August 2007 Victoria�s Audit System An Environmental Audit System Has

August 2007 VICTORIA�S AUDIT SYSTEM An environmental audit system has operated in Victoria since 1989. The Environment Protection Act 1970 (the Act) provides for the appointment by the Environment Protection Authority (EPA Victoria) of environmental auditors and the conduct of independent, high quality and rigorous environmental audits. An environmental audit is an assessment of the condition of the environment, or the nature and extent of harm (or risk of harm) posed by an industrial process or activity, waste, substance or noise. Environmental audit reports are prepared by EPAappointed environmental auditors who are highly qualified and skilled individuals. Under the Act, the function of an environmental auditor is to conduct environmental audits and prepare environmental audit reports. Where an environmental audit is conducted to determine the condition of a site or its suitability for certain uses, an environmental auditor may issue either a certificate or statement of environmental audit. A certificate indicates that the auditor is of the opinion that the site is suitable for any beneficial use defined in the Act, whilst a statement indicates that there is some restriction on the use of the site. Any individual or organisation may engage appointed environmental auditors, who generally operate within the environmental consulting sector, to undertake environmental audits. The EPA administers the environmental audit system and ensures its ongoing integrity by assessing auditor applications and ensuring audits are independent and conducted with regard to guidelines issued by EPA. AUDIT FILES STRUCTURE Environmental audit reports are stored digitally by EPA in three parts: the audit report (part A), report appendices (part B) and, where applicable, the certificate or statement of environmental audit and an executive summary (part C). A report may be in colour and black-and-white formats. Generally, only blackandwhite documents are text searchable. Report executive summaries, findings and recommendations should be read and relied upon only in the context of the document as a whole, including any appendices and, where applicable, any certificate

or statement of environmental audit. AUDIT REPORT CURRENCY Audit reports are based on the conditions encountered and information reviewed at the time of preparation and do not represent any changes that may have occurred since the date of completion. As it is not possible for an audit to present all data that could be of interest to all readers, consideration should be made to any appendices or referenced documentation for further information. When information regarding the condition of a site changes from that at the time an audit report is issued, or where an administrative or computation error is identified, environmental audit reports, certificates and statements may be withdrawn or amended by an environmental auditor. Users are advised to check EPA�s website to ensure the currency of the audit document. PDF SEARCHABILITY AND PRINTING EPA Victoria can only certify the accuracy and correctness of the audit report and appendices as presented in the hardcopy format. EPA is not responsible for any issues that arise due to problems with PDF files or printing. Except where PDF normal format is specified, PDF files are scanned and optical character recognised by machine only. Accordingly, while the images are consistent with the scanned original, the searchable hidden text may contain uncorrected recognition errors that can reduce search reliability. Therefore, keyword searches undertaken within the document may not retrieve all references to the queried text. This PDF has been created using the Adobe-approved method for generating Print Optimised Output. To assure proper results, proofs must be printed, rather than viewed on the screen. This PDF is compatible with Adobe Acrobat Reader Version 4.0 or any later version which is downloadable free from Adobe�s Website, www.adobe.com. FURTHER INFORMATION For more information on Victoria�s environmental audit system, visit EPA�s website or contact EPA�s Environmental Audit Unit. Web: www.epa.vic.gov.au/envaudit Email: [email protected]

AV Jenl~ings AV 6 September 2006 3 1 Hampstead Road, Maidstone, Victoria API'ENDIX A APPENDIX A Attachments Attachment 1 : Site 1,ocation Plan Attachment 2: Site Property Report and Planning Scheme Map Attachment 3: Proposed Development Plans Attachment 4: Site Layout and Sa~-t~pling Locations Attachment 5: Pre 1 Post Remediation Survey Plans Attachment 6: Remediation Photographs Attachment 7: Summary of Soil Ai~alytical Results S:WnvironVobs\Coombes -Maidstone->Z-OOi8'~eportsU2.00IS -Environmental .Audit Report for 3 1 EIarnpstead Road, Maidstone, Victoria final.doc ENVlROK

AV Jennings AV 6 September2006 3 1 T-Iampstead Road, Maidstone, Victorin APPENDIX A Attachment l Site Location Plan S:\EnvironUobs\Coombeu -Maidslone -32-0018\Repurts\32.0018 EnEnvironmental Audit keport for 3 1 Hampstead Road, Maidstone, Victoria finnI.doc ENVIRON

DlOMlDES ttants i JOB: 31 Hampstead Road, M aidstone, Victoria JOE3 No DA 1255 ..I-.UCI--CIIIIIII)IIIII---l...IIIII DATE: April, 2006 IFIGURE l LOCALITY PLAN

AV J enni~igs AV J 6 September 2006 31 Hm~pstead Road, Maidstone, Victoria APPENDIX A Attachment 2 Site Property Report and Planning Scheme Map / S~En~ironUobs~,Coornbes -Maidstone -32-001 S\RepomUZ 0018 En\iironn>cntal Audit Report for 31 Hn~npstead Road, Maidstone, Victorin final.doc ENVlROW

?I 1 Pr~perfy Report from www.land.vic.gov.au on 27 M~Y 2005 It21 AM Address: 31 HAMPSTEAD ROAD MAIDSTONE3012 Lot and Plan Number: Lot A PS443690 Standard Parcel Identme~ (Sf l): A\PS443690 Local Government(Council): MARIBYRNONG Council Property Number: 8405364014 f)irect~ry Reference: Melway 2769,27H9,27GI 0,27HI 0 State Electorates Legislative Council: MELBOURNE WEST (2001) Legislative Assembiy : FOOTSCRAY (200 1 ) Utilities Metro Water Business: City West Water Ruraf Water Business: Southern Rural Water Melbourne Water: inside drainage boundary Power Distributor:AGL (Information about choosing an electricity retailer ) Planning Zone Summary Planning Zone: COMMONWEALTHLAND NOT CONTROLLEDBY PLANNING SCHEME (CA) Planning Overlay: DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY -SCHEDULE 1 (DD01 ) DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONSPLAN OVERLAY -SCHEDULE 2 (DCP02)

This report is not a substitute for a Planning Certificate. For Planning Certificate PIannina Certificates Ontine For Planning Details Planning Schemes Online Area Map Copyright O

State Government of Victoria Disclaimer: This content is provided for information purposes only. No claim is made as to the accuracy or authenticity of the content. The Victorian Government does not accept any liability to any person for the information provided. Read the full disclaimer at www.land.vic.gov.au/disclaimer

MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME LOCAL PROVISION MARIBYRNONG PLANNING SCHEME LOCAL PROVISION LEGEND Part of Planning Scheme Map4 7 7 Residential 1 Zone AMENDMENT C38 Mixed Use Zone PREPARED BY: PLANNING DATA AND MAPPING TEAM Geographical 1nforma)ion System UEPARTMENT OF SUSTAINABf LITY AND ENVIRONMENT

AV Jennings AV 6 September 2006 31 Han~~stead APPENDIX A Road, Maidstone. Victoria Attachment 3 Proposed Development Plans S.\EnvironUobs\Cw~nbes -hlaidstone -Audit Report for 31 Hmpstcad Road, Maidstone,Victoriafit~al doc ENVIRON 32-0018\Repons\31! 0018 -Environl~~u~tal

Gas Easement Australia Post Depot

Telstra Site Maidstone 44 ?%%isford Strast PC! Bux 926 Shewarton WC 3632 TB1 3 563; 4113 F B1 3 5351 4US Enphcrrlns Survcylng rlrnnlng Urban Wlpn Lurdrcapc &mh#w~rs Suafaln.blllty and knvironrnant Rgrlbuafn*ms Pmjmct Man.o.m.nt ( Development Plan -31 Hampstead Road, Maidstone I O~~rrCumk~~~piylrd

AV Jctlnings AV 6 September 2006 3 1 Hampstead Road, Maidstone, Victoria APPENDlX A Attachment 4 Site Layout and Sampling Locations S.\B~viron?fubsKoo~nbes Mrttdsto~ie -32-001 8Repor.ts\32.0013 -Envi!o~~mcnlal EhVIRON Audit Reporl For 31 Hanlpstead Road. hlaidslone, VictOri~ Anal.doc

AV Jennings AV 31 Hamvstead Road. Maidstone. Victoria Attachment 5 Pre I Post Remediation Survey Plans S:\Efi~~~ronUobs\Coombes -Maidslone 32-001 8?Rgorbi32 0018 -Environmental Audit Rcpm for 3 1 Hmpstead Road, Maidsto~le, \'ictoria final.doc ENVLKON

AV Jennings AV 6 September2006 3 1 Hampstead Road, Maidstone, Vicloria APPENDIX A Attachment 6 Remediation Photographs S:\EnvironUob$\Coombes -Maidslone 32-0018U<eportsU:! 0018 -Environmei~tal Audit Reponfcn-32 Han~psiead Road, Maidstone, Victoria find.doc ENVIRON

. . m m Auditor Photo 1 -Initial excavation using excavator prior to hand removal of fill, Sub-Area 4 Auditor Photo 2 -Natural soils and boulders, western boundary, Sub-Area 3

+..h. . -S-.-; . i:s-. ?.;' A-* * -. ,.-&-*: Auditor Photo 4 -exposed boulders and natural soils, southern boundary, Sub-Area 4

AV Jennings AV 6 Septcrnber 2006 3 1 Hampstead Road, Maidstone, Victoria APPENDIX A Attachment 7 Summary ofSoil Analytical Results S:LEnvironUobs\Cootnbes Maidstone 32-0018\Reports~32.0Ol8 -En~ronniental Audit Reportfor 31 Hampstead Road, Maidstone, Vi~toldr fmal.doc EWIRON

SUMMARYCOMPOSITE LABORATORY RESULTS (GAS EASEMENT) SUMMARYCOMPOSITE LABORATORY RESULTS (GAS EASEMENT) Ethion Ethoprop fenitrothion Fensulfothion f 1 I c 0.2 0.2 0.2 c 0.2 Fenthion Merphos Methyl azinphos Methyl parathion Mevinphos Naled Phorale Ronnel Tokulhion Trichlwonate ----p---I ! .c 0.2 1 c02 c02 c02 40.2 1 c 0.2. c 02 1 0.2 0.2 Arodot-l018 Amclor-l 221 Arodor-1232 ~ro~lor-1242 f 1 1 I I
02 c02 1 c02 .-v c 0.2 c 0.2 < 0.2 c 0.2 Arodor-1248 Arodor-1254 Aroctor-1260 Total PCB I I 1 c0.2 c 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 c 0.2 c0.2.E 0.2 c 0.2 c 0.2 c 0.2 c 0.2 < 02 c 09 < 0.2 C 0.1 c 0.1 < 0.1 c 0.1 5 c02 0.2 c 0.2 02 2 0.2

c 02 < 02 1 c02 j c02 i < 0.1 1 c0.1 1 < 0.1 1 q0.1 0.2 < 0.2 c 0.2 < 0.2 c 0.2 Acenaphthene c 0.1 ' c02 < 02 c 0.2 0.2 c 0.2 0.2 c 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.f -CO,% 0.1 < 0.1 l < 0.1 c 0.1 c 0.1

c 0.1 < 1 c02 ( < 0.2 <02 1 < 0.2 c02 1 <0.2 < 0.2 l < 0.2 c 0.2 1 < 0.2 c 0.2 1 c 0.2 < 0.2 ( c 0.2 C 0.1 0.1 c 0.1 c 0.2 0.2 2 0.2 c 0.2 < 0.2 c 0.2 c 0.2 c 0.2 c 0.2 0.2 < 0.1 c 0.7 c 0.1 cO.1 ,

c 0.2 < 0.2 c 0.1 c 0.1 c 0.1 < 0.1 : 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 c 0.1 < 0.1 < 0-1 I 3.3 c 0.2 < 0.2 c 0.2 c 0.2 c 0.2 c 0.2 0.2 c 0.2 c 0.2 < 0.1 c 0.1 c 0.1 I c 0.1 c 0.1 l 0.2 0.2 I

c 0.1 f c 0.1 1 s 0.1 c 0.1 l cO.1 1 < 0.1 c 0.1 ] < 0.1 cl 1 cl 0.1 Total PAH c 0.1 c 0.1 c 1 c 0.1 0.1 c 0.1 < 0.1 c 0.1 l c 0.1 10 Acensphthykne 1 Anlhracene Benz(a)anlhracene [ Benzo(a)pyrene l f Benzo@)fluoranthene 1 Benzotg .h.i)perylene 1 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 1 Chryseae Dbenr(a.h)anlhracene Flt~oranthene Fluorene Indeno(l.2.3-cd)pyrene Naphlhalene Phenanlhrnne Pyrene

c 0.1 < 0.1 l 1 < 0.1
< 0.1 < 0.1 c1.6 c 1.6 cf.6 <0.1 I 0.1 c 0.1 1 I cO.1 < 0.1 c 0.1 c0.i c 0.1 c 0.1 I I 1 1 c 0.1 c 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 c 0.1 < 0.1 c 0.1 c 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.1 < 0.1 I < 0.1 I < 0.1 c 0.1 < l I 0.1 cO.1 I-.S 0.1 l I c 0.1 c 0.1 I c 0.1 0.1 c

0.1 c 0.1 c 0.1 , c 0.1 c 0.1 ! i CO.$ c 0.1 < 0.1 I c 0.1 1 c 0.1 S 0.1 j c 0.1 c 0.1 ] < 0.1 < 0.1 ] < 0.1 , < 0.1 1 c 0.1 1 1 < 0.1 c 0.1 2 0.1 c 0.1 < 0.1 l c 0.1 1 < 0.1 I c0.1 1 cO.1 1 c0.1 1 cO.1

1 c 0.1 1 c 0.1 I c0.1 I cO.1 c 0.1 c 0.4 c 0.1 c 0.1 c 0.1 DlOMiDES AND ASSOCIATES PTf LTD

SUMMARY COMWStTE SUMMARY LABORATORYRESULTS (GAS EASEMENT) for 31 Hampstead Road, Maidstone DlOMlDES AND ASSOCIATES PTY LTD

SUMMARY INDIVIDUAL LABORATORY RESULTS(GAS EASEMENT) SUMMARY INDIVIDUAL LABORATORY RESULTS(GAS EASEMENT) DlOMlDES AND ASSOCIATES PTY LTD

SUMMARY INDIVIDUAL SUMMARY LABORATORY RESULTS(GAS EASEMENT] for 31 Hampstead Road, Maidstone MOMIDES AND ASSOCIATES PN LTD

SUMMARY INDlVlDUAL LABORATORY RESULTS (GAS EASEMENT) for 31 Hampstead Road, Maidstone MOMIDES AND ASSOCIATES PTY LT0

SUMMARY INDIVIDUALLABORATORYRESULTS (GAS EASEMENT) SUMMARY INDIVIDUALLABORATORYRESULTS (GAS EASEMENT) DlOMlDfS AND ASSOCtAfES PN LTD

Page 1 of 1 Teresa Page 1 of 1 Baker From: Carotine Kirkby [email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, 22August 2008 l 1:17 AM To: Teresa Baker Subject: Payment recieved from Furst: Hi Teresa f havereceived a cheque in the mail today from Furst for Invoice 32-H14-039 for $15524.19 I think you asked me to let you know Regards Cardine Kirkby Boarckeeper ENVXRON Australia Pty Ltd Tel: -tdf 8 9225 5199 Fax: 61 8 9225 5155 e-mail: cki&by@ ,envimnco~.c~m.au DISCLAIMER NOTICE

This message contains information which may be confidential, privileged or otherwise protected by law from disclosure. It is intended for the exclusive use of the Addressee(s). Unless you are the addressee'or authorized agent

of the addressee, you may not review, copy, distribute or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained within. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender by electronic reply to [email protected]=u and immediately delete -32.1 copies of the message.

Fust Realty Pty Ltd July 2006 Environmental Audit Report -66-68A Brunswick Road, Brunswick, Vic. Page 30 14 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the findings of the Audit, the Auditor concludes the following: The Consultant adequately identified potential historic potentially contaminating activities which occurred at the Site and undertook appropriate investigations to assess the areas and contaminants of concern associated with these historic potentially contaminating activities; The Consultant's investigations revealed: Benzo(a)pyrene, Total PAHs and TPH C10-C36 levels within the fill material may pose a significant risk to humans if exposed through dermal contact, ingestion or inhalation (dust); Lead and zinc concentrations within portions of the fill may be phytotoxic to sensitive plant species; Due to the nature of the proposed development (i.e. cover of entire Site with concrete pavement), the Auditor considers that the identified potential health and ecological risks are not significant and do not preclude the proposed Site use; The potential for groundwater beneath the Site to have been contaminated as a result of Site activities is considered to be low and no assessment of groundwater contamination is required. The Auditor considers that the Site is suitable for the proposed high density residential use under the current zoning subject to the conditions presented in the attachment Statement of Environmental Audit. Statement of EnvironmentalAudit Summary Concentrations of TPH C10-C36, benzo(a1pyrene and PAHs exceed the human health criteria and some heavy metal compo~lnds exceed the NEPM (1999) EILs

in the shallow filling at the Site. Therefore, the soils are potentially detrimental to both human health and maintenance of ecosystems. Accordingly, a Certificate of Environmenlal Aadit cannot be issued. Consequently a Statement of Environmental Audit with the following conditions has been attached to this report. The conditions include: 1. The entire Site is capped with concrete or pavement to prevent occupiers gaining access to the soil; 2. Should soils be exposed during landscaphg activities, any landscaped/exposed soil areas should be covered with at least 0.5m fill material as defined by EPA Pub 448.1 (2004) 3. Any imported soil bought onto the Site must be shown to have contaminant concentrations below the EPA criteria for "fill material "contained in EPA Bulletin No 448. 4. Future works requiring the breach of the concrete pavement should be undertaken in consultation with suitably qualified and experienced occupation health and environmental consultants. Excavated materials should be appropriately handled and managed in accordance with relevant Victorian Legislation, Regulations and Guidelines, and the pavement should be appropriately reinstated following completion of the works; 5. If groundwater is to be extracted from the Site for any purpose in the future, advice must first be sought from a suitably qualified and experienced consultant (e.g. contamination scientist/engiixeer). S:\Envbn\Jobs\Funt -Brunswick 32401 4\Repcrts\32_0014 Site Audit Report (Final).doc ENVIRON

1 I 63~8.l.'

I l l l t 6 ~ 639 Aq ~ Uo!i3e~j 8Z3-S13 Htll

i By/Bw 39 UOIWe-IJ PL3-OL.3 Htll

I ! 1 1 . -..-"-----pp SO I0001 OOC "W 6 ~ 6~39 4 uo!PW 63-93 H81 ---A I-.---p I .. .. . .. . ____-._...-__._ .-I--. ... . HVd lelol .-m 8~a~kd ~ ! BYl8~u

aua~wueuaud l6Y/fi"J ~~~I~W~BN ! --. -p W-.-U , p "..--.--. -p

SUMMARY SOIL INDIVIDUAL VALIDATION LABORATORY RESULTS for 31 Hampstead Road, Maidstone WL..".7---p MGT DIOMIDES .. . .-.-m ..., MAIDSTONE DAI 255 Tin Vanadium Zinc -,*..m-,.. -m,----. Benzene -.U-," S,--, -Toluene A~japhthene

mgkg Acenaphthylene mgkg Benz(a)anthracene . .. .. Benzo(a)pyrene Dibenz(a.h)anthracene Fluoranthene p---

--,,, -.--. 20 200 1 20 .--p-p TRH C649 Fractionby GC mgikg

--..-p TRH C29-C36Fraction by GC I mglkg 1 ---v c '00 c 100 c 100 -A-.------. 4TRH C9 I mgtq 1000/ 10000 l000 I c250 250c250 l 1 I DlOMfDES AND ASSOCIATESPTY LTD

--.-! --.I i 1 l BylOUJ l 1 --.--mI I I I 1 I I 1 /000~ I I + "-1 I 1 p-----P9 OODOL -...-----p. 0001 .-M L I I I l i I I OOOL OF ! I I l 1 I OOC OZ I 4 / 6w6wr 1 6 ~ 6 ~ 1 BY/B~ OZ

-I--HVd IaWl auaQ 63 HZU. 39 Aq UOPwd 9E3-6Z3 Ha1 33 h U0113W 823313 H81 I D~13.u \ B'Ilfi 16~16~ I ~W~UJ / 6 ~ 6 ~ 1 6 ~ 6 ~ -.".-.,.T"----1 aua1~l)ueuayd au8lWlUdeN aua~Ad(p-c-~. l)ouapul auaonld 30 A9 UOPe-lj 913-0 C3 HU 39 UO!I~WZI 63-93 H81 ---F*2ur" I / By/& 1 auaylue~anlj 1 1 ~y/Bw l eua~wyiue(y.~)meq!a I 1 Sy/Sw l auaskq3 t 6wBu' aue~uawny(y)ontaa

I 1 I

OE l BY16u auanlol I I OS 1 6'llBw auazueq1hu3 . I 1 eue@ad(!.yd)ozueg 1 6~18~ auazuag 3u!z wn!peuen p---,, Pm1 zz l-l_l.ll OOOL 001 f%eu laddo3 1 oos ~wtlru 11eqo3 ----L 16~6~ (IA) lun!wo~y3 hns~ayy oooe oo~ l ooe oos 1 I --. ool l OOoC -P W k---on ! 001. I t

1001 , I 1 I l I ~OOOOZL DOP BY/Bw l tlll) wn!uoJY3 l I I OOGZ OSZ i SMW 1 (lelolf run!wo~qg --"W l . 0 S 0 E 6~lBui wnlwpe3 . wnuag 1

-.-U I s] 000 Oc: OOL I oz 6Ylf'w! quaslv I 1 I l -A--

sotsaqsv i ----W---v

IwnFN ImnPN UntsN IunwN / PnleN iwnw j IwnleN / IernieN / lerrpe~--lerv~ wn Wieuv ---i EQLW~V-m ZEL~-O~V~-SQ I CELW~V-W IOELW~V-W GZLW~VQO [~ZLPO~V-90 LZL~~V-90 ~~ZLPO~W-m ISZLW~V-SO [PZLPO~V-go EZLPO~V-90 I I 1 l I 1 I MSN i S371 7llA 1 V 1lH ) f l3 iw 99ZlVU 3NOlSOIVYY SZE H3 N-ZE H3 N-E H3 1 62 H3 S-22 H3 N-ZZ H3 ] S-81H3 I M-L1 H3 j 3-L1 H3 1 S-L1 H3 ~3alyy0la , IOW

19W LOW I lOW . 19W . L3W 18W 1 I9N 1 19W 1 19W 1

SUMMARY SOIL SUMMARY COMPOSITE VALIDATION LABORATORY RESULTS for 31 Hampstead Road, Maidstone DIOMIDES MAIDSTONE DAI 255 Adopted Criteria .-MGT COMP B 06-JN04763 ..--Analyte Chromium (Total) Chromium (Ill) Chromium (V!) Mod. LLCS Mod. EIL -Unit mglkg mglkg mg/kg (3 Part) Fill MGT COMP G 06-JN04766 MGT SCPE 06-JN04764 (3 part) 833.. (2 part) 200 Mod. EIL MGT COMP F 06:JN_94765 (2 Part) (3 Part) 1'<:.I .
(2 part) 60000 Mod. HIL A Fill Fill I 50 (3 part) 40000 Fill 33.3 Mod. LLCS Mod. / Mod. l 1 , l Fill (2 part) -1250 Fill (2 part) (3 part) j L. I---11 I 125 1 83.3 1 DI0MIC)ES AND ASSOCIATES PN LTD

AV Jennings 6 September 2006 3 1 Hampstead Road, Maidstone, Victoria APPENDIX B AV Jennings 6 September 2006 3 1 Hampstead Road, Maidstone, Victoria APPENDIX B APPENDIX B Statement of Environmental Audit (Dr. Wayne Drew 9 May 2002), and excerpt from EGlS (2002) Environmental Audit, Maidstone Laboratory, Hampstead Road, Maidstone, Victoria ( ref : VP80 1 7,9 May 2002) S-\Et~vironUobsK:oombes Maidstone -32-0018VZeports\32.001S Ensironmcl~tal Audit Rcpon for 31 Hampstead Road, Maidstone, Victada finrrl.doe EWIRON

D Environmental Audit Maidstone Laboratory Hampstead Road Maidstone, Victoria Volume I . MAY 2002 Project No: VP8017

AFN cIaO 912 s3D ABM 18 W 912 630 the austral /an groupe egk company

TELSTRA CORPORATtON LIMITED Environmental Audit, Maidstone Laboratory, Hampstead Rcf, Maidstone, Victoria EXECUTlVE SUMMARY General Background Dr Wayne Drew, an appointed environmental auditor under section 53s of the Environment Protection Act 1970, was requested to undertake an environmental audit of the former Telstra Maidstone Laboratory Site at 31 Hampstead Road, Maidstone, Victoria. The land is currently owned by the Commonwealth of Australia and it is understood that the site, or parts of the site, are proposed to be rezoned for high density residential, commercial and industrial use under the Maribyrnong City Council Planning Scheme as part: of its future sale and redevelopment. This report summarises the jnvestigations cdmpleted, and the results and outcomes of the environmentalaudit of the site. Site Assessment The site assessment completed by GH2M Hill was undertaken over a period of approximately four years between 1998 and 2002, and comprised preliminary site characterisation, a detailed site histaty review to determine the nature of Defence use of the site, followed by site remediation and validation. The L-shaped audit site occupies an area of approximately 9.7 hectares and is currently unoccupied. The site is located in a predorninantiy mixed use area, and is currently designated as Commonwealth land. For the purposes of the investigation the south-east part of the

site is referred to as Lot 1, and the north-west part is referred to as Lot 2. The Lot 1 portionof the site is bordered by the Midway Migrant Hostel to the north, Hampstead Road to the east, the Australia Post Mail Exchange to the south, and Brwin Street (unconstnrcted road reserve) to the west. The Lot 2 portion of the site is bordered by the Medway Golf Club to the west, recently sub-divided open land to the north, a student village owned by the Victoria University of Technology to the east, and Almer Street {unconstructed road reserve)to the south. Preliminary investigations completed in June and July 1998 comprised a site history review, grid-based and targeted sampling programs at surface and 0.5m depths, and analysis for EPA screening parameters. Preliminary soil remediation in October 1998 focussed on sol located below former dieset above ground storage tanks and a cinder track located near the perimeter of sections of the site. Additional site history investigations by the auditor had revealed former Department of Defence (ie. pyrotechnics manufacture) use of the land, and supplementary work was compieted in March 1999 to test site soils for explosive residues, and to validate clean up of an additional section of cinder track. ~OO118~700 D:1Envir~nmentat\Projects\vp~Ol 1 ,dot VP8017.001 .Rev0 9May 2002 Page

