Soil Survey, Proposed Four Mile Mining Lease€¦ · Soils on the Four Mile MLA area can be classified as brown sandy clay profiles on the more elevated and better ... South Australia

J:\Jobs \42657089\6 Deli v\Final Report \42657089R001-1.doc

Soil Sur vey, Pr oposed Four Mil e Mini ng Lease

REPORT

Soil Survey, Proposed Four Mile Mining Lease

Prepared for

Quasar Resources Pty Ltd

Level 4 25 Grenfell Street Adelaide SA 5000

10 December 2008

42657089

S O I L S U R V E Y , P R O P O S E D F O U R M I L E M I N I N G L E A S E

Table of Contents

Prepared for Quasar Resources Pty Ltd, 10 December 2008 J:\Jobs\42657089\6 Deliv\Final Report\42657089R001-1.doc

i

Tabl e of Contents

ES Executive Summary ......................................................................................... 1

1 Background ...................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Context ............................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Objectives ........................................................................................................................ 2

1.3 Scope of Works ............................................................................................................... 2

1.4 Summary of Proposed Mining Operations................................................................... 2

1.5 Overview of Potential Soil Impacts from Mine Operations......................................... 2

2 Desktop Review................................................................................................ 5

2.1 Reviewed Documents..................................................................................................... 5

2.2 Climate, Topography, Geology and Soils..................................................................... 5

2.2.1 Climate.............................................................................................................. 5

2.2.2 Topography and Physiography......................................................................... 7

2.2.3 Terrain Patterns and Units................................................................................ 7

2.2.4 Surficial Geology............................................................................................... 8

2.2.5 Soil Types ......................................................................................................... 8

3 Fieldwork......................................................................................................... 11

3.1 Sampling Plan ............................................................................................................... 11

3.2 Survey and Sampling Methodology ............................................................................ 11

3.3 Analytical Program ....................................................................................................... 12

3.3.1 Quality Assurance........................................................................................... 12

4 Results ............................................................................................................ 13

4.1 Field Results.................................................................................................................. 13

4.2 Analytical Results ......................................................................................................... 13

4.2.1 pH ................................................................................................................... 13

4.2.2 Electrical Conductivity..................................................................................... 14

4.2.3 Exchangeable Cations.................................................................................... 14

4.2.4 Cation Exchange Capacity ............................................................................. 14

4.2.5 Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR) ..................................................................... 14

4.2.6 Major Anions................................................................................................... 14

4.3 Analytical Data Validation ............................................................................................ 17

5 Discussion ...................................................................................................... 19

5.1 Salinity and Sodicity ..................................................................................................... 19


Table of Contents


ii

5.2 Soil Structural Stability................................................................................................. 21

5.2.1 Slaking and Dispersion ................................................................................... 21

6 Conclusions, Recommendations and Limitations ...................................... 22

6.1 Conclusions................................................................................................................... 22

6.2 Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 22

6.3 Limitations ..................................................................................................................... 24

7 References...................................................................................................... 25


Tables, Figures, Plates and Appendices


iii

Tabl es, Figures , Plates and Appendi ces

Tables

Table 1-1 Traffic induced impacts of development activity on terrain features .......................................................3

Table 3-1 Sampling plan .................................................................................................................................11

Table 4-1 Generalised Sub Surface Conditions..............................................................................................13

Table 5-1 Soil Salinity Classes*.......................................................................................................................19

Table 5-2 Definition and Category of Sodicity in Australian soils*...................................................................20

Table 5-3 Effects of Salinity and Sodicity on Plant Growth and Soil Structure Stability*................................20

Tables (attached)

Table 1 Soil Analytical Results – Four Mile Project Test Pits

Figures (attached)

Figure 1 Site Location

Figure 2 Test Pit Location Plan

Figures (in text)

Figure 2-1 Annual Evaporation and Rainfall, Beverley

Figure 2-2 Quarterly Temperatures, Beverley

Figure 2-3 Topography and drainage

Figure 2-4 Atlas of Australian Soils mapping

Figure 4-1 Emerson Class Interpretation

Plates

Plate 1 View of soil profile within TP01

Plate 2 View of location of TP01 displaying gibber plain adjacent minor creekline


Plate 4 View of location of TP02 displaying scalded earth with scattered gibber


Plate 6 View of location of TP03 displaying gibber plain


Plate 8 View of location of TP04 displaying a floodplain with scalded earth and scattered gibber


Plate 10 View of location of TP05 displaying bare earth with scattered gravel within Four Mile Creek



Tables, Figures, Plates and Appendices


iv


Plate 13 View of soil profile of TP07

Plate 14 View of location of TP07 displaying undulating gibber plain between two minor creeks


Plate 16 View of location of TP08 displaying elevated gibber plain




Plate 20 View of location of TP10 displaying elevated gibber plain

Appendices

A Laboratory Reports and Chain of Custody Documentation

B Analytical Data Validation

C Test Pit Logs


Executive Summary


ES-1

ES Executi ve Summar y

Quasar Resources Pty Ltd (Quasar) commissioned URS Australia Pty Ltd (URS) on 9 July 2008 to undertake a

soil survey at the proposed Four Mile Mining Lease Area (Four Mile MLA) located adjacent to the Heathgate

Resources Pty Ltd Beverley Uranium Mine Lease Area (Beverley) on the arid plains between the Northern

Flinders Ranges and Lake Frome. Four Mile is approximately 600 km north of Adelaide and 300 km north-east

of Port Augusta, South Australia. Quasar proposes that the initial mining of the Four Mile MLA would be by In-

Situ Recovery (ISR) methods, utilizing the existing Beverley infrastructure and workforce for processing the

uranium.

This report is one of a several baseline studies that will contribute to the environmental approval process that

include a Public Environment Report (PER) required under the Australian Government Environment Protection

and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Four Mile Uranium Mine EPBC 2008/4252), a Lease Proposal and

Mining and Rehabilitation Program (MARP) required under the South Australian Mining Act 1971.

The objectives of this soil survey were to summarise the available descriptive information on soils with reference

to the landforms, provide indicative baseline chemical and physical data of soil across various landforms, and to

provide recommendations for management of the soils across the general landforms to minimise degradation of

soil structure and erosion. This soil survey did not map the distribution of the main soil types across the study

area but was designed to describe the physical and chemical nature of soils likely to be present across the

proposed mining Four Mile lease area.

The scope of works included review available published material and aerial photographs to determine the major

landform and soil types in the vicinity of the site, excavation of test pits across the site and testing of soil

samples for analysis for soil physical and chemical characterisation, reporting on observed soils and discussion

of soil analytical results with reference to the soil properties.

The investigation test pit locations were designed to assess variation in soil parent materials and soil physical

properties in the vicinity of likely development areas within the proposed MLA (e.g. trunklines, wellfields, roads)

and across landform types (low and high elevation gibber plains, minor and major floodplains).

Soils on the Four Mile MLA area can be classified as brown sandy clay profiles on the more elevated and better

drained areas and brown sandy clay underlain by clayey gravel profiles on the floodplain zone of the lower

plains. The topography of the majority of the site is relatively flat or gently sloping and as such the risk of

significant rill erosion and runoff is likely to be low where the natural soil surface is protected from channelled

overland flow. Gibbers are present at the surface of much of the plains of the site; the resulting surface has a

low permeability but is generally considered quite resistant to water erosion.

The surface soils are saline (low to moderately low salinity) and non-sodic while subsoils are saline (high

salinity) and sodic. Variations in this pattern were associated with enhanced leaching along major creek lines.

Soils across the site have low wet strength, slaking when wet. This limits their traffickability when wet.

The baseline data also established background soil chemical conditions (primarily pH, electrical conductivity and

major ion chemistry) in the event of an unexpected chemical release such as saline extraction solutions from the

trunkline.

Management strategies are presented to minimise soil degradation and erosion from activities such as

excavation, handling and stockpiling of materials including topsoils during development of roads, tracks,

structures such as wellhouses, and mud pits for drilling. It is noted that it is not the disturbance of soil per se that

has the potential to cause environmental impacts at the site; rather it is the potential for soil disturbance to lead

to problems such as enhanced erosion and sedimentation or difficulties with later rehabilitation and

revegetation.


Background Section 1


1

1 Backgrou nd

1.1 Context

Quasar Resources Pty Ltd (Quasar) commissioned URS Australia Pty Ltd (URS) on 9 July 2008 to undertake a

soil survey at the proposed Four Mile Mining Lease Area (Four Mile MLA) located adjacent to the Heathgate

Resources Pty Ltd (Heathgate) Beverley Uranium Mine Lease Area (Beverley) on the arid plains between the

Northern Flinders Ranges and Lake Frome. Four Mile is approximately 600 km north of Adelaide and 300 km

north-east of Port Augusta, South Australia (Figure 1). The survey area encompassed the Four Mile lease area

(Figure 2).

This report is one of a several baseline studies that will contribute to the environmental approval process that

include a Public Environment Report (PER) required under the Australian Government Environment Protection

and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Four Mile Uranium Mine EPBC 2008/4252), a Lease Proposal and

Mining and Rehabilitation Program (MARP) required under the South Australian Mining Act 1971. The

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEH) and the Minerals Group within Primary

Industries and Resources SA (PIRSA) prepared guidelines on 17 September 2008 for the Lease Proposal and

MARP. Guideline criteria that are addressed (in full or partially) in this report are listed below.

4.13 Topsoil and subsoil

Describe and map the profile (type and depth) and the characteristics (e.g. cracking clays, light red soils,

red/brown earth – including productivity) of all soils on the proposed mine site. Identify any soil aspects that may

be an issue for disturbance or rehabilitation (e.g. acid sulphate, saline, non-wettable, etc)

4.16 Pre-existing site contamination and previous disturbance

Details should be given of any known contamination of the site and of any disturbance by previous mining

operations or other activities. Provide baseline soil physico-chemical properties of the site.

A detailed plan and cross-sections may be required to support this section.

5.5.4 Silt control and drainage

The following information must be provided on silt control and drainage:

• Location and design of silt management structures (e.g. silt retention dams)

• Runoff control on disturbed and rehabilitated areas

• Storage, diversion and disposal of clean water (discharge must comply with the applicable EPA water

policy)

Note that certified engineering and geo-technical design may be required for silt retention structures (if

considered necessary)

A plan showing the surface water movement for the whole mine site must be included to support this section.

The soil investigations conducted historically have been limited to description of the lithology and radionuclide

analysis of surface soils within creek lines. It is understood that no laboratory testing has been previously

carried out to assess the chemical and physical properties of surface and shallow subsurface soils across the

site.




2

1.2 Objectives

The objectives of this soil survey were to:

• summarise the available descriptive information on soils with reference to the landforms

• provide indicative baseline chemical and physical data of soil across various landforms

• provide recommendations for management of the soils across the general landforms to minimise

degradation of soil structure and erosion.

We note that this soil survey did not map the distribution of the main soil types across the study area but was

designed to describe the physical and chemical nature of soils likely to be present across the proposed Four

Mile MLA.

1.3 Scope of Works

Quasar requested the following scope of works for the soil survey:

• review available published material and aerial photographs to determine the major landform and soil

types in the vicinity of the site

• excavation of 10 test pits to an approximate depth of 1.5 m, logging of soils according to Australian

Standards (AS1726-1993) and collection of samples for analysis for soil physical and chemical

characterisation

• prepare a factual report summarising the existing soils and terrain information, describing soils

encountered in the test pits, and presenting and discussing soil analytical results with reference to the

soil properties

• present recommendations for management of the soils across the general landforms in the proposed

Four Mile MLA to minimise risk of soil structure degradation and erosion.

1.4 Summary of Proposed Mining Operations

Quasar proposes that the initial mining of the Four Mile MLA would be by In-Situ Recovery (ISR) methods,

utilizing the existing Beverley infrastructure and workforce for processing the uranium. Quasar has appointed

Heathgate as the mining operator for the project.

Mining will involve a pattern of injection and recovery wells drilled into the ore zone (‘the wellfield’). Groundwater

conditioned by an oxidant (hydrogen peroxide) and dilute sulphuric acid will be injected into the orebody to

dissolve the uranium; the recovery wells then pump the extraction solution containing dissolved uranium to the

surface for processing.

A satellite plant would be constructed at Four Mile, in which the uranium would be removed from the ISR liquor

by physical means, producing uranium-bearing resin, which would be trucked to the Beverley processing plant.

The resin would then be stripped of uranium and trucked back to the satellite plant.

1.5 Overview of Potential Soil Impacts from Mine Operations

Mining operations include the following activities that could have potential soil impacts such as erosion and

sedimentation and soil structural degradation:




3

• pedestrian foot traffic

• vehicle and machinery traffic (including off existing tracks)

• construction of roads

• excavation of mud pits for drilling

• construction and commissioning of wellfields including drilling, pipelines, wellhouses and bunds.

• clearance or degradation of vegetation.

A comparable study (Woodburn Associates 1996) assessed documented the traffic induced impacts from

development activity at the Beverley Uranium Mine (similar activities to those proposed at Four Mile). The

terrain features and soil disturbance and erosion issues are summarised in Table 1-1.

