Original source · versioned page text
Appendix H Geotechnical Investigation - 14-16 Mary Street, Noosaville - Bounce Hostels 15.6.2018
Attached to the e-mail Visitor Accommodation Type 4 Conventional - 122 beds (Engineering Report, Economic Study, Geotechnical Investigation, Flood Certificate, Accoustic Report, Management Plan) MCU18/0102.msg.
Appendix G – Geotechnical Investigation MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE TO ESTABLISH RESIDENTIAL USES - VISITOR ACCOMMODATION TYPE 4 CONVENTIONAL 14-16 Mary Street, NOOSAVILLE described as Lots 3 & 4 on RP 122928 Applicant: Bounce Hostel Noosa Pty Ltd ATF The Bounce Hostel Unit Trust Date: 15th June 2018 Unit 5, 100 Pickering Street, Enoggera 1
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
The download may take up to a minute.
Full text of pages 2 to 37 (of 45)
Page 2
Geotechnical Investigation
PROPOSED HOSTEL
14 - 16 Mary Street, Noosaville
Prepared for:
Mr Doug Reynolds
TOD Consulting Pty Ltd
P.O. Box 61
Noosaville QLD 4564
Email: [email protected]
Report Number: J000605-001-R-Rev1
March 2018
Core Consultants Pty Ltd
Page 3
J000605-001-R-Rev1 March 2018
Executive Summary
This report presents the results of a geotechnical and acid sulfate soil (ASS) investigation carried out by
Core Consultants Pty Ltd (Core) for a proposed development at 14 to 16 Mary Street, Noosaville.
The proposed development comprises four two-level pavilion-style buildings, with a central swimming pool
and single-level basement carpark (up to about 2.5 m depth below existing ground level) under one of the
buildings. Minor fill earthworks (up to about 0.5 m) are proposed.
Four boreholes were drilled, under engineering supervision, across the proposed development footprint
using a utility-mounted auger drill rig. Borehole depths ranged between 6.5 m and 9 m below ground level.
Dynamic cone penetrometer testing (DCP) was conducted within the boreholes.
The subsurface conditions encountered in the boreholes generally comprised:
About 1 m of dense sandy fill, underlain by
A former topsoil layer of about 0.2 m thick, over
Sand alluvium to about 5 m depth (typically medium dense to very dense, some loose)
Firm to stiff clays to between 5.8 m and 6.5 m depth, underlain by
Stiff to hard clays to the investigation depth.
Groundwater was encountered in all four boreholes at between 0.9 m and 1.3 m depth.
Dewatering will be required for the basement excavation. Excavations in the wet sands are not expected to
stand unsupported during the construction period and will require the installation of temporary support. Sheet
piles founded in the underlying clay are considered a suitable option for temporary support. Provided that the
sheet piles are founded in the clay, sump pumps in the excavation base should be a suitable dewatering
method. Alternatively, spear-point dewatering around the basement perimeter will be required. Consideration
must be given to the effects of dewatering during construction and the effect of groundwater drawdown on
neighbouring properties and in-ground services. Drawdown will likely be less for sheet piles founded in the
underlying clay combined with sump pumps in the excavation base, rather than spear-point dewatering. To
reduce groundwater drawdown, consideration could be given to the re-injection of groundwater outside the
temporary shoring system (provided that the shoring system is suitably designed for hydrostatic pressure).
Due to the presence of uncontrolled fill up to 1.1 m thick, as well as loose natural sand to about 4 m depth,
the use of high-level footings is not recommended. The proposed at-grade buildings (i.e. without basement)
could be supported on screw piers founded in the dense sand or stiff clay. Reinforced concrete driven piles,
timber push piles or continuous flight auger (CFA) piles could also be considered. Bored piles will likely
encounter construction difficulties due to the loose sand and high groundwater. The proposed basement
could be supported on a raft, pad footings or screw/driven piles in the dense sand or stiff clay. If a raft or pad
footings are adopted, founding conditions must be confirmed following basement excavation through
additional DCP testing by a geotechnical engineer from Core. If loose sands are encountered, over-
excavation and compacted replacement may be required (possibly up to 1 m depth or more) to support a raft
or pad footings in the sand. A design allowable bearing pressure of 400 kPa may be adopted for a raft or pad
footings in the dense natural sand.
The results from this investigation indicate that potential ASS (PASS) was encountered in the natural sands.
A lime treatment rate of 20 kg CaCO3/m³ is recommended and in accordance with the SPP14 guidelines for
Category XH treatment, a stand-alone ASS Management Plan (ASSMP) must be provided.
ii
Page 4
J000605-001-R-Rev1 March 2018
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................. 1
3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................. 1
4.0 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION ................................................................................................ 2
4.1 Review of available information ................................................................................................. 2
4.2 Fieldwork.................................................................................................................................... 2
4.3 Laboratory testing ...................................................................................................................... 2
5.0 INVESTIGATION RESULTS ..................................................................................................... 2
5.1 Available geological & geotechnical information ....................................................................... 2
5.2 Subsurface conditions ............................................................................................................... 2
5.2.1 Fill .......................................................................................................................................... 2
5.2.2 Natural soils ........................................................................................................................... 3
5.2.3 Groundwater .......................................................................................................................... 3
6.0 GEOTECHNICAL COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................... 3
6.1 Site preparation & trafficability ................................................................................................... 3
6.2 Excavation characteristics & stability ......................................................................................... 3
6.2.1 Temporary support & dewatering .......................................................................................... 4
6.3 Filling.......................................................................................................................................... 4
6.4 Basement design ....................................................................................................................... 4
6.5 Foundations ............................................................................................................................... 5
6.5.1 General .................................................................................................................................. 5
6.6 Retaining structures ................................................................................................................... 6
6.7 Drainage .................................................................................................................................... 6
7.0 ACID SULFATE SOIL ASSESSMENT ...................................................................................... 6
7.1 Background ................................................................................................................................ 6
7.2 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 7
8.0 LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................................ 7
Figures
Figure 1: Test Location Plan
Appendices
Appendix A Reports of Boreholes & Explanatory Notes
Appendix B ASS Test Results and Laboratory Test Certificates
Appendix C Limitations
iii
Page 5
J000605-001-R-Rev1 March 2018
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of a geotechnical and acid sulfate soil (ASS) investigation carried out by
Core Consultants Pty Ltd (Core) for a proposed development at 14 to 16 Mary Street, Noosaville.
The work was carried out for TOD Consulting Pty Ltd, in accordance with our proposal Q004122-001-L-
Rev1.
Along with the results of the investigation, this report provides geotechnical advice and recommendations
regarding earthworks, foundation design, basement design and retaining wall design parameters, together
with advice regarding ASS management.
2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The proposed development (‘Bounce’ Hostel) comprises four two-level pavilion-style buildings, with a central
swimming pool and single-level basement carpark (up to about 2.5 m depth below existing ground level)
under one of the buildings. Minor fill earthworks (up to about 0.5 m) are proposed.
3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
The site covers an area of about 1,900 m2 and is bounded by Mary Street to the south, and low-rise
residential/commercial buildings elsewhere.
The ground surface is generally flat across the site and surrounding area. The Noosa river is located about
300 m to the north and 500 m to the east (Keyser Island Conservation Park area) and Noosa Waters is
about 500 m to the south.
At the time of our investigation, a single-level shed-type building (retail premise) occupied most of the
southern half of the site, with at-grade car parking and grassed areas/garden beds elsewhere.
Site conditions at the time of our investigation are shown in Photograph 1.
Photograph 1: Site conditions at the time of fieldwork, looking approximately north-east across the northern
portion of the site.
1
Page 6
J000605-001-R-Rev1 March 2018
4.0 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION
4.1 Review of available information
To assess likely ground conditions and assist in developing a geological model for the site, a review of
published geological maps was undertaken (refer Section 5.1).
4.2 Fieldwork
Fieldwork was conducted on 28 February 2018 in the presence of a geotechnical engineer from Core. Prior
to carrying out the borehole drilling, a Dial Before You Dig (DBYD) search was carried out. Borehole
locations were assessed for underground services by a licenced contractor.
Four boreholes (designated BH1 to BH4) were drilled across the proposed development footprint at the
locations shown on the attached Figure 1.
The boreholes were drilled using a utility-mounted drill rig using open-hole augering. Borehole depths ranged
between 6.5 m and 9 m below ground level. Dynamic cone penetrometer testing (DCP) was conducted
within the boreholes, with pocket penetrometer testing carried out on disturbed clay samples (off the auger).
Soil samples were recovered from the boreholes for laboratory testing (refer Section 4.3).
Borehole positions were recorded in the field using a handheld GPS unit.
Reports of Boreholes are attached in Appendix A, together with explanatory notes. Subsurface conditions
are discussed in Section 5.2.
4.3 Laboratory testing
Soil samples were sent to the NATA-accredited Eurofins laboratory for ASS testing. Laboratory test results
are attached in Appendix B, and discussed in Section 7.0.
5.0 INVESTIGATION RESULTS
5.1 Available geological & geotechnical information
Published information1 indicates that the site is underlain by Quaternary aged “estuarine, channels and
banks”.
Our experience in the area is that ground conditions generally comprise fill over alluvial sand and clay,
underlain by stiff to hard residual clay.
The subsurface conditions encountered (described in Section 5.2) generally confirm the published geology
and our previous experience in the area.
5.2 Subsurface conditions
The subsurface conditions encountered in the boreholes generally comprised:
About 1 m of dense sandy fill, underlain by
A former topsoil layer of about 0.2 m thick, over
Sand alluvium to about 5 m depth (typically medium dense to very dense, some loose)
Firm to stiff clays to between 5.8 m and 6.5 m depth, underlain by
Stiff to hard clays to the investigation depth.
Groundwater was encountered in all four boreholes at between 0.9 m and 1.3 m depth.
Subsurface conditions are discussed in more detail in sections 5.2.1 to 5.2.4.
5.2.1 Fill
Fill depths in the boreholes range between 0.7 m and 1.1 m depth BGL. The fill is generally sandy and
dense, with varying gravel and clay content.
1 GYMPIE SPECIAL 1:100,000 Geol. Map, DME, 1999
2
Page 7
J000605-001-R-Rev1 March 2018
Documentation regarding earthworks control and testing of the existing fill was not available at the time of
writing. As such, the fill is deemed ‘uncontrolled’.
5.2.2 Natural soils
A former topsoil layer of about 0.2 m to 0.3 m thick underlies the fill. The former topsoil layer comprises loose
to medium dense clayey sand, with abundant organic material present.
