Original source · versioned page text
RFI - Attachment G - Acid Sulfate Soils Investigation
Report on
Acid Sulfate Soils Investigation
Proposed Medical Centre
36 & 40 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville
Prepared for
Ribarja Pty Ltd
Project 94967.00
May 2019
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 51 pages
Page 2
Document History
Document details
Project No. 94967.00 Document No. R.001.docx
Document title Report on Acid Sulfate Soils Investigation
Proposed Medical Centre
Site address 36 & 40 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville
Report prepared for Ribarja Pty Ltd
File name ghgjh
Document status and review
Status Prepared by Reviewed by Date issued
Revision 0 Andre Dos Santos Brett Egen 15 May 2019
Distribution of copies
Status Electronic Paper Issued to
Revision 0 1 - [email protected]
The undersigned, on behalf of Douglas Partners Pty Ltd, confirm that this document and all attached
drawings, logs and test results have been checked and reviewed for errors, omissions and
inaccuracies.
Signature Date
Author 15 May 2019
Reviewer 15 May 2019
Douglas Partners Pty Ltd
ABN 75 053 980 117
www.douglaspartners.com.au
1/28 Kessling Avenue
Kunda Park QLD 4556
FS 604853
Phone (07) 5351 0400
Page 3
Table of Contents
Page
1. Introduction.....................................................................................................................................1
2. Site Description ..............................................................................................................................1
3. Regional Geology and Acid Sulfate Soil Conditions ......................................................................2
4. Field Work Methods .......................................................................................................................3
5. Field Work Results .........................................................................................................................3
6. Laboratory Testing .........................................................................................................................4
7. Comments ......................................................................................................................................4
7.1 Previous Investigation..........................................................................................................4
7.2 Acid Sulfate Soils .................................................................................................................4
7.2.1 What are Acid Sulfate Soils ....................................................................................4
7.2.2 Criteria for Evaluation of Acid Sulfate Soils ............................................................4
7.2.3 Management and Treatment...................................................................................5
7.2.4 Verification Testing .................................................................................................7
8. References .....................................................................................................................................7
9. Limitations ......................................................................................................................................8
Appendix A: About this Report
Appendix B: Drawing 1 – Test Location Plan
Appendix C: Sampling Methods
Soil Descriptions
Symbols & Abbreviations
Borehole Logs
Appendix D: Laboratory Test Results
Acid Sulfate Soils Investigation, Proposed Medical Centre 94967.00.R.001.docx
36 & 40 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville May 2019
Page 4
Page 1 of 8 Report on Acid Sulfate Soils Investigation Proposed Medical Centre 36 & 40 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville 1. Introduction This report presents the results of an acid sulfate soils (ASS) investigation undertaken by Douglas Partners Pty Ltd (DP) for the proposed medical centre at 36 & 40 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville. It is understood that the proposed development will consist of a three storey medical building with a single storey basement car park. Excavations up to 3 m deep are anticipated for the basement. The investigation was undertaken at the request of MPN Consulting Pty Ltd, acting on behalf of Ribarja Pty Ltd, and was undertaken in general accordance with DP’s proposal SSC190107 dated 16 April 2019. The aim of the investigation was to assess the following: subsurface conditions including groundwater (if encountered); presence and severity of ASS; and management and treatment of ASS (if any). The investigation comprised the drilling and sampling of four bores followed by laboratory testing, analysis and reporting. Details of the field work and laboratory testing are presented in this report, together, with comments on the items listed above. This report must be read in conjunction with the notes entitled “About This Report” in Appendix A along with any other attached explanatory notes and should be kept in its entirety without separation of individual pages or sections. 2. Site Description The site for the proposed medical centre is located at 36 & 40 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville. The site is bounded by Hofmann Drive to the east, a vacant lot to the north, and industrial allotments to the west and south (refer to Drawing 1 in Appendix B). At the time of the investigation, the site was well grassed and had a concrete driveway adjacent along the eastern site boundary. Areas of the site were ponded with water, suggesting current site drainage is poor. Topographically, the site is relatively flat and level. Acid Sulfate Soils Investigation, Proposed Medical Centre 94967.00.R.001.docx 36 & 40 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville May 2019
Page 5
Page 2 of 8 Figure 1: Overview of the site, viewing north with Bore 1 in foreground 3. Regional Geology and Acid Sulfate Soil Conditions Reference to the Geological Survey of Queensland’s 1:100,000 series digital geological maps indicate the site is located on the boundary between Quaternary aged floodplain alluvium typically comprising “clay, silt, sand, gravel” and Late Triassic to Early Jurassic aged Tiaro Coal Measures typically comprising “Lithofeldspathic labile and sublabile to quartzose sandstone, siltstone, shale, coal, ferruginous oolite marker”. The alluvium is expected to be underlain by the older Tiaro Coal Measures. The natural subsurface conditions encountered typically comprised silty sand overlying sandy and silty clays, inferred likely to be alluvial soils which is broadly consistent with the above described geology. Reference to the Department of Natural Resources and Mines 1:100,000 Redcliffe to Teewah Acid Sulfate Soils Map 2 indicates that the site is located in an area of “Land <5m AHD with low probability of ASS occurrence”. The presence or otherwise of ASS was assessed through laboratory testing. The results of laboratory testing are discussed further in Sections 6 and 7.2.2 of this report. Acid Sulfate Soils Investigation, Proposed Medical Centre 94967.00.R.001.docx 36 & 40 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville May 2019
Page 6
Page 3 of 8
4. Field Work Methods
The field work was carried out on 24 April 2019 and comprised the drilling and sampling of four bores
(designated Bores 1 to 4). The bore locations were set out by an experienced geotechnical engineer
from DP with reference to site features, with the locations and surface levels recorded using a real-
time DGPS device. The approximate bore locations are indicated on Drawing 1 in Appendix B.
The bores were drilled to 4.0 m depth using a 4WD mounted Jacro 200 drilling rig using continuous
flight augers fitted with a tungsten carbide (TC) bit. Pocket penetrometer (pp) testing was carried out
within Bores 3 and 4 to assess the strength consistency of the subsurface soils. On completion, the
bores were observed for groundwater seepage and then backfilled with spoil tamped in the hole.
The field work was undertaken by experienced geotechnical personnel under the supervision of an
experienced geotechnical engineer from DP, who logged the bores and collected samples for visual
and tactile assessment and for subsequent laboratory testing. Strata identification was undertaken
through observation of cutting returns and recovered samples.
5. Field Work Results
The subsurface conditions encountered in the bores are described in detail on the borehole logs in
Appendix C, together with accompanying notes which define the classification methods and
descriptive terms used. The depths were measured below existing surface levels at the time of
investigation.
In summary, the subsurface conditions encountered in the bores generally comprised fill overlying
natural silty sand then sandy and silty clays which are further described below:
Fill: Surficial silty sand fill underlain by silty and sandy clay fill was encountered to between
1.0 m and 1.1 m depth in the bores.
Silty Sand: Natural silty sand was encountered beneath the fill in Bores 1 and 3 and continued
to between 1.25 m and 1.65 m depth. The fine to medium grained silty sand was grey in colour
and contained some clay fines.
Sandy and Silty Clays: Underlying the fill in Bores 2 and 4 and the silty sand in Bores 1 and 3,
natural sandy and silty clays were encountered to the termination of the bores at 4.0 m depth.
The clays initially were typically grey streaked brown/orange brown in colour, grading to a grey
mottled red-brown colour with depth.
No groundwater seepage was encountered in the bores at the time of investigation. It should be noted,
however, that groundwater depths and ground moisture conditions are affected by climatic conditions
and soil permeability, and will therefore vary with time.
Acid Sulfate Soils Investigation, Proposed Medical Centre 94967.00.R.001.docx
36 & 40 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville May 2019
Page 7
Page 4 of 8
6. Laboratory Testing
Preliminary field screening and chemical laboratory tests for ASS were carried out with reference to
the QASSIT Guidelines (Ahern et al 1998), the Soil Management Guidelines (Dear et al 2014) and the
Laboratory Methods Guidelines (Ahern et al 2004).
Samples were recovered from the bores at regular intervals and were screened by measurement of
pH after the addition of distilled water (pHf) and peroxide (pHfox). The pHf test provides a preliminary
indication of past oxidation of sulfides resulting in the presence of actual acid sulfate soils (AASS). The
pHfox test provides a preliminary indication of the presence of unoxidised sulfides and therefore,
potential acid sulfate soils (PASS).
Based on the results of the screening tests and visual inspection of the samples, selected samples
were subjected to more rigorous Chromium Suite analytical testing. The results of this testing are
discussed further in Section 7.2.2 and detailed report sheets in Appendix D.
7. Comments
7.1 Previous Investigation
DP previously carried out a geotechnical investigation this site as part of an earlier proposed
commercial development which also included the adjacent industrial development to the south. The
results of the previous investigation are present in the report entitled “Report on Geotechnical
Investigation, Proposed Commercial Development, Lot 1 Noosa Metro, Eenie Creek Road, Noosaville”
DP Project 47928 dated 10 July 2009.
7.2 Acid Sulfate Soils
7.2.1 What are Acid Sulfate Soils
Acid sulfate soils (ASS) are naturally occurring sediments and soils containing iron sulfides or sulfidic
materials, often located over extensive low-lying coastal areas, predominately below RL 5m AHD.
These soils are generally found close to the natural ground surface, but may also be found at depth
within the soil profile
ASS includes actual acid sulfate soils (AASS) and potential acid sulfate soils (PASS). AASS and
PASS are often found within the same soil profile, with AASS generally overlying PASS. AASS are
highly acidic resulting from the oxidation of soil materials that contained sulfides. PASS are soils that
contain iron sulfides or sulfidic materials, which have not yet been oxidised.
7.2.2 Criteria for Evaluation of Acid Sulfate Soils
The criteria on which the results of screening tests (pHf and pHfox) were assessed as indicative of
possible actual acid sulfate soils (AASS) or potential acid sulfate soils (PASS) were based on the
QASSIT Guidelines as follows:
Acid Sulfate Soils Investigation, Proposed Medical Centre 94967.00.R.001.docx
36 & 40 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville May 2019
Page 8
Page 5 of 8
pHf of less than 4 indicates oxidation of sulfides has probably occurred in the past, indicating the
presence of actual acidity. None of the samples tested returned a pHf value of less than 4.
pHf between 4 and 5.5 indicates the soils are acidic. This may be as a result of limited oxidation
of sulfides, but may also be as a consequence of the presence of organic acids. The majority of
the samples tested returned pHf values of between 4.5 and 5.5.
pHf of greater than 5.5 indicates the soil has little or no actual acidity; however this can be
common with PASS materials or marine-influenced samples. Only surficial fill material samples
tested returned pHf results greater than 5.5.
