M12edd WSP Edr Rs RPT 000001 B

TRANSPORT FOR NSW
M12 MOTORWAY
PACKAGE 3 - EAST
ELIZABETH DRIVE
CONNECTION -
RETAINING
STRUCTURES RS31 AND
RS32
80% DESIGN REPORT
80% DESIGN REPORT

M12 Motorway Package 3 - East Elizabeth Drive Connection
Retaining structures RS31 and RS32
Transport for NSW
WSP
Level 27, 680 George Street
Sydney NSW 2000
GPO Box 5394
Sydney NSW 2001
Tel: +61 2 9272 5100

Fax: +61 2 9272 5101
wsp.com
REV DATE DETAILS

A 4/11/2021 50% Detailed Design
B 15/07/2022 80% Detailed Design
NAME DATE SIGNATURE

Prepared by: Bartosz Hrabanski 15/07/2022
Reviewed by: Jim Nelson 15/07/2022
Approved by: Michael Saba 15/07/2022
Acknowledgement of Country
WSP acknowledge the Traditional Custodians of the land on which M12E project is located, and the land on we are
working, the Mulgoa, Cabrogal and Cannemegal people of the Darug language group, and their continuing connection
to culture, community, and country. We pay our respect to Elders past, present and future.
This document may contain confidential and legally privileged information, neither of which are intended to be waived, and must be
used only for its intended purpose. Any unauthorised copying, dissemination or use in any form or by any means other than by the
addressee, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this document in error or by any means other than as authorised addressee,
please notify us immediately and we will arrange for its return to us.
M12EDD-WSP-EDR-RS-RPT-000001 July 2022
TABLE OF 1
1.1
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..........................................................1
CONTENTS 1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF REPORT .......................................2
1.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES ............................................................2
1.4 KEY FEATURES .........................................................................2
1.5 DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS ......................................4
2 DESIGN CONTEXT ...............................................................6

2.1 ORDER OF PRECEDENCE ........................................................6
2.2 STANDARDS, CODES AND GUIDELINES................................6
2.3 DESIGN CRITERIA .....................................................................6
2.4 DESIGN PACKAGES..................................................................6
2.5 DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS AND CONSTRAINTS ........................9
2.6 CHANGES TO THE SCOPE DURING DETAILED
DESIGN .......................................................................................9
2.7 DESIGN CHANGES SINCE 50% DETAILED DESIGN ..............9
2.8 DESIGN CHANGES SINCE 80% DETAILED DESIGN ............10
2.9 DESIGN REVIEW ......................................................................10
2.10 FUTURE SUBMISSIONS ..........................................................10
3 DESIGN ELEMENTS...........................................................11
3.1 RETAINING STRUCTURE DESCRIPTION ..............................11
3.2 REINFORCED SOIL WALL ......................................................11
3.3 BARRIER AND FOOTING ........................................................12
4 INTERDISCIPLINARY INPUTS .........................................19

4.1 DESIGN INTEGRATION ...........................................................19
4.2 VALUE MANAGEMENT ...........................................................22
4.3 QUANTITY ESTIMATING .........................................................22
5 SUSTAINABILITY................................................................23
5.1 INFRASTRUCTURE SUSTAINABILITY (IS) RATING
TOOL REQUIREMENTS ...........................................................23
5.2 SUSTAINABILITY OPPORTUNITIES / INITIATIVES ...............23
5.3 CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION..........................................24
6 DESIGN COMPLIANCE......................................................25
6.1 INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION...............................................25
6.2 ROAD SAFETY AUDITS...........................................................25
6.3 DEPARTURES, RELAXATIONS, NON-
CONFORMANCES....................................................................25
7 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE ..................................26
7.1 80% DETAILED DESIGN ..........................................................26
8 SAFETY IN DESIGN............................................................27
9 CONSTRUCTABILITY, OPERATION AND

MAINTENANCE ...................................................................28
9.1 GENERAL .................................................................................28
9.2 RS31 & RS32 - CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE .......................28
9.3 EXISTING STRUCTURES AND SERVICES ............................28
9.4 MAINTENANCE ........................................................................28
10 OUTSTANDING ISSUES....................................................29
10.1 ‘HOLD’ SCHEDULE ..................................................................29
10.2 OTHER ISSUES ........................................................................29
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1-1 ABBREVIATIONS USED WITHIN THIS REPORT .........................4
TABLE 2-1 ADDITIONAL CODES, STANDARDS, TECHNICAL
PUBLICATIONS AND GUIDELINES ..............................................6
TABLE 2.2 DESIGN PACKAGES INCLUDED WITHIN THE 80%
DETAILED DESIGN........................................................................6
TABLE 3-1 MATERIAL DENSITIES ................................................................12
TABLE 3-2 EARTH PRESSURE LOADS FOR ENGINEERED FILL ..............12
TABLE 3-3 WIND LOAD PARAMETERS ........................................................13
TABLE 3-4 EARTHQUAKE DESIGN CRITERIA.............................................13
TABLE 3-5 SLS LOAD FACTORS ..................................................................13
TABLE 3-6 ULS LOAD FACTORS ..................................................................14
TABLE 3.7 ASSUMED GEOTECHNICAL REDUCTION FACTOR.................14
TABLE 3.8 DESIGN FINDINGS FOR RS31 AT ULS ......................................16
TABLE 3.9 DESIGN FINDINGS FOR RS31 AT SLS ......................................16
TABLE 3.10 STABILITY CHECKS RS31 – 15M SEGMENT, H=2M.................16
TABLE 3.11 DESIGN FINDINGS FOR RS32 AT ULS ......................................17
TABLE 3.12 DESIGN FINDINGS FOR RS32 AT SLS ......................................17
TABLE 3.13 STABILITY CHECKS RS32 – 15M SEGMENT (H=2M)
FOUNDED ON RSW ....................................................................18
TABLE 3.14 STABILITY CHECKS RS32 – 15M SEGMENT (H=1.2M)
FOUNDED ON RSW ....................................................................18
TABLE 3.15 BEARING CHECK RS32 – 20M SEGMENT (H=1.2M)
FOUNDED ON IN-SITU SOIL.......................................................18
TABLE 4-1 SUMMARY OF DURABILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR
CONCRETE ELEMENTS .............................................................19
TABLE 4-2 SUMMARY OF DURABILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR
STEEL ELEMENTS ......................................................................19
TABLE 5.1 SIGNIFICANT SUSTAINABILITY OPPORTUNITIES /
INITIATIVES .................................................................................23
TABLE 5-2 CLIMATE CHANGE RISKS RELEVANT TO THIS
PACKAGE.....................................................................................24
TABLE 10-1 OUTSTANDING ISSUES..............................................................29
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW AND KEY FEATURES ..............................1
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A DRAWING LIST
APPENDIX B INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION
APPENDIX C DESIGN DEPARTURES REGISTER
APPENDIX D COMMENTS AND RESPONSES REGISTER
APPENDIX E SAFETY IN DESIGN REGISTER
APPENDIX F ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE REGISTER
APPENDIX G GEOTECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
APPENDIX H DURABILITY MEMORANDUM
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The M12 Motorway forms a key part of the Western Sydney Infrastructure Plan (WSIP), a joint initiative of the Federal
and State governments to fund a $4.4 billion road and transport program for Western Sydney. The M12 Motorway will
provide a direct access to Western Sydney International Airport (WSIA) at Badgerys Creek and connect with Sydney’s
existing motorway network, providing increased road capacity, reduced congestion and travel times, and improved
movement of freight.
WSP Australia Pty Ltd (WSP) has been engaged to deliver the M12 Motorway Project – Package 3 – M12 East Elizabeth
Drive Connection (EDC) Concept and Detailed Design for Transport for NSW (TfNSW).
Figure 1.1 Project overview and key features
WSP’s scope for this project is to deliver the concept design and the detailed design. The Package 3 – M12 East
Elizabeth Drive Connection (EDC) scope of works includes the following:
 Connection between the new Central section of the M12 Motorway (designed by others) and the existing
Elizabeth Drive
 Upgrade of Elizabeth Drive from an existing undivided dual lane carriageway to a divided six lane carriageway
 Cecil Road and Wallgrove Road realignment
 Connections between the existing M7 Motorway from Elizabeth Drive.

Figure 1.1 above illustrates the project overview.
Project No PS123599 WSP

M12 Motorway Package 3 - East Elizabeth Drive Connection July 2022
Retaining Structures RS31 and RS32 - 80% Detailed Design Page 1
Transport for NSW
1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF REPORT
This report documents the Detailed Design of Retaining Structures RS31 and RS32, which will retain the embankments
along realigned Cecil Road, New Wallgrove Road and Elizabeth Drive. It describes the design considerations,
methodology and technical standards incorporated into the various design elements.
This design report should be read in conjunction with the documented design drawings. Refer to Appendix A for the list
of drawings included.
1.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES

The objectives, targets and strategies for the project are detailed below. The project team will regularly review the
objectives, targets, and strategies as the project proceeds.
The project objectives, in addition to those identified in Annexure PS301/A is to:
 Improve journey time and journey time reliability for road users travelling along the corridor.
 Eases traffic congestion.
 Consider road function, local land use activity and access needs.
 Consider potential environmental impacts.
 Improve connectivity to the wider road network for all road users and improves amenity.
 Improve safety for all road users.
 Provide fit for purpose design to meet the required design life for the identified need and that minimises the project
whole of life cost.
 Integrate the M12 EDC design with adjacent other projects such as M12 Central, Future M7/M12 interchange and
Future Elizabeth Drive upgrade further west of M12 EDC project.
 Deliver a design that meets WHS legislation and is safe, efficient, and practical for workers and those in the vicinity
during temporary traffic arrangements.
 Manage risk.
Additionally, the Environmental Impact Statement identifies the following objectives to:
 Provide sufficient road capacity to meet traffic demand generated by the planned Western Sydney urban
development.
 Provide a high standard connection to the airport with capacity to meet future freight and passenger needs.
 Provide a road which supports and integrates with the broader transport network.
 Support the provision of an integrated regional and local public transport system.
 Preserve the access function of Elizabeth Drive (EDr).
 Provide active local transport within the east–west corridor.
1.4 KEY FEATURES

The new M12 Motorway is a 16km motorway between The Northern Road, Luddenham and the M7 Motorway, Cecil
Hills. This motorway will provide direct access to Western Sydney International Airport (WSIA) and connection to
Sydney’s greater road network. M12 EDC project is a part of this over all road upgrade connecting the section between

Transport for NSW
M12 Central to future M7/M12 interchange by providing adequate intersection upgrade and widening to the existing
section of Elizabeth Drive.
Key features of the M12 EDC project are depicted in Figure 1.1. Further details are listed below:
 Upgrade of Elizabeth Drive for approximately 2.2 km:
 Includes the upgrade of Elizabeth Drive from an existing undivided (1 or 2 lane) carriageway to a 3-lane divided
carriageway, in both directions, between intersections 4.1 and 4.5.
 Tie back into the existing Elizabeth Drive immediately west of intersection 4.1.
 Tie back into the existing Elizabeth Drive 2 lane divided carriageway to the East of the M7 Bridge (intersection
4.5).
 Realignment of Wallgrove and Cecil Roads for approx. 1.2 km.
 Northbound (NB) entry ramp connection to M7 from Elizabeth Drive (0.55 km):
 Interim connection to the existing NB entry ramp terminal.
 Provision for future NB entry ramp connection to the future M7/M12 interchange ramp.
 Realignment of the Northbound exit ramp from M7 to Elizabeth Drive (0.33 km).
 Widening of the existing M7 bridge spill through abutments on Elizabeth Drive to accommodate the required
additional lanes and Shared User Path (SUP) under the M7.
 M12 Motorway connection to Elizabeth Drive:
 M12 Motorway Eastbound exit ramp connection to Elizabeth Drive including provision for left turn onto
Elizabeth Drive, Westbound.
 Interim connection between Elizabeth Drive Westbound and the M12 Westbound.
 Five Signalised Intersections:
 New Elizabeth Drive and M12 Motorway Exit / Entry intersection.
 New Wallgrove Road and Elizabeth Drive intersection.
 New Wallgrove Road and Cecil Road intersection.
 New intersection between Elizabeth Drive and the M7 Motorway Northbound Exit / Entry ramps.
 Upgrade of the existing intersection between Elizabeth Drive and the M7 Motorway Southbound Exit / Entry
ramps.
 Protection and relocation of the existing utilities, provision for proposed utility and coordination with all relevant
utility service providers.
 Other structures including retaining walls, gantries, sign structures.
 Active transport facilities through the provision of a Shared User Path along Elizabeth Drive and part of Wallgrove
Road.
 High level strategic design and connection between the M12 EDC project with future Elizabeth Drive Upgrade
project (design by others) the west M12 EDC project.
 ITS design to support smart motorways operation including provision for gantries and ITS devices along exit ramps
to M7 motorways and ITS cableway along Elizabeth drive to connect to the RMS cableway along the M7 shared
path.
 Roadside furniture including safety barriers, signage and street lighting.

Transport for NSW
 Flooding, stormwater drainage and water quality management measures including culverts, pits and pipes, swales,
and basins.
 Temporary works, ancillary facilitates, site compound and storage areas, temporary construction sedimentation
basins, access tracks, property adjustment works and haul roads requirements during construction.
Further details about the project can be obtained from project web site: https://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/m12
1.5 DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Table 1-1 Abbreviations used within this Report
ABBR. DESCRIPTION
CDR Cross Discipline Review
CH Chainage
DD Detailed Design
EB Eastbound
EDC Elizabeth Drive Connection
EDR Elizabeth Drive
EGP Eastern Gas Pipeline
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
HPG High Pressure Gas
IC Independent Certifier
IS Rating Infrastructure Sustainability Design Rating
ITS Intelligent Transport Systems
km/h Kilometres per hour
LGA Local Government Area
NB Northbound
O&M Operations & Maintenance
RC Reinforced Concrete
RMS Roads and Maritime Services aka TfNSW
RSW Reinforced Soil Wall
SB Southbound
SD Stormwater Drainage
SiD Safety in Design
SLS Serviceability Limit State
TfNSW Transport for New South Wales
ULS Ultimate Limit State
WB Westbound
WSIA Western Sydney International Airport
WSIP Western Sydney Infrastructure Plan
WSP WSP Australia Pty Ltd

Transport for NSW
2 DESIGN CONTEXT
2.1 ORDER OF PRECEDENCE
The Detailed Design has been undertaken in accordance with TfNSW Standards and Technical Guidelines, and Relevant
Australian Standards. They are listed in the order of precedence as outlined below:
 Professional Services Specifications (PS Documents) approved for this project
 TfNSW Technical Directions and quality alerts
 TfNSW Design Guides, TfNSW Standard Drawings, TfNSW Specifications
 Australian Standards
2.2 STANDARDS, CODES AND GUIDELINES

Additional Design Standards and Codes, Technical Publications and Guidelines not referenced as above and relevant to
this design package are listed in Table 2-1.
Table 2-1 Additional Codes, Standards, Technical Publications and Guidelines
AS REFERENCE AS TITLE
Not Applicable
2.3 DESIGN CRITERIA

The design of the structures presented here in this report has been based on the relevant Australian Standards in
conjunction with TfNSW guidelines and specifications. The documents containing design criteria are listed below:
— Professional Services Specification – PS361
— TfNSW (TFNSW) Bridge Technical Direction (BTD) Manual [up to 2019/01]
— TfNSW Design Guides, TfNSW Standard Drawings and TfNSW specifications
— AS 5100:2017 Bridge Design
2.4 DESIGN PACKAGES

The 80% detailed design of the M12 Package 3 - East project includes the Design Packages/Lots in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2 Design packages included within the 80% detailed design
PACKAGE NO. DESCRIPTION

M12ELA01 Urban Design and Landscape Works
M12ERW01 Roadworks
M12EGD01 Fencing, Barriers, Signage & Delineation
M12ESE01 Signalling & Control
M12ESF01 Road Safety Audit
M12EPV01 Pavement & Subsoil Drainage

Transport for NSW
M12ESD01 Stormwater Drainage and Water
M12ESD02 Hydrologic & Hydraulic Assessment
M12EIF01 Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS)
M12ELV01 Street Lighting
M12EMS01 HPG Piled Protection Slab on Elizabeth Drive
M12EMS03 Fauna Culvert on Wallgrove Rd
M12EMS04 Protection Slabs (PS01, PS02, PS03)
M12EMS05 Leaf Structure
M12ERS01 Retaining Wall (RS31, RS32)
M12ERS02 Retaining Wall (RS35, RS36a and RS36b)
M12ERS03 Retaining Wall (RS33, RS34)
M12EOS01 Overhead Support Structures - Project Wide
M12EUT01 Utilities Coordination
M12EUE01 Endeavour Energy Reticulation Design Relocate/Underground works for Early Works Package 1
M12EUE02 Endeavour Energy Reticulation Design Relocate Underground HV/SL works for early works package 2
M12EUE03 Endeavour Energy Reticulation Design Relocate/Underground works for Early Works Package 3
M12EUE04 Endeavour Energy Reticulation Design Relocate/Underground works for Final Package
M12EUW01 Sydney Water- DN500 - M7 NB Entry ramp
M12EUW02 Sydney Water- DN300
M12EUW06 Sydney Water- DN500- Wallgrove Rd Crossing
M12ETW01 Temporary Works and Traffic Staging
M12ETW02 Temporary Works- Interim Entry Ramp
M12EPJ01 Property Adjustments
M12ECG01 3D Visualisations
M12EGE02 (80%) Geotech GIFR (Geotech Investigation Factual Report)
M12EGE03 Geotech GIR (Geotech Interpretive Report)
M12EGE05 Geotechnical Detailed Design & Earthworks
M12EGE06 (80%, 100%) Acid Sulphate Soils and Salinity Management Plan
M12EGE07 (80%, 100%) Contamination Investigation Report & Remedial Action Plan
M12EEN01 Sensitive Area Mapping
M12EEN02 PEMP
M12EEN03 Erosion and Sedimentation Management Report & Drawings
M12EEN04 Construction Water Quality Assessment Methodology
M12EEN06 Material/Water Re-Use and Management Plan
M12EEN07 Environment Building condition and public utilities assessment report

Transport for NSW
M12EEN08 Environment Vegetation Clearing Report and Map
M12EEN09 Climate change
M12EEN10 Updated Greenhouse Assessment
M12EEN11 Environment Protection Licence Scheduled Premises Drawings
M12EEN12 Environmental Management Report
M12EQS01 Quantity Take-off
M12EDE01 Digital Engineering

Transport for NSW
2.5 DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS AND CONSTRAINTS
2.5.1 DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS
In developing the design of the retaining structures described in this report, the following assumptions have been made:
 The embedment depths of the walls is to be based on the existing ground levels, considering the TfNSW R57
requirements.
 The barrier foundation base slab levels to be set out to avoid clashes with utilities and drainage elements.
 The barrier and barrier foundation design to make provision for the incorporation of lighting structures where
applicable.
 The height of the retaining structures should be kept to the minimum where practicable.
 Free draining granular material to be used as backfill behind the retaining walls.
2.5.2 DESIGN CONSTRAINTS

 Limit the design within Project Boundary.
 The horizontal and vertical road alignment and layout of the M12 East.
 The location of existing and proposed utilities and stormwater drainage elements.
2.6 CHANGES TO THE SCOPE DURING DETAILED DESIGN

The retaining structures described in this report were not part of the Concept Design. The first submission of this package
was the 50% Detailed Design.
2.7 DESIGN CHANGES SINCE 50% DETAILED DESIGN

The main changes to the design implemented at 80% Detailed Design stage are listed below:
- For RS31 the street lighting posts have been moved away from the wall.
- For the RS32 wall, the location of the street lighting posts changed from in front of the traffic barrier to behind
the traffic barrier. The posts are to be mounted on reinforced concrete corbels behind traffic railing. This
approach has been discussed and approved by TfNSW (refer M12EDD-WSPA-RFI-000048).
- Horizontal and vertical alignment of the walls have been updated due to the above street lighting changes
(opportunity to move walls closer to the carriageway and optimise set-out in plan).
- End treatment of the RS32 near the M7 Northbound Entry Ramp changed from wingwall type to vertical edge
and spill through slope.
- Traffic barrier type on RS31 changed to cast in-situ only, for ease of construction.
- Fall prevention measure on RS31 along control line MW11 changed from Monowills handrail to extended RSW
concrete panel, subject to RSW supplier review.
- Shape of control line MW11 in plan altered at connection to MW10, to provide perpendicular interface between
RSW panels and L-shaped barrier foundation. This eliminates clash between reinforced earth straps and L-shape
wall.

Transport for NSW
2.8 DESIGN CHANGES SINCE 80% DETAILED DESIGN
This section will be provided at 100% Detailed Design submission.
2.9 DESIGN REVIEW

A Cross Discipline Review (CDR) has been undertaken on this Design Package by the design team members in
accordance with the Project Quality Plan M12EDD-WSP-ALL-PM-PLN-00001 to verify appropriate integration of other
disciplines design components prior to submission to TfNSW.
2.10 FUTURE SUBMISSIONS

Future versions of this report will be submitted at
 100% Detailed Design

Transport for NSW
3 DESIGN ELEMENTS
3.1 RETAINING STRUCTURE DESCRIPTION
3.1.1 RETAINING STRUCTURE RS31
Retaining structure RS31 consists of a reinforced soil wall that runs along northern side of realigned Cecil Road, near the
intersection with New Wallgrove Rd. The structure has an overall length of 65.95m (35m along MW10 + 30.95m along
MW11), and it retains the embankment of the designed road formation, allowing to keep works within Project Boundary.
Maximum height of the retained fill is approximately 6.5m. The reinforced soil wall has been designed to follow control
line MW10 along the footpath in the western section. After 35m it deviates towards New Wallgrove Rd reducing the
batter, along control line MW11. This limits the maximum retained height.
A medium performance barrier, founded on a reinforced concrete L-shaped footing, is provided along the section directly
adjacent to the footpath. This barrier will have appropriate transitions at both ends, in accordance with PS361 Section
2.14.1(vi)(e). There is a vertically extended RSW concrete panel along the edge, providing fall prevention, on the
remaining part of the wall. The retaining structure has an interface with the stormwater pipe culvert, for additional
reference see package M12ESD01.
3.1.2 RETAINING STRUCTURE RS32

The retaining structure RS32 has a total length of 510m. It runs along the eastern side of New Wallgrove Road next to the
intersection with Elizabeth Drive and along the northern side of Elizabeth Drive between the intersections with New
Wallgrove Road and the M7 Entry Ramp (Northbound). The geometry is based on the control line MW02. The wall
structure retains the embankment of the widened designed road formation with the shared user path directly adjacent to
the wall. The maximum height of the retained fill is approximately 4.3m.
A medium performance barrier, founded on a reinforced concrete L-shaped footing, is proposed along the length of
RS32. This barrier will have appropriate transitions at both ends, in accordance with PS361 Section 2.14.1(vi)(e). The
retaining structure interfaces with stormwater pipe culverts and HPG piled protection slab, for additional details refer to
M12ESD01 and M12EMS01.
3.2 REINFORCED SOIL WALL

3.2.1 DESIGN METHODOLOGY
The design of the reinforced soil walls is in accordance with TfNSW QA Specification R57.
3.2.1.1 INTERNAL DESIGN

The Contractor will engage a specialist consultant to undertake the internal design of the reinforced soil walls.
3.2.1.2 EXTERNAL DESIGN

The external design of the reinforced soil walls is presented in the Geotechnical Memo located Appendix G.

Transport for NSW
3.3 BARRIER AND FOOTING
3.3.1 DESIGN ACTIONS
Design actions for the barriers and footings are in accordance with the AS5100.2-2017. The following sections
summarise the key design action criteria.
3.3.1.1 DEAD LOADS AND SUPERIMPOSED DEAD LOADS

Material densities for estimating design dead loads and superimposed dead loads have been determined from Table 6.1(A)
and Table 6.1(B) of AS5100.2-2017 and are summarised below:
Table 3-1 Material Densities
ELEMENT ASSUMED DENSITY COMMENT

Steel 77kN/m3 Table 6.1(A) of AS5100.2-2017
Reinforced concrete 25kN/m3 Assuming concrete density of 24kN/m3 for Sydney as per
Table 6.1(B), with 1% to 2% reinforcement as per Table
6.1(B) of AS5100.2-2017
Unreinforced concrete 24kN/m3 Assuming concrete density of 24kN/m3 for Sydney as per
Table 6.1(B) of AS5100.2-2017
Asphalt wearing surface 22kN/m3 Table 6.1(A) of AS5100.2-2017
3.3.1.2 EARTH PRESSURE LOADS

The following earth pressure loads have been considered.
Table 3-2 Earth pressure loads for engineered fill
ELEMENT ASSUMED VALUE COMMENT

Density of fill 22 kN/m3 Table 6.1(A) of AS5100.2-2017 for compacted fill
Friction angle of fill (F) 35⁰ Assumed value for engineered fill
At rest pressure coefficient 0.426 Calculated using Rankine’s method
Active pressure coefficient 0.271 Calculated using Rankine’s method
Passive pressure coefficient - -
Friction Coefficient Tan(F) = 0.70
3.3.1.3 SURCHARGE LOADS

Live load surcharge of 22 kPa has been considered based on Cl. 14.2 of AS 5100.2-2017. Compaction pressure of 12 kPa
has been considered as per Figure C8.2 of AS5100.3 Supp 1-2008 assuming maximum 1 tonne roller as per TfNSW
Specification B30 with a drum width of 1m.
3.3.1.4 TRAFFIC BARRIER DESIGN LOADS

The barriers have been designed for medium performance level. A ULS factor of 1.0 has been applied for the design of
the barrier as per Clause 12.2.2 of AS 5100.2-2017. This ultimate transverse outward load is 600kN.

Transport for NSW
3.3.1.5 WIND LOADS
Effects of wind have been assessed according to AS5100.2-2017 Section 17. The wind parameters used for the design are
presented in Table 3-3 below.
Table 3-3 Wind load parameters
PARAMETER VALUE
Wind terrain category TC2.5

Wind region A2
Regional wind speed SLS (ARI 20 years) 37 m/s
Regional wind speed ULS (ARI 2000 years) 48 m/s
3.3.1.6 EARTHQUAKE LOADS

Earthquake effects for the barrier footing have been assessed as per AS 4678-2002. The following parameters, presented
in Table 3-4, have been used for the assessment of earthquake effects:
Table 3-4 Earthquake design criteria
PARAMETER VALUE REFERENCE
Structure classification C Clause 1.2.2 of AS 4678

Acceleration coefficient 0.08 Clause I4 of AS 4678
Site factor 1.0 Clause I5 of AS 4678
Earthquake design category Cer Clause I6 of AS 4678
3.3.1.7 HANDRAIL LOADS

Structural elements preventing falls from the edge of retaining structure have to withstand loads described in Clause 12.5
(a) – (d) of AS5100.2-2017. This includes fall prevention measures at part of RS31 along control line MW11.
3.3.1.8 HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE LOADS

Groundwater density of 10 𝑘𝑁/𝑚3 has been used to calculate the hydrostatic loads. The barrier foundations are designed
in fill, above existing ground level, and include drainage behind vertical leg, hence one third of retaining height has been
used for groundwater level as the most conservative assumption. This is in accordance with PS331 Section E7.2.4.
3.3.2 LOAD FACTORS AND COMBINATIONS

Table 3-5 and Table 3-6 below list the load factors at the serviceability and ultimate limit state. Load combinations are as
per AS 5100.2
Table 3-5 SLS load factors
ACTION LOAD FACTOR

Dead load 1.0
Superimposed dead loads 1.3
Earth Pressure 1.0
Hydrostatic Pressure 1.0
Live Load Surcharge 1.0 for one transient effects
Wind 0.7 for additional effects if there is only one

Transport for NSW
Table 3-6 ULS load factors
ACTION LOAD FACTOR

Dead load 1.20 (1.5) / 0.85
Superimposed dead loads 2.0 / 0.70
Earth Pressure 1.25 (1.5) / 0.85
Hydrostatic Pressure 1.0 (1.5)
Live Load Surcharge 1.80
Wind 1.0
Vehicle Impact 1.0
Earthquake 1.0
Soil pressure loads have been considered with the factors corresponding to “Controlled fill with regular testing of soil
density” provided in Table 6.4 of AS5100.2-2017. It is assumed that free draining granular material shall be used as
backfill with proper compaction. Values in brackets refer to load factors used at earthquake case (ref. AS4678).
3.3.3 DESIGN METHODOLOGY

The barrier and barrier footing are in designed in accordance with AS 5100-2017 Standards. Calculations and analysis
were completed using hand calcs and in-house spreadsheets.
The barrier footing was assessed for ultimate strength, and overall stability under impact loading, surcharge loading,
hydrostatic pressure, and soil pressure. It is assumed that the precast barriers will be installed only after the nominated fill
has been placed over L-wall footings.
Vehicle impact loading was applied to the wall in accordance with the requirements for medium performance barrier as
per AS5100.2. A horizontal load of 600kN ( at ULS) was applied at a height of 1.2m above the roadway, and over a
contact length of 2.4m. The impact load was then assumed to distribute through the concrete barrier and footing at a rate
of 1:1 (H:V) for structural capacity calculations. Spreading of the load to the founding material was assumed over an
effective length of 15m and 20m (distance between EJs in barrier footing).
A live load case (surcharge loading) of 22kN/m2 was applied at the top of the wall, with the resultant horizontal action
applied.
At rest earth pressures were used when considering surcharge and hydrostatic loads, whereas active earth pressure was
used in conjunction with barrier impact.
The barrier footing retaining wall was assessed for ultimate capacity and overall stability (sliding, overturning, and
bearing) of the concrete elements.
For stability checks the following values of geotechnical strength reduction factor were used, in accordance with Table
PS331/E2.
Table 3.7 Assumed geotechnical reduction factor
LOAD CASE A B
Overturning 0.50 0.65
Sliding 0.65 0.80
Bearing 0.40 0.40
Combinations A and B are as defined in E7.2.2 of PS331.

Transport for NSW
3.3.4 DESIGN FINDINGS
3.3.4.1 RETAINING WALL RS31

The ULS load effects and section capacities for barrier and footing elements are provided in the table below.
Table 3.8 Design findings for RS31 at ULS
ELEMENT DESIGN EFFECT CAPACITY LOAD CASE
Barrier footing base slab 𝑀∗ = 353 𝑘𝑁𝑚/𝑚 𝜑𝑀𝑢 = 360 𝑘𝑁𝑚/𝑚 PE + vehicle impact
(𝑁∗𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝 = 122 𝑘𝑁/𝑚)
Barrier footing wall 𝑀∗ = 353 𝑘𝑁𝑚/𝑚 𝜑𝑀𝑢 = 375 𝑘𝑁𝑚/𝑚 PE + vehicle impact
Barrier footing wall 𝑉∗ = 122 𝑘𝑁/𝑚 𝜑𝑉𝑢 = 294 𝑘𝑁/𝑚 PE + vehicle impact
Barrier (at pavement level) 𝑀∗ = 200 𝑘𝑁𝑚/𝑚 𝜑𝑀𝑢 = 288 𝑘𝑁𝑚/𝑚 PE + vehicle impact
Barrier (at pavement level) 𝑉∗ = 167 𝑘𝑁/𝑚 𝜑𝑉𝑢 = 261 𝑘𝑁/𝑚 PE + vehicle impact
The SLS load effects and reinforcement stress for barrier footing elements are provided in the table below.
Table 3.9 Design findings for RS31 at SLS
ELEMENT DESIGN EFFECT REINFORCEMENT STRESS* LOAD CASE
Barrier footing base slab 𝑀 = 32 𝑘𝑁𝑚/𝑚 𝜎 = 42 𝑀𝑃𝑎 ≤ 𝜎𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑡 = 280 𝑀𝑃𝑎 PE + LL surcharge
(𝑁𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝 = 40 𝑘𝑁/𝑚)
Barrier footing wall 𝑀 = 32 𝑘𝑁𝑚/𝑚 𝜎 = 36 𝑀𝑃𝑎 ≤ 𝜎𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑡 = 280 𝑀𝑃𝑎 PE + LL surcharge
* Limiting values of reinforcement stress based on Tables 8.6.1(A) / 8.6.1(B) and Tables 9.4.1(A) / 9.4.1(B) of
AS5100.5–2017.
The barrier foundation global stability forces are tabulated in tables below.
Table 3.10 Stability checks RS31 – 15m segment, h=2m
DESTABILISING FORCE STABILISING F.O.S LOAD CASE

FORCE
Sliding 𝐻 = 52.7 𝑘𝑁/𝑚 𝛷𝑔 × 𝐹𝑓𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑡 = 66.9 𝑘𝑁/𝑚 1.27 Combination A
Overturning 𝑀 = 157.7 𝑘𝑁𝑚/𝑚 𝛷𝑔 × 𝑀𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑏 = 261 𝑘𝑁𝑚/𝑚

1.65 Combination B
Bearing 𝑞 = 150.5 𝑘𝑃𝑎 𝑞𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑈𝐿𝑆 = 200 𝑘𝑃𝑎 1.33 Combination B
Note: Value of 𝑞𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑈𝐿𝑆 as advised by RSW supplier (RECO).

Transport for NSW
3.3.4.2 RETAINING WALL RS32
The ULS load effects and section capacities for barrier and footing elements are provided in the table below.
Table 3.11 Design findings for RS32 at ULS
ELEMENT DESIGN EFFECT CAPACITY LOAD CASE
Barrier footing (h=2m) - base 𝑀∗ = 353 𝑘𝑁𝑚/𝑚 𝜑𝑀𝑢 = 360 𝑘𝑁𝑚/𝑚 PE + vehicle impact
slab
Barrier footing (h=2m) - wall 𝑀∗ = 353 𝑘𝑁𝑚/𝑚 𝜑𝑀𝑢 = 375 𝑘𝑁𝑚/𝑚 PE + vehicle impact
Barrier footing (h=2m) - wall 𝑉∗ = 122 𝑘𝑁/𝑚 𝜑𝑉𝑢 = 294 𝑘𝑁/𝑚 PE + vehicle impact
Barrier footing (h=1.2m) - base 𝑀∗ = 302 𝑘𝑁𝑚/𝑚 𝜑𝑀𝑢 = 359 𝑘𝑁𝑚/𝑚 PE + vehicle impact
slab
Barrier footing (h=1.2m) - wall 𝑀∗ = 302 𝑘𝑁𝑚/𝑚 𝜑𝑀𝑢 = 375 𝑘𝑁𝑚/𝑚 PE + vehicle impact
Barrier footing (h=1.2m) - wall 𝑉∗ = 130 𝑘𝑁/𝑚 𝜑𝑉𝑢 = 294 𝑘𝑁/𝑚 PE + vehicle impact
Barrier (in-situ) 𝑀∗ = 200 𝑘𝑁𝑚/𝑚 𝜑𝑀𝑢 = 288 𝑘𝑁𝑚/𝑚 PE + vehicle impact
Barrier (in-situ) 𝑉∗ = 167 𝑘𝑁/𝑚 𝜑𝑉𝑢 = 261 𝑘𝑁/𝑚 PE + vehicle impact
Barrier (precast) 𝑀∗ = 200 𝑘𝑁𝑚/𝑚 𝜑𝑀𝑢 = 247 𝑘𝑁𝑚/𝑚 PE + vehicle impact
Barrier (precast) 𝑉∗ = 167 𝑘𝑁/𝑚 𝜑𝑉𝑢 = 251 𝑘𝑁/𝑚 PE + vehicle impact
The SLS load effects and reinforcement stress for barrier footing elements are provided in the table below.
Table 3.12 Design findings for RS32 at SLS
ELEMENT DESIGN EFFECT REINFORCEMENT STRESS* LOAD CASE
Barrier footing (h=2m) - base 𝑀 = 32 𝑘𝑁𝑚/𝑚 𝜎 = 42 𝑀𝑃𝑎 ≤ 𝜎𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑡 = 280 𝑀𝑃𝑎 PE + LL surcharge
slab
Barrier footing (h=2m) - wall 𝑀 = 32 𝑘𝑁𝑚/𝑚 𝜎 = 36 𝑀𝑃𝑎 ≤ 𝜎𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑡 = 280 𝑀𝑃𝑎 PE + LL surcharge
Barrier footing (h=1.2m) - base 𝑀 = 10 𝑘𝑁𝑚/𝑚 𝜎 = 14 𝑀𝑃𝑎 ≤ 𝜎𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑡 = 280 𝑀𝑃𝑎 PE + LL surcharge
slab
Barrier footing (h=1.2m) - wall 𝑀 = 10 𝑘𝑁𝑚/𝑚 𝜎 = 11 𝑀𝑃𝑎 ≤ 𝜎𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑡 = 280 𝑀𝑃𝑎 PE + LL surcharge
* Limiting values of reinforcement stress based on Tables 8.6.1(A) / 8.6.1(B) and Tables 9.4.1(A) / 9.4.1(B) of
AS5100.5–2017.

Transport for NSW
The barrier foundation global stability forces are tabulated in tables below.
Table 3.13 Stability checks RS32 – 15m segment (h=2m) founded on RSW
DESTABILISING STABILISING F.O.S LOAD CASE

FORCE FORCE
Sliding 𝐻 = 52.7 𝑘𝑁/𝑚 𝛷𝑔 × 𝐹𝑓𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑡 = 66.9 𝑘𝑁/𝑚 1.27 Combination A
Overturning 𝑀 = 157.7 𝑘𝑁𝑚/𝑚 𝛷𝑔 × 𝑀𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑏 = 261 𝑘𝑁𝑚/𝑚 1.65 Combination B
Table 3.14 Stability checks RS32 – 15m segment (h=1.2m) founded on RSW
DESTABILISING STABILISING F.O.S LOAD CASE

FORCE FORCE
Sliding 𝐻 = 47.6 𝑘𝑁/𝑚 𝛷𝑔 × 𝐹𝑓𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑡 = 54.9 𝑘𝑁/𝑚 1.15 Combination B
Overturning 𝑀 = 116.1 𝑘𝑁𝑚/𝑚 𝛷𝑔 × 𝑀𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑏 = 174 𝑘𝑁𝑚/𝑚 1.50 Combination B
Table 3.15 Bearing check RS32 – 20m segment (h=1.2m) founded on in-situ soil
DESTABILISING FORCE STABILISING F.O.S LOAD CASE

FORCE
Bearing 𝑞 = 86 𝑘𝑃𝑎 𝛷𝑔 × 𝑞𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑤 = 200 𝑘𝑃𝑎 2.32 Combination B

Transport for NSW
4 INTERDISCIPLINARY INPUTS
4.1 DESIGN INTEGRATION
4.1.1 DURABILITY
The required design life of retaining walls including reinforced soil walls is 100 years in accordance with PS301. A
summary of the durability requirements for elements included in the design scope of this Report is presented below in
Table 4-1 and Table 4-2. Refer to Appendix H for further details on the Durability Memo.
Table 4-1 Summary of durability requirements for concrete elements
CONCRETE EXPOSURE
ELEMENT REQUIRED COVER
STRENGTH (F’C) CLASSIFICATION
Mass concrete levelling strip 32 B1 NA
Precast RSW wall panel 40 B1 35mm (+ 5mm if using curing compound)
Cast-in-place concrete barrier 45mm (+ 30mm if cast Against Ground

40 B1
foundation (L-shape) +5mm if using curing compound)
45mm (+ 30mm if cast Against Ground
L-shape pipe block-outs 40 B1
+5mm if using curing compound)
45mm (+ 30mm if cast Against Ground
Barrier stitch-pour 40 B1
+5mm if using curing compound)
Precast concrete traffic barrier
40 B1 45mm (+5mm if using curing compound)
segments
Cast-in-place concrete traffic
40 B1 45mm (+5mm if using curing compound)
barrier
Table 4-2 Summary of durability requirements for steel elements
EXPOSURE
ELEMENT REQUIRED PROTECTION
CLASSIFICATION
Galvanized with a corrosion loss allowance – Refer to
RSW straps Non-aggressive (AS2159:2009)
Clause 5.2 of TfNSW R57
Steel railing C2 Minimum HDG 320 (or at least 320 g/m2/ 45µm)
4.1.2 GEOTECHNICAL
Refer to Appendix G for details regarding the geotechnical information applicable to the design of retaining structures
RS31 and RS32.
4.1.3 ROADWORKS
The geometry of retaining structures RS31 and RS32 is based on the Roadworks design. Control lines MW10 and MW11
supplied by civil designers define the geometry of RS31 and control line MW02 was used for RS32.
4.1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL
The environmental compliance register for the structures described in this report is provided in Appendix F.

Transport for NSW
4.1.5 UTILITIES AND DRAINAGE
The design of retaining structures RS31 and RS32 has been coordinated with inputs from stormwater drainage and
utilities. Cast-in-place barrier foundation base slab founding RLs have been designed to allow sufficient room for
designed utilities (incl. ITS, electrical) to be placed between finished design surface and top of slab. Where potential
clashes with elements of longitudinal stormwater drainage were identified, the base slab RLs have been lowered to allow
for 2m clearance between designed road levels and top of structure, as advised by drainage engineers. The existing
utilities running along the northern side of Elizabeth Drive, where RS32 is to be constructed, are going to be relocated to
the south, outside the designed WB carriageway.
There will be a spare DN100 conduit provided inside the traffic barriers along the walls RS31 and RS32, as agreed by
TfNSW (ref. M12EDD-WSPA-RFI-000082). Additionally, traffic barrier on RS32 will include a DN80 conduit for street
lighting.
For further details of Utilities Coordination and Construction Staging refer to design packages: M12EUT01 and
M12ETW01.
For further details of Stormwater Drainage refer to design package M12ESD01.
4.1.6 PAVEMENT
Refer to design lot M12EPV01 for details regarding pavement construction along retaining structures RS31 and RS32.
4.1.7 STREET LIGHTING

The location of street lighting posts, documented in 50% Detailed Design for RS31 and RS32, was in front of the traffic
barrier, following a request from TfNSW (please refer M12EDD-TFNSW-WSPA-CORR-000071). Design drawings
submitted for 50% Detailed Design made provision for lighting post mounted on a piled foundation protruding through an
opening in L-shaped barrier foundation base slab (this solution was described in 50% design stage report as OPTION I).
Alternative design, referred to as OPTION II, was given for consideration in the 50% stage design report. This one included
lighting post mounted on a concrete plinth, integral with L-shaped barrier foundation, in front of the traffic face of barrier.
After several discussions and technical meetings between WSP and TfNSW it has been agreed that, in order to provide the
best outcome (consideration of constructability, maintenance, traffic hazards etc.) for 80% Detailed Design lighting posts
should be mounted on corbels, attached to the back of the traffic barrier. This was documented in M12EDD-WSPA-RFI-
000048.
Design drawings for 80% stage will show details of the reinforced concrete corbels behind traffic barriers for lighting posts
installation. Power will be supplied to the lights through conduits inside the concrete barrier. The table with sketches and
comparison of OPTION I and OPTION II has been deleted from this report at 80% design stage as both these solutions
were abandoned.
4.1.8 OVERHEAD SIGNS

There are several overhead support structures for signs located adjacent to RS32. Location of column and foundation, that
support the cantilever sign, is outside the wall footprint for each of the signs - no clash detected at 80% Detailed Design.
For details refer to package M12EOS01.
4.1.9 URBAN DESIGN AND LANDSCAPE WORKS

The face of retaining structures which is visible to public will have an aesthetic finish to comply with Urban Design
requirements. Refer to package M12ELA01 for details.

Transport for NSW
4.2 VALUE MANAGEMENT
4.2.1 CHALLENGE AND INNOVATION
The Challenge and Innovation period was undertaken during the Concept Design to identify value for money
opportunities. These were documented as part of the Concept Design submission - refer to M12EDD-WSP-ALL-DN-
RPT-000001.
A value engineering workshop was undertaken on 22nd February 2022 to identify key project elements that impact on the
program and cost. Cost elements with potential to offer significant value for money or allow for innovation were also
identified during the workshop. The outcomes of the Value Engineering workshop have been documented in M12EDD-
WSP-ALL-DN-RPT-000004.
At the 80% Detailed Design for Retaining Structures RS31 and RS32 no additional value for money opportunities have
been identified.
4.3 QUANTITY ESTIMATING

North Projects have been engaged to undertake the quantity estimate for M12 East project. A quantity estimate for the
project has been submitted to TfNSW - refer to M12EDD-WSP-ALL-CE-BOQ-000002.

Transport for NSW
5 SUSTAINABILITY
5.1 INFRASTRUCTURE SUSTAINABILITY (IS) RATING TOOL
REQUIREMENTS
The M12E project is undertaking an Infrastructure Sustainability (IS) Rating under Version 1.2 of the Infrastructure
Sustainability Council of Australia’s (ISCA) IS ‘Design and As Built’ Rating Tool. WSP have been engaged to prepare
the ‘Design’ submission. Section 2.11.3 of the Professional Services Contract outlined that the project is required to
achieve a score of at least 55 points and provides a list of credits and associated levels that must be achieved on the
project.
No IS credits are specific to this design package.
5.2 SUSTAINABILITY OPPORTUNITIES / INITIATIVES

The following significant sustainability opportunities have been identified for this package that would contribute to
reducing the projects energy, material and water demand and achieving the projects IS Rating.
Table 5.1 Significant sustainability opportunities / initiatives
Opportunity/ Initiative Risks / Barriers Benefits Status (open, Action Required /

closed or Comments
implemented)
Low carbon concrete mixes Minimal risk as this is Aligns with TFNSW Implemented SCM content from B2
for cast in-situ / precast specifying TFNSW B80 Sustainability Strategy and concrete mixes have been
elements. concrete specifications. IS Rating credits. Results specified in design reports
embodied carbon savings. and will be specified within
construction tender
specifications.
A 350m long section of Potential reduction in the Elimination of the retaining Implemented Value engineering resulted
retaining wall on the northern extent of area between wall will reduce the need in the removal of 350m
side of Elizabeth Drive M7/M12 and the Elizabeth for more materials, will section of retaining wall on
between the M12 offramp Drive alignment. help achieve overall project the northern side of
and Wallgrove Road Integrated drainage sustainability and will Elizabeth Drive between the
realignment has been strategy will be required. reduce the construction / M12 offramp and Wallgrove
removed with the reduction staging time span and Road realignment resulting
of median width and ongoing maintenance in a material reduction.
realignment of this section of requirements. Overall cost
Elizabeth Drive to the south of the project will be also
toward the M12/M7 reduced.
Motorway.
Earthwork / batter design to Space proofing of drainage Elimination of the retaining Implemented Value engineering resulted
the north of the EDR section culverts is required. wall will reduce the need in the removal of 120m
near the eastern end of the for more materials, will section of retaining wall to
project tightened to eliminate help achieve overall project the East of the M7
need for about 120m sustainability. Will reduce motorway by tightening
additional RET wall between the construction / staging batter slopes. Geotechnical
the road and the WSPT land. time span. Overall cost of treatment to the tightened
the project will be reduced. earthwork / batter is under

Transport for NSW
Opportunity/ Initiative Risks / Barriers Benefits Status (open, Action Required /
closed or Comments
implemented)
Added advantage of lesser investigation for 80% design

and easy maintenance will submission.
help in long run during the
operational phase.
5.3 CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION

A Climate Change Risk Workshop has been undertaken to identify climate change risks and proposed adaptation
measures for implementation to increase the resilience of the project to climate change. Climate change risks and
adaptation measures relevant to this package are summarised in the table below. These may be updated as the project
progresses through detailed design. The full climate risk register is provided in Appendix A of the Climate Change
Monitoring and Adaptation Management Framework (refer to M12EDD-WSP-ALL-SB-RPT-000001).
Table 5-2 Climate change risks relevant to this package
Climate Risk Existing Controls Risk Adaptation measure – Final Risk Evidence of
Rating Design/ Operation Rating Adaptation
Increased levels of atmospheric Low Carbonation modelling Low Please refer to

carbon resulting in increased has been undertaken that Appendix H for
rate of carbonation within accounts for future carbonation
exposed concrete elements. atmospheric carbon modelling and
This can result in corrosion of dioxide concentrations. specific cover
steel reinforcement and reduce Where required increase requirements.
the design life of these cover depth for exposed
elements. concrete elements have
been specified. RCP 8.5
has been adopted,
reflecting a high-
emissions scenario and
aligning with the
pathways selected for the
project.

Transport for NSW
6 DESIGN COMPLIANCE
6.1 INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION
In accordance with Clause 1.20 of PS301, the relevant design disciplines will be independently verified by an approved
reviewer at each stage of the design.
Retaining wall RS32 is considered a Class S structure in accordance with Annexure PS361/D. Retaining wall RS31 is
considered a Class C structure and will be checked by a verifier from a separate organisation after 80% DD stage.
Relevant IV certificates have been included in Appendix B.
In addition, internal reviews and cross discipline reviews have been undertaken at 80% detailed design stage in
accordance with the Project Quality Plan M12EDD-WSP-ALL-PM-PLN-00001.
Responses to TfNSW review comments are provided in Appendix D.
6.2 ROAD SAFETY AUDITS

A road safety audit (RSA) has been undertaken on the design.
Refer to M12EDD-WSP-ALL-DN-RPT-000002 for the RSA findings.
6.3 DEPARTURES, RELAXATIONS, NON-CONFORMANCES

The departures from design standards and specifications related to this package are documented in Appendix C.

Transport for NSW
7 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
7.1 80% DETAILED DESIGN
The environmental design criteria applicable for this this design package (RS01, retaining walls RS31 and RS32) has
been sourced from the EIS/Amendment Report (including associated responses to submissions reports and consistency
assessments), TfNSW QA Specifications PS311 and NSW DPIE Project Approval (dated 23 April 2021).
The environmental compliance register is provided in Appendix F.
No non-compliances have been identified at 80%. There are a number of pending items which will be resolved prior to
100% submission.

Transport for NSW
8 SAFETY IN DESIGN
The Health and Safety in Design (HSiD) of M12 East complies with Technical Procedure ILC-MI-TP0-520 Health and
Safety in Design, WHS Laws and Regulations, and ensure that the safety of people during construction, operation and
maintenance phases is maximised by developing all elements of the design with safety in mind.
A Major Hazards Creator workshop was undertaken as part of the Concept Design predominantly focusing on hazards,
unique hazards, human factors, interfaces, and complexities - refer to M12EDD-WSP-ALL-HS-RPT-000001.
A HSiD Workshop was undertaken on the 15th of December 2021. The outcomes of the workshop have been documented
in M12EDD-WSP-ALL-HS-RPT-000002.
An extract from the Project Safety in Design register documenting the risks and mitigation measures applicable to this
Design Package is included in Appendix E for reference. This is a live document which will be updated throughout the
design lifecycle.

Transport for NSW
9 CONSTRUCTABILITY, OPERATION
AND MAINTENANCE
9.1 GENERAL
The design of the M12 East project has been optimised to ensure the works can be constructed and maintained safely,
efficiently, and practically, while meeting project objectives. The overall constructability of the project, including
construction staging, has been captured in M12EDD-WSP-ALL-TW-RPT-000001.
A constructability workshop for the 50% Detailed Design has been undertaken, with the outcomes captured in M12EDD-
WSP-ALL-DN-BRN-000001.
9.2 RS31 & RS32 - CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE

Before structures RS31 and RS32 can be constructed utilities running along northern side of existing Elizabeth Drive must
be relocated. Certain new utilities crossing under the walls also must be constructed, as well as elements of transversal
stormwater drainage (culverts). Refer the Construction Staging Strategy Report (M12EDD-WSP-ALL-TW-RPT-000001)
for the proposed staging and access requirements.
General construction sequence for the retaining structures RS31 and RS32 is presented below:
— Excavation to the level required for RSW foundation
— Ground preparation
— Constructing the concrete levelling strip footing
— Placement of first row of precast RSW face panels
— Construction of fill to the level of reinforcement straps, installation of straps and further filling, placing the drainage
pipe behind RSW block
— Repeating: construction of compacted fill (including drainage material) and placement of straps,
— Adding rows of panels with compacted fill, straps, and drainage behind until barrier foundation level is reached
— Construction of barrier foundation base slab (reinforcement + concrete)
— Construction of barrier foundation wall (reinforcement + concrete)
— Placement of utilities running under the footpath / shared path
— Backfilling to the designed level (incl. drainage behind vertical leg) and pavement construction
— Installing the precast barrier segments (+stitch pour) or constructing cast-in situ barrier
9.3 EXISTING STRUCTURES AND SERVICES

There are existing services at the retaining structures’ sites including electrical, telecommunication, and gas. Refer to
design drawings and package M12EUT01 for details.
9.4 MAINTENANCE
There are standard maintenance actions anticipated over the lifespan of retaining structures, such as: inspection of the
wall elements, protective covers / replacement of steel railing, spraying of weeds, cleaning of graffiti etc.

