quality control parameter frequency compliance · pdf fileproject . 40f8 es1017309 ... quality...

Page

Work Order

Client

Project

. 40f8 ES1017309

. CH2M HILL PTY LTD

: 406484 ANSTO HUNTERS HILL

Quality Control Parameter Frequency Compliance The following report summarises the frequency of laboratory QC samples analysed within the analyticallot(s) in which the submitted sample(s) was(where) processed. Actual rate should be greater than or equal to the expected rate. A listing of breaches is provided in the Summary of Outliers.

Matrix: SOIL

,Total Mer~ry by FIMS ·Total Metals by ICP-AES

' TPH -Semivolatile Fraction

!TPH VolatileslBTEX

Matrix: WATER

2

Evaluation: x = Quality Control frequency not within specification , ,/ = Quality Control frequency within specification .

10.0 10.0 10.0 1-

Quality Control Specification

j I ALS OCS3 re~ uirement

- .{ -,/

uali ty Control frequency within specification.

NEPM 1999 Schedule 8(3) and ALS 5~£S3_requirem~

NEPM 1999 Schedule 8(3) and ALS QCS3 requirement

A Campbell Brothers Limited Company

Page

Work Order

Client

Project

Matrix: WATER

50f8 ES1017309

: CH2M HILL PTY LTD

: 406484 ANSTO HUNTERS HILL A Evaluation: x = Quality Control frequency not within specification ; v" = Quality Control frequency within specification.

, - Control Specification

boLo LU lU.U ....J ·I U.U ~ 1 "~t:"'M l:,j:,j:,j Schedule 6(3) and ALS QCS3 reqUireme~ __ -,

- -l

- ----- -1


'------'

Page : 60f8 . ES1017309 Work Order

Client Project

: CH2M HILL PTY LTD . 406484 ANSTO HUNTERS HILL

Brief Method Summaries The analytical procedures used by the Environmental Division have been developed from established internationally recognized procedures such as those published by the US EPA, APHA, AS and NEPM . In house developed procedures are employed in the absence of documented standards or by client request. The following report provides brief descriptions of the analytical procedures employed for results reported in the Certificate of Analysis. Sources from which ALS methods have been developed are provided within the Method Descriptions.

Total Metals by ICP-AES

I! _. -.- -' .-. -. Total Mercury by FIMS

1_-_-.- ______ _

I Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)

I Pesticides by GCMS

, f-==~-=-_,-.,-,::--:: _ , TPH - Semivolatile Fraction i __________ _

. PAH/Phenois (SIM)

- -TPH Volatiles/BTEX

I Total Metals by ICP-MS - Suite A

Total Mercury by FIMS

! Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)

; Pesticides by GCMS

onweig drying period at 103-105 degrees C. This method is , , -_ ... ,.. .. _ ............ ... \. ___ , _.;hedule B(3) (Method 102) I

EG005-T---!- SOli I (APHA 21st ed ., 3120; USEPA SW 846 - 6010) (ICPAES) Metals are determined following an appropriate acid --'--1 i digestion of the soil. The ICPAES technique ionises samples in a plasma, emitting a characteristic spectrum ! based on metals present. Intensities at selected wavelengths are compared against those of matrix matched

EG035T i standards. This method is compliant with NEPM (1999) Schedule B(3)

; SOfL l AS 3550, APHA 21st ed. , 3112 Hg - B (Flow-injection (SnCI2)(Cold Vapour generation) AAS) FIM-AAS is an : I automated flameless atomic absorption technique. Mercury in solids are determined following an appropriate acid .\ ! digestion. Ionic mercury is reduced online to atomic mercury vapour by SnCI2 which is then purged into a heated

I quartz cell. Quantification is by comparing absorbance against a calibration curve. This method is compliant with , NEPM (1999) Schedule B(3)

- ~- -- EP066 SOIL 1 (USEPA SW 846 - 8270B) Extracts are analysed by Capillary GC/MS and quantification is by comparison against ___ ._1 i an established 5 point calibration curve. This method is compliant with NEPM (1999) Schedule B(3) (Method 504)

' EP068 SOIL I (USEPA SW 846 - 8270B) Extracts are analysed by Capillary GC/MS and quantification is by comparison against ; an established 5 point calibration curve. This technique is compliant with NEPM (1999) Schedule B(3) (Method

-!-~

!

- -1

EP071

EP075(SIM)

EP080

--r-SOIL I

SOIL

--I

1504,505) 1 (USEPA SW 846 - 8015A) Sample extracts are analysed by Capillary GC/FIO and quantified against alkane i standards over the range C10 - C36. This method is compliant with NEPM (1999) Schedule B(3) (Method 506.1) I (USEPA SW 846 - 8270B) Extracts are analysed by Capillary GC/MS in Selective Ion Mode (SIM) and I quantification is by comparison against an established 5 point calibration curve. This method is compliant with I NEPM (1999) Schedule B(3) (Method 502 and 507)

SOIL : (USEPA SW 846 - 8260B) Extracts are analysed by Purge and Trap, Capillary GC/MS. Quantification is by I ! comparison against an established 5 point calibration curve. This method is compliant with NEPM (1999) I I Schedule B(3) (Method 501)

EG020A=T---r WATER I (APHA 21st ed., 3125; USEPA SW846 - 6020, ALS QWI-EN/EG020): The ICPMS technique utilizes a highly I efficient argon plasma to ionize selected elements. Ions are then passed into a high vacuum mass spectrometer,

-l

EG035T

EP066

EP068

i which separates the analytes based on their distinct mass to charge ratios prior to their measurement by a discrete I dynode ion detector.

WATER ! AS 3550, APHA 21st ed. 3112 Hg - B (Flow-injection (SnCI2)(Cold Vapour generation) AAS) FIM-AAS is an I automated flameless atomic absorption technique. A bromate/bromide reagent is used to oxidise any organic i mercury compounds in the unfiltered sample. The ionic mercury is reduced online to atomic mercury vapour by I SnCI2 which is then purged into a heated quartz cell. Quantification is by comparing absorbance against a , calibration curve. This method is compliant with NEPM (1999) Schedule B(3) (Appdx. 2)

I WATER USEPA SW 846 - 82700 Sample extracts are analysed by Capillary GC/MS and quantification is by comparison I against an established 5 point calibration curve. This method is compliant with NEPM (1999) Schedule B(3)

--1 (Appdx. 2) . I WATER USEPA SW 846 - 82700 Sample extracts are analysed by Capillary GC/MS and quantification is by comparison -- - - -- --:

. against an established 5 point calibration curve. This method is compliant with NEPM (1999) Schedule B(3) I : (Appdx.~ ________ _


Page Work Order

Client Project

. 70f8

. ES1017309

. CH2M HILL PTY L TO : 406484 ANSTO HUNTERS HILL

, PAH/Phenols (GC/MS - SIM) EP075(SIM)

TPH Volatiles/BTEX

! Hot Block Digest for metals in soils sediments and sludges

- -Methanolic Extraction of Soils for Purge andT~

, Tumbler Extraction of Solids (Option AConcentrating)

_.

, . i '--Tumbler Extraction of Solids (Option B - ---r-\ Non-concentrating) I ;[Jigestion for Total Recoverable Metals --,----,

: Separatory Funnel Extraction of Liquids

EP080

* ORG16

ORG17A

ORG17B

EN25

ORG14

I , -r !

WATER

USEPA SW 846 - 8015A The sample extract is analysed by Capillary GC/FID and quantification is by comparison against an established 5 point calibration curve of n-Alkane standards. This method is compliant with NEPM (1999) Schedule B(3) (Appdx. 2) __ _ USEPA SW 846 - 8270D Sample extracts are analysed by Capillary GC/MS in SIM Mode and quantification is by comparison against an established 5 point calibration curve. This method is compliant with NEPM (1999) Schedule

: B(3) (Appdx. 2)

A WATER . USEPA SW 846 - 8260B Water samples are directly purged prior to analysis by Capillary GC/MS and

SOIL

SOIL

SOIL

WATER

WATER

quantification is by comparison against an established 5 point calibration curve . This method is compliant with : NEPM (1999) Schedule B(3) (Appdx. 2) __ _ __

, USEPA 200.2 Mod. Hot Block Acid Digestion 1.0g of sample is heated with Nitric and Hydrochloric acids, then : cooled. Peroxide is added and samples heated and cooled again before being filtered and bulked to volume for I analysis. Digest is appropriate for determination of selected metals in sludge, sediments, and soils. This method is : compliant with NEPM (1999) Schedule B(3) (Method 202) : (USEPA SW 846 - 5030AfSgotSolidiS- shakenWith-surrogate and10mL methanol prior to analysis by P urge and ... I Trap - GC/MS.

lin-house, Mechanical agitation (tumbler). 20g of sample, Na2S04 and surrogate are extracted with 150mL 1 :1 -DCM/Acetone by end over end tumble. The solvent is decanted, dehydrated and concentrated (by KD) to the

I desired volume for analysis. I In-house, Mechanical agitation (tumbler). 10g of sample, Na2S04 and surrogate are extracted with 20mL 1: 1 --11

DCM/Acetone by end over end tumble. The solvent is transferred directly to a GC vial for analysis. ___ I

! USEPA SW846-3005 Method 3005 is a Nitric/Hydrochloric acid digestion procedure used to prepare surface and I'

I ground water samples for analysis by ICPAES or ICPMS. This method is compliant with NEPM (1999) Schedule B(3) (Appdx. 2) USEPA SW 846 - 351 OB 500 mL to 1 L of sample is transferred to a separatory funnel and serially extracted thre e--- - -

. times using 60mL DeM for each extract. The resultant extracts are combined , dehydrated and concentrated for , analysis. This method is compliant with NEPM (1999) Schedule B(3) (Appdx. 2). ALS default excludes sediment which may be resident in the container. ----_._------'


Page

Work Order

Client

Project

: a afa : ES1017309

. CH2M HILL PTY L TO


Summary of Outliers

Outliers: Quality Control Samples

The fo llowing report highlights outl iers flagged in the Quality Control (QC) Report. Surrogate recovery limits are static and based on USEPA SW846 or ALS-QWI/EN/38 (in the absence of specific USEPA limits). This report displays QC Outliers (breaches) only.

Duplicates, Method Blanks, Laboratory Control Samples and Matrix Spikes

Matrix: SOIL

7440-50-8 f 115 % -1 90.1-114% r Rec;;very greaterth-an upp~;-contr;;i -limit _1 EG005T: Total Metals by ICP-AES

---------EG005T: Total Metals by ICP-AES

7439-92-1 i 123 % 85.2-111% Recovery greater than upper control limit I \-----------+I.cc __ --- .. -- -- -- 7440-02-0 ! 122% 88.3-116% Recovervareaterthan UDDer control limit I

• For all matrices, no Method Blank value outliers occur.

• For all matrices, no Duplicate outliers occur.

• For all matrices, no Matrix Spike outliers occur.

Regular Sample Surrogates

• For all regular sample matrices, no surrogate recovery outliers occur.

Outliers : Analysis Holding Time Compliance This report displays Holding Time breaches only. Only the respective Extraction / Preparation and/or Analysis component is/are displayed.

• No Analysis Holding Time Outliers exist_

Outliers: Frequency of Quality Control Samples

The following report highlights breaches in the Frequency of Quality Control Samples.

Matrix: SOIL

8.3 10.0 NEPM !99~ Sch~dule _BJ3) an~ALS QCS~requirement


ALS Laborator4 Group ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY & TESTING SERVICES

Environmental Division

Work Order : ES1017890

Client : CH2M HILL PTY L TO

Contact · MR BEN FARMER

Address PO BOX 5392

CHATSWOOD NSW, AUSTRALIA 1515

E-mail : [email protected] Telephone : +61 0299500200 Facsimile : +61 0299500263

CERTIFICA TE OF ANAL YSIS

Page

Laboratory

Contact Address

E-mail

Telephone

Facsimile

Project · REBATCH-406484-ANSTO HUNTERS HILL QC Level

Order number : REBATCH C-O-C number · HTH-ALS-0001-005 Date Samples Received

Sampler BF Issue Date

Site HUNTERS HILL WASTE CLASSIFICAT No. of samples received

Quote number SY/51711 0 No. of samples analysed

---

: 1 of 11

: Environmental Division Sydney

: Charlie Pierce

: 277-289 Wood park Road Smithfield NSW Australia 2164

: [email protected]

: +61-2-8784 8555

: +61-2-8784 8500

: NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALS QCS3 requirement

: 06-SEP-2010

: 13-SEP-2010

: 17

: 17

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

release.

