128
Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established for the data to support the November 2017 groundwater monitoring event (GME) and then assesses the reliability of the field work procedures and laboratory analytical results using the data quality indicators (DQIs). 1.1.1. Data Quality Objectives The National Environment Protection Measure (NEPM, Schedule B2 Guideline on Site Characterisation - 2013) states that the nature and quality of the data collected for a particular assessment will be determined by the Data Quality Objectives (DQOs). The NEPM and the Australian Standard AS4482.1-2005 reference the US EPA Guidance on Systematic Planning Using the Data Quality Objectives Process (US EPA, 2006) which defines the DQO process. The US EPA defines the process as ‘a strategic planning approach based on the Scientific Methods that is used to prepare for a data collection activity. It provides a systematic procedure for defining the criteria that a data collection design should satisfy, including when to collect samples, where to collect samples, the tolerable level of decision errors for the study, and how many samples to collect.’ To define the purpose, type, quantity and quality of data required for the RAAF Base Tindal PFAS Investigation, the seven step data quality objectives (DQOs) approach, as described in the NEPM 2013, was adopted. The seven steps of the DQO process for the current RAAF Base Tindal PFAS Investigation are summarised below: Table 1: Data Quality Objectives Quality objectives 1. State the Problem PFAS contamination sources have been identified at RAAF Base Tindal. Previous investigations have identified contaminated soil and groundwater in the vicinity of known source areas. Other potential source areas have had limited (if any) assessment for PFAS contaminant nature and extent. A comprehensive investigation of soils, waters and sediments is proposed through 2017. The extent of PFAS contamination in groundwater and associated impact in surface water off-Base is not previously well understood. Given the tropical climate of the Tindal/Katherine area, surface water flows and groundwater recharge rates will have a strong seasonal variation. In order to forecast the future impact of residual contamination, and inform contaminant management strategies, some modelling of contaminant transport behaviour will be required. The modelling will be undertaken following the analysis of data collected during the 2018 wet season. 2. Identify the goal of the study The purpose of the broader investigation is to understand the nature and extent of PFAS contamination as a result of Defence activities. The conceptual site model will inform human health and/or ecological risk assessment, and guide effective management strategies. 3. Identify information inputs Site history relating use of PFAS contaminant materials, to identify product types and locations where contamination may be emanating from (source areas).

1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    3

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017)

1.1. Introduction

This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established for the data to support the November 2017 groundwater monitoring event (GME) and then assesses the reliability of the field work procedures and laboratory analytical results using the data quality indicators (DQIs).

1.1.1. Data Quality Objectives

The National Environment Protection Measure (NEPM, Schedule B2 Guideline on Site

Characterisation - 2013) states that the nature and quality of the data collected for a particular

assessment will be determined by the Data Quality Objectives (DQOs). The NEPM and the Australian Standard AS4482.1-2005 reference the US EPA Guidance on Systematic Planning Using the Data

Quality Objectives Process (US EPA, 2006) which defines the DQO process. The US EPA defines

the process as ‘a strategic planning approach based on the Scientific Methods that is used to prepare

for a data collection activity. It provides a systematic procedure for defining the criteria that a data

collection design should satisfy, including when to collect samples, where to collect samples, the

tolerable level of decision errors for the study, and how many samples to collect.’

To define the purpose, type, quantity and quality of data required for the RAAF Base Tindal PFAS Investigation, the seven step data quality objectives (DQOs) approach, as described in the NEPM 2013, was adopted.

The seven steps of the DQO process for the current RAAF Base Tindal PFAS Investigation are summarised below:

Table 1: Data Quality Objectives

Quality objectives

1. State the Problem

PFAS contamination sources have been identified at RAAF Base Tindal. Previous investigations have identified contaminated soil and groundwater in the vicinity of known source areas. Other potential source areas have had limited (if any) assessment for PFAS contaminant nature and extent. A comprehensive investigation of soils, waters and sediments is proposed through 2017.

The extent of PFAS contamination in groundwater and associated impact in surface water off-Base is not previously well understood. Given the tropical climate of the Tindal/Katherine area, surface water flows and groundwater recharge rates will have a strong seasonal variation.

In order to forecast the future impact of residual contamination, and inform contaminant management strategies, some modelling of contaminant transport behaviour will be required. The modelling will be undertaken following the analysis of data collected during the 2018 wet season.

2. Identify the goal of the study

The purpose of the broader investigation is to understand the nature and extent of PFAS contamination as a result of Defence activities.

The conceptual site model will inform human health and/or ecological risk assessment, and guide effective management strategies.

3. Identify information inputs

• Site history relating use of PFAS contaminant materials, to identify product types and locations where contamination may be emanating from (source areas).

Page 2: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

Quality objectives

• Existing data relevant to PFAS in soil, waters and sediment, to confirm the presence of source areas, indicate the potential extent of contamination, and identify gaps in reliable data.

• Surface water and groundwater flow regimes, to develop the conceptual site model about the potential migration pathways of contamination from source areas towards human and ecological receptors.

• Location and types of human and environmental receptors, to guide selection of relevant screening criteria to reflect plausible exposure routes.

4. Define the boundary of the study

Based on the potential for contaminated surface water or shallow groundwater to migrate west north-west towards Katherine River, the broad study area includes land and waterways on RAAF Base Tindal and the area between the Base and Katherine River. An approximate buffer of 200 m across the western side of Katherine River has been included.

5. Develop a decision rule

Primary environmental samples will be collected and analysed by the laboratories for the full suite of PFAS compounds.

Groundwater samples

• Relative concentrations identify sources of contamination and preferential pathways of migration to other areas of the Base, or off-Base. Relative concentrations are also used to calibrate contaminant transport models which can be used to predict future behaviour.

• Comparison of groundwater concentrations and surface water concentration informs the understanding of interaction between surface water and groundwater.

• Absolute concentrations (and model predictions) at the point of use, or groundwater discharge zoned, describe the exposure where direct contact between water and people, plants or animals may occur, which allows an assessment of risk.

PFOS, PFHxS and PFOA concentrations will be compared against screening levels relevant to the potential beneficial uses of land or water to identify potential complete pathways and potentially unacceptable risks.

The relative concentrations of all (analysed) PFAS compounds in soil and groundwater samples will be used to characterise the source areas, define the lateral and vertical extent and identify complete exposure pathways.

Residual source mass, leachability of the source and measurements of contaminant mass flux will be used to assess the contribution that each identified source area is making to adverse impact on beneficial uses.

6. Specify performance of acceptance criteria

The assessment as a whole (including consideration of previous assessments) must reliably characterise the sources of contamination from the Base and described the risk that the contamination may pose to human or ecological receptors. In order to achieve that, there must be multiple lines of evidence to support location of source areas; the characterisation of the nature and extent of the residual source and associated surface water or ground water impact; the significance of the risk that that contamination currently poses to relevant receptors; and predictions of future impacts.

7. Develop a plan for obtaining the data

The methodology and rationale for obtaining relevant data for the November 2017 GME is described in the DSI SAQP.

1.1.2. Data Quality Indicators

An assessment of the reliability of field procedures and laboratory analytical results outlined through the DQOs has been undertaking using the DQIs of precision, accuracy, representativeness, completeness and comparability. A brief outline of the DQIs is presented below.

Precision – All Coffey field staff to implement Coffey standard operating procedures (SOPs) appropriate for the task being undertaken. All laboratories used to undertake analysis are NATA

Page 3: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

accredited for the analytes being tested for. An appropriate number of intra-laboratory and inter-laboratory replicate samples were collected and analysed and are within the acceptable limits of 1 in 20.

Accuracy – All Coffey staff to follow the appropriate SOPs for the tasks being undertaken. Trip blanks and equipment rinsate blank samples collected and results of which are to be satisfactory. All laboratories used are to be NATA accredited and the use of NATA endorsed methods, including appropriate method blanks, laboratory control samples, laboratory spikes and duplicates, and the results of which satisfy the defined criteria of acceptability.

Representativeness – A sufficient number of samples are to be collected and analysed from each media to adequately achieve the overall DSI objectives.

Completeness – All Coffey staff to follow Coffey SOPs appropriate to the task being performed, along with the appropriate documentation. All identified areas of environmental concern to be assessed with chemical analysis for relevant chemicals of potential concern from targeted and systematic sampling locations. All samples to be under proper custody between the field and laboratory. The data obtained from the laboratory is considered relevant and usable.

Comparability – All Coffey staff to follow the appropriate SOPs for the task being undertaken and complete all sampling documentation. All analyte holding times to be complied with and samples properly and adequately preserved. All laboratory analysis to use the correct methods, along with appropriate limits of reporting (LORs).

The DQIs for the field works and laboratory analysis were established in the SAQP. The established acceptance limits are presented in Table 2 and Table 3.

Table 2: Field Works Quality Control Criteria

Item Comments

Intra-laboratory

duplicates

Inter-laboratory duplicates (triplicates)

Intra-laboratory field duplicates were collected at a minimum frequency of one sample per

twenty samples collected (5%). The analytical results of the primary sample and

duplicate/triplicate samples will be compared to assess the precision of the sampling

protocol and to provide an indication of variation in the sample source.

Repeatability will be assessed by calculating the relative percentage difference (RPD)

between the primary and duplicate results. Where the RPD is greater than 30%, the

potential causes of variability has been reviewed.

Trip blanks Trip blanks are a check on sample contamination originating from containers, sample

transport, shipping and site conditions. The trip blank will be prepared in a clean

environment (office or warehouse) and remain with the sample containers during sampling

and during the return trip to the laboratory. At no time during these procedures will the

blanks be opened. Upon return to the laboratory the blank will be analysed, if needed, as

any other field sample. As PFAS is not volatile, a reduced blank frequency is considered

appropriate and a single trip blank per sample batch will be transported and analysed.

Detectable concentrations of PFAS in a trip blank sample will trigger review of sample

container types, transport procedures and UHP water quality. The concentration and

compound detected will be considered in reviewing the potential impact of transport related

cross-contamination of the assessment data quality.

Rinsate blanks Rinsate samples will be prepared in the field using empty bottles and the distilled

water/potable water used for the cleaning of non-disposable sampling equipment. These

samples will be a check of field decontamination procedures. A rinsate sample will be

collected and analysed for each day of field work, where non-disposable sampling

equipment has been used.

Page 4: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

Item Comments

Detectable concentrations of PFAS in a rinsate blank sample will trigger review of

decontamination procedures, equipment materials, sample container types and UHP water

quality. The concentration and compound detected will be considered in reviewing the

potential impact of transport related cross-contamination of the assessment data quality.

Table 3: Laboratory Quality Control Criteria

Data Type Comments and Acceptable Control Limits

Sample Analysis All sample analyses to be conducted using NATA certified laboratories which will implement a quality control plan in accordance with NEPM (1999).

Holding times Maximum acceptable sample holding times:

Soil: 14 days for organic analyses (including PFAS) and 6 months for inorganic analyses (28 days for mercury).

Groundwater/surface water: 14 days for organic analyses (including PFAS) and 6 months for inorganic analyses (28 days for mercury).

Laboratory detection limits

All laboratory detection limits to be less than the site investigation criteria.

Laboratory Blanks

Laboratory blanks to be analysed at a rate of 1 in 20, with a minimum of one analysed per batch.

Concentration of analytes to be less than the laboratory detection limits.

Laboratory Duplicates

Laboratory duplicates to be analysed at a rate of 1 in 20, with a minimum of one analysed per batch. RPDs to be less than 30%.

Laboratory Control Samples (LCS)

LCSs to be analysed at a rate of 1 in 20, with a minimum of one analysed per analytical batch.

Control limits: 50 to 150 % acceptable recovery

Matrix spikes Matrix spike duplicate prepared by dividing a field sample into two aliquots, then spiking each with identical concentrations of the analytes at a rate of 1 in 20.

Matrix spike control limits:

50–150 % acceptable recovery. Lower recoveries may be acceptable for OCPs, OPPs, PCBs and phenols and will be assessed according to USEPA protocols.

Matrix spike duplicates:

RPDs <50%

Page 5: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

1.2. Field Quality Assurance Quality Control

Field Quality Assurance Procedures

Field quality assurance involves all the planned actions, procedures, checks and decisions which have been made and undertaken through quality control measures to ensure the representativeness and integrity of collected samples is that of the true conditions.

Sample Collection

All Coffey environmental scientists/engineers were suitably qualified, trained and experienced for the sample collection undertaken. Sampling of each matrix was undertaken with reference to the Coffey standard operating procedures (SOPs).

Sampling Methodology

The adopted sampling methods for each media (soil, sediments, groundwater and surface water) is presented in the DSI SAQP.

All samples were collected using a new disposable nitrile glove. Each sample was collected in a laboratory supplied jar or bottle appropriate to the analysis required.

All groundwater samples were collected using disposable bladders and tubing or disposable hydro sleeves.

Each sample was labelled using a unique sample identifier, project reference and date of sample collection, as directed by Defence and documented in the DSI SAQP (754-MELEN199420-R03).

Sample Transport and Preservation

To maintain sample integrity, all samples were placed into laboratory prepared containers suitable for PFAS and other non-PFAS analysis. Samples were immediately placed into an insulated ice chest containing ice, for storage and transportation to the Eurofins and ALS laboratories.

All samples were placed into lip-lock bags according to analysis, separating samples requiring PFAS analysis and samples requiring non-PFAS analysis.

All samples were sent to the laboratories under chain of custody (CoC) documentation.

Field Equipment Calibration

All equipment was calibrated before being used to collect data. All equipment was calibrated in accordance with the manufacturers’ specifications.

1.2.1. Type of Quality Assurance Quality Control (QA/QC) Samples Collected

Primary Samples 80

Days of sampling 5

Field Duplicates (at least 1 in 20 samples) 5 intra lab + 4 inter lab

Trip Blanks (at least 1 per sampling event) 10

Equipment Rinsate (at least

1/day/matrix/equipment)

4

Page 6: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

1.2.2. Samples Analysed

Seventy-Eight samples were collected and sent to the primary laboratory Eurofins Environmental Consulting over five days of sampling. Five duplicate samples were collected and submitted for laboratory analysis to the primary laboratory Eurofins Environmental Consulting. Four triplicate samples were collected and submitted for laboratory analysis to the secondary laboratory Australian Laboratory Services (ALS).

1.2.3. Inter-Laboratory and Intra-Laboratory Duplicates

ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment

below)

1 Were an Adequate Number of inter-laboratory and inter-laboratory

duplicates analysed for each chemical?

2 Were RPDs within Control Limits?

< 30% for concentrations

Comments

Where RPDs were outside the acceptable range, sampling procedures, laboratory analytical methods and laboratory results were investigated.

There were 140 duplicate pair analyses for PFAS compounds and 90% were reported within the acceptance target of less than 30% RPD. There were 112 triplicate pair analyses for PFAS compounds and 83% were reported within the acceptance target of less than 30% RPD.

The RPD discrepancies observed between several sample pairs in the November 2017 groundwater sampling event were attributed to analytical results in one of the samples being either at or marginally above the laboratory reporting limit, and the other below – which magnifies the relative difference between the results.

However, one duplicate pair (samples 064MW02 and QCMW450) reported RPD for a number of analytes above the target range. Both the primary and inter laboratory duplicate reported results above the nominated screening guidelines and represent the presence of contamination. The RPD exceedances are not considered to affect the interpretation of the data. As a conservative measure, the highest concentration has been adopted for investigation purposes.

Generally, the majority of the discrepancies were between the primary and secondary laboratory indicated that the secondary laboratory was reporting lower concentrations of PFAS compounds than the primary laboratory, suggesting a slight bias. This bias adds a level of conservatism to the results and despite the discrepancies observed, the RPD results from the November 2017 groundwater sampling were generally considered acceptable and able to be relied on for the report.

Page 7: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

1.2.4. Trip Blanks

ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment

below)

1 Was a trip blank collected on each day of sample?

2 Were the Trip Blanks free of contaminants?

(If no, comment whether the contaminants present are also detected

in the samples and whether they are common laboratory chemicals.)

Comments

Concentrations for all analytes were below the laboratory LOR for all trip blanks and indicated that cross contamination was unlikely to have occurred during sample storage and transport.

1.2.5. Rinsate Blanks

ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment

below)

1 Were Equipment Rinsates collected and analysed every day?

2 Were the Equipment Rinsates free of contaminants?

(If no, comment whether the contaminants present are also detected

in the samples and whether they are common laboratory chemicals.)

Comments

Four rinsate blanks across the five days of sampling were submitted to Eurofins for selected analysis of PFAS. Groundwater sampling was undertaken using hydrasleeve sampling and the only non-disposable equipment used included interface probes and water quality meters.

Rinsate samples were collected from the field equipment after decontamination. Equipment rinsate samples were collected by pouring laboratory prepared deionised water over the equipment and collecting the ‘rinse’ into sample containers. Concentrations for all analytes were below the laboratory LOR for all rinsate blanks. A rinsate sample was collected for each day of groundwater sampling but only sampled for four of the sampling days.

The rinsate results indicated that the decontamination procedures were acceptable and it is considered that there is a low potential for cross-contamination to have impacted on the laboratory results.

In summary, the field QC results are considered generally acceptable for the purposes of this investigation.

Field QA/QC was: Satisfactory

Partially Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

Page 8: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

1.3. Laboratory Quality Assurance Quality Control

1.3.1. Laboratories

ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment below)

1 Was a NATA registered laboratory used?

2 Did the laboratory perform the requested tests?

3 Were the laboratory methods adopted NATA endorsed?

4 Were the appropriate test procedures followed?

5 Were the reporting limits satisfactory?

6 Was the NATA Seal on the reports?

7 Were the reports signed by an authorised person?

Comments

Eurofins – Eurofins has been adopted as the primary laboratory for analysis of all matrices. Eurofins is a NATA accredited laboratory (NATA accreditation number 1261) for soil and water for all the analytes requiring analysis.

ALS Environmental – ALS has been adopted as the secondary laboratory for analysis of soil and water samples. ALS is a NATA accredited laboratory (NATA accreditation number 825) for all the analytes requiring anaylsis.

Precision / Accuracy of the Laboratory Report Satisfactory

Partially Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

1.3.2. Sample Handling

ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment

below)

1 Were the sample holding times met?

2 Were the samples in proper custody between the field and reaching

the laboratory?

3 Were the samples properly and adequately preserved?

This includes keeping the samples chilled, where applicable.

4 Were the samples received by the laboratory in good condition?

Comments

Nil

Sample Handling was: Satisfactory

Partially Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

Page 9: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

1.3.3. Laboratory Blanks.

All Eurofins and ALS laboratory method blank results reported concentrations of contaminants below the laboratory reporting limits.

1.3.4. Laboratory Duplicates

All internal laboratory duplicates analysed by Eurofins and ALS were within acceptable limits (<30% RPD).

1.3.5. Laboratory Control Samples

All laboratory control sample analyses performed by Eurofins and ALS were within the acceptable range (>50%).

1.3.6. Matrix Spikes

All matrix spike analyses were performed by Eurofins and ALS were within the adopted 70% – 130% acceptability criteria adopted.

1.3.7. Surrogate Recoveries

The collated laboratory data for surrogate recoveries reported 27 surrogates (out of a total of 2,346 surrogate analyses undertaken) below the lower recovery limit of 20%. A total of 16 surrogate recoveries were above the adopted upper recovery limit of 150% for PFAS compounds (ranging up to 197%). These discrepancies were for a number of PFAS compounds, but none were for the key PFAS compounds (PFOS, PFOA & PFHxS) indicating that the data set was acceptable for the purposes of supporting the outcomes of the report.

1.3.8. Summary of Internal Laboratory Quality Control

A summary of the internal laboratory quality control results is provided in Table 4 and Table 5.

Table 4: Summary of internal laboratory QC

ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment

below)

1 Were the laboratory blanks/reagents blanks free of contamination?

2 Were the spike recoveries within control limits?

3 Were the RPDs of the laboratory duplicates within control limits?

4 Were the surrogate recoveries within control limits?

Table 5: Summary of internal laboratory QC results

QC test Total Analyses Number outside of

Acceptable Criteria

% of analyses

acceptable

Method Blanks 84 0 100

Laboratory Duplicates 308 1 99.7%

Laboratory Control Samples 84 2 97.6%

Matrix Spikes 279 10 96.4%

Page 10: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

Surrogates 2,346 43 98.2%

Totals 3,101 56 98.2%

The review of the laboratory internal quality control testing undertaken indicated that the overall completeness for the internal laboratory quality control results was 98.2%, which is above the 95% target. Consequently, the data is therefore considered of an acceptable quality to use in the report.

Laboratory internal QA/QC was: Satisfactory

Partially Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

1.4. Summary of November 2017 GME Data Quality Review

In general, the data quality of the November 2017 groundwater monitoring event was considered to be acceptable. Minor QC deficiencies (internal laboratory discrepancies) were considered unlikely to impact on the outcome of the report.

Page 11: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

HHRA - QAQC

Nov2017 GME Event

Duplicates

DoD, RAAF Base Tindal

0 2 0 3 0 2 15 14 0

Field Duplicates (WATER) Lab Report Number574650 574650 574650 EM1716318 574650 574650 574650 EM1716318 576521 576521 574650 EM1716318 574954 574954 574954 EM1716469 574954 574954

Field ID 0990_MW136_171124 0990_QCMW434_171124 RPD 0990_MW138_171124 0990_QCMW435_171124 RPD 0990_MW125_171126 0990_QCMW438_171126 RPD 0990_MW126_171126 0990_QCMW439_171126 RPD 0990_MW100_171124 0990_QCMW4445171124 RPD 0990_MW111_171126 0990_QCMW443_171126 RPD 0990_064MW01_171127 0990_QCMW449_171127 RPD 0990_064MW02_171127 0990_QCMW450_171127 RPD 0990_MW115_171127 0990_QCMW453_171127 RPD

Sampled Date/Time24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017 24/11/2017 26/11/2017 26/11/2017 26/11/2017 26/11/2017 26/11/2017 26/11/2017 26/11/2017 26/11/2017 27/11/2017 27/11/2017 27/11/2017 27/11/2017 27/11/2017 27/11/2017

Chem_GroupChemName Units EQL

PFAS Perfluoro-n-octanoic acid (PFOA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0 0.02 <0.01 67 0.07 0.07 0 0.08 0.08 0 0.03 0.03 0 0.1 0.1 0 1.3 0.95 31 470.0 275.0 52 0.17 0.17 0

Perfluoro-n-hexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab)<0.01 <0.01 0 0.36 0.26 32 0.58 0.56 4 1.2 1.24 3 0.62 0.64 3 1.3 1.38 6 8.5 5.7 39 2900.0 2280.0 24 2.5 2.6 4

Perfluoro-n-octane sulfonic acid (PFOS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 0.01 0 1.4 1.16 19 1.6 1.7 6 2.7 2.47 9 1.1 1.2 9 3.9 3.48 11 5.6 3.6 43 5900.0 3600.0 48 1.1 1.3 17

PFHxS and PFOS (Sum of Total) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 0.01 0 1.76 1.42 21 2.18 2.26 4 3.9 3.71 5 1.72 1.84 7 5.2 4.86 7 14.1 9.3 41 8800.0 5880.0 40 3.6 3.9 8

Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab)<0.01 <0.01 0 0.05 0.05 0 0.1 0.1 0 0.18 0.14 25 0.07 0.07 0 0.18 0.16 12 1.2 0.81 39 710.0 388.0 59 0.16 0.16 0

Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) µg/L 0.05 (Primary): 0.1 (Interlab)<0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.1 0 0.07 0.07 0 0.1 <0.1 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 0.08 <0.1 0 0.66 0.43 42 200.0 133.0 40 0.08 0.08 0

Perfluoro-n-decane sulfonic acid (PFDS) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab)<0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <1.0 0 <0.01 <0.01 0

Perfluoro-n-decanoic acid (PFDA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab)<0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <1.0 0 <0.01 <0.01 0

Perfluoro-n-dodecanoic acid (PFDoDA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab)<0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <1.0 0 <0.01 <0.01 0

Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab)<0.01 <0.01 0 0.06 0.04 40 0.09 0.09 0 0.16 0.15 6 0.07 0.08 13 0.18 0.18 0 1.2 0.79 41 590.0 324.0 58 0.21 0.21 0

Perfluoro-n-heptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab)<0.01 <0.01 0 0.02 <0.02 0 0.04 0.05 22 0.07 0.1 35 0.03 0.03 0 0.1 0.14 33 0.47 0.31 41 360.0 257.0 33 0.31 0.3 3

Perfluoro-n-heptanoic acid (PFHpA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab)<0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 0.04 0.04 0 0.04 0.03 29 0.02 0.02 0 0.05 0.04 22 0.63 0.42 40 230.0 154.0 40 0.04 0.04 0

Perfluoro-n-hexanoic acid (PFHxA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab)<0.01 <0.01 0 0.04 0.04 0 0.2 0.2 0 0.3 0.14 73 0.1 0.1 0 0.3 0.15 67 2.2 1.5 38 1500.0 1030.0 37 0.3 0.29 3

Perfluoro-n-nonanoic acid (PFNA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab)<0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 0.04 0.02 67 7.2 3.3 74 <0.01 <0.01 0

Perfluorooctan esulfonamide (PFOSA) µg/L 0.05 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab)<0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.02 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.02 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.02 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <1.0 0 <0.05 <0.05 0

Perfluoro pentanoic acid (PFPeA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab)<0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 0.06 0.06 0 0.08 0.02 120 0.03 0.03 0 0.07 <0.02 111 0.96 0.58 49 360.0 188.0 63 0.07 0.07 0

Perfluoro-n-tetradecanoic acid (PFTeDA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.05 (Interlab)<0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <2.5 0 <0.01 <0.01 0

Perfluoro-n-tridecanoic acid (PFTriDA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab)<0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <1.0 0 <0.01 <0.01 0

Perfluoro-n-undecanoic acid (PFUnDA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab)<0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <1.0 0 <0.01 <0.01 0

2-(N-ethylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide)-ethanol µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <2.5 0 <0.05 <0.05 0

2-(N-methylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide)-ethanol µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0

N-Ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid µg/L 0.05 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab)<0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.02 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.02 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.02 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <1.0 0 <0.05 <0.05 0

N-Methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid µg/L 0.05 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab)<0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.02 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.02 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.02 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <1.0 0 <0.05 <0.05 0

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (4:2 FTS) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.05 (Interlab)<0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <1.0 0 <0.01 <0.01 0

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (6:2 FTS) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 10.0 5.5 58 <0.05 <0.05 0

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorodecanesulfonic acid (8:2 FTS) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.05 (Interlab)<0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 0.06 0.02 100 <0.01 <1.0 0 <0.01 <0.01 0

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorododecanesulfonic acid µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.05 (Interlab)<0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <1.0 0 <0.01 <0.01 0

N-Ethylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide (N-EtFOSA) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <2.5 0 <0.05 <0.05 0

N-methylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide (N-MeFOSA) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <2.5 0 <0.05 <0.05 0

*RPDs have only been considered where a concentration is greater than 0 times the EQL.

**High RPDs are in bold (Acceptable RPDs for each EQL multiplier range are: 25 (0-10 x EQL); 25 (10-20 x EQL); 10 ( > 20 x EQL) )

***Interlab Duplicates are matched on a per compound basis as methods vary between laboratories. Any methods in the row header relate to those used in the primary laboratory

Filter: Lab_Report_Number in('575259','574954','576521','574650','574347')

Page 12: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

HHRA - QAQC

Nov 2017 GME Event

Blanks

DoD, RAAF Base Tindal

Field Blanks (WATER) Lab Report Number 575259 574650 574650 574954 575259 576521 574650 574650 574650 574650 574650 574954 574954 574954

Field ID 0990_QCMW455_171128 0990_QCMW436_171124 0990_QCMW441_171126 0990_QCMW448_171127 0990_QCMW454_171128 0990_QCMW444_171124 0990_QCMW437_171126 0990_QCMW440_171126 0990_QCMW433_171124 0990_QCMW446_171126 0990_QCMW442_171126 0990_QCMW447_171127 0990_QCMW451_171127 0990_QCMW452_171127

Sampled_Date/Time 28/11/2017 24/11/2017 26/11/2017 27/11/2017 28/11/2017 26/11/2017 26/11/2017 26/11/2017 24/11/2017 26/11/2017 26/11/2017 27/11/2017 27/11/2017 27/11/2017

Sample Type Rinsate Rinsate Rinsate Rinsate Trip_B Trip_B Trip_B Trip_B Trip_B Trip_B Trip_B Trip_B Trip_B Trip_B

Chem_GroupChemName Units EQL

PFAS Perfluoro-n-octanoic acid (PFOA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.05

Perfluoro-n-hexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-octane sulfonic acid (PFOS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

PFHxS and PFOS (Sum of Total) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

Perfluoro-n-decane sulfonic acid (PFDS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-decanoic acid (PFDA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-dodecanoic acid (PFDoDA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-heptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-heptanoic acid (PFHpA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-hexanoic acid (PFHxA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-nonanoic acid (PFNA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluorooctan esulfonamide (PFOSA) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

Perfluoro pentanoic acid (PFPeA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-tetradecanoic acid (PFTeDA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-tridecanoic acid (PFTriDA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-undecanoic acid (PFUnDA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

2-(N-ethylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide)-ethanol µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

2-(N-methylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide)-ethanol µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

N-Ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

N-Methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (4:2 FTS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (6:2 FTS) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorodecanesulfonic acid (8:2 FTS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorododecanesulfonic acid µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

N-Ethylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide (N-EtFOSA) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

N-methylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide (N-MeFOSA) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

Sum of PFAS µg/L 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Sum of PFAS (WA DER List) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

Page 13: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

2. GROUNDWATER (January/February 2018 GME)

2.1. Introduction

This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established for the data to support the January/February 2018 groundwater monitoring event (GME) and then assesses the reliability of the field work procedures and laboratory analytical results using the data quality indicators (DQIs).

2.1.1. Data Quality Objectives

The National Environment Protection Measure (NEPM, Schedule B2 Guideline on Site

Characterisation - 2013) states that the nature and quality of the data collected for a particular

assessment will be determined by the Data Quality Objectives (DQOs). The NEPM and the Australian Standard AS4482.1-2005 reference the US EPA Guidance on Systematic Planning Using the Data

Quality Objectives Process (US EPA, 2006) which defines the DQO process. The US EPA defines

the process as ‘a strategic planning approach based on the Scientific Methods that is used to prepare

for a data collection activity. It provides a systematic procedure for defining the criteria that a data

collection design should satisfy, including when to collect samples, where to collect samples, the

tolerable level of decision errors for the study, and how many samples to collect.’

To define the purpose, type, quantity and quality of data required for the of the RAAF Tindal base, the seven step data quality objectives (DQOs) approach, as described in the NEPM 2013, was adopted.

The seven steps of the DQO process for the current RAAF Base PFAS Investigation (relating to this phase of works) are summarised below:

Table 1: Data Quality Objectives

Quality objectives

1. State the Problem

PFAS contamination sources have been identified at RAAF Base Tindal. Previous investigations have identified contaminated soil and groundwater in the vicinity of known source areas. Other potential source areas have had limited (if any) assessment for PFAS contaminant nature and extent. A comprehensive investigation of soils, waters and sediments is proposed through 2017.

The extent of PFAS contamination in groundwater and associated impact in surface water off-Base is not previously well understood. Given the tropical climate of the Tindal/Katherine area, surface water flows and groundwater recharge rates will have a strong seasonal variation.

In order to forecast the future impact of residual contamination, and inform contaminant management strategies, some modelling of contaminant transport behaviour will be required. The modelling will be undertaken following the analysis of data collected during the 2018 wet season.

2. Identify the goal of the study

The purpose of the broader investigation is to understand the nature and extent of PFAS contamination as a result of Defence activities.

The purpose of the January/February 2018 GME is to provide sufficient information on the sources of contamination, the contaminant transport conditions, the migration pathways and the current extent of contamination to enable a robust site model to be developed.

The conceptual site model will inform human health and/or ecological risk assessment, and guide effective management strategies.

3. Identify information inputs

Page 14: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

Quality objectives

• Site history relating use of PFAS contaminant materials, to identify product types and locations where contamination may be emanating from (source areas).

• Existing data relevant to PFAS in soil, waters and sediment, to confirm the presence of source areas, indicate the potential extent of contamination, and identify gaps in reliable data.

• Surface water and groundwater flow regimes, to develop the conceptual site model about the potential migration pathways of contamination from source areas towards human and ecological receptors.

• Location and types of human and environmental receptors, to guide selection of relevant screening criteria to reflect plausible exposure routes.

4. Define the boundary of the study

Based on the potential for contaminated surface water or shallow groundwater to migrate west north-west towards Katherine River, the broad study area includes land and waterways on RAAF Base Tindal and the area between the Base and Katherine River. An approximate buffer of 1km across the western side of Katherine River has been included.

5. Develop a decision rule

Primary environmental samples will be collected and analysed by the laboratories for the full suite of PFAS compounds.

Groundwater samples

• Relative concentrations identify sources of contamination and preferential pathways of migration to other areas of the Base, or off-Base. Relative concentrations are also used to calibrate contaminant transport models which can be used to predict future behaviour.

• Comparison of groundwater concentrations and surface water concentration informs the understanding of interaction between surface water and groundwater.