Table 1-1 Traffic induced impacts of development activity on terrain features

Activity Gibber and

Gilgai

Broad

gullies of

dissection

slopes

Major

creeks

and

streams

Gently

sloping

plains

Broad

drainage

depressions

Dune fields

Light foot traffic

No effect No effect No effect No effect No effect Little effect

Concentrated foot traffic

Possible dust nuisance due to loss of vegetation cover in gilgais

Slight deflation due to loss of surface vegetation

Possible deflation arising from loss of surface vegetation

Single vehicle

No effect No effect No effect No effect No effect Some breakage of low shrubs reducing surface protection

Multiple vehicles

Dust nuisance and rutting, particularly in Gilgai areas and on slopes

Rutting and erosion will occur when wet

No effect Dust nuisance, rutting and creation of hard surfaces when wet

Dust nuisance, rutting and possible erosion

Loss of vegetation and deflation

Light construction traffic

Disturbance will result in erosion on slopes

Erosion may be accelerated due to further breakdown of exposed surfaces

Possible alteration of drainage patterns

Breakdown of surface, dusty when dry, rutting, erosion and creation of hard surfaces when wet

Similar to gently sloping plains

Loss of vegetation and deflation

Heavy construction traffic

Complete breakdown of gibber and Gilgai surfaces, wind and water erosion

Complete breakdown of surfaces with accelerated erosion

Possible alteration of drainage patterns

Complete breakdown of surface bonding, wind and water erosion

Similar to gently sloping plains

Complete loss of vegetation; deflation and drifts

Source:Woodburn Associates 1988




4

Table 1-1 indicates that low intensity traffic will have little effect on gibber-patterned surfaces, drainage gullies

and depressions, and the gently sloping plains. However low intensity traffic could cause surface disturbance

leading to erosion on the dissection slopes.

More intense traffic, involving heavy vehicles or regular light vehicle movements during development, could

break down the stability of the soil surface over wellfield areas. This impact can be minimised elsewhere if

vehicle traffic movements are restricted to designated roadways.


Desktop Review Section 2


5

2 Desktop R eview

2.1 Reviewed Documents

URS reviewed the following documents in the desktop study to provide information on surficial geology, terrain/

landform patterns and units, physiography and soil types within the local and regional area:

• Callen, R.A. and Tedford, R.H., undated. New Late Cainzoic Rock Units and Depositional

Environments, Lake Frome Area, South Australia.

• Department for Environment and Heritage, 2006. Management Plan: Vulkathunha - Gammon Ranges

National Park 2006.

• Heathgate Resources, 1998. Beverley Uranium Mine Environmental Impact Statement, June 1998.

• Heathgate Resources, 2005. Environment Management and Monitoring Plan (EMMP), Beverley Mine,

Doc No. MP-05, Revision 1, September 2005.

• Heathgate Resources, 2008. Beverley Mine Mining and Rehabilitation Program, September 2008.

• Northern Flinders Soil Conservation Board, 1997. Northern Flinders Ranges Soil Conservation Board

District Plan.

• URS, 2006. Beverley Uranium Mine EL 3251 – Geology Study Part 1, Ref: 42656422.05002 Draft, 9

June 2006.

• URS, 2007. Mining Proposal for Proposed Extension of Beverley Uranium Mine, Ref: 42213777, 21

December 2007.

• Woodburn Associates, 1996. Heathgate Resources Pty Ltd Beverley Uranium Project; Terrain Analysis

and Assessment, Report No. AWA 1670, 24 December 1996.

2.2 Climate, Topography, Geology and Soils

2.2.1 Climate

Four Mile MLA is located in an arid region of South Australia, adjacent to the Northern Flinders Ranges and in

their rain shadow. The area is characterised by low but highly variable, average rainfall. Meteorological data is

collected continuously at the Beverley weather tower.

Wooltana station homestead and Arkaroola are the closest Bureau of Meteorology rainfall recording stations to

the Beverley site (Figure 3-1). Mean annual rainfall at Wooltana at the foot of the Ranges is 192 mm (median

164 mm) and at Arkaroola within the Ranges the mean and median rainfall are 251 mm and 212 mm

respectively. There is a one-year-in-ten expectation of an annual total less than 80 mm.

Rainfall data is collected at the Beverley meteorological station using a tipping bucket and recorded every hour.

Six full years of rainfall data are available (2002 – 2007). The average of these six years is 109 mm; however,

the length of record is not sufficient to consider this the average rainfall of the site. Based on its location in the

rain shadow of the Ranges the average rainfall of the mining lease can be estimated at approximately 150 –

200 mm/yr.

Evaporation is measured at Beverley using a standard above-ground Class A evaporation pan located adjacent

to the weather tower, with a precision level meter linked to the weather station that logs every 24 hours. The

six-year average (2002-2007) is 3,433 mm/yr but this has occurred during below-average rainfall. The




6

estimated long-term average pan evaporation for the Beverley site, based on regional trends, is likely to be

between 3,000 and 3,500 mm.

Annual evaporation and rainfall data to date are shown in Figure 2-1.

Figure 2-1 Annual Pan Evaporation and Rainfall, Beverley

For November to March, mean maximum temperatures exceed 30°C and daily temperatures may exceed 40°C. Summer mean minima are around 20°C. Mean maximum temperatures are lowest for June and July, around 15°C. Mean minimum temperatures are <10°C, with <0°C daily minima recorded. Frosts are frequent, although actual white frosts appear less frequently because of the dryness of the air.

Mean and maximum temperatures on a quarterly basis to date are shown in Figure 2-2.

Figure 2-2 Quarterly Temperatures, Beverley




7

2.2.2 Topography and Physiography

A series of ephemeral water courses, rising in the Flinders Ranges, flow in a generally easterly direction across

the site. The largest of the watercourses in the vicinity is Four Mile Creek, which has a catchment area of

approximately 100 km2 (URS, 2007).

Figure 2-3 Topography and drainage

The Four Mile MLA is on the western boundary of a broad, almost featureless plain approximately 45 km wide

lying between the eastern margin of the Northern Flinders Ranges and Lake Frome. Maximum relief on the site

is approximately 110 m. Woodburn Associates (1996) describe the physiography of the site in more detail.

2.2.3 Terrain Patterns and Units

Historical terrain mapping and assessment covering most of the Four Mile lease area and the adjacent the

Beverley mining lease was carried out by Woodburn and Associates (1996). From this study, the following

terrain units (local area based on physiographic features) and patterns (regional area based on landscape

types) were recognised:

• the patterned Gilgai and gibber areas

• the major streams (alluvium)

• the broadly re-entrant drainage lines and gullies of the dissection slopes




8

• the flat to very gently sloping or undulating plains with some gilgai units

• discontinuous flat to very gently easterly sloping High Plain generally above 110 m elevation

• gently to steeply sloping dissection slopes of the High Plain generally between 80 and 110 m elevation

• gently sloping, broadly rounded foot slopes and interfluves of the second-order streams forming the lower

margin of the High Plain generally between 70 and 90 m elevation.

2.2.4 Surficial Geology

The oldest sediments influencing the land surface characteristics are the relatively thick deposits of the

Willawortina formation. These comprise extremely to very poorly sorted brown, bouldery to pebbly, silty or

sandy clays with some carbonate nodules. Close to the Ranges the sediments are coarser with cobbles and

large boulders. This unit underlies the High Plains, west of the Poontana Fault, and crops out towards the base

of some of the dissection slopes, particularly those associated with Paralana and Four Mile Creeks (Heathgate

Resources, 1998). The presence of extremely poor sorting, numerous channels with medium scale cross

bedding and laminated calcareous silts with red-mottling and carbonate concretions typical of flood plain

deposits indicate deposition in an alluvial fan environment for the Willawortina formation.

The late Pleistocene, Eurinalla formation overlies the Willawortina formation both conformably and

unconformably. The Eurinalla formation comprises clayey fine to medium grained, poorly sorted orange brown

sands, impregnated with gypsum at the base. The sands are interbedded with grey-green brown sandy and

silty clays (Woodburn Associates, 1996). The Eurinalla formation is indicated as the parent material of the soils

of the more elevated areas. On the Low Plains, east of the Poontana Fault, there are extensive fluvial sediments

forming very low angle fan and sheet deposits overlying the Eurinalla formation.

At the land surface, the sediments of the Coonarbine formation consist of a thin veneer of reddish brown sands

and silty and clayey sands (Heathgate Resources ,1998).

2.2.5 Soil Types

Broadscale mapping across the study area in the Atlas of Australian Soils identified the soils as Sodosols.

These soils are typically deep, have a strong texture contrast between the surface and subsoil horizons and

have accumulation of exchangeable sodium in the subsoil that makes them highly dispersive and erodible by

water. Consequently, once the surface is disturbed the erosion risk is high.




9

Figure 2-4 Atlas of Australian Soils mapping

The Flinders Soil Conservation Board (1997) mapping delineated the land systems across the district and

identified that the survey area is located within the Mumpie Plains (Mm) land system comprising undulating

gibber tablelands with gilgais. Gilgai is a ‘micro-relief’ associated with cracking clay soils that consists of

depressions and/or hummocks of varying size, shape and frequency. Shrink-swell properties with changes in

moisture content in the subsoils cause heaving that leads to the microrelief.

Soil survey of the nearby Gammon Ranges National Park, south-east of the site (Department of Environment

and Heritage 2006) described two main soil groups, namely reddish loams and deep duplex soils. All soils are

alkaline, which is a reflection of the arid environment. The reddish loams are more common than the deep

duplex soils that are limited in their extent to the stony plains, pediments, tablelands and broad undissected

areas of alluvial fans. Apart from the Gilgai soils the soils are massive and hardsetting. These features limit

infiltration from rainfall and exacerbate runoff and erosion risks.

Previous descriptions of soils (topsoil and subsoils) on the site have noted that soil surface material varies

across the site from boulders and cobbles in a sandy matrix, through gravels and sands to silts and clays (URS,

2007). The quartz, quartzite and granite gibbers found on many of the flatter surfaces occur mainly on scald

areas with little vegetation.

Soils of the plains were in almost all cases soils silty or sandy clays of medium to high plasticity, grading rapidly

to clays (Woodburn Associates, 1996). Soil associations in the study area were described from drilling and

logging of thirty shallow pushtube boreholes as follows:

• soils of the Low Plains are generally reddish brown, very silty and sandy clays grading to gravel at depth of

1.5 m or greater

• soil profiles of the High Plains and upper elevations of the Low Plains comprise duplex, crusty red-brown

sandy and silty clays with gibber/ gilgai patterning overlying heavier blocky brown clays




10

• soils in the slight depressions comprise brown very silty clays, gilgai soils exhibiting a cracked (0.3 and

about 0.7 m depth), loose or “puffy” brown soil surface in drier periods, with only occasional gibber.

• soils on the dissected slopes have the surface horizon in many cases been removed by erosion, resulting in

a gibber surface with uniform clay profile for 1 to 1.5 m, with gravel at depth

• alluvial soils on creeklines consisting of recently and reworked deposits of major stream channels and the

finer alluvium of levees and adjacent flats, comprising deep clean sands with the major channels and

gravels and sands in the banks and bars.

Woodburn Associates (1996) noted that loss of the surface soil horizon has occurred at the heads of small

gullies towards the upper sections of the dissection slopes and in the lower sections of the drainage channels,

exposing the underlying high plastic clays. These clays, along with others from the site were not dispersive

(Class 4 dispersion rating, indicating slaking of aggregates in water upon wetting but generally no dispersion

occurs).


Fieldwork Section 3


11

3 Field work

3.1 Sampling Plan

The investigation test pit locations were designed to assess variation in soil parent materials and soil physical

properties in the vicinity of likely development areas within the proposed mining lease (e.g. trunklines, wellfields,

roads). Also, the landform variation (low and high elevation gibber plains, minor and major floodplains) was

sampled. The sampling plan is outlined in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1 Sampling plan

Test Pit Physiography/ Terrain Development Area/ Feature

TP01 Low Gibber Plain, scattered gibber surface Nearby proposed trunkline and plant road

TP02 Inferred floodplain with area of scalded earth with scattered gravel

Nearby proposed trunkline and plant road

TP03 Gibber Plain with slight slope Four Mile East – wellfield development area

TP04 Minor creek floodplain with scattered gravel

Four Mile East – future development not specified

TP05 Floodplain area of Four Mile Creek Four Mile East - possible access road

TP06 High Gibber Plain with slight slope Four Mile West – potential future wellfield development area

TP07 Gibber Plain, undulating between two minor creeklines

Four Mile West – future development not specified

TP08 High Gibber Plain, slight slope, vegetated Four Mile East – potential future wellfield development area

TP09 Gibber surface, slight slope Four Mile West – future development not specified

TP10 High Gibber Plain Four Mile South (highest elevation in area with exception of areas) – future development not specified

3.2 Survey and Sampling Methodology

Soil samples were collected according to relevant Australian Standards (Standards Australia 2005, AS4482-

2005).

Heathgate’s Aboriginal Liaison Officer reviewed and approved permits to access to locations before movement

of the field vehicle and backhoe off existing tracks and intrusive works were commenced, to ensure that no

areas of Aboriginal cultural heritage significance were disturbed,.

Ten investigation test pits (TP01 to TP10) were excavated to approximately 2.0 m depth below ground level

using a backhoe with a 600 mm wide toothed bucket. Test pits were benched to allow safe access for the URS

environmental scientist to carry out logging and collection of samples.

Soils were logged according to the method outlined in AS1726-1993; the logs are presented in Appendix C. All

test pits were backfilled with excavated soil prior to abandonment.

Soil samples were generally collected using clean nitrile gloves and a hand trowel from discrete layers. Soil

samples were placed in laboratory supplied, clean glass jars which were sealed with teflon lined lids or clean

plastic ‘snap-lock’ bags, labelled and placed within eskies prior to and during delivery to URS Adelaide (and

then the laboratory) under chain of custody protocols.

The location of each test pit was marked using a Global Positioning System (GPS). Test pit locations are

attached in Figure 2.


Fieldwork Section 3


12

3.3 Analytical Program

Selected soil samples, typically surface soils and top of each lithology were submitted to a National Association

of Testing Authorities (NATA) accredited laboratory (ALS Environmental, Brisbane) to be analysed for:

General parameters (all samples):

• pH

• Electrical conductivity (salinity)

Cation exchange properties (15 samples from 5 representative locations, namely test pits TP01, TP04, TP05,

TP08, TP09 covering various general landform):

• exchangeable cations (Ca2+, Mg

2+, Al

3+, Na

+, K

+) and anions (Cl

-, SO4

2-)

• cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) in accordance with the Rayment and Higginson (1992) method

• sodium adsorption ratio (SAR)

Dispersion properties (15 samples from 5 representative locations, namely test pits TP01, TP04, TP05, TP08,

TP09 covering various general landforms):

• slaking and dispersion potential, measured as the Emerson Class Number (AS1289 cl. 3.8.1) .

