RMA 2017 1573 PLANNING - Approved Consent Document FINAL - Compressed

Report
Detailed Site Investigation (Contamination),

Metro Sports Facility
Prepared for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA)
Prepared by Beca Ltd (Beca)
24 June 2016
Contaminated Land DSI - Metro Sports Facility
Revision History
Revision N Prepared By Description Date
1 Wendy Whitley Draft Phase 4 investigations to be completed 29 June 2015

2016
2 Ben Waterhouse All Phases - Final 24 June 2016
Document Acceptance
Action Name Signed Date
Prepared by Wendy Whitley 24 June 2016
Reviewed by Phillip Ware 24 June 2016
Approved by Keith Paterson 24 June 2016
on behalf of Beca Ltd
Beca 2015 (unless Beca has expressly agreed otherwise with the Client in writing).
This report has been prepared by Beca on the specific instructions of our Client. It is solely for our Clients use for the purpose for which
it is intended in accordance with the agreed scope of work. Any use or reliance by any person contrary to the above, to which Beca has
not given its prior written consent, is at that person's own risk.
Beca // 24 June 2016

5394066 // NZ1-10350236-36 0.36 // i
Executive Summary
The historical review of the proposed Metro Sports Facility (MSF) site indicates that the site has largely been
used for commercial and industrial purposes since the 1940s. Several chemical storage areas, motor vehicle
workshops, boiler activities and substations have been onsite, therefore HAIL1 activities include:
Activity A17 Storage tanks or drums for fuel, chemicals and liquid waste
Activity B2 Electrical transformers
Activity B4 Power stations, substations or switchyards
Activity F4 Motor vehicle workshops
This investigation was undertaken to assess the level of contamination present onsite for contaminants
associated with the storage of chemicals, substations and workshops, and also for the fill materials.
These investigations have been undertaken in four phases dependent on site accessibility and demolition of
buildings. The investigations to date were undertaken in July 2014, November 2014, March 2015, and June
2016. Phase 4 (May 2016) investigations were undertaken under the new client company tkaro Limited,
taking works over from CERA. Tonkin & Taylor Ltd (T&T) were engaged by CERA (now tkaro) to assess
asbestos in soils for the site. The investigations were undertaken concurrently with the Beca investigations
and reported separately in Metro Sports Facility, Detailed Site Investigation (Asbestos) - Metro Sports
Facility, July 2016.
A total of 97 test pits and four boreholes were excavated for the investigation up to approximately 3.0 m
deep. The general soil profile consisted of a surface layer of hard fill gravel and crushed demolition material
(0.5 m) placed across most of the site. Construction waste including concrete, brick, rebar and rubbish was
encountered in Phase 1 investigations and an old fill layer (generally 0.5 m-1.0 m depth) comprising dark
brown silt with some brick, ceramic and steel fragments was located in Phase 2 and 3 investigation areas.
Phase 4 pits were similar to Phase 1, with a surface fill layer to approximately 0.5 m depth.
Standing water was encountered at various depths during the Phase 1 and 4 investigations, none was
observed in Phases 2 and 3. In some test pits (notably TP105, TP117 and TP119) a groundwater level of 0.3
m bgl was struck. Significant groundwater flows into test pits made excavation difficult and at times
prevented deeper excavations. Water seeped into six test pits in Phase 2 investigations at approximately
1.4-1.7 m depths and into five test pits in Phase 3 investigations at approximately 1.8-2.6 m depths. Phase 4
had groundwater ingress generally between 1-2 m, but was only observed in 7 of the 16 pits. Only a small
volume of water entered the test pits, therefore may not be sufficient to suggest a permanent shallow
groundwater level.
Soil samples were collected from a range of depths across the soil profile ranging from surface to 3.0 m bgl.
Samples were selected for analysis based on the location of former activities on site, as well as site
observations. Laboratory analysis comprised the following:
231 samples for heavy metals;

162 samples for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH);
36 samples for Benzene-Toluene-Ethylbenzene-Xylene (BTEX);
60 samples for Semi Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOC); and
2 samples for and Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs).
1
Hazardous Activities and Industries List, Ministry for the Environment, 2011

5394066 // NZ1-10350236-36 0.36 // ii
The investigation identified five locations out of 101 that exceeded the human health soil contaminant
standards for arsenic, lead or benzo(a)pyrene equivalent for commercial land use. These samples were
generally found in a fill layer and/or on HAIL sites, with the exception of TP409, which is considered a lead
hopspot. The source of this sample has not been confirmed but it is completely inconsistent with the
remaining site distribution of lead. A 95% upper confidence limit was performed on the analytes and the
results (with the exception of TP409) were below the commercial land use soil contaminant standards. It is
therefore considered that, assuming excavation and disposal of soils across the site are undertaken at a
similar time, the overall site is within the commercial land use soil contaminant standards. While gross
contamination was not identified across most of the site, many areas were above background concentrations
and adopted environmental criteria for metals and some hydrocarbons and volatile compounds.
The consenting assessment in this report was made with consideration of the site in a typical regulatory
context without evaluation of the Designation controls and any other special CERA/tkaro frameworks. It is
anticipated that the below planning considerations will require review in the context of the wider MSF
consenting.
While the final design parameters of the development are yet to be confirmed, the volume of material that is
to be excavated from the site is likely to exceed the permitted activity volume thresholds under the Resource
Management (National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect
Human Health) Regulations 2011 (NESCS). Therefore it is highly likely that resource consent will be required
under NESCS for soil disturbance. The interaction between the NESCS with the site designations was not
investigated. There are also some underground storage tanks that may be onsite, and if these have resulted
in gross contamination, it is unlikely that the removal of the tanks will meet the permitted activity
requirements. Resource consent to remove any potential tanks could be obtained as a precaution with the
soil disturbance application.
Resource consent will also need to be obtained for the construction of the development under the proposed
Land and Water Regional Plan for the discharge of contaminants onto or into land from a contaminated site
in circumstances where those contaminants may enter water. The contaminant concentrations onsite are
above background and adopted environmental criteria, therefore cannot meet the permitted activity
requirements. This report will need to be provided to ECan to meet the permitted activity requirements for the
use of land for a site investigation.
Remedial action will be required at the lead hotspot at TP409 and a contaminated soils management plan
will be required for the wider site, particularly in locations where sample results were above the commercial
land use soil contaminant standards for human health (i.e. where arsenic, lead, and B(a)P eq. was found to
exceed human health soil contaminant standards) .
The exposure pathway assessment completed for the soil investigation identified potentially complete
exposure pathways in relation to human health. These could be mitigated and managed through the
implementation of a Contaminated Soils Management Plan and remediation at TP409, which will likely form
part of resource consent conditions for soil disturbance.
The material onsite generally meets the definition of managed fill and may be disposed to an appropriate
facility (currently Burwood Landfill, operated by CCC). Further analysis of soils that do not meet the managed
fill acceptance criteria (e.g. soils at TP409) will require toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP)
analysis to determine acceptance to Kate Valley Landfill. There are also restrictions with regards to asbestos
material being disposed to managed fill, please refer to the Tonkin & Taylor Ltd asbestos assessment report
for further detail.

5394066 // NZ1-10350236-36 0.36 // iii
Internal streets of the MSF include Horatio Street and Balfour Terrace, which are currently active
carriageways. If access is available, investigation and assessment of the internal roads should also be
undertaken to assess materials for disposal or alternately this testing may be deferred to construction.

5394066 // NZ1-10350236-36 0.36 // iv
Contents
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Purpose and Scope 1
2 Site Description and Environmental Setting 3

2.1 Site Location and Area 3
2.2 Site Condition and Surrounding Environment 3
2.3 Sensitive Receptors/Hydrology 4
2.4 Geology and Hydrogeology 4
3 Site History 5
3.1 Summary of the PSI Findings 5
3.2 Previous Investigations 5
4 Site Investigation Scope and Rationale 7

4.1 Contaminants of Potential Concern and Investigation Rationale 7
4.2 Soil Sampling Methodology 8
5 Assessment Criteria 10
6 Results 11
6.1 Fieldwork Observations 11
6.2 Summary of Soil Analytical Results 11
6.3 Quality Assurance and Quality Control 14
7 Site Characterisation and Risk Assessment 15

7.1 Risk Assessment from Soil Contamination 15
7.2 Exposure Pathway Assessment 16
7.3 Limitations of Site Characterisation 17
8 Development Implications 18
8.1 Consents 18
8.2 Contaminated Soil Management Plan (CSMP) 19
8.3 Disposal Options 20
8.4 Further Work 20
9 Conclusions 21
10 Limitations 23
Appendices
Appendix A
Site Plans

5394066 // NZ1-10350236-36 0.36 // page 5
Appendix B
Soil Logs
Appendix C
Site Photographs
Appendix D
Chain of Custody Documentation
Appendix E
Laboratory Results
Appendix F
Upper Confidence Limit Calculations

5394066 // NZ1-10350236-36 0.36 // page 6
1 Introduction
Beca Ltd (Beca) has been commissioned by tkaro Limited (tkaro) (formerly the Canterbury Earthquake
Recovery Authority (CERA)) to undertake a Detailed Site Investigation (DSI) for the proposed site of the
Metro Sports Facility (MSF).
A number of buildings were required to be demolished as a result of the Canterbury 2010 and subsequent
earthquakes and the site was designated for MSF purposes. Plans for the MSF are yet to be confirmed, but
the development of the site is likely to include:
An aquatic centre with a range of pools

An indoor stadium
Facilities for coaching and training
A fitness centre and landscaped outdoor space
Studios and performance space
Administration facilities and parking.
A Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI) was prepared by Beca in 2013 for the site and identified a number of
Hazardous Activities and Industries List (HAIL) activities that are known to have occurred within the site
boundary. The development of the site is likely to involve a significant amount of earthworks and will
therefore trigger the need for resource consent under the Resource Management (National Environmental
Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health) Regulations 2011
(NESCS). The findings of this DSI will also indicate if resource consents will also be required under the City
and Regional Plans. This report can be used to support the resource consent applications.
Tonkin & Taylor Ltd (T&T) were engaged by CERA to assess asbestos in soils for the site. The investigations
were undertaken concurrently with the Beca investigations.
1.1 Purpose and Scope

The purpose of the site investigation was the following:
Characterise potential contaminants in soils within the development area as a result of historical activities.
Confirm contaminated land consent requirements for the proposed works under the following legislation
Environment Canterbury (ECan) Natural Resources Regional Plan and proposed Land and Water
Regional Plan
Christchurch City Plan
NESCS
Identify areas of soil contamination which may require management with respect to risks to human health
and to the environment.
Provide advice regarding disposal of waste spoil.
The ground investigation was undertaken in several phases of work, dependent on accessibility and
demolition of buildings. This report presents and assesses the findings of the investigation which comprised
the following:
Phase 1
Excavation of 26 test pits to a maximum depth of 3.0 m below ground level in July 2014;
Collection of 81 soil samples from the test pits;

5394066 // NZ1-10350236-36 0.36 // page 1
Screening analysis of 57 samples plus 3 QA/QC samples for heavy metals (arsenic, boron, cadmium,
chromium, copper, mercury, lead, nickel and zinc), Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH), Benzene-
Toluene-Ethylbenzene-Xylene (BTEX), Semi Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOC) and Polychlorinated
Biphenyls (PCBs).
Phase 2
Excavation of 22 test pits to a maximum depth of 2.2 m below ground level (bgl) in November 2014;
Screening analysis of 44 samples for heavy metals, TPH, BTEX and SVOCs.
Phase 3
Excavation of 37 test pits and drilling of 4 boreholes to a maximum depth of 3.0 m bgl in March 2015;
Screening analysis of 90 samples plus 6 QA/QC samples for heavy metals, TPH, BTEX and SVOCs.
Phase 4
Excavation of 16 test pits to a maximum depth of 2.4 m bgl in May 2016;
Collection of 41 soil samples from the test pits
Screening analysis of 38 samples plus 3 QA/QC samples for heavy metals, TPH, PAHs and SVOCs.
This assessment has been undertaken and reported in general accordance with the Ministry for the
Environment (MfE) Contaminated Land Management Guidelines No. 1 Reporting on Contaminated Sites in
New Zealand (2011) and MfE Contaminated Land Management Guidelines No. 5 Site Investigation and
Analysis (2011).

5394066 // NZ1-10350236-36 0.36 // page 2
2 Site Description and Environmental Setting
2.1 Site Location and Area

The proposed site for the Metro Sports Facility comprises 55 allotments in Christchurch Central, Christchurch
City. The area is bounded by St Asaph Street to the north, Stewart Street to the west, Antigua Street to the
east and Moorhouse Avenue to the south (see Figure 1) and with an approximate area of 6.5ha. The ground
investigations are to be undertaken in four phases; the extents of these phases are also shown on Figure 1.
Figure 1: Proposed Metro Sports Facility site with investigation phases (Image source: ECan GIS)
2.2 Site Condition and Surrounding Environment

The site is generally flat and is located in a light industrial area in the south of the Christchurch Central
Business District. The surrounding land use is generally for commercial and light industrial purposes,
including the following:
North Research centres, clinics and offices associated with the Christchurch Central Hospital

5394066 // NZ1-10350236-36 0.36 // page 3
East A range of light industrial, commercial, offices and temporary buildings
South Commercial uses including car yards
West Hagley Community College
2.3 Sensitive Receptors/Hydrology
2.3.1 Groundwater
Groundwater was initially assessed to not be a sensitive receptor with regard to the potential for petroleum
hydrocarbon contamination based on the following:
Groundwater abstraction both within the site and across the wider area is taken from deeper confined
aquifers.
The aquifer is not artesian.
The shallow water table is less than 10 m bgl.
The intrusive investigations have identified that the underlying shallow groundwater is as shallow as
approximately 0.3 m below ground level (bgl) (see Section 6.1.2 for more detail). To be considered a
sensitive aquifer, the area needs to be used for abstraction purposes or within 100 m of surface water2,
therefore is not considered to be a sensitive receptor. The soil results have also been compared against the
protection of groundwater assessment criteria to assess the potential impacts on groundwater (Section 6).
2.3.2 Surface water

The Avon River is the closest surface waterway from the site; it winds from the west of Christchurch City and
passes the northern extent of the site at a distance of 250 m. The Avon River is at this point not tidal and it is
likely that its base flow is supplemented by shallow groundwater inflows by virtue of its level intersecting the
shallow groundwater table.
2.4 Geology and Hydrogeology

The Beca contaminated land PSI for 36 Saint Asaph Street summarised the geology of the area as follows:
The geological map of Christchurch (IGNS, 1992) indicates the site is underlain by Holocene (<10,000
years) Springston Formation, which overlies the late Pleistocene (~70,000 years) Riccarton Gravels.
The Springston Formation consists of river channel and overbank sediments which comprise poorly
graded greywacke gravels, sands and silt and is up to 20 m thick. The Riccarton Gravel is the
uppermost confined gravel aquifer that underlies Christchurch and comprises a brown poorly graded
greywacke gravel <100 mm in size. This unit is water bearing with artesian water levels historically
measured at up to 1 m above ground in places around Christchurch (Brown and Weeber, 1992).
Beca also carried out an initial geotechnical assessment3 for the MSF area in March 2014. The assessment
found that the geology at the site was consistent with Christchurch geological conditions as described in the
36 Saint Asaph Street PSI. The investigations also indicated that the groundwater table varied between 1 m
and 2 m below ground level and groundwater flow was assessed to be towards the east.
2
Guidelines for Assessing and Managing Petroleum Hydrocarbon Contaminated Sites in New Zealand
(Revised 2011), Minstry for the Environment.
3
Geotechnical Factual Report Metro Sports Facility, March 2014. Prepared for CERA by Beca.

5394066 // NZ1-10350236-36 0.36 // page 4
3 Site History
3.1 Summary of the PSI Findings

Information obtained from ECan indicated that a small number of isolated potentially contaminating activities
have occurred or are currently occurring at properties within the MSF development area. These include the
presence of fuel USTs and chemical storage likely to be or have been present at five or more properties.
Property file information supplied by CCC contained evidence of potentially contaminating activities at ten
properties. In addition to the USTs and chemical storage identified in the ECan files, the property information
indicated land use for motor vehicle workshops, boiler activities, a dangerous goods stores (DGS) and
electrical substations.
The historical aerial images reviewed have shown that the MSF site transformed, from primarily residential in
the1940s, to entirely commercial/industrial prior to the September 2010 earthquake. Factory buildings in the
block bounded by Moorhouse Avenue and Horatio Street have undergone several building layouts since
1946, and the Canterbury Brewery has grown over time to encompass most of the block at the corner of
Saint Asaph Street. No direct evidence of potentially contaminating activities is visible in the photographs.
The desk study conducted by Beca (2012) for the Canterbury Brewery site at 36 Saint Asaph Street
identified a number of areas at the property with contamination potential. These included the former site of
the boiler house, USTs, storage of hazardous chemicals and trade waste sumps. The testing investigations
later conducted by Beca (2013) and PDP (2013) confirmed that diesel had leaked from one of the USTs
however contamination concentrations were below relevant assessment criteria for protection of human
health and the environment.
The site walkover was restricted as many buildings within the site area were still in use. Where demolition
had taken place Beca staff were able to assess the ground condition. However in those instances the soil
was often covered by imported gravels or demolition rubble, such as at 36 Saint Asaph Street and on the
corner of Moorhouse Avenue and Antigua Street. Exterior fibre sheeting construction was noted when
observed for existing buildings and was later confirmed to contain asbestos by T&T.
3.2 Previous Investigations

A summary of previous investigations undertaken onsite is provided below. A site plan showing the
approximate extent of the intrusive investigations is attached in Appendix A.
3.2.1 Stage 1 Contamination Desk Study: Lion Canterbury Brewery Christchurch (Beca, February
2012)
The report summarises the comments of a representative of Canterbury Brewery, who advised that the site
was swamp land until 1854 when it was first developed into a brewery. The property was owned by Crown
Breweries until 1923 when it was transferred to New Zealand Breweries.
A site visit was conducted for the investigation during which the manhole covers of two USTs were sighted. It
is reported that they were installed in the late 1970s, and that one contained petrol and the other diesel until
they were emptied and backfilled in the 1980s. Drums and containers of sulphuric acid, ammonia, grease
and lubricant were also observed. The Beca staff member was told that an engine house and main greasing
area also exist which are reported as likely to have used hazardous substances. It is also recorded that three
transformers are situated at the property however no PCB-containing oil has been used there.

5394066 // NZ1-10350236-36 0.36 // page 5
The majority of the site is reported to be covered with an asphalt cap which channels any spillages into the
trade waste system, of which seven concrete waste sumps are located at the site. Both the former and
current (at the time of the investigation) boiler houses were located in the northeast of the property. Coal ash
from combustion was reportedly removed from the site and disposed of to landfill.
The report identifies the activities and areas of the trade waste sumps, USTs, surrounding properties with a
history of fuel or solvent use, and the former boiler house as potentially contaminated areas of concern.
3.2.2 Lion Christchurch Preliminary Contamination Testing (Beca, January 2013)

Based on the findings of the Beca (2012) desk study, Beca scoped and undertook a Contamination Testing
investigation (Beca 2013) focussed on the trade waste sumps and UST locations. 29 samples were collected
and 16 soil samples were analysed for a heavy metals, benzene-toluene-ethylbenzene-xylene (BTEX) and
total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH). The test results showed that diesel was detected around the south-east
corner of the USTs, however no results exceeded the assessment criteria for protection of human health.
3.2.3 Site Inspection for the Removal of Two Underground Storage Tanks at the Former Canterbury
Brewery Site, 36 St Asaph Street, Christchurch (PDP, July 2013)
Petroleum Solutions Limited (PSL) engaged PDP to report on the soil sampling results following the removal
of two USTs at the Canterbury Brewery site. 21 soil samples were collected in and around the tank pit and
removed fuel lines. Testing detected TPH in the eastern portion of the tank pit, identified as diesel
contamination. A sample taken beneath the removed pipework adjacent to the tank pit exceeded the all
pathways criteria for human health protection, however PDP then assessed the single result against a route-
specific criterion, which it did not exceed. PDP reported an acceptably low risk to ecological receptors also.

5394066 // NZ1-10350236-36 0.36 // page 6
4 Site Investigation Scope and Rationale
4.1 Contaminants of Potential Concern and Investigation Rationale

Review of the site historical information has identified the following land use activities which may have
resulted in the contamination of soil and/or groundwater at the site. Contaminants of potential concern
associated with these activities have also been identified. The locations of these potentially contaminating
activities are shown on the site plan in Appendix A. The location of fuel tanks and dangerous goods stores
are shown, where known, otherwise the entire land parcel has been identified.
Table 1: Contaminants of Potential Concern
Activity HAIL Code Contaminants of Potential Concern
Current and former USTs at several Activity A17 Storage tanks or drums Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH)
properties including: for fuel, chemicals and liquid waste Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAH)
36 St Asaph Street Metals including arsenic, cadmium,
181 Antigua Street chromium, copper, lead, mercury,
165-167 Antigua Street nickel, zinc
169 Antigua Street
101-103 Moorhouse Avenue (Fuel
tank only noted, may not have been
UST)
Former boilers also noted at:
36 St Asaph Street
181 Anitgua Street
101-103 Moorhouse Avenue
Motor vehicle workshop or sales and Activity F4 Motor vehicle workshops Metals including arsenic, cadmium,
chromium, copper, lead, mercury,
servicing at:
nickel, zinc
15 Horatio Street Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH)
107-109 Moorhouse Avenue Semi Volatile Organic Compounds
181 Antigua Street (SVOC)
117 Moorhouse Avenue
Spray painting booth at: Activity A17 Storage tanks or drums Metals including arsenic, cadmium,
17-19 Horatio Street for fuel, chemicals and liquid waste
nickel, zinc
18 Stewart Street
Semi Volatile Organic Compounds
(SVOC)
Electrical substations at: Activity B4 Power stations, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
substations or switchyards Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH)
11 Horatio Street
Metals including arsenic, copper,
36 St Asaph Street
lead, mercury
Several electrical transformers at 36 Activity B2 Electrical transformers Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
St Asaph Street Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH)
Metals including copper, lead,
mercury
Former dangerous goods store at: Activity A17 Storage tanks or drums Metals including arsenic, cadmium,
36 St Asaph Street for fuel, chemicals and liquid waste
nickel, zinc
30 Horatio Street
Semi Volatile Organic Compounds
(SVOC)
Internal roads potentially coal tar Activity I Any other land that has Metals including arsenic, cadmium,
used in the construction been subject to the intentional or
nickel, zinc
accidental release of hazardous Semi Volatile Organic Compounds

5394066 // NZ1-10350236-36 0.36 // page 7
Activity HAIL Code Contaminants of Potential Concern
substance in sufficient quantity that it (SVOC)

could be a risk to human health or the
environment.
Sample locations were selected using a systematic grid approach with targeted sampling where necessary.
Soil samples were collected from each sampling location at regular intervals based on visual observations
and significant geological changes.
4.2 Soil Sampling Methodology
4.2.1 Summary of Field Work

Soil samples were collected by Beca Environmental Scientists from test pits excavated by an excavator, and
four boreholes where limited site disturbance was available. Soil samples were collected from a range of
depths across the soil profile ranging from surface to 3.0 m bgl. A summary of the investigation dates,
samples collected and analysis undertaken is provided in Table 2 below. Test pit and borehole locations are
attached in Appendix A.
Table 2: Summary of soil samples collected and analysed
Phase Investigation Number of test Number of soil Number of Analysis

dates locations samples duplicate
collected samples
1 21-24 July 26: TP101 81 3 60 samples for heavy metals

2014 TP126 60 samples for TPH
15 samples for BTEX
7 samples for SVOCs
2 samples for PCBs
2 3-4 November 22: TP201- 61 - 43 samples for heavy metals
2014 TP206; TP208- 43 samples for TPH
TP209; TP212- 18 samples for BTEX
TP216; TP220- 14 samples for SVOCs
TP228
3 23-27 March 41: TP301- 133 6 90 samples for heavy metals
2015 TP337; BH338- 46 samples for TPH
BH341 3 samples for BTEX
27 samples for SVOCs
4 17-17 May 16: TP401- 41 3 38 samples for heavy metals
2016 TP416 13 samples for TPH
12 samples for SVOCs
Soil samples were collected directly by hand from excavated materials in the centre of the excavator
bucket/placed at the side of the auger pit. A clean pair of nitrile gloves was worn for each sample to prevent
cross-contamination. Samples were placed in laboratory supplied plastic or glass jars as appropriate and
chilled prior to dispatch to R J Hill Laboratories Ltd (Hill Laboratories).
The soil profile was logged for each location and the logs are provided in Appendix B and site photographs
are attached in Appendix C.
Field sampling and relevant sampling management procedures were undertaken in general accordance with
the MfE Contaminated Land Management Guidelines No.5 Site Investigation and Analysis (2011).

5394066 // NZ1-10350236-36 0.36 // page 8
All chemical laboratory analyses were undertaken by Hill Laboratories. A copy of the Chain of Custody forms
which detail the required handling and testing instructions are included in Appendix D.
4.2.1 NESCS Permitted Activity Provisions

Given activities on the Hazardous Activities and Industries List (HAIL) have been undertaken on this site, the
National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human
Health 2011 (NESCS) applies with respect to activities including soil sampling. Where undertaken in
accordance with Regulation 8(2) the soil sampling for investigation of contaminated land is a permitted
activity. In accordance with Regulation 8(2), measures were in place to minimise human exposure to
contaminants before, during and after the sampling programme and the sampling locations were immediately
restored to an erosion resistant state upon completion of the sampling program. No soil was removed from
the site other than for chemical laboratory analysis.

5394066 // NZ1-10350236-36 0.36 // page 9
5 Assessment Criteria
5.1.1 Assessment of Human Health Risk

The adopted assessment criteria for the investigation have been selected in accordance with the hierarchy
defined by Ministry for the Environment (MfE) Contaminated Land Management Guidelines No.2 (MfE, 2002)
and are summarised below. Assessment criteria for a commercial land use scenario have been adopted.
Resource Management (National Environment Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in
Soil to Protect Human Health) Regulations 2011. Soil Contaminant Standards for Commercial/industrial
outdoor worker (unpaved) land use scenario.
Guidelines for Assessing and Managing Petroleum Hydrocarbon Contaminated Sites in New Zealand
(MfE, 1999). Values applicable to commercial land use and the protection of groundwater have been
used, where necessary.
Regional Screening Levels, US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA, 2012). Values applicable to
industrial land use.
Background concentration of selected trace elements in Canterbury soils (ECan, 2006) and Background
concentration of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in Christchurch urban soils (ECan, 2007).
5.1.2 Assessment of Environmental Risk

The risk posed by contaminants in soil to ecological receptors has been assessed against the standards
contained in theCanadian Soil Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Environmental and Human Health,
CCME 1999. Values applicable to 'Commercial' land use have been used.

5394066 // NZ1-10350236-36 0.36 // page 10
6 Results
6.1 Fieldwork Observations
6.1.1 Soil profile

The general soil profile consisted of a surface layer of hard fill gravel and crushed demolition material (0.5
m), placed across most of the site. Two areas were asphalted including the CDHB car park and a shop front
along Moorhouse Avenue.
Below the hardfill layer, soil conditions as part of Phase 1 investigations, cobbles were present (0.5- 1 m
thickness) and overlying silts. Construction waste including concrete, brick, rebar and rubbish was
encountered at locations TP104, TP106, TP107, TP108, TP109 and TP115 predominantly in the upper 0.5
m.
Phase 2 and 3 investigations encountered a thin layer of older fill material was noted at most locations below
the hardfill layer and comprised a dark brown silt with some brick, ceramic and steel fragments. Soils below
the older fill layer generally comprised natural silts and sands with fibrous roots and wood. Test pit logs are
attached in Appendix B and site photographs are in Appendix C.
Phase 4 investigations encountered a thin surficial layer of hardfill material to up to 0.5 m bgl. This was
typically followed by natural sandy silt and silty sand layers to approximately 1.5 m bgl. Deeper than 1.5 m
was generally natural sandy silt or fine sand. Timber fragments were encountered in TP401 and TP402, with
a log located at 2.3 m in TP402.
6.1.2 Groundwater
Standing water was encountered a various depths during the Phase 1 investigations. In some test pits
(notably TP105, TP117 and TP119) a water level of 0.3 m bgl was struck. Significant groundwater flows into
test pits made excavation difficult and at times prevented deeper excavations.
Water seeped into six test pits in Phase 2 investigations at approximately 1.4-1.7 m depths and into five test
pits in Phase 3 investigations at approximately 1.8-2.6 m depths. Only a small volume of water entered the
test pits, therefore may not be sufficient to suggest a permanent shallow groundwater level.
The Phase 1 works were undertaken during a time of recently high rainfall and saturated ground conditions.
Phase 4 investigations followed a long period of dry weather in Christchurch, followed by rainfall on the day
and night prior to the investigation. Standing water was encountered in the central northern areas of
sampling of Phase 4. Ground water was not encountered in nine number of the pits (TP412 was excavated
to 2.8 m bgl with no groundwater ingress observed), however where it was encountered groundwater ranged
from 1 m bgl to 2.3 m bgl.
6.2 Summary of Soil Analytical Results

Laboratory results reports and summary tables of the analytical results are provided in Appendix E.
6.2.1 Metals
A total of 231 soil samples were analysed for metals. Table 3 below summarises the maximum
concentrations encountered and the number of exceedances in relation to the range of assessment criteria.

5394066 // NZ1-10350236-36 0.36 // page 11
Notably, commercial soil contaminant standards were exceeded in only one sample for arsenic (TP311 S2 at
0.8 m) and three samples for lead (TP106 S1 at 0.5 m and corresponding duplicate sample TP002 S1, and
TP409 0.5 m bgl). The exceedance for arsenic was sampled from the old fill layer. The first two lead
exceedances were from a cobble and sand layer in the centre of the former Brewery site; the exceedance in
TP409 was in an area not previously identified as HAIL in the PSI, however is adjacent to areas where
previously commercial and industrial activities were occurring.
Sample locations with metal concentrations above background are fairly evenly spread across the site. The
elevated metal concentrations were noted in both shallow and deeper samples tested.
Table 3: Summary of metal concentrations against assessment criteria
Metal Maximum Background Adopted Environmental Human Health

Concentration
(mg/kg) Ranges No. above Criteria No. above Standards No. above
(mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)
Arsenic 115 5.9 - 16.3 10 121 23 70 1

Cadmium 2.8 0.07 - 0.21 43 22 0 1,300 0
Chromium 46 12.7 - 25.4 9 87 0 6,300 0
Copper 15,600 10.2 - 25 45 94 13 >10,000 0
Lead 14,600 25.3 - 128.3 50 600 17 3,300 3
Mercury 10.2 0.09 - 0.2 41 24 0 4,200 0
Nickel 66 12.3 - 18 35 50 1 20,000 0
Zinc 2,600 62.6 - 166.8 50 360 19 310,000 0
1 Note that the CCME environmental assessment criteria for arsenic is lower than the background range and
is to be used with caution.
Beca 2013 investigations for the Lion Brewery site also had concentrations of arsenic and chromium above
background, but below human health criteria for commercial land use.
6.2.2 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH)

A total of 162 soil samples were tested for TPH. TPH results are presented in hydrocarbon bands and the
results were:
C7 C9 all samples were below the laboratory detection limit

C10 C14 seven samples were above the detection limit, with the highest concentration recorded at
113mg/kg. Tier 1 human health assessment criteria are dependent on the soil type, but the lowest
concentration applicable for the site is 1,500 mg/kg.
C15 C36 57 samples were above the detection limit, with the highest concentration recorded at 3,340
mg/kg. There is no applicable Tier 1 human health assessment criterion for the C15 C36 band as residual
phase hydrocarbons are likely to be visible in the soil at concentrations greater than 20,000 mg/kg.
Beca and PDP investigations in 2013 also indicated that concentrations of TPH were detected. One sample
from the PDP investigation exceeded the assessment criteria that cover all pathways as the route for
exposure for human health. The concentration for the C10 C14 band was recorded at 2,700 mg/kg where
the all pathways criterion is 1,500 mg/kg. This one sample was higher than all other Beca samples. The soil
sample result was reassessed by PDP against a route-specific criterion (indoor and outdoor inhalation for
commercial land use, dermal contact and ingestion for the protection of maintenance workers and inhalation
for excavation workers). The concentration was below the route-specific human health criteria and all other

5394066 // NZ1-10350236-36 0.36 // page 12
concentrations were below the all pathways criteria. PDP also reported an acceptably low risk to ecological
receptors.
6.2.3 Benzene-Toluene-Ethylbenzene-Xylene (BTEX)

36 samples tested for BTEX compounds. Only one sample (TP337 S1) had concentrations above laboratory
detection limit for ethylbenzene and xylene, however significantly below human health and environmental
assessment criteria.
6.2.4 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)

Two soil samples were tested for PCBs, both of which were below laboratory detection limit.
6.2.5 Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOC)

60 soil samples were tested for SVOCs. Most of the SVOC compounds detected were PAHs with only a
small number of other SVOC compounds detected and are further described below.
6.2.5.1 Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)

The background concentrations and human health criteria are based on benzo(a)pyrene equivalence (B(a)P
eq.) which represents the toxicological intake values for 14 priority contaminants to be used in the derivation
of soil guidelines. The human health soil contaminant standards includes the fluoranthene compound and
the derivation of background concentrations excludes flouranthene when determining B(a)P eq.
Two samples were above the human health soil contaminant standards for commercial use (criterion 35
mg/kg), both were sampled from a layer containing old fill material. These included:
At TP329 S1 at 0.4 m with a concentration of 114.06 mg/kg; and

At TP332 S2 at 0.6 m with a concentration of 71.56 mg/kg.
Due to the laboratory detection limit, all samples have technical exceedances above the background
concentration.
The environmental assessment criteria is based on selected PAH compounds. The following exceedances of
the environmental criteria are:
Napthalene four exceedances with maximum of 26 mg/kg where the environmental criteria is
dependent on the soil type and is 1.9 mg/kg for sand and 0.28 mg/kg for sandy silt. These were located at
TP108 S1, TP329 S1, TP332 S2 and TP337 S1.
Phenanthranene two exceedances of environmental criteria (50mg/kg) located at TP329 S1 and TP332
S2. The maximum concentration recorded was 108 mg/kg.
Pyrene two exceedances of environmental criteria (100 mg/kg) located at TP329 S1 and TP332 S2.
The maximum concentration recorded was 178 mg/kg.
6.2.5.2 Other compounds

The majority of all other semi volatile organic compounds are below the laboratory detection limit. Three
samples (TP108 S1, TP329 S1 and TP332 S2) had recorded concentrations of carbazole and dibenzofuran.
The maximum concentration of carbazole was 10.5 mg/kg, however there are no national or international
guideline values available. The maximum concentration of dibenzofuran was 20 mg/kg, the international
human health acceptance criteria for industrial use is 1,000 mg/kg.

5394066 // NZ1-10350236-36 0.36 // page 13
6.3 Quality Assurance and Quality Control
Nine duplicate soil samples were analysed as part of the investigation. The relative percentage difference
(RPD) between the primary and duplicate samples has been calculated and has a range from 0 to 165%. A
typical acceptable RPD is 30-50%, depending on the analyte.
Six of the duplicate pairs had RPDs greater than 50%. Four of the duplicate pairs were taken from fill
material and is indicative of the variable nature of the soil. One duplicate pair was sampled from a deeper silt
layer that included organic material. This duplicate pair had low concentrations of copper that were variable
and is also indicative of the variable nature of underlying natural material.
The analytical results therefore provide an indication of the variability of the fill material and should be taken
into account when assessing any fill material onsite.

5394066 // NZ1-10350236-36 0.36 // page 14
7 Site Characterisation and Risk Assessment
7.1 Risk Assessment from Soil Contamination

The majority of site soils showed concentrations of the target contaminants that were above published
background values, but below the respective environmental and human health criteria. Where exceedances
did occur above the environmental criteria, they were spread over the site and generally within the top 1.0 m
in the old fill layers. Generally these concentrations are considered to be unlikely to produce an on-going risk
once the site is developed but will need to be considered during construction.
There is currently limited risk to human health, due toa total of six exceedances of commercial land use
criteria, including:
Arsenic human health (commercial): 70 mg/kg

TP311 (0.8 m bgl), 115 mg/kg non-HAIL site, sample collected from layer containing steel, bricks,
ceramics and fill.
B(a)P equivalent human health (commercial) 35 mg/kg
TP329 (0.4 m bgl), 114.06 mg/kg) tagged HAIL category A, sample collected from layer containing
demolition fill
TP332 (0.6 m bgl), 71.56 mg/kg tagged HAIL category A, sample collected from fill layer
Lead human health (commercial) 3,300 mg/kg
TP106 (0.5 m bgl), 4,300 mg/kg tagged HAIL category A, sample collected from fill layer
TP002 (0.5 m bgl), 7,900 mg/kg (duplicate sample for TP106 above)
TP409 (0.5 m bgl), 14,600 mg/kg non-HAIL site, sample collected from sand layer.
All samples exceeding the human health SCS, with the exception of TP409, came from fill layers and/or
HAIL sites, which are the likely cause of the contamination observed and can be managed with a
Contaminated Soils Management Plan (CSMP).
TP409 0.5 has been assessed as a hotspot of lead contamination and soils will require removal and
management using a CSMP.
For samples not including TP409 0.5, due to soil contaminant concentrations exceeding the SCS for human
health and disposal criteria for Burwood landfill a 95% Upper Confidence Limit (UCL) of the mean was
calculated for each of the analytes (Appendix F, summarised in Table 4). As MSF is a large site, containing
numerous areas (populations) of sample analysis with multiple samples in each, typically analysis with 95%
UCL would not be used for the site as a whole. However, given that earthworks and disposal of soils is
assumed to be undertaken at a similar time for the site, soils from different site areas may become mixed
and analysis using 95% UCL is considered appropriate for human health and disposal criteria (TP409 lead
concentrations were excluded from the calculation).
This analysis must be considered when MSF design and construction plans are finalised as the end use
activity and the floor covering (e.g. asphalt, concrete, grass etc.) may necessitate remediation or removal of
soils with elevated contaminant levels, to protect human health and/or the environment.
The results showed that the 95% Chebyshev UCL of heavy metals and B(a)P eq. were below the
commercial and recreational land use soil contaminant standards(summarised in the Table 4).
The 95% UCL for each analyte (excluding lead at TP409) does not exceed the relevant SCS criteria, and are
therefore considered to on aggregate be within these criteria based on the assumed construction and

5394066 // NZ1-10350236-36 0.36 // page 15
disposal process, and soils should be managed in accordance with a Contaminated Soils Management Plan
(CSMP).
Table 4: 95% Upper Confidence Limit
Analyte 95% UCL (mg/kg) Commercial SCS (mg/kg) Recreation SCS (disposal to
Burwood Landfill) (mg/kg
Arsenic 10.15 70 80
Cadmium 0.284 1,300 400
Chromium 19.09 6,300 2,700
Copper 390.3 >10,000 >10,000
Lead 395.7 3,300 880
Mercury 0.649 4,200 1,800
Nickel 16.36 20,000 50
Zinc 275.1 310,000 360
B(a)P eq. 15.9 35 40
7.2 Exposure Pathway Assessment

The Conceptual Site Model (CSM) (see Table 4 below) was developed to inform the investigation and to
describe the relationship between sources of contamination on site, the human and environmental receptors
that may be exposed to those contaminants in the context of commercial use of the site, and the pathways
by which those receptors may be exposed.
Overall, the recorded soil contaminant concentrations will not prohibit the proposed development of the site.
Table 5: Conceptual Site Model
Source Receptor Pathway Completeness of

Pathway
Metals including Construction Exposure of workers to Complete Pathway

arsenic, cadmium, workers contaminants in soils and limited concentrations of
chromium, copper, groundwater during site contaminants above
lead, mercury, nickel,
redevelopment dermal commercial/outdoor worker
zinc
Total petroleum contact, ingestion or (unpaved) criteria, can be
hydrocarbons (TPH) inhalation of managed with CSMP.
Semi Volatile Organic dust/vapours.
Compounds (SVOC)
Future site users Exposure of future site Potentially Complete
users to contaminants in Pathway limited
soils dermal contact, concentrations of
ingestion or inhalation of contaminants above
dust/vapours. commercial criteria, can be
managed with site CSMP.
Groundwater Leaching and migration of Incomplete Pathway -there

resources for soil contaminants into are no shallow
public groundwater from spills groundwater abstraction
wells identified nearby the
consumption and leaks. Use of the
site.

5394066 // NZ1-10350236-36 0.36 // page 16
Source Receptor Pathway Completeness of
Pathway
shallow water bearing

layer not considered
likely.
Surface water Sediment and runoff into Incomplete pathway -

stormwater system which assuming appropriate
discharges to the Avon stormwater management
River. controls during
construction
Migration of soil Incomplete pathway - the

contaminants into surface Avon River is greater than
water through shallow 100 m from the site and is
groundwater discharging therefore not a sensitive
into the Avon River. receptor from the migration
of contaminants in soil.
7.3 Limitations of Site Characterisation

Characterisation of subsurface conditions is dependent on the number of sample locations, methods of
sampling and the uniformity of subsurface conditions. The accuracy of this characterisation is therefore
limited by the Scope of works undertaken in accordance with the MfE Guidelines. There is the possibility that
contamination present on the site has not been described. Whilst contaminant concentrations may be
estimated at chosen sample locations, conditions at any location removed from the specific points of
sampling can only be inferred on the basis of geological and hydrogeological conditions and the nature and
the extent of identified contamination. Subsurface conditions can vary, resulting in uneven distribution of
contaminants across a site which cannot be defined by these investigations. In addition, with time, the site
conditions and environmental guidelines could change so that the reported assessments and conclusions
are no longer valid. The conclusions of this report are made on the basis that the site conditions revealed by
the investigation are representative of the actual conditions across the site at the time of sampling.

5394066 // NZ1-10350236-36 0.36 // page 17
8 Development Implications
8.1 Consents
8.1.1 Regulatory Context

The below comments are made with consideration of the site in a typical regulatory context without
evaluation of the Designation controls and any other special CERA/tkaro frameworks. It is anticipated that
the below planning considerations will require review by the planners responsible for the wider MSF
consenting.
8.1.2 National Environmental Standard

The Resource Management (National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in
Soil to Protect Human Health) Regulations 2011 (NESCS) applies to land as per clause 5(7):
Land covered:
(7) The piece of land is a piece of land that is described by 1 of the following:
(a) an activity or industry described in the HAIL is being undertaken on it;
(b) an activity or industry described in the HAIL has been undertaken on it;
(c) it is more likely than not that an activity or industry described in the HAIL is being or has been
undertaken on it.
The following HAIL activities have been identified for this site:
Activity I Any other land that has been subject to the intentional or accidental release of hazardous
substance in sufficient quantity that it could be a risk to human health or the environment.
The NESCS applies to certain activities taking place on HAIL land. The development plans for the site are
yet to be finalised, however the following activities are likely to be triggered for this site:
Soil disturbance
Fuel tank removal
Subdivision
Change in land use
Soil Disturbance
Under Regulation 8(3) of the NESCS, soil disturbance of up to 25 m3 per 500 m2 and disposal of up to 5 m3
per 500 m2 is allowed as a Permitted Activity. For this site approximately 38,041 m2 has been identified as
HAIL activities present onsite. The total volume of soil disturbance is therefore 1,925 m3, of which 385 m3
can be disposed of offsite, as a Permitted Activity. This is based on CCCs interpretation of the piece of land
and that CCC do not apply a pro-rata approach per 500 m2 of the piece of land in determining permitted soil
disturbance volumes under the NESCS. The proposed works are yet to be confirmed, however with the
development of a swimming pool it is highly likely that excavations will exceed these permitted activity
volume thresholds. Each of the HAIL areas would need to be considered on its own piece of land size and
the activities proposed for that area considered for the permitted activity provisions to be applied. Therefore

5394066 // NZ1-10350236-36 0.36 // page 18
resource consent under the NES is required. Discussion should be had with CCC as to the activity status of
this consent. Given the very low level of exceedance of criteria it is possible that a controlled activity consent
will be possible, if not a restricted discretionary activity under the NESCS will be required.
Fuel Tank Removal

There may be several underground storage fuel tanks remaining onsite that will need to be removed as part
of the development of the site. Under Regulation 8(1) of the NESCS, permitted activity volume thresholds for
the removal of a tank is 30 m3 per system, which may be disposed offsite. Other permitted activity
requirements under Regulation 8(1) of the NESCS includes:
The activity is undertaken in accordance with Guidelines for Assessing and Managing Petroleum
Hydrocarbon Contaminated Sites in New Zealand;
The territorial authority is notified, between 1 week and 1 month prior to the removal;
Soil must be disposed at a facility authorised to receive that soil;
Duration must not exceed 2 months;
Results of investigation must be provided to the territorial authority within three months.
Subdividing and Changing Use

In order for subdivision or change in use to be a permitted activity under the NESCS where the site has
identified HAIL activities, the following conditions must be met as per Regulation 8(4):
A PSI must exist and state that it is highly unlikely that there will be a risk to human health resulting from
the subdivision or change in land use;
Report is to be accompanied by a relevant site plan;
Consent authority must be provided with a copy of the above.
The PSI was unable to state that it is highly unlikely that there will be a risk to human health for the site to be
used for the Metro Sports Facility and therefore will not be a permitted activity. Soil concentrations for the site
and taking into account the 95% UCL indicate that the site is within the proposed commercial land use
criteria and therefore is likely to be a controlled activity under the NESCS.
8.1.3 Regional Plans

The Canterbury Natural Resources Regional Plan and the proposed Canterbury Land and Water Regional
Plan (pLWRP) outline Policies and Rules in relation to natural resources and land use within the jurisdiction
of ECan. In particular, Rules 5.187 and 5.188 of the pLWRP relate to the discharge of contaminants onto or
into land from a contaminated site in circumstances where those contaminants may enter water. As
contaminant concentrations onsite are above background and above the adopted environmental criteria,
resource consent will need to be obtained from ECan.
A copy of this report must be provided to ECan to meet the permitted activity requirements under Rule 5.185
for the use of land for a site investigation to assess concentrations of hazardous substances that may be
present in the soil.
8.2 Contaminated Soil Management Plan (CSMP)

The exposure pathway assessment identified two potentially complete exposure pathways which could be
mitigated and managed through the implementation of specialist controls (via the implementation of
management plans) during proposed land disturbance works. Specialist controls can be implemented
through the development of a CSMP and include:

5394066 // NZ1-10350236-36 0.36 // page 19
A summary of human health controls for health and safety planning/training requirements, personal
protective equipment, and personal monitoring.
A summary of responsible parties to the land disposal works.
A summary of environmental controls for odour, dust, noise, spoil stockpiling, spoil disposal, groundwater
disposal.
Procedures for encountering unknown contamination.
8.3 Disposal Options

The material onsite will not meet cleanfill acceptance criteria and therefore any surplus soil will need to be
disposed to an appropriate facility suitable to receive such material.
Based on the results of the soil investigation, the material onsite is considered to be within the soil
concentrations that are accepted at Burwood Landfill, assuming that earthworks and soils disposal for the
MSF site are undertaken at a similar time.
The managed fill option in Canterbury is currently Burwood Landfill, with acceptance criteria equal to
recreational land use soil contaminant standards. An appropriate waste manifest applications will need to be
made to CCC.
Where material with concentrations exceeding recreational and commercial land use criteria is to be
removed offsite, the soil will not meet managed fill acceptance criteria. The likely alternative in Canterbury is
disposal to Kate Valley Landfill, however acceptance criteria is based on the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure (TCLP) test, rather than total concentrations as used to determine human health effects.
Any asbestos contaminated material cannot be disposed to managed fill and currently Kate Valley Landfill is
the only facility able to accept asbestos containing materials in Canterbury. Please refer to the Tonkin &
Taylor Ltd asbestos assessment report for further comment.
8.4 Further Work

Internal roads for the MSF site are Balfour Terrace and Horatio Street and are currently (at the time of
writing) active carriageways. If access is available, investigation and assessment of the internal roads should
also be undertaken to assess disposal criteria.
Remedial action is required in the form of limited soil removal of soils at TP409 as this is considered a lead
hotspot. Validation sampling will be required in this area, together with landfill acceptance testing (TCLP).

5394066 // NZ1-10350236-36 0.36 // page 20
9 Conclusions
The Preliminary Site Investigation prepared for the proposed development of the Metro Sports Facility
identified several HAIL activities that are currently or formerly onsite:
Activity I Any other land that has been subject to the intentional or accidental release of hazardous
substance in sufficient quantity that it could be a risk to human health or the environment.
This investigation was therefore undertaken to assess the level of contamination present onsite for
contaminants associated with the storage of chemicals, substations and workshops, and also for the fill
material identified during excavations for soil sampling.
The investigation identified five locations out of 101 that exceeded the human health soil contaminant
standards for either arsenic, lead or benzo(a)pyrene equivalent for commercial land use. One sample
location (TP409) is considered a lead hotspot and remediation is required in this area. The source of this
sample has not been confirmed but it is completely inconsistent with the remaining site distribution of lead. A
95% upper confidence limit was calculated for the analytes (not including TP409 for lead) and the results
were below the commercial land use soil contaminant standards. It is therefore considered with 95%
confidence that (with the exception of TP409) the aggregate soil contamination status for the overall site is
within the commercial land use soil contaminant standards. While gross contamination was not identified
across most of the site, many areas were above background concentrations and adopted environmental
criteria for metals and some hydrocarbons and volatile compounds. This analysis is based on the
assumption that excavation and disposal works across the site are undertaken at the same time, leading to
mixing of site-wide soils.
Remedial action is required in the form of limited soil removal of soils at TP409 as this is considered a lead
hotspot. Validation sampling will be required in this area, together with landfill acceptance testing (TCLP).The
consenting assessment in this report was made with consideration of the site in a typical regulatory context
without evaluation of the Designation controls and any other special CERA/tkaro frameworks. It is
anticipated that the below planning considerations will require review by the planners responsible for the
wider MSF consenting.
While the final design parameters of the development are yet to be confirmed, the volume of material that is
to be excavated from the site is assumed to be undertaken at the same time and is likely to exceed the
permitted activity volume thresholds. It is highly likely that resource consent will be required under the
NESCS for soil disturbance. There are also some underground storage tanks that may be onsite, and if
these have resulted in gross contamination, it is unlikely that the removal of the tanks will meet the permitted
activity requirements. Resource consent to remove any potential tanks could be obtained as a precaution
with the soil disturbance application.
Resource consent will also need to be obtained for the construction of the development under the ECan
proposed Land and Water Regional Plan for the discharge of contaminants onto or into land from a
contaminated site in circumstances where those contaminants may enter water. The contaminant
concentrations onsite are above background and adopted environmental criteria, therefore cannot meet the
permitted activity requirements. This report will need to be provided to ECan to meet the permitted activity
requirements for the use of land for a site investigation.

5394066 // NZ1-10350236-36 0.36 // page 21
Remediation or management will be required for TP409, where material was observed above the commercial
land use soil contaminant standards. It is recommended that further investigation is undertaken in these
areas in order to further delineate the hotspot.
The exposure pathway assessment completed for the soil investigation identified potentially complete
exposure pathways in relation to human health. These could be mitigated and managed through the
implementation of a Contaminated Soils Management Plan, which will likely form part of resource consent
conditions for soil disturbance.
The material onsite generally meets the definition of managed fill and may be disposed to an appropriate
facility (currently Burwood Landfill, operated by CCC). Further analysis of soils that do not meet the managed
fill acceptance criteria (such as soils potentially removed from TP409) will require TCLP analysis to
determine acceptance to Kate Valley Landfill. There are also restrictions with regards to asbestos material
being disposed to managed fill, please refer to the Tonkin & Taylor Ltd asbestos assessment report for
further detail.
Internal roads (Balfour Terrace and Horatio Street) are currently (at the time of writing) active carriageways.
If access is available, investigation and assessment of the internal roads should also be undertaken to
assess materials for disposal or alternately this testing may be deferred to construction.

5394066 // NZ1-10350236-36 0.36 // page 22
10 Limitations
This report has been prepared by Beca Ltd (Beca) solely for tkaro Limited (tkaro) (Client) (formerly the
Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA). Beca has been requested by the Client to provide a
Detailed Site Investigation (DSI) for the Metro Sports Facility. This report is prepared solely for the purpose
of the assessment of potential soil contamination (Scope). The contents of this report may not be used by
(CERA) for any purpose other than in accordance with the stated Scope.
This report is confidential and is prepared solely for the Client. Beca accepts no liability to any other person
for their use of or reliance on this report, and any such use or reliance will be solely at their own risk.
In preparing this report Beca has relied on key information including information held by Environment
Canterbury and Christchurch City Council.
This report contains information obtained by inspection, sampling, testing or other means of investigation.
Unless specifically stated otherwise in this report, Beca has relied on the accuracy, completeness, currency
and sufficiency of all information provided to it by, or on behalf of, the Client or any third party, including the
information listed above, and has not independently verified the information provided. Beca accepts no
responsibility for errors or omissions in, or the currency or sufficiency of, the information provided. Publicly
available records are frequently inaccurate or incomplete.
The contents of this report are based upon our understanding and interpretation of current legislation and
guidelines (Standards) as consulting professionals, and should not be construed as legal opinions or
advice. Unless special arrangements are made, this report will not be updated to take account of
subsequent changes to any such Standards.
This report should be read in full, having regard to all stated assumptions, limitations and disclaimers.

5394066 // NZ1-10350236-36 0.36 // page 23
Appendix A
Site Plans

5394066 // NZ1-10350236-36 0.36 // page 24
Beca 2013 and
PDP 2013
investigations
Fuel pumps
Beca 2013
investigation
Legend
Site boundary
HAIL Category A
Storage location
HAIL Category B
HAIL Category F
HAIL Category I
Previous investigations
Dangerous
Goods Store
Fuel tank
OTAKARO LIMTED METRO SPORTS FACILITY HAIL MAP ENVIRONMENTAL
002
Drawing Plotted: 26 Sep 2011 4:30 p.m.
TP402
TP404 TP337
TP228
TP401 TP336
TP227 TP222
TP223
TP224 TP403
TP105 TP120 TP335
TP110 TP115
TP226 TP225
TP405
TP333
TP104 TP334
TP114 TP221
TP109 TP119 TP126 TP220 TP332 TP331
TP406
TP103 TP407
TP125 TP329
TP408 TP330
TP108
TP113 TP118 TP320 TP321
TP124 TP326 TP328
TP102 TP107
TP325
TP112 TP123 TP327
TP319 TP324
TP117
TP409 TP322
TP318 TP323
TP111 TP122 TP412
TP410
TP106
TP317
TP116 TP411 TP413
TP101 BH341 TP121
BH340 TP316
TP315
TP312 TP313
BH339
TP414 TP415 TP416
TP314
BH338
TP311 TP310
TP309
TP308
TP302
TP208 TP206 Legend
TP301
TP307 Phase 1 Sample Locations
TP207 TP205
TP303 Phase 2 Sample Locations
TP306
TP304
TP203 TP204 Phase 3 Sample Locations
TP305
TP213
TP215
Phase 4 Sample Locations
TP214 TP209
TP202 TP201 TP-- Test Pit
TP212
TP216 BH-- Borehole
Concentrations above
commercial SCS
This map contains data derived in part or wholly from sources other than Beca, and
therefore, no representations or warranties are made by Beca as to the accuracy or
completeness of this information.
Map intended for distribution as a PDF document. Scale may be incorrect when printed
Contains Crown Copyright Cata. Crown Copyright Reserved.
PDFTENDER
FOR ONLY
No. DRAWING2.DWG
NO CONSTRUCTION
NOT FOR DWG FILE
Drawing Originator: Original Design BRW 06/16 Approved For Client: Project: Title: Discipline
Scale (A1)
Drawn BRW 06/16
Construction* INVESTIGATION LOCATIONS CONTAMINATED LAND
BLUEBEAM
Dsg Verifier OTAKARO LIMITED METRO SPORTS FACILITY CONTAMINATED LAND ASSESSMENT
Document
Reduced Drawing No. Rev.
Scale (A3) Dwg Check Date
No. Revision By Chk Appd Date * Refer to Revision 1 for Original Signature
001 A
DO NOT SCALE IF IN DOUBT ASK.
Appendix B
Soil Logs

5394066 // NZ1-10350236-36 0.36 // page 26
TEST PIT No: TP101
TEST PIT LOG SHEET 1 of 1
PROJECT: Metro Sports Facility, Christchurch JOB NUMBER:5394066
SITE LOCATION: Balfour Terrace, Christchurch Central CLIENT: CERA
CIRCUIT: TEST PIT LOCATION:
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL
SOIL / ROCK DESCRIPTION

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
M Fine to coarse rounded fine to coarse gravelly rounded COBBLES, some fine sand, trace silt;
dark grey; moist; non plastic.
S1
0.5 0.5
1.0 1.0
S Rounded gravelly SILT; dark grey; saturated; non plastic.

24/7/14
S2
1.5 1.5
S SILT; dark grey; saturated; non plastic.

2.0 2.0
S3
2.5 2.5
3.0 3.0
END OF LOG @ 3 m
3.5 3.5
TEST_PIT P:\539\5394066\ENV\DSI\GINT\LOGS.GPJ BECA.GDT 22/8/14
4.0 4.0
4.5 4.5
DATE EXCAVATED: 24/7/14 CONTRACTOR: 1Geotechnics COMMENTS:

S1 - 14:096 TP101 S1 0.5m
LOGGED BY: KW EQUIPMENT: Excavator
S2 - 14:096 TP101 S2 1.5m
SHEAR VANE No: METHOD: Excavation S3 - 14:096 TP101 S3 2.5m
FOR EXPLANATION OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS SEE KEY SHEET Draft

A4 Scale 1:25
TEST PIT No: TP102
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
M Fine to coarse rounded gravelly rounded COBBLES, some fine sand, trace silt; dark grey;
moist; non plastic.
S1
0.5 0.5
1.0 1.0
M SILT, trace fine sand; orange brown mottled grey; moist; non plastic.
S2
1.5 1.5
2.0 2.0
M Fine to coarse sandy SILT; grey mottled orange; moist; non plastic.
S3
2.5 2.5
3.0 3.0
END OF LOG @ 3 m
3.5 3.5
4.0 4.0
4.5 4.5

S1 - 14:096 TP102 S1 0.5m
S2 - 14:096 TP102 S2 1.5m

A4 Scale 1:25
TEST PIT No: TP103
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
moist; non plastic.
S1
0.5 0.5
D SILT, minor brick fragments; black mottled orange; dry; non plastic.
D SILT, trace fine to coarse sand; orange brown mottled grey; dry; non plastic.
1.0 1.0
S2
1.5 1.5
2.0 2.0
M Becoming moist
S3
2.5 2.5
3.0 3.0
END OF LOG @ 3 m
3.5 3.5
4.0 4.0
4.5 4.5

S1 - 14:096 TP103 S1 0.5m
S2 - 14:096 TP103 S2 1.5m

A4 Scale 1:25
TEST PIT No: TP104
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
moist; non plastic.
0.5 M SILT, some refuse; grey mottled black and orange; moist; non plastic. Refuse: clay pipe, brick 0.5
fragments, broken glass and coal.
S1
1.0 1.0
S2
1.5 1.5
2.0 2.0
M Becoming moist.
S3
2.5 2.5
3.0 3.0
END OF LOG @ 3 m
3.5 3.5
4.0 4.0
4.5 4.5

S1 - 14:096 TP104 S1 0.8m
S2 - 14:096 TP104 S2 1.3m

A4 Scale 1:25
TEST PIT No: TP105
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
M Fine to coarse rounded gravelly rounded COBBLES, some fine sand, minor brick fragments,
trace silt; dark grey; moist; non plastic.
S Becoming saturated.
24/7/14
S1
0.5 0.5
1.0 1.0
1.5 1.5
2.0 2.0
2.5 2.5
END OF LOG @ 2.5 m
3.0 3.0
3.5 3.5
4.0 4.0
4.5 4.5

S1 - 14:096 TP105 S1 0.5m
SHEAR VANE No: METHOD: Excavation

A4 Scale 1:25
TEST PIT No: TP106
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
M Fine to coarse angular to sub angular GRAVEL, minor fine to coarse sand; light grey; moist;
M non plastic.
Fine to coarse rounded gravelly rounded COBBLES, some fine sand, trace silt; dark grey;
moist; non plastic.
S1
0.5 0.5
D CONCRETE
1.0 1.0
M SILT, trace fine to coarse sand; greyish black; moist; non plastic.
S2
1.5 1.5
2.0 2.0
S3
2.5 2.5
3.0 3.0
END OF LOG @ 3 m
3.5 3.5
4.0 4.0
4.5 4.5

S1 - 14:096 TP106 S1 0.5m
S2 - 14:096 TP106 S2 1.5m
FOR EXPLANATION OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS SEE KEY SHEET Revision 1

A4 Scale 1:25
TEST PIT No: TP107
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
moist; non plastic.
D Becoming dry, light brown.
S1
0.5 0.5
M Becoming moist, brown.
1.0 1.0
SILT, some brick fragments and ash; grey mottled orange and black; moist; non plastic. Ash
leaves charcoal smear and has a hydrocarbon odour.
S2
1.5 1.5
D SILT, minor fine to coarse sand; grey mottled orange; dry; non plastic; hydrocarbon odour.
S3
2.0 2.0
S4
2.5 2.5
3.0 3.0
END OF LOG @ 3 m
3.5 3.5
4.0 4.0
4.5 4.5

S1 - 14:096 TP107 S1 0.5m
S2 - 14:096 TP107 S2 1.3m
S4 - 14:096 TP107 S4 2.5m

A4 Scale 1:25
TEST PIT No: TP108
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
moist; non plastic.
S1
M SILT, some brick fragments and ash-type material; grey mottled orange and black; moist;
0.5 hydrocarbon odour. 0.5
1.0 1.0
S2
1.5 1.5
2.0 2.0
M Becoming moist
S3
2.5 2.5
3.0 3.0
END OF LOG @ 3 m
3.5 3.5
4.0 4.0
4.5 4.5

S1 - 14:096 TP108 S1 0.5m
S2 - 14:096 TP108 S2 1.5m

A4 Scale 1:25
TEST PIT No: TP109
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
D Fine to coarse rounded gravelly rounded COBBLES, some fine sand, trace silt; dark grey; dry;
non plastic.
Slow water inflow from side of testpit.

24/7/14
S1
0.5 0.5
Rapid water inflow from side of testpit.
1.0 1.0
S2
1.5 1.5
2.0 2.0
S SILT, some fibrous organics; dark grey; saturated; non plastic.

2.5 2.5
S3
END OF LOG @ 2.6 m
3.0 3.0
3.5 3.5
4.0 4.0
4.5 4.5

S1 - 14:096 TP109 S1 0.5m
S2 - 14:096 TP109 S2 1.5m

A4 Scale 1:25
TEST PIT No: TP110
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
Fine to coarse rounded gravelly rounded COBBLES, some fine sand, minor construction waste
(rebar, concrete, brick), trace silt; dark grey; moist; non plastic
S1
0.5 0.5
1.0 1.0
S Water inflow as slow seep, becomes saturated.

24/7/14
S2
1.5 1.5
2.0 2.0
S3
2.5 2.5
END OF LOG @ 2.5 m
3.0 3.0
3.5 3.5
4.0 4.0
4.5 4.5

S1 - 14:096 TP110 S1 0.5m
S2 - 14:096 TP110 S2 1.5m

A4 Scale 1:25
TEST PIT No: TP111
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
M non plastic.
moist; non plastic.
S1
0.5 0.5
D SILT, minor fine to coarse sand; black; dry; non plastic; strong organic odour.
1.0 1.0
M Sandy SILT; bluish grey; moist; non plastic; strong organic odour.
M SILT, some fine to coarse sand; orange brown mottled grey; moist; non plastic; faint organic
odour.
S2
1.5 1.5
2.0 2.0
S3
2.5 2.5
3.0 3.0
END OF LOG @ 3 m
3.5 3.5
4.0 4.0
4.5 4.5

S1 - 14:096 TP111 S1 0.5m
S2 - 14:096 TP111 S2 1.5m

A4 Scale 1:25
TEST PIT No: TP112
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
M non plastic.
moist; non plastic.
S1
0.5 0.5
SILT; dark grey; moist; non plastic.
W SAND, some silt; bluish grey; wet; non plastic.
1.0 1.0
S2
1.5 1.5
M SILT; orange brown mottled grey; moist; non plastic.
2.0 2.0
S3
2.5 2.5
3.0 3.0
END OF LOG @ 3 m
3.5 3.5
4.0 4.0
4.5 4.5

S1 - 14:096 TP112 S1 0.5m
S2 - 14:096 TP112 S2 1.5m

A4 Scale 1:25
TEST PIT No: TP113
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
moist; non plastic.
S1
M SILT, some fine to coarse sand, minor fine to coarse gravel; moist; non plastic.
0.5 0.5
1.0 1.0
S2
1.5 1.5
W SILT, minor fine to coarse sand; orange brown mottled grey; wet; non plastic.
2.0 2.0
S3
2.5 2.5
3.0 3.0
END OF LOG @ 3 m
3.5 3.5
4.0 4.0
4.5 4.5

S1 - 14:096 TP113 S1 0.5m
S2 - 14:096 TP113 S2 1.5m

A4 Scale 1:25
TEST PIT No: TP114
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
non plastic.
Fine to coarse rounded gravelly rounded COBBLES, some fine sand, minor concrete blocks,
trace silt; dark grey; moist; non plastic.
0.5 0.5
S1
Excavtor bucket broke clay pipe containing water. Free phase hydrocarbons were observed on
the water.
S SILT, some fine to coarse sand; dark brown; saturated; non plastic.
1.0 1.0
S2
S SILT, some fine to coarse sand; dark greyish black; saturated; non plastic; hydrocarbon odour.
1.5 1.5
2.0 2.0
S4 S3
S Fine to coarse sandy SILT; orange brown mottled grey; saturated; non plastic.
2.5 2.5
3.0 3.0
END OF LOG @ 3 m
3.5 3.5
4.0 4.0
4.5 4.5

S1 - 14:096 TP114 S1 0.6m
S2 - 14:096 TP114 S2 1.5m
S4 - 14:096 TP114 S4 2.5m

A4 Scale 1:25
TEST PIT No: TP115
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
M non plastic.
Fine to coarse rounded gravelly rounded COBBLES, some fine sand, minor plastic bags and
bricks, trace silt; dark grey; moist; non plastic.
S1
D SILT; orange brown mottled grey; dry; non plastic.
0.5 0.5
1.0 1.0
S Becoming saturated.
S2
Becomes grey mottled orange.
1.5 1.5
2.0 2.0
Some fibrous organics.
S3
2.5 2.5
3.0 3.0
END OF LOG @ 3 m
3.5 3.5
4.0 4.0
4.5 4.5

S1 - 14:096 TP115 S1 0.5m
S2 - 14:096 TP115 S2 1.5m

A4 Scale 1:25
TEST PIT No: TP116
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
M non plastic.
moist; non plastic.
S1
0.5 0.5
1.0 1.0
S2
1.5 1.5
W SILT, some fine to coarse sand; orange brown mottled grey; wet; non plastic.
2.0 2.0
S3
2.5 2.5
3.0 3.0
END OF LOG @ 3 m
3.5 3.5
4.0 4.0
4.5 4.5

S1 - 14:096 TP116 S1 0.5m
S2 - 14:096 TP116 S2 1.5m

A4 Scale 1:25
TEST PIT No: TP117
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
D non plastic.
Fine to coarse rounded gravelly rounded COBBLES, some fine sand, trace silt; dark grey; dry;
non plastic.
S Becomes saturated.
S1
0.5 0.5
1.0 1.0
S2
W Sandy SILT; grey mottled orange; wet; non plastic.
1.5 1.5
2.0 2.0
S3
2.5 2.5
END OF LOG @ 2.6 m
3.0 3.0
3.5 3.5
4.0 4.0
4.5 4.5

S1 - 14:096 TP117 S1 0.5m
S2 - 14:096 TP117 S2 1.5m

A4 Scale 1:25
TEST PIT No: TP118
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
M non plastic.
moist; non plastic.
S1
M SILT, some fine to coarse sand; dark greyish black; moist; non plastic.
0.5 0.5
1.0 1.0
Becoming orange brown mottled grey.
S2
1.5 1.5
2.0 2.0
Becoming grey.
S3
2.5 2.5
END OF LOG @ 2.5 m
3.0 3.0
3.5 3.5
4.0 4.0
4.5 4.5

S1 - 14:096 TP118 S1 0.5m
S2 - 14:096 TP118 S2 1.5m

A4 Scale 1:25
TEST PIT No: TP119
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
M non plastic.
moist; non plastic.
S1
W SILT, some fine to coarse sand, minor clay; dark grey; wet; low plasticity.
0.5 0.5
Rapid inflow of water causing pit walls to become unstable.

23/7/14
1.0 1.0
S2
1.5 1.5
S SILT, some fine to coarse sand; dark grey; saturated; non plastic.
2.0 2.0
S3
2.5 2.5
3.0 3.0
END OF LOG @ 3 m
3.5 3.5
4.0 4.0
4.5 4.5

S1 - 14:096 TP119 S1 0.5m
S2 - 14:096 TP119 S2 1.5m

A4 Scale 1:25
TEST PIT No: TP120
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
non plastic.
D SILT, minor fine angular gravel; black; dry; non plastic.
S1
0.5 0.5
W SILT, trace fine to coarse sand; bluish grey; wet; non plastic.
1.0 1.0
S2
1.5 1.5
2.0 2.0
S3
2.5 2.5
3.0 3.0
END OF LOG @ 3 m
3.5 3.5
4.0 4.0
4.5 4.5

S1 - 14:096 TP120 S1 0.5m
S2 - 14:096 TP120 S2 1.5m

A4 Scale 1:25
TEST PIT No: TP121
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
M non plastic.
moist; non plastic.
S1
W SILT, some fine to coarse sand, minor clay; orange brown; wet; low plasticity.
0.5 0.5
1.0 1.0
S2
Fine to coarse sandy SILT, grey mottled orange; wet; non plastic. Organics: fibrous.
1.5 1.5
2.0 2.0
S3
2.5 2.5
3.0 3.0
END OF LOG @ 3 m
3.5 3.5
4.0 4.0
4.5 4.5

S1 - 14:096 TP121 S1 0.5m
S2 - 14:096 TP121 S2 1.5m

A4 Scale 1:25
TEST PIT No: TP122
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
moist; non plastic.
S1
0.5 0.5
1.0 1.0
W Fine to coarse sandy SILT; greyish brown; wet; non plastic.
S2
1.5 1.5
2.0 2.0
S3
S Fine to coarse SAND, some silt; dark grey mottled orange brown; saturated; non plastic.
2.5 2.5
3.0 3.0
END OF LOG @ 2.4 m
3.5 3.5
4.0 4.0
4.5 4.5

S1 - 14:096 TP122 S1 0.5m
S2 - 14:096 TP122 S2 1.5m

A4 Scale 1:25
TEST PIT No: TP123
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
moist; non plastic.
S1
0.5 0.5
W Fine to coarse sandy SILT; dark grey mottled orange; wet; non plastic.
1.0 1.0
S2
1.5 1.5
2.0 2.0
W Fine to coarse SAND, some silt; bluish grey; wet; non plastic.
S3
2.5 2.5
3.0 3.0
END OF LOG @ 3 m
3.5 3.5
4.0 4.0
4.5 4.5

S1 - 14:096 TP123 S1 0.5m
S2 - 14:096 TP123 S2 1.5m

A4 Scale 1:25
TEST PIT No: TP124
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
W non plastic.
SILT, minor fine to coarse sand, orange brown mottled grey; wet; non plastic.
S1
Becoming grey
0.5 0.5
1.0 1.0
S2
1.5 1.5
Slow inflow of water to testpit
2.0 2.0
S3
2.5 2.5
3.0 3.0
END OF LOG @ 3 m
3.5 3.5
4.0 4.0
4.5 4.5

S1 - 14:096 TP124 S1 0.3m
S2 - 14:096 TP124 S2 1.5m

A4 Scale 1:25
TEST PIT No: TP125
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
moist; non plastic.
S1
0.5 0.5
M SILT, minor fine to coarse sand; bluish grey; moist; non plastic.
1.0 1.0
S2
1.5 1.5
2.0 2.0
Some fibrous organics
S3
2.5 2.5
3.0 3.0
END OF LOG @ 3 m
3.5 3.5
4.0 4.0
4.5 4.5

S1 - 14:096 TP125 S1 0.5m
S2 - 14:096 TP125 S2 1.5m

A4 Scale 1:25
TEST PIT No: TP126
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
moist; non plastic.
S1
M SILT, some fine to coarse sand, minor plastic and wire; dark grey; moist; non plastic; strong
0.5 organic odour. 0.5
W SILT, some fine to coarse sand; bluish grey; wet; non plastic.
1.0 1.0
S2
1.5 1.5
2.0 2.0
Some fibrous organics, minor fine to coarse sand.
S3
2.5 2.5
3.0 3.0
END OF LOG @ 3 m
3.5 3.5
4.0 4.0
4.5 4.5

S1 - 14:096 TP126 S1 0.5m
S2 - 14:096 TP126 S2 1.5m

A4 Scale 1:25
TEST PIT No: MTP201
PROJECT: Metro Sports Facility JOB NUMBER:5394066-050-D200
SITE LOCATION: Balfour Terrace and Horatio Street, Christchurch CLIENT: CERA
CIRCUIT: TEST PIT LOCATION: Metro Sports Facility
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
D Cobbley fine to coarse angular to rounded GRAVEL, minor silt; light grey; dry; non plastic
D Silty fine to coarse SAND, trace cobbles; dark brown mottled light brown and dark grey; dry; non
plastic
S1
0.5 0.5
S2
1.0 1.0
M Becoming moist
1.5 1.5
END OF LOG @ 1.8 m S3
2.0 2.0
TEST_PIT P:\539\5394066\ENV\DSI\GINT\PHASE 2\LOGS.GPJ BECA.GDT 18/11/14
2.5 2.5
DATE EXCAVATED: 3/11/14 CONTRACTOR: 1Geotechnical COMMENTS:

Samples:
LOGGED BY: CB EQUIPMENT: Excavator
14:120:MTP201:S1 (0.45-0.55m)
SHEAR VANE No: METHOD: Excavation 14:120:MTP201:S2 (0.85-1.0m)
14:120:MTP201:S3 (1.7-1.8m)

A4 Scale 1:15
TEST PIT No: MTP202
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
M Silty fine to coarse SAND, trace cobbles, trace coarse rounded gravel; dark bluish grey; moist;
non plastic
S1
0.5 0.5
S2
1.0 1.0
W Becoming dark bluish grey mottled brown; becoming wet
1.5 1.5
S3
END OF LOG @ 1.9 m

2.0 2.0
2.5 2.5

Samples:
14:120:MTP202:S1 (0.45-0.55m)
14:120:MTP202:S3 (1.8-1.9m)

A4 Scale 1:15
TEST PIT No: MTP203
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
D Cobbley fine- to coarse angular to rounded GRAVEL, minor silt; light grey; dry; non plastic
M Fine sandy SILT, trace clay, trace cobbles, trace refuse material; dark bluish grey mottled light
grey; moist; low plasticity; refuse: bricks and metal fragments
S1
0.5 0.5
S2
1.0 1.0
M Silty fine-coarse SAND; dark bluish grey mottled bown; moist; non-plastic
1.5 1.5
S3
END OF LOG @ 1.9 m

2.0 2.0
2.5 2.5

Samples:
14:120:MTP203:S1 (0.4-0.5m)
14:120:MTP203:S3 (1.8-1.9m)

A4 Scale 1:15
TEST PIT No: MTP204
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
M Fine sandy SILT, minor fine-coarse gravel, trace refuse material; dark grey; moist; non plastic;
refuse: bricks, concrete pipe, timber, nails, glass
S1
0.5 0.5
M Fine sandy SILT, trace coarse gravel; dark grey mottled light and dark brown; moist; non plastic
1.0 1.0
Soil becoming light brown mottled dark brown
S2
W SILT, minor fine sand, trace clay, trace cobbles; brown mottled grey; wet; low plasticity
1.5 1.5
2.0 2.0
2.5 2.5

Samples:
14:120:MTP204:S1 (0.4-0.5m)
14:120:MTP204:S3 (1.7-1.8m)

A4 Scale 1:15
TEST PIT No: MTP205
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
M Fine sandy SILT, minor fine to coarse gravel, trace clay; grey mottled brown; moist; low
plasticity
S1
0.5 0.5
M No gravel
1.0 1.0
S2
1.5 1.5
S Becoming saturated with water pooling at very bottom of pit
S3
END OF LOG @ 1.7 m
2.0 2.0
2.5 2.5

Samples:
14:120:MTP205:S1 (0.4-0.5m)
14:120:MTP205:S3 (1.6-1.7m)

A4 Scale 1:15
TEST PIT No: MTP206
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
M Silty fine SAND, trace clay, trace refuse material; brown mottled bluish grey; moist; low plasticity;
S1
refuse: clay piping, glass, bricks and wire
0.5 0.5
1.0 1.0
S2
M Fine sandy SILT, minor fine to coarse gravel; bluish grey mottled brown; moist; non plastic
1.5 1.5
S3
END OF LOG @ 1.9 m

2.0 2.0
2.5 2.5

Samples:
14:120:MTP206:S1 (0.4-0.5m)
14:120:MTP206:S3 (1.8-1.9m)

A4 Scale 1:15
TEST PIT No: MTP208
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
M SILT, minor clay, trace cobbles; bluish grey mottled light grey; moist; low plasticity
S1
0.5 0.5
1.0 1.0
S2
W Fine to coarse SAND; grey mottled brown; wet; non plastic
1.5 1.5
Water seepage from pit wall
S3
END OF LOG @ 1.9 m

2.0 2.0
2.5 2.5

Samples:
14:120:MTP208:S1 (0.4-0.5m)
14:120:MTP208:S3 (1.7-1.8m)

A4 Scale 1:15
TEST PIT No: MTP209
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
D Fine to coarse GRAVEL, minor silt, trace cobbles; light grey; dry; non plastic
D Silty fine SAND; brown mottled dark grey; dry; non plastic
S1
0.5 0.5
1.0 1.0
S2
M Fine to coarse SAND, minor silt, trace clay; light brown mottled grey; moist; low plasticity
1.5 1.5
2.0 2.0
2.5 2.5

Samples:
14:120:MTP209:S1 (0.4-0.5m)
14:120:MTP209:S3 (1.7-1.8m)

A4 Scale 1:15
TEST PIT No: MTP212
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
S1
0.5 0.5
D Fine sandy SILT, trace cobbles; grey mottled brown; dry; non plastic
1.0 1.0
S2
M Fine sandy SILT, trace cobbles, trace clay; grey; moist; low plasticity; very compact layer
M Fine sandy SILT, minor fine-coarse gravel; dark bluish grey mottled brown; moist; non-plastic
1.5 1.5
2.0 2.0
S3
END OF LOG @ 2.15 m
2.5 2.5

Samples:
14:120:MTP212:S1 (0.4-0.5m)
14:120:MTP212:S3 (2.05-2.15m)

A4 Scale 1:15
TEST PIT No: MTP213
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
M Silty fine SAND, minor fine to coarse gravel, trace clay; dark brown mottled light brown and dark
S1
grey; moist; low plasticity
0.5 0.5
1.0 1.0
S2
1.5 1.5
W Fine sandy SILT, minor clay; grey mottled brown; wet; low plasticity
S3
END OF LOG @ 1.9 m

2.0 2.0
2.5 2.5

Samples:
14:120:MTP213:S1 (0.4-0.5m)
14:120:MTP213:S3 (1.7-1.8m)

A4 Scale 1:15
TEST PIT No: MTP214
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
M Fine sandy SILT, minor clay, trace fine to coarse gravel; grey mottled brown; moist; low
S1
plasticity
0.5 0.5
1.0 1.0
S2
M Silty fine to medium SAND; grey mottled brown; moist; non plastic
1.5 1.5
S3
END OF LOG @ 1.7 m
2.0 2.0
2.5 2.5

Samples:
14:120:MTP214:S1 (0.4-0.5m)
14:120:MTP212:S3 (1.6-1.7m)

A4 Scale 1:15
TEST PIT No: MTP215
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
M SILT, minor fine sand, minor clay, minor fine to coarse gravel, trace cobbles; dark grey mottled
brown; moist; low plasticity
S1
0.5 0.5
M Clayey SILT, minor fine sand; dark to light grey mottled brown; moist; low plasticity
1.0 1.0
S2
1.5 1.5
S3
END OF LOG @ 1.7 m
2.0 2.0
2.5 2.5

Samples:
14:120:MTP215:S1 (0.4-0.5m)
14:120:MTP215:S3 (1.6-1.7m)

A4 Scale 1:15
TEST PIT No: MTP216
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
M Fine sandy SILT, minor fine to coarse gravels; dark grey; moist; non plastic
S1
0.5 0.5
M Silty fine to coarse SAND; grey mottled brown; moist; non plastic
1.0 1.0
S2
1.5 1.5
W SILT, some fine sand, minor clay; wet; low plasticity
Groundwater seepage
2.0 2.0
2.5 2.5

Samples:
14:120:MTP216:S1 (0.4-0.5m)
14:120:MTP216:S3 (1.7-1.8m)

A4 Scale 1:15
TEST PIT No: MTP220
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
M Fine to coarse GRAVEL, minor silt, trace cobbles; light brown; moist; non plastic
M Fine to coarse GRAVEL, some cobbles, minor silt; light grey; moist; non plastic
S1
0.5 0.5
M Clayey SILT, minor organics, trace cobbles, trace coarse gravel; very dark brown; moist; non
plastic; organics: roots and branches
S2
W SILT, minor clay, trace organics; light grey mottled light brown; wet; low plasticity; organics:
roots and branches
1.0 1.0
1.5 1.5
2.0 2.0
2.5 2.5

Samples:
14:120:MTP220:S1 (0.6-0.7m)
14:120:MTP220:S3 (1.7-1.8m)

A4 Scale 1:15
TEST PIT No: MTP221
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
0.5 0.5
M Fine sandy SILT, minor fine to coarse gravel, minor organics, trace cobbles; grey mottled dark
S1
brown; moist; non plastic; organics: roots and branches
1.0 1.0
S2
1.5 1.5
M Clayey SILT, minor fine to coarse gravel, trace organics; grey; moist; low plasticity; organics:
roots and branches
2.0 2.0
S3
END OF LOG @ 2.2 m
2.5 2.5

Samples:
14:120:MTP221:S1 (0.8-0.9m)
14:120:MTP221:S3 (2.1-2.2m)

A4 Scale 1:15
TEST PIT No: MTP222
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
0.5 0.5
Groundwater seepage
M Fine sandy SILT, some fine to coarse gravel, minor clay, trace organics, trace cobbles, trace
S1
boulders; grey mottled dark brown; moist; low plasticity; organics: roots and branches
1.0 1.0
Groundwater seepage
1.5 1.5
S2
END OF LOG @ 1.9 m

2.0 2.0
2.5 2.5

Samples:
14:120:MTP222:S1 (0.9-1.0m)

A4 Scale 1:15
TEST PIT No: MTP223
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
0.5 0.5
M Cobbley fine to coarse SAND, some fine to coarse gravel, minor silt; light grey mottled dark
S1
grey; moist; non plastic
1.0 1.0
1.5 1.5
Groundwater seepage
M CLAY, minor silt, minor organics, trace cobbles; grey; moist; high plasticity; organics: roots and
S2
branches
2.0 2.0
END OF LOG @ 2.1 m
2.5 2.5

Samples:
14:120:MTP223:S1 (0.5-0.6m)

A4 Scale 1:15
TEST PIT No: MTP224
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
M Fine to coarse GRAVEL, minor cobbles, minor fine to coarse sand, minor silt; grey; moist; non
plastic
S1
Some cobbles; becomes dark grey
0.5 0.5
M Silty CLAY, trace organics, trace cobbles; dark grey; moist; high plasticity; organics: roots and
branches
1.0 1.0
1.5 1.5
2.0 2.0
S2
END OF LOG @ 2.1 m
2.5 2.5

Samples:
14:120:MTP224:S1 (0.2-0.4m)

A4 Scale 1:15
TEST PIT No: MTP225
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
plastic
S1
M SILT, trace clay, trace cobbles; very dark grey; moist; non plastic
0.5 0.5
S2
M CLAY, minor silt, minor cobbles, minor large gravel, trace organics; grey; moist; high plasticity;
organics: roots and branches
1.0 1.0
1.5 1.5
S3
END OF LOG @ 1.9 m

2.0 2.0
2.5 2.5

Samples:
14:120:MTP225:S1 (0.2-0.3m)
14:120:MTP225:S3 (1.8-1.9m)

A4 Scale 1:15
TEST PIT No: MTP226
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
plastic
0.5 0.5
M Fine sandy SILT, minor cobbles, trace clay, trace refuse; dark grey mottled brown; moist; low
plasticity; Refuse: bricks and clay piping
1.0 1.0
S1
1.5 1.5
M CLAY, minor silt, minor cobbles, minor coarse gravel, trace organics; grey; moist; high plasticity;
organics: roots and branches
S2
END OF LOG @ 1.9 m

2.0 2.0
2.5 2.5

Samples:
14:120:MTP226:S1 (1.0-1.1m)

A4 Scale 1:15
TEST PIT No: MTP227
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
plastic
0.5 0.5
M CLAY, minor medium sand, minor silt, minor cobbles, minor coarse gravel, minor organics;
S1
grey; moist; high plasticity; organics: roots and branches
1.0 1.0
1.5 1.5
2.0 2.0
S2
END OF LOG @ 2.1 m
2.5 2.5

Samples:
14:120:MTP227:S1 (0.6-0.7m)

A4 Scale 1:15
TEST PIT No: MTP228
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
M Fine to coarse GRAVEL, minor cobbles, minor fine to coarse sand, minor silt, trace refuse; grey;
moist; non plastic; refuse: bricks and clay piping
S1
M Fine sandy SILT, trace clay, trace organics; very dark grey; moist; low plasticity; organics: roots
0.5 0.5
S2
1.0 1.0
M CLAY, minor medium sand, minor silt, minor cobbles, minor coarse gravel, minor organics;
grey; moist; high plasticity; organics: roots and branches
1.5 1.5
S3
2.0 2.0
END OF LOG @ 2 m
2.5 2.5

Samples:
14:120:MTP228:S1 (0.2-0.3m)
14:120:MTP228:S3 (1.9-2.0m)

A4 Scale 1:15
TEST PIT No: 301
PROJECT: Metro Sports Factility JOB NUMBER:5394066/050/D200
SITE LOCATION: Christchurch CLIENT: CERA
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
Sandy GRAVEL; grey; dry. Organics: Rootlets. Contained demolition waste - bricks, concrete,
ceramics, glass, minor charcoal.
SILT; dark grey; dry. Some crushed demolition waste.
TP301 S1 0.5
0.5 0.5
Silty SAND; bluish grey; moist.
1.0 1.0
TP301 S2 1.5
1.5 1.5
TEST_PIT P:\539\5394066\ENV\DSI\PHASE 3\GINT\METRO PHASE 3 SOIL LOGS.GPJ BECA.GDT 31/3/15
2.0 2.0
TP301 S3 2.5
2.5 2.5
END OF LOG @ 2.9 m

3.0 3.0

LOGGED BY: WW/BW EQUIPMENT: Excavator
SHEAR VANE No: METHOD:

A4 Scale 1:16
TEST PIT No: 302
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
Gravelly SAND; grey; dry. Contained demolition waste.
Gravelly SAND; dark grey orange, mottled; dry. Contained demolition waste - glass, ceramis,
coal fragments.
TP302 S1 0.5
0.5 0.5
SAND; brown; dry.
1.0 1.0
Fine silty SAND; bluish brown; moist.
TP302 S2 1.5
1.5 1.5
2.0 2.0
TP302 S3 2.5
2.5 2.5
END OF LOG @ 2.7 m
3.0 3.0


A4 Scale 1:16
TEST PIT No: 303
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
Sandy GRAVEL; grey; dry. Contained crushed demolition waste - brick, concrete, underlain by
geotextile.
Fine SAND; greyish brown; dry.
TP303 S1 0.5
0.5 0.5
1.0 1.0
Silty SAND; bluish grey; moist.
TP303 S2 1.5
1.5 1.5
2.0 2.0
SILT, some fine sand; bluish grey; moist.
TP303 S3 2.5
2.5 2.5
END OF LOG @ 2.7 m
3.0 3.0


A4 Scale 1:16
TEST PIT No: 304
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
COBBLES; Hardfill with topsoil - gravel, crushed demolition material, some plastic and concrete.
GRAVEL; Hardfill with topsoil - crushed demolition material, some plastic and concrete.
0.5 0.5
TP304 S1 0.6
SAND, some silt; brown; moist.
1.0 1.0
Silty fine SAND; bluish grey; moist, low plasticity.
1.5 1.5
TP304 S2 1.8
SILT; bluish grey; moist, high plasticity.
2.0 2.0
TP304 S3 2.5
2.5 2.5
3.0 3.0
END OF LOG @ 3 m


A4 Scale 1:16
TEST PIT No: 305
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
Sandy GRAVEL; Hardfill with sandy GRAVEL - crushed demolition waste.
SILT, trace sand; dark brown; dry, low plasticity. Some charcoal.
TP305 S1 0.5
0.5 0.5
Sandy SILT; dark brown; dry, non plastic.
Fine SAND, some silt; grey; moist.
1.0 1.0
1.5 1.5
TP305 S2 1.7
SILT; bluish grey; wet, high plasticity.
2.0 2.0
TP305 S3 2.5
2.5 2.5
END OF LOG @ 2.7 m
3.0 3.0


A4 Scale 1:16
TEST PIT No: 306
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
SILT; dark brown; moist, non plastic.
TP306 S1 0.5
0.5 0.5
Silty SAND; bluish grey mottled orange; moist, non plastic.
1.0 1.0
TP306 S2 1.5
1.5 1.5
2.0 2.0
TP306 S3 2.5
2.5 2.5
END OF LOG @ 2.7 m
3.0 3.0


A4 Scale 1:16
TEST PIT No: 307
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
SILT; dark brown; dry, low plasticity.
Silty SAND; reddish brown grey; dry, non plastic.
TP307 S1 0.5
0.5 0.5
1.0 1.0
SILT, some sand; bluish grey mottled orange; moist, low plasticity.
TP307 S2 1.5
1.5 1.5
2.0 2.0
TP307 S3 2.5
2.5 2.5
END OF LOG @ 2.6 m
3.0 3.0


A4 Scale 1:16
TEST PIT No: 308
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
COBBLES; Hardfill including cobbles, underlain by geotextile.
SAND; brown mottled orange; dry, non plastic.
0.5 0.5
Hardfill - soft steel, ceramics. North wall only: dark-stained fill.
TP308 S1 0.6
TP308 S2 0.8
1.0 1.0
SAND; greyish blue mottled orange; moist, non plastic.
TP308 S3 1.5
1.5 1.5
2.0 2.0
TP308 S4 2.5
2.5 2.5
END OF LOG @ 2.7 m
3.0 3.0


A4 Scale 1:16
TEST PIT No: 309
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
SILT; dark brown; rootlets. Crushed demolition waste at the suface.
TP309 S1 0.5
0.5 0.5
Silty SAND; brown mottled orange; dry, non plastic.
1.0 1.0
SILT; bluish grey; moist, high plasticity.
TP309 S2 1.5
1.5 1.5
2.0 2.0
2.5 2.5
TP309 S3 2.6
END OF LOG @ 2.9 m

3.0 3.0


A4 Scale 1:16
TEST PIT No: 310
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
Hardfill - crushed concrete, brick.
SILT; dark brown; dry, non plastic. rootlets.
TP310 S1 0.5
0.5 0.5
SAND; brownish grey; dry, non plastic.
1.0 1.0
SILT, some sand; bluish grey mottled brown; moist, high plasticity. Organics: Fibrous,
TP310 S2 1.5
carbonaceous.
1.5 1.5
2.0 2.0
SAND; grey; wet, non plastic.

2.5 2.5
TP310 S3 2.6
END OF LOG @ 2.7 m
3.0 3.0


A4 Scale 1:16
TEST PIT No: 311
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
Hardfill - sand, crushed concrete, gravel, cobbles.
SILT; dark brown; dry, low plasticity.
TP311 S1 0.5
0.5 0.5
Silty SAND; bluish grey; moist, non plastic.
Wet. Fill layer - steel, bricks, ceramics in brown silty matrix.
TP311 S2 0.8
SAND; bluish grey; moist, non plastic.
1.0 1.0
SILT; bluish grey; moist, high plasticity. Organics: Fibrous, carbonaceous.
1.5 1.5
TP311 S3 1.6
2.0 2.0
TP311 S4 2.5
2.5 2.5
SAND; bluish grey; moist, low plasticity. Organics: Fibrous, carbonaceous.
END OF LOG @ 2.6 m
3.0 3.0


A4 Scale 1:16
TEST PIT No: 312
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
Chipseal surface; Hardfil - sand, gravel, cobbles, crushed concrete.
TP312 S1 0.5
SILT; grey mottled orange; dry, non plastic.
0.5 0.5
SAND; grey mottled orange; moist, non plastic.
1.0 1.0
SILT; grey; moist, low plasticity.
1.5 1.5
TP312 S2 1.6
SAND; grey mottled brown; moist, low plasticity. Organics: Fibrous, carbonaceous.
2.0 2.0
2.5 2.5
TP312 S3 2.6
END OF LOG @ 2.6 m
3.0 3.0


A4 Scale 1:16
TEST PIT No: 313
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
Hardfill - concrete, ceramics, brick.
SILT; dark brown grey; moist. Possible napthalene odour.
TP313 S1 0.5
0.5 0.5
SAND; bluish grey; moist, non plastic. Dark silt, crueshed brick in SW corner at 0.5 m - 0.8 m.
1.0 1.0
TP313 S2 1.5
1.5 1.5
SILT; grey; moist, non plastic. Organics: Fibrous, carbonaceous.
2.0 2.0
Sandy SILT; bluish grey; wet, low plasticity.