The pHf test method does not detect acidity bound within sulfides; however the pHfox test gives an
indication of any potential acid release. Results of the pHfox are summarised as follows:
pHfox of less than 3, plus a pHfox reading at least one pH unit below pHf, plus a strong reaction
with peroxide, strongly indicates the presence of PASS. The majority of the natural sand and clay
samples tested in the upper 2.0 to 2.5 m from Bores 1 to 3 tested returned a pHfox value of less
than 3.
pHfox between 3 and 4 indicates the possibility of PASS material and a pHfox between 4 and 5
may indicate the presence of small amounts of sulfide or fine carbonates. The remaining samples
tested return returned a pHfox of between 3 and 3.6.
To provide confirmation of the above qualitative testing, quantitative analytical testing was carried out
on selected samples, generally with the greatest difference in pHf and pHfox readings and strongest
reaction using the Chromium Suite method.
The chromium reducible sulfur values (SCR) where greater than 0.01 %S indicates a significant
level of sulfide, and where greater than 0.03 %S then the soil has a potential acidity level
exceeding the QASSIT guideline value. None of the samples tested returned SCR values greater
than 0.03 %S.
Where the total actual acidity (TAA) value exceeds 18 mol/t then the soil has an acidity level
exceeding the QASSIT guideline value. All of the samples tested returned TAA values greater
than 18 mol/t indicating the presence of acidity.
Where the sulfur in KCl extract values (SKCl) is less than 0.01 %S, then the soil has little or no history
of sulfide oxidation. A low SKCl combined with a low SCR indicates the soil is not an acid sulfate soil and
further development of acid is likely to be low. All of the fill samples tested, except one at the fill/natural
interface in Bore 4, returned SKCl values of less than 0.01 %S.
7.2.3 Management and Treatment
Generally, the action criterion from the chromium suite of tests, which triggers a requirement for ASS
disturbance to be managed, derived from the QASSIT and Soil Management Guidelines are as
follows:
Net Acidity (TAA + SCR + SNAS) of greater than or equal to 0.03 %S for soils greater than 1000
tonnes of disturbance.
Acid Sulfate Soils Investigation, Proposed Medical Centre 94967.00.R.001.docx
36 & 40 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville May 2019
Page 9
Page 6 of 8
The laboratory test results indicate that the samples tested are acidic. However, the measured acidity
from the upper fill is not likely attributed to sulfides (based on the SKCl results), but rather naturally
occurring acidity. Only the levels of acidity measured for the samples of the lower natural sands and
clays tested are likely to be attributed to sulfides (ie. AASS).
The acidity found naturally in non-ASS soils (ie. existing fill material) is not typically damaging to the
environment and indeed the ecology. Some environments are naturally acidic and support ecologies
adapted to those acidic conditions. Therefore, the complete treatment and neutralisation of the
naturally occurring acidic soils is considered not necessary. While these naturally acidic non-ASS soils
do not require specific treatment, appropriate management of the natural acidity should however be
carried out to reduce the risks of environmental impact in order to comply with the general
environmental duty of care where appropriate (ie. neutralisation of any acidic leachate).
It is recommended that a guard layer of neutralising agent (eg. aglime) be spread under and also over
the top of stockpiles of acidic soils (ie. existing fill material) to limit the generation of acidity from the
surface of the stockpile and any leachate emerging near the base. A nominal guard layer rate of
2
2.5 kg/m is recommended. Reapplication of the guard layer will be necessary under areas of
repeated temporary stockpiling.
As for the AASS soils (ie. natural sands and clays), while any further changes to soil pH which can
occur upon sulfide oxidation which is often what leads to adverse environmental impacts is considered
to be low, these materials will require neutralisation treatment if they are to be disturbed.
‘Ag lime’ should be used as the preferred neutralisation material for the management of ASS as it is
usually the cheapest and most readily available product for soil neutralisation. This material is mildly
alkaline (pH of 8.5 to 9), of low solubility, and does not present any handling problems. The ‘ag lime’
comprises calcium carbonate typically made from limestone that has been finely grounded and sieved
to a fine powder.
Table 1 provides indicative liming rates for neutralisation of the AASS material likely to be disturbed.
Table 1: Indicative Liming Rates
3
Material Lime Application Rate for Treatment (kg/m )
Natural sands and clays 14.5
3
Notes: Assumes a bulking up factor of approximately 1.5 tonnes/m
It is generally preferable if an ‘ag lime’ with a purity of 95% or better is used (ie. NV >95, where NV is
the neutralising value, a term used to rate the neutralising power of different forms of materials relative
to pure, fine calcium carbonate which is designated NV = 100). The above lime dosing rates should be
adjusted by a factor of 100/NV.
Acid Sulfate Soils Investigation, Proposed Medical Centre 94967.00.R.001.docx
36 & 40 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville May 2019
Page 10
Page 7 of 8
7.2.4 Verification Testing
Verification sampling intends to establish whether sufficient neutralising material has been added and
3
if has been adequately mixed. A verification sample should be taken for every 1000 m of treated
AASS with analysis performed by either the Chromium or SPOCAS suite (including retained acidity).
Single, non-random grab samples are not recommended for this type of testing. Instead composite
samples taken according to a random or stratified-random protocol is recommended. Only
appropriately skilled personnel should collect and test verification samples.
Table 2: Target Levels of Neutralised Soil
Test Component Target Level
Field screening of soil pHf Between 6.5 and 8.5
Existing + potential
Zero or negative
Acid base accounting acidity
of soil (SPOCAS or
pHKCl Between 6.5 and 8.5
Chromium Suite)
TAA of soil Total Actual Acidity (TAA) < 0 %S
It should be noted that verification testing (ie. chromium suite tests) will require at least four days
turnaround, possibly longer, upon receipt by the testing laboratory. Hence sufficient time should be
allowed in the treatment programme for such verification testing.
8. References
1. Ahern CR, Ahern MR, and Powell, B (1998), “Guidelines for Sampling and Analysis of Lowland
Acid Sulfate Soils (ASS) in Queensland 1998”, QASSIT, Department of Natural Resources,
Resource Centre
2. Ahern CR, McElnea AE, Sullivan LA (2004), “Acid Sulfate Soils Laboratory Methods Guidelines”
Queensland Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy
3. Dear SE, Moore NG, Dobos, SK, Watling KM, Ahern CR, and O’Brien lE (2014), “Queensland
Acid Sulfate Soil Technical Manual: Soil Management Guidelines”, Department of Science,
Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts
Acid Sulfate Soils Investigation, Proposed Medical Centre 94967.00.R.001.docx
36 & 40 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville May 2019
Page 11
Page 8 of 8 9. Limitations Douglas Partners Pty Ltd (DP) has prepared this report for the proposed medical centre at 36 & 40 Hoffman Drive, Noosaville in accordance with DP’s proposal SSC190107 dated 16 April 2019. The work was carried out under DP’s Conditions of Engagement. This report is provided for the exclusive use of Ribarja Pty Ltd and their consulting engineers for this project only and for the purposes as described in the report. It should not be used by or relied upon for other projects or purposes on the same or other site or by a third party. Any party so relying upon this report beyond its exclusive use and purpose as stated above, and without the express written consent of DP, does so entirely at its own risk and without recourse to DP for any loss or damage. In preparing this report DP has necessarily relied upon information provided by the client and/or their agents. The results provided in the report are indicative of the subsurface conditions on the site only at the specific sampling and/or testing locations, and then only to the depths investigated and at the time the work was carried out. Subsurface conditions can change abruptly due to variable geological processes and also as a result of human influences. Such changes may occur after DP’s field testing has been completed. DP’s advice is based upon the conditions encountered during this investigation. The accuracy of the advice provided by DP in this report may be affected by undetected variations in ground conditions across the site between and beyond the sampling and/or testing locations. The advice may also be limited by budget constraints imposed by others or by site accessibility. This report must be read in conjunction with all of the attached and should be kept in its entirety without separation of individual pages or sections. DP cannot be held responsible for interpretations or conclusions made by others unless they are supported by an expressed statement, interpretation, outcome or conclusion stated in this report. This report, or sections from this report, should not be used as part of a specification for a project, without review and agreement by DP. This is because this report has been written as advice and opinion rather than instructions for construction. The contents of this report do not constitute formal design components such as are required, by the Health and Safety Legislation and Regulations, to be included in a Safety Report specifying the hazards likely to be encountered during construction and the controls required to mitigate risk. This design process requires risk assessment to be undertaken, with such assessment being dependent upon factors relating to likelihood of occurrence and consequences of damage to property and to life. This, in turn, requires project data and analysis presently beyond the knowledge and project role respectively of DP. DP may be able, however, to assist the client in carrying out a risk assessment of potential hazards contained in the Comments section of this report, as an extension to the current scope of works, if so requested, and provided that suitable additional information is made available to DP. Any such risk assessment would, however, be necessarily restricted to the geotechnical components set out in this report and to their application by the project designers to project design, construction, maintenance and demolition. Douglas Partners Pty Ltd Acid Sulfate Soils Investigation, Proposed Medical Centre 94967.00.R.001.docx 36 & 40 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville May 2019
Page 12
Appendix A About This Report [OCR of page images] Appendix A About This Report
Page 13
Introduction • A localised, perched water table may lead to
These notes have been provided to amplify DP's an erroneous indication of the true water
report in regard to classification methods, field table;
procedures and the comments section. Not all are • Water table levels will vary from time to time
necessarily relevant to all reports. with seasons or recent weather changes.
They may not be the same at the time of
DP's reports are based on information gained from construction as are indicated in the report;
limited subsurface excavations and sampling, and
supplemented by knowledge of local geology and • The use of water or mud as a drilling fluid will
experience. For this reason, they must be mask any groundwater inflow. Water has to
regarded as interpretive rather than factual be blown out of the hole and drilling mud must
documents, limited to some extent by the scope of first be washed out of the hole if water
information on which they rely. measurements are to be made.
More reliable measurements can be made by
Copyright installing standpipes which are read at intervals
This report is the property of Douglas Partners Pty over several days, or perhaps weeks for low
Ltd. The report may only be used for the purpose permeability soils. Piezometers, sealed in a
for which it was commissioned and in accordance particular stratum, may be advisable in low
with the Conditions of Engagement for the permeability soils or where there may be
commission supplied at the time of proposal. interference from a perched water table.
Unauthorised use of this report in any form
whatsoever is prohibited.