This Certificate of Analysis contains the following information :

• General Comments

• Analytica l Results

• Surrogate Control Limits

NATA

WORLD REC OGNISED

ACCREDITATION

NATA Accredited Laboratory 825

This document is issued in accordance with NATA

accreditation requirements.

Accredited for compliance with ISOIIEC 17025.

Signatories This document has been electronica lly signed by the authorized signatories indicated below. Electronic signing has been

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

Signatories

Celine Conceicao

Pabi Subba

Position

Spectroscopist

Senior Organic Chemist

Enulronmental Dlulslon S4dne4

Part of the ALS Laborator4 Group

277~289 Woodpark Road Smithfie ld NSW Australi a 2 164

Tel. +61-2-3784 8555 Fax. +61-2-8784 8500 www.alsglobal.com

Accreditation Category

Inorganics

Organics

I:.

Page

Work Order

Client

Project

2 of 11 ES1017890

CH2M HILL PTY LTD

REBATCH-406484-ANSTO HUNTERS HILL

General Comments

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

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

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

Where a reported less than «) result is higher than the LOR. this may be due to primary sample extracUdigestate dilution andlor insuffient sample for analysis.

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

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

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

LOR = Limit of reporting

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


Page

Work Order

Client

Project

Analytical Results

Sub-Matrix: SOIL

, Extraction Fluid Number -~ _.

Final pH

30f11 ES1017890

CH2M HILL PTY LTD


Client sample ID

Client sampling date / time

- --. 1-----:-;-,-:--;:--t----:-:=---

ES1017890"()02

7.6 .,


Page

Work Order

Client

Project

Analytical Results

Sub-Matrix : SOIL

Extraction Fluid Number

Final pH

4 of 11 ES1017890

CH2M HILL PTY L TO


0.1

0.1

Client sample ID

pH Unit

C4-1

23-AUG-2010 15:00

1.6

5.0

F1-3

25-AUG-2010 15:00

ES1017890-007

6.4

1.6

4.9

G1-1 25-AUG-2010 15:00 --1

ES1017890-008 - I

9.0 r 1.6

-j-

j ~

5.4

G2-2 25-AUG-2010 15:00

ES1017890-009

8.1

1.6

5.0

A G3-2

25-AUG-2010 15:00

ES1 017890-01 0

7.7

1.5

1

5.1


Page

Work Order

Client

Project

Analytical Results

Sub-Matrix: SOIL

, Alter Hel pH ____ _

j Extraction Fluid Number

!Fin~~-

5 of 11 ES1017890

CH2M HILL PTY LTD


5.0 5.5 - -=-:;--- --1 -----r-- 5.0 _-l


Page

Work Order

Client

Project

Analytical Results

Sub-Matrix: SOIL

Extraction Fluid Number

I Final pH

6 of 11 ES1017890

CH2M HILL PTY LTD


Client sample ID


0.1

1

0.1 pH Unit

-26-AUG-2010 15:00

1.6

1

5.2

- ~ 26-AUG-2010 15:00

ES1017890-017

8.8

1.6

5.1

A


Page

Work Order

Client

Project

Analytical Results

7 of 11 ES1017890

CH2M HILL PTY L TO REBATCH-406484-ANSTO HUNTERS HILL

Sub-Matrix: TCLP LEACHATE Client sample 10

. Anthracene-d10

1-4-T-;rphenyl-d14 1718-51-0 0.1 _L_

I

1 <0.5

31.5

112

.J.... _____ 90.2 80.5 96.2


Page

Work Order

Client

Project

Analytical Results

8 of 11 ES1017890

CH2M HILL PTY LTD


Sub-Matrix : TCLP LEACHATE Client sample 10

Client sampling date I time

Anthracene-d10

4-Terphenyl-d14 1718-51-0

0.1

0.1

%

%

C4-1

09-SEP-2010 12:00

86.4

92.2

F1-3

09-SEP-2010 12:00 ---'-,,-

ES1017890-007

+ --

<0.1

<0.1 I -,

I-,

G1-1

09-SEP-2010 12:00

ES1017890-008

<0.5

38.0

106

130

'106

104

114

G2-2 09-SEP-2010 12:00

ES1017890-009

<0.1

A G3-2

09-SEP-2010 12:00

ES1 017890-01 0

<0.1

<0.1


Page

Work Order

Client

Project

Analytical Results

9 of 11 ES1017890

CH2M HILL PTY L TO

REBATCH-406484·ANSTO HUNTERS HILL

Sub·Matrix: TCLP LEACHATE

; Anthracene·d10 -------- ---4-Terphenyl·d14 0.1

A Client sample ID

<0.1

<0.0010 -r- 1 r---

i <0.5 <0.5

I ~_~ 29.8 --t- - 89.6 --I I - -,

___ ~ 1 107 119

102 I 88.6 -- -,----91:9-- . % _~------ • __ .. ---,_ 103 _ __ ___ 88.9 I 90.7

% I - 110 . __ -.!.. 95.6 ---,--

98.3

--~ ---j


Page

Work Order

Client

Project

Analytical Results

10 of 11 ES1017890

CH2M HILL PTY L TO


Sub-Matrix: TCLP LEACHATE

Anthracene-diD

4-Terphenyl-d14

1719-06-8 - -1718-51-0

0.1

0.1

Client sample 10

%

%

.;111M

09-SEP-2010 12:00

r -- 99.8 -, -.~ -108

~

09-SEP-2010 12:00 .- - - _. ES1017890-017

37.1 ----

104

120

106 r--. 106 --r 116

A

------1


Page

Work Order

Client

Project

11 of 11 ES1017890

CH2M HILL PTY LTD


Surrogate Control Limits

'---


A LS Laborator4 Group ANALYTICAL CHEM ISTRY & TESTING SERVICES


Work Order

Client

Contact Address

E-mail

Telephone

Facsimi le

: ES1017890

· CH2M HILL PlY L TO

MR BEN FARMER

· PO BOX 5392

CHATSWOOD NSW, AUSTRALIA 1515

[email protected]

: +61 02 9950 0200

: +61 0299500263

QUALITY CONTROL REPORT

Page

Laboratory

Contact Address

E-mail

Telephone

Facsimile

Project

Site · REBATCH-406484-ANSTO HUNTERS HILL QC Level

C-O-C number

Sampler

Order number

Quote number

· HUNTERS HILL WASTE CLASSIFICAT

: HTH-ALS-0001-005

· BF : REBATCH

· SY/517/10

Date Samples Received

Issue Date

No. of samples received

No. of samples analysed

: 1 of 5

: Environmental Division Sydney

: Charlie Pierce

: 277-289 Woodpark Road Smithfield NSW Australia 2164

. sydney.enviro.services@alsglobaLcom

: +61-2-8784 8555

. +61-2-8784 8500


: 06-SEP-2010

: 13-SEP-2010

. 17 : 17

r !

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

release. This Quality Control Report contains the following information:

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

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

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

NATA

WORLD RECOGNISED

ACCREDITATION


This document is issued in accordance with NATA


Accredited for compliance with ISOIIEC 17025.

Signatories This document has been electronically signed by the authorized

carried out in compliance with proced ures specified in 21 CFR Part 11.

Signatories

Celine Conceicao

PabiSubba

Position

Spectroscopist

Senior Organic Chemist

E n u l ronm ental Dlulslon S 4dne4

Part of the ALS Laborator y Group

277-289 Woodpark Road Smithfie ld NSW Australia 2164

Tel. +61-2-3734 3555 Fax. +61-2-8784 8500 www.alsglobal.com

A Campbell Brothers Limned Company

signatories indicated below. Electronic signing has been


Inorganics

Organics

t: _____ _

Page

Work Order

Client

Project

20f5 ES1017890

CH2M HILL PTY LTD


General Comments

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



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


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

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

LOR = limit of reporting

RPD = Relative Percentage Difference

# = Indicates failed QC


Page

Work Order

Client

Project

30f5 ES1017890

CH2M HILL PTY LTD


Laboratory Duplicate (DUP) Report

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

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

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

. ES1017819-001 :Anonymous , EG005C: Arsenic 7440-38-2 ' 0.1

EG005C: Lead _ .. - -;-r

7439-92-1 0.1

ES1017890-004 ALS-DUP-003 7440-38-2 ' 0.1

0.1

0.0010 ---- --_.


mg/L <0.1 ,

<0.1 L 1

mg/L L 0.7 0.7

mg/L ,

<0.1 <0.1 , mg/L

,. <0. 1 <0.1

mg/~--<0.OO1O <0.0010

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

No Limit

No Limit

No Limit

No Limit

No Limit


Page

Work Order

Client

Project

40f5 ES1017890

CH2M HILL PTY LTD


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

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

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

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

Sub-Matrix: WATER Methoc/ Blank (MB) Report


Page

Work Order

Client

Project

5 of 5 ES1017890

CH2M HILL PTY LTD


Matrix Spike (MS) Report

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

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

Sub-Matrix: WATER Matrix Spike (MS) Report

Spike Spike R~.:overy (~L ~covery Limits (%)

CAS Number Concentration MS Low

---- r 7440-38-2 1 mg/L 107 70 130 --74 39-92-1 -r~ 1 mg/L 107 70 130

7439-97-6 ,-

0.100 mg/L 113 70 130 ------


----ALS Laborator4 Group ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY & TESTING SERVICES


INTERPRETIVE QUALITY CONTROL REPORT

Work Order

Client

Contact Address

E-mail

Telephone

Facsimile

Project

Site

C-O-C number

Sampler

Order number

Quote number

: ES1017890

: CH2M HILL PTY LTD : MR BEN FARMER : PO BOX 5392 CHATSWOOD NSW, AUSTRALIA 1515

: [email protected] : +61 0299500200 : +61 02 9950 0263

: REBATCH-406484-ANSTO HUNTERS HILL : HUNTERS HILL WASTE CLASSIFICAT : HTH-ALS-0001-005 : BF : REBATCH

: SY/517/10

Page

Laboratory

Contact Address

E-mail

Telephone

Facsimile

QC Level


Issue Date

: 1 of6

: Environmental Division Sydney : Charlie Pierce : 277-289 Woodpark Road Smithfield NSW Australia 2164

: [email protected] : +61 -2-8784 8555 : +61-2-8784 8500

. NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALS QCS3 requirement

. 06-SEP-2010 : 13-SEP-2010

No. of samples received : 17 No. of samples analysed : 17

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

This Interpretive Quality Control Report contains the following information:

• Analysis Holding Time Compliance

• Quality Control Parameter Frequency Compliance

• Brief Method Summaries

• Summary of Outliers

Environm e nta l D l u lslon S 4dne4

Part of the A L S Labora tor 4 Group 277-289 Woodpark Road Smithfield NSW Australia 2164

Tel. +61-2-8184 8555 Fax. +61-2-8784 8500 www.a lsglabal.com


~

Page

Work Order

Client

Project

2of6 ES1017890

CH2M HILL PTY LTD


Analysis Holding Time Compliance

A The following report summarises extraction I preparation and analysis times and compares with recommended holding times. Dates reported represent fi rst date of extraction or analysis and precludes subsequent dilutions and rerun s. Information is also provided re the sample conta iner (preservative) from which the analysis aliquot was taken. Elapsed period to analysis represents number of days from sampling where no extraction I digestion is involved or period from extraction I digestion where this is present. For composite samples, sampling date is assumed to be that of the oldest sample contributing to the composi te. Sample date for laboratory produced leachates is assumed as the completion date of the leaching process. Outliers for holding time are based on USEPA SW 846, APHA, AS and NEPM (1999) . A listing of breaches is provided in the Summary of Outliers.

