EOTECHNIQUE Land Consultants Association Inc Member of · 2013-06-12 · 1 12261/4-AC-R1 (10.05.2012) Grose Vale Road, North Richmond J Wyndham Prince Pty Ltd ER/10.05.2012 G EOTECHNIQUE

Lemko Place, Penrith NSW 2750 PO Box 880, Penrith NSW 2751 Telephone (02) 4722 2700 Facsimile (02) 4722 2777 e-mail: [email protected] www.geotech.com.au

ABN 64 002 841 063

Member of Australian Contaminated

Land Consultants Association Inc EEOOTTEECCHHNNIIQQUUEE GGG PPTTYY LLTTDD

®

NORTH RICHMOND JOINT VENTURE

NORTH RICHMOND RELEASE AREA REDBANK

GROSE VALE ROAD NORTH RICHMOND

REPORT 12261/4-AC-R1 REVISED 10 MAY 2013


ABN 64 002 841 063



®

Job No: 12261/4 Our Ref: 12261/4-AC-R1 10 May 2013 North Richmond Joint Venture P O Box 1918 PENRITH NSW 2750 Attention: Mr A Flaherty Dear Sir re: North Richmond Release Area Grose Vale Road, North Richmond Document Review This report details the results of a geotechnical inspection and review of existing documents on geotechnical/environmental assessments at the above site. The work was commissioned by Mr A Flaherty of the North Richmond Joint Venture. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned. Yours faithfully GEOTECHNIQUE PTY LTD EMGED RIZKALLA Director

J Wyndham Prince Pty Ltd ER/10.05.2012

G EEOOTTEECCHHNNIIQQUUEE PPTTYY LLTTDD

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................................................... 1

3.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ....................................................................................................... 1

3.1 Preliminary Geotechnical and Environmental Assessment ........................................................... 2

3.2 Geotechnical Inspection of Existing Dams .................................................................................... 2

3.3 Pavement Investigation for Seniors Living ..................................................................................... 3

3.4 Review of Construction Drawings for Seniors Living ..................................................................... 3

3.5 Review of Construction Drawings for Grose Vale Road Upgrade ................................................. 3

4.0 REGIONAL GEOLOGY ..................................................................................................................... 3

5.0 SITE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................................... 4

6.0 SUB-SURFACE CONDITIONS ......................................................................................................... 4

7.0 URBAN CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................... 5

7.1 Slope Stability Assessment ............................................................................................................ 5

7.2 Foundations ................................................................................................................................... 6

7.3 Excavation Conditions ................................................................................................................... 7

7.4 Pavements ..................................................................................................................................... 7

7.5 Soil Erosion .................................................................................................................................... 7

7.6 Salinity ............................................................................................................................................ 7

7.7 Acid Sulphate Soils ........................................................................................................................ 8

7.8 Existing Dams ................................................................................................................................ 8

8.0 CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................... 9

9.0 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................... 9

APPENDIX A PLAN 11: Proposed Zoning Plan, prepared by ML Design (10 May 2013) APPENDIX B RCA Australia Report 6044-001/0 Geotechnique Pty Ltd Reports 11553/1-AA, 12661/1-AA, 12261/2-AA & 12261/1-AB

1 12261/4-AC-R1 (10.05.2012) Grose Vale Road, North Richmond



1.0 INTRODUCTION

This document is supporting North Richmond Joint Venture in preparing LEP Planning Proposal for the North Richmond Release Area at Grose Vale Road, North Richmond, recently re-named Redbank. The Document details a review of documents on geotechnical and environment assessments for the site and provides an overview considering any statutory changes since September 2009, and possible impacts of acid sulphate soils, sodic and dispersive soils and steep terrain on the proposed development. 2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

Based on the information provided, including PLAN 11: Proposed Zoning Plan, prepared by ML Design, in Appendix A, we understand that the current proposed development consists of; Approximately 1,400 homes in addition to the Seniors Living Facility currently under construction.

Local Council roads including bus route.

Small scale local centre of approximately 1.0Ha.

Retention and modification of three to four existing farm dams within the project site to become open waterbodies.

Construction of four (4) primarily trunk drainage corridors (with a secondary riparian and tertiary open space function) separating planned residential areas.

Retention of an existing farm dam on Redbank Creek and vegetation improvement to the primarily riparian corridor along the south bank of Redbank Creek, which extends along the project site perimeter.

Capacity improvements to a key component of existing stormwater infrastructure along with water quantity management downstream of the project site, discharging to Redbank Creek.

An alternate east-west access to North Richmond. providing a significant improvement in vehicle traffic road capacity and the duration of available flood free access for the local area.

Multiple road connections to existing Grose Vale Road (3), Arthur Phillip Drive (2), Townsend Road (1) but no connection to Belmont Grove.

3.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The following reports completed for the site were reviewed for preparation of this report. Preliminary Geotechnical and Environmental Assessment, Grose Vale Road, North Richmond,

December 2006 by RCA Australia (Report 6044-001/0).

Geotechnical Inspection of Existing Dams, Grose Vale Road, North Richmond in October 2007 by Geotechnique Pty Ltd (Report 11553/1-AA).

Geotechnical Investigation for Pavement Design for Seniors Living, Grose Vale Road, North Richmond in May 2010 by Geotechnique Pty Ltd (Report 12261/1-AA).

Geotechnical Inspection and Review of Construction Drawings for Seniors Living, Grose Vale Road, North Richmond in August 2010 by Geotechnique Pty Ltd (Report 12261/2-AA).

Geotechnical Review for Upgrading Grose Vale Road on either side of Access Road (Road 10) in August 2010 by Geotechnique Pty Ltd (Report 12261/1-AB).




3.1 Preliminary Geotechnical and Environmental Assessment

RCA Australia (RCA) conducted a Preliminary Geotechnical and Environmental Assessment in December 2006 by conducting a walkover survey, excavating eleven (11) test pits and conducting laboratory physical and chemical tests on samples recovered from the test pits and dams. Test pits were excavated to depths ranging from 0.8m (refusal in bedrock) to 3m. Sub-surface conditions revealed by the test pits consisted of overburden soils comprising topsoil and erosional and residual clays, overlying shale and sandstone bedrock. Depths to overburden soils ranged from 0.5m to more than 3m. Groundwater/seepage was not encountered to the excavated depths of the test pits. Slope stability assessment in the report generally indicated that the risk to slope instability is Very Low to Low (“Landslide Risk Management Concepts and Guidelines” Australian Geomechanics Journal, Vol 35 No 1 March 2000). Based on Emerson Crumb Dispersion test results (Emerson Class of 5 and 6) soils at the site were generally classified as non-dispersive. However, evidence of creek bank or gully head erosion was noted in localised areas, particularly along stock access routes (i.e., around watercourses and hill slopes) No geotechnical constraints were found for construction of residential buildings and lightweight commercial structures. Based on sub-surface conditions and as per AS2870-2011 “Residential slabs and footings” the site was classified as Class “M” (Moderately Reactive), Class “H1” (Highly Reactive) and Class “P” (Problematic). The report also included preliminary assessment for earthworks, pavements, acid sulphate soils, excavation for services and environmental. In general the assessment indicated that from a geotechnical point of view the site is suitable for the proposed development. The environmental assessment indicated that the site is suitable for any activity under the NEPM HIL ‘A’ criteria, including subdivision. 3.2 Geotechnical Inspection of Existing Dams

Two dams (Dam A and Dam B) were inspected by a Principal Engineer from Geotechnique Pty Ltd in October 2007 and generally noted to be unstable and unsafe. There was some evidence of water leaking from both dams. The report also indicated that the dams were probably constructed using onsite materials, which are susceptible to high erosion hazard and contain sodic soils, which are generally dispersive. The failure in Dam A was attributed to piping, resulting from washing out of dispersive soils from around the pipe after long periods of drought when the dam was nearly empty. Leaking in Dam B was attributed to washing away of dispersive soils from around the pipe (at the base of the dam), or through the body of the dam.




It was recommended to either reduce the water level in the dams or strengthen the dams by installing cut-off walls. Consideration should be given to removal of those dams to reduce the risk to existing downstream properties and residents. Design and construction of new dams or functional waterbodies in their place would be based on current engineering design guidelines and construction practices. 3.3 Pavement Investigation for Seniors Living

This investigation was conducted by Geotechnique Pty Ltd in May 2010 for the pavement design for proposed access Road 3 (Arthur Phillip Drive), Road 10 (Grose Vale) and road widening at the intersection of Road 10 and Grose Vale Road.

The investigation included excavating eleven (11) test pits and drilling one (1) borehole to depths ranging from 0.8m to 3.5m. Test pits were excavated using a backhoe and the borehole using a bobcat with an auger. Five (5) test pits were excavated along Road 10, three (3) along Road 3 and four (4) for road widening at the intersection of Road 10 and Grose Vale Road.

Sub-surface conditions encountered at the test locations along Road 10 and intersection with Grose Vale Road consisted of overburden soils comprising topsoil/fill and residual clays to depths of 0.4m to 3.2m, overlying shale bedrock.

Three (3) test pits drilled along Road 3 encountered topsoil/fill overlying natural silty clays. The natural clays were generally assessed as residual. However, could consist of slopewash/alluvium overlying residual clays.

Groundwater was not encountered within the excavated depths of the test pits and borehole.

Four California Bearing Ratio (CBR) tests conducted on samples recovered from the test pits indicated CBR values of 3.5% and 3%. Considering variations across the site, a design CBR value of 3% was recommended. 3.4 Review of Construction Drawings for Seniors Living

Based on the site inspection and review of drawings for proposed roads and culvert, the site was deemed suitable for construction of the roads and culvert. No major changes were required to the drawings. No impact of the existing dam was found on construction of the access road from Arthur Phillip Road. Considering previous evidence of leaking from the dam, it was recommended to keep the water in the existing dam at a low level. 3.5 Review of Construction Drawings for Grose Vale Road Upgrade

This report contains recommendations for overlay design for upgrade of Grose Vale Road at the intersection with Access Road (Road 10). A structural overlay of 70mm AC14 was recommended. Alternatively, a detailed structural investigation of the existing pavement and design of structural overlay can be undertaken to provide a final pavement design. 4.0 REGIONAL GEOLOGY

Based on the Geological Map of Penrith (1:100,000), bedrock in most of the site is anticipated to be Ashfield Shale, belonging to the Wianamatta Group shales and comprising dark grey to black shale and laminite.




The northernmost portion of the site, near Redbank Creek, could be underlain by Hawkesbury Sandstone comprising medium to coarse grained quartz sandstone, very minor shale and laminite lenses.

Reference to the Soil Landscape Map (1:100,000) of Penrith indicates that the landscape for the eastern, central and northern portions of the site is likely to belong to the Blacktown Group and the southern, south-eastern and western portions of the site to the Luddenham Group.

The Blacktown Group is characterised by gently undulating rises on Wianamatta Group shales, with local relief to 30m, ground slope less than 5%, broad rounded crests and gently inclined slopes. The sub-surface soil in this landscape is likely to be up to 3m thick, high plasticity, moderately reactive clays, with poor drainage. The Luddenham Group is characterised by undulating to rolling low hills on Wianamatta Group shales, often associated with Minchinbury sandstone, with local relief of 50m to 80m, ground surface slopes of 5% to 20%, narrow ridges, hillcrests and valleys. Soil in this group is likely to be up to 1.5m deep, high plasticity, moderately reactive, locally impermeable and susceptible to high erosion hazards. 5.0 SITE CONDITIONS

At the time of inspection on 10 November 2011, earthworks for the proposed Senior Living facility was in progress. The site area is about 180ha of which the developable area is about 134ha, including about 15ha of Seniors Living. The site is located on the northern side of Grose Vale Road, North Richmond at about 1km west of the intersection with Bells Line of Road. Grose Vale Road is a ridge on the southern and western boundaries of the site. Ground surface generally slopes from the ridge towards the north, with difference in elevation of 20m to 30m. Ground slope from the ridge line ranges from 10 to 12 degrees. Steeper slopes are present on the western side of the site. There are a number of dams within the site. Site drainage follows existing site contours and drains into Redbank Creek on the northern side. The site is mostly covered with grass and scattered trees. The site is generally used for cattle grazing. There were no rock outcrops exposed within the site. Earthworks excavations on the western side of the Seniors Living facility indicated shale bedrock at shallow depths of about 2m. 6.0 SUB-SURFACE CONDITIONS

Based on site inspections and the sub-surface conditions encountered in the test pits, we concur with the RCA’s division of the site into different geotechnical units, based on similar physical characteristics such as landform, slope angle, drainage, soil type, soil origin and groundwater. Results of the geotechnical investigation carried out for Seniors Living are included to update the geotechnical units developed by RCA. The geotechnical units consist of the following.




TABLE 1

Unit Test

Pit/Borehole Topography Soil Type

Geology / Rock Type

Location

A 3,4,5 Alluvial Terraces & gentle toe slopes

(slope gradient < 50)

Moderately to deep clayey soils

typically in excess of 2.5m deep

Rock deeper than 3m

North portion of the site typically at

RL ≤ 34m AHD

B 9, TP-10,

TP-11, TP-12 Ephemeral

watercourses

Moderately to deep clayey soils


Rock deeper than 3m

As shown on RCA Drawing 1

C

1,2,6,7,8 & 11, TP-1 to TP-5, BH-6, TP-7 to

TP-9

Ridge crest and slopes (slope gradient

20 to 200)

Shallow clayey and sandy soils typically

0.5m to 1m deep

Sandstone and shale

Typically areas of the site ≥ RL 34m

AHD

D 10 Areas disturbed by

previous earthworks cut and/or fill

Mixture of site soils and possibility of

imported materials

Depth to rock highly variable depending on

earthworks

Farm dams

TP/BH: Test Pit or Borehole by Geotechnique Pty Ltd for Pavement Design for Seniors Living Test pit logs by RCA and Geotechnique Pty Ltd for Seniors Living are attached. Drawing 12261/4-AA1 showing test pit locations and geotechnical units are also attached. 7.0 URBAN CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT

7.1 Slope Stability Assessment

The stability of a site is generally governed by factors such as slope angles, depth of insitu soils, strength of sub-surface materials and concentrations of water. "Practice Note Guidelines for Landslide Risk Management”, prepared by Australian Geomechanics Society (Reference 1), recommends that the landslide risk of a site is assessed on the basis of the likelihood of a landslide event and the consequences of that event. Slopes within the site are generally 10 to 12 degrees with steep slope up to about 20 degrees noted on the western portion of the site. Our inspection did not indicate any slope failure across the site. Applying the Australian Geomechanics Society guidelines (2007), the different geotechnical units of the site are assessed as follows.

Qualitative Measures of Likelihood

Geotechnical Unit Descriptor Description

A Rare The event is conceivable but only under exceptional

circumstances over the design life

B Unlikely The event might occur under very adverse circumstances over

the design life

C Rare The event is conceivable but only under exceptional

circumstances over the design life

D Unlikely The event might occur under very adverse circumstances over

the design life Qualitative Measures of Consequences to properties at the site due to slope failure, for all the Units, are assessed to be minor: Risk Levels to the properties at the site are assessed below.




Geotechnical Unit Risk Level

A Very Low (VL)

B Low (L)

C Very Low (VL)

D Low (L)

The definitions of the risk levels are provided in Reference 1 and an abstract is presented below.

Risk Level Implication

VH Very High Risk Extensive detailed investigation and research, planning and implementation of treatment options, essential to reduce risk to acceptable levels; may be too expensive and not practical.

H High Risk Detailed investigation, planning and implementation of treatment options required to reduce risk to acceptable levels.

M Moderate Risk Tolerable, provided treatment plan is implemented to maintain or reduce risks. May be accepted. Might require investigation and planning of treatment options.

L Low Risk Usually accepted. Treatment requirements and responsibility to be defined to maintain or reduce risk.

VL Very Low Risk Acceptable. Manage by normal slope maintenance procedures.

7.2 Foundations

No geotechnical constraints were identified from the results of test pits and site inspections for construction of single or two-storey residential buildings and light weight commercial structures. Footings should designed and constructed as per Australian Standard AS2870-2011 “Residential slabs and footings” (Reference 2).

From the sub-surface conditions encountered in the test pits, most areas of the site where shallow clayey soil overlying bedrock was encountered could be classified as Class “M” (Moderately Reactive). Areas where deep clayey soils were encountered could be classified as Class “H1” (Highly Reactive) and disturbed areas as Class “P” (Problematic). Indicative site classifications for different geotechnical units are described below.

Unit Soil Type Indicative Site Classification*

Location

A Moderately to deep clayey soils typically in

excess of 2.5m deep H1

North portion of the site typically

B Moderately to deep clayey soils typically in

excess of 2.5m deep H1 Ephemeral watercourses

C Shallow clayey and sandy soils typically 0.5m to

1m deep overlying bedrock M Majority of site

D Mixture of site soils and possibility of imported

materials P Disturbed areas

* Subject to detailed site classification investigation at completion of site works

Shallow footings (pad, strip, raft slab or waffle pod) could be used to support the structures. For Class “P”, specific geotechnical investigation should be carried to design a suitable footing system.

Geotechnical investigation should be carried out for site classification of individual Lots after earthworks for each stage of development.




7.3 Excavation Conditions

We anticipate that some cut and fill will be required in development of the site. The top overburden soils (topsoil and residual, alluvial and colluvial soils) and extremely low to low strength bedrock (shale/siltstone/sandstone) could be easily excavated using conventional earthmoving equipment such as excavators and dozers. Excavation into medium to high strength bedrock would require hydraulic rock hammer, saw cutter or larger equipment such as a D9. Allowance should be made for the use of a rock hammer or other larger equipment for excavation in Unit C where shallow bedrock is likely to be encountered. Excavated topsoil could be used in landscaping. Excavated natural soil and weathered rock could be selectively used as controlled fill after moisture conditioning and removal of unsuitable materials, if any. 7.4 Pavements

We anticipate that pavements will be constructed by cut and fill. Subgrade conditions for the pavements are likely to be natural clayey soils (cut areas) and controlled fill. CBR tests conducted for the pavement design for the proposed Seniors Living gave CBR values of 3% to 3.5% for samples obtained from Unit C and 3% for a sample obtained from Unit B. Considering the tests results and anticipated subgrade conditions across the site, we anticipate a design CBR of 3% for Units A, B and C. Subgrade conditions consisting of alluvial and colluvial clayey soils for Units A and B are likely to vary across the site and so the CBR value could also vary. In areas where poor subgrade conditions are encountered (low CBR values) then subgrade improvement by replacement or insitu stabilisation will be required. In cut areas in Unit C bedrock might be encountered at subgrade level. In order to provide uniform subgrade conditions, the bedrock should be over-excavated to 300mm and re-compacted.

Geotechnical investigation for pavement design should be carried out at different stages of development to confirm subgrade conditions and determine design CBR values. 7.5 Soil Erosion

Two Emerson Crumb Dispersion tests conducted by RCA indicated Emerson Classes of 5 and 6, indicating that the soils are generally non-dispersive. The report indicates that the erosive nature of clayey soils at the site is related to soil structure and texture rather than dispersion.

The inspection report of the dams by Geotechnique Pty Ltd indicates that the insitu material used for construction of the dams is likely to be sodic soil and therefore dispersive. This was concluded based on evidence of piping failure in both dams.

Based on our inspections and considering the geology of the site, Units A and B are likely to be sodic and dispersive. Further testing might be carried out to confirm sodicity of the soils. 7.6 Salinity

Salinity refers to the presence of excess salt in the environment, either in soil or water. Soil salinity relates to the salt content of the soils. These salts usually involve sodium chloride, but other salts occur in some soils. The three main sources of salts are as follows;

Salts transported from the ocean and deposited by rainfall.

Salts released during the process of soil and rock weathering.




Salts naturally present in the soil profile, resulting from marine sediments deposited in earlier geological times.

Soil salinity in Western Sydney is thought to be primarily the result of early marine sediment deposits and the extent is largely related to the underlying Wianamatta Group shales. Surface and groundwater, as they flow through saline soils, dissolve the salts in soils and increase the concentration of salts in water. Salinity is a serious problem for any development due to the many environmental, economic and social impacts, as follows:

Agriculture - salinity contributes to significant loss of productivity in agricultural land and might take some land entirely out of production.

Water quality - salt lowers the quality of water that may be used for rural, domestic, industrial or urban purposes.

Public infrastructure and urban households - common impacts attributed to salinity include damage to houses, buildings, roads, highways and other structures, caused by the deterioration of brick, mortar, concrete, bitumen and asphalt, corrosion of metal (pipes, cables) buried in the ground or set in structural concrete (reinforcement), a shifting or sinking of foundations. High watertable associated with salinity is also attributed to failure of septic tanks.

Biodiversity and the environment - rising water table and increasing salinity have serious impacts on native vegetation and on a variety of animal species and their habitat.

The map for Soil Salinity in Western Sydney (2002), prepared by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR), indicates that the site has Moderate Salinity Potential. The areas with Moderate Salinity Potential are generally on Wianamatta Shales and Tertiary Alluvial Terraces and associated landscapes are the Blacktown and Luddenham Groups. Considering the above map, geology and landscapes of the site, there is moderate potential of salinity for all geotechnical Units at the site. 7.7 Acid Sulphate Soils

Review of Acid Sulphate Risk Map (Edition 2) for Kurrajong, prepared by Land & Water Conservation, indicates “no known occurrence” of acid sulphate at the site and that “Land management activities not likely affected by acid sulphate soil materials.” The Acid Sulphate Soils Map (Sheet AAS_008AA) included in the Hawkesbury Local Environmental Plan identifies the site as containing Class 5 Acid Sulphate Soils. It should be noted that Class 5 is defined as “no known occurrence” in the Land & Water Conservation maps, and thus land management activities are not likely to be affected by acid sulphate soil materials. Therefore, acid sulphate soils are not an issue for the site. 7.8 Existing Dams

We understand that four dams might be retained as open waterbodies. Other dams that will be remediated should be drained and filled, as recommended in RCA’s report. We also understand that Dam B might be retained as an open waterbody. During previous inspection this dam was found to be unstable and unsafe and should be either strengthened or removed, as recommended in the report.