TP313 S3 2.5
2.5 2.5
END OF LOG @ 2.6 m
3.0 3.0


A4 Scale 1:16
TEST PIT No: 314
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
Non plastic. Crushed demolition waste.
SILT; dark brown; moist, non plastic. Some waste - brick fragments, old spanner.
TP314 S1 0.5
0.5 0.5
1.0 1.0
SILT, some sand; bluish grey; wet, low plasticity. Organics: Fibrous, carbonaceous.
1.5 1.5
TP314 S2 1.7
2.0 2.0
TP314 S3 2.5
2.5 2.5
END OF LOG @ 2.5 m
3.0 3.0


A4 Scale 1:16
TEST PIT No: 315
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
SAND; brown; dry, non plastic.
SAND, some silt; dark brown; dry, non plastic.
TP315 S1 0.5
0.5 0.5
SAND; bluish grey mottled orange; moist, non plastic.
SAND; bluish grey; moist, low plasticity.

1.0 1.0
SILT; bluish grey; wet, low plasticity.
1.5 1.5
TP315 S2 1.6
2.0 2.0
SAND; bluish grey; wet, low plasticity.

TP315 S3 2.5
2.5 2.5
END OF LOG @ 2.6 m
3.0 3.0


A4 Scale 1:16
TEST PIT No: 316
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
Sandy GRAVEL, minor cobbles; brown; moist, non plastic. minor crushed concrete.
Sandy GRAVEL; grey; moist, non plastic.
TP316 S1 0.5
0.5 0.5
SAND; grey; moist, non plastic.
1.0 1.0
SILT; grey; moist, low plasticity. Organics: Fibrous, carbonaceous.
TP316 S2 1.5
1.5 1.5
2.0 2.0
TP316 S3 2.5
2.5 2.5
END OF LOG @ 2.6 m
3.0 3.0


A4 Scale 1:16
TEST PIT No: 317
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
Sandy GRAVEL; brown; moist, non plastic. Some hardfill - crushed concrete.
TP317 S1 0.5
0.5 0.5

1.0 1.0
SILT; grey; wet, low plasticity. Organics: Fibrous, carbonaceous.
1.5 1.5
TP317 S2 2.0
2.0 2.0
2.5 2.5
TP317 S3 2.7
END OF LOG @ 2.8 m
3.0 3.0


A4 Scale 1:16
TEST PIT No: 318
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
Sandy GRAVEL, some cobbles; brown; moist, non plastic. Some hard fill - crushed concrete.
TP318 S1 0.5
0.5 0.5
1.0 1.0
SILT; bluish grey; moist, low plasticity. Organics: Fibrous, carbonaceous.
1.5 1.5
TP318 S2 1.7
2.0 2.0

TP318 S3 2.5
2.5 2.5
END OF LOG @ 2.8 m
3.0 3.0


A4 Scale 1:16
TEST PIT No: 319
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
Sandy GRAVEL, some cobbles; brownish grey; dry, non plastic. Some hardfill - crushed
concrete.
TP319 S1 0.5
0.5 0.5
SILT; dark brown; moist, non plastic.
1.0 1.0
SILT; grey; wet, low plasticity. Organics: Fibrous, carbonaceous.
TP319 S2 1.5
1.5 1.5
2.0 2.0
SAND; grey; wet, low plasticity. Organics: Fibrous, carbonaceous.

TP319 S3 2.5
2.5 2.5
END OF LOG @ 2.6 m
3.0 3.0


A4 Scale 1:16
TEST PIT No: 320
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
Brown; dry, non plastic. Hardfill (bricks, glass, timber) with some sand and topsoil.
SILT; dark brown; dry, non plastic. Some hardfill - ceramic tiles, bricks.
TP320 S1 0.5
0.5 0.5
SILT; bluish grey; moist, low plasticity. rootlets.
1.0 1.0
SAND; bluish grey; wet, low plasticity.
TP320 S2 1.5
1.5 1.5
SILT; bluish grey; wet, low plasticity. Organics: Fibrous, carbonaceous.

2.0 2.0
TP320 S3 2.5
2.5 2.5
END OF LOG @ 2.5 m
3.0 3.0


A4 Scale 1:16
TEST PIT No: 321
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
Sandy GRAVEL; dry, non plastic. Hardfill - bricks, concrete, ceramics.
Sandy GRAVEL; dark brown; moist, non plastic. Hardfill - bricks, ceramics.
TP321 S1 0.5
0.5 0.5
Sandy SILT; bluish grey; moist, low plasticity.
1.0 1.0
SILT; bluish grey; moist, high plasticity. Organics: Fibrous, carbonaceous.
TP321 S2 1.5
1.5 1.5
2.0 2.0
TP321 S3 2.5
2.5 2.5
END OF LOG @ 2.7 m
3.0 3.0


A4 Scale 1:16
TEST PIT No: 322
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
Gravelly COBBLES, some sand; brown; dry, non plastic. Trace hardfill - concrete.
TP322 S1 0.45
Sandy SILT; brown; dry, low plasticity.
0.5 0.5
SILT; grey; moist, high plasticity. Organics: Fibrous, rootlets and amorphous
material.
1.0 1.0
TP322 S2 1.5
1.5 1.5
2.0 2.0
TP322 S3 2.5
2.5 2.5
END OF LOG @ 2.9 m

3.0 3.0


A4 Scale 1:16
TEST PIT No: 323
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
Silty SAND, some gravel; dark brown; dry, non plastic. Minor fill - plastics.
Sandy GRAVEL; brown; dry, non plastic.
TP323 S1 0.5
0.5 0.5
1.0 1.0
TP323 S2 1.5
1.5 1.5
2.0 2.0
2.5 2.5
TP323 S3 2.5
END OF LOG @ 2.7 m
3.0 3.0


A4 Scale 1:16
TEST PIT No: 324
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
Silty sandy GRAVEL; brown; dry, non plastic. rootlets. Some crushed concrete.
TP324 S1 0.45
SILT; dark brownish black; dry, non plastic. Some hardfill - ceramics, brick fragments.
0.5 0.5
SAND; grey; moist, low plasticity. Organics: Fibrous, carbonaceous.
1.0 1.0
TP324 S2 1.5
1.5 1.5
SILT; grey; moist, high plasticity. Organics: Fibrous, carbonaceous.
2.0 2.0
TP324 S3 2.5
2.5 2.5
END OF LOG @ 2.6 m
3.0 3.0


A4 Scale 1:16
TEST PIT No: 325
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
Sandy GRAVEL, some cobbles; brown; moist, non plastic. Asphalt surface.
TP325 S1 0.5
0.5 0.5
1.0 1.0
SILT; grey; moist, low plasticity.
TP325 S2 1.5
1.5 1.5
2.0 2.0
TP325 S3 2.5
2.5 2.5
END OF LOG @ 2.5 m
3.0 3.0


A4 Scale 1:16
TEST PIT No: 326
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
Sandy GRAVEL, some cobbles; brown; dry, non plastic. Asphalt surface, some brick.
Sandy GRAVEL, some cobbles; grey; dry, non plastic.
TP326 S1 0.5
0.5 0.5

1.0 1.0
TP326 S2 1.5
1.5 1.5
2.0 2.0
TP326 S3 2.5
2.5 2.5
END OF LOG @ 2.6 m
3.0 3.0


A4 Scale 1:16
TEST PIT No: 327
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
Sandy GRAVEL, some cobbles; brown; Shingle surface.
TP327 S1 0.5
SILT; dark brownish black; some bluish grey sand present.
0.5 0.5
SAND; grey.
1.0 1.0
SILT; grey; Organics: Fibrous, carbonaceous.
TP327 S2 1.5
1.5 1.5
2.0 2.0
2.5 2.5
TP327 S3 2.6
END OF LOG @ 2.8 m
3.0 3.0


A4 Scale 1:16
TEST PIT No: 328
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
Sandy GRAVEL, some cobbles; brown; dry, non plastic. Sealed asphalt surface.
TP328 S1 0.5
SILT; grey mottled orange; dry, non plastic.
0.5 0.5
SILT, some fine sand; grey; moist, non plastic. Organics: Fibrous, carbonaceous.
1.0 1.0
1.5 1.5
TP328 S2 1.7
2.0 2.0
2.5 2.5
TP328 S3 2.6
END OF LOG @ 2.6 m
3.0 3.0


A4 Scale 1:16
TEST PIT No: 329
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
Dry, non plastic. Some demolition fill.
SILT; dark brown; moist, non plastic. Some demolition fill.
TP329 S1 0.4
0.5 0.5
1.0 1.0
SILT; grey; moist, non plastic.
TP329 S2 1.5
1.5 1.5
2.0 2.0
2.5 2.5
TP329 S3 2.7
END OF LOG @ 2.9 m

3.0 3.0


A4 Scale 1:16
TEST PIT No: 330
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
Dry, non plastic. Crushed demolition waste - concrete, asbestos containing material.
SILT; brown; moist, non plastic. Some fill with brick fragments.
TP330 S1 0.45
0.5 0.5
SILT; grey; moist, high plasticity. Organics: Fibrous, carbonaceous. Water entry at 1.7 m.
1.0 1.0
1.5 1.5
TP330 S2 1.6
2.0 2.0
TP330 S3 2.5
2.5 2.5
END OF LOG @ 2.5 m
3.0 3.0


A4 Scale 1:16
TEST PIT No: 331
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
Dry, non plastic. rootlets. Crushed demolition waste - brick, asbestos containing material.
SILT; dark brown; dry, non plastic.

SAND; grey; dry, non plastic.
TP331 S1 0.5
0.5 0.5
1.0 1.0
TP331 S2 1.5
1.5 1.5
2.0 2.0
TP331 S3 2.5
2.5 2.5
END OF LOG @ 2.6 m
3.0 3.0


A4 Scale 1:16
TEST PIT No: 332
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
Sandy GRAVEL; brown; dry, non plastic. Crushed demolition waste - brisk, concrete, asbestos
containing material.
S2 1.6S1 0.5
0.5 0.5
Silty GRAVEL; dark brown; dry, non plastic.
TP332TP332
1.0 1.0
TP332 S3 1.5
1.5 1.5
2.0 2.0
TP332 S4 2.5
2.5 2.5
END OF LOG @ 2.5 m
3.0 3.0


A4 Scale 1:16
TEST PIT No: 333
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
Sandy GRAVEL; brown; dry, non plastic. Asphalt surface.
SILT; dark brown; moist, low plasticity.
TP333 S1 0.5
0.5 0.5
1.0 1.0
SILT; grey; moist, high plasticity. Organics: Fibrous, rootlets and amorphous
material.
TP333 S2 1.5
1.5 1.5
2.0 2.0
TP333 S3 2.5
2.5 2.5
END OF LOG @ 2.5 m
3.0 3.0


A4 Scale 1:16
TEST PIT No: 334
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
Sandy GRAVEL; brown; dry, non plastic. Asphalt surface.
TP334 S1 0.5
0.5 0.5
SAND; bluish grey; dry, non plastic.
SILT; bluish grey; moist, low plasticity. Organics: Fibrous, rootlets and amorphous
material.
1.0 1.0
TP334 S2 1.5
1.5 1.5
2.0 2.0
TP334 S3 2.5
2.5 2.5
END OF LOG @ 2.6 m
3.0 3.0


A4 Scale 1:16
TEST PIT No: 335
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
Sandy GRAVEL; brown; dry, non plastic. Chipseal surface with hardfill.
SILT; dark brown; moist, non plastic. Some fill - coal, brick fragments.
TP335 S2 0.7 TP335 S1 0.45

0.5 0.5
1.0 1.0
1.5 1.5
2.0 2.0
TP335 S3 2.5
2.5 2.5
END OF LOG @ 2.5 m
3.0 3.0


A4 Scale 1:16
TEST PIT No: 336
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
GRAVEL; brown; dry, non plastic. Hardfill.
SILT; dark brown; dry, non plastic.
Sandy GRAVEL; grey; dry, non plastic. Some fill - brick, ceramics.
TP336 S1 0.5
0.5 0.5
Sandy GRAVEL; dark brown; dry, non plastic.
Fine SAND; grey; moist, non plastic.
1.0 1.0
TP336 S2 1.5
1.5 1.5
2.0 2.0
Silty fine SAND; grey; moist, low plasticity. Organics: Fibrous, carbonaceous.
TP336 S3 2.5
2.5 2.5
END OF LOG @ 2.5 m
3.0 3.0


A4 Scale 1:16
TEST PIT No: 337
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
Brown; dry, non plastic. Chipseal and hardfill.
Silty GRAVEL; brown; dry, non plastic. Organics: Amorphous, carbonaceous. Some old fill -
brick, coal, timber fragments. MEdium-strong hydrocarbon odour.
TP337 S1 0.45
Sandy SILT; grey; moist, low plasticity.
0.5 0.5
1.0 1.0
TP337 S2 1.5
1.5 1.5

2.0 2.0
TP337 S3 2.5
2.5 2.5
3.0 3.0
END OF LOG @ 3 m


A4 Scale 1:16
TEST PIT No: 338
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
Sandy GRAVEL; brown; dry, non plastic. Basecourse.
SILT; grey; dry, non plastic.
0.5 0.5
Fine sandy SILT; grey mottled orange; moist, low plasticity.
1.0 1.0
SILT; grey mottled orange; moist, low plasticity.
TP338 S1 1.4
1.5 1.5
2.0 2.0
TP338 S2 2.4
2.5 2.5

3.0 3.0
END OF LOG @ 3 m
DATE EXCAVATED: 27/3/15 CONTRACTOR: Landtest COMMENTS:

LOGGED BY: WW/BW EQUIPMENT: Drill

A4 Scale 1:16
TEST PIT No: 339
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
Sandy GRAVEL; brown; dry, non plastic.
TP339 S1 0.4
SILT; grey mottled orange; dry, low plasticity.
0.5 0.5
1.0 1.0
TP338 S2 1.3
1.5 1.5
2.0 2.0
TP338 S3 2.5
2.5 2.5
3.0 3.0
END OF LOG @ 3 m


A4 Scale 1:16
TEST PIT No: 340
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
Sandy GRAVEL; grey; dry, non plastic. Hardfill - demolition fill, crushed concrete.
TP340 S1 0.4
0.5 0.5
GRAVEL, some cobbles; grey; dry, non plastic. Demolition fill.
TP340 S2 1.0
1.0 1.0
SILT; bluish grey; moist, low plasticity. Slight hydrocarbon odour.
SAND; grey mottled orange; moist, non plastic.

1.5 1.5
2.0 2.0
SILT; grey mottled orange; moist, high plasticity. Organics: Fibrous, carbonaceous.
TP340 S3 2.4
2.5 2.5
3.0 3.0
END OF LOG @ 3 m


A4 Scale 1:16
TEST PIT No: 341
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
Sandy GRAVEL, some silt; brown; dry, non plastic. Demolition fill - crushed concrete, asphalt,
brick fragments.
0.5 0.5
TP341 S1 0.6
1.0 1.0
Soil core loss.
TP341 S2 1.5
1.5 1.5
SILT; grey mottled orange; moist, high plasticity. Organics: Fibrous, carbonaceous.
2.0 2.0
TP341 S3 2.4
2.5 2.5
3.0 3.0
END OF LOG @ 3 m


A4 Scale 1:16
TEST PIT No: TP401
PROJECT: Metro Sports Facility Phase 4 JOB NUMBER:5394066
SITE LOCATION: Moorhouse Avenue, Horatio Street, Christchurch CLIENT: Otakaro Limited
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
M Hardfill. Gravelly SAND, brown, non-plastic
M Hardfill. Gravelly SAND, some red brick, dark brown, non-plastic
0.5 0.5
M Fine sandy SILT, grey, slightly plastic.
Wood fragments observed at 1.3-1.4 m
1.0 1.0
1.5 1.5
TEST_PIT P:\539\5394066\ENV\DSI\PHASE 4\SOIL LOGS\METRO SPORT FACILITY PHASE 4.GPJ BECA.GDT 14/6/16
2.0 2.0
END OF LOG @ 2.4 m

2.5 2.5

Samples: 0.5 m, 2.3 m bgl (QC also collected at 2.3 m)
LOGGED BY: BW EQUIPMENT: 13 t Excavator
SHEAR VANE No: METHOD: Excavator

A4 Scale 1:15
TEST PIT No: TP402
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
M Hardfill. Course-fine GRAVEL, some sand, greyish brown, non-plastic
M Silty SAND, grey, slightly plastic
Timber fragments at 2.0 m
M Sandy SILT, grey, slightly plastic
Timber log at 2.3 m
0.5 0.5
1.0 1.0
1.5 1.5
2.0 2.0
END OF LOG @ 2.4 m

2.5 2.5

Samples: 0.5 m, 2.0 m bgl

A4 Scale 1:15
TEST PIT No: TP403
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
M Sandy SILT, dark grey, non-plastic
M Sandy SILT, grey, slightly plastic
Timber fragments at 2.0 m
0.5 0.5
1.0 1.0
1.5 1.5
2.0 2.0
17/05/2016
END OF LOG @ 2.1 m

2.5 2.5


A4 Scale 1:15
TEST PIT No: TP404
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
M Sandy SILT, grey with dark grey areas, slightly plastic
0.5 0.5
1.0 1.0
1.5 1.5
17/05/2016
END OF LOG @ 1.8 m
2.0 2.0
2.5 2.5


A4 Scale 1:15
TEST PIT No: TP405
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
W Hardfill. Course sandy SILT, non-plastic
W Fine-medium sandy SILT, grey slightly plastic
0.5 0.5
1.0 1.0
1.5 1.5
17/05/2016
END OF LOG @ 1.9 m

2.0 2.0
2.5 2.5


A4 Scale 1:15
TEST PIT No: TP406
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
W Hardfill. Course sandy GRAVEL, dark grey, non-plastic
0.5 0.5
M Fine sandy SILT, grey, non-plastic
1.0 1.0
W Fine-medium SAND, grey, non-plastic
1.5 1.5
END OF LOG @ 1.8 m
2.0 2.0
2.5 2.5

Samples: 0.5 m (QC also collected at 0.5 m), 1.8 m bgl

A4 Scale 1:15
TEST PIT No: TP407
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
W Hardfill. Sandy GRAVEL, dark brown, non-plastic
0.5 0.5
W Medium-fine silty SAND, grey, non-plastic
1.0 1.0
1.5 1.5
END OF LOG @ 1.9 m

2.0 2.0
2.5 2.5


A4 Scale 1:15
TEST PIT No: TP408
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
W Hardfill. Fine-course GRAVEL, dark brown, non-plastic
W Silty fine-medium SAND, grey, non-plastic
0.5 0.5
1.0 1.0
1.5 1.5
2.0 2.0
M Fine sandy SILT, grey, slightly plastic
END OF LOG @ 2.3 m
2.5 2.5


A4 Scale 1:15
TEST PIT No: TP409
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
M Hardfill. gravelly medium-course SAND, brown, non-plastic
M Silty fine-course SAND, dark brown, non-plastic
0.5 0.5
1.0 1.0
1.5 1.5
17/05/16
2.0 2.0
END OF LOG @ 2.1 m
2.5 2.5

Samples: 0.3 m, 0.5 m, 1.8 m bgl

A4 Scale 1:15
TEST PIT No: TP410
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
M Hardfill. Sandy medium-course GRAVEL, brown, non-plastic
M Silty SAND, some gravel, brown, non-plastic
0.5 0.5
1.0 1.0
17/05/2016
M Fine-medium SAND, grey, non-plastic

1.5 1.5
2.0 2.0
END OF LOG @ 2 m
2.5 2.5


A4 Scale 1:15
TEST PIT No: TP411
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
M Hardfill. silty sandy medium-course GRAVEL, non-plastic
0.5 0.5
M Possible asphalt lens.

M Silty GRAVEL hard base (base for asphalt)
1.0 1.0

1.5 1.5
2.0 2.0
END OF LOG @ 2 m
2.5 2.5


A4 Scale 1:15
TEST PIT No: TP412
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
M Course sandy GRAVEL, grey to greyish brown, non-plastic
0.5 0.5
M Fine sandy SILT, grey to greyish brown with depth increase.
1.0 1.0
1.5 1.5
2.0 2.0
2.5 2.5
END OF LOG @ 2.8 m


A4 Scale 1:15
TEST PIT No: TP413
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
M Hardfill. Fine-course sandy GRAVEL, greyish brown, non-plastic
M Fine sandy SILT, black, non-plastic
0.5 0.5
1.0 1.0
M Silty fine SAND, grey, non-plastic

18/05/2016
1.5 1.5
2.0 2.0
END OF LOG @ 2.2 m
2.5 2.5


A4 Scale 1:15
TEST PIT No: TP414
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
M Hardfill. Course sandy medium GRAVEL, brownish grey, non-plastic
0.5 0.5
M Fine sandy SILT, grey mottled orange, non-plastic

1.0 1.0
1.5 1.5
2.0 2.0
END OF LOG @ 2.3 m
2.5 2.5


A4 Scale 1:15
TEST PIT No: TP415
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
M Hardfill. course sandy medium GRAVEL, brown, non-plastic
0.5 0.5
M Silty fine SAND, grey to dark-grey, slightly plastic
1.0 1.0
1.5 1.5
2.0 2.0
END OF LOG @ 2 m
2.5 2.5

Samples: 0.3 m, 1.2 m (QC also collected from 1.2 m)

A4 Scale 1:15
TEST PIT No: TP416
COORDINATES: N R L:
E DATUM:
GEOLOGICAL UNIT
GRAPHIC LOG
WATER LEVEL

MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SAMPLES
USCS
Scala
SV (kPa)
M Hardfill. Course sandy medium-course GRAVEL, brown, non-plastic
0.5 0.5
1.0 1.0
M Silty fine SAND, grey, non-plastic
1.5 1.5
2.0 2.0
END OF LOG @ 2.2 m
2.5 2.5


A4 Scale 1:15
Appendix C
Site Photographs

5394066 // NZ1-10350236-36 0.36 // page 28
Metro Sports Facility - Investigation Site
Photos
Phase 1
Photograph 2: North car park area, looking towards the south.
Photograph 1: Phase 1 investigation area, photo taken from north east

corner of site
Photograph 3: Southern area of Phase 1 investigations. Note crushed

demolition material at surface
Beca // 24 June 2016 // Page 1

5394066 // NZ1-10909476-4 0.4
Photograph 4: Typical material encountered crushed demolition Photograph 5: TP112 with typical material encountered crushed
material overlying an old layer, with minor fill, underlain by silt and sand demolition material overlying silt and sand

5394066 // NZ1-10909476-4 0.4
Phase 2
Photograph 7: South east of Phase 2 investigation area
Photograph 6: Clay pipe encountered at TP124
Photograph 8: Eastern extent of Phase 2 investigations

5394066 // NZ1-10909476-4 0.4
Photograph 9: Typical material encountered in Phase 2 investigations Photograph 10: TP223 gravel and sand with groundwater seepage at
gravels underlain by silt and sand approximately 1.65m depth

5394066 // NZ1-10909476-4 0.4
Phase 3
Photograph 12: TP 320 dark fill material with brick and ceramic
fragments, underlying top hardfill layer.
Photograph 11: TP308 hardfill and cobbles underlain by geotextile
then sands. Fill material noted in north wall only including steel and
ceramic fragments
Photograph 13: Car park at south of Phase 3 investigations

5394066 // NZ1-10909476-4 0.4
Photograph 14: TP337 with thin fill layer including treated timber, brick
and coal fragments. A medium strength hydrocarbon odour was noted.
Photograph 15: TP334 example of test pit with no visible or olfactory

evidence of contamination.

5394066 // NZ1-10909476-4 0.4
Phase 4
Photograph 16: View to the north onto Horatio Street
Photograph 17: TP402 showing fin sandy silts from approximately 0.5 m
bgl

5394066 // NZ1-10909476-4 0.4
Photograph 19: debris in TP411 following demolition works
Photograph 18: TP405 showing fill layer typical of the site, leading to
natural ands and silts at greater depths

5394066 // NZ1-10909476-4 0.4
Appendix D
Chain of Custody
Documentation

5394066 // NZ1-10350236-36 0.36 // page 30
R J Hill Laboratories Limited Tel +64 7 858 2000
1 Clyde Street Fax +64 7 858 2001
Private Bag 3205 Email mail@hill-labs.co.nz
Hamilton 3240, New Zealand Web www.hill-labs.co.nz
Job Information Summary Page 1 of 5
Client: Beca Limited Lab No: 1301384

Contact: Kate Ward Date Registered: 22-Jul-2014 9:05:21 am
C/- Beca Limited Priority: Normal
PO Box 6345 Quote No: 62542
Wellesley Street Order No: 14:096
AUCKLAND 1141 Client Reference: 5394066/050/D200
Add. Client Ref:
Submitted By: Kate Ward
Charge To: Beca Limited
Samples
No Sample Name Sample Type Containers Tests Requested

1 14:096 MSF TP113 S1 0.5m Soil GSoil300, PSoil250 Heavy metals, screen As,Cd,Cr,Cu,Ni,Pb,Zn,Hg;
21-Jul-2014 TPH + BTEX profile, Soil
3 14:096 MSF TP113 S3 2.5m Soil GSoil300, PSoil250 Hold Cold
21-Jul-2014
21-Jul-2014 Semivolatile Organic Compounds Screening in Soil
by GC-MS; TPH + BTEX profile, Soil
5 14:096 MSF TP114 S2 1.5m Soil GSoil300, PSoil250 TPH + BTEX profile, Soil; Heavy metals, screen
21-Jul-2014 As,Cd,Cr,Cu,Ni,Pb,Zn,Hg
21-Jul-2014 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil
21-Jul-2014
21-Jul-2014
23-Jul-2014
21 14:096 MSF TP112 S1 0.5m Soil PSoil250, cGSoil Heavy metals, screen As,Cd,Cr,Cu,Ni,Pb,Zn,Hg;
Lab No: 1301384 Hill Laboratories Page 1 of 5

Samples

23-Jul-2014
25 14:096 MSF TP117 S2 1.5m Soil PSoil250, cGSoil Heavy metals, screen As,Cd,Cr,Cu,Ni,Pb,Zn,Hg;
23-Jul-2014
23-Jul-2014
23-Jul-2014
23-Jul-2014
39 14:096 MSF TP125 S1 0.5m Soil GSoil300, cPSoil Heavy metals, screen As,Cd,Cr,Cu,Ni,Pb,Zn,Hg;
41 14:096 MSF TP125 S3 2.5m Soil GSoil300, cPSoil Hold Cold
23-Jul-2014
23-Jul-2014
23-Jul-2014 Polychlorinated Biphenyls Screening in Soil;
Semivolatile Organic Compounds Screening in Soil
by GC-MS; Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil
23-Jul-2014
24-Jul-2014

Samples

24-Jul-2014
24-Jul-2014
24-Jul-2014
24-Jul-2014
24-Jul-2014
24-Jul-2014
24-Jul-2014
24-Jul-2014 Polychlorinated Biphenyls Screening in Soil;
Semivolatile Organic Compounds Screening in Soil
81 14:096 MSF TP101 S3 2.5m Soil cGSoil, cPSoil Hold Cold
24-Jul-2014

SUMMARY OF METHODS
The following table(s) gives a brief description of the methods used to conduct the analyses for this job. The detection limits given below are those attainable in a relatively clean matrix.
Detection limits may be higher for individual samples should insufficient sample be available, or if the matrix requires that dilutions be performed during analysis.
Sample Type: Soil

Test Method Description Default Detection Limit Sample No
Environmental Solids Sample Air dried at 35C and sieved, <2mm fraction. - 1-2, 4-9,
Preparation Used for sample preparation. 11-12,
May contain a residual moisture content of 2-5%. 14-19,
21-22,
24-25,
27-28,
30-31,
33-34,
36-40,
42-43,
45-46,
48-52,
54-55,
57-58,
60-62,
64-65,
67-69,
71-72,
74-75,
77-80
Heavy metals, screen Dried sample, <2mm fraction. Nitric/Hydrochloric acid 0.10 - 4 mg/kg dry wt 1-2, 4-9,
As,Cd,Cr,Cu,Ni,Pb,Zn,Hg digestion, ICP-MS, screen level. 11-12,
14-19,
21-22,
24-25,
27-28,
30-31,
33-34,
36-40,
42-43,
45-46,
48-52,
54-55,
57-58,
60-62,
64-65,
67-69,
71-72,
74-75,
77-80
BTEX in Soil by Headspace GC-MS Solvent extraction, Headspace GC-MS analysis 0.05 - 0.10 mg/kg dry wt 1-2, 4-7, 16,
US EPA 8260B. Tested on as received sample 48-50,
[KBIs:5782,26687,3629] 67-68,
71-72, 79
Polychlorinated Biphenyls Screening Sonication extraction, SPE cleanup, GC-MS analysis. Tested 0.005 - 0.2 mg/kg dry wt 45, 79
in Soil on dried sample
Semivolatile Organic Compounds Sonication extraction, GPC cleanup (if required), GC-MS FS 0.3 - 30 mg/kg dry wt 4, 45,
Screening in Soil by GC-MS analysis. Tested on as received sample 67-68,
71-72, 79
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil Sonication extraction in DCM, Silica cleanup, GC-FID 8 - 60 mg/kg dry wt 1-2, 4-9,
analysis 11-12,
US EPA 8015B/MfE Petroleum Industry Guidelines. Tested 14-19,
on as received sample 21-22,
[KBIs:5786,2805,10734] 24-25,
27-28,
30-31,
33-34,
36-40,
42-43,
45-46,
48-52,
54-55,
57-58,
60-62,
64-65,
67-69,
71-72,
74-75,
77-80

Sample Type: Soil
Dry Matter (Env) Dried at 103C for 4-22hr (removes 3-5% more water than air 0.10 g/100g as rcvd 1-2, 4-9,
dry) , gravimetry. US EPA 3550. (Free water removed before 11-12,
analysis). 14-19,
21-22,
24-25,
27-28,
30-31,
33-34,
36-40,
42-43,
45-46,
48-52,
54-55,
57-58,
60-62,
64-65,
67-69,
71-72,
74-75,
77-80
Total Recoverable digestion Nitric / hydrochloric acid digestion. US EPA 200.2. - 1-2, 4-9,
11-12,
14-19,
21-22,
24-25,
27-28,
30-31,
33-34,
36-40,
42-43,
45-46,
48-52,
54-55,
57-58,
60-62,
64-65,
67-69,
71-72,
74-75,
77-80

ANALYSIS REQUEST
Client Hamilton 3240, New Zealand Web www.hill-labs.co.nz
Name Beca Infrastructure 76225

Address PO Box 6345, AUCKLAND Office use only Job No:
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD
Phone 09 300 9000 Fax 09 300 9300 Sent to Date & Time:
Client Reference 5394066-050-D200 Hill Laboratories Name:
Quote No 65199 Order Number 14.12O Please tick if you Signature:

require COC to be faxed back
Primary Contact Phillip Ware Received at Date & Time:
Submitted By Curtis Blyth Hill Laboratories Name:
Charge To Beca Infrastructure 76225 Signature:
Results To Mail Client Mail Submitter Condition Temp:
Fax Results curtis.blyth@beca.com Room Temp Chilled Frozen
Email Results envirolab@beca.com Sample Analysis details checked

Signature:
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Priority

Please carry out work in accordance with our standard conditions Low Normal High
of engagement, as described in letter dated 24-04-13
Urgent (ASAP, extra charge applies, please contact the lab first)
Job Number - 1346648
Requested Reporting Date:
Sample Types
Waters E Effluent G Geothermal Pot1 Potable Water (LAS/EU) Pot2 Potable Water (NZDWS)
GW Ground Water L Leachate Audit Monitoring Pot3 Potable Water (other)
SW Surface Water S Saline Check Monitoring Pool Swimming/Spa Pool
TW Trade Waste
Solids ES Soil SE Sediment SL Sludge PL Plant
Other O O Oil M Miscellaneous FS FS Fish/shellfish/biota BM BM Biological Material
Sample Sample
No. Sample Name Date & Time Type Tests Required
1 14:120:MTP201:S1 3/11/2014 Soil Suite 1
2 14:120:MTP201:S2 3/11/2014 Soil Suite 1
3 14:120:MTP201:S3 3/11/2014 Soil Hold cold
4 14:120:MTP202:S1 3/11/2014 Soil Suite 1
5 14:120:MTP202:S2 3/11/2014 Soil Suite 1
7 14:120:MTP203:S1 3/11/2014 Soil Suite 1
8 14:120:MTP203:S2 3/11/2014 Soil Suite 1
10 14:120:MTP204:S1 3/11/2014 Soil Suite 1

Continued on next page
KB Item: 23775 Version: 1
Sample Sample
11 14:120:MTP204:S2 3/11/2014 Soil Suite 1
13 14:120:MTP205:S1 3/11/2014 Soil Suite 1
14 14:120:MTP205:S2 3/11/2014 Soil Suite 1
16 14:120:MTP206:S1 3/11/2014 Soil Suite 2
17 14:120:MTP206:S2 3/11/2014 Soil Suite 2
19 14:120:MTP208:S1 3/11/2014 Soil Suite 2
20 14:120:MTP208:S2 3/11/2014 Soil Suite 2
22 14:120:MTP209:S1 3/11/2014 Soil Suite 2
23 14:120:MTP209:S2 3/11/2014 Soil Suite 2
25 14:120:MTP212:S1 3/11/2014 Soil Suite 2
26 14:120:MTP212:S2 3/11/2014 Soil Suite 2
28 14:120:MTP213:S1 3/11/2014 Soil Suite 2
29 14:120:MTP213:S2 3/11/2014 Soil Suite 2
31 14:120:MTP214:S1 4/11/2014 Soil Suite 2
32 14:120:MTP214:S2 4/11/2014 Soil Suite 2
34 14:120:MTP215:S1 4/11/2014 Soil Suite 2
35 14:120:MTP215:S2 4/11/2014 Soil Suite 2
37 14:120:MTP216:S1 4/11/2014 Soil Suite 2
38 14:120:MTP216:S2 4/11/2014 Soil Suite 2
40 14:120:MTP220:S1 4/11/2014 Soil Suite 3

ANALYSIS REQUEST
Client Hamilton 3240, New Zealand Web www.hill-labs.co.nz
Name Beca Infrastructure 76225

Address PO Box 6345, AUCKLAND Office use only Job No:
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD
Phone 09 300 9000 Fax 09 300 9300 Sent to Date & Time:
Client Reference 5394066-050-D200 Hill Laboratories Name:
Quote No 65199 Order Number 14.12O Please tick if you Signature:

require COC to be faxed back
Primary Contact Phillip Ware Received at Date & Time:
Submitted By Curtis Blyth Hill Laboratories Name:
Charge To Beca Infrastructure 76225 Signature:
Results To Mail Client Mail Submitter Condition Temp:
Fax Results curtis.blyth@beca.com Room Temp Chilled Frozen
Email Results envirolab@beca.com Sample Analysis details checked

Signature:
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Priority

Please carry out work in accordance with our standard conditions Low Normal High
of engagement, as described in letter dated 24-04-13
Urgent (ASAP, extra charge applies, please contact the lab first)
Job Number - 1346648
Requested Reporting Date:
Sample Types
Waters E Effluent G Geothermal Pot1 Potable Water (LAS/EU) Pot2 Potable Water (NZDWS)
GW Ground Water L Leachate Audit Monitoring Pot3 Potable Water (other)
SW Surface Water S Saline Check Monitoring Pool Swimming/Spa Pool
TW Trade Waste
Solids ES Soil SE Sediment SL Sludge PL Plant
Other O O Oil M Miscellaneous FS FS Fish/shellfish/biota BM BM Biological Material
Sample Sample
1 14:120:MTP220:S2 4/11/2014 Soil Suite 3
3 14:120:MTP221:S1 4/11/2014 Soil Suite 3
4 14:120:MTP221:S2 4/11/2014 Soil Suite 3
6 14:120:MTP222:S1 4/11/2014 Soil Suite 3
7 14:120:MTP222:S2 4/11/2014 Soil Suite 3
8 14:120:MTP223:S1 4/11/2014 Soil Suite 3
9 14:120:MTP223:S2 4/11/2014 Soil Suite 3
10 14:120:MTP224:S1 4/11/2014 Soil Suite 2

Continued on next page
Sample Sample
11 14:120:MTP224:S2 4/11/2014 Soil Suite 2
12 14:120:MTP225:S1 4/11/2014 Soil Suite 2
13 14:120:MTP225:S2 4/11/2014 Soil Suite 2
15 14:120:MTP226:S1 4/11/2014 Soil Suite 1
16 14:120:MTP226:S2 4/11/2014 Soil Suite 1
17 14:120:MTP227:S1 4/11/2014 Soil Suite 1
18 14:120:MTP227:S2 4/11/2014 Soil Suite 1
19 14:120:MTP228:S1 4/11/2014 Soil Suite 2
20 14:120:MTP228:S2 4/11/2014 Soil Suite 2
21 14:120:MTP228:S3 4/11/2014 Soil Hold Cold
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40

Job Information Summary Page 1 of 2
Client: Beca Limited Lab No: 1585990

Contact: B Waterhouse Date Registered: 19-May-2016 9:14 am
C/- Beca Limited Priority: High
Christchurch 8141 Order No: 16:056
Client Reference: 16:056
Add. Client Ref:
Submitted By: B Waterhouse
Charge To: Beca Limited
Target Date: 01-Jun-2016 4:30 pm
Samples

1 16:056 TP401 0.5 17-May-2016 Soil GSoil300, PSoil250 Heavy Metals with Mercury, Screen Level; TPH Oil
Industry Profile + PAHscreen; Semivolatile Organic
Compounds Screening in Soil by GC-MS
2 16:056 TP401 2.3 17-May-2016 Soil GSoil300, PSoil250 Heavy Metals with Mercury, Screen Level
3 16:056 TP402 0.5 17-May-2016 Soil GSoil300, cPSoil Heavy Metals with Mercury, Screen Level; TPH Oil
4 16:056 TP402 2.0 17-May-2016 Soil GSoil300, PSoil250 Hold Cold; Heavy Metals with Mercury, Screen Level
10 16:056 TP405 1.8 17-May-2016 Soil GSoil300, cPSoil Heavy Metals with Mercury, Screen Level
20 16:056 TP410 0.5 17-May-2016 Soil GSoil300, cPSoil Heavy Metals with Mercury, Screen Level; Total
Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil

Samples

37 16:056 TP410 1.9 Soil GSoil300, cPSoil Heavy Metals with Mercury, Screen Level
SUMMARY OF METHODS
Sample Type: Soil

TPH Oil Industry Profile + PAHscreen Sonication in DCM extraction, SPE cleanup, GC-FID & GC- 0.010 - 60 mg/kg dry wt 1, 3, 5, 7, 9,
MS analysis. Tested on as received sample. 11, 13, 15,
US EPA 8015B/MfE Petroleum Industry Guidelines 25, 27, 29,
[KBIs:5786,2805,10734;2695] 31
Heavy Metals with Mercury, Screen Dried sample, < 2mm fraction. Nitric/Hydrochloric acid 0.10 - 4 mg/kg dry wt 1-41
Level digestion US EPA 200.2. Complies with NES Regulations.
ICP-MS screen level, interference removal by Kinetic Energy
Discrimination if required.
Semivolatile Organic Compounds Sonication extraction, GPC cleanup (if required), GC-MS FS 0.3 - 30 mg/kg dry wt 1, 3, 5, 7, 9,
Screening in Soil by GC-MS analysis. Tested on as received sample 11, 13, 15,
25, 27, 29,
31
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil Sonication extraction in DCM, Silica cleanup, GC-FID 8 - 60 mg/kg dry wt 20
analysis
US EPA 8015B/MfE Petroleum Industry Guidelines. Tested
on as received sample
[KBIs:5786,2805,10734]
Dry Matter (Env) Dried at 103C for 4-22hr (removes 3-5% more water than air 0.10 g/100g as rcvd 1, 3, 5, 7, 9,
dry) , gravimetry. US EPA 3550. (Free water removed before 11, 13, 15,
analysis). 20, 25, 27,
29, 31

Appendix E
Laboratory Results

5394066 // NZ1-10350236-36 0.36 // page 32
SOIL ANALYSIS RESULTS: METRO SPORTS FACILITY PHASE 1
Sample Date 24/07/2014 24/07/2014 24/07/2014 24/07/2014 24/07/2014 24/07/2014 24/07/2014 24/07/2014 24/07/2014 24/07/2014
Test Pit Number MSF TP101 S1 MSF TP101 S2 MSF TP102 S1 MSF TP102 S2 MSF TP103 S1 MSF TP103 S2 MSF TP104 S1 MSF TP104 S2 MSF TP105 S1 MSF TP003 S1 Assessment Criteria
Laboratory Number: 1301384.79 1301384.8 1301384.51 1301384.52 1301384.54 1301384.55 1301384.57 1301384.58 1301384.6 1301384.78
Sample Depth (m) 0.5 1.5 0.5 1.5 0.5 1.5 0.5 1.3 0.5 0.5
Adopted
Soil Type Gravel Gravelly Silt Gravel Silt Gravel Silt Silt Silt Gravel Gravel Background Human Health
Environmental
Soil Type used in the Assessment1 Sand Sand Sand Sandy Silt Sand Sandy Silt Sandy Silt Sandy Silt Sand Sand Range Assessment
Criteria
Heavy metals (mg/kg dry weight)
Arsenic 3 14 7 8 7 6 13 14 8 6 5.9 - 16.32 124 70 6
Cadmium < 0.10 < 0.10 0.63 < 0.10 0.17 < 0.10 0.13 < 0.10 0.23 0.21 0.07 - 0.212 224 1,300 6
Chromium 10 19 21 20 22 22 13 23 20 18 12.7 - 25.42 874 6,300 6
Copper 7 12 16 16 35 12 61 14 28 21 10.2 - 252 914 >10,000 6
Lead 13.1 24 61 27 174 31 450 40 102 85 25.3 - 128.32 6004 3,300 6
Mercury < 0.10 < 0.10 0.13 < 0.10 0.22 < 0.10 3.8 < 0.10 0.33 0.39 0.09 - 0.22 244 4,200 6
Nickel 9 16 14 17 24 19 13 20 20 15 12.3 - 182 504 20,000 7
Zinc 41 77 340 85 155 91 144 100 151 138 62.6 - 166.82 3604 310,000 7
BTEX (mg/kg dry weight)
All compounds Below Detection - - - - - - - - - - - -
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (mg/kg dry weight)
Total PCB (Sum of 35 congeners) < 0.4 - - - - - - - - - - - 3606
Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOC) (mg/kg dry weight)
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
1.9 (sand)5 (190) (sand) 5
Naphthalene < 0.6 - - - - - - - - - -
0.28 (sandy silt)5 (210) (sandy silt)5
Phenanthrene < 0.6 - - - - - - - - - - 50 4 -
NA (sandy)5
Pyrene < 0.6 - - - - - - - - - - 100 4
NA (sandy silt)5
BAP Equivalent (incl. Fluoranthene) <1.4 - - - - - - - - - - - 356
BAP Equivalent (excl. Fluoranthene) <1.4 - - - - - - - - - 0.9223 - -
Other compounds
Carbazole < 1.2 - - - - - - - - - - -
Dibenzofuran < 1.2 - - - - - - - - - - 1,000 7
All other compounds Below Detection - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (mg/kg)
120 (sand)5
C7 - C9 <8 <9 <8 <9 <8 <9 <8 <9 <8 <8 - -
(500) (sandy silt)5
(1,500) (sand)5
C10 - C14 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 - -
(1,700) (sandy silt)5
NA (sand)5
C15 - C36 < 40 < 40 240 < 40 620 < 40 48 < 40 76 90 - -
NA (sandy silt)5
Total hydrocarbons (C7 - C36) < 70 < 70 240 < 70 620 < 70 < 70 < 70 76 90 - - -
Annotations:
1
The Guidelines for Assessing and Managing Petroleum Hydrocarbon Contaminated Sites in New Zealand provides a series of guideline values based on specific soil types. The soil type encountered onsite is described in the testpit logs and can vary from the
specific types described in the guidelines. To undertake the assessment the guideline soil type which matches most closely the soils encountered at that location and depth has been selected.
2
Background concentration of selected trace elements in Canterbury soils, ECan, 2006.
3
Background concentration of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in Christchurch urban soils, ECan, 2007.
4
Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Environmental and Human Health, CCME 1999. Values applicable to 'Commercial' land use have been used.
5
Guidelines for Assessing and Managing Petroleum Hydrocarbon Contaminated Sites in New Zealand, Ministry for the Environment (MfE), 1999 (Revised 2011).
Module 4, Tier 1 Soil acceptance criteria for Protection of Groundwater and Commercial / Industrial Landuse - All Pathways. Sand and sandy silt soil types have been used, groundwater depth of 2m.
6
Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health) Regulations 2011. Values applicable to 'commercial / industrial outdoor worker' have been used.
7
US EPA Regional Screening Level for Industrial Landuse
NA indicates estimated criterion exceeds 20,000mg/kg.
The following notes indicate the limiting pathway for each criterion: v - Volatilisation, s - Soil Ingestion, d - Dermal, p - Produce, m - Maintenance/Excavation
Brackets denote values exceed threshold likely to correspond to formation of residual separate phase hydrocarbons.
Underlining indicates result exceeds background range
Grey shading indicates result exceeds regional discharge assessment criteria
Bold indicates result exceeds human health assessment criteria
Sample Date 24/07/2014 24/07/2014 24/07/2014 24/07/2014 24/07/2014 24/07/2014 24/07/2014 24/07/2014 24/07/2014 24/07/2014
Sample Depth (m) 0.5 0.5 1.5 0.5 1.3 1.7 0.5 1.5 0.5 1.5
Adopted
Soil Type Gravel Gravel Silt Gravel Silt Silt Gravel Silt Gravel Gravel Background Human Health
Environmental
Soil Type used in the Assessment1 Sand Sand Sandy Silt Sand Sandy Silt Sandy Silt Sand Sandy Silt Sand Sand Range Assessment
Criteria
Arsenic 8 14 7 6 11 6 11 6 5 7 5.9 - 16.32 124 70 6
Cadmium 0.26 0.2 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.26 0.13 0.13 0.15 0.07 - 0.212 224 1,300 6
Chromium 18 21 19 46 45 27 15 20 19 24 12.7 - 25.42 874 6,300 6
Copper 25 35 16 13 16 10 20 6 15 21 10.2 - 252 914 >10,000 6
Lead 4,300 7,900 39 280 155 32 160 25 134 107 25.3 - 128.32 6004 3,300 6
Mercury < 0.10 < 0.10 0.12 < 0.10 0.67 < 0.10 0.16 < 0.10 0.68 0.26 0.09 - 0.22 244 4,200 6
Nickel 19 23 18 11 12 17 12 17 13 17 12.3 - 182 504 20,000 7
Zinc 250 2,600 100 113 88 95 158 190 139 230 62.6 - 166.82 3604 310,000 7
All compounds - - - Below Detection Below Detection - Below Detection Below Detection - - - - -
Total PCB (Sum of 35 congeners) - - - - - - - - - - - 3606
1.9 (sand)5 (190) (sand) 5
Naphthalene - - - < 0.6 < 0.8 - 3.7 < 0.7 - - -
Phenanthrene - - - 4.4 < 0.8 - 28 < 0.7 - - - 50 4 -
NA (sandy)5
Pyrene - - - 5.6 < 0.8 - 19 < 0.7 - - - 100 4
NA (sandy silt)5
BAP Equivalent (incl. Fluoranthene) - - - 6.3 <1.8 - 10.9 <1.6 - - - - 356
BAP Equivalent (excl. Fluoranthene) - - - 6.4 <1.8 - 11 <1.7 - - 0.9223 - -
Other compounds
Carbazole - - - < 1.2 < 1.5 - 2.5 < 1.4 - - - - -
Dibenzofuran - - - < 1.2 < 1.5 - 4.2 < 1.4 - - - - 1,000 7
All other compounds - - - Below Detection Below Detection - Below Detection Below Detection - - - - -
120 (sand)5
C7 - C9 <8 <8 <9 <8 <9 <8 <8 <9 <8 <8 - -
(500) (sandy silt)5
(1,500) (sand)5
C10 - C14 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 25 - -
NA (sand)5
C15 - C36 < 40 300 < 40 101 < 40 < 40 450 < 40 110 560 - -
NA (sandy silt)5
Total hydrocarbons (C7 - C36) < 70 300 < 70 101 < 70 < 70 450 < 70 110 580 - - -
Annotations:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Sample Date 24/07/2014 24/07/2014 23/07/2014 23/07/2014 23/07/2014 23/07/2014 21/07/2014 21/07/2014 21/07/2014 21/07/2014
Sample Depth (m) 0.5 1.5 0.5 1.5 0.5 1.5 0.5 1.5 0.6 1.5
Adopted
Soil Type Gravel Gravel Silt Gravel Silt Sand Silt Silt Gravel Silt Background Human Health
Environmental
Soil Type used in the Assessment1 Sand Sand Sandy silt Sand Sandy silt Sand Sandy silt Sandy silt Sand Sandy silt Range Assessment
Criteria
Arsenic 7 5 5 7 9 3 9 15 16 3 5.9 - 16.32 124 70 6
Cadmium 0.45 0.12 0.37 < 0.10 0.15 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.07 - 0.212 224 1,300 6
Chromium 18 20 23 16 19 12 19 19 20 15 12.7 - 25.42 874 6,300 6
Copper 15 14 103 14 22 9 12 14 9 11 10.2 - 252 914 >10,000 6
Lead 62 31 630 32 54 12.5 37 22 56 16 25.3 - 128.32 6004 3,300 6
Mercury 0.21 0.12 0.53 < 0.10 0.12 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.09 - 0.22 244 4,200 6
Nickel 14 17 49 15 20 11 14 16 15 13 12.3 - 182 504 20,000 7
Zinc 760 115 310 68 129 44 84 70 140 59 62.6 - 166.82 3604 310,000 7
All compounds - - - - - - Below Detection Below Detection Below Detection Below Detection - - -
Total PCB (Sum of 35 congeners) - - - - - - - - - - - - 3606
1.9 (sand)5 (190) (sand) 5
Naphthalene - - - - - - - - < 0.7 - -
Phenanthrene - - - - - - - - < 0.7 - - 50 4 -
NA (sandy)5
Pyrene - - - - - - - - < 0.7 - - 100 4
NA (sandy silt)5
BAP Equivalent (incl. Fluoranthene) - - - - - - - - <1.5 - - - 356
BAP Equivalent (excl. Fluoranthene) - - - - - - - - <1.6 - 0.9223 - -
Other compounds
Carbazole - - - - - - - - < 1.4 - - - -
Dibenzofuran - - - - - - - - < 1.4 - - - 1,000 7
All other compounds - - - - - - - - Below Detection - - - -
120 (sand)5
C7 - C9 <8 <8 <8 <8 <9 <9 <9 <9 <9 <9 - -
(500) (sandy silt)5
(1,500) (sand)5
C10 - C14 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 250 - -
NA (sand)5
C15 - C36 310 < 40 820 < 40 < 40 < 40 < 40 < 40 < 40 570 - -
NA (sandy silt)5
Total hydrocarbons (C7 - C36) 310 < 70 820 < 70 < 70 < 70 < 70 < 70 < 70 820 - - -
Annotations:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Sample Date 21/07/2014 21/07/2014 23/07/2014 23/07/2014 23/07/2014 23/07/2014 21/07/2014 21/07/2014 23/07/2014 23/07/2014
Sample Depth (m) 2.1 2.5 0.5 0.5 1.5 2.5 0.5 1.5 0.3 1.5
Adopted
Soil Type Sandy silt Sandy silt Gravel Gravel Silt Silt Gravel Gravel Gravel Sandy silt Background Human Health
Environmental
Soil Type used in the Assessment1 Sandy silt Sandy silt Sand Sand Sandy silt Sandy silt Sand Sand Sand Sandy silt Range Assessment
Criteria
Arsenic 5 6 6 5 6 12 4 6 4 5 5.9 - 16.32 124 70 6
Cadmium < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.07 - 0.212 224 1,300 6
Chromium 18 16 18 19 15 20 15 16 13 18 12.7 - 25.42 874 6,300 6
Copper 11 15 4 4 9 15 9 11 7 13 10.2 - 252 914 >10,000 6
Lead 22 17.6 46 32 15.4 26 18 20 17.9 23 25.3 - 128.32 6004 3,300 6
Mercury < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.09 - 0.22 244 4,200 6
Nickel 15 13 12 13 12 17 11 14 10 17 12.3 - 182 504 20,000 7
Zinc 73 61 115 111 51 83 47 60 42 75 62.6 - 166.82 3604 310,000 7
All compounds Below Detection Below Detection Below Detection Below Detection Below Detection Below Detection - - - - - - -
1.9 (sand)5 (190) (sand) 5
Naphthalene - - - - - - - - - - -
Phenanthrene - - - - - - - - - - - 50 4 -
NA (sandy)5
Pyrene - - - - - - - - - - - 100 4
NA (sandy silt)5
BAP Equivalent (incl. Fluoranthene) - - - - - - - - - - - - 356
BAP Equivalent (excl. Fluoranthene) - - - - - - - - - - 0.9223 - -
Other compounds
Carbazole - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dibenzofuran - - - - - - - - - - - 1,000 7
All other compounds - - - - - - - - - - - - -
120 (sand)5
C7 - C9 <9 <9 <8 <8 <9 <9 <8 < 10 <8 <9 - -
(500) (sandy silt)5
(1,500) (sand)5
C10 - C14 69 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 - -
NA (sand)5
C15 - C36 260 < 40 < 40 < 40 < 40 < 40 < 40 < 40 < 40 < 40 - -
NA (sandy silt)5
Total hydrocarbons (C7 - C36) 320 < 70 < 70 < 70 < 70 < 70 < 70 < 70 < 70 < 70 - - -
Annotations:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Sample Date 21/07/2014 21/07/2014 21/07/2014 21/07/2014 23/07/2014 23/07/2014 23/07/2014 23/07/2014 23/07/2014 23/07/2014
Sample Depth (m) 0.5 1.5 0.5 1.5 2.5 0.5 1.5 0.5 1.5 0.5
Adopted
Soil Type Silt Silt Silt Silt Silt Silt Silt Silt Sandy silt Gravel Background Human Health
Environmental
Soil Type used in the Assessment1 Sandy silt Sandy silt Sandy silt Sandy silt Sandy silt Sandy silt Sandy silt Sandy silt Sandy silt Sand Range Assessment
Criteria
Arsenic 8 4 6 2 5 23 7 6 7 14 5.9 - 16.32 124 70 6
Cadmium 0.26 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.07 - 0.212 224 1,300 6
Chromium 19 15 21 13 15 18 20 17 20 17 12.7 - 25.42 874 6,300 6
Copper 50 10 10 7 8 11 15 7 14 6 10.2 - 252 914 >10,000 6
Lead 260 15.7 41 13.5 15.2 34 26 17.7 26 19.3 25.3 - 128.32 6004 3,300 6
Mercury 0.75 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.15 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.09 - 0.22 244 4,200 6
Nickel 35 12 16 11 12 12 16 13 17 12 12.3 - 182 504 20,000 7
Zinc 250 54 101 53 53 109 77 63 78 64 62.6 - 166.82 3604 310,000 7
All compounds - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total PCB (Sum of 35 congeners) - - - - - < 0.4 - - - - - - 3606
1.9 (sand)5 (190) (sand) 5
Naphthalene - - - - - < 0.7 - - - - -
Phenanthrene - - - - - < 0.7 - - - - - 50 4 -
NA (sandy)5
Pyrene - - - - - < 0.7 - - - - - 100 4
NA (sandy silt)5
BAP Equivalent (incl. Fluoranthene) - - - - - <1.5 - - - - - - 356
BAP Equivalent (excl. Fluoranthene) - - - - - <1.6 - - - - 0.9223 - -
Other compounds
Carbazole - - - - - < 1.4 - - - - - -
Dibenzofuran - - - - - < 1.4 - - - - - 1,000 7
All other compounds - - - - - Below Detection - - - - - - -
120 (sand)5
C7 - C9 <9 <9 <9 <9 <9 <9 <9 <9 <9 <9 - -
(500) (sandy silt)5
(1,500) (sand)5
C10 - C14 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 - -
NA (sand)5
C15 - C36 260 < 40 < 40 < 40 < 40 < 40 < 40 < 40 < 40 < 40 - -
NA (sandy silt)5
Total hydrocarbons (C7 - C36) 260 < 70 < 70 < 70 < 70 < 70 < 70 < 70 < 70 < 70 - - -
Annotations:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Sample Date 23/07/2014 23/07/2014 23/07/2014 23/07/2014 23/07/2014 23/07/2014 23/07/2014 23/07/2014 23/07/2014 23/07/2014
Sample Depth (m) 1.5 0.5 1.5 0.3 1.5 0.5 1.5 0.5 1.5 2.5
Adopted
Soil Type Sandy silt Gravel Sandy silt Silt Silt Gravel Silt Silt Silt Silt Background Human Health
Environmental
Soil Type used in the Assessment1 Sandy silt Sand Sandy silt Sandy silt Sandy silt Sand Sandy silt Sandy silt Sandy silt Sandy silt Range Assessment
Criteria
Arsenic 3 4 9 6 5 3 2 9 3 9 5.9 - 16.32 124 70 6
Cadmium < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.33 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.07 - 0.212 224 1,300 6
Chromium 15 13 19 22 20 11 15 19 18 22 12.7 - 25.42 874 6,300 6
Copper 11 7 14 87 15 6 9 22 13 16 10.2 - 252 914 >10,000 6
Lead 22 29 24 650 26 13.3 15.3 89 21 29 25.3 - 128.32 6004 3,300 6
Mercury < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.51 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.14 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.09 - 0.22 244 4,200 6
Nickel 12 10 16 35 18 8 13 14 14 19 12.3 - 182 504 20,000 7
Zinc 55 51 79 350 78 34 52 84 69 88 62.6 - 166.82 3604 310,000 7
All compounds - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1.9 (sand)5 (190) (sand) 5
Naphthalene - - - - - - - - - - -
Phenanthrene - - - - - - - - - - - 50 4 -
NA (sandy)5
Pyrene - - - - - - - - - - - 100 4
NA (sandy silt)5
Other compounds
Carbazole - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dibenzofuran - - - - - - - - - - - 1,000 7
120 (sand)5
C7 - C9 <9 <8 <9 <9 < 10 <9 <9 < 10 < 10 <9 - -
(500) (sandy silt)5
(1,500) (sand)5
C10 - C14 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 - -
NA (sand)5
C15 - C36 < 40 < 40 < 40 270 < 40 < 40 < 40 1,060 61 < 40 - -
NA (sandy silt)5
Total hydrocarbons (C7 - C36) < 70 < 70 < 70 270 < 70 < 70 < 70 1,060 < 70 < 70 - - -
Annotations:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Sample Date 3/11/2014 3/11/2014 3/11/2014 3/11/2014 3/11/2014 3/11/2014 3/11/2014 3/11/2014 3/11/2014 3/11/2014
Assessment Criteria
Sample Name MTP201 S1 MTP201 S2 MTP202 S1 MTP202 S2 MTP203 S1 MTP203 S2 MTP204 S1 MTP204 S2 MTP205 S1 MTP205 S2
Laboratory Number 1346648.1 1346648.2 1346648.4 1346648.5 1346648.7 1346648.8 1346648.1O 1346648.11 1346648.13 1346648.14
Adopted
Sample Depth (m) 0.45-0.55 0.85-1.0 0.45-0.55 0.7-0.8 0.4-0.5 0.8-1.0 0.4-0.5 1.0-1.1 0.4-0.5 1.0-1.1 Background Human Health
Environmental
Soil Type Silty sand Silty sand Silty sand Silty sand Sandy silt Sandy silt Sandy silt with fill Sandy silt Sandy silt Sandy silt Range Assessment
1 Criteria
Soil Type used in Assessment Sand Sand Sand Sand Sandy silt Sandy silt Sandy silt Sandy silt Sandy silt Sandy silt
Heavy metals (mg/kg)
Arsenic <2 <2 7 2 8 7 9 3 7 4 5.9 - 16.32 124 70 6
Cadmium < 0.10 < 0.10 0.12 < 0.10 0.38 0.2 0.41 < 0.10 0.39 < 0.10 0.07 - 0.212 224 1,300 6
4
Chromium 13 11 16 15 18 16 18 16 18 17 12.7 - 25.42 87 6,300 6
Copper 8 6 19 8 41 23 52 8 93 12 10.2 - 252 914 >10,000 6
Lead 13.8 11 98 16.1 460 330 1,000 30 186 28 25.3 - 128.3
2
6004 3,300
6
Mercury < 0.10 < 0.10 0.21 < 0.10 0.28 0.23 0.91 < 0.10 0.11 < 0.10 0.09 - 0.2 2
244 4,200 6
Nickel 11 11 13 14 15 13 14 12 11 14 12.3 - 18
2
504 20,000
7
4
Zinc 43 39 125 55 320 195 440 79 260 80 62.6 - 166.82 360 310,000 7
BTEX (mg/kg)
All compounds Below Detection Below Detection Below Detection Below Detection Below Detection Below Detection Below Detection Below Detection Below Detection Below Detection - - -
1.9 (sand)5 (190) (sand) 5
Naphthalene < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7 -
Phenanthrene < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7 0.9 2.2 < 0.7 < 0.7 0.9 < 0.7 - 50 4 -
NA (sandy)5 NA
Pyrene < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7 2.2 3.3 4.8 < 0.7 1 < 0.7 - 100 4
(sandy silt)5
6
BAP Equivalent (incl. Fluoranthene) <1.537 <1.652 <1.652 <1.652 1.712 2.867 5.45 <1.652 1.658 <1.652 - - 35
BAP Equivalent (excl. Fluoranthene) <1.534 <1.649 <1.649 <1.649 1.69 2.836 5.421 <1.649 <1.649 <1.649 0.9223 - -
Other Compounds
Carbazole < 1.3 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.3 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 - - -
Dibenzofuran < 1.3 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.3 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 - - 1,000 7
All other compounds Below Detection Below Detection Below Detection Below Detection Below Detection Below Detection Below Detection Below Detection Below Detection Below Detection - - -
5
120 (sand)
C7 - C9 <8 <9 <9 <8 <8 <9 <9 <8 <8 <8 - -
(500) (sandy silt)5
(1,500) (sand)5
C10 - C14 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 - -
5
NA (sand)
C15 - C36 < 40 < 40 < 40 < 40 54 57 97 < 40 < 40 < 40 - -
NA (sandy silt)5
Total hydrocarbons (C7 - C36) < 70 < 70 < 70 < 70 < 70 < 70 97 < 70 < 70 < 70 - - -
Annotations:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Sample Date 3/11/2014 3/11/2014 3/11/2014 3/11/2014 3/11/2014 3/11/2014 3/11/2014 3/11/2014 3/11/2014 3/11/2014
Assessment Criteria
Hills Lab Number 1346648.16 1346648.17 1346648.19 1346648.2O 1346648.22 1346648.23 1346648.25 1346648.26 1346648.28 1346648.29
Adopted
Environmental
Soil Type Silty sand Silty sand Silt with gravel Silt with gravel Silty sand Silty sand Gravel with silt Sandy silt Silty sand Silty sand Range Assessment
1 Criteria
Soil Type used in Assessment Sand Sand Sandy silt Sandy silt Sand Sand Sandy silt Sandy silt Sand Sand
4
Arsenic 6 3 6 4 11 9 7 3 11 7 5.9 - 16.32 12 70 6
Cadmium < 0.10 < 0.10 0.25 < 0.10 0.53 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.13 < 0.10 0.07 - 0.212 224 1,300 6
4
Chromium 19 16 19 16 19 16 18 13 16 14 12.7 - 25.42 87 6,300 6
Copper 18 10 36 14 30 10 12 10 18 8 10.2 - 252 914 >10,000 6
Lead 48 15 200 31 2,700 23 19 12.5 134 16.2 25.3 - 128.3
2
6004 3,300
6
Mercury 0.3 < 0.10 0.11 < 0.10 0.6 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.13 < 0.10 0.09 - 0.2 2
244 4,200 6
Nickel 17 12 15 11 12 14 15 12 13 12 12.3 - 18
2
504 20,000
7
4
Zinc 97 59 260 84 630 66 61 42 128 49 62.6 - 166.82 360 310,000 7
BTEX (mg/kg)
All compounds - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1.9 (sand)5 (190) (sand) 5
Naphthalene - - - - - - - - - - -
Phenanthrene - - - - - - - - - - - 50 4 -
NA (sandy)5
Pyrene - - - - - - - - - - - 100 4
NA (sandy silt)5
6
Other Compounds
Carbazole - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dibenzofuran - - - - - - - - - - - - 1,000 7
5
120 (sand)
C7 - C9 <9 <9 <9 <9 <8 <9 <8 <8 <8 <8 - -
(500) (sandy silt)5
(1,500) (sand)5
C10 - C14 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 - -
5
NA (sand)
C15 - C36 < 40 < 40 151 < 40 250 < 40 < 40 < 40 < 40 < 40 - -
NA (sandy silt)5
Total hydrocarbons (C7 - C36) < 70 < 70 151 < 70 250 < 70 < 70 < 70 < 70 < 70 - - -
Annotations:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Sample Date 4/11/2014 4/11/2014 4/11/2014 4/11/2014 4/11/2014 4/11/2014 4/11/2014 4/11/2014 4/11/2014 4/11/2014
Assessment Criteria
Hills Lab Number 1346648.31 1346648.32 1346648.34 1346648.35 1346648.37 1346648.38 1346648.4O 1346648.41 1346648.43 1346648.44
Adopted
Environmental
Soil Type Sandy silt Sandy silt Silt minor sand Silt minor sand Sandy silt Silty sand Gravel Silt with trace gravel Sandy silt Sandy silt Range Assessment
1 Criteria
Soil Type used in Assessment Sandy silt Sandy silt Sandy silt Sandy silt Sandy silt Sand Sand Sandy silt Sandy silt Sandy silt
Arsenic 10 11 12 6 10 6 50 10 8 4 5.9 - 16.32 124 70 6
Cadmium < 0.10 < 0.10 0.78 < 0.10 0.32 < 0.10 0.16 0.13 0.7 < 0.10 0.07 - 0.212 224 1,300 6
4
Chromium 17 15 21 14 20 14 25 19 21 15 12.7 - 25.42 87 6,300 6
Copper 9 11 90 11 38 13 29 15 53 12 10.2 - 252 914 >10,000 6
Lead 34 31 740 18.7 350 14.8 37 30 1,020 49 25.3 - 128.3
2
6004 3,300
6
Mercury < 0.10 < 0.10 0.92 < 0.10 0.27 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.09 - 0.2 2
244 4,200 6
Nickel 13 14 18 12 15 13 26 18 45 14 12.3 - 18
2
504 20,000
7
4
Zinc 120 60 730 68 340 54 200 123 156 77 62.6 - 166.82 360 310,000 7
BTEX (mg/kg)
All compounds - - - - - - Below Detection Below Detection Below Detection Below Detection - - -
1.9 (sand)5 (190) (sand) 5
Naphthalene - - - - - - - - - - -
Phenanthrene - - - - - - - - - - - 50 4 -
NA (sandy)5
Pyrene - - - - - - - - - - - 100 4
NA (sandy silt)5
6
Other Compounds
Carbazole - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dibenzofuran - - - - - - - - - - - - 1,000 7
5
120 (sand)
C7 - C9 <8 <8 <8 <8 <9 <8 < 18 <9 < 11 <9 - -
(500) (sandy silt)5
(1,500) (sand)5
C10 - C14 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 40 < 20 < 30 < 20 - -
5
NA (sand)
C15 - C36 < 40 < 40 65 < 40 85 < 40 151 < 40 < 50 < 40 - -
NA (sandy silt)5
Total hydrocarbons (C7 - C36) < 70 < 70 < 70 < 70 85 < 70 151 < 70 < 80 < 70 - - -
Annotations:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Sample Date 4/11/2014 4/11/2014 4/11/2014 4/11/2014 4/11/2014 4/11/2014 4/11/2014 4/11/2014 4/11/2014 4/11/2014
Assessment Criteria
Hills Lab Number 1346648.46 1346648.47 1346648.48 1346648.49 1346648.5O 1346648.51 1346648.52 1346648.53 1346648.55 1346648.56
Adopted
Environmental
Soil Type Sandy silt Sandy silt Sand Silty clay Sandy gravel Silty clay Sandy gravel Silt with cobbles and clay Sandy silt Clay minor silt Range Assessment
1 Criteria
Soil Type used in Assessment Sandy silt Sandy silt Sand Silty clay Sand Silty clay Sand Sandy silt Sandy silt Silty clay
4
Arsenic 7 4 3 11 6 9 4 11 7 5 5.9 - 16.32 12 70 6
Cadmium < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.11 0.14 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.15 0.11 0.3 0.07 - 0.212 224 1,300 6
4
Chromium 20 19 13 21 15 21 13 16 23 17 12.7 - 25.42 87 6,300 6
Copper 13 15 9 16 13 18 10 22 22 49 10.2 - 252 914 >10,000 6
Lead 20 22 15.2 27 34 28 35 76 33 80 25.3 - 128.3
2
6004 3,300
6
Mercury < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.12 < 0.10 0.28 0.09 - 0.2 2
244 4,200 6
Nickel 17 15 11 18 12 20 11 13 21 13 12.3 - 18
2
504 20,000
7
Zinc 68 70 46 80 85 90 62 84 93 146 62.6 - 166.82 3604 310,000 7

BTEX (mg/kg)
All compounds Below Detection Below Detection Below Detection Below Detection - - - - Below Detection Below Detection - - -
1.9 (sand)5 (190) (sand) 5
Naphthalene - - - - - - - - < 0.8 < 0.7 -
Phenanthrene - - - - - - - - < 0.8 0.9 - 50 4 -
NA (sandy)5
Pyrene - - - - - - - - < 0.8 1.5 - 100 4
NA (sandy silt)5
6
BAP Equivalent (incl. Fluoranthene) - - - - - - - - <1.888 1.664 - - 35
BAP Equivalent (excl. Fluoranthene) - - - - - - - - <1.884 <1.649 0.9223 - -
Other SVOCs
Carbazole - - - - - - - - < 1.6 < 1.4 - - -
Dibenzofuran - - - - - - - - < 1.6 < 1.4 - - 1,000 7
All Below Detection - - - - - - - - Below Detection Below Detection - - -
5
120 (sand)
C7 - C9 <9 <9 <8 < 11 <8 < 10 <8 < 10 < 10 <8 - -
(500) (sandy silt)5
(1,500) (sand)5
C10 - C14 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 30 45 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 - -
5
NA (sand)
C15 - C36 < 40 < 40 < 40 < 50 < 40 < 40 < 40 144 < 40 < 40 - -
NA (sandy silt)5
Total hydrocarbons (C7 - C36) < 70 < 70 < 70 < 80 < 70 < 70 < 70 144 < 70 < 70 - - -
Annotations:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Sample Date 4/11/2014 4/11/2014 4/11/2014 4/11/2014
Assessment Criteria
Sample Name MTP227 S1 MTP227 S2 MTP228 S1 MTP228 S2
Hills Lab Number 1346648.57 1346648.58 1346648.59 1346648.6O
Adopted
Sample Depth (m) 0.6-0.7 2.0-2.1 0.2-0.3 0.7-0.8 Background Human Health
Environmental
Soil Type Clay minor sand, silt Clay minor sand, silt Gravel Sandy silt Range Assessment
1 Criteria
Soil Type used in Assessment Silty clay Silty clay Sand Sandy silt
4
Arsenic 3 7 9 8 5.9 - 16.32 12 70 6
Cadmium 0.13 0.13 2.4 0.28 0.07 - 0.212 224 1,300 6
4
Chromium 14 22 25 21 12.7 - 25.42 87 6,300 6
Copper 7 15 15,600 53 10.2 - 252 914 >10,000 6
Lead 21 23 740 220 25.3 - 128.3
2
6004 3,300
6
Mercury < 0.10 < 0.10 0.24 0.11 0.09 - 0.2 2

244 4,200 6
Nickel 9 18 34 34 12.3 - 18
2
504 20,000
7
4
Zinc 99 81 620 210 62.6 - 166.82 360 310,000 7
BTEX (mg/kg)
All compounds Below Detection Below Detection - - - - -
1.9 (sand)5 (190) (sand) 5
Naphthalene < 0.8 < 0.8 - - -
Phenanthrene < 0.8 < 0.8 - - - 50 4 -
NA (sandy)5
Pyrene < 0.8 < 0.8 - - - 100 4
NA (sandy silt)5
6
BAP Equivalent (incl. Fluoranthene) <1.888 <1.773 - - - - 35
BAP Equivalent (excl. Fluoranthene) <1.884 <1.769 - - 0.9223 - -
Other SVOCs
Carbazole < 1.6 < 1.5 - - - - -
Dibenzofuran < 1.6 < 1.5 - - - - 1,000 7
All Below Detection Below Detection Below Detection - - - - -
5
120 (sand)
C7 - C9 < 10 <9 <8 <8 - -
(500) (sandy silt)5
(1,500) (sand)5
C10 - C14 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 - -
5
NA (sand)
C15 - C36 < 40 < 40 1,160 < 40 - -
NA (sandy silt)5
Total hydrocarbons (C7 - C36) < 70 < 70 1,160 < 70 - - -
Annotations:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Sample Date 23/03/2015 23/03/2015 23/03/2015 23/03/2015 23/03/2015 23/03/2015 23/03/2015 23/03/2015 23/03/2015 23/03/2015
Assessment Criteria
Sample Name TP301 S1 TP301 S2 TP302 S1 TP302 S2 TP303 S1 TP303 S2 TP304 S1 TP304 S2 TP305 S1 TP305 S2
Laboratory Number 1402615.1 1402615.2 1402615.4 1402615.5 1402615.7 1402615.8 1402615.1 1402615.11 1402615.13 1402615.14
Adopted
Sample Depth (m) 0.5 1.5 0.5 1.5 0.5 1.5 0.6 1.8 0.5 1.7 Background Human Health
Environmental
Range Assessment
Soil Type Silt Sand Gravelly sand Silty sand Sand Silty sand Gravel Silty sand Silt Silty sand Criteria
1
Soil Type used in Assessment Sandy silt Sand Sand Sand Sand Sand Sand Sand Sandy silt Sand
Arsenic 16 4 5 9 3 5 <2 3 4 3 5.9 - 16.32 124 70 6
Cadmium 1.12 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.23 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.33 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.07 - 0.21
2
224 1,300
6
Chromium 24 14 18 18 18 18 17 19 17 18 12.7 - 25.42 874 6,300 6

4
Copper 137 9 13 68 12 11 9 13 11 9 10.2 - 252 91 >10,000 6
Lead 1,460 14.1 19.6 260 21 17 16.1 19.4 16.5 14.8 25.3 - 128.32 6004 3,300 6
2 4 6
Mercury 1.17 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.31 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.09 - 0.2 24 4,200
Nickel 22 11 13 13 14 15 13 17 16 14 12.3 - 18 2
504 20,000 7
4
Zinc 840 49 69 260 64 61 350 67 58 55 62.6 - 166.82 360 310,000 7
BTEX (mg/kg)
0.17 (sand) 5 3 (sand)
5,m
Benzene - - - - - - - - - - -
0.029 (sandy silt) 5 3.6 (sandy silt) 5,v
(39) (sand) 5 (94) (sand) 5,m
Toluene - - - - - - - - - - -
6 (sandy silt) 5 (270) (sandy silt) 5,v
(50) (sand) 5 (180) (sand) 5,v

Ethylbenzene - - - - - - - - - - -
7.2 (sandy silt) 5 (200) (sandy silt) 5,v
m&p-Xylene - - - - - - - - - - - (24) (sand) 5 (150) (sand) 5,v
o-Xylene - - - - - - - - - - - 3.7 (sandy silt) 5 (200) (sandy silt) 5,v
1.9 (sand)5 (190) (sand) 5
Naphthalene < 0.7 - < 0.7 - - - < 0.7 - < 0.7 - -
0.28 (sandy silt)5 (210) (sandy silt)
5
Phenanthrene 1 - < 0.7 - - - < 0.7 - 12 - - 50 4 -

NA (sandy)5
Pyrene 1.4 - < 0.7 - - - < 0.7 - 10 - - 100 4 5
NA (sandy silt)
- 6
BAP Equivalent (incl. Fluoranthene) 1.702 - <1.537 - - - <1.537 - 4.771 - - 35
BAP Equivalent (excl. Fluoranthene) 1.688 - <1.534 - - - <1.534 - 4.662 - 0.9223 - -
Other Compounds
Carbazole < 1.4 - < 1.3 - - - < 1.3 - < 1.4 - - -
Dibenzofuran < 1.4 - < 1.3 - - - < 1.3 - < 1.4 - - 1,000 7
All other compounds Below Detection - Below Detection - - - Below Detection - Below Detection - - - -
5
120 (sand)
C7 - C9 <8 - <8 - <8 - <8 - <8 - - -
(500) (sandy silt)5
5
(1,500) (sand)
C10 - C14 < 20 - < 20 - < 20 - < 20 - < 20 - - - 5
(1,700) (sandy silt)
5
NA (sand)
C15 - C36 54 - < 40 - < 40 - < 40 - < 40 - - -
NA (sandy silt)5
Total hydrocarbons (C7 - C36) < 70 - < 70 - < 70 - < 70 - < 70 - - - -
Annotations:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Page 1
Sample Date 23/03/2015 23/03/2015 23/03/2015 23/03/2015 23/03/2015 23/03/2015 23/03/2015 23/03/2015 23/03/2015 23/03/2015
Assessment Criteria
Hills Lab Number 1402615.16 1402615.17 1402615.19 1402615.2 1402615.22 1402615.23 1402615.24 1402615.26 1402615.27 1402615.29
0.6 - QA/QC of Adopted
Sample Depth (m) 0.5 1.5 0.5 1.5 0.6 0.8 1.5 0.5 1.5 Human Health
TP304 0.6 Background Environmental
Assessment
Soil Type Silty sand Silty sand Silty sand Silt Sandy gravel Sandy gravel Sand Silty sand Silt Gravel Range Criteria
Soil Type used in Assessment1 Sand Sand Sand Sandy silt Sand Sand Sand Sand Sandy silt Sand
Arsenic 3 4 4 6 2 42 7 14 8 10 5.9 - 16.3
2
124 70
6
Cadmium < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 2.2 < 0.10 0.72 < 0.10 0.14 0.07 - 0.212 224 1,300 6
2 4 6
Chromium 13 16 17 21 14 39 22 21 20 19 12.7 - 25.4 87 6,300
Copper 7 11 13 16 8 300 17 56 16 13 10.2 - 252
914 >10,000 6
2 4 6
Lead 54 18.5 39 24 17.2 550 26 530 25 79 25.3 - 128.3 600 3,300
2 4
Mercury 0.24 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 1.37 < 0.10 0.28 < 0.10 0.14 0.09 - 0.2 24 4,200 6
2 4 7
Nickel 9 13 13 18 11 38 18 18 17 12 12.3 - 18 50 20,000
4
Zinc 76 61 76 78 64 1,630 84 550 78 230 62.6 - 166.82 360 310,000 7
BTEX (mg/kg)
0.17 (sand) 5 3 (sand) 5,m
Benzene - - - - - - - - - - -
(39) (sand) 5 (94) (sand) 5,m
Toluene - - - - - - - - - - -
(50) (sand) 5 (180) (sand) 5,v

Ethylbenzene - - - - - - - - - - -
1.9 (sand)5 (190) (sand) 5
Naphthalene < 0.7 - - - - < 1.1 - - - < 0.7 -
Phenanthrene < 0.7 - - - - < 1.1 - - - < 0.7 - 50 4 -
NA (sandy)5
Pyrene < 0.7 - - - - 1.6 - - - < 0.7 - 100 4
NA (sandy silt)5
BAP Equivalent (incl. Fluoranthene) <1.652 - - - - 3.5365 - - - <1.537 - - 356
3 -
BAP Equivalent (excl. Fluoranthene) <1.648 - - - - <3.5215 - - - <1.534 0.922 -
Other Compounds
Carbazole < 1.4 - - - - <3 - - - < 1.3 - -
Dibenzofuran < 1.4 - - - - <3 - - - < 1.3 - 1,000 7
All other compounds Below Detection - - - - Below Detection - - - Below Detection - - -
120 (sand)5
C7 - C9 <9 - <9 - <8 < 14 - <9 - <8 - -
(500) (sandy silt)5
(1,500) (sand)5
C10 - C14 < 20 - < 20 - < 20 < 30 - < 20 - < 20 - - 5
NA (sand)5
C15 - C36 174 - < 40 - < 40 57 - < 40 - < 40 - - 5
NA (sandy silt)
Total hydrocarbons (C7 - C36) 174 - < 70 - < 70 < 100 - < 70 - < 70 - - -
Annotations:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Page 2
Sample Date 23/03/2015 24/03/2015 24/03/2015 24/03/2015 24/03/2015 24/03/2015 24/03/2015 24/03/2015 24/03/2015 24/03/2015
Assessment Criteria
Hills Lab Number 1402615.3 1402615.31 1402615.32 1402615.34 1402615.35 1402615.36 1402615.38 1402615.39 1402615.41 1402615.42
Sample Depth (m) 0.5 1.5 0.5 0.8 1.6 0.5 1.6 0.5 1.5 Background Human Health
TP308 0.6 Environmental
Range Assessment
Soil Type Sandy gravel Sand Silt Silty sand Silt and fill Silt Silt Sand Silt Sand Criteria
1
Soil Type used in Assessment Sand Sand Sandy silt Sand Sandy silt Sandy silt Sandy silt Sand Sandy silt Sand
4
Arsenic 3 16 4 9 115 3 2 6 9 6 5.9 - 16.32 12 70 6
Cadmium < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.59 2.8 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.15 < 0.10 0.07 - 0.21
2
224 1,300
6
Chromium 15 17 17 25 41 19 19 21 18 19 12.7 - 25.42 874 6,300 6

4
Copper 9 4 10 96 200 13 9 16 34 13 10.2 - 252 91 >10,000 6
Lead 34 41 14.3 300 3,100 18.9 16.7 21 149 21 25.3 - 128.32 6004 3,300 6
2 4 6
Mercury < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.13 10.2 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.43 < 0.10 0.09 - 0.2 24 4,200
Nickel 11 10 12 14 66 14 12 16 12 13 12.3 - 18 2
504 20,000 7
Zinc 58 77 55 400 2,300 70 61 75 171 110 62.6 - 166.82 3604 310,000 7
BTEX (mg/kg)
0.17 (sand) 5 3 (sand)
5,m
Benzene - - - - - - - - < 0.05 - -
(39) (sand) 5 (94) (sand) 5,m
Toluene - - - - - - - - < 0.05 - -
5
(50) (sand) (180) (sand) 5,v
Ethylbenzene - - - - - - - - < 0.05 - -
m&p-Xylene - - - - - - - - < 0.10 - - (24) (sand) 5 (150) (sand) 5,v
o-Xylene - - - - - - - - < 0.05 - - 3.7 (sandy silt) 5 (200) (sandy silt) 5,v
1.9 (sand)5 (190) (sand) 5
Naphthalene - < 0.7 - < 0.7 < 0.8 - - - < 0.7 - -
5
Phenanthrene - < 0.7 - < 0.7 < 0.8 - - - < 0.7 - - 50 4 -

NA (sandy)5 NA
Pyrene - < 0.7 - 1.1 < 0.8 - - - 0.8 - - 100 4 5
(sandy silt)
BAP Equivalent (incl. Fluoranthene) - <1.652 - 1.659 <1.888 - - - <1.652 - - - 356
BAP Equivalent (excl. Fluoranthene) - <1.648 - <1.648 <1.884 - - - <1.648 - 0.9223 - -
Other Compounds
Carbazole - < 1.4 - < 1.4 < 1.6 - - - < 1.4 - - -
Dibenzofuran - < 1.4 - < 1.4 < 1.6 - - - < 1.4 - - 1,000 7
All other compounds - Below Detection - Below Detection Below Detection - - - Below Detection - - - -
5
120 (sand)
C7 - C9 <8 <9 - <9 < 10 - < 10 - <9 - - -
(500) (sandy silt)5
5
(1,500) (sand)
C10 - C14 < 20 < 20 - < 20 < 20 - < 20 - < 20 - - - 5
5
NA (sand)
C15 - C36 < 40 < 40 - < 40 < 40 - < 40 - 510 - - -
NA (sandy silt)5
Total hydrocarbons (C7 - C36) < 70 < 70 - < 70 < 70 - < 70 - 510 - - - -
Annotations:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Page 3
Sample Date 24/03/2015 24/03/2015 24/03/2015 24/03/2015 24/03/2015 24/03/2015 24/03/2015 24/03/2015 24/03/2015 24/03/2015
Assessment Criteria
Hills Lab Number 1402615.44 1402615.45 1402615.47 1402615.48 1402615.5 1402615.51 1402615.53 1402615.54 1402615.56 1402615.57
Adopted
Environmental
Range Assessment
Soil Type Sand Silt Sand Silt Sandy gravel Silt Sandy gravel Silt Sand Silt Criteria
1
Soil Type used in Assessment Sand Sandy silt Sand Sandy silt Sand Sandy silt Sand Sandy silt Sand Sandy silt
Arsenic 10 8 10 6 4 14 3 6 2 11 5.9 - 16.32 124 70 6
Cadmium 0.15 < 0.10 0.24 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.11 0.07 - 0.21
2
224 1,300
6
Chromium 19 20 13 20 15 23 12 21 17 26 12.7 - 25.42 874 6,300 6

4
Copper 15 15 35 13 11 19 6 14 7 22 10.2 - 252 91 >10,000 6
Lead 140 21 230 18.7 23 31 11.5 19.2 16.7 29 25.3 - 128.32 6004 3,300 6
2 4 6
Mercury 0.16 < 0.10 0.16 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.09 - 0.2 24 4,200
Nickel 11 14 9 15 11 21 8 16 11 25 12.3 - 182
504 20,000 7
Zinc 210 73 220 69 58 99 40 71 87 109 62.6 - 166.82 3604 310,000 7
BTEX (mg/kg)
0.17 (sand) 5 3 (sand)
5,m
Benzene - - - - - - - - - - -
(39) (sand) 5 6 (94) (sand) 5,m
Toluene - - - - - - - - - - -
(sandy silt) 5 (270) (sandy silt) 5,v
(50) (sand) 5 (180) (sand) 5,v

Ethylbenzene - - - - - - - - - - -
1.9 (sand)5 (190) (sand) 5
Naphthalene < 0.7 - < 0.7 - - - - - - - -
5
Phenanthrene 5.8 - < 0.7 - - - - - - - - 50 4 -

NA (sandy)5 NA
Pyrene 10.4 - 0.9 - - - - - - - - 100 4 5
(sandy silt)
BAP Equivalent (incl. Fluoranthene) 6.379 - 1.658 - - - - - - - - - 356
BAP Equivalent (excl. Fluoranthene) 6.269 - <1.648 - - - - - - - 0.9223 - -
Other Compounds
Carbazole < 1.4 - < 1.4 - - - - - - - - -
Dibenzofuran < 1.4 - < 1.4 - - - - - - - - 1,000 7
All other compounds Below Detection - Below Detection - - - - - - - - - -
5
120 (sand)
C7 - C9 <9 - <8 - <8 - <8 - <8 - - -
(500) (sandy silt)5
5
(1,500) (sand)
C10 - C14 < 20 - < 20 - < 20 - < 20 - < 20 - - - 5
5
NA (sand)
C15 - C36 < 40 - < 40 - 134 - < 40 - < 40 - - -
NA (sandy silt)5
Total hydrocarbons (C7 - C36) < 70 - < 70 - 134 - < 70 - < 70 - - - -
Annotations:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Page 4
Sample Date 24/03/2015 24/03/2015 24/03/2015 24/03/2015 24/03/2015 24/03/2015 24/03/2015 24/03/2015 26/03/2015 26/03/2015
Assessment Criteria
Hills Lab Number 1402615.59 1402615.6 1402615.62 1402615.63 1402615.65 1402615.66 1402615.68 1402615.69 1402615.99 1402615.1
1.6 - QA/QC 0.5 - QA/QC Adopted
Sample Depth (m) 0.5 1.5 0.5 1.5 0.5 1.5 0.45 1.5 Background Human Health
of TP311 1.6 of TP318 0.5 Environmental
Range Assessment
Soil Type Silt Silt Silt Sand Sandy gravel Silt Silt Sand Sandy silt Silt Criteria
1
Soil Type used in Assessment Sandy silt Sandy silt Sandy silt Sand Sand Sandy silt Sandy silt Sand Sandy silt Sandy silt
4
Arsenic 17 13 31 4 25 7 2 <2 3 9 5.9 - 16.32 12 70 6
Cadmium 0.16 < 0.10 0.67 < 0.10 0.27 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.07 - 0.21
2
224 1,300
6
Chromium 20 23 18 11 21 19 14 13 16 19 12.7 - 25.42 874 6,300 6

4
Copper 24 18 93 5 86 15 6 5 7 15 10.2 - 252 91 >10,000 6
Lead 61 29 690 11 530 27 14.7 13.7 17.9 26 25.3 - 128.32 6004 3,300 6
2 4 6
Mercury 0.28 < 0.10 1.87 < 0.10 0.13 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.09 - 0.2 24 4,200
Nickel 12 20 19 8 25 18 10 9 11 15 12.3 - 18 2
504 20,000 7
Zinc 66 93 1,010 39 198 76 70 56 54 112 62.6 - 166.82 3604 310,000 7
BTEX (mg/kg)
0.17 (sand) 5 3 (sand)
5,m
Benzene - - - - - - - - - - -
(39) (sand) 5 (94) (sand) 5,m
Toluene - - - - - - - - - - -
5
(50) (sand) (180) (sand) 5,v
Ethylbenzene - - - - - - - - - - -
1.9 (sand)5 (190) (sand) 5
Naphthalene - - < 0.9 - < 0.9 - - - - - -
5
Phenanthrene - - 3.1 - < 0.9 - - - - - - 50 4 -

NA (sandy)5 NA
Pyrene - - 6 - < 0.9 - - - - - - 100 4 5
(sandy silt)
BAP Equivalent (incl. Fluoranthene) - - 5.258 - <2.009 - - - - - - - 356
BAP Equivalent (excl. Fluoranthene) - - 5.198 - <2.005 - - - - - 0.9223 - -
Other Compounds
Carbazole - - < 1.8 - < 1.7 - - - - - - -
Dibenzofuran - - < 1.8 - < 1.7 - - - - - - 1,000 7
All other compounds - - Below Detection - Below Detection - - - - - - - -
5
120 (sand)
C7 - C9 < 11 - < 11 - < 11 - <9 <8 <8 <8 - -
(500) (sandy silt)5
5
(1,500) (sand)
C10 - C14 < 30 - < 30 - < 30 - < 20 < 20 < 20 113 - - 5
5
NA (sand)
C15 - C36 94 - 182 - 110 - < 40 57 < 40 3,400 - -
NA (sandy silt)5
Total hydrocarbons (C7 - C36) 94 - 182 - 110 - < 70 < 70 < 70 3,500 - - -
Annotations:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Page 5
Sample Date 26/03/2015 26/03/2015 26/03/2015 26/03/2015 26/03/2015 26/03/2015 26/03/2015 26/03/2015 26/03/2015 26/03/2015
Assessment Criteria
Hills Lab Number 1402615.102 1402615.103 1402615.105 1402615.106 1402615.108 1402615.109 1402615.111 1402615.112 1402615.114 1402615.115
Adopted
Environmental
Range Assessment
Soil Type Sandy gravel Silt Silt Silt Sand Silt Sand Silt Silt Silt Criteria
1
Soil Type used in Assessment Sand Sandy silt Sandy silt Sandy silt Sand Sandy silt Sand Sandy silt Sandy silt Sandy silt
4
Arsenic 4 2 16 5 <2 4 2 7 6 9 5.9 - 16.32 12 70 6
Cadmium < 0.10 < 0.10 1.66 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.11 0.3 0.1 0.07 - 0.21
2
224 1,300
6
Chromium 12 19 28 17 14 19 12 21 15 23 12.7 - 25.42 874 6,300 6

