Geotechnical Testing Services...The desktop study revealed there to be a minimal risk of contamination due to past activites and four (4) soil samples were recovered and submitted

10 Advance Street & 5 Scofields Road, Schofields (Application A) GTE834 Stage 1 Contamination and Salinity Report Page 1 of 18

GROUND TECHNOLOGIES

GTE834 – Contamination Report R1 16 November 2016 Ark Built Investments Pty Ltd c/- Design Cubicle 44 Sorrell Street North Parramatta, NSW, 2151 RE: STAGE 1 CONTAMINATION AND SALINITY ASSESSMENT at No.10 Advance Street and 5

Schofields Road, Schofields - Application A

This letter presents an Environmental report on the inspection and testing services associated with the contamination and salinity assessment undertaken at the above project. Should you have any questions related to this report please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. For and on behalf of Ground Technologies Pty Ltd

Reviewed By

A. Bennett J. Harendran Senior Geotechnical Engineer Geotechnical Engineer

GROUND TECHNOLOGIES

Ground Technologies Pty Ltd ABN 25 089 213 294 PO Box 1121 Green Valley NSW 2168 Ph: (02) 8783 8200 Fax: (02) 8783 8210 Email: [email protected]

Geotechnical Testing Services


GROUND TECHNOLOGIES

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Description Page Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………………………………… 2 Executive Summary………………………………………………………………………………………... 3 1.0 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 4 2.0 Scope of Work…………………………………………………………………………………………. 4 3.0 Site Description………………………………………………………………………………………... 4 4.0 Site History……………………………………………………………………………………………... 6

4.1 Land Use: Previous, Past and Proposed………………………………………………………. 6 4.2 Aerial Photographs………………………………………………………………………………. 6 4.3 Search of Contaminated Land Management Records (NSW EPA)………………………… 7 4.4 Search of the POEO Register of Licensed and Delicensed Premises………………………. 7

5.0 Site Condition and Surrounding Environment…………………………………………………… 7 6.0 Regional Geology……………………………………………………………………………………… 7 7.0 Field Work ………………………...……………………………………………………………………. 7 7.1 Sampling Points……………………………………………………………………………………. 8 7.2 Soil Profile…………….……………………………………………………………………………. 9 7.3 Ground Water ………….………………………………………………………………………….. 9 8.0 Preliminary Contamination Assessment……………..…………………………………………... 10 8.1 Summary of Potential Sources of Contamination……...………………………………………. 10 8.2 Sampling Methodology……………………………………………………………………………. 10 8.3 Laboratory Accreditation………………………………………………………………………….. 10 8.4 Basis for Assessment Criteria……………………………………………………………………. 11 8.5 Sampling Methodology……………………………………………………………………………. 12 8.6 Laboratory Test Results – Agricultural Land ………………………………………………….. 13 8.7 Conclusions from Preliminary Contamination Assessment..................................………….. 14 9.0 Salinity Assessment……………………….……………..…………………………………………... 16 9.1 Salinity Potential………………………………...…………………………………………………. 16 9.2 Electronic Conductivity……………………………………………………………………………. 17 9.3 Sulphates and Chlorides………………………………………………………………………….. 17 9.4 pH……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 17 9.5 Laboratory Test Result……………………………………………………………………………. 18 10.0 Preliminary Acid Sulphate Soils Assessment 18 References

APPENDICES Appendix A – Search results of EPA Contaminated Land Register Appendix B – Search of POEO register of licensed and delicensed premises Appendix C – Borehole Logs Appendix D – Laboratory Test Certificates


GROUND TECHNOLOGIES

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This executive summary presents a synopsis of the Stage 1 Contamination Report and Salinity Assessment for the site; No.10 Advance Street and 5 Schofields Road, Schofields – Application A. It is understood that the site is to be re-developped for residential purposes. The conclusions of this Contamination Report are as follows:

• The site was used previously for a residential prurposes and what appears to be grazing. No signs of market gardening were observed within the aerial photographs, nor were there signs of market gardening (tilling of the land) observed during the site walk over.

• A review of aerial photography suggests that the neighbouring properties are rural / residential and not considered to have posed a risk for potential contamination to the site.

• A search of the NSW EPA Contaminated Land Management record of notices revealed that there were no notices issued to the subject site. No history of dangerous manufacturing utilizing heavy chemicals or metals was documented.

• According to the interpretation of the sub-surface soil profile for this site, clay soils are present beneath the site. This material would provide a relatively impermeable layer and prevent the migration of any contamination into deeper soils or groundwater.

• No industrial facilities undertaking heavy manufacturing are located within 500m of the subject site. The surrounding sites are residential / warehousing. Therfore the risk of contamination migration caused by surface run-off from adjoining sites is minimal.

The desktop study revealed there to be a minimal risk of contamination due to past activites and four (4) soil samples were recovered and submitted for chemical analysis at a NATA accredited laboratory. Heavy metal concentrations for Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Mercury, Nickel and Zinc were well below the relevant assessment criteria indicating that that they are likely to pose a low risk to human health or the environment under a ‘standard residential with garden/accessible soil’, however a hot spot of Lead was identified during the course of the investigation. The most appropriate remediation strategy for the site is the classification, excavation and disposal of contaminated materials. The fill material will be excavated and be directly transported off site to the landfill. This material will be classified as General Solid Waste in accordance with the Waste Classification Guidelines published by the NSW EPA (2014). The underlying natural soils will then be tested for lead and potentially classified as virgin excavated natural material (VENM) for future use; since it is in accordance with the definition of VENM. The Organochlorine Pesticides concentrations, presented in Table 7, were below the relevant assessment criteria (HILs A). Laboratory testing indicates that that Organochlorine Pesticide concentrations present in thenatural soil profile pose a low risk to human health or the environment under a ‘standard residential with garden/accessible soil’. The electrical conductivity results indicate that the soil salinity is predominately non saline to slightly saline. No highly saline results were recorded. The laboratory test values of sulphates, chlorides and pH indicate that the soil samples are non aggressive to both steel and concrete. The Department of Land and Water Conservation has no record of Acid Sulphate soils within the Schoflieds region.


1.0 INTRODUCTION Ground Technologies Pty Ltd have undertaken a Stage 1 Contamination Assessment with limited full testing and a Salinity Assessment at No.10 Advance Street and 5 Schofields Road, Schofields – Application A. It is understood that the site is to be re-developped for residential purposes. 2.0 SCOPE OF WORK The following scope of work was conducted: • Desktop Study of the following to assist in identification of potential contamination issues:

- Data from Environment Protection Authority - Historical and current aerial photographs - Data from the Protection of the Environment Operations Public Register (POEO)

• Review of soils and geological maps. • Site Inspection by a Geotechnical Engineer to ascertain current activities, and any visible signs of

contamination. • Collection of soil samples by a Geotechnical Engineer according to a sampling plan. • Chemical analysis by a NATA accredited laboratory. • Assessment of the results of the chemical analysis against the appropriate guidelines. • Preparation of the Stage 1 Contamination and Salinity Report.

3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The following information, presented in Table 1, describes the site.

Table 1: Summary of Site Details

Figure 1 – Location of Site

Site Address 10 Advance Street and 5 Schofields Road, Schofields Lot / DP Northern Portion of Lot A DP389763 Council Area Blacktown City Council


The subject site comprises the residential allotment bound by advance street and the vacant parcel of land to the rear. The residential allotment comprises a single storey residentialhouse and garage whick opens up to a large grass covered paddock. The land to the south of the development site has been designated as a natural riparian channel. Photograph 1 – Main House Photograph 2 – Reay Yard of Residential Alotment

Photograph 3 – Grassed Paddock to Rear of Residential Alotment


4.0 SITE HISTORY In order to ascertain the site history, a documentary review of past and present land use at the subject site and the surrounding area has been undertaken as follows: 4.1 Land Use: Previous, Present and Proposed: The site is currently being used for residential purposes. Annecdotal evidence suggests that the Kellyville area was utilized for various agricultural purposes but predominately grazing. 4.2 Aerial Photographs: A review of Historical Aerial Photographs was undertaken in order to provide a greater insight into the site history.

