appendix q: technical report for marine ......marine environmental quality site investigation tng...

APPENDIX Q: TECHNICAL REPORT FOR MARINE ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY

TNG Limited - Darwin Industrial Processing Facility Marine Environmental Quality Site Investigation

19WAU-0007 R190200

i

CLIENT: TNG Limited STATUS: Rev 0 REPORT No.: R190214 ISSUE DATE: 19 November 2019

Darwin Processing Facility Marine Environmental Quality Site Investigation

Marine Environmental Quality Site Investigation


19WAU-0007 R190200

2

Important Note

This report and all its components (including images, audio, video, text) is copyright. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of private study, research, criticism or review as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced, copied, transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical or graphic) without the prior written permission of O2 Marine.

This report has been prepared for the sole use of the TNG Limited (herein, ‘the client’), for a specific site (herein ‘the site’, the specific purpose specified in Section 1 of this report (herein ‘the purpose’). This report is strictly limited for use by the client, to the purpose and site and may not be used for any other purposes.

Third parties, excluding regulatory agencies assessing an application in relation to the purpose, may not rely on this report. O2 Marine waives all liability to any third-party loss, damage, liability or claim arising out of or incidental to a third-party publishing, using or relying on the facts, content, opinions or subject matter contained in this report.

O2 Marine waives all responsibility for loss or damage where the accuracy and effectiveness of information provided by the Client or other third parties were inaccurate or not up to date and was relied upon, wholly or in part in reporting.



19WAU-0007 R190200

3

WA Marine Pty Ltd t/as O2 Marine ACN 168 014 819 Originating Office – Southwest Suite 5, 18 Griffin Drive, Dunsborough WA 6281 T 1300 739 447 | [email protected]

Version Register

Version Status Author Reviewer Change from Previous Version

Authorised for Release (signed and dated)

Rev A Draft N Turnbull C Lane

Rev B Draft C Lane R Stevens

Rev C Draft C Lane S Arena C Lane 22/10/2019

Rev 0 Final C Lane Incorporated client review comments

C Lane 19/11/2019

Transmission Register

Controlled copies of this document are issued to the persons/companies listed below. Any copy of this report held by persons not listed in this register is deemed uncontrolled. Updated versions of this report if issued will be released to all parties listed below via the email address listed.

Name Email Address

Sharon Arena [email protected]

Mitch Ladyman [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



19WAU-0007 R190200

4

Acronyms, Units and Abbreviations

Acronyms/Abbreviation Description

ASS Acid Sulphate Solutions

APM Animal Plant Mineral Pty Ltd

BTEXN Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylene, Naphthalene

BU Beneficial Uses

CBD Central Business District

DLPE Department of Lands Planning and Environment

NRETAS Department Natural Resources Environment Arts & Sport

DO Dissolved Oxygen

DoE Department of Environment

EA Environmental Assessment Act

EAAP Environmental Assessment Administrative Procedures

EAW East Arm Wharf

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EQO Environmental Quality Objective

EPA Environmental Protection Authority

EPBC Environmental Protection Biodiversity and Conservation

GPS Global Positioning System

LNG Liquid Nitrogen Gas

LoR Limit of Reporting

MNES Matters of National Environmental Significance

NATA National Accredited Testing Authority

NOI Notice of Intent

NT Northern Territory

NTEPA Northern Territory Environmental Protection Agency

NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units

NWQMS The National Water Quality Management Strategy

O2M O2 Marine Pty Ltd

PPT Parts Per Thousand

Project Darwin Processing Facility at Wickham

PSD Particle Size Distribution

TNG TNG Limited

TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons

TRH Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons

ToR Terms of Reference

WQO Water Quality Objectives



19WAU-0007 R190200

5

Acronyms/Abbreviation Description

WQPP Water Quality Protection Plan

Units/Abbreviation Description

GL Gigalitres

Km Kilometers

% Percent



19WAU-0007 R190200

6

Table of Contents

1. Introduction 7

Project Overview 7 Objectives 9

2. Existing Environment 12

Darwin Harbour Region 12 Marine Environmental Quality 12 Water Quality 14 Sediment Quality 19

3. Site Investigation Methods 22

Water Column Profiling 24 Water Sampling & Analysis 24 Sediment Sampling & Analysis 24 QA/QC Assessment 24

4. Results & Discussion 26

Water Quality 26 Sediment Quality 32 QA/QC Assessment 34

5. Conclusion 36

6. References 38

Figures

Figure 1 Mount Peak Mining Project – Darwin Processing Facility 8 Figure 2 INPEX Offsite Monitoring Locations 2016-2017 (Source: GREENCAP 2017) 17 Figure 3 Marine Environmental Quality Sampling Locations 23 Figure 3 Physicochemical water column profiles for water temperature, salinity, pH, dissolved oxygen and turbidity

compared against Darwin Water Quality Guidelines where available. 28

Tables

Table 1 Marine Environmental Quality Sampling Locations 22 Table 2 Water Sample Laboratory Analysis Results 30 Table 3 Sediment Sample Laboratory Analysis Results 33 Table 4 Water sample QA/QC assessment results 34 Table 5 Sediment sample QA/QC assessment results 34



19WAU-0007 R190200

7

1. Introduction

Project Overview

TNG Limited (TNG) (the Proponent), proposes to construct and operate the Darwin Processing Facility (the Project) at Wickham in the Northern Territory (NT). The Project is proposed to process magnetite concentrate (concentrate hereafter) to produce:

Vanadium pentoxide (V2O5) flake– for use in steel, non-ferrous alloys, chemicals, catalysts and energy storage (vanadium redox batteries);

Titanium dioxide – for use in paint, plastics, paper and inks; and Ferric oxide – for use in steel making.

The three products will be exported through the Port of Darwin’s East Arm Wharf (EAW) to international customers.

The Processing Facility is proposed to be located on Lot 1817, Hundred of Ayers, Middle Arm Industrial Precinct, Wickham, approximately 16 km south east of Darwin, in the NT (Figure 1). The site is located adjacent to the Elizabeth River and encompasses 507 hectares (ha), of which 40 ha is mangrove forest and intertidal zone, and 467 ha is terrestrial land. The Project and associated access roads, supporting infrastructure and service comprise a development footprint of approximately 264 ha.

The magnetite concentrate will be produced at TNG’s proposed Mount Peake Project approximately 1,400 km south of Darwin, which is the subject of a separate environmental assessment and approvals process. The Mount Peake Project will involve the mining of a polymetallic ore body (enriched with vanadium, titanium and iron) and beneficiation of the ore to produce magnetite concentrate. The concentrate will be transported by rail from the mine site to the Processing Facility.

An ocean outfall is required as part of the Project operation to dispose of waste by-products. The ocean outfall is proposed to discharge approximately 12 GL/year of treated process water into the Elizabeth River.



19WAU-0007 R190200

8

Figure 1 Mount Peak Mining Project – Darwin Processing Facility

9 TNG Limited - Darwin Industrial Processing Facility Marine Environmental Quality Site Investigation

19WAU-0007 R190214

Environmental Approvals

TNG submitted a notice of Intent (NOI) to the Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority (NT EPA) and Department of Lands Planning and Environment (DLPE) on 27 October 2015 for consideration under the Environment Assessment Act 1982 (EA Act).

On 15 January 2016, the NT EPA determined the Project requires assessment at the level of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The NT EPA decision was based on the following risks and potential environmental impacts:

Risks to biodiversity values1 of adjacent areas, including nationally significant mangrove communities2, marine ecosystems, local fisheries and listed threatened species;

Environmental risks associated with vegetation clearing, erosion and sediment control, uncontrolled discharges, dust, spills, disturbance of acid sulfate soils, contamination of soils, surface water and / or ground water;

Potential for Project noise, lighting and emissions to impact on existing residents, potential for future residential development of the area, and other sensitive receptors;

Potential for introduction and / or spread of weeds; Risks of exposure of workers to high biting insect numbers; Environmental risks associated with waste streams and waste management practices; Risks associated with transport, handling and / or storage of reagents, products and / or

hazardous material; Public health and safety risks associated with siting a potential major hazard facility

adjacent to Darwin Harbour; and Potential for impacts on service infrastructure and service supply capacities, due to Project

demands.

The Project was referred under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) and on 4 January 2016 it was determined to constitute a controlled action requiring assessment under the EPBC Act, under the bilateral agreement between the Australian and Northern Territory (NT) Governments. The controlling provisions included the likely significant impact on:

Listed threatened species and communities (sections 18 & 18A); and Listed migratory species (sections 20 & 20A).

1 Smit, N., Penny , S.S. and Griffiths, AD., 2012. Assessment of marine biodiversity and habitat mapping in the Weddell region, Darwin Harbour. Report to the Department of Lands, Planning and Environment. Department of Land Resource Management, Palmerston

2 Northern Territory Government. Sites of Conservation Significance Darwin Harbour.


19WAU-0007 R190214

Environmental Factors and Objectives

The NT EPA Environmental Factors and Objectives Guideline (NT EPA, 2018) was developed to improve certainty and increase transparency within the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process. The 13 environmental factors are categorised under five themes of: Land, Water, Sea, Air and People and Communities.

The Terms of Reference (ToR) for the Project (NT EPA, 2016) was released by the NT EPA prior to the publication of NT EPA (2018). Therefore, the ToR does not identify specific Environmental Factors that the EIS must address. Discussions between the NT EPA and the Proponent subsequent to publication of NT EPA (2018) have identified the EIS must address the three factors and corresponding objectives identified by the NT EPA within the theme ‘Sea’ presented in Table 1.

Table 1 Environmental factors and objectives for the theme ‘Sea’ addressed in this report

Theme Factor Objective

Sea Marine Flora and Fauna Protect marine flora and fauna so that biological diversity and ecological integrity are maintained

Benthic Habitat and Communities

Protect benthic communities and habitats so that biological diversity and ecological integrity are maintained

Marine Environmental Quality

Maintain the quality and productivity of water, sediment and biota so that environmental values are protected.

Objectives

TNG commissioned O2 Marine (O2M) to undertake desktop review and marine environmental investigations of Sea relevant themes to support the EIS and Project approvals. Impact and assessment relies on knowledge of the existing environment of the Project area. For instance, in order to determine which habitats and biota are being affected by disturbance, their distribution and diversity has to be understood. Furthermore, the types of impacts and their severity and consequence for the whole ecosystem can only be evaluated on the background of a comprehensive understanding of the ecological context.

This document is intended to characterise the Marine Environmental Quality that may be impacted by the proposal. This document provides an account of the Water and Sediment Quality of the Study Area using historic studies, long term monitoring datasets and a site validation sampling event. The specific objectives of this report are to address specific recommendations within the ToR, including to:

Describe the beneficial uses and water quality objectives for Darwin Harbour (Elizabeth River / East Arm);

Describe the water quality of local water bodies (i.e. Estuarine / marine waters); and Describe existing temporal variations in suspended solids and parameters potentially impacted

by the Project, to serve as baseline data.


19WAU-0007 R190214

This report presents a summary of existing water and sediment quality information based on historic sampling in Darwin Harbour and the Elizabeth River and discusses these known characteristics in the context of sampling undertaken around the specific Project Area.


19WAU-0007 R190214

2. Existing Environment

Darwin Harbour Region

The Darwin Harbour and surrounding catchments are located in the wet-dry tropics of Northern Australia. The catchment of Darwin Harbour covers an area of approximately 3,230 km2 comprising of a land area of 2,010 km2 and an estuary area of 1,220 km2 at the high-water mark (NRETAS 2010).

Darwin city supports the largest concentration of the Northern Territory population. The City of Palmerston, south of Darwin, is also subject to increasing urban development. The population of the Darwin Region is ~140,000 as of 2019 and projected to grow to ~165,000 persons by 2026.

The Darwin wet season extends from November to March and its effects on harbour water quality (due to high surface runoff from the land) can last until April or May depending on rainfall. Dry season climate conditions prevail from May to September.

Marine Environmental Quality

The process for setting marine and freshwater quality objectives is based on the national framework outlined in the Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (ANZG 2018). The national document provides a framework that allows the user to move beyond a single-number conservative value, to guidelines and objectives that can be refined according to local environmental conditions. It is within this context that the Darwin Harbour region guidelines and objectives have been initiated and will be progressively enhanced.

The National Water Quality Management Strategy (NWQMS) was introduced in 1992 in response to growing community concern about the condition of the nation’s water resources and the need to manage them in an environmentally sustainable way.

Locally derived guidelines and objectives are the priority preferred ambient quality benchmarks as envisaged by the NWQMS. The Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water provide default values for a range of water quality parameters in the absence of locally or regionally derived reference values.

2.2.1. Relevant Northern Territory Guidelines

The Northern Territory (NT) Department of Natural Resources, Environment, The Arts and Sport (NRETAS) developed the Water Quality Objectives for the Darwin Harbour Region (NRETAS 2010) to commence the implementation of the National Water Quality Management Strategy. The key aim of this document was to identify a ‘suite of Water Quality Objectives that relate to the beneficial uses and environmental values of the waterways has been developed to provide some preliminary benchmarks against which various attributes of the health and condition of these waterways can be measured and reported’ (NRETAS 2010). These Water Quality Objectives, along with the key Beneficial Uses (BUs), were declared by the NT parliament in NT Government Gazette: no. G27, 7 July 2010.


19WAU-0007 R190214

This supported the development of the Darwin Harbour Water Quality Protection Plan (WQPP) (DLRM 2014) which sought to further implement the national strategy, and in particular the national Framework for Marine and Estuarine Water Quality Protection, through identification of specific actions relevant to the protection of the water quality within Darwin Harbour. The WQPP ‘aims to support good management and sustainable development through its focus on protecting Darwin Harbour waterways from excessive sediment and nutrient inputs’.

Whilst the WQPP and the declared Water Quality Objectives primarily focus on water quality and key identified threats such as nutrients and suspended sediment inputs to Darwin Harbour, they are applicable to the Project as primary guidelines for interpretation of water quality criteria relevant to the Darwin Processing Facility.

Beneficial Uses & Environmental Quality Objectives

Environmental Values are defined in ANZG (2018) as “Particular values or uses of the environment that are important for a healthy ecosystem or for public benefit, welfare, safety or health and which require protection from the effects of pollution, waste discharges and deposits”. The NT Water Act 1992 has defined and declared each of the NTs environmental values or uses, classifying them as BUs. BUs for Darwin Harbour were declared in NT Government Gazette: no. G27, 7 July 2010.

NREATAS (2010) defines Environmental Quality Objectives (EQOs) for water quality as high level management objectives described as ‘the water quality needed to protect and sustain each of the environmental values and beneficial uses identified’ and ‘intended for the community, local councils and government agencies to use in catchment management and land use planning activities’. While this description is primarily focused on water quality, rather than marine environmental quality, for the purposes of this assessment substitution of ‘marine environmental quality’ in place of ‘water quality’ is in keeping with the philosophy of EQOs in their application to the protection of marine environmental quality. EQOs for Darwin Harbour are defined in NRETAS (2010).

Three BUs and four corresponding EQOs apply to the Darwin Harbour area and are presented in Table 2

.

Table 2

Beneficial Uses and Environmental Quality Objectives applicable to the Darwin Harbour Region

Beneficial Uses Environmental Quality Objectives

Environment EQO1: To maintain and protect the ecological condition of marine, estuarine and freshwater ecosystems of the Darwin Harbour Region. EQO1 is split into four sub- objectives, being: High Conservation Value, Slightly to Moderately Disturbed and Highly Disturbed (Refer Section 2.3 below).

Aquaculture EQO2: To maintain water quality for the production and consumption of aquatic foods derived from aquaculture.

Cultural EQO3: To maintain marine, estuarine and fresh water quality so that it is suitable for activities such as swimming and other direct water contact sports. EQO4: To maintain water quality for the production and consumption of aquatic foods derived from recreational, commercial or indigenous food gathering.


19WAU-0007 R190214

2.2.2. Previous Investigations

A number of studies have been undertaken to characterise the extent and better understand the environmental value and importance of the marine environmental quality within Darwin Harbour. The results of many of these studies are publicly available and have been used to characterise, map and describe the environmental values and importance of the water and sediment quality in the Project area.

O2M completed a comprehensive desktop review of the water and sediment quality in the Project area as a preliminary component of this report, using information derived from surveys undertaken for previous coastal development projects in Darwin, relevant scientific literature, and other studies commissioned by government authorities. These included:

Dept Land Resource Management (DLRM) – Darwin Harbour WQPP (2014); NRETAS – Impact of Urban Land-use on total pollutant load entering Darwin Harbour (2010); Dept Environment and Natural Recourse (DLRM), Northern Territory Government - A risk

assessment of water quality pollution of Darwin Harbour using modelled catchment impacts on water quality (2012);

Northern Territory Dept Land and Planning (NTDLP) – Marine Water and Sediment Quality (URS 2010);

INPEX Ichthys Gas Field Development Project – Nearshore Marine Water Quality and Sediment Study (URS 2009);

Darwin Harbour Water and Sediment Quality – (Padovan 2003 & Padovan 1997); INPEX Ichthys Gas Field Development Project – Nearshore Marine Water Quality and

Sediment Study – (URS 2009); Marine Water and Sediment Quality Assessment Darwin. Northern Territory Department of

Lands and Planning – (URS 2010); Investigation of copper concentrate loadout at East Arm Port: Water and Sediment Quality-

(Parry & Munksgaard 1995); Dredge Management Plan, East Arm Wharf Expansion - (AECOM 2011); and Greencap. EPA7 Annual Report 2017 – Environmental Impact Monitoring Program. Ichthys

On-Shore LNG Facilities Bladin Point. (2017).

Water Quality

The marine water quality in Darwin Harbour and Elizabeth River (up to Elizabeth River Bridge) is regarded as good to excellent, especially in comparison to waterways surrounding other major Australian cities. Darwin Harbour is one of the least-disturbed working harbours around the Australian coastline (DLRM, 2014) The area is a valued tropical coastal environment that is home to most of the NT resident’s and the country of the Larrakia people. There is no evidence of widespread water or sediment pollution in the Harbour, although there is some localised pollution around the industrial estates (DLRM 2014).


19WAU-0007 R190214

Darwin Harbour is macro-tidal; however, the upper estuary reaches are not well-flushed and are most vulnerable to pollution. The Elizabeth River estuary is a major tributary of Darwin Harbour and the area surrounding the estuary is subject to increasing urban and industrial development. The catchments of several suburbs drain into Mitchell Creek and Brooking Creek which are both tributaries of the Elizabeth River estuary (URS 2010).

Due to urban developed in the Darwin wide metropolitan area there has been an increase in nutrients and sediments entering Darwin’s Harbour waterways above natural levels. Double the volume of stormwater runoff in wet season compared to an undisturbed landscape (Skinner et al 2009).

Increased nutrient loads in waterways can promote the growth of phytoplankton (microscopic plants) which can produce algal blooms and be toxic to marine life. There is also a potential impact on human health and odour issues from surface scum on the water. In areas of higher nutrient levels, sediment can store the nutrients changing the composition of sediment fauna and flora. Additionally, higher nutrient concentrations may also promote excessive growth of macroalgae and epiphytes which can smother seagrass and coral. Mangroves are important in trapping and recycling nutrients within the mangrove system.

Darwin Harbour has naturally high levels of suspended sediments due to it being a tide dominated estuary with large tidal movements, strong currents and large volume of mangrove sediments.

Some examples of anthropogenic influences around Darwin Harbour on water and sediment quality include:

INPEX and ConocoPhillips operations; Darwin Port operations at EAW; Historical Industrial activities at Darwin Waterfront; Power and Water Corp wastewater discharges; and Sewage outfall from wastewater treatment plant at Larrakeyah.

2.3.1. Physicochemical Characteristics

A significant amount of baseline water quality data has been collected for Darwin Harbour and the associated estuarine river systems. This data is discussed below to provide baseline context for the proposed Darwin Processing Facility.

Water quality monitoring of physicochemical parameters (Dissolved oxygen, salinity, pH, turbidity, total suspended solids) undertaken by INPEX during 2016-2017 provides the most recent and spatially-relevant long-term dataset to provide a summary of baseline physicochemical conditions in the vicinity of the Project Area. These results are discussed below together with the results of other Darwin Harbour water quality studies. The GREENCAP (2017) monitoring locations are shown in Figure 2.

Water Temperature

Water temperatures in Darwin Harbour are typically high, and some seasonal variations do occur. Temperatures are lowest (23°C) in June-July and highest (33°C) in October-November (Padovan 1997). Water temperature measured in the nearshore development area by URS (2008) ranged from


19WAU-0007 R190214

23.5 to 32.7°C, with an average temperature of 30.6°C in the wet season and 24.5°C in the dry season (URS 2009).


19WAU-0007 R190214

Figure 2 INPEX Offsite Monitoring Locations 2016-2017 (Source: GREENCAP 2017)

Dissolved Oxygen

Harbour waters remain well oxygenated throughout the year, with dissolved oxygen (DO) levels ranging from 54% to 103% saturation, with a median typically around 84% (GREENCAP 2017; Padovan 1997).

In a study by Padovan (1997) no seasonal effects were observed, and there were minor changes in oxygen levels across multiple locations in the main body of the Harbour. Similarly, GREENCAP (2017) found that dissolved oxygen levels varied more greatly between years than seasons, although DO levels were generally higher in the Dry season. GREENCAP (2017) also determined that the DO patterns were consistent across both impact and reference monitoring sites (Figure 2), indicating that INPEX operations had no effect on DO patterns.

Salinity

Salinity in Darwin Harbour varies considerably during the year, particularly in East, Middle and West Arms where freshwater influence is greatest during the wet season. Seawater has a global average salinity of 35 parts per thousand (ppt) and Darwin Harbour is no different with median salinity ~35 ppt with surface and bottom depths having similar levels. Salinity tends to be higher in the dry season owing to increased evaporation and less freshwater inflow (URS 2010).

Salinities in the Elizabeth River fluctuate significantly due to the influence of freshwater input from land-based catchments during the wet season flooding the rivers feeding Darwin Harbour. This overlies the more dense, higher saline water from the Harbour area, forming a ‘salt wedge’ typical of estuarine systems. Parry and Munksgaard (1995) reported salinities on the bottom of the Harbour to be as much as 12 ppt higher than on the surface. As the rains cease, runoff decreases and salinities return to their higher dry-season levels (Parry & Munksgaard 1995) (URS 2010).

GREENCAP (2017) reported salinity from monitoring locations in the vicinity of Bladin Point and the mouth of the Elizabeth River (Figure 2) as ranging annually from 8.74 to 39 ppt, with an median of 35.4 ppt. Median monthly salinity (38.2 ppt) was highest in November and began deceasing from December onwards to median monthly salinities during the wet season as low as 24.3 ppt (GREENCAP 2017).