Transport for NSW
10 OUTSTANDING ISSUES
10.1 ‘HOLD’ SCHEDULE
At the time of the design submission there are no items on hold.
10.2 OTHER ISSUES

Please refer to the Table 10-1 for the list of outstanding issues identified during the design process. This includes some
items that were resolved since 50% Detailed Design with comments and explanations.
Table 10-1 Outstanding issues
ITEM EFFECT ON DESIGN STATUS
Geotechnical investigation Additional ground investigation results Open

might change the design of walls (global
The design was progressed to 80% DD
stability, bearing strength etc.).
stage based on assumptions approved
by TfNSW (ref M12EDD-WSPA-RFI-
000076). These assumptions reflect GI
available to date (the same as at 50%
DD). Additional investigation will be
available before 100% DD stage and
design calculations will need to be
revised accordingly.
Lighting post foundation Type of lighting post foundation needs to Resolved at 80% DD.
be agreed / confirmed.
Lighting posts to be mounted on corbels
attached to the back of traffic barrier,
following instructions from TfNSW (ref.
M12EDD-WSPA-RFI-000048).
Barrier performance level For 50% Detailed Design a Medium Resolved at 80% DD.
Performance traffic barrier has been
Barrier performance level used: Medium.
adopted, according to the results of Site-
Specific Risk Assessment. There is a
potential to reduce performance level to
Regular at later stages if the departure is
agreed by TfNSW.
Barrier layout and railing Barrier segment layout as well as traffic Resolved at 80% DD.
railing will be defined for 80% Detailed
Design.
Reinforcement Reinforcement of concrete elements to Resolved at 80% DD.

be provided for 80% Detailed Design

Transport for NSW
APPENDIX A
DRAWING LIST
DRAWING LIST FOR RS31
DRAWING NUMBER REV DRAWING TITLE

M12EDD-WSP-CERRS31-RS-DRG-310001 B COVER SHEET
M12EDD-WSP-CERRS31-RS-DRG-310002 B DRAWING SCHEDULE
M12EDD-WSP-CERRS31-RS-DRG-310010 B GENERAL ARRANGEMENT - SHEET A
M12EDD-WSP-CERRS31-RS-DRG-310011 B GENERAL ARRANGEMENT - SHEET B
M12EDD-WSP-CERRS31-RS-DRG-310012 B GENERAL ARRANGEMENT - SHEET C
M12EDD-WSP-CERRS31-RS-DRG-310013 B GENERAL ARRANGEMENT - SHEET D
M12EDD-WSP-CERRS31-RS-DRG-310014 B GENERAL ARRANGEMENT - SHEET E
M12EDD-WSP-CERRS31-RS-DRG-310020 B BARRIER FOOTING LAYOUT
M12EDD-WSP-CERRS31-RS-DRG-310021 B BARRIER FOOTING CONCRETE – SHEET A
M12EDD-WSP-CERRS31-RS-DRG-310022 A BARRIER FOOTING CONCRETE – SHEET B
M12EDD-WSP-CERRS31-RS-DRG-310030 A BARRIER FOOTING REINFORCEMENT – SHEET A
M12EDD-WSP-CERRS31-RS-DRG-310031 A BARRIER FOOTING REINFORCEMENT – SHEET B
M12EDD-WSP-CERRS31-RS-DRG-310042 B DRAWING DELETED
M12EDD-WSP-CERRS31-RS-DRG-310050 A TRAFFIC BARRIER RAILING LAYOUT
M12EDD-WSP-CERRS31-RS-DRG-310051 A TRAFFIC BARRIER RAILING DETAILS - SHEET A
M12EDD-WSP-CERRS31-RS-DRG-310052 A TRAFFIC BARRIER RAILING DETAILS - SHEET B
M12EDD-WSP-CERRS31-RS-DRG-310053 A TRAFFIC BARRIER RAILING DETAILS - SHEET C
M12EDD-WSP-CERRS31-RS-DRG-310060 A PIPE BLOCKOUT CONCRETE
M12EDD-WSP-CERRS31-RS-DRG-310070 A BAR SHAPES DIAGRAM

80% Detailed Design Page A-1
Transport for NSW
DRAWING LIST FOR RS32
DRAWING NUMBER REV DRAWING TITLE

M12EDD-WSP-EDRRS32-RS-DRG-320001 B COVER SHEET
M12EDD-WSP-EDRRS32-RS-DRG-320002 B DRAWING SCHEDULE
M12EDD-WSP-EDRRS32-RS-DRG-320010 B GENERAL ARRANGEMENT - SHEET A
M12EDD-WSP-EDRRS32-RS-DRG-320011 B GENERAL ARRANGEMENT - SHEET B
M12EDD-WSP-EDRRS32-RS-DRG-320012 B GENERAL ARRANGEMENT - SHEET C
M12EDD-WSP-EDRRS32-RS-DRG-320013 B GENERAL ARRANGEMENT - SHEET D
M12EDD-WSP-EDRRS32-RS-DRG-320014 B GENERAL ARRANGEMENT - SHEET E
M12EDD-WSP-EDRRS32-RS-DRG-320015 B GENERAL ARRANGEMENT - SHEET F
M12EDD-WSP-EDRRS32-RS-DRG-320020 B BARRIER FOOTING LAYOUT - SHEET A
M12EDD-WSP-EDRRS32-RS-DRG-320021 B BARRIER FOOTING LAYOUT - SHEET B
M12EDD-WSP-EDRRS32-RS-DRG-320022 B BARRIER FOOTING LAYOUT - SHEET C
M12EDD-WSP-EDRRS32-RS-DRG-320023 B BARRIER FOOTING LAYOUT - SHEET D
M12EDD-WSP-EDRRS32-RS-DRG-320024 B BARRIER FOOTING CONCRETE - SHEET A
M12EDD-WSP-EDRRS32-RS-DRG-320025 A BARRIER FOOTING CONCRETE - SHEET B
M12EDD-WSP-EDRRS32-RS-DRG-320030 A BARRIER FOOTING REINFORCEMENT - SHEET A
M12EDD-WSP-EDRRS32-RS-DRG-320031 A BARRIER FOOTING REINFORCEMENT - SHEET B
M12EDD-WSP-EDRRS32-RS-DRG-320032 A BARRIER FOOTING REINFORCEMENT - SHEET C
M12EDD-WSP-EDRRS32-RS-DRG-320033 A BARRIER FOOTING REINFORCEMENT - SHEET D
M12EDD-WSP-EDRRS32-RS-DRG-320040 A PRECAST BARRIERS LAYOUT - SHEET A
M12EDD-WSP-EDRRS32-RS-DRG-320041 A PRECAST BARRIERS LAYOUT - SHEET B
M12EDD-WSP-EDRRS32-RS-DRG-320042 A PRECAST BARRIERS CONCRETE - SHEET A
M12EDD-WSP-EDRRS32-RS-DRG-320043 A PRECAST BARRIERS CONCRETE - SHEET B
M12EDD-WSP-EDRRS32-RS-DRG-320044 A PRECAST BARRIERS CONCRETE - SHEET C
M12EDD-WSP-EDRRS32-RS-DRG-320045 A PRECAST BARRIERS CONCRETE - SHEET D
M12EDD-WSP-EDRRS32-RS-DRG-320046 A PRECAST BARRIERS CONCRETE - SHEET E
M12EDD-WSP-EDRRS32-RS-DRG-320050 A PRECAST BARRIERS REINFORCEMENT - SHEET A
M12EDD-WSP-EDRRS32-RS-DRG-320051 A PRECAST BARRIERS REINFORCEMENT - SHEET B
M12EDD-WSP-EDRRS32-RS-DRG-320052 A PRECAST BARRIERS REINFORCEMENT - SHEET C
M12EDD-WSP-EDRRS32-RS-DRG-320053 A PRECAST BARRIERS REINFORCEMENT - SHEET D
M12EDD-WSP-EDRRS32-RS-DRG-320054 A PRECAST BARRIERS REINFORCEMENT - SHEET E
M12EDD-WSP-EDRRS32-RS-DRG-320055 A PRECAST BARRIERS REINFORCEMENT - SHEET F
M12EDD-WSP-EDRRS32-RS-DRG-320060 A TRAFFIC BARRIER RAILING LAYOUT
M12EDD-WSP-EDRRS32-RS-DRG-320061 A TRAFFIC BARRIER RAILING - SHEET A
M12EDD-WSP-EDRRS32-RS-DRG-320062 A TRAFFIC BARRIER RAILING - SHEET B
M12EDD-WSP-EDRRS32-RS-DRG-320063 A TRAFFIC BARRIER RAILING - SHEET C
M12EDD-WSP-EDRRS32-RS-DRG-320064 A TRAFFIC BARRIER RAILING - SHEET D
M12EDD-WSP-EDRRS32-RS-DRG-320070 A PIPE BLOCKOUT DETAILS – SHEET A
M12EDD-WSP-EDRRS32-RS-DRG-320071 A PIPE BLOCKOUT DETAILS – SHEET B
M12EDD-WSP-EDRRS32-RS-DRG-320090 A BAR SHAPES DIAGRAM

80% Detailed Design Page A-2
Transport for NSW
APPENDIX B
INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION
ANNEXURE PS301/D – INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION CERTIFICATE
NAME OF PROJECT M12 MOTORWAY PACKAGE 3 – ELIZABETH DR CONNECTION
Name of Structure or design element M12ERS01: Retaining Wall (RS31, RS32)
Registration No of Drawings M12EDD-WSP-CERRS31-RS-DRG-009999

M12EDD-WSP-EDRRS32-RS-DRG-009999
Drawing revision number and status B
Designer of structure or element Bartosz Hrabanski
Verification Certificate Date: 14/07/2022
1. We certify that reasonable professional skill and care has been used in the verification of the design of Retaining Walls RS31
and RS32. We certify that the design:
a) has been checked in accordance with the independent verification requirements of clause 1.13 of Project Development
Services requirements of Contract No [19.0000303662.0948]:
b) has been checked for compliance with:
i) the Project Development Services requirements of Contract No [19.0000303662.0948]
ii) Relevant Australian Standards and TfNSW requirements.
c) has been accurately translated into the following drawings and these drawings are suitable for use as detailed design
drawings. The unique numbers of these drawings are:
SHEET NO/ISSUE NUMBER ISSUE TITLE
M12EDD-WSP-CERRS31-RS- B – 80% Detailed Design RS31 Drawings (combined)

DRG-009999
M12EDD-WSP-EDRRS32-RS-
B – 80% Detailed Design RS32 Drawings (combined)
DRG-009999
Independent Verifier’s Signature

14/07/22
Name: Jim Nelson

Position Held: Technical Executive
Organisation: WSP Australia
Date: 14/07/2022

Sydney NSW 2000
GPO Box 5394
Sydney NSW 2001
Tel: +61 2 9272 5100

Fax: +61 2 9272 5101
www.wsp.com 20220714 - Appendix B | Page 1
Independent Verification Certificate

APPENDIX C
DESIGN DEPARTURES REGISTER
M12 ELIZABETH DRIVE CONNECTION (EDC) Concession/
Non Compliance Register
Doc. Ref. M12EDD-WSP-ALL-DN-REG-000002
Reference Location Departure assessment TfNSW Review
item no. design discipline Control line DESCRIPTION Chainage Document Brief/standard reference DETAILS OF NON-CONFORMANCE REASON FOR NON-CONFORMANCE / JUSTIFICATION ROAD USER IMPLICATIONS / IMPACTS OF NON-CONFORMANCE PROPOSED ACTION / MITIGATION IDENTIFIED Status Originator Concession Tier (TfNSW M12 Project Team and Technical Manager Comments REVIEWER COMMENTS NAME POSITION STATUS DATE
reference Standards Management
TIME RAISED Framework)
NC-035 Structures MW02 CH 0 to 30 SDDM Clause 26.3.1 of RTA Structural and Detailing As part of the M12EDC project we are progressing with barrier posts This departure helps with constructability, standardising rails and reducing the number of variants/types of precast barriers. No perceived impacts to road users No additional actions/mitigation Agreed in Principle WSP
and and CH 295 and Manual perpendicular to the top of concrete parapet where grades are > 4% for the
MW04 to 510 of BTD2008/06 specified walls. This design intent is consistent with M12W.
9/06/2022 MW02 Tier 5
and
CH 0 to 25 of
MW04
NC-036 Structures MW02 CH 0 to 30 BTD2008/06 BTD2008/06 For the traffic barriers on the walls, WSP is proposing to have the joints Using joints that are square the the precast barriers are simpler to detail and construct. It is also possible to have repetition of precast barrier No perceived impacts to road users No additional actions/mitigation Agreed in Principle WSP
and and CH 295 between segments perpendicular to the finished surface. units on a vertical curve if the barrier joints are square the precast unit. If the joint all need to be vertical the constantly changing grade of the
MW04 to 510 of bridge would mean that each precast barrier unit would need to be cast with a different angles at each ends.
12/07/2022 MW02 Tier 5
and
CH 0 to 25 of
MW04
NC-037 Structures MW02, MW03, entire length PS361 Section 2.14.1 (vi) d. ii of PS361 It is proposed to adopt a single rail barrier, Type MBO, in accordance with The departure helps to maintain consistency with M12West and M12 Central packages, and present a less cluttered system in keeping with No perceived impacts to road users No additional actions/mitigation Agreed in Principle WSP
MW04 and of MW02, RMS Standard Bridge Drawings B505 instead of twin rail to achieve Urban Design preference. The single barrier system has the same performance level as the twin rail system.
MW10 MW03, consistent urban design outcome across the M12 Motorway project.
14/10/2021 MW04 and Tier 5
MW10
NC-038 Structures MW02, MW03, entire length AS5100 12.2.5 Requires the steel railing to have full railing WSP designed a railing connector which complied with AS5100 and meets New railing connector consituted an onerous connection and calculations based on conservative assumptions. As such, it was agreed to use Barrier may not perform as predicted in the AASHTO model. No additional actions/mitigation Agreed in Principle WSP
MW04 and of MW02, continuity for Bending and shear and 75% for the requirements for a medium performance barrier. However, this railing connector as detailed on TfNSW standard drawings.
MW10 MW03, tension. consituted an onerous connection and calculations based on conservative
14/10/2021 MW04 and assumptions. As such, it was agreed to use railing connector as detailed Tier 5
MW11 on TfNSW standard drawings.
# OFFICIAL
APPENDIX D
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES REGISTER
REVIEW COMMENTS SHEET
ALL DOCS RELATED TO
DESIGN PACKAGE CONTRACT NO. DOCUMENT NO. TITLE VER STATUS NO. DATE COMPANY RAISED BY REVIEW DOC. NO.* REFERENCE DEED REF COMMENTS / RESPONSE COMMENT CATEGORY CLOSED OUT
DESIGN PACKAGE
Precast to Cast to cast in place Barrier? Why do we go

M12EDD-WSPA-CERRS31- RS01(RS31) – Retaining Wall – from a cast in place barriers on either end of the retaining
M12ERS01 M12EDD A.01 S3 01 18/11/2021 TFNSW KBRIDDE N DRG 12 N
RS-DRG-009999 COMBINED PDF OF DRAWINGS wall, where the middle section has pre cast. This will make
it more difficult to build, cant it be all precast or cast in situ?
10/06/2022 WSPA J NELSON The entire length of wall along Control Line MW 10 is a
M12ERS01 M12EDD M12EDD-WSPA-CERRS31-RS-DRG-009999
RS01(RS31) – Retaining Wall – COMBINED
A.01 S3 PDF OF DRAWINGS N DRG 12 Cast In Place barrier footing with a CIP traffic barrier. This N
is reflected in the 80% design Drgs.
Drainage outlet interaction with Retaining Wall. The twin 2

x 1050 pipes under Ceil Rd outlet through the retaining
wall. Where and when ( 80%?) will this detail be shown (ie
A.01 S3 PDF OF02
DRAWINGS
18/11/2021 TFNSW KBRIDDE N DRG 310011 N
in retaining wall package or drainage drawings) If details
shown on another drawing, please provide reference note
on these drawings
25/02/2022 WSPA B HRABANSKI Agreed, the detail will be shown in the 80% DD drawings,
retaining wall package. In addition the drainage pipes will
A.01 S3 PDF OF DRAWINGS N DRG 310011 breach the RSW requiring a detail and provision made in N
the wall panel layout. The wall panel layout is by RECO.
Lighting post penetration. Please clarify (1) The drawing

show a 1000x1000 penetration in the l retaining slab for the
light pole footing. I think this is old detail where we have the
A.01 S3 PDF OF03
DRAWINGS
18/11/2021 TFNSW KBRIDDE N DRG-310011 N
pole in front the barrier. (2) If this is case, please change
the and place the Light Pole on the back of the barrier? A
detail will need to be shown
25/02/2022 WSPA B HRABANSKI (1) Yes agreed - this is the old detail, with the Light Pole in
front of the barrier, as this was a preferred solution at
A.01 S3 PDF OF DRAWINGS N DRG-310011 50%DD stage. (2) The position of Light Post on the back of N
the traffic barrier will be documented in 80%DD, as agreed
(refer M12EDD-WSPA-RFI-000048).
General comment: please show the construction boundary

A.01 S3 PDF OF04
DRAWINGS
19/11/2021 TFNSW FWALKER N General comment Observation N
on the relevant drawings.
RS01(RS31) – Retaining Wall – COMBINED 1/04/2022
A.01 S3 PDF OF DRAWINGS WSPA B HRABANSKI N General comment Agreed, construction boundary to be shown. Observation N
Pipe culvert will be constructed under the RS31/RS32,
CERRS31-RS-DRG- further details are expected in the report and on drawing, to
Section 4.4 & 5.5 of
A.01 S3 PDF OF05
DRAWINGS
23/11/2021 TFNSW DLI 310011; CERRS32-RS- include construction sequence and cross section details at Observation N
PS331
DRG-320011; the interface with the retaining walls. Further review will be
undertaken upon submission of such details.
25/02/2022 WSPA B HRABANSKI Agreed, the detail to be documented at 80% DD stage. The
CERRS31-RS-DRG-
Section 4.4 & 5.5 of construction sequence will be nominated by the Contractor.
A.01 S3 PDF OF DRAWINGS 310011; CERRS32-RS- The RSW contract will provide input into that sequence. Observation N
PS331
DRG-320011;
RSW Geotechnical notes 1: The note states assumed

foundation material is residual, or 'engineered fill (imported)
CERRS31-RS-DRG- of very stiff consistency or better'. Please provde the design
A.01 S3 PDF OF06
DRAWINGS
23/11/2021 TFNSW DLI 310011; CERRS32-RS- parameters for this imported engineered fill in the report. It Observation N
DRG-320011; is noted throughout the Appendix G, select fill is proposed
for backfilled foundation material. Please update to keep
consistency.
10/06/2022 WSPA B AZARI CERRS31-RS-DRG- The Design Report will be revised and reviewed against the
A.01 S3 PDF OF DRAWINGS 310011; CERRS32-RS- RECO specification and requirements. Observation N
DRG-320011;
CERRS31-RS-DRG- RSW Geotechnical notes 4: Please add "SUITABLY
A.01 S3 PDF OF07
DRAWINGS
23/11/2021 TFNSW DLI 310011; CERRS32-RS- QUALIFIED" to the note to read as: "YOUR SUITABLY Observation N
DRG-320011; QUALIFIED ….."
25/02/2022 WSPA B HRABANSKI CERRS31-RS-DRG- Agreed, text will be added.
A.01 S3 PDF OF DRAWINGS 310011; CERRS32-RS- Observation N
DRG-320011;
Subsurface drain outlet location shall be designed by
CERRS31-RS-DRG-
drainage designer with details of discharge point / wall
A.01 S3 PDF OF08
DRAWINGS
23/11/2021 TFNSW DLI 310012; CERRS32-RS-PS331 Observation N
interface presented on drawing during detailed design
DRG-320014;
stage.
25/02/2022 WSPA B HRABANSKI CERRS31-RS-DRG- This will be coordinated with drainage designers.
A.01 S3 PDF OF DRAWINGS 310012; CERRS32-RS-PS331 Observation N
DRG-320014;
1: Section 1 details: On the drawing, please provide
CERRS31-RS-DRG- delineation of the B30 fill and R57 fill for above and behind
A.01 S3 PDF OF09
DRAWINGS
23/11/2021 TFNSW DLI 310012; CERRS32-RS-PS331 RSW block.2: Please include the RSW detailed schedule in Observation N
DRG-320014; next submission for review, as a minimum to include min.
RSW width, height and chainages.
10/06/2022 WSPA J NELSON CERRS31-RS-DRG- Now Section 2. RSW design details will be issued after the
A.01 S3 PDF OF DRAWINGS 310012; CERRS32-RS-PS331 80% Issue Observation N
DRG-320014;
Page 1 of 8
ALL DOCS RELATED TO
DESIGN PACKAGE
How has the RSW design considered the impact from

Appendix G, CERRS31-
barrier footing that transfers down the vehicle impact load?
RS-DRG-310012;
A.01 S3 PDF OF10
DRAWINGS
23/11/2021 TFNSW DLI PS331 Please document in the report with calculation input and Observation N
CERRS31-RS-DRG-
output. It is also expected the designer to present this
310014
impact loading on drawing.
25/02/2022 WSPA B HRABANSKI The Traffic Barrier impact load is transferred to the RSW
B AZARI soil block from the base slab of the L-shaped barrier
Appendix G, CERRS31-
foundation. The length of barrier foundation between EJs
RS-DRG-310012;
A.01 S3 PDF OF DRAWINGS PS331 has been considered for load distribution, as documented Observation N
CERRS31-RS-DRG-
in the DesignReport Cl 3.3.1.7. The barrier Impact load will
310014
be added to the drgs.
RS31 location along MW11 is believed to be presented

A.01 S3 PDF OF11
DRAWINGS
23/11/2021 TFNSW DLI Multiple sheets Observation N
incorrectly based on the cross section design.
25/02/2022 WSPA B HRABANSKI Agreed, the cross section inconsistent (mirrored) with
A.01 S3 PDF OF DRAWINGS Multiple sheets section mark in elevation. To be corrected for 80%DD. Observation N

A.01 S3 PDF OF12
DRAWINGS
25/11/2021 TFNSW TAUSTIN No Comments Y
A.01 S3 PDF OF DRAWINGS WSPA J NELSON Noted. Y
A.01 S3 PDF OF13
DRAWINGS
2/12/2021 TFNSW VPRASAD All sheets Please add missing dates (TBA) in the title block. Observation N
A.01 S3 PDF OF DRAWINGS WSPA B HRABANSKI All sheets Agreed, dates to be added. Observation N
What is the minimum clearance required for the drain pipes
A.01 S3 PDF OF14
DRAWINGS
2/12/2021 TFNSW VPRASAD Sheet no. 011 with respect to RSW and barrier support structure? Please Observation N
show this on the drawing.
A.01 S3 PDF OF DRAWINGS WSPA J NELSON Sheet no. 011 Transferred to next issue Observation N
Plan:Please show subsoil drain flow direction / connection
A.01 S3 PDF OF15
DRAWINGS
2/12/2021 TFNSW VPRASAD Sheet no. 011 Observation N
with arrow (typ)
A.01 S3 PDF OF DRAWINGS WSPA J NELSON Sheet no. 011 Transferred to next issue Observation N
Horizontal alignment data:Increment for cross section taken
A.01 S3 PDF OF16
DRAWINGS
2/12/2021 TFNSW VPRASAD Sheet no. 011 Sec 5, SDDM along the retaining and barrier structure to be in Observation N
accordance with TfNSW SDDM Sec 5.
A.01 S3 PDF OF DRAWINGS B HRABANSKI Sheet no. 011 Sec 5, SDDM Yes Noted. Observation N
RSW geotech notes:Shouldn't the construction of RSW be
A.01 S3 PDF OF17
DRAWINGS
to TfNSW spec R59 and not R58?
A.01 S3 PDF OF DRAWINGS WSPA B HRABANSKI Sheet no. 011 Agreed, TfNSW spec will be changed to R59. Observation N
Barrier footing geotechnical notes:Please confirm the
A.01 S3 PDF OF18
DRAWINGS
2/12/2021 TFNSW VPRASAD Sheet no. 011 bearing resistance and geotech strength reduction factor Observation N
adopted in the design.
10/06/2022 WSPA B AZARI Drawing and Notes now revised.
A.01 S3 PDF OF DRAWINGS Sheet no. 011 Observation N
For completeness, it is recommended the geotechnical

A.01 S3 PDF OF19
DRAWINGS
2/12/2021 TFNSW VPRASAD Sheet no. 011 parameters for the founding material is included on the Observation N
design drawings.
10/06/2022 WSPA B AZARI Bearing capacity now added to the drawings
Please specify any monitoring requirements for the RSW
A.01 S3 PDF OF20
DRAWINGS
structures.
10/06/2022 WSPA B AZARI At this stage, a monitoring plan is not required. This will be
A.01 S3 PDF OF DRAWINGS Sheet no. 011 reviewed at 100% while additional ground information is Observation N
available.
Please confirm 0.5% grade for subsurface drain is
A.01 S3 PDF OF21
DRAWINGS
adequate.
25/02/2022 WSPA B HRABANSKI This has been confirmed with drainage engineers
A.01 S3 PDF OF DRAWINGS Sheet no. 012 (minimum required grade satisfied) and is consistent with Observation N
requirements of R33.
A.01 S3 PDF OF22
DRAWINGS
2/12/2021 TFNSW VPRASAD Sheet no. 012 Section 1:Reference to drainage package is incorrect. Observation N
A.01 S3 PDF OF DRAWINGS WSPA B HRABANSKI Sheet no. 012 Agreed, will be amended. Observation N
Section 1:Does the top RSW panel need to be fixed to the
A.01 S3 PDF OF23
DRAWINGS
barrier supporting structure?
25/02/2022 WSPA B HRABANSKI Detail of interface between RSW top panel and barrier
foundation to be confirmed by RSW supplier (who will
A.01 S3 PDF OF DRAWINGS Sheet no. 012 prepare the RSW internal design), as indicated by the Observation N
callout / note on sheet 012, section 1.
Section 1 & 2:1) Please annotate the conduits provided in

A.01 S3 PDF OF24
DRAWINGS
2/12/2021 TFNSW VPRASAD Sheet no. 012 concrete barriers.2) The number of conduits and size is Observation N
consistent across the design set. Please check.
25/02/2022 WSPA B HRABANSKI Agreed, the size and number of conduits to be made
A.01 S3 PDF OF DRAWINGS Sheet no. 012 consistent. RS 31 will have a single ( one ) conduit. Refer Observation N
drgs.
Page 2 of 8
ALL DOCS RELATED TO
DESIGN PACKAGE
Please include scale for each section / detail. Applies to all
A.01 S3 PDF OF25
DRAWINGS
sheets.
A.01 S3 PDF OF DRAWINGS WSPA B HRABANSKI Sheet no. 012 Agreed - scale to be included. Observation N
Show existing surface levels in addition to design surface
A.01 S3 PDF OF26
DRAWINGS
level.
25/02/2022 WSPA B HRABANSKI Approx. existing surface level is shown in Section 1, sheet
012.
Section 1:The taper at the bottom of precast concrete
A.01 S3 PDF OF27
DRAWINGS
2/12/2021 TFNSW VPRASAD Sheet no. 012 barrier is not ideal as it will cause water dripping onto the Observation N
RSWs. Please adopt an alternative solution.
A.01 S3 PDF OF DRAWINGS WSPA J NELSON Sheet no. 012 Comments Noted. Observation N
Section 1 & 2:Please annotate and specify the details of the
A.01 S3 PDF OF28
DRAWINGS
drainage material behind the vertical leg of barrier footing.
A.01 S3 PDF OF DRAWINGS WSPA B HRABANSKI Sheet no. 012 Agreed, to be specified. Observation N
Section 2:Please add a construction joint at base of the
A.01 S3 PDF OF29
DRAWINGS
vertical leg of the barrier footing as shown on sheet 21.
A.01 S3 PDF OF DRAWINGS WSPA B HRABANSKI Sheet no. 012 Agreed, CJ to be shown on drawing. Observation N
Table B312.1, Edition 5
Sealant class shall be as per Table B312.1, Edition 5 Rev 1
A.01 S3 PDF OF30
DRAWINGS
2/12/2021 TFNSW VPRASAD Sheet no. 014 Rev 1 TfNSW Spec Non Conformance N
TfNSW Spec B312.
B312.
25/02/2022 WSPA B HRABANSKI Table B312.1, Edition 5 Agreed, will be changed to TYPE 2 (B312).
A.01 S3 PDF OF DRAWINGS Sheet no. 014 Rev 1 TfNSW Spec Non Conformance N
B312.
Section 3:Please specify the fall/grade in % for the
A.01 S3 PDF OF31
DRAWINGS
subsurface drainage pipe and fill.
A.01 S3 PDF OF DRAWINGS WSPA B HRABANSKI Sheet no. 014 Agreed, to be specified. Observation N
Please confirm where the setting out information for the
A.01 S3 PDF OF32
DRAWINGS
lighting corbels are given in the drawing set.
28/02/2022 WSPA J NELSON The location of the lighting posts will change from in front of
the barrier (at 50%DD) to behind the barrier (at 80%DD)
following discussions with and instructions from TfNSW
A.01 S3 PDF OF DRAWINGS Sheet no. 020 (ref. M12EDD-WSPA-RFI-000048) . Location of the corbels Observation N
will be documented in 80%DD set. Light Posts no longer
required on RS 31. Cooment redundant.
Has the set out of barrier installation bolt been considered

A.01 S3 PDF OF33
DRAWINGS
with regards to location of EJs?
A.01 S3 PDF OF DRAWINGS WSPA J NELSON Sheet no. 020 No barrier installation bolts are requered. Observation N
Please populate the precast barrier installation bolt setout
A.01 S3 PDF OF34
DRAWINGS
table.
A.01 S3 PDF OF DRAWINGS WSPA J NELSON Sheet no. 020 No barrier installation bolts are requered. Observation N
For the 50% completion stage, the submission must include
the dimensions for all major structural elements and
A.01 S3 PDF OF35
DRAWINGS
2/12/2021 TFNSW VPRASAD Sheet no. 020 Sec 2.13, PS361. Observation N
sufficient setting out details for the determination of the
footprint of the structure.
A.01 S3 PDF OF DRAWINGS WSPA B HRABANSKI Sheet no. 020 Sec 2.13, PS361. Noted. Observation N
Section 1 & 2 is cut on control line MW10 however MW02
A.01 S3 PDF OF36
DRAWINGS
is called on sheet 21. Please clarify.
A.01 S3 PDF OF DRAWINGS WSPA B HRABANSKI Sheet no. 021 This will be corrected to MW10 in sheet 021. Observation N
Section 1 & 2:Does the top of barrier footing slab need to
A.01 S3 PDF OF37
DRAWINGS
2/12/2021 TFNSW VPRASAD Sheet no. 021 have a fall to facilitate drainage? If not, what is the drainage Observation N
strategy?
1/04/2022 WSPA B HRABANSKI The footing slab will have a grade in longitudinal direction,
A.01 S3 PDF OF DRAWINGS Sheet no. 021 which is deemed sufficient for subsurface drainage. Observation N
Sec 5.4.1, TfNSW Section 1 & 2:Please show distance of CJ from top of
A.01 S3 PDF OF38
DRAWINGS
Spec B80. footing and ensure it is min 100mm.
28/02/2022 WSPA B HRABANSKI Sec 5.4.1, TfNSW Agreed, this will be included.
Spec B80.
Please confirm the number of precast barrier installation
A.01 S3 PDF OF39
DRAWINGS
bolts required.
A.01 S3 PDF OF DRAWINGS WSPA J NELSON Sheet no. 021 No Barrier Installation are Bolts required. Observation N
Detail B:Please cite reference where dimension C1, D1 to
A.01 S3 PDF OF40
DRAWINGS
D4, W1 to W3 is defined.
A.01 S3 PDF OF DRAWINGS WSPA B HRABANSKI Sheet no. 021 Drg Now Revised . Observation N
A.01 S3 PDF OF41
DRAWINGS
2/12/2021 TFNSW VPRASAD Sheet no. 042 Title Block:Sheet no. is unclear - overlapping text. Observation N
A.01 S3 PDF OF DRAWINGS WSPA B HRABANSKI Sheet no. 042 Noted, will be amended. Observation N
Section 1 & 2 is taken from sheet 41, however sheet 41 is
A.01 S3 PDF OF42
DRAWINGS
2/12/2021 TFNSW VPRASAD Sheet no. 021 not found in this drawing set at 50% submission. Please Observation N
provide sheet no 41 as referenced.
28/02/2022 WSPA B HRABANSKI Noted, will be amended. (assume this comment refers to
sheet 042)
A.01 S3 PDF OF43
DRAWINGS
2/12/2021 TFNSW VPRASAD Sheet no. 021 Section 1:Please specify the size of backing rod. Observation N
A.01 S3 PDF OF DRAWINGS WSPA J NELSON Sheet no. 021 Pre cast Barrier deleted Observation N
Section 2:Please show traffic barrier anchor bolt connection
A.01 S3 PDF OF44
DRAWINGS
details.
A.01 S3 PDF OF DRAWINGS WSPA B HRABANSKI Sheet no. 021 Relevant details to be included for 80%DD. Observation N
Section-2:Why is size of conduit in precast barrier different
A.01 S3 PDF OF45
DRAWINGS
from cast-in place barrier on sheet 21?
A.01 S3 PDF OF DRAWINGS WSPA B HRABANSKI Sheet no. 021 To be corrected. A single conduit now provided. Observation N
Page 3 of 8
ALL DOCS RELATED TO
DESIGN PACKAGE
M12 Motorway Package 3 –
East Elizabeth Drive
M12EDD-WSPA-EDR-RS- Appendix F: REMM text should also reflect the text in the
M12ERS01 M12EDD Connection – RS01 Retaining A.01 S3 01 19/11/2021 TFNSW FWALKER N Appendix F Observation N
RPT-000001 West Package Consistency Assessment.
Wall (RS31, RS32a and RS32b)
– Design Report
12/07/2022 WSPA HMADDEN REMMs have been updated to reflect all recent
M12ERS01 M12EDD M12EDD-WSPA-EDR-RS-RPT-000001
M12 Motorway Package 3 – East A.01
Elizabeth
S3 Drive Connection – RS01 Retaining Wall (RS31, RS32a and RS32b) – Design Report N Appendix F Consistency Assessments prepared for M12 motorway Observation N
(West, Central and Sydney Water related).
It is understood that some designs (such as barrier footing,
Case II global stability of RSW, etc.) are yet undertaken,
Appendix G of report; and associated calculation and drawing details are not
Elizabeth
S3 Drive Connection
02 23/11/2021
– RS01 Retaining
TFNSW
Wall (RS31, RS32a
DLI and RS32b) – Design Report Section 5.5 of PS331 Observation N
drawing details presented at this stage. Please provide such details in next
stage, and geotechnical review on those designs and
documentation will be provided upon submission.
WSP B AZARI Appendix G of report; Internal capacity, Barrier footing and Case II of global
Elizabeth
S3 Drive Connection – RS01 Retaining Wall (RS31, RS32a and RS32b) – Design Report Section 5.5 of PS331 Observation N
drawing details stability is being undertaken by RECO.
Please provide more detailed site investigation plan with GI
Appendix G and locations (available & future), legends, wall chainages, etc;
Elizabeth
S3 Drive Connection
03 23/11/2021
– RS01 Retaining
TFNSW
Wall (RS31, RS32a
DLI and RS32b) – Design Report Observation N
drawing as well as geological sections along the retaining wall
alignment in the next submission for review.
4/04/2022 WSP B HRABANSKI Boreholes (available and future) included in the design
B AZARI Appendix G and report. Geological long sections along the retaining walls
Elizabeth
S3 Drive Connection – RS01 Retaining Wall (RS31, RS32a and RS32b) – Design Report Observation N
drawing will be prepared and submitted at 100% implementing the
proposed SI.
Please clarify and state in the report if there will be further

Elizabeth
S3 Drive Connection
04 23/11/2021
– RS01 Retaining
TFNSW
Wall (RS31, RS32a
DLI and RS32b) – Design Report Appendix G Section 5.5 of PS331 GI available to ensure the detailed design intent Observation N
/assumption verification, and design satisfy the PS331.
4/04/2022 WSP B HRABANSKI WSP is awaiting further information from additional

boreholes for this project. The geotechnical
assessment/models will be updated at 100% DD when
Elizabeth
S3 Drive Connection – RS01 Retaining Wall (RS31, RS32a and RS32b) – Design Report Appendix G Section 5.5 of PS331 received missing information for further analysis. This Observation N
approach has been discussed and approved by TfNSW,
please refer M12EDD-WSPA-RFI-000076.
Agreed that Option II is a better engineering solution from

Elizabeth
S3 Drive Connection
05 23/11/2021
– RS01 Retaining
TFNSW
Wall (RS31, RS32a
DLI and RS32b) – Design Report Table 4-3 of the report geotechnical perspective. However understood that it is Observation N
subject to other key factors.
5/04/2022 WSP B HRABANSKI Noted. For 80%DD the lighting posts will be mounted on
the corbel attached to the back of the barrier. This is
Elizabeth
S3 Drive Connection – RS01 Retaining Wall (RS31, RS32a and RS32b) – Design Report Table 4-3 of the report following the instruction from TfNSW (refer M12EDD- Observation N
WSPA-RFI-000048).
Note 6 under the table indicates that select fill is to be used

Table 6.3 of Appendix under RSW if backfill is required; however, the drawing
Elizabeth
S3 Drive Connection
06 23/11/2021
– RS01 Retaining
TFNSW
Wall (RS31, RS32a
G note shows imported general fill. Please clarify which one
is proposed.
WSP B AZARI Table 6.3 of Appendix Noted, report is udpated
Elizabeth
G
1: Please update the text to be consistent with M12EDD -

Section 7 of Appendix
Elizabeth
S3 Drive Connection
07 23/11/2021
– RS01 Retaining
TFNSW
Wall (RS31, RS32a
DLI and RS32b) – Design Report EDC project description. 2: Please provide reference on Observation N
G
how this 20m load spreading distance is derived.
5/04/2022 WSP B AZARI 1) Noted, report is updated

B HRABANSKI 2) Due to design capacity of the reinforced concrete barrier
Section 7 of Appendix foundation being able to resist collision loads it is assumed
Elizabeth
G that the geotechnical instability will occur when the
movement of full section of the barrier foundation between
EJs will be initiated.
Section 8 and 10 of Please remove "RECO" from the reporting, unless the
Elizabeth
S3 Drive Connection
08 23/11/2021
– RS01 Retaining
TFNSW
Wall (RS31, RS32a
Appendix G supplier has been engaged/confirmed.
WSP B AZARI Section 8 and 10 of Noted, report is udpated
Elizabeth
Appendix G
It is noted that the street lighting foundation design has not

been developed at this stage, the retaining wall design
does not consider the potential impact from the lighting
Section 8.4 of Section 4.4 & 5.5 of
Elizabeth
S3 Drive Connection
09 23/11/2021
– RS01 Retaining
TFNSW
Wall (RS31, RS32a
DLI and RS32b) – Design Report foundations. Should the lighting foundation design causes Observation N
Appendix G PS331
adverse impact to the retaining wall, the retaining wall
design should consider accordingly, in particular if Option 1
is adopted.
5/04/2022 WSP B HRABANSKI The location of the lighting posts will change from in front of
following discussions with and instructions from TfNSW
Section 8.4 of Section 4.4 & 5.5 of (ref. M12EDD-WSPA-RFI-000048). Light posts will be
Elizabeth
Appendix G PS331 mounted on corbels on the back of reinforced concrete
barriers. Any impacts from wind loading etc will be
assessed.
Will the retaining wall at the culvert location be subject to

Elizabeth
S3 Drive Connection
10 23/11/2021
– RS01 Retaining
TFNSW
Wall (RS31, RS32a
DLI and RS32b) – Design Report Appendix G prolonged water ponding which may lead to durability Observation N
issue? Has the design given consideration to such impact?
WSP B AZARI The culverts are designed to be sealed and waterproof,
however, the risk mitigation of culverts cracking and water
Elizabeth
S3 Drive Connection – RS01 Retaining Wall (RS31, RS32a and RS32b) – Design Report Appendix G Observation N
ponding will be reviewed and considered at 100% design
Page 4 of 8
ALL DOCS RELATED TO
DESIGN PACKAGE
Please reference the control line when describing the
chainage, especially for RS31 which crosses over two
different control lines. Please double check the design
height / mechanical height at each design section and
Table 9.1, 9.2, 9.3 &
Elizabeth
S3 Drive Connection
11 23/11/2021
– RS01 Retaining
TFNSW
Wall (RS31, RS32a
DLI and RS32b) – Design Report present correctly, as some of them are not consistent with Observation N
9.4 of Appendix G
drawings. Such as for RS31, CH20-40, on the drawings
(0011) the mechanical height is larger than it is for CH0-20,
while in the geotech memo, the mechanical height of CH20-
40 is smaller.
WSP B AZARI Table 9.1, 9.2, 9.3 & Noted, report is updated
Elizabeth
9.4 of Appendix G
For global stability analysis with Slope/w, please analyse
and present the analysis to:1: Model the fill geometry and
design parameters according to your designed section
geometry, such as to capture the approriate fill zones (R57
fill above and beyond RSW block, foundation backfill if any,
B30 fill if any, etc)2: Adopt the correct geotechnical model
and design parameters as per your design assumptions
Section 4.4 & 5.5 of stated in the geotech memo. For example, the ground
Elizabeth
S3 Drive Connection
12 23/11/2021
– RS01 Retaining
TFNSW
Wall (RS31, RS32a
DLI and RS32b) – Design Report Appendix G Observation N
PS331 model in the memo shows very stiff to hard clay as
founding material, while the Slope/W analysis has adopted
Sandstone as foundation which does not exist in your
geotechnical model.3: Please present analysis input and
output for each typical sections that you have reported in
the table. For example, there are sections with batter slope
above the RSW and it is expected the analysis of such
section reported.
WSP B AZARI Section 4.4 & 5.5 of Noted, report is updated
Elizabeth
S3 Drive Connection – RS01 Retaining Wall (RS31, RS32a and RS32b) – Design Report Appendix G Observation N
PS331
Section 4.2 - second paragraph - refers to HPG piled slab,
Elizabeth
S3 Drive Connection
13 25/11/2021
– RS01 Retaining
TFNSW
Wall (RS31, RS32a
TAUSTIN
and RS32b) – Design Report N PS301 Observation N
should refer to retaining walls.
M12 Motorway Package 3 – East A.01 S3 Drive Connection5/04/2022
Elizabeth WSP
– RS01 Retaining B HRABANSKI
Wall (RS31, RS32a and RS32b) – Design Report N PS301 Agreed, this will be amended. Observation N
General comment Appendix F - lack of consistency in
presentation of environmental compliance information
PS301 A3 Compliance (Commonwealth, NSW CoA, REMM's & QA specifications)
Elizabeth
S3 Drive Connection
14 25/11/2021
– RS01 Retaining
TFNSW
Wall (RS31, RS32a
TAUSTIN
and RS32b) – Design Report N Observation N
tracking between design packages. Only REMM's addressed in
Appendix, unclear if other requirements considered not
applicable or were not assessed.
12/07/2022 WSPA HMADDEN Env Compliance Register revised. At 50% submission
publication issue with Appendix F resulted in NSW CoAs
and PS311 requirements not being persented. With respect
PS301 A3 Compliance
Elizabeth
S3 Drive Connection – RS01 Retaining Wall (RS31, RS32a and RS32b) – Design Report N to Commonwealth CoAs we are following the approach Observation N
tracking
agreed to with TfNSW on M12 West where Commonwealth
CoAs are reported on via the PEMP and EMR submissions.
PS301 A3 Compliance None of the Commonwealth CoA or NSW CoA are

Elizabeth
S3 Drive Connection
15 25/11/2021
– RS01 Retaining
TFNSW
Wall (RS31, RS32a
TAUSTIN
and RS32b) – Design Report N Non Conformance N
tracking addressed in Appendix F. Review and update.
12/07/2022 WSPA HMADDEN With respect to Commonwealth CoAs we are following the
approach agreed to with TfNSW on M12 West where
Commonwealth CoAs are reported on via the PEMP and
PS301 A3 Compliance EMR submissions during detailed design. With respect to
Elizabeth
S3 Drive Connection – RS01 Retaining Wall (RS31, RS32a and RS32b) – Design Report N Non Conformance N
tracking NSW CoAs there was a publication issue with the creation
of Appendix F which did not present the NSW CoA
component of the environmental register. Updated for
80%.
All REMM's applicable to east design are not included in
the Appendix F Compliance Table. Review and ensure all
applicable REMM's are addressed. In particular REMM
B30 has not been addressed B30 - Opportunities to further
minimise native vegetation clearing and drainage line
PS301 A3 Compliance
Elizabeth
S3 Drive Connection
16 25/11/2021
– RS01 Retaining
TFNSW
Wall (RS31, RS32a
TAUSTIN
and RS32b) – Design Report N impacts from the Wallgrove Road realignment will be Non Conformance N
tracking
investigated. Opportunities for investigation will include, but
will not be limited to changing the height of the road,
steepening of batters and/or the use of retaining wall
structures and moving the horizontal alignment closer to the
new proposed southern road reserve boundary.
12/07/2022 WSPA HMADDEN PS301 A3 Compliance REMMs have been reviewed and updated as part of 80%
Elizabeth
S3 Drive Connection – RS01 Retaining Wall (RS31, RS32a and RS32b) – Design Report N Non Conformance N
tracking detailed design submissison.
The last two dot points don't seem to be classified as
Elizabeth
S3 Drive Connection
17 2/12/2021
– RS01 Retaining
TFNSW
Wall (RS31, RS32a
VPRASAD
and RS32b) – Design Report Section 2.5.1 assumptions, rather they are design outcome. Please Observation N
clarify and update the report.
5/04/2022 WSP B HRABANSKI These sentences describe aspects that have influenced the
design of the structure, so as such are understood to be
Elizabeth
S3 Drive Connection – RS01 Retaining Wall (RS31, RS32a and RS32b) – Design Report Section 2.5.1 assumptions / goals. Agreed that the sentence structure Observation N
can be misleading or unclear, the wording will be changed.
Sec 2.14.1(vi)(e)(i) PS361 stipulates that a transition

barrier must be provided on the approaches to a retaining
wall. The barrier must be extended and transitioned
Sec 2.14.1(vi)(e)(i), smoothly in stiffness, strength and performance levels prior
Elizabeth
S3 Drive Connection
18 2/12/2021
– RS01 Retaining
TFNSW
Wall (RS31, RS32a
VPRASAD
and RS32b) – Design Report Section 3.1 Non Conformance N
PS361 to connecting to the roadside barrier. This requirement is
applicable to all RWs within the application scope of
SWTC, B4 requirements not just RWs at bridge abutments.
Please clarify how this requirement has been met.
Page 5 of 8
ALL DOCS RELATED TO
DESIGN PACKAGE
7/04/2022 WSP B HRABANSKI The intent of the design is to provide smooth transition for
structural barriers in accordance with Sec 2.14.1(vi)(e)(i) of
Sec 2.14.1(vi)(e)(i),
Elizabeth
S3 Drive Connection – RS01 Retaining Wall (RS31, RS32a and RS32b) – Design Report Section 3.1 PS361. This will be documented in the 80% Detailed Non Conformance N
PS361
Design. The wording in Section 3.1 of the Report will be
changed.
Please include wind load on lighting structures which are

Elizabeth
S3 Drive Connection
19 2/12/2021
– RS01 Retaining
TFNSW
Wall (RS31, RS32a
VPRASAD
and RS32b) – Design Report Section 3.3.1 supported on the barrier footing.Please include wind load Observation N
parameters as stated on drawing cover sheet.
7/04/2022 WSP B HRABANSKI Agreed, the section with wind loading will be added under
Elizabeth
S3 Drive Connection – RS01 Retaining Wall (RS31, RS32a and RS32b) – Design Report Section 3.3.1 Observation N
3.3.1 in the Report.
Please include handrail loads (for RS31) as per
Elizabeth
S3 Drive Connection
20 2/12/2021
– RS01 Retaining
TFNSW
Wall (RS31, RS32a
VPRASAD
and RS32b) – Design Report Section 3.3.1 AS5100.2:2017 Non Conformance N
AS5100.2:2017.
Elizabeth WSP
Wall (RS31, RS32a and RS32b) – Design Report Section 3.3.1 AS5100.2:2017 Agreed, handrail loads to be included in the Report. Non Conformance N
Please include a section to discuss hydrostatic pressure
Elizabeth
S3 Drive Connection
21 2/12/2021
– RS01 Retaining
TFNSW
Wall (RS31, RS32a
VPRASAD
and RS32b) – Design Report Section 3.3.1 load if applicable based on the assessment of groundwater Observation N
level variations.
7/04/2022 WSP B HRABANSKI Agreed, the section with hydrostatic load will be added
Elizabeth
under 3.3.1 in the Report.
Live load surcharge load to be as per AS5100 part 5, not
Elizabeth
S3 Drive Connection
22 2/12/2021
– RS01 Retaining
TFNSW
Wall (RS31, RS32a
VPRASAD
and RS32b) – Design Report Section 3.3.1.3 Observation N
part 7.
7/04/2022 WSP B HRABANSKI It is actually part 2 of AS5100. The wording to be corrected
Elizabeth
S3 Drive Connection – RS01 Retaining Wall (RS31, RS32a and RS32b) – Design Report Section 3.3.1.3 Observation N
to: AS5100.2-2017.
Has "Amplification of seismic activity due to specific site
Elizabeth
S3 Drive Connection
23 2/12/2021
– RS01 Retaining
TFNSW
Wall (RS31, RS32a
VPRASAD
conditions" as per Appendix I, AS4678-2002 considered?
7/07/2022 WSP B HRABANSKI Considering the existing ground information, Shale is
overlaid by Stiff or very stiff clay. Referring to AS4678
Appendix I, the amplification occurs where there are soft
Elizabeth
layers. Consequently the amplification is considered not
relevant to this site.
Table 3-5:Dead load factor to be 1.5 for seismic load case

Elizabeth
S3 Drive Connection
24 2/12/2021
– RS01 Retaining
TFNSW
Wall (RS31, RS32a
VPRASAD
and RS32b) – Design Report Section 3.3.1.6 Table I4, AS4678 as per Table I4, AS4678 for earthquake design category Non Conformance N
Cer.
7/07/2022 WSP B HRABANSKI Agreed, factor of 1.5 has been used for dead load at
Elizabeth
S3 Drive Connection – RS01 Retaining Wall (RS31, RS32a and RS32b) – Design Report Section 3.3.1.6 Table I4, AS4678 earthquake case in the design. The table in report will be Non Conformance N
amended to reflect this.
Please include the assumption that free draining granular

Elizabeth
S3 Drive Connection
25 2/12/2021
– RS01 Retaining
TFNSW
Wall (RS31, RS32a
VPRASAD
material shall be used under section 2.5.1
Elizabeth WSP
Wall (RS31, RS32a and RS32b) – Design Report Section 3.3.1.6 Agreed, the assumption will be included. Observation N
Sec 4.3.1.6, TfNSW Has the potential for liquefaction due to earthquake
Elizabeth
S3 Drive Connection
26 2/12/2021
– RS01 Retaining
TFNSW
Wall (RS31, RS32a
VPRASAD
spec R57 assessed in the design of RSW?
WSP B AZARI At the location of RS31/32, cohesive material (Clay) is
Sec 4.3.1.6, TfNSW
Elizabeth
S3 Drive Connection – RS01 Retaining Wall (RS31, RS32a and RS32b) – Design Report Section 3.3.1.7 underlain by Siltstone. liquifaction does not occur within Observation N
spec R57
cohesive material
Please confirm the RSW design takes into account both
Sec 4.2(h)(ii), TfNSW short and long term soil properties to allow for conditions
Elizabeth
S3 Drive Connection
27 2/12/2021
– RS01 Retaining
TFNSW
Wall (RS31, RS32a
VPRASAD
spec R57 during and after construction, and any foreseeable changes
in pore water pressures.
WSP B AZARI Sec 4.2(h)(ii), TfNSW Longterm and short term behaviour of RSW is considered
Elizabeth
spec R57 in the design
Please confirm the design of the retaining walls has also
Table 12.2.2,
Elizabeth
S3 Drive Connection
28 2/12/2021
– RS01 Retaining
TFNSW
Wall (RS31, RS32a
VPRASAD
and RS32b) – Design Report Section 3.3.1.7 considered inward loading in accordance with AS5100.2 Observation N
AS5100.2:2017
Table 12.2.2
WSP B HRABANSKI Table 12.2.2, Design considers both inward and outward loading as per
Elizabeth
AS5100.2:2017 AS5100.2:20017
Design finding tables to be as per Sec D2, PS361. Include
Elizabeth
S3 Drive Connection
29 2/12/2021
– RS01 Retaining
TFNSW
Wall (RS31, RS32a
VPRASAD
and RS32b) – Design Report Section 3.3.1.8 Sec D2, PS361 Observation N
both bending and shear checks.
Elizabeth WSP
S3 Drive Connection – RS01 Retaining B HRABANSKI
Wall (RS31, RS32a and RS32b) – Design Report Section 3.3.1.8 Sec D2, PS361 Noted. Both bending and shear checks to be included. Observation N
Please add a discussion on the DN100 conduit provided in
Elizabeth
S3 Drive Connection
30 2/12/2021
– RS01 Retaining
TFNSW
Wall (RS31, RS32a
VPRASAD
and RS32b) – Design Report Section 4.1.5 Observation N
each concrete barrier and its purpose.
7/04/2022 WSP B HRABANSKI The discussion on conduits inside the traffic barriers will be
Elizabeth
included in Section 4.1.5.
Please populate Table 5-2. If no climate change risk is
Elizabeth
S3 Drive Connection
31 2/12/2021
– RS01 Retaining
TFNSW
Wall (RS31, RS32a
VPRASAD
and RS32b) – Design Report Section 5.3 Observation N
relevant to this package, please specify that.
Elizabeth WSP
Wall (RS31, RS32a and RS32b) – Design Report Section 5.3 Table 5-2 will be populated for 80%DD. Observation N
Please confirm the reviewer class ('C' or 'S') for this design
Elizabeth
S3 Drive Connection
32 2/12/2021
– RS01 Retaining
TFNSW
Wall (RS31, RS32a
VPRASAD
and RS32b) – Design Report Section 6.1 Sec 1.20.4, PS301 Observation N
package.
7/07/2022 WSP B HRABANSKI Section 6.1 of the report has now been updated to include
Elizabeth
S3 Drive Connection – RS01 Retaining Wall (RS31, RS32a and RS32b) – Design Report Section 6.1 Sec 1.20.4, PS301 Observation N
this information.
Please specify the Permissible post-construction service
Elizabeth
S3 Drive Connection
33 2/12/2021
– RS01 Retaining
TFNSW
Wall (RS31, RS32a
VPRASAD
and RS32b) – Design Report Section 9 TfNSW spec R57 Observation N
deflections of the RSW
Elizabeth WSP
S3 Drive Connection – RS01 Retaining B AZARI
Wall (RS31, RS32a and RS32b) – Design Report Section 9 TfNSW spec R57 Noted, report is updated Observation N
Please specify at what stage would the drainage elements
Elizabeth
S3 Drive Connection
34 2/12/2021
– RS01 Retaining
TFNSW
Wall (RS31, RS32a
VPRASAD
and RS32b) – Design Report Section 9.2 Observation N
be installed.
8/04/2022 WSP B HRABANSKI Drainage construction will be included in the construction
Elizabeth
S3 Drive Connection – RS01 Retaining Wall (RS31, RS32a and RS32b) – Design Report Section 9.2 Observation N
sequence (Section 9.2 of the Report)
Geotech memo says the retained height of RS31 is

