Albert Park SA EPA Reference 05/24994 JBS&G › files › 14373_albert_park_assessment_re… ·...

Environment Protection Authority

Albert Park Environmental Assessment

Albert Park SA EPA Reference 05/24994

23 August 2019

55976_122490_Rev0

JBS&G

Environment Protection Authority Albert Park Environmental Assessment

EPA Reference 05/24994

23 August 2019

55976_122490_Rev0 JBS&G

©JBS&G Australia Pty Ltd | 55976_122490_Rev0

© JBS&G

This document is and shall remain the property of JBS&G. The document may only be used for the purposes for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the Terms of Engagement for the commission. Unauthorised use of this document in any form whatsoever is prohibited

Document Distribution

Rev No. Copies Recipient Date

A 1 (electronic) Draft EPA SA 12 June 2019

B 1 (electronic) Draft EPA SA 16 July 2019

0 1 Electronic (Final) EPA SA 23 August 2019

Document Status

Rev No. Author Reviewer Approved for Issue

Name Name Signature Date

A Dale McGill Will Ellis (CEnvP) Will Ellis (CEnvP)

12 June 2019

B Dale McGill Will Ellis (CEnvP) Will Ellis (CEnvP)

16 July 2019

0 Dale McGill Will Ellis (CEnvP) Will Ellis (CEnvP)

23 August 2019

©JBS&G Australia Pty Ltd | 55976_122490_Rev0 iii

Table of Contents

Abbreviations ......................................................................................................................... vii

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. 1

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 3

1.1 Overview .............................................................................................................. 3

1.2 Objectives ............................................................................................................ 3

2. Environmental Setting ................................................................................................... 4

2.1 Summary of Regional and Local Geology and Hydrogeology .............................. 4

3. Scope of work ................................................................................................................ 5

3.1 Preliminaries ........................................................................................................ 6

3.2 Field Works .......................................................................................................... 6

3.3 Adopted Screening Criteria ................................................................................. 6

4. Waterloo Membrane Sampler Assessment ................................................................... 7

4.1 Methodology ....................................................................................................... 7

4.2 Field Observations ............................................................................................... 7

4.3 Analytical Results ................................................................................................. 8

5. Soil Vapour Assessment ................................................................................................. 9

5.1 Installation Methodology .................................................................................... 9

5.2 Soil Vapour Bore Sampling Methodology ........................................................... 9

5.3 Field Observations ............................................................................................. 10

5.4 Analytical Results ............................................................................................... 11

5.5 TCE Concentration Variation ............................................................................. 12

6. Geotechnical Parameter Results ................................................................................. 13

7. Data Quality Assessment ............................................................................................. 14

7.1 Waterloo Membrane Sampler QA/QC .............................................................. 14

7.2 Soil Vapour QA/QC ............................................................................................ 15

8. Conceptual Site Model ................................................................................................ 18

8.1 Known/Potential Sources of Contamination ..................................................... 19

8.2 Receptors ........................................................................................................... 19

The VIRA (Section 9) has considered all relevant receptors through the vapour inhalation pathway including: ........................................................................... 19

8.3 Pathways ........................................................................................................... 20

9. Human Health/Vapour Intrusion Risk Assessment ...................................................... 21

9.1 Overview ............................................................................................................ 21

9.2 Parameters Adopted in Modelling .................................................................... 21

9.2.1 Exposure Factors ................................................................................ 21

©JBS&G Australia Pty Ltd | 55976_122490_Rev0 iv

9.2.2 Estimation of Inhalation Exposure ..................................................... 22

9.2.3 Characterisation of Exposure Areas ................................................... 22

9.2.4 Characterisation of Site Physical Parameters .................................... 24

9.2.5 Characterisation of Chemicals of Interest .......................................... 25

9.2.6 Source Data ........................................................................................ 25

9.2.7 Use of RISC Modelling Package .......................................................... 26

9.3 Fate and Transport Modelling Outcomes – Calculation of Indoor Air Concentration .................................................................................................... 26

9.4 Assessment of Risk ............................................................................................ 27

9.4.1 Adopted Criteria for the Assessment of Risk ..................................... 27

9.4.2 Risk Assessment Calculation .............................................................. 27

9.5 Comparison of Predicted TCE Indoor Air Concentrations within Residential Dwellings to TCE Response Ranges ................................................................... 28

9.5.1 Background ........................................................................................ 28

9.5.2 Residential Exposure Scenario Predicted Indoor Air TCE Concentration with Corresponding TCE Indoor Air Response Range Classification ...................................................................................... 30

9.5.3 Crawlspace Dwelling Predicted Indoor Air TCE Concentration with Corresponding TCE Indoor Air Response Range Classification .......... 30

9.6 Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis ................................................................. 30

9.6.1 Site Specific Alpha Assessment .......................................................... 31

9.6.2 Source Concentration Data ................................................................ 31

9.6.3 Site Physical Parameter Data ............................................................. 31

9.6.4 Exposure Parameters to Characterise Receptors .............................. 32

9.6.5 Residential Dwelling, Commercial Building and Excavation Parameters ......................................................................................... 33

9.6.6 Modelling Package ............................................................................. 33

9.6.7 Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis Conclusions .............................. 33

9.7 VIRA Conclusion ................................................................................................. 33

9.7.1 Exposure Scenarios Where No Unacceptable Risk was Identified..... 33

9.7.2 Exposure Scenarios Where a Potential Risk was Identified ............... 34

10. Conclusions & Data Gaps ............................................................................................. 35

10.1 Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 35

10.2 Data gaps ........................................................................................................... 35

11. Limitations ................................................................................................................... 37

12. References ................................................................................................................... 38

List of Tables Table 3.1 – Scope of Works Undertaken ................................................................................. 5

©JBS&G Australia Pty Ltd | 55976_122490_Rev0 v

Table 3.2 – Adopted Screening Criteria ................................................................................... 6

Table 4.1 – Summary of WMS-LU Data .................................................................................... 8

Table 5.1 – Summary of Soil Vapour Data ............................................................................. 11

Table 6.1 – Measured Geotechnical Parameters ................................................................... 13

Table 7.1 – WMS-LU QA/QC .................................................................................................. 14

Table 7.2 – Soil Vapour QA/QC .............................................................................................. 15

Table 8.1 provides a preliminary CSM for Albert Park ........................................................... 18

Table 9.1: Exposure Parameters – Resident .......................................................................... 21

Table 9.2: Exposure Parameters – Commercial Worker ........................................................ 21

Table 9.3: Exposure Parameters – Subsurface Maintenance / Construction (trench) Worker ........................................................................................................................ 22

Table 9.4: Summary of Adjustment Factors and Formula for Calculation of Exposure Concentration for Inhalation Exposure .......................................................... 22

Table 9.5: Summary of Adopted Building Parameters – Residential Dwelling, Slab on Grade with and without Basement ........................................................................... 23

Table 9.6: Summary of Adopted Building Parameters – Residential Dwelling, Crawlspace .. 23

Table 9.7: Summary of Adopted Building Parameters – Commercial Building ..................... 24

Table 9.8: Summary of Adopted Building Parameters – Subsurface Maintenance Trench / Excavation ....................................................................................................... 24

Table 9.9: Summary of Adopted Site Physical Parameters .................................................... 25

Table 9.10: Summary of the Properties of the Chemicals of Interest ................................... 25

Table 9.11: Summary of Toxicity and Background Intakes for Chemicals of Interest ........... 25

Table 9.12: Summary of Adopted Source Data ...................................................................... 26

Table 9.13: Predicted Indoor Air Concentrations (µg/m3) ..................................................... 26

Table 9.14: Summary of ILCR Calculations (Carcinogenic Endpoints) ................................... 27

Table 9.15: Summary of HI Calculations (Non-carcinogenic Endpoints) ............................... 27

Table 9.16: Predicted TCE Indoor Air Concentrations (µg/m3) in Residential Dwellings (based on maximum soil vapour concentration) with Corresponding TCE Indoor Air Response Range Classification ....................................................... 30

Table 9.17: Predicted TCE Indoor Air Concentrations (µg/m3) in Crawlspace Dwellings for all Soil Vapour Probes Installed to 1.1 m bgl with Corresponding TCE Indoor Air Response Range Classification ........................................................................ 30

Table 9.18: Sensitivity Analysis – Summary of Alternate (Published) Physical Parameter Data ................................................................................................................. 32

Table 9.19: Sensitivity Analysis – Predicted Indoor Air Concentrations with Alternate Physical Parameter Data (µg/m3) ................................................................... 32

©JBS&G Australia Pty Ltd | 55976_122490_Rev0 vi

List of Figures Figure 1 – Site Location Plan Figure 2 – Site Layout Figure 3 – WMS-LU Sampling Locations & Data Figure 4 – Soil Vapour Sampling Locations & Data Figure 5 – Inferred TCE WMS-LU Plume Contours Figure 6 – Inferred TCE Soil Vapour Plume Contours

Appendices Appendix A – Figures

Appendix B – Data Summary Tables

Appendix C – WMS-LU Soil Borelogs

Appendix D – Soil Vapour Borelogs

Appendix E – WMS-LU Sampling Field Sheets

Appendix F – WMS-LU COC & Laboratory Certificates

Appendix G – WMS-LU Core Photographs

Appendix H – Soil Vapour Field Sampling Sheets

Appendix I – Soil Vapour COC and Laboratory Certificates

Appendix J – Soil Vapour Core Photographs

Appendix K – Geotechnical Laboratory Certificates

Appendix L – Field Equipment Calibration Records

Appendix M – Soil Vapour Bore Survey Data

Appendix N – Soil Vapour Fate & Transport Model Outputs

Appendix O – Soil Vapour Fate and Transport Model Risk Calculations

Appendix P – Sensitivity Analysis Model Outputs

©JBS&G Australia Pty Ltd | 55976_122490_Rev0 vii

Abbreviations

Term Definition ASC NEPM National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999, as amended in 2013 AT Averaging time CA Contaminant concentration (in air) CBD Central Business District CHCs Chlorinated Hydrocarbons COC Chain of Custody CRC CARE Cooperative Research Centre for Contamination and Remediation of the Environment CSM Conceptual Site Model DCE Dichloroethene (cis/trans) EC Exposure concentration ED Exposure duration EF Exposure frequency EPA South Australian Environment Protection Authority ET Exposure time HASP Health and Safety Plan HHRA Human Health Risk Assessment HI Hazard Index inHg Inches of mercury iHILs Interim Health Investigation Levels ILCR Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk JBS&G JBS&G Australia Pty Ltd J&E Johnson & Ettinger Vapour Intrusion Model (US EPA) km kilometres LOR Limit of reporting m bgl metres below ground level NATA National Association of Testing Authorities QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control PCE Tetrachloroethene PID Photo-ionisation Detector ppm Parts per million RPD Relative percentage difference SWMS Safe Work Method Statements TCE Trichloroethene US EPA United States Environment Protection Agency VC Vinyl Chloride VIRA Vapour intrusion risk assessment VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds WMS-LU Waterloo Membrane Sampler-Low Uptake µg/m3 Micrograms per cubic metre

©JBS&G Australia Pty Ltd | 55976_122490_Rev0 1

Executive Summary

JBS&G Australia Pty Ltd (JBS&G) was commissioned by the South Australian Environment Protection Authority (EPA) to undertake an Environmental Assessment Program at Albert Park in South Australia.

The Albert Park Assessment Area is located approximately 9 kilometres (km) north west of the central business district (CBD) of Adelaide. The Albert Park Assessment Area covers an area of approximately 9 hectares and is comprised of mixed land uses including residential use and commercial/industrial use. JBS&G understands that the potential source site located at 24 Murray Street (the site) has historically been used for tin can manufacturing for a period of 45 years. The data suggests that there may be other source(s) that have contributed to the vapour contamination, or that there are preferential pathways for vapour migration that have not been identified in this assessment.

The focus of the assessment program was to assess the nature and extent of soil vapour contamination in the residential area immediately surrounding the site and to determine the level of risk associated with vapour intrusion

The chemicals of interest at the site were chlorinated hydrocarbons (CHCs) including tetrachloroethene (PCE), trichloroethene (TCE), isomers of dichloroethene (DCE) and vinyl chloride (VC).

Concentrations of TCE were detected in numerous Waterloo Membrane Samplers-Low Uptake (WMS-LU) samples (WMS01, WMS03, WMS06, WMS07, WMS10) that exceeded the ASC NEPM iHILs for residential land uses.

Concentrations of TCE were detected in numerous soil vapour bores (SV01, SV02, SV03_S, SV04, SV05, SV06, SV07, SV08, SV09) that exceeded the ASC NEPM iHILs for residential land uses.

Concentrations of cis 1-2, DCE was also detected in the deeper bore at SV03_D.

A vapour intrusion risk assessment (VIRA) was undertaken to assess whether the presence of CHCs in soil vapour are likely to be presenting a risk to land users in the Albert Park Assessment Area for a range of land use scenarios.

A VIRA was completed using the available data and concludes the following:

• There are no unacceptable risks associated with the presence of cis 1,2-DCE vapour;

• There are no unacceptable risks associated with the presence of TCE vapour in the following scenarios:

o Residential dwelling, slab on grade without basement;

o Residential dwelling, slab on grade with a non-habitable basement, assuming good separation between the basement and upper floor(s), based on 1 hour/day in the basement;

o Commercial workers; and

o Sub-surface maintenance /construction workers in sub-surface maintenance trenches / excavations installed to a maximum depth of 1 m bgl in outdoor areas.

• There are (subject to the limitations in Section 11) potentially unacceptable risks associated with the presence of TCE vapour in the following scenarios:

o Residential dwelling, slab on grade with habitable basement; and

o Residential dwellings of crawlspace construction (assuming low sub-floor ventilation).


The predicted concentrations of TCE indoors where a potential risk was identified, fall within the ‘investigation range’ of the SA EPA TCE Indoor Air Response Ranges.


