Appendix H Land Capability Assessment H Land Capability Assessment
Appendix HLand Capability Assessment
H
Land Capability A
ssessment
1.
w w w . e c o z . c o m . a u
Land Capability
Assessment:
Noonamah Ridge Estate
Prepared for: Intrapac Projects Pty Ltd
Prepared by: EcOz Environmental Consultants
2015
Client: Intrapac Projects Pty Ltd ii
Doc Title: Land Capability Assessment: Noonamah Ridge Estate
This page has been intentionally left blank
Client: Intrapac Projects Pty Ltd iii
Doc Title: Land Capability Assessment: Noonamah Ridge Estate
Document Control Record
Document Code: EZ14403A-C0301-DA-R-0003
Catalogue Number: 55472
Project Manager: Glen Ewers
Author(s): Helen Dwyer, Justine Shailes
Approved by: Glen Ewers
Approval date: 17 August 2015
DOCUMENT HISTORY
Version Issue Date Brief Description Reviewer/Approver
1.A 28 Apr 2015 Report preparation by authors -
1.B 6 May 2015 Internal review Glen Ewers
1.C 11 May 2015 Internal review David van den Hoek
1.D-F 12 May 2015 Update of report post review Helen Dwyer
1.0 14 May 2015 Draft shared internally for comments -
1.1-4 10 Jun 2015 Updated report incorporating comments received Max Shifman, Paul Nicholls & Martin Klopper
1.5 17 Aug 2015 Report complete and ready for inclusion in EIS -
Recipients are responsible for eliminating all superseded documents in their possession.
EcOz Pty Ltd.
ABN: 81 143 989 039
Winlow House, 3rd Floor
75 Woods Street
DARWIN NT 0800
GPO Box 381, Darwin NT 0800
Telephone: +61 8 8981 1100
Facsimile: +61 8 8981 1102
Email: [email protected]
Internet: www.ecoz.com.au
RELIANCE, USES and LIMITATIONS
This report is copyright and is to be used only for its intended purpose by the intended recipient, and is not to be copied or used in any
other way. The report may be relied upon for its intended purpose within the limits of the following disclaimer.
This study, report and analyses have been based on the information available to EcOz Environmental Consultants at the time of
preparation. EcOz Environmental Consultants accepts responsibility for the report and its conclusions to the extent that the information
was sufficient and accurate at the time of preparation. EcOz Environmental Consultants does not take responsibility for errors and
omissions due to incorrect information or information not available to EcOz Environmental Consultants at the time of preparation of the
study, report or analyses.
Client: Intrapac Projects Pty Ltd iv
Doc Title: Land Capability Assessment: Noonamah Ridge Estate
This page has been intentionally left blank
Client: Intrapac Projects Pty Ltd v
Doc Title: Land Capability Assessment: Noonamah Ridge Estate
Executive Summary
This report investigates potential locations for on-site wastewater treatment and disposal systems within the
proposed Noonamah Ridge Estate, located on Section 5827, 507, 5758 and 5761 Hundred of Strangways.
The Land Capability Assessment involved a desktop assessment, field investigation and laboratory analysis
of soil samples from soil test pits, and targeted common and relatively unconstrained land units (i.e. no test
pits were excavated in rocky ridge areas or creek lines). Ten soil test pits were excavated in the north-
western portion of Sections 5827 and 5758 for the purpose of describing and assessing soil types and
characteristics relevant to on-site wastewater management in accordance with in the Guidelines for Land
Capability Assessment for On-site Wastewater Management (DoH 2014). Key features including depth, rock
and gravel content, soil texture, structure and colour, and presence of water table were recorded, while
laboratory samples were analysed for key physical and chemical parameters.
Intrapac currently plans to provide a variety of lot sizes and associated infrastructure, and the majority of lots
will be sewered and connected to centralised, communal wastewater treatment systems capable of treating
large volumes of wastewater. Additional to this, there is potential for a number of larger lots to be developed
with individual on-site wastewater management systems. The early stages of development will likely involve
a release of these larger lots in the north-western section of the proposed development. Therefore, the focus
of this LCA was a targeted assessment of the north-western section of the proposed development (which
may include the site of one of the communal wastewater treatment systems), and then an extrapolation of
the results of this assessment into an investigation and identification of the land units within the entire site
that are potentially capable of supporting large-scale systems. As this development will be staged over a
number of decades, accurate locations for rural lots and sites for centralised systems were not available at
the time of reporting. Siting and design of on-site wastewater management systems outside of the
investigation area will require more detailed, site-specific investigations at each location.
The LCA covered ten test pits over six land units – 1c, 2b1, 2b2, 3c, 6a2 and 6b. The site characteristics
and soil test pits identified that:
The site covers a wide range of landforms and land units and necessitated extrapolation of soil test
pit data across the represented land units.
The overall landform and drainage of the project area includes steep, rocky ridge lines in the centre
of the project area with slopes of up to 15 % and rapid drainage. Side slopes and undulating
uplands surround these, before the site flattens into lower slopes and eventually drainage floors
and creek lines. The slopes range from 2-5 % in the side slopes and undulating uplands to 0-2 %
in the lower slopes and drainage floors. Drainage is poor in the drainage floors and creek lines,
and there are a number of seasonally inundated areas. Drainage from the project area is
predominantly west into a tributary of the Elizabeth River, with some drainage toward the Adelaide
River to the east.
There are sufficient unconstrained soils within the sampled land units capable of supporting on-site
wastewater management systems, subject to site-specific designs once locations are finalised.
Soil data indicates that the most appropriate (i.e. unconstrained) of the surveyed land units for
siting of wastewater management systems are 1c, 2b1, 2b2 and 3c.
Test pits within land units 6a2 and 6b indicate low capability due to shallow, sandy soils with high
permeability and high seasonal water tables. Some areas of these land units are seasonally-
inundated and on-site wastewater management systems should not be sited within these land
units.
Test pits within land units 1c, 2b1, 2b2 and 3c indicate gravelly, sandy clay loam to sandy loam
with some occurrences of silty clay loam. Although gravels and coarse fragments were common
the areas surrounding the test pits had no rock outcrop. The soils were well-drained, with no
Client: Intrapac Projects Pty Ltd vi
Doc Title: Land Capability Assessment: Noonamah Ridge Estate
presence of water tables, although some test pits within land unit 1c and 3c had mottling in the
lower profiles (approximately 0.8 m below ground level) indicating potential water ingress.
Laboratory results for soil pH, EC, P-sorption capacity, sodicity and Emerson aggregate classes
indicate high-moderate capability for all analytes, and none of the tested parameters are likely to
pose limitations to on-site wastewater treatment and disposal.
Test pits were located on the lower slope landforms within the respective land units. It should be
noted that the upper slopes and ridge lines within land unit 1c are very rocky and steep. Locations
of wastewater management systems within land unit 1c should be closely assessed to ensure there
is sufficient soil and slope to accommodate the proposed system.
Specific wastewater treatment and land application systems were not assessed as it is understood
Intrapac plan to install specialised treatment systems capable of treating to tertiary quality, which
would allow for any land application system. The sizing and design of these systems will be
undertaken by the installer, who will also maintain the system.
The above conclusions are based on the findings of the investigated sites and are assumed to be
representative of the greater property; however, lot-specific limitations may occur. Additionally, not all land
units within the project area were assessed in this LCA, and there may be additional land units that are
capable (or not) of supporting proposed on-site wastewater management systems. Each lot, or specific
location for centralised wastewater systems, will require assessment from a suitably qualified plumber on the
appropriate system to be installed.
Client: Intrapac Projects Pty Ltd vii
Doc Title: Land Capability Assessment: Noonamah Ridge Estate
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Background ..........................................................................................................................................1
1.2 Development details .............................................................................................................................1
1.3 Relevant legislation and guidelines ......................................................................................................3
1.4 Cumulative risk assessment ................................................................................................................3
2 Site Assessment ..........................................................................................................................................5
3 Soils Assessment ..................................................................................................................................... 11
3.1 Context .............................................................................................................................................. 11
3.2 Method .............................................................................................................................................. 11
3.3 Results .............................................................................................................................................. 12
3.4 Discussion ......................................................................................................................................... 14
4 Wastewater Management System ........................................................................................................... 16
4.1 Overview of options ........................................................................................................................... 16
4.2 Site constraints and recommended treatment system(s).................................................................. 17
5 Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 19
6 Acronyms and References ....................................................................................................................... 20
Tables
Table 2-1. Summary of site features .................................................................................................................5 Table 3-1. General characteristics of the main soil orders occurring with the Noonamah Ridge Estate ....... 11 Table 3-2. Soil test pits and corresponding land units .................................................................................... 12 Table 3-3. Summary of soil characteristics..................................................................................................... 12 Table 4-1. Treatment and land application systems available (Source: DoH 2014) ...................................... 16 Table 4-2. Common land application systems ............................................................................................... 16 Table 4-3. Land units and recommended treatment and application systems ............................................... 18
Figures
Figure 1-1. Map of Noonamah Ridge Estate project area location ...................................................................4 Figure 2-1. Map of LCA test pit locations and land units ...................................................................................8 Figure 2-2. Map of ground-truthed land units in project area ............................................................................9 Figure 2-3. Map of site drainage ..................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 3-1. Photograph of water table in TP1 ................................................................................................ 15 Figure 3-2. Photograph of profile of TP2 – typical of land unit 1c .................................................................. 15 Figure 3-3. Photograph of profile of TP8 – land unit 3c .................................................................................. 15 Figure 3-4. Photograph of topsoil at TP7 – typical of land unit 3c .................................................................. 15
Appendices
Appendix A – Soil Bore Logs Appendix B – Soil Laboratory Results
Client: Intrapac Projects Pty Ltd 1
Doc Title: Land Capability Assessment: Noonamah Ridge Estate
1 Introduction
A Land Capability Assessment (LCA) was undertaken at the site of the proposed residential subdivision,
Noonamah Ridge Estate, located 36 km south-east of Darwin. The proponent, Intrapac Projects Pty Ltd
(Intrapac), is required to provide an assessment of the capability of the site to support onsite wastewater
management as part of environmental approvals process, and this report is supplementary to the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The information provided in this LCA will also inform development
planning and design with relation to location and sizing of on-site wastewater treatment and land application
areas.
The Northern Territory Department of Health require LCA’s for all development proposals in un-sewered
areas, including all subdivision proposals for three or more lots. The Environmental Health Guidelines for
Land Capability Assessment for On-site Wastewater Management (DoH 2014) stipulate the process for
assessment of land capability of proposed subdivisions and developments to ensure that lots can support
wastewater treatment and land application without impacting surrounding and downstream environments.
The LCA for the Noonamah Ridge Estate followed this process, and involved collection of desktop and field
data to analyse landform, soil characteristics and potential constraints (i.e. rock outcrop/seasonal
waterlogging) to identify land units that are appropriate for siting on-site wastewater management systems.
The proposed subdivision at Noonamah Ridge Estate will involve a variety of lot sizes and associated
infrastructure. The majority of lots will be sewered and connected to centralised, communal wastewater
treatment systems capable of treating large volumes of wastewater. Additional to this, there is potential for a
number of larger lots to be developed with individual on-site wastewater management systems. The early
stages of development will likely involve a release of these larger lots in the north-western section of the
proposed development. Therefore, the focus of this LCA was a targeted assessment of the north-western
section of the proposed development (which may well include the site of one of the communal wastewater
treatment systems), and then an extrapolation of the results of this assessment into an investigation and
identification of the land units within the entire site that are potentially capable of supporting large-scale
systems. As this development will be staged over a number of decades, accurate locations for rural lots and
sites for centralised systems were not available at the time of reporting. Siting and design of on-site
wastewater management systems outside of the investigation area will require more detailed, site-specific
investigations at each location.
1.1 Background
The project site is located in the locality of Lloyd Creek within the South Ward of the Municipality of Litchfield
(see Figure 1-1). The site is 7 km south-east of the township of Humpty Doo and 36 km south-east of the
Darwin Central Business District. It is a greenfield site covering 2,800 hectares.
A Land Suitability Assessment (LSA) was undertaken to assess the suitability of the area for the proposed
land use and to identify any potential environmental constraints requiring management or mitigation
measures during the planning, design and construction phases of the development – see the relevant
appendix of the EIS. Land unit information collated and ground-truthed for the LSA was used as a basis for
LCA investigations and will inform the extrapolation of LCA data to identify areas which are likely to be most
suitable for siting of wastewater treatment and land application systems.
1.2 Development details
Location
The project area is bounded by Redcliffe Road, Townend Road and Mocatto Road along the west, south and
east respectively, and is accessed from several roads adjoining the Stuart Highway, including Elizabeth
Valley Road and Townend Road – see Figure 1-1
Client: Intrapac Projects Pty Ltd 2
Doc Title: Land Capability Assessment: Noonamah Ridge Estate
Address
The lots over which the project (henceforth referred to as ‘the project area’) covers are:
Section 5827, Hundred of Strangways
Section 507, Hundred of Strangways
Section 5758, Hundred of Strangways
Section 5761, Hundred of Strangways.
Owner
The project area is located on freehold land owned as follows:
Koolpinyah Station Pty Ltd
Section 5827
Section 5758
Section 5761
Norama Enterprises Incorporated Section 507
Zoning
Section 5761 is zoned Rural, the remainder are zoned Rural Living.
Existing site land use
The site is currently unoccupied and naturally vegetated. A Telstra tower exists within Section 5761 and
several small tracks traverse the project area. A number of mineral tenements exist within the project area;
these are not currently in use. Two historic gravel pits exist in the north of the project area; these have been
inactive for some time and vegetation regrowth is well established in disturbed areas.