Turbidity & Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

Tides have a marked effect on water clarity in the Harbour (i.e. Turbidity range due to tidal influence between 1 – 50 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU)), with waters of neap tides being the clearest, while spring tides carry quantities of sediment from the fringing mangroves (DHAC 2007; GREENCAP 2017). GREENCAP (2017) also observed that high wet season rainfall events and the subsequent sediment runoff have a marked effect on turbidity and total suspended solids.

Darwin Harbour has naturally high levels of suspended sediments due to it being a tide dominated estuary with large tidal movements, strong currents and a large area of riparian mangrove sediments. Further sediment loads can enter the Harbour from soil erosion from urban and rural development. Excessive sediments can smother and contribute to the loss of seagrass, coral and other fauna and flora.


19WAU-0007 R190214

The areas with the highest natural sedimentation are in the upper reaches of East and Middle Arms. Medium levels of sedimentation occur in the seaward end of West Arm and the lowest levels are in the more open water areas such as EAW and Larrakeyah to the seaward boundary of the Harbour (DHAC 2007).

It is estimated that 60% of the Harbour’s sediments originate from offshore. The remainder is deposited by rivers and creeks, derived predominantly from erosion of channel walls. Direct contribution to the Harbour from sheet erosion is likely to be limited because of the very low hillslope gradients adjacent to the Harbour (DHAC 2007).

Turbidity is highest during spring tides when current velocity, and therefore capacity of the water to move sediment, is greatest (DHAC 2007). During the spring-tide cycle, turbidity is greatest at the midpoint between high and low water, and lowest at slack water. Turbidity is higher in the wet season than the dry season because of the influx of terrigenous sediments to Harbour waters through the rivers and, to a lesser extent, from surface-water sheetflow.

GREENCAP (2017) reported turbidity levels in 2016-2017 to range from 0.1 to 20.9 NTU, with a median of 4.45 NTU. Whilst TSS levels during the same period ranged from <1 to 55 mg/L, with a median of 8.8 mg/L.

Turbidity levels recorded in the Ichthys nearshore development area by URS (2008) were up to 73.6 NTU, with a mean reading of 6.9 NTU. Predictably, higher NTU values were found at the bottom of the water column than at the surface, with higher levels also being recorded in the wet season when compared with the dry. During ebb tides turbidity levels were higher upstream than in the Harbour; this was reversed during flood tides (URS 2010).

pH

The pH reported by GREENCAP (2017) around the mouth of the Elizabeth River and Bladin Point, between 2016-2017 ranged from 6.89 to 8.67, with a median of 7.85. However, Padovan (1997) reported a much narrower range (8.3–8.6 with a mean of 8.5) for the main body of Darwin Harbour. Both studies observed very little seasonal or spatial variation in pH, although GREENCAP (2017) observed significant rainfall events to result in a decrease in pH of up to 0.9 pH units.

Measurements in the nearshore development area by URS (2009) recorded a mean pH of 8.4, and a range from pH 7.8 to 9.2. In the upper reaches of the Harbour, mean pH levels were found to be lower (more acidic), with pH levels increasing (becoming more alkaline) in the main body of the Harbour in both wet and dry season sampling. No significant difference in pH attributable to water column position or tidal state was observed (URS 2009).

2.3.2. Nutrients

Padovan (1997; 2002) and Sly et al. (2002) found total nitrogen in the main body of the Harbour to be in the range 0.2–0.6 mg/L. The concentration of total nitrogen in most of the inflowing river waters was similar to that found in the Harbour and therefore wet season inflows are not expected to affect nitrogen concentrations in the main waterbody (Padovan 1997, 2003). Phytoplankton is an important water quality measure as its abundance and composition are directly influenced by environmental factors including nutrients and light. The abundance of phytoplankton is typically quantified through the


19WAU-0007 R190214

enumeration of cell numbers and through the measurement of chlorophyll-a, the main light absorbing pigment used in photosynthesis (URS 2010).

Monitoring undertaken by INPEX in 2016-2017 reported the following results for nutrients in Darwin Harbour waters (GREENCAP 2017):

Ammonia ranged from <5 to 180 µg/L, with an annual median of 12 µg/L, with the highest concentrations occurring during March (median 18 µg/L) and the lowest in the December (median 6 µg/L);

Total nitrogen ranged 14 to 2,600 µg/L with an annaul median of 160 µg/L, and showed little variation observed between mid or upper estuary waters, or between seasons;

Total phosphorous ranged between <5 to 230 µg/L, with an annaul median of 28 µg/L (GREENCAP 2017); and

With the exception of Total Nitrogen, elevated nutrient levels were generally recorded during the wet season and were attributed to excess surface water runoff.

2.3.3. Heavy Metals

Limited information exists on the concentration of metals present in the waters of Darwin Harbour, However, Skinner et al. (2009) notes that the Darwin Harbour urban and rural zone catchments provide a potential source of aluminium, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, nickel, lead and zinc.

2.3.4. Hydrocarbons and Pesticides

There is no evidence of hydrocarbon or pesticide pollution in the waters of Darwin Harbour (DHAC 2007).

Sediment Quality

Sediments play a key role in the geochemical and biological processes of an estuarine ecosystem such as Darwin Harbour. Sediments can act as sinks for organics and metals that enter the rivers feeding Darwin Harbour. However, Darwin Harbour is generally regarded as one of the least-disturbed working harbours around the Australian coastline (DLRM, 2014).

2.4.1. Physical Characteristics

Darwin Harbour sediments can be divided into four types (Michie 1988):

Terrigenous gravels, which occur primarily in the main channel and central channels of tributaries. This demonstrates the influence of tidal movement, bathymetry and potential transport capacity in these regions (Fortune 2006);

Calcareous sands with greater than 50% biogenic carbonate, which are among or close to the small coral communities at East Point, Lee Point and Channel Island. Biogenic carbonate sediments, largely derived from molluscan shell fragments, also occur in spits and shoals close to the Harbour mouth;

Terrigenous sands on beaches and spits. This type of sediment is predominantly quartz and clay, with 10–50% carbonate, again largely derived from molluscs; and


19WAU-0007 R190214

Mud and fine sand on broad, gently inclined intertidal mudflats that occur in areas characterised by low current and tidal velocities, such as in Kitchener Bay (prior to the construction of the Darwin City Waterfront). The spatial extent of these surfaces is sometimes difficult to determine because of the gradual transition between muddy, sandy and coarser sediments and sediment movement associated with large tidal influences (Fortune 2006).

2.4.2. Heavy Metals

The following physical factors may bring about the exchange of heavy metals between water and sediments:

Bioturbation in sediments that may tend to redistribute heavy metals in the profile; and Local hydrodynamic effects can cause sediment re-suspension.

Several major projects have undertaken detailed studies of heavy metal concentrations in sediment in the vicinity of Darwin Harbour and East Arm.

Fortune (2006) undertook a detailed study of heavy metal concentrations in sediments throughout the Harbour. Several sites in the study had concentrations of metals above ISQG-Low values or were considered elevated;

Sampling by URS in 2008 found that metal concentrations recorded in East Arm surface sediments were generally found to be below the screening concentration, with the exception of arsenic, chromium and mercury. Arsenic concentrations were elevated above the maximum concentration at six sites;

A study in 2010 by the Australian Institute of Marine Science (Parry 2010) of the sediments in the immediate area of the copper concentrate loadout at EAW found elevated copper concentrations compared to background levels for Darwin Harbour;

Testing in the vicinity of EAW by AECOM in 2010 also found concentrations of arsenic and chromium elevated above the ISQG-Low level, with all other metals tested returning levels below the ISQG-Low level (AECOM, 2011). Similar to the conclusions drawn in previous studies, the elevated concentrations of arsenic, chromium and nickel detected in Darwin Harbour sediments by URS and AECOM are considered to be attributable to the local geology, and not to contamination by anthropogenic sources. These heavy metals are unlikely to be bioavailable to any significant extent and would not result in toxic effects to marine biota; and

DENR (2012) undertook comprehensive sampling across nearly 300 locations. Again, only arsenic was found to be elevated above ANZECC (2000) guidelines, with most metal concentrations being reported below the LoR for the majority of Darwin Harbour. However, a notable exception was concentrations of copper, lead and zinc being up to 20-29% higher in the tidal flat sediments adjacent to Darwin City than in other areas of Darwin Harbour.

2.4.3. Hydrocarbons

As discussed previously there are several sites of potential anthropogenic sources. Specifically, for hydrocarbons, risk around Darwin Harbour include:

Seasonal stormwater inflow from Darwin and Palmerston storm water drainage networks;


19WAU-0007 R190214

Underground pressurised fuel lines to the Fort Hill Wharf; INPEX and ConocoPhillips Facilities; The Naval Fuel Installation, Stokes Hill; Former fuel storage at the Channel Island Power Station; Bulk hydrocarbon storage at EAW; Bulk hydrocarbon storage at the Darwin LNG plant; and Inventories in recreational, commercial vessels and shipping.

The NAGD screening concentration for petroleum hydrocarbons in sediments is 550 mg/kg (DEWHA 2009). A survey by URS (2004) sampled 12 sites around the Darwin Wharf Precinct and one reference site in Elizabeth River. The highest concentrations of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) recorded (11–16 mg/kg) were present at sites in Kitchener Bay and Fort Hill Wharf. Concentrations at the remaining sites were between 6 and 10 mg/kg. Petroleum hydrocarbons were also present at the reference site (Elizabeth River), though the concentration (4.9 mg/kg) was lower than in any of the samples taken during the Darwin Wharf Precinct Study. In sampling conducted in 2008, URS detected TPH, particularly in the C15–C28 range, in surface sediments at a number of sites in East Arm. However, the BTEX compounds were below LoRs at all sites, as were polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) at the majority of sites (URS 2009). Sampling by AECOM at the proposed INPEX dredging sites in 2010 (AECOM, 2011) did not return reportable levels of BTEX, PAHs or TPH.

2.4.4. Acid Sulfate Soils (ASS)

Marine and estuarine sediments containing significant amounts of sulphur, present as sulphides, have the potential to generate acidity when exposed to oxygen. Such sediments are known to occur in the mangrove soils of Darwin Harbour. Their presence and potential acid generation capacity within construction areas will be determined in pre-construction monitoring and the appropriate management measures implemented.


19WAU-0007 R190214

3. Site Investigation Methods

O2M undertook two field surveys on 27th - 28th March 2019 and 22nd May 2019 to collect information on marine environment quality of the study area. This included:

Water quality sampling and profiling took place between 27th and 28th March 2019; and Sediment quality sampling took place on 22nd May 2019.

The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the water and sediment quality of the Project area in the context of the extensive historic datasets. As such, the key indicators applied during the field survey attempt to enable comparison with existing methods and data collected which included:

Physicochemical indicators – pH, water temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, turbidity; Toxicants in water – Heavy metals, nutrients, hydrocarbons; and Toxicants in sediment – Heavy metals, hydrocarbons, particle size distribution (PSD).

The eight water profiling locations and six water and sediment sampling locations are listed in Table 3 and shown in Figure 4.

The sites were selected to build a detailed description of the immediate area alongside the Project in the Elizabeth River.

Table 3 Marine Environmental Quality Sampling Locations

Site Name Site Code Easting Northing

PR1 Water Profile - Reference Location 710337 8614409

PR2 Water Profile - Reference Location 716475 8611226

P1 Water Profile 712484 8612182






WSRef_1 Water & Sediment Sample -Reference Location 710311 8614456

WSRef_2 Water & Sediment Sample -Reference Location 716410 8611189

WS1 Water & Sediment Sample 712493 8612150





19WAU-0007 R190214

Figure 3 Marine Environmental Quality Sampling Locations


19WAU-0007 R190214

Water Column Profiling

Water profiling was undertaken using a YSI ProDSS multiparameter sonde measuring the following parameters from the surface to the seabed. Global Positioning System (GPS) on board the vessel allowed for measurement to be taken at precise locations along the Elizabeth River.

Water Temperature; Depth; Salinity; Turbidity; Dissolved Oxygen; and pH.

Water Sampling & Analysis

Water samples were collected from the near-surface (0.5 m depth) using a 5L Niskin Bottle. GPS on board the vessel allowed for measurement to be taken at precise locations along the Elizabeth River.

Water samples were sent to a NATA accredited laboratory for analysis of:

Total Metals (including Mercury); Nutrients (Chlorine, Nitrate, Ammonia, Phosphorous); Hydrocarbons; BTEXN; PAH; and E.Coli & Faecal Coliforms.

Sediment Sampling & Analysis

Surficial sediment samples were collected using a Ponar Sediment Grab. GPS on board the vessel allowed for measurement to be taken at precise locations along the Elizabeth River.

Sediment samples were sent to a NATA accredited laboratory for analysis of:

Total Metals (including Mercury); Hydrocarbons; BTEXN; and PAH.

QA/QC Assessment

The precision of the water and sediment analyses was determined by quantifying the differences between the concentrations of analytes in the QA/QC samples, using the method outlined in ANZG (2018).


19WAU-0007 R190214

Duplicate water samples were collected at one location. Field triplicate split sediment samples were collected at one location and sent to two NATA accredited laboratories for analysis.

Duplicates are two sub-samples from one sample replicate and are used to test the precision (or repeatability) of the analysis. The relative percentage difference (RPD) between the primary and duplicate sample is calculated as:

If the RPDs are less than 35% then field and laboratory procedures are considered of acceptable quality and meaningful conclusions can be drawn from the data.

Three interlaboratory triplicates were collected for one sediment sample. This involves collecting three sub-samples from one same replicate. The relative standard deviation (RSD) was calculated as:

If the RSDs are less than 50% then field and inter-laboratory procedures are considered of acceptable quality and meaningful conclusions can be made with the data.


19WAU-0007 R190214

4. Results & Discussion

Water Quality

4.1.1. Physico-chemical Parameters

Water column profiles were collected at eight locations in the study area during both incoming and outgoing tide conditions. These results are presented in Figure 4 and discussed below.

Water Temperature

Temperature range across all locations was between 28.9°C to 29.9°C. These results are comparative to previous surveys in Darwin Harbour, where the average water temperature in the Wet Season (November – April) was reported as 30.6 °C (URS 2010; URS 2009). It is widely understood that water temperatures vary greatly between Wet and Dry Seasons in Darwin Harbour, therefore the temperatures observed in this study should not be considered as representative of year-round conditions.

Slight (i.e. <1 °C) temperature stratification was observed between surface and midwaters during incoming tide conditions at PR1 and P1 and during outgoing tide conditions at P1, P3, P6 and PR2.

Dissolved Oxygen

Dissolved oxygen (% Saturation) varied from 66% at PR6 to 84% at PR1. DO was lower near surface and higher at depth at all locations. DO was below the 80% Darwin Harbour WQO (NRETAS 2010) at all locations during outgoing tide conditions and at PR2, P6, P5, P4 and P2 during incoming tide conditions. The observed low DO conditions are most likely related to freshwater inputs causing stratification during the Wet Season.

Although the observed DO levels were low, they are generally comparable with previous results reported in URS (2010), which found that typical DO levels in the Darwin Harbour area were ~84% with slightly lower levels found further up the estuaries. This corroborates with O2M’s survey which found that DO at PR1, located closest to Darwin Harbour, had 84% saturation. However, values of 66% were recorded at P6 which is located further upstream in close proximity to Elizabeth River Bridge.

Salinity

Salinity at all locations was observed to increase with depth during outgoing tide conditions. Locations P1, P3, P4 and PR2 had clear changes in salinity from surface to the seabed indicating the denser saline water forming closer to the seabed and freshwater mixing at the surface, as would be expected from the formation of a salt wedge in an estuarine environment, particularly during the Wet season. Locations P2 and PR1 further downstream were generally more mixed and more saline than the upstream locations.

Conversely, during incoming tide conditions, only site PR2, located furthest upstream in the Elizabeth River, reported an increase in salinity from the surface (i.e. 24 ppt) to near the seabed (i.e.32 ppt). All other locations were well mixed throughout the water column during incoming tide conditions.


19WAU-0007 R190214

pH

The most acidic sites were PR2, P6 and P5 which had an average profile pH of 7.75 – 7.86, whilst sites PR1, P2 and P3 were slightly more alkaline with pH values of 8.04 – 8.12 respectively. All results were within the acceptable range (i.e. pH of 7 - 8.8) defined in the Darwin Harbour Water Quality Objectives (NRETAS 2010) and are consistent with pH measurements made in previous surveys of Darwin Harbour (URS 2010; URS 2009), which recorded a mean pH of 8.4 in Darwin Harbour and slightly lower pH levels (i.e. pH of between 7 – 8) further upstream in the adjoining estuaries.

Turbidity

Turbidity was variable for all locations during both incoming and outgoing tide conditions although was generally lower during outgoing tide conditions (i.e. turbidity range ~4 - 8 NTU) compared to incoming tide conditions (i.e. Turbidity range ~5 - 11 NTU). Turbidity increased with depth at all locations under both incoming and outgoing tide conditions. The observed turbidity range is typical for Darwin Harbour during the wet season which has previously been reported as a mean of 6.9 NTU in the vicinity of the Project area (URS 2010).


19WAU-0007 R190214

Incoming Tide Outgoing Tide

l

Figure 4 Physicochemical water column profiles for water temperature, salinity, pH, dissolved oxygen and turbidity compared against Darwin Water Quality Guidelines where available.


19WAU-0007 R190214

4.1.2. Laboratory Analysis Results

Results for the laboratory analysis of water samples are presented in Table 4 and discussed below.

Heavy Metals

Water samples collected by O2M along Elizabeth River provided results that only detected aluminium and manganese.

Aluminium varied between 90 µg/L at WSRef2 location to 170 µg/L at sites WS1 and WS4. Manganese varied from below LoR at WSRef1 to 15 µg/L at WSRef2.

All other metals reported results below the LoR. However, due to matrix interference3 in the laboratory, the analysis was not able to achieve the target LoR for most metals, resulting in the minimum reported values being above the Darwin Harbour WQOs (NRETAS 2010) for: Chromium, Cobalt, Copper, Lead, Silver and Zinc. It is noted that these reported levels are unlikely to be actual exceedances of the criteria and more likely related to limitations of the analysis for these particular samples.

Limited information is publicly available regarding concentrations of heavy metals in water.

Nutrients

Water samples collected by O2M along Elizabeth River showed that ammonia, nitrite and phosphorous were present at all locations, with both ammonia and phosphorus elevated at, or above the Darwin Harbour WQO (20 µg/L) at all locations. This result is consistent with other studies which have found nutrient enrichment, particularly ammonia and phosphorus to be present throughout Darwin Harbour, particularly during in the wet season (GREENCAP 2017).

Hydrocarbons

Concentrations of hydrocarbons (i.e. PAH, TRH, TPH & BTEX) were below the limit of reporting for all water samples collected. This result is consistent with previous studies in Darwin Harbour which recorded very limited evidence of any hydrocarbon contamination (GREENCAP 2017; URS 2010).

3 Matrix interference may occur due to variable salinity and total dissolved solid concentrations within water samples.


19WAU-0007 R190214

Table 4 Water Sample Laboratory Analysis Results

Analyte grouping/ Analyte Unit LoR

Sampling Locations SMD1

(NRETAS 2010) WS1 WS2 WS3 WS4 WS

REF1 WS

REF2

Dissolved Metals and Metalloids

Aluminium µg/L 10 170 140 100 170 120 90 -

Arsenic µg/L 1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 -

Cadmium µg/L 0.2 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 5.5

Chromium µg/L 1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 27.4 (CrIII)

4.4 (CrIV)

Cobalt µg/L 1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 1

Copper µg/L 1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 1.3

Iron µg/L 5 <260 <260 <260 <260 <260 <260 -

Lead µg/L 1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 4.4

Manganese µg/L 1 7 8 6 8 <5 15 -

Mercury mg/L 0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.4

Nickel µg/L 1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 70

Silver µg/L 1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 1.4

Vanadium µg/L 10 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 100

Zinc µg/L 5 <26 <26 <26 <26 <26 <26 15

Nutrients

Ammonia as N µg/L 10 60 40 40 40 50 60 20

Nitrite as N µg/L 10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 -

Nitrate as N µg/L 10 20 30 30 20 20 20 -

Nitrite + Nitrate as N µg/L 10 20 30 30 20 20 20 -

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen as N µg/L 100 200 200 100 100 100 200 -

Total Nitrogen as N µg/L 100 200 200 100 100 100 200 270

Total Phosphorus as P µg/L 10 30 30 30 20 20 30 20

Reactive Phosphorus as P µg/L 10 10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 -

Bacterial Analysis

Faecal Coliforms CFU/

100mL 1 ~9 ~4 ~2 ~1 <1 ~30 -

Escherichia coli CFU/

100mL 1 ~9 ~4 ~2 ~1 <1 ~30 <200

Enterococci CFU/

100mL 1 ~3 ~1 <1 ~4 <1 35 <50

Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons

Sum of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

µg/L 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 -


19WAU-0007 R190214

Analyte grouping/ Analyte Unit LoR

Sampling Locations SMD1

(NRETAS 2010) WS1 WS2 WS3 WS4 WS

REF1 WS

REF2

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons

C6 – C9 Fraction µg/L 20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 -

C10 – C14 Fraction µg/L 50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 -

C15 – C28 Fraction µg/L 100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 -

C29 – C36 Fraction µg/L 50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 -

C10 – C36 Fraction (sum) µg/L 50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 -

Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons

C6 – C10 Fraction µg/L 20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 -

C6 – C10 Fraction minus BTEX (F1)

µg/L 20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 -

>C10 – C16 Fraction µg/L 100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 -

>C16 – C34 Fraction µg/L 100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 -

>C34 – C40 Fraction µg/L 100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 -

>C10 – C40 Fraction (sum) µg/L 100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 250

>C10 – C16 Fraction minus Naphthalene (F2)

µg/L 100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 -

BTEXN

Benzene µg/L 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 700

Toluene µg/L 2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 -

Ethylbenzene µg/L 2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 -

meta- & para-Xylene µg/L 2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 -

ortho-Xylene µg/L 2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 -

Total Xylenes µg/L 2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 -

Sum of BTEX µg/L 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 -

Naphthalene µg/L 5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 70

1 All toxicant values derived from ANZG (2018) 95% SPL default guideline values, nutrients and physico-chemical values derived from NRETAS (2010) Water Quality Objectives.


19WAU-0007 R190214

Sediment Quality

4.2.1. Laboratory Analysis Results

Sediment samples were collected at 6 locations along Elizabeth River (Figure 3). Results for the laboratory analysis of sediment samples are presented in Table 5 and discussed below.

