Appendix E Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and ......clay, concrete, brick and vegetation...

Review of Environmental Factors Summer Hill Zone Substation ◄

REF - 202 NIG - 12332 WBS – SJ-06064 v1.0 30 Jan 2018 UNCLASSIFIEDPage 119 of 122

Appendix E Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and Waste Classification Letter

WSP Australia Pty Limited ABN 80 078 004 798

Level 27, 680 George StreetSydney NSW 2000

GPO Box 5394Sydney NSW 2001

Tel: +61 2 9272 5100

Fax: +61 2 9272 5101www.wsp.com

Our ref: PS101449-CLM-LTR-001 RevB

Your ref: PS101449 - Ausgrid Substation Waste Classification

By email

[email protected]

7 December 2017

Nick Frost

Construction Manager

AMP Centre,

Level 38,

50 Bridge Street

Sydney

NSW 2000

Dear Nick

Waste classification of fill material - Ausgrid Substation, 230 Old Canterbury Road, SummerHill, NSW

1. INTRODUCTION

WSP Australia Pty Ltd (WSP) prepared this in situ waste classification for excavation proposed to be

undertaken as part of the development works being undertaken at the Ausgrid Substation located at 230

Old Canterbury Road, Summer Hill NSW (‘the site’).

The location of the proposed excavation is shown in Figure 1 in Attachment A. This waste classification

is for excavated soil to be removed to construct a basement and during piling works. The excavated

material is to be disposed of off-site. WSP investigated a total area of approximately 1,073 m2, divided

up in to two zones, Zone 1 a previous duplex and Zone 2 previously a house. This letter will classify the

material due to be excavated for piling to a depth of 4m and a basement to a depth of 1.6m.

The classification has been based on observations made on site and samples collected on 24 November

2017.

1.1 OBJECTIVE

The objective of the work was to classify the soil proposed to be excavated for disposal at an

appropriate landfill facility in accordance with the NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA)

2014, Waste Classification Guidelines.

2. SITE DESCRIPTION

General property and site identification information is provided in Table 2.2.

PS101449-CLM-LTR-001 RevB.docx | Page 2

Table 2.2 Summary of general site information

Site address Unit A and B 14 James Street Summer Hill NSW, 2130 and 238-240 Old

Canterbury Road, Summer Hill NSW, 2130

Site identification Lot 1 in Deposited Plan (DP) 841773 and Lot 2 in Deposited Plan (DP)

841773

Site area Approximately 1,073m2 combined over the two properties

Current site use Low Density Residential

Surrounding land uses North – Ausgrid substation site, residential areas and Summer Hill Public

School beyond.

East – Residential areas of Petersham.

South – Residential areas of Dulwich Hill.

West – Ausgrid substation site, residential areas of Ashbury and

Strathfield South.

Local government area

(LGA) and zoning

Ashfield Council LEP (2013) identifies the two lots as being zoned as R2

(Low Density Residential).

Proposed site use Ausgrid Substation

2.1 SITE HISTORY AND SETTING

A desktop review of current and historical background information pertaining to the site was previously

undertaken by WSP during a Phase 1 preliminary site investigation (PSI). The following sections

summarise the findings of the review of site history information and the site setting information.

2.1.1 SITE HISTORY

A review of historical information undertaken by WSP indicates that the site was clear of structures and

vegetation around 1943, from 1961 onwards the site contained a large structure in the western portion

and some small structures in the eastern portion. The larger structure remained until 1990s when it was

altered or demolished, the small structures had varied throughout the same timeline. Photographs from

1994 showed the site to be relatively similar to the layout prior to demolition this year.

2.2 CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN

A review of the site details including site usage was undertaken during the desktop portion of a PSI

(WSP, 2017) to identify any visual contaminants of potential concern, historical usage and surrounding

land usage which may contribute any possible contamination. The PSI concluded that the following

were possible contaminants of concern on the site:

— polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)

— total recoverable hydrocarbons (TRH)

— benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene and naphthalene (BTEXN)

— polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)

— heavy metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel and zinc)

— asbestos in soil or asbestos containing material (ACM).


3. SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS OF SOILS

In situ sampling was undertaken on 24 November 2017. A total of six test pits were excavated (TP1 to

TP6) and ten samples were analysed for the contaminants of concern TRH, BTEXN, PAHs, metals,

phenols, PCBs and asbestos.

The fill material in the test pits in the western section of the site (TP1-3) was logged as black/grey ash

with sub-angular gravel, brick, vegetation and terracotta piping. In the test pits in the eastern section of

the site (TP4-6) the fill was logged as grey/brown silty sand with sub-angular gravel, brick, vegetation

and slag.

Soil samples were placed in 250 mL jars, leaving minimal headspace and closed using Teflon-coated

lids. Samples were stored on ice in an esky and transported to the laboratory under chain of custody

procedures. Dedicated disposable nitrile gloves were worn for each sample to minimise the potential for

cross-contamination.

The primary soil samples collected were delivered under chain of custody documentation to SGS

Australia in Alexandria. SGS is accredited by the National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA)

for the analyses requested.

3.1 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

For waste classification purposes, the results of soil sampling were compared to the contaminant

threshold values recommended in the NSW EPA (2014) Waste Classification Guidelines – Part 1:Classifying Waste. A summary of the waste acceptance criteria is included in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1 Waste classification guidelines

CHEMICALS CT (WITHOUT TCLP)(1) SCC (WITH TCLP)(2)

Maximum value forclassification without

TCLP

Maximum values for leachable concentrationand specific contaminant concentrations when

used together

GeneralSolid (CT1)

RestrictedSolid (CT2)

General solid Restricted solid

TCLP1 SCC1 TCLP2 SCC2

(mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/L) (mg/kg) (mg/L) (mg/kg)

TRH C6-C9 650(3) 2,600(3) na 650 na 2,600

TRH C10-C36 10,000(3) 40,000(3) na 10,000 na 40,000

Benzene 10 40 2 18 2 72

Toluene 288 1,152 14.4 518 57.6 2,073

Ethylbenzene 600 2,400 30 1,080 120 4,320

Total xylene 1,000 4,000 50 1,800 200 7,200

Benzo(a)pyrene 0.8 3.2 0.04 10 0.16 23

Total PAHs 200(3) 800(3) na 200 na 800

Arsenic 100 400 5 500 20 2,000

Cadmium 20 80 1 100 4 400

Chromium (VI) 100 400 5 1,900 20 7,600


Lead 100 400 5 1,500 20 6,000

Mercury 4 16 0.2 50 0.8 200

Nickel 40 160 2 1,050 8 4,200

1. Extracted from Table 1 in Waste Classification Guidelines. Part 1: Classifying Waste (NSW EPA, 2014)

2. Extracted from Table 2 in Waste Classification Guidelines. Part 1: Classifying Waste (NSW EPA, 2014)3. These chemicals are assessed using SCC values only.CT = contaminant threshold

TCLP = toxicity characteristics leaching procedure

SCC = specific contaminant concentration

The analysis for SCC acts as an initial screening test for the classification of a waste. Based on SCC

alone, the test value for each contaminant must be less than or equal to the contaminant threshold (CT)

value specified for that contaminant contained in Table 1 of the Waste Classification Guidelines 2014,

Part 1.

If a waste’s SCC test value exceeds the contaminant threshold value set for general solid waste (CT1),

further assessment using the TCLP test may be used. In this case results are then compared to the values

outlined in Table 2 of the Waste Classification Guidelines 2014, Part 1 to determine the final waste

classification.

4. SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 SITE GEOLOGY

Table 4.1 Site Geology – Zone 1 (TP1 and TP2)

DEPTH (MBGL) GENERAL SOIL DESCRIPTION

0.0m to 0.3m FILL; black/grey ash, fine, loose, dry with sub-angular gravel, brick, vegetation

and terracotta

0.3m to 1.0m Sandy CLAY; dark brown/orange, slightly moist, medium plasticity

1.0m to 1.6m CLAY; light brown/beige, slightly moist, medium plasticity, becoming orange

with grey mottling at 1.6 m

Table 4.2 Site Geology – Zone 2 (TP3 to TP6)

DEPTH (MBGL) GENERAL SOIL DESCRIPTION

0.0m to 0.5m FILL; Silty SAND, grey/brown, dry, loose, fine with sub-angular gravel, slag,

clay, concrete, brick and vegetation

0.5m to 1.5m FILL; Sandy CLAY, brown/grey to brown/orange, medium plasticity with

occasional gravels and building rubble (indicating reworked clay). Slag found

in TP5.

1.5m to depth CLAY; grey/orange mottled, medium plasticity, moist, with occasional

weathered sandstone.

Based on observations during the site visit, it was noticed that there was a distinct difference between

the fill in Zone 1 and Zone 2 both in thickness and geology. Beyond the fill layer, the geology appears

to be relatively similar between the two zones.


4.2 SOIL SUMMARY RESULTS

The sampling undertaken during test pitting works reported concentrations of contaminants of concern

below the CT1 threshold for general solid waste with the exception of:

— samples TP5_0.1 and TP6_0.5 which reported concentrations of benzo(a)pyrene above the general

solid waste CT1 threshold

— samples TP2_0.1 and TP4_0.1, which reported concentrations of benzo(a)pyrene above the

restricted solid waste CT2 threshold

— sample TP2_0.1 and TP4_0.1 which reported concentrations of lead above the general solid waste

CT1 threshold.

TCLP testing was undertaken on samples:

— TP2_0.1 and TP4_0.1 for lead

— TP2_0.1, TP4_0.1, TP5_0.1 and TP6_0.5 for benzo(a)pyrene.

Contaminant concentrations were reported below the relevant TCLP1 and SCC1 thresholds for all

samples with the exception of benzo(a)pyrene and total PAH in sample TP2_0.1 which were reported

above the SSC1 threshold.

Asbestos was not detected in any of the soil samples submitted for laboratory analysis, however, both

potential asbestos containing material (ACM) fragments submitted to the laboratory for identification

testing were confirmed to contain chrysotile asbestos fibres. Multiple ACM fragments were observed

on the site surface in the areas around test pits TP1 to TP3 and the buildings on site contained ACM. A

waste classification letter previously prepared for the shallow fill material on site for fill that was

previously exported from Zone 1 (Airsafe 2017), also identified asbestos fragments.

Current laboratory results are presented in the summary tables in Attachment B. Laboratory analytical

reports are presented in Attachment C.

5. CONCLUSIONA total of 10 relevant samples were collected from the proposed basement and piling excavation

locations located in Zones 1 and 2 to classify waste to be removed from site.

Zone 1

Based on a visual inspection and assessment of laboratory analytical results the fill proposed to be

excavated from the Zone 1 area to a depth of approximately 0.3 mBGL (consistent with the description

in Table 4.1) is suitable for disposal at an appropriately licensed landfill as special waste (asbestos)mixed with restricted solid waste. This classification is only applicable to the fill material proposed to

be excavated from the Zone 1 basement area (approximately 100 m2) presented on Figure 1 (Basement

Area A) which matches the characteristics described in this letter.

Laboratory results and observations made while on-site conclude that the material below 0.3 mBGL can

be disposed as general solid waste. Prior to excavation and disposal of the deeper natural material

earthworks should be completed to remove shallow fill (ACM impacted material) consistent with the

description in Table 4.1. Removal of the ACM fil material should be documented in a

validation/clearance report.

Zone 2

All the samples from Zone 2 reported concentrations of contaminants of concern below the laboratory

limit of reporting (LOR) or below the CT1 and TCLP1 thresholds. Due to the presence of an ACM

fragment on the surface of TP4 and due to the heterogenous nature of the fill in Zone 2, the excavated


fill material to a depth of approximately 0.5 mBGL (consistent with the description in Table 4.2) is

suitable for disposal at an appropriately licensed landfill as special waste (asbestos) mixed with generalsolid waste. This classification is only applicable to the excavated waste produced from the proposed

pile installation within Zone 2.

Laboratory results and observations made while on-site conclude that the material below 0.5 mBGL can

be disposed as general solid waste. Prior to excavation and disposal of the deeper reworked clay/natural

material earthworks should be completed to remove shallow ACM impacted fill impacted material.

Removal of the ACM fill material should be documented in a validation/clearance report.

Yours sincerely

Ben GentileEnvironmental Scientist,

Contaminated Land Management

Julie PorterPrincipal Environmental Engineer

Encl: FigureTablesLaboratory reportsTest pit logs

ATTACHMENT A FIGURE

TP1TP2

Ben.Gentile

Rectangle

Ben.Gentile

Polygon

Ben.Gentile

Rectangle

Ben.Gentile

Rectangle

Ben.Gentile

Rectangle

Ben.Gentile

Text Box

Approximate Test Pit locations

Ben.Gentile

Text Box

TP3

Ben.Gentile

Text Box

TP6

Ben.Gentile

Text Box

TP4

Ben.Gentile

Rectangle

Ben.Gentile

Text Box

TP5

Ben.Gentile

Rectangle

Ben.Gentile

Text Box

Zone 1

Ben.Gentile

Text Box

Zone 2

Ben.Gentile

Text Box

Figure 1

Ben.Gentile

Rectangle

Ben.Gentile

Text Box

Basement Area A

Ben.Gentile

Text Box

Basement Area B

ATTACHMENT B RESULTS TABLES

Ausgrid Substation Waste Classification

CRC Pty Ltd230 Old Canterbury Road,

Summer Hill

ES_EPA418

Benz

ene

Tolu

ene

Ethy

lben

zene

Xyle

ne (o

)

Xyle

ne (m

& p

)

Xyle

ne T

otal

Tota

l BTE

X

TRH

C37

-C40

C6 -

C9 F

ract

ion

C10

- C14

Fra

ctio

n

C15

- C28

Fra

ctio

n

C29-

C36

Frac

tion

+C10

- C3

6 (S

um o

f tot

al)

TPH

C6-

C10

C6 -

C10

Frac

tion

min

us B

TEX

(F1)

C10

- C16

Fra

ctio

n

TRH

>C1

0-C1

6 le

ss N

apht

hale

ne (F

2)

C16

- C34

Fra

ctio

n

C34

- C40

Fra

ctio

n

C10

- C40

Fra

ctio

n (S

um)

Acen

apht

hyle

ne

Acen

apht

hene

Fluo

rene

Phen

anth

rene

Anth

race

ne

Fluo

rant

hene

Pyre

ne

Benz

(a)a

nthr

acen

e

Chry

sene

Benz

o(k)

fluor

anth

ene

Benz

o(b&

j)flu

oran

then

e

Benz

o(a)

pyr

ene

TCLP

Ben

zo(a

)pyr

ene

Inde

no(1

,2,3

-c,d

)pyr

ene

Dib

enz(

a,h)

anth

race

ne

Benz

o(g,

h,i)p

eryl

ene

Benz

o(a)

pyre

ne T

EQ c

alc

(Zer

o)

Benz

o(a)

pyre

ne T

EQ (m

ediu

m b

ound

) *

Benz

o(a)

pyre

ne T

EQ (u

pper

bou

nd) *

PAH

s (S

um o

f tot

al)

Nap

htha

lene

1-M

ethy

lnap

htha

lene

2-m

ethy

lnap

htha

lene

Tota

l Pos

itive

PAH

s

mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kgEQL 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.6 100 20 20 45 45 110 25 25 25 25 90 120 210 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.8

10 288 600 1000 650 10000 0.8NSW 2014 General Solid Waste SCC1 (with leached) 18 518 1080 1800 6500 10000 10NSW 2014 Restricted Solid Waste CT2 (No Leaching) 40 1152 2400 4000 2600 40000 3.2NSW 2014 Restricted Solid Waste SCC2 (with leached) 72 2073 4320 7200 2600 40000 23

Field_ID Sampled_Date_Time Lab_Report_NumberQA01 (TP4_0.1) 24/11/2017 SE173033 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.2 <0.3 <0.6 <100 <20 <20 86 56 140 <25 <25 <25 <25 130 <120 <210 0.7 <0.1 0.2 4.5 1 7.8 6.6 3.8 3.5 1.6 5.3 4 - 2.6 0.4 1.7 5.8 5.8 5.8 44 <0.1 - 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 44TP1_0.5 24/11/2017 SE173033 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.2 <0.3 <0.6 <100 <20 <20 <45 <45 <110 <25 <25 <25 <25 <90 <120 <210 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.2 <0.2 <0.3 <0.8 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.8TP1_1.6 24/11/2017 SE173033 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.2 <0.3 <0.6 <100 <20 <20 <45 <45 <110 <25 <25 <25 <25 <90 <120 <210 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.2 <0.2 <0.3 <0.8 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.8TP2_0.1 24/11/2017 SE173033 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.2 <0.3 <0.6 <100 <20 20 590 270 880 <25 <25 50 50 780 <120 830 8.2 1.1 3.3 38 9.7 37 36 16 16 9.6 17 16 <0.1 9.5 1.7 5.8 23 23 23 230 0.1 - 1.9 1.1 0.9 230TP3_0.5 24/11/2017 SE173033 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.2 <0.3 <0.6 <100 <20 <20 <45 <45 <110 <25 <25 <25 <25 <90 <120 <210 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.2 <0.2 <0.3 <0.8 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.8TP3_1.0 24/11/2017 SE173033 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.2 <0.3 <0.6 <100 <20 <20 <45 <45 <110 <25 <25 <25 <25 <90 <120 <210 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.2 <0.2 <0.3 <0.8 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.8TP4_0.1 24/11/2017 SE173033 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.2 <0.3 <0.6 <100 <20 <20 110 75 180 <25 <25 <25 <25 170 <120 <210 1 <0.1 0.1 3.5 0.9 7.4 7 3.8 4.3 2.5 6.2 4.9 <0.1 3.3 0.4 2.1 6.9 6.9 6.9 47 <0.1 - 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 47TP5_0.1 24/11/2017 SE173033 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.2 <0.3 <0.6 <100 <20 <20 70 50 120 <25 <25 <25 <25 110 <120 <210 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 1.3 0.3 2.2 2.1 1.1 1.1 0.6 1.4 1.1 <0.1 0.7 <0.1 0.4 1.5 1.5 1.6 12 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 12TP5_4.0 24/11/2017 SE173033 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.2 <0.3 <0.6 <100 <20 <20 <45 <45 <110 <25 <25 <25 <25 <90 <120 <210 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.2 <0.2 <0.3 <0.8 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.8TP6_0.5 24/11/2017 SE173033 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.2 <0.3 <0.6 <100 23 <20 140 79 220 63 63 <25 <25 200 <120 <210 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 1.7 0.4 3.1 2.9 1.5 1.4 0.8 1.8 1.6 <0.1 0.9 0.1 0.6 2.2 2.2 2.2 17 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 17TP6_2.0 24/11/2017 SE173033 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.2 <0.3 <0.6 <100 <20 <20 <45 <45 <110 <25 <25 <25 <25 <90 <120 <210 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.2 <0.2 <0.3 <0.8 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.8TP4_0.1_ACM 24/11/2017 SE173033 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -TP2_0.1_ACM 24/11/2017 SE173033 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