1. Introduction

1.1 Overview

JBS&G Australia Pty Ltd (JBS&G) was commissioned by the South Australian Environment Protection Authority (EPA) to undertake an Environmental Assessment Program at Albert Park in South Australia.

The Albert Park Assessment Area is located approximately 9 kilometres (km) north west of the central business district (CBD) of Adelaide. The Albert Park Assessment Area covers an area of approximately 9 hectares and is comprised of mixed land uses including residential and commercial/industrial. The site location is identified in Figure 1. JBS&G understands that the potential source site located at 24 Murray Street (the site) has historically been used for tin can manufacturing for a period of 45 years. The data suggests that there may be other source(s) that have contributed to the vapour contamination or that there are preferential pathways for vapour migration that have not been identified in this assessment.

A map of the Albert Park Assessment Area identifying the Murray Street source site is included in Figure 2.

The focus of the assessment program was to assess the nature and extent of soil vapour contamination in the residential area immediately surrounding the site and to determine the level of risk associated with vapour intrusion. The chemicals of interest at the site were chlorinated hydrocarbons (CHCs) including tetrachloroethene (PCE), trichloroethene (TCE), isomers of dichloroethene (DCE) and vinyl chloride (VC).

A VIRA was undertaken to assess whether the presence of CHCs in soil vapour are likely to be presenting an actual or potential risk to land users in the Albert Park Assessment Area (including residential, commercial, industrial users and trench workers).

1.2 Objectives

The objectives of the Albert Park Environmental Assessment Program were to:

• Install a total of 11 Waterloo Membrane Sampler-Low Uptake (WMS-LU) locations to 1m below ground level (m bgl) in the locations specified by the EPA;

• Analyse the WMS-LU samplers for CHCs and compare the results to the interim Health Investigation Levels (iHILs) from the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999, as amended in 2013 (ASC NEPM, NEPC 2013);

• Install up to six soil vapour bores and collection of associated geotechnical samples to assess whether any potential health risks exist to relevant receptors including residents within slab on grade (with and without basements) and crawlspace homes, commercial/industrial workers and trench/maintenance workers; and

• Install an additional five soil vapour bores and collect additional geotechnical samples to further characterise the soil vapour plume and soil properties in the Albert Park assessment area.


2. Environmental Setting

2.1 Summary of Regional and Local Geology and Hydrogeology

The Albert Park Assessment Area is situated within the Adelaide Plains (Metropolitan Adelaide) groundwater system (aquifers) which exist within the inter-bedded Quaternary sands, gravels, silts and clays that are deposited along the river channels and across the alluvial plains.

Geographically, the general area is within the central alluvial plains north of the River Torrens. Geologically, the area is situated where the marginal marine sediments of the Glanville Formation overlie the terrestrial deposits of the Pooraka Formation (Taylor et al, 1974) and the Hindmarsh Clay (Gerges, 2006). On the western side of Tapleys Hill Road, ancient consolidated sand dune ridges have been observed stretching from Port Adelaide to the Sturt River (Fenner & Cleland, 1935).

Six Quaternary aquifers, named Q1–Q6, are supported by the deposited Quaternary aged shallow marine sediments of the Glanville Formation and the terrestrial sediments of the Hindmarsh Clay. Within the sediments of the aquifers there are more highly transmissive zones of sand and gravel beds and these are generally separated by silts and clays with lower permeability. Various gradings of silty clays and sandy silts have been observed through intrusive drilling investigations in the lower permeably beds (Gerges, 2006).

On a local level, the shallow soils comprised of sandy silts and sandy clays with some gravel inclusions. Soil borelogs for the WMS-LU and soil vapour bore sampling are included in Appendix C and Appendix D respectively.


3. Scope of work

Table 3.1 summarises the scope of works undertaken in order to meet the objectives of the Albert Park Environmental Assessment Program. Further detail in relation to the specific components is included in Sections 4 & 5.

Table 3.1 – Scope of Works Undertaken Objective Scope of Work to Address Objective Section of Report Install a total of 11 WMS locations to 1 m bgl in nominated locations

• Cleared underground services in 11 drilling locations

• Drilled 11 boreholes to 1m and installed WMS-LU (deployed for 7 days)

Section 4

Analyse for CHCs and compare to iHILs

• Collected WMS-LU (after 7 days)

• Transported WMS-LU to National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA) accredited laboratory under chain of custody documentation

• Reviewed WMS-LU data and compared with ASC NEPM iHILs (Tier 1 Screening Risk Assessment)

• Provided WMS-LU results summary to EPA for consideration

Section 4

Install up to six soil vapour bores with associated geotechnical samples (locations determined in conjunction with EPA following WMS-LU results)

• Submitted proposed soil vapour locations to EPA for review/approval

• Drilled and installed six soil vapour bores (five shallow, to 1 m bgl, and one deeper, to 2 m bgl, to allow for basement considerations) in locations agreed to by EPA

• Collected two geotechnical samples (from the deeper soil vapour bore) at depths of 0.5-0.9 m bgl and 1.5-1.9 m bgl and submitted to geotechnical laboratory for analysis

• Sampled six soil vapour bores using Summa® Canisters • Transported Summa® Canisters to NATA accredited

laboratories under chain of custody (COC) documentation

Section 5 & 6

Install an additional five soil vapour bores and collect additional geotechnical samples to further characterise the soil vapour plume and soil properties in the Albert Park assessment area

• Drilled and installed five additional soil vapour bores to 1 m bgl;

• Collection of four geotechnical samples (from depths between 0.4 m bgl and 1.0 m bgl) and submitted to geotechnical laboratory for analysis

• Re-sampled the six existing soil vapour bores to consider any seasonal variation/fluctuations

• Sampled five soil vapour bores using Summa© canisters • Transported Summa© canisters to NATA accredited

laboratories under COC documentation

Sections 5 & 6

Determine if any health risk exists (associated with vapour intrusion) at residential properties (incl. slab, crawlspace, basement), commercial/industrial and trench/maintenance workers

• Reviewed soil vapour data and compared with WMS-LU data and ASC NEPM iHILs (Tier 1 Screening Risk Assessment)

• Completed a Human Health Risk Assessment/Vapour Intrusion Risk Assessment (HHRA/VIRA) using the Johnson & Ettinger (J&E) Vapour Intrusion Model

• Compared predicted concentrations (indoor) to the relevant guidelines/frameworks

• Identified the risk conclusions for the range of building types/land uses

Sections 8, 9 & 10

Environment Site Assessment Report (this report)

• Field methodologies • WMS-LU & soil vapour results • Comparison of results to screening levels • Initial CSM development • Data quality summary • HHRA/VIRA • Data gaps and conclusions • Tabulated results • Figures


3.1 Preliminaries

Prior to the commencement of intrusive field investigations, JBS&G obtained permission from the Council (City of Charles Sturt) to install the soil vapour sampling infrastructure in the road verges at Albert Park.

A site-specific Health and Safety Plan (HASP) including Safe Work Method Statements (SWMS), hazard management and risk mitigation was prepared and all field personnel (including sub-contractors) were inducted into the HASP prior to the works commencing.

Drilling locations were cleared following a review of Dial Before You Dig service plans and clearance of underground services by a suitably qualified and experienced service locator. Some locations were moved across the street from the EPA’s proposed locations due to the presence of underground services.

3.2 Field Works

All field works were undertaken in accordance with relevant standards and guidelines, including:

• National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999 (NEPC, 2013);

• SA EPA Guidelines for the Assessment and Remediation of Site Contamination (EPA, 2018)

• Australian Standard 1726:2017 – Geotechnical Site Investigations (Standards Australia 2017)

• JBS&G’s standard operating procedures.

3.3 Adopted Screening Criteria

Screening criteria for the chemicals of interest were adopted from Australian Guidelines. The iHILs presented in the ASC NEPM were adopted in the first instance to assess the potential inhalation risks to site users. The investigation levels are specific to various land uses as specified in the ASC NEPM.

For Albert Park, the ASC NEPM land use scenario A/B (residential) and D (commercial/industrial) have been adopted for assessing the potential risks to human health via the vapour inhalation pathway. The iHILs are based on generally conservative assumptions for the estimated allowable exposure, dependant on land use. An exceedance of an investigation 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 based on the selected land use scenario(s).

It is noted that neither the ASC NEPM nor international guidance (US EPA) provide criteria for trans-1,2 DCE. In the absence of screening levels for this chemical, it has been assessed against the screening criteria for cis-1,2 DCE. This is considered to be conservative, given that the relative toxicity of trans-1,2 DCE is lower than cis-1,2 DCE.

Data from the shallow soil vapour bores (SV01 – SV10) has been adopted for the Tier 1 assessment (as outlined in Table 3.2) of all exposure scenarios other than the residential dwelling with slab on grade with basement construction exposure scenario. The Tier 1 assessment of the residential dwelling with slab on grade with basement construction exposure scenario has been based on data from the deeper soil vapour probe (SV03_D).

Table 3.2 – Adopted Screening Criteria

Chemical of Interest Residential Use

iHIL (µg/m3)

Commercial/Industrial Use

iHIL (µg/m3) Reference

Trichloroethene (TCE) 20 80

ASC NEPM (NEPC 2013) Tetrachloroethene (PCE) 2000 8000 cis 1,2 dichloroethene (cis-DCE) 80 300 Vinyl Chloride (VC) 30 100


4. Waterloo Membrane Sampler Assessment

The WMS-LU assessment was undertaken as a screening exercise to assess the presence of CHC concentrations in soil vapour within the Albert Park Assessment Area. The results of the WMS-LU assessment were compared to the ASC NEPM iHILs for the chemicals of interest to assess whether further soil vapour assessment was required.

Detections of TCE were reported above the iHILs in WMS-LU locations WMS01, WMS02-04, WMS05-07 and WMS10) and the WMS-LU results were used to inform the sampling locations for permanent soil vapour bores (see Section 5). Other CHCs were detected above the laboratory limit of reporting (LOR) but were not above the adopted screening criteria.

4.1 Methodology

The WMS-LU methodology used in this assessment is outlined below.

• Council permits were obtained to install the bores on road verges;

• All drilling locations were cleared of underground services prior to the drilling commencing;

• The drilling equipment was decontaminated between each sampling location to minimise the potential for cross contamination;

• Each borehole was drilled using hand auger techniques to a depth of 1 m bgl. WMS-LU sampling locations are shown on Figure 3.

• Soils were screened using a photo-ionisation detector (PID) to screen for the presence of volatile chemical substances. The PID screening results are included on the field sampling sheets in Appendix E;

• The soil cuttings were collected, bagged and labelled for re-instatement of the holes upon collection of the WMS-LU;

• The WMS-LU were placed in the provided wire cage (for protection) and lowered down the borehole with the attached cord. Each WMS-LU has a unique identification number which was recorded on the field sampling sheets;

• A plastic bag was lowered into the hole, then a foam block into the plastic (above the WMS-LU) to create a seal inside the hole;

• The borehole was covered at the surface with corflute to prevent significant moisture ingress and soil was placed over that to avoid attention;

• The WMS-LU were in-situ for a period of seven days;

• Following the seven-day sampling period, the cover, plastic and foam were removed, and the WMS-LU collected from the hole.

• The WMS-LU was placed in the laboratory supplied bag (matching the ID numbers) and the WMS-LU were sent to NATA accredited laboratories under COC documentation. COC documentation is included in Appendix F.

4.2 Field Observations

The following observations were made during the WMS-LU field works:

• The Albert Park Assessment Area was generally underlain by sandy silt and sandy clay soils with sand and gravel inclusions in the top metre;

• PID readings were generally low across the Albert Park Assessment Area ranging between 0.0 and 0.6 parts per million (ppm); and


• There was no visual/olfactory evidence (odour or staining) of contamination of soils identified during the WMS-LU assessment.

Borelogs for the WMS-LU sampling are included in Appendix C. Photographs of the cores are included in Appendix G.

4.3 Analytical Results

Summary tables of the WMS-LU results have been prepared and are included in Appendix B. The laboratory certificates of analysis and COC documents are included in Appendix F.

PCE, TCE and cis 1,2-DCE were detected in one or more of the WMS-LU locations above the LOR. TCE was the only chemical detected above or equal to the adopted criteria (ASC NEPM iHILs) at locations (WMS01-WMS04, WMS06, WMS07 & WMS10).

Table 4.1 presents a summary of the results that are greater than (or equal to) the iHILs.

Table 4.1 – Summary of WMS-LU Data

Location Concentration (µg/m3)

Adopted Criteria (µg/m3)

WMS01 5,100

ASC NEPM iHILs

Commercial – 80

Residential - 20

WMS02 20#

WMS03 9,400

WMS04 20#

WMS06 5,200

WMS07 580

WMS10 5,000

# - equal to residential criteria, does not exceed commercial/industrial criteria

As a result of the detection of TCE above iHILs, further assessment was undertaken in the form of the installation and sampling of permanent soil vapour bores. The permanent soil vapour bore assessment works are presented in Section 5.

An inferred TCE soil vapour plume has been prepared from the WMS-LU data obtained by JBS&G. Additional WMS-LU data, provided by the EPA, has been included in the plume diagram which was collected by LWC in 2018 on the Murray Street site. This is presented in Figure 5.


5. Soil Vapour Assessment

A total of 11 soil vapour bores were installed at locations agreed with EPA over two drilling events (May 2019 & June 2019). The soil vapour bore locations are shown on Figure 4.

The shallow (1m) bores were advanced using a combination of hand auger and push tube techniques. The May installations were completed using hand auger techniques only and the June installations were completed using hand auger techniques to approximately 0.4m and then push tube to 1m to facilitate collection of geotechnical samples. The soil cuttings were logged by a suitably qualified and experienced field scientist and were screened for volatile chemicals using a PID. Borelogs and PID readings were recorded on the field sheets which are included in Appendix D and Appendix H.