Physical Characteristics

Sampling of the Elizabeth River channel locations WS2, WS3, WS4, WSRef1 & WSRef2 all comprised very similar composition of particle size being predominately sandy (i.e. Sand content ranged from 48 – 77%) with some gravel (i.e. Gravel content ranged from 9-38%). Site WS4 had the highest content of gravel (i.e. 38%). Site WS1, which was up a small creek feeding into the Elizabeth River was predominately sand with little to no gravel, but with a significant quantity of clay (i.e. 31%). All samples were within the typical range expected of sediments in Darwin Harbour and the associated estuarine river systems being dominated by fine sand particles which typically make up more than 50% of the sediment particle size composition (DENR 2012).

Heavy Metals

Concentrations of harmful heavy metal contaminants in sediments were generally low, with only WSRef1 reporting levels of Arsenic above the ANZG (2018) Default Guideline Value (DGV) (2018). All other metals were either below the relevant ANZG (2018) DGV, or do not have a specified DGV. For those values that do not have an DGV, Aluminium, Iron, Manganese and Vanadium were all noted as being present at moderate concentrations, but were consistent with the concentrations reported for previous studies (DENR 2012; Fortune 2006).

The results obtained through this site investigation are similar to previous studies of the Darwin Harbour sediments, which reported metal concentrations below the DGVs (Peerzada and Ryan 1988; Currey 1988; Hanley and Caswell 1995; Parry and Munksgaard 1995; Padovan 2002). AECOM (2011) sampled sediments in the vicinity of EAW and also detected elevated levels of arsenic and chromium above the relevant DGVs. DENR (2012) also detected arsenic above ANZECC (2000) guidelines values at several locations in Darwin Harbour. Further testing undertaken by AECOM in 2010 determined that the elevated arsenic levels were unlikely to be bioavailable to any significant extent that would result in toxic effects to marine biota. The elevated levels were considered characteristic of the local hydrogeology and were later detected in elevated groundwater samples collected by GREENCAP (2017).

Hydrocarbons

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) and Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons (TRH) were detected at WS2 and WSRef1 locations although levels of TPH were below the ANZG (2018) DGV. These sites are also located the furthest downstream from the Project area, towards Darwin Harbour. All samples analysed for BTEXN and PAH returned levels below laboratory LoR. These results are consistent with previous studies which found hydrocarbons in Darwin Harbour to generally be below the LoR (AECOM 2011; URS 2009).


19WAU-0007 R190214

Table 5 Sediment Sample Laboratory Analysis Results

Analyte Grouping / Analyte LoR

Sampling Locations Default Guideline Values (DGV) (ANZG 2018) WS1 WS2 WS3 WS4 WSREF1 WSREF2

Sediment Particle Size Distribution (%)

Clay (<2 Âµm) 1 31 7 12 6 14 11 -

Silt (2-60 Âµm) 1 12 3 6 2 10 5 -

Sand (0.06-2mm) 1 48 77 62 54 52 66 -

Gravel (>2mm) 1 9 13 20 38 24 18 -

Cobbles (>6cm) 1 31 7 12 6 14 11 -

Metals (mg/kg)

Aluminium 50 4140 2610 3800 2840 3280 2280 -

Iron 50 19000 17300 30000 36200 33000 19000 -

Antimony 0.5 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 0.56 <0.50 <0.50 -

Arsenic 1 5.53 13.7 15.1 14.6 27.3 11.9 20

Cadmium 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 1.5

Chromium 1 20.9 22.7 30.1 64.7 34.7 18.5 80

Copper 1 4.1 2.6 4.4 4.6 5.3 2.6 65

Lead 1 7.0 3.7 6.8 8.2 7.9 3.8 50

Manganese 10 121 84 86 72 124 88 -

Nickel 1 1.6 2.3 6.9 3.3 3.6 2.2 21

Silver 0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 -

Vanadium 2 55.2 46.6 53.5 76.9 66.9 34.4 -

Zinc 1 4.9 6.3 13.4 9.9 9.7 6.7 200

Mercury 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.15

Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (µg/kg)

Sum of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 10,000

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (mg/kg)

C6 - C9 Fraction 3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 -

C10 - C14 Fraction 3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 -

C15 - C28 Fraction 3 <3 14 <3 <3 6 <3 -

C29 - C36 Fraction 3 5 34 <5 <5 19 <5 -

C10 - C36 Fraction (sum) 3 5 48 <3 <3 25 <3 280

Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons (mg/kg)

C10 – C16 Fraction 3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 -

C16 – C34 Fraction 3 5 39 4 <3 22 6 -

C34 – C40 Fraction 3 <5 13 <5 <5 7 <5 -


19WAU-0007 R190214

QA/QC Assessment

4.3.1. Water Samples

Results of field QA/QC assessment for water samples are shown in Table 64. RPD was within acceptable limits (i.e. <35%) for all analytes except TKN and TN. However, the exceedance for these analytes was due to the very low levels reported. QA/QC results indicate that field sampling repeatability was acceptable.

Table 6 Water sample QA/QC assessment results

Analyte WQ4 WQD RPD <35%

Aluminium 0.17 0.16 6.1

Manganese 0.008 0.006 28.6

Ammonia as N 0.04 0.05 22.2

Nitrate as N 0.02 0.02 0.0

Nitrite + Nitrate as N 0.02 0.02 0.0

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen as N 0.1 0.2 66.7

Total Nitrogen as N 0.1 0.2 66.7

Total Phosphorus as P 0.02 0.02 0.0

4.3.2. Sediment Samples

Results of field QA/QC assessment for water samples are shown in Table 74. The RPD was within acceptable limits (i.e. <35%) for all analytes except iron, chromium, lead and vanadium. As the RPD values for these analytes are elevated, the results should be treated as an estimate only.

The RSD was within acceptable limits (i.e. <50%) for all analytes except iron and chromium. As the RSD values for these analytes are elevated, the results should be treated as an estimate only.

Table 7 Sediment sample QA/QC assessment results

Analyte S4 Duplicate Laboratory Split RPD <35% RSD <50%

Aluminium 2840 3650 3500 25.0 12.9

Iron 36200 21600 53000 50.5 42.5

Arsenic 14.6 12.3 23 17.1 33.9

4 Results below the LoR are not reported.

C10 – C40 Fraction (sum) 3 5 52 4 <3 29 6 -

C10 – C16 Fraction minus Naphthalene (F2) 3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 -


19WAU-0007 R190214

Analyte S4 Duplicate Laboratory Split RPD <35% RSD <50%

Chromium 64.7 30.5 58 71.8 35.5

Copper 4.6 4 4.8 14.0 9.3

Lead 8.2 5.2 10 44.8 31.1

Manganese 72 66 93 8.7 18.4

Nickel 3.3 4 3.8 19.2 9.7

Vanadium 76.9 46.1 92 50.1 32.6

Zinc 9.9 10.8 11 8.7 5.5


19WAU-0007 R190214

5. Conclusion

Water Quality

Water quality within Darwin Harbour has been subject to numerous studies and monitoring programs, and a validation survey was undertaken in the vicinity of the Project area to provide context for the historic information. Typical water quality characteristics of the Project area include:

Water temperatures typically range from 23.5 – 32.7°C with an average of 30.6°C and 24.5°C in the wet and dry seasons, respectively. Values observed during the O2M site investigation were consistent with historical temperatures, with results between 28.9°C and 29.9°C during the March survey;

Dissolved oxygen typically ranges between 54-103%, averaging 84%. The O2M March 2019 survey observed dissolved oxygen values within this range (i.e. between 66-84%). Dissolved oxygen has been observed to decrease with respect to distance upstream, an observation conclusive within the O2M March 2019 survey results;

Salinity levels in Darwin Harbour are reported to range between 8.74 to 39 ppt, with a median of 35.4 ppt. Salinity varies considerably over the year and respect to distance upstream. Salinity averages 35 ppt, although salt wedges are typical of the mid to upper estuary areas with salinities identifies up to 12 ppt higher within bottom waters compared with surface waters during wet season. Salt wedge effects were observed during outgoing tides by O2 Marine, with greater mixing identified during incoming tides;

Turbidity and suspended sediments are naturally high, associated with the large tidal movements and strong currents. Turbidity is highest during spring tides, typically around the midpoint between high and low water when current velocity is greatest, and vice versa lowest during neap tides. Average turbidity increases during the wet season as a result of increase sediment loading due to high rainfall resulting in suspended sediments entering the system. Turbidity has been observed to range between 6.9 NTU and 73.6 NTU; although consistent with the O2M March 2019 survey which observed turbidity within the range of 4-11 NTU;

pH typically ranges between 7.8-9.2 with an average of 8.4. The results of the O2M March 2019 survey reported pH range at the low end of the typical range (i.e. 7.75-8.12). Little to no seasonal variation has previously been observed, however greater variability and higher pH has been observed in the upper reaches attributed to acidification processes occurring within from mangrove communities;

The result of the O2M March 2019 sampling confirmed that with the exception of total nitrogen, nutrient enrichment (i.e. elevated phosphorus and ammonia) is present in the vicinity of the Project area. In the past this finding has been most prevalent in the wet season and attributed to excess surface water runoff.

Limited information is available for heavy metal levels within Darwin Harbour waters. However, the March O2M survey confirmed that there is no heavy metal contamination in the vicinity of the Project area, with all metals reported below the DGV for SMD waters.

The waters surrounding the project are considered to have no known hydrocarbon or pesticide water quality issues, an observation consistent with the O2M March 2019 sampling results, which recorded these parameters generally below the LoR.


19WAU-0007 R190214

Overall the marine and estuarine waters of Darwin Harbour and the Project area are considered to be in good to excellent quality with limited evidence of anthropogenic impacts.

Sediment Quality

The sediment quality characteristics of the Project Area include:

Sediments within Elizabeth River sample locations comprised predominately of sand with some gravel;

Concentrations of metals sampled from surficial sediments within Darwin Harbour and the Project area are generally low, with arsenic being the only contaminant that is consistently reported to be elevated across multiple locations in the Harbour.

Elevated arsenic levels in sediments are thought to be attributed to local geology, not contamination from anthropogenic sources;

With the exception of arsenic, the O2 Marine (2019b) sediment survey found all metals to be below the ANZG (2018) DGV. However, historic surveys have found occasional samples to contain elevated levels of chromium, lead and copper in isolated areas of Darwin Harbour.

Concentrations of elevated metal contaminants (i.e. arsenic) are not thought to be bioavailable to any significant extent that would result in toxic effects to marine biota;

Low levels of TPH (11-16 mg/kg) have been detected in East Arm surrounding the wharf, although BTEX and PAHs were below the detection levels. Similarly, O2 Marine found that TPH and TRH within the lower reaches of Elizabeth River were below detection levels;

Actual Acid Sulphate Soils are known to exist in sediments, both sub- and intertidal, surrounding the Project Area and appropriate sampling and management would be required if disturbance of marine sediments is proposed.

Overall, sediment quality in Darwin Harbour and in the vicinity of the Project area is of good quality with limited evidence of anthropogenic impacts.


19WAU-0007 R190214

6. References

ANZECC & ARMCANZ. (2000). Australian and New Zealand guidelines for fresh and marine water quality. National Water Quality Management Strategy No 4, Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council and Agricultural and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand, Canberra, ACT.

ANZG. (2018). Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality. Australian and New Zealand Governments and Australian state and territory governments, Canberra ACT, Australia. Available at www.waterquality.gov.au/anz-guidelines

AECOM. (2011). Dredge Management Plan, East Arm Wharf Expansion. AECOM Australia Pty Ltd, Darwin Northern Territory.

Currey, N. (1988). Darwin Harbour Ambient Water Quality, in Proceedings of a Workshop on Research and Management, H.K. Larson, M.G. Michie and J.R. Hanley (eds), held in Darwin, 2-3 September 1987, Mangrove Monograph 4, Australian National University, North Australia Research Unit, Darwin, Australia.

Darwin Harbour Advisory Committee. (2007). Status on the implementation of the Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management 2005-2006

Department of Land Resource Management – Northern Territory Government. (2014). Darwin Harbour Water Quality Protection Plan.

DENR. (2012). Darwin Harbour Region Report Card 2012. Report was prepared by the Aquatic Health Unit, Department of Land Resource Management, Northern Territory https://denr.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/254768/Darwin-Harbour-Report-Cards-2012_9Jan13.pdf

Department of Natural Resources, Environment, The Arts and Sports - Northern Territory Government (2010). Water Quality Objectives for the Darwin Harbour Region – Background Document.

DLRM. (2014). Darwin Harbour Region Report Card. Aquatic Health Unit, Water Resources Division, Department of Land Resource Management, Palmerston NT.

Department of Land Resource Management (2018). A risk assessment of water quality pollution of Darwin Harbor using modeeled catchment impacts on water quality.

Fortune. J. (2006). The grain size and heavy metal content of sediment in Darwin Harbour Environmental Projection Agency. Department of Natural Reources and the Arts. Report No 14/20006D

Greencap. (2017). EPA7 Annual Report 2017 – Environmental Impact Monitoring Program. Ichthys On-Shore LNG Facilities Bladin Point. Report prepared for JKC Australia LNG Pty Ltd

Hanley, J.R. and Caswell, G.M. (1995). East Arm Port – Stage 1. Water Quality monitoring program. Report on setup phase and baseline data collection. Marine Ecology Technical Report 95/1.

Michie, M.G. (1988). Sediments, Sedimentary Environments and Palaeoenvironmental in Port Darwin. Cited in Dames and Moore (1997). Darwin LNG Plant Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared for Phillips Oil Company Australia.

NTEPA (2018). Environmental Factors and Objectives.

Padovan, A.V. (1997). The water quality of Darwin Harbour: October 1990–November 1991. Water Quality Branch, Water Resources Division, Department of Lands, Planning and Environment, NT Government, Report No. 34/1997D December 1997.

Padovan, A.V. (2002). Darwin Harbour Water Quality Monitoring 2001/02. Report 23/2002. Department

https://www.waterquality.gov.au/anz-guidelines

https://denr.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/254768/Darwin-Harbour-Report-Cards-2012_9Jan13.pdf

https://denr.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/254768/Darwin-Harbour-Report-Cards-2012_9Jan13.pdf


19WAU-0007 R190214

of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment, Darwin, Northern Territory.

Padovan, A.V. (2003). Darwin Harbour water and sediment quality. pp. 5–18 in Darwin Harbour Region: current knowledge and future needs. Proceedings of public presentations hosted by the Darwin Harbour Advisory Committee at the Northern Territory University, Darwin, on 11, 19 and 26 February 2003. Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment, Darwin, Northern Territory.

Parry, D.L. and Munksgaard, N.C. (1995). Physiochemical Baseline Data for Darwin Harbour-East Arm Port Development. Northern Territory University, Darwin NT.

Parry 2010. Investigation of Copper Concentrate Loadout at East Arm Port: Water and Sediment Quality. Prepared for Northern Territory Government Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport by Professor David Parry, Australian Institute of Marine Science.

Sly, S.G., Marshall, A.J. and Williams, T.N. (2002). Integrated monitoring of water quality and biological diversity in Darwin Harbour and its marinas. Technical Report No. 4 (Fisheries). Department of Business, Industry and resource Development, Darwin, Northern Territory.

Skinner, L., Townsend, S. and Fortune, J. (2009). The impact of urban land-use on total pollutant loads entering Darwin Harbour. Report 06/2008D. Department of Natural Resources, Environment, The Arts and Sport. Darwin NT.

URS (2009). INPEX Ichthys Gas Field Development Project – Nearshore Marine Water Quality and Sediment Study.

URS (2010). Marine Water and Sediment Quality Assessment Darwin. Northern Territory Department of Lands and Planning.

A TNG Limited - Darwin Industrial Processing Facility Marine Environmental Quality Site Investigation

19WAU-0007 R190214

Appendix A Chain of Custody Documents

B TNG Limited - Darwin Industrial Processing Facility Marine Environmental Quality Site Investigation

19WAU-0007 R190214

Appendix B Laboratory Reports

Envirolab Services (WA) Pty Ltd trading as MPL Laboratories

ABN 53 140 099 207

16-18 Hayden Court Myaree WA 6154

ph 08 9317 2505 fax 08 9317 4163

[email protected]

www.mpl.com.au

INTERIM REPORT 227304

Address

Josh AbbottAttention

O2 MarineClient

Client Details

27/05/2019Date completed instructions received

27/05/2019Date samples received

1 SoilNumber of Samples

19WAU-0007 - Darwin Processing FacilityYour Reference

Sample Details

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

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

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

Analysis Details

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

NATA Accreditation Number 2901. This document shall not be reproduced except in full.

10/06/2019Interim Report Date

11/06/2019Date results requested by

Report Details

Revision No: P00

227304MPL Reference: Page | 1 of 16

Client Reference: 19WAU-0007 - Darwin Processing Facility

95%Surrogate aaa-Trifluorotoluene

<0.2mg/kgo-xylene

<0.4mg/kgm+p-xylene

<0.2mg/kgEthylbenzene

<0.2mg/kgToluene

<0.2mg/kgBenzene

<25mg/kgTRH C6 - C10

<25mg/kgTRH C6 - C9

28/05/2019-Date analysed

28/05/2019-Date extracted

SoilType of sample

22/05/2019Date Sampled

STUNITSYour Reference

227304-1Our Reference

TRH in Sediment (C6-C9) + BTEX

MPL Reference: 227304

P00Revision No:

Page | 2 of 16


<25mg/kgTRH >C34 - C40








SoilType of sample




sTRH in Sediment (C10-C36)


P00Revision No:

Page | 3 of 16


77%Surrogate p-Terphenyl-D14

<5µg/kgCoronene

<5µg/kgBenzo(g,h,i)perylene

<5µg/kgDibenzo(a,h)anthracene

<5µg/kgIndeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene

<5µg/kgPerylene

<5µg/kgBenzo(a)pyrene

<5µg/kgBenzo(e)pyrene

<10µg/kgBenzo(b,j+k)fluoranthene

<5µg/kgChrysene

<5µg/kgBenzo(a)anthracene

<5µg/kgPyrene

<5µg/kgFluoranthene

<5µg/kgAnthracene

<5µg/kgPhenanthrene

<5µg/kgFluorene

<5µg/kgAcenaphthene

<5µg/kgAcenaphthylene

<5µg/kg2-Methylnaphthalene

<5µg/kgNaphthalene



SoilType of sample




PAHs in Sediment (NAGD)


P00Revision No:

Page | 4 of 16


11mg/kgZinc

92mg/kgVanadium

<0.1mg/kgSilver

3.8mg/kgNickel

<0.01mg/kgMercury

93mg/kgManganese

10mg/kgLead

53,000mg/kgIron

4.8mg/kgCopper

58mg/kgChromium

<0.1mg/kgCadmium

23mg/kgArsenic

0.6mg/kgAntimony

3,500mg/kgAluminium


28/05/2019-Date digested

SoilType of sample




Metals in sediment


P00Revision No:

Page | 5 of 16


21%Moisture


28/05/2019-Date prepared

SoilType of sample




Moisture


P00Revision No:

Page | 6 of 16


12% passing0.075mm

14% passing0.150mm

58% passing0.300mm

70% passing0.425mm

73% passing0.600mm

76% passing1.18mm

82% passing2.36mm

94% passing4.75mm

99% passing9.5mm

100% passing19.0mm

100% passing37.5mm

100% passing75.0mm

100% passing100.0mm

100% passing150.0mm

SoilType of sample




Part. Size Dist. (full)


P00Revision No:

Page | 7 of 16


mg/kgTotal Organic Carbon by Combustion

SoilType of sample




External Testing


P00Revision No:

Page | 8 of 16


Soil samples are extracted with methanol and spiked into water prior to analysing by purge and trap GC-MS. Water samples are analysed directly by purge and trap GC-MS. F1 = (C6-C10)-BTEX as per NEPM B1 Guideline on Investigation Levels for Soil and Groundwater.

ORG-016

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

Soil samples are extracted with Dichloromethane/Acetone and waters with Dichloromethane and analysed by GC-MS. Benzo(a)pyrene TEQ as per NEPM draft B1 Guideline on Investigation Levels for Soil and Groundwater.

ORG-012

Soil samples are extracted with Dichloromethane/Acetone and waters with Dichloromethane and analysed by GC-FID. F2 = (>C10-C16)-Naphthalene as per NEPM B1 Guideline on Investigation Levels for Soil and Groundwater (HSLs Tables 1A (3, 4)). Note Naphthalene is determined from the VOC analysis.

ORG-003

Determination of various metals by ICP-MS. METALS-022

Determination of Mercury by Cold Vapour AAS. For urine samples total Mercury is determined, however, mercury in urine is almost entirely in the inorganic form (CDC).

METALS-021

Metals in soil and water by ICP-OES.METALS-020

Moisture content determined by heating at 105 deg C for a minimum of 12 hours.

