Council archive · source document
Acid Sulfate Management Plan · MCU16/0103
Plans and drawings: the text below has words only, no drawings.
26/10/2016
Environmental Services –
Acid Sulfate Soil Investigation &
Our Ref: Management
4956 New Duplex Development
109 Gympie Terrace, Noosaville
Client: Dee Williams
Future-Plus Environmental Sunshine Coast (SQ)
PO Box 1250 Buddina QLD
Future-Plus Environmental Brisbane (Bris)
93 Merthyr Road, New Farm
p: 07 5357 9169 e: [email protected] i
PO Box 1250, Buddina Q 4575
f: 07 3102 9399 www.future-plus.com.au ABN 23 658 506 336
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalFull text of the other 56 pages
Page 2
FPE Ref: 4956-161019-1.0
DOCUMENT CONTROL INFORMATION
File Number: 4956-161019-1.0
Project Manager: Michael Baynes
Client: Dee Williams
Project Title: Acid Sulphate Soil Investigation, Noosaville.
Project Authors: Paul Wood, Kaine Pritchard, Michael Baynes
Project Summary: Acid Sulphate Soil Investigation and Management Plan and Groundwater
Investigation
Document Review
Document Reviewed and
Document Version Author
Status Approved By
4956-161019-0.1 Draft KP, MB Paul Wood
4956-161019-1.0 Final KP, MB Paul Wood
Issue Approval
Destination Document Version Date Dispatched
Client Copy - Digital 4956-161019-0.1 25 October 2016
Client Copy - Digital 4956-161019-1.0 26 October 2016
October 2016 Acid Sulfate Soil Investigation Report ii
New Duplex, Noosaville
Page 3
FPE Ref: 4956-161019-1.0
NOTICE TO USERS OF THIS REPORT
Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of private study, research, criticism, or review as
permitted under the Copyright Act, no part of this report, its attachments or appendices may be
reproduced by any process without the written consent of Future-Plus Environmental (“FPE”). All
enquiries should be directed to FPE.
We have prepared this report for the sole purposes of Dee Williams (“Client”) for the specific
purpose only for which it is supplied. This report is strictly limited to the Purpose and the facts and
matters stated in it and does not apply directly or indirectly and will not be used for any other
application, purpose, use or matter.
In preparing this report we have made certain assumptions. We have assumed that all
information and documents provided to us by the Client or as a result of a specific request or
enquiry were complete, accurate and up-to-date. Where we have obtained information from a
government register or database, we have assumed that the information is accurate. Where an
assumption has been made, we have not made any independent investigations with respect to
the matters the subject of that assumption. We are not aware of any reason why any of the
assumptions are incorrect.
This report is presented without the assumption of a duty of care to any other person (other than
the Client) (“Third Party”). The report may not contain sufficient information for the purposes of a
Third Party or for other uses. Without the prior written consent of FPE:
a) this report may not be relied on by a Third Party; and
b) FPE will not be liable to a Third Party for any loss, damage, liability or claim arising out of
or incidental to a Third Party publishing, using or relying on the facts, content, opinions or
subject matter contained in this report.
If a Third Party uses or relies on the facts, content, opinions or subject matter contained in this
report with or without the consent of FPE, FPE disclaims all risk and the Third Party assumes all
risk and releases and indemnifies and agrees to keep indemnified FPE from any loss, damage,
claim or liability arising directly or indirectly from the use of or reliance on this report.
In this note, a reference to loss and damage includes past and prospective economic loss, loss of
profits, damage to property, injury to any person (including death) costs and expenses incurred in
taking measures to prevent, mitigate or rectify any harm, loss of opportunity, legal costs,
compensation, interest and any other direct, indirect, consequential or financial or other loss.
Signed on behalf of Date: 26th October 2016
Future-Plus Environmental
Paul Wood
Director
October 2016 Acid Sulfate Soil Investigation Report iii
New Duplex, Noosaville
Page 4
FPE Ref: 4956-161019-1.0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 ACID SULFATE SOILS ............................................................................................................................ 2
Actual Acid Sulfate Soils (AASS): ......................................................................................................... 3
Potential Acid Sulfate Soils (PASS): ..................................................................................................... 3
1.3 THE INVESTIGATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 3
1.4 REPORT OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................................... 3
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................. 5
2.1 GENERAL .............................................................................................................................................. 5
2.2 TOPOGRAPHY & HYDROLOGY .............................................................................................................. 5
2.3 GROUNDWATER.................................................................................................................................... 5
2.4 VEGETATION ......................................................................................................................................... 5
2.5 GEOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................. 6
2.6 SOILS .................................................................................................................................................... 6
2.7 ACID SULFATE SOIL MAPPING .............................................................................................................. 7
3.0 SAMPLING METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................... 8
3.1 GENERAL .............................................................................................................................................. 8
3.2 SAMPLING LOCATIONS & METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................... 8
3.3 FIELD PH TESTING................................................................................................................................. 8
3.4 LABORATORY ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................... 9
4.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY ANALYSIS ..................................................................................10
4.1 GENERAL .............................................................................................................................................10
5.0 RESULTS .................................................................................................................................11
5.1 PH FIELD AND PH FOX RESULTS .........................................................................................................11
5.2 SCR RESULTS .......................................................................................................................................12
6.0 GROUNDWATER INVESTIGATION ........................................................................................13
6.1 OVERVIEW ...........................................................................................................................................13
6.2 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING .................................................................................................................13
6.3 GOUNDWATER SAMPLING METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................13
6.4 GOUNDWATER RESULTS .....................................................................................................................14
6.5 GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ..........................................................................................................15
8.0 SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATIONS...........................................................................................16
8.1 GENERAL .............................................................................................................................................16
8.2 SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATIONS AND ANALYSIS RESULTS ..................................................................16
9.0 ASS MANAGEMENT PLAN .....................................................................................................17
9.1 OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................................................17
9.2 RELEVANT LEGISLATIVE AND GUIDELINE DOCUMENTATION ..............................................................17
9.3 ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................18
9.4 ASS MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS ...................................................................................................19
9.4.1 Proposed ASS and PASS Treatment/Liming Rates......................................................................19
9.4.2 Neutralisation of ASS Material ...................................................................................................19
9.4.3 Neutralising Materials ................................................................................................................20
October 2016 Acid Sulfate Soil Investigation Report iv
New Duplex, Noosaville
Page 5
FPE Ref: 4956-161019-1.0
9.4.4 Validation Sampling ....................................................................................................................21
9.5 MONITORING, MAINTANCE AND RECORDS..........................................................................................21
9.5.1 Water Monitoring ........................................................................................................................21
9.5.2 Project Monitoring ......................................................................................................................21
9.5.3 Maintenance................................................................................................................................22
9.5.4 Records .......................................................................................................................................22
9.6 RESPONSIBLE PERSONS .....................................................................................................................22
9.6.1 Project Manager / Leader of Operations ...................................................................................22
9.6.2 Project Site/General Foreman ....................................................................................................22
9.7 NON-CONFORMANCE AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS .............................................................................23
9.8 REPORTING AND REVIEW ....................................................................................................................23
10.0 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................24
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1: SITE LOCALITY PLAN
FIGURE 2: PROPOSED SITE LAYOUT PLAN
FIGURE 3: BOREHOLE AND SAMPLING LOCATION PLAN
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: SOIL PROFILE LOGS
APPENDIX B: LABORATORY RESULTS (SCR) – CARDNO BOWLER P/L
APPENDIX C: ANALYSIS REQUEST AND CHAIN OF CUSTODY, SAMPLE RECEIPT ADVICE AND ANALYSIS
RESULTS – SGS AUSTRALIA
October 2016 Acid Sulfate Soil Investigation Report v
New Duplex, Noosaville
Page 6
FPE Ref: 4956-161019-1.0
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Future-Plus Environmental (FPE) have been engaged by Dee Williams to undertake an Acid Sulfate Soils
investigation, groundwater investigation and preparation of an Acid Sulfate Soil Management Plan. The
investigation relates to the proposed new duplex development at 109 Gympie Terrace, Noosaville on Lot 5
on RP79817.
It is noted that the Acid Sulfate Soil Investigation is required in response to the request for further
information issued by Sunshine Coast Council dated 22 September 2016. The assessments and
recommendations contained in this report are based on site-specific geotechnical investigations carried out
by FPE and its project team to determine the potential for Acid Sulfate Soils (ASS) to occur onsite.
This report aims to determine the potential disturbance of Acid Sulfate Soils (ASS) as a result of the
proposed development within the subject site and propose the required management and mitigation
measures to minimise environmental risk during construction. Groundwater was encountered during the
investigation, however it is understood that no dewatering will be required for construction of the proposed
development. Thus a Dewatering Management Plan has not been provided.
1.1 BACKGROUND
The proposed development at the site involves the construction of a new double storey residential duplex
and associated facilities within an area of approximately 607m2. Based on information supplied, it is
estimated that >100 cubic meters of material will be disturbed during the proposed works, with an estimated
maximum depth of 1.0 meters below the existing surface level. It is understood that up to 1.765 meters of fill
is to be imported to the site equating to >500m3.
Developments in Queensland are subject to investigations of ASS in accordance with the State Planning
Policy – state interest guideline Water Quality (Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and
Planning, August 2016), when excavation of more than 100m3 of soil or sediment; or filling of land involving
500 cubic metres or more of material with an average depth of 0.5 metres or greater ‘at or below 5 metres
Australian Height Datum (AHD) where natural ground level is less than 20 metres AHD’ is proposed.
It is understood that the proposed development is likely to involve disturbance of >100m3 and involve filling
of >500m3 on land at or below RL5.0m AHD, therefore it is necessary that an investigation in accordance
with the State Planning Policy (August 2016) and the Queensland Sampling Guidelines undertaken.
A Site Locality Plan is included as Figure 1 and a proposed Site Layout Plan as Figure 2. A Borehole
Location Sampling Plan has been included as Figure 3.
October 2016 Acid Sulfate Soil Investigation Report 1
New Duplex, Noosaville
Page 7
FPE Ref: 4956-161019-1.0
Figure 1: Site Locality Plan1
Site Location
1.2 ACID SULFATE SOILS
Acid Sulphate Soil’s (ASS) are soils which contain iron pyrites. The pyrites oxidise when exposed to oxygen,
and when combined with water form sulphuric acid. This normally occurs when soils experience a change in
ambient conditions from anaerobic to aerobic states. The sulphuric acid has the potential at this time to
leach out of the soil and lower the pH of receiving waters. In addition to this, the contaminated water may
1 Source: Google Maps 2016
October 2016 Acid Sulfate Soil Investigation Report 2
New Duplex, Noosaville
Page 8
FPE Ref: 4956-161019-1.0
increase the heavy metal concentration of the receiving waters (increasing toxicity levels by allowing iron
and aluminium to ‘fall out’) and reduce the neutralising and buffering capacity of the receiving waters. The
result of this is the degradation of environmental conditions. The lowering of pH can also have social and
economic costs such as seriously affecting building materials and structures, and the reduction of public
amenity and safety.