1961 – In 1961 the site appears to have been developed to contain the main residential structure. No significant agricultural activities are observed within the site. Neighbouring sites are rural / farming properties. No industrial or manufacturing plants could be identified within the aerial photograph. The subject site is highlighted in figure 2.

Figure 2 – Aerial Photograph from 1961

1978 – In 1978 no significant changes are are observed within the site. No significant agricultural activities are observed within the site. Neighbouring sites are predominately rural / residential properties. No industrial or manufacturing plants could be identified within the aerial photograph. The subject site is highlighted in figure 3.



1998 – In 1998, no significant changes are are observed within the site. No significant agricultural activities are observed within the site. The neighbouring sites are still rural / residential properties. No industrial or manufacturing plants could be identified within the aerial photograph. The subject site is highlighted in figure 4.


4.3 Search of Contaminated Land Management Register (NSW EPA): A search of the NSW EPA Contaminated Land Management record of notices provided the details of 0 premises in the Schofields area (See Appendix A). 4.4 Search of Protection of the Environment Operations Public Register (POEO) of Licensed and Delicensed Premises: A search of the POEO public register of licensed and delicensed premises (DECC) provided the details of six (6) premises in the Schofields area (See Appendix B), however no licensed or delicensed premises were located within the immediate surrounding area of the site (within 200m). 5.0 SITE CONDITION AND SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT A detailed walk-over of the site was conducted on 23rd of May 2016. The field observations are summarised in the table 2.

Table 2: Summary of Field Observations

Parameter Observation Visible observations on soil contamination

No visible evidence of contamination was observed. No staining of the soils or odours were documented.

Signs of plant stress None observed. Presence of drums, waste materials No visible indicators of underground fuel tanks (bowsers or venting pipes). Presence of fill None observed Presence of Market Gardening None observed. No tilling of the land observed

6.0 REGIONAL GEOLOGY The 1:100,000 scale Geological Series Map of the Penrith region indicates that the subject site is underlain by Bringelly Shale of the Wianamatta Group dating back to the Middle Triassic period and generally comprises shale, carbonaceous claystone, claystone, laminate, fine to medium grained lithic sandstone, and rare coal / tuff.


7.0 FIELD WORK 7.1 Sampling Points Limited sampling and analysis was undertaken in order to assess the nature, location and likely distribution of any contamination present at the subject site, and also to determine the salinity within the site. Fieldwork was undertaken on the 23rd of May and 8th of June 2016 in conjunction with a geotechnical investigation and included drilling four boreholes (1 to 4) with a 4WD Toyota Landcruiser Ute mounted drill rig with 100 mm solid flight spiral augers. at the locations shown on Figure 5. Four (4) soil samples (C1 to C4) were recovered for environmental testing and nine (9) soils samples (S1 to S9) were recovered for salinity analysis. Full borehole logs and laboratory test certificates are presented in Appendix C and D.

Figure 5 – Borehole Locations

8

5

4

1


7.2 Soil Profile Five (5) distinct geological units were encountered during the field investigation. These units are detailed in table 3 and the approximate depth of each unit is detailed in table 4. Full borehole logs are presented in Appendix A.

Table 3: Summary of Geological Units

UNIT SOIL TYPE

UNIT A NATURAL: Clayey SILT UNIT B NATURAL: Silty CLAY UNIT C BEDROCK: SHALE / SANDSTONE, very low strength UNIT D BEDROCK; SHALE / SANDSTONE, low strength UNIT E BEDROCK; LAMINITE (Interbedded sandstone and shale), medium to high strength

Table 4: Depth of each Geological Unit

Borehole

Geological Unit Unit B Unit C Unit D Unit E Unit F Natural

Silt Natural

Clay VL / L

Bedrock L / M

Bedrock M / H

Bedrock BH01 0-0.2m 0.2-0.7m 0.7-1.8m 1.8-3.7m 3.7m+*

BH02 0-0.3m 0.3-0.6m 0.6-2.2m 2.2-3.1m 3.1m+* BH03 0-0.3m 0.3-0.8m 0.8-2.5m 2.5-3.5m 3.5m+ BH04 0-0.3m 0.3-1.1m - 1.1-1.8m 1.8m+

Note * – Medium to high strength bedrock inferred from bole refusal. 7.3 Ground Water At the completion of NMLC coring within borehole BH2 the open pilot hole was purged. The following day, ground water had returned and was at a standing depth of 2.6m. Natural ground water levels are therefore interpreted to be located at a depth of between 3.0-6.0m below existing ground surface levels. We point out that the ground water level readings obtained may not reflect fluctuations in ground water levels as a result of seasonal variations in rain fall and variations in rainfall intensities. Long term ground water monitoring was not undertaken as a part of this scope of works


8.0 PRELIMINARY CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT 8.1 Summary of Potential Sources of Contamination The subject site appears to have been used for residential purposes for the entirety of its existence. A review of aerial photography supports this assumption. The neighbouring properties are residential and not considered to have posed a risk for potential contamination to the site. No market gardening or heavy agriculture was identified within the site during the desktop study A search of the NSW EPA Contaminated Land Management record of notices revealed that there were no notices issued to the subject site. No history of dangerous manufacturing utilizing heavy chemicals or metals was documented. No history of heavy chemicals or metals storage was was documented. According to the interpretation of the sub-surface soil profile for this site, clay soils are present beneath the site. This material would provide a relatively impermeable layer and prevent the migration of any contamination into deeper soils or groundwater. No industrial estates are located within 500m of the subject site. Therfore the risk of contamination migration caused by surface run-off from adjoining sites is minimal. Whilst the potential for site contamination due to agricultural use was low, preliminary screening laboratory chemical testing was undertaken as a part of this investigation. Routine testing for Heavy Metals (Arsenic, Chromium Copper, Lead, Mercury Nickel and Zinc) and Organochlorine Pesticides (OCP) was undertaken within the soil profile. 8.2 Sampling Methodology Each sample location was excavated utilizing a truck mounted solid flight auger drill rig. The sample was collected from the auger using a stainless steel trowel, which had been decontaminated prior to use to prevent cross contamination occurring. The samples were placed in 250g laboratory prepared glass jars which were capped using Teflon-sealed screw caps and then placed in a chilled container. The sample jars were transported to our West Hoxton office and placed in a refrigerator. The samples were forwarded to Australian Laboratory Services Pty Ltd (ALS) for analysis along with a Chain of Custody which was subsequently returned to confirm the receipt of all samples. 8.3 Laboratory Accreditation ALS are accredited by the National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA) for the analyses carried out and are also accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025.


8.4 Basis for Assessment Criteria The Assessment criteria used in this investigation have been obtained from the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure (NEPM, 2013). This document presents risk-based Health Investigation Levels based on a variety of exposure settings for a number of organic and inorganic contaminants. To assess the risk to human health the results of the laboratory analysis are compared against the Health Investigation Levels (HIL) for the exposure setting; ‘standard residential with garden/accessible soil’ (‘A’).

Table 5: Site Assessment Criteria

Chemicals and other attributes Health Based

Investigation Level (HIL‘A’)

Heavy Metals

Arsenic 100 Cadmium 20 Chromium (total) 100 Copper 6,000 Lead 300 Nickel 400 Zinc 7,400 Mercury 40

Pesticides

Aldrin + Dieldrin 45 Chlordane 530 Endosulfan 2,000 Endrin 100 Heptachlor 50 Methoxychlor 2,500 DDD+DDE+DDT 3,600


8.5 Laboratory Test Results – Potential Agricultural Land Whilst the potential for site contamination due to agricultural use was low, preliminary screening laboratory chemical testing was undertaken as a part of this investigation. Routine testing for Heavy Metals (Arsenic, Chromium Copper, Lead, Mercury Nickel and Zinc) and Organochlorine Pesticides (OCP) was undertaken within the soil profile. Test results are tabulated and presented below along with the relevant assessment criteria. Laboratory test certificates (ES1611610 & ES1613406) are located in Appendix D.