The deeper bore (2m) was installed using a 4WD mounted rig using a hand auger to 0.4m and a push tube to 2m. Soil cores were collected for geotechnical analysis using push tube techniques in both the April and the June 2019 drilling events.

5.1 Installation Methodology

The soil vapour bores were installed using the following methodology:

Council permits were obtained to install the bores on road verges;

All drilling locations were cleared of underground services prior to the drilling commencing;

The drilling equipment was decontaminated between each sampling location to minimise the potential for cross contamination;

Shallow bores were drilled using hand auger techniques and the deeper bore was installed using push tube techniques;

Soils were logged by a suitably qualified and experienced field scientist in accordance with the ASC NEPM. Photographs of all cores were taken and have been included in Appendix J;

Soils were screened using a PID to screen for the presence of volatile chemical substances. The PID screening results are included on the bore logs in Appendix D and the field sampling sheets in Appendix H;

Geotechnical samples were collected, wrapped and sent to a geotechnical laboratory for analysis;

Soil wastes were collected to be disposed to an appropriately licensed facility;

Sand was placed at the bottom of the borehole (approximately 10cm) and the stainless‐steel probe lowered to the base;

The borehole was backfilled (approximately 30cm) to create a sand pack around the probe;

A bentonite plug (approximately 5cm) was placed over the sand pack to create a seal and then the hole backfilled with concrete to the surface;

Gatic covers were installed at the surface and are flush with ground level;

The gatic covers have been engraved with the sample location name for ease of identification (SV01, SV02, SV03_S, SV03_D, SV04, SV05, SV06, SV07, SV08, SV09 & SV10).

5.2 Soil Vapour Bore Sampling Methodology

The soil vapour bore sampling was undertaken in accordance with the following methodology:

The installations were inspected to ensure they remained in good condition with no evidence of damage;


• The soil vapour bore was purged using a GA2000 and PID until gas measurements had stabilised, to ensure that sampling would collect a sample representative of the sample location;

• The sampling train was assembled with a 3-way valve to allow connection to the probe, the sampling canister and an off-gas line (for the vacuum test and PID/general gas measurements);

• A shut-in test was undertaken by creating a vacuum in the sampling train. The test was deemed to pass if the vacuum was maintained for two minutes;

• A pressure test was undertaken to ensure that a vacuum is not formed when purging the soil vapour. This was completed using a hand pump with a pressure gauge and observing if there was a change in vacuum pressure;

• A helium leak test was undertaken. A background helium reading was measured using a helium detector followed by a measurement from the vapour bore. A shroud was placed over the bore (sealed as best possible with the ground) and was flooded with helium. The helium detector was used to purge the bore whilst the helium was being pumped into the shroud and the readings recorded every minute. If helium concentrations in the bore were greater than 10% of the shroud concentrations, the bore would be deemed to be compromised;

• A sponge soaked with iso-propanol was placed in a small, open zip lock bag, and placed inside the shroud with the Summa canister and the flow regulator connected to the vapour bore;

• Prior to connection to the sampling train, the vacuum was measured in each Summa Canister to ensure that they had not leaked in transit;

• The valve on the Summa canister was opened, and sampling commenced (the time was recorded);

• The sampling was conducted using specially prepared and cleaned 1L Summa Canisters provided by the laboratory that were under vacuum. A laboratory supplied, and calibrated flow regulator was also fitted to the canister that allowed a flow rate of approximately 80mL/min (i.e. a 10-12 minute sampling time);

• The sampling continued until the pressure on the regulator was between -5 and -10 inches of mercury (inHg). The valve on the Summa canister was closed and the total sampling time recorded as well as the final pressure.

• General gas readings were measured using a landfill gas meter in both ambient air and in the soil vapour probe.

• Duplicate samples were collected using a stainless steel duplicate bar to connect both Summa canisters to the soil vapour bore. Each Summa canister had its own flow regulator; and

• A Summa canister sample was also taken from the shroud and analysed for isopropanol using the same methodology described above.

5.3 Field Observations

Soil vapour sampling was undertaken in two events, the initial six soil vapour bores were sampled in May 2019. Eleven soil vapour bores were sampled in June 2019, comprising of the six existing soil vapour bores and the five newly installed soil vapour bores.

The following observations were made during the soil vapour field works:


• Consistent with the WMS-LU assessment, the Albert Park Assessment Area was generally underlain by sandy silt and sandy clay soils with sand and gravel inclusions in the top metre – bore logs are included in Appendix D;

• PID readings did not detect the presence of volatile chemicals with all PID screening results 0.0ppm in the May sampling event. A maximum PID reading of 8ppm was detected in the soil vapour bore in the June sampling event.

• There was no visual/olfactory evidence (odour or staining) of contamination of soils identified during the installation of the soil vapour bores;

• The integrity of the soil vapour bore, and sampling train was demonstrated with no loss in pressure during the shut-in test, no vacuum created in the vacuum test and no helium detected in the helium leak test; and

• The composition of general gases in the sub-surface was consistent across each sampling location with approximately 16-21% oxygen, 0.1-4% carbon dioxide and the remaining balance 78-80% other gases.

All soil vapour bores were surveyed by a licensed surveyor. The survey data is included in Appendix M.

5.4 Analytical Results

Summary tables of the soil vapour results have been prepared and are included in Appendix B. The laboratory certificates of analysis and COC documents are included in Appendix I.

PCE, TCE, cis 1,2-DCE and trans 1,2-DCE were detected in one or more soil vapour bores above the LOR. Only TCE and two samples of cis 1,2-DCE were detected above the adopted assessment criteria.

Table 5.1 presents a summary of the results that exceed the adopted criteria.

Table 5.1 – Summary of Soil Vapour Data

Location Concentration (µg/m3) May 2019

Concentration (µg/m3) June 2019

Adopted Criteria (µg/m3)

SV01 (1m) TCE - 6,100 TCE – 13,000

TCE

Commercial – 80

Residential – 20

cis 1,2-DCE

Commercial – 300

Residential - 80

SV02 (1m) TCE - 5,300 TCE – 7,900

SV03_S (1m) TCE - 10,000 TCE – 16,000

cis 1,2-DCE – 87

SV03_D (2m) TCE - 28,000

cis 1,2-DCE – 210

TCE – 56,000

cis 1,2-DCE - 260

SV04 (1m) TCE – 3,400 TCE – 6,400

SV05 (1m) TCE – 1,200 TCE – 1,300

SV06 (1m) TCE – 590

SV07 (1m) TCE – 24

SV08 (1m) TCE – 4600

SV09 (1m) TCE – 940

The detections of TCE and cis 1,2-DCE above the adopted criteria indicated that these chemicals required more detailed assessment in the vapour intrusion risk assessment (Section 9). All remaining CHCs were below the adopted criteria, and therefore no further consideration has been given to these chemicals.


An inferred TCE soil vapour plume diagram has been prepared from the limited soil vapour data and is presented in Figure 6.

5.5 TCE Concentration Variation

It is notes that significant increases in TCE concentrations were measured during the June sampling event (when compared to the May sampling event). The differences in concentrations are most likely attributable to the change in weather conditions between the sampling events. Infiltration from rainfall can potentially impact soil gas concentrations by displacing the soil gas, dissolving VOCs and by creating a cap above the soil gas (ITRC, 2007).

The May sampling event was completed in the first week of May which was preceded by at least four months of very low rainfall (~18mm in four months) whereas the June sampling event was undertaken in the last week of June which was preceded by two months of significant rainfall (~170mm in May and June). This information was sourced from the Bureau of Meteorology, data from the Seaton weather station.


6. Geotechnical Parameter Results

Two soil cores were collected for geotechnical parameter analysis from location SV03_D (a shallow sample between 0.5 & 0.9mbgl and a deeper sample collected between 1.5 & 1.9mbgl) during the installation of soil vapour bores in May 2019. The shallower geotechnical sample could not be analysed for geotechnical parameters due to the nature (sandy clay) and the low moisture content of the soil. This led to an insufficient length of core sample to undertake the required analysis.

A further three shallow geotechnical samples were collected from shallow soil vapour bores during the installation of soil vapour bores in June 2019 and were analysed for moisture, particle size distribution and the degree of saturation and related parameters.

The results for the deeper sample are presented in Table 6.1.

Table 6.1 – Measured Geotechnical Parameters

Sample Bulk Density (t/m3) Moisture (%) Dry Density

(t/m3) Void Ratio Degree of Saturation (%) Porosity

SV03_D (0.5-0.9)

17.9

SV03_D (1.5-1.9)

1.87 20.0 1.56 0.57 85.6 0.36

SV06 (0.75-1.0)

2.56 26.6 1.49 0.72 94.9 0.42

SV08 (0.5-0.65)

2.58 19.6 1.43 0.80 63.1 0.45

SV09 (0.45-0.58)

2.63 16.3 1.36 0.94 45.7 0.48

The particle size distribution identified in both samples (from the May sampling event), that the bulk of the soil (from location SV03_D) was fine particles (in the order of 80-90%) which is consistent with sandy clay/sandy silt type soils and supports the field observations of limited gravel inclusions.

The three samples collected in June indicated varying ranges of particle sizes with the majority still consisting of fine sized particles. The percentage of sandy material ranged between 35% (SV09) to 55% (SV08). These parameters are consistent with sandy clay type soils.

The VIRA has utilised the geotechnical parameters measured for both shallow soils and deeper soils.

The geotechnical laboratory certificates are included in Appendix K.


7. Data Quality Assessment

Quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) was implemented during the Albert Park field works. The following was undertaken as part of the environmental assessment program in accordance with relevant standards and guidelines:

• Collection and analysis of laboratory duplicate samples (at a minimum rate of 1 for every 20 samples);

• Analysis of rinsate blanks (from drilling equipment); and

• Leak testing of soil vapour bores.

The precision of the results for each analyte between the primary and duplicate samples was determined by calculating the Relative Percentage Difference (RPD) as follows:

𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 =(𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 1 − 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 2) 𝑥𝑥 100

(𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 1 + 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 2)/2

Where a duplicate result is below the LOR and the other reports a detectable concentration, the LOR is used to calculate the RPD. It is noted that the RPD method is skewed by low laboratory results, where a small actual difference in concentrations returns a high RPD.

7.1 Waterloo Membrane Sampler QA/QC

Table 7.1 summarises the QA and QC activities undertaken to ensure the integrity of the WMS-LU data. The outcomes indicate conformance with the QA/QC procedures.

Table 7.1 – WMS-LU QA/QC QA/QC Item Detail

QA

Field Procedures Field procedures were undertaken by a suitably qualified and experienced environmental scientist in accordance with relevant guidelines, standards and procedures. JBS&G’s standard procedure has been outlined in Section 4.

Laboratories & Accreditation

The primary laboratory used was Envirolab (Perth) and ALS was the secondary laboratory. Both laboratories are NATA accredited for the analyses undertaken with the exception of vinyl chloride. This exception was not considered to be significant given that active soil vapour sampling was completed after the WMS-LU sampling and the laboratories are accredited for VC analysis for summa canister analysis.

Sample Tracking COC documentation was used for the transport of all samples to the laboratories. COC documents are included in Appendix F. An amended laboratory report was issued to correct an error on COC documentation.

Sample Preservation/Storage

Each WMS-LU has a unique identifier on the sampler and on the foil bag. Following collection of the WMS-LU, each sampler was replaced in its unique bag for transport to the laboratory. Chilling of WMS-LU was not required.

Holding Times All samples were extracted within a week of the sampling date.

Data Transcription Results are supplied by the laboratory as a CSV file, minimising the chance of transcription errors as the data is exported directly into tables using EsDat.

LORs The LORs are presented in the Summary Tables in Appendix B. It is noted that LORs for vinyl chloride are elevated above assessment criteria. This is not ideal, however the LORs for vinyl chloride in the subsequent soil vapour testing are considered to be appropriate.

QC


Intra-Laboratory Duplicate

One intra-laboratory duplicate sample was collected and submitted to the primary laboratory for analysis (WMS05 & DUP01). RPD calculations were within the acceptable range (<30%). WMS05 was selected as the duplicate location as it was closest to the suspected source site, however it is noted that all CHC were reported as <LOR with the exception of PCE. All WMS-LU QA/QC data is included in Appendix B.

Inter-Laboratory Duplicate

One inter-laboratory duplicate sample was collected and submitted to the secondary laboratory for analysis. This sample could not be analysed due to a laboratory error and therefore no RPDs were calculated.

Blanks One rinsate blank was collected from the drilling equipment and submitted to the primary laboratory for analysis of VOCs. All results were reported as <LOR.

One field blank was submitted to the primary laboratory for analysis. All results were reported as <LOR.

All QA/QC Results are included in the summary tables in Appendix B.

Calibration The PID used to screen soils for the WMS-LU assessment was calibrated prior to use. Calibration records are included in Appendix L.

Laboratory QC (internal)

The laboratory report for WMS-LU indicate that the internal QA/QC samples and procedures were within the acceptable ranges of repeatability.

Based on the results of the evaluation of the QA/QC data for the WMS-LU component of this assessment, 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 WMS-LU data is considered reliable and suitable for the purpose of a screening level assessment for soil vapour.

7.2 Soil Vapour QA/QC

Table 7.2 summarises the QA and QC activities undertaken to ensure the integrity of the soil vapour data. The outcomes indicate conformance with the QA/QC procedures.

Table 7.2 – Soil Vapour QA/QC QA/QC Item Detail

QA

Field Procedures Field procedures were undertaken by a suitably qualified and experienced environmental scientist in accordance with relevant guidelines, standards and procedures. JBS&Gs standard procedure has been outlined in Section 5.

Laboratories & Accreditation

The primary laboratory used was Envirolab (Perth) and ALS (Newcastle) was the secondary laboratory. Both laboratories are NATA accredited for the analyses undertaken.

Sample Tracking COC documentation was used for the transport of all samples to the laboratories. COC documents are included in Appendix I.