Reports
The report has been prepared by qualified
Borehole and Test Pit Logs personnel, is based on the information obtained
The borehole and test pit logs presented in this from field and laboratory testing, and has been
report are an engineering and/or geological undertaken to current engineering standards of
interpretation of the subsurface conditions, and interpretation and analysis. Where the report has
their reliability will depend to some extent on been prepared for a specific design proposal, the
frequency of sampling and the method of drilling or information and interpretation may not be relevant
excavation. Ideally, continuous undisturbed if the design proposal is changed. If this happens,
sampling or core drilling will provide the most DP will be pleased to review the report and the
reliable assessment, but this is not always sufficiency of the investigation work.
practicable or possible to justify on economic
grounds. In any case the boreholes and test pits Every care is taken with the report as it relates to
represent only a very small sample of the total interpretation of subsurface conditions, discussion
subsurface profile. of geotechnical and environmental aspects, and
recommendations or suggestions for design and
Interpretation of the information and its application construction. However, DP cannot always
to design and construction should therefore take anticipate or assume responsibility for:
into account the spacing of boreholes or pits, the • Unexpected variations in ground conditions.
frequency of sampling, and the possibility of other The potential for this will depend partly on
than 'straight line' variations between the test borehole or pit spacing and sampling
locations. frequency;
• Changes in policy or interpretations of policy
by statutory authorities; or
• The actions of contractors responding to
Groundwater
commercial pressures.
Where groundwater levels are measured in
If these occur, DP will be pleased to assist with
boreholes there are several potential problems,
investigations or advice to resolve the matter.
namely:
• In low permeability soils groundwater may
enter the hole very slowly or perhaps not at all
during the time the hole is left open;
July 2010
Page 14
Site Anomalies
In the event that conditions encountered on site
during construction appear to vary from those
which were expected from the information
contained in the report, DP requests that it be
immediately notified. Most problems are much
more readily resolved when conditions are
exposed rather than at some later stage, well after
the event.
Information for Contractual Purposes
Where information obtained from this report is
provided for tendering purposes, it is
recommended that all information, including the
written report and discussion, be made available.
In circumstances where the discussion or
comments section is not relevant to the contractual
situation, it may be appropriate to prepare a
specially edited document. DP would be pleased
to assist in this regard and/or to make additional
report copies available for contract purposes at a
nominal charge.
Site Inspection
The company will always be pleased to provide
engineering inspection services for geotechnical
and environmental aspects of work to which this
report is related. This could range from a site visit
to confirm that conditions exposed are as
expected, to full time engineering presence on
site.
July 2010
Page 15
Appendix B Drawing 1 – Test Location Plan [OCR of page images] Appendix B Drawing 1 — Test Location Plan
Page 16
Site
Hofmann Drive
4
Location Plan
3
2
N
1
LEGEND:-
Bore Location and Number
NOTE:-
1. Test locations are approximate only and are
shown with reference to existing site features.
2. Image obtained from Google Earth Pro. and
Near Map. Date of imagery 24-03-2019.
CLIENT: Ribarja Pty Ltd TITLE: Test Location Plan PROJECT No: 94967.00
Douglas Partners
Geotechnics Environment Groundwater
OFFICE: Sunshine Coast DRAWN BY: JST Proposed Medical Centre DRAWING No: 1
SCALE: As shown DATE: April 2019 36 & 40 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville REVISION: 0
Page 17
Appendix C
Sampling Methods
Soil Descriptions
Symbols & Abbreviations
Borehole Logs
[OCR of page images]
Appendix C
Sampling Methods
Soil Descriptions
Symbols & Abbreviations
Borehole Logs
Page 18
Sampling reliability, due to the remoulding, possible mixing
Sampling is carried out during drilling or test pitting or softening of samples by groundwater.
to allow engineering examination (and laboratory
testing where required) of the soil or rock.
Non-core Rotary Drilling
Disturbed samples taken during drilling provide The borehole is advanced using a rotary bit, with
information on colour, type, inclusions and, water or drilling mud being pumped down the drill
depending upon the degree of disturbance, some rods and returned up the annulus, carrying the drill
information on strength and structure. cuttings. Only major changes in stratification can
be determined from the cuttings, together with
Undisturbed samples are taken by pushing a thin- some information from the rate of penetration.
walled sample tube into the soil and withdrawing it Where drilling mud is used this can mask the
to obtain a sample of the soil in a relatively cuttings and reliable identification is only possible
undisturbed state. Such samples yield information from separate sampling such as SPTs.
on structure and strength, and are necessary for
laboratory determination of shear strength and
compressibility. Undisturbed sampling is generally Continuous Core Drilling
effective only in cohesive soils. A continuous core sample can be obtained using a
diamond tipped core barrel, usually with a 50 mm
internal diameter. Provided full core recovery is
Test Pits achieved (which is not always possible in weak
Test pits are usually excavated with a backhoe or rocks and granular soils), this technique provides a
an excavator, allowing close examination of the in- very reliable method of investigation.
situ soil if it is safe to enter into the pit. The depth
of excavation is limited to about 3 m for a backhoe
and up to 6 m for a large excavator. A potential Standard Penetration Tests
disadvantage of this investigation method is the Standard penetration tests (SPT) are used as a
larger area of disturbance to the site. means of estimating the density or strength of soils
and also of obtaining a relatively undisturbed
sample. The test procedure is described in
Large Diameter Augers Australian Standard 1289, Methods of Testing
Boreholes can be drilled using a rotating plate or Soils for Engineering Purposes - Test 6.3.1.
short spiral auger, generally 300 mm or larger in
diameter commonly mounted on a standard piling The test is carried out in a borehole by driving a 50
rig. The cuttings are returned to the surface at mm diameter split sample tube under the impact of
intervals (generally not more than 0.5 m) and are a 63 kg hammer with a free fall of 760 mm. It is
disturbed but usually unchanged in moisture normal for the tube to be driven in three
content. Identification of soil strata is generally successive 150 mm increments and the 'N' value
much more reliable than with continuous spiral is taken as the number of blows for the last 300
flight augers, and is usually supplemented by mm. In dense sands, very hard clays or weak
occasional undisturbed tube samples. rock, the full 450 mm penetration may not be
practicable and the test is discontinued.
Continuous Spiral Flight Augers The test results are reported in the following form.
The borehole is advanced using 90-115 mm • In the case where full penetration is obtained
diameter continuous spiral flight augers which are with successive blow counts for each 150 mm
withdrawn at intervals to allow sampling or in-situ of, say, 4, 6 and 7 as:
testing. This is a relatively economical means of 4,6,7
drilling in clays and sands above the water table. N=13
Samples are returned to the surface, or may be • In the case where the test is discontinued
collected after withdrawal of the auger flights, but before the full penetration depth, say after 15
they are disturbed and may be mixed with soils blows for the first 150 mm and 30 blows for
from the sides of the hole. Information from the the next 40 mm as:
drilling (as distinct from specific sampling by SPTs 15, 30/40 mm
or undisturbed samples) is of relatively low
July 2010
Page 19
The results of the SPT tests can be related
empirically to the engineering properties of the
soils.
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Tests /
Perth Sand Penetrometer Tests
Dynamic penetrometer tests (DCP or PSP) are
carried out by driving a steel rod into the ground
using a standard weight of hammer falling a
specified distance. As the rod penetrates the soil
the number of blows required to penetrate each
successive 150 mm depth are recorded. Normally
there is a depth limitation of 1.2 m, but this may be
extended in certain conditions by the use of
extension rods. Two types of penetrometer are
commonly used.
• Perth sand penetrometer - a 16 mm diameter
flat ended rod is driven using a 9 kg hammer
dropping 600 mm (AS 1289, Test 6.3.3). This
test was developed for testing the density of
sands and is mainly used in granular soils and
filling.
• Cone penetrometer - a 16 mm diameter rod
with a 20 mm diameter cone end is driven
using a 9 kg hammer dropping 510 mm (AS
1289, Test 6.3.2). This test was developed
initially for pavement subgrade investigations,
and correlations of the test results with
California Bearing Ratio have been published
by various road authorities.
July 2010
Page 20
Description and Classification Methods
The methods of description and classification of Definitions of grading terms used are:
soils and rocks used in this report are based on • Well graded - a good representation of all
Australian Standard AS 1726-1993, Geotechnical particle sizes
Site Investigations Code. In general, the • Poorly graded - an excess or deficiency of
descriptions include strength or density, colour, particular sizes within the specified range
structure, soil or rock type and inclusions.
• Uniformly graded - an excess of a particular
particle size
Soil Types
Soil types are described according to the • Gap graded - a deficiency of a particular
predominant particle size, qualified by the grading particle size with the range
of other particles present:
Cohesive Soils
Type Particle size (mm) Cohesive soils, such as clays, are classified on the
Boulder >200 basis of undrained shear strength. The strength
may be measured by laboratory testing, or
Cobble 63 - 200
estimated by field tests or engineering
Gravel 2.36 - 63 examination. The strength terms are defined as
Sand 0.075 - 2.36 follows:
Silt 0.002 - 0.075
Clay <0.002 Description Abbreviation Undrained
shear strength
(kPa)
The sand and gravel sizes can be further
Very soft vs <12
subdivided as follows:
Soft s 12 - 25
Type Particle size (mm) Firm f 25 - 50
Coarse gravel 20 - 63 Stiff st 50 - 100
Medium gravel 6 - 20 Very stiff vst 100 - 200
Fine gravel 2.36 - 6 Hard h >200
Coarse sand 0.6 - 2.36
Medium sand 0.2 - 0.6 Cohesionless Soils
Cohesionless soils, such as clean sands, are
Fine sand 0.075 - 0.2 classified on the basis of relative density, generally
from the results of standard penetration tests
The proportions of secondary constituents of soils (SPT), cone penetration tests (CPT) or dynamic
are described as: penetrometers (PSP). The relative density terms
are given below:
Term Proportion Example
And Specify Clay (60%) and Relative Abbreviation SPT N CPT qc
Sand (40%) Density value value
(MPa)
Adjective 20 - 35% Sandy Clay
Very loose vl <4 <2
Slightly 12 - 20% Slightly Sandy
Clay Loose l 4 - 10 2 -5
With some 5 - 12% Clay with some Medium md 10 - 30 5 - 15
sand dense
With a trace of 0 - 5% Clay with a trace Dense d 30 - 50 15 - 25
of sand Very vd >50 >25
dense
May 2017
Page 21
Soil Origin
It is often difficult to accurately determine the origin
of a soil. Soils can generally be classified as:
• Residual soil - derived from in-situ weathering
of the underlying rock;
• Transported soils - formed somewhere else
and transported by nature to the site; or
• Filling - moved by man.
Transported soils may be further subdivided into:
• Alluvium - river deposits
• Lacustrine - lake deposits
• Aeolian - wind deposits
• Littoral - beach deposits
• Estuarine - tidal river deposits
• Talus - scree or coarse colluvium
• Slopewash or Colluvium - transported
downslope by gravity assisted by water.
Often includes angular rock fragments and
boulders.