Table 6: Heavy Metal Test Results – Natural Soils

Location Sample No.

Depth (m) Ar

seni

c

Cadm

ium

Chro

miu

m

Copp

er

Lead

Merc

ury

Nick

el

Zinc

BH1 C1 0.2m 12 <1 13 28 548 <0.1 10 104 BH2 C2 0.2m 14 <1 15 20 29 <0.1 12 49 BH3 C3 0.2m 18 <1 16 14 27 <0.1 11 39 BH4 C4 0.2m 12 <1 16 16 34 <0.1 11 45

NEPM Health Investigation Level (A) 100 20 100 6000 300 40 400 7400

Table 7: Pesticides Test Results– Natural Soils

Location Sample No.

Depth (m)

Aldr

in +

Dield

rin

Chlo

rdan

e

Endo

sulfa

n

Endr

in

Hept

achl

or

Moth

oxyc

hlor

DDD+

DDE+

DDT

BH1 C1 0.2m <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.2 <0.05 BH2 C2 0.2m <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.2 <0.05 BH3 C3 0.2m <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.2 <0.05 BH4 C4 0.2m <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.2 <0.05

NEPM Health Investigation Level 3 25 135 5 3 150 120


8.6 Conclusions from Preliminary Contamination Assessment The conclusions of this Contamination Report are as follows:

• The subject site appears to have been used for residential purposes for the entirety of its existence. No market gardening or heavy agriculture was identified within the site during the desktop study A review of aerial photography supports this assumption. The neighbouring properties are residential and not considered to have posed a risk for potential contamination to the site.

• A search of the NSW EPA Contaminated Land Management record of notices revealed that there were no notices issued to the subject site. No history of dangerous manufacturing utilizing heavy chemicals or metals was documented.

• According to the interpretation of the sub-surface soil profile for this site, clay soils are present beneath the site. This material would provide a relatively impermeable layer and prevent the migration of any contamination into deeper soils or groundwater.

• No industrial facilities undertaking heavy manufacturing are located within 500m of the subject site. Therfore the risk of contamination migration caused by surface run-off from adjoining sites is minimal.

The desktop study revealed there to be a minimal risk of contamination due to past activites and four (4) soil samples were recovered and submitted for chemical analysis at a NATA accredited laboratory. Heavy metal concentrations for Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Mercury, Nickel and Zinc were well below the relevant assessment criteria indicating that that they are likely to pose a low risk to human health or the environment under a ‘standard residential with garden/accessible soil’, however a hot spot of Lead was identified during the course of the investigation. A Remedial Action Plan (RAP) is presented in the following section and outlines the appropriate actions required to render the site suitable for the proposed land use and to prevent off site impacts.

Figure 6 – Lead Hotspot

The Organochlorine Pesticides concentrations, presented in Table 7, were below the relevant assessment criteria (HILs A). Laboratory testing indicates that that Organochlorine Pesticide concentrations present in thenatural soil profile pose a low risk to human health or the environment under a ‘standard residential with garden/accessible soil’.


8.7 Remediation Action Plan The subject hot spot is located witin an area designated for excavation. The most appropriate remediation strategy for the site is the classification, excavation and disposal of contaminated materials. The fill material will be excavated and be directly transported off site to the landfill. This material will be classified as General Solid Waste (see tables 8 & 9) in accordance with the Waste Classification Guidelines published by the NSW EPA (2014). Excavation will be visually observed by Ground Technologies to assess the extent of excavations, and will determine whether the contamination has been removed or further excavation needs to be conducted.

Table 8: Waste Classification of Fill Soils

Contaminant

SCC

mg/kg

General Solid Waste Criteria

CT1 mg/kg

Restricted Solid Waste Criteria CT2

mg/kg

Classification (without TCLP)

C1 Arsenic 12 100 400 General

Cadmium <1 20 80 General Chromium 13 100 400 General

Lead 548 100 400 Hazardous Mercury <0.1 4 16 General Nickel 10 40 160 General

Benzene <0.2 10 40 General Toluene <0.5 288 1152 General

Ethyl Benzene <0.5 600 2400 General Xylenes (total) <0.5 1000 4000 General

Benzo(a)pyrene <0.5 0.8 3.2 General Total PAH <0.5 200* 800* General

TPH (C6-C9) <10 650* 2600* General TPH (C10-C36) 120 10000* 40000* General

Results of the analyses on the soil show that the material could not be classified as General Solid Waste without testing Lead with the Toxicity Characteristics Leaching Procedure (TCLP). As such, additional testing was undertaken by ALS (Certificate Reference number ES1613406) The results are summarised in Table 2 with the relevant Contaminant Concentrations from Table 2 of Part 1: Classifying Waste, Waste Classification Guidelines published by the NSW EPA (2014).

Table 9: Analysis of TCLP Extract

Sample Contaminant SCC mg/kg

General Solid Waste Criteria (mg/kg)

TCLP (mg/L)

General Solid Waste

Criteria mg/L

Classification (with TCLP)

C1 Lead 598 1500 0.7 5 General

After analyzing the soil samples recovered from the subject site, the spoil material is classified as General Solid Waste (non putrescible) – Asbestos Contaminated Material for landfill disposal purposes since the results are in accordance with the values in Table 1 and 2 of the Part 1: Classifying Waste, Waste Classification Guidelines published by the Waste Classification Guidelines published by the NSW EPA (2014). Following the excavation and removal of the affected clayey silt (Unit A) material; validation of the excavated areas is required to complete site remediation works. The validation report will be prepared on completion of on-site remedial works and will contain an overview of all remediation activities conducted and details of the volumes of excavated material. Finally, a statement indicating the suitability of the Site for the proposed land use will be provided.


The underlying natural soils will then be tested for lead and potentially classified as virgin excavated natural material (VENM) for future use; since it is in accordance with the definition of VENM given under the Protection of the Environments Operations Act 1997 as outlined below: ‘Natural material (such as clay, gravel, sand, soil or rock fines):

• That has been excavated or quarried from areas that are not contaminated with manufactured chemicals or process residues, as a result of industrial, commercial, mining or agricultural activities, and

• That does not contain any sulfidic ores or soils or any other waste.’


9.0 SALINITY ASSESSMENT Salt is a naturally occurring mineral that forms in a number of ways. It is a product of rock weathering, especially marine sedimentary rocks. It is picked up by wind blowing over the oceans and carried inland as salt laden moisture. Dispersed salt on the soil surface can be concentrated by the action of the wind. These salt deposits are buried over millions of years, but can later be exposed by erosion or the salt can be mobilised by groundwater. Salt is a natural part of some landscapes, for example, in inland salt pans, brackish streams, coastal salt marshes and naturally saline soils. However, where human activities such as vegetation clearing, cropping, and housing development have disturbed natural ecosystems and changed the hydrology of the landscape, the movement of salt into rivers and on land is accelerated. This is affecting the natural environment, reducing the viability of the agricultural sector and damaging infrastructure. Urban salinity affects built infrastructure, due to the chemical and physical impact of salt on concrete, bricks and metal. The salt moves with water into the pores of bricks and concrete when they are exposed to damp, salt-laden soils. As the water is evaporated from the material, the salt concentrates and over time this can be substantial enough to cause corrosion and damage the material’s structure. This is seen as crumbling, eroded or powdering mortar or bricks, the flaking of brick facing and the cracking or corrosion of concrete. The salt within the material can also have a corrosive effect on steel reinforcing. The long-term consequences can be structural damage. Some building methods may also contribute to the development of salinity. Compacted surfaces can restrict groundwater flow and concentrate salt in one area. By cutting into slopes to build, groundwater or saline soil may be intercepted and exposed. In addition, fill used to build up an area may be a source of salt, or it may be less permeable, preventing good drainage. 9.1 Salinity Potential The Department of Infrastructure and Planning (2002) Salinity Potential in Western Sydney map “Salinity Potential in Western Sydney 2002” indicates that the subject site is situated in a region with a moderate to high risk of saline soils.

