Thebarton Assessment: Area - epa.sa.gov.au · SA – REM – 2005 6 2.3.4 Thebarton Assessment Area...

ACOM Imagine it Toebarton Stage 2 ESA

Delivered Soul1 Austranan Environment ProtecllOl1 AUiilooty

IChJul-2018

Doc No R001

Thebarton Assessment Area Stage 2 Environmental Assessment

AECOM Thebarton Stage 2 ESA Thebarton Assessment Area


Client South Australian Environment Protection Authority

ABN 85 393 411 003

Prepared by

AECOM Australia Pty Ltd Level 28 91 King William Street Adelaide SA 5000 Australia T +61 8 7223 5400 F +61 8 7223 5499 wwwaecomcom ABN 20 093 846 925

10-Jul-2018

Job No 60567613

AECOM in Australia and New Zealand is certified to ISO9001 ISO14001 ASNZS4801 and OHSAS18001

copy AECOM Australia Pty Ltd (AECOM) All rights reserved

AECOM has prepared this document for the sole use of the Client and for a specific purpose each as expressly stated in the document No other party should rely on this document without the prior written consent of AECOM AECOM undertakes no duty nor accepts any responsibility to any third party who may rely upon or use this document This document has been prepared based on the Clientrsquos description of its requirements and AECOMrsquos experience having regard to assumptions that AECOM can reasonably be expected to make in accordance with sound professional principles AECOM may also have relied upon information provided by the Client and other third parties to prepare this document some of which may not have been verified Subject to the above conditions this document may be transmitted reproduced or disseminated only in its entirety

P605X60567613 EPA Theb St24 Tech Work Area44 EnvironmentReportSA EPA Thebarton Stage 2 Assessment Report 2018-07-10 FINAL docx Revision ndash 10-Jul-2018 Prepared for ndash South Australian Environment Protection Authority ndash ABN 85 393 411 003


Quality Information

Document Thebarton Assessment Area

Ref 60567613

Date 16-Jul-2018

Prepared by David Steele

Reviewed by Mark Chapman

Revision History

Rev Revision Date Details Authorised

NamePosition Signature

0 21-June-2018 Draft report Mark McFarlane Principal Environmental Scientist

1 10-July-2018 Final Report Mark McFarlane Principal Environmental Scientist

1a 16-July-2018 Minor revision to Figures 4 6 and 7 to include units ndash substitution of these pages only

Mark McFarlane Principal Environmental Scientist

P605X60567613 EPA Theb St24 Tech Work Area44 EnvironmentReportSA EPA Thebarton Stage 2 Assessment Report 2018-07-16 FINAL docx Revision 1a ndash 16-Jul-2018 Prepared for ndash South Australian Environment Protection Authority ndash ABN 85 393 411 003


Table of Contents Executive Summary i Acronyms i 10 Introduction 1

11 Background 1 12 Objectives 2 13 Scope of Works 2

131 Modifications to Scope 2 20 Background Information 3

21 Site Setting 3 211 Site Location 3 212 Zoning Information 3 213 Topography 3 214 Surface Water 3

22 Regional Geology and Hydrogeology 3 221 Geology 3 222 Hydrogeology 4

23 Previous Investigations 5 231 Contamination Assessment George Street Thebarton ndash Golder

Associates ndash 1994 6 232 Stage 2 Investigations George Street Thebarton Site ndash Resource and

Environmental Management ndash 2005 6 233 Stage 3 Environmental Site Assessment George Street Thebarton

SA ndash REM ndash 2005 6 234 Thebarton Assessment Area ndash Stage 1 Environmental Assessment ndash

Fyfe Earth Partners ndash 2017 6 235 Soil Contamination Investigation 8 Dove Street Thebarton ndash Golder

Associates ndash 1993 7 30 Stage 2 Intrusive Investigations 8

31 Overview and Chronology of Works 8 32 Preparatory Works 9

321 Stakeholder Engagement 9 322 Well Permits 9 323 Health Safety and Environment Plan 9

33 Service Location and Selection of Investigation Locations 9 331 First Stage 9 332 Second Stage ndash Additional Wells 9

34 Groundwater Well Installation 9 341 Drilling and Logging 9 342 Decontamination and Disposal 10 343 Groundwater Well Installation 10

35 Groundwater Well Gauging and Sampling 10 351 Groundwater Well Gauging 10 352 Groundwater Well Sampling 10 353 Sample Handling and Laboratory Analysis 11 354 Decontamination and Waste Water Disposal 12

36 Soil Vapour Bore Sampling 12 361 Initial Soil Vapour Sampling Event (April 2018) 12 362 Additional Soil Vapour Sampling Event (May 2018) 13

37 Groundwater Well and Soil Vapour Well Survey 13 40 Quality Assurance and Data Validation 14

41 Groundwater Well Installation and Development 14 42 Groundwater Monitoring Well Survey Data 14 43 Vapour Well Integrity 14

431 Helium leak test 15 432 Isopropanol Leak Test 15



44 Soil Vapour Sampling ndash Canister Pressure 15 45 Analytical Data Validation 15

50 Results 18 51 Introduction 18 52 Groundwater Field Results 18

521 Groundwater Gauging 18 522 Groundwater Field Parameters 19

53 Groundwater Laboratory Results 19 531 Screening Criteria 19 532 Groundwater Analytical Results 20

54 Soil Vapour Field Screening 21 55 Soil Vapour Analytical Results 21

551 Screening Criteria 21 552 Analytical Data 21 553 Comparison of Analytical Data to Field Screening Results 22 554 Comparison of 2018 Analytical Data to Historical Soil Vapour Data 23

60 Updated Conceptual Site Model 24 61 Introduction 24 62 Chemicals of Potential Concern 31 63 Generalised Conceptual Behaviour of Chlorinated Ethenes 31

631 Chlorinated Ethenes in Groundwater 31 632 Chlorinated Ethenes in Vapour 33

64 Local Geology and Hydrogeology 34 641 Soils 34 642 Groundwater 34

65 Extent and Magnitude of Groundwater Contamination 34 651 Volatile Chlorinated Hydrocarbons 34 652 Metals 35

66 Extent and Magnitude of Soil Vapour Impacts 35 67 Critical Review of Soil Vapour and VCH Groundwater Data 36

671 Temporal trends 36 672 Spatial trends 36 673 Comparison of vapour and groundwater data 37

68 Potential Sources 38 69 Exposure Pathways and Receptors 38

691 Introduction 38 692 Exposure Pathway Summary 38

610 Data Gaps and Uncertainties 39 70 Vapour Intrusion Risk 40

71 Introduction 40 72 Residential Properties 40 73 Commercial Properties 40 74 Intrusive Workers 40

80 Conclusions and Recommendations 42 81 Conclusions 42

90 References 43 100 Report Limitations 45

Appendix A Figures A

Appendix B Tables B

Appendix C Groundwater Bore Records Search C



Appendix D Groundwater Well Permits D

Appendix E Groundwater Well Borehole Logs and Construction Details E

Appendix F Core Photographs - Groundwater Wells F

Appendix G Equipment Calibration Records G

Appendix H Waste Soil and Water Disposal Records H

Appendix I Groundwater Well Development Purge and Sampling Records I

Appendix J Laboratory Reports and Chain of Custody Documents - Groundwater J

Appendix K Soil Vapour Bore Purge Records K

Appendix L Laboratory Reports and Chain of Custody Documents ndash Soil Vapour L

Appendix M Survey Data - Groundwater Wells M

Appendix N Analytical Data Validation N

Appendix O Selection of Groundwater Assessment Criteria O

List of Figures (in text)

Figure 1-1 Location of the SA EPA Thebarton Assessment Area 1 Figure 5-1 Comparison of Total VCHs in Soil Vapour Sample to Post- Sampling PID

Reading 22 Figure 6-1 Schematic Illustration of DNAPL Distribution in Unconsolidated Deposits 32 Figure 6-2 Abiotic and Biological Transformation Pathways 32

List of Tables (in text)

Table 2-1 Registered bores within the Thebarton Assessment Area 4 Table 3-1 Overview of Stage 2 Field Works 8 Table 3-2 Wells sampled by methods other than low-flow sampling 11 Table 4-1 Groundwater Well Installation and Development Summary 14 Table 4-2 Sampling and Laboratory Analysis Summary 15 Table 5-1 Hydrogeological Summary 18 Table 5-2 Groundwater Field Parameters and Observations 19 Table 5-3 Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results for Monitoring Wells 20 Table 5-4 Summary of Soil Vapour Analytical Results - VCHs 22 Table 6-1 Summary of Previous Conceptual Site Model 24 Table 7-1 Comparison of Predicted Indoor Air Concentrations for 2018 and 2017 Soil

Vapour Data 41



Figures (Appendix A)

Figure 1 Site Locality Plan

Figure 2 Investigation Location Plan

Figure 3 Inferred Groundwater Contours (m AHD) AprilJune 2018

Figure 4 Groundwater Analytical Results ndash VCHs AprilJune 2018

Figure 5 TCE Concentrations in Groundwater (microgL) AprilJune 2018

Figure 6 Groundwater Analytical Results - Metals June 2018

Figure 7 Soil Vapour Analytical Results AprilMay 2018

Figure 8 Soil Vapour TCE Concentrations (10 m bgl) AprilMay 2018


Tables (Appendix B)