ASS can either be defined as actual or potential. Actual ASS (AASS) are those soils which have previously
been oxidised, while potential ASS (PASS) pose limited threat unless disturbed or oxidised. The following
are descriptions of these, as defined by Queensland State government authorities:
Actual Acid Sulfate Soils (AASS): Soil or sediment containing highly acidic soil horizons or layers affected
by the oxidation of soil materials that are rich in iron sulphides, primarily pyrite. This oxidation produces
hydrogen ions in excess of the sediment’s capacity to neutralize the acidity, resulting in soils of pH 4 or less.
These soils can usually be identified by the presence of jarosite (a yellow coloured mineral).
Potential Acid Sulfate Soils (PASS): Soils or sediments containing iron sulphides or sulfidic material that
have not been exposed to air and oxidised. The field pH of these soils in their undisturbed state is pH 4 or
more, and may be neutral or slightly alkaline.
Projects involving the disturbance of ASS must assess the risks associated with disturbance through the
consideration of both on and off-site impacts. A thorough ASS investigation (in compliance with the
Sampling Guidelines) is an essential component of risk assessment. Such an investigation is needed to
provide information on the environmental setting, location of and depth to ASS, existing and potential acidity
present in the soil, and soil characteristics. The results from the investigation determine the most
appropriate management strategy for the site.
1.3 THE INVESTIGATIONS
The investigation must aim to include the following information and techniques where possible;
The approximate location of each borehole;
Description of the vertical dimensions of the borehole relative to surface AHD;
Occurrence of any groundwater;
A brief description of the equipment and/or methods used to retrieve the samples;
A field description for each soil profile including soil texture, colour, mottling and other diagnostic
features (e.g. jarosite, shell);
Results from field soil tests (field pH (pHF), pH after oxidation with hydrogen peroxide (pHFOX) and
reaction with peroxide at 0.25m vertical intervals to the base of the soil profile; and
Collect samples at 0.25m intervals down the soil profile e.g. surface, 0–0.25m, 0.25–0.5m etc.,
ensuring each horizon is sampled. Samples collected to extend 1m past the deepest excavation
point.
1.4 REPORT OBJECTIVES
This report seeks to address issues relating to ASS in accordance with the State Planning Policy—state
interest guideline Water Quality Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning August
October 2016 Acid Sulfate Soil Investigation Report 3
New Duplex, Noosaville
Page 9
FPE Ref: 4956-161019-1.0
2016, and to demonstrate that the proposed development complies with these requirements. The report
includes the following information:
The outcomes of a desk-top study to determine the likelihood of ASS occurring on the subject land;
A detailed sampling methodology designed to confirm the presence or absence of actual acid
sulfate soils (AASS) and/or potential acid sulfate soils (PASS) on the subject land, including soil
investigations, field testing and laboratory testing;
Analysis of any collected groundwater and depth of occurrence;
A summary and evaluation of the results of the sampling program, including recommendations for
further testing; and
Specific management requirements to be undertaken during construction.
The assessment has been conducted in general accordance with State Planning Policy (DILGP 2016) and
the Department of Natural Resources & Mines’ Guidelines for Sampling and Analysis of Lowland Acid
Sulfate Soils (ASS) in Queensland 1998 (QASSIT, 1998).
October 2016 Acid Sulfate Soil Investigation Report 4
New Duplex, Noosaville
Page 10
FPE Ref: 4956-161019-1.0
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
2.1 GENERAL
The proposed development is located at Gympie Terrace, Noosaville on land described as Lot 5 on
RP79817 and encompasses a total area of approximately 607m2.
The site is bounded by Gympie Terrace to the North, residential properties to the East and West and a
commercial operation to the south. The proposed development involves the construction of a new double
storey residential duplex building. The current site is now vacant following demolition of a previous building.
Photo Plate 1: View of the subject site (Looking South from Gympie Terrace).
2.2 TOPOGRAPHY & HYDROLOGY
The topography of the site is generally described as near level with the surface water runoff from the site to
discharge into the kerb and channel to the north of the site. The site in its current form is a low point
compared to surrounding areas and surface water would flow to the site from adjacent properties to the east
south and west.
2.3 GROUNDWATER
Seepage was encountered at a depth of approximately 1.3m bgl within the boreholes and groundwater
measured at 0.83m bgl within a piezo installed during the recent site investigations.
2.4 VEGETATION
The majority of the site comprises exposed soil with grass patches in some areas. Several trees are present
along the property boundary.
October 2016 Acid Sulfate Soil Investigation Report 5
New Duplex, Noosaville
Page 11
FPE Ref: 4956-161019-1.0
2.5 GEOLOGY
The 1:100,000 Detailed surface geology extent (MinesOnlineMaps) indicates that the site is mapped as
Qpe, which is underlain by Quaternary (Pleistocene) age miscellaneous unconsolidated sediments,
estuarine channels and banks of sandy mud, muddy sand and gravel. An extract of the above geological
map is shown below:
Mapping Extract:100,000 Detailed surface geology extent (MinesOnlineMaps)
2.6 SOILS
An investigation of the soil profile was conducted under the direction of FPE on site 11 October 2016. The
soil profile logs were recorded at two locations across the site. A total of two boreholes were advanced in
the vicinity of the proposed development works. A copy of the soil profile logs has been provided as
Appendix A of this report.
The soil profile in boreholes excavated was generally consistent throughout the site with the upper soils
generally consisting of fine to coarse grained dark grey Silty Sand, with underlying layers of grey and pale
October 2016 Acid Sulfate Soil Investigation Report 6
New Duplex, Noosaville
Page 12
FPE Ref: 4956-161019-1.0
grey Silty Sand. Dark grey indurated Silty Sand was encountered in BH2 at 1.9m bgl. Seepage was
encountered at approximately 1.3m bgl in both boreholes.
2.7 ACID SULFATE SOIL MAPPING
The entire site is identified as an area mapped as ‘High Potential Acid Sulfate Soil Area 0-5m AHD’ on the
Noosa Plan Noosaville Natural Hazard: Bushfire and Acid Sulfate Soils Overlay Map OM8.4 (refer mapping
extract below).
Mapping Extract – Sunshine Coast Regional Council Planning Scheme Acid Sulfate Soil Overlay
General locality
of the site
October 2016 Acid Sulfate Soil Investigation Report 7
New Duplex, Noosaville
Page 13
FPE Ref: 4956-161019-1.0
3.0 SAMPLING METHODOLOGY
3.1 GENERAL
Excavations associated with the subject development are understood not to extend 1.0m below the existing
surface level.
For the purposes of this assessment, two boreholes were completed to a maximum depth of 2.0m in the
vicinity of the subject allotment.
The volume of excavation resulting from the proposed development works at the site is anticipated to be
greater than 100m3 at or below RL5.0m. Given the scale of the development, and proposed excavations
and filling below 5m AHD, an ASS investigation was considered necessary, and has been undertaken in
general accordance with Queensland Sampling Guidelines to determine whether the development will
impact on any ASS.
In accordance with the Guidelines for Sampling and Analysis of Lowland Acid Sulfate Soils in Queensland
(QASSIT, 1998), the extent of the borehole depths is considered to be of sufficient depth to identify potential
disturbance of AASS or PASS or potentially existing acidic material on site.
Based on the estimated volume of material requiring disturbance, the existing surface levels and
excavations proposed, and ASS mapping of the area it was determined that the potential to impact on any
AASS or PASS material is considered to be moderate.
A detailed site investigation and soil testing regime was undertaken to gain understanding of sub-surface
conditions and to confirm the outcomes of the desk-top study and preliminary site investigations.
3.2 SAMPLING LOCATIONS & METHODOLOGY
A total of two boreholes to maximum depth of 2.0m were advanced to generally satisfy the relevant
requirements.
Boreholes were advanced using a 4WD mounted solid flight auger at the approximate locations shown in
the Borehole Location Plan included as Figure 3 of this report.
Soil samples were collected at 0.25m intervals for the full extent in all boreholes.
3.3 FIELD PH TESTING
Field pH testing was undertaken for all samples collected. Testing included initial field pH tests (pHF), after
the addition of distilled water, to determine the presence of AASS, followed by field peroxide pH testing
(pHFOX) conducted after the addition of 30% hydrogen peroxide solution to test for sulfides or PASS.
pHF: A result of pH <4 indicates oxidation has occurred in the past and that AASS is present.
October 2016 Acid Sulfate Soil Investigation Report 8
New Duplex, Noosaville
Page 14
FPE Ref: 4956-161019-1.0
pHFOX: A result of pH <3, plus a pHFOX reading >2 pH units below the pHF, plus a strong reaction
with peroxide, strongly indicates the presence of PASS.
The results of field pH testing were then compared to the relevant criteria for interpreting field test results
specified in the above mentioned Guidelines to determine the presence of ASS. These criteria generally
relate to the reaction of soils to hydrogen peroxide, the pH of soils after oxidation and the difference
between pH before and after oxidation.
3.4 LABORATORY ANALYSIS
On the basis of field pH results selected samples of high reactivity and low pH were forwarded to the
laboratory for further analysis. All of these samples were analysed using the S CR methodology (Reducible
Chromium method).
October 2016 Acid Sulfate Soil Investigation Report 9
New Duplex, Noosaville
Page 15
FPE Ref: 4956-161019-1.0
4.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY ANALYSIS
4.1 GENERAL
The results of the acid sulfate field tests, including reaction responses to hydrogen peroxide, field pH and pH
results following oxidation are provided in Table 2 of this report.
The results of the preliminary field tests were used to determine if selected samples need to be subjected to
more rigorous analytical testing using the Chromium Suite (SCR) method. It is important to note that whilst a
useful exploratory tool, soil field pH tests are indicative only and cannot be used as a substitute for
laboratory analysis to determine the presence of ASS. Laboratory analysis is needed to quantify the amount
of existing plus potential acidity. A total of sixteen SCR tests were deemed necessary to ensure that a variety
of soil depths and locations could be analysed.
Samples were submitted to Cardno Bowler for SCR testing in general accordance with the QASSIT
Guidelines. All samples taken were preserved using ice and sent for analysis within the applicable holding
times.
Net acidity values of soils above which action must be taken to prevent environmental harm due to potential
release of acidic leachate are given below in the following table.
Table 1: Action Criteria for soils (if 1-1000 tonnes disturbed) by texture categories
(from Dear et al., (2002) Soil Management Guidelines)
Texture Texture Range Approx. Action Level Action Level
Category (McDonald et al. 1990) Clay Content (Net Acidity- (Net Acidity-
(<0.002mm) %S) mol H+/tonne)
Coarse Sands to Loamy Sands <5% 0.03 18
Medium Sandy Loams to light clays 5-40% 0.06 36
Medium to heavy clays and
Fine >40% 0.1 62
silty clays
October 2016 Acid Sulfate Soil Investigation Report 10
New Duplex, Noosaville
Page 16
FPE Ref: 4956-161019-1.0
5.0 RESULTS
5.1 PH FIELD AND PH FOX RESULTS
The results of the field testing have been shown below in Table 2.
Table 2: Results of Field pHF and pHFOX Analysis
The field test pHF results indicate of all the 16 samples tested no pH values were below 4.0 that would
usually indicate the presence of Actual Acid Sulfate Soils (AASS).
Within the site locations, a minimum pHF value of 7.05 and maximum of 8.02 was detected over all the 16
samples tested.