Figure 11 - Salinity Map with General Site Area Identified

The moderate classification is attributed to scattered areas of scalding and vegetation indicators in areas where the concentrations have not been mapped. There is the possibility of encountering saline areas which were not identified due to localised factors. Saline soils could occur within areas of lower slopes and drainage systems where water accumulation is high or where movement of water through the soil profile is low.

Five (5) screening tests were collected as a part of this assessment in order to gain a view on the risk of saline soils. This assessments is based on the booklet “Site Investigations for Urban Salinity” published by Department of Land


and Water Conservation 2002. Laboratory analysis was completed by Australian Laboratory Services (ALS) Pty Ltd, a NATA accredited laboratory, Certificate Reference number ES1611610 and ES1613262. 9.2 Electrical Conductivity Salinity refers to the presence of excessive salt, which is toxic to most plants. Because salt separates into positively and negatively charged ions when dissolved in water, the electrical conductivity of the water increases as the amount of salt increases. To test the electrical conductivity of soil one part of soil is mixed with 5 parts of water. The result is then multiplied by the soil texture conversion factor to give the final figure. This result is known as extract electrical conductivity (ECe). The ECe values of soil salinity class is given below which has been adopted from the booklet “Site Investigations for Urban Salinity” published by Department of Land and Water Conservation 2002. The salinity exposure classification for various concrete strengths (F’c) is detailed in Section 5.1 of AS 2870-2011 “Residential Slabs and Footings” code.

Table 10: ECe values of Soil Salinity Class and Exposure Classification for Concrete Class ECe Exposure Classification for Concrete

(AS 2870 – 2011 from Tables 5.1 & 5.3) Non Saline <2 A1 (min. F’c = 20 MPa)

Slightly Saline 2-4 A1 (min. F’c =20 MPa) Moderately Saline 4-8 A2 (min. F’c =25 MPa)

Very Saline 8-16 B1 (min. F’c =32 MPa) Highly Saline >16 B2 (min. F’c =40MPa)

9.3 Sulphates and Chlorides Chlorides are negatively charged ions (anions) which are corrosive to building material, particularly steels. In concrete, chlorides react with the steel reinforcement causing it to corrode and expand putting physical stress on the concrete. Sulphates are negatively charged particles (anions) which are corrosive to building materials, particularly concrete. Sulphates react with the hydrated calcium aluminate in concrete. The products of the reaction have a greater volume than the original material, producing physical stress in the concrete.

Table 11: Sulphate and Chloride Values and Aggressivity 9.4 pH pH Measures acidity or alkalinity of soil and is important in determining the aggressiveness of the soil to building materials. Acids combine with the calcium hydroxide component of cement to form soluble calcium compounds which can leach from the concrete increasing its porosity and decreasing its strength.

Table 12: pH Values and Aggressivity

Concrete Structure Steel Structure Sulphate (SO4)

Units(mg/kg) Classification Chloride

Units(mg/kg) Classification

<5,000 Non-aggressive <20,000 Non-aggressive 5,000-10,000 Mild 20,000-50,000 Mild

10,000-20,000 Moderate >50,000 Moderate >20,000 Severe

Concrete Structure Steel Structures pH Classification pH Classification >5 Non-aggressive >4 Non-aggressive

4.5-5 Mild 3-4 Mild 4.0-4.5 Moderate <3 Moderate

<4.0 Severe


9.5 Laboratory Test Results Test results are tabulated and presented in table 13 & 14 below. The laboratory test certificate is located in Appendix C.

Table 13: Analysis of the Soil Samples (Salinity)

Sample Borehole Depth (m)

EC µS/cm

Texture Factor ECe Salinity Class

S1 BH2 0.5 0.074 7 0.518 Non Saline S2 BH2 1.5 0.097 9 0.873 Non Saline S3 BH2 2.5 0.097 9 0.873 Non Saline S4 BH3 0.5 0.108 7 0.756 Non Saline S5 BH3 1.5 0.213 14 2.982 Slightly Saline S6 BH3 2.5 0.212 14 2.968 Slightly Saline S7 BH2 4.0 0.174 14 2.436 Slightly Saline S8 BH2 5.0 0.123 14 1.722 Non Saline S9 BH2 7.0 0.121 9 1.089 Non Saline

Table 14: Analysis of the Soil Samples (Aggressiveness)

Sample Borehole Depth (m)

pH Chloride Sulphate Resistivity Aggressivity to Concrete

Aggressivity to Steel pH Units mg/kg mg/kg Ohm.cm

S1 BH2 0.5 6.8 30 100 13500 Not Agg Not Agg S2 BH2 1.5 7.1 70 100 10300 Not Agg Not Agg S3 BH2 2.5 8.9 <10 <10 10300 Not Agg Not Agg S4 BH3 0.5 8.8 <10 20 9260 Not Agg Not Agg S5 BH3 1.5 9.5 40 40 4690 Not Agg Not Agg S6 BH3 2.5 9.2 40 20 4720 Not Agg Not Agg S7 BH2 4.0 8.8 20 40 5750 Not Agg Not Agg S8 BH2 5.0 9.1 40 50 8130 Not Agg Not Agg S9 BH2 7.0 9.0 30 50 8260 Not Agg Not Agg

Abbreviations: Not Agg Non-Aggressive Mild Mildly Aggressive

From the results presented in Table 13, the electrical conductivity results indicate that the soil salinity is predominately non saline to slightly saline. No highly saline results were recorded. The laboratory test values of sulphates, chlorides and pH (table 14) indicate that the soil samples are non aggressive to both steel and concrete. 10.0 PRELIMINARY ACID SULPHATE SOILS ASSESSMENT Acid Sulfate Soils (ASS) are naturally occurring and usually form in low lying coastal areas, creeks, rivers and flood plains. The sulfates present in the soil are stable when in the saturated/waterlogged state, but react to form sulphuric acid when disturbed and exposed to oxygen. The Department of Land and Water Conservation has no record of Acid Sulphate soils within the Schofields region.

REFERENCES: Contaminated Sites – Guidelines for Assessing Former Orchards and Market Gardens. Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) 2005. Contaminated Sites – Guidelines for Consultants Reporting on Contaminated Sites. NSW Environment Protection

Authority (EPA) 2000. Contaminated Sites – Sampling Design Guidelines. NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA) 1995 Geology of Penrith 1:100000 Geological Series Sheet 9130, 1st Edition - Geological Survey of NSW Department of Mineral Resources 1983. Managing Land Contamination: Planning Guidelines SEPP55 – Remediation of Land - Department of Urban Affairs

and Planning and Environment Protection Authority (DUAP and EPA) 1998. National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure – National Environmental Protection

Council 1999. Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils Ltd (2003) Western Sydney Salinity Code of Practice Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources (2002) Site Investigations for Urban Salinity; Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources (2003) Building in a Saline Environment Australian Standards AS2159 – 2009 Pilling – Design and Installation Australian Standards AS 2870 – 2011 – Residential Slabs and Footings