INORG-008

Analysed by The Marine and Freshwater Research Laboratory, accreditation number 10603Ext-058

Methods of testing soils for engineering purposes - Soil classification tests - Determination of the particle size distribution of a soil - Standard method of analysis by sieving

1289.3.6.1

Methodology SummaryMethod ID


P00Revision No:

Page | 9 of 16


[NT]99128495190ORG-014%Surrogate aaa-Trifluorotoluene

[NT]770<0.2<0.21<0.2ORG-0160.2mg/kgo-xylene

[NT]750<0.4<0.41<0.4ORG-0160.4mg/kgm+p-xylene

[NT]770<0.2<0.21<0.2ORG-0160.2mg/kgEthylbenzene

[NT]840<0.2<0.21<0.2ORG-0160.2mg/kgToluene

[NT]790<0.2<0.21<0.2ORG-0160.2mg/kgBenzene

[NT]780<25<251<25ORG-01625mg/kgTRH C6 - C10

[NT]780<25<251<25ORG-01625mg/kgTRH C6 - C9

[NT]28/05/201928/05/201928/05/2019128/05/2019-Date analysed

[NT]28/05/201928/05/201928/05/2019128/05/2019-Date extracted

[NT]LCS-1RPDDup.Base#BlankMethodPQLUnitsTest Description

Spike Recovery %DuplicateQUALITY CONTROL: TRH in Sediment (C6-C9) + BTEX


P00Revision No:

Page | 10 of 16


[NT]820<25<251<25ORG-00325mg/kgTRH >C34 - C40

[NT]840<25<251<25ORG-00325mg/kgTRH >C16 - C34

[NT]820<25<251<25ORG-00325mg/kgTRH >C10 - C16

[NT]800<25<251<25ORG-00325mg/kgTRH C29 - C36

[NT]850<25<251<25ORG-00325mg/kgTRH C15 - C28

[NT]750<25<251<25ORG-00325mg/kgTRH C10 - C14

[NT]28/05/201928/05/201928/05/2019128/05/2019-Date analysed



Spike Recovery %DuplicateQUALITY CONTROL: sTRH in Sediment (C10-C36)


P00Revision No:

Page | 11 of 16


[NT]6337577166ORG-012%Surrogate p-Terphenyl-D14

[NT][NT]0<5<51<5ORG-0125µg/kgCoronene

[NT][NT]0<5<51<5ORG-0125µg/kgBenzo(g,h,i)perylene

[NT][NT]0<5<51<5ORG-0125µg/kgDibenzo(a,h)anthracene

[NT][NT]0<5<51<5ORG-0125µg/kgIndeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene

[NT][NT]0<5<51<5ORG-0125µg/kgPerylene

[NT]890<5<51<5ORG-0125µg/kgBenzo(a)pyrene

[NT][NT]0<5<51<5ORG-0125µg/kgBenzo(e)pyrene

[NT][NT]0<10<101<10ORG-01210µg/kgBenzo(b,j+k)fluoranthene

[NT]880<5<51<5ORG-0125µg/kgChrysene

[NT][NT]0<5<51<5ORG-0125µg/kgBenzo(a)anthracene

[NT]620<5<51<5ORG-0125µg/kgPyrene

[NT]710<5<51<5ORG-0125µg/kgFluoranthene

[NT][NT]0<5<51<5ORG-0125µg/kgAnthracene

[NT]800<5<51<5ORG-0125µg/kgPhenanthrene

[NT]800<5<51<5ORG-0125µg/kgFluorene

[NT][NT]0<5<51<5ORG-0125µg/kgAcenaphthene

[NT][NT]0<5<51<5ORG-0125µg/kgAcenaphthylene

[NT][NT]0<5<51<5ORG-0125µg/kg2-Methylnaphthalene

[NT]770<5<51<5ORG-0125µg/kgNaphthalene

[NT]28/05/201928/05/201928/05/2019128/05/2019-Date analysed



Spike Recovery %DuplicateQUALITY CONTROL: PAHs in Sediment (NAGD)


P00Revision No:

Page | 12 of 16


[NT]97149.6111METALS-0220.5mg/kgZinc

[NT]961579921METALS-0220.5mg/kgVanadium

[NT]950<0.1<0.11METALS-0220.1mg/kgSilver

[NT]9254.03.81METALS-0220.5mg/kgNickel

[NT]1060<0.01<0.011METALS-0210.01mg/kgMercury

[NT]921580931METALS-0221mg/kgManganese

[NT]9969.4101METALS-0220.5mg/kgLead

[NT]1071446000530001METALS-0201mg/kgIron

[NT]90145.54.81METALS-0220.5mg/kgCopper

[NT]892147581METALS-0220.5mg/kgChromium

[NT]1010<0.1<0.11METALS-0220.1mg/kgCadmium

[NT]1011420231METALS-0220.5mg/kgArsenic

[NT]11000.60.61METALS-0220.5mg/kgAntimony

[NT]1030350035001METALS-0201mg/kgAluminium

[NT]31/05/201931/05/201931/05/2019131/05/2019-Date analysed

[NT]31/05/201928/05/201928/05/2019131/05/2019-Date digested


Spike Recovery %DuplicateQUALITY CONTROL: Metals in sediment


P00Revision No:

Page | 13 of 16


[NT][NT][NT][NT][NT][NT]<0.1INORG-0080.1%Moisture

[NT][NT][NT][NT][NT][NT]29/05/2019-Date analysed

[NT][NT][NT][NT][NT][NT]28/05/2019-Date prepared

[NT][NT]RPDDup.Base#BlankMethodPQLUnitsTest Description

Spike Recovery %DuplicateQUALITY CONTROL: Moisture


P00Revision No:

Page | 14 of 16


Not ReportedNR

National Environmental Protection MeasureNEPM

Not specifiedNS

Laboratory Control SampleLCS

Relative Percent DifferenceRPD

Greater than>

Less than<

Practical Quantitation LimitPQL

Insufficient sample for this testINS

Test not requiredNA

Not testedNT

Result Definitions


P00Revision No:

Page | 15 of 16


The recommended maximums for analytes in urine are taken from “2018 TLVs and BEIs”, as published by ACGIH (where available).

Australian Drinking Water Guidelines recommend that Thermotolerant Coliform, Faecal Enterococci, & E.Coli levels are less than1cfu/100mL. The recommended maximums are taken from "Australian Drinking Water Guidelines", published by NHMRC & ARMC2011.

Surrogates are known additions to each sample, blank, matrix spike and LCS in a batch, of compounds whichare similar to the analyte of interest, however are not expected to be found in real samples.

Surrogate Spike

This comprises either a standard reference material or a control matrix (such as a blank sand or water) fortifiedwith analytes representative of the analyte class. It is simply a check sample.

LCS (LaboratoryControl Sample)

A portion of the sample is spiked with a known concentration of target analyte. The purpose of the matrix spikeis to monitor the performance of the analytical method used and to determine whether matrix interferencesexist.

Matrix Spike

This is the complete duplicate analysis of a sample from the process batch. If possible, the sample selectedshould be one where the analyte concentration is easily measurable.

Duplicate

This is the component of the analytical signal which is not derived from the sample but from reagents,glassware etc, can be determined by processing solvents and reagents in exactly the same manner as forsamples.

Blank

Quality Control Definitions

Measurement Uncertainty estimates are available for most tests upon request.

Where sampling dates are not provided, Envirolab are not in a position to comment on the validity of the analysis whererecommended technical holding times may have been breached.

When samples are received where certain analytes are outside of recommended technical holding times (THTs), the analysis hasproceeded. Where analytes are on the verge of breaching THTs, every effort will be made to analyse within the THT or as soon aspracticable.

In circumstances where no duplicate and/or sample spike has been reported at 1 in 10 and/or 1 in 20 samples respectively, thesample volume submitted was insufficient in order to satisfy laboratory QA/QC protocols.

Matrix Spikes, LCS and Surrogate recoveries: Generally 70-130% for inorganics/metals; 60-140% for organics (+/-50% surrogates) a

Duplicates: >10xPQL - RPD acceptance criteria will vary depending on the analytes and the analytical techniques but is typically inthe range 20%-50% – see ELN-P05 QA/QC tables for details; <10xPQL - RPD are higher as the results approach PQL and theestimated measurement uncertainty will statistically increase.

For VOCs in water samples, three vials are required for duplicate or spike analysis.

Spikes for Physical and Aggregate Tests are not applicable.

Filters, swabs, wipes, tubes and badges will not have duplicate data as the whole sample is generally extracted during sampleextraction.

Duplicate sample and matrix spike recoveries may not be reported on smaller jobs, however, were analysed at a frequency to meetor exceed NEPM requirements. All samples are tested in batches of 20. The duplicate sample RPD and matrix spike recoveries forthe batch were within the laboratory acceptance criteria.

Laboratory Acceptance Criteria


P00Revision No:

Page | 16 of 16

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONClient: O2 Marine Job No:

Principal: Laboratory:

Project: Report Date

Location: Test report No:

Test procedure: Depth:

Sample No:

Sample Identification:

Sieve Size mm % Passing Particle Size % Passing

75 100.0 51.6 11.237.5 100.0 36.7 10.319 100.0 25.9 10.39.5 99.3 17.8 9.4

4.75 94.2 13.0 9.42.36 82.3 4.7 8.61.18 76.0 3.3 7.7

600 µm 72.7 2.3 6.8425 µm 69.8 1.4 6.2 NOTES:

300 µm 58.4150 µm 13.975 µm 11.6

Page 1 of 1

Sieve Analysis

Oven dry

227304

AS1289.3.6.1/ AS1289.3.6.3

227304-1

ST

Hydrometer Analysis

19WAU-0007

Lauren Biagioni MPL

Darwin Processing Facility

silt sand gravel

fine medium coarse medium fine

0.0010.01 0.1 1 10 100

75

μm

15

0 μ

m

30

0 μ

m

42

5 μ

m

60

0 μ

m

1.1

8 m

m

2.3

6 m

m

4.7

5 m

m

9.5

mm

19

mm

15

0 m

m

75

mm

37

.5 m

m

0.002 0.06 2 60150

0 %

10 %

20 %

30 %

40 %

50 %

60 %

70 %

80 %

90 %

100 %

- - -

pe

rce

nta

ge

fin

er

tha

n s

ize

:

← particle size - mm →

AS. sieve sizes:

coarse coarsemediumfine

Form 2106_V002 Issue date: 12 February 2016 Page 1 of 1

0 0.00 True

Environmental

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSISWork Order : Page : 1 of 9EP1902956

:: LaboratoryClient WA MARINE PTY LTD Environmental Division Perth

: :ContactContact Claudio Deldeo Customer Services EP

:: AddressAddress SUITE 5, 5/18 GRIFFON DRIVE PO BOX 1370

DUNSBOROUGH, PERTH WA, AUSTRALIA 6281

26 Rigali Way Wangara WA Australia 6065

:Telephone ---- :Telephone +61-8-9406 1301

:Project 19WAU-0007 Darwin Processing Facility Date Samples Received : 29-Mar-2019 17:50

:Order number Date Analysis Commenced : 29-Mar-2019

:C-O-C number ---- Issue Date : 08-Apr-2019 21:53

Sampler : JOSH ABBOTT

Site : ----

Quote number : EN/222

7:No. of samples received

7:No. of samples analysed

This report supersedes any previous report(s) with this reference. Results apply to the sample(s) as submitted. This document shall not be reproduced, except in full.

This Certificate of Analysis contains the following information:

l General Comments

l Analytical Results

l Surrogate Control Limits

Additional information pertinent to this report will be found in the following separate attachments: Quality Control Report, QA/QC Compliance Assessment to assist with

Quality Review and Sample Receipt Notification.

SignatoriesThis document has been electronically signed by the authorized signatories below. Electronic signing is carried out in compliance with procedures specified in 21 CFR Part 11.

Signatories Accreditation CategoryPosition

Canhuang Ke Inorganics Supervisor Perth Inorganics, Wangara, WA

Chris Lemaitre Laboratory Manager (Perth) Perth Inorganics, Wangara, WA

Indra Astuty Instrument Chemist Perth Inorganics, Wangara, WA

Vanessa Nguyen Organic Chemist Perth Organics, Wangara, WA

Vinitha Kesavan Analyst Perth Microbiology, Wangara, WA

R I G H T S O L U T I O N S | R I G H T P A R T N E R

2 of 9:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EP1902956

19WAU-0007 Darwin Processing Facility:Project

WA MARINE PTY LTD

General Comments

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

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

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

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

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

When sampling time information is not provided by the client, sampling dates are shown without a time component. In these instances, the time component has been assumed by the laboratory for processing

purposes.

Where a result is required to meet compliance limits the associated uncertainty must be considered. Refer to the ALS Contact for details.

CAS Number = CAS registry number from database maintained by Chemical Abstracts Services. The Chemical Abstracts Service is a division of the American Chemical Society.

LOR = Limit of reporting

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

ø = ALS is not NATA accredited for these tests.

~ = Indicates an estimated value.

Key :

MF = membrane filtrationl

CFU = colony forming unitl

Microbiological Comment: In accordance with ALS work instruction QWI-MIC/04, membrane filtration result is reported an approximate (~) when the count of colonies on the filtered membrane is outside the range

of 10 - 100cfu.

l

Benzo(a)pyrene Toxicity Equivalent Quotient (TEQ) per the NEPM (2013) is the sum total of the concentration of the eight carcinogenic PAHs multiplied by their Toxicity Equivalence Factor (TEF) relative to

Benzo(a)pyrene. TEF values are provided in brackets as follows: Benz(a)anthracene (0.1), Chrysene (0.01), Benzo(b+j) & Benzo(k)fluoranthene (0.1), Benzo(a)pyrene (1.0), Indeno(1.2.3.cd)pyrene (0.1),

Dibenz(a.h)anthracene (1.0), Benzo(g.h.i)perylene (0.01). Less than LOR results for 'TEQ Zero' are treated as zero.

l

EG020T : LOR raised for all samples due to possible sample matrix interference.l

MW006 and MW023: estimate (~) is reported where there are many non-target colonies; the typical colonies may be masked by overgrowth of non-target organisms. It may be informative to record this fact.l

MW023 is ALS's internal code and is equivalent to AS4276.9.l

MW006 is ALS's internal code and is equivalent to AS4276.7.l

3 of 9:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EP1902956


WA MARINE PTY LTD

Analytical Results

WQDWQ4WQ3WQ2WQ1Client sample IDSub-Matrix: MARINE WATER

(Matrix: WATER)

28-Mar-2019 00:0028-Mar-2019 00:0028-Mar-2019 00:0028-Mar-2019 00:0028-Mar-2019 00:00Client sampling date / time

EP1902956-005EP1902956-004EP1902956-003EP1902956-002EP1902956-001UnitLORCAS NumberCompound

Result Result Result Result Result

EG020T: Total Metals by ICP-MS

0.17Aluminium 0.14 0.10 0.17 0.16mg/L0.017429-90-5

<0.005Arsenic <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005mg/L0.0017440-38-2

<0.0005Cadmium <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005mg/L0.00017440-43-9

<0.005Chromium <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005mg/L0.0017440-47-3

<0.005Cobalt <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005mg/L0.0017440-48-4

<0.005Copper <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005mg/L0.0017440-50-8

<0.005Lead <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005mg/L0.0017439-92-1

0.007Manganese 0.008 0.006 0.008 0.006mg/L0.0017439-96-5

<0.005Nickel <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005mg/L0.0017440-02-0

<0.005Silver <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005mg/L0.0017440-22-4

<0.05Vanadium <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05mg/L0.017440-62-2

<0.026Zinc <0.026 <0.026 <0.026 <0.026mg/L0.0057440-66-6

<0.26Iron <0.26 <0.26 <0.26 <0.26mg/L0.057439-89-6

EG035T: Total Recoverable Mercury by FIMS

<0.0001Mercury <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001mg/L0.00017439-97-6

EK010-2: Total and Free Chlorine

<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01mg/L0.01----Total Residual Chlorine

<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01mg/L0.01----Free Chlorine

EK055G: Ammonia as N by Discrete Analyser

0.06Ammonia as N 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05mg/L0.017664-41-7

EK057G: Nitrite as N by Discrete Analyser

<0.01Nitrite as N <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01mg/L0.0114797-65-0

EK058G: Nitrate as N by Discrete Analyser

0.02Nitrate as N 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02mg/L0.0114797-55-8

EK059G: Nitrite plus Nitrate as N (NOx) by Discrete Analyser

0.02 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02mg/L0.01----Nitrite + Nitrate as N

EK061G: Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen By Discrete Analyser

0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2mg/L0.1----Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen as N

EK062G: Total Nitrogen as N (TKN + NOx) by Discrete Analyser

0.2^ 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2mg/L0.1----Total Nitrogen as N

EK067G: Total Phosphorus as P by Discrete Analyser

0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02mg/L0.01----Total Phosphorus as P

EK071G: Reactive Phosphorus as P by discrete analyser

4 of 9:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EP1902956


WA MARINE PTY LTD

Analytical Results


(Matrix: WATER)




EK071G: Reactive Phosphorus as P by discrete analyser - Continued

0.01Reactive Phosphorus as P <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01mg/L0.0114265-44-2

EP075(SIM)B: Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons

<1.0Naphthalene <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0µg/L1.091-20-3

<1.0Acenaphthylene <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0µg/L1.0208-96-8

<1.0Acenaphthene <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0µg/L1.083-32-9

<1.0Fluorene <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0µg/L1.086-73-7

<1.0Phenanthrene <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0µg/L1.085-01-8

<1.0Anthracene <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0µg/L1.0120-12-7

<1.0Fluoranthene <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0µg/L1.0206-44-0

<1.0Pyrene <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0µg/L1.0129-00-0

<1.0Benz(a)anthracene <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0µg/L1.056-55-3

<1.0Chrysene <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0µg/L1.0218-01-9

<1.0Benzo(b+j)fluoranthene <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0µg/L1.0205-99-2 205-82-3

<1.0Benzo(k)fluoranthene <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0µg/L1.0207-08-9

<0.5Benzo(a)pyrene <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5µg/L0.550-32-8

<1.0Indeno(1.2.3.cd)pyrene <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0µg/L1.0193-39-5

<1.0Dibenz(a.h)anthracene <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0µg/L1.053-70-3

<1.0Benzo(g.h.i)perylene <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0µg/L1.0191-24-2

<0.5^ <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5µg/L0.5----Sum of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

<0.5^ <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5µg/L0.5----Benzo(a)pyrene TEQ (zero)

EP080/071: Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons

<20 <20 <20 <20 <20µg/L20----C6 - C9 Fraction

<50 <50 <50 <50 <50µg/L50----C10 - C14 Fraction

<100 <100 <100 <100 <100µg/L100----C15 - C28 Fraction

<50 <50 <50 <50 <50µg/L50----C29 - C36 Fraction

<50^ <50 <50 <50 <50µg/L50----C10 - C36 Fraction (sum)

EP080/071: Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons - NEPM 2013 Fractions

<20C6 - C10 Fraction <20 <20 <20 <20µg/L20C6_C10

<20^ C6 - C10 Fraction minus BTEX

(F1)

<20 <20 <20 <20µg/L20C6_C10-BTEX

<100 <100 <100 <100 <100µg/L100---->C10 - C16 Fraction

<100 <100 <100 <100 <100µg/L100---->C16 - C34 Fraction

<100 <100 <100 <100 <100µg/L100---->C34 - C40 Fraction

<100^ <100 <100 <100 <100µg/L100---->C10 - C40 Fraction (sum)

5 of 9:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EP1902956


WA MARINE PTY LTD

Analytical Results


(Matrix: WATER)




EP080/071: Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons - NEPM 2013 Fractions - Continued

<100^ <100 <100 <100 <100µg/L100---->C10 - C16 Fraction minus Naphthalene

(F2)

EP080: BTEXN

<1Benzene <1 <1 <1 <1µg/L171-43-2

<2Toluene <2 <2 <2 <2µg/L2108-88-3

<2Ethylbenzene <2 <2 <2 <2µg/L2100-41-4

<2meta- & para-Xylene <2 <2 <2 <2µg/L2108-38-3 106-42-3

<2ortho-Xylene <2 <2 <2 <2µg/L295-47-6

<2^ <2 <2 <2 <2µg/L2----Total Xylenes

<1^ <1 <1 <1 <1µg/L1----Sum of BTEX

<5Naphthalene <5 <5 <5 <5µg/L591-20-3

MW006: Faecal Coliforms & E.coli by MF

~9 ~4 ~2 ~1 ~6CFU/100mL1----Faecal Coliforms

~9 ~4 ~2 ~1 ~6CFU/100mL1----Escherichia coli

MW023: Enterococci by Membrane Filtration

~3 ~1 <1 ~4 ~2CFU/100mL1----Enterococci

EP075(SIM)S: Phenolic Compound Surrogates

27.7Phenol-d6 32.9 28.4 18.6 21.8%1.013127-88-3

56.02-Chlorophenol-D4 66.3 54.9 37.5 43.5%1.093951-73-6

60.42.4.6-Tribromophenol 67.8 64.8 34.2 45.0%1.0118-79-6

EP075(SIM)T: PAH Surrogates

68.62-Fluorobiphenyl 72.7 58.4 42.6 47.4%1.0321-60-8

85.2Anthracene-d10 93.4 83.3 59.0 65.3%1.01719-06-8

80.24-Terphenyl-d14 91.1 81.4 59.0 65.2%1.01718-51-0

EP080S: TPH(V)/BTEX Surrogates

93.71.2-Dichloroethane-D4 89.4 94.9 90.9 94.4%217060-07-0

99.9Toluene-D8 104 101 102 102%22037-26-5

97.34-Bromofluorobenzene 99.3 98.3 94.2 98.4%2460-00-4

6 of 9:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EP1902956


WA MARINE PTY LTD

Analytical Results

------------WQRef2WQRef1Client sample IDSub-Matrix: MARINE WATER

(Matrix: WATER)

------------28-Mar-2019 00:0028-Mar-2019 00:00Client sampling date / time

------------------------EP1902956-007EP1902956-006UnitLORCAS NumberCompound

Result Result ---- ---- ----


0.12Aluminium 0.09 ---- ---- ----mg/L0.017429-90-5

<0.005Arsenic <0.005 ---- ---- ----mg/L0.0017440-38-2

<0.0005Cadmium <0.0005 ---- ---- ----mg/L0.00017440-43-9

<0.005Chromium <0.005 ---- ---- ----mg/L0.0017440-47-3

<0.005Cobalt <0.005 ---- ---- ----mg/L0.0017440-48-4

<0.005Copper <0.005 ---- ---- ----mg/L0.0017440-50-8

<0.005Lead <0.005 ---- ---- ----mg/L0.0017439-92-1

<0.005Manganese 0.015 ---- ---- ----mg/L0.0017439-96-5

<0.005Nickel <0.005 ---- ---- ----mg/L0.0017440-02-0

<0.005Silver <0.005 ---- ---- ----mg/L0.0017440-22-4

<0.05Vanadium <0.05 ---- ---- ----mg/L0.017440-62-2

<0.026Zinc <0.026 ---- ---- ----mg/L0.0057440-66-6

<0.26Iron <0.26 ---- ---- ----mg/L0.057439-89-6


<0.0001Mercury <0.0001 ---- ---- ----mg/L0.00017439-97-6


<0.01 <0.01 ---- ---- ----mg/L0.01----Total Residual Chlorine

<0.01 <0.01 ---- ---- ----mg/L0.01----Free Chlorine


0.05Ammonia as N 0.05 ---- ---- ----mg/L0.017664-41-7


<0.01Nitrite as N <0.01 ---- ---- ----mg/L0.0114797-65-0

EK058G: Nitrate as N by Discrete Analyser

0.02Nitrate as N 0.02 ---- ---- ----mg/L0.0114797-55-8


0.02 0.02 ---- ---- ----mg/L0.01----Nitrite + Nitrate as N


0.1 0.2 ---- ---- ----mg/L0.1----Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen as N

EK062G: Total Nitrogen as N (TKN + NOx) by Discrete Analyser

0.1^ 0.2 ---- ---- ----mg/L0.1----Total Nitrogen as N


0.02 0.03 ---- ---- ----mg/L0.01----Total Phosphorus as P


7 of 9:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EP1902956


WA MARINE PTY LTD

Analytical Results


(Matrix: WATER)




