okay … the contaminate is benzoapyrene.

the soil has been dredged up from the port river and is being used for filling in the new developments in port adelaide … she named newport quay appartments as one.
one wonders if they know what, along with the sea air, is blowing in the wind ..

the renewal sa person says the soil has a low level of the contaminate but it is’ restricted use’ and can not be used for housing areas where a backyard is provided.

she says the problem of using the contaminated soil from the river dredging , that she said has become contaminated by the areas long history of industrial use, is being ‘managed’

she says the kerfuffle about where it is being put now, is because it was necessary to move it from an area opposite in lr fevre where it has been stored for future use in the new development area before they were ready for it, so it has been moved to the site behind my friends business and that it willnow be used by the sites owner ‘for their purposes’

she insists that the ‘not for use in backyards’ is ‘just’ a precautionary measure and that someone would have to eat large amounts of soil for it be a problem.
wili says differently

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzo(a)pyrene

I’m not feeling reassured :/

joey said:

okay … the contaminate is benzoapyrene.

the soil has been dredged up from the port river and is being used for filling in the new developments in port adelaide … she named newport quay appartments as one.
one wonders if they know what, along with the sea air, is blowing in the wind ..

the renewal sa person says the soil has a low level of the contaminate but it is’ restricted use’ and can not be used for housing areas where a backyard is provided.

she says the problem of using the contaminated soil from the river dredging , that she said has become contaminated by the areas long history of industrial use, is being ‘managed’

she says the kerfuffle about where it is being put now, is because it was necessary to move it from an area opposite in lr fevre where it has been stored for future use in the new development area before they were ready for it, so it has been moved to the site behind my friends business and that it willnow be used by the sites owner ‘for their purposes’

she insists that the ‘not for use in backyards’ is ‘just’ a precautionary measure and that someone would have to eat large amounts of soil for it be a problem.
wili says differently

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzo(a)pyrene

I’m not feeling reassured :/

So.. show her a bag of commercial potting mix.. and ask her to read the label.

>she insists that the ‘not for use in backyards’ is ‘just’ a precautionary measure

Well it’s not really a precautionary measure if it’s not being observed, is it.

Bubblecar said:

>she insists that the ‘not for use in backyards’ is ‘just’ a precautionary measure

Well it’s not really a precautionary measure if it’s not being observed, is it.

no. A good point, bubbles.

if it isn’t being observed.. no precautions are being taken.

roughbarked said:

Bubblecar said:

>she insists that the ‘not for use in backyards’ is ‘just’ a precautionary measure

Well it’s not really a precautionary measure if it’s not being observed, is it.

no. A good point, bubbles.

if it isn’t being observed.. no precautions are being taken.

Now along these lines I’d like someone to help me clear this one up. I’ve got an abc documentary that I’ve downloaded where the guy says he’s using polystyrene boxes to grow food on rental properties. My SiL who is an accredited scientist told me.. “you’ve got to get rid of all those poly boxes because they are filling your yard up with chemicals you don’t want.”

You need to attach supporting documents, especially for readers outside of Adelaide, as well as more detailed synopsis of what has transpired (storage site was near a school but now adjacent to property in light industrial area?).

http://www.epa.sa.gov.au/xstd_files/Air/Report/le_fevre_faq.pdf

http://www.epa.sa.gov.au/xstd_files/Air/Report/le_fevre_report.pdf

http://www.epa.sa.gov.au/environmental_info/site_contamination/investigations/lefevre_peninsula_primary_school

http://www.epa.sa.gov.au/xstd_files/Air/Report/le_fevre_report.pdf

neomyrtus_ said:

You need to attach supporting documents, especially for readers outside of Adelaide, as well as more detailed synopsis of what has transpired (storage site was near a school but now adjacent to property in light industrial area?).

http://www.epa.sa.gov.au/xstd_files/Air/Report/le_fevre_faq.pdf

http://www.epa.sa.gov.au/xstd_files/Air/Report/le_fevre_report.pdf

http://www.epa.sa.gov.au/environmental_info/site_contamination/investigations/lefevre_peninsula_primary_school

http://www.epa.sa.gov.au/xstd_files/Air/Report/le_fevre_report.pdf

Ad infinitum

Mrs rb tripped over a grating that popped up when her daughter stood on the other end.. at Lake Burley Griffin.

