Report on Intrusive Contamination Investigation Proposed · PDF file · 2017-04-05Quantitative analysis by NATA accredited laboratories for the following contaminants ... (refer...

Page 1

Report onIntrusive Contamination Investigation

Proposed Commercial DevelopmentPart of 11 Talavera Road, Macquarie Park, NSW

Prepared forDonald Cant Watts Corke Pty Ltd

Project 85751.03February 2017

Page 2

Page 3

Intrusive Contamination Investigation, Proposed Commercial Development 85751.03.R.001.Rev0Part of 11 Talavera Road, Macquarie Park, NSW February 2017

Table of Contents

Page

1.  Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1 

2.  Scope of Works .............................................................................................................................. 1 

3.  Site Information .............................................................................................................................. 2 

3.1  Identification, Location and Description ...............................................................................2 

3.2  Geology ................................................................................................................................3 

3.3  Groundwater ........................................................................................................................4 

3.4  Acid Sulfate Soil ...................................................................................................................4 

4.  Fieldwork and Analysis .................................................................................................................. 4 

4.1  Data Quality Objectives and Project Quality Procedures ....................................................4 

4.2  Data Quality Indicators ........................................................................................................4 

4.3  Soil Sampling Locations and Rationale ...............................................................................5 

4.4  Soil and Groundwater Sampling Procedures ......................................................................5 

4.5  Analytical Rationale .............................................................................................................6 

4.6  Field Quality Assurance and Quality Control .......................................................................6 

4.7  Laboratory QA / QC .............................................................................................................7 

5.  Assessment Criteria ....................................................................................................................... 7 

5.1  Soils .....................................................................................................................................7 

5.1.1  Health-based Investigation Levels (Non-petroleum Chemical Contaminants) .......7 

5.1.2  Petroleum Contaminants (Health Screening Levels and Management Limits) ......8 

5.1.3  Ecological Investigation Levels .............................................................................10 

5.1.4  Ecological Screening Levels – Petroleum Hydrocarbons .....................................11 

5.1.5  Asbestos ...............................................................................................................12 

5.2  Contaminants with No Assessment Criteria ......................................................................12 

5.3  Groundwater ......................................................................................................................13 

5.3.1  Groundwater Investigation Levels.........................................................................13 

5.3.2  Health Screening Levels – Petroleum Hydrocarbons ...........................................15 

5.4  Contaminants with No Assessment Criteria ......................................................................16 

6.  Field Work Observations .............................................................................................................. 16 

6.1  Soil .....................................................................................................................................16 

6.2  Groundwater ......................................................................................................................16 

7.  Analytical Results ......................................................................................................................... 17 

8.  Discussion of Results ................................................................................................................... 17 

8.1  Soil .....................................................................................................................................17 

Page 4

Intrusive Contamination Investigation, Proposed Commercial Development 85751.03.R.001.Rev0Part of 11 Talavera Road, Macquarie Park, NSW February 2017

Table of Contents

Page

8.2  Groundwater ......................................................................................................................17 

9.  Recommendations and Further Assessment ............................................................................... 18 

10.  Limitations .................................................................................................................................... 19 

Appendix A: Notes about this Report

Drawing 1

Appendix B: Descriptive Notes

Borehole Log Results

Groundwater Field Sheet

Appendix C: Tables C1 and C2

Laboratory Reports and COC

Data Quality Assessment

Page 5

Page 1 of 19

Intrusive Contamination Investigation, Proposed Commercial Development 85751.03.R.001.Rev0Part of 11 Talavera Road, Macquarie Park, NSW February 2017

Report on Intrusive Contamination Investigation

Proposed Commercial Development

Part of 11 Talavera Road, Macquarie Park, NSW

1. Introduction

This report presents the results of an intrusive contamination investigation undertaken for a commercial development at part of 11 Talavera Road, Macquarie Park, NSW. The investigation was commissioned in an email dated 22 January 2017 by Ms Iulia Brooks of Donald Cant Watts Corke Pty Ltd on behalf of Dexus Funds Management Limited and was undertaken in accordance with Douglas Partners' (DP) proposal SYD161520Rev1, dated 20 January 2017. It is understood that the proposed development comprises the construction of a commercial building with four below ground levels of car parking. This contamination investigation is required for development application purposes and is limited to the area of the proposed commercial building, identified as proposed Work Area ‘’1’’, located adjacent to the corner of Talavera and Lane Cove Roads, hereon referred to as ‘’the site’’. The objectives of this contamination investigation were to assess the suitability of the site for the proposed development and to provide recommendations for further work, if required. A preliminary site investigation was completed by DP entitled Report on Preliminary Site Investigation, Proposed Commercial Development, 11 Talavera Road, Macquarie Park, prepared for Donald Cant Watts Corke Pty Ltd (Project 85751.01), dated January 2017 (DP, 2017). This report was completed for the whole of 11 Talavera Road and identified a number of potential contamination issues at the larger site, including fill, underground storage tanks (USTs), substations, oil/water separators, potential hazardous materials, and past manufacturing of electrical products. The report recommended intrusive investigations to assess these potential source areas. A geotechnical investigation was completed in conjunction with this contamination investigation and reported under separate cover. This intrusive contamination investigation utilised the groundwater monitoring well which was installed as part of the geotechnical investigation. 2. Scope of Works

The scope of works for the contamination investigation was as follows:

Conduct service location using an electromagnetic sweep and dial-before-you-dig plans as a precautionary measure;

Complete five boreholes using hand auger equipment to depths of between 0.25 m and 0.7 m below ground level (bgl);

Collect soil samples from the boreholes at regular intervals and upon signs of contamination;

Screen soil samples using a photo-ionisation detector (PID) to detect the presence or absence of volatile organic compounds (VOC);

Page 6

Page 2 of 19

Intrusive Contamination Investigation, Proposed Commercial Development 85751.03.R.001.Rev0Part of 11 Talavera Road, Macquarie Park, NSW February 2017

Develop the groundwater monitoring well (installed as part of the geotechnical investigation) and sample, after stabilisation for three days, using low flow techniques;

Conduct laboratory analysis on six soil samples and one groundwater sample (plus QA/QC samples). Quantitative analysis by NATA accredited laboratories for the following contaminants of potential concern (COPC):

o Heavy metals: arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel and zinc;

o Total recoverable hydrocarbons (TRH) and Monocyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (BTEX: benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, total xylene);

o Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH);

o Total phenols;

o Volatile organic compounds (VOC);

o Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB);

o Organochlorine pesticides (OCP);

o pH and hardness;

o cation exchange capacity;

o Asbestos (sol samples for initial screening purposes); and

o Trip spike and blank for BTEX. Preparation of this report. 3. Site Information

3.1 Identification, Location and Description

The proposed development is located within the north-eastern corner of an existing business park, with the site having frontage to both Talavera Road and Lane Cove Road (refer Drawing 1, Appendix A). The rectangular-shaped site has plan dimensions of approximately 90 m (parallel to Lane Cove Road) by 60 m, covering an area of approximately 5,400 m2 (0.54 hectares). The site property boundaries (parallel to Talavera Road) are oriented at approximately 130 degrees (east of north), relative to Grid North (refer survey plan prepared by RealServe Pty Ltd, reference 61622MN, dated 9/11/2016), and for the purposes of this report north has been assumed to be parallel to Talavera Road. The site steps down to the south towards Lane Cove Road. A two-storey Conference Centre is built on the northern, upper side of the site, and an open-air, fenced tennis court, grassed area and swimming pool are located on the southern, lower side of the site, which is bounded by a high fence. The lower and upper areas of the site are internally linked with two flights of stairs. A disused, stepped, tiled water feature exists between the flight of steps and a fence on the eastern side of the site. The site includes areas of garden on both road frontages, external to the site fence.

Page 7

Page 3 of 19

Intrusive Contamination Investigation, Proposed Commercial Development 85751.03.R.001.Rev0Part of 11 Talavera Road, Macquarie Park, NSW February 2017

Based upon the provided survey levels (RealServe Pty Ltd, reference 61622MN), the relatively flat, paved upper part of the site is at an elevation of RL52.8 m, and the lower, grassed area of the site (including tennis court and swimming pool) is at an elevation of RL49.0 m Internal access roads and parking spaces are located on the northern and western sides of the site. Grated service pits, assumed to be inspection pits for a stormwater service, were observed in a grassed area within and west of the tennis court, in the southern part of the site near Borehole BH01 (refer Drawing 1).

3.2 Geology

Reference to the Sydney 1:100 000 Geological Series Sheet 9130 (Geological Survey of NSW: Reference 5) indicates that the site is located near the boundary between the Triassic aged Ashfield Shale, the transitional Mittagong Formation, and Hawkesbury Sandstone. The extension / trace of a north-north-east trending regional structural feature, known as the Yarramalong Syncline, is inferred to extend near to the site, with the site inferred to be located on the eastern limb of the syncline. West-dipping faults and sub-vertical, north-north-east trending intrusive dykes have been mapped in nearby road cuttings (near the Lane Cove Road bridge over the M2 Motorway). The Ashfield Shale typically comprises black to dark grey shale and laminite, the Mittagong Formation consists of interbedded shale, laminite and fine grained quartz sandstone, and the underlying Hawkesbury Sandstone typically comprises horizontally bedded and vertically jointed, massive and cross-bedded, medium grained quartz sandstone with a few shale interbeds. The corresponding Sydney 1:100,000 Soils Landscape Series Sheet, prepared by the former NSW Department of Land and Water Conservation, indicates that the soils developed over most of the site belong to the Glenorie soil landscape, whilst the soils developed over the north-eastern corner of the site belong to the Lucas Heights soil landscape. Descriptions of each of these soil landscapes follow, however it is noted that due to past excavation and filling activities associated with prior developments, much of the residual soil profile (overlying the shale) has been extensively modified or removed. The Glenorie soil landscape is described as shallow to moderately deep (<1.0 m) red podzolic soils on crests and moderately deep (0.7 m-1.5 m) red and brown podzolic soils on upper slopes, with a high soil erosion hazard, localised impermeable highly plastic and moderately reactive subsoil. The Lucas Heights soil landscape is described as moderately deep (0.5 m-1.5 m), hardsetting yellow podzolic soils and yellow soloths, with stony, low fertility soils with low available water capacity. The 1:25,000 Acid Sulphate Soil Risk map for Prospect / Parramatta River indicates that the site does not lie within an area known for acid sulphate soils. Other references suggest that the site is not within an area known for soil salinity issues. The ground conditions encountered in the corresponding geotechnical investigation confirmed the presence of the geological formations described above.

Page 8

Page 4 of 19

Intrusive Contamination Investigation, Proposed Commercial Development 85751.03.R.001.Rev0Part of 11 Talavera Road, Macquarie Park, NSW February 2017

3.3 Groundwater

An observation of the local topography suggests that groundwater flow in the immediate vicinity of the site would most likely be in a south-easterly direction towards the Lane Cove River. During the current investigation, the standing water levels (SWL) measured in the well (BH201) was 4.75 m bgl (47.25 mAHD).

3.4 Acid Sulfate Soil

The 1:25,000 Acid Sulphate Soil Risk Mapping indicates that the site is not in an area with an identified risk for acid sulphate soils or within 500 m of an area with an identified risk for acid sulphate soils. 4. Fieldwork and Analysis

4.1 Data Quality Objectives and Project Quality Procedures

This contamination investigation has been devised in general accordance with the seven step data quality objective (DQO) process which is provided in Appendix B, Schedule B2 of NEPC (2013). The DQO process is outlined as follows:

State the problem;

Identify the decision;

Identify inputs into the decision;

Define the boundary of the assessment;

Develop a decision rule;

Specify acceptable limits on decision errors; and

Optimise the design for obtaining data. Referenced sections for the respective DQOs listed above are provided in Appendix C.

4.2 Data Quality Indicators

The performance of the assessment in achieving the DQO was assessed through the application of data quality indicators (DQI) as defined by:

Precision: A quantitative measure of the variability (reproducibility) of data;

Accuracy: A quantitative measure of the closeness of reported data to the “true” value;

Representativeness: The confidence (expressed qualitatively) that data are representative of each media present on the site;

Page 9

Page 5 of 19

Intrusive Contamination Investigation, Proposed Commercial Development 85751.03.R.001.Rev0Part of 11 Talavera Road, Macquarie Park, NSW February 2017

Completeness: A measure of the useable data from a data collection activity; and

Comparability: The confidence (expressed qualitatively) that data can be considered equivalent for each sampling and analytical event.

Further comments on the DQIs are presented in Appendix C.

4.3 Soil Sampling Locations and Rationale

A total of five sampling locations (boreholes) were completed in accessible areas of the site to provide a limited indication of subsurface conditions. Under the NSW EPA Sampling Design Guidelines 1997, a minimum of 13 sampling locations is recommended to characterise a site of this size (0.5 ha). Given the proposed land use, it is recommended that a sampling density of at least 30% of the EPA recommended density is achieved. Therefore, the investigation included five soil sampling points (38% of the recommended) and one groundwater sample from the monitoring well installed as part of the geotechnical investigation. The bores were positioned primarily for geotechnical investigation purposes and general site coverage, allowing for access constraints. The groundwater monitoring well location was also limited by access constraints and may therefore not be specifically targeting COPC. Intrusive works were conducted on 27 January 2017. Soil samples were collected from all five locations. Groundwater sampling was undertaken on 6 February 2017. Refer to Drawing 1, Appendix A.

4.4 Soil and Groundwater Sampling Procedures

Environmental sampling was performed in accordance with standard operating procedures outlined in the DP Field Procedures Manual. All sampling data was recorded on borehole logs presented in Appendix B and selected samples for laboratory analysis were recorded on DP chain-of-custody (COC) sheets provided in Appendix C. The general soil sampling procedure comprised:

Decontamination of re-useable sampling equipment using a 3% phosphate free detergent (Decon90) and distilled water prior to collecting each sample or use of disposable sampling equipment;

Use of disposable sampling equipment including nitrile gloves and disposable groundwater tubing;

Transfer of samples into laboratory prepared glass jars and bottles (with appropriate preservatives for analytes) and capping immediately with Teflon lined lids;

Labelling of sampling containers with individual and unique identification, including project number, sample identification and sample depth; and

Placement of sample containers and bags into a cooled, insulated and sealed container for transport to the laboratory.

The groundwater level was measured in the well using an interface meter and the well was developed until dry using a submersible pump. The well was allowed to recharge for three days, and then the

Page 10

Page 6 of 19

Intrusive Contamination Investigation, Proposed Commercial Development 85751.03.R.001.Rev0Part of 11 Talavera Road, Macquarie Park, NSW February 2017

groundwater level was remeasured again, including the measurement of phase separated hydrocarbons (PSH). The well was micro-purged using a low flow pump (Geopump). Field parameters could not be measured as the well volume was insufficient. The sample was collected using the same low flow pump. The sample was placed with a minimum of aeration into preserved bottles. The sample was not filtered in the field due to there being insufficient sample. The sample pump and all non-disposable sampling equipment were decontaminated using Decon90 solution. The management of sample comprised the following:

Placement of the sample in insulated coolers (through the use of ice; topped up as required) until transported to the analytical laboratory; and

COC was maintained at all times and countersigned by the receiving laboratory on transfer of the sample.

Envirolab Services (ELS) Pty Ltd, accredited by NATA, was employed to conduct the primary sample analysis and is required to carry out in-house procedures.

4.5 Analytical Rationale

The analytical scheme was designed to obtain an indication of the potential presence and possible distribution of identified COPC based on information obtained in the previous investigation and the preliminary conceptual site model (CSM) presented in DP (2017). The primary contaminants of concern are metals, TRH, BTEX, PAH, PCB, OCP, OPP, VOC, phenols and asbestos. Soil samples were selected for analysis based on site observations (i.e. odour, staining etc.), and their location within the subsoil strata (i.e. fill or natural), with an emphasis on fill and near surface samples where it would be expected that the bulk of identified COPC would be present.

4.6 Field Quality Assurance and Quality Control

The field QC procedures for sampling were as prescribed in Douglas Partners’ Field Procedure Manual, and are outlined in Appendix C. One field replicate was recovered and analysed for a limited suite of contaminants by means of intra-laboratory analysis. These samples were collected in accordance with standard industry practice and guidelines.

Page 11

Page 7 of 19

Intrusive Contamination Investigation, Proposed Commercial Development 85751.03.R.001.Rev0Part of 11 Talavera Road, Macquarie Park, NSW February 2017

4.7 Laboratory QA / QC

The analytical laboratory (ELS) is accredited by NATA and is required to conduct in-house QA/QC procedures. These are normally incorporated into every analytical run and include reagent blanks, spike recovery, surrogate recovery and duplicate samples. These results are included in the laboratory certificates in Appendix C. The results of the DP assessment of laboratory QA/QC are shown in Appendix C, along with the full laboratory certificates of analysis. 5. Assessment Criteria

The assessment criteria have been sourced from the National Environment Protection Council (NEPC) National Environment Protection Measure (Assessment of Site Contamination) 1999, as amended 2013 (NEPC 2013). The site assessment criteria (SAC) comprise health-based investigation levels (HILs), health screening levels (HSLs), management limits for TRH, groundwater investigation levels (GILs) and groundwater screening levels (GSLs) as detailed below. The laboratory Practical Quantitation Limit (PQL) has also been adopted as a screening level for some contaminants.

5.1 Soils

5.1.1 Health-based Investigation Levels (Non-petroleum Chemical Contaminants)

Table 1 shows the HILs that have been adopted by NEPC (2013) Schedule B1, Table 1A (1) for assessing the human health risk from a contaminant via relevant pathways of exposure, as detailed in the CSM. Table 1 only includes contaminants analysed during this assessment, not the full list provided in NEPC (2013). The proposed development will comprise a commercial building with four below ground levels of car parking; hence the adopted SAC were for commercial / industrial land use.

Page 12

Page 8 of 19

Intrusive Contamination Investigation, Proposed Commercial Development 85751.03.R.001.Rev0Part of 11 Talavera Road, Macquarie Park, NSW February 2017

Table 1: Health Investigation Levels (Non-petroleum Chemical Contaminants)

Contaminant HIL D

Commercial / Industrial (mg/kg)

Metals and Inorganics

Arsenic

Cadmium

Chromium (IV)

Copper

Lead

Manganese

Mercury (inorganic)

Nickel

Zinc

3,000

900

3,600

240,000

1,500

60,000

730

6,000

400,000

PAH

Carcinogenic PAH (as benzo(a)pyrene TEQ)

Total PAH

40

4,000

Phenols

Phenol

240,000

OCP

DDT + DDD + DDE

Aldrin + Dieldrin

Chlordane

Endosulfan (total)

Endrin

Hepatchlor

HCB

Methoxychlor

3,600

45

530

2,000

100

50

80

2,500

Other Organics

PCB

7

5.1.2 Petroleum Contaminants (Health Screening Levels and Management Limits)

Health Screening Levels

Table 2 shows petroleum hydrocarbon compounds adopted from NEPC (2013) Schedule B1, Table 1A (3) and are based on the exposure to petroleum hydrocarbons through the dominant vapour inhalation exposure pathway. The screening levels are adopted given the exposure risk identified during the CSM. Based on the proposed development, the relevant and adopted HSL is HSL D, commercial / industrial. The HSLs are based on overlying soil type and depth. HSLs for sand have been used as they are most conservative. Using the most conservative values, the depth range of 0 m to <1 m has been used.

Page 13

Page 9 of 19

Intrusive Contamination Investigation, Proposed Commercial Development 85751.03.R.001.Rev0Part of 11 Talavera Road, Macquarie Park, NSW February 2017

Table 2: Soil Health Screening Levels for Vapour Intrusion

Contaminant Soil Type

HSL D

Commercial / industrial (mg/kg)

Depth 0 m to <1m

Toluene

Ethylbenzene

Xylenes

Naphthalene

Benzene

TRH C6-C10 less BTEX [F1]

TRH >C10-C16 less naphthalene [F2]

Sand

NL

NL

230

NL

3

260

NL

NL- Not limiting

Direct Contact Screening Levels

Direct contact HSLs have also been considered for the future land use, considering that limited parts of the site will not be occupied by buildings and may be available for direct contact such as grassed areas or in garden beds and vegetated areas. These are provided in Table 3 below. Table 3: Direct Contact Health Screening Levels

Contaminant HSL D Commercial / Industrial Intrusive Maintenance Worker

Toluene

Ethylbenzene

Xylenes

Naphthalene

Benzene

C6-C10

>C10-C16

>C16-C34

>C34-C40

99,000

27,000

81,000

11,000

430

26,000

20,000

27,000

38,000

120,000

85,000

130,000

29,000

1,100

82,000

62,000

85,000

120,000

Management Limits (TRH Only)

NEPC (2013) Table 1B (7) provides ‘management limits’ for TRH fractions, which are applied after consideration of relevant HSLs. The management limits have been adopted to avoid or minimise the following potential effects of petroleum hydrocarbons:

Formation of non-aqueous phase liquids (LNAPL);

Fire and explosive hazards; and

Effects on buried infrastructure e.g. penetration of, or damage to, in-ground services by hydrocarbons.

The presence of site TRH contamination at the levels of the management limits does not imply that there is no need for administrative notification or controls in accordance with jurisdictional

Page 14

Page 10 of 19

Intrusive Contamination Investigation, Proposed Commercial Development 85751.03.R.001.Rev0Part of 11 Talavera Road, Macquarie Park, NSW February 2017

requirements. The adopted management limits are shown in Table 4 and have been selected based on the CSM. Management limits for coarse material are presented in Table 4, since the coarse texture management limits are more conservative of the two management limits available. Table 4: Management Limits for TRH Fractions in Soil

TRH Fraction Soil Texture

Management Limit:

Commercial and industrial

(mg/kg)

C6-C9 [F1] Coarse 700

>C10-C16 [F2] Coarse 1,000

>C16-C34 [F3] Coarse 3,500

>C34-C40 [F4] Coarse 10,000

5.1.3 Ecological Investigation Levels

Ecological Investigation Levels (EIL) have been derived for selected metals and organic compounds and are applicable for assessing risk to terrestrial ecosystems (NEPC, 2013). EIL depend on specific soil physiochemical properties and land use scenarios and generally apply to the top 2 m of soil, which corresponds to the root zone and habitation zone of many species. The EIL is determined for a contaminant based on the sum of the ambient background concentration (ABC) and an added contaminant limit (ACL). The ABC of a contaminant is the soil concentration in a specific locality that is the sum of naturally occurring background levels and the contaminants levels that have been introduced from diffuse or non-point sources (e.g. motor vehicle emissions). The ACL is the added concentration (above the ABC) of a contaminant above which further appropriate investigation and evaluation of the impact on ecological values is required. The EIL is calculated using the following formula: EIL = ABC + ACL, The ABC is determined through direct measurement at an appropriate reference site (preferred) or through the use of methods defined by Olszowy et al Trace element concentrations in soils from rural and urban areas of Australia, Contaminated Sites monograph no. 4, South Australian Health Commission, Adelaide, Australia 1995 (Olszowy, 1995) or Hamon et al, Geochemical indices allow estimation of heavy metal background concentrations in soils, Global Biogeochemical Cycles, vol. 18, GB1014, (Hamon, 2004). ACL is based on the soil characteristics of pH, CEC and clay content. EIL (and ACLs where appropriate) have been derived in NEPC (2013) for only a short list of contaminants comprising As, Cu, Cr (III), DDT, naphthalene, Ni, Pb and Zn. An Interactive (Excel) Calculation Spreadsheet may be used for calculating site-specific EIL for these contaminants, and has been provided in the ASC NEPM Toolbox available on the SCEW (Standing Council on Environment and Water) website (http://www.scew.gov.au/node/941).

Page 15

Page 11 of 19

Intrusive Contamination Investigation, Proposed Commercial Development 85751.03.R.001.Rev0Part of 11 Talavera Road, Macquarie Park, NSW February 2017

The adopted EIL, derived from Tables 1B (1) to 1B(5), Schedule B1 of NEPC (2013) the Interactive (Excel) Calculation Spreadsheet are shown in the following Table 5. The following site specific data and assumptions have been used to determine the EILs:

The EILs will apply to the top 2 m of the soil profile;

Given the likely source of soil contaminants (i.e. historical site use/fill) the contamination is considered as “aged” (>2 years); and

ABCs have been derived using the Interactive (Excel) Calculation Spreadsheet using input parameters of aged soil, average CEC of 8 and average pH of 6.8 for the State in which the site is located, and high for traffic volumes.

Table 5: Ecological Investigation Levels (EIL) in mg/kg

Analyte EIL Comments

Metals Arsenic 160 Adopted pH of 6.8 and CEC of 8 cmolc/kg];

assumed clay content 5%

Copper 280

Nickel 290

Chromium III 530

Lead 1,800

Zinc 620

PAH Naphthalene 370

OCP DDT 640

5.1.4 Ecological Screening Levels – Petroleum Hydrocarbons

Ecological Screening Levels (ESL) are used to assess the risk of selected petroleum hydrocarbon compounds, BTEX and benzo(a)pyrene to terrestrial ecosystems. ESL apply to the top 2 m of the soil profile as for EIL. ESL have been derived in NEPC (2013) for petroleum fractions F1 to F4 as well as BTEX and Benzo(a)pyrene. Site specific data and assumptions as summarised in Table 6 have been used to determine the ESL. The adopted ESL, from Table 1B(6), Schedule B1 of NEPC (2013) are shown in Table 7. Table 6: Inputs to the Derivation of ESL

Variable Input Rationale

Depth of ESL application

Top 2 m of the soil profile The top 2 m depth below ground level corresponds to the root zone and habitation zone of many species.

Land use Residential Residential

Soil Texture Coarse

Page 16

Page 12 of 19

Intrusive Contamination Investigation, Proposed Commercial Development 85751.03.R.001.Rev0Part of 11 Talavera Road, Macquarie Park, NSW February 2017

Table 7: Ecological Screening Levels (ESL) in mg/kg

Analyte ESL Comments

TRH C6 – C10 (less BTEX) [F1] 215* All ESLs are low reliability apart from those marked with * which are moderate

reliability

>C10-C16 (less Naphthalene) [F2] 170*

>C16-C34 [F3] 1,700

>C34-C40 [F4] 3,300

BTEX Benzene 75

Toluene 135

Ethylbenzene 165

Xylenes 180

PAH Benzo(a)pyrene 1.4

5.1.5 Asbestos

Presence / absence testing for asbestos has been conducted as a screening assessment using the laboratory detection limit of 0.1 g / kg. It should be noted that if further asbestos or indicators of asbestos (e.g. significant inclusions of building debris) are observed during future excavations / construction activity, then further assessment and / or management for asbestos in accordance with NEPC (2013) would be recommended.

5.2 Contaminants with No Assessment Criteria

Where no guidance is provided in NEPC (2013) for a specific analyte, the PQL was used as the initial screening criteria. If concentrations are recorded above the PQL, reference criteria will be sourced from other national and international guidance as relevant and used to determine the significance of the detected analyte. The referenced criteria are provided in the results summary tables (Appendix C).