EK071G: Reactive Phosphorus as P by discrete analyser - Continued

<0.01Reactive Phosphorus as P <0.01 ---- ---- ----mg/L0.0114265-44-2


<1.0Naphthalene <1.0 ---- ---- ----µg/L1.091-20-3

<1.0Acenaphthylene <1.0 ---- ---- ----µg/L1.0208-96-8

<1.0Acenaphthene <1.0 ---- ---- ----µg/L1.083-32-9

<1.0Fluorene <1.0 ---- ---- ----µg/L1.086-73-7

<1.0Phenanthrene <1.0 ---- ---- ----µg/L1.085-01-8

<1.0Anthracene <1.0 ---- ---- ----µg/L1.0120-12-7

<1.0Fluoranthene <1.0 ---- ---- ----µg/L1.0206-44-0

<1.0Pyrene <1.0 ---- ---- ----µg/L1.0129-00-0

<1.0Benz(a)anthracene <1.0 ---- ---- ----µg/L1.056-55-3

<1.0Chrysene <1.0 ---- ---- ----µg/L1.0218-01-9

<1.0Benzo(b+j)fluoranthene <1.0 ---- ---- ----µg/L1.0205-99-2 205-82-3

<1.0Benzo(k)fluoranthene <1.0 ---- ---- ----µg/L1.0207-08-9

<0.5Benzo(a)pyrene <0.5 ---- ---- ----µg/L0.550-32-8

<1.0Indeno(1.2.3.cd)pyrene <1.0 ---- ---- ----µg/L1.0193-39-5

<1.0Dibenz(a.h)anthracene <1.0 ---- ---- ----µg/L1.053-70-3

<1.0Benzo(g.h.i)perylene <1.0 ---- ---- ----µg/L1.0191-24-2

<0.5^ <0.5 ---- ---- ----µg/L0.5----Sum of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

<0.5^ <0.5 ---- ---- ----µg/L0.5----Benzo(a)pyrene TEQ (zero)


<20 <20 ---- ---- ----µg/L20----C6 - C9 Fraction

<50 <50 ---- ---- ----µg/L50----C10 - C14 Fraction

<100 <100 ---- ---- ----µg/L100----C15 - C28 Fraction

<50 <50 ---- ---- ----µg/L50----C29 - C36 Fraction

<50^ <50 ---- ---- ----µg/L50----C10 - C36 Fraction (sum)


<20C6 - C10 Fraction <20 ---- ---- ----µg/L20C6_C10

<20^ C6 - C10 Fraction minus BTEX

(F1)

<20 ---- ---- ----µg/L20C6_C10-BTEX

<100 <100 ---- ---- ----µg/L100---->C10 - C16 Fraction

<100 <100 ---- ---- ----µg/L100---->C16 - C34 Fraction

<100 <100 ---- ---- ----µg/L100---->C34 - C40 Fraction

<100^ <100 ---- ---- ----µg/L100---->C10 - C40 Fraction (sum)

8 of 9:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EP1902956


WA MARINE PTY LTD

Analytical Results


(Matrix: WATER)




EP080/071: Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons - NEPM 2013 Fractions - Continued

<100^ <100 ---- ---- ----µg/L100---->C10 - C16 Fraction minus Naphthalene

(F2)

EP080: BTEXN

<1Benzene <1 ---- ---- ----µg/L171-43-2

<2Toluene <2 ---- ---- ----µg/L2108-88-3

<2Ethylbenzene <2 ---- ---- ----µg/L2100-41-4

<2meta- & para-Xylene <2 ---- ---- ----µg/L2108-38-3 106-42-3

<2ortho-Xylene <2 ---- ---- ----µg/L295-47-6

<2^ <2 ---- ---- ----µg/L2----Total Xylenes

<1^ <1 ---- ---- ----µg/L1----Sum of BTEX

<5Naphthalene <5 ---- ---- ----µg/L591-20-3


<1 ~30 ---- ---- ----CFU/100mL1----Faecal Coliforms

<1 ~30 ---- ---- ----CFU/100mL1----Escherichia coli


<1 35 ---- ---- ----CFU/100mL1----Enterococci


27.8Phenol-d6 26.6 ---- ---- ----%1.013127-88-3

53.72-Chlorophenol-D4 50.6 ---- ---- ----%1.093951-73-6

56.62.4.6-Tribromophenol 50.8 ---- ---- ----%1.0118-79-6


61.72-Fluorobiphenyl 56.6 ---- ---- ----%1.0321-60-8

86.3Anthracene-d10 70.3 ---- ---- ----%1.01719-06-8

83.64-Terphenyl-d14 66.6 ---- ---- ----%1.01718-51-0


94.81.2-Dichloroethane-D4 100 ---- ---- ----%217060-07-0

100Toluene-D8 99.1 ---- ---- ----%22037-26-5

98.04-Bromofluorobenzene 97.7 ---- ---- ----%2460-00-4

9 of 9:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EP1902956


WA MARINE PTY LTD

Surrogate Control Limits

Recovery Limits (%)Sub-Matrix: MARINE WATER

Compound CAS Number Low High


Phenol-d6 13127-88-3 10 67

2-Chlorophenol-D4 93951-73-6 29 120

2.4.6-Tribromophenol 118-79-6 10 131


2-Fluorobiphenyl 321-60-8 34 131

Anthracene-d10 1719-06-8 43 127

4-Terphenyl-d14 1718-51-0 41 142


1.2-Dichloroethane-D4 17060-07-0 61 141

Toluene-D8 2037-26-5 73 126

4-Bromofluorobenzene 460-00-4 60 125

False

5 5.00True

Environmental

QUALITY CONTROL REPORTWork Order : EP1902956 Page : 1 of 8

:: LaboratoryClient Environmental Division PerthWA MARINE PTY LTD

:Contact Claudio Deldeo :Contact Customer Services EP

:Address SUITE 5, 5/18 GRIFFON DRIVE PO BOX 1370


Address : 26 Rigali Way Wangara WA Australia 6065

::Telephone ---- +61-8-9406 1301:Telephone

:Project 19WAU-0007 Darwin Processing Facility Date Samples Received : 29-Mar-2019

:Order number Date Analysis Commenced : 29-Mar-2019

:C-O-C number ---- Issue Date : 08-Apr-2019


Site : ----

Quote number : EN/222

No. of samples received 7:

No. of samples analysed 7:


This Quality Control Report contains the following information:

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

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

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




Chris Lemaitre Laboratory Manager (Perth) Perth Inorganics, Wangara, WA


Vanessa Nguyen Organic Chemist Perth Organics, Wangara, WA

Vinitha Kesavan Analyst Perth Microbiology, Wangara, WA


2 of 8:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EP1902956

WA MARINE PTY LTD


General Comments




Where a reported less than (<) result is higher than the LOR, this may be due to primary sample extract/digestate dilution and/or insufficient sample for analysis. Where the LOR of a reported result differs from standard LOR, this may be due to high moisture content, insufficient sample (reduced weight employed) or matrix interference.

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



RPD = Relative Percentage Difference

# = Indicates failed QC

Key :

Laboratory Duplicate (DUP) Report

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

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

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

Sub-Matrix: WATER Laboratory Duplicate (DUP) Report

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

EG020T: Total Metals by ICP-MS (QC Lot: 2271311)

EG020A-T: Cadmium 7440-43-9 0.0001 mg/L 0.0005 0.0004 0.00 No LimitAnonymous EP1902946-003

EG020A-T: Arsenic 7440-38-2 0.001 mg/L 0.039 0.043 9.01 0% - 20%

EG020A-T: Chromium 7440-47-3 0.001 mg/L 0.046 0.044 5.60 0% - 20%

EG020A-T: Cobalt 7440-48-4 0.001 mg/L 0.006 0.006 0.00 No Limit

EG020A-T: Copper 7440-50-8 0.001 mg/L 0.064 0.070 10.1 0% - 20%

EG020A-T: Lead 7439-92-1 0.001 mg/L 0.058 0.063 8.42 0% - 20%

EG020A-T: Manganese 7439-96-5 0.001 mg/L 0.346 0.331 4.32 0% - 20%

EG020A-T: Nickel 7440-02-0 0.001 mg/L 0.017 0.017 0.00 0% - 50%

EG020A-T: Zinc 7440-66-6 0.005 mg/L 0.326 0.319 1.91 0% - 20%

EG020A-T: Aluminium 7429-90-5 0.01 mg/L 5.58 5.75 2.88 0% - 20%

EG020A-T: Vanadium 7440-62-2 0.01 mg/L 0.15 0.16 0.00 0% - 50%

EG020A-T: Iron 7439-89-6 0.05 mg/L 15.8 16.9 6.83 0% - 20%

EG020A-T: Cadmium 7440-43-9 0.0001 mg/L <0.0005 <0.0005 0.00 No LimitWQ1 EP1902956-001

EG020A-T: Arsenic 7440-38-2 0.001 mg/L <0.005 <0.005 0.00 No Limit

EG020A-T: Chromium 7440-47-3 0.001 mg/L <0.005 <0.005 0.00 No Limit

EG020A-T: Cobalt 7440-48-4 0.001 mg/L <0.005 <0.005 0.00 No Limit

EG020A-T: Copper 7440-50-8 0.001 mg/L <0.005 <0.005 0.00 No Limit

EG020A-T: Lead 7439-92-1 0.001 mg/L <0.005 <0.005 0.00 No Limit

EG020A-T: Manganese 7439-96-5 0.001 mg/L 0.007 0.009 31.8 No Limit

EG020A-T: Nickel 7440-02-0 0.001 mg/L <0.005 <0.005 0.00 No Limit

EG020A-T: Zinc 7440-66-6 0.005 mg/L <0.026 <0.026 0.00 No Limit

EG020A-T: Aluminium 7429-90-5 0.01 mg/L 0.17 0.16 0.00 No Limit

EG020A-T: Vanadium 7440-62-2 0.01 mg/L <0.05 <0.05 0.00 No Limit

EG020A-T: Iron 7439-89-6 0.05 mg/L <0.26 <0.26 0.00 No Limit

EG020T: Total Metals by ICP-MS (QC Lot: 2271312)

3 of 8:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EP1902956

WA MARINE PTY LTD




EG020T: Total Metals by ICP-MS (QC Lot: 2271312) - continued

EG020B-T: Silver 7440-22-4 0.001 mg/L <0.005 <0.005 0.00 No LimitWQ1 EP1902956-001

EG035T: Total Recoverable Mercury by FIMS (QC Lot: 2271315)

EG035T: Mercury 7439-97-6 0.0001 mg/L <0.0001 <0.0001 0.00 No LimitAnonymous EP1902929-003

EG035T: Mercury 7439-97-6 0.0001 mg/L <0.0001 <0.0001 0.00 No LimitAnonymous EP1902929-012

EG035T: Total Recoverable Mercury by FIMS (QC Lot: 2271316)

EG035T: Mercury 7439-97-6 0.0001 mg/L <0.0001 <0.0001 0.00 No LimitWQ3 EP1902956-003

EK010-2: Total and Free Chlorine (QC Lot: 2267666)

EK010-2: Total Residual Chlorine ---- 0.01 mg/L 0.91 0.91 0.00 0% - 20%Anonymous EP1902913-005

EK010-2: Free Chlorine ---- 0.01 mg/L <0.01 <0.01 0.00 No Limit

EK055G: Ammonia as N by Discrete Analyser (QC Lot: 2267709)

EK055G: Ammonia as N 7664-41-7 0.01 mg/L 0.04 0.05 0.00 No LimitWQ2 EP1902956-002

EK055G: Ammonia as N 7664-41-7 0.01 mg/L 0.04 0.04 0.00 No LimitAnonymous EP1902957-005

EK057G: Nitrite as N by Discrete Analyser (QC Lot: 2267687)

EK057G: Nitrite as N 14797-65-0 0.01 mg/L <0.01 <0.01 0.00 No LimitAnonymous EP1902954-002


EK057G: Nitrite as N by Discrete Analyser (QC Lot: 2267688)

EK057G: Nitrite as N 14797-65-0 0.01 mg/L 0.02 0.02 0.00 No LimitAnonymous EP1902946-002


EK059G: Nitrite plus Nitrate as N (NOx) by Discrete Analyser (QC Lot: 2267710)

EK059G: Nitrite + Nitrate as N ---- 0.01 mg/L 0.03 0.02 0.00 No LimitWQ2 EP1902956-002

EK059G: Nitrite + Nitrate as N ---- 0.01 mg/L 0.18 0.18 0.00 0% - 50%Anonymous EP1902957-005

EK061G: Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen By Discrete Analyser (QC Lot: 2271401)

EK061G: Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen as N ---- 0.1 mg/L 1.1 1.1 0.00 0% - 50%Anonymous EP1902957-004

EK061G: Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen as N ---- 0.1 mg/L 0.2 0.2 0.00 No LimitWQ2 EP1902956-002

EK067G: Total Phosphorus as P by Discrete Analyser (QC Lot: 2271400)

EK067G: Total Phosphorus as P ---- 0.01 mg/L 0.25 0.25 0.00 0% - 20%Anonymous EP1902954-011

EK067G: Total Phosphorus as P ---- 0.01 mg/L 0.04 0.03 0.00 No LimitAnonymous EP1902954-003

EK067G: Total Phosphorus as P by Discrete Analyser (QC Lot: 2271402)

EK067G: Total Phosphorus as P ---- 0.01 mg/L 0.04 0.04 0.00 No LimitAnonymous EP1902957-004

EK067G: Total Phosphorus as P ---- 0.01 mg/L 0.03 0.03 0.00 No LimitWQ2 EP1902956-002

EK071G: Reactive Phosphorus as P by discrete analyser (QC Lot: 2267686)

EK071G: Reactive Phosphorus as P 14265-44-2 0.01 mg/L <0.01 <0.01 0.00 No LimitAnonymous EP1902954-002


EK071G: Reactive Phosphorus as P by discrete analyser (QC Lot: 2267689)



EP080/071: Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (QC Lot: 2269158)

EP080: C6 - C9 Fraction ---- 20 µg/L <20 <20 0.00 No LimitWQ1 EP1902956-001

4 of 8:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EP1902956

WA MARINE PTY LTD




EP080/071: Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (QC Lot: 2269158) - continued

EP080: C6 - C9 Fraction ---- 20 µg/L <20 <20 0.00 No LimitAnonymous EP1902957-004

EP080/071: Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons - NEPM 2013 Fractions (QC Lot: 2269158)

EP080: C6 - C10 Fraction C6_C10 20 µg/L <20 <20 0.00 No LimitWQ1 EP1902956-001

EP080: C6 - C10 Fraction C6_C10 20 µg/L <20 <20 0.00 No LimitAnonymous EP1902957-004

EP080: BTEXN (QC Lot: 2269158)

EP080: Benzene 71-43-2 1 µg/L <1 <1 0.00 No LimitWQ1 EP1902956-001

EP080: Toluene 108-88-3 2 µg/L <2 <2 0.00 No Limit

EP080: Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 2 µg/L <2 <2 0.00 No Limit

EP080: meta- & para-Xylene 108-38-3

106-42-3

2 µg/L <2 <2 0.00 No Limit

EP080: ortho-Xylene 95-47-6 2 µg/L <2 <2 0.00 No Limit

EP080: Naphthalene 91-20-3 5 µg/L <5 <5 0.00 No Limit

EP080: Benzene 71-43-2 1 µg/L <1 <1 0.00 No LimitAnonymous EP1902957-004

EP080: Toluene 108-88-3 2 µg/L <2 <2 0.00 No Limit

EP080: Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 2 µg/L <2 <2 0.00 No Limit


106-42-3

2 µg/L <2 <2 0.00 No Limit

EP080: ortho-Xylene 95-47-6 2 µg/L <2 <2 0.00 No Limit

EP080: Naphthalene 91-20-3 5 µg/L <5 <5 0.00 No Limit

5 of 8:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EP1902956

WA MARINE PTY LTD


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

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

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

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

Sub-Matrix: WATER Method Blank (MB)

Report

Laboratory Control Spike (LCS) Report

Spike Spike Recovery (%) Recovery Limits (%)

Result Concentration HighLowLCSMethod: Compound CAS Number LOR Unit

EG020T: Total Metals by ICP-MS (QCLot: 2271311)

EG020A-T: Aluminium 7429-90-5 0.01 mg/L <0.01 99.70.5 mg/L 12084

EG020A-T: Arsenic 7440-38-2 0.001 mg/L <0.001 1020.1 mg/L 12085

EG020A-T: Cadmium 7440-43-9 0.0001 mg/L <0.0001 1040.1 mg/L 12084

EG020A-T: Chromium 7440-47-3 0.001 mg/L <0.001 98.10.1 mg/L 12085

EG020A-T: Cobalt 7440-48-4 0.001 mg/L <0.001 99.00.1 mg/L 12084

EG020A-T: Copper 7440-50-8 0.001 mg/L <0.001 1000.1 mg/L 12083

EG020A-T: Lead 7439-92-1 0.001 mg/L <0.001 99.80.1 mg/L 12086

EG020A-T: Manganese 7439-96-5 0.001 mg/L <0.001 99.90.1 mg/L 12085

EG020A-T: Nickel 7440-02-0 0.001 mg/L <0.001 1000.1 mg/L 12083

EG020A-T: Vanadium 7440-62-2 0.01 mg/L <0.01 1030.1 mg/L 12086

EG020A-T: Zinc 7440-66-6 0.005 mg/L <0.005 1020.1 mg/L 12084

EG020A-T: Iron 7439-89-6 0.05 mg/L <0.05 1030.5 mg/L 12077


EG020B-T: Silver 7440-22-4 0.001 mg/L <0.001 1010.02 mg/L 12052

EG035T: Total Recoverable Mercury by FIMS (QCLot: 2271315)

EG035T: Mercury 7439-97-6 0.0001 mg/L <0.0001 1040.01 mg/L 11587


EG035T: Mercury 7439-97-6 0.0001 mg/L <0.0001 1040.01 mg/L 11587

EK010-2: Total and Free Chlorine (QCLot: 2267666)

EK010-2: Total Residual Chlorine ---- 0.01 mg/L <0.01 -------- --------

EK010-2: Free Chlorine ---- 0.01 mg/L <0.01 -------- --------

EK055G: Ammonia as N by Discrete Analyser (QCLot: 2267709)

EK055G: Ammonia as N 7664-41-7 0.01 mg/L <0.01 1021 mg/L 11587

EK057G: Nitrite as N by Discrete Analyser (QCLot: 2267687)

EK057G: Nitrite as N 14797-65-0 0.01 mg/L <0.01 1000.5 mg/L 11286


EK057G: Nitrite as N 14797-65-0 0.01 mg/L <0.01 1010.5 mg/L 11286

EK059G: Nitrite plus Nitrate as N (NOx) by Discrete Analyser (QCLot: 2267710)

EK059G: Nitrite + Nitrate as N ---- 0.01 mg/L <0.01 1010.5 mg/L 11292

EK061G: Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen By Discrete Analyser (QCLot: 2271401)

EK061G: Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen as N ---- 0.1 mg/L <0.1 83.110 mg/L 11082

EK067G: Total Phosphorus as P by Discrete Analyser (QCLot: 2271400)

EK067G: Total Phosphorus as P ---- 0.01 mg/L <0.01 1084.42 mg/L 13070

6 of 8:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EP1902956

WA MARINE PTY LTD



Report





EK067G: Total Phosphorus as P ---- 0.01 mg/L <0.01 94.84.42 mg/L 13070

EK071G: Reactive Phosphorus as P by discrete analyser (QCLot: 2267686)

EK071G: Reactive Phosphorus as P 14265-44-2 0.01 mg/L <0.01 96.80.5 mg/L 11587


EK071G: Reactive Phosphorus as P 14265-44-2 0.01 mg/L <0.01 100.00.5 mg/L 11587

EP075(SIM)B: Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (QCLot: 2269067)

EP075(SIM): Naphthalene 91-20-3 1 µg/L <1.0 61.510 µg/L 9942

EP075(SIM): Acenaphthylene 208-96-8 1 µg/L <1.0 58.010 µg/L 11336

EP075(SIM): Acenaphthene 83-32-9 1 µg/L <1.0 66.210 µg/L 10236

EP075(SIM): Fluorene 86-73-7 1 µg/L <1.0 64.610 µg/L 11334

EP075(SIM): Phenanthrene 85-01-8 1 µg/L <1.0 78.310 µg/L 11537

EP075(SIM): Anthracene 120-12-7 1 µg/L <1.0 78.510 µg/L 10946

EP075(SIM): Fluoranthene 206-44-0 1 µg/L <1.0 74.510 µg/L 12440

EP075(SIM): Pyrene 129-00-0 1 µg/L <1.0 74.310 µg/L 12340

EP075(SIM): Benz(a)anthracene 56-55-3 1 µg/L <1.0 63.810 µg/L 12640

EP075(SIM): Chrysene 218-01-9 1 µg/L <1.0 82.110 µg/L 12146

EP075(SIM): Benzo(b+j)fluoranthene 205-99-2

205-82-3

1 µg/L <1.0 65.610 µg/L 12343

EP075(SIM): Benzo(k)fluoranthene 207-08-9 1 µg/L <1.0 91.010 µg/L 12147

EP075(SIM): Benzo(a)pyrene 50-32-8 0.5 µg/L <0.5 74.910 µg/L 12345

EP075(SIM): Indeno(1.2.3.cd)pyrene 193-39-5 1 µg/L <1.0 58.610 µg/L 12039

EP075(SIM): Dibenz(a.h)anthracene 53-70-3 1 µg/L <1.0 54.510 µg/L 11939

EP075(SIM): Benzo(g.h.i)perylene 191-24-2 1 µg/L <1.0 76.210 µg/L 12340

EP075(SIM): Sum of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons ---- 0.5 µg/L <0.5 -------- --------

EP080/071: Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (QCLot: 2269068)

EP071: C10 - C14 Fraction ---- 50 µg/L <50 73.6385 µg/L 9535




EP080: C6 - C9 Fraction ---- 20 µg/L <20 100320 µg/L 11374

EP080/071: Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons - NEPM 2013 Fractions (QCLot: 2269068)

EP071: >C10 - C16 Fraction ---- 100 µg/L <100 71.2398 µg/L 9937




EP080: C6 - C10 Fraction C6_C10 20 µg/L <20 98.2370 µg/L 11574

EP080: BTEXN (QCLot: 2269158)

EP080: Benzene 71-43-2 1 µg/L <1 10120 µg/L 11484

7 of 8:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EP1902956

WA MARINE PTY LTD



Report




EP080: BTEXN (QCLot: 2269158) - continued

EP080: Toluene 108-88-3 2 µg/L <2 10220 µg/L 11581

EP080: Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 2 µg/L <2 99.420 µg/L 11384


106-42-3

2 µg/L <2 99.740 µg/L 11484

EP080: ortho-Xylene 95-47-6 2 µg/L <2 10120 µg/L 11187

EP080: Naphthalene 91-20-3 5 µg/L <5 95.05 µg/L 11877

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

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

Sub-Matrix: WATER Matrix Spike (MS) Report

SpikeRecovery(%) Recovery Limits (%)Spike

HighLowMSConcentrationLaboratory sample ID Client sample ID Method: Compound CAS Number


Anonymous EP1902955-001 7440-38-2EG020A-T: Arsenic 1171 mg/L 13070

7440-43-9EG020A-T: Cadmium 1200.25 mg/L 13070

7440-47-3EG020A-T: Chromium 1081 mg/L 13070

7440-48-4EG020A-T: Cobalt 1151 mg/L 13070

7440-50-8EG020A-T: Copper 1101 mg/L 13070

7439-92-1EG020A-T: Lead 1221 mg/L 13070

7439-96-5EG020A-T: Manganese 1131 mg/L 13070

7440-02-0EG020A-T: Nickel 1151 mg/L 13070

7440-62-2EG020A-T: Vanadium 1121 mg/L 13070

7440-66-6EG020A-T: Zinc 1161 mg/L 13070


Anonymous EP1902929-004 7439-97-6EG035T: Mercury 90.70.01 mg/L 13070


WQ4 EP1902956-004 7439-97-6EG035T: Mercury 77.50.01 mg/L 13070

EK055G: Ammonia as N by Discrete Analyser (QCLot: 2267709)

WQ1 EP1902956-001 7664-41-7EK055G: Ammonia as N 1121 mg/L 13070


Anonymous EP1902954-001 14797-65-0EK057G: Nitrite as N 1040.5 mg/L 13070


Anonymous EP1902946-001 14797-65-0EK057G: Nitrite as N 1050.5 mg/L 13070

EK059G: Nitrite plus Nitrate as N (NOx) by Discrete Analyser (QCLot: 2267710)

WQ1 EP1902956-001 ----EK059G: Nitrite + Nitrate as N 91.90.5 mg/L 13070

8 of 8:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EP1902956

WA MARINE PTY LTD


Sub-Matrix: WATER Matrix Spike (MS) Report



EK061G: Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen By Discrete Analyser (QCLot: 2271401)

WQ3 EP1902956-003 ----EK061G: Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen as N 96.65 mg/L 13070


Anonymous EP1902954-004 ----EK067G: Total Phosphorus as P 1271 mg/L 13070


WQ3 EP1902956-003 ----EK067G: Total Phosphorus as P 1281 mg/L 13070


Anonymous EP1902954-001 14265-44-2EK071G: Reactive Phosphorus as P 97.70.5 mg/L 13070


Anonymous EP1902946-001 14265-44-2EK071G: Reactive Phosphorus as P 1030.5 mg/L 13070


WQ2 EP1902956-002 ----EP080: C6 - C9 Fraction 88.8240 µg/L 13777


WQ2 EP1902956-002 C6_C10EP080: C6 - C10 Fraction 87.4290 µg/L 13777

EP080: BTEXN (QCLot: 2269158)

WQ2 EP1902956-002 71-43-2EP080: Benzene 10220 µg/L 12277

108-88-3EP080: Toluene 10320 µg/L 12674

True

Environmental

QA/QC Compliance Assessment to assist with Quality ReviewWork Order : EP1902956 Page : 1 of 9


:Contact Claudio Deldeo Telephone : +61-8-9406 1301

:Project 19WAU-0007 Darwin Processing Facility Date Samples Received : 29-Mar-2019

Site : ---- Issue Date : 08-Apr-2019

JOSH ABBOTT:Sampler No. of samples received : 7

:Order number No. of samples analysed : 7

This report is automatically generated by the ALS LIMS through interpretation of the ALS Quality Control Report and several Quality Assurance parameters measured by ALS. This automated

reporting highlights any non-conformances, facilitates faster and more accurate data validation and is designed to assist internal expert and external Auditor review. Many components of this

report contribute to the overall DQO assessment and reporting for guideline compliance.

