Geotechnical and Salinity Assessment

YARDUOUSE PTY LTD

GEOTECHNICAL AND SALINITY ASSESSMENT REPORT

7 LUXFORD ROAD, MOUNT DRUITT, NSW

Report E23648.G02 26 February 2018

Report Distribution

Geotechnical and Salinity Assessment Report

7 Luxford Road, Mount Druitt, NSW

EI Report No. E23648.G02

Date: 26 February 2018

Copies Recipient

1 Soft Copy (PDF – Secured, issued by email)

Mr. Alex Volfneuk

Yarduouse Pty Ltd

PO Box 572

BONDI JUNCTION NSW 1755

1 Original (Saved to Digital Archives) EI Australia

Suite 6.01, 55 Miller Street

PYRMONT NSW 2009

Author: Technical Reviewer:

Stephen Kim

Geotechnical Engineer

Joseph Chaghouri

Senior Geotechnical Engineer

Revision Details Date Amended By

Draft 24 January 2018

Original 26 February 2018

© EI Australia 2017

This report is protected by copyright law and may only be reproduced, in electronic or hard copy format, if it is copied and distributed in full and with

prior written permission by EI.

Geotechnical and Salinity Assessment 7 Luxford Road, Mount Druitt, NSW P a g e | i Report No. E23648.G02, 26 February 2018

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................................................ 1

1.3 ASSESSMENT OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................................ 1

1.4 SCOPE OF WORKS .................................................................................................................................... 2

1.5 INVESTIGATION CONSTRAINTS ................................................................................................................... 2

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

2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION AND IDENTIFICATION ..................................................................................................... 3

2.2 LOCAL LAND USE ...................................................................................................................................... 3

2.3 REGIONAL SETTING ................................................................................................................................... 3

3 INVESTIGATION RESULTS ........................................................................................................................ 4

3.1 STRATIGRAPHY ......................................................................................................................................... 4

3.2 GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS ................................................................................................................ 4

3.3 TEST RESULTS .......................................................................................................................................... 5

4 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................ 6

4.1 GEOTECHNICAL ISSUES ............................................................................................................................. 6

4.2 DILAPIDATION SURVEYS ............................................................................................................................ 6

4.3 EXCAVATION METHODOLOGY AND VIBRATION MONITORING ........................................................................ 6

4.4 GROUNDWATER CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................................................. 7

4.5 EXCAVATION RETENTION ........................................................................................................................... 7

4.6 FOUNDATIONS ......................................................................................................................................... 10

4.7 LOWEST BASEMENT FLOOR SLAB ............................................................................................................ 10

4.8 SALINITY ................................................................................................................................................. 10

5 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES ................................................... 11

6 STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................ 12

7 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 13

8 ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 13

TABLES

Table 2-1 Summary of Site Information ............................................................................................................... 3

Table 2-2 Summary of Local Land Use ............................................................................................................... 3

Table 2-3 Topographic and Geological Information ............................................................................................. 3

Table 3-1 Summary of Subsurface Conditions .................................................................................................... 4

Table 3-2 Summary of Soil Laboratory Test Results ........................................................................................... 5

Table 4-1 Preliminary Geotechnical Design Parameters ..................................................................................... 9

Geotechnical and Salinity Assessment 7 Luxford Road, Mount Druitt, NSW P a g e | ii Report No. E23648.G02, 26 February 2018

FIGURES

1 Site Locality Plan 2 Borehole Location Plan

APPENDICES A Borehole Logs and Explanatory Notes B Laboratory Certificates C Important Information

Geotechnical and Salinity Assessment 7 Luxford Road, Mount Druitt, NSW P a g e | 1 Report No. E23648.G02, 26 February 2018

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

At the request of Yarduouse Pty Ltd (the Client), EI Australia (EI) has carried out a Geotechnical and Salinity

Assessment (GSA) for the proposed development at 7 Luxford Road, Mount Druitt, NSW (the Site).

This GSA report has been prepared to provide advice and recommendations to assist in the preparation of

preliminary designs for the proposed development. The assessment has been carried out in accordance with the

agreed scope of works outlined in EI’s proposal referenced P15158.1, dated 7 November 2017.

1.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

To assist us with the preparation of this GSA report, the Client has supplied EI with:

Architectural drawings prepared by Tony Owen Partners, Project No. 988, Drawing Nos. A090 Rev A, A091,

A100, A500, A101, A501, A102, A103, A503, A104, A504, A200, A200, A201, A202, A203, A204, A205 and

A300, Revision A, November 2017);

Survey Plan prepared by T Grabara & Associates, Reference No: 3529, dated 27 June 2008. The datum in

the drawings is in Australian Height Datum (AHD). All levels henceforth referenced in this report are in AHD.

Based on the provided documents, EI understands that the proposed development involves the demolition of the

existing site structures and the construction of nine storey residential development overlying a two-level

basement. The lower basement level is proposed to have a Finished Floor Level (FFL) of RL 53.0m. A Bulk

Excavation Level (BEL) of RL 52.8m is assumed to allow for the construction of the basement slab. To achieve

the BEL, an excavation depth of about 6.0m to 7.2m below existing ground level (BEGL). Locally deeper

excavations may be required for steps, service trenches, crane pads and lift overrun pits.

1.3 ASSESSMENT OBJECTIVES

The objective of the GSA was to assess site surface and subsurface conditions at four borehole locations and to

provide preliminary geotechnical advice and recommendations addressing the following:

Dilapidation Surveys;

Excavation methodology;

Groundwater considerations;

Excavation support requirements;

Building foundation options, including preliminary design parameters;

Exposure classification for piles in accordance with AS 2159-2009;

Management of aggressive and saline soil conditions, if required;

Ground floor slab; and

The requirement for additional geotechnical works.


1.4 SCOPE OF WORKS

The scope of works for the GSA included:

Preparation of a Work Health and Safety Plan;

Review of relevant geological maps for the project area;

Site walkover inspection by a Geotechnical Engineer to assess topographical features and site conditions;

Electro-magnetic scanning of proposed borehole locations for buried conductive services using a licensed

service locator with reference to Dial Before You Dig (DBYD) plans;

Auger drilling of four boreholes (BH1 to BH4), by a track-mounted drill rig using solid flight augers equipped

with a ‘Tungsten-Carbide’ (T-C) bit. BH1, BH2, BH3, and BH4 were drilled to depths of about 6.2m (RL

53.7m), 6.3m (RL 53.5m), 8.1m (RL 50.7m) and 8.1m (RL 50.7m) respectively. The approximate surface

levels shown on the borehole logs were approximated from spot levels shown on the supplied survey plan.

Approximate borehole locations are shown on Figure 2;

Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) was carried out during auger drilling of the boreholes to assess soil

strength/relative densities. These were augmented, where possible, by hand penetrometer readings on

cohesive soil samples collected in the SPT split tube sampler. Soil samples were sent to Macquarie

Geotechnical Pty Ltd (Macquarie) and SGS Sydney Pty Ltd (SGS), which are National Australian Testing

Authority (NATA) accredited laboratories, for testing and storage.

The strength of the shale bedrock in the augered sections of the boreholes was assessed by observation of

the auger penetration resistance using a T-C drill bit, examination of the recovered rock cuttings, and

moisture content test results. It should be noted that rock strengths assessed from augered boreholes are

approximate and strength variances can be expected.

Measurements of groundwater seepage/levels, where possible, in the augered sections of the boreholes

during and shortly after completion of auger drilling;

Preparation of this GSA report.

An EI Geotechnical Engineer was present on site to set out the borehole locations, direct the testing and

sampling, log the subsurface conditions and record groundwater levels.

1.5 INVESTIGATION CONSTRAINTS

The GSA was limited by the intent of the investigation. The discussions and advice presented in this report are

intended to assist in the preparation of preliminary designs for the proposed development. Further geotechnical

investigations should be completed prior to final design. Further geotechnical inspections should also be carried

out during construction to confirm the subsurface conditions across the site.


2 SITE DESCRIPTION

2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION AND IDENTIFICATION

The site identification details and associated information are presented in Table 2-1 below while the site locality is

shown on Figure 1.

Table 2-1 Summary of Site Information

Information Detail

Street Address 7 Luxford Road, Mount Druitt, NSW

Lot and Deposited Plan (DP) Identification

Lot 2 DP 251863

Local Government Authority Blacktown Council

Site Description The Lot 2 of proposed site was occupied by an abandoned single-storey brick commercial building to the northwest and paved carpark on northeast of the site boundary. A concrete drive way/ pathway was located on the south-eastern portion of the site and provided access to Luxford Road. The remaining areas were covered with overgrown grass.

Site Area The site area is approximately 4046m2 (based on the provided drawings).

2.2 LOCAL LAND USE

The site is situated within an area of mixed use. Current uses on surrounding land are described in Table 2-2

below.

Table 2-2 Summary of Local Land Use

Direction Relative to Site Land Use Description

North Luxford Road, a six-lane asphaltic-concrete paved road.

East A two-lane concrete paved internal road followed by a two-storey building, setback of about

15m from the eastern site boundary;

South A single storey commercial building, abutting the southern site boundary;

West A bitumen car park followed by a commercial restaurant, setback about 20m from the

western site boundary.

2.3 REGIONAL SETTING

The site topography and geological information for the locality is summarised in Table 2-3 below.

Table 2-3 Topographic and Geological Information

Attribute Description

Topography The site ground topography falls towards the north-west at an angle of about 5°. The site levels vary from

an RL of about 58.3 at the north-western portion, to RL 60.7 towards the south-eastern corner.

Regional

Geology

Information on regional sub-surface conditions, referenced from the Department of Mineral and Energy

Geological Map Penrith 1:100,000 Geological Series Sheet 9030 (DMR 1991) indicates the site is underlain

by Bringelly Shale. Bringelly Shale generally comprises of shale, carbonaceous claystone, claystone,

laminite, fine to medium grained lithic sandstone, rare coal and tuff.