Page 17

Page 13 of 19

Intrusive Contamination Investigation, Proposed Commercial Development 85751.03.R.001.Rev0Part of 11 Talavera Road, Macquarie Park, NSW February 2017

5.3 Groundwater

5.3.1 Groundwater Investigation Levels

The assessment criteria for the groundwater comprises the groundwater investigation levels (GILs) adopted in NEPC (2013) which are based on:

Australian Water Quality Guidelines 2000 (AWQG);

Australian Drinking Water Guidelines 2011 (ADWG);

Guidelines for Managing Risk in Recreational Waters 2008 (GMRRW); and

National water quality management strategy. Australia and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality 2000 (ANZECC and ARMCANZ).

The adopted GILs for the analytes included in this assessment and the corresponding source documents, are shown in Table 8. Drinking water thresholds have not been adopted as there is no known drinking water receptor in close proximity to the site.

Page 18

Page 14 of 19

Intrusive Contamination Investigation, Proposed Commercial Development 85751.03.R.001.Rev0Part of 11 Talavera Road, Macquarie Park, NSW February 2017

Table 8: Surface Water and Groundwater Investigation Levels (in µg/L unless stated otherwise)

Analyte GIL Comments

Metals Aluminium

Arsenic (III)

Arsenic (V)

Cadmium

Chromium (III)

Chromium (VI)

Copper

Lead

Manganese

Mercury (total)

Nickel

Silver

Zinc

55

24

13

0.2

3.3

1.0

1.4

3.4

1,900

0.06

11

0.05

8

GIL have not been adjusted for hardness

PAH Naphthalene

Phenanthrene

Anthracene

16

0.6

0.01

BTEX Benzene

Toluene

Ethylbenzene

Xylene (o)

Xylene (p)

950

180

80

350

200

OCP Chlordane

DDT

Endosulfan

Endrin

Heptachlor

0.03

0.006

0.03

0.01

0.01

PCB Arochlor 1242

Arochlor 1254

0.3

0.01

VOC Chloroform

Isopropyl benzene

n-propyl benzene

1,3,5-trimethyl benzene

1,2,4-trimethyl benzene

Sec-butyl benzene

4-isopropyl toluene

n-butyl benzene

0.003

NIL

660

120

15

2000

NIL

1000

VOCs which were detected above the laboratory detection

limits (LOR) are listed.

In cases where no GILs are provided, the US EPA regional

screening levels (RSLs) for Tap water have been used as

screening levels.

Phenols Phenol 320

Page 19

Page 15 of 19

Intrusive Contamination Investigation, Proposed Commercial Development 85751.03.R.001.Rev0Part of 11 Talavera Road, Macquarie Park, NSW February 2017

5.3.2 Health Screening Levels – Petroleum Hydrocarbons

The proposed development is a commercial building with four below ground levels of car parking. Therefore, as noted in the footnotes to Table 1A(4) of NEPC (2013), the relevant and adopted HSLs are HSL D, commercial / industrial. In addition, the HSL adopted is predicted on the following inputs prescribed in Table 9. Table 9: Inputs to the Derivation of HSLs

Variable Input Comment

Potential exposure pathway Groundwater vapour intrusion

Exposure pathway via groundwater vapour intrusion affects the adopted HSL

Soil type Sand (in the absence of laboratory particle analysis sand HSL have been adopted as an initial conservative screen), sand being the most conservative soil type

Soil properties including soil saturation porosity affect risk of exposure and are therefore factored into HSLs.

A conservative soil type should be selected where the soil profile is not uniform (NEPC, 2013)

Depth to contamination 2 m to <4 m Initial screening depth

It is noted that with the planned basement excavation, groundwater will be present at the base of the excavation and therefore the depth range noted above will not be applicable. The HSLs adopted have been used as an initial screen to assess the likely significance of volatile contaminants, and the need for further risk assessment and/or management. The adopted groundwater HSL for vapour intrusion, from Table 1A(4), schedule B1 of NEPC (2013) are shown in the following Table 10. Table 10: Groundwater Health Screening Levels (HSL) for Vapour Intrusion (µg/L)

Analyte HSL D Comments

TRH C6 – C10 (less BTEX) [F1] 7

Sand profile depth to contamination 2 m to

<4 m

>C10 – C16 (less naphthalene) [F2] NL

BTEX

Benzene 5

Toluene NL

Ethylbenzene NL

Xylene NL

PAH Naphthalene NL

Notes: NL – the solubility limit is defined as the groundwater concentration at which the water cannot dissolve any more of an individual chemical based on a petroleum mixture. The soil vapour which is in equilibrium with the groundwater will be at its maximum. If the derived groundwater HSL exceeds the water solubility limit, a soil-vapour source concentration for a petroleum mixture could not exceed a level that would result in the maximum allowable vapour risk for a given scenario. For these scenarios no HSL is presented for these chemicals. These are denoted as ‘NL’.

Page 20

Page 16 of 19

Intrusive Contamination Investigation, Proposed Commercial Development 85751.03.R.001.Rev0Part of 11 Talavera Road, Macquarie Park, NSW February 2017

5.4 Contaminants with No Assessment Criteria

Where no guidance is provided in NEPC (2013) for a specific analyte, the PQL was used as the initial screening criteria. If concentrations are recorded above the PQL, reference criteria will be sourced from other national and international guidance as relevant and use to determine the significance of the detected analyte. The referenced criteria are provided in the results summary tables (Appendix C). 6. Field Work Observations

6.1 Soil

The borehole logs are provided in Appendix B. Based on the logs, the subsoil conditions encountered in the boreholes were relatively uniform and comprised grey brown and dark brown, silty sand and sand filling with some gravel and trace bitumen, rootlets and silt to refusal depths of between 0.25 m and 0.7 m bgl. Hand auger refusal was met at shallow depths due to the nature of the fill. Anthropogenic material was not encountered in the filling. All PID readings were less than 5 ppm.

6.2 Groundwater

The groundwater level was measured in BH201 at the time of micro-purging and sampling (refer to field sheet presented in Appendix B). Groundwater field measurements are presented in Table 11. Table 11: Groundwater Levels Feb 2017

Well Surface

Level (m AHD)

Measured Water Level (m bgl)

3 Feb 2017

RWL mAHD

3 Feb 2017

Measured Water Level

(m bgl) 6 Feb 2017

RWL mAHD

6 Feb 2017

BH201 52.0 4.75 47.25 4.01 47.99

Page 21

Page 17 of 19

Intrusive Contamination Investigation, Proposed Commercial Development 85751.03.R.001.Rev0Part of 11 Talavera Road, Macquarie Park, NSW February 2017

7. Analytical Results

The results of the laboratory analysis are presented in Tables C1 (soil) and C2 (groundwater), Appendix C. The NATA laboratory reports together with the chain-of-custody and sample receipt information are presented in Appendix C. 8. Discussion of Results

8.1 Soil

The laboratory results (Table C1) indicate that all contaminant concentrations in the soil samples analysed were within the adopted health investigation and screening levels and ecological investigation and screening levels, suggesting a low risk to human health and ecology. Asbestos was not identified in any of the samples tested. Anthropogenic material was not encountered in the filling, hence, the ground conditions encountered do not indicate that there is a substantial risk of asbestos being present in the shallow filling. It is noted, however, that the limitations of hand augering prevented the full depth of fill being penetrated at each bore location. As such, the nature and contamination risk associated with deeper filling is not known.

8.2 Groundwater

The laboratory results (Table C2) indicated that contaminant concentrations in the groundwater sample (BH201) were within the adopted SAC with the exception of the following: Metals:

Copper concentration of 2 µg/L (GIL 1.4 µg/L); and

Zinc concentration of 18 µg/L (GIL 8.0 µg/L).

TRH/BTEX and VOC:

C6-C10 concentration of 14,000 µg/L (GIL 7 µg/L);

Ethylbenzene concentration of 410 µg/L (GIL 80 µg/L);

m + p - xylene concentration of 3,300 µg/L (GIL 350 µg/L);

o- xylene concentration of 1,300 µg/L (GIL 200 µg/L);

Naphthalene concentration of 26 µg/L (GIL 16 µg/L);

1,2,4-trimethyl benzene concentration of 1,400 µg/L (US EPA Regional Screening Levels for Tap water 15 µg/L); and

Chloroform concentration of 10 µg/L (US EPA Regional Screening Levels for Tap water 0.003 µg/L).

Page 22

Page 18 of 19

Intrusive Contamination Investigation, Proposed Commercial Development 85751.03.R.001.Rev0Part of 11 Talavera Road, Macquarie Park, NSW February 2017

The metal exceedances are not considered to be an issue of concern. The reported copper and zinc concentrations reported above are likely to be redolent of regional background levels or derived from diffuse urban sources of contamination such as drainage, road / pavement runoff, service leakage. The TRH/BTEX and VOC exceedances are considered to be an issue of concern requiring further investigation. 9. Recommendations and Further Assessment

It is recommended that additional soil testing for waste classification purposes be undertaken following demolition of the existing structures. Given the above information, it is likely that the filling will be classifiable as General Solid Waste (non-putrescible) in accordance with the NSW EPA waste classification guidelines (2014) and the underlying natural materials (not encountered during this investigation) would be classifiable as virgin excavated natural material (VENM). Note again, however, the limited depth of sampling achieved during the current investigation. Given the TRH/BTEX and VOC exceedances in the groundwater, it is recommended that additional investigations be conducted to (a) assess the significance of the results, (b) assess the likely source of the identified contaminants and (c) assess the extent of the groundwater impact. Depending on the results of the supplementary groundwater investigations, a soil vapour investigation may be recommended to assess the potential for vapour intrusion into new buildings and/or confined spaces, which may ultimately lead to the requirement for a vapour management system to be incorporated as part of the planning stage.

The additional investigation works proposed below are anticipated to be required to finalise the remediation strategy and scope. It should be noted that the Council may require an EPA accredited Site Auditor be involved as part of the DA process. The Site Auditor would preferably be engaged prior to further investigation to ensure that the Auditor agrees with scope and approach of the further investigation.

It is recommended that the groundwater investigation be commenced as a priority to allow time to collect a sufficient dataset to allow robust assessment of the risks and management requirements. The recommended staged works to support the redevelopment of the site comprise, noting that subsequent recommendations would be dependent on the results of the preceding stages:

Re-sample and test the existing groundwater monitoring well to confirm the initial results;

Investigate the potential source of the groundwater investigation;

Conduct a supplementary groundwater investigation to assess the significance and extent of the groundwater investigation, with a focus on potential risks to the proposed development, dewatering requirements, and the potential for off-site migration of contaminants;

Soil vapour investigation to assess the risk of vapour intrusion; and

Preparation of a RAP, if required, based on the results of the groundwater investigation and the current guidelines and industry standards. The RAP will either detail an active groundwater

Page 23

Page 19 of 19

Intrusive Contamination Investigation, Proposed Commercial Development 85751.03.R.001.Rev0Part of 11 Talavera Road, Macquarie Park, NSW February 2017

remediation process, a source removal and monitoring process, and/or engineered controls (such as a vapour management system).

Based on the current results, DP considers that the site can be rendered suitable for the proposed development subject to additional soil, groundwater soil vapour investigations (if required) and subsequent remediation and / or management (if required). 10. Limitations

Douglas Partners (DP) has prepared this report for this project at part of 11 Talavera Road, Macquarie Park, NSW in accordance with DP’s proposal SYD161520Rev1 dated 20 January 2017 and acceptance received from Ms Iulia Brooks of Donald Cant Watts Corke Pty Ltd dated 22 January 2017. The work was carried out under an extension to the existing agreement (standard Dexus Property Group Consultancy Agreement) for this project only and for the purposes as described in the report. It should not be used by or relied upon for other projects or purposes on the same or other site or by a third party. Any party so relying upon this report beyond its exclusive use and purpose as stated above, and without the express written consent of DP, does so entirely at its own risk and without recourse to DP for any loss or damage. In preparing this report DP has necessarily relied upon information provided by the client and/or their agents. The results provided in the report are indicative of the sub-surface conditions on the site only at the specific sampling and/or testing locations, and then only to the depths investigated and at the time the work was carried out. Sub-surface conditions can change abruptly due to variable geological processes and also as a result of human influences. Such changes may occur after DP’s field testing has been completed. DP’s advice is based upon the conditions encountered during this investigation. The accuracy of the advice provided by DP in this report may be affected by undetected variations in ground conditions across the site between and beyond the sampling and/or testing locations. The advice may also be limited by budget constraints imposed by others or by site accessibility. This report must be read in conjunction with all of the attached and should be kept in its entirety without separation of individual pages or sections. DP cannot be held responsible for interpretations or conclusions made by others unless they are supported by an expressed statement, interpretation, outcome or conclusion stated in this report. This report, or sections from this report, should not be used as part of a specification for a project, without review and agreement by DP. This is because this report has been written as advice and opinion rather than instructions for construction.

Douglas Partners Pty Ltd

Page 24

Appendix A

About This Report

Drawing 1

Page 25

July 2010

Introduction These notes have been provided to amplify DP's report in regard to classification methods, field procedures and the comments section. Not all are necessarily relevant to all reports. DP's reports are based on information gained from limited subsurface excavations and sampling, supplemented by knowledge of local geology and experience. For this reason, they must be regarded as interpretive rather than factual documents, limited to some extent by the scope of information on which they rely. Copyright This report is the property of Douglas Partners Pty Ltd. The report may only be used for the purpose for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the Conditions of Engagement for the commission supplied at the time of proposal. Unauthorised use of this report in any form whatsoever is prohibited. Borehole and Test Pit Logs The borehole and test pit logs presented in this report are an engineering and/or geological interpretation of the subsurface conditions, and their reliability will depend to some extent on frequency of sampling and the method of drilling or excavation. Ideally, continuous undisturbed sampling or core drilling will provide the most reliable assessment, but this is not always practicable or possible to justify on economic grounds. In any case the boreholes and test pits represent only a very small sample of the total subsurface profile. Interpretation of the information and its application to design and construction should therefore take into account the spacing of boreholes or pits, the frequency of sampling, and the possibility of other than 'straight line' variations between the test locations.

Groundwater Where groundwater levels are measured in boreholes there are several potential problems, namely: In low permeability soils groundwater may

enter the hole very slowly or perhaps not at all during the time the hole is left open;

A localised, perched water table may lead to an erroneous indication of the true water table;

Water table levels will vary from time to time with seasons or recent weather changes. They may not be the same at the time of construction as are indicated in the report; and

The use of water or mud as a drilling fluid will mask any groundwater inflow. Water has to be blown out of the hole and drilling mud must first be washed out of the hole if water measurements are to be made.

More reliable measurements can be made by installing standpipes which are read at intervals over several days, or perhaps weeks for low permeability soils. Piezometers, sealed in a particular stratum, may be advisable in low permeability soils or where there may be interference from a perched water table.

Reports The report has been prepared by qualified personnel, is based on the information obtained from field and laboratory testing, and has been undertaken to current engineering standards of interpretation and analysis. Where the report has been prepared for a specific design proposal, the information and interpretation may not be relevant if the design proposal is changed. If this happens, DP will be pleased to review the report and the sufficiency of the investigation work. Every care is taken with the report as it relates to interpretation of subsurface conditions, discussion of geotechnical and environmental aspects, and recommendations or suggestions for design and construction. However, DP cannot always anticipate or assume responsibility for: Unexpected variations in ground conditions.

The potential for this will depend partly on borehole or pit spacing and sampling frequency;

Changes in policy or interpretations of policy by statutory authorities; or

The actions of contractors responding to commercial pressures.

If these occur, DP will be pleased to assist with investigations or advice to resolve the matter.

Page 26

July 2010

Site Anomalies In the event that conditions encountered on site during construction appear to vary from those which were expected from the information contained in the report, DP requests that it be immediately notified. Most problems are much more readily resolved when conditions are exposed rather than at some later stage, well after the event.

Information for Contractual Purposes Where information obtained from this report is provided for tendering purposes, it is recommended that all information, including the written report and discussion, be made available. In circumstances where the discussion or comments section is not relevant to the contractual situation, it may be appropriate to prepare a specially edited document. DP would be pleased to assist in this regard and/or to make additional report copies available for contract purposes at a nominal charge. Site Inspection The company will always be pleased to provide engineering inspection services for geotechnical and environmental aspects of work to which this report is related. This could range from a site visit to confirm that conditions exposed are as expected, to full time engineering presence on site.

Page 27

39°55'40"

85.53

3

5

4

°

5

4

'

3

0

"

7

.

0

7

309°55'40"

6

5.4

05

309°55'40"

17

1.4

2 O

/A

TA

LA

VE

RA

R

OA

D

LANE COVE ROAD

2

DP 1014894

4

DP 1014894

BENCH MARK

NAIL IN CONC

RL 51.56 AHD

(G)

(G)

(G)

(Q)

(Q)

(Q)

(Q)

(R)

(R)

(R)

(R)

(Q)

(Q)

(Q)

4

DP 1014894

(G)

BH201

102

103

104

101

BH202

BH203

A

A'

B'B

BH01

BH02

BH03

BH04

BH05

85751.02

02.2.2017

Sydney PSCH

1:500 @ A3

Geotechnical Location Plan

Proposed Commercial Development

11 Talavera Road, MACQUARIE PARK

1DRAWING No:

PROJECT No:

REVISION:

CLIENT:

DRAWN BY:

SCALE: DATE:

OFFICE:

TITLE:

N

SITE

Dexus Funds Management Limited

LEGEND

Current cored borehole location

Hand augered borehole (DP report 85751.03, February 2017)

Historical borehole (February 2000, DP report 28356)

Locality Plan

NOTE:

1: Base drawing from Real Serve Pty Ltd

(Ref 61935MN , dated 30.11.2016)

2: Test locations are approximate only and are shown

with reference to existing features.

0 5 10 20

1:500 @ A3

30 40 50m15

SITE BOUNDARY

OUTLINE OF

PROPOSED

BASEMENT

A'AGeotechnical Cross Section A-A'

P Standpipe piezometer

P

Page 28

Appendix B

Notes on Soil Descriptions

Notes on Symbols and Abbreviations

Boreholes Log Results

Groundwater Field Sheet

Page 29

July 2010

Sampling Sampling is carried out during drilling or test pitting to allow engineering examination (and laboratory testing where required) of the soil or rock. Disturbed samples taken during drilling provide information on colour, type, inclusions and, depending upon the degree of disturbance, some information on strength and structure. Undisturbed samples are taken by pushing a thin-walled sample tube into the soil and withdrawing it to obtain a sample of the soil in a relatively undisturbed state. Such samples yield information on structure and strength, and are necessary for laboratory determination of shear strength and compressibility. Undisturbed sampling is generally effective only in cohesive soils. Test Pits Test pits are usually excavated with a backhoe or an excavator, allowing close examination of the in-situ soil if it is safe to enter into the pit. The depth of excavation is limited to about 3 m for a backhoe and up to 6 m for a large excavator. A potential disadvantage of this investigation method is the larger area of disturbance to the site.

Large Diameter Augers Boreholes can be drilled using a rotating plate or short spiral auger, generally 300 mm or larger in diameter commonly mounted on a standard piling rig. The cuttings are returned to the surface at intervals (generally not more than 0.5 m) and are disturbed but usually unchanged in moisture content. Identification of soil strata is generally much more reliable than with continuous spiral flight augers, and is usually supplemented by occasional undisturbed tube samples. Continuous Spiral Flight Augers The borehole is advanced using 90-115 mm diameter continuous spiral flight augers which are withdrawn at intervals to allow sampling or in-situ testing. This is a relatively economical means of drilling in clays and sands above the water table. Samples are returned to the surface, or may be collected after withdrawal of the auger flights, but they are disturbed and may be mixed with soils from the sides of the hole. Information from the drilling (as distinct from specific sampling by SPTs or undisturbed samples) is of relatively low

reliability, due to the remoulding, possible mixing or softening of samples by groundwater. Non-core Rotary Drilling The borehole is advanced using a rotary bit, with water or drilling mud being pumped down the drill rods and returned up the annulus, carrying the drill cuttings. Only major changes in stratification can be determined from the cuttings, together with some information from the rate of penetration. Where drilling mud is used this can mask the cuttings and reliable identification is only possible from separate sampling such as SPTs.

Continuous Core Drilling A continuous core sample can be obtained using a diamond tipped core barrel, usually with a 50 mm internal diameter. Provided full core recovery is achieved (which is not always possible in weak rocks and granular soils), this technique provides a very reliable method of investigation. Standard Penetration Tests Standard penetration tests (SPT) are used as a means of estimating the density or strength of soils and also of obtaining a relatively undisturbed sample. The test procedure is described in Australian Standard 1289, Methods of Testing Soils for Engineering Purposes - Test 6.3.1. The test is carried out in a borehole by driving a 50 mm diameter split sample tube under the impact of a 63 kg hammer with a free fall of 760 mm. It is normal for the tube to be driven in three successive 150 mm increments and the 'N' value is taken as the number of blows for the last 300 mm. In dense sands, very hard clays or weak rock, the full 450 mm penetration may not be practicable and the test is discontinued. The test results are reported in the following form.

• In the case where full penetration is obtained with successive blow counts for each 150 mm of, say, 4, 6 and 7 as:

4,6,7 N=13

• In the case where the test is discontinued before the full penetration depth, say after 15 blows for the first 150 mm and 30 blows for the next 40 mm as:

15, 30/40 mm

Page 30

July 2010

The results of the SPT tests can be related empirically to the engineering properties of the soils.

Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Tests / Perth Sand Penetrometer Tests Dynamic penetrometer tests (DCP or PSP) are carried out by driving a steel rod into the ground using a standard weight of hammer falling a specified distance. As the rod penetrates the soil the number of blows required to penetrate each successive 150 mm depth are recorded. Normally there is a depth limitation of 1.2 m, but this may be extended in certain conditions by the use of extension rods. Two types of penetrometer are commonly used.

• Perth sand penetrometer - a 16 mm diameter flat ended rod is driven using a 9 kg hammer dropping 600 mm (AS 1289, Test 6.3.3). This test was developed for testing the density of sands and is mainly used in granular soils and filling.

• Cone penetrometer - a 16 mm diameter rod with a 20 mm diameter cone end is driven using a 9 kg hammer dropping 510 mm (AS 1289, Test 6.3.2). This test was developed initially for pavement subgrade investigations, and correlations of the test results with California Bearing Ratio have been published by various road authorities.

Page 31

July 2010

Description and Classification Methods The methods of description and classification of soils and rocks used in this report are based on Australian Standard AS 1726, Geotechnical Site Investigations Code. In general, the descriptions include strength or density, colour, structure, soil or rock type and inclusions. Soil Types Soil types are described according to the predominant particle size, qualified by the grading of other particles present:

Type Particle size (mm)

Boulder >200

Cobble 63 - 200

Gravel 2.36 - 63

Sand 0.075 - 2.36

Silt 0.002 - 0.075

Clay <0.002 The sand and gravel sizes can be further subdivided as follows:

Type Particle size (mm)

Coarse gravel 20 - 63

Medium gravel 6 - 20

Fine gravel 2.36 - 6

Coarse sand 0.6 - 2.36

Medium sand 0.2 - 0.6

Fine sand 0.075 - 0.2

The proportions of secondary constituents of soils are described as:

Term Proportion Example

And Specify Clay (60%) and Sand (40%)

Adjective 20 - 35% Sandy Clay

Slightly 12 - 20% Slightly Sandy Clay

With some 5 - 12% Clay with some sand

With a trace of 0 - 5% Clay with a trace of sand

Definitions of grading terms used are:

• Well graded - a good representation of all particle sizes

• Poorly graded - an excess or deficiency of particular sizes within the specified range

• Uniformly graded - an excess of a particular particle size

• Gap graded - a deficiency of a particular particle size with the range

Cohesive Soils Cohesive soils, such as clays, are classified on the basis of undrained shear strength. The strength may be measured by laboratory testing, or estimated by field tests or engineering examination. The strength terms are defined as follows:

Description Abbreviation Undrained shear strength

(kPa)

Very soft vs <12

Soft s 12 - 25

Firm f 25 - 50

Stiff st 50 - 100

Very stiff vst 100 - 200

Hard h >200

Cohesionless Soils Cohesionless soils, such as clean sands, are classified on the basis of relative density, generally from the results of standard penetration tests (SPT), cone penetration tests (CPT) or dynamic penetrometers (PSP). The relative density terms are given below:

Relative Density

Abbreviation SPT N value

CPT qc value (MPa)

Very loose vl <4 <2

Loose l 4 - 10 2 -5

Medium dense

md 10 - 30 5 - 15

Dense d 30 - 50 15 - 25

Very dense

vd >50 >25

Page 32

July 2010

Soil Origin It is often difficult to accurately determine the origin of a soil. Soils can generally be classified as:

• Residual soil - derived from in-situ weathering of the underlying rock;

• Transported soils - formed somewhere else and transported by nature to the site; or

• Filling - moved by man. Transported soils may be further subdivided into:

• Alluvium - river deposits

• Lacustrine - lake deposits

• Aeolian - wind deposits

• Littoral - beach deposits

• Estuarine - tidal river deposits

• Talus - scree or coarse colluvium

• Slopewash or Colluvium - transported downslope by gravity assisted by water. Often includes angular rock fragments and boulders.

Page 33

July 2010

Rock Strength Rock strength is defined by the Point Load Strength Index (Is(50)) and refers to the strength of the rock substance and not the strength of the overall rock mass, which may be considerably weaker due to defects. The test procedure is described by Australian Standard 4133.4.1 - 1993. The terms used to describe rock strength are as follows:

Term Abbreviation Point Load Index Is(50) MPa

Approx Unconfined Compressive Strength MPa*

Extremely low EL <0.03 <0.6

Very low VL 0.03 - 0.1 0.6 - 2

Low L 0.1 - 0.3 2 - 6

Medium M 0.3 - 1.0 6 - 20

High H 1 - 3 20 - 60

Very high VH 3 - 10 60 - 200

Extremely high EH >10 >200

* Assumes a ratio of 20:1 for UCS to Is(50) Degree of Weathering The degree of weathering of rock is classified as follows:

Term Abbreviation Description

Extremely weathered EW Rock substance has soil properties, i.e. it can be remoulded and classified as a soil but the texture of the original rock is still evident.

Highly weathered HW Limonite staining or bleaching affects whole of rock substance and other signs of decomposition are evident. Porosity and strength may be altered as a result of iron leaching or deposition. Colour and strength of original fresh rock is not recognisable

Moderately weathered

MW Staining and discolouration of rock substance has taken place

Slightly weathered SW Rock substance is slightly discoloured but shows little or no change of strength from fresh rock

Fresh stained Fs Rock substance unaffected by weathering but staining visible along defects

Fresh Fr No signs of decomposition or staining

Degree of Fracturing The following classification applies to the spacing of natural fractures in diamond drill cores. It includes bedding plane partings, joints and other defects, but excludes drilling breaks.