8.0 CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT

As detailed in the report, as a part of preliminary environmental assessment, seven surface soil samples (five dam sediments, one soil from a disturbed area and one soil from an old watercourse) were analysed for Metals and Triazine Herbicides. Also, seven dam water samples were analysed for Metals and nutrients. For screening purposes, the soil samples were also tested for persistent Organochlorine Pesticides (OCP). As the site is proposed for residential development, where lawns and domestic gardens could be established, with regard to human health, analytical results were assessed against risk based health investigation guidelines appropriate for residential with access to soil (HIL ‘A’), published in the NEPM. No other guidelines were used to assess the test results of soil samples. With regard to protection of the environment, the provisional phytotoxicity based investigation levels (PPBIL) published in the Guidelines for the NSW Site Auditor Scheme (NSW DEC 2006) and Ecological Investigation Levels (EIL) published in the NEPM for inorganics were used to assess Metals test results of soils. Based on the above criteria, copper test result of ‘soil 1’ (318mg/kg) exceeded the relevant PPBIL (100mg/kg), which indicates that the elevated copper concentration in ‘soil 1’ might impact on the growth of certain plant species, but would not present a risk of harm to human health. 9.0 CONCLUSION

Review of documents on geotechnical assessments of the site generally indicates that the site is suitable for the proposed Redbank Development. Geotechnical investigation works should be carried out for pavement design and road construction. Site classification in accordance with AS2870-2011 would include a site classification for seasonal changes in moisture content and an exposure classification to assess the presence of saline or acid sulphate soils within the soil profile that might affect the construction materials used. Environmental assessment indicates that the site is generally suitable for the proposed Redbank Development, as per NEPM HIL ‘A’ criteria. As mentioned in RCA’s report, more detailed geotechnical and environmental investigations for concept and detailed design will be required during future stages of the development. We are advised by a Town Planner at Hawkesbury City Council that there is no legislation to conduct Salinity and Acid Sulphate Assessments. GEOTECHNIQUE PTY LTD References 1. Australian Geomechanics Society Landslide Taskforce, Landslide Practice Note Working Group - "Practice Note Guidelines

for Landslide Risk Management”, March 2007.

2. AS2870-2011 “Residential slabs and footing” Standards Australia 2011

APPENDIX A

ML Design Plan 11: Proposed Zoning Plan (10 MAY 2013)

Plan 11: Proposed Zoning Plan - Issue as of 10/05/2013© ML Design Pty Ltd

ACN 100 492 304ABN 89 159 048 228

Drawn by: AR

File Path: P:\INVE0003_North Richmond Master Plan\B_Documentation\B1_Production\B1_Drawings\Illustrator

APPROVED FOR ISSUE: 08/05/2013 JOB NO: INVE0003

INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA LTD

R2

R2

R3

R3

R3

R3B2

R3

RE1

R5

RE1

RE1

R2

R2

R3

R3

R3B2

R3

RE1

R5

RE1

RE1

Legend

Site BoundaryR2 Low Density ResidentialR3 Medium Density ResidentialR5 Large Lot ResidentialB2 Local CentreRE1 Open Space

APPENDIX B

RCA Australia Report 6044-001/0 Geotechnique Pty Ltd Reports 11553/1-AA, 12661/1-AA, 12261/2-AA & 12261/1-AB

PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

NORTH RICHMOND

Prepared for

URBIS JHD On behalf of BUILDEV DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD

Prepared by

RCA AUSTRALIA

RCA ref: 6044-001/0

DECEMBER 2006

RCA AUSTRALIA ABN 53 063 515 711 Sydney Office 34/15 Valediction Road, KINGS PARK NSW 2148

Telephone: +61 2 9421 1900 Facsimile: +61 2 9421 1999 Email: [email protected] Internet: www.rca.com.au Newcastle Office 92 Hill Street, CARRINGTON NSW 2294

Telephone: +61 2 4902 9200 Facsimile: +61 2 4902 9299 Email: [email protected] Internet: www.rca.com.au This document is and shall remain the property of RCA Australia. The document may only be used for the purpose for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the terms of Engagement for the commission. Unauthorised use of this document in any form whatsoever is prohibited.

DOCUMENT STATUS

Approved for Issue (Project Manager) Rev No. Comment Author Reviewer

Name Signature Date

/0 Draft M Allman J Everitt 18.12.06

DOCUMENT DISTRIBUTION Rev No. Copies Format Issued To Date

/0 1 Electronic UrbisJHD, 18.12.06

/0 1 Electronic RCA – Job archive 18.12.06

Buildev Developments NSW Pty Ltd Preliminary Geotechnical and Environmental Investigation North Richmond RCA ref: 6044-001/0, December 2006

Contents 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1

2 INVESTIGATION METHODOLOGY..........................................................................2

2.1 FIELDWORK......................................................................................................2 2.2 LABORATORY TESTING.....................................................................................3

3 SITE DESCRIPTION..................................................................................................3

3.1 LOCATION ........................................................................................................3 3.2 LANDFORMS.....................................................................................................4 3.3 VEGETATION ....................................................................................................4 3.4 SOILS AND GEOLOGY .......................................................................................4 3.5 GROUNDWATER................................................................................................5 3.6 LAND USE ........................................................................................................6 3.7 GEOTECHNICAL UNITS......................................................................................6

4 URBAN CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT ......................................................................7

4.1 SLOPE STABILITY .............................................................................................7 4.2 SOIL EROSION..................................................................................................8 4.3 FOUNDATIONS..................................................................................................9 4.4 DAMS.............................................................................................................10 4.5 EARTHWORKS ................................................................................................11 4.6 PAVEMENTS ...................................................................................................12 4.7 ACID SULPHATE SOILS ...................................................................................13 4.8 SERVICES.......................................................................................................13

5 PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT...............................................13

5.1 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN AND SAMPLING METHODOLOGY ......................13 5.2 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL................................................14 5.3 BASIS FOR ASSESSMENT CRITERIA..................................................................15

5.3.1 SOIL.................................................................................................15 5.3.2 WATER.............................................................................................16 5.3.3 APPROPRIATENESS OF THE GUIDELINES............................................16

5.4 RESULTS........................................................................................................17 5.4.1 SUMMARY OF RESULTS.....................................................................17

5.5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................19 5.5.1 SOIL.................................................................................................19 5.5.2 WATER .............................................................................................19

6 CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................................................20

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................20

GLOSSARY.......................................................................................................................21

APPENDIX A


DRAWINGS

APPENDIX B

ENGINEERING LOGS SYMBOL INDEX SHEET GENERAL SOIL DESCRIPTION SHEETS GENERAL ROCK DESCRIPTION SHEETS

APPENDIX C

LANDSLIDE RISK ASSESSMENT – EXAMPLE OF QUALITATIVE TERMINOLOGY FOR USE IN ASSESSING RISK TO PROPERTY

GUIDELINES FOR HILLSIDE CONSTRUCTION

APPENDIX D

GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY RESULTS

APPENDIX E

ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY RESULTS

Robert Carr & Associates Pty Ltd T/A RCA Australia ABN 53 063 515 711

92 Hill St Carrington Newcastle NSW 2294 Ph 02 4902 9200 Fax 02 4902 9299

Email [email protected] Web www.rca.com.au

1 INTRODUCTION

This report presents a preliminary geotechnical and contamination assessment for the proposed subdivision of an approximate 180 hectare parcel of land at North Richmond.

The extent of the site is shown on Drawing 1 in Appendix A.

The works were commissioned by Mr Jim Armstrong of Buildev Developments NSW Pty Ltd.

We understand that a preliminary geotechnical and contamination assessment is required as part of the due diligence process prior to purchase of the land.

More detailed geotechnical and environmental investigations will be required at later stages for concept and detailed design purposes.

The level of investigation undertaken is considered appropriate for pre purchase assessment of constraints. The report describes the surface and subsurface conditions present at the site and provides;

• An urban capability assessment.

RCA ref: 6044-001/0 18 December 2006 Buildev Developments NSW Pty Ltd c/- Urbis JHD Level 21, 321 Kent St SYDNEY 2000 Attention: Peter Strudwick

PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL AND CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT NORTH RICHMOND PROJECT

Geotechnical Engineering ________________________ Engineering Geology _________________________ Environmental Engineering _________________________ Hydrogeology _________________________ Construction Materials Testing _________________________

Page 2


• Slope stability risk assessment.

• Soil type identification in accordance with the Department of Housing publication, "Managing Urban Stormwater - August 1998".

• Preliminary assessment of geotechnical issues such as presence of rock, excavatability, foundation conditions, site drainage, road subgrade conditions, soil erosion etc

• Preliminary contamination assessment of the site.

Data provided included:

• An aerial photograph with an overlain contour plan of the existing site (reproduced as Drawing 1)

• Development Concept Structure Plan indicating zoning areas for proposed development.

• Statement of Environmental Effects to Accompany Development Application by Kemsley Pastoral Co. Pty Ltd for Subdivision of Land at North Richmond, Prepared by Gutteridge Haskins and Davey Pty Ltd October 1985.

2 INVESTIGATION METHODOLOGY

2.1 FIELDWORK

Fieldwork was undertaken on the 8th of December 2006 by a senior engineering geologist and environmental engineer and involved:

• Mapping of site conditions.

• Excavation of 11 test pits by rubber tyred backhoe.

• Logging and sampling of the subsurface profile.

• Collection of water and soil samples from site dams.

Test pit locations were located by hand held GPS and should be considered as approximate. Engineering logs of the test pits are attached with approximate locations shown on Drawing 1.

Page 3


2.2 LABORATORY TESTING

Limited physical laboratory testing was undertaken on soil samples recovered from test pits to assess Atterberg limits and soil erodibility. Results are attached and are summarised in Table 1.

Table 1 Laboratory Test Results Physical Soil Characteristics

Test Pit Soil Type Depth (m)

Moisture Content

(%)

Emerson Class1

Plasticity Index

%

TP1 Brown Silty CLAY

0.4-0.5 13.1 5 28

TP5 Red Brown Silty CLAY

0.5-0.7 16.9 6 31

1 Emerson class 1 to 3 are dispersive, class 4 to 8 non-dispersive.

The results indicate that the clay soils are characterised by the following properties:

• Medium plasticity;

• Non-dispersive;

Chemical testing methods and results are discussed in Section 5.

3 SITE DESCRIPTION

3.1 LOCATION

The site is located directly west of the existing North Richmond township. The site is bounded by Gross Vale Road along the southern and western boundaries, Red Bank Creek and farmland to the north and existing residential development along most of the eastern boundary. The site boundaries can be seen on attached Drawing 1. The Hawkesbury River lies some 0.6km south east of the south eastern boundary of the site.

The proposed development site comprises an area of 180.3 hectares held in one (1) title:

• Lot 27 DP 1842890

Page 4


3.2 LANDFORMS

Topographically the site is dominated by a ridge line along which Grose Vale Road runs forming the southern and western boundaries of the site. The ridge line is identified on Drawing 1 and trends east west turning to the north toward the western side of the site. From the ridge line the site slopes down to the north and east toward Red Bank Creek. Levels along the ridge line vary between 60-90m AHD while along Red Bank Creek levels are around 30m AHD. The ridge lines comprise gentle to moderate slopes typically less than 10 degrees and increase to moderate typically 10 to 12 degrees within the vicinity of the locally incised watercourses indicated on Drawing 1. Locally steeper slopes to 20 degrees are encountered coming off the ridge on the western side of the site. The slopes are typically convex in shape (i.e., steepening towards the base of the slope).

Four watercourses indicated on Drawing 1 drain the site. Nine dams have been constructed on the watercourses as indicated on Drawing 1. Drainage across the site follows the existing surface contours and drains towards Red Bank Creek to the north east. The gullies within the watercourses were dry at the time of investigation and could be trafficked by two wheel drive vehicle.

No rock exposures were observed at the time of field investigation. Ref 1 indicates that a rock exposure was observed in 1985 in the vicinity of the Belmont Trig station near the southern boundary of the site.

3.3 VEGETATION

Vegetation on the site may be observed on Drawing 1 with most of the site generally comprising cleared land with improved pasture grasses and sporadic mature eucalypts. Occasional clusters of trees also exist on parts of the ridgelines and along watercourses, which may be identified on Drawing 1.

3.4 SOILS AND GEOLOGY

Geologically the majority of the site is judged to be situated in the Middle Triassic Age Ashfield Shale which typically comprises dark grey to black claystone-siltstone and fine sandstone-siltstone laminate rock types. Lower portions of the site near the northern boundary of the site along Red Bank Creek are likely to be situated over the Hawkesbury Sandstone which typically comprises medium to coarse grained quartz sandstone.

As the Ashfield Shale lies over the Hawkesbury Sandstone it is interpreted that the site lies over the lower sequences of the Ashfield Shale which include the Rouse Hill Siltstone overlain by the Kellyville Laminite.

In general the soils encountered on the site comprise residual soils weathered in situ from the underlying rock strata. The residual soils typically comprise:

Page 5


• Clays with a variable silt and sand content over the most of the site overlying sandstone and shale bedrock at variable depth.

• Mixture of clays and silts exist at the base of slopes and along the watercourses as alluvial and colluvial deposits.

The subsurface conditions encountered in the test pits are detailed on the attached logs. A summary of the approximate depths to rock and the depth of excavator bucket refusal encountered in the pits is presented in Table 2, together with general comments.

Table 2 Summary of Subsurface Conditions

Test Pit Topsoil (m) Erosional &

Residual CLAY soils (m)

Depth to Rock1 (m)

Excavator Bucket Refusal (m)

1 0 – 0.05 0.05 – 0.8 0.8 1.0

2 0 – 0.05 0.05 – 1.3 1.3 1.6

3 0 0 – >3.0 >3.0 ne

4 0 – 0.15 0.15 – >3.0 >3.0 ne

5 0 0 – >2.5 >2.5 ne

6 0 – 0.05 0.05 – 1.0 1.0 1.3

7 0 – 0.05 0.05 – >2.5 >2.5 ne

8 0 – 0.05 0.05 – 0.5 0.5 0.8

9 0 0.0 – >2.5 >2.5 ne

10 0 – 0.1 0.1 – 1.2 1.2 1.5

11 0 – 0.05 0.05 – 1.5 1.5 1.5

Notes: 1 Depth to rock is approximate only and based on observation of rock structure. ne not encountered

3.5 GROUNDWATER

Groundwater within the study area is expected to occur at depth in the rock strata that underlies the site.

No groundwater seepage was observed at the time of the investigation. It is noted that the investigation was undertaken during an extended dry period and groundwater conditions are expected to vary with climatic conditions.

Page 6


3.6 LAND USE

The site generally comprises improved pastures (grassland) for livestock grazing. Existing or past development comprises:

• Weatherboard Cottage and farm sheds accessed from Grose Vale Road

• Nine man made dams;

• Stock yards accessed from gravel drive off Arthur Phillip Drive.

Adjacent to Test Pit 10, an area comprising disturbed soil was noted. The cause or source of the disturbed area is unknown. This material comprised brown clayey soil as well as minimal deleterious material including bricks and plastic.

No other obvious potential sources of contamination were observed in the vicinity of the dams or watercourses.

It is noted that a shed/workshop area was located on the site which housed old cars and machinery parts. Potentially contaminating activities may have occurred here.

3.7 GEOTECHNICAL UNITS

The site can be subdivided into geotechnical units which outline areas of similar physical characteristics on the basis of landform, slope angle, drainage, soil type, soil origin and groundwater. Each geotechnical unit defines a set of physical characteristics that has implications in relation to development constraints and geotechnical hazards such as slope stability, soil erosion, foundation conditions and earthworks.

Geotechnical units are presented in Table 3. The approximate extent of Geotechnical Units A, B and C are shown on Drawing 1 with the remained of the site being Unit C. Unit B comprises slopes in excess of 15° and coincides with areas of closely spaced contours shown on Drawing 1 as occurring along the incised watercourses. Unit C is the inferred position of the Muree Sandstone. Unit D is the alluvial and colluvial deposits which have accumulated along the alluvial flat of the western watercourse.

Page 7


Table 3 Geotechnical Units

Unit Test Pit Topography Soil Type Geology / Rock Type Location

A 3, 4, 5.

Alluvial terraces & gentle toe slopes (slope gradient <

5°)

Moderate to deep clayey soils


Rock deeper than 3m

North portion of the site typically at RL

≤ 34m AHD

B 9 Ephemeral watercourses

Moderate to deep clayey soils


Rock deeper than 3m

As shown on site plan

C 1, 2, 6-7, 8 &

11

Ridge crest and slopes (slope

gradient 2°-20°)

Shallow clayey and sandy soils typically

0.5m to 1m deep

Sandstone and shale

Typically areas of the site ≥ RL 34.

D 10

Areas disturbed by previous

earthworks cut and/or fill

Mixture of site soils and possibility of

imported materials.

Depth to rock highly variable depending on

earthworks

Farm dams

4 URBAN CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT

4.1 SLOPE STABILITY

The risk of slope instability has been assessed based on the observed site conditions and a qualitative classification system that assesses the risk to property. The classification system has been formulated by the Australian Geomechanics Society Sub-committee on landslide risk management and published in the Australian Geomechanics journal, Volume 35 No 1, March 2000, “Landslide Risk Management Concepts and Guidelines”.

An explanation of risk categories and implications to development is attached in Appendix C and is summarised in Table 5.

The risk of slope instability affecting the site has been assessed on the basis of the geotechnical units with results presented in Table 4.

No evidence of slope instability was observed on the site at the time of fieldwork.

Table 4 Slope Instability Risk Assessment

Unit Risk of Slope Instability

A Very Low

B Low

C Very Low

D Low

Page 8


It would be normal practice for residential development to proceed in areas with a low or very low risk level classification.

Table 5 Risk Level Implications (Landslide Risk Management Concepts and Guidelines, 2000)

Risk Level Example Implications*

VH Very High risk Extensive detailed investigation and research, planning and implementation of treatment options essential to reduce risk to acceptable levels; may be too expensive and not practical.

H High Risk Detailed investigation, planning and implementation of treatment options required to reduce risk to acceptable levels.

M Moderate Risk Tolerable provided treatment plan is implemented to maintain or reduce risks. May be accepted. May require investigation and planning of treatment options.

L Low risk Usually accepted. Treatment requirements and responsibility to be defined to maintain or reduce risk.

VL Very Low Risk Acceptable. Manage by normal slope maintenance procedures.

NOTE: * The implications for a particular situation are to be determined by all parties to the risk assessment; these are only given as a general guide.

Provided development is carried out in accordance with good engineering practice and the recommendations and advice of this report, the risk of local instability associated with cuts, fills and retaining walls on the proposed development is assessed to be low.

4.2 SOIL EROSION

The magnitude of erosion that can occur at a particular location is dependent on the potential of erosive agents such as wind, rain and runoff to erode soils and the erodibility of the soil. Assessment of soil erodibility takes into consideration soil properties such as texture, structure, dispersion, depth and infiltration and provides a general indication of relative resistance to water erosion.

The Emerson crumb dispersion test results indicate that the clay soils tested are non-dispersive. This indicates that the erosive nature of the clay soils is related to soil structure and texture rather than dispersion.

Evidence of active creek bank or gully head erosion was noted in localised areas, particularly along stock access routes (i.e., around watercourse and hill slopes).

Soil types encountered in the test pits have been classified in accordance with the Department of Housing publication “Managing Urban Storm Water”. The publication provides methods for classification soil types into three broad categories for the purpose of sedimentation control design, which comprise:

Page 9


• Type C soils, which are coarse-grained and will settle relatively quickly in a sedimentation basin;

• Type F soils, which are fine grained and therefore require a longer time to settle in a sedimentation basin; and,

• Type D soils, which are fine grained but which also contain a significant proportion of dispersive clay material which requires a flocculating agent for settlement in a detention basin.

In accordance with Table 6.1 of “Managing Urban Stormwater”, the topsoil, residual and colluvial soil types encountered in the test pits are judged to be non-dispersive, fine grained soils, Type F in all geotechnical units.

The following guidelines can be adopted in planning and development to minimise the impact of erosion and sedimentation:

• Undertake development in accordance with an erosion and sediment control plan.

• Undertake erosion control involving managing runoff at a non-erosive velocity, controlling runoff onto, through and from the site, minimising the duration and area of soil exposed during earthworks and providing protection for the soil surface.

• Undertake sediment control involving trapping and containing soil particles that have been eroded.

• Undertake rehabilitation and re-vegetation of disturbed areas within 14 days of completion of earthworks. Re-use topsoil.

• Maintain erosion and sediment control measures.

4.3 FOUNDATIONS

From a geotechnical viewpoint there are no constraints on the type of residential or lightweight commercial structures that may be constructed on the site, provided all foundations are designed and constructed in accordance with AS2870 - 1996, Residential Slabs and Footings. The site conditions do not preclude larger structures, however they would require detailed assessment.