Holding times for leachate methods (excluding elutriates) vary according to the ana lytes being determined on the resulting solution. For non -volati le analytes, the holding time compliance assessment compares the leach date with the shortest ana lyte holding time for the equivalent soil method. These soil holding times are: Organics (14 days) ; Mercury (28 days) & other metals (180 days). A recorded breach therefore does not guarantee a breach for all non-volatile parameters.

Matrix: SOIL

Clear Plastic Bottle - Nitric Acid; Unfiltered C9-1, BS-1 , C4-1, G2-2, H3-1, 12-1, B8-1

CS-1, ALS-DUP-003, F1-3, G3-2, H4-1 , 14-1 ,

Sample Date

09-SEP-2010

Extraction I PreparatIon

Due for extraction

09-SEP-2010 08-MAR-2011

Evaluation: x ; Holding time breach ; .,/ ; Within holding time.

Analysis

Due for analysis Evaluation

./ 1 O-SEP-201 0 08-MAR-2011 ./

"' 1 .J. __ --.l __ -,

Lab Split: Leach for Hg, Cr(Vl) and other metal 12-1

Lab Split: Leach for metals excl. Hg ALS-DUP-003

- -Lab Split: Leach for metals excl. Hg

BS-1

Lab Split: Leach for metals excl. Hg F1-3, G3-2,

LabSplit: Leach for organics and other tests C9-1, C1-1, - -

LabSplit: Leach for organics and other tests B8-1

LabSplit: Leach for organics and other tests G1-1,

- -. LabSplit: Leach for organics and other tests .;!,III,

LabSplit: Leach for organics and other tests 14-1

G2-2, H3-1

CS-1 , C4-1

H4-1

..,.

, 25-AUG-2010 I

, 23-AUG-2~ _ , 24-AUG-2010 I

25-AUG-2010

- ----t- -- -

I 23-AUG-2010 I

-------+----

, __ 24-AU~-2010

25-AUG-2010

26-AUG-2010

_-'--___ -'-_10-SEP-2010~ 07-0CT-2~~~ __

.,---- --,-22-SEP-?010 08-SEP-2010 22-SEP-2010

---'i------.,---.---..J---- . ~--+

19-FEB-2011 08-SEP-2010 19-FEB-2011 -----

20-FEB-2011 ' - I 08-SEP-2010 , 20-FEB-2011 --,--------1----- _. ,------

21-FEB-2011 08-SEP-2010 21-FEB-2011

OS-SEP-2010 08-SEP-2010 OS-SEP-2010

-I 07-SEP-2010 i i 08-SEP-2010 07-SEP-2010

r ,--- ._---._--

08-SEP-2010 08-SEP-2010 08-SEP-2010

09-SEP-2010 08-SEP-2010 09-SEP-2010

27-AUG-2010 1 0-SEP-201 0 08-SEP-2010 1 0-SEP-201 0 _.--L.. ___ . __ -L __

-~

./

./

./

./

./ I ._,

.It

.It

./

./

./

A Campbelf Brothers Limited Company

Page . 30f6 ES1017890

• CH2M HILL PTY L TO

Work Order

Client

Project • REBATCH-406484-ANSTO HUNTERS HILL

Matrix: SOIL

Amber Glass Bottle - Unpreserved C9-1, C1-1, G1-1 , 14-1 , aI-,

C6-1 , C4-1 , H4-1, B8-1 , .-w

Evaluation. " = Holding time breach ; '" = Within holding time.

09-SEP-2010 09-SEP-2010 16-SEP-2010 ../ r- 1~-~EP-2010 "1

i 19-0CT-2010 , ./ I

I


Page

Work Order

Client

Project

4of6 ES1017890

CH2M HILL PTY L TO

RE6ATCH-406484-ANSTO HUNTERS HILL

Quality Control Parameter Frequency Compliance

A The following report summarises the frequency of laboratory QC samples analysed within the analytical lot(s) in which the submitted sample(s) was(where) processed. Actual rate should be greater than or equal to the expected rate. A listing of breaches is provided in the Summary of Outliers.

Matrix: WATER Evaluation : x = Quality Control frequency not within specification ; v' = Quality Control frequency within specification.

Rate (%) I Quality Control Specification Evaluation

Schedule 6(3) and ALS QCS3 requirement

NEPM 1999 SchedUle B(3) and ALS OCS3 requirem~

--'=-'::_-+ __ -:5:-:.0:--_-'.--_-L_ .---+¢LS QCS3 requirement 5.0 ,/ -2LS QCS3 requirement ________ _


Page

Work Order

Client

Project

: 50f6 : ES1017890

: CH2M HILL PTY LTD

: REBATCH-406484-ANSTO HUNTERS HILL

Brief Method Summaries The analytical procedures used by the Environmental Division have been developed from established internationally recognized procedures such as those published by the US EPA, APHA, AS and NEPM. In house developed procedures are employed in the absence of documented standards or by client request. The following report provides brief descriptions of the analytical procedures employed for results reported in the Certificate of Analysis. Sources from which ALS methods have been developed are provided within the Method Descriptions.

---'-'--- ----: Leachable Mercury by FIMS

:

\ PAH/Phenols (GC/MS - SfM) -- --

Digestion for Total Recoverable Metals in TCLP Leachate

. 'TcLp for Non & Semivolatile Analytes---{

I I

.J Separatory Funnel Extraction of Liquids

EG035C

EP075(SIM)

EN33a

ORG14 t

SOIL

SOIL

' APHA 21st ed., 3120; USEPA SW 846 - 6010 The ICPAES technique ionises leachate sample atoms emitting a characteristic spectrum. This spectrum is then compared against matrix matched standards for quantification. This

! method is compliant with NEPM (1999) Schedule B(3) (Appdx. 2) ~--~~~~~~~------------------~. i AS 3550, APHA 21st ed. 3112 Hg - B (Flow-injection (SnCI2)(Cold Vapour generation) AAS) FIM-AAS is an

: automated flameless atomic absorption technique. A bromate/bromide reagent is used to oxidise any organic 1 mercury compounds in the TCLP solution. The ionic mercury is reduced online to atomic mercury vapour by SnCI2 : which is then purged into a heated quartz cell. Quantification is by comparing absorbance against a calibration i curve. This method is compliant with NEPM (1999) Schedule B(3) (Appdx. 2) ! USEPA SW 846 - 82700 Sample extracts are analysed by Capillary GC/MS in SIM Mode and quantification is by

comparison against an established 5 point calibration curve. This method is compliant with NEPM (1999) Schedule B(3) (Appdx. 2)

(USEPA SW846-1311, ALS QWI-EN/33) The TCLP procedure is designed to determine the mobility of both organic and inorganic analytes present in wastes. The standard TCLP leach is for non-volatile and Semivolatile

: test parameters. SOIL "j USEPA SW 8""4-C:6- -- 3:-:5:-:1-::0-=-B-=-50""'0"--m-cL- to 1 L of sample is transferred to a separatory funnel and serially extracted three

times using 60mL DCM for each extract. The resultant extracts are combined, dehydrated and concentrated for I analysis. This method is compliant with NEPM (1999) Schedule B(3) (Appdx. 2). ALS default excludes sediment

___ .____ : which may be resident in the con.:;t.:;a;.:.in;.:e.:;r. _______ _

A

._----, !


Page

Work Order

Client

Project

: 6 af6 ES1017890

CH2M HI LL PTY LTD

RE6ATCH-406484-ANSTO HUNTERS HILL

Summary of Outliers

Outliers: Quality Control Samples

A The following report highlights outliers flagged in the Quality Control (QC) Report. Surrogate recovery limits are static and based on USEPA SW846 or ALS-QWI/EN/38 (in the absence of specific USEPA limits) . This report displays QC Outliers (breaches) only .

Duplicates, Method Blanks, Laboratory Control Samples and Matrix Spikes

• For all matrices, no Method Blank value outliers occur.

• For all matrices, no Duplicate outliers occur.

• For all matrices, no Laboratory Control outliers occur.

• For all matrices, no Matrix Spike outliers occur.

Regular Sample Surrogates

• For all regular sample matrices, no surrogate recovery outliers occur.

Outliers : Analysis Holding Time Compliance This report displays Holding Time breaches only. Only the respective Extraction / Preparation and/or Analysis component is/are displayed.

Matrix: SOIL

Container I Client Sample 10(s)

LabSplit: Leach for organics and other tests C9-1, C1-.. 1,

! LabSplit: Leach for organics and other tests 68-1

C6-1, C4-1

Outliers: Frequency of Quality Control Samples

The following report highlights breaches in the Frequency of Quality Control Samples.

• No Quality Control Sample Frequency Outliers exist.

Days overdue

Date analysed

08-SEP-2010

~ -- --~----- ---, 1 I 08-SEP-2010

Days overdue

----,----I I

06-SEP-2010 1 2

07-SEP-2010 -'


- 68-

15. Appendix H - USEPA ProUCL Calculation Sheets

, 1

I

ANSTO - COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE -

- \

\ I

I

.. J

)

I . j

A I B I C D I E I F I G I H I I I J I K I L

1 Appendix H: USEPA ProUCL Calculation Sheets

User Selected Options ------

~ 1 ~' j

4 ' Full Precision ..

OFF

" Confidence Coefficient 95%

, ~ Number of Bootstrap Operations 2000 c----.

I

_ 8 LG1 (As)

.J 11 General Statistics

, 1 Number of Valid Observations 16 Number of Distinct Observations 15 -

14 Raw Statistics Log-transformed Statistics

, Minimum 5 Minimum of Log Data 1,609

!. Maximum 258 Maximum of Log Data 5,553

17 Mean 85.13 Mean of log Data 3.827

.~\ Median 62 SD of log Data 1.332

l SD 79.87

20 Coefficient of Variation 0,938

'>1 Skewness 0.98

l ~,} Relevant UCL Statistics

24 Normal Distribution Test Lognormal Distribution Test

I Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.875 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.908

-1 Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.887 Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.887

27 Data not Normal at 5% Significance Level Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

J Assuming Normal Distribution Assuming Lognormal Distribution

30 95% Student's-t UCL 120.1 95% H-UCL 340.5

1 95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness) 95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 269.7

95% Adjusted-CL T UCL (Chen-1995) 123.2 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 342.4

95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 120.9 .--

33 99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 485.3

~ ] Gamma Distribution Test Data Distribution

I k star (bias corrected) 0.807 Data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level 36

~1 Theta Star 105.5

~ MLE of Mean 85.13

~ MLE of Standard Deviation 94.75

40 nu star 25.83

I Approximate Chi Square Value (.05) 15.25 Nonparametric Statistics

.1 Adjusted Level of Significance 0.0335 95% CLT UCL 118

43 Adjusted Chi Square Value 14.33 95% Jackknife UCL 120.1

t 95% Standard Bootstrap UCL 116.7

Anderson-Darling Test Statistic 0.366 95% Bootstrap-t UCL 129.9

46 Anderson-Darling 5% Critical Value 0.766 95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 123.2

\ Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test Statistic 0.144 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 119.3

I' Kolmogorov-Smirnov 5% Critical Value 0.222 95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 123.3 I' ? ;

Data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 172.2 49

~ \l 97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 209.8

'I Assuming Gamma Distribution 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 283.8

52 95% Approximate Gamma UCL 144.2

53 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 153.5

/ ~ ~ .,h Potential UCL to Use Use 95% Approximate Gamma UCL 144.2

156 I I I I I I, Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.

.B These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Singh, and laci (2002)

l59 and Singh and Singh (2003). For additional insight, the user may want to consult a statistician.