May 2017
Page 22
Introduction
These notes summarise abbreviations commonly Orientation
used on borehole logs and test pit reports. The inclination of defects is always measured from
the perpendicular to the core axis.
Drilling or Excavation Methods h horizontal
C Core drilling v vertical
R Rotary drilling sh sub-horizontal
SFA Spiral flight augers sv sub-vertical
NMLC Diamond core - 52 mm dia
NQ Diamond core - 47 mm dia
HQ Diamond core - 63 mm dia Coating or Infilling Term
PQ Diamond core - 81 mm dia cln clean
co coating
he healed
Water inf infilled
Water seep stn stained
Water level ti tight
vn veneer
Sampling and Testing
Coating Descriptor
A Auger sample
ca calcite
B Bulk sample
cbs carbonaceous
D Disturbed sample
cly clay
E Environmental sample
fe iron oxide
U50 Undisturbed tube sample (50mm)
mn manganese
W Water sample
slt silty
pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)
PID Photo ionisation detector
PL Point load strength Is(50) MPa
Shape
S Standard Penetration Test
cu curved
V Shear vane (kPa)
ir irregular
pl planar
st stepped
Description of Defects in Rock un undulating
The abbreviated descriptions of the defects should
be in the following order: Depth, Type, Orientation,
Coating, Shape, Roughness and Other. Drilling
and handling breaks are not usually included on Roughness
the logs. po polished
ro rough
Defect Type sl slickensided
B Bedding plane sm smooth
Cs Clay seam vr very rough
Cv Cleavage
Cz Crushed zone
Ds Decomposed seam
F Fault Other
J Joint fg fragmented
Lam Lamination bnd band
Pt Parting qtz quartz
Sz Sheared Zone
V Vein
May 2017
Page 23
Graphic Symbols for Soil and Rock
General Sedimentary Rocks
Asphalt Boulder conglomerate
Road base Conglomerate
Concrete Conglomeratic sandstone
Filling Sandstone
Soils Siltstone
Topsoil Laminite
Peat Mudstone, claystone, shale
Clay Coal
Silty clay Limestone
Sandy clay Metamorphic Rocks
Gravelly clay Slate, phyllite, schist
Shaly clay Gneiss
Silt Quartzite
Clayey silt
Igneous Rocks
Sandy silt Granite
Sand Dolerite, basalt, andesite
Clayey sand Dacite, epidote
Silty sand Tuff, breccia
Gravel Porphyry
Sandy gravel
Cobbles, boulders
Talus
May 2017
Page 24
BOREHOLE LOG
CLIENT: Ribarja Pty Lty SURFACE LEVEL: 5.6 AHD BORE No: 1
PROJECT: Proposed Medical Centre EASTING: 504642.4 PROJECT No: 94967.00
LOCATION: 36 & 40 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville NORTHING: 7078253.4 DATE: 24/4/2019
DIP/AZIMUTH: 90°/-- SHEET 1 OF 1
Description Sampling & In Situ Testing
Graphic
Water
Depth Dynamic Penetrometer Test
Log
RL
Sample
of
Depth
(blows per 100mm)
Type
(m) Results &
Strata Comments
5 10 15 20
FILLING - loose, dark grey-brown, fine to medium
0.1 grained silty sand filling, some clay fines, moist
FILLING - stiff, brown mottled grey and red-brown, high ASS samples collected
0.25
plasticity silty clay filling, some fine grained sand, trace every 0.25 m
of fine gravel, moist
0.5
FILLING - stiff, orange-brown, medium to high plasticity
sandy clay filling, fine to medium grained sand, moist
5
1 1
1.05
SILTY SAND - medium dense, grey, fine grained silty
sand, some clay fines, moist
4
1.65
SANDY CLAY - very stiff, grey streaked brown, high
plasticity sandy clay, fine grained sand, moist
1.9
SILTY CLAY - very stiff, grey streaked brown, high
2 2
plasticity silty clay, moist
3
3 3
- hard, some fine grained sand
2
- trace of fine rounded gravel
4 4.0 4
Bore discontinued at 4.0m
Limit of Investigation
1
RIG: Jacro 200 DRILLER: RB LOGGED: RB CASING: Nil
TYPE OF BORING: Auger
WATER OBSERVATIONS: No groundwater seepage observed at the time of investigation.
REMARKS: Location coordinates are in MGA94 Zone 56 J. Sand Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.3
Cone Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.2
SAMPLING & IN SITU TESTING LEGEND
A Auger sample G Gas sample PID Photo ionisation detector (ppm)
B Bulk sample P Piston sample PL(A) Point load axial test Is(50) (MPa)
BLK Block sample Ux Tube sample (x mm dia.) PL(D) Point load diametral test Is(50) (MPa)
C Core drilling W Water sample pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)
D Disturbed sample Water seep S Standard penetration test
E Environmental sample Water level V Shear vane (kPa)
Page 25
BOREHOLE LOG
CLIENT: Ribarja Pty Lty SURFACE LEVEL: 6.2 AHD BORE No: 2
PROJECT: Proposed Medical Centre EASTING: 504615.8 PROJECT No: 94967.00
LOCATION: 36 & 40 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville NORTHING: 7078282.6 DATE: 24/4/2019
DIP/AZIMUTH: 90°/-- SHEET 1 OF 1
Description Sampling & In Situ Testing
Graphic
Water
Depth Dynamic Penetrometer Test
Log
RL
Sample
of
Depth
(blows per 100mm)
Type
(m) Results &
Strata Comments
5 10 15 20
FILLING - loose, dark grey-brown, fine to medium
0.15 grained silty sand filling, some clay fines, moist
ASS samples collected
6
FILLING - stiff, brown mottled grey and red-brown, high 0.25
plasticity silty clay filling, some fine grained sand, trace every 0.25 m
of fine gravel, moist
1 1
1.1
SANDY CLAY - stiff, grey streaked orange-brown, high
plasticity sandy clay, fine to medium grained sand, moist
5
- very stiff, grey streaked brown
- red-brown streaking
2 2
4
- hard, some fine grained sand
3 3
3
4 4.0 4
Bore discontinued at 4.0m
Limit of Investigation
2
RIG: Jacro 200 DRILLER: RB LOGGED: RB CASING: Nil
TYPE OF BORING: Auger
WATER OBSERVATIONS: No groundwater seepage observed at the time of investigation.
REMARKS: Location coordinates are in MGA94 Zone 56 J. Sand Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.3
Cone Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.2
SAMPLING & IN SITU TESTING LEGEND
A Auger sample G Gas sample PID Photo ionisation detector (ppm)
B Bulk sample P Piston sample PL(A) Point load axial test Is(50) (MPa)
BLK Block sample Ux Tube sample (x mm dia.) PL(D) Point load diametral test Is(50) (MPa)
C Core drilling W Water sample pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)
D Disturbed sample Water seep S Standard penetration test
E Environmental sample Water level V Shear vane (kPa)
Page 26
BOREHOLE LOG
CLIENT: Ribarja Pty Lty SURFACE LEVEL: 6.0 AHD BORE No: 3
PROJECT: Proposed Medical Centre EASTING: 504647.3 PROJECT No: 94967.00
LOCATION: 36 & 40 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville NORTHING: 7078293.7 DATE: 24/4/2019
DIP/AZIMUTH: 90°/-- SHEET 1 OF 1
Description Sampling & In Situ Testing
Graphic
Water
Depth Dynamic Penetrometer Test
Log
RL
Sample
of
Depth
(blows per 100mm)
Type
(m) Results &
Strata Comments
5 10 15 20
6
FILLING - loose, dark grey-brown, fine to medium
0.15 grained silty sand filling, some clay fines, moist
FILLING - very stiff, brown mottled grey and red-brown, ASS samples collected
0.25
high plasticity sandy clay filling, fine with some medium every 0.25 m
grained sand, moist
0.5 pp = 360
- orange-brown streaked brown, fine grained sand
0.9 pp = 270
1 1
5
1.1
SILTY SAND - loose, grey, fine to medium grained silty
1.25 sand, some clay fines, moist
SANDY CLAY - stiff, grey streaked orange-brown, high
plasticity sandy clay, fine grained sand, moist 1.4 pp = 200
1.6
SILTY CLAY - very stiff, grey mottled red-brown, high
plasticity silty clay, fine grained sand, moist
1.9 pp = 380
2 2
4
2.4 pp = 410
- hard
2.9 pp = 420
3 3
3
- very stiff, grey streaked brown
3.4 pp = 390
3.9 pp = 380
4 4.0 4
2
Bore discontinued at 4.0m
Limit of Investigation
RIG: Jacro 200 DRILLER: RB LOGGED: RB CASING: Nil
TYPE OF BORING: Auger
WATER OBSERVATIONS: No groundwater seepage observed at the time of investigation.
REMARKS: Location coordinates are in MGA94 Zone 56 J. Sand Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.3
Cone Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.2
SAMPLING & IN SITU TESTING LEGEND
A Auger sample G Gas sample PID Photo ionisation detector (ppm)
B Bulk sample P Piston sample PL(A) Point load axial test Is(50) (MPa)
BLK Block sample Ux Tube sample (x mm dia.) PL(D) Point load diametral test Is(50) (MPa)
C Core drilling W Water sample pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)
D Disturbed sample Water seep S Standard penetration test
E Environmental sample Water level V Shear vane (kPa)
Page 27
BOREHOLE LOG
CLIENT: Ribarja Pty Lty SURFACE LEVEL: 6.4 AHD BORE No: 4
PROJECT: Proposed Medical Centre EASTING: 504621.4 PROJECT No: 94967.00
LOCATION: 36 & 40 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville NORTHING: 7078315.9 DATE: 24/4/2019
DIP/AZIMUTH: 90°/-- SHEET 1 OF 1
Description Sampling & In Situ Testing
Graphic
Water
Depth Dynamic Penetrometer Test
Log
RL
Sample
of
Depth
(blows per 100mm)
Type
(m) Results &
Strata Comments
5 10 15 20
0.05 FILLING - loose, dark grey-brown, fine to medium
grained silty sand filling, some clay fines, moist
FILLING - stiff, brown mottled grey and red-brown, high ASS samples collected
0.25
plasticity sandy clay filling, fine with some medium every 0.25 m
grained sand, moist
6
0.5 pp = 170
0.9 pp = 140
1 1.0 1
SANDY CLAY - stiff, brown, high plasticity sandy clay,
fine grained sand, moist
5
1.5 pp = 210
- very stiff, brown mottled red-brown, medium to high
plasticity, some fine to medium ironstone gravel 1.9 pp = 370
2 2
2.4 2.4 pp = 330
4
SILTY CLAY - very stiff, grey mottled red-brown, high
plasticity silty clay, fine grained sand, moist
2.9 pp = 420
- hard
3 3
3
4 4.0 4
Bore discontinued at 4.0m
Limit of Investigation
2
RIG: Jacro 200 DRILLER: RB LOGGED: RB CASING: Nil
TYPE OF BORING: Auger
WATER OBSERVATIONS: No groundwater seepage observed at the time of investigation.