4
Copper 7 14 840 11 7 12 7 17 1,000 21 10.2 - 252 91 >10,000 6
Lead 31 23 1,580 18.2 12 20 13.1 30 260 35 25.3 - 128.32 6004 3,300 6
2 4 6
Mercury < 0.10 < 0.10 1.82 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.21 < 0.10 0.09 - 0.2 24 4,200
Nickel 9 14 23 12 9 14 9 17 14 19 12.3 - 18 2
504 20,000 7
Zinc 41 70 1,550 58 45 64 45 93 230 101 62.6 - 166.82 3604 310,000 7
BTEX (mg/kg)
0.17 (sand) 5 3 (sand)
5,m
Benzene - - - - - - - - - - -
(39) (sand) 5 (94) (sand) 5,m
Toluene - - - - - - - - - - -
5
(50) (sand) (180) (sand) 5,v
Ethylbenzene - - - - - - - - - - -
1.9 (sand)5 (190) (sand) 5
Naphthalene - - < 0.9 - - - - - < 0.8 - -
5
Phenanthrene - - 1 - - - - - 3.3 - - 50 4 -
NA (sandy)5 NA
Pyrene - - 2.2 - - - - - 9.9 - - 100 4 5
(sandy silt)
BAP Equivalent (incl. Fluoranthene) - - 2.314 - - - - - 13.106 - - - 356
BAP Equivalent (excl. Fluoranthene) - - 2.293 - - - - - 13.011 - 0.9223 - -
Other Compounds
Carbazole - - < 1.8 - - - - - < 1.6 - - -
Dibenzofuran - - < 1.8 - - - - - < 1.6 - - 1,000 7
All other compounds - - Below Detection - - - - - Below Detection - - - -
5
120 (sand)
C7 - C9 <8 - < 11 - <9 - <8 - < 10 - - -
(500) (sandy silt)5
5
(1,500) (sand)
C10 - C14 < 20 - < 30 - < 20 - < 20 - < 20 - - - 5
5
NA (sand)
C15 - C36 < 40 - 197 - < 40 - < 40 - 240 - - -
NA (sandy silt)5
Total hydrocarbons (C7 - C36) < 70 - 197 - < 70 - < 70 - 240 - - - -
Annotations:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Page 6
Sample Date 26/03/2015 26/03/2015 26/03/2015 25/03/2015 25/03/2015 25/03/2015 25/03/2015 25/03/2015 25/03/2015 25/03/2015
Assessment Criteria
Hills Lab Number 1402615.117 1402615.118 1402615.12 1402615.7 1402615.71 1402615.73 1402615.74 1402615.76 1402615.77 1402615.79
Sample Depth (m) 0.5 1.7 0.4 1.5 0.45 1.6 0.5 1.5 0.5 Background Human Health
TP324 0.45 Environmental
Range Assessment
Soil Type Silt Silt Silt Silt Silt Sand Silt Sand Silt Silty gravel Criteria
1
Soil Type used in Assessment Sandy silt Sandy silt Sandy silt Sandy silt Sandy silt Sand Sandy silt Sand Sandy silt Sand
Arsenic 4 10 16 9 4 6 6 3 7 3 5.9 - 16.32 124 70 6
Cadmium < 0.10 0.13 1.1 0.33 < 0.10 0.15 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.07 - 0.21
2
224 1,300
6
Chromium 19 19 28 25 15 17 23 18 18 11 12.7 - 25.42 874 6,300 6

4
Copper 10 14 390 260 10 19 14 8 13 6 10.2 - 252 91 >10,000 6
Lead 25 23 1,410 360 16.8 80 27 22 23 15 25.3 - 128.32 6004 3,300 6
2 4 6
Mercury < 0.10 < 0.10 1.79 0.17 < 0.10 0.16 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.09 - 0.2 24 4,200
Nickel 14 17 21 40 11 12 17 13 17 8 12.3 - 18 2
504 20,000 7
Zinc 80 76 1,560 230 60 115 83 78 72 38 62.6 - 166.82 3604 310,000 7
BTEX (mg/kg)
0.17 (sand) 5 3 (sand)
5,m
Benzene - - - - - - - - - - -
(39) (sand) 5 (94) (sand) 5,m
Toluene - - - - - - - - - - -
5
(50) (sand) (180) (sand) 5,v
Ethylbenzene - - - - - - - - - - -
1.9 (sand)5 (190) (sand) 5
Naphthalene - - < 0.9 10.3 - < 0.7 - - - - -
5
Phenanthrene - - 1 101 - 1.2 - - - - - 50 4 -

NA (sandy)5 NA
Pyrene - - 1.8 178 - 2.3 - - - - - 100 4 5
(sandy silt)
BAP Equivalent (incl. Fluoranthene) - - 2.085 114.06 - 1.86 - - - - - - 356
BAP Equivalent (excl. Fluoranthene) - - 2.066 112.32 - 1.837 - - - - 0.9223 - -
Other Compounds
Carbazole - - < 1.7 8.8 - < 1.3 - - - - - -
Dibenzofuran - - < 1.7 13.7 - < 1.3 - - - - - 1,000 7
All other compounds - - Below Detection Below Detection - Below Detection - - - - - - -
5
120 (sand)
C7 - C9 <8 - < 10 <8 - <8 - <8 - <8 - -
(500) (sandy silt)5
5
(1,500) (sand)
C10 - C14 < 20 - < 20 58 - < 20 - < 20 - < 20 - - 5
5
NA (sand)
C15 - C36 < 40 - 194 3,200 - 98 - < 40 - < 40 - -
NA (sandy silt)5
Total hydrocarbons (C7 - C36) < 70 - 194 3,200 - 98 - < 70 - < 70 - - -
Annotations:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Page 7
Sample Date 25/03/2015 25/03/2015 25/03/2015 25/03/2015 25/03/2015 25/03/2015 25/03/2015 25/03/2015 25/03/2015 25/03/2015
Assessment Criteria
Hills Lab Number 1402615.8 1402615.81 1402615.83 1402615.84 1402615.86 1402615.87 1402615.89 1402615.9 1402615.92 1402615.93
Adopted
Environmental
Range Assessment
Soil Type Silty gravel Silt Sand Silt Sand Silt Silt Sand Sand Silt Criteria
1
Soil Type used in Assessment Sand Sandy silt Sand Sandy silt Sand Sandy silt Sandy silt Sand Sand Sandy silt
Arsenic 13 5 12 4 3 10 11 7 6 6 5.9 - 16.32 124 70 6
Cadmium 0.37 < 0.10 0.5 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.41 0.12 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.07 - 0.21
2
224 1,300
6
Chromium 28 24 22 18 14 22 15 20 24 20 12.7 - 25.42 874 6,300 6

4
Copper 119 18 82 12 10 18 46 17 8 17 10.2 - 252 91 >10,000 6
Lead 540 30 540 22 28 30 230 38 68 28 25.3 - 128.32 6004 3,300 6
2 4 6
Mercury 0.14 < 0.10 0.76 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.4 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.09 - 0.2 24 4,200
Nickel 39 18 14 14 12 18 15 15 14 16 12.3 - 18 2
504 20,000 7
Zinc 250 92 310 69 57 86 310 87 52 86 62.6 - 166.82 3604 310,000 7
BTEX (mg/kg)
0.17 (sand) 5 3 (sand)
5,m
Benzene - - - - - - - - - - -
(39) (sand) 5 (94) (sand) 5,m
Toluene - - - - - - - - - - -
(50) (sand) 5 (180) (sand) 5,v

Ethylbenzene - - - - - - - - - - -
1.9 (sand)5 (190) (sand) 5
Naphthalene 26 - < 0.9 - - - < 0.9 - < 0.7 - -
5
Phenanthrene 108 - < 0.9 - - - < 0.9 - 1 - - 50 4 -

NA (sandy)5 NA
Pyrene 102 - 1.6 - - - 1.1 - 1.9 - - 100 4 5
(sandy silt)
BAP Equivalent (incl. Fluoranthene) 71.56 - 5.273 - - - 2.13 - 2.555 - - - 356
BAP Equivalent (Not incl. Fluoranthene) 70.53 - 5.257 - - - <2.120 - 2.538 - 0.9223 - -
Other Compounds
Carbazole 10.5 - < 1.7 < 1.8 - < 1.3 - - -
Dibenzofuran 20 - < 1.7 < 1.8 - < 1.3 - - 1,000 7
All other compounds Below Detection - Below Detection - - - Below Detection - Below Detection - - - -
5
120 (sand)
C7 - C9 <8 < 11 - < 11 - <9 <8 <8 - <8 - -
(500) (sandy silt)5
5
(1,500) (sand)
C10 - C14 113 < 30 - < 30 - < 20 < 20 58 - < 20 - - 5
5
NA (sand)
C15 - C36 3,400 182 - 110 - < 40 57 3,200 - 98 - -
NA (sandy silt)5
Total hydrocarbons (C7 - C36) 3,500 182 - 110 - < 70 < 70 3,200 - 98 - - -
Annotations:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Page 8
Sample Date 25/03/2015 25/03/2015 25/03/2015 27/03/2015 27/03/2015 27/03/2015 27/03/2015 27/03/2015 27/03/2015 27/03/2015
Assessment Criteria
Sample Name TP337 S1 TP337 S2 TP009 S1 BH338 S1 BH338 S2 BH339 S1 BH339 S2 BH340 S2 BH340 S3 BH341 S2
Hills Lab Number 1402615.95 1402615.96 1402615.98 1402615.121 1402615.122 1402615.124 1402615.125 1402615.128 1402615.129 1402615.132
1.5 - QA/QC of Adopted Human Health
Sample Depth (m) 0.45 1.5 0.2-0.45 1.4-1.5 0.4 1.3 1.0-1.1 1.5-1.6 1.5-1.6 Background
TP333 1.5 Environmental Assessment
Range
Soil Type Sandy silt Silt Silt Sandy gravel Silt Silt Silt Sandy gravel Silt Silt Criteria
1
Soil Type used in Assessment Sandy silt Sandy silt Sandy silt Sand Sandy silt Sandy silt Sandy silt Sand Sandy silt Sandy silt
Arsenic 5 5 4 7 5 4 5 7 5 18 5.9 - 16.32 124 70 6
Cadmium 0.14 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.2 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.07 - 0.21
2
224 1,300
6
Chromium 18 19 18 17 21 20 20 23 18 17 12.7 - 25.42 874 6,300 6

4
Copper 23 15 12 23 16 9 16 12 10 12 10.2 - 252 91 >10,000 6
Lead 125 27 20 112 29 21 22 47 22 22 25.3 - 128.32 6004 3,300 6
Mercury 0.17 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.21 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.1 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.09 - 0.2
2
244 4,200
6
Nickel 16 15 14 9 17 10 15 19 13 14 12.3 - 182

504 20,000 7
4
Zinc 152 79 67 160 89 48 67 104 62 62 62.6 - 166.82 360 310,000 7
BTEX (mg/kg)
0.17 (sand) 5 3 (sand)
5,m
Benzene < 0.05 - - - - - - - - - -
(39) (sand) 5 (94) (sand) 5,m
Toluene < 0.05 - - - - - - - - - -
(50) (sand) 5 (180) (sand)

5,v
Ethylbenzene 0.11 - - - - - - - - - -
m&p-Xylene 0.92 - - - - - - - - - - (24) (sand) 5 (150) (sand) 5,v
o-Xylene 0.25 - - - - - - - - - - 3.7 (sandy silt) 5 (200) (sandy silt) 5,v
1.9 (sand)5 (190) (sand) 5
Naphthalene 1.4 - < 0.8 - - - - < 0.8 - - -
5
Phenanthrene 7.7 - < 0.8 - - - - 1.3 - - - 50 4 -

NA (sandy)5
Pyrene 15.5 - < 0.8 - - - - 3.3 - - - 100 4 5
NA (sandy silt)
- 6
BAP Equivalent (incl. Fluoranthene) 17.757 - <1.773 - - - - 7.752 - - - 35
BAP Equivalent (excl. Fluoranthene) 17.604 - <1.769 - - - - 7.717 - - 0.9223 - -
Other Compounds
Carbazole < 1.2 - < 1.5 - - - - < 1.5 - - - - -
Dibenzofuran < 1.2 - < 1.5 - - - - < 1.5 - - - - 1,000 7
All other compounds Below Detection - Below Detection - - - - Below Detection - - - - -
5
120 (sand)
C7 - C9 - <8 - <8 - <8 - <9 - - - -
(500) (sandy silt)5
5
(1,500) (sand)
C10 - C14 - < 20 - < 20 - < 20 - < 20 - - - - 5
5
NA (sand)
C15 - C36 - < 40 - 2,000 - 240 - 186 - - - -
NA (sandy silt)5
Total hydrocarbons (C7 - C36) - < 70 - 2,000 - 240 - 186 - - - - -
Annotations:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Page 9
Sample Date 17/05/2016 17/05/2016 24/03/2015 17/05/2016 17/05/2016 17/05/2016 17/05/2016 17/05/2016 17/05/2016 17/05/2016 17/05/2016 17/05/2016 24/03/2015 17/05/2016
Assessment Criteria
Sample Name TP401 TP401 TP401 TP402 TP402 TP403 TP403 TP404 TP404 TP405 TP405 TP406 TP406 TP406
Sample Reference 16:056 16:056 16:061 16:056 16:056 16:056 16:056 16:056 16:056 16:056 16:056 16:056 16:062 16:056
Sample Depth (m) 0.5 2.3 (QC 2.3) 0.5 2 0.5 2 0.4 1.8 0.6 1.8 0.5 (QC 0.5) 1.8
Adopted
Hills Lab Number 1585990.1 1585990.2 1585990.34 1585990.3 1585990.4 1585990.5 1585990.6 1585990.7 1585990.8 1585990.9 1585990.1 1585990.11 1585990.35 1585990.12 Background Human Health
Environmental
Soil Type Sandy Silt Sandy Silt Silt Sandy Silt Sandy Silt Sandy Silt Sandy Silt Sandy Silt Sandy Silt Sandy Silt Sandy Silt Sandy Silt Sandy gravel Sandy Silt Range Assessment
Criteria
Soil Type used in Assessment 1 Sand Sand Sandy silt Sand Sand Sand Sand Sand Sand Sand Sand Sand Sand Sand
Arsenic 6 6 6 6 9 8 8 7 4 6 5 6 7 8 5.9 - 16.32 124 70 5
Cadmium 0.17 0.11 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.56 < 0.10 1.22 0.11 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.13 0.1 0.1 0.07 - 0.212 224 1,300 5
Chromium 16 20 21 18 24 18 20 19 18 19 18 20 18 18 12.7 - 25.42 874 6,300 5
Copper 35 17 16 9 19 131 15 47 14 13 12 21 20 16 10.2 - 252 914 >10,000 5
Lead 510 51 28 32 30 590 28 2,100 46 24 23 73 66 25 25.3 - 128.32 6004 3,300 5
Mercury 0.18 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.61 < 0.10 0.74 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.1 < 0.10 0.09 - 0.22 244 4,200 5
Nickel 12 16 18 12 23 14 21 14 16 15 15 15 13 16 12.3 - 182 504 22,000 6
Zinc 340 95 77 67 100 560 87 1,030 88 80 73 140 148 80 62.6 - 166.82 3604 350,000 6
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (mg/kg) Surface Soil
120 (sand)7
C7 - C9 <9 - - <9 - <8 - <8 - < 10 - <9 - - - -
500 (sandy silt)7
6,500 (sand)7
C10 - C14 < 20 - - < 20 - < 20 - < 20 - < 20 - < 20 - - - - 31,000 (sandy
silt)7
NA (sand)7
C15 - C36 120 - - < 40 - 141 - 320 - < 40 - 42 - - - -
NA (sandy silt)7
Total hydrocarbons (C7 - C36) 120 - - < 70 - 141 - 320 - < 70 - < 70 - - - - -
Acenaphthene < 0.5 - - < 0.5 - < 0.5 - < 0.5 - < 0.5 - < 0.5 - - - - -
Acenaphthylene < 0.5 - - < 0.5 - < 0.5 - 0.5 - < 0.5 - < 0.5 - - - - -
Anthracene 0.7 - - < 0.5 - < 0.5 - 0.6 - < 0.5 - < 0.5 - - - 32 4 -
Benzo[a]anthracene 3.7 - - < 0.5 - 1.2 - 3.6 - < 0.5 - 1.2 - - - - -
Benzo[a]pyrene (BAP) 3.6 - - < 0.5 - 1.4 - 3.7 - < 0.5 - 1.2 - - - 724 -
Benzo[b]fluoranthene + Benzo[j]fluoranthene 3.5 - - < 0.5 - 1.5 - 3.9 - < 0.5 - 1.2 - - - - -
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 2.3 - - < 0.5 - 1 - 2.6 - < 0.5 - 0.8 - - - -
Benzo[k]fluoranthene 1.4 - - < 0.5 - 0.6 - 1.4 - < 0.5 - < 0.5 - - - - -
2-Chloronaphthalene < 0.5 - - < 0.5 - < 0.5 - < 0.5 - < 0.5 - < 0.5 - - - - -
Chrysene 3.5 - - < 0.5 - 1.4 - 3.8 - < 0.5 - 1.2 - - - - -
Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene 0.5 - - < 0.5 - < 0.5 - 0.6 - < 0.5 - < 0.5 - - - - -
Fluoranthene 6.4 - - 0.5 - 2.3 - 7.2 - < 0.5 - 2.2 - - - 180 4 -
Fluorene < 0.5 - - < 0.5 - < 0.5 - < 0.5 - < 0.5 - < 0.5 - - - - -
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene 2.3 - - < 0.5 - 1 - 2.6 - < 0.5 - 0.8 - - - - -
2-Methylnaphthalene < 0.5 - - < 0.5 - < 0.5 - < 0.5 - < 0.5 - < 0.5 - - - - -
3.7 (sand)7
53 (sand)7
0.62 190 (sand) 7
Naphthalene < 0.5 - - < 0.5 - < 0.5 - < 0.5 - < 0.5 - < 0.5 - - - 16 (sandy
(sandy 210 (sandy silt)7
silt)7
silt)7
Phenanthrene 1.5 - - < 0.5 - 1 - 2.9 - < 0.5 - 0.7 - - - 50 4 -
Pyrene 7.6 - - 0.6 - 2.7 - 8.2 - < 0.5 - 2.6 - - - 100 4 NA (sandy silt)8
BAP Equivalent (incl. Fluoranthene) 5.309 - - 0.608 - 1.867 - 5.56 - <0.605 - 1.829 - - - 353
BAP Equivalent (excl. Fluoranthene) 5.245 - - 0.603 - 1.844 - 5.488 - <0.603 - 1.807 - 0.9223 - -
Other SVOCs
All Below Detection - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Annotations:
1
2
3
4
5
Guidelines for Assessing and Managing Petroleum Hydrocarbon Contaminated Sites in New Zealand, Ministry for the Environment (MfE), 1999 (Revised 2011). Module 4, Table 4.11 - Tier 1 Soil acceptance criteria for Commercial / Industrial Landuse - All Pathways. Sand and sandy silt soil types have been used.
6
7
8
Guidelines for Assessing and Managing Petroleum Hydrocarbon Contaminated Sites in New Zealand, MfE 1999. Values applicable to 'maintenance/excavation worker' and sand and sandy silt soil type have been used.
Sample Date 17/05/2016 17/05/2016 23/03/2015 23/03/2015 23/03/2015 23/03/2015 24/03/2015 23/03/2015 23/03/2015 24/03/2015 23/03/2015 24/03/2015 24/03/2015 24/03/2015 24/03/2015
Assessment Criteria
Sample Name TP407 TP407 TP408 TP408 TP409 TP409 TP409 TP410 TP410 TP410 TP411 TP411 TP411 TP412 TP412
Sample Reference 16:056 16:056 16:056 16:056 16:056 16:056 16:063 16:056 16:056 16:064 16:056 16:056 16:065 16:056 16:056
Sample Depth (m) 0.5 1.8 0.5 1.8 0.3 0.5 1.8 0.3 0.5 1.9 0.5 0.6 1.9 0.5 1.8
Hills Lab Number 1585990.13 1585990.14 1585990.15 1585990.16 1585990.17 1585990.18 1585990.36 1585990.19 1585990.2 1585990.37 1585990.21 1585990.22 1585990.38 1585990.23 1585990.24 Background Adopted Human Health
Soil Type Silty Sand Silty Sand Silty Sand Silty Sand Silty Sand Silty Sand Silt Silty Sand Silty Sand Sandy gravel Silty Sand Silty Sand Silt Silty Sand Silty Sand Range Environmental Criteria Assessment
Soil Type used in Assessment 1 Sand Sand Sand Sand Sand Sand Sandy silt Sand Sand Sand Sand Sand Sandy silt Sand Sand
Arsenic 5 4 7 <2 5 19 6 4 11 3 6 7 2 3 7 5.9 - 16.32 124 70 5
Cadmium 0.13 < 0.10 0.21 < 0.10 0.26 1.86 < 0.10 0.24 1.25 0.11 0.27 0.36 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.12 0.07 - 0.212 224 1,300 5
Chromium 15 16 17 16 16 24 20 22 34 15 16 16 15 13 19 12.7 - 25.42 874 6,300 5
Copper 14 11 23 10 39 199 16 37 186 13 39 38 12 8 14 10.2 - 252 914 >10,000 5
Lead 59 23 127 21 210 14,600 25 128 1,020 17.2 220 360 152 27 21 25.3 - 128.32 6004 3,300 5
Mercury < 0.10 < 0.10 0.13 < 0.10 0.24 8.1 < 0.10 0.13 13.4 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.14 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.09 - 0.22 244 4,200 5
Nickel 12 14 14 12 12 21 17 20 21 14 15 13 13 10 17 12.3 - 182 504 22,000 6
Zinc 166 66 220 64 250 1,750 79 135 620 127 230 270 151 54 75 62.6 - 166.82 3604 350,000 6
120 (sand)7
C7 - C9 <9 - <9 - - - - - <9 - - - - - - - -
500 (sandy silt)7
6,500 (sand)7
C10 - C14 < 20 - < 20 - - - - - < 20 - - - - - - - - 31,000 (sandy
silt)7
NA (sand)7
C15 - C36 < 40 - < 40 - - - - - 93 - - - - - - - -
NA (sandy silt)7
Total hydrocarbons (C7 - C36) < 70 - < 70 - - - - - 93 - - - - - - - - -
Acenaphthene < 0.5 - < 0.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Acenaphthylene < 0.5 - < 0.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Anthracene < 0.5 - < 0.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 32 4 -
Benzo[a]anthracene < 0.5 - 0.6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Benzo[a]pyrene (BAP) < 0.5 - 0.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 724 -
Benzo[b]fluoranthene + Benzo[j]fluoranthene < 0.5 - 0.6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene < 0.5 - < 0.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Benzo[k]fluoranthene < 0.5 - < 0.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2-Chloronaphthalene < 0.5 - < 0.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Chrysene < 0.5 - 0.6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene < 0.5 - < 0.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Fluoranthene < 0.5 - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 180 4 -
Fluorene < 0.5 - < 0.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene < 0.5 - < 0.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2-Methylnaphthalene < 0.5 - < 0.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
53 (sand)7 3.7 (sand)7

190 (sand) 7
Naphthalene < 0.5 - < 0.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 16 (sandy 0.62 (sandy
210 (sandy silt)7
silt)7 silt)7
Phenanthrene < 0.5 - < 0.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 50 4 -

Pyrene < 0.5 - 1.3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 100 4 NA (sandy silt)8
BAP Equivalent (incl. Fluoranthene) <0.605 - 0.936 - - - - - - - - - - - 353
BAP Equivalent (excl. Fluoranthene) <0.603 - 0.926 - - - - - - - - - 0.9223 - -
Other SVOCs
All Below Detection - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Annotations:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Sample Date 24/03/2015 24/03/2015 24/03/2015 24/03/2015 24/03/2015 24/03/2015 24/03/2015 23/03/2015 24/03/2015 24/03/2015 24/03/2015 24/03/2015
Assessment Criteria
Sample Name TP413 TP413 TP413 TP414 TP414 TP414 TP415 0.3 TP414 TP415 TP416 TP416 TP416
Sample Reference 16:056 16:056 16:066 16:056 16:056 16:067 16:056 16:056 16:068 16:058 16:059 16:060
Sample Depth (m) 0.4 1 1.7 0.4 0.7 1.8 0.3 1.2 (QC 1.2) 0.4 0.6 1.7
Human
Hills Lab Number 1585990.25 1585990.26 1585990.39 1585990.27 1585990.28 1585990.4 1585990.29 1585990.3 1585990.41 1585990.31 1585990.32 1585990.33 Background Adopted
Health
Soil Type Silty Sand Silty Sand Sand Silty Sand Silty Sand Silty Sand Silty Sand Silty Sand Silty Sand Sandy Silt Sandy Silt Silty Sand Range Environmental Criteria
Assessment
Soil Type used in Assessment 1 Sand Sand Sand Sand Sand Sand Sand Sand Sand Sand Sand Sand
Arsenic 6 5 3 3 3 8 5 2 4 4 3 3 5.9 - 16.32 124 70 5
Cadmium < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.13 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.9 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.07 - 0.212 224 1,300 5
Chromium 16 20 15 14 16 22 13 15 17 13 17 17 12.7 - 25.42 874 6,300 5
Copper 11 18 8 16 10 19 8 10 13 9 7 11 10.2 - 252 914 >10,000 5
Lead 21 25 15.3 44 15.3 29 14.6 16.4 18.6 15.5 18.9 18.2 25.3 - 128.32 6004 3,300 5
Mercury 0.1 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.9 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.09 - 0.22 244 4,200 5
Nickel 12 18 14 10 15 19 10 14 15 11 13 14 12.3 - 182 504 22,000 6
Zinc 550 79 59 82 55 95 45 76 73 56 84 62 62.6 - 166.82 3604 350,000 6
120 (sand)7
C7 - C9 < 10 - - <8 - - <8 - - <8 - - - - 500 (sandy
silt)7
6,500 (sand)7
C10 - C14 < 20 - - < 20 - - < 20 - - < 20 - - - - 31,000
(sandy silt)7
NA (sand)7
C15 - C36 < 40 - - < 40 - - < 40 - - < 40 - - - - NA (sandy
silt)7
Total hydrocarbons (C7 - C36) < 70 - - < 70 - - < 70 - - < 70 - - - - -
Acenaphthene < 0.5 - - < 0.5 - - < 0.5 - - < 0.5 - - - - -
Acenaphthylene < 0.5 - - < 0.5 - - < 0.5 - - < 0.5 - - - - -
Anthracene < 0.5 - - < 0.5 - - < 0.5 - - < 0.5 - - - 32 4 -
Benzo[a]anthracene < 0.5 - - 0.6 - - < 0.5 - - < 0.5 - - - - -
Benzo[a]pyrene (BAP) < 0.5 - - < 0.5 - - < 0.5 - - < 0.5 - - - 724 -
Benzo[b]fluoranthene + Benzo[j]fluoranthene < 0.5 - - < 0.5 - - < 0.5 - - < 0.5 - - - - -
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene < 0.5 - - < 0.5 - - < 0.5 - - < 0.5 - - - -
Benzo[k]fluoranthene < 0.5 - - < 0.5 - - < 0.5 - - < 0.5 - - - - -
2-Chloronaphthalene < 0.5 - - < 0.5 - - < 0.5 - - < 0.5 - - - - -
Chrysene < 0.5 - - 0.6 - - < 0.5 - - < 0.5 - - - - -
Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene < 0.5 - - < 0.5 - - < 0.5 - - < 0.5 - - - - -
Fluoranthene < 0.5 - - 0.8 - - < 0.5 - - < 0.5 - - - 180 4 -
Fluorene < 0.5 - - < 0.5 - - < 0.5 - - < 0.5 - - - - -
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene < 0.5 - - < 0.5 - - < 0.5 - - < 0.5 - - - - -
2-Methylnaphthalene < 0.5 - - < 0.5 - - < 0.5 - - < 0.5 - - - - -
53 (sand)7 3.7 (sand)7 190 (sand) 7

Naphthalene < 0.5 - - < 0.5 - - < 0.5 - - < 0.5 - - - 16 (sandy 0.62 (sandy 210 (sandy
silt)7 silt)7 silt)7
Phenanthrene < 0.5 - - < 0.5 - - < 0.5 - - < 0.5 - - - 50 4 -

NA (sandy
Pyrene < 0.5 - - 0.9 - - < 0.5 - - < 0.5 - - - 100 4
silt)8
BAP Equivalent (incl. Fluoranthene) <0.605 - - 0.649 - <0.605 <0.605 - - 353
BAP Equivalent (Not incl. Fluoranthene) <0.603 - - 0.641 - <0.603 <0.603 0.9223 - -
Other SVOCs
All Below Detection - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Annotations:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
ANALYSIS REPORT Page 1 of 17
Client: Beca Limited Lab No: 1301384 SPv1

Contact: Kate Ward Date Registered: 22-Jul-2014
C/- Beca Limited Date Reported: 08-Aug-2014
AUCKLAND 1141 Client Reference: 5394066/050/D200
Submitted By: Kate Ward
Sample Type: Soil

Sample Name: 14:096 MSF 14:096 MSF 14:096 MSF 14:096 MSF 14:096 MSF
TP113 S1 0.5m TP113 S2 1.5m TP114 S1 0.6m TP114 S2 1.5m TP114 S3 2.1m
21-Jul-2014 21-Jul-2014 21-Jul-2014 21-Jul-2014 21-Jul-2014
Lab Number: 1301384.1 1301384.2 1301384.4 1301384.5 1301384.6
Individual Tests
Dry Matter g/100g as rcvd 76 76 79 77 78
Heavy metals, screen As,Cd,Cr,Cu,Ni,Pb,Zn,Hg
Total Recoverable Arsenic mg/kg dry wt 9 15 16 3 5
Total Recoverable Cadmium mg/kg dry wt < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10
Total Recoverable Chromium mg/kg dry wt 19 19 20 15 18
Total Recoverable Copper mg/kg dry wt 12 14 9 11 11
Total Recoverable Lead mg/kg dry wt 37 22 56 16.0 22
Total Recoverable Mercury mg/kg dry wt < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10
Total Recoverable Nickel mg/kg dry wt 14 16 15 13 15
Total Recoverable Zinc mg/kg dry wt 84 70 140 59 73
BTEX in Soil by Headspace GC-MS
Benzene mg/kg dry wt < 0.06 < 0.06 < 0.06 < 0.06 < 0.06
Toluene mg/kg dry wt < 0.06 < 0.06 < 0.06 < 0.06 < 0.06
Ethylbenzene mg/kg dry wt < 0.06 < 0.06 < 0.06 < 0.06 < 0.06
m&p-Xylene mg/kg dry wt < 0.11 < 0.12 < 0.11 < 0.11 < 0.11
o-Xylene mg/kg dry wt < 0.06 < 0.06 < 0.06 < 0.06 < 0.06
Haloethers in SVOC Soil Samples by GC-MS
Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.4 - -
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.4 - -
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.4 - -
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.4 - -
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.4 - -
Nitrogen containing compounds in SVOC Soil Samples by GC-MS
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine mg/kg dry wt - - <7 - -
2,4-Dinitrotoluene mg/kg dry wt - - <3 - -
Nitrobenzene mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.4 - -
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine mg/kg dry wt - - <3 - -
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine mg/kg dry wt - - <3 - -
Organochlorine Pesticides in SVOC Soil Samples by GC-MS
Aldrin mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.4 - -
alpha-BHC mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.4 - -
beta-BHC mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.4 - -
delta-BHC mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.4 - -
gamma-BHC (Lindane) mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.4 - -
4,4'-DDD mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.4 - -
This Laboratory is accredited by International Accreditation New Zealand (IANZ), which represents New Zealand in the International
Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC). Through the ILAC Mutual Recognition Arrangement (ILAC-MRA) this accreditation is
internationally recognised.
The tests reported herein have been performed in accordance with the terms of accreditation, with the exception of tests marked *, which
are not accredited.
Sample Type: Soil
Lab Number: 1301384.1 1301384.2 1301384.4 1301384.5 1301384.6
4,4'-DDE mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.4 - -
4,4'-DDT mg/kg dry wt - - <3 - -
Dieldrin mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.4 - -
Endosulfan I mg/kg dry wt - - <3 - -
Endosulfan II mg/kg dry wt - - <3 - -
Endosulfan sulphate mg/kg dry wt - - <3 - -
Endrin mg/kg dry wt - - <3 - -
Endrin ketone mg/kg dry wt - - <3 - -
Heptachlor mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.4 - -
Heptachlor epoxide mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.4 - -
Hexachlorobenzene mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.4 - -
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in SVOC Soil Samples by GC-MS
Acenaphthene mg/kg dry wt - - < 0.7 - -
Acenaphthylene mg/kg dry wt - - < 0.7 - -
Anthracene mg/kg dry wt - - < 0.7 - -
Benzo[a]anthracene mg/kg dry wt - - < 0.7 - -
Benzo[a]pyrene (BAP) mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.4 - -
Benzo[b]fluoranthene + Benzo[j] mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.4 - -
fluoranthene
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.4 - -
Benzo[k]fluoranthene mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.4 - -
2-Chloronaphthalene mg/kg dry wt - - < 0.7 - -
Chrysene mg/kg dry wt - - < 0.7 - -
Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.4 - -
Fluoranthene mg/kg dry wt - - < 0.7 - -
Fluorene mg/kg dry wt - - < 0.7 - -
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.4 - -
2-Methylnaphthalene mg/kg dry wt - - < 0.7 - -
Naphthalene mg/kg dry wt - - < 0.7 - -
Phenanthrene mg/kg dry wt - - < 0.7 - -
Pyrene mg/kg dry wt - - < 0.7 - -
Phenols in SVOC Soil Samples by GC-MS
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol mg/kg dry wt - - <5 - -
2-Chlorophenol mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.4 - -
2,4-Dichlorophenol mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.4 - -
2,4-Dimethylphenol mg/kg dry wt - - <3 - -
3 & 4-Methylphenol (m- + p- mg/kg dry wt - - <3 - -
cresol)
2-Methylphenol (o-Cresol) mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.4 - -
2-Nitrophenol mg/kg dry wt - - <5 - -
Pentachlorophenol (PCP) mg/kg dry wt - - < 30 - -
Phenol mg/kg dry wt - - <3 - -
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol mg/kg dry wt - - <3 - -
Plasticisers in SVOC Soil Samples by GC-MS
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate mg/kg dry wt - - <6 - -
Butylbenzylphthalate mg/kg dry wt - - <3 - -
Di(2-ethylhexyl)adipate mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.4 - -
Diethylphthalate mg/kg dry wt - - <3 - -
Dimethylphthalate mg/kg dry wt - - <3 - -
Di-n-butylphthalate mg/kg dry wt - - <3 - -
Di-n-octylphthalate mg/kg dry wt - - <3 - -
Other Halogenated compounds in SVOC Soil Samples by GC-MS
1,2-Dichlorobenzene mg/kg dry wt - - <3 - -
Lab No: 1301384 v 1 Hill Laboratories Page 2 of 17

Sample Type: Soil
Lab Number: 1301384.1 1301384.2 1301384.4 1301384.5 1301384.6
Hexachlorobutadiene mg/kg dry wt - - <3 - -
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene mg/kg dry wt - - <7 - -
Hexachloroethane mg/kg dry wt - - <3 - -
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.4 - -
Other compounds in SVOC Soil Samples by GC-MS
Benzyl alcohol mg/kg dry wt - - < 14 - -
Carbazole mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.4 - -
Dibenzofuran mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.4 - -
Isophorone mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.4 - -
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil
C7 - C9 mg/kg dry wt <9 <9 <9 <9 <9
C10 - C14 mg/kg dry wt < 20 < 20 < 20 250 69
C15 - C36 mg/kg dry wt < 40 < 40 < 40 570 260
Total hydrocarbons (C7 - C36) mg/kg dry wt < 70 < 70 < 70 820 320
Lab Number: 1301384.7 1301384.8 1301384.9 1301384.11 1301384.12
Individual Tests
Total Recoverable Cadmium mg/kg dry wt < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.26 < 0.10
Total Recoverable Lead mg/kg dry wt 17.6 18.0 20 260 15.7
Total Recoverable Mercury mg/kg dry wt < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.75 < 0.10
Benzene mg/kg dry wt < 0.06 - - - -
Toluene mg/kg dry wt < 0.06 - - - -
Ethylbenzene mg/kg dry wt < 0.06 - - - -
m&p-Xylene mg/kg dry wt < 0.11 - - - -
o-Xylene mg/kg dry wt < 0.06 - - - -
C7 - C9 mg/kg dry wt <9 <8 < 10 <9 <9
C10 - C14 mg/kg dry wt < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20
C15 - C36 mg/kg dry wt < 40 < 40 < 40 260 < 40
Total hydrocarbons (C7 - C36) mg/kg dry wt < 70 < 70 < 70 260 < 70
Lab Number: 1301384.14 1301384.15 1301384.16 1301384.17 1301384.18
Individual Tests
Total Recoverable Cadmium mg/kg dry wt < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.37
Total Recoverable Lead mg/kg dry wt 41 13.5 46 15.2 630

Sample Type: Soil
Lab Number: 1301384.14 1301384.15 1301384.16 1301384.17 1301384.18
Total Recoverable Mercury mg/kg dry wt < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.53
Benzene mg/kg dry wt - - < 0.05 - -
Toluene mg/kg dry wt - - < 0.05 - -
Ethylbenzene mg/kg dry wt - - < 0.05 - -
m&p-Xylene mg/kg dry wt - - < 0.10 - -
o-Xylene mg/kg dry wt - - < 0.05 - -
C7 - C9 mg/kg dry wt <9 <9 <8 <9 <8
C10 - C14 mg/kg dry wt < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20
C15 - C36 mg/kg dry wt < 40 < 40 < 40 < 40 820
Total hydrocarbons (C7 - C36) mg/kg dry wt < 70 < 70 < 70 < 70 820
Lab Number: 1301384.19 1301384.21 1301384.22 1301384.24 1301384.25
Individual Tests
Total Recoverable Cadmium mg/kg dry wt < 0.10 0.15 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10
Total Recoverable Lead mg/kg dry wt 32 54 12.5 17.9 23
Total Recoverable Mercury mg/kg dry wt < 0.10 0.12 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10
C7 - C9 mg/kg dry wt <8 <9 <9 <8 <9
C10 - C14 mg/kg dry wt < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20
C15 - C36 mg/kg dry wt < 40 < 40 < 40 < 40 < 40
Total hydrocarbons (C7 - C36) mg/kg dry wt < 70 < 70 < 70 < 70 < 70
Lab Number: 1301384.27 1301384.28 1301384.30 1301384.31 1301384.33
Individual Tests
Total Recoverable Lead mg/kg dry wt 17.7 26 19.3 22 29
C7 - C9 mg/kg dry wt <9 <9 <9 <9 <8
C10 - C14 mg/kg dry wt < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20
C15 - C36 mg/kg dry wt < 40 < 40 < 40 < 40 < 40

Sample Type: Soil
Lab Number: 1301384.34 1301384.36 1301384.37 1301384.38 1301384.39
Individual Tests
Total Recoverable Lead mg/kg dry wt 24 89 21 29 13.3
C7 - C9 mg/kg dry wt <9 < 10 < 10 <9 <9
C10 - C14 mg/kg dry wt < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20
C15 - C36 mg/kg dry wt < 40 1,060 61 < 40 < 40
Total hydrocarbons (C7 - C36) mg/kg dry wt < 70 1,060 < 70 < 70 < 70
Lab Number: 1301384.40 1301384.42 1301384.43 1301384.45 1301384.46
Individual Tests
Total Recoverable Lead mg/kg dry wt 15.3 650 26 34 26
Total Recoverable Mercury mg/kg dry wt < 0.10 0.51 < 0.10 0.15 < 0.10
Polychlorinated Biphenyls Screening in Soil
PCB-18 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-28 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-31 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-44 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-49 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-52 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-60 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-77 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-81 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-86 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-101 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-105 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-110 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-114 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-118 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-121 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-123 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-126 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-128 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-138 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-141 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-149 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-151 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -

Sample Type: Soil
Lab Number: 1301384.40 1301384.42 1301384.43 1301384.45 1301384.46
PCB-153 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-156 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-157 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-159 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-167 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-169 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-170 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-180 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-189 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-194 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-206 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-209 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
Total PCB (Sum of 35 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.4 -
congeners)
Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.4 -
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.4 -
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.4 -
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.4 -
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.4 -
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine mg/kg dry wt - - - <7 -
2,4-Dinitrotoluene mg/kg dry wt - - - <3 -
Nitrobenzene mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.4 -
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine mg/kg dry wt - - - <3 -
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine mg/kg dry wt - - - <3 -
Aldrin mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.4 -
alpha-BHC mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.4 -
beta-BHC mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.4 -
delta-BHC mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.4 -
gamma-BHC (Lindane) mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.4 -
4,4'-DDD mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.4 -
4,4'-DDE mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.4 -
4,4'-DDT mg/kg dry wt - - - <3 -
Dieldrin mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.4 -
Endosulfan I mg/kg dry wt - - - <3 -
Endosulfan II mg/kg dry wt - - - <3 -
Endosulfan sulphate mg/kg dry wt - - - <3 -
Endrin mg/kg dry wt - - - <3 -
Endrin ketone mg/kg dry wt - - - <3 -
Heptachlor mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.4 -
Heptachlor epoxide mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.4 -
Hexachlorobenzene mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.4 -
Acenaphthene mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.7 -
Acenaphthylene mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.7 -
Anthracene mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.7 -
Benzo[a]anthracene mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.7 -
Benzo[a]pyrene (BAP) mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.4 -
Benzo[b]fluoranthene + Benzo[j] mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.4 -
fluoranthene
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.4 -

Sample Type: Soil
Lab Number: 1301384.40 1301384.42 1301384.43 1301384.45 1301384.46
Benzo[k]fluoranthene mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.4 -
2-Chloronaphthalene mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.7 -
Chrysene mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.7 -
Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.4 -
Fluoranthene mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.7 -
Fluorene mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.7 -
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.4 -
2-Methylnaphthalene mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.7 -
Naphthalene mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.7 -
Phenanthrene mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.7 -
Pyrene mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.7 -
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol mg/kg dry wt - - - <5 -
2-Chlorophenol mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.4 -
2,4-Dichlorophenol mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.4 -
2,4-Dimethylphenol mg/kg dry wt - - - <3 -
3 & 4-Methylphenol (m- + p- mg/kg dry wt - - - <3 -
cresol)
2-Methylphenol (o-Cresol) mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.4 -
2-Nitrophenol mg/kg dry wt - - - <5 -
Pentachlorophenol (PCP) mg/kg dry wt - - - < 30 -
Phenol mg/kg dry wt - - - <3 -
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol mg/kg dry wt - - - <3 -
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate mg/kg dry wt - - - <6 -
Butylbenzylphthalate mg/kg dry wt - - - <3 -
Di(2-ethylhexyl)adipate mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.4 -
Diethylphthalate mg/kg dry wt - - - <3 -
Dimethylphthalate mg/kg dry wt - - - <3 -
Di-n-butylphthalate mg/kg dry wt - - - <3 -
Di-n-octylphthalate mg/kg dry wt - - - <3 -
1,2-Dichlorobenzene mg/kg dry wt - - - <3 -
Hexachlorobutadiene mg/kg dry wt - - - <3 -
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene mg/kg dry wt - - - <7 -
Hexachloroethane mg/kg dry wt - - - <3 -
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.4 -
Benzyl alcohol mg/kg dry wt - - - < 14 -
Carbazole mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.4 -
Dibenzofuran mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.4 -
Isophorone mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.4 -
C7 - C9 mg/kg dry wt <9 <9 < 10 <9 <9
C10 - C14 mg/kg dry wt < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20
C15 - C36 mg/kg dry wt < 40 270 < 40 < 40 < 40
Total hydrocarbons (C7 - C36) mg/kg dry wt < 70 270 < 70 < 70 < 70
Lab Number: 1301384.48 1301384.49 1301384.50 1301384.51 1301384.52

Sample Type: Soil
Lab Number: 1301384.48 1301384.49 1301384.50 1301384.51 1301384.52
Individual Tests
Total Recoverable Lead mg/kg dry wt 15.4 26 32 61 27
Benzene mg/kg dry wt < 0.06 < 0.06 < 0.05 - -
Toluene mg/kg dry wt < 0.06 < 0.06 < 0.05 - -
Ethylbenzene mg/kg dry wt < 0.06 < 0.06 < 0.05 - -
m&p-Xylene mg/kg dry wt < 0.11 < 0.12 < 0.10 - -
o-Xylene mg/kg dry wt < 0.06 < 0.06 < 0.05 - -
C7 - C9 mg/kg dry wt <9 <9 <8 <8 <9
C10 - C14 mg/kg dry wt < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20
C15 - C36 mg/kg dry wt < 40 < 40 < 40 240 < 40
Total hydrocarbons (C7 - C36) mg/kg dry wt < 70 < 70 < 70 240 < 70
Lab Number: 1301384.54 1301384.55 1301384.57 1301384.58 1301384.60
Individual Tests
Total Recoverable Cadmium mg/kg dry wt 0.17 < 0.10 0.13 < 0.10 0.23
Total Recoverable Lead mg/kg dry wt 174 31 450 40 102
Total Recoverable Mercury mg/kg dry wt 0.22 < 0.10 3.8 < 0.10 0.33
C7 - C9 mg/kg dry wt <8 <9 <8 <9 <8
C10 - C14 mg/kg dry wt < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20
C15 - C36 mg/kg dry wt 620 < 40 48 < 40 76
Total hydrocarbons (C7 - C36) mg/kg dry wt 620 < 70 < 70 < 70 76
Lab Number: 1301384.61 1301384.62 1301384.64 1301384.65 1301384.67
Individual Tests
Total Recoverable Cadmium mg/kg dry wt 0.45 0.12 0.13 0.15 < 0.10
Total Recoverable Mercury mg/kg dry wt 0.21 0.12 0.68 0.26 < 0.10

Sample Type: Soil
Lab Number: 1301384.61 1301384.62 1301384.64 1301384.65 1301384.67
Benzene mg/kg dry wt - - - - < 0.05
Toluene mg/kg dry wt - - - - < 0.05
Ethylbenzene mg/kg dry wt - - - - < 0.05
m&p-Xylene mg/kg dry wt - - - - < 0.10
o-Xylene mg/kg dry wt - - - - < 0.05
Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane mg/kg dry wt - - - - < 1.2
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether mg/kg dry wt - - - - < 1.2
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether mg/kg dry wt - - - - < 1.2
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether mg/kg dry wt - - - - < 1.2
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether mg/kg dry wt - - - - < 1.2
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine mg/kg dry wt - - - - <6
2,4-Dinitrotoluene mg/kg dry wt - - - - <3
2,6-Dinitrotoluene mg/kg dry wt - - - - <3
Nitrobenzene mg/kg dry wt - - - - < 1.2
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine mg/kg dry wt - - - - <3
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine mg/kg dry wt - - - - <3
Aldrin mg/kg dry wt - - - - < 1.2
alpha-BHC mg/kg dry wt - - - - < 1.2
beta-BHC mg/kg dry wt - - - - < 1.2
delta-BHC mg/kg dry wt - - - - < 1.2
gamma-BHC (Lindane) mg/kg dry wt - - - - < 1.2
4,4'-DDD mg/kg dry wt - - - - < 1.2
4,4'-DDE mg/kg dry wt - - - - < 1.2
4,4'-DDT mg/kg dry wt - - - - <3
Dieldrin mg/kg dry wt - - - - < 1.2
Endosulfan I mg/kg dry wt - - - - <3
Endosulfan II mg/kg dry wt - - - - <3
Endosulfan sulphate mg/kg dry wt - - - - <3
Endrin mg/kg dry wt - - - - <3
Endrin ketone mg/kg dry wt - - - - <3
Heptachlor mg/kg dry wt - - - - < 1.2
Heptachlor epoxide mg/kg dry wt - - - - < 1.2
Hexachlorobenzene mg/kg dry wt - - - - < 1.2
Acenaphthene mg/kg dry wt - - - - < 0.6
Acenaphthylene mg/kg dry wt - - - - < 0.6
Anthracene mg/kg dry wt - - - - 1.2
Benzo[a]anthracene mg/kg dry wt - - - - 3.7
Benzo[a]pyrene (BAP) mg/kg dry wt - - - - 4.4
Benzo[b]fluoranthene + Benzo[j] mg/kg dry wt - - - - 4.5
fluoranthene
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene mg/kg dry wt - - - - 3.2
Benzo[k]fluoranthene mg/kg dry wt - - - - 1.9
2-Chloronaphthalene mg/kg dry wt - - - - < 0.6
Chrysene mg/kg dry wt - - - - 3.5
Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene mg/kg dry wt - - - - < 1.2
Fluoranthene mg/kg dry wt - - - - 7.9
Fluorene mg/kg dry wt - - - - < 0.6

Sample Type: Soil
Lab Number: 1301384.61 1301384.62 1301384.64 1301384.65 1301384.67
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene mg/kg dry wt - - - - 2.5
2-Methylnaphthalene mg/kg dry wt - - - - < 0.6
Naphthalene mg/kg dry wt - - - - < 0.6
Phenanthrene mg/kg dry wt - - - - 4.4
Pyrene mg/kg dry wt - - - - 5.6
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol mg/kg dry wt - - - - <5
2-Chlorophenol mg/kg dry wt - - - - < 1.2
2,4-Dichlorophenol mg/kg dry wt - - - - < 1.2
2,4-Dimethylphenol mg/kg dry wt - - - - <3
3 & 4-Methylphenol (m- + p- mg/kg dry wt - - - - <3
cresol)
2-Methylphenol (o-Cresol) mg/kg dry wt - - - - < 1.2
2-Nitrophenol mg/kg dry wt - - - - <5
Pentachlorophenol (PCP) mg/kg dry wt - - - - < 30
Phenol mg/kg dry wt - - - - <3
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol mg/kg dry wt - - - - <3
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol mg/kg dry wt - - - - <3
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate mg/kg dry wt - - - - <5
Butylbenzylphthalate mg/kg dry wt - - - - <3
Di(2-ethylhexyl)adipate mg/kg dry wt - - - - < 1.2
Diethylphthalate mg/kg dry wt - - - - <3
Dimethylphthalate mg/kg dry wt - - - - <3
Di-n-butylphthalate mg/kg dry wt - - - - <3
Di-n-octylphthalate mg/kg dry wt - - - - <3
1,2-Dichlorobenzene mg/kg dry wt - - - - <3
Hexachlorobutadiene mg/kg dry wt - - - - <3
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene mg/kg dry wt - - - - <6
Hexachloroethane mg/kg dry wt - - - - <3
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene mg/kg dry wt - - - - < 1.2
Benzyl alcohol mg/kg dry wt - - - - < 12
Carbazole mg/kg dry wt - - - - < 1.2
Dibenzofuran mg/kg dry wt - - - - < 1.2
Isophorone mg/kg dry wt - - - - < 1.2
C7 - C9 mg/kg dry wt <8 <8 <8 <8 <8
C10 - C14 mg/kg dry wt < 20 < 20 < 20 25 < 20
C15 - C36 mg/kg dry wt 310 < 40 110 560 101
Total hydrocarbons (C7 - C36) mg/kg dry wt 310 < 70 110 580 101
Lab Number: 1301384.68 1301384.69 1301384.71 1301384.72 1301384.74
Individual Tests
Total Recoverable Cadmium mg/kg dry wt < 0.10 < 0.10 0.26 0.13 0.26

Sample Type: Soil
Lab Number: 1301384.68 1301384.69 1301384.71 1301384.72 1301384.74
Total Recoverable Lead mg/kg dry wt 155 32 160 25 4,300
Total Recoverable Mercury mg/kg dry wt 0.67 < 0.10 0.16 < 0.10 < 0.10
Benzene mg/kg dry wt < 0.07 - < 0.05 < 0.05 -
Toluene mg/kg dry wt < 0.07 - < 0.05 < 0.05 -
Ethylbenzene mg/kg dry wt < 0.07 - < 0.05 < 0.05 -
m&p-Xylene mg/kg dry wt < 0.13 - < 0.10 < 0.10 -
o-Xylene mg/kg dry wt < 0.07 - < 0.05 < 0.05 -
Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane mg/kg dry wt < 1.5 - < 1.3 < 1.4 -
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether mg/kg dry wt < 1.5 - < 1.3 < 1.4 -
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether mg/kg dry wt < 1.5 - < 1.3 < 1.4 -
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether mg/kg dry wt < 1.5 - < 1.3 < 1.4 -
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether mg/kg dry wt < 1.5 - < 1.3 < 1.4 -
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine mg/kg dry wt <8 - <7 <7 -
2,4-Dinitrotoluene mg/kg dry wt <3 - <3 <3 -
2,6-Dinitrotoluene mg/kg dry wt <3 - <3 <3 -
Nitrobenzene mg/kg dry wt < 1.5 - < 1.3 < 1.4 -
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine mg/kg dry wt <3 - <3 <3 -
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine mg/kg dry wt <3 - <3 <3 -
Aldrin mg/kg dry wt < 1.5 - < 1.3 < 1.4 -
alpha-BHC mg/kg dry wt < 1.5 - < 1.3 < 1.4 -
beta-BHC mg/kg dry wt < 1.5 - < 1.3 < 1.4 -
delta-BHC mg/kg dry wt < 1.5 - < 1.3 < 1.4 -
gamma-BHC (Lindane) mg/kg dry wt < 1.5 - < 1.3 < 1.4 -
4,4'-DDD mg/kg dry wt < 1.5 - < 1.3 < 1.4 -
4,4'-DDE mg/kg dry wt < 1.5 - < 1.3 < 1.4 -
4,4'-DDT mg/kg dry wt <3 - <3 <3 -
Dieldrin mg/kg dry wt < 1.5 - < 1.3 < 1.4 -
Endosulfan I mg/kg dry wt <3 - <3 <3 -
Endosulfan II mg/kg dry wt <3 - <3 <3 -
Endosulfan sulphate mg/kg dry wt <3 - <3 <3 -
Endrin mg/kg dry wt <3 - <3 <3 -
Endrin ketone mg/kg dry wt <3 - <3 <3 -
Heptachlor mg/kg dry wt < 1.5 - < 1.3 < 1.4 -
Heptachlor epoxide mg/kg dry wt < 1.5 - < 1.3 < 1.4 -
Hexachlorobenzene mg/kg dry wt < 1.5 - < 1.3 < 1.4 -
Acenaphthene mg/kg dry wt < 0.8 - 3.4 < 0.7 -
Acenaphthylene mg/kg dry wt < 0.8 - 0.6 < 0.7 -
Anthracene mg/kg dry wt < 0.8 - 8.0 < 0.7 -
Benzo[a]anthracene mg/kg dry wt < 0.8 - 8.0 < 0.7 -
Benzo[a]pyrene (BAP) mg/kg dry wt < 1.5 - 7.9 < 1.4 -
Benzo[b]fluoranthene + Benzo[j] mg/kg dry wt < 1.5 - 7.9 < 1.4 -
fluoranthene
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene mg/kg dry wt < 1.5 - 4.9 < 1.4 -
Benzo[k]fluoranthene mg/kg dry wt < 1.5 - 3.2 < 1.4 -
2-Chloronaphthalene mg/kg dry wt < 0.8 - < 0.7 < 0.7 -
Chrysene mg/kg dry wt < 0.8 - 6.1 < 0.7 -

Sample Type: Soil
Lab Number: 1301384.68 1301384.69 1301384.71 1301384.72 1301384.74
Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene mg/kg dry wt < 1.5 - < 1.3 < 1.4 -
Fluoranthene mg/kg dry wt < 0.8 - 24 < 0.7 -
Fluorene mg/kg dry wt < 0.8 - 5.0 < 0.7 -
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene mg/kg dry wt < 1.5 - 3.3 < 1.4 -
2-Methylnaphthalene mg/kg dry wt < 0.8 - 1.1 < 0.7 -
Naphthalene mg/kg dry wt < 0.8 - 3.7 < 0.7 -
Phenanthrene mg/kg dry wt < 0.8 - 28 < 0.7 -
Pyrene mg/kg dry wt < 0.8 - 19.0 < 0.7 -
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol mg/kg dry wt <5 - <5 <5 -
2-Chlorophenol mg/kg dry wt < 1.5 - < 1.3 < 1.4 -
2,4-Dichlorophenol mg/kg dry wt < 1.5 - < 1.3 < 1.4 -
2,4-Dimethylphenol mg/kg dry wt <3 - <3 <3 -
3 & 4-Methylphenol (m- + p- mg/kg dry wt <3 - <3 <3 -
cresol)
2-Methylphenol (o-Cresol) mg/kg dry wt < 1.5 - < 1.3 < 1.4 -
2-Nitrophenol mg/kg dry wt <5 - <5 <5 -
Pentachlorophenol (PCP) mg/kg dry wt < 30 - < 30 < 30 -
Phenol mg/kg dry wt <3 - <3 <3 -
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol mg/kg dry wt <3 - <3 <3 -
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol mg/kg dry wt <3 - <3 <3 -
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate mg/kg dry wt <6 - <5 <6 -
Butylbenzylphthalate mg/kg dry wt <3 - <3 <3 -
Di(2-ethylhexyl)adipate mg/kg dry wt < 1.5 - < 1.3 < 1.4 -
Diethylphthalate mg/kg dry wt <3 - <3 <3 -
Dimethylphthalate mg/kg dry wt <3 - <3 <3 -
Di-n-butylphthalate mg/kg dry wt <3 - <3 <3 -
Di-n-octylphthalate mg/kg dry wt <3 - <3 <3 -
1,2-Dichlorobenzene mg/kg dry wt <3 - <3 <3 -
Hexachlorobutadiene mg/kg dry wt <3 - <3 <3 -
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene mg/kg dry wt <8 - <7 <7 -
Hexachloroethane mg/kg dry wt <3 - <3 <3 -
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene mg/kg dry wt < 1.5 - < 1.3 < 1.4 -
Benzyl alcohol mg/kg dry wt < 15 - < 13 < 14 -
Carbazole mg/kg dry wt < 1.5 - 2.5 < 1.4 -
Dibenzofuran mg/kg dry wt < 1.5 - 4.2 < 1.4 -
Isophorone mg/kg dry wt < 1.5 - < 1.3 < 1.4 -
C7 - C9 mg/kg dry wt <9 <8 <8 <9 <8
C10 - C14 mg/kg dry wt < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20
C15 - C36 mg/kg dry wt < 40 < 40 450 < 40 < 40
Total hydrocarbons (C7 - C36) mg/kg dry wt < 70 < 70 450 < 70 < 70
Lab Number: 1301384.75 1301384.77 1301384.78 1301384.79 1301384.80
Individual Tests

Sample Type: Soil
Lab Number: 1301384.75 1301384.77 1301384.78 1301384.79 1301384.80
Total Recoverable Cadmium mg/kg dry wt < 0.10 0.20 0.21 < 0.10 < 0.10
Total Recoverable Lead mg/kg dry wt 39 7,900 85 13.1 24
Total Recoverable Zinc mg/kg dry wt 100 2,600 138 41 77
Benzene mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.05 -
Toluene mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.05 -
Ethylbenzene mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.05 -
m&p-Xylene mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.10 -
o-Xylene mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.05 -
PCB-18 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-28 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-31 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-44 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-49 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-52 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-60 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-77 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-81 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-86 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-101 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-105 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-110 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-114 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-118 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-121 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-123 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-126 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-128 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-138 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-141 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-149 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-151 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-153 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-156 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-157 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-159 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-167 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-169 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-170 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-180 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-189 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-194 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-206 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
PCB-209 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.010 -
Total PCB (Sum of 35 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.4 -
congeners)

Sample Type: Soil
Lab Number: 1301384.75 1301384.77 1301384.78 1301384.79 1301384.80
4,4'-DDD mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.2 -
4,4'-DDE mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.2 -
4,4'-DDT mg/kg dry wt - - - <3 -
fluoranthene
Pyrene mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.6 -

Sample Type: Soil
Lab Number: 1301384.75 1301384.77 1301384.78 1301384.79 1301384.80
cresol)
C7 - C9 mg/kg dry wt <9 <8 <8 <8 <9
C10 - C14 mg/kg dry wt < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20
C15 - C36 mg/kg dry wt < 40 300 90 < 40 < 40
Total hydrocarbons (C7 - C36) mg/kg dry wt < 70 300 90 < 70 < 70
Analyst's Comments
Appendix No.1 - Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Chromatograms
SUMMARY OF METHODS
Sample Type: Soil


Sample Type: Soil
Preparation Used for sample preparation. 11-12,
21-22,
24-25,
27-28,
30-31,
33-34,
36-40,
42-43,
45-46,
48-52,
54-55,
57-58,
60-62,
64-65,
67-69,
71-72,
74-75,
77-80
Heavy metals, screen Dried sample, <2mm fraction. Nitric/Hydrochloric acid digestion, 0.10 - 4 mg/kg dry wt 1-2, 4-9,
As,Cd,Cr,Cu,Ni,Pb,Zn,Hg ICP-MS, screen level. 11-12,
14-19,
21-22,
24-25,
27-28,
30-31,
33-34,
36-40,
42-43,
45-46,
48-52,
54-55,
57-58,
60-62,
64-65,
67-69,
71-72,
74-75,
77-80
BTEX in Soil by Headspace GC-MS Solvent extraction, Headspace GC-MS analysis 0.05 - 0.10 mg/kg dry wt 1-2, 4-7, 16,
US EPA 8260B. Tested on as received sample 48-50,
[KBIs:5782,26687,3629] 67-68,
71-72, 79
Polychlorinated Biphenyls Screening in Sonication extraction, SPE cleanup, GC-MS analysis. Tested on 0.005 - 0.2 mg/kg dry wt 45, 79
Soil dried sample
Semivolatile Organic Compounds Sonication extraction, GPC cleanup (if required), GC-MS FS 0.3 - 30 mg/kg dry wt 4, 45,
Screening in Soil by GC-MS analysis. Tested on as received sample 67-68,
71-72, 79
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil Sonication extraction in DCM, Silica cleanup, GC-FID analysis 8 - 60 mg/kg dry wt 1-2, 4-9,
US EPA 8015B/MfE Petroleum Industry Guidelines. Tested on 11-12,
as received sample 14-19,
[KBIs:5786,2805,10734] 21-22,
24-25,
27-28,
30-31,
33-34,
36-40,
42-43,
45-46,
48-52,
54-55,
57-58,
60-62,
64-65,
67-69,
71-72,
74-75,
77-80

Sample Type: Soil
dry) , gravimetry. US EPA 3550. (Free water removed before 11-12,
analysis). 14-19,
21-22,
24-25,
27-28,
30-31,
33-34,
36-40,
42-43,
45-46,
48-52,
54-55,
57-58,
60-62,
64-65,
67-69,
71-72,
74-75,
77-80
11-12,
14-19,
21-22,
24-25,
27-28,
30-31,
33-34,
36-40,
42-43,
45-46,
48-52,
54-55,
57-58,
60-62,
64-65,
67-69,
71-72,
74-75,
77-80
These samples were collected by yourselves (or your agent) and analysed as received at the laboratory.
Samples are held at the laboratory after reporting for a length of time depending on the preservation used and the stability of
the analytes being tested. Once the storage period is completed the samples are discarded unless otherwise advised by the
client.
This report must not be reproduced, except in full, without the written consent of the signatory.
Ara Heron BSc (Tech)

Client Services Manager - Environmental Division

Appendix No.1 - Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Chromatograms - Page 1 of 1
Sample : 1301384.5
Sample : 1301384.6
Sample : 1301384.11
C7 C10 C15 C20 C25 C30 C34 C44

Sample : 1301384.18
Sample : 1301384.36
Sample : 1301384.37
C7 C10 C15 C20 C25 C30 C34 C44

Sample : 1301384.42
Sample : 1301384.51
Sample : 1301384.54
C7 C10 C15 C20 C25 C30 C34 C44

Sample : 1301384.57
Sample : 1301384.60
Sample : 1301384.61
C7 C10 C15 C20 C25 C30 C34 C44

Sample : 1301384.64
Sample : 1301384.65
Sample : 1301384.67
C7 C10 C15 C20 C25 C30 C34 C44

Sample : 1301384.71
Sample : 1301384.77
Sample : 1301384.78
C7 C10 C15 C20 C25 C30 C34 C44


Contact: P Ware Date Registered: 04-Nov-2014
C/- Beca Limited Date Reported: 24-Nov-2014
AUCKLAND 1141 Client Reference: 5394066-050-D200
Submitted By: C Blyth
Sample Type: Soil

Sample Name: 14:120: MTP201 14:120: MTP201 14:120: MTP202 14:120: MTP202 14:120: MTP203
S1 03-Nov-2014 S2 03-Nov-2014 S1 03-Nov-2014 S2 03-Nov-2014 S1 03-Nov-2014
10:10 am 10:12 am 10:30 am 10:45 am 11:05 am
Lab Number: 1346648.1 1346648.2 1346648.4 1346648.5 1346648.7
Individual Tests
Total Recoverable Arsenic mg/kg dry wt <2 <2 7 2 8
Total Recoverable Cadmium mg/kg dry wt < 0.10 < 0.10 0.12 < 0.10 0.38
Total Recoverable Lead mg/kg dry wt 13.8 11.0 98 16.1 460
Total Recoverable Mercury mg/kg dry wt < 0.10 < 0.10 0.21 < 0.10 0.28
Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane mg/kg dry wt < 1.3 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.3
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether mg/kg dry wt < 1.3 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.3
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether mg/kg dry wt < 1.3 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.3
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether mg/kg dry wt < 1.3 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.3
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether mg/kg dry wt < 1.3 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.3
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine mg/kg dry wt <7 <7 <7 <7 <7
2,4-Dinitrotoluene mg/kg dry wt <3 <3 <3 <3 <3
Nitrobenzene mg/kg dry wt < 1.3 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.3
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine mg/kg dry wt <3 <3 <3 <3 <3
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine mg/kg dry wt <3 <3 <3 <3 <3
Aldrin mg/kg dry wt < 1.3 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.3
alpha-BHC mg/kg dry wt < 1.3 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.3
beta-BHC mg/kg dry wt < 1.3 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.3
delta-BHC mg/kg dry wt < 1.3 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.3
gamma-BHC (Lindane) mg/kg dry wt < 1.3 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.3
4,4'-DDD mg/kg dry wt < 1.3 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.3
are not accredited.
Sample Type: Soil
10:10 am 10:12 am 10:30 am 10:45 am 11:05 am
Lab Number: 1346648.1 1346648.2 1346648.4 1346648.5 1346648.7
4,4'-DDE mg/kg dry wt < 1.3 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.3
4,4'-DDT mg/kg dry wt <3 <3 <3 <3 <3
Dieldrin mg/kg dry wt < 1.3 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.3
Endosulfan I mg/kg dry wt <3 <3 <3 <3 <3
Endosulfan II mg/kg dry wt <3 <3 <3 <3 <3
Endosulfan sulphate mg/kg dry wt <3 <3 <3 <3 <3
Endrin mg/kg dry wt <3 <3 <3 <3 <3
Endrin ketone mg/kg dry wt <3 <3 <3 <3 <3
Heptachlor mg/kg dry wt < 1.3 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.3
Heptachlor epoxide mg/kg dry wt < 1.3 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.3
Hexachlorobenzene mg/kg dry wt < 1.3 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.3
Acenaphthene mg/kg dry wt < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7
Acenaphthylene mg/kg dry wt < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7
Anthracene mg/kg dry wt < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7
Benzo[a]anthracene mg/kg dry wt < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7 1.0
Benzo[a]pyrene (BAP) mg/kg dry wt < 1.3 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.3
Benzo[b]fluoranthene + Benzo[j] mg/kg dry wt < 1.3 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 1.5
fluoranthene
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene mg/kg dry wt < 1.3 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.3
Benzo[k]fluoranthene mg/kg dry wt < 1.3 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.3
2-Chloronaphthalene mg/kg dry wt < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7
Chrysene mg/kg dry wt < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7 1.0
Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene mg/kg dry wt < 1.3 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.3
Fluoranthene mg/kg dry wt < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7 2.2
Fluorene mg/kg dry wt < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene mg/kg dry wt < 1.3 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.3
2-Methylnaphthalene mg/kg dry wt < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7
Naphthalene mg/kg dry wt < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7
Phenanthrene mg/kg dry wt < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7 0.9
Pyrene mg/kg dry wt < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7 2.2
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol mg/kg dry wt <5 <5 <5 <5 <5
2-Chlorophenol mg/kg dry wt < 1.3 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.3
2,4-Dichlorophenol mg/kg dry wt < 1.3 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.3
2,4-Dimethylphenol mg/kg dry wt <3 <3 <3 <3 <3
3 & 4-Methylphenol (m- + p- mg/kg dry wt <3 <3 <3 <3 <3
cresol)
2-Methylphenol (o-Cresol) mg/kg dry wt < 1.3 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.3
2-Nitrophenol mg/kg dry wt <5 <5 <5 <5 <5
Pentachlorophenol (PCP) mg/kg dry wt < 30 < 30 < 30 < 30 < 30
Phenol mg/kg dry wt <3 <3 <3 <3 <3
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol mg/kg dry wt <3 <3 <3 <3 <3
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate mg/kg dry wt <5 <6 <6 <6 <6
Butylbenzylphthalate mg/kg dry wt <3 <3 <3 <3 <3
Di(2-ethylhexyl)adipate mg/kg dry wt < 1.3 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.3
Diethylphthalate mg/kg dry wt <3 <3 <3 <3 <3
Dimethylphthalate mg/kg dry wt <3 <3 <3 <3 <3
Di-n-butylphthalate mg/kg dry wt <3 <3 <3 <3 <3
Di-n-octylphthalate mg/kg dry wt <3 <3 <3 <3 <3
1,2-Dichlorobenzene mg/kg dry wt <3 <3 <3 <3 <3

Sample Type: Soil
10:10 am 10:12 am 10:30 am 10:45 am 11:05 am
Lab Number: 1346648.1 1346648.2 1346648.4 1346648.5 1346648.7
Hexachlorobutadiene mg/kg dry wt <3 <3 <3 <3 <3
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene mg/kg dry wt <7 <7 <7 <7 <7
Hexachloroethane mg/kg dry wt <3 <3 <3 <3 <3
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene mg/kg dry wt < 1.3 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.3
Benzyl alcohol mg/kg dry wt < 13 < 14 < 14 < 14 < 13
Carbazole mg/kg dry wt < 1.3 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.3
Dibenzofuran mg/kg dry wt < 1.3 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.3
Isophorone mg/kg dry wt < 1.3 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.3
C7 - C9 mg/kg dry wt <8 <9 <9 <8 <8
C10 - C14 mg/kg dry wt < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20
C15 - C36 mg/kg dry wt < 40 < 40 < 40 < 40 54
11:10 am 11:45 am 11:50 am 1:00 pm 1:05 pm
Lab Number: 1346648.8 1346648.10 1346648.11 1346648.13 1346648.14
Individual Tests
Total Recoverable Cadmium mg/kg dry wt 0.20 0.41 < 0.10 0.39 < 0.10
Total Recoverable Lead mg/kg dry wt 330 1,000 30 186 28
Total Recoverable Mercury mg/kg dry wt 0.23 0.91 < 0.10 0.11 < 0.10
Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine mg/kg dry wt <7 <7 <7 <7 <7
Nitrobenzene mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine mg/kg dry wt <3 <3 <3 <3 <3
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine mg/kg dry wt <3 <3 <3 <3 <3
Aldrin mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4
alpha-BHC mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4
beta-BHC mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4

Sample Type: Soil
11:10 am 11:45 am 11:50 am 1:00 pm 1:05 pm
Lab Number: 1346648.8 1346648.10 1346648.11 1346648.13 1346648.14
delta-BHC mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4
gamma-BHC (Lindane) mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4
4,4'-DDD mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4
4,4'-DDE mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4
4,4'-DDT mg/kg dry wt <3 <3 <3 <3 <3
Dieldrin mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4
Endosulfan I mg/kg dry wt <3 <3 <3 <3 <3
Endosulfan II mg/kg dry wt <3 <3 <3 <3 <3
Endosulfan sulphate mg/kg dry wt <3 <3 <3 <3 <3
Endrin mg/kg dry wt <3 <3 <3 <3 <3
Endrin ketone mg/kg dry wt <3 <3 <3 <3 <3
Heptachlor mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4
Heptachlor epoxide mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4
Hexachlorobenzene mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4
Acenaphthene mg/kg dry wt < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7
Acenaphthylene mg/kg dry wt < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7
Anthracene mg/kg dry wt < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7
Benzo[a]anthracene mg/kg dry wt 1.7 2.5 < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7
Benzo[a]pyrene (BAP) mg/kg dry wt 1.6 3.7 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4
Benzo[b]fluoranthene + Benzo[j] mg/kg dry wt 2.1 3.9 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4
fluoranthene
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 2.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4
Benzo[k]fluoranthene mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 1.7 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4
2-Chloronaphthalene mg/kg dry wt < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7
Chrysene mg/kg dry wt 1.6 2.1 < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7
Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4
Fluoranthene mg/kg dry wt 3.1 2.9 < 0.7 0.9 < 0.7
Fluorene mg/kg dry wt < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 1.9 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4
2-Methylnaphthalene mg/kg dry wt < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7
Naphthalene mg/kg dry wt < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7 < 0.7
Phenanthrene mg/kg dry wt 2.2 < 0.7 < 0.7 0.9 < 0.7
Pyrene mg/kg dry wt 3.3 4.8 < 0.7 1.0 < 0.7
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol mg/kg dry wt <5 <5 <5 <5 <5
2-Chlorophenol mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4
2,4-Dichlorophenol mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4
2,4-Dimethylphenol mg/kg dry wt <3 <3 <3 <3 <3
3 & 4-Methylphenol (m- + p- mg/kg dry wt <3 <3 <3 <3 <3
cresol)
2-Methylphenol (o-Cresol) mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4
2-Nitrophenol mg/kg dry wt <5 <5 <5 <5 <5
Pentachlorophenol (PCP) mg/kg dry wt < 30 < 30 < 30 < 30 < 30
Phenol mg/kg dry wt <3 <3 <3 <3 <3
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate mg/kg dry wt <6 <6 <6 <6 <6
Butylbenzylphthalate mg/kg dry wt <3 <3 <3 <3 <3
Di(2-ethylhexyl)adipate mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4
Diethylphthalate mg/kg dry wt <3 <3 <3 <3 <3
Dimethylphthalate mg/kg dry wt <3 <3 <3 <3 <3
Di-n-butylphthalate mg/kg dry wt <3 <3 <3 <3 <3

Sample Type: Soil
11:10 am 11:45 am 11:50 am 1:00 pm 1:05 pm
Lab Number: 1346648.8 1346648.10 1346648.11 1346648.13 1346648.14
Di-n-octylphthalate mg/kg dry wt <3 <3 <3 <3 <3
Hexachlorobutadiene mg/kg dry wt <3 <3 <3 <3 <3
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene mg/kg dry wt <7 <7 <7 <7 <7
Hexachloroethane mg/kg dry wt <3 <3 <3 <3 <3
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4
Benzyl alcohol mg/kg dry wt < 14 < 14 < 14 < 14 < 14
Carbazole mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4
Dibenzofuran mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4
Isophorone mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4 < 1.4
C7 - C9 mg/kg dry wt <9 <9 <8 <8 <8
C10 - C14 mg/kg dry wt < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20
C15 - C36 mg/kg dry wt 57 97 < 40 < 40 < 40
1:25 pm 1:30 pm 2:20 pm 2:25 pm 3:00 pm
Lab Number: 1346648.16 1346648.17 1346648.19 1346648.20 1346648.22
Individual Tests
Total Recoverable Lead mg/kg dry wt 48 15.0 200 31 2,700
C7 - C9 mg/kg dry wt <9 <9 <9 <9 <8
C10 - C14 mg/kg dry wt < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20
C15 - C36 mg/kg dry wt < 40 < 40 151 < 40 250
Total hydrocarbons (C7 - C36) mg/kg dry wt < 70 < 70 151 < 70 250
3:05 pm 3:40 pm 3:45 pm 4:00 pm 4:05 pm
Lab Number: 1346648.23 1346648.25 1346648.26 1346648.28 1346648.29
Individual Tests
Total Recoverable Lead mg/kg dry wt 23 19.0 12.5 134 16.2

Sample Type: Soil
3:05 pm 3:40 pm 3:45 pm 4:00 pm 4:05 pm
Lab Number: 1346648.23 1346648.25 1346648.26 1346648.28 1346648.29
C7 - C9 mg/kg dry wt <9 <8 <8 <8 <8
C10 - C14 mg/kg dry wt < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20
C15 - C36 mg/kg dry wt < 40 < 40 < 40 < 40 < 40
Sample Name: 14:120: 14:120: 14:120: 14:120: 14:120:

MTP214:S1 MTP214:S2 MTP215:S1 MTP215:S2 MTP216:S1
04-Nov-2014 7:45 04-Nov-2014 7:50 04-Nov-2014 8:05 04-Nov-2014 8:10 04-Nov-2014 8:50
am am am am am
Lab Number: 1346648.31 1346648.32 1346648.34 1346648.35 1346648.37
Individual Tests
C7 - C9 mg/kg dry wt <8 <8 <8 <8 <9
C10 - C14 mg/kg dry wt < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20
C15 - C36 mg/kg dry wt < 40 < 40 65 < 40 85
Total hydrocarbons (C7 - C36) mg/kg dry wt < 70 < 70 < 70 < 70 85
Sample Name: 14:120: 14:120: 14:120: 14:120: 14:120:

04-Nov-2014 9:00 04-Nov-2014 9:30 04-Nov-2014 9:35 04-Nov-2014 04-Nov-2014
am am am 10:00 am 10:05 am
Lab Number: 1346648.38 1346648.40 1346648.41 1346648.43 1346648.44
Individual Tests
Total Recoverable Cadmium mg/kg dry wt < 0.10 0.16 0.13 0.70 < 0.10
Total Recoverable Lead mg/kg dry wt 14.8 37 30 1,020 49
Benzene mg/kg dry wt - < 0.3 < 0.06 < 0.09 < 0.06
Toluene mg/kg dry wt - < 0.3 < 0.06 < 0.09 < 0.06
Ethylbenzene mg/kg dry wt - < 0.3 < 0.06 < 0.09 < 0.06
m&p-Xylene mg/kg dry wt - < 0.5 < 0.12 < 0.17 < 0.11
o-Xylene mg/kg dry wt - < 0.3 < 0.06 < 0.09 < 0.06
C7 - C9 mg/kg dry wt <8 < 18 <9 < 11 <9
C10 - C14 mg/kg dry wt < 20 < 40 < 20 < 30 < 20
C15 - C36 mg/kg dry wt < 40 151 < 40 < 50 < 40

Sample Type: Soil
Sample Name: 14:120: 14:120: 14:120: 14:120: 14:120:
04-Nov-2014 04-Nov-2014 04-Nov-2014 04-Nov-2014 04-Nov-2014
10:40 am 10:50 am 11:15 am 11:25 am 12:55 pm
Lab Number: 1346648.46 1346648.47 1346648.48 1346648.49 1346648.50
Individual Tests
Total Recoverable Cadmium mg/kg dry wt < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.11 0.14
Total Recoverable Lead mg/kg dry wt 20 22 15.2 27 34
Benzene mg/kg dry wt < 0.05 < 0.06 < 0.05 < 0.08 -
Toluene mg/kg dry wt < 0.05 < 0.06 < 0.05 < 0.08 -
Ethylbenzene mg/kg dry wt < 0.05 < 0.06 < 0.05 < 0.08 -
m&p-Xylene mg/kg dry wt < 0.10 < 0.12 < 0.10 < 0.16 -
o-Xylene mg/kg dry wt < 0.05 < 0.06 < 0.05 < 0.08 -
C7 - C9 mg/kg dry wt <9 <9 <8 < 11 <8
C10 - C14 mg/kg dry wt < 20 < 20 < 20 < 30 45
C15 - C36 mg/kg dry wt < 40 < 40 < 40 < 50 < 40
Sample Name: 14:120: 14:120: 14:120: 14:120: 14:120:

04-Nov-2014 04-Nov-2014 1:25 04-Nov-2014 1:30 04-Nov-2014 2:00 04-Nov-2014 2:10
12:55 pm pm pm pm pm
Lab Number: 1346648.51 1346648.52 1346648.53 1346648.55 1346648.56
Individual Tests
Benzene mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.07 < 0.06
Toluene mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.07 < 0.06
Ethylbenzene mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.07 < 0.06
m&p-Xylene mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.13 < 0.11
o-Xylene mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.07 < 0.06
Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.6 < 1.4
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.6 < 1.4
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.6 < 1.4
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.6 < 1.4
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.6 < 1.4
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine mg/kg dry wt - - - <8 <7
2,4-Dinitrotoluene mg/kg dry wt - - - <4 <3
2,6-Dinitrotoluene mg/kg dry wt - - - <4 <3

Sample Type: Soil
Sample Name: 14:120: 14:120: 14:120: 14:120: 14:120:
Lab Number: 1346648.51 1346648.52 1346648.53 1346648.55 1346648.56
Nitrobenzene mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.6 < 1.4
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine mg/kg dry wt - - - <4 <3
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine mg/kg dry wt - - - <4 <3
Aldrin mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.6 < 1.4
alpha-BHC mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.6 < 1.4
beta-BHC mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.6 < 1.4
delta-BHC mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.6 < 1.4
gamma-BHC (Lindane) mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.6 < 1.4
4,4'-DDD mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.6 < 1.4
4,4'-DDE mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.6 < 1.4
4,4'-DDT mg/kg dry wt - - - <4 <3
Dieldrin mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.6 < 1.4
Endosulfan I mg/kg dry wt - - - <4 <3
Endosulfan II mg/kg dry wt - - - <4 <3
Endosulfan sulphate mg/kg dry wt - - - <4 <3
Endrin mg/kg dry wt - - - <4 <3
Endrin ketone mg/kg dry wt - - - <4 <3
Heptachlor mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.6 < 1.4
Heptachlor epoxide mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.6 < 1.4
Hexachlorobenzene mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.6 < 1.4
Acenaphthene mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.8 < 0.7
Acenaphthylene mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.8 < 0.7
Anthracene mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.8 < 0.7
Benzo[a]anthracene mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.8 < 0.7
Benzo[a]pyrene (BAP) mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.6 < 1.4
Benzo[b]fluoranthene + Benzo[j] mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.6 < 1.4
fluoranthene
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.6 < 1.4
Benzo[k]fluoranthene mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.6 < 1.4
2-Chloronaphthalene mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.8 < 0.7
Chrysene mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.8 < 0.7
Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.6 < 1.4
Fluoranthene mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.8 1.5
Fluorene mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.8 < 0.7
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.6 < 1.4
2-Methylnaphthalene mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.8 < 0.7
Naphthalene mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.8 < 0.7
Phenanthrene mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.8 0.9
Pyrene mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.8 1.5
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol mg/kg dry wt - - - <5 <5
2-Chlorophenol mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.6 < 1.4
2,4-Dichlorophenol mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.6 < 1.4
2,4-Dimethylphenol mg/kg dry wt - - - <3 <3
3 & 4-Methylphenol (m- + p- mg/kg dry wt - - - <4 <3
cresol)
2-Methylphenol (o-Cresol) mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.6 < 1.4
2-Nitrophenol mg/kg dry wt - - - <5 <5
Pentachlorophenol (PCP) mg/kg dry wt - - - < 40 < 30
Phenol mg/kg dry wt - - - <4 <3
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol mg/kg dry wt - - - <4 <3
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol mg/kg dry wt - - - <4 <3

Sample Type: Soil
Sample Name: 14:120: 14:120: 14:120: 14:120: 14:120:
Lab Number: 1346648.51 1346648.52 1346648.53 1346648.55 1346648.56
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate mg/kg dry wt - - - <7 <6
Butylbenzylphthalate mg/kg dry wt - - - <4 <3
Di(2-ethylhexyl)adipate mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.6 < 1.4
Diethylphthalate mg/kg dry wt - - - <4 <3
Dimethylphthalate mg/kg dry wt - - - <4 <3
Di-n-butylphthalate mg/kg dry wt - - - <4 <3
Di-n-octylphthalate mg/kg dry wt - - - <4 <3
1,2-Dichlorobenzene mg/kg dry wt - - - <4 <3
Hexachlorobutadiene mg/kg dry wt - - - <4 <3
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene mg/kg dry wt - - - <8 <7
Hexachloroethane mg/kg dry wt - - - <4 <3
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.6 < 1.4
Benzyl alcohol mg/kg dry wt - - - < 16 < 14
Carbazole mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.6 < 1.4
Dibenzofuran mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.6 < 1.4
Isophorone mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.6 < 1.4
C7 - C9 mg/kg dry wt < 10 <8 < 10 < 10 <8
C10 - C14 mg/kg dry wt < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20
C15 - C36 mg/kg dry wt < 40 < 40 144 < 40 < 40
Total hydrocarbons (C7 - C36) mg/kg dry wt < 70 < 70 144 < 70 < 70
Sample Name: 14:120: 14:120: 14:120: 14:120:

MTP227:S1 MTP227:S2 MTP228:S1 MTP228:S2
04-Nov-2014 2:30 04-Nov-2014 2:40 04-Nov-2014 3:00 04-Nov-2014 3:00
pm pm pm pm
Lab Number: 1346648.57 1346648.58 1346648.59 1346648.60
Individual Tests
Dry Matter g/100g as rcvd 70 76 88 84 -
Total Recoverable Arsenic mg/kg dry wt 3 7 9 8 -
Total Recoverable Cadmium mg/kg dry wt 0.13 0.13 2.4 0.28 -
Total Recoverable Chromium mg/kg dry wt 14 22 25 21 -
Total Recoverable Copper mg/kg dry wt 7 15 15,600 53 -
Total Recoverable Lead mg/kg dry wt 21 23 740 220 -
Total Recoverable Mercury mg/kg dry wt < 0.10 < 0.10 0.24 0.11 -
Total Recoverable Nickel mg/kg dry wt 9 18 34 34 -
Total Recoverable Zinc mg/kg dry wt 99 81 620 210 -
Benzene mg/kg dry wt < 0.07 < 0.06 - - -
Toluene mg/kg dry wt < 0.07 < 0.06 - - -
Ethylbenzene mg/kg dry wt < 0.07 < 0.06 - - -
m&p-Xylene mg/kg dry wt < 0.13 < 0.11 - - -
o-Xylene mg/kg dry wt < 0.07 < 0.06 - - -
Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane mg/kg dry wt < 1.6 < 1.5 - - -
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether mg/kg dry wt < 1.6 < 1.5 - - -
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether mg/kg dry wt < 1.6 < 1.5 - - -
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether mg/kg dry wt < 1.6 < 1.5 - - -
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether mg/kg dry wt < 1.6 < 1.5 - - -

Sample Type: Soil
Sample Name: 14:120: 14:120: 14:120: 14:120:
04-Nov-2014 2:30 04-Nov-2014 2:40 04-Nov-2014 3:00 04-Nov-2014 3:00
pm pm pm pm
Lab Number: 1346648.57 1346648.58 1346648.59 1346648.60
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine mg/kg dry wt <8 <8 - - -
2,4-Dinitrotoluene mg/kg dry wt <4 <3 - - -
2,6-Dinitrotoluene mg/kg dry wt <4 <3 - - -
Nitrobenzene mg/kg dry wt < 1.6 < 1.5 - - -
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine mg/kg dry wt <4 <3 - - -
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine mg/kg dry wt <4 <3 - - -
Aldrin mg/kg dry wt < 1.6 < 1.5 - - -
alpha-BHC mg/kg dry wt < 1.6 < 1.5 - - -
beta-BHC mg/kg dry wt < 1.6 < 1.5 - - -
delta-BHC mg/kg dry wt < 1.6 < 1.5 - - -
gamma-BHC (Lindane) mg/kg dry wt < 1.6 < 1.5 - - -
4,4'-DDD mg/kg dry wt < 1.6 < 1.5 - - -
4,4'-DDE mg/kg dry wt < 1.6 < 1.5 - - -
4,4'-DDT mg/kg dry wt <4 <3 - - -
Dieldrin mg/kg dry wt < 1.6 < 1.5 - - -
Endosulfan I mg/kg dry wt <4 <3 - - -
Endosulfan II mg/kg dry wt <4 <3 - - -
Endosulfan sulphate mg/kg dry wt <4 <3 - - -
Endrin mg/kg dry wt <4 <3 - - -
Endrin ketone mg/kg dry wt <4 <3 - - -
Heptachlor mg/kg dry wt < 1.6 < 1.5 - - -
Heptachlor epoxide mg/kg dry wt < 1.6 < 1.5 - - -
Hexachlorobenzene mg/kg dry wt < 1.6 < 1.5 - - -
Acenaphthene mg/kg dry wt < 0.8 < 0.8 - - -
Acenaphthylene mg/kg dry wt < 0.8 < 0.8 - - -
Anthracene mg/kg dry wt < 0.8 < 0.8 - - -
Benzo[a]anthracene mg/kg dry wt < 0.8 < 0.8 - - -
Benzo[a]pyrene (BAP) mg/kg dry wt < 1.6 < 1.5 - - -
Benzo[b]fluoranthene + Benzo[j] mg/kg dry wt < 1.6 < 1.5 - - -
fluoranthene
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene mg/kg dry wt < 1.6 < 1.5 - - -
Benzo[k]fluoranthene mg/kg dry wt < 1.6 < 1.5 - - -
2-Chloronaphthalene mg/kg dry wt < 0.8 < 0.8 - - -
Chrysene mg/kg dry wt < 0.8 < 0.8 - - -
Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene mg/kg dry wt < 1.6 < 1.5 - - -
Fluoranthene mg/kg dry wt < 0.8 < 0.8 - - -
Fluorene mg/kg dry wt < 0.8 < 0.8 - - -
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene mg/kg dry wt < 1.6 < 1.5 - - -
2-Methylnaphthalene mg/kg dry wt < 0.8 < 0.8 - - -
Naphthalene mg/kg dry wt < 0.8 < 0.8 - - -
Phenanthrene mg/kg dry wt < 0.8 < 0.8 - - -
Pyrene mg/kg dry wt < 0.8 < 0.8 - - -
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol mg/kg dry wt <5 <5 - - -
2-Chlorophenol mg/kg dry wt < 1.6 < 1.5 - - -
2,4-Dichlorophenol mg/kg dry wt < 1.6 < 1.5 - - -
2,4-Dimethylphenol mg/kg dry wt <3 <3 - - -
3 & 4-Methylphenol (m- + p- mg/kg dry wt <4 <3 - - -
cresol)
2-Methylphenol (o-Cresol) mg/kg dry wt < 1.6 < 1.5 - - -
2-Nitrophenol mg/kg dry wt <5 <5 - - -
Pentachlorophenol (PCP) mg/kg dry wt < 40 < 30 - - -

Sample Type: Soil
Sample Name: 14:120: 14:120: 14:120: 14:120:
04-Nov-2014 2:30 04-Nov-2014 2:40 04-Nov-2014 3:00 04-Nov-2014 3:00
pm pm pm pm
Lab Number: 1346648.57 1346648.58 1346648.59 1346648.60
Phenol mg/kg dry wt <4 <3 - - -
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol mg/kg dry wt <4 <3 - - -
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol mg/kg dry wt <4 <3 - - -
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate mg/kg dry wt <7 <6 - - -
Butylbenzylphthalate mg/kg dry wt <4 <3 - - -
Di(2-ethylhexyl)adipate mg/kg dry wt < 1.6 < 1.5 - - -
Diethylphthalate mg/kg dry wt <4 <3 - - -
Dimethylphthalate mg/kg dry wt <4 <3 - - -
Di-n-butylphthalate mg/kg dry wt <4 <3 - - -
Di-n-octylphthalate mg/kg dry wt <4 <3 - - -
1,2-Dichlorobenzene mg/kg dry wt <4 <3 - - -
Hexachlorobutadiene mg/kg dry wt <4 <3 - - -
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene mg/kg dry wt <8 <8 - - -
Hexachloroethane mg/kg dry wt <4 <3 - - -
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene mg/kg dry wt < 1.6 < 1.5 - - -
Benzyl alcohol mg/kg dry wt < 16 < 15 - - -
Carbazole mg/kg dry wt < 1.6 < 1.5 - - -
Dibenzofuran mg/kg dry wt < 1.6 < 1.5 - - -
Isophorone mg/kg dry wt < 1.6 < 1.5 - - -
C7 - C9 mg/kg dry wt < 10 <9 <8 <8 -
C10 - C14 mg/kg dry wt < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 -
C15 - C36 mg/kg dry wt < 40 < 40 1,160 < 40 -
Total hydrocarbons (C7 - C36) mg/kg dry wt < 70 < 70 1,160 < 70 -
1346648.7 1346648.8
14:120: MTP203 S1 03-Nov-2014 11:05 am 14:120: MTP203 S2 03-Nov-2014 11:10 am
Client Chromatogram for TPH by FID Client Chromatogram for TPH by FID

1346648.10 1346648.19
14:120: MTP204 S1 03-Nov-2014 11:45 am 14:120: MTP208 S1 03-Nov-2014 2:20 pm
1346648.22 1346648.34
14:120: MTP209 S1 03-Nov-2014 3:00 pm 14:120: MTP215:S1 04-Nov-2014 8:05 am
1346648.37 1346648.40
14:120: MTP216:S1 04-Nov-2014 8:50 am 14:120: MTP220:S1 04-Nov-2014 9:30 am

1346648.50 1346648.53
14:120: MTP224:S1 04-Nov-2014 12:55 pm 14:120: MTP225:S2 04-Nov-2014 1:30 pm
1346648.56 1346648.59
14:120: MTP226:S2 04-Nov-2014 2:10 pm 14:120: MTP228:S1 04-Nov-2014 3:00 pm
SUMMARY OF METHODS
Sample Type: Soil

Preparation Used for sample preparation. 7-8, 10-11,
16-17,
19-20,
22-23,
25-26,
28-29,
31-32,
34-35,
37-38,
40-41,
43-44,
46-53,
55-60

Sample Type: Soil
As,Cd,Cr,Cu,Ni,Pb,Zn,Hg ICP-MS, screen level. 7-8, 10-11,
13-14,
16-17,
19-20,
22-23,
25-26,
28-29,
31-32,
34-35,
37-38,
40-41,
43-44,
46-53,
55-60
BTEX in Soil by Headspace GC-MS Solvent extraction, Headspace GC-MS analysis 0.05 - 0.10 mg/kg dry wt 1-2, 4-5,
US EPA 8260B. Tested on as received sample 7-8, 10-11,
[KBIs:5782,26687,3629] 13-14,
40-41,
43-44,
46-49,
55-58
Semivolatile Organic Compounds Sonication extraction, GPC cleanup (if required), GC-MS FS 0.3 - 30 mg/kg dry wt 1-2, 4-5,
Screening in Soil by GC-MS analysis. Tested on as received sample 7-8, 10-11,
13-14,
55-58
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil Sonication extraction in DCM, Silica cleanup, GC-FID analysis 8 - 60 mg/kg dry wt 1-2, 4-5,
US EPA 8015B/MfE Petroleum Industry Guidelines. Tested on 7-8, 10-11,
as received sample 13-14,
[KBIs:5786,2805,10734] 16-17,
19-20,
22-23,
25-26,
28-29,
31-32,
34-35,
37-38,
40-41,
43-44,
46-53,
55-60
dry) , gravimetry. US EPA 3550. (Free water removed before 7-8, 10-11,
analysis). 13-14,
16-17,
19-20,
22-23,
25-26,
28-29,
31-32,
34-35,
37-38,
40-41,
43-44,
46-53,
55-60
7-8, 10-11,
13-14,
16-17,
19-20,
22-23,
25-26,
28-29,
31-32,
34-35,
37-38,
40-41,
43-44,
46-53,
55-60

client.