Table 1 Groundwater Gauging Data

Table 2 Groundwater Field Parameters

Table 3 Groundwater Well Details

Table 4 Soil Vapour Well Details

Table 5 Soil Vapour Integrity Tests

Table 6 Groundwater Analytical Results ndash VCHs ndash EPP

Table 7 Groundwater Analytical Results ndash VCHs ndash NEPM

Table 8 Groundwater Analytical Results ndash Metals ndash EPP

Table 9 Groundwater Analytical Results ndash Metals ndash NEPM

Table 10 Historical Groundwater Analytical Results

Table 11 Soil Vapour Field Parameters

Table 12 Soil Vapour Analytical Results

Table 13 Historical Soil Vapour Analytical Results

Table 14 Comparison of Total VCH Results and PID Screening

Table 15 Spatial Comparison of Groundwater and Soil Vapour TCE Concentrations



Executive Summary AECOM Australia Pty Ltd (AECOM) was commissioned by the South Australian Environment Protection Authority (SA EPA) to conduct Stage 2 Environmental Assessment works associated with the SA EPAs Thebarton Assessment Area The location of the Thebarton Assessment Area is shown on the SA EPA figure reproduced below

~~~-=ri=~~t1)041laquof bull4d ~11 Wllfl lnVIKIIIPtigth lOCIOOIO _ J UIQ9 E1Mm1bullHnal Mlllluniud

A N

--~ _ --=-----=- =-

ez= _ __

Following the SA EPAs receipt of investigation reports in relation to a property at George Street Thebarton indicating a large plume of chlorinated solvent impact to groundwater originating from an up-gradient unknown source the SA EPA previously commissioned Fyfe Earth Partners (Fyfe) to complete a Stage 1 Environmental Assessment comprising installation of 26 groundwater monitoring wells 41 temporary soil vapour bores and 13 permanent soil vapour bores

The groundwater investigations conducted by Fyfe were considered to have sufficiently delineated chlorinated solvent groundwater impacts in all directions other than to the north-west

Subsequently the SA EPA commissioned this Stage 2 investigation with the objectives of

bull further delineating the chlorinated hydrocarbon contamination in groundwater to the north-west and

bull obtaining further temporal soil vapour and groundwater data to provide information on seasonal variability

Scope of Work

The investigations conducted by AECOM between March and June 2018 included

bull expansion of the existing groundwater well monitoring network to the north-west by installation of a further nine wells

Pl605X60567613 EPA Theb st24 Tech Work Area44 EnvironmentReportSA EPA Thebarton Stage 2 Assessment Report 2018-07-10 FINALdocx Revision - 1O-Jul-2018 Prepared for - South Australian Environment Protection Authority -ABN 85 393 41 1 003

ii AECOM Thebarton Stage 2 ESA Thebarton Assessment Area

conduct of two groundwater monitoring events collectively encompassing the 35 new and existing wells with analysis targeting volatile chlorinated hydrocarbons (VCHs) and degradation indicators and metals at selected wells and

sampling of the 13 existing permanent soil vapour bores with analysis targeting VCHs

Results ndash VCHs in Groundwater

Trichloroethene (TCE) impacts to groundwater were found to extend from the apparent source area in the south-west of the Assessment Area in a north-westerly direction New wells MW33 to MW35 achieved delineation of TCE impacts to concentrations equal to or below the laboratory limit of reporting (LOR) in the down-gradient direction within the Assessment Area

No tetrachloroethene (PCE) was identified in groundwater and minor cis-12-dichloroethene (cis-12shyDCE) concentrations were reported at only two wells down-gradient of the zone of maximum TCE impact 11-dichloroethene (11-DCE) was reported above LOR at only one well

Concentrations of chloroform were reported for five wells while carbon tetrachloride was only identified at one well While the distribution of chloroform may be masked by the majority of detected concentrations being equal to or only slightly above the LOR it does not appear that chloroform concentrations are aligned with the distribution of TCE impacts

Results ndash Metals in Groundwater

The results of groundwater analyses for metals detected above LOR are presented below with reference to the SA EPP (Water Quality) (2003) criteria noting that only selected wells located in the north-western portion of the Assessment Area were tested

Boron was reported above LOR in all tested wells with concentrations in wells MW23 and MW28 marginally exceeding drinking water criteria but relatively little variation in concentrations across the wells sampled

The majority of reported hexavalent chromium concentrations exceeded the 2003 SA EPP (WQ) freshwater aquatic ecosystem criteria There was relatively little variation between wells and the distribution of impacts did not suggest any specific source area of the observed impacts

Copper concentrations in wells MW29 MW30 MW33 and MW35 (although the latter not supported by duplicate analyses) exceeded freshwater ecosystem guidelines however the distribution of impacts was not indicative of any specific source area

Well MW32 reported the highest manganese concentration of 25 mgL exceeding irrigation aquaculture and potable criteria Nearby well MW30 and down-gradient well MW35 reported concentrations an order of magnitude lower but higher than the majority of wells tested However given the lower result for intermediate well MW31 the location of these elevated impacts may be coincidental

Selenium concentrations in wells MW25 and MW31 marginally exceeded EPP (WQ) freshwater ecosystem criteria however all results were below or only marginally above the LOR and no clear spatial trends were evident

Zinc concentrations in the majority of wells exceeded aquaculture criteria Maximum concentrations were reported for wells MW29 MW33 and MW35 (although as for copper the latter not supported by duplicate analyses)

The distribution of impacts suggested low levels of boron and selenium are likely to be a regional or background issue No specific source areas for the other metals were apparent

Results ndash Soil Vapour

Review of the results from sampling of soil vapour bores in AprilMay 2018 and comparison to the results from August 2017 indicated the following

Soil vapour results measured in AprilMay 2018 are indicative of the same overall distribution of vapour impact as interpreted in August 2017


iii AECOM Thebarton Stage 2 ESA Thebarton Assessment Area

Reported concentrations for a number of bores most notably SV02 SV03 and SV06 all located close to the inferred source zone were up to approximately six times higher than results from August 2017 It is noted that no increase in groundwater concentrations was noted in nearby wells however the observed maximum increases are at the upper end of the range of expected seasonal variability for soil vapour (ie a factor of 5) identified by the ITRC (2007)

Conclusions

The following conclusions were drawn from the results of the groundwater investigations conducted by AECOM and comparison to the results of the Stage 1 works

Groundwater flow continues to be inferred to be in a north-westerly direction across the assessment area A lower hydraulic gradient is apparent in the north-western portion of the assessment area relative to that observed near the identified source area

The extent of VCH impacts to groundwater has been effectively delineated in the north-western down-hydraulic gradient direction by the additional monitoring well network within the assessment area

Groundwater impacts remain predominantly comprised of TCE with some PCE concentrations reported in the source area The reported concentrations in groundwater are relatively consistent with those measured in August 2017 suggesting relative plume stability and providing no indication of increasing groundwater concentrations in the identified source area

Although some metals concentrations were reported above adopted investigation levels the reported metals concentrations and distribution of impacts were not indicative of the presence of any significant source sites of groundwater impact within the north-western portion of the Assessment Area

Based on the higher soil vapour concentrations reported for some bores in AprilMay 2018 the revised estimated indoor air concentrations at a number of locations correlate to higher SA EPA response levels with respect to residential vapour intrusion risk It is noted however that the soil vapour bores where such increases were identified correspond to the inferred source area where soil vapour concentrations indicative of these higher SA EPA response levels have previously been observed AECOM understands that a separate program of monitoring (and in some instances mitigation) of indoor vapours in residential properties in this area has been initiated by the SA EPA

Data Gaps

Several data gaps relevant to the ongoing assessment are noted

Relatively elevated TCE concentrations compared to immediately up-gradient wells are present in groundwater wells MW28 and MW29 in the western portion of the Assessment Area While this could potentially indicate the presence of an additional source site this has not been confirmed and the elevated concentrations could alternatively be part of the main plume and reflective of the spatial variability associated with sub-surface heterogeneitypreferential pathways or other causes It is noted that the plume is delineated down-gradient of these wells

All groundwater investigations have targeted the upper-most (water table) aquifer being of primary significance to human health given the potential for vapour intrusion and the apparent absence of groundwater extraction within the Assessment Area no assessment of the presence of VCH impacts to deeper aquifers has been conducted


i AECOM Thebarton Stage 2 ESA Thebarton Assessment Area

Acronyms

11-DCE 11-Dichloroethene

ADWG Australian Drinking Water Guideline

ANZECC Australia and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council

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

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances amp Disease Registry

BTEX Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene and Xylene

COPC Chemical of Potential Concern

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

CSM Conceptual Site Model

DCE Dichloroethene (total of three isomers)

DEWNR Department of Environment Water and Natural Resources

DNAPL Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid

EC Electrical Conductivity

EPA Environment Protection Authority

ESA Environmental Site Assessment

HIL Health Investigation Level

HI Hazard Index

HQ Hazard Quotient

HSL Health Screening Level

LNAPL light non-aqueous phase liquid

LOR Laboratory Limit of Reporting

m bgl metres below ground level

m AHD metres above Australian Height Datum

NAPL Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid

NEPC National Environmental Protection Council

NEPM National Environmental Protection Measure

NHMRC National Health and Medical Research Council

PCE tetrachloroethene (also known as perchloroethene or perchloroethylene)

ppb parts per billion

ppm parts per million

PSH Phase Separated Hydrocarbons

SWL Standing Water Level

TCE Trichloroethene (also known as trichloroethylene)

TDS Total Dissolved Solids

US EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

Vinyl Chloride

VCH Volatile Chlorinated Hydrocarbons

VOC Volatile Organic compound

WHO World Health Organisation

WQP Environment Protection (Water Quality) Policy


VC


10 Introduction

11 Background

AECOM Australia Pty Ltd (AECOM) was commissioned by the South Australian Environment Protection Authority (SA EPA) in February 2018 to conduct Stage 2 Environmental Assessment works associated with the SA EPAs Thebarton Assessment Area

The location of the Thebarton Assessment Area is shown on the SA EPA figure reproduced below as Figure 1-1 Figure 1-1 Location of the SA EPA Thebarton Assessment Area

fl(raquof 1 f DJQPOIN 110-Jkll ~fl~b(MIOMlll fW1tUne1 Gl~WMJ~ Wit SCl tjMJ ffVUltln ~Qltlla fllltDton tuci- J ffWIIOlltaiAJUUlllbullL

Cl ElA_ C ___91qo1

A N

The Stage 2 investigations follow from recent completion of a Stage 1 environmental assessment program by Fyfe Earth Partners (Fyfe) within the original extent of the Thebarton Assessment Area as shown by the green outline in Figure 1-1 above

The Stage 1 investigation (Fyfe 2017) comprised installation of 25 groundwater monitoring wells 37 Waterloo Membrane Sampler (WMS)trade temporary soil vapour samplers and 24 permanent soil vapour bores at 13 locations The 25 new groundwater wells and one existing well were sam~led and analysed for volatile chlorinated hydrocarbons (VHCs) and degradation indicators and WMS M

samplers and soil vapour samples were also tested for VCHs

The groundwater investigation conducted by Fyfe was considered to have sufficiently delineated VCH groundwater impacts in all directions other than to the north-west

As a result of the Stage 1 findings (and progressive findings of the Stage 2 works as discussed herein) the SA EPA has extended the Thebarton Assessment Area to the north-west as shown by the blue outline in Figure 1-1

P1605X60567613 EPA Theb st24 Tech Work Area44 EnvironmentReportSA EPA Thebarton Stage 2 Assessment Report 2018-07-10 FINALdocx Revision - 1 O-Jul-2018 Prepared for - South Australian Environment Protection Authority -ABN 85 393 41 1 003

2 AECOM Thebarton Stage 2 ESA Thebarton Assessment Area

12 Objectives

The objectives of Stage 2 assessment works were

to further delineate the chlorinated hydrocarbon contamination in groundwater to the north-west and

to obtain further temporal soil vapour and groundwater data to provide information on seasonal variability

13 Scope of Works

In general accordance with the SA EPArsquos request for quote and AECOM proposal the scope of works conducted as part of the Stage 2 investigations included the following key elements

Preparatory works including planning permitting and stakeholder engagement

Initial expansion of the existing groundwater monitoring well network to the north-west by installation of six (6) new wells

Subsequent expansion of the groundwater monitoring well network further to the north-west by installation of an additional three (3) new wells

Conduct of two groundwater monitoring events collectively encompassing the 35 new and existing wells with analysis targeting VCHs and degradation indicators with selected wells sampled for metals

Sampling of the 13 existing permanent soil vapour bores (all but two comprising nested bores) with analysis targeting VCHs

Review and update of the previously developed conceptual site model (CSM)

Preparation of this investigation report

131 Modifications to Scope

The following modifications to the proposal scope are noted

The scope of the initial groundwater monitoring well installation was reduced to a total of six wells from the seven nominated in the proposal For one proposed installation siting of the well at the preferred location was precluded by the presence of underground services and the SA EPA instructed AECOM to remove this proposed well from the program It is noted that based on investigation results this omission is not considered to result in a significant data gap with respect to the investigation objectives

Based on the preliminary results of the initial works the SA EPA commissioned AECOM to install an additional three groundwater monitoring wells and to sample the new wells and selected existing wells for a suite of metals in addition to sampling the new wells for VCHs The additional metals analyses were requested for a secondary objective of assessing the potential presence of other sources of groundwater impact in the north-western portion of the Assessment Area

On the basis of the review of initial results of soil vapour sampling in April 2018 AECOM resampled four bores in May 2018 for reanalysis



20 Background Information

21 Site Setting

211 Site Location

The location of the Stage 2 assessment area is shown on the attached Site Locality Plan (Figure 1 Appendix A) Figure 1 also presents details of identified registered groundwater bores within a 1 km radius of the site

The Stage 2 assessment area is located within the inner metropolitan Adelaide suburb of Thebarton South Australia The assessment area covers approximately 370000 m2 and comprises land in the vicinity of a historical industrial area consisting of a large number of industrial and residential properties

The boundary of the Thebarton SA EPA Assessment Area (as delineated in Figure 1-1) includes the following roadways

North portions of West Thebarton Road Osman Place Dew Street Holland Street Smith Street

South portions of Maria Street Albert Street Parker Street Goodenough Street

East portions of Port Road James Congdon Drive

West portions of Dew Street Neville Road Brown Street

212 Zoning Information

The majority of the Assessment Area is zoned either Residential (R) or Urban Corridor (UrC) as shown on Zone Map WeTo5 of the West Torrens Council Development Plan consolidated 6 February 2018 At the northernmost end the Assessment Area extends into an area zoned Industry (I)

Land use information is shown on Figure 2 in Appendix A

213 Topography

Based on the Department of Environment Water and Natural Resources (DEWNR 2016a) Nature Maps website the investigation area is generally flat with a gradual fall to the west from 22 m Australian Height Datum (AHD) at Port Road to approximately 15 m AHD in the north-western portion

214 Surface Water

The nearest surface water body is the Torrens River at its closest approximately 250 m east and 250 m north of the Assessment Area (Figure 1-1) The Gulf St Vincent is located approximately 7 km west of the site

22 Regional Geology and Hydrogeology

221 Geology

The 150000 geological map of Adelaide1 shows the surface geology in the Thebarton area is the Pooraka Formation (red-brown sandy clay soils with blocky or granular structure and with low lime sand2)

In the Thebarton area the Pooraka Formation is potentially underlain by quaternary alluvium grey clays including the Keswick Clay which is primarily clay but may include bands of silty or sandy clay and which overlies the Hindmarsh Clay primarily comprising red brown to orange clay but also containing some sand and gravel horizons These deposits are of Quaternary age with Tertiary strata (including the Port Willunga formation) beneath (sands sandstones limestones and clays)3

1 South Australian Department of Mines and Energy 1980 2 Taylor JK South Australian Department of Mines and Energy 1972 3 Based on interpolation from Figure 21c of DWLBC Report 200447 lsquoAquifer Storage Capacities of the Adelaide Regionrsquo Department of Water Land and Biodiversity Conservation 2004 P605X60567613 EPA Theb St24 Tech Work Area44 EnvironmentReportSA EPA Thebarton Stage 2 Assessment Report 2018-07-10 FINAL docx Revision ndash 10-Jul-2018 Prepared for ndash South Australian Environment Protection Authority ndash ABN 85 393 411 003


222 Hydrogeology

According to Gerges (2006)4 there are up to six aquifer units within the Quaternary deposits in the Thebarton area These are referred to in sequence from Q1 (water table aquifer) to Q6 (deepest) There are also a further three deeper aquifers (T1 to T3) in the underlying Tertiary deposits

Based on maps presented in the Gerges report the salinities of groundwater in the Quaternary aquifers and in the underlying first Tertiary aquifer (T1) in this area are likely to be in the following ranges

bull Q1 to Q3 less than 1000 to 2500 mgL total dissolved solids (TDS)

bull Q4 and QS less than 1000 to 1500 mgL TDS

bull Q6 1000 to 1500 mgL TDS

bull T1 500 to 1000 mgL TDS

The regional groundwater flow is expected to flow towards the northwest driven by recharge in the Adelaide hills to the east and discharge at the coast to the west

A search for registered groundwater bores located within the Assessment Area defined by the SA EPA (as indicated in Figure 1-1) was undertaken by reviewing the Department for Environment and Water WaterConnect online groundwater database on 8 June 2018 (DEW 2018) The records including the use and operational status of the 194 registered bores listed on the database are in Appendix C Figure 1 shows the locations of registered wells in the vicinity of the site

Table 2-1 below builds on the information presented by Fyfe (2017) in relation to groundwater bores located within the Thebarton Assessment Area

Table 2-1 Registered bores within the Thebarton Assessment Area

- -

bull

fllaquoflml1

I

6628-516 Coca Cola Plant Rehabilitated 138 1963 794 125 Tertiary (T1 )

6628-1435 Coca Cola Plant Backfilled 184 21 2 921 392 Tertiary (T1)

6628-4576 CnrAdmellaamp

Chaoel Streets

125 1454 445 Tertiary (T1)

6628-7724 Coca Cola Plant Observation 155 2017 1272 1516 Tertiary (T1)


6628-12516 Coca Cola Plant Industrial Backfilled 210 212 1300 1875 Tertiary (T1)

6628-20663 39 Smith Street Irrigation 121 1105 50 Tertiary (T1)

6628-20969 39 Smith Street Industrial 30 14 1535 25 Quaternary

6628-21951 Admella street Investigation

IMW02

20 Quaternary

6628-22395 21 James

Cooodon Drive

20 157 1541 05 Quaternary

6628-23525 41 Maria Street 206 273 1078 10 Tertiary (T1)

~ --~ 3 cl -

6628-7570 Former PIRSA

Thebarton Depot

Backfilled 122 2225 991 1516 Tertiary (T1)

6628-11623 Observation 1145 1591 auat (01)

4 DWLBC Report 200610 Overview of the hydrogeology of the Adelaide metropolitan area Department of Water Land and Biodiversity Conservation 2006 P1605X60567613 EPA Theb st24 Tech Work Area44 EnvironmentReportSA EPA Thebarton Stage 2 Assessment Report 2018-07-10 FINALdocx Revision - 1O-Jul-2018 Prepared for - South Australian Environment Protection Authority -ABN 85 393 41 1 003


~ I - 1ibullttbull J~ --

I bull

flilCi1l


Thebarton Depot

Observation Backfilled 1145 1429 Quat (Q2)

6628-11786 Observation 121 2639 655 Tertiary (T1)

6628-11875 Observation 121 24 Tertiary (T1 )

6628-11876 Observation 121 Tertiary (T1)

6628-16259 Observation 14 11 1367 Quaternary



6628-21405 Monitoring 252 11 89 Quaternary

6628-21406 Investigation 2475 11 87 Quaternary

6628-21407 Investigation 245 1183 Quaternary




Notes Shading indicates information not recorded in database Locations as interpreted from information provided in the database - approximate only in some cases bgl = below ground level SWL = standing water level TDS =total dissolved solids

It is noted that no registered extraction wells are present within the extension to the Assessment Area all the additional wells are investigation or monitoring wells associated with the former Primary Industries and Resources SA (PIRSA) facil ity located between Brown Street Osman Place and West Thebarton Road

Tertiary wells typically recorded salinity values in the range of 445 to 1300 mgL TDS generally appropriate for potable supply with one outlying value of 3471 mgL Quaternary wells recorded salinity values ranging from 1367 mgL to 4147 mgL TDS reference to the potable use criterion of 1200 mgL presented in the Environment Protection (Water Quality) Policy (SA EPP 2015) and presented as Table 1-2 in Appendix O indicates the Quaternary aquifer would not be considered suitable for potable supply

It should be noted that not all bores within the Assessment Area are listed with a specified purpose(s) the specified purpose does not infer other uses are not possible and further it is possible that other unknown unregistered bores are present in the vicinity of the Assessment Area No additional actions have been undertaken by AECOM to identify if unregistered bores may exist or be in use it is noted that the SA EPA has notified all stakeholders within the Assessment Area not to use borewater

Reference to Figure 1 in Appendix A shows that a number of registered domestic wells are located in the broader Thebarton area mainly to the south-west (cross hydraulic gradient) of the Assessment Area Wells down-gradient (north-west) of the Assessment Area appear to be predominantly for monitoring investigation and observation purposes

Previous Investigations Copies of several previous environmental investigation reports relevant to the Thebarton investigation area were provided to AECOM by the SA EPA A summary of key information is presented below

PI605X60567613 EPA Theb st24 Tech Work Area44 EnvironmentReportSA EPA Thebarton Stage 2 Assessment Report 2018-07-10 FINALdocx Revision - 1O-Jul-2018 Prepared for - South Australian Environment Protection Authority -ABN 85 393 41 1 003

23


231 Contamination Assessment George Street Thebarton ndash Golder Associates ndash 1994

In 1994 Golder Associates (Golder) was commissioned to undertake contamination investigations of land at 31-37 George Street Thebarton (located in the south-eastern portion of the current SA EPA Assessment Area)

The intrusive investigations followed on from a site history report prepared for the site which identified that the site had been used for industrial sheet metal works intermittently between 1926 and 1970 Potential contaminants were determined to include heavy metals chlorinated solvents paints and petroleum hydrocarbons

Investigations comprised drilling of a total of 13 soil bores to depths of between 035 m and 3 m field screening of soils for volatile compounds and collection of soil samples for laboratory analysis

Soil investigations identified contamination of fill material on the site with heavy metals and primarily heavy end petroleum hydrocarbons

No groundwater investigation was conducted

232 Stage 2 Investigations George Street Thebarton Site ndash Resource and Environmental Management ndash 2005

In 2005 Resource and Environmental Management Pty Ltd (REM) was commissioned to undertake further contamination investigations of the site at 31-37 George Street Thebarton

Evidently a groundwater investigation had been undertaken subsequent to the above Golder investigation While the report on the previous investigation has not been sighted evidently one well was noted to exhibit light non-aqueous phase liquid (LNAPL) comprising mainly diesel but with some dissolved phase TCE

The objective of the Stage 2 investigations was to determine whether the site was the source of groundwater contamination identified in the previous investigation and to assess the vertical and lateral extent of impacts

Investigations included installation and sampling of five additional groundwater wells to supplement the three existing wells from previous investigations

In addition to indications of petroleum hydrocarbon impact field indications of solvent odour were observed at depth during drilling of one of the wells

A diesel LNAPL was again observed in one existing well additionally TCE concentrations ranging between 928 microgL and 16900 microgL were reported for all 7 sampled wells

The report concluded that diesel impacts to groundwater were likely associated with identified on-site soil impacts whereas the widespread TCE impacts in groundwater were potentially associated with a larger off-site source of TCE impacts to the east of the George Street site

233 Stage 3 Environmental Site Assessment George Street Thebarton SA ndash REM ndash 2005

In 2005 REM conducted further investigations in relation to the land at 31-37 George Street Thebarton with the objectives of assessing the suitability of the site for intended commercialindustrial use and developing a remedial program with respect to the diesel LNAPL

The investigation included additional works to characterise the shallow aquifer beneath the site including drilling of an additional groundwater well MW08

234 Thebarton Assessment Area ndash Stage 1 Environmental Assessment ndash Fyfe Earth Partners ndash 2017

The SA EPA commissioned Fyfe to undertake a Stage 1 Investigation of the Thebarton Assessment Area which was completed between May and August 2017 The investigation comprised a number of elements

Conduct of a passive soil vapour survey utilising 37 WMSTM Membrane Samplers deployed on a grid pattern across the Thebarton Assessment Area



Installation of 25 new groundwater monitoring wells MW01 and MW03 to MW26 to depths of between 15 m and 19 m

Gauging and sampling of the 25 new wells and one existing well

Geotechnical soil testing and hydraulic conductivity (slug) testing of selected wells

Installation of eleven pairs of clustered soil vapour bores (10 m30 m) denoted SV01 to SV10 and SV12 and two additional single depth (10m) soil vapour bores (SV11 SV13)

Groundwater was identified at depths of between approximately 12 m and 16 m across the assessment areas with flow estimated to be in a north-westerly direction

Groundwater impacts comprising volatile chlorinated hydrocarbon compounds TCE PCE cis- and trans-12-DCE and 11-DCE were identified with an apparent plume extending north-west from the vicinity of the suspected source area as far as Dew Street and Smith Street to the west and north respectively It was noted that the extent of groundwater impacts had not been delineated to the northshywest The same VCHs were evident in soil vapour which displayed a similar spatial distribution on the basis of which it was concluded that the soil vapour is a result of volatilisation from the groundwater plume

Limited degradation of the VCH plume was apparent and groundwater modelling predicted the potential for continued longitudinal expansion of the groundwater plume

Reported VCH concentrations exceeded adopted assessment criteria for potable use and primary recreational contact An assessment of vapour intrusion risks based on TCE as the risk driver due to its relatively high toxicity in comparison to PCE and DCE indicated that 21 residential properties warranted further action on the basis of predicated indoor air TCE concentrations The report noted that a program of indoor air monitoring had been commissioned by the SA EPA in response to these findings

Potentially unacceptable risks for commercialindustrial properties across part of the Assessment Area were also predicted while risks to intrusive trenchutility workers were assessed as likely to be managed through appropriate PPE and other means of limiting exposure