J

J

Page 1 of 12

,..§.l ..B. ..§l

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

I I I I I I 'G'-'-J .. ' r -A B C D E F H I I I J I K

LGn pi)f·---·----------------- ----·--------·-·----------------------------------------------------- -

General Statistics

Number of Valid Observations 116 .-

Number of Distinct Observations 15

Raw Statistics Log-transformed Statistics ----

Minimum 46 Minimum of Log Data 3.829

Maximum 1610 Maximum of Log Data 7.384

Mean 333.2 Mean of log Data 5.27

Median 251.5 SD of log Data 1.105

SD 390.7

Coefficient of Variation 1.1 72

Skewness 2.566

Relevant UCL Statistics

Normal Distribution Test Lognormal Distribution Test

Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.707 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.919

Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.887 Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.887

Data not Normal at 5% Significance Level Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

Assuming Normal Distribution Assuming Lognormal Distri bution

95% Student's-t UCL 504.4 95% H-UCL 812.1

95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness) 95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 792.5

95% Adjusted-CL T UCL (Chen-1995) 560.8 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 988.9

95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 514.8 99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 1375

Gamma Distribution Test Data Distribution

k star (bias corrected) 0.907 Data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level

Theta Star 367.4

MLE of Mean 333.2

MLE of Standard Deviation 349.9

nu star 29.02

Approximate Chi Square Value (.05) 17.72 Nonparametric Statistics

Adjusted Level of Significance 0.0335 95% CLT UCL 493.8

Adjusted Chi Square Value 16.72 95% Jackknife UCL 504.4

95% Standard Bootstrap UCL 489.8

Anderson-Darling Test Statistic 0.465 95% Bootstrap-t UCL 665.4

Anderson-Darling 5% Critical Value 0.762 95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 1209

Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test Statistic 0.173 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 514.7

Kolmogorov-Smirnov 5% Critical Value 0.221 95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 569.2

Data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 758.9

97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 943.1

Assuming Gamma Distribution 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 1305

95% Approximate Gamma UCL 545.5

95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 578.2

Potential UCL to Use Use 95% Approximate Gamma UCL 545.5

I I I I Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.

Tilese recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Singh, and lad (2002)

and Singh and Singh (2003). For additional insight, the user may want to consult a statistician.

-_. L

Page 2 of 12

\ J

I , I

I 1

. ,

)

A I B I C I D I E J F I G I H I I I J I K I L

114 .' . ~ LG1 (Mercury)

117 General Statistics

1''1 Number of Valid Observations 16 Number of Distinct Observations 8


121 Minimum 0.1 Minimum of Log Data -2.303

~ Maximum 41.4 Maximum of Log Data 3.723

,J Mean 3.2 Mean of log Data -0.971

124 Median 0.2 SD of log Data 1.719

~ SD 10.25

J Coefficient of Variation 3.205

127 Skewness 3.915

.~

) 130 Relevant UCL Statistics

-1 Normal Distribution Test Lognormal Distribution Test

~ Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.336 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.787

133 Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.887 Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.887

.~ ~ Data not Normal at 5% Significance Level Data not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

~ 131, Assuming Normal Distribution Assuming Lognormal Distribut ion


I~ 95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness) 95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 4.383

, .:;~ 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995) 10.1 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 5.684

140 95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 8. 112 99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 8.239

II

~ ~ Gamma Distribution Test Data Distribution

143 k star (bias corrected) 0.301 Data do not follow a Discernable Distribution (0.05)

~ Theta Star 10.61

MLE of Mean 3.2 ._--

146 MLE of Standard Deviation 5.828

'Il nu star 9.647

k Approximate Chi Square Value (.05) 3.722 Nonparametric Statistics

149 Adjusted Level of Significance 0.0335 95% CLT UCL 7.417

1~O Adjusted Chi Square Value 3.314 95% Jackknife UCL 7.694

11 95% Standard Bootstrap UCL 7.279

1~2 Anderson-Darling Test Statistic 2.605 95% Bootstrap-t UCL 94.94


14 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test Statistic 0.352 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 8.138

,J5 Kolmogorov-Smirnov 5% Critical Value 0.232 95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 11 .37

156 Data not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 14.37

!? 97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 19.21

J 8 Assuming Gamma Distribution 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 28.71


[ \0 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 9.315

I ]'1 162

Potential UCL to Use Use 99% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 28.71

h} I I I 1 : 14

Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCl.

1165 These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Singh, and laci (2002)

11 11.6 and Singh and Singh (2003) . For additional ins ight, the user may want to consult a statistician.

(;7

Page 3 of 12

I L

~ -;-;:;-,_ ._----_._----------_._----_._._--------_._ - --_._-- ---------- -----------_._--169 LGl (BaP) ~ - ---------------- --------_._----_._---- -_._---- --- ----- ------------------------

170 rl~7~1+---------------------------------~G-e-ne-r~aIS~t-at~is-t~ic-s----------------------------------------

~~------------------~~--~~~:----~,~-----,--------------~~--~~~~--~--~------172 Number of Valid ObseIVations l16 I Number of Distinct ObselVations 12

173



176 Maximum 10.8 Maximum of Log Data 2.38

177 Mean 2.531 Mean of log Data 0_315


179 SD 3.107

180 Coefficient of Variation 1.228

181 Skewness 1.714

182

183 Relevant UCL Statistics


185 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.718 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.842


187 Data not Normal at 5% Significance Level Data not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

188

189 Assuming Normal Distribution Assuming Lognormal Distribution



192 95% Adjusted-CL T UCL (Chen-1995) 4.165 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 6.9

193 95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 3.948 99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 9.587

194

195 Gamma Distribution Test Data Distribution


197 Theta Star 3.123

198 MLE of Mean 2.531


200 nu star 25.94

201 Approximate Chi Square Value (.05) 15.33 Nonparametric Statistics

202 Adjusted Level of Significance 0.0335 95% CL T UCL 3.809



205 Anderson-Darling Test Statistic 1.262 95% Bootstrap-t UCL 4.738



208 Kolmogorov-Smirnov 5% Critical Va lue 0.222 95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 4.125


210 97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 7.382

211 Assuming Gamma Distribution 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 10.26



214

215 Potential UCL to Use Use 95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 5.917

216 I I I I 217

Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.


219 and Singh and Singh (2003). For additional insight, the user may want to consult a statistician.

220

1

.j

Page 4 of 12

A I B I C I D I E I F I G I H I I I J I K L

221 -------- --- --1 LG1 (PAH Tot)

I 224 General Statistics

?"r; Number of Valid Observations 16 Number of Distinct Observations 15

• 1,.


n Minimum 0 Log Statistics Not Avaliable

Maximum 301 .1

~.:> Mean 44.41

231 Median 11 .05

SD 78.3

, ,.1 Coefficient of Variation 1.763 ",- ",, 0")

234 Skewness 2.724

; ~ ; ~ Relevant UCL Statistics


; ! Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.612 Not Available

~ ~ Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.887

240 Data not Normal at 5% Significance Level

~ "l

; ~ Assuming Normal Distribution Assuming Lognormal Distribution

243 95% Student's-t UCL 78.72 95% H-UCL N/A

?4~ Assuming Normal Distribution 95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)

f 95% Student's-t UCL 78.72 95% Adjusted-CL T UCL (Chen 1995) 90.85

~tf\J 95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 80.94

247

; J Gamma Distribution Test Data Distribution

:. J Gamma Statistics Not Available Data do not follow a Discernable Distribution (0.05)

250

I Potential UCL to Use

~ Use 95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL1129.7 95% CLT UCL 76.6

253 95% Jackknife UCL 78.72

: ~ 95% Standard Bootstrap UCL 75.46

: J 95% Bootstrap-t UCL 135.5

256 95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 183.5

""f 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 78.36

: ~ 95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 90.16

25~ 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 129.7


II 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 239.2

"'O~ I I 1 1 263


~'> These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Singh, and laci (2002)

-J and Singh and Singh (2003). For additional insight, the user may want to consult a statistician.

266

Page 5 of 12

A I B I C J D I E I F I G I H I I J I K I L

~ ~---- --- - ------ ---------------------------- ----------- ------ ----------- -----------------------268 LG2 (As)

F=t------ -------------------- ------------ ----------- -------------------------------

~t_-----------------------------_=_-___,_=__,__c_----------------------------f 270 General Statistics F-'+-----------------,..,---,--~~-

Number of Valid Obs='::'ationj~ ____ :J ______________ Number of Distinct Observations 8 1Z.! 1-_________ _

, I 272


274 Minimum 5 Minimum of Log Data 1.609

275 Maximum 106 Maximum of Log Data 4.663

276 Mean 33 Mean of log Data 2.957


278 SD 35.77

] 279 Coefficient of Variation 1.084

280 Skewness 1.482

Warning: There are only 8 Values in this data

281

1 282

283

284 Note: It should be noted that even though bootstrap methods may be performed on this data set,

285 the resulting calculations may not be reliable enough to draw conclusions

286

287 The literature suggests to use bootstrap methods on data sets having more than 10-15 observations.

288




292 Shapiro Wilk Critica l Value 0.818 Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.818


294 295 Assuming Normal Distribution Assuming Lognormal Distribution

296 95% Student's-t UCL 56.96 95% H-UCL 187.5 ]


~_---------9~5=%~A7d~jU~s~te-d7-C~L~T~U~C~L~(C-h-e-n-~1~99~5~)~6~0~.8~8--~---------9-7~.5~~707C~he~b-y-Sh~e-V~(~M~V~U=E~)~U7C~L~1~1~7.~4-~ 299 95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 58.06 99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 167.5

300


302 k star (bias corrected) 0.747 Data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level


304 MLE of Mean 33


306 nu star 11.95

307 Approximate Chi Square Value (.05) 5.197 Nonparametric Statistics " .




311 Anderson-Darling Test Statistic 0.331 95% Bootstrap-t UCL 94.33



314 Kolmogorov-Smirnov 5% Critical Value 0.301 95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 59.5

315 Data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 88.12

316 97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 112




320

321 Potential UCL to Use Use 95% Approximate Gamma UCL 75.91

322 I I I 1 323




326

327

328 LG2 (Pb)

329


Page 6 of 12

L I A I B I C I 0 I E I F I G I H I I I J I K I L

331 Numb~~fVal~ Obse~ations l 8 Number of Distinct Observations 7

?~l . __ . -Raw Statistics Log-transformed Statistics

I' --- ----------r-co----334 Minimum 10 Minimum of Log Data 2.303

~~5 Maximum 361 Maximum of Log Data 5.889

,- Mean 102.3 Mean of log Data 3.81

',J,, / Median 45.5 SO of log Data 1.431

338 SO 130.3

~ Coefficient of Variation 1.275

Skewness 1.494 ~- . 341

(I Warning: There are only 8 Values in this data

344 Note: It should be noted that even though bootstrap methods may be performed on this data set,

: 1, the resulting calculations may not be reliable enough to draw conclusions

.- ~ 347 The literature suggests to use bootstrap methods on data sets having more than 10-15 observations.

~'''~

~ Relevant UCL Statistics

" Normal Distribution Test Lognormal Distribution Test 350


. k Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.818 Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.818

":J~ Data not Normal at 5% Significance Level Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

354

. ~ Assuming Normal Distribution Assuming Lognormal Distribution

__ t 95% Student's-t UCL 189.6 95% H-UCL 1474



h 95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 193.6 99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 624.9

360

I Gamma Distribution Test Data Distribution

I~ k star (bias corrected) 0.542 Data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level

Theta Star 188.6 ------

363

'''']1- MLE of Mean 102.3

r, MLE of Standard Deviation 138.9

J 366 nu star 8.674

"''',? Approximate Chi Square Value (.05) 3.131 Nonparametric Statistics

f Adjusted Level of Significance 0.D195 95% CLT UCL 178 ~

"cb. Adjusted Chi Square Value 2.351 95% Jackknife UCL 189.6


n Anderson-Darling Test Statistic 0.453 95% Bootstrap-t UCL 348.8

-,~ Anderson-Darling 5% Critical Value 0.746 95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 605.1


h Kolmogorov-Smirnov 5% Critical Value 0.304 95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 191.1

j 5 Data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 303.1


--)7 Assuming Gamma Distribution 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 560.8

[ 18 95% Approximate Gamma UCL 283.2

3)9 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 377.2

,, - i)

/-1 Potential UCL to Use Use 95% Approximate Gamma UCL 283.2

3J2 J I I I 383


\4 These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Singh, and laci (2002)

~.j5 and Singh and Singh (2003). For additional insight, the user may want to consult a statistician.