NSW 2014 General Solid Waste CT1 (No Leaching)

BTEX Total recoverable hydrocarbons Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

\\APSYDFIL03\proj\U\Unassigned_Client\2171079H_VARIOUS_JOBS_SYDNEY_S_MAHAMAD\05_WrkPapers\WP\Draft\0-99\0011 230 Old Canterbury Road Summer Hill NSW\CLM\Phase 2\Report\Attachment B - Results Tables\Summer Hill tables 1 of 2

Ausgrid Substation Waste Classification

CRC Pty Ltd230 Old Canterbury Road,

Summer Hill

EQL

NSW 2014 General Solid Waste SCC1 (with leached)NSW 2014 Restricted Solid Waste CT2 (No Leaching)NSW 2014 Restricted Solid Waste SCC2 (with leached)

Field_ID Sampled_Date_Time Lab_Report_NumberQA01 (TP4_0.1) 24/11/2017 SE173033TP1_0.5 24/11/2017 SE173033TP1_1.6 24/11/2017 SE173033TP2_0.1 24/11/2017 SE173033TP3_0.5 24/11/2017 SE173033TP3_1.0 24/11/2017 SE173033TP4_0.1 24/11/2017 SE173033TP5_0.1 24/11/2017 SE173033TP5_4.0 24/11/2017 SE173033TP6_0.5 24/11/2017 SE173033TP6_2.0 24/11/2017 SE173033TP4_0.1_ACM 24/11/2017 SE173033TP2_0.1_ACM 24/11/2017 SE173033

NSW 2014 General Solid Waste CT1 (No Leaching)

Inorganics Asbestos

Arse

nic

Cadm

ium

Chro

miu

m

Copp

er

Lead

TCLP

Lea

d

Mer

cury

Nic

kel

Zinc

2,4-

dini

trop

heno

l

3/4-

met

hyl p

heno

l (m

/p-c

reso

l)

4-ni

trop

heno

l

Phen

ol

2-ch

loro

phen

ol

2-m

ethy

lphe

nol

2-ni

trop

heno

l

2,4-

dim

ethy

lphe

nol

2,4-

dich

loro

phen

ol

2,6-

dich

loro

phen

ol

4-ch

loro

-3-m

ethy

lphe

nol

2.4.

6-Tr

ichl

orop

heno

l

2,3,

4,6

and

2,3,

5,6-

tetr

achl

orop

heno

l

2,4,

5-tr

ichl

orop

heno

l

Pent

achl

orop

heno

l

Cres

ol T

otal

% M

oist

ure

Aroc

hlor

101

6

Aroc

hlor

123

2

Aroc

hlor

124

2

Aroc

hlor

124

8

Aroc

hlor

125

4

Aroc

hlor

126

0

Aroc

lor 1

221

Aroc

lor 1

262

Aroc

hlor

126

8

PCBs

(Sum

of t

otal

)

Pres

ence

/Abs

ence

mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg % mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg -3 0.3 0.3 0.5 1 0.05 0.5 0.5 2 1 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 1 -

100 20 100 4 40 4000 40 8000 4000 <50500 100 1500 50 1050 518 7200 72 14400 200 <50400 80 400 16 160 16000 160 32000 16000 <50

2000 400 6000 200 4200 2073 28800 288 57600 28800 <50

25 0.6 12 79 380 0.29 0.11 10 340 <2 <1 <1 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <2 <0.5 <1 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 11 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <1 -4 <0.3 27 8.9 20 - <0.05 5.5 24 <2 <1 <1 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <2 <0.5 <1 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 26 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <1 ND8 <0.3 38 11 17 - <0.05 1 17 <2 <1 <1 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <2 <0.5 <1 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 21 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <1 ND

12 <0.3 15 81 110 0.05 0.15 5.4 110 <2 <1 <1 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <2 <0.5 <1 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 11 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <1 ND4 <0.3 21 6.7 19 - <0.05 5.2 14 <2 <1 <1 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <2 <0.5 <1 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 19 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <1 ND8 <0.3 31 9.9 19 - <0.05 3.9 16 <2 <1 <1 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <2 <0.5 <1 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 23 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <1 ND

17 0.4 14 67 300 - 0.07 10 230 <2 <1 <1 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <2 <0.5 <1 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 8.9 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <1 ND7 <0.3 15 23 50 - <0.05 9.2 62 <2 <1 <1 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <2 <0.5 <1 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 8.5 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <1 ND

<3 <0.3 2.8 18 7 - <0.05 <0.5 8.5 <2 <1 <1 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <2 <0.5 <1 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 13 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <1 ND8 <0.3 15 34 79 - 0.07 8.5 130 <2 <1 <1 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <2 <0.5 <1 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 7.4 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <1 ND5 <0.3 21 16 12 - <0.05 1.5 17 <2 <1 <1 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <2 <0.5 <1 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 21 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <1 ND- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - YES- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - YES

PCBDissolved metals Phenols

\\APSYDFIL03\proj\U\Unassigned_Client\2171079H_VARIOUS_JOBS_SYDNEY_S_MAHAMAD\05_WrkPapers\WP\Draft\0-99\0011 230 Old Canterbury Road Summer Hill NSW\CLM\Phase 2\Report\Attachment B - Results Tables\Summer Hill tables 2 of 2

ATTACHMENT C LABORATORY REPORTS

Accreditation No. 2562

Date Reported

Contact

SGS Alexandria Environmental

Unit 16, 33 Maddox St

Alexandria NSW 2015

Huong Crawford

+61 2 8594 0400

+61 2 8594 0499

[email protected]

13

SGS Reference

Email

Facsimile

Telephone

Address

Manager

Laboratory

SY141023-1-IS

Old Canterbury Rd, Summer Hill

[email protected]

02 9272 5101

02 92721478

Level 27, 680 George St

NSW 2000

WSP AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED

Benjamin Gentile

Samples

Order Number

Project

Email

Facsimile

Telephone

Address

Client

CLIENT DETAILS LABORATORY DETAILS

29/11/2017

ANALYTICAL REPORT

SE173033 R0

Date Received 24/11/2017

COMMENTS

Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 - Testing. NATA accredited laboratory 2562(4354).

No respirable fibres detected in all soil samples using trace analysis technique.

Asbestos analysed by Approved Identifiers Ravee Sivasubramaniam and Yusuf Kuthpudin .

Akheeqar Beniameen

Chemist

Bennet Lo

Senior Organic Chemist/Metals Chemist

Dong Liang

Metals/Inorganics Team Leader

Ravee Sivasubramaniam

Hygiene Team Leader

Teresa Nguyen

Organic Chemist

SIGNATORIES

Member of the SGS Group

www.sgs.com.aut +61 2 8594 0400

f +61 2 8594 0499

Australia

Australia

Alexandria NSW 2015

Alexandria NSW 2015

Unit 16 33 Maddox St

PO Box 6432 Bourke Rd BC

Environment, Health and SafetySGS Australia Pty Ltd

ABN 44 000 964 278

Page 1 of 1629/11/2017

SE173033 R0ANALYTICAL RESULTS

VOC’s in Soil [AN433] Tested: 28/11/2017

TP1_0.5 TP1_1.6 TP2_0.1 TP3_0.5 TP3_1.0

SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL

- - - - -

24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017

SE173033.001 SE173033.002 SE173033.003 SE173033.004 SE173033.005

Benzene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Toluene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Ethylbenzene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

m/p-xylene mg/kg 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

o-xylene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Naphthalene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Total Xylenes mg/kg 0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3

Total BTEX mg/kg 0.6 <0.6 <0.6 <0.6 <0.6 <0.6

UOMPARAMETER LOR

TP4_0.1 TP5_0.1 TP5_4.0 TP6_0.5 TP6_2.0


- - - - -

24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017

SE173033.006 SE173033.007 SE173033.008 SE173033.009 SE173033.010

Benzene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Toluene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Ethylbenzene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

m/p-xylene mg/kg 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

o-xylene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Naphthalene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Total Xylenes mg/kg 0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3

Total BTEX mg/kg 0.6 <0.6 <0.6 <0.6 <0.6 <0.6

UOMPARAMETER LOR

QA01

SOIL

-

24/11/2017

SE173033.011

Benzene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1

Toluene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1

Ethylbenzene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1

m/p-xylene mg/kg 0.2 <0.2

o-xylene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1

Naphthalene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1

Total Xylenes mg/kg 0.3 <0.3

Total BTEX mg/kg 0.6 <0.6

UOMPARAMETER LOR

Page 2 of 1629/11/2017


Volatile Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil [AN433] Tested: 28/11/2017

TP1_0.5 TP1_1.6 TP2_0.1 TP3_0.5 TP3_1.0


- - - - -

24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017

SE173033.001 SE173033.002 SE173033.003 SE173033.004 SE173033.005

Benzene (F0) mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

TRH C6-C9 mg/kg 20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20

TRH C6-C10 mg/kg 25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25

TRH C6-C10 minus BTEX (F1) mg/kg 25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25

UOMPARAMETER LOR

TP4_0.1 TP5_0.1 TP5_4.0 TP6_0.5 TP6_2.0


- - - - -

24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017

SE173033.006 SE173033.007 SE173033.008 SE173033.009 SE173033.010

Benzene (F0) mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

TRH C6-C9 mg/kg 20 <20 <20 <20 23 <20

TRH C6-C10 mg/kg 25 <25 <25 <25 63 <25

TRH C6-C10 minus BTEX (F1) mg/kg 25 <25 <25 <25 63 <25

UOMPARAMETER LOR

QA01

SOIL

-

24/11/2017

SE173033.011

Benzene (F0) mg/kg 0.1 <0.1

TRH C6-C9 mg/kg 20 <20

TRH C6-C10 mg/kg 25 <25

TRH C6-C10 minus BTEX (F1) mg/kg 25 <25

UOMPARAMETER LOR

Page 3 of 1629/11/2017


TRH (Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons) in Soil [AN403] Tested: 27/11/2017

TP1_0.5 TP1_1.6 TP2_0.1 TP3_0.5 TP3_1.0


- - - - -

24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017

SE173033.001 SE173033.002 SE173033.003 SE173033.004 SE173033.005

TRH C10-C14 mg/kg 20 <20 <20 20 <20 <20

TRH C15-C28 mg/kg 45 <45 <45 590 <45 <45

TRH C29-C36 mg/kg 45 <45 <45 270 <45 <45

TRH C37-C40 mg/kg 100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100

TRH >C10-C16 (F2) mg/kg 25 <25 <25 50 <25 <25

TRH >C10-C16 (F2) - Naphthalene mg/kg 25 <25 <25 50 <25 <25

TRH >C16-C34 (F3) mg/kg 90 <90 <90 780 <90 <90

TRH >C34-C40 (F4) mg/kg 120 <120 <120 <120 <120 <120

TRH C10-C36 Total mg/kg 110 <110 <110 880 <110 <110

TRH C10-C40 Total (F bands) mg/kg 210 <210 <210 830 <210 <210

UOMPARAMETER LOR

TP4_0.1 TP5_0.1 TP5_4.0 TP6_0.5 TP6_2.0


- - - - -

24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017

SE173033.006 SE173033.007 SE173033.008 SE173033.009 SE173033.010

TRH C10-C14 mg/kg 20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20

TRH C15-C28 mg/kg 45 110 70 <45 140 <45

TRH C29-C36 mg/kg 45 75 50 <45 79 <45

TRH C37-C40 mg/kg 100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100

TRH >C10-C16 (F2) mg/kg 25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25

TRH >C10-C16 (F2) - Naphthalene mg/kg 25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25

TRH >C16-C34 (F3) mg/kg 90 170 110 <90 200 <90

TRH >C34-C40 (F4) mg/kg 120 <120 <120 <120 <120 <120

TRH C10-C36 Total mg/kg 110 180 120 <110 220 <110

TRH C10-C40 Total (F bands) mg/kg 210 <210 <210 <210 <210 <210

UOMPARAMETER LOR

QA01

SOIL

-

24/11/2017

SE173033.011

TRH C10-C14 mg/kg 20 <20

TRH C15-C28 mg/kg 45 86

TRH C29-C36 mg/kg 45 56

TRH C37-C40 mg/kg 100 <100

TRH >C10-C16 (F2) mg/kg 25 <25

TRH >C10-C16 (F2) - Naphthalene mg/kg 25 <25

TRH >C16-C34 (F3) mg/kg 90 130

TRH >C34-C40 (F4) mg/kg 120 <120

TRH C10-C36 Total mg/kg 110 140

TRH C10-C40 Total (F bands) mg/kg 210 <210

UOMPARAMETER LOR

Page 4 of 1629/11/2017


PAH (Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons) in Soil [AN420] Tested: 27/11/2017

TP1_0.5 TP1_1.6 TP2_0.1 TP3_0.5 TP3_1.0


- - - - -

24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017

SE173033.001 SE173033.002 SE173033.003 SE173033.004 SE173033.005

Naphthalene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 1.9 <0.1 <0.1

2-methylnaphthalene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.9 <0.1 <0.1

1-methylnaphthalene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 1.1 <0.1 <0.1

Acenaphthylene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 8.2 <0.1 <0.1

Acenaphthene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 1.1 <0.1 <0.1

Fluorene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 3.3 <0.1 <0.1

Phenanthrene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 38 <0.1 <0.1

Anthracene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 9.7 <0.1 <0.1

Fluoranthene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 37 <0.1 <0.1

Pyrene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 36 <0.1 <0.1

Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 16 <0.1 <0.1

Chrysene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 16 <0.1 <0.1

Benzo(b&j)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 17 <0.1 <0.1

Benzo(k)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 9.6 <0.1 <0.1

Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 16 <0.1 <0.1

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 9.5 <0.1 <0.1

Dibenzo(ah)anthracene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 1.7 <0.1 <0.1

Benzo(ghi)perylene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 5.8 <0.1 <0.1

Carcinogenic PAHs, BaP TEQ <LOR=0 TEQ (mg/kg) 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 23 <0.2 <0.2

Carcinogenic PAHs, BaP TEQ <LOR=LOR TEQ (mg/kg) 0.3 <0.3 <0.3 23 <0.3 <0.3

Carcinogenic PAHs, BaP TEQ <LOR=LOR/2 TEQ (mg/kg) 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 23 <0.2 <0.2

Total PAH (18) mg/kg 0.8 <0.8 <0.8 230 <0.8 <0.8

Total PAH (NEPM/WHO 16) mg/kg 0.8 <0.8 <0.8 230 <0.8 <0.8

UOMPARAMETER LOR

TP4_0.1 TP5_0.1 TP5_4.0 TP6_0.5 TP6_2.0


- - - - -

24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017

SE173033.006 SE173033.007 SE173033.008 SE173033.009 SE173033.010

Naphthalene mg/kg 0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

2-methylnaphthalene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

1-methylnaphthalene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Acenaphthylene mg/kg 0.1 1.0 0.2 <0.1 0.3 <0.1

Acenaphthene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Fluorene mg/kg 0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Phenanthrene mg/kg 0.1 3.5 1.3 <0.1 1.7 <0.1

Anthracene mg/kg 0.1 0.9 0.3 <0.1 0.4 <0.1

Fluoranthene mg/kg 0.1 7.4 2.2 <0.1 3.1 <0.1

Pyrene mg/kg 0.1 7.0 2.1 <0.1 2.9 <0.1

Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg 0.1 3.8 1.1 <0.1 1.5 <0.1

Chrysene mg/kg 0.1 4.3 1.1 <0.1 1.4 <0.1

Benzo(b&j)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.1 6.2 1.4 <0.1 1.8 <0.1

Benzo(k)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.1 2.5 0.6 <0.1 0.8 <0.1

Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg 0.1 4.9 1.1 <0.1 1.6 <0.1

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene mg/kg 0.1 3.3 0.7 <0.1 0.9 <0.1

Dibenzo(ah)anthracene mg/kg 0.1 0.4 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1