Surrounding land use
Surrounding land uses include undeveloped land, rural lots and subdivisions, mixed use agriculture and
agricultural support industries (e.g. cattle yards, abattoir). Land tenure surrounding the project consists of a
majority of freehold land directly to the north, west and south of the development, with a large area of
perpetual pastoral lease land (Station, NT Koolpinyah portion 4477) neighbouring on the eastern side of the
boundary.
The nearest permanent surface water body is the Elizabeth River, which commences 800 m west of the
project area and drains north-east. A tributary of the Adelaide River commences approximately 820 m east
of the project area, and drains east to the Adelaide River 14 km.
Development permit
A Notice of Intent was submitted to the Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority (NTEPA) on 22
December 2013 for consideration under the Environmental Assessment Act. The NTEPA determined that
the project should be assessed at the level of an EIS and released the associated Terms of Reference in
December 2014.
The proponent is currently preparing the Environmental Impact Statement for this project.
The development is planned to be undertaken in phases and a development permit will be sought for each
phase as required. There is currently no development permit application.
Development layout and lot size
The proposed layout currently provides for approximately 4,155 lots of various typologies including urban,
semi-urban and rural residential living, sized from 800 m2
to 8 ha. The first phase of development will
comprise 400 lots sized urban to rural, and development of a village centre, with access from Elizabeth
Client: Intrapac Projects Pty Ltd 3
Doc Title: Land Capability Assessment: Noonamah Ridge Estate
Valley Road. Intrapac plan to provide for development of schools, shopping precincts and up to two village
centres across the project area.
Headworks
Intrapac plans to service all of the lots with power, the majority with reticulated water (some may have
bores), and to have most of the lots connected to centralised sewerage treatment. Some larger blocks may
have on-site wastewater management. Site drainage will be engineered to ensure lots and developed areas
are well drained and maintain existing preferential water flow-paths (i.e. toward creek systems).
Anticipated wastewater load
A measure of ‘equivalent persons’ (EP) is determined in accordance with land use within the development,
types of dwellings, recreational facilities, commercial establishment etc. As the majority of the land use
within the development will be residential detached dwellings an initial value of 3.5 EP/dwelling has been
adopted to determine the peak EP. The Sewer Code of Australia WSA-02-2002 (NT Supplement) will be
used during details design to calculate the EP values.
With 4,155 lots proposed, the peak capacity will be 14,542 EP and the total wastewater generated will be 2.9
ML/day (assuming generation of 200 L/EP/day in accordance with Australian Standard 1547:2012). The flow
associated with this value will be based on the standard value of 200 L/EP/day as this is a widely accepted
value for wastewater generation in Australia and is based on modern water savings fixtures being used
throughout the development.
1.3 Relevant legislation and guidelines
AS/NZS 1547:2012 On-site Domestic Wastewater Management (Standards Australia / Standards New
Zealand, 2012)
AS/NZS 1546.1 Australian Standard On-site domestic wastewater treatment units: Septic Tanks
(Standards Australia / Standards New Zealand, 2008)
Territory Health Services (1996) Code of Practice for Small On-site Sewage and Sullage Treatment
Systems and the Disposal or Reuse of Sewage Effluent
Department of Health Guidelines for Land Capability Assessment for On-site Wastewater
Management (DoH 2014)
1.4 Cumulative risk assessment
The cumulative risks of large-scale on-site wastewater management have been identified and discussed in
Chapter 5 of the EIS, and have not been addressed here.
!
Fogg Dam
Mandorah
Noonamah
Humpty Doo
Koolpinyah
Berry Springs
Howard Springs
Howa
rd Ri
ver
Elizabeth River
Black
more
River
River Annie
Darw
in Riv
er
Manton
River
Adela
ide R
iver
Dalys
Cree
k
Marrakai Creek
Acacia Creek
690000
690000
700000
700000
710000
710000
720000
720000
730000
730000
740000
740000
750000
750000
760000
760000
8580
000
8590
000
8600
000
8610
000
8620
000
8630
000
Path: Z:\01 EcOz_Documents\04 EcOz Vantage GIS\EZ14400 - Noonamah Ridge Estates EIS\01 Project Files\Figure XX - General Location Map_HD.mxdFigure 1-1. Map of project area location and major surface water catchments
!
O0 10 205
Kilometres
NOONAMAH RIDGE ESTATE
MAP INFORMATIONName: General Location MapProjection: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 52Date Saved: 14/08/2015Client: IntrapacAuthor: Helen Dwyer (reviewed by Glen Ewers)DATA SOURCERoad layers: Geoscience AustraliaWaterways: NTGCatchments: NGSAProject boundary: ClientImagery: ESRI basemap
! TownsMajor watercoursesProject area boundaryMain roadsMinor roadsSecondary RoadDual carriageway
EcOz makes every effort to ensure this map is free of errors but does not warrent the map or its features are either spatiallyor temporally accurate or fit for a particular purpose. EcOz provides this map without any warrenty of anykind whatsoever, either express or implied.
Palmerston
STUART HIGHWAY
ARNHEM HIGHWAY
ADEL
AIDE
RIV
ER
Darwin
DARWIN
Client: Intrapac Projects Pty Ltd 5
Doc Title: Land Capability Assessment: Noonamah Ridge Estate
2 Site Assessment
A site investigation was undertaken by an EcOz environmental scientist on 13 February 2015 at ten sites
across six land units originally defined in the land Resources of the Greater Darwin area land unit mapping
1:25,000, and ground-truthed by EcOz in the LSA (Figure 2-1). The test sites did not sample all land units
within the project area, and there may be land units that are unconstrained or constrained that were not
investigated as part of this LCA (refer to Figure 2-2). However, sufficient data was collected to allow for
extrapolation of information across similar land units (e.g. all drainage floors/inundated areas can be
assumed to present similar constraints for on-site wastewater management). Further investigations may be
required should plans indicate that wastewater management systems will be located in land units not
investigated as part of this LCA.
Site features were assessed for capability to support on-site wastewater management with reference to the
land capability rating scale provided in the LCA Guidelines (DoH 2014). Desktop and field data was used to
compile key site information in Table 2-1. Field investigations involved excavation of soil test pits up to 1.5 m
deep (or refusal), and recording key site features, soil and landform characteristics and presence of potential
limiting factors or constraints. Samples were taken for laboratory analysis of soil parameters relevant to
wastewater management (refer to Section 3).
Site observations and land unit mapping undertaken for the LSA also informed the land capability rankings
for site features assessed in Table 2-1. The land capability rankings for the site features are based on an
assessment of the entire project area. The size of the project area (2,800 ha) allows for some potential
constraints (e.g. flooding/drainage) to be a allocated a greater capability ranking as there is sufficient well
drained land to justify an overall ranking of (for example) High capability for drainage. This assumes that
centralised wastewater treatment and disposal systems will be located in areas of high capability as the site
provides opportunity to select the most appropriate locations.
Table 2-1. Summary of site features
Aspect Land capability
Climate
The climate for Noonamah is typical of the tropics with a pronounced wet and dry season. Climate data from nearby Middle Point station (number 14041) indicates that there is little fluctuation in minimum and maximum temperatures (14-24ºC and 32-37ºC respectively) throughout the year, but that rainfall and humidity are highly seasonal (BOM 2015). The majority of annual rainfall (averaging ~1400 mm) falls within the summer/wet season months November – April. The average pan evaporation rate is approximately 2400 mm per annum.
Moderate – limited by monsoonal
climate
Exposure
Aspect varies across the project area and is summarised as north/north-easterly and south/south-westerly. Ridges run through the middle of the project area in a north-east/south-west direction and all topography radiates down from this.
Mean solar exposure (in MJ/m2) for the site is 21.5, with a maximum of 24.6 (Oct)
and a minimum of 19 (Feb). The site is well vegetated.
Moderate
Vegetation
Vegetation at the site ranges from open Eucalyptus woodland and Eucalyptus woodland on the ridges, upper slopes, side slopes and uplands, to open Corymbia and Lophostemon forest on the lower slopes and drainage lines. Broad drainage floors are dominated by tall shrubland and open woodland of grevillea and melaleuca species.
Land unit information and vegetation data is summarised in the LSA and Vegetation Assessment at the site (see relevant appendices of the EIS).
Moderate
Client: Intrapac Projects Pty Ltd 6
Doc Title: Land Capability Assessment: Noonamah Ridge Estate
Aspect Land capability
Landform and drainage
The ridge lines, upper slopes and uplands are generally relatively steep or undulating and are rapidly drained to moderately rapidly drained. Side slopes and lower slopes are well drained to imperfectly drained, and the drainage floors and creek lines are seasonally inundated and/or waterlogged (i.e. poorly drained). A map of drainage across the site is provided in Figure 2-3. The LCA targeted the undulating uplands and side slopes of the project area considered most appropriate for wastewater management systems.
High (sufficient available well
drained land to accommodate
systems)
Slope
Slopes vary from 5-15 % along the ridge lines and upland areas, 2-5 % in the side slopes and undulating uplands, and 0-2 % in the lower slope and drainage floors. The LCA focused on the slopes of 1-2 % (although some sites were located on slopes of 0-1 % and 2-3 %). The LCA Guidelines recommend stipulate that slopes of < 5 % are most appropriate for wastewater management systems.
High (assuming all systems are
located on slopes of < 5 %)
Fill
With the exception of two small, isolated gravel pits in the north-west of the project area the site is relatively undisturbed. No fill material was identified in the soil assessment areas.
High
Surface gravel and rock outcrops
The site is characterised by rocky, gravelly ridges and upper slopes which are not considered appropriate for wastewater management under the LCA Guidelines.
Soil survey sites targeted the side slopes and lower slopes, and no rock outcrop was observed at any survey sites. Surface gravels ranged from 5-60 % (average of 35 %), mostly small ferruginous pebbles and laterite gravel.
Moderate
Erosion potential
The site is predominantly undisturbed and no significant erosion was identified in the survey areas. Slopes in the survey area were relatively flat and soils were not sodic/dispersive (Emerson Class numbers 4 and 8). Soil texture is predominantly sandy/sandy loam and sandy clay loam, which is considered less erodible than lighter silt soils.
High
Groundwater
A recent onsite groundwater study (see relevant appendix of the EIS) indicated that at least three types of aquifer underlie the project area – with at least one porous, high yielding sandstone aquifer occurring adjacent to a major fault zone. Seven aquifer ‘zones’ have been described within the project area, indicating that groundwater conditions are highly variable across the site.
Due to the steeply dipping and folded beds and major interruptions by fault lines, aquifers are variable in yield (0.5 – 15 L/s) and limited in extent, forming localised aquifers which may extend offsite in some locations.
Soil investigation pits intercepted shallow (likely seasonal) water tables in two pits; TP1 intercepted water at 0.9 m below ground level (BGL) and TP9 intercepted water at 0.5 m BGL. These sites were located within land units 6a2 and 6b, both of which are seasonally inundated.
High, except for land units 5b1, 6a2 and 6b which are
Low.
Rainfall run-on and seepage
In general the ridges and upper slopes of the site direct rainfall runoff toward the lower-lying areas (e.g. land unit 4c) and eventually to the broad drainage floors and creek lines throughout the site (5b1, 6a2, 6b).
As per the LCA Guidelines, centralised wastewater systems should be located outside of areas that will receive significant run-on. Diversionary structures may be required.
Moderate
Flood potential
Several creek and drainage lines traverse the project area. Flood modelling for 1 %
High (assuming all areas within 1 %
Client: Intrapac Projects Pty Ltd 7
Doc Title: Land Capability Assessment: Noonamah Ridge Estate
Aspect Land capability
Annual Exceedance Probability (1 in 100 year events) will be undertaken in stages for the entire site to identify flood prone areas. All wastewater systems will be located outside of flood prone areas.
AEP are avoided)
Recommended buffer distances
The project area is sufficiently sized and largely undeveloped such that all setback distances specified in the NT Code of Practice for Onsite Wastewater Management (THS 1996) can be accommodated.
High
Available land application area
Centralised land application areas will be sited in appropriately-sized areas to ensure sufficient land is available for absorption and disposal of treated wastewater.
High
")
")
")
")
")
") ")")
")5
98
7
4
3
2
1
10
730000
730000
730500
730500
731000
731000
731500
731500
732000
732000
8599
000
8599
500
8600
000
8600
500
8601
000
8601
500
8602
000
8602
500
8603
000
8603
500
8604
000
Path: Z:\01 EcOz_Documents\04 EcOz Vantage GIS\EZ14400 - Noonamah Ridge Estates EIS\01 Project Files\LCA\Figure 2-1. Map of LCA test pit locations and land units.mxd
MAP INFORMATIONName: Figure 2-1. Map of LCA test pit locaitonsand land unitsProjection: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 52Date Saved: 14/08/2015Client: Intrapac Projects Pty LtdAuthor: Helen Dwyer (reviewed by Glen Ewers)DATA SOURCELand units: NTG, EcOzSite Data: EcOzImagery: Intrapac Aerial
Figure 2-1. Map of LCA test pit locations and land units
") LCA test pitsWatercourses and Drainage Lines
Stream order 1Stream order 2Project area boundaryCadastral Boundaries
Land unitsRugged terrain
1c - Low scarps, steep slopes, rock outcrop,Open forest to open woodland (Eucalyptus)
Gravelly undulating terrain2a1 - Low hills and upper slopes, surfacegravels, open Eucalyptus woodland2b1 - Gentle sideslopes, low hills, gravelly,open woodland (Ironwood and Corymbia)2b2 - Gentle sideslopes, low hills, rockoutcrops, open woodland to woodland(Eucalyptus)
Very undulating upland surface3b - Flat to undulating uplands, gravelly,woodland to open forest (Eucalyptus)3c - Flat to undulating uplands, extensivegravels and rock outcrops, open forest to openwoodland (Eucalyptus)
Gentle lower slopes4b - Gentle lower slopes, seasonalwaterlogging, open woodland (Ironwood,Corymbia, Eucalyptus)4c - Gentle lower slopes, seasonalwaterlogging, open mixed forest
Drainage lines within upland terrain5b1 - Drainage lines within uplands, seasonalinundation, open forest to open woodland(Melaleuca, Eucalyptus, Corymbia)
Broad plains6a2 - Broad plains, seasonal inundation, openwoodland to woodland (Corymbia, Ironwood,Eucalytus)6b - Broad drainage floors and creek margins,seasonal inundation, tall shrubland to low openwoodland (Ironwood, Melaleuca, Corymbia)
Disturbed areasGravel pit - disturbed areas
0 0.5 10.25Kilometres
O
EcOz makes every effort to ensure this map is free of errorsbut does not warrant the map or its features as either spatiallyor temporally accurate or fit for a particular use. EcOz provides this map without any warranty of any kind whatsoever, either express or implied.