In relation to the field test pHfox results, 11 samples were found to have a pH below the pHFOX 3 trigger
value. These were noted in BH1 at depths at or below 1.0m and in BH2 from surface down to 1.5m depth.
All 16 samples displayed a drop of >2pH units.
It was noted that of the 16 samples tested, 11 were shown to experience a very vigorous reaction. These
reactions occurred below 1.0m in BH1 and throughout most of the soil profile at BH2.
October 2016 Acid Sulfate Soil Investigation Report 11
New Duplex, Noosaville
Page 17
FPE Ref: 4956-161019-1.0
Of all the 16 samples tested within the scope of these works 11 samples were found to trigger the decision
making criteria (i.e. <4 pHF and <3pHFOX) for the determination of AASS / PASS. These were noted in BH1
at depths at or below 1.0m and in BH2 from surface down to 1.5m depth.
Interpretation of the field test results suggest that PASS or soil types which pose a risk of acid generation
are likely to be present on the proposed development site, but it was considered that further laboratory
analysis was required.
5.2 SCR RESULTS
Laboratory analysis was commissioned for samples to further confirm or deny the presence of AASS/PASS.
The results of the analysis have been included in Appendix B. A total of three samples were sent for
analysis, with results summarised below in Table 3.
Table 3: Laboratory Results for Selected Samples (Reducible Chromium Method)2
Recommended Liming
TAA Scr (% S) ANC Net Acidity Rate
Location
(H moI/t)
+ (%CaCO3) (Eqv. %S) (kg of lime per cubic
metre)
BH1 1.00-1.25m 0 0.404 0.37 0.325 28.7
BH2 0.25-0.50m 0 0.180 0.12 0.154 13.6
BH2 1.75-2.0m 0 0.178 0.56 0.058 5.1
The SCR results show that all samples exceeded the 0.03%S action criteria indicating the presence of PASS
material based on the laboratory analysis of the sample undertaken.
No Total Actual Acidity (TAA) results exceeded the relevant 18 H+mol/tonne action criteria indicating the
absence of ASS in the samples undertaken.
The net acidity values ranged from 0.058 to 0.325 Eqv. %S. This revealed that the net acidity values for all
three samples exceeded the relevant 0.03% net acidity action criteria.
Therefore ASS management is considered necessary for the site.
2 FPE accepts no responsibility for any loss associated with use of the calculated liming rate/s. The recommended liming rate is derived from a
mathematical equation and will need to be field validated. A placed dry density of 1.7 tonnes per cubic metres has been used in calculating liming
rate/s. RED denotes result exceed SPP Action Criteria of: >18 H+mol/tonne Sand to Loamy Sand >36 H+mol/tonne Sandy Loam to Light Clay >62
H+mol/tonne Medium to Heavy Clay and Silty Clays; and >0.03 Eqv. % S Sand to Loamy Sand, >0.06 Eqv. % S Sandy Loam to Light Clay and >0.1
Eqv. % S Medium to Heavy Clay and Silty Clays.
October 2016 Acid Sulfate Soil Investigation Report 12
New Duplex, Noosaville
Page 18
FPE Ref: 4956-161019-1.0
6.0 GROUNDWATER INVESTIGATION
6.1 OVERVIEW
Due to the presence of shallow groundwater onsite encountered during the investigation, a groundwater
investigation was considered necessary.
The groundwater investigation was undertaken to:
1. Address the potential impacts to groundwater as a result of the disturbance of AASS,
PASS or acidic soil material.
It is understood that dewatering of groundwater will not be required for construction of the proposed
development, thus no groundwater dewatering management plan has been prepared. However, should
construction design change or dewatering is required for other reason, a dewatering plan must be prepared
prior to dewatering activities.
A regime of environmental sampling was undertaken of groundwater onsite in vicinity of the proposed
development. Details of the sampling and results are provided below.
6.2 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING
A total of one groundwater sample was collected by FPE on 11 October 2016. The sample (GW1) was
collected from Borehole 1 (BH1) from a temporary piezo installed. A groundwater standing water level
(SWL) was also recorded during the sampling. Details of the groundwater sampling location and SWL are
provided in Table 4 below.
Table 4: Summary of Groundwater Sample Identification, SWL and Locations
Sample
Description SWL (mBGS) Location
ID
Groundwater Taken from BH1, Southern end of
GW1 0.83
Monitoring Well 1 site
The groundwater sampling location is presented in the Borehole and Sampling Location Plan included in
Figure 3.
6.3 GOUNDWATER SAMPLING METHODOLOGY
All groundwater monitoring was undertaken in general accordance with the relevant statutory and legislative
requirements, guidelines and best practice methodologies.
All equipment used in monitoring was triple rinsed using CHEM-DET (laboratory grade detergent) and
distilled water prior to sampling and between sample points.
October 2016 Acid Sulfate Soil Investigation Report 13
New Duplex, Noosaville
Page 19
FPE Ref: 4956-161019-1.0
All personnel involved in the collection of monitoring data have appropriate scientific knowledge and
experience in the implementation of groundwater monitoring procedures and methods.
All groundwater based samples collected by FPE requiring laboratory analysis were appropriately preserved
and subsequently delivered in chilled and sealed containers to SGS Australia Pty Ltd (NATA accredited) for
analysis.
Monitoring of groundwater quality was undertaken in accordance with the DEHP Water Quality Sampling
Manual.
6.4 GOUNDWATER RESULTS
A summary of the groundwater quality results has been included in Table 5 below. The laboratory sample
receipt advice, chain of custody and analysis results report have been included in Appendix C.
Results of analysis are broadly summarised below;
1. A relatively neutral pH of 7.02 was recorded.
2. Dissolved Aluminium is present (19mg/L).
3. Dissolved Iron is present (48mg/L).
4. Moderate to high bicarbonate and alkalinity recorded.
October 2016 Acid Sulfate Soil Investigation Report 14
New Duplex, Noosaville
Page 20
FPE Ref: 4956-161019-1.0
Table 5: Groundwater Results
Analysis Units 4956-161019-GW1
Temperature °C 23.9
Turbidity NTU 854
In-situ TPS Water Quality Elec. Conductivity mS 3.85
Meter TDS (Salinity) ppk 2.27
pH - 7.02
Redox mV 5
Bicarbonate Alkalinity mg/L 560
Total Alkalinity mg/L 560
Chloride 750
Sulphate 180
SGS Environmental Calcium 96
Laboratory Magnesium 88
Potassium 35
Sodium 480
Iron (Dissolved) µg/L 48
Aluminium (Dissolved) µg/L 19
6.5 GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT
Groundwater was detected at 0.83m bgl during the ASS investigation, however it is understood that no
groundwater will be required to be dewatered based on the construction proposed. However, should
construction design change or dewatering is required for any other reason, a dewatering plan must be
prepared prior to dewatering activities to ensure that any groundwater dewatered during the project is
appropriately treated onsite prior to discharge.
October 2016 Acid Sulfate Soil Investigation Report 15
New Duplex, Noosaville
Page 21
FPE Ref: 4956-161019-1.0
8.0 SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATIONS
8.1 GENERAL
The investigations were carried out in general accordance with the Guidelines for Sampling and Analysis of
Lowland Acid Sulfate Soils (ASS) in Queensland (QASSIT, 1998) and the report prepared in accordance
with SPP (DIIGLP 2016).
Depths of investigations were targeted to a maximum depth of 2.0m below existing surface levels at
representative locations in vicinity of the proposed works. It is understood that the development is likely to
involve the excavation of greater than 100m3 and the filling of greater than 500m2 on land below 5m AHD.
8.2 SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATIONS AND ANALYSIS RESULTS
Field tests were undertaken to determine the reactivity of soils and the presence of AASS and PASS. These
were undertaken at 0.25m intervals to borehole termination depth with a total of 16 samples collected. The
field test pHF resulted in no samples with pH values below 4.0 indicating possible absence of Actual Acid
Sulfate Soils (AASS). The field test pHfox resulted in numerous samples having a pH below the pHFOX 3
trigger value and generally indicate the presence of PASS from the two bore holes.
Of all the 16 samples tested within the scope of these works, 11 were found to trigger the decision making
criteria (i.e. <4 pHF and <3pHFOX) for the determination of AASS / PASS.
Interpretation of the field test results suggest that PASS or soil types which pose a risk of acid generation
are likely to be present on the proposed development site, but it was considered that further laboratory
analysis was required to confirm or deny the presence of PASS. A representative selection of samples were
sent for laboratory testing (SCR testing).
Laboratory analysis confirmed that the net acidity values for the three samples within BH1 and BH2
exceeded the relevant 0.03% net acidity action criteria.
An Acid Sulfate Soil Management Plan is required for the subject site as PASS material was identified
during investigation works. An Acid Sulfate Soil Management Plan is provided in the following sections.
October 2016 Acid Sulfate Soil Investigation Report 16
New Duplex, Noosaville
Page 22
FPE Ref: 4956-161019-1.0
9.0 ASS MANAGEMENT PLAN
An ASS Management Plan (ASSMP) is required in accordance with the SPP (DILGP 2016) Guideline due to
the presence of ASS and likelihood of disturbance during construction.
Excavating soils which may be ASS, or filling that results in actual ASS being moved below the water table
or previously saturated ASS being aerated, can result in the following environmental and associated impacts
where these soils are not managed appropriately;
Oxidisation of ASS in excavated or aerated sediments, resulting in acid production and potential
release of heavy metals;
Cosmetic and structural damage to concrete and other infrastructure;
Uncontrolled run-off of acidic waters, heavy metals, and acid leaching to adjacent sensitive
environments and groundwater resources; and
Disease and mortality of flora and fauna species as a result of altered environmental conditions.
Based on the filling proposed and site investigations undertaken, proposed filling is unlikely to result in
lowering of groundwater levels recorded onsite and aeration of previously saturated ASS, nor result in ASS
being moved below the water table.
9.1 OBJECTIVES
The objectives of ASS treatment and management are to ensure that:
There is adequate treatment of ASS through validation monitoring, such that soils have sufficient
acidic naturalising capacity (ANC) measured through appropriate field soil testing and laboratory
verification;
Runoff from stockpiled soil and treatment areas is collected, tested and treated (if requiring
treatment) prior to discharge to ensure compliance with Water Quality Objectives (WQO’s)
applicable to the site;
Groundwater quality of aquifers potentially affected by disturbance and treatment of ASS are
monitored to check mitigation measures are effective in minimising likelihood of environmental
harm; and
Stormwater run-off from areas in which treated ASS soils are placed are monitored for appropriate
quality indicators to check treatment has been effective in minimising likelihood of environmental
harm.
9.2 RELEVANT LEGISLATIVE AND GUIDELINE DOCUMENTATION
This ASSMP has been completed with reference to and in general accordance with the following
documentation;
Environmental Protection Act 1994;
Environmental Protection Regulation 2008;
Queensland Acid Sulfate Soil Technical Manual — Soil Management Guidelines, Version 3.8
(Queensland Government, November 2002);
Guidelines for Sampling and Analysis of Lowland Acid Sulfate Soils in Queensland (CR Ahern, MR
Ahern and B Powel, October 1998).