• Absolute concentrations (and model predictions) at the point of use, or groundwater discharge zoned, describe the exposure where direct contact between water and people, plants or animals may occur, which allows an assessment of risk.

PFOS, PFHxS and PFOA concentrations will be compared against screening levels relevant to the potential beneficial uses of land or water to identify potential complete pathways and potentially unacceptable risks.

The relative concentrations of all (analysed) PFAS compounds in soil and groundwater samples will be used to characterise the source areas, define the lateral and vertical extent and identify complete exposure pathways.

Residual source mass, leachability of the source and measurements of contaminant mass flux will be used to assess the contribution that each identified source area is making to adverse impact on beneficial uses.

6. Specify performance of acceptance criteria

The assessment as a whole (including consideration of previous assessments) must reliably characterise the sources of contamination from the Base and described the risk that the contamination may pose to human or ecological receptors. In order to achieve that, there must be multiple lines of evidence to support location of source areas; the characterisation of the nature and extent of the residual source and associated surface water or ground water impact; the significance of the risk that that contamination currently poses to relevant receptors; and predictions of future impacts.

7. Develop a plan for obtaining the data

The methodology and rationale for obtaining relevant data for is described in the DSI SAQP.

2.1.2. Data Quality Indicators

An assessment of the reliability of field procedures and laboratory analytical results outlined through the DQOs has been undertaking using the DQIs of precision, accuracy, representativeness, completeness and comparability. A brief outline of the DQIs is presented below.

Page 15: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

Precision – All Coffey field staff to implement Coffey standard operating procedures (SOPs) appropriate for the task being undertaken. All laboratories used to undertake analysis are NATA accredited for the analytes being tested for. An appropriate number of intra-laboratory and inter-laboratory replicate samples were collected and analysed and are within the acceptable limits of 1 in 20.

Accuracy – All Coffey staff to follow the appropriate SOPs for the tasks being undertaken. Trip blanks and equipment rinsate blank samples collected and results of which are to be satisfactory. All laboratories used are to be NATA accredited and the use of NATA endorsed methods, including appropriate method blanks, laboratory control samples, laboratory spikes and duplicates, and the results of which satisfy the defined criteria of acceptability.

Representativeness – A sufficient number of samples are to be collected and analysed from each media to adequately achieve the overall DSI objectives.

Completeness – All Coffey staff to follow Coffey SOPs appropriate to the task being performed, along with the appropriate documentation. All identified areas of environmental concern to be assessed with chemical analysis for relevant chemicals of potential concern from targeted and systematic sampling locations. All samples to be under proper custody between the field and laboratory. The data obtained from the laboratory is considered relevant and usable.

Comparability – All Coffey staff to follow the appropriate SOPs for the task being undertaken and complete all sampling documentation. All analyte holding times to be complied with and samples properly and adequately preserved. All laboratory analysis to use the correct methods, along with appropriate limits of reporting (LORs).

The DQIs for the field works and laboratory analysis were established in the SAQP. The established acceptance limits are presented in Table 2 and Table 3.

Table 2: Field Works Quality Control Criteria

Item Comments

Intra-laboratory

duplicates

Inter-laboratory duplicates (triplicates)

Intra-laboratory field duplicates were collected at a minimum frequency of one sample per

twenty samples collected (5%). The analytical results of the primary sample and

duplicate/triplicate samples will be compared to assess the precision of the sampling

protocol and to provide an indication of variation in the sample source.

Repeatability will be assessed by calculating the relative percentage difference (RPD)

between the primary and duplicate results. Where the RPD is greater than 30%, the

potential causes of variability has been reviewed.

Trip blanks Trip blanks are a check on sample contamination originating from containers, sample

transport, shipping and site conditions. The trip blank will be prepared in a clean

environment (office or warehouse) and remain with the sample containers during sampling

and during the return trip to the laboratory. At no time during these procedures will the

blanks be opened. Upon return to the laboratory the blank will be analysed, if needed, as

any other field sample. As PFAS is not volatile, a reduced blank frequency is considered

appropriate and a single trip blank per sample batch will be transported and analysed.

Detectable concentrations of PFAS in a trip blank sample will trigger review of sample

container types, transport procedures and UHP water quality. The concentration and

compound detected will be considered in reviewing the potential impact of transport related

cross-contamination of the assessment data quality.

Rinsate blanks Rinsate samples will be prepared in the field using empty bottles and the distilled

water/potable water used for the cleaning of non-disposable sampling equipment. These

samples will be a check of field decontamination procedures. A rinsate sample will be

Page 16: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

Item Comments

collected and analysed for each day of field work, where non-disposable sampling

equipment has been used.

Detectable concentrations of PFAS in a rinsate blank sample will trigger review of

decontamination procedures, equipment materials, sample container types and UHP water

quality. The concentration and compound detected will be considered in reviewing the

potential impact of transport related cross-contamination of the assessment data quality.

Table 3: Laboratory Quality Control Criteria

Data Type Comments and Acceptable Control Limits

Sample Analysis All sample analyses to be conducted using NATA certified laboratories which will implement a quality control plan in accordance with NEPM (1999).

Holding times Maximum acceptable sample holding times:

Soil: 14 days for organic analyses (including PFAS) and 6 months for inorganic analyses (28 days for mercury).

Groundwater/surface water: 14 days for organic analyses (including PFAS) and 6 months for inorganic analyses (28 days for mercury).

Laboratory detection limits

All laboratory detection limits to be less than the site investigation criteria.

Laboratory Blanks

Laboratory blanks to be analysed at a rate of 1 in 20, with a minimum of one analysed per batch.

Concentration of analytes to be less than the laboratory detection limits.

Laboratory Duplicates

Laboratory duplicates to be analysed at a rate of 1 in 20, with a minimum of one analysed per batch. RPDs to be less than 30%.

Laboratory Control Samples (LCS)

LCSs to be analysed at a rate of 1 in 20, with a minimum of one analysed per analytical batch.

Control limits: 50 to 150 % acceptable recovery

Matrix spikes Matrix spike duplicate prepared by dividing a field sample into two aliquots, then spiking each with identical concentrations of the analytes at a rate of 1 in 20.

Matrix spike control limits:

50–150 % acceptable recovery. Lower recoveries may be acceptable for OCPs, OPPs, PCBs and phenols and will be assessed according to USEPA protocols.

Matrix spike duplicates:

RPDs <50%

Page 17: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

2.2. Field Quality Assurance Quality Control

Field Quality Assurance Procedures

Field quality assurance involves all the planned actions, procedures, checks and decisions which have been made and undertaken through quality control measures to ensure the representativeness and integrity of collected samples is that of the true conditions.

Sample Collection

All Coffey environmental scientists/engineers were suitably qualified, trained and experienced for the sample collection undertaken. Sampling of each matrix was undertaken with reference to the Coffey standard operating procedures (SOPs).

Sampling Methodology

The adopted sampling methods for each media (soil, sediments, groundwater and surface water) is presented in the DSI SAQP.

All samples were collected using a new disposable nitrile glove. Each sample was collected in a laboratory supplied jar or bottle appropriate to the analysis required.

All groundwater samples were collected using disposable bladders and tubing or disposable hydro sleeves.

Each sample was labelled using a unique sample identifier, project reference and date of sample collection, as directed by Defence and documented in the DSI SAQP (754-MELEN199420-R03).

Sample Transport and Preservation

To maintain sample integrity, all samples were placed into laboratory prepared containers suitable for PFAS and other non-PFAS analysis. Samples were immediately placed into an insulated ice chest containing ice, for storage and transportation to the Eurofins and ALS laboratories.

All samples were placed into lip-lock bags according to analysis, separating samples requiring PFAS analysis and samples requiring non-PFAS analysis.

All samples were sent to the laboratories under chain of custody (CoC) documentation.

Field Equipment Calibration

All equipment was calibrated before being used to collect data. All equipment was calibrated in accordance with the manufacturers’ specifications.

2.2.1. Type of Quality Assurance Quality Control (QA/QC) Samples Collected

Primary Samples 124

Days of sampling 27

Field Duplicates (at least 1 in 20 samples) 5 intra lab + 8 inter lab

Trip Blanks (at least 1 per batch) 7

Equipment Rinsate (at least

1/day/matrix/equipment)

3

Page 18: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

2.2.2. Samples Analysed

124 samples were collected and sent to the primary over 27 days of sampling. Five duplicate samples were collected and submitted for laboratory analysis to the primary laboratory and eight triplicate samples were collected and submitted for laboratory analysis to the secondary laboratory.

2.2.3. Inter-Laboratory and Intra-Laboratory Duplicates

ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment

below)

1 Were an Adequate Number of inter-laboratory and inter-laboratory

duplicates analysed for each chemical?

2 Were RPDs within Control Limits?

< 30% for concentrations

Comments

Where RPDs were outside the acceptable range, sampling procedures, laboratory analytical methods and laboratory results were investigated. The results of this review are presented in the attached tables.

There were 140 duplicate pair analyses for PFAS compounds and 95% were reported within the acceptance target of less than 30 % RPD. There were 224 triplicate pair analyses for PFAS compounds and 89.3 % were reported within the acceptance target of less than 30 % RPD.

The RPD discrepancies observed between several sample pairs in the January/February 2018 groundwater sampling event were attributed to analytical results in one of the samples being either at or marginally above the laboratory reporting limit, and the other below – which magnifies the relative difference between the results.

However, one duplicate pair (samples 064MW01 and QCMW565) reported RPD for a number of analytes above the acceptable target range. Both the primary and inter laboratory duplicate reported results above the nominated screening guidelines and represent the presence of contamination. The RPD exceedances are not considered to affect the interpretation of the data.

The RPD results from the January/February 2018 groundwater sampling were generally considered acceptable and able to be relied on for the report.

2.2.4. Trip Blanks

ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment

below)

1 Was a trip blank collected for each batch of samples?

2 Were the Trip Blanks free of contaminants?

(If no, comment whether the contaminants present are also detected

in the samples and whether they are common laboratory chemicals.)

Comments

Concentrations for all analytes were below the laboratory LOR for all trip blanks and indicated that cross contamination was unlikely to have occurred during sample storage and transport.

Page 19: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

2.2.5. Rinsate Blanks

ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment

below)

1 Were Equipment Rinsates collected and analysed every day?

2 Were the Equipment Rinsates free of contaminants?

(If no, comment whether the contaminants present are also detected

in the samples and whether they are common laboratory chemicals.)

Comments

26 rinsate blanks across the 27 days of sampling were submitted to Eurofins for selected analysis of PFAS. These comprised three days where groundwater sampling was the only sampling undertaken, and 23 days where groundwater sampling was undertaken in conjunction with surface water sampling. Rinsate blank results for these days are provided in the December-January and February-March surface water QAQC reports in this HHRA. Groundwater sampling was undertaken using hydrasleeve sampling and the only non-disposable equipment used included interface probes, water quality meters and Hydrasleeve collar and weights.

Rinsate samples were collected from the field equipment after decontamination. Equipment rinsate samples were collected by pouring laboratory prepared deionised water over the equipment and collecting the ‘rinse’ into sample containers. Concentrations for all analytes were below the laboratory LOR for all rinsate blanks.

The rinsate results indicated that the decontamination procedures were acceptable and it is considered that there is a low potential for cross-contamination to have impacted on the laboratory results.

In summary, the field QC results are considered generally acceptable for the purposes of this investigation.

Field QA/QC was: Satisfactory

Partially Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

2.3. Laboratory Quality Assurance Quality Control

2.3.1. Laboratories

ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment below)

1 Was a NATA registered laboratory used?

2 Did the laboratory perform the requested tests?

3 Were the laboratory methods adopted NATA endorsed?

4 Were the appropriate test procedures followed?

5 Were the reporting limits satisfactory?

6 Was the NATA Seal on the reports?

7 Were the reports signed by an authorised person?

Comments

Page 20: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

Eurofins – Eurofins has been adopted as the primary laboratory for analysis of all matrices. Eurofins is a NATA accredited laboratory (NATA accreditation number 1261) for soil and water for all the analytes requiring analysis.

ALS Environmental – ALS has been adopted as the secondary laboratory for analysis of soil and water samples. ALS is a NATA accredited laboratory (NATA accreditation number 825) for all the analytes requiring analysis.

Precision / Accuracy of the Laboratory Report Satisfactory

Partially Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

2.3.2. Sample Handling

ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment

below)

1 Were the sample holding times met?

2 Were the samples in proper custody between the field and reaching

the laboratory?

3 Were the samples properly and adequately preserved?

This includes keeping the samples chilled, where applicable.

4 Were the samples received by the laboratory in good condition?

Comments

Nil

Sample Handling was: Satisfactory

Partially Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

2.3.3. Laboratory (Method) Blanks

The method blank allows assessment for potential method bias for relevant analytes. A method blank is the component of the analytical signal from each analytical method that is from laboratory equipment (reagents, glassware and analytical instruments etc.). The method blank is determined by the laboratories through running solvents and reagents in exactly the same manner as the samples.

At least one method blank should be run per 20 samples analysed, with a minimum of one method blank per sample batch.

All laboratory method blank results reported concentrations of contaminants below the laboratory reporting limits.

2.3.4. Laboratory Duplicates

To provide an estimate of the analysis method precision and duplicate sample heterogeneity, a sample from the same batch is duplicated and analysed for a targeted analyte.

99.4% of internal laboratory duplicates analysed by Eurofins and ALS were within acceptable limits (<30% RPD).

Page 21: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

2.3.5. Laboratory Control Samples

Laboratory control samples are prepared in the laboratory and comprise either a known analyte concentration within a proven matrix or a control matrix spiked with analytes representative of the target analyte. The laboratory control sample percent recovery is reported along with the primary sample data to assess method accuracy for all targeted analytes.

Laboratory control samples are required to be processed per 20 samples analysed, with a minimum of one laboratory control sample run per batch of samples.

All laboratory control sample analyses were within the acceptable range (>50%).

2.3.6. Matrix Spikes

A matrix spike is undertaken to document the effect of the matrix on the performance of the method used. The matrix spike is the addition of a known analyte concentration to the target matrix prior to extraction or digestion. If a poor percentage recovery of a matrix spike is reported below the expected analytical method performance, the laboratory should investigate the likely cause. If, after investigation, the poor matrix spike remains and is reported to the client, an explanation documenting the limitations of the method for recovery of the target analyte from that particular matrix needs to be provided. If the laboratory control sample recovery is acceptable for the same analyte, this may indicate that it is the matrix causing the poor recovery and not the method.

93.4% matrix spike analyses were within the adopted 70% – 130% acceptability criteria adopted.

2.3.7. Surrogate Recoveries

Surrogate spikes are a means of the laboratory checking that no gross errors have taken place throughout the analysis procedure, causing losses of the target analytes. The laboratory undertakes surrogate spikes by adding a known quantity of compounds with similar properties and behaviour to the target compounds, but which are not expected to be found in field samples.

Surrogate spikes are only appropriate for organic analysis and are added to all samples being analysed prior to the extraction process. A percent recovery is calculated for each surrogate, providing the analytical method accuracy of extraction of the target analytes from samples.

The collated laboratory data for surrogate recoveries reported 295 surrogates (out of a total of 1,771 surrogate analyses undertaken) below the lower recovery limit of 50%. A total of 20 surrogate recoveries were above the adopted upper recovery limit of 150% for PFAS compounds (up to 187%). These discrepancies were for a number of PFAS compounds, but none were for the key PFAS compounds (PFOS, PFOA & PFHxS) indicating that the data set was acceptable for the purposes of supporting the outcomes of the report.

2.3.8. Summary of Internal Laboratory Quality Control

A summary of the internal laboratory quality control results is provided in Table 4 and Table 5.

Table 4: Summary of internal laboratory QC

ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment

below)

1 Were the laboratory blanks/reagents blanks free of contamination?

2 Were the spike recoveries within control limits?

3 Were the RPDs of the laboratory duplicates within control limits?

4 Were the surrogate recoveries within control limits?

Page 22: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

Table 5: Summary of internal laboratory QC results

QC test Total Analyses Number outside of

Acceptable Criteria

% of analyses acceptable

Method Blanks 203 0 100%

Laboratory

Duplicates

311 2 99.4%

Laboratory

Control Samples

203 0 100%

Matrix Spikes 289 19 93.4%

Surrogates 1,771 315 82.2%

Totals 2,777 336 87.9%

The review of the laboratory internal quality control testing undertaken indicated that the overall completeness for the internal laboratory quality control results was 98.2%, which is above the 95% target. Consequently, the data is therefore considered of an acceptable quality to use in the report.

Laboratory internal QA/QC was: Satisfactory

Partially Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

2.4. Summary of January/February 2018 Data Quality Review

In general, the data quality of the January/February 2018 groundwater monitoring event was considered to be acceptable. Minor QC deficiencies (elevated PRDs and internal laboratory discrepancies) were considered unlikely to impact on the outcome of the report.

Page 23: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

HHRA - QAQC

January/February 2018 GME

RPDs

DoD, RAAF Base Tindal

Lab Report Number 585712 585712 581555 581555 582882 582882 582882 582882 581555 581555 581555 EM1801910 582882 EM1802265 581555 EM1801910

Field ID

0990_022025_1

80214

0990_QCMW589_

180214 RPD

0990_MW138_180119

0990_QCMW514_180119 RPD

0990_MW129_180126

0990_QCMW535_180126 RPD

0990_MW114_180127

0990_QCMW539_180127 RPD

0990_MW100_180120

0990_QCMW521_180120 RPD

0990_MW138_18

0119

0990_QCMW515

_180119 RPD

0990_MW129_180126

0990_QCMW536_180126 RPD

0990_MW100_1

80120

0990_QCMW522

_180120 RPD

Sampled Date/Time 14/02/2018 14/02/2018 19/01/2018 19/01/2018 26/01/2018 26/01/2018 27/01/2018 27/01/2018 20/01/2018 20/01/2018 19/01/2018 19/01/2018 26/01/2018 26/01/2018 20/01/2018 20/01/2018

Chem_Group ChemName Units EQL

PFAS Perfluoro-n-octanoic acid (PFOA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0 0.02 0.02 0 9.7 13.0 29 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 0.02 0.01 67 9.7 11.8 20 <0.01 <0.01 0

Perfluoro-n-hexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) 0.09 0.09 0 0.39 0.38 3 60.0 79.0 27 <0.01 <0.01 0 0.1 0.09 11 0.39 0.3 26 60.0 75.6 23 0.1 0.07 35

Perfluoro-n-octane sulfonic acid (PFOS) µg/L 0.01 0.16 0.14 13 1.4 1.4 0 110.0 230.0 71 <0.01 <0.01 0 0.1 0.09 11 1.4 0.94 39 110.0 157.0 35 0.1 0.06 50

Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) 0.02 0.02 0 0.04 0.04 0 11.0 18.0 48 <0.01 <0.01 0 0.01 0.01 0 0.04 0.04 0 11.0 16.1 38 0.01 <0.02 0

Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) µg/L 0.05 (Primary): 0.1 (Interlab) <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 5.7 7.6 29 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.1 0 5.7 3.8 40 <0.05 <0.1 0

Perfluoro-n-decane sulfonic acid (PFDS) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.2 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.2 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0

Perfluoro-n-decanoic acid (PFDA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.2 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.2 0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0

Perfluoro-n-dodecanoic acid (PFDoDA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.2 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.2 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0

Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) 0.02 0.01 67 0.05 0.05 0 9.8 14.0 35 <0.01 <0.01 0 0.01 0.01 0 0.05 0.04 22 9.8 13.0 28 0.01 <0.02 0

Perfluoro-n-heptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) <0.01 <0.01 0 0.02 0.02 0 6.7 9.0 29 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 0.02 <0.02 0 6.7 10.1 40 <0.01 <0.02 0

Perfluoro-n-heptanoic acid (PFHpA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) <0.01 <0.01 0 0.01 0.01 0 6.2 8.8 35 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 0.01 <0.02 0 6.2 8.21 28 <0.01 <0.02 0

Perfluoro-n-hexanoic acid (PFHxA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) 0.01 0.01 0 0.05 0.05 0 32.0 45.0 34 <0.01 <0.01 0 0.01 0.01 0 0.05 0.04 22 32.0 39.0 20 0.01 <0.02 0

Perfluoro-n-nonanoic acid (PFNA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.2 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.2 0.11 0 <0.01 <0.02 0

Perfluorooctan esulfonamide (PFOSA) µg/L 0.05 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.2 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.02 0 <0.2 0.04 0 <0.05 <0.02 0

Perfluoro pentanoic acid (PFPeA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) <0.01 <0.01 0 0.02 0.02 0 8.5 11.0 26 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 0.02 <0.02 0 8.5 10.7 23 <0.01 <0.02 0

Perfluoro-n-tetradecanoic acid (PFTeDA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.05 (Interlab) <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.2 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.2 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.05 0

Perfluoro-n-tridecanoic acid (PFTriDA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.2 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.2 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0

Perfluoro-n-undecanoic acid (PFUnDA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.2 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.2 0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0

2-(N-ethylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide)-ethanol µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.2 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.2 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0

N-Ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid µg/L 0.05 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.2 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.02 0 <0.2 <0.02 0 <0.05 <0.02 0

N-Methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid µg/L 0.05 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.2 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.02 0 <0.2 <0.02 0 <0.05 <0.02 0

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (4:2 FTS) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.05 (Interlab) <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.2 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.2 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.05 0

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (6:2 FTS) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 0.27 0.34 23 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 0.27 0.34 23 <0.05 <0.05 0

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorodecanesulfonic acid (8:2 FTS) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.05 (Interlab) <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 0.37 0.24 43 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 0.37 0.25 39 <0.01 <0.05 0

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorododecanesulfonic acid µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.05 (Interlab) <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.2 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.2 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.05 0

N-Ethylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide (N-EtFOSA) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.2 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.2 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0

N-methylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide (N-MeFOSA) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.2 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.2 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0

N-Me perfluorooctanesulfonamid oethanol ng/mL 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.2 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.2 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0

*RPDs have only been considered where a concentration is greater than 0 times the EQL.

**High RPDs are in bold (Acceptable RPDs for each EQL multiplier range are: 25 (0-10 x EQL); 25 (10-20 x EQL); 10 ( > 20 x EQL) )

***Interlab Duplicates are matched on a per compound basis as methods vary between laboratories. Any methods in the row header relate to those used in the primary laboratory

Page 24: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

HHRA - QAQC

January/February 2018 GME

RPDs

DoD, RAAF Base Tindal

Lab Report Number

Field ID

Sampled Date/Time

Chem_Group ChemName Units EQL

PFAS Perfluoro-n-octanoic acid (PFOA) µg/L 0.01

Perfluoro-n-hexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab)

Perfluoro-n-octane sulfonic acid (PFOS) µg/L 0.01

Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab)

Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) µg/L 0.05 (Primary): 0.1 (Interlab)

Perfluoro-n-decane sulfonic acid (PFDS) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab)

Perfluoro-n-decanoic acid (PFDA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab)

Perfluoro-n-dodecanoic acid (PFDoDA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab)

Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab)

Perfluoro-n-heptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab)

Perfluoro-n-heptanoic acid (PFHpA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab)

Perfluoro-n-hexanoic acid (PFHxA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab)

Perfluoro-n-nonanoic acid (PFNA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab)

Perfluorooctan esulfonamide (PFOSA) µg/L 0.05 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab)

Perfluoro pentanoic acid (PFPeA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab)

Perfluoro-n-tetradecanoic acid (PFTeDA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.05 (Interlab)

Perfluoro-n-tridecanoic acid (PFTriDA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab)

Perfluoro-n-undecanoic acid (PFUnDA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab)

2-(N-ethylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide)-ethanol µg/L 0.05

N-Ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid µg/L 0.05 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab)

N-Methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid µg/L 0.05 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab)

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (4:2 FTS) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.05 (Interlab)

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (6:2 FTS) µg/L 0.05

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorodecanesulfonic acid (8:2 FTS) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.05 (Interlab)

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorododecanesulfonic acid µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.05 (Interlab)

N-Ethylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide (N-EtFOSA) µg/L 0.05

N-methylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide (N-MeFOSA) µg/L 0.05

N-Me perfluorooctanesulfonamid oethanol ng/mL 0.05

*RPDs have only been considered where a concentration is greater than 0 times the EQL.

**High RPDs are in bold (Acceptable RPDs for each EQL multiplier range are: 25 (0-10 x EQL); 25 (10-20 x EQL); 10 ( > 20 x EQL) )

***Interlab Duplicates are matched on a per compound basis as methods vary between laboratories. Any methods in the row header relate to those used in the primary laboratory

582824 EM1802333 583060 EM1802420 583407 EM1802603 583407 EM1802603 585712 EM1803349

0990_077MW03

_NS_180129

0990_QCMW543

_180129 RPD

0990_RN025999

_NS_180130

0990_QCMW550

_180130 RPD

0990_NT0064M

W14_180202

0990_QCMW569

_180202 RPD

0990_064MW01

_180202

0990_QCMW565

_180202 RPD

0990_022025_18

0214

0990_QCMW590_

180214 RPD

29/01/2018 29/01/2018 30/01/2018 30/01/2018 2/02/2018 2/02/2018 2/02/2018 2/02/2018 14/02/2018 14/02/2018

0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 0.22 0.28 24 7.8 12.7 48 <0.01 <0.01 0

0.22 0.2 10 0.05 0.05 0 1.5 1.53 2 18.0 28.9 46 0.09 0.09 0

0.41 0.27 41 0.04 0.03 29 6.5 6.99 7 390.0 307.0 24 0.16 0.08 67

0.03 0.03 0 0.01 <0.02 0 0.25 0.27 8 5.6 8.68 43 0.02 <0.02 0

<0.05 <0.1 0 <0.05 <0.1 0 0.08 <0.1 0 8.8 7.8 12 <0.05 <0.1 0

<0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.2 0.91 128 <0.01 <0.02 0

<0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 0.56 0.56 0 <0.01 <0.02 0

<0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.2 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0

0.02 0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 0.21 0.2 5 2.1 4.4 71 0.02 <0.02 0

0.02 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 0.14 0.2 35 4.0 7.12 56 <0.01 <0.02 0

<0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 0.09 0.1 11 4.6 8.26 57 <0.01 <0.02 0

0.03 0.03 0 0.02 <0.02 0 0.61 0.68 11 9.0 14.0 43 0.01 0.03 100

<0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 2.0 2.81 34 <0.01 <0.02 0

<0.05 <0.02 0 <0.05 <0.02 0 <0.05 <0.02 0 <0.2 0.61 101 <0.05 <0.02 0

0.02 0.06 100 <0.01 0.03 100 0.13 0.14 7 6.8 9.49 33 <0.01 <0.02 0

<0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.2 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.05 0

<0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.2 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0

<0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.2 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0

<0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.2 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0

<0.05 <0.02 0 <0.05 <0.02 0 <0.05 <0.02 0 <0.2 <0.02 0 <0.05 <0.02 0

<0.05 <0.02 0 <0.05 <0.02 0 <0.05 <0.02 0 <0.2 <0.02 0 <0.05 <0.02 0

<0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.2 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.05 0

<0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.2 0.25 22 <0.05 <0.05 0

<0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 25.0 22.1 12 <0.01 <0.05 0

<0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.2 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.05 0

<0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.2 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0

<0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.2 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0<0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0

Page 25: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

HHRA - QAQC

January/February 2018 GME

Blanks

DoD, RAAF Base Tindal

Lab Report 585712 581555 582882 582882 582882 582882 582882 582882 581555 585712

Field ID

0990_QCSS593_180

214

0990_QCMW523_1

801200990_QCMW541_1

80127

0990_QCMW525_1

80125

0990_QCMW526_1

80125

0990_QCMW527_1

80125

0990_QCMW532_1

80126

0990_QCMW538_1

80127

0990_QCMW513_1

801190990_QCMW588_1

80214

Sampled_Date 14/02/2018 20/01/2018 27/01/2018 25/01/2018 25/01/2018 25/01/2018 26/01/2018 27/01/2018 19/01/2018 14/02/2018

Sample Type Rinsate Rinsate Rinsate Trip_B Trip_B Trip_B Trip_B Trip_B Trip_B Trip_B

Chem_Group ChemName Units EQL

PFAS Perfluoro-n-octanoic acid (PFOA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-hexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-octane sulfonic acid (PFOS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

Perfluoro-n-decane sulfonic acid (PFDS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-decanoic acid (PFDA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-dodecanoic acid (PFDoDA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-heptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-heptanoic acid (PFHpA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-hexanoic acid (PFHxA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-nonanoic acid (PFNA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluorooctan esulfonamide (PFOSA) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

Perfluoro pentanoic acid (PFPeA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-tetradecanoic acid (PFTeDA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-tridecanoic acid (PFTriDA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-undecanoic acid (PFUnDA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

2-(N-ethylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide)-ethanol µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

2-(N-methylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide)-ethanol µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

N-Ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

N-Methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (4:2 FTS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (6:2 FTS) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorodecanesulfonic acid (8:2 FTS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorododecanesulfonic acid µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

N-Ethylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide (N-EtFOSA) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

N-methylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide (N-MeFOSA) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

Page 26: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

3. SURFACE WATER (October/November 2017)

3.1. Introduction

This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established for the data to support the October/November 2017 surface water monitoring and then assesses the reliability of the field work procedures and laboratory analytical results using the data quality indicators (DQIs).

3.1.1. Data Quality Objectives

The National Environment Protection Measure (NEPM, Schedule B2 Guideline on Site

Characterisation - 2013) states that the nature and quality of the data collected for a particular

assessment will be determined by the Data Quality Objectives (DQOs). The NEPM and the Australian Standard AS4482.1-2005 reference the US EPA Guidance on Systematic Planning Using the Data

Quality Objectives Process (US EPA, 2006) which defines the DQO process. The US EPA defines

the process as ‘a strategic planning approach based on the Scientific Methods that is used to prepare

for a data collection activity. It provides a systematic procedure for defining the criteria that a data

collection design should satisfy, including when to collect samples, where to collect samples, the

tolerable level of decision errors for the study, and how many samples to collect.’

To define the purpose, type, quantity and quality of data required for the surface water monitoring, the seven step data quality objectives (DQOs) approach, as described in the NEPM 2013, was adopted.

The seven steps of the DQO process for the current RAAF Base PFAS Investigation (relating to this phase of works) are summarised below:

Table 1: Data Quality Objectives

Quality objectives

1. State the Problem

PFAS contamination sources have been identified at RAAF Base Tindal. Previous investigations have identified contaminated soil and groundwater in the vicinity of known source areas. Other potential source areas have had limited (if any) assessment for PFAS contaminant nature and extent. A comprehensive investigation of soils, waters and sediments is proposed through 2017.

The extent of PFAS contamination in groundwater and associated impact in surface water off-Base is not previously well understood. Given the tropical climate of the Tindal/Katherine area, surface water flows and groundwater recharge rates will have a strong seasonal variation.

In order to forecast the future impact of residual contamination, and inform contaminant management strategies, some modelling of contaminant transport behaviour will be required. The modelling will be undertaken following the analysis of data collected during the 2018 wet season.

2. Identify the goal of the study

The purpose of the broader investigation is to understand the nature and extent of PFAS contamination as a result of Defence activities.

The purpose of the October/November 2017 surface water monitoring is to provide sufficient information on the sources of contamination, the contaminant transport conditions, the migration pathways and the current extent of contamination to enable a robust site model to be developed.

The conceptual site model will inform human health and/or ecological risk assessment, and guide effective management strategies.

3. Identify information inputs

• Site history relating use of PFAS contaminant materials, to identify product types and locations where contamination may be emanating from (source areas).

Page 27: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

Quality objectives

• Existing data relevant to PFAS in soil, waters and sediment, to confirm the presence of source areas, indicate the potential extent of contamination, and identify gaps in reliable data.

• Surface water and groundwater flow regimes, to develop the conceptual site model about the potential migration pathways of contamination from source areas towards human and ecological receptors.

• Location and types of human and environmental receptors, to guide selection of relevant screening criteria to reflect plausible exposure routes.

4. Define the boundary of the study

Based on the potential for contaminated surface water or shallow groundwater to migrate west north-west towards Katherine River, the broad study area includes land and waterways on RAAF Base Tindal and the area between the Base and Katherine River. An approximate buffer of 1km across the western side of Katherine River has been included.

5. Develop a decision rule

Primary environmental samples will be collected and analysed by the laboratories for the full suite of PFAS compounds.

Surface water samples

• Relative concentrations identify where residual sources are creating an impact and describe preferential pathways of migration to other areas of the Base, or off-Base.

• Absolute concentrations describe the exposure where direct contact between water and people, plants or animals may occur, which allows an assessment of risk.

• Absolute concentrations can also be related to biota test results to inform an understanding of bioaccumulation, which then relates to assessment of associated human health or ecological risk.

PFOS, PFHxS and PFOA concentrations will be compared against screening levels relevant to the potential beneficial uses of land or water to identify potential complete pathways and potentially unacceptable risks.

The relative concentrations of all (analysed) PFAS compounds in soil and groundwater samples will be used to characterise the source areas, define the lateral and vertical extent and identify complete exposure pathways.

Residual source mass, leachability of the source and measurements of contaminant mass flux will be used to assess the contribution that each identified source area is making to adverse impact on beneficial uses.