The former topsoil is underlain by alluvial/estuarine sand to about 5 m depth. The sand is typically medium
dense to very dense, but loose in borehole BH3 at 2 m to 4 m depth. The sand has varying fines content,
and contains traces of organic material and shell fragments in parts.
Below the sand, high plasticity firm to stiff alluvial clay was encountered up to between about 5.8 m and 6.5
m depth. The clay has varying sand content.
The firm to stiff alluvial clay is underlain by stiff to hard alluvial and residual clay, of medium to high plasticity,
to the investigation depth (6.5 m to 9 m BGL).
5.2.3 Groundwater
During auger drilling, groundwater levels were encountered between 0.9 m and 1.3 m depth.
Groundwater levels are expected to fluctuate in response to variations in rainfall, and are likely to rise close
to the ground surface during periods of heavy or prolonged rainfall.
6.0 GEOTECHNICAL COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Site preparation & trafficability
All surface vegetation and organic-rich topsoil must be removed from building areas prior to construction.
Due to the potential for poor trafficability in soil across the site or in the base of the basement excavation,
particularly during periods of wet weather, it would be prudent to allow for the placement of a nominal 150
mm thick (or thicker depending on traffic loadings) granular layer to facilitate movement of construction
traffic.
A bearing pressure assessment must be carried out by a suitably qualified person for proposed working
platforms for heavy machinery or equipment.
6.2 Excavation characteristics & stability
Excavation for the basement (up to about 2.5 m BGL) is likely to encounter mainly loose to dense sands.
Such excavation should be achievable using conventional earthmoving equipment (e.g. tracked excavator).
Groundwater was encountered between 0.9 m to 1.3 m BGL during borehole drilling. Groundwater inflow is
therefore anticipated during basement excavation.
Dewatering will be required for the basement excavation (refer Section 6.2.1)
Medium dense to dense sand above the groundwater level would be expected to temporarily stand
unsupported at slopes of 1V:1H (without loads behind the batter crest). A minimum distance of at least
2.5 m (horizontal) between the crest of such batter slopes and any adjacent services or structural elements
is recommended.
Excavations in the wet sands are not expected to stand unsupported during the construction period, and will
require the installation of temporary support (refer Section 6.2.1)
Excavations close to the boundary (if required) must consider the presence of adjacent structures and
services. A dilapidation survey of adjacent structures is recommended prior to basement excavation, and
consideration must be given to construction vibration impacts.
Care should be taken to confirm underground service locations as instability of previous trench backfill can
impact the temporary support of the basement excavation if it encroaches on such conditions.
3
Page 8
J000605-001-R-Rev1 March 2018
6.2.1 Temporary support & dewatering
Sheet piles founded in the underlying clay are considered a suitable option for temporary support during
basement construction. Provided that the sheet piles are founded in the clay, sump pumps in the excavation
base should be a suitable dewatering method. Alternatively, spear-point dewatering around the basement
perimeter will be required.
The temporary basement support and dewatering system must be designed by a suitably qualified and
experienced engineer, and advice from specialist contractors should be sought regarding the design and
construction. The temporary support system adopted would need to prevent the loss of support to adjacent
buildings and other structures, whilst also acting to limit groundwater seepage into the excavation. The
selected perimeter wall system will require lateral support during basement excavation (e.g. propping and/or
cantilever).
Upward infiltration of groundwater through the excavation base could significantly disturb the subgrade
resulting in loosening of the sands (‘boiling’ or liquefaction). The temporary support and dewatering system
must take this into account.
Consideration must be given to the effects of dewatering during construction and the effect of groundwater
drawdown on neighbouring properties and in-ground services. Drawdown will likely be less for sheet piles
founded in the underlying clay combined with sump pumps in the excavation base, rather than spear-point
dewatering. To reduce groundwater drawdown, consideration could be given to the re-injection of
groundwater outside the temporary shoring system (provided that the shoring system is suitably designed for
hydrostatic pressure). Groundwater must be tested and treated in accordance with relevant Council/State
guidelines prior to discharge to stormwater.
Shoring will be required to enable safe personnel entry into trenches (with vertical sides) deeper than 1 m.
The above recommendations do not supersede any existing safety regulations or legislation applicable to
excavations (e.g. limits on personnel entry into trenches).
6.3 Filling
It is recommended that filling is carried out with Level 1 supervision and testing in accordance with Australian
Standard 3798-2007 Guidelines on Earthworks for Commercial and Residential Developments.
It is recommended that general fill should:
be compacted at moisture contents within the range of ±2% of optimum moisture content for Standard
Compaction
have a maximum particle size of 100 mm
be placed in loose layers not exceeding 300 mm loose thickness
be compacted to not less than 98% of Standard Maximum Dry Density (MDD) for pavement/slab areas,
or 95% for general fill and service trench backfill (70% density index for cohesionless soils).
Any imported fill should be free from deleterious material, oversize (>100 mm size) particles and organic
matter, and have a minimum CBR of 10% and a maximum plasticity index of 15%.
In accordance with good construction practice, fill embankments should be ‘over built’ then trimmed back to
the well compacted material.
Further details for control and testing of fill are given in Australian Standard AS 3798-2007.
6.4 Basement design
The basement structure is anticipated to be a fully waterproofed (‘tanked’) design. The basement should
therefore be designed to withstand a hydrostatic pressure that assumes groundwater could rise to the
ground level during ‘extreme’ events.
4
Page 9
J000605-001-R-Rev1 March 2018
6.5 Foundations
Due to the presence of uncontrolled fill up to 1.1 m thick, as well as loose natural sand to about 4 m depth,
the use of high-level footings is not recommended.
The proposed at-grade buildings (i.e. without basement) could be supported on screw piers founded in the
dense sand or stiff clay. Reinforced concrete driven piles, timber push piles or continuous flight auger (CFA)
piles could also be considered. Bored piles will likely encounter construction difficulties due to the loose sand
and high groundwater.
The proposed basement could be supported on a raft, pad footings or screw/driven piles in the dense sand
or stiff clay. If a raft or pad footings are adopted, founding conditions must be confirmed following basement
excavation through additional DCP testing by a geotechnical engineer from Core. If loose sands are
encountered, over-excavation and compacted replacement may be required (possibly up to 1 m depth or
more) to support a raft or pad footings in the sand. A design allowable bearing pressure of 400 kPa may be
adopted for a raft or pad footings in the dense natural sand.
Steel screw piles with a 0.6 m diameter helix, founding in the dense sand below 4 m depth could be
designed using an allowable end bearing pressure of 650 kPa. For uplift, the capacity of screw piles should
also be checked against the weight of the enclosing cylinder of soil above the helix together with friction
developed on the walls of this cylinder. An average soil density of 18 kN/m3 should be used for the sands
above the water table and an average buoyant soil density of 8 kN/m3 should be used for the sands below
the water table, with a friction angle of 32o.
The actual capacity of steel screw piles depends not only on the soil conditions, but also on structural
considerations of the piles such as the strength of the helix and the helix/shaft joint. It is considered that the
structural section capacity as well as geotechnical capacity will need to be considered where the required
load carrying capacity of individual steel screw piles is greater than (say) 600 kN. Measurement of
installation torque should not be relied on to indicate pile capacity, as it has been documented that
significantly misleading results can be obtained. For this reason, piling contractors must be responsible for
assessment of actual pile capacities for their piles. Structural capacity of the steel screw pile should be
checked, and due allowance made for inclined or eccentric loads, and possible corrosion effects.
Lateral capacity of steel screw piles could be increased by constructing concrete pile caps or by using
proprietary head attachments which are dragged into the soil providing additional lateral resistance at the
pile head. The lateral support is generally limited and is generally suited to non-critical structures that can
accommodate some lateral movement such as light poles, signs and small towers.
Where limit state methods are used to design the piles, the ultimate geotechnical strength (Rd,ug) can be
calculated by multiplying the allowable values by the adopted factor of safety of 3 and then by a suitable
geotechnical strength reduction factor (Фg) to obtain the design geotechnical strength (Rd,g). The design
geotechnical strength Rd,g of a single pile is determined by multiplying Rd,ug by a suitable geotechnical
strength reduction factor Φg. Where no load testing is proposed, the Φgb value may be adopted for Φg. After
assessing the overall design average risk rating (ARR) in accordance with the guidelines presented in AS
2159-2009, a Φgb value of 0.45 is suggested for the site, design and installation risk factors anticipated.
Specialist piling contractors should be consulted with respect to selection of suitable pile types, detailed
design of piles, the potential vibration effects caused by pile driving, and suitable dynamic pile testing
methods and testing frequency.
6.5.1 General
All footings should found such that they are not adversely affected by any adjacent excavations batter
slopes, trenches (e.g. sewer), or retaining walls that are not designed to support building loads. To minimise
the potential for any adverse interaction effects, footings should found at least below a plane extending 1 m
horizontally from the base of trenches/batter slopes/excavations/retaining walls, then rising up at 1V:1H.
This requirement is illustrated in the diagram below.
5
Page 10
J000605-001-R-Rev1 March 2018
TRENCH BACKFILL
GROUND LEVEL
FOUND FOOTINGS
TRENCH SIDEWALL BELOW THIS LINE
45°
1.0m
1.0m
SEWER / STORMWATER PIPE
6.6 Retaining structures
Permanent perimeter retaining walls for the basement structure could be designed using the unfactored
parameters given in Table 1. Hydrostatic pressures for non-drained walls, construction loading, up-slope
footing loadings, the effects of sloping ground and backfill compaction stresses must also be considered in
the retaining structure design.
Table 1: Retaining Structure Design Parameters.
Lateral earth pressure coefficient
Unit Saturated Friction
Retained Cohesion,
weight unit weight angle Yielding Non-yielding
material cu (kPa)
(kN/m3) (kN/m3) (degrees)
Ka (cantilever) Kp Ko
Medium dense
19 21 30 - 0.36 2.77 0.53
or dense sand
Notes:
Ka - active; Ko - at rest; Kp - passive
For yielding walls active state develops when: Deflection > 0.001H to 0.004H (granular soil),
or deflection > 0.01H to 0.04H (cohesive soil)
Use saturated unit weight for soils below the water table and within the capillary fringe above the water table
6.7 Drainage
Site grades should shed water and prevent ponding. Subsurface drains adjacent to slabs and pavements are
recommended.
Collection/cut-off drains should be installed up-slope of all excavations, and surface run-off should be
prevented from entering excavations.