Elizabeth
S3 Drive Connection
35 2/12/2021
– RS01 Retaining
TFNSW
Wall (RS31, RS32a
VPRASAD
and RS32b) – Design Report Appendix G, Section 1 maintained less than 6m, however section 3.3.1 of main Observation N
body report says retained height is 6.5m. Please clarify.
4/04/2022 WSP B HRABANSKI Geotech memo will be updated to reflect the up-to-date
Elizabeth
S3 Drive Connection – RS01 Retaining Wall (RS31, RS32a and RS32b) – Design Report Appendix G, Section 1 Observation N
retained height.
Annexure TfNSWR57/A not found in Attachment E.Please
Elizabeth
S3 Drive Connection
36 2/12/2021
– RS01 Retaining
TFNSW
Wall (RS31, RS32a
VPRASAD
and RS32b) – Design Report Appendix G, Section 7 TfNSW spec R57 Non Conformance N
include in next submission.
WSP B AZARI TfNSWR57/A is for RSWs supporting bridge abutments. it
Elizabeth
S3 Drive Connection – RS01 Retaining Wall (RS31, RS32a and RS32b) – Design Report Appendix G, Section 7 TfNSW spec R57 Non Conformance N
is removed from the report
Page 6 of 8
ALL DOCS RELATED TO
DESIGN PACKAGE
Cast in Plance Barrier. It appears from the drawings that
the majority of barrier is pre cast. However from aprox
RS01(RS32A&RS32B) –
M12EDD-WSPA-EDRRS32- CH00 to CH20 it shows cast in place barrier. (1) Can you
M12ERS01 M12EDD Retaining Wall – COMBINED A.01 S3 01 18/11/2021 TFNSW KBRIDDE N DRG310024 N
RS-DRG-009999 confirm this, as drawings appear to contradict each other
PDF OF DRAWINGS
(2) If it is cast in place...why? can this also be pre cast for
ease of construction as rest of wall is precast.
7/07/2022 WSP B HRABANSKI The barrier has now been changed to precast along its
entire , except the 5m long termination segments (different
M12ERS01 M12EDD M12EDD-WSPA-EDRRS32-RS-DRG-009999
RS01(RS32A&RS32B) – RetainingA.01
Wall –S3
COMBINED PDF OF DRAWINGS N DRG310024 N
shape, need for cast in dowels to connect to road barrier).
Note Lighting pole penetration . TfNSWwill issue an

instruction to proceed and change the design to place the
Wall –S3
COMBINED
02 PDF OF18/11/2021
DRAWINGS TFNSW KBRIDDE N All N
lighting poles on the back of the barriers Drawings to be
updated at 80%.
28/02/2022 WSP B HRABANSKI Noted. Drawings for 80% DD to include lighting posts on
Wall –S3
COMBINED PDF OF DRAWINGS N All the back of the barrier, following instruction from TfNSW N
(refer M12EDD-WSPA-RFI-000048).
Details on drainage outlet and protection slab and interface

with retaining wall (1) When and where will the drainage
Wall –S3
COMBINED
03 PDF OF18/11/2021
DRAWINGS TFNSW KBRIDDE N DRG310012 and 13 outlet and protection detail interface detail be shown with N
the retaining wall (2) If shown on different package, please
add reference on these drawings
28/02/2022 WSP B HRABANSKI Details of interfaces RS32 wall - drainage outlet and RS32
wall - protection slab to be documented in this package.
Wall –S3
COMBINED PDF OF DRAWINGS N DRG310012 and 13 N
Reference to be made in other packages to this set.
General comment: please show the construction boundary

Wall –S3
COMBINED
04 PDF OF19/11/2021
DRAWINGS TFNSW FWALKER N General comment Observation N
on the relevant drawings.
RS01(RS32A&RS32B) – RetainingA.01 COMBINED PDF OF1/04/2022
Wall –S3 DRAWINGS WSP B HRABANSKI N General comment Agreed, construction boundary to be shown. Observation N
Wall –S3
COMBINED
05 PDF OF25/11/2021
DRAWINGS TFNSW TAUSTIN No Comments Y
Wall –S3
COMBINED PDF OF DRAWINGS No Comments Y
Wall –S3
COMBINED
06 PDF OF2/12/2021
DRAWINGS TFNSW VPRASAD All sheets Please add missing dates (TBA) in the title block. Observation N
Wall –S3
COMBINED PDF OF DRAWINGS WSP B HRABANSKI All sheets Agreed, dates to be added. Observation N
Plan:Please show subsoil drain flow direction / connection
Wall –S3
COMBINED
07 PDF OF2/12/2021
DRAWINGS TFNSW VPRASAD Sheet no. 011, 12, 13 Observation N
with arrow.
8/07/2022 WSP B HRABANSKI The subsurface drainage flow direction will be shown in GA
Wall –S3
COMBINED PDF OF DRAWINGS Sheet no. 011, 12, 13 Observation N
drawings at 80%.
Horizontal Alignment Diagram:Please specify the radius
Wall –S3
COMBINED
08 PDF OF2/12/2021
DRAWINGS TFNSW VPRASAD Sheet no. 011 Observation N
and length of each arch along the alignment.
1/04/2022 WSP B HRABANSKI The horizontal alignment diagram will be revised to contain
Wall –S3
COMBINED PDF OF DRAWINGS Sheet no. 011 Observation N
all necessary information.
Horizontal alignment data:Increment for cross section taken
Wall –S3
COMBINED
09 PDF OF2/12/2021
DRAWINGS TFNSW VPRASAD Sheet no. 011 along the retaining and barrier structure to be in Observation N
accordance with TfNSW SDDM Sec 5.
Wall –S3 DRAWINGS WSP B HRABANSKI Sheet no. 011 Yes, noted. Observation N
Barrier footing geotechnical notes:Please confirm the
Wall –S3
COMBINED
10 PDF OF2/12/2021
DRAWINGS TFNSW VPRASAD Sheet no. 011 bearing resistance and geotech strength reduction factor Observation N
adopted in the design.
Wall –S3
COMBINED PDF OF DRAWINGS WSP B AZARI Sheet no. 011 Drawings are updated with required bearing capacity Observation N
For completeness, it is recommended the geotechnical
Wall –S3
COMBINED
11 PDF OF2/12/2021
DRAWINGS TFNSW VPRASAD Sheet no. 011 parameters for the founding material is included on the Observation N
design drawings.
WSP B AZARI Bearing capacity requirement is now included in the
Wall –S3
COMBINED PDF OF DRAWINGS Sheet no. 011 drawings Observation N
Please specify any monitoring requirements for the RSW

Wall –S3
COMBINED
12 PDF OF2/12/2021
structures.
WSP B AZARI At this stage, monitoring plan is not required. This will be
Wall –S3
COMBINED PDF OF DRAWINGS Sheet no. 011 reviewed at 100% while additional ground information is Observation N
available.
RSW geotech notes:Shouldn't the construction of RSW be
Wall –S3
COMBINED
13 PDF OF2/12/2021
to TfNSW spec R59 and not R58?
Wall –S3 DRAWINGS WSP B HRABANSKI Sheet no. 011 Agreed, TfNSW spec will be changed to R59. Observation N
Please explain how the effect of differential settlement is
Wall –S3
COMBINED
14 PDF OF2/12/2021
DRAWINGS TFNSW VPRASAD Sheet no. 013 accounted in the design of RSW at the interface of Observation N
protection slab and RSW footing.
WSP B AZARI The internal design of the RSW is currently undergoing and
Wall –S3
will be presented at 100%
Section 1 & 2:Please annotate and specify the details of the
Wall –S3
COMBINED
15 PDF OF2/12/2021
drainage material behind the vertical leg of barrier footing.
Wall –S3 DRAWINGS WSP B HRABANSKI Sheet no. 014 Agreed, to be specified. Observation N
Wall –S3
COMBINED
16 PDF OF2/12/2021
DRAWINGS TFNSW VPRASAD Sheet no. 014 Section 1:Reference to drainage package is incorrect. Observation N
Wall –S3 DRAWINGS WSP B HRABANSKI Sheet no. 014 Agreed, will be amended. Observation N
Section 1:Does the top RSW panel need to be fixed to the
Wall –S3
COMBINED
17 PDF OF2/12/2021
barrier supporting structure?
1/04/2022 WSP B HRABANSKI Detail of interface between RSW top panel and barrier
foundation to be confirmed by RSW supplier (who will
Wall –S3
prepare the RSW internal design), as indicated by the
callout / note on sheet 014, section 1.
Section 1:The taper at the bottom of precast concrete
Wall –S3
COMBINED
18 PDF OF2/12/2021
DRAWINGS TFNSW VPRASAD Sheet no. 014 barrier is not ideal as it will cause water dripping onto the Observation N
RSWs. Please adopt an alternative solution.
8/07/2022 WSP B HRABANSKI Barrier shape in cross section has been amended, to
Wall –S3
include drip groove outside of RSW panel.
Section 1 & 2:1) Please annotate the conduits provided in
Wall –S3
COMBINED
19 PDF OF2/12/2021
DRAWINGS TFNSW VPRASAD Sheet no. 014 concrete barriers.2) The number of conduits and size is Observation N
consistent across the design set. Please check.
Page 7 of 8
ALL DOCS RELATED TO
DESIGN PACKAGE
1/04/2022 WSP B HRABANSKI Agreed, the size and number of conduits to be made
Wall –S3
consistent.
Please include scale for each section / detail. Applies to all
Wall –S3
COMBINED
20 PDF OF2/12/2021
sheets.
Wall –S3 DRAWINGS WSP B HRABANSKI Sheet no. 014 Agreed, scale bar to be included. Observation N
Please confirm 0.5% grade for subsurface drain is
Wall –S3
COMBINED
21 PDF OF2/12/2021
adequate.
1/04/2022 WSP B HRABANSKI This has been confirmed with drainage engineers
Wall –S3
(minimum required grade satisfied).
Does the top of barrier footing slab need to have a fall to
Wall –S3
COMBINED
22 PDF OF2/12/2021
facilitate drainage? If not, what is the drainage strategy?
1/04/2022 WSP B HRABANSKI The footing slab will have a grade in longitudinal direction,
Wall –S3
COMBINED PDF OF DRAWINGS Sheet no. 014 which is deemed sufficient for subsurface drainage. Observation N
Please add a construction joint at base of the vertical leg of

Wall –S3
COMBINED
23 PDF OF2/12/2021
the cast in place barrier footing as shown on sheet 24.
Wall –S3 DRAWINGS WSP B HRABANSKI Sheet no. 014 Agreed, CJ to be shown on drawing. Observation N
Show existing surface levels along with design surface
Wall –S3
COMBINED
24 PDF OF2/12/2021
level. Comment applicable to all sections.
3/04/2022 WSP B HRABANSKI Design surface level is shown in the drawing (the level of
pavement, reference given to M12EPV01), the existing
Wall –S3
surface level is indicated at the bottom of the wall with a
callout 'approx existing surface level'.
Detail A:Sealant class shall be as per Table B312.1,
Wall –S3
COMBINED
25 PDF OF2/12/2021
DRAWINGS TFNSW VPRASAD Sheet no. 015 Non Conformance N
Edition 5 Rev 1 TfNSW Spec B312.
Wall –S3 DRAWINGS WSP B HRABANSKI Sheet no. 015 Agreed, will be changed to TYPE 2 (B312). Non Conformance N
Section 5:Please specify the fall/grade in % for the
Wall –S3
COMBINED
26 PDF OF2/12/2021
subsurface drainage pipe and fill.
Wall –S3 DRAWINGS WSP B HRABANSKI Sheet no. 015 Agreed, to be specified. Observation N
Does the barrier support structure require any contraction
Wall –S3
COMBINED
27 PDF OF2/12/2021
joint?
11/07/2022 WSP B HRABANSKI A contraction joint is not proposed between the location of
the expansion joints. Cracking between joints is controlled
Wall –S3
COMBINED PDF OF DRAWINGS Sheet no. 020 in accordance to AS 5100 and reinforcement in the wall Observation N
complies with Cl. 11.7.2 of AS5100.5 for crack control.
Please confirm where the setting out information for the

Wall –S3
COMBINED
28 PDF OF2/12/2021
lighting corbels are given in the drawing set.
WSP B HRABANSKI The location of the lighting posts will change from in front of
Wall –S3
COMBINED PDF OF DRAWINGS Sheet no. 020 following discussions with and instructions from TfNSW Observation N
(refer M12EDD-WSPA-RFI-000048). Location of the
corbels will be documented in 80%DD set.
Layout - Part 8 of 8:Please annotate the thick grey solid
Wall –S3
COMBINED
29 PDF OF2/12/2021
line. What does it represent?
3/04/2022 WSP B HRABANSKI This will be amended for 80% (the line will be removed as
Wall –S3
the end treatment of the wall has been changed).
Please populate the missing and TBA items in Table 1.As
per Sec 2.13 PS361, for the 50% completion stage, the
Wall –S3
COMBINED
30 PDF OF2/12/2021
DRAWINGS TFNSW VPRASAD Sheet no. 023 Sec 2.13 PS361 Non Conformance N
submission must include sufficient setting out details for the
determination of the footprint of the structure.
Wall –S3 DRAWINGS WSP B HRABANSKI Sheet no. 023 Sec 2.13 PS361 TBA items will be populated. Non Conformance N
Section 1 & 2:Please show distance of CJ from top of
Sec 5.4.1, TfNSW
Wall –S3
COMBINED
31 PDF OF2/12/2021
DRAWINGS TFNSW VPRASAD Sheet no. 024 footing and ensure it is min 100mm. Sec 5.4.1, TfNSW Observation N
Spec B80.
Spec B80.
3/04/2022 WSP B HRABANSKI Sec 5.4.1, TfNSW Agreed, this will be included.
Wall –S3
Spec B80.
Detail B:Please cite reference where dimension C1, D1 to
Wall –S3
COMBINED
32 PDF OF2/12/2021
D4, W1 to W3 is defined.
Wall –S3 DRAWINGS WSP B HRABANSKI Sheet no. 024 This will be provided for 80% DD. Observation N
Please confirm the number of precast barrier installation
Wall –S3
COMBINED
33 PDF OF2/12/2021
bolts required.
Wall –S3 DRAWINGS WSP B HRABANSKI Sheet no. 024 This will be provided for 80% DD. Observation N
Section 1 & 2 is taken from sheet 61, however sheet 61 is
Wall –S3
COMBINED
34 PDF OF2/12/2021
DRAWINGS TFNSW VPRASAD Sheet no. 043 not found in this drawing set at 50% submission. Please Observation N
provide sheet no 61 as referenced.
Wall –S3 DRAWINGS WSP B HRABANSKI Sheet no. 043 Reference will be updated. Observation N
Wall –S3
COMBINED
35 PDF OF2/12/2021
DRAWINGS TFNSW VPRASAD Sheet no. 043 Title Block:Sheet no. is unclear - overlapping text. Observation N
Wall –S3 DRAWINGS WSP B HRABANSKI Sheet no. 043 Noted, will be amended. Observation N
Section-2:Why is size of conduit in precast barrier different
Wall –S3
COMBINED
36 PDF OF2/12/2021
from cast-in place barrier on sheet 21?
3/04/2022 WSP B HRABANSKI Drafting inconsistencies - to be corrected. Conduits to be
Wall –S3
COMBINED PDF OF DRAWINGS Sheet no. 043 revised to include provision for lighting on the back of the Observation N
barrier for 80% DD stage.
Page 8 of 8
APPENDIX E
SAFETY IN DESIGN REGISTER
M12 Motorway - Reference Design Health and Safety in Design Risk Register 20220714 - Appendix E
RISK ASSESSMENT PRIOR TO HAZARD ELIMINATION / RISK RESIDUAL RISK

WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE RISK IDENTIFICATION MINIMISATION
RISK ASSESSMENT AFTER TREATMENT *
TREATMENT * ALLOCATION *
Risk consequences (1-6)

22
Elimination possible? Y
Risk likelihood (1-6)

4
WHERE & WHAT 14A 20 DRAFT STATUS
1 5 8 15 21
Risk level
Risk level
13 Recommended Risk Minimisation: Safeguards / 19 SFAiRP CONSIDERATIONS / Status = OPEN,
ID 2 3.1 LOCATION HAZARD/RISK/ISSUE 6 7 PRE-ASSESSMENT ASSUMED HAZARD SAFEGUARD 14B Mitigations Applied in Design COMMENT
/N
10
11
12
16
17
18
3.2 Package Justification if Elimination not Action(s) / Responsible person / JUSTIFICATION CLOSED or
9
LIFE CYCLE STAGE Design Discipline SITE FEATURE CAUSES CONSEQUENCES Safety Controls Responsibility Safeguards / Action(s) / Controls
INTERFACE possible Controls due date TRANSFERRED
(Identified) (e.g. observed speed limits, observed electrical safeguards)
DESIGN ELEMENT (to be authorised)
DRAWING / REFERENCE
Identify known utilities on design drawings. Estimate predicted settlements, carry out Review regularly throughout the construction of the project and flag any discrepancies Temporary works be to designed by
an asset damage risk assessment and interface with asset owners. for corrective actions. contractor.
Relocation of services where practically Can be minimised through

Insufficent temporary works required for the search/find/support or Lack competence Utility asset damage, disruption of services to
01-M12EUT01 01 Utilities Construction Utilities M12EUT01 All possible. Ground improvement design to allow for machinery Severe Likely High No compliant/sufficient Designer Severe Rare Medium Contractor Transferred
replacement process of utilities Cost cutting community
etc. design not eliminated
Limit of works shown on drawings Unable to adequately adress issue within

Potential conflict between plant and
Clarity of ownership of hazards and risks at the Tie-In point with other Poor documentation Extent of works and Site Access Schedule with timing to be Extent of works and Site Access Schedule with timing to be clearly provided to TfNSW/Contractor to mangage multiple traffic management plans and ROLs potentially the design due to sequencing of
02-M12ETW01 02 Civil Construction Civil M12ETW01 All equipment of adjoining projects Severe Likely High No TfNSW Major Unlikely Medium TfNSW/Contractor Transferred
Principal Contractors Unclear limits of works clearly provided to contractor contractor overlapping (during construction period) construction works and construction
Conflicts between activities resulting in injury
contract requirements
Where warranted additional warning signage to be provided Design reviewed, grade occurs where road is
Project Boundary constraints matching to existing on large radius curve
04-M12ERW01 04 Civil Operations Civil M12ERW01 Elizabeth Drive Steep longitudinal grades greater than 6% Vehicle accidents of varying severity. Design in compliance with AGRD Major Unlikely Medium No Project Constaints Designer Serious Unlikely Medium Designer Closed
Topography compliant for a higher design speed. No
additional mitigations are warranted
Project Boundary constraints Check sight lines and place barriers and other objects at suitable offsets Sight lines have been checked and documented as part of the design report. Where Sightlines confirm compliance and suitable
05-M12ERW01 05 Civil Operations Civil M12ERW01 Elizabeth Drive Tight horizontal geometry through cuttings may prevent sight distance Vehicle accidents of varying severity. Design in compliance with AGRD Major Unlikely Medium No Project Constaints Designer Serious Unlikely Medium Designer Closed
Topography required objects and barriers have been ofset as required. distances have been achieved.
Adopt observational approach to monitor developing instability or excessive Investigations including sub-bottom profiling to be undertaken. This is a type of
settlements geophysical investigation and employs acoustic energy to investigate a subsurface
profile below water and is aimed at assessing nature and thickness of sediments at the
base of dam to obtain indications of the types of foundation treatment required. This is
Poor understanding the topography that is "hidden" by water in existing Insufficient survey and site Carry out additional geotechnical investigations an overwater investigation proposed at the farm dam and involves sending sound
06-M12EGE05 06 Geotech ALL Geotech M12EGE05 Wallgrove Road Serious injury or fatality and road closure Major Likely High No Designer pulses from the boat into the dam floor sediments and recording the sound pulses that Major Unlikely Medium Designer Closed
dams. investigations to characterise ground conditions
bounce off the floor of the dam and subsequent buried sediment layers. The different
times taken for this signal to be returned provide indications of the thickness of
sediments at the bottom of the dam
- Inadequate traffic control Single fatality and/or serious - Contractor Traffic Management Plan Elimination of people/plant not Design and TMP to incorporate physical separation of people and plant Barriers and offsets have been provided on staging plans where appropriate to separate Unable to completely separate traffic and
- Mechanical failure of vehicles injuries/illnesses - Construction Safety Management Plan (CSMP) possible workers from traffic. pedestrians in constrained sites.
- Driver error/ violation - Design minimises interface with existing traffic during Providing physical barriers will provide
- Loss of situational awareness construction extra controls in protecting exposed
- Unfit driver - Use of physical construction barriers and signs workers to vehicles.
- Reversing vehicles - Construction methodology and staging
07-M12ETW01 07 Construction Construction Construction M12ETW01 All Road worker struck by moving vehicle/ traffic during construction - Vehicle interfaces - Audible and visual reversing indicator on heavy vehicles Severe Unlikely High No Designer Severe Rare Medium Contractor Transferred
- Poor signage to alert drivers to - Work scheduling to minimise exposure of pavement
construction activities crews to high speed traffic
- Poor traffic and construction - High visibility PPE
staging arrangements - Using spotters
- Address in SWMS
- Signage for existing traffic
Use new drainage infrastructure to replace existing - Drainage design standards for the project have been specified and have complied Drainage design standards for the project Contractor to undertake CCTV review and
Lack of condition assessment prior to New drainage infrastructure with. have been specified and have complied with conditon assessment of existing drainage
Additional flooding as a resulting in serious - Sensitivity testing has been implemented for climate change and blockage for culverts infrastructure to be retained for confirmation
08-M12ESD01 08 Drainage Operations Drainage M12ESD01 All Existing drainage network to be used as part of the design use Where required assessment of existing infrastruxcture to be Major Unlikely Medium Yes Designer Major Unlikely Medium Contractor Transferred
injury/death etc of suitablity prior to use
Acute rain event leading to flooding udnertaken
Maintenance and monitoring strategy to be incorporated by TfNSW Existing pavement material to be reused should be checked/investigated. Quality monitoring and maintenance plan to
- Existing pavements near the end of - Maintenance crews regular surveillance of road surface Inadequate pavement material quality to be rejected Pavement design in accordance with the design breif/guidelines with existing material be incorporated.
09-M12EPV01 09 Pavements Operations Pavements M12EPV01 Pavements Reuse of existing pavement leading to reduced pavement quality life and designed to old standards Minor injuries requiring medical treatment - Appropriate design methodologies for reusing existing Moderate Likely Medium No Designer properties based on investigation results. Moderate Unlikely Low TfNSW Appropriate design methodologies to be Transferred
may not be adequate pavements Additional FWD tests are to be undertaken as part of the geotechnical invesigations to implemented
validate design
Carry out additional geotechnical investigations Adopt observational approach to validate embankment performance and monitor Review regularly throughout the construction of the project and flag any discrepancies Additional getoechnical testing will provide Durability assessment has been undertaken to
Potential for unknowns such as poor soil conditions, rock or - Unforeseen/adverse ground Can be minimised through
to characterise ground conditions developing instability or excessive settlements for corrective actions. better information about unknowns, account for known geotechincal information
10-M12EGE05 10 Geotech ALL Geotech M12EGE05 All contaminated soils (high salinity, highly erosive, buried waste, asbestos conditions Serious injury or fatality and road closure Severe Unlikely High No compliant/sufficient geotechnical Designer Severe Rare Medium Contractor Transferred
Durability assessment to ensure design life requirements are Design to undertaken durability assessment to ensure design life requirements are met however the potential for unforseen such as salinity, waste, unsuitable etc.
and other unsuitable material) during both design and construction design not eliminated
met unknowns remains onsite.
Known areas of significance to be mapped in Sensitive Area Mapping. Design provided Sensitive Area Mapping Mapping will provide better information
Area of environmental interest (AEI) identified adjacent to the
11-M12EEN01 11 Environmental Construction Environmental M12EEN01 All Unknown finds Impacts to potential heritage items Survey prior to commeement of works Moderate Unlikely Low No Designer Contractor to undertake survey of known areas prior to commencement Moderate Rare Low Contractor about AEI, however the potential for Transferred
construction footprint, including PGH Bricks and Pavers
Contractor to implement action plan when and if finds are made onsite unforseen finds remain onsite.
Adopt observational approach to validate embankment performance and monitor The retaining wall on the NE side of the Elizabeth Dr/M7 SB exit ramp to be RSW wall The design has undertaken design
Elizabeth Drive- M7SB Collapse of road infrastructure Can be minimised through developing instability or excessive settlements given the assumed low rock level. Embankement to be cut back to form a level surface caluclations to ensure global stability of the
Embankment stability for retaining walls on the north- eastern side of the Construction of retaining walls on Stuitable wall type to be determined
12-M12EGE05 12 Geotech ALL Geotech M12EGE05 exit ramp and WB Potential for serious injury / death Severe Unlikely High No compliant/sufficient geotechnical Designer for placement of RSW pannels. Severe Rare Medium Contractor wall. The embankement stability will Transferred
M7 Southbound exit ramp and the Elizabeth Drive WB cariirageway steep embankements Appropriate geotechnical analysis and design
Mainline design not eliminated continue to be an issue when
constructing/cutting back the earthworks
Carry out additional geotechnical investigations Adopt observational approach to validate embankment performance and monitor Review regularly throughout the construction of the project and flag any discrepancies The design has undertaken design
to characterise ground conditions - Embankments to be developing instability or excessive settlements for corrective actions. caluclations to ensure global stability of the
designed to meet requirements for stability - Construction wall. The embankement stability will
phase surveillance (CPS) by a Can be minimised through Temporary works and shoring (if required) be to designed by contractor. continue to be an issue when
Elizabeth Drive- M7 Embankment stability for underneath M7 bridges and near pedestrian Cutting back of the existing spill Potential collapase during construction and/or constructing/cutting back the earthworks
13-M12EGE05 13 Geotech ALL Geotech M12EGE05 geotechnical professional to identify actual Severe Unlikely High No compliant/sufficient geotechnical Designer Severe Rare Medium Contractor Transferred
Abutments footpath bridge widenings through embankment operation
ground conditions encountered during design not eliminated
excavations and validate selection of
appropriate foundation treatments in
accordance with RMS Specification R44.
Design impacts/calashes from signage/signals/street lights foundations Poor documentation and clash Impact to utiliity causing outages or cutting off Provision of utilities plans and conflict register Provision of utilities plans and conflict register Known clashes where identified have been
14-M12EUT01 14 Utilities ALL Utilities M12EUT01 All UT Coordination plans Severe Likely High No Designer Major Unlikely Medium Designer Closed
impacting utilities. detection critical infrastructure 3d digital federated model and clash register report designed out .
Widening of the roadway in cut leads Review the road alignment with aim to raise alignment over HPG main Road Alignment has been redesigned to allow for 1.3m clearance from top of pipe to Design has been revised to allow for the
Clearance of the road to the high pressure gas main crossing Elizabeth to insufficient cover over existing Impact to utiliity causing outages or cutting off Protection slab detail DSL. sufficent clearance to allow for the provision of
15-M12ERW01 15 Utilities Operations Utilities M12ERW01 Elizabeth Drive Severe Likely High Yes Designer Severe Rare Medium Designer Closed
Drive utilities. critical infrastructure Piled protection slab to be provided ontop of pipe to prevent additional loading a piled protection slab
Insuffcient protection
Provision of construction boundary Construction boundary to be shown on plans and provided as part of digital files Consistency assessments and revision to the
Consistency Assessment to be undertaken on areas outside of the construction construction boundary still to be undertaken.
Project boundary constraints
Connection works required outside of the current approved construction Works being undertaken in unauthorised areas boundary. This will occur prior to the issue of For
16-M12EEN11 16 Environmental Construction Environmental M12EEN11 Project Wide Incomplete documentation of Construction fooprint boundary Serious Unlikely Medium No Designer Serious Rare Low Designer Open
footprint. Project delays Construction drawings. Areas of concern are
construction boundary Elizabeth Drive EB carriageway at the western
tie in and Cecil Rd tie in.
Traffic Delays Sensitivity analyis of traffic and impacts Design has undertaken a SIDRA analysis for the given traffic volumes. Mitigations The design has been based on the
Future or current DA applications (
Potential for serious injury / death as a result in Potential spaceproof of design including changes to lane allocation and extension/provision of additional lanes have information provided by TfNSW and known
Wallgrove Rd and Increased traffic generation during construction and operation previously current DA on corner of Cecil and Traffic forecast may not be
17-M12ERW01 17 Civil Operations Civil M12ERW01 road infrastructure not suitable for higher Serious Probable High No Conservative factors of safety Designer been identified. Severe Rare Medium Designer future developments. Closed
Elizabeth Drive unknown Elizabeth Drive). accurate or known
traffic demands/loading
Incorrect traffic modelling
Reputational Damage
Noise walls/ mounds or other noise attenuation measures TfNSW to undertake noise modelling- at this stage noise impacts below threshold and
no additioanal mitigation measures required in design.
Proposed Works- construction and Noise Assessment to be undertaken to determine
18-M12EEN12 18 Environmental ALL Environmental M12EEN12 Residential Lots Noise impacts to sensitive receivers Impact on residents health/wellbeing Serious Likely Medium Yes Desinger Serious Unlikely Medium TfNSW/Contractor Transferred
operation requirement/mitigations
Contractor to undertake noise modelling and provide notification to residents of
commencement dates and durations prior to construction
Traffic staging strategy to consider bus stop locations and alternate pedestrian routes Strategy has been developed as part of the Traffic Staging plan.
Road Potential conflicts with commuters using the bus stop at the corner of Inadequate traffic management for
19-M12ETW01 19 Road Construction Construction M12ETW01 Cecil Road Potential for serious injury / death Severe Likely High No Desinger Major Unlikely Medium Contractor Transferred
Construction Cecil and Elizabeth Dr during construction pedestrians Contractor will be responsible for implementing changes based on their construction
strategy
Traffic staging strategy to consider road user delay Road User delay report has been provided as part of the Traffic Staging report.
Traffic Delays
Road Potential road user delays including risk to M7 operations and traffic
20-M12ETW01 20 Road Construction Construction M12ETW01 M7 Entry/Exit Ramps Inadequate traffic management Potential financial implications for the M7 Severe Likely High No Desinger Major Unlikely Medium Contractor Transferred
Construction management requirements Contractor will be responsible for the sequencing of works and potential lane closures
operations
and diversions based on their final construction strategy.
Plant Roll-over Flatten out existing batters where possible M7 exit ramp - existing 1.5:1 batters flattend to 4:1 H:V Design of batters have been flattened
Potential for serious injury / death WB Elizabeth Drive tie in- road alignment amended to re-use existing carriageway by where possible to lessen the cosntruction
Plant risk Assessments widening into the median in lieu extension to the southern batter risks around vehicle rollover
Road M7 NB exit ramp Re-use of existing carriageway with Workers compensation / common law claims Footprint will be excessive,
21-M12ERW01 21 Road Construction Construction M12ERW01 Construction works being undertaken on the existing batters SWMS Severe Unlikely High No Designer Severe Rare Medium Contractor Transferred
Construction Elizabeth Drive WB widenings SafeWork notices, fines and prosecutions however some areas possible
Competent Operators
Reputational damage
Project delays
Known areas of significance to be mapped in Sensitive Area Mapping. Design provided Sensitive Area Mapping
Road Cecil Road Incomplete construction Potenital disturbance of items of significant Mapping of sensitve areas to be undertaken as part of the Not fully possible due to Contractor to undertake survey of known areas prior to commencement
22-M12ETW01 22 Road Construction Construction M12ETW01 Potential for disturbance of heritage items during construction Serious Likely Medium No Designer Contractor to implement action plan when and if finds are made onsite Serious Rare Low Contractor Transferred
Construction Wallgrove Road methodology heritage value design, identifying areas of concern unknown finds
Adequate SWMS and TCP to be undertaken Detailed traffic staging plans have been developed with allowance made for safe access
Potential for serious injury / death resulting in treatments.
Road Cecil Road Insufficient construction staging
23-M12ETW01 23 Road Construction Construction M12ETW01 Unsafe property access arrangements during construction vehicle to vehicle or vehicle to pedestrian Temporary Traffic Control Plans/ Staging plans Severe Likely High No Contractor Severe Unlikely High Contractor Transferred
Construction Wallgrove Road methodology
conflicts
Traffic Delays Adequate SWMS and TCP to be undertaken - The design future widened configuration of the bridge has been considered as part
Quality and Durability of Joint of The design.
Future works associated with M7-M12 Not reasonably practicable to
Future Bridge Potential for serious injury / death SWMS - Sufficient space between the bridges has been left in the median for use of barrier
24-M12ERW01 24 Civil Modification Civil M12ERW01 Future pier within the middle of the Elizabeth Dr carriageway (risk if M7-M12 constructed after Major Probable High No build the ultimate case due to Contractor protection. Major Rare Medium Contractor Transferred
Widening Workers compensation / common law claims Temporary Traffic Management
opening of EDC) funding constraints
SafeWork notices, fines and prosecutions
Reputational Damage
Potential for serious injury / death from Maintenance acces Strategy to be provided as part of DD. Maintenance acces Strategy to be provided as part of DD. Strategy to be undertaken for the 80% DD
- being struck by vehicle, Adequate SWMS and TCP to be undertaken
- falls down batters,
Access to inspect retaining walls not
- heavy lifting etc. Allowance for scaffolding
provided / identified as part of design Can be minimise through design
25-M12ERS01 25 Structures Maintenance Structures M12ERS01 Retaining Walls Replacing or inspect retaining walls and fascia Workers compensation / common law claims SWMS Severe Likely High No Designer Severe Rare Medium Designer Open
Inappropriate access, falls from not eliminated
SafeWork notices, fines and prosecutions Temporary Traffic Management
height, manual handling risks created.
Reputational damage
Project delays
Adverse health impacts to people working in Production of contamination report to identify to the Contractor potential Contractor to implement action plan when and if finds are made onsite Contamination report to be undertaken for the
close proximity contaminatent on site 80% DD
Potential for serious injury / death
hazardous materials either buried or Contamination assessment has yet to be undertaken and will Can be minimise through design
26-M12EEN12 26 Environmental Construction Environmental M12EEN12 All Airborne contaminants travelling from EDC to surrounding areas Workers compensation / common law claims Major Unlikely Medium Designer Major Unlikely Medium Contractor Open
brought in. be undertaken as part of 80%DD not eliminated
Reputational damage
Project delays
Adverse health impacts to people working in Production of contamination report to identify to the Contractor potential Contractor to implement action plan when and if finds are made onsite Contamination report to be undertaken for the
close proximity contaminatent on site 80% DD
Hazardous materials either buried on
Asbestos encapsulation including potential for encapsulation under Potential for serious injury / death
the project not installed correctly Contamination assessment has yet to be undertaken and will Can be minimise through design
27-M12EGE07 27 Road Construction Modification Environmental M12EGE07 All pavement or batters. If this is an option then it needs to be designed Workers compensation / common law claims Major Unlikely Medium Designer Major Unlikely Medium Contractor Open
leading to health impacts of future be undertaken as part of 80%DD not eliminated
properly to ensure there won't be legacy issues. SafeWork notices, fines and prosecutions
projects
Reputational damage
Project delays
- Location of jointing pits is in a location where an errant vehicle can not strike a worker -ITS pits have typically been aligned along the shared path or behind barriers. -There Maintenance access to ITS assets has been
e.g. within stopping bays behind barriers on down stream side of bridges and/or behind are some locations where ITS pits are not located behind the barrier adjacent to the developed. The pits have typically been
Potential for serious injury / death barriers at VMS locations and/or on SUP outside of the deflection zone of barrier type motorway. In such circumstances it is impractical to add a barrier for the purpose of aligned behind barriers or on the shared
Workers struck by errant vehicle when maintaining ITS cables at inground Pit located where worker can be SWMS
28-M12EIF01 28 ITS Maintenance ITS M12EIF01 ITS Routes Workers compensation / common law claims Severe Unlikely High Yes Designer Major Rare Medium TfNSW Transferred
pits struck by errant vehicle Temporary Traffic Management for specific location protecting ITS maintenance workers from errant vehicles. path where level. Maintenance personnel to
ensure suitable SWMS and TMPs are in
place.
Locate jointing pits in a location where workers can access safely e.g. adjacent to SUP - ITS infrastructure has been considered as part of The design maintenance access Maintenance access to ITS assets has been
and/or provide suitable access to maintenance point locations strategy. developed. The pits have typically been
Potential for serious injury / death -ITS pits have typically been aligned along The shared path or behind barriers. The aligned behind barriers or on the shared
Pit located in areas where safe access
29-M12EIF01 29 ITS Maintenance ITS M12EIF01 ITS Routes Workers falls/slips when access ITS pits Workers compensation / common law claims SWMS Serious Unlikely Medium Yes Designer Serious Rare Low TfNSW Transferred
is not provided shared path is planned to be used as a maintenance access track. path where level. Maintenance personnel to
ensure suitable SWMS and TMPs are in
place.
Page 1 of 4


22

4
1 5 8 15 21
Risk level
Risk level
/N
10
11
12
16
17
18
9
DRAWING / REFERENCE
- Reviewed the location of lighting to determine whether it can be accessed from The lighting spacing has been developed to minimise the number of lights, while The spacing of lights have been undertaken
behind safety barriers outside the deflection zone without the need for TTMPs complying with the design requirements. to minimise the number of lights, while
- Reviewed alternative light to minimise the number of lights required e.g. similar to -Lights have been aligned behind road safety barriers, where a road safety barrier is complying with the design requirements.
the light at the Light Horse Interchange already proposed. it is impractical to add a barrier for the purpose of protecting Lights have positioned behind barriers,
Light poles can not be maintained Potential for serious injury / death - Reviewed light types as LED for road and SUP Lighting maintenance workers from errant vehicles. The barrier creates a new risk where a barrier is present in the design.
SWMS
30-M12ELV01 30 Electrical Maintenance Electrical M12ELV01 Road Lighting Workers struck by traffic inspecting and maintain light poles lighting from outside the trafficable lanes Workers compensation / common law claims Severe Likely High No Can be minimised not eliminated - Reviewed lighting design which can allow the maintain point to be lowered to ground Designer where barrier maintenance workers are at risk of getting hit by errant vehicles. Severe Rare Medium TfNSW Maintenance personnel to ensure suitable Transferred
Temporary Traffic Management level to eliminate the need to an Elevated Work Platform e.g. cantilevers poles Access to light poles on retaing walls will be via the SUP with blockout provided within SWMS and TMPs are in place.
- Include suitable access which is off line of detail access assumed in design the barrier
- Develop table of assumptions which can be communicated to RMS Maintenance at
handover.
Design of access to ITS gantries to be form SUP and behind barriers at emergency bays ITS infrastructure has been considered as part of The design maintenance access Maintenance access to ITS assets has been
- Design suitable maintenance vehicle access and barrier protection at VMS locations strategy. developed. The pits have typically been
ITS pits have typically been aligned along the shared path or behind barriers. The aligned behind barriers or on the shared
31-M12EIF01 31 ITS Maintenance ITS M12EIF01 ITS Structures Access to inspection points is not safe Access only from online location Workers compensation / common law claims Severe Likely High Yes Can be minimised not eliminated Designer shared path is planned to be used as a maintenance access track. Severe Rare Medium TfNSW Transferred
path where level. Maintenance personnel to
SafeWork notices, fines and prosecutions VMS access on EDr and Wallgrove Rd have been considered and included as part of the ensure suitable SWMS and TMPs are in
overall maintenance access strategy place.
Provision of a incident management plan and concept of operations Types of incidents cannot be designed for.
Suitable incident mangement plan to be
Dealing with people in vehicles stuck on the motorway during an incident Concept of operations and strategy to assess crashes on the developed by the Construction contractor
32-M12EIF01 32 ITS Operations ITS M12EIF01 All Incidents Moderate Unlikely Low Can be minimised not eliminated Contractor Moderate Unlikely Low TfNSW/Contractor or TfNSW in consultation with the M7 Transferred
and utlitising Elizabeth Drive exit ramps motorway to be assessed
authorities depending if situation is within
construction phase or operational.
Potential for serious injury / death VMS on Elizabeth Drive to enable access and fall protection Appropriate SWMS when undertaking any mainentance works Fall cages and ladder have been provided within the design. Designers have provided fall restraints and
33-M12EIF01 33 ITS Operations ITS M12EIF01 WMS locations VMS have a potential fall risk and need for temporary traffic management Working at heights Workers compensation / common law claims cage with aim to eliminate fall risk and need for temporary Serious Unlikely Medium Can be minimised not eliminated Design of fall restraints. Designer Serious Unlikely Medium TfNSW ladders. Maintenance personnel to ensure Transferred
SafeWork notices, fines and prosecutions traffic management suitable SWMS and TMPs are in place.
The design of lighting is to standard and lighting has been applied to all areas that there There is a need to ensure that these lights are
Consideration around the lighting and dark areas around the interchange Road users not able to adequately Users missing an exit and undertaking risky
34-M12ELV01 34 Electrical Operations Electrical M12ELV01 Interchanges Design in compliance with Australian Standards Serious Unlikely Medium is a change to the road environment. Designer Serious Unlikely Medium Designer regularly maintained. Closed
exits and entries (M7) anticipate an interchange approaching manoeuvres to exit the motorway.
- Developed performance specification for Landscape design that ensure inappropriate Trees to be planted away from critical infrastructure and species selected to have non- Yet to be developed to this level of detail.
Potential for moderate injury plant types are excluded "X" distance from road pavements, drainage and/or way invasive root systems
35-M12ELA01 35 Landscaping Maintenance Landscaping M12ELA01 Corridor Maintenance Plantings damage pavement/structures and/or obstruct wayfinding In appropriate selection of plantings Serious Likely Medium No Can be minimised not eliminated Designer Serious Unlikely Medium Designer Open
common law claims finding signage.
Landscaping not to inhibit VMS, SL, CCTV signage.
Where possible culvert sizes will be maximised to allow for minimum 1.2m width.
Unsafe atmosphere due to reduced - Site safety talks before access Size of culvert limited to flooding
36-M12ESD01 36 Structures ALL Drainage M12ESD01 Culverts Drainage culverts requiring access (confined space) Serious injury, illness, fatality Severe Likely High No Suitable maitnenace regimes to be implemented including flushing and jetting and TfNSW / Contractor Severe Rare Medium TfNSW Transferred
height and escape clearance - Provide minimum 1.2m clearance for access on all culverts and civil design considerations
CCTV inspection
Public access to areas outside the shared path in the motorway corridor. Public / vulnerable person falls into Assess the risk at each point of entry to these areas. What can be accessed, how visible Fencing assessments undertaken based on proximity/risk and provided where Fencing with access gates to be provided for
37-M12ERW01 37 Civil Operations Civil M12ERW01 All Ie. Access to Sed basins, vandalism, etc. Fencing controls? Entry and exit sedimentation basin or area within Potential for serious injury / death Serious Rare Low are theses areas, consider fencing strategy Designer warranted. Serious Rare Low Designer 80% DD Open
points to site to be defined the project
Assess the risk at each point of entry to these areas. What can be accessed, how visible Shared driveway access path has been provided to both locations, minimising the
Access to land locked parcels of residual land- eg adjacent to DA site near potential for users to undertake
38-M12ERW01 38 Civil ALL Civil M12ERW01 Elizabeth Drive Potential for serious injury / death Serious Rare Low are theses areas, consider fencing /barrier strategy Designer number of driveway entrances in close proximity. Serious Rare Low Designer Closed
M7 entry ramp and Western Syd Parklands near the western tie in unsafe movements into parcils of land
- Provide suitable access for ground maintenance plant that maintain batter from level High fills and deep cuts are at 1:2 Designers have design high fills and deep Landscape treatments / plants selected /
Maintaining batters (cut and fill) Potential for serious injury / death Plant risk Assessments Can be minimise through design
ground e.g. Tractor with extendable slope/batter mower attachment. Have reviewed 1:4 within the Design e.g. M7 Exit Ramp. cuts at 2:1 . Assessments have been designed to suit minimal maintenance
39-M12ERW01 39 Civil Maintenance Civil M12ERW01 Cut Batters Plant roll-over and injury to driver and other workers on site. which exceed the OEM safe working Workers compensation / common law claims SWMS Severe Likely High No not eliminated - refer suggested Designer Severe Rare Medium TfNSW/Contractor Transferred
undertaken to ascertain whether cut batters requirements reducing need to access batters.
parameters for the plant SafeWork notices, fines and prosecutions Competent Operators mitigations
could be flattened.
Identified all areas that require inspection and maintenance Maintenance access strategy developed and documented as part of the design. Access Suitable SWMS and TMP to be implemented
- determined whether vehicle/plant access is required and/or whether only worker on points and breaks in barriers have been provided.
foot is necessary
Safe access to fences, swales, - Identified minimum access requirements e.g. Light vehicle / Mower / Excavator etc.
Potential for serious injury / death - Identified assumptions for vehicle and/or plant type e.g. size
Plant/Vehicle roll-over and/or workers falls/slips when accessing fences, culverts, central median and islands
40-M12ERW01 40 Landscaping Maintenance Landscaping M12ERW01 Corridor Maintenance Workers compensation / common law claims SWMS Serious Likely Medium Yes - Design access provision as Identified above which may include leaving construction Designer Serious Rare Low TfNSW/Contractor Transferred
swales, culverts, central median and islands at interchanges etc. at interchanges etc. not provided for
SafeWork notices, fines and prosecutions access provision in place
inspection and maintenance
- Provided suitable breaks in permanent safety barriers/kerbs to allow maintenance
vehicles to access at specific locations
Develop a maintenance strategy with dedicated areas for vehicles and crews Maintenance access strategy developed and documented as part of the design. Access Suitable SWMS and TMP to be implemented
points and breaks in barriers have been provided.
Potential for serious injury / death Safety barrier locations are to be designed for crew to safely Sufficient clearance from safety barriers to landscaping allow for crew to safety work
There is required to be sufficient clearance from Safety barriers to allow for maintenance Planting clear of safety barriers
41-M12ERW01 41 Landscaping Maintenance Landscaping M12ERW01 All Collision due to unsafe working width Workers compensation / common law claims work from Major Unlikely Medium Designer Major Rare Medium TfNSW Transferred
for crew to safety work from for maintenance etc.
SafeWork notices, fines and prosecutions Develop Maintenance Access Strategy
Develop a maintenance strategy with dedicated areas for vehicles and crews Maintenance access strategy developed and documented as part of the design. Access Suitable SWMS and TMP to be implemented
points and breaks in barriers have been provided.
Collision due to unsafe access
allowance for access. Or maintainers Planting of grasses clear of safety barriers- typically where median is > 1.0m wide
42-M12ERW01 42 Landscaping Maintenance Landscaping M12ERW01 All batters Safe mowing of toe batters, and not disrupting traffic Workers compensation / common law claims Major Unlikely Medium Designer Major Rare Medium TfNSW Transferred
are placed within the clearzone of the
motorway.
- Review whether there are controls at access point e.g. signage which can be used Maintenance access strategy developed and documented as part of the design. Access The operators maintenance strategy will need
when SUP is being used as maintenance access to structures and utilities. points and breaks in barriers have been provided. to include the need for maintenance vehciles
to have flashing lights, signage etc while
43-M12ERW01 43 Lines and signs Maintenance Lines and signs M12ERW01 Corridor Maintenance Conflict with SUP users and Maintenance SUP used as maintenance access Increased maintenance Serious Likely Medium Yes Designer Serious Rare Low TfNSW / Operator Transferred
travelling and working on the SUP similar to
any other traffic management plans.
Design signage so it is Located on the out side of the carriage way where possible. Signage have typically been placed on the nearside, away from the median. Suitable SWMS and TMP to be implemented
Accessing median to perform maintenance near the western tie in of Signage and drainage located in the
44-M12ERW01 44 Lines and signs Maintenance Lines and signs M12ERW01 Corridor Maintenance Workers compensation / common law claims Serious Likely Medium Yes Median to provide breaks in barrier or flattened batter to allow for Safe vehicle access. Designer Pit and Pipe network has been replaced by vegetated open channel. Serious Rare Low TfNSW Transferred
Elizabeth Drive median
Drivers have insufficient timing to Design to maximise lane continuity to minimise the amount of decision points in the The Design has maximised lane continuity as much as possible, removing trapped lanes
Inappropriate wayfinding and Integrated intelligent transport messaging Potential vehicle crash resulting in injury or
45-M12ERW01 45 Lines and signs Operations Lines and signs M12ERW01 ALL merge/choose direction of travel Sufficient regulatory and directional signage Major Likely High road network Designer (excpetion is M7 NB entry ramp from Edr WB). Directional and regulatory signage as Major Unlikely Medium Designer Closed
systems death
Provide way finding through regulatory and directional signage and ITS well as ITS have been provided.
Milling and re-sheeting adjacent to Potential for serious injury / death Contraflow to be implemented during milling and re-sheeting operations
Milling and Re-
46-M12ERW01 46 Pavements Maintenance Pavements M12ERW01 Workers exposed to moving vehicles traffic especially during final Workers compensation / common law claims Severe Likely High Yes Include requirement in specification as performance specification Contractor Severe Rare Medium Contractor Transferred
sheeting
construction stages SafeWork notices, fines and prosecutions Contractor to develop suitable Traffic Management Plan
- Conducted risk assessment to determine what type of barrier is best for the location. -Barriers have been provided where hazards are present within the clear zone The designers have only provided barriers Suitable SWMS and TMP to be implemented
- Considered location of the SUP when selecting barrier type - Further consideration of hazards outside the clearzone should be undertaken at where hazards are present within the
Potential for serious injury / death - Determineed deflection zone requirements behind barrier at tops of embankments detailed design. clearzone to protect errant vehicles.
Can be minimise through design - Reviewed maintain space required to maintain barriers, -Where barriers are unable to be designed out, the maintainer should consider this risk
Road Collision between vehicle and workers maintaining barriers adjacent to Barriers struck by vehicles requires Workers compensation / common law claims
47-M12ERW01 47 Road Construction Maintenance M12ERW01 ALL Temporary Traffic Control Plans Severe Unlikely High No not eliminated - refer suggested - Determineed control measures required to be implemented if barrier is struck and no Designer as part of their Safe Work Method Statement. Traffic Control Plans may need to be Severe Rare Medium TfNSW Transferred
Construction live traffic maintenance and repairs SafeWork notices, fines and prosecutions
mitigations longer conforms to design e.g. does traffic need to be slowed until barrier is reinstated used as part of the maintenance regime.
for each type of barrier
Traffic Delays Barrier protection and lane reduction during construction Designs have allowed for sufficent spaceproofing for central birdge piers
Widening road to ultimate case for
Potential for serious injury / death Not reasonably practicable to
Road Future Road both M7/M12 and Elizabeth Drive SWMS
48-M12ERW01 48 Road Construction Modification M12ERW01 Working in close proximity to traffic during road widening Workers compensation / common law claims Major Probable High No build the ultimate case due to Contractor Major Rare Medium Contractor Transferred
Construction Widening Upgrade requires working close to the Temporary Traffic Management
SafeWork notices, fines and prosecutions funding constraints
existing alignment
Reputational Damage
- Deliver strategy for way finding along SUP including suite post mounted signage, Signage to be provided along the SUP with relevant linemarking Yet to be developed to this level of detail.
Insufficient triggers to allow users to Potential for serious injury
49-M12ERW01 49 Road furniture Operations Road furniture M12ERW01 SUP SUP design creates conflicts at decision points Appropriate signage for users Serious Unlikely Medium Yes pavement signage (cyclists) and lighting at conflict points Designer SUP - Exit and entrance points for maintenance vehicles - Potential positions reviewed Serious Rare Low Designer Open
make create decisions
to ensure safe vehicle movements (e.g no reversing)
Develop a maintenance strategy with dedicated areas for vehicles and crews A detailed maintenance strategy is being developed for the project. Some access will Provision of parking bay/pullover areas have
insufficient parking maintenance vehicles to undertake maintenance or Collision due to unsafe parking Safety barrier locations are to be designed to allow for safe be provided along shared path. Maintenance tracks will be provided to drainage basins been allowed for in the design.
50-M12ERW01 50 Services Maintenance Services M12ERW01 All Workers compensation / common law claims Serious Unlikely Medium Designer and retaing walls. Serious Rare Low Designer Maintenance personnel to ensure suitable Closed
inspections allowance entry to site
SafeWork notices, fines and prosecutions SWMS and TMPs are in place.
Develop a safe work plan for use of the shared user path by maintenance vehicles. Kerb laybacks are being added to the Shared User Path design at strategic locations Maintenance strategy will also need to include
Consideration around the interfacing of people travelling along the Potential for serious injury / death the need for maintenance vehciles to have
Collision due to insufficient allowance SWMS
51-M12ERW01 51 SUP Operations SUP M12ERW01 Shared User Path shared use path with workers using the shared use path to access or to Workers compensation / common law claims Serious Unlikely Medium TfNSW Comms plan required for SUP shutdowns and maintenance during O&M period.This Serious Rare Low TfNSW / Operator flashing lights, signage etc while travelling and Transferred
for passing/ safe work areas Temporary Traffic Management
undertake work around or on the shared use path SafeWork notices, fines and prosecutions includes signage 1km out, 500m, 20m out etc working on the SUP similar to any other traffic
management plan.
Water inundation within the Potential for serious injury / death from Proper lining and adequate scour protectiuon has been detailed within the Detaild
Construction flooding
construction area drowning design.
52-M12ESD01 52 Drainage Construction Drainage M12ESD01 All Flooding risk during construction and during operation Moderate Probable Medium No assessment to be undertaken by Designer/Contractor Moderate Probable Medium Contractor Transferred
Temporary works not accounting for Workers compensation / common law claims Contractor to ensure that drainage elements are constructed as per the design intent
contractor
the amount of flow SafeWork notices, fines and prosecutions
Prepare maintenance access strategy An overarching maintenance access strategy has been developed to ensure all assets Suitable SWMS and TMP to be implemented
Critical infrastructure no able to be maintained.
can be accessed safely for maintenance.
Collision due to unsafe access and Potential for serious injury / death Safety barrier maintenance/ location for crew to safety work Suitable SWMS and TMP to be implemented
Access to culverts, abutments, bridge bearing pads, slopes, batters ITS
53-M12ERW01 53 ALL Maintenance ALL M12ERW01 All egress into and out of the site/ access Workers compensation / common law claims from Serious Unlikely Medium Designer/TfNSW Serious Rare Low TfNSW Transferred
control Boxes, VMS, operational water quality basins etc
points as well as inspection locations SafeWork notices, fines and prosecutions Develop Maintenance Access Strategy
Reputational damage
Proper lining and adequate scour protectiuon has been detailed within the Detaild
Impacts to utilities or exposing Potential for serious injury / death Construction flooding
design.
54-M12ESD01 54 Drainage ALL Drainage M12ESD01 Utilities Soil erosion and washing away of utilities during construction utilities causing an impact to Workers compensation / common law claims Moderate Unlikely Low No assessment to be undertaken by Designer/Contractor Moderate Unlikely Low Contractor Transferred
Contractor to ensure that drainage elements are constructed as per the design intent
surrounding areas. SafeWork notices, fines and prosecutions contractor
Serious injury from working within a restricted - Prefer pipe over box culverts -Pipe culverts have been adopted where possible in the design. The designers have provided pipe culverts
Can be minimise through design
space - Smaller the pipe the better they are at self cleansing - Safe practice required for maintenance where possible.
55-M12ESD01 55 Drainage Maintenance Drainage M12ESD01 Culverts Worker injured while maintaining culvert in a confined space. Long stormwater culverts Use of remote inspection devices for inspections Severe Unlikely High No not eliminated - refer suggested Designer Severe Rare Medium TfNSW Transferred
Workers compensation / common law claims - Where large culverts are required considered size for maintenance with TfNSW assets
mitigations
SafeWork notices, fines and prosecutions 1200mm min box culvert.
-RMS requirements for fencing of biofiltration basins - risk based assessment of location Fencing has been proposed around basins to prevent unauthorised access The designers have provided fencing and Yet to be developed to this level of detail.
and potential for access by vulnerable people and depth of water. gates to prevent unauthorised access.
Basin is open to public access - drowning - Design to ensure where fence is required, that there is adequate access provision for
Potential for serious injury / death maintenance and replacement of fence at design life.
Permanent Public / vulnerable person falls into
56-M12ESD01 56 Drainage Maintenance Drainage M12ESD01 Deep water causing drowning Common law claims Severe Unlikely High No Can be minimised not eliminated - If fence is required, inspection regime need to be detailed to maintainer to ensure Designer Severe Rare Medium Designer Open
sedimentation basin sedimentation basin
SafeWork notices, fines and prosecutions regular inspection are undertaken to monitor the integrity of the fence to ensure it
Reputational Damage remains fit for purpose.
-shallow depth has been utilised
- Review RMS standards for design of sedimentation basins from a HSiD perspective -The design has modelled basins for the purposes of space proofing and a maintenance The designers have space proofed the area,
- Suggestion made during review included use of "solid base" to allow maintenance bench is provided. however have not detailed sedimentation
Basin batters undermined causing batter collapse and plant to access and scrape silt from basin; and basin drawings.
Maintenance of sedimentation basin requires design in GPS coordinates of basin and utilise GPS controls on excavation plant to avoid
Permanent Vehicle crash due to failure of embankment as a result of maintenance of Sedimentation basin / embankments requirement to refurbished basin.
57-M12ESD01 57 Drainage Maintenance Drainage M12ESD01 excavation of silt build-up. Over excavation due Serious Unlikely Medium Yes excavation of basin foundation; or Designer/TfNSW Serious Rare Low TfNSW Transferred
sedimentation basin sedimentation basins. fails after maintenance. Potential for undermining of road embankment where basin is
to removal of basin foundation material. - Oversize the basin so it does not need cleaning
in close proximity to road.
- Use of marker posts to indicate top of batter lines.
Suitable SWMS to be implemented
Permanent Provide suitable flattened batter or formalised track for vehicles to safely access and - The maintenance activities are expected to be undertaken during the day, Thedesigners have specified an access
Access path or inspection points not Potential for moderate injury
58-M12ESD01 58 Drainage Maintenance Drainage M12ESD01 sedimentation basin Access to inspection points is not safe Moderate Unlikely Low No Can be minimised not eliminated maintain sediment basins or channels Designer Maintenance access plan Moderate Unlikely Low TfNSW strategy using maintenance access tracks. Transferred
properly accessible Workers compensation
or channels
Detailed flood modelling to understand potential impact Detailed flood modelling to understand potential impact for a range of scenarios The design of the drainage infrastructure is
Flooding Blockage factors to be inlcuded in model Blockage factors to be inlcuded in model as per guidelines and specifications. Design
High depths of flow in events greater than the hydrologic standard of the Lack of drainage infrastructure to
59-M12ESD01 59 Drainage Operations Drainage M12ESD01 All Loss of life Major Unlikely Medium No Can be minimised not eliminated Designer Impact of Climate Change could be assessed for assets performances. Major Rare Medium Designer cannot account for unforseen natural Closed
transverse drainage, leading to hazardous flood conditions for persons. cater for large flood events
Damage to property events outside of that normally accounted
for
Risk assessmnet undertaken. Where there is a need for spill containment this has been Existing spill containment facility to be retained Existing spill containment facility at the
provided. corner of the M7 SB exit ramp has been
60-M12ESD01 60 Drainage Operations Drainage M12ESD01 All A B triple Spills containment for a b-triple Spills from a b-triple on the motorway Contamination of waterways Serious Unlikely Medium No As needed. Designer Serious Unlikely Medium Designer Closed
retained. No additional warrants for spill
containment are required.
Page 2 of 4