Benzo(ghi)perylene mg/kg 0.1 2.1 0.4 <0.1 0.6 <0.1

Carcinogenic PAHs, BaP TEQ <LOR=0 TEQ (mg/kg) 0.2 6.9 1.5 <0.2 2.2 <0.2

Carcinogenic PAHs, BaP TEQ <LOR=LOR TEQ (mg/kg) 0.3 6.9 1.6 <0.3 2.2 <0.3

Carcinogenic PAHs, BaP TEQ <LOR=LOR/2 TEQ (mg/kg) 0.2 6.9 1.5 <0.2 2.2 <0.2

Total PAH (18) mg/kg 0.8 47 12 <0.8 17 <0.8

Total PAH (NEPM/WHO 16) mg/kg 0.8 47 12 <0.8 17 <0.8

UOMPARAMETER LOR

Page 5 of 1629/11/2017


PAH (Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons) in Soil [AN420] Tested: 27/11/2017 (continued)

QA01

SOIL

-

24/11/2017

SE173033.011

Naphthalene mg/kg 0.1 0.2

2-methylnaphthalene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1

1-methylnaphthalene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1

Acenaphthylene mg/kg 0.1 0.7

Acenaphthene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1

Fluorene mg/kg 0.1 0.2

Phenanthrene mg/kg 0.1 4.5

Anthracene mg/kg 0.1 1.0

Fluoranthene mg/kg 0.1 7.8

Pyrene mg/kg 0.1 6.6

Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg 0.1 3.8

Chrysene mg/kg 0.1 3.5

Benzo(b&j)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.1 5.3

Benzo(k)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.1 1.6

Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg 0.1 4.0

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene mg/kg 0.1 2.6

Dibenzo(ah)anthracene mg/kg 0.1 0.4

Benzo(ghi)perylene mg/kg 0.1 1.7

Carcinogenic PAHs, BaP TEQ <LOR=0 TEQ (mg/kg) 0.2 5.8

Carcinogenic PAHs, BaP TEQ <LOR=LOR TEQ (mg/kg) 0.3 5.8

Carcinogenic PAHs, BaP TEQ <LOR=LOR/2 TEQ (mg/kg) 0.2 5.8

Total PAH (18) mg/kg 0.8 44

Total PAH (NEPM/WHO 16) mg/kg 0.8 44

UOMPARAMETER LOR

Page 6 of 1629/11/2017


Speciated Phenols in Soil [AN420] Tested: 27/11/2017

TP1_0.5 TP1_1.6 TP2_0.1 TP3_0.5 TP3_1.0


- - - - -

24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017

SE173033.001 SE173033.002 SE173033.003 SE173033.004 SE173033.005

Phenol mg/kg 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

2-methyl phenol (o-cresol) mg/kg 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

3/4-methyl phenol (m/p-cresol) mg/kg 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Total Cresol mg/kg 1.5 <1.5 <1.5 <1.5 <1.5 <1.5

2-chlorophenol mg/kg 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

2,4-dimethylphenol mg/kg 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

2,6-dichlorophenol mg/kg 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5


2,4,6-trichlorophenol mg/kg 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

2-nitrophenol mg/kg 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

4-nitrophenol mg/kg 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1


2,3,4,6/2,3,5,6-tetrachlorophenol mg/kg 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Pentachlorophenol mg/kg 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

2,4-dinitrophenol mg/kg 2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2

4-chloro-3-methylphenol mg/kg 2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2

UOMPARAMETER LOR

TP4_0.1 TP5_0.1 TP5_4.0 TP6_0.5 TP6_2.0


- - - - -

24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017

SE173033.006 SE173033.007 SE173033.008 SE173033.009 SE173033.010

Phenol mg/kg 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

2-methyl phenol (o-cresol) mg/kg 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

3/4-methyl phenol (m/p-cresol) mg/kg 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Total Cresol mg/kg 1.5 <1.5 <1.5 <1.5 <1.5 <1.5

2-chlorophenol mg/kg 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

2,4-dimethylphenol mg/kg 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5




2-nitrophenol mg/kg 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

4-nitrophenol mg/kg 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1


2,3,4,6/2,3,5,6-tetrachlorophenol mg/kg 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Pentachlorophenol mg/kg 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

2,4-dinitrophenol mg/kg 2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2

4-chloro-3-methylphenol mg/kg 2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2

UOMPARAMETER LOR

Page 7 of 1629/11/2017


Speciated Phenols in Soil [AN420] Tested: 27/11/2017 (continued)

PARAMETER UOM LOR

QA01

SOIL

-

24/11/2017

SE173033.011

Phenol mg/kg 0.5 <0.5

2-methyl phenol (o-cresol) mg/kg 0.5 <0.5

3/4-methyl phenol (m/p-cresol) mg/kg 1 <1

Total Cresol mg/kg 1.5 <1.5

2-chlorophenol mg/kg 0.5 <0.5

2,4-dimethylphenol mg/kg 0.5 <0.5

2,6-dichlorophenol mg/kg 0.5 <0.5

2,4-dichlorophenol mg/kg 0.5 <0.5

2,4,6-trichlorophenol mg/kg 0.5 <0.5

2-nitrophenol mg/kg 0.5 <0.5

4-nitrophenol mg/kg 1 <1

2,4,5-trichlorophenol mg/kg 0.5 <0.5

2,3,4,6/2,3,5,6-tetrachlorophenol mg/kg 1 <1

Pentachlorophenol mg/kg 0.5 <0.5

2,4-dinitrophenol mg/kg 2 <2

4-chloro-3-methylphenol mg/kg 2 <2

UOMPARAMETER LOR

Page 8 of 1629/11/2017


PCBs in Soil [AN420] Tested: 27/11/2017

TP1_0.5 TP1_1.6 TP2_0.1 TP3_0.5 TP3_1.0


- - - - -

24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017

SE173033.001 SE173033.002 SE173033.003 SE173033.004 SE173033.005

Arochlor 1016 mg/kg 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Arochlor 1221 mg/kg 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Arochlor 1232 mg/kg 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Arochlor 1242 mg/kg 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Arochlor 1248 mg/kg 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Arochlor 1254 mg/kg 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Arochlor 1260 mg/kg 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Arochlor 1262 mg/kg 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Arochlor 1268 mg/kg 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Total PCBs (Arochlors) mg/kg 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

UOMPARAMETER LOR

TP4_0.1 TP5_0.1 TP5_4.0 TP6_0.5 TP6_2.0


- - - - -

24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017

SE173033.006 SE173033.007 SE173033.008 SE173033.009 SE173033.010

Arochlor 1016 mg/kg 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Arochlor 1221 mg/kg 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Arochlor 1232 mg/kg 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Arochlor 1242 mg/kg 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Arochlor 1248 mg/kg 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Arochlor 1254 mg/kg 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Arochlor 1260 mg/kg 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Arochlor 1262 mg/kg 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Arochlor 1268 mg/kg 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Total PCBs (Arochlors) mg/kg 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

UOMPARAMETER LOR

QA01

SOIL

-

24/11/2017

SE173033.011

Arochlor 1016 mg/kg 0.2 <0.2









Total PCBs (Arochlors) mg/kg 1 <1

UOMPARAMETER LOR

Page 9 of 1629/11/2017


Total Recoverable Elements in Soil/Waste Solids/Materials by ICPOES [AN040/AN320] Tested: 28/11/2017

TP1_0.5 TP1_1.6 TP2_0.1 TP3_0.5 TP3_1.0


- - - - -

24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017

SE173033.001 SE173033.002 SE173033.003 SE173033.004 SE173033.005

Arsenic, As mg/kg 3 4 8 12 4 8

Cadmium, Cd mg/kg 0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3

Chromium, Cr mg/kg 0.3 27 38 15 21 31

Copper, Cu mg/kg 0.5 8.9 11 81 6.7 9.9

Lead, Pb mg/kg 1 20 17 110 19 19

Nickel, Ni mg/kg 0.5 5.5 1.0 5.4 5.2 3.9

Zinc, Zn mg/kg 0.5 24 17 110 14 16

UOMPARAMETER LOR

TP4_0.1 TP5_0.1 TP5_4.0 TP6_0.5 TP6_2.0


- - - - -

24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017

SE173033.006 SE173033.007 SE173033.008 SE173033.009 SE173033.010

Arsenic, As mg/kg 3 17 7 <3 8 5

Cadmium, Cd mg/kg 0.3 0.4 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3

Chromium, Cr mg/kg 0.3 14 15 2.8 15 21

Copper, Cu mg/kg 0.5 67 23 18 34 16

Lead, Pb mg/kg 1 300 50 7 79 12

Nickel, Ni mg/kg 0.5 10 9.2 <0.5 8.5 1.5

Zinc, Zn mg/kg 0.5 230 62 8.5 130 17

UOMPARAMETER LOR

QA01

SOIL

-

24/11/2017

SE173033.011

Arsenic, As mg/kg 3 25

Cadmium, Cd mg/kg 0.3 0.6

Chromium, Cr mg/kg 0.3 12

Copper, Cu mg/kg 0.5 79

Lead, Pb mg/kg 1 380

Nickel, Ni mg/kg 0.5 10

Zinc, Zn mg/kg 0.5 340

UOMPARAMETER LOR

Page 10 of 1629/11/2017


Mercury in Soil [AN312] Tested: 28/11/2017

TP1_0.5 TP1_1.6 TP2_0.1 TP3_0.5 TP3_1.0


- - - - -

24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017

SE173033.001 SE173033.002 SE173033.003 SE173033.004 SE173033.005

Mercury mg/kg 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.15 <0.05 <0.05

UOMPARAMETER LOR

TP4_0.1 TP5_0.1 TP5_4.0 TP6_0.5 TP6_2.0


- - - - -

24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017

SE173033.006 SE173033.007 SE173033.008 SE173033.009 SE173033.010

Mercury mg/kg 0.05 0.07 <0.05 <0.05 0.07 <0.05

UOMPARAMETER LOR

QA01

SOIL

-

24/11/2017

SE173033.011

Mercury mg/kg 0.05 0.11

UOMPARAMETER LOR

Page 11 of 1629/11/2017


Moisture Content [AN002] Tested: 27/11/2017

TP1_0.5 TP1_1.6 TP2_0.1 TP3_0.5 TP3_1.0


- - - - -

24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017

SE173033.001 SE173033.002 SE173033.003 SE173033.004 SE173033.005

% Moisture %w/w 0.5 26 21 11 19 23

UOMPARAMETER LOR

TP4_0.1 TP5_0.1 TP5_4.0 TP6_0.5 TP6_2.0


- - - - -

24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017

SE173033.006 SE173033.007 SE173033.008 SE173033.009 SE173033.010

% Moisture %w/w 0.5 8.9 8.5 13 7.4 21

UOMPARAMETER LOR

QA01

SOIL

-

24/11/2017

SE173033.011

% Moisture %w/w 0.5 11

UOMPARAMETER LOR

Page 12 of 1629/11/2017


Fibre Identification in soil [AN602] Tested: 28/11/2017

TP1_0.5 TP1_1.6 TP2_0.1 TP3_0.5 TP3_1.0


- - - - -

24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017

SE173033.001 SE173033.002 SE173033.003 SE173033.004 SE173033.005

Asbestos Detected No unit - No No No No No

UOMPARAMETER LOR

TP4_0.1 TP5_0.1 TP5_4.0 TP6_0.5 TP6_2.0


- - - - -

24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017

SE173033.006 SE173033.007 SE173033.008 SE173033.009 SE173033.010

Asbestos Detected No unit - No No No No No

UOMPARAMETER LOR

Page 13 of 1629/11/2017


Fibre ID in bulk materials [AN602] Tested: 29/11/2017

TP4_0.1_ACM TP2_0.1_ACM

MATERIAL MATERIAL

- -

24/11/2017 24/11/2017

SE173033.012 SE173033.013

Asbestos Detected No unit - Yes Yes

UOMPARAMETER LOR

Page 14 of 1629/11/2017

SE173033 R0METHOD SUMMARY

METHOD METHODOLOGY SUMMARY

The test is carried out by drying (at either 40°C or 105°C) a known mass of sample in a weighed evaporating

basin. After fully dry the sample is re-weighed. Samples such as sludge and sediment having high percentages of

moisture will take some time in a drying oven for complete removal of water.

AN002

A portion of sample is digested with nitric acid to decompose organic matter and hydrochloric acid to complete the

digestion of metals. The digest is then analysed by ICP OES with metals results reported on the dried sample

basis. Based on USEPA method 200.8 and 6010C.

AN040/AN320

A portion of sample is digested with Nitric acid to decompose organic matter and Hydrochloric acid to complete the

digestion of metals and then filtered for analysis by ASS or ICP as per USEPA Method 200.8.

AN040

Mercury by Cold Vapour AAS in Soils: After digestion with nitric acid, hydrogen peroxide and hydrochloric acid ,

mercury ions are reduced by stannous chloride reagent in acidic solution to elemental mercury. This mercury

vapour is purged by nitrogen into a cold cell in an atomic absorption spectrometer or mercury analyser .

Quantification is made by comparing absorbances to those of the calibration standards. Reference APHA

3112/3500

AN312

Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons: Determination of Hydrocarbons by gas chromatography after a solvent

extraction. Detection is by flame ionisation detector (FID) that produces an electronic signal in proportion to the

combustible matter passing through it. Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons (TRH) are routinely reported as four

alkane groupings based on the carbon chain length of the compounds: C6-C9, C10-C14, C15-C28 and C29-C36

and in recognition of the NEPM 1999 (2013), >C10-C16 (F2), >C16-C34 (F3) and >C34-C40 (F4). F2 is reported

directly and also corrected by subtracting Naphthalene ( from VOC method AN433) where available.

AN403

Additionally, the volatile C6-C9 fraction may be determined by a purge and trap technique and GC /MS because of

the potential for volatiles loss. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) follows the same method of analysis after

silica gel cleanup of the solvent extract. Aliphatic/Aromatic Speciation follows the same method of analysis after

fractionation of the solvent extract over silica with differential polarity of the eluent solvents .

AN403

The GC/FID method is not well suited to the analysis of refined high boiling point materials (ie lubricating oils or

greases) but is particularly suited for measuring diesel, kerosene and petrol if care to control volatility is taken. This

method will detect naturally occurring hydrocarbons, lipids, animal fats, phenols and PAHs if they are present at

sufficient levels, dependent on the use of specific cleanup /fractionation techniques. Reference USEPA 3510B,

8015B.

AN403

(SVOCs) including OC, OP, PCB, Herbicides, PAH, Phthalates and Speciated Phenols (etc) in soils, sediments

and waters are determined by GCMS/ECD technique following appropriate solvent extraction process (Based on

USEPA 3500C and 8270D).

AN420

SVOC Compounds: Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs) including OC, OP, PCB, Herbicides, PAH,

Phthalates and Speciated Phenols in soils, sediments and waters are determined by GCMS /ECD technique

following appropriate solvent extraction process (Based on USEPA 3500C and 8270D).

AN420

VOCs and C6-C9 Hydrocarbons by GC-MS P&T: VOC`s are volatile organic compounds. The sample is presented

to a gas chromatograph via a purge and trap (P&T) concentrator and autosampler and is detected with a Mass

Spectrometer (MSD). Solid samples are initially extracted with methanol whilst liquid samples are processed

directly. References: USEPA 5030B, 8020A, 8260.

AN433

Qualitative identification of chrysotile, amosite and crocidolite in bulk samples by polarised light microscopy (PLM)

in conjunction with dispersion staining (DS). AS4964 provides the basis for this document. Unequivocal

identification of the asbestos minerals present is made by obtaining sufficient diagnostic `clues`, which provide a

reasonable degree of certainty, dispersion staining is a mandatory `clue` for positive identification. If sufficient

`clues` are absent, then positive identification of asbestos is not possible. This procedure requires removal of

suspect fibres/bundles from the sample which cannot be returned.

AN602

Fibres/material that cannot be unequivocably identified as one of the three asbestos forms, will be reported as

unknown mineral fibres (umf) The fibres detected may or may not be asbestos fibres.

AN602

AS4964.2004 Method for the Qualitative Identification of Asbestos in Bulk Samples, Section 8.4, Trace Analysis

Criteria, Note 4 states:"Depending upon sample condition and fibre type, the detection limit of this technique has

been found to lie generally in the range of 1 in 1,000 to 1 in 10,000 parts by weight, equivalent to 1 to 0.1 g/kg."

AN602

The sample can be reported “no asbestos found at the reporting limit of 0.1 g/kg” (<0.01%w/w) where AN602

section 4.5 of this method has been followed, and if-

(a) no trace asbestos fibres have been detected (i.e. no ‘respirable’ fibres):

(b) the estimated weight of non-respirable asbestos fibre bundles and/or the estimated weight of asbestos in

asbestos-containing materials are found to be less than 0.1g/kg: and

(c) these non-respirable asbestos fibre bundles and/or the asbestos containing materials are only visible under

stereo-microscope viewing conditions.

AN602

Page 15 of 1629/11/2017

SE173033 R0FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTES

*

**

NATA accreditation does not cover

the performance of this service.

Indicative data, theoretical holding

time exceeded.

-

NVL

IS

LNR

Not analysed.

Not validated.

Insufficient sample for analysis.

Sample listed, but not received.

Samples analysed as received.

Solid samples expressed on a dry weight basis.

Where "Total" analyte groups are reported (for example, Total PAHs, Total OC Pesticides) the total will be calculated as the sum of the individual

analytes, with those analytes that are reported as <LOR being assumed to be zero. The summed (Total) limit of reporting is calculated by summing

the individual analyte LORs and dividing by two. For example, where 16 individual analytes are being summed and each has an LOR of 0.1 mg/kg,

the "Totals" LOR will be 1.6 / 2 (0.8 mg/kg). Where only 2 analytes are being summed, the " Total" LOR will be the sum of those two LORs.

