASRP1 requires this advice to demonstrate to the Responsible Authority (currently City of Kingston) that the site is, or can be made suitable for the proposed residential use. The basis for this requirement includes Section 12 and Section 60 of the Planning & Environment Act, as articulated in Clause 13.03-1 of the City of Kingston Planning Scheme, which has the objective of ensuring that potentially contaminated land is suitable for its intended future use and development, and that contaminated land is used safely.

To demonstrate this, applicant must …provide adequate information on the potential for contamination to have adverse effects on the future land use, where the subject land is known to have been used for industry, mining or the storage of chemicals, gas, waste or liquid fuel [Clause 13.03-1].

Reference policy guidance outlined in the planning scheme to support these considerations comprises:

• State environment protection policy (Prevention and Management of Contamination of Land).

• Ministerial Direction No.1 – Potentially Contaminated Land.

• National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measures (National Environment Protection Council, 1999) [Amended 2013].

Further to the requirements of the planning scheme, Senversa has used the Potentially Contaminated Land - General Practice Note (DSE, 2005) (Practice Note) as a means of demonstrating that

Introduction

m1107408_004_rpt_rev0 2

strategies are in place to effectively manage contamination such that the site can be made suitable for use.

The objective of this advice is to demonstrate an understanding of past historical land uses, their potential to adversely impact land and groundwater (including consideration of landfill gas and surface water), and to form an opinion, based on the collective weight of evidence from several phases of environmental site assessment works (including intrusive works), on the suitability of the site for the proposed redevelopment land use(s). An additional objective is to outline measures necessary to manage risks where contamination is identified, as a part of the redevelopment of the site.

This basis for forming an opinion on the suitability of the site for the proposed development is consistent with the reference policy guidance outlined in the Kingston Planning Scheme.

1.3 Summary of Investigation Works Completed

In support of the proposed planning scheme amendment, the following environmental assessment works have been completed at the site:

1. Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI)

A PSI was conducted by Noel Arnold & Associates to determine historical site uses and whether or not potentially contaminating activities have occurred at the site. The identified potential sources of contamination and recommended that a Detailed Site Investigation (DSI) be completed, the process recommended in the NEPM.

2. Targeted Soil Contamination Assessment

Following the PSI, Noel Arnold & Associates completed an intrusive soil sampling assessment to target potential sources of contamination identified in the PSI.

3. Environmental Site Assessments

Prior to and after ASRP1’s purchase of the site, Senversa reviewed all previous environmental investigations undertaken at the site and recommended completion of a series of further intrusive Environmental Site Assessments. These assessments were undertaken to ensure consistency with the requirements of the NEPM in developing an understanding of the risks posed by the historical activities at the site on the proposed future use(s). This comprised:

a. Preliminary Landfill Gas Assessment (LFG)

The Preliminary LFG Assessment was undertaken to assess the risk of LFG migrating from the adjacent former Spring Road Landfill, onto the site.

b. Supplementary ESA

The Supplementary ESA was undertaken to assess the potential for site-derived contamination at select locations, and potential for LFG and impacted groundwater from the neighbouring former Spring Road Landfill to impact on the proposed redevelopment.

c. Further ESA

The further ESA was completed to assess whether surface water, groundwater and LFG impacts (if present) were considered acceptable for the proposed future land use without ongoing environmental management requirements or development constraints.

4. Geotechnical Investigation

The Geotechnical Investigation was undertaken to assess the geological and geotechnical considerations for the proposed redevelopment.

These investigations have collectively been used to demonstrate to the responsible authority the condition of the site and its suitability for the proposed use(s).

Site Assessment Works Completed

m1107408_004_rpt_rev0 3

2.0 Site Assessment Works Completed

2.1 Overview of Studies

Between 2014 and 2015, several environmental investigations have been completed at the site as listed below in chronological order (copies of all the assessment reports are provided as part of this lodgement application).

• NAA, 2014a. Preliminary Site Investigation, Peninsula Kingswood Country Golf Club, 179-217 Centre Dandenong Road, Dingley Village, Noel Arnold and Associates.