Research House Laboratory, a NATA accredited laboratory, conducted the dispersion tests.

3.3.1 Quality Assurance

In addition to the analysis of blind field duplicate samples (minimum 10% of primary samples), selected field

triplicate samples (minimum 10% of primary samples) were also submitted to Labmark Environmental, a NATA

accredited laboratory, for analysis of the above analytes.

It is noted that the laboratories’ NATA accreditation did not cover analysis of Emerson Class Number and

Exchangeable Cations (Labmark only).


Results Section 4


13

4 Resu lts

4.1 Field Results

The sub surface conditions encountered in the test pits indicate a generalised sub surface profile as outlined in

the table below.

Table 4-1 Generalised Sub Surface Conditions

Depth Description

0 - 0.1 Silty Sandy CLAY; low to medium plasticity, brown to orange brown, fine sand, minor quartz gravels, occasional minor gibber gravel and cobbles at surface

0.1 – 1.0 Silty Sandy CLAY; medium to high plasticity, brown, fine sand, inferred calcareous, blocky

1.0 – 2.0 Silty Clayey GRAVEL; fine to coarse, brown with occasional white staining, calcareous silt, with some mixed cobbles, gravels and cobbles comprising mix of one or more of schist, quartzite, gneiss, pegmatite and granite.

Differences in soil morphology were associated with variation in physiography as follows:

• major ephemeral creekline (Four Mile Creek) dissecting the landscape - layers of sands and gravels were

encountered to depth (test pit TP05)

• floodplain areas or surface gibber in the vicinity of minor or major creeklines - a subsurface layer of gravel

was encountered in the majority of test pits (with the exception of test pit TP02)

• higher elevation surface consisting of gibber plains distant from ephemeral drainage or creeklines -

encountered only clay throughout the profile (three test pits TP01, TP06 and TP10).

No fill materials, unusual staining or odours were observed within the test pits.

Light colours in some subsoils indicated the presence of carbonates.

Mixed rock types at depth with gravels and cobbles indicated of alluvial parent material (transport by water) or

colluvial soil (transport by gravity) rather than residual soils formed from rock in-situ.

The soil morphologies were similar to that observed by Woodburn Associates (1996).

4.2 Analytical Results

The analytical results were however compared against published criteria for the evaluation and classification of

soils according to chemical and physical properties such as acidity/ alkalinity, salinity, sodicity, slaking and

dispersion. Soil analytical results, with laboratory certificates and chain of custody documentation presented

within Appendix A. Analytical results are summarised in Table 1 (attached).

4.2.1 pH

In general, soil pH values indicated slightly alkaline to alkaline conditions within surface and subsurface soils

and occasional variation with depth. Soil pH varied from 7.1 in subsurface soil from test pit TP05 to 9.6 in

subsurface soil from test pit TP04.


Results Section 4


14

4.2.2 Electrical Conductivity

Electrical conductivity (EC) reflects the leaching environment, which is associated with water redistribution and

infiltration in the landscape. EC was observed to increase with soil depth. For example, surface soil EC in test

pit TP08 was 27 µs/cm and subsurface EC was 5,860 µs/cm.

Reported EC in surface soils (i.e. top 100 to 200 mm) were less than the guideline for saline soils (1,000 µs/cm)

with the exception of sample TP06_0-0.1 (3,310 µs/cm).

Subsurface soil EC varied between 3,000 to 5,000 µs/cm with a some exceptions such as TP05_0.75-0.95

(such as 107 µs/cm), which was located within a major ephemeral creekline that created an enhanced leaching

environment. .

4.2.3 Exchangeable Cations

Exchangeable cations reflect soil mineralogy, leaching environment and fertility status. The reported

concentrations of exchangeable cations indicate that the cation exchange surfaces of the clay fraction in these

soils are dominated by Ca2+. The order of dominance (highest to lowest concentrations) within samples is

generally Ca2+ then Mg

2+ or Na

+ and finally K

+.

4.2.4 Cation Exchange Capacity

The cation exchange capacity (CEC) is defined as the measure of the total capacity of a soil to hold

exchangeable cations, given in units of charge/ unit mass of soil (cmol(+)/kg = meq/100g). It therefore indicates

the negative charge present per unit mass of soil. Reported concentrations of CEC varied from 6 meq/100g soil

in surface sample TP09_0-0.2 to 169 meq/100 g soil in subsurface sample TP05_1.0-1.2, the highest reported

CEC values corresponding with high reported sample EC concentrations. Higher CEC values were generally

reported in samples of clay material compared to gravel material, but with some exceptions. The sum of the

exchangeable cations Ca2+, Mg

2+, Na

+, K

+ and Al

3+ is reported equivalent to the CEC.

4.2.5 Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR)

The SAR is expressed as the ratio of exchangeable cations (Na+) / (Ca

2+ + Mg

2+). Reported SAR values ranged

from 0.88 in samples TP01_0.2-0.4 and TP09_0-0.2 to 15.1 in TP08_0.15-0.35, with the majority of samples

reporting values less than 5, indicating non-sodic or low sodic conditions. Reported values varied widely

between primary and interlaboratory duplicate sample results but are considered repeatable when compared to

blind field duplicate sample results. Analysed surface soil samples generally reported SAR values indicative of

non-sodic conditions. Near surface samples of clay soils, TP08_0.15-0.25 and TP09_0.25-0.45 reported SAR

value of 15.1 and 14, respectively, indicating highly sodic conditions. A discussion of the results with reference

to sodicity is presented in Section 5.1.

4.2.6 Major Anions

The highest reported sulphate concentrations corresponded with high reported sample EC concentrations.

Reported concentrations of sulphate (as SO42-) varied markedly from 20 mg/kg in samples TP04_0-0.05 and

TP04_0.65-0.85 to 12,900 mg/kg in sample TP01_1.4-1.6, with the majority of sample concentrations below

100 mg/kg.

Most of the surface soil samples analysed reported concentrations of chloride below or slightly above the

laboratory limits of reporting (LOR), indicative of chloride (a conservative ion) being leached to depth. Reported

concentrations of chloride also varied markedly from below the LOR of 10 mg/kg in a number of samples up to


Results Section 4


15

3,040 mg/kg in sample TP08_0.15-0.35. All soil samples from test pit TP04 reported concentrations of chloride

below the LOR, but also reported low EC concentrations.

Emerson Class

The Emerson test (AS1289 cl.3.8.1) gives a semi-quantitative assessment of the stability of the soil when wet

and is used to indicate erodibility by water. Emerson Class Number varied from 3.1 to 6, indicating a tendency

of all soil to slake upon wetting with no or partial dispersion, as discussed in Section 5.2.1 Emerson Class

interpretations are outlined in Figure 4-1.


Results Section 4


16

Figure 4-1 Emerson class interpretation


Results Section 4


17

4.3 Analytical Data Validation

Validation summary reports and tables of field duplicates, laboratory duplicates are provided as Appendix B.

Data validation guidelines were based upon guidance documents published by the United States Environmental

Protection Agency (US EPA, 1999 and 2002). The process involves the checking of analytical procedure

compliance and an assessment of the accuracy and precision of analytical data from a range of quality control

measurements, generated from both the field sampling and analytical programs.

Specific elements that have been checked and assessed for this project include the following:

• preservation and storage of samples upon collection and during transport to the laboratory

• sample holding times

• use of appropriate analytical and field sampling procedures

• required limits of reporting

• frequency of conducting quality control measurements

• laboratory blank results

• field duplicate results

• laboratory duplicate results

• matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) results

• surrogate spike results

• apparently unusual or anomalous results, e.g. laboratory results that are inconsistent with field observations

or measurements.

Based on the analytical data validation procedure employed, the overall quality of the analytical data produced

was considered to be of an acceptable standard for interpretive use. However, the following were noted:

• The recommended holding time for the extraction of pH, conductivity, soluble major ions and chloride and

the analysis of moisture content in soil is 1 week. This is not considered to affect the interpretation of the

results, however results may potentially be biased compared with field measurements of pH and

conductivity.

• Field duplicate relative percent differences (RPDs) were elevated for a number of exchangeable ions in

TP08_0.15-0.35 and its corresponding intra-laboratory (QC11_20/09/08) and inter-laboratory

(QC12_20/09/08) field duplicates. RPDs were also elevated for sulphate, sodium adsorption ratio and cation

exchange capacity in the inter-laboratory (QC12_20/09/08) field duplicate. The lack of precision for all

analytes listed above is related to high natural soil variability in relation to sample size taken and should be

taken into consideration when evaluating results.

• Field duplicate RPDs were elevated for chloride, exchangeable potassium and exchangeable sodium in

TP01_0-0.2 and its corresponding intra-laboratory field duplicate QC03_20/09/08. Field duplicate RPDs

were also elevated for exchangeable and electrical conductivity in inter-laboratory field duplicate

QC04_20/09/08. This apparent lack of precision for all analytes listed above is related to high natural soil

variability in relation to sample size taken and should be taken into consideration when evaluating results.


Results Section 4


18

• Matrix spike (MS) recoveries were not reported for exchangeable cations for batch EB0813632. However,

laboratory control samples (LCS) were reported within acceptable control limits, confirming confidence in

the results.


Discussion Section 5


19

5 Discussion

5.1 Salinity and Sodicity

Salinity

Electrical conductivity (EC) is a measure of soil salinity. A soil is defined as being saline when the level of

salinity of soil water (concentration of ions) affects plant growth. However, plants have different susceptibilities

to soil salinity. Soil salinity classes for Australian conditions have developed on the basis of restriction of growth

to crop plants, not on the basis of restriction of growth to native pastures or endemic plant species. Table 5-1

presents a soil salinity classification accepted in South Australia.

Table 5-1 Soil Salinity Classes*

EC1:5 (dS/m)

Class of Soil Salinity ECse

(dS/m) Sand Sandy Loam Clay Loam Clay

Low <2 0.17 0.20 0.29 0.40

Moderately Low 2-4 0.33 0.40 0.57 0.80

Moderate 4-8 0.50 0.60 0.86 1.20

Moderately High >8 0.67 0.80 1.14 1.60

* As sourced from Kelly and Rengasamy (2006)

Referring to Table 5-1, the surface soils were classified as low to moderately low salinity while subsoils were

classified as highly saline. The leaching environment influences the degree of salt accumulation in a soil.

Leaching environment is related to water distribution in the landscape, soil permeability, the presence of

vegetation (evapotranspiration) and the amount and seasonal distribution of rainfall (Shaw, 1999). Arid

conditions associated with low rainfall and high evaporation have lead to the accumulation of salts over time in

subsoils in the study area. This is a feature that reduces the ability of soils to support vegetation once the

surface soil is removed.

Sodicity

Sodicity is expressed as the amount of sodium relative to exchangeable calcium and magnesium in the soil. A

soil is sodic when there is sufficient sodium to interfere with its structural stability, often affecting plant growth

(Kelly & Rengasamy, 2006). When sufficient exchangeable sodium is present to influence soil behaviour, soil is

said to be sodic.

Leaching of cations other than sodium (e.g. calcium and magnesium) from the soil profile of saline soils and

accumulation of sodium on the cation exchange surface lead to the formation of sodic soils (Kelly &

Rengasamy, 2006). Australian soils are defined as sodic if the SAR is greater than 5 (see table below).

However, sodicity is better defined by the dispersion and swelling behaviour of soils (Rengasamy & Churchman,

1999).




20

Table 5-2 Definition and Category of Sodicity in Australian soils*

Category ESP Value SAR Value*

Non Sodic <6 <3

Low Sodic 6-10 3-5

Moderately Sodic 10-15 5 - 7.5

Highly Sodic >15 > 7.5

* Given that ESP ≈ 2SAR1:5 (for 1:5 soil:water extracts) as sourced from Kelly and Rengasamy (2006)

Because sodicity causes or enhances the swelling and dispersion of soil clay particles, it leads to the

deterioration of the physical condition of soils (Rengasamy and Churchman, 1999) and predisposes them to

hardsetting when dry and being erodible when wet. Sodic soils tend to suffer from poor soil structure including

hard soils, hardpans, surface crushing and rain pooling on the surface, which limit water infiltration, drainage,

plant growth, cultivation and access with machinery and enhance runoff (Kelly and Rengasamy, 2006).

Problems associated with surface sodicity can affect soils through the following mechanisms (Kelly &

Rengasamy, 2006):

• high soil strength (very hard soils) and surface crusting can reduce root penetration and seedling

emergence

• blocking of pores can reduce water infiltration into soil, increasing waterlogging and potential for run-off

Table 5-3 outlines the effects from salinity and sodicity on plant growth and soil structure.

Table 5-3 Effects of Salinity and Sodicity on Plant Growth and Soil Structure Stability*

Salinity, Sodicity Class Plant Growth Soil Structure Stability

Non-saline, non-sodic

Non-saline, sodic

Non-saline, very sodic

Unrestricted

No direct effect on plant growth

Indirect effects arise from poor soil structure

Stable Structure deteriorates under rainfall

Saline, non sodic

Saline, sodic

Saline, very sodic

Some sensitive plant are affected

Salt accumulation accelerates with sodicity

Crusting and hard-setting occur; adverse effects increase with sodicity

Very saline, non-sodic

Very saline, sodic

Very saline, very sodic

Major negative effects on most crop plants Salt accumulation accelerates with increased sodicity

Structure tends to be stable Structural stability tends to reduce as the level of sodicity increases

* sourced from Cass (1999)

Cations other than sodium, particularly calcium and to some extent magnesium (divalent cations), confer

stability to soil aggregates by preventing dispersion. Also high soluble salt concentration, although detrimental to

plant growth, flocculates wet soils and has a favourable effect on structural stability (Rengasamy and

Churchman, 1999).