235 Soil Contamination Investigation 8 Dove Street Thebarton ndash Golder Associates ndash 1993

The SA EPA provided a copy of a report prepared by Golder Associates in relation to soil contamination assessment for the site of a former tannery at 8 Dove Street Thebarton

The investigation comprised a site history review followed by a staged soil investigation Shallow soil samples from a total of 17 boreholes drilled to a maximum depth of 09 m bgl were tested for metals chlorinated phenoxy herbicides and petroleum hydrocarbons

Petroleum hydrocarbon and phenoxy herbicide concentrations were below laboratory LOR in all sampled tested Elevated chromium and zinc concentrations were identified on the western side of the site hexavalent chromium concentrations were below the LOR

No groundwater investigations were conducted

236 Site Assessment Report Tannery Site 8 Dove Street Thebarton ndash SA Health Commission ndash 1994

The SA Health Commission (SAHC) prepared a Site Assessment Report for the site at 8 Dove Street in 1994 based on the investigations conducted by Golder as detailed above

In addition to review of the Golder report a site inspection of the disused facility was conducted by the SAHC in July 1993 which noted

Wet tannery processes appeared to have been conducted within the western side of the building

Runoff to the eastern side of the building may have occurred due to ramping of the floor

Processing tanks of concrete construction were located in the northern end of the building

Hides had apparently been stretched and dried outside the eastern side of the building



30 Stage 2 Intrusive Investigations

31 Overview and Chronology of Works The scope and timing of field investigations is summarised in Table 3-1 below

Table 3-1 Overview of Stage 2 Field Works

llbullIU=J Htr111l(bullJU

l~bullbullnbullJ t If ll 111 bull-_____~ ~ I- ~ ~bull I - l~elll~L

Groundwater Investigations -Initial Works

Underground service clearance for new groundwater monitoring wells

6 March 2018

Installation and development of six new groundwater monitoring wells (MW27 -MW32)

3 - 6 April 2018

Gauging of six new and 26 existing groundwater monitoring wells (MW01 -MW32)

16 April 2018

Sampling of six new and 26 existing groundwater monitoring wells (MW01 -MW32)

16 - 20 April 2018

Survey of location and elevation of six new groundwater monitoring wells (MW27 -MW32)

19 April 2018

Collection and disposal of soil (drill spoil) and ourae water

4 May 2018

Groundwater Investigations -Further Works


28 May 2018

Non-destructive drilling (MW35) 29 May 2018

Installation and development of three new groundwater monitoring wells (MW33-MW35)

30 - 31 May 2018

Gauging of nine existing and three new groundwater monitoring wells (MW18 MW23 MW25 MW27-MW32 MW33-MW35)

6 - 7 June 2018

Sampling of nine existing and three new groundwater monitoring wells (MW18 MW23 MW25 MW27-MW32 MW33-MW35)

6 - 7 June 2018

Survey of location and elevation of three new and two existing groundwater monitoring wells (MW33-MW35 MW12 MW25)

8 June 2018

Collection and disposal of soil (drill spoil) and purge water

14 June 2018

Soil Vapour Investigations -Initial Works

Soil vapour sampling from 24 existing bores (13 nested pairs (SV01 to SV10 SV12) and two single depth bores (SV11 and SV13))

23 - 26 April 2018

Soil Vapour Investigations -Confirmatory Works

Soil vapour sampling from four existing bores (nested pairs (SV041 m and SV043m) and two single depth bores SV11 and SV13)

24 May 2018

P1605X60567613 EPA Theb st24 Tech Work Area44 EnvironmentReportSA EPA Thebarton Stage 2 Assessment Report 2018-07-10 FINALdocx Revision - 1O-Jul-2018 Prepared for - South Australian Environment Protection Authority -ABN 85 393 41 1 003


32 Preparatory Works

321 Stakeholder Engagement

Prior to commencement of works AECOM liaised with the City of West Torrens for permission for groundwater well installations on behalf of the SA EPA An initial application to ldquoUndertake drilling for Groundwater Monitoring Wells and Soil Vapour Intrusion Testingrdquo pursuant to Section 221 of the Local Government Act 1999 was completed by AECOM and approved by council on 26 March 2018 and a subsequent application for three additional wells approved 28 May 2018

322 Well Permits

South Australian legislation requires a well permit to be issued for the installation of each individual groundwater monitoring well Well permits for each of the installed wells were obtained from Department for Environment Water and Natural Resources (DEWNR) in advance of the intrusive works and are presented in Appendix D

323 Health Safety and Environment Plan

A site-specific Safety Health and Environment Management Plan (SHEMP) was developed for the site to manage risks to the investigation team subcontractors site personnel and the broader population as well as risks to the environment that might arise from the performance of AECOMrsquos site assessment works

33 Service Location and Selection of Investigation Locations

331 First Stage

Approximate investigation locations were as denoted by the SA EPA in information accompanying the request for tender Sure Search was engaged to mark out identifiable underground and aboveground services at all investigation locations using Dial Before You Dig plans and radio frequency detection Underground service location works were undertaken on 6 March 2018

Following completion of the service location works AECOM provided the SA EPA with proposed final well locations for approval taking into account site observations constraints and service locations

It is noted that due to the presence of underground services significantly constraining the location of one proposed well location the proposed initial installation program of seven new groundwater monitoring wells was curtailed to a total of six wells

332 Second Stage ndash Additional Wells

Approximate investigation locations were provided by the SA EPA AECOM again engaged Sure Search to mark out identifiable underground and aboveground services at the three investigation locations using Dial Before You Dig plans and radio frequency detection On the basis of identified services preferred investigation locations were selected MW33 and MW34 were necessarily located within the parking lane of the roadway while MW35 was located on the verge Underground service location works were undertaken on 28 May 2018

34 Groundwater Well Installation

Nine new groundwater wells were installed on public land as part of this investigation The wells denoted MW27 to MW35 were located within the new north-western extension of the SA EPA investigation area

The new groundwater well locations are shown on Figure 2 and Figure 3

341 Drilling and Logging

Groundwater wells were drilled and constructed by AampS Drilling (MW27 to MW32) and WB Drilling (MW33 to MW35) using truck-mounted drill rigs in the full-time presence of AECOM field investigators

At all locations boreholes were initially advanced using non-destructive means to mitigate risk to underground services At most locations boreholes were hand augered to a nominal depth of 12 m before proceeding with mechanical drilling At MW35 due to the presence of numerous nearby



services non-destructive digging using an air knife and vacuum truck was employed to a depth of 20 m ahead of the drilling program and the hole backfilled with sand prior to subsequent mechanical drilling from surface

Once mechanical drilling commenced bores were advanced using 125 mm diameter solid stem rotary augers The encountered stratigraphy was logged by an experienced AECOM field scientist on the basis of recovered auger cuttings with reference to the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) Soil descriptions for the lithology encountered at each location during drilling are presented in the bore logs in Appendix E Photographs of auger cuttings are presented in Appendix F

Soil samples from the surface and changes in lithology andor regular depth intervals within each soil bore were screened for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) using a photo ionisation detector (PID) that was calibrated to a known concentration of isobutylene calibration gas Calibration certificates are provided in Appendix G PID readings are presented on the borehole logs in Appendix E

342 Decontamination and Disposal

Drilling equipment which had contact with soils was decontaminated between groundwater wells with either high-pressure potable water (large equipment) or by hand washing with Decon 90 solution and potable water rinse

Soil cuttings were contained at a designated collection site in labelled 200 L drums and disposed of by an independent waste disposal contractor (Cleanaway) to a waste disposal facility (Cleanaway Wingfield) in accordance with SA regulations The waste disposal certificates are presented in Appendix H


Groundwater monitoring wells MW27 to MW32 were drilled to depths of between 16 m bgl and 165 m bgl Monitoring wells MW33 to MW35 were drilled to a depth of 16 m bgl All groundwater wells were constructed using 6 m of 50 mm diameter Class 18 uPVC threaded screen and blank casing with the water level intersecting the screen The wells were completed with sand to approximately 05 m above the screen and sealed with bentonite and grout to the surface Gatic covers were installed flush with the surrounding surface Construction details for the groundwater monitoring wells are presented in Appendix F

Following installation of the monitoring wells each well was developed using dedicated disposable bailers typically by removing a minimum of three bore volumes Further detail on well development is presented in Section 41 Ex-situ measurements of groundwater pH dissolved oxygen (DO) reduction potential (redox) temperature and electrical conductivity (EC) were taken following the removal of each bore volume using a water quality meter Calibration certificates are provided in Appendix G Well development sheets are included in Appendix I

35 Groundwater Well Gauging and Sampling

351 Groundwater Well Gauging

A groundwater well standing water level gauging round of a total of 32 wells (six new and 26 existing) was conducted on 16 April 2018 prior to the initial round of groundwater sampling

At each accessible well the depth to groundwater was measured from the top of casing using an oilwater interface probe

A subsequent partial gauging round was conducted on 6 June 2018 inclusive of the three newly installed wells and three wells of those across the north-western portion of the Assessment Area selected for metals analysis Selected wells were also gauged on 7 June 2018 immediately prior to sampling

Well gauging results for both monitoring events are provided in Table 1 (Appendix B)

352 Groundwater Well Sampling

An initial round of sampling was completed between 16 and 20 April 2018 encompassing the six new wells (MW27 to MW32) and 26 existing groundwater wells (MW01 to MW26)


- ---


Following installation of the three additional wells MW33 to MW35 a further sampling event was conducted on 6 to 7 June 2018 comprising these three wells and nine existing wells (MW18 MW23 MW25 MW27-MW32 MW33-MW35) to enable laboratory analysis for a metals suite

Except as noted below wells were sampled using the low flow technique in general accordance with Schedule B2 of the ASC NEPM (1999)

Low flow sampling was carried out by pumping each monitoring well at a low flow rate using a pneumatic bladder pump with its intake placed within the screened section of the monitoring well The low-flow micro-purge pump was set at a consistent depth above the base of the well with the aim of collection of representative samples Each well was purged prior to sampling and the standing water level in each well was monitored at regular intervals during the purging process to allow the pumping rate to be adjusted with the aim of achieving a stable water level with minimal drawdown thereby minimising both introduction of air to the groundwater and mobilization of particulate matter from the water table formation

At a number of wells slow recharge precluded sampling using low flow methodology At the request of the SA EPA to provide consistency with the methodology adopted for the Stage 1 investigation Hydrasleeve samplers were utilised Details of the sampling methodology at wells for which low flow sampling could not be employed are presented in Table 3-2 below

Table 3-2 Wells sampled by methods other than low-flow sampling

bull ~1Ji-~1 1bullmiddotoT lllrolafbull][oTtlI

1bullbull1r1r1enn --a-]IJI

111 I HtlOYtlYI

Hydrasleeve and bailer Well purged dry with low-flow equipment on 17 April 2018 Hydrasleeve grab sample was retrieved on 20 April 2018

MW04 Hydrasleeve

Hydrasleeve and bailer Low-flow sampling MW08 -

Low-flow samplingMW15 Hydrasleeve -

MW18 Hydrasleeve Low-flow sampling -

Hydrasleeve Insufficient water column for Hydrasleeve MW19 Bailer

Hydrasleeve Low-flow samplingMW24 -

Well purged dry with low-flow equipment on 17 April 2018 Hydrasleeve grab sample was retrieved on 20 April 2018

MW32 Hydrasleeve -

Field parameters of temperature pH EC DO and redox and visual and olfactory evidence of the presence of VCH compounds (where present) were recorded during sampling These records are summarised in Table 2 (Appendix B) Copies of the groundwater purge and sampling sheets are provided in Appendix I

353 Sample Handling and Laboratory Analysis

Groundwater samples were placed in laboratory-supplied bottles and held in chilled conditions pending and during transport to the laboratories under chain-of-custody protocols

Samples collected from the six new and 26 existing wells in April 2018 were analysed for a VOC screen (inclusive of chlorinated ethenes PCE TCE DCE and vinyl chloride (VC) as well as chloroform and carbon tetrachloride) and for VOC degradation indicators (ethane ethene and methane)

For the second sampling event in May 2018 samples from each of the three new wells were analysed for the same VOC screen and degradation indictors while these three samples and samples from nine wells located across the north-western portion of the Assessment Area (as specified by the SA EPA) were analysed for a suite of heavy metals including hexavalent chromium

P1605X60567613 EPA Theb st24 Tech Work Area44 EnvironmentReportSA EPA Thebarton Stage 2 Assessment Report 2018-07-10 FINALdocx Revision - 1 OJul-2018 Prepared for - South Australian Environment Protection Authority -ABN 85 393 41 1 003


QAQC samples (duplicate triplicate field blank rinsate blank and trip blank) were collected and analysed in accordance with the ASC NEPM

The chain of custody documents and laboratory certificates of analysis are provided in Appendix J

354 Decontamination and Waste Water Disposal

To reduce the potential for cross-contamination between bores during gauging and sampling the interface probe was rinsed with Decon90 and fresh water prior to the commencement of field work and between sampling locations During low-flow sampling a new disposable bladder unit and dedicated air and water hose were used at each monitoring well and the pump was decontaminated with Decon90 prior to installation at each monitoring well

Waste groundwater was collected into a sealed labelled drum which was disposed of by an independent waste disposal contractor to a waste disposal facility in accordance with SA regulations A waste disposal certificate is provided in Appendix H

36 Soil Vapour Bore Sampling

361 Initial Soil Vapour Sampling Event (April 2018)

Existing vapour wells SV01 to SV13 were sampled between 23 and 26 April 2018 The following works were undertaken

Each well was screened in the field using a photo-ionisation detector (PID) and a landfill gas meter for measuring carbon dioxide (CO2) methane (CH4) and oxygen (O2) Field screening was conducted for sufficient time to allow for purging of the well

Leak testing of bores and sample trains was undertaken using a combination of vacuum helium and isopropanol

- Vacuum line test With all Teflon lines securely fitted using Swagelok nuts and ferrules and the valves to the well and to the canister closed a hand pump was used to evacuate the lines producing a vacuum of at least -20 inHg Upon cessation of pumping the vacuum was monitored for one minute If unacceptable leaks were detected fittings were checked tightened or replaced and the vacuum test repeated

- Helium gas leak test The sampling train was passed through a bucket which was placed over the well ensuring an adequate seal with the ground to prevent substantial leakage of the tracer gas The shroud was filled with the helium tracer gas and the concentration of helium in the sampling train recorded using a helium detector for five minutes The concentration of helium within the shroud was then recorded If the concentration in the sampling train was greater than 10 of the shroud concentration then fittings were checked tightened or replaced then re-tested

- Isopropanol leak test Consistent with the methodology outlined in CRC CARE Technical Report No23 (CRC CARE 2013) an isopropanol soaked cloth was placed under a hood housing the well head canister and sampling train The sample canisters were then laboratory analysed additionally for isopropanol to check for leakage into the sampling train

Samples were collected into laboratory-certified evacuated (summa) canisters equipped with 1shyhour flow regulators Canister valves were closed while the canisters remained under partial vacuum to enable checking for leaks following transport to the laboratories Soil vapour purge records are provided in Appendix K

Samples were sent under standard AECOM chain of custody protocols to Envirolab as the primary laboratory for analysis of volatile halogenated aliphatic (VHA) compounds of concern including TCE and related breakdown products A blind coded intra-laboratory duplicate of SV2shy10m was also sent to Envirolab while inter-laboratory field duplicate samples from SV5-1m and SV6-1m were sent to Eurofins-mgt The chain of custody and laboratory certificate of analysis is provided in Appendix L



362 Additional Soil Vapour Sampling Event (May 2018)

Based on AECOMrsquos review of analytical results from the April sampling event four wells (SV04-1m SV4-3m SV11-1m and SV13-1m) were resampled on 24 May 2018 The following works were undertaken

Each well was again screened in the field using a PID and a landfill gas meter for measuring CO2 CH4 and O2 Field screening was conducted for sufficient time to allow for purging of the well

Leak testing of bores and sample trains was undertaken using a combination of vacuum and isopropanol tests only using the methodologies described above It is noted that while the helium testing provides ldquoin fieldrdquo warning of sample train leakage the combination of vacuum test and isopropanol provides adequate confidence in sample train integrity


Samples were again sent under standard AECOM chain of custody protocols to Envirolab as the primary laboratory for analysis of VHA compounds of concern including TCE and related breakdown products An inter-laboratory field duplicate samples SV11-1m was sent to Eurofins-mgt The chain of custody and laboratory certificate of analysis is provided in Appendix L

37 Groundwater Well and Soil Vapour Well Survey

New groundwater monitoring wells MW27 to MW32 were surveyed by a subcontracted surveyor (Link Up) on 19 April 2018

The further wells MW33 to MW35 were surveyed on 8 June 2018 at which time AECOM also requested resurvey of wells MW12 and MW25 to investigate irregularities in plotted groundwater elevation contours

The survey results are provided in Appendix M Groundwater monitoring well construction details and survey information are summarised in Table 3 included in Appendix B



40 Quality Assurance and Data Validation This section presents the findings of quality assurancequality control (QAQC) assessments undertaken with respect to both the groundwater and soil vapour monitoring works undertaken

41 Groundwater Well Installation and Development A summary of groundwater monitoring well installation and development is presented in Table 4-1 below

Table 4-1 Groundwater Well Installation and Development Summary

Well ID Depth Drilled

Purge Amount Turbidity Comment

MW27 16 m 6x BV High becoming clearer

Field parameters generally stable



MW29 16 m 4xBV High becoming clearer






MW32 165 m 2xBV High lower on second day

Well bailed dry on two consecutive days Slow recharge Well was later sampled using Hydrasleeve as recovery too slow for low-flow technique

MW33 16 m 3xBV High Field parameters generally stable

MW34 16 m 3x BV High decreasing Field parameters generally stable

MW35 16 m 3x BV High Field parameters generally stable Significant silt build-up

Note BV = bore volume

For the majority of new wells sufficient inflow was observed to permit sampling using low-flow techniques as discussed in the following section The relatively poor well recharge noted in well MW32 during well development resulted in failure to achieve steady state drawdown conditions in this well As noted previously for MW32 a grab sample was collected using a Hydrasleeve sampler

In general new well construction and development was considered appropriate for the acquired samples to be submitted for analysis The results for new well MW32 and for existing wells MW04 and MW19 should be considered in the context of the low inflow to these wells

42 Groundwater Monitoring Well Survey Data On the basis of preliminary plotting of inferred groundwater elevation contours AECOM commissioned resurvey of existing wells MW12 and MW25 concurrently with survey of new wells MW33 to MW35 The resulted in a minor adjustment to the top of casing elevation for well MW25 notably this did not resolve the irregular contours in this vicinity

43 Vapour Well Integrity Comprehensive details of vapour sampling integrity checks are presented in Table 5 attached with selected details discussed below



431 Helium leak test

Field records for helium vapour leak testing conducted in April 2018 are summarised in Table 5 attached In accordance with the ITRC5 guidance a maximum relative helium concentration of 10 within the sampling train compared to the hood is considered acceptable for sampling (ie small leaks are not considered to invalidate the results) The results from the helium leak testing showed a maximum relative helium concentration (sampling trainhood) of 013 indicating that the integrity of the wells and sampling trains was acceptable

432 lsopropanol Leak Test

An assessment of the isopropanol test data from April and May 2018 sampling rounds is made on the basis of the relative concentrations in the sample and the hood (the April 2018 hood concentration is used for both April and May events)

Consistent with the ITRC (2007) guidance and CRC CARE TR23 (Wright 2013) a leak of up to 10 (well hood relative) is considered acceptable and as such a minor leak is not considered to invalidate the data As can be seen from Table 5 in Appendix B no leaks of significance were noted (maximum reported wellhood ratio of 0009) and the data is considered suitable for interpretation

44 Soil Vapour Sampling - Canister Pressure Laboratory receiving pressures for canister samples were within acceptable ranges noting that

bull All canisters were received by the laboratories with residual vacuums

bull All canister vacuums on receipt by the laboratory were sufficiently close to the canister vacuum of completion of sampling for sample integrity to be considered satisfactory

45 Analytical Data Validation Chain of custody details and laboratory certificates are provided in Appendix J (Groundwater samples) and Appendix L (Soil vapour samples) A summary of the laboratory batches is provided in Table 4-2 below

Table 4-2 Sampling and Laboratory Analysis Summary

lfill bull1bull1 1ll~lcl Rltr1111t-_-- trtlllHlL-JI I bull

- - lf-Jn u~ - - 111111 1i ThftClllil

594655 Eurofins 16 - 18 April 2018 Primary Low Flow 595774 Eurofins 19 - 20 April 2018 Groundwater Hydrasleeves

Bailer EM1806724 EM1807015

ALS Environmental ALS Environmental

16 - 18April2018 19- 20 April 2018

Secondary Groundwater

602226 Eurofins 6 - 7 June 2018 Primary Groundwater

Low Flow Hydrasleeves

193666 Envirolab 6 - 7 June 2018 Secondary Groundwater

190412

-

Envirolab 26 April 2018 Primary Soil Vapour

Summa Canisters

596131 Eurofins 26 April 2018 Secondary Soil Vapour

192575 Envirolab 24 May 2018 Primary Soil Vapour

Summa Canisters

600432 Eurofins 24 May 2018 Secondary Soil Vapour

5 ITRC (2007) Vapor Intrusion Pathway A Practical Guideline Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council Vapor Intrusion Team Jan 2007 P1605X60567613 EPA Theb st24 Tech Work Area44 EnvironmentReportSA EPA Thebarton Stage 2 Assessment Report 2018-07-10 FINALdocx Revision - 1O-Jul-2018 Prepared for - South Australian Environment Protection Authority -ABN 85 393 41 1 003


The data validation guidelines adopted by AECOM provide a consistent approach for the evaluation of analytical data These guidelines are based upon data validation guidance published in the Amended ASC NEPM (NEPC 1999) The process involves the checking of analytical procedure compliance and an assessment of the accuracy and precision of analytical data from a range of QAQC measures generated from both the sampling and analytical programs

Specific elements that have been checked and assessed by this project are

preservation and storage of samples upon collection and during transport to the laboratory

sample holding times

use of appropriate analytical and field sampling procedures

required limits of reporting

frequency of conducting quality control measurements

rinsate field and trip blank results

laboratory blank results

field duplicate and triplicate results

laboratory duplicate results

matrix spike results

surrogates spike results

laboratory control spike and laboratory control spike duplicate results

continuing calibration verifications

leak testing (soil vapour)

canister pressure (soil vapour)

the occurrence of apparently unusual or anomalous results eg laboratory results that appear to be inconsistent with field observations or measurements

Validation summary reports and tables of field duplicates laboratory duplicates and matrix spikematrix spike duplicates are provided in Appendix N

Several observations of anomalous results were made each of which was resolved satisfactorily as follows

Soil vapour results from bores SV4-1m and SV4-3m from April 2018 were observed to be anomalous in that (i) the reported TCE vapour concentrations varied significantly from those presented by Fyfe (2017) and (ii) the reporting of a higher concentration for the shallow bore than for the deeper bore was inconsistent with expectations for vapour emanating from groundwater and contradictory to expectations based on PID screening of these bores Consequently these two bores were resampled in May 2018 the analytical results for the May 2018 samples were better reflective of both the previous (Fyfe 2017) results and expectations based on the site conceptual model Although comparison of April 2018 results to the Fyfe 2017 results was not conclusive in this regard comparison of the April 2018 and May 2018 results indicated that a field labelling error was the most likely reason from the inconsistencies with April 2018 SV4-1m depth result similar to the May 2018 SV4-3m depth result and the April 2018 SV4-3m depth result similar to the May 2018 SV4-1m depth result The May 2018 data for bores SV4-1m and SV4-3m exhibiting the higher results for the shallower (1m) depth is used for interpretation in this report

Soil vapour results from bores SV11-1m and SV13-1m from April 2018 were observed to be anomalous in that (i) the reported TCE vapour concentrations were substantially higher than indicated by the PID screening pre- and post- sampling and (ii) the reporting of elevated vapour concentrations for these lateral perimeter bores was inconsistent with previous findings and the observed distribution of groundwater impacts Both bores were noted in the field to have high methane concentrations (confirmed by laboratory analysis and reported also by Fyfe (2017)



although this should not have impacted on the TCE analysis The original samples were reanalysed and the results confirmed consequently these two bores were resampled in May 2018 The analytical results for the May 2018 samples were better reflective of both the previous (Fyfe 2017) results and expectations based on the site conceptual model Accordingly the May 2018 data for bores SV11-1m and SV13-1m is used for interpretation in this report

From this information together with the detailed data validation analysis documented in Appendix N it is concluded that the quality of the analytical data is such that it can be used as a basis for interpretation with reference to the comments included in Appendix N



50 Results

51 Introduction This section presents the results of field and laboratory testing of groundwater and soil vapour

52 Groundwater Field Results 521 Groundwater Gauging

Description of the site-specific hydrogeology is based on observations made during the site groundwater monitoring and sampling Findings and observations with respect to the site-specific hydrogeology are summarised in Table 5-1 below

Table 5-1 Hydrogeological Summary

litJUiU 1bull-u11~

Depth to Standing water levels (SWL) for the uppermost groundwater layer varied from Groundwater approximately 177 metres below ground level (m bgl) (background well MW04

located to the south-east of the Assessment Area 16 April 2018) to approximately 114 m bgl (MW33 located in the north-western portion of the Assessment Area 6 June 2018) A summary of SWLs in presented in Table 1 attached

Groundwater Groundwater elevations calculated for monitoring wells across the site are Inferred Flow tabulated in Table 1 and varied between 4978 m AHO (MW04 the most south-Direction easterly well within the monitoring network April 2018) and 4278 mAHD (MW33