• NAA, 2014b. Targeted Soil Contamination Assessment, Peninsula Kingswood Country Golf Club, 179-217 Centre Dandenong Road, Dingley Village, Noel Arnold and Associates.

• Senversa, 2014. Preliminary Landfill Gas Assessment, 179-217 Centre Dandenong Road, Dingley Village, Senversa Pty Ltd.

• Coffey, 2015. Report on a Geotechnical Investigation, Kingswood Golf Course Redevelopment, Coffey Geotechnics Pty Ltd.

• Senversa, 2015a. Supplementary Environmental Site Assessment, Kingswood Golf Course, 179-217 Centre Dandenong Road, Dingley Village, Senversa Pty Ltd.

• Senversa, 2015b. Further Environmental Site Assessment, Kingswood Golf Course, 179-217 Centre Dandenong Road, Dingley Village, Senversa Pty Ltd.

Pertinent findings of previous environmental assessments are summarised in the sections below.

2.2 NAA Site Assessment Works

2.2.1 Preliminary Site Investigation

The PSI was undertaken by NAA to assess the potential for and location of soil and / or groundwater contamination at the site. The site history review and inspection identified the following potential sources of contamination on-site: historical building demolition (residential farmhouse, chemical store), historical maintenance facility with associated fuel storage (likely to have been in 44 gallon drums), existing maintenance facility and associated TIT, bunded waste oil above ground storage tank (AST), bunded diesel and unleaded petrol AST, petrol and oil interceptor, bunded fertiliser and chemical storage area, used chemical storage area, two disused mobile ASTs, grease interceptor trap and TIT east of the clubhouse, historical agricultural use and imported fill (potentially from a nearby service station).

Three Type 2 landfills (i.e. putrescible waste filled) were identified within 500 m of the site which were recognised as potential off-site sources of contamination. It was recommended that discussions be held between Environment Protection Authority (Victoria) (EPA) and the relevant planning authority to assess the requirement for a LFG investigation to assess potential impact from surrounding landfills.

Based on the PSI, NAA recommended completion of a Detailed Site investigation (DSI), with the objective of further assessing the nature of contamination at the site to a sufficient degree to be able to assess risk and provide a basis for an appropriate management strategy.

Site Assessment Works Completed

m1107408_004_rpt_rev0 4

2.2.2 Targeted Soil Contamination Assessment

NAA developed a scope of work consistent with the recommendations of the PSI, to target potential sources of contamination identified within the PSI phase of works. NAA completed a Targeted Soil Contamination Assessment which included 21 targeted soil bores surrounding the existing and former maintenance facility areas and historical building demolition area. NAA did not extend the sampling to assess broader areas of the site such as fairways and greens. An extract of the sampling locations in the NAA report is presented below.

Source: NAA, 2014b. Targeted Soil Contamination Assessment

Soil samples were analysed for Contaminants of Potential Concern (CoPC) which included selected samples being analysed for: heavy metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, pesticides and herbicides.

With the exception of one elevated concentration of zinc above adopted investigation levels, all detectable concentrations of CoPC were less than the adopted NEPM assessment criteria or below laboratory detection limits. Of the samples analysed for pesticides and herbicides, DDT was detected in two of 24 samples with the highest concentration being location HA10_0.1 (0.38 mg/kg) near the maintenance facility, compared to the adopted criteria (240 mg/kg) for consideration of a sensitive residential land use. The results of the investigation indicated that the risk posed to human health and the environment was considered to be low and acceptable. Given the low and acceptable reported concentrations, NAA did not make any specific management recommendations.

Site Assessment Works Completed

m1107408_004_rpt_rev0 5

2.3 Senversa Supplementary Environmental Site Assessment Works

Senversa was commissioned to independently review all previous works and recommend additional environmental site investigation works, where required, to improve the understanding of risks to the proposed development. Senversa recommended completion of a series of further intrusive environmental site assessments, to ensure consistency with the requirements of the NEPM and the State Environment Protection Policy (Prevention and Management of Contamination of Land). These works are detailed in the following sections below. A figure showing the investigation locations is presented in Figure 1 attached.