Section 5758
Section 5827
730000
730000
731000
731000
732000
732000
733000
733000
8595
000
8596
000
8597
000
8598
000
8599
000
8600
000
8601
000
8602
000
8603
000
8604
000
Path: Z:\01 EcOz_Documents\04 EcOz Vantage GIS\EZ14400 - Noonamah Ridge Estates EIS\01 Project Files\LCA\Figure 2-2. Map of project area land units.mxd
MAP INFORMATIONName: Figure 2-2. Map of ground-truthed land unitsProjection: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 52Date Saved: 14/08/2015Client: Intrapac Projects Pty LtdAuthor: Helen Dwyer (reviewed by Glen Ewers)DATA SOURCELand units: NTG, EcOzSite Data: EcOzImagery: Intrapac Aerial
Figure 2-2. Map of ground-truthed land units in project area
LCA target areaProject area boundaryLand units not assessed in LCA
Land unitsRugged terrain
1c - Low scarps, steep slopes, rock outcrop,Open forest to open woodland (Eucalyptus)
Gravelly undulating terrain2a1 - Low hills and upper slopes, surfacegravels, open Eucalyptus woodland2b1 - Gentle sideslopes, low hills, gravelly, openwoodland (Ironwood and Corymbia)2b2 - Gentle sideslopes, low hills, rock outcrops,open woodland to woodland (Eucalyptus)
Very undulating upland surface3a - Flat to undulating uplands, minor gravel,open forest (Eualyptus)3b - Flat to undulating uplands, gravelly,woodland to open forest (Eucalyptus)3c - Flat to undulating uplands, extensive gravelsand rock outcrops, open forest to open woodland(Eucalyptus)3d - Undulating uplands, gravelly, minor rockoutcrop, open woodland (Corymbia andEucalyptus)3e - Drainage areas within uplands, slowdrainage, woodland (Eucalyptus, Ironwood,Corymbia)
Gentle lower slopes4b - Gentle lower slopes, seasonal waterlogging,open woodland (Ironwood, Corymbia,Eucalyptus)4c - Gentle lower slopes, seasonal waterlogging,open mixed forest
Drainage lines within upland terrain5b1 - Drainage lines within uplands, seasonalinundation, open forest to open woodland(Melaleuca, Eucalyptus, Corymbia)
Broad plains6a2 - Broad plains, seasonal inundation, openwoodland to woodland (Corymbia, Ironwood,Eucalytus)6b - Broad drainage floors and creek margins,seasonal inundation, tall shrubland to low openwoodland (Ironwood, Melaleuca, Corymbia)
Disturbed areasGravel pit - disturbed areas
0 1 20.5Kilometres
O
EcOz makes every effort to ensure this map is free of errorsbut does not warrant the map or its features as either spatiallyor temporally accurate or fit for a particular use. EcOz provides this map without any warranty of any kind whatsoever, either express or implied.
")
")
")
")
")
") ")")
")5
987
4
3
2
1
10
730000
730000
731000
731000
732000
732000
733000
733000
8595
000
8596
000
8597
000
8598
000
8599
000
8600
000
8601
000
8602
000
8603
000
8604
000
Path: Z:\01 EcOz_Documents\04 EcOz Vantage GIS\EZ14400 - Noonamah Ridge Estates EIS\01 Project Files\LCA\Figure 2-3. Map of site drainage.mxd
MAP INFORMATIONName: Figure 2-3. Map of site drainageProjection: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 52Date Saved: 14/08/2015Client: Intrapac Projects Pty LtdAuthor: Helen Dwyer (reviewed by Glen Ewers)DATA SOURCELand units: NTG, EcOzSite Data: EcOzImagery: Intrapac Aerial
Figure 2-3. Map of site drainage
") LCA test pitsProject area boundary
Watercourses and Drainage LinesStream order 1Stream order 2
Site drainageWell drainedModerately well drainedImperfectly drainedPoorly drained
0 1 20.5Kilometres
O
EcOz makes every effort to ensure this map is free of errorsbut does not warrant the map or its features as either spatiallyor temporally accurate or fit for a particular use. EcOz provides this map without any warranty of any kind whatsoever, either express or implied.
Drainage categories obtained from Land Suitability AssessmentFirst order drainage lines include seasonal drainages and gullies in uplands. Some upland gullies end in overland flow, and hence are non-continuous drainage lines. Second order drainage lines are seasonal creek lines. Broad drainage floors exist within poorly-drainedareas, and may not have distinct drainage lineswithin them.
DARWIN
Client: Intrapac Projects Pty Ltd 11
Doc Title: Land Capability Assessment: Noonamah Ridge Estate
3 Soils Assessment
3.1 Context
The broad soil types of the project area are summarised in Table 3-1 below.
Table 3-1. General characteristics of the main soil orders occurring with the Noonamah Ridge Estate
Soil order General characteristics* Association
landform
Hydrosols Defined on the basis of seasonal or permanent wetness. The greater part of the profile is saturated for prolonged periods (2 – 3 months) in most years.
Site drainage patterns are key factor in defining the extent.
These soil types can pose engineering and environmental problems.
Low lands associated with drainage
Kandosols Lack a clear textural B horizon. Not calcareous throughout and the clay content of the massive to weakly-structured B2 horizon exceeds 15 % equivalent to heavy sandy loam.
Soils can be quite deep up to 3 m or more in depth. The clay content can increase to 35 – 50 % by a depth of 0.5 – 1 m. Clay content is dominated by kaolinite.
Red and brown sub-orders are generally permeable and well-drained.
Level plains and lower slopes
Rudosols Consists of material not greatly affected by pedological processes.
Soils feature little of pedological development apart from a minimal A1 horizon or presence of a minor B horizon in the fissures of the parent rock.
The soils are apedal or only weakly structured in the A1 horizon and show no pedological colour changes apart from the darkening of an A1 horizon.
There is little or no texture or colour change with depth unless stratified or buried soils are present.
In Northern Australia these soils types can be shallow gravelly sands formed on siliceous rocks of quartzite or sandstone.
Hills and rugged slopes
*Descriptions taken from McKenzie (1958-2004 CSIRO)
3.2 Method
Ten soil test pits were excavated to a maximum depth of 1.5 m across the north-western section of the
project area (Figure 2-1). The test pits targeted this area as it was accessible and presented a number of
land units in close proximity. The target area may also be developed into rural blocks with individual lot
wastewater management systems as part of the early stage developments. Sample sites targeted the most
appropriate landforms and land units for siting of wastewater management systems (i.e. steep, rocky ridges
and upper slopes, and inundated or waterlogged drainage areas were avoided). The ten soil pits were
located across six land units, as multiple sites were located in 3c and 1c; respectively the most appropriate
land unit for wastewater management, and the most dominant (greatest cover) land unit throughout the
project area (see Table 3-2).
The soil horizons in each test pit were described and classified on site in terms of colour, texture, moisture
content, mottling, coarse fragments and structure (refer to soil bore logs in Appendix A). Depth to refusal or
water table was recorded where applicable. Laboratory testing was undertaken on samples of each horizon
to assess characteristics such as pH, electrical conductivity, exchangeable cations and Emerson Aggregate
Class (see Appendix B).
Client: Intrapac Projects Pty Ltd 12
Doc Title: Land Capability Assessment: Noonamah Ridge Estate
Table 3-2. Soil test pits and corresponding land units
Test pit Land unit Test pit Land unit
TP1 6a2 TP6 6b
TP2 1c TP7 3c
TP3 2b2 TP8 3c
TP4 1c TP9 6b
TP5 2b1 TP10 1c
3.3 Results
The data from the soil test pits can be used to represent approximate capabilities of the land units sampled
(see Table 3-3).
Table 3-3. Summary of soil characteristics
Feature Land capability
Soil depth
Test pits TP1, TP2, TP3, TP4, TP5, TP7 TP8 and TP10 were excavated to 1.5 m without meeting refusal
High
Bedrock was encountered in TP9 at 0.5 m. Two attempts were made to dig around TP9 and refusal was met at 0.4-0.5 m both times. TP6 was abandoned as refusal was met at or below the surface on two attempts.
Moderate
Depth to water table
The water table was intercepted in two test pits; TP1 at 0.9 BGL and TP9 at 0.5 m BGL (Figure 3-1). TP1 and TP9 are located within seasonally-inundated land units and the presence of high water tables is consistent with this land unit.
No other pits had signs of high seasonal water tables.
High for all sites except TP1 and TP9, which are
Low
Coarse fragments (%)
Coarse fragments were present in all test pits.
In general, coarse fragments were present in low percentages (2-5 %) in the A horizon of TP1 and TP9 but > 90 % in the B horizons.
Coarse fragments were consistently present in all horizons ranging from approximately 40-60 % in TP2, TP4 and TP10. Coarse fragments were generally highest in the upper B horizons.
TP3 and TP5 generally had coarse fragments present through all horizons, higher in the B horizon than the A horizons.
TP7 and TP8 had 40-75 %coarse fragments in the A horizons and 5-70 % in the B horizons. Coarse fragments were a minimum from 1.4-1.5 m BGL.
Moderate to High
Soil colour and mottling
Soil colours were determined based on Munsell Soil Colour Charts, with damp samples.
Soils in TP1 and TP9 were 7.5YR 4/1-6/2 (i.e. dark grey to pinkish grey), with some 2.5YR 3/2 (red) surface soils in TP1. No mottling was present.
Soils in TP2, TP4 and TP10 were 7.5 2.5/2-3/4 (very dark brown – brown) in the surface horizons, changing to yellow/red soils throughout the profile (Figure 3-2). All B horizon soils were 5YR 4/6-5/8 (more yellow). Soils in TP5 were consistent with this pattern, while TP3 were all 7.5YR 3/3-5/8 (dark brown). No mottles were present except in TP4, which had mottling from 0.56-1.5 m BGL.
Soils in TP7 and TP8 were predominantly 5YR 3/2-6/6 (redder with increasing depth),
High except for TP4, TP7 and TP8 which are
moderate.
Client: Intrapac Projects Pty Ltd 13
Doc Title: Land Capability Assessment: Noonamah Ridge Estate
Feature Land capability
although some 7.5YR 2.5/2-4/4 (dark brown – brown) was observed in the A horizons of TP8 (Figure 3-3). Mottles were observed from depths of 1-1.5 m BGL in TP7 and 0.75-1.5 m BGL in TP8, indicating ingress of seasonal water tables.
Soil texture and structure
Soils were sand – sandy loam in TP1 and TP6, and mostly structureless.
Soils in TP2, TP4 and TP10 were a weakly-structured sandy loam A1 horizon underlain by weakly-structured clay loam to sandy clay loam. Soils were similar in pits TP3 and TP5; weakly structured sandy loam to sandy clay loam.
Soils in TP7 and TP8 were dominated by a silty clay loam – sandy loam A horizon and sandy loam B horizon, all weakly structured (Figure 3-4).
Not applicable – informs
permeability and DLRs below
Soil permeability and Design Loading Rates (DLR)
Soil permeability is inferred from texture and structure as per Tables 5.2 and L1 in AS/NZS 1547:2012.
In general, structureless sandy soils have a permeability of > 3 Ksat m/d. This refers to soils in TP1 and TP6, and DLRs for these soils are 20-50 mm/day depending on level of treatment. Highly-permeable soils have limited capacity to retain and treat effluent.
Low
Soils that are silty clay loam to sandy clay loam (i.e. some horizons TP2 – 5 and TP10), have a permeability of 0.12-0.5 Ksat m/d and a DLR of 6-20 mm/day depending on level of treatment.
Moderate
The sandy loam in the A1 horizon of TP4 has a permeability of 0.5-0.15 Ksat m/d and DLR of 10-30 mm/day depending on level of treatment. Weakly-structured sandy loams have a permeability of > 3 Ksat m/d and DLR of 20-50 mm/day.
High
pH
The range of soil pH was 5.4-6.4, indicating slight acidity, but soils will not pose issues to plant growth and associated impacts on land application areas.
High-moderate
Electrical conductivity
EC ranged from 2-8 µS/cm demonstrating low salinity and hence there should be no impact on plant growth and/or uptake of nutrients.
High
Sodicity (exchangeable sodium percentage-ESP)
ESP ranged from 1.1-14.8 % with an average of 4 %. Nearly all samples had an ESP below 6 % (the recommended maximum limit for ensuring no soil structural problems exist).
High
Samples TP3 H1, TP4 H2, TP9 H1 and TP10 H1 and H2 all had ESP ranges between 6-14 %, indicating potential for sodicity and dispersion if disturbed in these sampled horizons.
Moderate
Phosphate sorption capacity
P-sorption capacity ranged from < 250 mg/kg to 935 mg/kg. The low P-sorption capacities were measured in sandy/gravelly soils (TP1 H2, TP3 H1 and H2, TP4 H1 and TP9 H1). These are mostly from the sandy surface layer of the profiles, and are not concerning as they are generally a thin layer overlying soils with greater P-sorption capacity, and most land application systems are installed below surface soils. Sample TP3 H4 recorded the highest P-sorption capacity, and was a silty clay loam. Silty clay loams generally had the greatest P-sorption capacity.