386

Page 7 of 12

A I B I C I o I E I F I G I H I I I K I L

~r.-c--------------------------------- ---------- ------- ---------------- ----------------------------------388 LG2 (BaP) -'-= ------------------ ------------------------------------ ------------------------------- --

389 P"'t----------- --- ---- ---------------- ------------G"enerai""'S.,-

ta""Cti,--st::-ic-s------ --------------------------1

~ ----------------:-:----;---:-:---:--:cc---=-,------,---391 Number of Valid observati0n¥- ~

------------------Number of Distinct Observations 3

392 ~3~9~3~-------------~R-aw-~S'Cta~t.,-is~ti-cs----------------,----------.,-Lo-g---tr-a-ns~f,--or-m-e-d~S~t-a~tis-t.,-ic-s--------~

394 Minimum 0_5 Minimum of Log Data -0_693

395 Maximum 1_6 Maximum of Log Data 0.47

396 Mean 0.725 Mean of log Data -0.438

397 Median 0.5 SO of log Data 0.478

398 SO 0.43


400 Skewness 1.697

401

402

403 Warning: There are only 3 Distinct Values in this data

404 There are insufficient Distinct Values to perform some GOF tests and bootstrap methods.

405 Those methods will return a 'N/A' value on your output displayl

406

407 It is necessary to have 4 or more Distinct Values to compute bootstrap methods.

408 However, results obtained using 4 to 9 distinct values may not be reliable.

409 It is recommended to have 10-15 or more observations for accurate and meaningful bootstrap results.

410





415 Data not Normal at 5% Significance Level Data not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

416





421 95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 1.028 99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 1.921

422






428 nu star 45.76




432 95% Standard Bootstrap UCL N/A

433 Anderson-Darling Test Statistic 1.751 95% Bootstrap-t UCL N/A

434 Anderson-Darling 5% Critical Value 0.719 95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL N/A

435 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test Statistic 0.467 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL N/A

436 Kolmogorov-Smirnov 5% Critical Value 0.295 95% BCA Bootstrap UCL N/A






442

443 Potential UCL to Use Use 95% Student's-t UCL 1.013

444 or 95% Modified-t UCL 1.028

445 I I I I 446 Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.



449

o

Page 8 of 12

"I I I

-j

J J J

J

~ I

, 1

I A I B I C I D I E I F G I H . I I l J I K I L

450 ---------- -------: - i LG4 (As)


""1 Number of Valid Observations 12 Number of Distinct Observations 11

, 45J Raw Statistics Log-transformed Statistics


, , Maximum 452 Maximum of Log Data 6.114

'T.,,-Mean 89.17 Mean of log Data 3.215

460 Median 36 SD of log Data 2.144

, 1 SD 130.8

, I Coefficient of Variation 1.467

463 Skewness 2.278

:1 Relevant UCL Statistics


; -1 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.703 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.903

, ! Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.859 Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.859


""'t;) , t Assuming Normal Distribution Assuming Lognormal Distribution

I 95% Student's-t UCL 157 95% H-UCL 7515 472


, l 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995) 177.8 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 817.7

Ltl 6 95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 161 .1 99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 1209

476

, ~ Gamma Distribution Test Data Distribution

,.J k star (bias corrected) 0.429 Data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level


, } MLE of Mean 89.17

.J MLE of Standard Deviation 136. 1

482 nu star 10.3

• -U Approximate Chi Square Value (.05) 4.133 Nonparametric Statistics

, Il Adjusted Level of Significance 0.029 95% CLT UCL 151.3

485 Adjusted Chi Square Value 3.557 95% Jackknife UCL 157

,A O~ 95% Standard Bootstrap UCL 149.6

, ~ Anderson-Darling Test Statistic 0.213 95% Bootstrap-t UCL 244.7

48~ Anderson-Darling 5% Critical Value 0.785 95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 411.4


b Kolmogorov-Smirnov 5% Critical Value 0.259 95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 181 .7

.. )1 Data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 253.8


~ Assuming Gamma Distribution 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 464.9

J1 95% Approximate Gamma UCL 222.3


~ '7 Potential UCL to Use Use 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 258.3

498 I I I I '-19 Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.

10 These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Singh , and laci (2002)

501 and Singh and Singh (2003). For additional insight, the user may want to consult a statistician ,

"n2

Page 9 of 12

A I B I C I D I E I FI G I H I I J I K I L

~t-:-------------------.--.------------------ .. - --------- ---------- ---------504 LG4 (Pb)

r-'-' --------- .------.--.--------- .-------.-.. - - --------------------.- ------

~ ---------_._ ----------_. __ ._--- _ .. ---_._---------- _._------------------- --. _- -506 General Statistics

~t_----------------N--Um-·--be-r-oi Valid Observations 112

508 1--"-=========================~ _-.1 Number of Distinct Observations 12


510 Minimum 8 Minimum of Log Data 2.079



513 Median 214 SD of log Data 1.443

514 SD 627.8


516 Skewness 2.991

517




521 Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.859 Shapiro Wilk Critical Va lue 0.859


523


525 95% Student's-t UCL 733.7 95% H-UCL 2691

526 95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness) 95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 1340

527 95% Adjusted-CL T UCL (Chen-1995) 873.6 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 1726

528 95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 759.8 99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 2483

529


531 k star (bias corrected) 0.617 Data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level




535 nu star 14.8





540 Anderson-Darling Test Statistic 0.364 95% Bootstrap-t UCL 1415

541 Anderson-Darling 5% Critical Value 0.766 95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 1874



544 Data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 1198


546 Assuming Gamma Distribution 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 2212



549

550 Potential UCL to Use Use 95% Approximate Gamma UCL 848.4

551 I I 1 I 552




555

1 -.l

I J

Page 10 of 12

l I A I B I C J D I E I F I G I H I I J I K I L

556

r- -~ LG4 (BaP) ~ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~


S~9'H ______________________ N_u_m __ be_r_o_f _V_a_lid_O __ bs_e_~_a_t_io_n_sL1_2 ______ i-____________________ N_um __ be_r_o_f_D_is_ti_n_ct_O_b_s_e_~_a_ti_on_s~10 _______ 1

!:>~ Raw Statistics Log-transformed Statistics

56~3r-________________________________ ~~M_in~im __ um-+0~.~5~ __ ~~ ________________________ ~M~i_n~im_u_m __ of~L_0_g~D~a~t_a~-~0.~6~93~--1 ! H~r-__________________________________ M_a_x7im~u_m~1~8~3~ __ ~ ____________________________ M_a_xi7m~u_m_o_f7L~0_g~D~a~ta~5~.2~0~9 __ ~ !"J Mean 18.33 Mean of log Data 1.027

566 Median 2.1 SDoflog Data 1.719

1 SD 51 .97 ! ~------------~~~~~~--r-----------------------~--~ ! ~ Coefficient of Variation 2.835

569 Skewness 3.438

I Relevant UCL Statistics ! r+-------------~~~~~------------~------------~-----=~~~------------~

Normal Distribution Test Lognormal Distribution Test 572

:-~I+-----------------------~S~h-a~Pi-ro~VV~il~k~T~e7st-S7t~at~is~ti_C~0~.3~8~ __ ~------------------------~S~h-ap~i-ro~VV~ilk-T~e7s~t-S~ta~t~is_tiC~0~.8~8~ __ _1 ! l Shapiro VVilk Critical Value 0.859 Shapiro VVilk Critical Value 0.859

J;+-----------~----~--~~~~~~--~--~-L------~--------~------~------~~~~~----~~------~ 575 Data not Normal at 5% Significance Level Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

f''7~ H-------------~--~--~--~~~~---------------r------------~--~~------~~~~------------_1

! ~1+_---------------A-ss-u-m-i-n-g-N-O-rm--a-ID~is~tr~ib~u-ti~on~--~~~~--_1--------------A-s-s-u-m-i-ng--L-Og-n-o-rm--a-ID--is-tr-ib~u~ti~on~~~~=---__1 57~ 95% Student's-t UCL 45.27 95% H-UCL 117

95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness) 95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 32.48 579H-____________ ~~~~~~~~--~~~~--1---------------~~~~~--7.7.~~~~~__1

l 95% Adjusted-CL T UCL (Chen-1995) 58.92 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 42.36 ! ~r+--------------~~~~~---~~~~------------------~~~--=~~~~~

I 95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 47.76 99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 61 .77 LvJ.

582 1 Gamma Distribution Test Data Distribution

! ~~------------~~~~~~--r-----~--~--~~~~~~--~ ! J k star (bias corrected) 0.323 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

585 Theta Star 56.8

,. MLE of Mean 18.33 ! PHj--------------------~~~--~~~~~~--~------------------------------------------_1

l MLE of Standard Deviation 32.27 ! r,+----------------------~==--r--------------------------~ 588 nu star 7.747

:_~ Approximate Chi Square Value (.05) 2.589 Nonparametric Statistics ! ~H----------------------A~d~jU-s~te-d~Le-v-e71 -of~S~i-gn~i~fiC-a-n-c-er.0~.0~2~9~--1--------------------------------=95~O~Vo~C~L~T~U~C~L~4~3~.0~1----1

591 Adjusted Chi Square Va lue 2.157 95% Jackknife UCL 45.27

f'a~R-____________________ ~~ __ ~~~~~~~-+~~ __ ~ _______________________ 95_0_Vo_S_ta~n~d~a~rd~B~00~t~st_ra_p~U~C~Lt4~1~.6~4~~ l Anderson-Darling Test Statistic 1.569 95% Bootstrap-t UCL 370.1

! ~1~--------~--~-=~~~~--r---------------=~~~~=b.~__1 59~ Anderson-Darling 5% Critical Value 0.813 95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 206.3

Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test Statistic 0.303 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 48.02 59H5~ __________ ~~ ____ ~~ __ ~~~~~~~~~~ __________________ ~~~~~~~~~~ __ -4

~ Kolmogorov-Smirnov 5% Critical Value 0.263 95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 63.23

~J Data not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 83.72


h Assuming Gamma Distribution 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 167.6



Potential UCL to Use Use 99% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 167.6

604 I I I I --2 Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCl.

~r-"f-------~T:;;h'--e-s-e-r-e-co-m--m-e-nd--;-a~t""io-n-s-a-re-"-b-as-e-d~u-p-o-n~t""h-e~re-s-u-Clt~s--:o--;f70th--:e-s--;-im:::-:u;-:la~ti:::-o:::-n :::-s;-:tu--:d~ie--:s--:s--:u:::m--:m:::a--:r:::iz--:e:::d--;-i --:n ';:;S7in--:g7h-, ';:;S""in--:g7h-, --:an--:d:;-;-:Ia--:c~i (;;2~0~0;;c2)~----~

6ri? and Singh and Singh (2003). For additional insight, the user may want to consult a statistician.