2.3.1 Preliminary Landfill Gas Assessment

Prior to ASRP1 purchasing the site, Senversa identified the potential for adjoining former landfills to present a potential risk to the proposed development. Senversa completed a Preliminary Landfill Gas Assessment to assess the risk of LFG migrating from the nearby former Spring Road Landfill onto the site. The scope of works included the installation of 11 LFG bores, completion of two static LFG monitoring events, continuous LFG monitoring within two bores and service pit monitoring along Spring Road.

The investigation did not identify additional preferential subsurface pathways for gas migration other than the known geological profile in the area (i.e. sands), which can be conducive to LFG migration. No methane was detected within the on-site LFG bores or service pits along Spring Road, however, elevated carbon dioxide concentrations were detected above adopted action levels ranging between 0.0-5.9% volume by volume (v/v). The risk of LFG migration from the former Spring Road Landfill was considered to be low and acceptable with no specific development constraint identified.

2.3.2 Supplementary Environmental Site Assessment

Further to the assessment of potential landfill gas risks, Senversa recommended Supplementary Environmental Site Assessment be undertaken to assess the potential for site-derived contamination at select locations, and potential for LFG and impacted groundwater from the neighbouring former Spring Road Landfill to impact on the proposed redevelopment.

The scope of work included soil sampling across the site at 10 locations to provide broad site coverage to assess adjacent fairways and other areas of the site (in part to support the independent geotechnical investigation), groundwater sampling at 6 locations across the site, 3 static LFG monitoring events at on-site and selected off-site bores and services along Spring Road and continuous monitoring of LFG at 4 locations. Soil samples were analysed for previously identified contaminants of potential concern (CoPC) which included: heavy metals, nutrients, petroleum hydrocarbons, phenols, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, pesticides and herbicides. Groundwater was analysed for a similar suite, comprising heavy metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, naphthalene, volatile organic compounds, pesticides, nutrients, and additional, groundwater specific indicators used to assess for the presence of landfill leachate impact, namely, major ions, total organic carbon and volatile fatty acids.

All reported soil analytical results were either below laboratory detection limits or adopted investigation levels. This included pesticides, which were reported below detection limits in all of the 15 samples analysed from across the site. The report concluded that no unacceptable risk to human health or environment was identified for the proposed redevelopment.

For groundwater, reported concentrations of lead, nickel, sulphate, benzene and hydrocarbons were elevated above background concentrations at either GB01 or GB19. These results were considered to be associated with leachate impacted groundwater from the former Spring Road Landfill or other landfilling within the region, and not related to the activities of the site.

The LFG risk assessment indicated that the site is generally a very low risk, with the exception of elevated flow and carbon dioxide at GB19 which increased the risk to moderate surrounding this location (discussed further in Section 2.3.3 below).

Site Assessment Works Completed

m1107408_004_rpt_rev0 6

2.3.3 Further Environmental Site Assessment

Based on the findings of the Supplementary ESA, Senversa recommended completion of further environmental assessment, focussing on the identified potential LFG risk. The sampling also included confirmatory groundwater analysis and a round of surface water sampling. The scope of work included installation of 4 dual purpose groundwater and LFG bores, groundwater sampling at 10 locations, surface water sampling of two water bodies likely to be retained as part of the proposed development (at four monitoring point), 2 static LFG monitoring events at on-site and selected off-site bores and services along Spring Road and continuous LFG monitoring at one location. The results indicated:

• LFG - The LFG site specific risk assessment, conducted in accordance with the process outlined in the UK Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA, 2007) guidance, indicated that dilution and attenuation effects between the source of ground gases and sub-floor and/or indoor air environment was adequate to ensure that concentrations are below relevant EPA action levels for indoor air within buildings and structures. As such, gas migration protection measures were not considered necessary provided that no basements are constructed (unless adequate consideration is given to LFG risk) and ongoing LFG, leachate and groundwater monitoring and management is completed by Council at the former Spring Road Landfill.

• Groundwater - Elevated concentrations of benzene, mercury, nickel, sulphate, nitrate and ammonia were indicative of leachate impacted groundwater likely to be derived from the adjacent the former Spring Road Landfill or other regional landfilling source(s) (i.e. not site derived pollution). These impacts appeared to be isolated to the eastern area of the site and did not represent a vapour intrusion risk under the proposed development scenario. No impact was identified to be attributed to current or former activities of the site. As such, Senversa did not recommend ongoing monitoring or remedial works of the upper Brighton Group aquifer, provided that it is not used extractive use purposes (i.e. potable drinking water, on-site irrigation or filling of swimming pools) and basements or piling foundations are not proposed as part of the future development (unless adequate consideration is given to LFG risk).