3 INVESTIGATION RESULTS

3.1 STRATIGRAPHY

For the development of a site-specific geotechnical model, the observed stratigraphy during the GSA has been grouped into four geotechnical units. A summary of the subsurface conditions across the site, interpreted from the assessment results, are presented in Table 3-1 below. More detailed descriptions of subsurface conditions at each borehole location are available on the borehole logs presented in Appendix A. The details of the method of soil and rock classification, explanatory notes and abbreviations adopted on the borehole logs are also presented in Appendix A.

Table 3-1 Summary of Subsurface Conditions

Unit Material 2

Depth to top of Unit

(m BEGL) 1

Approximate RL of top of Unit

(m) 1

Observed Thickness

(m)

Material Description 2 Comments

1 Fill/ Topsoil Surface 59.9 to 58.8 0.3 to 0.5 Mixed Fill

Topsoil consisting of clay with sand,

gravel, and rootlets was encountered in

BH1.

Fill consisting of gravelly sand with rootlets

and trace clay was encountered in BH2.

Asphalt of 100mm thickness overlying

sandy fill was encountered in BH3 and

BH4.

The fill/topsoil is assessed to be variably

compacted based on our observations

during drilling.

2 Residual Soil 0.3 to 0.5 59.5 to 58.3 1.4 to 2.5 Silty CLAY

Generally stiff to hard, high plasticity silty

clay.

From 1.7 to 4.5m depth below existing

ground level grading into extremely

weathered material.

SPT N values ranged from 4 to >18

hammer bounced.

Hand penetrometer readings on the SPT

samples ranged from 120 to 490kPa;

3

Very Low to

Low Strength

Shale

1.8 to 3.0 58.0 to 55.8 2.0 to 3.7 SHALE

Distinctly weathered, very low to low

strength shale, with extremely weathered

bands.

4

Low to

Medium

Strength

Shale

5.0 to 6.0 54.3 to 52.8 0.2 to 3.1 SHALE Distinctly weathered, low to medium

strength shale.

1 Approximate depth and level at the time of our assessment. Depths and levels may vary across the site. 2 For more detailed descriptions of the subsurface conditions, reference should be made to the borehole logs attached to Appendix A.

3.2 GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS

Groundwater seepage was observed during auger drilling of BH3 and BH4 during auger drilling at a depth of

about 3.7 and 6.3m (RL 55.1m and RL 52.5) respectively. Following completion of fieldwork, the standing

groundwater level was measured in the open boreholes of BH1, BH2 and BH4 at depths of about 5.1m (RL of

about 54.8m), 4.6m (RL of about 55.2m) and 3.5m (RL of about 55.3m), respectively. No long term groundwater

monitoring was carried out.


3.3 TEST RESULTS

Four soils and five rock chip samples were selected for laboratory testing to assess the following:

Soil aggressivity (pH, Chloride and Sulfate content and electrical conductivity);

Atterberg Limits/Linear shrinkage tests; and

Moisture content tests.

The results of the soil testing are summarised on the attached borehole logs.

A summary of the soil test results is provided in Table 3-2 below. Laboratory test certificates are presented in

Appendix B.

Table 3-2 Summary of Soil Laboratory Test Results

Test/ Sample ID BH2_0.50-0.95 BH3_6.0-6.2 BH4_1.5-1.95

Unit 2 4 2

Material Description Silty Clay SHALE Silty Clay

Ag

gre

ssiv

ity/

Sal

init

y

pH 4.7 8.4 6.1

Electrical Conductivity (μS/cm) 760 640 860

Sulfate SO4 (mg/kg) 420 110 140

Chloride Cl (mg/kg) 630 390 1200

Att

erb

erg

Lim

its

Liquid Limit (%) - - 52

Plastic Limit (%) - - 17

Linear Shrinkage (%) - - 10.5

Plastic index (%) - - 35

Moisture Content (%) 15 6.8 20.6

The assessment indicated shale bedrock present above the groundwater table. In accordance with Tables

6.4.2(C) and 6.5.2(C) of AS 2159:2009 ‘Piling – Design and Installation’, the results of the pH, chloride and

sulphate content and electrical conductivity of the soil and groundwater provided the following exposure

classifications:

‘Mild’ for buried concrete structural elements; and

‘Mild’ for buried steel structural elements.

In accordance with Table 4.8.1 of AS3600-2009 ‘Concrete Structures’ these soils would be classified as exposure

classification ‘A2’ for concrete in sulphate soils.


4 RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 GEOTECHNICAL ISSUES

Based on the results of the assessment, we consider the following to be the main geotechnical issues for the

proposed development:

Basement excavation and retention to limit lateral deflections and ground loss as a result of excavations,

resulting in damage to adjacent structures; and

Foundation design for building loads;

4.2 DILAPIDATION SURVEYS

Prior to construction, we recommend that detailed dilapidation surveys be carried out on all structures and

infrastructures surrounding the site. The reports would provide a record of existing conditions prior to

commencement of the work. A copy of each report should be provided to the adjoining property owner who

should be asked to confirm that it represents a fair assessment of existing conditions. The reports should be

carefully reviewed prior to construction.

4.3 EXCAVATION METHODOLOGY AND VIBRATION MONITORING

4.3.1 Preliminary Excavation Assessment

Prior to any excavation commencing, we recommend that reference be made to the WorkCover Excavation Work

Code of Practice – July 2015.

In order to achieve the bulk excavation level of RL 52.8m, excavation depths of up to about 6.0m to 7.2m BEGL is

expected. It is presumed that the proposed development will therefore extend through all Units described in Table

3-1 above.

Units 1, 2, and 3 can be readily excavated by buckets of medium to large hydraulic excavators, with some ripping.

Unit 3 may require a high capacity and heavy bulldozer of at least D9 or similar for effective production The use of

a smaller size bulldozer may result in lower productivity, and this should be allowed for. Alternatively, rock saws,

ripping hooks or rotary grinders could be used, though productivity would be lower and equipment wear

increased, and this should be allowed for. Such equipment would also be required for detailed excavation, such

as footings or services on the rock, and for trimming of faces. Final trimming of faces may also be completed

using a grinder attachment rather than a rock breaker in order to assist in limiting vibrations. The use of rotary

grinders generally generates dust and this may be supressed by spraying with water.

If rock breakers are to be used, vibration monitoring must be carried out and further advice must be sought from

the geotechnical engineer.

Groundwater seepage monitoring should be carried out during bulk excavation prior to finalising the design of a

pump out facility. Outlets into the stormwater system will require Council approval.

4.3.2 Excavation Monitoring

Consideration should be made to the impact of the proposed development upon neighbouring structures,

roadways and services. Basement excavation retention systems should be designed so as to limit lateral

deflections.

Contractors should also consider the following limits associated with carrying out excavation and construction

activities:

Limit lateral deflection of temporary or permanent retaining structures; and

Limit vertical settlements of ground surface at common property boundaries and services easement.

Monitoring of deflections of retaining structures and surface settlements should be carried out by a registered

surveyor at agreed points along the excavation boundaries and along existing building foundations/ services/


pavements and other structures located within or near the zone of influence of the excavation. Owners of existing

services adjacent to the site should be consulted to assess appropriate deflection limits for their infrastructure.

Measurements should be taken:

Prior to commencement of excavations;

Immediately after installation of any temporary or permanent retaining structures;

Immediately after the excavation has reached a depth of 1.5 m, and each 1.5 m depth increment thereafter;

Immediately after the excavation has reached bulk excavation level; and

Immediately after backfilling behind retaining structures.

4.4 GROUNDWATER CONSIDERATIONS

Groundwater seepage was observed in borehole BH3 and BH4 during auger drilling at a depth of about 3.7 and

6.3m (RL 55.1m and RL 52.5m). The standing water level was observed in boreholes (BH1, BH2 and BH4) after

completion, at a depth of about 5.1m (RL of about 54.8m), 4.6m (RL of about 55.2m) and 3.5m (RL of about

55.3m) respectively, which are above the assumed BEL RL of 52.8m.

Experience shows that due to the expected low permeability of the bedrock profile, any groundwater inflows

following rainfall into the excavation should not have an adverse impact on the proposed development or on the

neighbouring sites. We expect that groundwater inflows into the excavation will occur along the soil/rock interface

and through any defects within the shale bedrock (such as jointing, and bending planes, etc.), particularly during

and following a period of rain. The initial flows into the excavation may be locally high, but would be expected to

decrease with time as the bedding seams

We expect that any seepage that does occur should be able to be controlled by a conventional sump and pump

system. We recommend that a sump-and-pump system be used both during construction and for permanent

groundwater control below the basement floor slab.

We recommend that monitoring of seepage be implemented during the excavation works to confirm the capacity

of the drainage system.

In the long term, drainage should be provided behind all basement retaining walls, around the perimeter of the

basement and below the basement slab. The completed excavation should also be inspected by the hydraulic

engineer to confirm that adequate drainage has been allowed for. Drainage should be connected to the sump-

and-pump system and discharging into the stormwater system. The permanent groundwater control system

should take into account any possible soluble substances in the groundwater which may dictate whether or not

groundwater can be pumped into the stormwater system.

The design of drainage and pump systems should take the above issues into account along with careful ongoing

inspections and maintenance programs.

4.5 EXCAVATION RETENTION

4.5.1 Support Systems

As the proposed basement extends to the site boundaries, EI considers that temporary batters are not feasible for

this site. In addition, unsupported vertical cuts of the soil and weathered rock profile of less than low strength are

not recommended for this site as these carry the risk of potential slump failure especially after a period of wet

weather. Slumping of the material may result in injury to personnel and/or damage to nearby

structures/infrastructures and equipment.

A suitable retention system, such anchored/propped soldier pile wall with concrete infill panels installed below

bulk excavation level is recommended for the support of the excavation. Anchors/props and shotcrete must be

installed progressively as excavation proceeds. The use of a more rigid system (such as a semi-contiguous or

contiguous pile wall) is recommended adjacent to neighbouring buildings/infrastructures, so as to reduce the

lateral movements and the risk of potential damage. The piles must be installed to below BEL.