Brief method summaries and references are also provided to assist in traceability.

Summary of Outliers

Outliers : Quality Control Samples

This report highlights outliers flagged in the Quality Control (QC) Report.

l NO Method Blank value outliers occur.

l NO Duplicate outliers occur.

l NO Laboratory Control outliers occur.

l NO Matrix Spike outliers occur.

l For all regular sample matrices, NO surrogate recovery outliers occur.

Outliers : Analysis Holding Time Compliance

l Analysis Holding Time Outliers exist - please see following pages for full details.

Outliers : Frequency of Quality Control Samples

l Quality Control Sample Frequency Outliers exist - please see following pages for full details.


2 of 9:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EP1902956

WA MARINE PTY LTD



Matrix: WATER

AnalysisExtraction / Preparation

Date analysedDate extractedContainer / Client Sample ID(s) Days

overdue

Days

overdue

Due for extraction Due for analysis

Method


Clear Plastic Bottle - Natural

28-Mar-2019----WQ1, WQ2,

WQ3, WQ4,

WQD, WQRef1,

WQRef2

29-Mar-2019---- ---- 1


Matrix: WATER

Quality Control SpecificationQuality Control Sample Type

Method ExpectedQC Regular Actual

Rate (%)Quality Control Sample Type Count

Laboratory Duplicates (DUP)

NEPM 2013 B3 & ALS QC StandardPAH/Phenols (GC/MS - SIM) 0.00 10.000 18

NEPM 2013 B3 & ALS QC StandardTRH - Semivolatile Fraction 0.00 10.000 18

Matrix Spikes (MS)

NEPM 2013 B3 & ALS QC StandardPAH/Phenols (GC/MS - SIM) 0.00 5.000 18

NEPM 2013 B3 & ALS QC StandardTRH - Semivolatile Fraction 0.00 5.000 18

Analysis Holding Time Compliance

Holding times for VOC in soils vary according to analytes of interest. Vinyl Chloride and Styrene holding time is 7 days; others 14 days. A recorded breach does not guarantee a breach for all VOC analytes and

should be verified in case the reported breach is a false positive or Vinyl Chloride and Styrene are not key analytes of interest/concern.

Holding time for leachate methods (e.g. TCLP) vary according to the analytes reported. Assessment compares the leach date with the shortest analyte holding time for the equivalent soil method. These are: organics

14 days, mercury 28 days & other metals 180 days. A recorded breach does not guarantee a breach for all non-volatile parameters.

If samples are identified below as having been analysed or extracted outside of recommended holding times, this should be taken into consideration when interpreting results.

This report summarizes extraction / preparation and analysis times and compares each with ALS recommended holding times (referencing USEPA SW 846, APHA, AS and NEPM) based on the sample container

provided. Dates reported represent first date of extraction or analysis and preclude subsequent dilutions and reruns. A listing of breaches (if any) is provided herein.

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

AnalysisExtraction / PreparationSample DateMethod

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


Clear Plastic Bottle - Unfiltered; Lab-acidified (EG020B-T)

WQ1, WQ2,

WQ3, WQ4,

WQD, WQRef1,

WQRef2

24-Sep-201924-Sep-2019 02-Apr-201902-Apr-201928-Mar-2019 ü ü

3 of 9:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EP1902956

WA MARINE PTY LTD






Clear Plastic Bottle - Unfiltered; Lab-acidified (EG035T)

WQ1, WQ2,

WQ3, WQ4,

WQD, WQRef1,

WQRef2

25-Apr-2019---- 02-Apr-2019----28-Mar-2019 ---- ü


Clear Plastic Bottle - Natural (EK010-2)

WQ1, WQ2,

WQ3, WQ4,

WQD, WQRef1,

WQRef2

28-Mar-2019---- 29-Mar-2019----28-Mar-2019 ---- û


Clear Plastic Bottle - Sulfuric Acid (EK055G)

WQ1, WQ2,

WQ3, WQ4,

WQD, WQRef1,

WQRef2

25-Apr-2019---- 29-Mar-2019----28-Mar-2019 ---- ü


Clear Plastic Bottle - Natural (EK057G)

WQ1, WQ2,

WQ3, WQ4,

WQD, WQRef1,

WQRef2

30-Mar-2019---- 29-Mar-2019----28-Mar-2019 ---- ü



WQ1, WQ2,

WQ3, WQ4,

WQD, WQRef1,

WQRef2

25-Apr-2019---- 29-Mar-2019----28-Mar-2019 ---- ü



WQ1, WQ2,

WQ3, WQ4,

WQD, WQRef1,

WQRef2

25-Apr-201925-Apr-2019 03-Apr-201903-Apr-201928-Mar-2019 ü ü



WQ1, WQ2,

WQ3, WQ4,

WQD, WQRef1,

WQRef2


4 of 9:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EP1902956

WA MARINE PTY LTD






Clear Plastic Bottle - Natural (EK071G)

WQ1, WQ2,

WQ3, WQ4,

WQD, WQRef1,

WQRef2

30-Mar-2019---- 29-Mar-2019----28-Mar-2019 ---- ü


Amber Glass Bottle - Unpreserved (EP075(SIM))

WQ1, WQ2,

WQ3, WQ4,

WQD, WQRef1,

WQRef2

11-May-201904-Apr-2019 01-Apr-201901-Apr-201928-Mar-2019 ü ü


Amber Glass Bottle - Unpreserved (EP071)

WQ1, WQ2,

WQ3, WQ4,

WQD, WQRef1,

WQRef2


Amber VOC Vial - Sulfuric Acid (EP080)

WQ1, WQ2,

WQ3, WQ4,

WQD, WQRef1,

WQRef2



Amber Glass Bottle - Unpreserved (EP071)

WQ1, WQ2,

WQ3, WQ4,

WQD, WQRef1,

WQRef2



WQ1, WQ2,

WQ3, WQ4,

WQD, WQRef1,

WQRef2


EP080: BTEXN


WQ1, WQ2,

WQ3, WQ4,

WQD, WQRef1,

WQRef2


5 of 9:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EP1902956

WA MARINE PTY LTD






Sterile Plastic Bottle - Sodium Thiosulfate (MW006)

WQ1, WQ2,

WQ3, WQ4,

WQD, WQRef1,

WQRef2

29-Mar-2019---- 29-Mar-2019----28-Mar-2019 ---- ü


Sterile Plastic Bottle - Sodium Thiosulfate (MW023)

WQ1, WQ2,

WQ3, WQ4,

WQD, WQRef1,

WQRef2

29-Mar-2019---- 29-Mar-2019----28-Mar-2019 ---- ü

6 of 9:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EP1902956

WA MARINE PTY LTD


Quality Control Parameter Frequency ComplianceThe following report summarises the frequency of laboratory QC samples analysed within the analytical lot(s) in which the submitted sample(s) was(were) processed. Actual rate should be greater than or equal to

the expected rate. A listing of breaches is provided in the Summary of Outliers.

Matrix: WATER Evaluation: û = Quality Control frequency not within specification ; ü = Quality Control frequency within specification.


ExpectedQC Regular Actual

Rate (%)Quality Control Sample Type CountEvaluationAnalytical Methods Method


NEPM 2013 B3 & ALS QC Standard 11.11 10.002 18 üAmmonia as N by Discrete analyser EK055G

NEPM 2013 B3 & ALS QC Standard 11.11 10.002 18 üNitrite and Nitrate as N (NOx) by Discrete Analyser EK059G

NEPM 2013 B3 & ALS QC Standard 10.81 10.004 37 üNitrite as N by Discrete Analyser EK057G

NEPM 2013 B3 & ALS QC Standard 0.00 10.000 18 ûPAH/Phenols (GC/MS - SIM) EP075(SIM)

NEPM 2013 B3 & ALS QC Standard 10.81 10.004 37 üReactive Phosphorus as P-By Discrete Analyser EK071G

NEPM 2013 B3 & ALS QC Standard 12.50 10.001 8 üTotal and Free Chlorine by DPD Colourimetry EK010-2

NEPM 2013 B3 & ALS QC Standard 11.11 10.002 18 üTotal Kjeldahl Nitrogen as N By Discrete Analyser EK061G

NEPM 2013 B3 & ALS QC Standard 12.00 10.003 25 üTotal Mercury by FIMS EG035T

NEPM 2013 B3 & ALS QC Standard 10.00 10.002 20 üTotal Metals by ICP-MS - Suite A EG020A-T

NEPM 2013 B3 & ALS QC Standard 14.29 10.001 7 üTotal Metals by ICP-MS - Suite B EG020B-T

NEPM 2013 B3 & ALS QC Standard 11.11 10.004 36 üTotal Phosphorus as P By Discrete Analyser EK067G

NEPM 2013 B3 & ALS QC Standard 0.00 10.000 18 ûTRH - Semivolatile Fraction EP071

NEPM 2013 B3 & ALS QC Standard 11.11 10.002 18 üTRH Volatiles/BTEX EP080

Laboratory Control Samples (LCS)




NEPM 2013 B3 & ALS QC Standard 5.56 5.001 18 üPAH/Phenols (GC/MS - SIM) EP075(SIM)







NEPM 2013 B3 & ALS QC Standard 5.56 5.001 18 üTRH - Semivolatile Fraction EP071


Method Blanks (MB)




NEPM 2013 B3 & ALS QC Standard 5.56 5.001 18 üPAH/Phenols (GC/MS - SIM) EP075(SIM)


NEPM 2013 B3 & ALS QC Standard 12.50 5.001 8 üTotal and Free Chlorine by DPD Colourimetry EK010-2




7 of 9:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EP1902956

WA MARINE PTY LTD


Matrix: WATER Evaluation: û = Quality Control frequency not within specification ; ü = Quality Control frequency within specification.




Method Blanks (MB) - Continued



NEPM 2013 B3 & ALS QC Standard 5.56 5.001 18 üTRH - Semivolatile Fraction EP071


Matrix Spikes (MS)




NEPM 2013 B3 & ALS QC Standard 0.00 5.000 18 ûPAH/Phenols (GC/MS - SIM) EP075(SIM)






NEPM 2013 B3 & ALS QC Standard 0.00 5.000 18 ûTRH - Semivolatile Fraction EP071


8 of 9:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EP1902956

WA MARINE PTY LTD


Brief Method SummariesThe analytical procedures used by the Environmental Division have been developed from established internationally recognized procedures such as those published by the US EPA, APHA, AS and NEPM. In house

developed procedures are employed in the absence of documented standards or by client request. The following report provides brief descriptions of the analytical procedures employed for results reported in the

Certificate of Analysis. Sources from which ALS methods have been developed are provided within the Method Descriptions.

Analytical Methods Method DescriptionsMatrixMethod

In house: Referenced to APHA 3125; USEPA SW846 - 6020, ALS QWI-EN/EG020. The ICPMS technique utilizes

a highly efficient argon plasma to ionize selected elements. Ions are then passed into a high vacuum mass

spectrometer, which separates the analytes based on their distinct mass to charge ratios prior to their

measurement by a discrete dynode ion detector.

Total Metals by ICP-MS - Suite A EG020A-T WATER

In house: Referenced to APHA 3125; USEPA SW846 - 6020, ALS QWI-EN/EG020. The ICPMS technique utilizes a

highly efficient argon plasma to ionize selected elements. Ions are then passed into a high vacuum mass


measurement by a discrete dynode ion detector.

Total Metals by ICP-MS - Suite B EG020B-T WATER

In house: Referenced to AS 3550, APHA 3112 Hg - B (Flow-injection (SnCl2)(Cold Vapour generation) AAS)

FIM-AAS is an automated flameless atomic absorption technique. A bromate/bromide reagent is used to oxidise

any organic mercury compounds in the unfiltered sample. The ionic mercury is reduced online to atomic

mercury vapour by SnCl2 which is then purged into a heated quartz cell. Quantification is by comparing

absorbance against a calibration curve. This method is compliant with NEPM (2013) Schedule B(3)

Total Mercury by FIMS EG035T WATER

In house: Referenced to APHA 4500-Cl G, using UV-visTotal and Free Chlorine by DPD

Colourimetry

EK010-2 WATER

In house: Referenced to APHA 4500-NH3 G Ammonia is determined by direct colorimetry by Discrete Analyser.

This method is compliant with NEPM (2013) Schedule B(3)

Ammonia as N by Discrete analyser EK055G WATER

In house: Referenced to APHA 4500-NO2- B. Nitrite is determined by direct colourimetry by Discrete Analyser.

This method is compliant with NEPM (2013) Schedule B(3)

Nitrite as N by Discrete Analyser EK057G WATER

In house: Referenced to APHA 4500-NO3- F. Nitrate is reduced to nitrite by way of a chemical reduction followed

by quantification by Discrete Analyser. Nitrite is determined seperately by direct colourimetry and result for Nitrate

calculated as the difference between the two results. This method is compliant with NEPM (2013) Schedule B(3)

Nitrate as N by Discrete Analyser EK058G WATER

In house: Referenced to APHA 4500-NO3- F. Combined oxidised Nitrogen (NO2+NO3) is determined by

Chemical Reduction and direct colourimetry by Discrete Analyser. This method is compliant with NEPM (2013)

Schedule B(3)

Nitrite and Nitrate as N (NOx) by Discrete

Analyser

EK059G WATER

In house: Referenced to APHA 4500-Norg D (In house). An aliquot of sample is digested using a high

temperature Kjeldahl digestion to convert nitrogenous compounds to ammonia. Ammonia is determined

colorimetrically by discrete analyser. This method is compliant with NEPM (2013) Schedule B(3)

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen as N By Discrete

Analyser

EK061G WATER

In house: Referenced to APHA 4500-Norg / 4500-NO3-. This method is compliant with NEPM (2013) Schedule

B(3)

Total Nitrogen as N (TKN + Nox) By

Discrete Analyser

EK062G WATER

In house: Referenced to APHA 4500-P H, Jirka et al (1976), Zhang et al (2006). This procedure involves

sulphuric acid digestion of a sample aliquot to break phosphorus down to orthophosphate. The orthophosphate

reacts with ammonium molybdate and antimony potassium tartrate to form a complex which is then reduced and

its concentration measured at 880nm using discrete analyser. This method is compliant with NEPM (2013)

Schedule B(3)

Total Phosphorus as P By Discrete

Analyser

EK067G WATER

9 of 9:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EP1902956

WA MARINE PTY LTD



In house: Referenced to APHA 4500-P F Ammonium molybdate and potassium antimonyl tartrate reacts in acid

medium with othophosphate to form a heteropoly acid -phosphomolybdic acid - which is reduced to intensely

coloured molybdenum blue by ascorbic acid. Quantification is by Discrete Analyser. This method is compliant

with NEPM (2013) Schedule B(3)

Reactive Phosphorus as P-By Discrete

Analyser

EK071G WATER

In house: Referenced to USEPA SW 846 - 8015A The sample extract is analysed by Capillary GC/FID and

quantification is by comparison against an established 5 point calibration curve of n-Alkane standards. This

method is compliant with the QC requirements of NEPM (2013) Schedule B(3)

TRH - Semivolatile Fraction EP071 WATER

In house: Referenced to USEPA SW 846 - 8270D Sample extracts are analysed by Capillary GC/MS in SIM Mode

and quantification is by comparison against an established 5 point calibration curve. This method is compliant


PAH/Phenols (GC/MS - SIM) EP075(SIM) WATER

In house: Referenced to USEPA SW 846 - 8260B Water samples are directly purged prior to analysis by

Capillary GC/MS and quantification is by comparison against an established 5 point calibration curve.

Alternatively, a sample is equilibrated in a headspace vial and a portion of the headspace determined by GCMS

analysis. This method is compliant with the QC requirements of NEPM (2013) Schedule B(3)

TRH Volatiles/BTEX EP080 WATER

AS 4276.7 2007Thermotolerant Coliforms & E.coli by

Membrane Filtration

MW006 WATER

AS4276.9: - 2007Enumeration of Enterococci by

Membrane Filtration

MW023 WATER

Preparation Methods Method DescriptionsMatrixMethod

In house: Referenced to APHA 4500 Norg - D; APHA 4500 P - H. This method is compliant with NEPM (2013)

Schedule B(3)

TKN/TP Digestion EK061/EK067 WATER

In house: Referenced to USEPA SW846-3005. Method 3005 is a Nitric/Hydrochloric acid digestion procedure

used to prepare surface and ground water samples for analysis by ICPAES or ICPMS. This method is compliant


Digestion for Total Recoverable Metals EN25 WATER

In house: Referenced to USEPA SW 846 - 3510B 100 mL to 1L of sample is transferred to a separatory funnel

and serially extracted three times using DCM for each extract. The resultant extracts are combined, dehydrated

and concentrated for analysis. This method is compliant with NEPM (2013) Schedule B(3) . ALS default excludes

sediment which may be resident in the container.

Separatory Funnel Extraction of Liquids ORG14 WATER

A 5 mL aliquot or 5 mL of a diluted sample is added to a 40 mL VOC vial for sparging.Volatiles Water Preparation ORG16-W WATER

0 0.00 True

Environmental

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSISWork Order : Page : 1 of 9EP1905097

:: LaboratoryClient WA MARINE PTY LTD Environmental Division Perth

: :ContactContact Claudio Deldeo Marnie Thomsett

:: AddressAddress SUITE 5, 5/18 GRIFFON DRIVE PO BOX 1370


26 Rigali Way Wangara WA Australia 6065

:Telephone ---- :Telephone 08 9406 1311

:Project 19WAU-0007 Darwin Processing Facility Date Samples Received : 27-May-2019 15:50

:Order number Date Analysis Commenced : 29-May-2019

:C-O-C number ---- Issue Date : 10-Jun-2019 17:06


Site : ----

Quote number : EP/1145/18

7:No. of samples received

7:No. of samples analysed


This Certificate of Analysis contains the following information:

l General Comments

l Analytical Results

l Surrogate Control Limits

Additional information pertinent to this report will be found in the following separate attachments: Quality Control Report, QA/QC Compliance Assessment to assist with

Quality Review and Sample Receipt Notification.



Ben Felgendrejeris Senior Acid Sulfate Soil Chemist Brisbane Acid Sulphate Soils, Stafford, QLD


David Viner SENIOR LAB TECH Perth Organics, Wangara, WA

Efua Wilson Metals Chemist Perth Inorganics, Wangara, WA


Peter Keyte Newcastle Manager Newcastle - Inorganics, Mayfield West, NSW


2 of 9:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EP1905097


WA MARINE PTY LTD

General Comments




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

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

When sampling time information is not provided by the client, sampling dates are shown without a time component. In these instances, the time component has been assumed by the laboratory for processing

purposes.

Where a result is required to meet compliance limits the associated uncertainty must be considered. Refer to the ALS Contact for details.



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

ø = ALS is not NATA accredited for these tests.

~ = Indicates an estimated value.