21

Soils at the site can be classified generally as very-saline and non-sodic, with some exceptions of near surface

and subsurface soils that can be classified as very saline and sodic. A soil can be sodic without being saline, or

both sodic and saline (Kelly & Rengasamy, 2006).

5.2 Soil Structural Stability

Soil structural stability refers to the resistance of soil to the structural rearrangement of pores and particles when

exposed to different stresses such as cultivation, trafficking, tramping, irrigation and rainfall (Cass, 1999).

Deterioration to soil structure occurs from two hydro-mechanical processes: slaking of aggregates and

dispersion of clays. Many, but not necessarily all, soils slake. Some soils slake and disperse. Most sub-soils

slake and some disperse. Slaking and dispersion in sub-soils are associated with hard, massive visible

structure. A few soils disperse but do not slake (Cass, 1999).

Soil structure is also degraded by gross mechanical stresses such as raindrop impact, compaction, tillage and

tramping.

5.2.1 Slaking and Dispersion

The results of Emerson Class tests results for the soil samples indicated that aggregates of all surface soils and

subsoils are prone to slaking upon wetting. Subsoils were generally not dispersive after remoulding. The

presence of carbonates accounts for this behaviour (Emerson Class 4), indicating stability when wet and

disturbed. Surface soil samples generally displayed complete or partial dispersion after remoulding the soil at

field capacity water content (Emerson Class 5 and 6), indicating moderate structural stability if the soil is

disturbed. Consequently, limiting disturbance will reduce the risk of dispersion, and hence erosion by water, in

the soil surface.


Conclusions, Recommendations and

Limitations Section 6


22

6 Conclu sion s, Recommendatio ns and Limitation s

6.1 Conclusions

Soils on the proposed Four Mile MLA can be classified as brown sandy clay profiles on the more elevated and

better drained areas and brown sandy clay underlain by clayey gravel profiles on the floodplain zone of the

lower plains. The topography of the majority of the site is relatively flat or gently sloping and as such the risk of

significant rill erosion and runoff is likely to be low where the natural soil surface is protected from channelled

overland flow. Gibbers are present at the surface of much of the plains of the site; the resulting surface has a

low permeability but is generally considered quite resistant to water erosion.

The surface soils are saline (low to moderately low salinity) and non-sodic while subsoils are saline (high

salinity) and sodic. Variations in this pattern were associated with enhanced leaching along major creek lines.

Soils across the site have low wet strength, slaking when wet. This limits their traffickability when wet.

The baseline data also established background soil chemical conditions (primarily pH, electrical conductivity and

major ion chemistry) in the event of an unexpected chemical release such as saline extraction solutions from the

trunkline.

6.2 Recommendations

Management strategies will be needed to minimise the risk of soil degradation and erosion from activities such

as excavation, handling and stockpiling of materials including topsoils during development of roads, tracks,

structures such as wellhouses, and mud pits for drilling.

Recommendations to prevent spillage of chemicals to ground are not covered as part of this report. It is noted

that it is not the disturbance of soil per se that has the potential to cause environmental impacts at the site;

rather it is the potential for soil disturbance to lead to problems such as enhanced erosion and sedimentation or

difficulties with later rehabilitation and revegetation.

Management of Soil Erosion

A sediment and erosion control plan will need to be implemented to minimise the risk to the receiving

environment. Management in such a plan will aim to minimise erosion risk from wind, raindrop impacts and

surface water runoff by:

• maintaining the protective surface lag of gravels and cobbles across gibber plains

• minimising the height of stockpiled soils

• providing a buffer between soil stockpiles and flow lines or creeks

• treating water runoff from roads through sediment traps to minimise runoff velocity and sediment discharge

to streams

• placement of tracks along contours (rather than down slopes) with adequate cross drainage

• using rollers instead of grader blades to construct vehicle access where permanent roads are not required,

• removing windrows and contour rip all roads and tracks to rehabilitate them if they are no longer in use

• importing suitable road base materials to form road pavements that will minimise dust generation problems

associated with in-situ soils.





23

• maintaining perennial plant cover to minimise water and wind erosion leading to land degradation

• implementing a dust suppression program using water trucks

• minimising the area of land disturbance through a clearing and access permit system and restricting access

to designated tracks and roads

• protecting cut slopes from erosion using stone (gibber) or environmental matting.

Topsoil Management

It is recommended to segregate and selectively place topsoil and subsoil when carrying out intrusive works (e.g.

excavation of pits for mud drilling) for two reasons:

1) to bury material which is adverse to plant growth or which may contaminate surface soils or vegetation

2) to salvage materials that will assist in the rehabilitation program, in particular topsoils that are relatively

non-saline and non-sodic.

Management of Soil Structure

Soil structure degradation is most likely when the soils are wet. To avoid this occurring it is recommended to:

• limit the area and frequency of disturbance by traffic particularly during wet conditions

• maintain or increase vegetative cover and surface gravels and cobbles

• use soil conditioners such as gypsum and/or lime (where such materials are not naturally present) to

amend dispersive soil properties and/or sodicity.





24

6.3 Limitations

All information in this report is provided strictly in accordance with and subject to the following limitations and

recommendations:

a) This Report should be read in full and no excerpts are to be taken as representative of the findings. No responsibility is accepted by URS for use of any part of this Report in any other context.

b) This conclusion is based solely on the information and findings contained in this Report. c) This conclusion is based solely on the scope of work agreed between URS and Quasar Resources and

described in sections 1.3, 2 and 3 ("Scope of Works") of this Report. d) This Report has been prepared for the sole benefit of Quasar Resources and neither the whole nor any

part of this Report may be used or relied upon by any party other than Heathgate Resources. e) This Report is dated 28 November 2008 and is based on the conditions encountered during the site

investigations conducted, and information reviewed, from July 2008 to 28 November 2008. URS accepts no responsibility for any events arising from any changes in site conditions or in the information reviewed that have occurred after the completion of the site investigations.

f) The investigations carried out for the purposes of the Report have been undertaken, and the Report has been prepared, in accordance with normal prudent practice and by reference to applicable environmental regulatory authority and industry standards, guidelines and assessment criteria in existence at the date of this Report.

g) Where this Report indicates that information has been provided to URS by third parties, URS has made no independent verification of this information except as expressly stated in the Report.

h) URS has tested only for those chemicals specifically referred to in this Report. URS makes no statement or representation as to the existence (or otherwise) of any other chemicals.

i) Except as otherwise specifically stated in this Report, URS makes no warranty or representation as to the presence or otherwise of asbestos and/or asbestos containing materials (“ACM”) on the site. If fill has been imported on to the site at any time, or if any buildings constructed prior to 1970 have been demolished on the site or materials from such buildings disposed of on the site, the site may contain asbestos or ACM. Without limiting the generality of sub-clauses (h) and (j), even if asbestos was tested for and those test results did not reveal the presence of asbestos at specific points of sampling, asbestos may still be present at the site if fill has been imported at any time, or if any buildings constructed prior to 1970 have been demolished on the site or materials from such buildings disposed of on the site.

j) Subsurface conditions can vary across a particular site and cannot be exhaustively defined by the investigations described in this Report. It is unlikely therefore that the results and estimations expressed in this Report will represent conditions at any location removed from the specific points of sampling.

k) Except as specifically stated above, URS makes no warranty, statement or representation of any kind concerning the suitability of the site for any purpose or the permissibility of any use, development or re-development of the site.

l) Use, development or re-development of the site for any purpose may require planning and other approvals and, in some cases, environmental regulatory authority and accredited site auditor approvals. URS offers no opinion as to whether the current use has any or all approvals required, is operating in accordance with any approvals, the likelihood of obtaining any approvals for development or redevelopment of the site, or the conditions and obligations which such approvals may impose, which may include the requirement for additional environmental works.


References Section 7


25

7 Referen ces

Callen, R.A. and Tedford, R.H., undated. New Late Cainzoic Rock Units and Depositional Environments, Lake

Frome Area, South Australia.

Cass, A. 1999. Interpretation of some Soil Physical Indicators for Assessing Soil Physical Fertility. In Reverill,

KI. et al. (Eds.); Soil analysis: An Interpretative Manual, CSIRO Australia, pp. 95-102.

Department for Environment and Heritage, 2006. Management Plan: Vulkathunha - Gammon Ranges National

Park 2006.

Heathgate Resources, 1998. Beverley Uranium Mine Environmental Impact Statement, June 1998.

Heathgate Resources, 2005. Environment Management and Monitoring Plan (EMMP), Beverley Mine, Doc No.

MP-05, Revision 1, September 2005.

Heathgate Resources, 2008. Beverley Mine Mining and Rehabilitation Program, September 2008.

Kelly, J. and Rengasamy, P., 2006. Diagnosis and Management of Soil Constraints: Transient Salinity, Sodicity

and Alkalinity, The University of Adelaide.

Northern Flinders Soil Conservation Board, 1997. Northern Flinders Ranges Soil Conservation Board District

Plan.

Rengasmay, P. and Churchman, G.J. 1999. Cation Exchange Capacity, Exchangeable Cations and Sodicity. In

Reverill, KI. et al. (Eds.); Soil analysis: an interpretative manual, CSIRO Australia, pp. 147-158.

Standards Australia, 2005. AS4482-2005: Guide to the investigation and sampling of sites with potentially

contaminated soils: Non-volatile and semi-volatile compounds.

Standards Australia, 1993. AS1726-1993 Geotechnical site investigations.

Standards Australia, 2008. AS1289.3.8.1-2008 Methods of testing soils for engineering purposes – Soil

classification tests – Dispersion – Determination of the percentage distribution of a soil.

Shaw, R.J., 1999. Soil Salinity – Electrical Conductivity and Chloride. In Reverill, KI. et al. (Eds.); Soil analysis:

An Interpretative Manual, CSIRO Australia, pp. 129-146.

URS, 2006. Beverley Uranium Mine EL 3251 – Geology Study Part 1, Ref: 42656422.05002 Draft, 9 June 2006.

URS, 2007. Mining Proposal for Proposed Extension of Beverely Uranium Mine, prepared for Heathgate

Resources, 21 December 2007.

Woodburn Associates, 1996. Heathgate Resources Pty Ltd Beverley Uranium Project; Terrain Analysis and

Assessment, Report No. AWA 1670, 24 December 1996.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999. USEPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional

Guidelines for Organic Data Review. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC 20460.

Reference: 9240.1-05A-P PB99-963506 EPA540/R-99/008.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2002. Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for

Inorganic Data Review - Final. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC 20460.

sssReference: 9240.1-35-01, EPA 540/R-01/008.


Tables


Tabl es

Table 1: Soil Analytical Results - Four Mile Project Test Pits

Location TP01 TP01 TP01 TP01 TP01 TP01 TP01 TP02 TP02 TP02 TP03

Sample ID TP01_0-0.2 QC03_20/09/08 QC04_20/09/08 TP01_0.2-0.4 TP01_1.4-1.6 QC05_20/09/08 QC06_20/09/08 TP02_0-0.2 TP02_0.2-0.4 TP02_1.3-1.5 TP03_0-0.1

Date Sampled 20/09/2008 20/09/2008 20/09/2008 20/09/2008 20/09/2008 20/09/2008 20/09/2008 20/09/2008 20/09/2008 20/09/2008 20/09/2008

Sample Type Primary Sample Duplicate Sample1 Duplicate Sample2 Primary Sample Primary Sample Duplicate Sample1 Duplicate Sample2 Primary Sample Primary Sample Primary Sample Primary Sample

Analyte LOR UnitsMoisture ContentMoisture Content 1 % 5 6.1 6 9.8 9.1 - - - - - -

Physico-Chemical ParametersElectrical Conductivity 1 µs/cm 214 284 713 3400 4170 4290 5470 506 2510 4140 109pH 0.1 ph unit 8.4 8.8 7.8 7.8 7.9 8 8.1 8.6 7.7 7.3 8.3Exchangeable CationsExchangeable Aluminium 0.1 meq/100g <0.1 <0.1 0.05 <0.1 <0.1 - - - - - -Exchangeable Calcium 0.1 meq/100g 37.6 44.6 49 168 151 - - - - - -Exchangeable Magnesium 0.1 meq/100g 2.5 2.4 2.3 3.6 2.6 - - - - - -Exchangeable Potassium 0.1 meq/100g 2.5 1.8 1.28 1 0.8 - - - - - -Exchangeable Sodium 0.1 meq/100g 1.1 3.4 1.47 7 12.5 - - - - - -

Major AnionsChloride 10 mg/kg <10 130 50 2460 130 - - - - - -Sulfate as SO4 2- 10 mg/kg 200 190 870 9730 12900 - - -

Chemical and Physical ExpressionsSodium Absorption Ratio 0.2 1.39 3.89 0.9 0.88 4.51 - - - - - -Cation Exchange Capacity 0.1 meq/100g 43.7 52.3 47 180 167 - - - - - -Emerson Class Number (AS1289 cl. 3.8.1) 6 5 3.1 4 4 - - - - - -

- Not Analysed1 Intra-laboratory Duplicate2 Inter-laboratory Duplicate* Interlaboratory duplicate results converted from mg/kg to meq/100g by dividing results by the following numbers: Ca (200), Mg (120), K (390), Al (90), Na (230)

URS Australia Pty. Ltd. Page 1 of 4 J:\Jobs\42657089\5 Works\EDM\Tables\Soil Analytical Results.xls-28/11/2008


LocationSample IDDate SampledSample Type

Analyte LOR UnitsMoisture ContentMoisture Content 1 %

Physico-Chemical ParametersElectrical Conductivity 1 µs/cmpH 0.1 ph unit

Exchangeable CationsExchangeable Aluminium 0.1 meq/100gExchangeable Calcium 0.1 meq/100gExchangeable Magnesium 0.1 meq/100gExchangeable Potassium 0.1 meq/100gExchangeable Sodium 0.1 meq/100g

