proposed service centre · 2020-02-03 · preliminary site investigation for contamination,...
TRANSCRIPT
Report on Preliminary Site Investigation for Contamination
Proposed Service Centre 37 - 41 Bengal Street, Coolongolook
Prepared for Turnbull Planning International Pty Ltd
Project 91401.00 December 2019
Document History
Document details
Project No. 91401.00 Document No. R.001.Rev0
Document title Report on Preliminary Site Investigation for Contamination
Proposed Service Centre
Site address 37 - 41 Bengal Street, Coolongolook
Report prepared for Turnbull Planning International Pty Ltd
File name 91401.00.R.001.Rev0
Document status and review
Status Prepared by Reviewed by Date issued
Draft A Michael Gawn Stephen Jones 1 March 2019
Revision 0 Michael Gawn Matthew Blackert 3 December 2019
Distribution of copies
Status Electronic Paper Issued to
Draft A 1 0 Sophie Litherland, Turnbull Planning International Pty
Ltd
Revision 0 1 0 Tia Gao – Turnbull Planning International Pty Ltd
The undersigned, on behalf of Douglas Partners Pty Ltd, confirm that this document and all attached
drawings, logs and test results have been checked and reviewed for errors, omissions and
inaccuracies.
Signature Date
Author 3 December 2019
Reviewer 3 December 2019
Douglas Partners Pty Ltd
ABN 75 053 980 117
www.douglaspartners.com.au
15 Callistemon Close
Warabrook NSW 2304
PO Box 324
Hunter Region Mail Centre NSW 2310
Phone (02) 4960 9600
Fax (02) 4960 9601
FS 604853
Preliminary Site Investigation for Contamination, Proposed Service Centre 91401.00.R.001.Rev0 37 - 41 Bengal Street, Coolongolook December 2019
Executive Summary
This report presents the results of a preliminary site investigation (PSI) for contamination undertaken
for the proposed service centre at 37 - 41 Bengal Street, Coolongolook.
The PSI comprised a brief site history review, a desktop review of published geological and soil
landscape maps, development of a conceptual site model (CSM), drilling of 10 boreholes and limited
sampling for a range of potential contaminants.
The assessment has been undertaken with reference to the National Environment Protection
(Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999 amended 2013 (NEPC 2013).
The results of the desktop assessment and site inspection indicate that a number of potential
contaminating activities have occurred at the site, such as:
Possible importation of filling within the site, particularly in the area around the existing building
and in the eastern part of the site, as encountered in Bore 6, expected behind the small retaining
walls and observed adjacent to the water body;
Possible asbestos within near surface filling from the demolition of former structures on the site;
Localised dumped filling / opportunistic dumping along water body;
Possible impact from the effluent treatment on the site.
The potential areas of environmental concern were generally localised, as shown on Drawing 1, and
associated with near surface impacts. Limited testing within and around these areas of environmental
concern returned chemical concentrations below the adopted site assessment criteria for the intended
commercial land use. It is recommended, however, that additional investigation is undertaken to
assist with development of a remediation action plan, if required.
It is suggested that the identified potential areas of environmental concern could be readily addressed
through appropriate additional investigation, and remediation (where required) to render the site
suitable for the intended commercial land use.
No assessment of groundwater was undertaken during the investigation. Given the presence of the
existing service station across the Pacific Highway, which is on the list of contaminated sites, it is
suggested that installation of groundwater wells and testing of the groundwater for potential
hydrocarbon impact should be undertaken.
Preliminary Site Investigation for Contamination, Proposed Service Centre 91401.00.R.001.Rev0 37 - 41 Bengal Street, Coolongolook December 2019
Table of Contents
Page
1. Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1
2. Site Identification, Description and Surrounding Land Use ........................................................... 1
3. Regional Geology, Acid Sulfate and Soil Landscape Mapping...................................................... 4
4. Topography and Regional Groundwater Regime .......................................................................... 5
5. Proposed Development .................................................................................................................. 6
6. Site History ..................................................................................................................................... 6
6.1 Extent of Site History Review .............................................................................................. 6
6.2 Historical Title Search .......................................................................................................... 6
6.3 Review of Historical Aerial Photos .....................................................................................10
6.4 NSW EPA Search ..............................................................................................................12
6.5 Council DA Search .............................................................................................................12
7. Site Condition ............................................................................................................................... 12
8. Conceptual Site Model ................................................................................................................. 16
9. Field Work Methods ..................................................................................................................... 18
9.1 Sampling Rationale ............................................................................................................18
9.2 Methods .............................................................................................................................18
9.3 Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) ........................................................................................19
9.4 Quality Assurance / Quality Control ...................................................................................21
9.4.1 Field QA / QC ........................................................................................................21
9.4.2 Laboratory QA/QC ................................................................................................21
10. Field Work Results ....................................................................................................................... 21
10.1 Subsurface Conditions .......................................................................................................21
10.2 Contaminant Observations ................................................................................................23
11. Site Assessment Criteria .............................................................................................................. 24
11.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................24
11.2 Health Investigation and Screening Levels .......................................................................24
11.3 Ecological Investigation Levels ..........................................................................................26
11.4 Ecological Screening Levels ..............................................................................................26
11.5 Management Limits ............................................................................................................27
11.6 Asbestos In Soil .................................................................................................................27
11.7 Waste Classification ...........................................................................................................27
Preliminary Site Investigation for Contamination, Proposed Service Centre 91401.00.R.001.Rev0 37 - 41 Bengal Street, Coolongolook December 2019
12. Laboratory Testing ....................................................................................................................... 28
13. Contamination Assessment ......................................................................................................... 32
13.1 Contamination Status.........................................................................................................32
13.2 Preliminary Waste Classification .......................................................................................33
13.3 Conclusions .......................................................................................................................34
14. References ................................................................................................................................... 34
15. Limitations .................................................................................................................................... 35
Appendix A: About this Report
Sampling Methods
Soil Descriptions
Symbols and Abbreviations
Borehole Logs – Bores 1 to 10
Results of Dynamic Penetrometer Tests
Appendix B: Titles Search Information
Planning Certificate 10.7 (2 and 5)
Appendix C: Laboratory Report Sheets
Quality Assurance/Quality Control Assessment
Chain of Custody
Sample Receipts
Appendix D: Drawing 1 – Test Location Plan
Page 1 of 36
Report on Preliminary Site Investigation for Contamination 91401.00.R.001.Rev0 Proposed Service Centre, 37 - 41 Bengal Street, Coolongolook December 2019
Report on Preliminary Site Investigation for Contamination
Proposed Service Centre
37 - 41 Bengal Street, Coolongolook
1. Introduction
This report presents the results of a preliminary site investigation (PSI) for contamination undertaken
for the proposed service centre at 37 - 41 Bengal Street, Coolongolook. The work was undertaken for
Turnbull Planning International Pty Ltd and was undertaken with reference with Douglas Partners Pty
Ltd (DP) proposal NCL180321 dated 8 August 2018.
It is understood that the project is in the concept phase at present and the current investigation is
required as part of the development application process.
The PSI comprised a brief site history review, a desktop review of published geological and soil
landscape maps, development of a conceptual site model (CSM), drilling of 10 boreholes and limited
sampling for a range of potential contaminants.
The PSI for the site was undertaken with reference to NSW EPA Guidelines for Consultants Reporting
on Contaminated Sites (August 2011) (Ref 5) and the National Environment Protection (Site
Contamination) Measure 1999 (amended 2013 – NEPM 2013) (Ref 4).
For the purpose of the investigation, the client provided DP with the following drawings:
Proposed Site Dimensional Plan, Drawing PA001, dated January 2018;
Proposed Site Layout, Drawing PA001, dated January 2018;
Proposed Truck Movement Details, Drawing PA001, dated January 2018;
Proposed Site Pavement Plan, Drawing PA001, dated January 2018; and
Proposed Building Plan, Drawing PA001, dated January 2018.
DP has undertaken a concurrent preliminary geotechnical investigation (Ref 1).
2. Site Identification, Description and Surrounding Land Use
The site is located at 37 to 41 Bengal Street, Coolongolook and is identified as Lots 7 to 9, Section 10
in DP 758278.
Page 2 of 36
Report on Preliminary Site Investigation for Contamination 91401.00.R.001.Rev0 Proposed Service Centre, 37 - 41 Bengal Street, Coolongolook December 2019
Figure 1: Aerial image of site (sourced from GoogleEarth image dated September 2016)
The site is approximately 6200 m2 in area and roughly rectangular in shape.
The southern two thirds of the site (Lots 7 and 8) were cleared of vegetation at the time of the
investigation with the exception of some scattered trees in the western part of Lot 8.
Page 3 of 36
Report on Preliminary Site Investigation for Contamination 91401.00.R.001.Rev0 Proposed Service Centre, 37 - 41 Bengal Street, Coolongolook December 2019
Figure 2: View of the site from Lot 7, looking north (Lot 9 contains house)
Figure 3: View of western area of Lot 8, looking south
The northern third of the site (Lot 9) contained an existing single storey residence, detached sheds
and lawn areas.
Page 4 of 36
Report on Preliminary Site Investigation for Contamination 91401.00.R.001.Rev0 Proposed Service Centre, 37 - 41 Bengal Street, Coolongolook December 2019
Figure 4: Existing residence in Lot 9, looking north-west
A prominent gully passes through the site, entering in the south-western corner and flowing into a
culvert under the Pacific Highway on the eastern boundary of Lot 9.
The site is bounded to the east by the existing Pacific Highway, to the south by residential allotments
and to the north and west by unformed road reserves for Nelson Street and Lombard Lane
respectively.
3. Regional Geology, Acid Sulfate and Soil Landscape Mapping
Reference to the digital 1:250,000 Geological Sheet for the area indicates the site is mapped as being
underlain by Quaternary alluvium, which is characterised by channel and flood plain alluvium
comprising gravel, sand, silty and clay. Areas to the west of the site are mapped as being underlain
by the Boolambayte Formation, which is characterised by mudstone, sandstone and conglomerate.
The conditions in the bores indicated the presence of shallow alluvium overlying bedrock, described as
meta-siltstone where a highly disturbed sample was retrieved.
The site is mapped as having no known occurrence of acid sulfate soils.
Page 5 of 36
Report on Preliminary Site Investigation for Contamination 91401.00.R.001.Rev0 Proposed Service Centre, 37 - 41 Bengal Street, Coolongolook December 2019
4. Topography and Regional Groundwater Regime
Detailed survey of the site has not been provided to DP at this stage. Reference to the state wide
10 m digital contour mapping suggests that surface levels at the site range from about RL 10 m (within
the gully) to possibly up to RL 15 m AHD in higher areas to the south and south-west.
A groundwater bore search undertaken with the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural
Resources indicated that three registered groundwater wells are located within 500 m of the site, as
follows and as shown in Figure 5:
GW200526, located approximately 300 m south of the site and up-gradient;
GW049935, located approximately 350 m south-south-east of the site and across-gradient; and
GW200403, located approximately 550 m east-north-east of the site and down-gradient.
The bores are registered as either for domestic or commercial use and have a standing groundwater
recorded at depths ranging from 4 m (GW200403) and 5 m (GW049935). No groundwater details were
provided in the report for GW200526. The subsurface conditions recorded in the wells included
predominantly clay over shale and basalt bedrock.
Groundwater at the site is expected to flow into the broad gully and then in a north-easterly direction
under the highway before entering Coolongolook River, approximately 900 m to the east of the site.
This water body is considered to be the nearest environmentally sensitive receptor.
Figure 5: Aerial image of the surrounding area, watercourses and registered groundwater
bores (blue triangles)
Page 6 of 36
Report on Preliminary Site Investigation for Contamination 91401.00.R.001.Rev0 Proposed Service Centre, 37 - 41 Bengal Street, Coolongolook December 2019
5. Proposed Development
The proposed development includes the construction of a service centre, which will comprise the
following:
A retail food outlet and sales building in the central area of the site;
Car refuelling area and canopy;
Truck refuelling area;
Pavements surrounding the proposed structures.
The quantity of site re-grading (cut and fill) is not known at this stage. It is noted, however, that a
broad gully runs through the site and that a small water body is located in the north-western corner of
Lot 9. Hence some surface water diversion and drainage works together with placement of
engineered filling is likely to be required.
6. Site History
6.1 Extent of Site History Review
The brief site history review comprised the following:
Search for historical title deeds;
Review of historical aerial photos;
Searches with the NSW Environmental Protection Authority (EPA); and
Review of Council Planning Certificates 10.7 (2 and 5).
It is noted that the history review excluded a dangerous goods search.
6.2 Historical Title Search
A historic title deeds search was carried out by Info Search Pty Ltd, the results of which are provided
in Appendix B and summarised in Table 1 to Table 3 below. Reference should be made to Figure 6
for the location of the historical lots. The searches indicate that the site have generally been in private
hands, with the owners occupations listed as being dairy farmers as well as occupations which are
unrelated to the land.
Page 7 of 36
Report on Preliminary Site Investigation for Contamination 91401.00.R.001.Rev0 Proposed Service Centre, 37 - 41 Bengal Street, Coolongolook December 2019
Figure 6: Historical allotment layout
Page 8 of 36
Report on Preliminary Site Investigation for Contamination 91401.00.R.001.Rev0 Proposed Service Centre, 37 - 41 Bengal Street, Coolongolook December 2019
Table 1: Historical Title Search –Lot 7 in D.P. 758278 Section 10 (tinted yellow on Figure 6)
Date of
Acquisition and
term held
Registered Proprietor(s) & Occupations where available
02.12.1919
(1919 to 1947)
Irene Ada Dunn (Spinster)
Now
Irene Ada Smith (Married Woman)
28.07.1947
(1947 to 1948)
Arthur John Burns (Labourer)
William John Newton (Labourer)
21.10.1948
(1948 to 1948) Robert Blackburn Platts (Dairy Farmer)
22.10.1948
(1948 to 1961) Daniel Charles Platts (Labourer)
26.06.1961
(1961 to 1973) Robert Bruce Platts (Labourer)
15.08.1973
(1973 to 1979)
Regina Annionette Saville (Married Woman)
Lynette Wilma (Married Woman)
01.02.1979
(1979 to 1981) Trevor John Tonks (Concreter)
26.05.1981
(1981 to 1992)
James Lees Small
Denise Small
11.12.1992
(1992 to 1993) Philip Robert Green
20.05.1993
(1993 to 2002)
Shane Fry
Donna Willcocks
04.10.2002
(2002 to 2018) Janice Daniela Donaldson
28.02.2018
(2018 to date) # Galen Property Pty Limited
Notes to Table 1: # Denotes Current Registered Proprietor
No easements or leases were found in the search.
Page 9 of 36
Report on Preliminary Site Investigation for Contamination 91401.00.R.001.Rev0 Proposed Service Centre, 37 - 41 Bengal Street, Coolongolook December 2019
Table 2: Historical Title Search – Lot 8 in D.P. 758278 Section 10 tinted blue on Figure 6
Date of Acquisition and
term held Registered Proprietor(s) & Occupations where available
10.11.1922
(1922 to 1964) Mary Lilian Gallaghan (Married Woman)
06.03.1964
(1964 to 1973) Robert Bruce Platts (Forestry Foreman)
15.08.1973
(1973 to 1981) Jillian Margaret Bain (Married Woman)
12.11.1981
(1981 to 1993)
John Allen Hamnett
Shirley Margaret Hamnett
25.05.1993
(1993 to 2003)
Shane Fry
Donna Willcocks
02.05.2003
(2003 to 2012) Guiliana Marcer
23.01.2012
(2012 to 2013) Pino Fiorentino
22.01.2013
(2013 to 2013) Pietro Fiorentino
14.06.2013
(2013 to 2018) Munther Anny
28.02.2018
(2018 to date) # Galen Property Pty Limited
Notes to Table 2: # Denotes Current Registered Proprietor
No easements or leases were found in the search.
Table 3: Historical Title Search – Lot 9 in D.P. 758278 Section 10 tinted green on Figure 6
Date of Acquisition and
term held Registered Proprietor(s) & Occupations where available
03.12.1908
(1908 to 2012) Sarah Elizabeth Burns (Married Woman)
28.08.2012
(2012 to 2018)
Roger Mervyn Burns
Patricia Ann Burns
(Possessory Title application)
28.02.2018
(2018 to date) # Galen Property Pty Limited
Notes to Table 3: # Denotes Current Registered Proprietor
Page 10 of 36
Report on Preliminary Site Investigation for Contamination 91401.00.R.001.Rev0 Proposed Service Centre, 37 - 41 Bengal Street, Coolongolook December 2019
No easements or leases were found in the search.
6.3 Review of Historical Aerial Photos
The historical aerial photos reviewed for the assessment are presented in Table 4 together with the
main observations.
Table 4: Historical Aerial Photo Review
Year of Photo Scale
(Colour) Main Observations
1964 (Figure 7)
1:35,000 (B & W)
No development visible on the site, with the exception of a small structure in the northern area of the site. Trees are visible around the structure. The gully is visible through the site and crosses under the Pacific Highway.
Structures are visible to the south and east (in the location of the adjacent residences and also the current service station across the highway)
1971 1:40,000 (B & W) Similar to 1964 aerial photo.
2001 (Figure 8)
1:40,000 (Colour)
Similar to 1971 aerial photo. Additional structures are visible in the northern area (Lot 9). Further residential development is visible to the west and south of the site.
A dam is visible in the western half in the southern half of the site (Lot 7).
A small structure (possibly a pump) is visible in the southern area of the site.
August 2009 Google Earth
Not to scale (Colour)
Similar to 2001 aerial photo. The residence appears to be larger than in the 2001 photo.
March 2013 Google Earth
Not to scale (Colour)
Similar to 2009 Google Earth image.
May 2016 Google Earth
Not to scale (Colour)
Similar to 2013 Google Earth image.
Page 11 of 36
Report on Preliminary Site Investigation for Contamination 91401.00.R.001.Rev0 Proposed Service Centre, 37 - 41 Bengal Street, Coolongolook December 2019
Figure 7: Aerial photo from 1964
Figure 8: Aerial image from July 2001
Page 12 of 36
Report on Preliminary Site Investigation for Contamination 91401.00.R.001.Rev0 Proposed Service Centre, 37 - 41 Bengal Street, Coolongolook December 2019
6.4 NSW EPA Search
A review of the NSW EPA public registers indicated the following:
The site is not on the NSW EPA Contaminated Land Management Register;
The site is not on the list of contaminated sites notified to NSW EPA, although the active service
station across the Pacific Highway from the site is on the list;
Neither the site nor immediately adjacent sites are on the Protection of the Environment
Operations Act list of environmental licences, notices etc; and
The site is not on the NSW cattle dip registers.
6.5 Council DA Search
A review of the planning certificates 10.7(2 and 5) for the three lots, which were supplied by the client,
revealed the following:
The site is zoned as RU5 – Village;
The site is not within a proclaimed mine subsidence district;
The site is not reserved for acquisition;
The council has not received advice from any authority advising of the presence of loose-fill
asbestos insulation within any residence that may exist on the property; and
There are no matters declared under Section 59 (2) of the Contaminated Land Management Act
1997.
7. Site Condition
A site inspection was undertaken on 13 September 2018 by a Principal engineer from DP.
The main features and observations made of the site during the inspection are discussed below. The
location and orientation of the figures below are also shown on Drawing 1:
A small metal structure (possibly a pump house) is located in the southern area of the site (refer
Figure 9);
Page 13 of 36
Report on Preliminary Site Investigation for Contamination 91401.00.R.001.Rev0 Proposed Service Centre, 37 - 41 Bengal Street, Coolongolook December 2019
Figure 9: Small metal structure in southern area
Metal was observed sticking out of the ground in the southern area of the site (Figure 10);
Figure 10: Metal sticking out of the ground surface
Along the southern boundary fence line, and particularly in the south-western corner of the site,
bricks, metal and cobbles were visible on the ground surface. This area appears to be filling
associated with a low filling platform (in the order of 0.5 m in height) for the adjacent allotment to
the south (refer Figure 11);
Page 14 of 36
Report on Preliminary Site Investigation for Contamination 91401.00.R.001.Rev0 Proposed Service Centre, 37 - 41 Bengal Street, Coolongolook December 2019
Figure 11: Broken bricks, rubble and metal visible in south-western area of the site
The prominent broad gully pass through the site from the south-western corner to the culvert on
the eastern boundary of the northern area of the site (refer Figure 12).
Figure 12: Broad gully passing through the site
The northern area of the site, which contains the existing residence and detached shed (refer
Figure 13 and Figure 14) appears to have been subjected to minor cut and fill operations.
Page 15 of 36
Report on Preliminary Site Investigation for Contamination 91401.00.R.001.Rev0 Proposed Service Centre, 37 - 41 Bengal Street, Coolongolook December 2019
Figure 13: Existing residence in northern area of site
Figure 14: Detached shed near northern boundary of the site
An existing water body is located to the west of the residence (refer Figure 15). The depth of the
water is not known. Rubbish was present on the edge of the water body (refer Figure 17 in
Section 10.2).
Page 16 of 36
Report on Preliminary Site Investigation for Contamination 91401.00.R.001.Rev0 Proposed Service Centre, 37 - 41 Bengal Street, Coolongolook December 2019
Figure 15: Water body in north-western area of site
An effluent treatment tank was observed in front of (to the east of) the existing residence (refer
Figure 16). It is not known whether the effluent is disposed on site or pumped from the site.
Figure 16: Effluent treatment tanks to east of residence
8. Conceptual Site Model
A Conceptual Site Model (CSM) has been prepared for the investigation area with reference to the
National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999 amended 2013
(NEPC 2013) Schedule B2 (Ref 2). The CSM identifies potential contaminant sources and
contaminants of concern, contaminant release mechanisms, exposure pathways and potential
receptors.
Page 17 of 36
Report on Preliminary Site Investigation for Contamination 91401.00.R.001.Rev0 Proposed Service Centre, 37 - 41 Bengal Street, Coolongolook December 2019
Table 5: Conceptual Site Model
Known and Potential
Primary Sources Area of Site
Primary Release
Mechanism Secondary Release Mechanism
Potential
Impacted Media
Contaminants of
Concern
Exposure
Pathway
Potential Receptors
Current Future
Possible imported filling within
the site
Whole site,
levelled areas,
dam
embankment
Placement of filling
on-site
Long-term leaching of contaminants via
runoff, rain water infiltration / percolation or
exposure/disturbance during proposed
development
Soil, groundwater,
surface water
TRH, BTEX, PAH, Metals,
Pesticides, PCB, asbestos
Dermal contact,
inhalation
(dust/vapours),
ingestion
Site users, site
workers,
Consultants,
trespassers,
surface water
bodies,
groundwater,
neighbouring
properties.