TELSf

Environmental Audit Maidstone Laboratory, Hampstead Rd, Maidstone, Victoria

6gis Further site history investigations were undertaken in September 1999 to clarify the nature of site activities during Defence use of the land: These investigatibns confirmed that the site had previously formed part of the pyrotechnics section of the Explosives Fadory Maribyrnong. In 1960 the lsnd was transferred to the Post Master General(PMG)(later Australia Post and Telstra), andthe pyrotechnic facilities remained on site. In addition, site investigation undertaken by Harris Asbestos Management during 1998,together with soil analyses by CHZM Hill, had identified that site soils contained asbestos fibres and asbestos cement sheet fragments. The site remediation and validation investigation by CH2M Hill addressed -the contamination issues identified, including asbestos clean up and unexploded ordnance (UXO). Both targeted and grid-based sampling programs were used to assess the status of the site in terms of chemical end asbestos contamination-UXO investigations were conducted by Milsearch Pty Ltd both before and after asbestos clean up. The results of these investigations are discussed separatelybelow. Soil Contamination

Assessment On the basis of the environmental assessment findings, it has been specifically identified that concentrations of some inorganic parameters exceeded the ANZECC B Environmental fnvestigation Levels as follows: Elevated concentrations of arsenic, mercury and zinc at on'e location each, and copper at three locations, were considered to be associated with minor residual soil contamination and were isolated in extent. Slightly elevated concentrations of arsenic, chromium, copper, nickel and zinc identified in individual and composite samples were considered to be naturally occurring, and in an inert, mineralised form. Statistical analysis of the results for arsenic, chromium, copper, mercury, nickel and zinc showed that the 95% UCL concentration for these parameters was below the respective ANZECC B environmentalinvestigation level. Ail results were well below the respective health investigation levels, and are considered unlikely to be associatedwith adverse environmental impads. UXO Investigations Milsearch's UXO investigations were c~nduded over three stages. Stage 7 involved a preliminary investigation (Stage la) to charaderise the site, and a screening investigation (Stage ib) for large UXO which may have been encountered during asbestos clean up. Stage 2 covered all accessibIe areas of the site and was completed following site stripping to remove asbestos material and the majority

of previously detected metallic items. Stage 3 was completed after demolition of the remaining structures provided access to the rest of the site. 9 May 2002 Page ii

TELSTRA CORPORAT[QN UMfTED TELSTRA CORPORAT[QN Enyironmenbt Audit, irpafdst~ne Laboratory, Hampstead Rd, Maidstone, Victoria Overail, UXO investigations at the site cornptised a comprehensive site history compiled by CH2M Hill from records and interviews with former employees, the electromagnetic survey by ~ilsearch; and intrusive work completed both as part of environmental investigations, and as confirmation of the depth profile investigated. Excavations occurred across the site, which provide a substantial body of evidence from which to assass the potential for UXOs to remain on site. Excavations that allowed inspection of site conditions below the surface are lsted in Table 9 of this audit report. At the conclusion of their Milsearch data quality control review, CH2M Hill identified that of the 2,168 potential munitions target items in the four grid areas examined, a minimum of 99.3% were either removed or included as part of an additional survey arid investigation. The remaining 0.7% could not be confirmed as removed either due to their incidental removal during site works beiween Milsearch's Stage 2 and Stage 3 investigations, or due to a change in the refe~ence coordinates used in the Stage 3investigations. In the two grid areas (B7 and F8) where no demolition and clean up had occurred, and search coordinates had not changed, ail targets were identified to have been re-detected

and removed. Site areas were identified by CH2M Hill that had not been fully investigated by Milsearch, in terns of vertical extent, due to the presence of filling placed by Telstra [(or Telstra predecessors, PMG and Telecorn) over the site suiface that was present during Defence use of the land: These site areas were subsequently further investigated by CHZM Hill ether by test pits or by surface stepping, to confirm the absence of any evidence of waste burial pits that coufd contain UXQs. Site areas nut futly investigated by Milsearch in terms of lateral extent are as follows: She communications tower site and easement along the north-eastern boundary of Lot 1, identified on Plan af Subdivision PS 443690 Y attached to the Statement of Environmental Audit; A im wide strip of land on Lot 1, running from Hampstead Road to the communications tower at the north-east of Lot 1, where the presence of an optic fibres cable interfered with detection and couM not be excavated, identified as Area 1 on the Plan of Survey attached to the Statement of Environmental Audit; and

A 6m wide strip of land adjacent to the northern site boundary on Lot 2 where a high pressufe gas mains interfered with detection and could not be excavated identified as Area @I the Plan of Survey attached to the Statement of Environmental Audit. I The auditor'sreview of all the available information regarding the UXO survey and clean-up at the site has shown that

The three site areas where UXO survey yas not effectively completed can be clearly identified. These areas are (l)the easement along the northeastern site boundary on 9 May 2002 Page iii

PEMTRA Environmeritai Audit, Maidstone Laboratory. Hampstead R& Maidstone, Victoria &sis

Lot l, between Hampstead Road and including the communicationstower, (2) a a .Om wide strip of iand running from Hampstead Rdad to the communications tower et the north-east of Lot 1, and (3) a B.Om wide strip of land across the northern site boundary on Lot 2.These areas havebeen excluded from the audit. Areal search coverage of the site, other than known areas of limited survey, was reported by Milsearch to have been achieved with a reliability of 99.97 %; In site areas where a UXO survey was completed over a site surface present during Defence use of the land, the vertical extent of investigations was limited to a depth of 220mm for potential targets of 2.5cm (i inch) signal cartridge equivalent, 310mm for targets of No 69 grenade fuse equivalent, and 425mm for targets of 5 cm (2 inch) mortar bornb equivalent; + In site areas where the UXO survey was undertaken over filling placed.subsequent to Defence use of the site, further invesegations completed by CH2M Hill have prov'Kfed sacient evidence, based on observations,

tcl confirm that there are unlikely to be burial pits containing UXOs present. The Milsearch UXO investigations have been supplementedby CH2M Hill and Harris Asbestos investigations, which have been used to provide further infoimation regarding the absence of ordnance items, possible burial pitss, and the depth extent of Milsearch investigations. Potential targets were re-detected with a minimum reliability of 99.3%, and that this is fikely to bea conservative estimate. + Givsn that site dean up was lirnifed to the title boundaries, there remains a potential for UXUs to be present in off-site soils adjacent to the site boundaries. On the basis of the above assessment, it is considered that the Environmental Management Plans (EMPs) developed by CH2M Hill for the site provide the basis for management of the site in the cantext of future development in that they control subsurface access and limit devefopment and access in the vicinity of the site boundaries. The principal soil contaminant of concern at the site was asbestos. A clean up consisting of excavation and off-site disposal of asbestos rnateriat and asbestos contaminated soil to

[andfill was implemented. Nc asbestos fibres were detected in soil validation samples or during air rnonitaflng, and all visible fragments of asbestos containing material were removed during detailed visual inspections. However, CH2M Hill acknowledge that it is possible for fragments of asbestos containing material, identified as asbestos cement sheet, to rekain within site soils,as follows: Where deeper excavations extended to the natural bass# rock, the extent of soil excavation was limited by the presence of the iocks. CH2M Hill reported that the D:\Envi~nment~ItPrajecZ$tvp~Ol7\003\8017Q01 VP8027.001 .Rev0 9 May 2002 .&c Page jv

TELSTIU CORPORATlUN LIMITED Envirpnmental Audit, Maidstone hburatory, Hampstead Rd, Maidstone, Victoria

south-west tip site is considered to contain remnant asbestos within residual soils, particularly in the crevices between rucks. Following clean up, vatidation sampling and inspection of all excavations indicated the absence of asbestos. However, during subsequent detailed visual inspections, asbestos fragments were observed at the surface of areas previously identified to be free of asbestos c;ontarnination. CH2M t-fill; considered this to be due to the difficulty in identifying asbestos fragments within dayey soils. Under normal weather conditions of rain followed by wind and drying of site soils, asbestosfragments could be exposed at the site surface. Site specific criteria for asbestos were set by the Department of Human Services (DHS) forthe site as follows:

Demonstration that no visible asbestos material is present on site;and W Demonstration that the measured density of residuat asbestos in soil across the site can be demonstratedto be less that 0.0001% by weight. The quantification calculations completed by CHZM Hill as part of the validation program identifiedthat the quantity of asbestos remaining on site, with the exception of the south-

west tip site area, was well below the level of 0.0001 % (wfw] considered to be acceptable by the DHS. The average quantity of asbestos was calculated to range from 0.00002 to 0.00007 % (wlw), and the 95 % VCL of the average quantity of asbestos ranged from 0.00002 to 0.00008 % [wlw), excluding the south-west tip site area. . In the total south-west tip site area the quantity of asbestos remaining was calculated to be 0.0001 % (wfw), equal to the level set by DHS in their wwntten communication of 6 August 2001. However, in a sub-area wvering 25 m2 (WA 11) the residual asbestos level was calculated to be 0.00015 5% wlw (average) and D.00017 % wlw (95 56 UCL), indicatingthe potential for residual asbestos levels to exceed the DHS accepted levet. The sampling protocols adopted by CH2M Hill in reaching the above conclusions are summarisedin Table El. Table Ef : ~sbestos Sampling Prutocots

Site strippingta 100 mm depth; Air monitoring for asbestos fibres Visual inspection of all excavations Cable pits and conduits removal; during and at the conclusion of dean asbestos fibres; 55 test pits excavated on each of Lot l and Lot 2 an a 30 x 30 m grid, t6 a depth of 0.5m.

D:\~nvironnentat\PmjeCts\vp~803~001~01?~01 VP8017.001 .Rev@ 9 May 2002 .dot Page v

TELSTRA CORPQRATlON TELSTRA LIMITED Environmentat Audit, @aidstone Laboratory,Hampstead Rd,Maidstone, Victoria boundary where this fa outside the fence asbestos fibres; Visual inspection c~f 5-6m wide strips by four people in bath north-south and. east-west direction, Repeat inspection, as above, fdiowing soil turning; Detaiied inspection of south west tip site and Buildinglfootprint; CalIet;tion/rernoval of all asbestos, Visual inspection and colfedion of asbestos fragments fram each QAVA for weighing; + Repeat inspection following raking of surface soil and coiIection of asbestos fragments for weighing. Visugd iospection and colle&on of asbestos fragments for weighing.

h, , , i, 20 test pits to a minimum depth of trn to natural soil; Detailed site wafk~~er

six sub areas, each 20 X 20 m; Soils were turned over to a depth of 500 mm and the walkover was repeated, as above: r Additional dean up ofsouth-wetit tip site and Building ? footprint. Quant~cation of Residual Asbestos

Ten Quantitative Asbestos Vatidation Areas (QAVAs), each 5m X 5m (25 m2)staked out followed by a detaiied walkover; * Hand raking of each QAVA .Followed by a second& walkover,

Quantifcalion of

Residual Asbestos -South West Tip Site Ams

The auditor's evaluation of the results of asbestos clean up at the site, considering the advice provided by DHS, hasshown that

1 The .clean up work, as determined by valid~tion sampling and detailed inspections, has removed _the majority of asbestos from the site. Residual asbestos in Lot 1 and, exduding the south-west tip site area, in tot 2 is below the DHS accepted level of O.M)01 % (WM.

Residual asbestos in the south-west tip site area has the potential to exceed the DHS accepted level of 0.0001 % (wlw). These residual asbestos levels also do not meet the NSW EPA guideline of NOasbestos in the surface to 1.Om depth range. The ernpfing protocols adopted by CH2M Hill in quantifying the level of residual asbektos

on site are sufficient to characterise the current condition of the land, and to assgs 2nd manage any risks posed by residuaf asbestos material. i

~h&e remains a potential for asbestos cm&t sheet fragments within the near sudace layer of sol to be exposed due to soil erosion (wind and rain);: and soil mqbernents (traffic), and this does not meet the DHS advicaof 'no visible asbestos'. r t

9May 2002 Page vi

TELSTRA LIMITED Environmentai Audit. Maidstone Laboratory,Hampstead Rd. Maidstone, Victoria Given that site clean up was limited to the title boundaries, there remains a potential for asbestos material to be present in off-site soils adjacent to the site boundaries. On the basis of the above assessment, it is considered that the EMPs developed by CH2M Hill for the site provide the basis for management of the site in the context of high den%% residential, commercial and industrial development in that they control sub-surface access and limit development and access in the vicinity of the site boundaries. Aesthetic Assessment Minor quantities of building rubble, including asbestos cement sheet fragments, remain on site. In addition, minor staining and odour remain below the concrete base of the former accumulators area at a depth of approximately 1.5m below the final (ba~kfilled) site surface. Further investigations confined that odours in a gravel layer were slight and staining was limited in extent. ft is considered that the area of soil discalouratiun and odour noted above and the amounts of building debris remaining on site are minor in extent and not significant in aesthetic terms for future development of the site for high density residential, commercial and industfiat use.

Groundwater Assessment The CH2M Hill environmental investigations identified that no storage tanks containing potential contaminants were present on site. Groundwater investigations co m pleied by CH2M Hill at the site comprised the installation of five groundwater bores: three in April 2000 (GW1 to GW3), one in February 2001 (MWS) and one in May 2001 (GW4). CH2M Hill reported that groundwater is approximately 30m below the site within silty clays beneath the basalt rock, and flows in a southe,dy direction towards Port Phillip Bay. Groundwater samples were recovered from GW1 to GW3 in two sampling rounds, May 2000 and October 2000, and fram GW4 in May 2001. Groundwater was nut intercepted in bore MWS installed in February 2001. Analysis of groundwater samples identified elevated concen~~ations of arsenic, copper, lead, nickel, zinc and TPH, in groundwater below the site, exceeding freshwater ecosystem protection criteria. Based on a review of the information presented in the CH2M Hilf environmental site assessment, it was considered unlikely

fur groundwater paltutian to Rave occurred at the site or in the vicinity of the site as a result of site activities, for the fallowing reasons: No USTs were identified sn site, and no external evidence af USTs was identified on properties in close proximity to the site. It was confirmed in May 2001 that groundwater contamination resulting from potential spitiages or leakages from the former accumulator pump area (Area 43) had not occurred. Test pitting around this area, and observations during drilling of the groundwater bore confirmed that the slight odours and discatouration identified were limited in both lateral and vertical extent. 9 May 2002 Page vii

TEtSTRA LIMITED Environmental Audit, Maidstone Laboratory, Hampstead Rd, Maidstone, V[cf;oria

While a diesel spill was identified to have occurred in Area 28 at the site, this was found to be generally limited to the highty permeable bedding sands around a stormwater drain. Migration of diesel into the underlying natural clay soil was reported to be limited, and the clays were free of odour. A fourth groundwater bore was installed to a depth of 30.3m in the vicinity of Area 28.While groundwater was nut intersected at this location, PID readings and observations of the lithology confirmed contamination had nut migrated through the sub-surface. TPH contamination in two groundwater samples, GW1 and GW2 recovered in the May 2000 sampling round was considered to be the result of laboratory contamination {refer to Section 5.3.1). A second round of groundwater sampling and analysis confirmed the absence of TPH contamination. Soil contamination identified during the various environmental investigations was confined to prior filling and near surface disturbed natural soils. Undisturbed natural clays below the diling and disturbed material were reported not to be impacted by the identified contamination in overlying soils.

Slight[y elevated concentrations of arsenic, chromium, nickel and zinc in natural soils at the site are considered to be a natural occurrence. Naturally occurring inorganic parameters are most iikely to be in rin inert. mineralised form, and therefore not readily leachable into the underlying groundwater. 'The depth to groundwater is approximately 30m below the sulface of the site, and groundwater is expected to be protected by the layers of low permeability clay soils and weathered basalt found at the site. Concentrationsof arsenic, copper, lead, nickel and zinc repprted in groundwater below the site are considered to be representative of local groundwater qualty in the vicinity of the site. Groundwater quality in the down gradient bores, GW3 and GW4, did not differ significantlyfrorn the up gradient bores, W1 and GW2. CH2M Hi[[ undertook a review of groundwater quality in the region. A report by Shugg (1981) identifisd average concentrations of heavy metals in the New Volcanics consistent with or exceeding those reported at the site. Mean concentrations of cadmium, chromium, copper and lead exceeded concentrations reported at the site, and the mean concentrationof zinc was consistent with those reported at the site.

On the basis of the above information it is concluded that the groundwater has not been impacted by on-site or off-site contamination, and that elevated concentrations of arsenic, copper, lead, nickel and zinc in groundwater below the site are representative of the backgrounj groundwater quality in the vicinity of the site. ~:~nvir~nme~tal\~roject:~~~p\8017\~01~601 TOO .doc VPB017.001 .Rev0 9 May 2002 Page viii

TELSTRA CORPORAT!ON LIMITED Environmental Audit, Maidstone Laboratory, Hampstead Rd, Maidstone, Victoria

Audit Conclusions On the basis of the above assessment it has been concluded that a Statement of Environmental Audit can be issued with the following conditions to manage residual asbestos contamination at the site. and to manage the residual risk from undetected unexplclded ordnance. * The condiditions below musi be read in conjunction with the attached environmental managementplans prepared by CH2M Hill (May 2002): P Teistra Corporation, Maidstone Laboratory Si Remediation and Site Validation, Environmental Management Plan -Development of the Site (Reference: l01 387.0a6Rev4); and Telstra Corporation, Maidstone Laboratory Site Rernediatian and Site Validation, EnvironmentalManagement Plan -Future Site Use(Reference: 101387.007Rev4). These management plans include procedures for the safe handling and disposal of any asbestos containing material andh any ordnance items that may be

found during earthworks, and must be implemented at the commencement of site development works, and shall remain in place to cover excavation an the site during its ongaing use. Prior to any development work commencing, a layer of clean fill matsial must be placed over residual soils across the site, with the exception of the soutkwest tip site, to a minimum depth of 0.3m to achieve the DHS 'no visible asbestos' criterion. At the conclusion of development works, including building, fill to a minimum depth of O+Sm must be placed over all unsealed areas, including garden areas around buiidhgs, with the exception of the south-west tip site. The south-west tip site area, identified as Area 3 on the Pfan of Survey (Drawing No. 0499005f03), a copy of which is attached to the Statement of Environmental Audit, must have clean fill material placed,and maintained, to a minimum depth of 1.0rn.

ke site boundaries must be securely fenced, and excavation work near the site boundaries must be managed, such that site users do not come into contact with off-site

soil, and off-site soil does not contaminate the audit site. No development should be undertaken in Areas 1 and 2, currently excluded. from the audit and identified on he Plan of Sutvey, until this land has been fully investigated to confirm the absence of UXOs. These areas must subsequently be subject to an envimnmerrtal audit by an EPA accredited environmental auditor (Contaminated land}, and a Certificate or Statement of EnvironmentaL Audit issued for Arealand Area 2, O:\Enviranmnta~~Projects~vp\B~17~001t8017001 9 May 20Q2 .dw VP8017.001 .Rev0 Page ix

ENWRUNMENT PRt3fEGTCON ACT 4 970 STATEMENT OFENVIRONMENTAL AUDiT I, Dr Wayne Drew of Egis Consulting Australia Pty Limited, a person appointed by the Environment Protection Authority (?he Authority') under the Environment Protection Act 1970 y ('the Act) as an environmental auditor for the purposes of the Act, having been requested by Mr George Thhalas of Telstra Corporate Property Services to ksu& a certificate of environmental audit in relation to the site located at 31 Hampstead Road, Maidstone. (+the site') (Certificate of Ttle Volume 10272. Fol. 749. Parish of Cut Paw Paw, County of Bourke) owned by Telstra Corporation Limited (see Plan of Subdjvision, and Plan of Audit Area (Figure l), attached) had regard to, amongst other things, guidelines issued by the Authority for the purposes af Part IXD of the Act, the benefidal uses that may bemade ofthe site, and

relevant State environment protection policieslindustrial waste management policies, namely the State Environment Protection Policy (Waters of Vidoria), State Environment Protection Policy rhe Air Environment),and the State Environment Protection Policy (Groundwaters of Victoria), in making a total assessment of the nature and extent of any ham or detriment caused to, orthe risk cf any possible ham or detriment which may be causedto, any beneficial use made of the site by any industrial proesses or activity, waste W substance (including any chemical substance), and completed an environmental audit report in accordance with Section 53X of the Act, a copy of which has been sent to the Authority. HEREBY STATE thatIam of the opinion that The site is suitable forlhe following beneficiai uses subject to the conditions attached thereto: Maintenance of modified ecosystems, human heath, buildings and structures and aesthetics in the context of high density residential, commafcial and industrial development, subject ta the following conditions: A layer of clean fill material must be placed over residual soils across the site. with the

exception of the southvest tip site, to a minimum depth of 0.3m immediately and prior to any site activity to achieve a criterion of 'no visible asbestos' set by the Department of Human Services (DHS) fur the site. At the conclusion of development works, including any buildings, clean MI material to a minimum depth of 0.5m must be placed over all unsealed areas, includinggarden areas around residences,with the exception of the south-west tip site. The purpose of this layer is to ensure the DHS criterion of 'no visible asbestos' can be managed into the future.

The south-west tip site area, identified as Area 3 on the Plan of Survey (Dradng No. 0499005103), a copy of which is attached to the Statement of Environmental Audit, must have clean fill material placed, and maintained,to a minimum depth of 1.0m. Any development must be undertaken in accordance with the attached environmental management plans (EMPs) prepared by CH2M Hill (May 2002); ; Telstra Corporation, Maidstone Laboratory Site Remediation and Site Validation, Environmental Management Plan -Development of the Site (Reference: 4 04 387.006Rev4); and ; Teistra Corporation, Maidstone Laboratory Sjte

Remediation and Site Validatian, Environmental Management Plan Future Site Use (Reference: 101 387.007Rev4). These management plans include identification of a bcdy corporate (W equivalent) which is responsible for implementation of the management plan, and procedures for the safe handling and disposal of any asbestos containing material ador any ordnance items that may be found during earthworks. The plans must

be implemented at the commencement of site development works, and shall remain io place to cover occupation and maintenance of the site during its ongoing use. If at any time the site is subject to the issue of rezoning and redevelopment plans, a revised EM? may need to be prepared by an appointed environmental auditor for the site Upon determination of a development plan for the site, an EPA accredited environmental auditor (Contaminated Land) must be appointed to observe, verify and document that the relevant Environmental Management Plans are implemented as folIaws: '1. Prior to any development work commencing, and during construction activties, ie. in accordance with the Environmental Management Plan Development of the Site (Reference: 1 01 387.006Rev4); 2. Prior to occupancy, ie. in accordance with the Environmental Management Plan Future Site Use (Reference:1 01 387.007Rev4); and 3. If any redevelopment of the site for similar purposes is proposed, ie. in accordance with each of the jabovementioned plans as appropriate. The site boundark3 must be securely fenced to prevent access to adjacent land by site

occupants, and excavation work near the site boundaries must be managed, such that site users do not come into contact with off-site soil, and off-site soil does not contaminate the audit site* The condition of the site is detrimentalorpotentially detrimental to any (one or more) beneficial use of the site. Accordingly, I have nut issued a Certificate of Environmental Audit for the site in its current condition, the reasons for which are presented in the environmental audit report. me terns and conditions that need to be complied with before a Certificate of Environmental Audit may be issued are set out as follows: Site soiis to a depth confirmed as undisturbed natural soil, or to bedrock, including soils between rocks, must be cleaned up to remove any remaining fragments of asbestos material and to confirm that unexpladed ordnance associated with pyrotech nic devices are not present.