in the north-western portion of the Assessment Area June 2018) Inferred groundwater piezometric contours based on gauging results from 16 April 2018 are presented graphically on Figure 3 and indicate groundwater flow predominantly north-westerly across the Assessment Area It is noted that gauging data from wells MW33 to MW35 are included in this figure using SWL measurements from 6 June 2018 adjusted by the average groundwater elevation differential from wells MW18 MW29 and MW31 between the two dates

Groundwater Based on the inferred groundwater contours presented in Figure 3 the hydraulic Hydraulic gradient appears to be flatter in the down-gradient portion of the Assessment Gradient Area north of Light Terrace

South of Light Terrace an average hydraulic gradient of the order of 0001 is estimated for the shallow water bearing layer To the north of Light Terrace the hydraulic gradient is estimated to be aooroximatelv 00002

NAPL Presence No NAPL was detected during the gauging of the wells

The observed groundwater flow direction is consistent with that reported by Fyfe for the 2017 groundwater investigations

522 Field Indications of Groundwater Impact

Reference to groundwater sampling and purging records presented in Appendix I indicates the following observations of potential groundwater impacts

bull MW02 Noted solvent odour and PIO reading of 940 ppm

bull MW05 No odour PIO reading of 105 ppm


No sheen was observed in any of the wells



523 Groundwater Field Parameters

Field parameters measured during groundwater sampling are presented in Table 2 (Appendix B) and summarised in Table 5-2 below

Table 5-2 Groundwater Field Parameters and Observations

ij~ =ii- - - -lbull--IIIIIIH~bullbullrbull1 1n1~1iB

pH Groundwater pH values ranged from approximately 55 to 75 indicative of generally slightly acidic to neutral conditions

Oxidation Reduction Potential (ORP)

Redox potential ranged from -51 to 231 mV Indicating typically slightly to moderately oxidising conditions The predominant redox values are not suggestive of conditions generally suitably reducing to enable material reductive dechlorination of PCE or TCE

Dissolved Oxygen (DO)

DO readings were consistent with expectations - typically higher readings obtained during development of new wells consistent with agitation of the water column and generally low readings obtained from low flow sampling

Electrical Conductivity (EC)

Although EC values ranged from 1002 microSiem to 8696 microSiem there was generally relatively little variation across the monitoring well network The highest salinity value was reported for background well MW04 up-gradient of the Assessment Area The remainina EC values ranaed from 1002 uScm to 3677 uScm

Temperature Recorded water temperatures ranged from 190 to 251 degrees Celsius

Odour The majority of wells were not noted to exhibit odour only MW02 was described as exhibitina a solvent odour

53 Groundwater Laboratory Results Groundwater analytical laboratory reports and chain of custody (COC) documentation are presented in Appendix J Tabulated summary results and graphical presentations for the targeted contaminants of potential concern are presented as follows

Figure 4 Groundwater Analytical Results - VCHs AprilJune 2018



Table 6 Groundwater Results - VCHs - Comparison to 2003 SA EPA EPP(WQ) Criteria

Table 7 Groundwater Results - VCHs - Comparison to NEPM Criteria

Table 8 Groundwater Results - Metals - Comparison to 2003 SA EPA EPP(WQ) Criteria

Table 9 Groundwater Results - Metals - Comparison to NEPM Criteria

Table 10 Historical Groundwater Results - VCHs

531 Screening Criteria

The groundwater screening criteria adopted for this investigation were devised in consideration of

bull Regulatory water quality criteria being the most stringent of the SA EPA (2003) Environmental Protection (Water Quality) Policy criteria for each of the protected environmental values to enable reporting in relation to S83A notification requirements as per SA EPA recommendations

bull Risk-based criteria selected in consideration of real istic potential beneficial uses of groundwater in the vicinity of the site sourced from other Australian and international publications

bull The World Health Organisation (WHO) Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality (referred to for TCE only in the absence of other applicable criteria)



The selection of groundwater assessment criteria is detailed in Appendix 0 The adopted assessment criteria are presented on Tables 6 to 9 (Appendix B)

532 Groundwater Analytical Results

Table 5-3 provides a summary of groundwater analytical results exceeding the LOR

Table 5-3 Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results for Monitoring Wells

~- -rn j-FOJi 1Fif middot bull UIIOI

yl_ - -~bullmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot --

1 1-Dichloroethene microgL ltLOR 2 -12-Dichloroethene microgL ltLOR 5 -Trichloroethene microgL ltLOR 28000 (No TCE

guideline)

Tetrachloroethene microgL ltLOR ltLOR -(raised LOR for MW02 and MW05 exceeded EPP criterion)

Chloroform microgL ltLOR 13 (No EPP guideline)

Carbon Tetrachloride microgL ltLOR 6 MW25

Boron mgL 013 035 MW23 MW28

Cadmium mgL ltLOR 00002 -Hexavalent Chromium mgL ltLOR 002 All tested wells

except MW32 MW35 (Fresh-water Aquatic ecosystems)

Cobalt mgL ltLOR 0004 -Copper mgL ltLOR 0025 MW29 MW30

MW33 MW35

Lead mgL ltLOR 0002 -Manganese mgL ltLOR 25 MW30 MW32

MW35

Nickel mgL ltLOR 0013 -Selenium mgL ltLOR 0007 MW25 MW31

Zinc mgL ltLOR 0047 All tested wells except MW18 MW28 (Aquaculture)

~-middot---~iJITiTf] liI~ ~11 rbullbullJlelill ----~bullbullbullrelI~

--MW02 MW03 MW05 MW11 MW12 MW14 MW15 MW20 MW23 MW28 MW29 MW31

-(raised LOR for MW02 and MW05 exceeded NEPM criteria)

MW03 MW08 MW11 MW19 MW25

MW25

--All tested wells except MW32 MW35

-All tested wells except MW32

MW29

MW29 MW30 MW31 MW32 MW33 MW34 MW35

MW35

MW25 MW31

All tested wells except MW18 MW28



In the absence of a NEPM Investigation Level for TCE the WHO Drinking Water Guideline of 20 microgL is adopted

All other VCHs analysed were reported below the LOR

Final VCH degradation parameters ethane and ethene were reported below the LOR in all groundwater monitoring wells sampled

54 Soil Vapour Field Screening

Both prior to and following soil vapour sampling from each of the new and existing soil vapour wells AECOM screened for volatile organic compounds using a PID connected to the sampling train The recorded PID measurements are shown in Table 11 (Appendix B) together with measurements of methane oxygen and carbon dioxide The PID was equipped with a 106 eV lamp which is suitable for detection of VCHs TCE PCE 11- and 12-DCE and VC

There was observed to be generally reasonable agreement between pre- and post-sampling PID readings

55 Soil Vapour Analytical Results


The ASC NEPM includes soil vapour HILs for some chlorinated solvents including TCE Residential HILs have been referenced for this assessment

It is noted that the NEPM does not include a screening criterion for trans-12-DCE however the ASC NEPM introduction to cis-12-DCE includes the following assessment of the trans-isomer toxicity

ldquocis-12-DCE is considered to be more toxic than trans-12-DCE and hence the HILs derived for the cis-isomer are adequately protective of exposures associated with the trans-isomerrdquo

There are no NEPM soil vapour guidelines for 11-DCE however the US EPA provide an ambient air guideline for residential exposure for 11-DCE of 210 microgm3 Based on application of a conservative 10-fold soil vapour to indoor air attenuation factor (consistent with the ASC NEPM interim HIL derivation) a soil vapour screening level of 2100 microgm3 can be derived for 11-DCE similar to the PCE soil vapour HIL in the NEPM

552 Analytical Data

Laboratory certificates for the analysis of VCHs from summa canister samples are attached as Appendix P Tabulated summary results and graphical presentations of selected VCHs are presented as follows




It is noted that results for bores SV04 SV11 and SV13 from May 2018 are presented in preference to those from April 2018 as discussed elsewhere in this report



A summary of the results for VCHs for sampling conducted in AprilMay 2018 is presented in Table 5-4 below



Table 5-4 Summary of Soil Vapour Analytical Results - VCHs

11-Oichloroethene microgmJ lt LOR 9900 2100 SV3-10 SV3-30

cis-1 2-Oichloroethene microgmJ lt LOR 350 80 SV2-30

Tetrachloroethene microgmJ ltLOR 42000 2000 SV3-1 0 SV3-30

Trichloroethene microgmJ ltLOR 3200000 20 All wells except for SV10 SV11 SV13

Vinyl Chloride microgmJ ltLOR lt LOR 30 None

For numerous samples cis-12-DCE and VC LORs exceeded the adopted NEPM criteria It is noted that for two samples (SV11 and SV13) the TCE LOR was increased to an order of

magnitude above the NEPM criteria value of 20 microgm3

1 1-DCE guideline adapted from US EPA Regional Screening Level (refer Section 551 )

553 Comparison of Analytical Data to Field Screening Results

Comparison of PIO data (pre- and post- sampling) with laboratory measured total VCH concentrations indicates a reasonable correlation as shown in Figure 5-1 below

Figure 5-1 Comparison of Total VCHs in Soil Vapour Sample to Post- Sampling PIO Reading

Comparison of Total VCHs in Soil Vapour Samples to Post-Sampling PID Reading

10000000

bull 1000000E

~ i u

100000gt --middot u C 10000u I-

~middot bullbull u 0

1000E diams Total VCHs (microgm3) bull 100c u gt

~ 0 10 I-

1

00 01 10 100 1000 10000

PID Reading Post-Sampling (ppm)

Based on the results of the current investigation PIO screening of soil vapour bores is a reasonably reliable semi-quantitative indicator of laboratory VCH results



554 Comparison of 2018 Analytical Data to Historical Soil Vapour Data

A comparison of AECOMrsquos reported total VCH concentrations to both the post-sampling PID readings (as discussed in Section 553) and the Fyfe (2017) analytical data is presented in Table 14 (Appendix B)

The percentage increases in vapour concentrations from 2017 to 2018 are shown it is noted that concentrations were lower in 2018 in just three bores SV4-1m SV9-1m and SV10-3m

From the above comparison it is apparent that

The majority of wells showed relatively good consistency between the Fyfe (2017) and AECOM (2018) total VCH results

The majority of soil vapour concentrations were higher for the recent soil vapour monitoring event

The most notable differences between the two data sets are the results for soil vapour well SV3 (both 1 m and 3 m depths) which reported total VCHs for AECOMrsquos 2018 investigation between 3 and 5 times higher than those reported by Fyfersquos 2017 sampling This result is discussed in more detail in Section 67



60 Updated Conceptual Site Model

61 Introduction The CSM developed by Fyfe on the basis of their 2017 investigation and previous site data is summarised in brief in Table 6-1 below largely adopting the format of Fyfes report

Table 6-1 Summary of Previous Conceptual Site Model

[ - -- -- -- - -- 1au -lllllhmiddot 1 1 ll~[IJJefl(I

Assessment The Assessment Area considered by Fyfe Based on the findings of the previous Area as defined by the SA EPA was

approximately 27 hectares work the Assessment Area has been further expanded to 37 Ha as detailed in Section 21

History of Fyfe noted that properties located within No detailed assessment of land use Land Use the Thebarton Assessment Area have

historically been used for a mixture of commercialindustrial and low density residential land uses At that time commercialindustrial properties include a beverage factory in the north-eastern portion of the assessment area a refrigeration equipment facil ity a car dealership two hotels automotive and other workshops and an ice skating rink Former commercialindustrial activities had been identified as including a gas works a mechanics workshop sheet metal working facilities and a farm machinery manufacturer

was undertaken as part of AECOMs 2018 investigations to update this assessment It is noted that the beverage factory is ceasing operations

Historical A series of previous investigations in the AECOM provides a brief summary of Investigations area is summarised in the Fyfe report an additional investigation report

provided by the SA EPA in this report (Section 235)

Local Geology Fyfe noted the following key points bull Natural soils encountered across the

Thebarton Assessment Area were considered to be indicative of the

bull Quaternary Pooraka and Hindmarsh Clay formations

bull The Hindmarsh Clay unit typically contains many structural features and defects which greatly influence its permeability thereby resulting in potential preferential pathways for the vertical and lateral movement of soil vapour and groundwater

bull Such features were not specifically observed during the drilling and soil logging work by Fyfe although some gravel lenseslayers were identified

AECOMs observations are consistent as discussed below



Fyfe noted the following key points Hydrogeology This information is generally consistent with AECOMs observations

being located to the west of the Para Fault is likely to be underlain by five

bull Gerges (2006) indicates that the site

Recorded groundwater depths were to six Quaternary aquifers and three similar with the typically slightly greater or four Tertiary aquifers depths to groundwater reflective of the

timing of 2018 works ahead of winter within the 01 aquifer in the Thebarton

bull Fyfe identified the depth to water rather than following winter as

Assessment Area to range from conducted in 2017 approximately 123 to 159 m BGL and to flow in a general north-westerly direction with a relatively flat hydraulic gradient (000062 to 00012)

bull Salinity levels (based on field EC readings) range from approximately 1230 to 3620 mgL TDS

bull Registered groundwater wells in the area were listed as having been installed primarily for monitoring investigation or observation purpose however other purposes included drainage domestic and industrial

bull Realistic beneficial groundwater uses are assessed to potentially include potable residential irrigation and primary contact recreationaesthetics

bull Based on proximity to the River Torrens freshwater ecosystem protection has also been considered -however since the River Torrens is considered to be either a recharge boundary (ie discharging to local groundwater) or not actually hydraulically connected to the 01 aquifer in this area this may not be a realistic beneficial use

Hydrology This assessment remains valid were identified within the Thebarton Fyfe noted that no surface water bodies

although due to the increase in the size Assessment Area The closest surface of the Assessment Area the River water body is the River Torrens located Torrens is now approximately 200 m to approximately 03 km to the east and the north and north-west 07 km to the north and north-west Current stormwater run-off within the Thebarton Assessment Area is expected to be collected by localised engineered draina e s stems



-= - a

Groundwater Impacts

Key points arising from the Fyfe investigations

bull Groundwater contaminants include TCE PCE 12-DCE ( cis- and trans-) and 11-DCE

bull TCE was considered to be the main COPC with the highest concentrations and broadest distribution By comparison break-down products cis-and trans-12-DCE occur at relatively minor concentrations at scattered locations such that significant TCE breakdown via dechlorination is not apparent

bull The groundwater TCE plume was considered to have migrated in a north-westerly direction from source in accordance with the predominant flow direction associated with the 01 aquifer

bull The north-western extent of the TCE plume had not yet been determined (whereas its extent has been defined in all other directions)

AECOM notes a key objective of the Stage 2 Assessment was delineation of the TCE plume to the north-west as discussed in Section 65

Soil Vapour Impacts

Key points arising from the Fyfe investigations bull Contaminants identified in soil vapour

included TCE PCE 12-DCE (cis-and trans-) and 1 1-DCE VC was not detected in any of the soil vapour samples

bull The distribution of TCE in soil vapour at 1 and 3 m BGL generally correlated with the north-westerly groundwater flow direction and the observed soil vapour impact was therefore considered to be a product of volatilisation from the groundwater CHC Plume

bull The soil vapour samples with the maximum TCE concentrations (ie SV3_ 10m and SV3_30m) also had the highest PCE and 11-DCE concentrations (or elevated LOR) thereby suggesting that they could represent co-contaminants

bull Although the extent of the soil vapour TCE plume has not yet been determined (ie in any direction) it is expected to have a similar extent to that of the identified groundwater olume

The results of AECOMs 2018 soil vapour investigation utilising the same soil vapour bore network as Fyfe were largely consistent with the 2017 results other than that soil vapour concentrations across the bore network were generally higher than those reported by Fyfe as discussed in Section 67



L bull

Contaminants The contaminants of potential concern Concentrations of a number of metals of Potential were previously identified as the volatile exceeded the adopted screening Concern chlorinated hydrocarbons TCE PCE 12-

DCE ( cis- and trans-) VC and 1 1-DCE The Fyfe investigations confirmed these CoPC and identified TCE as the main driver in terms of potential human health risk associated with the vapour intrusion pathway

criteria and are thus included as chemicals of potential concern as discussed in Section 62

Suspected Fyfe noted that the suspected source of As discussed in Section 68 it is Source and the identified VCH groundwater (and soil possible that there are other Affected vapour) impacts within the Thebarton SA contributing sources within the Media EPA Assessment Area is the former

Austral sheet metal works located over multiple allotments between George and Maria Streets from the 1920s until the 1960s-1970s Previous investigations had identified groundwater VCH impacts on part of this suspected source site

Assessment Area

Sensitive Receptors

Fyfe identified the following potential sensitive receptors Ecological

bull Groundwater ecosystems within the Assessment Area

bull The freshwater ecosystem of the River Torrens (although not confirmed as a groundwater receiving environment)

Human bull Current and future occupants of and

visitors to residential properties

bull Current and future workers on commercialindustrial sites in the area

bull Current and future underground trenchmaintenanceuti lity workers

bull Down-gradient groundwater bore users

No change

Contaminant Transport Mechanisms

Fyfe identified the following contaminant transport mechanisms in relation to impacts in the uppermost groundwater body bull Flow within the aquifer to hydraulically

down-gradient surface water bodies andor groundwater wells

bull Vapour generation andor flow via subsurface preferential pathways

bull Downward movement of dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) into underlying aquifers

No change



Exposure Mechanisms

Within the broader area of impacted groundwater bull Direct contact with impacted

groundwater (use of bores within area of plume)

bull Incidental ingestion of extracted groundwater

bull Inhalation of vapours (either during extractionuse or through vapour intrusion into buildings)

No change

Groundwater Measured concentrations of TCE Refer discussion of updated Risks exceeded the adopted assessment criteria

for potable andor primary contact recreation in wells located from the source zone to the north-western extent of the former Assessment Area One well (MW25) contained a concentration of carbon tetrachloride that exceeded the adopted potable criterion Fyfe also noted that vapour emissions can occur durina aroundwater extraction

groundwater results in Section 65 below

Groundwater Fyfe inferred that the absence of The extended Assessment Area Fate and significant and widespread TCE daughter already lies approximately 400 m Transport products indicated that substantial beyond the previous extent Modelling dechlorination is not occurring

Groundwater fate and transport modelling conducted as part of the Stage 1 assessment predicted that the likely extent of the dissolved phase groundwater TCE plume will extend by another 500 m beyond the boundaries of the current Thebarton SA EPA Assessment Area over the next 100 years although no significant lateral plume expansion is expected



Vapour Intrusion Risks

A Vapour Intrusion Risk Assessment (VIRA) predicted that 21 of approximately 130 residential properties in the former Assessment Area would have concentrations of TCE in indoor air warranting further action with respect to SA EPA guidelines as follows 10 properties within the investigation

range (2 to lt20 μgm3) eight properties within the intervention

range (20 to lt200 μgm3) and three properties within accelerated

intervention range (ge200 μgm3) No vapour intrusion risk was predicted for all remaining residential properties in the Thebarton SA EPA Assessment Area assuming crawl space construction Based on the results of the VIRA substantially increased risks were predicted for occupied cellarsbasements whereas risks may be lower for slab on grade construction premises

Unacceptable vapour intrusion risks to workers within commercialindustrial properties (slab on grade construction) were predicted across part of the Thebarton Assessment Area (based on the maximum soil vapour VCH concentrations in soil vapour bore SV3 located on Maria Street) Vapour intrusion risks to subsurface structures associated with commercialindustrial properties were not assessed The need for management of exposures for trenchmaintenanceutility workers was noted where TCE at 1 m BGL is greater than 100 μgm3 (ie corresponding to 50 times the acceptable concentration for indoor air)

Refer discussion of updated soil vapour results in Section 70 below



Identified Pathways and Areas of Potential Risk

Fyfe concluded that based on the results of their investigations (including the VIRA) and taking into account available historical information and DEW (2017) WaterConnect bore information the following complete exposure pathways and associated risks were possible for the Thebarton SA EPA Assessment Area bull exposure (direct contact incidental

ingestion andor inhalation of vapours) during use of groundwater for domestic (eg drinking water plumbing garden irrigation) andor recreational (eg filling of swimming poolsspas) purposes

bull vapour intrusion into indoor air within a number of residential properties

bull vapour intrusion into residential cellarsbasements (if present) and

bull vapour intrusion into the indoor air of commercialindustrial properties -although it was noted that actual risks to site workers would require further specific considerationassessment

In addition although noting only assessed in a qualitative manner Fyfe noted that trenchmaintenanceutility workers may also be at risk warranting exposure management

Refer discussion of vapour intrusion risk in Section 70



62 Chemicals of Potential Concern

The Stage 2 Investigation was primarily directed towards consideration of VCH impacts to groundwater and soil vapour although the investigation also included assessment of dissolved heavy metals in groundwater across the north-western portion of the Thebarton Assessment Area

For the purpose of this report the primary chemicals of potential concern comprise VCHs and specifically the following chlorinated ethenes which have been identified in groundwater andor soil vapour at concentrations exceeding screening criteria

PCE

TCE

cis- and trans- 12- DCE

11-DCE

As discussed below VC is thus also considered a chemical of potential concern

Lesser concentrations of chlorinated methanes chloroform (trichloromethane) and carbon tetrachloride (tetrachloromethane) were identified some marginally above screening criteria

For the purpose of the discussions below chlorinated ethenes remain the primary organic contaminants of concern

Concentrations of hexavalent chromium copper lead manganese nickel selenium and zinc exceeded the adopted screening criteria and are thus included as chemicals of potential concern

63 Generalised Conceptual Behaviour of Chlorinated Ethenes

631 Chlorinated Ethenes in Groundwater

If PCE andor TCE are released into groundwater as DNAPL they tend to sink until they reach a low permeability layer that they cannot penetrate or until the NAPL mass is reduced (by leaving a lsquotrailrsquo of residual NAPL along the path) such that there is insufficient mass for continued movement of the liquid However as the NAPL migrates downward it may also migrate laterally spreading out in response to localised heterogeneities in the aquifer permeability as illustrated in Figure 6-1 below

DNAPL may be mobile or present only as residual DNAPL in disconnected pore spaces or as smearing on soil particles When DNAPL is in contact with groundwater the contaminants gradually dissolve into the water creating a dissolved phase lsquoplumersquo that can then migrate down-gradient with the groundwater as well as to a lesser extent diffuse (driven by concentration gradients) in all directions

A lsquorule of thumbrsquo for assessing whether residual DNAPL may be present near a groundwater monitoring well based on observed concentrations in the groundwater is that dissolved concentrations above approximately 1 of the aqueous pure-phase solubility may be indicative of the local presence of DNAPL6 On this basis PCE concentrations above approximately 2 mgL could indicate the presence of DNAPL while this is approximately 10 mgL for TCE and 35 mgL for DCE

In the case of the Thebarton Assessment Area groundwater TCE concentrations at wells MW02 and MW04 are indicative of the potential local presence of DNAPL

6 US EPA 1992 Estimating Potential for Occurrence of DNAPL at Superfund Sites OSWER Publication 93554-07FS National Technical Information Service (NTIS) Order Number PB92-963338CDH P605X60567613 EPA Theb St24 Tech Work Area44 EnvironmentReportSA EPA Thebarton Stage 2 Assessment Report 2018-07-10 FINAL docx Revision ndash 10-Jul-2018 Prepared for ndash South Australian Environment Protection Authority ndash ABN 85 393 411 003

CW flov pool

residua

DNAPI pool In fractures

Minor

trans-12-DCE QQ=QQ

~ Biot ic react ions

lt- - Abiot ic reactions -c Minor Pat hway

PCE CCl2=CCl2

TCE CCl2=CHCI

cis-12-DCE CHCl=QQ

A biotic and biologica l t ransformation pathways for selected chlorinated solvents

release

M inor

vc CH2=CHCI

Adapted from ~ etal1999 NaturaAttenuation of Fuels and Chlorinated Solvents in the

Subsurface John Wi leyamp Sons pound USA 1999

11-DCE c c l =CH

dfssolved plume

Fl

ONAPL residual In f~ ctures

111-TCA 1 ~---c_c_1_-c_H_ ___ ~

_ I I

I

I I

I I

I

Acetate CH3COOH

I I

I I

Carbon dioxide water ch loride C02+H20+CImiddot

11-DCA CHCl2-CH 3

Chloroethane CH2CI -CH 3


Figure 6-1 Schematic Illustration of DNAPL Distribution in Unconsolidated Deposits7

The more highly chlorinated ethenes (PCE TCE) are relatively biodegradation resistant (stable) in aerobic (oxygenated) environments However under anaerobic (reducing) conditions PCE and TCE can degrade into less-chlorinated ethenes by a process of successive dechlorination producing daughter products as shown in Figure 6-2

Figure 6-2 Abiotic and Biological Transformation Pathways

7 UK Environment Agency (2003) lsquoAn illustrated handbook of DNAPL transport and fate in the subsurfacersquo Environment Agency RampD Publication 133 P605X60567613 EPA Theb St24 Tech Work Area44 EnvironmentReportSA EPA Thebarton Stage 2 Assessment Report 2018-07-10 FINAL docx Revision ndash 10-Jul-2018 Prepared for ndash South Australian Environment Protection Authority ndash ABN 85 393 411 003


Therefore when PCE or TCE are identified as chemicals of concern in environmental investigations their chlorinated daughter products (DCE and VC) are also of potential concern Commonly PCE and or TCE are likely to be the principal source chemicals where the chlorinated ethenes have originated from use as degreasing solvents DCE and VC may then be generated via this reductive dechlorination process Although there are three forms (isomers) of DCE (11-DCE cis-12-DCE and trans-12-DCE) the main one to be formed from degradation of TCE is typically cis-12-DCE

It is noted that 11-DCE may also be formed via abiotic (non-biological) processes from trichloroethane (TCA) so its presence (eg in the absence of cis-12-DCE) may indicate the historic use of TCA as an alternative solvent to TCE or PCE

632 Chlorinated Ethenes in Vapour

US EPA (2012)8 and ITRC (2007)9 provide recent technical guidance summarising expected behaviour of volatile COPC for the vapour intrusion pathway For chlorinated solvents such as PCE TCE and cis-12-DCE the following summarises the expected generalised behaviour and aids in supporting the adopted investigation approach and consequent assessment

Chemicals volatilise from impacted soil andor groundwater and diffuse towards regions of lower chemical concentration (Diffusion)

Soil gas can be drawn into a building due to a number of factors including barometric pressure changes wind load thermal currents or depressurization from building exhaust fans (Advection)

The rate of movement of vapours into buildings is a difficult value to quantify and depends on the geology chemical properties building design operation and condition and the pressure differential

Advective transport is likely to be most significant in the region very close to a basement or a foundation and soil gas velocities decrease rapidly with increasing distance from the structure The reach of the building ldquozone of influencerdquo on soil gas flow is usually less than a few feet vertically and horizontally