Bored piers may be used for this site. However, suitably sized piling rigs with rock augers and coring buckets will

be required for drilling through the shale bedrock. The proposed pile locations should take into account the

presence of any neighbouring anchors and/or the presence of buried services. Further advice should be sought

from prospective piling contractors who should be provided with a copy of this report. Working platforms may also

be required.

4.5.2 Design Parameters

The following parameters may be used for static design of temporary and permanent retaining walls at the subject

site:

For progressively anchored or propped walls where minor movements can be tolerated (provided there are

no buried movement sensitive services), we recommend the use of a trapezoidal earth pressure distribution

of 5H kPa for soil and weathered shale bedrock (Unit 1 to 3), where H is the retained height in meters. These

pressures should be assumed to be uniform over the central 50% of the support system, tapering to nil at top

and bottom;

For progressively anchored or propped walls which support areas which are highly sensitive to movement

(such as areas where movement sensitive structures or infrastructures or buried services are located in close

proximity), we recommend the use of a trapezoidal earth pressure distribution of 8H kPa for soil and

weathered shale bedrock (Unit 1 to 3), where ‘H’ is the retained height in meters. These pressures should be

assumed to be uniform over the central 50% of the support system, tapering to nil at top and bottom;

For the shale of low strength or better, a nominal uniform pressure of 10kPa should be allowed in the design

to support small wedges of rock that may occur. However, in addition the shoring wall design should either

be checked and designed to accommodate a wedge formed by a joint inclined at 45° intersecting the

excavation face at the base of the cut or at least the piles be designed for such a wedge and the excavation

carried out with close geotechnical supervision in order that additional anchors could be installed if

unfavourable defects are exposed.

If a steeply dipping defect plane is found to daylight towards the excavation, higher earth pressure

distributions, such as 10H kPa may be required, where ‘H’ is the depth from the surface to where the joint

daylights in the excavation, in metres.

All surcharge loading affecting the walls (including from construction equipment, construction loads, adjacent

high level footings, etc.) should be adopted in the retaining wall design as an additional surcharge using an

‘at rest’ earth pressure coefficient, ko, of 0.53;

The retaining walls should be designed as drained and measures are to be taken to provide complete and

permanent drainage behind the walls. Strip drains protected with a non-woven geotextile fabric should be

used behind the shotcrete infill panels for soldier pile walls or inserted between gaps in contiguous piles.

Alternatively, for the contiguous pile walls, weepholes comprising 20mm diameter PVC pipes grouted into

holes or gaps between adjacent piles at 1.2m centres (horizontal and vertical), may be used. The embedded

end of the pipes must, however, be wrapped with a non-woven geotextile fabric (such as Bidim A34) to act

as a filter against subsoil erosion;

For piles embedded into Unit 4 or better, the allowable lateral toe resistance value outlined in Table 4-1

below may be adopted;

If temporary anchors extend beyond the site boundaries, then permission from the neighbouring properties

would need to be obtained prior to installation. Also, the presence of neighbouring basements (if any) or

services and their levels must be confirmed prior to finalising anchor design. If the anchors in soils are to be

installed using wash drilling techniques, impact of ‘construction’ movements caused by anchor installation or

associated ground loss on adjoining structures and/or infrastructures should be considered. Alternatively, the

anchors should be drilled using dry spiral auger techniques within soils, with holes being cased with a PVC

pipe as soon as rock is encountered.


Anchors should have their bond length within Unit 3 or better. For the design of anchors bonded into Unit 3 or

better, the allowable bond stress value outlined in Table 4-1 below may be used, subject to the following

conditions:

1. Anchor bond lengths of at least 3m behind the ‘active’ zone of the excavation (taken as a 45 degree

zone above the base of the excavation) is provided;

2. Overall stability, including anchor group interaction, is satisfied;

3. All anchors should be proof loaded to at least 1.33 times the design working load before locked off at

working load. Such proof loading is to be witnessed by and engineer independent of the anchoring

contractor. We recommend that only experienced contractors be considered for anchor installation with

appropriate insurances;

4. If permanent anchors are to be used, these must have appropriate corrosion provisions for longevity.

4.5.3 Preliminary Geotechnical Design Parameters

Table 4-1 Preliminary Geotechnical Design Parameters

Material 1 Unit 1

Fill/Topsoil

Unit 2

Residual Soil

Unit 3

Very Low to Low

Strength Shale

Unit 4

Low to Medium

Strength Shale

RL of Top of Unit (m) 2 59.9 to 58.8 59.5 to 58.3 58.0 to 55.8 54.3 to 52.8

Bulk Unit Weight (kN/m3) 18 20 24 24

Earth Pressure

Coefficients

At rest, Ko 3 0.58 0.58 0.53 0.50

Active, Ka 3 0.41 0.41 0.36 0.33

Passive, Kp 3 - - 2.77 3.00

Allowable Bearing Pressure

(kPa) 5

- - 700 1000

Allowable

Shaft

Adhesion

(kPa) 4, 5

in

Compression - - 70 100

in Uplift - - 35 50

Allowable Toe Resistance

(kPa) - - 50 100

Allowable Bond Stress (kPa) - - 75 150

Ultimate Bearing Pressure

(kPa) 5 - - 3000 3000

Ultimate Shaft Adhesion (kPa) 4, 5

- - 50 150

Notes: 1 More detailed descriptions of subsurface conditions are available on the borehole logs presented in Appendix A. 2 Approximate levels of top of unit at the time of our assessment. Levels may vary across the site. 3 Earth pressures are provided on the assumption that the ground behind the retaining walls is horizontal. 4 Side adhesion values given assume there is intimate contact between the pile and foundation material and should achieve a clean socket roughness category R2 or

better. Design engineer to check both ‘piston pull-out’ and ‘cone liftout’ mechanics in accordance with AS4678-2002 Earth Retaining Structures. 5 To adopt these parameters we have assumed that:

- Footings have a nominal socket of at least 0.3m, into the relevant founding material; - There is intimate contact between the pile and foundation material (a clean socket roughness category of R2 or better); - Potential soil and groundwater aggressivity will be considered in the design of piles; - The pile should be drilled in the presence of a Geotechnical Engineer prior to pile construction to verify that ground conditions meet design

assumptions. Where groundwater ingress is encountered during pile excavation, concrete is to be placed as soon as possible upon completion of pile excavation. Pile excavations should be pumped dry of water prior to pouring concrete, or alternatively a tremmie system could be used;

- The bases of all pile, pad and strip footing excavations are cleaned of loose and softened material and water is pumped out prior to placement of concrete;

- The concrete is poured on the same day as drilling, inspection and cleaning. - The allowable bearing pressures given above are based on serviceability criteria of settlements at the footing base/pile toe of less than or equal to 1%

of the minimum footing dimension (or pile diameter).


4.6 FOUNDATIONS

Following excavation to BEL of RL about 52.8m, we expect Unit 4 shale bedrock to be exposed. It is

recommended that all footings for the building be founded within shale bedrock of similar strength to provide

uniform support and reduce the potential for differential settlements.

Strip/pad footings and/or bored piles founded within Unit 4 quality shale may be designed with an maximum

allowable bearing pressure of 1000 kPa.

Geotechnical inspections of foundations by a geotechnical engineer to determine that the required socket

material has been achieved and founding material has been reached and determine any variations that may

occur between the boreholes and inspected locations are recommended.

Should higher bearing pressures be required, an additional geotechnical investigation should be carried out,

preferably following demolition, involving cored boreholes drilled to a minimum of 3m below final bulk excavation

levels to determine the depth and quality of bedrock to ascertain our assumptions and optimize the bearing

pressures.

Design of piles should consider the aggressivity of the soil and groundwater in accordance with Sections 6.4 and

6.5 of AS2159-2009.

4.7 LOWEST BASEMENT FLOOR SLAB

Following the removal of all loose and softened materials, we recommend that underfloor drainage be provided

and should comprise a strong, durable, single sized washed aggregate such as ‘blue metal gravel’. Concrete

pavements should be designed with an effective shear transmission at all joints by way of either dowelled or

keyed joints. The basement floor slab should be isolated from columns. The completed excavation should be

inspected by the hydraulic engineer to confirm the extent of the drainage required.

In addition, a system of sub-soil drains comprising a durable single sized aggregate with perforated drains/pipes

leading to sumps should be provided.

Permission may need to be obtained from the NSW Department of Primary Industries (DPI) and possibly Council

for any permanent discharge of seepage into the drainage system. Given the subsurface conditions, we expect

that seepage volumes would be low and within the DPI limits. However, if permission for discharge is not

obtained, the basement may need to be designed as a tanked basement.

4.8 SALINITY

Analyses of the electrical conductivity of the Unit 2 residual clay were assessed with reference to the Western

Sydney Regional Organisation of Council’s (WSROC) publication ‘Western Sydney Salinity Code of Practice’

(March 2003), and DPI guidelines on the investigation and management of salinity (2002) as part of the Local

Government Salinity Initiative for the NSW State Salinity Strategy. The results indicate the soils to be moderately

saline.

Approaches to limit the impact of moderately saline and mildly aggressive soils on proposed buried structures

could include:

Adopting chemically resistant concrete;

Increasing the concrete strength;

Increasing cover to steel reinforcing;

Adopt good vibration and curing techniques during concrete placement;

Limiting surface water in-flows;

Maintaining good surface and subsurface drainage; and

Including vapour-proof barriers.


5 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES

Below is a summary of the previously recommended additional work that needs to be carried out:

Dilapidation surveys;

Additional investigation in the form of deep cored boreholes for bearing pressure optimisation (if required);

Design of working platforms (if required) for construction plant by an experienced and qualified geotechnical

engineer;

Classification of all excavated material transported off site;

Witnessing installation and proof-testing of anchors;

Geotechnical inspections of foundations; and

Ongoing monitoring of groundwater inflows into the bulk excavation;


6 STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Yarduouse Pty Ltd who is the only intended beneficiary of

EI’s work. The scope of the assessment carried out for the purpose of this report is limited to those agreed with

Yarduouse Pty Ltd

No other party should rely on the document without the prior written consent of EI, and EI undertakes no duty, or

accepts any responsibility or liability, to any third party who purports to rely upon this document without EI's

approval.