REMARKS: Location coordinates are in MGA94 Zone 56 J. Sand Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.3
Cone Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.2
SAMPLING & IN SITU TESTING LEGEND
A Auger sample G Gas sample PID Photo ionisation detector (ppm)
B Bulk sample P Piston sample PL(A) Point load axial test Is(50) (MPa)
BLK Block sample Ux Tube sample (x mm dia.) PL(D) Point load diametral test Is(50) (MPa)
C Core drilling W Water sample pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)
D Disturbed sample Water seep S Standard penetration test
E Environmental sample Water level V Shear vane (kPa)
Page 28
Appendix D Laboratory Test Results [OCR of page images] Appendix D Laboratory Test Results
Page 29
Table D1: Results of Field Screening and Chemical Laboratory Testing
Depth Sample Description Field Screening Test Results Chromium Suite Test Results (%S)
(m)
pHF pHFOX pH Reaction pHKCI Titratable Chromium KCl Retained Net Acidity
(0,1,2,3,4) Actual Reducible Acidity
Acidity Sulfur (NASS)
(TAA) (SCR)
Bore 1
0.0-0.25 Silty sand filling 6.2 3.4 -2.8 3 - - - - - -
0.25-0.5 Silty clay filling 5.7 3.0 -2.7 2 - - - - - -
0.5-0.75 Sandy clay filling 5.1 3.0 -2.1 2 4.4 0.06 0.006 <0.02 <0.02 0.06
0.75-1.0 Sandy clay filling 5.3 3.0 -2.3 2 - - - - - -
1.0-1.25 Silty sand 5.4 3.1 -2.3 2 - - - - - -
1.25-1.5 Silty sand 5.3 2.9 -2.4 2 - - - - - -
1.5-1.75 Silty sand 5.4 2.8 -2.6 2 - - - - - -
1.75-2.0 Sandy clay 4.9 2.6 -2.3 2 4.1 0.11 0.009 0.02 <0.002 0.12
2.0-2.25 Silty clay 5.1 2.9 -2.2 2 - - - - - -
2.25-2.5 Silty clay 4.9 2.9 -2.0 2 - - - - - -
2.5-2.75 Silty clay 5.1 3.0 -2.1 2 - - - - - -
2.75-3.0 Silty clay 4.9 2.9 -2.0 2 4.1 0.11 0.009 0.03 <0.002 0.12
3.0-3.25 Silty clay 4.9 3.0 -1.9 2 - - - - - -
3.25-3.5 Silty clay 4.9 3.2 -1.7 2 - - - - - -
3.5-3.75 Silty clay 4.9 3.1 -1.8 2 - - - - - -
3.75-4.0 Silty clay 5.3 3.2 -2.1 2 - - - - - -
[OCR of page images]
Table D1: Results of Field Screening and Chemical Laboratory Testing
Depth Sample Description Field Screening Test Results Chromium Suite Test Results (%S)
(m) PHe | pHrox | ApH Reaction | pHxc | Titratable | Chromium KCI Retained Net Acidity
(0,1,2,3,4) Actual Reducible Acidity
Acidity Sulfur (NASS)
(TAA) (Scr)
Bore 1
0.0-0.25 Silty sand filling 6.2 3.4 -2.8 3 - -
0.25-0.5 Silty clay filling 5.7 3.0 -2.7 2 - -
0.5-0.75 Sandy clay filling 5.1 3.0 -2.1 2 44 0.06 0.006 <0.02 <0.02 0.06
0.75-1.0 Sandy clay filling 5.3 3.0 -2.3 2 - -
1.0-1.25 Silty sand 5.4 3.1 -2.3 2 - -
1.25-1.5 Silty sand 5.3 2.9 -2.4 2 - -
1.5-1.75 Silty sand 5.4 2.8 -2.6 2 - -
1.75-2.0 Sandy clay 4.9 2.6 -2.3 2 4] 0.11 0.009 0.02 <0.002 0.12
2.0-2.25 Silty clay 5.1 2.9 -2.2 2 - -
2.25-2.5 Silty clay 4.9 2.9 -2.0 2 - -
2.5-2.75 Silty clay 5.1 3.0 -2.1 2 - -
2.75-3.0 Silty clay 4.9 2.9 -2.0 2 4] 0.11 0.009 0.03 <0.002 0.12
3.0-3.25 Silty clay 4.9 3.0 -1.9 2 - -
3.25-3.5 Silty clay 4.9 3.2 -1.7 2 - -
3.5-3.75 Silty clay 4.9 3.1 -1.8 2 - -
3.75-4.0 Silty clay 5.3 3.2 -2.1 2 - -
Page 30
Table D1: Results of Field Screening and Chemical Laboratory Testing
Depth Sample Description Field Screening Test Results Chromium Suite Test Results (%S)
(m)
pHF pHFOX pH Reaction pHKCI Titratable Chromium KCl Retained Net Acidity
(0,1,2,3,4) Actual Reducible Acidity
Acidity Sulfur (NASS)
(TAA) (SCR)
Bore 2
0.0-0.25 Silty sand filling 5.8 2.9 -2.9 3 - - - - - -
0.25-0.5 Silty clay filling 5.5 3.0 -2.5 3 4.0 0.15 0.006 <0.02 <0.02 0.16
0.5-0.75 Silty clay filling 5.0 3.1 -1.9 2 - - - - - -
0.75-1.0 Silty clay filling 5.0 3.1 -1.9 2 - - - - - -
1.0-1.25 Silty clay filling 5.2 2.8 -2.4 2 4.4 0.09 0.010 <0.02 <0.02 0.12
1.25-1.5 Sandy clay 5.1 2.7 -2.4 2 - - - - - -
1.5-1.75 Sandy clay 5.2 2.7 -2.5 2 - - - - - -
1.75-2.0 Sandy clay 5.2 2.8 -2.4 2 - - - - - -
2.0-2.25 Sandy clay 4.9 2.8 -2.1 2 4.1 0.13 0.012 0.03 <0.02 0.15
2.25-2.5 Sandy clay 4.9 2.8 -2.1 2 - - - - - -
2.5-2.75 Sandy clay 5.1 2.8 -2.3 2 - - - - - -
2.75-3.0 Sandy clay 5.2 2.9 -2.3 2 - - - - - -
3.0-3.25 Sandy clay 5.0 3.0 -2.0 2 - - - - - -
3.25-3.5 Sandy clay 4.9 3.1 -1.8 2 3.9 0.14 0.005 0.04 <0.02 0.15
3.5-3.75 Sandy clay 4.8 3.0 -1.8 2 - - - - - -
3.75-4.0 Sandy clay 4.9 3.1 -1.8 2 - - - - - -
[OCR of page images]
Table D1: Results of Field Screening and Chemical Laboratory Testing
Depth Sample Description Field Screening Test Results Chromium Suite Test Results (%S)
(m) PHe | pHrox | ApH Reaction | pHxc | Titratable | Chromium KCI Retained Net Acidity
(0,1,2,3,4) Actual Reducible Acidity
Acidity Sulfur (NASS)
(TAA) (Scr)
Bore 2
0.0-0.25 Silty sand filling 5.8 2.9 -2.9 3 - -
0.25-0.5 Silty clay filling 5.5 3.0 -2.5 3 4.0 0.15 0.006 <0.02 <0.02 0.16
0.5-0.75 Silty clay filling 5.0 3.1 -1.9 2 - -
0.75-1.0 Silty clay filling 5.0 3.1 -1.9 2 - -
1.0-1.25 Silty clay filling 5.2 2.8 -2.4 2 44 0.09 0.010 <0.02 <0.02 0.12
1.25-1.5 Sandy clay 5.1 2.7 -2.4 2 - -
1.5-1.75 Sandy clay 5.2 2.7 -2.5 2 - -
1.75-2.0 Sandy clay 5.2 2.8 -2.4 2 - -
2.0-2.25 Sandy clay 4.9 2.8 -2.1 2 4] 0.13 0.012 0.03 <0.02 0.15
2.25-2.5 Sandy clay 4.9 2.8 -2.1 2 - -
2.5-2.75 Sandy clay 5.1 2.8 -2.3 2 - -
2.75-3.0 Sandy clay 5.2 2.9 -2.3 2 - -
3.0-3.25 Sandy clay 5.0 3.0 -2.0 2 - -
3.25-3.5 Sandy clay 4.9 3.1 -1.8 2 3.9 0.14 0.005 0.04 <0.02 0.15
3.5-3.75 Sandy clay 4.8 3.0 -1.8 2 - -
3.75-4.0 Sandy clay 4.9 3.1 -1.8 2 - -
Page 31
Table D1: Results of Field Screening and Chemical Laboratory Testing
Depth Sample Description Field Screening Test Results Chromium Suite Test Results (%S)
(m)
pHF pHFOX pH Reaction pHKCI Titratable Chromium KCl Retained Net Acidity
(0,1,2,3,4) Actual Reducible Acidity
Acidity Sulfur (NASS)
(TAA) (SCR)
Bore 3
0.0-0.25 Silty sand filling 5.8 2.9 -2.9 3 - - - - - -
0.25-0.5 Silty sand filling 5.1 3.2 -1.9 2 - - - - - -
0.5-0.75 Silty sand filling 5.3 2.9 -2.4 2 4.0 0.19 0.006 <0.02 <0.02 0.21
0.75-1.0 Silty sand filling 5.0 3.0 -2.0 2 - - - - - -
1.0-1.25 Silty sand 5.5 2.5 -3.0 2 - - - - - -
1.25-1.5 Sandy clay 5.2 2.6 -2.6 2 - - - - - -
1.5-1.75 Sandy clay 4.7 2.4 -2.3 2 - - - - - -
1.75-2.0 Silty clay 4.6 2.4 -2.2 2 4.1 0.15 0.013 0.04 <0.02 0.17
2.0-2.25 Silty clay 4.5 2.5 -2.0 2 - - - - - -
2.25-2.5 Silty clay 4.5 2.6 -1.9 2 - - - - - -
2.5-2.75 Silty clay 4.6 2.3 -2.3 2 - - - - - -
2.75-3.0 Silty clay 4.7 2.7 -2.0 2 - - - - - -
3.0-3.25 Silty clay 5.0 2.7 -2.3 2 - - - - - -
3.25-3.5 Silty clay 4.9 2.7 -2.2 2 4.1 0.14 0.013 0.03 <0.02 0.16
3.5-3.75 Silty clay 4.9 3.2 -1.7 2 - - - - - -
3.75-4.0 Silty clay 4.0 3.6 -0.4 2 - - - - - -