Term Description

Fragmented Fragments of <20 mm

Highly Fractured Core lengths of 20-40 mm with some fragments

Fractured Core lengths of 40-200 mm with some shorter and longer sections

Slightly Fractured Core lengths of 200-1000 mm with some shorter and loner sections

Unbroken Core lengths mostly > 1000 mm

Page 34

July 2010

Rock Quality Designation The quality of the cored rock can be measured using the Rock Quality Designation (RQD) index, defined as:

RQD % = cumulative length of 'sound' core sections ≥ 100 mm long total drilled length of section being assessed

where 'sound' rock is assessed to be rock of low strength or better. The RQD applies only to natural fractures. If the core is broken by drilling or handling (i.e. drilling breaks) then the broken pieces are fitted back together and are not included in the calculation of RQD. Stratification Spacing For sedimentary rocks the following terms may be used to describe the spacing of bedding partings:

Term Separation of Stratification Planes

Thinly laminated < 6 mm

Laminated 6 mm to 20 mm

Very thinly bedded 20 mm to 60 mm

Thinly bedded 60 mm to 0.2 m

Medium bedded 0.2 m to 0.6 m

Thickly bedded 0.6 m to 2 m

Very thickly bedded > 2 m

Page 35

July 2010

Introduction These notes summarise abbreviations commonly used on borehole logs and test pit reports. Drilling or Excavation Methods C Core Drilling R Rotary drilling SFA Spiral flight augers NMLC Diamond core - 52 mm dia NQ Diamond core - 47 mm dia HQ Diamond core - 63 mm dia PQ Diamond core - 81 mm dia

Water Water seep Water level

Sampling and Testing A Auger sample B Bulk sample D Disturbed sample E Environmental sample U50 Undisturbed tube sample (50mm) W Water sample pp pocket penetrometer (kPa) PID Photo ionisation detector PL Point load strength Is(50) MPa S Standard Penetration Test V Shear vane (kPa)

Description of Defects in Rock The abbreviated descriptions of the defects should be in the following order: Depth, Type, Orientation, Coating, Shape, Roughness and Other. Drilling and handling breaks are not usually included on the logs. Defect Type B Bedding plane Cs Clay seam Cv Cleavage Cz Crushed zone Ds Decomposed seam F Fault J Joint Lam lamination Pt Parting Sz Sheared Zone V Vein

Orientation The inclination of defects is always measured from the perpendicular to the core axis. h horizontal v vertical sh sub-horizontal sv sub-vertical Coating or Infilling Term cln clean co coating he healed inf infilled stn stained ti tight vn veneer Coating Descriptor ca calcite cbs carbonaceous cly clay fe iron oxide mn manganese slt silty Shape cu curved ir irregular pl planar st stepped un undulating Roughness po polished ro rough sl slickensided sm smooth vr very rough Other fg fragmented bnd band qtz quartz

Page 36

July 2010

Graphic Symbols for Soil and Rock General

Soils

Sedimentary Rocks

Metamorphic Rocks

Igneous Rocks

Road base

Filling

Concrete

Asphalt

Topsoil

Peat

Clay

Conglomeratic sandstone

Conglomerate

Boulder conglomerate

Sandstone

Slate, phyllite, schist

Siltstone

Mudstone, claystone, shale

Coal

Limestone

Porphyry

Cobbles, boulders

Sandy gravel

Laminite

Silty sand

Clayey sand

Silty clay

Sandy clay

Gravelly clay

Shaly clay

Silt

Clayey silt

Sandy silt

Sand

Gravel

Talus

Gneiss

Quartzite

Dolerite, basalt, andesite

Granite

Tuff, breccia

Dacite, epidote

Page 37

TOPSOIL

FILLING - silty sand filling with some gravel

Bore discontinued at 0.3m - auger refusal

0.1

0.3

Typ

e

Wat

er

Dep

th

Sam

ple

Description

of

Strata Gra

phic

Log

Results &Comments

Sampling & In Situ Testing

BOREHOLE LOG BOREHOLE LOG BOREHOLE LOG BOREHOLE LOG BOREHOLE LOG BOREHOLE LOG BOREHOLE LOG CLIENT:PROJECT:LOCATION: Part of 11 Talavera Road, Macquarie Park

SAMPLING & IN SITU TESTING LEGENDA Auger sample G Gas sample PID Photo ionisation detector (ppm)B Bulk sample P Piston sample PL(A) Point load axial test Is(50) (MPa)BLK Block sample Ux Tube sample (x mm dia.) PL(D) Point load diametral test Is(50) (MPa)C Core drilling W Water sample pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)D Disturbed sample Water seep S Standard penetration testE Environmental sample Water level V Shear vane (kPa)

BORE No: BH01PROJECT No: 85751.03DATE: 27/1/2017SHEET 1 OF 1

DRILLER: MH LOGGED: MH CASING: Uncased

Dexus Funds Management LimitedProposed Commercial Development

REMARKS:

RIG: Hand tools

WATER OBSERVATIONS:

TYPE OF BORING:

No free groundwater observed

Hand auger to 0.3m

SURFACE LEVEL: 49.4 AHD^EASTING: 326883NORTHING: 6260347DIP/AZIMUTH: 90°/--

*BD1/250117 taken at 0.2m to 0.3m, ^Coordinates and surface level interpolated from Real Serve Pty Ltd Drawing 61935MN (dated31.11.2016)

49

Depth(m) R

L

Well

Construction

Details

PID<5A*

0.2

0.3

Page 38

FILLING - dark brown sand filling material with a trace ofsilt and gravel (5-10mm), bitumen gravel (25mm)

Bore discontinued at 0.4m - auger refusal on gravel

0.4

Typ

e

Wat

er

Dep

th

Sam

ple

Description

of

Strata Gra

phic

Log

Results &Comments

Sampling & In Situ Testing

BOREHOLE LOG BOREHOLE LOG BOREHOLE LOG BOREHOLE LOG BOREHOLE LOG BOREHOLE LOG BOREHOLE LOG CLIENT:PROJECT:LOCATION: Part of 11 Talavera Road, Macquarie Park

SAMPLING & IN SITU TESTING LEGENDA Auger sample G Gas sample PID Photo ionisation detector (ppm)B Bulk sample P Piston sample PL(A) Point load axial test Is(50) (MPa)BLK Block sample Ux Tube sample (x mm dia.) PL(D) Point load diametral test Is(50) (MPa)C Core drilling W Water sample pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)D Disturbed sample Water seep S Standard penetration testE Environmental sample Water level V Shear vane (kPa)

BORE No: BH02PROJECT No: 85751.03DATE: 25/7/2017SHEET 1 OF 1

DRILLER: MH LOGGED: MH CASING: Uncased

Dexus Funds Management LimitedProposed Commercial Development

REMARKS:

RIG: Hand tools

WATER OBSERVATIONS:

TYPE OF BORING:

No free groundwater observed

Hand auger to 0.4m

SURFACE LEVEL: 52.3 AHD^EASTING: 326846NORTHING: 6260375DIP/AZIMUTH: 90°/--

^Coordinates and surface level interpolated from Real Serve Pty Ltd Drawing 61935MN (dated 31.11.2016)

52

Depth(m) R

L

Well

Construction

Details

A

0.2

0.3

Page 39

FILLING - dark brown sand filling with a trace of silt androotlets - increasing gravel with depth

Bore discontinued at 0.7m - refusal on gravel

0.7

Typ

e

Wat

er

Dep

th

Sam

ple

Description

of

Strata Gra

phic

Log

Results &Comments

Sampling & In Situ Testing

BOREHOLE LOG BOREHOLE LOG BOREHOLE LOG BOREHOLE LOG BOREHOLE LOG BOREHOLE LOG BOREHOLE LOG CLIENT:PROJECT:LOCATION: Part of 11 Talavera Road, Macquarie Park

SAMPLING & IN SITU TESTING LEGENDA Auger sample G Gas sample PID Photo ionisation detector (ppm)B Bulk sample P Piston sample PL(A) Point load axial test Is(50) (MPa)BLK Block sample Ux Tube sample (x mm dia.) PL(D) Point load diametral test Is(50) (MPa)C Core drilling W Water sample pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)D Disturbed sample Water seep S Standard penetration testE Environmental sample Water level V Shear vane (kPa)

BORE No: BH03PROJECT No: 85751.03DATE: 27/1/2017SHEET 1 OF 1

DRILLER: MH LOGGED: MH CASING: Uncased

Dexus Funds Management LimitedProposed Commercial Development

REMARKS:

RIG: Hand tools

WATER OBSERVATIONS:

TYPE OF BORING:

No free groundwater observed

Hand auger to 0.7m

SURFACE LEVEL: 52.7 AHD^EASTING: 326872NORTHING: 6260405DIP/AZIMUTH: 90°/--

^Coordinates and surface level interpolated from Real Serve Pty Ltd Drawing 61935MN (dated 31.11.2016)

52

Depth(m) R

L

Well

Construction

Details

A

A

0.1

0.2

0.3

Page 40

FILLING - dark brown sand filling with a trace of silt

Bore discontinued at 0.25m - auger refusal on plastic mesh at approximately 0.25m

0.25

Typ

e

Wat

er

Dep

th

Sam

ple

Description

of

Strata Gra

phic

Log

Results &Comments

Sampling & In Situ Testing

BOREHOLE LOG BOREHOLE LOG BOREHOLE LOG BOREHOLE LOG BOREHOLE LOG BOREHOLE LOG BOREHOLE LOG CLIENT:PROJECT:LOCATION: Part of 11 Talavera Road, Macquarie Park

SAMPLING & IN SITU TESTING LEGENDA Auger sample G Gas sample PID Photo ionisation detector (ppm)B Bulk sample P Piston sample PL(A) Point load axial test Is(50) (MPa)BLK Block sample Ux Tube sample (x mm dia.) PL(D) Point load diametral test Is(50) (MPa)C Core drilling W Water sample pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)D Disturbed sample Water seep S Standard penetration testE Environmental sample Water level V Shear vane (kPa)

BORE No: BH04PROJECT No: 85751.03DATE: 27/1/2017SHEET 1 OF 1

DRILLER: MH LOGGED: MH CASING: Uncased

Dexus Funds Management LimitedProposed Commercial Development

REMARKS:

RIG: Hand tools

WATER OBSERVATIONS:

TYPE OF BORING:

No free groundwater observed

Hand auger to 0.25m

SURFACE LEVEL: 52.2 AHD^EASTING: 326904NORTHING: 6260405DIP/AZIMUTH: 90°/--

^Coordinates and surface level interpolated from Real Serve Pty Ltd Drawing 61935MN (dated 31.11.2016)

52

Depth(m) R

L

Well

Construction

Details

PID<5A

0.1

0.2

Page 41

FILLING - dark brown silty sand filling

Bore discontinued at 0.25m - auger refusal on shaly gravel in filling

0.25

Typ

e

Wat

er

Dep

th

Sam

ple

Description

of

Strata Gra

phic

Log

Results &Comments

Sampling & In Situ Testing

BOREHOLE LOG BOREHOLE LOG BOREHOLE LOG BOREHOLE LOG BOREHOLE LOG BOREHOLE LOG BOREHOLE LOG CLIENT:PROJECT:LOCATION: Part of 11 Talavera Road, Macquarie Park

SAMPLING & IN SITU TESTING LEGENDA Auger sample G Gas sample PID Photo ionisation detector (ppm)B Bulk sample P Piston sample PL(A) Point load axial test Is(50) (MPa)BLK Block sample Ux Tube sample (x mm dia.) PL(D) Point load diametral test Is(50) (MPa)C Core drilling W Water sample pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)D Disturbed sample Water seep S Standard penetration testE Environmental sample Water level V Shear vane (kPa)

BORE No: BH05PROJECT No: 85751.03DATE: 27/1/2017SHEET 1 OF 1

DRILLER: MH LOGGED: MH CASING: Uncased

Dexus Funds Management LimitedProposed Commercial Development

REMARKS:

RIG: Hand tools

WATER OBSERVATIONS:

TYPE OF BORING:

No free groundwater observed

Hand auger to 0.25m

SURFACE LEVEL: 49 AHD^EASTING: 326923NORTHING: 6260393DIP/AZIMUTH: 90°/--

^Coordinates and surface level interpolated from Real Serve Pty Ltd Drawing 61935MN (dated 31.11.2016)

49

Depth(m) R

L

Well

Construction

Details

PID<5A

0.1

0.2

Page 42

Note: Unless otherwisestated, rock is fracturedalong rough planarbedding dipping 0°- 5°,some with iron staining

5.2m: CORE LOSS:70mm5.27-5.86m: J (x3) 35°-45° (relict) un, ro, cly

5.86m: CORE LOSS:440mm

8m: CORE LOSS:100mm

8.52m: J25°, pl, sm, cln

9.1-9.15m: Cs9.15m: J45°, pl, ro, fe9.3-9.42m: J (x3) 35°-45°, he9.5-9.55m: Cs9.55m: CORE LOSS:70mm

PAVERS and SAND

FILLING - brown, sandy clay fillingwith some fine gravel, MC<PL

FILLING - grey-brown, silty clayfilling with some fine sand, MC<PL

FILLING - orange mottled grey, clayfilling with some ironstone graveland a trace of rootlets, MC<PL(possibly reworked natural)

CLAY - very stiff to hard, orangemottled grey, clay with some shalybands, MC<PL

3.0m: becoming orange-brown

SHALE: extremely low strength, greyshale with ironstone bands

SHALE - extremely low to very lowstrength, extremely and highlyweathered, fractured, light grey andred-brown shale with low andmedium strength iron-cementedbands

INTERLAMINATED SILTSTONE &SANDSTONE (80:20) - low to highstrength, highly to moderately thenslightly weathered, fractured, lightgrey-brown fine grained sandstoneinterlaminated with siltstone.

4,11,15N = 26

3,10,16N = 26

6,11,17N = 28

PL(A) = 0.5

PL(A) = 0.2pp = 560pp = 520

pp = 600

PL(A) = 0.6

0

0

25

80

90

80

93

97

A

A

A

S

S

S

C

C

C

C

0.1

0.7

1.1

2.0

4.0

5.25.27

6.3

8.1

9.0

9.62

FractureSpacing

(m)

0.01

Depth(m) B - Bedding

S - Shear

RockStrength

Typ

e

Sampling & In Situ Testing

Ex

Low

Ver

y Lo

wLo

w

Med

ium

Hig

h

Ver

y H

igh

Ex

Hig

h

0.10

0.50

1.00 R

QD

%

Cor

eR

ec. %

Gra

phic

Log

Wat

er

Degree ofWeathering

EW

HW

MW

SW

FS

FR

Description

of

Strata

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

J - Joint

F - Fault

RL

5251

5049

4847

4645

4443

Test Results&

Comments0.05

Discontinuities

CLIENT:PROJECT:LOCATION: 11 Talavera Road, Macquarie Park

SAMPLING & IN SITU TESTING LEGENDA Auger sample G Gas sample PID Photo ionisation detector (ppm)B Bulk sample P Piston sample PL(A) Point load axial test Is(50) (MPa)BLK Block sample Ux Tube sample (x mm dia.) PL(D) Point load diametral test Is(50) (MPa)C Core drilling W Water sample pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)D Disturbed sample Water seep S Standard penetration testE Environmental sample Water level V Shear vane (kPa)

BORE No: BH201PROJECT No: 85751.02DATE: 31/1 - 1/2/2017SHEET 1 OF 3

DRILLER: GM LOGGED: SI CASING: HW to 4.0m

Dexus Funds Management LimitedProposed Commercial Development

REMARKS:

RIG: Bobcat

WATER OBSERVATIONS:

TYPE OF BORING:

No free groundwater observed whilst augering

Solid flight auger (TC-bit) to 4.0m; Rotary to 5.2m; NMLC-Coring to 23.0m

*Coordinates and surface level interpolated from Real Serve Pty Ltd Drawing 61935MN (dated 31.11.2016). Well installed to 5.25m (backfill6.5-23m; bentonite plug 5.25-6.5m; screen 1-5.25m; gravel 0.9-5.25m; bentonite plug 0.4-0.9m; gatic cover at surface)

SURFACE LEVEL: 52.0 AHD*EASTING: 326895.4NORTHING: 6260406.8DIP/AZIMUTH: 90°/--

BOREHOLE LOG

Page 43

9.62-9.8m: J50° & 80°,st, he/ti9.9m: B0°, cly, 10mm &J75°, un, ro, fe10.13m: J60°, pl, ro, fe10.3-10.75m: J (x5) 60°& 85°, st/un ro, fe10.5-10.55m: Sz, 50mm10.82m: J60°, pl, ro, cly10.93m: J45°, pl, sm,cln11.0-11.2m: J80°, pl, ro,cln11.2-11.27m: J45°, pl,sm, Sz, 50mm11.63 & 11.75m: J55°-60°, sl, sm, cln12.1m: J30°, pl, ro, cln12.4m: B5°, cly, 5mm

12.7-12.74m: Ds12.74m: CORE LOSS:400mm13.14-13.2m: Ds

13.35-13.45m: Ds

13.62-13.82m: J (x2) 35°& 70°, Sz, 200mm13.92-14.14m: Ds

14.14-14.38m: Sz

14.45m and 14.70m,J45°, pl, sm, cln14.6m: J70°, pl, sm, cln

15.82m: J70°, pl, sm, cly

17.45m: J70°, pl, sm, cly

18.58m: B0°, cly

19.5m: B10°, cly, 5mm

19.73m: J35°, pl, ro, cln

INTERLAMINATED SILTSTONE &SANDSTONE (80:20) - low to highstrength, highly to moderately thenslightly weathered, fractured, lightgrey-brown fine grained sandstoneinterlaminated with siltstone(continued)

11.95m: becomingINTERLAMINATED SILTSTONE &SANDSTONE (70:30), mediumstrength, slightly weathered, slightlyfractured, light grey to grey, fine tomedium grained sandstone.

SANDSTONE - very low strengthwith medium strength bands, slightlyweathered, fractured, light grey, fineto medium grained sandstone, withsheared zones.

14.14-14.38m: extremely weatheredband of laminite

LAMINITE - medium then highstrength, fresh, slightly fracturedthen unbroken, grey to dark greylaminite with approximately 20% finesandstone laminations

SANDSTONE - high strength, fresh,slightly fractured, light grey, finegrained sandstone with somesiltstone laminations

SANDSTONE - high strength, fresh,slightly fractured and unbroken, lightgrey, medium to coarse grainedsandstone

PL(A) = 1

PL(A) = 1.5

PL(A) = 0.5

PL(A) = 0.5

PL(A) = 1

PL(A) = 2.4

PL(A) = 2.6

PL(A) = 2.6

PL(A) = 2.7

PL(A) = 1.1

80

65

25

88

100

97

80

100

100

100

C

C

C

C

C

12.74

13.14

14.38

17.45

18.6

FractureSpacing

(m)

0.01

Depth(m) B - Bedding

S - Shear

RockStrength

Typ

e

Sampling & In Situ Testing

Ex

Low

Ver

y Lo

wLo

w

Med

ium

Hig

h

Ver

y H

igh

Ex

Hig

h

0.10

0.50

1.00 R

QD

%

Cor

eR

ec. %

Gra

phic

Log

Wat

er

Degree ofWeathering

EW

HW

MW

SW

FS

FR

Description

of

Strata

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

J - Joint

F - Fault

RL

4241

4039

3837

3635

3433

Test Results&

Comments0.05

Discontinuities

CLIENT:PROJECT:LOCATION: 11 Talavera Road, Macquarie Park

SAMPLING & IN SITU TESTING LEGENDA Auger sample G Gas sample PID Photo ionisation detector (ppm)B Bulk sample P Piston sample PL(A) Point load axial test Is(50) (MPa)BLK Block sample Ux Tube sample (x mm dia.) PL(D) Point load diametral test Is(50) (MPa)C Core drilling W Water sample pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)D Disturbed sample Water seep S Standard penetration testE Environmental sample Water level V Shear vane (kPa)

BORE No: BH201PROJECT No: 85751.02DATE: 31/1 - 1/2/2017SHEET 2 OF 3

DRILLER: GM LOGGED: SI CASING: HW to 4.0m

Dexus Funds Management LimitedProposed Commercial Development

REMARKS:

RIG: Bobcat

WATER OBSERVATIONS:

TYPE OF BORING:

No free groundwater observed whilst augering

Solid flight auger (TC-bit) to 4.0m; Rotary to 5.2m; NMLC-Coring to 23.0m

*Coordinates and surface level interpolated from Real Serve Pty Ltd Drawing 61935MN (dated 31.11.2016). Well installed to 5.25m (backfill6.5-23m; bentonite plug 5.25-6.5m; screen 1-5.25m; gravel 0.9-5.25m; bentonite plug 0.4-0.9m; gatic cover at surface)

SURFACE LEVEL: 52.0 AHD*EASTING: 326895.4NORTHING: 6260406.8DIP/AZIMUTH: 90°/--

BOREHOLE LOG

Page 44

21.13m: B25°, pl, ro, cln

21.88m: J30°, pl, ro, cln

22.42-22.75m: B (x3) 0°-5°, cly co, 1-2mm &J80°, un, ro, cln22.8-23.0m: J80°- 90°,pl, ro, cln

SANDSTONE - high strength, fresh,slightly fractured and unbroken, lightgrey, medium to coarse grainedsandstone (continued)

Bore discontinued at 23.0m - target depth reached

PL(A) = 1.3

PL(A) = 1.3

PL(A) = 2.3

100

99

100

100

C

C

23.0

FractureSpacing

(m)

0.01

Depth(m) B - Bedding

S - Shear

RockStrength

Typ

e

Sampling & In Situ Testing

Ex

Low

Ver

y Lo

wLo

w

Med

ium

Hig

h

Ver

y H

igh

Ex

Hig

h

0.10

0.50

1.00 R

QD

%

Cor

eR

ec. %

Gra

phic

Log

Wat

er

Degree ofWeathering

EW

HW

MW

SW

FS

FR

Description

of

Strata

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

J - Joint

F - Fault

RL

3231

3029

2827

2625

2423

Test Results&

Comments0.05

Discontinuities

CLIENT:PROJECT:LOCATION: 11 Talavera Road, Macquarie Park

SAMPLING & IN SITU TESTING LEGENDA Auger sample G Gas sample PID Photo ionisation detector (ppm)B Bulk sample P Piston sample PL(A) Point load axial test Is(50) (MPa)BLK Block sample Ux Tube sample (x mm dia.) PL(D) Point load diametral test Is(50) (MPa)C Core drilling W Water sample pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)D Disturbed sample Water seep S Standard penetration testE Environmental sample Water level V Shear vane (kPa)

BORE No: BH201PROJECT No: 85751.02DATE: 31/1 - 1/2/2017SHEET 3 OF 3

DRILLER: GM LOGGED: SI CASING: HW to 4.0m

Dexus Funds Management LimitedProposed Commercial Development

REMARKS:

RIG: Bobcat

WATER OBSERVATIONS:

TYPE OF BORING:

No free groundwater observed whilst augering

Solid flight auger (TC-bit) to 4.0m; Rotary to 5.2m; NMLC-Coring to 23.0m

*Coordinates and surface level interpolated from Real Serve Pty Ltd Drawing 61935MN (dated 31.11.2016). Well installed to 5.25m (backfill6.5-23m; bentonite plug 5.25-6.5m; screen 1-5.25m; gravel 0.9-5.25m; bentonite plug 0.4-0.9m; gatic cover at surface)

SURFACE LEVEL: 52.0 AHD*EASTING: 326895.4NORTHING: 6260406.8DIP/AZIMUTH: 90°/--

BOREHOLE LOG

Page 45

Note: Unless otherwisestated, rock is fracturedalong rough planarbedding dipping 0°- 10°,some iron stained

3.75-3.85m: J45°, pl, ro,cly, 5mm

4.84m: Cs, 10mm5m: Cs, 30mm5.08m: Cs, 100mm

5.48m: J45°, un, ro, clyco5.57m: Cs, 10mm5.75m: Cs, 20mm5.99m: Cs, 10mm6.0-6.3m: J70°, pl, ro,cln6.3m: B10°, pl, ro, cly co6.35m: Cs, 50mm6.4m: CORE LOSS:100mm

7.10, 7.20, 7.25m: J45°,pl, fe stn, he

7.66m: J30°, cu, ro, festn7.76m: J45°, pl, fe stn,he7.77m: J20°, pl, ro, festn7.86, 7.98, 8.03m: J45°,pl, fe stn, he8.15m: J0°, st, ro, fe stn8.83-9.0m: J70°- 90°,un, sm, cln9.03m: B0°, pl, sm, clyco

9.48m: B0°, pl, sm, cly,5mm9.58m: B5°- 10°, pl, sm,

FILLING - brown sandy silt filling(topsoil) with some sandstone graveland grass rootlets, humid

FILLING - brown and grey, crushedshale filling, humid

CLAY - very stiff, light grey mottledred, clay with some medium strengthiron-cemented bands, humid

SHALE - extremely low strengh,extremely weathered, light greyshale, some 20mm to 50mm ironcemented bands

SANDSTONE - extremely lowstrength, extremely weathered, lightgrey

SANDSTONE - low to high strength,highly weathered, fractured, greyand orange-brown, medium tocoarse grained sandstone with somehigh strength iron-cemented bands

6.35m: extremely weathered band oflaminite

LAMINITE - low then mediumstrength, moderately to slightlyweathered then fresh stained,fractured, dark grey laminite

SANDSTONE - description nextpage

6,8,7N = 15

6,16,20N = 36

PL(A) = 0.9

PL(A) = 1.2

PL(A) = 0.3

PL(A) = 0.1

PL(A) = 0.2

PL(A) = 0.8

PL(A) = 0.7

40

79

88

99

100

100

94

100

A

A

A

S

S

C

C

C

C

0.3

1.5

3.0

3.48

3.76

6.46.5

9.56

10.0

FractureSpacing

(m)

0.01

Depth(m) B - Bedding

S - Shear

RockStrength

Typ

e

Sampling & In Situ Testing

Ex

Low

Ver

y Lo

wLo

w

Med

ium

Hig

h

Ver

y H

igh

Ex

Hig

h

0.10

0.50

1.00 R

QD

%

Cor

eR

ec. %

Gra

phic

Log

Wat

er

Degree ofWeathering

EW

HW

MW

SW

FS

FR

Description

of

Strata

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

J - Joint

F - Fault

RL

4847

4645

4443

4241

4039

Test Results&

Comments0.05

Discontinuities

CLIENT:PROJECT:LOCATION: 11 Talavera Road, Macquarie Park

SAMPLING & IN SITU TESTING LEGENDA Auger sample G Gas sample PID Photo ionisation detector (ppm)B Bulk sample P Piston sample PL(A) Point load axial test Is(50) (MPa)BLK Block sample Ux Tube sample (x mm dia.) PL(D) Point load diametral test Is(50) (MPa)C Core drilling W Water sample pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)D Disturbed sample Water seep S Standard penetration testE Environmental sample Water level V Shear vane (kPa)

BORE No: BH202PROJECT No: 85751.02DATE: 2 - 3/2/2017SHEET 1 OF 3

DRILLER: GM LOGGED: JN CASING: HW to 2.5m; HQ to 3.0m

Dexus Funds Management LimitedProposed Commercial Development

REMARKS:

RIG: Bobcat

WATER OBSERVATIONS:

TYPE OF BORING:

No free groundwater observed whilst augering

Solid flight auger to 2.5m; Rotary (water) to 3.0m; NMLC-Coring to 20.57m

*Coordinates and surface level interpolated from Real Serve Pty Ltd Drawing 61935MN (dated 31.11.2016)

SURFACE LEVEL: 48.9 AHD*EASTING: 326928.6NORTHING: 6260383.4DIP/AZIMUTH: 90°/--

BOREHOLE LOG

Page 46

cly co9.6-9.85m: J70°- 90°,un, ro, partially he9.9-10.2m: J70°- 90°,un, ro, cln10.2-10.53m: J70°, pl,ro, cln

12.47m: B10°, pl, ro, cly,1mm

13.79m: Cs, 20mm13.91m: Cs, 40mm

14.1-14.15m: J45°, un,ro, cln14.25-14.5m and14.3-14.55m: J45°- 90°,un, ro, cln14.55-14.8m and14.6-14.9m: J70°- 90°,un, ro, sandy clay14.90, 14.98m: J45°, un,ro, cln

15.66m: B10°, pl, ro, cly,1mm15.76-16.0m: J80°, pl,ro, cln16m: B0°, pl, ro, cly,2mm

17.96m: B5°, pl, ro, cly,5mm

19.25m: J45°, cu, ro, clyco

SANDSTONE - medium and highstrength, fresh, fractured, light grey,fine grained sandstone

SANDSTONE - medium and highstrength, fresh, slightly fracturedthen unbroken, light grey, medium tocoarse grained sandstone

13.79-16.00m: fractured

PL(A) = 2.1

PL(A) = 0.7

PL(A) = 0.6

PL(A) = 1.8

PL(A) = 1.7

PL(A) = 0.7

PL(A) = 1.1

PL(A) = 1.7

PL(A) = 0.9

PL(A) = 0.9

99

96

96

100

100

100

100

100

C

C

C

C

10.74

20.0

FractureSpacing

(m)

0.01

Depth(m) B - Bedding

S - Shear

RockStrength

Typ

e

Sampling & In Situ Testing

Ex

Low

Ver

y Lo

wLo

w

Med

ium

Hig

h

Ver

y H

igh

Ex

Hig

h

0.10

0.50

1.00 R

QD

%

Cor

eR

ec. %

Gra

phic

Log

Wat

er

Degree ofWeathering

EW

HW

MW

SW

FS

FR

Description

of

Strata

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

J - Joint

F - Fault

RL

3837

3635

3433

3231

3029

Test Results&

Comments0.05

Discontinuities

CLIENT:PROJECT:LOCATION: 11 Talavera Road, Macquarie Park

SAMPLING & IN SITU TESTING LEGENDA Auger sample G Gas sample PID Photo ionisation detector (ppm)B Bulk sample P Piston sample PL(A) Point load axial test Is(50) (MPa)BLK Block sample Ux Tube sample (x mm dia.) PL(D) Point load diametral test Is(50) (MPa)C Core drilling W Water sample pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)D Disturbed sample Water seep S Standard penetration testE Environmental sample Water level V Shear vane (kPa)

BORE No: BH202PROJECT No: 85751.02DATE: 2 - 3/2/2017SHEET 2 OF 3

DRILLER: GM LOGGED: JN CASING: HW to 2.5m; HQ to 3.0m

Dexus Funds Management LimitedProposed Commercial Development

REMARKS:

RIG: Bobcat

WATER OBSERVATIONS:

TYPE OF BORING:

No free groundwater observed whilst augering

Solid flight auger to 2.5m; Rotary (water) to 3.0m; NMLC-Coring to 20.57m

*Coordinates and surface level interpolated from Real Serve Pty Ltd Drawing 61935MN (dated 31.11.2016)

SURFACE LEVEL: 48.9 AHD*EASTING: 326928.6NORTHING: 6260383.4DIP/AZIMUTH: 90°/--

BOREHOLE LOG

Page 47

20.28m: J45°, cu, ro,cly, 5mm

SANDSTONE - as previous

Bore discontinued at 20.57m

PL(A) = 0.4100100C

20.57

FractureSpacing

(m)

0.01

Depth(m) B - Bedding

S - Shear

RockStrength

Typ

e

Sampling & In Situ Testing

Ex

Low

Ver

y Lo

wLo

w

Med

ium

Hig

h

Ver

y H

igh

Ex

Hig

h

0.10

0.50

1.00 R

QD

%

Cor

eR

ec. %

Gra

phic

Log

Wat

er

Degree ofWeathering

EW

HW

MW

SW

FS

FR

Description

of

Strata

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

J - Joint

F - Fault

RL

2827

2625

2423

2221

2019

Test Results&

Comments0.05

Discontinuities

CLIENT:PROJECT:LOCATION: 11 Talavera Road, Macquarie Park

SAMPLING & IN SITU TESTING LEGENDA Auger sample G Gas sample PID Photo ionisation detector (ppm)B Bulk sample P Piston sample PL(A) Point load axial test Is(50) (MPa)BLK Block sample Ux Tube sample (x mm dia.) PL(D) Point load diametral test Is(50) (MPa)C Core drilling W Water sample pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)D Disturbed sample Water seep S Standard penetration testE Environmental sample Water level V Shear vane (kPa)

BORE No: BH202PROJECT No: 85751.02DATE: 2 - 3/2/2017SHEET 3 OF 3

DRILLER: GM LOGGED: JN CASING: HW to 2.5m; HQ to 3.0m

Dexus Funds Management LimitedProposed Commercial Development

REMARKS:

RIG: Bobcat

WATER OBSERVATIONS:

TYPE OF BORING:

No free groundwater observed whilst augering

Solid flight auger to 2.5m; Rotary (water) to 3.0m; NMLC-Coring to 20.57m

*Coordinates and surface level interpolated from Real Serve Pty Ltd Drawing 61935MN (dated 31.11.2016)

SURFACE LEVEL: 48.9 AHD*EASTING: 326928.6NORTHING: 6260383.4DIP/AZIMUTH: 90°/--

BOREHOLE LOG

Page 48

Note: Unless otherwisestated, rock is fracturedalong rough planarbedding dipping 0°- 10°,some iron stained

6.51m: J40°, pl, ro, cln

6.9-7.15m: J, sv (85°-90°), he7.18m: J70°, he, fe7.3 & 7.34m: J (x3) 30°-45°, pl, ro, fe7.52m: B20°, pl, ro, fe,cly7.85m: B20°, pl, ro, fe

8.2m: J45°, he, fe

8.4m: J45°, he, fe

8.67m: J45°, pl, ro, fe8.75-8.85m: B (x3) 5°-10°, fe

9.25m: J25°, pl, ro, fe9.38m: J30°, pl, ro, cly,5mm9.55 & 9.6m: J (x2) 70°,pl/un, ro, fe

FILLING - brown, silty sand filling(topsoil), humid (garden bed)

FILLING - brown, clay filling withsome sand and fine gravel andripped shale fragments, humid0.4m: concrete rubble (cobble sized)

FILLING - orange and grey, clayfilling with some ironstone graveland a trace of charcoal, MC<PL

CLAY - very stiff, grey mottledorange, clay with some extremelylow strength ironstone bands,MC<PL2.0m: becoming orange-brownmottled grey, with fine subroundedgravel

3.5m: becoming grey with ironstonebands

SHALE: extremely low strength, greyshale with ironstone bands, tracefine roots

SANDSTONE, extremely lowstrength, light grey and brownsandstone, trace fine roots

SANDSTONE - medium strength,moderately to highly weathered,fractured, light grey andorange-brown, medium grainedsandstone

9.73m: extremely weathered band oflaminite

LAMINITE - description next page

13,18,13N = 31

5,7,11N = 18

8,18,20N = 38

16,25/120mmrefusal

PL(A) = 0.5

PL(A) = 0.7

PL(A) = 0.5

PL(A) = 0.5

86

90

100

100

A

A

A

S

S

S

S

C

C

0.2

0.8

1.5

4.0

5.55

6.4

9.8310.0

FractureSpacing

(m)

0.01

Depth(m) B - Bedding

S - Shear

RockStrength

Typ

e

Sampling & In Situ Testing

Ex

Low

Ver

y Lo

wLo

w

Med

ium

Hig

h

Ver

y H

igh

Ex

Hig

h

0.10

0.50

1.00 R

QD

%

Cor

eR

ec. %

Gra

phic

Log

Wat

er

Degree ofWeathering

EW

HW

MW

SW

FS

FR

Description

of

Strata

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

J - Joint

F - Fault

RL

4847

4645

4443

4241

4039

Test Results&

Comments0.05

Discontinuities

CLIENT:PROJECT:LOCATION: 11 Talavera Road, Macquarie Park

SAMPLING & IN SITU TESTING LEGENDA Auger sample G Gas sample PID Photo ionisation detector (ppm)B Bulk sample P Piston sample PL(A) Point load axial test Is(50) (MPa)BLK Block sample Ux Tube sample (x mm dia.) PL(D) Point load diametral test Is(50) (MPa)C Core drilling W Water sample pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)D Disturbed sample Water seep S Standard penetration testE Environmental sample Water level V Shear vane (kPa)

BORE No: BH203PROJECT No: 85751.02DATE: 1 - 2/2/2017SHEET 1 OF 3

DRILLER: GM LOGGED: SI CASING: HW to 4.0m

Dexus Funds Management LimitedProposed Commercial Development

REMARKS:

RIG: Bobcat

WATER OBSERVATIONS:

TYPE OF BORING:

No free groundwater observed whilst augering

Solid flight auger (TC-bit) to 4.0m; Rotary to 6.4m; NMLC-Coring to 20.35m

*Coordinates and surface level interpolated from Real Serve Pty Ltd Drawing 61935MN (dated 31.11.2016)

SURFACE LEVEL: 48.9 AHD*EASTING: 326898.4NORTHING: 6260348DIP/AZIMUTH: 90°/--

BOREHOLE LOG

Page 49

9.73-9.83m: Cs, 100mm10.12m: J, sv, pl, ro, cln

11.9m: J75°, pl, sm, cln

12.2m: J75°, ti

13.38m: J70°, pl, sm, clyco, 3mm13.68m: J80°, pl, ro, cln

14.05-14.25m J80°, pl,ro, cln

14.5m: B0°, cly co, 5mm

14.68m: B5°, cly co,3mm

16.05m: B10°, cly co,2mm

17.15-17.17m: Sz,20mm17.23m: J45°, pl, sm,cly, Sz, 25mm17.65m: B20°, cly vn, ti

18.45m: J35°, pl, ro, cln

18.87m: B10°, cly vn, ti

19.18m: J35°, pl, ro, cln19.23m: B0°, cly, 10mm

LAMINITE - medium then highstrength, fresh, slightly fractured,dark grey laminite with some finegrained sandstone laminations

SANDSTONE - high strength, fresh,slightly fractured, light grey, finegrained sandstone with somecarbonaceous laminations

SANDSTONE - high strength, fresh,slightly fractured, pale grey, mediumgrained sandstone

PL(A) = 0.7

PL(A) = 1.2

PL(A) = 1.3

PL(A) = 1.4

PL(A) = 2.4

PL(A) = 1.2

PL(A) = 1.3

PL(A) = 1.7

PL(A) = 2.1

PL(A) = 2.2

90

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

C

C

C

C

13.35

14.5

FractureSpacing

(m)

0.01

Depth(m) B - Bedding

S - Shear

RockStrength

Typ

e

Sampling & In Situ Testing

Ex

Low

Ver

y Lo

wLo

w

Med

ium

Hig

h

Ver

y H

igh

Ex

Hig

h

0.10

0.50

1.00 R

QD

%

Cor

eR

ec. %

Gra

phic

Log

Wat

er

Degree ofWeathering

EW

HW

MW

SW

FS

FR

Description

of

Strata

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

J - Joint

F - Fault

RL

3837

3635

3433

3231

3029

Test Results&

Comments0.05

Discontinuities

CLIENT:PROJECT:LOCATION: 11 Talavera Road, Macquarie Park

SAMPLING & IN SITU TESTING LEGENDA Auger sample G Gas sample PID Photo ionisation detector (ppm)B Bulk sample P Piston sample PL(A) Point load axial test Is(50) (MPa)BLK Block sample Ux Tube sample (x mm dia.) PL(D) Point load diametral test Is(50) (MPa)C Core drilling W Water sample pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)D Disturbed sample Water seep S Standard penetration testE Environmental sample Water level V Shear vane (kPa)

BORE No: BH203PROJECT No: 85751.02DATE: 1 - 2/2/2017SHEET 2 OF 3

DRILLER: GM LOGGED: SI CASING: HW to 4.0m

Dexus Funds Management LimitedProposed Commercial Development

REMARKS:

RIG: Bobcat

WATER OBSERVATIONS:

TYPE OF BORING:

No free groundwater observed whilst augering

Solid flight auger (TC-bit) to 4.0m; Rotary to 6.4m; NMLC-Coring to 20.35m

*Coordinates and surface level interpolated from Real Serve Pty Ltd Drawing 61935MN (dated 31.11.2016)

SURFACE LEVEL: 48.9 AHD*EASTING: 326898.4NORTHING: 6260348DIP/AZIMUTH: 90°/--

BOREHOLE LOG

Page 50

20.1m: B5°, cly co, 1mmSANDSTONE - high strength, fresh,slightly fractured and unbroken, palegrey, medium grained sandstone(continued)Bore discontinued at 20.35m - target depth reached

PL(A) = 1.6100100C20.35

FractureSpacing

(m)

0.01

Depth(m) B - Bedding

S - Shear

RockStrength

Typ

e

Sampling & In Situ Testing

Ex

Low

Ver

y Lo

wLo

w

Med

ium

Hig

h

Ver

y H

igh

Ex

Hig

h

0.10

0.50

1.00 R

QD

%

Cor

eR

ec. %

Gra

phic

Log

Wat

er

Degree ofWeathering

EW

HW

MW

SW

FS

FR

Description

of

Strata

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

J - Joint

F - Fault

RL

2827

2625

2423

2221

2019

Test Results&

Comments0.05

Discontinuities

CLIENT:PROJECT:LOCATION: 11 Talavera Road, Macquarie Park

SAMPLING & IN SITU TESTING LEGENDA Auger sample G Gas sample PID Photo ionisation detector (ppm)B Bulk sample P Piston sample PL(A) Point load axial test Is(50) (MPa)BLK Block sample Ux Tube sample (x mm dia.) PL(D) Point load diametral test Is(50) (MPa)C Core drilling W Water sample pp Pocket penetrometer (kPa)D Disturbed sample Water seep S Standard penetration testE Environmental sample Water level V Shear vane (kPa)

BORE No: BH203PROJECT No: 85751.02DATE: 1 - 2/2/2017SHEET 3 OF 3

DRILLER: GM LOGGED: SI CASING: HW to 4.0m

Dexus Funds Management LimitedProposed Commercial Development

REMARKS:

RIG: Bobcat

WATER OBSERVATIONS:

TYPE OF BORING:

No free groundwater observed whilst augering

Solid flight auger (TC-bit) to 4.0m; Rotary to 6.4m; NMLC-Coring to 20.35m

*Coordinates and surface level interpolated from Real Serve Pty Ltd Drawing 61935MN (dated 31.11.2016)

SURFACE LEVEL: 48.9 AHD*EASTING: 326898.4NORTHING: 6260348DIP/AZIMUTH: 90°/--

BOREHOLE LOG

Page 51

Page 52

Appendix C

Tables C1 and C2

Laboratory Test Reports and COC

Data Quality Assessment

Page 53

Ben

zen

e

Eth

ylb

enze

ne

To

luen

e

Xyl

ene

(m &

p)

Xyl

ene

(o)

Xyl

ene

To

tal

Nap

hth

alen

e

Ars

enic

Cad

miu

m

Ch

rom

ium

(h

exav

alen

t)

Co

pp

er

Lea

d

Mer

cury

Nic

kel

Zin

c

Ben

zo(a

) p

yren

e

Nap

thal

ene

PA

Hs

(Su

m o

f to

tal)

B(a

)P T

eQ

TR

H C

6 -

C10

TR

H C

10 -

C16

TR

H C

16 -

C34

TR

H C

34-C

40

TR

H C

10-C

36

Site Assessment Criteria (mg/kg)ESL Petroleum Hydrocarbons (top 2 m) 75 165 135 185 1.4 215 170 1700 3300EIL non and semi Volatile (top 2 m) 370 160 530 6 280 1800 290 620 640 7 370HSL for Vapour Intrusion _HSL D and HSL B < 1m 3 230 260 4

HSL for Direct Contact_HSL D 430 27,000 99,000 81,000 11,000 5600 4200 5800 8100HIL Commecial / Industrial D 3000 900 3600 240,000 1500 730 6000 400,000 45-3600 4000 40 240,000 7Management Limits 700 1000 3500 10,000

Borehole Depth (m)Filling (F) Or Natural (N)

BH01 0.2-0.3 NAD 6.5 4.3 <0.2 <1 <0.5 <2 <1 <1 <1 <4 <0.4 7 8 7 <0.1 11 19 <0.1 <0.05 <0.1 <0.2 <0.5 <5 <1 <0.1 <25 <50 <100 <100 <100BH02 0.1-0.2 NAD NT NT <0.2 <1 <0.5 <2 <1 <1 <1 <4 <0.4 10 9 14 <0.1 7 26 <0.1 <0.05 <0.1 <0.2 <0.5 <5 <1 <0.1 <25 <50 <100 <100 <100BH03 0.1-0.2 NAD NT NT <0.2 <1 <0.5 <2 <1 <1 <1 <4 <0.4 10 13 18 <0.1 5 38 <0.1 <0.05 <0.1 <0.2 <0.5 <5 <1 <0.1 <25 <50 <100 <100 <100BH03 0.2-0.3 NAD NT NT <0.2 <1 <0.5 <2 <1 <1 <1 <4 <0.4 5 5 9 <0.1 3 15 <0.1 <0.05 <0.1 <0.2 <0.5 <5 <1 <0.1 <25 <50 <100 <100 <100BH04 0.1-0.2 NAD 8 18 <0.2 <1 <0.5 <2 <1 <1 <1 <4 <0.4 5 3 5 <0.1 2 9 <0.1 <0.05 <0.1 <0.2 <0.5 <5 <1 <0.1 <25 <50 <100 <100 <100BH05 0.1-0.2 NAD NT NT <0.2 <1 <0.5 <2 <1 <1 <1 <4 <0.4 4 3 5 <0.1 2 8 <0.1 <0.05 <0.1 <0.2 <0.5 <5 <1 <0.1 <25 <50 <100 <100 <100

NT NT NT <0.2 <1 <0.5 <2 <1 <1 <1 <4 <0.4 7 9 7 <0.1 11 27 NT <0.05 <0.1 <0.2 <0.5 NT NT NT <25 NT NT NT NTNT NT NT <0.2 <1 <0.5 <2 <1 <1 <1 NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT <25 NT NT NT NTNT NT NT 93% 92% 93% 92% 93% NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT

Notes:* Replicate of sample of BH01/0.2-0.3

4 TRH C6-C10 (less BTEX)

6 Chromium III

7 DDT

NT Not tested

NAD No asbestos detected

Metals

PAH

F

TB - Trip BlankTS - Trip Spike

BD1/270117*

Pes

tici

des

OC

P &

OP

P

Ph

eno

lics

To

tal

TRH

PC

Bs

(Su

m o

f to

tal)

Asb

esto

s ID

pH

CE

C

VO

C

Table C1: Summary of Soil Laboratory Results

BTEX

Intrusive Contamination Investigation, Proposed Commercial DevelopmentPart of 11 Talavera Road, Macquarie Park, NSW Page 1 of 1

Project 85751.03February 2017

Page 54

Arsenic (V) Cadmium Chromium (VI) Copper Lead Mercury

(inorganic) Nickel Zinc C6 - C10a >C10 - C16b >C16 - C34 >C34 - C40

isopr

opylb

enze

ne

n-pr

opyl

benz

ene

1,3,5-

trim

ethy

l ben

zene

1,2,4-

trim

ethy

l ben

zene

sec-

buty

l ben

zene

4-iso

prop

yl to

luen

e

n-bu

tly b

enze

ne

Chlo

rofo

rm

Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene m+p-xylene o-xylene B(a)P Naphthalene Total PAH

BH1 <1 <0.1 <1 2 <1 <0.05 11 18 14000 3800 5900 550 110 160 630 1400 40 59 38 10 <10 63 410 3300 1300 <0.1 26 26 <0.05 <0.01 <0.01 <0.1

24 0.20 1.00 1.40 3.40 0.06 11.00 8.00 - - - - - - - - - - - 0.003 950 180 80 350 200 - 16 - 3200.006-0.03

0.01-

'0.3g

- - - - - - - - 7 NL NL NL - - - - - - - - 5 NL NL NL NL - NL - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - 660 630 15 2000 - 1000 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Notes:a

b

c

d NEPC (2013) Schedule B 1 - Table 1C Groundwater Investigation Levels - Fresh Waters NOT ADJUSTED FOR HARDNESS

g- Not analysed/ not defined/ not applicable/In absence of screening levels for petroleum hydrocarbons, concentrations of contaminants below PQL have been adopted as initial screening levels.

Exceedance of GIL

* Duplicate of Sample listed directlt above

NT Not tested

NLTRH Total recoverable hydrocarbons, including total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH)

BTEX Benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, total xylenes

Table C2 – Summary of Laboratory Results for Groundwater (all units in µg/L unless otherwise stated)

Sample ID

Metals

Date

Aldrin + Dieldrin

NEPC (2013) HSL-D

PCB Total Phenol (mg/L)

PAH

1/2/2017

TRH

OCP

USEAP Region 9

VOC

Not Limiting

BTEX

TRH >C10-C16 less naphthalene (F2)

NEPC (2013) Fresh Watersd

GIL for Aroclor 1242

TRH C6-C10 less BTEX (F1)

Groundwater Investigation Levels (GIL)

OPP

Intrusive Contamination Investigation Part of 11 Talavera Road, Macquarie Park, NSW Page 1

Project 85751.03

February 2017

Page 55

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 160921

Client:

Douglas Partners Pty Ltd

96 Hermitage Rd

West Ryde

NSW 2114

Attention: Matthew Hyde, Jssica Paulsen

Sample log in details:

Your Reference: 85751.03, Macquarie Park

No. of samples: 9 soils

Date samples received / completed instructions received 27/01/17 / 31/01/17

Analysis Details:

Please refer to the following pages for results, methodology summary and quality control data.

Samples were analysed as received from the client. Results relate specifically to the samples as received.

Results are reported on a dry weight basis for solids and on an as received basis for other matrices.

Please refer to the last page of this report for any comments relating to the results.

Report Details:

Date results requested by: / Issue Date: 7/02/17 / 6/02/17

Date of Preliminary Report: Not Issued

NATA accreditation number 2901. This document shall not be reproduced except in full.

Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 - Testing Tests not covered by NATA are denoted with *.

Results Approved By:

Page 1 of 34Envirolab Reference: 160921

Revision No: R 00

Page 56

Client Reference: 85751.03, Macquarie Park

VOCs in soil

Our Reference: UNITS 160921-1 160921-2 160921-3 160921-4 160921-5

Your Reference ------------

-

BH01 BH02 BH03 BH03 BH04

Depth ------------ 0.2-0.3 0.1-0.2 0.1-0.2 0.2-0.3 0.1-0.2

Date Sampled

Type of sample

27/01/2017

Soil

27/01/2017

Soil

27/01/2017

Soil

27/01/2017

Soil

27/01/2017

Soil

Date extracted - 01/02/2017 01/02/2017 01/02/2017 01/02/2017 01/02/2017

Date analysed - 02/02/2017 02/02/2017 02/02/2017 02/02/2017 02/02/2017

Dichlorodifluoromethane mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Chloromethane mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Vinyl Chloride mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Bromomethane mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Chloroethane mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Trichlorofluoromethane mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

1,1-Dichloroethene mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

trans-1,2-dichloroethene mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

1,1-dichloroethane mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

cis-1,2-dichloroethene mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

bromochloromethane mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

chloroform mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

2,2-dichloropropane mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

1,2-dichloroethane mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

1,1,1-trichloroethane mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

1,1-dichloropropene mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Cyclohexane mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

carbon tetrachloride mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Benzene mg/kg <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

dibromomethane mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

1,2-dichloropropane mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

trichloroethene mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

bromodichloromethane mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

trans-1,3-dichloropropene mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

cis-1,3-dichloropropene mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

1,1,2-trichloroethane mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Toluene mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

1,3-dichloropropane mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

dibromochloromethane mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

1,2-dibromoethane mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

tetrachloroethene mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

chlorobenzene mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Ethylbenzene mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

bromoform mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

m+p-xylene mg/kg <2 <2 <2 <2 <2

styrene mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Page 2 of 34Envirolab Reference: 160921

Revision No: R 00

Page 57

Client Reference: 85751.03, Macquarie Park

VOCs in soil

Our Reference: UNITS 160921-1 160921-2 160921-3 160921-4 160921-5

Your Reference ------------

-

BH01 BH02 BH03 BH03 BH04

Depth ------------ 0.2-0.3 0.1-0.2 0.1-0.2 0.2-0.3 0.1-0.2

Date Sampled

Type of sample

27/01/2017

Soil

27/01/2017

Soil

27/01/2017

Soil

27/01/2017

Soil

27/01/2017

Soil

o-Xylene mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

1,2,3-trichloropropane mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

isopropylbenzene mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

bromobenzene mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

n-propyl benzene mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

2-chlorotoluene mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

4-chlorotoluene mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

1,3,5-trimethyl benzene mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

tert-butyl benzene mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

1,2,4-trimethyl benzene mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

1,3-dichlorobenzene mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

sec-butyl benzene mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

1,4-dichlorobenzene mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

4-isopropyl toluene mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

1,2-dichlorobenzene mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

n-butyl benzene mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

1,2,4-trichlorobenzene mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

hexachlorobutadiene mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

1,2,3-trichlorobenzene mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Surrogate Dibromofluorometha % 124 130 121 126 123