EI has used a degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised in similar investigations by reputable members of the

geotechnical industry in Australia as at the date of this document. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is

made or intended. Each section of this report must be read in conjunction with the whole of this report, including

its appendices and attachments.

The conclusions presented in this report are based on a limited assessment of conditions, with specific sampling

and test locations chosen to be as representative as possible under the given circumstances.

EI's professional opinions are reasonable and based on its professional judgment, experience, training and

results from analytical data. EI may also have relied upon information provided by the Client and other third

parties to prepare this document, some of which may not have been verified by EI.

EI's professional opinions contained in this document are subject to modification if additional information is

obtained through further assessment, observations, or validation testing and analysis during construction. In

some cases, further testing and analysis may be required, which may result in a further report with different

conclusions.

We draw your attention to the document “Important Information”, which is included in Appendix C of this report.

The statements presented in this document are intended to advise you of what your realistic expectations of this

report should be. The document is not intended to reduce the level of responsibility accepted by EI, but rather to

ensure that all parties who may rely on this report are aware of the responsibilities each assumes in so doing.

Should you have any queries regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact EI.


7 REFERENCES

AS1170.4:2007, Structural Design Actions, Part 4: Earthquake Actions in Australia, Standards Australia.

AS1726:1993, Geotechnical Site Investigations, Standards Australia.

AS2159:2009, Piling – Design and Installation, Standards Australia.

AS3600:2009, Concrete Structures, Standards Australia

Excavation Work Code of Practice – July 2015 – WorkCover NSW,

NSW Department of Finance and Service, Spatial Information Viewer, maps.six.nsw.gov.au.

NSW Department of Mineral Resources (1983) Sydney 1:100,000 Geological Series Sheet 9130 (Edition 1).

Geological Survey of New South Wales, Department of Mineral Resources.

8 ABBREVIATIONS

AHD Australian Height Datum AS Australian Standard BEL Bulk Excavation Level BEGL Below Existing Ground Level BH Borehole DBYD Dial Before You Dig DP Deposited Plan EI EI Australia GSA Geotechnical and Salinity Assessment NATA National Association of Testing Authorities, Australia RL Reduced Level SPT Standard Penetration Test

T-C Tungsten-Carbide UCS Unconfined Compressive Strength

Geotechnical and Salinity Assessment 7 Luxford Road, Mount Druitt, NSW Report No. E23648.G02, 26 February 2018

FIGURES

Approved:

Scale:

Date:

Drawn:

17-01-17

Not To

Scale

D.R.

S.T.

1

Project: E23648.G02

Figure:

Suite 6.01, 55 Miller Street, PYRMONT 2009

Ph (02) 9516 0722 Fax (02) 9518 5088

SITE

Yarduouse Pty Ltd

Geotechnical Assessment

7 Luxford Rd, Mount Druitt, NSW

Site Locality Plan

SITE

0 5

Approx. Scale (m)

10 20 30

BH3

BH4

BH1

BH2

Map Source: T GRABARA & ASSOCIATES, Ref.3529, Date:27/06/2008

17-01-18

L.L.

2S.T.

Figure:

Suite 6.01, 55 Miller Street, PYRMONT 2009

Ph (02) 9516 0722 Fax (02) 9518 5088

Yarduouse Pty Ltd

Geotechnical Assessment

7 Luxford Rd, Mount Druitt, NSW

Borehole Location Plan

Approved:

Date:

Drawn:

Project: E23648.G02

Approximate basement footprint

Approximate site boundary

Approximate borehole location

LEGEND


APPENDIX A

BOREHOLE LOGS AND EXPLANATORY NOTES

TOPSOIL: CLAY; medium plasticity, brown, with some fine tomedium grained, brown sand, some fine to coarse, sub-angular,igneous gravel and some rootlets.

Silty CLAY; high plasticity, pale-grey mottled red-brown, traceironstone bands.

From 2.0 m, pale-brown, grading into extremely weatheredmaterial.

SHALE; grey, distinctly weathered, very low strength.

From 4.5 m, low strength.

From 5.0-5.4 m, extremely weathered band.

From 6.0 m, low to medium strength.

Hole Terminated at 6.20 m

-

St

VSt

-

0.50

3.00

6.20

59.90

59.40

57.90

56.90

55.40

54.90

53.90

-

VL

L

M

AD

/T

0.50

2.00

3.00

4.50

5.00

6.00

M

M(>PL)

M(<PL)

-

BH1_0.5-0.95SPT 0.50-0.95 m2,2,2N=4PP =120-150 kPa

BH1_1.5-1.95SPT 1.50-1.95 m3,5,9N=14PP =220-280 kPaBH1_2.0-2.2 DS2.00-2.20 m

BH1_3.0-3.08SPT 3.00-3.08 m17/80mm HBN=SPT

BH1_4.5-4.6 DS4.50-4.60 m

BH1_6.0-6.2 DS6.00-6.20 m

-

CH

-

GW

NE

dur

ing

auge

ring

04/1

2/17

TOPSOIL

RESIDUAL SOIL

BEDROCK

SOIL/ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

PE

NE

TR

AT

ION

RE

SIS

TA

NC

E

RE

CO

VE

RE

D

ME

TH

OD

Field Material DescriptionSamplingDrilling

WA

TE

R

RLDEPTH

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

DIT

ION

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

SAMPLE ORFIELD TEST

GR

OU

P S

YM

BO

L

CO

NS

IST

EN

CY

RE

L. D

EN

SIT

Y

DE

PT

H(m

etre

s)

Project

Location

Position

Job No.

Client

Proposed Residential Development


Refer to Figure 2

E23648.G02

Yarduouse Pty Ltd

Drilling Contactor

Drill Rig

Geosense Drilling

Hanjin D&B 8D

Surface RL 59.90 m AHD

Inclination -90°

Sheet 1 of 1

Date Started 04/12/2017

Date Completed 04/12/2017

Logged By BZ Date 04/12/2017

Reviewed By SK Date 26/02/2018

BOREHOLE LOGBH NO. 1

East 298789.9 m

North 6261799.7 m MGA94 Zone 56

This borehole log should be read in conjunction with EI Australia's accompanying standard notes.

EIA

2.0

0.3

LIB

.GLB

Log

EIA

NO

N-C

OR

ED

BO

RE

HO

LE 1

E23

648.

G02

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

.GP

J <

<D

raw

ingF

ile>

> 2

6/02

/201

8 13

:19

10.

0.00

0 D

atge

l Lab

and

In S

itu T

ool -

DG

D |

Lib:

EIA

2.0

0.3

2017

-11-

21 P

rj: E

IA 2

.00.

1 20

17-0

9-26

STRUCTURE ANDADDITIONAL

OBSERVATIONS

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

FILL: Gravelly SAND; fine to medium grained, pale-brown, fine tocoarse, sub-angular igneous gravel, trace of medium plasticity,brown clay and rootlets.

Silty CLAY; high plasticity, pale-grey mottled red-browm, tracefine to medium, sub-angular, ironstone gravel.

From 1.7 m, grading into extremely weathered material.

SHALE; grey, distinctly weathered, very low strength.

From 3.8-5.0 m, distinctly weathered, extremely low to very lowstrength.

From 5.0 m, very low strength.

From 5.5 m, dark-grey, low strength.



-

VSt

H

-

0.30

1.80

6.30

59.80

59.50

58.00

56.00

54.80

54.30

53.80

-

L

M

AD

/T

0.30

1.701.80

3.80

5.00

5.50

6.00

M

M(>PL)

-

BH2_0.5-0.95SPT 0.50-0.95 m2,3,4N=7PP >40-300 kPa

BH2_1.5-1.8SPT 1.50-1.83 m6,12,4/30mm HBN>16PP =420-490 kPaBH2_1.8-1.83 m DS1.80-1.83 mBH2_2.0-2.2 m DS2.00-2.20 m

BH2_3.0-3.2 m DS3.00-3.20 m

BH2_5.0-5.5 m DS5.00-5.50 m

BH2_6.0-6.3 m DS6.00-6.30 m

-

CH

-

04/1

2/17

FILL

RESIDUAL SOIL

BEDROCK


PE

NE

TR

AT

ION

RE

SIS

TA

NC

E

RE

CO

VE

RE

D

ME

TH

OD


WA

TE

R

RLDEPTH

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

DIT

ION

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

SAMPLE ORFIELD TEST

GR

OU

P S

YM

BO

L

CO

NS

IST

EN

CY

RE

L. D

EN

SIT

Y

DE

PT

H(m

etre

s)

Project

Location

Position

Job No.

Client



Refer to Figure 2

E23648.G02

Yarduouse Pty Ltd

Drilling Contactor

Drill Rig

Geosense Drilling

Hanjin D&B 8D


Inclination -90°

Sheet 1 of 1






East 298749.9 m



EIA

2.0

0.3

LIB

.GLB

Log

EIA

NO

N-C

OR

ED

BO

RE

HO

LE 1

E23

648.

G02

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

.GP

J <

<D

raw

ingF

ile>

> 2

6/02

/201

8 13

:20

10.

0.00

0 D

atge

l Lab

and

In S

itu T

ool -

DG

D |

Lib:

EIA

2.0

0.3

2017

-11-

21 P

rj: E

IA 2

.00.

1 20

17-0

9-26


OBSERVATIONS

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

ASPHALT PAVEMENT: 100 mm.

FILL: SAND; fine to medium grained, red-brown and pale-grey,fine to coarse, sub-angular and sub-rounded gravel.

Silty CLAY; hign plasticity, brown mottled dark-grey, some fine tocoarse, sub-angular gravel.

From 1.5 m, pale-grey mottled red-brown, trace ironstone bands.


SHALE; pale brown, dark grey, distinctly weathered, very lowstrength.

From 6.0 m, low strength.