APPENDIX A SEARCH RESULTS OF EPA CONTAMINATED LAND REGISTER

APPENDIX B SEARCH OF POEO REGISTER OF LICENSED AND DELICENSED PREMISES

APPENDIX C BOREHOLE LOGS

N ML Clayey SILT, pale brown, dryIL CI Silty CLAY, medium plasticity,

orange with yellow/brown mottling, dry stiff to very stiff

ROCK SHALE, extremeley weathered,very low strength, pale brown, brown

SHALE, extremeley weathered, low strength, grey with brown and grey/brown

Class IV

Class V

SITE LOCATION: 10 Advance Street, Schofields

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

SOIL DESCRIPTION

(SOIL TYPE, COLOUR, MOISTURE, CONSISTENCY )

UN

IFIE

D

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

TEST SITE NO. 1

DE

PT

H (

m)

REMARKS

WA

TE

R

SA

MP

LE

Pocket Penotrometer = 220kPa0.5

1

1.5

2

C1

GROUND

TECHNOLOGIESGeotechnical Testing Services

Ground Technologies Pty

Ltd

ABN 25 089 213 294PO Box 1121 Green Valley NSW 2168

Ph: (02) 8783 8200

Fax: (02) 8783 8210

Borehole terminated at 3.7m due to rig refusal

4WD Mounted Rig/Solid FlightSpiral AugersDate of Drilling: 23/6/2016Logged and Drilled by: AB

3.5

3

Method:

2

2.5

4

4.5

N ML Clayey SILT, pale brown, dryIL

CI Silty CLAY, medium plasticity,orange with yellow/brown mottling,

dry stiff to very stiffROCK SHALE, extremeley weathered, Class V

very low strength, pale brown, brown

2

1.5S2

1

0.5Pocket Penotrometer = 270kPa

S1

L1

C2


TEST SITE NO. 2

WA

TE

R

DE

PT

H (

m)

UN

IFIE

D

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

SOIL DESCRIPTION


GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

SA

MP

LE

REMARKS

GROUND



Ltd


Ph: (02) 8783 8200

Fax: (02) 8783 8210

SHALE, extremeley weathered, low strength, grey with brown and grey/brown

Borehole terminated at 3.1m due to rig refusalContinued with NMLC drill method


Method:

4.5

4

3.5

3

Class IV

2.5S3

2

GROUND TECHNOLOGIESJob No: GTE834

Hole No: BH2

Sheet: 1 of 1

Client: Ark Developments Hole Commenced: 8/6/2016

Project: Proposed Residential Subdivision Hole Completed: 8/6/2016

Project Location: 10 Advance Street, Schofields Supervised by: AB

Drill Model: Track Mount Slope: 90o

R.L. Surface: 24.0m

Me

tho

d

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

De

pth

(m

)

Gra

ph

ic L

og

We

ath

eri

ng

EL

VL

L E

stim

ate

dM H

S

trength

VH

EH

Is(5

0)

M

Pa

30

100 D

efe

ct

300

1000 S

pacin

g3000

Defect Description R/L

N Y 3.1 MW horiz joint 3.1m 20.9

M E horiz joint 3.2m

L S horiz joint 3.3m

C horiz joint 3.4m

3.5 horis joint 3.5m 20.5

1

4.0 20.0

horiz joint 4.1m

horiz joint, clay filled, 4.35m

4.5 0.5 19.5

horiz joint 4.7m

horiz joint 4.78m

Sandstone, horizontally bedded,

minor shale bands

brown, grey, pale brown

(sample S6 @ 4.0m)

Material Description

Sandstone, horizontally bedded, pale grey

Shale, horizontally bedded,

minor sandstone bands

brown, grey, pale brown

GROUND

TECHNOLOGIES

horiz joint 4.78m

5.0 19.0

3.2

horiz joint 5.4m

5.5 18.5

horiz joint 5.7m

horiz joint 5.73m

6.0 18.0

1 horix joint 6.1m

horiz joint 6.3m

6.5 17.5

0.7

horiz joint 6.58m

horiz joint 6.87m

7.0 horiz joint 6.96m 17.0

3.2 horiz joint 7.38m

7.5

horiz joint 7.55m

Key - Method Comments Weathering Strength Is (50) MPaAS Auger Screwing Fr Fresh EL Extremely Low < 0.03AD Auger Drilling SW Slightly weathered VL Very Low 0.03 - 0.1R Roller / Tricone MW Moderately weathered L Low 0.1 - 0.3W Washbore DW Distinctly weathered M Medium 0.3 - 1.0NMLC NMLC Core Drill EW Extremely weathered H High 1.0 - 3.0

Shale, horizontally bedded,

minor sandstone bands

Borehole terminated at 7.6m (R/L16.4m)

grey, dark grey

(sample S7 @ 4.0m)

W Washbore DW Distinctly weathered M Medium 0.3 - 1.0NMLC NMLC Core Drill EW Extremely weathered H High 1.0 - 3.0NQ,HQ Wireline Core Drill VH Very High 3.0 - 10.0



dry, very stiff

ROCK SANDSTONE, extremely weathered, very low strength, brown with yellow/brown

and pale grey

2

1.5S5

1

Class V


S4

C3


TEST SITE NO. 3

WA

TE

R

DE

PT

H (

m)

UN

IFIE

D

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

SOIL DESCRIPTION


GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

SA

MP

LE

REMARKS

GROUND



Ltd


Ph: (02) 8783 8200

Fax: (02) 8783 8210

SANDSTONE, extremeley weathered, low strength, brown with pale brown



Method:

4.5

4

3.5

3

2.5S6 Class IV

2



dry stiff to very stiffCI/CH Silty CLAY / Completely Weathered SHALE

medium to high plasticity, mottled red and pale grey,

slightly moist, very stiff

ROCK SHALE, extremeley weathered, low strength, grey, dark grey


2

1.5

1

Pocket Penotrometer = 350kPa


C4


TEST SITE NO. 4

WA

TE

R

DE

PT

H (

m)

UN

IFIE

D

CLA

SS

IFIC

AT

ION

SOIL DESCRIPTION


GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

SA

MP

LE

REMARKS

GROUND



Ltd


Ph: (02) 8783 8200

Fax: (02) 8783 8210


Method:

4.5

4

3.5

3

2.5

2

APPENDIX D LABORATORY TEST CERTIFICATES

0 0.00 True

Environmental

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSISWork Order : Page : 1 of 9ES1611610

:: LaboratoryClient GROUND TECHNOLOGIES Environmental Division Sydney

: :ContactContact MR ANTHONY BENNETT

:: AddressAddress PO BOX 1121

GREEN VALLEY NSW,AUSTRALIA 2168

277-289 Woodpark Road Smithfield NSW Australia 2164

:Telephone +61 02 8783 8200 :Telephone +61-2-8784 8555

NATA Accredited Laboratory 825

Accredited for compliance with

ISO/IEC 17025.

:Project GTE834 Schofields Date Samples Received : 30-May-2016 16:30

:Order number ---- Date Analysis Commenced : 31-May-2016

:C-O-C number ---- Issue Date : 03-Jun-2016 14:58

Sampler : ----

Site : ----

Quote number : ----

10:No. of samples received

10:No. of samples analysed

This report supersedes any previous report(s) with this reference. Results apply to the sample(s) as submitted.

This Certificate of Analysis contains the following information:

l General Comments

l Analytical Results

l Surrogate Control Limits

Additional information pertinent to this report will be found in the following separate attachments: Quality Control Report, QA/QC Compliance Assessment to assist with

Quality Review and Sample Receipt Notification.

SignatoriesThis document has been electronically signed by the authorized signatories below. Electronic signing is carried out in compliance with procedures specified in 21 CFR Part 11.