All she asked for was for her hospital costs tot be covered. She was told that the council employed contractors to do the maintenance and that upon inspection it could not be discerned how it could have happened. I said.. I told you to go back and undo the repair that your son-in-law did to the positioning of the grating..

joey said:

she insists that the ‘not for use in backyards’ is ‘just’ a precautionary measure and that someone would have to eat large amounts of soil for it be a problem.
wili says differently

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzo(a)pyrene

I’m not feeling reassured :/

The wiki article addresses the toxicity of high concentrations and chronic exposure (notably exposure in the workplace or from smoking or woodsmoke), which is one reason why firefighters have been recently recognised being at high risk of developing cancers. It doesn’t address acute, short term exposure to low-level environmental contamination.

More information specifically about soil concentrations, how the soil is being transported and stored before us is required.

The ‘not for backyards” relates to a precautionary restriction on eventual use. Is it being used for residential developments with backyards? How is it being stored in a light industrial area?

neomyrtus_ said:

joey said:

she insists that the ‘not for use in backyards’ is ‘just’ a precautionary measure and that someone would have to eat large amounts of soil for it be a problem.
wili says differently

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzo(a)pyrene

I’m not feeling reassured :/

The wiki article addresses the toxicity of high concentrations and chronic exposure (notably exposure in the workplace or from smoking or woodsmoke), which is one reason why firefighters have been recently recognised being at high risk of developing cancers. It doesn’t address acute, short term exposure to low-level environmental contamination.

More information specifically about soil concentrations, how the soil is being transported and stored before us is required.

The ‘not for backyards” relates to a precautionary restriction on eventual use. Is it being used for residential developments with backyards? How is it being stored in a light industrial area?

Sometimes things are not paid enough attention to. Kudos to Joey for bringing it up.

neomyrtus_ said:

joey said:

she insists that the ‘not for use in backyards’ is ‘just’ a precautionary measure and that someone would have to eat large amounts of soil for it be a problem.
wili says differently

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzo(a)pyrene

I’m not feeling reassured :/

The wiki article addresses the toxicity of high concentrations and chronic exposure (notably exposure in the workplace or from smoking or woodsmoke), which is one reason why firefighters have been recently recognised being at high risk of developing cancers. It doesn’t address acute, short term exposure to low-level environmental contamination.

More information specifically about soil concentrations, how the soil is being transported and stored before us is required.

The ‘not for backyards” relates to a precautionary restriction on eventual use. Is it being used for residential developments with backyards? How is it being stored in a light industrial area?

wiki had quite a lot of interesting information
here is a little bit that i found interesting considering that soil that is restricted use and is not allowed to be used in areas where backyards are provided

“A vast number of studies over the previous three decades have documented links between benzopyrene and cancers. It has been more difficult to link cancers to specific benzopyrene sources, especially in humans, and difficult to quantify risks posed by various methods of exposure (inhalation or ingestion). Researchers at Kansas State University recently discovered a link between vitamin A deficiency and emphysema in smokers. Benzopyrene was found to be behind the link, since it induces vitamin A deficiency in rats.

In 1996, a study was published that provided the clear molecular evidence conclusively linking components in tobacco smoke to lung cancer. Benzopyrene, found in tobacco smoke (including cigarette smoke), was shown to cause genetic damage in lung cells that was identical to the damage observed in the DNA of most malignant lung tumours.