Sample Preservation/Storage

Each summa canister and air flow regulator have a unique identification number on the equipment. All sampling equipment was transported in laboratory supplied boxes for canisters and regulators. All canisters were certified – certification details are included in Appendix L.

It is noted that Summa canister #2273 has a certification date of October 2018 in the certification summary documentation. The laboratory has indicated that this canister was certified on 27 April 2019 which was not updated in their system. The laboratory certification of this canister is also included in Appendix L.


Chilling of samples was not required for summa canisters.

Holding Times All samples were extracted within the recommended holding times.

Data Transcription Results are supplied by the laboratory as a CSV file, minimising the chance of transcription errors as the data is exported directly into tables using EsDat.

LORs The LORs are presented in the Summary Tables in Appendix A and are considered to be suitable for the assessment. All LORs for chemicals of interest were below their respective screening criteria levels.

QC

Intra-Laboratory Duplicate

Three intra-laboratory duplicate samples were collected and submitted to the primary laboratory for analysis (SV03_D & DUP01 – May sampling event, SV02 & DUP03 – June sampling event and SV06 & DUP05 – June sampling event). RPD calculations were within the acceptable range (<30%) with the exception of trans 1,2-dichloroethene (33%). This exceedance is not considered to be significant given the relatively low concentrations and that it is only marginally over the 30%. All soil vapour QA/QC data is included in Appendix B.

Inter-Laboratory Duplicate

Three inter-laboratory duplicate samples were collected and submitted to the secondary laboratory for analysis (SV02 & DUP02 – May sampling event, SV04 & DUP04 – June sampling event and SV09 & DUP06 – June sampling event). RPD calculations were within the acceptable range (<30%) with the exception of tetrachloroethene in SV04 & DUP04 (35%) and SV09 & DUP06 (43%). These exceedances are not considered to be significant given the relatively low concentrations of PCE. RPDs also exceeded 30% for SV04 & DUP04 for trans 1,2 DCE (57%) and isopropanol (34%), these are not considered significant due to the low concentrations present and the labs having different LORs. Isopropanol is not a chemical of interest but is analysed for leak check purposes (see below). All soil vapour QA/QC data is included in Appendix B.

Blanks One rinsate blank was collected from the drilling equipment and submitted to the primary laboratory for analysis of VOCs. All results were reported as <LOR.

One field blank was submitted to the primary laboratory for analysis. All results were reported as <LOR.

All QA/QC Results are included in the summary tables in Appendix B.

Calibration The PID, helium detector and general gas meter were calibrated prior to use for the soil vapour assessment works. All calibration records are included in Appendix L.

Integrity Testing – Vacuum Test

No vacuum was formed during hand pump purging nor with the general gas meter or PID prior to or following sampling at each vapour bore. Details of this test are recorded in the field sheets in Appendix H.

Integrity Testing – Helium Test

Helium leak testing was completed on all locations prior to sample collection, all soil vapour probes passed the helium leak tests. Details of this test are recorded in the field sheets in Appendix H.

Integrity Testing – Isopropanol Test

A cloth soaked in isopropanol is placed in the shroud (at each location) which generally presents saturation concentrations in the shroud (ranged between 1,400,000 and 3,900,000 µg/m3 for this assessment. Isopropanol concentrations are compared to the acceptable concentration (<10% of the shroud sample). For the Albert Park assessment, summa canister concentrations of isopropanol ranged from <12 µg/m3 to 2,750 µg/m3, well below the 10% of the shroud concentration. The isopropanol results are included in the laboratory certificates in Appendix I.

Laboratory QC (internal)

The laboratory reports for soil vapour indicate that the internal QA/QC samples and procedures were within the acceptable ranges of repeatability.

Based on the results of the evaluation of the QA/QC data for the soil vapour component of this assessment, 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 soil vapour data is considered to be suitable and reliable for the purpose of undertaking a HHRA/VIRA.


8. Conceptual Site Model

The ASC NEPM identifies a conceptual site model (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 essential elements of a CSM (as outlined in the ASC NEPM) include:

• Known and potential sources of contamination and contaminants of concern;

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

• Building design and land use;

• Preferential pathways for vapour intrusion (if volatile chemicals are contaminants of concern);

• Human and ecological receptors; and

• Potential and complete exposure pathways.

The preliminary CSM for Albert Park is limited to the inhalation pathway as a result of the soil vapour focus of the environmental assessment program. Table 8.1 outlines the receptors within the Albert Park Assessment Area that may be exposed to the chemicals of interest through vapour intrusion.

It is noted that the pathways associated with groundwater contamination are being addressed by the EPA, and generally, soil exposure pathways are constrained to the source site/site where the activity was undertaken.

There are a number of data gaps present as a result of the limited assessment works completed to date, the focus on vapour intrusion and the inhalation pathway and the assumptions for the VIRA. These data gaps are presented in Section 10.

Table 8.1 provides a preliminary CSM for Albert Park

Source Pathway Complete/Potentially Complete Receptor Comments

Soil Vapour* Inhalation Y Commercial/Industrial (on & off-site)

Large portions of the northern part of the Albert Park assessment area are currently being used for commercial/industrial land use.

The soil vapour locations were primarily focused on residential land use, but the concentrations of TCE exceed commercial/industrial iHILs and represent a potentially complete exposure pathway. This exposure is further assessed in the VIRA.

Y Residential (off-site) without basement

The majority of the homes in the Albert Park assessment area are above ground dwellings of either crawlspace or slab on grade construction.

Soil vapour concentrations in residential areas exceed the iHILs and represent a potentially complete exposure pathway. This exposure is further assessed in the VIRA.

Y Residential (off-site) with basement (based on 20hrs a day/7 days


a week exposure for habitable basement) JBS&G notes that sub-surface structures

(basements/cellars) are present in the Albert Park assessment area.

Soil vapour concentrations are more critical where these structures are present as there is less attenuation resulting in higher concentrations in the sub-surface structures. The concentrations exceed the iHILs and represent a potentially complete exposure pathway. This exposure is further assessed in the VIRA.

Y Residential (off-site) with basement (based

on non-habitable basement, 10% of

habitable exposure time)

Y Trench/Maintenance Workers

Trench/maintenance workers work in the sub-surface and may be more susceptible to vapour as they are closer to the source. This also represents a potentially complete exposure pathway. This exposure if further assessed in the VIRA.

*- The source(s) of the contamination has/have not been well characterised and there may be multiple sources. For the purposes of the VIRA, the maximum soil vapour concentrations have been assumed to be the source location.

8.1 Known/Potential Sources of Contamination

There is limited information about the source(s) of the contamination in the Albert Park assessment area. Information provided to JBS&G indicates that groundwater and soil vapour contamination exist at the Murray Street site.

The assessment of groundwater contamination outside of the boundary of the Murray Street site has not been undertaken, however soil vapour contamination has been confirmed to exist throughout the Albert Park assessment area.

Based on the available information, it appears that there are multiple sources of contamination both inside the Albert Park assessment area (likely on the Murray Street site) and in the vicinity of the Albert Park assessment area to the east. It is also unclear as to whether there are preferential pathways present that may be influencing the movement of contamination.

Inferred plume diagrams are presented in Figure 5 (WMS-LU data) and Figure 6 (soil vapour data). Figure 5 combines WMS-LU data from two separate sampling events undertaken by LWC (in 2018) on the Murray Street site and by JBS&G (in 2019) in the broader Albert Park assessment area.

Although not confirmed through groundwater assessment, it is likely that the soil vapour contamination is associated with the volatilisation of TCE from contaminated groundwater underlying the Albert Park assessment area.

The highest TCE concentrations (in both the WMS-LU assessment and the soil vapour assessment) have been detected in the vicinity of WMS03/SV03 located to the north west of the Murray Street site. This location is surrounded by residential properties (which have been present for some time) and therefore the detections of TCE in this area are considered to be present as a result of a migrating plume as opposed to it being a source location.

8.2 Receptors

The VIRA (Section 9) has considered all relevant receptors through the vapour inhalation pathway including:

• Commercial/industrial workers;

• Visitors to commercial/industrial sites;

• Residents (in homes with or without basements) across a range of construction types; and


• Sub-surface trench/maintenance workers.

8.3 Pathways

The Albert Park environmental assessment program has focused on the vapour inhalation pathway for a range of land uses. There are numerous exposure pathways that have not been assessed in this assessment. These are summarised in Section 10.

There is insufficient information available at the completion of these works to adequately assess whether any preferential pathways for vapour migration exist due to the scale of the Albert Park Assessment Area. Several underground services exist in the area (gas, water, wastewater etc.) and there is potential for these service conduits and backfilled trenches to be acting as pathways for vapour migration, however further specific assessment is required to determine whether these potential pathways are significant.


9. Human Health/Vapour Intrusion Risk Assessment

9.1 Overview

A VIRA is required as TCE and cis-1,2-DCE were reported at concentrations exceeding the adopted soil vapour Tier 1 screening criteria.

Intrusive works have been limited to date. To this end, a range of potential exposure scenarios have been included for further assessment, as follows:

• Residents (in slab on grade homes with and without basements, and in crawlspace homes);

• Commercial workers; and

• Subsurface maintenance / construction (trench) workers.

It is noted this risk assessment includes assessment of the inhalation exposure pathway only. The risk assessment for commercial/industrial workers is adequately protective of visitors to commercial/industrial sites.

9.2 Parameters Adopted in Modelling

9.2.1 Exposure Factors

The adopted exposure factors for a resident are summarised below in Table 9.1.

Table 9.1: Exposure Parameters – Resident Exposure Parameter Units Factor Reference Exposure Frequency (EF) days/year 365 ASC NEPM (NEPC, 2013) Exposure Time (ET) – Indoors hours 20#1 ASC NEPM (NEPC, 2013) Exposure Duration (ED) years 35 ASC NEPM (NEPC, 2013) Averaging Time (AT) – non-Threshold years 70 ASC NEPM (NEPC, 2013) Averaging Time (AT) – Threshold years 35#2 ASC NEPM (NEPC, 2013) Notes: #1: It is noted the following exposure time has been adopted for the various residential scenarios:

• Resident in slab on grade home without basement: 20 hours/day in dwelling; • Resident in slab on grade home with non-habitable basement: 19 hours/day in overlying dwelling and 1 hour/day in

basement (to assess a cellar / basement use for storage scenario); • Resident in slab on grade home with habitable basement: 20 hours/day in basement; and • Resident in crawlspace home: 20 hours/day in dwelling.

#2: Consistent with exposure duration

The adopted exposure factors for a commercial worker are summarised below in Table 9.2.

Table 9.2: Exposure Parameters – Commercial Worker Exposure Parameter Units Factor Reference Exposure Frequency (EF) days/year 240 ASC NEPM (NEPC, 2013) Exposure Time (ET) – Indoors hours 8 ASC NEPM (NEPC, 2013) Exposure Duration (ED) years 30 ASC NEPM (NEPC, 2013) Averaging Time (AT) – non-Threshold years 70 ASC NEPM (NEPC, 2013) Averaging Time (AT) – Threshold years 30#1 ASC NEPM (NEPC, 2013) Notes: #1: Consistent with exposure duration

The adopted exposure factors for a subsurface maintenance / construction (trench) worker are summarised below in Table 9.3.


Table 9.3: Exposure Parameters – Subsurface Maintenance / Construction (trench) Worker Exposure Parameter Units Factor Reference Exposure Frequency (EF) days/year 20 CRCCARE 2011#1 Exposure Time (ET) – Indoors hours 8 CRCCARE 2011#1 Exposure Duration (ED) years 30 CRCCARE 2011#1 Averaging Time (AT) – non-Threshold years 70 ASC NEPM (NEPC, 2013) Averaging Time (AT) – Threshold years 30#2 ASC NEPM (NEPC, 2013) Notes: #1: The ASC NEPM (NEPC 2013) does not provide EF, ET and ED for this exposure scenario and hence parameters provided by CRC (2011) have been adopted. #2: Consistent with exposure duration.

9.2.2 Estimation of Inhalation Exposure

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

EC = Adjustment factor*CA

Adjustment factor = (ET*EF*ED)/AT

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 (hours), = 70 years*365 days/year*24 hours/day, for non-threshold exposure

= ED in years*365 days/year*24 hours/day, for threshold exposure.

The adjustment factors for inhalation exposure, as calculated based on the above equations and exposure factors outlined in Section 9.2.1, are summarised below in Table 9.4.

Table 9.4: Summary of Adjustment Factors and Formula for Calculation of Exposure Concentration for Inhalation Exposure Receptor Adjustment Factor – Cancer

Risks (Non-Threshold Exposure) Adjustment Factor – Hazard Index (Threshold Exposure)

Residents in slab on grade homes without basements

0.42 * CA in dwelling 0.83 * CA in dwelling

Residents in slab on grade homes with non-habitable basements (19 hours/day in overlying dwelling and 1 hour/day in basement)

(2.1*10-2 * basement CA) +

(0.40 * overlying dwelling CA) (4.2*10-2 * basement CA) +

(0.79 * overlying dwelling CA)

Residents in slab on grade homes with habitable basements

0.42 * CA in basement 0.83 * CA in basement

Residents in crawlspace homes 0.42 * CA in dwelling 0.83 * CA in dwelling Commercial Worker 9.4*10-2 * CA in building 0.22 * CA in building Sub-Surface Maintenance Worker 7.8*10-3 * CA in trench /

excavation to 1 mbgl 1.8*10-2 * CA in trench / excavation to 1 mbgl

9.2.3 Characterisation of Exposure Areas

Residential Dwellings

Residential dwelling types of slab on grade (with and without basement) and crawlspace have been considered.


The adopted residential dwelling parameters for a slab on grade dwelling (with and without basement) are summarised below in Table 9.5. Fate and transport to residential dwellings of slab on grade construction has included assessment of diffusive and advective vapour movement.