It is noted that advection may not have a net effect on chronic exposure (ie long term) as buildings may also be over-pressurised (as opposed to under-pressurised) thereby reducing the potential for vapour intrusion part of the time The UK Environment Agency does not recommend generic inclusion of advective flow in its CLEA model10 due to absence of evidence of a sustained driving force for advective flow

PCE TCE and cis-12-DCE vapours are unlikely to biodegrade to any significant degree while migrating through the vadose zone The same is not true for VC which can be susceptible to aerobic vadose zone biodegradation in a similar manner to that routinely observed for petroleum hydrocarbons

Soil vapour concentrations can be higher beneath sealed surfaces (such as roads building slabs) compared to similar depths beneath open surfaces due to build-up beneath the slab

All else being equal soil vapour concentrations are proportional to source concentrations and soil vapour concentrations will be higher closer to the source

In general temporal variability in soil vapour concentrations (at 4 feet 12 m depth) is relatively minor having been found to vary by up to only a factor of 2 and seasonal variations are less than a factor of 5 Effects would be expected to be greater closer to the ground surface and greater variation may be apparent during heavy periods of precipitation (ITRC 2007)11

8 US EPA (2012) Conceptual Model Scenarios for the Vapor Intrusion Pathway US EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (EPA 530-R-10-003) February 20129 ITRC (2007) Vapor Intrusion Pathway A Practical Guideline Technical and Regulatory Guidance Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council Vapor Intrusion Team January 200710 UK Environment Agency (2009) Updated Technical Background to the CLEA model httpwwwenvironmentshyagencygovukstaticdocumentsResearchCLEA_Report_-_finalpdf 11 ITRC (2001) ndash Vapor Intrusion Pathway A Practical Guideline Interstate Technology amp Regulatory Council January 2007 P605X60567613 EPA Theb St24 Tech Work Area44 EnvironmentReportSA EPA Thebarton Stage 2 Assessment Report 2018-07-10 FINAL docx Revision ndash 10-Jul-2018 Prepared for ndash South Australian Environment Protection Authority ndash ABN 85 393 411 003


Infiltration from rainfall can potentially affect soil vapour concentrations by displacing soil gas dissolving VOCs and restricting vertical migration Generally such soil moisture is unlikely to penetrate to any great depth and samples collected at depths greater than about 3 feet 09 m (or beneath surface cover) are unlikely to be significantly affected

64 Local Geology and Hydrogeology

641 Soils

Borehole logs for the new groundwater wells drilled across the north-western portion of the extended Assessment Area are indicative of subsurface conditions consistent with that described by Fyfe (2017) for the south-eastern portion

Fyfe reported natural soils dominated by low to medium plasticity silty clays and sandy claysclayey sands some containing gravels including river pebbles

The natural profile recorded by AECOM across the north-western extension of the Assessment Area typically comprised low to medium plasticity silty clay overlying silty sandy clays In well MW32 gravelly clayey sand was recorded from 10 m to 14 m bgl and sandy clayclayey sand with intermittent gravel lenses (including river gravels) from 14 m to 16 m bgl In well MW35 gravel bands were reported from 115 m to 125 m and from 13 m to 135 m with trace gravel in the silty sandy clay strata between and below these gravel lenses Alluvial influence is evident in the most northerly portion of the extended Assessment Area

642 Groundwater

Groundwater was encountered in the monitoring wells at depths ranging from approximately 177 m bgl in the eastern portion of the Assessment Area to 120 m bgl in the western portion Interpreted groundwater contours (Figure 3 Appendix A) based on standing water level data indicate groundwater flow generally north-westerly across the Assessment Area with a notably flatter gradient in the north-western portion

65 Extent and Magnitude of Groundwater Contamination

651 Volatile Chlorinated Hydrocarbons

The results of groundwater analyses for VCHs are presented in numerical form on Figure 4 attached inferred concentration contour plots for TCE are presented on Figure 5 (Appendix A)

The overall envelope of TCE impacts to groundwater extends from the apparent source area in the vicinity of Maria Street in the south-west of the Assessment Area in a north-westerly direction Impacts are delineated to close to or below LOR to the south-west south-east and north-east Wells MW27 to MW32 installed in April 2018 did not delineate the north-western extent of impacts however the further wells MW33 to MW35 achieved delineation of TCE impacts to concentrations equal to or below the LOR

The TCE impacts in groundwater across the majority of the assessment area are consistent with a plume emanating from the apparent source area although the reported concentration in well MW28 in the north-western portion of the Assessment Area was higher than that in the up-gradient well MW23 suggesting the potential for additional contributions to groundwater impacts from a further source in this area

TCE impacts in excess of the adopted assessment criteria (WHO Drinking Water guideline of 20 microgL) extend from the source area a distance of at least 800 m in the down-hydraulic gradient direction the plume is comparatively narrow (estimated 100 m)

Reference to Figure 4 shows that no PCE was identified in groundwater and minor cis-12-DCE concentrations were reported only at wells MW11 and MW14 down-gradient of the zone of maximum TCE impact1-1 DCE was reported above LOR only at MW11 (2 microgL)

Concentrations of chloroform above the LOR and above the NEPM Drinking Water guideline (3 microgL) were reported for wells MW3 MW8 MW11 MW19 and MW25 with the highest concentration (13 microgL) at MW8 on the northern boundary of the Assessment Area Carbon tetrachloride was only identified above the LOR at one well MW25 While the distribution of chloroform may be masked by P605X60567613 EPA Theb St24 Tech Work Area44 EnvironmentReportSA EPA Thebarton Stage 2 Assessment Report 2018-07-10 FINAL docx Revision ndash 10-Jul-2018 Prepared for ndash South Australian Environment Protection Authority ndash ABN 85 393 411 003


the majority of detected concentrations being equal to or only slightly above the LOR it does not appear that chloroform concentrations are aligned with the distribution of TCE impacts

652 Metals

The results of groundwater analyses for metals are presented in numerical form on Figure 6 (attached in Appendix A) With reference to the SA EPP (Water Quality) (2003) criteria referenced by the SA EPA for determination of site contamination of groundwater and noting that only selected wells located in the north-western portion of the Assessment Area were tested


The majority of reported hexavalent chromium concentrations exceeded the 2003 SA EPP(WQ) freshwater aquatic ecosystem criteria There was relatively little variation between wells and the distribution of impacts did not suggest any specific source area of the observed impacts



Selenium concentrations in wells MW25 and MW31 marginally exceeded EPP(WQ) freshwater ecosystem criteria however all results were below or only marginally above the LOR and no clear spatial trends were evident


The only apparent similarities in distribution for the tested metals were for copper and zinc for which the same four wells reported the highest concentrations However no evidence of a specific source area is provided from reference to these or the other metals results for the groundwater wells tested

The distribution of impacts suggested low levels of boron and selenium are likely to be a regional or background issue Given the variability in reported concentrations of chromium and manganese there is insufficient data to conclude the concentrations above adopted criteria represent background conditions although no specific sources are identified

66 Extent and Magnitude of Soil Vapour Impacts

Figures 7 8 and 9 show the distribution of TCE in soil vapour across the network of soil vapour bores sampled by AECOM in 2018 (it is noted that the soil vapour well network does not extend as broadly as the groundwater monitoring well network) The following observations are made

The distribution of TCE in soil vapour impacts appears to coincide with the presence of elevated groundwater TCE impacts

The highest TCE soil vapour impact is reported for vapour well SV03 on Maria Street corresponding approximately to groundwater monitoring well MW05 which exhibited the highest groundwater TCE concentrations

The extent of elevated soil vapour TCE concentrations has not been delineated by soil vapour bores in the easterly or south-easterly directions however the WMSTM sampler data from Fyfe (2017) contributes to delineation of the plume to the east and south-east and the correlation between groundwater and soil vapour impacts provides confidence that mapping of groundwater impacts is a suitable predictor of groundwater-related soil vapour impacts



It is noted that despite the absence of detectable PCE in groundwater PCE impact was identified in a number of soil vapour bores but only at concentrations exceeding adopted criteria in SV3 (both 1 m and 3 m depths) Notably the reported PCE concentrations were a maximum of approximately 15 of that of TCE it is possible that minor quantities of PCE were used at the source site

67 Critical Review of Soil Vapour and VCH Groundwater Data

671 Temporal trends

Groundwater Data

Results of the two monitoring events for the 26 wells sampled by Fyfe as part of Stage 1 investigations provide data for direct comparison It is apparent that MW2 of the current monitoring well network was originally denoted MW1 in investigations undertaken by REM in 2005 such that some temporal groundwater data is available for this location

Review of the current (2018) and most recent historical (2017) VCH concentration data (presented in Table 10 (Appendix B)) indicates generally good consistency between data sets with no clear increasing or decreasing trend evident

The historical data for MW2 (formerly denoted MW1) indicates this well has historically exhibited high concentrations of TCE with minor concentrations of 11-DCE and 12-DCE

Soil Vapour Data

In addition to the WMSTM sampler data collected by Fyfe in MayJune and August 2017 (Fyfe 2017) two rounds of soil vapour data are now available for the soil vapour wells installed and sampled by Fyfe in August 2017 and again sampled as part of the current investigation in April 2018 Current soil vapour bore results are compared to historical results in Table 13

As is to be expected some variation in concentrations at each well was observed between the rounds the following notable observations were made

TCE concentrations in a number of the more impacted 1m deep soil vapour bores were substantially greater in the more recent dry-season sampling event The most notable being SV2 (2 x higher) SV3 (over 4 x higher) SV6 (over 6 x higher) and SV7 (3 x higher) Increases were also observed in 3 m deep bores most notably SV3 (3 x higher) and SV4 SV5 and SV6 (all under 2 x higher)

PCE concentrations at SV3 in both the 1 m and 3 m deep bores were approximately 3 x higher for the current sampling event than for the 2017 sampling event

This magnitude of seasonal variability in soil vapour concentrations is generally consistent with expectations of up to a factor of 5 (ITRC 2007)

672 Spatial trends

Groundwater

Discussions in Section 65 provide an interpretation of the magnitude and extent of the groundwater VCH plume The key observations in this respect are

The VCH groundwater plume is effectively delineated in all directions to concentrations equal to or below the LOR including in the down-gradient (north-westerly) direction

Higher TCE concentrations were reported for samples from wells MW28 and MW29 compared to the up gradient well MW23

The following is noted with respect to this latter observation

Well MW28 was installed immediately down-gradient of a grassed reserve A limited review of historical documents via the South Australian Integrated Land Information System (wwwsailissagovau) and historical aerial photographs (accessed online via wwwenvironmentsagovau) indicates that while the reserve has been under local government ownership since the early 1960s prior ownership was commercial and historical photographs show some development of the site



The SA EPA provided information in relation to a former Tannery at 8 Dove Street (discussed in Section 235 and 236) although this site is down-gradient of well MW28 and VCH compounds are not identified as CoPC in relation to the former tannery site

Based on this limited research while there are evidently historical commercial land uses upgradient and in the vicinity of well MW29 there is currently no identified source of TCE impact immediately up-gradient of wells MW28 and MW29 and it may be that the observed concentrations are reflective of some combination of aged plume matrix diffusion or preferential pathways in concert with a relative lack of well density

Soil Vapour

The distribution of VCH concentrations in soil vapour is consistent with a sources or sources in the south-eastern portion of the Assessment Area

673 Comparison of vapour and groundwater data

Spatial distribution

As noted above at a broad scale the distribution of groundwater and soil vapour impacts is generally consistent such that the soil vapour impacts may be generally attributed to volatile emissions from impacted groundwater

Comparison of Soil Vapour Data to Theoretical Values based on Groundwater Concentrations

Table 15 presents a comparison for each paired vapour well and groundwater well of measured soil vapour concentrations to the theoretical maximum soil vapour concentration based on application of Henryrsquos Law Constant It is noted that this theoretical maximum applies at the groundwater surface approximately 10 m below the depth of soil vapour measurement so measured concentrations in shallow soil vapour would be expected to be materially lower than the equilibrium partitioning estimates

The comparisons are only presented for TCE as in no instances were cis-12-DCE or PCE present above LOR for both groundwater and soil vapour such that limited meaningful comparison for these chemicals is possible

It is observed that for the majority of locations the recorded TCE soil vapour concentrations were well below the theoretical maximum values consistent with expectations based on the depth of groundwater On average for the shallow soil vapour bores measured soil vapour concentrations were 34 of the theoretical maximum for the deeper soil vapour bores this value was 101

Notably higher soil vapour concentrations relative to theoretical maxima from groundwater were reported for shallow soil vapour bores SV01-1m (127) and SV06-1 (100) and for deeper soil vapour bores SV01-3m (442) and SV06-3m (193) While the absence of an adjacent groundwater monitoring well means direct comparison of groundwater and soil vapour concentrations is not possible for the most impacted vapour bore SV03 adoption of the groundwater concentration at nearby well MW05 would yield the following SV03-1m (8) and SV03-3m (29)

Assuming a linear decrease in soil vapour concentrations from the maximum at the groundwater source (nominally 12 m to 15 m depth) to zero at surface (assuming unsealed ground) theoretical concentrations in 1 m vapour bores would be expected to be of the order of 7 to 8 of the value at the source and concentrations in 3 m bores approximately 20 to 25

The only soil vapour bores exhibiting results notably higher than these theoretical values are SV01-1m and SV01-3m with concentrations between 50 and 100 higher than these estimates Review of historical data indicates that soil vapour results are consistent with the Fyfe (2017) data while groundwater concentrations have increased since 2017 such that the 2017 results also indicated this outlier There is considered to be a potential for contribution to the measured soil vapour concentrations at SV01 from localised soil impacts or lateral migration of vapour from nearby materially more impacted areas It is noted however that the observation of higher vapour concentrations at 3m depth than at 1m depth remains consistent with a deep vapour source



68 Potential Sources

It is apparent from the geometry of the inferred groundwater TCE plume and the distribution of soil vapour impacts that the primary source area for the TCE impacts is in the vicinity of the commercialindustrial properties near the eastern portion of Maria Street

As discussed in Section 672 no specific source has been identified to explain the apparent inconsistency in groundwater results in MW28 and MW29 in the north-western portion of the Assessment Area although the apparent historical commercial use of nearby sites suggests the presence of a localised source is possible However as noted before the observed local increase in groundwater TCE concentrations may be a reflection of some combination of aged plume matrix diffusion or preferential pathways in concert with a relative lack of well density in this vicinity

No specific sources of the reported metals were apparent from the distribution of elevated concentrations Numerous potential sources of these metals would be possible across an industrial area

69 Exposure Pathways and Receptors

691 Introduction

An ldquoexposure pathwayrdquo is a means by which a population or individual (ldquoreceptorrdquo) may be exposed to site-derived contaminants Receptors may be either human (eg building occupants) or environmental (eg discharge to a river or lake) Potential exposure pathways are evaluated for completeness based on the existence of

a source of chemical contamination

a mechanism for release of contaminants from identified sources

a contaminant retention or transport medium (eg soil air groundwater etc)

potential receptors of contamination and

a mechanism for chemical intake by receptors at the point of exposure (ie ingestion dermal contact or inhalation)

Whenever one or more of the exposure pathway elements is missing the exposure pathway is incomplete that is if there is contamination present but no exposure route to receptors then there no risk to human health andor the environment

692 Exposure Pathway Summary

Fyfe (2017) identified that potential sensitive receptors were considered to include the following current and future human receptors

Occupants of residential properties

Workers on commercialindustrial sites

Subsurface utility trench workers

Down-gradient groundwater bore users

Ecological receptors may include

Freshwater ecosystems associated with the River Torrens

In general the potential for exposure to sub-surface derived volatile chemicals in outdoor air is materially less than in indoor air due to lower concentrations and lower assumed duration of exposure (less time outdoors) Additionally exposure to receptors other than residents (eg occupational workers) is likely to be less than for residents due to reduced exposure time and duration As such occupants of residential properties are considered the most sensitive receptor with respect to evaluation of risk through vapour intrusion pathways



610 Data Gaps and Uncertainties

A number of data gaps relevant to the assessment of the site are noted

Groundwater VCH concentrations at the location of soil vapour bore SV03 and confirmation of attribution of the vapour concentrations to groundwater

The absence of monitoring wells installed to the next (deeper) aquifer precludes an assessment of its presence nature and depth and confirmation of the presence nature and extent of VCH impacts



70 Vapour Intrusion Risk

71 Introduction

A detailed assessment of vapour intrusion risk was outside the scope of AECOMrsquos assessment

Rather comments are provided on the basis of comparison of relative soil vapour concentrations from May 2018 compared to those reported by Fyfe (2017) and on which the previous vapour intrusion risk assessment was based

72 Residential Properties

The Fyfe assessment identified a number of residential properties for which estimated indoor air TCE concentrations fell within the investigation (2 to lt 20 microgm3) intervention (20 to lt 200 microgm3) and accelerated intervention (ge 200 microgm3) ranges adopted by the SA EPA These properties represented only approximately 16 of the total residential properties within the previous Assessment Area and were located within the area of elevated vapour concentrations relatively close to the source area

Table 7-1 on the following page presents a comparison of calculated indoor air concentrations associated with soil vapour concentrations measured at each soil vapour bore for the 2017 and 2018 sampling events and the associated SA EPA response levels In total the increased soil vapour concentrations reported for 2018 were assessed to result in five changes to the calculated SA EPA response levels

For the residential slab-on-ground scenario the increased concentrations in three vapour bores results in an elevated response level with SV03 entering the accelerated intervention category while calculated indoor air concentrations for SV06 and SV07 correspond to the intervention category It is noted that as shown on Figure 2 soil vapour bores SV06 and SV07 are located in an area of primarily commercial and non-residential land use

For the crawl space scenario 2018 soil vapour concentrations result in estimated indoor air concentrations for bores SV02 and SV06 falling within the accelerated intervention category

AECOM understands that the SA EPA has already commissioned works to monitor and manage elevated indoor air concentrations in residential properties in this area

73 Commercial Properties

Fyfe (2017) identified potential unacceptable vapour intrusion health risk to workers within commercial industrial properties based on the maximum soil vapour concentration reported and based on slab on ground construction Vapour intrusion health risks related to commercialindustrial facilities incorporating basementscellars were not assessed

Commercial vapour intrusion risks were assessed on the basis of the soil vapour concentration for SV03 at 1 m depth (TCE of 210000 microgm3) on the basis of which it was assessed that non-threshold risks were three times higher than the target risk levels and threshold risks were 10 times higher

Accordingly based on the assessment presented in Fyfe (2017) a 1 m soil vapour threshold of approximately 21000 microgm3 can be assumed Reported TCE soil vapour concentrations in a number of vapour bores (SV2 SV3 SV5 SV6 and SV7) exceed this inferred threshold value in April 2018

74 Intrusive Workers

Potential risks were identified by Fyfe (2017) to trench or subsurface maintenance workers and such risks are again possible As noted by Fyfe it is expected that such risks can be managed through appropriate OHampS precautions



Table 7-1 Comparison of Predicted Indoor Air Concentrations for 2018 and 2017 Soil Vapour Data

Indoor Air Concentration Ranges (ugm3) SA EPA response levels

non-detect No action

gt non-detect to lt 2 Validation

2 to lt 20 Investigation

20 to lt 200 Intervention

ge 200 Accelerated Intervention

Soil vapour results August 2017 (Fyfe) Soil vapour results May 2018 (AECOM) Soil vapour

bore Sample

depth (m) Soil vapour

TCE concentration

(ugm3)

Predicted indoor air concentration (ugm3) Soil vapour TCE

concentrati on (ugm3)

Predicted indoor air concentration (ugm3) Residential Scenario

Slab on grade

Craw l Space

Basement Residential Scenario

Slab on grade

Craw l Space

Basement

Attenuation Factor

7 x 10-4 2 x 10-3 1 x 10-1 Attenuation Factor

7 x 10-4 2 x 10-3 1 x 10-1

SV1 10 5700 4 11 6600 5 13

SV1 30 21000 2100 23000 2300

SV2 10 51000 36 102 120000 84 240

SV2 30 940000 94000 910000 91000

SV3 10 210000 147 420 910000 637 1820

SV3 30 1000000 100000 3200000 320000

SV4 10 17000 12 34 12000 8 24

SV4 30 43000 4300 77000 7700

SV5 10 100000 70 200 170000 119 340

SV5 30 160000 16000 260000 26000

SV6 10 22000 15 44 140000 98 280

SV6 30 150000 15000 270000 27000

SV7 10 22000 15 44 62000 43 124

SV7 30 110000 11000 150000 15000

SV8 10 2300 2 5 3900 3 8

SV8 30 14000 1400 16000 1600

SV9 10 170 0119 034 46 0032 0092

SV9 30 260 26 310 31

SV10 10 9 0006 0018 19 0013 0038

SV10 30 51 5 20 2

SV11 10 lt18 lt0013 lt0036 200 lt014 lt04

SV12 10 16 0011 0032 30 0021 006

SV12 30 55 6 110 11

SV13 10 lt21 lt0015 lt0042 lt200 lt0015 lt0042

P605X60567613 EPA Theb St24 Tech Work Area44 EnvironmentReportSA EPA Thebarton Stage 2 Assessment Report 2018-07-10 FINALdocx Revision ndash 10-Jul-2018 Prepared for ndash South Australian Environment Protection Authority ndash ABN 85 393 411 003


80 Conclusions and Recommendations

81 Conclusions

The investigations conducted by AECOM between March and June 2018 within the SA EPA Thebarton Assessment Area included

expansion of the existing groundwater well monitoring network by a further nine wells

conduct of groundwater monitoring events encompassing 35 new and existing wells with analysis targeting primarily VCHs and also heavy metals and

vapour sampling of a total of 24 existing soil vapour wells with samples analysed for VCHs

Installation of the additional groundwater monitoring wells to extend the monitoring well network to the north-west has resulted in delineation of the VCH groundwater plume to concentrations at or below the laboratory LOR Consistent with findings by Fyfe in 2017 TCE impacts are the prevalent VCHs and there is little evidence of reductive dechlorination of the groundwater impacts Groundwater concentrations were comparable to those reported by Fyfe (2017) for all wells indicating relative plume stability

The soil vapour monitoring event has provided an indication of the potential magnitude of seasonal variability Despite consistent groundwater concentrations soil vapour concentrations were higher than those previously reported by Fyfe (2017) in the majority of soil vapour bores with a maximum sixshyfold increase although most bores reported more moderate increases Vapour monitoring results were consistent with the observed soil vapour primarily originating from volatile emissions from the groundwater plume although the potential for contribution from soil impacts in the source area was also noted

The investigations supported Fyfersquos conclusions of the potential for human health risk through vapour intrusion It is understood the SA EPA has separately commissioned monitoring and remedial works to target affected properties



90 References ANZECC 1992 Australian Water Quality Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Waters National Water Quality Management Strategy Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council November 1992

ANZECCARMCANZ 2000 Australian and New Zealand guidelines for fresh and marine water quality national water quality management strategy October 2000

AS1726 1993 Australian Standard Geotechnical Site Investigations council of Australian Standards 13 April 1993

ASC NEPM 1999 National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999 (as amended 2013)

CCME 2007 Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines Trichloroethylene Environmental and Human Health Effects Scientific Supporting Document Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) 2007

CRC CARE 2013 CRC CARE Technical Report no 23 ndash Petroleum Hydrocarbon Vapour Intrusion Assessment Australian Guidance CRC CARE Pty Ltd June 2013

DEW 2018 Groundwater Data Online Database WaterConnect Department of Environment and Water Government of South Australia accessed 8 June 2018 httpswwwwaterconnectsagovauGD

DME 1980 150000 Geological Map of Adelaide Department of Mines and Energy

DWLBC 2004 Aquifer Storage Capacities of the Adelaide Region Report 200447 Department of Water Land and Biodiversity Conservation 2004

enHealth 2012a Environmental Health Risk Assessment Guidelines for Assessing Human Health Risks from Environmental Hazards Update June 2012

enHealth 2012b Australian Exposure Assessment Handbook June 2012

Fyfe 2017 Thebarton Assessment Area ndash Stage 1 Environmental Assessment Final Report Fyfe Earth Partners 30 October 2017

Gerges N 2006 Overview of the hydrogeology of the Adelaide metropolitan area Report DWLBC 200610 Government of South Australia through Department of Water Land and Biodiversity Conservation Adelaide

Golder 1993 Report on Soil Contamination Investigation 8 Dove Street Thebarton Golder Associates 22 June 1993

Golder 1994 Report on Contamination Investigation George Street Thebarton Golder Associates 9 December 1994

Government of South Australia 2018 NatureMaps website accessed 2 June 2018 httpsdataenvironmentsagovauNatureMapsPagesdefaultaspx

ITRC 2007 Vapor Intrusion Pathway A Practical Guideline Technical and Regulatory Guidance Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council Vapor Intrusion Team January 2007

NHMRCNRMMC 2011 Australian Drinking Water Guidelines 6 National Health and Medical Research Council updated March 2015

NHMRC and ARMCANZ 2011 Australian Drinking Water Guidelines - 6 National Water Quality Management Strategy National Health and Medical Research Council and the Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand) updated Feb 2016

NHMRC 2008 Guidelines for Managing Risks in Recreational Waters National Health and Medical Research Council Australian Government 2008

REM 2005a George Street Thebarton Site ndash Stage 2 Investigations Resource and Environmental Management 26 August 2005



REM 2005b Stage 3 Environmental Site Assessment George Street Thebarton SA Resource and Environmental Management 23 November 2005