22

4
1 5 8 15 21
Risk level
Risk level
/N
10
11
12
16
17
18
9
DRAWING / REFERENCE
- Fill batters in Reference Designed are at 2:1, could potentially flatten to 4:1 in shallow -High fills and deep cuts are at 2:1 Where fesible batters have been flattened Suitable SWMS and TMP to be implemented
Plant Roll-over fill zones - designers have done an assessment to check if cut batters could be flattened to 3:1, or to help avoid plant rollover
Potential for serious injury / death - Potential to lay back cuts to 4:1 to win fill reduce risk associated with 2:1 cut batters 4:1. and these have been implemented
Working on batters (cut and fill) which Plant risk Assessments
Workers compensation / common law claims
61-M12ETW01 61 Civil Construction Civil M12ETW01 Cut / Fill Batters Plant roll-over and injury to driver and other workers on site. exceed the OEM safe working SWMS Severe Unlikely High No Footprint will be excessive Designer/TfNSW Severe Rare Medium TfNSW Transferred
SafeWork notices, fines and prosecutions Suitable SWMS and TMP to be implemented
parameters for the plant Competent Operators
Reputational damage
Project delays
Proposed staging strategy, including proposed entry and egress points have been Potential construction access locations, and
Staging takes into account access and TTMPs to demonstrate design can be constructed documented. have space proofed the boundary to allow
The arrangement will not allow Can be minimise through design
MVA caused be construction traffic entering safely for these to be developed further at the
62-M12ETW01 62 Construction Construction Construction M12ETW01 Site Access Collision due to unsafe access and egress into and out of the site deceleration and acceleration into Temporary Traffic Control Plans Major Likely High No not eliminated - refer suggested Contractor Major Unlikely Medium Contractor construction phase as these are information Transferred
and exiting the site
and out of the site access entry. mitigations docs to be finalised by contractors.
Potential for serious injury / death from Geotech analysis is required and stability check is to be undertaken prior to install.
- failure of structure Store away from assets until there is a need for them on site.
- heavy lifting with insufficient ground
Placing of material near/surrounding
Storage of materials and ensuring stable storage without the additional treatment etc. Ensure there is sufficient clearance for stockpile sites within material storage is needed prior
63-M12ETW01 63 Construction Construction Construction M12ETW01 All structures causing the ground to Severe Likely High No Contractor Severe Rare Medium Contractor Transferred
loading force on surrounding assets ie. Structures/Utiltiies Workers compensation / common law claims the design of site compound to ensure sufficient clearance. to install
settle unevenly
Reputational damage
Project delays
Proposed staging strategy, including proposed entry and egress points have been Potential construction access locations, and
Staging takes into account access and TTMPs to demonstrate design can be constructed documented. have space proofed the boundary to allow
Potential for serious injury / death Can be minimise through design
Unsafe access to areas to the site safely for these to be developed further at the
64-M12ETW01 64 Construction Construction Construction M12ETW01 Site Compounds Access to site compound areas once Elizabeth Drive works commence Workers compensation / common law claims Work in the access into construction staging. Major Likely High No not eliminated - refer suggested Contractor Major Unlikely Medium Contractor construction phase as these are information Transferred
compounds
SafeWork notices, fines and prosecutions mitigations docs to be finalised by contractors.
Dam assessment not undertaken and Potential for serious injury / death Adopt observational approach to monitor developing instability or excessive Investigations including sub-bottom profiling to be undertaken to understand buried
65-M12ETW01 65 Construction Construction Construction M12ETW01 Dams Slope instability from infilling of dams backfilled correctly Workers compensation / common law claims Serious Unlikely Medium No settlements Contractor sediment layers and thickness of sediments at the bottom of the dam Serious Unlikely Medium Contractor Transferred
Failing of partially filled dam. SafeWork notices, fines and prosecutions
High dust limiting visibility Contractor to implement dust suppresent techicques such as watering
66-M12ETW01 66 Construction Construction Construction M12ETW01 All Long period dry weather, shortage of water for dust control Distributing contaminants across Moderate Likely Medium No Contractor Moderate Unlikely Low Contractor Transferred
multiple sites and other areas.
67-M12ETW01 67 Construction Construction Construction M12ETW01 All Presence of snakes during construction and maintenance activities Snake Bite Workers compensation / common law claims SWMS to have review of snake bites. Serious Unlikely Medium No Suitable SWMS to be implemented to deal with Snake bites Contractor Serious Rare Low Contractor Transferred
SafeWork notices, fines and prosecutions Suitable PPE to be worn
M7/TMC/RMS Interface Agreement detailing restrictions. - TMC/RMS Interface Agreement detailing work hour restrictions, minimum lane The designers have specified the use of
- Traffic Switching/Staging Plan to be provided as for Information doc widths provided as Information Document in RFT temporary road safety barriers. Lane
- develop staging drawings to proves design can be constructed safely - Traffic Switching/Staging Plan provided as Information Document in RFT closures will be required at tie-ins, this will
Staging needs to be based on TMC minimum requirements e.g. agree what standard is - Construction staging strategy has specified the use of RMS temporary road safety need to be discussed with stakeholders.
to apply for each specific location: barriers to protect construction workers and road users.
- minimum lane widths (3.2m) The contractor to deveop a suitable
Errant vehicles strikes worker causing serious - minimum shoulder width (500mm) construction management plan
Insufficient spaces to construct new
injury / death - assumed speed limits
roads from behind a temporary road
Road Working on existing Vehicle strike with worker where road works can not be undertaken from Workers compensation / common law claims - Type of RMS approved Temporary Road Safety barrier being used to segregate traffic
68-M12ETW01 68 Road Construction Construction M12ETW01 safety barrier whilst maintaining Temporary Traffic Control Plans Severe Unlikely High Yes Contractor Severe Likely High Contractor Transferred
Construction alignments behind a temporary road safety barrier SafeWork notices, fines and prosecutions from work zones
existing traffic arrangement because
Reputational damage - Minimum length of barrier to achieve performance
of insufficient space being provided
Project delays - whether the barriers are pinned of requires deflection zones.
This need to be demonstrated at all locations where roadworks is occurring on or near
existing roads e.g.
- Elizabeth Drive
- Wallgrove Rd
- Ramps
Where relocation is required ensure coordination of services relocation is discussed Consulted with authorities when utilities are installed The Detailed designers have identified Contractor to ensure the utilities plan is
with utility owners e.g. lowest service relocated first - Identified utilities that potential contain asbestos utilities and potholed these. The utilities followed and updated accordingly throughout
- Utilise navisworks for clash detection. - Develop matrix of pavement depths and clearance requirements for different have been modelled in 3D with a construction
Excavation plant strikes/damages Potential for serious injury / death DBYD Develop a staging plan which ensures that the utilities staging of works is feasible with - Considered future upgrades in consultation with utility owners and accounted for protection/relocation strategy.
existing services during earthworks, Workers compensation / common law claims Permit to Break Ground the four traffic stages these in the design
Length of the pavement and drainage construction Damage to service Service location / Potholing of services prior to breaking Existing underground utilities - Pick up underground services (Survey / ground penetration services or non-
69-M12EUT01 69 Construction Utilities M12EUT01 alignment at interface Contact with existing services - General proximity due to services being located within SafeWork notices, fines and prosecutions ground Severe Likely High No along alignment and within the Designer destructive trench excavation of an area if practical) and overlay into Utility Drawings Severe Rare Medium Contractor Transferred
with existing roads alignment, in pavements widening / Reputational damage Plant operators and workers who have potential to encroach road corridors to be upgrades potential impacted
existing roads and/or crossing Project delays safety clearance requirements are trained in the utility owner Utilised Navisworks for clash detection
drainage lines to be constructed requirements for working in close proximity to utility - Where relocation is required design information of new alignment and required level
of relocated services has been proided to the utility owners
Integrated staging plan developed which ensures that the utilities staging of works is
feasible with the four traffic stages
Electrical Lines on Insufficent isolation and poor Potential for serious injury / death Isolation pannels to be turned off. Utlities have been clearly identified on plans
70-M12EUT01 70 Construction Utilities M12EUT01 Electrocution of construction workers duing decomissioning Severe Unlikely High Yes Adequate constuction methodology applied for the asset decomissioning Contractor Severe Rare Medium Contractor Transferred
Elizabeth Drive construction methodology
Future water and electrical supply to Consulted with authorities requiring future expansion eg DA stite has allowed space for the utilties of Wallgrove Rd Ongoing design checks and amendments being
Elizabeth Drive
Insufficient space to construct new utilities under / adjacent to new new developments not allowed for in Traffic interruptions during construction Can be minimises but not totally - Identified spatial requirements for future utilities the design has been futureproofed and 3d model checked. undertaken
71-M12EUT01 71 Modification Utilities M12EUT01 interface and upgrade Major Unlikely Medium No Designer Major Unlikely Medium Designer Open
structures the alignment along / crossing Main utilities located under main carriage ways eliminated - Identified and agree location on new utilities in the new alignment
works
Elizabeth Drive - Located utilities outside of the main carriage way e.g. in service roads
- Actual settlement greater than Adopt observational approach to validate embankment performance and monitor Review regularly throughout the construction of the project and flag any discrepancies
design Carry out additional geotechnical investigations developing instability or excessive settlements for corrective actions.
predictions - Unforeseen/adverse Pavement failure causing road accidents, to characterise ground conditions Treatments to be designed Can be minimised through
Excessive long term settlement and pavement
72-M12EGE05 72 Geotech Operations Geotech M12EGE05 All Earthworks ground conditions vehicle damage to meet Minor Likely Low No compliant/sufficient geotechnical Review regularly throughout the construction of the project and flag any discrepancies Designer/TfNSW Minor Unlikely Low TfNSW/Contractor Transferred
deformation for corrective actions.
- Poor embankment and traffic disruption requirements for residual and differential design not eliminated
design/construction settlement limits.
techniques
Carry out additional geotechnical investigations Adopt observational approach to validate embankment performance and monitor Carry out additional geotechnical investigations to characterise ground conditions
to characterise ground conditions - Embankments to be developing instability or excessive settlements Embankments to be designed to meet requirements for stability
designed to meet Appropriate foundation treatments in accordance with RMS Specification R44.
- Unforeseen/adverse ground Review regularly throughout the construction of the project and flag any discrepancies
requirements for stability - Construction phase surveillance
conditions Can be minimised through for corrective actions.
(CPS) by a
73-M12EGE05 73 Geotech ALL Geotech M12EGE05 All Earthworks Embankment instability/collapse - Poor embankment Serious injury or fatality and road closure Severe Unlikely High No compliant/sufficient geotechnical Contractor Severe Rare Medium Contractor Transferred
geotechnical professional to identify actual
design/construction design not eliminated
ground conditions encountered during
techniques
excavations and validate selection of
appropriate foundation treatments in
accordance with RMS Specification R44.
Understand construction staging and impacts on selection of foundation treatments Ensure contractor is aware of all geotechnical factors on site.
Provide adequate temporary works design for Appropriate foundation treatments in accordance with RMS Specification R44.
- Incorrect construction staging - Lack
Collapse of excavations required for shallow embankment excavation support. Construction phase surveillance (CPS) by a Can be minimised through
of appropriately designed excavation
74-M12EGE05 74 Geotech Operations Geotech M12EGE05 All Earthworks construction adjacent to live traffic - impact on existing Serious injury or fatality and road closure geotechnical professional to identify actual Severe Likely High No compliant/sufficient geotechnical Designer Severe Rare Medium Contractor Transferred
support - Poor ground
roads/structures ground conditions encountered during design not eliminated
conditions/shallow groundwater
excavations.
- Actual settlement greater than Identify known utilities on design drawings. Estimate predicted settlements, carry out Identify known utilities on design drawings. Estimate predicted settlements, carry out
design an asset damage risk assessment and interface with asset owners. an asset damage risk assessment and interface with asset owners.
Relocation of services where practically
predictions - Poor embankment Can be minimised through
Excessive differential settlement in the vicinity of utilities and near Utility asset damage, disruption of services to possible. Ground improvement design to limit
75-M12EGE05 75 Geotech Operations Geotech M12EGE05 All Earthworks design/construction Severe Likely High No compliant/sufficient geotechnical Review regularly throughout the construction of the project and flag any discrepancies Designer/Contractor Severe Rare Medium Contractor Transferred
protection slab and pavement interface community differential settlements and consider proximity for corrective actions.
techniques - Lack of coordination with design not eliminated
to existing utilities.
asset owner design
requirements
. There is a need to ensure that There is a need to ensure that the contractor reviews and designs their platforms Temporary works be to designed by
the contractor reviews and appropriatly for the desired purpose. contractor.
Temporary Bearing failure of working platform supporting crane - Poor ground conditions - Inadequate Implement appropriate temporary works
76-M12EGE05 76 Geotech Construction Geotech M12EGE05 Serious injury or fatality Severe Likely High No designs their platforms Contractor Severe Rare Medium Contractor Transferred
Works operations or plant/machinery working platform design procedures
appropriatly for the desired Review regularly throughout the construction of the project and flag any discrepancies
purpose. for corrective actions.
Ensure temporary and permanent works There is a need to ensure that the contractor reviews and designs their platforms Temporary works be to designed by
designs are aligned. Integrate permanent Can be minimised through appropriatly for the desired purpose. contractor.
Lack of interface between temporary
77-M12EGE05 77 Geotech Construction Geotech M12EGE05 Temporary Works Rework caused by inefficient temporary works design Cost and time implications works into temporary works design where Severe Likely High No compliant/sufficient geotechnical Contractor Severe Rare Medium Contractor Transferred
and permanent works designs
possible - consider pavement, drainage, design not eliminated Review regularly throughout the construction of the project and flag any discrepancies
foundation treatment requirements for corrective actions.
Follow Best practice guides outlined by TfNSW for Batter Stabilisation methodologies Example cut batters on ED are designed for 2:1
Can be minimised through
Inappropriate batter slopes or Clashes causing vehicle damage or personal Cut batter slopes generally designed at 2H:1V slope, with M7 Exit ramp flattened from 1.5:1 to 4:1
78-M12EGE05 78 Geotech Operations Geotech M12EGE05 All Debris on road way from eroded steep batters Major Likely High No compliant/sufficient geotechnical Designer Major Unlikely Medium Designer Closed
treatments injury revegetation treatments specified Follow the guidelines of Batter stabilisation, with specification and detailing of the
design not eliminated
correct application for the project
Correct tree selection for situations Design to specify all trees outside of the clear zone Yet to be developed to this level of detail.
Tree planting of a non-frangible
Non-Frangible Planting Offset - Trees must be planted outside of the Follow the design documentation and requirements outlined
79-M12ELA01 79 Landscaping Construction Landscaping M12ELA01 All species within the impact zone Potential for serious injury/death Severe Unlikely High Yes Designer Severe Rare Medium Designer Open
offset zones as listed within the road safety audit in the road safety audit
increases risk of collision with vehicles
Incorrect application of batter Potential for moderate injury or common law Follow Best practice guides outlined by TfNSW for Batter Stabilisation methodologies Follow the guidelines of Batter stabilisation, with specification and detailing of the
80-M12ELA01 80 Landscaping Construction Landscaping M12ELA01 All 2:1 Batters collapse Severe Unlikely High Yes Designer Severe Rare Medium Designer Closed
stabilisation method claims correct application for the project
Maintenance regime to be followed to ensure shared user path is kept clear of any Planting design to place trees away from SUP within garden beds where feasible Documentation to outline a minimum Yet to be developed to this level of detail.
Limb drop onto SUP may cause hazard for debris that may have come from nearby trees or planting distance from the SUP etc.
81-M12ELA01 81 Landscaping Operations Landscaping M12ELA01 SUP Limb drop from trees onto SUP Weather events Major Unlikely Medium Yes Designer Major Rare Medium TfNSW Open
cyclists riding and possibly crash Trees within the design to ensure they are planted with sufficient distance away from
the SUP.
Weather events may cause trees to Maintenance regime to ensure the access tracks are kept clear of vegetation No trees to be planted within the maintenance tracks To be included within the contract docs for
82-M12ELA01 82 Landscaping Maintenance Landscaping M12ELA01 Maintenance Tracks Maintain maintenance track clear of debris and vegetation growth block the maintenance tracks or Limit or make difficult access to infrastructure Serious Likely Medium Yes overgrowth and access is viable TfNSW Serious Rare Low TfNSW areas within the project area. Transferred
overgrowth of vegetation
WSP has developed a constructable design Contractor to review design and ensure that
Access across new or existing Utilities Total elimination is not possible,
Impact to utililties causing outages or cutting to ensure that there is sufficient space for any changes required to the construction
83-M12EUT01 83 Utilities Construction Utilities M12EUT01 Elizabeth Dr Damage to utilities from construction loading will be required for large piling Major Unlikely Medium No however risk can be significantly Contractor Serious Likely Medium Contractor Transferred
off critical construction. layout are taken into account and developed as
rigs,etc, reduced with mitigation.
required.
Contractor to clearly detail entry and exits of compound sites along with WSP has developed a constructable design Contractor to review design and ensure that
Total elimination is not possible,
Insufficient allowance for pedestrian to ensure that there is sufficient space for any changes required to the construction
84-M12ETW01 84 Construction Construction Construction M12ETW01 Elizabeth Dr Pedestrian struck by vehicle entering or exiting site compound Potential for serious injury / death Severe Unlikely High No however risk can be significantly Contractor Severe Rare Medium Contractor Transferred
access to site compound. construction. layout are taken into account and developed as
reduced with mitigation.
required.
Proposed staging strategy, including proposed entry and egress points have been
documented.
- EDR will be staged activity and will require speed and standsrd/rule compliance
. Agreeing on speed reduction measures for the duration of the construction works
Advance notification to be given to affected stakeholders in regard to construction
Confused road users entering construction sites or unknowingly making Insufficient signage and poor Potential for serious injury / death via crash or - advanced warning that there is new conditions that the user will need to work
85-M12ETW01 85 Construction Construction Construction M12ETW01 Elizabeth Dr Severe Unlikely High No Contractor staging. Severe Rare Medium Contractor Transferred
manouveres communication of construction works entering an unsafe area. around.
- There will be multiple traffic switches to get from the round about arrangement to
the final arrangement. This may effect road users familiarity with the area.
Based on TfNSW direction no additional mitigations have been implemented. TfNSW - given that this area is between two TfNSW to review advice and monitor ongoing
intersections (therefore drivers should be operations of the road
alert), road is fully lit and the road geometry
Area is between two intersections (therefore drivers should Elimination is possible locally to meets design standards, we deem that the
Other vehicles travelling on the road (particularly those travelling in the Provision of suitale barrier treatment or re-direct kerb in the median to prevent errant
Insufficient clearzone width in Potential for serious injury / death via head on be alert) the chainage, however not risk is not high. In addition with the lower
86-M12ERW01 86 Civil Operations Civil M12ERW01 Elizabeth Dr opposite direction) present a significant hazard to errant vehicles Severe Unlikely High Yes vehicles impacting opposing vehicles Designer Severe Unlikely High TfNSW Open
median for vehilce recovery crash Road is fully lit and the road geometry meets design possible in areas outside of this operating speed of 70km/h the
between Ch625 to Ch1000 on Elizabeth Drive
standards, due to proximity to intersections consequence is lower. In view of this, a
Operating speed of 70km/h . median barrier is not warranted in this
stretch of road.
- Extending project boundary so that it's possible to lift the road level above 1% AEP Detention basins upstream of CLVT-EDR-01 and CLVT-EDR-02 to provide storage Awaiting TfNSW to confirm design approach to
flood level. - provided 2x low outflow pipes (225m Diameter) for detention basins be adopted at this condition (RFI-0060)
Elizabeth Dr- Western Road users travelling on the westbound carriage- not safe for passenger Overtopping of flood water on the Traffic disruption, vehicle damage due to Floodwaters also affected the westbound carraigeway in Constraint due to existing road
87-M12ESD02 87 Flooding Operations Civil M12ESD02 Moderate Unlikely Low No - Increase volume of upstream storage to provide 1%AEP flood immunity TfNSW & designer Minor Unlikely Low TfNSW Open
Tie In vehicles westbound carriageway in 10%AEP westbound road users entering flood waters. 10%AEP in existing condition levels at the Western Tie -In
- Increase number of barrerls at CLVT-EDR-01 and CLVT-EDR-02 to achieve flood free
condition in 10%AEP
Page 3 of 4


22

4
1 5 8 15 21
Risk level
Risk level
/N
10
11
12
16
17
18
9
DRAWING / REFERENCE
Deep basins, channels & culvert inlet/ outlet work ( deeper than 1.2-1.3 Slip and trip safety issue for flatter (3H:1V to 6H:1V) cut/fill slope provided in design Not enough space everywhere
88-M12ESD01 88 Drainage Operations Civil M12ESD01 All Potential for serious injury Serious Likely Medium No Fencing to be provided around deep basins, channels , culvert inlet and outlet works Designer Minor Unlikely Low TfNSW Open
m) maintenance personnel wherever possible for providing flatter slopes
• The leaves themselves have been designed with a vandal load in the event of
climbing.
• Location and orientation:
o SUP near the leaf structure is designed as a separated path and the structure is
located away from the main SUP route.
o The supports are also located 'outside the main circulation area and will be
covered by landscape.
o The leaves have been located strategically around the node along the outside
Leaf Structure to be constructed away from the formal SUP. SUP near the Leaf edge of the main habitable zone, which will reduce the potential access to the leaf
Total elimination is not possible, structure.
Elizabeth Dr Climbable structure that potentially has a risk of falling from the leaf Potential for serious injury due to falls from Detailed designer of the leaf structure to consider designs to Structure to be designed as a seperated path. Adequate urban design treatment to be TfNSW/
89-M12EMS05 89 Leaf Structure Operations Structures M12EMS05 Accessible frame that is traversable. Serious Probable High No however risk can be reduced Designer o The foundations of the leaf have also been located outside the node footprint Serious Unlikely Medium Transferred
Westbound canopy structure height (nominally up to 2.5m). deter climbing. followed to reduce accessibility to climb the structure. Consideration of other Operator
with mitigation. which will reduce access to the leaf structure
deterrents to climbing the leaf structures.
• Profile and configuration:
o The profile of the leaf structure is undulated and does not have continuous
straight sections (with 'twisted' shapes for the veins' and them being pipes) thereby
serving as a deterrent for climbing.
o The additional components of the leaf such as the perforations are configured
in an amorphous manner which would further act as a deterrent for climbing.
• Landscaping in the form of native plating has been provided around the leaf base
which will cover any potentially accessible areas of the leaf structure that meet the
ground.
Page 4 of 4
APPENDIX F
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
REGISTER
Design Lot Compliance
Env Mitigation Measures (updated based on Response to Status (Complies (C), Non-
Impact Ref Responsibility Timing Design Comments 80% RS31 and RS32
Submissions Report for Amendment Report) Compliance (NC), Not
Applicable (NA), Pending)
Removal of native
The extent of vegetation clearing for the M12 EDC project as a whole will be
vegetation, Native vegetation, threatened species and threatened species habitat
documented in the Vegetation Clearing Report prepared in accordance with
threatened removal will be minimised where practicable through detailed design. This
B03 Contractor Detailed design Pending PS311 (Clause 2.7). Opportunities to minimise vegetation clearing will be
species, and will include avoiding the nest and surrounds of the White-bellied Sea-
identified and assessed as detailed design progresses. The White-bellied
threatened Eagle, where practicable.
Sea-Eagle nest is not associated with M12 EDC (it is part of M12 West).
species habitat
Creek adjustments will be investigated and removed or minimised during

No Creeks or waterways will require adjustment as a result of the detailed
Aquatic impacts B13 detailed design where feasible. Proposed creek adjustments will be Contractor Detailed design Not Applicable
design of M12 EDC.
designed such that they result in minimal changes to flow velocities.
Creek corridors will be revegetated with locally native riparian vegetation,

in accordance with the requirements of the Policy and guidelines for fish
The retaining wall / structures design package does not impact any existing
habitat conservation and management (DPI, 2013) and in consideration
Aquatic impacts B14 TfNSW / Contractor During construction Not Applicable creeks /waterways within M12EDC.. Note - Construction Contractor to refer
of the Guidelines for instream works on waterfront land (DPI, 2012b). The
to detailed design package for Urban Design and Landscaping (M12ELA01).
creek channels will be rehabilitated to preconstruction conditions or
better.
Bridge pier locations within instream (main waterway channel) or on

creek banks will be avoided during detailed design at the South Creek, The retaining wall / structures design package does not impact any existing
Aquatic impacts B15 Cosgroves Creek, Badgerys Creek and Kemps Creek crossings. Where Contractor Detailed design Not Applicable creeks / waterways within M12 EDC. The Creeks identified in REMM B15
avoidance is not possible, further biodiversity assessment will be are not located in the M12 EDC project area.
required.
Permanent and temporary waterway crossings will be designed and

constructed to maintain fish passage in accordance with Why do Fish The retaining wall / structure design package does involve any permanent or
Need to Cross the Road? Fish Passage Requirements for Waterway temporary waterway crossings. Note - Temporary waterway crossings would
Aquatic impacts B17 Contractor During construction Not Applicable
Crossings (Fairfull and Witheridge, 2003). Crossing types should be be designed and constructed by the appointed Construction Contractor (if
matched to waterway type as per Table 1 in Fairfull and Witheridge required).
(2003)
The retaining structures will have minimal impact on water flows associated
with groundwater dependent ecosystems. The reinforced soil block of
structures RS31 and RS32 will be embedded approximately 0.5-1.0m below
Groundwater the existing ground level. No groundwater has been observed based on
Interruptions to water flows associated with groundwater dependent
Dependent B21 Contractor Detailed design Complies previously completed geotechnical investigations (completed by others) at
ecosystems will be minimised through detailed design.
Ecosystems boreholes near RS31 and RS32. Note - The groundwater system associated
with the M12 EDC has been identified by the EIS/AR as a bedrock
groundwater system (as opposed to an alluvial groundwater system)
associated with the Wianamatta Group Shale and Hawkesbury Sandstone.
The retaining structures (i.e. walls) will have a minimal impact on surface
water flows. Further to this, surface drainage system has been designed
around the walls to capture and contol surface flows. Note - Refer to the
Changes to Changes to existing surface water flows will be minimised through
B22 Contractor Detailed design Complies M12 EDC Hydrology and Hydraulics Assessment Report (M12ESD02) for
hydrology detailed design.
detailed assessment of hydrology and flood modelling of M12 EDC detailed
design.
Connectivity measures will be implemented in accordance with Wildlife

Fragmentation of
Connectivity Guidelines for Road Projects (Roads and Maritime, under Not applicable to the detailed design of retaining structures (walls) RS31 and
identified
preparation). Fencing will be located to reduce roadkill of fauna species RS32. Note - A dedicated fauna culvert (beneath the new section of
biodiversity links B23 Contractor Detailed design Not Applicable
and funnel animals to creek crossings where safe passage will be Wallgrove Road) and an arboreal mammal crossing (over the new section of
and habitat
available. Detailed design is to retain fauna passage at all four main Wallgrove Road) will form part of the M12 EDC detailed design.
corridors
creek lines (Cosgroves, South, Kemps and Badgerys Creeks).
Exclusion zones will be set up at the limit of clearing in accordance with

Edge effects on Biodiversity Guidelines: Protecting and managing biodiversity on RTA
adjacent native projects (RTA, 2011) (Guide 2: Exclusion zones). Exclusion zones will be Retaining structures (walls) RS31 and RS32 are not located within or near
B24 Contractor During construction Not Applicable
vegetation and set up to protect potential indirect impacts to threatened flora in any established exclusion zones.
habitat accordance with the areas identified in the EIS and the amendment
report (including Figure 1-2 of Appendix A of the amendment report).
The retained height and length of structures (retaining walls) have been kept
Shading impacts will be minimised through detailed design of bridge and
to the minimum necessary utilising battered slopes where possible in order to
Noise, light and culvert structures. The need for artificial lighting during construction and Detailed design and
B28 Contractor Complies reduce potential shading impacts. Note - This specific requirement will also
vibration operation will be minimised through detailed design where feasible, during construction
be addresed via relevant M12 EDC bridge and culvert design pacakges as
including directing lighting away from vegetated areas where practicable.
well as the Street Lighting Design pacakge prepared for M12 EDC.
Note -TfNSW engaged Arcadis to undertake the additional surveys for plants
of Pimelea spicata. Arcadis undertool the additional surveys in March, April
and June 2021. No plants of Pimelea spicata were detected. Ref: Arcadis
letter report dated 28 June 2021 Re: M12 CoA E8: Additional surveys of
Pimelea spicata. Note - Arcadis also undertook Threatened Species Spring
Additional targeted surveys for Pimelea spicata will be conducted in Surveys in September, October, November and December 2021 (ref: Arcadis
optimal conditions, as defined by NSW Bionet Threatened Biodiversity report dated 17 February 2022, M12 Motorway Threatened Species Spring
Identification of Profile Data Collection (DPIE). Pimelea spicata must be surveyed at least Detailed design and Survey).The population of Pultenaea parviflora plants in Western Sydney
B29 TfNSW Complies
Threatened Species three occasions, with each occasion at least a month apart unless the prior to construction Parklands and WSP modified M12 EDC construction boundary contains 74
species is found prior. A reference population must also be surveyed on stems. Of these, 62 individual stems are within the biocertified area of the
each occasion. South West Growth Centre and are not subject to an offset requirement.
There are 12 individual stems are outside the biocertified area of the WSP
modified M12 EDC construction boundary and these are required to be
offset. There is no difference to Pultenaea parviflora impact from the WSP
50% Detailed Design or 80% Detailed Design. The impact to this species
has not changed with the design refinements.
Opportunities to further minimise native vegetation clearing and drainage The extent of vegetation clearing for the M12 EDC project as a whole will be
Biodiversity impacts line impacts from the Wallgrove Road realignment will be investigated. documented in the Vegetation Clearing Report prepared in accordance with
due to the Opportunities for investigation will include, but will not be limited to Detailed design and PS311 (Clause 2.7). Opportunities to minimise vegetation clearing will be
B30 TfNSW Pending
Wallgrove Road changing the height of the road, steepening of batters and/or the use of prior to construction identified and assessed as detailed design progresses. Note - Refer to
realignment retaining wall structures and moving the horizontal alignment closer to Roadworks Design Package(M12ERW01) for details regarding design of new
the new proposed southern road reserve boundary. section of Wallgrove Road.
Changes to bus stops will be implemented in consultation with TfNSW, Not Applicable to detailed design of Retaining Structures (walls) RS31 and
Prior to construction,
Construction relevant councils, and relevant bus operators. Alternate temporary bus RS32. Note - M12 EDC detailed design (via Construction Staging Strategy
during
transport and TT02 stops will be provided with appropriate signage to direct commuters. Safe Contractor Not Applicable Report - M12EDD-WSP-ALL-TW-RPT-000001) provides details of impacts to
construction and after
traffic access will be provided in accordance with relevant safety and existing bus stops. Note - TfNSW is currently in discussion with bus
construction
accessibility standards. companies.
Impacts on M7 Prior to Not Applicable to detailed design of Retaining Structures (walls) RS31 and
Consultation will be carried out with the operators of the M7 Motorway to
Motorway traffic construction, during RS32. Note - No additional haulage routes are required for the construction
TT04 develop measures to manage the potential impacts of construction within TfNSW / Contractor Not Applicable
and shared user construction and after of the M12EDC detailed deisgn. Haulage routes as identified by the EIS/AR
the operating M7 Motorway corridor.
path users construction process (i.e. Elizabeth Drive, Wallgrove Road and M7 Motorway).
Retaining Structures (walls) RS31 and RS32 will not impact upon shared
user path routes or M7 road traffic. Note - Refer Roadworks design package
TfNSW will continue to work with Western Sydney Parklands Trust to
(M12ERW01). As per scope of M12 EDC detailed design, offroad shared
support the delivery of a shared user path within Western Sydney
user path have been proposed and designed between the intersction with
Parklands to connect from Range Road to the existing M7 Motorway
Impacts on M7 EDR and M12 EB exit ramp from the west until little east from the existing M7
shared user path.
Motorway traffic Detailed design and Bridge over Elizabeth Dr. This proposed SUP connects the existing SUP
TT05 If it is determined during consultation that the shared user path TfNSW Not Applicable
and shared user during construction adjacent to M7 motorway near the intersection between EDR and M7 SB
connection through the Western Sydney Parklands will not be delivered,
path users ramp to the south side of EDR. Note - As per TfNSW's advice, further to the
Roads and Maritime will provide an alternative alignment for the shared
west from the EDR and M12 EB exit ramp intersection upto the Range Rd,
user path in this section via either Elizabeth Drive, or alongside the M12
offroad SUP will be designed and constructed during the future Elizabeth Dr
Motorway from Range Road to the M7 shared user path network.
upgarde project. Note - The shared user path connection through Western
Sydney Parklands will also be implemented by TfNSW-WSPT.
Existing property access would be maintained at all times.

Any changes to access arrangements or alternative access that are Note - Potential impacts to property access associated with retaining
necessary during construction will be done with consultation with the structures RS31 and RS31 will be managed and resolved via the Property
Detailed design, prior
Impacts on landowner. Any changes to access will provide the same equivalent pre- Adjustment Plans to be prepared as part of WSP's detailed design scope fo
TT07 TfNSW / Contractor to construction and Pending
property access existing level of access unless agreed to by the land owner works. Pending - Detailed design package (M12EPJ01) Property
during construction
Property access that is physically affected by the project will be Adjustments. Note - TfNSW is responsible for consulting with affected
reinstated to at least an equivalent standard, in consultation with the landowners.
landowner.
Traffic signals will be coordinated to minimise congestion and manage Not Applicable for retaining structures RS31 and RS32. Note - Refer to
Operational traffic TT09 TfNSW Detailed design Not Applicable
traffic flows. Roadworks design package (M12ERW01) and Appendix L.
Investigate and develop an appropriate traffic solution to manage the

Impacts on
expected traffic delays during construction in the vicinity of Devonshire Not Applicable to WSP
Devonshire Road
TT10 Road. The options considered and the preferred solution will be TfNSW / Contractor Prior to construction Detailed Design Scope of Note - Devonshire Road is not associated with the M12 EDC project.
traffic during
documented in a memo and then implemented through the CTTMP for Works.
construction
the project.
Impacts on views
and landscape A detailed Landscape Plan will be prepared for the project and
Detailed design, prior Not Applicable for retaining structures RS31 and RS32. Note - As part of
character from implemented throughout construction. The plan will guide the
LVIA02 Contractor to construction and Not Applicable M12 EDC detailed design, an separate Urban Design and Landscape
construction and implementation of measures to minimise landscape character and visual
during construction Package has been prepared (M12ELA01).
operation of the impacts, including revegetation requirements.
project
Impacts on views
and landscape Existing vegetation within the construction footprint will be retained and The extent of vegetation clearing for the M12 EDC project as a whole will be
character from protected where possible. This includes densely vegetated areas such as Detailed design and documented in the Vegetation Clearing Report prepared in accordance with
LVIA03 Contractor Pending
construction and remnant riparian forests and Cumberland Woodlands in Western Sydney during construction PS311 (Clause 2.7). Opportunities to minimise vegetation clearing will be
operation of the Parkland. identified and assessed as detailed design progresses.
project
Impacts on views
Site levels and grades for the project will integrate with the surrounding
and landscape
terrain to help the visual assimilation of the project into the surrounding Not Applicble for retaining structures (walls) RS31 and RS32. This
character from
LVIA04 landscape where practicable. Engineer slopes with gradients no steeper Contractor Detailed design Not Applicable requirement will be addressed in the Roadworks Detailed Design package for
construction and
than 3H:1V where possible to maximise the establishment of vegetation M12 EDC (M12ERW01) and Interim Western Tie-In (M12ETW02).
operation of the
on these batters and allow for appropriate maintenance.
project
Not Applicable for retaining structures RS31 and RS32. Note - TfNSW's
appointed noise and vibration consultant for M12 (GHD) has recently
received an updated model of M12 EDC from WSP and will re-run the
Impacts on views
noise/vibration model. Note - TfNSW has not provided any formal direction
and landscape
in relation to operational noise mitigation measures for M12 EDC (e.g.
character from Where noise mitigation such as noise barriers are required, they will be
LVIA06 Contractor Detailed design Not Applicable pavement types, noise mounds or noise walls) to date. Note - The need for
construction and designed with the aim of minimising visual impacts.
operational noise mitigation measures as part of M12 EDC detailed design
operation of the
will be reviewed following the completion of the noise model re-run by GHD.
project
Note - If required, noise barriers will be subject to Urban Design to minimise
visual impact as per Urban Design and Landscape Design package
(M12ELA01).
Temporary and permanent lighting will be designed and implemented with

consideration of:
Impacts on views •The need to orientate lighting to minimise light spill and glare impacts on
and landscape nearby receivers Not Applicable for retaining stuctures RS31 and RS32. Permanent lighting
character from •The need to minimise vandalism and maintenance requirements requirements for M12 EDC will be detailed in the Street Lighting Design
LVIA07 Contractor to construction and Not Applicable
construction and •Requirements of the National Airports Safeguarding Framework (NASF) Package. Note - the design and implementation of temporary lighting needs
during construction
operation of the (National Airports Safeguarding Advisory Group, n.d.) for operational will be responsibility of the apppointed Construction Contractor.
project lighting
•Opportunities to implement sustainability initiatives in design such as
energy efficient or solar lighting.
Note - The findings and recommendation of the Aboriginal cultural heritage

design process managed by Balarinji will be incorporated into the Urban
The findings and recommendation of the Aboriginal cultural heritage Design and Landscape package being prepared for M12 EDC (ref:
Urban design design process managed by Balarinji will be incorporated into the urban M12ELA01). Note - the visible wall facing components of RS31 and R32 will
LVIA09 TfNSW / Contractor to construction and Complies
elements design and implemented as part of the project, including interpretive be finished as per the requirements developed and documented in the M12
during construction
initiatives. EDC Urban Design and Landscape Package (M12ELA01) this includes
vertical dummy joints and integral colour (oxide pigment) for the reinforced
soil panels.
Not Applicable for retaining stuctures RS31 and RS32. Refer to Urban
Design and Landscape Package for M12EDC (M12ELA01). Retaining
Structures (walls) RS31 and RS32 will not impact upon shared user path
Shared user paths to be delivered as part of the project will not preclude routes or M7 road traffic. Note - Refer Roadworks design package
connections to future open space corridors and land use as identified in (M12ERW01). As per scope of M12 EDC detailed design, offroad shared
the Western Sydney Land Use and Infrastructure Implementation Plan user path have been proposed and designed between the intersction with
Urban design (LUIIP) (DPE 2018). Where further design of adjacent open space EDR and M12 EB exit ramp from the west until little east from the existing M7
LVIA10 TfNSW / Contractor Detailed design Not Applicable
elements corridors is undertaken, shared user paths will be provided to connect at Bridge over Elizabeth Dr. This proposed SUP connects the existing SUP
an appropriate location. Shared user paths will be designed to be located adjacent to M7 motorway near the intersection between EDR and M7 SB
away from road-side edges to provide an immersive landscape ramp to the south side of EDR. Note - As per TfNSW's advice, further to the
experience for pedestrians and cyclists, where possible. west from the EDR and M12 EB exit ramp intersection upto the Range Rd,
offroad SUP will be designed and constructed during the future Elizabeth Dr
upgarde project. Note - The shared user path connection through Western
Sydney Parklands will also be implemented by TfNSW-WSPT.
Highly visible elements of the project including potential noise barriers,

retaining walls, bridge structures and urban design material selection will Note - the visible wall facing components of RS31 and R32 will be finished
Urban design be designed to satisfy functional requirements and adopt the design as per the requirements developed and documented in the M12 EDC Urban
LVIA12 Contractor Detailed design Complies
elements principles detailed in the M12 Motorway EIS Landscape Character, Design and Landscape Package (M12ELA01) which includes vertical dummy
Visual Impact Assessment and Urban Design Report. The proposed joints and integral colour (oxide pigment) for the reinforced soil panels.
designs will be documented in the relevant UDLP for the project.
The two retaining structures (walls) RS31 and RS32 will be of the same wall
Urban design Consider a standard design for retaining walls and major structures type (RSW with L-shape cast in situ barrier foundation and medium
LVIA13 Contractor Detailed design Complies
elements across the project, to present a coordinated ‘suite of elements’ performance barrier on top). Both walls will have reinforced earth concrete
panels with the same urban design pattern.
Incorporated CPTED measures include:

- Maintain clear sight lines for visual transparency along the full length of the
The project must consider CPTED principles during detailed design to wall
minimise safety risks to all users. The project must carry out periodic - Avoid abrupt transitions at interfaces and transitions at ends of the walls
Safety in design LVIA14 Contractor Detailed design Complies
CPTED reviews by a qualified professional and implement any additional - Avoid hidden pockets or black spots to reduce the occurrence of illegal
recommendations where reasonable and feasible. activity.
- Clear sight lines alert users to be aware of oncoming pedestrian/cyclist
traffic.
A tree management strategy will be prepared for the project, outlining:

•Measures to minimise tree removal to retain and protect as many trees
within the construction footprint as reasonable and feasible
•Measures to avoid damage to trees that are to be retained within the
construction footprint to ensure the maintenance of health and stability of
the trees in accordance with AS4970-2009 Protection of trees on
development sites
Note - The extent of vegetation clearing for the M12 EDC project as a whole
•Requirements for the pruning of trees to be carried out by a suitably
will be documented in the Vegetation Clearing Report prepared in
qualified person in accordance with AS 4373-2007 Pruning of amenity
accordance with PS311 (Clause 2.7). Opportunities to minimise vegetation
Revegetation and trees Detailed design and
LVIA15 Contractor Pending clearing will be identified and assessed (as part of the Vegetation Clearing
landscaping •Consideration of maintenance requirements and safety standards prior to construction
Report) as detailed design progresses. Note - The appointed Construction
•Requirements for the replacement trees where removal cannot be
Contractor will be required to prepare the Tree Management Strategy
avoided including:
required by LVIA15.
–Net increase in the number of trees (not identified as within an EEC)
–Where it is not practicable to plant trees in the operational footprint an
alternative location will be identified in consultation with relevant councils
and in consideration of future development in the local area
–Minimum pot size in accordance with part 3.2.1 (Rural road reserves) in
the Roads and Maritime Landscape Guideline (2018b) subject to long-
term viability of the plant.
Revegetation for the project will consider the land use requirements of Not applicable for retaining structures (RS31 and RS32). Revegetation for
Revegetation and the National Airports Safeguarding Framework (NASF) (National Airports M12 EDC will be addressed in the Urban Design and Landscape package
LVIA16 Contractor Detailed design Not Applicable
landscaping Safeguarding Advisory Group, n.d.) to minimise the risk of wildlife strikes (M12ELA01). Confirmation pending as to whether the NASF applies to M12
at the Western Sydney Airport. EDC given it distance from WSIA.
Not Applicable to WSP Detailed Design Scope of Works. Note - Given that
Carry out appropriate soil analysis and identify soil preparation
topsoil will be stripped and stockpiled by the Construction Contractor, the
Revegetation and requirements for landscaping treatments to inform the Urban Design and Detailed design and
LVIA17 Contractor Not Applicable optimum time to undertake soil analysis and preparation assessment is prior
landscaping Landscaping Plan and vegetation management in accordance with Roads during construction
to the re-use of topsoil during the construction phase as the condition of
and Maritime’s Batter Surface Stabilisation Guideline (2015b).
topsoil can change as a result of stripping and storage in stockpiles.
Species selected for landscaping will consider species that are resilient Not applicable for retaining structures (RS31 and RS32). Revegetation for
Revegetation and
LVIA18 to future modelled climatic conditions and are suitable for establishment Contractor Detailed Design Not Applicable M12 EDC will be addressed in the Urban Design and Landscape package
landscaping
on road embankments (M12ALE01).
A Personal Manager - Acquisition (PMA) will be appointed to assist

landowners and residents who may be affected by acquisition
Property acquistion
SLP03 requirements for the project. The PMA will provide ongoing support for TfNSW Detailed design Not Applicable Not Applicable to WSP Detailed Design Scope of Works.
and lease
relocated persons, including dispute resolution and counselling, and
provision of contact information for relevant services.
Property adjustments, including replacement of farm infrastructure (such Note - property adjustments (including access) associated with retaining
Property acquistion as fencing) and relocation of property access, prior to work that impact Prior to construction, structures (walls) RS31 and RS32 are managed via the Property
SLP04 Contractor / TfNSW Complies
and lease the property will be carried out in consultation with property owners/ during construction Adjustments (M12EPJ01) for M12EDC. Note - TfNSW is responsible for
business managers. consultation with property owners / business managers.
Not applicable for retaining structures (RS31 and RS32). The requirements
of REMM SLP05 will be addressed via the Utilities Coordination / Utilities
The project will be designed with the aim of minimising impacts on
Management deign package (M12EUT01) noting there are a number of
Utility impacts SLP05 existing utilities and services, in consultation with utility owners and/or Contractor / TfNSW Detailed design Complies
existing utilities that need to be relocated prior to construction of RS31 and
providers of services where feasible and reasonable.
RS32 as part of the road formation widening/realignment component of the
project.
Appointed Construction Contractor will be responsible for implementing the