* In the context of ensuring no residual aesthetic issues remain on site, building rubble and other I-ernnanfs of site structures should be excavated and removed off-site. Other related information: Two areas within the title bsundary of the site have been wtuded from the audit These areas are ident'fied as Area 1 and Area 2 on the Plan of Survey, and on the Plan of Audit Area (Figure 1 ), attached. If excavation is undertaken generating surplus soiI requiring disposal off-site, then these suits need to bt3 managed in accordance ~4th refevant EPA guidelines. The total volume of saiI which may remain on site impacted by asbestos material, ordnance related items, and remnant building material is wt accurately known and can only be determined once excavation works are undertaken. It is known that the remains of a concrete

slab appmximately 30 m long and 10 m wide is located between 1.2 and 1.5 m depth .below fie final site surface on the south eastern portion of the site (refer to CH2M Hill report, Nay 2002). Given that site clean up was limited to the title boundaries, there remains a potential for asbestos material and ordnance items to be present in off-site saiils adjacent to the site boundaries. This Statement fams part of environmental audit report Egis Consulting Australia Pty Limited, Maidstone laboratoty, Hampstead Road, Maidstone, Victoria, VP8017.001 .WO, May 2002. DR WAYNE DREW ENVIRONMENT' AUDfTQR

AREA 2' AREA LOCATION OF DRAIN AND GAS MAINS Sm WlDE [EXCLUDED) LEGEND _II__ LOT 2' gg;g~g~~~ EXCLUDED AREAS OF LlMlSED INVESTIGATION DUE 10 PRESENCE OF UNDERGROUND SERVICES y///A AREA 3' AUDIT AREA TEiSTRA COMMUNICATIONS TOWER AND ANCILLARY BUILO1NG {EXCLUDED} AUDIT AREA LOT l2 SOUTH WEST T[P SlTE AREA 1' LQCATION OF FIBRE OPTICS CABLE Im WlDE (EXCLUDED) EXISTING EASEMENT FOR UNDERGROUND HIGH I VOLTAGE POWER LWE 20 C1 20 40 60 80 METRES NOTES: 1. THE TERMINOLOGY 'AREA' RELATES '10 PORTIONS OF THE SITE WHICH HAVE BEEN EITHER EXCLUDED FROM THE AUDIT SlTE OR TREATED SEPARATELY (I.E. AS FOR AREA 31 FROM THE TOTAL SITE, 2. THE TERMiNOLOGY 'LOT' WAS USED TO SEPARATE THE TOTAL SITE

INTO TWO CONVENIENT PORTIONS DURING THE ASSESSMENT PHASE OF THE PROJECT. TELSTRA CORPORATION ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT MAIDSTONE LABORATORY SlTE A utmIia S~TE PLAN OFAUDIT AREA \/PBM7-FlG1 VP8917.001 Rev0 FlGURE l h

AV J AV ennings 6 September2006 3 1 Halnpstead Road, Maidstone, Victoria APPENDIX C APPENDIX C Statement of Environmental Audit (Mr. Richard Graham 7 November 2005) ,and excerpt from Sinclair Knight Mertz (2005) Report of Environmental Audit, 31 Hampstead Road, Maidstone (ref: WC02362,7 November 2005) S.'EnvironUobs'Cwrnbes -Maidstune 32-0018\Reports\32 0018 -Environmental Audit Report for 3 i Hampstead Road, Maidstone.Victoria tinaf.doc ENVIRON

Report of Enviroilmental Report of Audit: 31 Hampstead Road, Maidstone Coornes Consulting Group and AVJennings Limited November 2005 GOPYRIGHR The concepts and information containedin this document are the propsTty of Sixlair ICnighI Merr Pty Ltd. Use or copying af this document in whole or h part wiihout the written permission of Sinclair Knight Men constiiutes an infringement of copyright

Summary of Environmental Audit Background to Environmental Audit An environmental audit has been completed in accordance with Pa~t ED of the Environment Protection Act 1970, for the site located at 31 Hampstead Road, Maidstone, Victoria. The site is defined by Certificate oFTitle Vol 10580 FoT 422 and is Lot A on Plan of Subdivision PS 443690Y. The site occupies a total ar~a of 9.785 ha. The audit site was formerly Comm~nwealth Government land, Being used for pyrotechnics manufacture as part ofthe Department of Defence's Ex~losives Factory Maribymong (EFM) in the 1940s-1950s and then as an experimental centre for Telstra and its predece$sos bodies from 1958 to the late 1990s. The site was subsequently acquired by AVJennings Limited, which proposes to subdivide and develop the site for standard and medium density residential use, with a public open space component. The development layout, subdivisian @an and title details for the future devebpment

011 the audit site are not yet available. AVJennings proposes to undertake site development works, including earthworks and construction of services and other facilities. This approach has the advantage of allowing a higll degree of conti-01 over soil placement, site levels, management of ~ontalninated soil (if my)and response to envjronmental issues which may arise. . . . . , '.. : . .. . . To acl&ve planning approval, AVJennings requires that a statutory environmental audit be.conducted, with the issue of a Certificate or Statement of EnvinmrnentaI ~u.dii the effect that the site is suitable For the proposed use or uses (subject to condition'sif necessary). Mr Richard Gral~am of Sinclair Knight Men was engaged as the auditor ill November 2002 for this purpose.

Previous Assessment, Remediation and Audit Prior to divestment, Tclstra undertook a process ~f site clearance, demoIition and remediation, site contamination assessnlent and Validation (by consultants CWM Will and others) and a statutory environmental audit (by Dt Wave Drew of Egis Consulting) aver the period 1998-2002. This process is described in a series of reports by CH2M Hill (1 999-2002) and Bgis Consulting (May 2002). The outcome of this process was confinnation by the auditor (Dr Drew) that the site is suitable for high density residential, commercial or ind~~strial use, subject to a number of conditions on site deveIapment and management,principally dated to the presence of nsbestos residues and possibly pyrotechi~ics and uexploded clrdllance (WXO) items on the site. SpecifimIly, the auditor requited that a layer of 0.3m of

clean soil bct placed over the site prior to development, and increased in depth to a minimum O.5m and maintained in exposed soil areas post-development. The purpose of this clem soil layer was to provide an effective barrier over soil potentially containing asbestos fragments and UXO resjducs, and specifically to comply with the adopted "no visible asbestos" requirement. The auditor also required that construction and fiiture rise bc managed in accordance with Environmental Management Plans (EblPs) respectively for the site F.,,." ,a**N*..,w.%*-.,'.,,, .... *,.. . h.... ... L*,m-,."---,--.*.+.-.--.m+----~,..~.".~..--.~~,~-""--." ---.L*.).. b."*-+...,.---,-.." ---. WC02362:ROl f?AGCCGS.DOC PAGE 4

construction and future site use stages. These EMPs were prepared by CH2M Hill and ' endursed by Dr Drew. The EMPs (among other things) provided controls over dist~~rbance ofsoils below the clean surface layer, procedures for the safe handling and disposal ofasbestos or UXQ in the event that sucb materials are uncovered on the site and EMP imple~~~entatiun though a: body corporate or similar armngement. It is noted that the actual nature of the development was not h~.owh at that time, and the audit did not address &c suitability or otherwise af the site for low or medium density residential or upm space uses (the uses now proposed). Even if the audit outcome were to be applied to the proposed development, ~~Jenninffs and Coomes Consulting consider that some of the audit requirements are impractical and inappropriate. The present re-audit of the site was therefore intended to result in the

issue OF an~tl~er Audit which' is audit report md Statement af Environmental compatible with the proposed site develupmnt and long-term tnanagement. The EMPs were alw to be revised accordingly. .: . .. , . . . ~ev/ew&f Site ~ssessmentand . . . ' . . Audit Reports. :: hi present auditor has reviewed the available relevant reports describing the staged site' investigations, ren-iediation, validation and audit which were undertaken fur Telstra over the period 1 998-2002, specifically the assmsment and remediation reports by consulianls CH2M

Hill (1999-2002), bXQ consuItants/contractors Milsearclh (200U),

asbestos consultants/conatrs Harris Asbestos Management Consultants (200U) and envii-onmen tal auditor Dr Wayne Drew of Egis Consulting (May 2002). , . . . . . . . .' .:.. . . . . ~asih on this review,,the process appears to l~ave be& conducted and &umented in . ,.'+ . -. . . ith6rough:'wd pmfessional manner, in accordance with current gbod practice and I. . reikvah. legislation, standards, policies and guidelines. Properly qualified and i~~&i~~edcorisultant~con~a~tors were engaged for the specinlist

roles df asbestos and UXO investigation and management. The auditor was involved from early in fhe process (October 1 998), and his requirements have been satisfactorily metAccordingly, ihe present auditor is confident that the data and information presented in the available reports is reliable for the burposc of this further audit of the site (subject to cllanges in site conditions or environmental standards which may hove crcc~~ned in the periud which has elapsed since completion af the earlier audit in May 2002). . , Outline,'uf Key Issues Asbestos Residues The mast significant contamination issue 1-elnajning on the site is that of asbestos residues on the site s~lrf'ace anhr ]in the sail profife. Asbestos residues are present l)seduminantly in the EOMI of Frrgn.lmts or small pieces of asbestos-cemeht (bonded asbestos) sheeting or

pipes, wllich remain from the historical or recent demolition of buildings and other struchres on the site. Although extensive clean-up of waste deposits, fit1 or soil containing asbestos residues has been undertaken, the final. site validation in mid-2000 found that same asbestos residues remain on the site surface or embedded in near-surfacesoils randomly across much of the site [mainly thc northern half, referred to as Lot 2). A higher concentration of asbestos sesidues was reported to remain in the south-west tip site , ....._. -..-_I_.*--.-,--~-,V--TP~.U r---.r..*r. *.-m,.-S. ., .... .-...-.P -. r .. -.+ --A ..r .,v+-.,.-.,-c--. ., --,,.,,. .-.--, ..*, ,--.-r .*-. WC02362:ROf PAGCCG3.DpC

PAGE S l

..,. -. .. ..

area (SWTSA) in the sout11-west corner of Lot 2, where they are lodged within basalt rocksand could not pmctica2ly be ren~oved. Overall, the final validation results (before backfilling of some areas) suggest that there is a low density of about one visible asbestos-cement hgment per 10-100ir? cf site area. Inspections of the walls of test pits across the site during the stages cif validation testing did not report any visible asbestos fi-agn~a-its below the si tr: surface layer, nor did laboratory analysis of soil samples from validation test pits detect asbestos fibres in soil. These findings indicate that asbestos material is generally ugly present in the form of asbestos-cement fragments scattered across the soil surface and embedded in the top Xayer of soil. This asbestos material does not present a significnnt actual health risk, except in the extremely ~~nlikely event that the bonded asbestus' cement material is eroded or broken up to release asbestos fibres into the air, which are then inhaled in significant numbers..

.... . . ... .. . . Quantification of asbestos cbncentratidn in soil reported that no area contained more than 0.0001% asbestos, other than th SWTSA which: contained about 0.000f. 0.0002% asbestos. No airborne fibres were detected by air quality monitoring during the remediation and assessment program. The extensive remediation program gives a high degree of co&dence that no sjgnificsmt undiscovered waste deposits containing asbestos tnaterial remain on the . $it&.'; Remediation and investigation .to the site boundary showed that asbestos . . finyients remain present in soils off-site, particularly to the south and south-west. . . . , . j t.

, . . . S . . : ....... ....... to ketemi~le the acceptability or otherwise of tl,e final site conditions,tile . ... In' order . : : previous:, auditor, Dr Drew, considered relevant guidelines and advice.fbm the . , regil1aibr-y' authorities, specifically the Victorian Department of' Human Servites' . (which was endorsed by the EPA). The key guidefines reconmended by DHS to be met for this site aye: . . U No visible bbestos material is to be present on site (nominally in the top one 1riet1.e) to give confidence that no asbestas material is uncovered by residents during day-to-day gardening activities on standard residential sites. Other pote1'1tia31y exposed persons or groups, including construction workers, are to be protected by appropriate standards .

n The estimated asbestos in soif concentration of. ~0.0001% is considered conservative, as it represents a safety factor of fOx on available guibmce levels. . To implement these guidelines through the conditions of a Staten~ent of E~~vironrnental Audit and a site Constcuction Environmental Management Plan, Dr Drew required a layer of cfean soil to be placed and maintained over the site surface as the means of preventing discovery of visible asbestos illaterid by site occupmts. The presait auditor bndntook a further site conditio~~s verification program in May 2003, which included inspection of the site surface and subs~rfiacc at 20 test pits excavated at selected locations across the sik. Asbestos-cement pieces were found m the site surface in the southern part of Lot 2, but no visible asbestos was identified beneath ihe surface in any test pit, and lnboratory analysis did not detect asbestos fibres inhriy of the 17

soil samples analysed. ....l....,.. +..-.rr..-........... *-.--x-ru=-*l....rrrrr-Cpc-u ......I r-,,u*MY.,IL,w,w..~'C1 .,.+"1I._i.^Lr-*rl.U*.*,-.C"CI* "r<--V.y---.. llr**,.",*).irr a WCD2362:ROI RAGCCG3.DOC PAGE6

In addition, no asbestos residues were reported during the environmental assessment of the fibw optic cabte easement in May 2005. Pyrotechnics and UXO Resldues The site was formerly used for the assembly of pryotechi~s devices. The site history information indicates that the explosives used in these devices were manufactured elsewl~ere, but wastes or surplus productiui~ items were likelyto have been disposed of (by burial or b~~ming) on. Zl1e site or on adjacent Iand. Thk site potentidly contains residues of these pyrotechnics devices oi* explosive material (collectiLely referred to as . UXU) which required identificatiun and clearance by removal to render the site safe

for future develapment and use. A comprehensive and staged UXO survey and remediation program was undertaken 'by specialists Milsearcb in 1999-2000, based on a site-wide geophysical (electromagnetic) survey, excavation of identified targets (potential UXO) ad their removal from the site. Very few actual UXO w UXO-related items were discovered. Twoitems contaixsing live esplosive crmtnt, incfudiag one Iivc 2" mortar bomb, were found and removed, as well as a nuinber of not%-hazarclous items such as small anns stmmuni tion ar casings. Following the completion of Be survey and clean-up, Milsearch certified (to a confidmce level of 99.97%) that the; site is free of UIYO or related items to specified depths between 220 and 425mm depending on the size of the potential item. The

previous auditor (Dr Drew) accepted that the UXO removal was completed in accordance with best practice and concluded that tI1a-e was a very low risk that significant UXO-related item5 remain on the site. . . The hi$h'pressure gas pipeline and fibre optic cable casements within the audit site boundaries were not surveyed or cleared for UXO prior to the completion of the 2002 audit, and'so the certification given by Milsearch did not apply to these casements. Fallowing removal of the fibre optic cables from thr: casement in the south-enstern area ofthe site in early 2005, Milsearch ~~ndertook UXQ clearance of this easement in ader for a soil sampling program to proceed. No UXO-rclated items were reported,

5011 Contamination The assessment and past-remediation validation program by CW2M Hill included comprehensive testing of site soils for chemical conttuniz~aticsn, including an appropriate range of potential inorganicand organic contaminants, The auditor confirmed that no contaminants we present in site soils at concentrations which pose sipificant risks to human health or the environment under any of the site uses for which #be Statement of Environmental Audit applied, tl~at is high density residentiai, commercial or indus&ial use. Minor cxceedences of eculrtgical investigation levels for some rnctal$metalloids were not coasjdesed significant. No explosive residuts were detected in any sample analysed. The pyesent auditor's review of the previous data and reports indicates; that the sm concIusion may be reached for IOW or medium density residential or .open spacehecreation land uses, as proposed by AVJennirigsTo confirm this conclusion, a furth$s site soif.

quality verification progran1 was conducted by the present env,irunmental auditor and support staff from Sinclair Knight Men in May 2003. . ..,, ".\-r...-5--.,--?.--..,.-,.~ -"--l *Ir.-.-"--.*.-l..-,--..~ ^.,*..*..YTf_.w,.*,.y,*~,~"-,+."%.,.*-* C, 1. ..

-....,*S "..N...*. .?., -*,.,,,-,,, >r-,.L *..,--. . ..,-. WC02362:RUl RAGCCG3,DOC PAGE 7

from 20 test pits excavated across the site did not find any si~ificant soil contzrmiqation, and the auditor concludes that soil contaminant concentrations dc, not present a signjfica~zt risk to 11uman health or the envhnrnet~t under any feasible future site use. Environmental assessment of the fumer fibi-t optic cable easement in May 2005 reported similar uncontaminated conditions in .fill and natural soils. The auditor tl~erefore makes the same conclusion in relation to this casement. Groundwater Contamf nation Groundwater at the site was investigated by CH2M Hill by installation and n~onituring of five groundwater bores in 2000-2001. The watertable is at a considerabIe depth of >30m and there were few potential sources af groundwater contamination at the site. Based on the findings of the @-uundwrate~

investigation, tb previous auditor concluded that the groundwater at the site is not contaminated Trom any past site use or activity. Cmei~hati~lls of sonic metals (arsenic, ,copper, lead, nickel and zinc) exceeded surface water ecosyste11-1 protection guidelines, but are attributable to naturally-occurring levels in the basalt aquifer, The present auditor endorses these conclusions and did not require further poundwater investigation or remediation. Aesthetic Conditions The' demonstrated presence of residual asbestos-cement pieces on the site is cbnxidered to be an aesthetic constraint on the future site use. Future residents may be : concerned at the potential for adverse health effects in the event that asbestoscontaining material is discovered during site activities such as gardening, not withstanding that the actual health risk would be negligible. The manageinent measures prop~sed to he implemented tl~o11g11 are designed to

the cohstntction EMP reduce the risk of discovery of asbestos to acceptably low levels. As part ofthe future site managen~ent, information will also be provided in a future use EMP to future landowners and ofher site users on the risks of asbestos and other potentially hezardous materials which may be encountered on the site, which wilI assist in putting any aesthetic concerns into context, The site contains the u~ldergound concrete conduit fomterly containing the fibre optic cables, and a concrete slab at i .5m depth in the central-eastern part of Lot 1, under which some stained and slightly odorous soil remains. Minor amounts of demolition debris (including biick, concrete, metal, plastic and wire remain On the site or embedded in site soils. These conditions will be addressed during the site development. Tilere are; no other significant aesthetic concerns on the site. .

Management of Health, Amenity and Environmental Risks The present a~~ditor has considered the available information on site conditions and the potential for adverse effects oh human health, the amenity of future site occupantsand on the environment, and is ofthe upinion that the significant issuesare c~nfi~t(3d to the presence of residual asbestos and (to a lesser extent) possible UXO residues and the aesthetic cand.-tion of the site due to other remiant items from past site uses or demolition. W-. ..,. .. .... '".---W... .*,.,.h.-.-y r. S., . 4,. ..I..* .II,*.rn-' .TA-&*&. , 4. *--c,, , m-..*rtr.+.-.c,. .re, ,--r-..*r,r '"1. '-_~-l,,

..M* --.m.rrr

.', -.MIC02362:ROl ~GCCG3.DM; PAGE 8

his opinion, will provide a suitably high level of risk mmiagement wit11 respect to asbestos residues. Tltese guidelines and t11e options for complimce wit11 them are described in this audit report and summa~ised below: D A quantitative guideline of <0.0001% asbestos in soil has been de~~~anstrated to be met on the site in its current condition, otl~er th potentiallyin the ~0~1th-west area of Lot 2, where firtwe placement of a clean soil layer will have the effect at' achieving this guidance level ir.1 the surface soil layer. o No visible asbestos is to remain or be present in the top one metre of soil 011 ~rnpaved areas of standard residential land (residential lots ofarea X 00n12). This condition may be met in a number

of ways, at the discretion of ihe developer. These options include by excavation to a clem undisturbed natura'i soil surface, or by placement of thespecified depth of clean fill or tupsoiI m the site. .It is noted that some areas bf the site already have a clean fill layer of varying depths, which may comply with this guideline. . . o No visible asbestos is to remain or be in the top 0.5m of soil on unpaved areas of medium or high density residential land (lots of area <300m2). The redi~ced depth requirement is consistent with the reduced opportunity for exposure: of soils to depth during landscslpil~g or other activities in smafl wurtyard-type private gardens on higher density dwelli~lgs. The options .hr.

compliance are simi br to those. outli ned above for standard residential lots. Public open space or secreation nn?u are to have a cleari soil cover, with no . visible asbestos, of at last O.Sm. Excavation to beyond this depth.which may e . . occur inpost-development landscape activities will be cbnducted by Council staff :. + ' or coi-hctors, who will be provided with npprbpriaie advice in regard to risks . and response in the event that asbestos residues ore found: Paved roadways and similar do not require additional constxr~ctlon or management controls, such PS clean soil placement, prior to cbnstxuction. Irnplemcntation of these guidelines will have the effect or Furtl~er

reducing the already very low risks of disco~cry of UXO residues, shauf d any remain on the 'land. In any areas where excavation to a clcan, undisturbed natural soil surface takes place, fhese ~isk$ would be ~onsidered~to be effectively removed. Conclusions and Statement of Environmental Audit The aitditor is of the opinion that the risks to the safe future site development and use from the presence of ask~tus residues are low, but justify the issue of a conditional Staten~ent of'Environmenta1 Audit rather thm an unconditional Certificate of Enviroomentol~ Audit. The risks assooiated with asbestos and other potentially , hazardous dterials which may ~enlain on site should bc addressed by site makagement controls during both the development construction

stage (in accardancc wikh an appropriate Construction EMP), and future site use (by means of a future use EMP to inforin site owners and users). These EMPs witl be given effect tlro~tgh section 173 agreemelts between the responsible planning authority and the developer and fir ture oivnefs, occupiersand semi cing authox-ities or their conbactors. After considering thd issues described in this audit rqo& and having prepared this audit report in accordince with Section 53X of the Environment Protection Act 1970, i

...--. a... -<-..',-;Px..'-~-~~Ps.~'Y--.*,C-.

. ,...*--r-r.-*'. -C.-....r*-r.v,-r~..C-r"rr.--.:r..-r.a,." .,.,, ii i.:,i.-C.~C.L..,* >* .-....I
VL~C~~~C~~:RO?RAGCCG~.DOQ PAGE B I i *,: ....*..-.--.... .-r

envir011rnenta'I auditar is of the opini~n that the site subject to thrs audit is detrim'ental or potentially detrimental to some beneficial uses of the site. Accordingly, the auditor has not issued a Certificate of EnvironnzenhI Audit for this site. The auditor has issued a Statement ofEnvironmental Audit in accordance with Section 532 of the Act. The Statement confirms that the site is suitable for the beneficial uses associated with the land uses of sensitive (all firms of residential), public upen space, cumercial w industrial, subject to conditions related to the management or residual asbestos on or in site soils. The Statement of Envkonmentsll Audit is attached to this audit report (following Section 7). Environmental Management Plans The health, amenity and e11v ironmental risks identified and discussed above require management during and a.k develcrpment of the site. The proposed ineans of risk management is through a two-stage environmental management process:

(a) a Conshuctiun Bnvironmemtal Management Plan which will identify ttzc relevant issues and risks, and provide measures :for the management of these risks during the site construction phase, so that the development may proceed without un~cceptnble risks to the health or amenity of workers and future site occupants; and : . (b) a future use Envimnniental Management Plan, which will provide advice on site . . conditions and appropriate response md site management measures ta be followed in the eeent that asbestos material or UXO debris is discovered on site. The previous audit (Egis 2002) adopted this approach, and two EMPs were prepared,. and re�en-ed to in the Statenlent of Environmental Audit, . for respectively the consb-uction stage of the development (CW2M Hill 2002b) and the fiztul-e site use (CH2M Hill

2002~3, The objectives of the two EMPs are u~~tlined bdow. Thc: present auditor is of the opinioil that the risks of discovery of and harm fiom potentially hazardous materials wilt be primarily and effectively addxessed though a C~i~struction EMF, which will provide environmental mmagement measures for the initial site constmction by AVJennings, its contractors and servicing authorities. It is anticipated (but not confimed) that AVJennings and its contractors will'undertake all site devel apment works, inc tuding ea~thwurlcs, site level modi ficatiorl (cut or fill), services installation and road construction (but not individual house construction). This approach is considered to have the advantageof alloxving a high degree of control over soil placement, site levels, management

6f contaminated soils (if any) and response to environmental issues which may arise. A revised Consfruct.io~~ EMP has been prepared for AVJei~nings by CH2M Hill (October 20051, and reviewed and approved by the auditor. The Cmstructlon EMP is attached as Appendix I to this audit report. It is also recognised that subsequent works by builders, servicing authorities and landu\mers or occtlpants may involve excavation to depths of potential concern (one

metre ur more in standard residential land and O.Sm or more in medium or high density residential, commercial or industrial land, on areas ~vberr: there is some potential for asbestos or WXO residues to remain), for example for constructio~~ of swimming pools, cellars basements, m foundations for structurtes. It is appropriate that these parties be advised of the Oow) potential for discovery of asbestos or UXO residues, and the procedures to follow in the event of such discove~y. It is proposed that this advice be given through a future use E~~vironmental Management Plan, which will provide lmdowners with information on site conditions, risks and responses in the event of discovery of waste residues on the site. AVJennings has prepared a revised future use EMP (C.oomes Consulting Group, October 2005) \vhich has been reviewed and approved by the auditor. A copy of the future use: EMP is

atbched in Appendix 1 of this audit report. The Maribymong City Council proposes to enter inkto agreements in accordatice with section 273 of the Planning and Entfiranment Act. 1987, with the currmf site owner (AVJennings) and future landowners, to give effect to the environmental management plans far site development and future use.