7.0 ACID SULFATE SOIL ASSESSMENT
7.1 Background
The development of ASS is commonly the result of marine or estuarine deposition of sulfate and iron bearing
sediments in the presence of an abundant source of readily decomposable organic matter resulting in the
deposition of pyrite. This pyrite is stable within the soil so long as anoxic conditions prevail. Oxidation of this
material produces acidic conditions and oxidation typically occurs as the material is exposed above the water
table by excavation, and by lowering the water table during dewatering processes.
6
Page 11
J000605-001-R-Rev1 March 2018
Previous experience and available guidelines indicate that ASS are normally restricted in extent to recent
(Holocene to Pleistocene age) soil horizons deposited in a saline environment below RL 5 m AHD. The
State Planning Policy, July 2014 (SPP14) applies to land, soil and sediment at or below 5 m AHD where the
natural ground level is less than 20 m AHD. Within such areas the SPP14 applies to development involving
any of the following:
Excavating or otherwise removing 100 m³ or more of soil or sediment; or
Filling of land involving 500 m³ or more of material with an average depth of 0.5 m or greater.
The topography of the site is consistent with the above criteria (i.e. majority of the surface elevation below
RL 5 m AHD) and the proposed development involves excavations that would exceed the above trigger
levels. SPP14 is therefore applicable to the proposed development and an assessment of potential
disturbance of ASS is required.
Details and results of the ASS assessment are provided in Appendix B, along with laboratory test
certificates. The outcome of the ASS assessment is summarised in Section 7.2.
7.2 Conclusion
The results from this investigation indicate that potential ASS (PASS) was encountered in the natural sands.
A lime treatment rate of 20 kg CaCO3/m³ is recommended, based on the results of the laboratory testing.
Given the anticipated volume of soils that will be disturbed and required lime treatment, management of
existing and potential acidity at this site would be classified as XH (extremely high) treatment in accordance
with Queensland Soil Management Guidelines V4.0 - Table 4.2 (i.e. greater than 25 tonnes of aglime).
The SPP14 guidelines require that for Category XH treatment, a stand-alone ASS Management Plan
(ASSMP) must be provided. Recommendations on strategies to be included in the ASSMP are as follows:
Excavated soil must be managed by neutralisation of potential and existing acidity. Good quality
agricultural lime should be thoroughly mixed with the spoil. Any lime treatment should be carried out
in accordance with Queensland Acid Sulfate Soil Technical Manual, Soil Management Guidelines
(Ver. 4.0. 2014).
Treatment should be carried out on prepared pads. The earthworks strategy should be formulated to
provide an appropriate sized pad to enable practical spreading, mixing and drying, so that adequate
time is available to complete the treatment and verification before placing the next layer of soil. Should
an area not be available for a treatment pad due to space restrictions treatment could be carried out
in-situ.
Stormwater should be diverted away from treatment/fill areas.
Verification sampling and analysis is to be carried out on the treated soil to confirm that appropriate
amounts of the neutralising agent have been incorporated into the soil.
Groundwater quality should be monitored through new groundwater monitoring wells located across
the site.
Management of groundwater seepage and rainfall collected in excavations and other works areas on
site, including treatment recommendations, must be incorporated into the ASSMP.
During construction, it is recommended that all waters collected from groundwater or surface water
inflow, be retained, monitored and if needed, treated to comply with the appropriate discharge criteria
prior to discharge offsite.
8.0 LIMITATIONS
We draw your attention to the document, Limitations, which is included in Appendix B.
Should you require any further information please contact the undersigned.
7
Page 12
J000605-001-R-Rev1 March 2018 Core Consultants Pty Ltd Yours sincerely, Walter Mastenbroek Geoff Hurley MEngPr MSc BSc (Hons) PMP NER MIEAust CPEng RPEQ MSc DIC C.Geol RPEQ 5716 Senior Geotechnical Engineer Director WM/GAH/wm
Page 13
Information contained on this drawing is the copyright of Core Consultants Pty Ltd. Unauthorised use or reproduction of this plan either wholly or in part without written permission infringes copyright. © Core Consultants Pty Ltd.
BH 1 BH 3
BH 1
BH 2/MW 1
BH 4
LEGEND CLIENT PROJECT
TOD CONSULTING PTY LTD PROPOSED HOSTEL
Indicative Borehole Location DRAWN DATE TITLE
HO 8/3/2018
CHECKED DATE
TEST LOCATION PLAN
Notes: WM 19/3/2018
Site Location • This drawing must be read in conjunction with document J000605-001-R-Rev0 REV No
SCALE PROJECT No FIGURE No
• Base map from QLD Globe www.coreconsultants.com.au Approximately 1:700 J000605 1 0 A4
Page 14
J000605-001-R-Rev1 March 2018 Appendix A Reports of Boreholes & Explanatory Notes
Page 15
REPORT OF BOREHOLE: BH 1
EAST: 506421.0 m SHEET 1 OF 1
CLIENT: TOD Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd NORTH: 7080062.0 m LOGGED: HO
PROJECT: Proposed Hostel CONTRACTOR: Contract Drilling LOGGED DATE: 28/02/18
LOCATION: 14-16 Mary St DRILL RIG: Epson CP1 CHECKED: WM
JOB NO: J000605 INCLINATION: -90° CHECKED DATE: 13/03/18
Drilling Sampling Field Material Description
CONSISTENCY
USCS SYMBOL
PENETRATION
DCP TEST
RECOVERED
RESISTANCE
CONDITION
MOISTURE
SAMPLE OR (AS 1289.6.3.2-1997)
GRAPHIC
DENSITY
METHOD
SOIL/ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Blows per 100 mm
(metres)
FIELD TEST
WATER
DEPTH
LOG
DEPTH 0 5 10 15 20 25
RL
0
0.10 0.00-4.00 m SP SILTY GRAVELLY SAND (TOPSOIL): fine to medium grained, M- VD
ASS samples taken at SM dark brown, medium to coarse sized gravel, trace rootlets W >20
0.30 0.25 m intervals to 4 m M
depth SP SILTY SAND (FILL): fine to medium grained, brown, with fine to
medium sized gravel D Augered to depth
0.70 SAND (FILL): fine grained, dark brown, trace silt
Pale grey
1 1.10
MD
SC CLAYEY SAND (OLD TOPSOIL): fine to medium grained, dark
1.30 M-
grey, high plasticity clay, abundant organics
SP W
1.50 SAND (ALLUVIUM): fine to medium grained, pale grey, trace silt
L-M
Pale brown
D
2.00
2
Dark grey, with high plasticity clay
2.50 MD
Trace clay
3.00
3
Grey to dark grey, no clay
W
M
D
4.00
ADT
4
Fine to medium grained, trace fine sized shell fragments
CORE 1.00 LIB.GLB Log IS AU BOREHOLE 3 J000605 BHS.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 14/03/2018 13:37 10.0.000 Datgel Fence and Map Tool | Lib: DGDT-P 3.05.0 2016-01-20 Prj: DGDT-P 3.05.0 2016-01-20
Augered to depth
M-H
5.00
5
CH CLAY (ALLUVIUM): high plasticity, grey, trace sand
DS 5.50-5.75 m
F - St
M
6
(>PL)
Augered to depth
L-M DS 6.40-6.60 m
St -
VSt
7.00
7 Augered to depth
CI- CLAY (RESIDUAL): medium to high plasticity, grey with mottled
CH pale brown and red brown, trace sand
M
H
DS 7.50-7.75 m (=PL)
8.00
8
END OF [email protected] m
TARGET DEPTH
9
10
This report must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations. It has been prepared for geotechnical
purposes only, without attempt to assess possible contamination. Any references to potential contamination are for information
only and do not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of soil or groundwater contamination.
Page 16
REPORT OF BOREHOLE: BH 2
EAST: 506425.0 m SHEET 1 OF 1
CLIENT: TOD Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd NORTH: 7080040.0 m LOGGED: HO
PROJECT: Proposed Hostel CONTRACTOR: Contract Drilling LOGGED DATE: 28/02/18
LOCATION: 14-16 Mary St DRILL RIG: Epson CP1 CHECKED: WM
JOB NO: J000605 INCLINATION: -90° CHECKED DATE: 13/03/18
Drilling Sampling Field Material Description
CONSISTENCY
USCS SYMBOL
PENETRATION
DCP TEST
RECOVERED
RESISTANCE
CONDITION
MOISTURE
SAMPLE OR (AS 1289.6.3.2-1997)
GRAPHIC
DENSITY
METHOD
SOIL/ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Blows per 100 mm
(metres)
FIELD TEST
WATER
DEPTH
LOG
DEPTH 0 5 10 15 20 25
RL
0
0.00 m SM SILTY SAND (TOPSOIL): fine to medium grained, dark brown,
M ASS samples taken at SP with medium to coarse sized gravel
0.30 0.25 m intervals to 4 m
depth SM GRAVELLY SAND (FILL): medium to coarse, pale brown and D
grey, fine to medium sized gravel, trace fines M
SILTY SAND (FILL): fine to medium grained, dark grey, trace fine Augered to depth
L 0.80 sized gravel
SC CLAYEY SAND (OLD TOPSOIL): fine to medium grained, dark
1.00 MD
1 grey, high plasticity clay, abundant organics
SP
SAND (ALLUVIUM): fine to medium grained, pale grey
D
1.75
Dark grey to grey
2
MD
3 W
ADT
M D
4
4.25
CORE 1.00 LIB.GLB Log IS AU BOREHOLE 3 J000605 BHS.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 14/03/2018 13:37 10.0.000 Datgel Fence and Map Tool | Lib: DGDT-P 3.05.0 2016-01-20 Prj: DGDT-P 3.05.0 2016-01-20
SM SILTY SAND (ALLUVIUM): fine to medium grained, dark brown
5.00
5
CH CLAY (ALLUVIUM): high plasticity, grey
M
F - St
(=PL)
Augered to depth
5.80
CI- CLAY (RESIDUAL): medium to high plasticity, grey with mottled
6 CH red brown and brown
M VSt -
(<PL) H
6.50
END OF [email protected] m
TARGET DEPTH
7
8
9
10
This report must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations. It has been prepared for geotechnical
purposes only, without attempt to assess possible contamination. Any references to potential contamination are for information
only and do not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of soil or groundwater contamination.