-

-

VSt

H

-

0.10

0.50

5.00

8.10

58.70

58.30

57.30

56.90

55.80

52.80

50.80

-

L

M

AD

/T

0.10

0.50

1.50

1.90

3.00

6.00

8.00

-

M

M(>PL)

M(<PL)

-

BH3_0.5-0.95SPT 0.50-0.95 m4,5,4N=9PP =300-350 kPa

BH3_1.5-1.9SPT 1.50-1.95 m4,5,6N=11PP =400-470 kPaBH3_1.9-1.95

BH3_3.0-3.27SPT 3.00-3.32 m12,13,5/20mm HBN>18BH3_3.27-3.32

BH3_4.5-4.67SPT 4.50-4.67 m8,3/20mm HBN>3

BH3_5.0-5.2 DS5.00-5.20 m

BH3_6.0-6.2 DS6.00-6.20 m

BH3_7.0-7.2 DS7.00-7.20 m

BH3_8.0-8.1 DS8.00-8.10 m

--

CH

-

ASPHALTFILL

RESIDUAL SOIL

BEDROCK


PE

NE

TR

AT

ION

RE

SIS

TA

NC

E

RE

CO

VE

RE

D

ME

TH

OD


WA

TE

R

RLDEPTH

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

DIT

ION

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

SAMPLE ORFIELD TEST

GR

OU

P S

YM

BO

L

CO

NS

IST

EN

CY

RE

L. D

EN

SIT

Y

DE

PT

H(m

etre

s)

Project

Location

Position

Job No.

Client



Refer to Figure 2

E23648.G02

Yarduouse Pty Ltd

Drilling Contactor

Drill Rig

Geosense Drilling

Hanjin D&B 8D


Inclination -90°

Sheet 1 of 1






East 298758.9 m



EIA

2.0

0.3

LIB

.GLB

Log

EIA

NO

N-C

OR

ED

BO

RE

HO

LE 1

E23

648.

G02

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

.GP

J <

<D

raw

ingF

ile>

> 2

6/02

/201

8 13

:20

10.

0.00

0 D

atge

l Lab

and

In S

itu T

ool -

DG

D |

Lib:

EIA

2.0

0.3

2017

-11-

21 P

rj: E

IA 2

.00.

1 20

17-0

9-26


OBSERVATIONS

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

ASPHALT PAVEMENT: 100 mm.

FILL: SAND; fine to medium grained, red-brown and pale-grey,some fine to coarse, sub-angular and sub-rounded gravel.

Silty CALY; high plasticity, pale-brown mottled red-brown, trace offine to coarse, sub-angular ironstone gravel.

From 1.5 m, pale-grey mottled red-brown, trace ironstone bands.


SHALE; dark-grey, distinctly weathered, very low strength.



-

-

VSt

-

0.10

0.50

3.00

8.10

58.70

58.30

57.30

56.40

55.80

53.80

-

VL

L

M

AD

/T

0.10

0.50

1.50

2.40

3.00

5.00

-

M

M(>PL)

M(<PL)

-

BH4_0.5-0.95SPT 0.50-0.95 m2,2,3N=5PP =270-300 kPa

BH4_1.5-1.95SPT 1.50-1.95 m3,5,6N=11PP =360-400 kPa

BH4_3.0-3.02SPT 3.00-3.02 m3/20mm HBN=SPT

BH4_4.0-4.2 DS4.00-4.20 m

BH4_4.5-4.7 DS4.50-4.70 m

BH4_5.0-5.2 DS5.00-5.20 m

BH4_6.0-6.2 DS6.00-6.20 m

BH4_8.0-8.1 DS8.00-8.10 m

--

CH

-

04/1

2/17

ASPHALTFILL

RESIDUAL SOIL

BEDROCK


PE

NE

TR

AT

ION

RE

SIS

TA

NC

E

RE

CO

VE

RE

D

ME

TH

OD


WA

TE

R

RLDEPTH

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

DIT

ION

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

SAMPLE ORFIELD TEST

GR

OU

P S

YM

BO

L

CO

NS

IST

EN

CY

RE

L. D

EN

SIT

Y

DE

PT

H(m

etre

s)

Project

Location

Position

Job No.

Client



Refer to Figure 2

E23648.G02

Yarduouse Pty Ltd

Drilling Contactor

Drill Rig

Geosense Drilling

Hanjin D&B 8D


Inclination -90°

Sheet 1 of 1






East 298775.4 m



EIA

2.0

0.3

LIB

.GLB

Log

EIA

NO

N-C

OR

ED

BO

RE

HO

LE 1

E23

648.

G02

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

.GP

J <

<D

raw

ingF

ile>

> 2

6/02

/201

8 13

:20

10.

0.00

0 D

atge

l Lab

and

In S

itu T

ool -

DG

D |

Lib:

EIA

2.0

0.3

2017

-11-

21 P

rj: E

IA 2

.00.

1 20

17-0

9-26


OBSERVATIONS

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

S43RHHSDEBGWUTFFPPPWDCC

DRILLING/EX

HA H

DT D

NDD N

AS* A

AD* A

*V V

*T T

ADH H

PENETRATIO

L Low R

M Mediu

H High R

R Refusa

These assessmdrilling tools an

WATER

GWNO

GWNE

SAMPLING A

SPT ,7,11 N=18 0/80mm

RW HW HB Sampling DS ES BDS GS WS U50 Testing

P VS

PID PM PP WPT DCP CPT CPTu

ROCK CORE

TCR=Tota

GEOLOGICA

XCAVATION M

Hand Auger

Diatube Coring

Non-destructive

Auger Screwing

Auger Drilling

V-Bit

TC-Bit, e.g. AD/T

Hollow Auger

ON RESISTAN

Resistance

m Resistance

Resistance

al/Practical R

ments are subjend experience o

Water l

Water in

GROUdue toGROUgroundbeen l

AND TESTINGStan4,7,WhePenPenHam DistSamBulkGasWatThin FielFielPhoPresPocWatDynStatStat

E RECOVERY

al Core Reco

AL BOUNDAR

= Observed Bo(position kno

METHOD

digging

T

NCE

R

e P

Peq

Refusal N

ective and are dof the operator.

level at date s

nflow

UNDWATER o drilling water, sUNDWATER dwater could beeft open for a lo

G ndard Penetrati11 = Blows per ere practical ref

netration occurrenetration occurremmer double bo

turbed Sample mple for environk disturbed Sams Sample ter Sample n walled tube sa

d Permeability td Vane Shear te

otoionisation Dessuremeter test

cket Penetrometter Pressure tes

namic Cone Pentic Cone Penetrtic Cone Penetr

Y

overy (%)

RIES

oundary own)

EXPLAIN

RD R

RT R

RAB R

RC R

PT P

CT C

JET J

WB W

Rapid penetratio

enetration/ exca

enetration/ excaquipment used.

o further progre

ependent on ma

shown

NOT OBSERVsurface seepageNOT ENCOU

e present in lessonger period.

on Test to AS12150mm. N =

fusal occurs, theed under the roded under the haouncing on anvil

mental testingmple

ample - number

test over sectionest expressed atector reading int over section noter test expresssts netrometer testration test ration test with p

SCR=S

∑

– – – – – – – –

NATION OUSED

Rotary blade or

Rotary Tricone

Rotary Air Blast

Reverse Circula

Push Tube

Cable Tool Rig

Jetting

Washbore or Ba

n/ excavation p

avation possible

avation is possi

ess possible wit

any factors, inc

VED - Observae or cave-in of tNTERED - Bo

s permeable stra

289.6.3.1-2004= Blows per 300e blows and pend weight only

ammer and rod wl

r indicates nomi

n noted as uncorrected sn ppm oted ed as instrumen

pore pressure (u

Solid Core Rec

– – – = Observed(position a

OF NOTESD ON BOR

r drag bit

bit

t

ation

ailer

ossible with little

e at an acceptab

ble but at a slow

hout risk of dam

luding equipme

ation of groundwthe borehole/ te

orehole/ test pit wata. Inflow may

0mm penetrationetration for tha

weight only

nal sample diam

shear strength (

nt reading in kP

u) measuremen

covery (%)

d Boundary approximate)

S, ABBREVREHOLE A

NQ

NMLC

HQ

HMLC

BH

EX

EE

HAND

e effort from eq

ble rate with mo

w rate and requ

mage or unacce

nt power and w

Partial w

Comple

water, whether pst pit.was dry soon afhave been obse

n following a 15t interval are re

meter in millimet

(sv= peak value

a

t

RQD = R

∑

– –?– –?–

EI E

VIATIONSAND TEST

Diamond Core

Diamond Core

Diamond Core

Diamond Core

Tractor Mounte

Tracked Hydra

Existing Excava

Excavated by H

uipment used.

oderate effort fro

ires significant e

ptable wear to e

weight, condition

water loss

ete Water Los

present or not, w

fter excavation.served had the b

50mm seating deported

tres

e, sr= residual v

Rock Quality D

–?– – = Bound(interpre

Explanatory Notes ReNovember 2

S & TERMT PIT LOG

- 47 mm

- 52 mm

- 63 mm

- 63 mm

ed Backhoe

ulic Excavator

ation

Hand Methods

om equipment u

effort from

equipment used

n of excavation o

ss

was not possible

However, borehole/ test pi

rive

alue)

Designation (%

dary eted or inferred)

ev.D 2017

MS GS

used.

d.

or

e

it

%)

CLASoil Soil

Mocoliq

PA

Fra

Ov

Cogr

Fgr

MO

Sym

Sym

VS

SVHF

In th# SP

MIN

T

T

P

FIL

COBO

GR

ASSIFICATIOis broadly classdescription and

oisture content oontent as followsuid limit (w ≈ LL

ARTICLE SIZE

action Compo

versize BOUL

COB

oarse rained soil

GRA

SA

Fine rained soil

SI

CL

PL

OISTURE CON

mbol Term

D Dry M MoisW Wet

C

mbol Term

VS Very SS SoftF FirmSt Stiff

VSt Very SH HardFr Friablhe absence of tePT correlations

NOR COMPO

Term Asse

Trace Preseor no

With Preseor no

Prefix Presegene

LL

OUBLES or ULDERS

RAVEL (GP or

ON AND INFEsified and descrd classification.