SA EPA 2007 Regulatory Monitoring and Testing ndash Groundwater Sampling South Australian Environmental Protection Authority June 2007

SA EPA 2009 Site Contamination ndash Guidelines for the Assessment and Remediation of Groundwater Contamination South Australian Environment Protection Authority February 2009

SA EPP (Water Quality) 2015 South Australian Environment Protection (Water Quality) Policy 2015 under the Environment Protection Act 1993 Government of South Australia Status gazetted

SAHC 1994 Site Assessment Report Tannery Site 8 Dove Street Thebarton South Australian Health Commission 4 January 1994

Sheard amp Bowman 1996 ldquoSoils stratigraphy and engineering geology of near surface materials of the Adelaide Plainsrdquo MJ Sheard and GM Bowman Report 949

Taylor JK 1972 Soil Association Map of Adelaide South Australian Department of Mines and Energy 1972

UK Environment Agency 2003 An illustrated handbook of DNAPL transport and fate in the subsurface Environment Agency RampD Publication 133

US EPA 1992 Estimating Potential for Occurrence of DNAPL at Superfund Sites OSWER Publication 93554-07FS National Technical Information Service (NTIS) Order Number PB92shy963338CDH

US EPA 2012 Conceptual Model Scenarios for the Vapor Intrusion Pathway US EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (EPA 530-R-10-003) February 2012

WHO 2011 Guidelines for Drinking Water Fourth Edition World Health Organisation 2011



100 Report Limitations The conclusions and all information in this Report is provided strictly in accordance with and subject to the following limitations and recommendations

a This Report has been prepared for the benefit of the South Australian Environment Protection Authority (SA EPA)

b Except as required by law no third party may use or rely on this Report unless otherwise agreed by AECOM in writing Where such agreement is provided AECOM will provide a letter of reliance to the agreed third party in the form required by AECOM

c This Report should be read in full and no excerpts are to be taken as representative of the findings No responsibility is accepted by AECOM for use of any part of this Report in any other context

d This conclusion is based solely on the information and findings contained in this Report

e This conclusion is based solely on the scope of work agreed between AECOM and SA EPA and described in Section 13 (Scope of Works) of this Report

f This Report is dated 10 July 2018 and is based on the conditions encountered during the site investigations conducted and information reviewed from April 2018 to June 2018 AECOM accepts no responsibility for any events arising from any changes in site conditions or in the information reviewed that have occurred after the completion of the site investigations

g The investigations carried out for the purposes of the Report have been undertaken and the Report has been prepared in accordance with normal prudent practice and by reference to applicable environmental regulatory authority and industry standards guidelines and assessment criteria in existence at the date of this Report

h Where this Report indicates that information has been provided to AECOM by third parties AECOM has made no independent verification of this information except as expressly stated in the Report AECOM assumes no liability for any inaccuracies in or omissions to that information

i AECOM has tested only for those chemicals specifically referred to in this Report AECOM makes no statement or representation as to the existence (or otherwise) of any other chemicals

j Except as otherwise specifically stated in this Report AECOM makes no warranty or representation as to the presence or otherwise of asbestos andor asbestos containing materials (ldquoACMrdquo) on the site If fill has been imported on to the site at any time or if any buildings constructed prior to 1970 have been demolished on the site or materials from such buildings disposed of on the site the site may contain asbestos or ACM Without limiting the generality of sub-clauses (h) and (m) even if asbestos was tested for and those test results did not reveal the presence of asbestos at specific points of sampling asbestos may still be present at the site if fill has been imported at any time or if any buildings constructed prior to 1970 have been demolished on the site or materials from such buildings disposed of on the site

k No investigations have been undertaken into any off-site conditions or whether any adjoining sites may have been impacted by contamination or other conditions originating from this site

l Investigations undertaken in respect of this Report are constrained by the particular site conditions such as the location of buildings services and vegetation As a result not all relevant site features and contamination may have been identified in this Report

m Subsurface conditions can vary across a particular site and cannot be exhaustively defined by the investigations described in this Report It is unlikely therefore that the results and estimations expressed in this Report will represent conditions at any location removed from the specific points of sampling

n A site which appears to be unaffected by contamination at the time the Report was prepared may later due to natural phenomena or human intervention become contaminated



o Except as specifically stated above AECOM makes no warranty statement or representation of any kind concerning the suitability of the site for any purpose or the permissibility of any use development or re-development of the site

p Use development or re-development of the site for any purpose may require planning and other approvals and in some cases environmental regulatory authority approval AECOM offers no opinion as to whether the current use has any or all approvals required is operating in accordance with any approvals the likelihood of obtaining any approvals for development or redevelopment of the site or the conditions and obligations which such approvals may impose which may include the requirement for additional environmental works

q AECOM makes no determination or recommendation regarding a decision to provide or not to provide financing with respect to the site

r The ongoing use of the site andor the use of the site for any different purpose may require the owneruser to manage andor remediate site conditions such as contamination and other conditions including but not limited to conditions referred to in this Report

s To the extent permitted by law AECOM expressly disclaims and excludes liability for any loss damage cost or expenses suffered by any third party relating to or resulting from the use of or reliance on any information contained in this Report AECOM does not admit that any action liability or claim may exist or be available to any third party

t Except as specifically stated in this section AECOM does not authorise the use of this Report by any third party

u It is the responsibility of third parties to independently make inquiries or seek advice in relation to their particular requirements and proposed use of the site




Client South Australian Environment Protection Authority

ABN 85 393 411 003

Prepared by

AECOM Australia Pty Ltd Level 28 91 King William Street Adelaide SA 5000 Australia T +61 8 7223 5400 F +61 8 7223 5499 wwwaecomcom ABN 20 093 846 925

10-Jul-2018

Job No 60567613

AECOM in Australia and New Zealand is certified to ISO9001 ISO14001 ASNZS4801 and OHSAS18001

copy AECOM Australia Pty Ltd (AECOM) All rights reserved

AECOM has prepared this document for the sole use of the Client and for a specific purpose each as expressly stated in the document No other party should rely on this document without the prior written consent of AECOM AECOM undertakes no duty nor accepts any responsibility to any third party who may rely upon or use this document This document has been prepared based on the Clientrsquos description of its requirements and AECOMrsquos experience having regard to assumptions that AECOM can reasonably be expected to make in accordance with sound professional principles AECOM may also have relied upon information provided by the Client and other third parties to prepare this document some of which may not have been verified Subject to the above conditions this document may be transmitted reproduced or disseminated only in its entirety



Quality Information


Ref 60567613

Date 16-Jul-2018



Revision History


















































Appendix B Tables B





















Vapour Data 41













Tables (Appendix B)




















A N

--~ _ --=-----=- =-

ez= _ __






Scope of Work


























Conclusions







Data Gaps






Acronyms


















HI Hazard Index

HQ Hazard Quotient


















Vinyl Chloride






VC


10 Introduction

11 Background




Cl ElA_ C ___91qo1

A N








12 Objectives




13 Scope of Works

















21 Site Setting

211 Site Location











213 Topography


214 Surface Water



221 Geology





222 Hydrogeology











- -

bull

fllaquoflml1

I




Chaoel Streets

125 1454 445 Tertiary (T1)







IMW02

20 Quaternary

6628-22395 21 James

Cooodon Drive



~ --~ 3 cl -


Thebarton Depot






I bull

flilCi1l


Thebarton Depot





















23






















































6 March 2018


3 - 6 April 2018


16 April 2018


16 - 20 April 2018


19 April 2018


4 May 2018



28 May 2018



30 - 31 May 2018


6 - 7 June 2018


6 - 7 June 2018


8 June 2018


14 June 2018



23 - 26 April 2018



24 May 2018






322 Well Permits





331 First Stage
































- ---









111 I HtlOYtlYI


MW04 Hydrasleeve







MW32 Hydrasleeve -













































































Bailer EM1806724 EM1807015


16 - 18April2018 19- 20 April 2018





190412

-


Summa Canisters



Summa Canisters
































50 Results





litJUiU 1bull-u11~





















































guideline)








MW33 MW35


MW35







MW25



MW29


MW35

MW25 MW31
















552 Analytical Data
























10000000

bull 1000000E

~ i u

100000gt --middot u C 10000u I-



~ 0 10 I-

1

00 01 10 100 1000 10000
















































-= - a

Groundwater Impacts







Soil Vapour Impacts









L bull






Assessment Area

Sensitive Receptors









No change






No change



Exposure Mechanisms





No change






























PCE

TCE


11-DCE












CW flov pool

residua


Minor

trans-12-DCE QQ=QQ



PCE CCl2=CCl2

TCE CCl2=CHCI

cis-12-DCE CHCl=QQ


release

M inor

vc CH2=CHCI



11-DCE c c l =CH

dfssolved plume

Fl


111-TCA 1 ~---c_c_1_-c_H_ ___ ~

_ I I

I

I I

I I

I

Acetate CH3COOH

I I

I I


11-DCA CHCl2-CH 3

























641 Soils




642 Groundwater












652 Metals



















671 Temporal trends

Groundwater Data




Soil Vapour Data






672 Spatial trends

Groundwater










Soil Vapour



















691 Introduction


























71 Introduction

























bore Sample


TCE concentration

(ugm3)




Slab on grade

Craw l Space


Slab on grade

Craw l Space

Basement

Attenuation Factor


7 x 10-4 2 x 10-3 1 x 10-1

SV1 10 5700 4 11 6600 5 13

SV1 30 21000 2100 23000 2300

SV2 10 51000 36 102 120000 84 240

SV2 30 940000 94000 910000 91000

SV3 10 210000 147 420 910000 637 1820

SV3 30 1000000 100000 3200000 320000

SV4 10 17000 12 34 12000 8 24

SV4 30 43000 4300 77000 7700

SV5 10 100000 70 200 170000 119 340

SV5 30 160000 16000 260000 26000

SV6 10 22000 15 44 140000 98 280

SV6 30 150000 15000 270000 27000

SV7 10 22000 15 44 62000 43 124

SV7 30 110000 11000 150000 15000

SV8 10 2300 2 5 3900 3 8

SV8 30 14000 1400 16000 1600

SV9 10 170 0119 034 46 0032 0092

SV9 30 260 26 310 31

SV10 10 9 0006 0018 19 0013 0038

SV10 30 51 5 20 2

SV11 10 lt18 lt0013 lt0036 200 lt014 lt04

SV12 10 16 0011 0032 30 0021 006

SV12 30 55 6 110 11

SV13 10 lt21 lt0015 lt0042 lt200 lt0015 lt0042




81 Conclusions








































































Quality Information


Ref 60567613

Date 16-Jul-2018



Revision History


















































Appendix B Tables B





















Vapour Data 41













Tables (Appendix B)




















A N

--~ _ --=-----=- =-

ez= _ __






Scope of Work


























Conclusions







Data Gaps






Acronyms


















HI Hazard Index

HQ Hazard Quotient


















Vinyl Chloride






VC


10 Introduction

11 Background




Cl ElA_ C ___91qo1

A N








12 Objectives




13 Scope of Works

















21 Site Setting

211 Site Location











213 Topography


214 Surface Water



221 Geology





222 Hydrogeology











- -

bull

fllaquoflml1

I




Chaoel Streets

125 1454 445 Tertiary (T1)







IMW02

20 Quaternary

6628-22395 21 James

Cooodon Drive



~ --~ 3 cl -


Thebarton Depot






I bull

flilCi1l


Thebarton Depot





















23






















































6 March 2018


3 - 6 April 2018


16 April 2018


16 - 20 April 2018


19 April 2018


4 May 2018



28 May 2018



30 - 31 May 2018


6 - 7 June 2018


6 - 7 June 2018


8 June 2018


14 June 2018



23 - 26 April 2018



24 May 2018






322 Well Permits





331 First Stage
































- ---









111 I HtlOYtlYI


MW04 Hydrasleeve







MW32 Hydrasleeve -













































































Bailer EM1806724 EM1807015


16 - 18April2018 19- 20 April 2018





190412

-


Summa Canisters



Summa Canisters
































50 Results





litJUiU 1bull-u11~





















































guideline)








MW33 MW35


MW35







MW25



MW29


MW35

MW25 MW31
















552 Analytical Data
























10000000

bull 1000000E

~ i u

100000gt --middot u C 10000u I-



~ 0 10 I-

1

00 01 10 100 1000 10000
















































-= - a

Groundwater Impacts







Soil Vapour Impacts









L bull






Assessment Area

Sensitive Receptors









No change






No change



Exposure Mechanisms





No change






























PCE

TCE


11-DCE












CW flov pool

residua


Minor

trans-12-DCE QQ=QQ



PCE CCl2=CCl2

TCE CCl2=CHCI

cis-12-DCE CHCl=QQ


release

M inor

vc CH2=CHCI



11-DCE c c l =CH

dfssolved plume

Fl


111-TCA 1 ~---c_c_1_-c_H_ ___ ~

_ I I

I

I I

I I

I

Acetate CH3COOH

I I

I I


11-DCA CHCl2-CH 3

























641 Soils




642 Groundwater












652 Metals



















671 Temporal trends

Groundwater Data




Soil Vapour Data






672 Spatial trends

Groundwater










Soil Vapour



















691 Introduction


























71 Introduction

























bore Sample


TCE concentration

(ugm3)




Slab on grade

Craw l Space


Slab on grade

Craw l Space

Basement

Attenuation Factor


7 x 10-4 2 x 10-3 1 x 10-1

SV1 10 5700 4 11 6600 5 13

SV1 30 21000 2100 23000 2300

SV2 10 51000 36 102 120000 84 240

SV2 30 940000 94000 910000 91000

SV3 10 210000 147 420 910000 637 1820

SV3 30 1000000 100000 3200000 320000

SV4 10 17000 12 34 12000 8 24

SV4 30 43000 4300 77000 7700

SV5 10 100000 70 200 170000 119 340

SV5 30 160000 16000 260000 26000

SV6 10 22000 15 44 140000 98 280

SV6 30 150000 15000 270000 27000

SV7 10 22000 15 44 62000 43 124

SV7 30 110000 11000 150000 15000

SV8 10 2300 2 5 3900 3 8

SV8 30 14000 1400 16000 1600

SV9 10 170 0119 034 46 0032 0092

SV9 30 260 26 310 31

SV10 10 9 0006 0018 19 0013 0038

SV10 30 51 5 20 2

SV11 10 lt18 lt0013 lt0036 200 lt014 lt04

SV12 10 16 0011 0032 30 0021 006

SV12 30 55 6 110 11

SV13 10 lt21 lt0015 lt0042 lt200 lt0015 lt0042




81 Conclusions

















































































































Appendix B Tables B





















Vapour Data 41













Tables (Appendix B)




















A N

--~ _ --=-----=- =-

ez= _ __






Scope of Work


























Conclusions







Data Gaps






Acronyms


















HI Hazard Index

HQ Hazard Quotient


















Vinyl Chloride






VC


10 Introduction

11 Background




Cl ElA_ C ___91qo1

A N








12 Objectives




13 Scope of Works

















21 Site Setting

211 Site Location











213 Topography


214 Surface Water



221 Geology





222 Hydrogeology











- -

bull

fllaquoflml1

I




Chaoel Streets

125 1454 445 Tertiary (T1)







IMW02

20 Quaternary

6628-22395 21 James

Cooodon Drive



~ --~ 3 cl -


Thebarton Depot






I bull

flilCi1l


Thebarton Depot





















23






















































6 March 2018


3 - 6 April 2018


16 April 2018


16 - 20 April 2018


19 April 2018


4 May 2018



28 May 2018



30 - 31 May 2018


6 - 7 June 2018


6 - 7 June 2018


8 June 2018


14 June 2018



23 - 26 April 2018



24 May 2018






322 Well Permits





331 First Stage
































- ---









111 I HtlOYtlYI


MW04 Hydrasleeve







MW32 Hydrasleeve -













































































Bailer EM1806724 EM1807015


16 - 18April2018 19- 20 April 2018





190412

-


Summa Canisters



Summa Canisters
































50 Results





litJUiU 1bull-u11~





















































guideline)








MW33 MW35


MW35







MW25



MW29


MW35

MW25 MW31
















552 Analytical Data
























10000000

bull 1000000E

~ i u

100000gt --middot u C 10000u I-



~ 0 10 I-

1

00 01 10 100 1000 10000
















































-= - a

Groundwater Impacts







Soil Vapour Impacts









L bull






Assessment Area

Sensitive Receptors









No change






No change



Exposure Mechanisms





No change






























PCE

TCE


11-DCE












CW flov pool

residua


Minor

trans-12-DCE QQ=QQ



PCE CCl2=CCl2

TCE CCl2=CHCI

cis-12-DCE CHCl=QQ


release

M inor

vc CH2=CHCI



11-DCE c c l =CH

dfssolved plume

Fl


111-TCA 1 ~---c_c_1_-c_H_ ___ ~

_ I I

I

I I

I I

I

Acetate CH3COOH

I I

I I


11-DCA CHCl2-CH 3

























641 Soils




642 Groundwater












652 Metals



















671 Temporal trends

Groundwater Data




Soil Vapour Data






672 Spatial trends

Groundwater










Soil Vapour



















691 Introduction


























71 Introduction

























bore Sample


TCE concentration

(ugm3)




Slab on grade

Craw l Space


Slab on grade

Craw l Space

Basement

Attenuation Factor


7 x 10-4 2 x 10-3 1 x 10-1

SV1 10 5700 4 11 6600 5 13

SV1 30 21000 2100 23000 2300

SV2 10 51000 36 102 120000 84 240

SV2 30 940000 94000 910000 91000

SV3 10 210000 147 420 910000 637 1820

SV3 30 1000000 100000 3200000 320000

SV4 10 17000 12 34 12000 8 24

SV4 30 43000 4300 77000 7700

SV5 10 100000 70 200 170000 119 340

SV5 30 160000 16000 260000 26000

SV6 10 22000 15 44 140000 98 280

SV6 30 150000 15000 270000 27000

SV7 10 22000 15 44 62000 43 124

SV7 30 110000 11000 150000 15000

SV8 10 2300 2 5 3900 3 8

SV8 30 14000 1400 16000 1600

SV9 10 170 0119 034 46 0032 0092

SV9 30 260 26 310 31

SV10 10 9 0006 0018 19 0013 0038

SV10 30 51 5 20 2

SV11 10 lt18 lt0013 lt0036 200 lt014 lt04

SV12 10 16 0011 0032 30 0021 006

SV12 30 55 6 110 11

SV13 10 lt21 lt0015 lt0042 lt200 lt0015 lt0042




81 Conclusions

























































































Vapour Data 41













Tables (Appendix B)




















A N

--~ _ --=-----=- =-

ez= _ __






Scope of Work


























Conclusions







Data Gaps






Acronyms


















HI Hazard Index

HQ Hazard Quotient


















Vinyl Chloride






VC


10 Introduction

11 Background




Cl ElA_ C ___91qo1

A N








12 Objectives




13 Scope of Works

















21 Site Setting

211 Site Location











213 Topography


214 Surface Water



221 Geology





222 Hydrogeology











- -

bull

fllaquoflml1

I




Chaoel Streets

125 1454 445 Tertiary (T1)







IMW02

20 Quaternary

6628-22395 21 James

Cooodon Drive



~ --~ 3 cl -


Thebarton Depot






I bull

flilCi1l


Thebarton Depot





















23






















































6 March 2018


3 - 6 April 2018


16 April 2018


16 - 20 April 2018


19 April 2018


4 May 2018



28 May 2018



30 - 31 May 2018


6 - 7 June 2018


6 - 7 June 2018


8 June 2018


14 June 2018



23 - 26 April 2018



24 May 2018






322 Well Permits





331 First Stage
































- ---









111 I HtlOYtlYI


MW04 Hydrasleeve







MW32 Hydrasleeve -













































































Bailer EM1806724 EM1807015


16 - 18April2018 19- 20 April 2018





190412

-


Summa Canisters



Summa Canisters
































50 Results





litJUiU 1bull-u11~





















































guideline)








MW33 MW35


MW35







MW25



MW29


MW35

MW25 MW31
















552 Analytical Data
























10000000

bull 1000000E

~ i u

100000gt --middot u C 10000u I-



~ 0 10 I-

1

00 01 10 100 1000 10000
















































-= - a

Groundwater Impacts







Soil Vapour Impacts









L bull






Assessment Area

Sensitive Receptors









No change






No change



Exposure Mechanisms





No change






























PCE

TCE


11-DCE












CW flov pool

residua


Minor

trans-12-DCE QQ=QQ



PCE CCl2=CCl2

TCE CCl2=CHCI

cis-12-DCE CHCl=QQ


release

M inor

vc CH2=CHCI



11-DCE c c l =CH

dfssolved plume

Fl


111-TCA 1 ~---c_c_1_-c_H_ ___ ~

_ I I

I

I I

I I

I

Acetate CH3COOH

I I

I I


11-DCA CHCl2-CH 3

























641 Soils




642 Groundwater












652 Metals



















671 Temporal trends

Groundwater Data




Soil Vapour Data






672 Spatial trends

Groundwater










Soil Vapour



















691 Introduction


























71 Introduction

























bore Sample


TCE concentration

(ugm3)




Slab on grade

Craw l Space


Slab on grade

Craw l Space

Basement

Attenuation Factor


7 x 10-4 2 x 10-3 1 x 10-1

SV1 10 5700 4 11 6600 5 13

SV1 30 21000 2100 23000 2300

SV2 10 51000 36 102 120000 84 240

SV2 30 940000 94000 910000 91000

SV3 10 210000 147 420 910000 637 1820

SV3 30 1000000 100000 3200000 320000

SV4 10 17000 12 34 12000 8 24

SV4 30 43000 4300 77000 7700

SV5 10 100000 70 200 170000 119 340

SV5 30 160000 16000 260000 26000

SV6 10 22000 15 44 140000 98 280

SV6 30 150000 15000 270000 27000

SV7 10 22000 15 44 62000 43 124

SV7 30 110000 11000 150000 15000

SV8 10 2300 2 5 3900 3 8

SV8 30 14000 1400 16000 1600

SV9 10 170 0119 034 46 0032 0092

SV9 30 260 26 310 31

SV10 10 9 0006 0018 19 0013 0038

SV10 30 51 5 20 2

SV11 10 lt18 lt0013 lt0036 200 lt014 lt04

SV12 10 16 0011 0032 30 0021 006

SV12 30 55 6 110 11

SV13 10 lt21 lt0015 lt0042 lt200 lt0015 lt0042




81 Conclusions


















































































Tables (Appendix B)




















A N

--~ _ --=-----=- =-

ez= _ __






Scope of Work


























Conclusions







Data Gaps






Acronyms


















HI Hazard Index

HQ Hazard Quotient


















Vinyl Chloride






VC


10 Introduction

11 Background




Cl ElA_ C ___91qo1

A N








12 Objectives




13 Scope of Works

















21 Site Setting

211 Site Location











213 Topography


214 Surface Water



221 Geology





222 Hydrogeology











- -

bull

fllaquoflml1

I




Chaoel Streets

125 1454 445 Tertiary (T1)







IMW02

20 Quaternary

6628-22395 21 James

Cooodon Drive



~ --~ 3 cl -


Thebarton Depot






I bull

flilCi1l


Thebarton Depot





















23






















































6 March 2018


3 - 6 April 2018


16 April 2018


16 - 20 April 2018


19 April 2018


4 May 2018



28 May 2018



30 - 31 May 2018


6 - 7 June 2018


6 - 7 June 2018


8 June 2018


14 June 2018



23 - 26 April 2018



24 May 2018






322 Well Permits





331 First Stage
































- ---









111 I HtlOYtlYI


MW04 Hydrasleeve







MW32 Hydrasleeve -













































































Bailer EM1806724 EM1807015


16 - 18April2018 19- 20 April 2018





190412

-


Summa Canisters



Summa Canisters
































50 Results





litJUiU 1bull-u11~





















































guideline)








MW33 MW35


MW35







MW25



MW29


MW35

MW25 MW31
















552 Analytical Data
























10000000

bull 1000000E

~ i u

100000gt --middot u C 10000u I-



~ 0 10 I-

1

00 01 10 100 1000 10000
















































-= - a

Groundwater Impacts







Soil Vapour Impacts









L bull






Assessment Area

Sensitive Receptors









No change






No change



Exposure Mechanisms





No change






























PCE

TCE


11-DCE












CW flov pool

residua


Minor

trans-12-DCE QQ=QQ



PCE CCl2=CCl2

TCE CCl2=CHCI

cis-12-DCE CHCl=QQ


release

M inor

vc CH2=CHCI



11-DCE c c l =CH

dfssolved plume

Fl


111-TCA 1 ~---c_c_1_-c_H_ ___ ~

_ I I

I

I I

I I

I

Acetate CH3COOH

I I

I I


11-DCA CHCl2-CH 3

























641 Soils




642 Groundwater












652 Metals



















671 Temporal trends

Groundwater Data




Soil Vapour Data






672 Spatial trends

Groundwater










Soil Vapour



















691 Introduction


























71 Introduction

























bore Sample


TCE concentration

(ugm3)




Slab on grade

Craw l Space


Slab on grade

Craw l Space

Basement

Attenuation Factor


7 x 10-4 2 x 10-3 1 x 10-1

SV1 10 5700 4 11 6600 5 13

SV1 30 21000 2100 23000 2300

SV2 10 51000 36 102 120000 84 240

SV2 30 940000 94000 910000 91000

SV3 10 210000 147 420 910000 637 1820

SV3 30 1000000 100000 3200000 320000

SV4 10 17000 12 34 12000 8 24

SV4 30 43000 4300 77000 7700

SV5 10 100000 70 200 170000 119 340

SV5 30 160000 16000 260000 26000

SV6 10 22000 15 44 140000 98 280

SV6 30 150000 15000 270000 27000

SV7 10 22000 15 44 62000 43 124

SV7 30 110000 11000 150000 15000

SV8 10 2300 2 5 3900 3 8

SV8 30 14000 1400 16000 1600

SV9 10 170 0119 034 46 0032 0092

SV9 30 260 26 310 31

SV10 10 9 0006 0018 19 0013 0038

SV10 30 51 5 20 2

SV11 10 lt18 lt0013 lt0036 200 lt014 lt04

SV12 10 16 0011 0032 30 0021 006

SV12 30 55 6 110 11

SV13 10 lt21 lt0015 lt0042 lt200 lt0015 lt0042




81 Conclusions










































































A N

--~ _ --=-----=- =-

ez= _ __






Scope of Work


























Conclusions







Data Gaps






Acronyms


















HI Hazard Index

HQ Hazard Quotient


















Vinyl Chloride






VC


10 Introduction

11 Background




Cl ElA_ C ___91qo1

A N








12 Objectives




13 Scope of Works

















21 Site Setting

211 Site Location











213 Topography


214 Surface Water



221 Geology





222 Hydrogeology











- -

bull

fllaquoflml1

I




Chaoel Streets

125 1454 445 Tertiary (T1)







IMW02

20 Quaternary

6628-22395 21 James

Cooodon Drive



~ --~ 3 cl -


Thebarton Depot






I bull

flilCi1l


Thebarton Depot





















23






















































6 March 2018


3 - 6 April 2018


16 April 2018


16 - 20 April 2018


19 April 2018


4 May 2018



28 May 2018



30 - 31 May 2018


6 - 7 June 2018


6 - 7 June 2018


8 June 2018


14 June 2018



23 - 26 April 2018



24 May 2018






322 Well Permits





331 First Stage
































- ---









111 I HtlOYtlYI


MW04 Hydrasleeve







MW32 Hydrasleeve -













































































Bailer EM1806724 EM1807015


16 - 18April2018 19- 20 April 2018





190412

-


Summa Canisters



Summa Canisters
































50 Results





litJUiU 1bull-u11~





















































guideline)








MW33 MW35


MW35







MW25



MW29


MW35

MW25 MW31
















552 Analytical Data
























10000000

bull 1000000E

~ i u

100000gt --middot u C 10000u I-



~ 0 10 I-

1

00 01 10 100 1000 10000
















































-= - a

Groundwater Impacts







Soil Vapour Impacts









L bull






Assessment Area

Sensitive Receptors









No change






No change



Exposure Mechanisms





No change






























PCE

TCE


11-DCE












CW flov pool

residua


Minor

trans-12-DCE QQ=QQ



PCE CCl2=CCl2

TCE CCl2=CHCI

cis-12-DCE CHCl=QQ


release

M inor

vc CH2=CHCI



11-DCE c c l =CH

dfssolved plume

Fl


111-TCA 1 ~---c_c_1_-c_H_ ___ ~

_ I I

I

I I

I I

I

Acetate CH3COOH

I I

I I


11-DCA CHCl2-CH 3

























641 Soils




642 Groundwater












652 Metals



















671 Temporal trends

Groundwater Data




Soil Vapour Data






672 Spatial trends

Groundwater










Soil Vapour



















691 Introduction


























71 Introduction

























bore Sample


TCE concentration

(ugm3)




Slab on grade

Craw l Space


Slab on grade

Craw l Space

Basement

Attenuation Factor


7 x 10-4 2 x 10-3 1 x 10-1

SV1 10 5700 4 11 6600 5 13

SV1 30 21000 2100 23000 2300

SV2 10 51000 36 102 120000 84 240

SV2 30 940000 94000 910000 91000

SV3 10 210000 147 420 910000 637 1820

SV3 30 1000000 100000 3200000 320000

SV4 10 17000 12 34 12000 8 24