Surrogate aaa-Trifluorotoluene % 99 79 71 91 92

Surrogate Toluene-d8 % 116 119 118 118 118

Surrogate 4-Bromofluorobenzene % 108 109 113 113 110

Page 3 of 34Envirolab Reference: 160921

Revision No: R 00

Page 58

Client Reference: 85751.03, Macquarie Park

VOCs in soil

Our Reference: UNITS 160921-6

Your Reference ------------

-

BH05

Depth ------------ 0.1-0.2

Date Sampled

Type of sample

27/01/2017

Soil

Date extracted - 01/02/2017

Date analysed - 02/02/2017

Dichlorodifluoromethane mg/kg <1

Chloromethane mg/kg <1

Vinyl Chloride mg/kg <1

Bromomethane mg/kg <1

Chloroethane mg/kg <1

Trichlorofluoromethane mg/kg <1

1,1-Dichloroethene mg/kg <1

trans-1,2-dichloroethene mg/kg <1

1,1-dichloroethane mg/kg <1

cis-1,2-dichloroethene mg/kg <1

bromochloromethane mg/kg <1

chloroform mg/kg <1

2,2-dichloropropane mg/kg <1

1,2-dichloroethane mg/kg <1

1,1,1-trichloroethane mg/kg <1

1,1-dichloropropene mg/kg <1

Cyclohexane mg/kg <1

carbon tetrachloride mg/kg <1

Benzene mg/kg <0.2

dibromomethane mg/kg <1

1,2-dichloropropane mg/kg <1

trichloroethene mg/kg <1

bromodichloromethane mg/kg <1

trans-1,3-dichloropropene mg/kg <1

cis-1,3-dichloropropene mg/kg <1

1,1,2-trichloroethane mg/kg <1

Toluene mg/kg <0.5

1,3-dichloropropane mg/kg <1

dibromochloromethane mg/kg <1

1,2-dibromoethane mg/kg <1

tetrachloroethene mg/kg <1

1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane mg/kg <1

chlorobenzene mg/kg <1

Ethylbenzene mg/kg <1

bromoform mg/kg <1

m+p-xylene mg/kg <2

styrene mg/kg <1

1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane mg/kg <1

o-Xylene mg/kg <1

Page 4 of 34Envirolab Reference: 160921

Revision No: R 00

Page 59

Client Reference: 85751.03, Macquarie Park

VOCs in soil

Our Reference: UNITS 160921-6

Your Reference ------------

-

BH05

Depth ------------ 0.1-0.2

Date Sampled

Type of sample

27/01/2017

Soil

1,2,3-trichloropropane mg/kg <1

isopropylbenzene mg/kg <1

bromobenzene mg/kg <1

n-propyl benzene mg/kg <1

2-chlorotoluene mg/kg <1

4-chlorotoluene mg/kg <1

1,3,5-trimethyl benzene mg/kg <1

tert-butyl benzene mg/kg <1

1,2,4-trimethyl benzene mg/kg <1

1,3-dichlorobenzene mg/kg <1

sec-butyl benzene mg/kg <1

1,4-dichlorobenzene mg/kg <1

4-isopropyl toluene mg/kg <1

1,2-dichlorobenzene mg/kg <1

n-butyl benzene mg/kg <1

1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane mg/kg <1

1,2,4-trichlorobenzene mg/kg <1

hexachlorobutadiene mg/kg <1

1,2,3-trichlorobenzene mg/kg <1

Surrogate Dibromofluorometha % 123

Surrogate aaa-Trifluorotoluene % 83

Surrogate Toluene-d8 % 124

Surrogate 4-Bromofluorobenzene % 112

Page 5 of 34Envirolab Reference: 160921

Revision No: R 00

Page 60

Client Reference: 85751.03, Macquarie Park

vTRH(C6-C10)/BTEXN in Soil

Our Reference: UNITS 160921-1 160921-2 160921-3 160921-4 160921-5

Your Reference ------------

-

BH01 BH02 BH03 BH03 BH04

Depth ------------ 0.2-0.3 0.1-0.2 0.1-0.2 0.2-0.3 0.1-0.2

Date Sampled

Type of sample

27/01/2017

Soil

27/01/2017

Soil

27/01/2017

Soil

27/01/2017

Soil

27/01/2017

Soil

Date extracted - 01/02/2017 01/02/2017 01/02/2017 01/02/2017 01/02/2017

Date analysed - 02/02/2017 02/02/2017 02/02/2017 02/02/2017 02/02/2017

TRH C6 - C9 mg/kg <25 <25 <25 <25 <25

TRH C6 - C10 mg/kg <25 <25 <25 <25 <25

vTPH C6 - C10 less BTEX

(F1)

mg/kg <25 <25 <25 <25 <25

Benzene mg/kg <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Toluene mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

Ethylbenzene mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

m+p-xylene mg/kg <2 <2 <2 <2 <2

o-Xylene mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Total +ve Xylenes mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

naphthalene mg/kg <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Surrogate aaa-Trifluorotoluene % 99 79 71 91 92

vTRH(C6-C10)/BTEXN in Soil

Our Reference: UNITS 160921-6 160921-8 160921-9

Your Reference ------------

-

BH05 TB TS

Depth ------------ 0.1-0.2 - -

Date Sampled

Type of sample

27/01/2017

Soil

27/01/2017

Soil

27/01/2017

Soil

Date extracted - 01/02/2017 01/02/2017 01/02/2017

Date analysed - 02/02/2017 02/02/2017 02/02/2017

TRH C6 - C9 mg/kg <25 <25 [NA]

TRH C6 - C10 mg/kg <25 <25 [NA]

vTPH C6 - C10 less BTEX

(F1)

mg/kg <25 <25 [NA]

Benzene mg/kg <0.2 <0.2 93%

Toluene mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 93%

Ethylbenzene mg/kg <1 <1 92%

m+p-xylene mg/kg <2 <2 92%

o-Xylene mg/kg <1 <1 93%

Total +ve Xylenes mg/kg <1 <1 [NA]

naphthalene mg/kg <1 <1 [NA]

Surrogate aaa-Trifluorotoluene % 83 109 85

Page 6 of 34Envirolab Reference: 160921

Revision No: R 00

Page 61

Client Reference: 85751.03, Macquarie Park

svTRH (C10-C40) in Soil

Our Reference: UNITS 160921-1 160921-2 160921-3 160921-4 160921-5

Your Reference ------------

-

BH01 BH02 BH03 BH03 BH04

Depth ------------ 0.2-0.3 0.1-0.2 0.1-0.2 0.2-0.3 0.1-0.2

Date Sampled

Type of sample

27/01/2017

Soil

27/01/2017

Soil

27/01/2017

Soil

27/01/2017

Soil

27/01/2017

Soil

Date extracted - 01/02/2017 01/02/2017 01/02/2017 01/02/2017 01/02/2017

Date analysed - 01/02/2017 01/02/2017 01/02/2017 01/02/2017 01/02/2017

TRH C10 - C14 mg/kg <50 <50 <50 <50 <50

TRH C15 - C28 mg/kg <100 <100 <100 <100 <100

TRH C29 - C36 mg/kg <100 <100 <100 <100 <100

TRH >C10-C16 mg/kg <50 <50 <50 <50 <50

TRH >C10 - C16 less

Naphthalene (F2)

mg/kg <50 <50 <50 <50 <50

TRH >C16-C34 mg/kg <100 <100 <100 <100 <100

TRH >C34-C40 mg/kg <100 <100 <100 <100 <100

Total +ve TRH (>C10-C40) mg/kg <50 <50 <50 <50 <50

Surrogate o-Terphenyl % 79 89 89 86 85

svTRH (C10-C40) in Soil

Our Reference: UNITS 160921-6

Your Reference ------------

-

BH05

Depth ------------ 0.1-0.2

Date Sampled

Type of sample

27/01/2017

Soil

Date extracted - 01/02/2017

Date analysed - 01/02/2017

TRH C10 - C14 mg/kg <50

TRH C15 - C28 mg/kg <100

TRH C29 - C36 mg/kg <100

TRH >C10-C16 mg/kg <50

TRH >C10 - C16 less

Naphthalene (F2)

mg/kg <50

TRH >C16-C34 mg/kg <100

TRH >C34-C40 mg/kg <100

Total +ve TRH (>C10-C40) mg/kg <50

Surrogate o-Terphenyl % 87

Page 7 of 34Envirolab Reference: 160921

Revision No: R 00

Page 62

Client Reference: 85751.03, Macquarie Park

PAHs in Soil

Our Reference: UNITS 160921-1 160921-2 160921-3 160921-4 160921-5

Your Reference ------------

-

BH01 BH02 BH03 BH03 BH04

Depth ------------ 0.2-0.3 0.1-0.2 0.1-0.2 0.2-0.3 0.1-0.2

Date Sampled

Type of sample

27/01/2017

Soil

27/01/2017

Soil

27/01/2017

Soil

27/01/2017

Soil

27/01/2017

Soil

Date extracted - 01/02/2017 01/02/2017 01/02/2017 01/02/2017 01/02/2017

Date analysed - 02/02/2017 02/02/2017 02/02/2017 02/02/2017 02/02/2017

Naphthalene mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Acenaphthylene mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Acenaphthene mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Fluorene mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Phenanthrene mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Anthracene mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Fluoranthene mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Pyrene mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Chrysene mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Benzo(b,j+k)fluoranthene mg/kg <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Benzo(a)pyrene TEQ calc (zero) mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

Benzo(a)pyrene TEQ calc(half) mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

Benzo(a)pyrene TEQ calc(PQL) mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

Total +ve PAH's mg/kg <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

Surrogate p-Terphenyl-d14 % 93 93 88 98 93

Page 8 of 34Envirolab Reference: 160921

Revision No: R 00

Page 63

Client Reference: 85751.03, Macquarie Park

PAHs in Soil

Our Reference: UNITS 160921-6 160921-7

Your Reference ------------

-

BH05 BD1/270117

Depth ------------ 0.1-0.2 -

Date Sampled

Type of sample

27/01/2017

Soil

27/01/2017

Soil

Date extracted - 01/02/2017 01/02/2017

Date analysed - 02/02/2017 02/02/2017

Naphthalene mg/kg <0.1 <0.1

Acenaphthylene mg/kg <0.1 <0.1

Acenaphthene mg/kg <0.1 <0.1

Fluorene mg/kg <0.1 <0.1

Phenanthrene mg/kg <0.1 <0.1

Anthracene mg/kg <0.1 <0.1

Fluoranthene mg/kg <0.1 <0.1

Pyrene mg/kg <0.1 <0.1

Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg <0.1 <0.1

Chrysene mg/kg <0.1 <0.1

Benzo(b,j+k)fluoranthene mg/kg <0.2 <0.2

Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg <0.05 <0.05

Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene mg/kg <0.1 <0.1

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene mg/kg <0.1 <0.1

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene mg/kg <0.1 <0.1

Benzo(a)pyrene TEQ calc (zero) mg/kg <0.5 <0.5

Benzo(a)pyrene TEQ calc(half) mg/kg <0.5 <0.5

Benzo(a)pyrene TEQ calc(PQL) mg/kg <0.5 <0.5

Total +ve PAH's mg/kg <0.05 <0.05

Surrogate p-Terphenyl-d14 % 94 92

Page 9 of 34Envirolab Reference: 160921

Revision No: R 00

Page 64

Client Reference: 85751.03, Macquarie Park

Organochlorine Pesticides in soil

Our Reference: UNITS 160921-1 160921-2 160921-3 160921-4 160921-5

Your Reference ------------

-

BH01 BH02 BH03 BH03 BH04

Depth ------------ 0.2-0.3 0.1-0.2 0.1-0.2 0.2-0.3 0.1-0.2

Date Sampled

Type of sample

27/01/2017

Soil

27/01/2017

Soil

27/01/2017

Soil

27/01/2017

Soil

27/01/2017

Soil

Date extracted - 01/02/2017 01/02/2017 01/02/2017 01/02/2017 01/02/2017

Date analysed - 01/02/2017 01/02/2017 01/02/2017 01/02/2017 01/02/2017

HCB mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

alpha-BHC mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

gamma-BHC mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

beta-BHC mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Heptachlor mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

delta-BHC mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Aldrin mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Heptachlor Epoxide mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

gamma-Chlordane mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

alpha-chlordane mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Endosulfan I mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

pp-DDE mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Dieldrin mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Endrin mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

pp-DDD mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Endosulfan II mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

pp-DDT mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Endrin Aldehyde mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Endosulfan Sulphate mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Methoxychlor mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Total +ve DDT+DDD+DDE mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Surrogate TCMX % 89 89 90 91 93

Page 10 of 34Envirolab Reference: 160921

Revision No: R 00

Page 65

Client Reference: 85751.03, Macquarie Park

Organochlorine Pesticides in soil

Our Reference: UNITS 160921-6

Your Reference ------------

-

BH05

Depth ------------ 0.1-0.2

Date Sampled

Type of sample

27/01/2017

Soil

Date extracted - 01/02/2017

Date analysed - 01/02/2017

HCB mg/kg <0.1

alpha-BHC mg/kg <0.1

gamma-BHC mg/kg <0.1

beta-BHC mg/kg <0.1

Heptachlor mg/kg <0.1

delta-BHC mg/kg <0.1

Aldrin mg/kg <0.1

Heptachlor Epoxide mg/kg <0.1

gamma-Chlordane mg/kg <0.1

alpha-chlordane mg/kg <0.1

Endosulfan I mg/kg <0.1

pp-DDE mg/kg <0.1

Dieldrin mg/kg <0.1

Endrin mg/kg <0.1

pp-DDD mg/kg <0.1

Endosulfan II mg/kg <0.1

pp-DDT mg/kg <0.1

Endrin Aldehyde mg/kg <0.1

Endosulfan Sulphate mg/kg <0.1

Methoxychlor mg/kg <0.1

Total +ve DDT+DDD+DDE mg/kg <0.1

Surrogate TCMX % 90

Page 11 of 34Envirolab Reference: 160921

Revision No: R 00

Page 66

Client Reference: 85751.03, Macquarie Park

Organophosphorus Pesticides

Our Reference: UNITS 160921-1 160921-2 160921-3 160921-4 160921-5

Your Reference ------------

-

BH01 BH02 BH03 BH03 BH04

Depth ------------ 0.2-0.3 0.1-0.2 0.1-0.2 0.2-0.3 0.1-0.2

Date Sampled

Type of sample

27/01/2017

Soil

27/01/2017

Soil

27/01/2017

Soil

27/01/2017

Soil

27/01/2017

Soil

Date extracted - 01/02/2017 01/02/2017 01/02/2017 01/02/2017 01/02/2017

Date analysed - 01/02/2017 01/02/2017 01/02/2017 01/02/2017 01/02/2017

Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Bromophos-ethyl mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Chlorpyriphos mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Chlorpyriphos-methyl mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Diazinon mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Dichlorvos mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Dimethoate mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Ethion mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Fenitrothion mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Malathion mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Parathion mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Ronnel mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Surrogate TCMX % 89 89 90 91 93

Organophosphorus Pesticides

Our Reference: UNITS 160921-6

Your Reference ------------

-

BH05

Depth ------------ 0.1-0.2

Date Sampled

Type of sample

27/01/2017

Soil

Date extracted - 01/02/2017

Date analysed - 01/02/2017

Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) mg/kg <0.1

Bromophos-ethyl mg/kg <0.1

Chlorpyriphos mg/kg <0.1

Chlorpyriphos-methyl mg/kg <0.1

Diazinon mg/kg <0.1

Dichlorvos mg/kg <0.1

Dimethoate mg/kg <0.1

Ethion mg/kg <0.1

Fenitrothion mg/kg <0.1

Malathion mg/kg <0.1

Parathion mg/kg <0.1

Ronnel mg/kg <0.1

Surrogate TCMX % 90

Page 12 of 34Envirolab Reference: 160921

Revision No: R 00

Page 67

Client Reference: 85751.03, Macquarie Park

PCBs in Soil

Our Reference: UNITS 160921-1 160921-2 160921-3 160921-4 160921-5

Your Reference ------------

-

BH01 BH02 BH03 BH03 BH04

Depth ------------ 0.2-0.3 0.1-0.2 0.1-0.2 0.2-0.3 0.1-0.2

Date Sampled

Type of sample

27/01/2017

Soil

27/01/2017

Soil

27/01/2017

Soil

27/01/2017

Soil

27/01/2017

Soil

Date extracted - 01/02/2017 01/02/2017 01/02/2017 01/02/2017 01/02/2017

Date analysed - 01/02/2017 01/02/2017 01/02/2017 01/02/2017 01/02/2017

Aroclor 1016 mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Aroclor 1221 mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Aroclor 1232 mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Aroclor 1242 mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Aroclor 1248 mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Aroclor 1254 mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Aroclor 1260 mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Total +ve PCBs (1016-1260) mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Surrogate TCLMX % 89 89 90 91 93

PCBs in Soil

Our Reference: UNITS 160921-6

Your Reference ------------

-

BH05

Depth ------------ 0.1-0.2

Date Sampled

Type of sample

27/01/2017

Soil

Date extracted - 01/02/2017

Date analysed - 01/02/2017

Aroclor 1016 mg/kg <0.1

Aroclor 1221 mg/kg <0.1

Aroclor 1232 mg/kg <0.1

Aroclor 1242 mg/kg <0.1

Aroclor 1248 mg/kg <0.1

Aroclor 1254 mg/kg <0.1

Aroclor 1260 mg/kg <0.1

Total +ve PCBs (1016-1260) mg/kg <0.1

Surrogate TCLMX % 90

Page 13 of 34Envirolab Reference: 160921

Revision No: R 00

Page 68

Client Reference: 85751.03, Macquarie Park

Acid Extractable metals in soil

Our Reference: UNITS 160921-1 160921-2 160921-3 160921-4 160921-5

Your Reference ------------

-

BH01 BH02 BH03 BH03 BH04

Depth ------------ 0.2-0.3 0.1-0.2 0.1-0.2 0.2-0.3 0.1-0.2

Date Sampled

Type of sample

27/01/2017

Soil

27/01/2017

Soil

27/01/2017

Soil

27/01/2017

Soil

27/01/2017

Soil

Date prepared - 01/02/2017 01/02/2017 01/02/2017 01/02/2017 01/02/2017

Date analysed - 01/02/2017 01/02/2017 01/02/2017 01/02/2017 01/02/2017

Arsenic mg/kg <4 <4 <4 <4 <4

Cadmium mg/kg <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4

Chromium mg/kg 7 10 10 5 5

Copper mg/kg 8 9 13 5 3

Lead mg/kg 7 14 18 9 5

Mercury mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Nickel mg/kg 11 7 5 3 2

Zinc mg/kg 19 26 38 15 9

Acid Extractable metals in soil

Our Reference: UNITS 160921-6 160921-7

Your Reference ------------

-

BH05 BD1/270117

Depth ------------ 0.1-0.2 -

Date Sampled

Type of sample

27/01/2017

Soil

27/01/2017

Soil

Date prepared - 01/02/2017 01/02/2017

Date analysed - 01/02/2017 01/02/2017

Arsenic mg/kg <4 <4

Cadmium mg/kg <0.4 <0.4

Chromium mg/kg 4 7

Copper mg/kg 3 9

Lead mg/kg 5 7

Mercury mg/kg <0.1 <0.1

Nickel mg/kg 2 11

Zinc mg/kg 8 27

Page 14 of 34Envirolab Reference: 160921

Revision No: R 00

Page 69

Client Reference: 85751.03, Macquarie Park

Misc Soil - Inorg

Our Reference: UNITS 160921-1 160921-2 160921-3 160921-4 160921-5

Your Reference ------------

-

BH01 BH02 BH03 BH03 BH04

Depth ------------ 0.2-0.3 0.1-0.2 0.1-0.2 0.2-0.3 0.1-0.2

Date Sampled

Type of sample

27/01/2017

Soil

27/01/2017

Soil

27/01/2017

Soil

27/01/2017

Soil

27/01/2017

Soil

Date prepared - 01/02/2017 01/02/2017 01/02/2017 01/02/2017 01/02/2017

Date analysed - 01/02/2017 01/02/2017 01/02/2017 01/02/2017 01/02/2017

Total Phenolics (as Phenol) mg/kg <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

Misc Soil - Inorg

Our Reference: UNITS 160921-6

Your Reference ------------

-

BH05

Depth ------------ 0.1-0.2

Date Sampled

Type of sample

27/01/2017

Soil

Date prepared - 01/02/2017

Date analysed - 01/02/2017

Total Phenolics (as Phenol) mg/kg <5

Page 15 of 34Envirolab Reference: 160921

Revision No: R 00

Page 70

Client Reference: 85751.03, Macquarie Park

Moisture

Our Reference: UNITS 160921-1 160921-2 160921-3 160921-4 160921-5

Your Reference ------------

-

BH01 BH02 BH03 BH03 BH04

Depth ------------ 0.2-0.3 0.1-0.2 0.1-0.2 0.2-0.3 0.1-0.2

Date Sampled

Type of sample

27/01/2017

Soil

27/01/2017

Soil

27/01/2017

Soil

27/01/2017

Soil

27/01/2017

Soil

Date prepared - 01/02/2017 01/02/2017 01/02/2017 01/02/2017 01/02/2017

Date analysed - 02/02/2017 02/02/2017 02/02/2017 02/02/2017 02/02/2017

Moisture % 3.1 5.6 7.0 4.5 2.1

Moisture

Our Reference: UNITS 160921-6 160921-7

Your Reference ------------

-

BH05 BD1/270117

Depth ------------ 0.1-0.2 -

Date Sampled

Type of sample

27/01/2017

Soil

27/01/2017

Soil

Date prepared - 01/02/2017 01/02/2017

Date analysed - 02/02/2017 02/02/2017

Moisture % 4.5 2.7

Page 16 of 34Envirolab Reference: 160921

Revision No: R 00

Page 71

Client Reference: 85751.03, Macquarie Park

Asbestos ID - soils

Our Reference: UNITS 160921-1 160921-2 160921-3 160921-4 160921-5

Your Reference ------------

-

BH01 BH02 BH03 BH03 BH04

Depth ------------ 0.2-0.3 0.1-0.2 0.1-0.2 0.2-0.3 0.1-0.2

Date Sampled

Type of sample

27/01/2017

Soil

27/01/2017

Soil

27/01/2017

Soil

27/01/2017

Soil

27/01/2017

Soil

Date analysed - 2/02/2017 2/02/2017 2/02/2017 2/02/2017 2/02/2017

Sample mass tested g Approx. 55g Approx. 50g Approx. 30g Approx. 50g Approx. 55g

Sample Description - Brown sandy

soil

Brown sandy

soil

Brown sandy

soil

Brown sandy

soil

Brown sandy

soil

Asbestos ID in soil - No asbestos

detected at

reporting limit of

0.1g/kg

Organic fibres

detected

No asbestos

detected at

reporting limit of

0.1g/kg

Organic fibres

detected

No asbestos

detected at

reporting limit of

0.1g/kg

Organic fibres

detected

No asbestos

detected at

reporting limit of

0.1g/kg

Organic fibres

detected

No asbestos

detected at

reporting limit of

0.1g/kg

Organic fibres

detected

Trace Analysis - No asbestos

detected

No asbestos

detected

No asbestos

detected

No asbestos

detected

No asbestos

detected

Asbestos ID - soils

Our Reference: UNITS 160921-6

Your Reference ------------

-

BH05

Depth ------------ 0.1-0.2

Date Sampled

Type of sample

27/01/2017

Soil

Date analysed - 2/02/2017

Sample mass tested g Approx. 55g

Sample Description - Brown sandy

soil

Asbestos ID in soil - No asbestos

detected at

reporting limit of

0.1g/kg

Organic fibres

detected

Trace Analysis - No asbestos

detected

Page 17 of 34Envirolab Reference: 160921

Revision No: R 00

Page 72

Client Reference: 85751.03, Macquarie Park

Misc Inorg - Soil

Our Reference: UNITS 160921-1 160921-5

Your Reference ------------

-

BH01 BH04

Depth ------------ 0.2-0.3 0.1-0.2

Date Sampled

Type of sample

27/01/2017

Soil

27/01/2017

Soil

Date prepared - 04/02/2017 04/02/2017

Date analysed - 04/02/2017 04/02/2017

pH 1:5 soil:water pH Units 6.5 8.0

Page 18 of 34Envirolab Reference: 160921

Revision No: R 00

Page 73

Client Reference: 85751.03, Macquarie Park

CEC

Our Reference: UNITS 160921-1 160921-5

Your Reference ------------

-

BH01 BH04

Depth ------------ 0.2-0.3 0.1-0.2

Date Sampled

Type of sample

27/01/2017

Soil

27/01/2017

Soil

Date prepared - 03/02/2017 03/02/2017

Date analysed - 03/02/2017 03/02/2017

Exchangeable Ca meq/100g 3.1 17

Exchangeable K meq/100g 0.2 <0.1

Exchangeable Mg meq/100g 1.0 0.77

Exchangeable Na meq/100g <0.1 <0.1

Cation Exchange Capacity meq/100g 4.3 18

Page 19 of 34Envirolab Reference: 160921

Revision No: R 00

Page 74

Client Reference: 85751.03, Macquarie Park

Method ID Methodology Summary

Org-014 Soil samples are extracted with methanol and spiked into water prior to analysing by purge and trap GC-MS.

Org-016 Soil samples are extracted with methanol and spiked into water prior to analysing by purge and trap GC-MS.

Water samples are analysed directly by purge and trap GC-MS. F1 = (C6-C10)-BTEX as per NEPM B1

Guideline on Investigation Levels for Soil and Groundwater.

Org-016 Soil samples are extracted with methanol and spiked into water prior to analysing by purge and trap GC-MS.

Water samples are analysed directly by purge and trap GC-MS. F1 = (C6-C10)-BTEX as per NEPM B1

Guideline on Investigation Levels for Soil and Groundwater.

Note, the Total +ve Xylene PQL is reflective of the lowest individual PQL and is therefore "Total +ve Xylenes"

is simply a sum of the positive individual Xylenes.

Org-003 Soil samples are extracted with Dichloromethane/Acetone and waters with Dichloromethane and analysed by

GC-FID.

F2 = (>C10-C16)-Naphthalene as per NEPM B1 Guideline on Investigation Levels for Soil and Groundwater

(HSLs Tables 1A (3, 4)). Note Naphthalene is determined from the VOC analysis.

Org-003 Soil samples are extracted with Dichloromethane/Acetone and waters with Dichloromethane and analysed by

GC-FID.

F2 = (>C10-C16)-Naphthalene as per NEPM B1 Guideline on Investigation Levels for Soil and Groundwater

(HSLs Tables 1A (3, 4)). Note Naphthalene is determined from the VOC analysis.

Note, the Total +ve TRH PQL is reflective of the lowest individual PQL and is therefore "Total +ve TRH" is

simply a sum of the positive individual TRH fractions (>C10-C40).

Org-012 Soil samples are extracted with Dichloromethane/Acetone and waters with Dichloromethane and analysed by

GC-MS. Benzo(a)pyrene TEQ as per NEPM B1 Guideline on Investigation Levels for Soil and Groundwater -

2013.

For soil results:-

1. ‘TEQ PQL’ values are assuming all contributing PAHs reported as <PQL are actually at the PQL. This is the

most conservative approach and can give false positive TEQs given that PAHs that contribute to the TEQ

calculation may not be present.

2. ‘TEQ zero’ values are assuming all contributing PAHs reported as <PQL are zero. This is the least

conservative approach and is more susceptible to false negative TEQs when PAHs that contribute to the TEQ

calculation are present but below PQL.

3. ‘TEQ half PQL’ values are assuming all contributing PAHs reported as <PQL are half the stipulated PQL.

Hence a mid-point between the most and least conservative approaches above.

Note, the Total +ve PAHs PQL is reflective of the lowest individual PQL and is therefore" Total +ve PAHs" is

simply a sum of the positive individual PAHs.

Org-005 Soil samples are extracted with dichloromethane/acetone and waters with dichloromethane and analysed by

GC with dual ECD's.

Org-005 Soil samples are extracted with dichloromethane/acetone and waters with dichloromethane and analysed by

GC with dual ECD's.