[OCR of page images]
Table D1: Results of Field Screening and Chemical Laboratory Testing
Depth Sample Description Field Screening Test Results Chromium Suite Test Results (%S)
(m) PHe | pHrox | ApH Reaction | pHxc | Titratable | Chromium KCI Retained Net Acidity
(0,1,2,3,4) Actual Reducible Acidity
Acidity Sulfur (NASS)
(TAA) (Scr)
Bore 3
0.0-0.25 Silty sand filling 5.8 2.9 -2.9 3 - -
0.25-0.5 Silty sand filling 5.1 3.2 -1.9 2 - -
0.5-0.75 Silty sand filling 5.3 2.9 -2.4 2 4.0 0.19 0.006 <0.02 <0.02 0.21
0.75-1.0 Silty sand filling 5.0 3.0 -2.0 2 - -
1.0-1.25 Silty sand 5.5 2.5 -3.0 2 - -
1.25-1.5 Sandy clay 5.2 2.6 -2.6 2 - -
1.5-1.75 Sandy clay 4.7 2.4 -2.3 2 - -
1.75-2.0 Silty clay 4.6 2.4 -2.2 2 4] 0.15 0.013 0.04 <0.02 0.17
2.0-2.25 Silty clay 4.5 2.5 -2.0 2 - -
2.25-2.5 Silty clay 4.5 2.6 -1.9 2 - -
2.5-2.75 Silty clay 4.6 2.3 -2.3 2 - -
2.75-3.0 Silty clay 4.7 2.7 -2.0 2 - -
3.0-3.25 Silty clay 5.0 2.7 -2.3 2 - -
3.25-3.5 Silty clay 4.9 2.7 -2.2 2 4] 0.14 0.013 0.03 <0.02 0.16
3.5-3.75 Silty clay 4.9 3.2 -1.7 2 - -
3.75-4.0 Silty clay 4.0 3.6 -0.4 2 - -
Page 32
Table D1: Results of Field Screening and Chemical Laboratory Testing
Depth Sample Description Field Screening Test Results Chromium Suite Test Results (%S)
(m)
pHF pHFOX pH Reaction pHKCI Titratable Chromium KCl Retained Net Acidity
(0,1,2,3,4) Actual Reducible Acidity
Acidity Sulfur (NASS)
(TAA) (SCR)
Bore 4
0.0-0.25 Sandy clay filling 5.9 3.3 -2.6 2 - - - - - -
0.25-0.5 Sandy clay filling 5.6 3.3 -2.3 2 - - - - - -
0.5-0.75 Sandy clay filling 5.4 3.1 -2.3 2 4.4 0.06 0.008 0.03 <0.02 0.07
0.75-1.0 Sandy clay 5.5 3.2 -2.3 2 - - - - - -
1.0-1.25 Sandy clay 5.4 3.2 -2.2 2 - - - - - -
1.25-1.5 Sandy clay 5.3 3.2 -2.1 2 - - - - - -
1.5-1.75 Sandy clay 5.1 3.2 -1.9 2 - - - - - -
1.75-2.0 Sandy clay 5.1 3.1 -2.0 2 - - - - - -
2.0-2.25 Sandy clay 5.0 3.1 -1.9 2 - - - - - -
2.25-2.5 Sandy clay 5.0 3.1 -1.9 2 - - - - - -
2.5-2.75 Silty clay 4.7 3.1 -1.6 2 3.9 0.14 0.006 0.02 <0.02 0.15
2.75-3.0 Silty clay 4.9 3.2 -1.7 2 - - - - - -
3.0-3.25 Silty clay 4.8 3.1 -1.7 2 4.0 0.13 0.006 0.02 <0.02 0.15
3.25-3.5 Silty clay 5.0 3.0 -2.0 2 - - - - - -
3.5-3.75 Silty clay 5.2 3.2 -2.0 2 - - - - - -
3.75-4.0 Silty clay 5.1 3.4 -1.7 2 - - - - - -
[OCR of page images]
Table D1: Results of Field Screening and Chemical Laboratory Testing
Depth Sample Description Field Screening Test Results Chromium Suite Test Results (%S)
(m) PHe | pHrox | ApH Reaction | pHxc | Titratable | Chromium KCI Retained Net Acidity
(0,1,2,3,4) Actual Reducible Acidity
Acidity Sulfur (NASS)
(TAA) (Scr)
Bore 4
0.0-0.25 Sandy clay filling 5.9 3.3 -2.6 2 - -
0.25-0.5 Sandy clay filling 5.6 3.3 -2.3 2 - -
0.5-0.75 Sandy clay filling 5.4 3.1 -2.3 2 44 0.06 0.008 0.03 <0.02 0.07
0.75-1.0 Sandy clay 5.5 3.2 -2.3 2 - -
1.0-1.25 Sandy clay 5.4 3.2 -2.2 2 - -
1.25-1.5 Sandy clay 5.3 3.2 -2.1 2 - -
1.5-1.75 Sandy clay 5.1 3.2 -1.9 2 - -
1.75-2.0 Sandy clay 5.1 3.1 -2.0 2 - -
2.0-2.25 Sandy clay 5.0 3.1 -1.9 2 - -
2.25-2.5 Sandy clay 5.0 3.1 -1.9 2 - -
2.5-2.75 Silty clay 4.7 3.1 -1.6 2 3.9 0.14 0.006 0.02 <0.02 0.15
2.75-3.0 Silty clay 4.9 3.2 -1.7 2 - -
3.0-3.25 Silty clay 4.8 3.1 -1.7 2 4.0 0.13 0.006 0.02 <0.02 0.15
3.25-3.5 Silty clay 5.0 3.0 -2.0 2 - -
3.5-3.75 Silty clay 5.2 3.2 -2.0 2 - -
3.75-4.0 Silty clay 5.1 3.4 -1.7 2 - -
Page 33
0 0.00 True
Environmental
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
Work Order : EB1910770 Page : 1 of 15
Client : DOUGLAS PARTNERS PTY LTD Laboratory : Environmental Division Brisbane
Contact : MR ANDRE DOS SANTOS Contact : John Pickering
Address : 1/28 KESSLING AVENUE Address : 2 Byth Street Stafford QLD Australia 4053
KUNDA PARK QLD 4556
Telephone : +61 07 32378900 Telephone : +61 7 3552 8634
Project : PROPOSED MEDICAL CENTRE Date Samples Received : 29-Apr-2019 13:05
Order number : Date Analysis Commenced : 02-May-2019
C-O-C number : ---- Issue Date : 07-May-2019 12:49
Sampler : ANDRE DOS SANTOS
Site : ----
Quote number : EN/222
No. of samples received : 64
No. of samples analysed : 64
This report supersedes any previous report(s) with this reference. Results apply to the sample(s) as submitted. This document shall not be reproduced, except in full.
This Certificate of Analysis contains the following information:
l General Comments
l Analytical Results
Additional information pertinent to this report will be found in the following separate attachments: Quality Control Report, QA/QC Compliance Assessment to assist with
Quality Review and Sample Receipt Notification.
Signatories
This document has been electronically signed by the authorized signatories below. Electronic signing is carried out in compliance with procedures specified in 21 CFR Part 11.
Signatories Position Accreditation Category
Satishkumar Trivedi Senior Acid Sulfate Soil Chemist Brisbane Acid Sulphate Soils, Stafford, QLD
RIGHT SOLUTIONS | RIGHT PARTNER
Page 34
Page : 2 of 15
Work Order : EB1910770
Client : DOUGLAS PARTNERS PTY LTD
Project : PROPOSED MEDICAL CENTRE
General Comments
The analytical procedures used by the Environmental Division have been developed from established internationally recognized procedures such as those published by the USEPA, APHA, AS and NEPM. In house
developed procedures are employed in the absence of documented standards or by client request.
Where moisture determination has been performed, results are reported on a dry weight basis.
Where a reported less than (<) result is higher than the LOR, this may be due to primary sample extract/digestate dilution and/or insufficient sample for analysis.
Where the LOR of a reported result differs from standard LOR, this may be due to high moisture content, insufficient sample (reduced weight employed) or matrix interference.
When sampling time information is not provided by the client, sampling dates are shown without a time component. In these instances, the time component has been assumed by the laboratory for processing
purposes.
Where a result is required to meet compliance limits the associated uncertainty must be considered. Refer to the ALS Contact for details.
Key : CAS Number = CAS registry number from database maintained by Chemical Abstracts Services. The Chemical Abstracts Service is a division of the American Chemical Society.
LOR = Limit of reporting
^ = This result is computed from individual analyte detections at or above the level of reporting
ø = ALS is not NATA accredited for these tests.
~ = Indicates an estimated value.