Contact: Wendy Whitley Date Registered: 25-Mar-2015
C/- Beca Limited Date Reported: 01-May-2015
CHRISTCHURCH 8141 Order No: 15:041
Client Reference: 5394066/050/D200
Submitted By: Wendy Whitley
Amended Report
This report replaces an earlier report issued on the 14 Apr 2015 at 2:36 pm
The sample name for 1402615.132 has been amended.
Sample Type: Soil

TP301 S1 0.5 TP301 S2 1.5 TP302 S1 0.5 TP302 S2 1.5 TP303 S1 0.5
23-Mar-2015 23-Mar-2015 23-Mar-2015 23-Mar-2015 23-Mar-2015
Lab Number: 1402615.1 1402615.2 1402615.4 1402615.5 1402615.7
Individual Tests
Dry Matter g/100g as rcvd 81 - 82 - 84
Total Recoverable Cadmium mg/kg dry wt 1.12 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.23 < 0.10
Total Recoverable Lead mg/kg dry wt 1,460 14.1 19.6 260 21
Total Recoverable Mercury mg/kg dry wt 1.17 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.31 < 0.10
Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - < 1.3 - -
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - < 1.3 - -
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - < 1.3 - -
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - < 1.3 - -
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - < 1.3 - -
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine mg/kg dry wt <7 - <7 - -
2,4-Dinitrotoluene mg/kg dry wt <3 - <3 - -
Nitrobenzene mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - < 1.3 - -
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine mg/kg dry wt <3 - <3 - -
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine mg/kg dry wt <3 - <3 - -
Aldrin mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - < 1.3 - -
alpha-BHC mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - < 1.3 - -
beta-BHC mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - < 1.3 - -
delta-BHC mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - < 1.3 - -
gamma-BHC (Lindane) mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - < 1.3 - -
4,4'-DDD mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - < 1.3 - -
4,4'-DDE mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - < 1.3 - -
4,4'-DDT mg/kg dry wt <3 - <3 - -
Dieldrin mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - < 1.3 - -
Endosulfan I mg/kg dry wt <3 - <3 - -
are not accredited.
Sample Type: Soil
Lab Number: 1402615.1 1402615.2 1402615.4 1402615.5 1402615.7
Endosulfan II mg/kg dry wt <3 - <3 - -
Endosulfan sulphate mg/kg dry wt <3 - <3 - -
Endrin mg/kg dry wt <3 - <3 - -
Endrin ketone mg/kg dry wt <3 - <3 - -
Heptachlor mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - < 1.3 - -
Heptachlor epoxide mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - < 1.3 - -
Hexachlorobenzene mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - < 1.3 - -
Acenaphthene mg/kg dry wt < 0.7 - < 0.7 - -
Acenaphthylene mg/kg dry wt < 0.7 - < 0.7 - -
Anthracene mg/kg dry wt < 0.7 - < 0.7 - -
Benzo[a]anthracene mg/kg dry wt 0.7 - < 0.7 - -
Benzo[a]pyrene (BAP) mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - < 1.3 - -
Benzo[b]fluoranthene + Benzo[j] mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - < 1.3 - -
fluoranthene
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - < 1.3 - -
Benzo[k]fluoranthene mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - < 1.3 - -
2-Chloronaphthalene mg/kg dry wt < 0.7 - < 0.7 - -
Chrysene mg/kg dry wt 0.8 - < 0.7 - -
Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - < 1.3 - -
Fluoranthene mg/kg dry wt 1.4 - < 0.7 - -
Fluorene mg/kg dry wt < 0.7 - < 0.7 - -
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - < 1.3 - -
2-Methylnaphthalene mg/kg dry wt < 0.7 - < 0.7 - -
Naphthalene mg/kg dry wt < 0.7 - < 0.7 - -
Phenanthrene mg/kg dry wt 1.0 - < 0.7 - -
Pyrene mg/kg dry wt 1.4 - < 0.7 - -
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol mg/kg dry wt <5 - <5 - -
2-Chlorophenol mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - < 1.3 - -
2,4-Dichlorophenol mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - < 1.3 - -
2,4-Dimethylphenol mg/kg dry wt <3 - <3 - -
3 & 4-Methylphenol (m- + p- mg/kg dry wt <3 - <3 - -
cresol)
2-Methylphenol (o-Cresol) mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - < 1.3 - -
2-Nitrophenol mg/kg dry wt <5 - <5 - -
Pentachlorophenol (PCP) mg/kg dry wt < 30 - < 30 - -
Phenol mg/kg dry wt <3 - <3 - -
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol mg/kg dry wt <3 - <3 - -
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate mg/kg dry wt <6 - <6 - -
Butylbenzylphthalate mg/kg dry wt <3 - <3 - -
Di(2-ethylhexyl)adipate mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - < 1.3 - -
Diethylphthalate mg/kg dry wt <3 - <3 - -
Dimethylphthalate mg/kg dry wt <3 - <3 - -
Di-n-butylphthalate mg/kg dry wt <3 - <3 - -
Di-n-octylphthalate mg/kg dry wt <3 - <3 - -
1,2-Dichlorobenzene mg/kg dry wt <3 - <3 - -
Hexachlorobutadiene mg/kg dry wt <3 - <3 - -
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene mg/kg dry wt <7 - <7 - -

Sample Type: Soil
Lab Number: 1402615.1 1402615.2 1402615.4 1402615.5 1402615.7
Hexachloroethane mg/kg dry wt <3 - <3 - -
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - < 1.3 - -
Benzyl alcohol mg/kg dry wt < 14 - < 13 - -
Carbazole mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - < 1.3 - -
Dibenzofuran mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - < 1.3 - -
Isophorone mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - < 1.3 - -
C7 - C9 mg/kg dry wt <8 - <8 - <8
C10 - C14 mg/kg dry wt < 20 - < 20 - < 20
C15 - C36 mg/kg dry wt 54 - < 40 - < 40
Total hydrocarbons (C7 - C36) mg/kg dry wt < 70 - < 70 - < 70
Lab Number: 1402615.8 1402615.10 1402615.11 1402615.13 1402615.14
Individual Tests
Dry Matter g/100g as rcvd - 88 - 80 -
Total Recoverable Arsenic mg/kg dry wt 5 <2 3 4 3
Total Recoverable Lead mg/kg dry wt 17.0 16.1 19.4 16.5 14.8
Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane mg/kg dry wt - < 1.3 - < 1.4 -
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether mg/kg dry wt - < 1.3 - < 1.4 -
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether mg/kg dry wt - < 1.3 - < 1.4 -
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether mg/kg dry wt - < 1.3 - < 1.4 -
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether mg/kg dry wt - < 1.3 - < 1.4 -
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine mg/kg dry wt - <7 - <7 -
2,4-Dinitrotoluene mg/kg dry wt - <3 - <3 -
Nitrobenzene mg/kg dry wt - < 1.3 - < 1.4 -
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine mg/kg dry wt - <3 - <3 -
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine mg/kg dry wt - <3 - <3 -
Aldrin mg/kg dry wt - < 1.3 - < 1.4 -
alpha-BHC mg/kg dry wt - < 1.3 - < 1.4 -
beta-BHC mg/kg dry wt - < 1.3 - < 1.4 -
delta-BHC mg/kg dry wt - < 1.3 - < 1.4 -
gamma-BHC (Lindane) mg/kg dry wt - < 1.3 - < 1.4 -
4,4'-DDD mg/kg dry wt - < 1.3 - < 1.4 -
4,4'-DDE mg/kg dry wt - < 1.3 - < 1.4 -
4,4'-DDT mg/kg dry wt - <3 - <3 -
Dieldrin mg/kg dry wt - < 1.3 - < 1.4 -
Endosulfan I mg/kg dry wt - <3 - <3 -
Endosulfan II mg/kg dry wt - <3 - <3 -
Endosulfan sulphate mg/kg dry wt - <3 - <3 -
Endrin mg/kg dry wt - <3 - <3 -

Sample Type: Soil
Lab Number: 1402615.8 1402615.10 1402615.11 1402615.13 1402615.14
Endrin ketone mg/kg dry wt - <3 - <3 -
Heptachlor mg/kg dry wt - < 1.3 - < 1.4 -
Heptachlor epoxide mg/kg dry wt - < 1.3 - < 1.4 -
Hexachlorobenzene mg/kg dry wt - < 1.3 - < 1.4 -
Acenaphthene mg/kg dry wt - < 0.7 - 0.9 -
Acenaphthylene mg/kg dry wt - < 0.7 - < 0.7 -
Anthracene mg/kg dry wt - < 0.7 - 2.0 -
Benzo[a]anthracene mg/kg dry wt - < 0.7 - 3.7 -
Benzo[a]pyrene (BAP) mg/kg dry wt - < 1.3 - 3.5 -
Benzo[b]fluoranthene + Benzo[j] mg/kg dry wt - < 1.3 - 4.2 -
fluoranthene
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene mg/kg dry wt - < 1.3 - 2.9 -
Benzo[k]fluoranthene mg/kg dry wt - < 1.3 - 1.4 -
2-Chloronaphthalene mg/kg dry wt - < 0.7 - < 0.7 -
Chrysene mg/kg dry wt - < 0.7 - 3.5 -
Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene mg/kg dry wt - < 1.3 - < 1.4 -
Fluoranthene mg/kg dry wt - < 0.7 - 10.9 -
Fluorene mg/kg dry wt - < 0.7 - 1.4 -
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene mg/kg dry wt - < 1.3 - 1.9 -
2-Methylnaphthalene mg/kg dry wt - < 0.7 - < 0.7 -
Naphthalene mg/kg dry wt - < 0.7 - < 0.7 -
Phenanthrene mg/kg dry wt - < 0.7 - 12.0 -
Pyrene mg/kg dry wt - < 0.7 - 10.0 -
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol mg/kg dry wt - <5 - <5 -
2-Chlorophenol mg/kg dry wt - < 1.3 - < 1.4 -
2,4-Dichlorophenol mg/kg dry wt - < 1.3 - < 1.4 -
2,4-Dimethylphenol mg/kg dry wt - <3 - <3 -
3 & 4-Methylphenol (m- + p- mg/kg dry wt - <3 - <3 -
cresol)
2-Methylphenol (o-Cresol) mg/kg dry wt - < 1.3 - < 1.4 -
2-Nitrophenol mg/kg dry wt - <5 - <5 -
Pentachlorophenol (PCP) mg/kg dry wt - < 30 - < 30 -
Phenol mg/kg dry wt - <3 - <3 -
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol mg/kg dry wt - <3 - <3 -
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate mg/kg dry wt - <5 - <6 -
Butylbenzylphthalate mg/kg dry wt - <3 - <3 -
Di(2-ethylhexyl)adipate mg/kg dry wt - < 1.3 - < 1.4 -
Diethylphthalate mg/kg dry wt - <3 - <3 -
Dimethylphthalate mg/kg dry wt - <3 - <3 -
Di-n-butylphthalate mg/kg dry wt - <3 - <3 -
Di-n-octylphthalate mg/kg dry wt - <3 - <3 -
1,2-Dichlorobenzene mg/kg dry wt - <3 - <3 -
Hexachlorobutadiene mg/kg dry wt - <3 - <3 -
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene mg/kg dry wt - <7 - <7 -
Hexachloroethane mg/kg dry wt - <3 - <3 -
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene mg/kg dry wt - < 1.3 - < 1.4 -

Sample Type: Soil
Lab Number: 1402615.8 1402615.10 1402615.11 1402615.13 1402615.14
Benzyl alcohol mg/kg dry wt - < 13 - < 14 -
Carbazole mg/kg dry wt - < 1.3 - < 1.4 -
Dibenzofuran mg/kg dry wt - < 1.3 - < 1.4 -
Isophorone mg/kg dry wt - < 1.3 - < 1.4 -
C7 - C9 mg/kg dry wt - <8 - <8 -
C10 - C14 mg/kg dry wt - < 20 - < 20 -
C15 - C36 mg/kg dry wt - < 40 - < 40 -
Total hydrocarbons (C7 - C36) mg/kg dry wt - < 70 - < 70 -
Lab Number: 1402615.16 1402615.17 1402615.19 1402615.20 1402615.22
Individual Tests
Total Recoverable Lead mg/kg dry wt 54 18.5 39 24 17.2
Total Recoverable Mercury mg/kg dry wt 0.24 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10
Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - - - -
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - - - -
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - - - -
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - - - -
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - - - -
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine mg/kg dry wt <7 - - - -
2,4-Dinitrotoluene mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - -
Nitrobenzene mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - - - -
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - -
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - -
Aldrin mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - - - -
alpha-BHC mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - - - -
beta-BHC mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - - - -
delta-BHC mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - - - -
gamma-BHC (Lindane) mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - - - -
4,4'-DDD mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - - - -
4,4'-DDE mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - - - -
4,4'-DDT mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - -
Dieldrin mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - - - -
Endosulfan I mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - -
Endosulfan II mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - -
Endosulfan sulphate mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - -
Endrin mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - -
Endrin ketone mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - -
Heptachlor mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - - - -
Heptachlor epoxide mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - - - -

Sample Type: Soil
Lab Number: 1402615.16 1402615.17 1402615.19 1402615.20 1402615.22
Hexachlorobenzene mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - - - -
Acenaphthene mg/kg dry wt < 0.7 - - - -
Acenaphthylene mg/kg dry wt < 0.7 - - - -
Anthracene mg/kg dry wt < 0.7 - - - -
Benzo[a]anthracene mg/kg dry wt < 0.7 - - - -
Benzo[a]pyrene (BAP) mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - - - -
Benzo[b]fluoranthene + Benzo[j] mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - - - -
fluoranthene
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - - - -
Benzo[k]fluoranthene mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - - - -
2-Chloronaphthalene mg/kg dry wt < 0.7 - - - -
Chrysene mg/kg dry wt < 0.7 - - - -
Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - - - -
Fluoranthene mg/kg dry wt < 0.7 - - - -
Fluorene mg/kg dry wt < 0.7 - - - -
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - - - -
2-Methylnaphthalene mg/kg dry wt < 0.7 - - - -
Naphthalene mg/kg dry wt < 0.7 - - - -
Phenanthrene mg/kg dry wt < 0.7 - - - -
Pyrene mg/kg dry wt < 0.7 - - - -
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol mg/kg dry wt <5 - - - -
2-Chlorophenol mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - - - -
2,4-Dichlorophenol mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - - - -
2,4-Dimethylphenol mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - -
3 & 4-Methylphenol (m- + p- mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - -
cresol)
2-Methylphenol (o-Cresol) mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - - - -
2-Nitrophenol mg/kg dry wt <5 - - - -
Pentachlorophenol (PCP) mg/kg dry wt < 30 - - - -
Phenol mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - -
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - -
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate mg/kg dry wt <6 - - - -
Butylbenzylphthalate mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - -
Di(2-ethylhexyl)adipate mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - - - -
Diethylphthalate mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - -
Dimethylphthalate mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - -
Di-n-butylphthalate mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - -
Di-n-octylphthalate mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - -
1,2-Dichlorobenzene mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - -
Hexachlorobutadiene mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - -
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene mg/kg dry wt <7 - - - -
Hexachloroethane mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - -
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - - - -
Benzyl alcohol mg/kg dry wt < 14 - - - -
Carbazole mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - - - -
Dibenzofuran mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - - - -

Sample Type: Soil
Lab Number: 1402615.16 1402615.17 1402615.19 1402615.20 1402615.22
Isophorone mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - - - -
C7 - C9 mg/kg dry wt <9 - <9 - <8
C10 - C14 mg/kg dry wt < 20 - < 20 - < 20
C15 - C36 mg/kg dry wt 174 - < 40 - < 40
Total hydrocarbons (C7 - C36) mg/kg dry wt 174 - < 70 - < 70
Lab Number: 1402615.23 1402615.24 1402615.26 1402615.27 1402615.29
Individual Tests
Total Recoverable Zinc mg/kg dry wt 1,630 84 550 78 230
Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - < 1.3
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - < 1.3
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - < 1.3
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - < 1.3
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - < 1.3
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine mg/kg dry wt < 11 - - - <7
2,4-Dinitrotoluene mg/kg dry wt <5 - - - <3
2,6-Dinitrotoluene mg/kg dry wt <5 - - - <3
Nitrobenzene mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - < 1.3
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine mg/kg dry wt <5 - - - <3
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine mg/kg dry wt <5 - - - <3
Aldrin mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - < 1.3
alpha-BHC mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - < 1.3
beta-BHC mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - < 1.3
delta-BHC mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - < 1.3
gamma-BHC (Lindane) mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - < 1.3
4,4'-DDD mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - < 1.3
4,4'-DDE mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - < 1.3
4,4'-DDT mg/kg dry wt <5 - - - <3
Dieldrin mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - < 1.3
Endosulfan I mg/kg dry wt <5 - - - <3
Endosulfan II mg/kg dry wt <5 - - - <3
Endosulfan sulphate mg/kg dry wt <5 - - - <3
Endrin mg/kg dry wt <5 - - - <3
Endrin ketone mg/kg dry wt <5 - - - <3
Heptachlor mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - < 1.3
Heptachlor epoxide mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - < 1.3
Hexachlorobenzene mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - < 1.3
Acenaphthene mg/kg dry wt < 1.1 - - - < 0.7

Sample Type: Soil
Lab Number: 1402615.23 1402615.24 1402615.26 1402615.27 1402615.29
Acenaphthylene mg/kg dry wt < 1.1 - - - < 0.7
Anthracene mg/kg dry wt < 1.1 - - - < 0.7
Benzo[a]anthracene mg/kg dry wt < 1.1 - - - < 0.7
Benzo[a]pyrene (BAP) mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - < 1.3
Benzo[b]fluoranthene + Benzo[j] mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - < 1.3
fluoranthene
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - < 1.3
Benzo[k]fluoranthene mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - < 1.3
2-Chloronaphthalene mg/kg dry wt < 1.1 - - - < 0.7
Chrysene mg/kg dry wt < 1.1 - - - < 0.7
Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - < 1.3
Fluoranthene mg/kg dry wt 1.5 - - - < 0.7
Fluorene mg/kg dry wt < 1.1 - - - < 0.7
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - < 1.3
2-Methylnaphthalene mg/kg dry wt < 1.1 - - - < 0.7
Naphthalene mg/kg dry wt < 1.1 - - - < 0.7
Phenanthrene mg/kg dry wt < 1.1 - - - < 0.7
Pyrene mg/kg dry wt 1.6 - - - < 0.7
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol mg/kg dry wt <5 - - - <5
2-Chlorophenol mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - < 1.3
2,4-Dichlorophenol mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - < 1.3
2,4-Dimethylphenol mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - <3
3 & 4-Methylphenol (m- + p- mg/kg dry wt <5 - - - <3
cresol)
2-Methylphenol (o-Cresol) mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - < 1.3
2-Nitrophenol mg/kg dry wt <5 - - - <5
Pentachlorophenol (PCP) mg/kg dry wt < 50 - - - < 30
Phenol mg/kg dry wt <5 - - - <3
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol mg/kg dry wt <5 - - - <3
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol mg/kg dry wt <5 - - - <3
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate mg/kg dry wt <9 - - - <6
Butylbenzylphthalate mg/kg dry wt <5 - - - <3
Di(2-ethylhexyl)adipate mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - < 1.3
Diethylphthalate mg/kg dry wt <5 - - - <3
Dimethylphthalate mg/kg dry wt <5 - - - <3
Di-n-butylphthalate mg/kg dry wt <5 - - - <3
Di-n-octylphthalate mg/kg dry wt <5 - - - <3
1,2-Dichlorobenzene mg/kg dry wt <5 - - - <3
Hexachlorobutadiene mg/kg dry wt <5 - - - <3
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene mg/kg dry wt < 11 - - - <7
Hexachloroethane mg/kg dry wt <5 - - - <3
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - < 1.3
Benzyl alcohol mg/kg dry wt < 30 - - - < 13
Carbazole mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - < 1.3
Dibenzofuran mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - < 1.3
Isophorone mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - < 1.3
C7 - C9 mg/kg dry wt < 14 - <9 - <8

Sample Type: Soil
Lab Number: 1402615.23 1402615.24 1402615.26 1402615.27 1402615.29
C10 - C14 mg/kg dry wt < 30 - < 20 - < 20
C15 - C36 mg/kg dry wt 57 - < 40 - < 40
Total hydrocarbons (C7 - C36) mg/kg dry wt < 100 - < 70 - < 70
Lab Number: 1402615.30 1402615.31 1402615.32 1402615.34 1402615.35
Individual Tests
Dry Matter g/100g as rcvd 84 77 - 77 67
Total Recoverable Cadmium mg/kg dry wt < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.59 2.8
Total Recoverable Lead mg/kg dry wt 34 41 14.3 300 3,100
Total Recoverable Mercury mg/kg dry wt < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.13 10.2
Total Recoverable Zinc mg/kg dry wt 58 77 55 400 2,300
Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane mg/kg dry wt - < 1.4 - < 1.4 < 1.6
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether mg/kg dry wt - < 1.4 - < 1.4 < 1.6
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether mg/kg dry wt - < 1.4 - < 1.4 < 1.6
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether mg/kg dry wt - < 1.4 - < 1.4 < 1.6
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether mg/kg dry wt - < 1.4 - < 1.4 < 1.6
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine mg/kg dry wt - <7 - <7 <8
2,4-Dinitrotoluene mg/kg dry wt - <3 - <3 <4
2,6-Dinitrotoluene mg/kg dry wt - <3 - <3 <4
Nitrobenzene mg/kg dry wt - < 1.4 - < 1.4 < 1.6
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine mg/kg dry wt - <3 - <3 <4
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine mg/kg dry wt - <3 - <3 <4
Aldrin mg/kg dry wt - < 1.4 - < 1.4 < 1.6
alpha-BHC mg/kg dry wt - < 1.4 - < 1.4 < 1.6
beta-BHC mg/kg dry wt - < 1.4 - < 1.4 < 1.6
delta-BHC mg/kg dry wt - < 1.4 - < 1.4 < 1.6
gamma-BHC (Lindane) mg/kg dry wt - < 1.4 - < 1.4 < 1.6
4,4'-DDD mg/kg dry wt - < 1.4 - < 1.4 < 1.6
4,4'-DDE mg/kg dry wt - < 1.4 - < 1.4 < 1.6
4,4'-DDT mg/kg dry wt - <3 - <3 <4
Dieldrin mg/kg dry wt - < 1.4 - < 1.4 < 1.6
Endosulfan I mg/kg dry wt - <3 - <3 <4
Endosulfan II mg/kg dry wt - <3 - <3 <4
Endosulfan sulphate mg/kg dry wt - <3 - <3 <4
Endrin mg/kg dry wt - <3 - <3 <4
Endrin ketone mg/kg dry wt - <3 - <3 <4
Heptachlor mg/kg dry wt - < 1.4 - < 1.4 < 1.6
Heptachlor epoxide mg/kg dry wt - < 1.4 - < 1.4 < 1.6
Hexachlorobenzene mg/kg dry wt - < 1.4 - < 1.4 < 1.6
Acenaphthene mg/kg dry wt - < 0.7 - < 0.7 < 0.8
Acenaphthylene mg/kg dry wt - < 0.7 - < 0.7 < 0.8
Anthracene mg/kg dry wt - < 0.7 - < 0.7 < 0.8
Benzo[a]anthracene mg/kg dry wt - < 0.7 - < 0.7 < 0.8

Sample Type: Soil
Lab Number: 1402615.30 1402615.31 1402615.32 1402615.34 1402615.35
Benzo[a]pyrene (BAP) mg/kg dry wt - < 1.4 - < 1.4 < 1.6
Benzo[b]fluoranthene + Benzo[j] mg/kg dry wt - < 1.4 - < 1.4 < 1.6
fluoranthene
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene mg/kg dry wt - < 1.4 - < 1.4 < 1.6
Benzo[k]fluoranthene mg/kg dry wt - < 1.4 - < 1.4 < 1.6
2-Chloronaphthalene mg/kg dry wt - < 0.7 - < 0.7 < 0.8
Chrysene mg/kg dry wt - < 0.7 - < 0.7 < 0.8
Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene mg/kg dry wt - < 1.4 - < 1.4 < 1.6
Fluoranthene mg/kg dry wt - < 0.7 - 1.1 < 0.8
Fluorene mg/kg dry wt - < 0.7 - < 0.7 < 0.8
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene mg/kg dry wt - < 1.4 - < 1.4 < 1.6
2-Methylnaphthalene mg/kg dry wt - < 0.7 - < 0.7 < 0.8
Naphthalene mg/kg dry wt - < 0.7 - < 0.7 < 0.8
Phenanthrene mg/kg dry wt - < 0.7 - < 0.7 < 0.8
Pyrene mg/kg dry wt - < 0.7 - 1.1 < 0.8
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol mg/kg dry wt - <5 - <5 <5
2-Chlorophenol mg/kg dry wt - < 1.4 - < 1.4 < 1.6
2,4-Dichlorophenol mg/kg dry wt - < 1.4 - < 1.4 < 1.6
2,4-Dimethylphenol mg/kg dry wt - <3 - <3 <3
3 & 4-Methylphenol (m- + p- mg/kg dry wt - <3 - <3 <4
cresol)
2-Methylphenol (o-Cresol) mg/kg dry wt - < 1.4 - < 1.4 < 1.6
2-Nitrophenol mg/kg dry wt - <5 - <5 <5
Pentachlorophenol (PCP) mg/kg dry wt - < 30 - < 30 < 40
Phenol mg/kg dry wt - <3 - <3 <4
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol mg/kg dry wt - <3 - <3 <4
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol mg/kg dry wt - <3 - <3 <4
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate mg/kg dry wt - <6 - <6 <7
Butylbenzylphthalate mg/kg dry wt - <3 - <3 <4
Di(2-ethylhexyl)adipate mg/kg dry wt - < 1.4 - < 1.4 < 1.6
Diethylphthalate mg/kg dry wt - <3 - <3 <4
Dimethylphthalate mg/kg dry wt - <3 - <3 <4
Di-n-butylphthalate mg/kg dry wt - <3 - <3 <4
Di-n-octylphthalate mg/kg dry wt - <3 - <3 <4
1,2-Dichlorobenzene mg/kg dry wt - <3 - <3 <4
Hexachlorobutadiene mg/kg dry wt - <3 - <3 <4
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene mg/kg dry wt - <7 - <7 <8
Hexachloroethane mg/kg dry wt - <3 - <3 <4
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene mg/kg dry wt - < 1.4 - < 1.4 < 1.6
Benzyl alcohol mg/kg dry wt - < 14 - < 14 < 16
Carbazole mg/kg dry wt - < 1.4 - < 1.4 < 1.6
Dibenzofuran mg/kg dry wt - < 1.4 - < 1.4 < 1.6
Isophorone mg/kg dry wt - < 1.4 - < 1.4 < 1.6
C7 - C9 mg/kg dry wt <8 <9 - <9 < 10
C10 - C14 mg/kg dry wt < 20 < 20 - < 20 < 20
C15 - C36 mg/kg dry wt < 40 < 40 - < 40 < 40
Total hydrocarbons (C7 - C36) mg/kg dry wt < 70 < 70 - < 70 < 70

Sample Type: Soil
Lab Number: 1402615.36 1402615.38 1402615.39 1402615.41 1402615.42
Individual Tests
Total Recoverable Lead mg/kg dry wt 18.9 16.7 21 149 21
Benzene mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.05 -
Toluene mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.05 -
Ethylbenzene mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.05 -
m&p-Xylene mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.10 -
o-Xylene mg/kg dry wt - - - < 0.05 -
4,4'-DDD mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.4 -
4,4'-DDE mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.4 -
4,4'-DDT mg/kg dry wt - - - <3 -

Sample Type: Soil
Lab Number: 1402615.36 1402615.38 1402615.39 1402615.41 1402615.42
fluoranthene
Pyrene mg/kg dry wt - - - 0.8 -
cresol)
C7 - C9 mg/kg dry wt - < 10 - <9 -
C10 - C14 mg/kg dry wt - < 20 - < 20 -
C15 - C36 mg/kg dry wt - < 40 - 510 -
Total hydrocarbons (C7 - C36) mg/kg dry wt - < 70 - 510 -

Sample Type: Soil
Lab Number: 1402615.44 1402615.45 1402615.47 1402615.48 1402615.50
Individual Tests
Total Recoverable Cadmium mg/kg dry wt 0.15 < 0.10 0.24 < 0.10 < 0.10
4,4'-DDD mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - < 1.4 - -
4,4'-DDE mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - < 1.4 - -
4,4'-DDT mg/kg dry wt <3 - <3 - -
Acenaphthylene mg/kg dry wt < 0.7 - < 0.7 - -
Anthracene mg/kg dry wt 1.3 - < 0.7 - -
Benzo[a]pyrene (BAP) mg/kg dry wt 4.2 - < 1.4 - -
Benzo[b]fluoranthene + Benzo[j] mg/kg dry wt 5.2 - < 1.4 - -
fluoranthene
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene mg/kg dry wt 3.7 - < 1.4 - -
Benzo[k]fluoranthene mg/kg dry wt 1.8 - < 1.4 - -
Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene mg/kg dry wt < 1.4 - < 1.4 - -

Sample Type: Soil
Lab Number: 1402615.44 1402615.45 1402615.47 1402615.48 1402615.50
Fluoranthene mg/kg dry wt 11.0 - 0.9 - -
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene mg/kg dry wt 2.4 - < 1.4 - -
2-Methylnaphthalene mg/kg dry wt < 0.7 - < 0.7 - -
Naphthalene mg/kg dry wt < 0.7 - < 0.7 - -
Pyrene mg/kg dry wt 10.4 - 0.9 - -
cresol)
C7 - C9 mg/kg dry wt <9 - <8 - <8
C10 - C14 mg/kg dry wt < 20 - < 20 - < 20
C15 - C36 mg/kg dry wt < 40 - < 40 - 134
Total hydrocarbons (C7 - C36) mg/kg dry wt < 70 - < 70 - 134
Lab Number: 1402615.51 1402615.53 1402615.54 1402615.56 1402615.57
Individual Tests

Sample Type: Soil
Lab Number: 1402615.51 1402615.53 1402615.54 1402615.56 1402615.57
Total Recoverable Cadmium mg/kg dry wt < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.11
Total Recoverable Lead mg/kg dry wt 31 11.5 19.2 16.7 29
C7 - C9 mg/kg dry wt - <8 - <8 -
C10 - C14 mg/kg dry wt - < 20 - < 20 -
C15 - C36 mg/kg dry wt - < 40 - < 40 -
Total hydrocarbons (C7 - C36) mg/kg dry wt - < 70 - < 70 -
Lab Number: 1402615.59 1402615.60 1402615.62 1402615.63 1402615.65
Individual Tests
Total Recoverable Zinc mg/kg dry wt 66 93 1,010 39 198
Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.8 - < 1.7
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.8 - < 1.7
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.8 - < 1.7
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.8 - < 1.7
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.8 - < 1.7
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine mg/kg dry wt - - <9 - <9
2,4-Dinitrotoluene mg/kg dry wt - - <4 - <4
2,6-Dinitrotoluene mg/kg dry wt - - <4 - <4
Nitrobenzene mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.8 - < 1.7
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine mg/kg dry wt - - <4 - <4
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine mg/kg dry wt - - <4 - <4
Aldrin mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.8 - < 1.7
alpha-BHC mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.8 - < 1.7
beta-BHC mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.8 - < 1.7
delta-BHC mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.8 - < 1.7
gamma-BHC (Lindane) mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.8 - < 1.7
4,4'-DDD mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.8 - < 1.7
4,4'-DDE mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.8 - < 1.7
4,4'-DDT mg/kg dry wt - - <4 - <4
Dieldrin mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.8 - < 1.7
Endosulfan I mg/kg dry wt - - <4 - <4
Endosulfan II mg/kg dry wt - - <4 - <4
Endosulfan sulphate mg/kg dry wt - - <4 - <4
Endrin mg/kg dry wt - - <4 - <4

Sample Type: Soil
Lab Number: 1402615.59 1402615.60 1402615.62 1402615.63 1402615.65
Endrin ketone mg/kg dry wt - - <4 - <4
Heptachlor mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.8 - < 1.7
Heptachlor epoxide mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.8 - < 1.7
Hexachlorobenzene mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.8 - < 1.7
Acenaphthene mg/kg dry wt - - < 0.9 - < 0.9
Acenaphthylene mg/kg dry wt - - < 0.9 - < 0.9
Anthracene mg/kg dry wt - - < 0.9 - < 0.9
Benzo[a]anthracene mg/kg dry wt - - 3.0 - < 0.9
Benzo[a]pyrene (BAP) mg/kg dry wt - - 3.3 - < 1.7
Benzo[b]fluoranthene + Benzo[j] mg/kg dry wt - - 3.8 - < 1.7
fluoranthene
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene mg/kg dry wt - - 2.7 - < 1.7
Benzo[k]fluoranthene mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.8 - < 1.7
2-Chloronaphthalene mg/kg dry wt - - < 0.9 - < 0.9
Chrysene mg/kg dry wt - - 2.8 - < 0.9
Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.8 - < 1.7
Fluoranthene mg/kg dry wt - - 6.0 - < 0.9
Fluorene mg/kg dry wt - - < 0.9 - < 0.9
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene mg/kg dry wt - - 2.0 - < 1.7
2-Methylnaphthalene mg/kg dry wt - - < 0.9 - < 0.9
Naphthalene mg/kg dry wt - - < 0.9 - < 0.9
Phenanthrene mg/kg dry wt - - 3.1 - < 0.9
Pyrene mg/kg dry wt - - 6.0 - < 0.9
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol mg/kg dry wt - - <5 - <5
2-Chlorophenol mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.8 - < 1.7
2,4-Dichlorophenol mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.8 - < 1.7
2,4-Dimethylphenol mg/kg dry wt - - <3 - <3
3 & 4-Methylphenol (m- + p- mg/kg dry wt - - <4 - <4
cresol)
2-Methylphenol (o-Cresol) mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.8 - < 1.7
2-Nitrophenol mg/kg dry wt - - <5 - <5
Pentachlorophenol (PCP) mg/kg dry wt - - < 40 - < 40
Phenol mg/kg dry wt - - <4 - <4
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol mg/kg dry wt - - <4 - <4
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol mg/kg dry wt - - <4 - <4
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate mg/kg dry wt - - <8 - <7
Butylbenzylphthalate mg/kg dry wt - - <4 - <4
Di(2-ethylhexyl)adipate mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.8 - < 1.7
Diethylphthalate mg/kg dry wt - - <4 - <4
Dimethylphthalate mg/kg dry wt - - <4 - <4
Di-n-butylphthalate mg/kg dry wt - - <4 - <4
Di-n-octylphthalate mg/kg dry wt - - <4 - <4
1,2-Dichlorobenzene mg/kg dry wt - - <4 - <4
Hexachlorobutadiene mg/kg dry wt - - <4 - <4
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene mg/kg dry wt - - <9 - <9
Hexachloroethane mg/kg dry wt - - <4 - <4
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.8 - < 1.7

Sample Type: Soil
Lab Number: 1402615.59 1402615.60 1402615.62 1402615.63 1402615.65
Benzyl alcohol mg/kg dry wt - - < 18 - < 17
Carbazole mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.8 - < 1.7
Dibenzofuran mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.8 - < 1.7
Isophorone mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.8 - < 1.7
C7 - C9 mg/kg dry wt < 11 - < 11 - < 11
C10 - C14 mg/kg dry wt < 30 - < 30 - < 30
C15 - C36 mg/kg dry wt 94 - 182 - 110
Total hydrocarbons (C7 - C36) mg/kg dry wt 94 - 182 - 110
Lab Number: 1402615.66 1402615.68 1402615.69 1402615.70 1402615.71
Individual Tests
Dry Matter g/100g as rcvd - 74 94 91 -
Total Recoverable Arsenic mg/kg dry wt 7 2 <2 9 4
Total Recoverable Lead mg/kg dry wt 27 14.7 13.7 360 16.8
4,4'-DDD mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.2 -
4,4'-DDE mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.2 -
4,4'-DDT mg/kg dry wt - - - <3 -

Sample Type: Soil
Lab Number: 1402615.66 1402615.68 1402615.69 1402615.70 1402615.71
Acenaphthene mg/kg dry wt - - - 7.9 -
Acenaphthylene mg/kg dry wt - - - 10.7 -
Anthracene mg/kg dry wt - - - 30 -
Benzo[a]anthracene mg/kg dry wt - - - 58 -
Benzo[a]pyrene (BAP) mg/kg dry wt - - - 73 -
Benzo[b]fluoranthene + Benzo[j] mg/kg dry wt - - - 69 -
fluoranthene
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene mg/kg dry wt - - - 65 -
Benzo[k]fluoranthene mg/kg dry wt - - - 33 -
Chrysene mg/kg dry wt - - - 52 -
Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene mg/kg dry wt - - - 17.3 -
Fluoranthene mg/kg dry wt - - - 174 -
Fluorene mg/kg dry wt - - - 20 -
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene mg/kg dry wt - - - 55 -
2-Methylnaphthalene mg/kg dry wt - - - 5.8 -
Naphthalene mg/kg dry wt - - - 10.3 -
Phenanthrene mg/kg dry wt - - - 101 -
Pyrene mg/kg dry wt - - - 178 -
cresol)
Carbazole mg/kg dry wt - - - 8.8 -
Dibenzofuran mg/kg dry wt - - - 13.7 -

Sample Type: Soil
Lab Number: 1402615.66 1402615.68 1402615.69 1402615.70 1402615.71
C7 - C9 mg/kg dry wt - <9 <8 <8 -
C10 - C14 mg/kg dry wt - < 20 < 20 58 -
C15 - C36 mg/kg dry wt - < 40 57 3,200 -
Total hydrocarbons (C7 - C36) mg/kg dry wt - < 70 < 70 3,200 -
Lab Number: 1402615.73 1402615.74 1402615.76 1402615.77 1402615.79
Individual Tests
Total Recoverable Cadmium mg/kg dry wt 0.15 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10
Total Recoverable Lead mg/kg dry wt 80 27 22 23 15.0
Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane mg/kg dry wt < 1.3 - - - -
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether mg/kg dry wt < 1.3 - - - -
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether mg/kg dry wt < 1.3 - - - -
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether mg/kg dry wt < 1.3 - - - -
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether mg/kg dry wt < 1.3 - - - -
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine mg/kg dry wt <7 - - - -
Nitrobenzene mg/kg dry wt < 1.3 - - - -
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - -
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - -
Aldrin mg/kg dry wt < 1.3 - - - -
alpha-BHC mg/kg dry wt < 1.3 - - - -
beta-BHC mg/kg dry wt < 1.3 - - - -
delta-BHC mg/kg dry wt < 1.3 - - - -
gamma-BHC (Lindane) mg/kg dry wt < 1.3 - - - -
4,4'-DDD mg/kg dry wt < 1.3 - - - -
4,4'-DDE mg/kg dry wt < 1.3 - - - -
4,4'-DDT mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - -
Dieldrin mg/kg dry wt < 1.3 - - - -
Endosulfan I mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - -
Endosulfan II mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - -
Endosulfan sulphate mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - -
Endrin mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - -
Endrin ketone mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - -
Heptachlor mg/kg dry wt < 1.3 - - - -
Heptachlor epoxide mg/kg dry wt < 1.3 - - - -
Hexachlorobenzene mg/kg dry wt < 1.3 - - - -
Acenaphthene mg/kg dry wt < 0.7 - - - -

Sample Type: Soil
Lab Number: 1402615.73 1402615.74 1402615.76 1402615.77 1402615.79
Acenaphthylene mg/kg dry wt < 0.7 - - - -
Anthracene mg/kg dry wt < 0.7 - - - -
Benzo[a]anthracene mg/kg dry wt 1.2 - - - -
Benzo[a]pyrene (BAP) mg/kg dry wt 1.4 - - - -
Benzo[b]fluoranthene + Benzo[j] mg/kg dry wt 1.7 - - - -
fluoranthene
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene mg/kg dry wt 1.3 - - - -
Benzo[k]fluoranthene mg/kg dry wt < 1.3 - - - -
2-Chloronaphthalene mg/kg dry wt < 0.7 - - - -
Chrysene mg/kg dry wt 1.0 - - - -
Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene mg/kg dry wt < 1.3 - - - -
Fluoranthene mg/kg dry wt 2.3 - - - -
Fluorene mg/kg dry wt < 0.7 - - - -
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene mg/kg dry wt < 1.3 - - - -
2-Methylnaphthalene mg/kg dry wt < 0.7 - - - -
Naphthalene mg/kg dry wt < 0.7 - - - -
Phenanthrene mg/kg dry wt 1.2 - - - -
Pyrene mg/kg dry wt 2.3 - - - -
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol mg/kg dry wt <5 - - - -
2-Chlorophenol mg/kg dry wt < 1.3 - - - -
2,4-Dichlorophenol mg/kg dry wt < 1.3 - - - -
2,4-Dimethylphenol mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - -
3 & 4-Methylphenol (m- + p- mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - -
cresol)
2-Methylphenol (o-Cresol) mg/kg dry wt < 1.3 - - - -
2-Nitrophenol mg/kg dry wt <5 - - - -
Pentachlorophenol (PCP) mg/kg dry wt < 30 - - - -
Phenol mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - -
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate mg/kg dry wt <5 - - - -
Butylbenzylphthalate mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - -
Di(2-ethylhexyl)adipate mg/kg dry wt < 1.3 - - - -
Diethylphthalate mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - -
Dimethylphthalate mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - -
Di-n-butylphthalate mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - -
Di-n-octylphthalate mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - -
Hexachlorobutadiene mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - -
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene mg/kg dry wt <7 - - - -
Hexachloroethane mg/kg dry wt <3 - - - -
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene mg/kg dry wt < 1.3 - - - -
Benzyl alcohol mg/kg dry wt < 13 - - - -
Carbazole mg/kg dry wt < 1.3 - - - -
Dibenzofuran mg/kg dry wt < 1.3 - - - -
Isophorone mg/kg dry wt < 1.3 - - - -
C7 - C9 mg/kg dry wt <8 - <8 - <8

Sample Type: Soil
Lab Number: 1402615.73 1402615.74 1402615.76 1402615.77 1402615.79
C10 - C14 mg/kg dry wt < 20 - < 20 - < 20
C15 - C36 mg/kg dry wt 98 - < 40 - < 40
Total hydrocarbons (C7 - C36) mg/kg dry wt 98 - < 70 - < 70
Lab Number: 1402615.80 1402615.81 1402615.83 1402615.84 1402615.86
Individual Tests
Total Recoverable Cadmium mg/kg dry wt 0.37 < 0.10 0.50 < 0.10 < 0.10
4,4'-DDD mg/kg dry wt < 1.3 - < 1.7 - -
4,4'-DDE mg/kg dry wt < 1.3 - < 1.7 - -
4,4'-DDT mg/kg dry wt <3 - <4 - -
Acenaphthene mg/kg dry wt 9.9 - < 0.9 - -
Acenaphthylene mg/kg dry wt 8.6 - < 0.9 - -
Anthracene mg/kg dry wt 30 - < 0.9 - -
Benzo[a]anthracene mg/kg dry wt 47 - 1.7 - -

Sample Type: Soil
Lab Number: 1402615.80 1402615.81 1402615.83 1402615.84 1402615.86
Benzo[a]pyrene (BAP) mg/kg dry wt 45 - 3.2 - -
Benzo[b]fluoranthene + Benzo[j] mg/kg dry wt 45 - 5.0 - -
fluoranthene
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene mg/kg dry wt 38 - 4.5 - -
Chrysene mg/kg dry wt 42 - 2.2 - -
Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene mg/kg dry wt 11.1 - < 1.7 - -
Fluoranthene mg/kg dry wt 103 - 1.6 - -
Fluorene mg/kg dry wt 26 - < 0.9 - -
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene mg/kg dry wt 30 - 3.2 - -
2-Methylnaphthalene mg/kg dry wt 12.6 - < 0.9 - -
Naphthalene mg/kg dry wt 26 - < 0.9 - -
Phenanthrene mg/kg dry wt 108 - < 0.9 - -
Pyrene mg/kg dry wt 102 - 1.6 - -
cresol)
Carbazole mg/kg dry wt 10.5 - < 1.7 - -
Dibenzofuran mg/kg dry wt 20 - < 1.7 - -
C7 - C9 mg/kg dry wt <8 - < 10 - <8
C10 - C14 mg/kg dry wt 113 - < 20 - < 20
C15 - C36 mg/kg dry wt 3,400 - 173 - < 40
Total hydrocarbons (C7 - C36) mg/kg dry wt 3,500 - 173 - < 70

Sample Type: Soil
Lab Number: 1402615.87 1402615.89 1402615.90 1402615.92 1402615.93
Individual Tests
Total Recoverable Cadmium mg/kg dry wt < 0.10 0.41 0.12 < 0.10 < 0.10
Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane mg/kg dry wt - < 1.8 - < 1.3 -
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether mg/kg dry wt - < 1.8 - < 1.3 -
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether mg/kg dry wt - < 1.8 - < 1.3 -
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether mg/kg dry wt - < 1.8 - < 1.3 -
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether mg/kg dry wt - < 1.8 - < 1.3 -
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine mg/kg dry wt - <9 - <7 -
Nitrobenzene mg/kg dry wt - < 1.8 - < 1.3 -
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine mg/kg dry wt - <4 - <3 -
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine mg/kg dry wt - <4 - <3 -
Aldrin mg/kg dry wt - < 1.8 - < 1.3 -
alpha-BHC mg/kg dry wt - < 1.8 - < 1.3 -
beta-BHC mg/kg dry wt - < 1.8 - < 1.3 -
delta-BHC mg/kg dry wt - < 1.8 - < 1.3 -
gamma-BHC (Lindane) mg/kg dry wt - < 1.8 - < 1.3 -
4,4'-DDD mg/kg dry wt - < 1.8 - < 1.3 -
4,4'-DDE mg/kg dry wt - < 1.8 - < 1.3 -
4,4'-DDT mg/kg dry wt - <4 - <3 -
Dieldrin mg/kg dry wt - < 1.8 - < 1.3 -
Endosulfan I mg/kg dry wt - <4 - <3 -
Endosulfan II mg/kg dry wt - <4 - <3 -
Endosulfan sulphate mg/kg dry wt - <4 - <3 -
Endrin mg/kg dry wt - <4 - <3 -
Endrin ketone mg/kg dry wt - <4 - <3 -
Heptachlor mg/kg dry wt - < 1.8 - < 1.3 -
Heptachlor epoxide mg/kg dry wt - < 1.8 - < 1.3 -
Hexachlorobenzene mg/kg dry wt - < 1.8 - < 1.3 -
Acenaphthene mg/kg dry wt - < 0.9 - < 0.7 -
Acenaphthylene mg/kg dry wt - < 0.9 - < 0.7 -
Anthracene mg/kg dry wt - < 0.9 - < 0.7 -
Benzo[a]anthracene mg/kg dry wt - < 0.9 - 1.1 -
Benzo[a]pyrene (BAP) mg/kg dry wt - < 1.8 - 1.5 -
Benzo[b]fluoranthene + Benzo[j] mg/kg dry wt - < 1.8 - 1.4 -
fluoranthene
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene mg/kg dry wt - < 1.8 - < 1.3 -
Benzo[k]fluoranthene mg/kg dry wt - < 1.8 - < 1.3 -
2-Chloronaphthalene mg/kg dry wt - < 0.9 - < 0.7 -
Chrysene mg/kg dry wt - < 0.9 - 0.8 -
Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene mg/kg dry wt - < 1.8 - < 1.3 -

Sample Type: Soil
Lab Number: 1402615.87 1402615.89 1402615.90 1402615.92 1402615.93
Fluoranthene mg/kg dry wt - 1.0 - 1.7 -
Fluorene mg/kg dry wt - < 0.9 - < 0.7 -
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene mg/kg dry wt - < 1.8 - < 1.3 -
2-Methylnaphthalene mg/kg dry wt - < 0.9 - < 0.7 -
Naphthalene mg/kg dry wt - < 0.9 - < 0.7 -
Phenanthrene mg/kg dry wt - < 0.9 - 1.0 -
Pyrene mg/kg dry wt - 1.1 - 1.9 -
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol mg/kg dry wt - <5 - <5 -
2-Chlorophenol mg/kg dry wt - < 1.8 - < 1.3 -
2,4-Dichlorophenol mg/kg dry wt - < 1.8 - < 1.3 -
2,4-Dimethylphenol mg/kg dry wt - <3 - <3 -
3 & 4-Methylphenol (m- + p- mg/kg dry wt - <4 - <3 -
cresol)
2-Methylphenol (o-Cresol) mg/kg dry wt - < 1.8 - < 1.3 -
2-Nitrophenol mg/kg dry wt - <5 - <5 -
Pentachlorophenol (PCP) mg/kg dry wt - < 40 - < 30 -
Phenol mg/kg dry wt - <4 - <3 -
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate mg/kg dry wt - <7 - <5 -
Butylbenzylphthalate mg/kg dry wt - <4 - <3 -
Di(2-ethylhexyl)adipate mg/kg dry wt - < 1.8 - < 1.3 -
Diethylphthalate mg/kg dry wt - <4 - <3 -
Dimethylphthalate mg/kg dry wt - <4 - <3 -
Di-n-butylphthalate mg/kg dry wt - <4 - <3 -
Di-n-octylphthalate mg/kg dry wt - <4 - <3 -
Hexachlorobutadiene mg/kg dry wt - <4 - <3 -
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene mg/kg dry wt - <9 - <7 -
Hexachloroethane mg/kg dry wt - <4 - <3 -
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene mg/kg dry wt - < 1.8 - < 1.3 -
Benzyl alcohol mg/kg dry wt - < 18 - < 13 -
Carbazole mg/kg dry wt - < 1.8 - < 1.3 -
Dibenzofuran mg/kg dry wt - < 1.8 - < 1.3 -
Isophorone mg/kg dry wt - < 1.8 - < 1.3 -
C7 - C9 mg/kg dry wt - < 11 - <8 -
C10 - C14 mg/kg dry wt - < 30 - < 20 -
C15 - C36 mg/kg dry wt - 163 - 310 -
Total hydrocarbons (C7 - C36) mg/kg dry wt - 163 - 310 -
TP337 S1 0.45 TP337 S2 1.5 TP009S1 TP322 S1 0.45 TP322 S2 1.5
Lab Number: 1402615.95 1402615.96 1402615.98 1402615.99 1402615.100
Individual Tests
Dry Matter g/100g as rcvd 91 - 74 85 -

Sample Type: Soil
Lab Number: 1402615.95 1402615.96 1402615.98 1402615.99 1402615.100
Total Recoverable Cadmium mg/kg dry wt 0.14 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10
Benzene mg/kg dry wt < 0.05 - - - -
Toluene mg/kg dry wt < 0.05 - - - -
Ethylbenzene mg/kg dry wt 0.11 - - - -
m&p-Xylene mg/kg dry wt 0.92 - - - -
o-Xylene mg/kg dry wt 0.25 - - - -
4,4'-DDD mg/kg dry wt < 1.2 - < 1.5 - -
4,4'-DDE mg/kg dry wt < 1.2 - < 1.5 - -
4,4'-DDT mg/kg dry wt <3 - <3 - -
Acenaphthylene mg/kg dry wt 1.8 - < 0.8 - -
Anthracene mg/kg dry wt 2.2 - < 0.8 - -
Benzo[a]pyrene (BAP) mg/kg dry wt 11.5 - < 1.5 - -
Benzo[b]fluoranthene + Benzo[j] mg/kg dry wt 13.5 - < 1.5 - -
fluoranthene
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene mg/kg dry wt 10.7 - < 1.5 - -

Sample Type: Soil
Lab Number: 1402615.95 1402615.96 1402615.98 1402615.99 1402615.100
Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene mg/kg dry wt 2.6 - < 1.5 - -
Fluoranthene mg/kg dry wt 15.3 - < 0.8 - -
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene mg/kg dry wt 8.0 - < 1.5 - -
2-Methylnaphthalene mg/kg dry wt 0.7 - < 0.8 - -
Naphthalene mg/kg dry wt 1.4 - < 0.8 - -
Pyrene mg/kg dry wt 15.5 - < 0.8 - -
cresol)
C7 - C9 mg/kg dry wt 9 - <9 <8 -
C10 - C14 mg/kg dry wt < 20 - < 20 < 20 -
C15 - C36 mg/kg dry wt 1,600 - < 40 < 40 -
Total hydrocarbons (C7 - C36) mg/kg dry wt 1,610 - < 70 < 70 -
Lab Number: 1402615.102 1402615.103 1402615.105 1402615.106 1402615.108
Individual Tests

Sample Type: Soil
Lab Number: 1402615.102 1402615.103 1402615.105 1402615.106 1402615.108
Individual Tests
Total Recoverable Arsenic mg/kg dry wt 4 2 16 5 <2
Total Recoverable Cadmium mg/kg dry wt < 0.10 < 0.10 1.66 < 0.10 < 0.10
Total Recoverable Lead mg/kg dry wt 31 23 1,580 18.2 12.0
Total Recoverable Mercury mg/kg dry wt < 0.10 < 0.10 1.82 < 0.10 < 0.10
4,4'-DDD mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.8 - -
4,4'-DDE mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.8 - -
4,4'-DDT mg/kg dry wt - - <4 - -
Benzo[a]anthracene mg/kg dry wt - - 1.1 - -
Benzo[b]fluoranthene + Benzo[j] mg/kg dry wt - - 1.9 - -
fluoranthene
Chrysene mg/kg dry wt - - 1.3 - -

Sample Type: Soil
Lab Number: 1402615.102 1402615.103 1402615.105 1402615.106 1402615.108
Fluoranthene mg/kg dry wt - - 2.1 - -
Phenanthrene mg/kg dry wt - - 1.0 - -
Pyrene mg/kg dry wt - - 2.2 - -
cresol)
C7 - C9 mg/kg dry wt <8 - < 11 - <9
C10 - C14 mg/kg dry wt < 20 - < 30 - < 20
C15 - C36 mg/kg dry wt < 40 - 197 - < 40
Total hydrocarbons (C7 - C36) mg/kg dry wt < 70 - 197 - < 70
Lab Number: 1402615.109 1402615.111 1402615.112 1402615.114 1402615.115
Individual Tests

Sample Type: Soil
Lab Number: 1402615.109 1402615.111 1402615.112 1402615.114 1402615.115
Total Recoverable Copper mg/kg dry wt 12 7 17 1,000 21
Total Recoverable Lead mg/kg dry wt 20 13.1 30 260 35
4,4'-DDD mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.6 -
4,4'-DDE mg/kg dry wt - - - < 1.6 -
4,4'-DDT mg/kg dry wt - - - <4 -
Acenaphthylene mg/kg dry wt - - - 1.3 -
Anthracene mg/kg dry wt - - - 1.1 -
Benzo[a]anthracene mg/kg dry wt - - - 6.1 -
Benzo[a]pyrene (BAP) mg/kg dry wt - - - 8.4 -
Benzo[b]fluoranthene + Benzo[j] mg/kg dry wt - - - 10.2 -
fluoranthene
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene mg/kg dry wt - - - 7.5 -
Benzo[k]fluoranthene mg/kg dry wt - - - 3.4 -
Chrysene mg/kg dry wt - - - 6.1 -
Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene mg/kg dry wt - - - 2.0 -
Fluoranthene mg/kg dry wt - - - 9.5 -
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene mg/kg dry wt - - - 5.8 -

Sample Type: Soil
Lab Number: 1402615.109 1402615.111 1402615.112 1402615.114 1402615.115
Phenanthrene mg/kg dry wt - - - 3.3 -
Pyrene mg/kg dry wt - - - 9.9 -
cresol)
C7 - C9 mg/kg dry wt - <8 - < 10 -
C10 - C14 mg/kg dry wt - < 20 - < 20 -
C15 - C36 mg/kg dry wt - < 40 - 240 -
Total hydrocarbons (C7 - C36) mg/kg dry wt - < 70 - 240 -
TP328 S1 0.5 TP328 S2 1.7 TP010 S1 BH338 S1 BH338 S2
Lab Number: 1402615.117 1402615.118 1402615.120 1402615.121 1402615.122
Individual Tests
Dry Matter g/100g as rcvd 82 - 64 95 -
Total Recoverable Cadmium mg/kg dry wt < 0.10 0.13 1.10 0.20 < 0.10

Sample Type: Soil
Lab Number: 1402615.117 1402615.118 1402615.120 1402615.121 1402615.122
Total Recoverable Lead mg/kg dry wt 25 23 1,410 112 29
Total Recoverable Mercury mg/kg dry wt < 0.10 < 0.10 1.79 0.21 < 0.10
4,4'-DDD mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.7 - -
4,4'-DDE mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.7 - -
4,4'-DDT mg/kg dry wt - - <4 - -
Benzo[b]fluoranthene + Benzo[j] mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.7 - -
fluoranthene

Sample Type: Soil
Lab Number: 1402615.117 1402615.118 1402615.120 1402615.121 1402615.122
cresol)
C7 - C9 mg/kg dry wt <8 - < 10 <8 -
C10 - C14 mg/kg dry wt < 20 - < 20 < 20 -
C15 - C36 mg/kg dry wt < 40 - 194 2,000 -
Total hydrocarbons (C7 - C36) mg/kg dry wt < 70 - 194 2,000 -
BH339 S1 BH339 S2 BH340 S2 BH340 S3 BH341 S2
Lab Number: 1402615.124 1402615.125 1402615.128 1402615.129 1402615.132
Individual Tests
Dry Matter g/100g as rcvd 95 - 73 - -

Sample Type: Soil
Lab Number: 1402615.124 1402615.125 1402615.128 1402615.129 1402615.132
4,4'-DDD mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.5 - -
4,4'-DDE mg/kg dry wt - - < 1.5 - -
4,4'-DDT mg/kg dry wt - - <3 - -
Anthracene mg/kg dry wt - - 0.9 - -
Benzo[a]pyrene (BAP) mg/kg dry wt - - 5.5 - -
Benzo[b]fluoranthene + Benzo[j] mg/kg dry wt - - 5.6 - -
fluoranthene
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene mg/kg dry wt - - 4.6 - -
Benzo[k]fluoranthene mg/kg dry wt - - 1.9 - -
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene mg/kg dry wt - - 3.8 - -

Sample Type: Soil
Lab Number: 1402615.124 1402615.125 1402615.128 1402615.129 1402615.132
cresol)
C7 - C9 mg/kg dry wt <8 - <9 - -
C10 - C14 mg/kg dry wt < 20 - < 20 - -
C15 - C36 mg/kg dry wt 240 - 186 - -
Total hydrocarbons (C7 - C36) mg/kg dry wt 240 - 186 - -

1402615.1
15:041 MSF TP301 S1 0.5 23-Mar-2015
Client Chromatogram for TPH by FID
1402615.16
15:041 MSF TP306 S1 0.5 23-Mar-2015
1402615.23
15:041 MSF TP308 S2 0.8 23-Mar-2015

1402615.29
15:041 MSF TP004 S1 0.6 23-Mar-2015
1402615.35
15:041 MSF TP311 S2 0.8 24-Mar-2015
1402615.41
15:041 MSF TP313 S1 0.5 24-Mar-2015

1402615.50
15:041 MSF TP316 S1 0.5 24-Mar-2015
1402615.59
15:041 MSF TP319 S1 0.5 24-Mar-2015
1402615.62
15:041 MSF TP320 S1 0.5 24-Mar-2015

1402615.65
15:041 MSF TP321 S1 0.5 24-Mar-2015
1402615.69
15:041 MSF TP008 S1 1.5 24-Mar-2015
1402615.70
15:041 MSF TP329 S1 0.4 25-Mar-2015

1402615.73
15:041 MSF TP330 S1 0.45 25-Mar-2015
1402615.80
15:041 MSF TP332 S2 0.6 25-Mar-2015
1402615.83
15:041 MSF TP333 S1 0.5 25-Mar-2015

1402615.89
15:041 MSF TP335 S1 0.45 25-Mar-2015
1402615.92
15:041 MSF TP336 S1 0.5 25-Mar-2015
1402615.95
15:041 MSF TP337 S1 0.45 25-Mar-2015

1402615.105
15:041 MSF TP324 S1 0.45 26-Mar-2015
1402615.114
15:041 MSF TP327 S1 0.5 26-Mar-2015
1402615.120
15:041 MSF TP010 S1 26-Mar-2015

1402615.121
15:041 MSF BH338 S1 27-Mar-2015
1402615.124
15:041 MSF BH339 S1 27-Mar-2015
1402615.128
15:041 MSF BH340 S2 27-Mar-2015

Analyst's Comments
The matrix in sample 1402615.92 has affected some of the System Monitoring Compounds in the SVOC analysis, whereby
phenol-d5 was 53%, 2-fluorophenol was 10% and 2,4,6-tribromophenol was 1%. Therefore the phenolic compounds may
be underestimated.
SUMMARY OF METHODS
Sample Type: Soil

Preparation Used for sample preparation. 7-8, 10-11,
16-17,
19-20,
22-24,
26-27,
29-32,
34-36,
38-39,
41-42,
44-45,
47-48,
50-51,
53-54,
56-57,
59-60,
62-63,
65-66,
68-71,
73-74,
76-77,
79-81,
83-84,
86-87,
89-90,
92-93,
95-96,
98-100,
102-103,
105-106,
108-109,
111-112,
114-115,
117-118,
120-122,
124-125,
128-129,
132

Sample Type: Soil
As,Cd,Cr,Cu,Ni,Pb,Zn,Hg ICP-MS, screen level. 7-8, 10-11,
13-14,
16-17,
19-20,
22-24,
26-27,
29-32,
34-36,
38-39,
41-42,
44-45,
47-48,
50-51,
53-54,
56-57,
59-60,
62-63,
65-66,
68-71,
73-74,
76-77,
79-81,
83-84,
86-87,
89-90,
92-93,
95-96,
98-100,
102-103,
105-106,
108-109,
111-112,
114-115,
117-118,
120-122,
124-125,
128-129,
132
BTEX in Soil by Headspace GC-MS Solvent extraction, Headspace GC-MS analysis 0.05 - 0.10 mg/kg dry wt 41, 95
US EPA 8260B. Tested on as received sample
[KBIs:5782,26687,3629]
Semivolatile Organic Compounds Sonication extraction, GPC cleanup (if required), GC-MS FS 0.3 - 30 mg/kg dry wt 1, 4, 10, 13,
31, 34-35,
41, 44, 47,
62, 65, 70,
73, 80, 83,
89, 92, 95,
98, 105,
114, 120,
128
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil* Sonication extraction in DCM, Silica cleanup, GC-FID analysis 8 - 60 mg/kg dry wt 1, 4, 7, 10,
US EPA 8015B/MfE Petroleum Industry Guidelines. Tested on 13, 16, 19,
as received sample 22-23, 26,
[KBIs:5786,2805,10734] 29-31,
34-35, 38,
41, 44, 47,
50, 53, 56,
59, 62, 65,
68-70, 73,
76, 79-80,
83, 86, 89,
92, 95,
98-99, 102,
105, 108,
111, 114,
117,
120-121,
124, 128

Sample Type: Soil
Dry Matter (Env) Dried at 103C for 4-22hr (removes 3-5% more water than air 0.10 g/100g as rcvd 1, 4, 7, 10,
analysis). 22-23, 26,
29-31,
34-35, 38,
41, 44, 47,
50, 53, 56,
59, 62, 65,
68-70, 73,
76, 79-80,
83, 86, 89,
92, 95,
98-99, 102,
105, 108,
111, 114,
117,
120-121,
124, 128
7-8, 10-11,
13-14,
16-17,
19-20,
22-24,
26-27,
29-32,
34-36,
38-39,
41-42,
44-45,
47-48,
50-51,
53-54,
56-57,
59-60,
62-63,
65-66,
68-71,
73-74,
76-77,
79-81,
83-84,
86-87,
89-90,
92-93,
95-96,
98-100,
102-103,
105-106,
108-109,
111-112,
114-115,
117-118,
120-122,
124-125,
128-129,
132
client.


Client: Beca Limited Lab No: 1585990 SUPv1

Contact: B Waterhouse Date Registered: 19-May-2016
C/- Beca Limited Date Reported: 02-Jun-2016
Christchurch 8141 Order No: 16:056
Client Reference: 16:056
Submitted By: B Waterhouse
Sample Type: Soil

Sample Name: 16:056 TP401 0.5 16:056 TP401 2.3 16:056 TP402 0.5 16:056 TP402 2.0
17-May-2016 17-May-2016 17-May-2016 17-May-2016
Lab Number: 1585990.1 1585990.2 1585990.3 1585990.4
Individual Tests
Dry Matter g/100g as rcvd 78.8 5.0 - 75.8 5.0 -
Heavy Metals with Mercury, Screen Level
Total Recoverable Arsenic mg/kg dry wt 5.8 1.5 5.5 1.5 5.8 1.5 9.5 1.7
Total Recoverable Cadmium mg/kg dry wt 0.174 0.072 0.106 0.067 < 0.10 0.067 < 0.10 0.067
Total Recoverable Chromium mg/kg dry wt 16.4 2.2 19.9 2.4 17.6 2.3 23.9 2.8
Total Recoverable Copper mg/kg dry wt 35.5 5.2 17.1 2.8 8.9 1.9 19.2 3.0
Total Recoverable Lead mg/kg dry wt 506 71 51.0 7.2 32.5 4.6 29.9 4.2
Total Recoverable Mercury mg/kg dry wt 0.176 0.069 < 0.10 0.067 < 0.10 0.067 < 0.10 0.067
Total Recoverable Nickel mg/kg dry wt 12.0 2.2 15.8 2.6 12.3 2.2 22.6 3.5
Total Recoverable Zinc mg/kg dry wt 339 34 95.3 9.9 66.7 7.2 100 11
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Screening in Soil
Acenaphthene mg/kg dry wt < 0.03 0.010 - < 0.03 0.010 -
Acenaphthylene mg/kg dry wt 0.191 0.019 - < 0.03 0.0071 -
Anthracene mg/kg dry wt 0.40 0.12 - < 0.03 0.011 -
Benzo[a]anthracene mg/kg dry wt 2.45 0.64 - 0.032 0.011 -
Benzo[a]pyrene (BAP) mg/kg dry wt 3.16 0.25 - 0.0649 0.0083 -
Benzo[b]fluoranthene + Benzo[j] mg/kg dry wt 3.34 0.69 - 0.085 0.019 -
fluoranthene
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene mg/kg dry wt 1.77 0.31 - < 0.03 0.0081 -
Benzo[k]fluoranthene mg/kg dry wt 1.21 0.16 - < 0.03 0.0075 -
Chrysene mg/kg dry wt 2.21 0.33 - 0.0437 0.0092 -
Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene mg/kg dry wt 0.291 0.038 - < 0.03 0.0075 -
Fluoranthene mg/kg dry wt 4.94 0.50 - 0.117 0.014 -
Fluorene mg/kg dry wt < 0.03 0.0074 - < 0.03 0.0074 -
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene mg/kg dry wt 1.89 0.18 - < 0.03 0.0071 -
Naphthalene mg/kg dry wt < 0.14 0.047 - < 0.14 0.047 -
Phenanthrene mg/kg dry wt 1.17 0.17 - < 0.03 0.0077 -
Pyrene mg/kg dry wt 4.92 0.64 - 0.119 0.017 -
Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane mg/kg dry wt < 0.5 0.34 - < 0.5 0.34 -
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether mg/kg dry wt < 0.5 0.34 - < 0.5 0.34 -
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether mg/kg dry wt < 0.5 0.34 - < 0.5 0.34 -
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether mg/kg dry wt < 0.4 0.21 - < 0.4 0.21 -
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether mg/kg dry wt < 0.5 0.34 - < 0.5 0.34 -
This Laboratory is accredited by International Accreditation New Zealand (IANZ), which represents New Zealand in
the International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC). Through the ILAC Mutual Recognition Arrangement
(ILAC-MRA) this accreditation is internationally recognised.
The tests reported herein have been performed in accordance with the terms of accreditation, with the exception of
tests marked *, which are not accredited.
Sample Type: Soil
17-May-2016 17-May-2016 17-May-2016 17-May-2016
Lab Number: 1585990.1 1585990.2 1585990.3 1585990.4
2,4-Dinitrotoluene mg/kg dry wt < 1.0 0.67 - < 1.0 0.67 -
Nitrobenzene mg/kg dry wt < 0.5 0.34 - < 0.5 0.34 -
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine mg/kg dry wt < 0.7 0.35 - < 0.7 0.36 -
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine + mg/kg dry wt < 0.7 0.45 - < 0.7 0.46 -
Diphenylamine
Aldrin mg/kg dry wt < 0.5 0.34 - < 0.5 0.34 -
alpha-BHC mg/kg dry wt < 0.5 0.34 - < 0.5 0.34 -
beta-BHC mg/kg dry wt < 0.5 0.34 - < 0.5 0.34 -
delta-BHC mg/kg dry wt < 0.5 0.34 - < 0.5 0.34 -
gamma-BHC (Lindane) mg/kg dry wt < 0.5 0.34 - < 0.5 0.34 -
4,4'-DDD mg/kg dry wt < 0.5 0.34 - < 0.5 0.34 -
4,4'-DDE mg/kg dry wt < 0.5 0.34 - < 0.5 0.34 -
4,4'-DDT mg/kg dry wt < 1.0 0.67 - < 1.0 0.67 -
Dieldrin mg/kg dry wt < 0.5 0.34 - < 0.5 0.34 -
Endosulfan I mg/kg dry wt < 1.0 0.67 - < 1.0 0.67 -
Endosulfan II mg/kg dry wt < 2 1.4 - < 2 1.4 -
Endosulfan sulphate mg/kg dry wt < 1.0 0.67 - < 1.0 0.67 -
Endrin mg/kg dry wt < 0.7 0.41 - < 0.7 0.42 -
Endrin ketone mg/kg dry wt < 1.0 0.67 - < 1.0 0.67 -
Heptachlor mg/kg dry wt < 0.5 0.34 - < 0.5 0.34 -
Heptachlor epoxide mg/kg dry wt < 0.5 0.34 - < 0.5 0.34 -
Hexachlorobenzene mg/kg dry wt < 0.5 0.34 - < 0.5 0.34 -
Acenaphthylene mg/kg dry wt < 0.5 0.34 - < 0.5 0.34 -
Anthracene mg/kg dry wt 0.73 0.37 - < 0.5 0.34 -
Benzo[a]anthracene mg/kg dry wt 3.7 1.3 - < 0.5 0.34 -
Benzo[a]pyrene (BAP) mg/kg dry wt 3.6 1.9 - < 0.5 0.34 -
Benzo[b]fluoranthene + Benzo[j] mg/kg dry wt 3.5 1.9 - < 0.5 0.34 -
fluoranthene
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene mg/kg dry wt 2.3 1.1 - < 0.5 0.34 -
Benzo[k]fluoranthene mg/kg dry wt 1.35 0.65 - < 0.5 0.34 -
1&2-Chloronaphthalene mg/kg dry wt < 0.5 0.34 - < 0.5 0.34 -
Chrysene mg/kg dry wt 3.5 1.3 - < 0.5 0.34 -
Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene mg/kg dry wt 0.52 0.35 - < 0.5 0.34 -
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene mg/kg dry wt 2.3 1.5 - < 0.5 0.34 -
2-Methylnaphthalene mg/kg dry wt < 0.5 0.34 - < 0.5 0.34 -
Phenanthrene mg/kg dry wt 1.51 0.50 - < 0.5 0.34 -
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol mg/kg dry wt < 5 3.4 - < 5 3.4 -
2-Chlorophenol mg/kg dry wt < 1.0 0.67 - < 1.0 0.67 -
2,4-Dichlorophenol mg/kg dry wt < 1.0 0.67 - < 1.0 0.67 -
2,4-Dimethylphenol mg/kg dry wt < 3 1.2 - < 3 1.2 -
3 & 4-Methylphenol (m- + p- mg/kg dry wt < 3 1.2 - < 3 1.2 -
cresol)
2-Methylphenol (o-Cresol) mg/kg dry wt < 1.0 0.67 - < 1.0 0.67 -
2-Nitrophenol mg/kg dry wt < 5 3.4 - < 5 3.4 -
Pentachlorophenol (PCP) mg/kg dry wt < 30 68 - < 30 68 -
Phenol mg/kg dry wt < 1.0 0.67 - < 1.0 0.67 -

Sample Type: Soil
17-May-2016 17-May-2016 17-May-2016 17-May-2016
Lab Number: 1585990.1 1585990.2 1585990.3 1585990.4
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol mg/kg dry wt < 1.0 0.67 - < 1.0 0.67 -
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate mg/kg dry wt < 5 3.4 - < 5 3.4 -
Butylbenzylphthalate mg/kg dry wt < 1.0 0.67 - < 1.0 0.67 -
Di(2-ethylhexyl)adipate mg/kg dry wt < 1.0 5.1 - < 1.0 5.1 -
Diethylphthalate mg/kg dry wt < 1.0 0.67 - < 1.0 0.67 -
Dimethylphthalate mg/kg dry wt < 1.0 0.67 - < 1.0 0.67 -
Di-n-butylphthalate mg/kg dry wt < 1.0 0.67 - < 1.0 0.67 -
Di-n-octylphthalate mg/kg dry wt < 1.0 0.67 - < 1.0 0.67 -
1,2-Dichlorobenzene mg/kg dry wt < 0.7 0.35 - < 0.7 0.36 -
Hexachlorobutadiene mg/kg dry wt < 0.7 0.36 - < 0.7 0.36 -
Hexachloroethane mg/kg dry wt < 0.7 0.37 - < 0.7 0.37 -
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene mg/kg dry wt < 0.5 0.34 - < 0.5 0.34 -
Benzyl alcohol mg/kg dry wt < 10 6.7 - < 10 6.7 -
Carbazole mg/kg dry wt < 0.5 0.34 - < 0.5 0.34 -
Dibenzofuran mg/kg dry wt < 0.5 0.34 - < 0.5 0.34 -
Isophorone mg/kg dry wt < 0.5 0.34 - < 0.5 0.34 -
C7 - C9 mg/kg dry wt < 9 5.4 - < 9 5.4 -
C10 - C14 mg/kg dry wt < 20 7.6 - < 20 7.6 -
C15 - C36 mg/kg dry wt 120 14 - < 40 9.3 -
Total hydrocarbons (C7 - C36) mg/kg dry wt 120 17 - < 70 14 -
17-May-2016 17-May-2016 17-May-2016 17-May-2016
Lab Number: 1585990.5 1585990.6 1585990.7 1585990.8
Individual Tests
Total Recoverable Cadmium mg/kg dry wt 0.56 0.12 < 0.10 0.067 1.22 0.23 0.107 0.068
Total Recoverable Copper mg/kg dry wt 131 19 15.5 2.6 47.2 6.8 13.9 2.4
Total Recoverable Lead mg/kg dry wt 591 83 27.8 3.9 2,120 300 45.7 6.5
Total Recoverable Mercury mg/kg dry wt 0.610 0.099 < 0.10 0.067 0.74 0.12 < 0.10 0.067
Total Recoverable Zinc mg/kg dry wt 563 57 87.1 9.2 1,030 110 87.6 9.2
Acenaphthene mg/kg dry wt < 0.03 0.0094 - 0.038 0.013 -
Acenaphthylene mg/kg dry wt 0.0584 0.0085 - 0.818 0.074 -
Anthracene mg/kg dry wt 0.098 0.031 - 1.96 0.60 -
fluoranthene
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene mg/kg dry wt 0.75 0.13 - 4.96 0.86 -
Benzo[k]fluoranthene mg/kg dry wt 0.462 0.059 - 3.42 0.44 -
Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene mg/kg dry wt 0.103 0.015 - 0.84 0.11 -

Sample Type: Soil
17-May-2016 17-May-2016 17-May-2016 17-May-2016
Lab Number: 1585990.5 1585990.6 1585990.7 1585990.8
Fluorene mg/kg dry wt < 0.03 0.0073 - 0.348 0.042 -
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene mg/kg dry wt 0.773 0.072 - 5.36 0.50 -
Naphthalene mg/kg dry wt < 0.13 0.044 - 0.170 0.052 -
Phenanthrene mg/kg dry wt 0.605 0.085 - 10.3 1.5 -
Diphenylamine
4,4'-DDD mg/kg dry wt < 0.5 0.34 - < 0.5 0.34 -
4,4'-DDE mg/kg dry wt < 0.5 0.34 - < 0.5 0.34 -
4,4'-DDT mg/kg dry wt < 1.0 0.67 - < 1.0 0.67 -
Acenaphthylene mg/kg dry wt < 0.5 0.34 - 0.52 0.34 -
Anthracene mg/kg dry wt < 0.5 0.34 - 0.62 0.36 -
fluoranthene
Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene mg/kg dry wt < 0.5 0.34 - 0.57 0.37 -

Sample Type: Soil
17-May-2016 17-May-2016 17-May-2016 17-May-2016
Lab Number: 1585990.5 1585990.6 1585990.7 1585990.8
cresol)
C7 - C9 mg/kg dry wt < 8 5.4 - < 8 5.4 -
C10 - C14 mg/kg dry wt < 20 7.6 - < 20 7.6 -
C15 - C36 mg/kg dry wt 141 13 - 321 29 -
Total hydrocarbons (C7 - C36) mg/kg dry wt 141 16 - 321 30 -
17-May-2016 17-May-2016 17-May-2016 17-May-2016
Lab Number: 1585990.9 1585990.10 1585990.11 1585990.12
Individual Tests
Total Recoverable Cadmium mg/kg dry wt < 0.10 0.067 < 0.10 0.067 0.125 0.069 0.101 0.067
Total Recoverable Lead mg/kg dry wt 23.8 3.4 22.9 3.3 73 11 24.6 3.5
Total Recoverable Mercury mg/kg dry wt < 0.10 0.067 < 0.10 0.067 < 0.10 0.067 < 0.10 0.067
Total Recoverable Zinc mg/kg dry wt 79.7 8.4 72.8 7.8 140 15 79.6 8.4

Sample Type: Soil
17-May-2016 17-May-2016 17-May-2016 17-May-2016
Lab Number: 1585990.9 1585990.10 1585990.11 1585990.12
Acenaphthylene mg/kg dry wt < 0.04 0.0072 - 0.0562 0.0084 -
Anthracene mg/kg dry wt < 0.04 0.011 - 0.110 0.034 -
Benzo[a]anthracene mg/kg dry wt < 0.04 0.010 - 0.43 0.12 -
Benzo[a]pyrene (BAP) mg/kg dry wt < 0.04 0.0071 - 0.542 0.042 -
Benzo[b]fluoranthene + Benzo[j] mg/kg dry wt < 0.04 0.0089 - 0.58 0.12 -
fluoranthene
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene mg/kg dry wt < 0.04 0.0083 - 0.332 0.058 -
Benzo[k]fluoranthene mg/kg dry wt < 0.04 0.0076 - 0.189 0.025 -
Chrysene mg/kg dry wt < 0.04 0.0079 - 0.386 0.058 -
Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene mg/kg dry wt < 0.04 0.0077 - < 0.03 0.0076 -
Fluoranthene mg/kg dry wt < 0.04 0.0073 - 0.877 0.088 -
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene mg/kg dry wt < 0.04 0.0072 - 0.336 0.032 -
Phenanthrene mg/kg dry wt < 0.04 0.0078 - 0.401 0.057 -
Pyrene mg/kg dry wt < 0.04 0.0077 - 0.84 0.11 -
Diphenylamine
4,4'-DDD mg/kg dry wt < 0.5 0.34 - < 0.5 0.34 -
4,4'-DDE mg/kg dry wt < 0.5 0.34 - < 0.5 0.34 -
4,4'-DDT mg/kg dry wt < 1.0 0.67 - < 1.0 0.67 -
Anthracene mg/kg dry wt < 0.5 0.34 - < 0.5 0.34 -

Sample Type: Soil
17-May-2016 17-May-2016 17-May-2016 17-May-2016
Lab Number: 1585990.9 1585990.10 1585990.11 1585990.12
fluoranthene
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene mg/kg dry wt < 0.5 0.34 - 0.82 0.45 -
Benzo[k]fluoranthene mg/kg dry wt < 0.5 0.34 - < 0.5 0.34 -
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene mg/kg dry wt < 0.5 0.34 - 0.82 0.53 -
Phenanthrene mg/kg dry wt < 0.5 0.34 - 0.68 0.36 -
cresol)
C7 - C9 mg/kg dry wt < 10 5.5 - < 9 5.4 -
C10 - C14 mg/kg dry wt < 20 7.7 - < 20 7.7 -
C15 - C36 mg/kg dry wt < 40 9.4 - 42.1 9.5 -
Total hydrocarbons (C7 - C36) mg/kg dry wt < 70 14 - < 70 14 -

Sample Type: Soil
17-May-2016 17-May-2016 17-May-2016 17-May-2016
Lab Number: 1585990.13 1585990.14 1585990.15 1585990.16
Individual Tests
Total Recoverable Arsenic mg/kg dry wt 5.4 1.5 4.4 1.4 7.5 1.6 < 2 1.4
Total Recoverable Cadmium mg/kg dry wt 0.128 0.069 < 0.10 0.067 0.214 0.075 < 0.10 0.067
Total Recoverable Lead mg/kg dry wt 58.6 8.3 23.4 3.3 127 18 21.2 3.0
Total Recoverable Mercury mg/kg dry wt < 0.10 0.067 < 0.10 0.067 0.129 0.068 < 0.10 0.067
Total Recoverable Zinc mg/kg dry wt 166 17 65.9 7.1 217 22 63.8 7.0
Anthracene mg/kg dry wt 0.080 0.025 - 0.073 0.023 -
fluoranthene
Diphenylamine
4,4'-DDD mg/kg dry wt < 0.5 0.34 - < 0.5 0.34 -
4,4'-DDE mg/kg dry wt < 0.5 0.34 - < 0.5 0.34 -
4,4'-DDT mg/kg dry wt < 1.0 0.67 - < 1.0 0.67 -

Sample Type: Soil
17-May-2016 17-May-2016 17-May-2016 17-May-2016
Lab Number: 1585990.13 1585990.14 1585990.15 1585990.16
fluoranthene
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene mg/kg dry wt < 0.5 0.34 - < 0.5 0.34 -
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene mg/kg dry wt < 0.5 0.34 - < 0.5 0.34 -
Phenanthrene mg/kg dry wt < 0.5 0.34 - < 0.5 0.34 -
cresol)

Sample Type: Soil
17-May-2016 17-May-2016 17-May-2016 17-May-2016
Lab Number: 1585990.13 1585990.14 1585990.15 1585990.16
C7 - C9 mg/kg dry wt < 9 5.4 - < 9 5.4 -
C10 - C14 mg/kg dry wt < 20 7.6 - < 20 7.6 -
C15 - C36 mg/kg dry wt < 40 9.6 - < 40 9.3 -
17-May-2016 17-May-2016 17-May-2016 17-May-2016
Lab Number: 1585990.17 1585990.18 1585990.19 1585990.20
Individual Tests
Dry Matter g/100g as rcvd - - - 70.4 5.0
Total Recoverable Cadmium mg/kg dry wt 0.262 0.080 1.86 0.35 0.241 0.078 1.25 0.24
Total Recoverable Copper mg/kg dry wt 39.3 5.7 199 28 36.9 5.4 186 27
Total Recoverable Lead mg/kg dry wt 206 29 14,600 2,100 128 18 1,020 150
Total Recoverable Mercury mg/kg dry wt 0.243 0.072 8.06 0.97 0.131 0.068 13.4 1.7
Total Recoverable Zinc mg/kg dry wt 250 26 1,750 180 135 14 622 63
C7 - C9 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 9 5.5
C10 - C14 mg/kg dry wt - - - < 20 7.7
C15 - C36 mg/kg dry wt - - - 93 12
Total hydrocarbons (C7 - C36) mg/kg dry wt - - - 93 15
17-May-2016 17-May-2016 18-May-2016 18-May-2016
Lab Number: 1585990.21 1585990.22 1585990.23 1585990.24
Total Recoverable Cadmium mg/kg dry wt 0.271 0.081 0.357 0.091 < 0.10 0.067 0.124 0.068
Total Recoverable Lead mg/kg dry wt 222 32 361 51 27.4 3.9 21.5 3.1
Total Recoverable Mercury mg/kg dry wt < 0.10 0.067 0.138 0.068 < 0.10 0.067 < 0.10 0.067
Total Recoverable Zinc mg/kg dry wt 228 23 267 27 53.6 6.0 75.3 8.0
18-May-2016 18-May-2016 18-May-2016 18-May-2016
Lab Number: 1585990.25 1585990.26 1585990.27 1585990.28
Individual Tests
Total Recoverable Cadmium mg/kg dry wt < 0.10 0.067 < 0.10 0.067 0.127 0.069 < 0.10 0.067
Total Recoverable Lead mg/kg dry wt 21.0 3.0 25.2 3.6 43.8 6.2 15.3 2.2
Total Recoverable Mercury mg/kg dry wt 0.103 0.067 < 0.10 0.067 < 0.10 0.067 < 0.10 0.067
Total Recoverable Zinc mg/kg dry wt 546 55 79.2 8.4 81.6 8.6 54.6 6.1

Sample Type: Soil
18-May-2016 18-May-2016 18-May-2016 18-May-2016
Lab Number: 1585990.25 1585990.26 1585990.27 1585990.28
Benzo[a]anthracene mg/kg dry wt < 0.04 0.011 - < 0.03 0.0087 -
Benzo[a]pyrene (BAP) mg/kg dry wt < 0.04 0.0071 - < 0.03 0.0069 -
Benzo[b]fluoranthene + Benzo[j] mg/kg dry wt < 0.04 0.0091 - < 0.03 0.0080 -
fluoranthene
Chrysene mg/kg dry wt < 0.04 0.0081 - < 0.03 0.0074 -
Pyrene mg/kg dry wt < 0.04 0.0077 - < 0.03 0.0073 -
Diphenylamine
4,4'-DDD mg/kg dry wt < 0.5 0.34 - < 0.5 0.34 -
4,4'-DDE mg/kg dry wt < 0.5 0.34 - < 0.5 0.34 -
4,4'-DDT mg/kg dry wt < 1.0 0.67 - < 1.0 0.67 -

Sample Type: Soil
18-May-2016 18-May-2016 18-May-2016 18-May-2016
Lab Number: 1585990.25 1585990.26 1585990.27 1585990.28
fluoranthene
cresol)
C7 - C9 mg/kg dry wt < 10 5.5 - < 8 5.4 -
C10 - C14 mg/kg dry wt < 20 7.8 - < 20 7.6 -
C15 - C36 mg/kg dry wt < 40 9.5 - < 40 9.4 -

Sample Type: Soil
18-May-2016 18-May-2016 18-May-2016 18-May-2016
Lab Number: 1585990.29 1585990.30 1585990.31 1585990.32
Individual Tests
Total Recoverable Cadmium mg/kg dry wt < 0.10 0.067 < 0.10 0.067 < 0.10 0.067 < 0.10 0.067
Total Recoverable Zinc mg/kg dry wt 44.9 5.3 75.8 8.1 56.4 6.3 84.0 8.9
fluoranthene
Fluoranthene mg/kg dry wt < 0.03 0.0070 - < 0.03 0.0070 -
Diphenylamine
4,4'-DDD mg/kg dry wt < 0.5 0.34 - < 0.5 0.34 -
4,4'-DDE mg/kg dry wt < 0.5 0.34 - < 0.5 0.34 -
4,4'-DDT mg/kg dry wt < 1.0 0.67 - < 1.0 0.67 -

Sample Type: Soil
18-May-2016 18-May-2016 18-May-2016 18-May-2016
Lab Number: 1585990.29 1585990.30 1585990.31 1585990.32
fluoranthene
Fluoranthene mg/kg dry wt < 0.5 0.34 - < 0.5 0.34 -
cresol)

Sample Type: Soil
18-May-2016 18-May-2016 18-May-2016 18-May-2016
Lab Number: 1585990.29 1585990.30 1585990.31 1585990.32
C7 - C9 mg/kg dry wt < 8 5.4 - < 8 5.4 -
C10 - C14 mg/kg dry wt < 20 7.6 - < 20 7.6 -
C15 - C36 mg/kg dry wt < 40 9.3 - < 40 9.3 -
18-May-2016 17-May-2016 17-May-2016 17-May-2016
Lab Number: 1585990.33 1585990.34 1585990.35 1585990.36
Total Recoverable Cadmium mg/kg dry wt < 0.10 0.067 < 0.10 0.067 0.104 0.067 < 0.10 0.067
Total Recoverable Mercury mg/kg dry wt < 0.10 0.067 < 0.10 0.067 0.103 0.067 < 0.10 0.067
Total Recoverable Zinc mg/kg dry wt 62.1 6.8 77.3 8.2 148 15 79.4 8.4
17-May-2016 18-May-2016 18-May-2016
Lab Number: 1585990.37 1585990.38 1585990.39 1585990.40
Total Recoverable Cadmium mg/kg dry wt 0.112 0.068 < 0.10 0.067 < 0.10 0.067 < 0.10 0.067
Total Recoverable Lead mg/kg dry wt 17.2 2.5 152 22 15.3 2.2 29.4 4.2
Total Recoverable Zinc mg/kg dry wt 127 13 151 16 58.8 6.5 95.1 9.9
Sample Name: 16:056 TP415 1.25

18-May-2016
Lab Number: 1585990.41
Total Recoverable Arsenic mg/kg dry wt 3.9 1.4 - - -
Total Recoverable Cadmium mg/kg dry wt < 0.10 0.067 - - -
Total Recoverable Chromium mg/kg dry wt 17.4 2.2 - - -
Total Recoverable Copper mg/kg dry wt 13.1 2.3 - - -
Total Recoverable Lead mg/kg dry wt 18.6 2.7 - - -
Total Recoverable Mercury mg/kg dry wt < 0.10 0.067 - - -
Total Recoverable Nickel mg/kg dry wt 15.1 2.5 - - -
Total Recoverable Zinc mg/kg dry wt 72.9 7.8 - - -
The reported uncertainty is an expanded uncertainty with a level of confidence of approximately 95 percent (i.e. two standard
deviations, calculated using a coverage factor of 2). Reported uncertainties are calculated from the performance of typical
matrices, and do not include variation due to sampling.
For further information on uncertainty of measurement at Hill Laboratories, refer to the technical note on our website:
www.hill-laboratories.com/files/Intro_To_UOM.pdf, or contact the laboratory.

1585990.1
16:056 TP401 0.5 17-May-2016
1585990.5
16:056 TP403 0.5 17-May-2016
1585990.7
16:056 TP404 0.4 17-May-2016

1585990.11
16:056 TP406 0.5 17-May-2016
1585990.13
16:056 TP407 0.5 17-May-2016
1585990.20
16:056 TP410 0.5 17-May-2016

1585990.31
16:056 TP416 0.4 18-May-2016
SUMMARY OF METHODS
Sample Type: Soil

TPH Oil Industry Profile + PAHscreen Sonication in DCM extraction, SPE cleanup, GC-FID & GC-MS 0.010 - 60 mg/kg dry wt 1, 3, 5, 7, 9,
analysis. Tested on as received sample. 11, 13, 15,
US EPA 8015B/MfE Petroleum Industry Guidelines 25, 27, 29,
[KBIs:5786,2805,10734;2695] 31
Heavy Metals with Mercury, Screen Dried sample, < 2mm fraction. Nitric/Hydrochloric acid 0.10 - 4 mg/kg dry wt 1-41
Level digestion US EPA 200.2. Complies with NES Regulations. ICP-
MS screen level, interference removal by Kinetic Energy
Discrimination if required.
Semivolatile Organic Compounds Sonication extraction, GPC cleanup (if required), GC-MS FS 0.3 - 30 mg/kg dry wt 1, 3, 5, 7, 9,
25, 27, 29,
31
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil* Sonication extraction in DCM, Silica cleanup, GC-FID analysis 8 - 60 mg/kg dry wt 20
US EPA 8015B/MfE Petroleum Industry Guidelines. Tested on
as received sample
[KBIs:5786,2805,10734]
Dry Matter (Env) Dried at 103C for 4-22hr (removes 3-5% more water than air 0.10 g/100g as rcvd 1, 3, 5, 7, 9,
analysis). 20, 25, 27,
29, 31
client.