Potential site
users, site
workers,
maintenance
workers,
construction
workers,
consultants,
trespassers,
surface water
bodies,
neighbouring
properties,
groundwater
On-site effluent disposal Lot 9 (northern
area)
Spills and leaks,
possible
discharge/migration
on to site
Long-term leaching of contaminants via
runoff, rain water infiltration / percolation
through soil, exposure/disturbance during
proposed development
Soil, groundwater,
surface water
Metals,
Nutrients, Faecal
Coliforms, E-coli
Dermal contact,
inhalation
(dust/vapours),
ingestion
Pesticide use for gardens Whole site Application of
pesticides
Long-term leaching of contaminants via
runoff, rain water infiltration / percolation,
through soil exposure/disturbance during
proposed development
Soil, groundwater,
surface water
Pesticides, TRH, BTEX,
PAH, Metals,
Dermal contact,
inhalation
(dust/vapours),
ingestion
Hazardous building materials,
including asbestos from
existing buildings
Whole site, but
particularly
northern area
where building
construction has
occurred
Demolition of
former buildings /
damage to existing
clad buildings
Exposure/disturbance during proposed
development or ongoing degradation of
existing buildings
Soil Asbestos, PCB, metals Inhalation
(dust/vapours)
Localised dumped filling /
opportunistic dumping along
water body
Particularly in
Lot 9 (northern
area)
Placement of filling
on-site
Long-term leaching of contaminants via
runoff, rain water infiltration / percolation or
exposure/disturbance during proposed
development
Soil, groundwater,
surface water
TRH, BTEX, PAH, Metals,
Pesticides, PCB, asbestos
Dermal contact,
inhalation
(dust/vapours),
ingestion
Page 18 of 36
Report on Preliminary Site Investigation for Contamination 91401.00.R.001.Rev0 Proposed Service Centre, 37 - 41 Bengal Street, Coolongolook December 2019
9. Field Work Methods
9.1 Sampling Rationale
Potential sources of site contamination identified in the site history comprised imported filling (source
unknown), possible pesticides use / storage on-site, demolition of former structures, opportunistic
dumping and effluent disposal. A preliminary targeted site investigation was conducted to investigate
these sources of potential contamination.
9.2 Methods
The field work was conducted on 6 and 7 November 2018 and included the following:
Walkover assessment by a senior engineer from DP;
Drilling of ten (10) test bores (Bores 1 to 10); and
Dynamic penetrometer tests (cone tip) at Bores 1 to 9 to depths of up to 1.95 m.
The approximate location of the bores is shown on Drawing 1 in Appendix D. The bores were setout
by a geotechnical officer using a hand held GPS, which is accurate to about 10 m depending on
satellite coverage. The approximate coordinates for the bores are shown on the borehole logs.
The bores were drilled using a truck mounted DT100 drilling rig fitted with solid flight augers. Standard
penetrometer testing (SPT) was undertaken a regular depth intervals in the bores.
Soil samples were collected from the bores at regular depth intervals for identification purposes and
possible laboratory testing. The general sampling procedure comprised:
Decontamination of all sampling equipment (where used) using a 3% solution of phosphate free
detergent (Decon 90) and tap water prior to collecting each sample;
The use of new disposable gloves for each sampling event;
Transfer of samples into laboratory-prepared jars and capping immediately;
Collection of replicate samples for Quality Assurance / Quality Control (QA / QC) purposes;
Collection of replicate soil samples in zip-lock plastic bags at each depth for Photo-ionisation
Detector (PID) screening;
Labelling of sample containers with individual and unique identification, including project number,
sample location and sample depth;
Placement of the sample jars and replicate sample bags into a cooled, insulated and sealed
container with ice for transport to the laboratory; and
Use of chain of custody (C-O-C) documentation ensuring that sample tracking and custody could
be cross-checked at any point in the transfer of samples from the field to the laboratory. Copies of
the completed forms are provided in Appendix C.
Replicate samples collected in zip-lock bags were screened for the presence of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) using a calibrated MiniRAE Lite PID, with a 10.6 eV lamp, calibrated to 100 ppm
Isobutylene.
Page 19 of 36
Report on Preliminary Site Investigation for Contamination 91401.00.R.001.Rev0 Proposed Service Centre, 37 - 41 Bengal Street, Coolongolook December 2019
Table 6, below, provides a summary of field work for the investigation.
Table 6: Summary of Field Work
Bore Area of Site / Rationale for Bore Depth of Investigation (m)
1 Retail building
(foundation and also surface filling) 3.0 (Ref)
2 Pavement area
(surficial filling and broad spaced bores) 3.95 (Ref)
3 Entry area
(broad spaced bores) 2.85 (Ref)
4 Existing Gully
(broad gully) 3.1 (Ref)
5 Retail building
(foundation and also surface filling) 2.7 (Ref)
6 Truck parking area
(existing buildings and surficial filling) 2.55 (Ref)
7 Car canopy area
(broad spaced gully and surface filling) 3.27 (Ref)
8 Truck parking area
(existing buildings and surficial filling) 2.8
9 Car canopy area
(broad spaced gully and surface filling) 4.18 (Ref)
10 Truck parking area
(existing buildings and surficial filling) 1.6 (Hand auger refusal)
Notes to Table 6:
Ref = tungsten bit refusal
Following completion of drilling, all bores were reinstated using excavated spoil, which was compacted
using the excavation/drilling equipment and manual tamping.
9.3 Data Quality Objectives (DQOs)
The scope of the PSI was devised generally in accordance with the seven step data quality objective
(DQO) process, as documented in Appendix B, Schedule B2, National Environmental Protection
Council (NEPC) National Environmental Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 2013
(NEPC 2013). The DQO process is outlined in Table 7.
Page 20 of 36
Report on Preliminary Site Investigation for Contamination 91401.00.R.001.Rev0 Proposed Service Centre, 37 - 41 Bengal Street, Coolongolook December 2019
Table 7: Data Quality Objectives
DQO Achievement Evaluation Procedure
Step 1 – State the problem Possible presence, extent and level of contamination
Step 2 – Identify the decision
Assess whether the site is suitable for the intended land use from a
contamination perspective
Refer Section 11 for adopted site assessment criteria
Step 3 - Identify the inputs to the
decision
Site history review from previous investigation
Selection of appropriate contaminants of concern
Field and laboratory QA/QC data to assess the suitability of the
environmental data for the assessment
Step 4 – Define the Boundary of
the Assessment As defined in Section 2 and shown on Drawing 1.
Step 5 – Develop of decision rule
Selected soil samples were analysed for the contaminants of concern as
outlined in Section 8.
The field and laboratory data was assessed as reliable by reference to the
Data Quality Indicators (DQI) as outlined in Step 7.
Step 6 – Specify the acceptance
criteria
The site assessment criteria was developed through reference to NEPC
1999 (amended 2013).
The acceptance limits for laboratory QA/QC parameters were based on the
laboratory reported acceptance limits and those stated in NEPC 1999.
Step 7 – Optimise the design for
obtaining data
Design was optimised by the development of a plan for sample collection,
handling and analysis, including undertaking quality assurance and quality
control measures to allow assessment of the suitability of the data collected.
Measurement to assess the project DQOs using data quality indicators
(DQIs) as follows:
Completeness – completion of field and laboratory chain of custody
documentation, use of experienced field staff, compliance with holding times
and documentation correct
Comparability – consistent sampling procedures, use of NATA certified
laboratory and experienced field staff
Representativeness – appropriate media sampled
Precision - Analysis of field and laboratory replicates and achievement of
acceptable RPDs, acceptable levels for laboratory QC criteria
Accuracy – Analysis of field duplicates, matrix spikes and surrogate spikes
Page 21 of 36
Report on Preliminary Site Investigation for Contamination 91401.00.R.001.Rev0 Proposed Service Centre, 37 - 41 Bengal Street, Coolongolook December 2019
9.4 Quality Assurance / Quality Control
9.4.1 Field QA / QC
Quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) procedures were adopted throughout the field
sampling programme and comprised the following:
Analysis of one field replicate sample;
Following standard operating procedures;
Storage of samples under secure, temperature controlled conditions; and
Use of chain of custody documentation for the handling, transport and delivery of samples to the
selected laboratory.
9.4.2 Laboratory QA/QC
The NATA accredited chemical laboratories undertook in-house QA/QC procedures involving the
routine testing of:
Reagent blanks;
Spike recovery analysis;
Laboratory duplicate analysis;
Analysis of control standards;
Calibration standards and blanks; and
Statistical analysis of QC data.
10. Field Work Results
10.1 Subsurface Conditions
The results of the subsurface investigation are shown in the borehole logs report sheets in Appendix
A, together with notes defining classification methods and descriptive terms.
The boreholes encountered relatively uniform conditions over the site. The general subsurface profile
is summarised as follows:
Unit 1.1 (Filling) Generally gravelly silty clay filling. Some anthropogenic inclusions,
such as metal, brick fragments and concrete were observed at the
surface near some of the bores;
Unit 2 (Alluvium) Soft to firm dark brown gravelly clayey silt or stiff silty clay;
Unit 3 (Residual Clay) Hard light grey or brown gravelly clay / silty clay or orange brown
clay;
Page 22 of 36
Report on Preliminary Site Investigation for Contamination 91401.00.R.001.Rev0 Proposed Service Centre, 37 - 41 Bengal Street, Coolongolook December 2019
Unit 4 (Bedrock) Siltstone or sandstone or meta-siltstone, inferred to be initially very
low strength based on drill string penetration, increasing to low
strength or stronger towards auger refusal depth.
Table 8 provides a summary of subsurface conditions encountered in the bores.
Table 8: Summary of Subsurface Conditions
Bore
Depth of
Investigation(1)
(m)
Depth to Base of Each Unit (m)
Unit 1
(Filling)
Unit 2
(Alluvial Soils)
Unit 3
(Residual Clay)
Unit 4
(Bedrock)
1 3.0 NE 2.3 3.0 >3.0
2 3.95 NE 0.8 3.5 >3.95
3 2.85 NE NE 2.85 >2.85
4 3.1 NE 2.0 3.1 >3.1
5 2.7 NE NE 2.5 >2.7
6 2.53 0.2 0.4 2.4 >2.55
7 3.27 0.4 NE 3.05 >3.27
8 2.8 NE 0.3 2.8 NE
9 4.18 NE 0.35 3.3 >4.18
10 1.6 NE 0.5 >1.6 NE
Notes to Table 8:
NE – Not encountered
(1) below existing ground level
Groundwater observations were made during the drilling and are summarised in Table 9.
Table 9: Groundwater Observations
Bore Groundwater Observations
1 Free groundwater observed at 0.3 m during drilling
2 Free groundwater observed at 0.7 m during drilling
3 No free groundwater observed during drilling
4 Free groundwater observed at 0.7 m during drilling
5 No free groundwater observed during drilling
6 No free groundwater observed during drilling
7 No free groundwater observed during drilling
8 No free groundwater observed during drilling
9 No free groundwater observed during drilling
10 No free groundwater observed during drilling
It should be noted that groundwater levels are affected by factors such as climatic conditions and soil
permeability and will therefore vary with time.
Page 23 of 36
Report on Preliminary Site Investigation for Contamination 91401.00.R.001.Rev0 Proposed Service Centre, 37 - 41 Bengal Street, Coolongolook December 2019
10.2 Contaminant Observations
Observations of potential contamination during field work for the current assessment are summarised
below in Table 10.
Table 10: Potential Contaminant Observations during Field Work
Potential Contaminant
Observation Test Bore / Depth Range / Area
Metal Metal sticking out of ground near Bore 9
Brick Fragments, Cobbles Surficial filling present in area near Bore 7
Rubbish (plastic, electrical goods,
general rubbish)
Rubbish on the fringe of the small water body in Lot 9 (refer
Figure 17)
Figure 17: Rubbish in northern area of the site (Lot 9)
The results of PID screening on soil samples are shown on the logs in Appendix A. PID screening
suggested the absence of gross volatile hydrocarbon impact (i.e. <1 ppm) in the samples screened.
There was no visual or olfactory evidence (i.e. staining or odours) to suggest the presence of gross
contamination within the soils investigated.
Page 24 of 36
Report on Preliminary Site Investigation for Contamination 91401.00.R.001.Rev0 Proposed Service Centre, 37 - 41 Bengal Street, Coolongolook December 2019
11. Site Assessment Criteria
11.1 Introduction
The proposed development includes the construction of service centre with the majority of the site
covered with pavements. It is understood that earthworks including up to 2 m of cut and fill will be
required for the proposed development.
The assessment and characterisation of the material on the site and the results of laboratory testing have been compared to the following guidelines:
National Environmental Protection Council (NEPC), “National Environmental Protection
(Assessment of Site Contamination) Measures” (NEPM), 1999 (amended 2013) [Ref 4];
NSW EPA, 'Waste Classification Guidelines, Part 1: Classifying Waste', November 2014 [Ref 2];
and
NSW EPA, Resource Recovery Order under Part 9, Clause 93 of the Protection of the
Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2014 “The Excavated Natural Material Order 2014”
[Ref 6].
For comparison to the NEPM guidelines, the investigation and screening levels applied in the current
investigation comprise levels adopted for a commercial land use scenarios (HIL-D, HSL-D and
commercial).
11.2 Health Investigation and Screening Levels
The generic health investigation levels (HIL) and health screening levels (HSL) are considered to be
appropriate for the assessment of contamination at the site. The adopted soil HIL and HSL for the
potential contaminants of concern are presented in Table 11.
Page 25 of 36
Report on Preliminary Site Investigation for Contamination 91401.00.R.001.Rev0 Proposed Service Centre, 37 - 41 Bengal Street, Coolongolook December 2019
Table 11: HIL and HSL in mg/kg Unless Otherwise Indicated
Contaminants HIL-D HSL-D4
Metals
Arsenic 3000 NC
Cadmium 900 NC
Chromium (VI) 3600 NC
Copper 240000 NC
Lead 1500 NC
Manganese 60000
NC
Mercury (inorganic) 730 NC
Nickel 6000 NC
Zinc 400000 NC
PAH Benzo(a)pyrene TEQ
1 40 NC
Naphthalene NC NL
Total PAH 4000 NC
TRH
C6 – C10 (less BTEX) [F1] NC 260
>C10-C16 (less Naphthalene) [F2] NC NL
>C16-C34 [F3] NC NC
>C34-C40 [F4] NC NC
BTEX
Benzene NC 3
Toluene NC NL
Ethylbenzene NC NL
Xylenes NC NL
OCP
Aldrin + Dieldrin 45 NC
Chlordane 530 NC
DDT+DDE+DDD 3600 NC
Endosulfan 2000 NC
Endrin 100 NC
Heptachlor 50 NC
HCB 80 NC
Methoxychlor 2500 NC
OPP Chlorpyrifos 2000 NC
PCB 2
7 NC
Notes to Table 11:
1 Sum of carcinogenic PAHs
2 Non dioxin-like PCBs only.
3 The soil saturation concentration (Csat) is defined as the soil concentration at which the porewater phase cannot dissolve any more of an individual chemical. The soil vapour that is in equilibrium with the porewater will be at its maximum. If the derived soil HSL exceeds Csat, a soil vapour source concentration for a petroleum mixture could not exceed a level that would results in the maximum allowable vapour risk for the given scenario. For these scenarios, no HSL is presented for these chemicals and the HSL is shown as ‘not limiting’ or ‘NL’.
4 The HSL have been calculated for a potential vapour intrusion pathway, a conservative sand soil (based on nature of filling) and an assumed depth to contamination of 0 m to <1 .
NC – No Criteria.
As shown in Table 11 the adopted HSLs are predicated on a potential vapour intrusion pathway.
Although possible direct contact pathways are present at the site, and construction worker receptors,
the corresponding HSLs are significantly higher than those for the vapour intrusion pathway and are
therefore not drivers for further assessment and / or remediation. As such the direct contact and
intrusive maintenance worker HSLs have not been listed.
Page 26 of 36
Report on Preliminary Site Investigation for Contamination 91401.00.R.001.Rev0 Proposed Service Centre, 37 - 41 Bengal Street, Coolongolook December 2019
11.3 Ecological Investigation Levels
EIL and Added Contaminant Limits (ACLs), where appropriate, have been derived in NEPC (2013) for
only a short list of contaminants comprising As, Cu, Cr (III), DDT, naphthalene, Ni, Pb and Zn. The
adopted EIL, derived using the Interactive (Excel) Calculation Spreadsheet (Standing Council on
Environment and Water (SCEW) website (http://www.scew.gov.au/node/941)) are shown in the
following Table 12.
Table 12: EIL in mg/kg
Analyte EIL (Commercial) Comments
Metals Arsenic 160
Adopted parameters
pH = 5
CEC = 10 cmolc/kg]; assumed clay content [10%]
Organic content 1%
“Aged” (>2 years) source of contamination
High traffic volumes in NSW
Copper 160
Nickel 290
Chromium III 680
Lead 1800
Zinc 410
PAH Naphthalene 370
OCP DDT 640
11.4 Ecological Screening Levels
ESL are used to assess the risk of selected petroleum hydrocarbon compounds, BTEX and
benzo(a)pyrene to terrestrial ecosystems. The adopted ESL are shown in the following Table 13.
Table 13: ESL in mg/kg
Analyte ESL
1
Commercial/Industrial) Comments
TRH C6 – C10 (less BTEX) [F1] 215* All ESLs are low reliability apart from those marked with * which are moderate reliability
>C10-C16 (less Naphthalene) [F2]
170*
>C16-C34 [F3] 1700
>C34-C40 [F4] 3300
BTEX Benzene 75
Toluene 135
Ethylbenzene 165
Xylenes 180
PAH Benzo(a)pyrene 1.4
Notes to Table 13:
1. The ESL have been calculated for a coarse soil based on a conservative sand soil and commercial and industrial.
NC – No Criteria
Page 27 of 36
Report on Preliminary Site Investigation for Contamination 91401.00.R.001.Rev0 Proposed Service Centre, 37 - 41 Bengal Street, Coolongolook December 2019
11.5 Management Limits
In addition to appropriate consideration and application of the HSL and ESL, there are additional
considerations which reflect the nature and properties of petroleum hydrocarbons, including:
Formation of observable light non-aqueous phase liquids (LNAPL);
Fire and explosion hazards;
Effects on buried infrastructure e.g. penetration of, or damage to, in-ground services.
The adopted management limits from Schedule B1 of NEPC (2013) are shown in the following Table
14.
Table 14: Management Limits in mg/kg
Analyte Management Limit
TRH C6 – C10 (F1) # 700 The management limits have
been calculated for a conservative coarse sand
>C10-C16 (F2) # 1000
>C16-C34 (F3) 3500
>C34-C40 (F4) 10000
Notes to Table 14:
# Separate management limits for BTEX and naphthalene are not available hence these have not been subtracted from the relevant fractions to obtain F1 and F2
11.6 Asbestos In Soil
Asbestos only poses a risk to human health when asbestos fibres are made airborne and inhaled. If
asbestos is bound in a matrix such as cement or resin, it is not readily made airborne except through
substantial physical damage. Bonded ACM in sound condition represents a low human health risk,
whilst both Fibrous Asbestos (FA) and Asbestos Fines (AF) materials have the potential to generate,
or be associated with, free asbestos fibres. Consequently, FA and AF must be carefully managed to
prevent the release of asbestos fibres into the air.
A detailed asbestos assessment was not undertaken as part of these works. Therefore the presence
or absence of asbestos at a limit of reporting of 0.1 g/kg has been adopted for this assessment as an
initial screen.
11.7 Waste Classification
The results of chemical testing were also compared against NSW EPA Waste Classification
Guidelines (2014) (Ref 2) for a preliminary assessment of possible off-site disposal options to a
licenced facility.
For potential beneficial reuse, the results of chemical testing were also compared against the NSW
EPA ENM RRO criteria (Ref 6).
Page 28 of 36
Report on Preliminary Site Investigation for Contamination 91401.00.R.001.Rev0 Proposed Service Centre, 37 - 41 Bengal Street, Coolongolook December 2019
For assessment of the natural soils for Virgin Excavation Natural Material (VENM) the NSW
Environment Protection Authority (EPA) currently, has not issued any official threshold criteria. In
absence of such criteria, the results were compared against the ENM RRO (Ref 6).
12. Laboratory Testing
Laboratory testing for preliminary waste classification purposes was undertaken by Envirolab Services,
a National Association of Testing Authorities, Australia (NATA) registered laboratory. Analytical
Methods used are shown on the laboratory sheets in Appendix C.
Soil samples were selected for analysis on the basis of the likely presence of contamination, based on
material type, visual or olfactory evidence of possible contamination (i.e. odour or staining), proximity
to a known source of contamination, and whether generally representative of soil/fill conditions.
A total of twelve (12) (including 1 duplicate) were selected for analysis for the following potential contaminants:
Metals (Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead, Mercury, Nickel, Zinc, Manganese, Iron);
Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons (TRH), Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylene (BTEX);
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH);
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs);
Organochlorine (OCP) and Organophosphate (OPP) Pesticides; and
Asbestos.
The detailed results of chemical analysis on the tested samples are presented in the laboratory report sheets in Appendix C, and are summarised in Table 15 to Table 18 below. Based on a review of the report QC results, it is considered that the laboratory test data obtained are reliable and useable for this assessment.