Page 17
REPORT OF BOREHOLE: BH 2
EAST: 506425.0 m SHEET 1 OF 1
CLIENT: TOD Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd NORTH: 7080040.0 m LOGGED: HO
PROJECT: Proposed Hostel CONTRACTOR: Contract Drilling LOGGED DATE: 28/02/18
LOCATION: 14-16 Mary St DRILL RIG: Epson CP1 CHECKED: WM
JOB NO: J000605 INCLINATION: -90° CHECKED DATE: 13/03/18
Drilling Sampling Field Material Description
CONSISTENCY
USCS SYMBOL
PENETRATION
RECOVERED
RESISTANCE
CONDITION
MOISTURE
SAMPLE OR PIEZOMETER DETAILS
GRAPHIC
DENSITY
METHOD
SOIL/ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
(metres)
FIELD TEST
WATER
DEPTH
LOG
DEPTH
RL
0 Backfill
0.00 m SM
MW 1
SILTY SAND (TOPSOIL): fine to medium grained, dark brown,
M ASS samples taken at SP with medium to coarse sized gravel 0.7 m stick up
0.30 0.25 m intervals to 4 m Bentonite
depth SM GRAVELLY SAND (FILL): medium to coarse, pale brown and D
grey, fine to medium sized gravel, trace fines M
SILTY SAND (FILL): fine to medium grained, dark grey, trace fine Blank
L 0.80 sized gravel
SC CLAYEY SAND (OLD TOPSOIL): fine to medium grained, dark
1.00 MD
1 grey, high plasticity clay, abundant organics
SP
SAND (ALLUVIUM): fine to medium grained, pale grey
Sand Filter Pack
D Screen
1.75
Dark grey to grey
2
MD
3 W
ADT
M D
4
4.25
CORE 1.00 LIB.GLB Log IS AU BOREHOLE 3 J000605 BHS.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 14/03/2018 13:29 10.0.000 Datgel Fence and Map Tool | Lib: DGDT-P 3.05.0 2016-01-20 Prj: DGDT-P 3.05.0 2016-01-20
SM SILTY SAND (ALLUVIUM): fine to medium grained, dark brown
5.00
5
CH CLAY (ALLUVIUM): high plasticity, grey
M
F - St
(=PL)
5.80
CI- CLAY (RESIDUAL): medium to high plasticity, grey with mottled
6 CH red brown and brown
M VSt -
(<PL) H
6.50
END OF [email protected] m
TARGET DEPTH
7
8
9
10
This report must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations. It has been prepared for geotechnical
purposes only, without attempt to assess possible contamination. Any references to potential contamination are for information
only and do not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of soil or groundwater contamination.
Page 18
REPORT OF BOREHOLE: BH 3
EAST: 506403.0 m SHEET 1 OF 1
CLIENT: TOD Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd NORTH: 7080064.0 m LOGGED: HO
PROJECT: Proposed Hostel CONTRACTOR: Contract Drilling LOGGED DATE: 28/02/18
LOCATION: 14-16 Mary St DRILL RIG: Epson CP1 CHECKED: WM
JOB NO: J000605 INCLINATION: -90° CHECKED DATE: 13/03/18
Drilling Sampling Field Material Description
CONSISTENCY
USCS SYMBOL
PENETRATION
DCP TEST
RECOVERED
RESISTANCE
CONDITION
MOISTURE
SAMPLE OR (AS 1289.6.3.2-1997)
GRAPHIC
DENSITY
METHOD
SOIL/ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Blows per 100 mm
(metres)
FIELD TEST
WATER
DEPTH
LOG
DEPTH 0 5 10 15 20 25
RL
0
0.10 0.00 m SP SILTY GRAVELLY SAND (TOPSOIL): fine to medium grained,
M-H ASS samples taken at SM brown to dark brown, fine to medium sized gravel
0.30 0.25 m intervals to 4 m D
depth CI- SILTY SAND (FILL): fine to medium grained, red brown, trace D
0.50 CH clay
Augered to depth
SP SANDY CLAY (FILL): medium to high plasticity, brown, fine to
0.80 medium grained sand
DS 0.80-1.00 m SC SAND (FILL): fine to medium grained, pale grey L-
1 1.10 M MD
CLAYEY SAND (OLD TOPSOIL): fine to medium grained, dark
SP grey, high plasticity clay, trace silt, abundant organics
SAND (ALLUVIUM): fine to medium grained, pale grey, trace silt,
1.50 trace organics
Brown D
2.00
2
Grey
Augered to depth
HW
L 3 L
DS 3.00-3.50 m
W
ADT
4
CORE 1.00 LIB.GLB Log IS AU BOREHOLE 3 J000605 BHS.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 14/03/2018 13:37 10.0.000 Datgel Fence and Map Tool | Lib: DGDT-P 3.05.0 2016-01-20 Prj: DGDT-P 3.05.0 2016-01-20
D
5.00
5
CH SANDY CLAY (ALLUVIUM): high plasticity, grey, fine to medium
grained sand Augered to depth
F - St
5.70
DS 5.70-6.00 m CI- CLAY (ALLUVIUM): medium to high plasticity, grey to dark grey,
CH trace sand St
6.00
6
Grey
M
(=PL)
VSt
L-M
7.00
7
CH SANDY CLAY (ALLUVIUM): high plasticity, pale brown with
mottled orange brown, fine to medium grained sand
7.50
DS 7.50-8.00 m CI- CLAY (RESIDUAL): medium to high plasticity, mottled red brown,
CH pale brown and pale grey M
H
(<PL)
8.00
8
END OF [email protected] m
TARGET DEPTH
9
10
This report must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations. It has been prepared for geotechnical
purposes only, without attempt to assess possible contamination. Any references to potential contamination are for information
only and do not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of soil or groundwater contamination.
Page 19
REPORT OF BOREHOLE: BH 4
EAST: 506391.0 m SHEET 1 OF 1
CLIENT: TOD Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd NORTH: 7080038.0 m LOGGED: HO
PROJECT: Proposed Hostel CONTRACTOR: Contract Drilling LOGGED DATE: 28/02/18
LOCATION: 14-16 Mary St DRILL RIG: Epson CP1 CHECKED: WM
JOB NO: J000605 INCLINATION: -90° CHECKED DATE: 13/03/18
Drilling Sampling Field Material Description
CONSISTENCY
USCS SYMBOL
PENETRATION
DCP TEST
RECOVERED
RESISTANCE
CONDITION
MOISTURE
SAMPLE OR (AS 1289.6.3.2-1997)
GRAPHIC
DENSITY
METHOD
SOIL/ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Blows per 100 mm
(metres)
FIELD TEST
WATER
DEPTH
LOG
DEPTH 0 5 10 15 20 25
RL
0
0.10 0.00 m SP SILTY GRAVELLY SAND (TOPSOIL): fine to medium grained,
0.20 ASS samples taken at SP dark brown and grey, fine to medium sized gravel
M 0.25 m intervals to 4 m D
SM GRAVELLY SAND (FILL): fine to medium grained, orange brown, D
0.50 depth
fine to medium sized gravel, trace fines
Augered to depth
0.70 SILTY SAND (FILL): fine to medium grained, dark brown, with fine D - M
SC sized gravel
0.90 MD
SP Trace silt, no gravels
1
CLAYEY SAND (OLD TOPSOIL): fine to medium grained, dark M
brown, high plasticity clay, trace silt, abundant organics
SAND (ALLUVIUM): fine to medium grained, pale brown, trace
1.50 silt
Brown D
1.75
Dark grey, trace clay
2
2.50 MD
Grey
2.75
No clay
3
L W
D
4
CORE 1.00 LIB.GLB Log IS AU BOREHOLE 3 J000605 BHS.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 14/03/2018 13:37 10.0.000 Datgel Fence and Map Tool | Lib: DGDT-P 3.05.0 2016-01-20 Prj: DGDT-P 3.05.0 2016-01-20
Augered to depth
ADT
5.00
5
DS 5.00-5.40 m CH CLAY (ALLUVIUM): high plasticity, grey
F - St
6.00 Augered to depth
6
CH SANDY CLAY (ALLUVIUM): high plasticity, grey brown, fine to
medium grained sand
DS 6.50-7.00 m
M
(=PL)
7
St -
L-M
VSt
8
8.40
CI- CLAY (RESIDUAL): medium to high plasticity, pale grey with
CH mottled red brown and orange brown M
M H
(<PL)
9.00
9
END OF [email protected] m
TARGET DEPTH
10
This report must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations. It has been prepared for geotechnical
purposes only, without attempt to assess possible contamination. Any references to potential contamination are for information
only and do not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of soil or groundwater contamination.
Page 20
EXPLANATION OF NOTES, ABBREVIATIONS & TERMS
USED ON BOREHOLE AND TEST PIT REPORTS
DRILLING/EXCAVATION METHOD
AS* Auger Screwing RD Rotary blade or drag bit NQ Diamond Core - 47 mm
AD* Auger Drilling RT Rotary Tricone bit NMLC Diamond Core - 52 mm
*V V-Bit RAB Rotary Air Blast HQ Diamond Core - 63 mm
*T TC-Bit, e.g. ADT RC Reverse Circulation HMLC Diamond Core – 63mm
HA Hand Auger PT Push Tube BH Tractor Mounted Backhoe
ADH Hollow Auger CT Cable Tool Rig EX Tracked Hydraulic Excavator
DTC Diatube Coring JET Jetting EE Existing Excavation
WB Washbore or Bailer NDD Non-destructive digging HAND Excavated by Hand Methods
PENETRATION/EXCAVATION RESISTANCE
L Low resistance. Rapid penetration possible with little effort from the equipment used.
M Medium resistance. Excavation/possible at an acceptable rate with moderate effort from the equipment used.
H High resistance to penetration/excavation. Further penetration is possible at a slow rate and requires significant
effort from the equipment.
R Refusal or Practical Refusal. No further progress possible without the risk of damage or unacceptable wear to the
digging implement or machine.
These assessments are subjective and are dependent on many factors including the equipment power, weight, condition of
excavation or drilling tools, and the experience of the operator.
WATER
Water level at date shown Partial water loss
Water inflow Complete water loss
GROUNDWATER NOT The observation of groundwater, whether present or not, was not possible due to drilling water,
OBSERVED surface seepage or cave in of the borehole/test pit.
GROUNDWATER NOT The borehole/test pit was dry soon after excavation. However, groundwater could be present in
ENCOUNTERED less permeable strata. Inflow may have been observed had the borehole/test pit been left open
for a longer period.