SV4 30 43000 4300 77000 7700

SV5 10 100000 70 200 170000 119 340

SV5 30 160000 16000 260000 26000

SV6 10 22000 15 44 140000 98 280

SV6 30 150000 15000 270000 27000

SV7 10 22000 15 44 62000 43 124

SV7 30 110000 11000 150000 15000

SV8 10 2300 2 5 3900 3 8

SV8 30 14000 1400 16000 1600

SV9 10 170 0119 034 46 0032 0092

SV9 30 260 26 310 31

SV10 10 9 0006 0018 19 0013 0038

SV10 30 51 5 20 2

SV11 10 lt18 lt0013 lt0036 200 lt014 lt04

SV12 10 16 0011 0032 30 0021 006

SV12 30 55 6 110 11

SV13 10 lt21 lt0015 lt0042 lt200 lt0015 lt0042




81 Conclusions





























































































Conclusions







Data Gaps






Acronyms


















HI Hazard Index

HQ Hazard Quotient


















Vinyl Chloride






VC


10 Introduction

11 Background




Cl ElA_ C ___91qo1

A N








12 Objectives




13 Scope of Works

















21 Site Setting

211 Site Location











213 Topography


214 Surface Water



221 Geology





222 Hydrogeology











- -

bull

fllaquoflml1

I




Chaoel Streets

125 1454 445 Tertiary (T1)







IMW02

20 Quaternary

6628-22395 21 James

Cooodon Drive



~ --~ 3 cl -


Thebarton Depot






I bull

flilCi1l


Thebarton Depot





















23






















































6 March 2018


3 - 6 April 2018


16 April 2018


16 - 20 April 2018


19 April 2018


4 May 2018



28 May 2018



30 - 31 May 2018


6 - 7 June 2018


6 - 7 June 2018


8 June 2018


14 June 2018



23 - 26 April 2018



24 May 2018






322 Well Permits





331 First Stage
































- ---









111 I HtlOYtlYI


MW04 Hydrasleeve







MW32 Hydrasleeve -













































































Bailer EM1806724 EM1807015


16 - 18April2018 19- 20 April 2018





190412

-


Summa Canisters



Summa Canisters
































50 Results





litJUiU 1bull-u11~





















































guideline)








MW33 MW35


MW35







MW25



MW29


MW35

MW25 MW31
















552 Analytical Data
























10000000

bull 1000000E

~ i u

100000gt --middot u C 10000u I-



~ 0 10 I-

1

00 01 10 100 1000 10000
















































-= - a

Groundwater Impacts







Soil Vapour Impacts









L bull






Assessment Area

Sensitive Receptors









No change






No change



Exposure Mechanisms





No change






























PCE

TCE


11-DCE












CW flov pool

residua


Minor

trans-12-DCE QQ=QQ



PCE CCl2=CCl2

TCE CCl2=CHCI

cis-12-DCE CHCl=QQ


release

M inor

vc CH2=CHCI



11-DCE c c l =CH

dfssolved plume

Fl


111-TCA 1 ~---c_c_1_-c_H_ ___ ~

_ I I

I

I I

I I

I

Acetate CH3COOH

I I

I I


11-DCA CHCl2-CH 3

























641 Soils




642 Groundwater












652 Metals



















671 Temporal trends

Groundwater Data




Soil Vapour Data






672 Spatial trends

Groundwater










Soil Vapour



















691 Introduction


























71 Introduction

























bore Sample


TCE concentration

(ugm3)




Slab on grade

Craw l Space


Slab on grade

Craw l Space

Basement

Attenuation Factor


7 x 10-4 2 x 10-3 1 x 10-1

SV1 10 5700 4 11 6600 5 13

SV1 30 21000 2100 23000 2300

SV2 10 51000 36 102 120000 84 240

SV2 30 940000 94000 910000 91000

SV3 10 210000 147 420 910000 637 1820

SV3 30 1000000 100000 3200000 320000

SV4 10 17000 12 34 12000 8 24

SV4 30 43000 4300 77000 7700

SV5 10 100000 70 200 170000 119 340

SV5 30 160000 16000 260000 26000

SV6 10 22000 15 44 140000 98 280

SV6 30 150000 15000 270000 27000

SV7 10 22000 15 44 62000 43 124

SV7 30 110000 11000 150000 15000

SV8 10 2300 2 5 3900 3 8

SV8 30 14000 1400 16000 1600

SV9 10 170 0119 034 46 0032 0092

SV9 30 260 26 310 31

SV10 10 9 0006 0018 19 0013 0038

SV10 30 51 5 20 2

SV11 10 lt18 lt0013 lt0036 200 lt014 lt04

SV12 10 16 0011 0032 30 0021 006

SV12 30 55 6 110 11

SV13 10 lt21 lt0015 lt0042 lt200 lt0015 lt0042




81 Conclusions








































































Acronyms


















HI Hazard Index

HQ Hazard Quotient


















Vinyl Chloride






VC


10 Introduction

11 Background




Cl ElA_ C ___91qo1

A N








12 Objectives




13 Scope of Works

















21 Site Setting

211 Site Location











213 Topography


214 Surface Water



221 Geology





222 Hydrogeology











- -

bull

fllaquoflml1

I




Chaoel Streets

125 1454 445 Tertiary (T1)







IMW02

20 Quaternary

6628-22395 21 James

Cooodon Drive



~ --~ 3 cl -


Thebarton Depot






I bull

flilCi1l


Thebarton Depot





















23






















































6 March 2018


3 - 6 April 2018


16 April 2018


16 - 20 April 2018


19 April 2018


4 May 2018



28 May 2018



30 - 31 May 2018


6 - 7 June 2018


6 - 7 June 2018


8 June 2018


14 June 2018



23 - 26 April 2018



24 May 2018






322 Well Permits





331 First Stage
































- ---









111 I HtlOYtlYI


MW04 Hydrasleeve







MW32 Hydrasleeve -













































































Bailer EM1806724 EM1807015


16 - 18April2018 19- 20 April 2018





190412

-


Summa Canisters



Summa Canisters
































50 Results





litJUiU 1bull-u11~





















































guideline)








MW33 MW35


MW35







MW25



MW29


MW35

MW25 MW31
















552 Analytical Data
























10000000

bull 1000000E

~ i u

100000gt --middot u C 10000u I-



~ 0 10 I-

1

00 01 10 100 1000 10000
















































-= - a

Groundwater Impacts







Soil Vapour Impacts









L bull






Assessment Area

Sensitive Receptors









No change






No change



Exposure Mechanisms





No change






























PCE

TCE


11-DCE












CW flov pool

residua


Minor

trans-12-DCE QQ=QQ



PCE CCl2=CCl2

TCE CCl2=CHCI

cis-12-DCE CHCl=QQ


release

M inor

vc CH2=CHCI



11-DCE c c l =CH

dfssolved plume

Fl


111-TCA 1 ~---c_c_1_-c_H_ ___ ~

_ I I

I

I I

I I

I

Acetate CH3COOH

I I

I I


11-DCA CHCl2-CH 3

























641 Soils




642 Groundwater












652 Metals



















671 Temporal trends

Groundwater Data




Soil Vapour Data






672 Spatial trends

Groundwater










Soil Vapour



















691 Introduction


























71 Introduction

























bore Sample


TCE concentration

(ugm3)




Slab on grade

Craw l Space


Slab on grade

Craw l Space

Basement

Attenuation Factor


7 x 10-4 2 x 10-3 1 x 10-1

SV1 10 5700 4 11 6600 5 13

SV1 30 21000 2100 23000 2300

SV2 10 51000 36 102 120000 84 240

SV2 30 940000 94000 910000 91000

SV3 10 210000 147 420 910000 637 1820

SV3 30 1000000 100000 3200000 320000

SV4 10 17000 12 34 12000 8 24

SV4 30 43000 4300 77000 7700

SV5 10 100000 70 200 170000 119 340

SV5 30 160000 16000 260000 26000

SV6 10 22000 15 44 140000 98 280

SV6 30 150000 15000 270000 27000

SV7 10 22000 15 44 62000 43 124

SV7 30 110000 11000 150000 15000

SV8 10 2300 2 5 3900 3 8

SV8 30 14000 1400 16000 1600

SV9 10 170 0119 034 46 0032 0092

SV9 30 260 26 310 31

SV10 10 9 0006 0018 19 0013 0038

SV10 30 51 5 20 2

SV11 10 lt18 lt0013 lt0036 200 lt014 lt04

SV12 10 16 0011 0032 30 0021 006

SV12 30 55 6 110 11

SV13 10 lt21 lt0015 lt0042 lt200 lt0015 lt0042




81 Conclusions








































































10 Introduction

11 Background




Cl ElA_ C ___91qo1

A N








12 Objectives




13 Scope of Works

















21 Site Setting

211 Site Location











213 Topography


214 Surface Water



221 Geology





222 Hydrogeology











- -

bull

fllaquoflml1

I




Chaoel Streets

125 1454 445 Tertiary (T1)







IMW02

20 Quaternary

6628-22395 21 James

Cooodon Drive



~ --~ 3 cl -


Thebarton Depot






I bull

flilCi1l


Thebarton Depot





















23






















































6 March 2018


3 - 6 April 2018


16 April 2018


16 - 20 April 2018


19 April 2018


4 May 2018



28 May 2018



30 - 31 May 2018


6 - 7 June 2018


6 - 7 June 2018


8 June 2018


14 June 2018



23 - 26 April 2018



24 May 2018






322 Well Permits





331 First Stage
































- ---









111 I HtlOYtlYI


MW04 Hydrasleeve







MW32 Hydrasleeve -













































































Bailer EM1806724 EM1807015


16 - 18April2018 19- 20 April 2018





190412

-


Summa Canisters



Summa Canisters
































50 Results





litJUiU 1bull-u11~





















































guideline)








MW33 MW35


MW35







MW25



MW29


MW35

MW25 MW31
















552 Analytical Data
























10000000

bull 1000000E

~ i u

100000gt --middot u C 10000u I-



~ 0 10 I-

1

00 01 10 100 1000 10000
















































-= - a

Groundwater Impacts







Soil Vapour Impacts









L bull






Assessment Area

Sensitive Receptors









No change






No change



Exposure Mechanisms





No change






























PCE

TCE


11-DCE












CW flov pool

residua


Minor

trans-12-DCE QQ=QQ



PCE CCl2=CCl2

TCE CCl2=CHCI

cis-12-DCE CHCl=QQ


release

M inor

vc CH2=CHCI



11-DCE c c l =CH

dfssolved plume

Fl


111-TCA 1 ~---c_c_1_-c_H_ ___ ~

_ I I

I

I I

I I

I

Acetate CH3COOH

I I

I I


11-DCA CHCl2-CH 3

























641 Soils




642 Groundwater












652 Metals



















671 Temporal trends

Groundwater Data




Soil Vapour Data






672 Spatial trends

Groundwater










Soil Vapour



















691 Introduction


























71 Introduction

























bore Sample


TCE concentration

(ugm3)




Slab on grade

Craw l Space


Slab on grade

Craw l Space

Basement

Attenuation Factor


7 x 10-4 2 x 10-3 1 x 10-1

SV1 10 5700 4 11 6600 5 13

SV1 30 21000 2100 23000 2300

SV2 10 51000 36 102 120000 84 240

SV2 30 940000 94000 910000 91000

SV3 10 210000 147 420 910000 637 1820

SV3 30 1000000 100000 3200000 320000

SV4 10 17000 12 34 12000 8 24

SV4 30 43000 4300 77000 7700

SV5 10 100000 70 200 170000 119 340

SV5 30 160000 16000 260000 26000

SV6 10 22000 15 44 140000 98 280

SV6 30 150000 15000 270000 27000

SV7 10 22000 15 44 62000 43 124

SV7 30 110000 11000 150000 15000

SV8 10 2300 2 5 3900 3 8

SV8 30 14000 1400 16000 1600

SV9 10 170 0119 034 46 0032 0092

SV9 30 260 26 310 31

SV10 10 9 0006 0018 19 0013 0038

SV10 30 51 5 20 2

SV11 10 lt18 lt0013 lt0036 200 lt014 lt04

SV12 10 16 0011 0032 30 0021 006

SV12 30 55 6 110 11

SV13 10 lt21 lt0015 lt0042 lt200 lt0015 lt0042




81 Conclusions








































































12 Objectives




13 Scope of Works

















21 Site Setting

211 Site Location











213 Topography


214 Surface Water



221 Geology





222 Hydrogeology











- -

bull

fllaquoflml1

I




Chaoel Streets

125 1454 445 Tertiary (T1)







IMW02

20 Quaternary

6628-22395 21 James

Cooodon Drive



~ --~ 3 cl -


Thebarton Depot






I bull

flilCi1l


Thebarton Depot





















23






















































6 March 2018


3 - 6 April 2018


16 April 2018


16 - 20 April 2018


19 April 2018


4 May 2018



28 May 2018



30 - 31 May 2018


6 - 7 June 2018


6 - 7 June 2018


8 June 2018


14 June 2018



23 - 26 April 2018



24 May 2018






322 Well Permits





331 First Stage
































- ---









111 I HtlOYtlYI


MW04 Hydrasleeve







MW32 Hydrasleeve -













































































Bailer EM1806724 EM1807015


16 - 18April2018 19- 20 April 2018





190412

-


Summa Canisters



Summa Canisters
































50 Results





litJUiU 1bull-u11~





















































guideline)








MW33 MW35


MW35







MW25



MW29


MW35

MW25 MW31
















552 Analytical Data
























10000000

bull 1000000E

~ i u

100000gt --middot u C 10000u I-



~ 0 10 I-

1

00 01 10 100 1000 10000
















































-= - a

Groundwater Impacts







Soil Vapour Impacts









L bull






Assessment Area

Sensitive Receptors









No change






No change



Exposure Mechanisms





No change






























PCE

TCE


11-DCE












CW flov pool

residua


Minor

trans-12-DCE QQ=QQ



PCE CCl2=CCl2

TCE CCl2=CHCI

cis-12-DCE CHCl=QQ


release

M inor

vc CH2=CHCI



11-DCE c c l =CH

dfssolved plume

Fl


111-TCA 1 ~---c_c_1_-c_H_ ___ ~

_ I I

I

I I

I I

I

Acetate CH3COOH

I I

I I


11-DCA CHCl2-CH 3

























641 Soils




642 Groundwater












652 Metals



















671 Temporal trends

Groundwater Data




Soil Vapour Data






672 Spatial trends

Groundwater










Soil Vapour



















691 Introduction


























71 Introduction

























bore Sample


TCE concentration

(ugm3)




Slab on grade

Craw l Space


Slab on grade

Craw l Space

Basement

Attenuation Factor


7 x 10-4 2 x 10-3 1 x 10-1

SV1 10 5700 4 11 6600 5 13

SV1 30 21000 2100 23000 2300

SV2 10 51000 36 102 120000 84 240

SV2 30 940000 94000 910000 91000

SV3 10 210000 147 420 910000 637 1820

SV3 30 1000000 100000 3200000 320000

SV4 10 17000 12 34 12000 8 24

SV4 30 43000 4300 77000 7700

SV5 10 100000 70 200 170000 119 340

SV5 30 160000 16000 260000 26000

SV6 10 22000 15 44 140000 98 280

SV6 30 150000 15000 270000 27000

SV7 10 22000 15 44 62000 43 124

SV7 30 110000 11000 150000 15000

SV8 10 2300 2 5 3900 3 8

SV8 30 14000 1400 16000 1600

SV9 10 170 0119 034 46 0032 0092

SV9 30 260 26 310 31

SV10 10 9 0006 0018 19 0013 0038

SV10 30 51 5 20 2

SV11 10 lt18 lt0013 lt0036 200 lt014 lt04

SV12 10 16 0011 0032 30 0021 006

SV12 30 55 6 110 11

SV13 10 lt21 lt0015 lt0042 lt200 lt0015 lt0042




81 Conclusions









































































21 Site Setting

211 Site Location











213 Topography


214 Surface Water



221 Geology





222 Hydrogeology











- -

bull

fllaquoflml1

I




Chaoel Streets

125 1454 445 Tertiary (T1)







IMW02

20 Quaternary

6628-22395 21 James

Cooodon Drive



~ --~ 3 cl -


Thebarton Depot






I bull

flilCi1l


Thebarton Depot





















23






















































6 March 2018


3 - 6 April 2018


16 April 2018


16 - 20 April 2018


19 April 2018


4 May 2018



28 May 2018



30 - 31 May 2018


6 - 7 June 2018


6 - 7 June 2018


8 June 2018


14 June 2018



23 - 26 April 2018



24 May 2018






322 Well Permits





331 First Stage
































- ---









111 I HtlOYtlYI


MW04 Hydrasleeve







MW32 Hydrasleeve -













































































Bailer EM1806724 EM1807015


16 - 18April2018 19- 20 April 2018





190412

-


Summa Canisters



Summa Canisters
































50 Results





litJUiU 1bull-u11~





















































guideline)








MW33 MW35


MW35







MW25



MW29


MW35

MW25 MW31
















552 Analytical Data
























10000000

bull 1000000E

~ i u

100000gt --middot u C 10000u I-



~ 0 10 I-

1

00 01 10 100 1000 10000
















































-= - a

Groundwater Impacts







Soil Vapour Impacts









L bull






Assessment Area

Sensitive Receptors









No change






No change



Exposure Mechanisms





No change






























PCE

TCE


11-DCE












CW flov pool

residua


Minor

trans-12-DCE QQ=QQ



PCE CCl2=CCl2

TCE CCl2=CHCI

cis-12-DCE CHCl=QQ


release

M inor

vc CH2=CHCI



11-DCE c c l =CH

dfssolved plume

Fl


111-TCA 1 ~---c_c_1_-c_H_ ___ ~

_ I I

I

I I

I I

I

Acetate CH3COOH

I I

I I


11-DCA CHCl2-CH 3

























641 Soils




642 Groundwater












652 Metals



















671 Temporal trends

Groundwater Data




Soil Vapour Data






672 Spatial trends

Groundwater










Soil Vapour



















691 Introduction


























71 Introduction

























bore Sample


TCE concentration

(ugm3)




Slab on grade

Craw l Space


Slab on grade

Craw l Space

Basement

Attenuation Factor


7 x 10-4 2 x 10-3 1 x 10-1

SV1 10 5700 4 11 6600 5 13

SV1 30 21000 2100 23000 2300

SV2 10 51000 36 102 120000 84 240

SV2 30 940000 94000 910000 91000

SV3 10 210000 147 420 910000 637 1820

SV3 30 1000000 100000 3200000 320000

SV4 10 17000 12 34 12000 8 24

SV4 30 43000 4300 77000 7700

SV5 10 100000 70 200 170000 119 340

SV5 30 160000 16000 260000 26000

SV6 10 22000 15 44 140000 98 280

SV6 30 150000 15000 270000 27000

SV7 10 22000 15 44 62000 43 124

SV7 30 110000 11000 150000 15000

SV8 10 2300 2 5 3900 3 8

SV8 30 14000 1400 16000 1600

SV9 10 170 0119 034 46 0032 0092

SV9 30 260 26 310 31

SV10 10 9 0006 0018 19 0013 0038

SV10 30 51 5 20 2

SV11 10 lt18 lt0013 lt0036 200 lt014 lt04

SV12 10 16 0011 0032 30 0021 006

SV12 30 55 6 110 11

SV13 10 lt21 lt0015 lt0042 lt200 lt0015 lt0042




81 Conclusions








































































222 Hydrogeology











- -

bull

fllaquoflml1

I




Chaoel Streets

125 1454 445 Tertiary (T1)







IMW02

20 Quaternary

6628-22395 21 James

Cooodon Drive



~ --~ 3 cl -


Thebarton Depot






I bull

flilCi1l


Thebarton Depot





















23






















































6 March 2018


3 - 6 April 2018


16 April 2018


16 - 20 April 2018


19 April 2018


4 May 2018



28 May 2018



30 - 31 May 2018


6 - 7 June 2018


6 - 7 June 2018


8 June 2018


14 June 2018



23 - 26 April 2018



24 May 2018






322 Well Permits





331 First Stage
































- ---









111 I HtlOYtlYI


MW04 Hydrasleeve







MW32 Hydrasleeve -













































































Bailer EM1806724 EM1807015


16 - 18April2018 19- 20 April 2018





190412

-


Summa Canisters



Summa Canisters
































50 Results





litJUiU 1bull-u11~





















































guideline)








MW33 MW35


MW35







MW25



MW29


MW35

MW25 MW31
















552 Analytical Data
























10000000

bull 1000000E

~ i u

100000gt --middot u C 10000u I-



~ 0 10 I-

1

00 01 10 100 1000 10000
















































-= - a

Groundwater Impacts







Soil Vapour Impacts









L bull






Assessment Area

Sensitive Receptors









No change






No change



Exposure Mechanisms





No change






























PCE

TCE


11-DCE












CW flov pool

residua


Minor

trans-12-DCE QQ=QQ



PCE CCl2=CCl2

TCE CCl2=CHCI

cis-12-DCE CHCl=QQ


release

M inor

vc CH2=CHCI



11-DCE c c l =CH

dfssolved plume

Fl


111-TCA 1 ~---c_c_1_-c_H_ ___ ~

_ I I

I

I I

I I

I

Acetate CH3COOH

I I

I I


11-DCA CHCl2-CH 3

























641 Soils




642 Groundwater












652 Metals



















671 Temporal trends

Groundwater Data




Soil Vapour Data






672 Spatial trends

Groundwater










Soil Vapour



















691 Introduction


























71 Introduction

























bore Sample


TCE concentration

(ugm3)




Slab on grade

Craw l Space


Slab on grade

Craw l Space

Basement

Attenuation Factor


7 x 10-4 2 x 10-3 1 x 10-1

SV1 10 5700 4 11 6600 5 13

SV1 30 21000 2100 23000 2300

SV2 10 51000 36 102 120000 84 240

SV2 30 940000 94000 910000 91000

SV3 10 210000 147 420 910000 637 1820

SV3 30 1000000 100000 3200000 320000

SV4 10 17000 12 34 12000 8 24

SV4 30 43000 4300 77000 7700

SV5 10 100000 70 200 170000 119 340

SV5 30 160000 16000 260000 26000

SV6 10 22000 15 44 140000 98 280

SV6 30 150000 15000 270000 27000

SV7 10 22000 15 44 62000 43 124

SV7 30 110000 11000 150000 15000

SV8 10 2300 2 5 3900 3 8

SV8 30 14000 1400 16000 1600

SV9 10 170 0119 034 46 0032 0092

SV9 30 260 26 310 31

SV10 10 9 0006 0018 19 0013 0038

SV10 30 51 5 20 2

SV11 10 lt18 lt0013 lt0036 200 lt014 lt04

SV12 10 16 0011 0032 30 0021 006

SV12 30 55 6 110 11

SV13 10 lt21 lt0015 lt0042 lt200 lt0015 lt0042




81 Conclusions









































































I bull

flilCi1l


Thebarton Depot





















23






















































6 March 2018


3 - 6 April 2018


16 April 2018


16 - 20 April 2018


19 April 2018


4 May 2018



28 May 2018



30 - 31 May 2018


6 - 7 June 2018


6 - 7 June 2018


8 June 2018


14 June 2018



23 - 26 April 2018



24 May 2018






322 Well Permits





331 First Stage
































- ---









111 I HtlOYtlYI


MW04 Hydrasleeve







MW32 Hydrasleeve -













































































Bailer EM1806724 EM1807015


16 - 18April2018 19- 20 April 2018





190412

-


Summa Canisters



Summa Canisters
































50 Results





litJUiU 1bull-u11~





















































guideline)








MW33 MW35


MW35







MW25



MW29


MW35

MW25 MW31
















552 Analytical Data
























10000000

bull 1000000E

~ i u

100000gt --middot u C 10000u I-



~ 0 10 I-

1

00 01 10 100 1000 10000
















































-= - a

Groundwater Impacts







Soil Vapour Impacts









L bull






Assessment Area

Sensitive Receptors









No change






No change



Exposure Mechanisms





No change






























PCE

TCE


11-DCE












CW flov pool

residua


Minor

trans-12-DCE QQ=QQ



PCE CCl2=CCl2

TCE CCl2=CHCI

cis-12-DCE CHCl=QQ


release

M inor

vc CH2=CHCI



11-DCE c c l =CH

dfssolved plume

Fl


111-TCA 1 ~---c_c_1_-c_H_ ___ ~

_ I I

I

I I

I I

I

Acetate CH3COOH

I I

I I


11-DCA CHCl2-CH 3

























641 Soils




642 Groundwater












652 Metals



















671 Temporal trends

Groundwater Data




Soil Vapour Data






672 Spatial trends

Groundwater










Soil Vapour



















691 Introduction


























71 Introduction

























bore Sample


TCE concentration

(ugm3)




Slab on grade

Craw l Space


Slab on grade

Craw l Space

Basement

Attenuation Factor


7 x 10-4 2 x 10-3 1 x 10-1

SV1 10 5700 4 11 6600 5 13

SV1 30 21000 2100 23000 2300

SV2 10 51000 36 102 120000 84 240

SV2 30 940000 94000 910000 91000

SV3 10 210000 147 420 910000 637 1820

SV3 30 1000000 100000 3200000 320000

SV4 10 17000 12 34 12000 8 24

SV4 30 43000 4300 77000 7700

SV5 10 100000 70 200 170000 119 340

SV5 30 160000 16000 260000 26000

SV6 10 22000 15 44 140000 98 280

SV6 30 150000 15000 270000 27000

SV7 10 22000 15 44 62000 43 124

SV7 30 110000 11000 150000 15000

SV8 10 2300 2 5 3900 3 8

SV8 30 14000 1400 16000 1600

SV9 10 170 0119 034 46 0032 0092

SV9 30 260 26 310 31

SV10 10 9 0006 0018 19 0013 0038

SV10 30 51 5 20 2

SV11 10 lt18 lt0013 lt0036 200 lt014 lt04

SV12 10 16 0011 0032 30 0021 006

SV12 30 55 6 110 11

SV13 10 lt21 lt0015 lt0042 lt200 lt0015 lt0042




81 Conclusions




























































































































6 March 2018


3 - 6 April 2018


16 April 2018


16 - 20 April 2018


19 April 2018


4 May 2018



28 May 2018



30 - 31 May 2018


6 - 7 June 2018


6 - 7 June 2018


8 June 2018


14 June 2018



23 - 26 April 2018



24 May 2018






322 Well Permits





331 First Stage
































- ---









111 I HtlOYtlYI


MW04 Hydrasleeve







MW32 Hydrasleeve -













































































Bailer EM1806724 EM1807015


16 - 18April2018 19- 20 April 2018





190412

-


Summa Canisters



Summa Canisters
































50 Results





litJUiU 1bull-u11~





















































guideline)








MW33 MW35


MW35







MW25



MW29


MW35

MW25 MW31
















552 Analytical Data
























10000000

bull 1000000E

~ i u

100000gt --middot u C 10000u I-



~ 0 10 I-

1

00 01 10 100 1000 10000
















































-= - a

Groundwater Impacts







Soil Vapour Impacts









L bull






Assessment Area

Sensitive Receptors









No change






No change



Exposure Mechanisms





No change






























PCE

TCE


11-DCE












CW flov pool

residua


Minor

trans-12-DCE QQ=QQ



PCE CCl2=CCl2

TCE CCl2=CHCI

cis-12-DCE CHCl=QQ


release

M inor

vc CH2=CHCI



11-DCE c c l =CH

dfssolved plume

Fl


111-TCA 1 ~---c_c_1_-c_H_ ___ ~

_ I I

I

I I

I I

I

Acetate CH3COOH

I I

I I


11-DCA CHCl2-CH 3

























641 Soils




642 Groundwater












652 Metals



















671 Temporal trends

Groundwater Data




Soil Vapour Data






672 Spatial trends

Groundwater










Soil Vapour



















691 Introduction


























71 Introduction

























bore Sample


TCE concentration

(ugm3)




Slab on grade

Craw l Space


Slab on grade

Craw l Space

Basement

Attenuation Factor


7 x 10-4 2 x 10-3 1 x 10-1

SV1 10 5700 4 11 6600 5 13

SV1 30 21000 2100 23000 2300

SV2 10 51000 36 102 120000 84 240

SV2 30 940000 94000 910000 91000

SV3 10 210000 147 420 910000 637 1820

SV3 30 1000000 100000 3200000 320000

SV4 10 17000 12 34 12000 8 24

SV4 30 43000 4300 77000 7700

SV5 10 100000 70 200 170000 119 340

SV5 30 160000 16000 260000 26000

SV6 10 22000 15 44 140000 98 280

SV6 30 150000 15000 270000 27000

SV7 10 22000 15 44 62000 43 124

SV7 30 110000 11000 150000 15000

SV8 10 2300 2 5 3900 3 8

SV8 30 14000 1400 16000 1600

SV9 10 170 0119 034 46 0032 0092

SV9 30 260 26 310 31

SV10 10 9 0006 0018 19 0013 0038

SV10 30 51 5 20 2

SV11 10 lt18 lt0013 lt0036 200 lt014 lt04

SV12 10 16 0011 0032 30 0021 006

SV12 30 55 6 110 11

SV13 10 lt21 lt0015 lt0042 lt200 lt0015 lt0042




81 Conclusions











































































322 Well Permits





331 First Stage
































- ---









111 I HtlOYtlYI


MW04 Hydrasleeve







MW32 Hydrasleeve -













































































Bailer EM1806724 EM1807015


16 - 18April2018 19- 20 April 2018





190412

-


Summa Canisters



Summa Canisters
































50 Results





litJUiU 1bull-u11~





















































guideline)








MW33 MW35


MW35







MW25



MW29


MW35

MW25 MW31
















552 Analytical Data
























10000000

bull 1000000E

~ i u

100000gt --middot u C 10000u I-



~ 0 10 I-

1

00 01 10 100 1000 10000
















































-= - a

Groundwater Impacts







Soil Vapour Impacts









L bull






Assessment Area

Sensitive Receptors









No change






No change



Exposure Mechanisms





No change






























PCE

TCE


11-DCE












CW flov pool

residua


Minor

trans-12-DCE QQ=QQ



PCE CCl2=CCl2

TCE CCl2=CHCI

cis-12-DCE CHCl=QQ


release

M inor

vc CH2=CHCI



11-DCE c c l =CH

dfssolved plume

Fl


111-TCA 1 ~---c_c_1_-c_H_ ___ ~

_ I I

I

I I

I I

I

Acetate CH3COOH

I I

I I


11-DCA CHCl2-CH 3

























641 Soils




642 Groundwater












652 Metals



















671 Temporal trends

Groundwater Data




Soil Vapour Data






672 Spatial trends

Groundwater










Soil Vapour



















691 Introduction


























71 Introduction

























bore Sample


TCE concentration

(ugm3)




Slab on grade

Craw l Space


Slab on grade

Craw l Space

Basement

Attenuation Factor


7 x 10-4 2 x 10-3 1 x 10-1

SV1 10 5700 4 11 6600 5 13

SV1 30 21000 2100 23000 2300

SV2 10 51000 36 102 120000 84 240

SV2 30 940000 94000 910000 91000

SV3 10 210000 147 420 910000 637 1820

SV3 30 1000000 100000 3200000 320000

SV4 10 17000 12 34 12000 8 24

SV4 30 43000 4300 77000 7700

SV5 10 100000 70 200 170000 119 340

SV5 30 160000 16000 260000 26000

SV6 10 22000 15 44 140000 98 280

SV6 30 150000 15000 270000 27000

SV7 10 22000 15 44 62000 43 124

SV7 30 110000 11000 150000 15000

SV8 10 2300 2 5 3900 3 8

SV8 30 14000 1400 16000 1600

SV9 10 170 0119 034 46 0032 0092

SV9 30 260 26 310 31

SV10 10 9 0006 0018 19 0013 0038

SV10 30 51 5 20 2

SV11 10 lt18 lt0013 lt0036 200 lt014 lt04

SV12 10 16 0011 0032 30 0021 006

SV12 30 55 6 110 11

SV13 10 lt21 lt0015 lt0042 lt200 lt0015 lt0042




81 Conclusions


























































































- ---









111 I HtlOYtlYI


MW04 Hydrasleeve







MW32 Hydrasleeve -













































































Bailer EM1806724 EM1807015


16 - 18April2018 19- 20 April 2018





190412

-


Summa Canisters



Summa Canisters
































50 Results





litJUiU 1bull-u11~





















































guideline)








MW33 MW35


MW35







MW25



MW29


MW35

MW25 MW31
















552 Analytical Data
























10000000

bull 1000000E

~ i u

100000gt --middot u C 10000u I-



~ 0 10 I-

1

00 01 10 100 1000 10000
















































-= - a

Groundwater Impacts







Soil Vapour Impacts









L bull






Assessment Area