Page 29 of 36
Report on Preliminary Site Investigation for Contamination 91401.00.R.001.Rev0 Proposed Service Centre, 37 - 41 Bengal Street, Coolongolook December 2019
Table 15: Laboratory Results for Metals in Soil
Bore/Pit Depth
(m)
Fill or Natural
(F/N)
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
Hg
Ni
Zn
Fe
Mn
BH2 0.01 N 4 <0.4 7 10 66 <0.1 3 81 38000 560
BH2 0.5 N <4 <0.4 6 8 33 <0.1 2 29 24000 430
BH3 0.05 N <4 <0.4 5 15 65 0.2 2 60 11000 47
BH4 0.5 N <4 <0.4 6 6 11 <0.1 2 20 33000 130
BH6 0.1 F 5 <0.4 8 4 24 <0.1 2 20 69000 890
BH6 0.5 N <4 <0.4 7 4 10 <0.1 2 14 31000 68
BH7 0.01 F 5 <0.4 9 9 30 <0.1 3 81 33000 83
BH7 0.5 N <4 <0.4 8 2 9 <0.1 2 11 24000 14
BH8 0.01 N 8 0.4 15 33 72 <0.1 9 340 46000 570
D1 (BH8) 0.01 N <4 <0.4 9 27 74 0.1 4 290 34000 470
BH9 0.05 N 5 <0.4 5 4 32 <0.1 2 57 16000 120
BH9 0.5 N 5 <0.4 9 3 14 <0.1 2 15 44000 23
Laboratory PQL 4 N 1 1 1 1 0.1 1 1 1
Average Concentration (filling) 5 0.4 8.5 7 27 0.1 3 51 51000 485
Average Concentration (natural) 5 0.4 8 9 36 0.1 3 66 30273 236
Maximum Concentration (filling) 5 0.4 9 9 30 0.1 3 81 69000 890
Maximum Concentration (natural) 8 0.4 15 33 72 0.2 9 340 46000 600
General Solid Waste (CT1/SCC1*) 100 20 100 NC 100 4 40 NC NC NC
Restricted Solid Waste (CT2/SCC2*) 400 80 400 NC 400 16 160 NC NC NC
ENM Order (2014) – Absolute Maximum Concentration 40 1 150 200 100 1 60 300 NC NC
ENM Order (2014) – Maximum Average Concentration 20 0.5 75 100 50 0.5 30 150 NC NC
NEPM 2013 HILs Commercial D soil 3000 900 3600 240000 1500 730 6000 400000 NC 60000
NEPM 2013 EILs Commercial D soil 160 NC 680 160 1800 NC 290 410 NC NC
Notes to Table 15:
All results in mg/kg on a dry weight basis, except TCLP which is in mg/L
CT - Concentration Threshold SCC - Specific Contaminant Concentration
NC - No Criteria
NT - Not Tested
PID - Photoionisation Detector
PQL - Practical Quantitation Limits
Page 30 of 36
Report on Preliminary Site Investigation for Contamination 91401.00.R.001.Rev0 Proposed Service Centre, 37 - 41 Bengal Street, Coolongolook December 2019
Table 16: Laboratory Results for TRH, BTEXn in Soil
Bore/Pit
TRH
Naphthalene
BTEX
Depth (m)
PID (ppm)
Fill or Natural
(F/N) C6 - C9
C10 - C14
C15 - C28
C29 - C36
F1 (C6 – C10)
F2 (>C10 –
C16)
F3 (>C16 –
C34)
F4 (>C34 –
C40)
Benzene Toluene Ethyl
Benzene Xylene
BH2 0.01 <1 N <25 <50 <100 <100 <25 <50 <100 <100 <1 <0.2 <0.5 <1 <3
BH2 0.5 <1 N <25 <50 <100 <100 <25 <50 <100 <100 <1 <0.2 <0.5 <1 <3
BH3 0.05 <1 N <25 <50 <100 <100 <25 <50 <100 <100 <1 <0.2 <0.5 <1 <3
BH4 0.5 <1 N <25 <50 <100 <100 <25 <50 <100 <100 <1 <0.2 <0.5 <1 <3
BH6 0.1 <1 F <25 <50 <100 <100 <25 <50 <100 <100 <1 <0.2 <0.5 <1 <3
BH6 0.5 <1 N <25 <50 <100 <100 <25 <50 <100 <100 <1 <0.2 <0.5 <1 <3
BH7 0.01 <1 F <25 <50 <100 <100 <25 <50 <100 <100 <1 <0.2 <0.5 <1 <3
BH7 0.5 <1 N <25 <50 <100 <100 <25 <50 <100 <100 <1 <0.2 <0.5 <1 <3
BH8 0.01 <1 N <25 <50 <100 <100 <25 <50 <100 <100 <1 <0.2 <0.5 <1 <3
D1 (BH8) 0.01 <1 N <25 <50 <100 <100 <25 <50 <100 <100 <1 <0.2 <0.5 <1 <3
BH9 0.05 <1 N <25 <50 <100 <100 <25 <50 <100 <100 <1 <0.2 <0.5 <1 <3
BH9 0.5 <1 N <25 <50 <100 <100 <25 <50 <100 <100 <1 <0.2 <0.5 <1 <3
Laboratory PQL 25 50 100 100 25 50 100 100 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 3
Average Concentration (fill and natural) <25 <50 <25 <50 <100 <100 <0.1 <0.2 <0.5 <1 <3
Maximum Concentration (fill and natural) <25 <50 <25 <50 <100 <100 <0.1 <0.2 <0.5 <1 <3
General Solid Waste (CT1) 650 10000 total NC NC NC NC NC 10 288 600 1000
Restricted Solid Waste (CT2) 2600 40000 total NC NC NC NC NC 40 1152 2400 4000
ENM RRO 2014 – Abs Max NC 500 NC NC NC NC NC 0.5 65 25 15
ENM RRO 2014 – Max Ave NC 250 NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC
NEPM HSL D – Commercial NC NC 260 NL NC NC NL 3 NL NL NL
NEPM 2013 EIL/ESLs Commercial D soil, Coarse Soil NC NC 215 170 1700 3300 370 75 135 165 180
Management Limits for TPH in coarse soils NC NC 700 1000 3500 10000 NC NC NC NC NC
Notes to
Table 16: All results in mg/kg on a dry weight basis CT - Concentration Threshold NC - No Criteria PID - Photoionisation Detector PQL - Practical Quantitation Limits ESL apply from the ground surface to 2 m depth below the finished surface Soil HSLs for vapour intrusion (mg/kg) based on clay soils with a contamination source within 1 m depth.
Page 31 of 36
Report on Preliminary Site Investigation for Contamination 91401.00.R.001.Rev0 Proposed Service Centre, 37 - 41 Bengal Street, Coolongolook December 2019
Table 17: Laboratory Results for PAH, OCP and OPP
Bore Depth
(m)
Fill or Natural
(F/N)
Total Positive
PAH
B(a)P
B(a)P (TEQ)
Total PCB
(2)
To
tal O
PP
Ch
lorp
hy
riph
os
To
tal
OC
P
Ald
rin +
Die
ldrin
Ch
lord
an
e
DD
T
DD
T +
DD
E +
DD
D
En
do
su
lfan
En
drin
Me
tho
xych
lor
Hep
tach
lor
BH2 0.01 N <0.05 <0.05 <0.5 <0.7 <1.2 <0.1 <2 <0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
BH2 0.5 N <0.05 <0.05 <0.5 <0.7 <1.2 <0.1 <2 <0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
BH3 0.05 N <0.05 <0.05 <0.5 <0.7 <1.2 <0.1 <2 <0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
BH4 0.5 N <0.05 <0.05 <0.5 <0.7 <1.2 <0.1 <2 <0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
BH6 0.1 F <0.05 <0.05 <0.5 <0.7 <1.2 <0.1 <2 <0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
BH6 0.5 N <0.05 <0.05 <0.5 <0.7 <1.2 <0.1 <2 <0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
BH7 0.01 F 0.3 0.09 <0.5 <0.7 <1.2 <0.1 <2 <0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
BH7 0.5 N <0.05 <0.05 <0.5 <0.7 <1.2 <0.1 <2 <0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
BH8 0.01 N <0.05 <0.05 <0.5 <0.7 <1.2 <0.1 <2 <0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
D1 (BH8) 0.01 N <0.05 <0.05 <0.5 <0.7 <1.2 <0.1 <2 <0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
BH9 0.05 N <0.05 <0.05 <0.5 <0.7 <1.2 <0.1 <2 <0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
BH9 0.5 N <0.05 <0.05 <0.5 <0.7 <1.2 <0.1 <2 <0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Laboratory PQL 0.05 0.05 0.5 0.1 ea 0.1 ea 0.1 0.1 ea 0.1 ea 0.1 0.1 0.1 ea 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Average Concentration (fill and natural)
<0.05 <0.05 <0.5 <0.7 <1.2 <0.1 <2 <0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Maximum Concentration (fill and natural) 0.3 0.09 <0.5 <0.7 <1.2 <0.1 <2 <0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
General Solid Waste (CT1) 200 0.8 NC 50 250 4 250 NC NC NC 50 50 50 50 50
Restricted Solid Waste (CT2) 800 3.2 NC 50 1000 16 1000 NC NC NC 50 50 50 50 NC
ENM RRO 2014 – Abs Max 40 1 NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC
ENM RRO 2014 – Max Ave 20 0.5 NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC
NEPM HIL/HSL Commercial / Industrial
NC NC 40 7 NC 2000 NC 45 530 NC 3600 2000 100 2500 50
EIL/ESL Commercial/Industrial (1)
NC 1.4 NC NC NC NC NC NC NC 640 NC NC NC NC NC
Notes to Table 17
All results in mg/kg on a dry weight basis
CT - Concentration Threshold NA - Not Applicable PID - Photoionisation Detector PQL - Practical Quantitation Limits Total PAH - Sum of positive and PQL values 1 - Health Based Criteria for Commercial / Industrial Land Use
2- PCB HILs relates to non-dioxin-like PCB only
Page 32 of 36
Report on Preliminary Site Investigation for Contamination 91401.00.R.001.Rev0
Proposed Service Centre, 37 - 41 Bengal Street, Coolongolook December 2019
Table 18: Laboratory Results of Asbestos Testing
Bore Depth (m) Description Asbestos*
2 0.01 Clayey silty TOPSOIL Not detected
6 0.1 Silty clay FILLING Not detected
7 0.01 Gravelly silty clay FILLING Not detected
8 0.01 Silty clay TOPSOIL Not detected
9 0.05 Clayey silty TOPSOIL Not detected
Notes to Table 18:
*Not detected at the reporting limit of 0.1g/kg
13. Contamination Assessment
13.1 Contamination Status
A number of additional areas of environmental concern were identified during the assessment which
would warrant additional investigation during a detailed investigation to assist with development of a
remediation action plan, if required. These include the following:
Filling, including rubbish, around the water body in the north-western area of the site;
The area around the existing house and detached shed;
The existing effluent tanks in the north-eastern area of the site;
Filling observed on the surface along the eastern boundary of the site; and
Filling observed on the surface in the south-western corner of the site.
Limited testing within and around these areas of environmental concern returned chemical
concentrations below the adopted site assessment criteria for the intended commercial landuse.
Twelve (12) soil samples (including one field replicate) were analysed for the suite of testing outlined
in Section 12. The results were compared against NEPM for Health Based Investigation / Screening
Levels, Ecological Investigation / Screening Levels, Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Management Limits
for a commercial land use as discussed in Section11.
All samples tested were below the relevant criteria for:
Health investigation and screening levels;
Environmental investigation levels; and
Total petroleum hydrocarbon management limits.
The laboratory results were generally consistent with the visual and olfactory “screening” that
suggested the absence of gross contamination within the test bores.
Although hazardous building materials (HBM) including asbestos, were not observed within the bores,
owing to the presence of structures on the site there is a risk of HBM in unobserved or untested parts
of the site.
Page 33 of 36
Report on Preliminary Site Investigation for Contamination 91401.00.R.001.Rev0
Proposed Service Centre, 37 - 41 Bengal Street, Coolongolook December 2019
13.2 Preliminary Waste Classification
In summary, based on the site historical information, site investigations and preliminary laboratory
testing, the following waste classifications are provided:
Existing Filling
The samples of filling tested returned contaminant concentrations below the maximum permissible
concentrations to be classified as General Solid Waste (GSW).
It is recommended, however, that given the potential areas of environmental concern identified during
the preliminary investigation, additional investigation should be undertaken to confirm this preliminary
waste classification prior to export of material from the site.
Natural Soils
The soil contamination testing within the natural soils returned concentrations within the criteria for
General Solid Waste as defined in the EPA Waste Classification Guidelines (Ref 2). In the absence of
specific guidelines for chemical concentrations for Virgin Excavated Natural Material (VENM), the
results of the testing were compared to the NSW EPA Excavated Natural Material (ENM) order (Ref
6). All natural soil sample results were below the absolute maximum and allowable maximum average
concentration values and therefore the natural soil encountered beneath the filling is likely to be
classified as VENM. This should be confirmed in conjunction with the above-mentioned additional
investigation of the filling.
The use of the natural clay and silt soils as Virgin Excavated Natural Material (VENM) would be
contingent on prior acceptance by the receptor site/relevant authority to receive the material. The
VENM materials should not be mixed/cross contaminated with non-ENM materials (e.g. overlying
filling or anthropogenic inclusions). During construction an inspection regime should include the
following:
Stripping and segregation of the overlying filling over the excavation area;
Inspection of the exposed soils by a geo-environmental engineer to assess for the presence of
material which may affect the VENM classification;
Supplementary laboratory testing of the exposed soils to confirm the suitability for VENM;
Regular inspections and testing during construction to ensure that the excavated materials are
appropriately handled and that material different to those encountered during the investigation are
assessed, if encountered.
Additional assessment will be required in the event that the conditions encountered are different to
those found in this assessment, or if anthropogenic inclusions, staining or odours are observed.
It is noted that the conditions set out in the relevant general Resource Recovery Order are designed to
minimise the risk of potential harm to human health or the environment, however, they do not
guarantee that human health or the environment will not be harmed. The suitability of any exempted
material should be confirmed with respect to the particular use proposed (i.e. areas fit for purpose), as
stated in the relevant exemptions.
Page 34 of 36
Report on Preliminary Site Investigation for Contamination 91401.00.R.001.Rev0
Proposed Service Centre, 37 - 41 Bengal Street, Coolongolook December 2019
During construction an unexpected finds protocol should be implemented for the site to outline how to
handled, assess and dispose of any materials different to those observed during the investigation
which may be encountered during the proposed works.
13.3 Conclusions
The results of the desktop assessment and site inspection indicate that a number of potential
contaminating activities have occurred at the site, such as:
Possible importation of filling within the site, particularly in the area around the existing building
and in the eastern part of the site, as encountered in Bore 6, expected behind the small retaining
walls and observed adjacent to the water body;
Possible asbestos within near surface filling from the demolition of former structures on the site;
Localised dumped filling / opportunistic dumping along water body;
Possible impact from the effluent treatment on the site.
The potential areas of environmental concern were generally localised, as shown on Drawing 1, and
associated with near surface impacts. Limited testing within and around these areas of environmental
concern returned chemical concentrations below the adopted site assessment criteria for the intended
commercial land use. It is recommended, however, that additional investigation is undertaken to
assist with development of a remediation action plan, if required. The further investigation should also
include procurement and review of the planning certificates 10.7 (2 and 5) for the site and revision of
the further investigation scope, if required.
It is suggested that the identified potential areas of environmental concern could be readily addressed
through appropriate additional investigation, and remediation (where required) to render the site
suitable for the intended commercial land use.
No assessment of groundwater was undertaken during the investigation. Given the presence of the
existing service station across the Pacific Highway, which is on the list of contaminated sites, it is
suggested that installation of groundwater wells and testing of the groundwater for potential
hydrocarbon impact should be undertaken.
14. References
1. Douglas Partners Pty Ltd, “Report on Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Service
Centre, 37 – 41 Bengal Street, Coolongolook”, Project 91401 dated November 2018.
2. NSW EPA, 'Waste Classification Guidelines, Part 1: Classifying Waste', November 2014.
3. NSW EPA, “Contaminated Site, Sampling Design Guidelines”, September 1995.
4. National Environment Protection Council (2013), “National Environment Protection (Assessment
of Site Contamination) Amendment Measure 2013”, 11 April 2013.
5. NSW EPA Contaminated Sites (2011), ‘Guidelines for Consultants Reporting on Contaminated
Sites’, August 2011.
Page 35 of 36
Report on Preliminary Site Investigation for Contamination 91401.00.R.001.Rev0
Proposed Service Centre, 37 - 41 Bengal Street, Coolongolook December 2019
6. NSW EPA, Resource Recovery Order under Part 9, Clause 93 of the Protection of the
Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2014 “The Excavated Natural Material Order 2014”.
15. Limitations
Douglas Partners (DP) has prepared this report for this project at 37 – 41 Bengal Street, Coolongolook
with reference to DP’s proposal NCL180321 dated 8 August 2018 and acceptance received from
Galen Property Pty Ltd dated 6 September 2018. The work was carried out under DP’s Conditions of
Engagement. This report is provided for the exclusive use of Galen Property Pty Ltd and Turnbull
Planning International Pty Ltd for this project only and for the purposes as described in the report. It
should not be used by or relied upon for other projects or purposes on the same or other site or by a
third party. Any party so relying upon this report beyond its exclusive use and purpose as stated
above, and without the express written consent of DP, does so entirely at its own risk and without
recourse to DP for any loss or damage. In preparing this report DP has necessarily relied upon
information provided by the client and/or their agents.
The results provided in the report are indicative of the sub-surface conditions on the site only at the
specific sampling and/or testing locations, and then only to the depths investigated and at the time the
work was carried out. Sub-surface conditions can change abruptly due to variable geological
processes and also as a result of human influences. Such changes may occur after DP’s field testing
has been completed.
DP’s advice is based upon the conditions encountered during this investigation. The accuracy of the
advice provided by DP in this report may be affected by undetected variations in ground conditions
across the site between and beyond the sampling and/or testing locations. The advice may also be
limited by budget constraints imposed by others or by site accessibility.
Should evidence of filling of unknown origin be encountered and in particular the presence of building
demolition materials, it should be recognised that there may be some risk that such filling may contain
contaminants and hazardous building materials.
This report must be read in conjunction with all of the attached and should be kept in its entirety
without separation of individual pages or sections. DP cannot be held responsible for interpretations
or conclusions made by others unless they are supported by an expressed statement, interpretation,
outcome or conclusion stated in this report.
This report, or sections from this report, should not be used as part of a specification for a project,
without review and agreement by DP. This is because this report has been written as advice and
opinion rather than instructions for construction.
Asbestos has been not detected by observation and /or by laboratory analysis, either on the surface of
the site, or in filling materials sampled and analysed. Although the sampling plan adopted for this
investigation is considered appropriate to achieve the stated project objectives, there are necessarily
parts of the site that have not been sampled and analysed. This is either due to undetected variations
in ground conditions. It is therefore considered possible that HBM, including asbestos, may be
present in unobserved or untested parts of the site, between and beyond sampling locations, and
hence no warranty can be given that asbestos is not present.
Page 36 of 36
Report on Preliminary Site Investigation for Contamination 91401.00.R.001.Rev0
Proposed Service Centre, 37 - 41 Bengal Street, Coolongolook December 2019
The contents of this report do not constitute formal design components such as are required, by the
Health and Safety Legislation and Regulations, to be included in a Safety Report specifying the
hazards likely to be encountered during construction and the controls required to mitigate risk. This
design process requires risk assessment to be undertaken, with such assessment being dependent
upon factors relating to likelihood of occurrence and consequences of damage to property and to life.
This, in turn, requires project data and analysis presently beyond the knowledge and project role
respectively of DP. DP may be able, however, to assist the client in carrying out a risk assessment of
potential hazards contained in the Comments section of this report, as an extension to the current
scope of works, if so requested, and provided that suitable additional information is made available to
DP. Any such risk assessment would, however, be necessarily restricted to the environmental
components set out in this report and to their application by the project designers to project design,
construction, maintenance and demolition.
Douglas Partners Pty Ltd
Appendix A
About This Report Sampling Methods
Soil Descriptions Symbols and Abbreviations
Borehole Logs – Bores 1 to 10 Results of Dynamic Penetrometer Tests
July 2010
Introduction These notes have been provided to amplify DP's report in regard to classification methods, field procedures and the comments section. Not all are necessarily relevant to all reports. DP's reports are based on information gained from limited subsurface excavations and sampling, supplemented by knowledge of local geology and experience. For this reason, they must be regarded as interpretive rather than factual documents, limited to some extent by the scope of information on which they rely. Copyright This report is the property of Douglas Partners Pty Ltd. The report may only be used for the purpose for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the Conditions of Engagement for the commission supplied at the time of proposal. Unauthorised use of this report in any form whatsoever is prohibited. Borehole and Test Pit Logs The borehole and test pit logs presented in this report are an engineering and/or geological interpretation of the subsurface conditions, and their reliability will depend to some extent on frequency of sampling and the method of drilling or excavation. Ideally, continuous undisturbed sampling or core drilling will provide the most reliable assessment, but this is not always practicable or possible to justify on economic grounds. In any case the boreholes and test pits represent only a very small sample of the total subsurface profile. Interpretation of the information and its application to design and construction should therefore take into account the spacing of boreholes or pits, the frequency of sampling, and the possibility of other than 'straight line' variations between the test locations. Groundwater Where groundwater levels are measured in boreholes there are several potential problems, namely: • In low permeability soils groundwater may
enter the hole very slowly or perhaps not at all during the time the hole is left open;
• 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 with seasons or recent weather changes. They may not be the same at the time of construction as are indicated in the report; and
• 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 first be washed out of the hole if water measurements are to be made.
More reliable measurements can be made by installing standpipes which are read at intervals over several days, or perhaps 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. Reports The report has been prepared by qualified personnel, is based on the information obtained from field and laboratory testing, and has been undertaken to current engineering standards of interpretation and analysis. Where the report has been prepared for a specific design proposal, the information and interpretation may not be relevant if the design proposal is changed. If this happens, DP will be pleased to review the report and the sufficiency of the investigation work. Every care is taken with the report as it relates to interpretation of subsurface conditions, discussion of geotechnical and environmental aspects, and recommendations or suggestions for design and construction. However, DP cannot always anticipate or assume responsibility for: • Unexpected variations in ground conditions.
The potential for this will depend partly on borehole or pit spacing and sampling frequency;
• Changes in policy or interpretations of policy by statutory authorities; or
• The actions of contractors responding to commercial pressures.
If these occur, DP will be pleased to assist with investigations or advice to resolve the matter.
July 2010
Site Anomalies In the event that conditions encountered on site during construction appear to vary from those which were expected from the information contained in the report, DP requests that it be immediately notified. Most problems are much more readily resolved when conditions are exposed rather than at some later stage, well after the event. Information for Contractual Purposes Where information obtained from this report is provided for tendering purposes, it is recommended that all information, including the written report and discussion, be made available. In circumstances where the discussion or comments section is not relevant to the contractual situation, it may be appropriate to prepare a specially edited document. DP would be pleased to assist in this regard and/or to make additional report copies available for contract purposes at a nominal charge. Site Inspection The company will always be pleased to provide engineering inspection services for geotechnical and environmental aspects of work to which this report is related. This could range from a site visit to confirm that conditions exposed are as expected, to full time engineering presence on site.
July 2010
Sampling Sampling is carried out during drilling or test pitting to allow engineering examination (and laboratory testing where required) of the soil or rock. Disturbed samples taken during drilling provide information on colour, type, 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 into the soil and withdrawing it to obtain 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. Test Pits Test pits are usually excavated with a backhoe or an excavator, allowing close examination of the in-situ soil if it is safe to enter into the pit. The depth of excavation is limited to about 3 m for a backhoe and up to 6 m for a large excavator. A potential disadvantage of this investigation method is the larger area of disturbance to the site. Large Diameter Augers Boreholes can be drilled using a rotating plate or short spiral auger, generally 300 mm or larger in diameter commonly mounted on a standard piling rig. The cuttings are returned to the surface at intervals (generally not more than 0.5 m) 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 samples. Continuous Spiral Flight Augers The borehole is advanced using 90-115 mm diameter continuous spiral flight augers which are withdrawn at intervals to allow sampling or in-situ testing. This is a relatively economical means of drilling in clays and sands above the water table. Samples are returned to the surface, or may be collected after withdrawal of the auger flights, but they are disturbed and may be mixed with soils from the sides of the hole. Information from the drilling (as distinct from specific sampling by SPTs or undisturbed samples) is of relatively low
reliability, due to the remoulding, possible mixing or softening of samples by groundwater. Non-core Rotary Drilling The borehole is advanced using a rotary bit, with water or drilling mud being pumped down the drill rods 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 rate of penetration. Where drilling mud is used this can mask the cuttings and reliable identification is only possible from separate sampling such as SPTs. Continuous Core Drilling A continuous core sample can be obtained using a diamond tipped core barrel, usually with a 50 mm internal diameter. Provided full core recovery is achieved (which is not always possible in weak rocks and granular soils), this technique provides a very reliable method of investigation. Standard Penetration Tests Standard penetration tests (SPT) are used as a means of estimating the density or strength of soils and also of obtaining a relatively undisturbed sample. The test procedure is described in Australian Standard 1289, Methods of Testing Soils for Engineering Purposes - Test 6.3.1. The test is carried out in a borehole by driving a 50 mm diameter split sample tube under the impact of a 63 kg hammer with a free fall of 760 mm. It is normal for the tube to be driven in three successive 150 mm increments and the 'N' value is taken as the number of blows for the last 300 mm. In dense sands, very hard clays or weak rock, the full 450 mm penetration may not be practicable and the test is discontinued. The test results are reported in the following form. • In the case where full penetration is obtained
with successive blow counts for each 150 mm of, say, 4, 6 and 7 as:
4,6,7 N=13
• In the case where the test is discontinued before the full penetration depth, say after 15 blows for the first 150 mm and 30 blows for the next 40 mm as:
15, 30/40 mm
July 2010
The results of the SPT tests can be related empirically to the engineering properties of the soils. Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Tests / Perth Sand Penetrometer Tests Dynamic penetrometer tests (DCP or PSP) are carried out by driving a steel rod into the ground using a standard weight of hammer falling a specified distance. As the rod penetrates the soil the number of blows required to penetrate each successive 150 mm depth are recorded. Normally there is a depth limitation of 1.2 m, but this may be extended in certain conditions by the use of extension rods. Two types of penetrometer are commonly used. • Perth sand penetrometer - a 16 mm diameter
flat ended rod is driven using a 9 kg hammer dropping 600 mm (AS 1289, Test 6.3.3). This test was developed for testing the density of sands and is mainly used in granular soils and filling.