Not applicable – use for nutrient
balance
Emerson Aggregate Test
Emerson aggregate classes were either 4 or 8 – indicating no dispersion. High
Client: Intrapac Projects Pty Ltd 14
Doc Title: Land Capability Assessment: Noonamah Ridge Estate
3.4 Discussion
The detailed soil assessments indicate that there is a range of soils throughout the sampled areas, and that
while some land units are considered constrained, there are sufficient unconstrained land units that appear
to be appropriate for siting on-site wastewater management systems.
In general, sites TP1, TP6 and TP9 represent sites within land units 6a2 and 6b which are low capability due
to the presence of shallow, sandy structure-less soils with high permeability. Water tables were intercepted
at 0.5-0.9 m BGL in pits TP1 and TP9 and the landforms are subject to seasonal inundation (Figure 3-1).
All other test pits were located within land units 1c, 2b1-2b2 and 3c. These soils were generally sandy clay
loam/sandy loam with some occurrences of silty clay loam. Gravels and coarse fragments were present
throughout all soil profiles, and may limit adsorption capacity of the soils (Figure 3-2 and Figure 3-4). Sites
were generally located in areas of little to no rock outcrop, and soils within these land units were all at least
1.5 m deep. Water tables were not encountered and there was little evidence of run-on or drainage issues,
although mottling was observed below 0.5 m in TP4 (land unit 1c) and TP7 and TP8 (land unit 3c) below a
depth of 1 m and 0.76 m respectively. Mottling can indicate high water tables, although the observed
mottling was moderate (i.e. not extensive) in land unit 3c. TP4 was located approximately 50 m from land
unit 6b and the mottling observed through the profile may be a reflection of the proximity to a seasonally
inundated area (i.e. transitional part of the land unit).
The soil data indicates that the most appropriate land units for siting of wastewater management systems are
1c, 2b1, 2b2 and 3c. It should be noted that only the lower side slopes within land unit 1c are appropriate, as
upper slopes of this land unit are steep and have extensive rock outcrops.
These results can be broadly extrapolated for the entire project area; however, more detailed site-specific
testing will be required when locations for wastewater infrastructure are available.
Client: Intrapac Projects Pty Ltd 15
Doc Title: Land Capability Assessment: Noonamah Ridge Estate
Figure 3-1. Photograph of water table in TP1
Figure 3-2. Photograph of profile of TP2 – typical of land unit 1c
Figure 3-3. Photograph of profile of TP8 – land unit 3c
Figure 3-4. Photograph of topsoil at TP7 – typical of land unit 3c
Client: Intrapac Projects Pty Ltd 16
Doc Title: Land Capability Assessment: Noonamah Ridge Estate
4 Wastewater Management System
4.1 Overview of options
This section provides a summary of available wastewater management systems and the most applicable
systems for the LCA test sites (and general land units) represented. The conceptual designs provided here
are indicative only. Detailed design is beyond the scope of this study and should be undertaken by a
suitably-qualified person (i.e. plumber) prior to installing wastewater systems.
Common treatment and land application systems are summarised in Table 4-1 and Table 4-2 below, and are
based on information contained in the NT Code of Practice for Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems (THS
1996) and the Australian/New Zealand Standards for Onsite Domestic Wastewater Management (AS/NZS
1547:2012).
Table 4-1. Treatment and land application systems available (Source: DoH 2014)
Level of treatment
Treatment system examples Land application and reuse system
Primary Septic tank
Greywater diversion device
Waterless composting toilet
Composting toilet
Sub-surface absorption system
Evapo-transpiration beds
Amended soil and Wisconsin mounds
Burial (for composting toilets)
Secondary Aerated wastewater treatment system (AWTS)
Biological filter
Greywater treatment system
Septic tank and fabric filter, sand/peat filter or sand mound
Subsurface irrigation
Surface spray or drip irrigation
Other disposal systems appropriate for primary-treated effluent as above
Tertiary Membrane system
Greywater treatment with disinfection
Secondary treatment with additional disinfection (UV irradiation, chlorination etc.)
Restricted non-potable reuse (e.g. toilet flushing, outdoor use)
Other disposal systems as above
Table 4-2. Common land application systems
System Considerations
Mounds Beneficial for shallow soils or high water tables
Requires an above-ground mound for effluent absorption that contains imported sand
Treatment will not be limited by soil absorption capacity
Sub-surface irrigation
Secondary treatment is required prior to irrigation
Suitable for areas of high exposure with high evaporation rates (limited during wet season)
Suitable for sites with shallow soils
Not suitable for areas that are seasonally inundated or waterlogged
Conventional trench
Only requires primary effluent treatment
Cheaper to install than other methods
Treatment by absorption trench may be impeded due to high % of coarse fragments
Soil supplementation may be an option to improve absorptive capacity
Ideal for sites with little to no constraints in terms of soil depth, rock content, waterlogging, inundation or shallow water tables
Client: Intrapac Projects Pty Ltd 17
Doc Title: Land Capability Assessment: Noonamah Ridge Estate
The proposed wastewater management system for the Noonamah Ridge Estate will likely involve developing
a number of relatively large-scale, centralised systems which are capable of treating large volumes of
wastewater. The treatment of wastewater to tertiary quality provides options for recycling and reusing water,
such as for non-potable household use (e.g. toilet flushing). All standard land application areas (e.g. sub-
surface irrigation) can also be used. In the monsoon tropics, surface irrigation is not commonly
recommended as evaporation is low, and rainfall and runoff are high during the wet season, which restricts
absorption of wastewater. However, tertiary treatment may reduce the potential limitations of this.
Where individual lot sizes are suitably large, individual treatment systems may be used instead.
4.2 Site constraints and recommended treatment system(s)
The LCA targeted the most common and most appropriate land units for siting of wastewater treatment and
land application systems, and was also undertaken in an area which may be developed into lots that will
have individual wastewater treatment. The site constraints identified through the LCA and site assessment
are summarised below, and potential treatment systems and land application systems are provided in Table
4-3. These recommendations are based on specific test pit data that has been extrapolated to represent the
land units within which assessment sites were located. It should be noted that there is variation within land
units and only sections of certain land units may be appropriate (e.g. lower slopes of 1c).
The recommendations provided below are conceptual and aim to provide insight into available standard
treatment and land application systems. The development’s treatment systems will be designed for the
particular land application site. General recommendations for the most appropriate land units for these
systems are provided below. This information may also be used for individual lot systems, although specific
locations will need to be assessed for each system.
Sizing of land application areas has not been undertaken for this LCA as the design wastewater loads are
currently unknown. Additionally, the potential systems outlined in Table 4-3 do not include the KEWT
system. This system treats water to a tertiary quality, and land application systems are therefore not limited
by wastewater quality; any land application system would be appropriate depending on site characteristics
such as rock outcrops, soil depth and slopes. The scale of the systems will require detailed site-specific
design and it is assumed that potential site constraints will be addressed through this process.
Client: Intrapac Projects Pty Ltd 18
Doc Title: Land Capability Assessment: Noonamah Ridge Estate
Table 4-3. Land units and recommended treatment and application systems
Land unit*
Representative test sites
Area of project area
Design considerations/constraints Applicable treatment
system Appropriate land application system
1c TP2, TP4, TP10 1207.5 ha Well-drained soils
High gravel content
Areas of significant rock outcrop in upper slopes/ridges
Primary treatment systems are appropriate (i.e. septic tank)
Conventional absorption trenches or beds are suitable in areas with no steep slopes or rock outcrops.
Mounds may be appropriate in rocky areas.
2b1, 2b2 TP3, TP5 210.7 ha Well-drained soils
High gravel content
Some horizons are highly permeable
Some areas of rock outcrop
Primary treatment systems are appropriate (i.e. septic tank)
Conventional absorption trenches or beds are suitable.
Mounds may be appropriate in rocky areas.
3c TP7, TP8 256.4 ha Well-drained soils
High gravel content
Mottling at depths of 0.76-1 m BGL.
Primary or secondary treatment (AWTS) appropriate
Subsurface irrigation is appropriate if secondary treatment is undertaken.
Conventional beds and trenches may be appropriate depending on depth of mottling.
6a2-6b TP1, TP9, TP6 298.1 ha Shallow, sandy soils
Seasonally inundated
Highly-permeable soils
High seasonal water table
Treatment systems should not be located within this land unit.
It is recommended that no land application is done within these land units.
* Other land units present within the project area have not been assessed in this LCA and as such will require further assessment if wastewater systems are to be sited within them. Additionally, natural
variation occurs within each land unit and as such site-specific investigations should be undertaken when siting systems.
Client: Intrapac Projects Pty Ltd 19
Doc Title: Land Capability Assessment: Noonamah Ridge Estate
5 Conclusions and Recommendations
The LCA covered ten test pits over six land units – 1c, 2b1, 2b2, 3c, 6a2 and 6b. An assessment of the site
characteristics and soil test pits identified that:
The site covers a wide range of landforms and land units and necessitated extrapolation of soil test
pit data across the represented land units.
The overall landform and drainage of the project area includes steep, rocky ridge lines in the centre
of the project area with slopes of up to 15 % and rapid drainage. Side slopes and undulating
uplands surround these, before the site flattens into lower slopes and eventually drainage floors
and creek lines. The slopes range from 2-5 % in the side slopes and undulating uplands to 0-2 %
in the lower slopes and drainage floors. Drainage is poor in the drainage floors and creek lines,
and there are a number of seasonally inundated areas. Drainage from the project area is
predominantly west into a tributary of the Elizabeth River, with some drainage toward the Adelaide
River to the east.
There are sufficient unconstrained soils within the sampled land units capable of supporting on-site
wastewater management systems, subject to site-specific designs once locations are finalised.
Soil data indicates that the most appropriate (i.e. unconstrained) of the surveyed land units for
siting of wastewater management systems are 1c, 2b1, 2b2 and 3c.
Test pits within land units 6a2 and 6b indicate low capability due to shallow, sandy soils with high
permeability and high seasonal water tables. Some areas of these land units are seasonally-
inundated and on-site wastewater management systems should not be sited within these land
units.
Test pits within land units 1c, 2b1, 2b2 and 3c indicate gravelly, sandy clay loam to sandy loam
with some occurrences of silty clay loam. Although gravels and coarse fragments were common
the areas surrounding the test pits had no rock outcrop. The soils were well-drained, with no
presence of water tables, although some test pits within land unit 1c and 3c had mottling in the
lower profiles (approximately 0.8 m below ground level) indicating potential water ingress.
Laboratory results for soil pH, EC, P-sorption capacity, sodicity and Emerson aggregate classes
indicate high-moderate capability for all analytes, and none of the tested parameters are likely to
pose limitations to on-site wastewater treatment and disposal.
Test pits were located on the lower slope landforms within the respective land units. It should be
noted that the upper slopes and ridge lines within land unit 1c are very rocky and steep. Locations
of wastewater management systems within land unit 1c should be closely assessed to ensure there
is sufficient soil and slope to accommodate the proposed system.
Specific wastewater treatment and land application systems were not assessed as it is understood
Intrapac plan to install specialised treatment systems capable of treating to tertiary quality, which
would allow for any land application system. The sizing and design of these systems will be
undertaken by the installer, who will also maintain the system.
The above conclusions are based on the findings of the investigated sites and are assumed to be
representative of the greater property; however, lot-specific limitations may occur. Additionally, not all land
units within the project area were assessed in this LCA, and there may be additional land units that are
capable (or not) of supporting proposed on-site wastewater management systems. Each lot, or specific
location for centralised wastewater systems, will require assessment from a suitably qualified plumber on the
appropriate system to be installed.
Client: Intrapac Projects Pty Ltd 20
Doc Title: Land Capability Assessment: Noonamah Ridge Estate
6 Acronyms and References
AWTS Aerated wastewater treatment system
BGL Below ground level
BoM Bureau of Meteorology
DLR Design Loading Rate
DLRM Department of Land Resource Management
EC Electrical conductivity
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
LCA Land Capability Assessment
LSA Land Suitability Assessment
P-sorption Phosphate sorption
Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) 2015, Climate Data Online: Middle Point Station, Australian Government,
viewed 280/4/2015, < http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/>
Department of Health (DoH) 2014, Guidelines for Land Capability Assessment for On-site Wastewater
Management, Northern Territory Government, Darwin, NT.
Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment (DIPE) 2004, Priority Environmental Management
Areas – Litchfield Shire, Northern Territory Government, Darwin, NT.
Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment (DIPE) 2002, Litchfield Planning Concepts and Land
Use Objectives, Northern Territory Government, Darwin, NT
Department of Land Resource Management (DLRM) 2014, Natural Resource Maps, online mapping and
data service, Northern Territory Government, viewed 13 April 2015, http://www.lrm.nt.gov.au/nrmapsnt
McKenzie, N 1958-2004 Australian soils and landscapes: an illustrated Compendium, CSIRO, Collingwood,
Victoria.
Munsell 2009, Munsell Soil-Color Charts, Munsell Color, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA.
Natural Resources Division (NRD) 2004, Hydrogeological Map of Darwin 1:250 000, Department of
Infrastructure, Planning and Environment, Northern Territory Government, Darwin, NT.
Standards Australia 2012, AS:NZS 1547:2012 On-site Domestic-Wastewater Management, Standards
Australia Limited, NSW, Australia.
Territory Health Services (THS) 1996, Code of Practice for Small On-Site Sewage and Sullage Treatment
Systems and the Disposal or Reuse of Sewage Effluent, Territory Health Services, Darwin, NT.