A 2001 National Cancer Institute study found levels of benzopyrene to be significantly higher in foods that were cooked well-done on the barbecue, particularly steaks, chicken with skin, and hamburgers. Japanese scientists showed that cooked beef contains mutagens, chemicals that are capable of altering the chemical structure of DNA. However, the foods themselves are not necessarily carcinogenic, even if they contain trace amounts of carcinogens, because the gastrointestinal tract protects itself against carcinomas by shedding its outer layer continuously. Furthermore, detoxification enzymes, such as cytochromes P450 have increased activities in the gut due to the normal requirement for protection from food-borne toxins. Thus in most cases small amounts of benzopyrene are metabolized by gut enzymes prior to being passed on to the blood. The lungs are not protected in either of these manners.

A recent study has found that cytochrome P450 1A1 (CYP1A1) and cytochrome P450 1B1 (CYP1B1) are both protective and, confusingly, necessary for benzopyrene toxicity. Experiments with strains of mice engineered to remove (knockout) CYP1A1 and CYP1B1 reveal that CYP1A1 primarily acts to protect mammals from low doses of benzopyrene, and that removing this protection causes the biological accumulation of large concentrations of benzopyrene. Unless CYP1B1 is also knocked out, benzopyrene toxicity results from the bioactivation of benzopyrene to the ultimate toxic compound, benzopyrene -7,8-dihydrodiol-9,10-epoxide (see below).”

I have not been able yet to find out what the level is in this soil. she told me that all the documentation relating to the development (including the epa approvals) will not be able to be accessed until the development is finished. i’ll keep digging.

i’m only aware of apartments being built on the filled land…

It is not actually being stored in a light industrial area. on the footage seen it was being piled up in rows . huge mounds of loose dirt. . she tells me that it willbe used by the land owners for ‘their purposes’.
the land is owned by a fertiliser company.

Neo the soil report attached to those documents you linked to ( thankyou so much !) states 1mg per kilo

there is a known risk associated with it being present as loose dirt piles as this media release states

this was the same stockpile of soil that has now been moved next to my friends business.

“LeFevre Peninsula Primary School dust test results
26/9/2008
School and community groups have been briefed today about the results of tests on dust found at
LeFevre Peninsula Primary School.
Environment and Conservation Minister Jay Weatherill said that the tests followed consultation with
the community and the school over concerns about levels of dust at the school first raised in June.
The Environment Protection Authority has completed an analysis of the dust and concluded that it
probably came from the Port Adelaide Waterfront Redevelopment project to the south-west of the
school and also from the industrialised area of the LeFevre Peninsula to the north/north-east of the
school.
That analysis found that a higher than average amount of dust particles has been found at the school,
occasionally exceeding the National Environment Protection Measure for Ambient Air Quality
Standard.
The EPA commissioned testing of the dust by the Department of Health.
The test results show that the dust contains several contaminants, including benzo(a)pyrene.
However, the concentration of benzo(a)pyrene in the dust was low and the Department of Health
concluded that exposure can be reduced to minimal levels through a clean-up of the school and
monitoring and dust reduction.
The dust in the school contains levels above what one would ordinarily find in the general community.
This may contribute to a very small increase in the risk of developing cancer (on top of background
risk) if a person were exposed to the dust continually over a long period (20-40 years).
The Department of Health however advises that the level and duration of exposure is insufficient to
have caused any harm.
“While the report’s conclusions are obviously concerning, we have identified the problems early and
actions already have been taken to minimise the dust,” Mr Weatherill said.
“The findings have been discussed with the school, Land Management Corporation, Department of
Health and Department of Education and Children’s Services.
“The LMC has been working with the local community and keeping them informed on this issue since
reports of increased dust were raised in June.
“It heightened its dust control measures as a result of contact from the EPA at that time.”
Historically, Le Fevre Peninsula has been a dusty area. The report relates to elevated dust levels
detected at the school site.
“The Government will respond immediately to the recommendations in the report,” Mr Weatherill
said.
“A thorough clean-up of the school will commence on Monday.
“The EPA will ramp up its monitoring regime at the Port Adelaide Waterfront Redevelopment site, the
school and surrounding area.
Page 1 of 2
http:/

joey said:

It is not actually being stored in a light industrial area. on the footage seen it was being piled up in rows . huge mounds of loose dirt. . she tells me that it willbe used by the land owners for ‘their purposes’.
the land is owned by a fertiliser company.