Note, the Total +ve reported DDD+DDE+DDT PQL is reflective of the lowest individual PQL and is therefore

simply a sum of the positive individually report DDD+DDE+DDT.

Org-008 Soil samples are extracted with dichloromethane/acetone and waters with dichloromethane and analysed by

GC with dual ECD's.

Org-006 Soil samples are extracted with dichloromethane/acetone and waters with dichloromethane and analysed by

GC-ECD.

Org-006 Soil samples are extracted with dichloromethane/acetone and waters with dichloromethane and analysed by

GC-ECD.

Note, the Total +ve PCBs PQL is reflective of the lowest individual PQL and is therefore" Total +ve PCBs" is

simply a sum of the positive individual PCBs.

Page 20 of 34Envirolab Reference: 160921

Revision No: R 00

Page 75

Client Reference: 85751.03, Macquarie Park

Method ID Methodology Summary

Metals-020 Determination of various metals by ICP-AES.

Metals-021 Determination of Mercury by Cold Vapour AAS.

Inorg-031 Total Phenolics by segmented flow analyser (in line distillation with colourimetric finish).

Solids are extracted in a caustic media prior to analysis.

Inorg-008 Moisture content determined by heating at 105+/-5 °C for a minimum of 12 hours.

ASB-001 Asbestos ID - Qualitative identification of asbestos in bulk samples using Polarised Light Microscopy and

Dispersion Staining Techniques including Synthetic Mineral Fibre and Organic Fibre as per Australian Standard

4964-2004.

Inorg-001 pH - Measured using pH meter and electrode in accordance with APHA latest edition, 4500-H+. Please note

that the results for water analyses are indicative only, as analysis outside of the APHA storage times.

Metals-009 Determination of exchangeable cations and cation exchange capacity in soils using 1M Ammonium Chloride

exchange and ICP-AES analytical finish.

Page 21 of 34Envirolab Reference: 160921

Revision No: R 00

Page 76

Client Reference: 85751.03, Macquarie Park

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate

Sm#

Duplicate results Spike Sm# Spike %

Recovery

VOCs in soil Base ll Duplicate ll %RPD

Date extracted - 01/02/2

017

160921-1 01/02/2017 || 01/02/2017 LCS-1 01/02/2017

Date analysed - 02/02/2

017

160921-1 02/02/2017 || 02/02/2017 LCS-1 02/02/2017

Dichlorodifluoromethane mg/kg 1 Org-014 <1 160921-1 <1 || <1 [NR] [NR]

Chloromethane mg/kg 1 Org-014 <1 160921-1 <1 || <1 [NR] [NR]

Vinyl Chloride mg/kg 1 Org-014 <1 160921-1 <1 || <1 [NR] [NR]

Bromomethane mg/kg 1 Org-014 <1 160921-1 <1 || <1 [NR] [NR]

Chloroethane mg/kg 1 Org-014 <1 160921-1 <1 || <1 [NR] [NR]

Trichlorofluoromethane mg/kg 1 Org-014 <1 160921-1 <1 || <1 [NR] [NR]

1,1-Dichloroethene mg/kg 1 Org-014 <1 160921-1 <1 || <1 [NR] [NR]

trans-1,2-dichloroethene mg/kg 1 Org-014 <1 160921-1 <1 || <1 [NR] [NR]

1,1-dichloroethane mg/kg 1 Org-014 <1 160921-1 <1 || <1 LCS-1 123%

cis-1,2-dichloroethene mg/kg 1 Org-014 <1 160921-1 <1 || <1 [NR] [NR]

bromochloromethane mg/kg 1 Org-014 <1 160921-1 <1 || <1 [NR] [NR]

chloroform mg/kg 1 Org-014 <1 160921-1 <1 || <1 LCS-1 121%

2,2-dichloropropane mg/kg 1 Org-014 <1 160921-1 <1 || <1 [NR] [NR]

1,2-dichloroethane mg/kg 1 Org-014 <1 160921-1 <1 || <1 LCS-1 124%

1,1,1-trichloroethane mg/kg 1 Org-014 <1 160921-1 <1 || <1 LCS-1 109%

1,1-dichloropropene mg/kg 1 Org-014 <1 160921-1 <1 || <1 [NR] [NR]

Cyclohexane mg/kg 1 Org-014 <1 160921-1 <1 || <1 [NR] [NR]

carbon tetrachloride mg/kg 1 Org-014 <1 160921-1 <1 || <1 [NR] [NR]

Benzene mg/kg 0.2 Org-014 <0.2 160921-1 <0.2 || <0.2 [NR] [NR]

dibromomethane mg/kg 1 Org-014 <1 160921-1 <1 || <1 [NR] [NR]

1,2-dichloropropane mg/kg 1 Org-014 <1 160921-1 <1 || <1 [NR] [NR]

trichloroethene mg/kg 1 Org-014 <1 160921-1 <1 || <1 LCS-1 121%

bromodichloromethane mg/kg 1 Org-014 <1 160921-1 <1 || <1 LCS-1 123%

trans-1,3-

dichloropropene

mg/kg 1 Org-014 <1 160921-1 <1 || <1 [NR] [NR]

cis-1,3-dichloropropene mg/kg 1 Org-014 <1 160921-1 <1 || <1 [NR] [NR]

1,1,2-trichloroethane mg/kg 1 Org-014 <1 160921-1 <1 || <1 [NR] [NR]

Toluene mg/kg 0.5 Org-014 <0.5 160921-1 <0.5 || <0.5 [NR] [NR]

1,3-dichloropropane mg/kg 1 Org-014 <1 160921-1 <1 || <1 [NR] [NR]

dibromochloromethane mg/kg 1 Org-014 <1 160921-1 <1 || <1 LCS-1 124%

1,2-dibromoethane mg/kg 1 Org-014 <1 160921-1 <1 || <1 [NR] [NR]

tetrachloroethene mg/kg 1 Org-014 <1 160921-1 <1 || <1 LCS-1 122%

1,1,1,2-

tetrachloroethane

mg/kg 1 Org-014 <1 160921-1 <1 || <1 [NR] [NR]

chlorobenzene mg/kg 1 Org-014 <1 160921-1 <1 || <1 [NR] [NR]

Ethylbenzene mg/kg 1 Org-014 <1 160921-1 <1 || <1 [NR] [NR]

bromoform mg/kg 1 Org-014 <1 160921-1 <1 || <1 [NR] [NR]

m+p-xylene mg/kg 2 Org-014 <2 160921-1 <2 || <2 [NR] [NR]

styrene mg/kg 1 Org-014 <1 160921-1 <1 || <1 [NR] [NR]

1,1,2,2-

tetrachloroethane

mg/kg 1 Org-014 <1 160921-1 <1 || <1 [NR] [NR]

o-Xylene mg/kg 1 Org-014 <1 160921-1 <1 || <1 [NR] [NR]

1,2,3-trichloropropane mg/kg 1 Org-014 <1 160921-1 <1 || <1 [NR] [NR]

Page 22 of 34Envirolab Reference: 160921

Revision No: R 00

Page 77

Client Reference: 85751.03, Macquarie Park

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate

Sm#

Duplicate results Spike Sm# Spike %

Recovery

VOCs in soil Base ll Duplicate ll %RPD

isopropylbenzene mg/kg 1 Org-014 <1 160921-1 <1 || <1 [NR] [NR]

bromobenzene mg/kg 1 Org-014 <1 160921-1 <1 || <1 [NR] [NR]

n-propyl benzene mg/kg 1 Org-014 <1 160921-1 <1 || <1 [NR] [NR]

2-chlorotoluene mg/kg 1 Org-014 <1 160921-1 <1 || <1 [NR] [NR]

4-chlorotoluene mg/kg 1 Org-014 <1 160921-1 <1 || <1 [NR] [NR]

1,3,5-trimethyl benzene mg/kg 1 Org-014 <1 160921-1 <1 || <1 [NR] [NR]

tert-butyl benzene mg/kg 1 Org-014 <1 160921-1 <1 || <1 [NR] [NR]

1,2,4-trimethyl benzene mg/kg 1 Org-014 <1 160921-1 <1 || <1 [NR] [NR]

1,3-dichlorobenzene mg/kg 1 Org-014 <1 160921-1 <1 || <1 [NR] [NR]

sec-butyl benzene mg/kg 1 Org-014 <1 160921-1 <1 || <1 [NR] [NR]

1,4-dichlorobenzene mg/kg 1 Org-014 <1 160921-1 <1 || <1 [NR] [NR]

4-isopropyl toluene mg/kg 1 Org-014 <1 160921-1 <1 || <1 [NR] [NR]

1,2-dichlorobenzene mg/kg 1 Org-014 <1 160921-1 <1 || <1 [NR] [NR]

n-butyl benzene mg/kg 1 Org-014 <1 160921-1 <1 || <1 [NR] [NR]

1,2-dibromo-3-

chloropropane

mg/kg 1 Org-014 <1 160921-1 <1 || <1 [NR] [NR]

1,2,4-trichlorobenzene mg/kg 1 Org-014 <1 160921-1 <1 || <1 [NR] [NR]

hexachlorobutadiene mg/kg 1 Org-014 <1 160921-1 <1 || <1 [NR] [NR]

1,2,3-trichlorobenzene mg/kg 1 Org-014 <1 160921-1 <1 || <1 [NR] [NR]

Surrogate

Dibromofluorometha

% Org-014 128 160921-1 124 || 127 || RPD: 2 LCS-1 122%

Surrogate aaa-

Trifluorotoluene

% Org-014 101 160921-1 99 || 94 || RPD: 5 LCS-1 103%

Surrogate Toluene-d8 % Org-014 123 160921-1 116 || 120 || RPD: 3 LCS-1 118%

Surrogate 4-

Bromofluorobenzene

% Org-014 114 160921-1 108 || 112 || RPD: 4 LCS-1 102%

Page 23 of 34Envirolab Reference: 160921

Revision No: R 00

Page 78

Client Reference: 85751.03, Macquarie Park

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate

Sm#

Duplicate results Spike Sm# Spike %

Recovery

vTRH(C6-C10)/BTEXN in

Soil

Base ll Duplicate ll %RPD

Date extracted - 01/02/2

017

160921-1 01/02/2017 || 01/02/2017 LCS-1 01/02/2017

Date analysed - 02/02/2

017

160921-1 02/02/2017 || 02/02/2017 LCS-1 02/02/2017

TRH C6 - C9 mg/kg 25 Org-016 <25 160921-1 <25 || <25 LCS-1 115%

TRH C6 - C10 mg/kg 25 Org-016 <25 160921-1 <25 || <25 LCS-1 115%

Benzene mg/kg 0.2 Org-016 <0.2 160921-1 <0.2 || <0.2 LCS-1 125%

Toluene mg/kg 0.5 Org-016 <0.5 160921-1 <0.5 || <0.5 LCS-1 127%

Ethylbenzene mg/kg 1 Org-016 <1 160921-1 <1 || <1 LCS-1 105%

m+p-xylene mg/kg 2 Org-016 <2 160921-1 <2 || <2 LCS-1 109%

o-Xylene mg/kg 1 Org-016 <1 160921-1 <1 || <1 LCS-1 108%

naphthalene mg/kg 1 Org-014 <1 160921-1 <1 || <1 [NR] [NR]

Surrogate aaa-

Trifluorotoluene

% Org-016 101 160921-1 99 || 94 || RPD: 5 LCS-1 103%

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate

Sm#

Duplicate results Spike Sm# Spike %

Recovery

svTRH (C10-C40) in Soil Base ll Duplicate ll %RPD

Date extracted - 01/02/2

017

160921-1 01/02/2017 || 01/02/2017 LCS-1 01/02/2017

Date analysed - 01/02/2

017

160921-1 01/02/2017 || 01/02/2017 LCS-1 01/02/2017

TRH C10 - C14 mg/kg 50 Org-003 <50 160921-1 <50 || <50 LCS-1 89%

TRH C15 - C28 mg/kg 100 Org-003 <100 160921-1 <100 || <100 LCS-1 88%

TRH C29 - C36 mg/kg 100 Org-003 <100 160921-1 <100 || <100 LCS-1 91%

TRH >C10-C16 mg/kg 50 Org-003 <50 160921-1 <50 || <50 LCS-1 89%

TRH >C16-C34 mg/kg 100 Org-003 <100 160921-1 <100 || <100 LCS-1 88%

TRH >C34-C40 mg/kg 100 Org-003 <100 160921-1 <100 || <100 LCS-1 91%

Surrogate o-Terphenyl % Org-003 84 160921-1 79 || 73 || RPD: 8 LCS-1 89%

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate

Sm#

Duplicate results Spike Sm# Spike %

Recovery

PAHs in Soil Base ll Duplicate ll %RPD

Date extracted - 01/02/2

017

160921-1 01/02/2017 || 01/02/2017 LCS-1 01/02/2017

Date analysed - 02/02/2

017

160921-1 02/02/2017 || 02/02/2017 LCS-1 02/02/2017

Naphthalene mg/kg 0.1 Org-012 <0.1 160921-1 <0.1 || <0.1 LCS-1 96%

Acenaphthylene mg/kg 0.1 Org-012 <0.1 160921-1 <0.1 || <0.1 [NR] [NR]

Acenaphthene mg/kg 0.1 Org-012 <0.1 160921-1 <0.1 || <0.1 [NR] [NR]

Fluorene mg/kg 0.1 Org-012 <0.1 160921-1 <0.1 || <0.1 LCS-1 99%

Phenanthrene mg/kg 0.1 Org-012 <0.1 160921-1 <0.1 || <0.1 LCS-1 114%

Anthracene mg/kg 0.1 Org-012 <0.1 160921-1 <0.1 || <0.1 [NR] [NR]

Fluoranthene mg/kg 0.1 Org-012 <0.1 160921-1 <0.1 || <0.1 LCS-1 109%

Pyrene mg/kg 0.1 Org-012 <0.1 160921-1 <0.1 || <0.1 LCS-1 107%

Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg 0.1 Org-012 <0.1 160921-1 <0.1 || <0.1 [NR] [NR]

Chrysene mg/kg 0.1 Org-012 <0.1 160921-1 <0.1 || <0.1 LCS-1 100%

Benzo(b,j

+k)fluoranthene

mg/kg 0.2 Org-012 <0.2 160921-1 <0.2 || <0.2 [NR] [NR]

Page 24 of 34Envirolab Reference: 160921

Revision No: R 00

Page 79

Client Reference: 85751.03, Macquarie Park

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate

Sm#

Duplicate results Spike Sm# Spike %

Recovery

PAHs in Soil Base ll Duplicate ll %RPD

Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg 0.05 Org-012 <0.05 160921-1 <0.05 || <0.05 LCS-1 102%

Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene mg/kg 0.1 Org-012 <0.1 160921-1 <0.1 || <0.1 [NR] [NR]

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene mg/kg 0.1 Org-012 <0.1 160921-1 <0.1 || <0.1 [NR] [NR]

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene mg/kg 0.1 Org-012 <0.1 160921-1 <0.1 || <0.1 [NR] [NR]

Surrogate p-Terphenyl-

d14

% Org-012 96 160921-1 93 || 90 || RPD: 3 LCS-1 111%

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate

Sm#

Duplicate results Spike Sm# Spike %

Recovery

Organochlorine

Pesticides in soil

Base ll Duplicate ll %RPD

Date extracted - 01/02/2

017

160921-1 01/02/2017 || 01/02/2017 LCS-1 01/02/2017

Date analysed - 01/02/2

017

160921-1 01/02/2017 || 01/02/2017 LCS-1 01/02/2017

HCB mg/kg 0.1 Org-005 <0.1 160921-1 <0.1 || <0.1 [NR] [NR]

alpha-BHC mg/kg 0.1 Org-005 <0.1 160921-1 <0.1 || <0.1 LCS-1 82%

gamma-BHC mg/kg 0.1 Org-005 <0.1 160921-1 <0.1 || <0.1 [NR] [NR]

beta-BHC mg/kg 0.1 Org-005 <0.1 160921-1 <0.1 || <0.1 LCS-1 80%

Heptachlor mg/kg 0.1 Org-005 <0.1 160921-1 <0.1 || <0.1 LCS-1 86%

delta-BHC mg/kg 0.1 Org-005 <0.1 160921-1 <0.1 || <0.1 [NR] [NR]

Aldrin mg/kg 0.1 Org-005 <0.1 160921-1 <0.1 || <0.1 LCS-1 82%

Heptachlor Epoxide mg/kg 0.1 Org-005 <0.1 160921-1 <0.1 || <0.1 LCS-1 86%

gamma-Chlordane mg/kg 0.1 Org-005 <0.1 160921-1 <0.1 || <0.1 [NR] [NR]

alpha-chlordane mg/kg 0.1 Org-005 <0.1 160921-1 <0.1 || <0.1 [NR] [NR]

Endosulfan I mg/kg 0.1 Org-005 <0.1 160921-1 <0.1 || <0.1 [NR] [NR]

pp-DDE mg/kg 0.1 Org-005 <0.1 160921-1 <0.1 || <0.1 LCS-1 79%

Dieldrin mg/kg 0.1 Org-005 <0.1 160921-1 <0.1 || <0.1 LCS-1 91%

Endrin mg/kg 0.1 Org-005 <0.1 160921-1 <0.1 || <0.1 LCS-1 110%

pp-DDD mg/kg 0.1 Org-005 <0.1 160921-1 <0.1 || <0.1 LCS-1 117%

Endosulfan II mg/kg 0.1 Org-005 <0.1 160921-1 <0.1 || <0.1 [NR] [NR]

pp-DDT mg/kg 0.1 Org-005 <0.1 160921-1 <0.1 || <0.1 [NR] [NR]

Endrin Aldehyde mg/kg 0.1 Org-005 <0.1 160921-1 <0.1 || <0.1 [NR] [NR]

Endosulfan Sulphate mg/kg 0.1 Org-005 <0.1 160921-1 <0.1 || <0.1 LCS-1 88%

Methoxychlor mg/kg 0.1 Org-005 <0.1 160921-1 <0.1 || <0.1 [NR] [NR]

Surrogate TCMX % Org-005 89 160921-1 89 || 92 || RPD: 3 LCS-1 106%

Page 25 of 34Envirolab Reference: 160921

Revision No: R 00

Page 80

Client Reference: 85751.03, Macquarie Park

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate

Sm#

Duplicate results Spike Sm# Spike %

Recovery

Organophosphorus

Pesticides

Base ll Duplicate ll %RPD

Date extracted - 01/02/2

017

160921-1 01/02/2017 || 01/02/2017 LCS-1 01/02/2017

Date analysed - 01/02/2

017

160921-1 01/02/2017 || 01/02/2017 LCS-1 01/02/2017

Azinphos-methyl

(Guthion)

mg/kg 0.1 Org-008 <0.1 160921-1 <0.1 || <0.1 [NR] [NR]

Bromophos-ethyl mg/kg 0.1 Org-008 <0.1 160921-1 <0.1 || <0.1 [NR] [NR]

Chlorpyriphos mg/kg 0.1 Org-008 <0.1 160921-1 <0.1 || <0.1 LCS-1 80%

Chlorpyriphos-methyl mg/kg 0.1 Org-008 <0.1 160921-1 <0.1 || <0.1 [NR] [NR]

Diazinon mg/kg 0.1 Org-008 <0.1 160921-1 <0.1 || <0.1 [NR] [NR]

Dichlorvos mg/kg 0.1 Org-008 <0.1 160921-1 <0.1 || <0.1 LCS-1 70%

Dimethoate mg/kg 0.1 Org-008 <0.1 160921-1 <0.1 || <0.1 [NR] [NR]

Ethion mg/kg 0.1 Org-008 <0.1 160921-1 <0.1 || <0.1 LCS-1 70%

Fenitrothion mg/kg 0.1 Org-008 <0.1 160921-1 <0.1 || <0.1 LCS-1 76%

Malathion mg/kg 0.1 Org-008 <0.1 160921-1 <0.1 || <0.1 LCS-1 97%

Parathion mg/kg 0.1 Org-008 <0.1 160921-1 <0.1 || <0.1 LCS-1 90%

Ronnel mg/kg 0.1 Org-008 <0.1 160921-1 <0.1 || <0.1 LCS-1 94%

Surrogate TCMX % Org-008 89 160921-1 89 || 92 || RPD: 3 LCS-1 87%

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate

Sm#

Duplicate results Spike Sm# Spike %

Recovery

PCBs in Soil Base ll Duplicate ll %RPD

Date extracted - 01/02/2

017

160921-1 01/02/2017 || 01/02/2017 LCS-1 01/02/2017

Date analysed - 01/02/2

017

160921-1 01/02/2017 || 01/02/2017 LCS-1 01/02/2017

Aroclor 1016 mg/kg 0.1 Org-006 <0.1 160921-1 <0.1 || <0.1 [NR] [NR]

Aroclor 1221 mg/kg 0.1 Org-006 <0.1 160921-1 <0.1 || <0.1 [NR] [NR]

Aroclor 1232 mg/kg 0.1 Org-006 <0.1 160921-1 <0.1 || <0.1 [NR] [NR]

Aroclor 1242 mg/kg 0.1 Org-006 <0.1 160921-1 <0.1 || <0.1 [NR] [NR]

Aroclor 1248 mg/kg 0.1 Org-006 <0.1 160921-1 <0.1 || <0.1 [NR] [NR]

Aroclor 1254 mg/kg 0.1 Org-006 <0.1 160921-1 <0.1 || <0.1 LCS-1 112%

Aroclor 1260 mg/kg 0.1 Org-006 <0.1 160921-1 <0.1 || <0.1 [NR] [NR]

Surrogate TCLMX % Org-006 89 160921-1 89 || 92 || RPD: 3 LCS-1 87%

Page 26 of 34Envirolab Reference: 160921

Revision No: R 00

Page 81

Client Reference: 85751.03, Macquarie Park

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate

Sm#

Duplicate results Spike Sm# Spike %

Recovery

Acid Extractable metals

in soil

Base ll Duplicate ll %RPD

Date prepared - 01/02/2

017

160921-1 01/02/2017 || 01/02/2017 LCS-1 01/02/2017

Date analysed - 01/02/2

017

160921-1 01/02/2017 || 01/02/2017 LCS-1 01/02/2017

Arsenic mg/kg 4 Metals-020 <4 160921-1 <4 || <4 LCS-1 117%

Cadmium mg/kg 0.4 Metals-020 <0.4 160921-1 <0.4 || <0.4 LCS-1 101%

Chromium mg/kg 1 Metals-020 <1 160921-1 7 || 7 || RPD: 0 LCS-1 111%

Copper mg/kg 1 Metals-020 <1 160921-1 8 || 7 || RPD: 13 LCS-1 111%

Lead mg/kg 1 Metals-020 <1 160921-1 7 || 7 || RPD: 0 LCS-1 102%

Mercury mg/kg 0.1 Metals-021 <0.1 160921-1 <0.1 || <0.1 LCS-1 116%

Nickel mg/kg 1 Metals-020 <1 160921-1 11 || 9 || RPD: 20 LCS-1 101%

Zinc mg/kg 1 Metals-020 <1 160921-1 19 || 20 || RPD: 5 LCS-1 102%

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate

Sm#

Duplicate results Spike Sm# Spike %

Recovery

Misc Soil - Inorg Base ll Duplicate ll %RPD

Date prepared - 01/02/2

017

[NT] [NT] LCS-1 01/02/2017

Date analysed - 01/02/2

017

[NT] [NT] LCS-1 01/02/2017

Total Phenolics (as

Phenol)

mg/kg 5 Inorg-031 <5 [NT] [NT] LCS-1 102%

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate

Sm#

Duplicate results Spike Sm# Spike %

Recovery

Misc Inorg - Soil Base ll Duplicate ll %RPD

Date prepared - 04/02/2

017

160921-1 04/02/2017 || 04/02/2017 LCS-1 04/02/2017

Date analysed - 04/02/2

017

160921-1 04/02/2017 || 04/02/2017 LCS-1 04/02/2017

pH 1:5 soil:water pH Units Inorg-001 [NT] 160921-1 6.5 || 6.5 || RPD: 0 LCS-1 102%

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate

Sm#

Duplicate results Spike Sm# Spike %

Recovery

CEC Base ll Duplicate ll %RPD

Date prepared - 03/02/2

017

[NT] [NT] LCS-1 03/02/2017

Date analysed - 03/02/2

017

[NT] [NT] LCS-1 03/02/2017

Exchangeable Ca meq/100

g

0.1 Metals-009 <0.1 [NT] [NT] LCS-1 106%

Exchangeable K meq/100

g

0.1 Metals-009 <0.1 [NT] [NT] LCS-1 114%

Exchangeable Mg meq/100

g

0.1 Metals-009 <0.1 [NT] [NT] LCS-1 101%

Exchangeable Na meq/100

g

0.1 Metals-009 <0.1 [NT] [NT] LCS-1 104%

Page 27 of 34Envirolab Reference: 160921

Revision No: R 00

Page 82

Client Reference: 85751.03, Macquarie Park

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS Dup. Sm# Duplicate Spike Sm# Spike % Recovery

VOCs in soil Base + Duplicate + %RPD

Date extracted - [NT] [NT] 160921-2 01/02/2017

Date analysed - [NT] [NT] 160921-2 02/02/2017

Dichlorodifluoromethane mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Chloromethane mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Vinyl Chloride mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Bromomethane mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Chloroethane mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Trichlorofluoromethane mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

1,1-Dichloroethene mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

trans-1,2-dichloroethene mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

1,1-dichloroethane mg/kg [NT] [NT] 160921-2 94%

cis-1,2-dichloroethene mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

bromochloromethane mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

chloroform mg/kg [NT] [NT] 160921-2 95%

2,2-dichloropropane mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

1,2-dichloroethane mg/kg [NT] [NT] 160921-2 96%

1,1,1-trichloroethane mg/kg [NT] [NT] 160921-2 91%

1,1-dichloropropene mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Cyclohexane mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

carbon tetrachloride mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Benzene mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

dibromomethane mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

1,2-dichloropropane mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

trichloroethene mg/kg [NT] [NT] 160921-2 101%

bromodichloromethane mg/kg [NT] [NT] 160921-2 95%

trans-1,3-dichloropropene mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

cis-1,3-dichloropropene mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

1,1,2-trichloroethane mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Toluene mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

1,3-dichloropropane mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

dibromochloromethane mg/kg [NT] [NT] 160921-2 96%

1,2-dibromoethane mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

tetrachloroethene mg/kg [NT] [NT] 160921-2 95%

1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

chlorobenzene mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Ethylbenzene mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

bromoform mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

m+p-xylene mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

styrene mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

o-Xylene mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

1,2,3-trichloropropane mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Page 28 of 34Envirolab Reference: 160921

Revision No: R 00

Page 83

Client Reference: 85751.03, Macquarie Park

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS Dup. Sm# Duplicate Spike Sm# Spike % Recovery