EMRONMENT PROmCTIUN ACT 1970 STATEMENT OF EN~ONM]ENTAX( AUDIT I, RlCHARD ALnN GMAM of Wailbight Merz, 590 Orrong Road, hdale, Victoria 3143, a person appointed by the Environment Protection Authority CLthe Authority") under the Environment Protection Act 1970 ("the Act") as an environmentall auditor for the purposes of the Act, having:I) been requested by Mr Mark Roberts of Coomes ConsultingGroup Pty Ltd, acting on behalf of AVJennings Limited, to issue a Certificate of Environn~ental Audit in relation to the site located at 3 1 Hampstead Road, Maidstone, Victoria, 3012, being the site defined by Certificate of Title Vol 10580 Fol422, and being Lot A on Plan of Subdivision PS 443690Y ("the site"), as shown on the attached site plan, owned and occupied by AVJennings

Limited; 2) had regard to, among other things, a) guidelines issued by tlie Authority for the purposes of Part UCJ> of the; Act; b) the beneficial uses that may be made of the site; and c) relevant State en?lironimnt protection polieiedindustrial ivaste management policies, namely the State environment protection policies for tbe Prmntion and Management of Co~~tamination of Land, VCTaters of Victoria, Groundwaters of Victoria, Ambient Air Quality and Air Quality Management, and the industrial waste management policy for Prescribed Industrial Waste, in making a tatal assessment of the nature and extent of any harm or detriment caused to, or the risk of any possible hamr or dch-imnent

which may be caused to, any beneficial use made of the site by any industrial processes or activity, waste or substance (including any chemical substance); ancl

completed an envlr~nmerttal audit report in accordance wit11 Section 53X of the Act, a copy of which has been sent to ffle Authority and the relevant planningand responsible authority. IWWY STATE that I am of the opinion that: The site (excluding the gas pipeline easelnent shown as Area 2 on the attachedsite plan and referred to in Other Related Information below) is suitable .for the beileficial uses associated wit11 theland usm of standard sensitive (residential), high density sensitive (residential), recreationlopen space, com~ercial and industrial, subjectto the fo tlo~ving cm$iti ans:

a) During site development and priorto occup~tfon of the site for the specified futui'~r land uses, the developer shall provide a minin~um depth of clean soil or fill, free of visibfe

asbestos ~sidues, on afE areas of the site 'whicl~ are to be unsealed residential gardens, recreational open space: or landscaped areas in comnzercial or industrial lots, as follows: .-..,l-r--.n.. -r .,+.-.r-r**CI .wc.1 ...rrr .urr.^rrr*r-.<..,Cr ...>A ui A.-.-r-er.. C.. +._rrr* ,u..-.-"..,#-.P. ..X..... C'*. C^,*" 1 h?,.">*^ --.U-*---.. ..... '*, *.-WC02362; R01 RATG3.DOC PAGE57

(i) minimum 1.0 meke on standard rresidential lots of lot area 300 rn2 a greater (ii) minimum 0.5 metre on medium or high density residential lots of lot area less than 300 m2 (iii) minimum0.5 metre on (unsealed) public open space areas (iii) minimum 0.5 metre on (unsealed) landscaped areas in commercial or industrid tots. Condition a) may be complied with by one or more of the following means: (i) excavation of soil which potentially contains asbestos residws to the mdcrlying clean undisturbed natural soil surface (ii) placement of clean soil or fill to achieve the specified depth of clean rnatexial (iii) confirmation that a layer of clean soil or fill is present over the depth ~ntewa't which potentiallycontains asbestosresidues, OS (iv) confirmation that the existing surface is clean undisturbed +qatural soil which is free from visible asbestos residues. The selection of n conlpliance option or options is at the discretion of the developer. Works for implementationof the preferred compliance option shall be in accordance with the Conshuction Environmental Management Plan for the site

developmentreferred to in Condition d) below. . c) The developrne~lt and future use of the site shall be subject to tile folollowing control S:

Development of the site sllall be subject to an agreement between the developer (AVJennings or subsequent owner/developer) and the responsible planning authority under section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (or altemetive mechanism at the discretion of the planning authority), which will give effect to the requirements of this Statement ofEnvironmental Audit, and in particular place obligations on.the developer to implement the actions specified in Conditious a) and b) above through a Construction ~nvironmental Management Plan, as referred to in Condition d) below. site In particular, the agreement will placo obligatio~~s landowners and occupiers of potentially affected areas(as defmed in condition g) below) to manage the site in accordance with an Environmental Management Plan for future site use (as referred to in Condition g} bebelow), which will provide information on past site uses and present site conditions, and advice on fhe appropriate response in

the event that asbestos or UXO residue is found on the site.

Use of the land in the future (postdevelopment) shall be subject to an agreement between landowners and the responsible planning authoriy under section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (or alternative mechanism at the discretion of the planning authority), which will give effect to the requirements of this Statement of Environmental Audit relevant to f~~fwe use. on d) The site development .must be undertaken in wcwdanee with tl~e Constructign . Enviranrnental Management Plm (EW) wbich is attached to the environmental audit report of which this Statement of Enviro~~mnenhl Audit is part (Reference: *--W+*.,

. .,.. ----""d*"-*-b" .*-."8-%,--"&--","..4 ->*.. ..*.,+&.+..A ..W.-! .-+."->-,,,.",v,..---c."*'.,-a

.*..,, -.*,'+*~-.-*" ,v-T. -.-. "&..,,,"."--+,* WGD2362:RO-I RAGCCGB.DQC PACE 58

CH2M Hill (2005). Foime~ TeIstra Sire, 31 Road Maidstone, HDI~~S~EW~ ficloiin. Consd~~rcthn ~azmgen~en The site owner, E?zvir*~~~marttnl t Plan). developer,and contractors engaged by those parties are responsible for the implementation of the Construction EMP. e) Prior to commen~emmf of developlnent works on the site, m EPA-appointed en~ironmenfal auditor must be engaged to observe, verify and confirm in writing that the Construction EMP (as relevant to site contamination) is properly implementad to the satisfaction of the auditar. Tl~e auditor shall undertake this responsibility during and up to the %me of completion of the site development stage when responsibility for development land will be assumed by future ownersbuilders

(or others) and for road casements and open space areas by the Maribymong City Coullcil (OF others). f) The devteiupment work at the site boundaries is to be managed so that: site occupants and other users do not cm into contact with potentially contaminated soil beyond tile site boundaries, and o.ff-site soil does not contaminate the stite subject to this audit. g} Use of the fancl in that area of the site iu which there is potential for asbestos or UXO residues to remain after site development has been undertaken in accordance wit11 Conditiions a), b) and d) above (the "putentiaTly. affected area") shall be subject to the future use Environmental Management Plan (Em) which is attached to the environmental audit report of which this Statement is part {Reference: Comes Consulting Group (20 05). I;zt~nre Uva 2?tzvit-o~lincn~a?

Ilfanagemozt Phn: Mnidslowe Residerrtial and Service Atit/~oirilies. The condition of the site is detrimental or potentially detirnental to any (anc or more) beneficial uses of the site. Accordingly, X have not isstied a Certificate of Environmental Audit: for the site in its current canditioa, the reasons for which are presented in the envirunmentriil audit report. The tcims aad conditions that need to be complied i.th before a Certificate of Enviroqmental Audit may be issued are set out as follows: a) Site soils to a depth confirmed as undisturbed natural sail or rock, including soil between rocks, must be removed or cleaned up fo remove any remaining visible asbestos resid~~es, b) Toensure that no aesthetic constraintson any site use ramin, potentially

offensive or objectionable demolition debris and any soil containing odours or staining whichisderived from contaminationare to be removed from the: site. Other Related Information: The site subject to this audit has been subject to a previous environmental audit, with the &iue of an environmental audit report and Statement of Environmental Audit (Reference: Dr Wayne Drew of Egis Consulting (May 2002). Envil-utzrneMial Azrdit: Mrrid~ne Laboratory, Hanlpstend Road, MMaidsto~ze, Victoria). That audit report and suppodg documents should be referred to for information relevant to this present audit report. The outcome of this present audit differs insome respects to the outcome of tlzt: May 2002 audit, for the reasonsexplainedin this audit report. -,.-"-r-...,.r ."crC,-.-,..-c-..~*..*~.--ce-*%w*~~-r..-." ..t.-*ru ,* ., -., , ,.L.I.., **.-C(^.. --.".-v-. v--m-*-,

I.*.--y~.~--~.*-w,~>-,-NCC' WC02362:RQ1RAGCCG3.DOC PAGE 50

eorn the site during site development, and which contains or potentially contains asbestos residues, Inay be reused on the site beneath concrete building slabs or roadways or ather permanentpavementsor alternatively disposed off site in accordam with relevant Authority guidelines and policies. The site contains a high pressure gas pipdine emenzent shown as Area 2 on the attached site plaa. The land within this emaent has lot been assessed or remediated fur asbestos, unexploded ordnance or ~he~nical contamination of soils, and so calznot be cohed as suitable for any beneficial use in its present condition, or included in the area subject to this Statement. Before this easement nrea can be considered to be suitable fur one or more beneficial uses, it must be assessed, and (if necessary) remediated and validated to a standard consistent with protection of those uses. This easement area may be subject to a hrther cnvimnxmial

audit at the discretion of the responsible planning authority. This Statement foms part of the envi~onrnental audit repart prepared by.Sinclair Knight Men Pty Ltd for AVJennings Limited, Report of E?~vt'ro~tr~ze~zlat Azrdit: 31 Hanpstend Road, &!dslone. Sinclair Knight Ret WC02362, November 2005. Further details regarding the condition of the site may be found in the environnlental audit report. 7r/ 2o-e:rDATED: .............. .....Q .*..... .. ........*......... SIGNED: ........... . -. .

Y W R A Graham

Environmental Auditor (appointed pursuant to the Envii-onn~ent Protection Act 1970)

r..."r..r."-T ..... -..-lI."".l.-,-&.l*-,a.I. ...... .-4"~-.",I-411YU_.*h-X 4-4.W.-*> ..................... ..... . --.". I.-rrX.a*Y. "-....--U-*.-.+,.,'&".," WC02362;RO t RAGCCG3.DOC PAGE f%

z 0 Site Audit Area 31 Hampstead Road, Maidstone . I Attachment to statement of Environmental Audit $KM Ref. WC02362, November 2005 l 89'12'kO" AREA 2 I S LEGEND AREA 1 AREA 2 AREA 3 ul yr PJ yr =? P 5 S8'5D'l U'' ----.W33 -! 4 N 0. I P

W I: m:$ elm

I 17

LOT A ON PS443690Y 9*7'85ha I I TELSTRA COMMUN1CATIQNS TOWER & ANCILLARY SUILDlNG I' N a9*1;3~ 4 .O I 157.06 1 AREA g&I 3, ex, '&g,,. QW C LY ~J7.7~ hJ ---;-Ej 4. I?? 60 116-99 C Zb9'19'40" L g W "2 0% ALMER ; 13c: E--

STREET I7 W V1 tT z d 3 l Cr: 177.35 269'58'4 0' LAM5 CoHTAtNING UNOERGROUND QPTiCAL FIBRE IWiDTli 1 METRE1 LANQ CONTAlNLVG HIGH PRESSURE GAS MAM (WiOTH 6 METRES) SOUTH WEST TIP SITE ~ERLVED FROM INFORMATION 2b7-16' f PRQVIDEO BY CH?# NIL1 AUSTRALIA PTY LTD 1 3.02 A 4 4 ..

,+:gigg+,+* Former ~elstri Experimental -**+*.)*++.+*r,i?

S*+.++*+Fisher Stewar t LaboratoryCornpiex *+G** sumay & Mapping Gmup 31 Hampstread Road, Maidstone Melbourne Tell3517 9213 Plan of Sunrey ShowSng Areas 1,2 & 3 Drawing No. 0499005103 Rev C Sheet No. l 01 1 90Q6-03.dqn @ Flrtwr Slwrpt ABM Ui oD7 015 %5 A3 Scale

AV Jennings AV 6 September2006 3 1 Hampstead Road, Maidstone, Victoria APPENDIX D APPENDIX D Diornides & Associates (2006a) Soil Contamination Assessment, Gas Easement Area, 31 Hampstead Road, Maidstone, Victoria ( ref : DAI 2551 CD1 11 5,19 April 2006) Letter to Mr Phillip Hitchcock of Environ Australia Pty Ltd from Mr Stephen Diomides of Diomides & Associates Pty Ltd titled 'RE: Response to Phillip Hitchock's Email of June 73, 2006, Property: Gas Easement area -31 Hampstead Road, Maidstone: dated 21 June 2006 (ref: DAI 25) Letter to Mr Phillip Hitchcock of Environ Australia Pty Ltd from Mr Michael B. Ransom of Milsearch Pty Ltd titled 'Certificate of UXO Clearance Maidstone Gas Easement', dated 26 June 2006

S:\EnvironUobs\Coo~tlbes -Maidstone -32-001SUleports\j2.0018 -Environmental Audil Report for 31 Hampstead Rond, Maidstone. \'lctoria

finul.doc EhT'IRON

April 19,2006 ii. DlOMlDES April 19,2006 ii. & ASSOCiATES PTY LTD Environmental Consultants JOB: 31 Hampstead R&, Maidstone,Victoria .-*"-.."..-.---.-..-.--a.JOB No DA 1255 DATE: April, 2006 LIST OF TABLES Tabfe 1 Potential Contaminants of Interest Table2 Details of Composite Soil Samples Table 3 Range and Number of Chemical Analyses Performed LIST OF FIGURES Figurel Locality Plan Figure 2 Site Plan LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A Land Victoria Property Report APPENDIX B Test Pit Logs APPENDIX C Summary of Soil Laboratory Results APPENDtX D Laboratory Reports for Soil Samples I LOCALIN PLAN I I FIGURE? DIOMIDES & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD

April 19,2006 1. April 19,2006 DAl255/CD1115 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of a soil contamination assessment carried out by Diomides &Associates Pty Ltd in the area of a gas easement located along the northern boundary of Lot 2 at 31 Hampstead Road, Maidstone, Victoria. A locality plan has been included showing the location of the subject site in Figure l, Diomides 8( Assodates Pty Ltd was commissioned by Coomes Consulting Group Pty LM, to conduct the soil contamination assessment and to prepare this report. The investigations were carried out generally in accordance with the Dimides & Associates proposal dated March 24, 2006. The work was authotised by Mr Mark Robwts of Cmmes Consulting Group Pty Ltd on behalf of A V Jennings Limltd, by written authorisationdated April 3, 2006. Mr Raberts also appointed EPA Contaminated Land Auditor Mr Phillip Hitchcock to conduct a statutory environmental audit of the subject area of the site, induding an audit of the work being conducted by Diomides & Associates, with a view to issuing a Certificate or Statement of Environmental Audit for the subject area of the site in accwdance with Part IXD of the Environment Protection Act 1970 of Victoria. A report and Statement of Environmental Audit were previously issued for the majmity of the subject site -excluding the area of the gas easement. The audit was completed by Dr Wayne Drew of Egis Consulting Australia Pty Limited in May 2002. A number of assessment reports including site remediation reports, validation reports

DIOMlDES & ASSOCIATESPTY LTD April 19,2006 2. DA1255lCDlI 15 and environmental management plans for the subject site were also previously prepared by CHMn HILL Australia Pty Ltd. The material presented in the abovementioned reports has not been repeated in this report. The objectives of the current soil contamination assessment are: to investigate the chemical nature and general distribution of any subsurface contamination within the area of the gas easement of the site by irnpiementing an excavation, soil sampling, and chemicaI analysis programme; and, to report on the results of investigations, including field observations, results of chemical analyses and an appraisal of the significance of any possible contaminant levels, and the implications of these, together with any relevant recommendations. 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 General The property which is the subject of this soif contamination assessment is located on the north-westernside of Hampstead Road, Maidstone and is more commonly referred to as 31 Hampstead Road, Maidstone, as defined by the Land Victoria Property Report which is attached as Appendix A. It is important to note that the area of the subjed site currently being investigated is the gas easement area only. This area is located along the northern boundary of Lot 2, see Figure 2 -Site Plan. The gas easement DIOMIDES & ASSOCIATES PTY LT0

April 19,2006 ---p carries a high-pressure gas pipeline within it of approximatety 500 millimetre diameter, covers a total area of approximately 4,050 square metres within the site, runs approximately175 metres along the northern boundary of Lot 2 and is approximately 6 metres wide. The site is currently vacant. All buildings, pavements, and concrete having been demdished and removed from the site. It is understood that a residential development is to be constructed on the subject property and that the Responsible Authority requires a Certificate or Statement of Environmental Audit be issued before construction works can commence on the site for the purpose of a sensitive use such as residential. 2.2 Contaminants of Interest Contaminants of interest associated with the past and present activities conducted on the subject site have been summarised in Table 1. TableI.Potential Contaminants of lnterest Activity Potential Contaminants Demolition of former buildings Asbestos cement sheeting Potentially imported fill material Metals screen induding mercury, OC, OP, PCB, PAH & TPH DlOMlDES 8 ASSOCIATES PTY LTD April 19,2006 3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION 3.1 General An experienced project manager and an environmental scientist from Diomides & Associates Pty Ltd were responsible for all fieldwork including the selection of sampling locations along the gas easernent, collection of soil samples for soil contamination assessment, logging of soil profiles, providing field contamination readings and ensuring that all samples were delivered to the specified NATA registered analytical laboratories without delay. Directions were provided to the relevant laboratories by the

Project Manager, giving details of analyses required for each sample. 3.2 Soil Contamination Assessment On March 28, 2006, a mechanical excavator was used to excavate a total of tweive test pits at the locations selected and marked out by Diomides & Associates in accordance with the agreed work plan approved by the EPA appointed auditor Mr Hitchcock. Each of the test pits was located directly over the high-pressure gas pipeline and approximatdy 14.6 metres apart within the easement area. The locations of all test pits are shown on the attached Site Plan, Figure 2. In each case before excavation of test pits commenced a UXO search was conducted by an experienced consultant from Milsearch and all excavation work was guided by a T Squared Alliance (formerly TXU) fidd supervisor. Each of the twelve test pits was DlOMlDES & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD

April 19,2006 5. DAl255lCD1115 April 19,2006 5. excavated to depths ranging from approximately 0.7 metres to 2.5 metres, down to the top of the gas pipdine. Natural soils were only recovered in two test pits due to the aresence, size, and fragility of the high-pressure gas pipeline, Discreet samples of fill were recovered from each test pit at various depths. Descriptions of materials encountered and depths at which samples were collected are presented in Appendix B -Test Pit Logs. In accordance with our quality assurance procedures and instructions from the Project Manager, all primary soil samples collected were submitted to MGT Environmental Consulting Laboratories. For quality assurance purposes three split soil samples and three blind replicate soil samples were recovered during the soil contamination assessment sampling program. The blind replicate samples were submitted to MGT. The blind replicate and split samples were taken from a larger than normal quantity of soil or fill collected from the same sampling point, mixed as thoroughly as practicable, and divided into separate vessels. The blind replicate samples and split samples were sourced from the following test pit locations: BLINDland SPLIT 1 were sourced from TP 16 at a depth of 1.6 metres; BLIND 2 and SPLIT 2 were sourced from TP 17 at a depth of 1.6 metres; -BLIND 3 and SPLIT 3 were sourcedfrom TP 18 at a depth of 1.0 metre. The three split samples were submitted to a second NATA registered laboratory (AMDEL) for analysis. The three sptit samples and the three blind replicate samples were subsequently cornposited as a composite split and composite blind respectively, and were analysed by the respective laboratories. A summary of laboratory results for DlOMlDES & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD April 19,2006 6. DAl255/CDl115

the site contamination assessment has been tabulated in Appendix C. The full laboratory results for the soil contamination assessment are attached as Appendix D Laboratory Reports for Soil Samples. All samples were recovered using dean latex gloves and stored in pre-washed glass jars under cool conditions prior to delivery to the laboratory for chemical analysis. Each sample jar was clearly labelled with the following information: DA1255 (Job Number); Sample Number; Depth of sample; and, Sampling Date. During the site contamination assessment sampling, particular note was taken of possible contamination, as evidenced by visual and odour criteria. A method of field contamination assessment for soii was utilised, based on these criteria. The system of classification is summarised below: Rank Description 0 No odour or visual evidence of contamination 1 Slight odour andlor slight visual evjdence of contamination 2 Visual evidence of contamination and tor odour 3 Obvious visual evidence of contamination andlor strong odour The rank of each soil sample is presented in Appendix B-Test Pit logs. DlOMlDES 8 ASSOCIATES PTY LT0

April 19,2006 7. DA1255lCD1115 April 19,2006 7. Measurement of volatile organic hydrocarbon concentrations were not conducted in the fidd using a photo-ionisation detector for this assessment work since previous work by others indicated that volatile organic hydrocarbon contamination was not an issue within the subject site. 4.0 CHEMICAL ANALYSES All soil samples were submitted to MGT as the primary laboratory and AMDEL as the secondary laboratory, for compositing of selected soil samples, analysis of all composite soil samples plus selected individual soil samples. In accordance with instructions from the Project Manager, MGT formed ten composite soil samples, as described in Tabje 2. DlOMlDES & ASSOCIATESPTY LTD April 19,2006 8. DA12551CD1 l l 5 TABLE 2. Details of Composite Soil Samples Composite Sourceof Samples (Sample No's) & Sample No. Depth of Samples Bebw Ground Level (in metres) COMP A TP 13 (0-0.15 m) + TP 14 (0-0.015 m) + TP 15 (0-0.15m) COMP B TP 16 (0-0.15 m) + TP 17 (0-0.15 m) + TP 18 (0-0.15 m) COMP C TP 19 (0-0.15 m) + TP 20 (0-0.15 m) + TP 21 (0-0.15 m) COMP D TP 22 (0-0.1 5 m) + TP 23 (0-0.15 m) + TP 24 (0-0.15m) COMP E TP 14 (2.0 m) +TP 15(1.0 m) COMP F TP-l6(1.6m)+TP17(1.6m)+TP18(1.0m) COMP G TP lg(1.3 m)+ TP20(1.4m)+ TP21 (1.3 m) COMP H TP 22 (1.4 m) + TP 23 (l.5

m) + TP 24 (1.4 m) COMP l TP14(2.4m)+TP15(1.9m)+TP18(1.4m) COMP BLIND BLIND 1 +BLIND 2+ BLIND 3 MGT has advised that it is NATA registered for all chemical analyses required in this investigation, except for certain organophosphorous pesticides. Three split samples were submitted to a second NATA registered laboratory (AMDEL) for analysis. The three split samples were cornposited as a composite split sample, and analysed by AMDEL. A summary of laboratory resuts has been presented in Appendix C for all soil samples. The full results of laboratory analyses for soil samples are presented in Appendix D with details of the laboratory quality assurance procedures in all cases. The range and number of chemical analyses performed on soil samples for this investigation are indicated in TaMe 3. DlOMlDES & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD

TABLE 3. Range and Number of Chemical Analyses Performed Constituent Corn posite Individual SPLIT/ Soil Soil BLIND Antimony Arsenic Beryllium Cadmium Chromium Cobalt Copper Lead Mercury Molybdenum Nickel Selenium fin Vanadium Zinc PAH OP Pesticides OC Pestiddes PCBs Asbestos TPH DIOMIDES & ASSOCIATESPTY LTD April 19, 2006 10. DA1255/CD1115 5.0 RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION 5.1 Hydrogeology The 1-63,360 Geological Survey of Victoria Melbourne Sheet indicates that the site is underlain by Quaternary basaltic deposits associated with the newer volcanics group. 5.2 SubsurfaceConditions The investigation of subsurface conditions conducted during the soil contamination assessment

for this project found that the area of the gas easement is overlain by variable depths of fill. Underlying the surface was a layer of fill that variously contained light brown/yellow silty clay and extended down to depths of up to 0.5 metres below ground level. This was underlain by a second layer of fill that variously contained light greybrown silty clay extending down to depths of up to 2.3 metres below ground level. An approximately 0.3 metre thick layer of light brown, fine silty crushed rock, was found surrounding the gas pipe, immediately below the fill layers. Once the fine silty crushed rock was reached the excavator operator was requested to cease further excavation to prevent damaging the gas pipe and for safety reasons. Consequently, it was not possible to obtain samples of the natural soil profile beneath the gas pipe in most cases. However, in two cases the natural soils were sampled in areas where the gas pipe was absent or taken from a side wall by penetrating laterally, just above the pipe. The natural soils consisted of greylbrown residual basalticclays. DIOMIDES & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD

g 6 2 '6 g 3 g_E, m 8 .G 3 .-�BE 2 E .E m ob zsi!