Site classification in accordance with AS2870 – 1996 should be undertaken at the appropriate stage of development. Based on the subsurface conditions noted in the test pits it is expected that site classification would predominantly comprise:

• Class M, moderately reactive in Unit C

Page 10


• Class H, highly reactive in Unit A and B.

• Class P in Unit D

Foundation design should be undertaken in accordance with AS2870 – 1996 Residential Slabs and Footings. AS2870 – 1996 establishes performance requirements and specific designs for common foundation conditions as well as providing guidance on the design of footing systems using engineering principles.

Foundation constraints are presented in Table 6 for the geotechnical units.

Table 6 Foundation Constraints

Unit Location Constraint Indicative Site Class

Appropriate Founding

Levels Appropriate

Footing Types

A North portion of the site typically at RL ≤

34m AHD

Moderate to deep clayey

soils

Class H Deep alluvial/colluvial

clayey soils

High level footings

B Along ephemeral watercourses

Moderate to deep clayey

soils

Class H Deep alluvial/colluvial

clayey soils

High level footings

C Majority of site Shallow Rock in some areas

Class M

Class A*

Residual/ colluvial clays or

rock

High level footings

*All footings to rock

D Disturbed areas Presence of fill and

potentially compressible

soils

Class P Variable depth Will require specific

investigation

Conventional high level footing systems (raft slabs, waffle pod systems and strip / pad footings) are considered to be suitable for the majority of the site that comprises Units A, B and C.

All structures and earthworks proposed in D should be subject to specific geotechnical investigation. The areas of moderate to steep slopes in Unit C are likely to require that all footings for support of structures are founded on rock.

4.4 DAMS

As many as nine dams exist on the site and may require remediation as part of development. This is expected to involve the following:

• Draining of the dam.

Page 11


• The removal of built up topsoil and vegetation from the banks and base of the dam for stockpiling.

• The removal of any sediment and over wet and softened material from along the base of the dam to expose a competent clay subgrade suitable for the placement and compaction of filling. This can be expected to require excavation of between 0.5 and 1m of material.

• Placement and compaction of horizontal layers of suitable approved fill material in accordance with AS3798-1996.

The fill material used for filling the dam should comprise a cohesive material of similar permeability and reactivity to the residual clay soils encountered at the site.

The topsoil and dam base sediment may be reused for topsoiling at the site. The over wet residual clayey soil from the base of dams may be reused as fill following moisture conditioning.

If excessive excavation is found to be required to achieve a competent base for compaction, geofabric and a bridging layer may be required. It is recommended that a geotechnical inspection be sought at that stage.

4.5 EARTHWORKS

Development of the site is likely to involve some reshaping of surface contours, which will involve excavation and filling.

Excavation constraints are likely to be encountered in geotechnical units where competent sandstone and shale rock occurs at shallow depth. The sandstone and shale is assessed as weak to medium strength and excavation to depths up to 2m is envisaged with conventional equipment (20 tonne excavator). The level of backhoe bucket refusal encountered in the test pits is shown in Table 2.

Allowance for hydraulic rock hammer excavation and / or heavy ripping by large plant should be made where rock excavation is required in Unit C.

Conceptual design should take potential excavation constraints into consideration. This would involve locating roads over areas of gentler slope and limiting the depth of cut over the steeper slopes and ridge crest areas of the site.

Soil (apart from topsoil) and weathered rock materials won from excavations on site are suitable for re-use as engineered fill with appropriate conditioning and management. Allowance should be made for stripping of 0.1m of topsoil.

Page 12


Any filling on the site should be placed and compacted in accordance with AS 3798 – 1996, Guidelines on Earthworks for Commercial and Residential Development. The methods, control and testing of site earthworks can have a major impact on the design of foundations and pavements and advice should be sought in relation to this during the design phase.

All excavation and fill batter slopes should be battered at a maximum gradient of 2H:1V and protected from erosion. Steeper batter slopes may be applicable in rock materials on specific assessment.

Retaining walls should be designed for surcharge loading from slopes and structures above the wall. Adequate subsurface and surface drainage should be provided behind all retaining walls. All retaining walls constructed as part of subdivision development should be engineer designed.

At the time of investigation the soils profiles encountered in most test pit excavations were assessed as dry of standard optimum moisture content, and will require moisture conditioning prior to reuse. Subsoil conditions are likely to change if significant rain occurs prior to development and will vary due to climatic variations.

4.6 PAVEMENTS

Subgrade conditions for pavements over most of the site will comprise residual and colluvial silty clay soils together with rock subgrade comprising sandstone and shale.

Limited laboratory testing of the clay soils indicates they are of medium plasticity. In Unit C design CBR values in the order of 3% are expected for the clays at the site.

Subgrade conditions in Units A and B are expected to be more variable and comprise colluvial and alluvial silty clays and other derivatives from the weathering of parent soils from the surrounding slopes. Design CBRs in the order of 2%-3% can be expected and some allowance for provision of select material should be allowed. Climatic conditions will dictate the extent of subgrade replacement required.

Subgrade conditions in some areas of Unit C comprise clay soils over shallow rock. The subgrade will be suitable for pavement construction, however consideration of the depth to rock and the need to excavate should be considered in design of road alignments within this area.

Specific geotechnical investigation for pavement design should be undertaken at the appropriate stage of development.

Page 13


4.7 ACID SULPHATE SOILS

Acid Sulphate is not considered an issue in the development area.

4.8 SERVICES

Trenching for services is likely to encounter shallow sandstone rock over the ridge crest areas. Bucket refusal of a backhoe was encountered close to the sandstone and siltstone rock surface at depths shown in Table 2.

Allowance for hydraulic rock hammer excavation should be made where rock excavation is required.

5 PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

5.1 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN AND SAMPLING METHODOLOGY

Water samples were collected from seven of the dams on the site to assess water quality. Soil samples were collected from the sediments of five of the dams, in addition to two other locations; one sample was collected in the area of disturbed soil, and another in an old watercourse.

Sampling locations are shown on Drawing 2. Field collection records are presented in Appendix E

All seven soil samples were anlaysed for heavy metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, zinc and mercury) and Triazine herbicides. Limited samples were analysed for salinity based on field assessment.

All water samples were analysed for heavy metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, zinc and mercury) and nutrients (nitrate, nitrite, fluoride and reactive phosphorus). All samples were analysed in the field with a “Horiba” water quality meter for salinity.

Soil samples were collected in 125mL glass jars with Teflon lined lids, supplied by the laboratory. Samples were collected using disposable gloves and a stainless steel trowel. Sampling equipment was washed with Decon and rinsed with potable water.

Water samples were collected in appropriate bottles supplied by the laboratory. Samples for metals analysis were filtered by the laboratory prior to analysis.

Samples were placed immediately in an esky with ice and transported to the laboratory on the same day.

Page 14


5.2 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL

Duplicate samples were not submitted for analysis.

ALS undertook internal quality assurance testing. Results are contained within the laboratory report sheets, Appendix E. Table 7 presents a summary of their review.

Table 7 Internal Quality Assurance Review

Number Samples (including QA)

Laboratory Duplicates Spikes Laboratory

Control Samples Laboratory

Blanks

Requirement 10% 5% 1 every batch 1 every batch

Soil

Metals (As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb, Zn) 7 2 1 1 1

Mercury 7 2 1 1 1

Triazine Herbicides 7 1 1 1 1

Salinity 4 2 0 2 2

Water

Metals (As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb, Zn) 7 2 1 1 1

Nitrate 7 2 1 1 1

Nitrite 7 3 2 2 2

Reactive Phosphorous 7 2 1 1 1

Fluoride 7 1 1 1

Examination of the above table reveals that there was sufficient internal QA for all analytes.

• Recoveries of laboratory control samples were within the acceptance criteria of 70-130%;

• Holding Times were within laboratory specified time frames;

• Recoveries of Surrogates were within acceptance criteria of 70-130%;

• Recoveries of Spikes were within acceptance criteria of 70-130%. However one nitrate + nitrite matrix spike for an undisclosed sample was not reported due to the background concentration being equal to or greater than four times the spike concentration. The absence of this spike result is not considered significant.

Page 15


• Relative Percentage Differences for Duplicates were within acceptance criteria as defined in Appendix E; and

• No Laboratory Blank result was detected above the PQL.

It is therefore considered that the data obtained from this testing is accurate and reliable in as far as it can be ascertained.

5.3 BASIS FOR ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

5.3.1 SOIL

5.3.1.1 NEPM – NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION

(ASSESSMENT OF SITE CONTAMINATION) MEASURE (1999)

The criteria used for the assessment of the soil on site were sourced from the National Environment Protection Measure (NEPM) for the Assessment of Site Contamination, 1999 (Ref [8]). Schedule B (1) of this measure provides a table for the investigation concentrations for contaminants based on human health risk and certain exposure scenarios due to site use.

The site use is currently a farm and, based on information provided to RCA Australia, the proposed use would be considered residential. Therefore the results have been compared to the following guidelines:

• HIL ‘A’ Residential, access to soil, fruit and vegetable consumption <10%, no poultry, no groundwater consumption: This category includes children’s day care centres, kindergartens, preschools and primary schools.

The NEPM sets out an acceptance procedure by which sites can be considered as suitable for use depending on the sample results. The mean of the sample results can be compared to the guidelines as long as:

• No sample exceeds the chosen guidelines by more than 250%;

• The standard deviation of the analyte does not exceed 50% of the guideline.

However this approach does not allow for sampling and analytical variability, therefore the Sampling Design Guidelines (Ref [7]) recommends the use of the 95%UCLave for comparison with the guidelines.

Page 16


5.3.2 WATER

5.3.2.1 ANZECC 2000

These water quality guidelines have been endorsed by the NSWEPA (Ref [9]). These are complex guidelines that consider not only the level of protection (eg 99% or 95%) but also the state of the receiving water (eg moderately disturbed). Additional allowances are also made for the bioaccumulation of some chemicals. These guidelines replace the NEPM guidelines for water.

The receiving water in this instance is considered to be freshwater. These dams are considered a slightly modified waterway, therefore a 95% protection level has been used.

Trigger values for phosphorus were taken from these guidelines as no values exist for the assessment of aquatic ecosystems. Results were compared to irrigation guidelines for short term (up to 20 years).

5.3.2.2 DRINKING WATER GUIDELINES 2004

Guidelines for fluoride and nitrite were taken from the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines as no values exist for the assessment of aquatic ecosystems in the ANZECC guidelines.

5.3.3 APPROPRIATENESS OF THE GUIDELINES

The NEPM document has been approved by the NSWEPA for use on potentially contaminated sites and supersedes most of the preceding reference documents.

The exposure settings on which the NEPM criteria are based directly affect the investigation concentration used to assess the contamination status of the site. While the development appears to fit into the listed categories it is possible that a change in the development may designate the site into a more sensitive land use.

At present there are no endorsed groundwater guidelines in Australia, therefore guidelines are chosen based on the receiving waters. The results therefore do not necessarily represent the final concentration of the contaminants in the dams and may be conservative.

Page 17


5.4 RESULTS

5.4.1 SUMMARY OF RESULTS

The laboratory report is presented in Appendix E along with a detailed summary of results.

5.4.1.1 SOIL

Table 8 presents a summary of results from soil analyses including the minimum, maximum and mean concentrations, where they are compared to the relevant guidelines.

Table 8 Summary of Soil Results

No. of samples

Analyte Guideline Min Max Mean

7 Arsenic 100 A <5 14 9

7 Cadmium 20 A <1 <1 <1

7 Chromium 100 A 9 29 16

7 Copper 1000 A 11 318 67

7 Nickel 600 A 2 19 8

7 Lead 300 A 14 23 19

7 Zinc 7000 A 17 104 54

7 Mercury 15 A <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

7 Atrazine NA <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

7 Simazine NA <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

4 Salinity NA 939 4230 1935

4 Electrical Conductivity (µS/cm)

NA 289 1300 595

All concentrations are in mg/kg NA – no guideline A NEPM 1999 HIL 'A' (Residential) (Ref [8]) Where summation required calculation includes components reported as non detected as ½ PQL

5.4.1.2 WATER

Table 9 presents a summary of results from water analyses including the minimum, maximum and mean concentrations, where they are compared to the relevant guidelines.

Page 18


Table 9 Summary of Water Results

No. of samples

Analyte Guideline Min Max Mean

7 Arsenic 13 A <1 1 1

7 Cadmium 0.2 A <0.1 0.2 0.1

7 Chromium 1 A <1 <1 <1

7 Copper 1.4 A <1 2 1.2

7 Nickel 11 A <1 4 1

7 Lead 3.4 A <1 <1 <1

7 Zinc 8 A <5 107 21

7 Mercury 0.6 A <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

7 Nitrate 700 A 5 187 87

7 Nitrite 3000 B 5 314 55

7 Reactive Phosphorous 800-1200 C 5 47 15

7 Fluoride 1500 B 100 400 271

All concentrations are in ug/L A ANZECC 95% protection – freshwater (Ref [9]) B Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (Ref [11]) C ANZECC Irrigation trigger value - short term (up to 20 years) (Ref [9]) NA – no guideline Where summation required calculation includes components reported as non detected as ½ PQL Bold indicates where results exceed the guidelines

Table 10 presents results from the field analysis of salinity. All water bodies were classified as fresh water as salinity levels were less than 0.5%.

Table 10 Salinity results from field tests

Sample/Location Salinity (%)

DAM1 0.04

DAM2 0.02

DAM3 0.01

DAM4 0.01

DAM5 0.03

DAM6 0.07

DAM7 0.07

Page 19


5.5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.5.1 SOIL

Soil results were all below the NEPM HIL ‘A’ guidelines for heavy metals, and triazine herbicides were not detected by the laboratory in any of the samples analysed.

The conventional measure of soil salinity is the electrical conductivity of a soil extract in distilled water. Electrical conductivity of four shallow soil samples ranged between 289 and 1300µS/cm. The results indicate that the three soil samples were non saline or slightly saline while the fourth (Soil 1) was moderately to very saline. It is noted that the Soil 1 sample was taken from an area of disturbed soil and may be unrepresentative of the site.

It is noted that the site is indicated to have a moderate salinity potential on the DIPNR map of Salinity Potential in Western Sydney (2003).

5.5.2 WATER

Results for copper in groundwater exceeded the ANZECC guidelines in Dam 3, Dam 6 and Dam 7. Results for zinc in groundwater exceeded the guidelines in Dam 3 and Dam 6. These elevated metals may be background levels as metal concentrations in Sydney are often naturally elevated above the ANZECC guidelines.

Other heavy metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, nickel and mercury) were reported below the ANZECC guidelines in all samples.

Concentrations of nitrate were reported below the ANZECC aquatic ecosystem guidelines. Phosphorus concentrations are below the ANZECC irrigation guidelines. Nitrite and fluoride concentrations are within the Australian Drinking Water guidelines.

Salinity of water samples was less than 0.1%.

Page 20


6 CONCLUSIONS

The site is judged to be suitable for development from a geotechnical point of view.

The level of investigation undertaken for this report is considered appropriate to allow assessment of project feasibility on the basis of geotechnical engineering issues. A geotechnical review of the proposed development should be undertaken and depending on the nature of the development, more detailed work may be required to provide design parameters.

Design of the proposed roads alignment within the subdivision should be undertaken to minimise grades and limit the extent of excavation into rock and the traversing of watercourse areas.

The management of erosion is considered an issue in the development and a comprehensive erosion and sedimentation plan is recommended as a part of any development proposal.

Based on the environmental assessment undertaken, it is considered that the areas of this site assessed would be suitable for any activity under the NEPM HIL ‘A’ criteria, including subdivision.

Yours faithfully RCA AUSTRALIA

Mark Allman

REFERENCES

[1] Statement of Environmental Effects to Accompany Development Application by Kemsley Pastoral Co. Pty Ltd for Subdivision of Land at North Richmond, Prepared by Gutteridge Haskins and Davey Pty Ltd October 1985.

[2] CSIRO. Foundation Maintenance and Footing Performance: A Homeowner’s Guide. Information sheet BTF 18, 2003.

[3] Standards Association of Australia. AS 2870-1996: Residential Slabs and Footings – Construction. Standards Association of Australia, 1996.

Page 21


[4] Standards Association of Australia. AS 3798-1996: Guidelines on Earthworks for Commercial and Residential Structures. Standards Association of Australia, 1996.

[5] Managing Urban Stormwater.

[6] Australian Geomechanics Society Journal, Vol 10, 2000, Landslide Risk Management Concepts and Guidelines.

[7] NSWEPA, Sampling Design Guidelines, September 1995

[8] NEPC, National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure, 1999

[9] ANZECC, Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality, October 2000

[10] Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment, Environmental Quality Objectives in the Netherlands, 1994

[11] Australian Drinking Water Guidelines, National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) 2004

GLOSSARY

HIL ‘A’ HIL ‘A’ of the Health Based Investigation Levels, pg 9 Schedule B1, National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure.

NEPC National Environment Protection Council

NEPM National Environment Protection Measure

NHMRC National Health and Medical Research Council

PQL Practical Quantitation Limit

QA Quality Assurance

QC Quality Control

RPD Relative Percentage Difference

Appendix A

Drawings

APPROVED BY

CLIENT

DRAWN BY

DATE OFFICE

SCALE

PROJECT No

DRAWING No REV

Site

APPROVED BY

CLIENT

DRAWN BY

DATE OFFICE

SCALE

PROJECT No

DRAWING No REV

Appendix B

Engineering Logs

Symbol Index Sheet

General Soil Description Sheets

General Rock Description Sheets

Appendix C

Landslide Risk Assessment – Example of Qualitative Terminology for use in Assessing Risk

to Property

Guidelines For Hillside Construction

Appendix D

Geotechnical Laboratory Results

Appendix E

Environmental Laboratory Results

Soil Results Summary

SOIL RESULTSSample Location Guideline DAM 1 DAM 3 DAM 5 DAM 6 DAM 7 SOIL 1 SOIL 2Sample Depth (m) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1Date 8/12/2006 8/12/2006 8/12/2006 8/12/2006 8/12/2006 8/12/2006 8/12/2006

Sample Purpose Investigation Investigation Investigation Investigation Investigation Investigation Investigation

Sample collected by VW VW VW VW VW VW VW

Heavy MetalsArsenic 100 5 <5 7 6 11 14 14Cadmium 20 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Chromium 100 13 9 14 11 29 13 23Copper 1000 27 36 29 26 21 318 11Nickel 600 10 19 2 5 6 5 7Lead 300 20 23 19 20 19 14 18Zinc 7000 51 104 34 38 32 104 17Mercury 15 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1HerbicidesAtrazine <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05Simazine <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05SalinityElectrical Conductivity @ 25°C 289 - - 474 316 1300 -Total Soluble Salts 939 - - 1540 1030 4230 -

All results are in units of mg/kg.Blank Cell indicates no criterion availableA NEPM 1999 HIL 'A' (Residential)Criteria reported for Chromium are for Chromium VIResults shown in BOLD are in excess of the primary acceptance criteria: HIL A Results shown in shading are >250%of the primary acceptance criteria: HIL A - = not analysed

HIL 'A' A

Buildev DevelopmentsContamination AssessmentNorth RichmondJN6044-001/0, Dec 2006 Page 1 of 1

Prepared by: VWChecked by: .

RCA AustraliaPty. Ltd.

Groundwater Results Summary

GROUNDWATER RESULTSSample ID Guideline DAM 1 DAM 2 DAM 3 DAM 4 DAM 5 DAM 6 DAM 7Date 95% Fresh A Drinking Water B Irrigation C 8/12/2006 8/12/2006 8/12/2006 8/12/2006 8/12/2006 8/12/2006 8/12/2006Sample Purpose Investigation Investigation Investigation Investigation Investigation Investigation InvestigationSample Appearance Very silty Fairly silty Fairly silty Clear Clear Clear ClearSample collected by VW VW VW VW VW VW VW

Heavy MetalsArsenic 13 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1Cadmium 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.2 <0.1Chromium 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Copper 1.4 1 <1 2 <1 <1 2 2Lead 3.4 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Nickel 11 2 <1 4 <1 <1 2 <1Zinc 8 <5 <5 25 <5 <5 107 <5Mercury 0.6 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1Non Metallic InorganicsFluoride 1500 100 200 100 400 300 400 400Nitrite 3000 314 13 <10 <10 10 <10 30Nitrate 700 173 92 <10 <10 119 31 187Reactive Phosphorous as P 800-1200 18 21 47 <10 <10 <10 <10Salinity Salinity (%) 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.07 0.07

All results in µg/L except where noted A ANZECC 2000 95% Protection Level for Fresh WaterB Australian Drinking Water GuidelinesC ANZECC Irrigation trigger value - short term (up to 20 years)Guidelines in italics are low level reliability guidelinesArsenic guideline based on As (III) for marine and As (V) for fresh, the lowest of presented guidelines. Guidelines for Chromium are based on Cr (VI), and Mercury is for inorganic mercury. Results shown in BOLD are in excess of the primary acceptance criteriaBlank Cell indicates no criterion available

Buildev DevelopmentsContamination AssessmentNorth RichmondJN6044-001/0, Dec 2006 Page 1 of 1

Prepared by: VWChecked by: .

RCA Australia Pty. Ltd.