~n8~ __________________________________________________________________________________________________ ~

Page 11 of 12

A I B I C I o I E I F G I H I I I K I L

~ --_._._-- _ .. _------_._-_ .. _--------_ .. . -_._--_._-_._---_._-_._--_._------------_._._---610 LG4 (PAH Tot)

...;:..:..;:.1-----_.- .. -------------... ------ .--.-.--------------------------.. -.- --- ---------... --.--.-.-- --.. --------

2..U ______ _ -;0:-:-;-:-:--------------------------612 General Statistics

:ill~ ________________ NuriiberofValid~~SeMiti(;nsT1-2- -=_~I=-_-_-.-___ -. --.-----:-:N-um-:-be-r-o-=f-=D-:-is-,ti:-n-ct-:o:C:b-s-e-rv-a-'tio-n-s'.~-:-1'='=-_ -_~=-

rill --------.-----------.-----.--.-------,-------;---,---;---.-~~:__-------1 615 Raw Statistics Log-transformed Statistics




619 Median 21 .9 SO of log Data 2.224

620 SO 493.3


622 Skewness 3.427

623




, 1 627 Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.859

628 Data not Normal at 5% Significance Level

Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.859

Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

629


631 95% Student's-t UCL 433.1 95% H-UCL 9148

632 95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness) 95% Chebyshev (MVU E) UCL 573.2

633 95% Adjusted-CL T UCL (Chen-1995) 562.1 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 759

634 95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 456.5 99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 1124

635

l 637 k star (bias corrected) 0.29 636 Gamma Distribution Test Data Distribution


Data Follow Appr. Gamma Distribution at 5% Significance Level


640 MLE of Standard Deviation 329,1

641 nu star 6.969

642 Approximate Chi Square Value (,05) 2.153 Nonparametric Statistics

643 Adjusted Level of Significance 0.029 95% CLT UCL 411,6


645 95% Standard Bootstrap UCL 400

646 Anderson-Darling Test Statistic 0.926 95% Bootstrap-t UCL 2915

647 Anderson-Darling 5% Critical Value 0,821 95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 1684

648 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test Statistic 0.263 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 458,1


650 Data follow Appr, Gamma Distribution at 5% Significance Level 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 798


652 Assuming Gamma Distribution 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 1594


654 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 698,6

655

656 Potentia l UCL to Use Use 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 698.6

657 I I I I 658



660 and Singh and Singh (2003), For additional insight, the user may want to consult a statistician,

Page 12 of 12

I 'J

16. Appendix I - Statistical Assessment

95% UCL - Radiological

Location No11 backyard

No11 backyard No11 backyard No11 backyard

No11 backyard No11 backyard No11 Side yard No11 Garden No13 Foreshore No13 Foreshore No13 Foreshore

No11 Foreshore No11 Foreshore No11 Foreshore

No11 Foreshore No11 Foreshore

No7 & 9 Foreshore No 7 & 9 Foreshore No7 & 9 Foreshore No7 & 9 Foreshore No5 Foreshore

No5 Foreshore No5 Foreshore No5 Foreshore No5 Foreshore Foreshore hotspot Foreshore hotspot

Foreshore hotspot

Average

Standard Deviation

Medium

Skewwdness

DGCL is 100Bq/g total

Sample ID 81

82 82,2

83 83.2 84 86 88 F1 F1 .2 F1.3

G1 G2 G2.2

G3 G3.2

H1

H2 H3 H4

11

12 13 14 15 K1 Fore K2 Fore

K3 Fore

av I

Total Total Total U238 Th232 U235 activity activity activity

2,90 0.58 0.41

36.40 1.10 3.72

15.40 0.83 0,50

1.96 0.53 0.09 0.62 0.95 0.07

0.35 0.51 0.05 110.60 1.90 9.48

23.80 0.34 1.68 78.40 0.35 6.48

397.60 5.40 28.80 264.60 3.90 21 .60

0.67 0.43 0.05 239.40 4.50 21.60 60.20 1.00 4.44

42.00 1.50 7.56 95.20 2.70 12.00

56.00 0.91 0.38 0.35 0.21 0.05

37.80 0.99 1.20

19.60 0.35 0.94

29.40 0.94 0.68

3.78 0.89 0.11

0.85 0.25 0.08

2.38 0.49 0.09

1.29 0.54 0.08 280.00 2.10 7.08

15.4 0.81 1.8 56 2 8.52

Total Activity

3,89

41.22 16.73 2.58 1.64

0.91 121.98 25.82 85.23

431.80 290.10

1.16 265.50 65.64

51 .06 109.90

57.29 0.61

39.99

20.89

31 .02

4.78 1.18 2.96 1.91

289.18 18.01

66.52

Coeff Variation CV stddev must be <1.2 for Procedure D NSW EPA = 0.693 hotspot averaged incl Kfore

t (0 .05,19) 1.729 hotspot averaged incl Kfore

95% UCL average 76.74 hotspot averaged incl Kfore

ANSTO - COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE-

- 69 -

Total Activity averaged hotspots

3,89 28,98

2.11

0.91 121 .98 25.82

269.04

1.16 165.57

80.48

57.29 0.61

39.99

20.89 31 .02

4.78 1.18 2.96 1.91

124.57

49.26

71 .08

23.36

0.36

Secular Equilibrium - Radiological

Comparison of lower decay chain Pb- Bi-

Sample 210 214 RPD% Pb210/Bi214 81 207 280 82 2600 2600

82.2 1100 1400 83 140 290 84 44 41 85 25 25 86 7900 9600 88 1700 2100 F1 5600 5600

F1.2 28400 33700 F1 .3 18900 22100 G1 48 29 G2 17100 20000

G2.2 4300 4100 G3 3000 3500

G3.2 6800 8100 H1 4000 5400 H2 25 20 H3 2700 3900 H4 1400 1900 11 2100 2900 12 270 310 13 61 80 14 170 240 15 92 120

K1Fore 20000 23000 K2Fore 1100 1200 K3Fore 4000 5400

Average Std Dev

Duplicates - Radiological

0 .s cu Q)

J:1o Q. E 0.-

:::l cu 0 en

81 Dup002

H1 Dup004

11 Dup007

All activities are in Bq/g

Q)

..!!1o roO c..,.... u.,.... EN =N ra.a o..a (f)a.. :::la..

0

207 230

4000 3600

2100 2900

30 0

24 70 -7 0 19 21 0 17 16 -49 16 -5 15 17 30 -22 36 30 32 14 27 34 26 14 9

30 12 28

~o ..!!1 N o ..... c..,.... ON EN o...c ra .-0:::0.. (f)CC

10.53 58 10.53 91

32.00 94

- 70 -

Comparison of lower and upper decay chain Pb- Th230 or RPD% 210 Th234 Pb210ITh230 207 610 99

2600 2200 -17 1100 1300 17 140 73 -63 44 44 0 25 19 -27

7900 7900 0 1700 1700 0 5600 6200 10

28400 26700 -6 18900 22700 18

48 28 -53 17100 23200 30 4300 4600 7 3000 5900 65 6800 8000 16 4000 990 -121

25 27 8 2700 2400 -12 1400 1400 0 2100 1200 -55 270 220 -20 61 30 -68 170 190 11 92 110 18

20000 8300 -83 1100 1200 9 4000 8600 73

-5 46

Q) Q) 2 >. roN ?feN ..!!1L!) roL!) ~I() Q) >.

o.C"') Q.li'i~ rali'i~ U.,.... 0 ..... ,g~ OM EC5..E: ~o~ =N o..~ EN o..N 0. '-~:::> g.:::> ~f-.:t o.f- U :::lCC 0::: III 0:::::1 8 « 0 0

66 12.90 30 34 12.5 3.84 4.29 42 73.68 32 31 3.17 57.29 51.19

95 1.06 53 59 10.71 30.98 42.26

ANSTO - COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE-

~-~ o cu.-0'0.2: o..f-U 0::: «

11.08

11.25

30.81

I 1

Background Samples

Background Total 10 U238

2 0.7 3 0.56 4 0.56 5 0.7

6 0.28

Average 0.56

All results in 8q/g

ANSTO

- 71 -

Total Total Total Th232 U235 Activity

0.3 0.12 1.12 0.2 0.24 1 0.3 0.12 0.98 0.2 0.12 1.02

0.4 0.12 0.8

0.28 0.144 0.984

- COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE -

Client Reference:

Acid Extractable metals in soil

Our Reference: UNITS

Your Reference -------------Date Sampled ------------

Type of sample

Date digested -

Date analysed -

Arsenic mg/kg

Cadmium mg/kg

Chromium mg/kg

Copper mg/kg

Lead mg/kg

Mercury mg/kg

Nickel mg/kg

Zinc mg/kg

Envirolab Reference: 45231 Revision No: R 00

406484, Hunters Hill

45231-1

EVL-DUP-007

27/08/2010

Soil

31/08/2010

31/08/2010

40

0.9

16

33

320

0.6

7

460

.A. NATA V" ACCREDITED FOR

TECHNICAL COMPETENCE

Page 7 of 14

Client Reference:

Moisture

Our Reference: UNITS

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

Date Sampled ------------

Type of sample

Date prepared -Date analysed -

Moisture %



45231 -1

EVL-DUP-007

27/08/2010

Soil

31/08/2010

31/08/2010

18

.A-NATA V' ACCREDITED FDA


Page 8 of 14

J

Client Reference: 406484, Hunters Hill

Method ID Methodology Summary

GC.16 Soil samples are extracted with methanol and spiked into water prior to analysing by purge and trap GC-MS. Water samples are analysed directly by purge and trap GC-MS.

GC.3 Soil samples are extracted with Dichloromethane/Acetone and waters with Dichloromethane and analysed by GC-FID.

GC.12 subset Soil samples are extracted with Dichloromethane/Acetone and waters with Dichloromethane and analysed by GC-MS.

GC-5 Soil samples are extracted with dichloromethane/acetone and waters with dichloromethane and analysed by GC with dual ECD's.

GC-6 Soil samples are extracted with dichloromethane/acetone and waters with dichloromethane and analysed by GC-ECD.

Metals.20 Determination of various metals by ICP-AES.

ICP-AES

Metals.21 Determination of Mercury by Cold Vapour MS. CV-AAS

LAB.S Moisture content determined by heating at 105 deg C for a minimum of 4 hours.

Envirolab Reference: 45231 .A Page 9 of 14 Revision No: R 00 NATA

V" ACCREDITED FOR



QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL

vTPH & BTEX in Soil

Date extracted -

Date analysed -

vTPH C6 - C9 mg/kg 25

Benzene mg/kg 0.5

Toluene mg/kg 0.5

Ethylbenzene mg/kg 1

m+p-xylene mg/kg 2

a-Xylene mg/kg 1

Surrogate % aaa-Trifluorotoluene


sTPH in Soil (C10-C36)

Date extracted -

Date analysed -

TPHC10 - C14 mg/kg 50

TPH C15 - C28 mg/kg 100

TPH C29 - C36 mg/kg 100

Surrogate % o-Terphenyl


PAHs in Soil

Date extracted -

Date analysed -

Naphthalene mg/kg 0.1

Acenaphthylene mg/kg 0.1

Acenaphthene mg/kg 0.1

Fluorene mg/kg 0.1

Phenanthrene mg/kg 0.1

Anthracene mg/kg 0.1

Fluoranthene mg/kg 0.1

Pyrene mg/kg 0.1


METHOD

GC.16

GC.16

GC.16

GC.16

GC.16

GC.16

GC.16

METHOD

GC.3

GC.3

GC.3

GC.3

METHOD

GC.12 subset

GC.12 subset

GC.12 subset

GC.12 subset

GC.12 subset

GC.12 subset

GC.12 subset

GC.12 subset

Blank Duplicate Sm#

31/08/2 [NT] 010

01/09/2 [NT] 10

<25 [NT]

<0.5 [NT]

<0.5 [NT]

<1 .0 [NT]

<2.0 [NT]

<1 .0 [NT]

88 [NT]

Blank Duplicate sm#

31/08/2 [NT] 010

01/09/2 [NT] 010

<50 [NT]

<100 [NT]

<100 [NT]

94 [NT]

Blank Duplicate sm#

31/08/2 [NT] 010

01/09/2 [NT] 010

<0.1 [NT]

<0.1 [NT]

<0.1 [NT]

<0.1 [NT]

<0.1 [NT]

<0.1 [NT]

<0.1 [NT]

<0.1 [NT]

.A. NATA V" ACCREDITED FOR


Duplicate results

Base II Duplicate II %RPD

[NT]

[NT]

[NT]

[NT]

[NT]

[NT]

[NT]

[NT]

[NT]

Duplicate results


[NT]

[NT]

[NT]

[NT]

[NT]

[NT]

Duplicate results


[NT]

[NT]

[NT]