l ASS: EA003 (NATA Field and F(ox) screening): pH F(ox) Reaction Rate: 1 - Slight; 2 - Moderate; 3 - Strong; 4 - Extreme
Page 35
Page : 3 of 15
Work Order : EB1910770
Client : DOUGLAS PARTNERS PTY LTD
Project : PROPOSED MEDICAL CENTRE
Analytical Results
Sub-Matrix: SOIL Client sample ID BH 1 - 0.25 BH 1 - 0.5 BH 1 - 0.75 BH 1 - 1.0 BH 1 - 1.25
(Matrix: SOIL)
Client sampling date / time 24-Apr-2019 00:00 24-Apr-2019 00:00 24-Apr-2019 00:00 24-Apr-2019 00:00 24-Apr-2019 00:00
Compound CAS Number LOR Unit EB1910770-001 EB1910770-002 EB1910770-003 EB1910770-004 EB1910770-005
Result Result Result Result Result
EA003 :pH (field/fox)
pH (F) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 6.2 5.7 5.1 5.3 5.4
pH (Fox) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 3.4 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.1
Reaction Rate ---- 1 Reaction Unit 3 2 2 2 2
Page 36
Page : 4 of 15
Work Order : EB1910770
Client : DOUGLAS PARTNERS PTY LTD
Project : PROPOSED MEDICAL CENTRE
Analytical Results
Sub-Matrix: SOIL Client sample ID BH 1 - 1.5 BH 1 - 1.75 BH 1 - 2.0 BH 1 - 2.25 BH 1 - 2.5
(Matrix: SOIL)
Client sampling date / time 24-Apr-2019 00:00 24-Apr-2019 00:00 24-Apr-2019 00:00 24-Apr-2019 00:00 24-Apr-2019 00:00
Compound CAS Number LOR Unit EB1910770-006 EB1910770-007 EB1910770-008 EB1910770-009 EB1910770-010
Result Result Result Result Result
EA003 :pH (field/fox)
pH (F) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 5.3 5.4 4.9 5.1 4.9
pH (Fox) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.9 2.9
Reaction Rate ---- 1 Reaction Unit 2 2 2 2 2
Page 37
Page : 5 of 15
Work Order : EB1910770
Client : DOUGLAS PARTNERS PTY LTD
Project : PROPOSED MEDICAL CENTRE
Analytical Results
Sub-Matrix: SOIL Client sample ID BH 1 - 2.75 BH 1 - 3.0 BH 1 - 3.25 BH 1 - 3.5 BH 1 - 3.75
(Matrix: SOIL)
Client sampling date / time 24-Apr-2019 00:00 24-Apr-2019 00:00 24-Apr-2019 00:00 24-Apr-2019 00:00 24-Apr-2019 00:00
Compound CAS Number LOR Unit EB1910770-011 EB1910770-012 EB1910770-013 EB1910770-014 EB1910770-015
Result Result Result Result Result
EA003 :pH (field/fox)
pH (F) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 5.1 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9
pH (Fox) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 3.0 2.9 3.0 3.2 3.1
Reaction Rate ---- 1 Reaction Unit 2 2 2 2 2
Page 38
Page : 6 of 15
Work Order : EB1910770
Client : DOUGLAS PARTNERS PTY LTD
Project : PROPOSED MEDICAL CENTRE
Analytical Results
Sub-Matrix: SOIL Client sample ID BH 1 - 4.0 BH 2 - 0.25 BH 2 - 0.5 BH 2 - 0.75 BH 2 - 1.0
(Matrix: SOIL)
Client sampling date / time 24-Apr-2019 00:00 24-Apr-2019 00:00 24-Apr-2019 00:00 24-Apr-2019 00:00 24-Apr-2019 00:00
Compound CAS Number LOR Unit EB1910770-016 EB1910770-017 EB1910770-018 EB1910770-019 EB1910770-020
Result Result Result Result Result
EA003 :pH (field/fox)
pH (F) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 5.3 5.8 5.5 5.0 5.0
pH (Fox) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 3.2 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.1
Reaction Rate ---- 1 Reaction Unit 2 3 3 2 2
Page 39
Page : 7 of 15
Work Order : EB1910770
Client : DOUGLAS PARTNERS PTY LTD
Project : PROPOSED MEDICAL CENTRE
Analytical Results
Sub-Matrix: SOIL Client sample ID BH 2 - 1.25 BH 2 - 1.5 BH 2 - 1.75 BH 2 - 2.0 BH 2 - 2.25
(Matrix: SOIL)
Client sampling date / time 24-Apr-2019 00:00 24-Apr-2019 00:00 24-Apr-2019 00:00 24-Apr-2019 00:00 24-Apr-2019 00:00
Compound CAS Number LOR Unit EB1910770-021 EB1910770-022 EB1910770-023 EB1910770-024 EB1910770-025
Result Result Result Result Result
EA003 :pH (field/fox)
pH (F) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 5.2 5.1 5.2 5.2 4.9
pH (Fox) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.8
Reaction Rate ---- 1 Reaction Unit 2 2 2 2 2
Page 40
Page : 8 of 15
Work Order : EB1910770
Client : DOUGLAS PARTNERS PTY LTD
Project : PROPOSED MEDICAL CENTRE
Analytical Results
Sub-Matrix: SOIL Client sample ID BH 2 - 2.5 BH 2 - 2.75 BH 2 - 3.0 BH 2 - 3.25 BH 2 - 3.5
(Matrix: SOIL)
Client sampling date / time 24-Apr-2019 00:00 24-Apr-2019 00:00 24-Apr-2019 00:00 24-Apr-2019 00:00 24-Apr-2019 00:00
Compound CAS Number LOR Unit EB1910770-026 EB1910770-027 EB1910770-028 EB1910770-029 EB1910770-030
Result Result Result Result Result
EA003 :pH (field/fox)
pH (F) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 4.9 5.1 5.2 5.0 4.9
pH (Fox) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 2.8 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1
Reaction Rate ---- 1 Reaction Unit 2 2 2 2 2
Page 41
Page : 9 of 15
Work Order : EB1910770
Client : DOUGLAS PARTNERS PTY LTD
Project : PROPOSED MEDICAL CENTRE
Analytical Results
Sub-Matrix: SOIL Client sample ID BH 2 - 3.75 BH 2 - 4.0 BH 3 - 0.25 BH 3 - 0.5 BH 3 - 0.75
(Matrix: SOIL)
Client sampling date / time 24-Apr-2019 00:00 24-Apr-2019 00:00 24-Apr-2019 00:00 24-Apr-2019 00:00 24-Apr-2019 00:00
Compound CAS Number LOR Unit EB1910770-031 EB1910770-032 EB1910770-033 EB1910770-034 EB1910770-035
Result Result Result Result Result
EA003 :pH (field/fox)
pH (F) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 4.8 4.9 5.8 5.1 5.3
pH (Fox) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 3.0 3.1 2.9 3.2 2.9
Reaction Rate ---- 1 Reaction Unit 2 2 3 2 2
Page 42
Page : 10 of 15
Work Order : EB1910770
Client : DOUGLAS PARTNERS PTY LTD
Project : PROPOSED MEDICAL CENTRE
Analytical Results
Sub-Matrix: SOIL Client sample ID BH 3 - 1.0 BH 3 - 1.25 BH 3 - 1.5 BH 3 - 1.75 BH 3 - 2.0
(Matrix: SOIL)
Client sampling date / time 24-Apr-2019 00:00 24-Apr-2019 00:00 24-Apr-2019 00:00 24-Apr-2019 00:00 24-Apr-2019 00:00
Compound CAS Number LOR Unit EB1910770-036 EB1910770-037 EB1910770-038 EB1910770-039 EB1910770-040
Result Result Result Result Result
EA003 :pH (field/fox)
pH (F) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 5.0 5.5 5.2 4.7 4.6
pH (Fox) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 3.0 2.5 2.6 2.4 2.4
Reaction Rate ---- 1 Reaction Unit 2 2 2 2 2
Page 43
Page : 11 of 15
Work Order : EB1910770
Client : DOUGLAS PARTNERS PTY LTD
Project : PROPOSED MEDICAL CENTRE
Analytical Results
Sub-Matrix: SOIL Client sample ID BH 3 - 2.25 BH 3 - 2.5 BH 3 - 2.75 BH 3 - 3.0 BH 3 - 3.25
(Matrix: SOIL)
Client sampling date / time 24-Apr-2019 00:00 24-Apr-2019 00:00 24-Apr-2019 00:00 24-Apr-2019 00:00 24-Apr-2019 00:00
Compound CAS Number LOR Unit EB1910770-041 EB1910770-042 EB1910770-043 EB1910770-044 EB1910770-045
Result Result Result Result Result
EA003 :pH (field/fox)
pH (F) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.7 5.0
pH (Fox) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 2.5 2.6 2.3 2.7 2.7
Reaction Rate ---- 1 Reaction Unit 2 2 2 2 2
Page 44
Page : 12 of 15
Work Order : EB1910770
Client : DOUGLAS PARTNERS PTY LTD
Project : PROPOSED MEDICAL CENTRE
Analytical Results
Sub-Matrix: SOIL Client sample ID BH 3 - 3.5 BH 3 - 3.75 BH 4 - 4.0 BH 4 - 0.25 BH 4 - 0.5
(Matrix: SOIL)
Client sampling date / time 24-Apr-2019 00:00 24-Apr-2019 00:00 24-Apr-2019 00:00 24-Apr-2019 00:00 24-Apr-2019 00:00
Compound CAS Number LOR Unit EB1910770-046 EB1910770-047 EB1910770-048 EB1910770-049 EB1910770-050
Result Result Result Result Result
EA003 :pH (field/fox)
pH (F) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 4.9 4.9 5.0 5.9 5.6
pH (Fox) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 2.7 3.2 3.6 3.3 3.3
Reaction Rate ---- 1 Reaction Unit 2 2 2 2 2
Page 45
Page : 13 of 15
Work Order : EB1910770
Client : DOUGLAS PARTNERS PTY LTD
Project : PROPOSED MEDICAL CENTRE
Analytical Results
Sub-Matrix: SOIL Client sample ID BH 4 - 0.75 BH 4 - 1.0 BH 4 - 1.25 BH 4 - 1.5 BH 4 - 1.75
(Matrix: SOIL)
Client sampling date / time 24-Apr-2019 00:00 24-Apr-2019 00:00 24-Apr-2019 00:00 24-Apr-2019 00:00 24-Apr-2019 00:00
Compound CAS Number LOR Unit EB1910770-051 EB1910770-052 EB1910770-053 EB1910770-054 EB1910770-055
Result Result Result Result Result
EA003 :pH (field/fox)
pH (F) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.3 5.1
pH (Fox) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 3.1 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2
Reaction Rate ---- 1 Reaction Unit 2 2 2 2 2
Page 46
Page : 14 of 15
Work Order : EB1910770
Client : DOUGLAS PARTNERS PTY LTD
Project : PROPOSED MEDICAL CENTRE
Analytical Results
Sub-Matrix: SOIL Client sample ID BH 4 - 2.0 BH 4 - 2.25 BH 4 - 2.5 BH 4 - 2.75 BH 4 - 3.0
(Matrix: SOIL)
Client sampling date / time 24-Apr-2019 00:00 24-Apr-2019 00:00 24-Apr-2019 00:00 24-Apr-2019 00:00 24-Apr-2019 00:00
Compound CAS Number LOR Unit EB1910770-056 EB1910770-057 EB1910770-058 EB1910770-059 EB1910770-060
Result Result Result Result Result
EA003 :pH (field/fox)
pH (F) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.7 4.9
pH (Fox) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.2
Reaction Rate ---- 1 Reaction Unit 2 2 2 2 2
Page 47
Page : 15 of 15
Work Order : EB1910770
Client : DOUGLAS PARTNERS PTY LTD
Project : PROPOSED MEDICAL CENTRE
Analytical Results
Sub-Matrix: SOIL Client sample ID BH 4 - 3.25 BH 4 - 3.5 BH 4 - 3.75 BH 4 - 4.0 ----
(Matrix: SOIL)
Client sampling date / time 24-Apr-2019 00:00 24-Apr-2019 00:00 24-Apr-2019 00:00 24-Apr-2019 00:00 ----
Compound CAS Number LOR Unit EB1910770-061 EB1910770-062 EB1910770-063 EB1910770-064 --------
Result Result Result Result ----
EA003 :pH (field/fox)
pH (F) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 4.8 5.0 5.2 5.1 ----
pH (Fox) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 3.1 3.0 3.2 3.4 ----
Reaction Rate ---- 1 Reaction Unit 2 2 2 2 ----
Page 48
0 0.00 True
Environmental
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
Work Order : EB1911929 Page : 1 of 5
Client : DOUGLAS PARTNERS PTY LTD Laboratory : Environmental Division Brisbane
Contact : MR ANDRE DOS SANTOS Contact : John Pickering
Address : 1/28 KESSLING AVENUE Address : 2 Byth Street Stafford QLD Australia 4053
KUNDA PARK QLD 4556
Telephone : +61 07 32378900 Telephone : +61 7 3552 8634
Project : PROPOSED MEDICAL CENTRE Date Samples Received : 10-May-2019 16:27
Order number : Date Analysis Commenced : 14-May-2019
C-O-C number : ---- Issue Date : 14-May-2019 17:28
Sampler : ANDRE DOS SANTOS
Site : ----
Quote number : EN/222
No. of samples received : 13
No. of samples analysed : 13
This report supersedes any previous report(s) with this reference. Results apply to the sample(s) as submitted. This document shall not be reproduced, except in full.