• Surface water - Reported surface water analytical results were predominantly below adopted investigation levels, with the exception of copper and zinc that were considered to be representative of regional and/or naturally occurring background concentrations. Detectable concentrations of total recoverable hydrocarbons (TRH) were reported, however, this was inferred to be related to typical urban quality stormwater entering from nearby roadways which discharge into the surface water bodies of the site. None of the indicators reported suggested the potential for landfill leachate impact.

2.4 Off-site Assessment Undertaken – Former Spring Road Landfill

To inform the risk posed to the proposed development from known off-site sources of impact, two environmental reports relating to the former adjoining Spring Road Landfill were made available for review, comprising:

• URS, 2015. Aftercare Management Plan: Rowan/Spring Rd Closed Landfill, URS Australia Pty Ltd.

• PJRA, 2015. Review of the Aftercare Management Plan and Auditor Verification of the Monitoring Program prepared for the Rowan/Spring Road Closed Landfill, Dingley Village, Victoria, Peter J Ramsay & Associates.

Based on the review of those reports, the following is understood:

• Aftercare management plan (AMP) – Ongoing monitoring and aftercare management is required, comprising ongoing LFG monitoring of the site and surrounds (including indoor air and service pits). Further ongoing leachate monitoring, groundwater, stormwater (if identified) and surface

Site Assessment Works Completed

m1107408_004_rpt_rev0 7

water monitoring and annual cap inspections are also prescribed to be undertaken. The report also detailed that the existing gas extraction system should remain operational 24 hours/7 days a week.

• PJRA, 2015 Auditor review – The auditor concluded that the management plan to be generally appropriate for aftercare management of potential human health impacts associated with the landfill based on:

Conclusions that risks to human health from LFG concentrations at the surface of the cap exceeding action levels are negligible based on the auditors assessment of the efficacy of the current gas extraction system.

Unacceptable risk to human health from the potential subsurface migration of LFG into indoor air and off-site being actively mitigated through passive venting measures and groundwater remediation.

The management plan recommendations for further investigation and monitoring of surface water and groundwater to ensure that impacts to human health on and adjacent to the landfill are implemented.

The auditor considered the recommendations and triggers for ongoing monitoring appropriate and that the AMP complied with the requirements of the EPA’s Pollution Abatement Notice. It was recommended that an environmental auditor be engaged to review future monitoring reports, assess the efficacy of the management plan and mitigation measures and as well as the need for additional contingency measures and / or determine when the site no longer presents a risk to human health (i.e. when monitoring may cease).

Conclusions and Recommendations

m1107408_004_rpt_rev0 8

3.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

3.1 Overall Conclusions

Based on the review of the on and off-site works undertaken it is considered that sufficient assessment has been undertaken to provide Senversa with assurance regarding the quantity (temporal and spatial) and quality of data to form an opinion on the final contamination status of the site. In Senversa’s opinion, the quality and reliability of information generated from the investigations undertaken taking into account all limitations as identified in previous sections and within the separate reports, were sufficient for the purposes of the proposed redevelopment.

The level of investigation completed over the successive stages of works is consistent with the recommendations of the NEPM and the State environment protection policy (Prevention and Management of Contamination of Land) and comprises a level of assessment consistent with a Detailed Site Investigation as per the NEPM. Given the level of investigation completed and the findings of these investigations, Senversa is of the opinion that the site does not pose a risk to the proposed development (environmental or human health risk associated with contamination). As such, no further specific assessment such as additional broader sampling of fairways and greens is recommended. This opinion is supported by the following findings:

• Targeted and grid-based soil sampling has not identified impacted soils above what is considered to be representative of regional and/or naturally occurring background concentrations (i.e. does not represent pollution sourced from the site). CoPC associated with the historical use of the site (in particular heavy metals, pesticides or petroleum hydrocarbons) have not been identified in soil above criteria protective of the proposed development land use(s).