of cohesive soils: Moist, dry of pL), Wet, wet of li

E CHARACTE

onents Su

Divis

LDERS

BLES

AVEL

Coa

Med

Fi

AND

Coa

Med

Fi

LT

LAY

LASTICITY P

NDITION

m Descriptio

Non- cohe

st Soils feel c

Soils feel c

CONSISTENC

m Undrained

StrengthSoft ≤12t >12 to

m >25 tof >50 to

Stiff >100 tod >20le - est results, consare not stated i

NENTS

essment Guide

ence just detecto different to gen

ence easily deteo different to gen

ence easily deteeral properties o

GW) Cosa

RRED STRATribed in Borehol

ls shall be descplastic limit (w <iquid limit (w > L

ERISTICS ub sion

6

arse 1

dium 6

ne 2.

arse 0.

dium 0.

ne 0.0

0.00

ROPERTIES

on

esive and free-ru

cool, darkened

cool, darkened

CY d Shear h (kPa)

SPT

2 ≤ ≤25 >2 t ≤50 >4 ≤100 >8 t ≤200 >15

00 >3

sistency and den AS1726:2017

e

table by feel or neral properties

ectable by feel oneral properties

ectable by feel of primary compo

ORGA(OL, O

SILT (

ombinations of tandy clay

TIGRAPHY le and Test Pit L

ribed in relation< PL); Moist, neaLL),

Size mm

>200

3 to 200

19 to 63

6.7 to 19

36 to 6.7

6 to 2.36

21 to 0.6

75 to 0.21

02 to 0.075

<0.002

unning.

in colour. Soil te

in colour. Soil te

DEN

“N” #

≤2 to ≤4 to 8 o 15 to 30 30 nsity may be as

7, and may be s

eye but soil proof primary com

or eye but soil pof primary com

or eye in conjunonent

METHOD

ANIC SOILS OH or Pt)

(ML or MH)

these basic sym

Logs using the p

n to plastic limit ar plastic limit (w

GROUP SY

Major Div

CO

AR

SE

GR

AIN

ED

SO

ILS

M

ore

than

65%

of s

oil e

xclu

ding

ov

ersi

ze fr

actio

n is

gre

ater

than

0.

075m

m

FIN

E G

RA

INE

D S

OIL

S

Mor

e th

an 3

5% o

f soi

l ex

clud

ing

over

size

d fr

actio

n is

less

than

0.0

75m

m

ends to stick tog

ends to stick tog

NSITY

Symbol

VL L

MD D

VD

ssessed from coubject to correc

operties little mponent

properties little mponent

nction with the

OF SOIL BOREHO

mbols may be us

preferred metho

(PL) or liquid limw ≈ PL); Moist,

YMBOLS

visions Sy

GR

AV

EL

M

ore

than

50%

of

coar

se f

ract

ion

is

>2.

36m

m

SA

ND

M

ore

than

50%

of

coar

se f

ract

ion

is

<2.

36 m

m

Liqu

id L

imit

less

<

50%

C

Liqu

id

Lim

it >

th

an

50%

Hig

hly

Org

ani

c so

il

gether.

gether, free wat

Term

Very LooseLoose

Medium DenseDense

Very Dense

orrelations with ctions for overbu

C

DESCRIPTOLE AND T

CLA

SAN

sed to indicate m

od given in AS 1

mit (LL) for soils wet of plastic lim

ymbol

GW Well sand

GP Poorlysand

GM Silt

GC Claye

SW Well

s

SP Poorly

sSM Silty

SC C

ML Inorgvery

CL, CI Inorgaplast

OL Orga

MH InorgCH Inorga

OH Organ

PT Pe

er forms when h

Density In

≤15>15 to

e >35 to >65 to

>85

the observed beurden pressure a

Proportion

Coarse grainedFine grained

Coarse grained Fine grained s

Coarse grainedFine grained

EI E

TION USETEST PIT

AY (CL, CI or C

ND (SP or SW

mixed materials

1726:2017, Sec

s with higher momit (w < PL); W

Descriptiograded gravel a

d mixtures, little y graded gravel

d mixtures, little ty gravel, grave

mixtures.ey gravel, grave

mixtures.l graded sand asand, little or noy graded sand asand, little or noy sand, sand-sil

Clayey sand, sanmixtures.

ganic silts of lowfine sands, rocor clayey fine s

anic clays of lowticity, gravelly c

clays, silty clanic silts and oclays of low pla

ganic silts of higanic clays of hignic clays of med

plasticity

eat muck and othorganic soi

handling.

ndex % SP

5 ≤35 ≤65 1≤85 3

5 A

ehaviour of the and equipment

n by Mass

ed soils: ≤ 5% soil: ≤15%

soils: 5 - 12% soil: 15 - 30%

d soils: >12% soil: >30%


ED ON LOGS

CH)

W)

s such as

ction 6.1 –

oisture et, near

on and gravel-or no fines. l and gravel-or no fines. l-sand-silt . el-sand-clay . nd gravelly o fines. and gravelly o fines. t mixtures. ndy-clay . w plasticity, k flour, silty sands. w to medium lays, sandy ays. rganic silty

asticity. gh plasticity. gh plasticity. dium to high .

her highly ls.

PT “N” #

0 to 4 4 to 10

10 to 30 30 to 50

Above 50

material. type.

ev.D 2017

CLASSIFICARock is broa2017, Sectio

ROCK MATE

Symbol

VL

L

M

H

VH

EH E

# Rock Stre

Relationship band should be

ROCK MAT

Symbol

RS

XW

DW

HW

MW

SW

FR

ATION AND INadly classified on 6.2 – Rock

ERIAL STREN

Term

Very Low

Low

Medium

High

Very High

Extremely Hig

ength Test Re

between rock ste determined on

ERIAL WEAT

Te

Resid

Extremely

W

Distinctly

W

Slightly W

Fr

NFERRED STand describedidentification,

NGTH CLASS

Point Load Index, Is(50)

(MPa) #

0.03

to 0.1

0.1

to 0.3

0.3 to 1

1 to 3

3 to 10

h >10

esults

● rength test resu

n a site-specific

THERING CLA

erm

ual Soil

y Weathered

Weathered

Weathered

resh

TRATIGRAPHd in Boreholedescription an

SIFICATION

Material crumknife; too harbroken by fing

Easily scoredfirm blows oflong by 50 mfriable and bre

Readily scorebe broken by

A piece of cocan be broken

Hand specimhammer.

Specimen reqmaterial; rock

Point Loa

Point Loa

ult (Is(50)) and unbasis. However

ASSIFICATION

Soil developefabric are nonot been sig

Rock is weatdisintegrates

Rock strengtdiscoloured,may be decrenvironmentModerately W

Rock slightlyfresh rock.

Rock shows

TERM

HY and Test Pit Lnd classificatio

Field Gu

mbles under fird to cut a triager pressure.

d with a knife;f pick point; hamm diametereak during han

ed with a knifehand with diffi

ore 150 mm lon with pick with

en breaks wit

quires many bk rings under h

ad Strength In

ad Strength In

nconfined compr UCS is typical

N

ed on extremeo longer evidennificantly trans

thered to suchs or can be rem

th usually chausually by iro

reased due tots it is conveniWeathered, w

y discoloured b

no sign of de

S FOR RO

Logs using theon.

uide

rm blows withaxial sample b

indentations as dull soundmay be brokendling.

; a piece of coiculty.

ng by 50 mmh a single firm

h pick after m

blows with geoammer.

ndex, Is(50), Ax

ndex, Is(50), Dia

ressive strengthly 20 x Is(50).

Field G

ely weatherednt; there is a lasported.

h an extent thamoulded, in w

nged by weaton staining. Po

deposition ofient to subdiviith the degree

but shows little

composition o

OCK MATA

e preferred me

h sharp end oby hand. Piec

1 mm to 3 mmunder hamm

en by hand. S

ore 150 mm lo

diameter cannblow; rock ring

ore than one

ological pick t

ial test (MPa)

ametral test (M

h (UCS) will vary

Guide

rock; the masarge change in

at it has soil prwater.

hering. The roorosity may beweathering prde into Highly

e of alteration t

e or no chang

or staining.

EI E

TERIAL STAND WEA

ethod given in

of pick; can beces up to 30 m

m show in themer. A piece o

Sharp edges

ong by 50 mm

not be brokengs under ham

blow; rock rin

to break throu

MPa)

ry with rock type

ss structure an volume but

roperties - i.e.

ock may be hige increased byroducts in pory Weathered atypically less f

e of strength r


TRENGTHATHERING

AS1726 –

e peeled withmm can be

e specimen wiof core 150 mof core may b

diameter can

by hand but mer.

gs under

ugh intact

e and strength,

nd substancethe soil has

. it either

ghly y leaching, or es. In some

and for MW.

relative to

ev.D 2017

H G

ithmm

be

CLASSIFICARock is broaSection 6.2 –

ROCK MAT

Layering

Term

Massive

Poorly Deve

Well Develo

ABBREVIAT

Defect Type

Joint

Bedding Pa

Foliation

Contact

Cleavage

Sheared SeZone (Fault

Crushed SeZone (Fault

DecomposeSeam/ Zon

Infilled Sea

Schistocity

Vein

ABBREVIAT

Shape

Planar

Curved

Undulating

Stepped

Irregular

Orientation:

ABBREVIAT

Coating

Clean

Stain

Veneer

ATION AND Iadly classified – Rock identif

TERIAL DESC

De

No

eloped Laypro

oped Laydispar

TIONS AND D

e Abb

J

arting B

F

C

C

eam/ t)

SS/S

eam/ t)

CS/C

ed e

DS/D

am IS

S

V

TIONS AND D

Abbr. Des

Pl Co

Cu Graorie

Un Wa

St Ondef

Ir Main o

VeIn

TIONS AND D

Abbr. Des

CN No v

SN No vstain

VNR A vistoo th

NFERRED STand describe

fication, descr

CRIPTION

scription

layering appa

yering just visoperties

yering (beddintinct; rock brerallel to layerin

DESCRIPTION

br. Descript

JT Surface oor no tenacts as c

BP Surface osub-paraindicating

FL Repetitivehigher pr

CO The surfa

CL Cleavagemechanic

SZ Seam or spaced (o

CZ Seam or with rougsand or g

DZ Seam of material i

Seam of formed b

SH The foliatof platy o

VN Distinct sor crack-s

DESCRIPTION

scription

onsistent orien

adual change entation

avy surface

ne or more wefined steps any sharp chanorientation

ertical Borehonclined Boreh

DESCRIPTION

scription

isible coating

isible coating ing, often limo

sible coating ohin to measure

TRATIGRAPHd in Boreholeiption and clas

arent

ible; little effec

ng, foliation, claks more eas

ng

NS FOR DEFE

tion

of a fracture osile strength. ement. of fracture or pllel to layeringg orientation de planar strucessure, espec

ace between tw

e planes appecal fracturing ozone with rouoften <50 mmzone compos

ghly parallel negravel sizes orsoil substancein places. soil substancey soil migratintion in schist o

or prismatic misheet-like bodyseal growth.