[NT]

[NT]

[NT]

[NT]

[NT]

[NT]

[NT]

Spike Sm# Spike % Recovery

LCS-6 31 /08/201 C

LCS-6 01/09/2010

LCS-6 99%

LCS-6 74%

LCS-6 140%

LCS-6 90%

LCS-6 96%

LCS-6 110%

LCS-6 125%

Spike sm# Spike % Recovery

LCS-6 31/08/2010

LCS-6 01/09/201 (

LCS-6 72%

LCS-6 84%

LCS-6 83%

LCS-6 83%

Spike sm# Spike % Recovery

LCS-6 31/08/2010

I LCS-6 01/09/201 ( I

LCS-6 98% I [NR] [NR]

[NR] [NR]

LCS-6 93%

LCS-6 103% j

[NR] [NR] j

LCS-6 93%

LCS-6 95% I

Page 10 of 14

1

Client Reference: 406484, Hunters Hill QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQl

PAHs in Soil

Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg 0.1

Chrysene mg/kg 0.1

Benzo(b+k)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.2

Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg 0.05

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

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene mg/kg 0.1

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

Surrogate %

p-Terphenyl-d14


Organochlorine

Pesticides in soil

Date extracted -

Date analysed -

HCS mg/kg 0.1

alpha-SHC mg/kg 0.1

gamma-SHC mg/kg 0.1

beta-BHC mg/kg 0.1

Heptachlor mg/kg 0.1

delta-SHC mg/kg 0.1

Aldrin mg/kg 0.1

Heptachlor Epoxide mg/kg 0.1

gamma-Chlordane mg/kg 0.1

alpha-chlordane mg/kg 0.1

Endosulfan I mg/kg 0.1

pp-OOE mg/kg 0.1

Dieldrin mg/kg 0.1

Endrin mg/kg 0.1

pp-DDD mg/kg 0.1

Endosulfan II mg/kg 0.1

pp-DDT mg/kg 0.1

Endrin Aldehyde mg/kg 0.1

Endosulfan Sulphate mg/kg 0.1

Methoxychlor mg/kg 0.1

Surrogate TClMX %


METHOD

GC.12

subset

GC.12

subset

GC.12

subset

GC.12

subset

GC.12

subset

GC.12

subset

GC.12

subset

GC.12

subset

METHOD

GC-5

GC-5

GC-5

GC-5

GC-5

GC-5

GC-5

GC-5

GC-5

GC-5

GC-5

GC-5

GC-5

GC-5

GC-5

GC-5

GC-5

GC-5

GC-5

GC-5

GC-5

Blank Duplicate Sm#

<0.1 [NT]

<0.1 [NT]

<0.2 [NT]

<0.05 [NT]

<0.1 [NT]

<0.1 [NT]

<0.1 [NT]

94 [NT]

Blank Duplicate sm#

31/08/2 [NT] 010

01/09/2 [NT] 010

<0.1 [NT]

<0.1 [NT]

<0.1 [NT]

<0.1 [NT]

<0.1 [NT]

<0.1 [NT]

<0.1 [NT]

<0.1 [NT]

<0.1 [NT]

<0.1 [NT]

<0.1 [NT]

<0.1 [NT]

<0.1 [NT]

<0.1 [NT]

<0.1 [NT]

<0.1 [NT]

<0.1 [NT]

<0.1 [NT]

<0.1 [NT]

<0.1 [NT]

118 [NT]

.A-NATA V-ACCREDITED FOR


Duplicate results


[NT]

[NT]

[NT]

[NT]

[NT]

[NT]

[NT]

[NT]

Duplicate results


[NT]

[NT]

[NT]

[NT]

[NT]

[NT]

[NT]

[NT]

[NT]

[NT]

[NT]

[NT]

[NT]

[NT]

[NT]

[NT]

[NT]

[NT]

[NT]

[NT]

[NT]

[NT]

[NT]

Spike Sm# Spike %

Recovery

[NR] [NR]

lCS-6 102%

[NR] [NR]

lCS-6 99%

[NR] [NR]

[NR] [NR]

[NR] [NR]

LCS-6 97%

Spike sm# Spike %

Recovery

LCS-6 31/08/2010

LCS-6 01/09/2010

[NR] [NR]

LCS-6 104%

[NR] [NR]

LCS-6 100%

LCS-6 92%

[NR] [NR]

LCS-6 90%

LCS-6 99%

[NR] [NR]

[NR] [NR]

[NR] [NR]

LCS-6 100%

LCS-6 100%

LCS-6 94%

LCS-6 102%

[NR] [NR]

[NR] [NR]

[NR] [NR]

LCS-6 96%

[NR] [NR]

lCS-6 107%

Page 11 of 14



PCBs in Soil

Date extracted -

Date analysed -

Aroch lor 1016 mg/kg 0,1

Arochlor 1221 * mg/kg 0,1

Arochlor 1232 mg/kg 0,1


Aroch lor 1248 mg/kg 0,1



Surrogate TCLMX %


Acid Extractable metals in soil

Date digested -

Date analysed -

Arsenic mg/kg 4

Cadmium mg/kg 0,5

Chromium mg/kg 1

Copper mg/kg 1

Lead mg/kg 1

Mercury mg/kg 0,1

Nickel mg/kg 1

Zinc mg/kg 1

Envirolab Reference: 45231

Revision No: R 00

METHOD

GC-6

GC-6

GC-6

GC-6

GC-6

GC-6

GC-6

GC-6

METHOD

Metals,20 ICP-AES

Metals,20 ICP-AES

Metals,20 ICP-AES

Metals,20 ICP-AES

Metals,20 ICP-AES

Metals,21 CV-AAS

Metals,20 ICP-AES

Metals,20 ICP-AES

Blank Duplicate Sm#

31/08/2 [NT] 010

01/09/2 [NT] 010

<0,1 [NT]

<0,1 [NT]

<0,1 [NT]

<0,1 [NT]

<0,1 [NT]

<0,1 [NT]

<0,1 [NT]

118 [NT]

Blank Duplicate Sm#

31/08/2 [NT] 010

31/08/2 [NT] 010

<4 [NT]

<0,5 [NT]

<1 [NT]

<1 [NT]

<1 [NT]

<0,1 [NT]

<1 [NT]

<1 [NT]

.A-NAYA 'V" ACCREDITED FOR TECHNICAL COMPETENCE

Duplicate results


[NT]

[NT]

[NT]

[NT]

[NT]

[NT]

[NT]

[NT]

[NT]

[NT]

Duplicate results


[NT]

[NT]

[NT]

[NT]

[NT]

[NT]

[NT]

[NT]

[NT]

[NT]


LCS-6 31/08/201C

[NR] [NR]

[NR] [NR]

[NR] [NR]

[NR] [NR]

[NR] [NR]

[NR] [NR]

LCS-6 125%

[NR] [NR]

LCS-6 116%


LCS-4 31/08/201 0

I LCS-4 31/08/2010

LCS-4 102% I LCS-4 101 %

LCS-4 105% I LCS-4 106%

LCS-4 102%

LCS-4 110% j

LCS-4 105%

I LCS-4 104%

Page 12 of 14


QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQl

Moisture

Date prepared -

Date analysed -

Moisture % 0.1


METHOD

lAB.8

Blank

31/08/2

010

31/08/2

010

<0.10

.A NATA V' ACCREDITED FOR


Page 13 of 14

Client Reference:

Report Comments:

Asbestos 10 was analysed by Approved Identifier: Asbestos 10 was authorised by Approved Signatory: Asbestos counting was analysed by Approved Counter: Asbestos counting was authorised by Approved Signatory:


Not applicable for this job Not applicable for this job @ERROR @ERROR

NT: Not tested INS: Insufficient sample for this test NA: Test not required

PQL: Practical Quantitation Limit RPD: Relative Percent Difference >: Greater than

NA: Test not required <: Less than LCS: Laboratory Control Sample

Quality Control Definitions Blank: This is the component of the analytical signal which is not derived from the sample but from reagents, glassware etc, can be determined by processing solvents and reagents in exactly the same manner as for samples. Duplicate: This is the complete duplicate analysis of a sample from the process batch. If possible, the sample selected should be one where the analyte concentration is easily measurable. Matrix Spike: A portion of the sample is spiked with a known concentration of target analyte. The purpose of the matrix spike is to monitor the performance of the analytical method used and to determine whether matrix interferences exist. LCS (Laboratory Control Sample): This comprises either a standard reference material or a control matrix (such as a blank sand or water) fortified with analytes representative of the analyte class. It is simply a check sample. Surrogate Spike: Surrogates are known additions to each sample, blank, matrix spike and LCS in a batch, of compounds which are similar to the analyte of interest, however are not expected to be found in real samples.

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

Duplicates: <5xPQL - any RPD is acceptable; >5xPQL - 0-50% RPD is acceptable. Matrix Spikes and LCS: Generally 70-130% for inorganics/metals; 60-140% for organics and 10-140% for SVOC and speciated phenols is acceptable.


.A-NATA V" ACCREDITED FOR


Page 14 of 14

Client Reference:

Report Comments:

Asbestos ID was analysed by Approved Identifier:

Asbestos ID was authorised by Approved Signatory: Asbestos counting was analysed by Approved Counter: Asbestos counting was authorised by Approved Signatory:


Not applicable for this job

Not applicable for this job @ERROR @ERROR

NT: Not tested INS: Insufficient sample for this test

NA: Test not required

PQL: Practical Quantitation Limit RPD: Relative Percent Difference

>: Greater than

NA: Test not required

<: Less than LCS: Laboratory Control Sample

Quality Control Definitions Blank: This is the component of the analytical signal which is not derived from the sample but from reagents,

glassware etc, can be determined by processing solvents and reagents in exactly the same manner as for samples. Duplicate: This is the complete duplicate analysis of a sample from the process batch. If possible, the sample selected should be one where the analyte concentration is easily measurable. Matrix Spike: A portion of the sample is spiked with a known concentration of target analyte. The purpose of the matrix spike is to monitor the performance of the analytical method used and to determine whether matrix interferences exist. LCS (Laboratory Control Sample): This comprises either a standard reference material or a control matrix (such as a blank sand or water) fortified with analytes representative of the analyte class. It is simply a check sample. Surrogate Spike: Surrogates are known additions to each sample, blank, matrix spike and LCS in a batch, of compounds which are similar to the analyte of interest, however are not expected to be found in real samples.

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

Duplicates: <5xPQL - any RPD is acceptable; >5xPQL - 0-50% RPD is acceptable. Matrix Spikes and LCS: Generally 70-130% for inorganics/metals; 60-140% for organics and 10-140% for SVOC and

speciated phenols is acceptable.


.A-NATA 'V" ACCREDITED FOR


Page 14 of 14



Work Order

Client

Contact Address

E-mail

Telephone

Facsimile

Project

Order number

C-O-C number

Sampler

Site

Quote number

: ES1016932

: CH2M HILL PTY L TO

: MR BEN FARMER

: PO BOX 5392 CHATSWOOD NSW, AUSTRALIA 1515

: [email protected] : +61 0299500200 : +61 02 9950 0263


: HTH-ALS-001 : BF : HUNTERS HILL WASTE CLASSIFICAT

: SY/517/10

CERTIFICA TE OF ANAL YSIS

Page

Laboratory

Contact Address

E-mail

Telephone

Facsimile

QC Level


Issue Date

: 1 of 18


: sydney.enviro [email protected] : +61-2-8784 8555 : +61-2-8784 8500


: 24-AUG-2010 : 30-AUG-2010

No. of samples received : 21 No. of samples analysed : 18

I: _____ -


This Certificate of Analysis contains the following information:

• General Comments • Analytical Results • Surrogate Control Limits

A NATA V

WORLD RECOGNISED

ACCREDITATION


This document is issued in

accordance with NATA


Accredited for compliance with

ISO/IEC 17025.

Signatories This document has been electronically signed by the authorized carried out in compliance with procedures specified in 21 CFR Part 11.