Client: Intrapac Projects Pty Ltd Doc Title: Land Capability Assessment: Noonamah Ridge Estate
Appendix A – Soil Bore Logs
Client Pit No. Test Pit 1Site Logged by CRHDate Excavation Excavator
Depth (m) Sample name Horizon Texture Structure Colour Mottles Coarse Fragments Moisture Condition Permeability (m/d) (K Sat ²)0.1 A10.2 A20.3 A20.4 A20.5 A2 35% <2mm0.6 B0.7 B0.8 B0.9 B <10% <2mm1.0 B1.1 B1.2 B1.3 B1.4 B1.5 B
>3.0
>3.0
Wet >3.0
Moist
>3.0
None
>90% 20-60mm Large pebbles
<10% <2mm
60% 20-60mm Large pebbles
>90% 6-20mm Medium pebbles
5% 2-6mm Small pebbles
Sand Structureless
H3
H4
2.5 3/2H1 Sandy loam Weak
H2 7.5YR 6/2
7.5YR 5.6
7.5YR 4/6
Soil Bore LogIntrapac
Lot 4574 & 347613/02/2015
Notes: Co-ordinates 52 L 730251, 8600419, no rock outcrop, water table encountered at 0.9m. On land unit boundary of 4b and 6a2.
Client Pit No. Test Pit 2Site Logged by CRHDate Excavation Excavator
Depth (m) Sample name Horizon Texture Structure Colour Mottles Coarse Fragments Moisture Condition Permeability (m/d) (K Sat ²)0.1 A1
0.25 A10.26 A20.4 A20.5 A2
0.65 A2
0.66B
60% 6-20mm Medium pebbles
0.8 B 40% <2mm0.9 B1.0 B1.1 B1.2 B1.3 B1.4 B1.5 B
Moist
Wet
Moist
>3.0
>3.0
>3.0
>3.0
None
40% 6-20mm Medium pebbles
50% 6-20mm Medium pebbles
60% 6-20mm Medium pebbles
40% <2mm
Weak
Structureless
7.5YR 2.5/2
7.5YR 4/4
7.5YR 4/6
5YR 4/6
H1
H2
H3
H4
Sandy Loam
Sand
Notes: Co-ordinates 52 L 730261, 8600936. Within 1c.
Soil Bore LogIntrapac
Lot 4574 & 347613/02/2015
Client Pit No. Test Pit 3Site Logged by CRHDate Excavation Excavator
Depth (m) Sample name Horizon Texture Structure Colour Mottles Coarse Fragments Moisture Condition Permeability (m/d) (K Sat ²)
0.1A1
40% 6-20mm Medium gravel
0.2 A1 60% <2mm
0.3A2
50% 6-20mm Medium gravel
0.4A2
20% 60-200mm Cobbles
0.55 A3 30% <2mm0.56 B0.7 B0.8 B0.9 B 40% <2mm1 B
1.1 B1.2 B1.3 B1.4 B1.5 B
7.5YR 4/6
None
>3.0
0.5
>3.0
Moist
40% 6-20mm Medium gravel
60% <2mm
60% 6-20mm Medium gravel
7.5YR 3/3
7.5YR 5/4
7.5YR 5.8
H4
Sandy loam
Sandy clay loam
Sandy loam
Weak
Weak
Weak
H1
H2
H3
Soil Bore LogIntrapac
Lot 4574 & 347613/02/2015
Notes: Co-ordinates 52 L 730169, 8601435, no rock outcrop, water table not encountered. Within land unit 2b2.
Client Pit No. Test Pit 4Site Logged by CRHDate Excavation Excavator
Depth (m) Sample name Horizon Texture Structure Colour Mottles Coarse Fragments Moisture Condition Permeability (m/d) (K Sat ²)0.1 A1
1.15 A10.16 A20.3 A20.4 A3
0.55 A30.56 B0.7 B0.8 B0.9 B 50% <2mm1 B
1.1 B1.2 B1.3 B1.4 B1.5 B 50% <2mm
10% 20-60mm Coarse gravel
Moist >3.0
40% 2-10mm Fine gravel
30% <2mm
50% 6-20mm Medium gravel
40% 6-20mm Medium pebbles
30% 6-20mm Medium gravel
H1
H2
H3
H4
Sandy loam
Sandy clay loam Weak
7.5YR 4/6
7.5YR 5/8
5YR 5/8
None
Streaks of yellow and grey
Streaks of yellow and grey
Weak 7.5YR 3/4
Soil Bore LogIntrapac
Lot 4574 & 347613/02/2015
Notes: Site co-ordinates: 52 L 730210, 8601724, no rock outcrop, no water encountered. Within land unit 1c.
Client Pit No. Test Pit 5Site Logged by CRHDate Excavation Excavator
Depth (m) Sample name Horizon Texture Structure Colour Mottles Coarse Fragments Moisture Condition Permeability (m/d) (K Sat ²)
0.1 A125% 6-20mm
Medium pebbles
0.2 A125% 2-6mm Small
pebbles
0.3 A210% 20-60mm Large pebbles
0.4 A230% 6-20mm
Medium pebbles0.5 A20.6 A20.7 B0.8 B0.9 B1 B
1.1 B1.2 B1.3 B1.4 B1.5 B
TP6 abandoned due to interception of bedrock on two attempts.
Moist
0.12 - 0.5
>3.0
60% <2mm
10% 6-20mm Medium pebbles
5% <2mm
85% 2-6mm Small pebbles
Soil Bore LogIntrapac
Lot 4574 & 347613/02/2015
H1 7.5YR 3/4
5YR 4/4
5YR 5/8
None
Notes: Site co-ordinates: 52 L 730187, 8602038, no rock outcrop, laterite at 0.60m, minimal surface gravel, water table not encountered. Within land unit 2b1.
H2
H3
Weak
Sandy clay loam
Sandy loam
Client Pit No. Test Pit 7Site Logged by CRHDate Excavation Excavator
Depth (m) Sample name Horizon Texture Structure Colour Mottles Coarse Fragments Moisture Condition Permeability (m/d) (K Sat ²)
0.1 A140% 2-6 Small
pebbles0.15 A1 60% <2mm0.16 A20.4 A20.5 A2 50% <2mm0.6 B0.7 B
0.8 B65% 2-6mm Small
pebbles0.9 B 5% <2mm1.0 B1.1 B1.2 B1.3 B
1.4 B15% 20-60mm Large pebbles
1.5 B 5% <2mm
0.12-0.5
>3.0
50% 2-6mm Small pebbles
30% 6-20mm Medium pebbles
40% 2-6mm Small pebbles
40% 6-20mm Medium pebbles
Moist
H1
H2
H3
H4 Sandy loam
Silty clay loam
Sandy clay loam
Soil Bore LogIntrapac
Lot 4574 & 347613/02/2015
Notes: Co-ordinates: 52 L 730253, 8602829, no rock outcrop, no fill, water table not encountered. Within land unit 3c.
None
Some yellow
and grey
Weak
5YR 3/2
5YR 3/4
5YR 4/6
5YR 6/6
Client Pit No. Test Pit 8Site Logged by CRHDate Excavation Excavator
Depth (m) Sample name Horizon Texture Structure Colour Mottles Coarse Fragments Moisture Condition Permeability (m/d) (K Sat ²)0.1 A10.2 A10.3 A1 40% <2mm
0.4 A275% 2-6mm Small
pebbles0.5 A20.6 A2
0.75 A2 10% <2mm
0.76 B70% 2-6mm Small
pebbles
0.9 B15% 20-60mm Large pebbles
1 B 15% <2mm 1.1 B1.2 B1.3 B1.4 B1.5 B 20% <2mm
IntrapacLot 4574 & 347613/02/2015
Soil Bore Log
H1
Weak
H2
H3
H4
Sandy loam
Sandy loam
Silty clay loam
7.5YR 2.5/2
7.5YR 4/4
5YR 4/6
5YR 4/4
Notes: Co-ordinates: 52 L 730605, 8603022, water table not encountered, no fill, no rock outcrop. Within land unit 3c.
None
Some yellow
and grey
Grey. Some yellow
Moist
>3.0
0.12-0.5
>3.0
60% 2-6mm Small pebbles
15% 6-20mm Medium pebbles
40% 2-6mm Small pebbles
40% 6-20mm Medium pebbles
Client Pit No. Test Pit 9Site Logged by CRHDate Excavation Excavator
Depth (m) Sample name Horizon Texture Structure Colour Mottles Coarse Fragments Moisture Condition Permeability (m/d) (K Sat ²)0.10.20.30.40.50.6 Refusal
>90% <2mm
2% 2-6mm Fine gravel
None7.5YR 4/1StructurelessSand Wet >3.0H1 A1
Soil Bore LogIntrapac
Lot 4574 & 347613/02/2015
Notes: Co-ordinates: 52 L 731007, 8602979, Refusal on first attempt at 0.4m, Test pit moved 50m, refusal on second attempt at 0.5m. Water table encounted at 0.5m. Within land unit 6b.
Client Pit No. Test Pit 10Site Logged by CRHDate Excavation Excavator
Depth (m) Sample name Horizon Texture Structure Colour Mottles Coarse Fragments Moisture Condition Permeability (m/d) (K Sat ²)
0.1 A1
0.2 A10.3 A1 50% <2mm0.4 A20.5 A20.6 A20.7 A20.8 A2
0.9B
1 B1.1 B1.2 B1.3 B1.4 B1.5 B
0.12 - 0.5
7.5YR 3/4
5YR 5/8
None
50% 2-6mm Small pebbles
50% 6-20mm Medium pebbles
50% <2mm
60% 2-6mm Small pebbles
20% 6-20mm Medium pebbles
20% <2mm
Weak
Weak
Soil Bore LogIntrapac
Lot 4574 & 347613/02/2015
Notes: Co-ordinates: 52 L 7315925, 8602863, water table not encountered, no fill, no rock outcrop. Within land unit 1c.
H1 7.5YR 3/3
Moist
0.5-0.15
H2
H3
Sandy loam
Clay loam
Sandy clay loam
Client: Intrapac Projects Pty Ltd Doc Title: Land Capability Assessment: Noonamah Ridge Estate
Appendix B – Soil Laboratory Results
False
6 6.00True Environmental
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSISWork Order : ES1504581 Page : 1 of 9
:: LaboratoryClient Environmental Division SydneyECOZ ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
: :ContactContact MR MIKE WELCH Client Services
:: AddressAddress PO BOX 381
DARWIN NT, AUSTRALIA 0801
277-289 Woodpark Road Smithfield NSW Australia 2164
:: E-mailE-mail [email protected] [email protected]
:: TelephoneTelephone +61 08 89811100 +61-2-8784 8555
:: FacsimileFacsimile +61 08 89811102 +61-2-8784 8500
:Project INTRAPAC LCA QC Level : NEPM 2013 Schedule B(3) and ALS QCS3 requirement
:Order number ----
:C-O-C number ---- Date Samples Received : 25-FEB-2015
Sampler : CH Issue Date : 10-MAR-2015
Site : ----
31:No. of samples received
Quote number : SY/548/14 31: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
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
Ankit Joshi Sydney InorganicsInorganic Chemist
Ashesh Patel Sydney InorganicsInorganic Chemist
Dian Dao Sydney InorganicsInorganic Chemist
Pabi Subba Sydney InorganicsSenior Organic Chemist
Satishkumar Trivedi Brisbane Acid Sulphate Soils2 IC Acid Sulfate Soils Supervisor
Wisam Marassa Sydney InorganicsInorganics Coordinator
Environmental Division Sydney ABN 84 009 936 029 Part of the ALS Group An ALS Limited Company
Address 277-289 Woodpark Road Smithfield NSW Australia 2164 | PHONE +61-2-8784 8555 | Facsimile +61-2-8784 8500
2 of 9:Page
Work Order :
:Client
ES1504581
ECOZ ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
INTRAPAC LCA: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 performed, results are reported on a dry weight basis.
Where a reported less than (<) result is higher than the LOR, this may be due to primary sample extract/digestate dilution and/or insufficient sample for analysis.
Where the LOR of a reported result differs from standard LOR, this may be due to high moisture content, insufficient sample (reduced weight employed) or matrix interference.
When sampling time information is not provided by the client, sampling dates are shown without a time component. In these instances, the time component has been assumed by the laboratory for processing purposes.
Where a result is required to meet compliance limits the associated uncertainty must be considered. Refer to the ALS Contact for details.
CAS Number = CAS registry number from database maintained by Chemical Abstracts Services. The Chemical Abstracts Service is a division of the American Chemical Society.