6. Specify performance of acceptance criteria

The assessment as a whole (including consideration of previous assessments) must reliably characterise the sources of contamination from the Base and described the risk that the contamination may pose to human or ecological receptors. In order to achieve that, there must be multiple lines of evidence to support location of source areas; the characterisation of the nature and extent of the residual source and associated surface water or ground water impact; the significance of the risk that that contamination currently poses to relevant receptors; and predictions of future impacts.

7. Develop a plan for obtaining the data

The methodology and rationale for obtaining relevant data for is described in the DSI SAQP.

3.1.2. Data Quality Indicators

An assessment of the reliability of field procedures and laboratory analytical results outlined through the DQOs has been undertaking using the DQIs of precision, accuracy, representativeness, completeness and comparability. A brief outline of the DQIs is presented below.

Precision – All Coffey field staff to implement Coffey standard operating procedures (SOPs) appropriate for the task being undertaken. All laboratories used to undertake analysis are NATA accredited for the analytes being tested for. An appropriate number of intra-laboratory and inter-laboratory replicate samples were collected and analysed and are within the acceptable limits of 1 in 20.

Page 28: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

Accuracy – All Coffey staff to follow the appropriate SOPs for the tasks being undertaken. Trip blanks and equipment rinsate blank samples collected and results of which are to be satisfactory. All laboratories used are to be NATA accredited and the use of NATA endorsed methods, including appropriate method blanks, laboratory control samples, laboratory spikes and duplicates, and the results of which satisfy the defined criteria of acceptability.

Representativeness – A sufficient number of samples are to be collected and analysed from each media to adequately achieve the overall DSI objectives.

Completeness – All Coffey staff to follow Coffey SOPs appropriate to the task being performed, along with the appropriate documentation. All identified areas of environmental concern to be assessed with chemical analysis for relevant chemicals of potential concern from targeted and systematic sampling locations. All samples to be under proper custody between the field and laboratory. The data obtained from the laboratory is considered relevant and usable.

Comparability – All Coffey staff to follow the appropriate SOPs for the task being undertaken and complete all sampling documentation. All analyte holding times to be complied with and samples properly and adequately preserved. All laboratory analysis to use the correct methods, along with appropriate limits of reporting (LORs).

The DQIs for the field works and laboratory analysis were established in the SAQP. The established acceptance limits are presented in Table 2 and Table 3.

Table 2: Field Works Quality Control Criteria

Item Comments

Intra-laboratory

duplicates

Inter-laboratory duplicates (triplicates)

Intra-laboratory field duplicates were collected at a minimum frequency of one sample per

twenty samples collected (5%). The analytical results of the primary sample and

duplicate/triplicate samples will be compared to assess the precision of the sampling

protocol and to provide an indication of variation in the sample source.

Repeatability will be assessed by calculating the relative percentage difference (RPD)

between the primary and duplicate results. Where the RPD is greater than 30%, the

potential causes of variability have been reviewed.

Trip blanks Trip blanks are a check on sample contamination originating from containers, sample

transport, shipping and site conditions. The trip blank will be prepared in a clean

environment (office or warehouse) and remain with the sample containers during sampling

and during the return trip to the laboratory. At no time during these procedures will the

blanks be opened. Upon return to the laboratory the blank will be analysed, if needed, as

any other field sample. As PFAS is not volatile, a reduced blank frequency is considered

appropriate and a single trip blank per sample batch will be transported and analysed.

Detectable concentrations of PFAS in a trip blank sample will trigger review of sample

container types, transport procedures and UHP water quality. The concentration and

compound detected will be considered in reviewing the potential impact of transport related

cross-contamination of the assessment data quality.

Rinsate blanks Rinsate samples will be prepared in the field using empty bottles and the distilled

water/potable water used for the cleaning of non-disposable sampling equipment. These

samples will be a check of field decontamination procedures. A rinsate sample will be

collected and analysed for each day of field work, where non-disposable sampling

equipment has been used.

Detectable concentrations of PFAS in a rinsate blank sample will trigger review of

decontamination procedures, equipment materials, sample container types and UHP water

Page 29: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

Item Comments

quality. The concentration and compound detected will be considered in reviewing the

potential impact of transport related cross-contamination of the assessment data quality.

Table 3: Laboratory Quality Control Criteria

Data Type Comments and Acceptable Control Limits

Sample Analysis All sample analyses to be conducted using NATA certified laboratories which will implement a quality control plan in accordance with NEPM (1999).

Holding times Maximum acceptable sample holding times:

Soil: 14 days for organic analyses (including PFAS) and 6 months for inorganic analyses (28 days for mercury).

Groundwater/surface water: 14 days for organic analyses (including PFAS) and 6 months for inorganic analyses (28 days for mercury).

Laboratory detection limits

All laboratory detection limits to be less than the site investigation criteria.

Laboratory Blanks

Laboratory blanks to be analysed at a rate of 1 in 20, with a minimum of one analysed per batch.

Concentration of analytes to be less than the laboratory detection limits.

Laboratory Duplicates

Laboratory duplicates to be analysed at a rate of 1 in 20, with a minimum of one analysed per batch. RPDs to be less than 30%.

Laboratory Control Samples (LCS)

LCSs to be analysed at a rate of 1 in 20, with a minimum of one analysed per analytical batch.

Control limits: 50 to 150 % acceptable recovery

Matrix spikes Matrix spike duplicate prepared by dividing a field sample into two aliquots, then spiking each with identical concentrations of the analytes at a rate of 1 in 20.

Matrix spike control limits:

50–150 % acceptable recovery. Lower recoveries may be acceptable for OCPs, OPPs, PCBs and phenols and will be assessed according to USEPA protocols.

Matrix spike duplicates:

RPDs <50%

Page 30: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

3.2. Field Quality Assurance Quality Control

Field Quality Assurance Procedures

Field quality assurance involves all the planned actions, procedures, checks and decisions which have been made and undertaken through quality control measures to ensure the representativeness and integrity of collected samples is that of the true conditions.

Sample Collection

All Coffey environmental scientists/engineers were suitably qualified, trained and experienced for the sample collection undertaken. Sampling of each matrix was undertaken with reference to the Coffey standard operating procedures (SOPs).

Sampling Methodology

The adopted sampling methods for each media (soil, sediments, groundwater and surface water) is presented in the DSI SAQP.

All samples were collected using a new disposable nitrile glove. Each sample was collected in a laboratory supplied jar or bottle appropriate to the analysis required.

All groundwater samples were collected using disposable bladders and tubing or disposable hydro sleeves.

Each sample was labelled using a unique sample identifier, project reference and date of sample collection, as directed by Defence and documented in the DSI SAQP (754-MELEN199420-R03).

Sample Transport and Preservation

To maintain sample integrity, all samples were placed into laboratory prepared containers suitable for PFAS and other non-PFAS analysis. Samples were immediately placed into an insulated ice chest containing ice, for storage and transportation to the Eurofins and ALS laboratories.

All samples were placed into lip-lock bags according to analysis, separating samples requiring PFAS analysis and samples requiring non-PFAS analysis.

All samples were sent to the laboratories under chain of custody (CoC) documentation.

Field Equipment Calibration

All equipment was calibrated before being used to collect data. All equipment was calibrated in accordance with the manufacturers’ specifications.

3.2.1. Type of Quality Assurance Quality Control (QA/QC) Samples Collected

Primary Samples 35

Days of sampling 6

Field Duplicates (at least 1 in 20 samples) 3 intra lab + 3 inter lab

Trip Blanks (at least 1 per batch) 6

Equipment Rinsate (at least

1/day/matrix/equipment)

7

Page 31: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

3.2.2. Samples Analysed

35 samples were collected and sent to the primary over six days of sampling. Three duplicate samples were collected and submitted for laboratory analysis to the primary laboratory and three triplicate samples were collected and submitted for laboratory analysis to the secondary laboratory.

3.2.3. Inter-Laboratory and Intra-Laboratory Duplicates

ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment

below)

1 Were an Adequate Number of inter-laboratory and inter-laboratory

duplicates analysed for each chemical?

2 Were RPDs within Control Limits?

< 30% for concentrations

Comments

Where RPDs were outside the acceptable range, sampling procedures, laboratory analytical methods and laboratory results were investigated. The results of this review are presented in the attached tables.

There were 84 duplicate pair analyses for PFAS compounds and 98% were reported within the acceptance target of less than 30 % RPD. There were 84 triplicate pair analyses for PFAS compounds and 95 % were reported within the acceptance target of less than 30 % RPD.

The RPD discrepancies observed between several sample pairs in the October/November 2017 surface water monitoring were attributed to analytical results in one of the samples being either at or marginally above the laboratory reporting limit, and the other below – which magnifies the relative difference between the results.

The RPD results from the October/November 2017 surface water monitoring groundwater sampling were generally considered acceptable and able to be relied on for the report.

3.2.4. Trip Blanks

ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment

below)

1 Was a trip blank collected for each batch of samples?

2 Were the Trip Blanks free of contaminants?

(If no, comment whether the contaminants present are also detected

in the samples and whether they are common laboratory chemicals.)

Comments

Concentrations for all analytes were below the laboratory LOR for all trip blanks and indicated that cross contamination was unlikely to have occurred during sample storage and transport.

Page 32: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

3.2.5. Rinsate Blanks

ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment

below)

1 Were Equipment Rinsates collected and analysed every day?

2 Were the Equipment Rinsates free of contaminants?

(If no, comment whether the contaminants present are also detected

in the samples and whether they are common laboratory chemicals.)

Comments

Rinsate samples were collected from the field equipment after decontamination. Equipment rinsate samples were collected by pouring laboratory prepared deionised water over the equipment and collecting the ‘rinse’ into sample containers.

Concentrations for all analytes were below the laboratory LOR for all rinsate blanks, with the exception of one sample (0990_QCSW363_171012), which reported concentrations of PFOS marginally above the LOR (0.02 µg/L). This low detect is not considered to have significantly impacted the analytical results for samples collected on this date.

The rinsate results indicated that the decontamination procedures were acceptable and it is considered that there is a low potential for cross-contamination to have impacted on the laboratory results.

In summary, the field QC results are considered generally acceptable for the purposes of this investigation.

Field QA/QC was: Satisfactory

Partially Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

3.3. Laboratory Quality Assurance Quality Control

3.3.1. Laboratories

ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment below)

1 Was a NATA registered laboratory used?

2 Did the laboratory perform the requested tests?

3 Were the laboratory methods adopted NATA endorsed?

4 Were the appropriate test procedures followed?

5 Were the reporting limits satisfactory?

6 Was the NATA Seal on the reports?

7 Were the reports signed by an authorised person?

Comments

Eurofins – Eurofins has been adopted as the primary laboratory for analysis of all matrices. Eurofins is a NATA accredited laboratory (NATA accreditation number 1261) for soil and water for all the analytes requiring analysis.

Page 33: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

ALS Environmental – ALS has been adopted as the secondary laboratory for analysis of soil and water samples. ALS is a NATA accredited laboratory (NATA accreditation number 825) for all the analytes requiring anaylsis.

Precision / Accuracy of the Laboratory Report Satisfactory

Partially Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

3.3.2. Sample Handling

ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment

below)

1 Were the sample holding times met?

2 Were the samples in proper custody between the field and reaching

the laboratory?

3 Were the samples properly and adequately preserved?

This includes keeping the samples chilled, where applicable.

4 Were the samples received by the laboratory in good condition?

Comments

Nil

Sample Handling was: Satisfactory

Partially Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

3.3.3. Laboratory (Method) Blanks

The method blank allows assessment for potential method bias for relevant analytes. A method blank is the component of the analytical signal from each analytical method that is from laboratory equipment (reagents, glassware and analytical instruments etc.). The method blank is determined by the laboratories through running solvents and reagents in exactly the same manner as the samples.

At least one method blank should be run per 20 samples analysed, with a minimum of one method blank per sample batch.

All laboratory method blank results reported concentrations of contaminants below the laboratory reporting limits.

3.3.4. Laboratory Duplicates

To provide an estimate of the analysis method precision and duplicate sample heterogeneity, a sample from the same batch is duplicated and analysed for a targeted analyte.

99.1% of internal laboratory duplicates analysed by Eurofins and ALS were within acceptable limits (<30% RPD).

Page 34: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

3.3.5. Laboratory Control Samples

Laboratory control samples are prepared in the laboratory and comprise either a known analyte concentration within a proven matrix or a control matrix spiked with analytes representative of the target analyte. The laboratory control sample percent recovery is reported along with the primary sample data to assess method accuracy for all targeted analytes.

Laboratory control samples are required to be processed per 20 samples analysed, with a minimum of one laboratory control sample run per batch of samples.

All laboratory control sample analyses were within the acceptable range (>50%).

3.3.6. Matrix Spikes

A matrix spike is undertaken to document the effect of the matrix on the performance of the method used. The matrix spike is the addition of a known analyte concentration to the target matrix prior to extraction or digestion. If a poor percentage recovery of a matrix spike is reported below the expected analytical method performance, the laboratory should investigate the likely cause. If, after investigation, the poor matrix spike remains and is reported to the client, an explanation documenting the limitations of the method for recovery of the target analyte from that particular matrix needs to be provided. If the laboratory control sample recovery is acceptable for the same analyte, this may indicate that it is the matrix causing the poor recovery and not the method.

97.5% of matrix spike analyses were within the adopted 70% – 130% acceptability criteria adopted.

3.3.7. Surrogate Recoveries

Surrogate spikes are a means of the laboratory checking that no gross errors have taken place throughout the analysis procedure, causing losses of the target analytes. The laboratory undertakes surrogate spikes by adding a known quantity of compounds with similar properties and behaviour to the target compounds, but which are not expected to be found in field samples.

Surrogate spikes are only appropriate for organic analysis and are added to all samples being analysed prior to the extraction process. A percent recovery is calculated for each surrogate, providing the analytical method accuracy of extraction of the target analytes from samples.

The collated laboratory data for surrogate recoveries reported 106 surrogates (out of a total of 667 surrogate analyses undertaken) below the lower recovery limit of 50%. A total of one surrogate recoveries were above the adopted upper recovery limit of 150% for PFAS compounds (170%). These discrepancies were for a number of PFAS compounds, but none were for the key PFAS compounds (PFOS, PFOA & PFHxS) indicating that the data set was acceptable for the purposes of supporting the outcomes of the report.

3.3.8. Summary of Internal Laboratory Quality Control

A summary of the internal laboratory quality control results is provided in Table 4 and Table 5.

Table 4: Summary of internal laboratory QC

ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment

below)

1 Were the laboratory blanks/reagents blanks free of contamination?

2 Were the spike recoveries within control limits?

3 Were the RPDs of the laboratory duplicates within control limits?

4 Were the surrogate recoveries within control limits?

Page 35: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

Table 5: Summary of internal laboratory QC results

QC test Total Analyses Number outside of

Acceptable Criteria

% of analyses acceptable

Method Blanks 128 0 100

Laboratory

Duplicates

202 2 99.1%

Laboratory

Control Samples

127 0 100%

Matrix Spikes 238 6 97.5%

Surrogates 667 107 84%

Totals 1,362 115 91.6%

The review of the laboratory internal quality control testing undertaken indicated that the overall completeness for the internal laboratory quality control results was 91.6%, which is slightly below the 95% target. However, without the surrogate outliers, which were for compounds not considered to be key PFAS compounds, the overall acceptable results would be approximately 99%. Consequently, the data is therefore considered of an acceptable quality to use in the report.

Laboratory internal QA/QC was: Satisfactory

Partially Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

3.4. Summary of October/November 2017 Surface Water Data Quality Review

In general, the data quality of the October/November 2017 surface water monitoring was considered to be acceptable. Minor QC deficiencies (a low detect in a rinsate, duplicate PRDs and internal laboratory discrepancies) were considered unlikely to impact on the outcome of the report.

Page 36: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

HHRA - QAQC

October/November Surface Water Monitoring

RPDs

DoD, RAAF Base Tindal

Lab Report Number 567875 567867 567875 567875 568582 568582 567875 EM1714258 567875 EM1714258 568582 EM1714530

Field ID

0990_SW100_1

71012

0990_QCSW359

_171012 RPD

0990_SW102_1

71012

0990_QCSW361

_171012 RPD

0990_SW150_1

71018

0990_QC373SW

_171018 RPD

0990_SW102_1

71012

0990_QCSW362

_171012 RPD

0990_SW100_1

71012

0990_QCSW360

_171012 RPD

0990_SW150_1

71018

0990_QC374SW

_171018 RPD

Sampled Date/Time 12/10/2017 12/10/2017 12/10/2017 12/10/2017 18/10/2017 18/10/2017 12/10/2017 12/10/2017 12/10/2017 12/10/2017 18/10/2017 18/10/2017

Chem_GroupChemName Units EQL

PFAS Perfluoro-n-octanoic acid (PFOA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 0.01 0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 0.01 <0.01 0

Perfluoro-n-hexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) 0.08 0.08 0 0.07 0.07 0 0.08 0.08 0 0.07 0.08 13 0.08 0.08 0 0.08 0.08 0

Perfluoro-n-octane sulfonic acid (PFOS) µg/L 0.01 0.15 0.15 0 0.13 0.13 0 0.14 0.16 13 0.13 0.11 17 0.15 0.15 0 0.14 0.1 33

Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) 0.02 0.02 0 0.01 0.01 0 0.01 0.01 0 0.01 0.02 67 0.02 0.02 0 0.01 <0.02 0

Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) µg/L 0.05 (Primary): 0.1 (Interlab) <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.1 0 <0.05 <0.1 0 <0.05 <0.1 0

Perfluoro-n-decane sulfonic acid (PFDS) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0

Perfluoro-n-decanoic acid (PFDA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0

Perfluoro-n-dodecanoic acid (PFDoDA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0

Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) 0.02 0.01 67 0.01 0.02 67 0.01 0.01 0 0.01 <0.02 0 0.02 <0.02 0 0.01 <0.02 0

Perfluoro-n-heptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0

Perfluoro-n-heptanoic acid (PFHpA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0

Perfluoro-n-hexanoic acid (PFHxA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) 0.01 0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 0.01 0.01 0 <0.01 0.02 67 0.01 0.03 100 0.01 <0.02 0

Perfluoro-n-nonanoic acid (PFNA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0

Perfluorooctan esulfonamide (PFOSA) µg/L 0.05 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.02 0 <0.05 <0.02 0 <0.05 <0.02 0

Perfluoro pentanoic acid (PFPeA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0

Perfluoro-n-tetradecanoic acid (PFTeDA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.05 (Interlab) <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.05 0

Perfluoro-n-tridecanoic acid (PFTriDA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0

Perfluoro-n-undecanoic acid (PFUnDA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0

2-(N-ethylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide)-ethanol µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0

2-(N-methylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide)-ethanol µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0

N-Ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid µg/L 0.05 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.02 0 <0.05 <0.02 0 <0.05 <0.02 0

N-Methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid µg/L 0.05 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.02 0 <0.05 <0.02 0 <0.05 <0.02 0

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (4:2 FTS) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.05 (Interlab) <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.05 0

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (6:2 FTS) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorodecanesulfonic acid (8:2 FTS) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.05 (Interlab) <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.05 0

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorododecanesulfonic acid µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.05 (Interlab) <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.05 0

N-Ethylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide (N-EtFOSA) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0

N-methylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide (N-MeFOSA) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0

*RPDs have only been considered where a concentration is greater than 0 times the EQL.

**High RPDs are in bold (Acceptable RPDs for each EQL multiplier range are: 25 (0-10 x EQL); 25 (10-20 x EQL); 10 ( > 20 x EQL) )

***Interlab Duplicates are matched on a per compound basis as methods vary between laboratories. Any methods in the row header relate to those used in the primary laboratory

Page 37: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

HHRA - QAQC

October/November Surface Water Monitoring

Blanks

DoD, RAAF Base Tindal

Lab Report 567875 568582 571255 571255 572262 572262 572262 567997 567867 571255 571265 572262 572262

Field ID

0990_QCSW36

3_171012

0990_QC375S

W_171018

0990_QC387_1

71101

0990_QCSW38

9_171101

0990_QCPB40

1_171108

0990_QCPB40

5_171109

0990_QCPB41

5_171110

0990_QC369_1

71013

0990_QCSW36

4_171012

0990_QC383_1

71101

0990_QC396_1

71103

0990_QCPB40

6_171109

0990_QCPB41

6_171110

Sample Date 12/10/2017 18/10/2017 1/11/2017 1/11/2017 8/11/2017 9/11/2017 10/11/2017 13/10/2017 12/10/2017 1/11/2017 3/11/2017 9/11/2017 10/11/2017

Sample Type Rinsate Rinsate Rinsate Rinsate Rinsate Rinsate Rinsate Trip_B Trip_B Trip_B Trip_B Trip_B Trip_B

Chem_Group ChemName Units EQL

PFAS Perfluoro-n-octanoic acid (PFOA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-hexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-octane sulfonic acid (PFOS) µg/L 0.01 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

Perfluoro-n-decane sulfonic acid (PFDS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-decanoic acid (PFDA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-dodecanoic acid (PFDoDA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-heptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-heptanoic acid (PFHpA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-hexanoic acid (PFHxA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-nonanoic acid (PFNA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluorooctan esulfonamide (PFOSA) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

Perfluoro pentanoic acid (PFPeA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-tetradecanoic acid (PFTeDA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-tridecanoic acid (PFTriDA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-undecanoic acid (PFUnDA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

2-(N-ethylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide)-ethanol µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

2-(N-methylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide)-ethanol µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

N-Ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

N-Methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (4:2 FTS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (6:2 FTS) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorodecanesulfonic acid (8:2 FTS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorododecanesulfonic acid µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

N-Ethylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide (N-EtFOSA) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

N-methylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide (N-MeFOSA) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

Page 38: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

4. SURFACE WATER (December 2017/January 2018)

4.1. Introduction

This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established for the data to support the December 2017 and January 2018 surface water monitoring and then assesses the reliability of the field work procedures and laboratory analytical results using the data quality indicators (DQIs).

4.1.1. Data Quality Objectives

The National Environment Protection Measure (NEPM, Schedule B2 Guideline on Site

Characterisation - 2013) states that the nature and quality of the data collected for a particular

assessment will be determined by the Data Quality Objectives (DQOs). The NEPM and the Australian Standard AS4482.1-2005 reference the US EPA Guidance on Systematic Planning Using the Data

Quality Objectives Process (US EPA, 2006) which defines the DQO process. The US EPA defines

the process as ‘a strategic planning approach based on the Scientific Methods that is used to prepare

for a data collection activity. It provides a systematic procedure for defining the criteria that a data

collection design should satisfy, including when to collect samples, where to collect samples, the

tolerable level of decision errors for the study, and how many samples to collect.’

To define the purpose, type, quantity and quality of data required for the surface water monitoring, the seven step data quality objectives (DQOs) approach, as described in the NEPM 2013, was adopted.

The seven steps of the DQO process for the current RAAF Base Tindal PFAS Investigation are summarised below:

Table 1: Data Quality Objectives

Quality objectives

1. State the Problem

PFAS contamination sources have been identified at RAAF Base Tindal. Previous investigations have identified contaminated soil and groundwater in the vicinity of known source areas. Other potential source areas have had limited (if any) assessment for PFAS contaminant nature and extent. A comprehensive investigation of soils, waters and sediments is proposed through 2017.

The extent of PFAS contamination in groundwater and associated impact in surface water off-Base is not previously well understood. Given the tropical climate of the Tindal/Katherine area, surface water flows and groundwater recharge rates will have a strong seasonal variation.

In order to forecast the future impact of residual contamination, and inform contaminant management strategies, some modelling of contaminant transport behaviour will be required. The modelling will be undertaken following the analysis of data collected during the 2018 wet season.

2. Identify the goal of the study

The purpose of the broader investigation is to understand the nature and extent of PFAS contamination as a result of Defence activities.

The purpose of the December 2017 and January 2018 surface water monitoring is to provide sufficient information on the sources of contamination, the contaminant transport conditions, the migration pathways and the current extent of contamination to enable a robust site model to be developed.

The conceptual site model will inform human health and/or ecological risk assessment, and guide effective management strategies.

Page 39: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

Quality objectives

3. Identify information inputs

• Site history relating use of PFAS contaminant materials, to identify product types and locations where contamination may be emanating from (source areas).

• Existing data relevant to PFAS in soil, waters and sediment, to confirm the presence of source areas, indicate the potential extent of contamination, and identify gaps in reliable data.

• Surface water and groundwater flow regimes, to develop the conceptual site model about the potential migration pathways of contamination from source areas towards human and ecological receptors.

• Location and types of human and environmental receptors, to guide selection of relevant screening criteria to reflect plausible exposure routes.

4. Define the boundary of the study

Based on the potential for contaminated surface water or shallow groundwater to migrate west north-west towards Katherine River, the broad study area includes land and waterways on RAAF Base Tindal and the area between the Base and Katherine River. An approximate buffer of 1km across the western side of Katherine River has been included.

5. Develop a decision rule

Primary environmental samples will be collected and analysed by the laboratories for the full suite of PFAS compounds.

Surface water samples

• Relative concentrations identify where residual sources are creating an impact and describe preferential pathways of migration to other areas of the Base, or off-Base.

• Absolute concentrations describe the exposure where direct contact between water and people, plants or animals may occur, which allows an assessment of risk.

• Absolute concentrations can also be related to biota test results to inform an understanding of bioaccumulation, which then relates to assessment of associated human health or ecological risk.

PFOS, PFHxS and PFOA concentrations will be compared against screening levels relevant to the potential beneficial uses of land or water to identify potential complete pathways and potentially unacceptable risks.

The relative concentrations of all (analysed) PFAS compounds in soil and groundwater samples will be used to characterise the source areas, define the lateral and vertical extent and identify complete exposure pathways.

Residual source mass, leachability of the source and measurements of contaminant mass flux will be used to assess the contribution that each identified source area is making to adverse impact on beneficial uses.

6. Specify performance of acceptance criteria

The assessment as a whole (including consideration of previous assessments) must reliably characterise the sources of contamination from the Base and described the risk that the contamination may pose to human or ecological receptors. In order to achieve that, there must be multiple lines of evidence to support location of source areas; the characterisation of the nature and extent of the residual source and associated surface water or ground water impact; the significance of the risk that that contamination currently poses to relevant receptors; and predictions of future impacts.

7. Develop a plan for obtaining the data

The methodology and rationale for obtaining relevant data for is described in the DSI SAQP.

4.1.2. Data Quality Indicators

An assessment of the reliability of field procedures and laboratory analytical results outlined through the DQOs has been undertaking using the DQIs of precision, accuracy, representativeness, completeness and comparability. A brief outline of the DQIs is presented below.

Page 40: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

Precision – All Coffey field staff to implement Coffey standard operating procedures (SOPs) appropriate for the task being undertaken. All laboratories used to undertake analysis are NATA accredited for the analytes being tested for. An appropriate number of intra-laboratory and inter-laboratory replicate samples were collected and analysed and are within the acceptable limits of 1 in 20.

Accuracy – All Coffey staff to follow the appropriate SOPs for the tasks being undertaken. Trip blanks and equipment rinsate blank samples collected and results of which are to be satisfactory. All laboratories used are to be NATA accredited and the use of NATA endorsed methods, including appropriate method blanks, laboratory control samples, laboratory spikes and duplicates, and the results of which satisfy the defined criteria of acceptability.

Representativeness – A sufficient number of samples are to be collected and analysed from each media to adequately achieve the overall DSI objectives.

Completeness – All Coffey staff to follow Coffey SOPs appropriate to the task being performed, along with the appropriate documentation. All identified areas of environmental concern to be assessed with chemical analysis for relevant chemicals of potential concern from targeted and systematic sampling locations. All samples to be under proper custody between the field and laboratory. The data obtained from the laboratory is considered relevant and usable.

Comparability – All Coffey staff to follow the appropriate SOPs for the task being undertaken and complete all sampling documentation. All analyte holding times to be complied with and samples properly and adequately preserved. All laboratory analysis to use the correct methods, along with appropriate limits of reporting (LORs).

The DQIs for the field works and laboratory analysis were established in the SAQP. The established acceptance limits are presented in Table 2 and Table 3.

Table 2: Field Works Quality Control Criteria

Item Comments

Intra-laboratory

duplicates

Inter-laboratory duplicates (triplicates)

Intra-laboratory field duplicates were collected at a minimum frequency of one sample per

twenty samples collected (5%). The analytical results of the primary sample and

duplicate/triplicate samples will be compared to assess the precision of the sampling

protocol and to provide an indication of variation in the sample source.

Repeatability will be assessed by calculating the relative percentage difference (RPD)

between the primary and duplicate results. Where the RPD is greater than 30%, the

potential causes of variability have been reviewed.

Trip blanks Trip blanks are a check on sample contamination originating from containers, sample

transport, shipping and site conditions. The trip blank will be prepared in a clean

environment (office or warehouse) and remain with the sample containers during sampling

and during the return trip to the laboratory. At no time during these procedures will the

blanks be opened. Upon return to the laboratory the blank will be analysed, if needed, as

any other field sample. As PFAS is not volatile, a reduced blank frequency is considered

appropriate and a single trip blank per sample batch will be transported and analysed.

Detectable concentrations of PFAS in a trip blank sample will trigger review of sample

container types, transport procedures and UHP water quality. The concentration and

compound detected will be considered in reviewing the potential impact of transport related

cross-contamination of the assessment data quality.

Rinsate blanks Rinsate samples will be prepared in the field using empty bottles and the distilled

water/potable water used for the cleaning of non-disposable sampling equipment. These

samples will be a check of field decontamination procedures. A rinsate sample will be

Page 41: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

Item Comments

collected and analysed for each day of field work, where non-disposable sampling

equipment has been used.

Detectable concentrations of PFAS in a rinsate blank sample will trigger review of

decontamination procedures, equipment materials, sample container types and UHP water

quality. The concentration and compound detected will be considered in reviewing the

potential impact of transport related cross-contamination of the assessment data quality.

Table 3: Laboratory Quality Control Criteria

Data Type Comments and Acceptable Control Limits

Sample Analysis All sample analyses to be conducted using NATA certified laboratories which will implement a quality control plan in accordance with NEPM (1999).

Holding times Maximum acceptable sample holding times:

Soil: 14 days for organic analyses (including PFAS) and 6 months for inorganic analyses (28 days for mercury).

Groundwater/surface water: 14 days for organic analyses (including PFAS) and 6 months for inorganic analyses (28 days for mercury).

Laboratory detection limits

All laboratory detection limits to be less than the site investigation criteria.

Laboratory Blanks

Laboratory blanks to be analysed at a rate of 1 in 20, with a minimum of one analysed per batch.

Concentration of analytes to be less than the laboratory detection limits.

Laboratory Duplicates

Laboratory duplicates to be analysed at a rate of 1 in 20, with a minimum of one analysed per batch. RPDs to be less than 30%.

Laboratory Control Samples (LCS)

LCSs to be analysed at a rate of 1 in 20, with a minimum of one analysed per analytical batch.

Control limits: 50 to 150 % acceptable recovery

Matrix spikes Matrix spike duplicate prepared by dividing a field sample into two aliquots, then spiking each with identical concentrations of the analytes at a rate of 1 in 20.

Matrix spike control limits:

50–150 % acceptable recovery. Lower recoveries may be acceptable for OCPs, OPPs, PCBs and phenols and will be assessed according to USEPA protocols.

Matrix spike duplicates:

RPDs <50%

Page 42: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

4.2. Field Quality Assurance Quality Control

Field Quality Assurance Procedures

Field quality assurance involves all the planned actions, procedures, checks and decisions which have been made and undertaken through quality control measures to ensure the representativeness and integrity of collected samples is that of the true conditions.

Sample Collection

All Coffey environmental scientists/engineers were suitably qualified, trained and experienced for the sample collection undertaken. Sampling of each matrix was undertaken with reference to the Coffey standard operating procedures (SOPs).

Sampling Methodology

The adopted sampling methods for each media (soil, sediments, groundwater and surface water) is presented in the DSI SAQP.

All samples were collected using a new disposable nitrile glove. Each sample was collected in a laboratory supplied jar or bottle appropriate to the analysis required.

All groundwater samples were collected using disposable bladders and tubing or disposable hydrasleeves.

Each sample was labelled using a unique sample identifier, project reference and date of sample collection, as directed by Defence and documented in the DSI SAQP (754-MELEN199420-R03).

Sample Transport and Preservation

To maintain sample integrity, all samples were placed into laboratory prepared containers suitable for PFAS and other non-PFAS analysis. Samples were immediately placed into an insulated ice chest containing ice, for storage and transportation to the Eurofins and ALS laboratories.

All samples were placed into lip-lock bags according to analysis, separating samples requiring PFAS analysis and samples requiring non-PFAS analysis.

All samples were sent to the laboratories under chain of custody (CoC) documentation.

Field Equipment Calibration

All equipment was calibrated before being used to collect data. All equipment was calibrated in accordance with the manufacturers’ specifications.