Major AnionsChloride 10 mg/kgSulfate as SO4 2- 10 mg/kg

Chemical and Physical ExpressionsSodium Absorption Ratio 0.2Cation Exchange Capacity 0.1 meq/100gEmerson Class Number (AS1289 cl. 3.8.1)

- Not Analysed1 Intra-laboratory Duplicate2 Inter-laboratory Duplicate* Interlaboratory duplicate results converted from mg/kg to meq/100g by divid

TP03 TP03 TP03 TP03 TP04 TP04 TP04 TP05 TP05 TP05 TP06QC07_20/09/08 QC08_20/09/08 TP03_0.1-0.3 TP03_1.0-1.2 TP04_0-0.05 TP04_0.15-0.35 TP04_0.65-0.85 TP05_0-0.2 TP05_0.75-0.95 TP05_1.0-1.2 TP06_0-0.1

20/09/2008 20/09/2008 20/09/2008 20/09/2008 20/09/2008 20/09/2008 20/09/2008 20/09/2008 20/09/2008 20/09/2008 21/09/2008

Duplicate Sample1 Duplicate Sample2 Primary Sample Primary Sample Primary Sample Primary Sample Primary Sample Primary Sample Primary Sample Primary Sample Primary Sample

- - - - 2.5 5.8 3.4 3.3 2.2 11.9 -

63 105 341 3260 73 94 245 261 107 5860 33108.7 8.6 8.3 7.7 8.4 8.7 9.6 8.8 8.9 7.1 7.5

- - - - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 -- - - - 25.2 15.2 26 35.1 11.3 134 -- - - - 3.7 3.3 4 3.6 1.7 9.7 -- - - - 2.1 1.1 0.5 1.4 0.6 1.4 -- - - - 0.6 0.8 3.9 4.8 1.3 24.7 -

- - - - <10 <10 <10 240 <10 <10 -- - - - 20 30 20 40 40 12700 -

- - - - 0.47 0.99 3.36 3.98 1.31 7.29 -- - - - 31.6 20.5 34.4 44.9 14.9 169 -- - - - 5 6 - 6 4 - -










TP06 TP06 TP07 TP07 TP07 TP08 TP08 TP08 TP08 TP08 TP09TP06_0.1-0.3 TP06_1.0-1.2 TP07_0-0.1 TP07_0.15-0.35 TP07_1.0-1.2 TP08_0-0.15 TP08_0.15-0.35 QC11_20/09/08 QC12_21/09/08 TP08_0.9-1.1 TP09_0-0.221/09/2008 21/09/2008 21/09/2008 21/09/2008 21/09/2008 21/09/2008 21/09/2008 21/09/2008 21/09/2008 21/09/2008 21/09/2008

Primary Sample Primary Sample Primary Sample Primary Sample Primary Sample Primary Sample Primary Sample Duplicate Sample1 Duplicate Sample2 Primary Sample Primary Sample

- - - - - 1.5 7.9 7.9 7 5 <1

3070 5510 220 720 3940 27 3050 2150 2290 3380 787.6 7.5 9 8.7 7.8 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 7.9 8.6

- - - - - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.04 <0.1 <0.1- - - - - 35.4 5.2 32.8 36.5 36.8 3.5- - - - - 6.2 2.3 6.6 6.5 2.9 1.3- - - - - 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.51 0.4 0.5- - - - - 12.7 0.4 13.9 11.3 5.9 0.6

- - - - - 20 3040 3450 3600 1340 <10- - - - - 40 150 180 110 9660 50

- - - - - 1.21 15.1 14.8 5.9 2.77 0.88- - - - - 55 8.6 54.2 40 46 6- - - - - 5 6 4 6 4 4










TP09 TP09 TP10 TP10 TP10TP09_0.25-0.45 TP09_1.05-1.25 TP10_0-0.2 TP10_0.5-0.7 TP10_1.0-1.2

21/09/2008 21/09/2008 21/09/2008 21/09/2008 21/09/2008Primary Sample Primary Sample Primary Sample Primary Sample Primary Sample

6.5 5.4 - - -

999 2840 889 5000 447.2 7.2 8 7.9 8.8

<0.1 <0.1 - - -7.7 9 - - -5.2 3.2 - - -0.5 0.6 - - -6.2 5.3 - - -

1360 880 - - -110 6850 - - -

14 3.3119.6 18.2 - - -

6 6 - - -



Figures


Figures

FOUR MILE

To Bro

ken Hil

l

GAMMON RANGES

NATIONAL PARK

FLINDERS RANGES

NATIONAL PARK

BUNKERS

CONSERVATION

RESERVE

STRZELECKI TRACK

Ç

To Perth

Ç

LAKE TORRENS

LAKE FROME

CLARE

YUNTA

BURRA

MARREE

COPLEY

HAWKER

ADELAIDE

LYNDHURST

NEPABUNNA

PORT PIRIE

ROXBY DOWNS

LEIGH CREEK

PORT AUGUSTA

PORT WAKEFIELD

This drawing is subject to COPYRIGHT. It remains the property of URS Australia Pty Ltd.

Title

Figure:Rev.

SITE LOCATION PLAN

1A

File No.:42657089-002.mxd A4

¡Client

QUASAR

RESOURCES

Project

SOIL SURVEY

Job No.: 42657089

Drawn:SCS Approved: JR Date: NOV 2008

LEGEND

Towns

Access Routes

National Parks

Lakes


Plates


Plates

Plate 1: View of soil profile within TP01 Plate 2: View of location of TP01 displaying gibber plain adjacent minor creekline

Plate 3: View of soil profile within TP02 Plate 4: View of location of TP02 displaying scalded earth with scattered gibber

Plate 5: View of soil profile within TP03 Plate 6: View of location of TP03 displaying gibber plain

Plate 7: View of soil profile within TP04 Plate 8: View location of TP04 displaying a floodplain with scalded earth and scattered gibber

Plate 9: View of soil profile within TP05 Plate 10: View of location of TP05 displaying bare earth with scattered gravel within Four Mile Creek

Plate 11: View of soil profile within TP06 Plate 12: View of location of TP06 displaying gibber plain

Plate 13: View of soil profile of TP07 Plate 14: View of location of TP07 displaying undulating gibber plain between two minor creeks

Plate 15: View of soil profile of TP08 Plate 16: View of location of TP08 displaying elevated gibber plain

Plate 17: View of soil profile of TP09 Plate 18: View of location of TP09 displaying gibber plain

Plate 19: View of soil profile of TP10 Plate 20: View of location of TP10 displaying elevated gibber plain


Laboratory Reports and Chain of Custody

Documentation Appendix A


A Laborator y Reports and Chai n of Custody Documentati on

This document is issued in accordance with NATA's accreditation requirements.

Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025

Accreditation Number: 1645

Certificate of AnalysisURS Australia Pty Ltd (Adelaide)

Level 4/ 70 Light Square

Adelaide SA 5000

Attention: James Rusk

Project 08ENME0026617

Client Reference 42657089

Four Mile Soil Survey

Received Date 02/10/2008 09:00:00 AM

Customer Sample ID QC04_20/09

/08

QC06_20/09

/08

QC08_20/09

/08

QC10_20/09

/08

QC12_21/09

/08

Sample Matrix SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL

Labmark Sample No. 1200309 1200310 1200311 1200312 1200313

Date Sampled 20/09/2008 20/09/2008 20/09/2008 20/09/2008 21/09/2008

Metals

Test/Reference UnitPQL

3610 Cation Exchange Capacity in Soil meqv/100g 47 -- - 40Cation Exchange Capacity 0.5

3615 Exchangeable Cations in Soil mg/kg 4.5 -- - 4.0Aluminium (Exchangeable) (KCl Ext)* 0.5

mg/kg 9800 -- - 7300Calcium (Exchangeable)* 0.5

mg/kg 280 -- - 780Magnesium (Exchangeable)* 0.5

mg/kg 500 -- - 200Potassium (Exchangeable)* 0.5

mg/kg 340 -- - 2600Sodium (Exchangeable)* 0.5

3620 SAR in Soil 0.9 -- - 5.9Sodium Absorption Ratio (SAR) 0.2

Inorganics


4300 Anions in Soil by IC mg/kg 50 -- - 3600Chloride (Soluble) 2

mg/kg 870 -- - 110Sulphate (Soluble) 2

4010 Conductivity in Soil µS/cm 713 1055470 - 2290Electrical Conductivity 20

4000 pH in Soil pH 7.8 8.68.1 - 8.3pH 0.1

Miscellaneous


3.1 -- - 6Emerson Class Number (AS1289 cl.

3.8.1)*

-

5000 Moisture Content % 6 -- - 7% Moisture 1

First Reported: 8 October 2008 Page 1 of 4

Date Printed: 23 October 2008 Final Report Number :

Labmark 1868 Dandenong Rd Clayton VIC Australia 3168

ABN: 30 008 127 802 Telephone: (03) 9538 2277 Facsimile: (03) 9538 2278341626

Sample History

Where samples are submitted/analysed over several days, the last date of extraction and analysis is reported.

Description AnalysedExtracted

3610 Cation Exchange Capacity in Soil 07/10/2008

3615 Exchangeable Cations in Soil 07/10/2008

3620 SAR in Soil 07/10/2008

4000 pH in Soil 03/10/2008 06/10/2008

4010 Conductivity in Soil 03/10/2008 06/10/2008

4300 Anions in Soil by IC 03/10/2008 06/10/2008

5000 Moisture Content 03/10/2008

NEW_TEST01 23/10/2008





Labmark Internal Quality Control Review

General

1. Laboratory QC results for Method Blanks, Duplicates, Matrix Spikes, and Laboratory Control Samples

are included in this QC report where applicable. Additional QC data may be available on request.

2. Matrix spike recoveries are calculated on an 'As Received' basis; the parent sample result is moisture

corrected after the % recovery is determined.

3. Proficiency trial results are available on request.

4. Actual PQLs are matrix dependant. Quoted PQLs may be raised where sample extracts are diluted due to interferences.

5. Results are uncorrected for matrix spike or surrogate recoveries.

6. Test samples duplicated or spiked, are for this job only and are identified in the following QC report.

7. SVOC analyses on waters are performed on homogenized, unfiltered sample, unless noted otherwise.

8. When individual results are qualified in the body of a report, refer to the qualifier descriptions that follow.

9. Samples were analysed on an as received basis.

10. This report replaces any interim results previously issued.

Holding Times

Please refer to 'Sampling and Preservation Chart for Soils & Waters' for holding times. (LM-FOR-ADM-020)

For samples received on the last day of holding time, notification of testing requirements should have been received at least

6 hours prior to sample receipt deadlines as stated on the Sample Receipt Acknowledgement.

If the Laboratory did not receive the information in the required timeframe, and regardless of any other integrity issues,

suitablity qualified results may still be reported.

Holding times apply from the date of sampling, therefore compliance to these may be outside the laboratory's control.

**NOTE: pH duplicates are reported as a range NOT as an RPD

Quality Control Results

Laboratory: EN_METALS

Acceptance

LimitsResult 1UnitsSample, Test, Result ReferencePass

Limits

Qualifying

Codes

1205650 [ Method Blank ]

3615 Exchangeable Cations in Soil

Aluminium (Exchangeable) (KCl Ext) mg/kg <0.5 < 0.5 T

Calcium (Exchangeable) mg/kg <0.5 < 0.5 T

Magnesium (Exchangeable) mg/kg <0.5 < 0.5 T

Potassium (Exchangeable) mg/kg <0.5 < 0.5 T

Sodium (Exchangeable) mg/kg <0.5 < 0.5 T


3610 Cation Exchange Capacity in Soil

Cation Exchange Capacity meqv/100g <0.5 < 0.5 T

Laboratory: EN_WATERS

Acceptance


Limits

Qualifying

Codes


4300 Anions in Soil by IC

Bromide (Soluble) mg/kg <2 < 2 T

Chloride (Soluble) mg/kg <2 < 2 T

Fluoride (Soluble) mg/kg <2 < 2 T

Nitrate (Soluble) mg/kg <2 < 2 T

Nitrite (Soluble) mg/kg <2 < 2 T

Orthophosphorus (Soluble) mg/kg <2 < 2 T

Sulphate (Soluble) mg/kg <2 < 2 T





Laboratory: EN_WATERS

Acceptance


Limits

Qualifying

Codes

1201304 [ Laboratory Control Sample ]

4300 Anions in Soil by IC Expected Value Percent Recovery

Bromide (Soluble) mg/kg 510 500.0 101 75-125 % T

Chloride (Soluble) mg/kg 500 500.0 101 75-125 % T

Fluoride (Soluble) mg/kg 510 500.0 101 75-125 % T

Nitrate (Soluble) mg/kg 530 500.0 106 75-125 % T

Nitrite (Soluble) mg/kg 490 500.0 97 75-125 % T

Orthophosphorus (Soluble) mg/kg 470 500.0 93 75-125 % T

Sulphate (Soluble) mg/kg 500 500.0 99 75-125 % T

Report Results Information

Nutrient Advantage - report # 350949 & 350950Emerson Class

Sample Integrity

NoAttempt to Chill was evident

YesSamples correctly preserved

YesSamples received within HoldingTime

YesSome samples have been subcontracted

Authorised By

Client Services OfficerRuth Callander

Accreditation Number: 1645Mark Herbstreit Senior Analyst - Metals

Accreditation Number: 1645Helen Lei Senior Analyst - Waters

Laboratory Manager

Laboratory Manager - MelbourneDavid Elliott

Final Report

- Indicates Not Requested * Indicates NATA accreditation does not cover the performance of this service

Labmark Environmental shall not be liable for loss, cost, damages or expenses incurred by the client, or any other person or company, resulting from the use of any information or

interpretaton given in this report. In no case shall Labmark Environmental be liable for consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost profits, damages for failure to meet

deadlines and lost production arising from this report. This document shall not be reproduced except in full and relates only to the items tested. Unless indicated otherwise, the tests were

performed on the samples as received.