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS

ROBERT CARR & ASSOCIATES P/L 1 of 7 Page :Laboratory :Client : ALS Environmental Sydney

Contact :

Address :

Contact :

Address :P O BOX 175 CARRINGTON NSW

AUSTRALIA 2294

:MS VICTORIA WATSON Greg Vogel

ES0615463

277-289 Woodpark Road Smithfield NSW

Australia 2164

Work Order

E-mail : E-mail :[email protected] [email protected]

Telephone :

Facsimile :

Telephone :

Facsimile :

02 4902 9200 +61 (02) 8784 8555

02 4902 9299 +61 (02) 8784 8500

8 Dec 2006SY/099/06Quote number :6044Project :

- Not provided -Order number :

- Not provided -C-O-C number :

- Not provided -Site : Analysed :

Received :

14

15No. of samples -

15 Dec 2006Date issued :

Date received :

ALSE - Excellence in Analytical Testing

NATA Accredited Laboratory

825

This document is issued in

accordance with NATA's

accreditation requirements.

Accredited for compliance with

ISO/IEC 17025.

This document has been electronically signed by those names that appear on this report and are the authorised signatories. Electronic signing has been carried out in compliance with procedures specified in 21 CFR Part 11.

Signatory DepartmentPosition

Celine Conceicao Inorganics - NATA 825 (10911 - Sydney)Spectroscopist

Greg Vogel Inorganics - NATA 825 (10911 - Sydney)Laboratory Manager

Marc Centner Organics - NATA 825 (10911 - Sydney)Technical Manager

PHALAK INTHAKESONE Organics - NATA 825 (10911 - Sydney)Organics Co-ordinator

Phyu Phyu Lwin Inorganics - NATA 825 (10911 - Sydney)Spectroscopist

Sarah Millington Inorganics - NATA 825 (10911 - Sydney)Senior Inorganic Chemist

ROBERT CARR & ASSOCIATES P/LClient :

ES0615463

2 of 7 Page Number :

:Work Order

Comments

This report for the ALSE reference ES0615463 supersedes any previous reports with this reference. Results apply to the samples as submitted. All pages of this report have been checked and approved for release.

This report contains the following information:

l Analytical Results for Samples Submitted

l Surrogate Recovery Data

The analytical procedures used by ALS Environmental have been developed from established internationally-recognized procedures such as those published by the US EPA, APHA, AS and NEPM. In house developed procedures are employed in the absence of documented standards or by client request. The following report provides brief descriptions of the analytical procedures employed for results reported herein. Reference methods from which ALSE methods are based are provided in parenthesis.

When moisture determination has been performed, results are reported on a dry weight basis. When a reported 'less than' result is higher than the LOR, this may be due to primary sample extracts/digestion dilution and/or insuffient sample amount for analysis. Surrogate Recovery Limits are static and based on USEPA SW846 or ALS-QWI/EN38 (in the absence of specified USEPA limits). Where LOR of reported result differ from standard LOR, this may be due to high moisture, reduced sample amount or matrix interference. When date(s) and/or time(s) are shown bracketed, these have been assumed by the laboratory for process purposes. Abbreviations: CAS number = Chemical Abstract Services number, LOR = Limit of Reporting. * Indicates failed Surrogate Recoveries.

Specific comments for Work Order ES0615463

EP202 : Particular samples required dilution prior to extraction due to matrix interferences. LOR values have been adjusted accordingly.

Client : ROBERT CARR & ASSOCIATES P/L

ES0615463


Work Order :

Analytical Results

DAM 7DAM 6DAM 5DAM 3DAM 1Client Sample ID :

Sample Matrix Type / Description :Sample Date / Time :

Laboratory Sample ID :

SOIL( 8 Dec 2006 )

( 15:00 )

SOIL( 8 Dec 2006 )

( 15:00 )

SOIL( 8 Dec 2006 )

( 15:00 )

SOIL( 8 Dec 2006 )

( 15:00 )

SOIL( 8 Dec 2006 )

( 15:00 )

ES0615463-008 ES0615463-009 ES0615463-010 ES0615463-011 ES0615463-012Analyte CAS number LOR Units

EA010: Conductivity

289 ---- ---- 474 316µS/cm1Electrical Conductivity @ 25°C

EA014 Total Soluble Salts

939 ---- ---- 1540 1030mg/kg5Total Soluble Salts

EA055: Moisture Content

34.5 72.0 47.8 34.6 34.1%1.0Moisture Content (dried @ 103°C)

EG005T: Total Metals by ICP-AES

5 <5 7 6 117440-38-2 mg/kg5Arsenic<1 <1 <1 <1 <17440-43-9 mg/kg1Cadmium13 9 14 11 297440-47-3 mg/kg2Chromium27 36 29 26 217440-50-8 mg/kg5Copper20 23 19 20 197439-92-1 mg/kg5Lead10 19 2 5 67440-02-0 mg/kg2Nickel51 104 34 38 327440-66-6 mg/kg5Zinc

EG035T: Total Mercury by FIMS

<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.17439-97-6 mg/kg0.1Mercury

EP068C: Triazines

<0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.051912-24-9 mg/kg0.05Atrazine<0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05122-34-9 mg/kg0.05Simazine

EP068S: Organochlorine Pesticide Surrogate

76.2 79.2 78.6 80.5 88.921655-73-2 %0.1Dibromo-DDE

EP068T: Organophosphorus Pesticide Surrogate

83.2 78.7 78.1 81.2 94.178-48-8 %0.1DEF

A Campbell Brothers Limited Company


ES0615463


Work Order :

Analytical Results

SOIL 2SOIL 1Client Sample ID :



SOIL( 8 Dec 2006 )

( 15:00 )

SOIL( 8 Dec 2006 )

( 15:00 )

ES0615463-013 ES0615463-014Analyte CAS number LOR Units

EA010: Conductivity

1300 ----µS/cm1Electrical Conductivity @ 25°C

EA014 Total Soluble Salts

4230 ----mg/kg5Total Soluble Salts


2.4 12.4%1.0Moisture Content (dried @ 103°C)


14 147440-38-2 mg/kg5Arsenic<1 <17440-43-9 mg/kg1Cadmium13 237440-47-3 mg/kg2Chromium

318 117440-50-8 mg/kg5Copper14 187439-92-1 mg/kg5Lead5 77440-02-0 mg/kg2Nickel

104 177440-66-6 mg/kg5Zinc


<0.1 <0.17439-97-6 mg/kg0.1Mercury

EP068C: Triazines

<0.05 <0.051912-24-9 mg/kg0.05Atrazine<0.05 <0.05122-34-9 mg/kg0.05Simazine

EP068S: Organochlorine Pesticide Surrogate

86.4 72.921655-73-2 %0.1Dibromo-DDE

EP068T: Organophosphorus Pesticide Surrogate

77.6 89.278-48-8 %0.1DEF



ES0615463


Work Order :

Analytical Results

DAM 5DAM 4DAM 3DAM 2DAM 1Client Sample ID :



WATER( 8 Dec 2006 )

( 15:00 )

WATER( 8 Dec 2006 )

( 15:00 )

WATER( 8 Dec 2006 )

( 15:00 )

WATER( 8 Dec 2006 )

( 15:00 )

WATER( 8 Dec 2006 )

( 15:00 )

ES0615463-001 ES0615463-002 ES0615463-003 ES0615463-004 ES0615463-005Analyte CAS number LOR Units

EG020F: Dissolved Metals by ICP-MS

<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.0017440-38-2 mg/L0.001Arsenic<0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.00017440-43-9 mg/L0.0001Cadmium<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.0017440-47-3 mg/L0.001Chromium0.001 <0.001 0.002 <0.001 <0.0017440-50-8 mg/L0.001Copper

<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.0017439-92-1 mg/L0.001Lead0.002 <0.001 0.004 <0.001 <0.0017440-02-0 mg/L0.001Nickel

<0.005 <0.005 0.025 <0.005 <0.0057440-66-6 mg/L0.005Zinc

EG035F: Dissolved Mercury by FIMS

<0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.00017439-97-6 mg/L0.0001Mercury

EK040P: Fluoride by PC Titrator

0.1 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.316984-48-8 mg/L0.1Fluoride

EK057G: Nitrite as N by Discrete Analyser

0.314 0.013 <0.010 <0.010 0.010mg/L0.010Nitrite as N

EK058G: Nitrate as N by Discrete Analyser

0.173 0.092 <0.010 <0.010 0.11914797-55-8 mg/L0.010Nitrate as N

EK059G: NOX as N by Discrete Analyser

0.487 0.105 <0.010 <0.010 0.129mg/L0.010Nitrite + Nitrate as N

EK071G: Reactive Phosphorous as P by discrete analyser

0.018 0.021 0.047 <0.010 <0.010mg/L0.010Reactive Phosphorus as P



ES0615463


Work Order :

Analytical Results

DAM 7DAM 6Client Sample ID :



WATER( 8 Dec 2006 )

( 15:00 )

WATER( 8 Dec 2006 )

( 15:00 )

ES0615463-006 ES0615463-007Analyte CAS number LOR Units


<0.001 0.0017440-38-2 mg/L0.001Arsenic0.0002 <0.00017440-43-9 mg/L0.0001Cadmium<0.001 <0.0017440-47-3 mg/L0.001Chromium0.002 0.0027440-50-8 mg/L0.001Copper

<0.001 <0.0017439-92-1 mg/L0.001Lead0.002 <0.0017440-02-0 mg/L0.001Nickel0.107 <0.0057440-66-6 mg/L0.005Zinc


<0.0001 <0.00017439-97-6 mg/L0.0001Mercury


0.4 0.416984-48-8 mg/L0.1Fluoride


<0.010 0.030mg/L0.010Nitrite as N

EK058G: Nitrate as N by Discrete Analyser

0.031 0.18714797-55-8 mg/L0.010Nitrate as N


0.031 0.217mg/L0.010Nitrite + Nitrate as N


<0.010 <0.010mg/L0.010Reactive Phosphorus as P



ES0615463


Work Order :

Surrogate Control Limits

Surrogate Control LimitsMatrix Type: SOIL - Surrogate Control Limits

Upper LimitLower LimitAnalyte nameMethod name

EP068: Pesticides by GCMS

EP068S: Organochlorine Pesticide Surrogate 10 136Dibromo-DDEEP068T: Organophosphorus Pesticide Surrogate 10 136DEF

A Campbell Brothers Limited CompanyReport version : COANA 3.02

QUALITY CONTROL REPORT

1 of 9 Page :Laboratory :Client : ALS Environmental SydneyROBERT CARR & ASSOCIATES P/L

Contact :

Address :

Contact :

Address : Work order :

Amendment No. :

MS VICTORIA WATSON277-289 Woodpark Road Smithfield NSW Australia 2164

ES0615463

Greg VogelP O BOX 175 CARRINGTONNSW AUSTRALIA 2294

8 Dec 2006SY/099/06Quote number :6044 Date received :Project :

Date issued :- Not provided -Order number :

C-O-C number : - Not provided -- Not provided -Site :

[email protected] E-mail :E-mail :

02 4902 9200 Telephone :Telephone :

02 4902 9299 Facsimile :Facsimile : Analysed :

Received :

No. of samples

15 Dec 2006

[email protected]+61 (02) 8784 8555+61 (02) 8784 8500

15 14

Results apply to the samples as submitted. All pages of this report have been checked and approved for release.This report contains the following information:

l Laboratory Duplicates (DUP); Relative Percentage Difference (RPD) and Acceptance Limitsl Method Blank (MB) and Laboratory Control Samples (LCS); Recovery and Acceptance Limitsl Matrix Spikes (MS); Recovery and Acceptance Limits

This final report for the ALSE work order reference ES0615463 supersedes any previous reports with this reference.

Work order specific comments

EP202 : Particular samples required dilution prior to extraction due to matrix interferences. LOR values have been adjusted accordingly.


NATA Accredited Laboratory - 825 This document has been electronically signed by those names that appear on this report and are the authorised signatories. Electronic signing has been carried out in compliance with procedures specified in 21 CFR Part 11.

Signatory Department

Celine Conceicao Inorganics - NATA 825 (10911 - Sydney)Greg Vogel Inorganics - NATA 825 (10911 - Sydney)Marc Centner Organics - NATA 825 (10911 - Sydney)PHALAK INTHAKESONE Organics - NATA 825 (10911 - Sydney)Phyu Phyu Lwin Inorganics - NATA 825 (10911 - Sydney)Sarah Millington Inorganics - NATA 825 (10911 - Sydney)

This document is issued in accordance with NATA's

accreditation requirements.

Accredited for compliance with ISO/IED 17025

Project :

Client : Work Order :

ALS Quote Reference :

Page Number :

Issue Date :

2 of 9 6044 SY/099/06 15 Dec 2006ROBERT CARR & ASSOCIATES P/L ES0615463

Quality Control Report - Laboratory Duplicates (DUP)

The quality control term Laboratory Duplicate refers to an intralaboratory split sample randomly selected from the sample batch. Laboratory duplicates provide information on method precision and sample heterogeneity. - Anonymous - Client Sample IDs refer to samples which are not specifically part of this work order but formed part of the QC process lot. Abbreviations: LOR = Limit of Reporting, RPD = Relative Percent Difference.

* Indicates failed QC. The permitted ranges for the RPD of Laboratory Duplicates (relative percent deviation) are specified in ALS Method QWI-EN/38 and are dependent on the magnitude of results in comparison to the level of reporting:- Result < 10 times LOR, no limit - Result between 10 and 20 times LOR, 0% - 50% - Result > 20 times LOR, 0% - 20%

Matrix Type: SOIL Laboratory Duplicates (DUP) Report

LOR RPDDuplicate ResultOriginal ResultAnalyte nameClient Sample IDLaboratory Sample ID

EA010: Conductivity

%EA010: Conductivity - ( QC Lot: 321314 ) µS/cm µS/cm

1 µS/cm 0.3289Electrical Conductivity @ 25°CES0615463-008 DAM 1 290

%EA010: Conductivity - ( QC Lot: 323559 ) µS/cm µS/cm

1 µS/cm 0.61300Electrical Conductivity @ 25°CES0615463-013 SOIL 1 1300


%EA055: Moisture Content - ( QC Lot: 322103 ) % %

1.0 % 5.817.2Moisture Content (dried @ 103°C)ES0615406-001 Anonymous 16.2

1.0 % 2.18.9Moisture Content (dried @ 103°C)ES0615430-009 Anonymous 9.0


%EG005T: Total Metals by ICP-AES - ( QC Lot: 321508 ) mg/kg mg/kg

5 mg/kg 0.0<5ArsenicES0615438-017 Anonymous <5

1 mg/kg 0.0<1Cadmium <1

2 mg/kg 0.011Chromium 11

5 mg/kg 31.95Copper 7

5 mg/kg 0.011Lead 12

2 mg/kg 0.02Nickel 2

5 mg/kg 0.016Zinc 17

5 mg/kg 0.0<5ArsenicES0615463-009 DAM 3 5

1 mg/kg 0.0<1Cadmium <1

2 mg/kg 0.09Chromium 10

5 mg/kg 2.836Copper 37

5 mg/kg 0.023Lead 24

2 mg/kg 0.019Nickel 20

5 mg/kg 2.3104Zinc 107


%EG035T: Total Mercury by FIMS - ( QC Lot: 321509 ) mg/kg mg/kg


Project :



Page Number :

Issue Date :


Matrix Type: SOIL Laboratory Duplicates (DUP) Report


EG035T: Total Mercury by FIMS - continued

%mg/kg mg/kgEG035T: Total Mercury by FIMS - ( QC Lot: 321509 ) - continued

0.1 mg/kg 0.00.1MercuryES0615438-017 Anonymous <0.1

0.1 mg/kg 0.0<0.1MercuryES0615463-009 DAM 3 <0.1

EP068C: Triazines

%EP068C: Triazines - ( QC Lot: 322365 ) mg/kg mg/kg

0.05 mg/kg 0.0<0.05AtrazineES0615463-008 DAM 1 <0.05

0.05 mg/kg 0.0<0.05Simazine <0.05

Matrix Type: WATER Laboratory Duplicates (DUP) Report



%EG020F: Dissolved Metals by ICP-MS - ( QC Lot: 322062 ) mg/L mg/L

0.001 mg/L 0.00.009ArsenicES0615405-011 Anonymous 0.009

0.0001 mg/L 0.0<0.0001Cadmium <0.0001

0.001 mg/L 0.0<0.001Chromium <0.001

0.001 mg/L 0.0<0.001Copper <0.001

0.001 mg/L 0.0<0.001Lead <0.001

0.001 mg/L 0.00.003Nickel 0.003

0.005 mg/L 20.8<0.005Zinc 0.006

0.001 mg/L 5.20.298ArsenicES0615440-005 Anonymous 0.314

0.0001 mg/L 0.0<0.0001Cadmium <0.0001

0.001 mg/L 0.00.012Chromium 0.013

0.001 mg/L 0.00.010Copper 0.010

0.001 mg/L 0.00.010Lead 0.011

0.001 mg/L 0.00.007Nickel 0.007

0.005 mg/L 0.00.011Zinc 0.012


%EG035F: Dissolved Mercury by FIMS - ( QC Lot: 321979 ) mg/L mg/L

0.0001 mg/L 0.0<0.0001MercuryEP0603527-014 Anonymous <0.0001

0.0001 mg/L 0.0<0.0001MercuryES0615514-001 Anonymous <0.0001



Project :



Page Number :

Issue Date :


Matrix Type: WATER Laboratory Duplicates (DUP) Report


EK040P: Fluoride by PC Titrator - continued

%EK040P: Fluoride by PC Titrator - ( QC Lot: 322344 ) mg/L mg/L

0.1 mg/L 0.00.1FluorideES0615463-001 DAM 1 0.1


%EK057G: Nitrite as N by Discrete Analyser - ( QC Lot: 320818 ) mg/L mg/L

0.010 mg/L 10.80.039Nitrite as NES0615434-008 Anonymous 0.035

0.010 mg/L 5.40.018Nitrite as NES0615434-017 Anonymous 0.019

%EK057G: Nitrite as N by Discrete Analyser - ( QC Lot: 320819 ) mg/L mg/L

0.010 mg/L 0.0<0.010Nitrite as NES0615463-003 DAM 3 0.010


%EK059G: NOX as N by Discrete Analyser - ( QC Lot: 320953 ) mg/L mg/L

0.010 mg/L 3.318.2Nitrite + Nitrate as NES0615397-005 Anonymous 17.6

0.010 mg/L 1.91.63Nitrite + Nitrate as NES0615405-004 Anonymous 1.60


%EK071G: Reactive Phosphorous as P by discrete analyser - ( QC Lot: 321664 ) mg/L mg/L

0.010 mg/L 46.80.018Reactive Phosphorus as PES0615463-001 DAM 1 0.029

0.010 mg/L 4.50.113Reactive Phosphorus as PES0615532-001 Anonymous 0.108


Project :



Page Number :

Issue Date :


Quality Control Report - Method Blank (MB) and Laboratory Control Samples (LCS)

The quality control term Method / Laboratory Blank refers to an analyte free matrix to which all reagents are added in the same volumes or proportions as used in standard sample preparation. The purpose of this QC type is to monitor potential laboratory contamination. The quality control term Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) refers to a known, interference free matrix spiked with target analytes or certified reference material. The purpose of this QC type is to monitor method precision and accuracy independent of sample matrix. Dynamic Recovery Limits are based on statistical evaluation of actual laboratory data. Flagged outliers on control limits for inorganics tests may be within the NEPM specified data quality objective of recoveries in the range of 70 to 130%. Where this occurs, no corrective action is taken. Abbreviations: LOR = Limit of reporting.