4.2.1. Type of Quality Assurance Quality Control (QA/QC) Samples Collected

Primary Samples 35

Days of sampling 11

Field Duplicates (at least 1 in 20 samples) 4 intra lab + 5 inter lab

Trip Blanks (at least 1 per batch) 7

Equipment Rinsate (at least

1/day/matrix/equipment)

6

Page 43: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

4.2.2. Samples Analysed

35 samples were collected and sent to the primary over 11 days of sampling. Four duplicate samples were collected and submitted for laboratory analysis to the primary laboratory and five triplicate samples were collected and submitted for laboratory analysis to the secondary laboratory.

4.2.3. Inter-Laboratory and Intra-Laboratory Duplicates

ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment

below)

1 Were an Adequate Number of inter-laboratory and inter-laboratory

duplicates analysed for each chemical?

2 Were RPDs within Control Limits?

< 30% for concentrations

Comments

Where RPDs were outside the acceptable range, sampling procedures, laboratory analytical methods and laboratory results were investigated.

There were 140 duplicate pair analyses for PFAS compounds and 97.1 % were reported within the acceptance target of less than 30 % RPD. There were 112 triplicate pair analyses for PFAS compounds and 91.1 % were reported within the acceptance target of less than 30 % RPD.

The RPD discrepancies observed between several sample pairs in the December 2017 and January 2018 surface water monitoring were attributed to analytical results in one of the samples being either at or marginally above the laboratory reporting limit, and the other below – which magnifies the relative difference between the results.

However, one duplicate pair (samples SW117 and QCSW516) reported RPD for analytes above the acceptable target range. Duplicate pair (samples SW074 and QCSW529) reported RPD for one analyte above the acceptable target range.

Two triplicate pairs (samples SW120, QCSW520 and SW074 and QCSW530) reported RPD for several analytes above the acceptable target range. One triplicate pair (samples SW117 and QCSW517) reported RPD for one analyte above the acceptable target range.

The RPD results from the February 2018 surface water monitoring were generally considered acceptable and able to be relied on for the report.

4.2.4. Trip Blanks

ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment

below)

1 Was a trip blank collected for each batch of samples?

2 Were the Trip Blanks free of contaminants?

(If no, comment whether the contaminants present are also detected

in the samples and whether they are common laboratory chemicals.)

Page 44: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

Comments

Concentrations for all analytes were below the laboratory LOR for all trip blanks, with the exception of 0990_QCSW533_180126, which reported PFOS concentrations of 0.04 µg/L. This minor detectable concentration is unlikely to indicate that significant cross contamination has occurred during sample storage and transport.

4.2.5. Rinsate Blanks

ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment

below)

1 Were Equipment Rinsates collected and analysed every day?

2 Were the Equipment Rinsates free of contaminants?

(If no, comment whether the contaminants present are also detected

in the samples and whether they are common laboratory chemicals.)

Comments

Rinsate samples were collected from the field equipment after decontamination. Equipment rinsate samples were collected by pouring laboratory prepared deionised water over the equipment and collecting the ‘rinse’ into sample containers.

Concentrations for all analytes were below the laboratory LOR for all rinsate blanks, with the exception of one sample (0990_QCSW537_180126), which reported concentrations of PFAS above the LOR (0.02 µg/L). This low detect is not considered to have significantly impacted the analytical results for samples collected on this date.

The rinsate results indicated that the decontamination procedures were acceptable and it is considered that there is a low potential for cross-contamination to have impacted on the laboratory results.

In summary, the field QC results are considered generally acceptable for the purposes of this investigation.

Field QA/QC was: Satisfactory

Partially Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

4.3. Laboratory Quality Assurance Quality Control

4.3.1. Laboratories

ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment below)

1 Was a NATA registered laboratory used?

2 Did the laboratory perform the requested tests?

3 Were the laboratory methods adopted NATA endorsed?

4 Were the appropriate test procedures followed?

5 Were the reporting limits satisfactory?

6 Was the NATA Seal on the reports?

7 Were the reports signed by an authorised person?

Page 45: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

Comments

Eurofins – Eurofins has been adopted as the primary laboratory for analysis of all matrices. Eurofins is a NATA accredited laboratory (NATA accreditation number 1261) for soil and water for all the analytes requiring analysis.

ALS Environmental – ALS has been adopted as the secondary laboratory for analysis of soil and water samples. ALS is a NATA accredited laboratory (NATA accreditation number 825) for all the analytes requiring analysis.

Precision / Accuracy of the Laboratory Report Satisfactory

Partially Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

4.3.2. Sample Handling

ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment

below)

1 Were the sample holding times met?

2 Were the samples in proper custody between the field and reaching

the laboratory?

3 Were the samples properly and adequately preserved?

This includes keeping the samples chilled, where applicable.

4 Were the samples received by the laboratory in good condition?

Comments

Nil

Sample Handling was: Satisfactory

Partially Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

4.3.3. Laboratory (Method) Blanks

The method blank allows assessment for potential method bias for relevant analytes. A method blank is the component of the analytical signal from each analytical method that is from laboratory equipment (reagents, glassware and analytical instruments etc.). The method blank is determined by the laboratories through running solvents and reagents in exactly the same manner as the samples.

At least one method blank should be run per 20 samples analysed, with a minimum of one method blank per sample batch.

All laboratory method blank results reported concentrations of contaminants below the laboratory reporting limits.

4.3.4. Laboratory Duplicates

To provide an estimate of the analysis method precision and duplicate sample heterogeneity, a sample from the same batch is duplicated and analysed for a targeted analyte.

Page 46: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

99.1% of internal laboratory duplicates analysed by Eurofins and ALS were within acceptable limits (<30% RPD).

4.3.5. Laboratory Control Samples

Laboratory control samples are prepared in the laboratory and comprise either a known analyte concentration within a proven matrix or a control matrix spiked with analytes representative of the target analyte. The laboratory control sample percent recovery is reported along with the primary sample data to assess method accuracy for all targeted analytes.

Laboratory control samples are required to be processed per 20 samples analysed, with a minimum of one laboratory control sample run per batch of samples.

All laboratory control sample analyses were within the acceptable range (>50%).

4.3.6. Matrix Spikes

A matrix spike is undertaken to document the effect of the matrix on the performance of the method used. The matrix spike is the addition of a known analyte concentration to the target matrix prior to extraction or digestion. If a poor percentage recovery of a matrix spike is reported below the expected analytical method performance, the laboratory should investigate the likely cause. If, after investigation, the poor matrix spike remains and is reported to the client, an explanation documenting the limitations of the method for recovery of the target analyte from that particular matrix needs to be provided. If the laboratory control sample recovery is acceptable for the same analyte, this may indicate that it is the matrix causing the poor recovery and not the method.

97.5% of matrix spike analyses were within the adopted 70% – 130% acceptability criteria adopted.

4.3.7. Surrogate Recoveries

Surrogate spikes are a means of the laboratory checking that no gross errors have taken place throughout the analysis procedure, causing losses of the target analytes. The laboratory undertakes surrogate spikes by adding a known quantity of compounds with similar properties and behaviour to the target compounds, but which are not expected to be found in field samples.

Surrogate spikes are only appropriate for organic analysis and are added to all samples being analysed prior to the extraction process. A percent recovery is calculated for each surrogate, providing the analytical method accuracy of extraction of the target analytes from samples.

The collated laboratory data for surrogate recoveries reported 642 surrogates (out of a total of 2,496 surrogate analyses undertaken) below the lower recovery limit of 50%. A total of twenty surrogate recoveries were above the adopted upper recovery limit of 150% for PFAS compounds (up to 188%). These discrepancies were for a number of PFAS compounds, but none were for the key PFAS compounds (PFOS, PFOA & PFHxS) indicating that the data set was acceptable for the purposes of supporting the outcomes of the report.

4.3.8. Summary of Internal Laboratory Quality Control

A summary of the internal laboratory quality control results is provided in Table 4 and Table 5.

Table 4: Summary of internal laboratory QC

ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment

below)

1 Were the laboratory blanks/reagents blanks free of contamination?

2 Were the spike recoveries within control limits?

Page 47: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

3 Were the RPDs of the laboratory duplicates within control limits?

4 Were the surrogate recoveries within control limits?

Table 5: Summary of internal laboratory QC results

QC test Total Analyses Number outside of

Acceptable Criteria

% of analyses

acceptable

Method Blanks 996 0 100

Laboratory Duplicates 699 1 99.9%

Laboratory Control Samples 525 0 100%

Matrix Spikes 738 58 92.2%

Surrogates 2496 662 73.5%

Totals 5454 721 86.8%

The review of the laboratory internal quality control testing undertaken indicated that the overall completeness for the internal laboratory quality control results was 86.8%, which is slightly below the 95% target. However, without the surrogate outliers, which were for compounds not considered to be key PFAS compounds, the overall acceptable results would be approximately 99%. Consequently, the data is therefore considered of an acceptable quality to use in the report.

Laboratory internal QA/QC was: Satisfactory

Partially Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

4.4. Summary of December 2017 and January 2018 Surface Water Data Quality Review

In general, the data quality of December 2017 and January 2018 surface water monitoring was acceptable. minor QC deficiencies (elevated RPDs and internal laboratory discrepancies) were considered unlikely to impact on the outcome of the report.

Page 48: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

HHRA - QAQC

December 2017/January 2018 Surface Water Monitoring

RPDs

DoD, RAAF Base Tindal

Lab Report Number 583425 583425 581624 581624 581624 581624 582547 582547 581624 EM1801914 581624 EM1801914 582547 EM1802265 582547 582547 582547 EM1802265 583425 EM1802556

Field ID

0990_SW109_

180201

0990_QCSW55

8_180201 RPD

0990_SW117_

180119

0990_QCSW51

6_180119 RPD

0990_SW121_

180120

0990_QCSW51

9_180120 RPD

0990_SW074_

180125

0990_QCSW52

9_180125 RPD

0990_SW117_

180119

0990_QCSW51

7_180119 RPD

0990_SW121_

180120

0990_QCSW52

0_180120 RPD

0990_SW074_

180125

0990_QCSW53

0_180125 RPD

0990_SW046_

180126

0990_QCSW533

_180126 RPD

0990_SW046_

180126

0990_QCSW53

4_180126 RPD

0990_SW109_

180201

0990_QCSW55

9_180201 RPD

Sampled Date/Time 1/02/2018 1/02/2018 19/01/2018 19/01/2018 20/01/2018 20/01/2018 25/01/2018 25/01/2018 19/01/2018 19/01/2018 20/01/2018 19/01/2018 25/01/2018 25/01/2018 26/01/2018 26/01/2018 26/01/2018 26/01/2018 1/02/2018 1/02/2018

Chem_Group ChemName Units EQL

PFAS Perfluoro-n-octanoic acid (PFOA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 0.02 0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 0.02 0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0

Perfluoro-n-hexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) <0.01 <0.01 0 0.09 0.09 0 0.23 0.25 8 0.13 0.13 0 0.09 0.07 25 0.23 0.21 9 0.13 0.16 21 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0

Perfluoro-n-octane sulfonic acid (PFOS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0 0.36 0.37 3 0.8 0.77 4 0.2 0.22 10 0.36 0.24 40 0.8 0.54 39 0.2 0.25 22 0.05 0.04 18 0.05 0.06 18 <0.01 <0.01 0

Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) <0.01 <0.01 0 0.01 0.02 67 0.05 0.05 0 0.02 0.02 0 0.01 <0.02 0 0.05 0.03 50 0.02 0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0

Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) µg/L 0.05 (Primary): 0.1 (Interlab) <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.1 0 <0.05 <0.1 0 <0.05 <0.1 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.1 0 <0.05 <0.1 0

Perfluoro-n-decane sulfonic acid (PFDS) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0

Perfluoro-n-decanoic acid (PFDA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0

Perfluoro-n-dodecanoic acid (PFDoDA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0

Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) <0.01 <0.01 0 0.01 0.02 67 0.05 0.05 0 0.02 0.02 0 0.01 <0.02 0 0.05 0.03 50 0.02 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0

Perfluoro-n-heptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 0.02 0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 0.02 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0

Perfluoro-n-heptanoic acid (PFHpA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 0.01 0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0

Perfluoro-n-hexanoic acid (PFHxA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) <0.01 <0.01 0 0.02 0.02 0 0.08 0.08 0 0.03 0.02 40 0.02 <0.02 0 0.08 0.07 13 0.03 0.02 40 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0

Perfluoro-n-nonanoic acid (PFNA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0

Perfluorooctan esulfonamide (PFOSA) µg/L 0.05 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.02 0 <0.05 <0.02 0 <0.05 <0.02 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.02 0 <0.05 <0.02 0

Perfluoro pentanoic acid (PFPeA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) <0.01 <0.01 0 0.01 0.01 0 0.03 0.03 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 0.01 <0.02 0 0.03 0.02 40 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0

Perfluoro-n-tetradecanoic acid (PFTeDA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.05 (Interlab) <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.05 0

Perfluoro-n-tridecanoic acid (PFTriDA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0

Perfluoro-n-undecanoic acid (PFUnDA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0

2-(N-ethylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide)-ethanol µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0

N-Ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid µg/L 0.05 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.02 0 <0.05 <0.02 0 <0.05 <0.02 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.02 0 <0.05 <0.02 0

N-Methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid µg/L 0.05 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.02 0 <0.05 <0.02 0 <0.05 <0.02 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.02 0 <0.05 <0.02 0

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (4:2 FTS) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.05 (Interlab) <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.05 0

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (6:2 FTS) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorodecanesulfonic acid (8:2 FTS) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.05 (Interlab) <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.05 0

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorododecanesulfonic acid µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.05 (Interlab) <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.05 0

N-Ethylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide (N-EtFOSA) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0

N-methylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide (N-MeFOSA) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0

*RPDs have only been considered where a concentration is greater than 0 times the EQL.

**High RPDs are in bold (Acceptable RPDs for each EQL multiplier range are: 25 (0-10 x EQL); 25 (10-20 x EQL); 10 ( > 20 x EQL) )

***Interlab Duplicates are matched on a per compound basis as methods vary between laboratories. Any methods in the row header relate to those used in the primary laboratory

Page 49: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

HHRA - QAQC

December 2017/January 2018 Surface Water Monitoring

Blanks

DoD, RAAF Base Tindal

Lab Report 583059 583425 580918 581624 582547 582547 583059 583425 583425 580918 581624 581624

Field ID

0990_QCSW551_

180130

0990_QCSW560_

180201

0990_QCSW509_

180115

0990_QCSW518_

180120

0990_QCSW531_

180125

0990_QCSW537_

180126

0990_QCSW546_

180130

0990_QCSW552_

180201

0990_QCSW557_

180201

0990_QCSW508_

180115

0990_QCSW512_

180119

0990_QCSW524_

180120

Sample Date 30/01/2018 1/02/2018 15/01/2018 20/01/2018 25/01/2018 26/01/2018 30/01/2018 1/02/2018 1/02/2018 15/01/2018 19/01/2018 20/01/2018

Sample Type Rinsate - pole Rinsate Rinsate - pole Rinsate Rinsate - pole Rinsate - pole Trip_B Trip_B Trip_B Trip_B Trip_B Trip_B

Chem_Group ChemName Units EQL

PFAS Perfluoro-n-octanoic acid (PFOA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-hexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-octane sulfonic acid (PFOS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.21 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

Perfluoro-n-decane sulfonic acid (PFDS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-decanoic acid (PFDA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-dodecanoic acid (PFDoDA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-heptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-heptanoic acid (PFHpA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-hexanoic acid (PFHxA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-nonanoic acid (PFNA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluorooctan esulfonamide (PFOSA) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

Perfluoro pentanoic acid (PFPeA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-tetradecanoic acid (PFTeDA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-tridecanoic acid (PFTriDA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-undecanoic acid (PFUnDA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

2-(N-ethylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide)-ethanol µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

N-Ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

N-Methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (4:2 FTS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (6:2 FTS) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorodecanesulfonic acid (8:2 FTS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.06 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorododecanesulfonic acid µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

N-Ethylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide (N-EtFOSA) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

N-methylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide (N-MeFOSA) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

N-Me perfluorooctanesulfonamid oethanol ng/mL 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

Page 50: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

5. GROUNDWATER (February 2018)

5.1. Introduction

This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established for the data to support the February 2018 surface water monitoring and then assesses the reliability of the field work procedures and laboratory analytical results using the data quality indicators (DQIs).

5.1.1. Data Quality Objectives

The National Environment Protection Measure (NEPM, Schedule B2 Guideline on Site

Characterisation - 2013) states that the nature and quality of the data collected for a particular

assessment will be determined by the Data Quality Objectives (DQOs). The NEPM and the Australian Standard AS4482.1-2005 reference the US EPA Guidance on Systematic Planning Using the Data

Quality Objectives Process (US EPA, 2006) which defines the DQO process. The US EPA defines

the process as ‘a strategic planning approach based on the Scientific Methods that is used to prepare

for a data collection activity. It provides a systematic procedure for defining the criteria that a data

collection design should satisfy, including when to collect samples, where to collect samples, the

tolerable level of decision errors for the study, and how many samples to collect.’

To define the purpose, type, quantity and quality of data required for the surface water monitoring, the seven step data quality objectives (DQOs) approach, as described in the NEPM 2013, was adopted.

The seven steps of the DQO process for the current RAAF Base Tindal PFAS Investigation (relating to these works) are summarised below:

Table 1: Data Quality Objectives

Quality objectives

1. State the Problem

PFAS contamination sources have been identified at RAAF Base Tindal. Previous investigations have identified contaminated soil and groundwater in the vicinity of known source areas. Other potential source areas have had limited (if any) assessment for PFAS contaminant nature and extent. A comprehensive investigation of soils, waters and sediments is proposed through 2017.

The extent of PFAS contamination in groundwater and associated impact in surface water off-Base is not previously well understood. Given the tropical climate of the Tindal/Katherine area, surface water flows and groundwater recharge rates will have a strong seasonal variation.

In order to forecast the future impact of residual contamination, and inform contaminant management strategies, some modelling of contaminant transport behaviour will be required. The modelling will be undertaken following the analysis of data collected during the 2018 wet season.

2. Identify the goal of the study

The purpose of the broader investigation is to understand the nature and extent of PFAS contamination as a result of Defence activities.

The purpose of the February 2018 surface water monitoring is to provide sufficient information on the sources of contamination, the contaminant transport conditions, the migration pathways and the current extent of contamination to enable a robust site model to be developed.

The conceptual site model will inform human health and/or ecological risk assessment, and guide effective management strategies.

3. Identify information inputs

• Site history relating use of PFAS contaminant materials, to identify product types and locations where contamination may be emanating from (source areas).

• Existing data relevant to PFAS in soil, waters and sediment, to confirm the presence of source areas, indicate the potential extent of contamination, and identify gaps in reliable data.

Page 51: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

Quality objectives

• Surface water and groundwater flow regimes, to develop the conceptual site model about the potential migration pathways of contamination from source areas towards human and ecological receptors.

• Location and types of human and environmental receptors, to guide selection of relevant screening criteria to reflect plausible exposure routes.

4. Define the boundary of the study

Based on the potential for contaminated surface water or shallow groundwater to migrate west north-west towards Katherine River, the broad study area includes land and waterways on RAAF Base Tindal and the area between the Base and Katherine River. An approximate buffer of 1km across the western side of Katherine River has been included.

5. Develop a decision rule

Primary environmental samples will be collected and analysed by the laboratories for the full suite of PFAS compounds.

Surface water samples

• Relative concentrations identify where residual sources are creating an impact and describe preferential pathways of migration to other areas of the Base, or off-Base.

• Absolute concentrations describe the exposure where direct contact between water and people, plants or animals may occur, which allows an assessment of risk.

• Absolute concentrations can also be related to biota test results to inform an understanding of bioaccumulation, which then relates to assessment of associated human health or ecological risk.

PFOS, PFHxS and PFOA concentrations will be compared against screening levels relevant to the potential beneficial uses of land or water to identify potential complete pathways and potentially unacceptable risks.

The relative concentrations of all (analysed) PFAS compounds in soil and groundwater samples will be used to characterise the source areas, define the lateral and vertical extent and identify complete exposure pathways.

Residual source mass, leachability of the source and measurements of contaminant mass flux will be used to assess the contribution that each identified source area is making to adverse impact on beneficial uses.

6. Specify performance of acceptance criteria

The assessment as a whole (including consideration of previous assessments) must reliably characterise the sources of contamination from the Base and described the risk that the contamination may pose to human or ecological receptors. In order to achieve that, there must be multiple lines of evidence to support location of source areas; the characterisation of the nature and extent of the residual source and associated surface water or ground water impact; the significance of the risk that that contamination currently poses to relevant receptors; and predictions of future impacts.

7. Develop a plan for obtaining the data

The methodology and rationale for obtaining relevant data for the February and March 2018 surface water monitoring event is described in the DSI SAQP.

5.1.2. Data Quality Indicators

An assessment of the reliability of field procedures and laboratory analytical results outlined through the DQOs has been undertaking using the DQIs of precision, accuracy, representativeness, completeness and comparability. A brief outline of the DQIs is presented below.

Precision – All Coffey field staff to implement Coffey standard operating procedures (SOPs) appropriate for the task being undertaken. All laboratories used to undertake analysis are NATA accredited for the analytes being tested for. An appropriate number of intra-laboratory and inter-laboratory replicate samples were collected and analysed and are within the acceptable limits of 1 in 20.

Accuracy – All Coffey staff to follow the appropriate SOPs for the tasks being undertaken. Trip blanks and equipment rinsate blank samples collected and results of which are to be satisfactory. All

Page 52: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

laboratories used are to be NATA accredited and the use of NATA endorsed methods, including appropriate method blanks, laboratory control samples, laboratory spikes and duplicates, and the results of which satisfy the defined criteria of acceptability.

Representativeness – A sufficient number of samples are to be collected and analysed from each media to adequately achieve the overall DSI objectives.

Completeness – All Coffey staff to follow Coffey SOPs appropriate to the task being performed, along with the appropriate documentation. All identified areas of environmental concern to be assessed with chemical analysis for relevant chemicals of potential concern from targeted and systematic sampling locations. All samples to be under proper custody between the field and laboratory. The data obtained from the laboratory is considered relevant and usable.

Comparability – All Coffey staff to follow the appropriate SOPs for the task being undertaken and complete all sampling documentation. All analyte holding times to be complied with and samples properly and adequately preserved. All laboratory analysis to use the correct methods, along with appropriate limits of reporting (LORs).

The DQIs for the field works and laboratory analysis were established in the SAQP. The established acceptance limits are presented in Table 2 and Table 3.

Table 2: Field Works Quality Control Criteria

Item Comments

Intra-laboratory

duplicates

Inter-laboratory duplicates (triplicates)

Intra-laboratory field duplicates were collected at a minimum frequency of one sample per

twenty samples collected (5%). The analytical results of the primary sample and

duplicate/triplicate samples will be compared to assess the precision of the sampling

protocol and to provide an indication of variation in the sample source.

Repeatability will be assessed by calculating the relative percentage difference (RPD)

between the primary and duplicate results. Where the RPD is greater than 30%, the

potential causes of variability have been reviewed.

Trip blanks Trip blanks are a check on sample contamination originating from containers, sample

transport, shipping and site conditions. The trip blank will be prepared in a clean

environment (office or warehouse) and remain with the sample containers during sampling

and during the return trip to the laboratory. At no time during these procedures will the

blanks be opened. Upon return to the laboratory the blank will be analysed, if needed, as

any other field sample. As PFAS is not volatile, a reduced blank frequency is considered

appropriate and a single trip blank per sample batch will be transported and analysed.

Detectable concentrations of PFAS in a trip blank sample will trigger review of sample

container types, transport procedures and UHP water quality. The concentration and

compound detected will be considered in reviewing the potential impact of transport related

cross-contamination of the assessment data quality.

Rinsate blanks Rinsate samples will be prepared in the field using empty bottles and the distilled

water/potable water used for the cleaning of non-disposable sampling equipment. These

samples will be a check of field decontamination procedures. A rinsate sample will be

collected and analysed for each day of field work, where non-disposable sampling

equipment has been used.

Detectable concentrations of PFAS in a rinsate blank sample will trigger review of

decontamination procedures, equipment materials, sample container types and UHP water

quality. The concentration and compound detected will be considered in reviewing the

potential impact of transport related cross-contamination of the assessment data quality.

Page 53: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

Table 3: Laboratory Quality Control Criteria

Data Type Comments and Acceptable Control Limits

Sample Analysis All sample analyses to be conducted using NATA certified laboratories which will implement a quality control plan in accordance with NEPM (1999).

Holding times Maximum acceptable sample holding times:

Soil: 14 days for organic analyses (including PFAS) and 6 months for inorganic analyses (28 days for mercury).

Groundwater/surface water: 14 days for organic analyses (including PFAS) and 6 months for inorganic analyses (28 days for mercury).

Laboratory detection limits

All laboratory detection limits to be less than the site investigation criteria.

Laboratory Blanks

Laboratory blanks to be analysed at a rate of 1 in 20, with a minimum of one analysed per batch.

Concentration of analytes to be less than the laboratory detection limits.

Laboratory Duplicates

Laboratory duplicates to be analysed at a rate of 1 in 20, with a minimum of one analysed per batch. RPDs to be less than 30%.

Laboratory Control Samples (LCS)

LCSs to be analysed at a rate of 1 in 20, with a minimum of one analysed per analytical batch.

Control limits: 50 to 150 % acceptable recovery

Matrix spikes Matrix spike duplicate prepared by dividing a field sample into two aliquots, then spiking each with identical concentrations of the analytes at a rate of 1 in 20.

Matrix spike control limits:

50–150 % acceptable recovery. Lower recoveries may be acceptable for OCPs, OPPs, PCBs and phenols and will be assessed according to USEPA protocols.

Matrix spike duplicates:

RPDs <50%

Page 54: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

5.2. Field Quality Assurance Quality Control

Field Quality Assurance Procedures

Field quality assurance involves all the planned actions, procedures, checks and decisions which have been made and undertaken through quality control measures to ensure the representativeness and integrity of collected samples is that of the true conditions.

Sample Collection

All Coffey environmental scientists/engineers were suitably qualified, trained and experienced for the sample collection undertaken. Sampling of each matrix was undertaken with reference to the Coffey standard operating procedures (SOPs).

Sampling Methodology

The adopted sampling methods for each media (soil, sediments, groundwater and surface water) is presented in the DSI SAQP.

All samples were collected using a new disposable nitrile glove. Each sample was collected in a laboratory supplied jar or bottle appropriate to the analysis required.

All groundwater samples were collected using disposable bladders and tubing or disposable hydro sleeves.

Each sample was labelled using a unique sample identifier, project reference and date of sample collection, as directed by Defence and documented in the DSI SAQP (754-MELEN199420-R03).

Sample Transport and Preservation

To maintain sample integrity, all samples were placed into laboratory prepared containers suitable for PFAS and other non-PFAS analysis. Samples were immediately placed into an insulated ice chest containing ice, for storage and transportation to the Eurofins and ALS laboratories.

All samples were placed into lip-lock bags according to analysis, separating samples requiring PFAS analysis and samples requiring non-PFAS analysis.

All samples were sent to the laboratories under chain of custody (CoC) documentation.

Field Equipment Calibration

All equipment was calibrated before being used to collect data. All equipment was calibrated in accordance with the manufacturers’ specifications.

5.2.1. Type of Quality Assurance Quality Control (QA/QC) Samples Collected

Primary Samples 39

Days of sampling 4

Field Duplicates (at least 1 in 20 samples) 6 intra lab + 3 inter lab

Trip Blanks (at least 1 per sampling event) 8

Equipment Rinsate (at least

1/day/matrix/equipment)

7

Page 55: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

5.2.2. Samples Analysed

Seventy-Eight samples were collected and sent to the primary laboratory Eurofins Environmental Consulting over five days of sampling. Five duplicate samples were collected and submitted for laboratory analysis to the primary laboratory Eurofins Environmental Consulting. Four triplicate samples were collected and submitted for laboratory analysis to the secondary laboratory Australian Laboratory Services (ALS).

5.2.3. Inter-Laboratory and Intra-Laboratory Duplicates

ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment

below)

1 Were an Adequate Number of inter-laboratory and inter-laboratory

duplicates analysed for each chemical?

2 Were RPDs within Control Limits?

< 30% for concentrations

Comments

Where RPDs were outside the acceptable range, sampling procedures, laboratory analytical methods and laboratory results were investigated.

There were 168 duplicate pair analyses for PFAS compounds and 99.4 % were reported within the acceptance target of less than 30 % RPD. There were 84 triplicate pair analyses for PFAS compounds and 86.9 % were reported within the acceptance target of less than 30 % RPD.

The RPD discrepancies observed between several sample pairs in the February 2018 surface water monitoring results were attributed to analytical results in one of the samples being either at or marginally above the laboratory reporting limit, and the other below – which magnifies the relative difference between the results.

RPD exceedances between primary sample 0990_SW133_180202 and triplicate sample 0990_QCSW567_180202 generally saw the secondary laboratory reporting lower concentrations than the primary sample. Therefore, the more conservative results have been adopted for the assessment.

The RPD results from the February 2018 surface water monitoring were generally considered acceptable and able to be relied on for the report.

5.2.4. Trip Blanks

ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment

below)

1 Was a trip blank collected on each day of sample?

2 Were the Trip Blanks free of contaminants?

(If no, comment whether the contaminants present are also detected

in the samples and whether they are common laboratory chemicals.)

Comments

Concentrations for all analytes were below the laboratory LOR for all trip blanks and indicated that cross contamination was unlikely to have occurred during sample storage and transport.

Page 56: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

5.2.5. Rinsate Blanks

ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment

below)

1 Were Equipment Rinsates collected and analysed every day?

2 Were the Equipment Rinsates free of contaminants?

(If no, comment whether the contaminants present are also detected

in the samples and whether they are common laboratory chemicals.)

Comments

Rinsate samples were collected from the field equipment after decontamination. Equipment rinsate samples were collected by pouring laboratory prepared deionised water over the equipment and collecting the ‘rinse’ into sample containers. Concentrations for all analytes were below the laboratory LOR for all rinsate blanks, with the exception of 0990_QCSW570_180202, which reported detectable concentrations of PFOS and 8:2 FTS.

Generally, the rinsate results indicated that the decontamination procedures were acceptable and it is considered that there is a low potential for cross-contamination to have impacted on the laboratory results.

In summary, the field QC results are considered generally acceptable for the purposes of this investigation.

Field QA/QC was: Satisfactory

Partially Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

5.3. Laboratory Quality Assurance Quality Control

5.3.1. Laboratories

ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment below)

1 Was a NATA registered laboratory used?

2 Did the laboratory perform the requested tests?

3 Were the laboratory methods adopted NATA endorsed?

4 Were the appropriate test procedures followed?

5 Were the reporting limits satisfactory?

6 Was the NATA Seal on the reports?

7 Were the reports signed by an authorised person?

Comments

Eurofins – Eurofins has been adopted as the primary laboratory for analysis of all matrices. Eurofins is a NATA accredited laboratory (NATA accreditation number 1261) for soil and water for all the analytes requiring analysis.

ALS Environmental – ALS has been adopted as the secondary laboratory for analysis of soil and water samples. ALS is a NATA accredited laboratory (NATA accreditation number 825) for all the analytes requiring analysis.

Page 57: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

Precision / Accuracy of the Laboratory Report Satisfactory

Partially Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

5.3.2. Sample Handling

ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment

below)

1 Were the sample holding times met?

2 Were the samples in proper custody between the field and reaching

the laboratory?

3 Were the samples properly and adequately preserved?

This includes keeping the samples chilled, where applicable.

4 Were the samples received by the laboratory in good condition?

Comments

Nil

Sample Handling was: Satisfactory

Partially Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

5.3.3. Laboratory (Method) Blanks

The method blank allows assessment for potential method bias for relevant analytes. A method blank is the component of the analytical signal from each analytical method that is from laboratory equipment (reagents, glassware and analytical instruments etc.). The method blank is determined by the laboratories through running solvents and reagents in exactly the same manner as the samples.

At least one method blank should be run per 20 samples analysed, with a minimum of one method blank per sample batch.

All laboratory method blank results reported concentrations of contaminants below the laboratory reporting limits.

5.3.4. Laboratory Duplicates

To provide an estimate of the analysis method precision and duplicate sample heterogeneity, a sample from the same batch is duplicated and analysed for a targeted analyte.

99.6% of internal laboratory duplicates analysed by Eurofins and ALS were within acceptable limits (<30% RPD).

5.3.5. Laboratory Control Samples

Laboratory control samples are prepared in the laboratory and comprise either a known analyte concentration within a proven matrix or a control matrix spiked with analytes representative of the target analyte. The laboratory control sample percent recovery is reported along with the primary sample data to assess method accuracy for all targeted analytes.

Page 58: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

Laboratory control samples are required to be processed per 20 samples analysed, with a minimum of one laboratory control sample run per batch of samples.

All laboratory control sample analyses were within the acceptable range (>50%).

5.3.6. Matrix Spikes

A matrix spike is undertaken to document the effect of the matrix on the performance of the method used. The matrix spike is the addition of a known analyte concentration to the target matrix prior to extraction or digestion. If a poor percentage recovery of a matrix spike is reported below the expected analytical method performance, the laboratory should investigate the likely cause. If, after investigation, the poor matrix spike remains and is reported to the client, an explanation documenting the limitations of the method for recovery of the target analyte from that particular matrix needs to be provided. If the laboratory control sample recovery is acceptable for the same analyte, this may indicate that it is the matrix causing the poor recovery and not the method.