VOCs in soil Base + Duplicate + %RPD

isopropylbenzene mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

bromobenzene mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

n-propyl benzene mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

2-chlorotoluene mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

4-chlorotoluene mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

1,3,5-trimethyl benzene mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

tert-butyl benzene mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

1,2,4-trimethyl benzene mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

1,3-dichlorobenzene mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

sec-butyl benzene mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

1,4-dichlorobenzene mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

4-isopropyl toluene mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

1,2-dichlorobenzene mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

n-butyl benzene mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

1,2-dibromo-3-

chloropropane

mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

1,2,4-trichlorobenzene mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

hexachlorobutadiene mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

1,2,3-trichlorobenzene mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Surrogate

Dibromofluorometha

% [NT] [NT] 160921-2 117%

Surrogate aaa-

Trifluorotoluene

% [NT] [NT] 160921-2 82%

Surrogate Toluene-d8 % [NT] [NT] 160921-2 118%

Surrogate 4-

Bromofluorobenzene

% [NT] [NT] 160921-2 104%

Page 29 of 34Envirolab Reference: 160921

Revision No: R 00

Page 84

Client Reference: 85751.03, Macquarie Park

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS Dup. Sm# Duplicate Spike Sm# Spike % Recovery

vTRH(C6-C10)/BTEXN in

Soil

Base + Duplicate + %RPD

Date extracted - [NT] [NT] 160921-2 01/02/2017

Date analysed - [NT] [NT] 160921-2 02/02/2017

TRH C6 - C9 mg/kg [NT] [NT] 160921-2 92%

TRH C6 - C10 mg/kg [NT] [NT] 160921-2 92%

Benzene mg/kg [NT] [NT] 160921-2 98%

Toluene mg/kg [NT] [NT] 160921-2 97%

Ethylbenzene mg/kg [NT] [NT] 160921-2 87%

m+p-xylene mg/kg [NT] [NT] 160921-2 90%

o-Xylene mg/kg [NT] [NT] 160921-2 89%

naphthalene mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Surrogate aaa-

Trifluorotoluene

% [NT] [NT] 160921-2 82%

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS Dup. Sm# Duplicate Spike Sm# Spike % Recovery

svTRH (C10-C40) in Soil Base + Duplicate + %RPD

Date extracted - [NT] [NT] 160921-2 01/02/2017

Date analysed - [NT] [NT] 160921-2 01/02/2017

TRH C10 - C14 mg/kg [NT] [NT] 160921-2 101%

TRH C15 - C28 mg/kg [NT] [NT] 160921-2 106%

TRH C29 - C36 mg/kg [NT] [NT] 160921-2 94%

TRH >C10-C16 mg/kg [NT] [NT] 160921-2 101%

TRH >C16-C34 mg/kg [NT] [NT] 160921-2 106%

TRH >C34-C40 mg/kg [NT] [NT] 160921-2 94%

Surrogate o-Terphenyl % [NT] [NT] 160921-2 89%

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS Dup. Sm# Duplicate Spike Sm# Spike % Recovery

PAHs in Soil Base + Duplicate + %RPD

Date extracted - [NT] [NT] 160921-2 01/02/2017

Date analysed - [NT] [NT] 160921-2 02/02/2017

Naphthalene mg/kg [NT] [NT] 160921-2 94%

Acenaphthylene mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Acenaphthene mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Fluorene mg/kg [NT] [NT] 160921-2 96%

Phenanthrene mg/kg [NT] [NT] 160921-2 99%

Anthracene mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Fluoranthene mg/kg [NT] [NT] 160921-2 97%

Pyrene mg/kg [NT] [NT] 160921-2 101%

Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Chrysene mg/kg [NT] [NT] 160921-2 91%

Benzo(b,j+k)fluoranthene mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg [NT] [NT] 160921-2 97%

Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Page 30 of 34Envirolab Reference: 160921

Revision No: R 00

Page 85

Client Reference: 85751.03, Macquarie Park

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS Dup. Sm# Duplicate Spike Sm# Spike % Recovery

PAHs in Soil Base + Duplicate + %RPD

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Surrogate p-Terphenyl-d14 % [NT] [NT] 160921-2 108%

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS Dup. Sm# Duplicate Spike Sm# Spike % Recovery

Organochlorine Pesticides

in soil

Base + Duplicate + %RPD

Date extracted - [NT] [NT] 160921-2 01/02/2017

Date analysed - [NT] [NT] 160921-2 01/02/2017

HCB mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

alpha-BHC mg/kg [NT] [NT] 160921-2 82%

gamma-BHC mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

beta-BHC mg/kg [NT] [NT] 160921-2 79%

Heptachlor mg/kg [NT] [NT] 160921-2 86%

delta-BHC mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Aldrin mg/kg [NT] [NT] 160921-2 82%

Heptachlor Epoxide mg/kg [NT] [NT] 160921-2 86%

gamma-Chlordane mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

alpha-chlordane mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Endosulfan I mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

pp-DDE mg/kg [NT] [NT] 160921-2 79%

Dieldrin mg/kg [NT] [NT] 160921-2 91%

Endrin mg/kg [NT] [NT] 160921-2 111%

pp-DDD mg/kg [NT] [NT] 160921-2 72%

Endosulfan II mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

pp-DDT mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Endrin Aldehyde mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Endosulfan Sulphate mg/kg [NT] [NT] 160921-2 87%

Methoxychlor mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Surrogate TCMX % [NT] [NT] 160921-2 107%

Page 31 of 34Envirolab Reference: 160921

Revision No: R 00

Page 86

Client Reference: 85751.03, Macquarie Park

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS Dup. Sm# Duplicate Spike Sm# Spike % Recovery

Organophosphorus

Pesticides

Base + Duplicate + %RPD

Date extracted - [NT] [NT] 160921-2 01/02/2017

Date analysed - [NT] [NT] 160921-2 01/02/2017

Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Bromophos-ethyl mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Chlorpyriphos mg/kg [NT] [NT] 160921-2 78%

Chlorpyriphos-methyl mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Diazinon mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Dichlorvos mg/kg [NT] [NT] 160921-2 98%

Dimethoate mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Ethion mg/kg [NT] [NT] 160921-2 72%

Fenitrothion mg/kg [NT] [NT] 160921-2 99%

Malathion mg/kg [NT] [NT] 160921-2 82%

Parathion mg/kg [NT] [NT] 160921-2 87%

Ronnel mg/kg [NT] [NT] 160921-2 93%

Surrogate TCMX % [NT] [NT] 160921-2 87%

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS Dup. Sm# Duplicate Spike Sm# Spike % Recovery

PCBs in Soil Base + Duplicate + %RPD

Date extracted - [NT] [NT] 160921-2 01/02/2017

Date analysed - [NT] [NT] 160921-2 01/02/2017

Aroclor 1016 mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Aroclor 1221 mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Aroclor 1232 mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Aroclor 1242 mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Aroclor 1248 mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Aroclor 1254 mg/kg [NT] [NT] 160921-2 109%

Aroclor 1260 mg/kg [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Surrogate TCLMX % [NT] [NT] 160921-2 87%

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS Dup. Sm# Duplicate Spike Sm# Spike % Recovery

Acid Extractable metals in

soil

Base + Duplicate + %RPD

Date prepared - [NT] [NT] 160921-2 01/02/2017

Date analysed - [NT] [NT] 160921-2 01/02/2017

Arsenic mg/kg [NT] [NT] 160921-2 103%

Cadmium mg/kg [NT] [NT] 160921-2 94%

Chromium mg/kg [NT] [NT] 160921-2 99%

Copper mg/kg [NT] [NT] 160921-2 116%

Lead mg/kg [NT] [NT] 160921-2 95%

Mercury mg/kg [NT] [NT] 160921-2 103%

Nickel mg/kg [NT] [NT] 160921-2 92%

Zinc mg/kg [NT] [NT] 160921-2 93%

Page 32 of 34Envirolab Reference: 160921

Revision No: R 00

Page 87

Client Reference: 85751.03, Macquarie Park

Report Comments:

Asbestos: A portion of the supplied sample was sub-sampled for asbestos analysis according to Envirolab procedures.

We cannot guarantee that this sub-sample is indicative of the entire sample. Envirolab recommends supplying

40-50g of sample in its own container.

Note: Samples 160921-1 to 6 were sub-sampled from jars provided by the client.

Asbestos ID was analysed by Approved Identifier: Lucy Zhu

Asbestos ID was authorised by Approved Signatory: Paul Ching

INS: Insufficient sample for this test PQL: Practical Quantitation Limit NT: Not tested

NR: Test not required RPD: Relative Percent Difference NA: Test not required

<: Less than >: Greater than LCS: Laboratory Control Sample

Page 33 of 34Envirolab Reference: 160921

Revision No: R 00

Page 88

Client Reference: 85751.03, Macquarie Park

Quality Control Definitions

Blank: This is the component of the analytical signal which is not derived from the sample but from reagents,

glassware etc, can be determined by processing solvents and reagents in exactly the same manner as for samples.

Duplicate : This is the complete duplicate analysis of a sample from the process batch. If possible, the sample

selected should be one where the analyte concentration is easily measurable.

Matrix Spike : A portion of the sample is spiked with a known concentration of target analyte. The purpose of the matrix

spike is to monitor the performance of the analytical method used and to determine whether matrix interferences exist.

LCS (Laboratory Control Sample) : This comprises either a standard reference material or a control matrix (such as a blank

sand or water) fortified with analytes representative of the analyte class. It is simply a check sample.

Surrogate Spike: Surrogates are known additions to each sample, blank, matrix spike and LCS in a batch, of compounds

which are similar to the analyte of interest, however are not expected to be found in real samples.

Laboratory Acceptance Criteria

Duplicate sample and matrix spike recoveries may not be reported on smaller jobs, however, were analysed at a frequency

to meet or exceed NEPM requirements. All samples are tested in batches of 20. The duplicate sample RPD and matrix

spike recoveries for the batch were within the laboratory acceptance criteria.

Filters, swabs, wipes, tubes and badges will not have duplicate data as the whole sample is generally extracted

during sample extraction.

Spikes for Physical and Aggregate Tests are not applicable.

For VOCs in water samples, three vials are required for duplicate or spike analysis.

Duplicates: <5xPQL - any RPD is acceptable; >5xPQL - 0-50% RPD is acceptable.

Matrix Spikes, LCS and Surrogate recoveries: Generally 70-130% for inorganics/metals; 60-140%

for organics (+/-50% surrogates) and 10-140% for labile SVOCs (including labile surrogates), ultra trace organics

and speciated phenols is acceptable.

In circumstances where no duplicate and/or sample spike has been reported at 1 in 10 and/or 1 in 20 samples

respectively, the sample volume submitted was insufficient in order to satisfy laboratory QA/QC protocols.

When samples are received where certain analytes are outside of recommended technical holding times (THTs),

the analysis has proceeded. Where analytes are on the verge of breaching THTs, every effort will be made to analyse

within the THT or as soon as practicable.

Where sampling dates are not provided, Envirolab are not in a position to comment on the validity

of the analysis where recommended technical holding times may have been breached.

Measurement Uncertainty estimates are available for most tests upon request.

Page 34 of 34Envirolab Reference: 160921

Revision No: R 00

Page 89

Page 90

Page 91

SAMPLE RECEIPT ADVICE

Client Details

Client Douglas Partners Pty Ltd Attention Matthew Hyde, Jssica Paulsen

Sample Login Details

Your Reference 85751.03, Macquarie Park

Envirolab Reference 160921 Date Sample Received 27/01/2017 Date Instructions Received 31/01/2017 Date Results Expected to be Reported 07/02/2017

Sample Condition

Samples received in appropriate condition for analysis YES

No. of Samples Provided 9 soils Turnaround Time Requested Standard Temperature on receipt (°C) 20.6 Cooling Method Ice Sampling Date Provided YES

Comments

Samples will be held for 1 month for water samples and 2 months for soil samples from date of receipt of samples

Please direct any queries to:

Aileen Hie Jacinta Hurst

Phone: 02 9910 6200 Phone: 02 9910 6200

Fax: 02 9910 6201 Fax: 02 9910 6201

Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Sample and Testing Details on following page

Page 92

Sample Id

VO

Cs

in s

oil

vTR

H(C

6-C

10)

/BTE

XN

in S

oil

svTR

H (

C1

0-C

40

) in

So

il

PA

Hs

in S

oil

Org

an

och

lori

ne

Pes

tici

des

in s

oil

Org

an

op

ho

sph

oru

s P

esti

cid

es

PC

Bs

in S

oil

Aci

d E

xtra

cta

ble

met

als

in s

oil

Tota

l Ph

eno

lics

(as

Ph

eno

l)

Asb

esto

s ID

- s

oils

pH

1:5

so

il:w

ate

r

CEC

BH01-0.2-0.3 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

BH02-0.1-0.2 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

BH03-0.1-0.2 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

BH03-0.2-0.3 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

BH04-0.1-0.2 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

BH05-0.1-0.2 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

BD1/270117 ✓ ✓

TB ✓

TS ✓

Page 93

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 161472

Client:

Douglas Partners Pty Ltd

96 Hermitage Rd

West Ryde

NSW 2114

Attention: J Paulsen

Sample log in details:

Your Reference: 85817, Macquarie Park

No. of samples: 1 water

Date samples received / completed instructions received 07/02/17 / 07/02/17

Analysis Details:

Please refer to the following pages for results, methodology summary and quality control data.

Samples were analysed as received from the client. Results relate specifically to the samples as received.

Results are reported on a dry weight basis for solids and on an as received basis for other matrices.

Please refer to the last page of this report for any comments relating to the results.

Report Details:

Date results requested by: / Issue Date: 14/02/17 / 13/02/17

Date of Preliminary Report: Not Issued

NATA accreditation number 2901. This document shall not be reproduced except in full.

Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 - Testing Tests not covered by NATA are denoted with *.

Results Approved By:

Page 1 of 20Envirolab Reference: 161472

Revision No: R 00

Page 94

Client Reference: 85817, Macquarie Park

VOCs in water

Our Reference: UNITS 161472-1

Your Reference ------------

-

BH1

Date Sampled ------------ 1/02/2017

Type of sample water

Date extracted - 09/02/2017

Date analysed - 13/02/2017

Dichlorodifluoromethane µg/L <100

Chloromethane µg/L <100

Vinyl Chloride µg/L <100

Bromomethane µg/L <100

Chloroethane µg/L <100

Trichlorofluoromethane µg/L <100

1,1-Dichloroethene µg/L <10

Trans-1,2-dichloroethene µg/L <10

1,1-dichloroethane µg/L <10

Cis-1,2-dichloroethene µg/L <10

Bromochloromethane µg/L <10

Chloroform µg/L 10

2,2-dichloropropane µg/L <10

1,2-dichloroethane µg/L <10

1,1,1-trichloroethane µg/L <10

1,1-dichloropropene µg/L <10

Cyclohexane µg/L <10

Carbon tetrachloride µg/L <10

Benzene µg/L <10

Dibromomethane µg/L <10

1,2-dichloropropane µg/L <10

Trichloroethene µg/L <10

Bromodichloromethane µg/L <10

trans-1,3-dichloropropene µg/L <10

cis-1,3-dichloropropene µg/L <10

1,1,2-trichloroethane µg/L <10

Toluene µg/L 63

1,3-dichloropropane µg/L <10

Dibromochloromethane µg/L <10

1,2-dibromoethane µg/L <10

Tetrachloroethene µg/L <10

1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane µg/L <10

Chlorobenzene µg/L <10

Ethylbenzene µg/L 410

Bromoform µg/L <10

m+p-xylene µg/L 3,300

Styrene µg/L <10

1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane µg/L <10

o-xylene µg/L 1,300

Page 2 of 20Envirolab Reference: 161472

Revision No: R 00

Page 95

Client Reference: 85817, Macquarie Park

VOCs in water

Our Reference: UNITS 161472-1

Your Reference ------------

-

BH1

Date Sampled ------------ 1/02/2017

Type of sample water

1,2,3-trichloropropane µg/L <10

Isopropylbenzene µg/L 110

Bromobenzene µg/L <10

n-propyl benzene µg/L 160

2-chlorotoluene µg/L <10

4-chlorotoluene µg/L <10

1,3,5-trimethyl benzene µg/L 630

Tert-butyl benzene µg/L <10

1,2,4-trimethyl benzene µg/L 1,400

1,3-dichlorobenzene µg/L <10

Sec-butyl benzene µg/L 40

1,4-dichlorobenzene µg/L <10

4-isopropyl toluene µg/L 59

1,2-dichlorobenzene µg/L <10

n-butyl benzene µg/L 38

1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane µg/L <10

1,2,4-trichlorobenzene µg/L <10

Hexachlorobutadiene µg/L <10

1,2,3-trichlorobenzene µg/L <10

Surrogate Dibromofluoromethane % 101

Surrogate toluene-d8 % 99

Surrogate 4-BFB % 118

Page 3 of 20Envirolab Reference: 161472

Revision No: R 00

Page 96

Client Reference: 85817, Macquarie Park

vTRH(C6-C10)/BTEXN in Water

Our Reference: UNITS 161472-1

Your Reference ------------

-

BH1

Date Sampled ------------ 1/02/2017

Type of sample water

Date extracted - 09/02/2017

Date analysed - 13/02/2017

TRH C6 - C9 µg/L 7,300

TRH C6 - C10 µg/L 14,000

TRH C6 - C10 less BTEX

(F1)

µg/L 8,600

Benzene µg/L <10

Toluene µg/L 63

Ethylbenzene µg/L 410

m+p-xylene µg/L 3,300

o-xylene µg/L 1,300

Naphthalene µg/L 170

Surrogate Dibromofluoromethane % 101

Surrogate toluene-d8 % 99

Surrogate 4-BFB % 118

Page 4 of 20Envirolab Reference: 161472

Revision No: R 00

Page 97

Client Reference: 85817, Macquarie Park

svTRH (C10-C40) in Water

Our Reference: UNITS 161472-1

Your Reference ------------

-

BH1

Date Sampled ------------ 1/02/2017

Type of sample water

Date extracted - 09/02/2017

Date analysed - 10/02/2017

TRH C10 - C14 µg/L 6,000

TRH C15 - C28 µg/L 3,700

TRH C29 - C36 µg/L 2,700

TRH >C10 - C16 µg/L 3,800

TRH >C10 - C16 less

Naphthalene (F2)

µg/L 3,600

TRH >C16 - C34 µg/L 5,900

TRH >C34 - C40 µg/L 550

Surrogate o-Terphenyl % #

Page 5 of 20Envirolab Reference: 161472

Revision No: R 00

Page 98

Client Reference: 85817, Macquarie Park

PAHs in Water - Low Level

Our Reference: UNITS 161472-1

Your Reference ------------

-

BH1

Date Sampled ------------ 1/02/2017

Type of sample water

Date extracted - 09/02/2017

Date analysed - 09/02/2017

Naphthalene µg/L 26

Acenaphthylene µg/L <0.1

Acenaphthene µg/L <0.1

Fluorene µg/L <0.1

Phenanthrene µg/L 0.1

Anthracene µg/L <0.1

Fluoranthene µg/L <0.1

Pyrene µg/L <0.1

Benzo(a)anthracene µg/L <0.1

Chrysene µg/L <0.1

Benzo(b,j+k)fluoranthene µg/L <0.2

Benzo(a)pyrene µg/L <0.1

Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene µg/L <0.1

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene µg/L <0.1

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene µg/L <0.1

Benzo(a)pyrene TEQ µg/L <0.5

Total +ve PAH's µg/L 26

Surrogate p-Terphenyl-d14 % #

Page 6 of 20Envirolab Reference: 161472

Revision No: R 00

Page 99

Client Reference: 85817, Macquarie Park

Total Phenolics in Water

Our Reference: UNITS 161472-1

Your Reference ------------

-

BH1

Date Sampled ------------ 1/02/2017

Type of sample water

Date extracted - 08/02/2017

Date analysed - 08/02/2017

Total Phenolics (as Phenol) mg/L <0.05

Page 7 of 20Envirolab Reference: 161472

Revision No: R 00

Page 100

Client Reference: 85817, Macquarie Park

OCP in water - low level

Our Reference: UNITS 161472-1

Your Reference ------------

-

BH1

Date Sampled ------------ 1/02/2017

Type of sample water

Date extracted - 09/02/2017

Date analysed - 10/02/2017

HCB µg/L <0.01

alpha-BHC µg/L <0.01

gamma-BHC µg/L <0.01

beta-BHC µg/L <0.01

Heptachlor µg/L <0.01

delta-BHC µg/L <0.01

Aldrin µg/L <0.01

Heptachlor Epoxide µg/L <0.01

gamma-Chlordane µg/L <0.01

alpha-Chlordane µg/L <0.01

Endosulfan I µg/L <0.01

pp-DDE µg/L <0.01

Dieldrin µg/L <0.01

Endrin µg/L <0.01

pp-DDD µg/L <0.01

Endosulfan II µg/L <0.01

DDT µg/L <0.006

Endrin Aldehyde µg/L <0.01

Endosulfan Sulphate µg/L <0.01

Methoxychlor µg/L <0.01

Surrogate TCMX % 96

Page 8 of 20Envirolab Reference: 161472

Revision No: R 00

Page 101

Client Reference: 85817, Macquarie Park

OP in water LL ANZECCF/ADWG

Our Reference: UNITS 161472-1

Your Reference ------------

-

BH1

Date Sampled ------------ 1/02/2017

Type of sample water

Date extracted - 09/02/2017

Date analysed - 10/02/2017

Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) µg/L <0.02

Bromophos ethyl µg/L <0.01

Chlorpyriphos µg/L <0.01

Chlorpyriphos-methyl µg/L <0.01

Diazinon µg/L <0.01

Dichlorovos µg/L <0.01

Dimethoate µg/L <0.01

Ethion µg/L <0.01

Fenitrothion µg/L <0.01

Malathion µg/L <0.05

Ronnel µg/L <0.01

Surrogate TCMX % 96

Page 9 of 20Envirolab Reference: 161472

Revision No: R 00

Page 102

Client Reference: 85817, Macquarie Park

PCBs in Water - Low Level

Our Reference: UNITS 161472-1

Your Reference ------------

-

BH1

Date Sampled ------------ 1/02/2017

Type of sample water

Date extracted - 09/02/2017

Date analysed - 10/02/2017

Aroclor 1016 µg/L <0.1

Aroclor 1221 µg/L <0.1

Aroclor 1232 µg/L <0.1

Aroclor 1242 µg/L <0.1

Aroclor 1248 µg/L <0.1

Aroclor 1254 µg/L <0.1

Aroclor 1260 µg/L <0.1

Surrogate TCLMX % 96

Page 10 of 20Envirolab Reference: 161472

Revision No: R 00

Page 103

Client Reference: 85817, Macquarie Park

HM in water - dissolved

Our Reference: UNITS 161472-1

Your Reference ------------

-

BH1

Date Sampled ------------ 1/02/2017

Type of sample water

Date prepared - 08/02/2017

Date analysed - 08/02/2017

Arsenic-Dissolved µg/L <1

Cadmium-Dissolved µg/L <0.1

Chromium-Dissolved µg/L <1

Copper-Dissolved µg/L 2

Lead-Dissolved µg/L <1

Mercury-Dissolved µg/L <0.05

Nickel-Dissolved µg/L 11

Zinc-Dissolved µg/L 18

Page 11 of 20Envirolab Reference: 161472

Revision No: R 00

Page 104

Client Reference: 85817, Macquarie Park

Method ID Methodology Summary

Org-013 Water samples are analysed directly by purge and trap GC-MS.

Org-016 Soil samples are extracted with methanol and spiked into water prior to analysing by purge and trap GC-MS.

Water samples are analysed directly by purge and trap GC-MS. F1 = (C6-C10)-BTEX as per NEPM B1

Guideline on Investigation Levels for Soil and Groundwater.

Org-003 Soil samples are extracted with Dichloromethane/Acetone and waters with Dichloromethane and analysed by

GC-FID.

F2 = (>C10-C16)-Naphthalene as per NEPM B1 Guideline on Investigation Levels for Soil and Groundwater

(HSLs Tables 1A (3, 4)). Note Naphthalene is determined from the VOC analysis.

Org-012 Soil samples are extracted with Dichloromethane/Acetone and waters with Dichloromethane and analysed by

GC-MS. Benzo(a)pyrene TEQ as per NEPM B1 Guideline on Investigation Levels for Soil and Groundwater -

2013.

Inorg-031 Total Phenolics by segmented flow analyser (in line distillation with colourimetric finish).

Solids are extracted in a caustic media prior to analysis.

Org-005 Soil samples are extracted with dichloromethane/acetone and waters with dichloromethane and analysed by

GC with dual ECD's.

Org-008 Soil samples are extracted with dichloromethane/acetone and waters with dichloromethane and analysed by

GC with dual ECD's.

Org-006 Soil samples are extracted with dichloromethane/acetone and waters with dichloromethane and analysed by

GC-ECD.

Metals-022 Determination of various metals by ICP-MS.

Metals-021 Determination of Mercury by Cold Vapour AAS.