Client Services Manager - Environmental

Appendix F
Upper Confidence Limit

Calculations

5394066 // NZ1-10350236-36 0.36 // page 34
UCL Statistics for Uncensored Full Data Sets
User Selected Options

Date/Time of Computation 22/06/2016 15:13
From File WorkSheet.xls
Full Precision OFF
Confidence Coefficient 95%
Number of Bootstrap Operations 2000
Arsenic
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 235 Number of Distinct Observations 25
Number of Missing Observations 0
Minimum 1 Mean 7.6
Maximum 115 Median 6
SD 8.955 Std. Error of Mean 0.584
Coefficient of Variation 1.178 Skewness 8.276
Normal GOF Test

Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.465 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk P Value 0 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.246 Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.0578 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Assuming Normal Distribution

95% Normal UCL 95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)
95% Student's-t UCL 8.565 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995)8.898
95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 8.617
Gamma GOF Test

A-D Test Statistic 5.15 Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value 0.765 Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
K-S Test Statistic 0.14 Kolmogrov-Smirnoff Gamma GOF Test
5% K-S Critical Value 0.0603 Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE) 2.133 k star (bias corrected MLE) 2.108
Theta hat (MLE) 3.564 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 3.605
nu hat (MLE) 1002 nu star (bias corrected) 990.9
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 7.6 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 5.234
Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05) 918.8
Adjusted Level of Significance 0.049 Adjusted Chi Square Value 918.4
Assuming Gamma Distribution

95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50)) 8.196 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50)
8.2
Lognormal GOF Test

Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.964 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk P Value 4.75E-04 Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.0969 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.0578 Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of Logged Data 0 Mean of logged Data 1.776
Maximum of Logged Data 4.745 SD of logged Data 0.661
Assuming Lognormal Distribution

95% H-UCL 7.976 90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 8.383
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 8.855 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 9.512
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 10.8
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics

Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs

95% CLT UCL 8.561 95% Jackknife UCL 8.565
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL 8.558 95% Bootstrap-t UCL 9.217
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 13.03 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 8.655
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 9.034
90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 9.352 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 10.15
97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 11.25 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 13.41
Suggested UCL to Use

95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 10.15
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Singh, and Iaci (2002)
and Singh and Singh (2003). However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets.
For additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
Cadmium
General Statistics
Minimum 0.045 Mean 0.182
Maximum 2.8 Median 0.05
Normal GOF Test


Gamma GOF Test

Gamma Statistics

95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50)) 0.205 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when
0.205
n<50)
Lognormal GOF Test

5% Shapiro Wilk P Value 0 Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Minimum of Logged Data -3.101 Mean of logged Data -2.382



Chromium
General Statistics
Minimum 10 Mean 18.58
Normal GOF Test


Gamma GOF Test

Gamma Statistics
nu hat (MLE) 8718 nu star (bias corrected) 8608
Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05) 8394
Adjusted Level of Significance 0.049 Adjusted Chi Square Value 8392

19.06
n<50)
Lognormal GOF Test

Minimum of Logged Data 2.303 Mean of logged Data 2.895



95% Student's-t UCL 19.09 or 95% Modified-t UCL 19.1
Copper
General Statistics
SD 1020 Std. Error of Mean 66.52
Normal GOF Test


95% Student's-t UCL 210.2 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995) 280
Gamma GOF Test

A-D Test Statistic 4.26E+28 Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test
Gamma Statistics
Theta hat (MLE) 265 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 266.5
nu hat (MLE) 177.9 nu star (bias corrected) 177

120.8
n<50)
Lognormal GOF Test




95% Standard Bootstrap UCL 210.5 95% Bootstrap-t UCL 1301
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 359

Lead
General Statistics
Normal GOF Test


Gamma GOF Test

Gamma Statistics
nu hat (MLE) 212.3 nu star (bias corrected) 210.9

237.8
n<50)
Lognormal GOF Test


95% H-UCL 147.5 90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 160
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 179 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 205.4


95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 371 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 281.3
90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 335 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 395.7
97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 480 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 645.7

Mercury
General Statistics
Normal GOF Test


Gamma GOF Test

Gamma Statistics
0.344
n<50)
Lognormal GOF Test

Minimum of Logged Data -3.101 Mean of logged Data -2.447




Nickel
General Statistics
Normal GOF Test


Gamma GOF Test

Gamma Statistics
nu hat (MLE) 4049 nu star (bias corrected) 3999
Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05) 3853
Adjusted Level of Significance 0.049 Adjusted Chi Square Value 3852

16.23
n<50)
Lognormal GOF Test




97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 18.37 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 20

95% Student's-t UCL 16.36 or 95% Modified-t UCL 16.38
Zinc
General Statistics
Minimum 34 Mean 183
SD 324 Std. Error of Mean 21.14
Normal GOF Test


95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 219
Gamma GOF Test

Gamma Statistics
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 183 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 175.8

203.6
n<50)
Lognormal GOF Test




97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 315 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 393.3

B(a)P eq
General Statistics
Normal GOF Test


Gamma GOF Test
Gamma Statistics

7.742
n<50)
Lognormal GOF Test

Minimum of Logged Data -1.197 Mean of logged Data 0.539




REPORT

Detailed Site Investigation (Asbestos)
Prepared for
karo Limited
Prepared by
Tonkin & Taylor Ltd
Date
July 2016
Job Number
53556.v2
Distribution:
karo Limited Electronic copy
Tonkin & Taylor Ltd (FILE) 1 copy
Table of contents
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Objective and scope of work 2
1.3 Regulatory compliance 3
2 Site description 4
2.1 Surrounding land use 4
2.2 Geology 4
2.3 Hydrogeology and hydrology 4
2.4 Site history 5
3 Field investigations 6
3.1 Sampling plan and rationale 6
3.2 Investigation method 6
3.2.1 Sampling methodology 6
3.3 Observations 8
3.3.1 Phase 1 8
3.3.2 Phase 2 8
3.3.3 Phase 3 8
3.3.4 Phase 4 10
4 Laboratory testing 11
4.1 Assessment criteria 11
4.2 Results 12
4.2.1 Phase 1 12
4.2.2 Phase 2 13
4.2.3 Phase 3 14
4.2.4 Phase 4 16
5 Discussion and implications 18
5.1 Nature and extent of contamination 18
5.2 Human health risk 19
5.3 Management of human health risk 19
5.3.1 Long term 19
5.3.2 Interim 19
5.4 Regulatory and development requirements 20
5.4.1 Asbestos Regulations (2016) 20
5.4.2 NES Soil 20
5.4.3 Regional and district plans 20
5.4.4 Works and development constraints 21
6 Conclusions 23
7 Applicability 25
Appendix A: Phase 1 laboratory transcripts

Appendix B : Phase 2 laboratory transcripts
Appendix C : Phase 3 laboratory transcripts
Appendix D : Phase 4 laboratory transcripts
Tonkin & Taylor Ltd July 2016

Metro Sports Facility - Detailed Site Investigation (Asbestos) Job No: 53556.v2
karo Limited
1
1 Introduction
Tonkin & Taylor Ltd (T&T) has been engaged by karo Limited to undertake an investigation of
asbestos in soil at the proposed Metro Sports Facility (MSF, the site), Christchurch. Figure 1 shows
the location of the site.
The asbestos investigation has being undertaken in phases as a result of a staged demolition
programme. This report provides results of all four Phases (1 4) in accordance with of our proposal
dated 28 May 2014. One small area remains un-investigated as indicated on Figure 1 (non-hashed
area) and on Figure 2 (labelled).
Figure 1: Site location (Source: Terraview International and its Licensees)
1.1 Background
karo Limited is developing the site for the Metro Sports Facility (MFS). The site was formerly
occupied by the Canterbury Brewery and other commercial/industrial operations.
Beca produced a Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI)1 for the site that identified a number of historic
land uses included on the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) Hazardous Activities and Industries List
(HAIL), activities known to potentially to cause ground contamination. Beca has undertaken a
Detailed Site Investigation (DSI)2 to investigate further the potential for ground contamination, other
than asbestos, and the implications any might have on development of the MFS.
1 Beca, 2014: Metro Sports Facility Taiwhanga Rehia - Preliminary Site Investigation (Contamination), Prepared for
Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, 12 June 2014.
2 Beca, 2016: Detailed Site Investigation (Contamination), Metro Sports Facility, Prepared for karo Limited, 30 June
2016.

karo Limited
2
Many of the buildings within the MSF contained asbestos containing materials (ACM). The presence
of ACM in a deteriorating condition and demolition activities themselves can cause contamination of
soils by asbestos fibres as well as fragments of bonded products. The asbestos-in-soils investigation
reported here was undertaken concurrent with the Beca DSI and reports on investigations in the
Phase 1 4 area as shown in Figures 2 and 3.
An outstanding area of the site that has not been subject to investigations is shown on Figures 1 4.
Figure 2: Site layout prior to demolition and delineation of Phase 1-3 areas (Source: Google Earth)
1.2 Objective and scope of work

The objective of our investigation is to provide specialist services relating to the identification of
asbestos-in-soils at the site. The following scope of work was undertaken:
A detailed walkover of the site was undertaken to visually assess its current condition in
respect of potential for ACM;
Collection of soil samples from 101 test pits excavated and 4 boreholes drilled in conjunction
with the Beca DSI;
Geological logging to record soil conditions encountered in the test pits. Full test pit logs are
provided in the Beca DSI, however a summary of ground conditions encountered is included in
this report;
Testing of asbestos content in soil by an IANZ accredited laboratory; and
Preparation of this factual report documenting the investigation works and results of the
testing.

karo Limited
3
1.3 Regulatory compliance

This report has been prepared in general accordance with the Ministry for the Environment (MfE)
Contaminated Land Management Guideline No. 1 Reporting on Contaminated Sites in New
Zealand. Soil sampling has been undertaken in general accordance with the MfEs Contaminated
Land Management Guideline No. 53.
Our investigation methodology was in general accordance with the Western Australian guidance 4.
The persons undertaking, managing reviewing and certifying the investigations and this report are
suitably qualified and experienced practitioners as defined in the NES (Soil) Users Guide (April 2012).
3 Ministry for the Environment, revised 2011: Contaminated Land Management Guideline No. 5 Site Investigation and
Analysis of Soils
4 Western Australian Department of Health, 2009: Guidelines for Assessment, Remediation and Management of Asbestos-
Contaminated Sites in Western Australia, May 2009

karo Limited
4
2 Site description
The site is located within Christchurch City and is bounded by St Asaph Street, Antigua Street,
Moorhouse Ave and part of Stewart Street (refer Figure 2). The site is approximately 71,703 m 2 in
area. There are around 46 individual property titles within the MSF landholding encompassing the
following street addresses:
26 36 St Asaph Street;
16 28 Stewart Street;
2 28 Balfour Terrace;
3 19 Horatio Street;
103 139 Moorhouse Avenue;
185 189 Antigua Street.
Full legal descriptions of the site are provided in the Beca DSI.
At the time of preparing this report all structures (excluding fencing) have been removed. The site
surfacing comprises a mixture of hard surfaces such as residual concrete and asphalt along with
crushed demolition material including concrete, some plastics and tiles and run-of-pit quarry rock.
At the time of preparation of this report land at 26 36 St Asaph Street and 161 189 Antigua Street
is being used by Canterbury District Health Board (CDHB) for public and staff parking, The balance of
land is fenced and vacant (unused).
2.1 Surrounding land use

The surrounding land use generally comprises commercial land use including offices, medical
facilities, cafes and retail.
2.2 Geology
Published geology for the site is described by Forsyth et al 5 as grey river alluvium beneath plains or
low-level terraces (refer geological map, Figure 3). Onsite this is expressed as natural gravelly silt
and silt that is in places overlain by historic fill materials (gravelly silt with some deleterious
materials) and hardfill (crushed demolition material including concrete, some plastics and tiles and
run-of-pit quarry rock).
2.3 Hydrogeology and hydrology

The site is situated above a deep defined coastal confined gravel aquifer known as the Christchurch
Formation6.
Information available on the Environment Canterbury (ECan) well card database indicates that the
groundwater level is expected to be between 1.8 m below ground up to 1.7m above ground level
(artesian). Piezometric contours suggest groundwater beneath the site flows in an easterly direction
to the Pacific Ocean, approximately 15 km away.
The site is located within the Avon River catchment area, the Avon River is approximately 260 m to
the north east of the site.
5 Forsyth, P.J.; Barrell, D.J.A.; Jongens, R. (compilers) 2008. Geology of the Christchurch area. Institute of Geological &
Nuclear Sciences
6 Environment Canterbury; GIS viewer; http://canterburymaps.co.nz/Portal/FlexViewer/Index.html

karo Limited
5
Figure 3: Published geology of the Christchurch area (source: Forsyth et al)
2.4 Site history

The history of the site is provided in the Beca PSI. The PSI indicated that numerous historical uses
identified across the MSF site could have produced contamination in soils. The activities include
current and former underground fuel storage tanks, motor vehicle workshops and servicing, spray
painting, electrical substations and use and storage of various fuels and/or chemicals.
As noted in Section 1.1 there were also a large number of buildings currently and formerly on the
site that contained ACM used for cladding, roofing and insulation. As result of experience on other
sites within the Christchurch CBD the potential for asbestos contamination may arise from:
Demolition of buildings under urgency following the Canterbury Earthquakes, where
separation of ACM may not have been possible due to the unsafe nature of the structure and
thus ACM management may not have been in line with the Asbestos Regulations (1998).
There is potential for near surface materials to have been impacted by asbestos fines (AF/ FA);
The potential for ACM to have been buried during historic building demolition and rebuild
practices was also considered possible.

karo Limited
6
3 Field investigations
Field investigations were undertaken by contaminated land specialists from Tonkin & Taylor in four
stages:
Phase 1 21 to 24 July 2014;
Phase 2 3 to 4 November 2014;
Phase 3 23 to 27 March 2015; and
Phase 4 17 and 18 May 2016.
The work was undertaken in conjunction with Beca ground contamination investigations and
involved an initial detailed site walkover and soil sampling from test pits and boreholes.
3.1 Sampling plan and rationale

The sampling plan was devised by Beca. A grid-based sampling plan on an approximate 50m x 50m
grid was used to investigate the presence of ACM across the site. Grid size was less in areas where
targeting individual allotments. A total of 101 test pits were excavated across the site as shown in
Figure 4. In addition 4 boreholes were drilled where surface asphalt was present within the CDHB
staff carpark, and test pitting would unduly disturb the paving.
The grid-based and judgemental sampling approach is in general accordance with MfE Contaminated
Land Guideline No. 51 and the WA guidance2 in relation to asbestos investigations. The investigation
involved assessment of surface soils as this has the greatest potential to have been impacted by
demolition activities. However, where encountered historic fill was sampled and a selection tested
to assess where there had been any historic impact from asbestos.
3.2 Investigation method

The investigation involved excavation of the test pits using a small excavator and drilling of
boreholes using a machine (sonic) drill rig. Services clearance was undertaken prior to each Phase of
investigation works, using Outasight Services Clearance Ltd and overseen by Beca.
3.2.1 Sampling methodology

Each test pit was excavated to approximately 2.5m depth below existing ground level. Soil samples
were collected at the surface, from the deeper layer of older fill material (if present) and the upper
surface of underlying natural silt. The number of samples collected and analysed for is summarised
in Table 1.
The samples were collected using the quantitative method outlined in the WA guidance 2 as follows:
10L of sample (solid measure) was collected from a 1 m2 area;
The material was sieved through a 7 mm diameter sieve;
500 mls of the sieved fines were collected directly into a zip-lock bag;
The remaining material was spread onto a plastic sheet and inspected to identify if any
potential ACM fragments were present, these were bagged separately;
The samples were delivered, under chain of custody documentation, directly to IANZ
accredited Precise Consulting & Laboratory for analysis;
The trowel, sieve and other equipment used were wiped using a fresh towelette wipe and
sprayed with water if necessary. This was to eliminate cross contamination of ACM fibres
between samples and sampling locations; and
A GPS location was taken for each sample.

karo Limited
ST ASAPH STREET
26 St Asaph St 36 St Asaph St
LEGEND
Phase 1 Testpit location TP103

(T&T, July 2014) TP105
BH338
Phase 2 Testpit location TP101
(T&T, November 2014)
TP102 TP104
Phase 3 Testpit location

(T&T, March 2015)
Phase 3 Borehole location

(T&T, March 2015) BH340
TP107
Phase 4 Testpit location
(T&T, May 2016) TP108 TP110
TP109
PHASE 3 TP106
ANTIGUA STREE
STEWART STREET
PHASE 1
BH339
TP111
TP113 TP114 TP115
TP112
T
TP120
TP116 TP119
TP118
BH341 TP117
TP226 TP227
TP122 TP124 185-189
TP225 Antigua Street
TP228
PHASE 4 TP121
TP123 TP125 PHASE 2
TP126
TP224
BALFOUR STREET
TP216
TP306
TP215 TP220 TP223
TP308 TP312 TP318 TP320
PHASE 2 TP305
TP307 PHASE 3
TP214 PHASE 2
16-24 Stewart Street TP311
TP316 TP319
TP212 TP213
TP302 TP221 TP222
TP304 TP313 TP317
TP309 TP321
TP209
TP303
TP301 TP310 TP314 TP315
3-26 Horatio Street HORATIO STREET
TP409 TP408 TP406
TP411 TP404
TP325 TP405
TP208 TP414
TP202 TP203 TP410 TP407
PHASE 4
TP326 TP401
TP324
TP207 PHASE 4 TP332
TP323 TP402
TP415 TP329 TP403
TP413
PHASE 2 TP206 TP327 PHASE 3 TP333 TP336
TP412
TP201 TP204 TP416 TP335
TP205 TP328
TP331 TP337
TP322 TP334
TP330
161-163 Antigua Street
101-103
Moorhouse Avenue
L:\53556\CAD\FIGS\53556-DSI-F4.dwg F4 4/07/2016 3:55:57 p.m.
MOORHOUSE AVENUE
Aerial photo sourced from Terralink International (Copyright

2002-2005 Terralink International Limited and its licensors).
Property boundaries sourced from Land Information New Zealand
data as at 9-Jun-2014 (Crown Copyright Reserved). 105 Carlton Gore Road, Newmarket, Auckland
www.tonkintaylor.co.nz
8
3.3 Observations
3.3.1 Phase 1
Recycled crushed concrete demolition fill, mixed with run-of-pit quarry rock, is present across the
whole Phase 1 area to varying depths, typically around 300 mm thick but extending up to 2.5 m
below existing ground level. The recycled crushed demolition materials, in the top 300 mm of the
profile, are consistent in nature across the Phase 1 area.
An underlying layer of older pre-demolition fill was observed in seven of the test pits, primarily
located on the northern half of the site.
Natural soil comprising silt was encountered in most test pits, except TP105 and TP110. The natural
silt varies in depth from 0.3 m below ground level to greater than 2.5 m below ground level. A list of
the samples taken and their lithology is provided in Table 2.
No suspected ACM fragments were noted during visual inspection of the site surface and excavated
material from each test pit, nor was any ACM visible in the >7 mm fraction during sieving.
3.3.2 Phase 2
Observations over the Phase 2 area differed slightly as illustrated below.
101-103 Moorhouse Avenue: A relatively uniform layer of imported quarry-source hardfill
(greywacke gravel; 0.3 0.4 m thick) is present across the surface of this area, generally
overlying natural silty sand. Demolition fill (as indicated by the presence of brick, timber and
metal fragments) was observed in three of the seven test pits, between 0.4 to 1.2 m bgl.
Natural silts were encountered between 0.4 and 1.2 m below ground level. A list of the
samples taken and their lithology is provided in Table 3.
Suspected, and later confirmed (refer Section 4), ACM fragments were abundant in the west
of the 101-103 Moorhouse Avenue block with occasional fragments also noted in the east of
the same block (refer Figure 5 for fragment locations). An area of concentrated ACM
fragments was noted in the west of the block (refer Photograph 1 and Figure 5) outside the
area used at that time by Wilsons as a public carpark. Hand digging at this location
determined the sheeting materials likely extended to 150-300 mm depth below ground level.
16-24 Stewart Street: Imported quarry-source hardfill (greywacke gravels, some silt) is
present across the area, ranging from 0.3 to 0.9 m thick. The gravelly fill directly overlies
natural materials, comprised of silts and sands with some gravels. Clayey materials, along with
tree roots and branches, were encountered near the bottom (0.9-1.9 m bgl) of all four test pits
excavated in the block nearest Antigua Street (TP220-TP223).
185-189 Antigua Street: A layer of imported quarry-source hardfill (greywacke gravel; 0.4
0.7 m thick) is present across the area, generally underlain by natural silty clays. Pre-
demolition fill was encountered in the northwest corner (TP226) of this block, between 0.7
and 1.5 m deep.
3.3.3 Phase 3
Observations over the Phase 3 area differed slightly as illustrated below.
3-26 Horatio Street: Recycled crushed demolition fill (sandy gravel with crushed demolition
wastes) is present across the area, between 0.2 0.5 m thick, generally underlain by natural
silty/sandy materials.
Demolition materials were encountered within the silts below the upper hardfill layer in
TP301, TP302, TP304, TP314, TP320 and TP321. The maximum depth that demolition

karo Limited
9
materials were encountered in these test pits was 0.7 m bgl. A layer of demolition fill was
encountered in TP311, between 0.7-0.9 m bgl. This contained brick, steel and ceramics within
a silty matrix.
125-139 Moorhouse Ave and 161-163 Antigua Street inclusive: A layer of demolition/hardfill
between 0.25-0.5 m thick, overlies natural sandy/silty materials in TP322, TP325, TP327,
TP328, TP331, TP333, and TP334.
Varying fill materials principally comprising gravelly inclusions within a silt matrix were
between 0.45-0.7 m across the remainder of the area.
Suspected, and later confirmed (refer Section 4), ACM fragments were noted on the ground
surface around an existing building at 139 Moorhouse Avenue and 161 Antigua Street and
noted as cladding materials on the building (refer Figure 5 for locations of ACM fragments).
No other fragments of suspected ACM were observed in the Phase 3 area. A further building
with suspected asbestos cladding remained at the boundary between the Phase 3 and 4 area
at 161 Antigua Street (refer Figure 4).
26 St Asaph Street (CDHB carpark): Surface materials on the western portion of this area
(BH338 and BH339) comprised of 0.35-0.4 m of quarry-source hardfill overlying natural silts,
while the eastern portion (BH340 and BH341) had 1-1.5 m of recycled crushed demolition fill
overlying natural silts; some core-loss was experienced, thus 1.5 m is an upper estimate of fill
depth at BH341.
Photograph 1: ACM pieces in the west of 101-103 Moorhouse Avenue (refer Figure 5).

karo Limited
10
Photograph 2: ACM fragments at 139 Moorhouse Avenue and 161 Antigua Street.
3.3.4 Phase 4
A similar subsurface profile was observed across the Phase 4 area, that comprising hardfill (either
quarry rock or crushed demolition materials) underlain by a thin (up to 400 mm) layer of historic fill.
Historic fill contained metal, brick, glass, ceramics in a gravelly organic silt matrix. At one location
(TP408) a residual topsoil layer was noted at 350 mm bgl. Fill materials were underlain by silt and
river gravels.
One ACM fragment was noted and collected from the surface at 169 Antigua Street.

karo Limited
11
4 Laboratory testing
To date 188 samples have been tested for asbestos over the investigated areas (refer Figure 4).
Laboratory testing was undertaken at IANZ accredited Precise Consulting & Laboratory Ltd in
Christchurch. Full laboratory transcripts from Precise Consulting and Laboratory are available in
Appendices A-D.
Testing was predominantly for the quantitative assessment of asbestos content. However, samples
collected from the four boreholes were tested qualitatively (presence or absence) for asbestos as
insufficient material for quantitative testing was able to be extracted. Representative samples of
ACM fragments observed at discrete positions within the Phase 2 and 3 areas were also tested
qualitatively for asbestos presence (refer Table 1 and Appendix A).
All sample analysis was performed using polarised light microscopy with dispersion staining in
compliance with AS4964-2004 Method for the qualitative identification of asbestos in bulk samples.
In accordance with the WA guidance2 quantitative assessment was made in terms of the weight of
asbestos, reported for the 2-7 mm sub sample and < 2 mm sub sample.
Table 1: Summary of locations and samples tested per Phase
Sampling Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4

Investigation locations (refer Figure TP101 TP125 TP201 TP209, TP301 TP337, TP401 TP416
3) TP212 TP216, BH338 BH341
TP220 TP228
Total samples tested 27 46 83 32
Qualitative soil testing 0 0 4 0
Quantitative soil testing 27 42 75 32
No. ACM fragments tested 0 4 4 0
No. surface hardfill samples tested 26 21 41 16
No. subsurface fill samples tested 1 21 38 16
4.1 Assessment criteria

Quantitative asbestos testing results from all three phases of the investigation have been evaluated
against assessment criteria selected in accordance with MfE Guideline No.27 as directed by the NES
Soil Regulations8.
The WA guidance2 and the NEPM9 provide a criteria for the quantitative assessment of asbestos in
soil based on the weight of asbestos recovered from a given volume of soil. The criteria set in these
documents for asbestos fines (AF)10 and/or friable asbestos (FA)11 is 0.001 % w/w for all site uses.
7 MfE, Hierarchy and Application in New Zealand of Environmental Guideline Values (Revised 2011)
8 Resource Management (National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect
Human Health) Regulations 2011
9 NEPM, 2013, Schedule B1, Guideline for Investigation Levels for Soil and Groundwater
10 WA guidance and NEPM defines AF as free fibres of asbestos, small fibre bundles and also ACM fragments that pass
through a 7mm x 7mm sieve

11 WA guidance and NEPM defines FA as severely weathered ACM (asbestos material that is in a degraded condition such
that it can be broken or crumbled by hand pressure), and asbestos in the form of loose fibrous material such as insulation
products

karo Limited
12
4.2 Results
For each sieved sample collected, the laboratory then further sieves the sample into two fractions,
2-7 mm and <2 mm. Both fractions are referred to as AF/FA. Results for these two sieved fractions
are provided in Tables 2-4 below.
4.2.1 Phase 1
The laboratory results for the Phase 1 area, summarised in Table 2 below, show that:
In 10 surface samples chrysotile (white asbestos) AF/ FA was detected;
At 3 of the 10 locations where asbestos was detected (test pits TP105, TP107 and TP113)
asbestos fibre concentrations are greater than the assessment criteria relevant for all site uses
(0.001%).
The location of the samples containing asbestos fibres is shown in Figure 5.
Table 2: Soil asbestos concentrations Phase 1
Sample ID Lithology 2-7 mm <2 mm

TP101 (surface) Hardfill ND ND
TP103 (surface Hardfill ND ND
TP105 (surface) Hardfill 0.002 ND
TP108 (surface) Hardfill ND <0.001
TP113 (surface) Hardfill 0.006 <0.001
TP113 (subsurface) Gravelly silt fill ND ND
TP114 (surface) Hardfill <0.0002 ND
Assessment criteria 0.001

karo Limited
13
Table notes:
Results expressed as %
Bold values exceed the assessment criteria
4.2.2 Phase 2
The laboratory results for the Phase 2 area, summarised in Table 3 below, show that:
Surface hardfill at 2 locations (testpits TP203 and TP228) contain chrysotile (white asbestos)
AF/ FA either as free fibres or cement bound.
Asbestos fibre concentrations are at or below the assessment criteria relevant for all site uses
(0.001%).
Discrete cement sheeting fragments collected from the surface of 101-103 Moorhouse Avenue (not
included in Table 3 below but included on laboratory transcripts in Appendix B) returned positive for
the presence of chrysotile, amosite and crocidolite asbestos.

TP201 (subsurface) Silty Sand ND ND
TP203 (subsurface) Sandy Silt Fill ND ND
TP204 (subsurface) Sandy Silt Fill ND ND
TP205 (subsurface) Sandy Silt ND ND
TP206 (subsurface) Silty Sand Fill ND ND
TP208 (subsurface) Silt ND ND
16-24 Stewart Street

karo Limited
14

TP220 (subsurface) Hardfill ND ND
TP223 (subsurface) Gravelly Sand ND ND
185-189 Antigua Street
TP224 (subsurface) Silty Clay ND ND
TP226 (subsurface) Silt Fill ND ND
TP227 (subsurface) Clay ND ND
Acceptance criteria 0.001
Table notes:
4.2.3 Phase 3
The laboratory results for the Phase 3 area, summarised in Table 4 below show that:
In 9 samples chrysotile asbestos fibres were detected, including one sample also containing
crocidolite AF/ FA:
All 9 samples where asbestos was detected contained free fibres in either the 2-7 mm fraction
or the <2 mm fraction, at or below the acceptance criteria of 0.001%;
In all but one sample (TP301) fibres were detected in the surface hardfill.

3-26 Horatio Street
TP301 (subsurface) Silt Fill ND <0.001
TP302 (subsurface) Gravelly Sand Fill ND ND
TP303 (subsurface) Sand ND ND
TP304 (subsurface) Gravelly Fill ND ND

karo Limited
15

TP311 (0.7-0.9)* Silty Fill ND ND
TP314 (subsurface) Silty Fill ND ND
TP316 (subsurface) Sandy Gravel ND ND
TP317 (subsurface) Sandy Gravel ND ND
TP321 (subsurface) Sandy Gravel Fill ND ND
125-139 Moorhouse Ave and 161-163 Antigua Street inclusive

karo Limited
16

TP332 (0.6)* Silty gravel ND ND
TP336 (subsurface) Sandy Gravel Fill ND ND
TP337 (subsurface) Silty Gravel Fill ND ND
26 St Asaph Street (CDHB carpark)
BH338 (surface)* Hardfill ND ND
BH338 (subsurface)* Silt ND ND
BH339 (surface)* Hardfill ND ND
BH339 (subsurface)* Silt ND ND
BH340 (surface) Hardfill ND <0.001
BH340 (subsurface)* Hardfill ND ND
BH341 (surface) Hardfill ND ND
BH341 (subsurface)* Hardfill ND ND
Acceptance criteria 0.001
Table notes:
* denotes samples tested for qualitative assessment of asbestos (i.e. presence/ absence)
4.2.4 Phase 4
The laboratory results for the Phase 4 area, summarised in Table 5 below show that:
In 4 samples AF/ FA exceeded the risk based criteria;

karo Limited
17
In a further 8 samples asbestos was detected but below the risk based criteria; and
In one sample (TP404) bonded ACM in the >7 mm fraction was detected in surface hardfill.
Lithology Bonded Asbestos fines/ Fibrous

asbestos (< 2mm and 2-7
(>7 mm)
Sample ID mm)
TP401 (surface) Hardfill ND 0.001%
TP401 (subsurface) Historic fill ND ND
TP402 (subsurface) silty sand ND ND
TP404 (surface) Hardfill <0.001 0.036%
TP405 (surface) Silt ND 0.004%
TP406 (surface) Silty gravel ND <0.001
TP406 (subsurface) Gravelly silt ND ND
TP411 (subsurface) Hardfill ND 0.003%
TP412 (subsurface) Silty gravel ND <0.001

karo Limited
18
5 Discussion and implications
5.1 Nature and extent of contamination

The following summarises the key findings of asbestos investigations in the Phase 1 3 areas. Figure
5 illustrates the location of key asbestos findings within the MSF:
Phase 1:
Recycled demolition fill comprising processed recycled crushed concrete occurs over
the entire surface of the Phase 1 area, generally at around 300 mm thick, but in places
up to 2.5 m thick, where it has been mixed with quarry-sourced gravel, presumably
used to infill historic underground structures;
10 of 26 samples of the surface demolition fill mixed with quarry sourced rock,
contained asbestos fibres. Three (3) samples of hardfill from the approximate centre of
Phase 1 area contained asbestos fibres at levels greater than the risk based assessment
criteria for all site uses of 0.001%;
No visible ACM materials were noted at surface;
Historic fill was identified predominantly in the north of the Phase 1 area. No visible
ACM was noted in the historic fill and a sample tested did not contain asbestos.
Phase 2:
Recycled demolition fill was present in isolated locations within the Phase 2 area,
however the predominant surface material was crushed quarry rock, present to around
200 mm depth below ground level;
2 of 21 hardfill samples tested positive for presence of asbestos, both from locations
where quarry rock and demolition fill was present. However, both samples contained
levels at or below the risk based assessment criteria for all site uses of 0.001%;
Fragments of ACM found at surface were predominantly in the west of the Phase 2
area, within the property at 101-103 Moorhouse Avenue, including an area of high
concentration, possibly dumped sheeting;
Historic fill was present across the entire Phase 2 area. No ACM fragments were noted
in the historic fill and none of the 17 samples tested of the historic fill contained
asbestos.
Phase 3:
Surface hardfill across the Phase 3 area was a mix of recycled demolition materials and
crushed quarry rock, both present to around 200-300 mm depth below ground;
6 of 41 samples of surface hardfill tested returned positive for the presence of asbestos
but all were at or below the risk based assessment criteria of 0.001%;
Fragments of ACM were observed on the surface of the Phase 3 area, all within the
property at 167 Antigua Street where buildings contained ACM remained on the
boundary of the Phase 3 and 4 area;
Historic fill was present across the entire Phase 3 area. No fragments of ACM was noted
in historic fill and none of the 38 sample tested contained asbestos.
Phase 4:
The surface of the Phase 4 area is highly variable, predominantly comprising quarry
sourced hardfill, but in several locations the underlying historic fill is exposed;
10 of 16 surface samples contain asbestos fines, 4 of these were above the risk based
assessment criteria of 0.001%;

karo Limited
19
One fragment of ACM was noted at 169 Antigua Street; and

Historic fill is prevalent, below the surface hardfill, across the Phase 1 area.
The results indicate an irregular surface distribution of asbestos fines as shown Figure 5, even within
surface hardfill materials derived from a similar source, i.e. recycled demolitions or quarry sourced
rock. Over the bulk of the MSF landholding the content of asbestos, where detected in surface
materials, is below the all site uses risk based criteria of 0.001% asbestos by weight. In terms of
delineation of the extent of soils containing asbestos, based on the current data, surface materials of
the same source within individual property boundaries must be considered as potentially containing
asbestos fibres, unless further delineation is possible in the future. .
5.2 Human health risk

Risk to human health from asbestos arises from inhalation of asbestos fibres. In dry windy
conditions, asbestos dust can be mobilised, and this potential will be increased by mechanical
disturbance to the demolition fill material, including abrasion by vehicular use.
Figure 5 shows that for the majority of the MSF Phase 1 3 area test results indicate asbestos fibres,
where present, are at concentrations below that assessed to pose risk to human health. In the north
of the MSF, the site of the former Canterbury Brewery (Phase 1 area), and south of Horatio Street
levels of asbestos fibres in surface hardfill materials are above the risk based criteria, thus
potentially there is a risk of inhalation of asbestos fibres if dust is generated. An inhalation risk could
arise during use of the site as a carpark or during disturbance of surface materials during
development of the MSF, if appropriate controls are not put in place.
At discrete locations within the Phase 2 and 3 areas (refer Figure 5) there are ACM fragments at
surface. Trafficking over these materials could result in them breaking up and fibres becoming
airborne.
5.3 Management of human health risk
5.3.1 Long term

Development plans for the MSF are in conceptual stage. A practicable and cost effective long term
solution for managing human health risks associated with areas where asbestos fibres exceed the
risk based criteria will need to be developed as part of the design process. Remedial options
commensurate with standard industry practice could involve retention of ACM onsite. For the bulk
of the site, asbestos is present results are below risk based acceptance criteria, meaning specific
remedial works to reduce or contain asbestos is not required.
Management of asbestos containing materials will be required should these materials be retained
on site and incorporated into the development plan.
5.3.2 Interim
There is currently interim use of the MSF land. Given that asbestos fines, and in localised areas
bonded ACM, are present control and implementation of management measures is required to
mitigate against the generation of dust and to protect site users and the general public from
exposure to asbestos fines.
Interim remediation works along with air monitoring were undertaken following identification of
asbestos within investigation areas Phase 1 - 3. The remedial works were completed as soon as
practicable following identification. A summary of the works undertaken in detailed in a letter
report prepared by T&T entitled Metro Sports Facility, Interim Remedial Measures Implemented,
(dated 30 June 2015).

karo Limited
20
An Interim Site Management Plan (ISMP) for ground contaminating was prepared for CERA (now
Otakaro Ltd) in January 201612. The ISMP sets out procedures for use of the site in the interim until
development of the MSF commences.
5.4 Regulatory and development requirements

This section assesses the regulatory framework in respect of asbestos contamination and provides
advice on likely regulatory compliance and consenting requirements for the proposed MSF
development.
5.4.1 Asbestos Regulations (2016)

The Health and Safety at Work (Asbestos) Regulations (2016) state that works (including disturbance
of materials such as soils) are subject to health and safety controls where materials containing
friable (i.e. easily crumbled) asbestos are present. The Asbestos Regulation, does not however
provide relevant direction on remediation of asbestos contaminated soils.
In October 2014, in December 2015 and again in April 201613, Worksafe NZ prepared and revised
their position statement regarding remediation of asbestos contaminated soils. The position
statement recommends using the WA Guideline for remediation of asbestos contaminated sites.
Disturbance of soils were the content of asbestos is <0.001% are asbestos-related-works and in
the case of this site, where there is significant data on the quantity of asbestos within onsite
materials, are not likely to be subject to full asbestos-related health and safety controls. This is on
the provision that air monitoring and adequate dust mitigation measures are in place.
An asbestos site management plan (ASMP) will be required to set out requirements for the site
management to achieve control of the workplace. An ASMP will need to be received and approved
by Worksafe NZ before commencement of the MSF development works.
During works to disturb materials that contain >0.001% asbestos a licensed asbestos supervisor
pursuant to the Asbestos Regulations will be required to supervise the works and ensure the ASMP
measures are implemented.
5.4.2 NES Soil

The NES Soil14 will apply to the proposed redevelopment of the site as the site has been subject to
activities include on the HAIL15. The quantity of ground works as part of the redevelopment is likely
to exceed the permitted activity rules of the Regulation and thus consent is likely to be required
from Christchurch City Council (CCC).
5.4.3 Regional and district plans

The Christchurch City district plan, Rule 5.8 of Part 9 of the City Plan is not superseded by the NES
Soil and as such consent will be required for any earthworks relating to the contaminated areas of
the site as a non-complying activity.
Any excavations in contaminated areas of the site will trigger Rule 5.8 under critical standard 5.8.1(a)
as the excavated material may be considered pollutant or hazardous.
12 T+T, 2016: Report prepared for CERA Metro Sports Facility, Interim Site Management Plan Ground contamination,
January 2016, T+T ref. 52556.002.
13 Position Statement Remediating asbestos contaminated sites (third edition, April 2016)
14 Resource Management (National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soils to Protect
Human Health) Regulation 2011

15 Ministry for the Environment Hazardous Activities Industries List - Category E1 asbestos disposal

karo Limited
21
Environment Canterbury (ECan) Regional Plans have rules pertaining to protection of ground and
surface water. ACM identified at the site is shallow, thus impacts on groundwater are considered
unlikely. Thus consent applications for the MSF are unlikely to require groundwater-related consent
in respect of asbestos. Consent for construction-phase stormwater discharges for any proposed
works would however be required. The construction-phase stormwater consents are to ensure
management of potential contaminants in surface water and authorise any subsequent offsite
discharges of stormwater during temporary works.
5.4.4 Works and development constraints

During future development works potential discharges will need to be controlled. Standard
earthworks procedures for mitigating effects of dust, sediment and surface water are likely to be
sufficient given the generally low levels of asbestos in soils.
If surplus soils are to be disposed offsite during redevelopment of the site any containing asbestos
will be required to be disposed to licensed landfill. At this stage only Kate Valley Landfill is available
to receive ACM in the Canterbury region. Alternatively, with appropriate controls, management and
consent approval, asbestos containing soils could be retained on site beneath hardstanding areas
such as roads and buildings. Development options for the site will be prepared following completion
of preliminary design.
Procedures for undertaking works to remove or contain the asbestos contaminated materials will be
required to be documented in an ASMP (as referred to in Section 5.4.1 above). The ASMP would be
provided to Council as part of consenting documentation requirements. The ASMP shall set out
procedures for:
Establishing the site, vehicle wash down facilities, health and safety facilities;
Liaising with regulators, the community and Worksafe NZ;
Managing, handling, disposing and transporting asbestos contaminated soils;
Establishing earthworks controls including dust, stormwater and sediment;
Undertaking monitoring during the works;
Managing the health and safety of workers, surrounding residents and the general public;
Contingency measures; and
Validating the site on completion of the works to confirm residual contamination (if any) and
document the works undertaken. The validation report will also be used to update the LLUR.
The ASMP will need to be prepared by a suitably qualified contaminated land practitioner according
to MfE Contaminated Land Management Guidelines, the NES Soil Regulation and the Asbestos
Regulations.
If asbestos contaminated materials are contained onsite then a Long Term Monitoring and
Management Plan (LTMMP) would also be required to ensure containment measures are
maintained. A LTMMP sets out procedures for:
Managing areas of the site where contaminated soils have been contained;
Monitoring the integrity of the containment measures;
Undertaking future ground breaking works where contamination is contained;
Health and safety procedures for future disturbance works; and
Liaising with regulators about the site status and any works to be undertaken.

karo Limited
ST ASAPH STREET
LEGEND
Testpit location TP105

TP101 (T&T, July 2014 - May 2016) TP103
TP102 TP104
BH338 TP101
BH338 Borehole location
(T&T, March 2015)
Asbestos detected
Asbestos above risk based

criteria
BH340 TP107
ACM fragments noted
TP106 TP108 TP110
TP109
STEWART STREET
PHASE 3
PHASE 1
BH339
TP112
TP111
TP113 TP114 TP115
TP119 TP120
TP116 TP118
TP117
BH341
TP226 TP227
TP121 TP124
ANTIGUA STREE
TP122 TP225 TP228
TP125
PHASE 4
TP123
TP126 PHASE 2
TP224
BALFOUR STREET
T
TP216
TP306
TP215
TP308 TP312 TP318 TP320
TP220 TP223
PHASE 2 TP305
TP307 PHASE 3
TP214 PHASE 2
TP311 TP319
TP316
TP213
TP212 TP304 TP313 TP222
TP302 TP317 TP321 TP221
TP309
TP209 TP303 TP315

TP301 TP310 TP314
Concentration of
HORATIO STREET
ACM fragments TP409 TP408 TP406
TP411 TP325
TP208 TP404
TP414 TP405
TP326
TP410 TP324 TP407
TP202 TP203 PHASE 4
TP401
TP332
PHASE 4 TP323 TP329
TP207 TP402
TP415 TP413 TP403
TP327
PHASE 2 TP206 PHASE 3 TP336
TP333
TP412
TP201 TP328 TP335
TP204 TP416 TP331
TP205
TP337
TP322 TP330 TP334
L:\53556\CAD\FIGS\53556-DSI-F5.dwg F5 4/07/2016 3:55:07 p.m.
MOORHOUSE AVENUE

23
6 Conclusions
This detailed site investigation (asbestos) was undertaken to confirm whether asbestos is present at
the Metro Sports Facility site as a result of historic use and recent demolition of buildings containing
asbestos containing materials (ACM). The investigation has been undertaken in general accordance
with a DSI as described in the NES for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil Users Guide
(2012) and MfE Guidelines for Reporting on Contaminated Sites in New Zealand.
The key findings of the investigations are that:
Of the 104 surface samples tested 31 detected the presence of asbestos fines, with 9 of these
(within the Phase 1 and 4 areas) containing asbestos fibre concentrations greater than the risk
based acceptance criteria for all uses of 0.001%;
Non-visible fragments of ACM, greater than the sieved fraction of 7 mm, were detected at
surface within the 101-103 Moorhouse Avenue block and at 169 Antigua Street. Visible
fragments of ACM were also noted and as indicated in the Tonkin & Taylor remedial works
update letter dated 30 June 2015. Visible fragments were removed immediately during and
following the Phase 2 and 4 investigation works (November 2014 and May 2016);
Visible fragments noted around buildings at 139 Moorhouse Avenue and 161 Antigua Street,
as documented in the Tonkin & Taylor remedial works update letter dated 30 June 2015 were
removed during the Phase 4 demolition works and confirmed during the Phase 4
investigations.
Underlying silty fill containing minor demolition materials (historic fill) was tested for the
presence of asbestos fibres and only 1 of the 68 tested contained fibres. The concentration of
fibres in that sample was well below the risk based acceptance criteria of 0.001%;
The results indicate that for the Phase 1 and 4 areas there is potential for human health
effects from asbestos in surface hardfill. The key risk identified was the potential for fibres to
become airborne and be inhaled by people during disturbance of surface materials such as
vehicle parking and during future construction. As detailed in the Tonkin & Taylor remedial
works update letter dated 30 June 2015 a polymer was added to the surface of the Phase 1
area as an interim dust suppressant so that it could be used for vehicle parking. An interim site
management plan for ground contamination was prepared by T+T in January 2016 and the
measures in this plan have been implemented.
Long-term remedial options for the site are to be set out under a separate cover. Given the
bulk of detected asbestos was below the risk based criteria, onsite retention is a viable option.
Consents under the NES Soil Regulation, District Plan and Regional Plans Regulatory will be
required for the development works in respect of asbestos contamination present on the
Metro Sports Facility site. To support consent applications and construction works an
Asbestos Site Management Plan (ASMP) will need to be prepared. The ASMP will need to be
prepared by a suitably qualified contaminated land practitioner according to MfE
Contaminated land Management Guidelines, NES Soil and the Asbestos Regulation (2016);
Given the levels of asbestos present are generally below the risk based criteria, areas of the
MSF works may not be subject to Class A removal controls (Asbestos Regulations), instead
asbestos-related-works measures may be relevant. Worksafe NZ will need to be kept
informed of the progress, during consenting and pre-works to ensure the ASMP complies with
their requirements. The contractor undertaking the development works will need to take all
practicable steps to manage potential effects, of which management of dust is the key human
health related risk. The ASMP will be require to set out procedures for managing and
monitoring dust during the development;

karo Limited
24
Disposal of asbestos containing soils, even those where fibre content is below the risk based
criteria, during development could be expensive as currently the only location available for
disposal of ACM is Kate Valley Landfill;
On completion of development of the Metro Sports Facility remedial works in respect of
asbestos will need to be documented in a Site Validation report (SVR) and provided to Council
so that the LLUR can be updated to reflect the new condition of the site;
If contaminated materials are contained onsite then a Long Term Monitoring and
Management Plan would also be required to ensure containment measures are maintained.

karo Limited
25
7 Applicability
This report has been prepared for the benefit of our client karo Limited with respect to the
particular brief given to us and it may not be relied upon in other contexts or for any other purpose
without our prior review and agreement.
Recommendations and opinions in this report are based on the visual inspections, exploratory test
pit, borehole and testing data. The nature and continuity of subsoil away from the sample locations
are inferred and it must be appreciated that actual conditions could vary from the assumed model.
The persons undertaking, managing reviewing and certifying this report are suitably qualified and
experienced practitioners as defined in the NES Soil.
Tonkin & Taylor Ltd
Report prepared by: Authorised for Tonkin & Taylor Ltd by:
.......................................................... .................................................
Wendi Williamson Peter Cochrane
Senior Contaminated Land Specialist Project Director
wmw
\\ttgroup.local\corporate\christchurch\tt projects\53556\issueddocuments\phase 1-4 dsi\wmw050616.dsi.final.docx

karo Limited
Appendix A: Phase 1 laboratory transcripts
Accredited by International Accreditation New Zealand (IANZ)
DATE: 29/07/2014 REFERENCE No: ID003691
JOB NUMBER: J003691
Tonkin & Taylor Ltd

33 Parkhouse Road
Wigram
Christchurch, 8042
Client Reference: 53556
Dear Wendy Whitley
Re: WA Guidelines Asbestos in Soil Identification Analysis 53556
Twelve (12) samples were received on Thursday, 24th July 2014 by Laura Viney.
The results of fibre analysis were performed by Adam Maurice of Precise Consulting and Laboratory Ltd.
The address for the samples was not stated on submitted chain of custody.
The sampling method is independent of Precise Consulting and Laboratories and is outside the scope of
IANZ accreditation #1097. Sample analysis was performed using polarised light microscopy with
dispersion staining in accordance with Precise Consulting and Laboratory test Method: LAB0002 Asbestos
Identification Analysis and in compliance of AS4964-2004 Method for the qualitative identification of
asbestos in bulk samples.
The results of the fibre analysis are presented in the appended table.
Should you require further information please contact Adam Maurice.
Yours sincerely
..
Adam Maurice
PRECISE LABORATORY IDENTIFIER
Page 1 of 5
Precise Consulting & Laboratory Limited Unit 5 / 161 Waltham Rd, Sydenham Christchurch City, 8023
P: (03) 669 2721 M: 022 108 1904 W: www.preciseconsulting.co.nz
SAMPLE ANALYSIS RESULTS
Tuesday, 29th July 2014 Reference No: ID003691

Site Address: 53556 AF/FA Analysis Results
Client <2mm
Sample
Sample ID Sample Analysis Results 2-7mm Sub-sample <2mm
Location/Description/Dimensions
Number Weight (g)
Non-homogenous Soil No Asbestos Detected No Asbestos No Asbestos

ID003691.1 TP101 99.60g
680.65g Organic Fibres Detected Detected

ID003691.2 TP102 110.50g

ID003691.3 TP103 109.08g
Page 2 of 5

ID003691.4 TP104 104.71g
Non-homogenous Soil Chrysotile (White Asbestos) 0.038g No Asbestos

ID003691.5 TP105 109.49g
613.76g Organic Fibres Cement Sheet Detected

ID003691.6 TP106 98.18g

ID003691.7 TP107 101.78g
521.61g Organic Fibres Free Fibres Detected
Non-homogenous Soil Chrysotile (White Asbestos) No Asbestos <0.001g

ID003691.8 TP108 104.59g
552.37g Organic Fibres Detected Insulation
Page 3 of 5

ID003691.9 TP109 99.39g

ID003691.10 TP110 105.75g

ID003691.11 TP111 109.97g

ID003691.12 TP112 96.97g
Sample result is lower than the limit of detection for this method.
Page 4 of 5
Note 1: The reporting limit for this analysis is 0.1g/kg (0.01%) by application of polarised light microscopy, dispersion
staining and trace analysis techniques.
Note 2: Confirmation by another analytical technique may be required due to nature of the sample.
Note 3: Mineral fibres of unknown type detected by PLM and dispersion staining may or may not be asbestos fibres.
To confirm the identity of this fibre, another independent analytical technique such as XRD analysis is advised.
Note 4: The samples in this report as reported As Received Precise Consulting does not take responsibility for the
sampling procedure or accuracy of sample location description as these have been provided by the client.
This document may not be reproduced except in full.
Identified by: Reviewed by:
. .
Adam Maurice (Dip. Lab Tech) Joseph Feltham (B.E. (Env))
Approved Identifier Key Technical Person
Page 5 of 5
Appendix 1
Asbestos Concentration Values for Report ID003691
Sample ID Client Sample Number Fraction and % Asbestos
ID003691.5 TP105 2-7mm Cement Sheet - 30%
ID003691.7 TP107 2-7mm Free Fibres - 10%
ID003691.8 TP108 <2mm Free Fibres - 100%

Note: Method for asbestos % determination is outside the scope of IANZ accreditation #1097 and
Is therefore not endorsed by IANZ.
Page 1 of 1
DATE: 30/07/2014 REFERENCE No: ID003717
JOB NUMBER: J003717
Tonkin & Taylor Ltd

33 Parkhouse Road
Wigram
Christchurch, 8042
Client Reference: Further Analysis of J003596
Dear Wendy Whitley,
Re: WA Guidelines Asbestos in Soil Identification Analysis 53556
Seven (7) samples were received on Monday, 21st July 2014 by Laura Viney.
A site address was not supplied for the original location of the samples.
The sampling method is independent of Precise Consulting and Laboratories and is outside the scope of
IANZ accreditation #1097. Sample analysis was performed using polarised light microscopy with
dispersion staining in accordance with Precise Consulting and Laboratory test Method: LAB0002 Asbestos
Identification Analysis and in compliance of AS4964-2004 Method for the qualitative identification of
Yours sincerely
..
Adam Maurice
Page 1 of 5
Version 2.0 July 2014
SAMPLE ANALYSIS RESULTS
Wednesday, 30th July 2014 Reference No: ID003717

Client <2mm
Sample
Sample ID Sample Analysis Results 2-7mm Sub-sample <2mm
Number Weight (g)
Non-homogenous Soil Chrysotile (White Asbestos) 0.063g <0.001g

ID003717.1 TP113 99.59g
563.82g Organic Fibres Free Fibres Free Fibres
Non-homogenous Soil Chrysotile (White Asbestos) <0.001g No Asbestos

ID003717.2 TP114 102.37g

ID003717.3 TP116 105.62g
Page 2 of 5

ID003717.4 TP117 102.14g
0.013g
Non-homogenous Soil Chrysotile (White Asbestos) <0.001g
ID003717.5 TP118 Fibrous 98.18g
722.24g Organic Fibres Free Fibres
Material

ID003717.6 TP125 114.13g

ID003717.7 TP126 100.64g
531.92g Organic Fibres Cement Sheet Detected
Sample result is lower than the limit of detection for this method.
Page 3 of 5
Note 1: The reporting limit for this analysis is 0.1g/kg (0.01%) by application of polarised light microscopy, dispersion
staining and trace analysis techniques.
Note 2: Mineral fibres of unknown type detected by PLM and dispersion staining may or may not be asbestos fibres.
To confirm the identity of this fibre, another independent analytical technique such as XRD analysis is advised.
Note 3: The samples in this report as reported As Received Precise Consulting does not take responsibility for the
sampling procedure or accuracy of sample location description as these have been provided by the client.
. .
Adam Maurice (Dip. Lab Tech) Joseph Feltham (B.E. (Env))
Page 4 of 5
Appendix 1
Asbestos Concentration Values for Report ID003717
Sample ID Client Sample Number Fraction and % Asbestos

2-7mm Free Fibres 50%
ID003717.1 TP114 2-7mm Free Fibres 100%
<2mm Free Fibres - 100%

ID003717.1 TP118
2-7mm Fibrous Material - 30%
ID003717.1 TP126 2-7mm Cement Sheet 30%
Note: Method for asbestos % determination is outside the scope of IANZ accreditation #1097 and
Is therefore not endorsed by IANZ.
Page 1 of 1
Appendix B: Phase 2 laboratory transcripts
DATE: 10/11/2014
JOB NUMBER: J005976
Reference No: ID005976
Tonkin & Taylor
33 Parkhouse Road
Wigram
Christchurch
Dear Josh Scarrow,
Re: Quantitative Asbestos in Soil Identification Analysis 53556
Twenty-six (26) samples were received on Monday, 3rd November 2014 by Laura Viney.
The address for the samples were not stated on submitted chain of custody.
The sampling method is independent of Precise Consulting and Laboratorys, and is outside the scope of, IANZ accreditation
#1097.Sample analysis was performed using polarised light microscopy with dispersion staining in accordance with Precise
Consulting and laboratory test method: LAB002 Asbestos Identification Analysis and following the guidelines of AS4964-2004
Method for the qualitative identification of asbestos in bulk samples.
Yours sincerely
ADAM MAURICE
Issued August 2014 | Version 3 Page 1 of 8

Precise Consulting &Laboratory Limited
Unit 5 / 161 Waltham Rd, Sydenham Christchurch City, 8023
P: (03) 943 5394 W:www.preciseconsulting.co.nz
Sample Analysis Results
Monday, 10th November 2014
<2mm
Client Sample
Sample ID Sample Location/Description/Dimensions Analysis Results 2-7mm Sub-sample <2mm
Number
Weight (g)
TP201 SURF
No Asbestos Detected No Asbestos No Asbestos
ID005976.1 TP201 - SURF Non-homogenous Soil 105.64g
Organic Fibres Detected Detected
905.15g
TP201 SURF Chrysotile (White Asbestos)

ID005976.2 TP201 - SURF >7mm Fragment Amosite (Brown Asbestos) N/A N/A N/A
2.66g Organic Fibres
TP201 SUB
ID005976.3 TP201 - SUB Non-homogenous Soil 105.92g
323.84g
TP202 SURF
575.20g

Chrysotile (White Asbestos)
TP202 SURF
Amosite (Brown Asbestos)
ID005976.5 TP202 - SURF >7mm Fragments N/A N/A N/A
Crocidolite (Blue Asbestos)
67.40g
Organic Fibres
TP202 SUB
401.06g
TP203 SURF
Chrysotile (White Asbestos) 0.011g No Asbestos
Organic Fibres Cement Sheet Detected
886.02g
TP203 SURF
ID005976.8 TP203 SURF >7mm Fragments N/A N/A N/A
Organic Fibres
8.55g
TP203 SUB
544.83g
TP204 SURF
840.23g
TP204 SUB
339.08g

TP205 SURF
881.64g
TP205 SUB
500.88g
TP206 SURF
788.16g
TP206 SUB
549.74g
TP208 SURF
862.62g
TP208 SUB
523.66g
TP209 SURF
787.45g

TP209 SUB
656.70g
TP212 SURF
802.52g
TP212 SURF
No Asbestos Detected
ID005976.21 TP212 - SURF >7mm Fragments N/A N/A N/A
Organic Fibres
38.52g
TP212 SUB
478.43g
TP213 SURF
740.52g
TP213 SUB
483.62g

Fragments (1-4)
ID005976.25 Fragments (1-4) >7mm Fragments N/A N/A N/A
92.48g
Organic Fibres

Fragments_2
ID005976.26 Fragments_2 >7mm Fragments N/A N/A N/A
115.09g
Organic Fibres
* Sample result is lower than the limit of detection for this method.

Note 1: The reporting limit for this analysis is 0.1g/kg (0.01%) by application of polarised light microscopy, dispersion staining and
trace analysis techniques.
Note 2: If mineral fibres of unknown type are detected (UMF), by PLM and dispersion staining, these may or may not be asbestos
fibres. To confirm the identity of these fibres, another independent analytical technique such as XRD analysis is advised.
Note 3: The samples in this report are reported As Received and Precise Consulting does not take responsibility for the sampling
procedure or accuracy of the sample location description, as these have been provided by the client.
Adam Maurice (Dip. Lab Tech) Tim Trembath (BSc (Hons))

Appendix 1
Asbestos Concentration Values
Client
Sample ID Sample Fraction and % Asbestos
Number
ID005976.2 TP201 - SURF >7mm Fragments Cement Sheet 35%
ID005976.5 TP202 SURF >7mm Fragments Cement Sheet 35%
ID005976.7 TP203 SURF 2-7mm Cement Sheet 35%
ID005976.8 TP203 SURF >7mm Fragments Cement Sheet 35%
Fragments
ID005976.25 >7mm Fragments Cement Sheet 35%
(1-4)
ID005976.26 Fragments_2 >7mm Fragments Cement Sheet 35%
Note: Method for asbestos percentage determination is outside the scope of IANZ accreditation #1097 and is therefore
not endorsed by IANZ.

DATE: 11/11/2014
JOB NUMBER: J005976-2
Reference No: ID005976-2
Tonkin & Taylor
33 Parkhouse Rd
Wigram
Dear Josh Scarrow,
Twenty-four (24) samples were received on Tuesday, 4th November 2014 by Laura Viney.
#1097.Sample analysis was performed using polarised light microscopy with dispersion staining in accordance with Precise
Yours sincerely
ADAM MAURICE

Precise Consulting & Laboratory Limited
P: (03) 943 5394 W: www.preciseconsulting.co.nz
Tuesday, 11th November 2014
Client <2mm
Sample ID Sample Sample Location/Description/Dimensions Analysis Results 2-7mm Sub-sample <2mm
Number Weight (g)
TP214 SURF
TP214 No Asbestos Detected No Asbestos No Asbestos
ID005976.27 Non-homogenous Soil 100.07g
SURF Organic Fibres Detected Detected
618.80g
TP214 SUB
SUB Organic Fibres Detected Detected
630.64g
TP215 SURF No Asbestos Detected

TP215 No Asbestos No Asbestos
ID005976.29 Non-homogenous Soil Organic Fibres 104.07g
SURF Detected Detected
604.17g Synthetic Mineral Fibres
TP215 SUB
448.50g

TP216 SURF
625.04g
TP216 SUB
469.23g
TP220 SURF
714.27g
TP220 SUB
446.13g
TP221 SURF
662.82g
TP221 SUB
685.43g
TP222 SURF
695.30g

TP222 SUB
653.79g
TP223 SURF
657.46g
TP223 SUB
612.67g
TP224 SURF
583.22g
TP224 SURF
TP224 No Asbestos Detected
ID005976.42 >7mm Fragments N/A N/A N/A
SURF Organic Fibres
11.03g
TP224 SUB
356.28g
TP224 SUB
TP224 No Asbestos Detected
SUB Organic Fibres
31.46g

TP225 SURF
622.16g
TP225 SUB
494.50g
TP226 SURF
759.95g
TP226 SUB
635.57g
TP227 SURF
TP227 - No Asbestos Detected No Asbestos No Asbestos
690.59g
TP227 SUB
666.88g
TP228 SURF
TP228 - Chrysotile (White Asbestos) 0.159g <0.001g
SURF Organic Fibres Free Fibres Free Fibres
654.85g

TP228 SURF
TP228 - No Asbestos Detected
SURF Organic Fibres
26.64g
TP228 SUB
571.66g

Adam Maurice (Dip. Lab Tech) Lyeta Payet (BSc (EnvSci))

Appendix 1
Client
Number
TP228 <2mm Free Fibres 95%

ID005976.51
SURF 2-7mm Free Fibres 5%

Appendix C: Phase 3 laboratory transcripts
DATE: 29/04/2015
JOB NUMBER: J007513
Tonkin & Taylor Limited
33 Parkhouse Road
Wigram 8042
Christchurch
Dear Josh Scarrow,
Eighteen (18) samples were received on Tuesday, 24th March 2015 by Nikita Davis.
#1097. Sample analysis was performed using polarised light microscopy with dispersion staining in accordance with Precise
Yours sincerely
ADAM MAURICE

Wednesday, 29th April 2015
Client <2mm
Number Weight (g)
TP301 SURF 0-0.1

ID007513.1 TP301 Non-homogenous Soil 101.37g
636.62g
TP301 SUB 0.25-0.4

Chrysotile (White Asbestos) No Asbestos <0.001g*
Organic Fibres Detected Free Fibres
464.04g
TP302 SURF 0-0.1

609.05g
TP302 SUB 0.3-0.5

399.62g

TP303 SURF 0-0.1
Chrysotile (White Asbestos) <0.001g No Asbestos
Organic Fibres Free Fibres Detected
987.25g
TP303 SUB 0.3-0.4

619.50g
TP304 SURF
708.56g
TP304 0.4-0.5
546.10g
TP305 SURF
812.63g
TP305 SUB 0.3-0.4

467.90g
TP306 SURF 0-0.1

980.75g

TP306 SUB 0.3-0.4
820.37g
TP307 SURF 0-0.1

820.04g
TP307 SUB 0.2-0.3

567.07g
TP308 SURF 0-0.1

1025.39g
TP308 SUB 0.35-0.5

676.91g
TP309 SURF 0-0.1

545.4g
TP309 SUB 0.5-0.6

498.35g


Appendix 1
Client
Number
ID007513.2 TP301 <2mm Free Fibres 100%

DATE: 29/04/2015
JOB NUMBER: J007515
33 Parkhouse Road
Wigram 8042
Christchurch
Dear Josh Scarrow,
Twenty Five (25) samples were received on Tuesday, 24th March 2015 by Nikita Davis.
Yours sincerely
ADAM MAURICE

Tuesday, 29th April 2015
Client <2mm
Number Weight (g)
TP310 SURF 0-0.1 Chrysotile (White Asbestos)

<0.001g* No Asbestos
ID007515.1 TP310 Non-homogenous Soil Crocidolite (Blue Asbestos) 102.78g
Free Fibres Detected
720.80g Organic Fibres
TP310 SUB 0.3-0.4

723.20g
TP311 SURF 0-0.1

779.79g
TP311 SUB 0.3-0.4

448.13g

TP311 0.7-0.9
ID007515.5 TP311 Non-homogenous Soil N/A N/A N/A
Organic Fibres
279.89g
TP312 SURF 0-0.1

TP312 SUB 0.45-0.6

635.15g
TP313 SURF 0-0.1g

662.36g
TP213 SUB 0.25-0.4

790.49g
TP314 SURF
892.97g
TP314 SUB 0.25-0.4

957.37g

TP315 SURF 0-0.1
794.53g
TP315 SUB 0.25-0.4

471.65g
TP316 SURF 0-0.1

794.95g
TP316 SUB 0.4-0.6

728.20g
TP317 SURF 0-0.1

986.42g
TP317 SUB 0.35-0.5

942.59g
TP318 SURF 0-0.1

817.77g

TP318 SUB 0.5-0.6
1048.88g
TP319 SURF 0-0.1

899.84g
TP319 SUB 0.5-0.6

393.97g
TP320 SURF 0-0.1

736.81g
TP320 SUB 0.5-0.6

301.13g
TP321 SURF 0-0.1

886.16g
TP321 SUB 0.25-0.4

310.49g


Appendix 1
Client
Number
ID007515.1 TP310 2-7mm Free Fibres - 100%

DATE: 05/05/2015
JOB NUMBER: J007519
33 Parkhouse Road
Wigram 8042
Christchurch
Dear Josh Scarrow,
Nineteen (19) samples were received on Wednesday, 25th March 2015 by Nikita Davis.
Yours sincerely
ADAM MAURICE

Tuesday, 5th May 2015
Client <2mm
Number Weight (g)
TP336 SURF
979.91g
TP336 SUB
784.99g
TP337 SURF
959.47g
TP337 SUB
796.03g

TP335 SURF
947.81g
TP335 SUB
388.32g
TP334 SURF
1142.62g
TP334 SUB
1180.47g
TP333 SURF
1037.79g
TP333 SUB
886.01g
TP332 SURF
675.72g

TP332 SUB
861.45g
TP332 SURF
964.55g
TP331 SURF
693.14g
TP331 SUB
1127.16g
TP330 SURF
840.91g
TP330 SUB
488.22g
TP329 SURF
694.65g

TP329 SUB
839.88g


Appendix 1
Client
Number

DATE: 04/05/2015
JOB NUMBER: J007521
33 Parkhouse Road
Wigram 8042
Christchurch
Dear Josh Scarrow,
Fourteen (14) samples were received on Thursday, 26th March 2015 by Nikita Davis.
Yours sincerely
ADAM MAURICE

Monday, 4th May 2015
Client <2mm
Number Weight (g)
TP322 SURF
1061.39g
TP322 SUB
840.72
TP323 SURF
872.28g
TP323 SUB
801.55g

TP324 SURF
890.14g
TP324 SUB
311.76g
TP325 SURF
835.28g
TP325 SUB
1276.05g
TP326 SURF
920.51g
TP326 SUB
916.11g
TP327 SURF
862.39g

TP327 SUB
911.80g
TP328 SURF
843.29g
TP328 SUB
808.68g


Appendix 1
Client
Number

DATE: 30/04/2015
JOB NUMBER: J007522
33 Parkhouse Road
Wigram 8042
Christchurch
Dear Josh Scarrow,
Eight (8) samples were received on Friday, 27th March 2015 by Nikita Davis.
The results of fibre analysis were performed by Tim Trembath of Precise Consulting and Laboratory Ltd.
Should you require further information please contact Tim Trembath.
Yours sincerely
TIM TREMBATH

Thursday, 30th April 2015
Client <2mm
Number Weight (g)
BH 338 SURF
ID007522.1 BH 338 Non-homogenous Soil N/A N/A N/A
Organic Fibres
484.82g
BH 338 SUB
No Asbestos Detected N/A N/A N/A
ID007522.2 BH 338 Non-homogenous Soil
Organic Fibres
164.61g
BH 339 SURF
Organic Fibres
872.06g
BH339 SUB
Organic Fibres
354.08g

BH 340 SURF
ID007522.5 BH 340 Non-homogenous Soil 103.59g
1511.14g
BH 340 SUB
Organic Fibres
320.39g
BH 341 SURF
ID007522.7 BH 341 Non-homogenous Soil 102.02g
1119.08g
BH 341 SUB
Organic Fibres
363.47g

Tim Trembath (BSc (Hons)) Adam Maurice (Dip. Lab Tech)

Appendix 1
Client
Number
ID007522.5 BH 340 <2mm Free Fibres - 100%

Appendix D: Phase 4 laboratory transcripts
DATE: 21st June 2016
JOB NUMBER: J113349 (1)
Tonkin and Taylor (Christchurch)
33 Parkhouse Road
Wigram
Christchurch
8042
Dear Mark Morley,
Re: Asbestos Identification Analysis Confidential
Thirty-Two (32) samples received on 18th May 2016 by Laura Vitali.
The results of fibre analysis were performed by Andy Straker of Precise Consulting and Laboratory Ltd on 24th May 2016.
The sample(s) were stated to be from Confidential .
Sample analysis was performed using polarised light microscopy with dispersion staining in accordance with the guidelines of
AS4964-2004 Method for the qualitative identification of asbestos in bulk samples.
Should you require further information please contact Andy Straker.
Yours sincerely
Andy Straker
Version 8 | Issue Date: November 2014 1 of 7
Precise Consulting & Laboratory Ltd Limited

Unit 4, 91 Byron Street, Sydenham, Christchurch 8023
Job No: J113349
21 June 2016
Note 1: The reporting limit for this analysis is 0.1g/kg (0.01%) by application of polarised light microscopy, dispersion staining
and trace analysis techniques.
Note 2: If mineral fibres of unknown type are detected (UMF), by PLM and dispersion staining, these may or may not be
asbestos fibres. To confirm the identity of this fibre, another independent analytical technique such as XRD analysis is
advised.
Note 3: The samples in this report are As Received the laboratory does not take responsibility for the sampling procedure
or accuracy of sample location description.
Andy Straker Julian Staite

Site Address: Confidential
Client
Sample
Sample ID Sample Analysis Results
Number
Chrysotile
TP401-
BS049689 Non-Homogeneous Soil (White Asbestos)
0.1
579.65g Organic Fibre Type
Unsieved
TP401- No Asbestos Detected
BS049690 Non-Homogeneous Soil
0.5 Organic Fibre Type
941.96g
Version 8 | Issue Date: November 2014 J113349 - 2 of 7

Job No: J113349
21 June 2016
Client
Sample
Number
Chrysotile
TP402-
0.1
Unsieved
1010.25g
Chrysotile + Amosite
TP403- (White & Brown
0.1 Asbestos)
682.31g
Organic Fibre Type
Unsieved
840.12g
Amosite + Chrysotile +
Crocidolite
TP404-
BS049695 Non-Homogeneous Soil (Brown,White & Blue
0.1
1147.94g Asbestos)
Organic Fibre Type
Unsieved
1194.65g

Job No: J113349
21 June 2016
Client
Sample
Number
Chrysotile + Amosite
TP405- (White & Brown
0.1 Asbestos)
359.08g
Organic Fibre Type
Unsieved
891.52g
Chrysotile
TP406- (White Asbestos)
0.1 Man-Made Mineral Fibre
698.50g
Organic Fibre Type
Unsieved
1045.41g
Chrysotile
TP407-
0.1
Unsieved
685.91g

Job No: J113349
21 June 2016
Client
Sample
Number
TP408-
BS049703 Non-Homogeneous Soil Man-Made Mineral Fibre
0.1
Unsieved No Asbestos Detected

TP408-
0.4
Amosite + Chrysotile +
Crocidolite
TP409-
BS049705 Non-Homogeneous Soil (Brown,White & Blue
0.1
716.48g Asbestos)
Organic Fibre Type
Unsieved
843.95g
TP410-
0.1

TP410-
0.4

Job No: J113349
21 June 2016
Client
Sample
Number

676.03g
Chrysotile
Unsieved
TP411- (White Asbestos)
0.7 Man-Made Mineral Fibre
1155.73g
Organic Fibre Type
Chrysotile
TP412-
0.1
Unsieved Chrysotile
TP412-
0.8

728.03g

BS049714 TP413-0.2 Non-Homogeneous Soil Man-Made Mineral Fibre

Job No: J113349
21 June 2016
Client
Sample
Number
Chrysotile
TP414-
0.1
Unsieved
997.73g

913.96g
Unsieved
911.56g

856.35g
Unsieved
823.87g

REPORT
Metro Sports Facility -

Construction Phase
Air Quality Impact Assessment
Prepared for
karo Limited
Prepared by
Tonkin & Taylor Ltd
Date
May 2017
Job Number
53556.002
Distribution:
karo Limited Electronic
Environment Canterbury Electronic
Tonkin & Taylor Ltd (FILE) Electronic
Table of contents
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Site identification 1
1.3 Purpose and scope 1
2 Proposed activities 2
2.1 Works overview 2
2.2 Construction activities 2
2.3 Construction programme 3
3 Discharges to air 4
3.1 Potential dust sources 4
3.2 Factors influencing dust generation 4
3.3 Contaminated dust 5
4 Environmental Setting 6
4.1 Adjacent activities and sensitivity to dust 6
4.2 Meteorology and topography 7
5 Assessment of environmental effects 9
5.1 Assessment methodology 9
5.2 Potential effects of dust emissions 9
5.3 Identified effects of discharges from the preceding early works phase 10
5.4 Potential effects of residual contaminated dust emissions 10
5.5 Consideration of FIDOL factors and summary of dust nuisance effects 11
6 Mitigation and alternatives 13
6.1 Dust control measures 13
6.2 Construction Dust Management Plan 14
7 Conclusions 15
8 Applicability 16
Appendix A : LCJV Construction Documents

Appendix B : 100 m Site Buffer Diagram
Appendix C : Consideration of assessment methodology against pCARP requirements
Tonkin & Taylor Ltd May 2017

Metro Sports Facility - Construction Phase - Air Quality Impact Assessment Job No: 53556.002
karo Limited
1
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
karo Limited proposes to construct the Metro Sports Facility (herein referred to as the site or
MSF) at the block bordered by Moorhouse Avenue, Antigua Street and St Asaph Street in the
Christchurch Central Business District.
As an anchor project of the Christchurch rebuild, the MSF will house an aquatic and indoor
recreation and leisure centre, outdoor recreation areas and car parking. Enabling works are currently
underway and resource consents are now being sought for the subsequent construction phase.
The consent requirements include resource consent for discharges of dust to air from the
construction phase. Tonkin & Taylor Ltd (T+T) has been commissioned by karo Limited to prepare
this assessment of the impacts of the dust discharges on air quality to inform the application for this
consent.
Resource consent CRC173564 was granted in December 2016 for the purpose: To discharge dust to
air associated with site remediation for the site. This application is to authorise the subsequent
discharges from the construction phase of the project.
1.2 Site identification

Street address 26 36 St Asaph Street, 16 28 Stewart Street, 2 28 Balfour Terrace, 3
19 Horatio Street, 103 139 Moorhouse Avenue, and 185 189 Antigua
Street (refer Figure 1.1).
Site owner The Crown
Site area 71,703 m2
1.3 Purpose and scope

The following document provides an assessment of the air quality effects of dust discharges from the
construction phase of the MSF development to inform the application for resource consent. The
assessment has been conducted in accordance with Schedules 1 and 2 of the Proposed Canterbury
Air Regional Plan (pCARP).
Specifically this document provides:
A description of the proposed construction works focussing on dust generating activities;
A characterisation of the nature and scale of potential dust emissions;
A description of the receiving environment of the discharges, including the sensitivity of
adjacent activities and influences on the dispersion of discharged contaminants;
A qualitative assessment of the potential effects of emissions to air of dust (using a FIDOL
assessment approach); and
A summary of conclusions and findings of the investigation.

karo Limited
2
2 Proposed activities
2.1 Works overview

The construction works are described in the Leighs Cockram JV (LCJV) Construction Programme and
Construction Methodology documents (refer Appendix A).
The recreation centre will comprise two large rectangular buildings joined through the central
portion. The eastern building will house a range of swimming pools, including an Olympic pool, dive
pool, leisure pools and a hydro slide. The western building will contain squash and badminton
courts, a fitness centre and administration facilities. There will be extensive landscaping around the
facility and on-grade car parking south of the building.
Early works are in progress and include contaminated soil remediation, removal of existing services
and ground investigations. As noted in section 1.1, dust emissions from these works are subject to
resource consent CRC173564 and are outside the scope of this assessment.
2.2 Construction activities

Potential dust generating activities during the construction phase are primarily associated with the
initial site works/in-ground works stage and with the external works and landscaping stage. A
number of stages involving construction of buildings and structures are scheduled to occur in the
interim period between these two phases but are unlikely to involve significant dust emissions.
The LCJV Construction Methodology document describes the site works/in-ground works stage as
involving the following tasks
Install sheet piles;
Dewatering to lower water table;
Excavate to subgrade;
Install screw piles;
Install stone columns;
Backfill with 500mm compacted hardfill;
Construct reinforced concrete foundations to above groundwater level;
Backfill around structures; and
Remove dewatering and sheet piles.
The external works and landscaping stage is described as involving the following tasks:
Excavate to subgrade;
Backfill and compact to subgrade;
Prepare for kerb and channel;
Install site wide services;
Construct tree pits;
Heavy duty crossings;
Lay and compact topcourse to subgrade;
Seal car park and access; and
Soil, irrigation and planting.

karo Limited
3
2.3 Construction programme

The programme for works is described in the LCJV Construction Programme, which indicates the
following:
Site works/in-ground works are scheduled to commence in July 2017 with completion in
March 2018 (enabling/early works are currently underway).
External works and landscaping activities are scheduled to commence in early 2019 and be
completed by October 2019.
Overall the construction programme is scheduled for completion in 2020.

karo Limited
4
3 Discharges to air
3.1 Potential dust sources

There is potential for dust to be generated from the following construction activities:
Topsoil/hardstand removal;
Excavation of soil material;
Handling of fill and spoil material;
Handling of bulk materials;
Vehicle movements over un-stabilised areas; and
Wind erosion of material stockpiles and exposed, unstabilised areas.
The scale of dust emissions from these activities will be dependent on factors described in section
3.2.
3.2 Factors influencing dust generation

There are a number of environmental and operational factors which will influence the potential for
dust to be generated at the MSF site during the construction phase. These factors include:
Surface wind speed Dust emissions from exposed surfaces generally increase with wind
speed. Dust pick-up by wind typically becomes significant at wind speeds of greater than
5 m/s (10 knots).
Mechanical disturbance of materials Movements of vehicles, excavators and other
machinery used to transport, work, or distribute materials can increase dust generation.
Vehicles may break down materials during travel over surfaces reducing particle size. During
transport dust particles may be lifted from exposed surfaces and sucked into the turbulent
wake behind the vehicles. Dust can also be generated through the turbulence caused during
excavation or movement of materials.
Moisture content of the material Moisture binds particles together and prevents dust from
being generated through surface wind or disturbances such as vehicle movement. In general,
operations involving excavation near or below the water table are not likely to generate
significant amounts of dust as excavated material is likely to be wet. However the spoil
generated from these activities may generate dust if allowed to dry out.
The area of the exposed surface The greater the area of exposed surface, the larger the
potential for dust generation will be. Stabilisation of surfaces (e.g. through vegetation)
significantly decreases the potential for generation of dust by binding particles together and
reducing surface energy; and
Particle size distribution of the material Fine particles are more easily entrained in wind or
lifted via mechanical disturbance. As noted in section 5.1, dust from construction activities is
usually comprised primarily of coarse dust particles rather than fines.
Dust management and control measures are generally focussed on managing these contributing
factors, as discussed further in Section 6.

karo Limited
5
3.3 Contaminated dust

Soil contamination has been previously identified at the site and the discharge of contaminated dust
could lead to adverse health effects.
Contaminated soil remediation, including the removal of asbestos-containing granular materials and
localised pockets of underlying metal and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) contaminated
historic fill, is scheduled to occur during the preceding early works phase. The purpose of the
remediation is to reduce soil contaminant levels to below commercial land use acceptance criteria.
The Site Management Plan for Ground Contamination (SMP) prepared by T+T for the construction
phase1 provides procedures for managing unexpected further contamination, in the event it is
encountered following site remediation.
1 T+T. 2017. Metro Sports Facility - Construction Phase: Site Management Plan for Ground Contamination.

karo Limited
6
4 Environmental Setting
4.1 Adjacent activities and sensitivity to dust

As illustrated in Figure 1, the MSF site is located in the Christchurch central business district.
Figure 1: Site location (Source: Terraview International and its Licensees)
The site is located in the Central City Mixed Used Zone under the new Christchurch City District Plan.
The site is located within the Christchurch Airshed as gazetted under the Resource Management
(National Environmental Standards for Air Quality) Regulations 2004 (NESAQ). The site is located
within the Christchurch/ tautahi Clean Air Zone under the pCARP.
As noted in section 5.1, the majority of dust emissions from construction activities at the site are
likely to deposit out of air within 100 m of the discharge point. An illustration of the area within
100 m of the site is provided in Appendix B. The zoning and activities within 100 m of the site include
the following:
The adjacent properties to the east (across Antigua St) and west also lie within the Central City
Mixed Used Zone and are occupied by a range of commercial and light industrial activities.
Activities are likely to range in sensitivity to dust from food outlets (high sensitivity) to light
industrial and workshop activities (relatively low sensitivity). Activities such as motor vehicle
retail may also be particularly sensitivity to dust deposition on cars. The Central City Mixed
Used Zone also allows residential activities, and a dwelling was identified in the application for
consent CRC173564 for the remediation phase dust discharges. This residential property and
any others that may be present in the area are likely to be highly sensitive to dust. The
Majestic Church located at the corner of Moorhouse Avenue and Waller Terrace was also
identified as a sensitive receptor in the previous application. However although this site will
be used regularly for public congregation, the church is housed within a former commercial

karo Limited
7
building and is likely to have moderate sensitivity to dust similar to commercial office
activities.
Health activities associated with Christchurch Hospital, including eye care and endocrinology
are located to the north across St Asaph St. These activities are likely to be of high sensitivity
to dust. The energy centre (including large scale combustion appliances) servicing the hospital
is located at the corner of St Asaph and Antigua Streets.
Hagley Community College (Central City Education Zone) is located to northwest and is also
likely to be reasonably sensitive to dust emissions.
Overall, the area surrounding the site currently features or is intended to feature a variety of
activities, ranging from low to high sensitivity to dust. Sensitivity to dust is likely to be highest at the
hospital facilities to the north of St Asaph Street and where (if) residential activities occur in the
mixed use zone. Sensitivity to dust may also be elevated at Hagley Community College to the
northwest and at certain commercial activities such as food outlets and car yards within the
surrounding commercial areas.
4.2 Meteorology and topography

The topography of an area may influence wind and air flow and therefore the generation and
dispersion of dust emission.
Situated on the Canterbury Plains, the local topography is generally flat with little variation in
topography. Regional meteorological conditions will be influenced by the Port Hills approximately
4 km to the south and the coastal marine area at Pegasus Bay 9 km to the east.
Weather conditions may be represented by measured meteorological parameters, such as wind
speed and direction. Figure 2 shows a wind rose analysis of the wind speed and wind direction
measured at the Christchurch Airport meteorological monitoring station in 2012.

karo Limited
8
Figure 2: Frequency of wind speeds and directions measured at Christchurch Airport in 2012 (1-hour average
data)
This meteorological monitoring station is situated approximately 9 km to the northwest of the site.
Given the lack of topographical variation between central Christchurch and the airport, wind
direction observations at the airport are likely to be broadly representative of conditions at the site.
However, given the airport site is generally free of adjacent buildings and structure, measured wind
speeds are likely to be higher than those that occur in central Christchurch.
As illustrated in Figure 2, there is a reasonably strong prevalence of winds from the northeast. This is
also the predominant direction for fresh to strong winds (of speeds greater than 5 m/s), in which
dust transport is most likely to occur. There is secondary prevalence of wind from the southwest
quadrant in winds observed at Christchurch Airport and little wind from the southeast quadrant.

karo Limited
9
5 Assessment of environmental effects
5.1 Assessment methodology

The methodology for assessing the potential effects of dust emissions from the construction phase
on the environment has been developed in accordance with the relevant recommendations of the
Ministry for the Environment (MfE) Good Practice Guide for Assessing and Managing the
Environmental Effects of Dust Emissions (Dust GPG, 2016) and the pCARP.
The assessment methodology has included the following:
A summary of the potential effects of construction dust discharges (section 5.2).
A consideration of identified effects of dust emissions from the preceding early works phase
(section 5.3).
An assessment of the potential effects of residual contaminated dust discharges (section 5.3).
A consideration of the FIDOL factors and summary assessment of dust nuisance effects
(section 5.5).
Measures to manage the emissions and mitigate potential environmental effects are described in
section 6
A consideration of the methodology against the information requirements for consent applications
for discharges of dust to air specified in Schedule 1 of the pCARP is provided in Appendix C.
5.2 Potential effects of dust emissions

Particulate matter is generally categorised based on particle size (often referred to as the
aerodynamic diameter), as described below:
Deposited dust particles generally greater than 30 microns (m) and refers to the size
fraction that falls out of the air and deposits on exposed surfaces
Total suspended particulates (TSP) - refers to the particulate size fraction suspended in air at
the time of sampling and generally consists of particles smaller than 30 m.
PM10 (particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than 10 m) will penetrate the nose or
mouth under normal breathing conditions, and is the most commonly used indicator of the
potential for health effects.
As well as influencing the types of effects that may occur, the size of dust particles determines how
long a particle will remain suspended in the air. Larger particles will drop out of the air (and deposit
on the ground or other surfaces) in a shorter time than smaller particles.
There are two main potential effects from particulate matter; nuisance/amenity effects and health
effects. Nuisance/amenity effects are generally associated with deposited dust and the coarser
fractions of TSP while health effects are generally associated with PM10, as these are able to
penetrate the nose and mouth if breathed in, and can enter the lungs.
The potential sources of dust from the construction works are discussed in Section 4. Due to the
nature of dust generation from construction activities (primarily through disturbance of soil
particles), the dust emitted from these activities will generally be in the deposited dust range
(generally greater than 30 m in diameter). As the proportion of fine particles in the emissions is
likely to be low, potential adverse effects are associated with nuisance and health effects are
unlikely.
Due to gravitational forces on heavier deposited fraction particles, the majority of particulate of this
fraction will deposit out of the air within about 100 metres of the source (except under very high

karo Limited
10
wind speed conditions). The effects of deposited dust are therefore generally localised within this
distance. Potential nuisance and property effects of deposited dust include the visible soiling of
surfaces such as house, furniture, cars and the visible deposition of dust on flowers and vegetable
gardens.
Deposited dust can also impact on visibility when it is re-entrained by wind or vehicle movements.
While most dust is generally biologically inert in nature, the extent of soiling may increase corrosion
or damage protective surface coatings such as paintwork. High levels of dust deposition on plants
have been shown to reduce plant growth and the effectiveness of pesticide sprays and increase the
incidence of plant pests and diseases all of which results in reduced product quality (McCrea, 1984,
cited in MfE, 2001).
5.3 Identified effects of discharges from the preceding early works phase
The early works/site remediation phase of the MSF development (and associated dust discharges)
have been undertaken under consent CRC173564 since January 2017. This phase of work involves
similar dust generating activities to those described in section 3.1.
Given the similarity of activities over the two project phases, the nature and scale of dust effects
observed during the preceding phase is likely to provide an indication of potential effects during the
construction phase.
The early works dust discharges are managed in accordance with the Dust Management and Erosion
and Sediment Control Plan (DMP/ESCP) for this phase2. The management measures include:
Suppression of dust from excavation areas and unsealed vehicle routes through watering and
suppression of other exposed areas with polymer suppressants.
Covering of truck loads and stockpiled material.
Except where they relate to management of identified contaminated material, similar management
methods are to be employed to manage dust during the construction phase.
As of 29 March 2017, ECan records indicate that it had not received any complaints relating to dust.
Although not a conclusive indicator, the lack of complaints would support that the environmental
effects of dust discharges during the preceding phase have been appropriately managed.
Given that similar management measures are to be implemented over the subsequent construction
phase, this would also indicate that the environmental effects of dust discharges of the construction
phase are also likely to be appropriately managed.
5.4 Potential effects of residual contaminated dust emissions

As noted in section 3.3, although contaminated soil remediation is scheduled to be completed
during the early works phase, there is a potential for residual contamination to be encountered
during the construction phase. This could lead to emissions of contaminated dust, which could cause
adverse health effects where people are exposed to the dust, beyond the site boundary.
The construction works are to be managed in accordance with the SMP for the construction phase,
which contains procedures for the identification and management of unexpected contamination.
Provided the works are managed in accordance with these procedures, there are unlikely to be any
additional adverse health effects of the discharges as a result of on-site soil contamination.
2 T+T. 2016. Dust Management and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan: Metro Sports Facility - Enabling works.

karo Limited
11
5.5 Consideration of FIDOL factors and summary of dust nuisance effects

The potential for dust nuisance, and the potential for objectionable or offensive dust effects in
particular may be assessed by considering what are termed the FIDOL factors (frequency, intensity,
duration, offensiveness/character and location) at locations where dust may be observed.
These factors are considered in relation to the potential for dust nuisance at locations surrounding
the site in Table 1.
Table 1: Consideration of FIDOL factors
Factor Consideration
Frequency/duration The frequency and duration of dust observations at off-site receptor locations will
be dictated by the frequency of emissions and by wind conditions.
The frequency of dust emissions will vary depending on the nature and location
of activities undertaken (whether activities described in section 3.1 are occurring
near the site boundary).
The wind conditions described in section 4.2 will influence the frequency of dust
observation at locations off-site. The frequency of winds over 5 m/s is greatest
from the northeast notwithstanding the activities occurring on-site, the
frequency of dust emissions is therefore likely to be highest towards the
southwest.
In terms of duration of emissions, wind conditions conducive to dust transport
are most likely to occur consistently in sea breeze conditions. These conditions
will tend to occur on sunny afternoons and would transport dust towards the
southwest. In the long term, the dust generating activities will be temporary. The
construction works are scheduled for completion in 2020, with the bulk of dust
generating activities likely to be undertaken between July 2017 and March 2018
and from February to October 2019.
Intensity The intensity of dust deposition (or suspension in air) at locations beyond the site
boundary will be a function of intensity of dust emissions and the degree of
dispersion of emissions, which in turn will be a function of geographical
separation (dust deposition due to emissions from the works will reduce with
distance from the site).
Dust emissions will vary in intensity depending on the nature and location of
activities undertaken and wind conditions (the potential for dust emissions will
increase with wind speed). The proposed works do not include demolition works,
which may increase the intensity of dust emissions. Furthermore, excavations are
scheduled to require dewatering and are likely to be well wetted on excavation,
which would tend to supress emissions from this activity. Provided dust controls
are implemented diligently, the intensity of dust emissions from the proposed
works are likely to be low.
Offensiveness/character The dust will be derived from soil and, given the contaminated soil remediation
will have occurred in the preceding early works phase, should be free of other
contaminants that could result in a more offensive nature of discharge.
Locational sensitivity The sensitivity of adjacent activities to dust is described in section 4.1 and varies
in adjacent areas. Sensitivity to dust is likely to be highest at the hospital facilities
to the north of St Asaph Street and where residential activities are located in the
mixed use zone. Sensitivity to dust may also be elevated at Hagley Community
College to the northwest and at certain commercial activities such as food outlets
and car yards within the surrounding commercial areas. The majority of these
activities are not downwind of the site in most wind conditions. However, a car
yard is situated to the southwest of the site at the corner of Moorhouse Avenue
and Stewart Street, which will be downwind in the predominant wind direction.

karo Limited
12
Factor Consideration
Greater attention to management of dust is likely to be required if dust
generating activities are carried out in the southwest corner of the site, near the
boundary. Other activities surrounding the site are likely to be of low to
moderate sensitivity to dust.
Overall, the frequency, duration and intensity of the (primarily soil-based) dust emissions from the
proposed construction works should be able to be managed such that in this environmental setting
of varying sensitivity, any dust nuisance effects are less than minor. Measures to manage dust
emissions in this manner are described in section 6.

karo Limited
13
6 Mitigation and alternatives
6.1 Dust control measures

A range of measures are available to control and manage dust emissions and mitigate dust nuisance
effects from construction activities. Such measures have been used successfully to manage dust
nuisance effects in similar situations, including as part of other construction projects associated with
the Christchurch rebuild.
Suitable construction dust measures include:
Means of modifying or controlling properties of the disturbed or materials, to reduce the
likelihood of the materials being disturbed or entrained in wind. This may include wet
suppression of materials, sealing or stabilising surfaces;
Means of modifying activities to reduce the mechanical disturbance of material, such as
managing vehicle speeds and reducing handling drop heights; and
Methods of modifying environmental conditions for dust generation such as surface wind
speeds. This may include covering stockpiles, minimising stockpile heights or creating
windbreaks.
Dust mitigation and management measures recommended to be used in this instance (where
practicable) are described in Table 2.
Table 2: Dust mitigation and management control measures
Dust Source Control Measure