• The investigations undertaken satisfy the issues raised by NAA in their Preliminary Site Investigation. Further, the soil, groundwater and subsurface gas sampling and analysis from the reports prepared by Senversa Pty Ltd and Noel Arnold & Associates Pty Ltd collectively satisfy the standard for a detailed site investigation in accordance with the National Environment Protection Measure (Assessment of Site Contamination) 1999 (updated to include Amendment No.1 of 2013).

• Multiple groundwater investigations have not identified site-derived pollution or volatile concentrations that present a potential vapour intrusion risk to future land use scenarios.

• Surface water sampling did not identify any pollution above what is considered to be representative of regional and/or naturally occurring background concentrations (i.e. does not represent pollution sourced from the site). Further, the assessment of surface water did not identify indicators suggestive of leachate impact from the adjoining or regional landfilling of the area.

• Multiple landfill gas risk assessments concluded that gas migration protection measures are not considered necessary at the site.

3.2 Conclusion on Need for Environmental Audit

In consideration of the above conclusions on the suitability of the site for the proposed uses, the need for an environmental audit has been specifically considered by review of the Practice Note guidance. Comparison of the historical uses of the site to Table 1 of the Practice Note indicates that the site has a “Medium Potential” for contamination based on the ancillary nature of the limited chemical and fuel storage (above ground) carried out on the site as a part of green keeping activities. Review of the assessment matrix contained within Table 2 of the Practice Note indicates that for sensitive uses

Conclusions and Recommendations

m1107408_004_rpt_rev0 9

(including residential), a “B” level of environmental assessment is required to determine the need for an environmental audit. This level of assessment consists of the following:

“B: Require a site assessment from a suitably qualified environmental professional if sufficient information is available to determine if an audit is appropriate. If advised that an audit is not required, default to C (i.e. low potential for contamination risk).”

As outlined, a sufficient level of assessment has been undertaken at the site and based on the findings of these assessment works, the potential for unacceptable risks to human health or the environment associated with the proposed development is low. Further, the Practice Note states (Page 5) that:

“An environmental audit should be required unless the proponent can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the responsible authority that the site has never been used for a potentially contaminating activity, or that other strategies or programs are in place to effectively manage any contamination”.

Given the historical golf course does not meet the definition of ‘potentially contaminated land’1, and the limited nature of impacts identified during the course of investigations at the site, it is unlikely that unidentified contamination will be encountered during development. Therefore, consistent with the Practice Note guidance, Senversa recommends a number of measures to identify appropriate actions to effectively manage any contamination risks, and the orderly demolition and disposal of wastes during redevelopment works. It is proposed that these be incorporated into the Development Plan Overlay schedule planning permit requirements.

These recommendations are presented in Section 3.3 below.

3.3 Recommendations

Given the limited nature of impacts identified during the course of investigations at the site, it is unlikely that unidentified contamination will be encountered during development. However, as an effective strategy to manage this potential, and consistent with the Practice Note, a number of recommendations are made, namely:

• Development of a construction management plan identifying appropriate actions should contamination be identified, to manage potential risks to human health and the environment that may arise during redevelopment. This should include:

Requirements that remnant former infrastructure be appropriately decommissioned (i.e. TITs, grease trap, vehicle/chemical wash down areas, bunded fuel storage, workshop, pesticide / herbicide storage areas), in line with industry practice. This must be documented to confirm appropriate decommissioning.

Detail on actions required to be undertaken should unidentified contamination be encountered during the development.

It is proposed that these requirements be incorporated into DPO schedule planning permit requirements.

• No basements or piling foundations be proposed as part of the future development without further specific risk assessment and / or gas protection measures for dwellings parallel and adjoining the Spring Road boundary. It is considered that whilst the risk of LFG ingress to potential below ground built form is low, it is prudent that the potential for LFG risk be considered. This is nominally recommended for the dwellings adjoining the Spring Road boundary, where adjacent to the former Spring Road Landfill.

1 Potentially contaminated land means land used or known to have been used for industry, mining or the storage of chemicals, gas, wastes or liquid fuel (if not ancillary to another use of the land).