The samples were not collected by Amdel staff.





EB0813632

False

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS

Work Order : EB0813632 Page : 1 of 9

:: LaboratoryClient Environmental Division BrisbaneURS AUSTRALIA (SA) PTY LTD

: :ContactContact MR JAMES RUSK Tim Kilmister

:: AddressAddress LEVEL 4, 70 LIGHT SQUARE

ADELAIDE SA, AUSTRALIA 5000

32 Shand Street Stafford QLD Australia 4053

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

:: TelephoneTelephone +61 83661000 +61-7-3243 7222

:: FacsimileFacsimile +61 08 83661001 +61-7-3243 7218

:Project 42657089 Four Mile Soil Survey QC Level : NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALS QCS3 requirement

:Order number ----

:C-O-C number ---- Date Samples Received : 02-OCT-2008

Sampler : James Rusk Issue Date : 13-OCT-2008

Site : ----

37:No. of samples received

Quote number : EN/001/08 34:No. of samples analysed

This report supersedes any previous report(s) with this reference. Results apply to the sample(s) as submitted. All pages of this report have been checked and approved for

release.

This Certificate of Analysis contains the following information:

l General Comments

l Analytical Results

NATA Accredited Laboratory 825

This document is issued in

accordance with NATA

accreditation requirements.

Accredited for compliance with

ISO/IEC 17025.

SignatoriesThis document has been electronically signed by the authorized signatories indicated below. Electronic signing has been

carried out in compliance with procedures specified in 21 CFR Part 11.

Signatories Accreditation CategoryPosition

Stephen Hislop Senior Inorganic Chemist Inorganics

Environmental Division Brisbane


Tel. +61-7-3243 7222 Fax. +61-7-3243 7218 www.alsglobal.com

2 of 9:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EB0813632

URS AUSTRALIA (SA) PTY LTD

42657089 Four Mile Soil Survey:Project

General Comments

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

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

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

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

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

When date(s) and/or time(s) are shown bracketed, these have been assumed by the laboratory for processing purposes. If the sampling time is displayed as 0:00 the information was not provided by client.

CAS Number = Chemistry Abstract Services number

LOR = Limit of reporting

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

Key :

3 of 9:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EB0813632



Analytical Results

TP02_1.3-1.5TP02_0.2-0.4TP02_0-0.2TP01_0.2-0.4TP01_0-0.2Client sample IDSub-Matrix: SOIL

20-SEP-2008 15:0020-SEP-2008 15:0020-SEP-2008 15:0020-SEP-2008 15:0020-SEP-2008 15:00Client sampling date / time

EB0813632-005EB0813632-004EB0813632-003EB0813632-002EB0813632-001UnitLORCAS NumberCompound

EA002 : pH (Soils)

7.88.4 8.6 7.7 7.3pH Unit0.1----pH Value

EA006: Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR)

0.881.39 ---- ---- -----0.01----^ Sodium Absorption Ratio

EA010: Conductivity

3400214 506 2510 4140µS/cm1----Electrical Conductivity @ 25°C

EA055: Moisture Content

9.85.0 ---- ---- ----%1.0----^ Moisture Content (dried @ 103°C)

ED007: Exchangeable Cations

16837.6 ---- ---- ----meq/100g0.1----^ Exchangeable Calcium

3.62.5 ---- ---- ----meq/100g0.1----^ Exchangeable Magnesium

1.02.5 ---- ---- ----meq/100g0.1----^ Exchangeable Potassium

7.01.1 ---- ---- ----meq/100g0.1----^ Exchangeable Sodium

18043.7 ---- ---- ----meq/100g0.1----^ Cation Exchange Capacity

<0.1<0.1 ---- ---- ----meq/100g0.1----^ Exchangeable Aluminium

ED040S: Soluble Major Anions

9730200 ---- ---- ----mg/kg1014808-79-8Sulfate as SO4 2-

ED045: Chloride

2460<10 ---- ---- ----mg/kg1016887-00-6Chloride

4 of 9:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EB0813632



Analytical Results

TP04_0.15-0.35TP04_0-0.05TP03_1.0-1.2TP03_0.1-0.3TP03_0-0.1Client sample IDSub-Matrix: SOIL



EA002 : pH (Soils)

8.38.3 7.7 8.4 8.7pH Unit0.1----pH Value

EA006: Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR)-------- ---- 0.47 0.99-0.01----^ Sodium Absorption Ratio

EA010: Conductivity


EA055: Moisture Content-------- ---- 2.5 5.8%1.0----^ Moisture Content (dried @ 103°C)

ED007: Exchangeable Cations-------- ---- 25.2 15.2meq/100g0.1----^ Exchangeable Calcium

-------- ---- 3.7 3.3meq/100g0.1----^ Exchangeable Magnesium

-------- ---- 2.1 1.1meq/100g0.1----^ Exchangeable Potassium

-------- ---- 0.6 0.8meq/100g0.1----^ Exchangeable Sodium

-------- ---- 31.6 20.5meq/100g0.1----^ Cation Exchange Capacity

-------- ---- <0.1 <0.1meq/100g0.1----^ Exchangeable Aluminium

ED040S: Soluble Major Anions-------- ---- 20 30mg/kg1014808-79-8Sulfate as SO4 2-

ED045: Chloride-------- ---- <10 <10mg/kg1016887-00-6Chloride

5 of 9:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EB0813632



Analytical Results

TP06_0-0.1TP05_1.0-1.2TP05_0.75-0.95TP05_0-0.2TP04_0.65-0.85Client sample IDSub-Matrix: SOIL



EA002 : pH (Soils)

8.89.6 8.9 7.1 7.5pH Unit0.1----pH Value


3.983.36 1.31 7.29 -----0.01----^ Sodium Absorption Ratio

EA010: Conductivity



3.33.4 2.2 11.9 ----%1.0----^ Moisture Content (dried @ 103°C)


35.126.0 11.3 134 ----meq/100g0.1----^ Exchangeable Calcium

3.64.0 1.7 9.7 ----meq/100g0.1----^ Exchangeable Magnesium

1.40.5 0.6 1.4 ----meq/100g0.1----^ Exchangeable Potassium

4.83.9 1.3 24.7 ----meq/100g0.1----^ Exchangeable Sodium

44.934.4 14.9 169 ----meq/100g0.1----^ Cation Exchange Capacity

<0.1<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 ----meq/100g0.1----^ Exchangeable Aluminium


4020 40 12700 ----mg/kg1014808-79-8Sulfate as SO4 2-

ED045: Chloride

240<10 <10 <10 ----mg/kg1016887-00-6Chloride

6 of 9:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EB0813632



Analytical Results

TP07_1.0-1.2TP07_0.15-0.35TP07_0-0.1TP06_1.0-1.2TP06_0.1-0.3Client sample IDSub-Matrix: SOIL



EA002 : pH (Soils)

7.57.6 9.0 8.7 7.8pH Unit0.1----pH Value

EA010: Conductivity


7 of 9:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EB0813632



Analytical Results

TP09_0.25-0.45TP09_0-0.2TP08_0.9-1.1TP08_0.15-0.35TP08_0-0.15Client sample IDSub-Matrix: SOIL



EA002 : pH (Soils)

8.38.3 7.9 8.6 7.2pH Unit0.1----pH Value


15.11.21 2.77 0.88 14.0-0.01----^ Sodium Absorption Ratio

EA010: Conductivity



7.91.5 5.0 <1.0 6.5%1.0----^ Moisture Content (dried @ 103°C)


5.235.4 36.8 3.5 7.7meq/100g0.1----^ Exchangeable Calcium

2.36.2 2.9 1.3 5.2meq/100g0.1----^ Exchangeable Magnesium

0.80.7 0.4 0.5 0.5meq/100g0.1----^ Exchangeable Potassium

0.412.7 5.9 0.6 6.2meq/100g0.1----^ Exchangeable Sodium

8.655.0 46.0 6.0 19.6meq/100g0.1----^ Cation Exchange Capacity

<0.1<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1meq/100g0.1----^ Exchangeable Aluminium


15040 9660 50 110mg/kg1014808-79-8Sulfate as SO4 2-

ED045: Chloride

304020 1340 <10 1360mg/kg1016887-00-6Chloride

8 of 9:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EB0813632



Analytical Results

QC03_20/09/08TP10_1.0-1.2TP10_0.5-0.7TP10_0-0.2TP09_1.05-1.25Client sample IDSub-Matrix: SOIL



EA002 : pH (Soils)

8.07.2 7.9 8.8 8.8pH Unit0.1----pH Value

EA006: Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR)----3.31 ---- ---- 3.89-0.01----^ Sodium Absorption Ratio

EA010: Conductivity


EA055: Moisture Content----5.4 ---- ---- 6.1%1.0----^ Moisture Content (dried @ 103°C)

ED007: Exchangeable Cations----9.0 ---- ---- 44.6meq/100g0.1----^ Exchangeable Calcium

----3.2 ---- ---- 2.4meq/100g0.1----^ Exchangeable Magnesium

----0.6 ---- ---- 1.8meq/100g0.1----^ Exchangeable Potassium

----5.3 ---- ---- 3.4meq/100g0.1----^ Exchangeable Sodium

----18.2 ---- ---- 52.3meq/100g0.1----^ Cation Exchange Capacity

----<0.1 ---- ---- <0.1meq/100g0.1----^ Exchangeable Aluminium

ED040S: Soluble Major Anions----6850 ---- ---- 190mg/kg1014808-79-8Sulfate as SO4 2-

ED045: Chloride----880 ---- ---- 130mg/kg1016887-00-6Chloride

9 of 9:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EB0813632



Analytical Results

----TP01_1.2-1.4QC11_20/09/08QC07_20/09/08QC05_20/09/08Client sample IDSub-Matrix: SOIL

----20-SEP-2008 15:0021-SEP-2008 15:0020-SEP-2008 15:0020-SEP-2008 15:00Client sampling date / time

----EB0813632-037EB0813632-036EB0813632-034EB0813632-033UnitLORCAS NumberCompound

EA002 : pH (Soils)

8.78.0 8.3 7.9 ----pH Unit0.1----pH Value

EA006: Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR)-------- 14.8 4.51 -----0.01----^ Sodium Absorption Ratio

EA010: Conductivity

634290 2150 4170 ----µS/cm1----Electrical Conductivity @ 25°C

EA055: Moisture Content-------- 7.9 9.1 ----%1.0----^ Moisture Content (dried @ 103°C)

ED007: Exchangeable Cations-------- 32.8 151 ----meq/100g0.1----^ Exchangeable Calcium

-------- 6.6 2.6 ----meq/100g0.1----^ Exchangeable Magnesium

-------- 0.8 0.8 ----meq/100g0.1----^ Exchangeable Potassium

-------- 13.9 12.5 ----meq/100g0.1----^ Exchangeable Sodium

-------- 54.2 167 ----meq/100g0.1----^ Cation Exchange Capacity

-------- <0.1 <0.1 ----meq/100g0.1----^ Exchangeable Aluminium

ED040S: Soluble Major Anions-------- 180 12900 ----mg/kg1014808-79-8Sulfate as SO4 2-

ED045: Chloride-------- 3450 130 ----mg/kg1016887-00-6Chloride

False

QUALITY CONTROL REPORT











Site : ----


Sampler : James Rusk Issue Date : 13-OCT-2008

:Order number ----

37:No. of samples received

Quote number : EN/001/08 34:No. of samples analysed

This report supersedes any previous report(s) with this reference. Results apply to the sample(s) as submitted. All pages of this report have been checked and approved for

release.

This Quality Control Report contains the following information:

l Laboratory Duplicate (DUP) Report; Relative Percentage Difference (RPD) and Acceptance Limits

l Method Blank (MB) and Laboratory Control Spike (LCS) Report ; Recovery and Acceptance Limits

l Matrix Spike (MS) Report; Recovery and Acceptance Limits

NATA Accredited Laboratory 825

This document is issued in

accordance with NATA

accreditation requirements.

Accredited for compliance with

ISO/IEC 17025.

SignatoriesThis document has been electronically signed by the authorized signatories indicated below. Electronic signing has been

carried out in compliance with procedures specified in 21 CFR Part 11.

Signatories Accreditation CategoryPosition

Stephen Hislop Senior Inorganic Chemist Inorganics




2 of 7:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EB0813632



General Comments

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

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

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

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

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

Anonymous = Refers to samples which are not specifically part of this work order but formed part of the QC process lot

CAS Number = Chemistry Abstract Services number

LOR = Limit of reporting

RPD = Relative Percentage Difference

# = Indicates failed QC

Key :

3 of 7:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EB0813632



Laboratory Duplicate (DUP) Report

The quality control term Laboratory Duplicate refers to a randomly selected intralaboratory split. Laboratory duplicates provide information regarding method precision and sample heterogeneity. The permitted ranges

for the Relative Percent Deviation (RPD) of Laboratory Duplicates are specified in ALS Method QWI -EN/38 and are dependent on the magnitude of results in comparison to the level of reporting: Result < 10 times LOR:-

No Limit; Result between 10 and 20 times LOR:- 0% - 50%; Result > 20 times LOR:- 0% - 20%.