October 2016 Acid Sulfate Soil Investigation Report 17
New Duplex, Noosaville
Page 23
FPE Ref: 4956-161019-1.0
Instructions for the Treatment and Management of Acid Sulfate Soils (Queensland Government,
July 2001);
Acid Sulfate Soils Management Plans for Queensland (Dear et al, June 2000); and
State Planning Policy – state interest guideline Water Quality (Department of Infrastructure, Local
Government and Planning, August 2016),
The Queensland Acid Sulfate Soil Technical Manual – Soil Management Guidelines Version 3.8 suggest the
adoption of eight (8) Management Principles associated with ASS which include;
The disturbance of ASS should be avoided wherever possible;
Where disturbances of ASS is unavoidable, preferred management strategies are:
o minimisation of disturbance;
o neutralisation;
o hydraulic separation of sulfides either on its own or in conjunction with excivation;
o strategic reburial (reinterment); and
o Other management measures may be considered but must not pose unacceptably high
risks.
Works should be performed in accordance with best practice environmental management;
Any associated waters potentially contaminated by ASS disturbance must be considered in this
plan;
Receiving marine, estuarine, brackish or fresh waters are not to be used as a primary means of
diluting and/or neutralising ASS or associated contaminated waters;
Management of disturbed ASS is to occur if the ASS action criteria is reached or exceeded;
Stockpiling of untreated ASS above the permanent groundwater table with (or without) containment
is not an acceptable long-term management strategy. For example, soils that are to be stockpiled,
disposed of, used as fill, placed as temporary or permanent cover on land or in waterways, sold or
exported off the treatment site or used in earth bunds, that exceed the ASS action criteria listed in
QASSIT Guidelines should be treated/managed; and
The following issues should be considered when formulating ASS environmental management
strategies:
The sensitivity and environmental values of the receiving environment, which includes the
conservation, protected or other relevant status of the receiving environment;
Whether groundwaters and/or surface waters are likely to be directly or indirectly affected;
The heterogeneity, geochemical and textural properties of soils on-site; and
The management and planning strategies of Local Government and/or State Government,
including Regional or Catchment Management Plans/Strategies and State and Regional
Coastal Management Plans.
9.3 ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The proposed development is likely to involve excavation and disturbance of greater than 100 but less than
1,000m3 of soils, and the filling of greater than 500m3 of soils at or below 5.0m AHD.
Management and treatment of ASS must be undertaken in accordance with section 9.4 below.
October 2016 Acid Sulfate Soil Investigation Report 18
New Duplex, Noosaville
Page 24
FPE Ref: 4956-161019-1.0
The transport, treatment, management and validation of ASS will be the responsibility of the contractor.
9.4 ASS MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS
Specific ASS management performance objectives, control measures and monitoring requirements have
been proposed based on the laboratory test findings. The managing contractor will be ultimately responsible
for the excavation, identification, treatment, validation, testing and management of all ASS material on the
site.
The aim of this section of the ASSMP is to provide appropriate design, management, monitoring and
corrective action measures required to minimise the potential impact on the environment caused by the
proposed works given that ASS types were noted to occur. Should environmental harm be caused or
threatened, the operator can demonstrate that all reasonable and practicable measures have been taken to
comply with relevant conditions of approval and the general environmental duty.
Appropriate regard to ASS is necessary by all operators on-site.
9.4.1 Proposed ASS and PASS Treatment/Liming Rates
A liming rate of 28.7mg/kg is required for all soil based on the laboratory pHF/SCR analysis results.
Management of both excavated and in-situ ASS are required under this section to ensure that the impacts
from disturbance of ASS are mitigated to comply with performance objectives. The most appropriate
mitigation strategy, given the nature of the proposed works, and the proximity to and sensitivity of the
receiving environment, is neutralisation.
An ASS treatment area including treatment pad, perimeter bunds and treatment basin is to be constructed
within the subject allotment. All excavated material from the site is to be taken to this area for treatment.
The Project Manager will be required to make arrangements for the designated treatment area in time prior
to commencement of works to arrange access and ensure the ASS treatment area is prepared in readiness
to accept ASS material.
9.4.2 Neutralisation of ASS Material
All excavated surfaces and cut batters that extend below existing surface levels should be coated
with fine agricultural lime (Aglime) at the rate of 5kg/m² and the lime coating should be checked
and re-limed as necessary;
An ASS treatment area is to be constructed within the subject allotment, consisting of treatment
pad, bund and treatment basin as per Queensland Acid Sulfate Soil Technical Manual, Soil
Management Guidelines (v3.8);
The base of all treatment areas, where potential ASS are to be managed, shall be treated with a
guard layer of 5kg/m2 of fine Aglime prior to the placement of any material. ASS shall also be
placed on an impervious layer (e.g. 0.3 – 0.5 mm of compacted non-ASS clay material or
October 2016 Acid Sulfate Soil Investigation Report 19
New Duplex, Noosaville
Page 25
FPE Ref: 4956-161019-1.0
equivalent). For highly permeable soils, the option of placement of an impervious layer should be
adopted;
All soils below existing surface (pre filling levels) levels to be excavated within the site shall be
subject to treatment and validation testing;
All ASS material requiring treatment must only be treated in treatment areas;
All excavation and treatment areas shall be isolated from major external catchments by perimeter
drains and/or bunds covered with an impervious layer and a layer of fine Aglime to neutralise any
leachate;
Erosion and sediment protection measures must be installed in accordance with best practice (i.e.
International Erosion Control Association or IECA) which will adequately contain runoff from all
areas of land used for treatment of ASS;
Soils shall be stockpiled for no more than 48 hours prior to neutralisation wherever possible;
Soil must be sufficiently dry before liming is commenced so that the Aglime can be thoroughly
mixed through the soil. Soil should be dried by spreading and leaving open to the atmosphere.
Drying can be accelerated by regular aeration through turning with an excavator or backhoe.
Drying should be carried out on a treatment pad within the bunded area protected from stormwater
ingress;
Treatment rates should be applied at 28.7mg/kg of Aglime and confirmed through validation
testing;
Mixing of ASS material with Aglime shall be carried out by spreading the soil in layers of not more
than 300mm thick using an agricultural spreader and disc plough, rotary hoe or similar. Care shall
be taken to ensure that mixing occurs throughout the depth of the layer prior to placement of new
material;
Following the successful treatment of the soil (as determined through the validation testing),
material can potentially be reused onsite;
Equipment used in the treatment of ASS shall be washed to prevent corrosion and transport of
ASS material off the dedicated treatment area; and
A treatment basin, of a size not less than that capable of accommodating a 24 hour storm event
with an ARI of 1 in 5 years plus sediment storage volume, shall be constructed to capture any acid
leachate and runoff from treatment areas prior to discharge.
9.4.3 Neutralising Materials
A sufficient supply of Aglime shall be kept onsite at all times for the treatment of ASS. The Aglime
should be fine ground (< 1mm) calcium carbonate (CaCO3);
Dolomitic Aglime, or magnesium-blend Aglime, materials impose environmental risks from
overdosing with the potential to damage estuarine ecosystems and should be avoided;
The supply of Aglime shall be stored in a covered and bunded area to prevent accidental release to
waters and/or deterioration of neutralising capacity;
A reasonable quantity of calcium hydroxide solution (hydrated lime) shall be kept onsite at all times
for treatment of acidic waters contained by the treatment basin/s; and
October 2016 Acid Sulfate Soil Investigation Report 20
New Duplex, Noosaville
Page 26
FPE Ref: 4956-161019-1.0
The method of application recommended for treatment is via Iterative liming3. Dosing of lime should
occur incrementally with constant verification of effectiveness using pH and alkalinity. Application
should be undertaken in accordance with relevant Guidelines including the Western Australia
Department of Environment and Conservation (July 2011) Treatment and Management of Soils
and Water in Acid Sulfate Soil Landscapes. The supply shall be stored in a covered and bunded
area to prevent accidental release to the receiving environment.
9.4.4 Validation Sampling
Validation testing shall be carried out at a minimum rate of one (1) test per 250 cubic meters under
laboratory conditions using the SCR method to determine net acidity and appropriate neutralisation
success. Additional validation samples will be required should validation test results indicate
additional lime treatment is required;
A safety factor of 1.5 shall be used when determining the quantity of Aglime to be added to
neutralise ASS. The recommended lime rates indicated above are based on a safety factor of 1.5;
Validation testing shall be carried out in accordance with the Acid Sulfate Soils Laboratory Methods
Guidelines (June 2004);
Samples for laboratory analysis will be obtained by collecting a representative composite sample
from random locations within the subject quantity of treated soil;
Treated soil shall be tested to determine compliance with target levels; and
Field pH/ SCR suite: pH >6, Net acidity < 0.03 %S.
9.5 MONITORING, MAINTANCE AND RECORDS
9.5.1 Water Monitoring
All runoff generated from the treatment area(s) shall (including de-watering activities) be contained
in a treatment basin prior to discharge to stormwater;
Daily monitoring of pH level of water in catch ponds is required to ensure levels are within the
range of pH 6.5 – 8.5. Should pH levels be below pH 6.5 sufficient hydrated lime is to be added to
correct the pH level to fall within range 6.5 – 8.5;
Prior to the discharge of treated water to stormwater, waters must comply with trigger limits listed in
ANZECC (2000); and
The water quality release limits mentioned above will also apply, as well as requirements within any
Dewatering Management Plan, to any dewatering of excavations undertaken in the project that
may release contaminants to waters or any storm water drain.
9.5.2 Project Monitoring
The Contractor shall employ a suitably qualified person during all earthwork operations to supervise and
monitor ASS treatment and management so as to comply with this ASSMP. This must include a suitably
qualified person with at least 5 years experience in assessment and treatment of acid sulfate soils to
organise the management and treatment of the soils, interpretation of monitoring results and provide advice
3 Western Australia Department of Environment and Conservation (2011) Treatment and Management of
Soils and Water in Acid Sulfate Soil Landscapes.
October 2016 Acid Sulfate Soil Investigation Report 21
New Duplex, Noosaville
Page 27
FPE Ref: 4956-161019-1.0
on such matters to the land developer and contractor, as necessary, to ensure the likelihood of causing
environmental harm is minimised.
Regular monitoring of the project area is required on a daily basis including the ASS treatment area once
ASS material is disturbed or transported to the treatment site.
9.5.3 Maintenance
All environmental protection measures are to be operated in a proper and efficient manner and maintained
in a proper and effective condition, including undertaking checks after rainfall events that may adversely
affect their effectiveness.
9.5.4 Records
A daily log of soil excavation, treatment and relocation activities shall be kept, including locations, horizons
encountered, any observations pertinent to ASS management, stockpile dates, approximate position of
treated soil placement on site, liming actions and rates, any samples taken and tested and any other
information relevant to the treatment and handling of soils and ASS considered necessary by the suitably
qualified person.
Records shall be kept of all environmental monitoring, details of any environmental incidents and
notifications, soil testing and validation testing.