Stockpiles Limiting the height of stockpiles (typically below 3 metres) to reduce wind erosion.
Surfaces of stockpiles should be kept damp to reduce dust emissions (e.g. through
use of sprinklers or similar systems).
Stockpiles should be oriented to maximise wind sheltering where possible. Wind
breaks or fencing may be required around stockpiles.
Where practicable, stockpiles should be covered (e.g. with geotextile or polythene)
or stabilised to reduce dust generation.
Unsealed Unsealed surfaces should be kept damp to reduce dust emissions by use of water
surfaces carts.
Where practicable, unconsolidated surfaces shall be compacted to minimise dust.
Stabilisation of surfaces when works are completed by grassing, metalling or sealing
surfaces to reduce dust emissions.
Vehicles Limiting vehicle speeds over unsealed roads or surfaces on-site to 10 km/h.
Use of wheel wash facilities at vehicle egress points to prevent the tracking of soil
material off-site
Covering truck loads if the materials carried contain fine soil particulate or bulk
materials or other material likely to generate dust.
Earthmoving and Exposed soil areas should be minimised to the extent practicable, such as through
construction the staging of earthworks.
Drop heights of handled materials should be minimised to reduce dust generation.
Monitoring and managing earthworks activities to limit dust generation during dry or
windy weather conditions.

karo Limited
14
Dust Source Control Measure

General Limiting operations which have the potential to generate dust during high wind
events (>5 m/s).
Material spilled or tracked over sealed areas should be cleaned to over entrainment
in wind or further tracking off-site.
Regular inspection of dust generating activities and downwind off-site locations.
Alternative measures may be available such as continuous instrumental monitoring of dust levels.
Given the nature of the construction activities, the diffuse nature of resulting emissions and varying
wind conditions, this type of monitoring is not recommended in this instance. However, if dust
nuisance effects were identified to be occurring during the construction works, this type of
monitoring could be considered in order to provide a more detailed understanding of the effects and
to enable management measures to be modified accordingly.
No practicable alternative locations or methods of discharge are considered to be available and the
proposed method of discharge is considered to be appropriate.
6.2 Construction Dust Management Plan

A Construction Dust Management Plan will be developed for the construction phase, either as a
standalone document or as part of a Construction Environmental Management Plan or other plan
for the project, prior to the works commencing.
The Construction Dust Management Plan will likely utilise, as a basis, the DMP/ESCP developed for
the early works phase in accordance with resource consent CRC173564 (except where measures in
that plan relate specifically to management of previously identified contaminated soil material) and
will include, as a minimum, the following:
Identification of activities that have the potential to generate dust;
General dust control measures to be implemented across the works area, as well as specific
controls for identified activities;
Procedures for visual monitoring of dust emissions during the works and the appropriate
management responses if dust emissions occur;
Contingency measures in the event of a significant unplanned dust event; and
Complaints response procedures, including maintenance of records.

karo Limited
15
7 Conclusions
This air quality impact assessment has been prepared on behalf of karo Limited to inform an
application for resource consent for discharges of dust to air from the construction of the MSF. The
following conclusions are drawn from the assessment:
Resource consent is required for discharges of dust to air of the construction phase of the
project. The equivalent discharges from site remediation activities in the preceding early
works phase are already consented (reference: CRC173564).
A range of proposed construction activities have the potential to generate dust, particularly
during the initial site works/in-ground works stage from mid-2017 to early 2018 and later
during the external works and landscaping stage that is scheduled to occur in 2019.
The area surrounding the site features or is intended to feature activities of varying sensitivity
to dust. Sensitivity to dust is likely to be highest at the hospital facilities to the north of St
Asaph Street and where residential activities are located in the surrounding mixed use zone.
Sensitivity to dust may also be elevated at Hagley Community College to the northwest and at
as food outlets and car yards within the surrounding commercial areas. Otherwise the
sensitivity of activities is likely to be low to moderate.
Similar dust discharges are generated from the preceding early works phase and similar
management measures are to be employed to manage dust during the construction phase. To
date (as of 29 March 2017), no complaints have been recorded by ECan in relation to dust
nuisance from the early works phase, which would indicate the dust management measures
proposed for the construction phase are effective and dust nuisance effects will continue to
be well managed.
Residual soil contamination could be encountered during the works and result in
contaminated dust emissions. However, given soil remediation is to be completed in the
preceding early works phase and subsequent construction works are to be managed in
accordance with the SMP, there are unlikely to be any additional adverse health effects of the
discharges as a result of on-site soil contamination.
A consideration of the FIDOL factors for assessing the potential for dust nuisance effects
indicates that the frequency, duration and intensity of dust emissions from the proposed
works should be able to be managed such that dust nuisance effects are less than minor.
A range of dust management measures are recommended to achieve this and will be
incorporated into a Construction Dust Management Plan prior to commencement of
construction.
Provided that the recommended dust management measures are rigorously implemented, the
adverse effects of dust discharges are assessed as being less than minor and appropriately mitigated.

karo Limited
16
8 Applicability
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client karo Limited, with respect to the
particular brief given to us and it may not be relied upon in other contexts or for any other purpose,
or by any person other than our client, without our prior written agreement.
Tonkin & Taylor Ltd
Report prepared by: Authorised for Tonkin & Taylor Ltd by:
.......................................................... .................................................
Jason Pene Peter Cochrane
Senior Environmental Engineer Project Director
JAP
\\ttgroup.local\corporate\christchurch\tt projects\53556\53556.0020\issueddocuments\construction dust assessment\final\53556-002-
msf construction dust assessment-final.docx

karo Limited
Appendix A: LCJV Construction Documents
Ex
ce
rp
ts
re
lat
in
g
to
co
nst
ru
ct
io
n
ph
as
e
on
ly
Appendix B: 100 m Site Buffer Diagram
Met
roSport
s Faci
li
ty 100m Si
t
eBoun dary Buf
fer
Reg ion al
Boun dari es
Territ
orial
Auth orit
y
Boun dari es
Lan dParcels
Stateh i
g h w ays
outsi
de
Can t
erbury
Disclaim er:
I
nf ormat i
on i n thi
s map h as been deri ved f rom various sources
i
n cluding t h eKai kouraDi strict,Hurun uiDistrict
,W aimak aririDi
strict,
Ch ristch urch Di st
ri
ct,En vi ron men tCan terbury Reg ion al Coun cil,
Selw yn Di strict
,Ash burton Di stri
ct,W aimat e Dist
ri
ct,Mack en zie
District,Ti maru Di stri
ctan dW ai takiDistri
cts databases.
Boun dary i nformat ion is derived un der licen ce f

rom LINZ Digit
al
Cadast ral Dat abase ( Crow n Copyrig h t Reserved). Th e
aforemen t i
on ed Coun c i
ls do n otg i
ve an d expressly di
sclai
m an y
w arran ty as tot h eac curacy or completen ess ofth einf
ormati
on or
i
tsf it
n ess for an y purpose.
Informat i
on on this map may n otbe used f or th epurposes ofan y
leg al di
sputes. Th euser sh ouldi n depen den t
ly verif
yth eaccuracy
ofan y informati
on beforetak i
n g an y act
ion i
n relian c
eupon it.
0 0.
04 0.
08 0.
12 0.
16
Ki
lomet
res
Scale:1:
4,000@A4
Copyrig h tCan t
erbury Maps
En vi
ron men tCan terbury 2017
Map Creat
edby Can t
erbury Maps on 2:
55:
00p.
m.
Appendix C: Consideration of assessment
methodology against pCARP
requirements
Schedule 1 assessment requirement Comment

1 An assessment of effects of the discharge in accordance The dust assessment has been
with the following documents where applicable: MFE conducted in accordance with the MfE
(2003) Good Practice Guide for Assessing and Managing Dust Good Practice Guide (updated
Odour in New Zealand, MfE (2001) Good Practice Guide 2016) and the FIDOL factors are
for Assessing and Managing the Environmental Effects of considered specifically in section 5.3.
Dust Emissions, relevant industry best practice guidelines
or industry codes of practice. This assessment will include
a description of the extent of the effects as follows:
(a) the frequency of odour and/or dust effects; and
(b) the intensity of odour and/or dust effects; and
(c) the duration of the odour and/or dust effects; and
(d) the offensiveness of the odour and/or dust effects;
and
(e) the location where the odour and/or dust effects can
be experienced.
2 The assessment of effects discussed in 1 above may The techniques listed under clause 2
include some or all of the following techniques: have been incorporated where
practicable and appropriate.
(a) comparison with the effects of existing processes of Although remediation of contaminated
similar size and type, including reference to industry soil will have occurred in the previous
standards and codes of practice; and remediation phase, the dust generation
activities are similar. Dust emissions and
environmental effects will therefore be
similar except in relation to emissions of
contaminated dust.
(b) dispersion modelling of contaminant emissions, where In this instance given the variable nature
the emission rate has been measured (using olfactometry, of dust generating construction activities
for example); and and diffuse nature of the resulting dust
emissions, dispersion modelling is
unlikely to provide an accurate
representation of actual effects
(c) observation of the existing discharge and any effects; The effects of the similarly managed
early works phase dust discharges
(d) information gathered from people that may be
(including the ECan compliant record)
affected by an existing discharge, including surveys and
are considered in section 5.3.
examination of complaints records; and
(e) extrapolation from known emissions and effects of No relevant trial data or scale models
scale models or trials of the process. available.
3 A list of mitigation measures and procedures to ensure Mitigation measures are described in
that the extent of effects do not constitute an offensive or section 6
objectionable effect pursuant to Schedule 2.
4 For odorous activities, a draft odour management plan The discharges are not anticipated to be
developed in accordance with Schedule 2. odorous.
5 For activities producing dust, a draft dust management Although a draft dust management plan
plan prepared in accordance with Schedule 2 should be has not been developed for the
provided which includes but is not limited to: construction phase, a dust management
(a) what dust control procedures must be done and why; plan was submitted for the early works
and phase discharges authorised under
(b) who has to carry out the dust control procedure CRC173564. Similar dust management
and/or ensure that they have been carried out; and procedures (except where they relate to
(c) how the dust control procedures will be carried out; site remediation activities) will be
and incorporated in the dust management
(d) the anticipated outcomes; and plan (or within a broader management
(e) how these outcomes will be monitored. plan) for the construction phase.
TKARO LIMITED
METRO SPORTS FACILITY CONSTRUCTION PHASE NES

EARTHWORKS
Application to
Christchurch City Council
5 July 2017
Prepared By: Melanie Foote Resource Management Group
Consultant Planner Level 4, 69 Cambridge Terrace
Resource Management Group Limited PO Box 908, Christchurch Box Lobby
Christchurch 8140
Reviewed By: Darryl Millar Date: 30 June 2017

Director Reference: PO769.03
Resource Management Group Limited Status: FINAL
Approved for Karli Bristed

Release By: Principal Planning & Consents Advisor
tkaro Limited
tkaro Limited, Metro Sports Facility
Construction Phase NES Consent Application to CCC
APPLICATION FOR RESOURCE CONSENT UNDER SECTION 88

OF THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT 1991 FORM 9
TO: CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL
tkaro Limited hereby applies for an earthworks NES consent as described below.
1. A description of the activity to which the application relates:
To undertake construction phase earthworks on the site which previously contained

activities that are listed on the HAIL List subject to the National Environmental Standard for
Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health (NES).
The activity is detailed in the attached application and appendices.
2. The resource consents sought:
Land use Consent
3. The owner and occupier of the site to which the application relates:
The Crown (Land Information New Zealand).
4. The location of the site to which the application relates:
The site is bounded by St Asaph Street, Antigua Street, Moorhouse Avenue and Part of
Stewart Street. See Appendix One for copies of the Certificate of Titles and list of properties.
5. Resource consent will be sought concurrently from Environment Canterbury (ECan) for de-
watering and stormwater activities. An Outline Plan has been submitted to Christchurch City
Council (CCC) and includes the proposed earthworks activities.
6. An Assessment of Environmental Effects is attached.
7. No other information is required to be included by the District or Regional Plans, the

Resource Management Act or any other regulations.
Page | 5
______________________________ ______________________________
Melanie Foote Darryl Millar
Consultant Planner Director
Resource Management Group Ltd Resource Management Group Ltd
Address for Service: Address for Billing and Monitoring:

tkaro Limited tkaro Limited
C/- Resource Management Group Ltd Level 8, HSBC Tower
PO Box 908 62 Worcester Boulevard
Christchurch Box Lobby CHRISTCHURCH 8013
CHRISTCHURCH 8140
Attn: Karli Bristed
Attn: Melanie Foote karli.bristed@otakaroltd.co.nz
melanie@rmgroup.co.nz
Page | 6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................... 8
THE SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA ................................................................................................................ 8
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORKS ............................................................................................................. 10
COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................................... 13
STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS ...................................................................................................................... 14
ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS............................................................................................................................... 14
OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES ............................................................................................................................. 18
PART TWO MATTERS ..................................................................................................................................... 19
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................. 20
Appendix One: List of property addresses and legal descriptions and Computer Freehold
Registers
Appendix Two: Preliminary Site Investigation
Detailed Site Investigations
Remediation Action Plan
Appendix Three: Construction Methodology
Appendix Four: Site Management Plan for Ground Contamination (Version 2)
Appendix Five: Air Quality Impact Assessment
Appendix Six: Proposed Conditions of Consent
Page | 7
INTRODUCTION
Background
1. The Metro Sports Facility (MSF) will be a world class sporting venue and centre of excellence.
It will provide for aquatic and indoor sports facilities, day to day needs for recreational,
educational and high performance sporting communities as well as hosting both national and
international sporting events. The opportunity to develop the MSF has arisen as a result of the
Canterbury Earthquakes which caused the loss of numerous sports and leisure facilities
throughout Christchurch.
2. The MSF is identified as an Anchor Project identified in the Central Christchurch Recovery Plan
(CCRP). MSF will comprise of two large rectangular buildings joined through the central
portion. The eastern building will comprise a range of swimming pools, including an Olympic
pool, dive pool, leisure pools and hydroslides. The western building will contain sports courts,
fitness centre and various administration facilities.
3. By way of background site remediation consents and associated site remediation NES
consents were approved by both ECan and CCC in late 2016. The site is currently under
remediation to remove asbestos containing granular materials and localised pockets of
underlying metals, PAHs and contaminated historic fill with the objective of reducing health
and safety controls during the construction of the MSF. As part of the approved site
remediation consenting a Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI) and two Detailed Site
Investigations (DSIs) were completed along with a Remediation Action Plan (RAP) with
respect to ground contamination for the site remediation works. A copy of these reports are
contained in Appendix Two. As part of the site remediation works that precede the
construction phase works proposed under this NES consent, an Interim Site Validation Report
(SVR), will be completed prior to commencement of the construction phase works. The SVR
will confirm that the condition of the site post remediation and will be finalised on completion
of the construction related earthworks.
4. As part of the proposed construction phase consents a Site Management Plan (SMP) and Air
Discharge Assessment have been prepared by T+T and attached in Appendix Four and Five
respectively.
5. This NES consent relates to the construction phase of the MSF project covering all site ground
development works.
6. Consents will be lodged with ECan concurrently covering stormwater and dewatering and air
quality matters.
7. The following Assessment of Effects on the Environment is provided in accordance with

Section 9 and the Fourth Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the RMA).
THE SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA
The Site
8. The MSF site is approximately 71,703m2 in area and is bound by St Asaph Street, Antigua
Street, Moorhouse Avenue and part of Stewart Street. The site has a flat topography. See
Page | 8
Figure One below for the site plan.
Figure One: Site Plan
9. The site addresses and legal descriptions are listed in the table contained in Appendix One
Also refer to Appendix One for copies of the Certificates of Title and table listing the street
addresses and legal descriptions.
Archaeological and Cultural Values

10. The MSF site has been extensively modified over the years. There remains a risk, however,
that archaeological material may be found during earthwork activities. Underground
Overground Archaeology carried out a site appraisal in June 2016 and recommended applying
for an Archaeological Authority. tkaro applied for an Archaeological Authority and Heritage
New Zealand granted this in June 2016.
11. The Christchurch City Plan does not identify any historic buildings, places or objects on the
site.
12. The Mahaanui Iwi Management (IMP) plan does not identify any culturally significant sites of
interest to local Iwi.
Page | 9
Site Contamination
13. A site remediation and NES consent were granted in December 2016 and as part of that
consent the site history was documented in the PSI. Detailed site investigation reports were
also provided along with a Remediation Action Plan (RAP). Copies of these reports are
attached as Appendix Two.
14. In summary the land, prior to the Canterbury earthquake sequence and acquisition by the
Crown was used by a range of commercial and industrial activities; the largest being the
Canterbury Brewery. Other activities included motor vehicle workshops and the storage of
hazardous substances such as fuels for heating. The land was also raised and levelled during
its early development involving placement of fill and the demolition of buildings and crushing
of demolition materials followed by vacant areas of land used for vehicle parking.
15. In summary, the ground contamination assessments (DSIs) identified;
Historic fill which typically contained low levels of Poly Aromatic Hydrocarbonss (PAHS)
and metals and generally below the commercial land use criteria. However, four localised
hot spots were identified where contaminant levels exceeded the commercial criteria;
Various levels of asbestos fines were found in recently recycled demolition wastes. A small
proportion of the materials contained asbestos levels above the risk based criterion;
At surface level several locations of asbestos containing material fragments were left at
surface level after demolition of the buildings;
In soil and groundwater surrounding underground storage tanks (USTs);
In groundwater some or all of, arsenic, copper, lead and nickel levels are above fresh water
guidelines for the 95% level of aquatic protection, and in several wells, groundwater was
above the 80% level of aquatic protection around the perimeter and within the site.
16. Remediation works have been completed within the northern and central blocks (i.e. land
north of Horatio Street), while some further materials removal is required in the southern
block of the site. T+T have completed an interim Site Validation Report in May 2017 and this
report documents the remediation works undertaken and confirms the current status of the
site. In summary, T+T state the validation programme for the northern block has confirmed
that bonded asbestos containing materials, where identified. T+ T note that asbestos fibre test
results in unexcavated grid squares are at or below the laboratory detection limit and the risk
based all uses criterion 0.001% weight by weight.
17. The southern block of the site contains stockpiled materials containing low levels of asbestos
that are awaiting removal and off-site disposal. T+T will update the site status on completion
of the removal of materials from the southern block and again after completion of the
construction of the MSF.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTIVITIES
18. This consent is for the construction phase earthworks across the entire site. Works are
proposed to commence upon completion of the consented site remediation works.
19. The goal of the consented site remediation works is to provide the contractor with a site that
Page | 10
has contaminant levels appropriate to the sites future commercial land use. This means that
contamination will still remain on site; that being contaminants at levels above background,
but below a level that could cause health effects for workers and users of the MSF facility.
20. Proposed works on site as part of the construction phase include:
Site establishment;
Earthworks: large volumes of earthworks are proposed to construct the MSF foundations,
deeper dive pool and general site works to form car parking areas, outdoor recreation areas
and landscaping.
Ground improvement: including sheet piling, de-watering and installation of stone columns;
Stockpiling: limited stockpiling is proposed as part of the construction phase and comprises
stockpiling up to 500m3 of imported aggregate and further excavated fill stockpiles of up to
200m3;
Landscaping procedures: the SMP notes that residual contaminated materials may remain in
areas proposed to be landscaped. While the remedial works will reduce contaminant levels
to commercial land use criteria, any area where soil is to be left exposed may not be suitable
for contact.
Building Construction: The main floor levels for the building will be at RL 17.7 for the pool
area, the central hub and the competition courts. The community court floor level will be at
RL 16.7. Typically, there will be 0.8m to 1m of fill placed to achieve the floor level of RL 17.7
and 0.5m to 1m of fill placed to achieve the floor level of RL 16.7.
Pool construction including subgrade and sub-base development for the pool hall,
hydroslides, and construction of the pool and sports courts. The pools will vary in depth with
the leisure pools typically being constructed above ground water levels. The competition
pool will require deeper excavation below the groundwater table and the dive pool will be
well below the water table;
The pools will have varying depths. The pools in the leisure area will typically be above the
groundwater table and are expected to be constructed in the dry. The competition pool has
a moveable floor at the north end, which will require excavation slightly below the
groundwater table. The floor of the dive pool is at RL12.7 and the excavation will be well
below the water table. There is also a plant room running along the length of the
competition pool with a floor level of RL 13.55m to RL 14.05m, which will also require
excavation and construction below the water table. See Appendix Three for a copy of the
Construction Methodology.
Pool hall completion including hydroslides, pool services and finishes, and commence site
entry and car parking.
Hours of operation: works will generally be undertaken between 7.30am and 6.00pm
Monday to Saturday, however some works may be required outside these times on Sunday
and public holidays as required.
Page | 11
21. The above works are expected to commence in July 2017 with completion in March 2018.
22. The proposed management approaches will be used on the site:
Vehicle wash facilities: standard facilities will be provided;
Earthworks: large volumes of earthworks are proposed to construct the MSF foundations,
deeper dive pool and general site works to form car parking areas, outdoor recreation areas
and landscaping. A copy of the Construction Methodology is attached as Appendix Three
and contains a plan showing the in ground sequence of works.
Ground improvement: including sheet piling, de-watering and installation of stone columns;
Stockpiling: limited stockpiling is proposed as part of the construction phase and comprises
stockpiling up to 500m3 of imported aggregate and further excavated fill stockpiles of up to
200m3;
Erosion and Sediment control: all earthworks will be in accordance with ECans Erosion and
Sediment Control Guidelines (ESCG). The contractor will provide a detailed Erosion and
Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) prior to commencing works on site. The details of what the
ESCG will include are detailed with the T+T SMP contained in Appendix Four;
Soil Disposal: whilst the goal is to retain as much material on site as possible, should off-site
disposal be required, Table 7.2 in the SMP has been developed to provide guidelines to the
contractor;
Landscaping procedures: the SMP notes that residual contaminated materials may remain in
areas proposed to be landscaped. While the remedial works will reduce contaminant levels
to commercial land use criteria, any area where soil is to be left exposed may not be suitable
for contact. T+T have, therefore, recommended a number of procedures in the SMP which
include a layer of geotextile to be laid over landscaped areas, covering geotextile with a
minimum of 300m of clean imported top soil;
Dust: While demolition material containing asbestos fines and historic fill containing levels
above the land use criterion will have been removed as part of the site remediation, there
remains potential for any dust generated to contain traces of metals, PAHs and asbestos
fibres. T +T have produced an Air Quality Impact Assessment contained in Appendix Five and
this plan recommends a number of dust mitigation and control measures. Prior to any works
commencing on site as part of the construction phase a construction Dust Management Plan
will be developed by the contractor;
Water Management:
o Surface water diversion: diversion of clean stormwater away from areas of ground
disturbance will take place;
o Dewatering: construction will require dewatering well below the groundwater table
to control inflows of water in to the excavation site and with regard to water
pressures on the underside of the slabs and foundations;
Page | 12
o Stormwater Treatment: treatment is proposed as required before disposal to the

CCC reticulated network.
COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT
Christchurch District Plan

23. Under the Christchurch District Plan the proposed earthworks require consent under Rule
8.5A.2.2, as the volume of earthworks proposed on the site will exceed the 1000m 3 per
hectare threshold.
24. A breach of this rule makes the proposed activities a restricted discretionary activity.
Councils discretion is limited to a number of matters and of relevance are nuisance and
amenity which will be assessed further in this AEE from paragraph 37.
The National Environmental Standard

25. The NES manages activities which involve the disturbance of land which may be
contaminated. This is determined by whether activities which are listed in the Hazardous
Activities and Industries List (HAIL) have or are likely to have occurred on the site. If soil is
being disturbed, the NES will apply. As the site has been used for numerous HAIL activities (as
documented in the approved site remediation consenting documents) the NES applies to the
proposed activities on site.
26. In summary the following NES provisions apply:
Regulation 8 11 Disturbing Soil
27. Under regulation 8(3)(c), the volume of soil disturbed must be no more than 25m3 per 500m2
of land. The proposal will exceed this.
28. Regulation 8(3)(f) specifies a time limit of 2 months for the duration of the activity. The
proposed earthworks and site development and construction works will exceed two months.
29. Regulation 9 (1) and 10(2) requires a detailed site investigation to exist for the piece of land
for the activity to meet the Controlled or Restricted Discretionary provisions. DSIs were
completed as parts of the approved site remediation works previously consented and are
attached as Appendix Two to this application.
30. Regulation 11 provides for activities to be considered as a discretionary activity when they do
not meet the permitted, controlled or restricted discretionary standards. Overall the proposed
works are to be considered as a restricted discretionary activity.
Overall Activity Standard
31. Overall, on the basis of the above compliance assessment, the application is to be assessed as
a restricted discretionary activity.
Page | 13
STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS
32. The NES Soil is relevant to the proposal given the site is contaminated. The NES provides a
national planning control that directs the requirement for consent for activities on
contaminated or potentially contaminated land. All territorial authorities are required to give
effect to and enforce the requirements of the NES in accordance with their functions under
the RMA relating to contaminated land.
33. Section 104(1) of the Act sets out the matters which the consent authority must have regard
to in considering an application for resource consent. In this case it is considered that regard
shall be had to:
Any actual and potential effects of allowing the activity (Section 104(1)(a));
Any relevant objectives, policies, rules or other provisions of the District Plan (Section
104(1)(b)) and:
Any other relevant matters reasonably necessary to determine the application
(Section 104(1)(c)).
34. All matters listed in Section 104(1) are subject to Part 2 of the Act, which sets out the
overarching purpose and principles of sustainable management as follows:
(1) The purpose of the Act is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical
resources.
(2) In this Act, sustainable management means managing the use, development, and
protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or a rate, which enables people and
communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing and for their
health and safety while
(a) Sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet
the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and
(b) Safeguarding the life supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems; and
(c) Avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the
environment.
35. Section 6, 7 and 8, the principles, set out various matters to be considered when assessing
whether or not a particular proposal achieves the purpose of the RMA.
36. An assessment of the proposal under Section 104 and Part 2 of the RMA is set out in the
following sections.
ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
37. Section 88 of the RMA requires the applicant to undertake an assessment of any actual or
potential effects on the environment that may arise from a proposal, and the ways in which
any adverse effects may be avoided, remedied or mitigated. As a restricted discretionary
activity, Councils discretion is limited therefore the assessment of effects is also limited to the
matters of discretion.
38. The assessment of effects addresses the following matters:
Page | 14
Management of potentially contaminated land;

Effects on surface water quality;
Effects of groundwater quality and quantity;
Dust effects;
Effects on archaeological values;
Effects on Ngai Tahu values
Effects on amenity values;
Positive effects.
Management of Contaminated Material

39. The proposal is a restricted discretionary activity under the NES. Regulation 10(3) limits the
matters over which discretion is restricted to:
(a) The adequacy of the detailed site investigation, including site sampling, laboratory analysis
and risk assessment;
(b) The suitability of the piece of and for the proposed activity, given the amount of soil
contamination;
(c) The approach to the remediation or ongoing management of the piece of land, including
the remediation or management methods to address the risk posed by the contaminants
to human health, timing of the remediation, the standard of the remediation on
completion, mitigation methods to address risk posed by the contaminants to human
health, and the mitigation measures for the piece of and, including the frequency and
location of monitoring of specified contaminants.
(d) The adequacy of the site management plan or the site validation report;
(e) The transport, disposal, and tracking of soil and other materials taken away in the course
of the activity;
(f) The requirement for conditions of a financial bond;
(g) The timing and nature of the review of the conditions in the resource consent; and
(h) The duration of the consent.
40. As outlined previously, the site is currently under remediation to remove asbestos granular
materials and localised other pockets of underlying metal and PAHs, contaminated hardfill,
with the objective of reducing health and safety controls during the construction phase of the
MSF. T+T state that contamination will still remain on site above background levels, but below
a level that could cause health effects. T+T also note that there is potential for unexpected
contamination to occur. Therefore, an SMP has been prepared by T+T to provide procedures
for managing any unexpected contamination, for characterising any soil requiring offsite
disposal, and confirming earthworks and health and safety controls during soil disturbance.
Further, the SMP contains procedures for documenting ground contamination related works
that occur during the bulk earthworks, such as unexpected contamination encounters (if any).
41. The SMP provides a basis for procedures that will be followed by contractors should
contamination be found on site during construction phase works. Unexpected contamination
that could be encountered could include abandoned USTs or localised areas of contaminated
historic or demolition fill not previously identified by the DSIs. T+T note that all site staff will
be inducted prior to works commencing as to the protocols for reporting on and managing any
unexpected contamination. It is noted that an interim site validation report will be completed
Page | 15
once remediation works are completed then a final site validation report will be completed
once the MSF has been completed.
42. On this basis provided the controls and procedures are followed within the SMP any adverse
effects with regard to earthworks and contamination will be less than minor.
Effects on Surface Water Quality

43. The proposed construction works will require significant excavations across the site as
described earlier in this report and will follow the methodologies recommended in the SMP
and Dust Assessment both completed by T+T.
44. Construction phase stormwater and dewatering water, (both treated as required), will be
discharged to the CCC reticulated stormwater network where it will mix with other
stormwater being conveyed through the network prior to being discharged to the Avon River.
This mixing will further dilute any contaminants remaining in the discharge following
treatment. Consultation has been ongoing with Mr Norton at the CCC and he has provided the
Councils approval for a discharge volume of up 150l/sec from the whole site, subject to
applying for a stormwater discharge consent form ECan.
45. Given the mitigation measures proposed, proposed conditions and the temporary nature of
the discharges, the effect on the water quality of the Avon River is considered to be less than
minor.
Effects on Groundwater Quality

46. The proposed excavations will not penetrate the confined groundwater. Dewatering will be
undertaken in accordance with ECans ESCG and the SMP in order to minimise the discharge
of contaminants during dewatering and subsequent effects on groundwater quality.
47. The proposed works do not involve any substantial dewatering of groundwater from the
Riccarton Gravels (Aquifer 1) or deeper. It is noted Aquifer 1 is generally the uppermost
confined gravel aquifer encountered in central Christchurch, and lies approximately 20m bgl,
which is deeper than the proposed excavations proposed as part of this application.
48. Some construction phase stormwater may percolate into the land within the area of works,
however, the coastal confined aquifer system will not be adversely affected as it will be
protected by its confining layer. Given the temporary nature of the construction phase and
flat topography of the site adverse effects on groundwater quality are considered to be less
than minor.
Effects from Dust

49. Earthworks and unconsolidated surfaces can result in a dust nuisance during dry and windy
conditions. Potential dust sources include:
Topsoil and hardstand removal;

Excavation of soil material;
Handling of fill and spoil material;
Handling of materials on site;
Vehicle movements over un-stabilised area; and
Page | 16
Wind erosion of material stockpiles and exposed, un-stabilised areas.
50. T+T have prepared an Air Quality Impact Assessment, attached as Appendix Five, and have
considered the FIDOL factors along with proposing a number of mitigation measures. In
summary these measures include:
Means of modifying or controlling properties of the disturbed material, to reduce the

likelihood of the materials being disturbed or entrained in the wind. This may include
wet suppression of materials, sealing or stabilising surfaces;
Means of modifying activities to reduce the mechanical disturbance of material, such
as managing vehicle speed and reducing handling drop heights;
Methods for modifying environmental conditions for dust generation such as surface
wind speeds. This may include covering stockpiles, minimising stockpile heights or
creating windbreaks.
51. A Construction Dust Management Plan will be prepared as required and at minimum will
include the following:
Identification of activities that have the potential to create dust;

General dust control measures to implement across the work areas, as well as
specific controls identified for particular activities;
Procedures for visual monitoring of dust emissions during the works and the
appropriate management responses if dust emissions occur;
Contingency measures in the event of a significant unplanned dust event; and
Complaints response procedures including maintenance records.
52. Provided the recommended dust management measures are implemented, the adverse
effects of the dust discharges are assessed as being less than minor and able to be
appropriately mitigated. The location of the stockpiles will be limited on site to exclude areas
within 100m of a sensitive activity as required by the proposed Canterbury Air Regional Plan.
Effects on Ngai Tahu Values

53. The site is not located within any sites of significance to Tangata Whenua or any silent file
areas. Matapopore Charitable Trust is the mana whenua voice in recovery and is responsible
for ensuring Ngi Thuriri/Ngi Tahu values, aspirations and narratives are realised within
the recovery of Christchurch by working alongside central and local government. Matapopore
Charitable Trust comprises professionals advising on natural heritage, mahinga kai, te reo
Maori, whakapapa, urban design, art, architecture, landscape architecture, weaving and
traditional arts.
54. Matapopore has been working with the MSF project team to provide such advice as well as
interpretation on the Ngi Thuriri/Ngi Tahu historical narratives and, key kaupapa and
values such as whakapapa, mahinga kai, manaakitanga, mana motuhake and ture wairua to
achieve design outcomes which meet the Ngi Tahu objectives of the Recovery Plan and are
ultimately more meaningful and respectful of the history and cultural landscape in which the
projects are located.
Page | 17
Effects on Archaeological Values

55. An Archaeological Authority has been obtained from Heritage NZ for the proposed works.
Provided the conditions of the Authority are complied with for the duration of the works,
effects on archaeological matters will be less than minor.
Effects on Amenity Values

55. The proposed works will comply with the relevant construction noise (NZS 6803:1999
Acoustics) and vibration standards (BS 5228-2:2009) along with any other relevant district plan
standards. Dust will be mitigated as detailed in the Air Quality Assessment by T+T. Vehicle
movements associated with the proposed activities will be temporary, in accordance with a
traffic management plan and are considered to have a less than minor effect on the amenity
values of the surrounding environment. The construction methodology document contained
in Appendix Five shows the location of the entry and exit point to the site from Antigua
Street.
Positive Effects
56. The MSF is one of the Anchor Projects of the CCRP and the proposed works will enable the
development of the MSF, thereby providing significant social, cultural and economic benefits
for both the regional and local economy. Further the proposed operational stormwater
system proposed will result in improved stormwater water quality being discharged from
the site compared to the pre-development site where no treatment was provided.
Summary
57. The proposed construction phase works will provide for the development of the MSF. While
the proposed works will result in temporary adverse construction effects, this assessment has
concluded that such effects can be appropriately managed. In particular, the SMP and Dust
Assessment recommend procedures that will be adhered to which will mitigate the effects
associated with any unforeseen contamination, erosion and sediment control, discharge of
construction phase stormwater and dewatering discharges.
58. In summary, this assessment concludes that the adverse effects of the proposed works will be
less than minor.
OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
59. The discussion below assesses the proposal against the relevant objectives and policies of the
Christchurch District Plan.
Objective 12.2.1.1 Land containing elevated The site is currently being

Contaminated land levels of contaminants is remediated as per the
managed to protect human approved site remediation
health and water supplies consent. The SMP contained
etc. in Appendix Three will cover
off the unlikely eventuality of
undetected contamination
remaining on site.
Objective 13.11.1.1.3 Water Ensure earthworks do not Erosion and sediment control
Quality and the Avon River result in erosion, inundation measures will be in
Page | 18
or siltation, and do not have accordance with the SMP and

adverse effect on surface ECans ESCG which will ensure
water quality or groundwater effects will be avoided and
quality, whilst recognising mitigated with regard to any
the benefits of some construction phase
activities involving stormwater on the receiving
earthworks. environment.
Ensure the ecological

significance and landscape
values of the Avon River are
maintained through
assessment of all earthworks.
Objective 13.11.1.1- Health Seeks to ensure people and Strict health and safety
and Safety property are protected measures will be
during, and subsequent to, implemented on site. The
the works, while recognising SMP provides recommended
the benefits of some procedures to be adhered to.
activities involving
earthworks,
Policy 13.11.1.2.2 Nuisance Earthworks shall not Measures will be put in place
generate continuous or to avoid, remedy and mitigate
persistent nuisance, potential nuisance effects
including noise, vibration, including;
dust or odour, that have
more than minor adverse A dust management
effects on the amenity values will be prepared.
and the health and safety of The district plan
people and their property construction noise
while recognising the and vibration
benefits of some activities standards will be
involving earthworks in the complied with.
repair, rebuild and recovery Erosion and sediment
of the district. control will adhere to
ECans guidelines.
60. Overall, the proposed works are considered to be consistent with the relevant objectives and
Policies of the Christchurch district Plan.
PART TWO MATTERS
61. The proposal does not give rise to any effects that would be considered to be in conflict with
any matters contained in Part 2 of the RMA. It provides for the health and safety of
communities while mitigating the adverse effects in accordance with Section 5(2)(c) by
managing the effects of earthworks and any potentially contaminated land post site
Page | 19
remediation. Further the proposal will maintain and enhance the quality of the environmental
accordance with section 7(f) by proposing procedures and controls should any unexpected
contamination be discovered as part of the construction phase earthworks.
62. The proposed construction phase earthworks will not impact on any matters of national
importance contained within section 6.
63. In terms of section 7 matters to have particular regard to, it is noted that the proposal is
consistent with the matters outlined in particular the following:
a. 7(b) The efficient use and development of natural and physical resources; and
b. 7(c) The maintenance and enhancement of amenity values;
64. The other matters contained within section 7 and section 8 are not considered to be relevant
to the proposal.
65. Overall it is considered that this early works consenting will be consistent with the purpose
and principles the Act.
CONCLUSION
66. The proposal involves the construction phase earthworks across the whole MSF site related
to the development of the MSF. Site remediation works have commenced on site and are
authorised by various consents granted earlier this year.
67. As concluded above, any adverse effects of the proposal with regard to effects on human
health are considered to be less than minor given the site will be remediated prior to
commencement of construction phase earthworks and activities.
68. Overall as the proposed construction phase activities will result in less than minor effects on
the environment, it is considered appropriate that the application be approved.
Page | 20
APPENDIX ONE: Legal Descriptions and Certificates of Title
Street Address Legal description
101/103 Moorhouse Avenue Lot 1 DP 42726
107 Moorhouse Avenue Lot 1 DP 1607
115/117 Moorhouse Avenue/20 Horatio Street Lot 2 DP 24100
121A Moorhouse Avenue Part Town Reserve 114 City of Christchurch
Part Town Reserve 113 and Part Town Reserve 114 Town
123/123A Moorhouse Avenue
of Christchurch
125/125A Moorhouse Avenue Lot 1 DP 7023
127 Moorhouse Avenue Part Town Reserve 114 Town of Christchurch
Part Section 113 Town Reserve Christchurch and Part

Section 113-114 and Part Section 114 Town Reserve
129/131 Moorhouse Avenue
Christchurch and Part Section 114 Town Reserve
Christchurch
139 Moorhouse Avenue/161 Antigua Street Lot 2-3 DP 6916
163 Antigua Street Lot 1 DP 6916
165/167 Antigua Street Lot 1 DP 43719
169 Antigua Street Part Lot 113 Christchurch Town Reserve
16 Stewart Street Lot 7 DP 10615
Page | 21
2 Balfour Terrace/3 Horatio Street Lot 1 DP 35300
6 Balfour Terrace Part Town Reserve 93 City of Christchurch
8 Balfour Terrace Town Reserve 93 City of Christchurch
9/11 Balfour Terrace Lot 1 DP 37267
9 Balfour Terrace Part Lot 1 DP 37267
12 Balfour Terrace Lot 1 DP 21194
14 Balfour Terrace Part Section 93 Town Reserve Christchurch
18 Balfour Terrace Part Reserve 93 Town of Christchurch
25/27 Balfour Terrace Lot 1-2 DP 9280
28 Balfour Terrace
of Christchurch
9 Horatio Street Part Lot 2 DP 21677
11 Horatio Street Lot 1 DP 26844
15 Horatio Street Part Town Reserve 113 Town of Christchurch
17/19 Horatio Street Part Town Reserve 113 Town of Christchurch
22 Horatio Street Part Lot 1 DP 23041
24 Horatio Street
of Christchurch
28 Horatio Street Part Town Reserve 113 Town of Christchurch
30 Horatio Street Part Lot 113 City of Christchurch
Page | 22
Part Section 113 Town Reserve Christchurch and Part

Section 113-114 and Part Section 114 Town Reserve
32 Horatio Street
Christchurch and Part Section 114 Town Reserve
Christchurch
36 St Asaph Street Lot 1 DP 42101
36 St Asaph Street Lot DP 28566
Page | 23
Appendix Two: Preliminary Site Investigation

Detailed Site Investigation
Page | 24
Appendix Three: Construction Methodology
Page | 25
Appendix Four: Site Management Plan for Ground Contamination
Page | 26
Appendix Five: Air Quality Impact Assessment
Page | 27
Appendix Six: Proposed Conditions of Consent
The application be granted pursuant to Sections 104, 104C, and 108 of the Resource Management
Act 1991, subject to the following condition:
1. The development shall proceed in accordance with the information and plans submitted with the
Application including the Site Management Plan for Ground Contamination (version 2) dated May
2017, Construction Phase Air Quality Assessment, dated (XXX) and the Approved Consent
Documentation has been entered into Council records as RMA/XXX.
2. All works shall adhere to the procedures and measures set out in the Site Management Plan for
Ground contamination (Version 2) dated May 2017 by Tonkin and Taylor. A copy of the SMP must
be accessible to all workers and contractors on site and remain on site.
3. Any soils removed from the site during the course of the activity which are contaminated must
be disposed of to a facility authorised to accept the material.
4. The consent holder shall submit to Christchurch City Council a Site Validation Report (SVR) three
months after completion of the project outlining the works undertaken and any particular issues
that arose. The report shall include at least the following:
a. An approximate volume of soil moved off site and the disposal facility;
b. Validation of areas exceeding NES standards and WA Guideline;
c. Records of any additional testing results and reports;
d. Thickness and volume of clean fill material;
e. Location and description of any unexpected contamination encountered; and
f. Evidence of disposal of any contaminated materials to an authorised facility.
g. The report shall be sent to envresourcemonitoring@ccc.govt.nz
5. Standard construction methods for controlling erosion and sediment migration shall be
implemented prior to the commencement of soil disturbance work and maintained until the soil
is reinstated to an erosion-free state, in accordance with ECans Erosion and Sediment Control
Guide.
6. Any investigations with respect to the removal of underground storage tanks (USTs) at the site
shall be carried out in accordance with the current edition of the Ministry for the Environment,
Guidelines for Assessing and Managing Petroleum Hydrocarbon Contaminated Sites in New
Zealand. The results of the investigation must be emailed to
envresourcemonitoring@ccc.govt.nz within three months of the completion of works.
7. In the event that soils are found that have visible staining, odours and/or other conditions that
indicate soil contamination, then work must cease until a Suitably Qualified and Experienced
Practitioner (SQEP) has assessed the matter and advised of the appropriate remediation and/or
disposal options for these soils. The applicant shall immediately notify the Environmental
Compliance Team by email to envresourcemonitoring@ccc.govt.nz of this matter. Any
measures to manage the risk from potential soil contamination must be approved by the
Christchurch City Council.
Page | 28
8. Only cleanfill material as defined in the MfE Guideline can be used as imported fill.
9. All measures included in the SMP for Ground contamination and the Air Discharge Assessment to
manage noise, dust, erosion, sediment, surface water treatment, vapour and odour shall cover
all consented earthworks. The ESCP prepared under the SMP shall be provided to
envresourcemonitoring@ccc.govt.nz prior to any work starting on site.
10. A Traffic Management Plan (TMP) shall be prepared and shall be accepted prior to any
transportation of fill to the application site. The TMP shall be submitted to the Christchurch
Transport Operations Centre through www.tmpforchch.co.nz. Traffic movements shall be
planned to cause minimum disruption to road users without compromising safety. In particular
the traffic plan shall include avoiding the morning and afternoon rush hours, between 8am and
9am and 3pm - 4pm.
11. The content of the Traffic Management Plan shall be communicated to all Transportation
contractors and a copy given to them to utilise for the duration of the consent. This shall be the
responsibility of the site supervisor (see attachment 1 at the end of this report, or icon below).
12. Should any archaeological material or sites be discovered during the course of work on the site,
work in that area of the site shall stop immediately and the appropriate agencies, including
Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga and the Mana Whenua, shall be contacted immediately.
Contact Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga on infosouthern@heritage.org.nz or (03) 357
9629. The consent holder is also directed to the Accidental Discovery Protocol set out in
Appendix 3 of the Mahaanui Iwi Management Plan: http://mkt.co.nz/mahaanui-iwi-
management-plan/ .
13. Works shall be undertaken between the hours of 7.30am and 6pm, Monday to Saturday. On
Sunday and public holidays works shall only occur if they are necessary measures to mitigate
adverse nuisance and health effects from the works.
14. The road outside the site shall be kept clear of debris from the earthworks at all times.
Advice notes:
1. If contaminants are left onsite, a separate consent under the NES may be required during any
future land disturbance activities.
2. This resource consent covers soil disturbance/earthworks only. A separate consent is required for
any bulk and location non-compliances on the site.
3. This may be an archaeological site as specified in the Historic Places Act 1993. An archaeological
site is any place in New Zealand that was associated with human activity that occurred before
1900,and is or may be able through investigation by archaeological methods to provide evidence
relating to the history of New Zealand. Sections 10 to 20 of the Historic Places Act apply, and any
destruction, damage, or modification of any part of the site must first be authorised by Heritage
New Zealand. Please contact Heritage New Zealand on ph. 365-2897 before commencing any
further work on the land.
Page | 29
Page | 30
REPORT (version 2)
Metro Sports Facility -

Construction Phase
Site Management Plan for Ground
Contamination (version 2)
Prepared for
tkaro Limited
Prepared by
Tonkin & Taylor Ltd
Date
May 2017
Job Number
53556.002.v2
Distribution:
tkaro Limited Electronic
Christchurch City Council Electronic
Environment Canterbury Electronic
Table of contents
1 Introduction 1
1.2 Objective and scope of this report 1
2 Roles and responsibilities 3
2.1 General 3
2.2 Distribution and implementation 4
2.3 Review and update 4
2.4 Licensed Asbestos Removal Supervisor 4
2.5 Contaminated land specialist 4
3 Site history and condition 5
3.1 Pre-remediation 5
3.2 Post-remediation 6
4 MSF Construction 9
4.2 Construction programme 9
4.3 Basis for procedures 9
5 Site management 11
5.1 Site establishment 11
5.1.1 Notifications and approval process 11
5.1.2 Induction and training 12
5.1.3 Vehicle wash facilities 12
5.1.4 Health and safety facilities 12
6 Managing unexpected contamination 13
6.1 Indicators of contamination 13
6.2 First response procedures 13
7 Controls and procedures 15
7.1 Earthworks controls 15
7.1.1 Dust controls 15
7.1.2 Erosion and sediment control 15
7.2 Water management 16
7.2.1 Diversion of surface water 16
7.2.2 Disposal of groundwater 16
7.2.3 Water treatment and disposal 16
7.3 Earthworks procedures 17
7.4 Soil disposal 18
7.5 Imported material procedures 18
7.6 Landscaping procedures 19
7.7 Underground storage tank removal 19
7.8 Vapour and odour management 20
7.9 Soil and groundwater sampling procedures 21
7.9.1 General soil sampling methods 21
7.9.2 Asbestos sampling methods 21
7.9.3 Ground and surface water sampling methods 22
7.9.4 Reporting and data evaluation 22
8 Monitoring and control 25
8.1 Monitoring requirements 25

Metro Sports Facility - Construction Phase - Site Management Plan for Ground Contamination (version 2) Job No: 53556.002.v2
tkaro Limited
8.2 Access requirements 25
8.3 Erosion and sediment control 25
8.4 Dust monitoring 25
8.5 Water discharge monitoring 26
8.6 Odour monitoring 26
8.7 Vapour monitoring 27
9 Health and safety procedures for contaminated ground 29
9.1 General 29
9.2 Protective equipment 29
9.3 Personnel hygiene 29
9.4 Identification of new hazards 29
9.5 Emergency procedures 30
10 Contingency measures 31
10.1 Roles and responsibilities 31
10.2 Notification requirements 31
10.3 Emergency response procedure 31
10.4 Complaints procedure 31
10.5 Unexpected contamination procedure 31
11 Validation 32
11.1 Validation method 32
11.2 Soil validation sampling 32
11.3 Information required by the Contractor 32
11.4 Reporting 32
11.5 Ongoing monitoring and management 33
Appendix A : Contractor checklist

tkaro Limited
Document Control
Title: Metro Sports Facility - Construction Phase Site Management Plan
Date Version No Description Distribution Initials
March 2017 1 SMP for consenting tkaro, RMG WMW

19 May 2017 2 SMP (for northern and tkaro WMW +
central blocks of MSF (i.e. RMG MDDM
site to north of Horatio ECan
Street))
CCC
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client tkaro Limited, with respect to the
particular brief given to us and it may not be relied upon in other contexts or for any other purpose,
or by any person other than our client, without our prior written agreement.
Recommendations and opinions contained in this report are based on our visual inspection and
sampling of material during validation of the site. The nature and continuity of the subsoil away
from the test and sample locations is inferred but it must be appreciated that actual conditions may
vary from the assumed model.
Technical review and certification by a suitably qualified and experienced practitioner as prescribed
under the NES Soil:
..........................................................
Wendi Williamson
Senior Contaminated Land Specialist
Authorised by:
.................................................
Peter Cochrane
Project Director
\\ttgroup.local\corporate\christchurch\tt projects\53556\53556.0020\issueddocuments\smp\version 2\metro sports facility_smp_version

2_may 2017.docx

tkaro Limited
1
1 Introduction
Tonkin & Taylor Ltd (T+T) has been commissioned by tkaro Limited (tkaro) to prepare this Site
Management Plan (SMP) for ground contamination to be implemented during construction of the
Metro Sports Facility (herein referred to as the site or MSF). The location of the site is shown in
Figure 1.1.
Remediation has been undertaken to remove asbestos-containing granular materials and localised
pockets of underlying metal and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) contaminated historic fill,
to reduce health and safety controls during construction of the MSF. Remediation of the site was
undertaken according to the T+T Remediation Action Plan1. Further details about the sites pre-
remediation condition can be found in the RAP and about its post remediation condition in the
Interim SVR2 (iSVR).
This SMP has been prepared to:
Support application for resource consent for groundworks associated with construction of the
MSF;
Provide procedures for construction contractors to follow in the event that unexpected
contamination is encountered during the works; and
Set out general earthworks controls, disposal requirements and management of soil and
groundwater during the groundworks phase.

Street address 26 36 St Asaph Street, 16 28 Stewart Street, 2 28 Balfour Terrace, 3
19 Horatio Street, 103 139 Moorhouse Avenue, and 185 189 Antigua
Street (refer Figure 1.1).
Site owner The Crown
Site area 71,703 m2
1.2 Objective and scope of this report

Given that remedial works have been undertaken to reduce contaminant levels to below a
commercial land use acceptance criteria, the objective of this SMP is to provide procedures for
managing unexpected contamination, for characterising any soil requiring offsite disposal, and
confirming earthworks and health and safety controls during soil disturbance. Procedures for
documenting ground contamination-related works that occur during the bulk earthworks, such as
unexpected contamination encounters (if any), are also included.
This SMP has also been produced to support resource consent applications for soil disturbance
works associated with the MSF construction.
This version of the SMP has been prepared at the completion of preparatory remedial works at the
northern and central blocks of the site3 and commencement of construction groundworks, to
address objectives 2) and 3) set out in Section 1.
1 Tonkin & Taylor Ltd, December 2016. Metro Sports Facility, Remediation Action Plan Enabling Works. Prepared for
tkaro Limited. T+T Reference 53556.002 version 5.
2 Tonkin & Taylor Ltd, May 2017: Metros Sports Facility, Interim Site Validation Report. Prepared for tkaro Limited. T+T
Reference 53556.002 version 1.

3 The northern block refers to land north of Balfour Street and the central block refers to block of land bound by Balfour
and Horatio Streets as shown in Figure 3.1.

tkaro Limited
2

This SMP has been prepared in general accordance with Ministry for the Environment (MfE)
Contamination Land Management Guidelines No.1 Guidelines for Reporting on Contaminated Sites
in New Zealand (CLMG No. 1). Sampling procedures provided in the plan generally comply with the
MfE Contaminated Land Management Guidelines No.5 Site Investigation and Analysis of Soils
(CLMG No. 5). Asbestos-related controls have been prepared in accordance with requirements of
the Health and Safety at Work (Asbestos) Regulation 2016 and Worksafe New Zealands Approved
Code of Practice Management of Asbestos (2016) (ACoP).
The persons preparing and certifying this RAP are suitably qualified and experienced practitioners as
required by the NES Soil and defined in the NES Soil4 Users Guide (April 2012).
Figure 1.1: Site Location (source: LINZ).
Human Health) Regulations 2011.

tkaro Limited
3
2 Roles and responsibilities
2.1 General
This SMP has been prepared to support construction of the MSF, Christchurch. A summary of the
organisations involved in the works and their roles and responsibilities under the SMP is provided in
Table 2.1.
Table 2.1: Organisational involvement
Company/Organisation Role and responsibilities

tkaro Limited Principal, representative of the site owner (The Crown), responsible for
overseeing delivery of the anchor project.
Aecom Ltd Project management for tkaro.
Contractor Responsible for implementation of SMP.
(Leighs Cockram JV)
Health and safety officer Responsible for overseeing implementation of the sites Health and Safety
(HSO) plan and ensuring the contaminated land-related health and safety
procedures are adhered to if unexpected contamination is encountered.
Subcontractors Responsible for undertaking works in accordance with requirements of the
(Fulton Hogan) SMP.
Licensed Asbestos Removal Responsible for supervising Class A asbestos removal works if unexpected
Supervisor asbestos contamination is identified and advising on and reviewing any
control plans produced in respect of Class B or asbestos-related works.
The Licensed Asbestos Removal Supervisor shall be responsible for ensuring
all asbestos removal works are carried out in accordance with the Asbestos
Regulations5.
The Licensed Asbestos Removal Supervisor shall liaise with the
contaminated land specialist and Worksafe New Zealand (Worksafe) prior
to works commencement and during works as required.
Licensed Asbestos Assessor Provides clearance following Class A asbestos removal works (if any). In
accordance with the Asbestos Regulation Section 41(2)(A) this person must
be independent of the works.
Contaminated Land Specialist Undertaking soil testing, water sampling, works update and validation
(Tonkin & Taylor) reporting and provision of general ground contamination advice during the
works.
Christchurch City Council Monitoring of compliance with consent conditions.
(CCC) and Environment
Canterbury (ECan)
Worksafe Responsible for overseeing compliance with Health and Safety at Work Act
2015 and Asbestos Regulations 2016.
5 Health and Safety at Work (Asbestos) Regulations 2016.

tkaro Limited
4
2.2 Distribution and implementation

A copy of the SMP has been distributed to ECan, CCC and tkaro.
tkaro shall provide this document to the Contactor undertaking ground penetrating-related
construction works at the MSF.
A copy of the SMP shall be kept onsite by the Contractor at all times during the MSF earthworks and
construction.
Responsibility for the implementation of the SMP lies with the Contractor. The Contractor shall
ensure that all subcontractors undertake ground penetrating-related construction works in
accordance with this SMP.
2.3 Review and update

Any proposed variations to the SMP shall be approved by tkaro and the Contaminated Land
Specialist prior to any physical works commencing. If the changes are substantive they shall also be
approved by ECan and CCC prior to implementation.
It is the responsibility of tkaro to distribute any changes to the plan to the relevant parties
involved in site works. The Contractor shall update the site copy and inform their subcontractors.
2.4 Licensed Asbestos Removal Supervisor

Asbestos remediation of the site has been completed at the northern and central blocks. However,
in the event that unexpected asbestos contamination is identified, Class A removal works may be
required. The contractor shall engage an asbestos supervisor, holding a current asbestos removal
license6 to oversee works related to the removal of asbestos contaminated materials (ACM) where
concentrations exceed the risk based criteria (refer Section 3) or where the volume of removal
exceeds permitted thresholds in the Asbestos Regulation and the ACoP. The supervisor shall be
licensed for Class A removal works with proven experience in managing the disturbance and removal
of asbestos in soil (formerly Certificate of Competence Category G friable asbestos in soils under the
former Asbestos Regulations (1998)).
2.5 Contaminated land specialist

T+T has been engaged by tkaro as the Contaminated Land Specialist to provide advice during the
works and to undertake sampling and monitoring should unexpected contamination be encountered
during the works.
6 A supervisor must hold a current asbestos removal license for Class A works. An up to date list is held by Worksafe NZ
http://www.business.govt.nz/worksafe/information-guidance/all-guidance-items/certified-asbestos-
contractors.pdf/view.

tkaro Limited
5
3 Site history and condition
3.1 Pre-remediation
The history of the site is provided in the Beca PSI7. In summary, the land prior to the Canterbury
Earthquake Sequence (CES) and acquisition by tkaro was a range of commercial and industrial
activities, the largest of which was the Canterbury Brewery. Other activities included motor vehicle
workshops and land uses that included storage of hazardous substances such as fuels for heating.
The land was also raised and levelled during its early development involving placement of fill
(termed historic fill). The most recent activity on the land was demolition of buildings and crushing
of demolition materials followed by use of vacant areas of land for vehicle parking.
The pre-remediation condition of the site is documented in the Beca and T+T detailed site
investigation reports8,9,10,11 with a summary provided in the T+T RAP. In brief, ground contamination
was identified:
1 In historic fill which typically contained low levels of metals and PAHs, generally below the
commercial land use criteria, however four localised areas were identified where contaminant
levels exceeded the commercial criteria;
2 In recent recycled (crushed) demolition materials which contained variable levels of asbestos
fines. A small proportion of the materials contained asbestos levels above the risk-based
criterion 12, with approximately half the remaining area containing asbestos fines but at levels
below the risk based criteria;
3 At surface at several locations where fragments of ACM were left at surface post demolition of
the buildings;
4 In soil and groundwater surrounding underground storage tanks (USTs). USTs, predominantly
for diesel/ kerosene (heating oil) storage, were recorded on the ECan listed land use register
to be present at a number of locations over the MSF. One was recently removed from the
southeast of the site (pre-remediation) by demolition contractors CERES. There is potential,
albeit low, that others may exist and require removal during the construction; and
5 In groundwater where, some or all of, arsenic, copper, lead and nickel levels are above fresh
water guidelines for a 95% level of aquatic protection and, in several wells, above the 80%
level of aquatic protection in wells positioned around perimeter and within the site. The
results indicate a local (wider than the site) as well as a site-wide impact on water quality,
assuming groundwater flow is to the northeast and the Avon River, as all wells from the site
boundaries contained elevated levels of metals. Low levels of hydrocarbons, containing a
range of compounds that are consistent with heating oil and kerosene were noted in wells in
the south of the site.
7 Beca, 2014. Metro Sports Facility Taiwhanga Rehia - Preliminary Site Investigation (Contamination). Prepared for
8 Tonkin & Taylor Ltd, July 2016. Metro Sports Facility Detailed Site Investigation (Asbestos). Prepared for tkaro
Limited. T+T Reference 53556.v2.

9 Beca, 30 June 2016. Detailed Site Investigation (Contamination), Metro Sports Facility. Prepared for tkaro Limited.
10 Tonkin & Taylor Ltd, Letter dated 26 September 2016. Metro Sports Facility Supplementary asbestos investigation,
Phase 1 Area. Prepared for tkaro Limited. T+T Reference 53556.

11 Tonkin & Taylor Ltd, Letter dated 29 November 2016. Metro Sports Facility Supplementary asbestos investigation,
Phase 4 Area. Prepared for tkaro Limited. T+T Reference 53556.

12 Western Australian Department of Health, May 2009: Guidelines for the Assessment, Remediation and Management of
Asbestos-Contaminated Sites in Western Australia. All uses criterion of 0.001% weigh by weight.

tkaro Limited
6
3.2 Post-remediation
Remediation works are complete within the northern and central blocks, (i.e. land north of Horatio
Street), while some further materials removal is required in the southern block at the site. The iSVR
(May 2017) documents the remediation works undertaken and confirms the current status of the
site. In summary, the validation programme for the northern block has confirmed that bonded ACM,
where identified, has been removed. Asbestos fibre test results in un-excavated grid squares (refer
Figure 3.1) are at or below the laboratory detection limit and the risk based all uses criterion of
0.001% weight by weight.
The southern block still contains stockpiled materials containing low levels of asbestos that are
awaiting removal and offsite disposal. Granular materials from grid squares for which asbestos test
results were above the risk based criteria, shown in red in Figure 3.1, are being removed from the
southern block and disposed to licensed landfill. These works are anticipated to be completed by
end May 2017.
The site status will be updated in a revised iSVR on completion of removal of materials from the
southern block and again following completion of all groundworks associated with construction of
the MSF (with the preparation of a final SVR, anticipated to be issued during 2018).
This SMP has been produced on the basis that the remedial goals and objectives have been met and
that test results indicate that residual contaminant levels post remediation are below the
commercial land use criteria for metals and organic compounds, and asbestos levels are at or below
the all uses criteria.

tkaro Limited
LEGEND
B3 Soil Samples
(T&T, Sept. 2016)
TP111 Testpit location ST ASAPH STREET
(T&T, July 2014 - Oct. 2016)
BH338
Borehole location
(T&T, March 2015)
B1 C1 D1 E1 F1 G1 H1
No asbestos detected
TP105
TP102 TP103
Asbestos <0.001% detected TP104
B2 C2
Surface 0.2m BH338
TP101
Asbestos >0.001% detected

Surface 0.2m A3 B3 C3 D3 E3 F3 G3 H3
ACM fragments noted
A4 B4 C4 D4 E4 F4 G4 H4
Asbestos detected
BH340 TP107
Asbestos above risk based B5 C5 G5

TP106 TP108 TP110
criteria TP109
PHASE 3 A6 B6 C6 D6 E6 F6 G6 H6
PHASE 1
BH339
STEWART STREET
A7 B7 C7 D7 E7 F7 G7 H7
TP112
TP111
A8 TP113 E8 TP114 G8 TP115
A9 B9 C9 D9 E9 F9 G9 H9
TP119 TP120
D10 TP118
TP116 B10 G10
TP117
BH341 A11 B11 C11 D11 E11 F11 G11 H11
TP226 TP227
TP417 TP418 A12 B12 C12 D12 E12 F12
ANTIGUA STREE
TP121 TP122 TP124 TP225 TP228
TP123 TP125
PHASE 4 A13 B13 D13 E13
TP126
TP419 TP420 C13
PHASE 2
TP224
A14 B14 C14 D14 E14 F14
BALFOUR STREET
T
TP216
TP306
TP215
TP308 TP312 TP318 TP320
TP220 TP223
PHASE 2 TP305
TP307 PHASE 3
TP214 PHASE 2
TP311 TP319
TP316
TP213
TP212 TP304
TP302 TP313 TP317 TP221 TP222
TP321
TP309
TP209 TP303 TP315

TP301 TP310 TP314
Concentration of
HORATIO STREET
ACM fragments TP408 TP406
TP411 TP409
TP325
TP404
TP208 TP414 TP405
TP326
TP202 TP410 TP324 TP407 PHASE 4
TP203
TP401
TP332
PHASE 4 TP323 TP329
TP207 TP402
TP415 TP403
TP413
TP327
TP333
TP412
TP328 TP335
TP201 TP204 TP416 TP331
TP205
TP337
L:\53556\CAD\FIGS\53556-SMP-F3.1.dwg F3.1 17/03/2017 7:20:28 a.m.
TP322 TP330 TP334
MOORHOUSE AVENUE

Property boundaries sourced from Land Information New 105 Carlton Gore Road, Newmarket, Auckland
Zealand data as at 9-Jun-2014 (Crown Copyright Reserved). www.tonkintaylor.co.nz
LEGEND
B3 Soil Samples
(T&T, Sept. 2016)
(T&T, July 2014 - Oct. 2016)
BH338
Borehole location
(T&T, March 2015)
B1 C1 E1 F1 G1 H1
Non-asbestos validation
sample TP105
B2 C2
Temporary stockpile BH338
F3 G3
ACM pipe removed
E4 G4
BH340 TP107
B5 G5
TP106 TP108
North Block PHASE 3 A6 B6 C6 E6 F6 G6
PHASE 1
BH339
STEWART STREET
B7 C7 E7 F7 G7 H7
A8 TP113
B9 C9 E9 F9 G9
TP118
B10 G10
TP117
BH341 C11
TP417 TP418 F12
ANTIGUA STREE
TP121 TP122 TP228
TP125
PHASE 4 E13
TP126
TP420
PHASE 2
B14 E14
BALFOUR STREET
PHASE 2 T
PHASE 3
PHASE 2
TP311
Central Block
TP302 TP313
TP309
TP303 TP315
TP301 TP310 TP314
Concentration of
HORATIO STREET
TP411 TP409
TP325
TP404
TP414 TP405
TP326
TP203
TP401
TP332
PHASE 4 TP323 TP329
TP402
TP415 TP403
TP413
South Block PHASE 2

TP327
PHASE 3
TP412
TP328
TP201 TP204 TP416
L:\53556\CAD\FIGS\53556-SMP-F3.2.dwg F3.1 25/05/2017 10:04:57 a.m.
TP322 TP330
MOORHOUSE AVENUE

9
4 MSF Construction
The MSF is one of the anchor projects for the Christchurch central city rebuild. The sports facility
will comprise two large rectangular buildings joined through the central portion. The eastern
building will comprise a range of swimming pools, including an Olympic pool, dive pool, leisure pools
and a hydroslide. The western building will contain squash and badminton courts, a fitness centre
and administration facilities. There will be extensive landscaping around the facility and on-grade
carparking south of the building.
4.1 Works overview

Construction of the MSF will include the following 6 stage sequence as set out in the Contractors
Construction Management Plan (CMP), Construction Programme and Construction Methodology
documents. These documents are subject to change during the subcontractor procurement process
however the changes are not anticipated to affect the procedures in this SMP.
1 Ground improvement including sheetpiling, de-watering and installation of stone columns;
2 Pool shell construction including subgrade and subbase development for the pool hall,
hydroslide and steep construction of the pool and sports courts;
3 Circulation area envelope including Myrtha pools and pool surrounds development and the
sports court steel and structure construction;
4 Sports Courts completion including the sports courts and pool with progression of the
hydroslide construction;
5 Pool hall completion including hydroslide, pool, services and finishes, and commence site
entry and car parking; and
6 Practical completion.
This SMP relates primarily to earthworks associated with Stages 1 and 2 of the programme.
However, there will be localised earthworks throughout the development of the MSF and this SMP
shall be adhered to during any ground breaking activities.
The Contractor has also produced an Environmental Management Plan that this SMP is appended to.
4.2 Construction programme

Enabling works (e.g. removal of contaminated materials as per the RAP) in the central and northern
blocks of the MSF were completed 5 May 2017.
MSF early works programme activities will include key ground breaking activities by the Contractor
such as:
Ground improvement with installation of stone columns;
Installation of groundwater bores for the ground source HVAC; and
Installation of sheet piles for the construction of the MSF in-ground pool.
The above works are expected to commence in July 2017 with completion in March 2018.
Overall the construction programme is anticipated to be completed in 2020. For further information
on the construction programme refer to the Contractors Construction Programme.
4.3 Basis for procedures

As set out in Section 3, removal of known contamination above the commercial land use criteria has
been undertaken at the northern and central blocks of the MSF as part of the enabling/early works

tkaro Limited
10
package by Protranz Earthmoving Ltd for tkaro Limited. The goal of the contamination remedial
works was to provide the Contractor with a site that has contaminant levels appropriate to the sites
future commercial land use. This means that contamination will still remain on site at levels above
background, but below levels that could cause health effects for workers and users of a commercial
facility. As contaminants will exist, principally in fill materials, there are basic hygiene and
environmental controls that shall be implemented by the contractor to ensure compliance with
industry best practice.
The basis for procedures in this SMP is:
To use standard industry good practice measures to mitigate environmental effects of
earthworks, such as for dust, sediment and surface water runoff;
To provide protection measures for workers and the general public should unexpected
contamination be uncovered; and
To document the works so that regulatory compliance can be measured.

tkaro Limited
11
5 Site management
The Contractor has prepared a CMP that shall be followed during the construction works. The
measures below are construction earthworks-related site management requirements.
5.1 Site establishment

The contractor shall ensure a number of structures to aid in the management of aspects of health
and safety and environmental compliance are in place prior to works commencing. These, also
detailed in the CMP, include the following:
Security fencing to prevent unauthorised access to the site;
Signage, including site works information, health and safety requirements, site reporting
processes;
Erosion and sediment control measures, including establishing a stabilised entry/exit point so
sediment is not tracked on and off the site;
A support zone where facilities e.g. site office, designated lunch area, toilet facilities are located;
The contractor shall obtain the appropriate disposal permits prior to works commencing; and
Establish stockpiling area to enable segregation of materials as required.
The above are standard site establishment measures.
5.1.1 Notifications and approval process

The following notifications are required to be provided by the contractor prior to works
commencement:
ECan and CCC shall be provided with the SMP 10 days prior to commencement of works;
Both councils shall be notified in writing 5 days prior to any earthworks commencing on site;
The contractor shall notify Worksafe prior to works commencement; and
The contractor shall also notify any other authority requiring notification of asbestos removal,
waste treatment and disposal in the event of unexpected contamination encounters.

tkaro Limited
12
The notification/approval process illustrated in Figure 6.2 is to be followed in the event of:
Any variations to the SMP proposed, either prior to or during works;
Any contamination incident occurring during works on the site; or
Any unexpected contamination being identified.
ECan/ CCC
Contaminated land
Project Manager Otakaro specialist
Contractor
(Site Manager)
Licensed asbestos
removal supervisor (if
required)
Worksafe NZ
Figure 6.2: Notification procedure.
5.1.2 Induction and training

All Contractors shall be required to undergo a ground contamination-related site safety and
contamination identification induction before commencing work.
The induction shall be provide by the Contaminated Land Specialist, and the Contractors Health and
Safety Officer (HSO) shall be briefed as to first response and contamination specialist notification
processes. Following the initial induction of contractors, subsequent induction for visitors and
subcontractors can be provided by the HSO.
Specific training must be given on identification of contamination and first response in the event of
unexpected contamination encounters, good hygiene practices and to measures to minimise worker
and environmental risks.
5.1.3 Vehicle wash facilities

Standard vehicle wash practices shall be observed. This includes maintaining stabilised entrance and
exist points for trucks and ensuring vehicles exiting the site that have tracked over soil or soil
contaminated hardstanding materials, shall first have their wheels and undercarriage washed or
brushed down to prevent tracking soil offsite.
If proprietary wheel wash systems are used the effluent capture system shall be reviewed by the
contaminated land specialist to ensure appropriate treatment and disposal facilities are provided.
5.1.4 Health and safety facilities

Details on health and safety requirements relating to contamination hazards are addressed in
Section 9.4. Prior to works commencing, the Contractor shall ensure that the necessary personal
protection equipment (PPE) as specified in Section 9.2 is available in the event of unexpected
contamination encounters, and that all relevant personnel are trained and familiar with its
application and use.
Wash facilities shall be available for all staff handling soil during the early and construction works.

tkaro Limited
13
6 Managing unexpected contamination

As noted in Section 3, remediation of known metal, PAH and asbestos contamination above
commercial land use criteria has been completed at the central and northern blocks of the MSF and
construction-related earthworks are about to commence. There is, however, still potential for
unexpected contamination to be encountered. This could include abandoned USTs or localised
areas of contaminated historic or demolition fill not previously identified by the Detailed Site
Investigations.
This section sets out procedures for identifying and managing unexpected contamination.
The onus is on the Contractor to note where visual and olfactory indicators of contamination exist
and liaise with the Contaminated Land Specialist to ensure the controls in place remain appropriate
to the type and level of contamination encountered. All site staff involved in bulk earthworks and
localised ground breaking works shall be inducted prior to works commencing as to the protocols for
reporting on and managing unexpected contamination.
6.1 Indicators of contamination

Key ground related contaminants that were subjected to remediation during the early works were
asbestos, metals and PAHs. The presence of unexpected encounters of materials containing these or
other contaminants, albeit likely localised, cannot be excluded.
Asbestos fibre cement board will generally appear pale grey, fibrous, and may have a honeycomb
texture on one surface. Asbestos free fibres, metals and PAHs often exhibit little or no indication of
their presence.
Typical indicators of other contamination include:
Odour (e.g. petroleum hydrocarbons, oil);
Oily sheen on soil or water is an indicator of the presence of separate phase hydrocarbons;
Black staining coupled with an odour may indicate heavy oil/hydrocarbon contamination such as
coal tar;
Green/yellow discoloured soil may indicate high levels of copper and chromium;
Black gravel/sand may be boiler ash materials that could be high in metals and PAHs; and
Inclusions of deleterious materials such as timber, brick, concrete, clinker, metal.
6.2 First response procedures

The following is a first response checklist for the Contractor to follow should visual or olfactory
evidence of contamination be encountered during the works onsite. These actions are in addition to
any required by the Contractors own management plans.
The first response procedures are to ensure contamination is appropriately contained while
decisions about its management are being undertaken.
Although unlikely, additional controls to those indicated in this SMP, may be required. Sampling and
further investigation may also be required to be undertaken by the Contaminated land Specialist. If
additional controls to those set out in this document are required ECan and CCC will need to be
notified and provide approval for any procedural variation.

tkaro Limited
14
First Response Checklist:

Stop work in the immediate vicinity of the contamination discovery and isolate the area
by taping, coning or fencing off.
Advise the Contractors Site Manager.
Implement contaminated soil Health and Safety procedures as per Section 9.
Update the site Hazard Board and prevent access to the area by unnecessary personnel.
If ACM is observed provide P2 dust masks to all staff entering the isolated area.
If odours are present cover the material over with non-odorous soil or hay/straw and lime
to prevent nuisance odour.
The Site Manager must advise the Contaminated Land Specialist to inspect and assess the
appropriateness of controls.
If a UST is encountered or suspected, implement procedures in Section 7.7.
Implement monitoring measures if contaminated soil or groundwater is identified.
Further contingency requirements are provided in Section 10.

tkaro Limited
15
7 Controls and procedures

The Contractor shall manage and implement the procedures set out in this section during
earthworks and other localised ground breaking activities.
A contractor checklist indicating the key site management requirements to be implemented by is
provided in Appendix A. It includes touch points that require the Contaminated Land Specialist to
be notified.
7.1 Earthworks controls
7.1.1 Dust controls

While demolition material containing asbestos fines and historic fill containing contaminant levels
above a commercial land use criteria have been removed, there remains potential for any dust
generated to contain traces of metals, PAHs and asbestos fibres. If not suppressed during windy
conditions or during vehicular movement over contaminated soil, discharge of airborne
contaminants may occur. While the levels will be low, industry best practice is to prevent discharges
from the site and dust is one means by which discharge beyond the site boundary can occur.
To avoid dust generation should dry conditions prevail, and to mitigate dust generation associated
with vehicular movement, the following control and monitoring systems shall be put in place by the
earthmoving contractors during works in ALL areas of site:
Frequent spraying of water over the excavation and truck loading area and trafficked areas to
maintain damp conditions within the remediation works area (but not so much as to cause
surface run off); or
Regular application of dust suppressant polymer or other proprietary products, on its own or
in conjunction with water application;
Ceasing works during adverse weather conditions; and
Covering (geotextile or polythene) or water/polymer spraying of stockpiled materials to
manage drying out and potential dust generation. As far as practicable stockpiles shall be
minimised to aid in dust control.
7.1.2 Erosion and sediment control

An erosion and sediment control plan will be produced by the Contractor as per requirements of the
CMP. In general terms Erosion and sediment control shall be managed in accordance Environment
Canterbury Erosion and Sediment Control Guide (2007). The Plan must include the following
measures for ALL areas of site:
A stabilised entry/exit point shall be established so sediment is not tracked on and off the site.
Aggregate should be reapplied if excessive sediment build up occurs;
The weather conditions along with the performance of the erosion and sediment control
measures shall be monitored on at least a daily basis, and after every significant rainfall event;
Diversions to ensure up-gradient surface water does not enter an excavation;
Sediment fences shall be replaced if the fabric is ripped or otherwise damaged. They shall be
retrenched if needed;
A stockpiling area shall be established where runoff from the stockpile can be controlled,
including a sump for collection of water and diversion bunds to collect runoff and divert clean
water away from the stockpile; and
Erosion and sediment control measures shall be upgraded/ modified where necessary.

tkaro Limited
16
Erosion and sediment control measures shall remain in place until the site surfaces are returned to a
stabilised condition, including sealing with impermeable surfaces (e.g. concrete floor slabs).
7.2 Water management
7.2.1 Diversion of surface water

Separation and diversion of clean stormwater away from areas of ground disturbance is standard
practice for any earthworks activity but becomes far more important where contaminants are
present. Contact between clean stormwater and potentially (even low level) contaminated
soils/spoil etc. means the water can no longer be discharged to a reticulated stormwater system
without treatment. The contractor shall divert clean water being disposed to stormwater away from
excavations.
Temporary bunding systems including socks, sand bags etc. shall be employed as necessary by the
contractor.
7.2.2 Disposal of groundwater

Contaminant levels in groundwater, based on the current data, are at concentrations typical of an
urban setting as demonstrated by likely upgradient water quality being similar to inferred
downgradient quality, but will require treatment to reduce metal levels prior to disposal to the
stormwater system. Mixing groundwater with surface water may impact on the ability of
groundwater to be discharged without treatment.
Groundwater dewatering shall comply with ECan consents (yet to be obtained), including permitted
pumping rates, discharge rates and pumping durations.
7.2.3 Water treatment and disposal

Disposal, after treatment and verification of its quality, is likely to be permitted to be discharged to
the CCC stormwater network. The location of disposal locations and confirmation from CCC must be
obtained prior to works commencement.
Surface water, and potentially groundwater if it comes into contact with surface water or excavated
soil, will require treatment to reduce the sediment load, potentially the pH and possibly floating
hydrocarbons prior to disposal to the Council stormwater system.
A water collection and treatment system shall be established prior to works commencing. While the
final configuration of the system is dependent on Contractor preference, it is envisaged it will
comprise collection and retention/ settlement tanks (at least two will be required) as well as an
oil/water separator, if hydrocarbons are encountered. Water collection and treatment system
locations shall be confirmed with Councils prior to works commencing.
Water collection and treatment procedures are provided in Table 7.1. Monitoring requirements are
provided in Section 8.5.
A Water Treatment Management Plan shall be provided to ECan prior to any treatment and
disposal. The management plan shall include:
Bench testing methods and requirements;
Specifics of the flocculation or treatment process;
Monitoring, post-storm maintenance and contingency programme;
Spill contingency plan; and
Procedures for treatment chemical storage and transport.

tkaro Limited
17
Table 7.1: Water collection and treatment procedures for short term discharges
Step Dewatering procedures

1 Contain water and where possible prevent from migrating over any exposed soil.
2 Settle suspended sediment within the excavation or external to it, i.e. holding tanks/ pond prior to
discharge to stormwater.
3 Where sediment removal is not successful by settlement or where there is insufficient time for
settlement, flocculant such as polyaluminium chloride (PAC) shall be added at the proprietary
rate.
4 Where hydrocarbons are present (oily sheen) an in-line oil-water separator shall be used to
remove floating hydrocarbons prior to discharge.
5 Collect TSS measurements (field based) prior to discharge and during discharge as per Section 8.5
and ECan Consent conditions (if they vary from the monitoring indicated). TSS may be measured
by the contractor.
6 Measure parameters in Table 7.2 in water to be discharged via laboratory testing prior to
continuous discharge commencing as per Section 8.5 and any relevant consent conditions.
Sampling must be undertaken by the Contaminated land Specialist and not the contractor.
7 Dewatering to be observed by the contractor on twice daily basis during working hours to ensure
sediment removal is adequate and hydrocarbons (if any) are removed.
8 If treatment by the above methods is not effective contact the Contaminated Land Specialist for
advice.
7.3 Earthworks procedures

Earthworks will likely encounter some degree of soil contamination, typically above background
levels. General earthworks procedures with some additional controls to manage contamination
discharges are applicable to these works. The Contaminated land Specialist shall be called upon for
advice during the works or in the event of an unexpected contamination encounter.
Earthworks is to be undertaken by mechanical methods involving predominantly excavators and
trucks. Dermal contact with contaminated soil by workers is therefore expected to be minimal.
Excavated materials where offsite disposal is to occur will be loaded directly onto trucks or into
sealed bins awaiting transportation. Temporary stockpiling may be required.
The contractor shall apply the following procedure during earthworks within ALL works areas:
All materials shall be kept damp to prevent dust generation, with procedures in Section 7.1.1
followed for the duration of ground breaking activities;
Excavated soil/fill to be disposed offsite shall, where possible, be placed directly on a truck;
Trucks shall be loaded within the site where runoff and possible spills during loading shall be
controlled and contained;
Trucks shall have their loads covered during transport of contaminated soil to the designated
offsite disposal site;
Appropriate permits to dispose of low level (at or below 0.001%) asbestos wastes and
notifications must be made prior to works commencing;
Trucks shall have their wheels washed down before they leave the site; and
Any truck that is transporting excavated soil from the works area shall have a tracking
document signed out onsite and collected at the landfill to track each load of material.

tkaro Limited
18
7.4 Soil disposal

The objective is to retain as much material onsite as is practically possible, however materials may
require disposal if they are geotechnically unsuitable or surplus to requirements.
The following table (Table 7.2) has been developed to provide Contractors with guidelines as to
what materials can be disposed to which locations, and to provide Council with certainty that
appropriate disposal destinations will be sought.
The Contractor shall obtain the necessary permits from the disposal destination prior to
transportation. Weighbridge dockets and/or a summary sheet from the landfill shall be retained by
the Contractor and provided to the contaminated land specialist for inclusion in the final SVR.
Table 7.2: Soil reuse and on-site disposal requirements
Material Reuse requirements Off-site disposal requirements

Demolition fill and hardfill Can be reused on site. Above risk based criteria -
Crushed concrete with bricks and Licensed Landfill (Kate Valley
other demolition materials and Landfill).
gravels where identified on Figure Below risk based criteria
3.1. Typically at surface may Frews Landfill (may be subject
include traces of asbestos. to additional testing
requirements) or Kate Valley
Landfill.
The disposal facility will require
copies of testing data prior to
acceptance.
Historic fill Can be reused on site. Additional Burwood Landfill or Kate Valley
Brown silty gravel, typically testing may be required if it is to Landfill currently the only landfills
beneath demolition fill to a depth be used as cap material for licensed to accept these
of approximately 3.0 m bgl below landscaped areas. materials. Testing data will be
ground. required for disposal permitting.
Natural material Can be reused on site. Additional Material may be suitable for
River gravels in a fine silty matrix. testing may be required if it is to cleanfill disposal. Testing
Groundwater typically be used as cap material for information will be required to
intercepted. landscaped areas. support disposal permitting.
Other contaminated materials Potential for reuse to be Kate Valley Landfill or Burwood,
Clinker/ coal tar (clinker is a fine determined by the Contaminated depending on levels. Testing will
black gravel, coal tar has a distinct Land Specialist in consultation be required.
odour), most likely to be observed with the Contractor.
in historic fill or demolition fill less
than 1 m bgl below ground.
Hydrocarbon contaminated Can be reused on site if not above Texco Excavating Ltd currently
material the risk based environmental accepts and treats hydrocarbon
Could occur in a range of criteria in Table 7.1. Additional contaminated materials prior to
materials generally between 1.0 testing may be required if it is disposal. Hydrocarbon
and 3.0 m below ground. odorous. Not suitable for contaminated soils may not be
placement below the water table. disposed to Kate Valley Landfill.
7.5 Imported material procedures

In the event that any fill or soils are required to be imported to the site, the materials shall comprise
either:

tkaro Limited
19
Natural granular materials which are sourced directly from a licensed quarry. Such material will
not require testing, provided documentation confirming the source of the material (for example
weighbridge dockets or invoices and a summary sheet) is retained for inclusion in the validation
report (refer to Section 11.3); or
If soil needs to be imported, then any imported soil shall either:
o Be derived from a source which has been previously verified in accordance with the
methods described in the NES Soil regulations as being a piece of land to which the NES
Soil regulations do not apply; or
o Be sampled by a suitably qualified Contaminated Land Specialist at a rate of 1 composite
sample (made up of no less than 3 and no more than 4 subsamples) for every 1,000 m3
(from each source location) and tested to confirm that contamination concentrations
are suitable for the proposed use. A higher sampling density will be required for smaller
imported materials volumes. I t is preferable if the soil is tested at its source prior to its
disposal at the site. However, if not, the materials shall be stockpiled on site until test
results are available.
7.6 Landscaping procedures

Residual contaminated materials may remain in areas proposed to be landscaped. While remedial
works have reduced contaminant levels to a commercial land use criteria applicable to the sites
proposed use, any areas where soil is to be left exposed at surface may not be suitable for contact
by sensitive users such as children. To prevent future contact with contaminated materials by users
of the MSF the following containment measures shall be implemented:
A strip of geotextile shall be laid extending the width and depth each landscaped area to provide
a barrier between contaminated and imported material. The geotextile shall be Bidim A14 or
similar non-woven material, installed to the manufacturers specifications and laid so that no
underlying fill is exposed on either side;
The geotextile must be covered by a minimum of 300 mm of clean imported topsoil. Testing of
topsoil shall be as per Section 7.5 and 7.9; and
Additional topsoil or containment measures may be required for large landscaping features such
as trees, to enable sufficient growth potential for the root system. The Contaminated Land
Specialist will advise the specific containment procedures for each feature.
7.7 Underground storage tank removal

There is potential for underground storage tanks, or pipework associated with tanks, to be
encountered during the works. The removal of fuel tanks must be carried out in accordance with
MfEs Guidelines for Assessing and Managing Petroleum Hydrocarbon Contaminated Sites in New
Zealand. Accordingly, removal of the tank requires the following procedures be followed to meet
the relevant regulatory requirements:
CCC shall be notified if a tank is encountered, prior to the tank removal occurring;
The tank shall be empty before it is removed to avoid spills or leaks during removal. If the tank
cannot be emptied, a spill response plan shall be in place prior to the tank being removed so that
any spills can be dealt with before they result in a discharge to the environment. CCC shall be
notified of any spills or leaks that occur during removal;
The Contaminated Land Specialist must be available to witness the removal of the tank from the
ground and complete a summary report in accordance with the requirements of the NES Soil
Regulations for submission to Council;

tkaro Limited
20
Soil underlying the tank shall be tested by the Contaminated Land Specialist prior to soil removal
from site or backfilling of the tank pit; and
The tank shall be disposed of by a specialist contractor to an appropriately licenced disposal
facility.
7.8 Vapour and odour management

The works are unlikely to encounter odour or vapour-generating material in significant quantities.
However, if odours or vapours are encountered, the Contaminated Land Specialist shall be notified
in the first instance to provide advice on appropriate steps to be undertaken. Monitoring for
vapours and odours shall be undertaken in accordance with the procedures outlined in Section 8.6.
The following procedures shall be followed to minimise odour/vapour effects to workers and the
general public:
Monitoring weather conditions including wind direction and wind speed on-site;
Minimising the generation of odour and vapour by maintaining minimal open excavations. This
will include the following:
o Reducing the volume of material being excavated during wind conditions that have a
greater potential for odour effects (e.g. specific wind directions, low wind speeds, early
morning during warming conditions);
o Not excavating an area greater than can be reasonably covered in less than half an hour
in the event that odour is being transported beyond the site boundaries;
o Maintaining a small open placement area (this is commonly used by landfills to minimise
the potential for odour from the working face). An area of less than 500 m2 is
suggested; and
o Ensuring odorous work areas are covered at the end of each work day.
Application of dust/vapour/odour suppression measures such as:
o Use of water sprays; and/or
o Use of deodorisers delivered via demisting sprays around the perimeter of the
excavation area; and/or
o Use of active ventilation if natural ventilation is not sufficient. However care needs to be
exercised to prevent generation of hazardous or odorous atmospheres at ventilation
discharge points if active ventilation is used.
Restricting entry to the working area by only trained and inducted personnel. In particular
confined space entry provisions shall include:
o All excavations where odour is present that are greater than 1.0 m deep shall be treated
as a confined space and will require vapour monitoring to be undertaken prior to entry
and during any ground disturbance works;
o The person entering the confined space excavations (as defined above) shall be trained
in confined space entry, and will require the appropriate safety and rescue equipment to
be present. It is the responsibility of the Contractor notify Worksafe NZ in respect or
confined space entry and to ensure its staff are trained and comply with all the relevant
regulations relating to confined space entry;
o Prior to entry of any workers into a confined space, the atmosphere at the base of
enclosed excavations shall be monitored to ensure that vapour concentrations meet the
Workplace Exposure Standards (refer Table 8.1); and
o If concentrations in the works area do not meet the triggers (refer Table 8.1 and Table
8.2), work within the excavation shall cease and advice be sought from the
Contaminated Land Specialist and the HSO, prior to continuing with any work.

tkaro Limited
21
7.9 Soil and groundwater sampling procedures

Any sampling that needs to be undertaken, such as for soil or water disposal or validation, should be
undertaken by the Contaminated Land Specialist according to the requirements of the NES Soil and
the CLMG No. 5.
7.9.1 General soil sampling methods

Soil samples other than those required for asbestos testing shall be collected in general accordance
with the following procedure:
The materials encountered shall be described in accordance with the NZ Geotechnical Society
Guidelines for the classification and field description of soils and rocks for engineering purposes;
Freshly gloved hands shall be used to collect soil and the samples shall be placed immediately
into the appropriate laboratory supplied sample containers;
Any equipment used to collect the samples shall be decontaminated between sample locations
using clean water and Decon 90 (a phosphate-free detergent) rinses;
Samples shall be shipped in chilled container to an IANZ certified laboratory under chain of
custody documentation; and
All soil samples shall be tested at an IANZ accredited laboratory for, as a minimum, a suite of
seven metals (including arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, nickel, lead and zinc), PAH, and
asbestos content (using the quantitative method set out in Section 7.9.2). Soil samples from
UST pits shall be tested for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and field screened using a
photoionisation detector (PID). PID readings greater than 10 ppm shall trigger testing for
benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene and xylene (BTEX).
7.9.2 Asbestos sampling methods

Samples collected for semi-quantitative asbestos content shall follow WA Guidelines8. The WA
guidelines allow for some variability in the sampling method, and this is reflected in the procedure
below:
A 15 x 15 m grid shall be established across the relevant area;
For sampling, except for validation purposes: A detailed walkover of each grid undertaken to
look for ACM fragments. The grid shall be inspected on a minimum of two passes at 90
degrees to each other. Fragment locations shall be recorded using GPS and fragments
removed for weighing and identification. Any collected fragments shall be double bagged;
Soil from a 1 m x 1 m area in the centre of each grid shall be sampled into a clean 10 L bucket
and the contents weighed and materials either:
o For cohesive materials:
Spread out on a contrasting plastic sheeting (i.e. black polythene) and inspected
for the presence of suspected ACM. The spread materials shall be photographed
to verify this step was undertaken; and
Collect a 500 ml sample collected from representative soils (within a separate 1 x
1 m area to the 10 L bucket) and submitted to the laboratory for analysis in
accordance with the AS4964-2004 Method for the qualitative identification of
o For granular materials:
Sieved to separate the <7 mm fraction (fines) from the coarse fraction, with the
coarse fraction spread onto contrasting plastic sheeting (i.e. black polythene) and
inspected for the presence of suspected ACM, with identified materials labelled

tkaro Limited
22
and double-bagged for analysis; or entire fraction double bagged for

identification and analysis at the laboratory; and
The fines fraction shall be collected, a minimum of 2 cups of fines (500 ml),
labelled and double-bagged for analysis in accordance with the AS4964-2004
7.9.3 Ground and surface water sampling methods

Ground or surface water shall be collected according to the following procedure:
A laboratory supplied sample bottle shall be lowered into the water using a gloved hand;
The water sample shall be labelled with the date and chilled;
Samples shall be sent to an IANZ accredited laboratory under chain of custody documentation;
and
Testing shall be at a minimum for total metals and PAH.
7.9.4 Reporting and data evaluation

The Contaminated Land Specialist shall evaluate any analytical results with respect to the acceptance
criteria set out in Tables 7.3 and 7.4 and acceptance criteria for the receiving landfill or cleanfill, if
appropriate.
The criteria in Table 7.3 are for human health and environmental protection on the basis of the sites
future use for commercial activities. At a minimum, soils accessible by future site users (i.e. surface
soils in landscaping areas) must meet the human health standards.

tkaro Limited
23
Table 7.3: Applicable acceptance criteria for soils (mg/kg unless stated otherwise)
Contaminant NES Soil human health Published background (Ecan4)

contamination standard (Default cleanfill criteria)
(commercial/ industrial)
Arsenic 70 16.3
Cadmium 1,300 0.2
Chromium (total) NL 20.1
Copper NL 19.5
Lead 3,300 128.8
1
Nickel 6,000 18
1
Zinc 400,000 166.8
B(a)P Equivalent5 35 0.922
Benzene 32 ND
2
Toluene 94 ND
2
Ethylbenzene 180 ND
2
Xylenes 150 ND
2
TPH C7-C9 120 ND
TPH C10-C14 1,500 2 ND
TPH C15-C36 NL 2 ND
3
Asbestos 0.001% w/w ND
Notes:
NL no limit, ND no level above detection permitted, NA asbestos is not an environmental contaminant.
1 Australian National Environmental Protection Measure (NEPM), 2013. Values for Commercial/ industrial use.
2 MfE Guidelines for Assessing and Managing Petroleum Hydrocarbon Contaminated Sites in New Zealand, Tables 4.11
and 4.14, Values for sand with contamination <1 m depth.
3 Western Australian Department of Health, 2009: Guidelines for Assessment, Remediation and Management of
Asbestos Contaminated Sites in Western Australia.
4 ECan trace elements.
5 Benzo(a)pyrene equivalent = sum of carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon compounds.
The acceptance criteria for water in Table 7.4 are typical performance standards required by ECan.