Conclusions and Recommendations

m1107408_004_rpt_rev0 10

• Groundwater within the upper Brighton Group aquifer is impacted as a results of regional pollution and/or background quality and should not be used on-site for extractive use purposes (i.e. potable drinking water, on-site irrigation or filling of swimming pools).

• A water quality management plan (WQMP) should be prepared if use of surface water and / or deep groundwater (from the Silurian aquifer) for irrigation be proposed for the site. The WQMP should include details on:

Monitoring requirements for all surface water bodies and the Silurian aquifer to ensure surface water quality meets criteria protective of the maintenance of ecosystems, agriculture parks and gardens and primary contact recreation beneficial uses.

Trigger levels to identify water quality problems and contingency measures should water quality monitoring indicate undesirable water quality.

• All other on-site monitoring bores should decommissioned in accordance with relevant guidance, to minimise the potential for this infrastructure to act as a preferential gas migration conduit, prior to the redevelopment of the site.

These conclusions are based on the following assumptions:

• Ongoing LFG, leachate and groundwater monitoring and management is completed by the responsible authority at the former Spring Road Landfill. This includes operation, maintenance and review of the performance of the gas extraction system at the former landfill until such time that the LFG and leachate no longer presents a risk to human health and the environment.

Principles and Limitations of Investigation

m1107408_004_rpt_rev0 11

4.0 Principles and Limitations of Investigation

The following principles are an integral part of site contamination assessment practices and are intended to be referred to in resolving any ambiguity or exercising such discretion as is accorded the user or site assessor.

Area Field Observations and Analytical Results

Elimination of Uncertainty

Some uncertainty is inherent in all site investigations. Furthermore, any sample, either surface or subsurface, taken for chemical testing may or may not be representative of a larger population or area. Professional judgment and interpretation are inherent in the process, and even when exercised in accordance with objective scientific principles, uncertainty is inevitable. Additional assessment beyond that which was reasonably undertaken may reduce the uncertainty.

Failure to Detect Even when site investigation work is executed competently and in accordance with the appropriate Australian guidance, such as the National Environmental Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Amendment Measure (‘the NEPM’), it must be recognised that certain conditions present especially difficult target analyte detection problems. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, complex geological settings, unusual or generally poorly understood behaviour and fate characteristics of certain substances, complex, discontinuous, random, or heterogeneous distributions of existing target analytes, physical impediments to investigation imposed by the location of services, structures and other man-made objects, and the inherent limitations of assessment technologies.

Limitations of Information

The effectiveness of any site investigation may be compromised by limitations or defects in the information used to define the objectives and scope of the investigation, including inability to obtain information concerning historic site uses or prior site assessment activities despite the efforts of the user and assessor to obtain such information.

Chemical Analysis Error

Chemical testing methods have inherent uncertainties and limitations. Senversa routinely seeks to require the laboratory to report any potential or actual problems experienced, or non-routine events which may have occurred during the testing, so that such problems can be considered in evaluating the data.

Level of Assessment

The investigation herein should not be considered to be an exhaustive assessment of environmental conditions on a property. There is a point at which the effort of information obtained and the time required to obtain it outweigh the benefit of the information gained and, in the context of private transactions and contractual responsibilities, may become a material detriment to the orderly conduct of business. If the presence of target analytes is confirmed on a property, the extent of further assessment is a function of the degree of confidence required and the degree of uncertainty acceptable in relation to the objectives of the assessment.

Assessment Criteria

Assessment criteria, be it interim screening level criteria or ‘management limits’ where clean up or management may be required change with time, as the level of understanding of a chemical or compound increases.

Comparison with Subsequent Inquiry

The justification and adequacy of the investigation findings in light of the findings of a subsequent inquiry should be evaluated based on the reasonableness of judgments made at the time and under the circumstances in which they were made.

Data Useability

Investigation data generally only represent the site conditions at the time the data were generated. Therefore, the usability of data collected as part of this investigation may have a finite lifetime depending on the application and use being made of the data. In all respects, a future reader of this report should evaluate whether previously generated data are appropriate for any subsequent use beyond the original purpose for which they were collected, or are otherwise subject to lifetime limits imposed by other laws, regulations or regulatory policies.