So where exactly is it being stored and what kind of urban zoning covers that area?

neomyrtus_ said:

joey said:

It is not actually being stored in a light industrial area. on the footage seen it was being piled up in rows . huge mounds of loose dirt. . she tells me that it willbe used by the land owners for ‘their purposes’.
the land is owned by a fertiliser company.

So where exactly is it being stored and what kind of urban zoning covers that area?

forgive me for being unknowingly misleading.

the zoning is light industrial.

when i said it wasn’t being stored i refering to it not being left there for their future use. it is for the factories ‘purposes’ i was told.
i’d be interested in finding out what those purposes are .

I was wondering how the benzo(a)pyrene might move from the contaminated soil. I note that the material has been dredged from a river. If it was a compound with a significant water solubility, one might imagine that the water mobile components have been long ago leached away. That being the case, I wonder what the likely vector from soil to human might be?

morrie said:

I was wondering how the benzo(a)pyrene might move from the contaminated soil. I note that the material has been dredged from a river. If it was a compound with a significant water solubility, one might imagine that the water mobile components have been long ago leached away. That being the case, I wonder what the likely vector from soil to human might be?

breathing?

morrie said:

I was wondering how the benzo(a)pyrene might move from the contaminated soil. I note that the material has been dredged from a river. If it was a compound with a significant water solubility, one might imagine that the water mobile components have been long ago leached away. That being the case, I wonder what the likely vector from soil to human might be?

I’m not an environmental chemist (Podzol and ALC are the ones to answer this query), but I was under the impression benzo(a)pyrene was lipophilic and strongly absorbed by sediments. I also was under the impression that benzo(a)pyrene bound to dust / soot particles was bioavailable (via inhalation or ingestion). Sediment and soil microbes can degrade PAHs, but they bio-accumulate in other organisms like shellfish. I don’t know anything about the dynamics of microbes and PAHs and how that affects absorption or leaching in of anoxic estuarine sediments or mounds of dry soil.

neomyrtus_ said:

morrie said:

I was wondering how the benzo(a)pyrene might move from the contaminated soil. I note that the material has been dredged from a river. If it was a compound with a significant water solubility, one might imagine that the water mobile components have been long ago leached away. That being the case, I wonder what the likely vector from soil to human might be?

I’m not an environmental chemist (Podzol and ALC are the ones to answer this query), but I was under the impression benzo(a)pyrene was lipophilic and strongly absorbed by sediments. I also was under the impression that benzo(a)pyrene bound to dust / soot particles was bioavailable (via inhalation or ingestion). Sediment and soil microbes can degrade PAHs, but they bio-accumulate in other organisms like shellfish. I don’t know anything about the dynamics of microbes and PAHs and how that affects absorption or leaching in of anoxic estuarine sediments or mounds of dry soil.

Adsorbed perhap, yes. So fugitive dust might be the problem. Perhaps sunlight may be an issue as well:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10047594

lol – adsorbed / absorbed. Didn’t catch that one .. .

I’m even slipping in a ‘loose’ for ‘lose’… I’m too far gone when I finally succumb to interchanging ‘they’re, there, their’

Hi All. I just had a brief look through the info and links.

Here is my 2 cents worth (all care and no responsibility):

Contaminated soil management is regulated by the states but the commonwealth does have a National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999 (NEPM) that includes the levels of contaminants in soil and drinking water that are deemed a health risk:

• Schedule A (7A) Health-based soil investigation levels; and
• Schedule B (1) Investigation Levels for Soil and Groundwater.
  http://www.ephc.gov.au/contam

Contaminated soil can actually be used for different purposes depending how much it is contaminated. The most sensitive areas are residential/schools where kids are ingesting soil all the time when they play outside, next comes residential units that don’t have backyards, commercial and then industrial areas.