Sensitive Receptors









No change






No change



Exposure Mechanisms





No change






























PCE

TCE


11-DCE












CW flov pool

residua


Minor

trans-12-DCE QQ=QQ



PCE CCl2=CCl2

TCE CCl2=CHCI

cis-12-DCE CHCl=QQ


release

M inor

vc CH2=CHCI



11-DCE c c l =CH

dfssolved plume

Fl


111-TCA 1 ~---c_c_1_-c_H_ ___ ~

_ I I

I

I I

I I

I

Acetate CH3COOH

I I

I I


11-DCA CHCl2-CH 3

























641 Soils




642 Groundwater












652 Metals



















671 Temporal trends

Groundwater Data




Soil Vapour Data






672 Spatial trends

Groundwater










Soil Vapour



















691 Introduction


























71 Introduction

























bore Sample


TCE concentration

(ugm3)




Slab on grade

Craw l Space


Slab on grade

Craw l Space

Basement

Attenuation Factor


7 x 10-4 2 x 10-3 1 x 10-1

SV1 10 5700 4 11 6600 5 13

SV1 30 21000 2100 23000 2300

SV2 10 51000 36 102 120000 84 240

SV2 30 940000 94000 910000 91000

SV3 10 210000 147 420 910000 637 1820

SV3 30 1000000 100000 3200000 320000

SV4 10 17000 12 34 12000 8 24

SV4 30 43000 4300 77000 7700

SV5 10 100000 70 200 170000 119 340

SV5 30 160000 16000 260000 26000

SV6 10 22000 15 44 140000 98 280

SV6 30 150000 15000 270000 27000

SV7 10 22000 15 44 62000 43 124

SV7 30 110000 11000 150000 15000

SV8 10 2300 2 5 3900 3 8

SV8 30 14000 1400 16000 1600

SV9 10 170 0119 034 46 0032 0092

SV9 30 260 26 310 31

SV10 10 9 0006 0018 19 0013 0038

SV10 30 51 5 20 2

SV11 10 lt18 lt0013 lt0036 200 lt014 lt04

SV12 10 16 0011 0032 30 0021 006

SV12 30 55 6 110 11

SV13 10 lt21 lt0015 lt0042 lt200 lt0015 lt0042




81 Conclusions













































































































































Bailer EM1806724 EM1807015


16 - 18April2018 19- 20 April 2018





190412

-


Summa Canisters



Summa Canisters
































50 Results





litJUiU 1bull-u11~





















































guideline)








MW33 MW35


MW35







MW25



MW29


MW35

MW25 MW31
















552 Analytical Data
























10000000

bull 1000000E

~ i u

100000gt --middot u C 10000u I-



~ 0 10 I-

1

00 01 10 100 1000 10000
















































-= - a

Groundwater Impacts







Soil Vapour Impacts









L bull






Assessment Area

Sensitive Receptors









No change






No change



Exposure Mechanisms





No change






























PCE

TCE


11-DCE












CW flov pool

residua


Minor

trans-12-DCE QQ=QQ



PCE CCl2=CCl2

TCE CCl2=CHCI

cis-12-DCE CHCl=QQ


release

M inor

vc CH2=CHCI



11-DCE c c l =CH

dfssolved plume

Fl


111-TCA 1 ~---c_c_1_-c_H_ ___ ~

_ I I

I

I I

I I

I

Acetate CH3COOH

I I

I I


11-DCA CHCl2-CH 3

























641 Soils




642 Groundwater












652 Metals



















671 Temporal trends

Groundwater Data




Soil Vapour Data






672 Spatial trends

Groundwater










Soil Vapour



















691 Introduction


























71 Introduction

























bore Sample


TCE concentration

(ugm3)




Slab on grade

Craw l Space


Slab on grade

Craw l Space

Basement

Attenuation Factor


7 x 10-4 2 x 10-3 1 x 10-1

SV1 10 5700 4 11 6600 5 13

SV1 30 21000 2100 23000 2300

SV2 10 51000 36 102 120000 84 240

SV2 30 940000 94000 910000 91000

SV3 10 210000 147 420 910000 637 1820

SV3 30 1000000 100000 3200000 320000

SV4 10 17000 12 34 12000 8 24

SV4 30 43000 4300 77000 7700

SV5 10 100000 70 200 170000 119 340

SV5 30 160000 16000 260000 26000

SV6 10 22000 15 44 140000 98 280

SV6 30 150000 15000 270000 27000

SV7 10 22000 15 44 62000 43 124

SV7 30 110000 11000 150000 15000

SV8 10 2300 2 5 3900 3 8

SV8 30 14000 1400 16000 1600

SV9 10 170 0119 034 46 0032 0092

SV9 30 260 26 310 31

SV10 10 9 0006 0018 19 0013 0038

SV10 30 51 5 20 2

SV11 10 lt18 lt0013 lt0036 200 lt014 lt04

SV12 10 16 0011 0032 30 0021 006

SV12 30 55 6 110 11

SV13 10 lt21 lt0015 lt0042 lt200 lt0015 lt0042




81 Conclusions




































































































50 Results





litJUiU 1bull-u11~





















































guideline)








MW33 MW35


MW35







MW25



MW29


MW35

MW25 MW31
















552 Analytical Data
























10000000

bull 1000000E

~ i u

100000gt --middot u C 10000u I-



~ 0 10 I-

1

00 01 10 100 1000 10000
















































-= - a

Groundwater Impacts







Soil Vapour Impacts









L bull






Assessment Area

Sensitive Receptors









No change






No change



Exposure Mechanisms





No change






























PCE

TCE


11-DCE












CW flov pool

residua


Minor

trans-12-DCE QQ=QQ



PCE CCl2=CCl2

TCE CCl2=CHCI

cis-12-DCE CHCl=QQ


release

M inor

vc CH2=CHCI



11-DCE c c l =CH

dfssolved plume

Fl


111-TCA 1 ~---c_c_1_-c_H_ ___ ~

_ I I

I

I I

I I

I

Acetate CH3COOH

I I

I I


11-DCA CHCl2-CH 3

























641 Soils




642 Groundwater












652 Metals



















671 Temporal trends

Groundwater Data




Soil Vapour Data






672 Spatial trends

Groundwater










Soil Vapour



















691 Introduction


























71 Introduction

























bore Sample


TCE concentration

(ugm3)




Slab on grade

Craw l Space


Slab on grade

Craw l Space

Basement

Attenuation Factor


7 x 10-4 2 x 10-3 1 x 10-1

SV1 10 5700 4 11 6600 5 13

SV1 30 21000 2100 23000 2300

SV2 10 51000 36 102 120000 84 240

SV2 30 940000 94000 910000 91000

SV3 10 210000 147 420 910000 637 1820

SV3 30 1000000 100000 3200000 320000

SV4 10 17000 12 34 12000 8 24

SV4 30 43000 4300 77000 7700

SV5 10 100000 70 200 170000 119 340

SV5 30 160000 16000 260000 26000

SV6 10 22000 15 44 140000 98 280

SV6 30 150000 15000 270000 27000

SV7 10 22000 15 44 62000 43 124

SV7 30 110000 11000 150000 15000

SV8 10 2300 2 5 3900 3 8

SV8 30 14000 1400 16000 1600

SV9 10 170 0119 034 46 0032 0092

SV9 30 260 26 310 31

SV10 10 9 0006 0018 19 0013 0038

SV10 30 51 5 20 2

SV11 10 lt18 lt0013 lt0036 200 lt014 lt04

SV12 10 16 0011 0032 30 0021 006

SV12 30 55 6 110 11

SV13 10 lt21 lt0015 lt0042 lt200 lt0015 lt0042




81 Conclusions












































































































guideline)








MW33 MW35


MW35







MW25



MW29


MW35

MW25 MW31
















552 Analytical Data
























10000000

bull 1000000E

~ i u

100000gt --middot u C 10000u I-



~ 0 10 I-

1

00 01 10 100 1000 10000
















































-= - a

Groundwater Impacts







Soil Vapour Impacts









L bull






Assessment Area

Sensitive Receptors









No change






No change



Exposure Mechanisms





No change






























PCE

TCE


11-DCE












CW flov pool

residua


Minor

trans-12-DCE QQ=QQ



PCE CCl2=CCl2

TCE CCl2=CHCI

cis-12-DCE CHCl=QQ


release

M inor

vc CH2=CHCI



11-DCE c c l =CH

dfssolved plume

Fl


111-TCA 1 ~---c_c_1_-c_H_ ___ ~

_ I I

I

I I

I I

I

Acetate CH3COOH

I I

I I


11-DCA CHCl2-CH 3

























641 Soils




642 Groundwater












652 Metals



















671 Temporal trends

Groundwater Data




Soil Vapour Data






672 Spatial trends

Groundwater










Soil Vapour



















691 Introduction


























71 Introduction

























bore Sample


TCE concentration

(ugm3)




Slab on grade

Craw l Space


Slab on grade

Craw l Space

Basement

Attenuation Factor


7 x 10-4 2 x 10-3 1 x 10-1

SV1 10 5700 4 11 6600 5 13

SV1 30 21000 2100 23000 2300

SV2 10 51000 36 102 120000 84 240

SV2 30 940000 94000 910000 91000

SV3 10 210000 147 420 910000 637 1820

SV3 30 1000000 100000 3200000 320000

SV4 10 17000 12 34 12000 8 24

SV4 30 43000 4300 77000 7700

SV5 10 100000 70 200 170000 119 340

SV5 30 160000 16000 260000 26000

SV6 10 22000 15 44 140000 98 280

SV6 30 150000 15000 270000 27000

SV7 10 22000 15 44 62000 43 124

SV7 30 110000 11000 150000 15000

SV8 10 2300 2 5 3900 3 8

SV8 30 14000 1400 16000 1600

SV9 10 170 0119 034 46 0032 0092

SV9 30 260 26 310 31

SV10 10 9 0006 0018 19 0013 0038

SV10 30 51 5 20 2

SV11 10 lt18 lt0013 lt0036 200 lt014 lt04

SV12 10 16 0011 0032 30 0021 006

SV12 30 55 6 110 11

SV13 10 lt21 lt0015 lt0042 lt200 lt0015 lt0042




81 Conclusions




















































































552 Analytical Data
























10000000

bull 1000000E

~ i u

100000gt --middot u C 10000u I-



~ 0 10 I-

1

00 01 10 100 1000 10000
















































-= - a

Groundwater Impacts







Soil Vapour Impacts









L bull






Assessment Area

Sensitive Receptors









No change






No change



Exposure Mechanisms





No change






























PCE

TCE


11-DCE












CW flov pool

residua


Minor

trans-12-DCE QQ=QQ



PCE CCl2=CCl2

TCE CCl2=CHCI

cis-12-DCE CHCl=QQ


release

M inor

vc CH2=CHCI



11-DCE c c l =CH

dfssolved plume

Fl


111-TCA 1 ~---c_c_1_-c_H_ ___ ~

_ I I

I

I I

I I

I

Acetate CH3COOH

I I

I I


11-DCA CHCl2-CH 3

























641 Soils




642 Groundwater












652 Metals



















671 Temporal trends

Groundwater Data




Soil Vapour Data






672 Spatial trends

Groundwater










Soil Vapour



















691 Introduction


























71 Introduction

























bore Sample


TCE concentration

(ugm3)




Slab on grade

Craw l Space


Slab on grade

Craw l Space

Basement

Attenuation Factor


7 x 10-4 2 x 10-3 1 x 10-1

SV1 10 5700 4 11 6600 5 13

SV1 30 21000 2100 23000 2300

SV2 10 51000 36 102 120000 84 240

SV2 30 940000 94000 910000 91000

SV3 10 210000 147 420 910000 637 1820

SV3 30 1000000 100000 3200000 320000

SV4 10 17000 12 34 12000 8 24

SV4 30 43000 4300 77000 7700

SV5 10 100000 70 200 170000 119 340

SV5 30 160000 16000 260000 26000

SV6 10 22000 15 44 140000 98 280

SV6 30 150000 15000 270000 27000

SV7 10 22000 15 44 62000 43 124

SV7 30 110000 11000 150000 15000

SV8 10 2300 2 5 3900 3 8

SV8 30 14000 1400 16000 1600

SV9 10 170 0119 034 46 0032 0092

SV9 30 260 26 310 31

SV10 10 9 0006 0018 19 0013 0038

SV10 30 51 5 20 2

SV11 10 lt18 lt0013 lt0036 200 lt014 lt04

SV12 10 16 0011 0032 30 0021 006

SV12 30 55 6 110 11

SV13 10 lt21 lt0015 lt0042 lt200 lt0015 lt0042




81 Conclusions





















































































10000000

bull 1000000E

~ i u

100000gt --middot u C 10000u I-



~ 0 10 I-

1

00 01 10 100 1000 10000
















































-= - a

Groundwater Impacts







Soil Vapour Impacts









L bull






Assessment Area

Sensitive Receptors









No change






No change



Exposure Mechanisms





No change






























PCE

TCE


11-DCE












CW flov pool

residua


Minor

trans-12-DCE QQ=QQ



PCE CCl2=CCl2

TCE CCl2=CHCI

cis-12-DCE CHCl=QQ


release

M inor

vc CH2=CHCI



11-DCE c c l =CH

dfssolved plume

Fl


111-TCA 1 ~---c_c_1_-c_H_ ___ ~

_ I I

I

I I

I I

I

Acetate CH3COOH

I I

I I


11-DCA CHCl2-CH 3

























641 Soils




642 Groundwater












652 Metals



















671 Temporal trends

Groundwater Data




Soil Vapour Data






672 Spatial trends

Groundwater










Soil Vapour



















691 Introduction


























71 Introduction

























bore Sample


TCE concentration

(ugm3)




Slab on grade

Craw l Space


Slab on grade

Craw l Space

Basement

Attenuation Factor


7 x 10-4 2 x 10-3 1 x 10-1

SV1 10 5700 4 11 6600 5 13

SV1 30 21000 2100 23000 2300

SV2 10 51000 36 102 120000 84 240

SV2 30 940000 94000 910000 91000

SV3 10 210000 147 420 910000 637 1820

SV3 30 1000000 100000 3200000 320000

SV4 10 17000 12 34 12000 8 24

SV4 30 43000 4300 77000 7700

SV5 10 100000 70 200 170000 119 340

SV5 30 160000 16000 260000 26000

SV6 10 22000 15 44 140000 98 280

SV6 30 150000 15000 270000 27000

SV7 10 22000 15 44 62000 43 124

SV7 30 110000 11000 150000 15000

SV8 10 2300 2 5 3900 3 8

SV8 30 14000 1400 16000 1600

SV9 10 170 0119 034 46 0032 0092

SV9 30 260 26 310 31

SV10 10 9 0006 0018 19 0013 0038

SV10 30 51 5 20 2

SV11 10 lt18 lt0013 lt0036 200 lt014 lt04

SV12 10 16 0011 0032 30 0021 006

SV12 30 55 6 110 11

SV13 10 lt21 lt0015 lt0042 lt200 lt0015 lt0042




81 Conclusions



















































































































-= - a

Groundwater Impacts







Soil Vapour Impacts









L bull






Assessment Area

Sensitive Receptors









No change






No change



Exposure Mechanisms





No change






























PCE

TCE


11-DCE












CW flov pool

residua


Minor

trans-12-DCE QQ=QQ



PCE CCl2=CCl2

TCE CCl2=CHCI

cis-12-DCE CHCl=QQ


release

M inor

vc CH2=CHCI



11-DCE c c l =CH

dfssolved plume

Fl


111-TCA 1 ~---c_c_1_-c_H_ ___ ~

_ I I

I

I I

I I

I

Acetate CH3COOH

I I

I I


11-DCA CHCl2-CH 3

























641 Soils




642 Groundwater












652 Metals



















671 Temporal trends

Groundwater Data




Soil Vapour Data






672 Spatial trends

Groundwater










Soil Vapour



















691 Introduction


























71 Introduction

























bore Sample


TCE concentration

(ugm3)




Slab on grade

Craw l Space


Slab on grade

Craw l Space

Basement

Attenuation Factor


7 x 10-4 2 x 10-3 1 x 10-1

SV1 10 5700 4 11 6600 5 13

SV1 30 21000 2100 23000 2300

SV2 10 51000 36 102 120000 84 240

SV2 30 940000 94000 910000 91000

SV3 10 210000 147 420 910000 637 1820

SV3 30 1000000 100000 3200000 320000

SV4 10 17000 12 34 12000 8 24

SV4 30 43000 4300 77000 7700

SV5 10 100000 70 200 170000 119 340

SV5 30 160000 16000 260000 26000

SV6 10 22000 15 44 140000 98 280

SV6 30 150000 15000 270000 27000

SV7 10 22000 15 44 62000 43 124

SV7 30 110000 11000 150000 15000

SV8 10 2300 2 5 3900 3 8

SV8 30 14000 1400 16000 1600

SV9 10 170 0119 034 46 0032 0092

SV9 30 260 26 310 31

SV10 10 9 0006 0018 19 0013 0038

SV10 30 51 5 20 2

SV11 10 lt18 lt0013 lt0036 200 lt014 lt04

SV12 10 16 0011 0032 30 0021 006

SV12 30 55 6 110 11

SV13 10 lt21 lt0015 lt0042 lt200 lt0015 lt0042




81 Conclusions








































































L bull






Assessment Area

Sensitive Receptors









No change






No change



Exposure Mechanisms





No change






























PCE

TCE


11-DCE












CW flov pool

residua


Minor

trans-12-DCE QQ=QQ



PCE CCl2=CCl2

TCE CCl2=CHCI

cis-12-DCE CHCl=QQ


release

M inor

vc CH2=CHCI



11-DCE c c l =CH

dfssolved plume

Fl


111-TCA 1 ~---c_c_1_-c_H_ ___ ~

_ I I

I

I I

I I

I

Acetate CH3COOH

I I

I I


11-DCA CHCl2-CH 3

























641 Soils




642 Groundwater












652 Metals



















671 Temporal trends

Groundwater Data




Soil Vapour Data






672 Spatial trends

Groundwater










Soil Vapour



















691 Introduction


























71 Introduction

























bore Sample


TCE concentration

(ugm3)




Slab on grade

Craw l Space


Slab on grade

Craw l Space

Basement

Attenuation Factor


7 x 10-4 2 x 10-3 1 x 10-1

SV1 10 5700 4 11 6600 5 13

SV1 30 21000 2100 23000 2300

SV2 10 51000 36 102 120000 84 240

SV2 30 940000 94000 910000 91000

SV3 10 210000 147 420 910000 637 1820

SV3 30 1000000 100000 3200000 320000

SV4 10 17000 12 34 12000 8 24

SV4 30 43000 4300 77000 7700

SV5 10 100000 70 200 170000 119 340

SV5 30 160000 16000 260000 26000

SV6 10 22000 15 44 140000 98 280

SV6 30 150000 15000 270000 27000

SV7 10 22000 15 44 62000 43 124

SV7 30 110000 11000 150000 15000

SV8 10 2300 2 5 3900 3 8

SV8 30 14000 1400 16000 1600

SV9 10 170 0119 034 46 0032 0092

SV9 30 260 26 310 31

SV10 10 9 0006 0018 19 0013 0038

SV10 30 51 5 20 2

SV11 10 lt18 lt0013 lt0036 200 lt014 lt04

SV12 10 16 0011 0032 30 0021 006

SV12 30 55 6 110 11

SV13 10 lt21 lt0015 lt0042 lt200 lt0015 lt0042




81 Conclusions








































































Exposure Mechanisms





No change






























PCE

TCE


11-DCE












CW flov pool

residua


Minor

trans-12-DCE QQ=QQ



PCE CCl2=CCl2

TCE CCl2=CHCI

cis-12-DCE CHCl=QQ


release

M inor

vc CH2=CHCI



11-DCE c c l =CH

dfssolved plume

Fl


111-TCA 1 ~---c_c_1_-c_H_ ___ ~

_ I I

I

I I

I I

I

Acetate CH3COOH

I I

I I


11-DCA CHCl2-CH 3

























641 Soils




642 Groundwater












652 Metals



















671 Temporal trends

Groundwater Data




Soil Vapour Data






672 Spatial trends

Groundwater










Soil Vapour



















691 Introduction


























71 Introduction

























bore Sample


TCE concentration

(ugm3)




Slab on grade

Craw l Space


Slab on grade

Craw l Space

Basement

Attenuation Factor


7 x 10-4 2 x 10-3 1 x 10-1

SV1 10 5700 4 11 6600 5 13

SV1 30 21000 2100 23000 2300

SV2 10 51000 36 102 120000 84 240

SV2 30 940000 94000 910000 91000

SV3 10 210000 147 420 910000 637 1820

SV3 30 1000000 100000 3200000 320000

SV4 10 17000 12 34 12000 8 24

SV4 30 43000 4300 77000 7700

SV5 10 100000 70 200 170000 119 340

SV5 30 160000 16000 260000 26000

SV6 10 22000 15 44 140000 98 280

SV6 30 150000 15000 270000 27000

SV7 10 22000 15 44 62000 43 124

SV7 30 110000 11000 150000 15000

SV8 10 2300 2 5 3900 3 8

SV8 30 14000 1400 16000 1600

SV9 10 170 0119 034 46 0032 0092

SV9 30 260 26 310 31

SV10 10 9 0006 0018 19 0013 0038

SV10 30 51 5 20 2

SV11 10 lt18 lt0013 lt0036 200 lt014 lt04

SV12 10 16 0011 0032 30 0021 006

SV12 30 55 6 110 11

SV13 10 lt21 lt0015 lt0042 lt200 lt0015 lt0042




81 Conclusions






























































































PCE

TCE


11-DCE












CW flov pool

residua


Minor

trans-12-DCE QQ=QQ



PCE CCl2=CCl2

TCE CCl2=CHCI

cis-12-DCE CHCl=QQ


release

M inor

vc CH2=CHCI



11-DCE c c l =CH

dfssolved plume

Fl


111-TCA 1 ~---c_c_1_-c_H_ ___ ~

_ I I

I

I I

I I

I

Acetate CH3COOH

I I

I I


11-DCA CHCl2-CH 3

























641 Soils




642 Groundwater












652 Metals



















671 Temporal trends

Groundwater Data




Soil Vapour Data






672 Spatial trends

Groundwater










Soil Vapour



















691 Introduction


























71 Introduction

























bore Sample


TCE concentration

(ugm3)




Slab on grade

Craw l Space


Slab on grade

Craw l Space

Basement

Attenuation Factor


7 x 10-4 2 x 10-3 1 x 10-1

SV1 10 5700 4 11 6600 5 13

SV1 30 21000 2100 23000 2300

SV2 10 51000 36 102 120000 84 240

SV2 30 940000 94000 910000 91000

SV3 10 210000 147 420 910000 637 1820

SV3 30 1000000 100000 3200000 320000

SV4 10 17000 12 34 12000 8 24

SV4 30 43000 4300 77000 7700

SV5 10 100000 70 200 170000 119 340

SV5 30 160000 16000 260000 26000

SV6 10 22000 15 44 140000 98 280

SV6 30 150000 15000 270000 27000

SV7 10 22000 15 44 62000 43 124

SV7 30 110000 11000 150000 15000

SV8 10 2300 2 5 3900 3 8

SV8 30 14000 1400 16000 1600

SV9 10 170 0119 034 46 0032 0092

SV9 30 260 26 310 31

SV10 10 9 0006 0018 19 0013 0038

SV10 30 51 5 20 2

SV11 10 lt18 lt0013 lt0036 200 lt014 lt04

SV12 10 16 0011 0032 30 0021 006

SV12 30 55 6 110 11

SV13 10 lt21 lt0015 lt0042 lt200 lt0015 lt0042




81 Conclusions







































































CW flov pool

residua


Minor

trans-12-DCE QQ=QQ



PCE CCl2=CCl2

TCE CCl2=CHCI

cis-12-DCE CHCl=QQ


release

M inor

vc CH2=CHCI



11-DCE c c l =CH

dfssolved plume

Fl


111-TCA 1 ~---c_c_1_-c_H_ ___ ~

_ I I

I

I I

I I

I

Acetate CH3COOH

I I

I I


11-DCA CHCl2-CH 3

























641 Soils




642 Groundwater












652 Metals



















671 Temporal trends

Groundwater Data




Soil Vapour Data






672 Spatial trends

Groundwater










Soil Vapour



















691 Introduction


























71 Introduction

























bore Sample


TCE concentration

(ugm3)




Slab on grade

Craw l Space


Slab on grade

Craw l Space

Basement

Attenuation Factor


7 x 10-4 2 x 10-3 1 x 10-1

SV1 10 5700 4 11 6600 5 13

SV1 30 21000 2100 23000 2300

SV2 10 51000 36 102 120000 84 240

SV2 30 940000 94000 910000 91000

SV3 10 210000 147 420 910000 637 1820

SV3 30 1000000 100000 3200000 320000

SV4 10 17000 12 34 12000 8 24

SV4 30 43000 4300 77000 7700

SV5 10 100000 70 200 170000 119 340

SV5 30 160000 16000 260000 26000

SV6 10 22000 15 44 140000 98 280

SV6 30 150000 15000 270000 27000

SV7 10 22000 15 44 62000 43 124

SV7 30 110000 11000 150000 15000

SV8 10 2300 2 5 3900 3 8

SV8 30 14000 1400 16000 1600

SV9 10 170 0119 034 46 0032 0092

SV9 30 260 26 310 31

SV10 10 9 0006 0018 19 0013 0038

SV10 30 51 5 20 2

SV11 10 lt18 lt0013 lt0036 200 lt014 lt04

SV12 10 16 0011 0032 30 0021 006

SV12 30 55 6 110 11

SV13 10 lt21 lt0015 lt0042 lt200 lt0015 lt0042




81 Conclusions

























































































641 Soils




642 Groundwater












652 Metals



















671 Temporal trends

Groundwater Data




Soil Vapour Data






672 Spatial trends

Groundwater










Soil Vapour



















691 Introduction


























71 Introduction

























bore Sample


TCE concentration

(ugm3)




Slab on grade

Craw l Space


Slab on grade

Craw l Space

Basement

Attenuation Factor


7 x 10-4 2 x 10-3 1 x 10-1

SV1 10 5700 4 11 6600 5 13

SV1 30 21000 2100 23000 2300

SV2 10 51000 36 102 120000 84 240

SV2 30 940000 94000 910000 91000

SV3 10 210000 147 420 910000 637 1820

SV3 30 1000000 100000 3200000 320000

SV4 10 17000 12 34 12000 8 24

SV4 30 43000 4300 77000 7700

SV5 10 100000 70 200 170000 119 340

SV5 30 160000 16000 260000 26000

SV6 10 22000 15 44 140000 98 280

SV6 30 150000 15000 270000 27000

SV7 10 22000 15 44 62000 43 124

SV7 30 110000 11000 150000 15000

SV8 10 2300 2 5 3900 3 8

SV8 30 14000 1400 16000 1600

SV9 10 170 0119 034 46 0032 0092

SV9 30 260 26 310 31

SV10 10 9 0006 0018 19 0013 0038

SV10 30 51 5 20 2

SV11 10 lt18 lt0013 lt0036 200 lt014 lt04

SV12 10 16 0011 0032 30 0021 006

SV12 30 55 6 110 11

SV13 10 lt21 lt0015 lt0042 lt200 lt0015 lt0042




81 Conclusions









































































652 Metals



















671 Temporal trends

Groundwater Data




Soil Vapour Data






672 Spatial trends

Groundwater










Soil Vapour



















691 Introduction


























71 Introduction

























bore Sample


TCE concentration

(ugm3)




Slab on grade

Craw l Space


Slab on grade

Craw l Space

Basement

Attenuation Factor


7 x 10-4 2 x 10-3 1 x 10-1

SV1 10 5700 4 11 6600 5 13

SV1 30 21000 2100 23000 2300

SV2 10 51000 36 102 120000 84 240

SV2 30 940000 94000 910000 91000

SV3 10 210000 147 420 910000 637 1820

SV3 30 1000000 100000 3200000 320000

SV4 10 17000 12 34 12000 8 24

SV4 30 43000 4300 77000 7700

SV5 10 100000 70 200 170000 119 340

SV5 30 160000 16000 260000 26000

SV6 10 22000 15 44 140000 98 280

SV6 30 150000 15000 270000 27000

SV7 10 22000 15 44 62000 43 124

SV7 30 110000 11000 150000 15000

SV8 10 2300 2 5 3900 3 8

SV8 30 14000 1400 16000 1600

SV9 10 170 0119 034 46 0032 0092

SV9 30 260 26 310 31

SV10 10 9 0006 0018 19 0013 0038

SV10 30 51 5 20 2

SV11 10 lt18 lt0013 lt0036 200 lt014 lt04

SV12 10 16 0011 0032 30 0021 006

SV12 30 55 6 110 11

SV13 10 lt21 lt0015 lt0042 lt200 lt0015 lt0042




81 Conclusions










































































671 Temporal trends

Groundwater Data




Soil Vapour Data






672 Spatial trends

Groundwater










Soil Vapour



















691 Introduction


























71 Introduction

























bore Sample


TCE concentration

(ugm3)




Slab on grade

Craw l Space


Slab on grade

Craw l Space

Basement

Attenuation Factor


7 x 10-4 2 x 10-3 1 x 10-1

SV1 10 5700 4 11 6600 5 13

SV1 30 21000 2100 23000 2300

SV2 10 51000 36 102 120000 84 240

SV2 30 940000 94000 910000 91000

SV3 10 210000 147 420 910000 637 1820

SV3 30 1000000 100000 3200000 320000

SV4 10 17000 12 34 12000 8 24

SV4 30 43000 4300 77000 7700

SV5 10 100000 70 200 170000 119 340

SV5 30 160000 16000 260000 26000

SV6 10 22000 15 44 140000 98 280

SV6 30 150000 15000 270000 27000

SV7 10 22000 15 44 62000 43 124

SV7 30 110000 11000 150000 15000

SV8 10 2300 2 5 3900 3 8

SV8 30 14000 1400 16000 1600

SV9 10 170 0119 034 46 0032 0092

SV9 30 260 26 310 31

SV10 10 9 0006 0018 19 0013 0038

SV10 30 51 5 20 2

SV11 10 lt18 lt0013 lt0036 200 lt014 lt04

SV12 10 16 0011 0032 30 0021 006

SV12 30 55 6 110 11

SV13 10 lt21 lt0015 lt0042 lt200 lt0015 lt0042




81 Conclusions










































































Soil Vapour



















691 Introduction


























71 Introduction

























bore Sample


TCE concentration

(ugm3)




Slab on grade

Craw l Space


Slab on grade

Craw l Space

Basement

Attenuation Factor


7 x 10-4 2 x 10-3 1 x 10-1

SV1 10 5700 4 11 6600 5 13

SV1 30 21000 2100 23000 2300

SV2 10 51000 36 102 120000 84 240

SV2 30 940000 94000 910000 91000

SV3 10 210000 147 420 910000 637 1820

SV3 30 1000000 100000 3200000 320000

SV4 10 17000 12 34 12000 8 24

SV4 30 43000 4300 77000 7700

SV5 10 100000 70 200 170000 119 340

SV5 30 160000 16000 260000 26000

SV6 10 22000 15 44 140000 98 280

SV6 30 150000 15000 270000 27000

SV7 10 22000 15 44 62000 43 124

SV7 30 110000 11000 150000 15000

SV8 10 2300 2 5 3900 3 8

SV8 30 14000 1400 16000 1600

SV9 10 170 0119 034 46 0032 0092

SV9 30 260 26 310 31

SV10 10 9 0006 0018 19 0013 0038

SV10 30 51 5 20 2

SV11 10 lt18 lt0013 lt0036 200 lt014 lt04

SV12 10 16 0011 0032 30 0021 006

SV12 30 55 6 110 11

SV13 10 lt21 lt0015 lt0042 lt200 lt0015 lt0042




81 Conclusions













































































691 Introduction


























71 Introduction

























bore Sample


TCE concentration

(ugm3)




Slab on grade

Craw l Space


Slab on grade

Craw l Space

Basement

Attenuation Factor


7 x 10-4 2 x 10-3 1 x 10-1

SV1 10 5700 4 11 6600 5 13

SV1 30 21000 2100 23000 2300

SV2 10 51000 36 102 120000 84 240

SV2 30 940000 94000 910000 91000

SV3 10 210000 147 420 910000 637 1820

SV3 30 1000000 100000 3200000 320000

SV4 10 17000 12 34 12000 8 24

SV4 30 43000 4300 77000 7700

SV5 10 100000 70 200 170000 119 340

SV5 30 160000 16000 260000 26000

SV6 10 22000 15 44 140000 98 280

SV6 30 150000 15000 270000 27000

SV7 10 22000 15 44 62000 43 124

SV7 30 110000 11000 150000 15000

SV8 10 2300 2 5 3900 3 8

SV8 30 14000 1400 16000 1600

SV9 10 170 0119 034 46 0032 0092

SV9 30 260 26 310 31

SV10 10 9 0006 0018 19 0013 0038

SV10 30 51 5 20 2

SV11 10 lt18 lt0013 lt0036 200 lt014 lt04

SV12 10 16 0011 0032 30 0021 006

SV12 30 55 6 110 11

SV13 10 lt21 lt0015 lt0042 lt200 lt0015 lt0042




81 Conclusions















































































71 Introduction

























bore Sample


TCE concentration

(ugm3)




Slab on grade

Craw l Space


Slab on grade

Craw l Space

Basement

Attenuation Factor


7 x 10-4 2 x 10-3 1 x 10-1

SV1 10 5700 4 11 6600 5 13

SV1 30 21000 2100 23000 2300

SV2 10 51000 36 102 120000 84 240

SV2 30 940000 94000 910000 91000

SV3 10 210000 147 420 910000 637 1820

SV3 30 1000000 100000 3200000 320000

SV4 10 17000 12 34 12000 8 24

SV4 30 43000 4300 77000 7700

SV5 10 100000 70 200 170000 119 340

SV5 30 160000 16000 260000 26000

SV6 10 22000 15 44 140000 98 280

SV6 30 150000 15000 270000 27000

SV7 10 22000 15 44 62000 43 124

SV7 30 110000 11000 150000 15000

SV8 10 2300 2 5 3900 3 8

SV8 30 14000 1400 16000 1600

SV9 10 170 0119 034 46 0032 0092

SV9 30 260 26 310 31

SV10 10 9 0006 0018 19 0013 0038

SV10 30 51 5 20 2

SV11 10 lt18 lt0013 lt0036 200 lt014 lt04

SV12 10 16 0011 0032 30 0021 006

SV12 30 55 6 110 11

SV13 10 lt21 lt0015 lt0042 lt200 lt0015 lt0042




81 Conclusions
















































































bore Sample


TCE concentration

(ugm3)




Slab on grade

Craw l Space


Slab on grade

Craw l Space

Basement

Attenuation Factor


7 x 10-4 2 x 10-3 1 x 10-1

SV1 10 5700 4 11 6600 5 13

SV1 30 21000 2100 23000 2300

SV2 10 51000 36 102 120000 84 240

SV2 30 940000 94000 910000 91000

SV3 10 210000 147 420 910000 637 1820

SV3 30 1000000 100000 3200000 320000

SV4 10 17000 12 34 12000 8 24

SV4 30 43000 4300 77000 7700

SV5 10 100000 70 200 170000 119 340

SV5 30 160000 16000 260000 26000

SV6 10 22000 15 44 140000 98 280

SV6 30 150000 15000 270000 27000

SV7 10 22000 15 44 62000 43 124

SV7 30 110000 11000 150000 15000

SV8 10 2300 2 5 3900 3 8

SV8 30 14000 1400 16000 1600

SV9 10 170 0119 034 46 0032 0092

SV9 30 260 26 310 31

SV10 10 9 0006 0018 19 0013 0038

SV10 30 51 5 20 2

SV11 10 lt18 lt0013 lt0036 200 lt014 lt04

SV12 10 16 0011 0032 30 0021 006

SV12 30 55 6 110 11

SV13 10 lt21 lt0015 lt0042 lt200 lt0015 lt0042




81 Conclusions









































































81 Conclusions







































































Thebarton Assessment: Area - epa.sa.gov.au · SA – REM – 2005 6 2.3.4 Thebarton Assessment Area...

Documents

Transcript of Thebarton Assessment: Area - epa.sa.gov.au · SA – REM – 2005 6 2.3.4 Thebarton Assessment Area...