Signatories

Celine Conceicao Hoa Nguyen PabiSubba Wisam.Marassa

Position

Spectroscopist Inorganic Chemist Senior Organic Chemist Metals Coordinator



Inorganics Inorganics Organics Inorganics

Enulronmental Dlulslon S4dne4

Part of the ALS Laborator4 Group

277-289 Woodpark Road Smithfield NSW Australia 2164 Tel. +61-2-8784 8555 Fax. +61-2-8784 8500 www.alsglobal.com

A Campbell Brothers Limited Company 1" _____ _

Page

Work Order

Client

Project

3 of 18 ES1016932

CH2M HILL PTY LTD

406484 ANSTO HUNTERS HILL

General Comments

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



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


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

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


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

• EG005T: Poor precision was obtained for some elements on sample ES106932 #8 due to sample heterogeneity.

• EP066,EP068, EP075(SIM) : Particular samples required dilution due to sample matrix interferences. LOR values have been adjusted accordingly.

• EP080:Level of Reporting raised for toluene due to ambient background levels in the laboratory.

• EP080:The trip spike and its control have been analysed for volatile TPH and BTEX only. The trip spike and control were prepared in the lab using reagent grade sand spiked with petrol.

The spike was dispatched from the lab and the control retained.

Results confirmed by re extraction and reanalysis.


Page

Work Order

Client

Project

: 4 of 18 ES1016932

CH2M HILL PTY L TO


Analytical Results

Sub-Matrix : SOIL Client sample 10


ES1016932-002 ES1016932-004 ES1016932-005 ES1016932-007


Page

Work Order

Client

Project

Analytical Results

Sub-Matrix: SOIL

5 of 18 ES1016932

CH2M HILL PTY L TO


Client sample 10


ES1016932-005

A ES1016932-007


Page

Work Order

Client

Project

6 of 18 ES1016932

CH2M HILL PTY LTD


Analytical Results

Sub-Matrix: SOIL Client sample ID


Page

Work Order

Client

Project

Analytical Results

Sub-Matrix: SOIL

7 of 18 ES1016932

CH2M HILL PTY LTD

406484 ANSTO HUNTERS HILL A Client sample ID


Page

Work Order

Client

Project

8 of 18 ES1016932

CH2M HILL PTY L TO : 406484 ANSTO HUNTERS HILL

Analytical Results

Sub-Matrix: SOIL

ES1016932-011 ES1016932-012 ES1016932-013


Page

Work Order

Client

Project

Analytical Results

Sub-Matrix: SOIL

9 of 18 ES1016932

CH2M HILL PTY LTD


Client sample ID


Page

Work Order

Client

Project

Analytical Results

Sub-Matrix: SOIL

10 of 18 ES1016932

CH2M HILL PTY LTD


Client sample 10

ES1016932-015 ES1016932-016


Page

Work Order

Client

Project

Analytical Results

Sub-Matrix: SOIL

11 of 18 ES1016932

CH2M HILL PTY LTD


Client sample 10


Page

Work Order

Client

Project

12 of 18 ES1016932

CH2M HILL PTY LTD


Analytical Results

Sub-Matrix : SOIL

ES1016932-016 ES1016932-017


Page

Work Order

Client

Project

Analytical Results

Sub-Matrix: SOIL

13 of 18 ES1016932

CH2M HILL PTY LTD

406484 ANSTO HUNTERS HILL A Client sample ID


Page

Work Order

Client

Project

14 of 18 ES1016932

CH2M HILL PTY L TO


Analytical Results

Sub-Matrix: WATER Client sample ID


Page

Work Order

Client

Project

15 of 18 ES1016932

CH2M HILL PTY L TO


Analytical Results

Sub-Matrix: WATER

A Client sample ID


Page

Work Order

Client

Project

Analytical Results

Sub-Matrix: WATER

16 of 18 ES1016932

CH2M HILL PTY LTD


Client sample 10


Page

Work Order

Client

Project

17 of 18 ES1016932

CH2M HILL PTY L TO


Surrogate Control Limits

A


Page

Work Order

Client

Project

18 of 18 ES1016932

CH2M HILL PTY LTD





Work Order

Client

Contact Address

E-mail

Telephone

Facsimile

Project

Site

C-O-C number

Sampler

Order number

Quote number

: ES1016932

: CH2M HILL PTY L TO . MR BEN FARMER

: PO BOX 5392 CHATSWOOD NSW, AUSTRALIA 1515

: [email protected] : +61 02 9950 0200 : +61 0299500263

: 406484 ANSTO HUNTERS HILL : HUNTERS HILL WASTE CLASSIFICAT : HTH-ALS-001 : BF

: SY/517/10

QUALITY CONTROL REPORT

Page

Laboratory

Contact Address

E-mail

Telephone

Facsimile

QC Level


Issue Date



: 1 of 14


: sydney.enviro.services@alsglobaLcom : +61-2-8784 8555 : +61-2-8784 8500


: 24-AUG-2010 : 30-AUG-2010

: 21 : 18

:J

This report supersedes any previous report(s) with this reference. Results apply to the sample(s) as submitted. All pages of th is report have been checked and approved for release . This Quality Control Report contains the following information:

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

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

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

NATA Accredited Laboratory 825 Signatories A NATA This document is issued in

accordance with NATA


This document has been electronically signed by the authorized carried out in compliance with procedures specified in 21 CFR Part 11 .

V WORLD RECOGNISED

ACCREDITATION Accredited for compliance with

ISO/IEC 17025.

Signatories

Celine Conceicao Hoa Nguyen Pabi Subba Wisam.Marassa

Position

Spectroscopist Inorganic Chemist Senior Organic Chemist Metals Coordinator




Inorganics Inorganics Organics Inorganics

~------

Page

Work Order

Client

Project

2 of 14 ES1016932

CH2M HILL PTY LTD


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



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


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

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


RPD = Relative Percentage Difference

# = Indicates failed QC


Page

Work Order

Client

Project

3 of 14 ES1016932

CH2M HILL PTY L TO



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

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

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

ES1016932-005 I C1-1

<0.1 No Limit


Page

Work Order

Client

Project

ES1016932-013

4 of 14 ES1016932

CH2M HILL PTY L TO


C5-1


Page

Work Order

Client

Project

ES1016932-007

5 of 14 ES1016932

CH2M HILL PTY LTD


C1-3

EP075(SIM): Benzo(g.h.i)perylene 3.0


Page

Work Order

Client

Project

ES1016932-007

ES1016932-014

ES 1016928-002

: 6 of 14 ES1016932

: CH2M HILL PTY LTD


C1-3

C6-1

EG020A-T: Zinc


Page

Work Order

Client

Project

ES1016663-001

7 of 14 ES1016932

CH2M HILL PTY L TO


Anonymous


Page

Work Order

Client

Project

8 of 14 ES1016932

CH2M HILL PTY LTD


Method Blank (MB) and Laboratory Control Spike (LCS) Report The quality control term Method I Laboratory Blank refers to an analyte free matrix to which all reagents are added in the same volumes or proportions as used in standard sample preparation. The purpose of this QC

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

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

Sub-Matrix: SOIL Method BlanK (MtJ)


Page

Work Order

Client

Project

Sub-Matrix: SOIL

9 of 14 ES1016932

CH2M HILL PTY LTD


Method Siank (MS) Report Spike

Concentration


Page

Work Order

Client

Project

Sub-Matrix : WATER

10 of 14 ES1016932

CH2M HILL PTY LTD


: Acenaphthylene 208-96-8 0.2

1

iJg/L

iJg/L

iJg/L

Method Blank (MB) Report

<1 .0

<1 .0

Spike

Concentration

0.5 iJg/L

0.5 iJg/L

76.4 58.6 119

88.3 63.6 114


of 14 Work Order ES1016932

Client CH2M HI LL PTY LTD

Project : 406484 ANSTO HUNTERS HILL

Sub-Matrix: WATER Method Blank (MB) Report Spike

Concentration

1J9/L 0.51Jg/L 79.5 62.2 113

1J9/L <1.0

Fluorene 86-73-7 I 0.2 1J9/L 0.5 1Jg/L 88.7 63.9 115

1 1J9/L <1 .0

Phenanthrene 85-01-8 I 0.2 1J9/L 0.51Jg/L 85.4 62.6 116

1 1J9/L <1 .0

M): Anthracene 120-12-7 0.2 1J9/L 0.5 1Jg/L 85.3 64.3 116

1 IJg/L <1.0

EP075(SIM) : Fluoranthene 206-44-0 0.2 1J9/L 0.51Jg/L 96.3 63.6 118

<1 .0

EP075(SIM): Pyrene 129-00-0 0.2 1J9/L ---- 0.5 1Jg/L I 95.3 I 63.1 I 118

1 1J9/L <1.0

: Benz(a)anthracene 56-55-3 I 0.2 1J9/L - I 0.51Jg/L I 89.3 I 64.1 I 117

1J9/L <1.0

218-01-9 I 0.2 I 1J9/L - 0.51Jg/L I 84.6 I 62.5 I 116

1J9/L <1.0 -Benzo(b)fluoranthene 205-99-2 0.2 1J9/L - 0.51Jg/L I 83.5 I 61 .7 I 119

1 1J9/L <1 .0

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 207-08-9 0.2 1J9/L -- I 0.51Jg/L I 92.7 I 61 .7 I 117

1 1J9/L <1 .0

Benzo(a)pyrene 50-32-8 I 0.2 1J9/L - I 0.51Jg/L I 108 I 63.3 I 117

0.5 1J9/L <0.5

Indeno(1 .2.3.cd)pyrene 193-39-5 I 0.2 1J9/L -- I 0.5 1J9/L I 102 I 59.9 I 118

1 1J9/L <1 .0

: Dibenz(a.h)anthracene 53-70-3 I 0.2 1J9/L - I 0.51Jg/L I 102 I 61 .2 I 117

1 1J9/L <1 .0

191-24-2 I 0.2 1J9/L -- I 0.5 1Jg/L I 104 I 59.1 I 118

<1 .0

10 1J9/L

1J9/L <5


Page

Work Order

Client

Project

Sub-Matrix : WATER

12 of 14 ES1016932

CH2M HILL PTY L TO


Method Blank (MB) Report

<2

Spike

Concentration

10 1J9/L 83.3 69 121


Page

Work Order

Client

Project

13 of 14 ES1016932

CH2M HILL PTY LTD


Matrix Spike (MS) Report

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

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

Sub-Matrix: SOIL


Page

Work Order

Client

Project

Sub-Matrix: SOIL

Sub-Matrix: WATER

14 of 14 ES1016932

CH2M HILL PTY LTD





INTERPRETIVE QUALITY CONTROL REPORT

Work Order

Client

Contact Address

E-mail

Telephone

Facsimile

Project

Site

C-O-C number

Sampler

Order number

Quote number

: ES1016932

: CH2M HILL PTY LTD : MR BEN FARMER : PO BOX 5392 CHATSWOOD NSW, AUSTRALIA 1515

: [email protected] : +61 02 9950 0200 : +61 0299500263

: 406484 ANSTO HUNTERS HILL : HUNTERS HILL WASTE CLASSIFICAT : HTH-ALS-001 : BF

: SY/517/10

Page

Laboratory

Contact Address

E-mail

Telephone

Facsimile

QC Level


Issue Date



: 1 of9


. [email protected] : +61-2-8784 8555 : +61-2-8784 8500


: 24-AUG-2010 : 30-AUG-2010

: 21 : 18


This Interpretive Quality Control Report contains the following information:

• Analysis Holding Time Compliance

• Quality Control Parameter Frequency Compliance

• Brief Method Summaries

• Summary of Outliers

Enulronmental Dlulslan S4dne4

Part of the ALS Laborator4 Group 277-289 Woodpark Road Smithfield NSW Australia 2164

Tel. +61·2·&784 &555 Fax. +61-2-8784 8500 www.alsglobal.com

r:

quality control parameter frequency compliance · pdf fileproject . 40f8 es1017309 ... quality...

Documents