Some totals may not appear to add up because the total is rounded after adding up the raw values.

If reported, measurement uncertainty follow the ± sign after the analytical result and is expressed as the expanded uncertainty calculated using a

coverage factor of 2, providing a level of confidence of approximately 95%, unless stated otherwise in the comments section of this report.

Results reported for samples tested under test methods with codes starting with ARS -SOP, radionuclide or gross radioactivity concentrations are

expressed in becquerel (Bq) per unit of mass or volume or per wipe as stated on the report. Becquerel is the SI unit for activity and equals one

nuclear transformation per second.

Note that in terms of units of radioactivity:

a. 1 Bq is equivalent to 27 pCi

b. 37 MBq is equivalent to 1 mCi

For results reported for samples tested under test methods with codes starting with ARS -SOP, less than (<) values indicate the detection limit for

each radionuclide or parameter for the measurement system used. The respective detection limits have been calculated in accordance with ISO

11929.

The QC criteria are subject to internal review according to the SGS QAQC plan and may be provided on request or alternatively can be found here :

http://www.sgs.com.au/~/media/Local/Australia/Documents/Technical%20Documents/MP-AU-ENV-QU-022%20QA%20QC%20Plan.pdf

This document is issued by the Company under its General Conditions of Service accessible at www.sgs.com/en/Terms-and-Conditions.aspx.

Attention is drawn to the limitation of liability, indemnification and jurisdiction issues defined therein.

Any holder of this document is advised that information contained hereon reflects the Company 's findings at the time of its intervention only and

within the limits of Client's instructions, if any. The Company's sole responsibility is to its Client only. Any unauthorized alteration, forgery or

falsification of the content or appearance of this document is unlawful and offenders may be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law .

This report must not be reproduced, except in full.

UOM

LOR

↑↓

Unit of Measure.

Limit of Reporting.

Raised/lowered Limit of

Reporting.

Page 16 of 1629/11/2017

Accreditation No. 2562

Date Reported

Contact

SGS Alexandria Environmental

Unit 16, 33 Maddox St

Alexandria NSW 2015

Huong Crawford

+61 2 8594 0400

+61 2 8594 0499

[email protected]

13

SGS Reference

Email

Facsimile

Telephone

Address

Manager

Laboratory

SY141023-1-IS

Old Canterbury Rd, Summer Hill Add

[email protected]

02 9272 5101

02 92721478

Level 27, 680 George St

NSW 2000

WSP AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED

Benjamin Gentile

Samples

Order Number

Project

Email

Facsimile

Telephone

Address

Client

CLIENT DETAILS LABORATORY DETAILS

30/11/2017

ANALYTICAL REPORT

SE173033A R0

Date Received 29/11/2017

COMMENTS

Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 - Testing. NATA accredited laboratory 2562(4354).

Huong Crawford

Production Manager

Kamrul Ahsan

Senior Chemist

Teresa Nguyen

Organic Chemist

SIGNATORIES

Member of the SGS Group

www.sgs.com.aut +61 2 8594 0400

f +61 2 8594 0499

Australia

Australia

Alexandria NSW 2015

Alexandria NSW 2015

Unit 16 33 Maddox St

PO Box 6432 Bourke Rd BC

Environment, Health and SafetySGS Australia Pty Ltd

ABN 44 000 964 278

Page 1 of 730/11/2017

SE173033A R0ANALYTICAL RESULTS

TCLP (Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure) for Organics/SVOC [AN006] Tested: 29/11/2017

TP2_0.1 TP4_0.1 TP5_0.1 TP6_0.5

SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL

- - - -

24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017

SE173033A.003 SE173033A.006 SE173033A.007 SE173033A.009

pH 1:20 pH Units - 7.0 6.3 4.9 8.0

pH 1:20 plus HCL pH Units - 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.7

Extraction Solution Used No unit - 1 1 1 1

Mass of Sample Used* g - 25 25 25 25

Volume of ExtractionSolution Used* mL - 500 500 500 500

pH TCLP after 18 hours pH Units - 5.0 5.0 4.9 4.9

UOMPARAMETER LOR

Page 2 of 730/11/2017


PAH (Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons) in TCLP Extract [AN420] Tested: 29/11/2017

TP2_0.1 TP4_0.1 TP5_0.1 TP6_0.5

SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL

- - - -

24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017

SE173033A.003 SE173033A.006 SE173033A.007 SE173033A.009

Benzo(a)pyrene µg/L 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

UOMPARAMETER LOR

Page 3 of 730/11/2017


TCLP (Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure) for Metals [AN006] Tested: 29/11/2017

QA01

SOIL

-

24/11/2017

SE173033A.011

pH 1:20 pH Units - 4.6

pH 1:20 plus HCL pH Units - 1.7

Extraction Solution Used No unit - 1

Mass of Sample Used* g - 13

Volume of ExtractionSolution Used* mL - 250

pH TCLP after 18 hours pH Units - 5.0

UOMPARAMETER LOR

Page 4 of 730/11/2017


Metals in TCLP Extract by ICPOES [AN320] Tested: 29/11/2017

TP2_0.1 QA01

SOIL SOIL

- -

24/11/2017 24/11/2017

SE173033A.003 SE173033A.011

Lead, Pb mg/L 0.02 0.05 0.29

UOMPARAMETER LOR

Page 5 of 730/11/2017

SE173033A R0METHOD SUMMARY

METHOD METHODOLOGY SUMMARY

Contaminants of interest in a waste material are leached out of the waste with a selected leaching solution under

controlled conditions. The ratio of sample to extraction fluid is 100g to 2L (1 to 20 by mass). The concentration of

each contaminant of interest is determined in the leachate by appropriate methods after separation from the

sample by filtering. Base on USEPA 1311.

AN006

Extraction Fluid #1: This fluid is made by combining 128.6mL of dilute sodium hydroxide solution and 11 .5mL

glacial acetic acid with water and diluting to a volume of 2 litres. The pH of this fluid should be 4.93 ± 0.05.

AN006

Extraction Fluid #2: This fluid is made by diluting 5.7mL glacial acetic acid with water to a volume of 1 litre. The pH

of this fluid should be 2.88 ± 0.05.

AN006

Unpreserved water sample is filtered through a 0.45µm membrane filter and acidified with nitric acid similar to

APHA3030B.

AN020

Metals by ICP-OES: Samples are preserved with 10% nitric acid for a wide range of metals and some non-metals.

This solution is measured by Inductively Coupled Plasma. Solutions are aspirated into an argon plasma at

8000-10000K and emit characteristic energy or light as a result of electron transitions through unique energy

levels. The emitted light is focused onto a diffraction grating where it is separated into components .

AN320

Photomultipliers or CCDs are used to measure the light intensity at specific wavelengths. This intensity is directly

proportional to concentration. Corrections are required to compensate for spectral overlap between elements .

Reference APHA 3120 B.

AN320

(SVOCs) including OC, OP, PCB, Herbicides, PAH, Phthalates and Speciated Phenols (etc) in soils, sediments

and waters are determined by GCMS/ECD technique following appropriate solvent extraction process (Based on

USEPA 3500C and 8270D).

AN420

Page 6 of 730/11/2017

SE173033A R0FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTES

*

**

NATA accreditation does not cover

the performance of this service.

Indicative data, theoretical holding

time exceeded.

-

NVL

IS

LNR

Not analysed.

Not validated.

Insufficient sample for analysis.

Sample listed, but not received.

Samples analysed as received.

Solid samples expressed on a dry weight basis.

Where "Total" analyte groups are reported (for example, Total PAHs, Total OC Pesticides) the total will be calculated as the sum of the individual

analytes, with those analytes that are reported as <LOR being assumed to be zero. The summed (Total) limit of reporting is calculated by summing

the individual analyte LORs and dividing by two. For example, where 16 individual analytes are being summed and each has an LOR of 0.1 mg/kg,

the "Totals" LOR will be 1.6 / 2 (0.8 mg/kg). Where only 2 analytes are being summed, the " Total" LOR will be the sum of those two LORs.

Some totals may not appear to add up because the total is rounded after adding up the raw values.

If reported, measurement uncertainty follow the ± sign after the analytical result and is expressed as the expanded uncertainty calculated using a

coverage factor of 2, providing a level of confidence of approximately 95%, unless stated otherwise in the comments section of this report.

Results reported for samples tested under test methods with codes starting with ARS -SOP, radionuclide or gross radioactivity concentrations are

expressed in becquerel (Bq) per unit of mass or volume or per wipe as stated on the report. Becquerel is the SI unit for activity and equals one

nuclear transformation per second.

Note that in terms of units of radioactivity:

a. 1 Bq is equivalent to 27 pCi

b. 37 MBq is equivalent to 1 mCi

For results reported for samples tested under test methods with codes starting with ARS -SOP, less than (<) values indicate the detection limit for

each radionuclide or parameter for the measurement system used. The respective detection limits have been calculated in accordance with ISO

11929.

The QC criteria are subject to internal review according to the SGS QAQC plan and may be provided on request or alternatively can be found here :

http://www.sgs.com.au/~/media/Local/Australia/Documents/Technical%20Documents/MP-AU-ENV-QU-022%20QA%20QC%20Plan.pdf

This document is issued by the Company under its General Conditions of Service accessible at www.sgs.com/en/Terms-and-Conditions.aspx.

Attention is drawn to the limitation of liability, indemnification and jurisdiction issues defined therein.

Any holder of this document is advised that information contained hereon reflects the Company 's findings at the time of its intervention only and

within the limits of Client's instructions, if any. The Company's sole responsibility is to its Client only. Any unauthorized alteration, forgery or

falsification of the content or appearance of this document is unlawful and offenders may be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law .

This report must not be reproduced, except in full.

UOM

LOR

↑↓

Unit of Measure.

Limit of Reporting.

Raised/lowered Limit of

Reporting.

Page 7 of 730/11/2017

Uncontrolled template when printed Ref: SGS_COC_Old Canterbury Road.DOC/ver.2/16.08.2007/Page 1 of 3

CHAIN OF CUSTODY & ANALYSIS REQUEST Page __1__ of __3__

SGS Environmental Services

Sydney

Company Name: WSP Project Name/No: Old Canterbury Road, Summer Hill

Unit 16, 33 Maddox Street Address: LEVEL 27 Purchase Order No:

Alexandria NSW 2015 680 GEORGE ST Results Required By: 48hr TAT – Tuesday 28/11/17

Telephone No: (02) 85940400 SYDNEY, NSW 2000 Telephone: 0428 102 678

Facsimile No: (02) 85940499 Contact Name: Benjamin Gentile Quote No. SY141023-1-IS

Email: [email protected] Email Results: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Client Sample ID Date Sampled

Lab

Sample

ID W

AT

ER

SO

IL

PR

ES

ER

VA

TIV

E

NO

OF

CO

NT

AIN

ER

S

CL

13

PC

B

Asb

est

os

(Pre

sen

ce/A

bse

nce

)

Ho

ld

TP1_0.1 24/11/17 X 2 X

TP1_0.5 24/11/17 X 2 X X X

TP1_1.0 24/11/17 X 2 X

TP1_1.6 24/11/17 X 2 X X X

TP2_0.1 24/11/17 X 2 X X X

TP2_0.5 24/11/17 X 2 X

TP2_1.0 24/11/17 X 2 X

TP2_1.6 24/11/17 X 2 X

TP3_0.1 24/11/17 X 2 X

TP3_0.5 24/11/17 X 2 X X X

TP3_1.0 24/11/17 X 2 X X X

Relinquished By: Benjamin Gentile Date/Time: 24/11/17 Received By: Date/Time

Relinquished By: Date/Time: Received By: Date/Time

Samples Intact: Yes/ No Temperature: Ambient / Chilled Sample Cooler Sealed: Yes/ No Laboratory Quotation No:

Comments:

mailto:[email protected]






Sydney

Company Name: WSP Project Name/No: Old Canterbury Road Summer Hill







Lab

Sample

ID W

AT

ER

SO

IL

PR

ES

ER

VA

TIV

E

NO

OF

CO

NT

AIN

ER

S

CL

13

PC

B

Asb

est

os

(Pre

sen

ce/A

bse

nce

)

Ho

ld

TP3_1.6 24/11/17 X 2 X

TP4_0.1 24/11/17 X 2 X X X

TP4_0.5 24/11/17 X 2 X

TP4_1.0 24/11/17 X 2 X

TP4_1.6 24/11/17 X 2 X

TP5_0.1 24/11/17 X 2 X X X

TP5_0.5 24/11/17 X 2 X

TP5_1.0 24/11/17 X 2 X

TP5_1.0 24/11/17 X 2 X

TP5_2.0 24/11/17 X 2 X

TP5_3.0 24/11/17 X 2 X




Comments:







Sydney

Company Name: WSP Project Name/No: Old Canterbury Road, Summer Hill







Lab

Sample

ID W

AT

ER

SO

IL

PR

ES

ER

VA

TIV

E

NO

OF

CO

NT

AIN

ER

S

CL

13

PC

B

Asb

est

os

(Pre

sen

ce/A

bse

nce

)

Ho

ld

TP5_4.0 24/11/17 X 2 X X X

TP6_0.1 24/11/17 X 2 X

TP6_0.5 24/11/17 X 2 X X X

TP6_1.0 24/11/17 X 2 X

TP6_2.0 24/11/17 X 2 X X X

QA01 24/11/17 X 1 X X

QA01A 24/11/17 X 1 X

TP4_0.1_ACM 24/11/17 X 1 X

TP2_0.1_ACM 24/11/17 X 1 X




Comments:





JK Geotechnics GEOTECHNICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS

PO Box 976, North Ryde BC NSW 1670 Tel: 02 9888 5000 Fax: 02 9888 5003 www.jkgeotechnics.com.au

Jeffery & Katauskas Pty Ltd, trading as JK Geotechnics ABN 17 003 550 801

REPORT

TO AUSGRID

ON PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

FOR PROPOSED SWITCH HOUSE AND CONTROL ROOM

AT SUMMER HILL ZONE SUBSTATION,

230 OLD CANTERBURY ROAD, SUMMER HILL, NSW

21 January 2016 Ref: 28928ZRrpt

28928ZRrpt Page ii

Date: 21 January 2016 Report No: 28928ZRrpt Revision No: 0

Report prepared by: Paul Roberts Senior Associate

Report reviewed by: Agi Zenon Principal Geotechnical Engineer For and on behalf of

JK GEOTECHNICS

PO Box 976

NORTH RYDE BC NSW 1670

Document Copyright of JK Geotechnics.

This Report (which includes all attachments and annexures) has been prepared by JK Geotechnics (JK) for its Client, and is intended for the use only by that Client. This Report has been prepared pursuant to a contract between JK and its Client and is therefore subject to:

a) JK’s proposal in respect of the work covered by the Report;

b) the limitations defined in the Client’s brief to JK;

c) the terms of contract between JK and the Client, including terms limiting the liability of JK.

If the Client, or any person, provides a copy of this Report to any third party, such third party must not rely on this Report, except with the express written consent of JK which, if given, will be deemed to be upon the same terms, conditions, restrictions and limitations as apply by virtue of (a), (b), and (c) above. Any third party who seeks to rely on this Report without the express written consent of JK does so entirely at their own risk and to the fullest extent permitted by law, JK accepts no liability whatsoever, in respect of any loss or damage suffered by any such third party.

28928ZRrpt Page iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION 1

2 INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE 2

3 RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION 3

3.1 Site Description 3

3.2 Subsurface Conditions 4

3.3 Laboratory Test Results 6

4 COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7

4.1 Site Preparation 7

4.1.1 Site Drainage 7

4.1.2 Site Preparation 7

4.1.3 Excavation and Temporary Batter Slopes 8

4.1.4 Groundwater Seepage 8

4.1.5 Subgrade Preparation 9

4.1.6 Engineered Fill 10

4.2 Cable Basement 11

4.2.1 Retention Design 11

4.2.2 Design Groundwater Levels and Uplift 12

4.3 Footings 13

4.3.1 Site Classification and Shrink-Swell Movements 13

4.3.2 Pile Footings 13

4.3.3 High Level Footings 15

4.4 External Driveway Pavements and Drainage 15

4.5 Earthquake Design Parameters 16

4.6 Soil Aggression 17

4.7 Further Geotechnical Input 17

5 GENERAL COMMENTS 17

STS TABLE A: MOISTURE CONTENT, ATTERBERG LIMITS & LINEAR SHRINKAGE TEST REPORT

BOREHOLE LOGS 1 AND 2

FIGURE 1: BOREHOLE LOCATION PLAN

FIGURE 2: GROUNDWATER LEVEL AND DAILY RAINFALL V TIME PLOT

REPORT EXPLANATION NOTES

APPENDIX A: ENVIROLAB SERVICES CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS NO: 139423

28928ZRrpt Page 1

1 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of a preliminary geotechnical investigation for the proposed switch

house and control room at the Summer Hill Zone Substation, 230 Old Canterbury Road, Summer

Hill, NSW. The investigation was commissioned by Mr Chad Wijeratne of Ausgrid in an email dated

11 November 2015. The commission was on the basis of our fee proposal (Ref. P41223Arev1)

dated 2 November 2015.

We have been provided with the following information:

A ‘Preliminary Concept Work In Progress’ layout drawing of the proposed switch house and

control room, dated 2 June 2015 prepared by Ausgrid.

An aerial photograph indicating ground surface levels and contours, prepared by Ausgrid.

A preliminary geotechnical investigation report for the proposed switch room (Project. 72165.00,

Ref. AP/TS:lll, dated 13 January 2011) prepared by Douglas Partners Pty Ltd (DP).

A preliminary waste classification report for the proposed switch room (Project. 72165.00 Rev

1, Ref. AHP:jlb, dated 24 January 2011) prepared by DP.

Based on the provided information we understand that following demolition of selected buildings

and structures the proposed development will include:

Construction of a new building to house three transformer bays, switch house and control room

underlain by a cable basement which will require excavations to a maximum depth of about 2m.

Construction of a new access road lining the northern side of the new building and leading west

from the Old Canterbury Road frontage. The proposed access road will need to bridge over

existing buried services and a stormwater easement crossing the site from south-east to north-

west.

Structural loads typical of this type of development have been assumed.

The purpose of the investigation was to obtain geotechnical information on subsurface conditions

as a basis for preliminary comments and recommendations on site preparation, earthworks,

excavation conditions, temporary batter slopes, seepage, retention systems, building and bridge

footings, soil aggression, earthquake design parameters, external pavements, hydrogeology and

the scope of further geotechnical input.

28928ZRrpt Page 2

2 INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE

The fieldwork for the investigation was carried out on 17 December 2015 and comprised the auger

drilling of two boreholes (BH1 and BH2) to respective depths of 6.9m and 9m below existing ground

level using our track mounted JK205 drilling rig.

Prior to commencement of the fieldwork, a specialist sub-contractor completed electro-magnetic

and Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) scanning of the borehole locations for the presence of buried

services. However, we note that what appeared to be a large concrete pipe was encountered at

the location of BH1 at three separate locations before the fourth successful attempt to drill the

borehole. The concrete pipe was not indicated on Dial Before You Dig plans or detected by the

scanning.

The borehole locations, as indicated on attached Figure 1, were set out by taped measurements

from existing surface features. The surface RLs at the borehole locations were estimated by

interpolation between spot heights shown on the provided aerial photograph and are therefore

approximate. The survey datum is not known and so a datum has been assumed.

The relative compaction and strength of the clayey fill and natural clay subsoil profile were assessed

from the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) ‘N’ values, which were augmented by the results of hand

penetrometer readings on cohesive soil samples recovered in the SPT split tube. The strength of

the bedrock was assessed from observation of drilling resistance when using a tungsten carbide

(‘TC’) bit, examination of the recovered rock cuttings and subsequent correlation with laboratory

moisture content test results.

Groundwater observations were made during and on completion of auger drilling. A groundwater

monitoring well was installed in BH2 and comprised a 50mm diameter PVC standpipe with a

response zone from 1m to 3.8m depth. The installation details are indicated on the attached

borehole log. A data logger was also installed in the monitoring well for longer term groundwater

monitoring. The groundwater level was recorded on completion of the fieldwork and subsequently

measured on 18 January 2016 when we returned to site to download the information on

groundwater level fluctuations from the data logger. The attached Figure 2 presents a plot of

groundwater fluctuations in the monitoring well together with rainfall data, and the results are

summarised in Section 3.2 below.

For further details on the investigation procedures adopted, reference should be made to the

attached Report Explanation Notes.

28928ZRrpt Page 3

The fieldwork was carried out under the direction of our geotechnical engineer (Thomas Clent), who

was present full-time on site and set out the borehole locations, directed the buried services scan,

logged the encountered subsurface profile, nominated in-situ testing and sampling and directed the

installation of the monitoring well and data logger. The borehole logs (which include field test

results, groundwater observations and monitoring well installation details) are attached, together

with a glossary of logging terms and symbols used.

Selected soil and rock chip samples were returned to the Soil Test Services (STS) NATA registered

laboratory, for moisture content, Atterberg Limit and linear shrinkage testing. The results are

summarised in the attached STS Table A.

Selected soil samples which were recovered from site were submitted to an alternative NATA

registered laboratory (Envirolab Services Pty Ltd) for soil pH, sulfate and chloride testing. The test

results are presented in the attached Appendix A.

A contamination screen of site soils and groundwater was outside the agreed scope of the

investigation.

3 RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION

3.1 Site Description

The site is located within undulating topography which gently slopes down to the north-east and

east. The site surface levels sloped down to the north-east at a maximum of approximately 3° to

5°.

The site has southern and eastern frontages onto the asphaltic concrete (AC) paved James Street

and Old Canterbury Road, respectively. The street frontages included concrete paved footpaths

and grass surfaced reserve areas (with small sized trees).

At the time of the investigation the existing substation comprised AC and concrete paved yard areas

with a single storey brick building and adjoining metal clad cabin, and an open-topped brick

substation structure located over the north-western and north-eastern portions of the site. The brick

substation extended to the northern section of the eastern street frontage. The remaining south-

eastern portion of the site was occupied by a rendered brick warehouse (No. 14 James Street) and

28928ZRrpt Page 4

a single storey brick house (No. 238 Old Canterbury Road). Numerous small to medium sized trees

were located in the house yard areas.

A stormwater easement extends north-west to south-east across the central portion of the site.

Neighbouring single storey houses with paved and grass surfaced yard areas lined, or were located

within about 2m of the northern and western site boundaries.

Site surface levels appeared to be similar across the site boundaries.

Based on a cursory inspection from the street frontages, the buildings and structures within and

neighbouring the site generally appeared to be in reasonably good condition with occasional 1mm

to 2mm wide cracking noted within the warehouse building. However, the James Street AC surface

appeared to be in fair condition with some areas of re-surfacing associated with service trench

reinstatement. In addition, the paved surfaces within the existing substation were in fair condition

with surface repairs and crocodile cracking evident.

3.2 Subsurface Conditions

The 1:100,000 geological map of Sydney indicates that the site is underlain by the Ashfield Shale

Unit of the Wianamatta Group. In addition, there is the possibility that igneous dykes (orientated

north-west to south-east) could intersect the site.

The boreholes disclosed a limited thickness of fill overlying natural residual clayey soils with shale

bedrock encountered at shallow to moderate depth. Readily discernible groundwater was not

encountered over the depth of the investigation although groundwater was recorded at shallow to

moderate depth in the monitoring well following completion of the fieldwork. For a more detailed

description of the subsurface profile encountered at each borehole location reference should be

made to the attached borehole logs. A summary of the pertinent subsurface conditions is presented

below:

Paved Surfaces

A 0.1m thick AC pavement surface over a 0.1m thick gravelly basecourse was encountered in BH1.

Fill

Silty gravelly sand fill was encountered from surface level in BH2 and clayey fill with varying gravel

content was encountered from beneath the pavement construction material in BH1. The fill

28928ZRrpt Page 5

extended to depths of 0.6m (BH1) and 0.8m (BH2). Based on the SPT results and limited hand

penetrometer readings, the fill was assessed to be poorly compacted (BH1) and moderately to well

compacted (BH2). The DP report indicated similar fill materials which extended to a maximum

depth of 1m.

Residual Silty Clay

Residual silty clay assessed to be of medium and high plasticity and very stiff to hard and hard

strength was encountered in both boreholes from below the fill. The DP report indicated similar

clays but of stiff to very stiff strength.

Shale Bedrock

Weathered shale bedrock was encountered in both boreholes below the residual silty clay at depths

of 2.6m (BH1) and 3.7m (BH2). The bedrock surface slopes down to the east from RL24m (BH1)

to RL22.7m (BH2).

On first contact, the shale was assessed to be extremely (occasionally distinctly) weathered and of

extremely low to very low strength. The shale improved with depth in BH1 to distinctly weathered

and low and medium strength. In BH2 the shale marginally improved in quality with depth to

distinctly weathered and very low strength.

Groundwater and Hydrogeology

Both boreholes were ‘dry’ during and on completion of auger drilling. The attached Figure 2

presents a plot of groundwater fluctuations and rainfall events over the monitoring period between

17 December 2015 and 17 January 2016. Figure 2 indicates that the groundwater level rose to

about 3.6m depth (RL22.8m AHD) just prior to the rainfall events between the 22 and 24 December

2015. Since these rainfall events the groundwater has steadily risen to about 2.2m depth (RL24.2m

AHD) over the approximately four week monitoring period. In this regard, we note that there was

no sharp increase in the rate of groundwater level rise following a number of rainfall events between

4 and 8 January 2016 and between 15 and 16 January 2016.

The DP geotechnical report indicated that groundwater levels in the residual clays over the western

end of the site were at about 1.3m depth (about RL26m to RL26.3m).

We note that the topography slopes down to the north and east towards the stormwater easement.

We assume that the stormwater easement crossing the site comprises a pipe line or culvert which

was located along the alignment of a creek line or natural drainage channel within the pre-

28928ZRrpt Page 6

development topography. On this basis, we would expect the regional drainage of groundwater

down to the old creek line or drainage channel.

We note that the monitoring well was ‘dry’ on completion of the fieldwork although within a two days

of fieldwork completion groundwater was recorded. Groundwater seepage within the encountered

clay soil profile would be expected to occur at, or just below, the interface with the underlying

bedrock, although the mass permeability (and rates of seepage) of the clayey soil profile and

weathered shale bedrock would be expected to be low unless open fissures or defects are present.

Significant groundwater inflow through the clayey soil profile would not generally be expected based

on the investigation results as there was no indication of water softened bands and/or seepage

within the clayey soils.

The groundwater monitoring did not demonstrate a direct correlation between rainfall and

groundwater levels. This would be expected in such a low permeability subsurface profile where

surface run-off infiltration would be at a slow rate. Consequently, whilst recorded groundwater

levels may be relatively high, they are believed to be associated with groundwater seepage flow

close to the soil-bedrock interface collecting in the standpipe.

DP concluded that the encountered seepage within the boreholes over the western end of the site

was associated with ‘perched or ephemeral water due to recent rainfall events’ or ‘due to broken or

leaking water service lines’ and that the regional groundwater level was well below the recorded

seepage levels. Based on our investigation results this would appear to be a reasonable

interpretation of the groundwater regime.

3.3 Laboratory Test Results

The moisture content test results completed on recovered rock chip samples showed reasonably

good correlation with our field assessment of bedrock strength.

Based on the Liquid Limit and Linear Shrinkage determinations, the residual silty clays were

assessed to be of medium or high plasticity with a moderate to high potential for shrink/swell

reactivity with changes in moisture content.

28928ZRrpt Page 7

A summary of the laboratory chemical test results is provided in the table below.

Borehole

Number

Sample

Depth (m)

Description pH

Units

Sulphate

(mg/kg)

Chloride

(mg/kg)

Resistivity

Ohm cm

1 1.5 – 1.95 Silty CLAY 5.5 66 20 10000

2 0.5 – 0.95 FILL: sandy silty

clay

4.9 160 36 6400

4 COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

We note that our current investigation was restricted by access constraints to only one location

within the site and one location outside the site. The provided DP reports were based on the results

of a limited scope investigation within the site completed using portable hand held equipment. The

comments and recommendations provided below are therefore of a preliminary nature and will need

to be confirmed by further geotechnical investigations once improved site access is feasible.

4.1 Site Preparation

All earthworks recommendations provided below should be complemented by reference to

AS3798-2007.

4.1.1 Site Drainage

Any areas of existing clay fill and/or natural clay subgrade at the site are expected to undergo

substantial loss in strength when ‘wet’. Furthermore, any clay subgrades are expected to have

some shrink-swell reactive potential. Therefore, it is important to provide good and effective site

drainage both during construction and for long-term site maintenance. The principle aim of the

drainage is to promote run-off and reduce ponding. A poorly drained clay subgrade may become

untraffickable when wet. The earthworks should be carefully planned and scheduled to maintain

good cross-falls during construction.

4.1.2 Site Preparation

Following demolition of the existing pavements and structures, any grass, topsoil and root affected

soils and any deleterious fill or contaminated soil should be stripped. Stripped topsoil and root

affected soils should be stockpiled separately as they are considered unsuitable for reuse as

engineered fill. They may however be reused for landscaping purposes, subject to environmental

assessment. In this regard, we note that the preliminary waste classification assessment DP report

28928ZRrpt Page 8

indicated that the fill materials within the site were ‘classifiable as General Solid Waste (non

putrescible) and would need to be disposed of to an appropriately licensed general Solid Waste

Landfill’.

Care must be taken during stripping not to undermine or remove support from the paved surfaces

(and any buried services) lining the southern and eastern site boundaries and/or existing buildings

within the site.

We note that it is imperative to remove trees as soon as practicable in order for the moisture content

of the clayey subsoils to recover. Tree root systems dry out the surrounding clayey soils and their

removal will result in localised recovery leading to swelling which may have a detrimental impact

on the performance of floor slabs buildings and pavements.

4.1.3 Excavation and Temporary Batter Slopes

Excavation recommendations should be complemented by reference to the Safe Work Australia

‘Excavation Work Code of Practice’ dated July 2015.

Excavations to a maximum depth of about 2m will be required to achieve the design subgrade

levels for the proposed cable basement. The excavations will encounter the soil profile and are

expected to be readily achieved using bucket attachments to tracked excavators. We recommend

that all cuts through the expected predominantly clayey soil profile above groundwater level should

be temporarily battered back at no steeper than 1Vertical (V) in 1Horizontal (H). Excavations

through sandy soils should be temporarily battered back at no steeper than 1V in 1.5H.

However, if groundwater levels are predicted to rise above the prosed design subgrade level then

temporary batter slopes may not be feasible and alternative excavation support will need to be

considered. Further comments are provided in Section 4.1.4, below.

4.1.4 Groundwater Seepage

Groundwater inflows into the proposed excavation are not expected to occur although we note that

on completion of our groundwater monitoring, the groundwater level was still gradually rising. As

outlined in Section 3.3 above, the recorded groundwater levels are believed to be associated with

groundwater seepage flow close to the soil-bedrock interface collecting in the standpipe. On this

basis, unless water carrying open fissures within the natural clay soil profile are intercepted in the

excavation, seepage rates into the excavation are generally expected to be low.

28928ZRrpt Page 9

Assuming the groundwater seepage is below design subgrade level then only localised seepage

flows through sandy fill areas and along areas of backfilled service trenches are envisaged,

particularly following heavy rainfall. Any localised seepage that occurs is expected to of low volume

and controllable by sump and pump methods.

Based on the discussion of the groundwater presented in Section 3.3 above, we recommend that

further groundwater monitoring be undertaken. This should include re-installation of the data logger

in the monitoring well over a longer monitoring period and formation of at least one more monitoring

well over the proposed cable basement excavation.

Following evaluation of further groundwater monitoring, dewatering and shoring recommendations

provided above may need to be reviewed.

4.1.5 Subgrade Preparation

Following stripping down to design subgrade level for the proposed external pavements, the soil

subgrade should be prepared as follows:

Proof roll the subgrade using at least 6 passes of a minimum 12 tonne dead weight smooth

drum static (non-vibration) roller. The aim of the proof rolling is to improve near surface

compaction and to identify any unstable subgrade areas.

Proof rolling should be closely monitored by the site supervisor or an experienced geotechnical

engineer to detect soft or unstable areas which should be locally excavated down to a stiff base

and replaced with engineered fill (as outlined in Section 4.1.5, below). Care should be taken

not to over compact clayey subgrade areas.

Sections of clay subgrade that contain shrinkage cracks should be watered and rolled until the

shrinkage cracks disappear.

Care will need to be exercised close to nearby existing structures, the new structure and any

buried services as ground borne vibrations caused by the proof rolling may cause damage. If

there any causes for concern during proof rolling, then further advice should be sought and/or

the non-vibration (static) mode of the roller used.

If soil softening occurs after rainfall periods, then the clay subgrade should be over-excavated to

below the depth of moisture softening and replaced with engineered fill.

28928ZRrpt Page 10

4.1.6 Engineered Fill

General

From a geotechnical perspective, the clayey fill, sandy fill and residual clays are considered suitable

for reuse as engineered fill on condition that they are ‘clean’, free of organic matter and contain a

maximum particle size no greater than 100mm. We note that use of clayey materials for engineered

fill requires careful control of moisture contents and will likely have a low soaked CBR value. All

sandy fill should be blended with the clayey soils to improve the workability and ‘drying out’ of the

latter soil type.

Engineered fill comprising the stripped above mentioned (approved) material should be compacted

in maximum 300mm thick loose layers using a large static pad-foot roller to a density ratio strictly

between 98% and 102% of Standard maximum Dry Density (SMDD) and at a moisture content

within 2% of Standard Optimum Moisture Content (SOMC). The vibratory mode on the roller should

not be used as this will induce ‘pumping’ and softening of the subgrade.

Service Trenches

Backfilling of cable trenches must be carried out in accordance with Ausgrid’s requirements.

Backfilling of all other service trenches must be carried out using engineered fill in order to reduce

post-construction settlements. This also applies to the soil backfill in the upper profile of the cable

trenches. Due to the reduced energy output of the rollers that can be placed in trenches, backfilling

should be carried out in maximum 150mm thick loose layers and compacted using a trench roller,

a pad foot roller attachment fitted to an excavator, and/or a vertical rammer compactor (also known

as a ‘Wacker Packer’). Due to the reduced loose layer thickness, the maximum particle size of the

backfill material should also reduce to 50mm. The compaction specification provided above is

applicable.

Cable Basement Walls

As for services trenches, backfilling behind free standing cable basement walls must also be carried

out using engineered fill in order to reduce post-construction settlements. Compaction of the

engineered backfill should be carried out using a hand operated vertical rammer compactor for the

lower layers and immediately behind the wall in the upper layers. Elsewhere a small static roller

should be used. As per services trenches, backfilling should be carried out in maximum 150mm

thick loose layers and the maximum particle size of the backfill material should be no more than

50mm.

28928ZRrpt Page 11

Earthworks Inspection and Testing

Density tests should be regularly carried out on the engineered fill to confirm the above

specifications are achieved, as outlined below:

The frequency of density testing for general engineered fill should be at least one test per layer

per 500m2, or one test per 100m3 distributed reasonably evenly throughout the full depth and

area, or 3 tests per visit, whichever requires the most tests (assumes maximum 300mm thick

loose layers).

The frequency of density testing for trench backfill should be at least one test per two layers

per 40 linear metres (assumes maximum 150mm thick loose layers).

The frequency of density testing for retaining wall backfill should be at least one test per two

layers per 50m2 (assumes maximum 150mm thick loose layers).

Level 2 testing of fill compaction is the minimum permissible in AS3798-2007. Due to a potential

conflict of interest, the geotechnical testing authority (GTA) should be directly engaged by Ausgrid

or their representative, and not by the earthworks contractor or sub-contractors.

4.2 Cable Basement

4.2.1 Retention Design

We expect that the cable basement walls will comprise conventional cantilever retaining walls. The

following characteristic earth pressure coefficients and subsoil parameters should be adopted for

the design of the cantilevered cable basement walls:

We recommend the use of a triangular lateral earth pressure distribution with an ‘at rest’ earth

pressure coefficient (ko) of 0.55 for the soil profile, assuming a horizontal backfill surface.

A bulk unit weight of 20kN/m3 should be adopted for the soil profile.

All surcharge loads affecting the walls (e.g. nearby footings, construction loads, traffic, etc)

should be allowed in the design using the earth pressure coefficient from above.

Conventional retaining walls may be designed as 'drained' and measures taken to provide

permanent and effective drainage of the ground behind the walls. The subsoil drains should

incorporate a non woven geotextile fabric (e.g. Bidim A34) to act as a filter against subsoil

erosion. However, should further groundwater monitoring (as recommended above) indicate

that external groundwater levels will be above the basement floor level then the basement

walls will need designed as tanked; further advice is provided below.

If the bases of the maintenance pit walls are not propped by the structure then lateral toe

restraint may be provided by the passive pressure of the soil below the design subgrade level

28928ZRrpt Page 12

in front of the wall. The toe restraint may be designed using a triangular lateral earth pressure

distribution and a ‘passive’ earth pressure coefficient, Kp, of 3, provided a Factor of Safety of

2 is used in order to reduce deflections. The upper 0.3m below subgrade level together with

any localised excavations for buried services etc should be taken into account in the design.

4.2.2 Design Groundwater Levels and Uplift

Subject to further groundwater monitoring, the cable basement walls may need to be designed

assuming a groundwater level coincident with surrounding surface levels to allow for any long term

seepage and localised raising of groundwater levels, or inundation following heavy or prolonged

rainfall, or possibly leakage from damaged water carrying pipelines.

Such elevated groundwater levels may cause uplift and the design of the cable basement should

be checked in this regard. If the self-weight of the structure does not control potential uplift forces,

then permanent ground anchors will be required. If permanent anchors are selected, they should

be bonded into the residual silty clay of at least very stiff strength or the weathered shale bedrock

of at least low strength using respective allowable bond strengths of 50kPa and 100kpa. All anchors

should be proof tested to 1.3 times the working load under the supervision of an experienced

engineer or construction superintendent, independent of the anchor contractor. We recommend

that only experienced contractors be considered for the anchor installation.

We note that permanent anchors would need to be designed for corrosion resistance and for long

term durability.

We may be able to justify a lower design head of water depending on the results of the

recommended further groundwater monitoring. Care is required with the tanking details, particularly

across the basement wall to floor joints and at any internal footing locations.

Alternatively, the potential groundwater pressures may be alleviated by providing the maintenance

pit with drainage and a pump-out system.

28928ZRrpt Page 13

4.3 Footings

4.3.1 Site Classification and Shrink-Swell Movements

We note that AS 2870-2011 does not apply for this type of development. However, due to the

presence and thickness of uncontrolled clayey fill at the site a ‘P’ site classification in accordance

with the AS 2870 applies.

Based on the laboratory test results, the residual silty clays will be moderately to highly reactive

and therefore subject to shrink-swell movements with changes in moisture content. We have

carried out an indicative assessment of shrink-swell movements using approximate instability index

values based on linear shrinkage test results. Assuming the trees are removed well ahead of

construction (i.e. at least 2 years), the predicted shrink-swell movements are about 35mm. If tree

removal is delayed or if the trees remain in place the predicted shrink-swell movements increase to

65mm. On this basis, we recommend that all new high level footings and floor slabs be designed

with due regard for the recommendations contained in AS2870-2011 for a Class M site (if all the

trees are removed well ahead of construction) or a Class H2 site if some trees remain, are not

removed well ahead of construction and/or new trees are planted. We also draw attention to the

precautionary advice in AS 2870 with regard to trees in close proximity to buildings.

We also warn that removal of the existing external paved areas may expose areas of clayey

subgrade and if left exposed to the elements, may trigger shrink swell movements causing

differential movements beneath the existing footings. Such movements could cause damage to

existing buildings (if supported on high level footings) and we recommend that any exposed clayey

subgrades are appropriately protected and/or new floor slabs and external paved areas constructed

without delay.

4.3.2 Pile Footings

The new buildings and structures may be supported on pile footings socketed into the weathered

shale bedrock. The external pavement bridge footings over the stormwater easement will also

need to be socketed below the invert level of the pipe line or culvert in order to prevent surcharging

of the buried structures and pile footings are also likely to be required. If floor slabs are suspended

void formers will need to be provided beneath the floor slab to accommodate potential shrink-swell

movements in the residual silty clay soils below subgrade level.

Typically extremely weathered shale bedrock (equivalent to Class V) was encountered at depths of

2.6m (BH1) and 3.7m (BH2). Footings socketed at least 0.3m into Class V shale bedrock may be

28928ZRrpt Page 14

designed for a maximum allowable end bearing pressure of 700kPa, subject to geotechnical

inspection. We note that the allowable end bearing pressure may be increased to 1000kPa if the

if the piles are socketed at least 0.3m into very low or higher strength shale. Sockets formed below

the minimum 0.3m length requirement may be designed for maximum allowable shaft adhesion

values of 10% (compression) and 5% (tension) of the above allowable end bearing pressures. The

provided pressures are based upon serviceability criteria of deflections at the pile toe of less than

1% of the pile diameter.

Bored piles are considered to be suitable for the site. We recommend that provision be made for

temporary liners in the event that any bored pile holes encounter groundwater which may cause

localised pile wall instability in the soil or bedrock profile at, or close to, the seepage depth. The

piling contractor should be provided with a copy of this geotechnical report in order that appropriate

piling rigs and equipment are brought to site.

Alternatively, the external pavement bridge footings over the stormwater easement may be

supported on steel screw piles socketed into the residual silty clays of at least very stiff strength or

the Class V shale expected on first contact with bedrock. Such piles may be designed assuming

an allowable end bearing pressure of 600kPa, subject to geotechnical inspection. However, our

preference is not to use steel screw piles as they may encounter difficulties penetrating competent

bedrock, if encountered on first contact. In this instance it is likely that the leader at the base of the

screw pile will refuse on the bedrock surface with the helix ‘hung up’ in the soil profile.

We are not in favour of driven piles as vibration induced damage could occur on the buildings within

and neighbouring the site.

The drilling of bored piles and steel screw piles should be witnessed by a geotechnical engineer in

order to confirm that the appropriate quality foundation materials and design socket length (where

appropriate) have been achieved. With regard to the steel screw piles, the installed depths will

need to be compared to the borehole information by a geotechnical engineer to confirm that a

satisfactory bearing stratum has been achieved.

The above allowable bearing pressures and shaft adhesion values for the shale bedrock assume

that the pile bases are thoroughly cleaned of loose material or ‘fall-in’ prior to pouring concrete and

that the side walls are appropriately roughened. In addition, the shale bedrock will be susceptible

to softening in the presence of water and any water softened materials should be over-drilled to a

sound base prior to pouring concrete.

28928ZRrpt Page 15

We note that the piling contractor may require a working platform. The assessment of a working

platform thickness would need to be completed by a geotechnical engineer using loads associated

with the site specific piling rig, and based on the methodology outlined in BRE 2004 ‘Working

Platforms for Tracked Plant’. Where a working platform is required it would need to be formed

using engineered fill comprising durable granular material (such as DGB20 or similar as approved

by the geotechnical engineer).

If certification of the working platform is required, then a geotechnical engineer should visit site to

confirm that the thickness of the working platform has been achieved and to review the density test

results carried out on the working platform material. We may then be in a position to certify the

working platform, provided the thickness and minimum density requirements have been met; this

certification would be more readily achievable if Level 1 control of fill placement and compaction, in

accordance with AS3798-2007, is adopted.

4.3.3 High Level Footings

The cable basement walls may be supported on strip footings founded in the residual silty clays of

at least very stiff strength and designed on the basis of an allowable bearing pressure of 200kPa,

subject to geotechnical inspection.

The residual silty clays are susceptible to softening in the presence of water and so all footings

should be excavated, cleaned, inspected and poured with minimal delay i.e. within the same day.

All footings should be free from all loose or softened materials prior to pouring. If water ponds in

the bases of the footing excavations it should first be pumped dry and then over excavated to

remove all loose and softened materials. A blinding layer of concrete may be provided to protect

the shallow footing excavation bases that are to be left open.

4.4 External Driveway Pavements and Drainage

The subgrade for the proposed new external pavements will comprise existing clayey or sandy fill,

and/or residual silty clay. We recommend that the proposed new external pavements be designed

for a tentative CBR value of 2% or a short-term Young’s modulus of 15MPa for the predominantly

clayey soil profile. However, this will need to be confirmed by further geotechnical investigation

and laboratory CBR testing.

28928ZRrpt Page 16

Concrete pavements should be supported on an unbound granular sub-base at least 100mm thick,

comprising good quality fine crushed rock such as DGB20 (RMS QA Specification 3051 unbound

granular material) and compacted to a minimum density ratio of 98% of Modified Maximum Dry

Density (MMDD). Adequate moisture conditioning to within 2% of Modified Optimum Moisture

Content (MOMC) should be provided during placement so as to reduce the potential for material

breakdown during compaction. The sub-base material would provide more uniform slab support

and would reduce ‘pumping’ of subgrade ‘fines’ at joints due to vehicular movements. Slab joints

should be designed to resist shear forces but not bending moments by providing dowelled or keyed

joints.

For flexible pavements we recommend that all base course materials comprise DGB20 (RMS QA

Specification 3051). The base course material should be compacted in maximum 200mm thick

loose layers using a large static smooth drum roller to at least 98% of MMDD. Adequate moisture

conditioning to within 2% of MOMC should be provided during placement.

We further recommend that all sub-base materials comprise DGS20 or DGS40 (RMS QA

Specification 3051). The sub-base material should be compacted in maximum 200mm thick loose

layers using a large static smooth drum roller to at least 95% of MMDD. Again, adequate moisture

conditioning to within 2% of MOMC should be provided during placement.

Density tests should be regularly carried out on the granular pavement materials to confirm the

above specifications are achieved. The frequency of density testing should be at least one test per

layer per 1000m2, or three tests per layer, or three tests per visit, whichever requires the most tests.

Level 2 testing of fill compaction is the minimum permissible in AS3798-2007. The GTA should be

directly engaged by Ausgrid or their representative.

In order to protect the pavement edge, subsoil drains should be provided along the perimeter of all

proposed new external pavement areas, with inverts not less than 0.2m below subgrade level. The

drainage trenches should be excavated with a longitudinal fall to appropriate discharge points so

as to reduce the risk of water ponding. The pavement subgrade should be graded to promote water

flow or infiltration towards sub-soil drains.

4.5 Earthquake Design Parameters

Based on the results of the investigation, the following design parameters should be adopted for

earthquake design in accordance with AS1170.4-2007 (“Structural Design Actions, Part 4:

Earthquake Actions in Australia”):

28928ZRrpt Page 17

Hazard Factor (Z) = 0.08

Site Subsoil Class = Class Ce

4.6 Soil Aggression

Based on the advice provided in Table 4.8.1 of AS3600-2009 “Concrete Structures” the laboratory

chemical test results have indicated that an A2 Exposure Classification applies.

For concrete pile footings, based on the advice provided in AS2159-2009 “Piling Design and

Installation” for corrosion protection and durability, a ‘Mild’ Exposure Classification would apply

(based on Table 6.4.2(C) of AS2159).

For steel pile footings, based on the advice provided in AS2159-2009 “Piling Design and

Installation” for corrosion protection and durability, a ‘Non-aggressive’ Exposure Classification

would apply (based on Table 6.5.2(C) of AS2159).

4.7 Further Geotechnical Input

Provided below is a summary of additional geotechnical input outlined in the preceding sections of

this report:

Re-install the data logger for additional groundwater monitoring in the monitoring well.

Additional geotechnical investigation including laboratory CBR testing and installation of

additional groundwater monitoring wells.

Piling rig working platform thickness design.

Proof-rolling inspections.

Density testing of all engineered fill.

Witnessing drilling of bored pile and/or steel screw pile footings.

High level footing inspections.

5 GENERAL COMMENTS

The recommendations presented in this report include specific issues to be addressed during the

construction phase of the project. As an example, special treatment of soft spots may be required

as a result of their discovery during proof-rolling, etc. In the event that any of the construction phase

recommendations presented in this report are not implemented, the general recommendations may

become inapplicable and JK Geotechnics accept no responsibility whatsoever for the performance

28928ZRrpt Page 18

of the structure where recommendations are not implemented in full and properly tested, inspected

and documented.

The long term successful performance of floor slabs and pavements is dependent on the

satisfactory completion of the earthworks. In order to achieve this, the quality assurance program

should not be limited to routine compaction density testing only. Other critical factors associated

with the earthworks may include subgrade preparation, selection of fill materials, control of moisture

content and drainage, etc. The satisfactory control and assessment of these items may require

judgment from an experienced engineer. Such judgment often cannot be made by a technician

who may not have formal engineering qualifications and experience. In order to identify potential

problems, we recommend that a pre-construction meeting be held so that all parties involved

understand the earthworks requirements and potential difficulties. This meeting should clearly

define the lines of communication and responsibility.

Occasionally, the subsurface conditions between and below the completed boreholes may be found

to be different (or may be interpreted to be different) from those expected. Variation can also occur

with groundwater conditions, especially after climatic changes. If such differences appear to exist,

we recommend that you immediately contact this office.

This report provides advice on geotechnical aspects for the proposed civil and structural design.

As part of the documentation stage of this project, Contract Documents and Specifications may be

prepared based on our report. However, there may be design features we are not aware of or have

not commented on for a variety of reasons. The designers should satisfy themselves that all the

necessary advice has been obtained. If required, we could be commissioned to review the

geotechnical aspects of contract documents to confirm the intent of our recommendations has been

correctly implemented.

A waste classification will need to be assigned to any soil excavated from the site prior to offsite

disposal. Subject to the appropriate testing, material can be classified as Virgin Excavated Natural

Material (VENM), General Solid, Restricted Solid or Hazardous Waste. If the natural soil has been

stockpiled, classification of this soil as Excavated Natural Material (ENM) can also be undertaken,

if requested. However, the criteria for ENM are more stringent and the cost associated with

attempting to meet these criteria may be significant. Analysis takes seven to 10 working days to

complete, therefore, an adequate allowance should be included in the construction program unless

testing is completed prior to construction. If contamination is encountered, then substantial further

28928ZRrpt Page 19

testing (and associated delays) should be expected. We strongly recommend that this issue is

addressed prior to the commencement of excavation on site.

This report has been prepared for the particular project described and no responsibility is accepted

for the use of any part of this report in any other context or for any other purpose. If there is any

change in the proposed development described in this report then all recommendations should be

reviewed. Copyright in this report is the property of JK Geotechnics. We have used a degree of

care, skill and diligence normally exercised by consulting engineers in similar circumstances and

locality. No other warranty expressed or implied is made or intended. Subject to payment of all

fees due for the investigation, the client alone shall have a licence to use this report. The report

shall not be reproduced except in full.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

AFTER1 HR

N = 133,5,8

N = 255,12,13

-

CL

-

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE: 100m.t

FILL: Sandy silty gravel, fine tomedium grained igneous, dark grey.

FILL: Silty clay, medium to highplasticity, grey mottled red brown andorange brown.

SILTY CLAY: medium plasticity, greymottled orange brown, with ironindurated shale nodules.

SHALE: grey mottled red brown, withiron indurated bands, (VL strength).

SHALE: dark grey, with light greylaminae.

END OF BOREHOLE AT 6.9m

MC»PL

MC<PL

XW

DW

VSt-H

EL

VL-L

L

M

150200150

350450450

APPEARS POORLYCOMPACTED

RESIDUAL

VERY LOW'TC' BITRESISTANCE

LOW RESISTANCE

MODERATE

JK GeotechnicsGEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS

BOREHOLE LOGBorehole No.

1

Client: AUSGRID

Project: PROPOSED SWITCH HOUSE & CONTROL ROOM

Location: 230 OLD CANTERBURY ROAD, SUMMER HILL, NSW

Job No. 28928ZR Method: SPIRAL AUGERJK205

R.L. Surface: 26.6m

Date: 17-12-15 Datum: ASSUMED

Logged/Checked by: T.C./P.R.

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Re

co

rd

ES

SA

MP

LE

SU

50

DB

DS

Fie

ld T

ests

De

pth

(m

)

Gra

ph

ic L

og

Un

ifie

d

Cla

ssific

atio

n

DESCRIPTION

Mo

istu

re

Co

nd

itio

n/

We

ath

erin

g

Str

en

gth

/

Re

l. D

en

sity

Ha

nd

Pe

ne

tro

me

ter

Re

ad

ing

s (

kP

a.)

Remarks

CO

PY

RIG

HT

1/1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

DRY ONCOMPLET-

ION

N = 154,7,8

N = 123,6,6

N = 144,7,7

CH

-

FILL: Silty gravelly sand, fine tocoarse grained, dark brown, fine tomedium grained igneous gravel.

FILL: Sandy silty clay, mediumplasticity, brown and orange brown,with root fibres, medium grained shalegravel and brick fragments.

SILTY CLAY: high plasticity, brownand red brown.

as above,but grey mottled orange brown andred brown.

SHALE: light grey.


M

MC<PL

XW-DW

DW

H

VSt-H

EL-VL

VL

550400

500550

>600

300350450

MULCH COVER

APPEARSMODERATELY TOWELLCOMPACTED

RESIDUAL

VERY LOWRESISTANCE



2

Client: AUSGRID




R.L. Surface: 26.4m



Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Re

co

rd

ES

SA

MP

LE

SU

50

DB

DS

Fie

ld T

ests

De

pth

(m

)

Gra

ph

ic L

og

Un

ifie

d

Cla

ssific

atio

n

DESCRIPTION

Mo

istu

re

Co

nd

itio

n/

We

ath

erin

g

Str

en

gth

/

Re

l. D

en

sity

Ha

nd

Pe

ne

tro

me

ter

Re

ad

ing

s (

kP

a.)

Remarks

CO

PY

RIG

HT

1/2

8

9

10

11

12

13

14


END OF BOREHOLE AT 9.0m

DW VL

BACKFILLED WITHSPOILINGS FROM9.0m TO 4.5m,BENTONITE SEALFROM 4.5m TO 3.8m.CLASS 18 50mm PVCSTANDPIPEINSTALLED TO 3.8mDEPTH, SLOTTEDFROM 1m TO 3.8m,SAND FILTER PACKFROM 1m to 3.8m,BENTONITE SEALFROM 1m TO 0.3m.COMPLETED WITHGATIC COVER ATSURFACE



2

Client: AUSGRID




R.L. Surface: 26.4m



Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Re

co

rd

ES

SA

MP

LE

SU

50

DB

DS

Fie

ld T

ests

De

pth

(m

)

Gra

ph

ic L

og

Un

ifie

d

Cla

ssific

atio

n

DESCRIPTION

Mo

istu

re

Co

nd

itio

n/

We

ath

erin

g

Str

en

gth

/

Re

l. D

en

sity

Ha

nd

Pe

ne

tro

me

ter

Re

ad

ing

s (

kP

a.)

Remarks

CO

PY

RIG

HT

2/2

When printed to a printer, this scale bar prints out at 5cm.Please use it as a guide to adjust your scale bar you insert foryour base map (DO NOT ADJUST THE LENGTH OF THEEXAMPLE SCALE BAR!) and then delete it.

1

2

Old Cante

bury R

oad

James Street

CO

PY

RIG

HT

PROPOSED NEW ACCESS ROADINCLUDING BRIDGE OVER STORMWATER EASMENT

PROPOSED NEW TRANSFORMER BAYS,SWITCH HOUSE AND CONTROL ROOM

File Name: 28928ZR Groundwater Plot BH2

Date Printed: 28/01/2016

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

22.0

23.0

24.0

25.0

26.0

27.01

7/1

2/2

01

5

18

/12

/20

15

19

/12

/20

15

20

/12

/20

15

21

/12

/20

15

22

/12

/20

15

23

/12

/20

15

24

/12

/20

15

25

/12

/20

15

26

/12

/20

15

27

/12

/20

15

28

/12

/20

15

29

/12

/20

15

30

/12

/20

15

31

/12

/20

15

1/0

1/2

01

6

2/0

1/2

01

6

3/0

1/2

01

6

4/0

1/2

01

6

5/0

1/2

01

6

6/0

1/2

01

6

7/0

1/2

01

6

8/0

1/2

01

6

9/0

1/2

01

6

10

/01

/20

16

11

/01

/20

16

12

/01

/20

16

13

/01

/20

16

14

/01

/20

16

15

/01

/20

16

16

/01

/20

16

17

/01

/20

16

18

/01

/20

16

19

/01

/20

16

Dai

ly R

ain

fall

(mm

)

Gro

un

d w

ate

r R

L (m

AH

D)

Date

Ground Water Level and Daily Rainfall -v- Time Plot

Rainfall (mm) Groundwater RL (mAHD) Surface RL (mAHD)

Rainfall data from

JK GeotechnicsGEOTECHNICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS

Report No. Figure No. 28928ZR 2Holsworthy Control Range, Station number : 6711

Jeffery & Katauskas Pty Ltd, trading as JK Geotechnics ABN 17 003 550 801

JKG Report Explanation Notes Rev2 May 2013 Page 1 of 4

REPORT EXPLANATION NOTES

INTRODUCTION

These notes have been provided to amplify the geotechnicalreport in regard to classification methods, field proceduresand certain matters relating to the Comments andRecommendations section. Not all notes are necessarilyrelevant to all reports.

The ground is a product of continuing natural and man-made processes and therefore exhibits a variety ofcharacteristics and properties which vary from place to placeand can change with time. Geotechnical engineeringinvolves gathering and assimilating limited facts about thesecharacteristics and properties in order to understand orpredict the behaviour of the ground on a particular site undercertain conditions. This report may contain such factsobtained by inspection, excavation, probing, sampling,testing or other means of investigation. If so, they aredirectly relevant only to the ground at the place where andtime when the investigation was carried out.

DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION METHODS

The methods of description and classification of soils androcks used in this report are based on Australian Standard1726, the SAA Site Investigation Code. In general,descriptions cover the following properties – soil or rock type,colour, structure, strength or density, and inclusions.Identification and classification of soil and rock involvesjudgement and the Company infers accuracy only to theextent that is common in current geotechnical practice.

Soil types are described according to the predominatingparticle size and behaviour as set out in the attached UnifiedSoil Classification Table qualified by the grading of otherparticles present (e.g. sandy clay) as set out below:

Soil Classification Particle Size

Clay

Silt

Sand

Gravel

less than 0.002mm

0.002 to 0.075mm

0.075 to 2mm

2 to 60mm

Non-cohesive soils are classified on the basis of relativedensity, generally from the results of Standard PenetrationTest (SPT) as below:

Relative DensitySPT ‘N’ Value(blows/300mm)

Very loose

Loose

Medium dense

Dense

Very Dense

less than 4

4 – 10

10 – 30

30 – 50

greater than 50

Cohesive soils are classified on the basis of strength(consistency) either by use of hand penetrometer, laboratorytesting or engineering examination. The strength terms aredefined as follows.

ClassificationUnconfined CompressiveStrength kPa

Very Soft

Soft

Firm

Stiff

Very Stiff

Hard

Friable

less than 25

25 – 50

50 – 100

100 – 200

200 – 400

Greater than 400

Strength not attainable

– soil crumbles

Rock types are classified by their geological names,together with descriptive terms regarding weathering,strength, defects, etc. Where relevant, further informationregarding rock classification is given in the text of the report.In the Sydney Basin, ‘Shale’ is used to describe thinlybedded to laminated siltstone.

SAMPLING

Sampling is carried out during drilling or from otherexcavations to allow engineering examination (andlaboratory testing where required) of the soil or rock.

Disturbed samples taken during drilling provide informationon plasticity, grain size, colour, moisture content, minorconstituents and, depending upon the degree of disturbance,some information on strength and structure. Bulk samplesare similar but of greater volume required for some testprocedures.

Undisturbed samples are taken by pushing a thin-walledsample tube, usually 50mm diameter (known as a U50), intothe soil and withdrawing it with a sample of the soilcontained in a relatively undisturbed state. Such samplesyield information on structure and strength, and arenecessary for laboratory determination of shear strengthand compressibility. Undisturbed sampling is generallyeffective only in cohesive soils.

Details of the type and method of sampling used are givenon the attached logs.

INVESTIGATION METHODS

The following is a brief summary of investigation methodscurrently adopted by the Company and some comments ontheir use and application. All except test pits, hand augerdrilling and portable dynamic cone penetrometers requirethe use of a mechanical drilling rig which is commonlymounted on a truck chassis.

JK GeotechnicsGEOTECHNICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS


Test Pits: These are normally excavated with a backhoe or

a tracked excavator, allowing close examination of the insitusoils if it is safe to descend into the pit. The depth ofpenetration is limited to about 3m for a backhoe and up to6m for an excavator. Limitations of test pits are the problemsassociated with disturbance and difficulty of reinstatementand the consequent effects on close-by structures. Caremust be taken if construction is to be carried out near test pitlocations to either properly recompact the backfill duringconstruction or to design and construct the structure so asnot to be adversely affected by poorly compacted backfill atthe test pit location.

Hand Auger Drilling: A borehole of 50mm to 100mm

diameter is advanced by manually operated equipment.Premature refusal of the hand augers can occur on a varietyof materials such as hard clay, gravel or ironstone, and doesnot necessarily indicate rock level.

Continuous Spiral Flight Augers: The borehole is

advanced using 75mm to 115mm diameter continuousspiral flight augers, which are withdrawn at intervals to allowsampling and insitu testing. This is a relatively economicalmeans of drilling in clays and in sands above the water table.Samples are returned to the surface by the flights or may becollected after withdrawal of the auger flights, but they canbe very disturbed and layers may become mixed.Information from the auger sampling (as distinct fromspecific sampling by SPTs or undisturbed samples) is ofrelatively lower reliability due to mixing or softening ofsamples by groundwater, or uncertainties as to the originaldepth of the samples. Augering below the groundwatertable is of even lesser reliability than augering above thewater table.

Rock Augering: Use can be made of a Tungsten Carbide

(TC) bit for auger drilling into rock to indicate rock qualityand continuity by variation in drilling resistance and fromexamination of recovered rock fragments. This method ofinvestigation is quick and relatively inexpensive but providesonly an indication of the likely rock strength and predictedvalues may be in error by a strength order. Where rockstrengths may have a significant impact on constructionfeasibility or costs, then further investigation by means ofcored boreholes may be warranted.

Wash Boring: The borehole is usually advanced by a

rotary bit, with water being pumped down the drill rods andreturned up the annulus, carrying the drill cuttings.Only major changes in stratification can be determined fromthe cuttings, together with some information from “feel” andrate of penetration.

Mud Stabilised Drilling: Either Wash Boring or

Continuous Core Drilling can use drilling mud as acirculating fluid to stabilise the borehole. The term ‘mud’encompasses a range of products ranging from bentonite topolymers such as Revert or Biogel. The mud tends to maskthe cuttings and reliable identification is only possible fromintermittent intact sampling (eg from SPT and U50 samples)or from rock coring, etc.

Continuous Core Drilling: A continuous core sample is

obtained using a diamond tipped core barrel. Provided fullcore recovery is achieved (which is not always possible invery low strength rocks and granular soils), this techniqueprovides a very reliable (but relatively expensive) method ofinvestigation. In rocks, an NMLC triple tube core barrel,which gives a core of about 50mm diameter, is usually usedwith water flush. The length of core recovered is comparedto the length drilled and any length not recovered is shownas CORE LOSS. The location of losses are determined onsite by the supervising engineer; where the location isuncertain, the loss is placed at the top end of the drill run.

Standard Penetration Tests: Standard Penetration Tests

(SPT) are used mainly in non-cohesive soils, but can alsobe used in cohesive soils as a means of indicating density orstrength and also of obtaining a relatively undisturbedsample. The test procedure is described in AustralianStandard 1289, “Methods of Testing Soils for EngineeringPurposes” – Test F3.1.

The test is carried out in a borehole by driving a 50mmdiameter split sample tube with a tapered shoe, under theimpact of a 63kg hammer with a free fall of 760mm. It isnormal for the tube to be driven in three successive 150mmincrements and the ‘N’ value is taken as the number ofblows for the last 300mm. In dense sands, very hard claysor weak rock, the full 450mm penetration may not bepracticable and the test is discontinued.

The test results are reported in the following form:

In the case where full penetration is obtained withsuccessive blow counts for each 150mm of, say, 4, 6and 7 blows, as

N = 134, 6, 7

In a case where the test is discontinued short of fullpenetration, say after 15 blows for the first 150mm and30 blows for the next 40mm, as

N>3015, 30/40mm

The results of the test can be related empirically to theengineering properties of the soil.

Occasionally, the drop hammer is used to drive 50mmdiameter thin walled sample tubes (U50) in clays. In suchcircumstances, the test results are shown on the boreholelogs in brackets.

A modification to the SPT test is where the same driving

system is used with a solid 60 tipped steel cone of thesame diameter as the SPT hollow sampler. The solid conecan be continuously driven for some distance in soft clays orloose sands, or may be used where damage wouldotherwise occur to the SPT. The results of this Solid ConePenetration Test (SCPT) are shown as "N c” on the boreholelogs, together with the number of blows per 150mmpenetration.


Static Cone Penetrometer Testing and Interpretation:Cone penetrometer testing (sometimes referred to as aDutch Cone) described in this report has been carried outusing an Electronic Friction Cone Penetrometer (EFCP).The test is described in Australian Standard 1289, Test F5.1.

In the tests, a 35mm diameter rod with a conical tip ispushed continuously into the soil, the reaction beingprovided by a specially designed truck or rig which is fittedwith an hydraulic ram system. Measurements are made ofthe end bearing resistance on the cone and the frictionalresistance on a separate 134mm long sleeve, immediatelybehind the cone. Transducers in the tip of the assembly areelectrically connected by wires passing through the centre ofthe push rods to an amplifier and recorder unit mounted onthe control truck.

As penetration occurs (at a rate of approximately 20mm persecond) the information is output as incremental digitalrecords every 10mm. The results given in this report havebeen plotted from the digital data.

The information provided on the charts comprise:

Cone resistance – the actual end bearing force dividedby the cross sectional area of the cone – expressed inMPa.

Sleeve friction – the frictional force on the sleeve dividedby the surface area – expressed in kPa.

Friction ratio – the ratio of sleeve friction to coneresistance, expressed as a percentage.

The ratios of the sleeve resistance to cone resistancewill vary with the type of soil encountered, with higherrelative friction in clays than in sands. Friction ratios of1% to 2% are commonly encountered in sands andoccasionally very soft clays, rising to 4% to 10% in stiffclays and peats. Soil descriptions based on coneresistance and friction ratios are only inferred and mustnot be considered as exact.

Correlations between EFCP and SPT values can bedeveloped for both sands and clays but may be site specific.

Interpretation of EFCP values can be made to empiricallyderive modulus or compressibility values to allow calculationof foundation settlements.

Stratification can be inferred from the cone and frictiontraces and from experience and information from nearbyboreholes etc. Where shown, this information is presentedfor general guidance, but must be regarded as interpretive.The test method provides a continuous profile ofengineering properties but, where precise information on soilclassification is required, direct drilling and sampling may bepreferable.

Portable Dynamic Cone Penetrometers: Portable

Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) tests are carried out bydriving a rod into the ground with a sliding hammer andcounting the blows for successive 100mm increments ofpenetration.

Two relatively similar tests are used:

Cone penetrometer (commonly known as the ScalaPenetrometer) – a 16mm rod with a 20mm diametercone end is driven with a 9kg hammer dropping 510mm(AS1289, Test F3.2). The test was developed initiallyfor pavement subgrade investigations, and correlationsof the test results with California Bearing Ratio havebeen published by various Road Authorities.

Perth sand penetrometer – a 16mm diameter flat endedrod is driven with a 9kg hammer, dropping 600mm(AS1289, Test F3.3). This test was developed fortesting the density of sands (originating in Perth) and ismainly used in granular soils and filling.

LOGS

The borehole or test pit logs presented herein are anengineering and/or geological interpretation of the sub-surface conditions, and their reliability will depend to someextent on the frequency of sampling and the method ofdrilling or excavation. Ideally, continuous undisturbedsampling or core drilling will enable the most reliableassessment, but is not always practicable or possible tojustify on economic grounds. In any case, the boreholes ortest pits represent only a very small sample of the totalsubsurface conditions.

The attached explanatory notes define the terms andsymbols used in preparation of the logs.

Interpretation of the information shown on the logs, and itsapplication to design and construction, should therefore takeinto account the spacing of boreholes or test pits, themethod of drilling or excavation, the frequency of samplingand testing and the possibility of other than “straight line”variations between the boreholes or test pits. Subsurfaceconditions between boreholes or test pits may varysignificantly from conditions encountered at the borehole ortest pit locations.

GROUNDWATER

Where groundwater levels are measured in boreholes, thereare several potential problems:

Although groundwater may be present, in lowpermeability soils it may enter the hole slowly or perhapsnot at all during the time it is left open.

A localised perched water table may lead to anerroneous indication of the true water table.

Water table levels will vary from time to time withseasons or recent weather changes and may not be thesame at the time of construction.

The use of water or mud as a drilling fluid will mask anygroundwater inflow. Water has to be blown out of thehole and drilling mud must be washed out of the hole or‘reverted’ chemically if water observations are to bemade.


More reliable measurements can be made by installingstandpipes which are read after stabilising at intervalsranging from several days to perhaps weeks for lowpermeability soils. Piezometers, sealed in a particularstratum, may be advisable in low permeability soils or wherethere may be interference from perched water tables orsurface water.

FILL

The presence of fill materials can often be determined onlyby the inclusion of foreign objects (eg bricks, steel etc) or bydistinctly unusual colour, texture or fabric. Identification ofthe extent of fill materials will also depend on investigationmethods and frequency. Where natural soils similar tothose at the site are used for fill, it may be difficult withlimited testing and sampling to reliably determine the extentof the fill.

The presence of fill materials is usually regarded withcaution as the possible variation in density, strength andmaterial type is much greater than with natural soil deposits.Consequently, there is an increased risk of adverseengineering characteristics or behaviour. If the volume andquality of fill is of importance to a project, then frequent testpit excavations are preferable to boreholes.

LABORATORY TESTING

Laboratory testing is normally carried out in accordance withAustralian Standard 1289 ‘Methods of Testing Soil forEngineering Purposes’. Details of the test procedure usedare given on the individual report forms.

ENGINEERING REPORTS

Engineering reports are prepared by qualified personnel andare based on the information obtained and on currentengineering standards of interpretation and analysis. Wherethe report has been prepared for a specific design proposal(eg. a three storey building) the information andinterpretation may not be relevant if the design proposal ischanged (eg to a twenty storey building). If this happens,the company will be pleased to review the report and thesufficiency of the investigation work.

Every care is taken with the report as it relates tointerpretation of subsurface conditions, discussion ofgeotechnical aspects and recommendations or suggestionsfor design and construction. However, the Company cannotalways anticipate or assume responsibility for:

Unexpected variations in ground conditions – thepotential for this will be partially dependent on boreholespacing and sampling frequency as well as investigationtechnique.

Changes in policy or interpretation of policy by statutoryauthorities.

The actions of persons or contractors responding tocommercial pressures.

If these occur, the company will be pleased to assist withinvestigation or advice to resolve any problems occurring.

SITE ANOMALIES

In the event that conditions encountered on site duringconstruction appear to vary from those which were expectedfrom the information contained in the report, the companyrequests that it immediately be notified. Most problems aremuch more readily resolved when conditions are exposedthat at some later stage, well after the event.

REPRODUCTION OF INFORMATION FORCONTRACTUAL PURPOSES

Attention is drawn to the document ‘Guidelines for theProvision of Geotechnical Information in Tender Documents’ ,published by the Institution of Engineers, Australia. Whereinformation obtained from this investigation is provided fortendering purposes, it is recommended that all information,including the written report and discussion, be madeavailable. In circumstances where the discussion orcomments section is not relevant to the contractual situation,it may be appropriate to prepare a specially editeddocument. The company would be pleased to assist in thisregard and/or to make additional report copies available forcontract purposes at a nominal charge.

Copyright in all documents (such as drawings, borehole ortest pit logs, reports and specifications) provided by theCompany shall remain the property of Jeffery andKatauskas Pty Ltd. Subject to the payment of all fees due,the Client alone shall have a licence to use the documentsprovided for the sole purpose of completing the project towhich they relate. License to use the documents may berevoked without notice if the Client is in breach of anyobjection to make a payment to us.

REVIEW OF DESIGN

Where major civil or structural developments are proposedor where only a limited investigation has been completed orwhere the geotechnical conditions/ constraints are quitecomplex, it is prudent to have a joint design review whichinvolves a senior geotechnical engineer.

SITE INSPECTION

The company will always be pleased to provide engineeringinspection services for geotechnical aspects of work towhich this report is related.

Requirements could range from:

i) a site visit to confirm that conditions exposed are noworse than those interpreted, to

ii) a visit to assist the contractor or other site personnel inidentifying various soil/rock types such as appropriatefooting or pier founding depths, or

iii) full time engineering presence on site.

JKG Graph

GEOTEC

hic Log Symbols fo

HNICAL & ENVI

or Soils and Rock

GRAPHI

RONMENTAL E

s Rev1 July12

IC LOG SY

NGINEERS

MBOLS FOOR SOILS AAND ROCKSKS

Pag

ge 1 of 1

JK GEOTECHN

Note:

GeotecNICAL & ENVIRONMEN

1 Soils possessing2 Soils with liquid

chnics NTAL ENGINEERS

g characteristics of twolimits of the order of 3

UNIF

o groups are designat35 to 50 may be visual

FIED SOIL

ted by combinations olly classified as being

CLASSIFIC

of group symbols (eg. Gof medium plasticity.

CATION TA

GW-GC, well graded g

ABLE

gravel-sand mixture wwith clay fines).

JKG Log S

LOG

Groundw

Samples

Field Te

Moisture(Cohesiv

(Cohesio

Strength(ConsistCohesiv

Density Relative(Cohesio

Hand PeReading

Remarks

GEOTEC

ymbols Rev1 Jun

G COLUMN

water Record

s

ests

e Condition ve Soils)

onless Soils)

h tency)

ve Soils

Index/ e Density onless Soils)

enetrometer gs

s

CHNICAL & ENV

e12

SYMBOL

ES

U50

DB

DS

ASB

ASS

SAL

N = 17

4, 7, 10

Nc = 5

7

3R

VNS = 25

PID = 100

MC>PL

MC≈PL

MC<PL

D

M

W

VS

S

F

St

VSt

H

( )

VL

L

MD

D

VD

( )

300

250

‘V’ bit

‘TC’ bit

60

VIRONMENTAL

C

4

Standing wa

Extent of bo

Groundwate

Soil sample

Undisturbed

Bulk disturbe

Small disturb

Soil sample

Soil sample

Soil sample

Standard Peshow blows

Solid Cone Pfigures show ‘R’ refers to

R

Vane shear

Photoionisat

Moisture con

Moisture con

Moisture con

DRY –

MOIST –

WET –

VERY SOFT

SOFT

FIRM

STIFF

VERY STIFF

HARD

Bracketed sy

Density Ind

Very Loose

Loose

Medium Den

Dense

Very Dense

Bracketed sy

Numbers indnoted

otherwise.

Hardened st

Tungsten ca

Penetration rotation of au

ENGINEERS

LOG SYM

ater level. Time d

rehole collapse s

er seepage into b

taken over depth

50mm diameter

ed sample taken

bed bag sample

taken over depth

taken over depth

taken over depth

enetration Test (Sper 150mm pen

Penetration Testw blows per 150mo apparent hamm

reading in kPa o

tion detector rea

ntent estimated t

ntent estimated t

ntent estimated t

– Runs freely t

– Does not run

– Free water vi

T – Unconfin

– Unconfin

– Unconfin

– Unconfin

F – Unconfin

-– Unconfin

ymbol indicates

ex (ID) Range (%

<15

15-35

nse 35-65

65-85

>85

ymbol indicates

dicate individual

teel ‘V’ shaped b

arbide wing bit.

of auger string inugers.

MBOLS

D

delay following c

shortly after drilli

borehole or exca

h indicated, for e

r tube sample ta

n over depth indic

taken over dept

h indicated, for a

h indicated, for a

h indicated, for s

SPT) performed etration. ‘R’ as n

t (SCPT) performmm penetration fmer refusal within

of Undrained She

ding in ppm (So

to be greater tha

to be approximat

to be less than p

hrough fingers.

freely but no fre

isible on soil surf

ned compressive

ned compressive

ned compressive

ned compressive

ned compressive

ned compressive

estimated consis

%)

estimated densit

test results in kP

bit.

n mm under stat

EFINITION

completion of dril

ng.

vation noted dur

environmental an

ken over depth in

cated.

h indicated.

asbestos screeni

acid sulfate soil a

salinity analysis.

between depthsnoted below.

med between depfor 60 degree son the correspond

ear Strength.

il sample headsp

n plastic limit.

tely equal to plas

plastic limit.

ee water visible o

face.

e strength less th

e strength 25-50

e strength 50-10

e strength 100-2

e strength 200-4

e strength greate

stency based on

SPT ‘N

ty based on ease

Pa on representa

ic load of rig app

lling may be sho

ring drilling or ex

nalysis.

ndicated.

ing.

analysis.

s indicated by lin

pths indicated byolid cone driven bing 150mm dept

pace test).

stic limit.

on soil surface.

han 25kPa

0kPa

00kPa

200kPa

400kPa

er than 400kPa

n tactile examina

N’ Value Range (

0-4

4-10

10-30

30-50

>50

e of drilling or ot

ative undisturbed

plied by drill head

Pag

own.

xcavation.

es. Individual fig

y lines. Individuaby SPT hammer.th increment.

tion or other test

(Blows/300mm)

0

0

her tests.

d material unless

d hydraulics with

ge 1 of 2

gures

al .

ts.

)

s

hout

JKG Log Symbols Rev

ROCK M

Residual

Extremel

Distinctly

Slightly w

Fresh roc

ROCK S

Rock strenbedding. Abstract V

TE

Extremel

------------

Very Low

------------

Low:

------------

Medium

------------

High:

------------

Very Hig

------------

Extremel

ABBRE

ABBR

v1 June12

MATERIAL W

TERM

l Soil

ly weathered roc

y weathered rock

weathered rock

ck

STRENGTH

ngth is defined bThe test proc

Volume 22, No 2,

ERM SY

ly Low:

------------

w:

------------

------------

Strength:

------------

------------

h:

------------

ly High:

----

----

----

----

-----

-----

EVIATIONS U

REVIATION

Be CS J P

Un S R IS

XWS Cr 60t

WEATHERIN

SYMBO

RS

ck XW

k DW

SW

FR

by the Point Loacedure is desc 1985.

YMBOL Is (5

EL

-----------

VL

-----------

L

-----------

M

-----------

H

-----------

VH

-----------

EH

USED IN DE

DES

Bedding Plane Clay Seam Joint Planar Undulating Smooth Rough Ironstained Extremely WeaCrushed Seam Thickness of de

LO

NG CLASSIF

OL

Soil develoevident; th

Rock is weremoulded

Rock strenironstainingweathering

Rock is slig

Rock show

d Strength Indexribed by the

50) MPa

0.03

0.1

0.3

1

3

10

Eas

May A pieknife

A piewith A piescra

A pieone

A pieRing

EFECT DESC

SCRIPTION

Parting

thered Seam

efect in millimetre

OG SYMBOL

FICATION

oped on extremelyhere is a large cha

eathered to such , in water.

ngth usually chang. Porosity mayg products in pore

ghtly discoloured

ws no sign of deco

x (Is 50) and refInternational Jo

ily remoulded by

y be crumbled in t

ece of core 150me. Sharp edges o

ece of core 150m knife.

ece of core 150matched or scored w

ece of core 150mblow. Cannot be

ece of core 150mgs when struck wi

CRIPTION

es

Defec(ie re

LS continue

D

y weathered rockange in volume bu

an extent that it

nged by weathery be increased bes.

but shows little or

omposition or stain

fers to the strengournal of Rock

hand to a materia

he hand. Sandst

mm long x 50mm dof core may be fria

mm long x 50mm d

mm long x 50mm dwith knife; rock ri

mm long x 50mm de scratched with p

mm long x 50mm dith a hammer.

ct orientations melative to horizont

d

DEFINITION

k; the mass strucut the soil has not

has “soil” proper

ring. The rock y leaching, or m

r no change of str

ning.

gth of the rock sk Mechanics, M

FIELD GUIDE

al with soil propert

one is “sugary” an

dia. may be brokeable and break du

dia. can be broken

dia. core cannot bngs under hamme

dia. may be brokeen knife; rock rin

dia. is very difficul

NOT

measured relativetal for vertical ho

cture and substant been significantl

rties, ie it either d

may be highly dmay be decreased

rength from fresh

substance in theMining, Science

E

ties.

nd friable.

en by hand and eauring handling.

n by hand with dif

be broken by hander.

en with hand-held ngs under hamme

lt to break with ha

TES

e to the normal oles)

Page

nce fabric are no y transported.

disintegrates or c

discoloured, usuad due to deposit

rock.

direction normae and Geomec

asily scored with a

fficulty. Readily s

d, can be slightly

pick after more ther.

and-held hammer.

to the long core

2 of 2

longer

can be

ally by tion of

al to the chanics.

a

cored

han

.

e axis

APPENDIX A

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 139423Client:JK GeotechnicsPO Box 976

North Ryde BC

NSW 1670

Attention: Tom Clent

Sample log in details:Your Reference: 28928ZR, Summer HillNo. of samples: 2 Soils

Date samples received / completed instructions received 18/12/2015 / 18/12/2015

Analysis Details:Please refer to the following pages for results, methodology summary and quality control data.

Samples were analysed as received from the client. Results relate specifically to the samples as received.

Results are reported on a dry weight basis for solids and on an as received basis for other matrices.

Please refer to the last page of this report for any comments relating to the results.

Report Details:Date results requested by: / Issue Date: 5/01/16 / 23/12/15

Date of Preliminary Report: Not Issued

NATA accreditation number 2901. This document shall not be reproduced except in full.

Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025. Tests not covered by NATA are denoted with *.

Results Approved By:

Page 1 of 6Envirolab Reference: 139423

Revision No: R 00

Client Reference: 28928ZR, Summer Hill

Misc Inorg - Soil

Our Reference: UNITS 139423-1 139423-2

Your Reference ------------

-

BH1 BH2

Depth ------------ 1.5-1.95 0.5-0.95

Type of sample Soil Soil

Date prepared - 21/12/2015 21/12/2015

Date analysed - 22/12/2015 22/12/2015

pH 1:5 soil:water pH Units 5.5 4.9

Chloride, Cl 1:5 soil:water mg/kg 20 36

Sulphate, SO4 1:5 soil:water mg/kg 66 160

Resistivity in soil* ohm m 100 64


Revision No: R 00


Method ID Methodology Summary

Inorg-001 pH - Measured using pH meter and electrode in accordance with APHA latest edition, 4500-H+. Please note

that the results for water analyses are indicative only, as analysis outside of the APHA storage times.

Inorg-081 Anions - a range of Anions are determined by Ion Chromatography, in accordance with APHA latest edition,

4110-B. Alternatively determined by colourimetry/turbidity using Discrete Analyer.

Inorg-002 Conductivity and Salinity - measured using a conductivity cell at 25oC in accordance with APHA 22nd ED 2510

and Rayment & Lyons. Resistivity is calculated from Conductivity.


Revision No: R 00


QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate

Sm#

Duplicate results Spike Sm# Spike %

Recovery

Misc Inorg - Soil Base ll Duplicate ll %RPD

Date prepared - 21/12/2

015

[NT] [NT] LCS-1 21/12/2015

Date analysed - 22/12/2

015

[NT] [NT] LCS-1 22/12/2015

pH 1:5 soil:water pH Units Inorg-001 [NT] [NT] [NT] LCS-1 101%

Chloride, Cl 1:5

soil:water

mg/kg 10 Inorg-081 <10 [NT] [NT] LCS-1 92%

Sulphate, SO4 1:5

soil:water

mg/kg 10 Inorg-081 <10 [NT] [NT] LCS-1 93%

Resistivity in soil* ohm m 1 Inorg-002 <1.0 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]


Revision No: R 00


Report Comments:

Asbestos ID was analysed by Approved Identifier: Not applicable for this job

Asbestos ID was authorised by Approved Signatory: Not applicable for this job

INS: Insufficient sample for this test PQL: Practical Quantitation Limit NT: Not tested

NR: Test not required RPD: Relative Percent Difference NA: Test not required

<: Less than >: Greater than LCS: Laboratory Control Sample


Revision No: R 00


Quality Control Definitions

Blank: This is the component of the analytical signal which is not derived from the sample but from reagents,

glassware etc, can be determined by processing solvents and reagents in exactly the same manner as for samples.

Duplicate : This is the complete duplicate analysis of a sample from the process batch. If possible, the sample

selected should be one where the analyte concentration is easily measurable.

Matrix Spike : A portion of the sample is spiked with a known concentration of target analyte. The purpose of the matrix

spike is to monitor the performance of the analytical method used and to determine whether matrix interferences exist.

LCS (Laboratory Control Sample) : This comprises either a standard reference material or a control matrix (such as a blank

sand or water) fortified with analytes representative of the analyte class. It is simply a check sample.

Surrogate Spike: Surrogates are known additions to each sample, blank, matrix spike and LCS in a batch, of compounds

which are similar to the analyte of interest, however are not expected to be found in real samples.

Laboratory Acceptance CriteriaDuplicate sample and matrix spike recoveries may not be reported on smaller jobs, however, were analysed at a frequency

to meet or exceed NEPM requirements. All samples are tested in batches of 20. The duplicate sample RPD and matrix

spike recoveries for the batch were within the laboratory acceptance criteria.

Filters, swabs, wipes, tubes and badges will not have duplicate data as the whole sample is generally extracted

during sample extraction.

Spikes for Physical and Aggregate Tests are not applicable.

For VOCs in water samples, three vials are required for duplicate or spike analysis.

Duplicates: <5xPQL - any RPD is acceptable; >5xPQL - 0-50% RPD is acceptable.

Matrix Spikes, LCS and Surrogate recoveries: Generally 70-130% for inorganics/metals; 60-140%

for organics (+/-50% surrogates) and 10-140% for labile SVOCs (including labile surrogates), ultra trace organics

and speciated phenols is acceptable.

In circumstances where no duplicate and/or sample spike has been reported at 1 in 10 and/or 1 in 20 samples

respectively, the sample volume submitted was insufficient in order to satisfy laboratory QA/QC protocols.

When samples are received where certain analytes are outside of recommended technical holding times (THTs),

the analysis has proceeded. Where analytes are on the verge of breaching THTs, every effort will be made to analyse

within the THT or as soon as practicable.

Where sampling dates are not provided, Envirolab are not in a position to comment on the validity

of the analysis where recommended technical holding times may have been breached.


Revision No: R 00

Date post:	10-Dec-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times