This Certificate of Analysis contains the following information:
l General Comments
l Analytical Results
Additional information pertinent to this report will be found in the following separate attachments: Quality Control Report, QA/QC Compliance Assessment to assist with
Quality Review and Sample Receipt Notification.
Signatories
This document has been electronically signed by the authorized signatories below. Electronic signing is carried out in compliance with procedures specified in 21 CFR Part 11.
Signatories Position Accreditation Category
Ben Felgendrejeris Senior Acid Sulfate Soil Chemist Brisbane Acid Sulphate Soils, Stafford, QLD
RIGHT SOLUTIONS | RIGHT PARTNER
Page 49
Page : 2 of 5
Work Order : EB1911929
Client : DOUGLAS PARTNERS PTY LTD
Project : PROPOSED MEDICAL CENTRE
General Comments
The analytical procedures used by the Environmental Division have been developed from established internationally recognized procedures such as those published by the USEPA, APHA, AS and NEPM. In house
developed procedures are employed in the absence of documented standards or by client request.
Where moisture determination has been performed, results are reported on a dry weight basis.
Where a reported less than (<) result is higher than the LOR, this may be due to primary sample extract/digestate dilution and/or insufficient sample for analysis.
Where the LOR of a reported result differs from standard LOR, this may be due to high moisture content, insufficient sample (reduced weight employed) or matrix interference.
When sampling time information is not provided by the client, sampling dates are shown without a time component. In these instances, the time component has been assumed by the laboratory for processing
purposes.
Where a result is required to meet compliance limits the associated uncertainty must be considered. Refer to the ALS Contact for details.
Key : CAS Number = CAS registry number from database maintained by Chemical Abstracts Services. The Chemical Abstracts Service is a division of the American Chemical Society.
LOR = Limit of reporting
^ = This result is computed from individual analyte detections at or above the level of reporting
ø = ALS is not NATA accredited for these tests.
~ = Indicates an estimated value.
l ASS: EA033 (CRS Suite): ANC not required because pH KCl less than 6.5
l ASS: EA033 (CRS Suite): 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 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'.
Page 50
Page : 3 of 5
Work Order : EB1911929
Client : DOUGLAS PARTNERS PTY LTD
Project : PROPOSED MEDICAL CENTRE
Analytical Results
Sub-Matrix: SOIL Client sample ID BH 1 - 0.75 BH 1 - 2.0 BH 1 - 3.0 BH 2 - 0.5 BH 2 - 1.25
(Matrix: SOIL)
Client sampling date / time 24-Apr-2019 00:00 24-Apr-2019 00:00 24-Apr-2019 00:00 24-Apr-2019 00:00 24-Apr-2019 00:00
Compound CAS Number LOR Unit EB1911929-001 EB1911929-002 EB1911929-003 EB1911929-004 EB1911929-005
Result Result Result Result Result
EA033-A: Actual Acidity
pH KCl (23A) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 4.4 4.1 4.1 4.0 4.4
Titratable Actual Acidity (23F) ---- 2 mole H+ / t 36 70 70 95 56
sulfidic - Titratable Actual Acidity (s-23F) ---- 0.02 % pyrite S 0.06 0.11 0.11 0.15 0.09
EA033-B: Potential Acidity
Chromium Reducible Sulfur (22B) ---- 0.005 %S 0.006 0.009 0.009 0.006 0.010
acidity - Chromium Reducible Sulfur ---- 10 mole H+ / t <10 <10 <10 <10 <10
(a-22B)
EA033-D: Retained Acidity
KCl Extractable Sulfur (23Ce) ---- 0.02 %S <0.02 0.02 0.03 <0.02 <0.02
HCl Extractable Sulfur (20Be) ---- 0.02 %S <0.02 0.03 0.03 <0.02 0.02
Net Acid Soluble Sulfur (20Je) ---- 0.02 %S <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.02
acidity - Net Acid Soluble Sulfur (a-20J) ---- 10 mole H+ / t <10 <10 <10 <10 <10
sulfidic - Net Acid Soluble Sulfur (s-20J) ---- 0.02 % pyrite S <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02
EA033-E: Acid Base Accounting
ANC Fineness Factor ---- 0.5 - 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Net Acidity (sulfur units) ---- 0.02 %S 0.06 0.12 0.12 0.16 0.12
Net Acidity (acidity units) ---- 10 mole H+ / t 40 78 77 99 72
Liming Rate ---- 1 kg CaCO3/t 3 6 6 7 5
Net Acidity excluding ANC (sulfur units) ---- 0.02 %S 0.06 0.12 0.12 0.16 0.12
Net Acidity excluding ANC (acidity units) ---- 10 mole H+ / t 40 78 77 99 72
Liming Rate excluding ANC ---- 1 kg CaCO3/t 3 6 6 7 5
Page 51
Page : 4 of 5
Work Order : EB1911929
Client : DOUGLAS PARTNERS PTY LTD
Project : PROPOSED MEDICAL CENTRE
Analytical Results
Sub-Matrix: SOIL Client sample ID BH 2 - 2.25 BH 2 - 3.5 BH 3 - 0.75 BH 3 - 2.0 BH 3 - 3.5
(Matrix: SOIL)
Client sampling date / time 24-Apr-2019 00:00 24-Apr-2019 00:00 24-Apr-2019 00:00 24-Apr-2019 00:00 24-Apr-2019 00:00
Compound CAS Number LOR Unit EB1911929-006 EB1911929-007 EB1911929-008 EB1911929-009 EB1911929-010
Result Result Result Result Result
EA033-A: Actual Acidity
pH KCl (23A) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 4.1 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.1
Titratable Actual Acidity (23F) ---- 2 mole H+ / t 78 87 119 94 85
sulfidic - Titratable Actual Acidity (s-23F) ---- 0.02 % pyrite S 0.13 0.14 0.19 0.15 0.14
EA033-B: Potential Acidity
Chromium Reducible Sulfur (22B) ---- 0.005 %S 0.012 0.005 0.006 0.013 0.013
acidity - Chromium Reducible Sulfur ---- 10 mole H+ / t <10 <10 <10 <10 <10
(a-22B)
EA033-D: Retained Acidity
KCl Extractable Sulfur (23Ce) ---- 0.02 %S 0.03 0.04 <0.02 0.04 0.03
HCl Extractable Sulfur (20Be) ---- 0.02 %S 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.04 0.04
Net Acid Soluble Sulfur (20Je) ---- 0.02 %S <0.02 <0.02 0.02 <0.02 <0.02
acidity - Net Acid Soluble Sulfur (a-20J) ---- 10 mole H+ / t <10 <10 <10 <10 <10
sulfidic - Net Acid Soluble Sulfur (s-20J) ---- 0.02 % pyrite S <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02
EA033-E: Acid Base Accounting
ANC Fineness Factor ---- 0.5 - 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Net Acidity (sulfur units) ---- 0.02 %S 0.15 0.15 0.21 0.17 0.16
Net Acidity (acidity units) ---- 10 mole H+ / t 92 95 132 104 97
Liming Rate ---- 1 kg CaCO3/t 7 7 10 8 7
Net Acidity excluding ANC (sulfur units) ---- 0.02 %S 0.15 0.15 0.21 0.17 0.16
Net Acidity excluding ANC (acidity units) ---- 10 mole H+ / t 92 95 132 104 97
Liming Rate excluding ANC ---- 1 kg CaCO3/t 7 7 10 8 7
Page 52
Page : 5 of 5
Work Order : EB1911929
Client : DOUGLAS PARTNERS PTY LTD
Project : PROPOSED MEDICAL CENTRE
Analytical Results
Sub-Matrix: SOIL Client sample ID BH 4 - 0.75 BH 4 - 2.75 BH 4 - 3.25 ---- ----
(Matrix: SOIL)
Client sampling date / time 24-Apr-2019 00:00 24-Apr-2019 00:00 24-Apr-2019 00:00 ---- ----
Compound CAS Number LOR Unit EB1911929-011 EB1911929-012 EB1911929-013 -------- --------
Result Result Result ---- ----
EA033-A: Actual Acidity
pH KCl (23A) ---- 0.1 pH Unit 4.4 3.9 4.0 ---- ----
Titratable Actual Acidity (23F) ---- 2 mole H+ / t 40 88 82 ---- ----
sulfidic - Titratable Actual Acidity (s-23F) ---- 0.02 % pyrite S 0.06 0.14 0.13 ---- ----
EA033-B: Potential Acidity
Chromium Reducible Sulfur (22B) ---- 0.005 %S 0.008 0.006 0.006 ---- ----
acidity - Chromium Reducible Sulfur ---- 10 mole H+ / t <10 <10 <10 ---- ----
(a-22B)
EA033-D: Retained Acidity
KCl Extractable Sulfur (23Ce) ---- 0.02 %S 0.03 0.02 0.02 ---- ----
HCl Extractable Sulfur (20Be) ---- 0.02 %S 0.03 0.02 0.04 ---- ----
Net Acid Soluble Sulfur (20Je) ---- 0.02 %S <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 ---- ----
acidity - Net Acid Soluble Sulfur (a-20J) ---- 10 mole H+ / t <10 <10 <10 ---- ----
sulfidic - Net Acid Soluble Sulfur (s-20J) ---- 0.02 % pyrite S <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 ---- ----
EA033-E: Acid Base Accounting
ANC Fineness Factor ---- 0.5 - 1.5 1.5 1.5 ---- ----
Net Acidity (sulfur units) ---- 0.02 %S 0.07 0.15 0.15 ---- ----
Net Acidity (acidity units) ---- 10 mole H+ / t 46 94 91 ---- ----
Liming Rate ---- 1 kg CaCO3/t 3 7 7 ---- ----
Net Acidity excluding ANC (sulfur units) ---- 0.02 %S 0.07 0.15 0.15 ---- ----
Net Acidity excluding ANC (acidity units) ---- 10 mole H+ / t 46 94 91 ---- ----
Liming Rate excluding ANC ---- 1 kg CaCO3/t 3 7 7 ---- ----