Signatories Accreditation CategoryPosition

Ankit Joshi Inorganic Chemist Sydney Inorganics, Smithfield, NSW

Ashesh Patel Inorganic Chemist Sydney Inorganics, Smithfield, NSW

Celine Conceicao Senior Spectroscopist Sydney Inorganics, Smithfield, NSW

Dian Dao Sydney Inorganics, Smithfield, NSW

Pabi Subba Senior Organic Chemist Sydney Organics, Smithfield, NSW

R I G H T S O L U T I O N S | R I G H T P A R T N E R

2 of 9:Page

Work Order :

:Client

ES1611610

GTE834 Schofields:Project

GROUND TECHNOLOGIES

General Comments

The analytical procedures used by the Environmental Division have been developed from established internationally recognized procedures such as those published by the USEPA, APHA, AS and NEPM. In house

developed procedures are employed in the absence of documented standards or by client request.

Where moisture determination has been performed, results are reported on a dry weight basis.

Where a reported less than (<) result is higher than the LOR, this may be due to primary sample extract/digestate dilution and/or insufficient sample for analysis.

Where the LOR of a reported result differs from standard LOR, this may be due to high moisture content, insufficient sample (reduced weight employed) or matrix interference.

When sampling time information is not provided by the client, sampling dates are shown without a time component. In these instances, the time component has been assumed by the laboratory for processing purposes.

Where a result is required to meet compliance limits the associated uncertainty must be considered. Refer to the ALS Contact for details.

CAS Number = CAS registry number from database maintained by Chemical Abstracts Services. The Chemical Abstracts Service is a division of the American Chemical Society.

LOR = Limit of reporting

^ = This result is computed from individual analyte detections at or above the level of reporting

ø = ALS is not NATA accredited for these tests.

~ = Indicates an estimated value.

Key :

EP071: Results of sample C1 have been confirmed by re-extraction and re-analysis.l

Benzo(a)pyrene Toxicity Equivalent Quotient (TEQ) is the sum total of the concentration of the eight carcinogenic PAHs multiplied by their Toxicity Equivalence Factor (TEF) relative to Benzo(a)pyrene. TEF values

are provided in brackets as follows: Benz(a)anthracene (0.1), Chrysene (0.01), Benzo(b+j) & Benzo(k)fluoranthene (0.1), Benzo(a)pyrene (1.0), Indeno(1.2.3.cd)pyrene (0.1), Dibenz(a.h)anthracene (1.0),

Benzo(g.h.i)perylene (0.01). Less than LOR results for 'TEQ Zero' are treated as zero, for 'TEQ 1/2LOR' are treated as half the reported LOR, and for 'TEQ LOR' are treated as being equal to the reported LOR.

Note: TEQ 1/2LOR and TEQ LOR will calculate as 0.6mg/Kg and 1.2mg/Kg respectively for samples with non-detects for all of the eight TEQ PAHs.

l

3 of 9:Page

Work Order :

:Client

ES1611610


GROUND TECHNOLOGIES

Analytical Results

S1C4C3C2C1Client sample IDSub-Matrix: SOIL

(Matrix: SOIL)

[23-May-2016][23-May-2016][23-May-2016][23-May-2016][23-May-2016]Client sampling date / time

ES1611610-005ES1611610-004ES1611610-003ES1611610-002ES1611610-001UnitLORCAS NumberCompound

Result Result Result Result Result

EA002 : pH (Soils)

---- ---- ---- ---- 6.8pH Unit0.1----pH Value

EA010: Conductivity

---- ---- ---- ---- 74µS/cm1----Electrical Conductivity @ 25°C

EA055: Moisture Content

9.8 9.4 8.2 8.2 12.1%1----Moisture Content (dried @ 103°C)

EA080: Resistivity

---- ---- ---- ---- 13500ohm cm1----Resistivity at 25°C

ED040S : Soluble Sulfate by ICPAES

----Sulfate as SO4 2- ---- ---- ---- 100mg/kg1014808-79-8

ED045G: Chloride by Discrete Analyser

----Chloride ---- ---- ---- 30mg/kg1016887-00-6

EG005T: Total Metals by ICP-AES

12Arsenic 14 18 12 ----mg/kg57440-38-2

<1Cadmium <1 <1 <1 ----mg/kg17440-43-9

13Chromium 15 16 16 ----mg/kg27440-47-3

28Copper 20 14 16 ----mg/kg57440-50-8

548Lead 29 27 34 ----mg/kg57439-92-1

10Nickel 12 11 11 ----mg/kg27440-02-0

104Zinc 49 39 45 ----mg/kg57440-66-6

EG035T: Total Recoverable Mercury by FIMS

0.1Mercury <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 ----mg/kg0.17439-97-6

EP075(SIM)B: Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons

<0.5Naphthalene <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 ----mg/kg0.591-20-3

<0.5Acenaphthylene <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 ----mg/kg0.5208-96-8

<0.5Acenaphthene <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 ----mg/kg0.583-32-9

<0.5Fluorene <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 ----mg/kg0.586-73-7

<0.5Phenanthrene <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 ----mg/kg0.585-01-8

<0.5Anthracene <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 ----mg/kg0.5120-12-7

<0.5Fluoranthene <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 ----mg/kg0.5206-44-0

<0.5Pyrene <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 ----mg/kg0.5129-00-0

<0.5Benz(a)anthracene <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 ----mg/kg0.556-55-3

<0.5Chrysene <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 ----mg/kg0.5218-01-9

<0.5Benzo(b+j)fluoranthene <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 ----mg/kg0.5205-99-2 205-82-3

<0.5Benzo(k)fluoranthene <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 ----mg/kg0.5207-08-9

4 of 9:Page

Work Order :

:Client

ES1611610


GROUND TECHNOLOGIES

Analytical Results


(Matrix: SOIL)




EP075(SIM)B: Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons - Continued

<0.5Benzo(a)pyrene <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 ----mg/kg0.550-32-8

<0.5Indeno(1.2.3.cd)pyrene <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 ----mg/kg0.5193-39-5

<0.5Dibenz(a.h)anthracene <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 ----mg/kg0.553-70-3

<0.5Benzo(g.h.i)perylene <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 ----mg/kg0.5191-24-2

<0.5^ <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 ----mg/kg0.5----Sum of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

<0.5^ <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 ----mg/kg0.5----Benzo(a)pyrene TEQ (zero)

0.6^ 0.6 0.6 0.6 ----mg/kg0.5----Benzo(a)pyrene TEQ (half LOR)

1.2^ 1.2 1.2 1.2 ----mg/kg0.5----Benzo(a)pyrene TEQ (LOR)

EP080/071: Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons

<10 <10 <10 <10 ----mg/kg10----C6 - C9 Fraction

<50 <50 <50 <50 ----mg/kg50----C10 - C14 Fraction

120 <100 <100 <100 ----mg/kg100----C15 - C28 Fraction

<100 <100 <100 <100 ----mg/kg100----C29 - C36 Fraction

120^ <50 <50 <50 ----mg/kg50----C10 - C36 Fraction (sum)

EP080/071: Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons - NEPM 2013 Fractions

<10C6 - C10 Fraction <10 <10 <10 ----mg/kg10C6_C10

<10^ C6 - C10 Fraction minus BTEX

(F1)

<10 <10 <10 ----mg/kg10C6_C10-BTEX

<50 <50 <50 <50 ----mg/kg50---->C10 - C16 Fraction

150 <100 <100 <100 ----mg/kg100---->C16 - C34 Fraction

<100 <100 <100 <100 ----mg/kg100---->C34 - C40 Fraction

150^ <50 <50 <50 ----mg/kg50---->C10 - C40 Fraction (sum)

<50^ <50 <50 <50 ----mg/kg50---->C10 - C16 Fraction minus Naphthalene

(F2)

EP080: BTEXN

<0.2Benzene <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 ----mg/kg0.271-43-2

<0.5Toluene <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 ----mg/kg0.5108-88-3

<0.5Ethylbenzene <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 ----mg/kg0.5100-41-4

<0.5meta- & para-Xylene <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 ----mg/kg0.5108-38-3 106-42-3

<0.5ortho-Xylene <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 ----mg/kg0.595-47-6