• Cone penetrometer - a 16 mm diameter rod with a 20 mm diameter cone end is driven using a 9 kg hammer dropping 510 mm (AS 1289, Test 6.3.2). This test was developed initially for pavement subgrade investigations, and correlations of the test results with California Bearing Ratio have been published by various road authorities.
May 2017
Description and Classification Methods The methods of description and classification of
soils and rocks used in this report are based on
Australian Standard AS 1726-1993, Geotechnical
Site Investigations Code. In general, the
descriptions include strength or density, colour,
structure, soil or rock type and inclusions.
Soil Types Soil types are described according to the
predominant particle size, qualified by the grading
of other particles present:
Type Particle size (mm)
Boulder >200
Cobble 63 - 200
Gravel 2.36 - 63
Sand 0.075 - 2.36
Silt 0.002 - 0.075
Clay <0.002
The sand and gravel sizes can be further
subdivided as follows:
Type Particle size (mm)
Coarse gravel 20 - 63
Medium gravel 6 - 20
Fine gravel 2.36 - 6
Coarse sand 0.6 - 2.36
Medium sand 0.2 - 0.6
Fine sand 0.075 - 0.2
The proportions of secondary constituents of soils
are described as:
Term Proportion Example
And Specify Clay (60%) and
Sand (40%)
Adjective 20 - 35% Sandy Clay
Slightly 12 - 20% Slightly Sandy
Clay
With some 5 - 12% Clay with some
sand
With a trace of 0 - 5% Clay with a trace
of sand
Definitions of grading terms used are:
• Well graded - a good representation of all
particle sizes
• Poorly graded - an excess or deficiency of
particular sizes within the specified range
• Uniformly graded - an excess of a particular
particle size
• Gap graded - a deficiency of a particular
particle size with the range
Cohesive Soils Cohesive soils, such as clays, are classified on the
basis of undrained shear strength. The strength
may be measured by laboratory testing, or
estimated by field tests or engineering
examination. The strength terms are defined as
follows:
Description Abbreviation Undrained shear strength
(kPa)
Very soft vs <12
Soft s 12 - 25
Firm f 25 - 50
Stiff st 50 - 100
Very stiff vst 100 - 200
Hard h >200
Cohesionless Soils Cohesionless soils, such as clean sands, are
classified on the basis of relative density, generally
from the results of standard penetration tests
(SPT), cone penetration tests (CPT) or dynamic
penetrometers (PSP). The relative density terms
are given below:
Relative Density
Abbreviation SPT N value
CPT qc value (MPa)
Very loose vl <4 <2
Loose l 4 - 10 2 -5
Medium
dense
md 10 - 30 5 - 15
Dense d 30 - 50 15 - 25
Very
dense
vd >50 >25
May 2017
Soil Origin It is often difficult to accurately determine the origin
of a soil. Soils can generally be classified as:
• Residual soil - derived from in-situ weathering
of the underlying rock;
• Transported soils - formed somewhere else
and transported by nature to the site; or
• Filling - moved by man.
Transported soils may be further subdivided into:
• Alluvium - river deposits
• Lacustrine - lake deposits
• Aeolian - wind deposits
• Littoral - beach deposits
• Estuarine - tidal river deposits
• Talus - scree or coarse colluvium
• Slopewash or Colluvium - transported
downslope by gravity assisted by water.
Often includes angular rock fragments and
boulders.
May 2017
Introduction These notes summarise abbreviations commonly
used on borehole logs and test pit reports.
Drilling or Excavation Methods C Core drilling
R Rotary drilling
SFA Spiral flight augers
NMLC Diamond core - 52 mm dia
NQ Diamond core - 47 mm dia
HQ Diamond core - 63 mm dia
PQ Diamond core - 81 mm dia
Water � Water seep
� Water level
Sampling and Testing A Auger sample
B Bulk sample
D Disturbed sample
E Environmental sample
U50 Undisturbed tube sample (50mm)
W Water sample
pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)
PID Photo ionisation detector
PL Point load strength Is(50) MPa
S Standard Penetration Test
V Shear vane (kPa)
Description of Defects in Rock The abbreviated descriptions of the defects should
be in the following order: Depth, Type, Orientation,
Coating, Shape, Roughness and Other. Drilling
and handling breaks are not usually included on
the logs.
Defect Type
B Bedding plane
Cs Clay seam
Cv Cleavage
Cz Crushed zone
Ds Decomposed seam
F Fault
J Joint
Lam Lamination
Pt Parting
Sz Sheared Zone
V Vein
Orientation
The inclination of defects is always measured from
the perpendicular to the core axis.
h horizontal
v vertical
sh sub-horizontal
sv sub-vertical
Coating or Infilling Term
cln clean
co coating
he healed
inf infilled
stn stained
ti tight
vn veneer
Coating Descriptor
ca calcite
cbs carbonaceous
cly clay
fe iron oxide
mn manganese
slt silty
Shape
cu curved
ir irregular
pl planar
st stepped
un undulating
Roughness
po polished
ro rough
sl slickensided
sm smooth
vr very rough
Other
fg fragmented
bnd band
qtz quartz
May 2017
Graphic Symbols for Soil and Rock General
Soils
Sedimentary Rocks
Metamorphic Rocks
Igneous Rocks
Road base
Filling
Concrete
Asphalt
Topsoil
Peat
Clay
Conglomeratic sandstone
Conglomerate
Boulder conglomerate
Sandstone
Slate, phyllite, schist
Siltstone
Mudstone, claystone, shale
Coal
Limestone
Porphyry
Cobbles, boulders
Sandy gravel
Laminite
Silty sand
Clayey sand
Silty clay
Sandy clay
Gravelly clay
Shaly clay
Silt
Clayey silt
Sandy silt
Sand
Gravel
Talus
Gneiss
Quartzite
Dolerite, basalt, andesite
Granite
Tuff, breccia
Dacite, epidote
GRAVELLY CLAYEY SILT - Soft, dark brown gravellyclayey silt with some fine to medium grained sand(gravels predominantly 5mm - 30mm, rounded tosubrounded, smooth), alluvium, (grass covered), M>Wp
GRAVELLY CLAY - Hard, light grey mottled browngravelly clay with trace silt (10mm-20mm, rounded,smooth), M~Wp
Bore discontinued at 3.0m, TC bit refusal
2.3
3.0
Typ
e
Depth(m)
1
2
3
4
RL
Wat
er
Dep
th
Sam
ple
Description
of
Strata Gra
phic
Log
Results &Comments
Sampling & In Situ Testing
1
2
3
4
CLIENT:PROJECT:LOCATION: 37-41 Bengal Street, Coolongolook
SAMPLING & IN SITU TESTING LEGENDA Auger sample G Gas sample PID Photo ionisation detector (ppm)B Bulk sample P Piston sample PL(A) Point load axial test Is(50) (MPa)BLK Block sample Ux Tube sample (x mm dia.) PL(D) Point load diametral test Is(50) (MPa)C Core drilling W Water sample pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)D Disturbed sample Water seep S Standard penetration testE Environmental sample Water level V Shear vane (kPa)
BORE No: 1PROJECT No: 91401.00DATE: 6/11/2018SHEET 1 OF 1
DRILLER: Hennessey LOGGED: Hickman CASING:
Turnbull Planning International Pty LtdProposed Service Centre
REMARKS:
RIG: DT100
WATER OBSERVATIONS:
TYPE OF BORING:
Free groundwater observed at 0.3m
Solid flight auger
Bulk samples taken using a 300 mm solid flight auger
SURFACE LEVEL: --EASTING: 436137NORTHING: 6435466DIP/AZIMUTH: 90°/--
BOREHOLE LOG
Dynamic Penetrometer Test(blows per 150mm)
5 10 15 20
Sand Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.3Cone Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.2
1,1,2N = 3
14,22,17N = 39
D/E
D/E
S
S
0.1
0.5
1.0
1.45
2.5
2.95
TOPSOIL - Dark brown clayey silt topsoil, alluvium,M>Wp
SILTY CLAY - Dark brown with trace fine gravel (5mm -15mm, smooth, rounded) alluvium, M>Wp
CLAY - Firm to stiff, light grey mottled orange brownclay with trace silt, M>Wp
From 1.0m - 1.1m, trace fine gravel (5mm - 20mm,rounded, smooth), M~Wp
SILTY CLAY - Hard, light grey silty clay with rockstructure visible (weathered siltstone), M<Wp
Bore discontinued at 3.95m, TC bit refusal
0.25
0.8
3.0
3.95
Typ
e
Depth(m)
1
2
3
4
RL
Wat
er
Dep
th
Sam
ple
Description
of
Strata Gra
phic
Log
Results &Comments
Sampling & In Situ Testing
1
2
3
4
CLIENT:PROJECT:LOCATION: 37-41 Bengal Street, Coolongolook
SAMPLING & IN SITU TESTING LEGENDA Auger sample G Gas sample PID Photo ionisation detector (ppm)B Bulk sample P Piston sample PL(A) Point load axial test Is(50) (MPa)BLK Block sample Ux Tube sample (x mm dia.) PL(D) Point load diametral test Is(50) (MPa)C Core drilling W Water sample pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)D Disturbed sample Water seep S Standard penetration testE Environmental sample Water level V Shear vane (kPa)
BORE No: 2PROJECT No: 91401.00DATE: 6/11/2018SHEET 1 OF 1
DRILLER: Hennessey LOGGED: Hickman CASING:
Turnbull Planning International Pty LtdProposed Service Centre
REMARKS:
RIG: DT100
WATER OBSERVATIONS:
TYPE OF BORING:
Free groundwater observed at 0.7m
Solid flight auger
Bulk samples taken using a 300 mm solid flight auger
SURFACE LEVEL: --EASTING: 436122NORTHING: 6435439DIP/AZIMUTH: 90°/--
BOREHOLE LOG
Dynamic Penetrometer Test(blows per 150mm)
5 10 15 20
Sand Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.3Cone Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.2
pp = 1702,2,4N = 6
pp = 2209,9,18N = 27
pp >4009,15,23N = 38
D/E
D/E
S
S
S
0.1
0.5
1.0
1.45
2.5
2.95
3.5
3.95
TOPSOIL - Brown silty clay topsoil with trace finerootlets, M~Wp
SILTY CLAY - Stiff, dark brown silty clay, M~Wp
CLAY - Stiff, light grey mottled brown clay with trace silt,M~Wp
From 1.8m, becoming light grey
SILTY CLAY - Hard, light grey silty clay, M<Wp
From 2.5m, rock structure visible with trace very lowstrength weathered rock inclusions
Bore discontinued at 2.85m, SPT refusal on weatheredrock
0.1
0.4
2.3
2.85
Typ
e
Depth(m)
1
2
3
4
RL
Wat
er
Dep
th
Sam
ple
Description
of
Strata Gra
phic
Log
Results &Comments
Sampling & In Situ Testing
1
2
3
4
CLIENT:PROJECT:LOCATION: 37-41 Bengal Street, Coolongolook
SAMPLING & IN SITU TESTING LEGENDA Auger sample G Gas sample PID Photo ionisation detector (ppm)B Bulk sample P Piston sample PL(A) Point load axial test Is(50) (MPa)BLK Block sample Ux Tube sample (x mm dia.) PL(D) Point load diametral test Is(50) (MPa)C Core drilling W Water sample pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)D Disturbed sample Water seep S Standard penetration testE Environmental sample Water level V Shear vane (kPa)
BORE No: 3PROJECT No: 91401.00DATE: 7/11/2018SHEET 1 OF 1
DRILLER: Hennessey LOGGED: Hickman CASING:
Turnbull Planning International Pty LtdProposed Service Centre
REMARKS:
RIG: DT100
WATER OBSERVATIONS:
TYPE OF BORING:
No free groundwater observed
Solid flight auger
Bulk samples taken using a 300 mm solid flight auger
SURFACE LEVEL: --EASTING: 436142NORTHING: 6435416DIP/AZIMUTH: 90°/--
BOREHOLE LOG
Dynamic Penetrometer Test(blows per 150mm)
5 10 15 20
Sand Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.3Cone Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.2
pp = 2502,5,6
N = 11
pp >40013,16,20/60
refusal
D/E
D/E
BU50
S
S
0.05
0.50.51
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.45
2.5
2.85
CLAYEY SILT - Firm, dark brown clayey silt with tracegravel (5mm - 10mm, subrounded, smooth), alluvium,M>Wp
GRAVELLY CLAYEY SILT - Firm, brown gravelly clayeysilt (5mm - 20mm subrounded, smooth), alluvium,M>Wp
SILTY CLAY - Very stiff, light grey mottled brown siltyclay with some gravel (10mm - 30mm, rounded,smooth), M>Wp
Bore discontinued at 3.1m, TC bit refusal
0.9
2.0
3.1
Typ
e
Depth(m)
1
2
3
4
RL
Wat
er
Dep
th
Sam
ple
Description
of
Strata Gra
phic
Log
Results &Comments
Sampling & In Situ Testing
1
2
3
4
CLIENT:PROJECT:LOCATION: 37-41 Bengal Street, Coolongolook
SAMPLING & IN SITU TESTING LEGENDA Auger sample G Gas sample PID Photo ionisation detector (ppm)B Bulk sample P Piston sample PL(A) Point load axial test Is(50) (MPa)BLK Block sample Ux Tube sample (x mm dia.) PL(D) Point load diametral test Is(50) (MPa)C Core drilling W Water sample pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)D Disturbed sample Water seep S Standard penetration testE Environmental sample Water level V Shear vane (kPa)
BORE No: 4PROJECT No: 91401.00DATE: 7/11/2018SHEET 1 OF 1
DRILLER: Hennessey LOGGED: Hickman CASING:
Turnbull Planning International Pty LtdProposed Service Centre
REMARKS:
RIG: DT100
WATER OBSERVATIONS:
TYPE OF BORING:
Free groundwater observed at 0.7m
Solid flight auger
Bulk samples taken using a 300 mm solid flight auger
SURFACE LEVEL: --EASTING: 436104NORTHING: 6435419DIP/AZIMUTH: 90°/--
BOREHOLE LOG
Dynamic Penetrometer Test(blows per 150mm)
5 10 15 20
Sand Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.3Cone Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.2
pp = 1503,4,3N = 7
13,14,13N = 27
D/E
D/E
U50
D/E
S
S
0.05
0.50.51
0.9
1.0
1.45
2.5
2.95
TOPSOIL - Brown silty clay with trace fine gravel androotlets, M~Wp
CLAY - Stiff to very stiff, orange brown clay with tracesilt and fine gravel (5mm - 10mm, rounded, smooth),M~Wp
CLAY - Stiff to very stiff, grey mottled red brown claywith some gravel (10mm - 30mm, subrounded, smooth),M~Wp
METASILTSTONE - Medium to high strength, slightlyweathered, grey metasiltstone
Bore discontinued at 2.7m, TC bit refusal
0.15
0.5
2.5
2.7
Typ
e
Depth(m)
1
2
3
4
RL
Wat
er
Dep
th
Sam
ple
Description
of
Strata Gra
phic
Log
Results &Comments
Sampling & In Situ Testing
1
2
3
4
CLIENT:PROJECT:LOCATION: 37-41 Bengal Street, Coolongolook
SAMPLING & IN SITU TESTING LEGENDA Auger sample G Gas sample PID Photo ionisation detector (ppm)B Bulk sample P Piston sample PL(A) Point load axial test Is(50) (MPa)BLK Block sample Ux Tube sample (x mm dia.) PL(D) Point load diametral test Is(50) (MPa)C Core drilling W Water sample pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)D Disturbed sample Water seep S Standard penetration testE Environmental sample Water level V Shear vane (kPa)
BORE No: 5PROJECT No: 91401.00DATE: 6/11/2018SHEET 1 OF 1
DRILLER: Hennessey LOGGED: Hickman CASING:
Turnbull Planning International Pty LtdProposed Service Centre
REMARKS:
RIG: DT100
WATER OBSERVATIONS:
TYPE OF BORING:
No free groundwater observed
Solid flight auger to 2.0m then wash bore to 2.7m
Bulk samples taken using a 300 mm solid flight auger
SURFACE LEVEL: --EASTING: 436115NORTHING: 6435463DIP/AZIMUTH: 90°/--
BOREHOLE LOG
Dynamic Penetrometer Test(blows per 150mm)
5 10 15 20
Sand Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.3Cone Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.2
pp = 280-3005,6,8
N = 14
25/80,-,-refusal
D/E
D/E
S
S
0.1
0.5
1.0
1.45
2.52.58
FILLING (TOPSOIL) - Brown silty clay/clayey silt topsoilwith trace fine rootlets, M<Wp
SILTY CLAY - Stiff, brown silty clay, M<Wp
CLAY - Stiff, light grey mottled brown clay with trace siltand gravel (20mm - 40mm, subangular, rough), M~Wp
From 1.55m, some gravel
SILTY CLAY - Hard, light grey silty clay, rock structurevisible, M<Wp
SILTSTONE - Low strength, moderately weathered, lightgrey and brown siltstone
Bore discontinued at 2.55m, TC bit refusal
0.2
0.4
2.0
2.4
2.55
Typ
e
Depth(m)
1
2
3
4
RL
Wat
er
Dep
th
Sam
ple
Description
of
Strata Gra
phic
Log
Results &Comments
Sampling & In Situ Testing
1
2
3
4
CLIENT:PROJECT:LOCATION: 37-41 Bengal Street, Coolongolook
SAMPLING & IN SITU TESTING LEGENDA Auger sample G Gas sample PID Photo ionisation detector (ppm)B Bulk sample P Piston sample PL(A) Point load axial test Is(50) (MPa)BLK Block sample Ux Tube sample (x mm dia.) PL(D) Point load diametral test Is(50) (MPa)C Core drilling W Water sample pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)D Disturbed sample Water seep S Standard penetration testE Environmental sample Water level V Shear vane (kPa)
BORE No: 6PROJECT No: 91401.00DATE: 7/11/2018SHEET 1 OF 1
DRILLER: Hennessey LOGGED: Hickman CASING:
Turnbull Planning International Pty LtdProposed Service Centre
REMARKS:
RIG: DT100
WATER OBSERVATIONS:
TYPE OF BORING:
No free groundwater observed
Solid flight auger
Bulk samples taken using a 300 mm solid flight auger
SURFACE LEVEL: --EASTING: 436134NORTHING: 6435505DIP/AZIMUTH: 90°/--
BOREHOLE LOG
Dynamic Penetrometer Test(blows per 150mm)
5 10 15 20
Sand Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.3Cone Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.2
pp = 2505,20/80,-refusal
D/E
D/E
B
D/E
S
D
D
S
0.1
0.5
0.8
1.0
1.27
1.55
2.0
2.52.53
FILLING - Generally consisting of brown gravelly siltyclay with trace cobbles (up to 300mm), M<Wp
CLAY - Very stiff, grey mottled brown clay with trace silt(possible filling), M~Wp
CLAY - Very stiff, grey mottled brown clay with trace siltand gravel (10mm - 30mm, rounded, smooth), M~Wp
METASILTSTONE - Low to medium strength, highlyweathered, grey metasiltstone
Bore discontinued at 3.27m, TC bit refusal
0.4
0.8
3.05
3.27
Typ
e
Depth(m)
1
2
3
4
RL
Wat
er
Dep
th
Sam
ple
Description
of
Strata Gra
phic
Log
Results &Comments
Sampling & In Situ Testing
1
2
3
4
CLIENT:PROJECT:LOCATION: 37-41 Bengal Street, Coolongolook
SAMPLING & IN SITU TESTING LEGENDA Auger sample G Gas sample PID Photo ionisation detector (ppm)B Bulk sample P Piston sample PL(A) Point load axial test Is(50) (MPa)BLK Block sample Ux Tube sample (x mm dia.) PL(D) Point load diametral test Is(50) (MPa)C Core drilling W Water sample pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)D Disturbed sample Water seep S Standard penetration testE Environmental sample Water level V Shear vane (kPa)
BORE No: 7PROJECT No: 91401.00DATE: 7/11/2018SHEET 1 OF 1
DRILLER: Hennessey LOGGED: Hickman CASING:
Turnbull Planning International Pty LtdProposed Service Centre
REMARKS:
RIG: DT100
WATER OBSERVATIONS:
TYPE OF BORING:
No free groundwater observed
Solid flight auger
Bulk samples taken using a 300 mm solid flight auger
SURFACE LEVEL: --EASTING: 436137NORTHING: 6435446DIP/AZIMUTH: 90°/--
BOREHOLE LOG
Dynamic Penetrometer Test(blows per 150mm)
5 10 15 20
Sand Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.3Cone Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.2
pp = 3004,9,11N = 20
pp = 1807,8,11N = 19
25/70,-,-refusal
D/E
D/E
U50
B
D/E
S
S
S
0.01
0.50.510.6
0.9
1.0
1.45
2.5
2.95
3.2
TOPSOIL - Brown silty clay with trace fine rootlets(possible filling), M<Wp
SILTY CLAY - Firm brown silty clay, M<Wp
CLAY - Stiff, orange brown clay with trace fine gravel(5mm - 10mm, subrounded, smooth), M~Wp
CLAY - Very stiff, light grey mottled brown clay withtrace silt and gravel (5mm - 15mm, subrounded,smooth), M~WP
From 1.8m, becoming light grey
SILTY CLAY - Hard, light grey silty clay with rockstructure visible, M<Wp
From 2.5m, trace low strength rock inclusions
Bore discontinued at 2.8m, limit of investigation
0.1
0.3
0.9
2.2
2.8
Typ
e
Depth(m)
1
2
3
4
RL
Wat
er
Dep
th
Sam
ple
Description
of
Strata Gra
phic
Log
Results &Comments
Sampling & In Situ Testing
1
2
3
4
CLIENT:PROJECT:LOCATION: 37-41 Bengal Street, Coolongolook
SAMPLING & IN SITU TESTING LEGENDA Auger sample G Gas sample PID Photo ionisation detector (ppm)B Bulk sample P Piston sample PL(A) Point load axial test Is(50) (MPa)BLK Block sample Ux Tube sample (x mm dia.) PL(D) Point load diametral test Is(50) (MPa)C Core drilling W Water sample pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)D Disturbed sample Water seep S Standard penetration testE Environmental sample Water level V Shear vane (kPa)
BORE No: 8PROJECT No: 91401.00DATE: 7/11/2018SHEET 1 OF 1
DRILLER: Hennessey LOGGED: Hickman CASING:
Turnbull Planning International Pty LtdProposed Service Centre
REMARKS:
RIG: DT100
WATER OBSERVATIONS:
TYPE OF BORING:
No free groundwater observed
Solid flight auger
Bulk samples taken using a 300 mm solid flight auger
SURFACE LEVEL: --EASTING: 436141NORTHING: 6435494DIP/AZIMUTH: 90°/--
BOREHOLE LOG
Dynamic Penetrometer Test(blows per 150mm)
5 10 15 20
Sand Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.3Cone Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.2
QA1
QA2
pp = 3005,10,11N = 21
pp >40018,27,-refusal
D/E
D/E
U50
S
D
S
0.01
0.50.51
0.8
1.0
1.45
2.0
2.5
2.8
TOPSOIL - Brown clayey silt with trace fine rootlets,M<Wp
CLAYEY SILT - Stiff, brown clayey silt, M<Wp
CLAY - Stiff, orange brown clay with trace silt, M>Wp
CLAY - Very stiff, light grey mottled red brown clay withtrace silt, M~Wp
From 1.5m, trace gravel (10mm - 20mm, subrounded,smooth)
SILTY CLAY - Very stiff, light grey silty clay with tracegravel (10mm - 20mm, subrounded, smooth), M~Wp
SILTSTONE - Very low strength, highly weathered lightgrey siltstone
Bore discontinued at 4.18m, limit of investigation
0.1
0.35
1.0
2.0
3.3
4.18
Typ
e
Depth(m)
1
2
3
4
RL
Wat
er
Dep
th
Sam
ple
Description
of
Strata Gra
phic
Log
Results &Comments
Sampling & In Situ Testing
1
2
3
4
CLIENT:PROJECT:LOCATION: 37-41 Bengal Street, Coolongolook
SAMPLING & IN SITU TESTING LEGENDA Auger sample G Gas sample PID Photo ionisation detector (ppm)B Bulk sample P Piston sample PL(A) Point load axial test Is(50) (MPa)BLK Block sample Ux Tube sample (x mm dia.) PL(D) Point load diametral test Is(50) (MPa)C Core drilling W Water sample pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)D Disturbed sample Water seep S Standard penetration testE Environmental sample Water level V Shear vane (kPa)
BORE No: 9PROJECT No: 91401.00DATE: 7/11/2018SHEET 1 OF 1
DRILLER: Hennessey LOGGED: Hickman CASING:
Turnbull Planning International Pty LtdProposed Service Centre
REMARKS:
RIG: DT100
WATER OBSERVATIONS:
TYPE OF BORING:
No free groundwater observed
Solid flight auger
Bulk samples taken using a 300 mm solid flight auger
SURFACE LEVEL: --EASTING: 436119NORTHING: 6435422DIP/AZIMUTH: 90°/--
BOREHOLE LOG
Dynamic Penetrometer Test(blows per 150mm)
5 10 15 20
Sand Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.3Cone Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.2
pp = 2805,8,13N = 21
pp = 3509,13,14N = 27
25,20/30,-refusal
D/E
D/E
B
U50
D/E
S
S
S
0.05
0.4
0.50.51
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.45
2.5
2.95
4.0
4.18
TOPSOIL - Dark brown clayey silt with trace fine graveland rootlets (grass covered), M<Wp
SILTY CLAY - Light brown silty clay with trace finegravel, M<Wp
CLAY - Light brown clay with trace fine gravel, M<Wp
From 0.8m, some ironstained gravel (10mm - 30mmsubrounded, rough), M~Wp
From 1.2m, becoming light grey and brown
Bore discontinued at 1.6m, refusal on gravel
0.15
0.5
1.6T
ype
Depth(m)
1
2
3
4
RL
Wat
er
Dep
th
Sam
ple
Description
of
Strata Gra
phic
Log
Results &Comments
Sampling & In Situ Testing
1
2
3
4
CLIENT:PROJECT:LOCATION: 37-41 Bengal Street, Coolongolook
SAMPLING & IN SITU TESTING LEGENDA Auger sample G Gas sample PID Photo ionisation detector (ppm)B Bulk sample P Piston sample PL(A) Point load axial test Is(50) (MPa)BLK Block sample Ux Tube sample (x mm dia.) PL(D) Point load diametral test Is(50) (MPa)C Core drilling W Water sample pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)D Disturbed sample Water seep S Standard penetration testE Environmental sample Water level V Shear vane (kPa)
BORE No: 10PROJECT No: 91401.00DATE: 23/11/2018SHEET 1 OF 1
DRILLER: Hickman LOGGED: Hickman CASING:
Turnbull Planning International Pty LtdProposed Service Centre
REMARKS:
RIG: Hand Tools
WATER OBSERVATIONS:
TYPE OF BORING:
No free groundwater observed
70 mm diameter hand auger
SURFACE LEVEL: --EASTING:NORTHING:DIP/AZIMUTH: 90°/--
BOREHOLE LOG
Dynamic Penetrometer Test(blows per 150mm)
5 10 15 20
Sand Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.3Cone Penetrometer AS1289.6.3.2
D
D
D
D
D
D
0.1
0.3
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.6
Douglas Partners Pty LtdABN 75 053 980 117
www.douglaspartners.com.auUnit 2, 32 Geebung Drive
Port Macquarie NSW 2444PO Box 5463
Port Macquarie NSW 2444Phone (02) 6581 5992
Fax (02) 6581 5669
Client Turnbull Planning International Pty Ltd Project No.