Table 9.5: Summary of Adopted Building Parameters – Residential Dwelling, Slab on Grade with and without Basement Parameter Adopted Value Reference Enclosed floor length 15 m CRCCARE (2011) Enclosed floor width 10 m CRCCARE (2011) Enclosed space height of upper floor(s) 2.4 m CRCCARE (2011) Depth of basement 2.0 m Assumption, noting groundwater is

encountered at depths of approximately 2.5 m bgl and basements are unlikely to be installed within the water table

Basement to dwelling attenuation factor

0.1 CRCCARE (2013) – assumes good separation between the basement and upper floor(s)

Foundation thickness 10 cm CRCCARE (2011) Ventilation / air exchanges (building) 0.6 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)

The adopted residential dwelling parameters for a crawlspace dwelling are summarised below in Table 9.6. Fate and transport of vapours to residential dwellings constructed with crawlspaces have been assessed on the basis of potential diffusive vapour flow only given crawlspaces are generally ventilated.

The potential level of vapours in dwellings overlying a crawlspace has been estimated consistent with US EPA guidance (US EPA, 2015) which recommends that crawlspace vapours are assumed to be present at the same level in overlying residential dwellings. This is noted to be more conservative than the factor of 0.4 recommended to be adopted by CRCCARE (2013).

Table 9.6: Summary of Adopted Building Parameters – Residential Dwelling, Crawlspace Parameter Adopted Value Reference Enclosed floor length 15 m CRCCARE (2011) Enclosed floor width 10 m CRCCARE (2011) Crawlspace height 0.5 m Assumption (crawlspace height is not

provided by the ASC NEPM [NEPC 2013] or CRCCARE [2011]).

Crawlspace to dwelling attenuation factor

1 (i.e. no attenuation) US EPA (2015)

Foundation thickness 0.001 (i.e. no foundation) CRCCARE (2011) – as provided for open space/recreational to simulate no concrete resistance

Ventilation / air exchanges (crawlspace)

0.6 h-1 CRCCARE (2011) – as provided for a slab on grade dwelling. This is likely to be a conservative, however, has been adopted in the absence of site-specific measurement.

Fraction of foundation present as cracks

1 CRCCARE (2011) – as provided for open space/recreational to simulate no concrete resistance

Porosity in foundation cracks 1 CRCCARE (2011) – as provided for open space/recreational

Water content in foundation cracks 0 (i.e. all air) CRCCARE (2011) – as provided for open space/recreational


Commercial Buildings

Commercial buildings have been characterised as slab on grade structures and basements have not been considered.

The adopted commercial building parameters are summarised below in Table 9.7. Fate and transport to commercial buildings of slab on grade construction has included assessment of diffusive and advective vapour movement.

Table 9.7: 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 9.8. It is noted subsurface maintenance trenches / excavations are assumed to occur outside of buildings.

Table 9.8: Summary of Adopted Building Parameters – Subsurface Maintenance Trench / Excavation Parameter Adopted Value Reference 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 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)

9.2.4 Characterisation of Site Physical Parameters

Soils within the Albert Park Assessment Area were observed to consist of a shallow layer of predominantly sand with minor proportions of silt / gravel / clay to a depth of approximately 0.5 m bgl, underlain by silty clays of low to medium plasticity to 2 m bgl (the maximum extent of the investigation). Given the depth from which geotechnical samples were collected / analysed and the soil profile observed, the following soil parameters have been adopted:

• Sand from surface to 1 m bgl: Site geotechnical data collected from depths between 0.45 m bgl and 1 m bgl have been adopted to characterise these soils. Three geotechnical samples were collected – the highest total porosity and lowest degree of saturation have been adopted to ensure a conservative approach. Although sandy soils were observed to occur from surface to 0.5 m bgl, an interval of surface to 1 m bgl has been adopted for sandy soils as the geotechnical samples were collected from across / below the 0.5 m bgl depth and the reported parameters are consistent with expectations for sandy soil. The measured parameters from the geotechnical samples have been used in the VIRA, with published data for sandy soils adopted for the sensitivity analysis. (Section 9.6); and


• Clay from 1 m bgl to 2.05 m bgl: Site geotechnical data collected from 1.5 m bgl to 1.9 m bgl has been adopted to characterise these soils. It is noted only one sample was collected from these depths as only one soil vapour probe was installed to depths greater than 1 m bgl. Adoption of published data for clayey soils has been included in the sensitivity analysis (Section 9.6).

The adopted site physical parameters are summarised below in Table 9.9.

Table 9.9: Summary of Adopted Site Physical Parameters Parameter Adopted Value Reference Sand: 0 m bgl to 1 m bgl Total porosity 0.48#1 Site data (Section 6) Water filled porosity 0.22#2 Site data (Section 6) Air filled porosity 0.26#2 Site data (Section 6) Bulk Density 2.59 t/m3 #3 Site data (Section 6) Silty Clay: 1 m bgl to 2.05 m bgl Total porosity 0.36#4 Site data (Section 6) Water filled porosity 0.31#4 Site data (Section 6) Air filled porosity 0.05#4 Site data (Section 6) Bulk Density 1.87 t/m3 #4 Site data (Section 6) Notes: #1:Highest reported total porosity. #2:Based on the lowest reported degree of saturation of 45.7 %. #3:Average bulk density. #4:Data from SV03_1.5-1.9 (only sample of deeper material collected / analysed).

9.2.5 Characterisation of Chemicals of Interest

As outlined in Section 6, the chemicals exceeding the adopted soil vapour Tier 1 screening criteria and requiring further assessment are TCE and cis-1,2-DCE. The properties of the chemicals of interest (RAIS 2019) are summarised in Table 9.10.

Table 9.10: 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)

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

The ASC NEPM presents toxicity and background intake data for all chemicals requiring further assessment in the VIRA. This data is summarised below in Table 9.11.

Table 9.11: Summary of Toxicity and Background Intakes for Chemicals of Interest Chemical Inhalation TRV Background

(% of TRV) Unit Risk (Carcinogenic Endpoints) (mg/m3)-1

Inhalation Toxicity (Non-Carcinogenic Endpoints) (mg/m3)

TCE 0.004 0.002 10 cis-1,2-DCE N/A#1 0.007 0 Notes: #1: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.

9.2.6 Source Data

As outlined in Section 5.4, data from the shallow soil vapour probes (SV01, SV02, SV03_S, SV04 and SV05-SV10) has been adopted for the Tier 1 assessment of all exposure scenarios other than the residential dwelling with slab on grade with basement construction exposure scenario. The Tier 1


assessment of the residential dwelling with slab on grade with basement construction exposure scenario has been based on data from the deeper soil vapour probe (SV03_D).

Only chemicals exceeding the adopted soil vapour Tier 1 screening criteria for each exposure scenario have been included in the quantitative assessment of risk (i.e. TCE for commercial buildings; TCE and cis-1,2-DCE for residential dwellings with slab on grade without basement construction, residential dwellings with slab on grade with basement construction, and residential dwellings with crawlspace construction). As there are no soil vapour Tier 1 screening criteria for the exposure of subsurface maintenance / construction (trench) workers via the inhalation pathway for the chemicals of interest, both TCE and cis-1,2-DCE have been assessed for this exposure scenario.

The adopted source data, including maximum reported concentration and depth from source to building foundation or subsurface maintenance trench / excavation, are summarised below in Table 9.12.

Table 9.12: Summary of Adopted Source Data Exposure Scenario Adopted Concentration of Chemical of

Interest (µg/m3) Adopted Depth from Source to Building Foundation

Commercial building TCE: 16,000 µg/m3 (SV03_S) 1.1 m bgl (depth from SV03_S to building foundation)

Residential dwelling, slab on grade without basement

TCE: 16,000 µg/m3 (SV03_S) cis-1,2-DCE: 87 µg/m3 (SV03_S)

1.1 m bgl (depth from SV03_S to building foundation)

Residential dwelling, crawlspace Residential dwelling, slab on grade with basement

TCE: 56,000 µg/m3 (SV03_D) cis-1,2-DCE: 260 µg/m3 (SV03_D)

0.05 m bgl (depth from SV03_D to basement foundation)

Subsurface maintenance trench / excavation to 1 m bgl

TCE: 16,000 µg/m3 (SV03_S) cis-1,2-DCE: 87 µg/m3 (SV03_S)

0.1 m bgl (depth from SV03_S to base of trench)

9.2.7 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 J&E relationships in estimating transport of volatile constituents into human breathing zones. US EPA (2004) reports that the use of J&E relationships is appropriate in undertaking human health risk assessments. Exposure parameters, building and subsurface maintenance trench / excavation parameters, site physical parameters and chemical parameters have been updated as outlined in Section 9.2.1 to Section 9.2.5.

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

Model input and output sheets are provided as Appendix N. The predicted indoor air concentrations for both exposure scenarios are summarised below in Table 9.13.

Table 9.13: Predicted Indoor Air Concentrations (µg/m3)

Exposure Scenario Predicted Indoor Air Concentration (µg/m3) TCE cis-1,2-DCE


1.03 8.16*10-3

Residential dwelling, slab on grade with basement

– Within basement 9.21 6.23*10-2 – Within upper floors (assuming good separation between the basement and upper floor[s])

0.92 6.23*10-3

Residential dwelling, crawlspace 5.02 3.99*10-2 Commercial building 0.60 N/A Subsurface maintenance trench / excavation to 1 m bgl

1.87*10-2 1.50*10-4


9.4 Assessment of Risk

9.4.1 Adopted Criteria for the Assessment of Risk

As consistent with the ASC NEPM (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 total HI of 1.

9.4.2 Risk Assessment Calculation

Risk assessment calculations have been completed based on the following:

• Estimate of inhalation exposures for each population (Section 9.2.2);

• Unit risk and reference concentrations for each chemical (Section 9.2.5); and

• Fate and transport modelling outcomes (Section 9.3).

ILCR and HI calculation spreadsheets are included in Appendix O and summarised below in Table 9.14 (ILCR) and Table 9.15 (HI).

The calculated ILCR (for carcinogenic endpoints) exceeded the adopted criteria for a resident in a slab on grade dwelling with basement used as a habitable area. Additionally, the ILCR for a residential dwelling of crawlspace construction was marginally below the adopted criteria.

The calculated ILCR for each of the remaining scenarios assessed (slab on grade residential without basement, slab on grade residential with non-habitable basement, commercial/industrial and trench workers) were below the adopted criteria.

Table 9.14: Summary of ILCR Calculations (Carcinogenic Endpoints) Exposure Scenario TCE Acceptable ILCR Resident in slab on grade home without basement 1.7*10-6 1*10-5 Resident in slab on grade home with non-habitable basement (i.e. 19 hours/day in overlying dwelling and 1 hour/day in basement)

2.2*10-6 1*10-5

Resident in slab on grade home with habitable basement (i.e. 20 hours/day in basement)

1.5*10-5 1*10-5

Resident in crawlspace home 8.4*10-6 1*10-5 Commercial worker 2.3*10-7 1*10-5 Subsurface maintenance / construction (trench) worker 5.8*10-10 1*10-5

The calculated HI for non-carcinogenic endpoints exceeded the adopted criteria for a resident in a slab on grade dwelling with basement used as a habitable area, and a residential dwelling of crawlspace construction.

The calculated HI for each of the remaining scenarios assessed (slab on grade residential without basement, slab on grade residential with non-habitable basement, commercial/industrial and trench workers) were below the adopted criteria.

Table 9.15: Summary of HI Calculations (Non-carcinogenic Endpoints) Chemical TCE cis-1,2-DCE Total HI Acceptable HI Resident in slab on grade home without basement 0.48 9.7*10-4 0.48 1.0 Resident in slab on grade home with non-habitable basement (i.e. 19 hours/day in overlying dwelling and 1 hour/day in basement)

0.62 1.1*10-3 0.62 1.0

Resident in slab on grade home with habitable basement (i.e. 20 hours/day in basement)

4.2 7.4*10-3 4.3 1.0

Resident in crawlspace home 2.3 4.7*10-3 2.3 1.0 Commercial worker 7.3*10-2 N/A 7.3*10-2 1.0 Subsurface maintenance / construction (trench) worker 1.9*10-4 3.9*10-7 1.9*10-4 1.0


9.5 Comparison of Predicted TCE Indoor Air Concentrations within Residential Dwellings to TCE Response Ranges

9.5.1 Background

The predicted TCE indoor air concentrations in residential dwellings have also been compared to the Government of South Australia TCE Indoor Air Response Ranges1. These response ranges were developed by the EPA for sensitive land uses for use in determining the level of risk and the response required for each concentration range from no action (<LOR) through to accelerated intervention (>200µg/m3).

The TCE Indoor Air Response Ranges and actions are shown below in Image 1.

It is noted the Indoor Air Response Ranges are available for TCE only. Given TCE is the chemical driving the risk at the site, the absence of Indoor Air Response Ranges for cis-1,2-DCE will not impact on the conclusions of this VIRA.

1 TCE Indoor Air Response Ranges, Government of South Australia, 2014 (Government of South Australia, 2014).


Image 1 – TCE Indoor Air Response Ranges (Government of South Australia, 2014)


9.5.2 Residential Exposure Scenario Predicted Indoor Air TCE Concentration with Corresponding TCE Indoor Air Response Range Classification

A summary of the predicted TCE concentrations in indoor air for the various residential exposure scenarios are included below in Table 9.16 along with the corresponding TCE Indoor Air Response Range classification.