LOR = Limit of reporting
^ = This result is computed from individual analyte detections at or above the level of reporting
Key :
EA058 Emerson: V. = Very, D. = Dark, L. = Light, VD. = Very Darkl
ED007 and ED008: When Exchangeable Al is reported from these methods, it should be noted that Rayment & Lyons (2011) suggests Exchange Acidity by 1M KCl (Method 15G1) is a more
suitable method for the determination of exchange acidity (H+ + Al3+).
l
3 of 9:Page
Work Order :
:Client
ES1504581
ECOZ ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
INTRAPAC LCA:Project
Analytical Results
TP2 H1TP1 H4TP1 H3TP1 H2TP1 H1Client sample IDSub-Matrix: SOIL (Matrix: SOIL)
13-FEB-2015 15:0013-FEB-2015 15:0013-FEB-2015 15:0013-FEB-2015 15:0013-FEB-2015 15:00Client sampling date / time
ES1504581-005ES1504581-004ES1504581-003ES1504581-002ES1504581-001UnitLORCAS NumberCompound
EA002 : pH (Soils)
pH Value 6.46.0 6.2 6.2 6.2pH Unit0.1----
EA010: Conductivity
Electrical Conductivity @ 25°C 24 2 3 6µS/cm1----
EA051 : Bulk Density
Bulk Density 22001960 2190 2010 1920kg/m31BULK_DENSITY
EA055: Moisture Content
Moisture Content (dried @ 103°C) 7.68.6 8.7 7.2 10.3%1.0----
EA058: Emerson Aggregate Test
Color (Munsell) BrownV.D. Greyish Brown Yellowish Red Dark Reddish Brown Very Dark Brown------
Texture Gravelly SandSand Graelly Sand Gravelly Sand Gravelly Sand------
Emerson Class Number 88 8 8 8--EC/TC
ED008: Exchangeable Cations
Exchangeable Calcium 0.40.5 1.1 1.6 1.5meq/100g0.1----
Exchangeable Magnesium 0.10.1 0.5 0.7 0.8meq/100g0.1----
Exchangeable Potassium <0.1<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1meq/100g0.1----
Exchangeable Sodium <0.1<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1meq/100g0.1----
Exchangeable Aluminium <0.1<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1meq/100g0.1----
Cation Exchange Capacity 0.50.7 1.6 2.3 2.3meq/100g0.1----
Exchangeable Sodium Percent 2.22.0 1.4 1.2 2.4%0.1----
Calcium/Magnesium Ratio 4.05.0 2.2 2.3 1.9-0.1----
EK072: Phosphate Sorption Capacity
Phosphate Sorption Capacity <250283 ---- 399 474-250----
Phosphate Sorption Capacity -------- 343 ---- ----mg P
sorbed/kg
250----
4 of 9:Page
Work Order :
:Client
ES1504581
ECOZ ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
INTRAPAC LCA:Project
Analytical Results
TP3 H2TP3 H1TP2 H4TP2 H3TP2 H2Client sample IDSub-Matrix: SOIL (Matrix: SOIL)
13-FEB-2015 15:0013-FEB-2015 15:0013-FEB-2015 15:0013-FEB-2015 15:0013-FEB-2015 15:00Client sampling date / time
ES1504581-010ES1504581-009ES1504581-008ES1504581-007ES1504581-006UnitLORCAS NumberCompound
EA002 : pH (Soils)
pH Value 6.25.8 5.8 6.3 6.0pH Unit0.1----
EA010: Conductivity
Electrical Conductivity @ 25°C 23 2 4 2µS/cm1----
EA051 : Bulk Density
Bulk Density 20802020 1870 2110 2150kg/m31BULK_DENSITY
EA055: Moisture Content
Moisture Content (dried @ 103°C) 7.79.6 13.2 8.4 8.2%1.0----
EA058: Emerson Aggregate Test
Color (Munsell) Yellowish RedDark Brown Dark Red Dark Brown Dark Brown------
Texture Sandy LoamLoamy Sand Clay Loam Rocks Gravelly Sand------
Emerson Class Number 44 4 8 8--EC/TC
ED008: Exchangeable Cations
Exchangeable Calcium 0.20.2 0.1 0.2 0.9meq/100g0.1----
Exchangeable Magnesium 0.50.4 1.0 0.1 0.4meq/100g0.1----
Exchangeable Potassium <0.1<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1meq/100g0.1----
Exchangeable Sodium <0.1<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1meq/100g0.1----
Exchangeable Aluminium <0.1<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1meq/100g0.1----
Cation Exchange Capacity 0.70.6 1.2 0.4 1.3meq/100g0.1----
Exchangeable Sodium Percent 3.35.2 2.4 6.4 2.5%0.1----
Calcium/Magnesium Ratio 0.40.5 0.1 2.0 2.2-0.1----
EK072: Phosphate Sorption Capacity
Phosphate Sorption Capacity 292473 514 <250 <250-250----
5 of 9:Page
Work Order :
:Client
ES1504581
ECOZ ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
INTRAPAC LCA:Project
Analytical Results
TP4 H3TP4 H2TP4 H1TP3 H4TP3 H3Client sample IDSub-Matrix: SOIL (Matrix: SOIL)
13-FEB-2015 15:0013-FEB-2015 15:0013-FEB-2015 15:0013-FEB-2015 15:0013-FEB-2015 15:00Client sampling date / time
ES1504581-015ES1504581-014ES1504581-013ES1504581-012ES1504581-011UnitLORCAS NumberCompound
EA002 : pH (Soils)
pH Value 5.55.4 5.6 5.5 5.4pH Unit0.1----
EA010: Conductivity
Electrical Conductivity @ 25°C 22 6 2 3µS/cm1----
EA051 : Bulk Density
Bulk Density 19402130 2060 1920 1940kg/m31BULK_DENSITY
EA055: Moisture Content
Moisture Content (dried @ 103°C) 13.110.9 11.3 13.2 12.4%1.0----
EA058: Emerson Aggregate Test
Color (Munsell) Dark RedStrong Brown V.D. Greyish Brown Dark Red Red------
Texture Silty Clay LoamRocks Rocks Silty Clay Loam Silty Clay------
Emerson Class Number 48 8 4 4--EC/TC
ED008: Exchangeable Cations
Exchangeable Calcium 0.40.6 0.4 <0.1 <0.1meq/100g0.1----
Exchangeable Magnesium 1.10.8 0.4 0.2 0.7meq/100g0.1----
Exchangeable Potassium <0.1<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1meq/100g0.1----
Exchangeable Sodium <0.1<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1meq/100g0.1----
Exchangeable Aluminium <0.1<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1meq/100g0.1----
Cation Exchange Capacity 1.51.4 0.9 0.3 0.8meq/100g0.1----
Exchangeable Sodium Percent 3.23.0 3.6 8.4 5.3%0.1----
Calcium/Magnesium Ratio 0.40.8 1.0 0.5 0.1-0.1----
EK072: Phosphate Sorption Capacity
Phosphate Sorption Capacity 935409 <250 573 815-250----
6 of 9:Page
Work Order :
:Client
ES1504581
ECOZ ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
INTRAPAC LCA:Project
Analytical Results
TP7 H1TP5 H3TP5 H2TP5 H1TP4 H4Client sample IDSub-Matrix: SOIL (Matrix: SOIL)
13-FEB-2015 15:0013-FEB-2015 15:0013-FEB-2015 15:0013-FEB-2015 15:0013-FEB-2015 15:00Client sampling date / time
ES1504581-020ES1504581-019ES1504581-018ES1504581-017ES1504581-016UnitLORCAS NumberCompound
EA002 : pH (Soils)
pH Value 5.95.6 5.8 5.7 6.2pH Unit0.1----
EA010: Conductivity
Electrical Conductivity @ 25°C 72 3 3 8µS/cm1----
EA051 : Bulk Density
Bulk Density 19302000 1920 1900 2000kg/m31BULK_DENSITY
EA055: Moisture Content
Moisture Content (dried @ 103°C) 14.811.6 13.8 13.8 9.7%1.0----
EA058: Emerson Aggregate Test
Color (Munsell) Dark BrownYellowish Red Dark Brown Dark Red Very Dark Brown------
Texture Sandy Clay LoamSilty Clay Sandy Loam Sandy Clay Loam Rocks------
Emerson Class Number 44 4 4 8--EC/TC
ED008: Exchangeable Cations
Exchangeable Calcium 0.6<0.1 0.1 <0.1 3.1meq/100g0.1----
Exchangeable Magnesium 0.70.9 0.4 0.7 0.9meq/100g0.1----
Exchangeable Potassium 0.1<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1meq/100g0.1----
Exchangeable Sodium <0.1<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1meq/100g0.1----
Exchangeable Aluminium <0.1<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1meq/100g0.1----
Cation Exchange Capacity 1.41.1 0.6 0.8 4.1meq/100g0.1----
Exchangeable Sodium Percent 3.64.8 5.8 4.5 1.1%0.1----
Calcium/Magnesium Ratio 0.8<0.1 0.2 0.1 3.4-0.1----
EK072: Phosphate Sorption Capacity
Phosphate Sorption Capacity 766367 476 778 520-250----
7 of 9:Page
Work Order :
:Client
ES1504581
ECOZ ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
INTRAPAC LCA:Project
Analytical Results
TP8 H2TP8 H1TP7 H4TP7 H3TP7 H2Client sample IDSub-Matrix: SOIL (Matrix: SOIL)
13-FEB-2015 15:0013-FEB-2015 15:0013-FEB-2015 15:0013-FEB-2015 15:0013-FEB-2015 15:00Client sampling date / time
ES1504581-025ES1504581-024ES1504581-023ES1504581-022ES1504581-021UnitLORCAS NumberCompound
EA002 : pH (Soils)
pH Value 5.75.8 5.5 6.1 5.7pH Unit0.1----
EA010: Conductivity
Electrical Conductivity @ 25°C 23 3 5 2µS/cm1----
EA051 : Bulk Density
Bulk Density 20201930 1890 2210 1800kg/m31BULK_DENSITY
EA055: Moisture Content
Moisture Content (dried @ 103°C) 12.912.2 14.5 8.7 12.0%1.0----
EA058: Emerson Aggregate Test
Color (Munsell) Reddish BrownDark Brown Yellowish Red Very Dark Brown Dark Brown------
Texture Sandy LoamSilty Clay Loam Clay Loam Rocks Sandy Loam------
Emerson Class Number 44 4 8 4--EC/TC
ED008: Exchangeable Cations
Exchangeable Calcium 0.60.6 0.2 2.5 0.3meq/100g0.1----
Exchangeable Magnesium 0.60.4 0.6 0.9 0.3meq/100g0.1----
Exchangeable Potassium <0.1<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1meq/100g0.1----
Exchangeable Sodium <0.1<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1meq/100g0.1----
Exchangeable Aluminium <0.1<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1meq/100g0.1----
Cation Exchange Capacity 1.31.0 0.8 3.5 0.6meq/100g0.1----
Exchangeable Sodium Percent 1.92.9 2.3 1.5 3.9%0.1----
Calcium/Magnesium Ratio 1.01.5 0.3 2.8 1.0-0.1----
EK072: Phosphate Sorption Capacity
Phosphate Sorption Capacity 563670 934 564 542-250----
8 of 9:Page
Work Order :
:Client
ES1504581
ECOZ ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
INTRAPAC LCA:Project
Analytical Results
TP10 H2TP10 H1TP9 H1TP8 H4TP8 H3Client sample IDSub-Matrix: SOIL (Matrix: SOIL)
13-FEB-2015 15:0013-FEB-2015 15:0013-FEB-2015 15:0013-FEB-2015 15:0013-FEB-2015 15:00Client sampling date / time
ES1504581-030ES1504581-029ES1504581-028ES1504581-027ES1504581-026UnitLORCAS NumberCompound
EA002 : pH (Soils)
pH Value 5.55.8 5.7 5.5 5.5pH Unit0.1----
EA010: Conductivity
Electrical Conductivity @ 25°C 22 2 4 3µS/cm1----
EA051 : Bulk Density
Bulk Density 19801830 2150 1800 1790kg/m31BULK_DENSITY
EA055: Moisture Content
Moisture Content (dried @ 103°C) 15.013.3 10.4 15.4 16.1%1.0----
EA058: Emerson Aggregate Test
Color (Munsell) RedRed Very Dark Grey Dark Greyish Brown Brown------
Texture Silty Clay LoamSilty Clay Loam Loamy Sand Sandy Loam Clay Loam------
Emerson Class Number 44 4 4 4--EC/TC
ED008: Exchangeable Cations
Exchangeable Calcium <0.10.4 0.1 0.3 <0.1meq/100g0.1----
Exchangeable Magnesium 0.51.2 0.1 0.4 0.2meq/100g0.1----
Exchangeable Potassium <0.1<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1meq/100g0.1----
Exchangeable Sodium <0.1<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1meq/100g0.1----
Exchangeable Aluminium <0.1<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1meq/100g0.1----
Cation Exchange Capacity 0.61.7 0.2 0.7 0.3meq/100g0.1----
Exchangeable Sodium Percent 2.81.4 10.0 8.0 14.8%0.1----
Calcium/Magnesium Ratio 0.20.3 1.0 0.8 0.5-0.1----
EK072: Phosphate Sorption Capacity
Phosphate Sorption Capacity 700780 <250 658 460-250----
9 of 9:Page
Work Order :
:Client
ES1504581
ECOZ ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
INTRAPAC LCA:Project
Analytical Results
----------------TP10 H3Client sample IDSub-Matrix: SOIL (Matrix: SOIL)
----------------13-FEB-2015 15:00Client sampling date / time
----------------ES1504581-031UnitLORCAS NumberCompound
EA002 : pH (Soils)
pH Value ----5.7 ---- ---- ----pH Unit0.1----
EA010: Conductivity
Electrical Conductivity @ 25°C ----2 ---- ---- ----µS/cm1----
EA051 : Bulk Density
Bulk Density ----1990 ---- ---- ----kg/m31BULK_DENSITY
EA055: Moisture Content
Moisture Content (dried @ 103°C) ----13.0 ---- ---- ----%1.0----
EA058: Emerson Aggregate Test
Color (Munsell) ----Yellowish Red ---- ---- ----------
Texture ----Silty Clay Loam ---- ---- ----------
Emerson Class Number ----4 ---- ---- ------EC/TC
ED008: Exchangeable Cations
Exchangeable Calcium ----<0.1 ---- ---- ----meq/100g0.1----
Exchangeable Magnesium ----0.6 ---- ---- ----meq/100g0.1----
Exchangeable Potassium ----<0.1 ---- ---- ----meq/100g0.1----
Exchangeable Sodium ----<0.1 ---- ---- ----meq/100g0.1----
Exchangeable Aluminium ----<0.1 ---- ---- ----meq/100g0.1----
Cation Exchange Capacity ----0.8 ---- ---- ----meq/100g0.1----
Exchangeable Sodium Percent ----4.2 ---- ---- ----%0.1----
Calcium/Magnesium Ratio ----0.2 ---- ---- -----0.1----
EK072: Phosphate Sorption Capacity
Phosphate Sorption Capacity ----575 ---- ---- -----250----
True
Environmental
INTERPRETIVE QUALITY CONTROL REPORTWork Order : ES1504581 Page : 1 of 9
:: LaboratoryClient Environmental Division SydneyECOZ ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
: :ContactContact MR MIKE WELCH Client Services
:: AddressAddress PO BOX 381
DARWIN NT, AUSTRALIA 0801
277-289 Woodpark Road Smithfield NSW Australia 2164
:: E-mailE-mail [email protected] [email protected]
:: TelephoneTelephone +61 08 89811100 +61-2-8784 8555
:: FacsimileFacsimile +61 08 89811102 +61-2-8784 8500
:Project INTRAPAC LCA QC Level : NEPM 2013 Schedule B(3) and ALS QCS3 requirement
Site : ----
:C-O-C number ---- Date Samples Received : 25-FEB-2015
CH:Sampler Issue Date : 10-MAR-2015
:Order number ----
No. of samples received : 31
Quote number : SY/548/14 No. of samples analysed : 31
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
Address 277-289 Woodpark Road Smithfield NSW Australia 2164 | PHONE +61-2-8784 8555 | Facsimile +61-2-8784 8500
Environmental Division Sydney ABN 84 009 936 029 Part of the ALS Group An ALS Limited Company
2 of 9:Page
Work Order :
:Client
ES1504581
ECOZ ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
INTRAPAC LCA:Project
Analysis Holding Time Compliance
This report summarizes extraction / preparation and analysis times and compares each with recommended holding times (USEPA SW 846, APHA, AS and NEPM) based on the sample container provided. Dates
reported represent first date of extraction or analysis and preclude subsequent dilutions and reruns. A listing of breaches (if any) is provided herein.