tkaro Limited
24
Table 7.4: Groundwater/ stormwater performance standards (mg/L)
Contaminant Performance Standards2

TDS 50
Dissolved Arsenic 0.42
Dissolved Cadmium 0.0028
Dissolved Chromium 0.06
Dissolved Copper 0.0356
Dissolved Lead 0.1554
Dissolved Nickel 0.130
Dissolved Zinc 0.297
Naphthalene 0.370
Benzene 13
o-xylene 4.7
p-xylene 2.5
Notes:
1. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Waters (2000)
fresh water values.
2. Derived from ANZECC 90% protection levels applying a dilution factor of 10 x upon mixing with stormwater within the
network.

tkaro Limited
25
8 Monitoring and control
8.1 Monitoring requirements

Monitoring is required for a number of purposes during the works. A summary of monitoring
requirements in set out in Table 8.1 below and may require amendment once consent conditions
are available.
A summary of monitoring requirements is provided in the Contractor Checklist in Appendix A.
Procedures for undertaking the required monitoring is below along with who can undertake the
monitoring.
Table 8.1: Monitoring requirements
Monitoring type: Class A asbestos removal works (if required)

Erosion and sediment control Twice daily and during/after rainfall
Dust Daily visual assessments 2 hourly
Surface water accumulation Daily during discharge.
Dewatering (refer Section 8.5) Observations twice daily during discharge (if any)
Chemical testing prior to and monthly during dewatering (if any)
Odour and vapour monitoring If hydrocarbons encountered daily
Health and safety compliance Daily
(refer Section 9)
Action shall be taken as required to notify the relevant parties and rectify any controls if monitoring
identifies that it is needed. Contingency measures are defined in Section 10.
8.2 Access requirements

Worksafe New Zealand, CCC and ECan shall be permitted access to the relevant parts of the site,
records, and monitoring and test results at all reasonable times.
8.3 Erosion and sediment control

Monitoring shall be undertaken by the Contractor and shall involve regular inspections of the
earthworks areas for:
Sediment control;
Water accumulation; and
Dust generation.
Generally, inspections shall be carried out at least once daily, however, the frequency will be
dependent on the nature of the works being undertaken and the area of works. The Contractor shall
carry out all maintenance requirements to ensure the effectiveness of the control measures if the
inspections show that this is required.
8.4 Dust monitoring

During the works dust shall be monitored by the Contractors site manager daily by visual means, and
at multiple times during the day.

tkaro Limited
26
8.5 Water discharge monitoring

Surface and groundwater being disposed offsite requires monitoring to confirm compliance with
trigger levels provided in Table 7.4 prior to any water being discharged to the CCC network. It is
likely (although not confirmed as consents have not been granted) that conditions of consent will
require the following monitoring (Table 8.2). Groundwater and surface samples shall be collected by
the contaminated land specialist.
Table 8.2: Water quality monitoring requirements during discharge
Requirement Total Suspended Solids Dissolved oxygen Parameters in Table 7.4

(TSS) (DO) (metals, aromatic
hydrocarbons)
Collected by Contractor Contaminated Land Contaminated Land
Specialist Specialist
Tested by Contractor in the field Contaminated Land IANZ accredited laboratory
Specialist in the field
Sample Prior to discharge Prior to discharge Prior to discharge
collection and commencing (TSS must commencing (DO commencing (Chemical
testing meet 50 mg/L) saturation must be 70%) levels must meet
3 x per week where triggers in Table 7.4)
continuous discharge
occurs
Observations Twice daily basis during working hours to ensure:
sediment removal is adequate
hydrocarbons (if any) are removed
If the trigger levels in Table 7.4 are not met water shall not be discharged. Additional treatment must be
undertaken. Advice shall be sought from the contaminated land specialist.
8.6 Odour monitoring

Although considered unlikely, there is potential for hydrocarbon odours or vapours to be
encountered during earthworks based on historical use of parts of the site for underground fuel
storage. It is possible offensive odours may be produced at vapour concentrations below the vapour
trigger levels (refer Section 8.7). The Contractor shall qualitatively monitor odour conditions onsite
to assess whether odour control (Section 7.8) is required in advance of the action level being
reached. Odour shall be assessed under the following rating system:
1 No Perceptible Odour No odour from the source is detectable at the location where the
assessment is being made;
2 Weak Odour Detectable odours exist, but may be intermittent or only just considered
detectable by the person making the assessment; or
3 Strong Odour Cleary detectable and consistent for periods of up to or more than 30 seconds
at the location where the odours are being assessed.
The action levels for odours are presented in Table 8.3 below.

tkaro Limited
27
Table 8.3: Action levels for odour controls
Odour Action
(at nominated downwind station) (if exceeded for more than 30 seconds)
No Odour Works continue without modification.
Slight Odour Works may continue however modification of odour abatement
measures should be implemented (refer Section 7.8). Consider
vapour monitoring as per Section 8.7.
Strong Odour Works MUST CEASE until additional odour abatement measures
have been implemented (refer below).
It should be noted that after periods longer than around 30 seconds, even strong odours may no
longer seem detectable. This is due to a condition known as odour fatigue which is often noted
during long periods of odour detection. This condition is not indicating adverse health effects from
detection of the odour (unless the odour is very strong which is only likely if the assessor is very
close to heavily contaminated material) but is simply caused by a prolonged olfactory sense
stimulation. A simple means of relieving odour fatigue is to leave the area where the odour is noted
for a period of at least 10 minutes.
8.7 Vapour monitoring

If vapours are suspected due to odours being present, the Contaminated Land Specialist shall
monitor for vapours and gases using a PID and/ or multi-gas meter. Controls as per Section 7.8 shall
be reviewed as appropriate. If concentrations in excess of those listed in Table 8.4 are detected, the
following action is proposed:
HALT OPERATIONS: Switch off all mechanical and electrical equipment. Evacuate the
immediate area and, assuming discharges are not that extending beyond the site boundary,
allow the area to ventilate for at least 15 minutes, then resample. If conditions fall and remain
below the required level works can be recommenced, otherwise additional mitigation measures
shall be implemented. If discharges are impinging on the site boundary additional control
measures, as described in the following sections, shall be implemented immediately.
Table 8.4: Action levels for vapour controls
Vapour/ gas Action Level Measured using:

Volatile organic compounds 20 ppm 1 PID
Methane 1%2 Multi-gas meter
3
CO2 0.5 % Multi-gas meter
3
O2 <19.5% Multi-gas meter
Notes:
As exposure standards are subject to change and response factors vary between instrument makes and models, the
operator shall ensure that these factors are current and applicable at the time of the work and where required modify the
actions levels to suit.
1. An action level of 20 ppm has been selected as the New Zealand Workplace Exposure Standard (WES) defines a time
weighted average (TWA) exposure standard for petrol at 300 ppm. The WES do not provide TWAs for other fuel types.
A tenfold safety factor has been applied to the WES TWA giving 30 ppm. However, as response factors for petrol and
the primary hazardous components (BTEX) also vary between 0.5 and 1.2, an action level of 20 ppm has been adopted
(20 ppm x 1.2 response factor = 24 ppm of that compound in air).
2. AS/NZS 60079.10.:2009 Part 10.1: Classification of areas Explosive gas atmospheres.
3. Worksafe Exposure Standard TWA.

tkaro Limited
28
In some circumstances, hot works activities, (such as the use of, oxy-acetylene equipment, or use of
steel cutting or grinding equipment) may be required. In these situations Lower Explosive Limit (LEL)
readings of less than 0.1% should be achieved prior to undertaking the tasks.

tkaro Limited
29
9 Health and safety procedures for contaminated ground
9.1 General
The contractor shall prepare and implement a health and safety plan in compliance with the Health
and Safety at Work Act (2015), associated regulations, and other applicable legislation, regulations,
codes and guidelines. The health and safety plan should cover hazards associated with the work
(e.g. equipment) and working practises/activities.
General protocols relating to the presence of contaminated material including asbestos are
described in this section and should be included or referenced in the project-specific health and
safety plan(s). The relevance of these protocols and level of protection required should be reviewed
during the preparation of project specific health and safety plan. These protocols are not intended
to relieve the controller of the place or work of either their responsibility for the health and safety of
their workers, contractors and the public, or their responsibility for protection of the environment.
Note: Workers on contaminated sites can be subject to unusual stresses, for example, manual
work while wearing dust masks or respirators, or exposure to elevated concentrations of
contaminants. It would be prudent to check that personnel working under the requirements of
this SMP do not have any pre-existing condition which might place them at risk as a result of such
stresses.
9.2 Protective equipment

The wearing of the following personal protective equipment (PPE) may be required in the event that
unexpected contamination is encountered. Otherwise standard requirements for earthworks (e.g.
steel cap boots, hard hat and high vis jacket) will be appropriate.
In the event of unexpected contamination minimum PPE requirements will be:
Overalls and gloves to prevent contact with contaminated materials; and
Use of P2 dust masks to prevent inhalation of dust, potentially containing contaminants.
9.3 Personnel hygiene

A key factor in controlling dermal contact and ingestion of contaminated soil is through maintaining
good personal hygiene. Workers on the site shall be encouraged and provided the facilities to:
Avoid hand to mouth and hand to face contact during work with soils;
Wash hands before eating, drinking and smoking; and
Eat, drink and smoke in designated areas away from exposed soils.
9.4 Identification of new hazards

Further hazards may be identified during the course of the works. While investigations indicate that
the potential for these hazards are low they could include other contaminated materials with
characteristics such as an oily sheen, odours (e.g. petroleum, oil), discolouration (e.g. black,
green/blue staining most common), and/or inclusions of deleterious materials (e.g. plastic, rubber,
metal). Further hazards may also be identified during the course of the works.
The contractor is responsible for reviewing any new work element and assessing whether there are
any new associated hazards, and whether these can be addressed through the Hierarchy of Controls
for Hazard Management (eliminate or minimise [substitute, engineer, isolate, administer, personal
protective equipment]). The contractor shall seek review by the Project Manager, who will seek

tkaro Limited
30
Contaminated Land Specialist input if necessary. The contractor shall then instruct all staff on the
health and safety procedures associated with the new hazard.
9.5 Emergency procedures

Emergency procedures appropriate to the proposed works shall be established prior to the start of
works. The only additional emergency requirement relating to working on a contaminated site is
that provision should be made to notify any responding emergency personnel of the presence of
contamination. A copy of this SMP should be available at the work site so it can be referred to by
emergency personnel, if necessary.

tkaro Limited
31
10 Contingency measures
The following actions are proposed in the event that unexpected conditions are encountered,
discharges occur and/or complaints are received in relation to the works.
10.1 Roles and responsibilities

The Contractors site supervisor shall be authorised by the Project Manager to enact contingency
and emergency measures without delay.
10.2 Notification requirements

The Project Manager shall be notified immediately in the event that any contingency measures are
required to be implemented. Records of the incident shall be kept for inclusion in the validation
report (Section 11.3).
10.3 Emergency response procedure

Should an incident occur on site which may result in any unauthorised discharges (e.g. vapour,
odour, water, soil, hydrocarbons etc.), the Contractors site manager shall take control of the
situation and coordinate the efforts of all on site to minimise the impact including liaison with the
HSO and Contaminated Land Specialist. In the event that sustained and uncontrollable discharges
occur from the site, emergency response and evacuation procedures, including provisions for
notifying and managing neighbouring site users, shall be implemented. The emergency response
and evacuation procedures shall be specified in the project specific health and safety plan.
10.4 Complaints procedure

A written record of all complaints received shall be maintained. The Contractors site supervisor
shall initiate an investigation as soon as practicable on receipt of a complaint, but as a minimum,
following inspection and investigation of the complaint and confirmation that it is resultant from the
MSF works, shall notify CCC and ECan within 24 hours of the complaint being received, including
providing details of any corrective actions taken.
Appropriate feedback will be provided to the complainant, such as the response made and any
corrective actions taken in response to the complaint.
10.5 Unexpected contamination procedure

The first response procedures set out in Section 6.2 shall be followed should visual or olfactory
evidence of contamination be encountered during the works onsite. These actions are in addition
to any required by the Contractors own management plans.

tkaro Limited
32
11 Validation
Validation will have been undertaken following the removal of contaminated materials during the
enabling works package as per the T+T RAP and reported in the iSVR.
Further validation, post construction activities, is only required if unexpected contamination is
encountered. The objective of such validation is to confirm that actions in respect of the unexpected
contamination means residual soils meet a commercial land use criteria, or have alternatively been
contained such that contact by future users of the site is prevented.
Further validation (if any) shall be undertaken and reported by the Contaminated Land Specialist.
11.1 Validation method

In areas where unexpected contamination has been remediated, the validation method shall
include:
Visual inspection of all excavated surfaces for any evidence of contamination, such as the
presence of fill, ACM or discoloured materials;
Collection of samples from the base and walls of the excavations, or at the surface for material
remaining in situ where it is suspected contaminated materials have been removed; and
Collection of samples from the floor and walls of any UST excavations as per Section 7.7.
11.2 Soil validation sampling

A 15 x 15 m sampling grid shall be used where validation sampling is required and samples tested for
metals and PAH, and if required, semi-quantitative asbestos.
Sampling shall be undertaken by the Contaminated Land Specialist and collected according to the
MfE CLMG Mo. 5. Sampling procedures shall comply with Section 7.9.
11.3 Information required by the Contractor

Information is required from the Contractor for inclusion in the final SVR as indicated in the checklist
(appendix A). The information requirements are:
The location, extent and volume of remediation excavations, survey drawings;
Copies of weigh bridge summaries for the disposal destination for contaminated materials;
Disposal volumes for natural soil removed and disposed off-site;
Records of visits by Council and Worksafe representatives;
Details of any complaints related to ground contamination or soils;
Details of any unexpected contamination encountered and how this was dealt with; and
Details of any health and safety incidents related to the contamination and how they were
resolved.
The Contractor shall provide the required information within one month of completion of each stage
of works.
11.4 Reporting
On completion of the construction activities a final site validation report (SVR) shall be prepared by
the Contaminated Land Specialist and provided to CCC and ECan. The report shall update the
interim SVRs produced following completion of the enabling/early works contamination
remediation:

tkaro Limited
33
Confirmation that soil disturbance works were completed according to this SMP and that
there were no variations during the works (or details of the variations and approval by Council
if required);
Volumes of soil removed from or replaced on the site, associated chemical test results (if any),
disposal destination of surplus soils and waste disposal acceptance receipts; and
Confirmation that there were no environmental incidents during the works. If there was an
environmental incident then the report shall detail the nature of the incident and the
measures taken to mitigate effects.
The final validation report shall comply with the MfEs CLMG No. 1.
11.5 Ongoing monitoring and management

Ongoing monitoring and management may be required if contaminated materials remain on site as
part of the remediation. The requirement for ongoing for monitoring or management with respect
to ground contamination will be assessed by the Contaminated Land Specialist on completion of the
earthworks.
A Long Term Monitoring and Management Plan (LTMMP) shall be prepared to document monitoring
and management requirements. The LTMMP shall be prepared by the Contaminated Land Specialist
and shall include future controls and procedures related to future ground breaking activities, and
detail monitoring requirements such as containment measure integrity.

tkaro Limited
Appendix A: Contractor checklist
Contractor checklist - MSF
tkaro Limited Summary of key SMP requirements
tkaro shall advise CCC, ECan and Worksafe NZ of the works commencing
Leighs Cockram JVs contractors shall undertake the following during construction of the MSF
Timing Key task Details Completed
a Appoint a contaminated land specialist:

Prior to ground Site set up
works Name:
commencing Contact:
b Establish earthworks (dust, erosion, sediment, stormwater, odour)
controls as per SMP Section 7, and install monitoring systems as per
Section 8;
c Hazard board to state contaminated soil may be present and indicating
health and safety requirements for workers;
d Obtain PPE: disposable gloves and P2 masks;
e Install water treatment and dewatering systems and establish treatment

chemicals as per Section 8.
f Arrange disposal permits for surplus soil removal;
During the works General SMP Compliance g Maintain earthworks (dust, erosion, sediment, stormwater, odour)
controls as per SMP Sections 7;
h Implement health and safety procedures in Section 9;
i Retain all weighbridge and disposal dockets;
j Ensure imported material meets requirements in Section 7.5;
k Implement dewatering procedures if surface/groundwater dewatering
required refer Section 7.2;
Alert the Project Manager l Ensure compliance with any other procedures outlined by the
and Contaminated Land Contaminated Land Specialist,
Specialist
If any of the following situations arise:
m Contaminated soil is encountered that includes:
- Odours (petroleum, oil);
- Discolouration (black, green/blue staining most common);
- Inclusions of non-cleanfill allowable (refer MfE Cleanfill Guidelines)
deleterious materials (i.e. plastic, rubber, metal);
- Asbestos containing materials (ACM).
n Groundwater with an oil sheen, odour or discolouration is encountered;
o If soil is to be disposed offsite, additional soil samples may need to be
collected and tested. Refer to Section 7.9;
Within one Provide contaminated p Details of any complaints relating to odour or dust made during the
month of land-related information works;
completion of the to the Project Manager
q Details of unexpected encounters/events and the action taken;
relevant works
r Details of visits made by Council representatives;
s Summary of weighbridge information for disposal verification;
t Details of correspondence and visits by Worksafe.
REPORT

Prepared for
karo Limited
Prepared by
Tonkin & Taylor Ltd
Date
October 2016
Job Number
53556.002.v3
Distribution:
karo Limited Electronic Copy
Christchurch City Council Electronic Copy
Environment Canterbury Electronic Copy
Table of contents
1 Introduction 1
1.2 Objective and scope of this report 1
2 Roles and responsibilities 4
2.1 General 4
2.2 Distribution and implementation 5
2.3 Review and update 5
2.4 Licensed Asbestos Removal Supervisor 5
2.5 Contaminated land specialist 5
2.6 Communication with Worksafe 5
3 Site history and condition 7
3.1 Site history 7
3.2 Soil contamination 7
3.2.1 Asbestos contamination 8
3.2.2 Other soil contamination 8
3.3 Groundwater contamination 9
4 Proposed works 12
4.1 Conceptual design 12
4.3 Proposed works timing and sequencing 13
4.4 Detailed design 15
5 Remediation plan 17
5.1 Remediation objectives 17
5.2 Remediation strategies 17
5.3 Remediation criteria 18
5.3.1 Soils 18
5.3.2 Groundwater and surface water 19
6 Site establishment 21
6.1 General site management 21
6.2 Site establishment Class A works 21
6.3 Notifications and approval process 22
6.4 Induction and training 23
6.5 Vehicle wash facilities 23
6.6 Health and safety facilities 23
7 Class A removal works controls and procedures 24
7.1 Dust 24
7.2 Decontamination procedures 24
7.2.1 Personnel decontamination 24
7.2.2 Vehicle decontamination procedures 25
7.3 Asbestos-containing demolition material disposal 26
7.4 Containment 26
7.4.1 Burial pits 26
7.4.2 Retention in-place 27
7.5 Clearance 27
8 Site preparation works controls and procedures 29
8.1 Earthworks controls 29
Tonkin & Taylor Ltd October 2016

Metro Sports Facility - Remediation Action Plan Job No: 53556.002.v3
karo Limited
8.1.1 Dust controls 29
8.1.2 Erosion and sediment control 29
8.2 Water management 30
8.2.1 Diversion of surface water 30
8.2.2 Disposal of groundwater 30
8.2.3 Water treatment and disposal 30
8.3 Earthworks procedures 31
8.4 General decontamination procedures 32
8.5 Soil disposal 32
8.6 Imported material procedures 33
8.7 Landscaping procedures 34
8.8 Underground storage tank removal 34
8.9 Vapour and odour management 35
8.10 Sampling procedures 36
8.10.1 General soil sampling methods 36
8.10.2 Asbestos sampling methods 36
8.10.3 Reporting and data evaluation 37
9 Monitoring and control 38
9.2 Access requirements 38
9.3 Dust/ air monitoring 38
9.3.1 Collection method 39
9.3.2 Analytical method 39
9.3.3 Reporting 39
9.4 Erosion and sediment control 39
9.5 Water discharge monitoring 40
9.6 Odour monitoring 40
9.7 Vapour monitoring 41
10 Health and safety procedures for contaminated ground 43
10.1 General 43
10.2 Training requirements 43
10.3 Protective equipment 43
10.3.1 Asbestos-contaminated fill 43
10.3.2 General fill 44
10.4 Identification of new hazards 44
10.5 Emergency procedures 45
11 Contingency measures 46
11.1 Roles and responsibilities 46
11.2 Notification requirements 46
11.3 Emergency response procedure 46
11.4 Complaints procedure 46
11.5 Unexpected contamination procedure 46
12 Validation 48
12.1 General 48
12.2 Validation method 48
12.2.1 AMA area validation 48
12.2.2 Balance of the site 48
12.3 Soil validation sampling 48
12.4 Information required by the Contractor 48
12.5 Reporting 49
12.6 Ongoing monitoring and management 49

karo Limited
Appendix A : Soil contamination results
Appendix B : Contractor checklist

karo Limited
Document Control
Title:
Date Issue No Description Initials
August 2016 1 Remediation Action Plan for consultation wmw
September 2 Remediation Action Plan to support resource consent wmw
2016 applications
October 3 Remediation Action Plan to support resource consent wmw
2016 applications
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client tkaro Limited , with respect to
the particular brief given to us and it may not be relied upon in other contexts or for any other
purpose, or by any person other than our client, without our prior written agreement.
Authorised by:
.................................................
Peter Cochrane
Project Director
Technical review and certification by a suitably qualified and experienced practitioner as prescribed
under the NES Soil:
..........................................................
Wendi Williamson
Senior Contaminated Land Specialist
\\ttgroup.local\corporate\christchurch\tt projects\53556\53556.0020\issueddocuments\rap\wmw071016.rap.v3.docx

tkaro Limited
1
1 Introduction
Tonkin & Taylor Ltd (T+T) has been commissioned by karo Limited to prepare this Remediation
Action Plan (RAP) for ground contamination to be implemented during development works within
the Metro Sports Facility (herein referred to as the site or MSF). The location of the site is shown in
Figure 1.1.
This RAP has been prepared on the basis of conceptual development plans for the MSF available at
the time of its preparation and information obtained during a detailed site investigation (Asbestos)
(DSI) by T+T reported in July 20151 and a DSI by Beca Ltd dated June 20162 along with a
supplementary more detailed grid based investigation by T+T in September 2016 3.
The RAP has been prepared to support application for resource consent for enabling and site
preparation works associated with the MSF. This document provides a proposed programme of
works, sequencing of enabling and site preparation works and sets out the remedial strategies and
the basis on which they have been selected for the MSF. It is possible remediation strategies may
change during the design process thus the RAP includes procedures for implementation of several
remedial methods, some or all of which may be confirmed by the design phase works.
An Interim Site Management Plan (ISMP), prepared by T+T in January 2016 4, is being implemented in
the intervening period until ground works for the MSF development commence.

The site is located within Christchurch City and is bounded by St Asaph Street, Antigua Street,
Moorhouse Ave and part of Stewart Street (refer Figure 1.2). The site is approximately 71,703 m2 in
area. There are around 46 individual property titles within the MSF landholding encompassing the
following street addresses:
26 36 St Asaph Street;
16 28 Stewart Street;
2 28 Balfour Terrace;
3 19 Horatio Street;
103 139 Moorhouse Avenue; and
185 189 Antigua Street.
1.2 Objective and scope of this report

This RAP sets out:
1 Enabling works requirements Will include:
- Specific remedial actions to be taken prior to the site preparation works (bulk earthworks
and foundation installation) programme. Remedial works are specific to reducing health
and safety management requirements by disposing of processed demolition materials
that have asbestos at levels exceeding the risk based acceptance criteria.
1 Tonkin & Taylor Ltd, July 2016. Metro Sports Facility Detailed Site Investigation (Asbestos). Prepared for karo
Limited. T+T Reference 53556.v2
2 Beca, 2016: Detailed Site Investigation (Contamination), Metro Sports Facility, Prepared for karo Limited, 30/6/2016
3 Tonkin & Taylor Ltd, Letter dated 26 September 2016. Metro Sports Facility Supplementary asbestos investigation,
Phase 1 Area. Prepared for karo Limited. T+T Reference 53556

4 Tonkin & Taylor Ltd, January 2016. Metro Sports Facility Interim Site Management Plan ground contamination.
Prepared for karo Limited. T+T Reference 53556.002v2

karo Limited
2
- Unsuitable materials removal to assist the future construction process. This will involve
removals of materials containing asbestos below the risk based criteria from the
construction zones.
- Works to reduce or remove materials containing metals and or polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons from several localised areas across the MSF will also occur during the
enabling works;
2 Site preparation works procedures Including remedial strategies that could be employed
during preparation works in the event that unexpected contamination is encountered, such as
USTs, or to enable decisions over materials reuse or disposal during foundation installation.
The foundation solution is for installation of stone columns coupled with some screw piles
within the dive pool;
3 General earthworks procedures and controls for managing ground contamination-related
effects on human health and the environment during and following enabling and site
preparation-related earthworks; and
4 Health and safety procedures for both enabling and site preparation works, timing and
requirements for Class A works supervision and controls as per the Health and safety at Work
(Asbestos) Regulations 2016 (Asbestos Regulations) and procedures for worker protection
should unexpected contamination be encountered.
Figure 1.2: Site Location (source: LINZ)

karo Limited
3

This RAP has been prepared to support ground contamination-related resource consent application
to Christchurch City Council (CCC) and Environment Canterbury (ECan). A list of consents being
sought is set out in the RMG Assessment of Effects on the Environment (AEE) report 5.
This RAP has been prepared in general accordance with Ministry for the Environment (MfE)
Contamination Land Management Guidelines No.1 Guidelines for Reporting on Contaminated Sites
in New Zealand (CLMG No. 1). Sampling procedures provided in the plan generally comply with the
MfE Contaminated Land Management Guidelines No.5 Site Investigation and Analysis of Soils
(CLMG No. 5). The persons preparing and certifying this RAP are suitably qualified and experienced
practitioners as required by the NES Soil and defined in the NES Soil6 Users Guide (April 2012).
This RAP has been prepared to comply with anticipated conditions of resource consents for
remediation, ground improvement and foundation works. This RAP may need to be updated
following receipt of consent conditions.
5 RMG, 2016; Assessment of Environmental Effects, Metro Sports Facility, Christchurch

Human Health) Regulations 2011

karo Limited
4
2 Roles and responsibilities
2.1 General
This RAP has been prepared to provide procedures for undertaking enabling remedial, unsuitables
removal and site preparation works at the MSF, Christchurch. A summary of the organisations
involved in the proposed works and their roles and responsibilities under the RAP is provided in
Table 2.1.
Confirmation of contractor organisations and individual contact details will be provided to Council
and the Contractor prior to works commencement.
Table 2.1: Organisational involvement
Company/Organisation Role and responsibilities

karo Limited Principal, representative of the site owner (The Crown), responsible for
overseeing delivery of the anchor project
Aecom Ltd Project management for karo
Contractor (TBA) Responsible for implementation of RAP.
Health and safety officer Responsible for ensuring the contaminated land-related health and safety
(HSO) procedures are adhered to, as well as the sites general Health and safety
plan.
Subcontractor Responsible for undertaking works in accordance with requirements of the
RAP.
Licensed Asbestos Removal Responsible for supervising works involving removal of asbestos containing
Supervisor materials (ACM) within the areas where asbestos levels in demolition
materials exceed the risk based criteria (termed the Asbestos Management
Area (AMA)).
The Licensed Asbestos Removal Supervisor shall be responsible for ensuring
all asbestos removal works are carried out in accordance with the Asbestos
Regulations.
The Licensed Asbestos Removal Supervisor shall liaise with the
contaminated land specialist and Worksafe New Zealand (Worksafe) if any
deviations to the agreed methodologies are proposed or required during
works.
Licensed Asbestos Assessor Provides clearance following Class A asbestos removal works. In
accordance with the Asbestos Regulation Section 41(2)(A) this person must
be independent of the works.
Contaminated Land Specialist Undertaking soil testing, air monitoring, water sampling, works update and
validation reporting and provision of general ground contamination advice
during the works.
Christchurch City Council and Monitoring of compliance with consent conditions.
Environment Canterbury
Worksafe Responsible for overseeing compliance with Health and safety at Work Act
2015 and Asbestos Regulations 2016.

karo Limited
5
2.2 Distribution and implementation

This RAP shall be provided to Worksafe for review in respect of the Asbestos Regulations 2016.
A copy of the RAP shall be distributed by karo Limited to the Contractor who shall distribute to
any subcontractors undertaking enabling and site preparation works at the MSF. Worksafe shall also
be provided a copy of the RAP.
During enabling and site preparation works a copy of the RAP shall be kept onsite at all times. It is
the responsibility of karo Limited to distribute the plan to all contractors undertaking the works
and for the main Contractor to induct all staff and subcontractors as to its requirements.
Responsibility for the implementation of the RAP lies with the Contractor and their subcontractors.
2.3 Review and update

Any variations to the RAP proposed by a contractor and/or subcontractor shall be approved by
karo Limited and the Contaminated Land Specialist prior to works commencing, or the variation
being implemented if works have already commenced. If the changes are substantive they shall also
be approved by Worksafe, ECan and CCC prior to implementation.
It is the responsibility of karo Limited to distribute any changes to the plan to the relevant parties
involved in site works and update the site copy.
2.4 Licensed Asbestos Removal Supervisor

The Contractor shall engage an asbestos supervisor, holding a current asbestos removal license7 to
oversee all works related to the removal of asbestos contaminated fill where concentrations exceed
the risk based criteria (refer Section 3). The supervisor shall be licensed for Class A removal works
with proven experience in managing the disturbance and removal of asbestos in soil (formerly
Certificate of Competence Category G friable asbestos in soils under the former Health and Safety in
Employment (Asbestos) Regulations 1998).
2.5 Contaminated land specialist

The Contractor shall engage a Contaminated Land Specialist to undertake sampling and monitoring
and provide specialist advice during the works. The Contaminated Land Specialist shall be
sufficiently experienced to comply with the suitably qualified and experienced practitioner to an
investigation manager level as required by the NES Soil Users Guide (April 2012)8.
2.6 Communication with Worksafe

The site contains asbestos at levels exceeding criteria applicable for protecting site workers, the
public and future users of the CCEC. Communication with Worksafe is critical to evaluating changes
in health and safety requirements during development of the CCEC and clearance of the site post the
works.
Table 2.2 sets out the communication requirements with Worksafe and the person(s) responsible for
that communication.
7 A supervisor must hold a current asbestos removal license for Class A works. An up to date list is held by Worksafe NZ
http://www.business.govt.nz/worksafe/information-guidance/all-guidance-items/certified-asbestos-
contractors.pdf/view
8 Various tasks require different levels of experience. The person undertaking the task should be suitably qualified and
experienced to the level required for the task they are undertaking out as specified in the Users Guide

karo Limited
6
Table 2.2: Worksafe communication plan
Worksafe liaison Lyn Osmers; 03 966 7697 / 0272 550 079 / lyn.osmers@worksafe.govt.nz
officer(s): Assistant; TBA
(All communication shall be directed through the officers)
Communication Responsibility: Requirements:
milestones:
Enabling works package Contaminated materials removal
Pre-works/ site Licensed Asbestos Confirm works commencement dates and duration
establishment Removal Supervisor Confirm reporting lines
(Contractor)
Provide Contractor contact details
Confirm works i.e. Class A Asbestos Removal
Confirm health and safety measures
Confirm monitoring frequency and reporting as per
Section 9.3
During remediation Licensed Asbestos Daily air monitoring reports as per Section 9.3
works Removal Supervisor Report any incidents
(Contractor)
Report and agree on any variations to:
- controls in Section 7
- the Contractors Method Statement
- monitoring requirements in Section 9.3
Post remediation Licensed Asbestos Report on clearance process as per Section 7.5
works Assessor/
Contaminated Land
Specialist
Site preparation works packages Foundation installation and bulk earthworks
Pre-works site Contaminated land Weekly air monitoring reports as per Section 9.3
preparation (prior to Specialist Confirm works commencement dates and duration
each soil disturbance
Confirm reporting lines and Contractor contact details
activity)
Confirm works class: Asbestos Related Works
Agree health and safety requirements as set out in
Section 10
Confirm monitoring frequency and reporting as per
Section 9.3
During the works Contaminated land Report any incidents
Specialist Report and agree on any proposed variations to:
- controls in Section 7
- monitoring in Section 9.3
Post each soil Contaminated land Provide works completion information and any validation
disturbance activity Specialist data that may impact on controls set out Section 7 for any
subsequent site preparation works
Ground works completion
Post completion of Contaminated land Provide final site validation report
all earthworks Specialist

karo Limited
7
3 Site history and condition
3.1 Site history

The history of the site is provided in the Beca PSI 9. The PSI indicated that numerous historical uses
identified across the MSF site could have produced contamination in soils. Potential for
contamination was found to be associated with a range of historic land uses including:
Storage and use of hazardous substances in particular associated with boiler fuel storage;
Motor vehicle workshops;
Electrical substations; and
Placement of fill. Early in the last century there was widespread placement of fill materials
(termed historic fill) across the Christchurch CBD for the purposes of raising and levelling the
land. In places across the city the fill contains artefacts, principally bottles and ceramic items.
There were a large number of buildings formerly on the site that contained asbestos containing
materials (ACM) used for cladding, roofing and insulation. As result of experience on other sites
within the Christchurch CBD the potential for asbestos contamination may arise from:
Demolition of buildings under urgency following the Canterbury Earthquakes, where
separation of ACM may not have been possible due to the unsafe nature of the structure and
thus ACM management may not have been in line with the Asbestos Regulations (1998).
There is potential for near surface materials to have been impacted by asbestos fines;
The potential for ACM to have been buried during historic building demolition and rebuild
practices was also considered possible.
A DSI focussing on potential for asbestos-in-soils was undertaken by T+T while Beca was engaged to
investigate potential for soil contamination arising from other activities. The findings of these are
detailed in the following section.
3.2 Soil contamination

The T+T and Beca DSIs involved investigation of fill and soil materials in a grid based pattern across
the entire MSF. Investigations were staged (referred to as Phase 1 4, see Figures 2 and 3) to
accommodate the demolition programme. In September 2016 T+T undertook a more detailed grid
based assessment of near surface asbestos levels within the Phase 1 area to assess disposal options.
The investigations show that ground conditions vary across the MSF mainly due to the large number
of individual land parcels and the range of former site activities. However, generally the DSIs have
found:
Recent fill: Granular materials of varying thickness and composition (quarry rock and recycled
crushed concrete - RCC). In the Phase 1 area this is predominantly RCC in the upper 200 mm
whilst in Phase 2 - 4 areas it is mainly quarry rock with localised areas of RCC again in the
upper 200 mm, underlain by;
Pre-existing/historic fill: Gravelly disturbed natural and imported silts with occasional
inclusions of brick, ceramic and steel fragments up to between 0.5 and 1.0 m depth. This fill is
mainly in the Phase 2 and 4 areas and is underlain by;
Insitu and disturbed natural: Silts.
9 Beca, 2014: Metro Sports Facility Taiwhanga Rehia - Preliminary Site Investigation (Contamination), Prepared for

karo Limited
8
Soil data obtained from the above units and evaluated against acceptance criteria applicable to
assessment of potential human health and environmental effects in a commercial land use scenario.
The data findings are described in the sections below.
3.2.1 Asbestos contamination

Asbestos is present as fibres and bonded ACM in recent demolition materials processed during
demolition of structures within the MSF. While the presence of asbestos is widespread at surface
most samples showed levels of asbestos below the risk based criterion (refer orange hashing on
Figure 3). There are however, areas where the concentrations of asbestos fibres within demolition
materials exceeds the risk-based criterion of 0.001% weight/weight (w/w) applicable for all uses 10.
These include the following areas, shown on Figure 3 as red hashed grids:
1 In the north of the site, largely within the footprint of the former Canterbury Brewery (Phase 1
area), asbestos fibres are present in processed demolition materials, predominantly at surface
or within the upper 200 mm at the areas shown in red on Figure 3. This area was subject to
sampling on a 15 x 15 m grid which has defined the contaminated areas more closely;
2 South of Horatio Street at the eastern end (Phase 3 and 4 area, Figure 3) asbestos fibres and
bonded ACM including occasional larger fragments are present at surface in gravel hardfill.
Asbestos was not present above the criteria at all locations (refer T+T DSI) within the red area,
however the affected area has been extended to include all locations where asbestos is
present given the lower density of the sampling grid and the prevalence of asbestos detected
above the criteria in this area. Locations where asbestos exceeds the criteria is circled and
hashed in pink. In this area asbestos is predominantly at surface or within the upper 200 mm,
however there are locations where this occurs up to the base of the hardfill (i.e. 500 mm); and
3 In the southwest corner of the site near Stewart and Moorhouse Streets an area of fragments
is present as shown on Figure 3. The concentration of fragments is likely the result of several
sheets of fibre cement board being left onsite and broken up via trafficking. The fragments
are presently covered by geotextile and sandbags.
Areas where asbestos contamination has been recorded above 0.001% are labelled as Asbestos
Management Areas or AMAs (refer these on Figure 4 for clarity). The volume of material estimate in
the three areas, based on the available information is approximately 2,500 m 3 (insitu) or 5,000 T
exsitu. Specific procedures are required for works in these areas under the Health and safety at
Work (Asbestos) Regulations 2016 and these are documented in this RAP.
Demolition fill covers most of the balance of the site and asbestos fibres were identified at many
locations over the MSF (refer Figure 3) but at concentrations at or below 0.001%. The positions
where asbestos fibres were detected south of Balfour Street, where the density of sampling is lower
than in the Phase 1 area to the north, are circled in pink. Colours assigned to areas south of Balfour
Street are based on property boundaries and the test pits but do not necessarily mean that at each
individual test pit location asbestos is detected. Separation of these areas further would have to be
done in conjunction with more intensive sampling, if further information is required.
Standard ground contamination procedures, with additional precautionary and monitoring
requirements for dust, are applicable for these areas and are documented in this RAP.
3.2.2 Other soil contamination

With the exception of four locations (refer Figure 3), all soil samples tested for contaminants other
than asbestos contain concentrations below NES Soil human health standards or guidelines for
10Western Australian Department of Health, May 2009: Guidelines for the Assessment, Remediation and Management of
Asbestos-Contaminated Sites in Western Australia. All uses criterion of 0.001% weigh by weight

karo Limited
9
commercial/ industrial use. The four locations where contaminants exceeded the
commercial/industrial criteria are in underlying historic fill within the Phases 1 and 3 areas, shown as
blue hashed circles on Figure 4. At these locations contaminants included arsenic, lead or
benzo(a)pyrene equivalent all present within the historic fill layer. Granular near surface materials
tested within the Phase 1 area during the supplementary T+T investigation (September 2016)
contain metals and PAH levels generally above background, but below commercial industrial
acceptance criteria.
Beca commented in their DSI report that based on previous commercial activities on the site there
remains the possibility for in-ground fuel tanks to still remain on the site.
3.3 Groundwater contamination

Perched groundwater was encountered at various depths during the Phase 1 investigations, as
shallow as 0.3 m depth below ground. Water seepage at between 1.4 1.7 m depth occurred in the
Phase 2 area and in Phase 3 at approximately 1.8 2.6 m depth. Given the discontinuous levels it is
unlikely a consistent perched shallow groundwater table is present.
Deeper groundwater was encountered by Aurecon during its geotechnical investigations at the MSF.
Aurecon installed a number of piezometers in boreholes drilled on the site for water level
monitoring purposes. T+T recently conducted a round of groundwater quality monitoring in 5 of the
Aurecon installed boreholes11. The results were compared against ANZECC guidelines12 for
protection of freshwater species to conservatively assess requirements for discharge of dewatered
groundwater during construction. The ANZECC 80% values are typically considered for consenting
purposes, with 95% values providing a conservative assessment of potential effects on the
environment. Drinking water guidelines were not assessed as groundwater sampled for this
investigation is not from the confined aquifer used for potable water supply.
The results showed all locations had, some or all of, arsenic, copper, lead and nickel concentrations
above fresh water guidelines for a 95% level of aquatic protection. In three wells, mainly in the
south of the site had copper, lead and nickel levels above the 80% freshwater protection level. The
results indicate a local (wider that the site) as well as a site-wide impact on water quality, assuming
groundwater flow is to the southeast as inferred by topography, as all wells from the site boundaries
contained elevated levels of metals.
Low levels of hydrocarbons, containing a range of compounds that are consistent with heating oil
and kerosene were noted in wells in the south of the site. Given past and potentially still present,
underground fuel storage tanks, localised hydrocarbon contamination of groundwater may exist.
The data does show however that if present it is unlikely to be widespread.
11 T+T, letter dated 15 August 2016 entitled Metro Sports Facility

12 Australia and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council, 2000: Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Waters

karo Limited
LEGEND
B3 Soil Samples
(T&T, Sept. 2016)
(T&T, July 2014 - May 2016)
BH338
Borehole location
(T&T, March 2015)
B1 C1 D1 E1 F1 G1 H1
No asbestos detected
TP105
TP102 TP103
Asbestos <0.001% detected TP104
B2 C2
Surface 0.2m BH338
TP101
Asbestos >0.001% detected

Surface 0.2m A3 B3 C3 D3 E3 F3 G3 H3
ACM fragments noted
A4 B4 C4 D4 E4 F4 G4 H4
Asbestos detected
BH340 TP107
Asbestos above risk based B5 C5 G5

TP106 TP108 TP110
criteria TP109
PHASE 3 A6 B6 C6 D6 E6 F6 G6 H6
PHASE 1
BH339
STEWART STREET
A7 B7 C7 D7 E7 F7 G7 H7
TP112
TP111
A8 TP113 E8 TP114 G8 TP115
A9 B9 C9 D9 E9 F9 G9 H9
TP119 TP120
D10 TP118
TP116 B10 G10
TP117
BH341 A11 B11 C11 D11 E11 F11 G11 H11
TP226 TP227
A12 B12 C12 D12 E12 F12
ANTIGUA STREE
TP121 TP122 TP124 TP225 TP228
TP123 TP125
TP126
A13 B13 D13 E13
PHASE 4
C13
PHASE 2
TP224
A14 B14 C14 D14 E14 F14
BALFOUR STREET
T
TP216
TP306
TP215
TP308 TP312 TP318 TP320
TP220 TP223
PHASE 2 TP305
TP307 PHASE 3
TP214 PHASE 2
TP311 TP319
TP316
TP213
TP212 TP304
TP302 TP313 TP317 TP221 TP222
TP321
TP309
TP209 TP303 TP315

TP301 TP310 TP314
Concentration of
HORATIO STREET
TP411 TP409
TP325
TP404
TP208 TP414 TP405
TP326
TP203
TP401
TP332
PHASE 4 TP323 TP329
TP207 TP402
TP415 TP403
TP413
TP327
TP333
TP412
TP328 TP335
TP201 TP204 TP416 TP331
TP205
TP337
TP322 TP330 TP334
L:\53556\CAD\FIGS\53556-RAP-F3.dwg F3 30/09/2016 2:41:27 p.m.
MOORHOUSE AVENUE

ST ASAPH STREET
LEGEND
Testpit location TP105

TP101 (T&T, July 2014 - May 2016) TP103
TP102 TP104
BH338 TP101
BH338 Borehole location
(T&T, March 2015)
Arsenic, lead or BaP(eq)

levels above commercial
criteria
Asbestos Management Areas

(Class A controls) BH340 TP107
TP106 TP108 TP110

Existing pile testing area
TP109
PHASE 3
Separable portion 1
PHASE 1
Seperable portion 2
BH339
TP112
TP111
TP113 TP114 TP115
STEWART STREET
TP119 TP120
TP116 TP118
TP117
BH341
TP226 TP227
TP121 TP124
ANTIGUA STREE
TP122 TP225 TP228
TP125
PHASE 4
TP123
TP126 PHASE 2
TP224
BALFOUR STREET
T
TP216
TP306
TP215
TP308 TP312 TP318 TP320
TP220 TP223
PHASE 2 TP305
TP307 PHASE 3
TP214 PHASE 2
TP311 TP319
TP316
TP213
TP212 TP304 TP313 TP222
TP302 TP317 TP321 TP221
TP309
TP209 TP303 TP315

TP301 TP310 TP314
Concentration of
HORATIO STREET
ACM fragments TP409 TP408 TP406
TP411 TP325
TP208 TP404
TP414 TP405
TP326
TP410 TP324 TP407
TP202 TP203 PHASE 4
TP401
TP332
PHASE 4 TP323 TP329
TP207 TP402
TP415 TP413 TP403
TP327
TP333
TP412
TP201 TP328 TP335
TP204 TP416 TP331
TP205
TP337
TP322 TP330 TP334
L:\53556\CAD\FIGS\53556-RAP-F4.dwg F4 5/10/2016 3:18:51 p.m.
MOORHOUSE AVENUE

12
4 Proposed works
4.1 Conceptual design

The MSF is one of the anchor projects for the Christchurch central city rebuild. The sports facility
will comprise two large rectangular buildings joined through the central portion. The eastern
building will comprise a range of swimming pools, including an Olympic pool, dive pool, leisure pools
and a hydroslide. The western building will contain squash and badminton courts, a fitness centre
and administration facilities.
There will be extensive landscaped parking areas in the south of the building along with a large
vegetated mound and wetland feature (refer RMG AEE report for development drawings). The
layout of buildings is shown on Figure 6.
Detailed design had not commenced at time of preparation of this RAP. The RAP will be reviewed
again following completion of detailed design and any amendments made if required. However, it is
not anticipated that any significant changes will be made to this document as the early works
package will likely be complete and site preparation works packages well underway.
The RAP shall however be updated following issue of CCC and ECan consents so that relevant
conditions can be incorporated.
4.2 Works overview

The site requires remediation (enabling works) of contamination that exceeds a commercial land use
criteria (refer red areas on Figure 3) to ease stringent asbestos-related health and safety
management controls related during site preparation works (e.g. bulk excavation, foundation
installation). Localised remediation, in the form of UST removal, may also be required during
construction if tanks are encountered.
Additionally, geotechnically/structurally unsuitable recycled demolition materials are to be removed
from construction zones within the site. These materials typically contain low levels of asbestos,
metals and PAH in areas indicated in orange on Figure 3.
The general rationale in respect of asbestos contamination, as this principally drives requirements
for remediation, is to:
1 Remove asbestos containing materials that exceed the risk based criteria offsite to enable the
site to be reclassified in terms of health and safety requirements during site preparation and
construction works and during future maintenance activities;
2 Remove low level asbestos, metal and PAH affected demolition materials from areas that will
be subject to construction due to their structural unsuitability;
3 Possible onsite burial or reuse of granular low-level asbestos-containing demolition materials
outside of the construction zone (footprint of the building as shown on Figure 6) to achieve
reuse of these materials. This could involve removing and disposing of clean materials to
balance out the cut and fill volumes.
Activities associated with the enabling remedial works and site preparation works include:
Isolation of asbestos-containing demolition materials exceeding the commercial land use
criteria and removing/ disposing to licensed landfill (refer AMAs shown on Figures 4 and 5);
Removal and disposal of other granular demolition containing materials, which may contain low
level asbestos, metals and PAH, to managed fill or licensed landfill;
Construction of burial pits where required for taking clean, non-contaminated materials (for
offsite disposal) and replacing them with low-level asbestos-containing demolition granular

karo Limited
13
materials excavated during site preparation and construction works, if this strategy is required.
A number of areas have been identified for possible use as burial areas should onsite
containment be required (refer Figure 6 for location of proposed burial areas);
Excavations for services removal including disused ACM services;
Levelling (cut and fill) earthworks;
Geotechnical and structural testing of existing piles cut below surface within the former
Canterbury Brewery site in the Phase 1 area (refer areas outlined in blue on Figure 4);
Excavations required during installation of stone columns for ground improvement purposes;
Excavations for services installation, carpark formation and landscaping;
Formation of the landscaped mound in the southeast corner (refer Figure 5 for location);
Discharge of stormwater (construction phase); and
Dewatering, treatment and disposal of dewatering discharges during construction and
installation of the in-ground pools.
4.3 Proposed works timing and sequencing

While the detailed design and earthworks methodologies are yet to be confirmed, enabling works
are anticipated to commence in late 2016 with site preparation earthworks in early 2017 with the
MSF scheduled to open by mid-2019. The sequence of enabling and site preparation works set out
in Table 4.1 is proposed.
Table 4.1: Preliminary sequence of enabling and site preparation works
Stage Description of works Expected duration

1 Establish site facilities, earthworks controls and monitoring and 4 weeks
AMA isolation of areas where asbestos levels exceed the risk based criteria
removal (termed AMA, Figure 5)
Establish asbestos related controls within the AMAs
Remove asbestos containing demolition materials (indicated in red on
Figure 3) to enable asbestos controls and monitoring to be reduced,
and dispose to licenced landfill. This will typically involve excavations
between 0.2 and 0.5 m deep and an estimated insitu volume of
approximately 5,500 m3
2 Carry out pile testing within the Phase 1 area as indicated on Figure 4 During enabling
Remove asbestos cement services pipes within Balfour and Horatio works
Streets. This is anticipated to involve excavations up to 1.5 m depth
(refer Figure 4).
Remove localised areas of non-asbestos contamination (refer blue
circles on Figure 3) and
- dispose offsite; or
- blend to reduce contaminant levels and reuse onsite (if
geotechnically suitable)
3 Remove recycled demolition materials from the construction zone. During enabling
Areas requiring removal include: works
- Orange areas indicated on Figure 3 within the block north of
Balfour Street. Excavation is estimated to between 0.2 and 0.5 m
depth with an estimated insitu volume of approximately 3,500
m 3;

karo Limited
14
Stage Description of works Expected duration

- Removal of orange areas within the block between Balfour and
Horatio Streets with an estimated insitu volume of 600 m3;
- Removal of orange areas within the block of land between
Horatio Street and Moorhouse Avenue estimated at 2,800 m3
(insitu).
4 Install dewatering wells around the pool area (refer Figure 6) and During site
associated treatment devices for sediment and hydrocarbons (if any) preparation works
Commence drawdown of water-table to underside of the deepest
pool (dive pool)
5 Isolation of chosen burial area(s) if onsite burial is required During site
Progressive excavation of clean materials and placement of low level preparation works
contaminated materials in strips within each burial pit (if required); (if required)
Excavation either to, or just above, the water table depth ( refer
Figure 5 for burial schematic
6 Installation of 4 test wells to aid feasibility and design of the HVAC During site
system (groundwater heating and cooling system) preparation works
Dewater groundwater during the testing phase
Utilising existing treatment devices installed under Stage 3 or install
additional treatment devices for sediment and hydrocarbons (if any)
7 Installation of stone columns Site preparation
Commence bulk excavation for pools and foundations and verify works
subgrade is geotechnically suitable for foundations
Suitable cut materials to be sorted and blended on site to enable use
as backfill. Approximately 5,000 10,000 m3 to be stockpiled under
controlled conditions
Blend materials as required and place as fill
Cut materials to be compacted in layers into burial pit or removed
and disposed offsite
Figure 5: Schematic showing burial area cross section (Source: Aurecon)

karo Limited
15
4.4 Detailed design

The detailed design process will confirm excavation extents and will dictate the depth of excavation
within building footprint and services corridors. Based on the final design other amendments to
enabling and site preparation works methods, management and monitoring in respect of ground
contamination may be required. Updates are possible following receipt of resource consent
conditions.
This RAP will be revised if required and provided to Worksafe New Zealand, CCC and ECan for
approval prior to works commencing.

karo Limited
ST ASAPH STREET
LEGEND
Proposed asbestos-containing
demolition materials burial areas.
Landscape mound
Asbestos Management Area
PHASE 3
PHASE 1
Proposed Building
Footprint
ANTIGUA STREE
PHASE 4
PHASE 2
STEWART STREET
Carparking
BALFOUR STREET
T
Carparking
PHASE 2
PHASE 3
PHASE 2
Carparking
HORATIO STREET
Carparking
PHASE 4
Carparking
PHASE 4
PHASE 2 PHASE 3
L:\53556\CAD\FIGS\53556-RAP-F6.dwg F2 28/09/2016 7:30:35 a.m.
MOORHOUSE AVENUE

17
5 Remediation plan
The following remediation plan sets out the rationale behind the enabling works remediation and
procedures developed for ground contamination management during site preparation works. The
plan also provides the remediation criteria for evaluation of soil and groundwater conditions during
the MSF development.
5.1 Remediation objectives

The objective of this RAP is to outline procedures that will be employed to ensure earthworks during
enabling and site preparation works phases involving contaminated soils and groundwater are
undertaken in a manner that minimises exposure to site workers and the public, and minimises
discharges to the environment. The goals of the enabling and site preparation earthworks are to:
1 Remove materials containing asbestos above the risk based criteria;
2 Remove granular recycled demolition materials containing low levels of asbestos from the
construction zone (extent is shown in orange on Figure 3);
3 Contain contamination at the site to a level that is suitable for the sites intended commercial
use, if any remains;
4 Minimise discharges (to air, and to ground and to groundwater and surface water) from the
site during and following the proposed land disturbance;
5 Ensure appropriate protection of on-site workers and the general public in the vicinity of the
site when undertaking earthworks on the site; and
6 Contain residual contamination such that contact by future site users with it is prevented.
5.2 Remediation strategies

Detailed design of the MSF has not yet commenced thus the concept design has been utilised in
preparation of this RAP to support resource consent applications for enabling and site preparation
earthworks. The key remedial strategies likely to be employed during the enabling and site
preparation works are set out in Table 5.1 below and illustrated on Figures 4 and 6.
Table 5.1: Key ground contamination-related remedial strategies
Remedial Description Likely areas to be

strategy implemented
Removal and Removal of asbestos contaminated granular materials AMAs refer Figure 4
offsite exceeding the risk based criteria Across the MSF where
disposal to an Removal of localised historic fill containing high metal contaminated demolition
appropriately and/or PAH levels from the 4 locations where they are materials and other
licensed present contaminated areas exist.
disposal
Removal underground tanks if encountered during
facility
excavations or subsequent construction activities
Dewatering during enabling works materials removal may
be required in some areas of high water table (east of the
site).
Removal and Removal of asbestos containing granular materials where Within the construction
disposal of the level is below the risk based criteria zone and areas where the
granular site need to be fully
unsuitable remediation (removal of
materials all asbestos)

karo Limited
18
Remedial Description Likely areas to be

strategy implemented
Onsite Removal of clean materials for offsite disposal followed Burial pits proposed for
disposal by; surplus low level asbestos
- Onsite burial of asbestos containing demolition fill materials disposal as
materials where asbestos levels are below the risk shown in Figure 6.
based criteria within burial pit(s)
- Onsite burial to be above the water table
Dewatering for placement of materials is not anticipated
to be required
Containment Excavation, sorting and reinstatement of contaminated Possible within the AMAs
(less likely to materials; refer Figure 4
be utilised as Placement of subsurface barrier materials such as geogrid Across the MSF where
AMAs likely to and geotextiles followed by or direct placement of clean contaminated demolition
be removed) capping materials; and materials and other
Placement of concrete pavement, buildings or other contaminated areas exist
structures over the surface to prevent human access to and materials are difficult
the underlying contamination and to minimise/limit to access.
leaching of surface water over or through contaminated
materials.
Revisions to the remediation plan are possible following detailed design process.
5.3 Remediation criteria

The following soil and groundwater remedial criteria are provided for evaluation of data obtained
during the MSF development.
Long term monitoring or management of soil or groundwater exceeding the remediation criteria
may be required and long term consent to authorise their presence may be requested by CCC and/or
ECan. As a minimum consent will be required to authorise their disturbance associated with any
future works.
5.3.1 Soils
The following are the target remediation criteria for human health and environmental protection on
the basis of the sites future use for commercial activities. At a minimum, soils accessible by future
site users (i.e. surface soils in landscaping areas) must meet the human health standards. The
location of soils exceeding these criteria will need to be provided on final as-built plans and provided
as part of the site validation so they can be managed appropriately during any future land
disturbance activities.
Table 5.1: Remediation criteria for soils (mg/kg unless stated otherwise)
Contaminant NES Soil human health Environmental Published background

contamination standard remediation criteria (Ecan6)
(commercial/ industrial) (CCME4 commercial use) (Default cleanfill criteria)
Arsenic 70 12 16.3
Cadmium 1,300 22 0.2
Chromium (total) NL 87 20.1
Copper NL 91 19.5
Lead 3,300 260 128.8

karo Limited
19
Contaminant NES Soil human health Environmental Published background

contamination standard remediation criteria (Ecan6)
(commercial/ industrial) (CCME4 commercial use) (Default cleanfill criteria)
Nickel 6,000 1 50 18
Zinc 400,000 1 360 166.8
B(a)P Equivalent7 35 0.7 0.922
2 5
Benzene 3 0.17 ND
2 5
Toluene 94 39 ND
2 5
Ethylbenzene 180 50 ND
2 5
Xylenes 150 24 ND
TPH C7-C9 120 2 120 2 ND
2 2
TPH C10-C14 1,500 1,500 ND
2 2
TPH C15-C36 NL NL ND
3
Asbestos 0.001% w/w NA ND
Notes:
NL no limit, ND no level above detection permitted, NA asbestos is not an environmental contaminant
1 Australian National Environmental Protection Measure (NEPM), 2013. Values for Commercial/ industrial use
2 MfE Guidelines for Assessing and Managing Petroleum Hydrocarbon Contaminated Sites in New Zealand, Tables 4.11
and 4.14, Values for sand with contamination <1 m depth
3 Western Australian Department of Health, 2009: Guidelines for Assessment, Remediation and Management of
Asbestos Contaminated Sites in Western Australia
4 Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Soil Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Environmental and
Human Health
5 MfE Guidelines for Assessing and Managing Petroleum Hydrocarbon Contaminated Sites in New Zealand, Table 4.20
Values for sand with contamination at <1 m depth and groundwater at 2 m depth
6 ECan trace elements
7 Benzo(a)pyrene equivalent = sum of carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon compounds
5.3.2 Groundwater and surface water

The values in the following table are for evaluation of groundwater quality along with proposed
trigger values (to be confirmed by ECan) to be compared against for stormwater and groundwater
disposal as required during the works.
Table 5.2: Groundwater/ stormwater evaluation and consent criteria (mg/L)
Contaminant 80% level of fresh water 95% level of fresh water Proposed Performance
aquatic protection1 aquatic protection1 Standards2
TDS - - 50
Arsenic 0.36 0.024 -
Cadmium 0.0008 0.0002 -
Chromium 0.04 0.001 -
Copper 0.0025 0.0014 0.014
Lead 0.0094 0.0034 0.034
Nickel 0.017 0.011 -
Zinc 0.031 0.008 0.08
Naphthalene 0.085 0.0016 0.016

karo Limited
20
Contaminant 80% level of fresh water 95% level of fresh water Proposed Performance
aquatic protection1 aquatic protection1 Standards2
Benzene 2 0.95 9.5
o-xylene 0.64 0.35 3.5
p-xylene 0.34 0.2 2
Notes:
1. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Waters (2000)
fresh water values.
2. Derived from ANZECC 95% protection levels applying a dilution factor of 10 x upon mixing with stormwater within the
network

karo Limited
21
6 Site establishment
6.1 General site management

Prior to enabling and site preparation works commencing, the Contractor shall emplace a number of
structures to aid in the management of aspects of health and safety and environmental compliance.
These include the following:
Security fencing to prevent unauthorised access to the site;
Signage, including site works information, health and safety requirements, site reporting
processes;
Erosion and sediment control measures, including establishing a stabilised entry/exit point so
sediment is not tracked on and off the site. Management of erosion and sediment control
measures shall be as per Section 8;
A support zone where support facilities e.g. site office, designated lunch area, toilet facilities
are located;
The Contractor shall obtain the appropriate disposal permits prior to works commencing;
Establish stockpiling area to enable segregation of materials, i.e. asbestos containing
demolition materials from clean materials; and
Monitoring systems as per Section 9 shall be in place.
An example site establishment plan is provided in Figure 7.
6.2 Site establishment Class A works

In addition to the above establishment requirements the following shall be in place prior to the
enabling (remediation) works as per the Health and safety at Work (Asbestos) Regulations 2016;
Fencing off the AMAs, including a minimum 5 m buffer around them. Only staff required for
works in the AMA shall be permitted access;
Signage indicating restricted access;
A decontamination zone adjacent to the AMAs including a wheel wash and water treatment
system. A vacuum system could be substituted for a wet system if applicable as a
decontamination method (refer Section 7.3), or alternatively an internal loading zone could be
established within the site using the detachable bins, preventing road trucks from accessing
the contaminated area (refer Figure 7);
Personnel decontamination facilities adjacent to the AMA and used as sole point of
access/egress from AMA by all staff working within it;
Dust management controls including watering systems, stockpiled materials covers and
polymer spray equipment etc;
Disposal permits for asbestos-containing demolition materials being disposed offsite (refer
Section 8.2); and
Monitoring systems as per Section 9 shall be in place, including temporary fencing around air
monitoring equipment.
An example site establishment plan is provided in Figure 7.

karo Limited
22
Figure 7: Example site establishment showing asbestos management area and general works areas
6.3 Notifications and approval process

The following notifications are required prior to works commencement:
1 Worksafe, ECan and CCC shall be provided with the RAP at least two weeks prior to
commencement of works;
2 Councils shall be notified in writing at least one week prior to any earthworks commencing on
site (or as stipulated in consent conditions); and
3 The Contractor shall notify Worksafe prior to works commencement (A copy of the
notification shall be provided to the Contaminated Land Specialist for inclusion in the site
validation report (SVR), along with any acknowledgement from Worksafe); and
4 The Contractor shall also notify any other authority requiring notification of asbestos removal,
waste treatment and disposal.
The notification/approval process illustrated in Figure 8 is to be followed in the event of:
Any variations to the RAP proposed, either prior to or during works;
Any contamination incident occurring during works on the site; or
Any unexpected contamination being identified.

karo Limited
23
ECan/ CCC
Contaminated land
Project Manager Otakaro specialist
Contractor
Licensed asbestos
removal supervisor
Worksafe NZ
Figure 8: Notification procedure
6.4 Induction and training

All personnel involved in enabling and site preparation works shall be required to undergo a ground
contamination-related site safety induction before commencing work.
Prior to the enabling (remediation) works commencing the Contaminated Land Specialist shall a
health and safety related to contaminated soils induction with asbestos-related health and safety
requirements given by the Licensed Asbestos Removal Supervisor. Following completion of enabling
works, or for other staff not involved in the enabling works the induction shall be run by the
Contractors Health and safety Officer (HSO), including an overview by the Contaminated Land
Specialist.
Specific training must be given on risks associated with potentially contaminated materials,
minimum requirements for PPE and its use, and on good hygiene practices to minimise risks. The
purpose of the safety induction is to make the worker aware of the hazards, safe working
procedures, safety equipment and requirements and the action plan in case of an emergency.
6.5 Vehicle wash facilities

Vehicles exiting the site shall first have their wheels and undercarriage washed down on a heavy
bidim/geotextile mat or proprietary wheel wash facility to enable potentially contaminated soil
removed from the truck to be contained and later disposed. Vehicle decontamination associated
with the enabling works is set out in Section 7.2.2.
6.6 Health and safety facilities

Details on health and safety requirements relating to contamination hazards are addressed in
Section 10.4. Prior to works commencing, the Contractor shall ensure that the necessary personal
protection equipment (PPE) as specified in Section 10.3 is available and that all relevant personnel
are trained and familiar with its application and use.
The Licensed Asbestos Removal Supervisor shall advise and inspect health and safety facilities in
respect of Class A removal works requirements for works within the AMAs.
Wash facilities shall be available for all staff handling soil during enabling and site preparation works.

karo Limited
24
7 Class A removal works controls and procedures

The appointed Contractor shall manage and implement the procedures set out in Section 8, and the
additional Class A removal works specific controls and procedures below, during enabling remedial
works at the MSF. The Contractor, Contaminated Land Specialist and Class A asbestos removal
licence holder have yet to be appointed by karo. The:
Class A asbestos removal licence holder and their licensed Asbestos Removal Supervisor shall
observe all enabling works involving Class A asbestos removal works under the Health and
safety at Work (Asbestos) Regulations 2016;and
Contaminated Land Specialist shall undertake monitoring and provide general contamination
advice.
The Licensed Asbestos Removal Supervisor shall ensure the site has been correctly established prior
to works commencing in the AMA with respect to the Asbestos Regulations (2016) (refer Section
6.2). A contractor checklist indicating the key site management requirements to be implemented by
the Contractor is provided in Appendix B.
7.1 Dust
Dust controls as set out in Section 8.1.1 shall be adhered to during enabling works. In addition
during disturbance and removal of demolition materials within the AMA, where asbestos levels
exceed the risk based threshold of 0.001% w/w, the following additional procedures are to be
implemented:
Continual review of dust control measures by the Licensed Asbestos Removal Supervisor;
Added vigilance by the Contractors site manager on maintenance of equipment to support
dust control;
Use of polymer dust suppressant, water and covers to ensure no stockpiled materials are left
in a situation where they may dry out and generate dust;
Daily air monitoring as per Section 9.3; and
Evaluation of wind conditions (strength and direction) and directive by the Licensed Asbestos
Removal Supervisor.
The Contractor and Class A asbestos removal licence holder shall ensure dust controls comply with
relevant local regulations.
7.2 Decontamination procedures

Decontamination of personnel and portable equipment must be carried out to reduce safety, health
and environmental risks and limit the migration of contaminants (from waste material, soil, water,
equipment and PPE) around, and outside, the site including asbestos from the AMA.
All personnel and equipment involved in ground breaking activities must be thoroughly
decontaminated before leaving the AMAs and the site in general.
7.2.1 Personnel decontamination

The following specific decontamination procedures are required for site workers operating within
the AMAs:
A decontamination facility shall be set up at the exit to the AMA for site workers. This must
involve an area to remove disposable outer suits (e.g. Tyvek) suits and dust masks, an area for

karo Limited
25
washing boots and an area for washing skin. An example is provided in Figure 10. Portable
decontamination units can also be hired.
The Licensed Asbestos Removal Supervisor shall determine the extent of decontamination
required based on the contamination present and tasks being undertaken. All workers shall
be inducted on decontamination methods prior to works commencing as per Section 6.4.
Figure 9: Personnel decontamination procedure
7.2.2 Vehicle decontamination procedures

All equipment shall be decontaminated before it leaves an AMA. The wheel wash schematic in
Figure 9 shall be used, with geotextile replaced as required. Used geotextile shall be disposed of to
landfill as asbestos-contaminated waste. All the equipment used during the enabling works within
the AMA shall be decontaminated prior to removal from site. Decontamination methods that may
be employed include:
Vacuum fine dust, sediment, soil removal from equipment via vacuum. This method shall be
in accordance with the New Zealand Demolition and Asbestos Association guidelines13 and has
the benefit of not generating any water runoff.
Washing via the vehicle wash (Section 6.5). Collected sediment will need to be disposed to a
licensed facility as per soil disposal requirements (Section 8.2). Water will need to be filtered
to remove asbestos fines prior to disposal with filter cloth disposal to be as asbestos-
contaminated waste.
Alternatively as shown in Figure 7, a loading zone utilising hook bins could be used to avoid wheel
wash requirements. This means bins are detached and filled within the AMA before being placed on
the loading zone where they can be hooked onto the road transportation trucks and taken directly
from site.
13 New Zealand Demolition and Asbestos Association, March 2011: New Zealand Guidelines for the Management and
Removal of Asbestos

karo Limited
26
Figure 10: Indicative vehicle wash facility layout and operation
7.3 Asbestos-containing demolition material disposal

1 Asbestos-contaminated demolition materials exceeding the risk based criteria shall be to
licensed landfill in accordance with the Asbestos Regulations 2016 Sections 53 (1) to (5)
inclusive. We note that Kate Valley landfill is currently the only facility available in the
Canterbury region licenced to take material containing asbestos exceeding the risk based
criteria.
2 Materials containing asbestos below the risk based criteria, if required to be disposed offsite
shall be taken to an approved facility. At the time of preparing this RAP Kate Valley Landfill
and Frews Plantation Road, Hororata Landfill are the only destinations approved to accept
these materials.
Delivery to, and disposal at, shall be in line with the operators terms and conditions for acceptance,
i.e. lined special bins are required and there are restrictions on truck movements per day to the
landfill and times materials accepted.
the Contractor and provided to the Contaminated Land Specialist for inclusion in the site validation
report (SVR).
7.4 Containment
7.4.1 Burial pits

The following material placement and encapsulation method shall be followed if, in the unlikely
event that burial pits are utilised for onsite burial of asbestos contaminated materials exceeding the
risk based criteria:

karo Limited
27
Full Class A asbestos controls outlined in Sections 7.1 7.3 shall be implemented within the
burial pit area;
Fill shall be placed in layers and compacted. Geotechnical specification (if any) shall be
followed for the compaction;
Only onsite sourced materials shall be placed in the pit. Unexpected material encounters shall
be cleared by the Contaminated land Specialist prior to disposal.
Fill shall be placed to a maximum of 300 mm below the finished subgrade level;
A marker layer of geotextile shall be laid over the completed surface. The geotextile
specification will be determined in part by geotechnical requirements, but is expected to be a
minimum of Bidim A14 or similar non-woven material;
Subgrade materials shall be placed over the geotextile a minimum of 300 mm thick. A thinner
layer may be placed where the contained materials are to be overlain by concrete building
floor or foundation slabs (subject to geotechnical requirements); and
The burial pit locations shall be surveyed and provided on as-built drawings and those
drawings included in the validation report and future long term management plans.
7.4.2 Retention in-place

As described in Section 4 removal of asbestos-contaminated demolition materials, where asbestos
concentration exceed the risk based criteria, is occurring from within the building footprint to ease
health and safety requirements during construction. In other areas, where site levels do not need to
be reduced contaminated materials may remain insitu. Containment measures are required where
demolition materials with asbestos fines present above the risk based criteria to prevent future
unauthorised disturbance or provide a barrier preventing direct exposure to the materials.
Where asbestos containing demolition material exceeding the risk based criteria remain they shall
be contained by the following method:
A marker layer of geotextile must first be laid beneath any hardstanding or building platform.
The geotextile specification will be determined in part by geotechnical requirements, but is
expected to be a minimum of Bidim A14 or similar non-woven material;
Subgrade materials shall be placed over the geotextile with a minimum of 300 mm thickness.
A thinner layer may be placed where the contained materials are to be overlain by concrete
building floor or foundation slabs (subject to geotechnical requirements); and
Areas of encapsulated fill must be surveyed with the location of remaining material provided
on as-built drawings and those drawings included in the validation report and future long term
management plans.
7.5 Clearance
On completion of removal or containment works an independent licensed asbestos assessor shall
issue a clearance certificate that confirms:
The AMAs are free from visible asbestos at surface;
Final monitoring data shows that the respirable asbestos fibre level does not exceed trace
level (i.e. 0.01 f/ml) at all monitored locations (around and within the AMA/ burial pit area);
Containment measures in Section 7.4 have been placed over residual ACM; and
The AMAs do not pose a risk to health and safety from exposure to asbestos.
The clearance certificate shall be provided in writing to the Licenced Asbestos Removal Supervisor,
Contractor and karo. The clearance certificate shall comply with the requirements of the

karo Limited
28
Asbestos Regulations 2016 requirements and shall document the date of the clearance, the assessor
providing the clearance and data, including photographic evidence to support the conclusions made
in the clearance.

karo Limited
29
8 Site preparation works controls and procedures

The Contractor appointed shall manage and implement the procedures set out below during the site
preparation works at the MSF. Site preparation works involve ground improvement, bulk excavation
and other works such as services removal and installation.
A contractor checklist indicating the key site management requirements to be implemented by the
Contractor is provided in Appendix B. It includes touch points that require the Contaminated Land
Specialist shall be notified.
8.1 Earthworks controls
8.1.1 Dust controls

The site contains demolition fill materials that include asbestos fibres and potentially ACM along
with historic fill material including elevated levels of metal and PAHs. Asbestos fibre levels in
demolition fill materials outside of the AMAs (refer Figure 4) contain asbestos levels below the risk
based criteria however, while asbestos levels are low, dust control is of paramount importance.
From an environmental and human health perspective there will be some situations (e.g. during
excavation and loading) where any dust generated has the potential to contain metals, PAHs and
asbestos fibres. If not suppressed during windy conditions or during vehicular movement over
contaminated soil, discharge of airborne contaminants may occur.
To avoid dust generation should dry conditions prevail, and to mitigate dust generation associated
with vehicular movement, the following control and monitoring systems shall be put in place by the
Contractor during works in ALL areas of site:
Frequent spraying of water over the excavation and truck loading area and trafficked areas to
maintain damp conditions within the remediation works area (but not so much as to cause
surface run off); or
Regular application of dust suppressant polymer or other proprietary products, on its own or
in conjunction with water application;
Ceasing works during adverse weather conditions; and
Covering (geotextile or polythene) or water/polymer spraying of stockpiled materials to
manage drying out and potential dust generation. As far as practicable stockpiles shall be
minimised to aid in dust control.
8.1.2 Erosion and sediment control

An erosion and sediment control plan shall be prepared and approved by ECan prior to earthworks
commencing. Erosion and sediment control shall be managed in accordance Environment
Canterbury Erosion and Sediment Control Guide (2007). The Plan must include the following
measures for ALL areas of site:
A stabilised entry/exit point shall be established so sediment is not tracked on and off the site.
Aggregate should be reapplied if excessive sediment build up occurs;
The weather conditions along with the performance of the erosion and sediment control
measures shall be monitored on at least a daily basis, and after every significant rainfall event;
Diversions to ensure up-gradient surface water does not enter an excavation;
Sediment fences shall be replaced if the fabric is ripped or otherwise damaged. They shall be
retrenched if needed;

karo Limited
30
A stockpiling area shall be established where runoff from the stockpile can be controlled,
including a sump for collection of water and diversion bunds to collect runoff and divert clean
water away from the stockpile; and
Erosion and sediment control measures shall be upgraded/ modified where necessary.
Erosion and sediment control measures shall remain in place until the site surfaces are returned to a
stabilised condition, including sealing with impermeable surfaces (e.g. concrete floor slabs).
8.2 Water management
8.2.1 Diversion of surface water

Separation and diversion of clean stormwater away from areas of ground disturbance is standard
practice for any earthworks activity but becomes far more important where contaminants are
present. Contact between clean stormwater and potentially (even low level) contaminated
soils/spoil etc. means the water can no longer be discharged to a reticulated stormwater system
without treatment.
Temporary bunding systems including socks, sand bags etc. shall be employed as necessary by the
Contractor.
8.2.2 Disposal of groundwater

Groundwater is likely to be intercepted and will require dewatering during construction of the
Olympic and dive pools. Contaminant levels in groundwater, based on the current data, are at
concentrations typical of an urban setting as demonstrated by likely upgradient water quality being
similar to inferred downgradient quality, but will require treatment to reduce metal levels prior to
disposal to the stormwater system. Mixing groundwater with surface water may impact on the
ability of groundwater to be discharged without treatment.
Groundwater dewatering shall comply with ECan consents (yet to be obtained), including permitted
pumping rates, discharge rates and pumping durations.
8.2.3 Water treatment and disposal

Disposal, after treatment and verification of its quality, is likely to be permitted to be discharged to
the CCC stormwater network. The location of disposal locations and confirmation from CCC must be
obtained prior to works commencement.
Surface water, and potentially groundwater if it comes into contact with surface water or excavated
soil, will require treatment to reduce the sediment load, potentially the pH and possibly floating
hydrocarbons prior to disposal to the Council stormwater system.
A water collection and treatment system shall be established prior to works commencing. While the
final configuration of the system is dependent on Contractor preference, it is envisaged it will
comprise collection and retention/ settlement tanks (at least two will be required) as well as an
oil/water separator, if hydrocarbons are encountered. Water collection and treatment system
locations shall be confirmed with Councils prior to works commencing.
Water collection and treatment procedures are provided in Table 8.1. Monitoring requirements are
provided in Section 9.5.
A Water Treatment Management Plan shall be provided to ECan prior to any treatment and disposal.
The management plan shall include:
Bench testing methods and requirements;

karo Limited
31
Specifics of the flocculation or treatment process;

Monitoring, post-storm maintenance and contingency programme;
Spill contingency plan; and
Procedures for treatment chemical storage and transport.
Table 8.1: Water collection and treatment procedures for short term discharges
Step Dewatering procedures

1 Contain water and where possible prevent from migrating over any exposed contaminated soil.
2 Settle suspended sediment within the excavation or external to it, i.e. holding tanks/ pond prior to
discharge to stormwater.
3 Where sediment removal is not successful by settlement or where there is insufficient time for
settlement, flocculant such as polyaluminium chloride (PAC) shall be added at the proprietary
rate.
4 Where hydrocarbons are present (oily sheen) an in-line oil-water separator shall be used to
remove floating hydrocarbons prior to discharge.
5 Collect TSS measurements (field based) prior to discharge and during discharge as per Section 9.5
and ECan Consent conditions (if they vary from the monitoring indicated). TSS may be measured
by the Contractor
6 Measure parameters in Table 5.2 in water to be discharged via laboratory testing prior to
continuous discharge commencing as per Section 9.5 and any relevant consent conditions.
Sampling must be undertaken by the Contaminated land Specialist and not the Contractor
7 Dewatering to be observed by the Contractor on twice daily basis during working hours to ensure
sediment removal is adequate and hydrocarbons (if any) are removed.
8 If treatment by the above methods is not effective contact the Contaminated Land Specialist for
advice.
8.3 Earthworks procedures

Works in the general areas of the site will likely encounter contamination above background levels.
General earthworks procedures with some additional controls to manage contamination discharges
are applicable to these works. While a Licensed Asbestos Removal Supervisor is not required to
monitor works fulltime, they may need to provide input should unexpected conditions involving
asbestos be encountered (refer Section 11). Works will however be required to be overseen by a
Contaminated Land Specialist.
Earthworks and ground improvement is to be undertaken by mechanical methods involving stone
piling rigs, excavators, trucks, rollers and other equipment used in excavation, movement and
placement of materials. Dermal contact with contaminated soil by workers is therefore expected to
be minimal.
Excavated materials may be either stockpiled for reuse or blending, disposed from site or filled,
potentially within targeted burial areas (Figure 6). The Contractor shall apply the following
procedure during earthworks within ALL works areas:
All materials shall be kept damp, or application of a polymer spray, to prevent generation of
dust;

karo Limited
32
Particular attention shall be taken to demolition fill materials, those in situ, ex situ (excavated
and stockpiled) and during replacement, to ensure they are kept damp to prevent the
generation of dust and airborne asbestos fibres;
Excavated soil/fill to be disposed offsite shall, where possible, be placed directly on a truck;
Trucks shall be loaded within the site where runoff and possible spills during loading shall be
controlled and contained;
Trucks shall have their loads covered during transport of contaminated soil to the designated
offsite disposal site;
Appropriate permits to dispose of low level (at or below 0.001%) asbestos wastes and
notifications must be made prior to works commencing;
Trucks shall have their wheels washed down before they leave the site; and
Any truck that is transporting excavated soil from the works area shall have a tracking
document signed out onsite and collected at the landfill to track each load of material.
8.4 General decontamination procedures

The following are good practice precautionary methods for decontamination in areas outside of the
AMAs during site preparation works.
Decontamination facilities shall comprise, as a minimum facilities for storing and changing
PPE, boot wash facilities, a hand and face wash facility and a bin or disposing of contaminated
consumables. Before leaving general areas of site, all site staff must undertake the following
decontamination procedures:
Rinsing and / or scrubbing of boots, gloves and other PPE to remove dirt and dust
residues; and
Removal of all PPE with disposable items such as gloves and dust mask (if worn) placed
in a plastic bag or drum for waste collection.
All equipment, including heavy earthmoving equipment, shall be decontaminated before it
leaves the site. This shall consist of removal of all soil and dust from parts that have come into
contact with contaminated soil. Wash down water and sediment shall be contained to allow
collection for treatment and/or disposal as per the water and soil disposal procedures
specified in Section 8.2.
8.5 Soil disposal

As per the remedial strategies outline in Section 5 the objective is to retain as much material onsite
as is practically possible, however materials may require disposal if they are geotechnically
unsuitable or surplus to requirements.
The following table (Table 8.2) has been developed to provide the Contractor with guidelines as to
what materials can be disposed to what locations, and to provide Council with certainty that
appropriate disposal destinations will be sought.
the Contractor and provided to the contaminated land specialist for inclusion in the SVR.

karo Limited
33
Table 8.2: Soil reuse and on-site disposal requirements
Material Reuse requirements Off-site disposal requirements

Demolition fill and hardfill Can be reused on site. The Above risk based criteria -
containing asbestos location of its reuse must be Licensed Landfill (Kate Valley
Crushed concrete with bricks and surveyed and it must be capped Landfill)
other demolition materials and as per Section 7.4. Below risk based criteria
gravels where identified on Figure Frews Landfill (may be subject
3. Typically at surface. to additional testing
Includes bonded asbestos requirements) or Kate Valley
containing materials (ACM) and Landfill
free asbestos fibres. The disposal facility may require
copies of the contamination
information provided in Appendix
A prior to acceptance.
Historic fill Can be reused on site. Additional Burwood Landfill or Kate Valley
Brown silty gravel, can be sandy testing may be required if it is to Landfill currently the only landfills
south of the former Gloucester St. be used as cap material for licensed to accept these
Typically beneath demolition fill landscaped areas. materials.
to a depth of approximately 3.0 m Information in Appendix A should
bgl below ground. be provided to the receiving fill to
confirm acceptance.
Natural material Can be reused on site. Additional Material may be suitable for
River gravels in a fine silty matrix. testing may be required if it is to cleanfill disposal.
Groundwater typically be used as cap material for Information in Appendix A should
intercepted. landscaped areas. be provided to the receiving fill to
confirm acceptance.
Other contaminated materials Potential for reuse to be Kate Valley Landfill or Burwood,
Clinker/ coal tar (clinker is a fine determined by the Contaminated depending on levels. Information
black gravel, coal tar has a distinct Land Specialist in consultation in Appendix A should be provided
odour), most likely to be observed with the Contractor. to confirm acceptance.
in historic fill or demolition fill less Additional testing may be
than 1 m bgl below ground. required.
Hydrocarbon contaminated Can be reused on site if not above Texco Excavating Ltd currently
material the risk based environmental accepts and treats hydrocarbon
Range of materials generally criteria in Section 5.3. Additional contaminated materials prior to
between 1.0 and 3.0 m below testing may be required if it is disposal. Hydrocarbon
ground. odourous. Not suitable for contaminated soils may not be
placement below the water table. disposed to Kate Valley Landfill.
8.6 Imported material procedures

In the event that any fill or soils are required to be imported to the site, the materials shall comprise
either:
Natural granular materials which are sourced directly from a licensed quarry. Such material
will not require testing, provided documentation confirming the source of the material (for
example weighbridge dockets or invoices and a summary sheet) is retained for inclusion in the
validation report (refer to Section 12.4); or
If soil needs to be imported, then any imported soil shall either:

karo Limited
34
Be derived from a source which has been previously verified in accordance with the
methods described in the NES Soil regulations as being a piece of land to which the NES
Soil regulations do not apply; or
Be sampled by a suitably qualified Contaminated Land Specialist at a rate of 1
composite sample (made up of no less than 3 and no more than 4 subsamples) for every
1,000 m3 (from each source location) and tested to confirm that contamination
concentrations are suitable for the proposed use. A higher sampling density will be
required for smaller imported materials volumes. It is preferable if the soil is tested at
its source prior to its disposal at the site. However, if not, the materials shall be
stockpiled on site until test results are available.
8.7 Landscaping procedures

Contaminated materials may remain in areas proposed to be landscaped. To prevent future contact
with contaminated materials by users of the MSF the following containment measures shall be
implemented:
A strip of geotextile shall be laid extending the width and depth each landscaped area to
provide a barrier between contaminated and imported material. The geotextile shall be Bidim
A14 or similar non-woven material, installed to the manufacturers specifications and laid so
that no underlying fill is exposed on either side;
The geotextile must be covered by a minimum of 300 mm of clean imported topsoil. Testing
of topsoil shall be as per Section 8.6;
Additional topsoil or containment measures may be required for large landscaping features
such as trees. The Contaminated Land Specialist will advise the specific containment
procedures for each feature;
Areas of encapsulated fill must be surveyed with the positions included in the validation
report and future long term management plans.
8.8 Underground storage tank removal

There is potential for underground storage tanks, or pipework associated with tanks, to be
encountered during the works. The removal of fuel tanks must be carried out in accordance with
MfEs Guidelines for Assessing and Managing Petroleum Hydrocarbon Contaminated Sites in New
Zealand. Accordingly, removal of the tank requires the following procedures be followed to meet
the relevant regulatory requirements:
CCC shall be notified if a tank is encountered, prior to the tank removal occurring;
The tank shall be empty before it is removed to avoid spills or leaks during removal. If the
tank cannot be emptied, a spill response plan shall be in place prior to the tank being removed
so that any spills can be dealt with before they result in a discharge to the environment. CCC
shall be notified of any spills or leaks that occur during removal;
The Contaminated Land Specialist must be available to witness the removal of the tank from
the ground and complete a summary report in accordance with the requirements of the NES
Soil Regulations for submission to Council;
Soil underlying the tank shall be tested by the Contaminated Land Specialist prior to soil
removal from site or backfilling of the tank pit; and
The tank shall be disposed of by a specialist contractor to an appropriately licenced disposal
facility.

karo Limited
35
8.9 Vapour and odour management

The works are unlikely to encounter odour or vapour-generating material in significant quantities.
However, if odours or vapours are encountered, the Contaminated Land Specialist shall be notified
in the first instance to provide advice on appropriate steps to be undertaken. Monitoring for
vapours and odours shall be undertaken in accordance with the procedures outlined in Section 9.6.
The following procedures shall be followed to minimise odour/vapour effects to workers and the
general public:
Monitoring weather conditions including wind direction and wind speed on-site;
Minimising the generation of odour and vapour by maintaining minimal open excavations.
This will include the following:
Reducing the volume of material being excavated during wind conditions that have a
greater potential for odour effects (e.g. specific wind directions, low wind speeds, early
morning during warming conditions);
Not excavating an area greater than can be reasonably covered in less than half an hour
in the event that odour is being transported beyond the site boundaries.
Maintaining a small open placement area (this is commonly used by landfills to
minimise the potential for odour from the working face). An area of less than 500 m 2 is
suggested; and
Ensuring odorous work areas are covered at the end of each work day.
Application of dust/vapour/odour suppression measures such as:
Use of water sprays; and/or
Use of deodorisers delivered via demisting sprays around the perimeter of the
excavation area; and/or
Use of active ventilation if natural ventilation is not sufficient. However care needs to
be exercised to prevent generation of hazardous or odourous atmospheres at
ventilation discharge points if active ventilation is used.
Restricting entry to the working area by only trained and inducted personnel. In particular
confined space entry provisions shall include:
All excavations where odour is present that are greater than 1.0 m deep shall be treated
as a confined space and will require vapour monitoring to be undertaken prior to entry
and during any ground disturbance works;
The person entering the confined space excavations (as defined above) shall be trained
in confined space entry, and will require the appropriate safety and rescue equipment
to be present. It is the responsibility of the Contractor notify Worksafe NZ in respect or
confined space entry and to ensure its staff are trained and comply with all the relevant
regulations relating to confined space entry;
Prior to entry of any workers into a confined space, the atmosphere at the base of
enclosed excavations shall be monitored to ensure that vapour concentrations meet the
Workplace Exposure Standards (refer Table 9.1); and
If concentrations in the works area do not meet the triggers (refer Table 9.1 and Table
9.2), work within the excavation shall cease and advice be sought from the
Contaminated Land Specialist and the Contractors Health and Safety representative,
prior to continuing with any work.

karo Limited
36
8.10 Sampling procedures

Any soil sampling that needs to be undertaken, such as for soil disposal or validation, should be
undertaken by the Contaminated Land Specialist according to the requirements of the NES Soil and
the CLMG No. 5.
8.10.1 General soil sampling methods

Soil samples other than those required for asbestos testing shall be collected in general accordance
with the following procedure:
The materials encountered shall be described in accordance with the NZ Geotechnical Society
Guidelines for the classification and field description of soils and rocks for engineering
purposes;
Freshly gloved hands shall be used to collect soil and the samples shall be placed immediately
into the appropriate laboratory supplied sample containers;
Any equipment used to collect the samples shall be decontaminated between sample
locations using clean water and Decon 90 (a phosphate-free detergent) rinses;
Samples shall be shipped in chilled container to an IANZ certified laboratory under chain of
custody documentation; and
All soil samples shall be tested at an IANZ accredited laboratory for, as a minimum, a suite of 7
metals including arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, nickel, lead and zinc, PAH, and
asbestos content (using the quantitative method set out in Section 8.10.2). Soil samples from
UST pits shall be tested for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and field screened using a
photoionisation detector (PID). PID readings greater than 10 ppm shall trigger testing for
benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene and xylene (BTEX).
8.10.2 Asbestos sampling methods

Samples collected for semi-quantitative asbestos content shall follow WA Guidelines 8. The WA
guidelines allow for some variability in the sampling method, and this is reflected in the procedure
below:
1 A 15 x 15 m grid shall be established across the relevant area;
2 For sampling, except for validation purposes: A detailed walkover of each grid undertaken to
look for ACM fragments. The grid shall be inspected on a minimum of two passes at 90
degrees to each other. Fragment locations shall be recorded using GPS and fragments
removed for weighing and identification. Any collected fragments shall be double bagged;
3 Soil from a 1 m x 1 m area in the centre of each grid shall be sampled into a clean 10 L bucket
and the contents weighed and materials either:
a For cohesive materials:
- Spread out on a contrasting plastic sheeting (i.e. black polythene) and inspected for the
presence of suspected ACM. The spread materials shall be photographed to verify this
step was undertaken; and
- Collect a 500 ml sample collected from representative soils (with a separate 1 x 1 m area
to the 10 L bucket) and submitted to the laboratory for analysis in accordance with
the AS4964-2004 Method for the qualitative identification of asbestos in bulk samples.
b For granular materials:
- Sieved to separate the <7 mm fraction (fines) from the coarse fraction, with the coarse
fraction spread onto contrasting plastic sheeting (i.e. black polythene) and inspected for
the presence of suspected ACM, with identified materials labelled and double-bagged for

karo Limited
37
analysis; or entire fraction double bagged for identification and analysis at the laboratory;
and
- The fines fraction shall be collected, a minimum of 2 cups of fines (500 ml), labelled and
double-bagged for analysis; or
- A 500 ml sample collected from representative soils (a separate 1 x 1 m area to the 10 L
bucket, but within the same 15x15 m grid) and submitted to the laboratory for analysis in
accordance with the AS4964-2004 Method for the qualitative identification of asbestos in
bulk samples.
8.10.3 Reporting and data evaluation

The Contaminated Land Specialist shall evaluate any analytical results with respect to the
remediation criteria set out in Table 5.1 and acceptance criteria for the receiving landfill or cleanfill,
if appropriate.

karo Limited
38
9 Monitoring and control

Monitoring is required for a number of purposes during the enabling and site preparation works.
Class A-specific monitoring is also required. A summary of monitoring requirements in set out in
Table 9.1 below.
A summary of monitoring requirements is provided in the Contractor Checklist in Appendix B.
Procedures for undertaking the required monitoring is provided in Section 9.2 9.6 below.
Table 9.1: Monitoring requirements
Monitoring type: Class A (Enabling) works Site preparation works

Air monitoring (asbestos) Daily Interval depending on monitoring
results (minimum 3 days per
week)
Erosion and sediment control Daily Daily
Surface water accumulation Daily Daily
Dewatering (refer Section 8.2) - Observations twice daily
during discharge
Chemical testing prior to and
monthly during dewatering
Odour and vapour monitoring If hydrocarbons encountered - If hydrocarbons encountered -
daily daily
Health and safety compliance Daily Daily
(refer Section 10)
Action shall be taken as required to notify the relevant parties and rectify any controls if monitoring
identifies that it is needed. Contingency measures are defined in Section 11.
9.2 Access requirements

Worksafe New Zealand, CCC and ECan shall be permitted access to the relevant parts of the site,
records, and monitoring and test results at all reasonable times.
9.3 Dust/ air monitoring

Due to the presence of asbestos fibres in the AMAs, visible dust observation is not sufficient and air
quality monitoring is required to confirm that dust suppression measures are sufficient.
As indicated in Section 9.1 daily air monitoring is required during Class A removal works.
For the balance of the site preparation works monitoring shall be:
Undertaken for three consecutive days at commencement of the works; and
A minimum of 3 days per week thereafter provided air monitoring results return fibre
concentrations of <0.01 fibres/ml;
At the discretion of the contaminated land specialist and Worksafe, and depending on the
results of the monitoring to date, monitoring may be able to be reduced further, or cease,
following the ground improvement works and once the bulk of disturbance is complete.