88.1% of matrix spike analyses were within the adopted 70% – 130% acceptability criteria adopted.

5.3.7. Surrogate Recoveries

Surrogate spikes are a means of the laboratory checking that no gross errors have taken place throughout the analysis procedure, causing losses of the target analytes. The laboratory undertakes surrogate spikes by adding a known quantity of compounds with similar properties and behaviour to the target compounds, but which are not expected to be found in field samples.

Surrogate spikes are only appropriate for organic analysis and are added to all samples being analysed prior to the extraction process. A percent recovery is calculated for each surrogate, providing the analytical method accuracy of extraction of the target analytes from samples.

The collated laboratory data for surrogate recoveries reported 253 surrogates (out of a total of 1,380 surrogate analyses undertaken) below the lower recovery limit of 50%. A total of 25 surrogate recoveries were above the adopted upper recovery limit of 150% for PFAS compounds (up to 197%). These discrepancies were for a number of PFAS compounds, but none were for the key PFAS compounds (PFOS, PFOA & PFHxS) indicating that the data set was acceptable for the purposes of supporting the outcomes of the report.

5.3.8. Summary of Internal Laboratory Quality Control

A summary of the internal laboratory quality control results is provided in Table 4 and Table 5.

Table 4: Summary of internal laboratory QC

ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment

below)

1 Were the laboratory blanks/reagents blanks free of contamination?

2 Were the spike recoveries within control limits?

3 Were the RPDs of the laboratory duplicates within control limits?

4 Were the surrogate recoveries within control limits?

Page 59: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

Table 5: Summary of internal laboratory QC results

QC test Total Analyses Number outside of

Acceptable Criteria

% of analyses acceptable

Method Blanks 168 0 100%

Laboratory

Duplicates

224 1 99.6%

Laboratory

Control Samples

140 0 100%

Matrix Spikes 252 30 88.1%

Surrogates 1380 280 79.7%

Totals 2164 311 85.6%

The review of the laboratory internal quality control testing undertaken indicated that the overall completeness for the internal laboratory quality control results was 85.6%, which is slightly below the 95% target. However, without the surrogate outliers, which were for compounds not considered to be key PFAS compounds, the overall acceptable results would be approximately 99%. Consequently, the data is therefore considered of an acceptable quality to use in the report.

Laboratory internal QA/QC was: Satisfactory

Partially Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

5.4. Summary of February 2018 Surface Water Monitoring Data Quality Review

In general, the data quality of February 2018 surface water monitoring was acceptable. Minor QC deficiencies (elevated RPDs, a detect in a rinsate and internal laboratory discrepancies) were considered unlikely to impact on the outcome of the report.

Page 60: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

HHRA - QAQC

February Surface Water Monitoring

RPDs

DoD, RAAF Base Tindal

Lab Report Number 583398 583398 583425 583425 584157 584157 584157 584157 585791 585791 587068 587068 583425 EM1802556 583398 EM1802601 585791 EM1803420

Field ID

0990_SW133_

180202

0990_QCSW5

66_180202 RPD

0990_SW109_

180201

0990_QCSW5

58_180201 RPD

0990_SW112_

180206

0990_QCSW5

74_180206 RPD

0990_SW100_

180207

0990_QCSW5

78_180207 RPD

0990_SW031_

180216

0990_QCSW5

95_180216 RPD

0990_PB043_

180226

0990_QCSW6

17_180226 RPD

0990_SW109_

180201

0990_QCSW5

59_180201 RPD

0990_SW133_

180202

0990_QCSW5

67_180202 RPD

0990_SW031_

180216

0990_QCSW5

96_180216 RPD

Sampled Date/Time 2/02/2018 2/02/2018 1/02/2018 1/02/2018 6/02/2018 6/02/2018 7/02/2018 7/02/2018 16/02/2018 16/02/2018 26/02/2018 26/02/2018 1/02/2018 1/02/2018 2/02/2018 2/02/2018 16/02/2018 16/02/2018

Chem_Group ChemName Units EQL

PFAS Perfluoro-n-octanoic acid (PFOA) µg/L 0.01 190.0 210.0 10 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 190.0 176.0 8 <0.01 <0.01 0

Perfluoro-n-hexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) 160.0 160.0 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 0.02 0.01 67 0.04 0.04 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 160.0 117.0 31 0.02 0.02 0

Perfluoro-n-octane sulfonic acid (PFOS) µg/L 0.01 610.0 740.0 19 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 0.05 0.04 22 0.03 0.03 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 610.0 593.0 3 0.05 0.02 86

Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) 11.0 13.0 17 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 11.0 7.96 32 <0.01 <0.02 0

Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) µg/L 0.05 (Primary): 0.1 (Interlab) 46.0 50.0 8 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.1 0 46.0 31.4 38 <0.05 <0.1 0

Perfluoro-n-decane sulfonic acid (PFDS) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) <0.2 <0.2 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.2 2.75 173 <0.01 <0.02 0

Perfluoro-n-decanoic acid (PFDA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) 5.3 5.8 9 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 5.3 4.35 20 <0.01 <0.02 0

Perfluoro-n-dodecanoic acid (PFDoDA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) <0.2 <0.2 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.2 0.13 0 <0.01 <0.02 0

Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) 16.0 16.0 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 16.0 13.0 21 <0.01 <0.02 0

Perfluoro-n-heptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) 43.0 52.0 19 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 43.0 30.1 35 <0.01 <0.02 0

Perfluoro-n-heptanoic acid (PFHpA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) 190.0 170.0 11 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 190.0 137.0 32 <0.01 <0.02 0

Perfluoro-n-hexanoic acid (PFHxA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) 390.0 410.0 5 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 0.02 0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 390.0 390.0 0 <0.01 <0.02 0

Perfluoro-n-nonanoic acid (PFNA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) 41.0 43.0 5 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 41.0 28.2 37 <0.01 <0.02 0

Perfluorooctan esulfonamide (PFOSA) µg/L 0.05 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) 3.3 3.3 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.02 0 3.3 2.17 41 <0.05 <0.02 0

Perfluoro pentanoic acid (PFPeA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) 110.0 110.0 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 110.0 68.0 47 <0.01 <0.02 0

Perfluoro-n-tetradecanoic acid (PFTeDA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.05 (Interlab) <0.2 <0.2 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.2 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.05 0

Perfluoro-n-tridecanoic acid (PFTriDA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) <0.2 <0.2 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.2 0.04 0 <0.01 <0.02 0

Perfluoro-n-undecanoic acid (PFUnDA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) 0.34 0.42 21 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 0.34 0.34 0 <0.01 <0.02 0

2-(N-ethylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide)-ethanol µg/L 0.05 <0.2 <0.2 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.2 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0

N-Ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid µg/L 0.05 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) <0.2 <0.2 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.02 0 <0.2 <0.02 0 <0.05 <0.02 0

N-Methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid µg/L 0.05 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) <0.2 <0.2 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.02 0 <0.2 <0.02 0 <0.05 <0.02 0

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (4:2 FTS) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.05 (Interlab) <0.2 <0.2 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.2 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.05 0

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (6:2 FTS) µg/L 0.05 81.0 89.0 9 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 81.0 75.9 7 <0.05 <0.05 0

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorodecanesulfonic acid (8:2 FTS) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.05 (Interlab) 53.0 63.0 17 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 53.0 33.4 45 <0.01 <0.05 0

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorododecanesulfonic acid µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.05 (Interlab) <0.2 <0.2 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.2 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.05 0

N-Ethylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide (N-EtFOSA) µg/L 0.05 <0.2 <0.2 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.2 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0

N-methylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide (N-MeFOSA) µg/L 0.05 <0.2 <0.2 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.2 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0

N-Me perfluorooctanesulfonamid oethanol ng/mL 0.05 <0.2 <0.2 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.2 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0

*RPDs have only been considered where a concentration is greater than 0 times the EQL.

**High RPDs are in bold (Acceptable RPDs for each EQL multiplier range are: 25 (0-10 x EQL); 25 (10-20 x EQL); 10 ( > 20 x EQL) )

***Interlab Duplicates are matched on a per compound basis as methods vary between laboratories. Any methods in the row header relate to those used in the primary laboratory

Page 61: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

HHRA - QAQC

February Surface Water Monitoring

Blanks

DoD, RAAF Base Tindal

Lab Report 583398 583425 584157 584157 585791 587068 587068 583398 583398 583425 583425 584157 584157 585791 587068

Field ID

0990_QCSW570

_180202

0990_QCSW560

_180201

0990_QCSW576

_180206

0990_QCSW580

_180207

0990_QCSW597

_180216

0990_QCSW614

_180223

0990_QCSW616

_180223

0990_QCSW561

_180202

0990_QCSW571

_180202

0990_QCSW552

_180201

0990_QCSW557

_180201

0990_QCSW573

_180206

0990_QCSW577

_180207

0990_QCSW594

_180216

0990_QCSW615

_180223

Sample Date 2/02/2018 1/02/2018 6/02/2018 7/02/2018 16/02/2018 23/02/2018 23/02/2018 2/02/2018 2/02/2018 1/02/2018 1/02/2018 6/02/2018 7/02/2018 16/02/2018 23/02/2018

Sample Type Rinsate - pole Rinsate Rinsate - pole Rinsate Rinsate Rinsate Rinsate Trip_B Trip_B Trip_B Trip_B Trip_B Trip_B Trip_B Trip_B

Chem_Group ChemName Units EQL

PFAS Perfluoro-n-octanoic acid (PFOA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-hexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-octane sulfonic acid (PFOS) µg/L 0.01 0.18 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

Perfluoro-n-decane sulfonic acid (PFDS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-decanoic acid (PFDA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-dodecanoic acid (PFDoDA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-heptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-heptanoic acid (PFHpA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-hexanoic acid (PFHxA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-nonanoic acid (PFNA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluorooctan esulfonamide (PFOSA) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

Perfluoro pentanoic acid (PFPeA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-tetradecanoic acid (PFTeDA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-tridecanoic acid (PFTriDA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-undecanoic acid (PFUnDA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

2-(N-ethylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide)-ethanol µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

N-Ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

N-Methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (4:2 FTS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (6:2 FTS) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorodecanesulfonic acid (8:2 FTS) µg/L 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorododecanesulfonic acid µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

N-Ethylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide (N-EtFOSA) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

N-methylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide (N-MeFOSA) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

PFAS in Serum ExtendedN-Me perfluorooctanesulfonamid oethanol ng/mL 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

Page 62: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

6. Katherine Town Council Soils (March 2018)

6.1. Introduction

This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established for the data to support the soil sampling of Katherine Town Council parks and open spaces in March 2018 and then assesses the reliability of the field work procedures and laboratory analytical results using the data quality indicators (DQIs).

6.1.1. Data Quality Objectives

The National Environment Protection Measure (NEPM, Schedule B2 Guideline on Site

Characterisation - 2013) states that the nature and quality of the data collected for a particular

assessment will be determined by the Data Quality Objectives (DQOs). The NEPM and the Australian Standard AS4482.1-2005 reference the US EPA Guidance on Systematic Planning Using the Data

Quality Objectives Process (US EPA, 2006) which defines the DQO process. The US EPA defines

the process as ‘a strategic planning approach based on the Scientific Methods that is used to prepare

for a data collection activity. It provides a systematic procedure for defining the criteria that a data

collection design should satisfy, including when to collect samples, where to collect samples, the

tolerable level of decision errors for the study, and how many samples to collect.’

To define the purpose, type, quantity and quality of data required for the March 2018 soil sampling of Katherine Town Council soils, the seven step data quality objectives (DQOs) approach, as described in the NEPM 2013, was adopted.

The seven steps of the DQO process for the current RAAF Base Tindal PFAS Investigation are summarised below:

Table 1: Data Quality Objectives

Quality objectives

1. State the Problem

PFAS contamination sources have been identified at RAAF Base Tindal. Previous investigations have identified contaminated soil and groundwater in the vicinity of known source areas. Other potential source areas have had limited (if any) assessment for PFAS contaminant nature and extent. A comprehensive investigation of soils, waters and sediments is proposed through 2017.

The extent of PFAS contamination in groundwater and associated impact in surface water off-Base is not previously well understood. Given the tropical climate of the Tindal/Katherine area, surface water flows and groundwater recharge rates will have a strong seasonal variation.

In order to forecast the future impact of residual contamination, and inform contaminant management strategies, some modelling of contaminant transport behaviour will be required. The modelling will be undertaken following the analysis of data collected during the 2018 wet season.

2. Identify the goal of the study

The purpose of the broader investigation is to understand the nature and extent of PFAS contamination as a result of Defence activities.

The purpose of the sampling of soils from Katherine Town Council owned open spaces is to provide sufficient information on the sources of contamination, the contaminant transport conditions, the migration pathways and the current extent of contamination to enable a robust site model to be developed.

The conceptual site model will inform human health and/or ecological risk assessment, and guide effective management strategies.

3. Identify information inputs

Page 63: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

Quality objectives

• Site history relating use of PFAS contaminant materials, to identify product types and locations where contamination may be emanating from (source areas).

• Existing data relevant to PFAS in soil, waters and sediment, to confirm the presence of source areas, indicate the potential extent of contamination, and identify gaps in reliable data.

• Surface water and groundwater flow regimes, to develop the conceptual site model about the potential migration pathways of contamination from source areas towards human and ecological receptors.

• Location and types of human and environmental receptors, to guide selection of relevant screening criteria to reflect plausible exposure routes.

• Location of Katherine Town Council open spaces (parks, reserves and sports grounds) which are irrigated by bore water potentially containing PFAS.

4. Define the boundary of the study

Based on the potential for contaminated surface water or shallow groundwater to migrate west north-west towards Katherine River, the broad study area includes land and waterways on RAAF Base Tindal and the area between the Base and Katherine River. An approximate buffer of 1km across the western side of Katherine River has been included.

5. Develop a decision rule

Primary environmental samples will be collected and analysed by the laboratories for the full suite of PFAS compounds.

Soil samples

• Relative concentrations and leaching analysis provides information about potential ongoing sources of contamination to surface water and groundwater.

• Absolute concentrations describe direct exposure potential where people, plants or animals may be in contact with soil and allow an assessment of risk.

6. Specify performance of acceptance criteria

The assessment as a whole (including consideration of previous assessments) must reliably characterise the sources of contamination from the Base and described the risk that the contamination may pose to human or ecological receptors. In order to achieve that, there must be multiple lines of evidence to support location of source areas; the characterisation of the nature and extent of the residual source and associated surface water or ground water impact; the significance of the risk that that contamination currently poses to relevant receptors; and predictions of future impacts.

7. Develop a plan for obtaining the data

The sampling methodology and rationale for obtaining relevant data is described in the DSI SAQP soil sampling section.

6.1.2. Data Quality Indicators

An assessment of the reliability of field procedures and laboratory analytical results outlined through the DQOs has been undertaking using the DQIs of precision, accuracy, representativeness, completeness and comparability. A brief outline of the DQIs is presented below.

Precision – All Coffey field staff to implement Coffey standard operating procedures (SOPs) appropriate for the task being undertaken. All laboratories used to undertake analysis are NATA accredited for the analytes being tested for. An appropriate number of intra-laboratory and inter-laboratory replicate samples were collected and analysed and are within the acceptable limits of 1 in 20.

Accuracy – All Coffey staff to follow the appropriate SOPs for the tasks being undertaken. Trip blanks and equipment rinsate blank samples collected and results of which are to be satisfactory. All laboratories used are to be NATA accredited and the use of NATA endorsed methods, including

Page 64: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

appropriate method blanks, laboratory control samples, laboratory spikes and duplicates, and the results of which satisfy the defined criteria of acceptability.

Representativeness – A sufficient number of samples are to be collected and analysed from each media to adequately achieve the overall DSI objectives.

Completeness – All Coffey staff to follow Coffey SOPs appropriate to the task being performed, along with the appropriate documentation. All identified areas of environmental concern to be assessed with chemical analysis for relevant chemicals of potential concern from targeted and systematic sampling locations. All samples to be under proper custody between the field and laboratory. The data obtained from the laboratory is considered relevant and usable.

Comparability – All Coffey staff to follow the appropriate SOPs for the task being undertaken and complete all sampling documentation. All analyte holding times to be complied with and samples properly and adequately preserved. All laboratory analysis to use the correct methods, along with appropriate limits of reporting (LORs).

The DQIs for the field works and laboratory analysis were established in the SAQP. The established acceptance limits are presented in Table 2 and Table 3.

Table 2: Field Works Quality Control Criteria

Item Comments

Intra-laboratory

duplicates

Inter-laboratory duplicates (triplicates)

Intra-laboratory field duplicates were collected at a minimum frequency of one sample per

twenty samples collected (5%). The analytical results of the primary sample and

duplicate/triplicate samples will be compared to assess the precision of the sampling

protocol and to provide an indication of variation in the sample source.

Repeatability will be assessed by calculating the relative percentage difference (RPD)

between the primary and duplicate results. Where the RPD is greater than 30%, the

potential causes of variability has been reviewed.

Trip blanks Trip blanks are a check on sample contamination originating from containers, sample

transport, shipping and site conditions. The trip blank will be prepared in a clean

environment (office or warehouse) and remain with the sample containers during sampling

and during the return trip to the laboratory. At no time during these procedures will the

blanks be opened. Upon return to the laboratory the blank will be analysed, if needed, as

any other field sample. As PFAS is not volatile, a reduced blank frequency is considered

appropriate and a single trip blank per sample batch will be transported and analysed.

Detectable concentrations of PFAS in a trip blank sample will trigger review of sample

container types, transport procedures and UHP water quality. The concentration and

compound detected will be considered in reviewing the potential impact of transport related

cross-contamination of the assessment data quality.

Rinsate blanks Rinsate samples will be prepared in the field using empty bottles and the distilled

water/potable water used for the cleaning of non-disposable sampling equipment. These

samples will be a check of field decontamination procedures. A rinsate sample will be

collected and analysed for each day of field work, where non-disposable sampling

equipment has been used.

Detectable concentrations of PFAS in a rinsate blank sample will trigger review of

decontamination procedures, equipment materials, sample container types and UHP water

quality. The concentration and compound detected will be considered in reviewing the

potential impact of transport related cross-contamination of the assessment data quality.

Table 3: Laboratory Quality Control Criteria

Page 65: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

Data Type Comments and Acceptable Control Limits

Sample Analysis All sample analyses to be conducted using NATA certified laboratories which will implement a quality control plan in accordance with NEPM (1999).

Holding times Maximum acceptable sample holding times:

Soil: 14 days for organic analyses (including PFAS) and 6 months for inorganic analyses (28 days for mercury).

Groundwater/surface water: 14 days for organic analyses (including PFAS) and 6 months for inorganic analyses (28 days for mercury).

Laboratory detection limits

All laboratory detection limits to be less than the site investigation criteria.

Laboratory Blanks

Laboratory blanks to be analysed at a rate of 1 in 20, with a minimum of one analysed per batch.

Concentration of analytes to be less than the laboratory detection limits.

Laboratory Duplicates

Laboratory duplicates to be analysed at a rate of 1 in 20, with a minimum of one analysed per batch. RPDs to be less than 30%.

Laboratory Control Samples (LCS)

LCSs to be analysed at a rate of 1 in 20, with a minimum of one analysed per analytical batch.

Control limits: 50 to 150 % acceptable recovery

Matrix spikes Matrix spike duplicate prepared by dividing a field sample into two aliquots, then spiking each with identical concentrations of the analytes at a rate of 1 in 20.

Matrix spike control limits:

50–150 % acceptable recovery. Lower recoveries may be acceptable for OCPs, OPPs, PCBs and phenols and will be assessed according to USEPA protocols.

Matrix spike duplicates:

RPDs <50%

Page 66: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

6.2. Field Quality Assurance Quality Control

Field Quality Assurance Procedures

Field quality assurance involves all the planned actions, procedures, checks and decisions which have been made and undertaken through quality control measures to ensure the representativeness and integrity of collected samples is that of the true conditions.

Sample Collection

All Coffey environmental scientists/engineers were suitably qualified, trained and experienced for the sample collection undertaken. Sampling of each matrix was undertaken with reference to the Coffey standard operating procedures (SOPs).

Sampling Methodology

The adopted sampling methods for each media (soil, sediments, groundwater and surface water) is presented in the DSI SAQP.

All samples were collected using a new disposable nitrile glove. Each sample was collected in a laboratory supplied jar or bottle appropriate to the analysis required.

Each sample was labelled using a unique sample identifier, project reference and date of sample collection, as directed by Defence and documented in the DSI SAQP (754-MELEN199420-R03).

Sample Transport and Preservation

To maintain sample integrity, all samples were placed into laboratory prepared containers suitable for PFAS and other non-PFAS analysis. Samples were immediately placed into an insulated ice chest containing ice, for storage and transportation to the Eurofins and ALS laboratories.

All samples were sent to the laboratories under chain of custody (CoC) documentation.

Field Equipment Calibration

All equipment was calibrated before being used to collect data. All equipment was calibrated in accordance with the manufacturers’ specifications.

6.2.1. Type of Quality Assurance Quality Control (QA/QC) Samples Collected

Primary Samples 64

Days of sampling 4

Field Duplicates (at least 1 in 20 samples) 7 intra lab + 7 inter lab

Trip Blanks (at least 1 per sampling event) 4

Equipment Rinsate (at least

1/day/matrix/equipment)

4

6.2.2. Samples Analysed

Sixty-four primary samples were collected and sent to the primary laboratory (Eurofins) over four days of sampling. Seven duplicate samples were collected and submitted for laboratory analysis to the

Page 67: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

primary laboratory. Seven triplicate samples were collected and submitted for laboratory analysis to the secondary laboratory (ALS).

6.2.3. Inter-Laboratory and Intra-Laboratory Duplicates

ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment

below)

1 Were an Adequate Number of inter-laboratory and inter-laboratory

duplicates analysed for each chemical?

2 Were RPDs within Control Limits?

< 30% for concentrations

Comments

Where RPDs were outside the acceptable range, sampling procedures, laboratory analytical methods and laboratory results were investigated. The results of this review are presented in the attached tables.

There were 98 duplicate pair analyses for PFAS compounds and 97 % were reported within the acceptance target of less than 30 % RPD. There were 98 triplicate pair analyses for PFAS compounds and 96 % were reported within the acceptance target of less than 30 % RPD.

The RPD discrepancies observed between several sample pairs are likely attributed to sample heterogeneity.

6.2.4. Trip Blanks

ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment

below)

1 Was a trip blank collected for each batch of samples?

2 Were the Trip Blanks free of contaminants?

(If no, comment whether the contaminants present are also detected

in the samples and whether they are common laboratory chemicals.)

Comments

Concentrations for all analytes were below the laboratory LOR for all trip blanks and indicated that cross contamination was unlikely to have occurred during sample storage and transport.

6.2.5. Rinsate Blanks

ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment

below)

1 Were Equipment Rinsates collected and analysed every day?

2 Were the Equipment Rinsates free of contaminants?

(If no, comment whether the contaminants present are also detected

in the samples and whether they are common laboratory chemicals.)

Page 68: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

Comments

Concentrations for all analytes were below the laboratory LOR for all rinsate blanks and indicated that cross contamination was unlikely to have occurred during sampling.

In summary, the field QC results are considered generally acceptable for the purposes of this investigation.

Field QA/QC was: Satisfactory

Partially Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

6.3. Laboratory Quality Assurance Quality Control

6.3.1. Laboratories

ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment below)

1 Was a NATA registered laboratory used?

2 Did the laboratory perform the requested tests?

3 Were the laboratory methods adopted NATA endorsed?

4 Were the appropriate test procedures followed?

5 Were the reporting limits satisfactory?

6 Was the NATA Seal on the reports?

7 Were the reports signed by an authorised person?

Comments

Eurofins – Eurofins has been adopted as the primary laboratory for analysis of all matrices. Eurofins is a NATA accredited laboratory (NATA accreditation number 1261) for soil and water for all the analytes requiring analysis.

ALS Environmental – ALS has been adopted as the secondary laboratory for analysis of soil and water samples. ALS is a NATA accredited laboratory (NATA accreditation number 825) for all the analytes requiring anaylsis.

Precision / Accuracy of the Laboratory Report Satisfactory

Partially Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

Page 69: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

6.3.2. Sample Handling

ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment

below)

1 Were the sample holding times met?

2 Were the samples in proper custody between the field and reaching

the laboratory?

3 Were the samples properly and adequately preserved?

This includes keeping the samples chilled, where applicable.

4 Were the samples received by the laboratory in good condition?

Comments

Nil

Sample Handling was: Satisfactory

Partially Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

6.3.3. Laboratory (Method) Blanks

The method blank allows assessment for potential method bias for relevant analytes. A method blank is the component of the analytical signal from each analytical method that is from laboratory equipment (reagents, glassware and analytical instruments etc.). The method blank is determined by the laboratories through running solvents and reagents in exactly the same manner as the samples.

At least one method blank should be run per 20 samples analysed, with a minimum of one method blank per sample batch.

All laboratory method blank results reported concentrations of contaminants below the laboratory reporting limits.

6.3.4. Laboratory Duplicates

To provide an estimate of the analysis method precision and duplicate sample heterogeneity, a sample from the same batch is duplicated and analysed for a targeted analyte.

All internal laboratory duplicates were within acceptable limits (<30% RPD).

6.3.5. Laboratory Control Samples

Laboratory control samples are prepared in the laboratory and comprise either a known analyte concentration within a proven matrix or a control matrix spiked with analytes representative of the target analyte. The laboratory control sample percent recovery is reported along with the primary sample data to assess method accuracy for all targeted analytes.

Laboratory control samples are required to be processed per 20 samples analysed, with a minimum of one laboratory control sample run per batch of samples.

All laboratory control sample analyses were within the acceptable range (>50%), with the exception of one soil result, which was marginally above these limits. 99% of LCS results were within acceptable limits.

Page 70: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

6.3.6. Matrix Spikes

A matrix spike is undertaken to document the effect of the matrix on the performance of the method used. The matrix spike is the addition of a known analyte concentration to the target matrix prior to extraction or digestion. If a poor percentage recovery of a matrix spike is reported below the expected analytical method performance, the laboratory should investigate the likely cause. If, after investigation, the poor matrix spike remains and is reported to the client, an explanation documenting the limitations of the method for recovery of the target analyte from that particular matrix needs to be provided. If the laboratory control sample recovery is acceptable for the same analyte, this may indicate that it is the matrix causing the poor recovery and not the method.

All matrix spike analyses were within the adopted 70% – 130% acceptability criteria adopted, with the exception of four soil results, which were marginally above these limits. 97% of matrix spike results were within acceptable limits.

6.3.7. Surrogate Recoveries

Surrogate spikes are a means of the laboratory checking that no gross errors have taken place throughout the analysis procedure, causing losses of the target analytes. The laboratory undertakes surrogate spikes by adding a known quantity of compounds with similar properties and behaviour to the target compounds, but which are not expected to be found in field samples.

Surrogate spikes are only appropriate for organic analysis and are added to all samples being analysed prior to the extraction process. A percent recovery is calculated for each surrogate, providing the analytical method accuracy of extraction of the target analytes from samples.

The collated laboratory data for surrogate recoveries reported 6 surrogates (out of a total of 1,817 surrogate analyses undertaken) below the lower recovery limit of 50%. A total of 64 surrogate recoveries were above the adopted upper recovery limit of 150% for PFAS compounds (ranging up to 199%). These discrepancies were for a number of PFAS compounds, but none were for the key PFAS compounds (PFOS, PFOA & PFHxS) indicating that the data set was acceptable for the purposes of supporting the outcomes of the report.

6.3.8. Summary of Internal Laboratory Quality Control

A summary of the internal laboratory quality control results is provided in Table 4 and Table 5.

Table 4: Summary of internal laboratory QC

ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment

below)

1 Were the laboratory blanks/reagents blanks free of contamination?

2 Were the spike recoveries within control limits?

3 Were the RPDs of the laboratory duplicates within control limits?

4 Were the surrogate recoveries within control limits?

Page 71: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

Table 5: Summary of internal laboratory QC results

QC test Total Analyses Number outside of

Acceptable Criteria

% of analyses acceptable

Method Blanks 168 0 100%

Laboratory

Duplicates

341 0 100%

Laboratory

Control Samples

168 1 99.4%

Matrix Spikes 140 4 97.1%

Surrogates 1,817 70 96.2%

Totals 2,634 75 97.2%

The review of the laboratory internal quality control testing undertaken indicated that the overall completeness for the internal laboratory quality control results was 97.2%, which is above the 95% target. Consequently, the data is therefore considered of an acceptable quality to use in the report.

Laboratory internal QA/QC was: Satisfactory

Partially Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

6.4. Summary of March 2018 Katherine Town Council Soil Data Quality Review

In general, the data quality of the Katherine Town Council soil sampling event was considered to be acceptable. Minor QC deficiencies (elevated RPDs for some duplicate results and internal laboratory discrepancies) were considered unlikely to impact on the outcome of the report.

Page 72: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

HHRA - QAQC

Surface Soil Sampling (March 2018)

RPDs

DoD, RAAF Base Tindal

Lab Report Number 590896 590896 590896 590896 591037 591037 591037 591037 591342 591342 591342 591342 591342 591342 591342 EB1808421 591342 EB1808421

Field ID

0990_SS230_0

.0_180321

0990_QCSS674

_180321 RPD

0990_SS235_

0.0_180321

0990_QCSS684

_180321 RPD

0990_SS240_

0.0_180322

0990_QCSS702

_180322 RPD

0990_SS238_

0.0_180322

0990_QCSS70

4_180322 RPD

0990_SS252_

0.0_180323

0990_QCSS70

8_180323 RPD

0990_SS258_

0.0_180323

0990_QCSS7

10_180323 RPD

0990_SS250_

0.0_180324

0990_QCSS7

14_180324 RPD

0990_SS252_

0.0_180323

0990_QCSS7

09_190323 RPD

0990_SS258_

0.0_180323

0990_QCSS7

11_180323 RPD

Sampled Date/Time 21/03/2018 21/03/2018 21/03/2018 21/03/2018 22/03/2018 22/03/2018 22/03/2018 22/03/2018 23/03/2018 23/03/2018 23/03/2018 23/03/2018 24/03/2018 24/03/2018 23/03/2018 23/03/2018 23/03/2018 23/03/2018

Method_Type ChemName Units EQL

Organic Perfluoro-n-octanoic acid (PFOA) µg/kg 5 (Primary): 0.2 (Interlab) <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 0.3 0

Perfluoro-n-hexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) µg/kg 5 (Primary): 0.2 (Interlab) <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 0.5 0 <5.0 0.8 0

Perfluoro-n-octane sulfonic acid (PFOS) µg/kg 5 (Primary): 0.2 (Interlab) <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 5.4 8 16.0 10.0 46 8.5 <5.0 52 13.0 14.0 7 29.0 <5.0 141 8.5 3.6 81 13.0 9.9 27

Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) µg/kg 5 (Primary): 0.2 (Interlab) <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0

Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) µg/kg 5 (Primary): 1 (Interlab) <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <1.0 0 <5.0 <1.0 0

Perfluoro-n-decane sulfonic acid (PFDS) µg/kg 5 (Primary): 0.2 (Interlab) <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0

Perfluoro-n-decanoic acid (PFDA) µg/kg 5 (Primary): 0.2 (Interlab) <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0

Perfluoro-n-dodecanoic acid (PFDoDA) µg/kg 5 (Primary): 0.2 (Interlab) <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0

Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS) µg/kg 5 (Primary): 0.2 (Interlab) <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0

Perfluoro-n-heptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS) µg/kg 5 (Primary): 0.2 (Interlab) <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0

Perfluoro-n-heptanoic acid (PFHpA) µg/kg 5 (Primary): 0.2 (Interlab) <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 0.2 0

Perfluoro-n-hexanoic acid (PFHxA) µg/kg 5 (Primary): 0.2 (Interlab) <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 0.4 0

Perfluoro-n-nonanoic acid (PFNA) µg/kg 5 (Primary): 0.2 (Interlab) <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0

Perfluorooctan esulfonamide (PFOSA) µg/kg 5 (Primary): 0.2 (Interlab) <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0

Perfluoro pentanoic acid (PFPeA) µg/kg 5 (Primary): 0.2 (Interlab) <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0

Perfluoro-n-tetradecanoic acid (PFTeDA) µg/kg 5 (Primary): 0.5 (Interlab) <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <0.5 0 <5.0 <0.5 0

Perfluoro-n-tridecanoic acid (PFTriDA) µg/kg 5 (Primary): 0.2 (Interlab) <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0

Perfluoro-n-undecanoic acid (PFUnDA) µg/kg 5 (Primary): 0.2 (Interlab) <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0

2-(N-ethylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide)-ethanol µg/kg 5 (Primary): 0.5 (Interlab) <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <0.5 0 <5.0 <0.5 0

N-Ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid µg/kg 10 (Primary): 0.2 (Interlab) <10.0 <10.0 0 <10.0 <10.0 0 <10.0 <10.0 0 <10.0 <10.0 0 <10.0 <10.0 0 <10.0 <10.0 0 <10.0 <10.0 0 <10.0 <0.2 0 <10.0 <0.2 0

N-Methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid µg/kg 10 (Primary): 0.2 (Interlab) <10.0 <10.0 0 <10.0 <10.0 0 <10.0 <10.0 0 <10.0 <10.0 0 <10.0 <10.0 0 <10.0 <10.0 0 <10.0 <10.0 0 <10.0 <0.2 0 <10.0 <0.2 0

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (4:2 FTS) µg/kg 5 (Primary): 0.5 (Interlab) <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <0.5 0 <5.0 <0.5 0

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (6:2 FTS) µg/kg 10 (Primary): 0.5 (Interlab) <10.0 <10.0 0 <10.0 <10.0 0 <10.0 <10.0 0 <10.0 <10.0 0 <10.0 <10.0 0 <10.0 <10.0 0 <10.0 <10.0 0 <10.0 <0.5 0 <10.0 <0.5 0

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorodecanesulfonic acid (8:2 FTS) µg/kg 5 (Primary): 0.5 (Interlab) <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <0.5 0 <5.0 <0.5 0

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorododecanesulfonic acid µg/kg 5 (Primary): 0.5 (Interlab) <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <0.5 0 <5.0 <0.5 0

N-Ethylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide (N-EtFOSA) µg/kg 5 (Primary): 0.5 (Interlab) <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <0.5 0 <5.0 <0.5 0

N-methylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide (N-MeFOSA) µg/kg 5 (Primary): 0.5 (Interlab) <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <0.5 0 <5.0 <0.5 0

N-Me perfluorooctanesulfonamid oethanol µg/kg 5 (Primary): 0.5 (Interlab) <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <0.5 0 <5.0 <0.5 0

*RPDs have only been considered where a concentration is greater than 0 times the EQL.