Utility owners and/or providers of services will be identified and consulted
requirements of SLP06 prior to commencement of construction. Note -
with before works start, to determine the requirements for access to,
WSP's detailed design scope includes the preparation of a Building
Utility impacts SLP06 protection of, or relocation of services. Disruption to existing services will Contractor Prior to Construction Not Applicable
Condition and Public Utility Assessment Report (as per PS311, Clause 2.6.3)
be minimised where feasible and local residents and businesses will be
and the Utilities Coordination / Utilties Management design package
notified before any planned disruption
(M12WET01).
Sydney Water will be responsible for arranging temporary construction

Not Applicable to WSP Detailed Design Scope of Works. The requirements
access with property owners for the Sydney Water Utility Crossings sites Not Applicable to WSP
Sydney Water / Prior to construction of this REMM apply to the M12 West and M12 Central project packages and
Property Access SLP15 as per Section 38 of the Sydney Water Act 1994. Any Sydney Water Detailed Design Scope of
Contractor and during construction do not apply to the detailed design of M12EDC or retaining structures (walls)
property access must be approved by the Construction Contractors prior Works
RS31 and RS32.
to commencing any Works associated with the Proposed Change.
The M12 Construction Contractors must reinstate the impacted Not Applicable to WSP Detailed Design Scope of Works. The requirements
Not Applicable to WSP
Impacts to Property properties to above ground pre-existing conditions and access must be of this REMM apply to the M12 West and M12 Central project packages and
SLP16 Contractor During construction Detailed Design Scope of
and Access returned to the property owners following the construction of the Sydney do not apply to the detailed design of M12EDC or retaining structures (walls)
Works
Water Utility Crossings. RS31 and RS32.
Impacts on identified Aboriginal sites will be minimised where feasible in

Retaining structures (walls) RS31 and RS32 do not impact any existing
consultation with a suitably qualified and experienced archaeologist.
Aboriginal Heritage sites. Based on the 80% detailed design (and that
Measures considered will include (but not be limited to): • Designing and
envisaged for 100%) there are no AHIMS sites within the M12 EDC
locating bridges (including bridge pylons), haulage routes and other
construction footprint. The AHIMS sites located outside of the 80%
AH03 access roads to minimise potential disturbance of soils where feasible • Contractor Detailed Design Complies
construction boundary are located at sufficient distances so as not to be
Focusing protection measures on the zone within 100 metres of creeks
impacted by the construction of the M12 EDC project. In addition, there are
including consideration of opportunities to cover the original cultural
no proposed creek crossings / bridge structures associated with the M12
deposits in temporary protective barriers such as geotextile fabric and a
EDC project.
layer of clean fill.
An investigation will be carried out during detailed design to minimise At 80% the CHRP Aboriginal Site is located beyond the M12 EDC
AH04 Contractor Detailed design Not Applicable
impacts on the CHRP site where feasible. Construction Boundary.No further investigation is warranted.
Investigations will be carried out during detailed design to determine the

feasibility of retaining cultural deposits between the pylons of bridges or
elevated structures at the following sites:
•BCW
•BCE
Aboriginal heritage sites listed against REMM AH05 are not located in M12
AH05 •SCW T1 Contractor Detailed design Not Applicable
EDC detailed design package.
•SCW T2
•SCE
This will include covering the original cultural deposits beneath temporary
Impacts on protective barriers where feasible, such as geotextile fabric and a layer of
identified cultural clean fill material.
deposits
Salvage collection of surface artefacts will be carried out at the following
sites:
•BCE
•SCW T2
•KCW Site CHRP is located beyond the 80% construction boundary of M12 EDC
AH06 •PCP8 Contractor / TfNSW Prior to construction Not Applicable project. The other sites are not associated with the M12 EDC project.
•CHRP Salvage collection will be undertaken by others prior to construction.
•RR
•M12A1
•Isolated artefact 4
•TNR-AFT-14.
Salvage excavation will be carried out at the following sites:

•CCW
•BWB
•BCW
•SCW T1
At 80% the CHRP Aboriginal Site is located beyond the M12 EDC
•SCW T2
AH07 Contractor / TfNSW Prior to construction Not Applicable Construction Boundary. The other sites are located outsider of M12 EDC
•SCE
project. Salvage excavtion will be undertaken by others prior to construction.
•KCW
•CHRP.
The methodology and extent of excavations required for the above sites
will be in accordance with site specific requirements outlined in the
ACHAR prepared for the project.
Note - the exclusion zone associated with AHIMS site 45-5-2721 (PAD-OS-
Exclusion zones will be set up in the form of an appropriate barrier / 7) is not located within the M12 EDC Construction Boundary at 80%. Note -
Impacts on
fencing along the portion of AHIMS site 45-5-2721 (PAD-OS-7) that Prior to construction The appointed Construction Contractor will be responsible for establishing
identified cultural AH08 Contractor / TfNSW Not Applicable
extends into the amended construction footprint, with visible signage and during construction and maintaining an appropriate barrier/fence prior to and during construction
deposits
notifying construction personnel to avoid ground impacts if their activities take place in the vicinity of the exclusion zone associated
with AHIMS site 45-5-2721 (PAD-OS-7).
Archaeological test excavation will be carried out at PAD-OS-7 in the Note - the exclusion zone associated with AHIMS site 45-5-2721 (PAD-OS-
Impacts on instance that construction restrictions result in impacts to that site. Test 7) is not located within the M12 EDC Construction Boundary at 80%. Note -
identified cultural AH09 excavations would be conducted in accordance with Requirement 16a of Contractor / TfNSW Prior to construction Not Applicable The appointed Construction Contractor will be responsible for implementing
deposits the Code of Practice (DECCW 2010), Stage 2 PACHCI (Roads and the requirements of REMM AH09 if their activities take place in or near the
Maritime 2011) and in consultation with RAPs exclusion zone associated with AHIMS site 45-5-2721 (PAD-OS-7).
A suitably qualified heritage specialist will be engaged to prepare a

heritage interpretation framework to guide development of the detailed
urban design for the project. This framework will be prepared in
accordance with the Interpreting Heritage Places and Items Guidelines
(NSW Heritage Office, 2005) and will include:
Non-Aboriginal •Integration of heritage themes and values to be incorporated Not Applicable to WSP's Note - TfNSW has engaged GHD to prepare and implement the Heritage
NAH02 Contractor / TfNSW Detailed design
Heritage •Collaboration with other design elements and themes for the project, detailed design scope of works Interpretation Framework for the M12 motorway project.
including those associated with Western Sydney Airport and Sydney
Metro Greater West, to develop an integrative design approach with
surrounding development
•Opportunities for design responses for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal
heritage
The Construction Boundary for M12 EDC extends into the area of
Archaeological Potential associated with the Cecil Park School, Post Office
and Church Site (Item 8) heritage site as identified and assessed via the
EIS/AR processes. Retaining Structure RS32 will be built within the
Impacts on Non-Aboriginal heritage items will be avoided or minimised
Detailed design, prior construction boundary and it will traverse the defined area of Archaeological
Non-Aboriginal where reasonable and feasible. Where impacts are unavoidable, works
NAH03 TfNSW / Contractor to construction and Complies Potential of Item 8. The Construction phase impacts associated with
Heritage will be carried out in accordance with the measures for individual Non-
during construction activities undertaken within the area of Archaeolgical Potential are managed
Aboriginal heritage items outlined in measures NAH04 to NAH11.
by REMM NAH09 and will be the responsibility of the appointed Construction
Contractor. Note - Retaining Structures RS31 and R32 are not located in the
vicinity or within the curtilage of the Upper Canal System (Item 4) (i.e. Cecil
Hills Tunnel, Shaft 3 and Shaft 4).
A suitably qualified heritage consultant will be engaged to prepare an

archival photographic recording of the site in accordance with the
Heritage Information Series How to prepare archival records of heritage
items (NSW Heritage Office, 1998). This will include both buildings and
landscape features such as dams, and earthworks. The recording will
include a detailed map showing the location of the features. Options will
be investigated to provide funding support to the property’s current owner
McGarvie Smith
to prepare a thematic heritage study of CSIRO and other agricultural Detailed design and
Farm (Item 1, NAH04 TfNSW / Contractor Not Applicable McGarvie Smith Farm is not located within the M12 EDC project.
research stations, including both McGarvie Smith Farm and McMaster prior to construction
Penrith LEP 857)
Field Station, and other relevant agricultural research stations and similar
facilities located in NSW. The thematic study will include a review of the
role of such properties in veterinary research, association with
agricultural, pastoral and animal husbandry groups, use of pioneering
methods and practices and contribution to the development of farming in
Australia. In the event that landowners do not prepare this study, Roads
and Maritime will engage a heritage specialist to do so.
All extant elements of the radio telescopes and associated infrastructure, including
rubbish mounds situated outside of the construction footprint will be left intact.
Ground penetrating radar, or other remote sensing survey techniques, will be
carried out under the supervision of a suitably qualified and experienced
archaeologist before any ground disturbance within the heritage curtilage of the
Fleurs Radio Telescope (FRTS) Site contained within the construction footprint to
identify any sub-surface cables:
Detailed design and The Fleurs Radio Telescope Site is not located in the M12 EDC project. It is
If additional sub-surface (FRTS) components are unexpectedly identified during TfNSW / Contractor Not Applicable
ground penetrating radar survey which have not been discussed as part of the prior to construction part of M12 Central and M12 West
consistency assessment(s), then additional assessment and management would
be required. This would include, but nay not be limited to, archival survey and
recording.
Measures will be included in the CHMP to describe how the heritage vales of the
site will be conserved and managed during construction.
TfNSW will engage a suitably qualified heritage consultant to prepare an archival

photographic recording of the impact areas of the property, in accordance with
Heritage NSW guidelines (Heritage Council of NSW 2006). The archival recording
report will include but not be limited to:
• Detailed survey drawings and photographic archival recording of remaining
above-ground elements of the Fleurs Radio-Telescope Site. This survey will detail
the exact location and orientation of remnant fabric within the landscape, including
fabric associated with the former location of FRTS antenna X3 and X4, the
concrete pad between antennas X3 and X4, and the former vehicle access track.
Survey drawings will be included in the archival recording report.
• Outcomes of the remote sensing survey undertaken by GHD in 2021 to provide a Detailed design and The Fleurs Radio Telescope Site is not located in the M12 EDC project. It is
comprehensive record of the site (or as comprehensive as possible prior to
TfNSW / Contractor Not Applicable
prior to construction part of M12 Central and M12 West
excavation)
• Details of sample cables collected including original exact location by description,
co-ordinates and mapping.
Prior to construction TfNSW will consult with relevant interested organisations
(such as CSIRO, Universities, amateur telescope organisation, local heritage
bodies and other special interest groups) to determine if there is interest in
retaining sub-surface cabling (including details on the type and length cabling to
be retained) or other structures identified during archival recording, remote
sensing or any unexpected additional cables found during construction.
The M12 West and M12 Central Contractor will (with advice from TfNSW
Overarching Archival Recording Contractor) be responsible for the following:
• Retrieval of a sample of each type of cable / compressed air hose along the
cable alignment between antennas X3 and X4 with supervision by a heritage
specialist. This will include retrieval of 1-2 m (or length directed by TfNSW
following consultation with stakeholders) of each type of cable / compressed air
hose including the relevant attachment. The selection of the types and lengths of
cables / hose to be collected will include consideration of the following:
The Fleurs Radio o Physical review of the cables / hose types visible at South Creek 3 Antenna
Telescope Site
NAH05 Complex, South Creek 4 Complex, and South Creek 5 Antenna Complex
(Item 2, Penrith LEP o Any additional information identified through remote sensing survey of the cable
832) alignment
o Discussion with archival recording or other relevant heritage specialists where Detailed design and The Fleurs Radio Telescope Site is not located in the M12 EDC project. It is
required
prior to construction part of M12 Central and M12 West
o Outcomes from the consultation undertaken by TfNSW with interested parties.
o Cable samples will be collected, with consideration given to potentially
contaminated materials, such as asbestos and PCBs. Appropriate WHS measures
will be implemented in accordance with the Contractor’s WHS Plan.
o Cable samples will be tagged, including exact location by description and
relevant coordinates of the cabling prior to its extraction.
o Safe storage of cable samples until collection by interested parties. If samples
are unclaimed by interested parties within three months, they will be appropriately
disposed of at a licensed landfill by the contractor.
• Where cabling is not impacted by construction works, it can remain in-situ,
otherwise the contractor is responsible for appropriate disposal.
• Concrete plinths
o Prior to construction, the contractor must establish an exclusion zone around the
concrete plinths at South Creek 3 Antenna Complex (Central) and South Creek 5
Antenna Complex (West) to protect against inadvertent impacts during
construction.
o If leaving the plinths in situ during construction is not practicable, they will be
removed and stored temporarily with survey information providing details of their
position relative to each other and orientation. The Contractor will then investigate
Detailed design and The Fleurs Radio Telescope Site is not located in the M12 EDC project. It is
opportunities for re-establishing the concrete plinths on site close to their original TfNSW / Contractor Not Applicable
location and/or as part of the interpretative display for the Radio Telescope site. If prior to construction part of M12 Central and M12 West.
re-established, the survey information collected prior to their removal must be used
to ensure that the plinths are located in the same orientation and arrangement.
o Prior to removal of the concrete plinths, the contractor is to identify whether any
of the plinths are used as state survey marks. The contractor must comply with the
preservation of survey infrastructure requirements in TfNSW specification G71. It is
noted TS7279 is located on one of the plinths at X3.
• Measures for M12 Central only

o Prior to construction the contractor must establish an exclusion zone around the
former location of antenna X3 at South Creek 3 Antenna Complex to protect
against inadvertent impacts during construction. Design consideration should be
given to revegetation of the former location of antenna X3 to stabilise the eroding
margins of the basin.
o Prior to construction the contractor must establish and exclusion zone around Detailed design and The Fleurs Radio Telescope Site is not located in the M12 EDC project. It is
the metal shed at South Creek 3 Antenna Complex to protect against inadvertent prior to construction part of M12 Central and M12 West
impacts during construction.
• The heritage interpretation framework for the project (NAH02) will include
interpretation measures that will improve community awareness of the history of
the Fleurs Radio Telescope as well as determine suitable locations for the
presentation of information that are publicly accessible.
• Relevant conservation policies outlined in the Upper Canal CMP (NSW Public
Works Government Architect’s Office, 2016) will be considered during detailed
design and incorporated into CCHMP to ensure heritage fabric is not impacted by Retaining Structures (walls) RS31 and R32 are not located in the vicinity of
the project. • The CCHMP will be consistent with and require implementation of the Upper Canal System or its associated heritage curtilage. Note - TfNSW
relevant measures outlined in the Guidelines for development adjacent to the has undertaken condition surevey of Upper Canal, refer to SMEC report
Upper Canal Upper Canal and Warragamba Pipelines (WaterNSW 2020) which sets out (dated 23 July 2019, Ref No. 14.2166.0522-0032) "M12 Motorway -
System (Pheasants guidelines for designing, planning or assessing development on land adjacent to
Detailes Design, Prior Dilapidation Survey of WaterNSW Cecil Hills Tunnel". Note - WSP's detailed
Nest Weir to the canal at this location. Additional structures identified in the construction
NAH06 footprint will be investigated and measures implemented to avoid or minimise TfNSW / Contractor to Construction and Not Applicable design scope with respect to vibration impacts for M12EDC is the
Prospect Reservoir
impacts. • Guidelines and associated safe working distances to be adhered to for during Construction preparation of a Building Condition and Public Utility Assessment Report (as
(Item 4, SHR
heritage structures as outlined in Appendix K of the EIS • A safe working distance per PS311, Clause 2.6.3) and the Utilities Coordination / Utilties
01373)
exclusion zone will be established around the exposed tunnel air shaft in the M7 Management design package (M12WET01). Note - WSP will prepare a
Motorway median in accordance with the process outlined in noise and vibration technical memo regarding the relevant conservation policies and their
management measures NV09 - NV10 • Transport for NSW will provide an updated
applicability to the M12EDC detailed design as a whole ( pending ).
report to WaterNSW on project design changes as they relate to the WaterNSW
Upper Canal corridor during detailed design.
•A suitably qualified heritage consultant will be engaged to prepare an archival

photographic recording of the impacted area, in accordance with DPC (Heritage)
guidelines (Heritage Council of NSW 2006) (Heritage Council of NSW 2006). This
will include both buildings and landscape features such as dams, and earthworks.
The recording will include a detailed map showing the location of the features.
•Options will be investigated to provide funding support to property’s current owner
to prepare a thematic heritage study of CSIRO and other agricultural research
stations, including both McMaster Field Station and McGarvie Smith Farm, and
other relevant agricultural research stations and similar facilities located in NSW.
The thematic study will include a review of the role of such properties in veterinary
McMaster Field research, association with agricultural, pastoral and animal husbandry groups, use
NAH07 of pioneering methods and practices and contribution to development of farming in TfNSW / Contractor to construction and Not Applicable The McMaster Field Station is not located in the M12 EDC project.
Station (Item 6)
NSW and Australia. In the event that landowners do not prepare this study, Roads during construction
and Maritime will engage a heritage specialist to do so.
•A potential use zone will be established around the McMaster Farm group of
buildings, including a suitable buffer zone, and no construction activities will take
place within this zone. This zone will be incorporated into the construction heritage
management plan (CHMP). The potential use zone will include safe working
distances to be adhered to for heritage structures as outlined in Appendix K .
Before occupying or utilising the buildings, a dilapidation survey will be carried out
and a heritage architect will be engaged to advise on proposed modifications and
management measures to avoid and minimise impact on the buildings.
• A suitably qualified heritage consultant will be engaged to prepare an archival

photographic recording of the impacted area before its disturbance and/or
removal, in accordance with DPC (Heritage) guidelines (Heritage Council of NSW
2006). The recording will include a detailed map showing the location of the
features.
Fleurs Aerodrome • An interpretive framework developed for the project will include consideration of
NAH08 elements to enable the continued interpretation and understanding of the airstrip Contractor / TfNSW to construction and Not Applicable The Fleurs Aerodrome is not part of the M12 EDC project.
(Item 7)
at Fleurs Aerodrome as a linear and continuous element. This will be carried out in during construction
consultation with Department of Defence and consider opportunities for
involvement of veterans groups.
• Relevant guidelines and associated safe working distances will be adhered to for
remaining heritage structures as outlined in the Appendix K of the EIS
Not Applicable to WSP Detailed Design Scope of Works. Note -

Construction Contractor will be responsible for implementing the
A suitably qualified archaeologist will be present during the excavation of
requirements of REMM NAH09 during construction. Note - The Construction
the area occupied by the Cecil Park Archaeological site to confirm that
Boundary for M12 EDC extends into the area of Archaeological Potential
Cecil Park School, the significance of artefacts and remains are in line with the findings of
associated with the Cecil Park School, Post Office and Church Site (Item 8)
Post Office and NAH09 the test excavations already completed. If remains with the potential to Contractor / TfNSW During construction Not Applicable
heritage site as identified and assessed via the EIS/AR processes. Retaining
Church Site (Item 8) be considered ‘relics’ (as defined in the Heritage Act 1977) are found,
Structure (wall) RS32 will be built within the construction boundary and will
then works will stop and the unexpected finds procedure (RMS, 2015) will
traverse the defined area of Archaeological Potential of Item 8. The
be followed.
Construction phase impacts associated with activities undertaken within the
area of Archaeolgical Potential are managed by REMM NAH09.
•Management measures identified in the project UDLP (LVIA01) will be

South, Kemps and implemented during detailed design to minimise impacts on landscape
Badgerys Creek and vistas Detailed design, prior
The scenic landscape associated with the confluence weirs of South, Kemps
Confluence Weirs NAH10 •Flooding management measures (F01 to F08) and surface water quality Contractor / TfNSW to construction and Not Applicable
and Badgerys Creek is not part of the M12 EDC project.
Scenic Landscape and hydrology management measures (SWH01 to SWH14) will be during construction
(Item 12) implemented to reduce broader impacts on the surrounding scenic
landscape.
Where post and rail fencing of heritage significance is identified within the
construction footprint, Transport for NSW will seek to avoid directly Detailed design, prior
Luddenham Road
NAH11 impacting such features. Where avoidance is not practicable, Transport Contractor/ TfNSW to construction and Not Applicable Luddenham Road is not part of the M12 EDC project.
(Item 03)
for NSW will seek to minimise and mitigate impact in consultation with a during construction
suitably qualified heritage specialist.
General Detailed design, prior Not Applicable to WSP Detailed Design Scope of Works. Note - The
Measures to minimise and manage construction fatigue are to be
construction noise NV02 Contractor to construction and Not Applicable appointed Construction Contractor will be responsible for implementing the
investigated through the planning of construction staging
and vibration during construction requirements of REMM NV02.
Detailed noise assessments will be carried out for ancillary facilities with
the potential to involve high noise generating activities (including batching
plant operations). The assessments will consider the proposed site
layouts and noise generating activities that will occur at the facilities and
General Not Applicable to WSP Detailed Design Scope of Works. Note - The
assess predicted noise levels against the relevant noise management
construction noise NV03 Contractor Prior to construction Not Applicable appointed Construction Contractor will be responsible for implementing the
criteria. The assessments will also consider the requirement for
and vibration requirements of REMM NV03.
appropriate noise mitigation within ancillary facilities and adjacent to
construction works, depending on the predicted noise levels. Any
mitigation measures required will be implemented before the start of
activities that generate noise and vibration impacts.
Where works are within the minimum working distances and considered
Note - WSP's detailed design scope includes the preparation of a Building
likely to exceed the cosmetic damage objectives (as shown in Figure 7-3
of Appendix G K of the amendment report), construction works will not
Not Applicable to WSP and the Utilities Coordination / Utilties Management design package
proceed unless:
Vibration impacts NV08 Contractor During construction Detailed Design Scope of (M12WET01). Note - TfNSW has undertaken a condition survey of Upper
•A different construction method with lower source vibration levels is
Works, Canal, refer to SMEC report (dated 23 July 2019, Ref No. 14.2166.0522-
used, where feasible
0032) "M12 Motorway - Dilapidation Survey of WaterNSW Cecil Hills
•Attended vibration measurements are carried out at the start of the
Tunnel".
works to determine the risk of exceeding the vibration objectives.
Not Applicable to WSP Detailed Design Scope of Works. Note - the

appointed Construction Contractor will be responsible for implementing the
Building Condition Surveys will be offered in writing to property owners requirements of REMM NV09. Note - WSP's detailed design scope includes
before construction where there is a potential for construction activities to the preparation of a Building Condition and Public Utility Assessment Report
Vibration impacts NV09 cause structural or cosmetic damage. A comprehensive report will be Contractor Prior to construction Not Applicable (as per PS311, Clause 2.6.3) and the Utilities Coordination / Utilties
prepared by a suitably qualified professional before the relevant works Management design package (M12WET01). Note - TfNSW has undertaken
begin and will comprise a written and photographic condition. a condition survey of Upper Canal, refer to SMEC report (dated 23 July
2019, Ref No. 14.2166.0522-0032) "M12 Motorway - Dilapidation Survey of
WaterNSW Cecil Hills Tunnel".
Retaining Structures (walls) RS31 and RS32 are not located in the vicinity of
the Upper Canal System or its associated heritage curtilage. Note - TfNSW
Surveys will be carried out to confirm the existing condition of the
has undertaken condition survey of Upper Canal, refer to SMEC report
WaterNSW Upper Canal System and Jemena high pressure gas
(dated 23 July 2019, Ref No. 14.2166.0522-0032) "M12 Motorway -
pipelines to determine appropriate vibration criteria. This will also include
Dilapidation Survey of WaterNSW Cecil Hills Tunnel". Note - WSP
consideration of distances from the vibration intensive activity (piling,
Vibrations impacts understands that Jemena is responsible for conducting condition surveys of
rock-breaking and vibratory rolling), as well as ground conditions. A
on the Upper Canal Detailed design and their high pressure gas pipelines. Note - TfNSW has advised that Jemena
NV10 vibration criterion of a peak particle velocity (PPV) will be determined in TfNSW / Contractor Complies
System and Gas during construction (gas utility) has provided comment on the M12 Overarching Construction
consultation with the relevant utility/service providers. In-situ monitoring
Pipelines Noise & VIbration Management Plan regarding the vibration criteria. Jemena
will be carried out to confirm the vibration levels and assess the impact of
have noted that the PPV is 20 mm/s. Note - WSP's detailed design scope
vibration. Where the monitoring identifies exceedances in the relevant
with respect to vibration impacts for M12EDC is the preparation of a Building
criteria, or where impacts are identified, additional mitigation measures
will be identified and implemented to appropriately manage impacts.
and the Utilities Coordination / Utilties Management design package
(M12WET01).
The following structures have the potential to be within the safe working
distances for sensitive structures (Group 3 from DIN 4150):
Item 4 (Upper Canal System) is the only item associated with the M12 EDC
•Item 1: McGarvie Smith Farm
project. Note - TfNSW has undertaken a condition survey of Upper Canal,
•Item 2: Fleurs Radio Telescope Site
refer to SMEC report (dated 23 July 2019, Ref No. 14.2166.0522-0032) "M12
•Item 4: Upper Canal System
Motorway - Dilapidation Survey of WaterNSW Cecil Hills Tunnel". Note -
•Item 6: McMaster Field Station
WSP's detailed design scope with respect to vibration impacts for M12EDC
Vibration impacts on •Item 7: Fleurs Aerodrome Prior to construction
NV11 Contractor Not Applicable is the preparation of a Building Condition and Public Utility Assessment
heritage structures A detailed survey will be completed to determine the potential for and during construction
Report (as per PS311, Clause 2.6.3) and the Utilities Coordination / Utilties
vibration impacts and to define appropriate criteria for each heritage item.
Management design package (M12WET01) at 80%. Note - Retaining
Vibration monitoring will be carried out when vibration intensive tasks are
Structures (walls) RS31 and RS32 are not located in the vicinity of the Upper
occurring within the minimum working distances to heritage structures.
Canal System (i.e. Cecil Hills Tunnel, Shaft 3 or Shaft 4) or its associated
Where the monitoring identifies exceedances in the relevant criteria, or
heritage curtilage.
where impacts are identified, additional mitigation measures will be
identified and implemented to appropriately manage impacts.
The likelihood of cumulative construction noise impacts will be

considered during detailed design when detailed construction schedules
Note - Construction Staging Strategy Report (M12ETW01) prepared as part
of other projects are available. Construction works will be scheduled with
of WSP's detailed design scope. Note - Construction Contractor is
the aim of minimising concurrent works near sensitive receivers where
Cumulative responsible for preparing detailed construction programs based on their
possible in consultation with managers of other nearby projects that are Prior to construction
construction NV13 Contractor Not Applicable construction methodology. Note - TfNSW / Construction Contractor will be
likely to result in a cumulative impact. This will include the coordination of and during construction
impacts responsible for any consultation / coordination with other construction
respite between the various construction projects where receivers are
projects in the area. Note - Not Applicable for Retaining Structures RS31
likely to experience concurrent construction impacts where feasible.
and RS32.
Coordination between project teams would be carried out throughout
construction.
Operational noise and vibration mitigation measures will be identified in

Note - TfNSW's appointed noise and vibration consultant for M12 (GHD) has
an Operational Noise and Vibration Review (ONVR). Requirements for
recently received an updated model of M12 EDC from WSP and will re-run
mitigation measures, including quieter noise pavements, noise barriers,
Detailed Design, Prior the noise/vibration model. Note - TfNSW has not provided any formal
and at-property treatments, will be reviewed as part of the ONVR and as
Operational noise to and during direction in relation to operational noise mitigation measures for M12 EDC
NV14 the detailed design progresses. The implementation of treatments will be Contractor / TfNSW Not Applicable
and vibration construction and prior (e.g. pavement types, noise mounds or noise walls) to date. Note - The
carried out in accordance with TfNSW Noise Mitigation Guidelines
to operation need for operational noise mitigation measures as part of M12 EDC detailed
(2015). Owners of residences identified as eligible for noise treatment
design will be reviewed following the completion of the noise model re-run by
triggered by the project will be contacted by TfNSW and/or TfNSW’s
GHD. Note - Not Applicable for Retaining Walls RS31 and RS32.
contractor.
Further flood investigations and hydrological and hydraulic modelling will

be carried out during detailed design to ensure the flood immunity
objectives and design criteria for the project are met. The modelling will
Potential changes to be used to define the nature of both main stream flooding and major
flood impacts overland flow along the full length of the project corridor under pre- and Refer to Section 4 of Design Package M12ESD02 (Hydrology and Hydraulic
F01 Contractor Detailed design Complies
resulting from post- project conditions and to define the full extent of any impact that the Assessment).
detailed design project will have on patterns of both main stream flooding and major
overland flow. The hydraulic model(s) will be based on two-dimensional
hydraulic modelling software. The modelling will take into account any
updated regional flood modelling and information available at the time
A workshop was held with TfNSW on 21/03/2022 to discuss the outstanding

flood impacts at Existing Farm Dam Downstream of CVLT-EDR-03 and within
Should the updated flood modelling show the project will result in an
the UnnamedTributary No. 2. Refer to Hydrology and Hydraulics Report
Flooding impacts on adverse flooding impact, Road and Maritime will consult with landowners
F02 TfNSW / Contractor Detailed design Complies (M12ESD02) ref: M12EDD-WSP-ALL-SD-RPT-000005, Section 4.6.1. Note -
property regarding appropriate mitigation measures to be implemented by the
A technical memorandum has been provided to TfNSW to facilitate
contractor in relation to each individual property.
landowner discussions for the affected properties. Note - TfNSW is
responsible for consultation with affected parties.
Flooding and creek Creek adjustments would be re-considered and/or further refined to No creek adjustments are currently proposed as part of the M12 EDC
F04 TfNSW / Contractor Detailed design Not Applicable
adjustment impacts minimise the impact on the creeks during detailed design. detailed design.
Not Applicable for Retaining Strutures (walls) RS31 and RS32. Note - WSP
has prepared a Construction Staging Strategy Report (M12ETW01). Note -
Construction Contractor is responsible for preparing detailed construction
Detailed construction staging plans will be developed during detailed
Flooding impacts of programs based on their construction methodology. Note - The TfNSW G1
F05 design so that bridges and culverts are constructed in a way that Contractor Detailed design Not Applicable
bridges and culverts contract specification requires the Construction Contractor to develop
minimises flood risk.
detailed staging designs prior to the commencement of works. The typical
construction methodologies for bridges and culverts should not exacerbate
flood risks.
Measures to address potential impacts of culvert blockage on afflux will Not Applicable for Retaining Structures (walls) RS31 and RS32. Note -
Flooding impacts of be further investigated during detailed design and may include the Sensitivity testing will be undertaken as part of detailed design and will be
F06 Contractor Detailed design Not Applicable
bridges and culverts installation of debris deflectors, trash racks or similar on drainage inlets documented in the Hydrology and Hydraulics Report (M12ESD02) for M12
where reasonable and feasible. EDC and relevant structures design packages for culverts.
During the detailed design phase, TfNSW will seek to refine the design of
Consultation
the works at Elizabeth Drive near Badgerys Creek to minimise flood Prior to and during
regarding flooding F07 TfNSW / Contractor Not Applicable Elizabeth Drive near Badgerys Creek is not part of the M12 EDC project.
affectation. Mitigation measures may include adjustment of road levels construction
impacts
and/or flood relief culverts through the road.
Not Applicable for Retaining Structures (walls) RS31 and RS32. Note - Any
The proposed bridges, culverts and changes to watercourses will be bridges or culverts will be sized to mininised flood impacts in line with the
Flooding impacts
F09 further refined during the detailed design to minimise potential flooding TfNSW / Contractor Detailed design Not Applicable flood impact criteria required by the NSW DPIE Project Approval (dated 23
during operation
impacts. April 2021). Details to be presented in relevant bridge and culvert design
packages and the Hydrology and Hydraulics Report (M12ESD02).
The retaining structures will have minimal impact on water flows associated
with groundwater dependent ecosystems. The reinforced soil block of
structures RS31 and RS32 will be embedded approximately 0.5-1.0m below
Potential impacts on groundwater flows will be reconsidered as the
the existing ground level. No groundwater has been observed based on
detailed design for the project progresses, particularly in relation to the
previously completed geotechnical investigations (completed by others) at
projects vertical alignment and extent of road cuttings. The aim of this will
Contractor Detailed design Complies boreholes near RS31 and RS32. Note - The groundwater system associated
be to ensure that the groundwater controls proposed for the design as
with the M12 EDC has been identified by the EIS/AR as a bedrock
set out in this document would remain effective in mitigating groundwater
groundwater system (as opposed to an alluvial groundwater system)
impacts.
Alteration of associated with the Wianamatta Group Shale and Hawkesbury Sandstone.
groundwater flows GW02 Placeholder - Groundwater details to be updated following completion of
and levels Geteochnical Investigation works undertaken during detailed design.
In the instance that, during detailed design it cannot be demonstrated

that the groundwater controls would be effective in mitigating potential Not Applicable for Retaining Structures (walls) RS31 and RS32. Note -
impacts, or if observed groundwater inflow rates into the western cut or Reference to western cut or airport interchange northern and southern cuts
airport interchange northern and southern cuts are higher than estimated, Contractor Detailed design Not Applicable are specific to M12 West. Note - The same technical review/approach will be
additional measures will be implemented to minimise potential impacts on adopted for any cuts associated with M12 EDC following the completion of
groundwater flows due to road cuttings or other sub-surface components 80%.
of the project.
Installation of supplementary groundwater monitoring bores in the area of

Alteration of
both airport interchange cuts would be carried out at detailed design The airport interchange cuts are not part of the M12 EDC project, they are
groundwater flows GW03 Contractor Detailed design Not Applicable
stage, to better understand groundwater depths and levels (and part of the M12 West project.
and levels
groundwater quality) in these areas.
M12 Motorway – West Package

Groundwater will be monitored at the airport interchange northern cut
(Cut 6), airport interchange southern cut (Cut 2-AAR), the western cut
(Cut 2), Cut 1, Cut 3, Cut 4, Cut 5, Cut 7 and Cut 1-AAR during the
construction phase and operational phase as outlined in Table 7-1 in the
groundwater supplementary technical memorandum (Appendix J of
Amendment Report) and the M12 Motorway - West Package Detailed
Design Consistency Assessment Memo. The groundwater indicators to
be monitored will be as per Section 7.2.5 of Appendix N of the EIS.
Alteration of Groundwater inflows to Cut 2, Cut 4, Cut 5, Cut 6, Cut 7 and Cut 2 AAR
Not Applicable to WSP Not Applicable to WSP Detailed Design Scope of Works. The requirements
groundwater flows are to be observed by the groundwater monitoring contractor during the Construction and
GW04 Contractor Detailed Design Scope of of this REMM apply to the M12 West project and does not apply to the
and levels (M12 construction and operational phases at monthly intervals. As part of Operation
Works. detailed deisgn of the M12 EDC.
West Package) observing inflows at the identified cuts, the groundwater monitoring
contractor is to estimate the groundwater inflow rates and note the areas
where groundwater inflow is occurring.
During construction, if groundwater inflows are observed from the cuts
identified through the detailed design of the M12 Motorway - West
Package including Cut 2, Cut 4, Cut 5, Cut 6, Cut 7 and Cut 2 AAR, the
groundwater quality from the cut is to be sampled.
Operational phase groundwater quality sampling, including the quality
sampling of Cut 2, Cut 4, Cut 5, Cut 6, Cut 7 and Cut 2 AAR inflows, is
to occur at a monthly interval for at least 6 months.
M12 Motorway – Central Package

Groundwater quality, levels and inflows will be monitored at Clifton
Avenue (Cut 9) during construction and operation as outlined in the M12
Central consistency assessment report (GHD, 2021).
The groundwater indicators to be monitored will be as Section 7.2.5 of
Groundwater Appendix N of the EIS. Groundwater inflows are to be monitored at Not Applicable to WSP Not Applicable to WSP Detailed Design Scope of Works. The requirement of
Construction and
Monitoring (M12 GW05 monthly intervals. As part of observing inflows at identified cuts, the Contractor Detailed Design Scope this REMM applies to the M12 Central project and does not apply to the
Operation
Central Package) groundwater inflow rate is to be estimated and the areas where ofWorks. detailed design of the M12EDC.
groundwater inflow is occurring noted.
During construction, if groundwater inflow rates are observed from the
cuts identified through the detailed design of the M12 Motorway – Central
package including Cut 9, the groundwater quality from the cut is to be
sampled.
M12 Motorway – West Package

The Construction Contractor will estimate the potential groundwater
inflows that are expected in the first year of construction in order to
confirm if evaporation will sufficiently mitigate potentially higher inflows
likely to be expected early during construction.
The estimate of groundwater inflows is to be undertaken for Cut 2, Cut 4,
Cut 5, Cut 6, Cut 7 and Cut 2 AAR. The estimate is to include
groundwater inflow from both the walls and base of the cuts and will
Alteration of
consider the construction methodology and staging for each cut. In Not Applicable to WSP Not Applicable to WSP Detailed Design Scope of Works. The requirements
groundwater flows
GW06 addition, the estimate will utilise the maximum observed groundwater Contractor Prior to Construction Detailed Design Scope of of this REMM apply to the M12 West project and does not apply to the
and levels (M12
levels (as sourced from M12 West groundwater monitoring data). The Works detailed deisgn of the M12 EDC.
West Package)
results of the estimated groundwater inflows will be assessed in order to
confirm whether evaporation will be sufficient to mitigate the potentially
higher inflows likely to be expected early during construction. If
evaporation is determined not to be a sufficient control measure, the
Construction Contractor will identify and implement additional mitigation
measures. The additional mitigation measures are to be documented in
the Construction Contractor’s CEMP and Construction Soil and Water
Management Plan.
M12 Motorway – Central Package

Prior to construction commencing, the Construction Contractor will use
their earthworks methodology to estimate the potential groundwater
inflows that are expected in the first year of construction in order to
confirm the inflows expected and if the proposed mitigation measures are
Alteration of
sufficient to manage higher inflows that are likely during early earthworks Not Applicable to WSP Not Applicable to WSP Detailed Design Scope of Works. The requirements
groundwater flows Prior to construction
GW07 activity. Contractor Detailed Design Scope of of this REMM apply to the M12 Central project and do not apply to the
and levels (M12 and during construction
The estimate of groundwater inflows is to be undertaken for Cut 9. The Works detailed design of M12EDC.
Central Package)
estimate is to include groundwater inflow from both the walls and base of
the cuts, and will take into account the construction methodology and
staging for each cut. In addition, the estimate will utilise the maximum
observed groundwater levels (as sourced from M12 Central groundwater
monitoring data).
M12 Motorway – West and Central Packages

During construction, the construction contractor will visually monitor
Alteration of groundwater inflows during Sydney water crossing excavations to ensure
groundwater flows that inflows can be appropriately managed in accordance with Stage- Not Applicavble to WSP Not Applicable to WSP Detailed Design Scope of Works. The requirements
and levels (M12 GW08 specific Construction Soil and Water Management Plan. Contractor During construction Detailed Design Scope of of this REMM apply to the M12 West and M12 Central project packages and
West and Central If groundwater inflows cannot be managed in accordance with the Stage- Works do not apply to the detailed design of M12EDC.
Packages) specific Construction Soil and Water Management Plan, works will stop
in the affected Utility Crossing and the construction methodology would
be reviewed.
Detailed design will incorporate appropriate adaptation measures for all

climate change risks with an original risk rating of moderate or above.
These will include but not be limited to:
Consideration of the full range of potential temperature extremes on the

project (particularly bridge structures) which may occur as a result of A durability assessment is included as an appendix to the design report for
Contractor Detailed deisgn Complies
climate change and consider material capacity to withstand heat during RS31 and RS32 at 80% DD.
Climate change CC01 material type selection to minimise the likelihood of infrastructure failures
risks
Not applicable to the detailed design of retaining structures (walls) RS31 and
RS32. Note - A dedicated fauna culvert (beneath the new section of
Maintenance of fauna passage along main creek lines under bridges. Contractor Detailed design Not Applicable
Wallgrove Road) and an arboreal mammal crossing (over the new section of
Wallgrove Road) will form part of the M12EDC detailed deisgn.
Detailed design and documented in the Vegetation Clearing Report prepared in accordance with
GHG emissions GG03 Vegetation removal will be minimised where practicable. Contractor Pending
construction PS311 (Clause 2.7). Opportunities to minimise vegetation clearing will be
identified and assessed as detailed design progresses.
Status (Complies (C), Non-
Reference Requirement Responsibility Timing Design Comments 80% (RS31 and RS32)
Compliance (NC), Not
NSW DPIE Project Approval (dated 23 April 2021)

Biodiversity
The clearing of native vegetation must be minimised with
Detailed Design / documented in the Vegetation Clearing Report prepared in accordance with
E2 the objective of reducing impacts to threatened ecological TfNSW / Contractor Pending
Construction PS311 (Clause 2.7). Opportunities to minimise vegetation clearing will be
communities and threatened species habitat.
identified and assessed as detailed design progresses.
Additional Survey of Pimelea spicata (Spiked Rice-flower)

Note -TfNSW engaged Arcadis to undertake the additional surveys for plants
The Proponent must undertake additional surveys of of Pimelea spicata. Arcadis undertool the additional surveys in March, April
Pimelea spicata (Spiked Rice-flower) in potential habitat for and June 2021. No plants of Pimelea spicata were detected. Ref: Arcadis
this species within the refined construction footprint to the letter report dated 28 June 2021 Re: M12 CoA E8: Additional surveys of
north of Elizabeth Drive and west of the existing Wallgrove Pimelea spicata. Note - Arcadis also undertook Threatened Species Spring
Road as identified in Figure 6-5 of the M12 Motorway Surveys in September, October, November and December 2021 (ref: Arcadis
Amendment Report – Submissions Report (December, report dated 17 February 2022, M12 Motorway Threatened Species Spring
2020). The surveys must be undertaken during optimal Detailed Design / Pre- Survey).The population of Pultenaea parviflora plants in Western Sydney
E8 TfNSW / Contractor Complies
conditions as defined by the NSW Bionet Threatened Construction Parklands and WSP modified M12 EDC construction boundary contains 74
Biodiversity Profile Data Collection (DPIE) or as agreed by stems. Of these, 62 individual stems are within the biocertified area of the
the Planning Secretary. The surveys must be undertaken in South West Growth Centre and are not subject to an offset requirement.
consultation with EES and DAWE and the results of the There are 12 individual stems are outside the biocertified area of the WSP
surveys provided to the Planning Secretary, EES and modified M12 EDC construction boundary and these are required to be
DAWE for information within one (1) month of completion of offset. There is no difference to Pultenaea parviflora impact from the WSP
the surveys 50% Detailed Design or 80% Detailed Design. The impact to this species has
not changed with the design refinements.
If Pimelea spicata is recorded in the surveys carried out
TfNSW engaged Arcadis to undertake the additional surveys for plants of
under Condition E8, any impacts to the species must be
Pimelea spicata. Arcadis undertool the additional surveys in March, April and
offset in accordance with the options available under Detailed Design / Pre-
June 2021. No plants of Pimelea spicata were detected. Ref: Arcadis letter
E9 Condition E3 and in consultation with EES. The Proponent TfNSW Construction / Not Applicable
report dated 28 June 2021 Re: M12 CoA E8: Additional surveys of Pimelea
must provide details of the required biodiversity credits to Construction
spicata. Based on the results of the additional survey, the requirements of
the Planning Secretary, EES and DAWE for information
CoA E9 are not triggered.
prior to works that impact the threatened species.
Key Fish Habitat
The Proponent must minimise impacts to Key Fish Habitat
(KFH) as defined in Policy and Guidelines for Fish Habitat
Conservation and Management (DPI, 2013 update). Detailed Design / Pre- The extent of vegetation clearing (including KFH) for the M12 EDC project as
E11 Residual impacts to KFH must be offset at a ratio of 2:1 TfNSW Construction / Pending a whole will be documented in the Vegetation Clearing Report prepared in
habitat offset requirement in accordance with the Policy and Construction accordance with PS311 (Clause 2.7).
Guidelines for Fish Habitat Conservation and Management
(DPI, 2013 update) and in consultation with DPI Fisheries.
Fauna Connectivity Design Principles

A minimum width of three (3) metres and a minimum height
of 1.5 metres must be provided to maintain fauna passage
below the Badgerys Creek, Cosgroves Creek, South Creek Detailed Design / The identified Creeks (Badgerys, Cosgroves, South and Kemps) are not
E14 TfNSW / Contractor Not Applicable
and Kemps Creek bridges. The three-metre wide passage Construction located within the M12 EDC project.
must consist of a natural substrate or other surface type that
will not hinder fauna movement.
Flooding
The Detailed Design flood impact assessment has been assessed against
the requirements of this Project Approval which are generally in line with the
Amended EIS to minimize impacts of the CSSI on flood behaviour. Proposed
Measures identified in the documents listed in Condition A1
flooding mitigations (i.e drainage works, open channels, earthworks) have
that are aimed at minimising the impact of the CSSI on flood
been assessed and amended based on the hydrological and hydraulic
behaviour must be incorporated into the detailed design of
modelling detailed further in Hydrology and Hydraulic Assessment Report
the CSSI. The incorporation of these measures into the
E16 TfNSW / Contractor Detailed Design Complies (Package M12ESD02: M12EDD-WSP-ALL-SD-RPT-00005)
detailed design must be reviewed and endorsed by a
Note - TfNSW has been responsible for consultation requirements
suitably qualified and experienced person in consultation
associated with this CoA. WSP has supported TfNSW consultation activities
with directly affected landowners, DPI Water, DPI Fisheries,
via the provision of information and where requested attendance at meetings,
EES, Infrastructure NSW (INSW) and relevant councils.
briefing sessions and workshops. Note - TfNSW engaged Lyall and
Associates as their Flood Modelling consultant for the M12 motorway project
as a whole.
Unless otherwise agreed by the Planning Secretary, the

CSSI must be designed and constructed to limit impacts on There are no flood impacts associated with RS31 and RS32. Refer to the
flooding characteristics in areas outside the project Complies Hydrology and Hydraulic Assessment Report (Package M12ESD02: M12EDD-
boundary during any flood event up to and including the 1% WSP-ALL-SD-RPT-00005).
AEP flood event, to the following:
There are no flood impacts associated with RS31 and RS32. Refer to the
(a) a maximum increase in inundation time of one hour; Complies Hydrology and Hydraulic Assessment Report (Package M12ESD02: M12EDD-
WSP-ALL-SD-RPT-00005).
(b) a maximum increase of 10 mm in above-floor inundation There are no flood impacts associated with RS31 and RS32. Refer to the
to habitable rooms where floor levels are currently Complies Hydrology and Hydraulic Assessment Report (Package M12ESD02: M12EDD-
exceeded; WSP-ALL-SD-RPT-00005).
(c) no above-floor inundation of habitable rooms which are
Complies Hydrology and Hydraulic Assessment Report (Package M12ESD02: M12EDD-
currently not inundated;
(d) a maximum increase of 50 mm in inundation of land
zoned as residential, industrial or commercial;
(e) a maximum increase of 100 mm in inundation of land There are no flood impacts associated with RS31 and RS32. Refer to the
zoned as rural, primary production, environment zone or Complies Hydrology and Hydraulic Assessment Report (Package M12ESD02: M12EDD-
public recreation; WSP-ALL-SD-RPT-00005).
E17 (f) no significant increase in the flood hazard or risk to life; TfNSW / Contractor Detailed Design Complies Hydrology and Hydraulic Assessment Report (Package M12ESD02: M12EDD-
and
(g) maximum relative increase in velocity of 10%, where the

resulting velocity is greater than 1.0 m/s, unless adequate
scour protection measures are implemented and/or the
velocity increases do not exacerbate erosion as
demonstrated through site-specific risk of scour or
geomorphological assessments.
Where the Proponent cannot meet the requirements set out

in clauses (d), (e) and (g) alternative flood levels or
Not Applicable Not Applicable with respect to retaining structures (walls) RS31 and RS32.
mitigation measures may be agreed to with the affected
landowner.
In the event that the Proponent and the affected landowner

cannot agree on the measures to mitigate the impact as
described in clauses (d), (e) and (g), the Proponent must
Not Applicable Not Applicable with respect to retaining structures (walls) RS31 and RS32.
engage a suitably qualified and experienced independent
person to advise and assist in determining the impact and
relevant mitigation measures.
Heritage
Construction and operation of the CSSI should aim to not

diminish the potential of the following heritage items for
Detailed Design /
nomination to the State Heritage Register beyond the The heritage listed sites associated with CoA E25 are not within the M12
E25 TfNSW / Contractor Construction / Not Applicable
impacts to significance already identified in the documents EDC project.
Operation
listed in Condition A1: McGarvie Smith Farm, McMaster
Field Station and Fleurs Radio Telescope Site.
Active Transport
Active transport facilities must be designed, constructed
and/or rectified in accordance with the Guide to Road Not Applicable to Retaining Structures (walls) RS31 and RS32. Note - SUP
Design Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling (Austroads, design is done as per the scope of this project for adequate active transport
Detailed Design /
E63 2017) and relevant Australian Standards (AS) such as AS TfNSW / Contractor Not Applicable facility to connect EDR section with the M7 motorway active transport
Construction
1428.1-2009 Design for access and mobility. The active corridor. Adequate design standard as per AGRD - Part 6A and AS 1428.1-
transport links must also incorporate relevant Crime 2009 will be followed while developing the design.
Prevention Through Environmental Design principles.
Socio-Economic, Land Use and Property

The Proponent must identify the utilities and services
(hereafter “services”) potentially affected by Work to
determine requirements for diversion, protection and/or Note - The Appointed Construction Contractor and TfNSW will be responsible
support. Alterations to services must be determined by for the requirements of E75 during the Prior to Construction and During
Detailed Design, Prior
negotiation between the Proponent and the service Construction phases. Note - WSP's detailed design scope involves the
E75 TfNSW / Contractor to Construction and Complies
providers. The Proponent in consultation with service preparation of a Building Condition and Public Utility Assessment Report (as
Construction
providers must ensure that disruption to services resulting per PS311, Clause 2.6.3) and the Utilities Coordination / Utilties Management
from the CSSI are avoided where possible and where design package (M12WET01) at 80%.
unavoidable, customers are advised in accordance with the
Communication Strategy required under Condition B1.
Agricultural Operations
The CSSI must be delivered in a manner that minimises

intrusion, as far as reasonably practicable, and disruption to
E79 agricultural operations/activities in surrounding properties TfNSW / Contractor Construction Not Applicable M12 EDC detailed design does not impact upon any agricultural operations.
(e.g. stock access, access to farm dams, etc.), unless
otherwise agreed by the landowner.
Where the viability of existing agricultural operations will be

impacted by the CSSI, the Proponent must, at the request of
the landowner, employ a suitably qualified and experienced
independent agricultural expert to assist in identifying Pre-Construction /
E80 management measures to address the identified impacts. TfNSW / Contractor Construction / Not Applicable M12 EDC detailed design does not impact upon any agricultural opreations.
Where the Proponent has commenced the requirements of Operation
this condition, prior to determination of the CSSI, the
Proponent may rely on these activities to fulfil this
requirement.
Upper Canal System
Retaining Structures (walls) RS31 and R32 are not located in the vicinity of
the Upper Canal System or its associated heritage curtilage. Note - TfNSW
The Proponent must have regard to the Upper Canal
has undertaken condition survey of Upper Canal, refer to SMEC report (dated
Pheasants Nest to Prospect Reservoir Conservation
23 July 2019, Ref No. 14.2166.0522-0032) "M12 Motorway - Dilapidation
Management Plan (NSW Public Works Governments
E81 TfNSW / Contractor Construction Not Applicable Survey of WaterNSW Cecil Hills Tunnel". Note - WSP's detailed design
Architect’s Office, 2016) and Guidelines for development
scope with respect to vibration impacts for M12EDC is the preparation of a
adjacent to the Upper Canal and Warragamba Pipelines
Building Condition and Public Utility Assessment Report (as per PS311,
(WaterNSW, 2020) when constructing the CSSI.
Clause 2.6.3) and the Utilities Coordination / Utilties Management design
package (M12WET01) at 80%.
Retaining Stuctures (walls) RS31 and RS32 are not located near any shafts
or tunnels associated with the Upper Canal System or their associated
Construction and operation of the CSSI must not destroy, heritage curtilages. Note - the location of Upper Canal System (including the
modify or otherwise cause direct or indirect damage to the Consturction / Cecil Hills Tunnel and Shafts 3 and 4) are known. Note - WSP's detailed
E82 TfNSW / Contractor Not Applicable
Upper Canal System, including the Cecil Hills Tunnel, and Operation design scope with respect to vibration impacts for M12EDC is the preparation
Tunnel Shafts 3 and 4. of a Building Condition and Public Utility Assessment Report (as per PS311,
Clause 2.6.3) and the Utilities Coordination / Utilties Management design
package (M12WET01) at 80%.
Road Safety
Not Applicable to Retaining Structures (walls) RS31 and RS32. Note - No