Table 9.16: Predicted TCE Indoor Air Concentrations (µg/m3) in Residential Dwellings (based on maximum soil vapour concentration) with Corresponding TCE Indoor Air Response Range Classification

Exposure Scenario Predicted TCE Indoor Air Concentration (µg/m3)

TCE Indoor Air Response Range Classification

Residential dwelling, slab on grade without basement 1.03 Validation Residential dwelling, slab on grade with basement – Within habitable basement

9.21 Investigation

Residential dwelling, slab on grade with basement – Within upper floors (assuming good separation between the basement and upper floor[s])

0.92 Validation

Residential dwelling, crawlspace 5.02 Investigation

9.5.3 Crawlspace Dwelling Predicted Indoor Air TCE Concentration with Corresponding TCE Indoor Air Response Range Classification

Two exposure scenarios reported predicted indoor air concentrations with the TCE Indoor Air Response Range classification of ‘Investigation’; residential dwellings with slab on grade construction with habitable basement, and residential dwelling with crawlspace construction. Further consideration of soil vapour concentrations reported across the Albert Park Assessment Area has been completed for residential dwellings with crawlspace construction, however, this was not possible for the residential dwelling with slab on grade construction with habitable basement scenario as this exposure scenario was assessed on the basis of soil vapour data from a depth of 2.05 m bgl and there is only one soil vapour probe installed to this depth at the site.

A summary of the predicted TCE concentrations in indoor air for all soil vapour probes installed to a depth of 1.1 m bgl in the Albert Park Assessment Area are included below in Table 9.17 along with the corresponding TCE Indoor Air Response Range classification.

Table 9.17: Predicted TCE Indoor Air Concentrations (µg/m3) in Crawlspace Dwellings for all Soil Vapour Probes Installed to 1.1 m bgl with Corresponding TCE Indoor Air Response Range Classification Soil Vapour Probe Reported Soil Vapour

TCE Concentration (µg/m3)

Attenuation Factor Predicted TCE Indoor Air Concentration (µg/m3)

TCE Indoor Air Response Range Classification

SV01 13,000 3.14*10-4 4.08 Investigation SV02 7,900 3.14*10-4 2.48 Investigation SV03 16,000 3.14*10-4 5.02 Investigation SV04 6,400 3.14*10-4 2.01 Investigation SV05 1,300 3.14*10-4 0.41 Validation SV06 590 3.14*10-4 0.19 Validation SV07 24 3.14*10-4 0.01 No Action SV08 4,600 3.14*10-4 1.44 Validation SV09 940 3.14*10-4 0.29 Validation SV10 20 3.14*10-4 0.01 No Action

9.6 Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis

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

• Levels of chemicals as estimated by the sampling program completed in April / May and June 2019 for the Albert Park Assessment Area;


• Characterisation of the site physical parameters;

• Exposure parameters to characterise the receptors;

• Building and trench parameters; and

• Use of modelling package.

9.6.1 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 6.5*10-5 for the residential dwelling with slab on grade construction without basement exposure scenario. 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 this exposure scenario with the reported soils (sand to 1 m bgl underlain by clay to 2.05 m bgl). This lower alpha is due to the adoption of site-specific geotechnical data for the soil parameters, noting that an alpha within the default range provided by US EPA is calculated when adopting the US EPA default soil parameters for sand and clay. It is noted that the alpha is also lower than the default range provided by US EPA when adopting generic soil parameters from Australian guidance (i.e. the alpha is outside of the default range provided by US EPA due to differences in Australian soil vs US soil).

It should be noted that 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, however, no indoor air data has been collected within the Albert Park Assessment Area to date.

9.6.2 Source Concentration Data

Soil vapour data utilised within the VIRA was obtained during investigations completed in April / May and June 2019 (outlined in Section 3 to Section 5) for the Albert Park Assessment Area. As outlined in Section 9.2.6, the maximum soil vapour concentrations reported within the Albert Park Assessment Area were adopted as the source concentration data for modelling indoor air concentrations. The adoption of maximum concentrations is considered most appropriate given the key exposure pathway of concern is to residents within the Albert Park Assessment Area and a residential dwelling may be located in close proximity to a source area.

It is noted the soil vapour data is on a large spatial scale with limited historical information and hence there is potential for higher concentrations of the chemicals of interest to be present. In addition, soil vapour concentrations increased significantly (approximately doubled in key locations) across the majority of soil vapour probes between the May and June 2019 monitoring events.

9.6.3 Site Physical Parameter Data

As outlined in Section 9.2.4, geotechnical samples were collected as part of the works program and this data has been adopted as the site-specific soil parameter data in the modelling for both shallow sandy soils (surface to 1 m bgl) and deeper clay soils (1 m bgl to 2.1 m bgl). In order to assess the sensitivity of the model to the site-specific soil parameter data adopted, the CRC CARE (2011) parameters have been adopted in additional modelling (outlined in Table 9.18). It is noted sandy soils were observed to occur from surface to approximately 0.5 m bgl, however, as the geotechnical samples were collected from across / below the 0.5 m bgl depth and the reported parameters are consistent with expectations for sandy soil, an interval of surface to 1 m bgl has been adopted for sandy soils.


Table 9.18: Sensitivity Analysis – Summary of Alternate (Published) Physical Parameter Data Parameter Adopted Value Reference Sand: 0 m bgl to 1 m bgl Total porosity 0.387 CRC CARE (2011) Water filled porosity 0.130 CRC CARE (2011) Air filled porosity 0.257 CRC CARE (2011) Bulk Density 1.625 t/m3 CRC CARE (2011) Silty Clay: 1 m bgl to 2.05 m bgl Total porosity 0.447 CRC CARE (2011) Water filled porosity 0.300 CRC CARE (2011) Air filled porosity 0.147 CRC CARE (2011) Bulk Density 1.466 t/m3 CRC CARE (2011)

The adoption of the above alternate physical parameters results in the prediction of significantly higher (generally by an order of magnitude) indoor air concentrations for all exposure scenarios (summarised below in Table 9.19). Based on these higher indoor air concentrations:

• The calculated HI and ILCR exceeded the adopted criteria for all residential scenarios (i.e. residential slab on grade without basement, residential slab on grade with habitable basement / with non-habitable basement, and residential crawlspace dwelling) and resulted in alternate TCE Indoor Air Reponses Range classifications (‘Investigation’ for the residential slab on grade without basement exposure scenario and residential slab on grade with non-habitable basement exposure scenario; and ‘Intervention’ for residential slab on grade with habitable basement exposure scenario and residential crawlspace dwelling exposure scenario); and

• The calculated HI and ILCR was below the adopted criteria for the commercial building and subsurface maintenance trench / excavation to 1 m bgl.

Table 9.19: Sensitivity Analysis – Predicted Indoor Air Concentrations with Alternate Physical Parameter Data (µg/m3)

Exposure Scenario

Predicted Indoor Air TCE Concentration (µg/m3) Physical Parameters Adopted in VIRA (Site Specific Geotechnical Data)

Sensitivity Analysis Physical Parameters (Published Soil Parameter Data)


1.03 9.42

Residential dwelling, slab on grade with basement

– Within basement 9.21 114.75 – Within upper floors (assuming good separation between the basement and upper floor[s])

0.92 11.48

Residential dwelling, crawlspace 5.02 51.06 Commercial building 0.60 5.73 Subsurface maintenance trench / excavation to 1mbgl

1.87*10-2 0.38

9.6.4 Exposure Parameters to Characterise Receptors

As outlined in Section 9.2.1, the exposure factors adopted are consistent with those adopted in the ASC NEPM (NEPC 2013) for residents and commercial workers, and CRC CARE (2011) for subsurface maintenance/ excavation workers. Acknowledging the potential to be at home / work for longer hours, the following exposures have been assessed:

• Residents: 365 days/year; 24 hours/day2, 35 years;

2 It is noted the following exposure time has been adopted for the various residential scenarios:


• 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 VIRA for the exposure scenarios where the calculated ILCR and/or HI was below the adopted criteria in Section 9.4.2 (i.e. residential slab on grade without basement, residential slab on grade with non-habitable basement, commercial building and subsurface maintenance trench / excavation). For the remaining exposure scenarios (residential slab on grade with habitable basement, and residential crawlspace dwelling), the increased exposure increased the ILCR and HI (which already exceeded the adopted criteria for ILCR and/or HI).

9.6.5 Residential Dwelling, Commercial Building and Excavation Parameters

As outlined in Section 9.2.3, the building and excavation parameters adopted are consistent with CRC CARE (2011). It is noted that by changing the floor area of a residential dwelling / commercial building (i.e. a 5 m by 5 m room) or the lateral extent of an excavation (i.e. 5 m length), the predicted indoor air concentrations are not altered.

9.6.6 Modelling Package

As outlined in Section 9.2.7, 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 residential dwelling with slab on grade construction without basement replicated. The sensitivity analysis US EPA J&E spreadsheet is included in Appendix P.

9.6.7 Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis Conclusions

There are several factors which may have caused the risk and hazard estimates provided in VIRA to be underestimated, the most significant of which are as follows:

• The potential for higher concentrations to be present within the Albert Park Assessment Area given there is no definitive identification and/or delineation of source areas; and

• The adoption of site-specific physical parameters from analysis of a limited number of geotechnical samples from the site (three samples from the surface to 1 m bgl [sandy layer], and one samples from 1 m bgl to 2 m bgl [clayey layer]).

The remaining factors did not have a significant effect on the risk and hazard estimates.

9.7 VIRA Conclusion

9.7.1 Exposure Scenarios Where No Unacceptable Risk was Identified

Based on the data collected to date, and subject to the limitations in Section 11, no unacceptable risks were identified for the following exposure scenarios:

• Residential dwelling, slab on grade without basement;

• Resident in a slab on grade home without basement 24 hours/day in dwelling; • Resident in a slab on grade home with non-habitable basement: 23 hours/day in overlying dwelling and 1 hour/day in basement (to

assess a cellar / basement use for storage scenario; • Resident in a slab on grade home with habitable basement: 24 hours/day in basement; and • Resident in a crawlspace home: 24 hours/day in dwelling.


• Residential dwelling, slab on grade with non-habitable basement, assuming good separation between the basement and upper floor(s) – based on 1 hour/day in basement for a cellar / basement storage scenario;

• Commercial workers; and

• Subsurface maintenance / construction workers in subsurface maintenance trenches / excavations installed to a maximum depth of 1 m bgl in outdoor areas.

It is noted commercial buildings with basements have not been assessed, nor have subsurface maintenance trenches / excavations to depths greater than 1 m bgl, or subsurface maintenance trenches / excavations installed within buildings.

9.7.2 Exposure Scenarios Where a Potential Risk was Identified

Based on the data collected to date, and subject to the limitations in Section 11, potentially unacceptable risks were identified for the following exposure scenarios:

• Residential dwelling, slab on grade with habitable basement; and

• Residential dwelling of crawlspace construction (assuming low sub-floor ventilation of 0.6 air exchanges per hour in the crawlspace).

The predicted indoor air TCE concentrations in residential dwellings resulted in the following TCE Indoor Air Response Range classifications3:

• ‘Validation – Safe’:

o Residential dwelling, slab on grade without basement; and

o Residential dwelling, slab on grade with non-habitable basement, assuming good separation between the basement and upper floor(s).

• ‘Investigation – No immediate health concerns, further assessment may be necessary’:


o Residential dwelling of crawlspace construction (assuming low sub-floor ventilation).

3 Indoor Air Response Range classifications for commercial/industrial workers and trench workers are not included as the Indoor Air

Response Ranges (Government of South Australia, 2014) pertain to residential dwellings only.


10. Conclusions & Data Gaps

10.1 Conclusions

Subject to the limitations in Section 11 of this report, the following was concluded:

• Concentrations of TCE were detected in numerous WMS-LU samples (WMS01, WMS03, WMS06, WMS07, WMS10) that exceeded the ASC NEPM iHILs for residential land uses.

• Concentrations of TCE were detected in numerous soil vapour bores (SV01, SV02, SV03_S, SV04, SV05, SV06, SV07, SV08, SV09) that exceeded the ASC NEPM iHILs for residential land uses.

• Concentrations of cis 1-2, DCE was also detected in the deeper bore at SV03_D.

A VIRA was completed and concludes the following:

• There are no unacceptable risks associated with the presence of cis 1,2-DCE vapour;

• There are no unacceptable risks associated with the presence of TCE vapour in the following scenarios:

o Residential dwelling, slab on grade without basement;

o Residential dwelling, slab on grade with a non-habitable basement, assuming good separation between the basement and upper floor(s), based on 1 hour/day in the basement;

o Commercial workers; and

o Sub-surface maintenance /construction (trench) workers in sub-surface maintenance trenches / excavations installed to a maximum depth of 1mbgl in outdoor areas.

• There are potentially unacceptable risks associated with the presence of TCE vapour in the following scenarios:


o Residential dwellings of crawlspace construction (assuming low sub-floor ventilation).

The predicted concentrations of TCE indoors where a potential risk was identified, fall within the ‘investigation range’ of the SA EPA TCE Indoor Air Response Ranges.

The soil vapour plume is not delineated, based both on WMS-LU and soil vapour data. WMS10/SV04 indicates soil vapour contamination on the up-gradient side of the Albert Park assessment area and SV08 (4,600µg/m3) and SV09 (940µg/m3) indicates that the soil vapour contamination extends beyond the western boundary of the Albert Park assessment area.

Further assessment of groundwater and soil vapour is required to understand the full nature and extent of the contamination plume(s).

A number of data gaps have been identified and are outlined in Section 10.2.

10.2 Data gaps

The following data gaps were identified following completion of the Albert Park Environmental Assessment Program:

• Limited information in relation to the source(s) of the contamination (location and magnitude);

• There may be multiple sources of soil vapour impact (data from SV03 & SV04 does not appear to be related to the Murray Street site);


• Limited to no information about the nature and extent of groundwater contamination within the Albert Park Assessment Area, and whether the vapour is being generated from groundwater contamination or another source (i.e. soil);

• The information available in relation to the nature and extent of the soil vapour plume(s) is not well defined. The plume is not delineated and is likely to extend beyond the boundaries of the Albert Park Assessment Area;

• Limited temporal soil vapour data is available (sample locations have only been sampled once or twice), additional soil vapour sampling to better characterise the soil vapour plume would allow for refinement of the conclusions of the VIRA and the area that may require additional consideration;

• The CSM is limited to understanding the potential vapour inhalation pathways only, additional information is required to build a more complete CSM;

• The potential for any preferential pathways for vapour migration is not understood due to the large scale and diversity of infrastructure and buildings across the investigation area; and

• Limited geotechnical data (a total of 4 geotechnical samples) has been collected across two installation events within the Albert Park Assessment Area. The measured soil parameters are variable and further geotechnical sampling (spatially and temporally) would assist in better understanding the geological conditions in the Albert Park Assessment Area.