**High RPDs are in bold (Acceptable RPDs for each EQL multiplier range are: 25 (0-10 x EQL); 25 (10-20 x EQL); 10 ( > 20 x EQL) )

***Interlab Duplicates are matched on a per compound basis as methods vary between laboratories. Any methods in the row header relate to those used in the primary laboratory

Page 73: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

HHRA - QAQC

Surface Soil Sampling (March 2018)

RPDs

DoD, RAAF Base Tindal

Lab Report Number

Field ID

Sampled Date/Time

Method_Type ChemName Units EQL

Organic Perfluoro-n-octanoic acid (PFOA) µg/kg 5 (Primary): 0.2 (Interlab)

Perfluoro-n-hexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) µg/kg 5 (Primary): 0.2 (Interlab)

Perfluoro-n-octane sulfonic acid (PFOS) µg/kg 5 (Primary): 0.2 (Interlab)

Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) µg/kg 5 (Primary): 0.2 (Interlab)

Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) µg/kg 5 (Primary): 1 (Interlab)

Perfluoro-n-decane sulfonic acid (PFDS) µg/kg 5 (Primary): 0.2 (Interlab)

Perfluoro-n-decanoic acid (PFDA) µg/kg 5 (Primary): 0.2 (Interlab)

Perfluoro-n-dodecanoic acid (PFDoDA) µg/kg 5 (Primary): 0.2 (Interlab)

Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS) µg/kg 5 (Primary): 0.2 (Interlab)

Perfluoro-n-heptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS) µg/kg 5 (Primary): 0.2 (Interlab)

Perfluoro-n-heptanoic acid (PFHpA) µg/kg 5 (Primary): 0.2 (Interlab)

Perfluoro-n-hexanoic acid (PFHxA) µg/kg 5 (Primary): 0.2 (Interlab)

Perfluoro-n-nonanoic acid (PFNA) µg/kg 5 (Primary): 0.2 (Interlab)

Perfluorooctan esulfonamide (PFOSA) µg/kg 5 (Primary): 0.2 (Interlab)

Perfluoro pentanoic acid (PFPeA) µg/kg 5 (Primary): 0.2 (Interlab)

Perfluoro-n-tetradecanoic acid (PFTeDA) µg/kg 5 (Primary): 0.5 (Interlab)

Perfluoro-n-tridecanoic acid (PFTriDA) µg/kg 5 (Primary): 0.2 (Interlab)

Perfluoro-n-undecanoic acid (PFUnDA) µg/kg 5 (Primary): 0.2 (Interlab)

2-(N-ethylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide)-ethanol µg/kg 5 (Primary): 0.5 (Interlab)

N-Ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid µg/kg 10 (Primary): 0.2 (Interlab)

N-Methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid µg/kg 10 (Primary): 0.2 (Interlab)

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (4:2 FTS) µg/kg 5 (Primary): 0.5 (Interlab)

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (6:2 FTS) µg/kg 10 (Primary): 0.5 (Interlab)

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorodecanesulfonic acid (8:2 FTS) µg/kg 5 (Primary): 0.5 (Interlab)

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorododecanesulfonic acid µg/kg 5 (Primary): 0.5 (Interlab)

N-Ethylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide (N-EtFOSA) µg/kg 5 (Primary): 0.5 (Interlab)

N-methylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide (N-MeFOSA) µg/kg 5 (Primary): 0.5 (Interlab)

N-Me perfluorooctanesulfonamid oethanol µg/kg 5 (Primary): 0.5 (Interlab)

*RPDs have only been considered where a concentration is greater than 0 times the EQL.

**High RPDs are in bold (Acceptable RPDs for each EQL multiplier range are: 25 (0-10 x EQL); 25 (10-20 x EQL); 10 ( > 20 x EQL) )

***Interlab Duplicates are matched on a per compound basis as methods vary between laboratories. Any methods in the row header relate to those used in the primary laboratory

591342 EB1808421 590896 EM1805227 590896 EM1805227 591037 EM1805311 591037 EM1805311

0990_SS250_

0.0_180324

0990_QCSS7

15_180324 RPD

0990_SS230_

0.0_180321

0990_QCSS6

75_180321 RPD

0990_SS235_

0.0_180321

0990_QCSS6

85_180321 RPD

0990_SS240_

0.0_180322

QCSS703_1

80322 RPD

0990_SS238_

0.0_180322

QCSS705_1

80322 RPD

24/03/2018 24/03/2018 21/03/2018 21/03/2018 21/03/2018 21/03/2018 22/03/2018 22/03/2018 22/03/2018 22/03/2018

<5.0 0.3 0 <5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 0.3 0

<5.0 0.6 0 <5.0 0.4 0 <5.0 0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 2.4 0

29.0 8.5 109 <5.0 1.3 0 <5.0 1.0 0 <5.0 3.0 0 16.0 10.0 46

<5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0

<5.0 <1.0 0 <5.0 <1.0 0 <5.0 <1.0 0 <5.0 <1.0 0 <5.0 <1.0 0

<5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0

<5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0

<5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0

<5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0

<5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 0.4 0

<5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0

<5.0 0.6 0 <5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 0.5 0

<5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0

<5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0

<5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0

<5.0 <0.5 0 <5.0 <0.5 0 <5.0 <0.5 0 <5.0 <0.5 0 <5.0 <0.5 0

<5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0

<5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0

<5.0 <0.5 0 <5.0 <0.5 0 <5.0 <0.5 0 <5.0 <0.5 0 <5.0 <0.5 0

<10.0 <0.2 0 <10.0 <0.2 0 <10.0 <0.2 0 <10.0 <0.2 0 <10.0 <0.2 0

<10.0 <0.2 0 <10.0 <0.2 0 <10.0 <0.2 0 <10.0 <0.2 0 <10.0 <0.2 0

<5.0 <0.5 0 <5.0 <0.5 0 <5.0 <0.5 0 <5.0 <0.5 0 <5.0 <0.5 0

<10.0 <0.5 0 <10.0 <0.5 0 <10.0 <0.5 0 <10.0 <0.5 0 <10.0 <0.5 0

<5.0 <0.5 0 <5.0 <0.5 0 <5.0 <0.5 0 <5.0 <0.5 0 <5.0 <0.5 0

<5.0 <0.5 0 <5.0 <0.5 0 <5.0 <0.5 0 <5.0 <0.5 0 <5.0 <0.5 0

<5.0 <0.5 0 <5.0 <0.5 0 <5.0 <0.5 0 <5.0 <0.5 0 <5.0 <0.5 0

<5.0 <0.5 0 <5.0 <0.5 0 <5.0 <0.5 0 <5.0 <0.5 0 <5.0 <0.5 0

<5.0 <0.5 0 <5.0 <0.5 0 <5.0 <0.5 0 <5.0 <0.5 0 <5.0 <0.5 0

Page 74: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

HHRA - QAQC

Surface Soil Sampling (March 2018)

Blanks

DoD, RAAF Base Tindal

Lab Report 590896 591037 591342 591342 590896 591037 591342 591342

Field ID

0990_QCSS676_

180321

0990_QCSS701_

180322

0990_QCSS707_

180323

0990_QCSS713_

180324

0990_QCSS673_

180321

0990_QCSS700_1

80322

0990_QCSS706_1

80323

0990_QCSS712_

180324

Sample_Date 21/03/2018 22/03/2018 23/03/2018 24/03/2018 21/03/2018 22/03/2018 23/03/2018 24/03/2018

Sample Type Rinsate Rinsate - auger Rinsate - auger Rinsate - auger Trip_B Trip_B Trip_B Trip_B

Method_Type ChemName Units EQL

Organic Perfluoro-n-octanoic acid (PFOA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-hexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-octane sulfonic acid (PFOS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

Perfluoro-n-decane sulfonic acid (PFDS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-decanoic acid (PFDA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-dodecanoic acid (PFDoDA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-heptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-heptanoic acid (PFHpA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-hexanoic acid (PFHxA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-nonanoic acid (PFNA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluorooctan esulfonamide (PFOSA) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

Perfluoro pentanoic acid (PFPeA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-tetradecanoic acid (PFTeDA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-tridecanoic acid (PFTriDA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-undecanoic acid (PFUnDA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

2-(N-ethylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide)-ethanol µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

N-Ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

N-Methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (4:2 FTS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (6:2 FTS) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorodecanesulfonic acid (8:2 FTS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorododecanesulfonic acid µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

N-Ethylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide (N-EtFOSA) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

N-methylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide (N-MeFOSA) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

N-Me perfluorooctanesulfonamid oethanol ng/mL 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

Page 75: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

7. RESIDENTIAL PRODUCE

7.1. Introduction

This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established for the data to support residential produce sampling and then assesses the reliability of the field work procedures and laboratory analytical results using the data quality indicators (DQIs).

The produce sampling included in this dataset comprises the following:

• Eggs

• Fruit

• Vegetables

• Soil

• Trough water

7.1.1. Data Quality Objectives

The National Environment Protection Measure (NEPM, Schedule B2 Guideline on Site

Characterisation - 2013) states that the nature and quality of the data collected for a particular

assessment will be determined by the Data Quality Objectives (DQOs). The NEPM and the Australian Standard AS4482.1-2005 reference the US EPA Guidance on Systematic Planning Using the Data

Quality Objectives Process (US EPA, 2006) which defines the DQO process. The US EPA defines

the process as ‘a strategic planning approach based on the Scientific Methods that is used to prepare

for a data collection activity. It provides a systematic procedure for defining the criteria that a data

collection design should satisfy, including when to collect samples, where to collect samples, the

tolerable level of decision errors for the study, and how many samples to collect.’

To define the purpose, type, quantity and quality of data required for the residential produce sampling, the seven step data quality objectives (DQOs) approach, as described in the NEPM 2013, was adopted.

The seven steps of the DQO process for the current RAAF Base RAAF Base Tindal Investigation relating to these works are summarised below:

Table 1: Data Quality Objectives

Quality objectives

1. State the Problem

PFAS contamination sources have been identified at RAAF Base Tindal and investigations to date have

identified contaminated soil and groundwater in the vicinity of known source areas. The nature and extent of

PFAS contamination to offsite areas within the Environmental Investigation Area (EIA) has identified PFAS in

groundwater, surface waters, sediment, animal biota (whole fish) and animal products (chicken and duck

eggs). The Interim HHRA will rely on PFAS concentrations either measured or estimated at the POE. The

identified areas where PFAS concentrations in media is not known or the CSM requires further refinement

includes:

• Data on PFAS contamination in locally sourced aquatic and terrestrial foods is limited.

Page 76: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

Quality objectives

• Due to time constraints, the PFAS content in seasonal food products will be restricted to foods

available in the dry season for the interim HHRA, however wet season produce will be included in the

comprehensive HHRA.

• Given the tropical climate of the Tindal/Katherine area, surface water flows and groundwater recharge

rates will have a strong seasonal variations that are likely to influence PFAS concentrations in

groundwater, surface water, sediments, food sources and receptor behaviours and exposures.

2. Identify the goal of the study

The purpose of the broader investigation is to understand the nature and extent of PFAS contamination as a result of Defence activities.

The purpose of the comprehensive HHRA investigation is to understand the nature and extent of PFAS

contamination in media at the POE within the EIA where identified populations may be exposed.

The comprehensive HHRA will rely on specific information that may be area or receptor specific, therefore data

collected from household surveys and other relevant sources is essential.

3. Identify information inputs

• Recent and ongoing investigations DSI will provide:

o CSM information relating to the site history, sources and use of PFAS contaminant

materials, and determine the nature and extent of contamination in soil, waters and

sediment.

o Surface water and groundwater flow regimes, to develop the conceptual site model

about the potential migration pathways of contamination from source areas towards

human and ecological receptors.

o Preliminary data relating to PFAS contamination of local foods.

o Relevant screening criteria, where established, to reflect plausible exposure routes.

o Desktop and household survey information relating to groundwater and surface water

usage and receptor identification.

• Exposure inputs relating to:

o PFAS concentrations in locally sourced food, both aquatic and terrestrial, and blood

serum of livestock. PFAS concentrations in related media (such as garden/crop soils)

associated with local foods, recreational, domestic and irrigation activities.

o Surveys of

Dietary intakes of locally sourced foods

Extracted groundwater usage

Behaviours relating to recreational, domestic and irrigation waters.

• Toxicity inputs relating to:

o Background exposures

o Transfer factors

4. Define the boundary of the study

Based on the potential for contaminated surface water or shallow groundwater to migrate west north-west towards Katherine River, the broad study area includes land and waterways on RAAF Base Tindal and the

Page 77: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

Quality objectives

area between the Base and Katherine River. An approximate buffer of 1km across the western side of Katherine River has been included.

5. Develop a decision rule

Primary environmental samples will be collected and analysed by the laboratories for the full suite of PFAS compounds.

Soil samples

• Absolute concentrations describe direct exposure potential where people, plants or animals may be in

contact with soil and allow an assessment of risk.

• Paired results (with edible plant biota) will be used to calculate nominal bio-concentration factors.

Plant produce samples

• Absolute concentrations to evaluate the exposure where ingestion of locally grown plants may occur,

to allow the quantitative assessment of health risk.

• Absolute concentrations can also be related to biota test results to inform an understanding of

bioaccumulation, which then relates to assessment of associated human health or ecological risk.

Animal produce samples

• Absolute concentrations to evaluate the exposure where ingestion of locally sourced animal products

(such as eggs, milk or cheese) may occur, to allow the quantitative assessment of health risk.

Dietary and food preparation

• Relative estimation of foods ingested relating to frequency, preparation and intake to allow the quantitative assessment of human health risk.

PFOS, PFHxS and PFOA concentrations will be compared against Tier 1 screening levels relevant to the potentially complete exposure pathways to identify which pathways require a Tier 1 quantitative evaluation.

Data set for POE will be sufficient to allow statistical analysis if required.

6. Specify performance of acceptance criteria

The assessment as a whole (including consideration of previous assessments) must reliably characterise the sources of contamination from the Base and described the risk that the contamination may pose to human or ecological receptors. In order to achieve that, there must be multiple lines of evidence to support location of source areas; the characterisation of the nature and extent of the residual source and associated surface water or ground water impact; the significance of the risk that that contamination currently poses to relevant receptors; and predictions of future impacts.

The HHRA assessment as a whole must reliably characterise the contaminant concentrations at the point of exposure, either via direct measurement or calculation, to quantify the potential intake and associated risk to human receptors within the EIA.

As consistent with NEPM and enHealth guidance, the uncertainties associated with each step in the risk assessment process, particularly site conditions, human exposure and chemical toxicity, will be discussed in terms of the variability in the assumptions and associated influence on the estimates of risk

7. Develop a plan for obtaining the data

The methodology and rationale for obtaining relevant data for the is described in the HHRA SAQP.

Page 78: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

7.1.2. Data Quality Indicators

An assessment of the reliability of field procedures and laboratory analytical results outlined through the DQOs has been undertaking using the DQIs of precision, accuracy, representativeness, completeness and comparability. A brief outline of the DQIs is presented below.

Precision – All Coffey field staff to implement Coffey standard operating procedures (SOPs) appropriate for the task being undertaken. All laboratories used to undertake analysis are NATA accredited for the analytes being tested for. An appropriate number of intra-laboratory and inter-laboratory replicate samples were collected and analysed and are within the acceptable limits of 1 in 20.

Accuracy – All Coffey staff to follow the appropriate SOPs for the tasks being undertaken. Trip blanks and equipment rinsate blank samples collected and results of which are to be satisfactory. All laboratories used are to be NATA accredited and the use of NATA endorsed methods, including appropriate method blanks, laboratory control samples, laboratory spikes and duplicates, and the results of which satisfy the defined criteria of acceptability.

Representativeness – A sufficient number of samples are to be collected and analysed from each media to adequately achieve the overall DSI objectives.

Completeness – All Coffey staff to follow Coffey SOPs appropriate to the task being performed, along with the appropriate documentation. All identified areas of environmental concern to be assessed with chemical analysis for relevant chemicals of potential concern from targeted and systematic sampling locations. All samples to be under proper custody between the field and laboratory. The data obtained from the laboratory is considered relevant and usable.

Comparability – All Coffey staff to follow the appropriate SOPs for the task being undertaken and complete all sampling documentation. All analyte holding times to be complied with and samples properly and adequately preserved. All laboratory analysis to use the correct methods, along with appropriate limits of reporting (LORs).

The DQIs for the field works and laboratory analysis were established in the SAQP. The established acceptance limits are presented in Table 2 and Table 3.

Table 2: Field Works Quality Control Criteria

Item Comments

Intra-laboratory

duplicates

Inter-laboratory duplicates (triplicates)

Intra-laboratory field duplicates were collected at a minimum frequency of one sample per

twenty samples collected (5%). The analytical results of the primary sample and

duplicate/triplicate samples will be compared to assess the precision of the sampling

protocol and to provide an indication of variation in the sample source.

Repeatability will be assessed by calculating the relative percentage difference (RPD)

between the primary and duplicate results. Where the RPD is greater than 30%, the

potential causes of variability has been reviewed.

Trip blanks Trip blanks are a check on sample contamination originating from containers, sample

transport, shipping and site conditions. The trip blank will be prepared in a clean

environment (office or warehouse) and remain with the sample containers during sampling

and during the return trip to the laboratory. At no time during these procedures will the

blanks be opened. Upon return to the laboratory the blank will be analysed, if needed, as

any other field sample. As PFAS is not volatile, a reduced blank frequency is considered

appropriate and a single trip blank per sample batch will be transported and analysed.

Detectable concentrations of PFAS in a trip blank sample will trigger review of sample

container types, transport procedures and UHP water quality. The concentration and

Page 79: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

Item Comments

compound detected will be considered in reviewing the potential impact of transport related

cross-contamination of the assessment data quality.

Rinsate blanks Rinsate samples will be prepared in the field using empty bottles and the distilled

water/potable water used for the cleaning of non-disposable sampling equipment. These

samples will be a check of field decontamination procedures. A rinsate sample will be

collected and analysed for each day of field work, where non-disposable sampling

equipment has been used.

Detectable concentrations of PFAS in a rinsate blank sample will trigger review of

decontamination procedures, equipment materials, sample container types and UHP water

quality. The concentration and compound detected will be considered in reviewing the

potential impact of transport related cross-contamination of the assessment data quality.

Table 3: Laboratory Quality Control Criteria

Data Type Comments and Acceptable Control Limits

Sample Analysis All sample analyses to be conducted using NATA certified laboratories which will implement a quality control plan in accordance with NEPM (1999).

Holding times Maximum acceptable sample holding times:

Soil: 14 days for organic analyses (including PFAS) and 6 months for inorganic analyses (28 days for mercury).

Groundwater/surface water: 14 days for organic analyses (including PFAS) and 6 months for inorganic analyses (28 days for mercury).

Laboratory detection limits

All laboratory detection limits to be less than the site investigation criteria.

Laboratory Blanks

Laboratory blanks to be analysed at a rate of 1 in 20, with a minimum of one analysed per batch.

Concentration of analytes to be less than the laboratory detection limits.

Laboratory Duplicates

Laboratory duplicates to be analysed at a rate of 1 in 20, with a minimum of one analysed per batch. RPDs to be less than 30%.

Laboratory Control Samples (LCS)

LCSs to be analysed at a rate of 1 in 20, with a minimum of one analysed per analytical batch.

Control limits: 50 to 150 % acceptable recovery

Matrix spikes Matrix spike duplicate prepared by dividing a field sample into two aliquots, then spiking each with identical concentrations of the analytes at a rate of 1 in 20.

Matrix spike control limits:

50–150 % acceptable recovery. Lower recoveries may be acceptable for OCPs, OPPs, PCBs and phenols and will be assessed according to USEPA protocols.

Matrix spike duplicates:

RPDs <50%

Page 80: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

7.2. Field Quality Assurance Quality Control

Field Quality Assurance Procedures

Field quality assurance involves all the planned actions, procedures, checks and decisions which have been made and undertaken through quality control measures to ensure the representativeness and integrity of collected samples is that of the true conditions.

Sample Collection

All Coffey environmental scientists/engineers were suitably qualified, trained and experienced for the sample collection undertaken. Sampling of each matrix was undertaken with reference to the Coffey standard operating procedures (SOPs).

Sampling Methodology

The adopted sampling methods for each media (soil, sediments, groundwater and surface water) is presented in the DSI SAQP.

All samples were collected using a new disposable nitrile glove. Each sample was collected in a laboratory supplied jar or bottle appropriate to the analysis required.

All groundwater samples were collected using disposable bladders and tubing or disposable hydro sleeves.

Each sample was labelled using a unique sample identifier, project reference and date of sample collection, as directed by Defence and documented in the DSI SAQP (754-MELEN199420-R03).

Sample Transport and Preservation

To maintain sample integrity, all samples were placed into laboratory prepared containers suitable for PFAS and other non-PFAS analysis. Samples were immediately placed into an insulated ice chest containing ice, for storage and transportation to the Eurofins and ALS laboratories.

All samples were placed into lip-lock bags according to analysis, separating samples requiring PFAS analysis and samples requiring non-PFAS analysis.

All samples were sent to the laboratories under chain of custody (CoC) documentation.

Field Equipment Calibration

All equipment was calibrated before being used to collect data. All equipment was calibrated in accordance with the manufacturers’ specifications.

7.2.1. Type of Quality Assurance Quality Control (QA/QC) Samples Collected

Primary Samples 166

Days of sampling 18

Field Duplicates (at least 1 in 20 samples) 8 intra lab + 3 inter lab

Trip Blanks (at least 1 per sampling event) 1

Equipment Rinsate (at least

1/day/matrix/equipment)

2

Page 81: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

7.2.2. Samples Analysed

166 samples were collected and sent to the primary over 18 days of sampling. Eight duplicate samples were collected and submitted for laboratory analysis to the primary laboratory and three duplicate samples were collected and submitted for laboratory analysis to the secondary laboratory.

7.2.3. Inter-Laboratory and Intra-Laboratory Duplicates

ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment

below)

1 Were an Adequate Number of inter-laboratory and inter-laboratory

duplicates analysed for each chemical?

2 Were RPDs within Control Limits?

< 30% for concentrations

Comments

Where RPDs were outside the acceptable range, sampling procedures, laboratory analytical methods and laboratory results were investigated.

There were 145 duplicate pair analyses for PFAS compounds and 99 % were reported within the acceptance target of less than 30 % RPD. There were 39 inter-laboratory duplicate pair analyses for PFAS compounds and 92.3 % were reported within the acceptance target of less than 30 % RPD.

The RPD discrepancies observed between several primary and inter-laboratory duplicate sample pairs may be attributed to the interlaboratory duplicate sample not being a true replicate of the primary sample (in the case of two eggs or two fruits/vegetables from the same property).

Despite the discrepancies observed, the RPD results from the residential produce sampling were generally considered acceptable and able to be relied on for the report.

7.2.4. Trip Blanks

ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment

below)

1 Was a trip blank collected on each day of sample?

2 Were the Trip Blanks free of contaminants?

(If no, comment whether the contaminants present are also detected

in the samples and whether they are common laboratory chemicals.)

Comments

In many cases, residential biota/produce sampling was carried out in conjunction with residential bore sampling. Batches of bore and produce samples were sent together, with one trip blank for the sample batch. Many of these trip blank results are presented and discussed in the QAQC section for Private Bore Sampling, provided in this HHRA.

Concentrations for all analytes were below the laboratory LOR for all trip blanks and indicated that cross contamination was unlikely to have occurred during sample storage and transport.

Page 82: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

7.2.5. Rinsate Blanks

ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment

below)

1 Were Equipment Rinsates collected and analysed every

day/event/equipment?

2 Were the Equipment Rinsates free of contaminants?

(If no, comment whether the contaminants present are also detected

in the samples and whether they are common laboratory chemicals.)

Comments

In many cases, residential biota/produce sampling was carried out in conjunction with residential bore sampling. Batches of bore and produce samples were sent together, with one rinsate blank for the sampling event. Many of these rinsate blank results are presented and discussed in the QAQC section for Private Bore Sampling, provided in this HHRA.

Rinsate samples were collected from the field equipment after decontamination. Equipment rinsate samples were collected by pouring laboratory prepared deionised water over the equipment and collecting the ‘rinse’ into sample containers. Concentrations for all analytes were below the laboratory LOR for all rinsate blanks. A rinsate sample was collected for each day of groundwater sampling but only sampled for four of the sampling days.

The rinsate results indicated that the decontamination procedures were acceptable and it is considered that there is a low potential for cross-contamination to have impacted on the laboratory results.

In summary, the field QC results are considered generally acceptable for the purposes of this investigation.

Field QA/QC was: Satisfactory

Partially Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

7.3. Laboratory Quality Assurance Quality Control

7.3.1. Laboratories

ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment below)

1 Was a NATA registered laboratory used?

2 Did the laboratory perform the requested tests?

3 Were the laboratory methods adopted NATA endorsed?

4 Were the appropriate test procedures followed?

5 Were the reporting limits satisfactory?

6 Was the NATA Seal on the reports?

7 Were the reports signed by an authorised person?

Page 83: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

Comments

Eurofins – Eurofins has been adopted as the primary laboratory for analysis of all matrices. Eurofins is a NATA accredited laboratory (NATA accreditation number 1261) for soil and water for all the analytes requiring analysis.

ALS Environmental – ALS has been adopted as the secondary laboratory for analysis of soil and water samples. ALS is a NATA accredited laboratory (NATA accreditation number 825) for all the analytes requiring analysis.

Precision / Accuracy of the Laboratory Report Satisfactory

Partially Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

7.3.2. Sample Handling

ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment

below)

1 Were the sample holding times met?

2 Were the samples in proper custody between the field and reaching

the laboratory?

3 Were the samples properly and adequately preserved?

This includes keeping the samples chilled, where applicable.

4 Were the samples received by the laboratory in good condition?

Comments

Nil

Sample Handling was: Satisfactory

Partially Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

7.3.3. Laboratory (Method) Blanks

The method blank allows assessment for potential method bias for relevant analytes. A method blank is the component of the analytical signal from each analytical method that is from laboratory equipment (reagents, glassware and analytical instruments etc.). The method blank is determined by the laboratories through running solvents and reagents in exactly the same manner as the samples.

At least one method blank should be run per 20 samples analysed, with a minimum of one method blank per sample batch.

All laboratory method blank results reported concentrations of contaminants below the laboratory reporting limits.

7.3.4. Laboratory Duplicates

To provide an estimate of the analysis method precision and duplicate sample heterogeneity, a sample from the same batch is duplicated and analysed for a targeted analyte.

Page 84: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

All internal laboratory duplicates analysed by Eurofins and ALS were within acceptable limits (<30% RPD).

7.3.5. Laboratory Control Samples

Laboratory control samples are prepared in the laboratory and comprise either a known analyte concentration within a proven matrix or a control matrix spiked with analytes representative of the target analyte. The laboratory control sample percent recovery is reported along with the primary sample data to assess method accuracy for all targeted analytes.

Laboratory control samples are required to be processed per 20 samples analysed, with a minimum of one laboratory control sample run per batch of samples.

All laboratory control sample analyses were within the acceptable range (>50%).

7.3.6. Matrix Spikes

A matrix spike is undertaken to document the effect of the matrix on the performance of the method used. The matrix spike is the addition of a known analyte concentration to the target matrix prior to extraction or digestion. If a poor percentage recovery of a matrix spike is reported below the expected analytical method performance, the laboratory should investigate the likely cause. If, after investigation, the poor matrix spike remains and is reported to the client, an explanation documenting the limitations of the method for recovery of the target analyte from that particular matrix needs to be provided. If the laboratory control sample recovery is acceptable for the same analyte, this may indicate that it is the matrix causing the poor recovery and not the method.

95.6% of matrix spike analyses were within the adopted 70% – 130% acceptability criteria adopted.

7.3.7. Surrogate Recoveries

Surrogate spikes are a means of the laboratory checking that no gross errors have taken place throughout the analysis procedure, causing losses of the target analytes. The laboratory undertakes surrogate spikes by adding a known quantity of compounds with similar properties and behaviour to the target compounds, but which are not expected to be found in field samples.

Surrogate spikes are only appropriate for organic analysis and are added to all samples being analysed prior to the extraction process. A percent recovery is calculated for each surrogate, providing the analytical method accuracy of extraction of the target analytes from samples.

The collated laboratory data for surrogate recoveries reported 784 surrogates (out of a total of 5,330 surrogate analyses undertaken) below the lower recovery limit of 50%. A total of 256 surrogate recoveries were above the adopted upper recovery limit of 150% for PFAS compounds (ranging up to 451%). These discrepancies were for a number of PFAS compounds, but none were for the key PFAS compounds (PFOS, PFOA & PFHxS) indicating that the data set was acceptable for the purposes of supporting the outcomes of the report.

7.3.8. Summary of Internal Laboratory Quality Control

A summary of the internal laboratory quality control results is provided in Table 4 and Table 5.

Page 85: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

Table 4: Summary of internal laboratory QC

ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment

below)

1 Were the laboratory blanks/reagents blanks free of contamination?

2 Were the spike recoveries within control limits?

3 Were the RPDs of the laboratory duplicates within control limits?

4 Were the surrogate recoveries within control limits?

Table 5: Summary of internal laboratory QC results

QC test Total Analyses Number outside of

Acceptable Criteria

% of analyses acceptable

Method Blanks 1288 0 100%

Laboratory

Duplicates

819 0 100%

Laboratory

Control Samples

1288 0 100%

Matrix Spikes 1602 71 95.6%

Surrogates 5330 1052 80.3%

Totals 10327 1123 89.1%

The review of the laboratory internal quality control testing undertaken indicated that the overall completeness for the internal laboratory quality control results was 98.2%, which is above the 95% target. Consequently, the data is therefore considered of an acceptable quality to use in the report.

Laboratory internal QA/QC was: Satisfactory

Partially Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

7.4. Summary of Residential Produce Data Quality Review

In general, the data quality of the residential produce sampling was considered to be acceptable. Minor QC deficiencies (elevated RPDs and internal laboratory discrepancies) were considered unlikely to impact on the outcome of the report.