The CSSI (including new or modified local roads, parking,
parking facilities needed and identified in this project as per the project
pedestrian and cycle infrastructure) must be designed to
E97 TfNSW / Contractor Detailed Design Not Applicable scope. Local roads, pedestrian and cyclist facility are designed as per the
meet relevant design, engineering and safety guidelines,
relevant design standrads, guidelines including AGRD traffic management
including the Austroads Guide to Traffic Management.
standards.
An independent Road Safety Audit is to be undertaken by

an appropriately qualified and experienced person during
design development (audit of the plans) and prior to opening
(preopening audit) to assess the safety performance of new
or modified roads (road safety audit), parking, pedestrian
and cycle infrastructure provided as part of the CSSI
(including ancillary facilities) to ensure that they meet the
Not Applicable to Retaining Structures (walls) RS31 and RS32. Note - RSA
requirements of relevant design, engineering and safety
audits have been conducted during the concept design stage and also during
guidelines, including Austroads Guide to Traffic
E98 TfNSW / Contractor Detailed Design Not Applicable this 50% detailed design stage. RSA findings are addressed in the design
Management.
where resonably and prctically feasible for details refer to the RSA report -
Audit findings and recommendations of the detailed design
Doc No. - M12EDD-WSP-ALL-DN-RPT-000002
plans (audit of the plans) must be actioned before
construction of the relevant infrastructure. The pre-opening
audit findings and recommendations must be actioned prior
to the relevant infrastructure being made available for use.
All audit findings must be made available to the Planning
Secretary on request, within the timeframe stated in the
request.
Water
The CSSI must be designed, constructed and operated so
as to maintain the NSW Water Quality Objectives where
they are being achieved as at the date of this approval, and
contribute towards achievement of the NSW Water Quality
Objectives over time where they are not being achieved as
at the date of this approval, unless an EPL in force in Not Applicable for Retaining Structures (walls) RS31 and RS32. Note - Water
respect of the CSSI contains different requirements in quality modelling and required mitigation measures will be detailed in the
relation to the NSW Water Quality Objectives, in which case Detailed Design / Stormwater Drainage and Water Quality (M12ESD01) detailed design
E105 those requirements must be complied with. TfNSW / Contractor Construction / Not Applicable package. A Water Quality Discharge Impact Assessment for M12 EDC will be
Operation prepared. Construction basins (i.e. temporary basins) will be designed based
Note: If it is proposed to discharge construction stormwater on the requirements of the Blue Book and detailed in the Erosion and
to waterways, a Water Pollution Impact Assessment will be Sedimentation Management Report (M12EEN03).
required to inform licensing, consistent with section 45 of the
POEO Act. Any such assessment must be prepared in
consultation with the EPA and be consistent with the
National Water Quality Guidelines, with the level of detail
commensurate with the potential water pollution risk.
Not Applicable to Retaining Structures (walls) RS31 and RS32. Note - within
M12 EDC potential watercourse crossings are limited to an unnamed tributary
Drainage feature crossings (permanent and temporary
of Ropes Creek which is a 1st order stream, empheral, class 4 (unlikely fish
watercourse crossings and diversions) and drainage swales
Detailed Design / habitat), not key fish habitat and where threatened fish are not predicted.
E106 and depressions must be carried out in accordance with TfNSW / Contractor Not Applicable
Construction Detailed design of potential watercourse crossings will be detailed in the
relevant guidelines and designed by a suitably qualified and
relevant bridge/culvert design package. Note - the design of temporary
experienced person.
watercourse crossings (if required) is the responibility of the appointed
Construction Contractor.
Not Applicable to Retaining Structures (walls) RS31 and RS32. Note -

TfNSW has been responsible for consulting with relevant government
The Proponent must consult DPI Fisheries and EES during agencies and stakeholder. WSP will support TfNSW's consultation efforts via
the detailed design of the watercourse crossings. The Not Applicable to WSP Detailed the provision of information and where required the attendance at meetings,
E108 TfNSW / Contractor Detailed Design
consultation must include: (a) design of bridges; (b) design Design Scope of Works. briefing sessions and workshops. Note - within M12 EDC potential
of scour protection; and (c) details of riparian revegetation. watercourse crossings are limited to an unnamed tributary of Ropes Creek
which is a 1st order stream, empheral, class 4 (unlikely fish habitat), not key
fish habitat and where threatened fish are not predicted.
Stormwater Drainage
All new or modified drainage systems associated with the
CSSI must be designed to:
(a) where stormwater drainage is discharged to a council’s
stormwater system, meet the capacity constraints of any
council’s drainage system to receive and convey the
proposed flows from the CSSI, or otherwise upgrade Not Applicable to Retaining Structures (walls) RS31 and RS32. Note - to be
council’s drainage system at the Proponent’s expense, in addressed in Stormwater Drainage and Water Quality Design Package
consultation with the relevant council(s); (b) minimise (M12ESD01) where relevant. Note - scour protection (where required) to be
E110 TfNSW /Contractor Detailed Design Not Applicable
impacts on the receiving environment at the final outflow addressed in Hydrology and Hydraulics Report (M12ESD02). Note - the
point resulting from any additional flow volume (including, extent of native vegetation clearing for the M12 EDC project as a whole will
but not limited to scour, flooding, water quality impacts, and be documented in the Vegetation Clearing Report and Map (M12EEN08).
impacts on riparian vegetation, aquatic ecology and
property); and (c) ensure mitigation measures are
implemented where increased flows through cross drainage
systems adversely impact on council or Sydney Water
drainage infrastructure and the receiving environment.
Design Lot Compliance Status
Reference Detailed Design Criteria Responsibility Timing (Complies (C), Non-Compliance Design Comments 80% (RS31 and RS32)
(NC), Not Applicable (NA), Pending)
Erosion and sedimentation control measures must be designed in accordance with:

(i)RMS General Specification G38 Soil and Water Management,
QA PS311 2.3.3 (ii)RMS Road Design Guide,
Design of Erosion (iii)Managing Urban Stormwater – Soils and Construction, Volume 1, 4th Edition, (Landcom, 2004) – Blue Book Not Applicable to Retaining Structures RS31 and RS32. Refer to design package
Contractor Detailed Design NA
and Sediment 1 (iv)Managing Urban Stormwater – Soils and Construction, Volume 2D, Main Road Construction (DECCW, Erosion & Sedimentation Management Report & Drawings (M12EEN03).
Control Measures 2009) – Blue Book 2.
(v)Requirements of the Environmental Assessment, submissions and preferred infrastructure report and NSW
and Federal conditions of approval.
Design operational water quality control measures for longitudinal drainage outlets in accordance with the
Environmental Assessment and submissions and preferred infrastructure reports to minimise adverse water
Not Applicable to Retaining Structures RS31 and RS32. Refer to design package
quality impacts on sensitive receiving waters from water discharging from the project. In addition to specific Contractor Detailed Design NA
Stormwater Drainage and Water Quality Detailed Design Report (M12ESD01).
locations nominated in the Environmental Assessment and submissions and preferred infrastructure reports,
operational water quality control measures are to be provided for the following sensitive receiving waters:
QA PS311 2.4 (i) Class 1 or Class 2 fish habitat waterways (in accordance with the DPI guideline “Why does Fish Need to Not Applicable to Retaining Structures RS31 and RS32. Refer to design package
Operational Water Cross the Road? Fish Passage Requirements for Waterway Crossings (2003)”; Stormwater Drainage and Water Quality Detailed Design Report (M12ESD01).
Quality Management
(ii) Any waterway that discharges into State Environmental Planning Policy 14 wetlands that are Not Applicable to Retaining Structures RS31 and RS32. Refer to design package
located within 500 metres of the project; Contractor Detailed Design NA
(iii) Any waterway that discharges to waters that are used for the purposes of human consumption and located Not Applicable to Protection Slab MS01. Refer to design package Stormwater
within 500 metres of the project; Drainage and Water Quality Detailed Design Report (M12ESD01).
(iv) Any water sensitive threatened species habitat, endangered ecological communities, or other identified Not Applicable to Retaining Structures RS31 and RS32. Refer to design package
areas of biodiversity conservation significance Stormwater Drainage and Water Quality Detailed Design Report (M12ESD01).
Operational water quality control measures are to be designed to provide the following:
(i)Average annual pollutant load reductions of Total Suspended Soils (TSS) of 80%,
(ii)Spillage containment for a minimum of 20,000 litres. See PS371 - Accidental Spill Management clauses.
(iii)Prevention of groundwater seepage ingress either into or out of the basin or structure, with safe and easy
all weather vehicular access for maintenance and emergency/incident response purposes, including routine Not Applicable to Retaining Structures RS31 and RS32. Refer to design package
operational water quality monitoring; Stormwater Drainage and Water Quality Detailed Design Report (M12ESD01) and
(iv)Consideration of the National Airports Safeguarding Framework Principles and Guidelines including design package Erosion & Sedimentation Management Report & Drawings
QA PS311 2.4.1 Guideline C: Managing the Risk of Wildlife Strikes in the Vicinity of Airports and engagement of an aviation (M12EEN03).
Design Criteria of ecologist to review the proposed design. Proposed measures may include design of alternative dry bioretention
Operational Water operational basins.
Quality Control (v)Security fencing and lockable gates, where such infrastructure is required by safety in design requirements;
(vi)Where possible, converted from sediment basins used during the construction phase;
The operational stormwater design is to be prepared in accordance with requirements in the Environmental
Not Applicable to Retaining Structures RS31 and RS32. Refer to design package
Assessment and submissions and preferred infrastructure reports the RMS ‘Procedures for Selecting Treatment Contractor Detailed Design NA
Strategies to Control Road Runoff’ (RMS, 2003) and the Water Sensitive Urban Design Guideline (RMS 2017).
Not Applicable for Retaining Structures RS31 and RS32. Note - TfNSW's appointed
noise and vibration consultant for M12 (GHD) has recently received an updated
(i) Provide design information at design gates (50%, 80% and 100%) and/or when requested by model of M12 EDC from WSP and will re-run the noise/vibration model. Note -
RMS during the course of the project to RMS for the update and review of the NVM, NVAR TfNSW has not provided any formal direction in relation to operational noise
and ONVR by the overarching noise and vibration Professional Service Contractor. mitigation measures for M12 EDC (e.g. pavement types, noise mounds or noise
walls) to date. Note - The need for operational noise mitigation measures as part
of M12 EDC detailed design will be reviewed following the completion of the noise
model re-run by GHD.
Note Applicable for Retaining Structures RS31 and RS32. Note - TfNSW's
appointed noise and vibration consultant for M12 (GHD) has recently received an
(ii) Review the NVM and NVAR completed by the overarching noise and vibration Professional updated model of M12 EDC from WSP and will re-run the noise/vibration model.
Services Contractor and fully integrate the NVM and the content of the NVAR into further Note - TfNSW has not provided any formal direction in relation to operational noise
design. mitigation measures for M12 EDC (e.g. pavement types, noise mounds or noise
QA PS311 2.6.1 noise and vibration consultant for M12 (GHD) has recently received an updated
Operational Noise: model of M12 EDC from WSP and will re-run the noise/vibration model. Note -
Provide Information, (iii)Document and inform RMS of any issues that the NVAR and NVM have on the design and TfNSW has not provided any formal direction in relation to operational noise
Review and Contractor Detailed Design NA
provide a proposal to resolve. mitigation measures for M12 EDC (e.g. pavement types, noise mounds or noise
Integration of NVM, walls) to date. Note - The need for operational noise mitigation measures as part
NVAR and ONVR of M12 EDC detailed design will be reviewed following the completion of the noise
noise and vibration consultant for M12 (GHD) has recently received an updated
model of M12 EDC from WSP and will re-run the noise/vibration model. Note -
(iv) Include all documentation and output into the Digital Model which will form part of the
TfNSW has not provided any formal direction in relation to operational noise
construction contract tender documentation. Contractor Detailed Design NA
mitigation measures for M12 EDC (e.g. pavement types, noise mounds or noise
(v) Provide resources to attend the all Progress Update Meetings (allow 10) convened by the
overarching noise and vibration Professional Service Contractor during the course of the Not Applicable for Retaining Structures RS31 and RS32. Refer to above comment.
project. The Progress Update Meeting will aim to provide information on updates to the NVM, Note - WSP detailed deisgn team includes Noise/Vibration specialists.
NVAR and the ONVR
During detailed design the amount and location of vegetation to be cleared due to the detailed design will be
tracked. This will be compared to the amount (i.e. volume) and location of vegetation that has been identified to
QA PS311 2.7 Flora Not Applicable for Retaining Structures RS31 and RS32. The extent of vegetation
be cleared in the Environment Assessment. A report and detailed map will be prepared outlining the clearing as
and Fauna Contractor Detailed Design NA clearing for the M12 EDC project as a whole will be documented in the Vegetation
detailed in the Environment Assessment and as proposed for detailed design. The clearing of vegetation report
Management Clearing Report prepared in accordance with PS311 (Clause 2.7).
and any additional clearing of vegetation would need RMS acceptance, prior to incorporation into the detailed
design.
Where the Environmental Assessment requires structures and furniture for flora and fauna mitigation such as
fauna fencing and fauna crossing structures, the mitigation measure must be designed consistent with the
design principles outlined in draft RMS Wildlife Connectivity Guidelines. The detailed design
process for fauna structures is to:
(i) Meet all the requirements / safeguards of the Environment Assessment
Not Applicable to Retaining Structures RS31 and RS32. Note - As part of M12EDC
(ii) Outline the proposed structures for the project.
detailed design, a dedicated fauna culvert will be installed under the new section of
QA PS311 2.7 Flora (iii) Outline the objectives and scope for each fauna structure (e.g. purpose, target species requirements,
Wallgrove Road. In addtion, an arboreal mammal crossing will be installed over the
and Fauna maintenance considerations, topography, and vegetation). Contractor Detailed Design NA
new section of Wallgrove Road. Each fauna connectivity measure will be presented
Management (iv) Include submission of the detailed design for review by RMS at 50%, 80% and 100%.
in separate design packages. A Fauna Structures Report will be prepared in
(v) Outline the process for consultation with, and review by RMS during each design stage for the fauna
accordance with PS311 requirements.
structures.
Structures and furniture for flora and fauna mitigation must be designed collaboratively with a suitably qualified
ecologist with demonstrated experience in the implementation of flora and fauna mitigation measures for road
construction projects.
Where the fauna crossing structure type in the Environmental Assessment, submissions or preferred
infrastructure reports is identified as a "fish passage", the structure must comply with following fish passage
requirements:
(i)Class 1 and 2 requirements are to meet Fisheries guideline “Why do Fish Need to Cross the Road? Fish
Passage Requirements for Waterway Crossings (2003)”;
(ii)Water velocity through culverts must be less than 0.3m/s for water depths up to 0.5m, and the overall width
of the culvert must be no less than the width of the natural stream.
(iii)For Class 1 and 2 creeks the following minimum design requirements are required: Not Applicable to Retaining Structures RS31 and RS32. Fish passage not required
a.Inverts of at least one culvert and/or pipe cell must be designed at a minimum of 200 mm below bed level of as part of M12 EDC detailed design. Waterways associated with the M12 EDC
QA PS311 2.7.1.1
streams to allow fish passage during low flow periods and to allow pools to form. Construction Boundary include Ropes Creek and an unamed tributary of Ropes
Fish Passage Contractor Detailed Design NA
b.Sharp drops at the inlets and outlets of structures must be avoided and practical fish ramps must be installed Creek. Both waterways are empheral, 1st order streams, Class 4 waterways (i.e.
Requirements
where drops occur. unlikely fish habitat), not identified as Key Fish Habitat and Threatened fish are not
c.The base of the low flow channels / cells must be roughened and / or rocks added to provide a more natural likely to occur (DPI, 2019). Fish passage is not required as part of M12 EDC.
environment and promote some sediment accumulation.
(iv)For Class 3 requirements creeks the following minimum design requirements are required:
a.Velocity less than or equal to 0.3m/s with no head loss and grade to be less than 1%.
b.Where ‘no head loss’ cannot be achieved, the low flow channel/cell is to include sills where required, sills are
to be: minimum 200mm high; notched on alternate sides; and spaced within the culvert based on grade such
that there is no dry areas between the sills (i.e. pool is formed between the sills and the pool is deeper at the
outlet end than the inlet end).
Not Applicable for Retaining Structures RS31 and RS32. Note - Note - As part of
Where required by the Environmental Assessment, fauna crossing structures must be designed in consultation M12EDC detailed design, a dedicated fauna culvert will be installed under the new
with relevant environmental agencies. Records of any consultation or agreements reached with environmental section of Wallgrove Road. In addtion, an arboreal mammal crossing will be
agencies must be included in the design documentation. installed over the new section of Wallgrove Road. Each fauna connectivity measure
will be presented in separate design packages. A Fauna Structures Report will be
prepared in accordance with PS311 requirements.
QA PS311 2.7.1.2 Not Applicable to for Retaining Structures RS31 and RS32. Note - Note - As part of
Fauna Crossing
M12EDC detailed design, a dedicated fauna culvert will be installed under the new
Structures General A bridge may be implemented in lieu of a box culvert for fauna crossings provided that the total width between
section of Wallgrove Road. In addtion, an arboreal mammal crossing will be
the intersection of the scour protection and the finished ground level of the bridge is at least equivalent to the Contractor Detailed Design NA
installed over the new section of Wallgrove Road. Each fauna connectivity measure
total clear width of the cells of the replaced box culvert.
Where service roads are provided for in dual carriageway projects, separate fauna crossing structures must be
No Service Road is provided as part of M12EDC project, this item is not applicable.
provided for the main carriageways and service road to provide daylight between the main carriageways and Contractor Detailed Design NA
Not Applicble for Retaining Structures RS31 and RS32.
service road structures.
Dedicated fauna crossings must be located, design and installed in accordance with the following requirements:
(i)Underpasses must be located as close as possible to, or within, recognised fauna movement, corridors and /
or adjacent to areas of key habitat.
(ii)Crossings must provide an unobstructed view, for fauna using an underpass, of the habitat or horizon on the
other side of the underpass. The location of the crossings in the embankment fills must be optimised to provide
these views.
(iii)The design must ensure that fauna can view the entrance to crossings by careful placement of vegetation
and other features.
(iv)Crossings must be located and installed so that entrance slopes are not steeper than 3:1 H:V, must not be
rocky and must provide suitable fauna passage.
(v)Clearing of native vegetation adjacent to crossing must be minimised.
Not Applicable to Retaining Structures RS31 and RS32. Note - As part of M12EDC
(vi)Culverts for terrestrial wildlife that retain water are ineffective while flooded. Use a multi-cell system, with
detailed design, a dedicated fauna culvert will be installed under the new section of
QA PS311 2.7.1.3 some cells for drainage and others with dry passage for wildlife. Alternatively, provide a ledge or sloping floor
Wallgrove Road. In addtion, an arboreal mammal crossing will be installed over the
Dedicated Fauna within a single cell to ensure dry passage at most times. Contractor Detailed Design NA
new section of Wallgrove Road. Each fauna connectivity measure will be presented
Crossings (vii)Dedicated fauna culvert underpass floors and exit / entry points must provide dry fauna passage in 1 in 10
in separate design packages. A Fauna Structures Report will be prepared in
year average recurrence interval (ARI) events.
accordance with PS311 requirements.
(viii)Rectangular culverts are preferred over round or half-round structures because they are more “open” and
fences can connect more tightly to rectangular structures.
(ix)The height and width of the culvert should be maximised for all species (i.e. culvert size is dependent on
the target species):
a.Large culverts are at least 2 metres high by 2 metres wide, and preferably a minimum of 3 metres by 3
metres for larger species such as kangaroos and emus.
b.Small-medium culverts are typically less than 1.5 metres by 1.5 metres.
c.Maximum length is unknown, but probably around 30–50 metres.
(x)In platypus habitat, the base of the culvert should be no more than 20 centimetres above the stream bed.
For other aquatic species, the natural width, depth and gradient of the water course should be maintained within
the culvert and no vertical drops created at the entrance or exit.
Combined drainage and fauna crossings must be located, design and installed in accordance with the following
requirements:
Not Applicable for Retaining Structures RS31 and RS32. Note - As part of
(i)Combined underpass floors and exit / entry points must provide dry fauna passage.
M12EDC detailed design, a dedicated fauna culvert will be installed under the new
QA PS311 2.7.1.4 (ii)1 in 1 year ARI storm event and must not have wet sections that retain water for longer than three days.
section of Wallgrove Road. In addtion, an arboreal mammal crossing will be
Combined Drainage (iii)Combined crossings must be located and installed so that entrance slopes are not steeper than 3:1 H:V nor Contractor Detailed Design NA
installed over the new section of Wallgrove Road. Each fauna connectivity measure
and Fauna Crossings rocky and must provide suitable fauna passage.
(iv)Scour protection associated with the entries and exits to combined drainage / fauna crossings must
accommodate and provide for the safe and effective passage of fauna, be constructed with the smallest
reasonably possible rock size, be as level as possible and have minimal gaps between the rocks.
Where scour protection is required, the following design features MUST be included:
(i)A combination of placed rock with either a synthetic permanent erosion control mat or coir matting to allow
regrowth of vegetation promotes fauna movement and better reflects the riparian environment of the channel.
(ii)Where this is not achievable due to site conditions consideration must be given to the use of concrete paths
or other suitable surfaces in the scour protection to provide for the safe and effective passage of fauna. This
QA PS311 2.7.1.5 safe passage across scour protection areas must extend from structure to surrounding natural vegetation / Not Applicable for Retaining Structures RS31 and RS32. Note - Scour protection
Scour Protection ground substrate. Contractor Detailed Design NA requirements for M12 EDC are documented in the Stormwater Drainage and Water
Design (iii)Where outlet velocities are of a suitable value, scour protection should be provided as a flexible and Quality Design Package (M12ESD01).
adaptive measure to minimise maintenance requirements over the 50 year design life under normal flow
condition.
(iv)Selection of the appropriate scour protection measure depends on the velocity and Froude Number at the
culvert outlet and the natural velocities and flow regime in the receiving watercourse downstream. Scour
protection works are to be designed for a minimum 50 year ARI storm.
Where refuge poles or horizontal poles are required the following design features would be included:
(i)Durable refuge poles or horizontal poles must be installed inside combined crossings where required by the
Environmental Assessment and in combined crossings that may be frequented by fauna species which are likely
to use the structures.
(ii)The refuge poles must be designed to provide safe refuge for fauna from predators and to encourage use of
Not Applicable for Retaining Structures RS31 and RS32. Note - Refuge poles are
the crossings by smaller fauna species.
QA PS311 2.7.1.6 not required for the proposed dedicated fauna culvert under the new section of
(iii)The poles must be located to one side of the crossings. Contractor Detailed Design NA
Refuge Pole Design Wallgrove Road based on the target species or the arboreal mammal crossing over
(iv)Cross legged supports which block views and access must not be used in the structures.
the new section of Wallgrove Road.
(v)Forks must be installed at the top of refuge poles to provide a rest area for fauna.
(vi)Durable refuge poles must be provided outside of combined crossings, within 4 metres of the ends of the
crossings.
(vii)Flood impacts must be assessed and considered in determining the location of refuge poles.
(viii)Refuge poles must be 4 metres above ground with diameters no greater than 25 cm at ground level.
Where required by the Environmental Assessment, submissions or preferred infrastructure reports, fauna bridge
underpasses must be designed to be suitable for identified target species. Fauna bridge underpasses are to
include the following design principles:
(i)have a minimum height of 3 metres and must provide a minimum of 3 metres of dry passage during normal
QA PS311 2.7.1.7
flow conditions, Fauna Bridge Underpass currently not required as part of M12 EDC detailed design
Fauna Bridge Contractor Detailed Design NA
(ii)have entrance slopes that provide suitable fauna passage with a grade of less than 3:1, package. Not Applicable for Retaining Structures RS31 and RS32.
Underpass
(iii)provide an unobstructed view, for fauna using an underpass, of the habitat or horizon on the other side of
the underpass,
(iv)provide a natural substrate unless scour protection is required. If scour protection is required, the design
requirements of Section 2.6.1.5 Scour Protection Design is to be implemented.
The following principles are required for fauna structures to allow for fauna refuge and shelter:
Not Applicable for Retaining Structures RS31 and RS32. Note - Detailed deisgn of
QA PS311 2.7.1.8 (i)Provide appropriate shelter for wildlife to encourage use and reduce risk of predation. This includes the
Contractor Detailed Design NA fauna connectivity measures for M12EDC (dedicated fauna culvert and arboreal
Refuges and Shelter provision of logs, rocks, leaf-litter, refuge pipes, escape poles, roofing tiles, and roofing iron.
mammal crossing) will take into account this requirement.
(ii)Native vegetation at the entrances and shelter for wildlife will encourage use.
Not Applicable for Retaining Structures RS31 and RS32. Note - Fauna fencing will
Fencing to funnel wildlife to the culvert and prevent animals from accessing the road must be included where
QA PS311 2.7.1.9 be designed to support functionality of dedicated fauna culvert (under new section
required in the Environmental Assessment, submissions and preferred infrastructure reports. Design of the Contractor Detailed Design NA
Fauna Fencing of Wallgrove Road) in consultation with TfNSW and WSPT. Fauna Fencing design
fencing depends on the target species.
will be presented in a separate design package (TBC).
Not Applicable for Retaining Structures RS31 and RS32. Note - an arboreal
mammal crosssing will be installed over the new section of Wallgrove Road. The
Where glider crossings are required the following design features would be included: Contractor Detailed Design NA design of the arboreal mammal crossing will take into consideration the PS311
requirements and input from WSP's fauna connectivity specialist (Rodney Van der
Ree).
(i) Materials
a.12-14 gauge marine grade silver (high UV rating) rope and stainless steel cables.
b.The canopy bridge needs to be attached to suitable poles located at a safe distance from the road edge.
Not Applicable for Retaining Structures RS31 and RS32. Note - an arboreal
Other structures, such as sign posts or bridge supports may be suitable if they provide the right height.
mammal crosssing will be installed over the new section of Wallgrove Road. The
c.If support poles are used in the median metal guards should be used to prevent animals descending support
Contractor Detailed Design NA design of the arboreal mammal crossing will take into consideration the PS311
poles to the ground in median strips.
requirements and input from WSP's fauna connectivity specialist (Rodney Van der
d.If the risk of predation from owls is high, a tunnel-like rope ladder may be used, as can short lengths of PVC
Ree).
pipe securely mounted to the rope ladder.
e.To minimise avian predation and provide greater protection, additional predator shields and pipes can be
installed to discourage avian predators and provide shelter.
(ii) Dimensions
a.Maximise the distance between the canopy bridge and traffic. Minimum 6-12 metres (or more) above the
ground for sufficient height above traffic and traffic noise.
b.Glider poles and landing points must be close enough together and high enough that glide trajectory does not
intersect traffic or the ground. Average glide angle is 30.5 degrees with a 1 metre loss in height for 1-2 metres in
glide length, but see species, specific information below
c.If a canopy bridge is used beneath the road carriage, a minimum of 1 metre clearance should be provided Not Applicable for Retaining Structures RS31 and RS32. Note - an arboreal
between the rope and the bottom of the bridge to reduce disturbance from traffic noise and vibration. mammal crosssing will be installed over the new section of Wallgrove Road. The
d.Length limit depends on surrounding habitat. Bridges across roads of up to 70 metres have been shown to Contractor Detailed Design NA design of the arboreal mammal crossing will take into consideration the PS311
be used by arboreal species crossing the road with no increase in mortality. requirements and input from WSP's fauna connectivity specialist (Rodney Van der
e.Height of structure is dependent on the length required to glide, using conservative estimates of glide Ree).
capability. Use trigonometry to determine required height of pole/tree, assuming animals launch from the outer
branches about ¾ the height of the tree. The glide trajectory must easily clear the traffic (i.e. at least 2 metres
above truck height) and any roadside fencing, with projected landings above the ground.
f.Cross bars can point towards desired landing point (which may be useful to reduce the length of the glide
QA PS311 2.7.1.10 required by 1 or 2 metres) or parallel to the landing point. The most important aspect of the design is that the
Glider Crossings gliding distance is appropriate for the target species.
(iii) Refuges and shelter

a.Canopy bridges must be linked to adjacent habitat for target species (e.g. habitat trees) via ropes or ladders
tied off from the poles into surrounding trees. Nearby trees are essential to link the canopy bridge into the
surrounding vegetation.
b.Consider the landscape and available vegetation regrowth that would be expected in the future. Regrowth
may take at least 20 years and more likely over 40 years to provide mature habitat and food sources appropriate
for connectivity. The design life of over passes should consider this. Not Applicable for Retaining Structures RS31 and RS32. Note - the need for Glider
c.Designs may include one or more cross bars, shelter pipes, and predator shields to discourage attack from Contractor Detailed Design NA Crossing structure(s) associated with the proposed dedicated fauna culvert under
aerial predators. the new section of Wallgrove Road is currently being assessed.
d.Habitat trees for gliders should be within gliding distance of poles in both directions.
e.Gliders are likely to prefer natural trees therefore revegetation is desirable around structures so that over
time (e.g. 20–40 years), trees can replace artificial structures.
f.Plastic PVC pipes of a size suited to the target species placed on rope bridges and glider poles may provide
protection from aerial attack.
g.Vertical escape poles may provide refuge for arboreal species (e.g. koala, possum) in the event of an attack.
(iv) Other considerations

a.Beware of ‘one-way’ crossings. Where poles may be high enough to glide from one side to the other, but not
back. This occurs where poles or vegetation is shorter/lower on the landing side and therefore not high enough
to facilitate the return glide. Not Applicable for Retaining Structures RS31 and RS32. Note - an arboreal
b.Poles must be designed and positioned in accordance with road safety requirements and be checked as part mammal crosssing will be installed over the new section of Wallgrove Road. The
of the road safety audit for the project. Position poles outside the errant vehicle zone. Safety barriers are Contractor Detailed Design NA design of the arboreal mammal crossing will take into consideration the PS311
required around poles if they are located close to the road. requirements and input from WSP's fauna connectivity specialist (Rodney Van der
c.Consider the landscape and available vegetation regrowth that would be expected in the future. Regrowth Ree).
may take at least 20 years and more likely over 40 years to, provide mature habitat and food sources
appropriate for connectivity. The design life of over passes should consider that in some circumstances poles
may be a temporary measure until trees grow back and allow for connectivity again.
During detailed design impacts on Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal heritage sites will be minimised
where feasible. Design considerations will include, but not be limited to:
Note - Retaining Structures RS31 and R32 do not impact any existing Aboriginal
(i) Designing and locating bridges (including bridge pylons), haulage routes and other access
sites. Note - The consturction boundary for M12EDC extends into the area of
roads to minimise potential disturbance of soils where feasible.
Archealogical Potential associated with the Cecil Park School, Post Office and
(ii) Focusing protection measures on the zone within 100 metres of creeks including
Church Site (Item 8) heritage site as identified and assessed via the EIS/AR
consideration of opportunities to cover the original Aboriginal heritage cultural deposits in
QA PS311 2.8 processes. Retaining Structure RS32 is located within the area of Archaelogical
temporary protective barriers such as geotextile fabric and a layer of clean fill.
Heritage Contractor Detailed Design Complies Potential oif Item 8. The construction phase impacts associated with activities
(iii)As required by the Environmental Assessment, investigate retention of Aboriginal heritage
Management undertaken within the area of Archaeological Potential (e.g. construction of RS32)
cultural deposits between pylons of bridges and elevated structures, with specialist input from
will be managed via REMM NAH09, which will be implemented by the appointed
others co-ordinated by RMS.
contractor. Note - RS31 and RS32 are not located in the vicinity of the Upper Canal
(iv) Incorporation of outcomes from the heritage interpretation framework for the project into the
System elements (e.g. Shaft 3, Shaft 4 and Cecil Hills Tunnel) or their associated
detailed design.
heritage curtilages.
The outcome of these design considerations is to be documented in the PEMP at each design
submission.
Incorporate appropriate adaptation measures for all climate change risks with an original risk rating of moderate
or above as identified in the Environmental Impact Statement for the project. These will include but not be
(i) a durability assessment is included as an appendix to the design report for
limited to:
Retaining Structures RS31 and RS32. (ii) Not applicable to retaining structures
(i) Consideration of the full range of potential temperature extremes on the project (particularly
(walls) RS31 and RS32, refer to Stormwater Drainage and Water Quality Design
bridge structures) which may occur as a result of climate change and consider material
QA PS311 2.9 Package (M12ESD01). (iii) Revegetation requirements for M12EDC are detailed in
capacity to withstand heat during material type selection to minimise the likelihood of
Climate Change and Contractor Detailed Design Complies the Urban Design and Ladscape Package (M12ELA01). (iv) Not applicable to
infrastructure failures
Greenhouse Gas retaining structures RS31 and R32, fauna connectivity measures for M12EDC
(ii) Consideration of energy dissipation at culvert outlets when velocities exceed existing
include a dedicated fauna culvert under the new section of Wallgrove Road and an
magnitudes
arboreal mammal crossing over the new section of Wallgove Road to maintain
(iii)Consideration of the use of native species which are typically more fire tolerant and can more
fauna connectivity within WSPT lands.
rapidly regenerate after fire events
(iv) Maintenance of fauna passage along main creek lines under bridges.
APPENDIX G
GEOTECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bartosz Hrabanski
FROM: Brad Azari
SUBJECT: M12 Elizabeth Drive Connection
Reinforced Soil Walls – RS31 and RS32
Geotechnical Model and Geotechnical and External Stability Assessment– 80%
Detailed Design
OUR REF: EDC-WSP- M12ERS01-GE-MEM-000001_B
DATE: 12 July 2022
1. Introduction
This memorandum presents factual geotechnical data, geotechnical models and external design of two reinforced
soil walls (RSWs) on M12 Elizabeth Drive Connection (EDC). These RSWs are part of package M12ERS01.
Reference to Attachment A indicate that there are two RSWs, namely,
- RS31 located on control lines MW10 and MW11
o MW10 control line consisted of an L-shape wall supported by RSW. The retained height of RSW
is up to 4.6 m. MW10 control line included 2 x 1500 mm stormwater drain pipes crossing the
RSW and 1 x 450 mm stormwater drain pipe in front of the RSW. 2 x 1500 mm storm water
pipes are considered in the internal stability checks of the RSW. While the 1 x 450 mm
stormwater will be installed prior to installation of RSW and this eliminates the excavation
requirement in front of the wall following the construction of RSW.
o MW11 control line consisted of RSW supporting a batter slope. The retained height of RSW up
to 6.2 m.
- RS32 located on control line MW02
o MW11 control line consisted of an L-shape wall supported by RSW. The retained height of RSW
is up to 4.4 m.
RSWs are adopted along the MW02, MW10 and MW11 control lines due to the space constraint on them.
Moreover, RSWs advantages over other options are their relatively low cost, operations speed and high rate of
production.
Typical cross sections of two sections are presented in Attachment B.

Sydney NSW 2000
GPO Box 5394
Sydney NSW 2001
Tel: +61 2 9272 5100

Fax: +61 2 9272 5101
www.wsp.com
WSP Australia Pty Limited ABN 80 078 004 798

2. Design criteria
The geotechnical design for the RSWs has been completed in accordance with the design requirements stated in
the following Specifications and Standards:
§ RMS Specification PS331, Geotechnical Investigation and Design
§ RMS Specification PS361, Bridge and Structure Design
§ TFNSW QA Specification R57, Design of reinforced soil walls
3. Changes from previous issue

Changes from the previous revision of this memo (Rev A), are as follows:
§ Adjustment to RSW alignments
The design development to 80% design stage includes:
§ Review and incorporation of the available ground information.
§ RSW designs.
4. Available geotechnical information

4.1 Field investigation
A summary of the project geological conditions is provided in the Geotechnical Interpretative Report (GIR),
document no. M12EDD-WSP-ALL-GT-RPT-000003 (WSP, 2021). A summary of available site investigation data
for RS31 and RS32 is presented in Table 4.1. Appendix A presents a plan showing location of the geotechnical
investigations with respect to the RSWs locations. Engineering logs are presented in Appendix C.
Table 4.1 Summary of available geotechnical information for RSWs
INDEX TEST TYPE TEST LOCATION TEST DEPTH SURFACE RL

(m) (m AHD)
RS31 Test Pit P3-TP009 1.5 107.16
Test Pit P3-TP010 3.0 102.63
Pavement Core P3-PC001 1.2 109.42
RS32 Borehole P3-BH005 16.0 116.40
Borehole P3-BH2003 15.9 117.25
Test Pit P3-TP009 1.5 107.16
Test Pit P3-TP010 3.0 102.63
Test Pit P3-TP012 1.9 107.43
Test Pit TP2003/154 2.2 115.39
M12 Elizabeth Drive Connection RS31 and RS32_Rev B | Page 2

5. Subsurface conditions
5.1 Site geology
At the project zone of the RSWs, the field investigation data indicates weathered Bringelly Shale (siltstone and
sandstone laminates) at a depth between 0.6 m to 3.0 m below ground level, overlain by stiff to hard residual clays.
5.2 Groundwater
No groundwater has been observed during the field investigations.
6. Geotechnical inputs
6.1 Geotechnical model
The interpreted subsurface conditions along control lines of MW02, MW10 and MW11 (RS31 and RS32) are
presented in Table 6.1 to
Table 6.2. Ground models based on specific site investigation data (borehole or test pit) will be adopted for RSW
designs.
Table 6.1 Subsurface conditions at RS31 (based on test pits P3-TP009 and P3-TP010, ground surface RL
103.7 m)
GEOTECHNICAL UNIT MATERIAL TYPE DEPTH TO BASE OF LAYER RL THICKNESS (m)

BASE (m) (m AHD)
Topsoil Silty clay 0.70 103.0 0.70
Alluvium/Residual Soil Very stiff to hard silty clay 3.0 100.7 2.3
Bringelly Shale EW-HW Shale > 3.0 < 100.7 -
Table 6.2 Subsurface conditions at RS32 from CH 0 m to CH 70 m (based on test pits TP2003/154, P3-BH005
and P3-TP012, ground surface RL 111.0 m)

BASE (m) (m AHD)
Topsoil Clayey silt 0.3 110.7 0.3
Residual Soil Firm silty clay 0.8 110.2 0.5
Hard silty clay 1.80 109.2 1.0
Bringelly Shale EW-HW Shale > 1.80 <109.2 -
Table 6.3 Subsurface conditions at RS32 from CH 70 m to CH 260 m (based on test pit TP2003/154, ground
surface RL 115.4 m)

BASE (m) (m AHD)
Topsoil Sandy silt 0.2 115.2 0.2
Hard silty clay 1.6 113.8 0.8

BASE (m) (m AHD)
Bringelly Shale EW-HW Shale >1.6 <113.8 -
Table 6.4 Subsurface conditions at RS32 from CH 260 m to CH 425 m (based on test pit P3-TP009, ground
surface RL 107.2 m)

BASE (m) (m AHD)
Topsoil Clayey silt 0.2 107.0 0.2
Stiff silty clay 0.6 106.6 0.2
Table 6.5 Subsurface conditions at RS32 from CH 425 m to CH 560 m (based on test pit P3-TP010, ground
surface RL102.6m)

BASE (m) (m AHD)
Topsoil Silty clay 0.7 101.9 0.7
Residual Soil Hard silty clay 1.3 101.3 0.6
Very stiff silty clay 3.0 99.6 1.7
6.2 Geotechnical design parameters
6.2.1 Soil structure interaction

Characteristic soil and rock parameters adopted from Geotechnical Interpretative Report (GIR), document no.
M12EDD-WSP-ALL-GT-RPT-000003 (WSP, 2021) for the design of RSWs are presented in Table 6.6.
Table 6.6 Summary of characteristic design parameters for the reinforced soil walls
GEOTECHNICAL MATERIAL TYPE ϒ Su c’ Ф’ u’ E’

UNIT 3
(kN/m ) (kPa) (°) (MPa)
(kPa)
Engineered Fill Reinforced fill 22 - 0 34 0.3 50
General fill 20 75 10 25 0.3 20
R57 fill behind/above 22 - 0 30 0.3 40

RSW
Select fill 22 - 5 35 0.3 50
Residual Soil Firm clay 17 30 2 26 0.3 6
Stiff clay 18 75 5 26 0.3 15
Very stiff clay 19 100 7 26 0.3 20

GEOTECHNICAL MATERIAL TYPE ϒ Su c’ Ф’ u’ E’
UNIT (kN/m )3 (kPa) (°) (MPa)
(kPa)
Hard clay 20 200 10 26 0.3 40
Bringelly Shale EW-HW Shale 22 - 10 26 0.3 80

Notes:
(1) ϒ = bulk unit weight, Su = undrained shear strength, c’ = effective cohesion, Φ’ = effective friction angle, u’ = Poisson’s Ratio,
E’ = Young’s Modulus
(2) Soil descriptions are based on consistency terms as defined by AS1726-1993 (as directed by TfNSW).
(3) General Fill parameters are based on the assessed characteristic strength of ‘site-won’ material derived from Bringelly
Shale.
(4) General fill (site-won) is assumed for construction of road embankments.
(5) R57 fill behind/above RSWs is assumed for zones behind and above RSWs within a distance of half of the wall mechanical
height.
6.2.2 Earthquake site subsoil class

An assessment of local ground conditions at the project location indicates that earthquake site subsoil Class Ce
(Shallow soil site) may be adopted in accordance with AS1170.4-2007. A nominal horizontal acceleration
coefficient of 0.0525 (= 0.07 * 0.75) have been adopted to assess the global stability of RSWs in a seismic
scenario.
6.2.3 Groundwater
In accordance with TfNSW R57, design groundwater level can be assumed to be at the ground level in front of
RSWs.
7. Structural design inputs

Two RSWs, RS31 to RS32, are to be designed as part of M12 Elizabeth Drive Connection project.
The following key features are identified for these four RSWs during this 80% design,
§ A traffic surcharge of 22 kPa applied on RSWs;
§ A collision load of 600 kN applied onto medium performance barriers on top of the RSWs, which is assumed
to be 1.2 m above the road design level and distributed over 15 to 20 m long friction slab.
8. Foundation analysis
Design of reinforced soil walls is based on TfNSW QA Specification R57, including both internal and external
designs. The internal design is carried out by the RSW supplier and will be provided in a separate report.
8.1 External stability

The external stability of RSWs has been assessed in terms of sliding, overturning, and bearing capacity in
accordance with TfNSW QA R57. Each load combination (Load Cases A-F of Table R57.1) has been analysed
using an in-house design spreadsheet. The calculated factors of safety (FoS) against external stability are
expressed as interaction ratios.
8.2 Global stability

The global stability analysis was carried out using limit equilibrium program Slope/W (Morgenstern-Price method)
to identify the critical slip surface and associated factor of safety (FoS). The following loading conditions are
considered in the design:

§ Load Condition 1: Long-term loading
— Loads include traffic and pedestrian loads
§ Load Condition 2: Short-term loading
— Loads include construction loads to the edge of the RSW

§ Load Condition 3: Earthquake loading
— Loads include pedestrian, reduced traffic and seismic loads
§ Load Condition 4: Traffic impact loading
— Loads include pedestrian, traffic and collision loads
Two typical potential overall slip failure cases, as depicted in TfNSW R57 Figure R57.10, are analysed, namely,
§ Case I - The potential slip surface does not pass through the RSW block
§ Case II - The potential slip surface passes through the RSW block.
Global stability analysis for Case I has been included in this report. Global stability analysis for Case II is carried
out by the RSW supplier and will be provided in a separate report.
8.3 Ground settlement

Settlements of retaining structures embedded in soil layers has been assessed using an in-house design spreadsheet,
based on elastic theory as outlined in Bowles (1997).
8.4 Design assumptions

The following assumptions have been adopted for the external stability analysis:
§ The minimum strap length as required in TfNSW R57 Table R57.5 has been adopted for the external and
global stability assessments. Where the RSW with the minimum strap width would not meet the design
requirements, the strap length will be increased.
§ The minimum embedment required in TfNSW R57 Table R57.6 has been adopted for the external and global
stability checks. Where the RSW with the minimum embedment would not meet the design requirements, the
embedment depth will be increased.
§ An effective friction angle of 34° is adopted for reinforced fill backfill based on TfNSW R57 Section 4.2 (l).
§ Where backfilling is required as foundations for RSWs, Select fill, with design parameters listed in Table 6.6,
has been adopted.
§ A nominal pseudo-static horizontal acceleration coefficient of 0.07 is adopted based on a Hazard Factor of
0.08 for RSW not supporting sill beams, based on Table R57.2 of TfNSW R57.
§ Collision load on traffic barrier is adopted based on Section 7.
§ Load factors of 0.5 and 0.75 are adopted for traffic load and earthquake effect when these two loads are
combined in the global stability analysis. For example, a traffic load of 11 kPa (= 22 kPa * 0.5) and a nominal
horizontal acceleration coefficient of 0.0525 g (= 0.07 g * 0.75) have been adopted to assess the global
stability of RSWs in a seismic scenario.
§ A minimum overall factor of safety of 1.35 is adopted for RSW not supporting sill beams.
§ For an overall slip failure of Case I, the RSW is modelled as a high strength composite material.
§ Flat ground is assumed in front of RSWs based on cross-sections available at the time of reporting.

9. Analysis results
9.1 RS31
9.1.1 RSW block dimensions and details

The designs of selected sections of RS31 with the maximum retained height are summarised in Table 9.1. Further
analysis details are provided in Attachment D.
Table 9.1 Dimensions and details of RSW – RS31
CONTROL LOCATION MAX MECHANICAL MIN MIN. SLOPE IN FOUNDING

LINE (m) RETAINED HEIGHT (m) REINFORCEMENT EMBEDMENT, FRONT MATERIAL
HEIGHT LENGTH, L (m) Dm, (m) OF WALL
(m)
MW10 Ch0 - 25 4.6 5 9.0 0.5 Flat Silty

CLAY -
Very Stiff
to Hard
Ch25 - 35 2.1 4.5 5 0.5 Flat Silty

CLAY -
Very Stiff
to Hard
MW11 CH0 - 18 4.5 7.4 9.0 0.5 Flat Silty

CLAY -
Very Stiff
to Hard
CH18 – 6.7 7.2 8.5 0.5 Flat Silty

30.95 CLAY -
Very Stiff
to Hard
Notes:
(1) H – Mechanical height; L – Strap length; D m – Embedment depth

(2) * - Values of embedment depth, Dm, are specific to the design sections. Embedment depth along the control lines varies in
accordance with the RSW bottom RL values.
9.1.2 External stability checks

Results of external stability checks for RS31 for typical sections are presented in Table 9.2.
Table 9.2 Result summary of RSW external stability assessment – Factor of Safety (FoS) for RS31
CONTROL LOCATION LOAD CASE AS PER A B C D E F

LINE (m) R57
MW10 Ch0 - 25 Bearing capacity 1.9 1.2 1.5 1.3 1.6 >3.0
Overturning >>3.0 >3.0 >3.0 >>3.0 >3.0 >>3.0
Sliding 2.9 2.1 1.5 2.1 1.7 >3.0
Eccentricity at RSW base e/L<1/6, eccentricity is ok 0.57

(m)

LINE (m) R57
Ch25 - 35 Bearing capacity 2.2 1.0 1.1 1.4 1.7 >3.0
Overturning >>3.0 >3.0 2.2 >3.0 >3.0 >3.0
Sliding 2.8 1.5 1.0 1.9 1.4 2.3

(m)
MW11 CH0 - 18 Bearing capacity 2.0 1.2 1.5 1.4 1.7 >3.0
Overturning >>3.0 >>3.0 >3.0 >>3.0 >>3.0 >>3.0
Sliding >3.0 2.1 1.5 2.1 1.7 >3.0

(m)
CH18– 30.95 Bearing capacity 1.8 1.1 1.4 1.2 1.4 >3.0
Overturning >>3.0 >>3.0 >3.0 >>3.0 >3.0 >>3.0
Sliding 2.6 1.9 1.4 1.7 1.4 2.9

(m)
9.1.3 Global stability checks

Results for the global stability checks RS31 at selected sections are presented in Table 9.3. The predicted FoS
exceeds the required minimum FoS provided in Section 8.4. The graphical output showing the geometry of critical
slip surfaces and the factor of safety for selected sections are presented in Attachment D.
Table 9.3 Result summary of RSW global stability assessments – Factor of Safety (FoS) for RS31
CONTROL LINE LOCATION (m) MECHANICAL MINIMUM

HEIGHT CALCULATED
(m) FoS
MW10 Ch0 - 25 7.1 1.5 (Load Case 1)
Ch25 - 35 4.5 1.5 (Load Case 1)
MW11 CH5 - 30 7.4 1.5 (Load Case 1)
CH30 – 38.5 7.2 1.5 (Load Case 1)
9.1.4 Ground settlement

Results of ground settlement due to the construction of RS04 are summarised in Table 9.4. The calculated total
settlement are found to be within the limits prescribed in PS331 (i.e. 50 mm extracted from Clause E7.2.4, (iii) and
(iv)).

Table 9.4 Summary of calculated ground settlements for RS31
CONTROL LOCATION (m) MECHANICAL TOTAL

LINE HEIGHT (m) SETTLEMENT (mm)
MW10 Ch0 - 25 7.1 10
Ch25 - 35 4.5 3
MW11 CH0 – 18 7.4 6
CH18 – 30.95 7.2 10
9.2 RS32
9.2.1 RSW block dimensions and details

The designs of selected sections of RS32 with the maximum retained height are summarised in Table 9.5. Results
are provided in Attachment D.
Table 9.5 Dimensions and details of RSW – RS32
CONTROL LOCATION MAX MECHANICAL MIN MIN. SLOPE FOUNDING

LINE (m) RETAINED HEIGHT (m) REINFORCEMENT EMBEDMENT, IN MATERIAL
HEIGHT LENGTH, L (m) Dm, (m) FRONT
(m) OF
WALL
MW02 Ch0 – 70 2.9 5.0 5.5 0.5 Flat Silty CLAY

- Firm
Ch70 – 260 1.6 3.5 4.5 0.5 Flat Silty CLAY

- Firm
Ch260 – 2.5 4.6 5.0 0.5 Flat Silty CLAY

375 - Firm

425 - Firm

465 - Stiff
Ch465 - 1.4 3.5 4.5 0.5 Flat Silty CLAY

560 - Stiff
Notes:
(3) H – Mechanical height; L – Strap length; D m – Embedment depth

(4) * - Values of embedment depth, Dm, are specific to the design sections. Embedment depth along the control lines varies in
accordance with the RSW bottom RL values.
9.2.2 External stability checks

Results of external stability checks for RS32 for typical sections are presented in Table 9.2.
Table 9.6 Result summary of RSW external stability assessment – Factor of Safety (FoS) for RS32

LINE (m) R57
MW02 Ch0 – 70 Bearing capacity >3.0 2.6 2.9 >3.0 >3.0 >>3.0

LINE (m) R57
Overturning >>3.0 >3.0 2.2 >3.0 >3.0 >3.0
Sliding >3.0 1.9 1.3 2.2 1.7 2.8

(m)
Ch70 – 260 Bearing capacity >>3.0 2.9 2.8 >3.0 >3.0 >>3.0
Overturning >>3.0 2.6 1.6 >3.0 >3.0 >3.0
Sliding >3.0 1.7 1.0 2.4 1.8 2.5

(m)
Ch260 – 375 Bearing capacity >3.0 2.5 2.6 >3.0 >3.0 >>3.0
Overturning >>3.0 2.9 1.9 >3.0 >3.0 >3.0
Sliding >3.0 1.8 1.2 2.2 1.7 2.6

(m)
Ch375 – 425 Bearing capacity >>3.0 2.9 2.8 >3.0 >3.0 >>3.0
Overturning >>3.0 2.6 1.6 >3.0 >3.0 >3.0
Sliding >3.0 1.7 1.0 2.4 1.8 2.5

(m)
Ch425 – 465 Bearing capacity >3.0 2.8 >3.0 >3.0 >3.0 >>3.0
Overturning >>3.0 >3.0 2.1 >3.0 >3.0 >3.0
Sliding >3.0 1.9 1.3 2.3 1.8 2.8

(m)
Ch465 - 560 Bearing capacity >>3.0 2.9 2.8 >3.0 >3.0 >>3.0
Overturning >>3.0 2.6 1.6 >3.0 >3.0 >3.0
Sliding >3.0 1.7 1.0 2.4 1.8 2.5
Eccentricity at RSW base 0.70

(m)
9.2.3 Global stability checks

Results for the global stability checks RS32 at selected sections are presented in Table 9.7. The predicted FoS
exceeds the required minimum FoS provided in Section 8.4. The graphical output showing the geometry of critical
slip surfaces and the factor of safety for selected sections are presented in Attachment D.