9.6 RESPONSIBLE PERSONS
9.6.1 Project Manager / Leader of Operations
The Project Manager is responsible for ensuring that the above requirements are consistently
achieved and exceeded where possible;
Ensure that the appropriate arrangements and agreements are in place for the management of
ASS material;
Ensure that the appropriate materials and resources are available to implement the requirements of
ASS management;
Modify the ASS management requirements only in consultation with the Environmental Officer or
person of appropriate authority;
Respond to any complaints received regarding ASS issues; and
Ensure the Project General Foreman maintains appropriate records for submission to the Project
Superintendent.
9.6.2 Project Site/General Foreman
Implement the controls and measures detailed above;
Amend the controls and measures as required or as directed;
Manage the disturbance of ASS;
Maintenance and checking of the ASS controls implemented on the site;
Engage an appropriately qualified person to collect and report on validation samples;
Ensure that any water discharged from the treatment site or excavations complies with ANZECC
(2000) Water Quality guidelines;
October 2016 Acid Sulfate Soil Investigation Report 22
New Duplex, Noosaville
Page 28
FPE Ref: 4956-161019-1.0
Respond to incidents and advise Project Manager of action undertaken; and
Implement strategies to mitigate future issues which may arise.
9.7 NON-CONFORMANCE AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
Any disturbance of ASS material not sufficiently managed may pose an environmental risk and
trigger a non-conformance;
Waters of quality that does not meet the discharge requirements must be re-treated or disposed of
to a facility that can lawfully accept and treat the waters;
Non-conformances are to be recorded by the Project / Site Foreman;
Environmental incidents are to be recorded on the Environmental Incident Register;
Full details of any environmental incidents shall be reported to the administering authority, being
the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, including any non-compliance with water
release requirements. Any occurrences of serious or material harm must be notified under section
320 of the Environmental Protection Act 1994;
The Project Manager shall review and analyse the cause of detected non-conformance and
develop a corrective action to prevent recurrence;
Details of the non-conformance including any immediate corrective actions undertaken are to be
recorded, reviewed and accepted by the Project Manager; and
It is the responsibility of the Project Manager to immediately initiate corrective actions, if required.
The non-conformance and corrective action must include details of the action proposed and an
appropriate close out date.
9.8 REPORTING AND REVIEW
The Project Manager is to record and compile relevant reports regarding ASS and forward through
to senior management on an as directed basis. Reporting may include the volume of material
excavated, treated and reused or removed from site; and
A contractor-appointed environmental officer is required to report on validation samples and water
quality analysis on an event basis or else as required.
October 2016 Acid Sulfate Soil Investigation Report 23
New Duplex, Noosaville
Page 29
FPE Ref: 4956-161019-1.0
10.0 CONCLUSION
This ASS investigation and ASSMP is intended to ensure all works involving the disturbance of ASS onsite
as part of the construction are undertaken in such a way as to minimise any potential risks to the
environment in order to achieve effective site-based environmental management.
Groundwater was detected at 0.83m bgl during the ASS investigation, however it is understood that no
groundwater will be required to be dewatered based on the construction proposed. Should construction
design change or dewatering is required for any other reason, the dewatering methodology would need to
be developed within a dewatering plan. The Dewatering Management Plan would ensure that any
groundwater dewatered during the project is appropriately treated prior to discharge to meet water quality
objectives and minimise impact on the receiving environment.
October 2016 Acid Sulfate Soil Investigation Report 24
New Duplex, Noosaville
Page 30
FPE Ref: 4956-161019-1.0
FIGURE 1
SITE LOCALITY PLAN
(REFER PAGE 2)
October 2016 Acid Sulfate Soil Investigation Report 25
New Duplex, Noosaville
Page 31
FPE Ref: 4956-161019-1.0
FIGURE 2
PROPOSED SITE LAYOUT PLAN
October 2016 Acid Sulfate Soil Investigation Report 26
New Duplex, Noosaville
Page 32
RETAINING WALL UNDER
TIMBER FNECE
RETAINING WALL UNDER
Foor PATH
TIMBER FNECE
BIN ENCLOSURE,
RE-BUILD CUTTER TO COUNCIL REQUIREMENTS.
‘WASH DOWN,
REMOVE EXISTING CROSSOVER
\P>POWER POLE
AYO
‘AN
nN
SLIDING GATE
SED
EWAN
ROP
AP SRM
Rendered
Building
&
f
2 3
5 ee 2
ig 4 3 3
aa Sz eg 2
38 88 gz 83
ge ae os ss
3 25 2a
eg rf zy ea
3 3
33
83
fo
SITE PLAN
DA
GENERAL NOTES: , UENT Nawe: Deirdre Wiliams & Maurice Farrell
Bowker:
ae
Use written dimensions only. BO NOT scale drawings. Contractors to verity all
dimensions and levels on site prior to commencing works and shop drawings
Site location is Category N3 or to engineer's requirements.
These drawings are to be read in conjunction with engineer's design and details,
the accompanying building specification and schedule of finishes.
If in doubt, please request clarification. DO NOT ASSUME.
Site Plan
SITE ADDRESS: 109 Gympie Terrace, Noosaville
Issue: ATE: 02/08/2016
DATE: May 2016
sce 12200 | sheersize: AZ
DRAWING No:
Page 33
FPE Ref: 4956-161019-1.0
FIGURE 3
BOREHOLE AND SAMPLE LOCATION PLAN
October 2016 Acid Sulfate Soil Investigation Report 27
New Duplex, Noosaville
Page 34
BOREHOLE AND SAMPLE LOCATION PLAN
LEGEND:
Location: 109 Gympie Terrace, Noosaville
Borehole Monitoring Location
FPE Reference Number: 4956-161026-1.0 Client: Dee Williams Scale: Not to Scale
Page 35
FPE Ref: 4956-161019-1.0
APPENDIX A
SOIL PROFILE LOGS
October 2016 Acid Sulfate Soil Investigation Report 28
New Duplex, Noosaville
Page 36
Australian Soil Investigations LOG SECTIONS Ref No. 160163
Client: Future-Plus Environmental
Location: 109 Gympie Terrace, Noosaville.
Date: 11/10/16
(House Site)
Depth TEST SITE No 1 P Depth TEST SITE No 2 P
100 Silty Sand SM 100 Silty Sand SM
200 Fine to coarse grained 200 Fine to coarse grained
300 Dark grey, roots, moist 300 Dark grey, roots, moist
Moderate structure. Moderate structure.
400 Silty Sand SM 400 Silty Sand SM
500 Fine to coarse grained 500 Fine to coarse grained
600 Grey, moist, massive. 600 Grey, moist, massive.
700 Silty Sand SM 700 Silty Sand SM
800 Fine to coarse grained 800 Fine to coarse grained
900 Pale grey, moist, massive. 900 Pale grey, moist, massive.
1000 1000
1100 1100
1200 1200
1300 Silty Sand SM 1300 Silty Sand SM
1400 Fine to coarse grained 1400 Fine to coarse grained
1500 Grey, moist (Seepage) 1500 Grey, moist (Seepage)
1600 Massive, med dense. 1600 Massive, med dense.
1700 (Shells) 1700
1800 1800
1900 1900 Silty Sand SM
2000 End 2000 Fine to coarse grained
Dark grey (Indurated)
Very moist, dense.
2100 Water in hole 2100 End
2200 2200 Water in hole
2300 2300
2400 2400
2500 2500
2600 2600
2700 2700
2800 2800
2900 2900
3000 3000
3100 3100
Depth = mm below ground level.
P = blows per 100mm penetration with an approved 9kg penetrometer.
Notation such as (SP) refers to the soil description to Table A1 AS1726 ‘Guide to the description
identification and classification of soils’.
Solid lines represent sharp interface between different soil types. Dotted lines represent
gradation form one soil type to another.
Abbreviations used
UTP - unable to penetrate, Bec. – becoming, N.S.L. – Natural Surface Level
Med. – medium, MW - Moderately weathered
EW - extremely weathered, Plast. - Plasticity
No recovery means unable to extract samples from the base of the bore hole because the soil
will not bind in the auger head.
The colour of the soil is often abbreviated, for example Gy = grey Or = orange.
Page 37
FPE Ref: 4956-161019-1.0
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY RESULTS (SCR) SOIL
October 2016 Acid Sulfate Soil Investigation Report 29
New Duplex, Noosaville
Page 38
> Cardno Shaping the Future CHROMIUM SUITE TEST REPORT Cardno Construction Sciences Pty Ltd ABN: 74 128 806 735 Address: 32 Hi-Tech Drive Kunda Park Qid 4556 Telephone: (07) 5452 0100 Email: [email protected] Facsimile: (07) 5452 0133 Website: www.cardno.com.au Client: Future Plus Environmental Report Number: 3740/S/67762CRS Client Address: PO Box 1250, Buddina Qld 4575 Project No: 3740/P/1155 Project: Noosaville ASS Lot Number: - Sub Project: - Internal Test Request: 3740/T/14043 Location: Supplied Sample Client Reference: 4956 Component: - Purchase Order No: - Area Description: = - Date Sampled: 11/10/2016 Sampled by: Client Date Tested: 14/10/2016 Sampling Method: Tested as Received Report Date: 14/10/2016 Test Procedures: AS 4969.0, .1, .2, .4, .7, 8, 14, .13, 14 Laboratory Number Sample Location PHxci TAA TAA Skei Scr Swas ANCg; ANC; Net Acidity | Net Acidity | Recommended Liming Rate units; - (molt) (%s) (%s)* (8) (%S8) (%Caco,)* (ms)* (H*motlt) (%8) (kg of lime per cubic metre) Lor| 0.1 1 0.001 0.007 0.02 0.001 0.01 0.01 1 0.001 oa 3740/S/67762 4956-161011-BH1-1.25 6.8 0 0.000 0.011 | 0.404 nr. 0.37 0.12 203 0.325 28.7 3740/S/67767 4956-161011-BH2-0.50 6.6 0 0.000 <0.007 | 0.180 nr. 0.12 0.04 96 0.154 13.6 3740/S/67773 4956-161011-BH2-2.00 7.4 0 0.000 <0.007_| 0.178 nr. 0.56 0.18 36 0.058 5.1 Blank 6.2 18 0.003 Notes: The results of the tests, calibrations and/or measurements included in this document are traceable to Australian/national standards. nr: not required, pH trigger not met. LOR: Limit of Reporting if PHxc; <6.5 it must be assumed that effective ANC is zero. Effective ANC is ANC,;/Fineness Factor of 1.5. * Sc) determined as sulfate by turbidimetric method. Where liming is specified, lime should be fine grained agricultural lime of at least 90% purity. Any liming rate provided is a recommended rate only, and is based on the total of TAA Equivalent % Oxidisable Sulphur plus Potential Acidity (S,,) plus Retained Acidity (Sys) minus effective ANC; with a factor of safety of 1.5. Any recommended liming rate is based on the 0.03%S action criteria. A placed dry density of 1.7 tonnes/cubic metre has been used in calculating liming rate/s. The recommended liming rate is derived from a mathematical equation and will need to be field validated. Cardno accepts no responsibility for any loss associated with use of the calculated liming rate/s. The test results contained within this report relate only to the samples as they were received. aN ATA Ww op, | APPROVED SIGNATORY: Paul Mayes Form Number: REP CRS 27/07/201! 6 Revision 9 Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 Accreditation No. 1986 Corporate Site Number: 3740
Page 39
FPE Ref: 4956-161019-1.0
APPENDIX C
GROUNDWATER ANALYSIS REQUEST AND CHAIN OF CUSTODY, SAMPLE RECEIPT ADVICE AND ANALYSIS
RESULTS – SGS AUSTRALIA
October 2016 Acid Sulfate Soil Investigation Report 30
New Duplex, Noosaville
Page 40
‘ourca: MFP_M630_SR.10132016231756. pif papa: 12 SGS Rat BEO1S333_COC
Revision #: 1
Request for Laboratory Services and Chain of Custody Form
LIMS No:
FPE
Laboretpey Geawon
Receved date: 12> 1O- 1G Recsvedby Ad+ GIG — cooing Method: BL Cant Cone Samplesiniact, Kee Oe
Logged-in Date: Time of Receipt je Cooler Sealed © Ks Che Cm Temperature: Clone (Oybat
COD must pay via cheque or credit card before analysis is commenced, AMEX & DINERS cards incur a §% surcharge
Name: Kaine Pritchard —
g [Company Future-Plus Environmental ape tea pwaerarey as De Do
™ "
wy Address: PO Box 1250 Buddina, Q 4575 Replacement Sample Containers Required: Des Do
Q Results Required By: 4Days Urgent TA requires lab approval
= email: kanep@luture-pius com au Neer
Phone; 53579169 Fax:
[Client information PO No.: 1250, Buddina Q 4575 Project No.: 4956
‘Company Name:
Future-Plus Environmental
Contact Name:
Kaine Pritchard
|Addre
4/40 Technology Drive, WARANA
iPhone Number:
After Hours Phone Number:
6 ace. OS
Fax Number: Email: kainep@future-plus com al
Note: Results will be sent via email to an unlimited number of addresses for no additional fee. In the absence of email, fax is available upon request.