Nature of Advice The investigation works herein are intended to develop and present sound, scientifically valid data concerning actual site conditions. Senversa does not seek or purport to provide legal or business advice.

Figure

m1107408_004_rpt_rev0

Figure

Figure 1: Assessment Location Plan

!!2

!!2[7

!!2

I!

!!2

[7!!2

I!

!!2I!

I!

[7¬«¬«

!Òr§ !Òr§

!Òr§

!Òr§

!Òr§

!Òr§

!Òr§

!Òr§

!Òr§

!Òr§

!Òr§

!Òr§

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

Ò!r§

Ò!r§

Ò!r§

Ò!r§

Ò!r§

Ò!r§

Ò!r§

Ò!r§

Ò!r§

&<

&<

&<

&<

&<

&<

&<

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

Ò!r§

Ò!r§

Ò!r§

Ò!r§

Ò!r§

Ò!r§

Ò!r§

Ò!r§

Ò!r§

Ò!r§ Ò!r§

Ò!r§

Ò!r§

Ò!r§

Ò!r§

Ò!r§

Ò!r§

Ò!r§

Ò!r§

Ò!r§

GB01

GB11

GB12/BH103

GB13/BH113

GB14/BH110

GB19

GB02GB03

GB04

GB05

GB06

GB07

GB08

GB09

GB10

GB25

GB24

GB22

GB23

GB26

S01

S02S03

S04

S05

S07S08S09

S12

S13

S26S27S28

S10S11

GB15GB16

GB17

GB18

GB20

URS_GB29

URS_GB28

URS_GB27

URS_GB25

URS_GB24

URS_GB22

Clarke RoadLandfill

FormerSpringRoad

Landfill

Din SanLandfill

SubArea 6

SubArea 7

SubArea 8

SubArea 5

MaintenanceFacility

Clubhouse RetirementHome

Former Chicken

ProductionFacility

30 m

390 m

440 m

BH122

BH125

BH102

BH116

BH114

BH112

BH120

S env rSae

±

0 100 200 300 40050Metres

1:5,500

Designed:

Drawn:

Checked:

File:

C. Sandiford

S. Koroblitsas

M11074_F001_assessment location plan

Date: Revision: Scale:

10/04/2017

0

(A3)

LegendÒ!r§ Landfill Gas Bore Location@A Groundwater Monitoring Well Location&< Soil Bore Location!Òr§ Landfill Gas Bore Location (Previous Consultant)!!2 Circular Stormwater¬« Hydrant Valve[7 Kerbside Stormwater

I! Telstra PitSite BoundaryDistance (m)

Path

: Y:\1

6_G

IS\0

1_Jo

bs\3

.VIC

_Job

s\M

1107

4_IS

PT_P

RO

JEC

T D

ATSU

N\M

XDs\

GM

E\M

1107

4_F0

01_a

sses

smen

t loc

atio

n pl

an.m

xd

Notes:Cadastre and road data sourced from land.vic.gov.au (DEPI)Aerial imagery sourced from Nearmap Pty Ltd

Figure No:Title: Project:

Location:

Client:

1Assessment Location PlanSummary of Site Condition and Suitability for Use

Kingswood Golf Course, 179-217 Centre Dandenong Road, Dingley Village VICISPT Pty LtdDatum GDA 1994, Projection MGA Zone 55

Ground Floor, 51 Clarke Street, Southbank VIC 3006(03) 9606 0070 (03) 9606 0074www.senversa.com.au

Address: Phone:Fax: Website:

This

Draw

ing is

Sub

ject to

COP

YRIG

HT. N

o port

ion of

this

drawi

ng m

ay be

remo

ved,

extra

cted,

copie

d, ele

ctron

ically

store

d or d

issem

inated

in an

y form

with

out th

e prio

r writt

en pe

rmiss

ion of

Sen

versa

.

Service PitOffsite Bore

tel: + 61 3 9606 0070 fax: + 61 3 9606 0074 enquiries@senversa.com.au www.senversa.com.au Level 6, 15 William Street, Melbourne VIC 3000 Senversa Pty Ltd ABN 89 132 231 380