Project Proposed Service Centre Date
Location 37-41 Bengal Street, Coolongolook Page No.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0 - 0.15 1 2 4 2 4 2 3 2 4
0.15 - 0.30 4 3 3 2 8 4 9 3 3
0.30 - 0.45 2 3 2 1 10 6 9 5 4
0.45 - 0.60 2 1 5 3 14 6 7 6 4
0.60 - 0.75 1 2 7 4 19 8 7 8 6
0.75 - 0.90 3 1 7 5 8 8 8 5
0.90 - 1.05 2 2 7 5 9 7 9 9
1.05 - 1.20
1.20 - 1.35
1.35 - 1.50
1.50 - 1.65
1.65 - 1.80
1.80 - 1.95
1.95 - 2.10
2.10 - 2.25
2.25 - 2.40
2.40 - 2.55
2.55 - 2.70
2.70 - 2.85
2.85 - 3.00
3.00 - 3.15
3.15 - 3.30
3.30 - 3.45
3.45 - 3.60
Test Method AS 1289.6.3.2, Cone Penetrometer Tested By MVH
AS 1289.6.3.3, Sand Penetrometer Checked By
Remarks Ref = Refusal, 24/110 indicates 25 blows for 110 mm penetration
Blows/150 mm
Results of Dynamic Penetrometer Tests91401.00
06/11/18
1 of 1
Test Location
RL of Test (AHD)
Depth (m) Penetration Resistance
Appendix B
Title Search Information Planning Certificate 10.7 (2 and 5)
Forster office
4 Breese Parade | PO Box 450
Forster NSW 2428
PLANNING CERTIFICATE Section 10.7
Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979
Cert No. 919 / 2020
Applicant
Forster | Gloucester | Taree | Tea Gardens | Stroud | ABN: 44 961 208 161 | Contact us: 6591 7222
[email protected] | www.midcoast.nsw.gov.au | midcoastcouncil | @midcoastcouncil
TURNBULL PLANNING INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD 2301, 4 Daydream St WARRIEWOOD NSW 2102
Receipt No. : 2176485 Date of Issue : 2 December 2019 Ref : TIA GAO Property Key : 14930
Property Description 37 Bengal Street, COOLONGOLOOK NSW 2423 Lot 7 Sec 10 DP 758278
Owner (as recorded by Council):
GALEN PROPERTY PTY LTD Suite 13 1 Ashley Lane WESTMEAD NSW 2145
A — Advice provided in accordance with Section 10.7(2)
1. Names of relevant planning instruments and DCPs
Great Lakes Local Environment Plan 2014 Great Lakes Development Control Plan The land is subject to the following planning proposal(s) Liveable Housing and Flexible Zone Boundaries The planning proposal seeks to amend the Great Lakes Local Environmental Plan 2014 by (1) replacing references to the Australian Standard AS 4299-1995 Adaptable Housing with the Liveable Housing Guidelines (LHA Third Edition 2015) and expand the application of these provisions; and (2) introduce a new clause to provide flexible zone boundaries in urban release areas. Short-term Holiday Rental of Dwellings The proposal seeks to introduce a new local clause to allow the use of dwellings for short term holiday accommodation. It is proposed to allow dwellings that have up to 4 bedrooms to be used for short term holiday rentals without development consent, and to require those with 5 or more bedrooms to be permitted with development consent. The name of each State Environmental Planning Policy which may apply to the carrying out of development on the land SEPP NO. 1 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SEPP NO. 21 CARAVAN PARKS SEPP NO. 33 HAZARDOUS & OFFENSIVE DEVELOPMENT
Cert. No. * 919 /2020
Page 2
SEPP NO. 36 MANUFACTURED HOME ESTATES SEPP NO. 44 KOALA HABITAT PROTECTION SEPP NO. 50 CANAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT SEPP NO. 55 REMEDIATION OF LAND SEPP NO. 64 ADVERTISING AND SIGNAGE SEPP NO. 65 DESIGN QUALITY OF RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SEPP NO. 70 AFFORDABLE HOUSING (REVISED SCHEME) SEPP BUILDING SUSTAINABILITY INDEX: (BASIX) 2004 SEPP HOUSING FOR SENIORS OR PEOPLE WITH A DISABILITY 2004 SEPP STATE SIGNIFICANT PRECINCTS 2005 SEPP MINING, PETROLEUM PRODUCTION & EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRIES 2007 SEPP INFRASTRUCTURE 2007 SEPP MISCELLANEOUS CONSENT PROVISIONS 2007 SEPP EXEMPT AND COMPLYING DEVELOPMENT CODES 2008 SEPP AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING 2009 SEPP STATE AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 2011 SEPP VEGETATION IN NON-RURAL AREAS 2017 - This Policy applies to the specifically designated non-rural zones under clause 5 of the Policy. SEPP EDUCATIONAL ESTABLISHMENTS AND CHILD CARE FACILITIES 2017 SEPP CONCURRENCES 2018 SEPP PRIMARY PRODUCTION AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT 2019 DRAFT SEPP SHORT-TERM RENTAL ACCOMMODATION 2019 [NSW]
2. Zoning and land use under relevant LEPs Great Lakes Local Environment Plan 2014
Zone RU5 Village
1 Objectives of zone
To provide for a range of land uses, services and facilities that are associated with a rural village.
To provide for a range of land uses, services and facilities that are associated with a coastal village.
To enable non-residential development that does not prejudice the established land use pattern within the village.
2 Permitted without consent
Extensive agriculture; Home occupations.
3 Permitted with consent
Centre-based child care facilities; Community facilities; Dwelling houses; Neighbourhood shops; Oyster aquaculture; Places of public worship; Recreation areas; Recreation facilities (indoor); Recreation facilities (outdoor); Respite day care centres; Roads; Schools; Tank-based aquaculture; Any other development not specified in item 2 or 4
4 Prohibited
Agriculture; Air transport facilities; Correctional centres; Electricity generating works; Exhibition villages; Extractive industries; Forestry; Freight transport facilities; Heavy industrial storage establishments; Heavy industries; Open cut mining; Pond-based aquaculture Waste or resource transfer stations
Cert. No. * 919 /2020
Page 3
3. Complying development Housing Code Complying development under this code MAY be undertaken on land Zoned R2, R3, R4, or RU5 in Great Lakes LEP 2014 Rural Housing Code Complying development under this code MAY be undertaken on land Zoned RU1, RU2, RU3, RU4, or R5 in Great Lakes LEP 2014 Greenfield Housing Code Complying development under this code CAN NOT be undertaken on the land Demolition Code Complying development under this code MAY be undertaken on the land Commercial and Industrial (Alterations) Code Complying development under this code MAY be undertaken on the land Commercial and Industrial (New Buildings and Additions) Code Complying development under this code MAY be undertaken on the land General Development Code Complying development under this code MAY be undertaken on the land Housing Alterations Code Complying development under this code MAY be undertaken on the land Subdivisions Code Complying development under this code MAY be undertaken on the land Fire Safety Code Complying development under this code MAY be undertaken on the land Container Recycling Facilities Code Complying development under this code MAY be undertaken on land Zoned B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, IN1, IN2, IN4 or SP3 in Great Lakes LEP 2014
4. Coastal protection
Coastal Protection Act 1979 repealed
4A Repealed
4B Annual charges under Local Government Act 1993 for coastal protection services that relate to existing coastal protection works
No annual charges apply to the land
5. Mine subsidence
The land is not proclaimed as a mine subsidence district
Cert. No. * 919 /2020
Page 4
6. Road widening and road realignment
The land is not affected by plans for road widening or realignment
7. Council and other public authority policies on hazard risk restrictions
Yes - Adopted Council Policy(s) RAAF Air Craft Noise The land is located in a designated Low Flying Area used by the RAAF for low altitude pilot training. This has the potential of creating noise impacts on properties. Each week, a summary of planned flying activities from the RAAF Williamtown is available by telephoning 1800 033 200.
The information provided in item 7 is based on the data and information presently available to the Council and on adopted policies and development controls in force as at the date of this certificate
7A. Flood related development controls information
No flood related development controls affect the land
The information provided in item 7A is based on the data and information presently available to the Council and on adopted policies and development controls in force as at the date of this certificate
8. Land reserved for acquisition
The land is not reserved for acquisition
9. Contributions plans that apply to the land
S94-Great Lakes Wide Contributions Plan 2015
S94-Open Space-Rural Districts Plan 2015
9A. Biodiversity certified land
The land is not Biodiversity certified
10. Biodiversity stewardship sites
No biodiversity stewardship agreements apply to the land
10A. Native vegetation clearing set asides
Council has not received advice advising of the existence of a set aside area of land under section 60ZC of the Local Land Services Act 2013
11. Bush fire prone land
Yes the land is Bush Fire Prone Land (Part Only)
Cert. No. * 919 /2020
Page 5
12. Property vegetation plans
No property vegetation plans apply to the subject land
13. Orders under Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006
Council has not received any such order
14. Directions under Part 3A of the EP&A Act
Not applicable
15. Site compatibility certificates and conditions for seniors housing
No Site Compatibility Certificate for Seniors Housing applies to the land
16. Site compatibility certificates for infrastructure, schools or TAFE establishments
No Site Compatibility Certificate for Infrastructure, Schools or TAFE establishments applies to the land
17. Site compatibility certificates for affordable rental housing
No Site Compatibility Certificate for Affordable Rental Housing applies to the land
18. Paper subdivision information
No development plan applies to the land
19. Site verification certificates
No site verification certificate applies to the land
20. Loose-fill asbestos insulation
Council has not received advice from any Authority advising of the presence of loose-fill asbestos insulation within any residence that may exist on the property
21. Affected building notices and building product rectification orders
No affected building notice or building product rectification order applies to the subject land
Note. The following matters are prescribed by section 59 (2) of the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 as additional matters to be specified in a planning certificate:
No additional matters under the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997
For further information, please contact Karen Bee, Planning & Natural Systems division, MidCoast Council on (02) 6591 7222.
Forster office
4 Breese Parade | PO Box 450
Forster NSW 2428
PLANNING CERTIFICATE Section 10.7
Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979
Cert No. 578 / 2020
Applicant
Forster | Gloucester | Taree | Tea Gardens | Stroud | ABN: 44 961 208 161 | Contact us: 6591 7222
[email protected] | www.midcoast.nsw.gov.au | midcoastcouncil | @midcoastcouncil
GALEN PROPERTY PTY LTD Suite 13 1 Ashley Lane WESTMEAD NSW 2145
Receipt No. : 2156164 Date of Issue : 3 October 2019 Ref : FRANK LEMMA Property Key : 14931
Property Description 39 Bengal Street, COOLONGOLOOK NSW 2423 Lot 8 Sec 10 DP 758278
Owner (as recorded by Council):
GALEN PROPERTY PTY LTD Suite 13 1 Ashley Lane WESTMEAD NSW 2145
A — Advice provided in accordance with Section 10.7(2)
1. Names of relevant planning instruments and DCPs
Great Lakes Local Environment Plan 2014 Great Lakes Development Control Plan The land is subject to the following planning proposal(s) Liveable Housing and Flexible Zone Boundaries The planning proposal seeks to amend the Great Lakes Local Environmental Plan 2014 by (1) replacing references to the Australian Standard AS 4299-1995 Adaptable Housing with the Liveable Housing Guidelines (LHA Third Edition 2015) and expand the application of these provisions; and (2) introduce a new clause to provide flexible zone boundaries in urban release areas. Short-term Holiday Rental of Dwellings The proposal seeks to introduce a new local clause to allow the use of dwellings for short term holiday accommodation. It is proposed to allow dwellings that have up to 4 bedrooms to be used for short term holiday rentals without development consent, and to require those with 5 or more bedrooms to be permitted with development consent. The name of each State Environmental Planning Policy which may apply to the carrying out of development on the land SEPP NO. 1 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SEPP NO. 21 CARAVAN PARKS SEPP NO. 33 HAZARDOUS & OFFENSIVE DEVELOPMENT
Cert. No. 578 /2020
Page 2
SEPP NO. 36 MANUFACTURED HOME ESTATES SEPP NO. 44 KOALA HABITAT PROTECTION SEPP NO. 50 CANAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT SEPP NO. 55 REMEDIATION OF LAND SEPP NO. 64 ADVERTISING AND SIGNAGE SEPP NO. 65 DESIGN QUALITY OF RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SEPP NO. 70 AFFORDABLE HOUSING (REVISED SCHEME) SEPP BUILDING SUSTAINABILITY INDEX: (BASIX) 2004 SEPP HOUSING FOR SENIORS OR PEOPLE WITH A DISABILITY 2004 SEPP STATE SIGNIFICANT PRECINCTS 2005 SEPP MINING, PETROLEUM PRODUCTION & EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRIES 2007 SEPP INFRASTRUCTURE 2007 SEPP MISCELLANEOUS CONSENT PROVISIONS 2007 SEPP EXEMPT AND COMPLYING DEVELOPMENT CODES 2008 SEPP AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING 2009 SEPP STATE AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 2011 SEPP VEGETATION IN NON-RURAL AREAS 2017 - This Policy applies to the specifically designated non-rural zones under clause 5 of the Policy. SEPP EDUCATIONAL ESTABLISHMENTS AND CHILD CARE FACILITIES 2017 SEPP CONCURRENCES 2018 SEPP PRIMARY PRODUCTION AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT 2019 DRAFT SEPP SHORT-TERM RENTAL ACCOMMODATION 2019 [NSW]
2. Zoning and land use under relevant LEPs Great Lakes Local Environment Plan 2014
Zone RU5 Village
1 Objectives of zone
To provide for a range of land uses, services and facilities that are associated with a rural village.
To provide for a range of land uses, services and facilities that are associated with a coastal village.
To enable non-residential development that does not prejudice the established land use pattern within the village.
2 Permitted without consent
Extensive agriculture; Home occupations.
3 Permitted with consent
Centre-based child care facilities; Community facilities; Dwelling houses; Neighbourhood shops; Oyster aquaculture; Places of public worship; Recreation areas; Recreation facilities (indoor); Recreation facilities (outdoor); Respite day care centres; Roads; Schools; Tank-based aquaculture; Any other development not specified in item 2 or 4
4 Prohibited
Agriculture; Air transport facilities; Correctional centres; Electricity generating works; Exhibition villages; Extractive industries; Forestry; Freight transport facilities; Heavy industrial storage establishments; Heavy industries; Open cut mining; Pond-based aquaculture Waste or resource transfer stations
Cert. No. 578 /2020
Page 3
3. Complying development Housing Code Complying development under this code MAY be undertaken on land Zoned R2, R3, R4, or RU5 in Great Lakes LEP 2014 Rural Housing Code Complying development under this code MAY be undertaken on land Zoned RU1, RU2, RU3, RU4, or R5 in Great Lakes LEP 2014 Greenfield Housing Code Complying development under this code CAN NOT be undertaken on the land Demolition Code Complying development under this code MAY be undertaken on the land Commercial and Industrial (Alterations) Code Complying development under this code MAY be undertaken on the land Commercial and Industrial (New Buildings and Additions) Code Complying development under this code MAY be undertaken on the land General Development Code Complying development under this code MAY be undertaken on the land Housing Alterations Code Complying development under this code MAY be undertaken on the land Subdivisions Code Complying development under this code MAY be undertaken on the land Fire Safety Code Complying development under this code MAY be undertaken on the land Container Recycling Facilities Code Complying development under this code MAY be undertaken on land Zoned B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, IN1, IN2, IN4 or SP3 in Great Lakes LEP 2014
4. Coastal protection
Coastal Protection Act 1979 repealed
4A Repealed
4B Annual charges under Local Government Act 1993 for coastal protection services that relate to existing coastal protection works
No annual charges apply to the land
5. Mine subsidence
The land is not proclaimed as a mine subsidence district
Cert. No. 578 /2020
Page 4
6. Road widening and road realignment
The land is not affected by plans for road widening or realignment
7. Council and other public authority policies on hazard risk restrictions
Yes - Adopted Council Policy(s) RAAF Air Craft Noise The land is located in a designated Low Flying Area used by the RAAF for low altitude pilot training. This has the potential of creating noise impacts on properties. Each week, a summary of planned flying activities from the RAAF Williamtown is available by telephoning 1800 033 200.
The information provided in item 7 is based on the data and information presently available to the Council and on adopted policies and development controls in force as at the date of this certificate
7A. Flood related development controls information
No flood related development controls affect the land
The information provided in item 7A is based on the data and information presently available to the Council and on adopted policies and development controls in force as at the date of this certificate
8. Land reserved for acquisition
The land is not reserved for acquisition
9. Contributions plans that apply to the land
S94-Great Lakes Wide Contributions Plan 2015
S94-Open Space-Rural Districts Plan 2015
9A. Biodiversity certified land
The land is not Biodiversity certified
10. Biodiversity stewardship sites
No biodiversity stewardship agreements apply to the land
10A. Native vegetation clearing set asides
Council has not received advice advising of the existence of a set aside area of land under section 60ZC of the Local Land Services Act 2013
11. Bush fire prone land
The land is not bushfire prone land
Cert. No. 578 /2020
Page 5
12. Property vegetation plans
No property vegetation plans apply to the subject land
13. Orders under Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006
Council has not received any such order
14. Directions under Part 3A of the EP&A Act
Not applicable
15. Site compatibility certificates and conditions for seniors housing
No Site Compatibility Certificate for Seniors Housing applies to the land
16. Site compatibility certificates for infrastructure, schools or TAFE establishments
No Site Compatibility Certificate for Infrastructure, Schools or TAFE establishments applies to the land
17. Site compatibility certificates for affordable rental housing
No Site Compatibility Certificate for Affordable Rental Housing applies to the land
18. Paper subdivision information
No development plan applies to the land
19. Site verification certificates
No site verification certificate applies to the land
20. Loose-fill asbestos insulation
Council has not received advice from any Authority advising of the presence of loose-fill asbestos insulation within any residence that may exist on the property
21. Affected building notices and building product rectification orders
No affected building notice or building product rectification order applies to the subject land
Note. The following matters are prescribed by section 59 (2) of the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 as additional matters to be specified in a planning certificate:
No additional matters under the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997
Cert. No. 578 /2020
Page 6
B — Advice provided in accordance with Section 10.7(5)
Please Note: This Council has made no inspection of the property for the purpose of this certificate. Purchasers should satisfy themselves that there are no breaches of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in respect to the use or development of the property.