The dust assessment report for the school site in 2008 lists the analytical results for a range of contaminants but does not list the NEPM “health investigation levels” so that an assessment of the level of contamination can be made (very dodgy imho). Don’t worry, I have done it for you (all units in mg/kg):
Benzo (a) pyrene: classroom 1 (limit 1)
Chromium (assuming IV): Gym 110 (limit 100)
Lead: Classroom 400, Gym 520 (limit 100)
Zinc: Gym 9800 (limit 7000)

Disturbingly they have included the levels for a control site from the EPA’s Air Quality Laboratory located at Netley. People might look at those numbers and think that the school site looks relatively ok, however, the EPA lab air quality exceeded the limits for FIVE contaminants: Camium, Chromium, Cobalt, Copper and Lead. This site should be investigated and cleaned up, not used as a control site for air contamination assessments (seriously, WTF?).

The EPA FAQ sheet for the school site states:
http://www.epa.sa.gov.au/xstd_files/Air/Report/le_fevre_faq.pdf
Some requirements of the plan include:
• regular watering of trafficked areas
• regular sweeping of the site entrance
• application and reapplication of dust suppressant to all stockpiles and exposed
surfaces within the stockpiled area
• the active use of water to control dust in areas where excavation and earthworks
are being undertaken
• installation of screening materials to all chain mesh fences surrounding the
stockpile areas.
> I think these controls should also apply to the industrial site where the material is now stockpiled. The dust is effectively contaminated soil.

The risk of contaminating rainfall runoff and groundwater should also be investigated. The drinking water limit for Benzo (a) pyrene is 0.00001 mg/L (from the NEPM link above). Water samples cshould be tested. The potential for contaminated soil to release contaminants into water is measured by a TCLP test (toxicity characteristic leaching procedure), which involves shaking the soil with water/acetic acid for a set time and then analysing the solution.

There are a few questions to be asked:
1. what are the dust controls at the current site
2. what is the risk of contamination of stormwater runoff and groundwater? (has a TCLP test been carried out? has groundwater/runoff water been tested for contaminants?)
3. what is the final use? (there are probably limits for potting mix – ask the EPA for details)

I would advise your friend to close windows on windy/dusty days and to wet-dust the office regularly (desks, keyboards, kitchen etc). Wash hands before eating and smoking.

Good on you Joey for following it up.

Let me know if you want any more help.

Hi Podzol,

Thanks for your input. (or as neomyrtus would say, you’re input ;)

Do you think that water runoff would be a problem, given the source of this material? ie underwater.

It was thinking about that issue that started me wondering what the vectors would be. Strong adsorption would in some ways be a good thing as it would stop aqueous leaching and in fact chemisorption would I think render the stuff relatively benign.

I have more than a passing interest in this general field. If you are familiar with the Mapua (NZ) cleanup project, they used what was essentially my patented process ( modified slightly) in a manner that I would never have contemplated. There are mixed reports about the efficacy of the whole procedure. I would not have done it that way.

These issues are not easily dealt with. There can be irrational fear on the one hand and careless indifference on the other.

Hi Morrie.

I will definitely defer to you as the authority on the chemistry! I wish I had your knowledge :)

I was thinking not just about the the dredged material, but also other sources of contaminated soil (which hadn’t been discussed previously in this thread, but I noticed reference to that in the FAQ). I think it should be tested to see if it is/isn’t an issue.

From: http://www.epa.sa.gov.au/xstd_files/Air/Report/le_fevre_faq.pdf

“Contamination associated with fill material (soil) at the site comes from a variety of
sources and includes:
• industrial wastes (resulting from a former sugar refining, foundry activities, sands
and slags)
• materials from building and demolition
• soils dredged from the Port Adelaide River”

just had a call from the environmental protection authority.
very happy with the level of concern they are showing.

they are now officially investigating the new site.

as to why they included the references from the netley site in that report ?
she said not to quote her on it but that whoever put that report together might have used that comparison to show that the levels were not that different from what people are being exposed to everyday in the city environs. if that was the case then it is still misleading in my opinion … the school is with walking distance of the beach and the air quality would not be similar to netley anyway.

Good news that the EPA is on to it!

Keep me informed of how it is going Joey :)