NS FOR DEFE

Roug

tation Polish

in Slicke

Smoo

ll Roug

nges Very

oles – The dipoles – The inc

NS FOR DEFE

or infilling

but surfaces aonite (orange-f soil or minere (< 1 mm); m

ABB

HY and Test Pit L

ssification.

St

Te

ThLa

ct on VeTh

leavage) sily

MThVe

ECT TYPES

r parting, formMay be closed

parting, acrossg/ bedding. Beduring depositicture parallel tocially in metam

wo types or a

ear as parallel,of rock throug

ughly parallel am) parallel and sed of disorienear-planar bour mixtures of the, often with g

e, usually clayng into joint or or other coarseineral grains, sy of minerals c

ECT SHAPE A

ghness Abb

hed Po

ensided SL

oth S

h RF

Rough VR

p (inclination froclination is me

ECT COATING

are discolourebrown)

ral substance, may be patchy

REVIATIORO

Logs using the

tructure

erm

hinly laminatedaminated ery thinly beddhinly beddededium beddedhickly beddedery thickly bed

med without disd or filled by a

s which the roedding refers toion, resulting io the shear dirmorphic rock, e

ges of rock.

closely spaceh deformation

almost planarusually smoo

nted usually anundaries. The hese.

gradational bou

y or clayey, witopen cavity.e grained cryssuch as mica.crystallised wi

AND ROUGH

br. Descripti

ol Shiny sm

L Grooved

S Smooth to

F Many sma<1mm). F

R Many larg>1mm. Fe

om horizontal)asured as the

G DEF

Aper

Clos

ed by Ope

usually Infil

ONS AND OCK MATE

e preferred me

d

ded

d

dded

splacement, aair, water or so

ck has little oro the layering n planar anisorection or perpe.g. Schistosit

ed and planar n or metamorpboundaries ofth or slickensingular fragmenbrecciated fra

undaries, form

th very distinc

stalline rock du

thin rock throu

NESS

on

ooth surface

or striated sur

o touch. Few o

all surface irreFeels like fine tge surface irreeels like very c

) of the defect. acute angle to

FECT APERTU

rture Abbr

sed CL

en O

led -

EI E

DESCRIPERIAL AN

ethod given in

across which toil or rock subs

r no tensile stror stratificatio

otropy in the ropendicular to tty (SH) and G

surfaces resuphism, indepenf rock substanided joints or cnts of the hosagments may

med by weathe

ct roughly para

ue to the para

ugh typically o

rface, usually

or no surface

egularities (amto coarse san

egularities, amcoarse sandp

o the core axis

URE

r. Descriptio

Closed.

Without any

Soil or rock pyrite, quart


PTIONS FOD DEFEC

n AS1726 – 20

Spacing (m

<6 6 – 20

20 – 6060 – 200200 – 600

600 – 2,000> 2,000

he rock has litstance, which

rength, paralleon of a rock, ock material.the direction oneissosity.

ulting from ndent of beddnce cut by closcleavage plant rock substanbe of clay, silt

ering of the ro

allel boundarie

allel arrangeme

open-space fill

polished

irregularities

mplitude generdpaper

mplitude generaaper

s.

on

y infill material

i.e. clay, talc,tz, etc.

ev.D 2017

OR CTS

017,

mm)

0 0

ttle

el or

of

ing. sely es.

nce, t,

ck

es,

ent

ling

rally

ally

l.


APPENDIX B

LABORATORY CERTIFICATES

Client: Job No:

Project:

Test Procedure:

RMS T262 Determination of moisture content of aggregates (Standard method)

Sampling:

Sample No.

S29492

S29493

S29494

S29495

S29496

S29497

S29498

S29499

S29500

Authorised Signatory:

NATA Accredited Laboratory Number: 14874

EI Australia Pty Ltd S17501

MOISTURE CONTENT TEST REPORT

Preparation:

S29492-MCSuite 6.01, 55 Miller Street, Pyrmont, NSW 2009Address:

4/12/2017Date Sampled:

7 Luxford Rd, Mount Druitt E23648

Report No:

AS 1289 2.1.1 Soil moisture content tests - Determination of the moisture content of a soil - Oven drying method (Standard method).

AS4133 1.1.1 Rock moisture content tests - Determination of the moisture content of rock - Oven drying method (standard method)

RMS T120 Moisture content of road construction materials (Standard method)

Sampled by Client

Chris Lloyd

U8 10 Bradford Street

Alexandria NSW 2015

Macquarie Geotechnical

Date:

14/12/2017

Prepared in accordance with the test method

BH1 3-3.08m Gravelly Silty CLAY 9.9

BH1 6-6.2m Rock Chips 6.4

Source Sample Description Moisture Content %



BH2 1.8-1.83m Rock Chips 10.8


BH4 8-8.1m Silty Sandy CLAY 21.8

BH4 1.5-1.95m Silty CLAY 20.6

BH4 5-5.2m Silty Sandy GRAVEL 10.8

Notes:

The results of the tests, calibrations and/or measurements includedin this document are traceable to Australian/national standards.Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025. This document shallnot be reproduced, except in full.

Report Form:MC - AS Issue 1 - Revision C - Issue Date 29/06/16 Page1of1

Client: Source:

Project: Report No:

Job No: Lab No:

Test Procedure: AS1289 2.1.1

AS1289 3.1.1

AS1289 3.1.2 Soil classification tests - Determination of the liquid limit if a soil - One point Casagrande method (subsidiary method)

AS1289 3.2.1

AS1289 3.3.1

AS1289 3.4.1

Sampling:

Liquid Limit (%): 52 Linear Shrinkage (%): 10.5

Plastic Limit (%): 17 Plastic Index: 35

Field Moisture Content (%): -

Soil Preparation Method:

Soil History:

NATA Accredited Laboratory Number: 14874

EI Australia Pty Ltd BH4 1.5-1.95m

SOIL CLASSIFICATION REPORT

Preparation:

Silty CLAYSuite 6.01, 55 Miller Street, Pyrmont, NSW 2009Address:

Soil classification tests - Determination of the linear shrinkage of a soil - Standard method

S29498-PI

S29498

4/12/2017Date Sampled:

Soil classification tests - Determination of the plastic limit of a soil - Standard method

S17501

Soil moisture content tests (Oven drying method)

Authorised Signatory:

Sampled by Client

7 Luxford Rd, Mount Druitt E23648

Sample

Description:

Soil classification tests - Determination of the liquid limit of a soil - Four point casagrande method

Prepared in accordance with the test method

Chris Lloyd

Soil classification tests - Calculation of the plasticity Index of a soil

Oven Dried

Soil Condition:

Dry Sieved

Linear

U8 10 Bradford Street

Alexandria NSW 2015

Macquarie Geotechnical

Date:

14/12/2017

The results of the tests, calibrations and/or measurements included in thisdocument are traceable to Australian/national standards. Accredited forcompliance with ISO/IEC 17025. This document shall not be reproduced,except in full.

Inorganic Silts and Clays

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Pla

sti

cit

y I

nd

ex %

Liquid Limit %

Plasticity Chart for Classification of Fine-grained Soils

Clay

Silt

Report Form:PI LS Issue 1 - Revision F - Issue Date 22/02/17 Page1of1

Accreditation No. 2562

Date Reported

Contact

SGS Alexandria Environmental

Unit 16, 33 Maddox St

Alexandria NSW 2015

Huong Crawford

+61 2 8594 0400

+61 2 8594 0499

[email protected]

3

SGS Reference

Email

Facsimile

Telephone

Address

Manager

Laboratory

E23648.G02

E23648.G02 - 7 Luxford Rd, Mount Druitt

[email protected]

(Not specified)

61 2 95160722

SUITE 6.01

55 MILLER STREET

PYRMONT NSW 2009

EI AUSTRALIA

Bryan Zheng

Samples

Order Number

Project

Email

Facsimile

Telephone

Address

Client

CLIENT DETAILS LABORATORY DETAILS

12/12/2017

ANALYTICAL REPORT

SE173380 R0

Date Received 5/12/2017

COMMENTS

Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 - Testing. NATA accredited laboratory 2562(4354).