Additional Matters - General Draft Policy to account for Climate Change Council, at its meeting dated 21/10/2008, adopted as a matter of policy, a draft policy, allowing for sea level rise of 0.9m to the year 2100 with a linear rise over the intervening period. On large subdivisions and rezonings where there is limited impact on adjoining properties, ground levels are to be raised to a level equivalent to the 1% flood level with allowance for climate change to the year 2100. Developments on this land are required to have floors 500mm higher than the 1% flood level. For infill development, floor levels are required to be raised to 500mm above the 1% flood level with allowance for climate change to the year 2060 unless such house raising will have an adverse impact on access, neighbouring properties or the surrounding streetscape. In conjunction with any application involving extensive areas of filling, the applicant is required to submit a flood study to indicate that such filling will not adversely impact on storm flows or flooding in the area. Such studies are to be based on full allowances for climate change. Applications upstream of the river mouth are required to submit a flood study to indicate flood levels including any impacts from climate change to enable assessment by Council officers. For further information, please contact Karen Bee, Planning & Natural Systems division, MidCoast Council on (02) 6591 7222.
Forster office
4 Breese Parade | PO Box 450
Forster NSW 2428
PLANNING CERTIFICATE Section 10.7
Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979
Cert No. 909 / 2020
Applicant
Forster | Gloucester | Taree | Tea Gardens | Stroud | ABN: 44 961 208 161 | Contact us: 6591 7222
[email protected] | www.midcoast.nsw.gov.au | midcoastcouncil | @midcoastcouncil
TURNBULL PLANNING INTERNATIONAL 30 Bilgola Ave BILGOLA BEACH NSW 2107
Receipt No. : 2176485 Date of Issue : 29 November 2019 Ref : TIA GAO Property Key : 14932
Property Description 41 Bengal Street, COOLONGOLOOK NSW 2423 Lot 9 Sec 10 DP 758278
Owner (as recorded by Council):
GALEN PROPERTY PTY LTD Suite 13 1 Ashley Lane WESTMEAD NSW 2145
A — Advice provided in accordance with Section 10.7(2)
1. Names of relevant planning instruments and DCPs
Great Lakes Local Environment Plan 2014 Great Lakes Development Control Plan The land is subject to the following planning proposal(s) Liveable Housing and Flexible Zone Boundaries The planning proposal seeks to amend the Great Lakes Local Environmental Plan 2014 by (1) replacing references to the Australian Standard AS 4299-1995 Adaptable Housing with the Liveable Housing Guidelines (LHA Third Edition 2015) and expand the application of these provisions; and (2) introduce a new clause to provide flexible zone boundaries in urban release areas. Short-term Holiday Rental of Dwellings The proposal seeks to introduce a new local clause to allow the use of dwellings for short term holiday accommodation. It is proposed to allow dwellings that have up to 4 bedrooms to be used for short term holiday rentals without development consent, and to require those with 5 or more bedrooms to be permitted with development consent. The name of each State Environmental Planning Policy which may apply to the carrying out of development on the land SEPP NO. 1 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SEPP NO. 21 CARAVAN PARKS SEPP NO. 33 HAZARDOUS & OFFENSIVE DEVELOPMENT
Cert. No. * 909 /2020
Page 2
SEPP NO. 36 MANUFACTURED HOME ESTATES SEPP NO. 44 KOALA HABITAT PROTECTION SEPP NO. 50 CANAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT SEPP NO. 55 REMEDIATION OF LAND SEPP NO. 64 ADVERTISING AND SIGNAGE SEPP NO. 65 DESIGN QUALITY OF RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SEPP NO. 70 AFFORDABLE HOUSING (REVISED SCHEME) SEPP BUILDING SUSTAINABILITY INDEX: (BASIX) 2004 SEPP HOUSING FOR SENIORS OR PEOPLE WITH A DISABILITY 2004 SEPP STATE SIGNIFICANT PRECINCTS 2005 SEPP MINING, PETROLEUM PRODUCTION & EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRIES 2007 SEPP INFRASTRUCTURE 2007 SEPP MISCELLANEOUS CONSENT PROVISIONS 2007 SEPP EXEMPT AND COMPLYING DEVELOPMENT CODES 2008 SEPP AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING 2009 SEPP STATE AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 2011 SEPP VEGETATION IN NON-RURAL AREAS 2017 - This Policy applies to the specifically designated non-rural zones under clause 5 of the Policy. SEPP EDUCATIONAL ESTABLISHMENTS AND CHILD CARE FACILITIES 2017 SEPP CONCURRENCES 2018 SEPP PRIMARY PRODUCTION AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT 2019 DRAFT SEPP SHORT-TERM RENTAL ACCOMMODATION 2019 [NSW]
2. Zoning and land use under relevant LEPs Great Lakes Local Environment Plan 2014
Zone RU5 Village
1 Objectives of zone
To provide for a range of land uses, services and facilities that are associated with a rural village.
To provide for a range of land uses, services and facilities that are associated with a coastal village.
To enable non-residential development that does not prejudice the established land use pattern within the village.
2 Permitted without consent
Extensive agriculture; Home occupations.
3 Permitted with consent
Centre-based child care facilities; Community facilities; Dwelling houses; Neighbourhood shops; Oyster aquaculture; Places of public worship; Recreation areas; Recreation facilities (indoor); Recreation facilities (outdoor); Respite day care centres; Roads; Schools; Tank-based aquaculture; Any other development not specified in item 2 or 4
4 Prohibited
Agriculture; Air transport facilities; Correctional centres; Electricity generating works; Exhibition villages; Extractive industries; Forestry; Freight transport facilities; Heavy industrial storage establishments; Heavy industries; Open cut mining; Pond-based aquaculture Waste or resource transfer stations
Cert. No. * 909 /2020
Page 3
3. Complying development Housing Code Complying development under this code MAY be undertaken on land Zoned R2, R3, R4, or RU5 in Great Lakes LEP 2014 Rural Housing Code Complying development under this code MAY be undertaken on land Zoned RU1, RU2, RU3, RU4, or R5 in Great Lakes LEP 2014 Greenfield Housing Code Complying development under this code CAN NOT be undertaken on the land Demolition Code Complying development under this code MAY be undertaken on the land Commercial and Industrial (Alterations) Code Complying development under this code MAY be undertaken on the land Commercial and Industrial (New Buildings and Additions) Code Complying development under this code MAY be undertaken on the land General Development Code Complying development under this code MAY be undertaken on the land Housing Alterations Code Complying development under this code MAY be undertaken on the land Subdivisions Code Complying development under this code MAY be undertaken on the land Fire Safety Code Complying development under this code MAY be undertaken on the land Container Recycling Facilities Code Complying development under this code MAY be undertaken on land Zoned B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, IN1, IN2, IN4 or SP3 in Great Lakes LEP 2014
4. Coastal protection
Coastal Protection Act 1979 repealed
4A Repealed
4B Annual charges under Local Government Act 1993 for coastal protection services that relate to existing coastal protection works
No annual charges apply to the land
5. Mine subsidence
The land is not proclaimed as a mine subsidence district
Cert. No. * 909 /2020
Page 4
6. Road widening and road realignment
The land is not affected by plans for road widening or realignment
7. Council and other public authority policies on hazard risk restrictions Yes - Adopted Council Policy(s) RAAF Air Craft Noise The land is located in a designated Low Flying Area used by the RAAF for low altitude pilot training. This has the potential of creating noise impacts on properties. Each week, a summary of planned flying activities from the RAAF Williamtown is available by telephoning 1800 033 200. The information provided in item 7 is based on the data and information presently available to the Council and on adopted policies and development controls in force as at the date of this certificate
7A. Flood related development controls information
Yes - Adopted Council Policy(s) LEP2014 - 2100 Flood Planning Area Yes - the land is subject to clause 7.3 (Flood Planning) of Great Lakes Local Environment Plan 2014 and clause 4.2 (Flooding) of The Great Lakes Development Control Plan due to the likelihood of future and/or current flooding. Details relating to flood risk and flood planning levels may be provided on a Flood Level Certificate. This can be obtained from Council's flood investigation engineer The information provided in item 7A is based on the data and information presently available to the Council and on adopted policies and development controls in force as at the date of this certificate
8. Land reserved for acquisition
The land is not reserved for acquisition
9. Contributions plans that apply to the land
S94-Great Lakes Wide Contributions Plan 2015
S94-Open Space-Rural Districts Plan 2015
9A. Biodiversity certified land
The land is not Biodiversity certified
10. Biodiversity stewardship sites
No biodiversity stewardship agreements apply to the land
Cert. No. * 909 /2020
Page 5
10A. Native vegetation clearing set asides
Council has not received advice advising of the existence of a set aside area of land under section 60ZC of the Local Land Services Act 2013
11. Bush fire prone land
The land is not bushfire prone land
12. Property vegetation plans
No property vegetation plans apply to the subject land
13. Orders under Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006
Council has not received any such order
14. Directions under Part 3A of the EP&A Act
Not applicable
15. Site compatibility certificates and conditions for seniors housing
No Site Compatibility Certificate for Seniors Housing applies to the land
16. Site compatibility certificates for infrastructure, schools or TAFE establishments
No Site Compatibility Certificate for Infrastructure, Schools or TAFE establishments applies to the land
17. Site compatibility certificates for affordable rental housing
No Site Compatibility Certificate for Affordable Rental Housing applies to the land
18. Paper subdivision information
No development plan applies to the land
19. Site verification certificates
No site verification certificate applies to the land
20. Loose-fill asbestos insulation
Council has not received advice from any Authority advising of the presence of loose-fill asbestos insulation within any residence that may exist on the property
Cert. No. * 909 /2020
Page 6
21. Affected building notices and building product rectification orders
No affected building notice or building product rectification order applies to the subject land
Note. The following matters are prescribed by section 59 (2) of the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 as additional matters to be specified in a planning certificate:
No additional matters under the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997
For further information, please contact Karen Bee, Planning & Natural Systems division, MidCoast Council on (02) 6591 7222.
Appendix C
Laboratory Report Sheets Quality Assurance/Quality Control Assessment
Chain of Custody Sample Receipts
Envirolab Services Pty Ltd
ABN 37 112 535 645
12 Ashley St Chatswood NSW 2067
ph 02 9910 6200 fax 02 9910 6201
www.envirolab.com.au
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 205313
Box 324 Hunter Region Mail Centre, Newcastle, NSW, 2310Address
Michael GawnAttention
Douglas Partners NewcastleClient
Client Details
12/11/2018Date completed instructions received
12/11/2018Date samples received
12 soilNumber of Samples
91401.00, Proposed service centre, CoolongolookYour Reference
Sample Details
Please refer to the last page of this report for any comments relating to the results.
Results are reported on a dry weight basis for solids and on an as received basis for other matrices.
Samples were analysed as received from the client. Results relate specifically to the samples as received.
Please refer to the following pages for results, methodology summary and quality control data.
Analysis Details
Tests not covered by NATA are denoted with *Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 - Testing.
NATA Accreditation Number 2901. This document shall not be reproduced except in full.
16/11/2018Date of Issue
19/11/2018Date results requested by
Report Details
Jacinta Hurst, Laboratory Manager
Authorised By
Steven Luong, Senior Chemist
Nancy Zhang, Assistant Lab Manager
Lucy Zhu, Asbsestos Analyst
Long Pham, Team Leader, Metals
Jeremy Faircloth, Organics Supervisor
Results Approved By
Authorised by Asbestos Approved Signatory: Lucy Zhu
Analysed by Asbestos Approved Identifier: Aida Marner
Asbestos Approved By
Revision No: R00
205313Envirolab Reference: Page | 1 of 32
Client Reference: 91401.00, Proposed service centre, Coolongolook
8483828583%Surrogate aaa-Trifluorotoluene
<1<1<1<1<1mg/kgTotal +ve Xylenes
<1<1<1<1<1mg/kgnaphthalene
<1<1<1<1<1mg/kgo-Xylene
<2<2<2<2<2mg/kgm+p-xylene
<1<1<1<1<1mg/kgEthylbenzene
<0.5<0.5<0.5<0.5<0.5mg/kgToluene
<0.2<0.2<0.2<0.2<0.2mg/kgBenzene
<25<25<25<25<25mg/kgvTPH C6 - C10 less BTEX (F1)
<25<25<25<25<25mg/kgTRH C6 - C10
<25<25<25<25<25mg/kgTRH C6 - C9
14/11/201814/11/201814/11/201814/11/201814/11/2018-Date analysed
13/11/201813/11/201813/11/201813/11/201813/11/2018-Date extracted
soilsoilsoilsoilsoilType of sample
07/11/201807/11/201807/11/201807/11/201807/11/2018Date Sampled
BH9/0.05BH8/0.01BH7/0.5BH7/0.01BH6/0.5UNITSYour Reference
205313-10205313-9205313-8205313-7205313-6Our Reference
vTRH(C6-C10)/BTEXN in Soil
8084858781%Surrogate aaa-Trifluorotoluene
<1<1<1<1<1mg/kgTotal +ve Xylenes
<1<1<1<1<1mg/kgnaphthalene
<1<1<1<1<1mg/kgo-Xylene
<2<2<2<2<2mg/kgm+p-xylene
<1<1<1<1<1mg/kgEthylbenzene
<0.5<0.5<0.5<0.5<0.5mg/kgToluene
<0.2<0.2<0.2<0.2<0.2mg/kgBenzene
<25<25<25<25<25mg/kgvTPH C6 - C10 less BTEX (F1)
<25<25<25<25<25mg/kgTRH C6 - C10
<25<25<25<25<25mg/kgTRH C6 - C9
14/11/201814/11/201814/11/201814/11/201814/11/2018-Date analysed
13/11/201813/11/201813/11/201813/11/201813/11/2018-Date extracted
soilsoilsoilsoilsoilType of sample
07/11/201807/11/201806/11/201806/11/201806/11/2018Date Sampled
BH6/0.1BH4/0.5BH3/0.05BH2/0.5BH2/0.01UNITSYour Reference
205313-5205313-4205313-3205313-2205313-1Our Reference
vTRH(C6-C10)/BTEXN in Soil
Envirolab Reference: 205313
R00Revision No:
Page | 2 of 32
Client Reference: 91401.00, Proposed service centre, Coolongolook
9287%Surrogate aaa-Trifluorotoluene
<1<1mg/kgTotal +ve Xylenes
<1<1mg/kgnaphthalene
<1<1mg/kgo-Xylene
<2<2mg/kgm+p-xylene
<1<1mg/kgEthylbenzene
<0.5<0.5mg/kgToluene
<0.2<0.2mg/kgBenzene
<25<25mg/kgvTPH C6 - C10 less BTEX (F1)
<25<25mg/kgTRH C6 - C10
<25<25mg/kgTRH C6 - C9
14/11/201814/11/2018-Date analysed
13/11/201813/11/2018-Date extracted
soilsoilType of sample
07/11/201807/11/2018Date Sampled
D1BH9/0.5UNITSYour Reference
205313-12205313-11Our Reference
vTRH(C6-C10)/BTEXN in Soil
Envirolab Reference: 205313
R00Revision No:
Page | 3 of 32
Client Reference: 91401.00, Proposed service centre, Coolongolook
8881849185%Surrogate o-Terphenyl
<50<50<50<50<50mg/kgTotal +ve TRH (>C10-C40)
<100<100<100<100<100mg/kgTRH >C34 -C40
<100<100<100<100<100mg/kgTRH >C16 -C34
<50<50<50<50<50mg/kgTRH >C10 - C16 less Naphthalene (F2)
<50<50<50<50<50mg/kgTRH >C10 -C16
<100<100<100<100<100mg/kgTRH C29 - C36
<100<100<100<100<100mg/kgTRH C15 - C28
<50<50<50<50<50mg/kgTRH C10 - C14
15/11/201815/11/201815/11/201815/11/201815/11/2018-Date analysed
13/11/201813/11/201813/11/201813/11/201813/11/2018-Date extracted
soilsoilsoilsoilsoilType of sample
07/11/201807/11/201807/11/201807/11/201807/11/2018Date Sampled
BH9/0.05BH8/0.01BH7/0.5BH7/0.01BH6/0.5UNITSYour Reference
205313-10205313-9205313-8205313-7205313-6Our Reference
svTRH (C10-C40) in Soil
8675928685%Surrogate o-Terphenyl
<50<50<50<50<50mg/kgTotal +ve TRH (>C10-C40)
<100<100<100<100<100mg/kgTRH >C34 -C40
<100<100<100<100<100mg/kgTRH >C16 -C34
<50<50<50<50<50mg/kgTRH >C10 - C16 less Naphthalene (F2)
<50<50<50<50<50mg/kgTRH >C10 -C16
<100<100<100<100<100mg/kgTRH C29 - C36
<100<100<100<100<100mg/kgTRH C15 - C28
<50<50<50<50<50mg/kgTRH C10 - C14
15/11/201814/11/201814/11/201814/11/201814/11/2018-Date analysed
13/11/201813/11/201813/11/201813/11/201813/11/2018-Date extracted
soilsoilsoilsoilsoilType of sample
07/11/201807/11/201806/11/201806/11/201806/11/2018Date Sampled
BH6/0.1BH4/0.5BH3/0.05BH2/0.5BH2/0.01UNITSYour Reference
205313-5205313-4205313-3205313-2205313-1Our Reference
svTRH (C10-C40) in Soil
Envirolab Reference: 205313
R00Revision No:
Page | 4 of 32
Client Reference: 91401.00, Proposed service centre, Coolongolook
9181%Surrogate o-Terphenyl
<50<50mg/kgTotal +ve TRH (>C10-C40)
<100<100mg/kgTRH >C34 -C40
<100<100mg/kgTRH >C16 -C34
<50<50mg/kgTRH >C10 - C16 less Naphthalene (F2)
<50<50mg/kgTRH >C10 -C16
<100<100mg/kgTRH C29 - C36
<100<100mg/kgTRH C15 - C28
<50<50mg/kgTRH C10 - C14
15/11/201815/11/2018-Date analysed
13/11/201813/11/2018-Date extracted
soilsoilType of sample
07/11/201807/11/2018Date Sampled
D1BH9/0.5UNITSYour Reference
205313-12205313-11Our Reference
svTRH (C10-C40) in Soil
Envirolab Reference: 205313
R00Revision No:
Page | 5 of 32
Client Reference: 91401.00, Proposed service centre, Coolongolook
87918890102%Surrogate p-Terphenyl-d14
<0.5<0.5<0.5<0.5<0.5mg/kgBenzo(a)pyrene TEQ calc(PQL)
<0.5<0.5<0.5<0.5<0.5mg/kgBenzo(a)pyrene TEQ calc(half)
<0.5<0.5<0.5<0.5<0.5mg/kgBenzo(a)pyrene TEQ calc (zero)
<0.05<0.05<0.05<0.05<0.05mg/kgTotal +ve PAH's
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgBenzo(g,h,i)perylene
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgDibenzo(a,h)anthracene
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgIndeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
<0.05<0.05<0.05<0.05<0.05mg/kgBenzo(a)pyrene
<0.2<0.2<0.2<0.2<0.2mg/kgBenzo(b,j+k)fluoranthene
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgChrysene
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgBenzo(a)anthracene
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgPyrene
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgFluoranthene
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgAnthracene
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgPhenanthrene
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgFluorene
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgAcenaphthene
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgAcenaphthylene
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgNaphthalene
15/11/201815/11/201815/11/201815/11/201815/11/2018-Date analysed
13/11/201813/11/201813/11/201813/11/201813/11/2018-Date extracted
soilsoilsoilsoilsoilType of sample
07/11/201807/11/201806/11/201806/11/201806/11/2018Date Sampled
BH6/0.1BH4/0.5BH3/0.05BH2/0.5BH2/0.01UNITSYour Reference
205313-5205313-4205313-3205313-2205313-1Our Reference
PAHs in Soil
Envirolab Reference: 205313
R00Revision No:
Page | 6 of 32
Client Reference: 91401.00, Proposed service centre, Coolongolook
9292938890%Surrogate p-Terphenyl-d14
<0.5<0.5<0.5<0.5<0.5mg/kgBenzo(a)pyrene TEQ calc(PQL)
<0.5<0.5<0.5<0.5<0.5mg/kgBenzo(a)pyrene TEQ calc(half)
<0.5<0.5<0.5<0.5<0.5mg/kgBenzo(a)pyrene TEQ calc (zero)
<0.05<0.05<0.050.3<0.05mg/kgTotal +ve PAH's
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgBenzo(g,h,i)perylene
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgDibenzo(a,h)anthracene
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgIndeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
<0.05<0.05<0.050.09<0.05mg/kgBenzo(a)pyrene
<0.2<0.2<0.2<0.2<0.2mg/kgBenzo(b,j+k)fluoranthene
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgChrysene
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgBenzo(a)anthracene
<0.1<0.1<0.10.1<0.1mg/kgPyrene
<0.1<0.1<0.10.1<0.1mg/kgFluoranthene
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgAnthracene
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgPhenanthrene
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgFluorene
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgAcenaphthene
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgAcenaphthylene
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgNaphthalene
15/11/201815/11/201815/11/201815/11/201815/11/2018-Date analysed
13/11/201813/11/201813/11/201813/11/201813/11/2018-Date extracted
soilsoilsoilsoilsoilType of sample
07/11/201807/11/201807/11/201807/11/201807/11/2018Date Sampled
BH9/0.05BH8/0.01BH7/0.5BH7/0.01BH6/0.5UNITSYour Reference
205313-10205313-9205313-8205313-7205313-6Our Reference
PAHs in Soil
Envirolab Reference: 205313
R00Revision No:
Page | 7 of 32
Client Reference: 91401.00, Proposed service centre, Coolongolook
9193%Surrogate p-Terphenyl-d14
<0.5<0.5mg/kgBenzo(a)pyrene TEQ calc(PQL)
<0.5<0.5mg/kgBenzo(a)pyrene TEQ calc(half)
<0.5<0.5mg/kgBenzo(a)pyrene TEQ calc (zero)
<0.05<0.05mg/kgTotal +ve PAH's
<0.1<0.1mg/kgBenzo(g,h,i)perylene
<0.1<0.1mg/kgDibenzo(a,h)anthracene
<0.1<0.1mg/kgIndeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
<0.05<0.05mg/kgBenzo(a)pyrene
<0.2<0.2mg/kgBenzo(b,j+k)fluoranthene
<0.1<0.1mg/kgChrysene
<0.1<0.1mg/kgBenzo(a)anthracene
<0.1<0.1mg/kgPyrene
<0.1<0.1mg/kgFluoranthene
<0.1<0.1mg/kgAnthracene
<0.1<0.1mg/kgPhenanthrene
<0.1<0.1mg/kgFluorene
<0.1<0.1mg/kgAcenaphthene
<0.1<0.1mg/kgAcenaphthylene
<0.1<0.1mg/kgNaphthalene
15/11/201815/11/2018-Date analysed
13/11/201813/11/2018-Date extracted
soilsoilType of sample
07/11/201807/11/2018Date Sampled
D1BH9/0.5UNITSYour Reference
205313-12205313-11Our Reference
PAHs in Soil
Envirolab Reference: 205313
R00Revision No:
Page | 8 of 32
Client Reference: 91401.00, Proposed service centre, Coolongolook
97106102101111%Surrogate TCMX
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgTotal +ve DDT+DDD+DDE
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgMethoxychlor
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgEndosulfan Sulphate
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgEndrin Aldehyde
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgpp-DDT
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgEndosulfan II
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgpp-DDD
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgEndrin
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgDieldrin
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgpp-DDE
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgEndosulfan I
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgalpha-chlordane
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kggamma-Chlordane
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgHeptachlor Epoxide
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgAldrin
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgdelta-BHC
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgHeptachlor
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgbeta-BHC
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kggamma-BHC
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgalpha-BHC
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgHCB
13/11/201813/11/201813/11/201813/11/201813/11/2018-Date analysed
13/11/201813/11/201813/11/201813/11/201813/11/2018-Date extracted
soilsoilsoilsoilsoilType of sample
07/11/201807/11/201806/11/201806/11/201806/11/2018Date Sampled
BH6/0.1BH4/0.5BH3/0.05BH2/0.5BH2/0.01UNITSYour Reference
205313-5205313-4205313-3205313-2205313-1Our Reference
Organochlorine Pesticides in soil
Envirolab Reference: 205313
R00Revision No:
Page | 9 of 32
Client Reference: 91401.00, Proposed service centre, Coolongolook
1001099997103%Surrogate TCMX
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgTotal +ve DDT+DDD+DDE
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgMethoxychlor
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgEndosulfan Sulphate
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgEndrin Aldehyde
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgpp-DDT
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgEndosulfan II
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgpp-DDD
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgEndrin
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgDieldrin
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgpp-DDE
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgEndosulfan I
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgalpha-chlordane
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kggamma-Chlordane
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgHeptachlor Epoxide
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgAldrin
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgdelta-BHC
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgHeptachlor
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgbeta-BHC
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kggamma-BHC
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgalpha-BHC
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgHCB
13/11/201813/11/201813/11/201813/11/201813/11/2018-Date analysed
13/11/201813/11/201813/11/201813/11/201813/11/2018-Date extracted
soilsoilsoilsoilsoilType of sample
07/11/201807/11/201807/11/201807/11/201807/11/2018Date Sampled
BH9/0.05BH8/0.01BH7/0.5BH7/0.01BH6/0.5UNITSYour Reference
205313-10205313-9205313-8205313-7205313-6Our Reference
Organochlorine Pesticides in soil
Envirolab Reference: 205313
R00Revision No:
Page | 10 of 32
Client Reference: 91401.00, Proposed service centre, Coolongolook
9798%Surrogate TCMX
<0.1<0.1mg/kgTotal +ve DDT+DDD+DDE
<0.1<0.1mg/kgMethoxychlor
<0.1<0.1mg/kgEndosulfan Sulphate
<0.1<0.1mg/kgEndrin Aldehyde
<0.1<0.1mg/kgpp-DDT
<0.1<0.1mg/kgEndosulfan II
<0.1<0.1mg/kgpp-DDD
<0.1<0.1mg/kgEndrin
<0.1<0.1mg/kgDieldrin
<0.1<0.1mg/kgpp-DDE
<0.1<0.1mg/kgEndosulfan I
<0.1<0.1mg/kgalpha-chlordane
<0.1<0.1mg/kggamma-Chlordane
<0.1<0.1mg/kgHeptachlor Epoxide
<0.1<0.1mg/kgAldrin
<0.1<0.1mg/kgdelta-BHC
<0.1<0.1mg/kgHeptachlor
<0.1<0.1mg/kgbeta-BHC
<0.1<0.1mg/kggamma-BHC
<0.1<0.1mg/kgalpha-BHC
<0.1<0.1mg/kgHCB
13/11/201813/11/2018-Date analysed
13/11/201813/11/2018-Date extracted
soilsoilType of sample
07/11/201807/11/2018Date Sampled
D1BH9/0.5UNITSYour Reference
205313-12205313-11Our Reference
Organochlorine Pesticides in soil
Envirolab Reference: 205313
R00Revision No:
Page | 11 of 32
Client Reference: 91401.00, Proposed service centre, Coolongolook
1001099997103%Surrogate TCMX
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgRonnel
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgParathion
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgMalathion
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgFenitrothion
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgEthion
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgDimethoate
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgDichlorvos
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgDiazinon
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgChlorpyriphos-methyl
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgChlorpyriphos
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgBromophos-ethyl
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgAzinphos-methyl (Guthion)
13/11/201813/11/201813/11/201813/11/201813/11/2018-Date analysed
13/11/201813/11/201813/11/201813/11/201813/11/2018-Date extracted
soilsoilsoilsoilsoilType of sample
07/11/201807/11/201807/11/201807/11/201807/11/2018Date Sampled
BH9/0.05BH8/0.01BH7/0.5BH7/0.01BH6/0.5UNITSYour Reference
205313-10205313-9205313-8205313-7205313-6Our Reference
Organophosphorus Pesticides
97106102101111%Surrogate TCMX
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgRonnel
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgParathion
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgMalathion
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgFenitrothion
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgEthion
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgDimethoate
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgDichlorvos
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgDiazinon
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgChlorpyriphos-methyl
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgChlorpyriphos
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgBromophos-ethyl
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgAzinphos-methyl (Guthion)
13/11/201813/11/201813/11/201813/11/201813/11/2018-Date analysed
13/11/201813/11/201813/11/201813/11/201813/11/2018-Date extracted
soilsoilsoilsoilsoilType of sample
07/11/201807/11/201806/11/201806/11/201806/11/2018Date Sampled
BH6/0.1BH4/0.5BH3/0.05BH2/0.5BH2/0.01UNITSYour Reference
205313-5205313-4205313-3205313-2205313-1Our Reference
Organophosphorus Pesticides
Envirolab Reference: 205313
R00Revision No:
Page | 12 of 32
Client Reference: 91401.00, Proposed service centre, Coolongolook
9798%Surrogate TCMX
<0.1<0.1mg/kgRonnel
<0.1<0.1mg/kgParathion
<0.1<0.1mg/kgMalathion
<0.1<0.1mg/kgFenitrothion
<0.1<0.1mg/kgEthion
<0.1<0.1mg/kgDimethoate
<0.1<0.1mg/kgDichlorvos
<0.1<0.1mg/kgDiazinon
<0.1<0.1mg/kgChlorpyriphos-methyl
<0.1<0.1mg/kgChlorpyriphos
<0.1<0.1mg/kgBromophos-ethyl
<0.1<0.1mg/kgAzinphos-methyl (Guthion)
13/11/201813/11/2018-Date analysed
13/11/201813/11/2018-Date extracted
soilsoilType of sample
07/11/201807/11/2018Date Sampled
D1BH9/0.5UNITSYour Reference
205313-12205313-11Our Reference
Organophosphorus Pesticides
Envirolab Reference: 205313
R00Revision No:
Page | 13 of 32
Client Reference: 91401.00, Proposed service centre, Coolongolook
1001099997103%Surrogate TCLMX
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgTotal +ve PCBs (1016-1260)
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgAroclor 1260
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgAroclor 1254
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgAroclor 1248
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgAroclor 1242
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgAroclor 1232
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgAroclor 1221
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgAroclor 1016
13/11/201813/11/201813/11/201813/11/201813/11/2018-Date analysed
13/11/201813/11/201813/11/201813/11/201813/11/2018-Date extracted
soilsoilsoilsoilsoilType of sample
07/11/201807/11/201807/11/201807/11/201807/11/2018Date Sampled
BH9/0.05BH8/0.01BH7/0.5BH7/0.01BH6/0.5UNITSYour Reference
205313-10205313-9205313-8205313-7205313-6Our Reference
PCBs in Soil
97106102101111%Surrogate TCLMX
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgTotal +ve PCBs (1016-1260)
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgAroclor 1260
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgAroclor 1254
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgAroclor 1248
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgAroclor 1242
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgAroclor 1232
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgAroclor 1221
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgAroclor 1016
13/11/201813/11/201813/11/201813/11/201813/11/2018-Date analysed
13/11/201813/11/201813/11/201813/11/201813/11/2018-Date extracted
soilsoilsoilsoilsoilType of sample
07/11/201807/11/201806/11/201806/11/201806/11/2018Date Sampled
BH6/0.1BH4/0.5BH3/0.05BH2/0.5BH2/0.01UNITSYour Reference
205313-5205313-4205313-3205313-2205313-1Our Reference
PCBs in Soil
Envirolab Reference: 205313
R00Revision No:
Page | 14 of 32
Client Reference: 91401.00, Proposed service centre, Coolongolook
9798%Surrogate TCLMX
<0.1<0.1mg/kgTotal +ve PCBs (1016-1260)
<0.1<0.1mg/kgAroclor 1260
<0.1<0.1mg/kgAroclor 1254
<0.1<0.1mg/kgAroclor 1248
<0.1<0.1mg/kgAroclor 1242
<0.1<0.1mg/kgAroclor 1232
<0.1<0.1mg/kgAroclor 1221
<0.1<0.1mg/kgAroclor 1016
13/11/201813/11/2018-Date analysed
13/11/201813/11/2018-Date extracted
soilsoilType of sample
07/11/201807/11/2018Date Sampled
D1BH9/0.5UNITSYour Reference
205313-12205313-11Our Reference
PCBs in Soil
Envirolab Reference: 205313
R00Revision No:
Page | 15 of 32
Client Reference: 91401.00, Proposed service centre, Coolongolook
120570148368mg/kgManganese
16,00046,00024,00033,00031,000mg/kgIron
57340118114mg/kgZinc
29232mg/kgNickel
<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1<0.1mg/kgMercury
327293010mg/kgLead
433294mg/kgCopper
515897mg/kgChromium
<0.40.4<0.4<0.4<0.4mg/kgCadmium
58<45<4mg/kgArsenic
13/11/201813/11/201813/11/201813/11/201813/11/2018-Date analysed
13/11/201813/11/201813/11/201813/11/201813/11/2018-Date prepared
soilsoilsoilsoilsoilType of sample
07/11/201807/11/201807/11/201807/11/201807/11/2018Date Sampled
BH9/0.05BH8/0.01BH7/0.5BH7/0.01BH6/0.5UNITSYour Reference
205313-10205313-9205313-8205313-7205313-6Our Reference
Acid Extractable metals in soil
89013047430560mg/kgManganese
69,00033,00011,00024,00038,000mg/kgIron
2020602981mg/kgZinc
22223mg/kgNickel
<0.1<0.10.2<0.1<0.1mg/kgMercury
2411653366mg/kgLead
4615810mg/kgCopper
86567mg/kgChromium
<0.4<0.4<0.4<0.4<0.4mg/kgCadmium
5<4<4<44mg/kgArsenic
13/11/201813/11/201813/11/201813/11/201813/11/2018-Date analysed
13/11/201813/11/201813/11/201813/11/201813/11/2018-Date prepared
soilsoilsoilsoilsoilType of sample
07/11/201807/11/201806/11/201806/11/201806/11/2018Date Sampled
BH6/0.1BH4/0.5BH3/0.05BH2/0.5BH2/0.01UNITSYour Reference
205313-5205313-4205313-3205313-2205313-1Our Reference
Acid Extractable metals in soil
Envirolab Reference: 205313
R00Revision No:
Page | 16 of 32
Client Reference: 91401.00, Proposed service centre, Coolongolook
47023mg/kgManganese
34,00044,000mg/kgIron
29015mg/kgZinc
42mg/kgNickel
0.1<0.1mg/kgMercury
7414mg/kgLead
273mg/kgCopper
99mg/kgChromium
<0.4<0.4mg/kgCadmium
<45mg/kgArsenic
13/11/201813/11/2018-Date analysed
13/11/201813/11/2018-Date prepared
soilsoilType of sample
07/11/201807/11/2018Date Sampled
D1BH9/0.5UNITSYour Reference
205313-12205313-11Our Reference
Acid Extractable metals in soil
Envirolab Reference: 205313
R00Revision No:
Page | 17 of 32
Client Reference: 91401.00, Proposed service centre, Coolongolook
1620%Moisture
14/11/201814/11/2018-Date analysed
13/11/201813/11/2018-Date prepared
soilsoilType of sample
07/11/201807/11/2018Date Sampled
D1BH9/0.5UNITSYour Reference
205313-12205313-11Our Reference
Moisture
1915211622%Moisture
14/11/201814/11/201814/11/201814/11/201814/11/2018-Date analysed
13/11/201813/11/201813/11/201813/11/201813/11/2018-Date prepared
soilsoilsoilsoilsoilType of sample
07/11/201807/11/201807/11/201807/11/201807/11/2018Date Sampled
BH9/0.05BH8/0.01BH7/0.5BH7/0.01BH6/0.5UNITSYour Reference
205313-10205313-9205313-8205313-7205313-6Our Reference
Moisture
1517192025%Moisture
14/11/201814/11/201814/11/201814/11/201814/11/2018-Date analysed
13/11/201813/11/201813/11/201813/11/201813/11/2018-Date prepared
soilsoilsoilsoilsoilType of sample
07/11/201807/11/201806/11/201806/11/201806/11/2018Date Sampled
BH6/0.1BH4/0.5BH3/0.05BH2/0.5BH2/0.01UNITSYour Reference
205313-5205313-4205313-3205313-2205313-1Our Reference
Moisture
Envirolab Reference: 205313
R00Revision No:
Page | 18 of 32
Client Reference: 91401.00, Proposed service centre, Coolongolook
No asbestos detected
No asbestos detected
No asbestos detected
No asbestos detected
No asbestos detected
-Trace Analysis
No asbestos detected at
reporting limit of 0.1g/kg
Organic fibres
detected
No asbestos detected at
reporting limit of 0.1g/kg
Organic fibres
detected
No asbestos detected at
reporting limit of 0.1g/kg
Organic fibres
detected
No asbestos detected at
reporting limit of 0.1g/kg
Organic fibres
detected
No asbestos detected at
reporting limit of 0.1g/kg
Organic fibres
detected
-Asbestos ID in soil
Brown coarse- grained soil &
rocks
Brown coarse- grained soil &
rocks
Brown coarse- grained soil &
rocks
Brown coarse- grained soil &
rocks
Brown coarse- grained soil &
rocks
-Sample Description
Approx. 35gApprox. 35gApprox. 35gApprox. 35gApprox. 30ggSample mass tested
16/11/201816/11/201816/11/201816/11/201816/11/2018-Date analysed
soilsoilsoilsoilsoilType of sample
07/11/201807/11/201807/11/201807/11/201806/11/2018Date Sampled
BH9/0.05BH8/0.01BH7/0.01BH6/0.1BH2/0.01UNITSYour Reference
205313-10205313-9205313-7205313-5205313-1Our Reference
Asbestos ID - soils
Envirolab Reference: 205313
R00Revision No:
Page | 19 of 32
Client Reference: 91401.00, Proposed service centre, Coolongolook
Soil samples are extracted with dichloromethane/acetone and waters with dichloromethane and analysed by GC with dual ECD's.
Org-008
Soil samples are extracted with dichloromethane/acetone and waters with dichloromethane and analysed by GC-ECD. Note, the Total +ve PCBs PQL is reflective of the lowest individual PQL and is therefore" Total +ve PCBs" is simply a sum of the positive individual PCBs.
Org-006
Soil samples are extracted with dichloromethane/acetone and waters with dichloromethane and analysed by GC-ECD.Org-006
Soil samples are extracted with dichloromethane/acetone and waters with dichloromethane and analysed by GC with dual ECD's. Note, the Total +ve reported DDD+DDE+DDT PQL is reflective of the lowest individual PQL and is therefore simply a sum of the positive individually report DDD+DDE+DDT.
Org-005
Soil samples are extracted with dichloromethane/acetone and waters with dichloromethane and analysed by GC with dual ECD's.
Org-005
Soil samples are extracted with Dichloromethane/Acetone and waters with Dichloromethane and analysed by GC-FID. F2 = (>C10-C16)-Naphthalene as per NEPM B1 Guideline on Investigation Levels for Soil and Groundwater (HSLs Tables 1A (3, 4)). Note Naphthalene is determined from the VOC analysis. Note, the Total +ve TRH PQL is reflective of the lowest individual PQL and is therefore "Total +ve TRH" is simply a sum of the positive individual TRH fractions (>C10-C40).
Org-003
Soil samples are extracted with Dichloromethane/Acetone and waters with Dichloromethane and analysed by GC-FID. F2 = (>C10-C16)-Naphthalene as per NEPM B1 Guideline on Investigation Levels for Soil and Groundwater (HSLs Tables 1A (3, 4)). Note Naphthalene is determined from the VOC analysis.
Org-003
Determination of Mercury by Cold Vapour AAS. Metals-021
Determination of various metals by ICP-AES. Metals-020
Moisture content determined by heating at 105+/-5 °C for a minimum of 12 hours.
Inorg-008
Asbestos ID - Qualitative identification of asbestos in bulk samples using Polarised Light Microscopy and Dispersion Staining Techniques including Synthetic Mineral Fibre and Organic Fibre as per Australian Standard 4964-2004.
ASB-001
Methodology SummaryMethod ID
Envirolab Reference: 205313
R00Revision No:
Page | 20 of 32
Client Reference: 91401.00, Proposed service centre, Coolongolook
Soil samples are extracted with methanol and spiked into water prior to analysing by purge and trap GC-MS. Water samples are analysed directly by purge and trap GC-MS. F1 = (C6-C10)-BTEX as per NEPM B1 Guideline on Investigation Levels for Soil and Groundwater. Note, the Total +ve Xylene PQL is reflective of the lowest individual PQL and is therefore "Total +ve Xylenes" is simply a sum of the positive individual Xylenes.
Org-016
Soil samples are extracted with methanol and spiked into water prior to analysing by purge and trap GC-MS. Water samples are analysed directly by purge and trap GC-MS. F1 = (C6-C10)-BTEX as per NEPM B1 Guideline on Investigation Levels for Soil and Groundwater.
Org-016
Soil samples are extracted with methanol and spiked into water prior to analysing by purge and trap GC-MS. Org-014
Soil samples are extracted with Dichloromethane/Acetone and waters with Dichloromethane and analysed by GC-MS. Benzo(a)pyrene TEQ as per NEPM B1 Guideline on Investigation Levels for Soil and Groundwater - 2013. For soil results:- 1. ‘EQ PQL’values are assuming all contributing PAHs reported as <PQL are actually at the PQL. This is the most conservative approach and can give false positive TEQs given that PAHs that contribute to the TEQ calculation may not be present. 2. ‘EQ zero’values are assuming all contributing PAHs reported as <PQL are zero. This is the least conservative approach and is more susceptible to false negative TEQs when PAHs that contribute to the TEQ calculation are present but below PQL. 3. ‘EQ half PQL’values are assuming all contributing PAHs reported as <PQL are half the stipulated PQL. Hence a mid-point between the most and least conservative approaches above. Note, the Total +ve PAHs PQL is reflective of the lowest individual PQL and is therefore "Total +ve PAHs" is simply a sum of the positive individual PAHs.