Key :

Total organic carbon conducted by ALS Brisbane, NATA Site No. 818.l

PSD conducted by ALS Perth, NATA accreditation no. 825, site no. 15842.l

3 of 9:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EP1905097


WA MARINE PTY LTD

Analytical Results

SDS4S3S2S1Client sample IDSub-Matrix: SOIL

(Matrix: SOIL)

22-May-2019 00:0022-May-2019 00:0022-May-2019 00:0022-May-2019 00:0022-May-2019 00:00Client sampling date / time



EA055: Moisture Content (Dried @ 105-110°C)

34.4 30.4 29.9 22.0 37.3%0.1----Moisture Content

EA150: Particle Sizing

51 79 80 92 82%1----+75µm

45 66 76 91 78%1----+150µm

30 44 38 85 33%1----+300µm

22 36 29 76 24%1----+425µm

16 29 26 65 22%1----+600µm

11 19 24 49 19%1----+1180µm

8 10 18 33 15%1----+2.36mm

6 <1 9 14 7%1----+4.75mm

5 <1 <1 <1 <1%1----+9.5mm

<1 <1 <1 <1 <1%1----+19.0mm

<1 <1 <1 <1 <1%1----+37.5mm

<1 <1 <1 <1 <1%1----+75.0mm

EA150: Soil Classification based on Particle Size

31 7 12 6 13%1----Clay (<2 µm)

12 3 6 2 4%1----Silt (2-60 µm)

48 77 62 54 67%1----Sand (0.06-2.00 mm)

9 13 20 38 16%1----Gravel (>2mm)

<1 <1 <1 <1 <1%1----Cobbles (>6cm)

EA152: Soil Particle Density

2.70 2.62 2.65 2.76 2.66g/cm30.01----Soil Particle Density (Clay/Silt/Sand)

EG005(ED093)-SD: Total Metals in Sediments by ICP-AES

4140Aluminium 2610 3800 2840 3650mg/kg507429-90-5

19000Iron 17300 30000 36200 21600mg/kg507439-89-6

EG020-SD: Total Metals in Sediments by ICPMS

<0.50Antimony <0.50 <0.50 0.56 <0.50mg/kg0.507440-36-0

5.53Arsenic 13.7 15.1 14.6 12.3mg/kg1.007440-38-2

<0.1Cadmium <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1mg/kg0.17440-43-9

20.9Chromium 22.7 30.1 64.7 30.5mg/kg1.07440-47-3

4.1Copper 2.6 4.4 4.6 4.0mg/kg1.07440-50-8

7.0Lead 3.7 6.8 8.2 5.2mg/kg1.07439-92-1

121Manganese 84 86 72 66mg/kg107439-96-5

1.6Nickel 2.3 6.9 3.3 4.0mg/kg1.07440-02-0

4 of 9:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EP1905097


WA MARINE PTY LTD

Analytical Results


(Matrix: SOIL)




EG020-SD: Total Metals in Sediments by ICPMS - Continued

0.1Silver <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1mg/kg0.17440-22-4

55.2Vanadium 46.6 53.5 76.9 46.1mg/kg2.07440-62-2

4.9Zinc 6.3 13.4 9.9 10.8mg/kg1.07440-66-6


<0.01Mercury <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01mg/kg0.017439-97-6

EP003: Total Organic Carbon (TOC) in Soil

0.15 0.50 0.70 0.25 0.51%0.02----Total Organic Carbon


<3 <3 <3 <3 <3mg/kg3---->C10 - C16 Fraction

5 39 4 <3 14mg/kg3---->C16 - C34 Fraction

<5 13 <5 <5 5mg/kg5---->C34 - C40 Fraction

5 52 4 <3 19mg/kg3---->C10 - C40 Fraction (sum)

<3 <3 <3 <3 <3mg/kg3---->C10 - C16 Fraction minus Naphthalene

(F2)

EP080-SD / EP071-SD: Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons

<3 <3 <3 <3 <3mg/kg3----C6 - C9 Fraction

<3 <3 <3 <3 <3mg/kg3----C10 - C14 Fraction

<3 14 <3 <3 4mg/kg3----C15 - C28 Fraction

5 34 <5 <5 12mg/kg5----C29 - C36 Fraction

5^ 48 <3 <3 16mg/kg3----C10 - C36 Fraction (sum)

EP080-SD / EP071-SD: Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons

<3C6 - C10 Fraction <3 <3 <3 <3mg/kg3C6_C10

<3.0C6 - C10 Fraction minus BTEX

(F1)

<3.0 <3.0 <3.0 <3.0mg/kg3.0C6_C10-BTEX

EP080-SD: BTEXN

<0.2Benzene <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2mg/kg0.271-43-2

<0.2Toluene <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2mg/kg0.2108-88-3

<0.2Ethylbenzene <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2mg/kg0.2100-41-4

<0.2meta- & para-Xylene <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2mg/kg0.2108-38-3 106-42-3

<0.2ortho-Xylene <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2mg/kg0.295-47-6

<0.5^ <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5mg/kg0.5----Total Xylenes

<0.2^ <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2mg/kg0.2----Sum of BTEX

<0.2Naphthalene <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2mg/kg0.291-20-3

EP132B: Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons

5 of 9:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EP1905097


WA MARINE PTY LTD

Analytical Results


(Matrix: SOIL)




EP132B: Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons - Continued

<5Naphthalene <5 <5 <5 <5µg/kg591-20-3

<52-Methylnaphthalene <5 <5 <5 <5µg/kg591-57-6

<4Acenaphthylene <4 <4 <4 <4µg/kg4208-96-8

<4Acenaphthene <4 <4 <4 <4µg/kg483-32-9

<4Fluorene <4 <4 <4 <4µg/kg486-73-7

<4Phenanthrene <4 <4 <4 <4µg/kg485-01-8

<4Anthracene <4 <4 <4 <4µg/kg4120-12-7

<4Fluoranthene <4 <4 <4 <4µg/kg4206-44-0

<4Pyrene <4 <4 <4 <4µg/kg4129-00-0

<4Benz(a)anthracene <4 <4 <4 <4µg/kg456-55-3

<4Chrysene <4 <4 <4 <4µg/kg4218-01-9

<4Benzo(b+j)fluoranthene <4 <4 <4 <4µg/kg4205-99-2 205-82-3

<4Benzo(k)fluoranthene <4 <4 <4 <4µg/kg4207-08-9

<4Benzo(e)pyrene <4 <4 <4 <4µg/kg4192-97-2

<4Benzo(a)pyrene <4 <4 <4 <4µg/kg450-32-8

<4Perylene <4 <4 <4 <4µg/kg4198-55-0

<4Benzo(g.h.i)perylene <4 <4 <4 <4µg/kg4191-24-2

<4Dibenz(a.h)anthracene <4 <4 <4 <4µg/kg453-70-3

<4Indeno(1.2.3.cd)pyrene <4 <4 <4 <4µg/kg4193-39-5

<5Coronene <5 <5 <5 <5µg/kg5191-07-1

<4^ <4 <4 <4 <4µg/kg4----Sum of PAHs

EP080-SD: TPH(V)/BTEX Surrogates

1031.2-Dichloroethane-D4 114 109 101 105%0.217060-07-0

96.8Toluene-D8 108 92.1 86.8 89.2%0.22037-26-5

95.94-Bromofluorobenzene 104 90.0 84.8 88.6%0.2460-00-4

EP132T: Base/Neutral Extractable Surrogates

97.82-Fluorobiphenyl 90.0 96.4 106 100%10321-60-8

84.1Anthracene-d10 79.3 77.8 96.2 108%101719-06-8

82.94-Terphenyl-d14 86.4 107 79.6 107%101718-51-0

6 of 9:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EP1905097


WA MARINE PTY LTD

Analytical Results

------------SRef2SRef1Client sample IDSub-Matrix: SOIL

(Matrix: SOIL)

------------22-May-2019 00:0022-May-2019 00:00Client sampling date / time




34.8 26.8 ---- ---- ----%0.1----Moisture Content


73 82 ---- ---- ----%1----+75µm

68 78 ---- ---- ----%1----+150µm

41 47 ---- ---- ----%1----+300µm

38 35 ---- ---- ----%1----+425µm

35 28 ---- ---- ----%1----+600µm

30 22 ---- ---- ----%1----+1180µm

22 16 ---- ---- ----%1----+2.36mm

10 11 ---- ---- ----%1----+4.75mm

<1 <1 ---- ---- ----%1----+9.5mm

<1 <1 ---- ---- ----%1----+19.0mm

<1 <1 ---- ---- ----%1----+37.5mm

<1 <1 ---- ---- ----%1----+75.0mm


14 11 ---- ---- ----%1----Clay (<2 µm)

10 5 ---- ---- ----%1----Silt (2-60 µm)

52 66 ---- ---- ----%1----Sand (0.06-2.00 mm)

24 18 ---- ---- ----%1----Gravel (>2mm)

<1 <1 ---- ---- ----%1----Cobbles (>6cm)


2.66 2.65 ---- ---- ----g/cm30.01----Soil Particle Density (Clay/Silt/Sand)


3280Aluminium 2280 ---- ---- ----mg/kg507429-90-5

33000Iron 19000 ---- ---- ----mg/kg507439-89-6


<0.50Antimony <0.50 ---- ---- ----mg/kg0.507440-36-0

27.3Arsenic 11.9 ---- ---- ----mg/kg1.007440-38-2

<0.1Cadmium <0.1 ---- ---- ----mg/kg0.17440-43-9

34.7Chromium 18.5 ---- ---- ----mg/kg1.07440-47-3

5.3Copper 2.6 ---- ---- ----mg/kg1.07440-50-8

7.9Lead 3.8 ---- ---- ----mg/kg1.07439-92-1

124Manganese 88 ---- ---- ----mg/kg107439-96-5

3.6Nickel 2.2 ---- ---- ----mg/kg1.07440-02-0

7 of 9:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EP1905097


WA MARINE PTY LTD

Analytical Results


(Matrix: SOIL)




EG020-SD: Total Metals in Sediments by ICPMS - Continued

<0.1Silver <0.1 ---- ---- ----mg/kg0.17440-22-4

66.9Vanadium 34.4 ---- ---- ----mg/kg2.07440-62-2

9.7Zinc 6.7 ---- ---- ----mg/kg1.07440-66-6


<0.01Mercury <0.01 ---- ---- ----mg/kg0.017439-97-6


0.33 0.39 ---- ---- ----%0.02----Total Organic Carbon


<3 <3 ---- ---- ----mg/kg3---->C10 - C16 Fraction

22 6 ---- ---- ----mg/kg3---->C16 - C34 Fraction

7 <5 ---- ---- ----mg/kg5---->C34 - C40 Fraction

29 6 ---- ---- ----mg/kg3---->C10 - C40 Fraction (sum)

<3 <3 ---- ---- ----mg/kg3---->C10 - C16 Fraction minus Naphthalene

(F2)


<3 <3 ---- ---- ----mg/kg3----C6 - C9 Fraction

<3 <3 ---- ---- ----mg/kg3----C10 - C14 Fraction

6 <3 ---- ---- ----mg/kg3----C15 - C28 Fraction

19 <5 ---- ---- ----mg/kg5----C29 - C36 Fraction

25^ <3 ---- ---- ----mg/kg3----C10 - C36 Fraction (sum)


<3C6 - C10 Fraction <3 ---- ---- ----mg/kg3C6_C10

<3.0C6 - C10 Fraction minus BTEX

(F1)

<3.0 ---- ---- ----mg/kg3.0C6_C10-BTEX

EP080-SD: BTEXN

<0.2Benzene <0.2 ---- ---- ----mg/kg0.271-43-2

<0.2Toluene <0.2 ---- ---- ----mg/kg0.2108-88-3

<0.2Ethylbenzene <0.2 ---- ---- ----mg/kg0.2100-41-4

<0.2meta- & para-Xylene <0.2 ---- ---- ----mg/kg0.2108-38-3 106-42-3

<0.2ortho-Xylene <0.2 ---- ---- ----mg/kg0.295-47-6

<0.5^ <0.5 ---- ---- ----mg/kg0.5----Total Xylenes

<0.2^ <0.2 ---- ---- ----mg/kg0.2----Sum of BTEX

<0.2Naphthalene <0.2 ---- ---- ----mg/kg0.291-20-3


8 of 9:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EP1905097


WA MARINE PTY LTD

Analytical Results


(Matrix: SOIL)




EP132B: Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons - Continued

<5Naphthalene <5 ---- ---- ----µg/kg591-20-3

<52-Methylnaphthalene <5 ---- ---- ----µg/kg591-57-6

<4Acenaphthylene <4 ---- ---- ----µg/kg4208-96-8

<4Acenaphthene <4 ---- ---- ----µg/kg483-32-9

<4Fluorene <4 ---- ---- ----µg/kg486-73-7

<4Phenanthrene <4 ---- ---- ----µg/kg485-01-8

<4Anthracene <4 ---- ---- ----µg/kg4120-12-7

<4Fluoranthene <4 ---- ---- ----µg/kg4206-44-0

<4Pyrene <4 ---- ---- ----µg/kg4129-00-0

<4Benz(a)anthracene <4 ---- ---- ----µg/kg456-55-3

<4Chrysene <4 ---- ---- ----µg/kg4218-01-9

<4Benzo(b+j)fluoranthene <4 ---- ---- ----µg/kg4205-99-2 205-82-3

<4Benzo(k)fluoranthene <4 ---- ---- ----µg/kg4207-08-9

<4Benzo(e)pyrene <4 ---- ---- ----µg/kg4192-97-2

<4Benzo(a)pyrene <4 ---- ---- ----µg/kg450-32-8

<4Perylene <4 ---- ---- ----µg/kg4198-55-0

<4Benzo(g.h.i)perylene <4 ---- ---- ----µg/kg4191-24-2

<4Dibenz(a.h)anthracene <4 ---- ---- ----µg/kg453-70-3

<4Indeno(1.2.3.cd)pyrene <4 ---- ---- ----µg/kg4193-39-5

<5Coronene <5 ---- ---- ----µg/kg5191-07-1

<4^ <4 ---- ---- ----µg/kg4----Sum of PAHs


97.11.2-Dichloroethane-D4 94.2 ---- ---- ----%0.217060-07-0

100Toluene-D8 82.9 ---- ---- ----%0.22037-26-5

94.64-Bromofluorobenzene 79.5 ---- ---- ----%0.2460-00-4


86.82-Fluorobiphenyl 111 ---- ---- ----%10321-60-8

77.6Anthracene-d10 105 ---- ---- ----%101719-06-8

1104-Terphenyl-d14 93.2 ---- ---- ----%101718-51-0

9 of 9:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EP1905097


WA MARINE PTY LTD

Surrogate Control Limits

Recovery Limits (%)Sub-Matrix: SOIL

Compound CAS Number Low High


1.2-Dichloroethane-D4 17060-07-0 70 130

Toluene-D8 2037-26-5 70 130

4-Bromofluorobenzene 460-00-4 70 130


2-Fluorobiphenyl 321-60-8 70 130

Anthracene-d10 1719-06-8 70 130

4-Terphenyl-d14 1718-51-0 70 130

False

6 6.00False

Environmental

QUALITY CONTROL REPORTWork Order : EP1905097 Page : 1 of 8


:Contact Claudio Deldeo :Contact Marnie Thomsett

:Address SUITE 5, 5/18 GRIFFON DRIVE PO BOX 1370


Address : 26 Rigali Way Wangara WA Australia 6065

::Telephone ---- 08 9406 1311:Telephone

:Project 19WAU-0007 Darwin Processing Facility Date Samples Received : 27-May-2019

:Order number Date Analysis Commenced : 29-May-2019

:C-O-C number ---- Issue Date : 10-Jun-2019


Site : ----

Quote number : EP/1145/18

No. of samples received 7:

No. of samples analysed 7:


This Quality Control Report contains the following information:

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

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

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



Ben Felgendrejeris Senior Acid Sulfate Soil Chemist Brisbane Acid Sulphate Soils, Stafford, QLD


David Viner SENIOR LAB TECH Perth Organics, Wangara, WA

Efua Wilson Metals Chemist Perth Inorganics, Wangara, WA


Peter Keyte Newcastle Manager Newcastle - Inorganics, Mayfield West, NSW


2 of 8:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EP1905097

WA MARINE PTY LTD


General Comments




Where a reported less than (<) result is higher than the LOR, this may be due to primary sample extract/digestate dilution and/or insufficient sample for analysis. Where the LOR of a reported result differs from standard LOR, this may be due to high moisture content, insufficient sample (reduced weight employed) or matrix interference.

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



RPD = Relative Percentage Difference

# = Indicates failed QC

Key :

Laboratory Duplicate (DUP) Report

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

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

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

Sub-Matrix: SOIL Laboratory Duplicate (DUP) Report


EG005(ED093)-SD: Total Metals in Sediments by ICP-AES (QC Lot: 2384988)

EG005-SD: Aluminium 7429-90-5 50 mg/kg 4140 4430 6.76 0% - 20%S1 EP1905097-001

EG005-SD: Iron 7439-89-6 50 mg/kg 19000 21200 10.9 0% - 20%

EG035T: Total Recoverable Mercury by FIMS (Low Level) (QC Lot: 2384987)

EG035T-LL: Mercury 7439-97-6 0.01 mg/kg <0.01 <0.01 0.00 No LimitS1 EP1905097-001

EA055: Moisture Content (Dried @ 105-110°C) (QC Lot: 2388308)

EA055: Moisture Content ---- 0.1 % 34.4 33.8 1.64 0% - 20%S1 EP1905097-001

EA055: Moisture Content ---- 0.1 % 6.3 6.4 1.64 No LimitAnonymous EP1905110-014

EG020-SD: Total Metals in Sediments by ICPMS (QC Lot: 2384989)

EG020-SD: Cadmium 7440-43-9 0.1 mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 0.00 No LimitS1 EP1905097-001

EG020-SD: Silver 7440-22-4 0.1 mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 0.00 No Limit

EG020-SD: Antimony 7440-36-0 0.5 mg/kg <0.50 <0.50 0.00 No Limit

EG020-SD: Arsenic 7440-38-2 1 mg/kg 5.53 7.83 34.4 No Limit

EG020-SD: Chromium 7440-47-3 1 mg/kg 20.9 24.0 13.8 0% - 20%

EG020-SD: Copper 7440-50-8 1 mg/kg 4.1 4.8 15.7 No Limit

EG020-SD: Lead 7439-92-1 1 mg/kg 7.0 10.7 42.2 0% - 50%

EG020-SD: Nickel 7440-02-0 1 mg/kg 1.6 1.8 7.87 No Limit

EG020-SD: Zinc 7440-66-6 1 mg/kg 4.9 5.9 17.2 No Limit

EG020-SD: Manganese 7439-96-5 10 mg/kg 121 146 18.8 0% - 50%

EG020-SD: Vanadium 7440-62-2 2 mg/kg 55.2 55.9 1.11 0% - 20%

EP003: Total Organic Carbon (TOC) in Soil (QC Lot: 2387171)

EP003: Total Organic Carbon ---- 0.02 % 0.15 0.13 15.7 No LimitS1 EP1905097-001

EP003: Total Organic Carbon ---- 0.02 % 0.92 0.87 5.96 0% - 20%Anonymous ES1916510-002

EP080-SD / EP071-SD: Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (QC Lot: 2374788)

EP080-SD: C6 - C9 Fraction ---- 3 mg/kg <3 <3 0.00 0% - 3%S1 EP1905097-001

3 of 8:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EP1905097

WA MARINE PTY LTD




EP080-SD / EP071-SD: Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (QC Lot: 2374804)

EP071-SD: C10 - C14 Fraction ---- 3 mg/kg <3 <3 0.00 No LimitS1 EP1905097-001

EP071-SD: C15 - C28 Fraction ---- 3 mg/kg <3 <3 0.00 No Limit

EP071-SD: C10 - C36 Fraction (sum) ---- 3 mg/kg 5 5 0.00 No Limit

EP071-SD: C29 - C36 Fraction ---- 5 mg/kg 5 5 0.00 No Limit

EP080-SD / EP071-SD: Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons (QC Lot: 2374788)

EP080-SD: C6 - C10 Fraction C6_C10 3 mg/kg <3 <3 0.00 0% - 3%S1 EP1905097-001

EP080-SD / EP071-SD: Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons (QC Lot: 2374804)

EP071-SD: >C10 - C16 Fraction ---- 3 mg/kg <3 <3 0.00 No LimitS1 EP1905097-001

EP071-SD: >C16 - C34 Fraction ---- 3 mg/kg 5 6 0.00 No Limit

EP071-SD: >C10 - C40 Fraction (sum) ---- 3 mg/kg 5 6 18.2 No Limit

EP071-SD: >C34 - C40 Fraction ---- 5 mg/kg <5 <5 0.00 No Limit

EP080-SD: BTEXN (QC Lot: 2374788)

EP080-SD: Benzene 71-43-2 0.2 mg/kg <0.2 <0.2 0.00 0% - .2%S1 EP1905097-001

EP080-SD: Toluene 108-88-3 0.2 mg/kg <0.2 <0.2 0.00 0% - .2%

EP080-SD: Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 0.2 mg/kg <0.2 <0.2 0.00 0% - .2%

EP080-SD: meta- & para-Xylene 108-38-3

106-42-3

0.2 mg/kg <0.2 <0.2 0.00 0% - .2%

EP080-SD: ortho-Xylene 95-47-6 0.2 mg/kg <0.2 <0.2 0.00 0% - .2%

EP080-SD: Total Xylenes ---- 0.2 mg/kg <0.5 <0.5 0.00 0% - .2%

EP080-SD: Sum of BTEX ---- 0.2 mg/kg <0.2 <0.2 0.00 0% - .2%

EP080-SD: Naphthalene 91-20-3 0.2 mg/kg <0.2 <0.2 0.00 0% - .2%

EP132B: Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (QC Lot: 2374803)

EP132B-SD: Acenaphthylene 208-96-8 4 µg/kg <4 <4 0.00 No LimitS1 EP1905097-001

EP132B-SD: Acenaphthene 83-32-9 4 µg/kg <4 <4 0.00 No Limit

EP132B-SD: Fluorene 86-73-7 4 µg/kg <4 <4 0.00 No Limit

EP132B-SD: Phenanthrene 85-01-8 4 µg/kg <4 <4 0.00 No Limit

EP132B-SD: Anthracene 120-12-7 4 µg/kg <4 <4 0.00 No Limit

EP132B-SD: Fluoranthene 206-44-0 4 µg/kg <4 <4 0.00 No Limit

EP132B-SD: Pyrene 129-00-0 4 µg/kg <4 <4 0.00 No Limit

EP132B-SD: Benz(a)anthracene 56-55-3 4 µg/kg <4 <4 0.00 No Limit

EP132B-SD: Chrysene 218-01-9 4 µg/kg <4 <4 0.00 No Limit

EP132B-SD: Benzo(b+j)fluoranthene 205-99-2

205-82-3

4 µg/kg <4 <4 0.00 No Limit

EP132B-SD: Benzo(k)fluoranthene 207-08-9 4 µg/kg <4 <4 0.00 No Limit

EP132B-SD: Benzo(e)pyrene 192-97-2 4 µg/kg <4 <4 0.00 No Limit

EP132B-SD: Benzo(a)pyrene 50-32-8 4 µg/kg <4 <4 0.00 No Limit

EP132B-SD: Perylene 198-55-0 4 µg/kg <4 <4 0.00 No Limit

EP132B-SD: Benzo(g.h.i)perylene 191-24-2 4 µg/kg <4 <4 0.00 No Limit

EP132B-SD: Dibenz(a.h)anthracene 53-70-3 4 µg/kg <4 <4 0.00 No Limit

EP132B-SD: Indeno(1.2.3.cd)pyrene 193-39-5 4 µg/kg <4 <4 0.00 No Limit

4 of 8:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EP1905097

WA MARINE PTY LTD




EP132B: Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (QC Lot: 2374803) - continued