SAMPLING AND TESTING
SPT Standard Penetration Test to AS1289.6.3.1-2004
4,7,11 N=18 4,7,11 = Blows per 150mm. N = Blows per 300mm penetration following 150mm seating
30/80mm Where practical refusal occurs, the blows and penetration for that interval are reported
RW Penetration occurred under the rod weight only
HW Penetration occurred under the hammer and rod weight only
HB Hammer double bouncing on anvil
DS Disturbed sample
BDS Bulk disturbed sample
G Gas Sample
W Water Sample
FP Field permeability test over section noted
FV Field vane shear test expressed as uncorrected shear strength (sv = peak value, sr = residual value)
PID Photoionisation Detector reading in ppm
PM Pressuremeter test over section noted
PP Pocket penetrometer test expressed as instrument reading in kPa
U63 Thin walled tube sample - number indicates nominal sample diameter in millimetres
WPT Water pressure tests
DCP Dynamic cone penetration test
CPT Static cone penetration test
CPTu Static cone penetration test with pore pressure (u) measurement
Ranking of Visually Observable Contamination and Odour (for specific soil contamination assessment projects)
R=0 No visible evidence of contamination R=A No non-natural odours identified
R=1 Slight evidence of visible contamination R=B Slight non-natural odours identified
R=2 Visible contamination R=C Moderate non-natural odours identified
R=3 Significant visible contamination R=D Strong non-natural odours identified
ROCK CORE RECOVERY
TCR = Total Core Recovery (%) SCR = Solid Core Recovery (%) RQD = Rock Quality Designation (%)
Length of core recov ered
100
Length of cylindrica l core recovered 100
Axial lengths of core 100 mm 100
Length of core run Length of core run Length of core run
Explanation of Notes, Abbreviations & Terms Used on Borehole and Test Pit Reports Date: 08/10/2015
FRM-068 Ver. 1.01
Page 21
METHOD OF SOIL DESCRIPTION
USED ON BOREHOLE AND TEST PIT REPORTS
FILL CLAY (CL, CI or CH)
GRAVEL (GP or GW) ORGANIC SOILS (OL or OH or Pt)
SAND (SP or SW) COBBLES or BOULDERS
SILT (ML or MH)
Combinations of these basic symbols may be used to indicate mixed materials such as sandy clay.
CLASSIFICATION AND INFERRED STRATIGRAPHY
Soil and Rock is classified and described in Reports of Boreholes and Test Pits 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 Size 40
BOULDERS > 200 mm CH
CI High plasticity
COBBLES 63 to 200 mm 30
CL
Medium clay
Low plasticity
Plasticity Index (%)
clay plasticity
Coarse 20 to 63 mm clay
GRAVEL Medium 6.0 to 20 mm
20
OH or MH
Fine 2.0 to 6.0 mm High liquid limit
silt
Coarse 0.6 to 2.0 mm
10 OL or ML
SAND Medium 0.2 to 0.6 mm Low liquid
CL/ML Clay/Silt limit silt
Fine 0.075 to 0.2 mm OL or ML - Low liquid limit silt
SILT 0.002 to 0.075 mm 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
CLAY < 0.002 mm Liquid Lim it (%)
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.
Explanation of Notes, Abbreviations & Terms Used on Borehole and Test Pit Reports Date: 08/10/2015
FRM-068 Ver. 1.01
Page 22
J000605-001-R-Rev1 March 2018 Appendix B ASS Test Results and Laboratory Test Certificates
Page 23
J000605-001-R-Rev1 March 2018
B1.0 ACID SULFATE SOILS INVESTIGATION METHOD AND RESULTS
B1.1 Investigation aims
The aims of this investigation were to:
Conduct an ASS assessment in general accordance with SPP14 and the Queensland Sampling
Guidelines
Quantitatively identify the presence or absence of ASS across the site
If necessary, assess the likely impact of the proposed development on ASS
If necessary, provide prudent management measures so that the release of acid leachate from
disturbed soil and groundwater does not have significant adverse effects on the natural and built
environment or human health.
B1.2 Laboratory testing
A groundwater sample was collected from BH2 on 28 February 2018 to provide a ‘snapshot’ of the
groundwater conditions (groundwater suite laboratory testing).
A total of 64 soil samples were screened at our laboratory to assess field pH (pHF) and pH after oxidation
(pHFOX) using 30% hydrogen solution.
Based on the results of pH screening tests, 16 samples were selected to undergo quantitative analysis by
the Chromium Reducible Sulfur (Scr) suite in accordance with ASS Method 23F and 22B laboratory
procedures of Ahern et al (2004).
An overall acid-base accounting method was used to calculate a ‘net acidity’ value which is used to qualify
analytical test results and calculate liming rates. This equation is:
Net Acidity = Actual Acidity (as TAA) + Retained Acidity (as SNAS) + Potential Acidity (as SCR) - insitu Acid
Neutralising Capacity (ANC).
The laboratory certificates of analysis, chain of custody documents and laboratory quality control documents
are attached, and the results are summarised in Table B1. Observations and discussion on the laboratory
findings are provided below.
B1.3 Preliminary Screening
Results of preliminary screening are summarised in Table B1. Soil pH (represented by pHF results) was
found to range between pH 4.9 and pH 7.4 (acidic to neutral), with the majority of the samples being above
pH 6, indicating a low to medium probability of the presence of actual ASS at borehole locations. There was
generally a noted difference in the pHFOX and pHF test results for the majority of samples tested from the
boreholes. All samples displayed a mixture of extreme to low level reactions to the addition of hydrogen
peroxide. The pHFOX ranged from pH 1.2 to pH 6, and more than half of the samples observed were below
pH 3, suggesting a high potential for the presence of PASS.
B1.4 Quantitative Soils Analysis
Table B1.4 below shows the ASS action levels adopted in Queensland. These categories are used to identify
whether action / management of ASS spoil is required, based on ‘net acidity’. For major fill works and
disturbances of more than 1,000 tonnes, an action criterion of 0.03% S equivalents (18 moles/tonne) is
adopted for all soil types; and was adopted for this investigation.
Page 24
J000605-001-R-Rev1 March 2018
Table B1.4: ASS Action Criteria.
Action Criteria
Action Criteria
> 1000 tonnes disturbed
Type of Material 1-1000 tonnes disturbed
(and major fill projects)
Existing + Potential Acidity Existing + Potential Acidity
Equivalent sulfur Equivalent acid
Texture range Approx. clay Equivalent sulfur Equivalent acid
%S oxidisable mol H+/ tonne
McDonald et al. (1990) content (%) %S oxidisable mol H+/ tonne
(oven-dry basis) (oven-dry basis)
Coarse Texture
≤5 0.03 18 0.03 18
Sands to loamy sands
Medium Texture
Sandy loams to light 5 – 40 0.06 36 0.03 18
clays
Fine Texture
Medium to heavy clays ≥40 0.10 62 0.03 18
and silty clays
Results of the sixteen samples analysed are summarised below:
All samples returned Titratable Actual Acidity (TAA) results below the action criteria of 18 mol H+/
tonne (0.03%S), ranging from below the laboratory limit of reporting (2 mol H+/tonne) to 17 mol H+/
tonne.
Oxidisable Sulfur was present as SCR at levels above the action criteria of 0.03%S in seven of the
samples analysed.
One sample returned a pHKCl value exceeding pH 6.5 and therefore analysis for acid neutralising
capacity (ANC). The sample contains low to moderate levels of ANC at 81 moles H+/t.
Page 25
March 2018 TABLE B1 - SUMMARY OF ACID SULFATE SOIL FIELD AND LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS J000605-001-R-Rev1
Quick Screening Test Existing Acidity Potential Acidity Acid Neutralising Capacity Retained Acidity Acid Base Accounting
acidity -
Chromium Acid acidity - Acid sulfidic - Acid acidity - Net sulfidic - Net KCl HCl ANC Required Lime Rate
AASS PASS Titratable Chromium Net Acid Net Acidity Net Acidity
pHF pHFOX Reaction Remark pH KCl Reducible Neutralising Neutralising Neutralising Acid Soluble Acid Soluble Extractable Extractable Fineness
likelihood1 likelihood 2 Actual Acidity Reducible Soluble Sulfur (sulfur units) (acidity units)
Sulfur Capacity Capacity Capacity Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Factor