'6 .E r E .S 3

a U =ID, (U '"

$ .5 .E g m$ XiE -G E 2 ' YE 'F .g@? U f-

c 8 "a p-$ 8 m 5 .S X 22Q. a

3zc ,." 'g

3 l! (U 2? .-.G .$ f"

.g W E 3 .E om 2 .S U $98 -8 1 -0 m v, g!!?"' g$* 5 m .-$G $33 !Ea 8 ss"$

April 19,2006 April DAI 255iCD1 l 15 The results of chemical analysis of individual soil samples indicated: total chromium concentrations ranging from 14 mg/kg in TP 15 at a depth of 1.75 metres in natural soil, up to 58 mg/kg in TP 13 at a depth of 0.5 metres in natural soil; total cobalt concentrations ranging from 5 mgkg in TP 15 at a depth of 1.75 metres in natural soil, up to l1 mgkg in TP 13 at a depth of 0.5 metres in natural soil; total copper concentrations ranging from 7.6 mgkg in TP 15 at a depth of 1.75 metres in natural soil, up to 18 mgkg in TP l3 at a depth of 0.5 metres in natural soil; total lead concentrations ranging from 5.5 mgkg in TP 15 at a depth of 1.75 metres in natural sdl, up to 7.4 mgikg in TP 13 at a depth of 0.5 metres in natural soil; total nickel concentrations ranging from 8.6 mg/kg in TP 15 at a depth of 1.75 metres in natural soil, up to 32 rng~kg in TP 13 at a depth of 0.5 metres in natural soil; total tin concentrations ranging from below the method detection limit of 10 mgfkg in TP 15 at a depth of 1.75 metres in natural soil, up to 11 mgkg in TP 13 at a depth of 0.5 metres in natural soil; DIOMIDES & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD April 19,2006 14. DAI 255lCD1115

total vanadium concentrations ranging from 20 mg/kg in TP 15 at a depth of 1.75 metres in natural soil, up to 45 mglkg in TP 13 at a depth of 0.5 metres in natural soil; total zinc concentrations ranging from 7.6 mg/kg in TP 15 at a depth of 1.75 metres in natural sail, up to 49 rnglkg in TP 13 at a depth of 0.5 metres in natural soil; and that, concentrations of all other contaminants measured in individual samples were below the respective method detection limits including asbestos that was not detected in any individual sample. 6.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS The guidelines for performance of a site contamination assessment which apply in Australia are those published in the "National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999, plus the "Guidelines for the Assessment and Management of Contaminated Sites" (January 1992), Auslralian and New Zealand Environment Council, and the National Health and Medical Research Council (NH&MRC) known as the ANZECC guidelines. In performing the soil contamination assessment for this project, Diomides & Associates Ry Ltd has had regard to the State Environment Protection Pdicy (Prevention and Management of Contaminated Land) and various guidelines including DIOMIDES 8 ASSOCIATES PTY LTD

April 19,2006 April DAI 255,'CD1115 the Natiana! Environment Protection Measure (NEPM), the ANZECC guidelines, the ~nvlmrmen~ Auditor (Contaminated hd) Guidelines fa Issue of Certificates and Shtements of Environmental Audit, and the Austrdan Standard -Guide to the sampling and investigation d potentially contaminated sail, AS 4482,l 1997 and AS 4482.2 1999. The results of the chemical analyses have been cornpared with the soil investigation levels adapted under the NEPM guldelinss. In accordance with the NEPM guidelines, Dimides B Associates has adoptedthe Ecological investigation Levds (Ells) for an urban setting, the Health Investigation Level (HlL As) which apply for 'standard' residenfjal use with garden/accessiMe soil. plus the NSW EPA Guidelines for Assessing Service Slation Sites for petroleum hydrocarbon and BTU( levels in soil. The results of all chemical analyses wnducted duing this inwstigafion havebeen ampared with these criteria. Section

2.1 of EPA Information Bulletin, Publication 448 titled "[=lsssificaticm of Wastes: covers Fill Material and provides a Table 2 titled, "Maximum Concentrations of Contaminants Allowed in Soil to be Disposed of as Fill material". The Information Bulletin states, "Contaminant levels must be below those specified in Table 2, otherwise the material must be classified as prescribedwaste. The results of cbmical analyses conducted during this inveetigatibn have also been compared with these criteria. MT carried out internal quality assurance procedures involving the analyds of spike and duplicate sdl samples. For this investigation, MGT reported internal duplicate relative percent difference (RPD) values between cl % and 25 % with tOO % QF DlOMlDES & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD April 19,2006 16. OAI 2551CD.113 5 duplicate RPD values within the +/50 %

acceptance criteria, Percentage spike smvery values ranged from 76 % ta 126 % with approximately 99 % of percentage spike recovery values within the 75 t~ 125 ?h acceptance aiteria, Laboratory results for all soil samples are attachedas Appendix D. The summary tables presented in Appendix C provide an evaluatian of laboratory analysis results fw quality cantrol samples. Ths RPDs listed in Appendix C have been calculated in accordance with Australian Standards AS 44821 -1997: Guide to the sampling and investigation of potentially contaminated soil. All RPDs have been compared with the acceptance criteria set wt in Australian Standard AS 4482.q -1997, which states that typical RPD vdues for quality conbol samples should be between 30 to 50 per cent of the mean ancentration of analyte. The RPDs presented in Appendix C, far the blind re@icate composite soil sample {COMP F versus COMPBLIND) range from O per cent for most parameters, up to 43.9 per cent in the case of lead, One hundred percent of the blind replicate RPD calculations for the composite sal sample mFdy with the criteria far quality control samples.

The RPDs for the split composite soil sample (COMP F versusCOMP SPLIT) range from 0 per cent fw most parameters, up to 94.7 per cent in the case of arsenic, Approximately 97% of the split composite soil RPDcalculations comply with the criteria fa quality control samples. The RPDs presented in Appendix C, for the individual Mind replicate sal samples and the individual split soil samples all complied with thecriteria for quality control samples. DIOMIDES & ASSOCIATES PTY LID

U b 3 3 r 3 .S 0

E 'S 3 .Cl -U m

gikb W-=% gs, .--.Q ggg .EPZ ;I g p3 .c eo

.2 + W J3ui cn E? n S i d

C 0 P 3325 c Ul D c me CJ .E .g ; $$'E9 352?

,,. ,.. . negligible, or no risks to health and safety of workmen.&e ta soil contamination during any construction work w during repair or replacement of undergrwnd services within the easement; negligiwe, or m adverse effects to health and safety of future residents and visitors, and especially young children, if the easement area is b be used for residentialpurposes; negligible, or fow adverse effects on plants and other vegetationwhich constitute any site landscaping within the easement; and, negligible,or no impact on the surrounding environment due to possible lexhing of any contaminants present in soil or fill, into road side drains w into grwndwaer. Basedon the results of this investigation, we recornmeml that no dean up of the gas easement ama af subject site is necessary prior to the issue of a Certificate or Statement of Environmental Audit permitting residential development within the gas easement area of the subject site. DIOMIDES &ASSOCIATES PTY LTD

April 19,2006 20. 8.0 LlMtTATlONS OF TW1S REPORT Soil and rodc formations are variable, The soil logs indicate whet are cansidered to tx the prevailing subsurfaceconditions within tk dte, Boundaries between zones on the lags are often not distinct, but rather are transitional and have been interpreted. The precision with which subsusface condilions are indicated depends largely on W frequency and method of sampling, and the unifmity d subsurfax conditions. A soil contamination assessment necessarily involves the investigation of subsurface conditions at a sib for a limited number of and the interpretation of data locations dlected frm a specified range of analyses, and a limited number of sail samples recovered from those locations. Chemical conditions described in this report refer only to those conditions indiceted by analysis of soil samples obtained at the points and under the circumstances noted in the report ad are reievant only to the conditions which pertained at the Brne

of this investigation. These conditions may vary due to the variability ofcontaminant wwentrations in soit as a consequenceof activitieson the site W adjacent sites. Should there b revealed at sma future time that cwltaminant concentratitions in soil encountered at the site differ significantly frm those indicafed by the results in his report, either due to natural variability of sub surface conditiara or above ground activities, it is strongly recommended that Diomides & Assodates Pty Ltd be notified d ik differences ad wvided wil an oppwturity to assess the significance of such difierences and to povide appropriate advice. DlOMlDES & ASSQCIATES PlY LTD

6 21. DAI 2551C01115 Due care and skill have been applied in carrying out and reportiw on this wk, The findings, wndusions and comments contained in this repwt represent professional estimates andopinions and are not to be read as facts unless the cantext makes it clear to the contrary. In general, statements of fact are confined to statementsasto mat was dwle andiw what was observed, Other statements have been base# on professional judgement This report is prepared solely fw the use d the person, company or organisatim b whom it is addressed and must not be reproduced in whole w in pae or includedin any othw document without our expressed permissionin writing. No responsibility or fiability is accepted to any third pay for any damges hwsc>evsr arising out oF the use of W reliance on the M e Many part of thisreportby any third party. This report has been prepared on the basis of specific Instruclions and information providedby or onbehalf of the party to whomit is ddressed andfor use by that party in its particularcircumstances and fw

Its particular purpose. Its contents and conclusions may therefore be inappropriate far any third party in the context of that lhird party's pdcular purposes and circumstances. Any third party should obtain its own independentreport w other professional advice rather than rely on this repar&. DlOMlDES & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD COSTA DIOMIDES STEPHEN DlOMlDES Environmental Sdentist Director Senior Envimnmental Auditor -Contaminated Land RegistrationNo. 045455 QSA Registerof Certified Auditam April 19,2006 DAI 255~CD1115

9.0 REFERENCES + Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Cwncil [ANZECCIAational Health and Medical Research Coundl [N HMRG}, Australianand New Zealgnd Guidelines for the Assessment and Management of Contaminated Sites, 1992. CH2M Hill, Maidstone Laboratory and Radio Tower Phase l 81 2 Sib Assessment, Final Report Ref. 101340 Rev2, to

Telstra Corporation. April 1999, + CMZM Hill, Maidstone Laboratory and Radio Tower Phase 3 Remediation of Contaminated Soils. Final Report Ref. 101 387 Revl , to Telstra Corporation, April 1999. CH2M HiII, Maidstone Validation: Further Environmental Site investigation. Supplementary Pttase lReport Ref, 101387,03 Revl, to Tdstra Corporation, September 1999. r CH2M Hill, Maidstone Laboratory Slte Phase 3 Remediation of Contaminated Soits Related to the Former Cinder Track. Final Supplementary Repd Ref. 101387.002 Revl, to Tdstsa Ccrporatian, April 2001. DlOMlDES & ASSOCIATES PTY LID

April 19,2006 23. RA1 255KD1 l 15 -.

CH2M Hill, Maidstone Laboratory Site Remediation and Site Validation Assessment. Find Report Ref. 101387,005 Rev5, to Telstra Corporation, April 2002. CH2M Hill, Maidstone Laboratory Site: Environmental Management Plan Development of the Site. Final Report ref. 101387.006 Rev5, to Telstra Corporation, May 2002. W CH2M Hili, Maidstone Labwatary Site: Environmental Management Plan Future Site Use. Final Report Ref. 101307.007 Revs, to Telstra Corporation, May 2002. CH2M Hill, Environmental Testing of Medway Golf Course. Letter Report Ref. 31 1271 to Caornes Consulting, 5 August 2003. W CW2M Hill, farmer Telstra Site, 31 Hampstead Road, Maidstone, Vietwb: Cmstmetion Environmental Management Plan. Final Repart Ref. 31 127 1.009., prepared for Coomes Consulting, 2003.

r Egis Consulting Australia, Environmental Audit: Maidstone Laboratory, Hampstead Road, Maidstone, Victoria. Report of Prcject No. VP8017 to Telslra Carporation Limited, May 2002. 4 EPA NSW, Contaminated Sites -Guidelines for hsessing Setvice Station Sites, 1994. DIOMIDES l? ASSOCIATES PTY LTD April 19,2006 24. DAl2551CD9 l15 1 EPA Victoria, Classification of Wastes, EPA Information Bulletin, Publication 448, I, 2004.

EPA Victoria, Environmental Auditor (Contaminated Land) Guidelines for Issue of Certificatesand Statementsof Environmental /Wit, Publication 759b, 2002. 4 Gedogical Survey of Victoria, f -250,000 Ceo!cgical Map Series -Melbourne, May 1997. 4 National Environment Protection Council, National Envirament Protection (Assessment of Site Cmtamination) Measure 2999.

I, Standards Australia, Australian Standard Guide to the sampling and investigation of potetntialty contaminated soil, Part 1: Non-volatile and Semivdatile Compounds, AS 4482.3 -1997. Standards Australia, Australian Standard -Guide ta the samging and investigation of patenfially contaminated sail, Part 2: Volatile Substances, AS 4482.2-1999. r State Environment Protection Pdicy (Prevention and Management of C~niarninated Land], 2002. DlOMlDES & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD

PL . . . Pl~perfy Report fromwww.lmd.vle.gav..u an27 ay 2005 I 1121 AM Addresa 31 HAMPSTEAD ROAD MAIDSTONE 3012 Lot and Plan Numbat: Lot A PS443690 StandardParcel ldentlfler (SPI): APS443ti90 Lam! Government (Councl]: MARIBYRNONG Councll Property Elumkr: 8405364014 Dlreetcrry Reference: Melway 27G9,27W9,27610,27H10 State Electorates Lsglslaltve Councll: MELBOURNE WEST (20011 Lsgislallve Asstlmbly: FOQTSCRAY (2Q05) Utilities Metrowater Business: City West Water Rural Watrrr Business: Southern Rural Water Melbourne Water: inside drainage bwndary Power Dlstrlbutoc AGL (Information about Plannlng Zone Summary

PhllJllng LCintr: COMMONWEALTH LAND NOT CONTROLLED BY PLANNING SCHEME (CA) Planning Overlay: DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENTOVERLAY -SCHEDULEl (0001) DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONSPLAN OVERLAY SCHEDULE 2 (DCPO2) APPENDIX B This report Is nd a substitute for a Planning I=ertifica&. ForPlanning Certifiate

Pbnnlng thrtlftcates Onlln e For Planning Details pbnnlnq $cherries Onllne TEST PIT LOGS Area Map

Copyright @ State Governmentof Vtctorta Disclaimer: This conlent hryided (m infarmaEa purpirr any. No

cl* Is made as $0 lhe rmvaey or sllthenileltv of the content, e VlcLortan Gweinrnenl does nolaccepl any llabilily to any wrson for he '%fha
i Location: JOB NO: DA ~5 6 B_IOMIDES 4% ASSOCIATES PrY LTQ 31 Hampslead Road, DATE: 28-Mar46 Envkonmental Qnsultants Maitlstone, Victoria Method: Excavator Test Pit No.:TP 21 Location: JOB NO: DA 1355 & ASSOCIATES PTY Lm ,31 Hampstead Road, DATE: 2&Mat46 Environmental Consultants Maidstone,Victoria Method: Excavator Test Fb No.: TP 22 TEST PIT LOG End of lest pit an g35 pipe line TEST PIT L00 Depth Samptet Description

{mm)

or Test i DescripljohlRank

Lighl bmwnlyellw -SiRy day No od~w -Light greymown Silly day -NO odoW Light bmn Fine slty mhed rod No odow

Conlamjnation Ranking: 0 = No odour or vlsual emencc otconlsminalbn 1 = SBgM odow and& -1 visual ewdcncc of mntamination 2 = Visual ed&nce oiconlamlnalion andfor odour 3 = Dbvfous visual rvidcna olm~amlnation andhslro~odour

Conlaninalion rank in^ = 0 nation Ranking

=D

ES ASWE$ PTY LTQ Environmental hnsuttants Location: 31 HampsteadRoad, Maidstcm. Victwle JOB NO: DA Y 365 DATE: 28-Mar46 Method: Excavator Test Pi No.: TP 23 T TESTPIT LOG TESTPIT LOG '~ocat~on: JOB NO: DA 1365 DIOMIDES 81 ASSOCIATES PP(. LTQ 31 Harnpslead Road. DATE: Mar4R Envlrrrnmenta! Consultants Maidstaw, Vioria Method; Excavator Test Pit No.: TP 24 -Light brWnlydl~ ConbnJnnUon Renking = D -sap ctay

-No odolr FII

-Finebrwvn Light silty crushed rock No adwr

F11 Lightbrown End d test pll onpas pipe line

APPENDIX D LABORATORYREPORTS FOR SOIL SAMPLES

Environmental Consulting Pty. Ltd. 3 Kingston Tovm Close, Oakleigh, Viclorja 3166,Austraka Postat addmrr P. Q. Box 278. Oakls~ h, Viciona 31M, Aurtralra ?&Phone 103) 9% 7055 CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS Diomides & Associates Pty. Ltd. Report Number: 192571 Page 1 of 35 l 'l Conway Ave Order Number: Mar 29,2006 Date Received: Donvale Date Sampled: Mar28,2006 Victoria 31 'l 3

bate Reported: Apr,7, 2006 Site: MAIDSTONE DA1255 Contact: Stephen D~omlbes Methods USEPA 6010B Heavy Melals & USEPA 747Offl Mercury USEPA BOB2 Pdychl~rinated Biphenyis USEPA 814iA Or~anophosphoms Pesticides USEPA 8081A Organochtorlne Pestlcldes USEPA 8270C Polyc clic Aromatic H drocarbons MGTI MA-GC Total Rewvereble Hyd&carbons Method I02 ANTECC -% Mddure Comments Please note asbestosresults are from Noel Amdd reference no 47774-4 and Naia AmedUalion No 5450 Notes 1, The results in Ws repart supersede any previously corresponded

results. 2. Alt Soil Resultsare repolied on a dty basis. 3. Samples are analysed on an as receivedbasis. ABBREVIATKINS mgkg :milligrams per kilograms, mgR : rniltigrams per litre, ppm : parts per miltion, LOR : Limit p� Reporting RPD: Relat~ve Percent Difference CRM : Clsrlified Reference Meierlal LCS : laboratory Control Sample

Michacl IVright NATA Signatory T ,nhnrnlnrv Rlannger Report Numbec 192571 NATA lrbrmry ,w~,d Kmmhrr 1161

~th.*~Cllibllbm1a~rd-.1~~011d~hda.~nrnf -10

PrATA~rqpv~~ hiwtuv pmiv~wd ~lt.&ll~~ *~uchmduJCUY rqujrm~rd WKC I)(r?Sudmcaw~blrearlpwl wd&zfrse*r.rpLThnkm~ h.rryw mWirLI1

Um RvmtM.lm7i Um RvmtM.lm7i

I A.... I I I I I . . -8; Im *WE$ i9ZR Apr 28 dS

DIOMIDES & ASSOCIATES PTY L TD DIOMIDES & ASSOCIATES PTY L ,L::;

g: z: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Phone: (03) 9842 2000 1l Conway Avenue, Danvale Victoria 31l l fax: 103) 9842 0322 TO: Environ Australia Pty Ltd ATTENTION: Mr Phillip Hitchcock DATE: June 21,2006 FROM: Costa Diomides Our Ref: DA1255 RE: RESPONSE TO FHllLlP HITCHCOCK'S EMAlL OF JUNE 13,2006 PRQPERW GAS EASEMENT AREA 31 HAMPSTEAD RAOD, MAIDSTONE Further to your email of June 13, 2006, the following are the clarification points requested by Phillip Hitchcock for the Gas Easement area of 31 Hampstead Road, Maidstone. = Samples have been analysed for total chromium and Diomides 8( Associates have assumed that all chromium present is in the trivalent form and applied the NEPM (1999) HlLs and f lLs for trivalent chromium. As previously stated, the Auditor does not consider this to be an appropriate approach. As such, the Auditor considers that at least 50% of the composite samples should

be analysed for chromium VI; Diomides & Associates have organised for appmximateiy half of the composite samples to be analysed for chromium (VI) as requested. The results for this will be forwarded along with our letter report when completed. The Auditor does not consider that the discussion provided regarding the elevated heavy metals concentrations in the corn posited fill samples (i.e. above modified El Ls and modified Clean Fill criteria) adequately addresses the issue. Diomides & Associates have stated that if the individual samples were analysed the heavy metals results would most likely be below the Clean Fill criteria and that the EIL exceedances are not significant. This justification for the exceedances is not considered to be adequate and additional laboratory analysis is required to assess the significance of the EIL and Clean Fill criteria exceedances in the composite samples; Diomides & Associates have organised for selected samples to be analysed for various metals to address this concern as requested. The results for this will be forwarded aiong with our letter report when completed.

DIOMIDES &ASSOCIATES PTY LTD

Section 3.0 Section -Paragraph 4 -the Auditor notes that two Environmental Audits have previously been undertaken for the majority of the Site including, the majority of the Site excluding the gas easernent and fibre optic easernent in 2002 by Dr. Wayne Drew of Egis, and the rnajoriiy of the Site excluding the gas easernent in 2005 by Mr. Rick Graham of SKM; This comment is correct. Dr Wayne Drew undertook an audit of the majority of the site excluding the fibre optic easernent and the gas easernent and Mr Rick Graham undertook an audit of the fibre optic easernent area. Section 3.2-Paragraph 3 Please provide brief discussion on why no wash blanks, trip spikes or trip bTanks were used; A wash blank sample was not recovered during our field work because no sampling equipment was used to obtain the soil samples. All samples were collected directly from the sidewall of the test pit using the sample jars or in deeper test pits the samples were collected from the centre of the excavator bucket, Trip spikes and trip blanks on this occasion were omitted. Section 3.2 -Paragraph 5 -were the soil samples collected from the centre of the excavator bucket?; As mentioned above, all samples were collected directly from the sidewall of the test pit using the sample jars or in deeper test pits the samples were collected from the centre of the excavator bucket. m Table 3 -Were the samples composited in accordance with the relevant guidelines?; Ail samples were composited in accordance with the relevant guidelines by the relevant analytical laboratories. However, it should be

noted that composite samples have only been used as a screening tool. In cases where composite results above adopted criteria were recorded, further individual analyses were considered. Sedion 6.0-Paragraph 2, last sentence -which NEPM guidelines have the results been compared to?; The results have been compared to the NEPM EIL and Hlt A guidelines as discussed in paragraph 3 of Section 6.0.

Section 6.0 -Paragraph 5 -were the laboratory analysis methods used appropriate? Diomides & Associates believe that the relevant laboratories have used appropriate laboratory analysis methods in accordance with their NATA accreditation. DIOMIDES & ASSOClATES PTY LTD

Section methods Section methods

6.0 -Paragraph 5 -Please discuss laboratory quality assurance (i.e. 6.0 -Paragraph 5 -Please discuss laboratory quality assurance analysed within recommended holdings times etc.)

The primary laboratory, MGT, reported all results in 10 days and the secondary laboratory, AMDEL, reported all results in 23 days. According to the maximum sample holding times reported in Table 3of AS 4482.1 -2005 all analyses undertaken for this site assessment were within the maximum allowable holding times. Section 6.0 -Paragraph 5 -MGT also used method blanks and surrogates, please discuss; Diomides & Associates believe that most method blanks and surrogates reported by MGT are within the required acceptable limits as required by their NATA accreditation.

Section 6.0 -Paragraph 5 -Which OPP compounds are MGT not NATA accredited for? Please discuss the significance of MGT not being NATA accredited for some OPP compounds; Diomides & Associates have been advised by MGT that the following organophosphorous pesticides: cournaphos, dichiowos, ethion, ethoprop, phorate, ronnet, trichlorinate are not NATA accredited analyses. However, MGT is accredited for all other organophosph~mus pesticides. The significance of MGT not being NATA accredited for the seven mentioned organophosphorous pesticides would appear to be low given that all organophosphorous pesticides analyses were reported below the method

detection limit in each case. From these resufts it would appear that organophosphorouspesticides are not an issue on the subject site. Section 6.0 -Paragraph 5-What about Amdel internal QNQC? Please discuss; AMDEL carried out internal quality assurance procedures involving the analysis of spike and duplicate soil samples. For this investigation, AMDEL reported internal duplicate relative percent difference(RPD) values between 4 .Cl % and 29.2% with 100 % of duplicate RPD values within the H50 % acceptance criteria. Percentage spike recovery values ranged from 74.3 O/a to 118 % with approximately 94 % of percentage spike recovery vaiues within the 75 to 125 % acceptance criteria. Diomides & Associates believe that most method blanks and surrogates reported by AMDEL are within the required acceptable limits as required by their NATA accreditation. Section 6.0 -Paragraph 4 1 -Please discuss fill vs. natural soils resuks. FilI material identified as COMP A to I variously exhibited marginally elevated concentrations of arsenic, nickel and zinc above modified EIL and in some case above modified EPA clean fill criteria. However, these elevated concentrations DlOMlDES & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD

1 above modified EPA clean fill criteria and vanadium was efevated in most composite samples above modified ELL criteria. It is considered that these soils do not pose a significant health risk to future residents or to the environment given the low concentrations and it is likely that individual analyses of these composite samples would result in concentrations below EPA clean fill criteria. individual samples of naturalsoil indicated that the results were below the laboratory method detedion limits in many cases with only some metals detected in tow concentrations. All natural samples exhibited concentrations below the adoptd EIL, HIL A, NSW �?A and EPA Fill criteria. Based on the above mentioned comments, the Auditor recommends that the folIowing analysis be undertaken: COMP B, CQMP E, COMP F and COMP G for chromium VI; One sample from COMPB for arsenic and vanadium; One sample from COMPD for arsenic, nickel, vanadium and zinc; One sample from COMPE for nickel and vanadium; One sample from COMPl for cobalt and nickel. The results of this analysis should be provided to the Auditor in a brief letter report with appropriate discussion of the results (i.e.

comparison to NEPM ElLs and Clean Fill criteria) and the quality ofthe data. Our company has instructed MGT to proceed with these lab analyses as you have requested. A brief letter report with appropriate discussion of results wiH be forwarded to the auditor when analysis resuk have been produced by MGT. m The Auditor is awaiting a copy of the report prepared by Milsearch regarding the unexploded ordnances investigation undertaken within the easement. Please contact Mark Roberts in regards to obtaining a copy of the Miisearch report. Yourssincerely, DlOMlDES & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD DR COSTA DlOMlDES Environmental Scientist DIOMIDES 8r ASSOCIATES PTY LTD

CMAiN OF CUSTODY Page 3 of 9 Attention: MGT CM� MCAL ANALYSfi Client Diornides & Associates

DCOMJDES & ASSOCiATES PTYL7D Location; MaJdetohe ENVlRUNbIEMCAL CONSULT'IVjlS LCN. 6% CS? W Sample Type@): ProjecVNo: DA 4255 Ph: (03) 9842 2WO Date Sampled: 28103&J6 Fax: (03) a342 OW!