Indicate results format (please check one): Email Fax 0
SAMPLE INFORMATION
Analysis Requested
£
2 8 .
z Matrix: 2 a ich id ‘ [. os
Date Sol | tof | 8 Qo CL el
€ s + )
é Sample Identifier sampied | T™ | water |potties| 3 {
2 Other Be /
4 2a
23
os
5s
}4956-161011-GW1 11/10/2016 w 4 x
shane iar
Renshied 49 Met — on
Sampled By: Kaine Pritchard Date: 11/10/2016
Relinquished By:
KP.
Date: 11/10/2016 Time:
4:00pm
Page 1 of 1
Page 41
xs_x‘deyy ajog\ul Bo7 9 ydisday aidwes - 9Q\ONS - S@dIMAS JUAI|D\SAUG TW EquayUl \JUSWIUOIAU\:S :SJUSWILUOD RS Ee ap = sc | ‘ON aides l Sxl. SD] 7 89] “ON Gor P 125mL UP (nutrients) P 250 mL UP (Gen Chem) P 500 mL UP (Gen Chem) P 41L UP (Gen Chem) 'S[Bded/ ee P 125 mL Acid Washed (metals) P 125 mL Acid Washed (FIELD FILTERED) P 500 mL Zn(CH3COO)2 + NaOH (sulphide}* | P 125ml/250mL H2 SO4 (phenols / COD) P 250 mL WHITE NaOH (cyanide) P 250 mL WHITE UP (Algae) G 2.5 L CuSO4 (Dust) G 1L H2S04 (TOG) G 500 mL UP (organics) G100 mL UP (TOC/Organics) P 500 mL Sterile Na2S203 (bacto) >,D :dway P 200 mL Sterile Na2S203 (bacto) G 200 mL K2Cr207 (mercury) G 40 mL Na2S203 (TRH/BTEX) G 250 mL Jar UP (soil) CN A :20eds pesH Sample Matrix + ee Lab Bottles Supplied dew ajjog eueqsiig jeyuawuodAUy SOS
Page 42
SAMPLE RECEIPT ADVICE BE018333
CLIENT DETAILS LABORATORY DETAILS
Contact Kaine Pritchard Manager Matthew Goodwin
Client FUTURE-PLUS ENVIRONMENTAL Laboratory SGS Brisbane Environmental
Address PO BOX 1250 Address 59 Bancroft Road
BUDDINA QLD 4575 PINKENBA QLD 4008
Telephone 07 5450 2688 / 0404 493 811 Telephone +61 7 3622 4700
Facsimile 07 5450 2686 Facsimile +61 7 3622 4799
Email [email protected] Email [email protected]
Project Project 4956 Samples Received Thu 13/10/2016
Order Number Project 4956 Report Due Tue 18/10/2016
Samples 1 SGS Reference BE018333
SUBMISSION DETAILS
This is to confirm that 1 sample was received on Thursday 13/10/2016. Results are expected to be ready by Tuesday 18/10/2016. Please quote
SGS reference BE018333 when making enquiries. Refer below for details relating to sample integrity upon receipt.
Sample counts by matrix 1 Water Type of documentation received COC
Date documentation received 13/10/2016 Samples received in good order Yes
Samples received without headspace Yes Sample temperature upon receipt 3°C
Sample container provider SGS Turnaround time requested 4
Samples received in correct containers Yes Sufficient sample for analysis Yes
Sample cooling method Ice Bricks Samples clearly labelled Yes
Complete documentation received Yes Number of eskies/boxes received 1
Unless otherwise instructed, water and bulk samples will be held for one month from date of report, and soil samples will be held for two months.
COMMENTS
To the extent not inconsistent with the other provisions of this document and unless specifically agreed otherwise in writing by SGS, all SGS services are rendered in
accordance with the applicable SGS General Conditions of Service accessible at http://www.sgs.com/en/terms-and-conditions as at the date of this document. Attention
is drawn to the limitations of liability and to the clauses of indemnification.
SGS Australia Pty Ltd
ABN 44 000 964 278 Environment, Health and Safety 59 Bancroft Rd Pinkenba QLD 4008 Australia t +61 7 3622 4700 f +61 7 3622 4799 www.sgs.com.au
Member of the SGS Group
Page 43
SAMPLE RECEIPT ADVICE BE018333
CLIENT DETAILS
Client FUTURE-PLUS ENVIRONMENTAL Project Project 4956
SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS
Low Level Nitrate Nitrogen
and Nitrite Nitrogen (NOx)
Trace Metals (Dissolved)
Fluoride by Ion Selective
(Dissolved) by ICPOES
Chloride by Discrete
in Water by ICPMS
Electrode in Water
Analyser in Water
Sulphate in water
Metals in Water
Alkalinity
No. Sample ID
001 4956-161011-GW1 4 1 1 1 5 1 2
The above table represents SGS' interpretation of the client-supplied Chain Of Custody document.
The numbers shown in the table indicate the number of results requested in each package.
Please indicate as soon as possible should your request differ from these details .
Testing as per this table shall commence immediately unless the client intervenes with a correction .
17/10/2016 Page 2 of 2
Page 44
ANALYTICAL REPORT
CLIENT DETAILS LABORATORY DETAILS
Contact Kaine Pritchard Manager Matthew Goodwin
Client FUTURE-PLUS ENVIRONMENTAL Laboratory SGS Brisbane Environmental
Address PO BOX 1250 Address 59 Bancroft Road
BUDDINA QLD 4575 PINKENBA QLD 4008
Telephone 07 5450 2688 / 0404 493 811 Telephone +61 7 3622 4700
Facsimile 07 5450 2686 Facsimile +61 7 3622 4799
Email [email protected] Email [email protected]
Project Project 4956 SGS Reference BE018333 R0
Order Number Project 4956 Date Received 13 Oct 2016
Samples 1 Date Reported 21 Oct 2016
COMMENTS
Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025. NATA accredited laboratory 2562(20707/1706).
SIGNATORIES
Andrew Mcleod-Robertson Lexi Bryant
ICP Laboratory Supervisor Inorganic Chemist
SGS Australia Pty Ltd
ABN 44 000 964 278 Environment, Health and Safety 59 Bancroft Rd Pinkenba QLD 4008 Australia t +61 7 3622 4700 f +61 7 3622 4799 www.sgs.com.au
Member of the SGS Group
21-October-2016 Page 1 of 5
Page 45
ANALYTICAL REPORT BE018333 R0
Sample Number BE018333.001
Sample Matrix Water
Sample Date 11 Oct 2016
Sample Name 4956-161011-GW
1
Parameter Units LOR
Alkalinity Method: AN135 Tested: 13/10/2016
Bicarbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/L 5 560
Hydroxide Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/L 5 <5
Carbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/L 5 <5
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/L 5 560
Chloride by Discrete Analyser in Water Method: AN274 Tested: 17/10/2016
Chloride, Cl mg/L 1 750
Sulphate in water Method: AN275 Tested: 17/10/2016
Sulphate, SO4 mg/L 1 180
Metals in Water (Dissolved) by ICPOES Method: AN320/AN321 Tested: 18/10/2016
Calcium, Ca mg/L 0.2 96
Magnesium, Mg mg/L 0.1 88
Potassium, K mg/L 0.1 35
Sodium, Na mg/L 0.5 480
Trace Metals (Dissolved) in Water by ICPMS Method: AN318 Tested: 18/10/2016
Aluminium, Al µg/L 5 19
Iron, Fe µg/L 5 48
21-October-2016 Page 2 of 5
Page 46
BE018333 R0
QC SUMMARY
MB blank results are compared to the Limit of Reporting
LCS and MS spike recoveries are measured as the percentage of analyte recovered from the sample compared the the amount of analyte spiked into the sample.
DUP and MSD relative percent differences are measured against their original counterpart samples according to the formula : the absolute difference of the two results divided
by the average of the two results as a percentage. Where the DUP RPD is 'NA' , the results are less than the LOR and thus the RPD is not applicable.
Alkalinity Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN135
Parameter QC Units LOR MB DUP %RPD LCS
Reference %Recovery
Bicarbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 LB028678 mg/L 5 <5
Hydroxide Alkalinity as CaCO3 LB028678 mg/L 5 <5
Carbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 LB028678 mg/L 5 <5
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 LB028678 mg/L 5 <5 0 - 9% 103 - 104%
Chloride by Discrete Analyser in Water Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN274
Parameter QC Units LOR MB DUP %RPD LCS MS
Reference %Recovery %Recovery
Chloride, Cl LB028711 mg/L 1 <1 0 - 1% 102 - 104% 104 - 110%
Metals in Water (Dissolved) by ICPOES Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN320/AN321
Parameter QC Units LOR MB DUP %RPD LCS MS
Reference %Recovery %Recovery
Magnesium, Mg LB028720 mg/L 0.1 <0.1 7% 97% 107%
Potassium, K LB028720 mg/L 0.1 <0.1 1% 97% 117%
Sodium, Na LB028720 mg/L 0.5 <0.5 2% 97% 71%
Sulphate in water Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN275
Parameter QC Units LOR MB DUP %RPD LCS MS
Reference %Recovery %Recovery
Sulphate, SO4 LB028710 mg/L 1 <1 57% 103 - 104% 78 - 98%
Trace Metals (Dissolved) in Water by ICPMS Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN318
Parameter QC Units LOR MB DUP %RPD LCS
Reference %Recovery
Iron, Fe LB028721 µg/L 5 <5 4% 116%
21-October-2016 Page 3 of 5
Page 47
BE018333 R0
METHOD SUMMARY
METHOD METHODOLOGY SUMMARY
AN020 Unpreserved water sample is filtered through a 0.45µm membrane filter and acidified with nitric acid similar to
APHA3030B.