Dong Liang

Metals/Inorganics Team Leader

Huong Crawford

Production Manager

SIGNATORIES

Member of the SGS Group

www.sgs.com.aut +61 2 8594 0400

f +61 2 8594 0499

Australia

Australia

Alexandria NSW 2015

Alexandria NSW 2015

Unit 16 33 Maddox St

PO Box 6432 Bourke Rd BC

Environment, Health and SafetySGS Australia Pty Ltd

ABN 44 000 964 278

Page 1 of 612/12/2017

SE173380 R0ANALYTICAL RESULTS

pH in soil (1:5) [AN101] Tested: 8/12/2017

BH4_1.5-1.95 BH2_0.5-0.95 BH3_6.0-6.2

SOIL SOIL SOIL

- - -

4/12/2017 4/12/2017 4/12/2017

SE173380.001 SE173380.002 SE173380.003

pH pH Units - 6.1 4.7 8.4

UOMPARAMETER LOR

Page 2 of 612/12/2017


Conductivity and TDS by Calculation - Soil [AN106] Tested: 8/12/2017

BH4_1.5-1.95 BH2_0.5-0.95 BH3_6.0-6.2

SOIL SOIL SOIL

- - -

4/12/2017 4/12/2017 4/12/2017

SE173380.001 SE173380.002 SE173380.003

Conductivity of Extract (1:5 dry sample basis) µS/cm 1 860 760 640

UOMPARAMETER LOR

Page 3 of 612/12/2017


Soluble Anions (1:5) in Soil by Ion Chromatography [AN245] Tested: 6/12/2017

BH4_1.5-1.95 BH2_0.5-0.95 BH3_6.0-6.2

SOIL SOIL SOIL

- - -

4/12/2017 4/12/2017 4/12/2017

SE173380.001 SE173380.002 SE173380.003

Chloride mg/kg 0.25 1200 630 390

Sulfate mg/kg 5 140 420 110

UOMPARAMETER LOR

Page 4 of 612/12/2017


Moisture Content [AN002] Tested: 11/12/2017

BH4_1.5-1.95 BH2_0.5-0.95 BH3_6.0-6.2

SOIL SOIL SOIL

- - -

4/12/2017 4/12/2017 4/12/2017

SE173380.001 SE173380.002 SE173380.003

% Moisture %w/w 0.5 16 15 6.8

UOMPARAMETER LOR

Page 5 of 612/12/2017

SE173380 R0METHOD SUMMARY

METHOD METHODOLOGY SUMMARY

The test is carried out by drying (at either 40°C or 105°C) a known mass of sample in a weighed evaporating

basin. After fully dry the sample is re-weighed. Samples such as sludge and sediment having high percentages of

moisture will take some time in a drying oven for complete removal of water.

AN002

pH in Soil Sludge Sediment and Water: pH is measured electrometrically using a combination electrode and is

calibrated against 3 buffers purchased commercially. For soils, sediments and sludges, an extract with water (or

0.01M CaCl2) is made at a ratio of 1:5 and the pH determined and reported on the extract. Reference APHA

4500-H+.

AN101

Conductivity and TDS by Calculation: Conductivity is measured by meter with temperature compensation and is

calibrated against a standard solution of potassium chloride. Conductivity is generally reported as µmhos /cm or

µS/cm @ 25°C. For soils, an extract with water is made at a ratio of 1:5 and the EC determined and reported on

the extract, or calculated back to the as-received sample. Salinity can be estimated from conductivity using a

conversion factor, which for natural waters, is in the range 0.55 to 0.75. Reference APHA 2510 B.

AN106

Anions by Ion Chromatography: A water sample is injected into an eluent stream that passes through the ion

chromatographic system where the anions of interest ie Br, Cl, NO2, NO3 and SO4 are separated on their relative

affinities for the active sites on the column packing material. Changes to the conductivity and the UV -visible

absorbance of the eluent enable identification and quantitation of the anions based on their retention time and

peak height or area. APHA 4110 B

AN245

FOOTNOTES

*

**

NATA accreditation does not cover

the performance of this service.

Indicative data, theoretical holding

time exceeded.

-

NVL

IS

LNR

Not analysed.

Not validated.

Insufficient sample for analysis.

Sample listed, but not received.

Samples analysed as received.

Solid samples expressed on a dry weight basis.

Where "Total" analyte groups are reported (for example, Total PAHs, Total OC Pesticides) the total will be calculated as the sum of the individual

analytes, with those analytes that are reported as <LOR being assumed to be zero. The summed (Total) limit of reporting is calculated by summing

the individual analyte LORs and dividing by two. For example, where 16 individual analytes are being summed and each has an LOR of 0.1 mg/kg,

the "Totals" LOR will be 1.6 / 2 (0.8 mg/kg). Where only 2 analytes are being summed, the " Total" LOR will be the sum of those two LORs.

Some totals may not appear to add up because the total is rounded after adding up the raw values.

If reported, measurement uncertainty follow the ± sign after the analytical result and is expressed as the expanded uncertainty calculated using a

coverage factor of 2, providing a level of confidence of approximately 95%, unless stated otherwise in the comments section of this report.

Results reported for samples tested under test methods with codes starting with ARS -SOP, radionuclide or gross radioactivity concentrations are

expressed in becquerel (Bq) per unit of mass or volume or per wipe as stated on the report. Becquerel is the SI unit for activity and equals one

nuclear transformation per second.

Note that in terms of units of radioactivity:

a. 1 Bq is equivalent to 27 pCi

b. 37 MBq is equivalent to 1 mCi

For results reported for samples tested under test methods with codes starting with ARS -SOP, less than (<) values indicate the detection limit for

each radionuclide or parameter for the measurement system used. The respective detection limits have been calculated in accordance with ISO

11929.

The QC criteria are subject to internal review according to the SGS QAQC plan and may be provided on request or alternatively can be found here :

http://www.sgs.com.au/~/media/Local/Australia/Documents/Technical%20Documents/MP-AU-ENV-QU-022%20QA%20QC%20Plan.pdf

This document is issued by the Company under its General Conditions of Service accessible at www.sgs.com/en/Terms-and-Conditions.aspx.

Attention is drawn to the limitation of liability, indemnification and jurisdiction issues defined therein.

Any holder of this document is advised that information contained hereon reflects the Company 's findings at the time of its intervention only and

within the limits of Client's instructions, if any. The Company's sole responsibility is to its Client only. Any unauthorized alteration, forgery or

falsification of the content or appearance of this document is unlawful and offenders may be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law .

This report must not be reproduced, except in full.

UOM

LOR

↑↓

Unit of Measure.

Limit of Reporting.

Raised/lowered Limit of

Reporting.

Page 6 of 612/12/2017


APPENDIX C

IMPORTANT INFORMATION

Important Information

Rev.7, January 2016

SCOPE OF SERVICES

The geotechnical report (“the report”) has been prepared in accordance with the scope of services as set out in the contract, or as otherwise agreed, between the Client And EI Australia (“EI”). The scope of work may have been limited by a range of factors such as time, budget, access and/or site disturbance constraints.

RELIANCE ON DATA

EI has relied on data provided by the Client and other individuals and organizations, to prepare the report. Such data may include surveys, analyses, designs, maps and plans. EI has not verified the accuracy or completeness of the data except as stated in the report. To the extent that the statements, opinions, facts, information, conclusions and/or recommendations (“conclusions”) are based in whole or part on the data, EI will not be liable in relation to incorrect conclusions should any data, information or condition be incorrect or have been concealed, withheld, misrepresented or otherwise not fully disclosed to EI.

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

Geotechnical engineering is based extensively on judgment and opinion. It is far less exact than other engineering disciplines. Geotechnical engineering reports are prepared for a specific client, for a specific project and to meet specific needs, and may not be adequate for other clients or other purposes (e.g. a report prepared for a consulting civil engineer may not be adequate for a construction contractor). The report should not be used for other than its intended purpose without seeking additional geotechnical advice. Also, unless further geotechnical advice is obtained, the report cannot be used where the nature and/or details of the proposed development are changed.

LIMITATIONS OF SITE INVESTIGATION

The investigation programme undertaken is a professional estimate of the scope of investigation required to provide a general profile of subsurface conditions. The data derived from the site investigation programme and subsequent laboratory testing are extrapolated across the site to form an inferred geological model, and an engineering opinion is rendered about overall subsurface conditions and their likely behaviour with regard to the proposed development. Despite investigation, the actual conditions at the site might differ from those inferred to exist, since no subsurface exploration program, no matter how comprehensive, can reveal all subsurface details and anomalies. The engineering logs are the subjective interpretation of subsurface conditions at a particular location and time, made by trained personnel. The actual interface between materials may be more gradual or abrupt than a report indicates.

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ARE TIME DEPENDENT

Subsurface conditions can be modified by changing natural forces or man-made influences. The report is based on conditions that existed at the time of subsurface exploration. Construction operations adjacent to the site, and natural events such as floods, or ground water fluctuations, may also affect subsurface conditions, and thus the continuing adequacy of a geotechnical report. EI should be kept appraised of any such events, and should be consulted to determine if any additional tests are necessary.

VERIFICATION OF SITE CONDITIONS

Where ground conditions encountered at the site differ significantly from those anticipated in the report, either due to natural variability of subsurface conditions or construction activities, it is a condition of the report that EI be notified of any variations and be provided with an opportunity to review the recommendations of this report. Recognition of change of soil and rock conditions requires experience and it is recommended that a suitably experienced geotechnical engineer be engaged to visit the site with sufficient frequency to detect if conditions have changed significantly.

REPRODUCTION OF REPORTS

This report is the subject of copyright and shall not be reproduced either totally or in part without the express permission of this Company. Where information from the accompanying report is to be included in contract documents or engineering specification for the project, the entire report should be included in order to minimize the likelihood of misinterpretation from logs.

REPORT FOR BENEFIT OF CLIENT

The report has been prepared for the benefit of the Client and no other party. EI assumes no responsibility and will not be liable to any other person or organisation for or in relation to any matter dealt with or conclusions expressed in the report, or for any loss or damage suffered by any other person or organisation arising from matters dealt with or conclusions expressed in the report (including without limitation matters arising from any negligent act or omission of EI or for any loss or damage suffered by any other party relying upon the matters dealt with or conclusions expressed in the report). Other parties should not rely upon the report or the accuracy or completeness of any conclusions and should make their own inquiries and obtain independent advice in relation to such matters.

OTHER LIMITATIONS

EI will not be liable to update or revise the report to take into account any events or emergent circumstances or fact occurring or becoming apparent after the date of the report.