Table 9.7 Result summary of RSW global stability assessments – Factor of Safety (FoS) for RS32
CONTROL LINE LOCATION (m) MECHANICAL MINIMUM

HEIGHT CALCULATED FoS
(m)
MW02 Ch0 – 70 5.0 1.6 (Load Cases 1 and 3)
Ch70 – 260 3.5 1.8 (Load Case 1)
Ch260 – 375 4.6 1.5 (Load Case 3)
Ch375 – 425 3.5 1.8 (Load Cases 3 and 4)
Ch425 – 465 4.6 1.5 (Load Case 1)
Ch465 - 560 3.5 1.7 (Load Case 1)
9.2.4 Ground settlement

Results of ground settlement due to the construction of RS32 are summarised in Table 9.8. The calculated total
settlement are found to be within the limits prescribed in PS331 (i.e. 50 mm extracted from Clause E7.2.4, (iii) and
(vi)).
Table 9.8 Summary of calculated ground settlements for RS32
CONTROL LOCATION MECHANICAL TOTAL

LINE (m) HEIGHT SETTLEMENT
(m) (mm)
MW02 Ch0 – 70 5.0 17
Ch70 – 260 3.5 11
Ch260 – 375 4.6 11
Ch375 – 425 3.5 7
Ch425 – 465 4.6 29
Ch465 - 560 3.5 7
10. Outstanding items

The following items have been identified as outstanding items which will require further analysis during
subsequent design development:
§ More ground investigation data is required to undertake the detailed assessment of the wall including the
differential displacement.
§ Global stability with internal reinforcements is to be considered.
11. Design departure

It is noted that there are specific requirements in PS331 for minimum geotechnical site investigations at retaining
structure locations in terms of the number of boreholes / test pits, their positions with respect to the alignment.

12. Limitations
Geotechnical advice presented in this memo was interpreted from available site information to date and based on
the current proposed structure arrangement. The actual ground conditions at pile locations shall be validated by the
Geotechnical Design Representative during the detailed design and construction stages. Limitations applicable to
the content of this memo are presented in Attachment F.
13. References
GEO (2017), Guide to Retaining Wall Design (Geoguide 1), Geotechnical Engineering Office, Civil and
Engineering Development Department, Hong Kong SAR Government
JAJV (2020a), M12 Motorway Concept Design and EIS, Geotechnical Factual Report (GFR), document no.
IGHE-0001-M12-RPT-04, dated 6 March 2020, Jacobs Aurecon Joint Venture
JAJV (2020b), M12 Motorway Concept Design and EIS, Geotechnical Interpretive Report (GIR), document no.
IGHF-0001-M12-RPT-04, dated 6 March 2020, Jacobs Aurecon Joint Venture
M12 Motorway Package 3 – East Elizabeth Drive Connection - Geotechnical Interpretive Report (GIR), document
no. M12EDD-WSP-ALL-RPT-000003, dated 17 September 2021.
Prepared by Reviewed by
Brad Azari Saman Zargarbashi

Senior Associate Geotechnical Engineer Principal Geotechnical Engineer
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Geotechnical investigation location plan
Attachment B – Typical cross sections of two sections
Attachment C - Engineering logs and laboratory test results
Attachment D – RSW design analysis results
Attachment E – Limitations statement

Attachment A
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION LOCATION PLAN
RS31
MW11
MW10
Ground investigations
marked purple were
carried concurrent to this
design and will be
included at the next stage
Figure B-1 Geotechnical Investigation Location Plan - RS31
Ground investigations
marked purple were
carried concurrent to this
design and will be
included at the next stage
RS32
Figure B-2 Geotechnical Investigation Location Plan - RS32

Attachment B
TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS OF RS31 AND RS32
Figure B-1 Typical cross section of RS31 with the L-Shape Wall – Control Line MW10
Figure B-2 Typical cross section of RS31 without L-Shape Wall – Control Line MW11
M12 Elizabeth Drive Connection RS31 and RS32_Rev B

Figure B-3 Typical cross section of RS32 – Control Line MW02

Attachment C
ENGINEERING LOGS

EXPLANATORY NOTES - DRILL & EXCAVATION LOGS
GENERAL
Information obtained from site investigations is recorded on log Samples/Tests
sheets. The “Cored Drill Hole Log” presents data from an
operation where a core barrel has been used to recover D Disturbed
material - commonly rock. The “Non-Core Drill Hole - Geological U Undisturbed
Log” presents data from an operation where coring has not
been used and information is based on a combination of regular C Core Sample
sampling and insitu testing. The material penetrated in non-core
SPT Standard Penetration Test
drilling is commonly soil but may include rock. The “Excavation -
Geological Log” presents data and drawings from exposures of N Result of SPT (* sample taken)
soil and rock resulting from excavation of pits, trenches, etc.
VS Vane Shear Test
The heading of the log sheets contains information on Project
Identification, Hole or Pit Identification, Location and Elevation. IMP Borehole Impression Test
The main section of the logs contains information on methods PBT Plate Bearing Test
and conditions, material substance description and structure
presented as a series of columns in relation to depth below the PZ Piezometer Installation
ground surface which is plotted on the left side of the log sheet.
HP Hand Penetrometer
The common depth scale is 8m per drill log sheet and about 3-
5m for excavation logs sheets.
Angle/Orientation: Angle from horizontal and orientation
As far as is practicable the data contained on the log sheets is to magnetic north.
factual. Some interpretation is inevitable in the identification of
material boundaries in areas of partial sampling, the location of
areas of core loss, description and classification of material, EXCAVATION LOGS
estimation of strength and identification of drilling induced
fractures. Material description and classifications are based on Explanatory notes are provided at the bottom of drill log sheets.
SAA Site Investigation Code AS 1726 - 1993 with some Information about the origin, geology and pedology may be
modifications as defined below. entered in the “Structure and other Observations” column. The
depth of the base of excavation (for the logged section) at the
These notes contain an explanation of the terms and appropriate depth in the “Material Description” column. Refusal
abbreviations commonly used on the log sheets. of excavation plant is noted should it occur. A sketch of the
exposure may be added.
DRILLING MATERIAL DESCRIPTION - SOIL
Drilling & Casing
Classification Symbol - In accordance with the Unified
Classification System (AS 1726-1993, Appendix A, Table A1)
AS Auger Screwing
Material Description - In accordance with AS 1726-1993,
AD/V Auger Drilling with V-Bit
Appendix A2.3
AD/T Auger Drilling with TC Bit
Moisture Condition
WB Wash-bore drilling
RR Rock Roller D Dry, looks and feels dry
NMLC NMLC core barrel M Moist, No free water on remoulding
NQ NQ core barrel W Wet, free water on remoulding
HMLC HMLC core barrel
Consistency - In accordance with AS 1726-1993, Appendix A2.5
HQ HQ core barrel
Description Su HP
Drilling Fluid/Water
VS Very Soft ≤ 12kPa < 25kPa
The drilling fluid used is identified and loss of return to the surface
estimated as a percentage.
S Soft 12 - 25 kPa 25 - 50 kPa
F Firm 25 - 50 kPa 50 - 100 kPa
Drilling Penetration/Drill Depth
St Stiff 50 - 100 kPa 100 - 200 kPa
Core lifts are identified by a line and depth with core loss per run
as a percentage. Ease of penetration in non-core drilling is VSt Very Stiff 100 - 200 kPa 200 - 400 kPa
abbreviated as follows: H Hard ≥ 200 kPa ≥ 400 kPa
VE Very Easy
Strength figures quoted are the approximate range of
E Easy Unconfined Compressive Strength for each class.
F Firm Density Index (%) is estimated or is based on SPT results.
H Hard Approximate N Value correlation is shown in right column.
VH Very Hard
Description Density Index SPT Value
Groundwater Levels VL Very Loose < 15% 0–4
Date of measurement is shown. L Loose 15 – 35% 4 – 10
Standing water level measured in MD Medium Dense 35 – 65% 10 – 30

completed borehole D Dense 65 – 85% 30 – 50
Level taken during or immediately VD Very Dense > 85% > 50
after drilling
OTG-TP-40106-F04 Geotechnical Science Issue No. 3 - September 2016

Where the estimated strength log covers more than one range it
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION - ROCK indicates the rock strength varies between the limits shown.
Material Description
Identification of rock type, composition and texture based on MATERIALS STRUCTURE/FRACTURES
visual features in accordance with AS 1726-1993, Appendix ROCK
A3.1-A3.3 and Tables A6a, A6b and A7.
Natural Fracture Spacing - A plot of average fracture spacing
Core Loss excluding defects known or suspected to be due to drilling, core
boxing or testing. Closed or cemented joints, drilling breaks and
Is shown at the bottom of the run unless otherwise indicated. handling breaks are not included in the Natural Fracture
Spacing.
Bedding
Visual Log - A diagrammatic plot of defects showing type,
spacing and orientation in relation to core axis.
Description Spacing (mm)
Thinly Laminated <6 Defects Defects open in-situ or clay sealed
Laminated 6 - 20 Defects closed in-situ
Very Thinly Bedded 20 - 60 Breaks through rock substance
Thinly Bedded 60 -200

Medium Bedded 200 - 600 Additional Data - Description of individual defects by type,
orientation, in-filling, shape and roughness in accordance with
Thickly Bedded 600 - 2000 AS 1726-1993, Appendix A Table A10, notes and Figure A2.
Very Thickly Bedded > 2000 Type BP Bedding Parting
JT Joint
Weathering - No distinction is made between weathering and SM Seam
alteration. Weathering classification assists in identification but FZ Fracture Zone
does not imply engineering properties. SZ Shear Zone
VN Vein
Rock substance unaffected
F Fresh
by weathering FL Foliation
CL Cleavage
Rock substance partly DL Drill Lift
stained or discoloured. HB Handling Break
SW Slightly Weathered
Colour and texture of fresh
rock recognisable. DB Drilling Break
Orientation - angle relative to the plane normal to the core axis.

Staining or discolouration
extends throughout rock Infilling CN Clean
MW Moderately Weathered
substance. Fresh rock
X Carbonaceous
colour not recognisable.
Clay Clay
Stained or discoloured KT Chlorite
throughout. Signs of CA Calcite
HW Highly Weathered chemical or physical
alteration. Rock texture Fe Iron Oxide
retained. Qz Quartz
MS Secondary Mineral
Rock texture evident but
EW Extremely Weathered material has soil properties MU Unidentified Mineral
and can be remoulded. Shape PR Planar
CU Curved
UN Undulose
Strength - The following terms are used to described rock ST Stepped
strength:
IR Irregular
Point Load Strength DIS Discontinuous
Rock Strength Class
Index, Is(50) (MPa) Roughness POL Polished
EL Extremely Low < 0.03 SL Slickensided
S Smooth
VL Very Low 0.03 - 0.1
RF Rough
L Low 0.1 - 0.3 VR Very Rough
M Medium 0.3 - 1.0
H High 1.0 - 3.0 SOIL
VH Very High 3.0 - 10.0 Structures - Fissuring and other defects are described in
accordance with AS 1726-1993, Appendix A2.6, using the
EH Extremely High ≥ 10.0
terminology for rock defects.
Origin - Where practicable an assessment is provided of the
Strengths are estimated and where possible supported by Point probable origin of the soil, eg fill, topsoil, alluvium, colluvium,
Load Index Testing of representative samples. Test results are residual soil.
plotted on the graphical estimated strength by using:
Diametral Point Load Test
Axial Point Load Test
OTG-TP-40106-F04 Geotechnical Science Issue No. 3 - September 2016

HOLE NO : P3-BH005
NON-CORE DRILL HOLE - GEOLOGICAL LOG FILE / JOB NO : G5372
PROJECT : M12 EAST SHEET : 1 OF 3
LOCATION : Western Sydney Parklands - Cecil Hills
POSITION : E: 300326.643, N: 6249546.842 (56 GDA2020) SURFACE ELEVATION : 116.403 (AHD) ANGLE FROM HORIZONTAL : 90°
RIG TYPE : Hanjin Track MOUNTING : CONTRACTOR : ROCKWELL DRILLER : IR
DATE STARTED : 18/3/20 DATE COMPLETED : 18/3/20 DATE LOGGED : 18/3/20 LOGGED BY : BA CHECKED BY : JW
DRILLING MATERIAL
CLASSIFICATION
FIELD TESTS
CONSISTENCY
GROUND WATER
PENETRATION
PROGRESS
SAMPLES &
DEPTH (m)
CONDITION
MOISTURE
GRAPHIC
RELATIVE
DRILLING
DENSITY
SYMBOL
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LEVELS
STRUCTURE
LOG
& CASING
DRILLING
Soil Type, Colour, Plasticity or Particle Characteristic

WATER
& Other Observations

Secondary and Minor Components
0.0
ML 0.15m SANDY SILT AND SILT WITH SAND: low plasticity TOPSOIL
SILTY CLAY: orange-brown with some cream, high plasticity RESIDUAL SOIL
VSt - H
HA
M
CH
Not Encountered
HQ Casing
1.00m
1.0 H
SPT Silty clay: mottled red-brown and cream, high plasticity 1.00: SPT Recovery: 0.28 m
6, 14, 12 1.10: HP Samp >400 kPa
N*=26
1.30m
SILTSTONE: grey to cream with red-brown, extremely weathered with BEDROCK
1.45m
highly weathered and highly weathered to extremely weathered layers.
AD/T
2.00m
2.0
SPT 2.00: SPT Recovery: 0.08 m
22/150mm 2.15m
HB N*=R
2.15m Continued as Cored Drill Hole
3.0
4.0
TFNSW 42.1 LIB.GLB Log RTA NON-CORE DRILL HOLE G5372 M12 PACKAGE 3.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 25/Feb/2021 13:47 10.02.00.04 Datgel Tools
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
See Explanatory Notes for
details of abbreviations
& basis of descriptions. TRANSPORT FOR NSW
File: G5372 P3-BH005 1 OF 3
HOLE NO : P3-BH005
CORED DRILL HOLE LOG FILE / JOB NO : G5372
CASING DIAMETER : HQ BARREL (Length) : 3.00 m BIT : STEP FACE BIT CONDITION : GOOD
DRILLING MATERIAL FRACTURES
(CORE LOSS
ESTIMATED STRENGTH NATURAL ADDITIONAL DATA

FIELD TESTS
PROGRESS
SAMPLES &
DEPTH (m) DESCRIPTION
Weathering
Is(50)
GRAPHIC
FRACTURE
VISUAL
ROCK TYPE : Colour, Grain size, Structure - Axial (joints, partings, seams, zones, etc)
RUN %)
(mm)
LOG
& CASING
DRILLING
- Diametral
WATER
(texture, fabric, mineral composition, hardness Description, orientation, infilling
-0.03
or coating, shape, roughness,
-0.1
-0.3
-10
alteration, cementation, etc as applicable)
-1
-3
1000
100
300
DRILL
VH
EH
thickness, other
EL
VL
20
40
M
H
L
DEPTH
0.0
1.0
2.0
2.15m START CORING AT 2.15m
0% Is(50) SILTSTONE: brown, bedding at 0-5deg. MW
0% LOSS
d>0.13
HQ Casing
LOSS -
a>0.17 DB, JT 45° Fe DIS RF
MPa HW BP 0° Fe PR RF
2.52 Is(50) DB, JT 55° Fe DIS RF
a>0.16 BP 0° origin unknown - core
0% MPa
LOSS spinning
JT 90 - 80° Fe IR RF closed
2.82m (partially opened by drilling
SANDY SILTSTONE: brown, bedding at 0-5deg, fine and handling)
grained sand. DB
3.0 BP 3 - 5° Fe IR RF
3.15m BP 0 - 5° Fe PR RF
SILTY SANDSTONE: brown, fine with medium grained, DB(possible), JT 70° Fe PR
bedding predominantly at 0-5deg, few carbonaceous RF
laminae.
Is(50)
30% Water LOSS (HQ casing at 2.15m)
d=1.22
a=1.38
MPa
4.0
Is(50)
d=0.83
TFNSW 42.1 LIB.GLB Log RTA CORED DRILL HOLE G5372 M12 PACKAGE 3.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 25/Feb/2021 13:47 10.02.00.04 Datgel Tools
a=1.22 4.26m
MPa BP 5° PR clay sealed 1-2mm
SILTSTONE WITH SANDY SILTSTONE LAYERS:
brown with some grey-brown, bedding at 0-5deg.
BPs 0° PR <1 mm clay sealed
1-2mm
Is(50) 4.77m
d=0.14
a=0.33 SILTSTONE: brown, with occasional grey layers, SM 0° Clay 40 mm
EW
MPa bedding at 0-5deg. SM 0° 70 mm EW clayey
5.0 SM 0° Clay
NMLC
MW
-
HW
5.52 SM 5° 10 mm
Is(50) DL
0% d=0.23 HB
LOSS a>0.43
MPa SM 30 mm EW (clayey)
5.85m
BP 2° PR <=1 mm clay sealed
SANDY SILTSTONE /SILTY SANDSTONE: pale grey to MW DB
6.0 grey, with black carbonaceous laminae throughout, fine -
Is(50) grained sand, bedding at 0-5deg with some patchy SW
6.18m cross bedding.
d=1.55 BP 7° PR RF partial Fe
a=2.37
MPa SILTSTONE: grey
Is(50)
d=0.29
a>0.32 BP 0 - 3° PR <1 mm clayey
MPa sealed
BPsx4 0 - 5° Fe CN PR RF
6.88m
fracturing along BP
SILTY SANDSTONE: pale grey, with black SW
7.0 carbonaceous laminae throughout, fine grained with
Is(50)
d=1.54 some medium grained, bedding predominantly at DB
a=3.26 0-5deg.
MPa DB
Is(50)
d=0.88
a=1.13
MPa
8.0
File: G5372 P3-BH005 2 OF 3
HOLE NO : P3-BH005
(CORE LOSS

FIELD TESTS
PROGRESS
SAMPLES &
Weathering
Is(50)
GRAPHIC
FRACTURE
VISUAL
RUN %)
(mm)
LOG
& CASING
DRILLING
- Diametral
WATER
-0.03
-0.1
-0.3
-10
-1
-3
1000
100
300
DRILL
VH
EH
thickness, other
EL
VL
20
40
M
H
L
DEPTH
8.0
0% SILTY SANDSTONE: pale grey, with black HW
LOSS carbonaceous laminae throughout, fine grained with -
some medium grained, bedding predominantly at MW
Is(50) 0-5deg. (continued)
8.44 d=1.03
a=1.53 DL
0% MPa
LOSS
DB
Is(50) 9.0 DB
d=0.2
a=0.92
MPa
Is(50)
d=0.44
a=0.86
DB
MPa DB(possible), BP 2° Fe PR RF
10.0 F
Is(50)
d=0.26 DB(possible), BP 3° X PR S
a=0.84
MPa
Is(50)
d=0.76
a=1.18 11.0
MPa
DB
11.54 Is(50) DB
d=0.87 DL
0% a=3.76
LOSS DB
MPa
NMLC
DB
12.0
Is(50)
DB
d=1.22 12.25m
a=1.43 DB(possible), BP 2° X PR S
MPa SILTY SANDSTONE: pale grey, with black
carbonaceous laminae, fine grained with some medium DB
grained, some layers of fine and medium grains,
bedding predominantly at 0-5deg.
DB
Is(50)
d=1.22
a=1.82
MPa 13.0
Is(50)
d=0.87
a=1.51
MPa
14.0
Is(50)
d=0.4 DB
a=0.98
MPa
14.52
Is(50) DL
0% d=1.21
LOSS a=2.27
MPa
15.0
Is(50)
d=1.54
a=1.54
MPa
DB
Is(50)
d=1.33
a=1.69
MPa
16.00 16.00m
16.0
See Explanatory Notes for BOREHOLE P3-BH005 TERMINATED AT 16.00 m
Target depth
Well installed Well details: 0.00 - 4.40m:
Benronite 4.40 - 13.95m: Sand 7.95 - 13.95m: Screen
File: G5372 P3-BH005 3 OF 3

TFNSW 42.1 LIB.GLB GrfcTbl DG PHOTO CORE PHOTO 1 PER PAGE G5372 M12 PACKAGE 3.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 25/Feb/2021 13:47 10.02.00.04 Datgel Tools
PointID : P3-BH005 Depth Range: 2.15 - 7.00 m

TITLE DRAWN DATE
NS 25/02/2021
CHECKED DATE
Western Sydney Project Office RC 25/02/2021
M12 EAST SCALE
Not To Scale A4
Core Photo - P3-BH005
PROJECT No FIGURE No
G5372 1/3

TITLE DRAWN DATE
NS 25/02/2021
CHECKED DATE
M12 EAST SCALE
Not To Scale A4
G5372 2/3

TITLE DRAWN DATE
NS 25/02/2021
CHECKED DATE
M12 EAST SCALE
Not To Scale A4
G5372 3/3
HOLE NO : P3-BH003
DRILLING MATERIAL
CLASSIFICATION
FIELD TESTS
CONSISTENCY
GROUND WATER
PENETRATION
PROGRESS
SAMPLES &
DEPTH (m)
CONDITION
MOISTURE
GRAPHIC
RELATIVE
DRILLING
DENSITY
SYMBOL
LEVELS
STRUCTURE
LOG
& CASING
DRILLING

WATER

0.0
0.05m SILT WITH SAND AND CLAY: low to medium plasticity, 50mm. TOPSOIL
RESIDUAL SOIL
SILTY CLAY: orange-brown with some cream, high plasticity
Not Encountered
VSt - H
HQ Casing
CH M
AD/T
1.00m
1.0
SPT 1.00: SPT Recovery: 0.26 m
5, 18, 24 H 1.10: HP Samp >400 kPa
N*=42 1.20m
SILTSTONE: pale brown, extremely weathered, estimated extremely low BEDROCK
and very low strength
1.45m 1.45m
Continued as Cored Drill Hole
HQ Casing
2.0
3.0
4.0
TFNSW 42.1 LIB.GLB Log RTA NON-CORE DRILL HOLE G5372 M12 PACKAGE 3.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 25/Feb/2021 13:46 10.02.00.04 Datgel Tools
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
File: G5372 P3-BH003 1 OF 3
HOLE NO : P3-BH003
(CORE LOSS

FIELD TESTS
PROGRESS
SAMPLES &
Weathering
Is(50)
GRAPHIC
FRACTURE
VISUAL
RUN %)
(mm)
LOG
& CASING
DRILLING
- Diametral
WATER
-0.03
-0.1
-0.3
-10
-1
-3
1000
100
300
DRILL
VH
EH
thickness, other
EL
VL
20
40
M
H
L
DEPTH
0.0
1.0
1.45m START CORING AT 1.45m

0% SILTSTONE: red-brown, cream, mostly high plasticity EW
LOSS clay with some brown and grey highly weathered rock
layers up to 80mm thickness
HQ Casing
2.0
2.35
0%
LOSS
HQ Casing
2.89m
3.00 SILTSTONE: brown, bedding at 0-5deg. HW
3.0
0% BP 0 - 3° CN PR RF
LOSS
BP 0° CN PR RF
3.35 JT 10° CN PR S
25% LOSS
54% 3.48m
DL
LOSS DB Core highly fractured,
3.63 3.63m CORE LOSS 0.15m (3.48-3.63) (B.O.R) some possible DBs
0% SILTSTONE: brown, bedding at 0-5deg. EW

LOSS
4.0
DB Note: drill run 3.63 to

5.20m, core stuck in splits 3.63
4.61m to 4.61m, numerous handling
breaks in EW siltstone
NMLC
SANDY SILTSTONE WITH SILTSTONE LAYERS: MW

brown, with pale brown and grey layers, carbonaceous
laminae below 5.45m, bedding at 0-5deg, fine grained
Is(50) DB
d=0.37 sand
a>0.36 5.0
MPa
5.20 Is(50)
d=0.3 DB
0%
a>0.86
LOSS MPa DB
BP 2 - 5° Fe IR RF
Is(50)
d=0.24
a>0.26
MPa DB
6.0 JT 20° PR 1-2mm clayey

Is(50) sealed
d=0.56
a>0.54 BP 3° Clay PR 2 mm
MPa
Is(50)
d>0.4 DB
MPa
6.5m: prominant shear zone/fault SZ
SM 45° Clay EW siltstone
BP 0 - 10° Fe IR RF
Is(50) DB
d=0.22 DB
a>0.38 7.0 BP 4° Fe PR RF
MPa
Is(50) DB
d=0.26 BP 2 - 5° Fe IR trace clay
a=0.5
MPa
8.0
File: G5372 P3-BH003 2 OF 3
HOLE NO : P3-BH003
(CORE LOSS

FIELD TESTS
PROGRESS
SAMPLES &
Weathering
Is(50)
GRAPHIC
FRACTURE
VISUAL
RUN %)
(mm)
LOG
& CASING
DRILLING
- Diametral
WATER
-0.03
-0.1
-0.3
-10
-1
-3
1000
100
300
DRILL
VH
EH
thickness, other
EL
VL
20
40
M
H
L
DEPTH
8.0
SANDY SILTSTONE WITH SILTSTONE LAYERS: MW
8.16 Is(50) BP 4° CN PR RF
d=0.09 brown, with pale brown and grey layers, carbonaceous
0% laminae below 5.45m, bedding at 0-5deg, fine grained DL
a=0.31
LOSS MPa sand (continued)
DB(possible), JT 45 - 70° Fe
PR RF
FZ 20 mm
FZ 20 mm
Is(50)
d>0.01 BPs 0 - 5° fracturing between
a>0.19 EW BPs
MPa 9.0
FZ 10 mm
HW BP 0° X PR S
BP 0 - 15° IR clayey sealed

9.65m 2-4mm
BP 0° CN PR fracturing along
Is(50) SILTY SANDSTONE: pale grey, with some black MW
d=1.09
BP
carbonaceous laminae, layers of fine grained, fine
a=1.93
MPa grained with medium grains and fine and medium
grained, bedding predominantly at 0-8deg, occasional
10.0 darker grey slightly carbonaceous layers.
SM 0 - 5° coal fragments
2-5mm thick
Is(50)
d=1.15
a=2
MPa
Is(50) DB
d=1.63 11.0
a=2.93
MPa BP 2 - 4° CN IR RF
11.23 11.12 to 11.32m: siltstone
Is(50) DL
0% d=0.44
LOSS a=0.7
MPa
SM 20 mm HW to EW seam
11.51 to 11.60m: siltstone
BP 5° Fe PR RF
Is(50)
d=1.36
a=1.66 DB
NMLC
MPa
12.0
DB
Is(50)
d=1.34
a=2.57
MPa
DB
13.0
Is(50)
d=0.05
a=0.13
MPa
DB
Is(50) 14.0
d=0.95
14.19 a=1.8
MPa DL
0%
LOSS
Is(50)
d=0.97
a=1.56
MPa
15.0
Is(50)
d=1.58
a>1.88
MPa
BP 5° X PR S
Is(50)
15.93 d>5.04 15.93m
MPa
16.0
See Explanatory Notes for BOREHOLE P3-BH003 TERMINATED AT 15.93 m
Target depth
File: G5372 P3-BH003 3 OF 3

TITLE DRAWN DATE
NS 25/02/2021
CHECKED DATE
M12 EAST SCALE
Not To Scale A4
G5372 1/3

TITLE DRAWN DATE
NS 25/02/2021
CHECKED DATE
M12 EAST SCALE
Not To Scale A4
G5372 2/3

TITLE DRAWN DATE
NS 25/02/2021
CHECKED DATE
M12 EAST SCALE
Not To Scale A4
G5372 3/3
HOLE NO : P3-PC001
LOCATION : Cecil Road - Cecil Park
RIG TYPE : P160 MOUNTING : Truck CONTRACTOR : North Coast Drilling DRILLER :
DATE STARTED : 29/6/20 DATE COMPLETED : 29/6/20 DATE LOGGED : 29/6/20 LOGGED BY : NS CHECKED BY : RC
DRILLING MATERIAL
CLASSIFICATION
PROGRESS FIELD TESTS
CONSISTENCY
PENETRATION
GROUND WATER
SAMPLES &
DEPTH (m)
CONDITION
GRAPHIC
MOISTURE
RELATIVE
DRILLING
DENSITY
SYMBOL
LEVELS
STRUCTURE
LOG
& CASING
DRILLING

WATER

0.0
ASPHALT: black, aggregate up to 15mm (60%), matrix (30-35%), voids BASECOURSE
(5-10%)
DT
0.18m
0.20m
CLAYEY SANDY GRAVEL: brown to dark brown, fine to coarse gravel, FILL
D
angular, medium to coarse grained sand, low plasticity clay, possibly 0.20: Moisture content impacted by
H 0.30m partially cemented M diatube drilling
0.38m
0.40m
D SANDY GRAVEL: grey, fine to coarse gravel, rounded to sub-angular, fine
VH to coarse grained sand D
0.50m 0.45: Gravel shape influenced by auger
0.5
Not Encountered
0.55m 0.55m
rotation
B
GRAVELLY SANDY CLAY / CLAYEY GRAVEL: clay is grey, orange-brown,
N/A
medium plasticity, fine to coarse grained sand, fine to coarse sub-angular

gravel
AD/T
0.70m
0.75m
0.80m CLAY: mottled orange-red, grey-blue, medium plasticity, trace fine graiend RESIDUAL SOIL
F B sub-angular gravel gravel, extremely weathered clay
D-M
CI F
1.0
1.10m
At 1.10m: SILTSTONE/SANDSTONE fragments encountered 1.10: 1.10m likely top of bedrock
H
1.20m
BOREHOLE P3-PC001 TERMINATED AT 1.20 m
Refusal
1.5
2.0
RMS 41.2 LIB.GLB Log RTA NON-CORE DRILL HOLE G5372 M12 PACKAGE 3.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 01/Feb/2021 10:31 8.30.004 Datgel Tools
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
& basis of descriptions.
ROADS AND MARITIME SERVICES, NSW
File: G5372 P3-PC001 1 OF 1
RMS 41.2 LIB.GLB GrfcTbl DG PHOTO CORE PHOTO 1 PER PAGE G5372 M12 PACKAGE 3.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 01/Feb/2021 10:38 8.30.004 Datgel Tools
PointID : P3-PC001 Depth Range: 0.00 - 0.18 m

TITLE DRAWN DATE
NS 01/02/2021
CHECKED DATE
M12 EAST SCALE
Not To Scale A4
Pavement Core Photo - P3-PC001
G5372 1/1
G5372 ‐ M12 East
P3‐PC001
DCP TEST RESULTS
(AS 1289.6.3.2‐1997)
Blows
Blows per 100mm Comment
5 10 15 20 25
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
2 Start test at 0.38m
0.40
14
0.50
10
0.60
8
0.70
8
0.80
8
Depth
0.90
(m)
7
1.00
15 /70mm, Hammer bounce
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
1.90
2.00
2.10
PIT NO : P3-TP009
EXCAVATION - GEOLOGICAL LOG FILE / JOB NO : G5372
LOCATION : Cecil Road - Cecil Park
POSITION : E: 300091.953, N: 6249738.677 (56 GDA2020) SURFACE ELEVATION : 107.162 (AHD)
EQUIPMENT TYPE : 5t Excavator METHOD : 450mm toothed
DATE EXCAVATED : 18/6/20 LOGGED BY : BA CHECKED BY : RC
EXCAVATION DIMENSIONS : 2.00 m LONG 0.50 m WIDE
DRILLING MATERIAL
PENETRO-
CLASSIFICATION
FIELD TESTS
CONSISTENCY
GROUND WATER
PENETRATION
SAMPLES &
DEPTH (m)
CONDITION
SUPPORT
MOISTURE
GRAPHIC
RELATIVE
DCP TEST
DENSITY
METER
SYMBOL
LEVELS
HAND
STRUCTURE
LOG
(AS 1289.6.3.2-1997)
kPa
100
200
300
400
VE
5 10 15 20 25
H
E
F
0.0
Nil CLAYEY SILT AND SILTY CLAY: silt is brown, silt is low 0
TOPSOIL
ML / plasticity, clay is low to medium plasticity, occassional
CL-CI organic material 0
0.20m 0.20m
M-W
B SILTY CLAY: pale grey to cream with orange-brown, 0
RESIDUAL SOIL /
high plasticity, occassional roots up to 20mm diameter ALLUVIUM
CH S/F
1 0.20: Seepage
0.40m 0.40m 0.30: HP In-situ =35 -
B CLAY: brown, orange-brown with cream, medium to high 2 60 kPa
0.5 CI-CH plasticity, trace fine to medium/coarse gravel M St RESIDUAL SOIL
4 0.50: HP In-situ =150 -
0.60m 0.60m 160 kPa
Not Encountered
SANDSTONE: brown and grey-brown/brown-grey, 8 WEATHERED ROCK

medium and fine grained, highly weathered
/50mm R 11
0.70: excavated
sandstone fragments up to
1.0m x 600mm between
0.6m and 1.0m depth then
cobble and gravel sized
fragments below that
1.0
1.50m
1.5
EXCAVATION P3-TP009 TERMINATED AT 1.50 m
Refusal
2.0
2.5
TFNSW 42.1 LIB.GLB Log RTA EXCAVATION G5372 M12 PACKAGE 3.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 25/Feb/2021 09:33 10.02.00.04 Datgel Tools
3.0
3.5
4.0
PHOTOGRAPHS
NOTES YES NO
CLASSIFICATION SYMBOLS & CONSISTENCY/

METHOD PENETRATION SAMPLES & FIELD TESTS RELATIVE DENSITY
SOIL DESCRIPTION
VH
VE
VS - Very Soft
H
E
F
N Natural Exposure U50 - Undisturbed Sample Based on Unified

No Resistance S - Soft
E Existing Excavation 50 mm diameter Classification System
F - Firm
BH Backhoe Bucket D - Disturbed Sample St - Stiff
B Bulldozer Blade B - Bulk Disturbed Sample MOISTURE VSt - Very Stiff
R Ripper WATER MC - Moisture Content D - Dry H - Hard
HP - Hand Penetrometer (UCS kPa) VL - Very Loose
10 Oct., 73 Water M - Moist L - Loose
Level on Date shown VS - Vane Shear; P-Peak, W - Wet
SUPPORT MD - Medium Dense
water inflow R-Remouded (uncorrected kPa) D - Dense
T Timbering
water outflow PBT - Plate Bearing Test VD - Very Dense

File: G5372 P3-TP009 1 OF 1
TFNSW 42.1 LIB.GLB GrfcTbl DG PHOTO TEST PIT PHOTO 1 PER PAGE G5372 M12 PACKAGE 3.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 25/Feb/2021 09:33 10.02.00.04 Datgel Tools
P3-TP009 Depth Range: 0.00 - 1.50 m
TITLE DRAWN DATE

NS 25/02/2021
CHECKED DATE
M12 EAST SCALE
Not To Scale A4
Photo - P3-TP009
G5372 1/1
PIT NO : P3-TP010
LOCATION : East of Cecil Rd - Cecil Park
EQUIPMENT TYPE : 4-6t Excavator METHOD : 450mm toothed bucket
DRILLING MATERIAL
PENETRO-
CLASSIFICATION
FIELD TESTS
CONSISTENCY
GROUND WATER
PENETRATION
SAMPLES &
DEPTH (m)
CONDITION
SUPPORT
MOISTURE
GRAPHIC
RELATIVE
DCP TEST
DENSITY
METER
SYMBOL
LEVELS
HAND
STRUCTURE
LOG
(AS 1289.6.3.2-1997)
kPa
100
200
300
400
VE
5 10 15 20 25
H
E
F
0.0
Nil SILTY CLAY: brown with some orange-brown and grey, 6
FILL
medium plasticity, trace fine grained sand, trace brick,
brick fragment, poly pipe, plastic, concrete, cobbles, 12
0.10: HP In-situ >400 kPa
glass, trace gravel up to cobbles size
11
10
0.40m
B
10
0.5 D-M
7
14
0.70m 0.70m
SILTY CLAY: brown, medium plasticity, trace fine gravel 13
ALLUVIUM
CI At 0.80m: layer of dark grey to grey silty clay, trace fine 11

0.80: HP In-situ >400 kPa
gravel and fine sand, low to medium plasticity
11
1.00m 1.00m
1.0 H
B SILTY CLAY: brown, orange-brown with cream, high 9
RESIDUAL SOIL
plasticity
7
6
1.30m
4
Not Encountered
1.40: HP Samp =300 -

3 340 kPa
1.5
CH 3
4
1.70m
D 5
1.80: HP Samp =210 -
At 1.80m: Silty Clay - orange-brown and cream, high 6
1.90m 340 kPa
plasticity
6
2.0 M
At 2.00m: as above, except pale grey with red-brown 16
2.10m
SILTY CLAY: pale grey with red-brown, with fine to VSt 14
coarse gravel size iron strand sandy siltstone fragments
20
15
12
2.5
CH At 2.50m: gravel content increases with depth 12
10
15
13
2.90m
D At 2.90m: becoming extremely weathered with 20
2.90: Probable weathered
3.00m 3.00m highly/moderately weathered layer bedrock
3.0
Target depth
3.5
4.0
PHOTOGRAPHS
NOTES YES NO

SOIL DESCRIPTION
VH
VE
VS - Very Soft
H
E
F

F - Firm
T Timbering

File: G5372 P3-TP010 1 OF 1
TITLE DRAWN DATE

NS 25/02/2021
CHECKED DATE
M12 EAST SCALE
Not To Scale A4
Photo - P3-TP010
G5372 1/1
PIT NO : P3-TP012
LOCATION : Wallgrove Road - Cecil Park
EQUIPMENT TYPE : 4-6t Excavator METHOD : 450mm toothed bucket
DRILLING MATERIAL
PENETRO-
CLASSIFICATION
FIELD TESTS
CONSISTENCY
GROUND WATER
PENETRATION
SAMPLES &
DEPTH (m)
CONDITION
SUPPORT
MOISTURE
GRAPHIC
RELATIVE
DCP TEST
DENSITY
METER
SYMBOL
LEVELS
HAND
STRUCTURE
LOG
(AS 1289.6.3.2-1997)
kPa
100
200
300
400
VE
5 10 15 20 25
H
E
F
0.0
Nil CLAYEY SILT / SILTY CLAY: silt is pale grey, clay is low 6
TOPSOIL
to medium plasticity
0.10: HP Samp >400 kPa
ML / 10
D
CL-CI
13
0.35m 0.35m
11
B SILTY CLAY: orange-brown, high plasticity RESIDUAL SOIL
4
0.5
5
4
0.70m
4
CH M H
Not Encountered
5
1.0
5
6
1.20m
SANDY SILTSTONE: red-brown and pale grey, 21
WEATHERED ROCK
moderately to highly weathered
19
1.40m 1.40m
D SILTY CLAY: cream to pale grey with red-brown, 7
RESIDUAL SOIL
1.5 medium to high plasticity
5
1.60m
CI-CH H
6
12
1.80m
SANDY SILTSTONE: pale grey with red-brown, /5mm (HB)
3
BEDROCK
1.90m moderately to highly weathered, low to medium strength R

2.0 Refusal
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
PHOTOGRAPHS
NOTES YES NO

SOIL DESCRIPTION
VH
VE
VS - Very Soft
H
E
F

F - Firm
T Timbering

File: G5372 P3-TP012 1 OF 1
TITLE DRAWN DATE

NS 25/02/2021
CHECKED DATE
M12 EAST SCALE
Not To Scale A4
Photo - P3-TP012
G5372 1/1
Attachment D
RSW DESIGN ANALYSIS RESULTS

RSW GEOMETRY, SEISMIC AND IMPACT LOADS
Element RS31 @ MW10 CH0-25
Geometry and Other Inputs Input Note
Retaining wall type 1 1 for normal retaining wall; 2 for retaining wall supporting sill beam
Strap Length (L) 9.00 m L/H = 1.2
Facing Height (H1) 5.22 m
Angle of slope for the RSW ω*1 0.00 degree Refer to R57 Figure R57.6
*
Angle of slope behind the RSW ω 2 0.00 degree
RSW Block
Embedment of RSW (Dm) 0.50 m
Height of Water Table above Block Bottom (Hw) 0.50 m
Inclination angle for the rear wall (h) 0.00 degree ccw (+)
Friction angle of rear wall (d) 0.00 degree
Nominal Horizontal Pseudo-static acceleration coefficient (kh) 0.07 Refer to R57 Table R57.2
Other
Mechanical Height (H) 7.50 m Refer to R57 Figure 57.3
Economic Ramification Factor (Fn) Load cases A to E 0.90 Refer to R57 Figure R57.3
Economic Ramification Factor (Fn) Load case F 1.00 Refer to R57 Figure R57.3
Block height (SH) 2.28 m
Sill Beam Sill width (SW) 0.00 m
Sill length (SL) 0.00 m
Horizontal Collision/Barrier Load 30 kN

Crash Barrier
Moment Arm, Lc 8.70 m
Back to back wall Active earth pressure adjustment ratio 0.91
(+) (-)
h
h
Sign of Angle for the Rear Wall

ANALYSES SUMMARY
Load Case A B C D E F
Average Base Pressure (kPa) 173 264 199 239 189 204
Ultimate Bearing Capacity (kPa) 366 346 328 351 341 898
Bearing Capacity
Interaction Ratio (With Economic
1.9 1.2 1.5 1.3 1.6 4.4
Ramification Factor)
Overturning Moment (kN/m-m) 468.6 1258.5 1258.5 1011.4 992.5 917.1

Overturning about Resistant Moment (kN/m-m) 6483.8 9247.9 6483.8 8518.9 6483.8 7212.8
the Toe Interaction Ratio (With Economic
12.5 6.6 4.6 7.6 5.9 7.9
Driving Force (kN/m) 187.5 354.3 354.3 331.4 324.1 267.4

Resistance Force (kN/m) 603.9 840.7 598.5 778.3 600.3 860.3
Sliding
2.9 2.1 1.5 2.1 1.7 3.2
Eccentricity at
e/L<0.167, eccentricity is ok 0.33 0.61 0.87 0.53 0.69 0.57
RSW base
Interaction Ratio Required for Design Cases A-E ≥ 1.0
Interaction Ratio Required for Design Case F ≥ 1.35
Interaction Ratio Required for Design Case F, Bearing Capacity ≥ 3
M12 EDC RS31
Load Case: 1 Long term
Color Name Unit Effective Effective 115

Weight Cohesion Friction
(kN/m³) (kPa) Angle (°) 1.5
Clay - Very Stiff 18 7 26
Eng Fill 18 5 32
110
General Fill 20 10 25
High Strength 22
7m
R57 Fill 22 0 30
Siltstone HW/EW 22 10 26
105
Elevation
9m
100
95
90
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Distance
M12 EDC RS31
Load Case: 2 short Term
Color Name Unit Effective Effective Cohesion

Weight Cohesion Friction (kPa) 115
(kN/m³) (kPa) Angle (°)
Clay - Very 18 100 1.9
Stiff -
Undrained
Eng Fill 18 5 32
General Fill 20 10 25 110
High Strength 22
R57 Fill 22 0 30
7m
Siltstone 22 10 26
HW/EW
105
Elevation
9m
100
95
90
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Distance
M12 EDC RS31
Load Case: 3 Seismic

Clay - Very 18 100 1.8
Stiff -
Undrained
Eng Fill 18 5 32
High Strength 22
R57 Fill 22 0 30
7m
Siltstone 22 10 26
HW/EW
105
Elevation
9m
100
95
90
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Distance
M12 EDC RS31
Load Case: 4 Collision Load

Clay - Very 18 100 2.0
Stiff -
Undrained
Eng Fill 18 5 32
High Strength 22
R57 Fill 22 0 30
7m
Siltstone 22 10 26
HW/EW
105
Elevation
9m
100
95
90
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Distance
PROJECT M12EDC
LOCATION RS31 7.0 m
MADE BY BA Water table at 0mbgl
CHECKED BY
DATE 6/07/2022
Test location no P3-TP010 Finished surface level (approx) 110.32
Station MCJ0 (m) Ground level 103.72
Watertable depth 0.0 Water table RL (m) 103.7
Fill height (m) 7.00 Const duration t0 = 0.5 years
Fill loading (kPa) 140.0 Time t = 40.5 years
Traffic Load 22.0 Strain Rate per log cycle 0.00% (for internal compression)
(Site won Fill)
Depth (m) Top of mv Cae dprimary dtraffic dcreep 40 E'
Soil Class
RL 2
From to z (m /MN) (mm) (mm) (mm) (MPa)
0.00 0.75 0.75 CL-VST 103.7 0.050 0.000 5.3 1 0.00 20.0
0.75 1.30 0.55 CL-H 103.0 0.025 0.000 1.9 0 0.00 40.0
1.30 2.30 1.00 Cl-H 102.4 0.025 0.000 3.5 1 0.00 40.0
Total Primary 11 2 0
Residual Primary 1
Internal Fill Compression (mm) 0

Total Residual Settlement (mm) 3
[Pages]6/07/2022
*
RSW Block
Other

Crash Barrier
Active earth pressureActive
adjustment
earth pressure
ratio adjustment ratio 1.00
(+) (-)
h
h

ANALYSES SUMMARY
Bearing Capacity
2.2 1.0 1.1 1.4 1.7 3.4

11.5 3.4 2.2 5.4 4.0 4.1

Sliding
2.8 1.5 1.0 1.9 1.4 2.3
Eccentricity at
RSW base
M12 EDC RS31
115
Color Name Unit Effective Effective

1.5 110
Eng Fill 18 5 32
High Strength 22
4.5 m
R57 Fill 22 0 30
Siltstone HW/EW 22 10 26 105
Elevation
5.5 m
100
95
90
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Distance
M12 EDC RS31
Clay - Very 18 100
Stiff -
Undrained
Eng Fill 18 5 32 110
2.6
High Strength 22
R57 Fill 22 0 30
4.5 m
Siltstone 22 10 26
HW/EW 105
Elevation
5.5 m
100
95
90
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Distance
M12 EDC RS31
Clay - Very 18 100
Stiff -
Undrained
Eng Fill 18 5 32 110
2.2
High Strength 22
R57 Fill 22 0 30
4.5 m
Siltstone 22 10 26
HW/EW 105
Elevation
5.5 m
100
95
90
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Distance
M12 EDC RS31
Clay - Very 18 100
Stiff -
Undrained
Eng Fill 18 5 32 110
2.4
High Strength 22
R57 Fill 22 0 30
4.5 m
Siltstone 22 10 26
HW/EW 105
Elevation
5.5 m
100
95
90
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Distance
PROJECT M12EDC
LOCATION RS31 4.5 m
CHECKED BY
DATE 6/07/2022
(Site won Fill)
Soil Class
RL
From to z (m2/MN) (mm) (mm) (mm) (MPa)
0.00 3.00 0.75 CL-VST 104.4 0.050 0.000 3.4 1 0.00 20.0
Total Primary 3 1 0
Residual Primary 0

[Pages]6/07/2022
*
RSW Block
Friction angle of rear wall (d) 0.00 degree See Figure
Other

Crash Barrier
adjustment
earth pressure
(+) (-)
h
h

ANALYSES SUMMARY
Bearing Capacity
2.0 1.2 1.5 1.4 1.7 4.5

12.7 6.7 4.7 7.8 6.0 8.0

Sliding
2.9 2.1 1.5 2.1 1.7 3.2
Eccentricity at
RSW base
M12 EDC RS31
115
Color Name Unit Effective Effective 1.5

110
Eng Fill 18 5 32
High Strength 22
4.5 m
R57 Fill 22 0 30
Elevation
9m
100
95
90
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Distance
M12 EDC RS31
Load Case: 2 Short term
115
Weight Cohesion Friction (kPa)
2.2
Clay - Very 18 100
Stiff -
Undrained
Eng Fill 18 5 32 110
High Strength 22
R57 Fill 22 0 30
4.5 m
Siltstone 22 10 26
HW/EW 105
Elevation
9m
100
95
90
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Distance
M12 EDC RS31
115
2.0
Clay - Very 18 100
Stiff -
Undrained
Eng Fill 18 5 32 110
High Strength 22
R57 Fill 22 0 30
4.5 m
Siltstone 22 10 26
HW/EW 105
Elevation
9m
100
95
90
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Distance
M12 EDC RS31
115
2.3
Clay - Very 18 100
Stiff -
Undrained
Eng Fill 18 5 32 110
High Strength 22
R57 Fill 22 0 30
4.5 m
Siltstone 22 10 26
HW/EW 105
Elevation
9m
100
95
90
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Distance
PROJECT M12EDC
LOCATION RS31 4.5 m Slope
CHECKED BY
DATE 22/06/2022
(Site won Fill)
Soil Class
RL
0.00 0.75 0.75 CL-VST 102.6 0.050 0.000 3.0 1 0.00 20.0
0.75 1.30 0.55 CL-H 101.9 0.025 0.000 1.1 0 0.00 40.0
1.30 2.30 1.00 Cl-H 101.3 0.025 0.000 2.0 1 0.00 40.0
Total Primary 6 2 0
Residual Primary 1

[Pages]22/06/2022
Element RS31 @ MW11 CH18-30.95
*
RSW Block
Other

Crash Barrier
Active earth pressureActive earth pressure
adjustment ratio adjustment ratio 1.00
(+) (-)
h
h

ANALYSES SUMMARY
Element RS31 @ MW11 CH18-30.95
Bearing Capacity
1.8 1.1 1.4 1.2 1.4 4.0

11.5 6.0 4.2 5.9 4.7 7.1

Sliding
2.6 1.9 1.4 1.7 1.4 2.9
Eccentricity at
RSW base
M12 EDC RS31
115

Weight Cohesion Friction 1.5
110
Eng Fill 18 5 32
6.7 m
High Strength 22
R57 Fill 22 0 30
Elevation
9m
100
95
90
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Distance
M12 EDC RS31
Clay - Very 18 100 2.0
Stiff -
Undrained
Eng Fill 18 5 32
110
High Strength 22
6.7 m
R57 Fill 22 0 30
Siltstone 22 10 26
HW/EW 105
Elevation
9m
100
95
90
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Distance
M12 EDC RS31
Clay - Very 18 100 1.9
Stiff -
Undrained
Eng Fill 18 5 32
110
High Strength 22
6.7 m
R57 Fill 22 0 30
Siltstone 22 10 26
HW/EW 105
Elevation
9m
100
95
90
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Distance
M12 EDC RS31
Clay - Very 18 100 2.0
Stiff -
Undrained
Eng Fill 18 5 32
110
High Strength 22
6.7 m
R57 Fill 22 0 30
Siltstone 22 10 26
HW/EW 105
Elevation
9m
100
95
90
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Distance
PROJECT M12EDC
LOCATION RS31 MW11 6.7 m
CHECKED BY
DATE 22/06/2022
(Site won Fill)
Soil Class
RL
0.00 0.75 0.75 CL-VST 103.4 0.050 0.000 5.0 1 0.00 20.0
0.75 1.30 0.55 CL-H 102.7 0.025 0.000 1.8 0 0.00 40.0
1.30 2.30 1.00 Cl-H 102.1 0.025 0.000 3.3 1 0.00 40.0
Residual Primary 1

[Pages]22/06/2022
Element RS32 @ CH0-70 m
*
RSW Block
Other

Crash Barrier
adjustment
earth pressure
(+) (-)
h
h

ANALYSES SUMMARY
Bearing Capacity
5.5 2.6 2.9 3.5 4.2 9.8

11.7 3.3 2.2 5.1 3.8 4.0

Sliding
3.5 1.9 1.3 2.2 1.7 2.8
Eccentricity at
RSW base
M12 EDC RS32: 0 m - 70 m

Clay - Firm 17 2 26
120
Clay - Hard 20 10 26
Eng Fill 18 5 32
General Fill 20 10 25 1.6
High 22
Strength
R57 Fill 22 0 30 115
4.5 m
Siltstone 22 10 26
HW/EW
Elevation
110
5.5 m
105
100
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Distance
M12 EDC RS32: 0 m - 70 m

Clay - Firm - 17 30
Undrained
120
Clay - Hard - 20 200
Undrained
Eng Fill 18 5 32
1.9
High Strength 22
R57 Fill 22 0 30 115
4.5 m
Siltstone 22 10 26
HW/EW
Elevation
110
5.5 m
105
100
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Distance
M12 EDC RS32: 0 m - 70 m

Clay - Firm - 17 30
Undrained
120
Undrained
Eng Fill 18 5 32
1.6
High Strength 22
R57 Fill 22 0 30 115
4.5 m
Siltstone 22 10 26
HW/EW
Elevation
110
5.5 m
105
100
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Distance
M12 EDC RS32: 0 m - 70 m

Clay - Firm - 17 30
Undrained
120
Undrained
Eng Fill 18 5 32
1.7
High Strength 22
R57 Fill 22 0 30 115
4.5 m
Siltstone 22 10 26
HW/EW
Elevation
110
5.5 m
105
100
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Distance
PROJECT M12EDC
LOCATION RS32 4.5 m Ch0 - 70 m
CHECKED BY
DATE 22/06/2022
Test location no TP2003/154 and P3-TP012 Finished surface level (approx) 114.60
Ground level 110.10
(Site won Fill)
Soil Class
RL
0.00 0.30 0.30 Eng Fill 110.1 0.050 0.000 1.4 0 0.00 20.0
0.30 1.10 0.80 CL-F 109.8 0.167 0.002 12.0 3 3.04 6.0
1.10 2.90 1.80 CL-H 109.0 0.025 0.000 4.1 1 0.00 40.0
Residual Primary 2