Page 86: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

HHRA - QAQC

Residential Produce

RPDs

DoD, RAAF Base Tindal

Lab Report Number 578211 578211 572263 572263 572263 572263 572263 572263 575037 575037 583413 583413

Field ID

0990_RS086-

2_171214

0990_QCRS486_1712

14 RPD

0990_RS056_17

1110

0990_QCRS407_171

110 RPD

0990_RS064_1

71110

0990_QCRS40

9_171110 RPD

0990_RS081_17

1110

0990_QCRS411_17

1110 RPD

0990_RS084_17

1128

0990_QCRS465_171

128 RPD

0990_RS088_180

201

0990_QCRS555_180

201 RPD

Sampled Date/Time 14/12/2017 14/12/2017 10/11/2017 10/11/2017 10/11/2017 10/11/2017 10/11/2017 10/11/2017 28/11/2017 28/11/2017 1/02/2018 1/02/2018

Method_Type ChemName Units EQL

Organic Perfluoro-n-octanoic acid (PFOA) µg/kg 5 / 0.5 (Primary): 0.1 (Interlab) <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0

Perfluoro-n-hexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) µg/kg 5 / 0.3 (Primary): 0.1 (Interlab) <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 16.0 13.0 21

Perfluoro-n-octane sulfonic acid (PFOS) µg/kg 5 / 0.3 (Primary): 0.1 (Interlab) <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 7.8 6.3 21 <5.0 <5.0 0 82.0 55.0 39

Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) µg/kg 5 / 0.5 (Primary): 0.1 (Interlab) <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0

Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) µg/kg 5 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0

Perfluoro-n-decane sulfonic acid (PFDS) µg/kg 5 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0

Perfluoro-n-decanoic acid (PFDA) µg/kg 5 / 0.5 (Primary): 0.1 (Interlab) <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0

Perfluoro-n-dodecanoic acid (PFDoDA) µg/kg 5 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0

Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS) µg/kg 5 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0

Perfluoro-n-heptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS) µg/kg 5 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0

Perfluoro-n-heptanoic acid (PFHpA) µg/kg 5 / 0.5 (Primary): 0.1 (Interlab) <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0

Perfluoro-n-hexanoic acid (PFHxA) µg/kg 5 / 0.5 (Primary): 0.1 (Interlab) <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0

Perfluoro-n-nonanoic acid (PFNA) µg/kg 5 / 0.5 (Primary): 0.1 (Interlab) <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0

Perfluorooctan esulfonamide (PFOSA) µg/kg 5 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0

Perfluoro pentanoic acid (PFPeA) µg/kg 5 / 0.5 (Primary): 0.1 (Interlab) <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0

Perfluoro-n-tetradecanoic acid (PFTeDA) µg/kg 5 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0

Perfluoro-n-tridecanoic acid (PFTriDA) µg/kg 5 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0

Perfluoro-n-undecanoic acid (PFUnDA) µg/kg 5 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0

2-(N-ethylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide)-ethanol µg/kg 5 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0

2-(N-methylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide)-ethanol µg/kg 5 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0

N-Ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid µg/kg 10 <10.0 <10.0 0 <10.0 <10.0 0 <10.0 <10.0 0 <10.0 <10.0 0 <10.0 <10.0 0 <10.0 <10.0 0

N-Methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid µg/kg 10 <10.0 <10.0 0 <10.0 <10.0 0 <10.0 <10.0 0 <10.0 <10.0 0 <10.0 <10.0 0 <10.0 <10.0 0

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (4:2 FTS) µg/kg 5 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (6:2 FTS) µg/kg 10 / 0.5 (Primary): 0.1 (Interlab) <10.0 <10.0 0 <10.0 <10.0 0 <10.0 <10.0 0 <10.0 <10.0 0 <10.0 <10.0 0 <10.0 <10.0 0

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorodecanesulfonic acid (8:2 FTS) µg/kg 5 / 0.5 (Primary): 0.1 (Interlab) <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorododecanesulfonic acid µg/kg 5 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0

N-Ethylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide (N-EtFOSA) µg/kg 5 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0

N-methylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide (N-MeFOSA) µg/kg 5 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0

*RPDs have only been considered where a concentration is greater than 0 times the EQL.

**High RPDs are in bold (Acceptable RPDs for each EQL multiplier range are: 25 (0-10 x EQL); 25 (10-20 x EQL); 10 ( > 20 x EQL) )

***Interlab Duplicates are matched on a per compound basis as methods vary between laboratories. Any methods in the row header relate to those used in the primary laboratory

Page 87: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

HHRA - QAQC

Residential Produce

RPDs

DoD, RAAF Base Tindal

Lab Report Number

Field ID

Sampled Date/Time

Method_Type ChemName Units EQL

Organic Perfluoro-n-octanoic acid (PFOA) µg/kg 5 / 0.5 (Primary): 0.1 (Interlab)

Perfluoro-n-hexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) µg/kg 5 / 0.3 (Primary): 0.1 (Interlab)

Perfluoro-n-octane sulfonic acid (PFOS) µg/kg 5 / 0.3 (Primary): 0.1 (Interlab)

Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) µg/kg 5 / 0.5 (Primary): 0.1 (Interlab)

Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) µg/kg 5

Perfluoro-n-decane sulfonic acid (PFDS) µg/kg 5

Perfluoro-n-decanoic acid (PFDA) µg/kg 5 / 0.5 (Primary): 0.1 (Interlab)

Perfluoro-n-dodecanoic acid (PFDoDA) µg/kg 5

Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS) µg/kg 5

Perfluoro-n-heptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS) µg/kg 5

Perfluoro-n-heptanoic acid (PFHpA) µg/kg 5 / 0.5 (Primary): 0.1 (Interlab)

Perfluoro-n-hexanoic acid (PFHxA) µg/kg 5 / 0.5 (Primary): 0.1 (Interlab)

Perfluoro-n-nonanoic acid (PFNA) µg/kg 5 / 0.5 (Primary): 0.1 (Interlab)

Perfluorooctan esulfonamide (PFOSA) µg/kg 5

Perfluoro pentanoic acid (PFPeA) µg/kg 5 / 0.5 (Primary): 0.1 (Interlab)

Perfluoro-n-tetradecanoic acid (PFTeDA) µg/kg 5

Perfluoro-n-tridecanoic acid (PFTriDA) µg/kg 5

Perfluoro-n-undecanoic acid (PFUnDA) µg/kg 5

2-(N-ethylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide)-ethanol µg/kg 5

2-(N-methylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide)-ethanol µg/kg 5

N-Ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid µg/kg 10

N-Methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid µg/kg 10

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (4:2 FTS) µg/kg 5

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (6:2 FTS) µg/kg 10 / 0.5 (Primary): 0.1 (Interlab)

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorodecanesulfonic acid (8:2 FTS) µg/kg 5 / 0.5 (Primary): 0.1 (Interlab)

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorododecanesulfonic acid µg/kg 5

N-Ethylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide (N-EtFOSA) µg/kg 5

N-methylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide (N-MeFOSA) µg/kg 5

*RPDs have only been considered where a concentration is greater than 0 times the EQL.

**High RPDs are in bold (Acceptable RPDs for each EQL multiplier range are: 25 (0-10 x EQL); 25 (10-20 x EQL); 10 ( > 20 x EQL) )

***Interlab Duplicates are matched on a per compound basis as methods vary between laboratories. Any methods in the row header relate to those used in the primary laboratory

586523 586532 587674 587663 586466 RN1190363 586474 RN1190363 586460 RN1190114

0990_RS090_180

221

0990_QCRS607_180

221 RPD

0990_RS105_18

0227

0990_QCRS622_180

227 RPD

0990_EG066.1_1

80221

0990_EG066.2_18

0221 RPD

0990_EG068.1_

180222

0990_EG068.2_

180222 RPD

0990_VG087.1_18

0221

0990_VG087.2_1

80218 RPD21/02/2018 21/02/2018 27/02/2018 27/02/2018 21/02/2018 21/02/2018 22/02/2018 22/02/2018 21/02/2018 21/02/2018

<5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <0.5 <0.3 0 <0.5 <0.3 0 <0.5 <0.3 0

<5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 1.0 1.2 18 1.2 2.5 70 <0.3 <0.5 0

38.0 49.0 25 <5.0 <5.0 0 15.0 3.8 119 14.0 55.0 119 <0.3 <0.3 0

<5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0

<5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0

<5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0

<5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0

<5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0

<5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0

<5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0

<5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0

<5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0

<5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0

<5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0

<5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <0.5 <5.0 0 <0.5 <5.0 0 <0.5 <5.0 0

<5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0

<5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0

<5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0

<5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0

<5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0

<10.0 <10.0 0 <10.0 <10.0 0

<10.0 <10.0 0 <10.0 <10.0 0

<5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0

<10.0 <10.0 0 <10.0 <10.0 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0

<5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0

<5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0

<5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0<5.0 <5.0 0 <5.0 <5.0 0

Page 88: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

HHRA - QAQC

Residential Produce

Blanks

DoD, RAAF Base Tindal

Lab Report 575037 575037 575037

Field ID 0990_QCPB467_171128 0990_QCPB468_171128 0990_QCPB469_171128

Sample_Date 28/11/2017 28/11/2017 28/11/2017

Sample Type Rinsate Rinsate Trip_B

Method_Type ChemName Units EQL

Organic Perfluoro-n-octanoic acid (PFOA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-hexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-octane sulfonic acid (PFOS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

Perfluoro-n-decane sulfonic acid (PFDS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-decanoic acid (PFDA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-dodecanoic acid (PFDoDA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-heptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-heptanoic acid (PFHpA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-hexanoic acid (PFHxA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-nonanoic acid (PFNA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluorooctan esulfonamide (PFOSA) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

Perfluoro pentanoic acid (PFPeA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-tetradecanoic acid (PFTeDA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-tridecanoic acid (PFTriDA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-undecanoic acid (PFUnDA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

2-(N-ethylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide)-ethanol µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

2-(N-methylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide)-ethanol µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

N-Ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

N-Methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (4:2 FTS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (6:2 FTS) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorodecanesulfonic acid (8:2 FTS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorododecanesulfonic acid µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

N-Ethylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide (N-EtFOSA) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

N-methylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide (N-MeFOSA) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

Page 89: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

8. GROUNDWATER (Private Bores October 2017 to March 2018)

8.1. Introduction

This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established for the data to support the private groundwater bore testing between October 2017 and March 2018 and then assesses the reliability of the field work procedures and laboratory analytical results using the data quality indicators (DQIs).

A quality control review of private bore testing carried out up to October 2017 is included in the RAAF Base Tindal DSI Report (Coffey report ref 754-MELEN199420-R05), dated 12 February 2018.

8.1.1. Data Quality Objectives

The National Environment Protection Measure (NEPM, Schedule B2 Guideline on Site

Characterisation - 2013) states that the nature and quality of the data collected for a particular

assessment will be determined by the Data Quality Objectives (DQOs). The NEPM and the Australian Standard AS4482.1-2005 reference the US EPA Guidance on Systematic Planning Using the Data

Quality Objectives Process (US EPA, 2006) which defines the DQO process. The US EPA defines

the process as ‘a strategic planning approach based on the Scientific Methods that is used to prepare

for a data collection activity. It provides a systematic procedure for defining the criteria that a data

collection design should satisfy, including when to collect samples, where to collect samples, the

tolerable level of decision errors for the study, and how many samples to collect.’

To define the purpose, type, quantity and quality of data required for the RAAF Base Tindal PFAS Investigation, the seven step data quality objectives (DQOs) approach, as described in the NEPM 2013, was adopted.

The seven steps of the DQO process for the current RAAF Base PFAS Investigation (relating to this phase of works) are summarised below:

Table 1: Data Quality Objectives

Quality objectives

1. State the Problem

PFAS contamination sources have been identified at RAAF Base Tindal. Previous investigations have identified contaminated soil and groundwater in the vicinity of known source areas. Other potential source areas have had limited (if any) assessment for PFAS contaminant nature and extent. A comprehensive investigation of soils, waters and sediments is proposed through 2017.

The extent of PFAS contamination in groundwater and associated impact in surface water off-Base is not previously well understood. Given the tropical climate of the Tindal/Katherine area, surface water flows and groundwater recharge rates will have a strong seasonal variation.

In order to forecast the future impact of residual contamination, and inform contaminant management strategies, some modelling of contaminant transport behaviour will be required. The modelling will be undertaken following the analysis of data collected during the 2018 wet season.

2. Identify the goal of the study

The purpose of the broader investigation is to understand the nature and extent of PFAS contamination as a result of Defence activities.

The purpose of the testing of private bores is to provide sufficient information on the sources of contamination, the contaminant transport conditions, the migration pathways and the current extent of contamination to enable a robust site model to be developed.

The conceptual site model will inform human health and/or ecological risk assessment, and guide effective management strategies.

Page 90: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

Quality objectives

Collection of this data is also used to assist with the allocation of alternative water supplies in the Investigation Area.

3. Identify information inputs

• Site history relating use of PFAS contaminant materials, to identify product types and locations where contamination may be emanating from (source areas).

• Existing data relevant to PFAS in soil, waters and sediment, to confirm the presence of source areas, indicate the potential extent of contamination, and identify gaps in reliable data.

• Surface water and groundwater flow regimes, to develop the conceptual site model about the potential migration pathways of contamination from source areas towards human and ecological receptors.

• Location and types of human and environmental receptors, to guide selection of relevant screening criteria to reflect plausible exposure routes.

4. Define the boundary of the study

Based on the potential for contaminated surface water or shallow groundwater to migrate west north-west towards Katherine River, the broad study area includes land and waterways on RAAF Base Tindal and the area between the Base and Katherine River. An approximate buffer of 1km across the western side of Katherine River has been included.

5. Develop a decision rule

Primary environmental samples will be collected and analysed by the laboratories for the full suite of PFAS compounds.

Groundwater samples

• Relative concentrations identify sources of contamination and preferential pathways of migration to other areas of the Base, or off-Base. Relative concentrations are also used to calibrate contaminant transport models which can be used to predict future behaviour.

• Comparison of groundwater concentrations and surface water concentration informs the understanding of interaction between surface water and groundwater.

• Absolute concentrations (and model predictions) at the point of use, or groundwater discharge zoned, describe the exposure where direct contact between water and people, plants or animals may occur, which allows an assessment of risk.

PFOS, PFHxS and PFOA concentrations will be compared against screening levels relevant to the potential beneficial uses of land or water to identify potential complete pathways and potentially unacceptable risks.

The relative concentrations of all (analysed) PFAS compounds in soil and groundwater samples will be used to characterise the source areas, define the lateral and vertical extent and identify complete exposure pathways.

Residual source mass, leachability of the source and measurements of contaminant mass flux will be used to assess the contribution that each identified source area is making to adverse impact on beneficial uses.

6. Specify performance of acceptance criteria

The assessment as a whole (including consideration of previous assessments) must reliably characterise the sources of contamination from the Base and described the risk that the contamination may pose to human or ecological receptors. In order to achieve that, there must be multiple lines of evidence to support location of source areas; the characterisation of the nature and extent of the residual source and associated surface water or ground water impact; the significance of the risk that that contamination currently poses to relevant receptors; and predictions of future impacts.

7. Develop a plan for obtaining the data

The methodology and rationale for obtaining relevant data is described in the DSI SAQP.

Page 91: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

8.1.2. Data Quality Indicators

An assessment of the reliability of field procedures and laboratory analytical results outlined through the DQOs has been undertaking using the DQIs of precision, accuracy, representativeness, completeness and comparability. A brief outline of the DQIs is presented below.

Precision – All Coffey field staff to implement Coffey standard operating procedures (SOPs) appropriate for the task being undertaken. All laboratories used to undertake analysis are NATA accredited for the analytes being tested for. An appropriate number of intra-laboratory and inter-laboratory replicate samples were collected and analysed and are within the acceptable limits of 1 in 20.

Accuracy – All Coffey staff to follow the appropriate SOPs for the tasks being undertaken. Trip blanks and equipment rinsate blank samples collected and results of which are to be satisfactory. All laboratories used are to be NATA accredited and the use of NATA endorsed methods, including appropriate method blanks, laboratory control samples, laboratory spikes and duplicates, and the results of which satisfy the defined criteria of acceptability.

Representativeness – A sufficient number of samples are to be collected and analysed from each media to adequately achieve the overall DSI objectives.

Completeness – All Coffey staff to follow Coffey SOPs appropriate to the task being performed, along with the appropriate documentation. All identified areas of environmental concern to be assessed with chemical analysis for relevant chemicals of potential concern from targeted and systematic sampling locations. All samples to be under proper custody between the field and laboratory. The data obtained from the laboratory is considered relevant and usable.

Comparability – All Coffey staff to follow the appropriate SOPs for the task being undertaken and complete all sampling documentation. All analyte holding times to be complied with and samples properly and adequately preserved. All laboratory analysis to use the correct methods, along with appropriate limits of reporting (LORs).

The DQIs for the field works and laboratory analysis were established in the SAQP. The established acceptance limits are presented in Table 2 and Table 3.

Table 2: Field Works Quality Control Criteria

Item Comments

Intra-laboratory

duplicates

Inter-laboratory duplicates (triplicates)

Intra-laboratory field duplicates were collected at a minimum frequency of one sample per

twenty samples collected (5%). The analytical results of the primary sample and

duplicate/triplicate samples will be compared to assess the precision of the sampling

protocol and to provide an indication of variation in the sample source.

Repeatability will be assessed by calculating the relative percentage difference (RPD)

between the primary and duplicate results. Where the RPD is greater than 30%, the

potential causes of variability has been reviewed.

Trip blanks Trip blanks are a check on sample contamination originating from containers, sample

transport, shipping and site conditions. The trip blank will be prepared in a clean

environment (office or warehouse) and remain with the sample containers during sampling

and during the return trip to the laboratory. At no time during these procedures will the

blanks be opened. Upon return to the laboratory the blank will be analysed, if needed, as

any other field sample. As PFAS is not volatile, a reduced blank frequency is considered

appropriate and a single trip blank per sample batch will be transported and analysed.

Detectable concentrations of PFAS in a trip blank sample will trigger review of sample

container types, transport procedures and UHP water quality. The concentration and

Page 92: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

Item Comments

compound detected will be considered in reviewing the potential impact of transport related

cross-contamination of the assessment data quality.

Rinsate blanks Rinsate samples will be prepared in the field using empty bottles and the distilled

water/potable water used for the cleaning of non-disposable sampling equipment. These

samples will be a check of field decontamination procedures. A rinsate sample will be

collected and analysed for each day of field work, where non-disposable sampling

equipment has been used.

Detectable concentrations of PFAS in a rinsate blank sample will trigger review of

decontamination procedures, equipment materials, sample container types and UHP water

quality. The concentration and compound detected will be considered in reviewing the

potential impact of transport related cross-contamination of the assessment data quality.

Table 3: Laboratory Quality Control Criteria

Data Type Comments and Acceptable Control Limits

Sample Analysis All sample analyses to be conducted using NATA certified laboratories which will implement a quality control plan in accordance with NEPM (1999).

Holding times Maximum acceptable sample holding times:

Soil: 14 days for organic analyses (including PFAS) and 6 months for inorganic analyses (28 days for mercury).

Groundwater/surface water: 14 days for organic analyses (including PFAS) and 6 months for inorganic analyses (28 days for mercury).

Laboratory detection limits

All laboratory detection limits to be less than the site investigation criteria.

Laboratory Blanks

Laboratory blanks to be analysed at a rate of 1 in 20, with a minimum of one analysed per batch.

Concentration of analytes to be less than the laboratory detection limits.

Laboratory Duplicates

Laboratory duplicates to be analysed at a rate of 1 in 20, with a minimum of one analysed per batch. RPDs to be less than 30%.

Laboratory Control Samples (LCS)

LCSs to be analysed at a rate of 1 in 20, with a minimum of one analysed per analytical batch.

Control limits: 50 to 150 % acceptable recovery

Matrix spikes Matrix spike duplicate prepared by dividing a field sample into two aliquots, then spiking each with identical concentrations of the analytes at a rate of 1 in 20.

Matrix spike control limits:

50–150 % acceptable recovery. Lower recoveries may be acceptable for OCPs, OPPs, PCBs and phenols and will be assessed according to USEPA protocols.

Matrix spike duplicates:

RPDs <50%

Page 93: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

8.2. Field Quality Assurance Quality Control

Field Quality Assurance Procedures

Field quality assurance involves all the planned actions, procedures, checks and decisions which have been made and undertaken through quality control measures to ensure the representativeness and integrity of collected samples is that of the true conditions.

Sample Collection

All Coffey environmental scientists/engineers were suitably qualified, trained and experienced for the sample collection undertaken. Sampling of each matrix was undertaken with reference to the Coffey standard operating procedures (SOPs).

Sampling Methodology

The adopted sampling methods for each media (soil, sediments, groundwater and surface water) is presented in the DSI SAQP.

All samples were collected using a new disposable nitrile glove. Each sample was collected in a laboratory supplied jar or bottle appropriate to the analysis required.

All groundwater samples were collected using disposable bladders and tubing or disposable hydro sleeves.

Each sample was labelled using a unique sample identifier, project reference and date of sample collection, as directed by Defence and documented in the DSI SAQP (754-MELEN199420-R03).

Sample Transport and Preservation

To maintain sample integrity, all samples were placed into laboratory prepared containers suitable for PFAS and other non-PFAS analysis. Samples were immediately placed into an insulated ice chest containing ice, for storage and transportation to the Eurofins and ALS laboratories.

All samples were placed into lip-lock bags according to analysis, separating samples requiring PFAS analysis and samples requiring non-PFAS analysis.

All samples were sent to the laboratories under chain of custody (CoC) documentation.

Field Equipment Calibration

All equipment was calibrated before being used to collect data. All equipment was calibrated in accordance with the manufacturers’ specifications.

8.2.1. Type of Quality Assurance Quality Control (QA/QC) Samples Collected

Primary Samples 177

Days of sampling 140

Field Duplicates (at least 1 in 20 samples) 28 intra lab + 5 inter lab

Trip Blanks (at least 1 per sampling event) 7*

Equipment Rinsate (at least

1/day/matrix/equipment)

7*

Page 94: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

* Private bore sampling was generally carried out in conjunction with other investigation sampling works (such as groundwater monitoring well sampling and surface water sampling). Therefore, several blank samples taken on these days have been presented in other QAQC sections within this HHRA report.

8.2.2. Samples Analysed

177 samples were collected and sent to the primary laboratory (Eurofins) over 140 days of sampling. 28 duplicate samples were collected and submitted for laboratory analysis to the primary laboratory Eurofins Environmental Consulting. Five triplicate samples were collected and submitted for laboratory analysis to the secondary laboratory (ALS).

8.2.3. Inter-Laboratory and Intra-Laboratory Duplicates

ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment

below)

1 Were an Adequate Number of inter-laboratory and inter-laboratory

duplicates analysed for each chemical?

2 Were RPDs within Control Limits?

< 30% for concentrations

Comments

Where RPDs were outside the acceptable range, sampling procedures, laboratory analytical methods and laboratory results were investigated. The results of this review are presented in the attached tables.

There were 784 duplicate pair analyses for PFAS compounds and 99 % were reported within the acceptance target of less than 30 % RPD. There were 140 triplicate pair analyses for PFAS compounds and 96.5 % were reported within the acceptance target of less than 30 % RPD.

The RPD discrepancies observed between several sample pairs in the private bore sampling between October 2017 and March 2018 were attributed to analytical results in one of the samples being either at or marginally above the laboratory reporting limit and the other being below the LOR, or both results being at detectable, but at low concentrations. This magnifies the relative difference between the results.

The RPD results from these sampling works were generally considered acceptable and able to be relied on for the report.

8.2.4. Trip Blanks

ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment

below)

1 Was a trip blank collected for each batch of samples?

2 Were the Trip Blanks free of contaminants?

(If no, comment whether the contaminants present are also detected

in the samples and whether they are common laboratory chemicals.)

Page 95: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

Comments

Several batches of private bore samples were sent to the laboratory along with other investigation samples (such as groundwater monitoring event samples and surface water samples). These trip blank samples are presented within other QAQC sections of this HHRA.

Concentrations for all analytes were below the laboratory LOR for all trip blanks and indicated that cross contamination was unlikely to have occurred during sample storage and transport.

8.2.5. Rinsate Blanks

ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment

below)

1 Were Equipment Rinsates collected and analysed every

day/event/equipment?

2 Were the Equipment Rinsates free of contaminants?

(If no, comment whether the contaminants present are also detected

in the samples and whether they are common laboratory chemicals.)

Comments

Several private bore samples were collected during other investigation sampling works (such as groundwater monitoring event samples and surface water samples). The rinsate blank results for these sample are presented within other QAQC sections of this HHRA.

Concentrations for all analytes were below the laboratory LOR for all rinsate blanks and indicated that cross contamination was unlikely to have occurred during sample storage and transport.

In summary, the field QC results are considered generally acceptable for the purposes of this investigation.

Field QA/QC was: Satisfactory

Partially Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

8.3. Laboratory Quality Assurance Quality Control

8.3.1. Laboratories

ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment below)

1 Was a NATA registered laboratory used?

2 Did the laboratory perform the requested tests?

3 Were the laboratory methods adopted NATA endorsed?

4 Were the appropriate test procedures followed?

5 Were the reporting limits satisfactory?

6 Was the NATA Seal on the reports?

7 Were the reports signed by an authorised person?

Comments

Page 96: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

Eurofins – Eurofins has been adopted as the primary laboratory for analysis of all matrices. Eurofins is a NATA accredited laboratory (NATA accreditation number 1261) for soil and water for all the analytes requiring analysis.

ALS Environmental – ALS has been adopted as the secondary laboratory for analysis of soil and water samples. ALS is a NATA accredited laboratory (NATA accreditation number 825) for all the analytes requiring analysis.

Precision / Accuracy of the Laboratory Report Satisfactory

Partially Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

8.3.2. Sample Handling

ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment

below)

1 Were the sample holding times met?

2 Were the samples in proper custody between the field and reaching

the laboratory?

3 Were the samples properly and adequately preserved?

This includes keeping the samples chilled, where applicable.

4 Were the samples received by the laboratory in good condition?

Comments

Nil

Sample Handling was: Satisfactory

Partially Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

8.3.3. Laboratory (Method) Blanks

The method blank allows assessment for potential method bias for relevant analytes. A method blank is the component of the analytical signal from each analytical method that is from laboratory equipment (reagents, glassware and analytical instruments etc.). The method blank is determined by the laboratories through running solvents and reagents in exactly the same manner as the samples.

At least one method blank should be run per 20 samples analysed, with a minimum of one method blank per sample batch.

All laboratory method blank results reported concentrations of contaminants below the laboratory reporting limits.

8.3.4. Laboratory Duplicates

To provide an estimate of the analysis method precision and duplicate sample heterogeneity, a sample from the same batch is duplicated and analysed for a targeted analyte.

All internal laboratory duplicates analysed by Eurofins and ALS were within acceptable limits (<30% RPD), with the exception of one result (for PFBS). Overall, more than 99% of results were within acceptable ranges

Page 97: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

8.3.5. Laboratory Control Samples

Laboratory control samples are prepared in the laboratory and comprise either a known analyte concentration within a proven matrix or a control matrix spiked with analytes representative of the target analyte. The laboratory control sample percent recovery is reported along with the primary sample data to assess method accuracy for all targeted analytes.

Laboratory control samples are required to be processed per 20 samples analysed, with a minimum of one laboratory control sample run per batch of samples.

All laboratory control sample analyses were within the acceptable range (>50%).

8.3.6. Matrix Spikes

A matrix spike is undertaken to document the effect of the matrix on the performance of the method used. The matrix spike is the addition of a known analyte concentration to the target matrix prior to extraction or digestion. If a poor percentage recovery of a matrix spike is reported below the expected analytical method performance, the laboratory should investigate the likely cause. If, after investigation, the poor matrix spike remains and is reported to the client, an explanation documenting the limitations of the method for recovery of the target analyte from that particular matrix needs to be provided. If the laboratory control sample recovery is acceptable for the same analyte, this may indicate that it is the matrix causing the poor recovery and not the method.

All matrix spike analyses were within the adopted 50% – 150% acceptability criteria adopted.

8.3.7. Surrogate Recoveries

Surrogate spikes are a means of the laboratory checking that no gross errors have taken place throughout the analysis procedure, causing losses of the target analytes. The laboratory undertakes surrogate spikes by adding a known quantity of compounds with similar properties and behaviour to the target compounds, but which are not expected to be found in field samples.

Surrogate spikes are only appropriate for organic analysis and are added to all samples being analysed prior to the extraction process. A percent recovery is calculated for each surrogate, providing the analytical method accuracy of extraction of the target analytes from samples.

The collated laboratory data for surrogate recoveries reported 800 surrogates (out of a total of 4,117 surrogate analyses undertaken) below the lower recovery limit of 50%. A total of 30 surrogate recoveries were above the adopted upper recovery limit of 150% for PFAS compounds (ranging up to 196%). These discrepancies were for a number of PFAS compounds, but none were for the key PFAS compounds (PFOS, PFOA & PFHxS) indicating that the data set was acceptable for the purposes of supporting the outcomes of the report.

8.3.8. Summary of Internal Laboratory Quality Control

A summary of the internal laboratory quality control results is provided in Table 4 and Table 5.

Table 4: Summary of internal laboratory QC

ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment

below)

1 Were the laboratory blanks/reagents blanks free of contamination?

2 Were the spike recoveries within control limits?

3 Were the RPDs of the laboratory duplicates within control limits?

4 Were the surrogate recoveries within control limits?

Page 98: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

Table 5: Summary of internal laboratory QC results

QC test Total Analyses Number outside of

Acceptable Criteria

% of analyses

acceptable

Method Blanks 3,914 0 100

Laboratory Duplicates 797 1 99.9%

Laboratory Control Samples 3,908 0 100%

Matrix Spikes 4,066 0 100%

Surrogates 4,117 847 79.5%

Totals 16,802 848 95%

The review of the laboratory internal quality control testing undertaken indicated that the overall completeness for the internal laboratory quality control results was 95%, which is within the 95% target. Consequently, the data is therefore considered of an acceptable quality to use in the report.

Laboratory internal QA/QC was: Satisfactory

Partially Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

8.4. Summary of Private Bore Sampling Data Quality Review

In general, the data quality of the private bore sampling between October 2017 and March 2018 was considered to be acceptable. Minor QC deficiencies (elevated RPDs and internal laboratory discrepancies) were considered unlikely to impact on the outcome of the report.

Page 99: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

HHRA - QAQC

Residential Bores

RPDs

DoD, RAAF Base Tindal

Lab Report Number 571265 571265 571265 571265 571200 571265 572262 EM1715555 574358 574358 574360 574360 574365 574365 574367 EM1716241 574358 EM1716242 574975 575020 574979 574979

Field ID

0990_QC390

MW_171102

0990_QC391

MW_171102 RPD

0990_MW119_

171102

0990_QC392

MW_171102 RPD

0990_MW136

_171102

0990_QC393

MW_171102 RPD

0990_PB114_

171110

0990_QCPB414

_171110 RPD

0990_PB12

6_171121

0990_QCPB

420_171121 RPD

0990_PB12

1-1_171121

0990_QCPB

419_171121 RPD

0990_PB12

0-1_171121

0990_QCPB

418_171121 RPD

0990_PB043

_171122

0990_QCPB424A_

171122 RPD

0990_PB12

6_171121

0990_QCPB420A_

171121 RPD

0990_PB138

_171127

0990_QCPB

458_171127 RPD

0990_PB143-

2_171127

0990_QCPB

459_171127 RPD

Sampled Date/Time 2/11/2017 2/11/2017 2/11/2017 2/11/2017 2/11/2017 2/11/2017 10/11/2017 10/11/2017 21/11/2017 21/11/2017 21/11/2017 21/11/2017 21/11/2017 21/11/2017 22/11/2017 22/11/2017 21/11/2017 21/11/2017 27/11/2017 27/11/2017 27/11/2017 27/11/2017

Method_Type ChemName Units EQL

Organic Perfluoro-n-octanoic acid (PFOA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0 0.03 0.03 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0

Perfluoro-n-hexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) <0.01 <0.01 0 0.37 0.37 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 0.1 0.12 18 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0

Perfluoro-n-octane sulfonic acid (PFOS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0 1.1 0.98 12 0.01 0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 0.09 0.08 12 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0

Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) <0.01 <0.01 0 0.07 0.06 15 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 0.02 0.03 40 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0

Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) µg/L 0.05 (Primary): 0.1 (Interlab) <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.1 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.1 0 <0.05 <0.1 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0

Perfluoro-n-decane sulfonic acid (PFDS) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0

Perfluoro-n-decanoic acid (PFDA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0

Perfluoro-n-dodecanoic acid (PFDoDA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0

Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) <0.01 <0.01 0 0.07 0.07 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 0.03 <0.02 40 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0

Perfluoro-n-heptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) <0.01 <0.01 0 0.03 0.03 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0

Perfluoro-n-heptanoic acid (PFHpA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) <0.01 <0.01 0 0.01 0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0

Perfluoro-n-hexanoic acid (PFHxA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) <0.01 <0.01 0 0.07 0.07 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 0.03 0.05 50 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0

Perfluoro-n-nonanoic acid (PFNA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0

Perfluorooctan esulfonamide (PFOSA) µg/L 0.05 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.02 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.02 0 <0.05 <0.02 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0

Perfluoro pentanoic acid (PFPeA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) <0.01 <0.01 0 0.02 0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0

Perfluoro-n-tetradecanoic acid (PFTeDA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.05 (Interlab) <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0

Perfluoro-n-tridecanoic acid (PFTriDA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0

Perfluoro-n-undecanoic acid (PFUnDA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0

2-(N-ethylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide)-ethanol µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0

2-(N-methylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide)-ethanol µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0

N-Ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid µg/L 0.05 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.02 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.02 0 <0.05 <0.02 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0

N-Methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid µg/L 0.05 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab) <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.02 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.02 0 <0.05 <0.02 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (4:2 FTS) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.05 (Interlab) <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (6:2 FTS) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorodecanesulfonic acid (8:2 FTS) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.05 (Interlab) <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorododecanesulfonic acid µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.05 (Interlab) <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0

N-Ethylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide (N-EtFOSA) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0

N-methylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide (N-MeFOSA) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0

*RPDs have only been considered where a concentration is greater than 0 times the EQL.