Page 12 of 20Envirolab Reference: 161472

Revision No: R 00

Page 105

Client Reference: 85817, Macquarie Park

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate

Sm#

Duplicate results Spike Sm# Spike %

Recovery

VOCs in water Base ll Duplicate ll %RPD

Date extracted - 09/02/2

017

[NT] [NT] LCS-W1 09/02/2017

Date analysed - 13/02/2

017

[NT] [NT] LCS-W1 13/02/2017

Dichlorodifluoromethane µg/L 10 Org-013 <10 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Chloromethane µg/L 10 Org-013 <10 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Vinyl Chloride µg/L 10 Org-013 <10 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Bromomethane µg/L 10 Org-013 <10 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Chloroethane µg/L 10 Org-013 <10 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Trichlorofluoromethane µg/L 10 Org-013 <10 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

1,1-Dichloroethene µg/L 1 Org-013 <1 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Trans-1,2-

dichloroethene

µg/L 1 Org-013 <1 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

1,1-dichloroethane µg/L 1 Org-013 <1 [NT] [NT] LCS-W1 81%

Cis-1,2-dichloroethene µg/L 1 Org-013 <1 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Bromochloromethane µg/L 1 Org-013 <1 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Chloroform µg/L 1 Org-013 <1 [NT] [NT] LCS-W1 80%

2,2-dichloropropane µg/L 1 Org-013 <1 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

1,2-dichloroethane µg/L 1 Org-013 <1 [NT] [NT] LCS-W1 80%

1,1,1-trichloroethane µg/L 1 Org-013 <1 [NT] [NT] LCS-W1 80%

1,1-dichloropropene µg/L 1 Org-013 <1 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Cyclohexane µg/L 1 Org-013 <1 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Carbon tetrachloride µg/L 1 Org-013 <1 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Benzene µg/L 1 Org-013 <1 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Dibromomethane µg/L 1 Org-013 <1 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

1,2-dichloropropane µg/L 1 Org-013 <1 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Trichloroethene µg/L 1 Org-013 <1 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Bromodichloromethane µg/L 1 Org-013 <1 [NT] [NT] LCS-W1 79%

trans-1,3-

dichloropropene

µg/L 1 Org-013 <1 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

cis-1,3-dichloropropene µg/L 1 Org-013 <1 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

1,1,2-trichloroethane µg/L 1 Org-013 <1 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Toluene µg/L 1 Org-013 <1 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

1,3-dichloropropane µg/L 1 Org-013 <1 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Dibromochloromethane µg/L 1 Org-013 <1 [NT] [NT] LCS-W1 79%

1,2-dibromoethane µg/L 1 Org-013 <1 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Tetrachloroethene µg/L 1 Org-013 <1 [NT] [NT] LCS-W1 81%

1,1,1,2-

tetrachloroethane

µg/L 1 Org-013 <1 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Chlorobenzene µg/L 1 Org-013 <1 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Ethylbenzene µg/L 1 Org-013 <1 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Bromoform µg/L 1 Org-013 <1 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

m+p-xylene µg/L 2 Org-013 <2 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Styrene µg/L 1 Org-013 <1 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

1,1,2,2-

tetrachloroethane

µg/L 1 Org-013 <1 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

o-xylene µg/L 1 Org-013 <1 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Page 13 of 20Envirolab Reference: 161472

Revision No: R 00

Page 106

Client Reference: 85817, Macquarie Park

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate

Sm#

Duplicate results Spike Sm# Spike %

Recovery

VOCs in water Base ll Duplicate ll %RPD

1,2,3-trichloropropane µg/L 1 Org-013 <1 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Isopropylbenzene µg/L 1 Org-013 <1 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Bromobenzene µg/L 1 Org-013 <1 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

n-propyl benzene µg/L 1 Org-013 <1 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

2-chlorotoluene µg/L 1 Org-013 <1 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

4-chlorotoluene µg/L 1 Org-013 <1 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

1,3,5-trimethyl benzene µg/L 1 Org-013 <1 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Tert-butyl benzene µg/L 1 Org-013 <1 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

1,2,4-trimethyl benzene µg/L 1 Org-013 <1 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

1,3-dichlorobenzene µg/L 1 Org-013 <1 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Sec-butyl benzene µg/L 1 Org-013 <1 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

1,4-dichlorobenzene µg/L 1 Org-013 <1 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

4-isopropyl toluene µg/L 1 Org-013 <1 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

1,2-dichlorobenzene µg/L 1 Org-013 <1 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

n-butyl benzene µg/L 1 Org-013 <1 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

1,2-dibromo-3-

chloropropane

µg/L 1 Org-013 <1 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

1,2,4-trichlorobenzene µg/L 1 Org-013 <1 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Hexachlorobutadiene µg/L 1 Org-013 <1 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

1,2,3-trichlorobenzene µg/L 1 Org-013 <1 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Surrogate

Dibromofluoromethane

% Org-013 100 [NT] [NT] LCS-W1 101%

Surrogate toluene-d8 % Org-013 99 [NT] [NT] LCS-W1 101%

Surrogate 4-BFB % Org-013 102 [NT] [NT] LCS-W1 92%

Page 14 of 20Envirolab Reference: 161472

Revision No: R 00

Page 107

Client Reference: 85817, Macquarie Park

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate

Sm#

Duplicate results Spike Sm# Spike %

Recovery

vTRH(C6-C10)/BTEXN in

Water

Base ll Duplicate ll %RPD

Date extracted - 09/02/2

017

[NT] [NT] LCS-W1 09/02/2017

Date analysed - 13/02/2

017

[NT] [NT] LCS-W1 13/02/2017

TRH C6 - C9 µg/L 10 Org-016 <10 [NT] [NT] LCS-W1 76%

TRH C6 - C10 µg/L 10 Org-016 <10 [NT] [NT] LCS-W1 76%

Benzene µg/L 1 Org-016 <1 [NT] [NT] LCS-W1 81%

Toluene µg/L 1 Org-016 <1 [NT] [NT] LCS-W1 80%

Ethylbenzene µg/L 1 Org-016 <1 [NT] [NT] LCS-W1 73%

m+p-xylene µg/L 2 Org-016 <2 [NT] [NT] LCS-W1 73%

o-xylene µg/L 1 Org-016 <1 [NT] [NT] LCS-W1 72%

Naphthalene µg/L 1 Org-013 <1 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Surrogate

Dibromofluoromethane

% Org-016 100 [NT] [NT] LCS-W1 101%

Surrogate toluene-d8 % Org-016 99 [NT] [NT] LCS-W1 101%

Surrogate 4-BFB % Org-016 102 [NT] [NT] LCS-W1 92%

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate

Sm#

Duplicate results Spike Sm# Spike %

Recovery

svTRH (C10-C40) in

Water

Base ll Duplicate ll %RPD

Date extracted - 09/02/2

017

[NT] [NT] LCS-W1 09/02/2017

Date analysed - 09/02/2

017

[NT] [NT] LCS-W1 09/02/2017

TRH C10 - C14 µg/L 50 Org-003 <50 [NT] [NT] LCS-W1 115%

TRH C15 - C28 µg/L 100 Org-003 <100 [NT] [NT] LCS-W1 106%

TRH C29 - C36 µg/L 100 Org-003 <100 [NT] [NT] LCS-W1 104%

TRH >C10 - C16 µg/L 50 Org-003 <50 [NT] [NT] LCS-W1 115%

TRH >C16 - C34 µg/L 100 Org-003 <100 [NT] [NT] LCS-W1 106%

TRH >C34 - C40 µg/L 100 Org-003 <100 [NT] [NT] LCS-W1 104%

Surrogate o-Terphenyl % Org-003 87 [NT] [NT] LCS-W1 115%

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate

Sm#

Duplicate results Spike Sm# Spike %

Recovery

PAHs in Water - Low

Level

Base ll Duplicate ll %RPD

Date extracted - 09/02/2

017

[NT] [NT] LCS-W2 09/02/2017

Date analysed - 09/02/2

017

[NT] [NT] LCS-W2 09/02/2017

Naphthalene µg/L 0.2 Org-012 <0.2 [NT] [NT] LCS-W2 92%

Acenaphthylene µg/L 0.1 Org-012 <0.1 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Acenaphthene µg/L 0.1 Org-012 <0.1 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Fluorene µg/L 0.1 Org-012 <0.1 [NT] [NT] LCS-W2 100%

Phenanthrene µg/L 0.1 Org-012 <0.1 [NT] [NT] LCS-W2 114%

Anthracene µg/L 0.1 Org-012 <0.1 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Fluoranthene µg/L 0.1 Org-012 <0.1 [NT] [NT] LCS-W2 102%

Pyrene µg/L 0.1 Org-012 <0.1 [NT] [NT] LCS-W2 98%

Page 15 of 20Envirolab Reference: 161472

Revision No: R 00

Page 108

Client Reference: 85817, Macquarie Park

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate

Sm#

Duplicate results Spike Sm# Spike %

Recovery

PAHs in Water - Low

Level

Base ll Duplicate ll %RPD

Benzo(a)anthracene µg/L 0.1 Org-012 <0.1 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Chrysene µg/L 0.1 Org-012 <0.1 [NT] [NT] LCS-W2 90%

Benzo(b,j

+k)fluoranthene

µg/L 0.2 Org-012 <0.2 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Benzo(a)pyrene µg/L 0.1 Org-012 <0.1 [NT] [NT] LCS-W2 92%

Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene µg/L 0.1 Org-012 <0.1 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene µg/L 0.1 Org-012 <0.1 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene µg/L 0.1 Org-012 <0.1 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Surrogate p-Terphenyl-

d14

% Org-012 92 [NT] [NT] LCS-W2 94%

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate

Sm#

Duplicate results Spike Sm# Spike %

Recovery

Total Phenolics in Water Base ll Duplicate ll %RPD

Date extracted - 08/02/2

017

[NT] [NT] LCS-W1 08/02/2017

Date analysed - 08/02/2

017

[NT] [NT] LCS-W1 08/02/2017

Total Phenolics (as

Phenol)

mg/L 0.05 Inorg-031 <0.05 [NT] [NT] LCS-W1 98%

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate

Sm#

Duplicate results Spike Sm# Spike %

Recovery

OCP in water - low level Base ll Duplicate ll %RPD

Date extracted - 09/02/2

017

[NT] [NT] LCS-W1 09/02/2017

Date analysed - 10/02/2

017

[NT] [NT] LCS-W1 10/02/2017

HCB µg/L 0.01 Org-005 <0.01 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

alpha-BHC µg/L 0.01 Org-005 <0.01 [NT] [NT] LCS-W1 110%

gamma-BHC µg/L 0.01 Org-005 <0.01 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

beta-BHC µg/L 0.01 Org-005 <0.01 [NT] [NT] LCS-W1 94%

Heptachlor µg/L 0.01 Org-005 <0.01 [NT] [NT] LCS-W1 109%

delta-BHC µg/L 0.01 Org-005 <0.01 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Aldrin µg/L 0.01 Org-005 <0.01 [NT] [NT] LCS-W1 104%

Heptachlor Epoxide µg/L 0.01 Org-005 <0.01 [NT] [NT] LCS-W1 106%

gamma-Chlordane µg/L 0.01 Org-005 <0.01 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

alpha-Chlordane µg/L 0.01 Org-005 <0.01 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Endosulfan I µg/L 0.01 Org-005 <0.01 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

pp-DDE µg/L 0.01 Org-005 <0.01 [NT] [NT] LCS-W1 101%

Dieldrin µg/L 0.01 Org-005 <0.01 [NT] [NT] LCS-W1 108%

Endrin µg/L 0.01 Org-005 <0.01 [NT] [NT] LCS-W1 104%

pp-DDD µg/L 0.01 Org-005 <0.01 [NT] [NT] LCS-W1 102%

Endosulfan II µg/L 0.01 Org-005 <0.01 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

DDT µg/L 0.006 Org-005 <0.006 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Endrin Aldehyde µg/L 0.01 Org-005 <0.01 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Endosulfan Sulphate µg/L 0.01 Org-005 <0.01 [NT] [NT] LCS-W1 98%

Methoxychlor µg/L 0.01 Org-005 <0.01 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Surrogate TCMX % Org-005 108 [NT] [NT] LCS-W1 122%

Page 16 of 20Envirolab Reference: 161472

Revision No: R 00

Page 109

Client Reference: 85817, Macquarie Park

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate

Sm#

Duplicate results Spike Sm# Spike %

Recovery

OP in water LL

ANZECCF/ADWG

Base ll Duplicate ll %RPD

Date extracted - 09/02/2

017

[NT] [NT] LCS-W1 09/02/2017

Date analysed - 10/02/2

017

[NT] [NT] LCS-W1 10/02/2017

Azinphos-methyl

(Guthion)

µg/L 0.02 Org-008 <0.02 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Bromophos ethyl µg/L 0.01 Org-008 <0.01 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Chlorpyriphos µg/L 0.01 Org-008 <0.01 [NT] [NT] LCS-W1 88%

Chlorpyriphos-methyl µg/L 0.01 Org-008 <0.01 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Diazinon µg/L 0.01 Org-008 <0.01 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Dichlorovos µg/L 0.01 Org-008 <0.01 [NT] [NT] LCS-W1 95%

Dimethoate µg/L 0.01 Org-008 <0.01 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Ethion µg/L 0.01 Org-008 <0.01 [NT] [NT] LCS-W1 91%

Fenitrothion µg/L 0.01 Org-008 <0.01 [NT] [NT] LCS-W1 90%

Malathion µg/L 0.05 Org-008 <0.05 [NT] [NT] LCS-W1 97%

Ronnel µg/L 0.01 Org-008 <0.01 [NT] [NT] LCS-W1 89%

Surrogate TCMX % Org-008 108 [NT] [NT] LCS-W1 87%

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate

Sm#

Duplicate results Spike Sm# Spike %

Recovery

PCBs in Water - Low

Level

Base ll Duplicate ll %RPD

Date extracted - 09/02/2

017

[NT] [NT] LCS-W1 09/02/2017

Date analysed - 10/02/2

017

[NT] [NT] LCS-W1 10/02/2017

Aroclor 1016 µg/L 0.1 Org-006 <0.1 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Aroclor 1221 µg/L 0.1 Org-006 <0.1 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Aroclor 1232 µg/L 0.1 Org-006 <0.1 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Aroclor 1242 µg/L 0.1 Org-006 <0.1 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Aroclor 1248 µg/L 0.1 Org-006 <0.1 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Aroclor 1254 µg/L 0.1 Org-006 <0.1 [NT] [NT] LCS-W1 102%

Aroclor 1260 µg/L 0.1 Org-006 <0.1 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR]

Surrogate TCLMX % Org-006 108 [NT] [NT] LCS-W1 113%

Page 17 of 20Envirolab Reference: 161472

Revision No: R 00

Page 110

Client Reference: 85817, Macquarie Park

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate

Sm#

Duplicate results Spike Sm# Spike %

Recovery

HM in water - dissolved Base ll Duplicate ll %RPD

Date prepared - 08/02/2

017

[NT] [NT] LCS-W4 08/02/2017

Date analysed - 08/02/2

017

[NT] [NT] LCS-W4 08/02/2017

Arsenic-Dissolved µg/L 1 Metals-022 <1 [NT] [NT] LCS-W4 95%

Cadmium-Dissolved µg/L 0.1 Metals-022 <0.1 [NT] [NT] LCS-W4 100%

Chromium-Dissolved µg/L 1 Metals-022 <1 [NT] [NT] LCS-W4 96%

Copper-Dissolved µg/L 1 Metals-022 <1 [NT] [NT] LCS-W4 95%

Lead-Dissolved µg/L 1 Metals-022 <1 [NT] [NT] LCS-W4 103%

Mercury-Dissolved µg/L 0.05 Metals-021 <0.05 [NT] [NT] LCS-W4 90%

Nickel-Dissolved µg/L 1 Metals-022 <1 [NT] [NT] LCS-W4 97%

Zinc-Dissolved µg/L 1 Metals-022 <1 [NT] [NT] LCS-W4 98%

Page 18 of 20Envirolab Reference: 161472

Revision No: R 00

Page 111

Client Reference: 85817, Macquarie Park

Report Comments:

Sample filtered prior to analysis for organics testing.

PAH_W:

# Percent recovery is not possible to report due to interference from analytes

(other than those being tested) in the sample/s.

TRH's in water:

# Percent recovery is not possible to report as the high concentration of analytes in the

sample/s have caused interference.

VOC/BTEX in water:

PQL has been raised due to the sample matrix requiring dilution (sediment present).

Asbestos ID was analysed by Approved Identifier: Not applicable for this job

Asbestos ID was authorised by Approved Signatory: Not applicable for this job

INS: Insufficient sample for this test PQL: Practical Quantitation Limit NT: Not tested

NR: Test not required RPD: Relative Percent Difference NA: Test not required

<: Less than >: Greater than LCS: Laboratory Control Sample

Page 19 of 20Envirolab Reference: 161472

Revision No: R 00

Page 112

Client Reference: 85817, Macquarie Park

Quality Control Definitions

Blank: This is the component of the analytical signal which is not derived from the sample but from reagents,

glassware etc, can be determined by processing solvents and reagents in exactly the same manner as for samples.

Duplicate : This is the complete duplicate analysis of a sample from the process batch. If possible, the sample

selected should be one where the analyte concentration is easily measurable.

Matrix Spike : A portion of the sample is spiked with a known concentration of target analyte. The purpose of the matrix

spike is to monitor the performance of the analytical method used and to determine whether matrix interferences exist.

LCS (Laboratory Control Sample) : This comprises either a standard reference material or a control matrix (such as a blank

sand or water) fortified with analytes representative of the analyte class. It is simply a check sample.

Surrogate Spike: Surrogates are known additions to each sample, blank, matrix spike and LCS in a batch, of compounds

which are similar to the analyte of interest, however are not expected to be found in real samples.

Laboratory Acceptance Criteria

Duplicate sample and matrix spike recoveries may not be reported on smaller jobs, however, were analysed at a frequency

to meet or exceed NEPM requirements. All samples are tested in batches of 20. The duplicate sample RPD and matrix

spike recoveries for the batch were within the laboratory acceptance criteria.

Filters, swabs, wipes, tubes and badges will not have duplicate data as the whole sample is generally extracted

during sample extraction.

Spikes for Physical and Aggregate Tests are not applicable.

For VOCs in water samples, three vials are required for duplicate or spike analysis.

Duplicates: <5xPQL - any RPD is acceptable; >5xPQL - 0-50% RPD is acceptable.

Matrix Spikes, LCS and Surrogate recoveries: Generally 70-130% for inorganics/metals; 60-140%

for organics (+/-50% surrogates) and 10-140% for labile SVOCs (including labile surrogates), ultra trace organics

and speciated phenols is acceptable.

In circumstances where no duplicate and/or sample spike has been reported at 1 in 10 and/or 1 in 20 samples

respectively, the sample volume submitted was insufficient in order to satisfy laboratory QA/QC protocols.

When samples are received where certain analytes are outside of recommended technical holding times (THTs),

the analysis has proceeded. Where analytes are on the verge of breaching THTs, every effort will be made to analyse

within the THT or as soon as practicable.

Where sampling dates are not provided, Envirolab are not in a position to comment on the validity

of the analysis where recommended technical holding times may have been breached.

Measurement Uncertainty estimates are available for most tests upon request.

Page 20 of 20Envirolab Reference: 161472

Revision No: R 00

Page 113

Page 114

SAMPLE RECEIPT ADVICE

Client Details

Client Douglas Partners Pty Ltd Attention J Paulsen

Sample Login Details

Your Reference 85817, Macquarie Park

Envirolab Reference 161472 Date Sample Received 07/02/2017 Date Instructions Received 07/02/2017 Date Results Expected to be Reported 14/02/2017

Sample Condition

Samples received in appropriate condition for analysis YES

No. of Samples Provided 1 water Turnaround Time Requested Standard Temperature on receipt (°C) 12.3 Cooling Method Ice Sampling Date Provided YES

Comments

Samples will be held for 1 month for water samples and 2 months for soil samples from date of receipt of samples

Please direct any queries to:

Aileen Hie Jacinta Hurst

Phone: 02 9910 6200 Phone: 02 9910 6200

Fax: 02 9910 6201 Fax: 02 9910 6201

Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Sample and Testing Details on following page

Page 115

Sample Id

VO

Cs

in w

ate

r

vTR

H(C

6-

C1

0)/

BTE

XN

in

Wa

ter

svTR

H (

C1

0-C

40

) in

Wa

ter

PA

Hs

in W

ate

r -

Low

Leve

l

Tota

l Ph

eno

lics

in

Wa

ter

OC

P in

wa

ter

- lo

w

leve

l

OP

in w

ate

r LL

AN

ZEC

CF/

AD

WG

PC

Bs

in W

ate

r -

Low

Leve

l

HM

in w

ate

r -

dis

solv

ed

BH1 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

The ’✓’ indicates the testing you have requested. THIS IS NOT A REPORT OF THE RESULTS.

Page 116

Page 1 of 7

Appendix C: QA/QC Report Project 85751.03Part of 11 Talavera Road, Macquarie Park, NSW February 2017

DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT Q1. Data Quality Objectives

The Contamination Investigation was prepared with reference to the seven step data quality objective (DQO) process which is provided in Appendix B, Schedule B2 of the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999 as amended 2013 (NEPC, 2013). The DQO process is outlined as follows:

Stating the Problem;

Identifying the Decision;

Identifying Inputs to the Decision;

Defining the Boundary of the Assessment;

Developing a Decision Rule;

Specifying Acceptable Limits on Decision Errors; and

Optimising the Design for Obtaining Data. The DQOs have been addressed within the report as shown in Table Q1. Table Q1: Data Quality Objectives

Data Quality Objective Report Section where Addressed

State the Problem S1 Introduction

Identify the Decision S1 Introduction (objective)

S8 Discussion of Results

S9 Recommendations and Conclusions

Identify Inputs to the Decision S1 Introduction

S3 Site Information

S2 Scope of Works

S5 Site Assessment Criteria

S8 Results of Investigation

Define the Boundary of the Assessment S3 Site Information

Site Drawings - Appendix A

Develop a Decision Rule S5 Site Assessment Criteria

Specify Acceptable Limits on Decision Errors S4 Fieldwork and Analysis

S5 Site Assessment Criteria

QA/QC Procedures and Results – Sections Q2, Q3

Optimise the Design for Obtaining Data S2 Scope of Works

S4.3 Sample Location and Rationale

QA/QC Procedures and Results – Sections Q2, Q3

Page 117

Page 2 of 7

Appendix C: QA/QC Report Project 85751.03Part of 11 Talavera Road, Macquarie Park, NSW February 2017

Q2. FIELD AND LABORATORY QUALITY CONTROL

The field and laboratory quality control (QC) procedures and results are summarised in Tables Q2 and Q3. Reference should be made to the fieldwork and analysis procedures in Section 4 and the laboratory results certificates in Appendix C for further details. Table Q2: Field QC

Item Frequency Acceptance Criteria Achievement

Intra-laboratory replicate 12.5% primary

samples

RPD <30% inorganics), <50% (organics) yes1

Trip Spikes 1 per field batch 60-140% recovery yes

Trip Blanks 1 per field batch <PQL/LOR yes

Note: 1 qualitative assessment of RPD results overall; refer Section Q2.1

Table Q3: Laboratory QC

Item Frequency Acceptance Criteria Achievement

Analytical laboratories used NATA accreditation yes

Holding times In accordance with NEPC (2013) which references various Australian and international standards

yes

Laboratory / Reagent Blanks 1 per lab batch <PQL yes

Laboratory duplicates 10% primary samples Laboratory specific 1 yes

Matrix Spikes 1 per lab batch 70-130% recovery (inorganics);

60-140% (organics);

10-140% (SVOC, speciated phenols)

yes

Surrogate Spikes organics by GC 70-130% recovery (inorganics);

60-140% (organics);

10-140% (SVOC, speciated phenols)

yes

Control Samples 1 per lab batch 70-130% recovery (inorganics);

60-140% (organics);

10-140% (SVOC, speciated phenols)

yes

Notes: 1 ELS: <5xPQL – any RPD; >5xPQL – 0-50%RPD

In summary, the QC data is considered to be of sufficient quality to be acceptable for the assessment.

Q2.1 Intra-Laboratory Replicates

One intra-laboratory replicate was analysed as an internal check of the reproducibility within the primary laboratory ELS and as a measure of consistency of sampling techniques. The comparative results of analysis between the original and the intra-laboratory replicate samples are summarised in Table Q4.

Page 118

Page 3 of 7

Appendix C: QA/QC Report Project 85751.03Part of 11 Talavera Road, Macquarie Park, NSW February 2017

Note that, where both samples are below LOR/PQL the difference and RPD has been given as zero. Where one sample is reported below LOR/PQL, but a concentration is reported for the other, the LOR/PQL value has been used for calculation of the RPD for the less than LOR/PQL sample.

Page 119

Page 4 of 7

Appendix C: QA/QC Report Project 85751.03 Part of 11 Talavera Road, Macquarie Park, NSW February 2017

Table Q4: Relative Percentage Difference Results – Intra-laboratory Replicate

Note: - not applicable, not tested

Lab Sample ID Date Sampled Media Units

Metals PAH TRH BTEX

As Cd Cr Cu Pb Hg Ni Zn Fe Mn

tota

l

BaP

TE

Q

BaP

Nap

hth

alen

e

C6-

C10

>C

10-C

16

>C

16-C

34

>C

34-C

40

Ben

zen

e

To

luen

e

Eth

ylb

enze

ne

xyle

ne

ELS BH01/0.2-0.3 27/1/2017 S mg/kg <4 <0.4 7 8 7 <0.1 11 19 - - <0.2 <0.5 <0.05 <0.1 <25 <50 <100 <100 <0.2 <0.5 <1 <2

ELS BD1/270117 27/1/2017 S mg/kg <4 <0.4 7 9 7 <0.1 11 27 - - <0.2 <0.5 <0.05 <0.1 <25 - - - <0.2 <0.5 <1 <2

Difference mg/kg 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 8 - - 0 0 0 0 0 - - - 0 0 0 0

RPD % 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 34 - - 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0 0 0 0

Page 120

Page 5 of 7

Appendix C: QA/QC Report Project 85751.03Part of 11 Talavera Road, Macquarie Park, NSW February 2017

The calculated RPD values were within the acceptable range of 30 for inorganic analytes and 50% for organics with the with the exception of that shown in bold in Table Q4. However, this is not considered to be significant because:

The typically low actual differences in the concentrations of the replicate pairs where some RPD exceedances occurred. High RPD values reflect the small differences between two small numbers;

Most of the recorded concentrations being relatively close to the LOR / PQL. High RPD values reflect the low concentrations; and

All other QA/QC parameters met the DQIs.

Overall, the intra-laboratory replicate comparisons indicate that the sampling techniques were generally consistent and repeatable.

Page 121

Page 6 of 7

Appendix C: QA/QC Report Project 85751.03Part of 11 Talavera Road, Macquarie Park, NSW February 2017

Q3. Data Quality Indicators

The reliability of field procedures and analytical results was assessed against the following data quality indicators (DQIs):

Completeness – a measure of the amount of usable data from a data collection activity;

Comparability – the confidence (qualitative) that data may be considered to be equivalent for each sampling and analytical event;

Representativeness – the confidence (qualitative) of data representativeness of media present on-site;

Precision – a measure of variability or reproducibility of data; and

Accuracy – a measure of closeness of the data to the ‘true’ value. The DQIs were assessed as outlined in the following Table Q6.

Table Q6: Data Quality Indicators

Data Quality Indicator Method(s) of Achievement

Completeness Planned systematic and selected target locations sampled. However, sampling

depths were limited by the hand augering technique, hence the nature of deeper

fill is a data gap;

Preparation of field logs, sample location plan and chain of custody (COC)

records;

Preparation of field groundwater sampling sheet;

Laboratory sample receipt information received confirming receipt of samples

intact and appropriateness of the chain of custody;

Samples analysed for contaminants of potential concern (COPC) identified in the

Conceptual Site Model (CSM);

Completion of COC documentation;

NATA endorsed laboratory certificates provided by the laboratory;

Satisfactory frequency and results for field and laboratory QC samples as

discussed in Section Q2.

Comparability Using appropriate techniques for sample recovery (allowing for physical

limitations), storage and transportation, which were the same for the duration of

the project;

Works undertaken by appropriately experienced and trained DP environmental

scientists;

Use of NATA registered laboratories, with test methods the same or similar

between laboratories;

Satisfactory results for field and laboratory QC samples.

Page 122

Page 7 of 7

Appendix C: QA/QC Report Project 85751.03Part of 11 Talavera Road, Macquarie Park, NSW February 2017

Data Quality Indicator Method(s) of Achievement

Representativeness Target media sampled within the limited depth of augering;

Sample numbers recovered and analysed are considered to be representative of

the target media and generally complying with DQOs, with the exception of the

data gap relating to depth of sampling;

Samples were extracted and analysed within holding times;

Samples were analysed in accordance with the analysis request.

Precision Acceptable RPD between original samples and replicates;

Satisfactory results for all other field and laboratory QC samples.

Accuracy Satisfactory results for all field and laboratory QC samples.

Based on the above, it is considered that the DQIs have been complied with. As such, it is concluded that the field and laboratory test data obtained are reliable and useable for this assessment.