Matrix Type: SOIL Method Blank (MB) and Laboratory Control Samples (LCS) Report

Analyte name Low

Recovery Limits

Dynamic Recovery Limits

(% Recovery)HighLCS

Spike Recovery

Actual Results

Spike concentration

Method

blank

result

LOR

EA010: Conductivity

EA010: Conductivity - ( QC Lot: 321314 ) µS/cm µS/cm %%%

1 µS/cm ---- 70 130101Electrical Conductivity @ 25°C 14121 µS/cm <1 ---- ------------

EA010: Conductivity - ( QC Lot: 323559 ) µS/cm µS/cm %%%

1 µS/cm ---- 70 13099.4Electrical Conductivity @ 25°C 14121 µS/cm <1 ---- ------------


EG005T: Total Metals by ICP-AES - ( QC Lot: 321508 ) mg/kg mg/kg %%%

5 mg/kg ---- 86.6 123103Arsenic 13.15 mg/kg <5 ---- ------------1 mg/kg ---- 79.9 12097.1Cadmium 2.761 mg/kg <1 ---- ------------2 mg/kg ---- 87.1 119102Chromium 60.92 mg/kg <2 ---- ------------5 mg/kg <5 ---- --------Copper ----5 mg/kg ---- 85.2 11710454.75 mg/kg <5 ---- --------Lead ----5 mg/kg ---- 82.1 11798.055.22 mg/kg ---- 88 122103Nickel 54.82 mg/kg <2 ---- ------------5 mg/kg <5 ---- --------Zinc ----5 mg/kg ---- 79 116100104


EG035T: Total Mercury by FIMS - ( QC Lot: 321509 ) mg/kg mg/kg %%%


Project :



Page Number :

Issue Date :


Matrix Type: SOIL Method Blank (MB) and Laboratory Control Samples (LCS) Report

Analyte name Low

Recovery Limits


(% Recovery)HighLCS

Spike Recovery

Actual Results

Spike concentration

Method

blank

result

LOR

EG035T: Total Mercury by FIMS - continued

mg/kg mg/kg %%%EG035T: Total Mercury by FIMS - ( QC Lot: 321509 ) - continued

0.1 mg/kg ---- 73.7 10891.0Mercury 1.40.1 mg/kg <0.1 ---- ------------

EP068C: Triazines

EP068C: Triazines - ( QC Lot: 322365 ) mg/kg mg/kg %%%

0.05 mg/kg <0.05 ---- --------Atrazine ----0.05 mg/kg ---- 53.4 12788.70.250.05 mg/kg <0.05 ---- --------Simazine ----0.05 mg/kg ---- 48.9 13493.30.25

Matrix Type: WATER Method Blank (MB) and Laboratory Control Samples (LCS) Report

Analyte name Low

Recovery Limits


(% Recovery)HighLCS

Spike Recovery

Actual Results

Spike concentration

Method

blank

result

LOR


EG020F: Dissolved Metals by ICP-MS - ( QC Lot: 322062 ) mg/L mg/L %%%

0.001 mg/L <0.001 ---- --------Arsenic ----0.001 mg/L ---- 70 13095.80.10.0001 mg/L ---- 70 13093.8Cadmium 0.10.0001 mg/L <0.0001 ---- ------------0.001 mg/L ---- 70 13099.9Chromium 0.10.001 mg/L <0.001 ---- ------------0.001 mg/L ---- 70 13096.6Copper 0.10.001 mg/L <0.001 ---- ------------0.001 mg/L ---- 70 130104Lead 0.10.001 mg/L <0.001 ---- ------------0.001 mg/L <0.001 ---- --------Nickel ----0.001 mg/L ---- 70 13097.60.10.005 mg/L <0.005 ---- --------Zinc ----0.005 mg/L ---- 70 13095.20.1



Project :



Page Number :

Issue Date :


Matrix Type: WATER Method Blank (MB) and Laboratory Control Samples (LCS) Report

Analyte name Low

Recovery Limits


(% Recovery)HighLCS

Spike Recovery

Actual Results

Spike concentration

Method

blank

result

LOR

EG035F: Dissolved Mercury by FIMS - continued

EG035F: Dissolved Mercury by FIMS - ( QC Lot: 321979 ) mg/L mg/L %%%

0.0001 mg/L ---- 80.5 117107Mercury 0.0100.0001 mg/L <0.0001 ---- ------------


EK040P: Fluoride by PC Titrator - ( QC Lot: 322344 ) mg/L mg/L %%%

0.1 mg/L <0.1 ---- --------Fluoride ----0.1 mg/L ---- 64.8 11597.85.0


EK057G: Nitrite as N by Discrete Analyser - ( QC Lot: 320818 ) mg/L mg/L %%%

0.010 mg/L <0.010 ---- --------Nitrite as N ----0.01 mg/L ---- 66.6 13185.20.96

EK057G: Nitrite as N by Discrete Analyser - ( QC Lot: 320819 ) mg/L mg/L %%%

0.01 mg/L ---- 66.6 13198.0Nitrite as N 0.960.010 mg/L <0.010 ---- ------------


EK059G: NOX as N by Discrete Analyser - ( QC Lot: 320953 ) mg/L mg/L %%%

0.010 mg/L <0.010 ---- --------Nitrite + Nitrate as N ----0.01 mg/L ---- 76.9 1221010.96


EK071G: Reactive Phosphorous as P by discrete analyser - ( QC Lot: 321664 ) mg/L mg/L %%%

0.010 mg/L <0.010 ---- --------Reactive Phosphorus as P ----0.01 mg/L ---- 83.8 1221060.50


Project :



Page Number :

Issue Date :


Quality Control Report - Matrix Spikes (MS)

The quality control term Matrix Spike (MS) refers to an intralaboratory split sample spiked with a representative set of target analytes. The purpose of this QC type is to monitor potential matrix effects on analyte recoveries. Static Recovery Limits as per laboratory Data Quality Objectives (DQO's). 'Ideal' recovery ranges stated may be waived in the event of sample matrix interferences. - Anonymous - Client Sample IDs refer to samples which are not specifically part of this work order but formed part of the QC process lot. Abbreviations: LOR = Limit of Reporting, RPD = Relative Percent Difference.

* Indicates failed QC

Matrix Type: SOIL Matrix Spike (MS) Report

Analyte name Client Sample ID

Actual Results Recovery Limits

Static LimitsSpike Recovery

Spike ConcentrationLaboratory Sample ID HighLowMSLOR

Sample Result


EG005T: Total Metals by ICP-AES - ( QC Lot: 321508 ) %%%mg/kgmg/kg

<55 mg/kgArsenic 70 13050AnonymousES0615438-017 97.3

<11 mg/kgCadmium 70 13050 104

112 mg/kgChromium 70 13050 105

55 mg/kgCopper 70 130250 110

115 mg/kgLead 70 130250 103

22 mg/kgNickel 70 13050 100

165 mg/kgZinc 70 130250 104


EG035T: Total Mercury by FIMS - ( QC Lot: 321509 ) %%%mg/kgmg/kg

0.10.1 mg/kgMercury 70 1305AnonymousES0615438-017 105

Matrix Type: WATER Matrix Spike (MS) Report





Sample Result


EG020F: Dissolved Metals by ICP-MS - ( QC Lot: 322062 ) %%%mg/Lmg/L

0.0090.001 mg/LArsenic 70 1300.2AnonymousES0615405-011 97.5

<0.00010.0001 mg/LCadmium 70 1300.05 97.0

<0.0010.001 mg/LChromium 70 1300.2 95.3

<0.0010.001 mg/LCopper 70 1300.2 97.8

<0.0010.001 mg/LLead 70 1300.2 103

0.0030.001 mg/LNickel 70 1300.2 94.9

<0.0050.005 mg/LZinc 70 1300.2 98.6



Project :



Page Number :

Issue Date :


Matrix Type: WATER Matrix Spike (MS) Report





Sample Result

EG035F: Dissolved Mercury by FIMS - continued

EG035F: Dissolved Mercury by FIMS - ( QC Lot: 321979 ) %%%mg/Lmg/L

<0.00010.0001 mg/LMercury 70 1300.0100AnonymousEP0603527-014 82.3


EK040P: Fluoride by PC Titrator - ( QC Lot: 322344 ) %%%mg/Lmg/L

0.10.1 mg/LFluoride 70 1305.0DAM 1ES0615463-001 106


EK057G: Nitrite as N by Discrete Analyser - ( QC Lot: 320818 ) %%%mg/Lmg/L

0.0390.01 mg/LNitrite as N 70 1300.60AnonymousES0615434-008 99.7

EK057G: Nitrite as N by Discrete Analyser - ( QC Lot: 320819 ) %%%mg/Lmg/L

<0.0100.01 mg/LNitrite as N 70 1300.60DAM 3ES0615463-003 109


EK059G: NOX as N by Discrete Analyser - ( QC Lot: 320953 ) %%%mg/Lmg/L

18.20.01 mg/LNitrite + Nitrate as N 70 1300.60AnonymousES0615397-005 * Not Determined


EK071G: Reactive Phosphorous as P by discrete analyser - ( QC Lot: 321664 ) %%%mg/Lmg/L

0.0180.01 mg/LReactive Phosphorus as P 70 1300.50DAM 1ES0615463-001 111

A Campbell Brothers Limited CompanyReport version : QC_NA 3.03

INTERPRETIVE QUALITY CONTROL REPORT

ALS Environmental Sydney 1 of 8 Page :Laboratory :ROBERT CARR & ASSOCIATES P/LClient :

Contact :

Address :

Contact :

Address :

Greg Vogel SmithfieldNSW Australia 2164

MS VICTORIA WATSONP O BOX 175 CARRINGTON NSW AUSTRALIA 2294

Work order :

ES0615463

Amendment No. :

8 Dec 2006SY/099/06Quote number :6044 Date received :Project :

Date issued :- Not provided -Order number :

C-O-C number : - Not provided -- Not provided -Site :

[email protected] [email protected] :E-mail :

02 4902 9200 +61 (02) 8784 8555Telephone :Telephone :

02 4902 9299 +61 (02) 8784 8500Facsimile :Facsimile : 1415

Analysed :

Received :

No. of samples

15 Dec 2006

This Interpretive Quality Control Report was issued on 15 Dec 2006 for the ALS work order reference ES0615463 and supersedes any previous reports with this reference.This report contains the following information:

l Analysis Holding Time Compliancel Quality Control Type Frequency Compliancel Summary of all Quality Control Outliersl Brief Method Summaries


Project :

Client : ROBERT CARR & ASSOCIATES P/L Work Order :


Page Number :

Issue Date :

ES0615463 2 of 8 6044 SY/099/06 15 Dec 2006

Interpretive Quality Control Report - Analysis Holding Time

The following report summarises extraction / preparation and analysis times and compares with recommended holding times. Dates reported represent first date of extraction or analysis and preclude subsequent dilutions and reruns. Information is also provided re the sample container (preservative) from which the sample aliquot was taken. Elapsed time to analysis represents time from sampling where no extraction / digestion is involved or time from extraction / digestion where this is present. For composite samples, sampling date/time is taken as that of the oldest sample contributing to that composite. Sample date/time for laboratory produced leaches are taken from the completion date/time of the leaching process. Outliers for holding time are based on USEPA SW846, APHA, AS and NEPM (1999). Failed outliers, refer to the 'Summary of Outliers'.

Matrix Type: SOIL Analysis Holding Time and Preservation

AnalysisExtraction / Preparation

Due for analysisDate analysedDue for extractionDate extractedDate SampledMethod

Container / Client Sample ID(s) Pass? Pass?

EA010: Electrical Conductivity (1:5)Soil Glass Jar - Unpreserved

Pass Pass8 Jan 200715 Dec 2006DAM 1, DAM 6,DAM 7

13 Dec 200611 Dec 20068 Dec 2006

Soil Glass Jar - Unpreserved

Pass Pass10 Jan 200715 Dec 2006SOIL 1 15 Dec 200613 Dec 20068 Dec 2006

EA055-103: Moisture ContentSoil Glass Jar - Unpreserved

---- Pass15 Dec 2006----DAM 1, DAM 3,DAM 5, DAM 6,DAM 7, SOIL 1,SOIL 2

12 Dec 2006----8 Dec 2006

EG005T: Total Metals by ICP-AESSoil Glass Jar - Unpreserved

Pass Pass6 Jun 20076 Jun 2007DAM 1, DAM 3,DAM 5, DAM 6,DAM 7, SOIL 1,SOIL 2

12 Dec 200611 Dec 20068 Dec 2006

EG035T: Total Mercury by FIMSSoil Glass Jar - Unpreserved

Pass Pass5 Jan 20075 Jan 2007DAM 1, DAM 3,DAM 5, DAM 6,DAM 7, SOIL 1,SOIL 2

12 Dec 200611 Dec 20068 Dec 2006

EP068: Pesticides by GCMSSoil Glass Jar - Unpreserved

Pass Pass21 Jan 200722 Dec 2006DAM 1, DAM 3,DAM 5, DAM 6,DAM 7, SOIL 1,SOIL 2

14 Dec 200612 Dec 20068 Dec 2006

Matrix Type: WATER Analysis Holding Time and Preservation




EG020A-F: Dissolved Metals by ICP-MS - Suite A


Project :



Page Number :

Issue Date :

ES0615463 3 of 8 6044 SY/099/06 15 Dec 2006

Matrix Type: WATER Analysis Holding Time and Preservation




EG020A-F: Dissolved Metals by ICP-MS - Suite A - continued

Clear Plastic Bottle - Natural

---- Pass6 Jun 2007----DAM 1, DAM 2,DAM 3, DAM 4,DAM 5, DAM 6,DAM 7

13 Dec 2006----8 Dec 2006

EG035F: Dissolved Mercury by FIMSClear Plastic Bottle - Natural

---- Pass5 Jan 2007----DAM 1, DAM 2,DAM 3, DAM 4,DAM 5, DAM 6,DAM 7

13 Dec 2006----8 Dec 2006

EK040P: Fluoride by PC TitratorClear Plastic Bottle - Natural

---- Pass5 Jan 2007----DAM 1, DAM 2,DAM 3, DAM 4,DAM 5, DAM 6,DAM 7

13 Dec 2006----8 Dec 2006

EK057G: Nitrite as N by Discrete AnalyserClear Plastic Bottle - Natural

---- Pass10 Dec 2006----DAM 1, DAM 2,DAM 3, DAM 4,DAM 5, DAM 6,DAM 7

8 Dec 2006----8 Dec 2006

EK059G: Nitrite and Nitrate as N (NOx) by Discrete AnalyserClear Plastic Bottle - Natural


9 Dec 2006----8 Dec 2006

EK071G: Reactive Phosphorus as P-By Discrete AnalyserClear Plastic Bottle - Natural


8 Dec 2006----8 Dec 2006


Project :



Page Number :

Issue Date :

ES0615463 4 of 8 6044 SY/099/06 15 Dec 2006

The following report summarises the frequency of laboratory QC samples analysed within the analytical lot(s) in which this work order was processed. Actual rate should be greater than or equal to the expected rate.

Interpretive Quality Control Report - Frequency of Quality Control Samples

Matrix Type: SOIL Frequency of Quality Control Samples

Quality Control Sample Type Count Rate (%)Quality Control Specification

QCActual Expected

RegularMethod

Laboratory Duplicates (DUP)EA010: Electrical Conductivity (1:5) 2 4 50.0 10.0 NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALSE QCS3 requirementEA055-103: Moisture Content 2 20 10.0 10.0 NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALSE QCS3 requirementEG005T: Total Metals by ICP-AES 2 20 10.0 10.0 NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALSE QCS3 requirementEG035T: Total Mercury by FIMS 2 15 13.3 10.0 NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALSE QCS3 requirementEP068: Pesticides by GCMS 1 7 14.3 10.0 NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALSE QCS3 requirementEP202: Phenoxyacetic Acid Herbicides (LCMS - Standard DL) 1 8 12.5 10.0 NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALSE QCS3 requirement

Laboratory Control Samples (LCS)EA010: Electrical Conductivity (1:5) 2 4 50.0 5.0 NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALSE QCS3 requirementEG005T: Total Metals by ICP-AES 1 20 5.0 5.0 NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALSE QCS3 requirementEG035T: Total Mercury by FIMS 1 15 6.7 5.0 NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALSE QCS3 requirementEP068: Pesticides by GCMS 1 7 14.3 5.0 NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALSE QCS3 requirementEP202: Phenoxyacetic Acid Herbicides (LCMS - Standard DL) 1 8 12.5 5.0 NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALSE QCS3 requirement

Method Blanks (MB)EA010: Electrical Conductivity (1:5) 2 4 50.0 5.0 NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALSE QCS3 requirementEG005T: Total Metals by ICP-AES 1 20 5.0 5.0 NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALSE QCS3 requirementEG035T: Total Mercury by FIMS 1 15 6.7 5.0 NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALSE QCS3 requirementEP068: Pesticides by GCMS 1 7 14.3 5.0 NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALSE QCS3 requirementEP202: Phenoxyacetic Acid Herbicides (LCMS - Standard DL) 1 8 12.5 5.0 NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALSE QCS3 requirement

Matrix Spikes (MS)EG005T: Total Metals by ICP-AES 1 20 5.0 5.0 NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALSE QCS3 requirementEG035T: Total Mercury by FIMS 1 15 6.7 5.0 NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALSE QCS3 requirementEP068: Pesticides by GCMS 1 7 14.3 5.0 NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALSE QCS3 requirementEP202: Phenoxyacetic Acid Herbicides (LCMS - Standard DL) 1 8 12.5 5.0 NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALSE QCS3 requirement

Matrix Type: WATER Frequency of Quality Control Samples


QCActual Expected

RegularMethod

Laboratory Duplicates (DUP)EG020A-F: Dissolved Metals by ICP-MS - Suite A 2 20 10.0 10.0 NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALSE QCS3 requirementEG035F: Dissolved Mercury by FIMS 2 20 10.0 10.0 NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALSE QCS3 requirementEK040P: Fluoride by PC Titrator 1 8 12.5 10.0 NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALSE QCS3 requirementEK055G: Ammonia as N by Discrete analyser 2 20 10.0 10.0 NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALSE QCS3 requirementEK057G: Nitrite as N by Discrete Analyser 3 26 11.5 10.0 NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALSE QCS3 requirementEK059G: Nitrite and Nitrate as N (NOx) by Discrete Analyser 2 20 10.0 10.0 NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALSE QCS3 requirementEK067G: Total Phosphorus as P By Discrete Analyser 3 24 12.5 10.0 NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALSE QCS3 requirementEK071G: Reactive Phosphorus as P-By Discrete Analyser 2 10 20.0 10.0 NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALSE QCS3 requirement


Project :



Page Number :

Issue Date :

ES0615463 5 of 8 6044 SY/099/06 15 Dec 2006

Matrix Type: WATER Frequency of Quality Control Samples


QCActual Expected

RegularMethod

Laboratory Control Samples (LCS)EG020A-F: Dissolved Metals by ICP-MS - Suite A 1 20 5.0 5.0 NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALSE QCS3 requirementEG035F: Dissolved Mercury by FIMS 1 20 5.0 5.0 NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALSE QCS3 requirementEK040P: Fluoride by PC Titrator 1 8 12.5 5.0 NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALSE QCS3 requirementEK055G: Ammonia as N by Discrete analyser 1 20 5.0 5.0 NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALSE QCS3 requirementEK057G: Nitrite as N by Discrete Analyser 2 26 7.7 5.0 NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALSE QCS3 requirementEK059G: Nitrite and Nitrate as N (NOx) by Discrete Analyser 1 20 5.0 5.0 NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALSE QCS3 requirementEK067G: Total Phosphorus as P By Discrete Analyser 2 24 8.3 5.0 NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALSE QCS3 requirementEK071G: Reactive Phosphorus as P-By Discrete Analyser 1 10 10.0 5.0 NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALSE QCS3 requirement

Method Blanks (MB)EG020A-F: Dissolved Metals by ICP-MS - Suite A 1 20 5.0 5.0 NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALSE QCS3 requirementEG035F: Dissolved Mercury by FIMS 1 20 5.0 5.0 NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALSE QCS3 requirementEK040P: Fluoride by PC Titrator 1 8 12.5 5.0 NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALSE QCS3 requirementEK055G: Ammonia as N by Discrete analyser 1 20 5.0 5.0 NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALSE QCS3 requirementEK057G: Nitrite as N by Discrete Analyser 2 26 7.7 5.0 NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALSE QCS3 requirementEK059G: Nitrite and Nitrate as N (NOx) by Discrete Analyser 1 20 5.0 5.0 NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALSE QCS3 requirementEK067G: Total Phosphorus as P By Discrete Analyser 2 24 8.3 5.0 NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALSE QCS3 requirementEK071G: Reactive Phosphorus as P-By Discrete Analyser 1 10 10.0 5.0 NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALSE QCS3 requirement

Matrix Spikes (MS)EG020A-F: Dissolved Metals by ICP-MS - Suite A 1 20 5.0 5.0 NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALSE QCS3 requirementEG035F: Dissolved Mercury by FIMS 1 20 5.0 5.0 NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALSE QCS3 requirementEK040P: Fluoride by PC Titrator 1 8 12.5 5.0 NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALSE QCS3 requirementEK055G: Ammonia as N by Discrete analyser 1 20 5.0 5.0 NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALSE QCS3 requirementEK057G: Nitrite as N by Discrete Analyser 2 26 7.7 5.0 NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALSE QCS3 requirementEK059G: Nitrite and Nitrate as N (NOx) by Discrete Analyser 1 20 5.0 5.0 NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALSE QCS3 requirementEK067G: Total Phosphorus as P By Discrete Analyser 2 24 8.3 5.0 NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALSE QCS3 requirementEK071G: Reactive Phosphorus as P-By Discrete Analyser 1 10 10.0 5.0 NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALSE QCS3 requirement


Project :



Page Number :

Issue Date :

ES0615463 6 of 8 6044 SY/099/06 15 Dec 2006

Interpretive Quality Control Report - Summary of Outliers

Outliers : Quality Control Samples

The following report highlights outliers flagged on the 'Quality Control Report'. Surrogate recovery limits are static and based on USEPA SW846 or ALS-QWI/EN/38 (in the absence of specific USEPA limits). Flagged outliers on control limits for inorganics tests may be within the NEPM specified data quality objective of recoveries in the range of 70 to 130%. Where this occurs, no corrective action is taken. - Anonymous - Client Sample IDs refer to samples which are not specifically part of this work order but formed part of the QC process lot.

Non-surrogates

CommentLimitsDataAnalyteClient Sample IDLaboratory Sample IDMatrix TypeALS QC LotND ---- MS recovery not determined, background level

greater than or equal to 4x spike level.Nitrite + Nitrate as N

l For all matrices, no RPD recovery outliers occur for the duplicate analysis.

l For all matrices, no method blank result outliers occur.

l For all matrices, no laboratory spike recoveries breaches occur.

Surrogates

l For all matrices, no surrogate recovery outliers occur.

Outliers : Analysis Holding Time

The following report highlights outliers within this 'Interpretive Quality Control Report - Analysis Holding Time'.

l No holding time outliers occur.

Outliers : Frequency of Quality Control Samples

The following report highlights outliers within this 'Interpretive Quality Control Report - Frequency of Quality Control Samples'.

l No frequency outliers occur.