Total M. ol Containers

Sampled by: mmor nides Relinquished by: Stephen Oiomides Organisaflon: Diomides S A$s Recelvad by:

L. Organisation: Dab: 29103106 Time: 9.30am Date: 21-C-5 5%~: Relfnquished by; Orlynlsatlon: Received by: Organbation: Date: Time: . Date: Tlme:

8r SERVICES Proprietry iN DE-MINING AND Limited UNEXPLODEDORDNANCE Head Offrce Address Haad Uffico ishanetF3x Lao PDR Vierlnane Qfficz ill':: 4 5. 30 !dav:son Place Tat02.52868299 : lr::: G! -21 Tei: 858-Zf.35161)8 idG?is~n. ACT 2507 !vl~biln: elf 19-94.$397 [II?!: 61 -4i9) Tel:Fc?s: 356-21.351609 f-' PSS:G$ Ad31 CGS: Fax, CZ-G2958265 clni. 67 -2-j .r,,o~l~. 656 90 5i 2O5? ?Cl Do:,

637 . Ma1.vso1: ACT, e-i;~::ii. coi.n.ag ~i!nlinartck@in~Isea~ch Lj~?;t 9, Bait Sapacpbng AbSTRALiA 2807 iPG Box 1321; Vienlane. Lao PDii +SN. 44 007 l It6 Zei e.jnar l. miiiao@laol.;& ccr;? CERTIFICATE OF UXO CLEARANCE MAIDSTONE GAS EASEMENT A gas easement running along the Northern boundary of the former Pyrotechnic Manufacturing facility at Maidstone was subjected to a soil sample characterisation prior to removal. To meet the requirements of the appointed EPA Site Auditor and to ensure a construction work-site free of any potential munition hazards, Milsearch provided an Explosive Ordnance (EO) Technician to safeguard invasive test work associated with the characterisationand soil removal within the pegged gas easement footprint as follows: a. Manual investigation of anomalies was by Foerster 4.032 Analogue Magnetometers and Minelab Electronics F3 Metal Detectors under supervision of a former military EOD qualified technician. b. Safeguarding services were provided on the 23 March 2006and also 10 May 2006. No explosive ordnance (EO), unexploded ordnance (UXO) and or evidence of explosive

residue or associated explosive ordnance waste (EOW) was discovered. No deeper caches or burials within the equipment search specifications were located. Only scrap items of building and consiruction waste were uncovered. In Milsearch's professional opinion, the soil removed from that pegged area within the gas easement located within the former Pyrotechnic Manufacturing facility at Maidstone is free from explosives. Also, that soil remaining within the gas easement footprint that was subjected to a UXO search prior to invasive investigations is also certified as free of explosives. Michael B. Ransom Principal Operations Manager 26 June 2006 Military Land Decontamination, * Unexpioded Ordnance Disposal, * De-mining, Sub-SurfaceDetection of Metallic ..l Items, * Rehabilitation of Active Defence Live-Firing Ranges, ' Geophysicai Surveys on Land and Underwater

AV Jennisgs AV 6 September2006 3 1 Hampstead Road, Mnidstane, Victoria APPENDIX E APPENDIX E Diomides & Associates (2006) Diomides & Associates (2006) Site Clean Up & Supplementary Site Contamination Assessment, 31 Hampstead Road, Maidstone, Victoria (ref: DAI 2551CDl l22, l September 2006). S:Wvir~UobsKoombes -Maidstone 32-0018UCeportsU2.0018 En~immentst Audit Rcport fof 31 Mampstcad Road, Maidstoae, viaoria final doc ENVIRON

September 1,2006 1. September 1,2006 DA12551CD1122

This report presents the results of a site clean up validation and supplementary site contamlnatbn assessment carried out by Diomides & Associates Ply Ltd at 31 Hampstead Road, Maidstone, Victoria. A locality plan has been included showing the location af the subject site in Figure 1. Diomides & Associates Pty Ltd was commissioned by Coomes Consulting G~oup Piy Ltd on behalf of A V Jennings Limited, to conduct the site dean up validation and supplementary site contarnhation assessment and to prepare this report. The lnvestlgations were carrid out generally in accordance with the Diomides & Associates proposal dated March 24, 2006, and additional smpe of work provided by Coornes on July 24, 2006. The work was authorised by Mr Mark Roberts of Caomes Consulfing Group Ply Ltd, by wtittien authorisation dated April 3, 2006, and memorandum dated July 28,2006. Coomes Consulting Group also appointed EPA Contaminated Land Auditor Mr Philllp Hitchcock to conduct a statubry environmental audit of the subject she,

including an audit af the work being conducted by Dimides & Associates, with a view to issuing a Certificate Environmental Audit far lhe subject site in accordance with Part IXD of the Environment Protection Act 1970 of Wctorla. An audit report and Statement of Environmental Audit were previousty issued for the majority of the subject site. The original audit was completed by Dr Wayne Drew of DIOMIDES & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD September1,2006 2. DA12WCD1 i 22 P P . Egis Consulting Australia Pty Limited in May 2002, A number of assessment repwts induding site remediation reports, validation repor& and environmental management plans for the subject site were also previously prepared by CH2M HILL Australia Pty Ltd. An additionalaudit report wasprepared by Mr Rick Graham for the subject site, including the fibre optic easernent area, In November 2005, Diomides & Associates also completed two soil contamination assessment reparts -one for the fibre optic easement area and one for the gas easement area of the subject site. These reports were completed in May 2005 and April 2006 respectivdy.

The material presented in the abovementioned reports has not been repeated in this report. The previous reports have been referenced in Section 10.0 of this report. The objectives of the current site clean up vaMatton and supplementary site contamination assessment are: to investigate the chemical nature and general distribution of any subsurface contamination within various areas of the site by implementing a soil sampling, and chemical anafysis programme: b validate site clean up work conducted by others FIX the entire area of the site after removd of any potentially asbestoscontaining fill material; and, to report on the results of investigations, including field observations, results of chemical analyses and an appraisal of the significance of any possible contaminant levels, and the implications of these, trylether with any relevant recommendations. DIOMIDES & ASSOCIATES PW LTD

September I, September 2006 3. DA3 253CD1122 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 General The property which is the subject d this site clean up vaklatian and supplementarysite contamination assessment is located on the north-western side of Hampstead Road, Maidsfone and is more commonly referred to as 31 Hampstead Road, Maidstone, as defiwd by the Land Victoria Property Report which is attached as Appendix A, Certificate of Title documentation has not been appended in this report as it has been previousty reportedin the mentionedaudits and variws assessment reports. The site is currently vacant. All buikiings, pavements, and concrete have been demolished and removed from the site. It is understood that a residential development is to k constructed on the subject propertyand that the RespmsiMe Authority requiresa Certificate af Environmental Audit to be issued bebe construction works can commence on the site for the proposed residential development. In this case, a SIatement of Envlmnmenlal audit has already been issued for the subject site, however, the chit arcanged for the clean up of the subjed

site in order to secure a Certificate of EnvironmentalAudit* DlOMlDES & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD September 1,2006 4. DA12551CO1122 2.2 Contaminants of Interest Cantarninants of interest associated wlth the past and present activities conducted on the subject sitehave been summarisedin Tablel. Tablel. Potenflal Contaminantsof Interest Activity PotentialContaminants Demolition of former buildings Asbestos cement lmpclrted fill material Metals screen incjuding mercury, OC, OP, PCB, PAH, TPH & MAH 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF SITE REMEDIATION WORKS Diamides & Associates Ply Ltd, as environmental consultants for this project, provided expert advice to Coomes Consulting Group Pty Ltd who are the project managers. Coomes se[ecbd,

engaged and supervised the earthworks contractors who excavated and removed all fill material from the site. The fill material consistedof an approximately 0.5 metre thick surfae layer which extended to significantly graater depths in same areas of the sife. On May 8, 2006, fhe excavation and stripping of fill material commenced on the subject site. The work started from the rear of the site, in Area l,and progressively moved towards the front OF the slte. Into Area 8. Figure 2 -Site Plan shows the DIOMIDES & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD

September1,2006 5. OAl255r'CD1122 September1,2006 5. boundaries of Areas lto 8 of the subjed site. The excavation contractors were instructed to remove all fill material !hat covered the entire area of the subject site. It is understood that the fill material removed off site was to be reused for a nansensilive land use. In all cases the fjll material was stripped down to the natural clays. Remediation works were completed on August 18,2006, During the site remediation works, sub consulfanb, AZCOR Consultants Pty Ltd (AZGOR) were carnmissitlned by Coames to condud air quality monitoring of asbestos fibres during the excavation and removal of fill material frm the subject site. The ATCOR asbestos air monitoring report indicatedthat all resub were beiow the detection level d 0.01 fibres of asbestos per millilitre of air for the fourteen days of air quality monitoring conducted during the sib remediation works. A copy of the AZCOR asbestos air monitoring report has been attachedas Appendix B, 4.0 FIELD LNVESTtGATlON 4.1 General An experienced project manager and an environmental scientist hrn Dimides 8. Associates Ply

Ltd were responsible for all fieldwork induding the selection of sampling l0c8tionsl mllection of soil samptes induding sail clean up validationwwk, logging of sal1 profiles, providing field contamination readings and ensuring that all ssmples were delivered to the specified NATA registered analytical laboratories without belay. Directions were provided to the relevant laboratories by the Project Manager, giving detailsof analyses requiredfor each sample. DlOMlDES & ASSOCIATES PW LTD September l, 2006 6. 4.2 SupplementarySite Contamination Assessment On August 16,2008, fourleen sol1 samples were recovered from the natural clay surface, following the completed remediation works. These soil samples were llocated and marked out by Diornides &Associates in consultation with the EPA appointed auditor Mr Hitchwck in locations previously sampled by the pdevlous consultants. The EPA appointed auditor Mc Hitchcock requested the supplementary samples jn order b adequately characterise the natural clay remaining on

the surface. These supplementary sail samples have been labelled with the prefix 'CH" corresponding to the approximate localions of the previous assessor's soil sampk lacatlons. The approximate bwt[ons where supplementaiy soil samples were collected are shown on the attached Site Plan, Figure 2. In addition, three additionat scril sampks were recovered from road base material that was laid down by the excavation contractors In order to traffic excavationvehicles, The EPA appointed auditor Mr Hitchcock requested the samples of raad base in order to adequately characterise the material irnpomd on to the site, These three samples were lebdkd with the prefix "ROAD" and were sampbd in the areas shown on the attached Site Plan, Figure 2. M1 supplementary soil samples were recovered from the surface soil byer from the subject site in each case. Descriptions of materials encountered and depths at which sampfeswere cdleded are presentedin Appendix C -Sail Logs. OlOMlDES & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD

September1,2006 7. DA1255!CDI September1,2006 7. 122 In amrdance with our quality assurance procedures and instructions from the Project Manager, the soil samples colbcted were submitted to MGT Environmental Consulting Laboratories. A summary of laboratory resub for the supplementarysite contamination assessment have been tabulated in Appendix D. The full laboratory results for the supplementary site cantamination assessmentare attached as Appendix E -Laboratory Reports for Soil Sampbs. 4.3 Soil Clean Up Validation Sampling An experienced project manager and an environmental scientist from Diomides & Associates conducted the sampling required in order to validate the clean up of the subject site. Valdaticln of the cleaned up areas of the site consisted of lwo validation samples recovered from each d the &M areas of the subject site as shown in Figure 2 -Site! Plan. In some cases the sait clean up validation sampling and supplementary soil sampling locations coincided and single samples were recovered in order to avow duplication. A series of representative soil samptes were colkcted by Dicrmides & Associates from the excavated areas of the site. A total of fifteen clean up validation samples were cdbcted and anaiyslsd during the course of this project. Descriptions of materials encountered and depths at which dean up validation samples were collected are presented in Appendix C -Soil Logs. The localions af

the clean up validation samples recavered are shwn In Figure 2 -Site Plan. DIOMIDES & ASSOCIATES PN LTD September 3,2006 8. DA12551CDl122 P-All validation samplesfor this project were identified with theprefix'AREA' for validation sampfes taken from he excavated areas of the site, The results of all analyses for clean up vakiation samples are summarised in Appendix D. The full laboratory reports are attached as Appendix E Laboratory Reports for Soil Samples. All samples were recovered using clean latex gloves and stored in pdevvashed gtass jars under cml condiions prior to delivery to the laboratwy for chemical analysis. Each sample jar was clearIy labelled with the following information: DAI 255 (Job Number); Sample Number; Depth of sample; and, Sampling Date. During the site clean up validation and supplementary site wntaminaUon assessment, particubr note was faken of possible contamination, as evidenced by visual and odour criteria. A rnelhod of field contamination assessment for soif

was utilised, based on these criteria, The system of classillcation is summarised below: Rank Description 0 No odour or visualevidence of contamination 1 Slight odour ancVor slight visual evidence of contamination 2 Visual evidence of contamination and /or odour 3 Obvious visual evidence of contamination andhr strong odour The rank of each soil sample is presented In AppendixC -Soil logs. DIOMIDES & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD

Seplemkr 2006 9. DAI 2551CD t 122 Measurement of volatile organic hydrocarbon concentrations were not conducted in the kld using a photo-ionisation detector for this assessment work since previous work by others indicated that volatile organic hydrocarbon contamination was not an issue within the subject site. 5.0 CHEMICAL ANALYSES All soil samples were submitted to MGT as !he primary laboratory for cornpositing of selected soil samples, analysis of all composite soil samples plus selected indMdual soil samples previously recovered during the soil contamination assessment of the gas easernent area, site dean up validalion and supplementary site contamination assessment work, Four extra soil samples recavered from the previous soil cantarnmation assessment of !he gas easernent area conducted by Diomides & Assbetates were also analysed for various metals in order to more th~roughly characterisethe fill material remaining within the gas easement area of the subject site. In accordance with instructions from the Project Manager, MGT previously formed ten composite soil samples as part of the soil contamination assessment for the gas

easement area. Four of these ten composites were subsequently analysed for hexavalent chromium at the request of the EPA appointed environmental auditor Mr Witchcock. The four composite sampbs analysed during this assessmentwork are as described in Table 2. DIOMIDES & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD September 1,2008 lQ. DA3 255JCD1122 TABLE 2. Details of Composite Soil Samples Composite Source of Samples (Sample No's) & Sample No. Depth of Samples Below Ground Level ((in metres) COMP COMP COMP COMP

8 E F G

MGT has advised ihat it is NATA registered for all chemical analyses required in this investigation. All asbestos icientification work was conducted by Environmental & Safety Professionals(ESP). A summary of laboratory resultshas been presentedin Appendix D for all soil samples. The full results of laboratory analyses for soil samples are presented in Appendix E with details of the laboratory quality assurance procedures in aIl cases. The range and number of chemical analyses performed on soil samples for this investigationare indicated in Table 3. DIOMIDES &

ASSOCIATES PTY LTD

September 1,2006 If. September 1,2006 DA12551CD 1 122 TABLE 3. Range and Numberof Chemical Analyses Performed Constituent Composite IndividuaI Validation Soil Soil Soil P P Antimony Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium (Total) Chromium 011) Cobalt Copper Lead Mercury MalyWnum Nlckel Weim Tin Vanadium Zinc PAH OP Pestkides OC Pesticides PCBs Ahtw

BTEX TPH DlOMlDES & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD September 1,2006 12. DA12551CD1122 6.0 RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION The 543,360 Geological Survey of Victoria Melbourne Sheet indicates that the site is underiain by Quaternary basaltic deposits associated with the newer volcanics group. 6.2 Subsurface Conditions The investigation of'subsurface conditions conducted during the site clean up validation and supplementary site contamination assessment fcrr this project found that the fill material over the entire area of the subject site had been successfully removed, except for some minor fill material remaining within the gas easernent area of the site. Underlying fhe surface were the natural soils consisting of light brown to grey residua! basalticclays. The subsurface conditions encountered at each of the soil sample locations are presented in Appendix C. The resutts of the fidd ranking based on visual and olfadory assessment conducted during the soil sampling program are also includedin Appendix

C, DIOMjDES & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD

September1,2006 15. September1,2006 DA1255KD1 i 22 7.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS The guidelines for perfarmance of a site contamination assessment which apply in Australia are hose published in W "National Environment Pmtection {Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999, plus the "Guidelines for the Assessment and Management of Contaminated Sites" {January 1992), Australian and New Zealand Environment Council, and the Nationd Wealth and Medical Research Council (NHICMRC) known as the ANZECC guidelines. In perfQrming the site clean up validation and supplementary site contamination assessment for this project, Diomides & Associates Pty Lid has had regard ta the State Environment Protection Policy (Prevention and Management of Contaminated Land) and various guidelines including the National Environment Protection Measure (NEPM), the ANZECC guidelines, the Environmental Auditor (Contaminated Land) Guidelines for Issue of Cerlificates and Statements of Environmental Audit, and the Australian Standard -Guide to the sampling and investigation of potentially contaminated sdl, AS 4482.1 2005 and AS 4482.2 -1999, The resub af the chemical analyws have been compared with the sol1 lnvestigation bvels adopted under the NEPM guidelines.

In accordance with the NEPM guidelines, Diomides & Associates has adopted the Ewbgical Investigation Levels {Elk) for an urban setting, the Health Investigation Levd (HIL As) which apply for 'standard' residential use with gardenlamssible wil, plus the NSW EPA Guidelines for Assessing Senrice Station Sites for petroleum hydrocarbon and ETEX levels in soil. The results of all chemical analyses conducted duriw ihis investigation have been compared with these dteria. September 1,2006 16. DAI 255tCD1122 Sedion 2.1 of EPA Informalion Bulletin, Publication 448 fied "Classification of Wastes", covers Fill Material and provides a Table 2 tiled, "Maximum Concentrations of Contaminants Allwed in Soil to be Disposed of as Fill material". The Information Bulletin states, "Contaminant levels must be below those specified in Table 2, otharwlse the material must be classified as prescribed waste. The results d chemical analyses conducted during this investigation have also been campared with these criteria. MGT carried out Internal quality assurance procedures involving the analysis of spike and duplicate soil samples, For this investigation, MGT reported internal duplicate relative percent difference [RPD) values between c1 % and 9.2 % with 100 % of dupfite RPD values within W

+/-50 % acceptance criteria. Percentage spike recovery values ranged from 75 % ta 129 % with approximately 97.3 % of percentage spike recovery values within the 75 to 125 % acceptance criteria. Diornides & Associates believe that most method blanks and surrogates reported by MGT are within the required acceptable limils as required by their NATA accreditation. Laboratory resub for all sail samphs are attached as Appendix E. Contaminant occurrences are presented in Appendix D which show any elevated concentrationin shaded format, indicating that a partidar contaminant is above one or more of the adopted criteria. DlOMlDES & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD

September1,2006 19. September1,2006 DAt25WDI l22 negligible, or bw adverse effects on plants and other vegetstion which constitute any site landscaping within the sik: and, negligible. or no impact on the surrounding environment due to possible leaching of any contaminants present in sol or ml, into road gide drains or into groundwater. Based an the results of this investigaflon, we recommend that no furlher dean up of the subject site is necessary prior to the issue of a Certificate of Enviranmenfat Audit permittingresidential development within the subject site. DlOMlDES & ASSOCIATES PM LTD September 1,2006 20. DA12551CD1122 9.0 LIMITATIONS OF THIS REPORT Soil and rock formations am variable. The soil logs indicate what are considered to be the prevaihg subsurface conditions within the site. Boundaries between zones on the lags are often not distinct, but rather are kansitional and have been interpreted. The precision with which subsurface conditions are indicated depends largely on the frequency and method of sampling, and the uniformity of subsurface conditions. A soil

contamination assessment necessarily involves the Investigation of subsurface conditions at a site for a limited number of locations and the interpretation of data collected from a specified range of analyses, and a limited number of soil samples recovered from those locations. Chemical conditions descnied in this report refer only to those conditions indicated by analysis of soil samples obtained at the points and under the circumstances noted in the report and are relevant only to the conditions which pertained at the lime of this investgation. These conditions may vary due to the variabiiity of contaminant concentrations in soil as a consequence of activities an the site or adjacent sites, Should there be revealed at same future time that contaminant concentrations in soil encountered at the site differ significantly from those indicated by the results in this report, either due to natural variabirity of sub surface conditions or above ground activities, it is strongly recommended that Dibmides & Associates Piy Ltd be notified of the differences and provided with an opportunity ta assess the significance of such diff~~ences and to provide appropriateadvice. DlOMlDES

& ASSOCIATESPTY LTD

September 1,2006 21. DAt2551CDl122 September 1,2006 21. Due care ard skill have been applied in carrying out and reporting an this work. The findings, mnduslons and camments contained in this report represent professional estimates ancl opinions and are not to be read as facts unless the context makes it clear to the contrary. In general, statements of fact are confined to statements as to what was done andlor what was abserved. Other statements have been based on professional judgement. This report is prepared solely for the use of the peraon, company or organisation to whom it is addressed and must not be reproduced in whole or in part or includedin any other document without our expressed permission in writing. No responsibiti or liability is accepted to any third party for any damages howsoever arising out of the use of or reliance on thewhole or any part of this repwt by any third party. This report has been prepared on the basis of specific instructions and information provided by or on behalf of the parly to whom it is addressed and for use by that party in its particular cjrcurnstances and for its particular purpose. Its cantents and conclusions

may therefore be Inappropriate for any lhird party in the context of that fhird party's particular purposes and circumstances. Any third party shwld obtain its own independent report or 0th professionaladvice raiher than rely on this report DIOMIDES LASSOCIATES PTY LTD DR COSTA DIOMEDES STEPHEN DlOMlDES EnvironmentalScientist Director Senior Environmental Auditor -Contaminatecl Land Registration No. 005155 QSA Register of Certifiid Auditors September t ,2006 22. DA1255iCD1122 10.0 REFERENCES Australian and New Zealand Environment and Consetvation Council [ANZECC)INational Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for the Assessment and Management of Contaminated Sites, 1092. Diamides & Associates Pty Ltd, Report to Coomes Consulting Group Pty Ltd, Soiil Contamination Assessment (Fibre Optic Easement Area). 31 Hampstead

Road, Maidstone. Report Ref. DAl2551CD1097, May 2005. W Diomides 8 Associates Pty Ctd, Report to Coames Cansultlng Group Pty Ltd, Soil Contamination Assessment, Gas Easement Area, 31 Hampstead Road, Maidstone. ReportRef. DA1255iCD1106, April 2006. W CHZM Hill, Maidstone Laboratory and Radio Tower Phase 1 & 2 Site Assessment. Final Report Ref. 101340 Rev2, to Telstra Corporation, April 1999. CHZM I-lill, Maidstone Laboratory and Radio Tower Phase 3 Remediation of Contaminated Soils. Final Report Ref. 101387 Rev1, to Telsfra Corporation, April 1999. DIOMIDES & ASSOCIATESPTY LTD

APPENDIX A LAND VICTORIA PROPERTYREPORT Property Rep013 kmww.land.vlc.govYau on27 May 2005 II:ZI AM Address: 31 HAMPSTEAD ROAD MAIDSTONE 30j2 lot and Plan Number: Lot A PS443690 Standard Parcel Identlfler ISPI): A\PS443690 Local Government (Cotrncll): MARIBYRNUNG Council Property Number: 8405384014 Directory Refenncc: Mehvay 27G9,27H9,27GIO, 27HlO State Electorates Legislative Council:MELBOURNE WEST (20031 Legislaave Assembly: FOOTSCRAY (2001) Utilities Metro Water Business: City West Water Rural Water Buslness: SouthernRural Water Melbourne Water: inside drainage boundary Power Kjistrtbutor: AGL (hfarmatloil aboutPlanning Zone Summary Planning Zone: COMMONWEALTHLAND NOT CONTROLLED BY PLANNING SCHEME(CA] Planning Overlay: DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY -SCHEDULE1 (DDOI) DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS PUN OVERLAY

SCHEDULE 2 (DCP02) mk repor1 is not a aubslilule for a Planning Cerlcate. Far Pknning Certificate Plannincr CMificales Online Wr Planning Detalls

Plannino Schemes Online Area Map Copyright@ State Governmentof VlcWria Disddmer: This content is rwkled tor infurmation purposes onty. No daim is made as to the accuracyw aulhmtielty of the cmanL $9 Vicbloriaa Gwmenl does not accept any rabiilty to any person for lha informalin provided. Read Ule full disclaimer a1

m.land.ric,gw.auldiscIaimer

Address: DEVELOPMENT $IQ 31 HAMPSTEAD R0 MAlOSKlNE VIC Date: Raport Issua Date: BAQ(GROUt46 air monitoriog during the w~ilv4tbn and or removal of soll,

Remwal Contractor: BMD Cllent: Comes C~multing Group Pty LM Monitwing Method: In House Method No. P7.1 NOHSC 3003 Guidance Note 2005. Rle No: 33836 CC: CPclrnes Cansulting Group Pty Ltd APPENDIX B AZCQR AWESTOS AIR MONITORING REPORT

MOMTdRLOC4nON ON i OFF SAMPLE IDNO. ! FIBRE5 PER100 FIELD5 RESULTT FIARE#CNL. MR l. REAR OF 1WEI ST HOUSES OH WIRE RNCE l020 1600 33833 0 cD.01 2. AVSTRAUA PUT FENCE WSf 1022 1602 33834 0 <0.01 3. AREA 2 WEST ON WIRE FENCE 1023 3603 33835 0
W ZEGEE TO'Q> EGSI ZCTT

Z W W'6 0 33N33 3UW NO TO'O> BEIT C) 33N33 aUIM NO lS3M Z: YMtl '+ IE6fE 6*ST W.... TO'O>

SCE1 RTT 0 3tlN3d 3dIM ND SXflOH IS NIMUI dO MEIY 'E WEE pp-.___._. SD'O> Q 626EE ?C41 ZEII 33NU =!M NO EX3 Z WW '5 33N3d 3'LIIM NO I9h4 L Wan# 'C 10'0> .... TObO> +" TO'O, ~0~02

IO'D> 71J/'S3Zif8Id SL7nS38 0 S89EE 0 CQQEE OZZT 8IZT OIL0 o ETLQ 0 0 E88EE ZB~EE 18B�� SU73Ij OOT H3d S3HBId 33NY 3Y1M M S3SnOH IS NMYI 30 'E MM 32~33 ISM vm-usnv *I lStR =Nil4 lSOd YIIWLSDW '1 +TtrT ZTZI DTZI SOLD EOLO 00L0 NQf1b307 HOUNOW NQ 'ON 01 37dWE JJO 1 ro -~> o : 8~6~s

WGT OETT ~913 3~~ 3 sod YI~ZUS~V -T

NOfiW7 UOUhlOW

Address: Date: Report Issue Dam: Removal Contraacir: Client: Modtoring Method: File No: CC: AS8 ESTOS AIR MONITORING REPORT DEVELOPMENT SITE 31 HAMPSIEAD R0

BACKGROUND ak monitoring during the excavationand or remval Of soil, MD Coanes C~gnsuking Gmup Ply Lld In Hwu# Method No. P7.1 NOHX W3 Guldance Mote 2005. 33982 Ca~rnes Consulting Group Pty ttd Address:

Date: Report Issue Date: Description: Removal f3r'itrattor: Ciient: Monitoring Method: File No: CC: ASBESTOS A/R MONlTORlNG REPORT DEVELOPMENT SITE 31 HAMPSFEAD RD MAIDSTONE WC

BACKGROUND air monitoring durlng the excavation and or removal of sol[, BMD Comes Comldting Qmup Ply Lld 1n House Method No, P7.1

NOHX Xi03 Guidance Note 2005, 34054 Coomes Consulting Gmup Pty Ltd

1, AUSTRALIAPOST FENCE EAST 1030 1534 33977 1.5 ~0.01

. MONITOR LOCATJON FI13RES ON RESULTS OFF SAMPLE ID NO. C7DREVML 'F:!:,"," ATR . .1. AUSTRALIA PO= FENCE M <0,(11 Ill45 1600 341149 0 ---p1046 1602

34050 0 <0,01 3. REAR OF IRWIN ST HOUSES ON WIRE FENCE 1048 1605 34051

U cU.01 . 4. AREA 2 WESTON WIRE FENCE 1055 1610 34052 0 <0.01 5. AREA 2EAST ON WfRE FENCE 0
m,.. , . 3. REAR OF ~RWIN ST HOUSES ON WIRE FENCE 1032

1537 33979 a
4. AREA 2 WESTON WIRE FENCE 1035 1538 33980 0 <0.01 -.