Sub-Matrix: SOIL Laboratory Duplicate (DUP) Report

Original Result RPD (%)Laboratory sample ID Client sample ID Method: Compound CAS Number LOR Unit Duplicate Result Recovery Limits (%)

EA002 : pH (Soils) (QC Lot: 775628)

Anonymous---- pH Unit0.1EA002: pH Value AnonymousAnonymousAnonymousEB0813631-001 Anonymous



0% - 20%---- pH Unit0.1EA002: pH Value 0.07.37.3EB0813632-005 TP02_1.3-1.5

0% - 20%---- pH Unit0.1EA002: pH Value 0.07.57.5EB0813632-016 TP06_0-0.1






EA010: Conductivity (QC Lot: 775631)

Anonymous---- µS/cm1EA010: Electrical Conductivity @ 25°C AnonymousAnonymousAnonymousEB0813631-001 Anonymous



0% - 20%---- µS/cm1EA010: Electrical Conductivity @ 25°C 0.241504140EB0813632-005 TP02_1.3-1.5

0% - 20%---- µS/cm1EA010: Electrical Conductivity @ 25°C 0.033103310EB0813632-016 TP06_0-0.1






EA055: Moisture Content (QC Lot: 775650)

Anonymous---- %1.0EA055-103: Moisture Content (dried @ 103°C) AnonymousAnonymousAnonymousEB0813631-016 Anonymous

No Limit---- %1.0EA055-103: Moisture Content (dried @ 103°C) 5.23.53.3EB0813632-013 TP05_0-0.2

EA055: Moisture Content (QC Lot: 777066)



ED007: Exchangeable Cations (QC Lot: 776646)

Anonymous---- meq/100g0.1ED007: Exchangeable Calcium AnonymousAnonymousAnonymousEB0813631-001 Anonymous

Anonymous---- meq/100g0.1ED007: Exchangeable Magnesium AnonymousAnonymousAnonymous

Anonymous---- meq/100g0.1ED007: Exchangeable Potassium AnonymousAnonymousAnonymous

Anonymous---- meq/100g0.1ED007: Exchangeable Sodium AnonymousAnonymousAnonymous

Anonymous---- meq/100g0.1ED007: Exchangeable Aluminium AnonymousAnonymousAnonymous

Anonymous---- meq/100g0.1ED007: Exchangeable Calcium AnonymousAnonymousAnonymousEB0813631-010 Anonymous

Anonymous---- meq/100g0.1ED007: Exchangeable Magnesium AnonymousAnonymousAnonymous

4 of 7:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EB0813632



Sub-Matrix: SOIL Laboratory Duplicate (DUP) Report

Original Result RPD (%)Laboratory sample ID Client sample ID Method: Compound CAS Number LOR Unit Duplicate Result Recovery Limits (%)

ED007: Exchangeable Cations (QC Lot: 776646) - continuedAnonymous---- meq/100g0.1ED007: Exchangeable Potassium AnonymousAnonymousAnonymousEB0813631-010 Anonymous

Anonymous---- meq/100g0.1ED007: Exchangeable Sodium AnonymousAnonymousAnonymous

Anonymous---- meq/100g0.1ED007: Exchangeable Aluminium AnonymousAnonymousAnonymous


0% - 20%---- meq/100g0.1ED007: Exchangeable Calcium 1.426.326.0EB0813632-012 TP04_0.65-0.85

0% - 20%---- meq/100g0.1ED007: Exchangeable Magnesium 0.04.14.0

No Limit---- meq/100g0.1ED007: Exchangeable Potassium 0.00.50.5

0% - 20%---- meq/100g0.1ED007: Exchangeable Sodium 4.04.03.9

No Limit---- meq/100g0.1ED007: Exchangeable Aluminium 0.0<0.1<0.1

0% - 20%---- meq/100g0.1ED007: Exchangeable Calcium 0.07.77.7EB0813632-026 TP09_0.25-0.45






0% - 20%---- meq/100g0.1ED007: Exchangeable Calcium 2.4155151EB0813632-037 TP01_1.2-1.4





ED040S: Soluble Major Anions (QC Lot: 775630)

Anonymous14808-79-8 mg/kg10ED040S: Sulfate as SO4 2- AnonymousAnonymousAnonymousEB0813631-001 Anonymous

Anonymous14808-79-8 mg/kg10ED040S: Sulfate as SO4 2- AnonymousAnonymousAnonymousEB0813631-011 Anonymous


No Limit14808-79-8 mg/kg10ED040S: Sulfate as SO4 2- 39.35040EB0813632-013 TP05_0-0.2


0% - 20%14808-79-8 mg/kg10ED040S: Sulfate as SO4 2- 7.073406850EB0813632-027 TP09_1.05-1.25


0% - 20%14808-79-8 mg/kg10ED040S: Sulfate as SO4 2- 1.31310012900EB0813632-037 TP01_1.2-1.4

ED045: Chloride (QC Lot: 775629)

Anonymous16887-00-6 mg/kg10EDO45S: Chloride AnonymousAnonymousAnonymousEB0813631-001 Anonymous

Anonymous16887-00-6 mg/kg10EDO45S: Chloride AnonymousAnonymousAnonymousEB0813631-011 Anonymous


0% - 20%16887-00-6 mg/kg10EDO45S: Chloride 10.1220240EB0813632-013 TP05_0-0.2


0% - 20%16887-00-6 mg/kg10EDO45S: Chloride 3.0900880EB0813632-027 TP09_1.05-1.25

5 of 7:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EB0813632



Method Blank (MB) and Laboratory Control Spike (LCS) Report

The quality control term Method / Laboratory Blank refers to an analyte free matrix to which all reagents are added in the same volumes or proportions as used in standard sample preparation. The purpose of this QC

parameter is to monitor potential laboratory contamination. The quality control term Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) refers to a certified reference material, or a known interference free matrix spiked with target

analytes. The purpose of this QC parameter is to monitor method precision and accuracy independent of sample matrix. Dynamic Recovery Limits are based on statistical evaluation of processed LCS.

Sub-Matrix: SOIL Method Blank (MB)

Report

Laboratory Control Spike (LCS) Report

Spike Spike Recovery (%) Recovery Limits (%)

Result Concentration HighLowLCSMethod: Compound CAS Number LOR Unit

EA010: Conductivity (QCLot: 775631)

EA010: Electrical Conductivity @ 25°C ---- 1 µS/cm <1 99.61413 µS/cm 10298.2


EA010: Electrical Conductivity @ 25°C ---- 1 µS/cm <1 1001413 µS/cm 10298.2


EA010: Electrical Conductivity @ 25°C ---- 1 µS/cm <1 99.81413 µS/cm 10298.2


EA010: Electrical Conductivity @ 25°C ---- 1 µS/cm <1 1011412 µS/cm 10298.2

ED007: Exchangeable Cations (QCLot: 776646)

ED007: Exchangeable Calcium ---- 0.1 meq/100g <0.1 89.71.47 meq/100g 10570.2

ED007: Exchangeable Magnesium ---- 0.1 meq/100g <0.1 93.80.77 meq/100g 11076.4

ED007: Exchangeable Potassium ---- 0.1 meq/100g <0.1 70.20.20 meq/100g 95.370

ED007: Exchangeable Sodium ---- 0.1 meq/100g <0.1 76.80.51 meq/100g 10470

ED007: Cation Exchange Capacity ---- 0.1 meq/100g ---- 87.22.95 meq/100g 10470.1

ED007: Exchangeable Aluminium ---- 0.1 meq/100g <0.1 -------- --------















ED040S: Soluble Major Anions (QCLot: 775630)

ED040S: Sulfate as SO4 2- 14808-79-8 10 mg/kg <10 -------- --------




6 of 7:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EB0813632



Sub-Matrix: SOIL Method Blank (MB)

Report

Laboratory Control Spike (LCS) Report

Spike Spike Recovery (%) Recovery Limits (%)

Result Concentration HighLowLCSMethod: Compound CAS Number LOR Unit

ED040S: Soluble Major Anions (QCLot: 775643) - continued




ED045: Chloride (QCLot: 775629)

EDO45S: Chloride 16887-00-6 10 mg/kg <10 85.65000 mg/kg 12174


EDO45S: Chloride 16887-00-6 10 mg/kg <10 1075000 mg/kg 12174


EDO45S: Chloride 16887-00-6 10 mg/kg <10 99.65000 mg/kg 12174


EDO45S: Chloride 16887-00-6 10 mg/kg <10 1015000 mg/kg 12174

7 of 7:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EB0813632



Matrix Spike (MS) Report

The quality control term Matrix Spike (MS) refers to an intralaboratory split sample spiked with a representative set of target analytes. The purpose of this QC parameter is to monitor potential matrix effects on analyte

recoveries. Static Recovery Limits as per laboratory Data Quality Objectives (DQOs). Ideal recovery ranges stated may be waived in the event of sample matrix interference.

Sub-Matrix: SOIL Matrix Spike (MS) Report

Spike Recovery (%) Recovery Limits (%)Spike

HighLowMSConcentrationLaboratory sample ID Client sample ID Method: Compound CAS Number


16887-00-6EDO45S: Chloride Anonymous Anonymous Anonymous AnonymousEB0813631-001 Anonymous


16887-00-6EDO45S: Chloride 2450 mg/kg 96.7 70 130EB0813632-012 TP04_0.65-0.85


16887-00-6EDO45S: Chloride 1000 mg/kg 87.5 70 130EB0813632-026 TP09_0.25-0.45


16887-00-6EDO45S: Chloride 100 mg/kg 105 70 130EB0813632-037 TP01_1.2-1.4

True

INTERPRETIVE QUALITY CONTROL REPORT











Site : ----


James Rusk:Sampler Issue Date : 13-OCT-2008

:Order number ----

No. of samples received : 37

Quote number : EN/001/08 No. of samples analysed : 34

This report supersedes any previous report(s) with this reference. Results apply to the sample(s) as submitted. All pages of this report have been checked and approved for release.

This Interpretive Quality Control Report contains the following information:

l Analysis Holding Time Compliance

l Quality Control Parameter Frequency Compliance

l Brief Method Summaries

l Summary of Outliers




2 of 10:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EB0813632



Analysis Holding Time Compliance

The following report summarises extraction / preparation and analysis times and compares with recommended holding times. Dates reported represent first date of extraction or analysis and precludes subsequent

dilutions and reruns. Information is also provided re the sample container (preservative) from which the analysis aliquot was taken. Elapsed period to analysis represents number of days from sampling where no

extraction / digestion is involved or period from extraction / digestion where this is present. For composite samples, sampling date is assumed to be that of the oldest sample contributing to the composite. Sample date

for laboratory produced leachates is assumed as the completion date of the leaching process. Outliers for holding time are based on USEPA SW 846, APHA, AS and NEPM (1999). A listing of breaches is provided in

the Summary of Outliers.

Holding times for leachate methods (excluding elutriates) vary according to the analytes being determined on the resulting solution. For non -volatile analytes, the holding time compliance assessment compares the

leach date with the shortest analyte holding time for the equivalent soil method. These soil holding times are: Organics (14 days); Mercury (28 days) & other metals (180 days). A recorded breach therefore does not

guarantee a breach for all non-volatile parameters.

Matrix: SOIL Evaluation: û = Holding time breach ; ü = Within holding time.

AnalysisExtraction / PreparationSample DateMethod

EvaluationDue for analysisDate analysedEvaluationDue for extractionDate extractedContainer / Client Sample ID(s)

EA002 : pH (Soils)

Soil Glass Jar - Unpreserved

06-OCT-200827-SEP-2008TP01_0-0.2, TP01_0.2-0.4,

TP02_0-0.2, TP02_0.2-0.4,

TP02_1.3-1.5, TP03_0-0.1,

TP03_0.1-0.3, TP03_1.0-1.2,

TP04_0-0.05, TP04_0.15-0.35,

TP04_0.65-0.85, TP05_0-0.2,

TP05_0.75-0.95, TP05_1.0-1.2,

QC03_20/09/08, QC05_20/09/08,

QC07_20/09/08

06-OCT-200806-OCT-200820-SEP-2008 û ü


08-OCT-200827-SEP-2008TP01_1.2-1.4 08-OCT-200808-OCT-200820-SEP-2008 û üSoil Glass Jar - Unpreserved

06-OCT-200828-SEP-2008TP06_0-0.1, TP06_0.1-0.3,

TP06_1.0-1.2, TP07_0-0.1,

TP07_0.15-0.35, TP07_1.0-1.2,

TP08_0-0.15, TP08_0.15-0.35,

TP08_0.9-1.1, TP09_0-0.2,

TP09_0.25-0.45, TP09_1.05-1.25,

TP10_0-0.2, TP10_0.5-0.7,

TP10_1.0-1.2, QC11_20/09/08

06-OCT-200806-OCT-200821-SEP-2008 û ü

3 of 10:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EB0813632








19-MAR-200919-MAR-2009TP01_0-0.2, TP01_0.2-0.4,

TP04_0-0.05, TP04_0.15-0.35,

TP04_0.65-0.85, TP05_0-0.2,

TP05_0.75-0.95, TP05_1.0-1.2,

QC03_20/09/08

08-OCT-200808-OCT-200820-SEP-2008 ü ü


19-MAR-200919-MAR-2009TP01_1.2-1.4 09-OCT-200809-OCT-200820-SEP-2008 ü üSoil Glass Jar - Unpreserved

20-MAR-200920-MAR-2009TP08_0-0.15, TP08_0.15-0.35,

TP08_0.9-1.1, TP09_0-0.2,

TP09_0.25-0.45, TP09_1.05-1.25,

QC11_20/09/08

08-OCT-200808-OCT-200821-SEP-2008 ü ü

EA010: Conductivity


03-NOV-200827-SEP-2008TP01_0-0.2, TP01_0.2-0.4,

TP02_0-0.2, TP02_0.2-0.4,

TP02_1.3-1.5, TP03_0-0.1,

TP03_0.1-0.3, TP03_1.0-1.2,

TP04_0-0.05, TP04_0.15-0.35,

TP04_0.65-0.85, TP05_0-0.2,

TP05_0.75-0.95, TP05_1.0-1.2,

QC03_20/09/08, QC05_20/09/08,

QC07_20/09/08

06-OCT-200806-OCT-200820-SEP-2008 û ü


05-NOV-200827-SEP-2008TP01_1.2-1.4 08-OCT-200808-OCT-200820-SEP-2008 û üSoil Glass Jar - Unpreserved