Project :



Page Number :

Issue Date :

ES0615463 7 of 8 6044 SY/099/06 15 Dec 2006

Method Reference Summary

The analytical procedures used by ALS Environmental are based on established internationally-recognized procedures such as those published by the US EPA, APHA, AS and NEPM. In house procedure are employed in the absence of documented standards or by client request. The following report provides brief descriptions of the analytical procedures employed for results reported herein. Reference methods from which ALSE methods are based are provided in parenthesis.

Matrix Type: SOIL Method Reference Summary

Preparation Methods

EN34 : 1:5 solid / water leach for soluble analytes - 10 g of soil is mixed with 50 mL of distilled water and tumbled end over end for 1 hour. Water soluble salts are leached from the soil by the continuous suspension. Samples are settled and the water filtered off for analysis.

EN69 : Hot Block Digest for metals in soils sediments and sludges - USEPA 200.2 Mod. Hot Block Acid Digestion 1.0g of sample is heated with Nitric and Hydrochloric acids, then cooled. Peroxide is added and samples heated and cooled again before being filtered and bulked to volume for analysis. Digest is appropriate for determination of selected metals in sludge, sediments, and soils. This method is compliant with NEPM (1999) Schedule B(3) (Method 202)

EP202-PR : Extraction for Phenoxy Acid Herbicides in Soils. - In-House: Alkaline extract followed by SPE clean up of acidified portion of the sample extract.

ORG17A : Tumbler Extraction of Solids (Option A - Concentrating) - In-house, Mechanical agitation (tumbler). 20g of sample, Na2SO4 and surrogate are extracted with 150mL 1:1 DCM/Acetone by end over end tumble. The solvent is decanted, dehydrated and concentrated (by KD) to the desired volume for analysis.

Analytical Methods

EA010 : Electrical Conductivity (1:5) - (APHA 20th ed., 2510) Conductivity is determined on soil samples using a 1:5 soil/water leach. This method is compliant with NEPM (1999) Schedule B(3) (Method 104)

EA014 : Total Soluble Salts - In-house. The concentration of TSS in a soil is calculated from the Electrical conductivity of a water extract. This method is compliant with NEPM (1999) Schedule B(3) (Method 104)

EA055-103 : Moisture Content - A gravimetric procedure based on weight loss over a 12 hour drying period at 103-105 degrees C. This method is compliant with NEPM (1999) Schedule B(3) (Method 102)

EG005T : Total Metals by ICP-AES - (APHA 20th ed., 3120; USEPA SW 846 - 6010) (ICPAES) Metals are determined following an appropriate acid digestion of the soil. The ICPAES technique ionises samples in a plasma, emitting a characteristic spectrum based on metals present. Intensities at selected wavelengths are compared against those of matrix matched standards. This method is compliant with NEPM (1999) Schedule B(3)

EG035T : Total Mercury by FIMS - AS 3550, APHA 3112 Hg - B (Flow-injection (SnCl2)(Cold Vapour generation) AAS) FIM-AAS is an automated flameless atomic absorption technique. Mercury in solids are determined following an appropriate acid digestion. Ionic mercury is reduced online to atomic mercury vapour by SnCl2 which is then purged into a heated quartz cell. Quantification is by comparing absorbance against a calibration curve. This method is compliant with NEPM (1999) Schedule B(3)

EP068 : Pesticides by GCMS - (USEPA SW 846 - 8270B) Extracts are analysed by Capillary GC/MS and quantification is by comparison against an established 5 point calibration curve. This technique is compliant with NEPM (1999) Schedule B(3) (Method 504,505)

EP202 : Phenoxyacetic Acid Herbicides (LCMS - Standard DL) - In-House, LCMS (Electrospray in negative mode). Residues of acid herbicides are extracted from soil samples under the alkaline condition. An aliquot of the alkaline aqueous phase is taken and acidified before a SPE cleanup. After eluting off from the SPE cartridge, residues of acid herbicides are dissolved in HPLC mobile phase prior to instrument analysis.

Matrix Type: WATER Method Reference Summary

Preparation Methods

EK061/EK067 : TKN/TP Digestion - APHA 20th ed., 4500 Norg - D; APHA 20th ed., 4500 P - H. This method is compliant with NEPM (1999) Schedule B(3) (Appdx. 2)


Project :



Page Number :

Issue Date :

ES0615463 8 of 8 6044 SY/099/06 15 Dec 2006

Matrix Type: WATER Method Reference Summary

Analytical Methods

EG020A-F : Dissolved Metals by ICP-MS - Suite A - (APHA 21st ed., 3125; USEPA SW846 - 6020, ALS QWI-EN/EG020): The ICPMS technique utilizes a highly efficient argon plasma to ionize selected elements. Ions are then passed into a high vacuum mass spectrometer, which separates the analytes based on their distinct mass to charge ratios prior to their measurement by a discrete dynode ion detector.

EG035F : Dissolved Mercury by FIMS - AS 3550, APHA 21st ed. 3112 Hg - B (Flow-injection (SnCl2)(Cold Vapour generation) AAS) FIM-AAS is an automated flameless atomic absorption technique. A bromate/bromide reagent is used to oxidise any organic mercury compounds in the filtered sample. The ionic mercury is reduced online to atomic mercury vapour by SnCl2 which is then purged into a heated quartz cell. Quantification is by comparing absorbance against a calibration curve. This method is compliant with NEPM (1999) Schedule B(3) (Appdx. 2)

EK040P : Fluoride by PC Titrator - APHA 20th ed., 4500 F--C CDTA is added to the sample to provide a uniform ionic strength background, adjust pH, and break up complexes. Fluoride concentration is determined by either manual or automatic ISE measurement. This method is compliant with NEPM (1999) Schedule B(3) (Appdx. 2)

EK057G : Nitrite as N by Discrete Analyser - APHA 20th ed., 4500 NO3- B. SEAL Method 2-018-1-L February 2003. Nitrite is determined by direct colourimetry by SEAL. This method is compliant with NEPM (1999) Schedule B(3) (Appdx. 2)

EK058G : Nitrate as N by Discrete Analyser - APHA 20th ed., 4500 NO3--F. SEAL Method 2-018-1-L February 2003. Nitrate is reduced to nitrite by way of a cadmium reduction column followed by quantification by SEAL. Nitrite is determined seperately by direct colourimetry and result for Nitrate calculated as the difference between the two results. This method is compliant with NEPM (1999) Schedule B(3) (Appdx. 2)

EK059G : Nitrite and Nitrate as N (NOx) by Discrete Analyser - APHA 20th ed., 4500 NO3- F. SEAL Method 2-018-1-L February 2003. Combined oxidised Nitrogen (NO2+NO3) is determined by Cadmium Reduction and direct colourimetry by SEAL. This method is compliant with NEPM (1999) Schedule B(3) (Appdx. 2)

EK067G : Total Phosphorus as P By Discrete Analyser - APHA 20th ed., 4500 P-B&F This procedure involves sulphuric acid digestion of a 100mL sample to break phosphorus down to orthophosphate. The orthophosphate reacts with ammonium molybdate and antimony potassium tartrate to form a complex which is then reduced and its concentration measured at 880nm using Seal. This method is compliant with NEPM (1999) Schedule B(3) (Appdx. 2)

EK071G : Reactive Phosphorus as P-By Discrete Analyser - APHA 20th ed., 4500 P-F Ammonium molybdate and potassium antimonyl tartrate reacts in acid medium with othophosphate to form a heteropoly acid -phosphomolybdic acid - which is reduced to intensely coloured molybdenum blue by ascorbic acid. Quantification is by SEAL. This method is compliant with NEPM (1999) Schedule B(3) (Appdx. 2)

A Campbell Brothers Limited CompanyReport version : 1QCINA 2.08

AUSTRALIAN LABORATORY SERVICES PTY LTD ABN 84 009 936 029

277-289 Woodpark Road Smithfield NSW 2164 Australia Telephone: +61 (02) 8784 8555 Facsimile: +61 (02) 8784 8500 http://www.alsenviro.com/

SAMPLE RECEIPT NOTIFICATION (SRN)

Comprehensive report

Client Details Laboratory Details

ROBERT CARR & ASSOCIATES P/L ALS Environmental SydneyLaboratory :Client :

Manager :MS VICTORIA WATSON

Contact : Greg Vogel

Address : 277-289 Woodpark Road Smithfield NSW Australia 2164

P O BOX 175 CARRINGTON NSW AUSTRALIA 2294

Address :

6044----Quote number :Project :

- Not provided -Order number :

Site :

VICTORIA WATSON

Work order :

ES0615463

C-O-C Number :- Not provided -

- Not provided -

Sampler :

E-mail : [email protected] E-mail : [email protected] :

Facsimile :

02 4902 9200 Telephone :

Facsimile :

+61 (02) 8784 8555+61 (02) 8784 850002 4902 9299

Dates

Scheduled Reporting Date

8 Dec 2006 SRA Issue DateDate Samples Received

15 Dec 2006

12 Dec 2006::

: Client Requested Date : 15 Dec 2006

Delivery Details

Mode of Delivery Carrier.

Security Seal Intact.

CHILLED - Ice bricks presentTemperature :

1 HARDNo. of coolers/boxes No. of samples

:

:

:

- Received :

- Analysed :

1514

Comments

Sample containers do not comply to pretreatment / preservation standards (AS, APHA, USEPA). Please

refer to the 'Sample Container(s) / Preservation Non-Compliance Log' at the end of this report for

details.

l

Sample(s) have been received within recommended holding times.l

Please direct any turn around / technical queries to the laboratory contact designated above.l

Please direct any queries related to sample condition / numbering / breakages to Nanthini Coilparampill

Analytical work for this work order will be conducted at ALSE Sydney.l

Sample Disposal - Aqueous (14 days), Solid (90 days) from date of completion of work order.l

lWhen the sampling time is not supplied on the COC documentation, ALSE defaults the sampling time to that of the COC 'relinquishment' time (if supplied). If this also is not supplied, ALSE defaults the sampling time to the 'time of receipt at Laboratory'.

Disclaimer :This document contains privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the addressee, you are hereby notified that you must not disseminate, copy or take action of its contents. If you have received this document in error, please notify ALS immediately.


Page 1 of 3 ALSE - Excellence in Analytical Testing

Project :



ES06154636044 ----

SAMPLE RECEIPT NOTIFICATION (SRN) - continued

Summary of Sample(s) / Container(s) and Requested Analysis

Some items described below may be part of a laboratory process neccessary for the execution of client requested tasks. Packages may contain additional analyses, such as moisture and preparation tasks, that form an implicit part of that package.

ALS Sample ID. Client Sample ID - Sample Date Requested Analysis

Fluo

ride(

PC

)E

K0

40

-P

- W

AT

ER

EK

05

7G

- W

AT

ER

Nitr

ite a

s N

by

Dis

cret

e A

naly

ser

EK

05

8G

- W

AT

ER

Nitr

ate

as N

by

Dis

cret

e A

naly

ser

EK

07

1G

- W

AT

ER

Rea

ctiv

e P

hosp

horo

us b

y D

iscr

ete

anal

yser

W-0

2 - W

AT

ER

8 M

etal

s

EA

01

4 - S

OIL

Tota

l Sol

uble

Sal

ts

EA

05

5-1

03

- S

OIL

Moi

stur

e C

onte

nt

EP

06

8C

- S

OIL

Tria

zine

s by

GC

MS

S-0

2 - S

OIL

8 M

etal

s (in

cl. D

iges

tion)

lllllES0615463-001 DAM 1 - 8 Dec 2006

lllllES0615463-002 DAM 2 - 8 Dec 2006

lllllES0615463-003 DAM 3 - 8 Dec 2006

lllllES0615463-004 DAM 4 - 8 Dec 2006

lllllES0615463-005 DAM 5 - 8 Dec 2006

lllllES0615463-006 DAM 6 - 8 Dec 2006

lllllES0615463-007 DAM 7 - 8 Dec 2006

llllES0615463-008 DAM 1 - 8 Dec 2006

lllES0615463-009 DAM 3 - 8 Dec 2006

lllES0615463-010 DAM 5 - 8 Dec 2006

llllES0615463-011 DAM 6 - 8 Dec 2006

llllES0615463-012 DAM 7 - 8 Dec 2006

llllES0615463-013 SOIL 1 - 8 Dec 2006

lllES0615463-014 SOIL 2 - 8 Dec 2006

ES0615463-015 DAM 2 - 8 Dec 2006

7Total(s) : 7 7 7 7 4 7 7 7



Project :



ES06154636044 ----

SAMPLE RECEIPT NOTIFICATION (SRN) - continued

Requested Reports

MS DANIELLE WHITEl

A4 - Interpretive Quality Control Report - NEPM format- [email protected] - Quality Control Report - NEPM format- [email protected] - Certificate of Analysis - NEPM format- [email protected] Export Format- [email protected] - Sample Receipt Notification - Comprehensive format- [email protected] of Custody Acknowledgement- [email protected] [email protected]

MS VICTORIA WATSONl

A4 - Certificate of Analysis - NEPM format- [email protected] - Interpretive Quality Control Report - NEPM format- [email protected] - Quality Control Report - NEPM format- [email protected] Export Format- [email protected] - Sample Receipt Notification - Comprehensive format- [email protected] of Custody Acknowledgement- [email protected]

Sample Container(s) / Preservation Non-Compliance Log

All comparisons are made against pretreatment/preservation AS, APHA, USEPA standards.

Method

Client Sample ID ( ALS Sample ID. ) Sample Container Received Preferred Sample Container for Analysis

EG020A-F : Dissolved Metals by ICP-MS - Suite Al

- Clear Plastic Bottle - Nitric Acid; Filtered- Clear Plastic Bottle - Natural- DAM 1 (ES0615463-001)







EG035F : Dissolved Mercury by FIMSl










Report version : SRAEA 2.04

ABN 64 002 841 063

QualityEndorsedCompanyISO 9001 LIC11950Standards Australia




Job No: 11553/1 Our Ref: 11553/1-AA 2 October 2007 J Wyndham Prince Pty Ltd P O Box 4366 PENRITH WESTFIELD NSW 2750 Attention: Mr J Osland Dear Sir re: Proposed Subdivision Grose Vale Road, North Richmond Geotechnical Inspection As requested, the writer inspected the above site on 18 September 2007 to check the stability of two dams. The inspection was commissioned by Mr J Osland of J Wyndham Prince on behalf of Mr M Regnet of Buildev Development NSW (MR) Pty Ltd. Both Mr J Osland and Mr M Regnet were present during the inspection. We are in receipt of a preliminary geotechnical and environmental assessment by RCA Australia (Report 6044-001/0-Draft Edition). The report was received after conducting the inspection and we were not requested to review the report prior to submitting this report.

Regional Geology Based on the Penrith (1:100,000) Geological Map, bedrock at the site is anticipated to be Ashfield Shale belonging to the Wianamatta Group of shales and comprising dark grey to black shale and laminite. The site could also be underlain by Minchinbury Sandstone, which comprises fine to medium-grained lithic sandstone. Reference to the Penrith (1:100,000) Soil Landscape Map indicates that the landscape at the site belongs to the Blacktown Group, which is characterised by gently undulating rises on Wianamatta Group shales, with local relief to 30m, ground slope less than 5%, broad rounded crests and gently inclined slopes. The sub-surface soils within this landscape are likely to be up to 3m thick, moderately reactive, high plasticity clays with poor drainage. The maps also indicate that the landscape could also belong to the Luddenham Group, which is characterised by undulating to rolling low hills on Wianamatta Group shales, often associated with Minchinbury Sandstone, with local relief of 50m to 80m, ground surface slopes 5% to 20%, narrow ridges, hillcrests and valleys. Soils in this group are likely to be up to 1.5m deep, high plasticity, moderately reactive clays, locally impermeable and susceptible to high erosion hazards. Site Location & General Topography The property is about 180 hectares and located along the northern side of Grose Vale Road, North Richmond, approximately 1km west of the intersection with Bells Line of Road. Grose Vale Road is a ridge and the site comprises gently undulating landscape generally sloping away from the Ridge. The property contains numerous dams, which are filled with water due to recent rainfall. The dams were constructed about 60 years ago.

2

11553/1-AA Grose Vale Road, North Richmond

J Wyndham Prince Pty Ltd ER.pb/2.10.2007


Site Inspection, Discussion & Recommendations The inspection was conducted for two dams identified as Dam A & Dam B and shown on the attached Drawing 11553/1-1. DAM A The dam wall is considered unstable and not safe. There is evidence that the dam is leaking. It is also understood that part of the dam around the pipe has failed, requiring urgent site works to stabilise the dam wall. The inspection indicated that the height of the dam is at least 5m at the peak and is full of water, which means that a water pressure of about 50kPa is acting towards the lower section of the dam, possibly causing more unstable conditions. The dam was possibly built using on-site materials, which are known to be susceptible to high erosion hazards and contain sodic soils, which are generally dispersive soils. The failure is probably piping failure resulting from washing out of dispersive soils from around the pipe after long periods of draught when the dam was nearly empty of water. The water level would need to be reduced to minimise the horizontal water pressure acting on the side of the dam wall at its highest point. Alternatively, the dam wall may be strengthened by installing a cut-off wall within the existing dam wall, subject to further geotechnical investigations and other design and future use considerations. DAM B The dam wall is considered unstable and not safe. There is evidence that the dam is leaking. The crest of that dam is in relatively poor condition due to possible cattle movement (for grazing and water) and wave action. Inspection indicated that the height of the dam is at least 6m at the peak and is full of water, which means that a water pressure of about 60kPa is acting towards the lower section of the dam, possibly causing more unstable conditions. Partial or complete failure of the dam will cause possible flooding of the adjoining residential subdivision (east of the dam). The dam was possibly built using on-site materials, which are known to be susceptible to high erosion hazards and contain sodic soils, which are generally dispersive soils. Leaking could be attributed to washing out of dispersive soils from around the pipe (close to the base of the dam) after long periods of draught when the dam was nearly empty of water, or through the body of the dam wall. The water level would need to be reduced to minimise the horizontal water pressure acting on the side of the dam wall at its highest point. In addition, the crest of the dam should be reinstated to original width. Alternatively, the dam wall may be strengthened by installing a cut-off wall within the existing dam wall, subject to further geotechnical investigations and other design and future use considerations. Yours faithfully GEOTECHNIQUE PTY LTD EMGED RIZKALLA Principal Attached Drawing No 11553/1-1

Drawing No: 115531-1Job No: 11553-1Drawn By: ZMDate: 28 September 2007Checked By: ER

EEOOTTEECCHHNNIIQQUUEE GGG PPTTYY LLTTDD

PO Box 880Penrith NSW 2750ABN 64 002 841 063Tel: 02 4722 2700Fax: 02 4722 2777Email:[email protected] ENGINEERS

Grose Vale Road, North Richmond

ABN 64 002 841 063




Job No: 12261/1 Our Ref: 12261/1-AA 17 May 2010 North Richmond Joint Venture c/- J Wyndham Prince Pty Ltd P O Box 4366 PENRITH WESTFIELD NSW 2750 Attention: Mr A Flaherty Dear Sir re: Proposed Residential Development (STAGE 1A) Grose Vale Road, North Richmond Geotechnical Investigation - Pavement Design

This report details the results of a geotechnical investigation at the above site. The investigation was commissioned by Mr M Regent of North Richmond Joint Venture, in a signed confirmation of engagement dated 28 April 2010 and was carried out as per our proposal dated Q4523A (Rev-2) dated 22 April 2010. Proposed Development It is proposed to construct access roads (Road Nos 3 and 10) to the proposed subdivision from Arthur Phillip Drive (north) and Grose Vale Road (south). Geotechnical investigation was required to assess sub-surface conditions for design and construction of these access roads, totalling about 350m, in addition to the proposed road widening and left and right turn lanes from the intersection. Investigation was also required for the proposed culvert at the access road from Arthur Phillip Drive. Regional Geology Based on the Geological Map of Penrith (1:100,000), bedrock at the site is anticipated to be Ashfield Shale, belonging to the Wianamatta Group of rocks and comprising dark grey to black shale and laminite. Reference to the Soil Landscape Map (1:100,000) of Penrith indicates that the landscape at the site is likely to belong to the following: The Blacktown Group, which is characterised by gently undulating rises on Wianamatta Group shales, with local relief to 30m, ground slope less than 5%, broad rounded crests and gently inclined slopes. The sub-surface soil in this landscape is likely to be up to 3m thick, moderately reactive, high plasticity and with poor drainage.

Or

The Luddenham Group, which is characterised by undulating to rolling low hills on Wianamatta Group shale, often associated with Minchinbury sandstone, with local relief of 50m to 80m, ground surface slopes of 5% to 20%, narrow ridges, hillcrests and valleys. Soil in this group is likely to be up to 1.5m deep, high plasticity, moderately reactive, locally impermeable and susceptible to high erosion hazards. Field Work Field work for the geotechnical investigation was carried out on 4 and 5 May 2010. The following scope of work was completed:

Prior to drilling works an underground utilities check was carried out as part of Geotechnique OH&S Site Risk Assessment. A specialist services locator was engaged to scan the test pit and borehole locations prior to drilling.

2 12261/1-AA Grose Vale Road, North Richmond

J Wyndham Prince Pty Ltd ZA.ER.pb/17.05.2010


A walkover survey to assess existing site conditions.

Excavation of eleven (11) test pits and drilling one borehole to depths of 0.6m to 3.5m below existing grade. Test pits were excavated using a backhoe and the borehole using a bobcat equipped with an auger. Test pit and borehole logs are attached. Locations of the test pits and borehole are shown on the attached Drawings (12261/1-1 & 12261/1-2).