AN135 Alkalinity (and forms of) by Titration: The sample is titrated with standard acid to pH 8.3 ( P titre) and pH 4.5 (T titre)
and permanent and/or total alkalinity calculated. The results are expressed as equivalents of calcium carbonate or
recalculated as bicarbonate, carbonate and hydroxide. Reference APHA 2320. Internal Reference AN135
AN274 Chloride by Aquakem DA: Chloride reacts with mercuric thiocyanate forming a mercuric chloride complex. In the
presence of ferric iron, highly coloured ferric thiocyanate is formed which is proportional to the chloride
concentration. Reference APHA 4500Cl-
AN275 sulfate by Aquakem DA: sulfate is precipitated in an acidic medium with barium chloride. The resulting turbidity is
measured photometrically at 405nm and compared with standard calibration solutions to determine the sulfate
concentration in the sample. Reference APHA 4500-SO42-. Internal reference AN275.
AN318 Determination of elements at trace level in waters by ICP-MS technique, in accordance with USEPA 6020A.
AN320/AN321 Metals by ICP-OES: Samples are preserved with 10% nitric acid for a wide range of metals and some non-metals.
This solution is measured by Inductively Coupled Plasma. Solutions are aspirated into an argon plasma at
8000-10000K and emit characteristic energy or light as a result of electron transitions through unique energy
levels. The emitted light is focused onto a diffraction grating where it is separated into components .
AN320/AN321 Photomultipliers or CCDs are used to measure the light intensity at specific wavelengths. This intensity is directly
proportional to concentration. Corrections are required to compensate for spectral overlap between elements.
Reference APHA 3120 B.
Calculation Free and Total Carbon Dioxide may be calculated using alkalinity forms only when the samples TDS is <500mg/L.
If TDS is >500mg/L free or total carbon dioxide cannot be reported . APHA4500CO2 D.
21-October-2016 Page 4 of 5
Page 48
BE018333 R0
FOOTNOTES
IS Insufficient sample for analysis. LOR Limit of Reporting
LNR Sample listed, but not received. ↑↓ Raised or Lowered Limit of Reporting
* NATA accreditation does not cover the QFH QC result is above the upper tolerance
performance of this service. QFL QC result is below the lower tolerance
** Indicative data, theoretical holding time exceeded. - The sample was not analysed for this analyte
NVL Not Validated
Samples analysed as received.
Solid samples expressed on a dry weight basis.
Where "Total" analyte groups are reported (for example, Total PAHs, Total OC Pesticides) the total will be calculated as the sum of the individual
analytes, with those analytes that are reported as <LOR being assumed to be zero. The summed (Total) limit of reporting is calcuated by summing
the individual analyte LORs and dividing by two. For example, where 16 individual analytes are being summed and each has an LOR of 0.1 mg/kg,
the "Totals" LOR will be 1.6 / 2 (0.8 mg/kg). Where only 2 analytes are being summed, the " Total" LOR will be the sum of those two LORs.
Some totals may not appear to add up because the total is rounded after adding up the raw values.
If reported, measurement uncertainty follow the ± sign after the analytical result and is expressed as the expanded uncertainty calculated using a
coverage factor of 2, providing a level of confidence of approximately 95%, unless stated otherwise in the comments section of this report.
Results reported for samples tested under test methods with codes starting with ARS -SOP, radionuclide or gross radioactivity concentrations are
expressed in becquerel (Bq) per unit of mass or volume or per wipe as stated on the report. Becquerel is the SI unit for activity and equals one
nuclear transformation per second.
Note that in terms of units of radioactivity:
a. 1 Bq is equivalent to 27 pCi
b. 37 MBq is equivalent to 1 mCi
For results reported for samples tested under test methods with codes starting with ARS -SOP, less than (<) values indicate the detection limit for
each radionuclide or parameter for the measurement system used. The respective detection limits have been calculated in accordance with ISO
11929.
The QC criteria are subject to internal review according to the SGS QAQC plan and may be provided on request or alternatively can be found here :
http://www.sgs.com.au/~/media/Local/Australia/Documents/ Technical%20Documents/MP-AU-ENV-QU-022%20QA%20QC%20Plan.pdf
This document is issued, on the Client's behalf, by the Company under its General Conditions of Service available on request and accessible at
http://www.sgs.com/en/terms-and-conditions. The Client's attention is drawn to the limitation of liability, indemnification and jurisdiction issues
defined therein.
Any other holder of this document is advised that information contained hereon reflects the Company 's findings at the time of its intervention only
and within the limits of Client's instructions, if any. The Company's sole responsibility is to its Client and this document does not exonerate parties to
a transaction from exercising all their rights and obligations under the transaction documents.
This report must not be reproduced, except in full.
21-October-2016 Page 5 of 5
Page 49
STATEMENT OF QA/QC BE018333 R0
PERFORMANCE
CLIENT DETAILS LABORATORY DETAILS
Contact Kaine Pritchard Manager Matthew Goodwin
Client FUTURE-PLUS ENVIRONMENTAL Laboratory SGS Brisbane Environmental
Address PO BOX 1250 Address 59 Bancroft Road
BUDDINA QLD 4575 PINKENBA QLD 4008
Telephone 07 5450 2688 / 0404 493 811 Telephone +61 7 3622 4700
Facsimile 07 5450 2686 Facsimile +61 7 3622 4799
Email [email protected] Email [email protected]
Project Project 4956 SGS Reference BE018333 R0
Order Number Project 4956 Date Received 13 Oct 2016
Samples 1 Date Reported 21 Oct 2016
COMMENTS
All the laboratory data for each environmental matrix was compared to SGS' stated Data Quality Objectives (DQO). Comments
arising from the comparison were made and are reported below.
The data relating to sampling was taken from the Chain of Custody document and was supplied by the Client.
This QA/QC Statement must be read in conjunction with the referenced Analytical Report.
The Statement and the Analytical Report must not be reproduced except in full.
All Data Quality Objectives were met with the exception of the following:
Extraction Date Alkalinity 1 item
Analysis Date Alkalinity 1 item
Duplicate Sulphate in water 1 item
SAMPLE SUMMARY
Sample counts by matrix 1 Water Type of documentation received COC
Date documentation received 13/10/2016 Samples received in good order Yes
Samples received without headspace Yes Sample temperature upon receipt 3°C
Sample container provider SGS Turnaround time requested 4
Samples received in correct containers Yes Sufficient sample for analysis Yes
Sample cooling method Ice Bricks Samples clearly labelled Yes
Complete documentation received Yes Number of eskies/boxes received 1
SGS Australia Pty Ltd
ABN 44 000 964 278 Environment, Health and Safety 59 Bancroft Rd Pinkenba QLD 4008 Australia t +61 7 3622 4700 f +61 7 3622 4799 www.sgs.com.au
Member of the SGS Group
21/10/2016 Page 1 of 9
Page 50
HOLDING TIME SUMMARY BE018333 R0
SGS holding time criteria are drawn from current regulations and are highly dependent on sample container preservation as specified in the SGS “Field Sampling Guide for
Containers and Holding Time” (ref: GU-(AU)-ENV.001). Soil samples guidelines are derived from NEPM "Schedule B(3) Guideline on Laboratory Analysis of Potentially
Contaminated Soils". Water sample guidelines are derived from "AS/NZS 5667.1 : 1998 Water Quality - sampling part 1" and APHA "Standard Methods for the Examination
of Water and Wastewater" 21st edition 2005.
Extraction and analysis holding time due dates listed are calculated from the date sampled, although holding times may be extended after laboratory extraction for some
analytes. The due dates are the suggested dates that samples may be held before extraction or analysis and still be considered valid.
Extraction and analysis dates are shown in Green when within suggested criteria or Red with an appended dagger symbol (†) when outside suggested criteria. If the sampled
date is not supplied then compliance with criteria cannot be determined. If the received date is after one or both due dates then holding time will fail by default.
Alkalinity Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN135
Sample Name Sample No. QC Ref Sampled Received Extraction Due Extracted Analysis Due Analysed
4956-161011-GW1 BE018333.001 LB028678 11 Oct 2016 13 Oct 2016 12 Oct 2016 13 Oct 2016† 12 Oct 2016 14 Oct 2016†
Chloride by Discrete Analyser in Water Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN274
Sample Name Sample No. QC Ref Sampled Received Extraction Due Extracted Analysis Due Analysed
4956-161011-GW1 BE018333.001 LB028711 11 Oct 2016 13 Oct 2016 08 Nov 2016 17 Oct 2016 08 Nov 2016 17 Oct 2016
Metals in Water (Dissolved) by ICPOES Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN320/AN321
Sample Name Sample No. QC Ref Sampled Received Extraction Due Extracted Analysis Due Analysed
4956-161011-GW1 BE018333.001 LB028720 11 Oct 2016 13 Oct 2016 09 Apr 2017 17 Oct 2016 09 Apr 2017 18 Oct 2016
Sulphate in water Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN275
Sample Name Sample No. QC Ref Sampled Received Extraction Due Extracted Analysis Due Analysed
4956-161011-GW1 BE018333.001 LB028710 11 Oct 2016 13 Oct 2016 08 Nov 2016 17 Oct 2016 08 Nov 2016 17 Oct 2016
Trace Metals (Dissolved) in Water by ICPMS Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN318
Sample Name Sample No. QC Ref Sampled Received Extraction Due Extracted Analysis Due Analysed
4956-161011-GW1 BE018333.001 LB028721 11 Oct 2016 13 Oct 2016 09 Apr 2017 17 Oct 2016 09 Apr 2017 18 Oct 2016
21/10/2016 Page 2 of 9
Page 51
SURROGATES BE018333 R0
Surrogate results are evaluated against upper and lower limit criteria established in the SGS QA /QC plan (Ref: MP-(AU)-[ENV]QU-022). At least two of three routine level soil
sample surrogate spike recoveries for BTEX /VOC are to be within 70-130% where control charts have not been developed and within the established control limits for charted
surrogates. Matrix effects may void this as an acceptance criterion. Water sample surrogate spike recoveries are to be within 40-130%. The presence of emulsions,
surfactants and particulates may void this as an acceptance criterion.
Result is shown in Green when within suggested criteria or Red with an appended reason identifer when outside suggested criteria. Refer to the footnotes section at the end
of this report for failure reasons.
No surrogates were required for this job.
21/10/2016 Page 3 of 9
Page 52
METHOD BLANKS BE018333 R0
Blank results are evaluated against the limit of reporting (LOR), for the chosen method and its associated instrumentation, typically 2.5 times the statistically determined
method detection limit (MDL).
Result is shown in Green when within suggested criteria or Red with an appended dagger symbol (†) when outside suggested criteria.