03-NOV-200828-SEP-2008TP06_0-0.1, TP06_0.1-0.3,

TP06_1.0-1.2, TP07_0-0.1,

TP07_0.15-0.35, TP07_1.0-1.2,

TP08_0-0.15, TP08_0.15-0.35,

TP08_0.9-1.1, TP09_0-0.2,

TP09_0.25-0.45, TP09_1.05-1.25,

TP10_0-0.2, TP10_0.5-0.7,

TP10_1.0-1.2, QC11_20/09/08

06-OCT-200806-OCT-200821-SEP-2008 û ü

4 of 10:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EB0813632








27-SEP-2008----TP01_0-0.2, TP01_0.2-0.4,

TP04_0-0.05, TP04_0.15-0.35,

TP04_0.65-0.85, TP05_0-0.2,

TP05_0.75-0.95, TP05_1.0-1.2,

QC03_20/09/08

06-OCT-2008----20-SEP-2008 ---- û


27-SEP-2008----TP01_1.2-1.4 08-OCT-2008----20-SEP-2008 ---- ûSoil Glass Jar - Unpreserved

28-SEP-2008----TP08_0-0.15, TP08_0.15-0.35,

TP08_0.9-1.1, TP09_0-0.2,

TP09_0.25-0.45, TP09_1.05-1.25,

QC11_20/09/08

06-OCT-2008----21-SEP-2008 ---- û


Pulp Bag

19-MAR-200919-MAR-2009TP01_0-0.2, TP01_0.2-0.4,

TP04_0-0.05, TP04_0.15-0.35,

TP04_0.65-0.85, TP05_0-0.2,

TP05_0.75-0.95, TP05_1.0-1.2,

QC03_20/09/08

08-OCT-200807-OCT-200820-SEP-2008 ü ü

Pulp Bag

19-MAR-200919-MAR-2009TP01_1.2-1.4 08-OCT-200808-OCT-200820-SEP-2008 ü üPulp Bag

20-MAR-200920-MAR-2009TP08_0-0.15, TP08_0.15-0.35,

TP08_0.9-1.1, TP09_0-0.2,

TP09_0.25-0.45, TP09_1.05-1.25,

QC11_20/09/08

08-OCT-200807-OCT-200821-SEP-2008 ü ü



03-NOV-200827-SEP-2008TP01_0-0.2, TP01_0.2-0.4,

TP04_0-0.05, TP04_0.15-0.35,

TP04_0.65-0.85, TP05_0-0.2,

TP05_0.75-0.95, TP05_1.0-1.2,

QC03_20/09/08

06-OCT-200806-OCT-200820-SEP-2008 û ü



03-NOV-200828-SEP-2008TP08_0-0.15, TP08_0.15-0.35,

TP08_0.9-1.1, TP09_0-0.2,

TP09_0.25-0.45, TP09_1.05-1.25,

QC11_20/09/08

06-OCT-200806-OCT-200821-SEP-2008 û ü

5 of 10:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EB0813632






ED045: Chloride


03-NOV-200827-SEP-2008TP01_0-0.2, TP01_0.2-0.4,

TP04_0-0.05, TP04_0.15-0.35,

TP04_0.65-0.85, TP05_0-0.2,

TP05_0.75-0.95, TP05_1.0-1.2,

QC03_20/09/08

07-OCT-200806-OCT-200820-SEP-2008 û ü



03-NOV-200828-SEP-2008TP08_0-0.15, TP08_0.15-0.35,

TP08_0.9-1.1, TP09_0-0.2,

TP09_0.25-0.45, TP09_1.05-1.25,

QC11_20/09/08

07-OCT-200806-OCT-200821-SEP-2008 û ü

6 of 10:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EB0813632



Quality Control Parameter Frequency ComplianceThe following report summarises the frequency of laboratory QC samples analysed within the analytical lot(s) in which the submitted sample(s) was(where) processed. Actual rate should be greater than or equal to

the expected rate. A listing of breaches is provided in the Summary of Outliers.

Matrix: SOIL Evaluation: û = Quality Control frequency not within specification ; ü = Quality Control frequency within specification.

Quality Control SpecificationQuality Control Sample Type

ExpectedQC Regular Actual

Rate (%)Quality Control Sample Type CountEvaluationAnalytical Methods Method

Laboratory Duplicates (DUP)

NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALS QCS3 requirement 12.5 10.04 32 üChloride - Soluble EDO45S

NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALS QCS3 requirement 13.0 10.07 54 üElectrical Conductivity (1:5) EA010

NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALS QCS3 requirement 15.2 10.05 33 üExchangeable Cations ED007

NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALS QCS3 requirement 15.2 10.05 33 üMajor Anions - Soluble ED040S

NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALS QCS3 requirement 11.4 10.04 35 üMoisture Content EA055-103

NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALS QCS3 requirement 13.0 10.07 54 üpH (1:5) EA002

Laboratory Control Samples (LCS)




Method Blanks (MB)




NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALS QCS3 requirement 12.1 5.04 33 üMajor Anions - Soluble ED040S

Matrix Spikes (MS)

ALS QCS3 requirement 12.1 5.04 33 üChloride - Soluble EDO45S

7 of 10:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EB0813632



Brief Method SummariesThe analytical procedures used by the Environmental Division have been developed from established internationally recognized procedures such as those published by the US EPA, APHA, AS and NEPM. In house

developed procedures are employed in the absence of documented standards or by client request. The following report provides brief descriptions of the analytical procedures employed for results reported in the

Certificate of Analysis. Sources from which ALS methods have been developed are provided within the Method Descriptions.

Analytical Methods Method DescriptionsMatrixMethod

(APHA 21st ed., 4500H+) pH is determined on soil samples after a 1:5 soil/water leach. This method is

compliant with NEPM (1999) Schedule B(3) (Method 103)

pH (1:5) EA002 SOIL

USEPA 600/2 - 78 - 54. The concentration as meq of Ca, Mg and Na are determined on saturated soil by water

leach. Results are used to calculate SAR.

Sodium Absorption Ratio (SAR) EA006 SOIL

(APHA 21st ed., 2510) Conductivity is determined on soil samples using a 1:5 soil/water leach. This method is

compliant with NEPM (1999) Schedule B(3) (Method 104)

Electrical Conductivity (1:5) EA010 SOIL

A gravimetric procedure based on weight loss over a 12 hour drying period at 103-105 degrees C. This method

is compliant with NEPM (1999) Schedule B(3) (Method 102)

Moisture Content EA055-103 SOIL

Rayment & Higginson (1992) Method 15A1. Cations are exchanged from the sample by contact with Ammonium

Chloride. They are then quantitated in the final solution by ICPAES and reported as meq/100g of original soil.

This method is compliant with NEPM (1999) Schedule B(3) (Method 301)

Exchangeable Cations ED007 SOIL

In-house. Soluble Anions are determined off a 1:5 soil / water extract by ICPAES.Major Anions - Soluble ED040S SOIL

APHA 21st ed., 4500Cl- Soluble Chloride is determined titremetrically on soil samples following a 1:5 soil/water

leach. This method is compliant with NEPM (1999) Schedule B(3) (Method 401)

Chloride - Soluble EDO45S SOIL

Preparation Methods Method DescriptionsMatrixMethod

USEPA 600/2. Soil is bought to saturation with distilled water by capiliary action.SAR Prep EA006PR SOIL

Rayment & Higginson (1992) method 15A1. A 1M NH4Cl extraction by end over end tumbling at a ratio of 1:20.

There is no pretreatment for soluble salts. Extracts can be run by ICP for cations.

Exchangeable Cations Preparation

Method

ED007PR SOIL

10 g of soil is mixed with 50 mL of distilled water and tumbled end over end for 1 hour. Water soluble salts are

leached from the soil by the continuous suspension. Samples are settled and the water filtered off for analysis.

1:5 solid / water leach for soluble

analytes

EN34 SOIL

8 of 10:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EB0813632



Summary of Outliers

Outliers : Quality Control Samples

The following report highlights outliers flagged in the Quality Control (QC) Report. Surrogate recovery limits are static and based on USEPA SW846 or ALS-QWI/EN/38 (in the absence of specific USEPA limits). This

report displays QC Outliers (breaches) only.

Duplicates, Method Blanks, Laboratory Control Samples and Matrix Spikes

l For all matrices, no Method Blank value outliers occur.

l For all matrices, no Duplicate outliers occur.

l For all matrices, no Laboratory Control outliers occur.

l For all matrices, no Matrix Spike outliers occur.

Regular Sample Surrogates

l For all regular sample matrices, no surrogate recovery outliers occur.

Outliers : Analysis Holding Time Compliance

This report displays Holding Time breaches only. Only the respective Extraction / Preparation and/or Analysis component is/are displayed.

Matrix: SOIL

AnalysisExtraction / Preparation

Date analysedDate extractedContainer / Client Sample ID(s) Days

overdue

Days

overdue

Due for extraction Due for analysis

Method

EA002 : pH (Soils)


----27-SEP-2008TP01_0-0.2, TP01_0.2-0.4,

TP02_0-0.2, TP02_0.2-0.4,

TP02_1.3-1.5, TP03_0-0.1,

TP03_0.1-0.3, TP03_1.0-1.2,

TP04_0-0.05, TP04_0.15-0.35,

TP04_0.65-0.85, TP05_0-0.2,

TP05_0.75-0.95, TP05_1.0-1.2,

QC03_20/09/08, QC05_20/09/08,

QC07_20/09/08

----06-OCT-2008 9 ----


----27-SEP-2008TP01_1.2-1.4 ----08-OCT-2008 11 ----


----28-SEP-2008TP06_0-0.1, TP06_0.1-0.3,

TP06_1.0-1.2, TP07_0-0.1,

TP07_0.15-0.35, TP07_1.0-1.2,

TP08_0-0.15, TP08_0.15-0.35,

TP08_0.9-1.1, TP09_0-0.2,

TP09_0.25-0.45, TP09_1.05-1.25,

TP10_0-0.2, TP10_0.5-0.7,

TP10_1.0-1.2, QC11_20/09/08

----06-OCT-2008 8 ----

9 of 10:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EB0813632



Matrix: SOIL



overdue

Days

overdue


Method

EA010: Conductivity


----27-SEP-2008TP01_0-0.2, TP01_0.2-0.4,

TP02_0-0.2, TP02_0.2-0.4,

TP02_1.3-1.5, TP03_0-0.1,

TP03_0.1-0.3, TP03_1.0-1.2,

TP04_0-0.05, TP04_0.15-0.35,

TP04_0.65-0.85, TP05_0-0.2,

TP05_0.75-0.95, TP05_1.0-1.2,

QC03_20/09/08, QC05_20/09/08,

QC07_20/09/08

----06-OCT-2008 9 ----


----27-SEP-2008TP01_1.2-1.4 ----08-OCT-2008 11 ----


----28-SEP-2008TP06_0-0.1, TP06_0.1-0.3,

TP06_1.0-1.2, TP07_0-0.1,

TP07_0.15-0.35, TP07_1.0-1.2,

TP08_0-0.15, TP08_0.15-0.35,

TP08_0.9-1.1, TP09_0-0.2,

TP09_0.25-0.45, TP09_1.05-1.25,

TP10_0-0.2, TP10_0.5-0.7,

TP10_1.0-1.2, QC11_20/09/08

----06-OCT-2008 8 ----



27-SEP-2008----TP01_0-0.2, TP01_0.2-0.4,

TP04_0-0.05, TP04_0.15-0.35,

TP04_0.65-0.85, TP05_0-0.2,

TP05_0.75-0.95, TP05_1.0-1.2,

QC03_20/09/08

06-OCT-2008---- ---- 9


27-SEP-2008----TP01_1.2-1.4 08-OCT-2008---- ---- 11


28-SEP-2008----TP08_0-0.15, TP08_0.15-0.35,

TP08_0.9-1.1, TP09_0-0.2,

TP09_0.25-0.45, TP09_1.05-1.25,

QC11_20/09/08

06-OCT-2008---- ---- 8


10 of 10:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EB0813632



Matrix: SOIL



overdue

Days

overdue


Method

ED040S: Soluble Major Anions - Analysis Holding Time Compliance


----27-SEP-2008TP01_0-0.2, TP01_0.2-0.4,

TP04_0-0.05, TP04_0.15-0.35,

TP04_0.65-0.85, TP05_0-0.2,

TP05_0.75-0.95, TP05_1.0-1.2,

QC03_20/09/08

----06-OCT-2008 9 ----


----27-SEP-2008TP01_1.2-1.4 ----08-OCT-2008 11 ----


----28-SEP-2008TP08_0-0.15, TP08_0.15-0.35,

TP08_0.9-1.1, TP09_0-0.2,

TP09_0.25-0.45, TP09_1.05-1.25,

QC11_20/09/08

----06-OCT-2008 8 ----

ED045: Chloride


----27-SEP-2008TP01_0-0.2, TP01_0.2-0.4,

TP04_0-0.05, TP04_0.15-0.35,

TP04_0.65-0.85, TP05_0-0.2,

TP05_0.75-0.95, TP05_1.0-1.2,

QC03_20/09/08

----06-OCT-2008 9 ----


----27-SEP-2008TP01_1.2-1.4 ----08-OCT-2008 11 ----


----28-SEP-2008TP08_0-0.15, TP08_0.15-0.35,

TP08_0.9-1.1, TP09_0-0.2,

TP09_0.25-0.45, TP09_1.05-1.25,

QC11_20/09/08

----06-OCT-2008 8 ----

Outliers : Frequency of Quality Control Samples

The following report highlights breaches in the Frequency of Quality Control Samples.

l No Quality Control Sample Frequency Outliers exist.


Analytical Data Validation Appendix B


B Anal ytical Data Validati on


Test Pit Logs Appendix C


C Test Pit Logs