Holding time for leachate methods (e.g. TCLP) vary according to the analytes reported. Assessment compares the leach date with the shortest analyte holding time for the equivalent soil method. These are: organics
14 days, mercury 28 days & other metals 180 days. A recorded breach does not guarantee a breach for all non-volatile parameters.
Holding times for VOC in soils vary according to analytes of interest. Vinyl Chloride and Styrene holding time is 7 days; others 14 days. A recorded breach does not guarantee a breach for all VOC analytes and
should be verified in case the reported breach is a false positive or Vinyl Chloride and Styrene are not key analytes of interest/concern.
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)
Snap Lock Bag (EA002)
TP1 H2, TP1 H3,
TP1 H4, TP2 H1,
TP2 H2, TP2 H3,
TP2 H4, TP3 H1,
TP3 H2, TP3 H3,
TP3 H4, TP4 H1,
TP4 H2, TP4 H3,
TP4 H4, TP5 H1,
TP5 H2, TP5 H3,
TP7 H1, TP7 H2,
TP7 H3, TP7 H4,
TP8 H1, TP8 H2,
TP8 H3, TP8 H4,
TP9 H1, TP10 H1,
TP10 H2, TP10 H3
27-FEB-201520-FEB-2015 27-FEB-201527-FEB-201513-FEB-2015 û ü
Soil Glass Jar - Unpreserved (EA002)
TP1 H1 27-FEB-201520-FEB-2015 27-FEB-201527-FEB-201513-FEB-2015 û ü
3 of 9:Page
Work Order :
:Client
ES1504581
ECOZ ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
INTRAPAC LCA:Project
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)
EA010: Conductivity
Snap Lock Bag (EA010)
TP1 H2, TP1 H3,
TP1 H4, TP2 H1,
TP2 H2, TP2 H3,
TP2 H4, TP3 H1,
TP3 H2, TP3 H3,
TP3 H4, TP4 H1,
TP4 H2, TP4 H3,
TP4 H4, TP5 H1,
TP5 H2, TP5 H3,
TP7 H1, TP7 H2,
TP7 H3, TP7 H4,
TP8 H1, TP8 H2,
TP8 H3, TP8 H4,
TP9 H1, TP10 H1,
TP10 H2, TP10 H3
27-MAR-201520-FEB-2015 27-FEB-201527-FEB-201513-FEB-2015 û ü
Soil Glass Jar - Unpreserved (EA010)
TP1 H1 27-MAR-201520-FEB-2015 27-FEB-201527-FEB-201513-FEB-2015 û üEA051 : Bulk Density
Snap Lock Bag (EA051)
TP1 H2, TP1 H3,
TP1 H4, TP2 H1,
TP2 H2, TP2 H3,
TP2 H4, TP3 H1,
TP3 H2, TP3 H3,
TP3 H4, TP4 H1,
TP4 H2, TP4 H3,
TP4 H4, TP5 H1,
TP5 H2, TP5 H3,
TP7 H1, TP7 H2,
TP7 H3, TP7 H4,
TP8 H1, TP8 H2,
TP8 H3, TP8 H4,
TP9 H1, TP10 H1,
TP10 H2, TP10 H3
12-AUG-2015---- 03-MAR-2015----13-FEB-2015 ---- ü
Soil Glass Jar - Unpreserved (EA051)
TP1 H1 12-AUG-2015---- 03-MAR-2015----13-FEB-2015 ---- ü
4 of 9:Page
Work Order :
:Client
ES1504581
ECOZ ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
INTRAPAC LCA:Project
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)
EA055: Moisture Content
Snap Lock Bag (EA055-103)
TP1 H2, TP1 H3,
TP1 H4, TP2 H1,
TP2 H2, TP2 H3,
TP2 H4, TP3 H1,
TP3 H2, TP3 H3,
TP3 H4, TP4 H1,
TP4 H2, TP4 H3,
TP4 H4, TP5 H1,
TP5 H2, TP5 H3,
TP7 H1, TP7 H2,
TP7 H3, TP7 H4,
TP8 H1, TP8 H2,
TP8 H3, TP8 H4,
TP9 H1, TP10 H1,
TP10 H2, TP10 H3
27-FEB-2015---- 27-FEB-2015----13-FEB-2015 ---- ü
Soil Glass Jar - Unpreserved (EA055-103)
TP1 H1 27-FEB-2015---- 27-FEB-2015----13-FEB-2015 ---- üEA058: Emerson Aggregate Test
Soil Glass Jar - Unpreserved (EA058)
TP1 H1, TP1 H2,
TP1 H3, TP1 H4,
TP2 H1, TP2 H2,
TP2 H3, TP2 H4,
TP3 H1, TP3 H2,
TP3 H3, TP3 H4,
TP4 H1, TP4 H2,
TP4 H3, TP4 H4,
TP5 H1, TP5 H2,
TP5 H3, TP7 H1,
TP7 H2, TP7 H3,
TP7 H4, TP8 H1,
TP8 H2, TP8 H3,
TP8 H4, TP9 H1,
TP10 H1, TP10 H2,
TP10 H3
12-AUG-2015---- 04-MAR-2015----13-FEB-2015 ---- ü
5 of 9:Page
Work Order :
:Client
ES1504581
ECOZ ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
INTRAPAC LCA:Project
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)
ED008: Exchangeable Cations
Snap Lock Bag (ED008)
TP1 H2, TP1 H3,
TP1 H4, TP2 H1,
TP2 H2, TP2 H3,
TP2 H4, TP3 H1,
TP3 H2, TP3 H3,
TP3 H4, TP4 H1,
TP4 H2, TP4 H3,
TP4 H4, TP5 H1,
TP5 H2, TP5 H3,
TP7 H1, TP7 H2,
TP7 H3, TP7 H4,
TP8 H1, TP8 H2,
TP8 H3, TP8 H4,
TP9 H1, TP10 H1,
TP10 H2, TP10 H3
13-MAR-201513-MAR-2015 02-MAR-201502-MAR-201513-FEB-2015 ü ü
Soil Glass Jar - Unpreserved (ED008)
TP1 H1 13-MAR-201513-MAR-2015 02-MAR-201502-MAR-201513-FEB-2015 ü üEK072: Phosphate Sorption Capacity
Snap Lock Bag (EK072)
TP1 H2, TP1 H3,
TP1 H4, TP2 H1,
TP2 H2, TP2 H3,
TP2 H4, TP3 H1,
TP3 H2, TP3 H3,
TP3 H4, TP4 H1,
TP4 H2, TP4 H3,
TP4 H4, TP5 H1,
TP5 H2, TP5 H3,
TP7 H1, TP7 H2,
TP7 H3, TP7 H4,
TP8 H1, TP8 H2,
TP8 H3, TP8 H4,
TP9 H1, TP10 H1,
TP10 H2, TP10 H3
12-AUG-2015---- 27-FEB-2015----13-FEB-2015 ---- ü
Soil Glass Jar - Unpreserved (EK072)
TP1 H1 12-AUG-2015---- 27-FEB-2015----13-FEB-2015 ---- ü
6 of 9:Page
Work Order :
:Client
ES1504581
ECOZ ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
INTRAPAC LCA:Project
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(were) 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 2013 Schedule B(3) and ALS QCS3 requirement 12.5 10.04 32 üBulk Density EA051
NEPM 2013 Schedule B(3) and ALS QCS3 requirement 10.0 10.04 40 üElectrical Conductivity (1:5) EA010
NEPM 2013 Schedule B(3) and ALS QCS3 requirement 12.9 10.04 31 üExchangeable Cations with pre-treatment ED008
NEPM 2013 Schedule B(3) and ALS QCS3 requirement 10.0 10.06 60 üMoisture Content EA055-103
NEPM 2013 Schedule B(3) and ALS QCS3 requirement 12.9 10.04 31 üP Sorption Index & P Sorption Capacity EK072
NEPM 2013 Schedule B(3) and ALS QCS3 requirement 10.0 10.04 40 üpH (1:5) EA002
Laboratory Control Samples (LCS)
NEPM 2013 Schedule B(3) and ALS QCS3 requirement 5.0 5.02 40 üElectrical Conductivity (1:5) EA010
NEPM 2013 Schedule B(3) and ALS QCS3 requirement 6.5 5.02 31 üExchangeable Cations with pre-treatment ED008
Method Blanks (MB)
NEPM 2013 Schedule B(3) and ALS QCS3 requirement 5.0 5.02 40 üElectrical Conductivity (1:5) EA010
NEPM 2013 Schedule B(3) and ALS QCS3 requirement 6.5 5.02 31 üExchangeable Cations with pre-treatment ED008
7 of 9:Page
Work Order :
:Client
ES1504581
ECOZ ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
INTRAPAC LCA:Project
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
In house: Referenced to APHA 21st ed., 4500H+. pH is determined on soil samples after a 1:5 soil/water leach.
This method is compliant with NEPM (2013) Schedule B(3) (Method 103)
pH (1:5) EA002 SOIL
In house: Referenced to APHA 21st ed., 2510. Conductivity is determined on soil samples using a 1:5 soil/water
leach. This method is compliant with NEPM (2013) Schedule B(3) (Method 104)
Electrical Conductivity (1:5) EA010 SOIL
The Determination of bulk density requires the measurments of the mass of soil in a measured volumeBulk Density EA051 SOIL
In-house. A gravimetric procedure based on weight loss over a 12 hour drying period at 103-105 degrees C.
This method is compliant with NEPM (2013) Schedule B(3) Section 7.1 and Table 1 (14 day holding time).
Moisture Content EA055-103 SOIL
In house: Referenced to AS1289.3.8.1. Testing is performed only on soils with suitable aggregates; sands and
gravels are usually unsuitable for this test. The test classifies the behaviour of soil aggregates, when immersed,
on their coherence in water.
Emerson Aggregate Test EA058 SOIL
In house: Referenced to Rayment & Higginson (2011) Method 15A2. Soluble salts are removed from the sample
prior to analysis. 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 (2013) Schedule B(3) (Method 301)
Exchangeable Cations with
pre-treatment
ED008 SOIL
In house: Referenced to Rayment & Higginson (1992) Method 9H1 & 9I1 Soil is bought to equilibrium with a
solution of P at known concentration. P absorbed, released is determined by FIA analysis of the final solution.
P Sorption Index & P Sorption Capacity EK072 SOIL
Preparation Methods Method DescriptionsMatrixMethod
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
8 of 9:Page
Work Order :
:Client
ES1504581
ECOZ ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
INTRAPAC LCA:Project
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)
Snap Lock Bag
----20-FEB-2015TP1 H2, TP1 H3,
TP1 H4, TP2 H1,
TP2 H2, TP2 H3,
TP2 H4, TP3 H1,
TP3 H2, TP3 H3,
TP3 H4, TP4 H1,
TP4 H2, TP4 H3,
TP4 H4, TP5 H1,
TP5 H2, TP5 H3,
TP7 H1, TP7 H2,
TP7 H3, TP7 H4,
TP8 H1, TP8 H2,
TP8 H3, TP8 H4,
TP9 H1, TP10 H1,
TP10 H2, TP10 H3
----27-FEB-2015 7 ----
Soil Glass Jar - Unpreserved
----20-FEB-2015TP1 H1 ----27-FEB-2015 7 ----
EA010: Conductivity
9 of 9:Page
Work Order :
:Client
ES1504581
ECOZ ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
INTRAPAC LCA:Project
Matrix: SOIL
AnalysisExtraction / Preparation
Date analysedDate extractedContainer / Client Sample ID(s) Days
overdue
Days
overdue
Due for extraction Due for analysis
Method
EA010: Conductivity - Analysis Holding Time Compliance
Snap Lock Bag
----20-FEB-2015TP1 H2, TP1 H3,
TP1 H4, TP2 H1,
TP2 H2, TP2 H3,
TP2 H4, TP3 H1,
TP3 H2, TP3 H3,
TP3 H4, TP4 H1,
TP4 H2, TP4 H3,
TP4 H4, TP5 H1,
TP5 H2, TP5 H3,
TP7 H1, TP7 H2,
TP7 H3, TP7 H4,
TP8 H1, TP8 H2,
TP8 H3, TP8 H4,
TP9 H1, TP10 H1,
TP10 H2, TP10 H3
----27-FEB-2015 7 ----
Soil Glass Jar - Unpreserved
----20-FEB-2015TP1 H1 ----27-FEB-2015 7 ----
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.