Alkalinity Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN135
Sample Number Parameter Units LOR Result
LB028678.007 Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/L 5 <5
LB028678.035 Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/L 5 <5
LB028678.063 Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/L 5 <5
Chloride by Discrete Analyser in Water Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN274
Sample Number Parameter Units LOR Result
LB028711.001 Chloride, Cl mg/L 1 <1
LB028711.025 Chloride, Cl mg/L 1 <1
LB028711.049 Chloride, Cl mg/L 1 <1
Metals in Water (Dissolved) by ICPOES Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN320/AN321
Sample Number Parameter Units LOR Result
LB028720.001 Magnesium, Mg mg/L 0.1 <0.1
Potassium, K mg/L 0.1 <0.1
Sodium, Na mg/L 0.5 <0.5
Sulphate in water Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN275
Sample Number Parameter Units LOR Result
LB028710.001 Sulphate, SO4 mg/L 1 <1
LB028710.025 Sulphate, SO4 mg/L 1 <1
Trace Metals (Dissolved) in Water by ICPMS Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN318
Sample Number Parameter Units LOR Result
LB028721.001 Iron, Fe µg/L 5 <5
21/10/2016 Page 4 of 9
Page 53
DUPLICATES BE018333 R0
Duplicates are calculated as Relative Percentage Difference (RPD) using the formula: RPD = | OriginalResult - ReplicateResult | x 100 / Mean
The RPD is evaluated against the Maximum Allowable Difference (MAD) criteria and can be graphically represented by a curve calculated from the Statistical Detection Limit
(SDL) and Limiting Repeatability (LR) using the formula: MAD = 100 x SDL / Mean + LR
Where the Maximum Allowable Difference evaluates to a number larger than 200 it is displayed as 200.
RPD is shown in Green when within suggested criteria or Red with an appended reason identifer when outside suggested criteria. Refer to the footnotes section at the end of
this report for failure reasons.
Alkalinity Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN135
Original Duplicate Parameter Units LOR Original Duplicate Criteria % RPD %
BE018339.003 LB028678.070 Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/L 5 0.0260010323 0.7869475143 200 0
BE018349.003 LB028678.071 Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/L 5 22.824091996220.8555990966 38 9
BE018352.005 LB028678.072 Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/L 5 90.401036428390.7428319305 21 0
Chloride by Discrete Analyser in Water Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN274
Original Duplicate Parameter Units LOR Original Duplicate Criteria % RPD %
BE018327.003 LB028711.015 Chloride, Cl mg/L 1 1142.73 1130.9 15 1
BE018338.006 LB028711.030 Chloride, Cl mg/L 1 28.52 28.58 19 0
BE018349.002 LB028711.042 Chloride, Cl mg/L 1 926.54 928.33 15 0
BE018352.005 LB028711.057 Chloride, Cl mg/L 1 107.24 106.9 16 0
BE018352.007 LB028711.058 Chloride, Cl mg/L 1 8887.2 8818.1 15 1
Metals in Water (Dissolved) by ICPOES Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN320/AN321
Original Duplicate Parameter Units LOR Original Duplicate Criteria % RPD %
BE018333.001 LB028720.004 Magnesium, Mg mg/L 0.1 88 82 15 7
Potassium, K mg/L 0.1 35 35 15 1
Sodium, Na mg/L 0.5 480 490 15 2
Sulphate in water Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN275
Original Duplicate Parameter Units LOR Original Duplicate Criteria % RPD %
BE018332.002 LB028710.015 Sulphate, SO4 mg/L 1 0.494 0.482 200 0
BE018339.002 LB028710.030 Sulphate, SO4 mg/L 1 8.788 8.796 26 0
BE018355.001 LB028710.042 Sulphate, SO4 mg/L 1 17.9 9.58 22 57 ②
BE018355.003 LB028710.044 Sulphate, SO4 mg/L 1 53.579 53.745 17 0
Trace Metals (Dissolved) in Water by ICPMS Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN318
Original Duplicate Parameter Units LOR Original Duplicate Criteria % RPD %
BE018333.001 LB028721.004 Iron, Fe µg/L 5 48 46 26 4
21/10/2016 Page 5 of 9
Page 54
LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLES BE018333 R0
Laboratory Control Standard (LCS) results are evaluated against an expected result, typically the concentration of analyte spiked into the control during the sample
preparation stage, producing a percentage recovery. The criteria applied to the percentage recovery is established in the SGS QA /QC plan (Ref: MP-(AU)-[ENV]QU-022). For
more information refer to the footnotes in the concluding page of this report.
Recovery is shown in Green when within suggested criteria or Red with an appended dagger symbol (†) when outside suggested criteria.
Alkalinity Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN135
Sample Number Parameter Units LOR Result Expected Criteria % Recovery %
LB028678.005 Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/L 5 61 59.5 85 - 115 102
LB028678.006 Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/L 5 240 229 85 - 115 104
LB028678.040 Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/L 5 64 59.5 85 - 115 107
LB028678.041 Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/L 5 240 229 85 - 115 103
Chloride by Discrete Analyser in Water Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN274
Sample Number Parameter Units LOR Result Expected Criteria % Recovery %
LB028711.002 Chloride, Cl mg/L 1 10 10 85 - 115 102
LB028711.003 Chloride, Cl mg/L 1 100 100 85 - 115 102
LB028711.028 Chloride, Cl mg/L 1 10 10 85 - 115 104
LB028711.029 Chloride, Cl mg/L 1 100 100 85 - 115 101
LB028711.054 Chloride, Cl mg/L 1 10 10 85 - 115 103
LB028711.055 Chloride, Cl mg/L 1 100 100 85 - 115 102
Metals in Water (Dissolved) by ICPOES Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN320/AN321
Sample Number Parameter Units LOR Result Expected Criteria % Recovery %
LB028720.002 Magnesium, Mg mg/L 0.1 1.9 2 80 - 120 97
Potassium, K mg/L 0.1 19 20 80 - 120 97
Sodium, Na mg/L 0.5 1.9 2 80 - 120 97
Sulphate in water Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN275
Sample Number Parameter Units LOR Result Expected Criteria % Recovery %
LB028710.002 Sulphate, SO4 mg/L 1 10 10 85 - 115 104
LB028710.003 Sulphate, SO4 mg/L 1 100 100 85 - 115 102
LB028710.028 Sulphate, SO4 mg/L 1 10 10 85 - 115 103
LB028710.029 Sulphate, SO4 mg/L 1 100 100 85 - 115 103
Trace Metals (Dissolved) in Water by ICPMS Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN318
Sample Number Parameter Units LOR Result Expected Criteria % Recovery %
LB028721.002 Iron, Fe µg/L 5 23 20 80 - 120 116
21/10/2016 Page 6 of 9
Page 55
MATRIX SPIKES BE018333 R0
Matrix Spike (MS) results are evaluated as the percentage recovery of an expected result, typically the concentration of analyte spiked into a field sub -sample during the
sample preparation stage. The original sample 's result is subtracted from the sub -sample result before determining the percentage recovery. The criteria applied to the
percentage recovery is established in the SGS QA/QC plan (ref: MP-(AU)-[ENV]QU-022). For more information refer to the footnotes in the concluding page of this report.
Recovery is shown in Green when within suggested criteria or Red with an appended reason identifer when outside suggested criteria. Refer to the footnotes section at the
end of this report for failure reasons.
Chloride by Discrete Analyser in Water Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN274
QC Sample Sample Number Parameter Units LOR Result Original Spike Recovery%
BE018317.001 LB028711.005 Chloride, Cl mg/L 1 95 67 25 110
BE018339.003 LB028711.034 Chloride, Cl mg/L 1 26 0.17 25 104
Metals in Water (Dissolved) by ICPOES Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN320/AN321
QC Sample Sample Number Parameter Units LOR Result Original Spike Recovery%
BE018333.001 LB028720.005 Magnesium, Mg mg/L 0.1 140 88 52 107
Potassium, K mg/L 0.1 96 35 52 117
Sodium, Na mg/L 0.5 520 480 52 71
Sulphate in water Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN275
QC Sample Sample Number Parameter Units LOR Result Original Spike Recovery%
BE018317.001 LB028710.005 Sulphate, SO4 mg/L 1 120 96 25 78
BE018339.003 LB028710.034 Sulphate, SO4 mg/L 1 25 0.419 25 98
21/10/2016 Page 7 of 9
Page 56
MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATES BE018333 R0
Matrix spike duplicates are calculated as Relative Percent Difference (RPD) using the formula: RPD = | OriginalResult - ReplicateResult | x 100 / Mean
The original result is the analyte concentration of the matrix spike. The Duplicate result is the analyte concentration of the matrix spike duplicate.
The RPD is evaluated against the Maximum Allowable Difference (MAD) criteria and can be graphically represented by a curve calculated from the Statistical Detection Limit
(SDL) and Limiting Repeatability (LR) using the formula: MAD = 100 x SDL / Mean + LR
Where the Maximum Allowable Difference evaluates to a number larger than 200 it is displayed as 200.
RPD is shown in Green when within suggested criteria or Red with an appended reason identifer when outside suggested criteria. Refer to the footnotes section at the end of
this report for failure reasons.
No matrix spike duplicates were required for this job.
21/10/2016 Page 8 of 9
Page 57
FOOTNOTES BE018333 R0
Samples analysed as received.
Solid samples expressed on a dry weight basis.
QC criteria are subject to internal review according to the SGS QA /QC plan and may be provided on request or alternatively can be found here :
http://www.sgs.com.au/~/media/Local/Australia/Documents/ Technical Documents/MP-AU-ENV-QU-022 QA QC Plan.pdf
* NATA accreditation does not cover tthe performance of this service .
- Sample not analysed for this analyte.
IS Insufficient sample for analysis.
LNR Sample listed, but not received.
LOR Limit of reporting.
QFH QC result is above the upper tolerance.
QFL QC result is below the lower tolerance.
① At least 2 of 3 surrogates are within acceptance criteria.
② RPD failed acceptance criteria due to sample heterogeneity.
③ Results less than 5 times LOR preclude acceptance criteria for RPD.
④ Recovery failed acceptance criteria due to matrix interference.
⑤ Recovery failed acceptance criteria due to the presence of significant concentration of analyte (i.e. the
concentration of analyte exceeds the spike level).
⑥ LOR was raised due to sample matrix interference.
⑦ LOR was raised due to dilution of significantly high concentration of analyte in sample.
⑧ Reanalysis of sample in duplicate confirmed sample heterogeneity and inconsistency of results.
⑨ Low surrogate recovery due to the sample emulsifying during extraction.
⑩ Sample(s) #<SAMPLE NUMBERS> was not able to be performed due to interference from high < ANALYTE
NAME>.
⑪ Recovery failed acceptance criteria due to matrix heterogeneity.
† Refer to Analytical Report comments for further information.
This document is issued, on the Client's behalf, by the Company under its General Conditions of Service, available on request and accessible at
http://www.sgs.com/en/terms-and-conditions. The Client's attention is drawn to the limitation of liability, indemnification and jurisdiction issues defined
therein.
Any other holder of this document is advised that information contained herein reflects the Company 's findings at the time of its intervention only and
within the limits of Client's instructions, if any. The Company's sole responsibility is to its Client and this document does not exonerate parties to a
transaction from exercising all their rights and obligations under the transaction documents.
This test report shall not be reproduced, except in full.
21/10/2016 Page 9 of 9
Used in these records
Acid Sulfate Management PlanRelated documentApplication case desk ↗
About this file
- File size
- 3.9 MB (large file)
- File type
No other editions are linked here.
Original file
Log in to download the original file
The download may take up to a minute.