karo Limited
39
9.3.1 Collection method

Stationary air monitoring shall be undertaken:
At a minimum of three locations around each AMAs while Class A works are in progress; and
At 5 fixed monitoring locations during site preparation works.
The monitoring shall utilise a Gilian BDX-II personal sampling pump (or similar) calibrated onsite
daily before use prior to being installed in the field. The before and after flow rates shall be
collected and used to determine an average flow rate. The average flow rate shall be recorded on
field data documentation.
The sampling shall be undertaken in general accordance with USEPA (5 October 2007) Standard
Operating Procedures: Activity-Based Air Sampling for Asbestos, Rev 0.0, SOP 2084.
Additional monitoring during enabling and site preparation works outside of the AMAs will depend
on the nature of the activity being undertaken and site conditions. It shall be carried out if the
following changes occur:
The type of work being undertaken;
The type of machine used for the land disturbance work;
The prevailing wind conditions; or
Visible dust is being generated.
The Licensed Asbestos Removal Supervisor or Contaminated Land Specialist shall assess the results
determine if further air monitoring is needed or if site procedures need to change to reduce dust
emissions. A form for recording site conditions is provided in Appendix B.
9.3.2 Analytical method

The stationary air monitoring cassettes shall be analysed by an IANZ accredited laboratory approved
by Worksafe using an analytical method developed by the National Occupational Health and safety
Commission Australia - NOHSC: 3003(2005) Guidance Note on the Membrane Filter Method for
Estimating Airborne Asbestos Fibres 2nd Edition.
9.3.3 Reporting
Air monitoring results shall be evaluated on receipt. If asbestos fibres are detected (> 0.01
fibres/mL) works shall cease until dust and other earthworks controls are reviewed and modified
where necessary. Amendments to the earthworks procedures shall be reported to the Project
Manager, CCC, ECan and Worksafe (if at or above 0.02 fibres/mL as this level is a notifiable incident).
All air monitoring results shall be reported daily to the Contractors site manager and the project
manager as well as in the site validation report (SVR) (refer Section 12).
9.4 Erosion and sediment control

Monitoring shall be undertaken by the Contractor and shall involve regular inspections of the
earthworks areas for:
Sediment control;
Water accumulation; and
Dust generation.
Generally, inspections shall be carried out at least once daily, however, the frequency will be
dependent on the nature of the works being undertaken and the area of works. The Contractor shall

karo Limited
40
carry out all maintenance requirements to ensure the effectiveness of the control measures if the
inspections show that this is required.
9.5 Water discharge monitoring

Surface and groundwater being disposed offsite requires monitoring to confirm compliance with
trigger levels provided in Table 5.2 prior to any water being discharged to the CCC network.
Conditions of consent required the following monitoring as set out in Table 9.2. The procedure for
undertaking discharge of water is as per Section 8.2.3.
Table 9.2: Water quality monitoring requirements during discharge
Requirement Total Suspended Solids Dissolved oxygen Parameters in Table 5.2

(TSS) (DO) (metals, aromatic
hydrocarbons)
Collected by Contractor Contaminated Land Contaminated Land
Specialist Specialist
Tested by Contractor in the field Contaminated Land IANZ accredited laboratory
Specialist in the field
Sample Prior to discharge Prior to discharge Prior to discharge
collection and commencing (TSS must commencing (DO commencing (Chemical
testing meet 50 mg/L) saturation must be 70%) levels must meet
3 x per week where triggers in Table 5.2)
continuous discharge
occurs
Observations Twice daily basis during working hours to ensure:
sediment removal is adequate
hydrocarbons (if any) are removed
If the trigger levels in Table 5.2 are not met water shall not be discharged. Additional treatment must be
undertaken. Advice shall be sought from the contaminated land specialist.
9.6 Odour monitoring

Although considered unlikely, there is potential for hydrocarbon odours or vapours to be
encountered during earthworks based on historical use of parts of the site for underground fuel
storage. It is possible offensive odours may be produced at vapour concentrations below the vapour
trigger levels (refer Section 9.77). The Contractor shall qualitatively monitor odour conditions onsite
to assess whether odour control (Section 8.9) is required in advance of the action level being
reached. Odour shall be assessed under the following rating system:
1 No Perceptible Odour No odour from the source is detectable at the location where the
assessment is being made;
2 Weak Odour Detectable odours exist, but may be intermittent or only just considered
detectable by the person making the assessment; or
3 Strong Odour - Clearly detectable and consistent for periods of up to or more than 30 seconds
at the location where the odours are being assessed.
The action levels for odours are presented in Table 9.3 below.

karo Limited
41
Table 9.3: Action levels for odour controls
Odour Action
(at nominated downwind station) (if exceeded for more than 30 seconds)
No Odour Works continue without modification
Slight Odour Works may continue however modification of odour abatement
measures should be implemented (refer Section 8.9). Consider
vapour monitoring as per Section 9.77.
Strong Odour Works MUST CEASE until additional odour abatement measures
have been implemented (refer below)
It should be noted that after periods longer than around 30 seconds, even strong odours may no
longer seem detectable. This is due to a condition known as odour fatigue which is often noted
during long periods of odour detection. This condition is not indicating adverse health effects from
detection of the odour (unless the odour is very strong which is only likely if the assessor is very
close to heavily contaminated material) but is simply caused by a prolonged olfactory sense
stimulation. A simple means of relieving odour fatigue is to leave the area where the odour is noted
for a period of at least 10 minutes.
The controls for vapour and odour are described in Section 8.9.
9.7 Vapour monitoring

If vapours are suspected due to odours being present, the Contaminated Land Specialist will monitor
for vapours and gases using a PID and/ or multi-gas meter. Controls as per Section 8.9 shall be
reviewed as appropriate. If concentrations in excess of those listed in Table 9.4 are detected, the
following action is proposed:
HALT OPERATIONS: Switch off all mechanical and electrical equipment. Evacuate the immediate area
and, assuming discharges are not that extending beyond the site boundary, allow the area to ventilate
for at least 15 minutes, then resample. If conditions fall and remain below the required level works can
be recommenced, otherwise additional mitigation measures shall be implemented. If discharges are
impinging on the site boundary additional control measures, as described in the following sections, shall
be implemented immediately.
Table 9.4: Action levels for vapour controls
Vapour/ gas Action Level Measured using:

Volatile organic compounds 20 ppm 1 PID
2
Methane 1% Multi-gas meter
3
CO2 0.5 % Multi-gas meter
3
O2 <19.5% Multi-gas meter
Notes:
As exposure standards are subject to change and response factors vary between instrument makes and models, the
operator shall ensure that these factors are current and applicable at the time of the work and where required modify the
actions levels to suit.
1. An action level of 20 ppm has been selected as the New Zealand Workplace Exposure Standard (WES) defines a time
weighted average (TWA) exposure standard for petrol at 300 ppm. The WES do not provide TWAs for other fuel types.
A tenfold safety factor has been applied to the WES TWA giving 30 ppm. However, as response factors for petrol and
the primary hazardous components (BTEX) also vary between 0.5 and 1.2, an action level of 20 ppm has been adopted
(20 ppm x 1.2 response factor = 24 ppm of that compound in air)

karo Limited
42
2. AS/NZS 60079.10.:2009 Part 10.1: Classification of areas Explosive gas atmospheres

3. Worksafe Exposure Standard TWA
In some circumstances, hot works activities, (such as the use of, oxy-acetylene equipment, or use of
steel cutting or grinding equipment) may be required. In these situations Lower Explosive Limit (LEL)
readings of less than 0.1% should be achieved prior to undertaking the tasks.

karo Limited
43
10 Health and safety procedures for contaminated ground
10.1 General
It is recommended that the person(s) responsible for undertaking the ground disturbance activity
(the Contractor) prepare and implement a health and safety plan in compliance with the Health and
safety at Work Act (2015), associated regulations, and other applicable legislation, regulations, codes
and guidelines. The health and safety plan should cover hazards associated with the work (e.g.
equipment) and working practises/activities.
General protocols relating to the presence of contaminated material including asbestos are
described in this section and should be included or referenced in the project-specific health and
safety plan(s). The relevance of these protocols and level of protection required should be reviewed
during the preparation of project specific health and safety plan. As noted in Section 1.4, these
protocols are not intended to relieve the controller of the place or work of either their responsibility
for the health and safety of their workers, contractors and the public, or their responsibility for
protection of the environment.
As described in Section 3.2.1, contamination in the AMAs exceeds the risk based acceptance criteria
for the protection of human health. Excavation of asbestos containing demolition fill in these areas,
and potentially in other areas of site presents a risk to site workers. The following procedures reflect
this risk and are provided to minimise contact with contaminants during the proposed work and for
controlling and manage the risk from airborne contaminants.
Note: Workers on contaminated sites can be subject to unusual stresses, for example, manual
work while wearing dust masks or respirators, or exposure to elevated concentrations of
contaminants. It would be prudent to check that personnel working under the requirements of
this RAP do not have any pre-existing condition which might place them at risk as a result of such
stresses.
10.2 Training requirements

As discussed in Section 6.4 all site staff shall be required to undergo a contaminated soil safety
induction before commencing work.
Additional training for staff working within the AMAs and burial pit footprints (if utilised) shall be
required to comply with undertaking Class A asbestos removal works under the Asbestos
Regulations 2016.
A HSO shall be appointed by the Contractor for the duration of the works so there is a person
responsible for ensuring the contaminated land-related health and safety procedures are adhered
to, alongside of those required under the Contractor Health and safety Plan.
10.3 Protective equipment

The wearing of the following personal protective equipment (PPE) will be mandatory for all
personnel involved in remedial works and will be additional to the standard requirements for
earthworks (e.g. steel cap boots, hard hat and high vis jacket).
10.3.1 Asbestos-contaminated fill

As discussed in Section 3.2.1 the AMAs contain asbestos fibres at concentrations exceeding human
health criteria. During the remedial works in these areas, the excavation area will need to be

karo Limited
44
separated from the remainder of the earthworks and a decontamination area made available to the
persons working in this area (refer Section 7.2 for decontamination procedures):
Respiratory protection shall be worn at all times during disturbance of demolition fill in AMAs
and burial pit footprints because of the presence of asbestos fibres. The minimum
requirement of respiratory protection will be determined by the Licensed Asbestos Removal
Supervisor as required by the Asbestos Regulations 2016. This will comprise a P3 half face
respirator as a minimum;
Disposable coverall suits (e.g. Tyvek) shall be worn to prevent contaminated material
contacting other parts of the body, i.e. legs and arms, and preventing asbestos fibres
collecting within the folds of clothing;
Disposable impermeable gloves shall be worn by workers who may have contact with
contaminated material during their work, including accidental contact. Gloves shall be
replaced regularly, if ripped or holed;
Boot covers shall be used to prevent asbestos fibres being tracked offsite on the soles of
workers/visitors boots, or alternatively a boot wash shall be established at the entrance to the
contaminated area from the loading area;
Disposable coverall suits, boot covers and dust filter worn within AMAs shall be removed in
the decontamination area and disposed of. Tyvek shall not be reused; and
No eating, drinking or smoking on any part of the site during enabling and site preparation
works to prevent contaminated material contacting food or being ingested directly via soiled
hands.
10.3.2 General fill

Demolition fill and materials outside AMAs does not contain asbestos fibres in concentrations above
human health criteria and other contaminant levels, outside of the areas shown on Figure 4, are
expected to be at a level that is protective of worker health. Accordingly contaminated specific PPE
is not required, however the following measures relating to contaminated soil shall be implemented
by the Contractor:
Contact by workers is expected to be minimal because the earthworks are proposed to be
undertaken by mechanical methods. However, as a precautionary measure, any worker that
is required to manually handle soil shall be required to wear disposable gloves; and
No eating, drinking or smoking in the works area, whilst contaminated soils are been
excavated, to prevent contaminated soil contacting food or being ingested directly via soiled
hands.
A key factor in controlling dermal contact and ingestion of contaminated soil is through
maintaining good personal hygiene. The following shall be observed for works involving
contaminated soils:
- Hand to mouth and hand to face contact shall be avoided during work with contaminated
soils;
- Hands shall be washed before eating, drinking and smoking;
- Eating, drinking and smoking shall only be permitted where site personnel are offsite or in
designated areas.
10.4 Identification of new hazards

Further hazards may be identified during the course of the works. While investigations indicate that
the potential for these hazards are low they could include other contaminated materials with
characteristics such as an oily sheen, odours (e.g. petroleum, oil), discolouration (e.g. black,

karo Limited
45
green/blue staining most common), and/or inclusions of deleterious materials (e.g. plastic, rubber,
metal). Further hazards may also be identified during the course of the works.
The Contractor is responsible for reviewing any new work element and assessing whether there are
any new associated hazards, and whether these can be addressed through the Hierarchy of Controls
for Hazard Management (eliminate or minimise [substitute, engineer, isolate, administer, personal
protective equipment]). The Contractor shall seek review by the Project Manager, who will seek
Contaminated Land Specialist input if necessary. The Contractor shall then instruct all staff on the
health and safety procedures associated with the new hazard.
10.5 Emergency procedures

Emergency procedures appropriate to the proposed works shall be established prior to the start of
works. The only additional emergency requirement relating to working on a contaminated site is
that provision should be made to notify any responding emergency personnel of the presence of
contamination. A copy of this RAP should be available at the work site so it can be referred to by
emergency personnel, if necessary.

karo Limited
46
11 Contingency measures
The following actions are proposed in the event that unexpected conditions are encountered,
discharges occur and/or complaints are received in relation to the works.
11.1 Roles and responsibilities

The Contractors site supervisor shall be authorised by the Project Manager to enact contingency
and emergency measures without delay.
11.2 Notification requirements

The Project Manager shall be notified immediately in the event that any contingency measures are
required to be implemented. Records of the incident shall be kept for inclusion in the validation
report (Section 12.4).
11.3 Emergency response procedure

Should an incident occur on site which may result in any unauthorised discharges (e.g. vapour,
odour, water, soil, hydrocarbons etc.), the Contractors site supervisor will take control of the
situation and coordinate the efforts of all on site to minimise the impact including liaison with the
HSO, Contaminated Land Specialist and Licensed Asbestos Removal Supervisor. In the event that
sustained and uncontrollable discharges occur from the site, emergency response and evacuation
procedures, including provisions for notifying and managing neighbouring site users, shall be
implemented. The emergency response and evacuation procedures shall be specified in the project
specific health and safety plan.
11.4 Complaints procedure

A written record of all complaints received shall be maintained. The Contractors site supervisor
shall initiate an investigation as soon as practicable on receipt of a complaint, but as a minimum,
following inspection and investigation of the complaint and confirmation that it is resultant from the
MSF works, shall notify CCC and ECan within 24 hours of the complaint being received, including
providing details of any corrective actions taken.
Appropriate feedback will be provided to the complainant, such as the response made and any
corrective actions taken in response to the complaint.
11.5 Unexpected contamination procedure

Available data indicate that the key ground related contaminants onsite are asbestos, metals and
PAHs. The presence of higher concentrations of contamination and/or other contaminants, albeit
likely localised, cannot be excluded.
Asbestos fibre cement board will generally appear pale grey, fibrous, and may have a honeycomb
texture on one surface. Asbestos free fibres, metals and PAHs often exhibit little or no indication of
their presence.
Typical indicators of other contamination include:
Odour (e.g. petroleum hydrocarbons, oil);
Oily sheen on soil or water is an indicator of the presence of separate phase hydrocarbons;
Black staining coupled with an odour may indicate heavy oil/hydrocarbon contamination such
as coal tar;

karo Limited
47
Green/yellow discoloured soil may indicate high levels of copper and chromium;
Black gravel/sand may be boiler ash materials that could be high in metals and PAHs; and
Inclusions of deleterious materials such as timber, brick, concrete, clinker, metal.
Table 11.1 is a first response checklist for the sites nominated contractor(s) to follow should visual
or olfactory evidence of contamination be encountered during the works onsite, including
encountering asbestos outside of the AMAs.
Table 11.1: Potential contaminated materials first response checklist
First response checklist Check

Stop work in the immediate vicinity of the contamination discovery and isolate the
area by taping, coning or fencing off
Advise the Project Manager (as per Section 6.3).
Update the site Hazard Board and prevent access to the area by unnecessary
personnel
If ACM is observed provide P3 dust masks to all staff entering the isolated area
If odours are present cover the material over with non-odorous soil or hay/straw and
lime to prevent nuisance odour
If runoff is being generated from the materials prevent stormwater discharges from
the area
The Contractors site supervisor must advise the Contaminated Land Specialist and the
Project Manager to inspect and advise on specific controls if appropriate
CCC and ECan shall be notified within 24 hours.
The presence of other contaminants in high levels may dictate further controls be implemented and
additional or different containment/disposal be required. The first response procedures are to
ensure contamination is appropriately contained while decisions about its management are being
undertaken.

karo Limited
48
12 Validation
12.1 General
Validation is the process of confirming the objectives of the works have been achieved, and showing
works were undertaken according to agreed procedures and reporting on any incidents.
Validation of the site shall be conducted by the Contaminated Land Specialist. The validation
programme recommended includes observation of the ground works and appropriate encapsulation
and/or removal of contaminated materials.
Both validation sampling and reporting may need to be undertaken in a staged manner to reflect the
staged nature of the development if necessary.
12.2 Validation method
12.2.1 AMA area validation

The clearance report provided by the Licensed Asbestos Assessor shall be documented in the Site
Validation Report (SVR).
12.2.2 Balance of the site

The site outside of the AMAs and burial pits (if utilised) shall be visually inspected by a contaminated
land specialist during works to assess whether contaminated material remains. At this stage, it is
envisaged that the bulk of the material excavated will be reused or encapsulated onsite. The
balance will be disposed offsite. The validation method shall include:
Visual inspection of all excavated surfaces for any evidence of contamination, such as the
presence of fill, ACM or discoloured materials;
Collection of samples from the base and walls of the excavations, or at the surface for material
remaining in situ where it is suspected contaminated materials have been removed; and
Collection of samples from the floor and walls of any UST excavations as per Section 8.8.
12.3 Soil validation sampling

A 15 x 15 m sampling grid shall be used were validation sampling is required and samples tested for
metals and PAH in general works areas, and semi-quantitative asbestos in AMAs.
Sampling shall be undertaken by the Contaminated Land Specialist and collected according to the
MfE CLMG Mo. 5. Sampling procedures shall comply with Section 8.10.
12.4 Information required by the Contractor

Information is required from the Contractor for inclusion in the SVR as indicated in the Contractor
checklist (front of this document). The information requirements are:
The location, extent and volume of remediation excavations, survey drawings;
Copies of weigh bridge summaries for the disposal destination for contaminated materials;
Disposal volumes for natural soil removed and disposed off-site;
Records of visits by Council and Worksafe representatives;
Details of any complaints related to ground contamination or soils;
Details of any unexpected contamination encountered and how this was dealt with; and

karo Limited
49
Details of any health and safety incidents related to the contamination and how they were
resolved.
The Contractor shall provide the required information within one month of completion of each stage
of works.
12.5 Reporting
On completion of the soil disturbance works a site validation report (SVR) shall be prepared and
provided to CCC and ECan. The report shall include, as a minimum:
Confirmation that soil disturbance works were completed according to this RAP and that there
were no variations during the works (or details of the variations and approval by Council if
required);
Volumes of soil removed from or replaced on the site, associated chemical test results (if any),
disposal destination of surplus soils and waste disposal acceptance receipts; and
Confirmation that there were no environmental incidents during the works. If there was an
environmental incident then the report shall detail the nature of the incident and the
measures taken to mitigate effects.
This report shall be provided to CCC and ECan within 3 months of completion of the soil disturbance
works. Multiple stages of reporting may be required at the discretion of the Contaminated Land
Specialist.
The validation report shall comply with the MfEs CLMG No. 1.
12.6 Ongoing monitoring and management

Ongoing monitoring and management may be required if contaminated materials remain on site as
part of the remediation. The requirement for ongoing for monitoring or management with respect
to ground contamination will be assessed on completion of the earthworks.
A Long Term Monitoring and Management Plan (LTMMP) shall be prepared to document monitoring
and management requirements. The LTMMP shall be prepared by the Contaminated Land Specialist
and shall include future controls and procedures related to future ground breaking activities, and
detail monitoring requirements such as containment measure integrity.

karo Limited
Appendix A: Soil contamination results
Asbestos
General soil contamination
Table A1: Semi-quantitative asbestos data evaluation
Concentration (w/w) %
Sample ID Bonded ACM Asbestos Fines/Fibrous Asbestos

(> 7 mm) (<2 mm & 2 -7 mm; or <7 mm)
A14 _0 not detected not detected

A14_0.2 not detected not detected
B14_0 not detected not detected
B14_0.2 not detected 0.006%
C14_0 not detected not detected
C14_0.2 not detected not detected
D14_0 not detected not detected
D14_0.2 not detected not detected
E14_0 not detected 0.022%
E14_0.2 not detected not detected
F14_0 not detected not detected
F14_0.2 not detected not detected
A13_0 not detected not detected
B12_0.2 not detected not detected
E12_0 not detected not detected
F12_0.2 not detected <0.001
C11_0 not detected <0.001
B10_0.2 not detected <0.001
G10_0 not detected not detected
G10_0.2 not detected <0.001

(> 7 mm) (<2 mm & 2 -7 mm; or <7 mm)

F9_0 not detected <0.001
G8_0.2 not detected not detected
B7_0 not detected <0.001
E7_0 not detected <0.001
E7_0.2 not detected 0.001%
G6_0 not detected <0.001
G6_0.2 not detected 0.001%
F6_0.2 not detected 0.002%
H11_0 not detected not detected
H11_0.2 not detected not detected
C9_0 not detected 0.001%
A8_0 not detected <0.001

(> 7 mm) (<2 mm & 2 -7 mm; or <7 mm)

C7_0.2 not detected <0.001
E6_0.2 not detected <0.001
C6_0 not detected <0.001
C6_0.2 not detected <0.001
A6_0.2 not detected <0.001
B6_0 not detected 0.001%
G9_0 not detected 0.002%
F3_0 not detected 0.005%

(> 7 mm) (<2 mm & 2 -7 mm; or <7 mm)

B1_0 not detected 0.002%
E1_0.2 not detected <0.001
H7_0.2 not detected 0.018%

(> 7 mm) (<2 mm & 2 -7 mm; or <7 mm)
H1_0 not detected <0.001

Table A2: Summary of metal and PAH data
NES Soil human

health criteria for ECan Background Frews acceptance
Maximum B1 D1 F1 H1 A3 C3 E3 G3 B4 D4 F4 H4 A14 C14 E14 B13 A12 C12 E12 D11
commercial/ concentrations criteria
industrial land use
Arsenic 70 10.60 20 7 6 6 6 6 5 6 5 7 6 5 5 7 5 5 2 4 3 5 5 4
Cadmium 1,300 0.20 3 0.46 0.14 0.17 0.46 0.22 0.17 0.1 < 0.10 0.22 0.13 0.11 < 0.10 0.13 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.2 < 0.10 0.16
Chromium 6,300 18.50 460 25 19 25 23 23 18 21 18 19 17 17 18 17 12 12 11 13 18 22 15 16
Copper NL 23.30 10,000 46 9 46 23 22 11 13 9 15 12 10 20 13 32 8 9 9 6 15 13 14
Lead 3,300 127.00 210 82 25 30 74 82 31 17.2 19.7 60 32 19 27 42 17 14.4 16.4 20 13 41 31 27
Nickel 6000 1 15.60 - 15 11 13 15 15 12 13 10 13 11 11 11 11 9 9 10 10 10 11 11 12
1 116 76 230 210 79 105 68 135 109 113 85 114 45 39 46 55 38 230 141 320
Zinc 400,000 138.00 - 320
BaP Equiv. 35 0.92 10 4.41 0.22 0.27 0.87 1.08 0.26 0.19 0.17 0.49 0.92 0.15 0.21 0.24 0.09 0.34 4.41 0.21 0.19 1.73 0.17 1.06
NES Soil human

health criteria for ECan Background Frews acceptance
Maximum F11 H11 B10 D10 G10 A9 C9 E9 G9 A8 E8 G8 B7 D7 F7 A6 C6 E6 G6
commercial/ concentrations criteria
industrial land use
Arsenic 70 10.60 20 7 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 6 5 6 6 4 5 6 5 6 7 5 7
Cadmium 1,300 0.20 3 0.2 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.12 < 0.10 0.13 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.12 0.11 0.2 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.12 0.12 0.19 0.14
Chromium 6,300 18.50 460 27 17 17 25 13 16 18 24 16 17 17 22 15 18 20 19 19 18 19 27
Copper NL 23.30 10,000 41 11 9 31 7 14 17 41 14 17 14 24 14 16 13 12 14 20 27 25
Lead 3,300 127.00 210 80 24 19.3 37 17.4 38 31 33 34 80 31 30 30 33 26 24 27 52 76 27
1
Nickel 6000 15.60 - 20 11 9 12 9 11 20 13 11 13 12 18 11 11 11 13 11 13 13 12
1
Zinc 400,000 138.00 - 149 77 66 142 54 124 89 53 112 103 95 114 77 79 88 71 92 132 112 149
BaP Equiv. 35 0.92 10 2.26 0.23 0.14 2.26 0.31 0.22 0.23 0.83 1.03 0.23 0.25 0.69 0.2 1.63 0.39 0.27 0.57 0.69 1.05 0.47
Bold values exceed Ecan background concentrations

1 - Guideline on the Investigation Levels for Soil and Groundwater, NEPM, Australia, updated 2013 (high-density residential and commercial values)
Appendix B: Contractor checklist
Contractor checklist - MSF
karo Limited Summary of key SMP requirements
The Contractor shall undertake the following during enabling and site preparation works at the MSF
Timing Key task Details Completed
a karo Limited to advise CCC, ECan and Worksafe NZ of works

Prior to ground Site set up
commencing;
works
commencing b Appoint a contaminated land specialist:
Name:
Contact:
c Appoint a Licensed Asbestos Removal Supervisor and Licensed Asbestos
Assessor:
Names:
Contacts:
d Establish earthworks (dust, erosion, sediment, stormwater, odour)
controls as per SMP Section 7 and 8, and install monitoring systems as
per Section 9;
e Hazard board to state contaminated soil may be present and indicating
health and safety requirements for workers;
f Obtain PPE: disposable gloves and P3 masks;
g Install water treatment and dewatering systems and establish treatment

chemicals as per Section 9.
h Arrange disposal permits;
During the works General SMP Compliance i Maintain earthworks ((dust, erosion, sediment, stormwater, odour)
controls as per SMP Sections 7 and 8;
j Implement health and safety procedures in Section 10;
k Retain all weighbridge and disposal dockets and provide to Contractor;
l Ensure imported material meets requirements in Section 8.6;
m Implement dewatering procedures if surface/groundwater dewatering
required (refer Section 8.2;
Alert the Project Manager n Ensure compliance with any other procedures outlined by the
and Contaminated Land Contaminated Land Specialist,
Specialist
If any of the following situations arise:
o Contaminated soil is encountered that includes:
- Odours (petroleum, oil);
- Discolouration (black, green/blue staining most common);
- Inclusions of non-cleanfill allowable (refer Appendix F MfE Cleanfill
Guidelines) deleterious materials (i.e. plastic, rubber, metal);
- Asbestos containing materials (ACM).
p Groundwater with an oil sheen, odour or discolouration is encountered;
q If soil is to be disposed offsite, additional soil samples may need to be
collected and tested. Refer to Section 8.5 and 8.10;
Within one Provide contaminated r Details of any complaints relating to odour or dust made during the
month of land-related information works;
completion of the to the Project Manager
s Details of unexpected encounters/events and the action taken;
relevant works
t Details of visits made by Council representatives;
u Summary of weighbridge information for disposal verification;
v Complete works verification form.
/641 521465 (#%+.+6; 6#+9#0)# 4+#
%4+56%74%
57
%1
57 %1
.%,8 %
064
%#4064#%61
10
2#4 4

#4# #%614
.%,8 1((+%5
%#4 2#547.6#06
521465 %1746
&4; #4
7 #4#
211. #..
96 #4
#4#
.#;&190 561
)#61
4#)
75
5+6 064; 9+6
64#((+% %10641.
5+6 56#.+5/06 /#4%

/641 521465 (#%+.+6; 6#+9#0)# 4+#
%4+56%74%
57
%1
57 %1
.%,8 %
064
%#4064#%61
10
2#4 4

#4# #%614
.%,8 1((+%5
%#4 2#547.6#06
%1//70+6; %1746 (42 (170&#6+105 56 2+. &+8+0) 211. 7 #4# (170&#6+105 56 2+. &2 5%6+105 +0
(14 5647%674 %1//0%& :%#8#6 %1//0%& .+574 211. +( 437+4&
#4#
.#;&190 561
)#61
4#)
75
&+4%6+10 1( 5610 %1.7/05 &+4%6+10 1( 5610 %1.7/05
+056#..#6+10 %1/26+6+10 211. +056#..#6+10 .+574 211.
)4170& +/2418/06 526/4

/641 521465 (#%+.+6; 6#+9#0)# 4+#
%4+56%74%
57
%1
57 %1
519 %1746 5%6+10
.%,8 %
064
5647%674#. 56. %1//0%&
%#4064#%61
10
2#4 4

#4# #%614
.%,8 1((+%5
%#4 2#547.6#06
521465 %1746 411(
5647%674 %1//0%&
#4#
.#;&190 561
)#61
4#)
75
211. #.. 411( 211. #.. 24+/#4; 5647%674
5647%674 241)455+0) 0#4+0) %1/2.6+10
56. 5647%674 241)455+0) (47#4;

/641 521465 (#%+.+6; 6#+9#0)# 4+#
%4+56%74%
57
%1
57 %1
%1//70+6; %17465 411( 411( 5647%674 61 52%6#614
.%,8 %
064
5647%674 %1/2.6 %17465 %1//0%&
%#4064#%61
10
2#4 4

#4# #%614
.%,8 1((+%5
%#4 2#547.6#06
#4#
.#;&190 561
)#61
4#)
75
211. #.. (42 .8. 211. #.. 411( ;&41 5.+& 5647%674
5.# 70&49#; 5647%674 %1/2.6 (170&#6+10 +056#..&
24+/#4; 5647%674 0#4+0) %1/2.6+10 #24+.

7+.&+0) 08.12 %1//0%&
/641 521465 (#%+.+6; 6#+9#0)# 4+#
%4+56%74%
57
%1
57 %1
7 #4# 521465 %1746 (4#/+0)
.%,8 %
064
08.12 %1/2.6 %.#&&+0) %1/2.6
%#4064#%61
10
2#4 4

#4# #%614
.%,8 1((+%5
%#4 2#547.6#06
#4#
.#;&190 561
)#61
4#)
75
%1/26+6+10 211. .+574 211. ;&41 5.+&
+056#..#6+10 %1/2.6 +056#..#6+10 %1/2.6 5647%674 %1//0%&
%1/26+6+10 .+574 211.5 %1/2.6 #7)756

%.#&&+0) 0#4+0) %1/2.6+10
/641 521465 (#%+.+6; 6#+9#0)# 4+#
%4+56%74%
57
%1
57 %1
521465 %1746 08.12 7 #4#
.%,8 %
064
%1/2.6 %1/2.6
%#4064#%61
10
2#4 4

#4# #%614
.%,8 1((+%5
%#4 2#547.6#06
#4#
.#;&190 561
)#61
4#)
75
211. #.. 08.12 ;&41 5.+&
%1/2.6 +056#..#6+10 %1/2.6
08.12 %1/2.6 018/4

548+%5 (+0+55 +0 241)455
/641 521465 (#%+.+6; 6#+9#0)# 4+#
.%,8 1((+%5
,7.;
.%,8 %
10
%#4 2#547.6#06

57 %1 .#;&190 561
064
#4# #%614 4#)
#4#
57
%1
%#4064#%61
2#4 4
)#61
75
+052%6+105
%1//+55+10+0)
%4+56%74%
/641 521465 (#%+.+6; 6#+9#0)# 4+#
%4+56%74%
27.+% 120+0) &%/4

/641 521465 (#%+.+6; 6#+9#0)# 4+#
%4+56%74%
27.+% 120+0) &%/4

Wignall, Luke
From: Melanie Foote <melanie@rmgroup.co.nz>

Sent: Thursday, 17 August 2017 10:54 a.m.
To: Wignall, Luke
Subject: RE: RMA/2017/1573 - Request for further information (Metro Sports Facility)
Attachments: Landscape Site Plan.pdf; 250518-0000-DRG-CI-0-10-21B.pdf; 250518-R01-AC-
R00.6 MetroSport Construction Noise and Vibration Manage.._.pdf
Hi Luke
We are pleased to provide our response to the balance of the rfi matters. Sorry for the delay in the response the
contractor has been a bit slow.
1. Attached is the landscaping plan and finished site contours plan.
2. By virtue of the design, machinery and installation methods associated with both the stone column ground
remediation system and also vibro-compaction of hardfill on the MSF Project, vibration will be caused in
order to achieve soil compaction. The attached management plan outlines how the contractor will comply
with DIN 4150 1999 02 Effects of vibration on structures as per the attached Aurecon Construction Noise
and Vibration Management Plan (CNVMP) prepared specifically for Leighs Cockram for the MSF Project.
I trust this information satisfies the RFI request. If you have any further questions or require any further information
please come back to me asap.
Regards
Melanie
Melanie Foote
Consultant Planner
Resource Management Group
Level 4, 69 Cambridge Terrace
PO Box 908
Christchurch Box Lobby
Christchurch 8140
P 03 943 4112
M 021 959 295
D 03 962 1738
E melanie@rmgroup.co.nz
Please note I work 8.30 to 2.30 Monday to Friday
Disclaimer: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or
entity to which they are addressed. You must not present this message to another party without gaining permission from
the sender. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender immediately. Any views expressed in this
message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Resource
Management Group Ltd. Finally, the recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses.
Resource Management Group Ltd accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email.
Before printing think about your responsibility and commitment to the environment. Print double-sided and two pages per
sheet whenever possible
1
File Ref: C15129_MSF_Landscape_for_Outline_Plan.indd
ST ASAPH STREET
(AAC ENTRANCE DESIGN TBC) +15.4
SUBSTATION SIGN CYCLES

AGE +15.4
H STONE
1:20 URE TOUC +15.4
+15.4
WATE R FEAT
CYCL 1:20
ES
1:20
www.boffamiskell.co.nz 1:20
NG
FEN NORTHERN CIVIC S EATI
CYCLES
CE PU BLIC
SECURE O
UTDOOR SPACE CYCLES
AREA
METRO SPORTS FACILITY

CHILDCARE
FENCE
LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN OUTDOOR LEISURE
CANOPY
FOR OUTLINE PLAN SECURE OUTDOOR AREA
OLS
CAFE CAFE +17.7
ACCESSIBLE
+17.7
Date: 25th January 2017
DROP OFF
Plan prepared for Warren and Mahoney Architects
by Boffa Miskell Limited
Project Manager: nik.kneale@boffamiskell.co.nz
This plan has been prepared by Boffa Miskell Limited on the SHOW COURT LEISURE POOL
specific instructions of our Client. It is solely for our Clients use
+17.7
DROP OFF
NORTHWESTERN +17.7
in accordance with the agreed scope of work. Any use or reliance
by a third party is at that partys own risk. Where information CAR PARK
has been supplied by the Client or obtained from other external
sources, it has been assumed that it is accurate. No liability
or responsibility is accepted by Boffa Miskell Limited for any
errors or omissions to the extent that they arise from inaccurate
METRO SPORTS FACILITY
information provided by the Client or any external source.
DROP OFF
0 15m DN
+15.4
1:500 @ A1
+17.7 +17.7
WESTERN CIVIC SPACE

PRIORITY CAR PARKS
ACCESSIBLE
DROP OFF
DROP OFF
DRY BAR SOCIAL WET BAR

LEGEND HUB
SITE BOUNDARY
PLANTING
ANTIGUA STR
(INDICATIVE)
GRASS +16.7 +16.7 COMPETITION POOL
STONE PAVING
CONCRETE SHARED SPACE
EE
CONCRETE FOOTPATH
T
ASPHALT
SOFTFALL/SPORT SURFACE
FURNITURE
+17.7
WESTERN CAR
PARK
CANOPY
INTERNAL AVENUE
COMMUNITY COURTS
CYCLES
+16.7
SECURE SERVICE AREA +15.4
COACH
+16.2
SOUTHERN CIVIC SPCAE
ACCESSIBLE
SUBSTATION
SUBSTATION
DROP OFF
EASTERN
CANOPY
PRIORITY CAR PARK
WESTERN CAR PARK

(BROADCASTING AREA)
COVERED CYCLES
+16.0
SIGN
AGE
+15.4
COACH
INTERNAL AVENUE SOUTHERN SHARED SPACE
CYCLES CYCLES
RAINGARDEN
STEWART ST
INTERNAL AVENUE
SOUTH WESTERN SOUTH EASTERN

CAR PARK CAR PARK
FUTURE
ES
SOUTHERN
CL
DEVELOPMENT LOT
CY
RECREATION AREA
2500M2
E
SIGN N AG
AGE SIG
MOORHOUSE AVE
15.38
ST ASAPH STREET
15.55 15.67 15.47 15.76
15.60 15.71
1:54
1:85
1:45 1:120
00
RETAINING WALL A 1:50 16.
REFER TO DWG CI-0-14-21 FOR DETAILS
CH:0.00 15.78 15.85 15.85
LEGEND: 15.84 16.45
1:85
1:50
AREAS BEING DETAILED BY BOFFA MISKELL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS.
CH:10.00
15.95 16.03
16.12
PROPOSED RETAINING WALL
CH:20.00 16.18 16.56
0
16.5
MAJOR CONTOUR 16.26
DROP OFF
1:33
1:50 16.75
A 1:76
1:48
CH:30.00 1:59
11-21 16.75
16.67
MINOR CONTOUR
00
CH:40.00
16.57 16.74 17.
1:33
NOTE:
17.47 HIGH POINT
DROP OFF
CH:50.00 1:83
16.78
1. TIE-IN LEVELS AT ACCESS ROADS AND BOUNDARIES TO BE CONIRMED TO TIE INTO FUTURE CCC WORKS. 1:50 1:47
2. CONTOURS SHOWN IN AREAS BEING DETAILED BY BOFFA MISKELL FOR DETAILED LEVELS.
3. FOOTPATHS TO HAVE A 1:50 CROSSFALL UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE TO MEET ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS. 17.70
16.92
CH:60.00
16.69
17.15 17.47
DROP OFF
1:69 17.0
0
1:27
CH:70.00
1:127
1:58
CH:80.00 16.40 16.49 16.58 16.71
1:51 1:80 1:49
CH:90.00 METRO SPORTS FACILITY

B 16.44 16.81 BUILDING
11-21
DROP 1:187
1:247
PRIORITY
OFF
DROP OFF
CH:100.00 16.38
CH:110.00 16.33
1:51 16.19 1:77 16.38 16.34 1:43 16.62
ANTIGUA STREET
16.60 16.70
CH:120.00
1:320
1:314
CH:130.00 1:46 1:64 1:59
CH:140.00
16.13 16.34 16.22 16.47

1:40
CH:150.00
C
11-22
1:320
1:314
COACH
CH:160.00 1:37 1:46
16.08 16.33
16.20 16.47
CH:170.00
15.5
COACH
16.04 16.32 16.13
0
1:40 1:35
16.00
CH:180.00
16.15 16.00 16.18

1:15
COACH
1:103
CH:190.00
50 16.14 16
16. 16.43
.00
1:30 16.07
1:35 1:30
16.30 16.06 16.47
1:320
16.13
1:258
CH:200.00
COACH
1:140 16.02 15.98
16.
CH:208.89
16.20
16.22
50
1:27
COACH
1:104 1:94 16.18 .00
1:258
16.82 16.50 15.90 16
STEWART STREET
16.08
1:29
1:101
1:104
1:214 15.91 15.86
1:320
1:97
1:64 15.98 16.03

.00
16.56 16.39 15.97 16.28 15.93 16.10

16
1:55
1:104 1:93 1:93 15.79

16.79 16.47 16.34 15.80
1:53
16.00 15.92
1:50
1:50
15. 15.81 15.60

90 15.62
16.26 16.14 16.08 15.97 15.88 1:350
1:50
1:50
COACH COACH 15.64 15.51 15.50

15.73 15.75
1:59
16.05 15.93
1:50
16.22
1:63
16.18
1:50
1:50
1:50
1:50
1:131 1:148 1:148
16.24 16.28 16.41 1:429 15.53
1:50
1:50
1:50
1:429 1:429
16.18 16.34 16.09 15.79 15.70 15.66 15.63
1:50
1:50
1:50
1:50
1:50
1:50
1:200 1:200
16.40 16.28 16.16 16.06 16.06
1:27
HIGH POINT
1:36
1:50
1:76
1:50
16.45 1:50
14.68
16.47 16.46 15.97 15.97 16.22 16.22
1:50 1:50
1:49
1:49
1:50
1:50
16.47
16.06
16.43 16.17 16.08 16.18 16.18 16.08 16.17 16.16 15.96 15.90 15.96 15.96 15.90 15.96
16.30 16.30 16.30 16.03 16.03 16.06 16.06
1:50
1:50
1:49
1:49
1:193
D
Filename: P:\250518\CADD\DRGS\CIV\250518-0000-DRG-CI-0-10-21.DWG
16.47 16.47 16.23 16.23 16.26

11-22 1:50
1:50
1:50
1:49
1:49
1:50
DISCLAIMER 16.07 16.07 16.06

16.39 16.17 16.08 16.18 16.18 16.08 16.17 16.24 15.96 15.90 15.96 15.96 15.90 15.96
THIS DOCUMENT IS ISSUED AS DEVELOPED DESIGN ONLY AND IS NOT CREATED FOR TRADE 16.30 16.30 16.30 16.06 16.06
1:50
1:50
PACKAGE TENDER PURPOSES OR CONSTRUCTION. IT IS BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE

1:49
16.11
1:49
MSF CLIENT GROUP AND OTHER KEY STAKEHOLDERS WHICH MAY CONTAIN CONFLICTING DATA, 16.47
OMISSIONS AND ERRORS AND ON REFERENCE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS DATED 22ND 16.47 16.47 16.23 16.23 16.30
DECEMBER 2016. IN READING THIS DOCUMENT THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO ALL PROJECT 16.47
1:50
1:50
1:49
1:49
DESIGN FEATURES REPORTS, SPECIFICATIONS AND CROSS REFERENCE WITH ALL OTHER 16.15
ENGINEERING DISCIPLINE DOCUMENTATION AND THE PRINCIPALS PROJECT REQUIREMENTS. TO 16.06 16.06
1:193
COMPLETE THE DESIGN THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE REQUIRED TO WORK WITH THE CONSULTANT 16.17 16.08 16.18 16.18 16.08 16.17 15.96 15.90 15.96 15.96 15.90 15.96 16.32
16.30 16.30 16.30 16.06
TEAM, AUTHORITIES, STAKEHOLDERS AND CLIENT GROUPS THROUGH TO ISSUE FOR
1:50
1:50
1:49
CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTATION. DURING THE UPCOMING DESIGN PHASES, DESIGN

1:49
Office: NZCHC
DEVELOPMENT OF THE ENTIRE PROJECT WILL OCCUR, THE CONTRACTOR IS ADVISED TO MAKE AN 16.47 16.35
ASSESSMENT, BASED ON THEIR OWN EXPERIENCE OF PROJECTS OF THIS NATURE, OF RISKS 16.47 16.47 16.29 16.23 16.23
1:50
1:50
INCLUDING CHANGES TO SCOPE, DESIGN DEVELOPMENT, COMPLETION OF DETAILED DESIGN AND 16.32 16.16 16.36
1:50
16.19
1:50
16.50
1:80
COORDINATION AND MAKE ADEQUATE ALLOWANCES AND CONTINGENCIES FOR ITEMS IDENTIFIED IN
16.07
Plot Date: 31/1/2017 9:22:27 AM
'GAP ANALYSIS' DOCUMENTATION LOCATED IN THE DESIGN FEATURES REPORTS. 16.31 16.31 16.31 16.07 16.07
16.31 16.10
16.10
HIGH POINT
5 0
SCALE 1:500
10 20m
MOORHOUSE AVENUE
IN PARTNERSHIP WITH CLIENT REV DATE REVISION DETAILS APPROVED SCALE SIZE METRO SPORTS FACILITY - TAIWHANAGA REHIA
DEVELOPED DESIGN PROJECT
A 01/07/16 PRELIMINARY DESIGN ISSUE D ARMSTRONG 1:500 A0 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION BALFOUR TERRACE CHRISTCHURCH
B 31/01/17 DEVELOPED DESIGN ISSUE D ARMSTRONG
DRAWN APPROVED
R SIMPSON . DATE
DESIGNED 01/07/16
TITLE SITE CONTOUR PLAN
C MERCER
R DAVIES
CHECKED PROJECT No. WBS TYPE DISC NUMBER REV
DRAWING No.
R SMITH D ARMSTRONG 250518 0000 DRG CI 0-10-21 B
Metro Sport Early
Works
Construction Noise and Vibration
Management Plan
Leighs Cockram JV Ltd
250518
10 August 2017
Document control record
Document prepared by:
Aurecon New Zealand Limited
Level 2, Iwikau Building
93 Cambridge Terrace
Christchurch 8013
New Zealand
T +64 3 366 0821

F +64 3 379 6955
E christchurch@aurecongroup.com
W aurecongroup.com
A person using Aurecon documents or data accepts the risk of:

a) Using the documents or data in electronic form without requesting and checking them for accuracy against the original hard copy
version.
b) Using the documents or data for any purpose not agreed to in writing by Aurecon.
Document control
Report title Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan
Document ID Project number 250518
File path \\Nzaklpfs02\Admin\Admin\Building Sciences\Acoustics Updated\03 Projects\Metrosport CNVMP\03

CNVMP Development\250518-R01-AC-R1[1.0] MetroSport Construction Noise and Vibration
Management Plan.docx
Client Leighs Cockram JV Ltd
Client contact Client reference
Rev Date Revision details/status Author Reviewer Verifier Approver

(if required)
0 10 August 2017 Draft for Review Robin Pablo Alvaro

Wareing Romero Liberona
1 22 Aug. 17 Updated to include 34 Robin - -

Stewart St in tables Wareing
Current revision 1
Approval
Author signature Approver signature
Name Robin Wareing Name
Title Acoustic Engineer Title
Project 250518 File 250518-R01-AC-R1[1.0] MetroSport Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan.docx 10 August 2017 Revision 1
Contents
1 Introduction.................................................................. 1
1.1 Scope 1
1.2 Project overview 1
1.3 Site description 1
1.4 Key contacts 3
1.5 Ongoing Noise and Vibration Effects 4
2 Relevant noise and vibration criteria ........................ 5

2.1 Specification/Contract requirements 5
2.2 Relevant District Plan Rules 5
2.3 Relevant Standards and Guidelines 5
2.3.1 Noise ........................................................... 5
2.3.2 Vibration ...................................................... 6
2.4 Summary Project Criteria 7
3 Assessment of noise and vibration impacts ............ 9

3.1 Timeline 9
3.2 Equipment 9
3.3 Activities 10
3.4 Key receivers 10
3.5 Predicted noise and vibration levels 11
4 Risk Assessment ....................................................... 12

4.1 Noise and vibration risk levels 12
5 Management and mitigation ..................................... 13

5.1 Management strategies 13
5.3 Notification list 13
5.4 Complaints management 17
5.5 Reporting 17
5.6 General good practice 18
Affected Receivers ......................................................... 20
Predicted vibration levels .............................................. 25
Predicted noise levels .................................................... 33
Appendices
Appendix A
Affected Receivers
Distance to Work Site
Appendix B
Predicted vibration levels
General vibratory works
All rights reserved | The information/data furnished in our document is confidential

and competitive information proprietary to Aurecon or its subcontractors, the release
of which would harm the competitive position of Aurecon or its sub-
contractors/consultants. This information/data shall not be reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system, transmitted in any form or by any means, used or disclosed in whole
or in part, for any purpose other than to evaluate and adjudicate this document. If
Aurecon is shortlisted or a contract is awarded to Aurecon as a result of this
solicitation, or in connection with the submission of such information/data, the right
(and the extent thereof) to reproduce, store, transmit, use or disclose this
information/data must, by agreement, be included in such contract.
Stone column insertion
Appendix C
Predicted noise levels
Figures
Figure 1 Metro Sport site overview ............................... 2
Figure 2 Layout of Canterbury Health Laboratories ....... 3
Figure 3 Potentially affected receivers around Metro
Sport construction site ...................................................... 11
Tables
Table 1 Metro Sport Early Works Key contacts.......... 3
Table 2 Operational Noise limits in Updated
Christchurch District Plan ................................................... 5
Table 3 NZS6803-1999 Noise Guidelines for residential
receivers (values taken from Table 2 in NZS6803-1999)... 5
Table 4 NZS6803-1999 Noise Guidelines for
commercial receivers (copied from Table 3 in NZS6803-
1999) 6
Table 5 Vibration guidelines for short-term vibration on
structures (replicated from Table 1 from DIN4150-3: 1992-
02) 6
Table 6 Transient vibration guidelines for cosmetic
damage (replicated from Table B.2 from BS 5228-2:2009) 7
Table 7 Subjective evaluation of vibration (replicated
from Table B.1 from BS 5228-2:2009) ............................... 7
Table 8 Relevant noise criteria for Metro Sport Early
Works level at affected receivers .................................... 8
Table 9 Selected vibration criteria for Metro Sport Early
Works level at affected receiver ...................................... 8
Table 10 Indicative programme for Metro Sport Early
Works 9
Table 11 Equipment used in for noise assessment ......... 9
Table 12 Noise levels due to construction activities ...... 10
Table 13 Typical high risk activities used in construction
and demolition works ........................................................ 12
Table 14 Hierarchy of controls for Metro Sport early
works 13
Table 15 Notification list for high noise and vibration
activities 14
Table 16 Notification list for stone column insertion ...... 15
Table 17 Notification list for residential receivers to be
notified if any night or Sunday works are undertaken ...... 17
Table 18 Information reporting requirements ................ 17
Table 19 Noise and vibration receivers around Metro
Sport site 20
Table 20 Predicted vibration level for potentially affected
receivers around Metro Sport site .................................... 25
Table 21 Predicted vibration level for potentially affected
receivers around Metro Sport site .................................... 29
Table 22 Noise and vibration receivers around Metro
Sport site 33
1 Introduction
1.1 Scope
This Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (CNVMP) has been developed to assist Leighs
Cockram JV (LCJV) in managing the noise and vibration emissions from the Metro Sport Early Works. This
document contains the following:
An overview of the project;
An assessment of relevant noise and vibration criteria, District Plan Rules, and Consent Conditions;
Specification of guideline noise and vibration limits for the construction activities;
An assessment of the noise and vibration risks for different project stages;
Predicted noise and vibration levels at nearby receivers around the site;
Management, monitoring and mitigation methodologies for noise and vibration emissions;
Detailed noise and vibration emission maps for communication purposes.
A separate Site Specific Noise and Vibration Management Plan (SSNVMP) will be issued for the Canterbury
Health Laboratories Site, as this has been identified as a highly sensitive receiver.
1.2 Project overview

The Metro Sport early works involves considerable earth works and ground improvements to enable the
construction of the Metro Sports facility. The following activities were developed based on previous project
experience and the project programme supplied by LCJV on 4/8/2017:
Sheet piling;
Stone column installation;
Screw piling;
Bulk earthworks (excavation and fill);
Dynamic ground compaction;
Haulage of materials onto and off site;
Hydro-bore installation;
CPT testing.
The early works have commenced in late July/early August and are predicted to be completed by the end of
October (total duration of approximately 10 - 12 weeks). Throughout this period various ground improvement
and site establishment activities will be undertaken. Initially several sheet piles, screw piles, and stone
columns will be installed in two test areas.
1.3 Site description

The Metro Sport site is located south of the Christchurch CBD between the following roads:
St. Asaph Street to the north;
Antigua Street to the east;
Moorhouse Avenue to the south;
Stewart Street to the west;
An overview of the site is presented in Figure 1.
Project number 250518 File 250518-R01-AC-R1[1.0] MetroSport Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan.docx, 10 August 2017 Revision 1 1
Figure 1 Metro Sport site overview
To the south of the site Moorhouse Ave. is a significant noise source, with three lanes of busy traffic an
Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) count of approximately 35,000/day1. South of Moorhouse Ave. is
predominantly light industrial and commercial sites, the nearest of which are approximately 50 m from the
carpark site and approximately 200 m from the Metro Sport building footprint.
To the east of the site Antigua St. is a moderate noise source, with two lanes of traffic and an AADT count of
approximately 7,500/day1. On the eastern side of Antigua St. are predominantly commercial sites and the
Christchurch Central Police Station. The nearest buildings are approximately 20 m from the Metro Sport
building footprint.
To the north, St. Asaph St. is a moderate noise source, with two lanes of traffic (1-way) and an AADT count
of approximately 10,000/day1. The Canterbury Health Laboratories occupy much of the site to the north.
These laboratories house vibration sensitive equipment, and have been identified as a vibration sensitive
receiver. The Endolab is approximately 50 m from the building footprint and the Canterbury Health Lab is
approximately 80 m from the building footprint. The location of the Canterbury Health Laboratories is shown
in the following figure, a detailed assessment of this site will be presented in a supplementary Site Specific
Management Plan.
1 mobileroad.org
Figure 2 Layout of Canterbury Health Laboratories
To the west, Stewart St. is a quiet, urban, two lane road, with an AADT of approximately 1000/day2. This
area is a mixture of light commercial sites, Hagley Community College, and some residential properties. The
nearest commercial sites are approximately 40 m from the Metro Sport building footprint. Due to the lower
existing noise and vibration environment properties on the western side are likely to be more sensitive to
noise and vibration emissions from the Metro Sport site.
The primary haul route is entry and exit via Balfour Terrace onto Antigua St. There are no specified haul
routes on the Metro Sport site and heavy vehicles are free to move anywhere on the existing site.
1.4 Key contacts

The following table details the key contacts for the Metro Sport Early Works. Changes to personnel or
contact details should be updated as they occur.
Table 1 Metro Sport Early Works Key contacts
Contact Company Name Email Phone

Site manager LCJV Richard Gaines - -
Project manager LCJV Nathan Selwood - -
Contractors acoustic advisor Aurecon Robin Wareing robin.wareing@aurecongroup.com 027 7365899
2 mobileroad.org
1.5 Ongoing Noise and Vibration Effects
This document is focused on managing the noise and vibration effects from the Metro Sports early works.
Effective management of noise and vibration effects on adjacent properties will have ongoing impacts on the
longer-term project. As such it is important that the management methodology described in this document is
followed and good communication is established with all affected stakeholders. Good co-ordination between
phases will be important to ensure that noise and vibration emissions from the ongoing Metro Sport
construction works are adequately managed.
2 Relevant noise and vibration criteria
2.1 Specification/Contract requirements
There are no specific consent conditions related to noise and vibration activities for the Metro Sport early
works.
2.2 Relevant District Plan Rules

The site is located within the Central City in regards to the Updated Christchurch District Plan. The
operational noise limits in this space are given in Section 6.1.5.2.2 of the Christchurch District Plan, and are
reproduced in the table below:
Table 2 Operational Noise limits in Updated Christchurch District Plan
Time period Average Noise Limit, Peak Noise Limit,

dB LAeq dB LAmax
07:00 23:00 55 85
23:00 07:00 45 75
These limits do not apply to construction activities, but they provide guidance on the existing noise
environment. Based on observations of the existing environment the noise level is significantly higher than
the daytime operational limit specified in Table 2.
Construction activities are listed as Permitted Activities in relation to noise and vibration emissions (Section
6.1.6.1.1 of the Christchurch District Plan) should meet the noise limits presented in Tables 2 and 3 of NZS
6803:19993 (see Section 6.1.6.1.1 of the Christchurch District Plan). The criteria specified in NZS6803-1999
are described in the following section.
All construction activities should manage vibration emissions and should meet the vibration limits specified in
DIN 4150-3 (1999-02) 4. The criteria specified in DIN 4150:1999 are described in the following section.
2.3 Relevant Standards and Guidelines
2.3.1 Noise
NZS6803-1999 provides guidance on construction noise criteria at both commercial and residential
receivers. The noise criteria are dependent on the duration of the works and the corresponding duration of
exposure. These criteria are presented in Table 3 and Table 4. The typical duration criteria are appropriate
for the management of noise emissions from construction activities.
In addition, the British Standard BS 5228-1 provides useful guidance for evaluating and the management of
noise from a wide range of construction sites and will be referenced throughout this document. The levels
and methodology specified in NZS 6803-1999 are based on BS 5228-1.
Table 3 NZS6803-1999 Noise Guidelines for residential receivers (values taken from Table 2 in NZS6803-1999)
Time period Typical duration (more Short-term duration (up to Long-term duration (more
than 14 days but less than 14 days), dBA than 20 weeks), dBA
20 weeks)
dB LAeq dB LAFmax dB LAeq dB LAFmax dB LAeq dB LAFmax
Weekdays
0630-0730 60 75 65 75 55 75
0730-1800 75 90 80 95 70 85
1800-2000 70 85 75 90 65 80
3 NZS 6803-1999 Acoustics Construction noise

4 DIN5150-3 (1999-02) Vibration in buildings Part 3: Effects on Structures
Time period Typical duration (more Short-term duration (up to Long-term duration (more
than 14 days but less than 14 days), dBA than 20 weeks), dBA
20 weeks)
dB LAeq dB LAFmax dB LAeq dB LAFmax dB LAeq dB LAFmax
2000-0630 45 75 45 75 45 75
Saturdays
0630-0730 45 75 45 75 45 75
0730-1800 75 90 80 95 70 85
1800-2000 45 75 45 75 45 75
2000-0630 45 75 45 75 45 75
Sundays and Public Holidays
0630-0730 45 75 45 75 45 75
0730-1800 55 85 55 85 55 85
1800-2000 45 75 45 75 45 75
2000-0630 45 75 45 75 45 75
Table 4 NZS6803-1999 Noise Guidelines for commercial receivers (copied from Table 3 in NZS6803-1999)
Time period Short-term duration (up Typical duration (more Long-term duration
to 14 days), than 14 days but less (more than 20 weeks),
dB LAeq than 20 weeks), dB LAeq dB LAeq
0730-1800 75 80 70
1800-0730 80 85 75
2.3.2 Vibration
New Zealand does not have a standard that provides guidance on controlling vibration from construction
activities. The German standard DIN 4510:1999 is referenced in the Christchurch District Plan for the control
of vibration from earthworks activities. The British standard BS 5228-2:20095 is often used to provide
guidance on suitable vibration criteria for construction vibration levels received at buildings. Both these
standards utilise the measurement Peak Particle Velocity (PPV), which is the maximum absolute velocity for
the three horizontal and vertical direction.
DIN 4510:1999 specifies the following criteria for ground vibration levels measured or predicted at different
types of buildings. The maximum permissible vibration levels for various frequency ranges at the foundations
of a building are presented in Table 5
Table 5 Vibration guidelines for short-term vibration on structures (replicated from Table 1 from DIN4150-3:
1992-02)
Type of building Vibration level at the foundations in Peak Particle

Velocity, PPV (mm/s)
1 Hz to 10 Hz 10 Hz to 50 Hz 50 Hz to 100 Hz
Buildings used for commercial purposes, industrial
20 20 to 40 40 to 50
buildings, and buildings of similar design
Dwellings and buildings of similar design and/or
5 5 to 15 15 to 20
occupancy
Structures that, because of their particular sensitivity
to vibration, cannot be classified under lines 1 and 2
3 3 to 8 8 to 10
and are of great intrinsic value (e.g. listed buildings
under preservation order)
5 BNS5228-2:2009 Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites. Vibration.
BS 5228-2:2009 specifies alternative criteria for assessing the impact of ground vibration on structures. The
criteria provided in this standard are presented in Table 6. The effect of these vibration levels on the
occupants of the buildings is presented in Table 7
Table 6 Transient vibration guidelines for cosmetic damage (replicated from Table B.2 from BS 5228-2:2009)
Type of building Vibration level at the foundations

in Peak Particle Velocity, PPV
4 Hz to 15 Hz 15 Hz and above
Reinforced or framed structures 50 mm/s at 4 Hz 50 mm/s at 4 Hz
Industrial and heavy commercial and above and above
buildings
Unreinforced or light framed 15 mm/s at 4 Hz 20 mm/s at 4 Hz
structures increasing to 20 increasing to 50
Residential or light commercial mm/s at 15 Hz mm/s at 15 Hz
buildings
Table 7 Subjective evaluation of vibration (replicated from Table B.1 from BS 5228-2:2009)
Vibration level Effect

(component ppv)
0.14 mm/s Vibration might be just perceptible in the most sensitive situations for vibration
frequencies associated with construction and maintenance. At lower frequencies,
people are less sensitive to vibration.
0.3 mm/s Vibration might just be perceptible in residential environments.
1.0 mm/s It is likely that vibration of this level in residential environments will cause complaint,
but can be tolerated if prior warning and explanation has been given to residents.
10.0 mm/s Vibration is likely to be intolerable for any more than a very brief exposure to this
level.
In addition to these standards, the NZTA provides guidance on construction noise and vibration in the State
highway construction and maintenance noise and vibration guide6. Whilst this guide is directed at road
construction, it addresses many common causes of construction noise and vibration. This guideline
replicates the levels presented in Table 7.
In our experience the low frequency DIN4150 criteria (Table 6) criteria are suitable for evaluating the impact
of ground vibration on structures, and the BS5228-2 subjective criteria (Table 6) are suitable for evaluating
the impact of vibration on the occupants of buildings. These criteria should be applied to all construction
activities, and should be utilised to inform neighbouring properties of the potential vibration impacts of these
works.
2.4 Summary Project Criteria

The Metro Sport Early Works will manage noise emissions to avoid exceeding the noise limits specified in
Table 8 and the vibration criteria specified in Table 9 as far as is practical. If exceedances are expected
affected receivers will be notified following the advice presented in this document. It is suggested that
commercial properties exposed to greater than 75 dB LAeq and residential properties exposed to greater than
70 dB LAeq of construction noise are notified, as this is effective at mitigating adverse noise impacts.
The vibration limits specified in Table 9 are based on the DIN4150, BS5228-2, and previous experience. The
notification limit of 1 mm/s ppv has been found to be effective at mitigating adverse community effects.
6 State highway construction and maintenance noise and vibration guide NZTA, August 2013, Version 1.0
The duration of the early works is approximately 10 weeks, as such the relevant NZS 6803:1999 noise limits
are the Typical Duration criteria. The anticipated project duration is based on the project programme
supplied by LCJV on 4/8/2017.
Table 8 Relevant noise criteria for Metro Sport Early Works level at affected receivers
Time period Residential receivers Commercial receivers

dB LAeq dB LAFmax dB LAeq
Weekdays
0630-0730 60 75 85
0730-1800 75 90 80
1800-2000 70 85 85
2000-0630 45 75 85
Saturdays
0630-0730 45 75 85
0730-1800 75 90 80
1800-2000 45 75 85
2000-0630 45 75 85
Sundays and Public Holidays
0630-0730 45 75 85
0730-1800 55 85 80
1800-2000 45 75 85
2000-0630 45 75 85
Table 9 Selected vibration criteria for Metro Sport Early Works level at affected receiver
Vibration level Description

(component ppv)
0.5 mm/s (all Vibration perception level.
frequencies)
1.0 mm/s (all Annoyance criteria prolonged exposure to levels above this limit are likely to cause
frequencies) annoyance. All receivers that are exposed to levels above this should be notified prior
to undertaking vibratory works.
5.0 mm/s (all Criteria for precondition surveys of properties, notification of affected receivers, and
frequencies) installation of monitoring equipment within affected buildings
10.0 mm/s (all Vibration limit that should not exceeded at affected receivers. Vibration is likely to be
frequencies) intolerable for any more than a very brief exposure to this level. Vibration at or above
this level is likely to result in cosmetic damage, and may cause structural damage.
3 Assessment of noise and vibration impacts
3.1 Timeline
Currently the following schedules apply to the main activities, this schedule will be updated as the project
progresses. The duration of each activity is based on the project programme supplied by LCJV on 4/8/2017.
Table 10 Indicative programme for Metro Sport Early Works
Activity Approximate start date Approximate duration

Ground water extraction testing Mid-June 2017 Two months
Testing (sheet piles. stone columns, Early-July 2017 Two weeks
screw piles)
Hydro-bores Mid-July 2017 Three months
CPT testing Mid-July 2017 One month
Sheet pile insertion Mid-July 2017 One week
Stone column trials Late-July 2017 One month
Screw pile trials Mid-August 2017 One month
Sheet pile removal Late-August 2017 One week
3.2 Equipment
The equipment listed in Table 11 have been produced based on our current understanding of the activities
on site. Currently the number of pieces of equipment and the duty cycle of this equipment has been
assumed based on similar project experience. The noise levels have been taken from BS 5228-1 and NZS
6803:1999. If noise measurements are performed as part of the ongoing management works this table will
be updated accordingly.
Table 11 Equipment used in for noise assessment
Equipment Number Operational duty Sound Pressure Reference

on site cycle Level at 10m,
dB LAeq
Excavator (16 tonne) 4 Continuous (100%) 76 BS5228-1 C.2.5
Dump truck (23 tonne) 5 Frequent (75%) 78 BS 5228-1 C.4.2
Sheet pile rig 1 Irregular (50%) 88 BS5228-1 C.3.8
Screw pile rig 1 Irregular (50%) 83 BS 5228-1 C.3.14
Stone column rig 1 Frequent (75%) 80 BS 5228-1 C.3
Mobile generator 1 Frequent (75%) 73 BS 5228-1 C.3.32
Vibratory roller (12 tonne) 1 Intermittent (25%) 84 BS 5228-1 C.5.24
Truck with hiab 1 Intermittent (25%) 77 BS 5228-1 C.4.53
Tracked mobile crane (55 1 Intermittent (25%) 70 BS 5228-1 C.3.29
tonne)
Portable hand held 1 Intermittent (25%) 73 BS 5228-1 C.3.31
welder
Concrete pump and 1 Intermittent (25%) 75 BS 5228-1 C.4.28
mixer truck
Water pump (diesel) 1 Intermittent (25%) 68 BS 5228-1 C.4.88
Hydro-bore rig 1 Frequent (75%) 75 Estimate (Drilling rigs)
Equipment Number Operational duty Sound Pressure Reference
on site cycle Level at 10m,
dB LAeq
CPT rig 1 Intermittent (25%) 73 Estimate
(generator/hydraulic
pump)
3.3 Activities
The cumulative noise levels from each individual activity have been assessed using the methodology
specified in BS 5228-1. The noise levels at 10 m from these activities are presented in Table 12.
Table 12 Noise levels due to construction activities
Activity Equipment used Number Duty Sound Pressure

used cycle Level at 10m,
dB LAeq
Stone column Stone column rig 1 75%
installation
Excavator 1 75% 82
Dump truck 2 50%
Sheet pile Sheet pile rig 1 75%
installation
Truck with hiab 1 50%
87
Mobile generator 1 50%
Portable welder 1 50%
Screw pile Sheet pile rig 1 75%
installation
Truck with hiab 1 50%
83
Mobile generator 1 50%
Portable welder 1 50%
General Excavator 2 100%
earthworks 81
Haulage Trucks 4 50%
Dynamic Dynamic Compaction 1 100%
84
compaction Roller
Ground water Truck with hiab 1 50%
flow testing 78
Water pump 1 100%
Hydro-bores Truck with hiab 1 50%
78
Hydro-bore rig 1 100%
CPT testing Truck with hiab 1 50%
77
CPT rig 1 100%
3.4 Key receivers

Receivers within 200 m of the construction site were identified using the geospatial mapping software.
Experience on similar projects has shown that this is a suitable distance for managing the noise and
vibration emissions from this type of activity. These receivers are shown in Figure 3. The address of each
receiver and the distance to the construction areas are presented in Appendix A.
Figure 3 Potentially affected receivers around Metro Sport construction site
3.5 Predicted noise and vibration levels

Noise levels have been predicted using the methodology described in BS 5228-1:1999, this method does
not include a correction for screening from buildings. As such this is a conservative estimate for receivers
that are shielded by any structures. The predicted noise levels at the potentially affected receivers are
presented for each receiver in Appendix B.
The vibration levels at all the potentially affected receivers have been predicted using the methodology
described in BS 5228-2. The predicted levels apply to the nearest edge of the affected structure. The
predicted vibration levels at the potentially affected receivers are presented in Appendix C.
As the location, duration and extent of all activities develop the predicted noise and vibration levels will be
updated appropriately. The current predicted levels should be viewed as a worst case scenario and actual
onsite construction noise levels are likely to be lower than this.
4 Risk Assessment
4.1 Noise and vibration risk levels
The noise and vibration risks of the activities proposed for the Metro Sport early works have been assessed,
and are presented in Table 13. High risk activities have a significant chance of causing adverse effects on
adjacent receivers and resulting in annoyance or complaints. The vibration risk is based on predicted
emissions and previous project experience with similar equipment. The noise risk due to various site
activities categorised as follows:
Low Less than 80 dBA at 10m
Medium 80 dBA to 85 dBA at 10m
High Greater than 85 dBA at 10m
Where practical the noise emissions from these works should be managed using the strategies presented in
Section 5.
Table 13 Typical high risk activities used in construction and demolition works
Activity Typical Noise Noise Risk Rating Vibration Comments

Level at 10m, Risk Rating
LAeq
Stone column 82 dBA Medium High Characterised by long duration
installation vibration and noise levels
Sheet piling 87 dBA High High Characterised by long
duration, severe vibration and
high noise levels
Screw piling 83 dBA Medium Medium Characterised by long duration
vibration, and moderate to low
noise levels
General earthworks 81 dBA Medium Low Characterised by localised
vibration and moderate noise
emissions
Dynamic compaction 84 dBA Medium High Characterised by long duration
vibration which often peaks on
start-up and shut-down
Ground water flow 78 dBA Low Low No significant vibration
testing emissions
Hydro-bores 78 dBA Low Low No significant vibration
emissions
CPT testing 77 dBA Low Low No significant vibration
emissions
5 Management and mitigation
5.1 Management strategies
Noise and vibration effects should be managed using a standard hierarchy of controls as described in Table
14. Due to the project schedule and the activities being undertaken on site the most practical control strategy
is likely to be notification of affected receivers.
Table 14 Hierarchy of controls for Metro Sport early works
Ranking Control Description

1 Scheduling Schedule activities which are likely to cause disruption, outside of
sensitive times this may include moving high noise or vibration
activities to the night period due to the commercial nature of the
affected receivers
2 Alternative methodologies Utilise alternative equipment or processes that result in lower
noise levels due to the type of activities being undertaken it is
unlikely this will be practical
3 Mitigation at source Enclosures, portable screens and/or mufflers are effective
solutions for mitigating the noise impacts of stationary or isolated
works.
4 Notification of affected Notification of noise and vibration impacts on the identified
receivers affected receivers is effective at mitigating most adverse impacts.
This notification should be undertaken following the list provided
in Section 5.3
5 Alteration to Rescheduling or moving sensitive receivers this is typically
residents/commercial expensive, especially in commercial settings.
activities
6 Mitigation at receiver Installation of physical mitigation at receiver (e.g. new glazing)

On-site vibration logging should be implemented with all high-risk vibration activities. The vibration monitor
should be installed on the boundary of the Metro Sport site, as close as practical to the vibratory activities.
This will effectively monitor the vibration levels at the nearest receiver. The measured levels should be
compared to the predicted levels to ensure the predictions are appropriate.
Noise monitoring is not suggested on the site due to the high background noise level from nearby industrial
sites and busy roads. If any high noise risk activities are to be undertaken at night this requirement should
be reassessed.
Noise and/or vibration monitoring should be implemented in response to any complaints received. The
details of this monitoring should be developed on receipt of the complaint. This monitoring may require the
installation of additional equipment, or may be sufficiently managed by the ongoing vibration monitoring.
5.3 Notification list

The list of properties listed in Table 15 should be notified prior to undertaking any of the named activities.
Dynamic compaction has not been included in this assessment as it is unclear where or if this work will be
undertaken on site. The notification list for noise effects has not included general earthworks as the location
of major earthworks activities has not been confirmed, on confirmation this list will be updated.
If dynamic compaction is required on site this may have significant vibration effects and this will require a
more detailed assessment. A separate notification list will be prepared if dynamic compaction is to be
undertaken.
A notification letter is appropriate and should include the following information:
Details of a contact person on site;
Details of complaints procedure;
Works that will be undertaken that may cause disturbance;
Likely duration and times of day when high noise and/or vibration activities will be undertaken;
Predicted noise and/or vibration impacts;
Updates to duration and times of day if activities are delayed or prolonged.
Table 15 Notification list for high noise and vibration activities
Address High vibration activities High noise activities

(excluding stone
columns)
210 Antigua Street Yes Yes
11 - 20 /212 Antigua Street Yes Yes
1 - 12 / 212 Antigua Street Yes Yes
3 Balfour Terrace Yes No
24 St. Asaph Street Yes No
52 Stewart Street Yes No
200 Antigua Street Yes No
1 & 2 / 40 Stewart Street Yes No
10 Halkett Street Yes No
18 St Asaph Street Yes No
1 Balfour Terrace Yes No
The receivers identified in the following table should be notified if stone column activities are undertaken
within the noted areas. Due to the extent of the notification list for site wide stone columns it is advised that
this is updated when the location of all stone column activities are confirmed.
Table 16 Notification list for stone column insertion
Address Stone columns Stone columns

limited to test anywhere within
sites only the building
footprint
3 Balfour Terrace Yes Yes
52 Stewart Street Yes Yes
24 St. Asaph Street Yes Yes
1 & 2 / 40 Stewart Street Yes Yes
1 Balfour Terrace Yes Yes
22 Waller Terrace Yes Yes
157 Moorhouse Avenue Yes Yes
10 Halkett Street Yes Yes
17 St. David Street Yes Yes
510 Hagley Ave Yes Yes
19 St. David Street Yes Yes
12 Acton Street Yes Yes
171 Moorhouse Avenue Yes Yes
177 Montreal Street Yes Yes
183 Montreal Street Yes Yes
85 Moorhouse Avenue No Yes
Address Stone columns Stone columns
limited to test anywhere within
sites only the building
footprint
235 Antigua Street No Yes
16 Waller Terrace No Yes
19 St. Asaph Street No Yes
550 Hagley Avenue No Yes
16 Tuam Street No Yes
199 Hazeldean Road No Yes
1 12 / 41 Waller Terrace No Yes
All residential receivers should receive notification of any proposed night or Sunday works. The following
table provided a list of the identified residential receivers. Where possible night and Sunday works should be
avoided. If night or Sunday works are required they should meet the relevant district plan noise criteria; the
residential criteria should not be exceeded at night or on Sunday.
Table 17 Notification list for residential receivers to be notified if any night or Sunday works are undertaken
Address
34 Stewart St
33 Waller Terrace
35 Waller Terrace
1 12 / 41 Waller Terrace
8/488 Selwyn Street
7/488 Selwyn Street
3/492 Selwyn Street
2/492 Selwyn Street
2/492 Selwyn Street
6/488 Selwyn Street
5.4 Complaints management

The following procedure should be followed for all noise and vibration complaints:
All noise and vibration complaints should be immediately directed to the LCJV site manager;
As soon as the complaint is received it will be recorded either on the project complaints register;
An initial response will be made and recorded. Depending on the nature of the complaint the initial
response could be to immediately cease the activity pending investigation, or to replace an item of
equipment. However, in some cases it might not be practicable to provide immediate relief. The
complainant and (and the city council if involved in the complaint) will be informed of actions taken;
Noise and/or vibration monitoring will be implemented as soon as practical following the receipt of any
complaints;
Where the initial response does not address the complaint, further investigation, corrective action and
follow-up monitoring shall be undertaken as appropriate. The complainant (and the city council if involved
in the complaint) will be informed of actions taken;
All actions will be recorded on the project complaints register or project web page and the complaint will
then be closed.
5.5 Reporting
The following information will be compiled by the project acoustic engineer, within the time frames identified
in Table 18.
Table 18 Information reporting requirements
Information Timeframe
Noise/vibration Within one week of monitoring
survey reports
Noise/vibration Within 48 hours
complaint initial
report
Noise/vibration Within one week of closing complaint
complaint report
Updated CNVMP Within one week of significant changes
and SSEMP in project methodology
The initial response to any complaints should consist of acknowledgement of the complaint, and the
immediate actions that will be taken (e.g. monitoring, scheduling). This response should be documented in
complaints register.
The complaint report will assess the cause of the complaint, present monitoring results, and provide
information on the remedial action to be taken to prevent ongoing complaints.
5.6 General good practice

The following good practice guidelines should be followed for all construction/demolition works on the
worksite:
No amplified music or use of radios;
Locate skip bins away from noise sensitive receivers. Materials shall be lowered into bins and not
dropped /thrown from height;
Place stationary equipment (generators, pumps etc.) as practicable far from sensitive receivers;
Do not leave vehicles idling unnecessarily;
Only use designated access routes;
Place materials into trucks (avoid dropping materials from a height);
Ensure equipment is well maintained and serviced;
Avoid dropping tools and equipment;
Avoid dragging materials along the ground;
Avoid shouting across site;
When arriving at work drive slowly and carefully;
Do not slam doors.
Affected
Receivers
Appendix A
Affected Receivers
Distance to Work Site
The following table provides all receivers within 200 m of the Metro Sport construction site. The distance
between each receiver and the construction site, and the building footprint are also provided. These
distances are measured using GIS mapping software and are based on the nearest edge of the building.
Table 19 Noise and vibration receivers around Metro Sport site
Distance to
Building Distance to
Address Type Description Footprint Overall Site
1 - 12 / 212 Antigua Street Commercial - 26 m 29 m
1 12 / 41 Waller Terrace Residential - 140 m 251 m
1 & 2 / 40 Stewart Street Commercial Don Beaven Medical 13 m 55 m
Research Centre
1 Balfour Terrace Commercial Melray Electric 33 m 75 m
10 Halkett Street Commercial - 59 m 61 m
10 Waller Terrace Commercial The Auto Shop 40 m 163 m
100 Moorhouse Avenue Commercial Sugarhorse Bar & Eatery 61 m 202 m
104 Moorhouse Avenue Commercial Meridian 44 m 172 m
11 - 20 /212 Antigua Street Commercial - 25 m 24 m
11 Waller Terrace Commercial - 135 m 250 m
12 Acton Street Commercial - 88 m 92 m
122 Hazeldean Road Commercial - 203 m 358 m
128 Moorhouse Avenue Commercial Brownies Mattress 37 m 149 m
130 Moorhouse Avenue Commercial Vast Christchurch 60 m 169 m
132 Moorhouse Avenue Commercial - 58 m 165 m
137 Antigua Street Commercial - 185 m 298 m
14 Waller Terrace Commercial Hagley Motors 39 m 158 m
15 Stewart Street Commercial Paul Kelly Motor 22 m 137 m
Company
157 Moorhouse Avenue Commercial Chevron Motors 50 m 122 m
Distance to
16 St. Asaph Street Commercial - 35 m 75 m
16 Tuam Street Commercial - 89 m 115 m
17 St. David Street Commercial - 71 m 97 m
175 Montreal Street Commercial - 189 m 189 m
19 St. Asaph Street Commercail - 43 m 87 m
19 St. David Street Commercial - 73 m 87 m
19 Stewart Street Commercial Unicool Automotive 24 m 136 m
Airconditioning
198 Antigua Street Commercial TCS 30 m 69 m
2/492 Selwyn Street Residential - 198 m 311 m
200 Antigua Street Commercial Skylab 31 m 47 m
208 Antigua Street Commercial Electrolux 22 m 24 m
21 St. Asaph Street Commercial EndoLab 28 m 51 m
210 Antigua Street Commercial Seatbelt sales 22 m 22 m
22 Waller Terrace Commercial Campervan Hire 39 m 154 m
230 Antigua Street Commercial CAnterbury Medical 26 m 31 m
Research Foundation
Distance to
24 St. Asaph Street Commercial - 4m 44 m
27 Waller Terrace Commercial Holyoake Air 82 m 196 m
Management Solutions
3 Balfour Terrace Commercial - 1m 43 m
30 Stewart Street Commercial - 26 m 94 m
31 Waller Terrace Commercial MecServe 109 m 224 m
33 St. Asaph Street Commercial CDHB Emergency 29 m 51 m
Operations Centre
33 Waller Terrace Residential - 116 m 230 m
34 Stewart Street Residential - 53 m 94 m
35 Waller Terrace Residential - 129 m 241 m
38 Stewart Street Commercial Melray Electric 44 m 93 m
4 Acton Street Commercial - 187 m 189 m
42 Stewart Street Commercial Child and Family Safety 4m 46 m
Services
46 Braddon Street Commercial - 202 m 311 m
510 Hagley Ave Education Hagley Collge 73 m 110 m
52 Stewart Street Commercial Auto Restorations Ltd 3m 44 m
52 Stewart Street Commercial Auto Restorations Ltd 5m 46 m
550 Hagley Avenue Commercial Canterbury Health Labs 61 m 84 m
61 Moorhouse Avenue Commercial Bridgestone Select 185 m 304 m
64 Stewart Street Commercial Auto Restorations 25 m 66 m
Limited
66 Stewart Street Commercial NZ Brain Research 24 m 64 m
Institute
68 St. Asaph Street Commercial Christchurch Central 56 m 63 m
Police Station
69 St. Asaph Street Commercial Betamorphis Lt 94 m 114 m
73 Moorhouse Avenue Commercial Zip Plumbing Plus 86 m 206 m
76 Moorhouse Avenue Commercial Luciano Espresso 121 m 278 m
Bar/Lighting Direct
81 Moorhouse Avenue Commercial Fast Autoglass 82 m 210 m
85 Moorhouse Avenue Public Majestic Church 33 m 166 m
Distance to
Predicted
vibration levels
Appendix B
Predicted vibration levels
General vibratory works
The following table presents the predicted vibration level at the identified potentially affected receivers
around the Metro Sport site. These levels were calculated using the standard methodology specified in
BS5228-2. The vibration emissions from the following activities were based on the assumption these
activities would only occur within the building footprint:
Stone column installation;
Sheet pile installation.
The vibration emissions from dynamic compaction are based on the assumption that this activity could occur
anywhere on the Metro Sport site.
Numbers highlighted in red are above the 1 mm/s notification level.
Table 20 Predicted vibration level for potentially affected receivers around Metro Sport site
Predicted vibration Level, ppv mm/s

Address Sheet pile installation Screw pile installation Dynamic compaction
210 Antigua Street 4.7 4.7 8.9
11 - 20 /212 Antigua Street 4.2 4.2 7.5
1 - 12 / 212 Antigua Street 3.3 3.3 7.5
3 Balfour Terrace 2.0 2.0 108.2
24 St. Asaph Street 1.9 1.9 53.8
52 Stewart Street 1.9 1.9 67.1
1 & 2 / 40 Stewart Street 1.5 1.5 16.1
10 Halkett Street 1.3 1.3 2.7
1 Balfour Terrace 1.0 1.0 5.4
550 Hagley Avenue 0.8 0.8 2.6
19 St. David Street 0.8 0.8 2.1
12 Acton Street 0.7 0.7 1.6
17 St. David Street 0.7 0.7 2.1
510 Hagley Ave 0.6 0.6 2.1
16 Tuam Street 0.6 0.6 1.6
157 Moorhouse Avenue 0.5 0.5 3.3
177 Montreal Street 0.5 0.5 1.0
40 Tuam Street 0.4 0.4 1.1
22 Waller Terrace 0.4 0.4 4.4
4 Acton Street 0.3 0.3 0.6
48 Tuam Street 0.3 0.3 0.7
68 Tuam Street 0.3 0.3 0.6
199 Hazeldean Road 0.2 0.2 1.2
1 12 / 41 Waller Terrace 0.2 0.2 0.9
8/488 Selwyn Street 0.2 0.2 0.7
48 Braddon Street 0.2 0.2 0.6
7/488 Selwyn Street 0.2 0.2 0.6
3/492 Selwyn Street 0.2 0.2 0.6
2/492 Selwyn Street 0.2 0.2 0.6
2/492 Selwyn Street 0.2 0.2 0.6
6/488 Selwyn Street 0.1 0.1 0.5
Stone column insertion
The following table presents the vibration level at all potentially affected receivers due to stone columns
within the building footprint and within the test sites. These levels are based on measured data and an
empirical correction factor.
Numbers highlighted in red are above the 1 mm/s notification level.
Table 21 Predicted vibration level for potentially affected receivers around Metro Sport site

Stone columns anywhere in Stone columns within specified test
Address building footprint sites
11 - 20 /212 Antigua Street 2.8 2.4
1 - 12 / 212 Antigua Street 2.8 2.3
210 Antigua Street 3.0 2.3
3 Balfour Terrace 12.2 1.7
10 Halkett Street 1.8 1.6
42 Stewart Street 7.1 1.6
1&2/40 Stewart Street 3.9 1.5
12 Acton Street 1.5 1.4
19 St. David Street 1.6 1.4
1 Balfour Terrace 2.4 1.4
17 St. David Street 1.7 1.3
68 St. Asaph Street 1.9 1.2
157 Moorhouse Avenue 2.0 1.2
177 Montreal Street 1.2 1.2
510 Hagley Ave 1.6 1.1
22 Waller Terrace 2.2 1.0
4 Acton Street 1.0 1.0
550 Hagley Avenue 1.8 0.9
16 Tuam Street 1.5 0.8
199 Hazeldean Road 1.3 0.8
1 12 / 41 Waller Terrace 1.2 0.8
8/488 Selwyn Street 1.0 0.7
48 Braddon Street 1.0 0.7
Predicted
noise levels
Appendix C
Predicted noise levels
The following table presents the predicted noise level at the identified potentially affected receivers around
the Metro Sport site. These levels were calculated using the standard methodology specified in BS5228-1
and NZS 6803. It was assumed that the following activities would only occur within the existing building
footprint:
Stone Columns;
Sheet Piling;
Screw Piling.
The noise emissions from the following activities were assessed for the overall construction site:
General Earthworks;
Dynamic Compaction.
Please note that the levels from the following activities are not included as the predicted levels are below 75
dBA for all locations on the Metro Sport site:
Hydro-bore installation;
Water flow testing;
CPT test rig.
Numbers in red are above the 75 dB LAeq notification limit.
Table 22 Noise and vibration receivers around Metro Sport site
Predicted external, free-field noise levels, dB L Aeq

Stone Sheet Piling Screw Piling General Dynamic
Address Columns Earthworks Compaction
210 Antigua Street 75 80 76 74 77
11 - 20 /212 Antigua Street 74 79 75 73 76
208 Antigua Street 74 79 75 74 77
220 Antigua Street 74 79 75 74 77
1 - 12 / 212 Antigua Street 73 78 74 73 76
230 Antigua Street 72 77 73 73 76
3 Balfour Terrace 69 74 70 105 108
24 St. Asaph Street 69 74 70 93 96
52 Stewart Street 69 74 70 96 99
200 Antigua Street 69 74 70 71 74
33 St. Asaph Street 68 73 69 72 75
21 St. Asaph Street 68 73 69 72 75
1 & 2 / 40 Stewart Street 67 72 68 80 83
22 St. Asaph Street 67 72 68 79 82
10 Halkett Street 66 71 67 66 69
226 Antigua Street 66 71 67 66 69
68 St. Asaph Street 66 71 67 66 69
235 Antigua Street 66 71 67 70 73
18 St. Asaph Street 66 71 67 73 76
198 Antigua Street 65 70 66 72 75
16 St. Asaph Street 65 70 66 70 73
1 Balfour Terrace 64 69 65 71 74
550 Hagley Avenue 64 69 65 65 68
19 St. David Street 63 68 64 64 67
19 St. Asaph Street 63 68 64 68 71
12 Acton Street 63 68 64 62 65
17 St. David Street 62 67 63 64 67
239 Antigua Street 62 67 63 64 67
510 Hagley Ave 61 66 62 64 67
69 St. Asaph Street 61 66 62 62 65
16 Tuam Street 61 66 62 62 65
157 Moorhouse Avenue 60 65 61 67 70
264 Antigua Street 60 65 61 62 65
177 Montreal Street 60 65 61 59 62
71 St. Asaph Street 59 64 60 60 63
40 Tuam Street 58 63 59 59 62
22 Waller Terrace 58 63 59 69 72
77 St. Asaph Street 57 62 58 58 61
77 St. Asaph Street 57 62 58 57 60
4 Acton Street 56 61 57 56 59
48 Tuam Street 56 61 57 57 60
87 St. Asaph Street 56 61 57 55 58
68 Tuam Street 56 61 57 56 59
199 Hazeldean Road 54 59 55 60 63
1 12 / 41 Waller Terrace 54 59 55 58 61
170 Hazeldean Road 53 58 54 56 59
180 Hazeldean Road 53 58 54 57 60
168 Hazeldean Road 53 58 54 57 60
164 Hazeldean Road 53 58 54 57 60
162 Hazeldean Road 53 58 54 57 60
156 Hazeldean Road 53 58 54 57 60
154 Hazeldean Road 53 58 54 57 60
166 Hazeldean Road 53 58 54 56 59
178 Hazeldean Road 53 58 54 56 59
184 Hazeldean Road 53 58 54 56 59
186 Hazeldean Road 53 58 54 56 59
152 Hazeldean Road 53 58 54 56 59
8/488 Selwyn Street 53 58 54 56 59
192 Hazeldean Road 53 58 54 56 59
137 Antigua Street 53 58 54 56 59
144 Hazeldean Road 53 58 54 57 60
146 Hazeldean Road 52 57 53 56 59
48 Braddon Street 52 57 53 55 58
160 Antigua Street 52 57 53 56 59
7/488 Selwyn Street 52 57 53 55 58
3/492 Selwyn Street 52 57 53 55 58
2/492 Selwyn Street 52 57 53 55 58
2/492 Selwyn Street 52 57 53 55 58
140 Hazeldean Road 52 57 53 56 59
198 Hazeldean Road 52 57 53 56 59
6/488 Selwyn Street 52 57 53 55 58
176 Hazeldean Road 52 57 53 54 57
130 Hazeldean Road 52 57 53 56 59
134 Hazeldean Road 52 57 53 56 59
210 Hazeldean Road 52 57 53 55 58
200 Hazeldean Road 52 57 53 55 58
132 Hazeldean Road 51 56 52 55 58
128 Hazeldean Road 51 56 52 56 59
126 Hazeldean Road 51 56 52 56 59
122 Hazeldean Road 51 56 52 55 58
Document prepared by
Aurecon New Zealand Limited

Level 2, Iwikau Building
93 Cambridge Terrace
Christchurch 8013
New Zealand
T +64 3 366 0821

F +64 3 379 6955
E christchurch@aurecongroup.com
W aurecongroup.com
Aurecon offices are located in:

Angola, Australia, Botswana, China,
Ghana, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Kenya,
Lesotho, Macau, Mozambique,
Namibia, New Zealand, Nigeria,
Philippines, Qatar, Singapore, South Africa,
Swaziland, Tanzania, Thailand, Uganda,
United Arab Emirates, Vietnam.

RMA 2017 1573 PLANNING - Approved Consent Document FINAL - Compressed

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

RMA 2017 1573 PLANNING - Approved Consent Document FINAL - Compressed

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Report

Detailed Site Investigation (Contamination),

Prepared by Beca Ltd (Beca)

1 Wendy Whitley Draft Phase 4 investigations to be completed 29 June 2015

Prepared by Wendy Whitley 24 June 2016

Reviewed by Phillip Ware 24 June 2016

Approved by Keith Paterson 24 June 2016

on behalf of Beca Ltd

Beca // 24 June 2016

231 samples for heavy metals;

Beca // 24 June 2016

Beca // 24 June 2016

Beca // 24 June 2016

2 Site Description and Environmental Setting 3

4 Site Investigation Scope and Rationale 7

7 Site Characterisation and Risk Assessment 15

Beca // 24 June 2016

Beca // 24 June 2016

An aquatic centre with a range of pools

1.1 Purpose and Scope

Beca // 24 June 2016

Beca // 24 June 2016

2.1 Site Location and Area

2.2 Site Condition and Surrounding Environment

Beca // 24 June 2016

2.3 Sensitive Receptors/Hydrology

2.3.2 Surface water

2.4 Geology and Hydrogeology

Beca // 24 June 2016

3.1 Summary of the PSI Findings

3.2 Previous Investigations

Beca // 24 June 2016

3.2.2 Lion Christchurch Preliminary Contamination Testing (Beca, January 2013)

Beca // 24 June 2016

4.1 Contaminants of Potential Concern and Investigation Rationale

Table 1: Contaminants of Potential Concern

Activity HAIL Code Contaminants of Potential Concern

Beca // 24 June 2016

substance in sufficient quantity that it (SVOC)

4.2 Soil Sampling Methodology

4.2.1 Summary of Field Work

Table 2: Summary of soil samples collected and analysed

Phase Investigation Number of test Number of soil Number of Analysis

1 21-24 July 26: TP101 81 3 60 samples for heavy metals

Beca // 24 June 2016

4.2.1 NESCS Permitted Activity Provisions

Beca // 24 June 2016

5.1.1 Assessment of Human Health Risk

5.1.2 Assessment of Environmental Risk

Beca // 24 June 2016

6.1 Fieldwork Observations

6.1.1 Soil profile

6.2 Summary of Soil Analytical Results

Beca // 24 June 2016

Table 3: Summary of metal concentrations against assessment criteria

Metal Maximum Background Adopted Environmental Human Health

Arsenic 115 5.9 - 16.3 10 121 23 70 1

6.2.2 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH)

C7 C9 all samples were below the laboratory detection limit

Beca // 24 June 2016

6.2.3 Benzene-Toluene-Ethylbenzene-Xylene (BTEX)

6.2.4 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)

6.2.5 Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOC)