Original source · versioned page text
Acid Sulfate Report
Attached to the e-mail Additional Items for Information Request - MCU17/0076 & OPW17/0224.
ACID SULFATE SOIL & GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Duplex Development 25 Edward Street Noosaville Report for The Property Clinic Pty Ltd Report 17265-001-Rev0 25 August 2017 Tectonic Geotechnical Pty Ltd PO Box 899 Buderim Qld 4556 Mobile: 0437 755 750 / 0437 756 711 www.tectonicgeo.com.au A.B.N. 83 165 727 828
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalLog in to download the original file
Large file: the download may take up to a minute.
Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of the other 36 pages
Page 2
25 EDWARD STREET, NOOSAVILLE
PROPOSED DUPLEX DEVELOPMENT
Document Review
Document No. Revision Prepared By Reviewed By Date Issued
001 0 Mark Thomson Darryn Quinn 25 August 2017
Report Distribution
Document Revision Method of Delivery Issued To
Mr P Guildford
001 0 Electronic
([email protected])
Prepared By: Reviewed By:
Mark Thomson Darryn Quinn RPEQ 7602
Environmental Scientist Principal Geotechnical Engineer
25 August 2017
Report No. 17265-001-Rev0 i
Page 3
25 EDWARD STREET, NOOSAVILLE
PROPOSED DUPLEX DEVELOPMENT
Executive Summary
This report details the results of an acid sulfate soil (ASS) and geotechnical site investigation undertaken for
the proposed residential unit development at 25 Edward Street, Noosaville. The investigation was performed
by Tectonic for The Property Clinic Pty Ltd.
Proposed development is to comprise, a single two-storey residential duplex on the site. The site will be
partially filled by up to about 1.0 m as part of construction works, with ground disturbance expected to be
limited to stripping of topsoil, filling of the site, construction of a pool, construction of sewerage and
stormwater infrastructure and construction of footings. These disturbances are all expected to be limited to
within 2 m of the existing ground surface level.
Site investigation comprised the drilling of two boreholes (up to 6.0 m BGL) and dynamic cone penetrometer
(DCP) testing to assess ground conditions. Soil and groundwater samples were collected for ASS analysis.
Subsurface conditions were relatively consistent and generally supports the mapped geology, comprising
interlayered alluvial and estuarine (natural) soils. The observed soil profile encountered approximately 0.5 m
of fill material being very loose to loose, poorly graded silty sand, underlain by natural very loose to medium
dense sand (including a layer of very dense or indurated sand occurring between approximately 3.2 m to 4.5
m BGL), changing to firm sandy clay and medium dense clayey sand at depths below 4.5 m. A consistent
groundwater table was encountered at 1.2 m to 1.4 m within alluvial sand. Groundwater conditions are likely
to be affected by proximity to the Noosa River, and proposed filling and subsequent building loads are not
expected to have any impact on existing groundwater conditions at the site, or result in the mobilisation of
any acidic leachate which may be present.
Shallow excavations, comprising trenching for services and footings, are expected to be achievable using
conventional earthmoving plant (e.g. excavators with toothed buckets). Conventional earthworks practices
may be adopted for this site. Based on the results of the investigation, the site is classified as equivalent to
Class ‘H1’ in accordance with AS 2870-2011 Residential Slabs and Footings. The estimated characteristic
surface movement (‘ys’) due to volume change as a result of moisture content variations at this site is
expected to be less than 10 mm (assuming non-reactive fill is placed). However, settlement from fill and
building loads may be in the order of 30 mm to 40 mm (resulting from very loose to loose sand). It is our
recommendation that the proposed residence and any associated structures (e.g. pool and retaining walls)
should be supported on high level footings founding in future controlled (certified) fill. Conventional footings
(beams, strip, pads) may be adopted, and be designed for an allowable bearing capacity of 100 kPa. If
higher bearing capacity is required, deeper footings will need to be installed. Due to the loose nature of the
sands at this site, and in order to minimise ground vibrations, it is recommended that screw-in (helical) steel
piles be adopted for deeper footings. Piles founded on the dense sand layer at a depth of 3 m to 3.5 m BGL
may be designed using an allowable end bearing capacity of 300 kPa. Care must be taken so as not to
penetrate through the dense layer. Piling companies must provide their own assessment of suitable pile
types and capacity.
Sands observed to an approximate depth of 1.0 m BGL (typically above the groundwater table) were
characterised by quantitative laboratory analysis as containing no significant actual or potential ASS. Thus,
where disturbed, soils above 1.0 m BGL require no treatment or specific management (other than standard
construction based environmental controls). Sands sampled from below 1.0 m BGL (typically near or below
the groundwater table) were characterised as containing levels of oxidisable sulfur (PASS), averaging 0.05
%S (31 mol H+ per tonne). This material presents a moderate risk of oxidation and acid creation if disturbed.
These underlying soils are not likely to be disturbed by the proposed works and thus presents a low risk to
the overall development of the site.
Where construction of stormwater or sewer infrastructure may be likely to disturb small volumes (<100 m 3) of
soil from below 1.0 m BGL, the risk posed by disturbance of potential acidity within the underlying sand may
be mitigated by conventional lime neutralisation of the disturbed material, combined with management of any
related runoff.
Where sands below 1.0 m BGL are disturbed, fine grained agricultural lime shall be mixed with the disturbed
material prior to treated material being reused on site, or exported off site. The neutralising agent (fine
grained agricultural lime) shall be applied at a rate of 2 kg per cubic metre.
25 August 2017
Report No. 17265-001-Rev0 ii
Page 4
25 EDWARD STREET, NOOSAVILLE
PROPOSED DUPLEX DEVELOPMENT
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................ 1
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION & PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................. 1
2.1 Proposed Development ................................................................................................................................ 2
2.2 Regional Geology ......................................................................................................................................... 3
2.3 Regional ASS Mapping ................................................................................................................................. 3
3.0 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION ................................................................................................................................. 4
4.0 INVESTIGATION FINDINGS ..................................................................................................................................... 5
4.1 Subsurface Conditions .................................................................................................................................. 5
4.2 Groundwater Conditions ............................................................................................................................... 5
5.0 GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................................................. 6
5.1 Earthworks .................................................................................................................................................... 6
5.1.1 Site Preparation ...................................................................................................................................... 6
5.1.2 Excavations ............................................................................................................................................. 6
5.1.3 Trafficability ............................................................................................................................................. 6
5.1.4 Filling....................................................................................................................................................... 6
5.2 Building Foundations .................................................................................................................................... 7
5.2.1 Indicative Site Classification .................................................................................................................... 7
5.2.2 Footing Design ........................................................................................................................................ 7
5.3 Retaining Wall Design .................................................................................................................................. 8
5.4 Permanent Drainage..................................................................................................................................... 8
6.0 ACID SULFATE SOIL ASSESSMENT ...................................................................................................................... 9
6.1 Information on Acid Sulfate Soil .................................................................................................................... 9
6.2 Field Screen Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 9
6.3 Quantitative Laboratory Analysis ................................................................................................................ 10
6.4 Risk Characterisation.................................................................................................................................. 10
7.0 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................. 10
8.0 LIMITATIONS .......................................................................................................................................................... 11
25 August 2017
Report No. 17265-001-Rev0 iii
Page 5
25 EDWARD STREET, NOOSAVILLE
PROPOSED DUPLEX DEVELOPMENT
TABLES
Table 1: Summary of Groundwater Monitoring.................................................................................................................... 5
Table 2: Retaining Structure Design Parameters ................................................................................................................ 8
TEXT FIGURES
Text Figure 1: Site Location (courtesy Google Earth) ......................................................................................................... 1
Text Figure 2: Drill rig set up at boreholes BH1 (LHS) and BH2 (RHS) ............................................................................. 2
Text Figure 3: Proposed Layout Plan .................................................................................................................................. 2
Text Figure 4: Proposed Northern Elevation ....................................................................................................................... 2
Text Figure 5: Extract from Gympie Special 1:100 000 Geological Map, Laguna Bay Sheet 9545 (1999) ......................... 3
Text Figure 6: Redcliffe-Teewah Acid Sulfate Soils Map 2 (NR&M-SEA-I-A0 3261)........................................................... 4
Text Figure 7: Footing depth required to prevent undermining............................................................................................ 8
FIGURES
Figure 1: Site Plan
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
Borehole Reports and Explanatory Notes
APPENDIX B
Table B1 - Summary of ASS Laboratory Testing
ASS and Geotechnical Laboratory Test Certificates
APPENDIX C
Limitations
25 August 2017
Report No. 17265-001-Rev0 iv
Page 6
25 EDWARD STREET, NOOSAVILLE
PROPOSED DUPLEX DEVELOPMENT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report details the results of a geotechnical and acid sulfate soil (ASS) investigation undertaken for a
proposed residential duplex development at 25 Edward Street, Noosaville. The investigation was performed
by Tectonic Geotechnical Pty Ltd (Tectonic) for The Property Clinic Pty Ltd, in accordance with Proposal
P17326-Rev0 dated 26 July 2017.
The investigation comprised drilling of boreholes at two locations and subsequent ASS laboratory testing of
soil samples. This report summarises the results of the investigation and provides geotechnical
recommendations regarding design of earthworks, retaining walls and footings, together with an assessment
of the extent, severity and management strategies for ASS.
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION & PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The site is described as Lot 6 on RP 112875, and covers an area of approximately 612 m 2 with frontage to
Edward Street to the east (Ref. Text Figure 1). The allotment is within a previously developed residential
area with existing residences generally surrounding the site.
A single storey brick and timber clad residence is currently situated on the site, as well as several garden
shrubs and bushes. The existing structure is of generally light-construction, which is expected to be
demolished as part of the redevelopment works.
Investigation boreholes were situated at the front and rear of the site (Ref. Text Figure 2 over page).
Subject Site
Text Figure 1: Site Location (courtesy Google Earth)
25 August 2017
Report No. 17265-001-Rev0 1
Page 7
25 EDWARD STREET, NOOSAVILLE
PROPOSED DUPLEX DEVELOPMENT
Text Figure 2: Drill rig set up at boreholes BH1 (LHS) and BH2 (RHS)
2.1 Proposed Development
Design drawings prepared by Icon Building Design Pty Ltd (Drawing No. 17-027 01-09, dated 24 May 2017)
indicate that the proposed duplex will comprise a centrally situated duplex residence with a central driveway
(Ref. Text Figure 3). Fill earthworks of up to 1.0 m are indicated on the design drawings under proposed
driveway, garage and other areas (Ref. Text Figure 4). Fill material is expected to be sourced from offsite
and will consist of suitably controlled non-ASS (or previously treated and verified) material.
New concrete block retaining walls up to 0.6 m high are proposed along the northern and western
boundaries. An existing block wall along the southern boundary will be retained. Fill will be battered down to
road level at the front of the new building.
Text Figure 3: Proposed Layout Plan
Text Figure 4: Proposed Northern Elevation
25 August 2017
Report No. 17265-001-Rev0 2
Page 8
25 EDWARD STREET, NOOSAVILLE
PROPOSED DUPLEX DEVELOPMENT
Given our understanding of the proposed development, ground disturbances are expected to be limited to
stripping of topsoil, filling of the site, construction of sewerage and stormwater infrastructure and construction
of footings. Construction of the pool at the rear of the site is also expected to extend up to 1.5 m into the
existing ground profile. These disturbances are all expected to be limited to within 2 m of the existing ground
surface level.
2.2 Regional Geology
Reference to the Geological Survey of Queensland 1:100,000 scale Gympie map indicates that the soil
profile at the subject site consists of Pleistocene age alluvium (Qpe), associated with estuarine and flood
plain conditions (sandy mud, muddy sand, minor gravel).
Regional geology for the subject site is illustrated on Text Figure 5 below.
Qpe
Age Pleistocene
Estuarine
deposits:
Lithology sandy mud,
muddy sand,
minor gravel
Miscellaneous
Dominant
Unconsolidated
Rock
Sediments
Text Figure 5: Extract from Gympie Special 1:100 000 Geological Map, Laguna Bay Sheet 9545 (1999)
2.3 Regional ASS Mapping
An extract from the Queensland Government’s Redcliffe to Teewah Acid Sulfate Soils Map 2 (NR&M-SEA-I-
A0 3261) covering the region is shown in Text Figure 6 on the following page. Mapping indicates the
presence of “SDL” land type, which indicates disturbed land likely to contain ASS, where in some cases
partial or full treatment may have been previously undertaken.
It should be noted that ASS risk mapping does not definitively indicate the presence nor absence of ASS at a
particular site, but rather provides an indication of terrain where ASS is likely to occur. The presence or
absence of ASS at a site may only be confirmed by completion of a site investigation, involving an
appropriate degree of site assessment and quantitative analysis.
25 August 2017
Report No. 17265-001-Rev0 3
Page 9
25 EDWARD STREET, NOOSAVILLE
PROPOSED DUPLEX DEVELOPMENT
Subject Site
Text Figure 6: Redcliffe-Teewah Acid Sulfate Soils Map 2 (NR&M-SEA-I-A0 3261)
3.0 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION
To characterise geotechnical and ASS conditions across the site, two boreholes (designated BH1 and BH2)
were drilled to a target depth of 6.0 m below ground level (BGL) using a 4WD mounted rotary drilling rig.
In situ dynamic cone penetration tests (DCPs) were conducted adjacent to each borehole to assess soil
density. Investigation locations are illustrated in Figure 1, Site Plan, attached at the end of this report.
Soil samples were collected at 0.25 m depth intervals from boreholes BH1 and BH2 to a total depth of 2.0 m
BGL for ASS assessment. Samples were sealed in oxygen impermeable plastic bags with excess air
evacuated and chilled in the field prior to transport to the laboratory for analysis.
Standing groundwater levels was recorded in each borehole, with a groundwater sample recovered from
BH1 only. Groundwater samples were measured in the field for pH, electrical conductivity and REDOX
potential. Results of the groundwater monitoring are discussed in Section 4.2.
Borehole logs (including DCP results) together with explanation sheets describing the terms and symbols
used are attached in Appendix A.
All 16 ASS samples were sent to the analytical laboratory of Eurofins MGT Pty Ltd at Murarrie, Brisbane for
ASS and geotechnical analyses, these comprising:
▪ 16 pH field screen tests
▪ 6 Chromium Reducible Sulfur analyses; and
▪ 2 Particle size distributions (PSDs).
ASS laboratory test results have been summarised in Table B1 attached in Appendix B, together with
laboratory test certificates.
Please Note: “Ground level” where referenced in this report, refers to the existing ground level at the time of
investigation, and does not take into consideration any proposed cutting or filling of the site. Where
management methodology references below ground level, it is in reference to the existing ground level at
the time of site investigation.
25 August 2017
Report No. 17265-001-Rev0 4
Page 10
25 EDWARD STREET, NOOSAVILLE
PROPOSED DUPLEX DEVELOPMENT
4.0 INVESTIGATION FINDINGS
4.1 Subsurface Conditions
Subsurface conditions encountered in the boreholes were relatively consistent and generally supports the
mapped geology for the site, comprising interlayered alluvial and estuarine (natural) soils.
The observed soil profile encountered approximately 0.5 m of fill material being very loose to loose, poorly
graded silty sand, underlain by natural very loose to medium dense sand (including a layer of very dense or
indurated sand occurring between approximately 3.2 m to 4.5 m BGL), changing to firm sandy clay and
medium dense clayey sand at depths below 4.5 m. PSD results confirm our visual classifications of the
soils in the field.
Any potential settlement of loose sand is not expected to cause any significant alteration to existing
groundwater conditions (being typically unconfined and within highly permeable sand), thus no significant
ASS related impacts are expected as a result of proposed filling at the site. Displacement of soil as a result
of filling works is also not expected to occur.
4.2 Groundwater Conditions
Groundwater was encountered in both boreholes between 1.2 m to 1.4 m BGL, occurring within highly
permeable alluvial sand. Groundwater quality was measured in the field, from a sample obtained from
borehole BH1, on 9 August 2017, with the results summarised in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Summary of Groundwater Monitoring
Parameter Units BH1
Depth m BGL 1.4
pH (field) pH unit 6.98
Electrical Conductivity (field) MS/cm 1.84
REDOX Potential mV 65
Testing indicates that the groundwater is neutral and slightly brackish, being common for shallow alluvial
groundwater along the Noosa coastal strip. Considering the close proximity of Noosa River to the north-
east, higher salinity may be encountered in groundwater at greater depths below the water table level
(‘fresher’ groundwater typically ‘perches’ above heavier saline waters).
Groundwater levels are expected to fluctuate with prevailing weather conditions, and may also be affected by
tidal variations given the low-lying nature of the site and proximity to Noosa River.
Given the high hydraulic permeability of the underlying alluvial sand, the placement of proposed fill across
the site and subsequent building load is not expected to have any significant impact on groundwater
conditions at the site, or result in the mobilisation of acidic leachate. It is noted that no dewatering of natural
groundwater conditions are expected to be necessary for construction.
25 August 2017
Report No. 17265-001-Rev0 5
Page 11
25 EDWARD STREET, NOOSAVILLE
PROPOSED DUPLEX DEVELOPMENT
5.0 GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
5.1 Earthworks
5.1.1 Site Preparation
Existing fill (presumably uncontrolled) and organic rich topsoil should be stripped and set aside. Stripping
depths for topsoil will typically range from 100 mm to 200 mm, to remove organics bearing soil. This material
must not be re-used as structural fill, however may be retained on site for later landscaping use, if required.
Fill material below topsoil to a depth of 0.5 m BGL should also be removed, but may be reused where free of
deleterious matter and compacted under controlled conditions.
Subgrade areas should be ‘proof rolled’ using a fully laden water cart or minimum 4 tonne roller in order to
identify any ‘soft spots’. Treatment of ‘soft spots’ may involve excavation and replacement with select fill or
tyning, appropriate moisture adjustment and compaction. Proof rolling should be carried out in the presence
of an experienced engineer.
5.1.2 Excavations
Excavations are expected to be within mostly loose to medium dense sands, and should be achievable using
small excavator(s) (3 to 5 tonne).
The groundwater table was recorded during subsurface investigation at depths between 1.2 m and 1.4 m
BGL. Therefore, some temporary excavations, such as for services, may extend below the groundwater
table. Temporary shoring of trenches, in combination with isolated (short term) dewatering, may therefore be
required. This could be achieved using trench shields in combination with dewatering well points (connected
to submersible pumps). The extent of dewatering will need to be carefully managed to ensure that there are
no adverse impacts on adjoining structures or ASS.
5.1.3 Trafficability
After stripping, the subgrade is expected to comprise loose to medium dense sand. Such materials should
provide reasonable trafficability, however placement of rock fill (say 150 mm thick layer of 75 mm ‘ballast’)
may be required to maintain subgrade stability for any heavily trafficked areas.
Specific design will need to be carried out to determine working platform requirements for any heavy plant
(e.g. cranes or piling rigs), and a thicker rock fill platform may be required than recommended above.
5.1.4 Filling
Due to the close proximity of the neighbouring houses, and presence of underlying loose sand, it is essential
that earthworks be carried out in a fashion to minimise ground vibrations. No vibratory equipment should be
used. It would be prudent to conduct a dilapidation survey of nearby structures prior to construction in order
to establish a ‘baseline’ of structural condition.
Filling is expected to be up to 1.0 m deep and will need to be imported to site. Any fill required to form the
design platform levels should comprise materials which meet the following specifications:
▪ Minimum CBR value of 10%
▪ Maximum ‘fines’ content (percent passing 0.075 mm sieve) of 10%
▪ Plasticity index not exceeding 15%
Note: To enable minimum compactive effort without the use of vibration, it is our recommendation that the
imported fill comprise ‘roadbase’ type material.
All fill should be compacted at moisture contents within the range of ±2% of optimum moisture content for
Standard Compaction. Fill particles greater than 100 mm must be excluded. Fill should be placed in
25 August 2017
Report No. 17265-001-Rev0 6
Page 12
25 EDWARD STREET, NOOSAVILLE
PROPOSED DUPLEX DEVELOPMENT
maximum 250 mm thick (loose thickness) layers and be compacted by repeated rolling to achieve a dry
density ratio of at least 95% of the maximum Dry Density Ratio (Standard Compaction method), or 70% of
the Dry Density Index for cohesionless fills (e.g. sands).
Confirmatory compaction testing must be carried out at regular intervals. Details for inspection and testing of
fill are given in Australian Standard AS 3798-2007 Guidelines on Earthworks for Commercial and Residential
Developments. We recommend placement of structural fill to Level 1 standard and Type 2 frequency per
AS3798.
5.2 Building Foundations
5.2.1 Indicative Site Classification
Site classifications for footing design are determined in accordance with AS 2870-2011 Residential Slabs and
Footings, and depend on the depth of cut / fill undertaken at a site, variations in the natural soil profiles, and
the reactivity of the in situ soil / rock and any imported fill materials. It is recommended that imported fill be
non-reactive, inert material (e.g. roadbase type).
Based on the results of the investigation, the site is classified as equivalent to Class ‘H1’ in accordance with
AS 2870-2011 Residential Slabs and Footings. The estimated characteristic surface movement (‘ys’) due to
volume change as a result of moisture content variations at this site is expected to be less than 10 mm
(assuming non-reactive fill is placed). However, settlement from fill and building loads may be in the order of
30 mm to 40 mm (resulting from very loose to loose sand).
It should be noted that the predicted order of movement is based on the existing soil profile (i.e. no cutting or
filling), and moisture content changes within soils due to normal seasonal moisture variations only.
5.2.2 Footing Design
It is our recommendation that the proposed residence and any associated structures (e.g. pool and retaining
walls) should be supported on high level footings founding in future controlled (certified) fill. Conventional
footings (beams, strip, pads) may be adopted, and be designed for an allowable bearing capacity of
100 kPa.
If higher bearing capacity is required, deeper footings will need to be installed. Due to the loose nature of
the sands at this site, and in order to minimise ground vibrations, it is recommended that screw-in (helical)
steel piles be adopted for deeper footings. Piles founded on the dense sand layer at a depth of 3 m to 3.5 m
BGL may be designed using an allowable end bearing capacity of 300 kPa. Care must be taken so as not to
penetrate through the dense layer. Piling companies must provide their own assessment of suitable pile
types and capacity.
All footings must also found such that they are not adversely affected by any adjacent excavations, batter
slopes, trenches, or retaining walls that are not designed to support building loads (e.g. the existing sewer
along the rear of the site). Footings should found at least below a plane extending 1m horizontally from the
base of trenches/batter slopes/excavations/retaining walls, then rising up at 1V:1H, as illustrated in Text
Figure 7 below.
25 August 2017
Report No. 17265-001-Rev0 7
Page 13
25 EDWARD STREET, NOOSAVILLE
PROPOSED DUPLEX DEVELOPMENT
Text Figure 7: Footing depth required to prevent undermining
Footing bases must be cleaned following mechanical excavation to expose undisturbed materials over the
full base area. It is recommended that footings be inspected by an experienced engineer prior to placement
of steel reinforcement to confirm allowable bearing pressures and cleanliness of excavations.
If any soil conditions encountered during construction are found to differ from those notes in the geotechnical
investigation, Tectonic should be notified immediately and an inspection carried out to determine if changed
to footing design are required.
5.3 Retaining Wall Design
Design for retaining walls could be carried out based on the parameters listed in Table 2. These values do
not include allowance for hydrostatic pressures nor transient (e.g. construction) or adjacent footing loadings.
Table 2: Retaining Structure Design Parameters
Lateral earth pressure coefficients
Unit Friction
Retained material weight angle
Ka Ko
(t/m3) (Degrees) Kp
(Cantilever wall) (Non-yielding wall)
Loose Sand 1.8 27 0.4 0.5 2.6
Medium Dense (or
Denser) Sand/Gravel
1.9 34 0.3 0.4 3.5
(e.g. future controlled
fill)
5.4 Permanent Drainage
Adequate site drainage must be installed to ensure that surface water runoff is directed away from
pavements and footings.
Subsurface drainage must be installed behind retaining walls in order to prevent the development of
hydrostatic pressure (e.g. slotted ‘aggi’ pipe wrapped in filter ‘sock’ placed in gravel backfill).
Subsurface disposal/infiltration of stormwater is not recommended due to the potential to affect the
performance of buildings footings and pavements. All excess stormwater should be piped or channeled
towards the local drainage system along Edward Street.
25 August 2017
Report No. 17265-001-Rev0 8
Page 14
25 EDWARD STREET, NOOSAVILLE
PROPOSED DUPLEX DEVELOPMENT
6.0 ACID SULFATE SOIL ASSESSMENT
6.1 Information on Acid Sulfate Soil
ASS is common in low-lying coastal areas of Queensland, typically in Holocene to Pleistocene age alluvial
sediments located below RL 5.0 m AHD. Such areas are often characterised by the presence of estuaries,
swamps, floodplains, salt marshes and mangroves. The affected soils contain iron sulfides, most frequently
pyrite, which, when exposed to air, oxidise to form sulfuric acid.
There are two basic types of ASS. These are actual acid sulfate soil (AASS), which is soil in which pyrite
has already oxidised and sulfuric acid is present in the soil, and potential acid sulfate soil (PASS), where
pyrite is present but has not been oxidised.
When these soils are maintained in their natural setting (generally anaerobic conditions below the
groundwater table or sea level), the iron sulfides (PASS) are unable to oxidise, therefore the ASS remains in
a stable state. However, where disturbances such as civil construction or development expose ASS to
aerobic conditions, the iron sulfides are able to oxidise and form sulfuric acid, resulting in the soil becoming
acidic. Existing acidity attributed to the oxidation of ASS (AASS) may also be present because of previous
exposure of ASS material either by human interference or by natural processes. This acidity has the
potential to mobilise metals which are naturally present in the soil, thereby producing a leachate
contaminated by both high levels of acidity and metals. The chemical reactions can also strip the leachate of
dissolved oxygen. Such leachate, if released into the environment, can have significant adverse effects
including degradation of the water quality in receiving areas, fish disease/kills, reduced crop productivity,
corrosion of built structures and health related issues.
In view of the potential effects of ASS disturbance, it is critical that any development that occurs within an
area likely to contain ASS is planned, managed and monitored appropriately so as to minimise or remove the
risk of adverse environmental outcomes. This shall be achieved through the following overall development
outcomes:
a) development ensures that the release of acid and associated metal contaminants into the
environment is avoided by either:
i. not disturbing ASS when excavating or otherwise removing soil or sediment, extracting
groundwater or filling land; or
ii. treating and, if required, undertaking ongoing management of any disturbed ASS and
associated drainage waters.
6.2 Field Screen Analysis
A total of 16 samples were recovered and assessed by pH field screen analyses. Soil pH (pH F) ranged from
5.8 to 7.4, indicating slightly acidic to neutral soil conditions present at the site.
A combination of three factors is considered when arriving at a positive field sulfide identification using pH
field screen analysis.
1. Strength of the reaction with peroxide.
2. Level of difference between field pH (pHF) and oxidised pH (pHFOX)
3. Actual value of oxidised pH (pHFOX)
On this basis, 15 samples (of 16) indicated a moderate or higher likelihood of PASS being present.
It is noted that pH screen testing is indicative only and cannot definitively confirm the presence of ASS, nor
can it quantify the nature or strength of any acidity present. Further quantitative laboratory testing was
therefore carried out on a range of samples in order to assess the strength of any acidity present, and to
quantify the level of oxidisable sulfur content, if any.
Results of field screen analysis are summarised in Table B1, attached in Appendix B.
25 August 2017
Report No. 17265-001-Rev0 9
Page 15
25 EDWARD STREET, NOOSAVILLE
PROPOSED DUPLEX DEVELOPMENT
6.3 Quantitative Laboratory Analysis
Quantitative laboratory analyses were completed on 6 samples using the Chromium Reducible Sulfur (SCR)
suite of testing in order to quantify the severity and nature of any acidity or potential acidity present in the soil
profile. The quantum of any actual acidity was assessed using Titratable Actual Acidity (TAA), and
potassium-chloride extractable sulfur (SKCl) was used to assess the nature of the measured actual acidity.
Potential acidity was measured by the SCR method which specifically measures inorganic oxidisable sulfur.
These methods are set out in the QASSIT guidelines and associated ASS management documents.
Based on the nature of the proposed disturbance an action criteria of 0.03%S (18 mol H+ per tonne) was
adopted for comparison with the combined actual and potential acidity results.
Samples obtained from BH1, and above the groundwater table in BH2 (typically 0.0 m to 1.0 m BGL),
contained no actual or potential ASS above the defined action criteria. Samples obtained from below the
groundwater table in BH2 (typically below 1.0 m BGL) contained no actual acidity, but did contain levels of
PASS which exceeded the 0.03%S action criteria, ranging from 0.039%S to 0.062%S.
6.4 Risk Characterisation
Sands sampled from below the groundwater table (below 1.0 m BGL), from BH2 were characterised as
containing levels of oxidisable sulfur (PASS), averaging 0.05 %S (31 mol H+ per tonne). This material
presents a moderate risk if disturbed, and should be avoided where possible. This underlying acidic soil is
not likely to be disturbed by the proposed works and thus presents a low risk to the overall development of
the site.
Where construction of deep stormwater/sewer infrastructure or the proposed pool is expected to disturb soil
from below 1.0 m BGL, the risk posed by disturbance of potential acidity within the underlying sand may be
mitigated by conventional lime neutralisation of the disturbed material, combined with management of any
construction site runoff. Recommended measures for management of acidic, non-sulfuric soil are set out in
Section 7.0 below.
7.0 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
Where works are only expected to disturb soils within 1.0 m of the existing ground surface, these works may
proceed without specific management measures for ASS. However, should disturbance of the sands at and
below 1.0 m BGL occur, the following management measures should be adopted:
▪ Where sands below 1.0 m BGL are disturbed, fine grained agricultural lime shall be mixed with the
disturbed material prior to treated material being reused on site, or exported off site. The neutralising
agent (fine grained agricultural lime) shall be applied at a rate of 2 kg per cubic metre.
It is anticipated that the only works which may disturb this material would be for construction of sewer
reticulation, to tie in with the existing sewer main. Some of the deeper pool construction may also be
likely to disturb soils below 1.0 m BGL. This is expected to disturb less than 100 m 3 of acidic material in
total, therefore the total risk associated with the works is very low.
▪ Verification testing for confirmation of effective neutralisation of treated soil is not considered a suitable
for these works. However, effective treatment should be demonstrated by maintaining records of lime
delivered and used on site, which shall be maintained by the contractor. It is also recommended that
photographic evidence of lime treatment be recorded and maintained where lime treatment is
undertaken.
▪ It is expected that conventional erosion and sediment control measures shall be applied in accordance
with current industry best practice to contain and control site runoff during construction. This will help to
mitigate any potential for mobilisation of acidity to ground and surface waters as a result of the works.
▪ Contained site water should be monitored and maintained within a pH range of 6.5 to 8.5.
25 August 2017
Report No. 17265-001-Rev0 10
Page 16
25 EDWARD STREET, NOOSAVILLE
PROPOSED DUPLEX DEVELOPMENT
8.0 LIMITATIONS
Your attention is drawn to the document “Limitations”, which is included in Appendix C of this report. The
statements presented in this document are intended to advise you of what your realistic expectations of this
report should be, and to present you with recommendations on how to minimise the risks associated with the
services provided by Tectonic for this project.
25 August 2017
Report No. 17265-001-Rev0 11
Page 17
Tectonic Geotechnical Pty Ltd
PO Box 899
Buderim Qld 4556
M: 0437 755 700 / 0437 756 711
PROJECT:
RESIDENTIAL UNIT DEVELOPMENT
25 EDWARD STREET, NOOSAVILLE
TITLE:
SITE PLAN
BH1
CLIENT:
THE PROPERTY CLINIC PTY LTD
DRAWN: DATE:
MT 23/08/2017
CHECKED: DATE:
BH2 ACD 23/08/2017
SCALE:
NOT DEFINED
LEGEND:
BOREHOLE LOCATIONS
PROJECT NO.: FIGURE: REV:
Note: Google Earth base plan, overlayed with proposed design layout by Icon Building Design Pty Ltd (Dwg No. 17-027 03, 24 May 2017) 17265 1 0
Page 18
25 EDWARD STREET, NOOSAVILLE
PROPOSED DUPLEX DEVELOPMENT
APPENDIX A
Borehole Reports and Explanatory Notes
25 August 2017
Report No. 17265-001-Rev0
Page 19
Borehole No.
BH1
Page 1 of 1
Engineering Log - Borehole Project No.: 17265
Client: Adams and Sparks T/P Commenced: 09/08/2017
Project Name: Duplex Completed: 09/08/2017
Hole Location: 25 Edward Street, Noosaville Logged By: MCC
Hole Position: See Site Plan Checked By: ACD
Drill Model and Mounting: 4WD Mounted Inclination: -90° RL Surface: No survey
Hole Diameter: 100 mm Bearing: 360° Datum: AHD Operator: Ground Drill
Drilling Information Soil Description Observations
Relative Density
Classification DCP TEST
Penetration
Pocket
Consistency
Graphic Log
Samples Material Description (AS 1289.6.3.2-1997)
Penetrometer
Condition
Recovery
Tests soil type: plasticity or particle characteristics,
Moisture
UCS Blows per 100 mm
Symbol
Method
secondary and minor components, colour
Water
Remarks RL Depth (kPa)
(m) (m) 0 5 10 15 20 25
100
200
300
400
500
ASS Silty SAND (FILL), fine to medium grained,
Samples dark brown, trace of fine to coarse sized
at gravel, trace rootlets
HA
0.25m
Intervals VL to
M
SP SAND, fine to medium grained, pale grey to L
white
DS
0.8-1.2m 1
becoming pale grey, grey and yellow brown M to
MD
W
becoming pale brown to grey
Groundwater level at 1.4m BGL
L
2
TECTONIC 2.00.1 LIB.GLB Log 1 TECTONIC BOREHOLE 17265.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 23/08/2017 10:39 8.30.004 Datgel Lab and In Situ Tool - DGD | Lib: Tectonic 2.00.1 2016-02-17 Prj: Tectonic 2.00 2016-02-16
trace of fines
MD
3
AD/T
VD
W
4
SM Silty SAND, fine to medium grained, brown to
dark brown
MD
CH Sandy CLAY, high plasticity, pale grey, fine to
medium grained sand
5 F
SC Clayey SAND, fine to medium grained, pale
grey to grey
MD
6
Hole Terminated at 6.00 m
Target depth
Method Penetration Water Samples and Tests Moisture Condition Consistency/Relative Density
AD/T-Auger Drilling TC Bit No resistance Level (Date) U - Undisturbed Sample D - Dry VS - Very Soft
RR - Rock Roller ranging to D - Disturbed Sample M - Moist S - Soft
RD - Rotary Drilling refusal Inflow SPT - Standard Penetration Test W - Wet F - Firm
NMLC -Rock Core Partial Loss VSt - Very Stiff
HA - Hand Auger Complete Loss H - Hard
Plastic Limit VL - Very Loose
Graphic Log/Core Loss L - Loose
Classification Symbols < PL MD - Medium Dense
Core recovered (hatching and Soil Descriptions D - Dense
indicates material) = PL
Based on Unified Soil < PL VD - Very Dense
Core loss Classification System
Page 20
Borehole No.
BH2
Page 1 of 1
Engineering Log - Borehole Project No.: 17265
Client: Adams and Sparks T/P Commenced: 09/08/2017
Project Name: Duplex Completed: 09/08/2017
Hole Location: 25 Edward Street, Noosaville Logged By: MCC
Hole Position: See Site Plan Checked By: ACD
Drill Model and Mounting: 4WD Mounted Inclination: -90° RL Surface: No survey
Hole Diameter: 100 mm Bearing: 360° Datum: AHD Operator: Ground Drill
Drilling Information Soil Description Observations
Relative Density
Classification DCP TEST
Penetration
Pocket
Consistency
Graphic Log
Samples Material Description (AS 1289.6.3.2-1997)
Penetrometer
Condition
Recovery
Tests soil type: plasticity or particle characteristics,
Moisture
UCS Blows per 100 mm
Symbol
Method
secondary and minor components, colour
Water
Remarks RL Depth (kPa)
(m) (m) 0 5 10 15 20 25
100
200
300
400
500
ASS Silty SAND (FILL), fine to medium grained,
Samples dark grey to dark brown
HA
at
0.25m VL to
M
Intervals L
DS SP SAND, fine to medium grained, pale grey to
0.5-0.8m white
becoming pale grey to white and yellow brown M to
MD
W
1
becoming yellow brown grey
DS D
Groundwater level at 1.2m BGL
1.2-1.5m
becoming grey to pale grey
2
TECTONIC 2.00.1 LIB.GLB Log 1 TECTONIC BOREHOLE 17265.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 23/08/2017 10:40 8.30.004 Datgel Lab and In Situ Tool - DGD | Lib: Tectonic 2.00.1 2016-02-17 Prj: Tectonic 2.00 2016-02-16
VL to
L
3
AD/T
W
SM Silty SAND, fine to medium grained, grey to
dark grey
becoming grey to dark brown with some
4 indurated sand pieces (weakly cemented)
D
MD
CH Sandy CLAY, high plasticity, pale grey, fine to
5 medium grained sand
F
SC Clayey SAND, fine to medium grained, pale
grey to dark grey
MD
6
Hole Terminated at 6.00 m
Target depth
Method Penetration Water Samples and Tests Moisture Condition Consistency/Relative Density
AD/T-Auger Drilling TC Bit No resistance Level (Date) U - Undisturbed Sample D - Dry VS - Very Soft
RR - Rock Roller ranging to D - Disturbed Sample M - Moist S - Soft
RD - Rotary Drilling refusal Inflow SPT - Standard Penetration Test W - Wet F - Firm
NMLC -Rock Core Partial Loss VSt - Very Stiff
HA - Hand Auger Complete Loss H - Hard
Plastic Limit VL - Very Loose
Graphic Log/Core Loss L - Loose
Classification Symbols < PL MD - Medium Dense
Core recovered (hatching and Soil Descriptions D - Dense
indicates material) = PL
Based on Unified Soil < PL VD - Very Dense
Core loss Classification System
Page 21
METHOD OF SOIL DESCRIPTION
USED ON LOGS
CLASSIFICATION AND INFERRED STRATIGRAPHY
Soil and rock is classified and described in borehole and test pit logs using the preferred method given in AS1726 – 1993,
(Amdt1 – 1994 and Amdt2 – 1994), Appendix A.The material properties are assessed in the field by visual/tactile methods.
Particle Size Plasticity Properties
Major Division Sub Division Particle Size40
BOULDERS > 200 mm
COBBLES 63 to 200 mm
Coarse 20 to 63 mm
GRAVEL Medium 6.0 to 20 mm
Fine 2.0 to 6.0 mm
Coarse 0.6 to 2.0 mm
C
SAND Medium 0.2 to 0.6 mm
Fine 0.075 to 0.2 mm
SILT 0.002 to 0.075
CLAY < 0.002 mm mm
MOISTURE CONDITION AS1726 - 1993
Symbol Term Description
D Dry Sands and gravels are free flowing. Clays & Silts may be brittle or friable and powdery.
M Moist Soils are darker than in the dry condition & may feel cool. Sands and gravels tend to cohere.
W Wet Soils exude free water. Sands and gravels tend to cohere.
CONSISTENCY AND DENSITY AS1726 - 1993
Symbol Term Undrained Shear Symbol Term Density Index % SPT “N” #
Strength
VS Very Soft 0 to 12 kPa VL Very Loose Less than 15 0 to 4
S Soft 12 to 25 kPa L Loose 15 to 35 4 to 10
F Firm 25 to 50 kPa MD Medium Dense 35 to 65 10 to 30
St Stiff 50 to 100 kPa D Dense 65 to 85 30 to 50
VSt Very Stiff 100 to 200 kPa VD Very Dense Above 85 Above 50
H Hard Above 200 kPa
In the absence of test results, consistency and density may be assessed from correlations with the observed behaviour of
the material.
# SPT correlations are not stated in AS1726 – 1993, and may be subject to corrections for overburden pressure and
equipment type.
Rev0
October 2013
Page 22
25 EDWARD STREET, NOOSAVILLE
PROPOSED DUPLEX DEVELOPMENT
APPENDIX B
Table B1 - Summary of ASS Laboratory Testing
ASS and Geotechnical Laboratory Test Certificates
25 August 2017
Report No. 17265-001-Rev0
Page 23
Table B1 - Summary of ASS Laboratory Testing Ref: 17265
Titratable Chromium
PASS pH
pHF AASS liklihood 1
pHFOX Reaction Actual Reducible sANC_BT Required Lime Rate
Depth likelihood2 KCl
Soil Type Acidity Sulfur
(m)
pH Unit pH Unit X to XXXX pH Unit mole H+ / t %S mole H+ / t kg CaCO3/t kg CaCO3/m3
BH1 0.0-0.25 7.2 L 5.1 M 3
Silty SAND
0.25-0.5 7.1 L 4.5 M 3 7.1 <2 < 0.005 71 N/R N/R
0.5-0.75 7.4 L 5.4 M 2
0.75-1.0 7.4 L 5.2 M 2
1.0-1.25 7.4 L 5.1 M 2 6.4 <2 < 0.005 n/a N/R N/R
SAND
1.25-1.5 7.2 L 5.0 M 2
1.5-1.75 7.2 L 4.6 M 2
1.75-2.0 6.2 L 2.4 H 4 5.9 <2 0.023 n/a N/R N/R
BH2 0.0-0.25 6.3 L 2.8 H 4
Silty SAND
0.25-0.5 6.3 L 2.9 H 3
0.5-0.75 6.3 L 4.3 M 2 5.7 <2 < 0.005 n/a N/R N/R
0.75-1.0 6.3 L 4.6 L 2
1.0-1.25 6.1 L 2.7 H 4 5.4 <2 0.039 n/a 1.8 3.3
SAND
1.25-1.5 6.1 L 2.3 H 4
1.5-1.75 6.1 L 2.5 H 4 5.3 <2 0.062 n/a 2.9 5.2
1.75-2.0 5.8 L 2.2 H 4
Notes: 1. Actual Acid Sulfate Soil (AASS) liklihood is indicated by Low (L & no shading)(pH F > 5). Medium (M & yellow shade)(pHF 5 ≤ pHF < 4) and High (H & red shade)(pHF ≤ 4).
2. Potential Acid Sulfate Soil (PASS) liklihood is indicated by Low (L & no shading, where pHFOX is > 4 and ∆ pH from pHF to pHFOX is < 2 pH units). Medium (M & yellow shade, where ∆ pH from pHF to pHFOX is ≥ 2 pH
units OR pHFOX is <3)) and High (H and red shade)(change from pHF to pHFOX is ≥2 pH units AND pHFOX is <4)
3. Reaction 1 = Nil to slight reaction, 2 = Moderate reaction, 3 = Strong reaction (persistant froth), 4 = Extreme reaction.
4. Shaded TAA & SCR results are those exceeding the QASSIT action levels of 18 mol H+/t or 0.03 %S.
5. Required Lime Rate is calculated from the net Acid-Base Account with a factor of safety = 1.5 and bulk density of 1.8 t/m³. N/R = Not Required
Page 24
Certificate of Analysis
NATA Accredited
Accreditation Number 1261
Tectonic Geotechnical Pty Ltd Site Number 20794
40A Glen Vista Place Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 – Testing
The results of the tests, calibrations and/or
Chevalum measurements included in this document are traceable
to Australian/national standards.
Qld 4555
Attention: Mark Thomson
Report 558447-S
Project name 25 EDWARD STREET COOLUM BEACH
Project ID 17265
Received Date Aug 11, 2017
Client Sample ID BH1 0.0-0.25M BH1 0.25-0.5M BH1 0.5-0.75M BH1 0.75-1.0M
Sample Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil
Eurofins | mgt Sample No. B17-Au16059 B17-Au16060 B17-Au16061 B17-Au16062
Date Sampled Aug 09, 2017 Aug 09, 2017 Aug 09, 2017 Aug 09, 2017
Test/Reference LOR Unit
Acid Sulfate Soils Field pH Test
pH-F (Field pH test)* 0.1 pH Units 7.2 7.1 7.4 7.4
pH-FOX (Field pH Peroxide test)* 0.1 pH Units 5.1 4.5 5.4 5.2
Reaction Ratings*S05 comment 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0
Chromium Suite (SKCl)
pH-KCL 0.1 pH Units - 7.1 - -
Acid trail - Titratable Actual Acidity 2 mol H+/t - <2 - -
sulfidic - TAA equiv. S% pyrite 0.02 % pyrite S - < 0.02 - -
Chromium Reducible SulfurS04 0.005 %S - < 0.005 - -
Chromium Reducible Sulfur -acidity units 3 mol H+/t - <3 - -
Sulfur - KCl Extractable 0.02 %S - < 0.02 - -
HCl Extractable Sulfur 0.02 %S - n/a - -
Net Acid soluble sulfur 0.02 %S - n/a - -
Net Acid soluble sulfur - acidity units 10 mol H+/t - n/a - -
Net Acid soluble sulfur - equivalent S% pyriteS02 0.02 %S - n/a - -
Acid Neutralising Capacity (ANCbt) 0.01 %CaCO3 - 0.35 - -
Acid Neutralising Capacity - acidity (ANCbt) 2 mol H+/t - 71 - -
Acid Neutralising Capacity - equivalent S% pyrite (s-
ANCbt)S03 0.02 %S - 0.11 - -
ANC Fineness Factor factor - 1.5 - -
Net Acidity (Sulfur Units) 0.02 %S - < 0.02 - -
Net Acidity (Acidity Units) 10 mol H+/t - < 10 - -
Liming RateS01 1 kg CaCO3/t - <1 - -
<2mm Fraction 0.005 g - 66 - -
>2mm Fraction 0.005 g - 3.5 - -
Analysed Material 0.1 % - 95 - -
Extraneous Material 0.1 % - 5.1 - -
% Moisture 1 % - 11 - -
Eurofins | mgt 1/21 Smallwood Place, Murarrie, QLD, Australia, 4172 Page 1 of 10
Date Reported: Aug 22, 2017 ABN : 50 005 085 521 Telephone: +61 7 3902 4600 Report Number: 558447-S
Page 25
Client Sample ID BH1 1.0-1.25M BH1 1.25-1.5M BH1 1.5-1.75M BH1 1.75-2.0M
Sample Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil
Eurofins | mgt Sample No. B17-Au16063 B17-Au16064 B17-Au16065 B17-Au16066
Date Sampled Aug 09, 2017 Aug 09, 2017 Aug 09, 2017 Aug 09, 2017
Test/Reference LOR Unit
Acid Sulfate Soils Field pH Test
pH-F (Field pH test)* 0.1 pH Units 7.4 7.2 7.2 6.2
pH-FOX (Field pH Peroxide test)* 0.1 pH Units 5.1 5.0 4.6 2.4
Reaction Ratings*S05 comment 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0
Chromium Suite (SKCl)
pH-KCL 0.1 pH Units 6.4 - - 5.9
Acid trail - Titratable Actual Acidity 2 mol H+/t <2 - - <2
sulfidic - TAA equiv. S% pyrite 0.02 % pyrite S < 0.02 - - < 0.02
Chromium Reducible SulfurS04 0.005 %S < 0.005 - - 0.023
Chromium Reducible Sulfur -acidity units 3 mol H+/t <3 - - 14
Sulfur - KCl Extractable 0.02 %S < 0.02 - - < 0.02
HCl Extractable Sulfur 0.02 %S n/a - - n/a
Net Acid soluble sulfur 0.02 %S n/a - - n/a
Net Acid soluble sulfur - acidity units 10 mol H+/t n/a - - n/a
Net Acid soluble sulfur - equivalent S% pyriteS02 0.02 %S n/a - - n/a
Acid Neutralising Capacity (ANCbt) 0.01 %CaCO3 n/a - - n/a
Acid Neutralising Capacity - acidity (ANCbt) 2 mol H+/t n/a - - n/a
Acid Neutralising Capacity - equivalent S% pyrite (s-
ANCbt)S03 0.02 %S n/a - - n/a
ANC Fineness Factor factor 1.5 - - 1.5
Net Acidity (Sulfur Units) 0.02 %S < 0.02 - - 0.02
Net Acidity (Acidity Units) 10 mol H+/t < 10 - - 14
Liming RateS01 1 kg CaCO3/t <1 - - 1.1
<2mm Fraction 0.005 g 100 - - 120
>2mm Fraction 0.005 g < 0.005 - - < 0.005
Analysed Material 0.1 % 100 - - 100
Extraneous Material 0.1 % < 0.1 - - < 0.1
% Moisture 1 % 14 - - 21
Client Sample ID BH2 0.0-0.25M BH2 0.25-0.5M BH2 0.5-0.75M BH2 0.75-1.0M
Sample Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil
Eurofins | mgt Sample No. B17-Au16067 B17-Au16068 B17-Au16069 B17-Au16070
Date Sampled Aug 09, 2017 Aug 09, 2017 Aug 09, 2017 Aug 09, 2017
Test/Reference LOR Unit
Acid Sulfate Soils Field pH Test
pH-F (Field pH test)* 0.1 pH Units 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3
pH-FOX (Field pH Peroxide test)* 0.1 pH Units 2.8 2.9 4.3 4.6
Reaction Ratings*S05 comment 4.0 3.0 2.0 2.0
Chromium Suite (SKCl)
pH-KCL 0.1 pH Units - - 5.7 -
Acid trail - Titratable Actual Acidity 2 mol H+/t - - <2 -
sulfidic - TAA equiv. S% pyrite 0.02 % pyrite S - - < 0.02 -
Chromium Reducible SulfurS04 0.005 %S - - < 0.005 -
Chromium Reducible Sulfur -acidity units 3 mol H+/t - - <3 -
Sulfur - KCl Extractable 0.02 %S - - < 0.02 -
HCl Extractable Sulfur 0.02 %S - - n/a -
Net Acid soluble sulfur 0.02 %S - - n/a -
Net Acid soluble sulfur - acidity units 10 mol H+/t - - n/a -
Eurofins | mgt 1/21 Smallwood Place, Murarrie, QLD, Australia, 4172 Page 2 of 10
Date Reported: Aug 22, 2017 ABN : 50 005 085 521 Telephone: +61 7 3902 4600 Report Number: 558447-S
Page 26
Client Sample ID BH2 0.0-0.25M BH2 0.25-0.5M BH2 0.5-0.75M BH2 0.75-1.0M
Sample Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil
Eurofins | mgt Sample No. B17-Au16067 B17-Au16068 B17-Au16069 B17-Au16070
Date Sampled Aug 09, 2017 Aug 09, 2017 Aug 09, 2017 Aug 09, 2017
Test/Reference LOR Unit
Chromium Suite (SKCl)
Net Acid soluble sulfur - equivalent S% pyriteS02 0.02 %S - - n/a -
Acid Neutralising Capacity (ANCbt) 0.01 %CaCO3 - - n/a -
Acid Neutralising Capacity - acidity (ANCbt) 2 mol H+/t - - n/a -
Acid Neutralising Capacity - equivalent S% pyrite (s-
ANCbt)S03 0.02 %S - - n/a -
ANC Fineness Factor factor - - 1.5 -
Net Acidity (Sulfur Units) 0.02 %S - - < 0.02 -
Net Acidity (Acidity Units) 10 mol H+/t - - < 10 -
Liming RateS01 1 kg CaCO3/t - - <1 -
<2mm Fraction 0.005 g - - 73 -
>2mm Fraction 0.005 g - - < 0.005 -
Analysed Material 0.1 % - - 100 -
Extraneous Material 0.1 % - - < 0.1 -
% Moisture 1 % - - 7.3 -
Client Sample ID BH2 1.0-1.25M BH2 1.25-1.5M BH2 1.5-1.75M BH2 1.75-2.0M
Sample Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil
Eurofins | mgt Sample No. B17-Au16071 B17-Au16072 B17-Au16073 B17-Au16074
Date Sampled Aug 09, 2017 Aug 09, 2017 Aug 09, 2017 Aug 09, 2017
Test/Reference LOR Unit
Acid Sulfate Soils Field pH Test
pH-F (Field pH test)* 0.1 pH Units 6.1 6.1 6.1 5.8
pH-FOX (Field pH Peroxide test)* 0.1 pH Units 2.7 2.3 2.5 2.2
Reaction Ratings*S05 comment 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Chromium Suite (SKCl)
pH-KCL 0.1 pH Units 5.4 - 5.3 -
Acid trail - Titratable Actual Acidity 2 mol H+/t <2 - <2 -
sulfidic - TAA equiv. S% pyrite 0.02 % pyrite S < 0.02 - < 0.02 -
Chromium Reducible SulfurS04 0.005 %S 0.039 - 0.062 -
Chromium Reducible Sulfur -acidity units 3 mol H+/t 24 - 39 -
Sulfur - KCl Extractable 0.02 %S < 0.02 - < 0.02 -
HCl Extractable Sulfur 0.02 %S n/a - n/a -
Net Acid soluble sulfur 0.02 %S n/a - n/a -
Net Acid soluble sulfur - acidity units 10 mol H+/t n/a - n/a -
Net Acid soluble sulfur - equivalent S% pyriteS02 0.02 %S n/a - n/a -
Acid Neutralising Capacity (ANCbt) 0.01 %CaCO3 n/a - n/a -
Acid Neutralising Capacity - acidity (ANCbt) 2 mol H+/t n/a - n/a -
Acid Neutralising Capacity - equivalent S% pyrite (s-
ANCbt)S03 0.02 %S n/a - n/a -
ANC Fineness Factor factor 1.5 - 1.5 -
Net Acidity (Sulfur Units) 0.02 %S 0.04 - 0.06 -
Net Acidity (Acidity Units) 10 mol H+/t 24 - 39 -
Liming RateS01 1 kg CaCO3/t 1.8 - 2.9 -
<2mm Fraction 0.005 g 71 - 91 -
>2mm Fraction 0.005 g < 0.005 - < 0.005 -
Analysed Material 0.1 % 100 - 100 -
Extraneous Material 0.1 % < 0.1 - < 0.1 -
Eurofins | mgt 1/21 Smallwood Place, Murarrie, QLD, Australia, 4172 Page 3 of 10
Date Reported: Aug 22, 2017 ABN : 50 005 085 521 Telephone: +61 7 3902 4600 Report Number: 558447-S
Page 27
Client Sample ID BH2 1.0-1.25M BH2 1.25-1.5M BH2 1.5-1.75M BH2 1.75-2.0M
Sample Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil
Eurofins | mgt Sample No. B17-Au16071 B17-Au16072 B17-Au16073 B17-Au16074
Date Sampled Aug 09, 2017 Aug 09, 2017 Aug 09, 2017 Aug 09, 2017
Test/Reference LOR Unit
% Moisture 1 % 18 - 19 -
Eurofins | mgt 1/21 Smallwood Place, Murarrie, QLD, Australia, 4172 Page 4 of 10
Date Reported: Aug 22, 2017 ABN : 50 005 085 521 Telephone: +61 7 3902 4600 Report Number: 558447-S
Page 28
Sample History
Where samples are submitted/analysed over several days, the last date of extraction and analysis is reported.
A recent review of our LIMS has resulted in the correction or clarification of some method identifications. Due to this, some of the method reference information on reports has changed. However,
no substantive change has been made to our laboratory methods, and as such there is no change in the validity of current or previous results (regarding both quality and NATA accreditation).
If the date and time of sampling are not provided, the Laboratory will not be responsible for compromised results should testing be performed outside the recommended holding time.
Description Testing Site Extracted Holding Time
Acid Sulfate Soils Field pH Test Brisbane Aug 17, 2017 7 Days
- Method: LTM-GEN-7060 Determination of field pH (pHF) and field pH peroxide (pHFOX) tests
Chromium Suite (SKCl) Brisbane Aug 17, 2017 6 Week
- Method: LTM-GEN-7070
% Moisture Brisbane Aug 14, 2017 14 Day
- Method: LTM-GEN-7080 Moisture
Eurofins | mgt 1/21 Smallwood Place, Murarrie, QLD, Australia, 4172 Page 5 of 10
Date Reported: Aug 22, 2017 ABN : 50 005 085 521 Telephone: +61 7 3902 4600 Report Number: 558447-S
Page 29
Melbourne Sydney Brisbane Perth
2-5 Kingston Town Close Unit F3, Building F 1/21 Smallwood Place 2/91 Leach Highway
Oakleigh VIC 3166 16 Mars Road Murarrie QLD 4172 Kewdale WA 6105
ABN– 50 005 085 521 Phone : +61 3 8564 5000 Lane Cove West NSW 2066 Phone : +61 7 3902 4600 Phone : +61 8 9251 9600
e.mail : [email protected] NATA # 1261 Phone : +61 2 9900 8400 NATA # 1261 Site # 20794 NATA # 1261
web : www.eurofins.com.au Site # 1254 & 14271 NATA # 1261 Site # 18217 Site # 23736
.
Company Name: Tectonic Geotechnical Pty Ltd Order No.: Received: Aug 11, 2017 9:00 AM
Address: 40A Glen Vista Place Report #: 558447 Due: Aug 18, 2017
Chevalum Phone: 07 5478 9642 Priority: 5 Day
Qld 4555 Fax: Contact Name: Mark Thomson
Project Name: 25 EDWARD STREET COOLUM BEACH
Project ID: 17265
Eurofins | mgt Analytical Services Manager : Ryan Gilbert
Acid Sulfate Soils Field pH Test
Moisture Set
Chromium Suite (SKCl)
Sample Detail
Melbourne Laboratory - NATA Site # 1254 & 14271
Sydney Laboratory - NATA Site # 18217
Brisbane Laboratory - NATA Site # 20794 X X X
Perth Laboratory - NATA Site # 23736
External Laboratory
No Sample ID Sample Date Sampling Matrix LAB ID
Time
1 BH1 0.0-0.25M Aug 09, 2017 Soil B17-Au16059 X
2 BH1 0.25-0.5M Aug 09, 2017 Soil B17-Au16060 X X X
3 BH1 0.5-0.75M Aug 09, 2017 Soil B17-Au16061 X
4 BH1 0.75-1.0M Aug 09, 2017 Soil B17-Au16062 X
5 BH1 1.0-1.25M Aug 09, 2017 Soil B17-Au16063 X X X
6 BH1 1.25-1.5M Aug 09, 2017 Soil B17-Au16064 X
7 BH1 1.5-1.75M Aug 09, 2017 Soil B17-Au16065 X
8 BH1 1.75-2.0M Aug 09, 2017 Soil B17-Au16066 X X X
9 BH2 0.0-0.25M Aug 09, 2017 Soil B17-Au16067 X
Eurofins | mgt 1/21 Smallwood Place, Murarrie, QLD, Australia, 4172 Page 6 of 10
Date Reported:Aug 22, 2017 ABN : 50 005 085 521 Telephone: +61 7 3902 4600 Report Number: 558447-S
Page 30
Melbourne Sydney Brisbane Perth
2-5 Kingston Town Close Unit F3, Building F 1/21 Smallwood Place 2/91 Leach Highway
Oakleigh VIC 3166 16 Mars Road Murarrie QLD 4172 Kewdale WA 6105
ABN– 50 005 085 521 Phone : +61 3 8564 5000 Lane Cove West NSW 2066 Phone : +61 7 3902 4600 Phone : +61 8 9251 9600
e.mail : [email protected] NATA # 1261 Phone : +61 2 9900 8400 NATA # 1261 Site # 20794 NATA # 1261
web : www.eurofins.com.au Site # 1254 & 14271 NATA # 1261 Site # 18217 Site # 23736
Company Name: Tectonic Geotechnical Pty Ltd Order No.: Received: Aug 11, 2017 9:00 AM
Address: 40A Glen Vista Place Report #: 558447 Due: Aug 18, 2017
Chevalum Phone: 07 5478 9642 Priority: 5 Day
Qld 4555 Fax: Contact Name: Mark Thomson
Project Name: 25 EDWARD STREET COOLUM BEACH
Project ID: 17265
Eurofins | mgt Analytical Services Manager : Ryan Gilbert
Acid Sulfate Soils Field pH Test
Moisture Set
Chromium Suite (SKCl)
Sample Detail
Melbourne Laboratory - NATA Site # 1254 & 14271
Sydney Laboratory - NATA Site # 18217
Brisbane Laboratory - NATA Site # 20794 X X X
Perth Laboratory - NATA Site # 23736
10 BH2 0.25-0.5M Aug 09, 2017 Soil B17-Au16068 X
11 BH2 0.5-0.75M Aug 09, 2017 Soil B17-Au16069 X X X
12 BH2 0.75-1.0M Aug 09, 2017 Soil B17-Au16070 X
13 BH2 1.0-1.25M Aug 09, 2017 Soil B17-Au16071 X X X
14 BH2 1.25-1.5M Aug 09, 2017 Soil B17-Au16072 X
15 BH2 1.5-1.75M Aug 09, 2017 Soil B17-Au16073 X X X
16 BH2 1.75-2.0M Aug 09, 2017 Soil B17-Au16074 X
Test Counts 16 6 6
Eurofins | mgt 1/21 Smallwood Place, Murarrie, QLD, Australia, 4172 Page 7 of 10
Date Reported:Aug 22, 2017 ABN : 50 005 085 521 Telephone: +61 7 3902 4600 Report Number: 558447-S
Page 31
Internal Quality Control Review and Glossary
General
1. Laboratory QC results for Method Blanks, Duplicates, Matrix Spikes, and Laboratory Control Samples are included in this QC report where applicable. Additional QC data may be available on
request.
2. All soil results are reported on a dry basis, unless otherwise stated.
3. All biota results are reported on a wet weight basis on the edible portion, unless otherwise stated.
4. Actual LORs are matrix dependant. Quoted LORs may be raised where sample extracts are diluted due to interferences.
5. Results are uncorrected for matrix spikes or surrogate recoveries except for PFAS compounds.
6. SVOC analysis on waters are performed on homogenised, unfiltered samples, unless noted otherwise.
7. Samples were analysed on an 'as received' basis.
8. This report replaces any interim results previously issued.
Holding Times
Please refer to 'Sample Preservation and Container Guide' for holding times (QS3001).
For samples received on the last day of holding time, notification of testing requirements should have been received at least 6 hours prior to sample receipt deadlines as stated on the Sample
Receipt Advice.
If the Laboratory did not receive the information in the required timeframe, and regardless of any other integrity issues, suitably qualified results may still be reported.
Holding times apply from the date of sampling, therefore compliance to these may be outside the laboratory's control.
**NOTE: pH duplicates are reported as a range NOT as RPD
Units
mg/kg: milligrams per kilogram mg/L: milligrams per litre
ug/L: micrograms per litre ppm: Parts per million
ppb: Parts per billion %: Percentage
org/100mL: Organisms per 100 millilitres NTU: Nephelometric Turbidity Units
MPN/100mL: Most Probable Number of organisms per 100 millilitres
Terms
Dry Where a moisture has been determined on a solid sample the result is expressed on a dry basis.
LOR Limit of Reporting.
SPIKE Addition of the analyte to the sample and reported as percentage recovery.
RPD Relative Percent Difference between two Duplicate pieces of analysis.
LCS Laboratory Control Sample - reported as percent recovery.
CRM Certified Reference Material - reported as percent recovery.
Method Blank In the case of solid samples these are performed on laboratory certified clean sands and in the case of water samples these are performed on de-ionised water.
Surr - Surrogate The addition of a like compound to the analyte target and reported as percentage recovery.
Duplicate A second piece of analysis from the same sample and reported in the same units as the result to show comparison.
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
APHA American Public Health Association
TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
COC Chain of Custody
SRA Sample Receipt Advice
QSM Quality Systems Manual ver 5.1 US Department of Defense
CP Client Parent - QC was performed on samples pertaining to this report
NCP Non-Client Parent - QC performed on samples not pertaining to this report, QC is representative of the sequence or batch that client samples were analysed within.
TEQ Toxic Equivalency Quotient
QC - Acceptance Criteria
RPD Duplicates: Global RPD Duplicates Acceptance Criteria is 30% however the following acceptance guidelines are equally applicable:
Results <10 times the LOR : No Limit
Results between 10-20 times the LOR : RPD must lie between 0-50%
Results >20 times the LOR : RPD must lie between 0-30%
Surrogate Recoveries: Recoveries must lie between 50-150%-Phenols & PFASs
PFAS field samples that contain surrogate recoveries in excess of the QC limit designated in QSM 5.1 where no positive PFAS results have been reported have been reviewed and no data was
affected.
QC Data General Comments
1. Where a result is reported as a less than (<), higher than the nominated LOR, this is due to either matrix interference, extract dilution required due to interferences or contaminant levels within
the sample, high moisture content or insufficient sample provided.
2. Duplicate data shown within this report that states the word "BATCH" is a Batch Duplicate from outside of your sample batch, but within the laboratory sample batch at a 1:10 ratio. The Parent
and Duplicate data shown is not data from your samples.
3. Organochlorine Pesticide analysis - where reporting LCS data, Toxaphene & Chlordane are not added to the LCS.
4. Organochlorine Pesticide analysis - where reporting Spike data, Toxaphene is not added to the Spike.
5. Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons - where reporting Spike & LCS data, a single spike of commercial Hydrocarbon products in the range of C12-C30 is added and it's Total Recovery is reported
in the C10-C14 cell of the Report.
6. pH and Free Chlorine analysed in the laboratory - Analysis on this test must begin within 30 minutes of sampling.Therefore laboratory analysis is unlikely to be completed within holding time.
Analysis will begin as soon as possible after sample receipt.
7. Recovery Data (Spikes & Surrogates) - where chromatographic interference does not allow the determination of Recovery the term "INT" appears against that analyte.
8. Polychlorinated Biphenyls are spiked only using Aroclor 1260 in Matrix Spikes and LCS.
9. For Matrix Spikes and LCS results a dash " -" in the report means that the specific analyte was not added to the QC sample.
10. Duplicate RPDs are calculated from raw analytical data thus it is possible to have two sets of data.
Eurofins | mgt 1/21 Smallwood Place, Murarrie, QLD, Australia, 4172 Page 8 of 10
Date Reported: Aug 22, 2017 ABN : 50 005 085 521 Telephone: +61 7 3902 4600 Report Number: 558447-S
Page 32
Quality Control Results
Acceptance Pass Qualifying
Test Units Result 1 Limits Limits Code
LCS - % Recovery
Chromium Suite (SKCl)
Chromium Reducible Sulfur % 97 70-130 Pass
Acid Neutralising Capacity (ANCbt) % 93 70-130 Pass
QA Acceptance Pass Qualifying
Test Lab Sample ID Units Result 1
Source Limits Limits Code
Duplicate
Chromium Suite (SKCl) Result 1 Result 2 RPD
pH-KCL B17-Au14276 NCP pH Units 4.0 4.0 <1 30% Pass
Acid trail - Titratable Actual Acidity B17-Au14276 NCP mol H+/t 57 56 1.7 30% Pass
sulfidic - TAA equiv. S% pyrite B17-Au14276 NCP % pyrite S 0.09 0.09 2.0 30% Pass
Chromium Reducible Sulfur B17-Au14276 NCP %S < 0.005 < 0.005 <1 30% Pass
Chromium Reducible Sulfur -acidity
units B17-Au14276 NCP mol H+/t <3 <3 <1 30% Pass
Sulfur - KCl Extractable B17-Au14276 NCP %S < 0.02 < 0.02 <1 30% Pass
HCl Extractable Sulfur B17-Au14276 NCP %S < 0.02 < 0.02 <1 30% Pass
Net Acid soluble sulfur B17-Au14276 NCP %S < 0.02 < 0.02 <1 30% Pass
Net Acid soluble sulfur - acidity
units B17-Au14276 NCP mol H+/t < 10 < 10 <1 30% Pass
Net Acid soluble sulfur - equivalent
S% pyrite B17-Au14276 NCP %S < 0.02 < 0.02 <1 30% Pass
Acid Neutralising Capacity (ANCbt) B17-Au14276 NCP %CaCO3 n/a n/a n/a 30% Pass
Acid Neutralising Capacity -
equivalent S% pyrite (s-ANCbt) B17-Au14276 NCP %S n/a n/a n/a 30% Pass
ANC Fineness Factor B17-Au14276 NCP factor 1.5 1.5 <1 30% Pass
Net Acidity (Sulfur Units) B17-Au14276 NCP %S 0.09 0.09 n/a 30% Pass
Net Acidity (Acidity Units) B17-Au14276 NCP mol H+/t 57 56 n/a 30% Pass
Liming Rate B17-Au14276 NCP kg CaCO3/t 4.3 4.2 2.0 30% Pass
Duplicate
Result 1 Result 2 RPD
% Moisture B17-Au01802 NCP % 39 39 <1 30% Pass
Duplicate
Acid Sulfate Soils Field pH Test Result 1 Result 2 RPD
pH-F (Field pH test)* B17-Au16065 CP pH Units 7.2 7.0 pass 30% Pass
Reaction Ratings* B17-Au16065 CP comment 2.0 2.0 pass 30% Pass
Eurofins | mgt 1/21 Smallwood Place, Murarrie, QLD, Australia, 4172 Page 9 of 10
Date Reported: Aug 22, 2017 ABN : 50 005 085 521 Telephone: +61 7 3902 4600 Report Number: 558447-S
Page 33
Comments
Sample Integrity
Custody Seals Intact (if used) N/A
Attempt to Chill was evident Yes
Sample correctly preserved Yes
Appropriate sample containers have been used Yes
Sample containers for volatile analysis received with minimal headspace Yes
Samples received within HoldingTime Yes
Some samples have been subcontracted No
Qualifier Codes/Comments
Code Description
Liming rate is calculated and reported on a dry weight basis assuming use of fine agricultural lime (CaCO3) and using a safety factor of 1.5 to allow for non-homogeneous mixing
S01 and poor reactivity of lime. For conversion of Liming Rate from 'kg/t dry weight' to 'kg/m3 in-situ soil' multiply 'reported results' x 'wet bulk density of soil in t/m3'
S02 Retained Acidity is Reported when the pHKCl is less than pH 4.5
S03 Acid Neutralising Capacity is only required if the pHKCl if greater than or equal to pH 6.5
S04 Acid Sulfate Soil Samples have a 24 hour holding time unless frozen or dried within that period
Field Screen uses the following fizz rating to classify the rate the samples reacted to the peroxide: 1.0; No reaction to slight. 2.0; Moderate reaction. 3.0; Strong reaction with
S05 persistent froth. 4.0; Extreme reaction.
Authorised By
Ryan Gilbert Analytical Services Manager
Bryan Wilson Senior Analyst-Metal (QLD)
Jonathon Angell Senior Analyst-Inorganic (QLD)
Glenn Jackson
National Operations Manager
- Indicates Not Requested
* Indicates NATA accreditation does not cover the performance of this service
Measurement uncertainty of test data is available on request or please click here.
Eurofins | mgt shall not be liable for loss, cost, damages or expenses incurred by the client, or any other person or company, resulting from the use of any information or interpretation given in this report. In no case shall Eurofins | mgt be liable for consequential damages including, but not
limited to, lost profits, damages for failure to meet deadlines and lost production arising from this report. This document shall not be reproduced except in full and relates only to the items tested. Unless indicated otherwise, the tests were performed on the samples as received.
Eurofins | mgt 1/21 Smallwood Place, Murarrie, QLD, Australia, 4172 Page 10 of 10
Date Reported: Aug 22, 2017 ABN : 50 005 085 521 Telephone: +61 7 3902 4600 Report Number: 558447-S
Page 34
Particle Size Distribution Report
Client: Tectonic Geotechnical Pty Ltd Report Number: G17001 - 181/1
Client Address: PO Box 899 Buderim QLD 4556
Job Number: G17001 Report Date: 24/08/2017
Project: Laboratory Testing Samples Supplied Order Number:
Location Project No:17265 , Edward Street,Noosaville Page 1 of 1
Lab No: 109500 Sample Location
Date Sampled: 9/08/2017 Bore 1
Date Tested: 22/08/2017 Depth 0.8 - 1.2m
Sampled By: Client Supplied 18/08/17
Sample Method: N/A
Material Source: Site
For Use As: - Lot Number: -
Remarks: - Spec Number: -
A.S. Sieve Sizes Specification Percent Passing Specification
Minimum Maximum
Test Method: AS1289.3.6.1
75.0mm
63.0mm
53.0mm
37.5mm
26.5mm
19.0mm
16.0mm
13.2mm
9.5mm
6.7mm
4.75mm
2.36mm
1.18mm
0.600mm 100
0.425mm 99
0.300mm 90
0.150mm 14
0.075mm 7
Approved Signatory Form Number
Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025-Testing
REP APSD-1-4
Mel Burnett
NATA Accred No:1551
Page 35
Particle Size Distribution Report
Client: Tectonic Geotechnical Pty Ltd Report Number: G17001 - 182/1
Client Address: PO Box 899 Buderim QLD 4556
Job Number: G17001 Report Date: 24/08/2017
Project: Laboratory Testing Samples Supplied Order Number:
Location Project No:17265 , Edward Street,Noosaville Page 1 of 1
Lab No: 109501 Sample Location
Date Sampled: 9/08/2017 Bore 2
Date Tested: 22/08/2017 DEpth 1.2 - 1.5m
Sampled By: Client Supplied 18/08/17
Sample Method: N/A
Material Source: Site
For Use As: - Lot Number: -
Remarks: - Spec Number: -
A.S. Sieve Sizes Specification Percent Passing Specification
Minimum Maximum
Test Method: AS1289.3.6.1
75.0mm
63.0mm
53.0mm
37.5mm
26.5mm
19.0mm
16.0mm
13.2mm
9.5mm
6.7mm
4.75mm
2.36mm
1.18mm
0.600mm 100
0.425mm 98
0.300mm 89
0.150mm 9
0.075mm 5
Approved Signatory Form Number
Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025-Testing
REP APSD-1-4
Mel Burnett
NATA Accred No:1551
Page 36
25 EDWARD STREET, NOOSAVILLE
PROPOSED DUPLEX DEVELOPMENT
APPENDIX C
Limitations
25 August 2017
Report No. 17265-001-Rev0
Page 37
LIMITATIONS This document has been prepared for the purpose outlined in Tectonic’s proposal and no responsibility is accepted for the use of this document, in whole or in part, for any other purpose. The scope of Tectonic’s Services are as described in Tectonic’s proposal, and are subject to restrictions and limitations. Tectonic did not perform a complete assessment of all possible conditions or circumstances that may exist at the site referenced in the report. If a service is not expressly indicated, do not assume it has been provided. If a matter is not addressed, do not assume that any determination has been made by Tectonic in regards to it. Conditions may exist which were undetectable given that economic and time constraints limit the practical extent of geotechnical investigation. Variations in conditions may occur between investigation locations, and there may be special conditions pertaining to the site which have not been revealed by the investigation and which have not therefore been taken into account in the document. Where variations exist on site, additional studies and actions may be required. Tectonic’s opinions are based upon information that existed at the time that the work was performed. The passage of time, man-made or natural events, may alter the site conditions. It is understood that the Services undertaken allowed Tectonic to form an opinion of the actual conditions of the site at the time the site was visited and cannot be used to assess the effect of any subsequent changes in the quality of the site, or its surroundings, or any laws or regulations. Any assessments made in the preparation of this document are based on the conditions indicated from published sources and the findings of the investigation described. Actual subsurface conditions may differ from those indicated in the document (e.g. between boreholes or test pits). No warranty is included, either express or implied, that the actual conditions will conform exactly to the assessments contained in this document. Where data supplied by the client or other external sources, including previous site investigation data, have been used, it has been assumed that the information is correct unless otherwise stated. No responsibility is accepted by Tectonic for incomplete or inaccurate data supplied by others. This document is provided for the sole use by the Client and its professional advisers. No responsibility whatsoever for the contents of this document will be accepted to any person other than the Client. Any use which a third party makes of this document, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, is the responsibility of such third parties. Tectonic accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this document. Rev 1 (March 2016)