BH ID Depth (m) BH Description Sulfur
pH Unit pH Unit pH Unit mole H+ / t %S mole H+ / t % CaCO3 mole H+ / t % pyrite S %S mole H+ / t % pyrite S %S %S %S mole H+ / t kg CaCO3/t kg CaCO3/m3
0.0_0.25 BH1_0.0_0.25 FILL 5.7 L 4.2 L L
0.25_0.5 BH1_0.25_0.5 FILL 5.9 L 3.7 M m
0.5_0.75 BH1_0.5_0.75 FILL 6.0 L 2.8 H L X 5.8 <2 < 0.005 <3 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 5.80 n/a 1.5 < 0.02 < 10 <1 1
0.75_1.0 BH1_0.75_1.0 FILL 6.8 L 4.5 M L
1.0_1.25 BH1_1.0_1.25 FILL 6.3 L 4.7 L m
1.25_1.5 BH1_1.25_1.5 OLD TOP SOIL 6.2 L 4.4 L L
1.5_1.75 BH1_1.5_1.75 SAND 6.0 L 4.5 L L
BH1 1.75_2.0 BH1_1.75_2.0 SAND 5.9 L 1.8 H L X 5.6 <2 0.02 13.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 5.60 n/a 1.5 0.02 13 <1 1
2.0_2.25 BH1_2.0_2.25 SAND 5.8 L 1.4 H h
2.25_2.5 BH1_2.25_2.5 SAND 5.9 L 1.4 H h
2.5_2.75 BH1_2.5_2.75 SAND 6.0 L 1.5 H h
2.75_3.0 BH1_2.75_3.0 SAND 5.9 L 1.4 H h X 5.5 <2 0.23 140.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 5.50 n/a 1.5 0.23 140 11.0 20
3.0_3.25 BH1_3.0_3.25 SAND 6.1 L 1.5 H L
3.25_3.5 BH1_3.25_3.5 SAND 6.1 L 1.6 H L
3.5_3.75 BH1_3.5_3.75 SAND 6.1 L 1.6 H x X 5.6 <2 0.10 62.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 5.60 n/a 1.5 0.10 62 4.7 8
3.75_4.0 BH1_3.75_4.0 SAND 6.1 L 1.6 H L
0.0_0.25 BH2_0.0_0.25 FILL 6.7 L 3.9 M m
0.25_0.5 BH2_0.25_0.5 FILL 6.1 L 2.9 H m X 5.9 <2 < 0.005 <3 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 5.90 n/a 1.5 < 0.02 < 10 <1 1
0.5_0.75 BH2_0.5_0.75 FILL 6.0 L 3.3 M m
0.75_1.0 BH2_0.75_1.0 OLD TOP SOIL 5.9 L 2.4 H m
1.0_1.25 BH2_1.0_1.25 SAND 5.7 L 3.8 L m X 5.5 <2 < 0.005 <3 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 5.50 n/a 1.5 < 0.02 < 10 <1 1
1.25_1.5 BH2_1.25_1.5 SAND 5.3 L 2.8 H L
1.5_1.75 BH2_1.5_1.75 SAND 5.3 L 2.9 H L
BH2 1.75_2.0 BH2_1.75_2.0 SAND 5.2 L 1.9 H L
2.0_2.25 BH2_2.0_2.25 SAND 5.5 L 1.6 H x X 5.2 2.8 0.21 130.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 5.20 n/a 1.5 0.21 140 10.0 18
2.25_2.5 BH2_2.25_2.5 SAND 6.1 L 1.8 H L
2.5_2.75 BH2_2.5_2.75 SAND 6.2 L 1.8 H x
2.75_3.0 BH2_2.75_3.0 SAND 6.1 L 1.8 H x
3.0_3.25 BH2_3.0_3.25 SAND 6.1 L 1.8 H x
3.25_3.5 BH2_3.25_3.5 SAND 6.0 L 1.9 H L
3.5_3.75 BH2_3.5_3.75 SAND 6.2 L 1.9 H h
3.75_4.0 BH2_3.75_4.0 SAND 6.0 L 1.8 H x X 5.6 <2 0.10 62.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 5.60 n/a 1.5 0.10 62 4.7 8
0.0_0.25 BH3_0.0_0.25 FILL 6.7 L 6.0 L L
0.25_0.5 BH3_0.25_0.5 FILL 6.6 L 4.8 L L
0.5_0.75 BH3_0.5_0.75 FILL 6.8 L 5.4 L L
0.75_1.0 BH3_0.75_1.0 OLD TOP SOIL 7.4 L 4.4 M L X 7.8 <2 0.02 13.0 0.4 81.0 0.1 n/a n/a n/a 7.80 n/a 1.5 < 0.02 < 10 <1 1
1.0_1.25 BH3_1.0_1.25 SAND 7.1 L 4.8 M m
1.25_1.5 BH3_1.25_1.5 SAND 7.1 L 4.7 M m
1.5_1.75 BH3_1.5_1.75 SAND 6.9 L 3.8 M L
BH3 1.75_2.0 BH3_1.75_2.0 SAND 6.9 L 1.6 H L X 5.5 <2 0.07 42.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 5.50 n/a 1.5 0.07 42 3.1 6
2.0_2.25 BH3_2.0_2.25 SAND 7.0 L 1.7 H L
2.25_2.5 BH3_2.25_2.5 SAND 7.0 L 1.7 H M
2.5_2.75 BH3_2.5_2.75 SAND 6.8 L 1.5 H x X 5.4 <2 0.17 100.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 5.40 n/a 1.5 0.16 100 7.7 14
2.75_3.0 BH3_2.75_3.0 SAND 7.0 L 1.6 H x
3.0_3.25 BH3_3.0_3.25 SAND 6.9 L 1.6 H x
3.25_3.5 BH3_3.25_3.5 SAND 6.9 L 1.6 H x X 5.6 <2 0.14 89.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 5.60 n/a 1.5 0.14 89 6.7 12
3.5_3.75 BH3_3.5_3.75 SAND 6.9 L 1.7 H M
3.75_4.0 BH3_3.75_4.0 SAND 6.9 L 1.6 H x
0.0_0.25 BH4_0.0_0.25 FILL 5.0 M 5.1 L L
0.25_0.5 BH4_0.25_0.5 FILL 5.9 L 1.9 H m
0.5_0.75 BH4_0.5_0.75 FILL 6.0 L 3.0 H h X 4.9 17.0 0.01 <3 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 4.90 n/a 1.5 0.04 23 1.8 3
0.75_1.0 BH4_0.75_1.0 OLD TOP SOIL 5.9 L 2.3 H h
1.0_1.25 BH4_1.0_1.25 SAND 5.6 L 3.4 M L
1.25_1.5 BH4_1.25_1.5 SAND 5.9 L 3.8 M L
1.5_1.75 BH4_1.5_1.75 SAND 6.0 L 3.2 M L
BH4 1.75_2.0 BH4_1.75_2.0 SAND 6.1 L 1.5 H L X 5.2 3.5 0.15 95.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 5.20 n/a 1.5 0.15 98 7.4 13
2.0_2.25 BH4_2.0_2.25 SAND 5.5 L 1.6 H x
2.25_2.5 BH4_2.25_2.5 SAND 4.9 M 1.4 H M
2.5_2.75 BH4_2.5_2.75 SAND 5.6 L 1.2 H M
2.75_3.0 BH4_2.75_3.0 SAND 5.5 L 1.4 H M X 5.3 <2 0.18 110.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 5.30 n/a 1.5 0.18 110 8.3 15
3.0_3.25 BH4_3.0_3.25 SAND 5.6 L 1.7 H x
3.25_3.5 BH4_3.25_3.5 SAND 6.0 L 1.7 H x
3.5_3.75 BH4_3.5_3.75 SAND 5.9 L 1.7 H x X
3.75_4.0 BH4_3.75_4.0 SAND 6.2 L 1.7 H x 5.5 <2 0.08 48.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 5.50 n/a 1.5 0.08 3.6 6
Number 64 64 Number exceeding Action Criteria 0 0 10.00 10 0 0 0 16 0 11 10 8
Min 4.9 1.2 Number >6.5 1
Max 7.4 6.0 Min 4.9 2.8 0.009 13.0 0.4 81.0 0.1 0.000 0 0.00 4.90 0.00
Mean 6.1 2.3 Max 7.8 17.0 0.230 140.0 0.4 81.0 0.1 0.000 0 0.00 7.80 0.00
Std Deviation 0.6 1.3
1. Actual Acid Sulfate Soil (AASS) likelihood is indicated by Low (L & no shade)(pHF > 5), Medium (M & yellow shade)(pHF 5 ≤ pHF < 4) and High (H & red shade)(pHF ≤ 4).
2. Potential Acid Sulfate Soil (PASS) likelihood is indicated by Low (L & no shade)(∆ pH from pHF to pHFOX is < 2 pH units), Medium (M & yellow shade)(∆ pH from pHF to pHFOX is ≥ 2 pH units OR pHFOX is <3)) and High (H & red shade)(∆ pH from pHF to pHFOX is ≥ 2 pH units AND pHFOX is <3)
3. Reaction L = Low strength, M = Medium strength, H = High strength, X = Extreme strength.
4. The letter in the remark column indicates the presence of the following. O - Organic; S - Shells;iron- Iron/Iron Oxide; P - Pyrite; and C - Coral.
5. Shaded TAA & SCR results are those exceeding the QASSIT action levels of 18 mol H+/t or 0.03 %S.
6. Acid-Base Account = Total Acidity (i.e.. Potential + Actual + Retained) - Total ANC
7. Shaded Net Acidity (sulfur units) %S and Net Acidity (acidity units) /t results are those exceeding the QASSIT action levels of 0.03 %S or 18 mol H+/t
8. 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
Page 26
Certificate of Analysis
NATA Accredited
Accreditation Number 1261
Core Consultants Pty Ltd Site Number 20794
55 Kingford Smith Parade Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 – Testing
The results of the tests, calibrations and/or
Maroochydore measurements included in this document are traceable
to Australian/national standards.
QLD 4558
Attention: Walter Mastenbroek
Report 587530-S
Project name TOD - ASSMP & GI - MARY ST NOOSAVILLE
Project ID J000605
Received Date Mar 02, 2018
Client Sample ID BH 1 (0.5-0.75) BH 1 (1.75-2.0) BH 1 (2.75-3.0) BH 1 (3.0-3.75)
Sample Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil
Eurofins | mgt Sample No. B18-Ma02705 B18-Ma02706 B18-Ma02707 B18-Ma02708
Date Sampled Feb 28, 2018 Feb 28, 2018 Feb 28, 2018 Feb 28, 2018
Test/Reference LOR Unit
Chromium Suite
pH-KCL 0.1 pH Units 5.8 5.6 5.5 5.6
Acid trail - Titratable Actual Acidity 2 mol H+/t <2 <2 <2 <2
sulfidic - TAA equiv. S% pyrite 0.02 % pyrite S < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02
Chromium Reducible SulfurS04 0.005 %S < 0.005 0.021 0.23 0.10
Chromium Reducible Sulfur -acidity units 3 mol H+/t <3 13 140 62
Sulfur - KCl Extractable 0.02 %S n/a n/a n/a n/a
HCl Extractable Sulfur 0.02 %S n/a n/a n/a n/a
Net Acid soluble sulfur 0.02 %S n/a n/a n/a n/a
Net Acid soluble sulfur - acidity units 10 mol H+/t n/a n/a n/a n/a
Net Acid soluble sulfur - equivalent S% pyriteS02 0.02 %S n/a n/a n/a n/a
Acid Neutralising Capacity (ANCbt) 0.01 %CaCO3 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Acid Neutralising Capacity - acidity (a-ANCbt) 2 mol H+/t n/a n/a n/a n/a
Acid Neutralising Capacity - equivalent S% pyrite (s-
ANCbt)S03 0.02 %S n/a n/a n/a n/a
ANC Fineness Factor factor 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
CRS Suite - Net Acidity (Sulfur Units) 0.02 %S < 0.02 0.02 0.23 0.10
CRS Suite - Net Acidity (Acidity Units) 10 mol H+/t < 10 13 140 62
CRS Suite - Liming RateS01 1 kg CaCO3/t <1 <1 11 4.7
Extraneous Material
<2mm Fraction 0.005 g 77 40 420 43
>2mm Fraction 0.005 g 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005
Analysed Material 0.1 % 100 100 100 100