Org-012
Methodology SummaryMethod ID
Envirolab Reference: 205313
R00Revision No:
Page | 21 of 32
Client Reference: 91401.00, Proposed service centre, Coolongolook
[NT][NT]0878711[NT]Org-016%Surrogate aaa-Trifluorotoluene
[NT][NT]0<1<111[NT]Org-0141mg/kgnaphthalene
[NT][NT]0<1<111[NT]Org-0161mg/kgo-Xylene
[NT][NT]0<2<211[NT]Org-0162mg/kgm+p-xylene
[NT][NT]0<1<111[NT]Org-0161mg/kgEthylbenzene
[NT][NT]0<0.5<0.511[NT]Org-0160.5mg/kgToluene
[NT][NT]0<0.2<0.211[NT]Org-0160.2mg/kgBenzene
[NT][NT]0<25<2511[NT]Org-01625mg/kgTRH C6 - C10
[NT][NT]0<25<2511[NT]Org-01625mg/kgTRH C6 - C9
[NT][NT]14/11/201814/11/201811[NT]-Date analysed
[NT][NT]13/11/201813/11/201811[NT]-Date extracted
[NT][NT]RPDDup.Base#BlankMethodPQLUnitsTest Description
Spike Recovery %DuplicateQUALITY CONTROL: vTRH(C6-C10)/BTEXN in Soil
829098981189Org-016%Surrogate aaa-Trifluorotoluene
[NT][NT]0<1<11<1Org-0141mg/kgnaphthalene
72980<1<11<1Org-0161mg/kgo-Xylene
71970<2<21<2Org-0162mg/kgm+p-xylene
70970<1<11<1Org-0161mg/kgEthylbenzene
69940<0.5<0.51<0.5Org-0160.5mg/kgToluene
68910<0.2<0.21<0.2Org-0160.2mg/kgBenzene
70950<25<251<25Org-01625mg/kgTRH C6 - C10
70950<25<251<25Org-01625mg/kgTRH C6 - C9
14/11/201814/11/201814/11/201814/11/2018114/11/2018-Date analysed
13/11/201813/11/201813/11/201813/11/2018113/11/2018-Date extracted
205313-2LCS-4RPDDup.Base#BlankMethodPQLUnitsTest Description
Spike Recovery %DuplicateQUALITY CONTROL: vTRH(C6-C10)/BTEXN in Soil
Envirolab Reference: 205313
R00Revision No:
Page | 22 of 32
Client Reference: 91401.00, Proposed service centre, Coolongolook
[NT][NT]1828111[NT]Org-003%Surrogate o-Terphenyl
[NT][NT]0<100<10011[NT]Org-003100mg/kgTRH >C34 -C40
[NT][NT]0<100<10011[NT]Org-003100mg/kgTRH >C16 -C34
[NT][NT]0<50<5011[NT]Org-00350mg/kgTRH >C10 -C16
[NT][NT]0<100<10011[NT]Org-003100mg/kgTRH C29 - C36
[NT][NT]0<100<10011[NT]Org-003100mg/kgTRH C15 - C28
[NT][NT]0<50<5011[NT]Org-00350mg/kgTRH C10 - C14
[NT][NT]15/11/201815/11/201811[NT]-Date analysed
[NT][NT]13/11/201813/11/201811[NT]-Date extracted
[NT][NT]RPDDup.Base#BlankMethodPQLUnitsTest Description
Spike Recovery %DuplicateQUALITY CONTROL: svTRH (C10-C40) in Soil
868748285192Org-003%Surrogate o-Terphenyl
96970<100<1001<100Org-003100mg/kgTRH >C34 -C40
1011060<100<1001<100Org-003100mg/kgTRH >C16 -C34
1001050<50<501<50Org-00350mg/kgTRH >C10 -C16
96970<100<1001<100Org-003100mg/kgTRH C29 - C36
1011060<100<1001<100Org-003100mg/kgTRH C15 - C28
1001050<50<501<50Org-00350mg/kgTRH C10 - C14
14/11/201813/11/201814/11/201814/11/2018114/11/2018-Date analysed
13/11/201813/11/201813/11/201813/11/2018113/11/2018-Date extracted
205313-2LCS-4RPDDup.Base#BlankMethodPQLUnitsTest Description
Spike Recovery %DuplicateQUALITY CONTROL: svTRH (C10-C40) in Soil
Envirolab Reference: 205313
R00Revision No:
Page | 23 of 32
Client Reference: 91401.00, Proposed service centre, Coolongolook
[NT][NT]2919311[NT]Org-012%Surrogate p-Terphenyl-d14
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.111[NT]Org-0120.1mg/kgBenzo(g,h,i)perylene
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.111[NT]Org-0120.1mg/kgDibenzo(a,h)anthracene
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.111[NT]Org-0120.1mg/kgIndeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
[NT][NT]0<0.05<0.0511[NT]Org-0120.05mg/kgBenzo(a)pyrene
[NT][NT]0<0.2<0.211[NT]Org-0120.2mg/kgBenzo(b,j+k)fluoranthene
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.111[NT]Org-0120.1mg/kgChrysene
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.111[NT]Org-0120.1mg/kgBenzo(a)anthracene
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.111[NT]Org-0120.1mg/kgPyrene
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.111[NT]Org-0120.1mg/kgFluoranthene
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.111[NT]Org-0120.1mg/kgAnthracene
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.111[NT]Org-0120.1mg/kgPhenanthrene
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.111[NT]Org-0120.1mg/kgFluorene
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.111[NT]Org-0120.1mg/kgAcenaphthene
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.111[NT]Org-0120.1mg/kgAcenaphthylene
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.111[NT]Org-0120.1mg/kgNaphthalene
[NT][NT]15/11/201815/11/201811[NT]-Date analysed
[NT][NT]13/11/201813/11/201811[NT]-Date extracted
[NT][NT]RPDDup.Base#BlankMethodPQLUnitsTest Description
Spike Recovery %DuplicateQUALITY CONTROL: PAHs in Soil
86881489102195Org-012%Surrogate p-Terphenyl-d14
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.11<0.1Org-0120.1mg/kgBenzo(g,h,i)perylene
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.11<0.1Org-0120.1mg/kgDibenzo(a,h)anthracene
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.11<0.1Org-0120.1mg/kgIndeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
1071070<0.05<0.051<0.05Org-0120.05mg/kgBenzo(a)pyrene
[NT][NT]0<0.2<0.21<0.2Org-0120.2mg/kgBenzo(b,j+k)fluoranthene
1081120<0.1<0.11<0.1Org-0120.1mg/kgChrysene
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.11<0.1Org-0120.1mg/kgBenzo(a)anthracene
95960<0.1<0.11<0.1Org-0120.1mg/kgPyrene
1041050<0.1<0.11<0.1Org-0120.1mg/kgFluoranthene
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.11<0.1Org-0120.1mg/kgAnthracene
1101130<0.1<0.11<0.1Org-0120.1mg/kgPhenanthrene
1061070<0.1<0.11<0.1Org-0120.1mg/kgFluorene
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.11<0.1Org-0120.1mg/kgAcenaphthene
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.11<0.1Org-0120.1mg/kgAcenaphthylene
1091100<0.1<0.11<0.1Org-0120.1mg/kgNaphthalene
15/11/201815/11/201815/11/201815/11/2018115/11/2018-Date analysed
13/11/201813/11/201813/11/201813/11/2018113/11/2018-Date extracted
205313-2LCS-4RPDDup.Base#BlankMethodPQLUnitsTest Description
Spike Recovery %DuplicateQUALITY CONTROL: PAHs in Soil
Envirolab Reference: 205313
R00Revision No:
Page | 24 of 32
Client Reference: 91401.00, Proposed service centre, Coolongolook
9210691011111111Org-005%Surrogate TCMX
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.11<0.1Org-0050.1mg/kgMethoxychlor
67870<0.1<0.11<0.1Org-0050.1mg/kgEndosulfan Sulphate
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.11<0.1Org-0050.1mg/kgEndrin Aldehyde
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.11<0.1Org-0050.1mg/kgpp-DDT
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.11<0.1Org-0050.1mg/kgEndosulfan II
981040<0.1<0.11<0.1Org-0050.1mg/kgpp-DDD
961210<0.1<0.11<0.1Org-0050.1mg/kgEndrin
971200<0.1<0.11<0.1Org-0050.1mg/kgDieldrin
1061300<0.1<0.11<0.1Org-0050.1mg/kgpp-DDE
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.11<0.1Org-0050.1mg/kgEndosulfan I
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.11<0.1Org-0050.1mg/kgalpha-chlordane
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.11<0.1Org-0050.1mg/kggamma-Chlordane
961170<0.1<0.11<0.1Org-0050.1mg/kgHeptachlor Epoxide
961170<0.1<0.11<0.1Org-0050.1mg/kgAldrin
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.11<0.1Org-0050.1mg/kgdelta-BHC
861070<0.1<0.11<0.1Org-0050.1mg/kgHeptachlor
981200<0.1<0.11<0.1Org-0050.1mg/kgbeta-BHC
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.11<0.1Org-0050.1mg/kggamma-BHC
881100<0.1<0.11<0.1Org-0050.1mg/kgalpha-BHC
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.11<0.1Org-0050.1mg/kgHCB
13/11/201813/11/201813/11/201813/11/2018113/11/2018-Date analysed
13/11/201813/11/201813/11/201813/11/2018113/11/2018-Date extracted
205313-2LCS-4RPDDup.Base#BlankMethodPQLUnitsTest Description
Spike Recovery %DuplicateQUALITY CONTROL: Organochlorine Pesticides in soil
Envirolab Reference: 205313
R00Revision No:
Page | 25 of 32
Client Reference: 91401.00, Proposed service centre, Coolongolook
[NT][NT]3959811[NT]Org-005%Surrogate TCMX
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.111[NT]Org-0050.1mg/kgMethoxychlor
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.111[NT]Org-0050.1mg/kgEndosulfan Sulphate
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.111[NT]Org-0050.1mg/kgEndrin Aldehyde
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.111[NT]Org-0050.1mg/kgpp-DDT
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.111[NT]Org-0050.1mg/kgEndosulfan II
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.111[NT]Org-0050.1mg/kgpp-DDD
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.111[NT]Org-0050.1mg/kgEndrin
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.111[NT]Org-0050.1mg/kgDieldrin
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.111[NT]Org-0050.1mg/kgpp-DDE
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.111[NT]Org-0050.1mg/kgEndosulfan I
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.111[NT]Org-0050.1mg/kgalpha-chlordane
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.111[NT]Org-0050.1mg/kggamma-Chlordane
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.111[NT]Org-0050.1mg/kgHeptachlor Epoxide
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.111[NT]Org-0050.1mg/kgAldrin
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.111[NT]Org-0050.1mg/kgdelta-BHC
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.111[NT]Org-0050.1mg/kgHeptachlor
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.111[NT]Org-0050.1mg/kgbeta-BHC
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.111[NT]Org-0050.1mg/kggamma-BHC
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.111[NT]Org-0050.1mg/kgalpha-BHC
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.111[NT]Org-0050.1mg/kgHCB
[NT][NT]13/11/201813/11/201811[NT]-Date analysed
[NT][NT]13/11/201813/11/201811[NT]-Date extracted
[NT][NT]RPDDup.Base#BlankMethodPQLUnitsTest Description
Spike Recovery %DuplicateQUALITY CONTROL: Organochlorine Pesticides in soil
Envirolab Reference: 205313
R00Revision No:
Page | 26 of 32
Client Reference: 91401.00, Proposed service centre, Coolongolook
[NT][NT]3959811[NT]Org-008%Surrogate TCMX
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.111[NT]Org-0080.1mg/kgRonnel
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.111[NT]Org-0080.1mg/kgParathion
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.111[NT]Org-0080.1mg/kgMalathion
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.111[NT]Org-0080.1mg/kgFenitrothion
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.111[NT]Org-0080.1mg/kgEthion
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.111[NT]Org-0080.1mg/kgDimethoate
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.111[NT]Org-0080.1mg/kgDichlorvos
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.111[NT]Org-0080.1mg/kgDiazinon
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.111[NT]Org-0080.1mg/kgChlorpyriphos-methyl
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.111[NT]Org-0080.1mg/kgChlorpyriphos
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.111[NT]Org-0080.1mg/kgBromophos-ethyl
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.111[NT]Org-0080.1mg/kgAzinphos-methyl (Guthion)
[NT][NT]13/11/201813/11/201811[NT]-Date analysed
[NT][NT]13/11/201813/11/201811[NT]-Date extracted
[NT][NT]RPDDup.Base#BlankMethodPQLUnitsTest Description
Spike Recovery %DuplicateQUALITY CONTROL: Organophosphorus Pesticides
979391011111111Org-008%Surrogate TCMX
94960<0.1<0.11<0.1Org-0080.1mg/kgRonnel
1101020<0.1<0.11<0.1Org-0080.1mg/kgParathion
77750<0.1<0.11<0.1Org-0080.1mg/kgMalathion
941050<0.1<0.11<0.1Org-0080.1mg/kgFenitrothion
1101020<0.1<0.11<0.1Org-0080.1mg/kgEthion
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.11<0.1Org-0080.1mg/kgDimethoate
83860<0.1<0.11<0.1Org-0080.1mg/kgDichlorvos
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.11<0.1Org-0080.1mg/kgDiazinon
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.11<0.1Org-0080.1mg/kgChlorpyriphos-methyl
89910<0.1<0.11<0.1Org-0080.1mg/kgChlorpyriphos
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.11<0.1Org-0080.1mg/kgBromophos-ethyl
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.11<0.1Org-0080.1mg/kgAzinphos-methyl (Guthion)
13/11/201813/11/201813/11/201813/11/2018113/11/2018-Date analysed
13/11/201813/11/201813/11/201813/11/2018113/11/2018-Date extracted
205313-2LCS-4RPDDup.Base#BlankMethodPQLUnitsTest Description
Spike Recovery %DuplicateQUALITY CONTROL: Organophosphorus Pesticides
Envirolab Reference: 205313
R00Revision No:
Page | 27 of 32
Client Reference: 91401.00, Proposed service centre, Coolongolook
[NT][NT]3959811[NT]Org-006%Surrogate TCLMX
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.111[NT]Org-0060.1mg/kgAroclor 1260
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.111[NT]Org-0060.1mg/kgAroclor 1254
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.111[NT]Org-0060.1mg/kgAroclor 1248
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.111[NT]Org-0060.1mg/kgAroclor 1242
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.111[NT]Org-0060.1mg/kgAroclor 1232
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.111[NT]Org-0060.1mg/kgAroclor 1221
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.111[NT]Org-0060.1mg/kgAroclor 1016
[NT][NT]13/11/201813/11/201811[NT]-Date analysed
[NT][NT]13/11/201813/11/201811[NT]-Date extracted
[NT][NT]RPDDup.Base#BlankMethodPQLUnitsTest Description
Spike Recovery %DuplicateQUALITY CONTROL: PCBs in Soil
979391011111111Org-006%Surrogate TCLMX
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.11<0.1Org-0060.1mg/kgAroclor 1260
1021040<0.1<0.11<0.1Org-0060.1mg/kgAroclor 1254
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.11<0.1Org-0060.1mg/kgAroclor 1248
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.11<0.1Org-0060.1mg/kgAroclor 1242
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.11<0.1Org-0060.1mg/kgAroclor 1232
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.11<0.1Org-0060.1mg/kgAroclor 1221
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.11<0.1Org-0060.1mg/kgAroclor 1016
13/11/201813/11/201813/11/201813/11/2018113/11/2018-Date analysed
13/11/201813/11/201813/11/201813/11/2018113/11/2018-Date extracted
205313-2LCS-4RPDDup.Base#BlankMethodPQLUnitsTest Description
Spike Recovery %DuplicateQUALITY CONTROL: PCBs in Soil
Envirolab Reference: 205313
R00Revision No:
Page | 28 of 32
Client Reference: 91401.00, Proposed service centre, Coolongolook
[NT][NT]4222311[NT]Metals-0201mg/kgManganese
[NT][NT]5420004400011[NT]Metals-0201mg/kgIron
[NT][NT]14131511[NT]Metals-0201mg/kgZinc
[NT][NT]02211[NT]Metals-0201mg/kgNickel
[NT][NT]0<0.1<0.111[NT]Metals-0210.1mg/kgMercury
[NT][NT]0141411[NT]Metals-0201mg/kgLead
[NT][NT]402311[NT]Metals-0201mg/kgCopper
[NT][NT]1110911[NT]Metals-0201mg/kgChromium
[NT][NT]0<0.4<0.411[NT]Metals-0200.4mg/kgCadmium
[NT][NT]05511[NT]Metals-0204mg/kgArsenic
[NT][NT]13/11/201813/11/201811[NT]-Date analysed
[NT][NT]13/11/201813/11/201811[NT]-Date prepared
[NT][NT]RPDDup.Base#BlankMethodPQLUnitsTest Description
Spike Recovery %DuplicateQUALITY CONTROL: Acid Extractable metals in soil
#11076005601<1Metals-0201mg/kgManganese
#1254524000380001<1Metals-0201mg/kgIron
93112585811<1Metals-0201mg/kgZinc
971090331<1Metals-0201mg/kgNickel
1301080<0.1<0.11<0.1Metals-0210.1mg/kgMercury
74112670661<1Metals-0201mg/kgLead
107115010101<1Metals-0201mg/kgCopper
1011130771<1Metals-0201mg/kgChromium
971070<0.4<0.41<0.4Metals-0200.4mg/kgCadmium
801160<441<4Metals-0204mg/kgArsenic
13/11/201813/11/201813/11/201813/11/2018113/11/2018-Date analysed
13/11/201813/11/201813/11/201813/11/2018113/11/2018-Date prepared
205313-2LCS-4RPDDup.Base#BlankMethodPQLUnitsTest Description
Spike Recovery %DuplicateQUALITY CONTROL: Acid Extractable metals in soil
Envirolab Reference: 205313
R00Revision No:
Page | 29 of 32
Client Reference: 91401.00, Proposed service centre, Coolongolook
Not ReportedNR
National Environmental Protection MeasureNEPM
Not specifiedNS
Laboratory Control SampleLCS
Relative Percent DifferenceRPD
Greater than>
Less than<
Practical Quantitation LimitPQL
Insufficient sample for this testINS
Test not requiredNA
Not testedNT
Result Definitions
Australian Drinking Water Guidelines recommend that Thermotolerant Coliform, Faecal Enterococci, & E.Coli levels are less than1cfu/100mL. The recommended maximums are taken from "Australian Drinking Water Guidelines", published by NHMRC & ARMC2011.
Surrogates are known additions to each sample, blank, matrix spike and LCS in a batch, of compounds whichare similar to the analyte of interest, however are not expected to be found in real samples.
Surrogate Spike
This comprises either a standard reference material or a control matrix (such as a blank sand or water) fortifiedwith analytes representative of the analyte class. It is simply a check sample.
LCS (LaboratoryControl Sample)
A portion of the sample is spiked with a known concentration of target analyte. The purpose of the matrix spikeis to monitor the performance of the analytical method used and to determine whether matrix interferencesexist.
Matrix Spike
This is the complete duplicate analysis of a sample from the process batch. If possible, the sample selectedshould be one where the analyte concentration is easily measurable.
Duplicate
This is the component of the analytical signal which is not derived from the sample but from reagents,glassware etc, can be determined by processing solvents and reagents in exactly the same manner as forsamples.
Blank
Quality Control Definitions
Envirolab Reference: 205313
R00Revision No:
Page | 30 of 32
Client Reference: 91401.00, Proposed service centre, Coolongolook
Measurement Uncertainty estimates are available for most tests upon request.
Where sampling dates are not provided, Envirolab are not in a position to comment on the validity of the analysis whererecommended technical holding times may have been breached.
When samples are received where certain analytes are outside of recommended technical holding times (THTs), the analysis hasproceeded. Where analytes are on the verge of breaching THTs, every effort will be made to analyse within the THT or as soon aspracticable.
In circumstances where no duplicate and/or sample spike has been reported at 1 in 10 and/or 1 in 20 samples respectively, thesample volume submitted was insufficient in order to satisfy laboratory QA/QC protocols.
Matrix Spikes, LCS and Surrogate recoveries: Generally 70-130% for inorganics/metals; 60-140% for organics (+/-50% surrogates)and 10-140% for labile SVOCs (including labile surrogates), ultra trace organics and speciated phenols is acceptable.
Duplicates: >10xPQL - RPD acceptance criteria will vary depending on the analytes and the analytical techniques but is typically inthe range 20%-50% – see ELN-P05 QA/QC tables for details; <10xPQL - RPD are higher as the results approach PQL and theestimated measurement uncertainty will statistically increase.
For VOCs in water samples, three vials are required for duplicate or spike analysis.
Spikes for Physical and Aggregate Tests are not applicable.
Filters, swabs, wipes, tubes and badges will not have duplicate data as the whole sample is generally extracted during sampleextraction.
Duplicate sample and matrix spike recoveries may not be reported on smaller jobs, however, were analysed at a frequency to meetor exceed NEPM requirements. All samples are tested in batches of 20. The duplicate sample RPD and matrix spike recoveries forthe batch were within the laboratory acceptance criteria.
Laboratory Acceptance Criteria
Envirolab Reference: 205313
R00Revision No:
Page | 31 of 32
Client Reference: 91401.00, Proposed service centre, Coolongolook
Acid Extractable Metals in Soil: # Percent recovery is not possible to report due to the high concentration of the element/s in the sample/s. However an acceptable recovery was obtained for the LCS. Asbestos: A portion of the supplied samples were sub-sampled for asbestos analysis according to Envirolab procedures. We cannot guarantee that these sub-samples are indicative of the entire sample. Envirolab recommends supplying 40-50g of sample in its own container. Note: Samples requested for asbestos testing were sub-sampled from jars provided by the client.
Report Comments
Envirolab Reference: 205313
R00Revision No:
Page | 32 of 32
Page 1 of 2
Report on Preliminary Site Investigation for Contamination Project 91401.00.R.001.Rev0.QAQC37 – 41 Bengal Street, Coolongolook February 2019
Quality Assurance / Quality Control Assessment Report on Preliminary Site Investigation for Contamination Proposed Service Centre, 37 – 41 Bengal Street, Coolongolook Quality Assurance (QA) was maintained by:
Compliance with a Project Quality Plan written for the objectives of the study;
Using qualified engineers/scientists to undertake the field supervision and sampling;
Following the Douglas Partners Pty Ltd (DP) operating procedures for sampling, field testing and decontamination as presented in Table 1;
Using NATA registered laboratories for sample testing that generally utilise standard laboratory methods of the US EPA, the APHA and NSW EPA.
Table 1: Field Procedures
Abbreviation Procedure Name
FPM LOG Logging
FPM DECONT Decontamination of Personnel and Equipment
FPM ENVID Sample Identification, Handling, Transport and Storage of Contamination Samples
FPM PIDETC Operation of Field Analysers
FPM ENVSAMP Sampling of Contaminated Soils Note to Table 1: From DP Field Procedures Manual Quality Control (QC) of the laboratory programme was achieved by the following means:
Method blanks - the laboratory ran reagent blanks to confirm the equipment and standards used were uncontaminated;
Laboratory replicates - the laboratory split samples internally and conducted tests on separate extracts;
Laboratory spikes - samples were spiked by the laboratory with a known concentration of contaminants and subsequently tested for percent recovery.
Page 2 of 2
Report on Preliminary Site Investigation for Contamination Project 91401.00.R.001.Rev0.QAQC37 – 41 Bengal Street, Coolongolook February 2019
Discussion A. Sample Handling and Holding Times A review of the laboratory reports and chain of custody forms associated with the Targeted Contamination Assessment indicates the following:
Samples were received chilled and in good order;
Samples received were appropriately preserved for all tests;
VOC/SVOC samples were received in Teflon sealed containers;
Volatile samples were received with zero headspace;
Samples were received within recommended holding times. B. Method Blanks All method blanks returned results lower than the laboratory detection limit, therefore are acceptable. C. Laboratory Replicates The average RPD for individual contaminants ranged from 0% to 50%. D. Laboratory Spikes Recoveries in the order of 70% to 130% are generally considered to be acceptable for inorganic material and 60% to 140% for organic material. The average percent recovery for individual contaminants ranged from 69% to 130%, which is generally within the quality control objectives. The results should however be qualified and may slightly under-estimate or over-estimate contaminant concentrations in certain samples (ie biased low or high respectively). Conclusions Laboratory replicates were not conducted by the laboratory for this report, however, were analysed at a frequency to meet or exceed NEPM requirements (ie in batches of 20 samples). The duplicate sample (D1 – BH8/0.01) RPD for the batch were within the laboratory acceptance criteria. The accuracy and precision of the soil testing procedures, as inferred by the laboratory QA/QC data is considered to be of sufficient standard to allow the data reported to be used in interpret site contamination conditions.
Envirolab Services Pty Ltd
ABN 37 112 535 645
12 Ashley St Chatswood NSW 2067
ph 02 9910 6200 fax 02 9910 6201
www.envirolab.com.au
SAMPLE RECEIPT ADVICE
Michael GawnAttention
Douglas Partners NewcastleClient
Client Details
19/11/2018Date Results Expected to be Reported
12/11/2018Date Instructions Received
12/11/2018Date Sample Received
205313Envirolab Reference
91401.00, Proposed service centre, CoolongolookYour reference
Sample Login Details
YESSampling Date Provided
Ice PackCooling Method
21.4Temperature on Receipt (°C)
StandardTurnaround Time Requested
12 soilNo. of Samples Provided
YESSamples received in appropriate condition for analysis
Sample Condition
Nil
Comments
Please direct any queries to:
Email: [email protected]: [email protected]
Fax: 02 9910 6201Fax: 02 9910 6201
Phone: 02 9910 6200Phone: 02 9910 6200
Jacinta HurstAileen Hie
Analysis Underway, details on the following page:
Page | 1 of 2
Envirolab Services Pty Ltd
ABN 37 112 535 645
12 Ashley St Chatswood NSW 2067
ph 02 9910 6200 fax 02 9910 6201
www.envirolab.com.au
PPPPPPPD1
PPPPPPPBH9/0.5
PPPPPPPPBH9/0.05
PPPPPPPPBH8/0.01
PPPPPPPBH7/0.5
PPPPPPPPBH7/0.01
PPPPPPPBH6/0.5
PPPPPPPPBH6/0.1
PPPPPPPBH4/0.5
PPPPPPPBH3/0.05
PPPPPPPBH2/0.5
PPPPPPPPBH2/0.01A
sb
es
tos
ID
- s
oils
Ac
id E
xtr
ac
tab
le m
eta
lsin
so
il
PC
Bs
in S
oil
Org
an
op
ho
sp
ho
rus
Pe
sti
cid
es
Org
an
oc
hlo
rin
e P
es
tic
ide
sin
so
il
PA
Hs
in
So
il
sv
TR
H (
C1
0-C
40
) in
So
il
vT
RH
(C6
-C1
0)/
BT
EX
N in
So
il
Sample ID
The ' THIS IS NOT A REPORT OF THE RESULTS.P' indicates the testing you have requested.
Requests for longer term sample storage must be received in writing.
Sample storage - Waters are routinely disposed of approximately 1 month and soils approximately 2 months from receipt.
Additional Info
Page | 2 of 2
Appendix D
Drawing 1 – Test Location Plan