<0.2^ <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 ----mg/kg0.2----Sum of BTEX

<0.5^ Total Xylenes <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 ----mg/kg0.51330-20-7

<1Naphthalene <1 <1 <1 ----mg/kg191-20-3

EP075(SIM)S: Phenolic Compound Surrogates

5 of 9:Page

Work Order :

:Client

ES1611610


GROUND TECHNOLOGIES

Analytical Results


(Matrix: SOIL)




EP075(SIM)S: Phenolic Compound Surrogates - Continued

93.3Phenol-d6 86.9 90.2 87.2 ----%0.513127-88-3

94.72-Chlorophenol-D4 85.0 89.3 87.2 ----%0.593951-73-6

83.32.4.6-Tribromophenol 73.2 71.7 72.8 ----%0.5118-79-6

EP075(SIM)T: PAH Surrogates

1012-Fluorobiphenyl 95.2 97.6 95.2 ----%0.5321-60-8

107Anthracene-d10 101 103 101 ----%0.51719-06-8

95.84-Terphenyl-d14 93.1 93.7 92.0 ----%0.51718-51-0

EP080S: TPH(V)/BTEX Surrogates

96.01.2-Dichloroethane-D4 123 110 124 ----%0.217060-07-0

110Toluene-D8 112 118 112 ----%0.22037-26-5

93.54-Bromofluorobenzene 128 105 131 ----%0.2460-00-4

6 of 9:Page

Work Order :

:Client

ES1611610


GROUND TECHNOLOGIES

Analytical Results

S6S5S4S3S2Client sample IDSub-Matrix: SOIL

(Matrix: SOIL)




EA002 : pH (Soils)

7.1 8.9 8.8 9.5 9.2pH Unit0.1----pH Value

EA010: Conductivity

97 97 108 213 212µS/cm1----Electrical Conductivity @ 25°C


6.6 5.3 6.7 4.4 4.9%1----Moisture Content (dried @ 103°C)

EA080: Resistivity

10300 10300 9260 4690 4720ohm cm1----Resistivity at 25°C


100Sulfate as SO4 2- <10 20 40 20mg/kg1014808-79-8


70Chloride <10 <10 40 40mg/kg1016887-00-6

EG005T: Total Metals by ICP-AES

----Arsenic ---- ---- ---- ----mg/kg57440-38-2

----Cadmium ---- ---- ---- ----mg/kg17440-43-9

----Chromium ---- ---- ---- ----mg/kg27440-47-3

----Copper ---- ---- ---- ----mg/kg57440-50-8

----Lead ---- ---- ---- ----mg/kg57439-92-1

----Nickel ---- ---- ---- ----mg/kg27440-02-0

----Zinc ---- ---- ---- ----mg/kg57440-66-6

EG035T: Total Recoverable Mercury by FIMS

----Mercury ---- ---- ---- ----mg/kg0.17439-97-6

EP075(SIM)B: Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons

----Naphthalene ---- ---- ---- ----mg/kg0.591-20-3

----Acenaphthylene ---- ---- ---- ----mg/kg0.5208-96-8

----Acenaphthene ---- ---- ---- ----mg/kg0.583-32-9

----Fluorene ---- ---- ---- ----mg/kg0.586-73-7

----Phenanthrene ---- ---- ---- ----mg/kg0.585-01-8

----Anthracene ---- ---- ---- ----mg/kg0.5120-12-7

----Fluoranthene ---- ---- ---- ----mg/kg0.5206-44-0

----Pyrene ---- ---- ---- ----mg/kg0.5129-00-0

----Benz(a)anthracene ---- ---- ---- ----mg/kg0.556-55-3

----Chrysene ---- ---- ---- ----mg/kg0.5218-01-9

----Benzo(b+j)fluoranthene ---- ---- ---- ----mg/kg0.5205-99-2 205-82-3

----Benzo(k)fluoranthene ---- ---- ---- ----mg/kg0.5207-08-9

7 of 9:Page

Work Order :

:Client

ES1611610


GROUND TECHNOLOGIES

Analytical Results


(Matrix: SOIL)




EP075(SIM)B: Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons - Continued

----Benzo(a)pyrene ---- ---- ---- ----mg/kg0.550-32-8

----Indeno(1.2.3.cd)pyrene ---- ---- ---- ----mg/kg0.5193-39-5

----Dibenz(a.h)anthracene ---- ---- ---- ----mg/kg0.553-70-3

----Benzo(g.h.i)perylene ---- ---- ---- ----mg/kg0.5191-24-2

----^ ---- ---- ---- ----mg/kg0.5----Sum of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

----^ ---- ---- ---- ----mg/kg0.5----Benzo(a)pyrene TEQ (zero)

----^ ---- ---- ---- ----mg/kg0.5----Benzo(a)pyrene TEQ (half LOR)

----^ ---- ---- ---- ----mg/kg0.5----Benzo(a)pyrene TEQ (LOR)

EP080/071: Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons

---- ---- ---- ---- ----mg/kg10----C6 - C9 Fraction

---- ---- ---- ---- ----mg/kg50----C10 - C14 Fraction

---- ---- ---- ---- ----mg/kg100----C15 - C28 Fraction

---- ---- ---- ---- ----mg/kg100----C29 - C36 Fraction

----^ ---- ---- ---- ----mg/kg50----C10 - C36 Fraction (sum)

EP080/071: Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons - NEPM 2013 Fractions

----C6 - C10 Fraction ---- ---- ---- ----mg/kg10C6_C10

----^ C6 - C10 Fraction minus BTEX

(F1)

---- ---- ---- ----mg/kg10C6_C10-BTEX

---- ---- ---- ---- ----mg/kg50---->C10 - C16 Fraction

---- ---- ---- ---- ----mg/kg100---->C16 - C34 Fraction

---- ---- ---- ---- ----mg/kg100---->C34 - C40 Fraction

----^ ---- ---- ---- ----mg/kg50---->C10 - C40 Fraction (sum)

----^ ---- ---- ---- ----mg/kg50---->C10 - C16 Fraction minus Naphthalene

(F2)

EP080: BTEXN

----Benzene ---- ---- ---- ----mg/kg0.271-43-2

----Toluene ---- ---- ---- ----mg/kg0.5108-88-3

----Ethylbenzene ---- ---- ---- ----mg/kg0.5100-41-4

----meta- & para-Xylene ---- ---- ---- ----mg/kg0.5108-38-3 106-42-3

----ortho-Xylene ---- ---- ---- ----mg/kg0.595-47-6

----^ ---- ---- ---- ----mg/kg0.2----Sum of BTEX

----^ Total Xylenes ---- ---- ---- ----mg/kg0.51330-20-7

----Naphthalene ---- ---- ---- ----mg/kg191-20-3


8 of 9:Page

Work Order :

:Client

ES1611610


GROUND TECHNOLOGIES

Analytical Results


(Matrix: SOIL)




EP075(SIM)S: Phenolic Compound Surrogates - Continued

----Phenol-d6 ---- ---- ---- ----%0.513127-88-3

----2-Chlorophenol-D4 ---- ---- ---- ----%0.593951-73-6

----2.4.6-Tribromophenol ---- ---- ---- ----%0.5118-79-6


----2-Fluorobiphenyl ---- ---- ---- ----%0.5321-60-8

----Anthracene-d10 ---- ---- ---- ----%0.51719-06-8

----4-Terphenyl-d14 ---- ---- ---- ----%0.51718-51-0


----1.2-Dichloroethane-D4 ---- ---- ---- ----%0.217060-07-0

----Toluene-D8 ---- ---- ---- ----%0.22037-26-5

----4-Bromofluorobenzene ---- ---- ---- ----%0.2460-00-4

9 of 9:Page

Work Order :

:Client

ES1611610


GROUND TECHNOLOGIES

Surrogate Control Limits

Recovery Limits (%)Sub-Matrix: SOIL

Compound CAS Number Low High


Phenol-d6 13127-88-3 63 123

2-Chlorophenol-D4 93951-73-6 66 122

2.4.6-Tribromophenol 118-79-6 40 138


2-Fluorobiphenyl 321-60-8 70 122

Anthracene-d10 1719-06-8 66 128

4-Terphenyl-d14 1718-51-0 65 129


1.2-Dichloroethane-D4 17060-07-0 73 133

Toluene-D8 2037-26-5 74 132

4-Bromofluorobenzene 460-00-4 72 130

0 0.00 True

Environmental


:: LaboratoryClient GROUND TECHNOLOGIES Environmental Division Sydney


:: AddressAddress PO BOX 1121

GREEN VALLEY NSW,AUSTRALIA 2168





ISO/IEC 17025.