Extraneous Material 0.1 % 0.2 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1
% Moisture 1 % 9.2 20 19 19
Eurofins | mgt 1/21 Smallwood Place, Murarrie, QLD, Australia, 4172 Page 1 of 10
Date Reported: Mar 09, 2018 ABN : 50 005 085 521 Telephone: +61 7 3902 4600 Report Number: 587530-S
Page 27
BH 2 (0.25-
Client Sample ID 0.50) BH 2 (1.0-1.25) BH 2 (2.0-2.25) BH 2 (3.75-4.0)
Sample Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil
Eurofins | mgt Sample No. B18-Ma02709 B18-Ma02710 B18-Ma02711 B18-Ma02712
Date Sampled Feb 28, 2018 Feb 28, 2018 Feb 28, 2018 Feb 28, 2018
Test/Reference LOR Unit
Chromium Suite
pH-KCL 0.1 pH Units 5.9 5.5 5.2 5.6
Acid trail - Titratable Actual Acidity 2 mol H+/t <2 <2 2.8 <2
sulfidic - TAA equiv. S% pyrite 0.02 % pyrite S < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02
Chromium Reducible SulfurS04 0.005 %S < 0.005 < 0.005 0.21 0.099
Chromium Reducible Sulfur -acidity units 3 mol H+/t <3 <3 130 62
Sulfur - KCl Extractable 0.02 %S n/a n/a n/a n/a
HCl Extractable Sulfur 0.02 %S n/a n/a n/a n/a
Net Acid soluble sulfur 0.02 %S n/a n/a n/a n/a
Net Acid soluble sulfur - acidity units 10 mol H+/t n/a n/a n/a n/a
Net Acid soluble sulfur - equivalent S% pyriteS02 0.02 %S n/a n/a n/a n/a
Acid Neutralising Capacity (ANCbt) 0.01 %CaCO3 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Acid Neutralising Capacity - acidity (a-ANCbt) 2 mol H+/t n/a n/a n/a n/a
Acid Neutralising Capacity - equivalent S% pyrite (s-
ANCbt)S03 0.02 %S n/a n/a n/a n/a
ANC Fineness Factor factor 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
CRS Suite - Net Acidity (Sulfur Units) 0.02 %S < 0.02 < 0.02 0.21 0.10
CRS Suite - Net Acidity (Acidity Units) 10 mol H+/t < 10 < 10 140 62
CRS Suite - Liming RateS01 1 kg CaCO3/t <1 <1 10 4.7
Extraneous Material
<2mm Fraction 0.005 g 78 90 41 73
>2mm Fraction 0.005 g 9.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.040
Analysed Material 0.1 % 90 100 100 100
Extraneous Material 0.1 % 10 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1
% Moisture 1 % 4.7 19 21 17
Client Sample ID BH 3 (0.75-1.0) BH 3 (1.75-2.0) BH 3 (2.5-2.75) BH 3 (3.25-3.5)
Sample Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil
Eurofins | mgt Sample No. B18-Ma02713 B18-Ma02714 B18-Ma02715 B18-Ma02716
Date Sampled Feb 28, 2018 Feb 28, 2018 Feb 28, 2018 Feb 28, 2018
Test/Reference LOR Unit
Chromium Suite
pH-KCL 0.1 pH Units 7.8 5.5 5.4 5.6
Acid trail - Titratable Actual Acidity 2 mol H+/t <2 <2 <2 <2
sulfidic - TAA equiv. S% pyrite 0.02 % pyrite S < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02
Chromium Reducible SulfurS04 0.005 %S 0.021 0.067 0.17 0.14
Chromium Reducible Sulfur -acidity units 3 mol H+/t 13 42 100 89
Sulfur - KCl Extractable 0.02 %S n/a n/a n/a n/a
HCl Extractable Sulfur 0.02 %S n/a n/a n/a n/a
Net Acid soluble sulfur 0.02 %S n/a n/a n/a n/a
Net Acid soluble sulfur - acidity units 10 mol H+/t n/a n/a n/a n/a
Net Acid soluble sulfur - equivalent S% pyriteS02 0.02 %S n/a n/a n/a n/a
Acid Neutralising Capacity (ANCbt) 0.01 %CaCO3 0.40 n/a n/a n/a
Acid Neutralising Capacity - acidity (a-ANCbt) 2 mol H+/t 81 n/a n/a n/a
Acid Neutralising Capacity - equivalent S% pyrite (s-
ANCbt)S03 0.02 %S 0.13 n/a n/a n/a
ANC Fineness Factor factor 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
CRS Suite - Net Acidity (Sulfur Units) 0.02 %S < 0.02 0.07 0.16 0.14
Eurofins | mgt 1/21 Smallwood Place, Murarrie, QLD, Australia, 4172 Page 2 of 10
Date Reported: Mar 09, 2018 ABN : 50 005 085 521 Telephone: +61 7 3902 4600 Report Number: 587530-S
Page 28
Client Sample ID BH 3 (0.75-1.0) BH 3 (1.75-2.0) BH 3 (2.5-2.75) BH 3 (3.25-3.5)
Sample Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil
Eurofins | mgt Sample No. B18-Ma02713 B18-Ma02714 B18-Ma02715 B18-Ma02716
Date Sampled Feb 28, 2018 Feb 28, 2018 Feb 28, 2018 Feb 28, 2018
Test/Reference LOR Unit
Chromium Suite
CRS Suite - Net Acidity (Acidity Units) 10 mol H+/t < 10 42 100 89
CRS Suite - Liming RateS01 1 kg CaCO3/t <1 3.1 7.7 6.7
Extraneous Material
<2mm Fraction 0.005 g 71 67 45 45
>2mm Fraction 0.005 g 1.7 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005
Analysed Material 0.1 % 98 100 100 100
Extraneous Material 0.1 % 2.3 0.2 < 0.1 < 0.1
% Moisture 1 % 15 18 19 20
Client Sample ID BH 4 (0.5-0.75) BH 4 (1.75-2.0) BH 4 (2.75-3.0) BH 4 (3.75-4.0)
Sample Matrix Soil Soil Soil Soil
Eurofins | mgt Sample No. B18-Ma02717 B18-Ma02718 B18-Ma02719 B18-Ma02720
Date Sampled Feb 28, 2018 Feb 28, 2018 Feb 28, 2018 Feb 28, 2018
Test/Reference LOR Unit
Chromium Suite
pH-KCL 0.1 pH Units 4.9 5.2 5.3 5.5
Acid trail - Titratable Actual Acidity 2 mol H+/t 17 3.5 <2 <2
sulfidic - TAA equiv. S% pyrite 0.02 % pyrite S 0.03 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02
Chromium Reducible SulfurS04 0.005 %S 0.009 0.15 0.18 0.077
Chromium Reducible Sulfur -acidity units 3 mol H+/t <3 95 110 48
Sulfur - KCl Extractable 0.02 %S n/a n/a n/a n/a
HCl Extractable Sulfur 0.02 %S n/a n/a n/a n/a
Net Acid soluble sulfur 0.02 %S n/a n/a n/a n/a
Net Acid soluble sulfur - acidity units 10 mol H+/t n/a n/a n/a n/a
Net Acid soluble sulfur - equivalent S% pyriteS02 0.02 %S n/a n/a n/a n/a
Acid Neutralising Capacity (ANCbt) 0.01 %CaCO3 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Acid Neutralising Capacity - acidity (a-ANCbt) 2 mol H+/t n/a n/a n/a n/a
Acid Neutralising Capacity - equivalent S% pyrite (s-
ANCbt)S03 0.02 %S n/a n/a n/a n/a
ANC Fineness Factor factor 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
CRS Suite - Net Acidity (Sulfur Units) 0.02 %S 0.04 0.15 0.18 0.08
CRS Suite - Net Acidity (Acidity Units) 10 mol H+/t 23 98 110 48
CRS Suite - Liming RateS01 1 kg CaCO3/t 1.8 7.4 8.3 3.6
Extraneous Material
<2mm Fraction 0.005 g 83 49 48 35
>2mm Fraction 0.005 g 0.57 0.65 < 0.005 < 0.005
Analysed Material 0.1 % 99 99 100 100
Extraneous Material 0.1 % 0.7 1.3 < 0.1 < 0.1
% Moisture 1 % 17 20 20 21
Eurofins | mgt 1/21 Smallwood Place, Murarrie, QLD, Australia, 4172 Page 3 of 10
Date Reported: Mar 09, 2018 ABN : 50 005 085 521 Telephone: +61 7 3902 4600 Report Number: 587530-S
Page 29
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
Chromium Reducible Sulfur Suite
Chromium Suite Brisbane Mar 05, 2018 6 Week
- Method: LTM-GEN-7070
Extraneous Material Brisbane Mar 05, 2018 6 Week
- Method: LTM-GEN-7050/7070
% Moisture Brisbane Mar 02, 2018 14 Day
- Method: LTM-GEN-7080 Moisture
Eurofins | mgt 1/21 Smallwood Place, Murarrie, QLD, Australia, 4172 Page 4 of 10
Date Reported: Mar 09, 2018 ABN : 50 005 085 521 Telephone: +61 7 3902 4600 Report Number: 587530-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: Core Consultants Pty Ltd Order No.: Received: Mar 2, 2018 5:00 PM
Address: 55 Kingford Smith Parade Report #: 587530 Due: Mar 9, 2018
Maroochydore Phone: 07 5475 5900 Priority: 5 Day
QLD 4558 Fax: Contact Name: Walter Mastenbroek
Project Name: TOD - ASSMP & GI - MARY ST NOOSAVILLE
Project ID: J000605
Eurofins | mgt Analytical Services Manager : Ryan Gilbert
Acidity (as CaCO3)
Aluminium
Aluminium (filtered)
Chloride
Iron
Iron (filtered)
Manganese (filtered)
Sulphate (as SO4)
Total Dissolved Solids
Alkalinity (speciated)
Alkali Metals
Chromium Reducible Sulfur Suite
Moisture Set
Sample Detail
Melbourne Laboratory - NATA Site # 1254 & 14271 X X X X X X X X X X X
Sydney Laboratory - NATA Site # 18217
Brisbane Laboratory - NATA Site # 20794 X X
Perth Laboratory - NATA Site # 23736
External Laboratory
No Sample ID Sample Date Sampling Matrix LAB ID
Time
1 BH 1 (0.5- Feb 28, 2018 Soil B18-Ma02705 X X
0.75)
2 BH 1 (1.75- Feb 28, 2018 Soil B18-Ma02706 X X
2.0)
3 BH 1 (2.75- Feb 28, 2018 Soil B18-Ma02707 X X
3.0)
4 BH 1 (3.0- Feb 28, 2018 Soil B18-Ma02708 X X
3.75)
5 BH 2 (0.25- Feb 28, 2018 Soil B18-Ma02709 X X
0.50)
6 BH 2 (1.0- Feb 28, 2018 Soil B18-Ma02710 X X
Eurofins | mgt 1/21 Smallwood Place, Murarrie, QLD, Australia, 4172 Page 5 of 10