11. 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.


12. References

Bureau of Meteorology, accessed 6 August 2019, http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/wData/wdata?p_nccObsCode=139&p_display_type=dataFile&p_stn_num=023024

CRCCARE 2013, CRCCARE Technical Report 23: Petroleum Hydrocarbon Vapour Intrusion Assessment: Australian Guidance, Cooperative Research Centre for Contamination and Remediation of the Environment

EPA 2018, Guidelines for the Assessment and Remediation of Site Contamination, 2018

Fenner C and Cleland JB 1935, The Geography and Botany of the Adelaide Coast, Rigby Ltd, Grenfell St, Adelaide

Gerges N 2006, Overview of the hydrogeology of the Adelaide metropolitan area, Report DWLBC 2006/10, Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation, Government of South Australia

Government of South Australia, 2014, TCE Indoor Air Response Ranges, Environment Protection Authority

ITRC, 2007, Technical and Regulatory Guidance, Vapour Intrusion Pathway, a Practical Guideline, Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council

NEPC 2013, National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999, amended in 2013

Risk Assessment Information System (RAIS), accessed online, May 2019

Standards Australia, 2017, Australian Standard 1726:2017, Geotechnical Site Investigations

Taylor JK, Thomson BP and Shepherd RG, 1974, The soils and Geology of the Adelaide Area, Department of Mines Geological Survey of South Australia

US EPA 2004, User’s Guide for Evaluating Subsurface Vapour Intrusion into Buildings

US EPA, 2009, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual Part F (Supplemental Guidance for Inhalation Risk Assessment)

US EPA, 2015, OSWER Technical Guide for Assessing and Mitigating the Vapour Intrusion Pathway from Subsurface Vapour Sources to Indoor Air


Appendix A – Figures

Job No: 55976

Client: EPA

Version: DRAFT

Drawn By: PN

Date: 04-Jun-2019

Checked By: DM

Scale at A4

Coor. Sys. GDA 1994 MGA Zone 54

FIGURE 1

24 Murray Street, Albert Park, South AustraliaSITE LOCATION

Document Path: S:\Projects JBSG\Adelaide\1. PROJECTS BY CLIENT\EPA SA\A lbert Park\55976 - AP Stage 1&2 - WMS & SV\ArcGIS\Maps\Figure_01_SiteLocation.mxdImage Reference: www.nearmap.com© - Imagery Date: 28/03/2019; ESRI Topographic Basemap - Imagery Accessed: 04/06/2019

Legend:

Z0 50 100

metres

Site BoundaryEPA Assessment Area

1:3,500

Z0 50 100

metres

Document Path: S:\Projects JBSG\Adelaide\1. PROJECTS BY CLIENT\EPA SA\A lbert Park\55976 - AP Stage 1&2 - WMS & SV\ArcGIS\Maps\Figure_02_SiteLayout.mxdImage Reference: www.nearmap.com© - Imagery Date: 28 March 2019

EPA Assessment AreaSite Boundary

Job No: 55976

Client: EPA

Version: RevA

Drawn By: PN

Date: 04-Jun-2019

Checked By: DM

Scale at A4


FIGURE 2

Legend:

1:2,500

24 Murray Street, Albert Park, South Australia

SITE LAYOUT

Murray Street

Glyde Street

Botting Street

Malin Street

Spence Street

Grace Street

Osborne Street

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!AWMS11

WMS10

WMS09

WMS08

WMS07

WMS06WMS05

WMS04

WMS03

WMS02

WMS01

9 <6

<6

<6

20

20

580

5000

5200

9400

5100

Z0 50 100

metres

Document Path: S:\Projects JBSG\Adelaide\1. PROJECTS BY CLIENT\EPA SA\A lbert Park\55976 - AP Stage 1&2 - WMS & SV\ArcGIS\Maps\Figure_03_MWS_Locations.mxdImage Reference: www.nearmap.com© - Imagery Date: 27 January 2019

Site BoundaryEPA Assessment Area

!A Proposed WMS Location

Job No: 55976

Client: EPA

Version: DRAFT

Drawn By: HF

Date: 04-Jun-2019

Checked By: DM

Scale at A4


FIGURE 3

Legend:

1:2,500


WATERLOO MEMBRANE SAMPLER LOCATIONS AND DATA

5000

Murray Street

Glyde Street

Botting Street

Malin Street

Spence Street

Trichloroethene Concentration (ug/m3)

!A!A

!A

!A !A!A

!A

!A!A

!A

!A

SV01SV02

SV05

SV03_S SV04SV03_D

SV06

SV07SV08

SV09

SV10

Z0 50 100

metres

Document Path: S:\Projects JBSG\Adelaide\1. PROJECTS BY CLIENT\EPA SA\Albert Park\55976 - AP Stage 1&2 - WMS & SV\ArcGIS\Maps\Figure_04_SV_Locations .mxdImage Reference: www.nearmap.com© - Imagery Date: 28 March 2019

EPA Assessment Area

Site Boundary

!A Soil Vapour Location

Job No: 55976

Client: EPA

Version: RevA

Drawn By: PN

Date: 03-Jul-2019

Checked By: DM

Scale at A4


FIGURE 4

Legend:

1:2,500


SOIL VAPOUR SAMPLE LOCATIONSAND TCE CONCENTRATIONS

Murray Street

Glyde Street

Botting Street

Malin Street

Spence Street

Grace Street

Osborne Street

SV01 Trichloroethene (ug/m3)7/05/2019 6,100

21/06/2019 13,000


21/06/2019 7,900

SV03_D Trichloroethene (ug/m3)7/05/2019 28,000

21/06/2019 56,000

SV03_S Trichloroethene (ug/m3)7/05/2019 10,000

21/06/2019 16,000


21/06/2019 6,400


21/06/2019 1,300

SV06 Trichloroethene (ug/m3)26/06/2019 590




SV10 Trichloroethene (ug/m 3)26/06/2019 20

g

g

gg

gg

gg

gg

g

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A!A !A

!A

!A !A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

5100

20

9400

20

<65200

580

9

<6

5000

<6

14 5200 530

7000

7.7 3600

1600

1925

65

520

W M S01

W M S02

W M S03

W M S04

W M S05W M S06

W M S07

W M S08

W M S09

W M S10

W M S11

2018/1 2018/2 2018/3

2018/4

2018/5 2018/6

2018/7

2018/82018/9

2018/10

2018/11

Z0 25 50

metres

Do c um ent Pa th: S:\Pro jects JBSG\Adela ide\1. PRO JECTS BY CLIENT\EPA SA\Alb ert Pa rk\55976 - AP Sta ge 1&2 - WMS & SV\ArcGIS\Ma ps\Figure_05_TCE_Plum e+AllWm s.m xdIm a ge Referenc e: w ww.nea rm a p.c o m © - Im a gery Date: 27 Ja nua ry 2019

Site Bound aryEPA Assessm ent Area

Soil V apour Investigation LocationConsultant!A JBS&G (2019)!A LW C (2018)g Na ture a nd Extent Unkno w n (TCE)Inferr ed Trichloroe thene Plum e(μg/m 3) - All W m s

1600-30003000-64006400-80008000-10000

Jo b No: 55976

Client: EPA

Versio n: DRAFT

Dra w n By: PN

Da te: 20-Aug-2019

Chec ked By: DM

Sc a le a t A4

Co o r. Sys. GDA 1994 MGA Z o ne 54

FIGURE 5

Legend :

1:2,250

Albert Park Assessm ent Ar ea

EPA ASSESSM ENT AREA INFERREDTRICHLOROETHENE PLUM E EXTENT - ALL W M S

Murra y Street

Glyde Street

Bo tting Street

Ma lin Street

Spenc e Street

As requested b y the c lient, JBS&G ha ve inc ludedthe da ta c o llec ted b y a third pa rty perta ining to the ‘Murra y Street site’, JBS&G m a ke no w a rra nties aro und the a c cura c y o f data c o llected b y o thers.

gg

g g g g g ggg

gg

g

gg

g g g

!A!A

!A

!A !A

!A

!A!A

!A

!A

13000 7900

1300

16000 6400

590

244600

940

20

SV01SV02

SV05

SV03_S SV04

SV06

SV07SV08

SV09

SV10

Z0 25 50

metres

Docum ent P ath: S:\P rojects JBSG\Ad elaid e\1. P ROJECTS BY CLIENT\EP A SA\Alb ert P ark\55976 - AP Stage 1&2 - WMS & SV\ArcGIS\Map s\Figure_06_TCE_P lum e+Jb sgSv.m xdIm age Reference: w ww.nearm ap .com © - Im agery Date: 27 January 2019

Soil Vapour Inv estigation Location!A Soil Vapour Inv estigation Location

Site Boundaryg Nature and Extent Unknown (TCE)

EPA Assessm ent AreaInferred Trichloroethene Plum e(μg /m 3) - JBSG SV

1600-30003000-64006400-1000010000-16000

Job No: 55976

Client: EP A

Version: DRAFT

Drawn By: P N

Date: 20-Aug-2019

Checked By: DM

Scale at A4

Coor. Sys. GDA 1994 MGA Z one 54

FIGUR E 6

Legend:

1:2,250

Alb ert Park Assessm ent Area

EPA ASSESSMENT AR EA INFER R EDTR ICHLOR OETHENE PLUME EXTENT - JBSG SOIL VAPOUR

Murray Street

Glyd e Street

Botting Street

Malin Street

Sp ence Street

As requested b y the client, JBS&G have includ edthe d ata collected b y a third p arty p ertaining to the ‘Murray Street site’, JBS&G m ake no warranties around the accuracy of d ata collected b y others.


Appendix B – Data Summary Tables

WATERLOO SOIL VAPOUR RESULTS SUMMARY - APRIL 2019 Project Number: 55976 Project Name: Albert Park - EPA

cis-

1,2-

dich

loro

ethe

ne

Tetr

achl

oroe

then

e

tran

s-1,

2-di

chlo

roet

hene

Tric

hlor

oeth

ene

Viny

l Chl

orid

e

ug/m3 ug/m3 ug/m3 ug/m3 ug/m3EQL(a). NEPC (2013) Interim Soil Vapour HILs: Residential 80 2000 20 30(a). NEPC (2013) Interim Soil Vapour HILs: Commercial 300 8000 80 100

Field_ID Sampled_Date-Time Lab_Report_NumberWMS01 8/04/2019 224990 20 70 <9 5100#1 <122WMS02 8/04/2019 224990 <8 <4 <9 20 <121WMS03 8/04/2019 224990 20 30 <9 9400#1 <121WMS04 8/04/2019 224990 <8 <4 <9 20 <121WMS05 8/04/2019 224990 <8 9 <9 <6 <122WMS06 8/04/2019 224990 10 60 <9 5200#1 <122WMS07 8/04/2019 224990 <8 70 <9 580#1 <122WMS08 8/04/2019 224990 <8 40 <9 9 <122WMS09 8/04/2019 224990 <8 <4 <9 <6 <121WMS10 8/04/2019 224990 20 40 <9 5000#1 <121WMS11 8/04/2019 224990 <8 60 <9 <6 <120

Data Comments#1: WMS data has been compared against criteria for residential land use, also exceeds criteria for commercial land use

VOC/TRH Vapour Suite-Waterloo

Waterloo Membrane Sampling QAQC Summary TableProject Number: 55976Project Name: Albert Park

Lab Report 224990 Laboratory SplitField ID WMS05 DUP01 RPDSample Date 8/04/2019 8/04/2019

Chem Group Chem Name Units EQLChlorinated Alkenes cis-1,2-dichloroethene ug/m3 <8.0 <8.0 0 Tetrachloroethene ug/m3 9.0 10.0 11 trans-1,2-dichloroethene ug/m3 <9.0 <9.0 0 Trichloroethene ug/m3 <6.0 <6.0 0 Vinyl Chloride ug/m3 <122.0 <122.0 0*RPDs have only been considered where a concentration is greater than 1 times the EQL.**High RPDs are in bold (Acceptable RPDs for each EQL multiplier range are: 30 (1-10 x EQL); 30 (10-30 x EQL); 30 ( > 30 x EQL) )***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

WMS FIELD BLANK QAQC SUMMARY TABLEProject Number: 55976Project Name: Albert Park

Lab Report 224990Field ID FB01Sample Date 8/04/2019Sample Type Field Blank

Chem Group Chem Name Units EQLChlorinated Alkenes cis-1,2-dichloroethene ug/m3 <8 Tetrachloroethene ug/m3 <4 trans-1,2-dichloroethene ug/m3 <9 Trichloroethene ug/m3 <6 Vinyl Chloride ug/m3 <122