5. AREA 2 ON WIRE FENCE 1 1037 1539 33981

0 <0.01 NOTE: These resukts am below the daection level (0.0k fibres

per mlllilltre af alr) for thls method. NOTE: These results are belowthe detection level (O.Bl fibres per mlllllllre OF air] for this mathod. Jirn Gouah

Jim Gough

lhH bbonxry Ir rsret%o3

M Habcaal Pucdrtbn 01 my &DioWca *mwalla. 711s Ir%ramy lr exrdted by ma Raliaodl UmaMn cl Tsdm khQa haaka. fha tws reportwj hmln ksvr km pvtmma In cld~rit.

nm la row cl r:cndmubn. tbs tan fwbrtad horrln Mve hen Wumrd Inmdnnct h kap d e-e:crtdicatlon. 114 dotursw stall not k RPC~W. acrg: 10 1WI. nrlr dacurnmt rlmd nct k rnprd~d. warn fd.

0 ~0.01 ASBESTOS ASBESTOS A /R MONITORING REPORT AIR MONiTORlNG REPORT Address; Address: DWELOPMHVT SITE 31 tlAMPStEAI) RD MAIDGONE VIC Date: Date: Report Xwe Date: Report I5sue Date: BACKGROUND air monltorlng durirrg the excavation arrd or removal of soil, BAQCGRDUN~ air rnonit~ring during the excavation md w removal of soil. Removal Contractor: mD BMD

Client; Comes ConsuiUng Gmup Ply Ltd AV Jenrings Ply lld Monitoring Method: In House Method No. P7.1 -NOHX 3003 Guidance Note 2005. Monitoring Method: In HDUW Method No. P7.1 -NOHSC 3003 Guldance Note 2005. 34190 File NO: 34235 Caornes Consulllng Graup Pty Led CC: Cmes Consulting coup Pty Ltd . .

MONITOR LOCATION ON OFF i SAMPLE FIBRES RESULTS 1 ID NO. FIBRES.ML FIELDS h7~ -, ... . 1, AUSTRALIA WST FENCE EAST

D935 1420 34185 0
2, AUSTRALIA POST FENCE WEST 0937

1421 34186 ........._____I_._._.3. REAR

OF IRWIN ST HQUS&S ON WIRE FENCE 0940

34187 1424 4. AREA 2 WE= ON WIRE FENCE 5. AREA 2 EAST ON WIREFENCE 0

cD.01 NOTE: These results are below the detection level (0.01 nbres per ndlillltre of alr) for thls method. NOTE: These results are beDow the detactlon level (0.01 flbras per millilitre of air] for thls method.

Jim Gwgh ~tknr Urorw :%",:T&:""k%YJmZ WTA CauntPr & HWy WOWI1 Thlr I&~rcbrj Is wrodiSOd

hr NaI1caa1 A&166bW dl TtWw *.l&orltm ~JSIT~II~. lhis laWrYS+I Is mxlr((.trd by bl11a&~341 Aa?OCIaMn olSnUrq ,bdwW~lsr Awbrllr. lhb tb$u nportrd W n krvr km yrlmmtd In aawr(ancr prim la xopc fd accradimlla~. hvdn hrr ken &cfrmd In raordmca KI~ Lb Plcrpl d YCNamum. lilts d~u~m lhull npt b. nprdd. m+pL in Id. W� dxurnMl rlwU nsl k 1-d. ucapeln

hi!. A . .... ';;c?* NATA v ~~RK),~WI,~~ WCWSWE M4WB

ASBESTOS AIR MONITORING REPORT Data: Rapart Issue Date:

BACKGROUND alr mtlnltoring during the axcavatbn and or removal of ~ll. Remaval Contractor; BMD Client: AV Jennings Ply Lld

Ia House Method No. P7,1 -MQHSC 3003 Guidance Note 2005. Re No; 34295 CC: Caomes Consulting Gwup Pty Ltd ON OFF SAMPLE FIBRES REWLTS

ID NO. F"f3 100 FIBRES/ML

FIELDS AIR

1. AUSTRALIA POST FENCE EASF

1005 1428 ) 34290 0 <0.01 2. AUmlA POST FENCE WEST 1006 1429 <0.01 34291 0 f m 3. REAR OF lRWN ST HOUSES ON WIRE FENCE l008 1432 34292 , 0 ~0.01 4. AREA 2 WEST ON WIRE FENCE ' iOl2 1437 34293 D <0.01. 5, AREA 2 EASt ON WIRE RNCE I014 1438 34294 Q <0.01 W NOTE: Thmr rewlts am belw the detectloo level (0.01 fibres per rnfllllltre of air) for this method. Jirn Gaugh ~mbpm Mlaw PIWb (aHS) OlpT114W)

c~r6iblnalOt6) IkWNhs NLTA ePmW br Yw'*Yv WGftl

ASBESTOS ACR MONITORING REPORT DEVELOPMENTSITE 31 HAMPSEAD RD MAIDmNE VIC Daa: 29/U6/2006 Report Issue Date: 30/06/20D6 Description: BACKGROUND air monitoringduring the axcavation and or removal of soil, Removal antractor: BMD Cllant: AV Jennings Ply itd M~nitoring Metbd: Irr Hwse Method No. P7.1 -PIOtlSC 3003 Guidance Nate 2005. File

No: 34333 cc: Coclrnas Consulting Gtaup Pty Ltd MONIRIR LOCA-ROM l. AUSTRALIAPOST FENCE EAST 2. AUSTRALIA POST FENCE WEST 3. REAR OF IRWIN ST HOUSfS ON WIRE FENCE ON OFF SAMPLE l0 NO, FlBRES $::$",o RESULTS FIBRfS/blL AlR t 4. AREA 2 WEST ON WIRE FENCE 1017 1459 34331 Q 5. AREA 2 EAST ON WIRE FENCE 0 0 0 0 <0,01
CrrcT~ner(OH5~ G?fWrWW&a$ WTA Courcr $L Slgwmy M4D1

nc labaw*ry Is IssrrdZd by m. nmcn~l Lbbbahn ol~~sbrrp &dmr*rlcr dumalw. lhr tart Wnbd Wn krr8 km pdarmd In accoiemrt VIM jla rcqx d errtrrmm. hldxurm: shall natk nprtrduml, urrrg: fn W!.

AZCOR

ASBESTOS ASBESTOS AIR MONITORING REPORT AIR MONITORING REPORT Address: DEVELOPMENT SITE Address: DEVELOPMENT SlTE 31 HAMPSTEAD RD 31 HAMPmAD RD MAID5TONE WC MAIDSFONE WC Date: Date: Report Issue Dale: Report Issue Date: WaCGROUND air rnonitorlng durlng the excavation and or removal of soil. BACKGROUND air monitoring during the excavation awl or removal of soil. Removal Contractor: BMD Removal Cbntrattbr: 6MD Client: AvJenrdngs Pty tld Chat: AV Jendngs Ply Lid

Mmitoring Method: In How Method No. P7.1

NOHX 3003 Guidance Note 2005. Monitoring Method: In Hwse Method No. 97.1 NOHSC 3003 Guidance Note 2005.

NOTE: These results are below the detection level (O,OL fibres par millliltre of air) fDr this method. NOTE: These results are below the detectfan level (0.01 Rbr~s par rnillllitre d air) far tbis method.

Jim Gwoh

File No: 34384 cc: Cmlts ConsuIting Gmup Pty Ltd 5~AJRU~ LOCATION ON OFF MblPLE ID NO. 1. AUSTRALIA WET FENCE W 1052 1525 34379 2, AUSTRALIA POST FENCE! WEST 1054 1526 34380

3, REPR OF IRWIN 5T WUSES ffl WlRE FENCE 1056 1527 34381 4. AREA 2 WEST ON WIRE FEN= 1108 1528 34382 5. AREA 2 M ON WIRE FENCE . 1111 1529 34383 Fiie No: 34432 CC: Cooms Consulting Gmup Pty Ltd FIBRE5 RESULTS ON OFF SAMPLE FIBRES RESULTS PER 100 FI8RE$/ML D . FIBnEUML FIELDS NR 3. REAR OF IRWIN ST HOU5E4 ON WIRE FENCE

2. AUSTRALIA POST FENCE WEST 3.. AUSTRALIA W51' FENCE ERST

, g;:,"," AiR I) 0 1.5 O f <0.01 4. AREA 2 WEST ON WIRE FENCE o I
ASBESTOS AIR MONITORING REPORT Date: Repart issue Date: BACKGROUND air monitoring during the excavationand or remvd of soll. R8mval Cantractor: BMD Client: AvJennings Ply Ltd Monitoring Method: In House Method NQ, P7.1

FKIHSC 3003 Guidance Note 2005. 34508 Comes ConsrtTtlng Group Pty Ltd SAMPLE FIBRES ID NO. MOFUrOR LUC4T70N ON OFF PER 100 FIfLDs 1, AUSTRALIA POST FENCE E4!3

345153 1000 0 1445 a 1003 1.447 2. AUSTRAUA POSTFENCEWEST 34504 ---p3. REAR OF lRWlN W HOUSES ON WIRE FENCE 1006 1450 34505 0 W.+,.... 4. AREA 2 WEST ON WIRE FENCE 0 5, AREA 2 EAST ON WIRE FENCE

U RESULTS FIBREStHL 1 A3R .
1056 1537 1102 1539 -. .... 1104 1540 SAMPLE ID MO. 34519 34520 34521 34522 34523 FIBRES RESULTS PER

REJRES/ML FIELDS AW 0
<0.51 0 4l.01

NOTE: Thasa rns~lts are below the detection level (0.01 fibres per rnillllitra of air) hr thls method. ASBESTOS AIR MONITORING REPORT Address; DEVELOPMENT WTE 32 HAMP5EAD RD MAIDSKIN� M(: Date: Reprt Issue Date: Description: BACKGROUND alr mnlkoring during the excavation and or removal of soil,

Removal Contractor; BMD Cllent: AV Jmtings Pty LW MonitoringMethod: In House Method NO. P7.1 NOHX 3003 Guidance Not@ 2009,

File NO: 34524 CC: Coomes Consulting Gmup Pty Ltd NOTE: These results are below the detection level (0.01 fibres par mlllllara of alr) far thls method. Jim Gwgh

Jlm G~ugh mntmns Rtwbr Cpnntmna Rr* mprw ICNS) waqwt OIwm l=) ~lWQHS) C~~nrr(MS1 &rWrPcZ.v~s CerflmlWCm) mfc4rPflMdr

tararter& ta war my MUGUI tHTh CowW Ih ~F~=IY MG1H

MS ICLlOnW I5 IXWM by mHnllbtndl WW&a11 dTmb~ Ad*rUr. AsWlu. Ws Ia%W l$ rtttcdit4.5 Wf 'I HnadPnal &maton gfTtru~r;lPud*rr~~ &;vrrlrs. Thn WD n;#d hufln have btrn ptprp~md In raorda~~ wtd~ lu +cap at nccndbUon. Tnr M5 rapmrJ here4 have #an pcrlumcd is 4Wnnsr \rill lu uop cl.

s:arj,hbon. MS sxumilt &l1 act br rtprtdu&, axc+rx In Iut+

mls dxumcnr shall nn ba ngrc2uceU, =Alp iul. "A ,.,,,.

P?. ... ... NATA dQ$
,c-*, ,L,,, . q.'2

S AIR MONRORNG REPORT Address: DEVELOPMENT SITE 31 HAMPSTEAD RD Date: 27/07/2006 (Last day) Reprt Issue Data: 28/0712006 WMGROUND air monitoring during the L?Xcavatlorr and or nmwal of sdl. Remwal Contractor: BMD Client: AvJenrdngs Ply Lld Monitoring Method: In ~ouse Method No. P7,2

NQHX 3003 Guidsnca Note 2905. me NO: 34549 cc: Cwmes Consulting Group Pty Ltd MOWOR tom no^ ON OFF WWLE FIBRES RESULTS

IDNO. EJ?lao FIaRES.ML FIELDS <0,01

APPENDIX C 2. AUSTRALIA POFENCE WEST 1059

1536 34545 1 0

<0.01 3. REAR OF IRWN ST HOUSES UN WIRE ENCE c0.01

-, 4. AREA 2 WE5TW WIRE FENCE <[1.01 SOIL LOGS

5. AREA 2 EAST ON WIRE FENCE <15.01 NOTE: These results are below the detection level [Q.OI fibres par mlllilltce6f air) for thk method. 1. AUSTRALlA POST FENCE EAST ThB tabDRmw b rxradktd

me HSenaiAsg-rm~ alfbsbw duh~*+l kutbal~a. Thwtam mwt4J hdn bra Wn Wdetmrd Id lem%nrt uim Its raw sl sctmdima;sn. brwW shall nH h mWept In Ml.

SUMMARY OF SOIL LABORATORY RESULTS

CHAIN OF CUSTODY Page 1 of I Attention: MGT CHEhWAL ANALYSIS Cllmf: Momldm & Assdcbbes

nsoMm&s& mcu m PTY LT& EN~4UNMfV#~AL CmSdk,YMS Locailon: Malrlme A.W (US r.r& PrnJrctMo: DA 1255 l1 Ccuway Abmlm Sample Typ@{a): &!l Ph:f63)QfU2ZWb M~lart~3lll Far: CC~)

9842ddt2 Data Barnpled: l ySfllPk Pa tc: Time:

.. ...i: 4 ; . .. . : ' . r. ..: L . ,::..,>; : J -. c--..-. . ..i.,.*..;.-!!i l . r ---,-.,...._-.i ...., ,. : : ?\. . . ' 1 U_ , . .. . : , . . .. .: I ' :I.J .-. I .: . 8 .

. . ." .. -..-.. 4 --.---,. ..P .. ,..... . . ' 'S.' Ci : .: . :: i . 1 :. V.' 4 4 *i ; ; .,...,. ,... i..i..i..-C..; ;. .i. .i.,;.n .., !--*..,~--f : 8 i ,. , < . I ).:'

. .FT i . , . . .ii.. ...----...... ,.. -,,..,.. ; -,..L ,,., "!, 1.. i .....;...A..!. j ...,,. . . 2.-! .-..

. ,. . b.

: . , : i i i i '

> . ' i .: 3 : ... .&.. ..... .; ,, .--I

....-.*.., :. ..--.L.--#,.,

Envir~nmental Consulting Pty. LCd. 3 Kngslon Taw Cloae, OaWeigh, Iricloria 3166,Auslnrlia Poalel addrass; F. 0. Box 276, adklei h Uclda 3166 AstnUt $kieohom: -1031 $584 7055 Fax: (03j 0564 7190 Wl; mQl~glenv.corn.au CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS biomides & Associates Pty. Ltd. Report Number: 195851Page 1of 4 11 Conway Ave , Order Humber: Date Received: Jul4,2006 Donvale Date Sampled:Jul4,2006 Victoria 31 'l 1 Date Reporhd: Jul 11,2006 Site:MAIDSTONE DA1255

Contact: Stephen Dlornldes Methods Meihod 102 -ANZECC

% Moisture APHA 3500-CrHexamlent Chromlum Comments Notes 1. The results in this repon surrsede any pevbvsly corresponded results. 2. All Soil Results are repme on a dry basis. 3. Sampk are analysed on an as received basis. ABBREVIATONS mghg :milligramsper kilograms, mg/L :milligramsper lilfe, ppm :parts permllllon, LOR : Limit of Reporling RPD : Relative Percent Difference CRM :Certified Reference Matedal LCS : Laboratory Control Sample M icltii~l Wright

NATA Sig~~ntary t,ahnmtnrv Mnn~gcr Report Number: 195811

----~tr1wm-mr' SIN YJ7RaFM3 7YJnl3ldMOWdNX UTAM SB1WJ0SSY BS5B/ibWiU

............,..$.l.. . .-'C . ', , . W" . . ,. ,, . . ....... , .... .:4. L. 'i. . ::, *. . .

Enviro nmental Consulti ng Pty. Ltd. 3 Kjngstan Town Clms Oaklbigh Viria 3165 Australia CHAIN OF CUSTODY Attention: ESP ................ ........ -. ....... CHFhllG AL ANALYSIS Clio~lt; 13lbmltlos 8 4ssocIatas Localion: MaIds1n1w I : P~ojccVNo -DA 1255 S~rt~rle j j j Typo(&)r Scli]

l, a' ! : Dntn Samplrd: @7b

I 2. : ; i 7,' SAMPLE It3ENf kTY

..... .... ......................... ....... .......... ...... .........

i . ...........-.---..-... :. ....... .......... ...... .......L.. I.... ."..,." ..,--.-.. -,,..-.--.-,.. ; ....... ............... . ,.............................. ............ . .....

l

C ..............

............ ...........

,, A.. .... . ....................... ............... ,-.-.1 aE ...-.......,.................. ............

......... ........ .................. ..... . . .............. ..................... : ............ . ' ................................. : ......... .l. .... .h.

,. .,.. A... .: ....... ............ ; ,. ................ ... .... . ........................... 1 ...... *..... ..; ; .......... i 8 ..................... J...: ................. ! ....... 1ul~1 8 No d Cocita!m?is Snlrwlcd h: St.;~~t!c.r..Q%.ud&.'. -. Organiartion: ~~~;l~:~&.fi~~ :fijri.,.$::~Or~l"i~~~tl~r~ ...-~i.~ .... Rt?cci*cd by: Date; ---A 7i.r~ :..Time: ,..2:.4..'i.pr:s, ,..

sew~rkl~ M: -d.?L .......-............. a : . .......--... ..... ......... RuceW+d 4% ._ . atganl~ati~t~: .-." ...,..-.W+ .......... ............ Dale: ,..-v .............. ~f~~e: .-,. ~LQ: ..-l-~t~~: PosW address: P, 0. Box 276: 0akk h: ~a 3166: Aushala ?elephms: (m) 9SB( 7055 FM: 103) $564 7190 Email: [email protected] CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS Diornides 8 Asswbbs

Pty. Ltd. Report Number: 197585 Page 3 of 14 l f Conway Ave Order Number: Donvale Pate Received: Aug 18,2006 Victoria 31 11 Date Sampled: Aug16,2006 Date Reported: Aug28,2006 Sile: MAIDSTONE DA1255 Contact: Stephen Diomides Methods USEPA 6O1IlB Heavy Metals &lfSEPA7470fll MercuryUSEFA 8270C Polycyclic Asomatic H drocarbons USEPA 8260B -MOT 3JOA ~~rocy$c

Aromatic Hydrocarbons MGT100A-GC Total Recoverable M dmcarbons USEPA BOlOB Heavy Metals & US&A 77470nl

kg3102 ANZECC % Moisture APWA 3500-Cr Hexavalent

Chromium Comments Notes l.The results in this report su ersede any previouslycorresponded results, 2. All Soil Results are repmelon a drybasis. 3. Samplesareanalysed on an as receivedbasis. mghg : milligrerns per kilograms, mgR : milligramsper litre, ppm :parts per million, LOR :Limit pf ReportingRPD: Relatlve Percent Difference CRM : Cerlified Reference Material LCS :Laboratory Conlrol Sample Michacl Wright NATA Signatory I.ahoratnrvM~nngcr Report Number: 197585 ;.:$G\ ,.:;;?'

8 8 V'. # -. W '2 d 2 X

AV Jcnnings AV 6 September2006 31 kfarnpstead Road, Maidstone, Victoria APPENDIX F APPENDIX F Threshold Criteria S:EnvirmUobsiCabmbes -Maidstone 3290lS\ReponsU2.0018 -Environmental Audil Rqm for 3 1 Hsmpstcad Rond. Maidstone, Viclmia final.doc ENVIRQN

National EnvironmentProtection Council (1999) National National EnvironmentProtection Council (1999) Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination)Measure Schedule B(1) Guideline onthe Investigation LeveIs for Soil and Groundwater Table 5 -A Soil InvestigationLevels

Table 5-A Table 5-A Investigation Levels (mgkg)

I [ lwnari cxpcr~urc setting hwd on land use have ken established for Hlls (~~Tat~Lor and Lrurdn. 1998). niesc arc: A. Standnrii* ddcntia] wit11 ~'d~n/.accessiblv soil (homemn pducc cm;hibutini less .than 110% uf rqctnblc md fruit inakrr M odtw): Ilir okgorv irxlus n rlu then's dav-care rcntres!$xndergItrknS, mrschoo1s and nman uharl9.

B. Reiictintinl wikh qlaitai>tirl vgetsblegardr~i (co~rtribu&ng mm. o!vegeiable 10% u and Lit iniake) and/or poultry puvidinl; niy qg rcr poultr\mi=at daclary mtakr. C Rcsirte~dal with substintial vegetable gwdm ccn-ttzibt~ tin 1Qf rr mare of vpgetaMc and fruit illrake); poulhv r.xrludt*l. D. iinidrnlial with ~ninimnl nppomtunitie. for so$ accw ircftdes dwcllillgr with lull!^ rind pcmnmtly paved tud space surlr

as lii@~-rire npi~rbnctlts and flats. L Parks, rmrcatid opm spacc anti playing fields: i~rcludm secondary scltouls. F. Contln~lrcial/ tnrirrstriid: jr~cludc~ factoria 4 ii~dusbjal premiss swlt as shops and officesas wdl ir~ sites. (I!I-I~ details tin dcriuation of HIL fw human exposurc settings bascd m lad usc see *k~iolc ? Site and ra~kaminw~k referred npprnam for otitnitling pM!t specific:on site Snnr ling is the uptake.tixprurr estinulrr my

thcn 1* conhparc~l to the rrlmw~t ADk, &IS nd G& Site ali~i mnlanrimilt specific: on site sanr lin is the prcfcmed approach for cstinlating plant uptake, , Expmurc tstimatcs may the11 hr

~mpareii It * t ~ u YIWL sluik~S: rricnrlt ADL~ l'l~csc will h iic\.clopii tnr rqionaj arcas bv ju~Isliiction5as r lnlerlrn ElLs tpr klir urban wthw qe based bncomidrrrtimr 2$$itoririw, hNZECC B lcvek, and sd ilaurw?. data fran

urban rsid~ntial ro crties in Four Awhatiailcapital citia. hc&~ounr{ IM where HlLs or FlLI arc set, are lakcn from tlr Field timlog)lt% Mnnurl compiled h I1 h HoWi) Thlnl Editin11 1% Pebl9llgr -~lle & MefaUyrs. Tl& ppublicationraatah infckahon on i more exlerlsi?$ list of soil dr.nre~!k qustqlasiall lmtibk ol Millin Uian u rnr~cluPnl m thu 'lbble. AnoUyr source

8f ~nbmatlop IS CmuMnatmj Skta Mmojppl~ No.4: Tmcr Umienl Goncrnanlicns an hl. hurl Rural & Urban Arcas d Ausbaha. 1995. Soutlr Australran WcnLlh Cnllwsrion. i V~IBIWL) stattb twt bistftiguisl~rd expected m Cr {Ill). l'hc carbtnl nunikr b ail '~'quivalent carbon numbcr' based on a method hit shndard&s a~ordik to bdiiing puint. It is a tnrthrd uwri bv s~11lmn n,d!.ticil Ialantc,rics to report crrh nu111ben

far dmnfcnls waluafd m n bahng polnl CX?colutnnSlicdule R (1)

Guiddinc on Inv~stigation L~vcls for Suil and Grtrundwater

NSW E PA (1994) Contaminated Sites: Guidelines for NSW E PA (1994) Contaminated Sites: Guidelines Assessing Service Station Sifes Table 3 Threshold Concentrations for Sensitive Land Use Soils

..toxicol~gical data for fish, Table 3 Threshold concentrations for sensitive [and use -soils ""3

Analp Threshold concentrationsa Sources (mglkg dry wt) TPM C : CM9 65 sett note TPHX 1 @-C40 (C l &C 14, C l 5-C28. C29440) 1,000 see nor# * Benzene l ANZECC INHMRC 1992 Tohene 1-4ri 130~ Netherlands 1994 Ethyl benzene 3.1 '/SOi Netfierlands 1994 Total Xylenes 14k/2Si Netherlands 1994 Phenol -1 d I Total Lead 300 ANZECC INHMRC