Date Reported:Mar 09, 2018 ABN : 50 005 085 521 Telephone: +61 7 3902 4600 Report Number: 587530-S
Page 31
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: Core Consultants Pty Ltd Order No.: Received: Mar 2, 2018 5:00 PM
Address: 55 Kingford Smith Parade Report #: 587530 Due: Mar 9, 2018
Maroochydore Phone: 07 5475 5900 Priority: 5 Day
QLD 4558 Fax: Contact Name: Walter Mastenbroek
Project Name: TOD - ASSMP & GI - MARY ST NOOSAVILLE
Project ID: J000605
Eurofins | mgt Analytical Services Manager : Ryan Gilbert
Acidity (as CaCO3)
Aluminium
Aluminium (filtered)
Chloride
Iron
Iron (filtered)
Manganese (filtered)
Sulphate (as SO4)
Total Dissolved Solids
Alkalinity (speciated)
Alkali Metals
Chromium Reducible Sulfur Suite
Moisture Set
Sample Detail
Melbourne Laboratory - NATA Site # 1254 & 14271 X X X X X X X X X X X
Sydney Laboratory - NATA Site # 18217
Brisbane Laboratory - NATA Site # 20794 X X
Perth Laboratory - NATA Site # 23736
1.25)
7 BH 2 (2.0- Feb 28, 2018 Soil B18-Ma02711 X X
2.25)
8 BH 2 (3.75- Feb 28, 2018 Soil B18-Ma02712 X X
4.0)
9 BH 3 (0.75- Feb 28, 2018 Soil B18-Ma02713 X X
1.0)
10 BH 3 (1.75- Feb 28, 2018 Soil B18-Ma02714 X X
2.0)
11 BH 3 (2.5- Feb 28, 2018 Soil B18-Ma02715 X X
2.75)
12 BH 3 (3.25- Feb 28, 2018 Soil B18-Ma02716 X X
3.5)
13 BH 4 (0.5- Feb 28, 2018 Soil B18-Ma02717 X X
Eurofins | mgt 1/21 Smallwood Place, Murarrie, QLD, Australia, 4172 Page 6 of 10
Date Reported:Mar 09, 2018 ABN : 50 005 085 521 Telephone: +61 7 3902 4600 Report Number: 587530-S
Page 32
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: Core Consultants Pty Ltd Order No.: Received: Mar 2, 2018 5:00 PM
Address: 55 Kingford Smith Parade Report #: 587530 Due: Mar 9, 2018
Maroochydore Phone: 07 5475 5900 Priority: 5 Day
QLD 4558 Fax: Contact Name: Walter Mastenbroek
Project Name: TOD - ASSMP & GI - MARY ST NOOSAVILLE
Project ID: J000605
Eurofins | mgt Analytical Services Manager : Ryan Gilbert
Acidity (as CaCO3)
Aluminium
Aluminium (filtered)
Chloride
Iron
Iron (filtered)
Manganese (filtered)
Sulphate (as SO4)
Total Dissolved Solids
Alkalinity (speciated)
Alkali Metals
Chromium Reducible Sulfur Suite
Moisture Set
Sample Detail
Melbourne Laboratory - NATA Site # 1254 & 14271 X X X X X X X X X X X
Sydney Laboratory - NATA Site # 18217
Brisbane Laboratory - NATA Site # 20794 X X
Perth Laboratory - NATA Site # 23736
0.75)
14 BH 4 (1.75- Feb 28, 2018 Soil B18-Ma02718 X X
2.0)
15 BH 4 (2.75- Feb 28, 2018 Soil B18-Ma02719 X X
3.0)
16 BH 4 (3.75- Feb 28, 2018 Soil B18-Ma02720 X X
4.0)
17 BH 2 Feb 28, 2018 Water B18-Ma02890 X X X X X X X X X X X
Test Counts 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16 16
Eurofins | mgt 1/21 Smallwood Place, Murarrie, QLD, Australia, 4172 Page 7 of 10
Date Reported:Mar 09, 2018 ABN : 50 005 085 521 Telephone: +61 7 3902 4600 Report Number: 587530-S
Page 33
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 SRA.
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.
For VOCs containing vinyl chloride, styrene and 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether the holding time is 7 days however for all other VOCs such as BTEX or C6-10 TRH then the holding time is 14 days.
**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: Mar 09, 2018 ABN : 50 005 085 521 Telephone: +61 7 3902 4600 Report Number: 587530-S
Page 34
Quality Control Results
Acceptance Pass Qualifying
Test Units Result 1 Limits Limits Code
LCS - % Recovery
Chromium Suite
Chromium Reducible Sulfur % 111 70-130 Pass
Acid Neutralising Capacity (ANCbt) % 97 70-130 Pass
QA Acceptance Pass Qualifying
Test Lab Sample ID Units Result 1
Source Limits Limits Code
Duplicate
Result 1 Result 2 RPD
% Moisture B18-Ma02705 CP % 9.2 9.1 1.0 30% Pass
Duplicate
Chromium Suite Result 1 Result 2 RPD
pH-KCL B18-Ma02714 CP pH Units 5.5 5.5 <1 30% Pass
Acid trail - Titratable Actual Acidity B18-Ma02714 CP mol H+/t <2 <2 <1 30% Pass
sulfidic - TAA equiv. S% pyrite B18-Ma02714 CP % pyrite S < 0.02 < 0.02 <1 30% Pass
Chromium Reducible Sulfur B18-Ma02714 CP %S 0.067 0.068 1.0 30% Pass
Chromium Reducible Sulfur -acidity
units B18-Ma02714 CP mol H+/t 42 42 1.0 30% Pass
Sulfur - KCl Extractable B18-Ma02714 CP %S n/a n/a n/a 30% Pass
HCl Extractable Sulfur B18-Ma02714 CP %S n/a n/a n/a 30% Pass
Net Acid soluble sulfur B18-Ma02714 CP %S n/a n/a n/a 30% Pass
Net Acid soluble sulfur - acidity
units B18-Ma02714 CP mol H+/t n/a n/a n/a 30% Pass
Net Acid soluble sulfur - equivalent
S% pyrite B18-Ma02714 CP %S n/a n/a n/a 30% Pass
Acid Neutralising Capacity (ANCbt) B18-Ma02714 CP %CaCO3 n/a n/a n/a 30% Pass
Acid Neutralising Capacity -
equivalent S% pyrite (s-ANCbt) B18-Ma02714 CP %S n/a n/a n/a 30% Pass
ANC Fineness Factor B18-Ma02714 CP factor 1.5 1.5 <1 30% Pass
CRS Suite - Net Acidity (Sulfur
Units) B18-Ma02714 CP %S 0.07 0.07 n/a 30% Pass
CRS Suite - Net Acidity (Acidity
Units) B18-Ma02714 CP mol H+/t 42 42 n/a 30% Pass
CRS Suite - Liming Rate B18-Ma02714 CP kg CaCO3/t 3.1 3.2 1.0 30% Pass
Duplicate
Result 1 Result 2 RPD
% Moisture B18-Ma02715 CP % 19 19 2.0 30% Pass
Eurofins | mgt 1/21 Smallwood Place, Murarrie, QLD, Australia, 4172 Page 9 of 10
Date Reported: Mar 09, 2018 ABN : 50 005 085 521 Telephone: +61 7 3902 4600 Report Number: 587530-S
Page 35
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
Comments
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
Authorised By
Ryan Gilbert Analytical Services Manager
Myles Clark Senior Analyst-Metal (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: Mar 09, 2018 ABN : 50 005 085 521 Telephone: +61 7 3902 4600 Report Number: 587530-S
Page 36
Certificate of Analysis
NATA Accredited
Accreditation Number 1261
Core Consultants Pty Ltd Site Number 1254
55 Kingford Smith Parade Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 – Testing
The results of the tests, calibrations and/or
Maroochydore measurements included in this document are traceable
to Australian/national standards.
QLD 4558
Attention: Walter Mastenbroek
Report 587822-W
Project name TOD - ASSMP & GI - MARY ST NOOSAVILLE
Project ID J000605
Received Date Mar 02, 2018
Client Sample ID BH 2
Sample Matrix Water
Eurofins | mgt Sample No. M18-Ma05015
Date Sampled Feb 28, 2018
Test/Reference LOR Unit
Acidity (as CaCO3) 10 mg/L 160
Chloride 1 mg/L 47
Sulphate (as SO4) 5 mg/L 53
Total Dissolved Solids 10 mg/L 2500
Alkalinity (speciated)
Bicarbonate Alkalinity (as CaCO3) 20 mg/L 67
Carbonate Alkalinity (as CaCO3) 10 mg/L < 10
Hydroxide Alkalinity (as CaCO3) 10 mg/L < 10
Total Alkalinity (as CaCO3) 20 mg/L 67
Heavy Metals
Aluminium 0.05 mg/L 130
Aluminium (filtered) 0.05 mg/L 0.06
Iron 0.05 mg/L 73
Iron (filtered) 0.05 mg/L 0.06
Manganese (filtered) 0.005 mg/L 0.065
Alkali Metals
Calcium 0.5 mg/L 20
Magnesium 0.5 mg/L 8.7
Potassium 0.5 mg/L 6.1
Sodium 0.5 mg/L 33
Eurofins | mgt 2-5 Kingston Town Close, Oakleigh, Victoria, Australia, 3166 Page 1 of 7
Date Reported: Mar 09, 2018 ABN : 50 005 085 521 Telephone: +61 3 8564 5000 Report Number: 587822-W
Page 37
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
Acidity (as CaCO3) Melbourne Mar 06, 2018 14 Day
- Method: LTM-INO-4210 Acidity
Chloride Melbourne Mar 06, 2018 28 Day
- Method: LTM-INO-4090 Chloride by Discrete Analyser
Sulphate (as SO4) Melbourne Mar 06, 2018 28 Day
- Method: LTM-INO-4110 Sulfate by Discrete Analyser
Total Dissolved Solids Melbourne Mar 06, 2018 7 Day
- Method: LTM-INO-4170 Total Dissolved Solids in Water
Alkalinity (speciated) Melbourne Mar 06, 2018 14 Day
- Method: APHA 2320 Alkalinity by Titration
Heavy Metals Melbourne Mar 07, 2018 180 Day
- Method: LTM-MET-3040 Metals in Waters by ICP-MS
Heavy Metals (filtered) Melbourne Mar 07, 2018 180 Day
- Method: LTM-MET-3040 Metals in Waters by ICP-MS
Alkali Metals Melbourne Mar 06, 2018 180 Day
- Method: USEPA 6010 Alkali Metals
Eurofins | mgt 2-5 Kingston Town Close, Oakleigh, Victoria, Australia, 3166 Page 2 of 7
Date Reported: Mar 09, 2018 ABN : 50 005 085 521 Telephone: +61 3 8564 5000 Report Number: 587822-W
The text continues on page 38.