:Project GTE834 Schofields Date Samples Received : 21-Jun-2016 15:46

:Order number ---- Date Analysis Commenced : 22-Jun-2016


Sampler : ----

Site : ----

Quote number : ----





l General Comments


l Surrogate Control Limits






Edwandy Fadjar Organic Coordinator Sydney Organics, Smithfield, NSW

RICHARD TEA Lab technician Sydney Inorganics, Smithfield, NSW


2 of 6:Page

Work Order :

:Client

ES1613406


GROUND TECHNOLOGIES

General Comments













Key :

3 of 6:Page

Work Order :

:Client

ES1613406


GROUND TECHNOLOGIES

Analytical Results

----C4C3C2C1Client sample IDSub-Matrix: SOIL

(Matrix: SOIL)

----[23-May-2016][23-May-2016][23-May-2016][23-May-2016]Client sampling date / time

--------ES1613406-004ES1613406-003ES1613406-002ES1613406-001UnitLORCAS NumberCompound

Result Result Result Result ----


9.2 9.0 8.8 9.6 ----%1----Moisture Content (dried @ 103°C)

EN33: TCLP Leach

6.4 ---- ---- ---- ----pH Unit0.1----Initial pH

1.7 ---- ---- ---- ----pH Unit0.1----After HCl pH

1 ---- ---- ---- -----1----Extraction Fluid Number

4.9 ---- ---- ---- ----pH Unit0.1----Final pH

EP068A: Organochlorine Pesticides (OC)

<0.05alpha-BHC <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 ----mg/kg0.05319-84-6

<0.05Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 ----mg/kg0.05118-74-1

<0.05beta-BHC <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 ----mg/kg0.05319-85-7

<0.05gamma-BHC <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 ----mg/kg0.0558-89-9

<0.05delta-BHC <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 ----mg/kg0.05319-86-8

<0.05Heptachlor <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 ----mg/kg0.0576-44-8

<0.05Aldrin <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 ----mg/kg0.05309-00-2

<0.05Heptachlor epoxide <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 ----mg/kg0.051024-57-3

<0.05^ <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 ----mg/kg0.05----Total Chlordane (sum)

<0.05trans-Chlordane <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 ----mg/kg0.055103-74-2

<0.05alpha-Endosulfan <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 ----mg/kg0.05959-98-8

<0.05cis-Chlordane <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 ----mg/kg0.055103-71-9

<0.05Dieldrin <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 ----mg/kg0.0560-57-1

<0.054.4`-DDE <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 ----mg/kg0.0572-55-9

<0.05Endrin <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 ----mg/kg0.0572-20-8

<0.05beta-Endosulfan <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 ----mg/kg0.0533213-65-9

<0.05^ Endosulfan (sum) <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 ----mg/kg0.05115-29-7

<0.054.4`-DDD <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 ----mg/kg0.0572-54-8

<0.05Endrin aldehyde <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 ----mg/kg0.057421-93-4

<0.05Endosulfan sulfate <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 ----mg/kg0.051031-07-8

<0.24.4`-DDT <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 ----mg/kg0.250-29-3

<0.05Endrin ketone <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 ----mg/kg0.0553494-70-5

<0.2Methoxychlor <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 ----mg/kg0.272-43-5

<0.05^ Sum of Aldrin + Dieldrin <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 ----mg/kg0.05309-00-2/60-57-1

<0.05^ Sum of DDD + DDE + DDT <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 ----mg/kg0.0572-54-8/72-55-9/5

0-2

EP068S: Organochlorine Pesticide Surrogate

4 of 6:Page

Work Order :

:Client

ES1613406


GROUND TECHNOLOGIES

Analytical Results

----C4C3C2C1Client sample IDSub-Matrix: SOIL

(Matrix: SOIL)

----[23-May-2016][23-May-2016][23-May-2016][23-May-2016]Client sampling date / time

--------ES1613406-004ES1613406-003ES1613406-002ES1613406-001UnitLORCAS NumberCompound

Result Result Result Result ----

EP068S: Organochlorine Pesticide Surrogate - Continued

67.2Dibromo-DDE 96.3 85.5 86.1 ----%0.0521655-73-2

EP068T: Organophosphorus Pesticide Surrogate

69.5DEF 86.2 70.7 72.3 ----%0.0578-48-8

5 of 6:Page

Work Order :

:Client

ES1613406


GROUND TECHNOLOGIES

Analytical Results

----------------C1Client sample IDSub-Matrix: TCLP LEACHATE

(Matrix: WATER)

----------------[23-May-2016]Client sampling date / time

--------------------------------ES1613406-001UnitLORCAS NumberCompound

Result ---- ---- ---- ----

EG005C: Leachable Metals by ICPAES

0.7Lead ---- ---- ---- ----mg/L0.17439-92-1

6 of 6:Page

Work Order :

:Client

ES1613406


GROUND TECHNOLOGIES

Surrogate Control Limits

Recovery Limits (%)Sub-Matrix: SOIL

Compound CAS Number Low High

EP068S: Organochlorine Pesticide Surrogate

Dibromo-DDE 21655-73-2 49 147

EP068T: Organophosphorus Pesticide Surrogate

DEF 78-48-8 35 143

0 0.00 True

Environmental


:Amendment 1:: LaboratoryClient GROUND TECHNOLOGIES Environmental Division Sydney


:: AddressAddress 55 Fifteenth Ave

West Hoxton NSW 2171





ISO/IEC 17025.

:Project ---- Date Samples Received : 20-Jun-2016 13:00

:Order number GTE834 SCHOFIELDS Date Analysis Commenced : 21-Jun-2016


Sampler : ANTHONY BENNETT

Site : ----

Quote number : ----





l General Comments






Ankit Joshi Inorganic Chemist Sydney Inorganics, Smithfield, NSW



2 of 2:Page

Work Order :

:Client

ES1613262 Amendment 1

----:Project

GROUND TECHNOLOGIES

General Comments













Key :

Analytical Results

--------S9S8S7Client sample IDSub-Matrix: SOIL

(Matrix: SOIL)

--------[08-Jun-2016][08-Jun-2016][08-Jun-2016]Client sampling date / time

----------------ES1613262-003ES1613262-002ES1613262-001UnitLORCAS NumberCompound

Result Result Result ---- ----

EA002 : pH (Soils)

8.8 9.1 9.0 ---- ----pH Unit0.1----pH Value

EA010: Conductivity

174 123 121 ---- ----µS/cm1----Electrical Conductivity @ 25°C


4.4 2.6 3.0 ---- ----%1----Moisture Content (dried @ 103°C)

EA080: Resistivity

5750 8130 8260 ---- ----ohm cm1----Resistivity at 25°C


40Sulfate as SO4 2- 50 50 ---- ----mg/kg1014808-79-8


20Chloride 40 30 ---- ----mg/kg1016887-00-6

Documents

Geotechnical Testing Services...The desktop study revealed there to be a minimal risk of contamination due to past activites and four (4) soil samples were recovered and submitted