Recovery of samples for visual inspection, logging and testing. Four bulk soil samples were collected from the test pits to conduct California Bearing Ratio (CBR) tests for pavement design.

Dynamic Cone Penetration (DCP) testing was conducted adjacent to the test pit excavated near the proposed culvert on Road No 3. The purpose of this test was to assess strength characteristics of the sub-surface soils.

Field work was supervised by a Field Engineer from this company, who was responsible for nominating the test pit and borehole locations, sampling and preparation of field logs. Site Conditions The property for the proposed subdivision is a large open area used for cattle grazing. The topography of the property generally slopes towards the north. The ground surface is covered with thick grass and isolated trees. There is a dam in the north-west of the property. The property is fenced on all sides. The topography of the proposed access road (Road No 10) in the south, from Grose Vale Road to the proposed subdivision, generally slopes towards the north with difference in elevation of about 20m. The ground surface is mostly covered with thick grass. The access road (Road No 3) in the north from Arthur Phillip Drive joins Lots273 and 272 of the proposed subdivision. The topography of this road generally rises from Arthur Phillip Drive towards the proposed roundabout within the subdivision. There is a creek crossing the proposed road about 30m from the end of Arthur Phillip Drive. Ground surface adjacent to Grose Vale Road, where proposed widening and intersection with Road No 10 will be constructed, is generally covered with topsoil, grass and roadbase material. Neighbouring properties south of Grose Vale Road are residential buildings and a stud farm. Sub-surface Conditions Sub-surface conditions encountered at the site are detailed in the attached test pit and borehole logs and summarised below in Tables 1A, 1B and 1C.

TABLE 1A Road No 10 - Access Road from Grose Vale Road

Test Pit Termination Depth (m)

Topsoil (m) Residual

(m) Bedrock

(m)

1 1.2 0.0-0.1 0.1-0.6 0.6->1.2

2 1.0 0.0-0.1 0.1-0.7 0.7->1.0

3 1.1 0.0-0.15 0.15-0.6 0.6->1.1

4 1.7 0.0-0.15 0.15-0.6 0.6->1.7

5 3.2 0.0-0.6 0.6-3.2 =>3.2




TABLE 1B Intersection at Road No10 and Grose Vale Road

Test Pit/BH

Termination Depth (m)

Topsoil / Roadbase(m)

Residual (m)

Bedrock (m)

6* 1.7 0.0-0.2+ 0.2-1.7 =>1.7

7 1.2 0.0-0.1 0.1-0.7 0.7->1.2

8 0.8 0.0-0.1 0.1-0.4 0.4->0.8

9 0.6 0.0-0.1 0.1-0.4 0.4->0.6

* Borehole, + Roadbase

TABLE 1C Road No 3 - Access Road from Arthur Phillip Drive

Test Pit Termination Depth (m)

Topsoil/Fill (m)

Residual (m)

Bedrock (m)

10 3.5 0.0-0.4 0.4-3.2 NE

11 3.0 0.0-0.4 0.4-3.0 NE

12 3.0 0.0-0.6 0.6-3.0 NE

Topsoil Silty Clay, low to medium plasticity, with trace of roots and root fibres

Residual Silty Clay, medium to high plasticity, trace of shale and ironstone

Bedrock Shale, extremely weathered, low to medium strength, with interbedded clay seams

Groundwater was not encountered in the excavated test pits and the drilled borehole during the short time they remained open. It should be noted that fluctuations in the level of groundwater might occur due to variations in rainfall and/or other factors. Laboratory Testing Soaked California Bearing Ratio (CBR) tests were conducted on four samples of subgrade clay materials, in the NATA accredited laboratory of Geotech Testing Pty Ltd. The Soaked CBR tests were carried out on specimens compacted to a target dry density ratio of 100% Standard (AS1289 5.4.1) at moisture content close to Standard Optimum. The CBR results are detailed on the attached certificate and summarised below in Table 2.

TABLE 2

Test Pit Depth

(m) Description

MDD (t/m3)

FMC (%)

OMC (%)

Variation from

OMC (%)

CBR (%)

2 0.6-0.9 (CH) Clay, high plasticity,

orange-brown 1.63 17.2 21.0 3.8 Dry 3.5

3 0.5-0.8 (CI-CH) Clay, medium to high

plasticity, orange-brown 1.68 14.0 19.0 5.0 Dry 3.5

9 0.2-0.5 (CI) Silty Clay, medium plasticity, orange-brown

1.69 11.8 14.0 2.2 Dry 3.0

11 0.4-0.7 (CI-CH) Silty Clay, medium to high plasticity, orange brown,

with grey mottling 1.75 19.2 18.5 0.7 Wet 3.0

MDD: Maximum Dry Density; FMC: Field Moisture Content; OMC: Optimum Moisture Content; CBR: California Bearing Ratio




Subgrade CBR Design The laboratory results indicated 4-day Soaked CBR values of 3% and 3.5%, with field moisture content ranging from 0.7% wet to 5% dry of optimum moisture content. Based on the results and taking into account possible variations, a design CBR value of 3% can be used for the proposed access roads and widening/intersection at Grose Vale Road. Traffic Design Loading No traffic loading information was available at the time of writing. However, for the purpose of pavement design we have assumed the following:

TABLE 3

Road Traffic Loading (ESA)

Road No 10 1x105 Grose Vale Road –

Widening/Intersection 1x106

Road No 3 1x105

The above traffic loadings are assumed for a design period of 20 years. Pavement Design Based on the assumed traffic loadings (Table 3) and a design CBR of 3% and as per Reference 1, we recommend the following pavement profiles:

TABLE 4A Road No 10 – Access Road from Grose Vale Road to Subdivision

Pavement Composition Thickness (mm)

AC (over single coat bitumen seal) 50

Basecourse (DGB20) 125

Sub-base (DGS40) 275

Total 450

TABLE 4B Grose Vale Road – Widening/Intersection





Total 570

TABLE 4C Road No 3 – Access Road from Arthur Phillip Drive to Subdivision





Total 450

The pavement depths are only valid if the subgrade and pavement materials are compacted to Hawkesbury City Council specifications, or the following Minimum Dry Density Ratios.

Basecourse 98% Modified

Sub-basecourse 95% Modified

Subgrade 100% Standard




Site Works The following site works are recommended for subgrade and pavement construction:

Remove topsoil and excavate to design subgrade level.

Compact the exposed subgrade to at least 100% Standard Maximum Dry Density (SMDD) at moisture within 2% of Optimum Moisture Content (OMC).

Proof roll the compacted subgrade, using an 8 to 10 tonne roller, to detect possible soft or compressible zones.

If detected, excavate these zones to at least 300mm, or to depths as directed by the Geotechnical Engineer and replace with granular material compacted to at least 100% SMDD at moisture content within 2% of OMC.

Place new fill where required, in layers of not more than 200mm loose thickness and compact to at least 100% SMDD at moisture content within 2% of OMC.

Place roadbase materials and compact to density ratios mentioned in the previous section.

Footings One DCP test (TP12) conducted near the proposed culvert on Road No 3 generally indicated firm to very stiff clays, with an interbedded soft layer at depths between 0.5m to 0.9m. We recommend that footings (pad or strip type) are taken below the soft layer and founded on stiff to very stiff natural clays encountered at depths below 1m. Footings founded on stiff clays can be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 125kPa.

Under no circumstances should footings be placed on loose/soft or undesirable materials. If such materials are encountered we recommend removal and replacement with well compacted fill.

It is estimated that settlement of footings, designed as described above, could be in the range of 25mm. General This pavement design assumes provision of adequate surface and sub-surface drainage of the pavement and adjacent areas. It is recommended that sub-surface drainage is installed, as directed by the Engineers. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Yours faithfully GEOTECHNIQUE PTY LTD

ZIAUDDIN AHMED EMGED RIZKALLA Senior Geotechnical Engineer Director

Attached Drawing Nos 12261/1-1 & 12261/2-2 (Test Pit & Borehole Location Plans) CBR Test Results Borehole Logs Explanatory Notes Reference 1 AUSTROADS GUIDE TO PAVEMENT TECHNOLOGY “Part 2 : Pavement Structural Design (May 2008)”

NOTES

1. Site features are indicative and are not to scale.

2. This drawing has been produced using a base plan providedby others to which additional information e.g test pits, boreholelocations or notes have been added. Some or all of the planmay not be relevant at the time of producing this drawing

File No: Drawing 12261-1Layers: 0, Lay1

Drawing No: 12261/1-1Job No: 12261/1Drawn By: MHDate: 6 May 2010Checked By: AN/ZA

PO Box 880Penrith NSW 2750Tel: 02 4722 2700Fax: 02 4722 2777e-mail:[email protected]

J Wyndham Prince Pty LtdProposed Residential Development (Stage 1A)

Grose Vale RoadNorth Richmond

Test Pit & Borehole Location Plan


CONSULTING ENGINEERS

LEGEND

Test Pit

Scale 1:1500

0 15 30 45 60 75m

Borehole

TP9

TP8

TP7

BH6

TP1

TP2

TP3

TP4

TP5

NOTES

1. Site features are indicative and are not to scale.

2. This drawing has been produced using a base plan providedby others to which additional information e.g test pits, boreholelocations or notes have been added. Some or all of the planmay not be relevant at the time of producing this drawing

File No: Drawing 12261-1Layers: 0, Lay2

Drawing No: 12261/1-2Job No: 12261/1Drawn By: MHDate: 6 May 2010Checked By: AN/ZA

PO Box 880Penrith NSW 2750Tel: 02 4722 2700Fax: 02 4722 2777e-mail:[email protected]

J Wyndham Prince Pty LtdProposed Residential Development (Stage 1A)

Grose Vale RoadNorth Richmond

Test Pit Location Plan


CONSULTING ENGINEERS

LEGEND

Test Pit

Scale 1:1500

0 15 30 45 60 75m

ARTHUR PHIL

LIP D

RIVE

TP11

TP10

TP12

ABN 71 076 676 321

Head Office: Prestons Laboratory: 34 Borec Road, Penrith NSW 2750 Unit 4, 18-20 Whyalla Place, Prestons NSW 2170 P O Box 880 Penrith NSW 2751 Telephone: (02) 9607 6111 Facsimile: (02) 9607 6200 Telephone: (02) 4722 2744 Facsimile: (02) 4722 2777

email: [email protected] www.geotech.com.au

CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO TEST REPORT

Job No: Tested By: AK Lab Penrith

t/m3

%

%

Density Ratio %

Moisture Ratio %

Surcharge

%

mm

%

Page 1 of 1

0.5

5.05.0

20.3

4.5

4

20.8

20.4

AP

CBR Test Procedure

19.014.0<5Yes

12261/1-1

(CI-CH) CLAY, medium to high plasticity, orange-brown

J WYNDHAM PRINCE PTY LTDPO BOX 4366PENRITH WESTFIELD NSW 2750

PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (STAGE 1A) - GROSE VALE ROAD, NORTH RICHMONDGEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

12261/1-2Test Pit 2

0.6 - 0.9 0.5 - 0.82 3 9

1.63 1.68

(CH) CLAY, high plasticity, orange-brown

04/05/2010 04/05/2010

12261/1-3

1.73

11.8<5

Yes

1.6914.0

04/05/2010

Test Pit 9

99

1.64

Before soaking

1.66 1.72

13.9

102 100.5 102.5

After soaking

19.5

Checked By:

21.7

24.5

Yes

1.72

1.71

98.5

CBR TEST RESULTS

Whole Sample

11/05/2010

Laboratory Compaction Method

AS1289 5.1.1

Sampling Method

Engineers

Date of Test

Moisture Content %

Moisture Content after

test %

After soaking

21.8

9996

4

Top 30mm

kg

Number of Days Soaked 4

4.5

Before soaking

4.5

Before soaking

1.69

23.1

21.017.2<5

Yes

18.8

1.66

1.5

5.0

3.5

15.4

1.5

23.0

2.5

3.5 3

15.2

Form No R003 Version 10/10 - issued by ER

A Kench

This document is issued in accordance with NATA'saccreditation requirements. Accredited for compliancewith ISO/IEC 170025. This document shall not bereproduced, except in full

Nata Accreditation Number 2734Corporate Site Number 2727

19.2

11

12/05/2010Approved Signatory

0.5

3

20.6

105

4

4.5

04/05/2010

12261/1-4

1.7518.5

Swell after soaking

Penetration

(CI-CH) Silty CLAY, medium to high plasticity, orange-brown with grey mottling

(CI) Silty CLAY, medium plasticity, orange-brown

23.9

20.2

Dry Density

t/m3

Before soaking

Excluded (Yes / No / Not Applicable)

<5

CBR VALUE

AS1289 6.1.1

Date Sampled

Laboratory Number

% Retained 19mm

Sample Description

Maximum Dry DensityOptimum Moisture ContentField Moisture Content

12261/1

Sample No

Test Pit 1112261/1-1 12261/1-1 12261/1-1 12261/1-1

0.2 - 0.5 0.4 - 0.7

Test Pit 3Drawing NoDepth (m)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Dry

DB

CI-CH

TOPSOIL: Silty Clay, low to medium plasticity, brown,trace of roots and root fibresSilty CLAY, medium to high plasticity, orange-b rown,trace of shale

SHALE, grey-brown, extremely weathered, low tomedium strength

Test Pit No 1 terminated at 1.2m due to refusal onshale

M<PL

M<PL

Residual

Bedrock

Client : J Wyndham Prince Pty Ltd Job No : 12261/1Project : Proposed Residential Development (Stage 1A) Pit No : 1Location : Grose Vale Road

NORTH RICHMONDDate : 4/5/2010Logged/Typed/Checked by: AN.sm

Equipment type and model : Backhoe R.L. surface :

Excavation dimensions : 2.0 m long 0.5 m wide datum :

pe

ne

tra

tio

n

1 2 3 gro

un

dw

ate

r

sam

ple

s

fiel

dte

sts

de

pth

or

R.L

.in

me

ters

gra

ph

ic l

og

clas

sifi

cati

on

s

ymb

ol

soil type, plasticity or particle characteristic,colour, secondary and minor components.

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

mo

istu

rec

on

dit

ion

con

sist

ency

den

sity

in

dex

ha

nd

pe

ne

tro

me

ter

kPa

Remarks

engineering log - excavation

form

no.

001

ver

sion

01

- 05

/05

GEOTECHNIQUEPTY LTD

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Dry

DB

CI-CH

TOPSOIL: Silty Clay, low to medium plasticity, brown,trace of roots and root fibresSilty CLAY, medium to high plasticity, orange-brown,trace of shale



M<PL

M<PL

Residual

Bedrock





pe

ne

tra

tio

n

1 2 3 gro

un

dw

ate

r

sam

ple

s

fiel

dte

sts

de

pth

or

R.L

.in

me

ters

gra

ph

ic l

og

clas

sifi

cati

on

s

ymb

ol



mo

istu

rec

on

dit

ion

con

sist

ency

den

sity

in

dex

ha

nd

pe

ne

tro

me

ter

kPa

Remarks


form

no.

001

ver

sion

01

- 05

/05

GEOTECHNIQUEPTY LTD

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Dry

DB

CI-CH

TOPSOIL: Silty Clay, low plasticity, brown, traces ofroots and root fibresSilty CLAY, medium to high plasticity, orange-brown,trace of shale



M<PL

M<PL

Residual

Bedrock





pe

ne

tra

tio

n

1 2 3 gro

un

dw

ate

r

sam

ple

s

fiel

dte

sts

de

pth

or

R.L

.in

me

ters

gra

ph

ic l

og

clas

sifi

cati

on

s

ymb

ol



mo

istu

rec

on

dit

ion

con

sist

ency

den

sity

in

dex

ha

nd

pe

ne

tro

me

ter

kPa

Remarks


form

no.

001

ver

sion

01

- 05

/05

GEOTECHNIQUEPTY LTD

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Dry

CI-CH

TOPSOIL: Silty Clay, low plasticity, brown, trace ofrootsSilty CLAY, medium to high plasticity, orange-brown,trace of shale

SHALE, grey-brown, extremely weathered, low tomedium strength with inclusions of shaley clay

Test Pit No 4 terminated at 1.7m

M<PL

M<PL

Residual

Bedrock





pe

ne

tra

tio

n

1 2 3 gro

un

dw

ate

r

sam

ple

s

fiel

dte

sts

de

pth

or

R.L

.in

me

ters

gra

ph

ic l

og

clas

sifi

cati

on

s

ymb

ol



mo

istu

rec

on

dit

ion

con

sist

ency

den

sity

in

dex

ha

nd

pe

ne

tro

me

ter

kPa

Remarks


form

no.

001

ver

sion

01

- 05

/05

GEOTECHNIQUEPTY LTD

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Dry

CI-CH

CI-CH

TOPSOIL: Silty Clay, low plasticity, brown, trace ofroots and root fibres

Silty CLAY, medium to high plasticity, orange-brown,trace of ironstone

Silty CLAY, medium to high plasticity, orange brownmottled grey, trace of shale

Test Pit No 5 terminated at 3.2m due to refusal onshale bedrock

MPL

M<PL

Residual





pe

ne

tra

tio

n

1 2 3 gro

un

dw

ate

r

sam

ple

s

fiel

dte

sts

de

pth

or

R.L

.in

me

ters

gra

ph

ic l

og

clas

sifi

cati

on

s

ymb

ol



mo

istu

rec

on

dit

ion

con

sist

ency

den

sity

in

dex

ha

nd

pe

ne

tro

me

ter

kPa

Remarks


form

no.

001

ver

sion

01

- 05

/05

GEOTECHNIQUEPTY LTD

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Auger

Dry

CI

CI-CH

FILL: Roadbase Gravel

Silty CLAY, medium plasticity, orange-brown

Silty CLAY, medium to high plasticity, orange-brown with inclusions of shale fragments

Borehole No 6 terminated at 1.7m due to refusalon shale bedrock

M<PL

M<PL

Residual

Client : J Wyndham Prince Pty Ltd Job No. : 12261/1Project : Proposed Residential Development (Stage 1A) Borehole No. : 6Location : Grose Vale Road,

North RichmondDate : 05/05/2010Logged/Typed/Checked by: AN.sm

drill model and mounting : Bobcat with Auger slope : deg. R.L. surface :

hole diameter : 250 mm bearing : deg. datum :

me

tho

d

gro

un

dw

ate

r

sam

ple

s

fiel

dte

st

de

pth

or

R.L

.in

me

ters

gra

ph

ic l

og

clas

sifi

cati

on

s

ym

bo

l



mo

istu

rec

on

dit

ion

co

ns

iste

nc

yd

en

sit

y i

nd

ex

ha

nd

pe

ne

tro

me

ter

kPa

Remarks andadditional observations

engineering log - borehole

form

no.

002

ver

sion

02

- 11

/04

GEOTECHNIQUEPTY LTD

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Dry

CI-CH

CI-CH

TOPSOIL: Silty Clay, low plasticity, brown, trace ofroots and root fibresSilty CLAY, medium to high plasticity, orange-brown,trace of shale

SHALE, grey-brown,extremely weathered, low tomedium strength


M<PL

M<PL

Residual

Bedrock





pe

ne

tra

tio

n

1 2 3 gro

un

dw

ate

r

sam

ple

s

fiel

dte

sts

de

pth

or

R.L

.in

me

ters

gra

ph

ic l

og

clas

sifi

cati

on

s

ymb

ol



mo

istu

rec

on

dit

ion

con

sist

ency

den

sity

in

dex

ha

nd

pe

ne

tro

me

ter

kPa

Remarks


form

no.

001

ver

sion

01

- 05

/05

GEOTECHNIQUEPTY LTD

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Dry

CI-CH

TOPSOIL: Silty Clay, low plasticity, brown, trace ofroots and root fibresSilty CLAY, medium to high plasticity, orange-brown,trace of shale



M<PL

M<PL

Residual

Bedrock





pe

ne

tra

tio

n

1 2 3 gro

un

dw

ate

r

sam

ple

s

fiel

dte

sts

de

pth

or

R.L

.in

me

ters

gra

ph

ic l

og

clas

sifi

cati

on

s

ymb

ol



mo

istu

rec

on

dit

ion

con

sist

ency

den

sity

in

dex

ha

nd

pe

ne

tro

me

ter

kPa

Remarks


form

no.

001

ver

sion

01

- 05

/05

GEOTECHNIQUEPTY LTD

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Dry

DB

CI-CH

TOPSOIL: Silty Clay, low plasticity, brown, trace ofroots and root fibresSilty CLAY, medium to high plasticity,orange-brown,trace of shale

SHALE, grey-brown, extremely weathered low tomedium strength


M<PL

M<PL

Residual

Bedrock





pe

ne

tra

tio

n

1 2 3 gro

un

dw

ate

r

sam

ple

s

fiel

dte

sts

de

pth

or

R.L

.in

me

ters

gra

ph

ic l

og

clas

sifi

cati

on

s

ymb

ol



mo

istu

rec

on

dit

ion

con

sist

ency

den

sity

in

dex

ha

nd

pe

ne

tro

me

ter

kPa

Remarks


form

no.

001

ver

sion

01

- 05

/05

GEOTECHNIQUEPTY LTD

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Dry

CI-CH

CH

TOPSOIL: Silty Clay, low plasticity, brown, trace ofroots and root fibres

Silty CLAY, medium to high plasticity, orange-brown,

Silty CLAY, high plasticity, grey mottled orange withinclusions of ironstone


M<PL

MPL

Residual





pe

ne

tra

tio

n

1 2 3 gro

un

dw

ate

r

sam

ple

s

fiel

dte

sts

de

pth

or

R.L

.in

me

ters

gra

ph

ic l

og

clas

sifi

cati

on

s

ymb

ol



mo

istu

rec

on

dit

ion

con

sist

ency

den

sity

in

dex

ha

nd

pe

ne

tro

me

ter

kPa

Remarks


form

no.