False 6 6.00False
Environmental
QUALITY CONTROL REPORTWork Order : ES1504581 Page : 1 of 6
:: LaboratoryClient Environmental Division SydneyECOZ ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
: :ContactContact MR MIKE WELCH Client Services
:: AddressAddress PO BOX 381
DARWIN NT, AUSTRALIA 0801
277-289 Woodpark Road Smithfield NSW Australia 2164
:: E-mailE-mail [email protected] [email protected]
:: TelephoneTelephone +61 08 89811100 +61-2-8784 8555
:: FacsimileFacsimile +61 08 89811102 +61-2-8784 8500
:Project INTRAPAC LCA QC Level : NEPM 2013 Schedule B(3) and ALS QCS3 requirement
Site : ----
:C-O-C number ---- Date Samples Received : 25-FEB-2015
Sampler : CH Issue Date : 10-MAR-2015
:Order number ----
31:No. of samples received
Quote number : SY/548/14 31: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
Address 277-289 Woodpark Road Smithfield NSW Australia 2164 | PHONE +61-2-8784 8555 | Facsimile +61-2-8784 8500
Environmental Division Sydney ABN 84 009 936 029 Part of the ALS Group An ALS Limited Company
2 of 6:Page
Work Order :
:Client
ES1504581
ECOZ ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
INTRAPAC LCA: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 performed, results are reported on a dry weight basis.
Where a reported less than (<) result is higher than the LOR, this may be due to primary sample extract/digestate dilution and/or insufficient sample for analysis.
Where the LOR of a reported result differs from standard LOR, this may be due to high moisture content, insufficient sample (reduced weight employed) or matrix interference.
Anonymous = Refers to samples which are not specifically part of this work order but formed part of the QC process lot
CAS Number = CAS registry number from database maintained by Chemical Abstracts Services. The Chemical Abstracts Service is a division of the American Chemical Society.
LOR = Limit of reporting
RPD = Relative Percentage Difference
# = Indicates failed QC
Key :
This 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
Ankit Joshi Inorganic Chemist Sydney Inorganics
Ashesh Patel Inorganic Chemist Sydney Inorganics
Dian Dao Inorganic Chemist Sydney Inorganics
Pabi Subba Senior Organic Chemist Sydney Inorganics
Satishkumar Trivedi 2 IC Acid Sulfate Soils Supervisor Brisbane Acid Sulphate Soils
Wisam Marassa Inorganics Coordinator Sydney Inorganics
SignatoriesNATA Accredited
Laboratory 825
Accredited for
compliance with
ISO/IEC 17025.
3 of 6:Page
Work Order :
:Client
ES1504581
ECOZ ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
INTRAPAC LCA:Project
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: 3839887)
EA002: pH Value ---- 0.1 pH Unit 6.0 6.1 0.0 0% - 20%TP1 H1ES1504581-001
EA002: pH Value ---- 0.1 pH Unit 5.4 5.5 0.0 0% - 20%TP3 H3ES1504581-011
EA002 : pH (Soils) (QC Lot: 3839889)
EA002: pH Value ---- 0.1 pH Unit 5.8 5.7 2.1 0% - 20%TP7 H2ES1504581-021
EA002: pH Value ---- 0.1 pH Unit 5.7 5.6 0.0 0% - 20%TP10 H3ES1504581-031
EA010: Conductivity (QC Lot: 3839888)
EA010: Electrical Conductivity @ 25°C ---- 1 µS/cm 4 4 0.0 No LimitTP1 H1ES1504581-001
EA010: Electrical Conductivity @ 25°C ---- 1 µS/cm 2 2 0.0 No LimitTP3 H3ES1504581-011
EA010: Conductivity (QC Lot: 3839890)
EA010: Electrical Conductivity @ 25°C ---- 1 µS/cm 3 3 0.0 No LimitTP7 H2ES1504581-021
EA010: Electrical Conductivity @ 25°C ---- 1 µS/cm 2 2 0.0 No LimitTP10 H3ES1504581-031
EA051: Bulk Density (QC Lot: 3843073)
EA051: Bulk Density BULK_DENSITY 1 kg/m3 1140 1160 1.2 0% - 20%AnonymousEM1502122-001
EA051: Bulk Density BULK_DENSITY 1 kg/m3 2150 2150 0.0 0% - 20%TP3 H2ES1504581-010
EA051: Bulk Density (QC Lot: 3843074)
EA051: Bulk Density BULK_DENSITY 1 kg/m3 2000 1940 3.0 0% - 20%TP7 H1ES1504581-020
EA051: Bulk Density BULK_DENSITY 1 kg/m3 1790 1800 0.6 0% - 20%TP10 H2ES1504581-030
EA055: Moisture Content (QC Lot: 3840436)
EA055-103: Moisture Content (dried @ 103°C) ---- 1.0 % 1.1 1.5 30.2 No LimitAnonymousEP1501255-003
EA055-103: Moisture Content (dried @ 103°C) ---- 1.0 % 8.7 9.3 6.6 No LimitTP1 H3ES1504581-003
EA055: Moisture Content (QC Lot: 3840437)
EA055-103: Moisture Content (dried @ 103°C) ---- 1.0 % 13.1 12.4 6.0 0% - 50%TP3 H4ES1504581-012
EA055-103: Moisture Content (dried @ 103°C) ---- 1.0 % 14.5 14.9 3.1 0% - 50%TP7 H4ES1504581-023
EA055: Moisture Content (QC Lot: 3840438)
EA055-103: Moisture Content (dried @ 103°C) ---- 1.0 % <1.0 <1.0 0.0 No LimitAnonymousES1504593-001
EA055-103: Moisture Content (dried @ 103°C) ---- 1.0 % <1.0 <1.0 0.0 No LimitAnonymousES1504593-012
ED008: Exchangeable Cations (QC Lot: 3838947)
ED008: Calcium/Magnesium Ratio ---- 0.1 - 5.0 5.0 0.0 0% - 20%TP1 H1ES1504581-001
ED008: Exchangeable Sodium Percent ---- 0.1 % 2.0 1.9 5.3 0% - 20%
ED008: Exchangeable Calcium ---- 0.1 meq/100g 0.5 0.5 0.0 0% - 20%
ED008: Exchangeable Magnesium ---- 0.1 meq/100g 0.1 0.1 0.0 0% - 20%
ED008: Exchangeable Potassium ---- 0.1 meq/100g <0.1 <0.1 0.0 0% - 20%
ED008: Exchangeable Sodium ---- 0.1 meq/100g <0.1 <0.1 0.0 0% - 20%
ED008: Exchangeable Aluminium ---- 0.1 meq/100g <0.1 <0.1 0.0 0% - 20%
4 of 6:Page
Work Order :
:Client
ES1504581
ECOZ ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
INTRAPAC LCA:Project
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 (%)
ED008: Exchangeable Cations (QC Lot: 3838947) - continued
ED008: Cation Exchange Capacity ---- 0.1 meq/100g 0.7 0.7 0.0 0% - 20%TP1 H1ES1504581-001
ED008: Calcium/Magnesium Ratio ---- 0.1 - 2.0 2.0 0.0 0% - 20%TP3 H1ES1504581-009
ED008: Exchangeable Sodium Percent ---- 0.1 % 6.4 6.4 0.0 0% - 20%
ED008: Exchangeable Calcium ---- 0.1 meq/100g 0.2 0.2 0.0 0% - 20%
ED008: Exchangeable Magnesium ---- 0.1 meq/100g 0.1 0.2 0.0 0% - 20%
ED008: Exchangeable Potassium ---- 0.1 meq/100g <0.1 <0.1 0.0 0% - 20%
ED008: Exchangeable Sodium ---- 0.1 meq/100g <0.1 <0.1 0.0 0% - 20%
ED008: Exchangeable Aluminium ---- 0.1 meq/100g <0.1 <0.1 0.0 0% - 20%
ED008: Cation Exchange Capacity ---- 0.1 meq/100g 0.4 0.4 0.0 0% - 20%
ED008: Exchangeable Cations (QC Lot: 3838949)
ED008: Calcium/Magnesium Ratio ---- 0.1 - 1.5 1.2 18.2 0% - 20%TP7 H2ES1504581-021
ED008: Exchangeable Sodium Percent ---- 0.1 % 2.9 2.7 8.3 0% - 20%
ED008: Exchangeable Calcium ---- 0.1 meq/100g 0.6 0.5 0.0 0% - 20%
ED008: Exchangeable Magnesium ---- 0.1 meq/100g 0.4 0.4 0.0 0% - 20%
ED008: Exchangeable Potassium ---- 0.1 meq/100g <0.1 <0.1 0.0 0% - 20%
ED008: Exchangeable Sodium ---- 0.1 meq/100g <0.1 <0.1 0.0 0% - 20%
ED008: Exchangeable Aluminium ---- 0.1 meq/100g <0.1 <0.1 0.0 0% - 20%
ED008: Cation Exchange Capacity ---- 0.1 meq/100g 1.0 0.9 0.0 0% - 20%
ED008: Calcium/Magnesium Ratio ---- 0.1 - 0.5 0.5 0.0 0% - 20%TP10 H2ES1504581-030
ED008: Exchangeable Sodium Percent ---- 0.1 % 14.8 14.2 4.1 0% - 20%
ED008: Exchangeable Calcium ---- 0.1 meq/100g <0.1 <0.1 0.0 0% - 20%
ED008: Exchangeable Magnesium ---- 0.1 meq/100g 0.2 0.2 0.0 0% - 20%
ED008: Exchangeable Potassium ---- 0.1 meq/100g <0.1 <0.1 0.0 0% - 20%
ED008: Exchangeable Sodium ---- 0.1 meq/100g <0.1 <0.1 0.0 0% - 20%
ED008: Exchangeable Aluminium ---- 0.1 meq/100g <0.1 <0.1 0.0 0% - 20%
ED008: Cation Exchange Capacity ---- 0.1 meq/100g 0.3 0.3 0.0 0% - 20%
EK072: Phosphate Sorption Capacity (QC Lot: 3838740)
EK072: Phosphate Sorption Capacity ---- 250 mg P sorbed/kg 283 290 2.4 No LimitTP1 H1ES1504581-001
EK072: Phosphate Sorption Capacity ---- 250 mg P sorbed/kg 409 496 19.2 No LimitTP3 H3ES1504581-011
EK072: Phosphate Sorption Capacity (QC Lot: 3838741)
EK072: Phosphate Sorption Capacity ---- 250 mg P sorbed/kg 670 925 32.0 No LimitTP7 H2ES1504581-021
EK072: Phosphate Sorption Capacity ---- 250 mg P sorbed/kg 575 531 8.0 No LimitTP10 H3ES1504581-031
5 of 6:Page
Work Order :
:Client
ES1504581
ECOZ ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
INTRAPAC LCA:Project
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 Spike (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: 3839888)
EA010: Electrical Conductivity @ 25°C ---- 1 µS/cm <1 1031412 µS/cm 13070
EA010: Conductivity (QCLot: 3839890)
EA010: Electrical Conductivity @ 25°C ---- 1 µS/cm <1 93.01412 µS/cm 13070
ED008: Exchangeable Cations (QCLot: 3838947)
ED008: Exchangeable Calcium ---- 0.1 meq/100g <0.1 1011 meq/100g 12890
ED008: Exchangeable Magnesium ---- 0.1 meq/100g <0.1 1021.67 meq/100g 12086
ED008: Exchangeable Potassium ---- 0.1 meq/100g <0.1 93.30.51 meq/100g 13585
ED008: Exchangeable Sodium ---- 0.1 meq/100g <0.1 1130.87 meq/100g 12886
ED008: Exchangeable Aluminium ---- 0.1 meq/100g <0.1 -------- --------
ED008: Exchangeable Sodium Percent ---- 0.1 % <0.1 -------- --------
ED008: Calcium/Magnesium Ratio ---- 0.1 - <0.1 -------- --------
ED008: Cation Exchange Capacity ---- 0.1 meq/100g <0.1 -------- --------
ED008: Exchangeable Cations (QCLot: 3838949)
ED008: Exchangeable Calcium ---- 0.1 meq/100g <0.1 1021 meq/100g 12890
ED008: Exchangeable Magnesium ---- 0.1 meq/100g <0.1 1041.67 meq/100g 12086
ED008: Exchangeable Potassium ---- 0.1 meq/100g <0.1 91.80.51 meq/100g 13585
ED008: Exchangeable Sodium ---- 0.1 meq/100g <0.1 1110.87 meq/100g 12886
ED008: Exchangeable Aluminium ---- 0.1 meq/100g <0.1 -------- --------
ED008: Exchangeable Sodium Percent ---- 0.1 % <0.1 -------- --------
ED008: Calcium/Magnesium Ratio ---- 0.1 - <0.1 -------- --------
ED008: Cation Exchange Capacity ---- 0.1 meq/100g <0.1 -------- --------
Matrix Spike (MS) ReportThe 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.
l No Matrix Spike (MS) Results are required to be reported.
6 of 6:Page
Work Order :
:Client
ES1504581
ECOZ ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
INTRAPAC LCA:Project
Matrix Spike (MS) and Matrix Spike Duplicate (MSD) Report
The quality control term Matrix Spike (MS) and Matrix Spike Duplicate (MSD) refers to intralaboratory split samples spiked with a representative set of target analytes. The purpose of these QC parameters are 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.
l No Matrix Spike (MS) or Matrix Spike Duplicate (MSD) Results are required to be reported.