EP132B-SD: Sum of PAHs ---- 4 µg/kg <4 <4 0.00 No LimitS1 EP1905097-001

EP132B-SD: Naphthalene 91-20-3 5 µg/kg <5 <5 0.00 No Limit

EP132B-SD: 2-Methylnaphthalene 91-57-6 5 µg/kg <5 <5 0.00 No Limit

EP132B-SD: Coronene 191-07-1 5 µg/kg <5 <5 0.00 No Limit

5 of 8:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EP1905097

WA MARINE PTY LTD


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

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

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

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

Sub-Matrix: SOIL Method Blank (MB)

Report




EG005(ED093)-SD: Total Metals in Sediments by ICP-AES (QCLot: 2384988)

EG005-SD: Aluminium 7429-90-5 50 mg/kg <50 -------- --------

EG005-SD: Iron 7439-89-6 50 mg/kg <50 -------- --------

EG035T: Total Recoverable Mercury by FIMS (Low Level) (QCLot: 2384987)

EG035T-LL: Mercury 7439-97-6 0.01 mg/kg <0.01 1072.154 mg/kg 12080

EG020-SD: Total Metals in Sediments by ICPMS (QCLot: 2384989)

EG020-SD: Antimony 7440-36-0 0.5 mg/kg <0.50 -------- --------

EG020-SD: Arsenic 7440-38-2 1 mg/kg <1.00 10321.62091 mg/kg 13074

EG020-SD: Cadmium 7440-43-9 0.1 mg/kg <0.1 1024.6838 mg/kg 11397

EG020-SD: Chromium 7440-47-3 1 mg/kg <1.0 10342.2 mg/kg 15272

EG020-SD: Copper 7440-50-8 1 mg/kg <1.0 10133.782 mg/kg 11676

EG020-SD: Lead 7439-92-1 1 mg/kg <1.0 10340.33169 mg/kg 12474

EG020-SD: Manganese 7439-96-5 10 mg/kg <10 -------- --------

EG020-SD: Nickel 7440-02-0 1 mg/kg <1.0 11851.10088 mg/kg 13581

EG020-SD: Silver 7440-22-4 0.1 mg/kg <0.1 -------- --------

EG020-SD: Vanadium 7440-62-2 2 mg/kg <2.0 -------- --------

EG020-SD: Zinc 7440-66-6 1 mg/kg <1.0 11561.70999 mg/kg 14381

EP003: Total Organic Carbon (TOC) in Soil (QCLot: 2387171)

EP003: Total Organic Carbon ---- 0.02 % <0.02 90.10.44 % 13070

EP080-SD / EP071-SD: Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (QCLot: 2374788)

EP080-SD: C6 - C9 Fraction ---- 3 mg/kg <3 11032 mg/kg 13070





EP071-SD: C10 - C36 Fraction (sum) ---- 3 mg/kg <3 -------- --------

EP080-SD / EP071-SD: Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons (QCLot: 2374788)

EP080-SD: C6 - C10 Fraction C6_C10 3 mg/kg <3 12837 mg/kg 13070


EP071-SD: >C10 - C16 Fraction ---- 3 mg/kg <3 122404 mg/kg 13070

EP071-SD: >C16 - C34 Fraction ---- 3 mg/kg <3 113567 mg/kg 13070

EP071-SD: >C34 - C40 Fraction ---- 5 mg/kg <5 84.833 mg/kg 13070

EP071-SD: >C10 - C40 Fraction (sum) ---- 3 mg/kg <3 -------- --------

EP080-SD: BTEXN (QCLot: 2374788)

6 of 8:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EP1905097

WA MARINE PTY LTD


Sub-Matrix: SOIL Method Blank (MB)

Report




EP080-SD: BTEXN (QCLot: 2374788) - continued

EP080-SD: Benzene 71-43-2 0.2 mg/kg <0.2 1092 mg/kg 13070

EP080-SD: Toluene 108-88-3 0.2 mg/kg <0.2 1262 mg/kg 13070

EP080-SD: Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 0.2 mg/kg <0.2 1272 mg/kg 13070

EP080-SD: meta- & para-Xylene 108-38-3

106-42-3

0.2 mg/kg <0.2 1274 mg/kg 13070

EP080-SD: ortho-Xylene 95-47-6 0.2 mg/kg <0.2 1242 mg/kg 13070

EP080-SD: Total Xylenes ---- 0.2 mg/kg <0.2 -------- --------

EP080-SD: Sum of BTEX ---- 0.2 mg/kg <0.2 -------- --------

EP080-SD: Naphthalene 91-20-3 0.2 mg/kg <0.2 1000.5 mg/kg 13070

EP132B: Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (QCLot: 2374803)

EP132B-SD: Naphthalene 91-20-3 5 µg/kg <5 84.425 µg/kg 13155

EP132B-SD: 2-Methylnaphthalene 91-57-6 5 µg/kg <5 -------- --------

EP132B-SD: Acenaphthylene 208-96-8 4 µg/kg <4 10025 µg/kg 11064

EP132B-SD: Acenaphthene 83-32-9 4 µg/kg <4 94.125 µg/kg 11262

EP132B-SD: Fluorene 86-73-7 4 µg/kg <4 94.725 µg/kg 11864

EP132B-SD: Phenanthrene 85-01-8 4 µg/kg <4 94.925 µg/kg 11759

EP132B-SD: Anthracene 120-12-7 4 µg/kg <4 72.225 µg/kg 11169

EP132B-SD: Fluoranthene 206-44-0 4 µg/kg <4 81.925 µg/kg 11866

EP132B-SD: Pyrene 129-00-0 4 µg/kg <4 94.825 µg/kg 11670

EP132B-SD: Benz(a)anthracene 56-55-3 4 µg/kg <4 81.625 µg/kg 12159

EP132B-SD: Chrysene 218-01-9 4 µg/kg <4 86.525 µg/kg 11668

EP132B-SD: Benzo(b+j)fluoranthene 205-99-2

205-82-3

4 µg/kg <4 91.025 µg/kg 10751

EP132B-SD: Benzo(k)fluoranthene 207-08-9 4 µg/kg <4 96.425 µg/kg 11852

EP132B-SD: Benzo(e)pyrene 192-97-2 4 µg/kg <4 -------- --------

EP132B-SD: Benzo(a)pyrene 50-32-8 4 µg/kg <4 92.025 µg/kg 11155

EP132B-SD: Perylene 198-55-0 4 µg/kg <4 -------- --------

EP132B-SD: Benzo(g.h.i)perylene 191-24-2 4 µg/kg <4 10125 µg/kg 10662

EP132B-SD: Dibenz(a.h)anthracene 53-70-3 4 µg/kg <4 99.225 µg/kg 14135

EP132B-SD: Indeno(1.2.3.cd)pyrene 193-39-5 4 µg/kg <4 96.225 µg/kg 12248

EP132B-SD: Coronene 191-07-1 5 µg/kg <5 -------- --------

EP132B-SD: Sum of PAHs ---- 4 µg/kg <4 -------- --------

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

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

Sub-Matrix: SOIL Matrix Spike (MS) Report


7 of 8:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EP1905097

WA MARINE PTY LTD





EG005(ED093)-SD: Total Metals in Sediments by ICP-AES (QCLot: 2384988)

S2 EP1905097-002 7429-90-5EG005-SD: Aluminium # Not

Determined

50 mg/kg 13070

7439-89-6EG005-SD: Iron # Not

Determined

50 mg/kg 13070

EG035T: Total Recoverable Mercury by FIMS (Low Level) (QCLot: 2384987)

S2 EP1905097-002 7439-97-6EG035T-LL: Mercury 81.110 mg/kg 13070

EG020-SD: Total Metals in Sediments by ICPMS (QCLot: 2384989)

S2 EP1905097-002 7440-38-2EG020-SD: Arsenic 85.750 mg/kg 13070

7440-43-9EG020-SD: Cadmium 91.650 mg/kg 13070

7440-47-3EG020-SD: Chromium 81.750 mg/kg 13070

7440-50-8EG020-SD: Copper 90.950 mg/kg 13070

7439-92-1EG020-SD: Lead 91.050 mg/kg 13070

7440-02-0EG020-SD: Nickel 93.150 mg/kg 13070

7440-66-6EG020-SD: Zinc 94.250 mg/kg 13070


S2 EP1905097-002 ----EP080-SD: C6 - C9 Fraction 70.032 mg/kg 13070


S2 EP1905097-002 ----EP071-SD: C10 - C14 Fraction 117252 mg/kg 13070

----EP071-SD: C15 - C28 Fraction 118634 mg/kg 13070

----EP071-SD: C29 - C36 Fraction 10699 mg/kg 13070


S2 EP1905097-002 ----EP071-SD: >C10 - C16 Fraction 120404 mg/kg 13070

----EP071-SD: >C16 - C34 Fraction 110567 mg/kg 13070

----EP071-SD: >C34 - C40 Fraction 77.233 mg/kg 13070

EP080-SD: BTEXN (QCLot: 2374788)

S2 EP1905097-002 71-43-2EP080-SD: Benzene 1192 mg/kg 13070

108-88-3EP080-SD: Toluene 98.62 mg/kg 13070

EP132B: Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (QCLot: 2374803)

S2 EP1905097-002 91-20-3EP132B-SD: Naphthalene 94.025 µg/kg 13070

208-96-8EP132B-SD: Acenaphthylene 89.625 µg/kg 13070

83-32-9EP132B-SD: Acenaphthene 83.425 µg/kg 13070

86-73-7EP132B-SD: Fluorene 11225 µg/kg 13070

85-01-8EP132B-SD: Phenanthrene 10125 µg/kg 13070

120-12-7EP132B-SD: Anthracene 10225 µg/kg 13070

206-44-0EP132B-SD: Fluoranthene 83.425 µg/kg 13070

129-00-0EP132B-SD: Pyrene 83.325 µg/kg 13070

56-55-3EP132B-SD: Benz(a)anthracene 70.925 µg/kg 13070

8 of 8:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EP1905097

WA MARINE PTY LTD





EP132B: Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (QCLot: 2374803) - continued

S2 EP1905097-002 218-01-9EP132B-SD: Chrysene 76.925 µg/kg 13070

205-99-2

205-82-3

EP132B-SD: Benzo(b+j)fluoranthene 77.525 µg/kg 13070

207-08-9EP132B-SD: Benzo(k)fluoranthene 84.625 µg/kg 13070

50-32-8EP132B-SD: Benzo(a)pyrene 83.825 µg/kg 13070

191-24-2EP132B-SD: Benzo(g.h.i)perylene 78.425 µg/kg 13070

53-70-3EP132B-SD: Dibenz(a.h)anthracene 94.425 µg/kg 13070

193-39-5EP132B-SD: Indeno(1.2.3.cd)pyrene 98.725 µg/kg 13070

True

Environmental

QA/QC Compliance Assessment to assist with Quality ReviewWork Order : EP1905097 Page : 1 of 7


:Contact Claudio Deldeo Telephone : 08 9406 1311

:Project 19WAU-0007 Darwin Processing Facility Date Samples Received : 27-May-2019

Site : ---- Issue Date : 10-Jun-2019

JOSH ABBOTT:Sampler No. of samples received : 7

:Order number No. of samples analysed : 7

This report is automatically generated by the ALS LIMS through interpretation of the ALS Quality Control Report and several Quality Assurance parameters measured by ALS. This automated

reporting highlights any non-conformances, facilitates faster and more accurate data validation and is designed to assist internal expert and external Auditor review. Many components of this

report contribute to the overall DQO assessment and reporting for guideline compliance.

Brief method summaries and references are also provided to assist in traceability.

Summary of Outliers


This report highlights outliers flagged in the Quality Control (QC) Report.

l NO Method Blank value outliers occur.

l NO Duplicate outliers occur.

l NO Laboratory Control outliers occur.

l Matrix Spike outliers exist - please see following pages for full details.

l For all regular sample matrices, NO surrogate recovery outliers occur.


l NO Analysis Holding Time Outliers exist.


l NO Quality Control Sample Frequency Outliers exist.


2 of 7:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EP1905097

WA MARINE PTY LTD



Duplicates, Method Blanks, Laboratory Control Samples and Matrix Spikes

Matrix: SOIL

Compound Group Name CommentLimitsDataAnalyteClient Sample IDLaboratory Sample ID CAS Number

Matrix Spike (MS) Recoveries

EP1905097--002 7429-90-5AluminiumS2 MS recovery not determined,

background level greater than or

equal to 4x spike level.

----Not

Determined


EP1905097--002 7439-89-6IronS2 MS recovery not determined,

background level greater than or

equal to 4x spike level.

----Not

Determined


Analysis Holding Time Compliance

Holding times for VOC in soils vary according to analytes of interest. Vinyl Chloride and Styrene holding time is 7 days; others 14 days. A recorded breach does not guarantee a breach for all VOC analytes and

should be verified in case the reported breach is a false positive or Vinyl Chloride and Styrene are not key analytes of interest/concern.

Holding time for leachate methods (e.g. TCLP) vary according to the analytes reported. Assessment compares the leach date with the shortest analyte holding time for the equivalent soil method. These are: organics

14 days, mercury 28 days & other metals 180 days. A recorded breach does not guarantee a breach for all non-volatile parameters.

If samples are identified below as having been analysed or extracted outside of recommended holding times, this should be taken into consideration when interpreting results.

This report summarizes extraction / preparation and analysis times and compares each with ALS recommended holding times (referencing USEPA SW 846, APHA, AS and NEPM) based on the sample container

provided. Dates reported represent first date of extraction or analysis and preclude subsequent dilutions and reruns. A listing of breaches (if any) is provided herein.

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




Soil Glass Jar - Unpreserved (EA055)

S1, S2,

S3, S4,

SD, SRef1,

SRef2

05-Jun-2019---- 05-Jun-2019----22-May-2019 ---- ü


Snap Lock Bag (EA150H)

S1, S2,

S3, S4,

SD, SRef1,

SRef2

18-Nov-2019---- 05-Jun-2019----22-May-2019 ---- ü


Snap Lock Bag (EA150H)

S1, S2,

S3, S4,

SD, SRef1,

SRef2

18-Nov-2019---- 05-Jun-2019----22-May-2019 ---- ü

3 of 7:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EP1905097

WA MARINE PTY LTD






Snap Lock Bag (EA152)

S1, S2,

S3, S4,

SD, SRef1,

SRef2

18-Nov-2019---- 05-Jun-2019----22-May-2019 ---- ü


Soil Glass Jar - Unpreserved (EG005-SD)

S1, S2,

S3, S4,

SD, SRef1,

SRef2

18-Nov-201918-Nov-2019 06-Jun-201905-Jun-201922-May-2019 ü ü


Soil Glass Jar - Unpreserved (EG020-SD)

S1, S2,

S3, S4,

SD, SRef1,

SRef2

18-Nov-201918-Nov-2019 06-Jun-201905-Jun-201922-May-2019 ü ü


Soil Glass Jar - Unpreserved (EG035T-LL)

S1, S2,

S3, S4,

SD, SRef1,

SRef2

19-Jun-201919-Jun-2019 07-Jun-201905-Jun-201922-May-2019 ü ü


Soil Glass Jar - Unpreserved (EP003)

S1, S2,

S3, S4,

SD, SRef1,

SRef2

19-Jun-201919-Jun-2019 05-Jun-201905-Jun-201922-May-2019 ü ü


Soil Glass Jar - Unpreserved (EP071-SD)

S1, S2,

S3, S4,

SD, SRef1,

SRef2

09-Jul-201905-Jun-2019 04-Jun-201930-May-201922-May-2019 ü ü

4 of 7:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EP1905097

WA MARINE PTY LTD







S1, S2,

S3, S4,

SD, SRef1,

SRef2

05-Jun-201905-Jun-2019 29-May-201929-May-201922-May-2019 ü ü


S1, S2,

S3, S4,

SD, SRef1,

SRef2




S1, S2,

S3, S4,

SD, SRef1,

SRef2


EP080-SD: BTEXN


S1, S2,

S3, S4,

SD, SRef1,

SRef2



Soil Glass Jar - Unpreserved (EP132B-SD)

S1, S2,

S3, S4,

SD, SRef1,

SRef2


5 of 7:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EP1905097

WA MARINE PTY LTD


Quality Control Parameter Frequency ComplianceThe following report summarises the frequency of laboratory QC samples analysed within the analytical lot(s) in which the submitted sample(s) was(were) processed. Actual rate should be greater than or equal to

the expected rate. A listing of breaches is provided in the Summary of Outliers.

Matrix: SOIL Evaluation: û = Quality Control frequency not within specification ; ü = Quality Control frequency within specification.





NEPM 2013 B3 & ALS QC Standard 10.00 10.002 20 üMoisture Content EA055

NEPM 2013 B3 & ALS QC Standard 14.29 10.001 7 üPAHs in Sediments by GCMS(SIM) EP132B-SD

NEPM 2013 B3 & ALS QC Standard 14.29 10.001 7 üTotal Fe and Al in Sediments by ICPAES EG005-SD

NEPM 2013 B3 & ALS QC Standard 14.29 10.001 7 üTotal Mercury by FIMS (Low Level) EG035T-LL

NEPM 2013 B3 & ALS QC Standard 14.29 10.001 7 üTotal Metals in Sediments by ICPMS EG020-SD

NEPM 2013 B3 & ALS QC Standard 11.11 10.002 18 üTotal Organic Carbon EP003

NEPM 2013 B3 & ALS QC Standard 14.29 10.001 7 üTPH - Semivolatile Fraction EP071-SD

NEPM 2013 B3 & ALS QC Standard 14.29 10.001 7 üTRH Volatiles/BTEX in Sediments EP080-SD

Laboratory Control Samples (LCS)







Method Blanks (MB)








Matrix Spikes (MS)







6 of 7:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EP1905097

WA MARINE PTY LTD


Brief Method SummariesThe analytical procedures used by the Environmental Division have been developed from established internationally recognized procedures such as those published by the US EPA, APHA, AS and NEPM. In house

developed procedures are employed in the absence of documented standards or by client request. The following report provides brief descriptions of the analytical procedures employed for results reported in the

Certificate of Analysis. Sources from which ALS methods have been developed are provided within the Method Descriptions.


In house: A gravimetric procedure based on weight loss over a 12 hour drying period at 105-110 degrees C.

This method is compliant with NEPM (2013) Schedule B(3) Section 7.1 and Table 1 (14 day holding time).

Moisture Content EA055 SOIL

Particle Size Analysis by Hydrometer according to AS1289.3.6.3 - 2003Particle Size Analysis by Hydrometer EA150H SOIL

Soil Particle Density by AS 1289.3.5.1-2006 : Methods of testing soils for engineering purposes - Soil

classification tests - Determination of the soil particle density of a soil - Standard method

Soil Particle Density EA152 SOIL

In house: Referenced to APHA 3120; USEPA SW 846 - 6010. Metals are determined following an appropriate

acid digestion of the soil. The ICPAES technique ionises samples in a plasma, emitting a characteristic

spectrum based on metals present. Intensities at selected wavelengths are compared against those of matrix

matched standards. This method is compliant with NEPM (2013) Schedule B(3). LORs per NODG

Total Fe and Al in Sediments by ICPAES EG005-SD SOIL

In house: Referenced to APHA 3125; USEPA SW846 - 6020, ALS QWI-EN/EG020. The ICPMS technique utilizes

a highly efficient argon plasma to ionize selected elements. Ions are then passed into a high vacuum mass


measurement by a discrete dynode ion detector. Analyte list and LORs per NODG.

Total Metals in Sediments by ICPMS EG020-SD SOIL

In house: Referenced to AS 3550, APHA 3112 Hg - B (Flow-injection (SnCl2)(Cold Vapour generation) AAS)

FIM-AAS is an automated flameless atomic absorption technique. Mercury in solids are determined following an

appropriate acid digestion. Ionic mercury is reduced online to atomic mercury vapour by SnCl2 which is then

purged into a heated quartz cell. Quantification is by comparing absorbance against a calibration curve. This

method is compliant with NEPM (2013) Schedule B(3)

Total Mercury by FIMS (Low Level) EG035T-LL SOIL

In house C-IR17. Dried and pulverised sample is reacted with acid to remove inorganic Carbonates, then

combusted in a LECO furnace in the presence of strong oxidants / catalysts. The evolved (Organic) Carbon (as

CO2) is automaticaly measured by infra-red detector.

Total Organic Carbon EP003 SOIL

In house: Referenced to USEPA SW 846 - 8270D. Extracts are analysed by Capillary GC/FID and quantification

is by comparison against an established 5 point calibration curve. This method is compliant with NEPM (2013)

Schedule B(3) (Method 504)

TPH - Semivolatile Fraction EP071-SD SOIL

In house: Referenced to USEPA SW 846 - 8260B Extracts are analysed by Purge and Trap, Capillary GC/MS.

Quantification is by comparison against an established 5 point calibration curve.

TRH Volatiles/BTEX in Sediments EP080-SD SOIL

In house: Referenced to USEPA 8270D GCMS Capillary column, SIM mode using large volume programmed

temperature vaporisation injection.

PAHs in Sediments by GCMS(SIM) EP132B-SD SOIL


In house: Referenced to USEPA 200.2. Hot Block Acid Digestion 1.0g of sample is heated with Nitric and

Hydrochloric acids, then cooled. Peroxide is added and samples heated and cooled again before being filtered

and bulked to volume for analysis. Digest is appropriate for determination of selected metals in sludge,

sediments, and soils. This method is compliant with NEPM (2013) Schedule B(3) (Method 202)

Hot Block Digest for metals in soils

sediments and sludges

EN69 SOIL

#Dry and Pulverise (up to 100g) GEO30 SOIL

In house: Referenced to USEPA SW 846 - 5030A. 5g of solid is shaken with surrogate and 10mL methanol prior

to analysis by Purge and Trap - GC/MS.

Methanolic Extraction of Soils for Purge

and Trap

ORG16 SOIL

7 of 7:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EP1905097

WA MARINE PTY LTD



In house: 10g of sample, Na2SO4 and surrogate are extracted with 50mL 1:1 DCM/Acetone by end over end

tumbling. An aliquot is concentrated by nitrogen blowdown to a reduced volume for analysis if required.

Tumbler Extraction of Solids for LVI

(Non-concentrating)

ORG17D SOIL