[Pages]22/06/2022
Element RS32 @ CH70-115 & 245-260 m
*
RSW Block
Other

Crash Barrier
(+) (-)
h
h

ANALYSES SUMMARY
Element RS32 @ CH70-115 & 245-260 m

Bearing Capacity
7.7 2.9 2.8 4.5 5.5 11.6

12.5 2.6 1.6 4.5 3.3 3.2

Sliding
4.3 1.7 1.0 2.4 1.8 2.5
Eccentricity at
RSW base
M12 EDC RS32: 70 m - 260 m

Clay - Firm 17 2 26
Clay - Hard 20 10 26
Eng Fill 18 5 32
High 22 1.8 120
Strength
R57 Fill 22 0 30
3m
Siltstone 22 10 26
HW/EW
115
Elevation
4.5 m
110
105
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Distance
M12 EDC RS32: 70 m - 260 m

Clay - Firm - 17 30
Undrained
Undrained
Eng Fill 18 5 32
2.4
High Strength 22
R57 Fill 22 0 30
3m
Siltstone 22 10 26
HW/EW
115
Elevation
4.5 m
110
105
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Distance
M12 EDC RS32: 70 m - 260 m

Clay - Firm - 17 30
Undrained
Undrained
Eng Fill 18 5 32
High Strength 22 2.2 120
R57 Fill 22 0 30
Siltstone 22 10 26
3m
HW/EW
115
Elevation
4.5 m
110
105
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Distance
M12 EDC RS32: 70 m - 260 m

Clay - Firm - 17 30
Undrained
Undrained
Eng Fill 18 5 32
High Strength 22 2.0 120
R57 Fill 22 0 30
Siltstone 22 10 26
3m
HW/EW
115
Elevation
4.5 m
110
105
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Distance
PROJECT M12EDC
CHECKED BY
DATE 22/06/2022
Test location no TP2003/154 Finished surface level (approx) 115.90
Ground level 114.30
(Site won Fill)
Soil Class
RL
0.00 0.20 0.20 Eng Fill 114.3 0.050 0.000 0.6 0 0.00 20.0
0.20 1.00 0.80 CL-F 114.1 0.167 0.002 8.0 3 3.04 6.0
1.00 2.60 1.60 CL-H 113.3 0.025 0.000 2.4 1 0.00 40.0
Residual Primary 1

[Pages]22/06/2022
Element RS32 @ CH260-375 & 425-465 m
*
RSW Block
Other

Crash Barrier
Active earth pressureActive earth pressure
adjustment ratio adjustment ratio 1.00
(+) (-)
h
h

ANALYSES SUMMARY
Element RS32 @ CH260-375 & 425-465 m
Bearing Capacity
5.8 2.5 2.6 3.5 4.2 9.6

11.7 2.9 1.9 4.7 3.5 3.6

Sliding
3.5 1.8 1.2 2.2 1.7 2.6
Eccentricity at
RSW base
M12 EDC RS32: 260 m - 375 m
Load Case: 1 Long term Color Name Unit Effective Effective
Clay - Firm 17 2 26
Eng Fill 18 5 32
High 22
Strength
R57 Fill 22 0 30
Siltstone 22 10 26
HW/EW 115
1.6
4.5 m
110
Elevation
105
5m
100
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Distance
M12 EDC RS32: 260 m - 375 m
Load Case: 2 short Term Color Name Unit Effective Effective Cohesion
Clay - Firm - 17 30
Undrained
Eng Fill 18 5 32
High Strength 22
R57 Fill 22 0 30
Siltstone 22 10 26
HW/EW 115
1.6
4.5 m
110
Elevation
105
5m
100
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Distance
M12 EDC RS32: 260 m - 375 m
Load Case: 3 Seismic Color Name Unit Effective Effective Cohesion
Clay - Firm - 17 30
Undrained
Eng Fill 18 5 32
High Strength 22
R57 Fill 22 0 30
Siltstone 22 10 26
HW/EW 115
1.5
4.5 m
110
Elevation
105
5m
100
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Distance
M12 EDC RS32: 260 m - 375 m
Load Case: 4 Collision Load Color Name Unit Effective Effective Cohesion
Clay - Firm - 17 30
Undrained
Eng Fill 18 5 32
High Strength 22
R57 Fill 22 0 30
Siltstone 22 10 26
HW/EW 115
1.6
4.5 m
110
Elevation
105
5m
100
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Distance
PROJECT M12EDC
CHECKED BY
DATE 22/06/2022
Ground level 103.80
(Site won Fill)
Soil Class
RL
0.00 0.20 0.20 Eng Fill 103.8 0.050 0.000 0.9 0 0.00 20.0
0.20 0.60 0.40 CL-F 103.6 0.167 0.002 6.0 1 1.52 6.0
0.60 1.20 0.60 CL-St 103.2 0.067 0.001 3.6 1 1.14 15.0
Residual Primary 1

[Pages]22/06/2022
*
RSW Block
Other

Crash Barrier
(+) (-)
h
h

ANALYSES SUMMARY

Bearing Capacity
7.7 2.9 2.8 4.5 5.5 11.6

12.5 2.6 1.6 4.6 3.3 3.2

Sliding
4.3 1.7 1.0 2.4 1.8 2.5
Eccentricity at
RSW base
M12 EDC RS32: 375 m - 425 m

Clay - Firm 17 2 26
Eng Fill 18 5 32
High 22
Strength 115
R57 Fill 22 0 30
Siltstone 22 10 26
HW/EW
1.9
110
Elevation
3m
105
4.5 m
100
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Distance
M12 EDC RS32: 375 m - 425 m

Clay - Firm - 17 30
Undrained
Eng Fill 18 5 32
High Strength 22 115
R57 Fill 22 0 30
Siltstone 22 10 26
HW/EW
1.9
110
Elevation
3m
105
4.5 m
100
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Distance
M12 EDC RS32: 375 m - 425 m

Clay - Firm - 17 30
Undrained
Eng Fill 18 5 32
R57 Fill 22 0 30
Siltstone 22 10 26
HW/EW
1.8
110
Elevation
3m
105
4.5 m
100
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Distance
M12 EDC RS32: 375 m - 425 m

Clay - Firm - 17 30
Undrained
Eng Fill 18 5 32
R57 Fill 22 0 30
Siltstone 22 10 26
HW/EW
1.8
110
Elevation
3m
105
4.5 m
100
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Distance
PROJECT M12EDC
CHECKED BY
DATE 22/06/2022
Ground level 107.80
(Site won Fill)
Soil Class
RL
0.00 0.20 0.20 Eng Fill 107.8 0.050 0.000 0.6 0 0.00 20.0
0.20 0.60 0.40 CL-F 107.6 0.167 0.002 4.0 1 1.52 6.0
0.60 1.20 0.60 CL-St 107.2 0.067 0.001 2.4 1 1.14 15.0
Total Primary 7 3 3
Residual Primary 1

[Pages]22/06/2022
Element RS32 @ CH260-375 & 425-465 m
*
RSW Block
Other

Crash Barrier
adjustment
earth pressure
(+) (-)
h
h

ANALYSES SUMMARY
Element RS32 @ CH260-375 & 425-465 m
Bearing Capacity
6.1 2.8 3.2 3.8 4.7 10.7

11.1 3.3 2.1 5.1 3.8 4.0

Sliding
3.7 1.9 1.3 2.3 1.8 2.8
Eccentricity at
RSW base
M12 EDC RS32: 425 m - 465 m

Eng Fill 18 5 32
High Strength 22
R57 Fill 22 0 30
110
Siltstone HW/EW 22 10 26
1.5
4.5 m
105
Elevation
100
5.5 m
95
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Distance
M12 EDC RS32: 425 m - 465 m
Load Case: 2 short Term Color Name Unit Effective Effective Cohesion
Clay - Very 18 100
Stiff -
Undrained
Eng Fill 18 5 32
High Strength 22
R57 Fill 22 0 30
Siltstone 22 10 26 110
HW/EW
2.4
4.5 m
105
Elevation
100
5.5 m
95
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Distance
M12 EDC RS32: 425 m - 465 m
Load Case: 3 Seismic Color Name Unit Effective Effective Cohesion
Clay - Very 18 100
Stiff -
Undrained
Eng Fill 18 5 32
High Strength 22
R57 Fill 22 0 30
HW/EW
2.4
4.5 m
105
Elevation
100
5.5 m
95
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Distance
M12 EDC RS32: 425 m - 465 m
Load Case: 4 Collision Load Color Name Unit Effective Effective Cohesion
Clay - Very 18 100
Stiff -
Undrained
Eng Fill 18 5 32
High Strength 22
R57 Fill 22 0 30
HW/EW
2.5
4.5 m
105
Elevation
100
5.5 m
95
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Distance
PROJECT M12EDC
CHECKED BY
DATE 6/07/2022
Ground level 103.80
(Site won Fill)
Soil Class
RL
0.00 0.70 0.70 Eng Fill 103.8 0.050 0.000 3.2 1 0.00 20.0
0.70 2.00 1.30 CL-St 103.1 0.067 0.001 7.8 2 2.47 15.0
2.00 5.00 3.00 CL-St 101.8 0.067 0.001 18.0 4 5.71 15.0
Residual Primary 3

[Pages]6/07/2022
*
RSW Block
Other

Crash Barrier
(+) (-)
h
h

ANALYSES SUMMARY

Bearing Capacity
7.7 2.9 2.8 4.5 5.5 11.6

12.5 2.6 1.6 4.6 3.3 3.2

Sliding
4.3 1.7 1.0 2.4 1.8 2.5
Eccentricity at
RSW base
M12 EDC RS32: 465 m - 560 m
Clay - Stiff 18 5 26
Eng Fill 18 5 32
High 22
Strength
R57 Fill 22 0 30
110
Siltstone 22 10 26
HW/EW
1.6
105
3m
Elevation
100
4.5 m
95
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Distance
M12 EDC RS32: 465 m - 560 m
Clay - Stiff - 18 75
Undrained
Eng Fill 18 5 32
High Strength 22
R57 Fill 22 0 30
110
Siltstone 22 10 26
HW/EW
2.7
105
3m
Elevation
100
4.5 m
95
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Distance
M12 EDC RS32: 465 m - 560 m
Undrained
Eng Fill 18 5 32
High Strength 22
R57 Fill 22 0 30
110
Siltstone 22 10 26
HW/EW
2.4
105
3m
Elevation
100
4.5 m
95
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Distance
M12 EDC RS32: 465 m - 560 m
Undrained
Eng Fill 18 5 32
High Strength 22
R57 Fill 22 0 30
110
Siltstone 22 10 26
HW/EW
2.2
105
3m
Elevation
100
4.5 m
95
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Distance
PROJECT M12EDC
CHECKED BY
DATE 6/07/2022
Ground level 103.60
(Site won Fill)
Soil Class
RL
0.00 0.20 0.20 Eng Fill 103.6 0.050 0.000 0.6 0 0.00 20.0
0.20 1.90 1.70 CL-St 103.4 0.067 0.001 6.8 2 3.24 15.0
Total Primary 7 3 3
Residual Primary 1

[Pages]6/07/2022
Attachment E
LIMITATIONS STATEMENT

Limitation Statement
This Report is provided by WSP Australia Pty Limited (WSP) for Transport for NSW (Client) in response to specific instructions
from the Client and in accordance with WSP’s proposal and agreement with the Client (Agreement).
PERMITTED PURPOSE
This Report is provided by WSP for the purpose described in the Agreement and no responsibility is accepted by WSP for the use
of the Report in whole or in part, for any other purpose (Permitted Purpose).
QUALIFICATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS

The services undertaken by WSP in preparing this Report were limited to those specifically detailed in the Report and are subject
to the scope, qualifications, assumptions and limitations set out in the Report or otherwise communicated to the Client.
Except as otherwise stated in the Report and to the extent that statements, opinions, facts, conclusion and / or recommendations in
the Report (Conclusions) are based in whole or in part on information provided by the Client and other parties identified in the
report (Information), those Conclusions are based on assumptions by WSP of the reliability, adequacy, accuracy and completeness
of the Information and have not been verified. WSP accepts no responsibility for the Information.
WSP has prepared the Report without regard to any special interest of any person other than the Client when undertaking the services
described in the Agreement or in preparing the Report.
USE AND RELIANCE

This Report should be read in its entirety and must not be copied, distributed or referred to in part only. The Report must not be
reproduced without the written approval of WSP. WSP will not be responsible for interpretations or conclusions drawn by the
reader. This Report (or sections of the Report) should not be used as part of a specification for a project or for incorporation into
any other document without the prior agreement of WSP.
WSP is not (and will not be) obliged to provide an update of this Report to include any event, circumstance, revised Information or
any matter coming to WSP’s attention after the date of this Report. Data reported and Conclusions drawn are based solely on
information made available to WSP at the time of preparing the Report. The passage of time; unexpected variations in ground
conditions; manifestations of latent conditions; or the impact of future events (including (without limitation) changes in policy,
legislation, guidelines, scientific knowledge; and changes in interpretation of policy by statutory authorities); may require further
investigation or subsequent re-evaluation of the Conclusions.
This Report can only be relied upon for the Permitted Purpose and may not be relied upon for any other purpose. The Report does
not purport to recommend or induce a decision to make (or not make) any purchase, disposal, investment, divestment, financial
commitment or otherwise. It is the responsibility of the Client to accept (if the Client so chooses) any Conclusions contained within
the Report and implement them in an appropriate, suitable and timely manner.
In the absence of express written consent of WSP, no responsibility is accepted by WSP for the use of the Report in whole or in part
by any party other than the Client for any purpose whatsoever. Without the express written consent of WSP, any use which a third
party makes of this Report or any reliance on (or decisions to be made) based on this Report is at the sole risk of those third parties
without recourse to WSP. Third parties should make their own enquiries and obtain independent advice in relation to any matter
dealt with or Conclusions expressed in the Report.
DISCLAIMER
No warranty, undertaking or guarantee whether expressed or implied, is made with respect to the data reported or the Conclusions
drawn. To the fullest extent permitted at law, WSP, its related bodies corporate and its officers, employees and agents assumes no
responsibility and will not be liable to any third party for, or in relation to any losses, damages or expenses (including any indirect,
consequential or punitive losses or damages or any amounts for loss of profit, loss of revenue, loss of opportunity to earn profit, loss
of production, loss of contract, increased operational costs, loss of business opportunity, site depredation costs, business interruption
or economic loss) of any kind whatsoever, suffered on incurred by a third party.
Page 1 of 1
APPENDIX H
DURABILITY MEMORANDUM
MEMO
TO: Transport for NSW
FROM: WSP Materials Technology
SUBJECT: Retaining Walls
OUR REF: M12EDD-WSP-ALL-DY-MEM-000300 Rev B01 (80% Design Issue)
DATE: 8 July 2022
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
The retaining walls for the M12 Elizabeth Dive Connection (M12EDC) will form part of the works of the
proposed M12 Motorway, which is a key part of the Western Sydney Infrastructure Plan (WSIP), a joint
initiative of the Federal and State governments to fund a $4.1 billion road and transport program for Western
Sydney.

Sydney NSW 2000
GPO Box 5394
Sydney NSW 2001
Tel: +61 2 9272 5100

Fax: +61 2 9272 5101
www.wsp.com
WSP Australia Pty Limited ABN 80 078 004 798

The retaining walls will be located across the project site, with the project site illustrated below in Figure 1.1.
Figure 1.1 Retaining wall locations
1.2 PROPOSED RETAINING WALL ASSETS

The proposed retaining walls of RS35, RS36a and RS36b consists of the following elements:
• Soil nails
• Shotcrete face
• Precast concrete facing panel
• Concrete footing beam
• Concrete capping beam
• Steel handrail.
The proposed retaining walls of RS31, RS32 & RS34 consists of the following elements:
• Mass concrete leveling strip
• RSW wall
• RSW straps
• Cast in place barrier footing
• Stitch pour
• Precast concrete barrier
• Cast in place barrier
• Steel rail
M12EDD-WSP-ALL-DY-MEM-000300 | Page 2
• L-shaped concrete wall – drainage block outs (RS31 & RS32 only)
The proposed retaining walls of RS33
• Cast in place L-shaped retaining wall base
• Cast in place L-shaped retaining wall
• Stitch pour
• Precast concrete barrier
• Cast in place barrier
• Steel rail
2. SCOPE
2.1 SCOPE OF MEMO
The scope of this memo is to provide the durability requirements for the retaining wall structures on the
M12EDC.
The purpose of this durability memo is to:
a) Provide a durability review of the retaining walls and identify potential issues affecting durability.
b) Analyse and predict the interactions between the asset components and the exposure environment; and
c) Provide guidelines to the designers of the assets on how to achieve the required design life.
This memo will form an appendix to the overall design report for the design package.
2.2 DESIGN LIFE

Table 2.1 summarises the required design life of the retaining wall elements to be constructed, which are
extracted from TfNSW QA Specification PS301.
Table 2.1 – Design Life of assets applicable to the retaining wall design
Asset Design Life

Retaining walls including reinforced soil walls 100 years
Retaining walls – Safety handrails 20 years
2.3 DEFINITION OF DESIGN LIFE

TfNSW QA Specification PS301 defines the design life as “The period over which an asset element of the
project performs TfNSW its intended function without replacement, refurbishment or significant maintenance”.
3. RISK AND OPPORTUNITIES

Risk and opportunities are summarised in the Table 3.1 below.
Table 3.1 Risk and opportunities
Element Risk Opportunity

Supplementary cement Use of supplementary cement Use of supplementary cement materials to
materials materials outside the reduce total cement content, improve
recommended values identified in durability properties for buried elements
Table 6.4, may lead to an increase and manage early thermal effects for
in cover massive elements.
4. EXPOSURE ENVIRONMENT
4.1 ABOVE GROUND EXPOSURE ENVIRONMENT
4.1.1 PROXIMITY TO THE OCEAN

The M12EDC project is located approximately 38 km from the coast.
4.1.2 EFFECT OF RAINFALL

The mean annual rainfall (based on the Bureau of Meteorology’s Horsley Park Equestrian Centre) is 771.1 mm.
This Automatic Weather Station (AWS) is the nearest to the project site.
4.1.3 EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE

The temperature data was imported from the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM1) climate data records for Horsley
Park Equestrian Centre AWS station number: 067119 – the nearest location with data:
• Monthly mean maximum temperature ranges from 17.4 ˚C to 30.1˚C
• Monthly mean minimum temperature ranges from 5.8˚C to 17.9˚C
• Annual mean maximum temperature: 23.9˚C
• Annual mean minimum temperature: 12.1˚C
• Annual mean temperature: 18.0 ˚C

Based on RCP 8.5, the annual average temperature is expected to increase by +3.8°C by 20902. An average
increase of 2.0 °C for temperature rise has been included in the design temperature identified below.
For design purpose, the annual average temperature of 20 ˚C has been adopted.
4.1.4 EFFECT OF RELATIVE HUMIDITY

Daytime relative humidity across the site is expected to vary between 49% and 73% (based on the BOM data
from Horsley Park Equestrian Centre AWS).
Annual mean humidity based on the average 9 am and 3 pm relative humidity year data is 61.0%
For design purposes, a relative humidity of 61% was adopted.
1
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_067119.shtml, accessed 13th September 2021
2
https://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/en/overview/understanding-projections/, accessed 13th
September 2021
4.1.5 CARBON DIOXIDE
The ambient CO2 concentration was approximately 412ppm in September 2021, based on the latest recording at
Cape Grim, in Tasmania (closest station to Sydney) 3.
In the absence of a specified base year for CO2 concentration assessment, based on a 100-year Design Life, the
base year for assessment is 2121.
The global atmospheric CO2 concentration trend is shown in Figure 4.1. The expected global mean atmospheric
CO2 concentrations for the Representative Concentration Pathway, RCP8.5 scenario ("high" emissions scenario
which represents a future with little curbing of emissions) across various periods are4:
• 2031 (2021-2041): 460ppm
• 2051 (2041-2061): 568ppm
• 2071 (2061-2081): 713ppm
• 2091 (2081-2101): 870ppm
• 2111 (2101-2121): 1045ppm

Interpolated values (based on the Figure 4.1) were used to establish the data-points for 2050, 2070 and 2100.
RCP 8.5 Projections

2000
1800 y = 2E-07e0.0106x
1600 R² = 0.995
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 2120 2140 2160 2180
Figure 4.1 – CO2 Concentration Trend (ppm vs projected date in years)
The concrete elements will be exposed to CO2 over the life of the structure average, the average of which is
based on the current CO2 concentration of 412ppm rising to a predicted value of 940ppm by 2100.
As the trend line is non-linear and expressed as an exponential, the time weighted average is selected to
establish estimated concentrations of CO2 over the life span of the project.
The weighted average for CO2 exposure through to 2121 is 735 ppm
For the purposes of this project, the design basis CO2 concentration over the whole of life is taken to be
735ppm.
3
https://www.csiro.au/en/research/natural-environment/atmosphere/Latest-greenhouse-gas-data,
accessed on 13 September 2021
4
https://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/en/climate-campus/modelling-and-projections/projecting-
future-climate/greenhouse-gas-scenarios/, accessed on 7th September 2020
4.2 BELOW GROUND EXPOSURE ENVIRONMENT
4.2.1 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL DATA
SOIL AGGRESSIVITY
Table 4.1 illustrates the geotechnical data in the vicinity of the retaining walls. Future aggressivity testing is
planned to be undertaken at the retaining wall locations and once this testing is completed, this memo will be
updated.
Table 4.1 – Summary of aggressivity testing
Document Test on Soil/ Investigation Ground pH Chlorides Sulphate Conductivity Resistivity

Reference Groundwater Depth (m) water (mg/Kg) (mg/Kg) (µS/Cm) (Ω cm)
level
below
surface
level
(m)
Geotechnical Soil Testing – 2.3m – 2.5m BH164 9.2 240 50 353 2830
Factual BH164 – RS – No
Report June 35 & RS36a water to
20191 RS36b 4.18m
deep
TfNSW. M12 Soil Testing 1.0 – 1.2 No 6.5 <10 <10 - 45400
East P3-BH013 - water to
Motorway2 RS 35 & 1.2m
RS36a RS36b deep
Soil Testing 5.02 – 5.11 No 7.8 400 10 - 3400

P3-BH013 - water to
RS 35 & 1.2m
RS36a RS36b deep
Soil Testing 7.58-7.65 No 7.7 110 60 - 9520

P3-BH013 - water to
RS 35 & 1.2m
RS36a RS36b deep
Soil Testing 2.0-2.45 No 6.2 870 160 - 1840

P3-BH015 - water to
RS 35 & 3.75m
RS36a RS36b deep
For retaining walls RS31 RS32, RS33 & RS34 there is no durability BH’s in the vicinity of the proposed walls.
Additional testing is proposed for these wall locations, which will be updated in this durability memo once it
becomes available.
WATER AGGRESSIVITY
Based on the information to date, there is no aggressivity testing of the ground water in the vicinity of the
project site. Based on previous experiences on similar projects in the area and in line with the information
provided in Note 8 of Table 6.4.2(c), of AS2159:2009 Piling: design and installation, where attention is drawn
to regions of dry land salinity, chloride concentrations in the soil can be greater than seawater (e.g. Western
Sydney). Groundwater may present a potential hydrogeological risk if the saline water is forced to rise to the
surface or is exposed in cuttings during and after construction. Figure 4.2 identifies that the project site
(identified in red rectangle) is in an area of moderate salinity potential.
Figure 4.2 – Salinity map for project site5
A summary of the approximate ground water levels (and range) across the project are summarised as follows in
Table 4.2
Table 4.2 – Summary of ground water levels
Document Standpipe ID Groundwater Groundwater Level Monitoring Period

Reference Depth (mbgl) (m AHD)
Geotechnical Factual BH150 4.5 +/- 0.2 105 +/- 0.2 May 2018 - Aug 2018
Report June 20191
BH155 10.9 +/- 0.2 110.7 +/- 0.2 May 2018 - Apr 2019
BH162 15.6 +/- 0.2 103 +/- 0.7 Sep 2018 - May 2019
TfNSW. M12 East P3-BH002 14.4 +/- 0.2 92.35 +/- 0.2 Aug 2020 - Feb 2021
Motorway2
P3-BH045 11.2 +/- 0.2 113.7 +/- 0.2
P3-BH046 8.8 +/- 0.2 112.5 +/- 0.2
P3-LDBH004 23.5 +/- 0.5 110 +/- 0.5
5
Arcadis/Jacobs JV. M12 Motorway Concept Design and Environmental Impact Statement. Geotechnical
Factual Report. Report No: IGHE-0001-M12-RPT-03, 28 June 2019.
Document Standpipe ID Groundwater Groundwater Level Monitoring Period
Reference Depth (mbgl) (m AHD)
Notes:
Arcadis/Jacobs JV. M12 Motorway Concept Design and Environmental Impact Statement. Geotechnical
Factual Report. Report No: IGHE-0001-M12-RPT-03, 28 June 2019.
TfNSW. M12 East Motorway. Geotechnical Factual Report Detailed Design Stage. Report No: G5372/1, 3
March 2021
4.2.2 ACID SULFATE SOILS (ASS)

Acid sulfate soils (ASS) are naturally occurring in sediments and soils containing iron sulphate, most commonly
named pyrite. The exposure of these soils to oxygen by drainage or excavation oxidises the iron sulphate and
generates sulfuric acid.
Acid sulfate soils are generally formed when sulfate from seawater, marine sediment or saturated decaying
organic material reacts with dissolved iron and iron minerals, forming iron sulphate minerals.
Figure 4.3 presents an image from the NSW Planning Industry and Environment Acid Sulfate Soils Risk
Mapping6, which identifies the project site is located in an area of no know occurrence of ASS. Hence the risk
of ASS in the area is considered low.
Figure 4.3 – ASS Map of project site.
There was no significant alluvium noted on the geological sheet or found in the investigation, so soils were not
analyzed for potential to become acid sulfate soils.
6
https://datasets.seed.nsw.gov.au/dataset/acid-sulfate-soils-risk0196c, accessed 14th September 2021
At proposed cutting locations, rock samples were analysed for their potential to become acid generating when
exposed in cuttings or re-used as fill however, based on the test results, where the Net Acid Production Potential
was found to be negative, the rock was found to be non-acid forming.
5. CLASSIFICATION OF EXPOSURE
5.1 ABOVE GROUND CLASSIFICATION
5.1.1 CONCRETE
The concrete exposure classification for above ground concrete elements with a 100 years design life will be a
B1 classification. The exposure classification is based on AS 5100.5: 2017 Table 4.3 – near coastal (1 km to 50
km from coastline), any climatic zone.
The concrete exposure classification for above ground concrete elements with a 40 years design life will be a B1
classification. The exposure classification is based on AS 3600: 2018 Table 4.3 – near coastal (1 km to 50 km
from coastline), any climatic zone.
5.1.2 STEEL
The above ground steel exposure classification will be a C2 (atmospheric exposed – subject to rain washing)
classification or C3 (atmospheric sheltered – not subject to rain washing).
The exposure classification is based on AS 4312: 2019 Section 3.2 and Figure A.4.
5.2 BELOW GROUND CLASSIFICATION

With reference to Table 4.1 – Summary of aggressivity testing and Table 4.8 of AS51005:2017, the chloride and
sulfate tested soils can be classified as A for soil condition B (low permeable soils) or B1 for soil condition A
(high permeable soils). An exposure classification of B1 is considered adequate for concrete elements above the
ground water.
BH162, closed to the proposed retaining walls RS35, RS36a and RS36b, identifies water levels at least 15.6m
below the surface level. Considering that the retaining walls will extend a maximum 5.8m below the existing
ground level, it is unlikely that they will come into contact with the ground water.
Retaining Walls RS31, RS32, RS33 & RS 34 do not have local aggressivity testing. However, these walls will
be located above the existing surface level in clean fill material, hence a B1 exposure classification is suitable.
5.2.1 STEEL
The buried steel exposure classification is assessed as “moderate” based on Table 6.5.2 (C) of AS2159:2009.
5.3 SUMMARY
Table 5.1 summarises the exposure classification for concrete and steel for both above ground and below ground
elements.
Table 5.1 Exposure classifications for concrete and steel assets
Concrete (AS5100.5:2017 & Steel (AS4312:2019 &

AS3600:2018) AS2159:2019)
Above ground classification B1 C2 Exposed

C3 Sheltered
Concrete (AS5100.5:2017 & Steel (AS4312:2019 &
AS3600:2018) AS2159:2019)
Below ground classification B1 Moderate
6. DETAILS OF MATERIALS
The provision for durability of concrete and steel based on their required design life and assessed exposure
classification is outlined in this section.
6.1 CONCRETE
6.1.1 CONCRETE MIX DESIGN

While generally the buried and atmospheric exposure classification has been assessed as B1, the project will
adopt B2 40MPa/50MPa mix designs while utilising the higher strength reduction in covers permitted by
AS5100.5:2017 for concrete structures with a 100 year design life. Summary Table 6.4 will provide the mix
design and cover requirements for a B2 concrete mix design rather than the minimum requirements of
AS5100.5:2017 for a B1 exposure classification.
6.1.2 CARBONATION MODELLING

Carbonation modelling will be relevant for concrete elements exposed to the atmosphere.
For conventionally reinforced concrete elements with a 100-year Design Life the design approach is to allow for
an initiation phase (carbonation) of 100 years.
To ensure durability in a carbonation dominated environment, minimum cover of concrete over the
reinforcement will be required to prevent the initiation of carbonation induced corrosion.
A carbonation model (CARBUFF), which is based on published carbonation data7, was used to determine
carbonation rates, based on the CO2 concentration predictions, average annual temperature and average annual
humidity inputs identified in section 4.1. The published also includes the analysis and determination of
chemical buffering capacity for Portland cement and supplementary cementitious materials (i.e. blast furnace
slag and fly ash).
It should be noted, the addition of fly ash and blast furnace slag reduces the resistance of concrete to carbonation
(fly ash and blast furnace slag have a lower buffering capacity than ordinary cement). For cast in place concrete
the mix design in Table 6.4 has been proposed to achieve the covers of AS5100.5:2017, with the provision of
inclusion of fly ash and blast furnace slag. For precast concrete, based on the recommended percentage of fly
ash and blast furnace slag in Table 6.4, covers have been modified from the AS5100.5:2017 minimums to
prevent the initiation of carbonation induced corrosion.
Should the recommended percentage of fly ash and blast furnace slag be outside the values presented in Table
6.4, this may impact on the required covers.
7 Concrete Society Technical Report 61, Enhancing Concrete Durability: Guidance on selecting measures for
minimising the risk of corrosion of reinforcement in concrete, (2004). Concrete Society, UK
6.1.3 THERMAL MODELLING
REQUIREMENTS
PS361 Bridge and Structural Detail Design requires:
a) Measures must be taken to minimise the possible deleterious effects of heat of hydration in thick
concrete sections, which may include the use of blended cements, cooling concrete during curing,
insulated forms and the use of larger aggregates.
b) A temperature differential up to 25°C across the cross-section of the concrete member during the
curing period is permitted provided CIRIA C766 modelling is undertaken to demonstrate that predicted
long term crack widths will be less than 0.2 mm and does not extend beyond the nearest surface of the
first layer of reinforcement.
c) Measures assumed to minimise the heat of hydration must be documented in the drawings.
d) Thermocouples must be located within the concrete element to monitor and control the maximum
temperature and differential temperature across the concrete.
In combination with the above, TfNSW B80 requires a maximum peak temperature of 70°C for large concrete
elements.
INPUTS
The capping beam of the soil nail walls require thermal modelling. Table 6.1 below shows dimensions used for
modelling purposes.
Table 6.1– Structural element dimensions
Structural Element Dimensions

Capping beam 1300mm
The ambient temperature data for thermal modelling was imported from the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM8)
climate data records for Horsley Park Equestrian Centre AWS (station number: 067119) – as identified in Table
6.2 below
Table 6.2 – Maximum/Minimum ambient temperature
Summer pour Winter pour

Mean maximum temperature 30.1°C 17.4°C
Mean minimum temperature 17.9°C 5.8°C
Average wind speed 4.0m/s 3.3m/s
MODELLING RESULTS
The Modelling results for the pile caps elements are summarized below in Table 6.3
Table 6.3 – Thermal modelling results
Piles Caps
SUMMER POUR WINTER POUR
Minimum dimension (mm) 1300
Formwork 18mm plywood
8
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_067108_All.shtml, Accessed 19th October 2020
Piles Caps
SUMMER POUR WINTER POUR
Cement Content (kg/m3) 440
Fly Ash (%) 35
GGBFS (%) 0
Surface conductance 1 5.2 W/m². K Top Surface
Formwork minimum removal time 96 120

(hours)
Placement Temperature (°C) 26 23
Peak Temperature (°C) 69°C @ 31 hours 65°C @ 34 hours
Differential Temperature (°C) 24.1°C @ 97.6 hours 24°C @ 44 hours
Notes:
1. The surface conductance quoted in the table is inclusive of an allowance for average wind speed at the
project site. As wind speed increases, surface conductance increase. The surface conductance for 18mm
plywood with a 0m/s wind speed is 4.4 W/m². C.
MEASURES ASSUMED TO MINIMISE THE HEAT OF HYDRATION MUST BE DOCUMENTED IN

THE DRAWINGS
The following recommendations can be noted on the drawings to minimise the heat of hydration for the pile
caps:
For summertime pours:
The placing temperature should be limited to 26°C, with the use of ice water or cooled aggregates for concrete
elements with thickness of between 1000mm-1400mm, with the use of 18mm plywood formwork to remain in
place for at least 4 days.
For wintertime pours:
The placing temperature should be limited to 23°C elements with thickness of 1000mm-1400mm, with the use
of 18mm plywood formwork to remain in place for at least 5 days. To achieve the maximum temperature
differential of 25°C, it is recommended that concrete works take place where the ambient temperature does not
drop below 10°C for the duration of the curing period.
This analysis is based on the designer’s assumptions for concrete material properties, temperatures, formwork,
and stripping time. Better information may become available during the construction phase, for which different
parameters may be applicable. Any potentially adverse departures from the assumptions in this thermal analysis
would need to be confirmed by revised analysis i.e. casting the elements with alternative percentages of fly ash.
6.1.4 SUMMARY
Design requirements for the durability of reinforced concrete are based on the relevant exposure classification in
AS5100.5:2017 and carbonation modelling, which is summarised in Table 6.4.
Table 6.4 – Summary of concrete design requirements for 100 year design life
Exposure Materials Recommended Minimum initial Protective

classification performance percentage of curing measures
requirements for SCM requirements (required cover for
durability durability)
B1 Buried (Cast in Minimum 25% Fly Ash or 50% Cure to achieve Cast in situ: 45mm
Place) Cementitious content Blast Furnace Slag requirements of + 30mm if cast
400kg/m3 TfNSWB80 Table Against Ground
Minimum Strength B80.7. Alternatively
use Annexure B80/E +5mm if using
40MPa curing compound
of TfNSW B80 with
Maximum minimum of 7 days AS5100.5 Table
Water/Cement Ratio for concrete with 4.14.3.2
0.45 SCM’s
(AS5100.5:2017)
B1 Atmospheric Minimum 25% Fly Ash or 50% Cure to achieve Cast in situ: 45mm
(Cast in Place – Cementitious content Blast Furnace Slag requirements of +5mm if using
concrete elements 440kg/m3 TfNSWB80 Table curing compound
with a minimum Minimum Strength B80.7. Alternatively
dimension of use Annexure B80/E AS5100.5 Table
40MPa 4.14.3.2
1000mm) of TfNSW B80 with
Maximum minimum of 7 days
Water/Cement Ratio for concrete with
0.45 SCM’s
(AS5100.5:2017 and
carbonation
modelling)
B1 Atmospheric Minimum 35% Fly Ash Cure to achieve Cast in situ: 55mm
(Cast in Place – Cementitious content requirements of Carbonation
concrete elements 440kg/m3 TfNSWB80 Table Modelling with 35%
with a minimum Minimum Strength B80.7. Alternatively Fly Ash
dimension of 40MPa use Annexure B80/E
between 1000-2000 of TfNSW B80 with
mm) Maximum minimum of 7 days
0.45 SCM’s
(AS5100.5:2017 and
carbonation
modelling)
Exposure Materials Recommended Minimum initial Protective
classification performance percentage of curing measures
requirements for SCM requirements (required cover for
durability durability)
B1 Atmospheric Minimum 25% Fly Ash or 50% Cure to achieve Precast: 35mm
(Precast) Cementitious content Blast Furnace Slag requirements of +5mm if using
500kg/m3 TFNSWB80 Table curing compound
Minimum Strength B80.7. Alternatively
use Annexure B80/E Carbonation
40MPa Modelling
of TFNSW B80 with
Maximum minimum of 7 days
0.45 SCM’s
(AS5100.5:2017 and
carbonation
modelling)
6.2 PROTECTION OF STEEL AGAINST ATMOSPHERIC CORROSION

Hot Dipped Galvanised (HDG) coating to AZ/NZS 4680:2006 is recommended to protect steel elements against
atmospheric corrosion.
The requirements for HDG coating thickness of articles that are not centrifuged in accordance with AS/NZS
4680: 2006 are presented in Table 6.5.
Table 6.5 – AS/NZS 4680:2006 Requirements for HDG Coating Thickness
Article thickness HDG Average coating Average coating mass

thickness (microns) (g/m2)
1.5mm or less HDG 320 45 320
Over 1.5mm to 3mm HDG 390 55 390
Over 3mm to 6mm HDG 500 70 500
Over 6mm HDG 600 85 600
For a C2 atmospheric exposure classification (not sheltered – rain washing), HDG 320 is expected to provide
adequate corrosion protection to achieve a life to first maintenance of 25 years.
For a C3 atmospheric exposure classification (sheltered – no rain washing), HDG 390 is expected to provide
adequate corrosion protection to achieve a life to first maintenance of 25 years, as per Table 6.2 of AS
2312.2:2014.
6.3 ADDITIONAL PROTECTION MEASURES

Additional protective measures as set out in PS361 Bridge and Structural Detail Design are identified below:
• Durability design for concrete structures with a design life greater than or equal to 40 years must be in
accordance with AS5100.5:2017.
• Dense, durable high strength concrete must be used. The minimum strength concrete to be used must be 32
MPa, except for blinding or mass concrete. In areas of severe exposure (equal to or exceeding AS 5100.5
exposure classification B2), blended cements must be used.
• Blinding or mass concrete placed against a structure must not be considered to provide a protective barrier
against environmental conditions.
7. SUMMARY TABLE
Table 7.1 – Summary Table
RSW RSW Sub Design Life Environment Zone Governing Material Concrete Minimum cement Cover (mm) Curing Maximum acid- Relevant Potential Additional Durability
Asset (Years) Exposure Type Grade (MPa) content Recommendations soluble chloride Codes and Degradation Risks Recommendations
Classification ion content (kg/ Standards
m3) – TfNSW B80
RS 35, 36a & Soil Nails 100 Buried Moderate – Steel Use Encapsulated soil nail as per the requirements of TfNSW R64. TfNSW R64 & Corrosion N/A
36b AS2159:2009 Steel bars shall be HDG600. AS2159
Encapsulate soil nails in a corrugated plastic sheath sealed at the buried end.
Grout shall be as per the requirements of Table R64.1 of R64.
Cast in place 100 Buried B1 – AS 5100.5: Cast in place 40 Minimum Cast in situ: Cure to achieve 0.4 AS 5100.5: Limited Chlorides, Use blended cement of
footing beam 2017 Cementitious 45mm requirements of 2017, TfNSW sulphate 25% Fly Ash or 50%
content 400kg/m3 + 30mm if TfNSW B80 Table B80 Blast Furnace Slag
Maximum cast Against B80.7. Alternatively
Water/Cement Ground use Annexure B80/E
Ratio 0.50 of TfNSW B80 with
+5mm if minimum of 7 days
(AS5100.5:2017) using curing for concrete with
compound SCM’s
AS5100.5
Table
4.14.3.2
Facing 100 Buried B1 – AS 5100.5: Shotcrete 40 Minimum Cast in situ: Cure to achieve 0.4 AS 5100.5: Carbonation Use blended cement of
shotcrete 2017 Cementitious 45mm requirements of 2017, TfNSW 25% Fly Ash or 50%
content 440kg/m3 + 30mm if TfNSW R68 Cl 8.0 B80 Blast Furnace Slag
Maximum shot against
Water/Cement ground
Ratio 0.45 +5mm if
(AS5100.5:2017 using curing
and carbonation compound
modelling) AS5100.5
Table
4.14.3.2 and
carbonation
modelling
m3) – TfNSW B80
Precast 100 Atmospheric B1 – AS 5100.5: Precast 40 Minimum Precast: Cure to achieve 0.4 AS 5100.5: Carbonation 25% Fly Ash or 50%
concrete 2017 Concrete Cementitious 35mm requirements of 2017, TfNSW Blast Furnace Slag
facing panel content 500kg/m3 +5mm if TfNSW B80 Table B80
Maximum using curing B80.7. Alternatively
Water/Cement compound use Annexure B80/E
Ratio 0.45 of TFNSW B80
AS5100.5 with minimum of 3
(AS5100.5:2017 Table days
and carbonation 4.14.3.3
modelling)
Capping beam 100 Buried/Atmospheric B1 – AS 5100.5: Cast in place 40 Minimum Cast in situ: Cure to achieve 0.4 AS 5100.5: Carbonation Use blended cement of
<1000mm 2017 Cementitious 45mm requirements of 2017, TFNSW 50% Blast Furnace Slag
content 440kg/m3 +5mm if TfNSW B80 Table B80 or 25% Fly Ash
AS5100.5 minimum of 7 days
(AS5100.5:2017) Table for concrete with
(AS5100.5:2017 4.14.3.2 SCM’s for concrete
and carbonation with SCM’s
modelling)
Capping beam 100 Buried/Atmospheric B1 – AS 5100.5: Cast in place 40 Minimum Cast in situ: Cure to achieve 0.4 AS 5100.5: Carbonation, Delayed Use blended cement of
>1000mm 2017 Cementitious 55mm requirements of 2017, TFNSW Ettringite Formation 35% Fly Ash
content 440kg/m3 + 30mm if TfNSW B80 Table B80 and thermal cracking
(AS5100.5:2017) Table for concrete with
4.14.3.2 and SCM’s
carbonation
modelling
Steel handrail 20 handrails Atmospherically C2 Steel Minimum HDG 320 (or at least 320 g/m2/ 45µm) TfNSW B220 Atmospheric Moisture -
exposed &
AS4312:2019
m3) – TfNSW B80
RS 31, 32 & Mass concrete 100 Buried B1 – AS 5100.5: Cast in place 32 Minimum Mass Cure to achieve 0.4 AS 5100.5: Limited Chlorides, Use blended cement of
34 leveling strip 2017 Cementitious Concrete requirements of 2017, TfNSW sulphate 25% Fly Ash or 50%
content 400kg/m3 TfNSW B80 Table B80 Blast Furnace Slag
Maximum B80.7. Alternatively
Water/Cement use Annexure B80/E
minimum of 7 days
(AS5100.5:2017) for concrete with
SCM’s
Precast RSW 100 Atmospheric B1 – AS 5100.5: Precast 40 Minimum Precast: Cure to achieve 0.4 AS 5100.5: Carbonation Use blended cement of
wall panel /buried 2017 Concrete Cementitious 35mm requirements of 2017, TfNSW 50% Blast Furnace Slag
content 500kg/m3 +5mm if TfNSW B80 Table B80 or 25% Fly Ash
Maximum using curing B80.7. Alternatively TfNSW R57
(AS5100.5:2017 Table for concrete with
and carbonation 4.14.3.3 SCM’s
modelling)
RSW straps 100 Buried Non-aggressive Steel Galvanized with a corrosion loss allowance – Refer to cl 5.2 of TfNSW R57
(AS2159:2009)
Cast in place 100 Atmospheric B1 – AS 5100.5: Cast in place 40 Minimum Cast in situ: Cure to achieve 0.4 AS 5100.5: Carbonation Use blended cement of
barrier footing /buried 2017 Cementitious 45mm requirements of 2017, TfNSW 25% Fly Ash or 50%
(AS5100.5:2017 using curing for concrete with
and carbonation compound SCM’s
modelling) AS5100.5
Table
4.14.3.2 and
carbonation
modelling
m3) – TfNSW B80
Stitch pour 100 Atmospheric B1 – AS 5100.5: Cast in place 40 Minimum Cast in situ: Cure to achieve 0.4 AS 5100.5: Carbonation Use blended cement of
/buried 2017 Cementitious 45mm requirements of 2017, TfNSW 25% Fly Ash or 50%
modelling) AS5100.5
Table
4.14.3.2 and
carbonation
modelling
Precast 100 Atmospheric B1 – AS 5100.5: Precast 40 Minimum Cast in situ: Cure to achieve 0.4 AS 5100.5: Carbonation 25% Fly Ash or 50%
barrier content 440kg/m3 +5mm if TfNSW B80 Table B80
modelling)
Cast in place 100 Atmospheric B1 – AS 5100.5: Cast in place 40 Minimum Cast in situ: Cure to achieve 0.4 AS 5100.5: Carbonation 25% Fly Ash or 50%
concrete 2017 Cementitious 45mm requirements of 2017, TfNSW Blast Furnace Slag
modelling)
m3) – TfNSW B80
L-Shaped 100 Atmospheric B1 – AS 5100.5: Cast in place 40 Minimum Cast in situ: Cure to achieve 0.4 AS 5100.5: Limited Chlorides, Use blended cement of
concrete block /buried 2017 Cementitious 45mm requirements of 2017, TfNSW sulphate 25% Fly Ash or 50%
outs for content 400kg/m3 + 30mm if TfNSW B80 Table B80 Blast Furnace Slag
drainage (base Maximum cast Against B80.7. Alternatively
and wall) Water/Cement Ground use Annexure B80/E
RS31 and Ratio 0.45 of TfNSW B80 with
RS32 only +5mm if minimum of 7 days
compound SCM’s
AS5100.5
Table
4.14.3.2
Steel rail 25 Protection Atmospherically C2 Steel Minimum HDG 320 (or at least 320 g/m2/ 45µm) TfNSW B220 Atmospheric Moisture -
coating exposed &
AS4312:2019
RS33 L-Shaped 100 Buried B1 – AS 5100.5: Cast in place 40 Minimum Cast in situ: Cure to achieve 0.4 AS 5100.5: Limited Chlorides, Use blended cement of
retaining wall 2017 Cementitious 45mm requirements of 2017, TfNSW sulphate 25% Fly Ash or 50%
base content 400kg/m3 + 30mm if TfNSW B80 Table B80 Blast Furnace Slag
compound SCM’s
AS5100.5
Table
4.14.3.2
L-Shaped 100 Atmospheric B1 – AS 5100.5: Cast in place 40 Minimum Cast in situ: Cure to achieve 0.4 AS 5100.5: Carbonation Use blended cement of
retaining wall /buried 2017 Cementitious 45mm requirements of 2017, TfNSW 25% Fly Ash or 50%
modelling) AS5100.5
Table
4.14.3.2 and
carbonation
modelling
m3) – TfNSW B80
Stitch pour 100 Atmospheric B1 – AS 5100.5: Cast in place 40 Minimum Cast in situ: Cure to achieve 0.4 AS 5100.5: Carbonation Use blended cement of
/buried 2017 Cementitious 45mm requirements of 2017, TfNSW 25% Fly Ash or 50%
modelling) AS5100.5
Table
4.14.3.2 and
carbonation
modelling
Precast 100 Atmospheric B1 – AS 5100.5: Precast 40 Minimum Cast in situ: Cure to achieve 0.4 AS 5100.5: Carbonation 25% Fly Ash or 50%
modelling)
Cast in place 100 Atmospheric B1 – AS 5100.5: Cast in place 40 Minimum Cast in situ: Cure to achieve 0.4 AS 5100.5: Carbonation 25% Fly Ash or 50%
concrete 2017 Cementitious 45mm requirements of 2017, TfNSW Blast Furnace Slag
modelling)
Steel rail 25 Protection Atmospherically C2 Steel Minimum HDG 320 (or at least 320 g/m2/ 45µm) TfNSW B220 Atmospheric Moisture -
coating exposed &
AS4312:2019
8. REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
The durability requirements memorandum must be in accordance with the design documents listed below:
Table 8.1 – Design References
AS Reference AS Title
AS 2159:2009 Piling – Design and Installation
AS 3600:2018 Concrete Structures
AS 4312:2019 Atmospheric corrosivity zones in Australia
AS 5100.5:2017 Bridge design Part 5: Concrete
AS/NZS 1214:2016 Hot-dip galvanized coatings on threaded fasteners (ISO metric coarse thread
series) (ISO 10684:2004, MOD)
AS/NZS 2312.1:2014 Guide to the protection of structural steel against atmospheric corrosion by the
use of protective coatings - Paint coatings
AS/NZS 2312.2 2014 Guide to the protection of structural steel against atmospheric corrosion by the
use of protective coatings - Hot dip galvanizing
AS / NZS 4680:2006 Hot-dip galvanized (zinc) coatings on fabricated ferrous articles
TfNSW BTD 2014/02 Durability Plan for Bridges and Other Structures
TfNSW Specification B80 Ed Concrete Works for Bridges

7/Rev 5
TfNSW Specification B220 Protective Treatment of Bridge Steelwork

Ed4/Rev 1
TfNSW Specification R53 Concrete (For General Use), Mortar and Grout
Ed3 /Rev 5
TfNSW Specification R64 Soil Nailing

Ed1/Rev 7
TfNSW Specification R68 Shotcrete work without steel fibres

Ed1/Rev 4
TfNSW Specification 3211 Cements, Binders and Fillers

Ed5/Rev 0
TR61 Enhancing Reinforced Concrete Durability - Concrete Society Technical

Report No. 61
PS301 TfNSW QA Specification
PS361 Bridge and Structural Detail Design
Reviewed By:
Prepared by:
Tim Bettelley
Steven Heffernan
Technical Executive – Materials and Building
Senior Engineer Material Technology
Forensics

M12edd WSP Edr Rs RPT 000001 B

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

M12edd WSP Edr Rs RPT 000001 B

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TRANSPORT FOR NSW

80% DESIGN REPORT

Tel: +61 2 9272 5100

REV DATE DETAILS

NAME DATE SIGNATURE

2 DESIGN CONTEXT ...............................................................6

4 INTERDISCIPLINARY INPUTS .........................................19

9 CONSTRUCTABILITY, OPERATION AND

Figure 1.1 Project overview and key features

 Cecil Road and Wallgrove Road realignment

 Connections between the existing M7 Motorway from Elizabeth Drive.

Project No PS123599 WSP

1.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES

 Eases traffic congestion.

 Consider potential environmental impacts.

 Improve safety for all road users.

 Preserve the access function of Elizabeth Drive (EDr).

 Provide active local transport within the east–west corridor.

1.4 KEY FEATURES

Project No PS123599 WSP

 Upgrade of Elizabeth Drive for approximately 2.2 km:

 Realignment of Wallgrove and Cecil Roads for approx. 1.2 km.

 Interim connection to the existing NB entry ramp terminal.

 M12 Motorway connection to Elizabeth Drive:

 Five Signalised Intersections:

 New Elizabeth Drive and M12 Motorway Exit / Entry intersection.

 New Wallgrove Road and Elizabeth Drive intersection.

 New Wallgrove Road and Cecil Road intersection.

 Other structures including retaining walls, gantries, sign structures.

 Roadside furniture including safety barriers, signage and street lighting.

Project No PS123599 WSP

1.5 DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Project No PS123599 WSP

 Professional Services Specifications (PS Documents) approved for this project

 TfNSW Technical Directions and quality alerts

 TfNSW Design Guides, TfNSW Standard Drawings, TfNSW Specifications

2.2 STANDARDS, CODES AND GUIDELINES

2.3 DESIGN CRITERIA

— TfNSW (TFNSW) Bridge Technical Direction (BTD) Manual [up to 2019/01]

— TfNSW Design Guides, TfNSW Standard Drawings and TfNSW specifications

— AS 5100:2017 Bridge Design

2.4 DESIGN PACKAGES

PACKAGE NO. DESCRIPTION

M12EGD01 Fencing, Barriers, Signage & Delineation

M12ESE01 Signalling & Control

M12ESF01 Road Safety Audit

M12EPV01 Pavement & Subsoil Drainage

Project No PS123599 WSP

M12ESD02 Hydrologic & Hydraulic Assessment

M12EIF01 Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS)

M12ELV01 Street Lighting

M12EMS01 HPG Piled Protection Slab on Elizabeth Drive

M12EMS03 Fauna Culvert on Wallgrove Rd

M12EMS04 Protection Slabs (PS01, PS02, PS03)

M12EMS05 Leaf Structure

M12ERS01 Retaining Wall (RS31, RS32)

M12ERS02 Retaining Wall (RS35, RS36a and RS36b)

M12ERS03 Retaining Wall (RS33, RS34)

M12EOS01 Overhead Support Structures - Project Wide

M12EUT01 Utilities Coordination

M12EUW01 Sydney Water- DN500 - M7 NB Entry ramp

M12EUW02 Sydney Water- DN300