WMS RINSATE QAQC SUMMARY TABLEProject Number: 55976Project Name: Albert Park

Lab Report 224990Field ID RB01Sample Date 1/04/2019Sample Type Rinsate

Chem Group Chem Name Units EQLBTEXN Benzene mg/l 0.001 <0.001 Ethylbenzene mg/l 0.001 <0.001 Toluene mg/l 0.001 <0.001 Xylene (o) mg/l 0.001 <0.001 Xylene (m & p) mg/l 0.002 <0.002Chlorinated Alkanes 1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane mg/l 0.001 <0.001 1,1,1-trichloroethane mg/l 0.001 <0.001 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane mg/l 0.001 <0.001 1,1,2-trichloroethane mg/l 0.001 <0.001 1,1-dichloroethane mg/l 0.001 <0.001 1,2,3-trichloropropane mg/l 0.001 <0.001 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane mg/l 0.001 <0.001 1,2-dichloroethane mg/l 0.001 <0.001 1,2-dichloropropane mg/l 0.001 <0.001 1,3-dichloropropane mg/l 0.001 <0.001 2,2-dichloropropane mg/l 0.001 <0.001 Bromochloromethane mg/l 0.001 <0.001 Carbon tetrachloride mg/l 0.001 <0.001 Chloroethane mg/l 0.01 <0.01 Chloromethane mg/l 0.01 <0.01 Dichlorodifluoromethane mg/l 0.01 <0.01 Trichlorofluoromethane mg/l 0.01 <0.01Chlorinated Alkenes 1,1-dichloroethene mg/l 0.001 <0.001 1,1-dichloropropene mg/l 0.001 <0.001 2-chlorotoluene mg/l 0.001 <0.001 4-chlorotoluene mg/l 0.001 <0.001 cis-1,2-dichloroethene mg/l 0.001 <0.001 cis-1,3-dichloropropene mg/l 0.001 <0.001 Tetrachloroethene mg/l 0.001 <0.001 trans-1,2-dichloroethene mg/l 0.001 <0.001 trans-1,3-dichloropropene mg/l 0.001 <0.001 Trichloroethene mg/l 0.001 <0.001 Vinyl Chloride mg/l 0.01 <0.01Chlorinated Benzenes 1,2,3-trichlorobenzene mg/l 0.001 <0.001 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene mg/l 0.001 <0.001 1,2-Dichlorobenzene mg/l 0.001 <0.001 1,3-dichlorobenzene mg/l 0.001 <0.001 1,4-dichlorobenzene mg/l 0.001 <0.001 Chlorobenzene mg/l 0.001 <0.001Miscellaneous Hydrocarbons 1,2-dibromoethane mg/l 0.001 <0.001 Bromomethane mg/l 0.01 <0.01 Cyclohexane mg/l 0.001 <0.001 Dibromomethane mg/l 0.001 <0.001Miscellaneous Industrial Chemicals Hexachlorobutadiene mg/l 0.001 <0.001Monocyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 1,2,4-trimethyl benzene mg/l 0.001 <0.001 1,3,5-trimethyl benzene mg/l 0.001 <0.001 4-isopropyl toluene mg/l 0.001 <0.001 Bromobenzene mg/l 0.001 <0.001 Isopropylbenzene mg/l 0.001 <0.001 n-butyl benzene mg/l 0.001 <0.001 n-propyl benzene mg/l 0.001 <0.001 sec-butyl benzene mg/l 0.001 <0.001 Styrene mg/l 0.001 <0.001 Tert-butyl benzene mg/l 0.001 <0.001Solvents MTBE mg/l 0.001 <0.001Trihalomethanes Bromodichloromethane mg/l 0.001 <0.001 Chloroform mg/l 0.001 <0.001 Dibromochloromethane mg/l 0.001 <0.001 Tribromomethane mg/l 0.001 <0.001

SOIL VAPOUR SUMMARY TABLEProject Number: 55976Project Name: Albert Park

cis-

1,2-

dich

loro

ethe

ne

Tetr

achl

oroe

then

e

tran

s-1,

2-di

chlo

roet

hene

Tric

hlor

oeth

ene

Viny

l Chl

orid

e

µg/m3 µg/m3 ug/m3 ug/m3 ug/m3LOR 2 3.4 2 1.6 0.8(a). NEPC (2013) Interim Soil Vapour HILs: Residential 80 2000 20 30(a). NEPC (2013) Interim Soil Vapour HILs: Commercial 300 8000 80 100

Field ID Sample Date Lab Report NumberSV01 7/05/2019 217089 35 100 4 6,100 <1.5SV01 21/06/2019 220270 32 240 <20 13,000 <7.7SV02 7/05/2019 217089 22 71 70 5,300 <1.5SV02 21/06/2019 220270 <9.9 110 58 7,900 <3.8

SV03_D 7/05/2019 217089 210#1 83 42 28,000#1 <7.7SV03_D 21/06/2019 220270 260#1 200 <40 56,000#1 <15SV03_S 7/05/2019 217089 80 30 <9.9 10,000 <3.8SV03_S 21/06/2019 220270 87 55 <20 16,000 <7.7

SV04 7/05/2019 217089 31 30 <4 3,400 <1.5SV04 21/06/2019 220270 28 61 <9.9 6,400 <3.8SV05 7/05/2019 217089 <2 120 <2 1,200 <0.8SV05 21/06/2019 220270 <2 110 <2 1,300 <0.8SV06 26/06/2019 220470 <2 48 <2 590 <0.8SV07 26/06/2019 220470 <2 <3.4 <2 24 <0.8SV08 26/06/2019 220470 <6.6 70 <6.6 4,600 <2.6SV09 26/06/2019 220470 <2 20 <2 940 <0.8SV10 26/06/2019 220470 <2 <3.4 <2 20 <0.8

Env Stds Comments

Chlorinated Alkenes

#1 SV03_D sample was taken from a depth of 2 m bgl (below ground level). Interim Soil Vapour HILs are designed and considered for sub-slab and to depths of 1 m bgl.

SOIL VAPOUR QAQC SUMMARY TABLEProject Number: 55976Project Name: Albert Park

Lab Report Number 217089 Blind Duplicate EN1903200 Lab SplitField ID SV03_D DUP01 RPD SV02 DUP02 RPDSample Date 7/05/2019 7/05/2019 7/05/2019 7/05/2019

Chem Group Chem Name Units EQLChlorinated Alkenes cis-1,2-dichloroethene µg/m3 2 210.0 210.0 0 22.0 23.0 4 Tetrachloroethene µg/m3 3.4 83.0 82.0 1 71.0 93.5 27 trans-1,2-dichloroethene ug/m3 2 42.0 30.0 33 70.0 61.0 14 Trichloroethene ug/m3 1.6 (Primary): 1.1 (Interlab) 28000.0 27000.0 4 5300.0 6660.0 23 Vinyl Chloride ug/m3 0.8 (Primary): 1.3 (Interlab) <7.7 <7.7 0 <1.5 <1.3 0Organic Alcohols Isopropyl alcohol ug/m3 12 (Primary): 1.2 (Interlab) 460.0 580.0 23 1500.0 1420.0 5Other Vacuum before Analysis Hg" -6.0 -5.0 18 Vacuum before Shipment Hg" -30.0 -30.0 0*RPDs have only been considered where a concentration is greater than 1 times the EQL.**High RPDs are in bold (Acceptable RPDs for each EQL multiplier range are: 30 (1-10 x EQL); 30 (10-30 x EQL); 30 ( > 30 x EQL) )***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


Lab Report NumberField IDSample Date

Chem Group Chem Name Units EQLChlorinated Alkenes cis-1,2-dichloroethene µg/m3 2 Tetrachloroethene µg/m3 3.4 trans-1,2-dichloroethene ug/m3 2 Trichloroethene ug/m3 1.6 (Primary): 1.1 (Interlab) Vinyl Chloride ug/m3 0.8 (Primary): 1.3 (Interlab)Organic Alcohols Isopropyl alcohol ug/m3 12 (Primary): 1.2 (Interlab)Other Vacuum before Analysis Hg" Vacuum before Shipment Hg" *RPDs have only been considered where a concentration is greater than 1 times the EQL.**High RPDs are in bold (Acceptable RPDs for each EQL multiplier range are: 30 (1-10 x EQL); 30 (10-30 x EQL); 30 ( > 30 x EQL) )***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

220270 Blind Duplicate EN1904367 Lab SplitSV02 DUP03 RPD SV04 DUP04 RPD

21/06/2019 21/06/2019 21/06/2019 21/06/2019

<9.9 <9.9 0 28.0 34.9 22110.0 120.0 9 61.0 42.7 3558.0 55.0 5 <9.9 5.5 0

7900.0 8100.0 3 6400.0 4900.0 27<3.8 <3.8 0 <3.8 <1.3 0

<61.0 <61.0 0 <61.0 43.2 0-6.0 -7.0 15

-30.0 -30.0 0


Lab Report NumberField IDSample Date

Chem Group Chem Name Units EQLChlorinated Alkenes cis-1,2-dichloroethene µg/m3 2 Tetrachloroethene µg/m3 3.4 trans-1,2-dichloroethene ug/m3 2 Trichloroethene ug/m3 1.6 (Primary): 1.1 (Interlab) Vinyl Chloride ug/m3 0.8 (Primary): 1.3 (Interlab)Organic Alcohols Isopropyl alcohol ug/m3 12 (Primary): 1.2 (Interlab)Other Vacuum before Analysis Hg" Vacuum before Shipment Hg" *RPDs have only been considered where a concentration is greater than 1 times the EQL.**High RPDs are in bold (Acceptable RPDs for each EQL multiplier range are: 30 (1-10 x EQL); 30 (10-30 x EQL); 30 ( > 30 x EQL) )***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

220470 Blind Duplicate EN1904418 Lab SplitSV06 DUP05 RPD SV09 DUP06 RPD

26/06/2019 26/06/2019 26/06/2019 26/06/2019

<2.0 <4.0 0 <2.0 <2.0 048.0 53.0 10 20.0 12.9 43<2.0 <4.0 0 <2.0 <2.0 0

590.0 650.0 10 940.0 913.0 3<0.8 <1.5 0 <0.8 <1.3 0

2000.0 2600.0 26 2500.0 2750.0 10-7.0 -9.0 25

-30.0 -30.0 0

SHROUD QAQC SUMMARY TABLEProject Number: 55976Project Name: Albert Park

Lab Report Number 217089 220270 220470Field ID SHROUD01 SHROUD03 SHROUD04Sampled Date 7/05/2019 21/06/2019 26/06/2019Sample Type Shroud Sample Shroud Sample Shroud Sample

Chem Group Chem Name Units EQLCanister Sampling - Field Data Pressure - As received kPaa 0.1 Pressure - Laboratory Atmosphere kPaa 0.1 Vacuum - As received Inches Hg 0.03 Temperature as Received °C 0.1Chlorinated Alkanes 1,1,1-trichloroethane ug/m3 2.7 1,1,2-trichloroethane ug/m3 2.7 1,1-dichloroethane ug/m3 2 1,2-dichloroethane µg/m3 2 Chloroethane ug/m3 1.3Chlorinated Alkenes 1,1-dichloroethene ug/m3 2 cis-1,2-dichloroethene µg/m3 2 Tetrachloroethene µg/m3 3.4 trans-1,2-dichloroethene ug/m3 2 Trichloroethene ug/m3 1.1 Vinyl Chloride ug/m3 0.8Organic Alcohols Isopropyl alcohol ug/m3 1.2 3200000 3900000 1400000

Other Vacuum before Analysis Hg" -6 -6 -6 Vacuum before Shipment Hg" -30 -30 -30

RINSATE SV INSTALL QAQC SUMMARY TABLEProject Number: 55976Project Name: Albert Park

LOR 220470Field ID RBO3Sample Date 24/06/2019Sample Type Rinsate

Chem Group Chem Name Units EQLChlorinated Alkanes 1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane mg/l 0.001 <0.001 1,1,1-trichloroethane mg/l 0.001 <0.001 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane mg/l 0.001 <0.001 1,1,2-trichloroethane mg/l 0.001 <0.001 1,1-dichloroethane mg/l 0.001 <0.001 1,2,3-trichloropropane mg/l 0.001 <0.001 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane mg/l 0.001 <0.001 1,2-dichloroethane mg/l 0.001 <0.001 1,2-dichloropropane mg/l 0.001 <0.001 1,3-dichloropropane mg/l 0.001 <0.001 2,2-dichloropropane mg/l 0.001 <0.001 Bromochloromethane mg/l 0.001 <0.001 Carbon tetrachloride mg/l 0.001 <0.001 Chloroethane mg/l 0.01 <0.01 Chloromethane mg/l 0.01 <0.01 Dichlorodifluoromethane mg/l 0.01 <0.01 Trichlorofluoromethane mg/l 0.01 <0.01Chlorinated Alkenes 1,1-dichloroethene mg/l 0.001 <0.001 1,1-dichloropropene mg/l 0.001 <0.001 2-chlorotoluene mg/l 0.001 <0.001 4-chlorotoluene mg/l 0.001 <0.001 cis-1,2-dichloroethene mg/l 0.001 <0.001 cis-1,3-dichloropropene mg/l 0.001 <0.001 Tetrachloroethene mg/l 0.001 <0.001 trans-1,2-dichloroethene mg/l 0.001 <0.001 trans-1,3-dichloropropene mg/l 0.001 <0.001 Trichloroethene mg/l 0.001 <0.001 Vinyl Chloride mg/l 0.01 <0.01Chlorinated Benzenes 1,2,3-trichlorobenzene mg/l 0.001 <0.001 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene mg/l 0.001 <0.001 1,2-Dichlorobenzene mg/l 0.001 <0.001 1,3-dichlorobenzene mg/l 0.001 <0.001 1,4-dichlorobenzene mg/l 0.001 <0.001 Chlorobenzene mg/l 0.001 <0.001Miscellaneous Hydrocarbons 1,2-dibromoethane mg/l 0.001 <0.001 Bromomethane mg/l 0.01 <0.01 Dibromomethane mg/l 0.001 <0.001Miscellaneous Industrial Chemicals Hexachlorobutadiene mg/l 0.001 <0.001Monocyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Bromobenzene mg/l 0.001 <0.001Trihalomethanes Bromodichloromethane mg/l 0.001 <0.001 Chloroform mg/l 0.001 <0.001 Dibromochloromethane mg/l 0.001 <0.001 Tribromomethane mg/l 0.001 <0.001

Albert Park SA EPA Reference 05/24994 JBS&G › files › 14373_albert_park_assessment_re… ·...

Documents

Transcript of Albert Park SA EPA Reference 05/24994 JBS&G › files › 14373_albert_park_assessment_re… ·...