001

ver

sion

01

- 05

/05

GEOTECHNIQUEPTY LTD

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Dry

DB

CH

CH

TOPSOIL/FILLl: Silty Clay, low plasticity, brown, traceof roots and root fibres

FILL: Crushed Sandstone

Silty CLAY, high plasticity, orange, brown, mottled grey

Silty CLAY, high plasticity, grey mottled orange withinclusions of ironstone

T est Pit No 11 terminated at 3.0m

M=PL

M=PL

Residual





pe

ne

tra

tio

n

1 2 3 gro

un

dw

ate

r

sam

ple

s

fiel

dte

sts

de

pth

or

R.L

.in

me

ters

gra

ph

ic l

og

clas

sifi

cati

on

s

ymb

ol



mo

istu

rec

on

dit

ion

con

sist

ency

den

sity

in

dex

ha

nd

pe

ne

tro

me

ter

kPa

Remarks


form

no.

001

ver

sion

01

- 05

/05

GEOTECHNIQUEPTY LTD

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Dry

CONE

4

6

7

5

4

0

0

1

1

2

5

4

5

5

3

5

6

6

9

11

13

15

15

CH

CH

FILL: Silty Clay, medium to high plasticity, brown,orange-brown, trace of roots and root fibres

Silty CLAY, high plasticity, orange-brown, trace ofironstone

Silty CLAY, high plasticity, grey mottled orange


M=PL

VSt-S

S-St

St-H

Residual





pe

ne

tra

tio

n

1 2 3 gro

un

dw

ate

r

sam

ple

s

fiel

dte

sts

de

pth

or

R.L

.in

me

ters

gra

ph

ic l

og

clas

sifi

cati

on

s

ymb

ol



mo

istu

rec

on

dit

ion

con

sist

ency

den

sity

in

dex

ha

nd

pe

ne

tro

me

ter

kPa

Remarks


form

no.

001

ver

sion

01

- 05

/05

GEOTECHNIQUEPTY LTD

GGEEOOTTEECCHHNNIIQQUUEEPPTTYY LLTTDD

EXPLANATORY NOTES Introduction These notes have been provided to simplify the geotechnical report with regard to investigation procedures, classification methods and certain matters relating to the Discussion and Comments section. Not all notes are necessarily relevant to all reports. Geotechnical reports are based on information gained from finite sub-surface probing, excavation, boring, sampling or other means of investigation, supplemented by experience and knowledge of local geology. For this reason they must be regarded as interpretative rather than factual documents, limited to some extent by the scope of information on which they rely. Description and Classification Methods The methods of description and classification of soils and rocks used in this report are based on AS1726 - 1993 "Geotechnical Site Investigations". In general, descriptions cover the following properties; strength or density, colour, structure, soil or rock type, and inclusions. Identification and classification of soil and rock involves, to a large extent, judgement within the acceptable level commonly adopted by current geotechnical practices. Soil types are described according to the predominating particle size, qualified by the grading or other particles present (e.g. sandy clay) on the following basis:

Soil Classification

Particle Size

Clay Less than 0.002mm Silt 0.002 to 0.06mm

Sand 0.06 to 2.00mm Gravel 2.00mm to 60.00mm

Cohesive soils are classified on the basis of strength, either by laboratory testing or engineering examination. The strength terms are defined as follows:

Classification Undrained Shear Strength kPa Very Soft Less than 12

Soft 12 – 25 Firm 25 – 50 Stiff 50 – 100

Very Stiff 100 – 200 Hard Greater than 200

Non-cohesive soils are classified on the basis of relative density, generally from the results of standard penetration tests (SPT) or Dutch cone penetrometer tests (CPT), as below:

Relative Density SPT ‘N’ Value (blows/300mm)

CPT Cone Value (qc-MPQ)

Very Loose Less than 5 Less than 2 Loose 5 – 10 2 – 5 Medium Dense 10 – 30 5 – 15 Dense 30 – 50 15 – 25 Very Dense >50 >25

Rock types are classified by their geological names, together with descriptive terms on degrees of weathering, strength, defects and other minor components. Where relevant, further information regarding rock classification is given on the following sheet. Sampling Sampling is carried out during drilling to allow engineering examination (and laboratory testing where required) of the soil or rock. Disturbed samples taken during drilling provide information on plasticity, grain size, colour, type, moisture content, inclusions and depending upon the degree of disturbance, some information on strength and structure.

Undisturbed samples are taken by pushing a thin walled sample tube (normally known as U50) into the soil and withdrawing a sample of the soil in a relatively undisturbed state. Such samples yield information on structure and strength and are necessary for laboratory determination of shear strength and compressibility. Undisturbed sampling is generally effective only in cohesive soils. Details of the type and method of sampling are given in the report. Field Investigation Methods The following is a brief summary of investigation methods currently carried out by this Company and comments on their use and application. Hand Auger Drilling The borehole is advanced by manually operated equipment. The diameter of the borehole ranges from 50mm to 100mm. Penetration depth of hand augered boreholes may be limited by premature refusal on a variety of materials, such as hard clay, gravels or ironstone. Test Pits These are excavated with a tractor-mounted backhoe or a tracked excavator, allowing close examination of the insitu soils if it is safe to descend into the pit. The depth of penetration is limited to about 3.0m for a backhoe and up to 6.0m for an excavator. A potential disadvantage is the disturbance caused by the excavation. Care must be taken if construction is to be carried out near, or within the test pit locations, to either adequately recompact the backfill during construction, or to design the structure to accommodate the poorly compacted backfill. Large Diameter Auger (e.g. Pengo) The hole is advanced by a rotating plate or short spiral auger, generally 300mm or larger in diameter. The cuttings are returned to the surface at intervals (generally of not more than 0.5m) and are disturbed, but usually unchanged in moisture content. Identification of soil strata is generally much more reliable than with continuous spiral flight augers and is usually supplemented by occasional undisturbed tube sampling. Continuous Spiral Flight Augers The hole is advanced by using 90mm-115mm diameter continuous spiral flight augers, which are withdrawn at intervals to allow sampling or insitu testing. This is a relatively economical means of drilling in clays and in sands above the water table. Samples are returned to the surface, or may be collected after withdrawal of the auger flights, but they are very disturbed and may be highly mixed with soil of other stratum. Information from the drilling (as distinct from specific sampling by SPT or undisturbed samples) is of relatively lower reliability due to remoulding, mixing or softening of samples by groundwater, resulting in uncertainties of the original sample depth. The spiral augers are usually advanced by using a V-bit through the soil profile to refusal, followed by Tungsten Carbide (TC) bit, to penetrate into bedrock. The quality and continuity of the bedrock may be assessed by examination of recovered rock fragments and through observation of the drilling penetration resistance. Non-core Rotary Drilling (Wash Boring) The hole is advanced by a rotary bit, with water being pumped down the drill rod and returned up the annulus carrying the drill cuttings. Only major changes in stratification can be determined from the cuttings, together with some information from the feel and rate of penetration. Rotary Mud Stabilised Drilling This is similar to rotary drilling, but uses drilling mud as a circulating fluid, which may consist of a range of products from bentonite to polymers such as Revert or Biogel. The mud tends to mask the cuttings and reliable identification is again only possible from separate intact sampling (e.g. SPT and U50) samples).

i


Continuous Core Drilling A continuous core sample is obtained using a diamond tipped core barrel. Providing full core recovery is achieved (which is not always possible in very low strength rocks and granular soils), this technique provides a very reliable (but relatively expensive) method of investigation. In rocks, an NMLC triple tube core barrel, which gives a core of about 50mm diameter, is usually used with water flush. Portable Proline Drilling This is manually operated equipment and is only used in sites which require bedrock core sampling and there is restricted site access to truck mounted drill rigs. The boreholes are usually advanced initially using a tricone roller bit and water circulation to penetrate the upper soil profile. In some instances, a hand auger may be used to penetrate the soil profile. Subsequent drilling into bedrock involves the use of NMLC triple tube equipment, using water as a lubricant. Standard Penetration Tests Standard penetration tests are used mainly in non-cohesive soils, but occasionally also in cohesive soils, as a means of determining density or strength and of obtaining a relatively undisturbed sample. The test procedure is described in AS1289 6.3.1. The test is carried out in a borehole by driving a 50mm diameter split sample tube under the impact of a 63kg hammer with a free fall of 769mm. It is normal for the tube to be driven in three successive 150mm increments and the 'N’ value is taken as the number of blows for the last 300mm. In dense sands, very hard clays or weak rock, the full 450mm penetration may not be practicable and the test is discontinued. The test results are reported in the following form: In a case where full penetration is obtained with successive blow

counts for each 150mm of, say 4, 6 and 7 blows as;

N = 13 4,6,7

In a case where the test is discontinued short of full penetration, say after 15 blows for the first 150mm and 30 blows for the next 40mm as;

15, 30/40mm

The results of the tests can be related empirically to the engineering properties of the soil. Occasionally the test method is used to obtain samples in 50mm diameter thin walled sample tubes in clays. In these circumstances, the test results are shown on the bore logs in brackets. Cone Penetrometer Testing and Interpretation Cone penetrometer testing (sometimes referred to as Dutch Cone-CPT) described in this report, has been carried out using an electrical friction cone penetrometer and the test is described in AS1289 6.5.1. In the test, a 35mm diameter rod with cone tipped end is pushed continuously into the soil, the reaction being provided by a specially designed truck or rig, which is fitted with a hydraulic ram system. Measurements are made of the end bearing resistance on the cone and the friction resistance on a separate 130mm long sleeve, immediately behind the cone. Transducers in the tip of the assembly are connected by electrical wires passing through the centre of the push rods to an amplifier and recorder unit mounted on the control truck. As penetration occurs (at a rate of approximately 20mm per second) the information is output on continuous chart recorders. The plotted results given in this report have been traced from the original records. The information provided on the charts comprises: Cone resistance - the actual end bearing force divided by the

cross sectional area of the cone, expressed in MPa * Sleeve friction - the frictional force on the sleeve divided by the

surface area, expressed in kPa

The ratios of the sleeve resistance to cone resistance will vary with the type of soil encountered, with higher relative friction in clays than in sands. Friction ratios of 1% to 2% are commonly encountered in sands and very soft clays, rising to 4% to 10% in stiff clays. In sands, the relationship between cone resistance and SPT value is commonly in the range:

qc (MPa) = (0.4 to 0.6) N (blows per 300mm) In clays, the relationship between undrained shear strength and cone resistance is commonly in the range:

qc=(12 to 18)Cu Interpretation of CPT values can also be made to allow estimate of modulus or compressibility values, to allow calculation of foundation settlements. Inferred stratification, as shown on the attached report, is assessed from the cone and friction traces, from experience and information from nearby boreholes etc. This information is presented for general guidance, but must be regarded as being to some extent interpretive. The test method provides a continuous profile of engineering properties and where precise information or soil classification is required, direct drilling and sampling may be preferable. Portable Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) Portable Dynamic Cone Penetrometer tests are carried out by driving a rod into the ground with a falling weight hammer and measuring the blows per successive 100mm increment of penetration. There are two similar tests, Cone Penetrometer (commonly known as Scala Penetrometer) AS1289 6.3.2 and the Perth Sand Penetrometer AS1289 6.3.3. Scala Penetrometer is commonly adopted by this company and consists of a 16mm rod with a 20mm diameter cone end, driven with a 9kg hammer, dropping 510mm (AS1289 Test P3.2). Laboratory Testing Laboratory testing is carried out in accordance with Australian Standard 1289 "Methods of Testing Soil for Engineering Purposes". Details of the test procedures are given on the individual report forms. Engineering Logs The engineering logs presented herein are an engineering and/or geological interpretation of the sub-surface conditions and their reliability will depend to some extent on frequency of sampling and the method of drilling. Ideally, continuous undisturbed sampling or core drilling will provide the most reliable assessment, however, this is not always practicable or possible to justify economically. As it is, the boreholes represent only a small sample of the total sub-surface profile. Interpretation of the information and its application to design and construction should take into account the spacing of boreholes, frequency of sampling and the possibility of other than ‘straight line’ variations between the boreholes. Groundwater Where groundwater levels are measured in boreholes, there are several potential problems: • in low permeability soils groundwater, although present, may

enter the hole slowly or perhaps not at all during the investigation period

• a localised perched water table may lead to an erroneous

indication of the true water table • water table levels will vary from time to time due to the seasons or

recent weather changes. They may not be the same at the time of construction as indicated in the report

• the use of water or mud as a drilling fluid will mask any

groundwater inflow. Water has to be blown out of the hole and drilling mud must be washed out of the hole if water observations are to be made

ii


More reliable measurements can be achieved by installing standpipes that are read at intervals over several days, or weeks for low permeability soils. Piezometers sealed in a particular stratum may be advisable in low permeability soils, or where there may be interference from a perched water table or surface water. Engineering Reports Engineering reports are prepared by qualified personnel and are based on the information obtained and on current engineering standards of interpretation and analysis. Where the report has been prepared for a specific design proposal, perhaps a three-storey building, the information and interpretation may not be relevant if the design proposal is changed, say to a twenty-storey building. If this occurs, the Company will be pleased to review the report and sufficiency of the investigation work. Every care is taken with the report as it relates to interpretation of sub-surface conditions, discussions of geotechnical aspects and recommendations or suggestions for design and construction. However, the Company cannot always anticipate or assume responsibility for: • Unexpected variations in ground conditions. The potential for this

will depend partly on bore spacing and sampling frequency. • Changes in policy or interpretation of policy by statutory

authorities. • The actions of contractors responding to commercial pressures. If these occur, the Company will be pleased to assist with investigation or advice to resolve the matter. Site Anomalies In the event that conditions encountered on-site during construction appear to vary from those that were expected from the information contained in the report, the Company requests immediate notification. Most problems are much more easily resolved when conditions are exposed rather than at some later stage, well after the event. Reproduction of Information for Contractual Purposes Attention is drawn to the document "Guidelines for the Provision of Geotechnical Information in Tender Documents", published by the Institute of Engineers Australia. Where information obtained from this Investigation is provided for tendering purposes; it is recommended that all information, including the written report and discussion, be made available. In circumstances where the discussion or comments section is not relevant to the contractual situation, it may be appropriate to prepare a specially edited document. The Company would be pleased to assist in this regard and/or make additional copies of the report available for contract purposes, at a nominal charge. Site Inspection The Company will always be pleased to provide engineering inspection services for geotechnical aspects of work to which this report is related. This could range from a site visit to confirm that the conditions exposed are as expected, to full time engineering presence on site. Review of Design Where major civil or structural developments are proposed, or where only a limited investigation has been completed, or where the geotechnical conditions are complex, it is prudent to have the design reviewed by a Senior Geotechnical Engineer.

iii

ABN 64 002 841 063




Job No: 12261/2 Our Ref: 12261/2-AA 11 August 2010 North Richmond Joint Venture c/- J Wyndham Prince Pty Ltd P O Box 4366 PENRITH WESTFIELD NSW 2750 Attention: Mr A Flaherty Dear Sir

re: Proposed Residential Development (STAGE 1A) Grose Vale Road, North Richmond Geotechnical Inspection and Review

This report details the results of a geotechnical inspection and review of construction drawings for the above project. This work was carried out as per our email dated 22 July 2010, which was verbally approved on 29 July 2010. Proposed Development It is proposed to construct access roads (Road Nos 10, 11, 5 and 4) to the proposed subdivision from Arthur Phillip Drive (north) and Grose Vale Road (south). Geotechnical inspection and review of drawings were required to advise if any measures are likely to be incorporated:

on plan set, in bill of quantities being prepared for tender documents, in tender documentation, in proposed construction methodology.

The following drawings prepared by JWP were made available for review:

CC3 Arthur Phillip Drive CC4 Grose Vale Road CC4A Pavement details CC5 Culvert (APD) long and cross sections CC6 Road access (GVR) CC13 Culvert details CC13A Culvert details

In addition to the above drawings we also reviewed our previous inspection report (11553/1-AA, dated 2 October 2007) of the dam close to the proposed access road (Road 4) from Arthur Phillip Drive and the pavement investigation report (12261/1-AA, dated 17 May 2010) for proposed access Roads 10, 11, 5 and 4. Inspection A walkover inspection was carried out by the writer on 6 August 2010, for the proposed access roads 10, 11, 5 and 4. Inspection of the dam located on the south/south-western side of Road 4 was also carried out. Access Roads 10 and 11 The topography of the proposed roads generally slopes towards the north. The angle of the slope ranges from about 5 to 12 degrees. The ground surface is covered with thick grass. There is a channel, about 0.5 to 1m wide, running across Road 11.




Considering the topography at the site and that the proposed roads will be constructed by filling, and sub-surface conditions encountered in the excavated test pits (Report 12261/1-AA, dated 17 May 2010), we do not anticipate any stability problems due to construction of the proposed roads.

From the drawings provided, we understand that the fill thickness for construction of Road 10 will range from about 0.2m to 2.2m and for Road 11 the fill thickness will range from about 0.9m to 2.2m. The cut at Ch90 for Road 11 will be about 0.6m.

We recommend that the areas where fill will be placed should be properly constructed. Before placing the subgrade fill, vegetation and topsoil should be removed and natural soils should be exposed. The subgrade should be prepared as recommended in our Report 12261/1-AA. Fill should be placed in layers not exceeding 200mm loose thickness and compacted to at least 100% Standard Maximum Dry Density (SMDD). Fill should consist of low plasticity clay or granular material. We understand that the road embankment slope will be 1V:4H. Access Road 4 This road will be constructed from the end of Arthur Phillip Drive to the proposed roundabout in the site. Topography of this road rises from Ch0 towards the existing embankment then drops towards the creek and again rises towards the proposed roundabout. Fill for the road will range from about 0.1m to 2m. We do not anticipate any stability problems for this road. Subgrade fill for this road should be placed as recommended above. Existing Dam The dam is located about 50m to 80m on the west/south-west of proposed Road 4. Inspection of the dam indicated that the depth of the dam is about 5m to 6m. During inspection the water level in the dam was low. No seepage was found from the dam. The downstream face of the dam slopes about 20 to 22 degrees.

We do not consider that construction of the access road will have any impact on the dam. Although no seepage was encountered during the present investigation, considering that there was some evidence of water seepage during the previous inspection in October 2007, it is our assessment that the dam is unstable and not safe. Therefore, during construction the water level in the dam should be kept low.

It is recommended that periodic inspections are carried out during construction to assess the condition of the dam. Conclusion Based on the site inspection and review of drawings, it is our assessment that no major changes to the drawings are required. In the site preparation notes of the drawings it should be mentioned that the existing vegetation and topsoil at the site should removed. Also subgrade preparation, fill thickness and compaction requirements, as mentioned in our previous report, should be included.

Regarding the construction of Road 4 near Arthur Phillip Drive, we do not anticipate any impact of construction on the dam. However considering the present condition of the dam, the water level in the dam should be kept low and periodic inspections carried out. During main construction of the project it might be required to de-commission the dam.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.

Yours faithfully GEOTECHNIQUE PTY LTD


ABN 64 002 841 063




Job No: 12261/1 Our Ref: 12261/1-AB 23 August 2010 North Richmond Joint Venture c/- J Wyndham Prince Pty Ltd P O Box 4366 PENRITH WESTFIELD NSW 2750 Attention: Mr A Flaherty Dear Sir re: Proposed Residential Development (Stage 1A) Grose Vale Road, North Richmond Further to our meeting of 13 August 2010, we understand that it is proposed to upgrade Grose Vale Road on either side of the proposed access road (Road 10) to the site, to accommodate increased traffic loading during construction. Background Information A geotechnical investigation (Report No 12261/1-AA dated 17 May 2010) was carried out for the pavement design of the proposed access roads from Grose Vale Road (south) and Arthur Phillip Drive (north). This investigation was conducted by excavating eleven test pits and drilling one borehole. Sub-surface conditions encountered in the test pits/borehole consisted of about 0.1m to 0.6m thick topsoil/fill, overlying residual soils to depths of 0.4m to 3.2m, overlying shale bedrock. California Bearing Ratio (CBR) tests conducted on four samples recovered from the test pits indicated CBR values of 3% and 3.5%. A design CBR value of 3% was used for the pavement design. For details the reader should refer to above report. Grose Vale Road We understand that it is proposed to upgrade Grose Vale Road on either side of the proposed access road (Road 10) to the site. Boreholes were not drilled in the existing road. However, BH6 was drilled near the southern edge of the road. Based on inspection of the existing pavement and sub-surface material revealed in BH6, the pavement profile for Grose Vale Road is likely to consist of the following: AC Seal ≈25 to 30mm Base/Sub-basecourse ≈200mm Total ≈230 Inspection did not reveal any major distress on the existing road. However, edge drop-off was noted at a number of locations. In the absence of detailed deflection testing of the existing pavement to estimate structural capacity, we recommend the following:

1) Provision of a 70mm thick AC overlay (refer below): AC14 35mm AC14 35mm

2

12261/1-AB Stage 1A – Grose Vale Road, North Richmond



2) Alternatively, conduct detailed deflection testing and borehole drilling to determine the existing

pavement profile and estimate the structural capacity and design a structural overlay. If you have any questions, please contact us. Yours faithfully GEOTECHNIQUE PTY LTD