1992 Benzo{a}pyrane 1 ANZECC INHMRC l992 Total PAHs m 20 ANZECC INHMRC 1992 m. .. . Scientifically iurtined alcermtive threshold concsncrari~ns may be acceptable. Thresholdsmay be reviewed as new sciondfi inforrnatien bceames available. NB. Explanatory notes farTable 3 a Refer to relevant source documents fur detalk. Deflnicfons of terms used in discussion of Netherlands criteria (Dennenun 1993) are: r The maximum permissible concentratioh (MPC) is the 'concenu;lti~n of a toxic rubsance chat fully protects 95% ofthe species in an ecosystem'. The intervention level rcptesenu; 'a level where action is waded

became impermissible risk may occur. It depends on other than checmtcal chmctcrlstics if action shdd nke $ace immdlately or not'. in the case of ecolcigictl rkk, the inrervention level 'folly protects 50% d che specim in an tcosysrem'. Further information regarding MPCr ancl intcnreniion levels may be found in Dcnnerntrr & vrn den Berg 1993. The Netherlands rourced vrluss in Table 2 refzr to soil with 10% natuml organic matter contenr These thmshold concentr;ltians must be adjusted for the particular natural organk mamr cantent

of the spectnc slrc. The natural organic matter contenr In soil may be derermined using the Walkiey and Black Method. AS IZB9.D I. 1-1977, Peterminutiun of the Organic Matu Content ofa kil (Srondurd Method), The threshold concentrations for ethyl benzene ad Mmes to protect terrestrial organisms have been derived from nquatlc roxicabgllal data using equilibriumpartitioning. tmrstiptlons have shown (Van Gestal& Ma 1993) that in the case of aarrhworms, toxicity is related to the pore mter contaminznc concentrxtion. The LC,, pore water concentmtions for several cornpun& hwe been favourabEy compared with LC, aquatic

Explanatary notes for Table 3 (cont.) The derivations of criteria adopted as threshold concentrati~rts have not expltcirly tiiken account of chemical mixtures. The potential impcr d mixrures of chemicals should be assessed on a site-specific basis. The potenrial for the generation of odours may mean chat lower threrholds than those listed in Table 2 are required for volati la compounds. b Total petrolturn hydrocarbons c Approximate range d petroleum hydrocarbon fractions: petrol CK9, kcrwene Cl 6-C 18. diesel C1 2C18 and lubricating oils above Cl 8. d The TPH C6-C9 threshold concenrmtlon, Le. 55 m&& applies to soil conralnlng 10% natunl organic nutter. This cancenuation has been calculated awmlng the following that there has been a fresh spill dpetrgl that the

aromatic conrent ofthe petrol is 30% + that the rcrulunt BTEX soils concentration5 are at their tower rhresholdt, TPH C6X9 concentrationr above the rekvant thrcsheld may indicate that BTEX cancentrations are above ckir thresholds.This threshold concentration cho~~ld be interpreted as only an approximate potential indicator of concamination e The TPH C L0440 threshold cancentratisn is based on a consideration both of the Netherlands intervenrion Levet for the TPH C IM40 range and on commonly reported analytkal dccectlon limits. The Netherlands lnrcrwndan value is 5.000 mdkg dry wdghr. f A lower benzene rhrcrbtd ccotlctntntkn may be medad to pratecc groundwater. g The toluene threshold concentration is

the Netherlands MPC to prorect terrestrial organisms In soil. This value ms obnined by applying a US EPA assessmenr factor to terre~trisl chronk No Qbewcd Effect concentration (NOEC) data, The MPC is an 'indicative' due (Van be Plarrche et at 1993: Van de Plassche & Bockcjng 1993). h Human health md ~ologkally bred protection level for rduene. The rhreshdd carrcentratian presented here is the Netherlands intervention value for the pmtacci~n of ctrreraiat organism. Other considerations such as odwrr and the protection ofgroundwater may require a lower remediarim cherion. I The erhyt benzene chrtshrrld concentracfan is che Netherlands MPC for the protection ef terrcrMa1 organisms in sail. No terrestrial ecoto~ieologlcal data could be found for use in the Netherlands criteria derivation Therefore. equilibrium partitioning

has been applied to the MPC for mter to obtain estimates of the MPC kr soil. The MPC forwatcr has been derived from aquatic ecoroxicdgical data pan da Plassche et d. 1993: Van de Plasscha & Bocktlng 19931.

Human health based protection level for ethyl bemene or total ylenes as shown,The chreshdd concentration presentedhere is the Netherlandsintervention value. Other considerations such as adours and the protection of groundwater may require a lowet remediation criterion k The xylenc rhreshald concentration is the Netherlands MFC for the protection of rerrestrhl organisms in soil. No temestrlal ecotoxicotagical data could be found for me in the Netherbhds criteria derivation. Therefare, equilibrium parrittlanlng has been applied to the MK for water to obtainan esejrnate of the MPC for roll. The MPC for water has been derived from aquadt c~~toxlcolo&~I data. The concentration shown applies to total xyltnes and is basedon the arithmetic average of the

individual xylene MPCs (Van de Plache et al. 1993; Van de Plassche & Bocksing 1993). 1 Phenol contarninatbat is not expected t~ be signincant at service starion sits Phenol has been included in the rnalyte list because iris a potential conrdruent of waste oil The potential impact of phenol should k evaluated on a site-specific basis. Phenol may have o sigrrificant impact on waters. m PolpycIic aromatic hydrocarbons

AV Jcnnings AV 3 I tlampstead Road, Maidstone, Victoria B September 2OOG APPENDIX G APPENDIX G Auditor's Verification Sampling Laboratory Analytical Certificate S:Ewi-ironU&\Coombtx -Xlaidsrlrne 32-0OlZ\RcportsU,7.0Q18 Environmental Adit Repori far 31 Hmpstcld Road. Maidstanc, Victoria final.doc ENVIRON

CERTfFICA TE OF ANALYSIS

CtiOnl : EWlRON AUSTRALLA PTY LT0 : AM Environmnbl Sydq p* : loF5 : MR PHlL MTCXCDCK

: Gmg V*l :PO BOX 664 HAIllAND NSW AUSTRALIA

: 277-219 Wo~dpark Road Smbhfiekl NSW 2320

AustnPa 2tW E-msir : [email protected] Telephone : M 49W 4354 F a&mk : 14934 4359 Pmject : 32-0018

Oats mcHW : 20 Jun 2006 Onfernumber ; -Not prorldcd

Dale fssurd : 29 JlmSQI)b C-@C ~~ : +Not provldod No.otsilmple~ -RswW : 1 S#@ : Nat pmvldcd Andysad : r ALSE ExcctEencc in AnOIyt~caf Testing TMsdrxuM has been dlgltally signed by those new Wappearcn this report md are Iht authodsed slgnalorb. Digital signing MTAAccndlwodbonlory

a25 been unfed M In cwnplancewilh procedures spccllkd h 21 CFR Pan 11. Podh Department scuwdancrwll HATKs

NATA 826 [l0911 $ydI'I~y) Nanthfrl CbHpammpll Bcnlw Imrganlc Chomlrt Inorganlw -NATA S25 (1DDll -Sydney) Potor DRkomon Smnlor Spoelrptcopkl hwganlw Lab~ratwy Manager OrganIec

NATA 826 (I0911 -Sydney) ~ccra#~hd mscm Aywbl Organks Ioreomplhnc* wlih Sonlar Organlc Chsrnlst NATA 825 {1OBll -Sydney) IKXlEC l7D26.

WWOlder : ESOBP7577 #US Zmulmm Comments This reporl for W ALSE referem E-577 supersede9 any ptevbus reprls w(th Ws reference. Ranrlb apply to the sample as subrnllled. Allpages ofIhis roporl have barn checked and appmved lor release. This reporl mnlahs he following inlormallon: Anrlytlcrl m8ub lor rmnpk subn~bd When ma!slure dstermlnauon has been perloned, WL us reported ona dry wdght bads. Men a nporlad less U~i~n'muIt Is hluherlhan the LOR, Vlb

may be due to prlmary sarrgce extracWdlgwlion dihth andror insufliinl sample arnounl for rtnapis. Surmgele Recovery Lbnlls are stab and bated on USEPA SW046 or ALSWEN38 un Lhe absence 01 spedfied USEPA IMb). Where LOR ol reported result diIfu Imrn stnrrdafd LOR, lhki may be dub to hQh mobtw, reduced sample ornount w nulrlx inlrrlerence. When dale(s) andlor lirnef.s) are shown t#aclrctsd. lhsse have been assumed by thelaboratory m pram purposes, Abbrevbtions: CAS number = Chemlcal Absbacl Selvicctc number, LOR = Llmll

01 Reporting, Indlcales failed Surrogate Recoveries. r Surroaat* control lldb The ana1ylkal pmcedures used by ALS Envkomntal are bared on cstabIished 1nternatk)nalfv-recognlred pmcedures such m lho~ publ[shed by the US E Pit. APHA AS and NEPM. In house pro~edure are employsd InLe absence ddocurnented standards or by cBwl request. The folow-q tepoct provldas brlef UescrlpUons ol the arralytlcal pmcsduw empkyed for resulls apded hmin. Reletem rneUldds from which ALSE methods are based are pfovid~d in piirwltheslr.

Pegs NUmbUf :3 ol l Cht : EHVlRON AUSTRALIA PTY LTD W Uttier : E50807577 ClIbntlrmpro ID: Analytical Results SmlbfilbUixT~~dIDllcllpUon: W we I " 1 EM401 : Total Sulphate by EPAES Supndi'ii'm 2-t40W7W 100 1 I mghg I 820 .,'. EQOO3R Total Mabls by lCPdfS ! ., .-U h6nlc 74413-36-2 5 ""'rnskg -d ----." . Cadmium 741043-0

mghg +1 cmiurn 7440479 2 mgmg 49 cww 7440-50-8 5 mem 11 --p Lwd 743~~-I 5 mgag B . .. .. Nicket 7440.DZ.D 2 mg&l 23 L p.... DI~G 7~066.6 , 5 mffM 18 EGD3m T&! krtury by NWlS Msrarry 7439.974 0.7 r g.1 I I I-: ' EG~SOG: ~walrnt ~h&mlum by Dlrcmic Aralyller H&umbni Chrunom -Soh#. 1.0 ITQ'kg
I 4 fa** <.r2*.L-l*'-.+., ,;, EP0761SM)k Pdynucl~u &mrUc Hydrocrrbrs ---p v--77P---------p-. -----m---, . , -p Wphthalcno 01-20-3 4.5 mg_. MnrphlhylmQ 20ES8 0.5 mgkg 0s BFbom 88.73-7 0.5 mgw Phl~ranthmn~ 0.5 m Anihnwmo 12!2-12.7 0.5 mg&g Fkromrlh~n~ 2064.0 0.5 m a c 'f'Ybd 120-wO'". 0.5 mglg a, S _I G5 w.5 4.5 c0.5 SOS a.5


F60 I 1 I . -2Paw lvumbur : 4 of 5 Ck'ent .' ENVlRbM AUSTRALIA PTY LTD WorK Omi : ESOB07377 Chnl Sunpk ID: Analytical Resuffs SmNs MaM( Type1 Dsrcrplton : Ssmpk P&! lime : ~ebomw ssmplr m : W CAsa~mbw LOR Wnllr v1 FOIL 20 Jun 2WB t6,oO ISObO76774Dt EPDLW1: Tolal Petroleum Hydrourbonr ClS. C24 Fmbn $00 mpnto

I 400 CZP C93 Fmdm ~~ .W@ I -=l W l 1 -m-..-----P . ... ..M---p----U080: ETEX Bmnm 7143-2 0.2 W. "Tdwno 108-W 0.2 nrg(Yg Etblbm 100414,, 0.2 m@kg mtrS paraxvlpnm 106-g3 0.2 mm 106.42-3 , amxyian, 9547-6 0.2 mgkg su.2 c02 a.2 a.2 sD.2 EWWSIM~S: Phoncrlk Compound Surroglb 2.Fhf0mphml 367-1 24 0.1 % phcnol.c# 13in-sg3 0.1 ?4 "'~~hlomphmot.D4 93951-73.1 al.

% 24 ET-~nbromqrhenol 11 B-m6 0.1 % QV 3 t W 1 OS 78.1 -. t W &pO76fSIM)T: PAH SutMgatH .ZFluwobtpherlyl 321-60-8 0.1 . % Pin-10 1719-06-8 d.1. % 115 101 4-Tmphenyl.dl4 ln8-53-0 0.1 fb 122 EP@W% TPH(VlfBTE% Surrogates I 2Dkhloro~lhar#-D4 -lm60-074 D.1 % ToTuma~Q~ 2037-265 D.I % s.&#ndllrsmbsnmm 1M 108 A-460-004 0.r % 101

mm ?&a: SOILSwtogsls conm UdrJ swm(yrdc cmm Umllr 1l AWIHO~WX I b w r 1 wwrm EPO75(SlM): PAHJPhmnoC (SII*) &Po?S{SlM)S: Phendl: Ccdnpnd &.mDplos 2.Fluomghenol 25,. , . , , 121 Phsmld6 . 24 113 2Ghb~hsnol-DQ 23 2%

ALS muarmnmenra1 INTERPRE7M QUAUrY CONTROL REPORT CLnt : ENWRON AEJSTMUA PNLTD Labotatoy : ALS Envin#lment~l Sydney Pauc : lbb Contact : MR PHlL HITCHCOCK ~ontac~ : '=regVDOPl &ddrprs : PO BOX 584 MAKIAND NEW AUSTRALIA2320 Addrem : 277-289 Woodpark Road SmiWeld NSW Austmlla 2184 Work order Amondmnntlkr. : Prw : 32-0018 Quota numkr (WE mtcwed : MJun2OM Ordsr number : No1 provided Ekto lrsuod : 29 JunZOOB COG number : -Nol provldab slto : Not pwvid~a

E-mall : phlt~hcock@m&mp.~m.a~ Emall : Greg.VogeME!dkenvirO.m WO. of samples Telophono : E24934 5354 Tolapbno : 61-2-87848555 Rccuhd : 1 FacslrnW : 02 4834 4359 Frcrlmllo : 81-2-87M8500 Anrtysod : 1

Thit Interpretbe QuaUly Coolrol Report wet ksued on 29 Jun MOB for the ALS W order rskrsncs ESOM7577 and supersedes any pmrlous reporb with thi reference. This report conlalnr Ihc lollwing ihalio~ m Analysis Holding 'Time Cornpllanc Iluatily Conlrol Type Frequency Compliance

Summary of all IXlnIlly Conlrol Oulliers Brlel Mew Sumrntlries CU~N : AUSTMLTA PTY LTP wDrtCordtr : ESWOT~ ~l~~~u~kr E NV~ROH : 2~6 ~JKI : 92-0018 ALS OuotrRrI*lm : -Issue Dale : 20 JUO 2M)6 Interpmtive Qualify Control Report Analysis Holding Time dOm of IIxMuIw QTanaIpls andpmcluba subroqunldi~tlo~c mm=. Inlamatim b aLPo WdW n h, lanpls mrn'mf [pfamalh) fmm Vmlclr Ihs

w~le Th+ iolmg rdpW summIrdmI prcpmtbn and anltyrin timoz mnd awllh d hoYing Umur Dot= m d rqmsob i~rrt and dlquotwma lamn. Wapd Ume toano3.1Is mpmh time Imm samplln Vmera no extradim l digo;liOn i8 hwbM W Uma lromo*lmfliontdig&Mws Wr k prcserk ForampDwtm aarnplor. snmpling dptotlinxr h trkn rr htol h ddodsamp(o mlribullng lo Vlat~~~rilP. Saraph drlortrma

Fx labomluy prcdmd forcho5 ore hkw, lnm B8 axn@~&~ daMim,d Vlb bathing pm$, Outlirrr rff holdrnp Umo ambaled m VSEPASWBW, APH4. AS end NEPM 11999). Fnled ~lan. refer to UIO 'Summy of OulIiwra: .... . ,, .. ." . . . ,. . ,. -,. .-. , EGO3ST: Total Mmq ly FlHS SdlGlr~~&fUnprcrmod

. A.... . , .. "....

EP071: TPH -S8mivdfle mdko $on Glut JuUnpmromd .. . .... v1

-.-.. bmo: PH V&l'iTU( . . 561 bhsr ,tar

Unpnwn*d v1 I zr~uniw6 ZZJU~ZM ( 1 PI ~ ~~,. I ~ PM= z I 4~~120~ M ,w~

Clru ENWRON AUSTRALU PTY LTD Work01dY : E50607577 PrgrYumL~ ; 3018 PmJeet : 32.0318 ALSQuolc-c. : -Irwrrkh : 29JunZOW AU mwmm~1~ Interpretive Quality Contmi Repor? Frequency of Quality Control Samples equal b the bxpxted rals. Tha kdowirrg mmfl summIkie4 Ulr Imqusmf c4 bhatW QC srnwbs analmd wlhln lho an-l MS) in whtch lrwarlt OM wm pro~e&sd.

Adud mtharlb bo gm&r Vlan

E NVlRON AUSTFUUA PTY L'ID +mj& : 324018 MSQuofaRd6nnw : -bwtOh : 29Jun2006 U mtfimm~m lnferpretive Quality Control RepoH

Summary of Out!iers Tho ldWf!g ropcilhi@tlighb~irllhr llamob on Uw 'Guhtity Conlrd RspPrC Sumplo mwy lhL am rUIkmncl b W m USEPA SW646 orALS4'VYVENRO (in the abwm of qpwirr USEM li}. Amnymous Clknl

Slmple IDr rshr lb sanpleswhjeh are nol1p1~4fii!y wd of Lhb W& onkr but fom#d parld Vn PC m51 M

m Forall rnableet, no RPP rccwary 0rNtm occur for lhu dupmle anabsk. Forall mablcor, no mthod bbnk result crutlbn occur.

For mll rnatlce~, no kboratory splke recoveder hacW occur. sumg#& EPWRSIWE FAH SumiwJm I SOL l ESSP~WS~OO~ 1v1

2.fluwoblphanyl Puffier5 : The $Hp mpart hbMlghb wbbn wkim IhiL'lnbQmlivs Quality Conbol RowFmqucncy d Clunk$ Control W. + Hs lreqaency outlb~ wcut.

Uknl ENVlRON AUSTRALIAPN LTD Prow : 329018 hwau~w~ot : -Isrw l)zh : 29 Sun 20W

Method Reference Summary

ALS E~yIrwrmcntrI nre bomd m Wvhd inIpm1tiOnalb)-r~nkd poccdms W& as those pubHahvd by h4 US EPA. APM PS andNEPM. In ham pdum am dm#ey@ h Iho rt#snccaf bamprYad ctpMdr orby cMi qumt. Ths folowtm rep#tprwMw briol dswiHcm d me anmlythl mdures cmplqrod

tar mb mpwbd hsmil. Reforooedl moWr Imm rrhlch ALSE m&4mh nm bswd rm pvidod in prrenbsk 1 h analybcal pwwdms ud khk ry'w sou.

EH24 :HCI Dl~mt. Ig of sol1 is digesled In 30 mlo13096 HCI an& the nsullanl digest bulked and filtered for analysis by ICP. EW : 1:5 soad t war Rach for soluMe rnalybr

10 g of soil

Is mixed Hith 50 mL d e88Ullad walsr ad turnbled end over end for 1hour. Wer solubk salts areleached irnm ths sol1 by Ihe mntlpuous suspsns'm. Samples are selttd and ths water fllered df tor mtysk. EN6U :Hot llock Dlu~rt br metals In rolls rcdhnts and studgm -USEPA 2002 MW Hot Block Acld Dlgestlm l.@ Ol sampleis healed with Nilrlc and HydmcNodc ackls. then cooled. PeroxIde k added and samples bated and wk?d again bef~re being fikfed and bulked to voturne lor analysis. Mgesl Is appmpriale lw clelminallon of selected metals insludge, sedirnenls, and soils. mid metW

is mmpllanl withNEPM (IDQ9) Scbedde q3) {MeUmd 202) 6RGlB : Mcthmok Esbacllon of Solls lor Purge and Pnp(USEPA SW 846 -9304 Sg ofsolid Is&i&en with suh0p;lk and 1DmL meVlpnol pdor to a~tysk by Puye ahd Trap GCMS. OR0f7B : Tumbler ExtracUon ur 5olidr [Optlon B Hon-emrntratlnglIrkhouse, Mechanlwl egttatbn (lumtder), Yql of smplt. NaPSO4 and surrogale am mtmckd with ZOmL 1:1 OGMIAcslons by end ow end tumble. me solwen1 Is Lrmterred directly to r GC vial fw

amlysla. W002 :pH (1Sj (APHA ;Mth cd.. 4500H*) pH is determinrd on SOD sample0 alter a 15 SdVwater leach, This meUlod is mptiant with NEPM (1999) Schedule w3) {Method 103)

a1 $03-l05 degwss C. Thk methoci is compllanlwith NEPM [lsD5) Wub B(3J (MelW 1021 EWDT : Sulpbato # SM 2-Total EAD66-l03 : ~oim CbniPnt -A gravirrretrlc @we based on welghl loss over a 12 hwrdrylng

In-hwi?. Tolal Sulphateh ~teminrd olf a HCI

digestion by lCPAES as 3, end reporled as S04 EOODST : TOW Metab by tCP-AES -(APHA 20th ed., 3120; USEPASW E46 -6010) (ICPAES) Metals are delerrnbrtd lbtlowinp m ~pproprlate add d$estlm 01 the soil. The ICPAfS lechnique Wies iampb In a plasma, emitli a char&edstk speclrum based on metals prssent, Inlensltks at selected mveknglhs nm mpand agalnst Ulose of malrix nralctted standards. Thfs method is complianl Mlh NEPM i3999) Schedule 813) EGOJET : Tml Mooreury by R?# -AS 3550, #HA3112 Hg -B Qh-InJection {SRcE](Co# Vapour general&) MS) FIM-AA8 Is an autornaled fhmelus atQmic absorplion tachnlque,

Meravy in sdkls are detehned lollwing an appcoprbtt acid d'ieslbn. lonle rnerwy $ wduced onlhc to alornlcmercuty vepw by SnU2 which k thm purged Inlo a heatedquartz m!. Quanlllicalion is by comparing &&am agalnst ;I caUbratlon cum This rneYrOd Is complknt vrllh NEPM (1999) Scheduk 813) EGWC : Hlrxavatent Solublo By Dlssmts Analyser -APHA 201h ed.. 350D Cr-A& B. Hexavaknt ehmium Is delermlned dkeclly cm walwsarnple byseal WelE Analyser aa recejved by pH dustmenl Bnd wlour dsvdopmenl using dephmylcarb&W. Each tun or

samplesis measwed a@nsl e live-pdnt callbratbn curve. ThB melhod is wmplintnith NEPM (1999) Schedule B(3) IAPPdX. 2) BP071 : TPH -SoMokllle FracUw

(USEPA SW 84B 80154 Sample extncls are analysed by Cmpllrry GClFlDarrd quanlilied agalnsl alkane slanriarcls wer be wwe ClU C36. This method is cmplfanlwilh NEPM (1999) Schedule 813) IMelhod 506.1) Wo7SlSlM) : PAHlPhDnolr [SlM) (USEPA SW ME 3270B) Extracts are analysed by Capllary GUMS In Sebcthre )on Mode {SIM) and quantYleallon Is by comparison agahst an srtabtished 5 point callbration GumThis

meU1wr.I is owngiant with NEPM (I-) SchWe B(3) (MeUmd 602 and507) clml : ENVIRON AUSTRALLA PTY LlU WoWDI*Oruu ; �SO607577 pqj~umhr : 6016 Proyct : 324018 auu~*twmot : -IWEW : @hrnmW m mumrmm-

~~ Tyjlv: ;.SOIL MwffmdRafvonca SURMlary (USEPA SW848 -82608) Extract5 are analysed by Purge and Trap, Capllary GUMS. Quan~calii cune. Thin method b wrnplant wfth NSW (f W) SChaUlltll3~3f {Method Sal) EWML :TPH V~IPUIU~BTEX

k by comparison agahst an eslabl[shed 5 polnl caEbtath

AUSTRALMN SAFER ENVIRONMENT & TECHNOLOGYYTY LTD AL1N 36 018 095 1 I2 Our wT: ASEI' 8934/ 12082 1 1 -l Your rcf: Wlj07577 NATA Accredilation No: 14484 27 June 2006 Auslniian Laboratory Services Pty. Ltd. 277 Woodpurk Road Smihflcld NSW 2 lG4

Asbcstos LdentiRcntion lhis report paznls he rcsuhs of onc sample, Fonuonld by Auslmlian Lubontoy Serviccs Ply. Ltd

on 23 June 2006. Tor analysis for asbestos. marnincd and mlyscd for Ihc prcscm af ILS~FSLOS. I.lnlmdurtion:0nc samplc forrvonid 2, Methods : Thc samplc ww amincd undcr a Stcrco Mjcroscop and rclcctcd nbrcs vcrc melyscd by FolW Light Microscopy in cwrjunction with Dhprsion Sraining mcthod [Snfcr Environment Melhd 1.) 3. Results : Sample No. 1. ASET 8334 f 12082 1 1. ES0607577 -001-V1 Appmx dirnasims 5.5 cm x 3.0 m X 2.0 cm

Ihc wmplc consisted ola mixiurc of clayish soil md plant moncr. No asbestos dctccted. Analyscd and reported by, Keru Jayasundara. BSc (Hons) MAus 1MM. Mincrnlogist / Chartered Professional of GeoIqy Approved Signatory.

UNL'T7 LEYEL Z. I LEWARD SIXWT. HORNSBY NSW 2077 -PTO. WX L644 HORNSBY NOKI'HCIA'I'E h'SW I635 PHONE; l02>9YI172l$3 PAX; [M)R%7215I EMAIL: H'EBSLTE: a~r.r u.&~l~~g~