**High RPDs are in bold (Acceptable RPDs for each EQL multiplier range are: 25 (0-10 x EQL); 25 (10-20 x EQL); 10 ( > 20 x EQL) )

***Interlab Duplicates are matched on a per compound basis as methods vary between laboratories. Any methods in the row header relate to those used in the primary laboratory

Page 100: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

HHRA - QAQC

Residential Bores

RPDs

DoD, RAAF Base Tindal

Lab Report Number

Field ID

Sampled Date/Time

Method_Type ChemName Units EQL

Organic Perfluoro-n-octanoic acid (PFOA) µg/L 0.01

Perfluoro-n-hexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab)

Perfluoro-n-octane sulfonic acid (PFOS) µg/L 0.01

Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab)

Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) µg/L 0.05 (Primary): 0.1 (Interlab)

Perfluoro-n-decane sulfonic acid (PFDS) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab)

Perfluoro-n-decanoic acid (PFDA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab)

Perfluoro-n-dodecanoic acid (PFDoDA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab)

Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab)

Perfluoro-n-heptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab)

Perfluoro-n-heptanoic acid (PFHpA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab)

Perfluoro-n-hexanoic acid (PFHxA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab)

Perfluoro-n-nonanoic acid (PFNA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab)

Perfluorooctan esulfonamide (PFOSA) µg/L 0.05 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab)

Perfluoro pentanoic acid (PFPeA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab)

Perfluoro-n-tetradecanoic acid (PFTeDA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.05 (Interlab)

Perfluoro-n-tridecanoic acid (PFTriDA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab)

Perfluoro-n-undecanoic acid (PFUnDA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab)

2-(N-ethylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide)-ethanol µg/L 0.05

2-(N-methylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide)-ethanol µg/L 0.05

N-Ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid µg/L 0.05 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab)

N-Methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid µg/L 0.05 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab)

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (4:2 FTS) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.05 (Interlab)

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (6:2 FTS) µg/L 0.05

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorodecanesulfonic acid (8:2 FTS) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.05 (Interlab)

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorododecanesulfonic acid µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.05 (Interlab)

N-Ethylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide (N-EtFOSA) µg/L 0.05

N-methylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide (N-MeFOSA) µg/L 0.05

*RPDs have only been considered where a concentration is greater than 0 times the EQL.

**High RPDs are in bold (Acceptable RPDs for each EQL multiplier range are: 25 (0-10 x EQL); 25 (10-20 x EQL); 10 ( > 20 x EQL) )

***Interlab Duplicates are matched on a per compound basis as methods vary between laboratories. Any methods in the row header relate to those used in the primary laboratory

575087 575095 575092 575092 574975 EM1716470 574979 EM1716485 576414 576414 581310 580918 581310 580918 586519 586505 586511 586505 586499 586505 587068 587068

0990_PB154

_171128

0990_QCPB

464_171128 RPD

0990_PB153

_171128

0990_QCPB

463_171128 RPD

0990_PB138

_171127

0990_QCPB458

A_171127 RPD

0990_PB143-

2_171127

0990_QCPB462A

_171128 RPD

0990_PB166

_171205

0990_QCPB473_

171205 RPD

0990_PB043

_180115

0990_QCSW510

_180115 RPD

0990_PB043

_180115

0990_QCSW510

_180115 RPD

0990_PB205_

180220

0990_QCMW

600 RPD

0990_PB211

_180221

0990_QCMW

605 RPD

0990_PB104_

180222

0990_QCMW

611 RPD

0990_PB043_

180226

0990_QCSW6

17_180226 RPD

28/11/2017 28/11/2017 28/11/2017 28/11/2017 27/11/2017 27/11/2017 27/11/2017 27/11/2017 5/12/2017 5/12/2017 15/01/2018 15/01/2018 15/01/2018 15/01/2018 20/02/2018 20/02/2018 21/02/2018 21/02/2018 22/02/2018 22/02/2018 26/02/2018 26/02/2018

<0.05 <0.01 0 0.01 0.01 0 <0.05 <0.01 0 <0.05 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 0.05 0.05 0 <0.01 <0.01 0

0.02 0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 0.06 0.06 0 0.06 0.06 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 1.1 0.89 21 0.04 0.04 0

<0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 0.05 0.04 22 0.05 0.04 22 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 1.9 1.8 5 0.03 0.03 0

<0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 0.01 0.01 0 0.01 0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 0.12 0.13 8 <0.01 <0.01 0

<0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.1 0 <0.05 <0.1 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0

<0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0

<0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0

<0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0

<0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 0.02 0.02 0 0.02 0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 0.12 0.14 15 <0.01 <0.01 0

<0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 0.06 0.05 18 <0.01 <0.01 0

<0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 0.03 0.02 40 <0.01 <0.01 0

<0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 0.02 0.02 0 0.02 0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 0.16 0.15 6 0.02 0.02 0

<0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0

<0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.02 0 <0.05 <0.02 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0

<0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 0.03 0.03 0 <0.01 <0.01 0

<0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0

<0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0

<0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0

<0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0

<0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0

<0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.02 0 <0.05 <0.02 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0

<0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.02 0 <0.05 <0.02 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0

<0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0

<0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0

<0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0

<0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0

<0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0

<0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 0.16 0.15 6 0.16 0.15 6 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0

Page 101: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

HHRA - QAQC

Residential Bores

RPDs

DoD, RAAF Base Tindal

Lab Report Number

Field ID

Sampled Date/Time

Method_Type ChemName Units EQL

Organic Perfluoro-n-octanoic acid (PFOA) µg/L 0.01

Perfluoro-n-hexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab)

Perfluoro-n-octane sulfonic acid (PFOS) µg/L 0.01

Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab)

Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) µg/L 0.05 (Primary): 0.1 (Interlab)

Perfluoro-n-decane sulfonic acid (PFDS) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab)

Perfluoro-n-decanoic acid (PFDA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab)

Perfluoro-n-dodecanoic acid (PFDoDA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab)

Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab)

Perfluoro-n-heptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab)

Perfluoro-n-heptanoic acid (PFHpA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab)

Perfluoro-n-hexanoic acid (PFHxA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab)

Perfluoro-n-nonanoic acid (PFNA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab)

Perfluorooctan esulfonamide (PFOSA) µg/L 0.05 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab)

Perfluoro pentanoic acid (PFPeA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab)

Perfluoro-n-tetradecanoic acid (PFTeDA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.05 (Interlab)

Perfluoro-n-tridecanoic acid (PFTriDA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab)

Perfluoro-n-undecanoic acid (PFUnDA) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab)

2-(N-ethylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide)-ethanol µg/L 0.05

2-(N-methylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide)-ethanol µg/L 0.05

N-Ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid µg/L 0.05 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab)

N-Methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid µg/L 0.05 (Primary): 0.02 (Interlab)

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (4:2 FTS) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.05 (Interlab)

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (6:2 FTS) µg/L 0.05

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorodecanesulfonic acid (8:2 FTS) µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.05 (Interlab)

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorododecanesulfonic acid µg/L 0.01 (Primary): 0.05 (Interlab)

N-Ethylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide (N-EtFOSA) µg/L 0.05

N-methylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide (N-MeFOSA) µg/L 0.05

*RPDs have only been considered where a concentration is greater than 0 times the EQL.

**High RPDs are in bold (Acceptable RPDs for each EQL multiplier range are: 25 (0-10 x EQL); 25 (10-20 x EQL); 10 ( > 20 x EQL) )

***Interlab Duplicates are matched on a per compound basis as methods vary between laboratories. Any methods in the row header relate to those used in the primary laboratory

583207 583059 583207 EM1802419 574618 578521 576521 576521 574637 574793 574639 574707 568029 568032 568031 568032 568035 568032 568037 568032 568037 568032

0990_PB043

_180130

0990_QCSW

547_180130 RPD

0990_PB043

_180130

0990_QCSW

548_180130 RPD

0990_PB129-

2_171123

0990_QCPB

429_171123 RPD

0990_MW100

_171124

0990_QCMW4

445_171124 RPD

0990_PB131-

1_171123

0990_QCPB

431_171123 RPD

0990_PB133

_171123

0990_QCPB

430_171123 RPD

0990_PB077

_171012

0990_QCPB

314_171012 RPD

0990_PB078

_171012

0990_QCPB

315_171012 RPD

0990_PB084

_171013

0990_QCPB

318_171013 RPD

0990_PB080

_171013

0990_QCPB

365_171013 RPD

0990_PB080

_171013

0990_QCPB

366_171013 RPD

30/01/2018 30/01/2018 30/01/2018 30/01/2018 23/11/2017 23/11/2017 26/11/2017 26/11/2017 23/11/2017 23/11/2017 23/11/2017 23/11/2017 12/10/2017 12/10/2017 12/10/2017 12/10/2017 13/10/2017 13/10/2017 13/10/2017 13/10/2017 13/10/2017 13/10/2017

<0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 0.03 0.03 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 0.01 0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0

0.05 0.05 0 0.05 0.05 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 0.62 0.64 3 <0.01 0.02 67 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 0.37 0.37 0 0.04 0.04 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0

0.04 0.04 0 0.04 0.03 29 <0.01 <0.01 0 1.1 1.2 9 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 0.63 0.61 3 0.09 0.08 12 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0

0.01 0.01 0 0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 0.07 0.07 0 <0.01 0.02 67 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 0.06 0.06 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0

<0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.1 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0

<0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0

<0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0

<0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0

<0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 0.07 0.08 13 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 0.07 0.08 13 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0

<0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 0.03 0.03 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 0.03 0.02 40 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0

<0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 0.02 0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0

0.02 0.02 0 0.02 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 0.1 0.1 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 0.04 0.05 22 <0.01 0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0

<0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0

<0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.02 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0

<0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 0.04 120 <0.01 <0.01 0 0.03 0.03 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0

<0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0

<0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0

<0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0

<0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0

<0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.02 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0

<0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.02 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0

<0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0

<0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0

<0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0

<0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0

<0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 0

<0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0

<0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0 <0.05 <0.05 0

Page 102: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

HHRA - QAQC

Residential Bores

Blanks

DoD, RAAF Base Tindal

Field ID

0990_QCPB421_

171121

0990_QCPB432_

171123

0990_QCPB460_

171127

0990_QCPB467_

171128

0990_QCPB468_

171128

0990_QCPB471_

171129

0990_QCPB490_

171214

0990_QCPB417_

171121

0990_QCPB428_

171123

0990_QCPB457_

171127

0990_QCPB469_

171128

0990_QCPB470_

171129

0990_QCPB485_

171214

0990_QCPB417_

171121

Sample_Date 21/11/2017 23/11/2017 27/11/2018 28/11/2018 28/11/2018 29/11/2018 14/12/2017 21/11/2018 23/11/2018 27/11/2018 28/11/2018 29/11/2018 14/12/2017 21/11/2017

Sample Type Rinsate Rinsate Rinsate Rinsate Rinsate Rinsate Rinsate Trip_B Trip_B Trip_B Trip_B Trip_B Trip_B Trip_B

Method_TypeChemName Units EQL

Organic Perfluoro-n-octanoic acid (PFOA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-hexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-octane sulfonic acid (PFOS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

PFHxS and PFOS (Sum of Total) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

Perfluoro-n-decane sulfonic acid (PFDS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-decanoic acid (PFDA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-dodecanoic acid (PFDoDA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-heptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-heptanoic acid (PFHpA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-hexanoic acid (PFHxA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-nonanoic acid (PFNA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluorooctan esulfonamide (PFOSA) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

Perfluoro pentanoic acid (PFPeA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-tetradecanoic acid (PFTeDA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-tridecanoic acid (PFTriDA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Perfluoro-n-undecanoic acid (PFUnDA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

2-(N-ethylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide)-ethanol µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

2-(N-methylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide)-ethanol µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

N-Ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

N-Methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (4:2 FTS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (6:2 FTS) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorodecanesulfonic acid (8:2 FTS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorododecanesulfonic acid µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

N-Ethylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide (N-EtFOSA) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

N-methylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide (N-MeFOSA) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

Page 103: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

9. AQUATIC BIOTA

9.1. Introduction

This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established for the data to support the aquatic biota sampling and then assesses the reliability of the field work procedures and laboratory analytical results using the data quality indicators (DQIs).

9.1.1. Data Quality Objectives

The National Environment Protection Measure (NEPM, Schedule B2 Guideline on Site

Characterisation - 2013) states that the nature and quality of the data collected for a particular

assessment will be determined by the Data Quality Objectives (DQOs). The NEPM and the Australian

Standard AS4482.1-2005 reference the US EPA Guidance on Systematic Planning Using the Data

Quality Objectives Process (US EPA, 2006) which defines the DQO process. The US EPA defines

the process as ‘a strategic planning approach based on the Scientific Methods that is used to prepare

for a data collection activity. It provides a systematic procedure for defining the criteria that a data

collection design should satisfy, including when to collect samples, where to collect samples, the

tolerable level of decision errors for the study, and how many samples to collect.’

To define the purpose, type, quantity and quality of data required for the aquatic biota sampling of the RAAF Tindal base, the seven step data quality objectives (DQOs) approach, as described in the NEPM 2013, was adopted.

The seven steps of the DQO process for the current RAAF Base Tindal Investigation relating to these works are summarised below:

Table 1: Data Quality Objectives

Quality objectives

8. State the Problem

PFAS contamination sources have been identified at RAAF Base Tindal and investigations to date have

identified contaminated soil and groundwater in the vicinity of known source areas. The nature and extent of

PFAS contamination to offsite areas within the Environmental Investigation Area (EIA) has identified PFAS in

groundwater, surface waters, sediment, animal biota (whole fish) and animal products (chicken and duck

eggs). The Interim HHRA will rely on PFAS concentrations either measured or estimated at the POE. The

identified areas where PFAS concentrations in media is not known or the CSM requires further refinement

includes:

• Data on PFAS contamination in locally sourced aquatic and terrestrial foods is limited.

• Due to time constraints, the PFAS content in seasonal food products will be restricted to foods

available in the dry season for the interim HHRA, however wet season produce will be included in the

comprehensive HHRA.

• Given the tropical climate of the Tindal/Katherine area, surface water flows and groundwater recharge

rates will have a strong seasonal variations that are likely to influence PFAS concentrations in

groundwater, surface water, sediments, food sources and receptor behaviours and exposures.

9. Identify the goal of the study

The purpose of the broader investigation is to understand the nature and extent of PFAS contamination as a result of Defence activities.

Page 104: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

Quality objectives

The purpose of the comprehensive HHRA investigation is to understand the nature and extent of PFAS

contamination in media at the POE within the EIA where identified populations may be exposed.

The comprehensive HHRA will rely on specific information that may be area or receptor specific, therefore data

collected from household surveys and other relevant sources is essential.

10. Identify information inputs

• Recent and ongoing investigations DSI will provide:

o CSM information relating to the site history, sources and use of PFAS contaminant

materials, and determine the nature and extent of contamination in soil, waters and

sediment.

o Surface water and groundwater flow regimes, to develop the conceptual site model

about the potential migration pathways of contamination from source areas towards

human and ecological receptors.

o Preliminary data relating to PFAS contamination of local foods.

o Relevant screening criteria, where established, to reflect plausible exposure routes.

o Desktop and household survey information relating to groundwater and surface water

usage and receptor identification.

• Exposure inputs relating to:

o PFAS concentrations in locally sourced food, both aquatic and terrestrial, and blood

serum of livestock. PFAS concentrations in related media (such as garden/crop soils)

associated with local foods, recreational, domestic and irrigation activities.

o Surveys of

▪ Dietary intakes of locally sourced foods

▪ Extracted groundwater usage

▪ Behaviours relating to recreational, domestic and irrigation waters.

• Toxicity inputs relating to:

o Background exposures

o Transfer factors

11. Define the boundary of the study

Based on the potential for contaminated surface water or shallow groundwater to migrate west north-west towards Katherine River, the broad study area includes land and waterways on RAAF Base Tindal and the area between the Base and Katherine River. An approximate buffer of 1km across the western side of Katherine River has been included.

12. Develop a decision rule

Primary environmental samples will be collected and analysed by the laboratories for the full suite of PFAS compounds.

Aquatic biota samples

• Absolute concentrations to evaluate the exposure where ingestion of locally caught aquatic biota may occur, to allow the quantitative assessment of human health risk.

Dietary and food preparation

Page 105: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

Quality objectives

• Relative estimation of foods ingested relating to frequency, preparation and intake to allow the quantitative assessment of human health risk.

PFOS, PFHxS and PFOA concentrations will be compared against Tier 1 screening levels relevant to the potentially complete exposure pathways to identify which pathways require a Tier 1 quantitative evaluation.

Data set for POE will be sufficient to allow statistical analysis if required.

13. Specify performance of acceptance criteria

The assessment as a whole (including consideration of previous assessments) must reliably characterise the sources of contamination from the Base and described the risk that the contamination may pose to human or ecological receptors. In order to achieve that, there must be multiple lines of evidence to support location of source areas; the characterisation of the nature and extent of the residual source and associated surface water or ground water impact; the significance of the risk that that contamination currently poses to relevant receptors; and predictions of future impacts.

The HHRA assessment as a whole must reliably characterise the contaminant concentrations at the point of exposure, either via direct measurement or calculation, to quantify the potential intake and associated risk to human receptors within the EIA.

As consistent with NEPM and enHealth guidance, the uncertainties associated with each step in the risk assessment process, particularly site conditions, human exposure and chemical toxicity, will be discussed in terms of the variability in the assumptions and associated influence on the estimates of risk

14. Develop a plan for obtaining the data

The methodology and rationale for obtaining relevant data for the is described in the HHRA SAQP.

9.1.2. Data Quality Indicators

An assessment of the reliability of field procedures and laboratory analytical results outlined through the DQOs has been undertaking using the DQIs of precision, accuracy, representativeness, completeness and comparability. A brief outline of the DQIs is presented below.

Precision – All Coffey field staff to implement Coffey standard operating procedures (SOPs) appropriate for the task being undertaken. All laboratories used to undertake analysis are NATA accredited for the analytes being tested for. An appropriate number of intra-laboratory and inter-laboratory replicate samples were collected and analysed and are within the acceptable limits of 1 in 20.

Accuracy – All Coffey staff to follow the appropriate SOPs for the tasks being undertaken. Trip blanks and equipment rinsate blank samples collected and results of which are to be satisfactory. All laboratories used are to be NATA accredited and the use of NATA endorsed methods, including appropriate method blanks, laboratory control samples, laboratory spikes and duplicates, and the results of which satisfy the defined criteria of acceptability.

Representativeness – A sufficient number of samples are to be collected and analysed from each media to adequately achieve the overall DSI objectives.

Completeness – All Coffey staff to follow Coffey SOPs appropriate to the task being performed, along with the appropriate documentation. All identified areas of environmental concern to be assessed with chemical analysis for relevant chemicals of potential concern from targeted and systematic sampling locations. All samples to be under proper custody between the field and laboratory. The data obtained from the laboratory is considered relevant and usable.

Comparability – All Coffey staff to follow the appropriate SOPs for the task being undertaken and complete all sampling documentation. All analyte holding times to be complied with and samples properly and adequately preserved. All laboratory analysis to use the correct methods, along with appropriate limits of reporting (LORs).

The DQIs for the field works and laboratory analysis were established in the SAQP. The established acceptance limits are presented in Table 2 and Table 3.

Page 106: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

Table 2: Field Works Quality Control Criteria

Item Comments

Intra-laboratory

duplicates

Inter-laboratory duplicates (triplicates)

Intra-laboratory field duplicates were collected at a minimum frequency of one sample per

twenty samples collected (5%). The analytical results of the primary sample and

duplicate/triplicate samples will be compared to assess the precision of the sampling

protocol and to provide an indication of variation in the sample source.

Repeatability will be assessed by calculating the relative percentage difference (RPD)

between the primary and duplicate results. Where the RPD is greater than 30%, the

potential causes of variability has been reviewed.

Trip blanks Trip blanks are a check on sample contamination originating from containers, sample

transport, shipping and site conditions. The trip blank will be prepared in a clean

environment (office or warehouse) and remain with the sample containers during sampling

and during the return trip to the laboratory. At no time during these procedures will the

blanks be opened. Upon return to the laboratory the blank will be analysed, if needed, as

any other field sample. As PFAS is not volatile, a reduced blank frequency is considered

appropriate and a single trip blank per sample batch will be transported and analysed.

Detectable concentrations of PFAS in a trip blank sample will trigger review of sample

container types, transport procedures and UHP water quality. The concentration and

compound detected will be considered in reviewing the potential impact of transport related

cross-contamination of the assessment data quality.

Rinsate blanks Rinsate samples will be prepared in the field using empty bottles and the distilled

water/potable water used for the cleaning of non-disposable sampling equipment. These

samples will be a check of field decontamination procedures. A rinsate sample will be

collected and analysed for each day of field work, where non-disposable sampling

equipment has been used.

Detectable concentrations of PFAS in a rinsate blank sample will trigger review of

decontamination procedures, equipment materials, sample container types and UHP water

quality. The concentration and compound detected will be considered in reviewing the

potential impact of transport related cross-contamination of the assessment data quality.

Table 3: Laboratory Quality Control Criteria

Data Type Comments and Acceptable Control Limits

Sample Analysis All sample analyses to be conducted using NATA certified laboratories which will implement a quality control plan in accordance with NEPM (1999).

Holding times Maximum acceptable sample holding times:

Soil: 14 days for organic analyses (including PFAS) and 6 months for inorganic analyses (28 days for mercury).

Laboratory detection limits

All laboratory detection limits to be less than the site investigation criteria.

Laboratory Blanks

Laboratory blanks to be analysed at a rate of 1 in 20, with a minimum of one analysed per batch.

Concentration of analytes to be less than the laboratory detection limits.

Laboratory Duplicates

Laboratory duplicates to be analysed at a rate of 1 in 20, with a minimum of one analysed per batch. RPDs to be less than 30%.

Page 107: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

Laboratory Control Samples (LCS)

LCSs to be analysed at a rate of 1 in 20, with a minimum of one analysed per analytical batch.

Control limits: 50 to 150 % acceptable recovery

Matrix spikes Matrix spike duplicate prepared by dividing a field sample into two aliquots, then spiking each with identical concentrations of the analytes at a rate of 1 in 20.

Matrix spike control limits:

50–150 % acceptable recovery. Lower recoveries may be acceptable for OCPs, OPPs, PCBs and phenols and will be assessed according to USEPA protocols.

Matrix spike duplicates:

RPDs <50%

Page 108: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

9.2. Field Quality Assurance Quality Control

Field Quality Assurance Procedures

Field quality assurance involves all the planned actions, procedures, checks and decisions which have been made and undertaken through quality control measures to ensure the representativeness and integrity of collected samples is that of the true conditions.

Sample Collection

All Coffey environmental scientists/engineers were suitably qualified, trained and experienced for the sample collection undertaken. Sampling of each matrix was undertaken with reference to the Coffey standard operating procedures (SOPs).

Sampling Methodology

The adopted sampling methods for each media (soil, sediments, groundwater and surface water) is presented in the DSI SAQP.

All samples were collected using a new disposable nitrile glove. Each sample was collected in a laboratory supplied jar or bottle appropriate to the analysis required.

All groundwater samples were collected using disposable bladders and tubing or disposable hydro sleeves.

Each sample was labelled using a unique sample identifier, project reference and date of sample collection, as directed by Defence and documented in the DSI SAQP (754-MELEN199420-R03).

Sample Transport and Preservation

To maintain sample integrity, all samples were placed into laboratory prepared containers suitable for PFAS and other non-PFAS analysis. Samples were immediately placed into an insulated ice chest containing ice, for storage and transportation to the Eurofins and ALS laboratories.

All samples were placed into lip-lock bags according to analysis, separating samples requiring PFAS analysis and samples requiring non-PFAS analysis.

All samples were sent to the laboratories under chain of custody (CoC) documentation.

Field Equipment Calibration

All equipment was calibrated before being used to collect data. All equipment was calibrated in accordance with the manufacturers’ specifications.

9.2.1. Type of Quality Assurance Quality Control (QA/QC) Samples Collected

Primary Samples 326

Days of sampling 18

Field Duplicates (at least 1 in 20 samples) 13 inter lab + 12 intra lab

Trip Blanks (at least 1 per sampling event) 0

Equipment Rinsate (at least

1/day/matrix/equipment)

4

Page 109: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

9.2.2. Samples Analysed

Sixty samples were collected and sent to the primary laboratory over four days of sampling. Two duplicate samples were collected and submitted for laboratory analysis to the secondary laboratory, Australian Laboratory Services (ALS).

9.2.3. Inter-Laboratory and Intra-Laboratory Duplicates

ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment

below)

1 Were an Adequate Number of inter-laboratory and inter-laboratory

duplicates analysed for each chemical?

2 Were RPDs within Control Limits?

< 30% for concentrations

Comments

Where RPDs were outside the acceptable range, sampling procedures, laboratory analytical methods and laboratory results were investigated.

There were 13 inter-laboratory duplicate pair analyses for PFAS compounds and 76.9 % were reported within the acceptance target of less than 30 % RPD.

There were 12 intra-laboratory duplicate pair analyses for PFAS compounds and 91.7 % were reported within the acceptance target of less than 30 % RPD.

The one RPD discrepancy observed (for PFOS) may be attributable to the left and right fillets of the fish not having consistent concentrations of PFAS throughout the flesh, meaning that the samples are not true replicates. The discrepancy may also be attributable to the laboratory methodologies.

The RPD results from the aquatic biota sampling were generally considered acceptable and able to be relied on for the report.

9.2.4. Trip Blanks

ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment

below)

1 Was a trip blank collected on for each batch of samples?

2 Were the Trip Blanks free of contaminants?

(If no, comment whether the contaminants present are also detected

in the samples and whether they are common laboratory chemicals.)

Comments

Concentrations for all analytes were below the laboratory LOR for all trip blanks and indicated that cross contamination was unlikely to have occurred during sample storage and transport.

No dedicated trip blank was collected during the sampling carried out through the sampling event from December 2017 to April 2018, as most of the aquatic biota samples were collected. However, the rinsate blanks that were collected throughout this sampling event were free of contamination. Therefore, this demonstrates that cross contamination was unlikely to have occurred during sample storage and transport.

Page 110: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

9.2.5. Rinsate Blanks

ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment

below)

1 Were Equipment Rinsates collected and analysed every

day/event/equipment?

2 Were the Equipment Rinsates free of contaminants?

(If no, comment whether the contaminants present are also detected

in the samples and whether they are common laboratory chemicals.)

Comments

Rinsate samples were collected from the field equipment (e.g. filleting knife) after decontamination. Equipment rinsate samples were collected by pouring laboratory prepared deionised water over the equipment and collecting the ‘rinse’ into sample containers. Concentrations of PFOS were reported for three of the four samples collected, however these concentrations were marginally below the laboratory LOR for rinsate blanks.

The rinsate results indicated that the decontamination procedures were acceptable and it is considered that there is a low potential for cross-contamination to have impacted on the laboratory results.

In summary, the field QC results are considered generally acceptable for the purposes of this investigation.

Field QA/QC was: Satisfactory

Partially Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

9.3. Laboratory Quality Assurance Quality Control

9.3.1. Laboratories

ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment below)

1 Was a NATA registered laboratory used?

2 Did the laboratory perform the requested tests?

3 Were the laboratory methods adopted NATA endorsed?

4 Were the appropriate test procedures followed?

5 Were the reporting limits satisfactory?

6 Was the NATA Seal on the reports?

7 Were the reports signed by an authorised person?

Comments

Eurofins – Eurofins has been adopted as the primary laboratory for analysis of all matrices. Eurofins is a NATA accredited laboratory (NATA accreditation number 1261) for soil and water for all the analytes requiring analysis.

Page 111: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

ALS Environmental – ALS has been adopted as the secondary laboratory for analysis of soil and water samples. ALS is a NATA accredited laboratory (NATA accreditation number 825) for all the analytes requiring analysis.

Precision / Accuracy of the Laboratory Report Satisfactory

Partially Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

9.3.2. Sample Handling

ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment

below)

1 Were the sample holding times met?

2 Were the samples in proper custody between the field and reaching

the laboratory?

3 Were the samples properly and adequately preserved?

This includes keeping the samples chilled, where applicable.

4 Were the samples received by the laboratory in good condition?

Comments

Nil

Sample Handling was: Satisfactory

Partially Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

9.3.3. Laboratory (Method) Blanks

The method blank allows assessment for potential method bias for relevant analytes. A method blank is the component of the analytical signal from each analytical method that is from laboratory equipment (reagents, glassware and analytical instruments etc.). The method blank is determined by the laboratories through running solvents and reagents in exactly the same manner as the samples.

At least one method blank should be run per 20 samples analysed, with a minimum of one method blank per sample batch.

All laboratory method blank results reported concentrations of contaminants below the laboratory reporting limits.

9.3.4. Laboratory Duplicates

To provide an estimate of the analysis method precision and duplicate sample heterogeneity, a sample from the same batch is duplicated and analysed for a targeted analyte.

100% of internal laboratory duplicates analysed by Eurofins and ALS were within acceptable limits (<30% RPD).

Page 112: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

9.3.5. Laboratory Control Samples

Laboratory control samples are prepared in the laboratory and comprise either a known analyte concentration within a proven matrix or a control matrix spiked with analytes representative of the target analyte. The laboratory control sample percent recovery is reported along with the primary sample data to assess method accuracy for all targeted analytes.

Laboratory control samples are required to be processed per 20 samples analysed, with a minimum of one laboratory control sample run per batch of samples.

All laboratory control sample analyses were within the acceptable range (>50%).

9.3.6. Matrix Spikes

A matrix spike is undertaken to document the effect of the matrix on the performance of the method used. The matrix spike is the addition of a known analyte concentration to the target matrix prior to extraction or digestion. If a poor percentage recovery of a matrix spike is reported below the expected analytical method performance, the laboratory should investigate the likely cause. If, after investigation, the poor matrix spike remains and is reported to the client, an explanation documenting the limitations of the method for recovery of the target analyte from that particular matrix needs to be provided. If the laboratory control sample recovery is acceptable for the same analyte, this may indicate that it is the matrix causing the poor recovery and not the method.

7.2% of matrix spike analyses were outside the adopted 70% - 130% acceptability criteria adopted. These discrepancies were for a number of PFAS compounds, however only 3 were reported for a key compound (PFOS) indicating that the data set was acceptable for the purposes of supporting the outcomes of the report.

9.3.7. Surrogate Recoveries

Surrogate spikes are a means of the laboratory checking that no gross errors have taken place throughout the analysis procedure, causing losses of the target analytes. The laboratory undertakes surrogate spikes by adding a known quantity of compounds with similar properties and behaviour to the target compounds, but which are not expected to be found in field samples.

Surrogate spikes are only appropriate for organic analysis and are added to all samples being analysed prior to the extraction process. A percent recovery is calculated for each surrogate, providing the analytical method accuracy of extraction of the target analytes from samples.

The collated laboratory data for surrogate recoveries reported 1,792 surrogates (out of a total of 7,927 surrogate analyses undertaken) outside acceptable limits. These discrepancies were for a number of PFAS compounds, however only 110 of these discrepancies were for key compounds (PFOS, PFOA & PFHxS) indicating that the data set was acceptable for the purposes of supporting the outcomes of the report.

9.3.8. Summary of Internal Laboratory Quality Control

A summary of the internal laboratory quality control results is provided in Table 4 and Table 5.

Table 4:

ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment

below)

1 Were the laboratory blanks/reagents blanks free of contamination?

2 Were the spike recoveries within control limits?

Page 113: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment

below)

3 Were the RPDs of the laboratory duplicates within control limits?

4 Were the surrogate recoveries within control limits?

7.2% of matrix spike analyses were outside the adopted 70% - 130% acceptability criteria adopted. however only 3 of these discrepancies were reported for a key compound (PFOS) indicating that the data set was acceptable for the purposes of supporting the outcomes of the report.

22.6% of the surrogate recoveries were reported outside acceptable limits, however only 110 of these discrepancies were for key compounds (PFOS, PFOA & PFHxS) indicating that the data set was acceptable for the purposes of supporting the outcomes of the report.

Table 5: Summary of internal laboratory QC results

QC test Total Analyses Number outside of

Acceptable Criteria

% of analyses acceptable

Method Blanks 334 0 100%

Laboratory

Duplicates

1104 0 100%

Laboratory

Control Samples

333 0 100%

Matrix Spikes 853 61 92.8%

Surrogates 7927 1792 77.4%

Totals 19144 2430 87.3%

The review of the laboratory internal quality control testing undertaken indicated that the overall completeness for the internal laboratory quality control results was 87.3%. However as most of the surrogate outlies are not for key PFAS compounds and without the surrogate outliers reported, 99.1% of internal laboratory quality control results were acceptable. The data is therefore considered of an acceptable quality to use in the report.

Laboratory internal QA/QC was: Satisfactory

Partially Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

9.4. Summary of Aquatic Biota Data Quality Review

In general, the data quality of the aquatic biota was considered to be acceptable. Minor QC deficiencies (elevated RPDs and internal laboratory discrepancies) were considered unlikely to impact on the outcome of the report.

Page 114: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

HHRA - QAQC

Katherine River FishDoD, RAAF Base Tindal

Lab Report Number 578755 RN1184145 578755 RN1184145 595033 595033 595033 595033 595033 595033

Field ID

0990_FH238

_171213

0990_FH237

_171213 RPD

0990_FH210

_171212

0990_FH211

_171212 RPD

0990_FH281

_180223

0990_FH280

_180223 RPD

0990_FH302

_180226

0990_FH301

_180226 RPD

0990_FH312

_180226

0990_FH311

_180226 RPD

Field Duplicates (BIOTA) Sampled Date/Time 13/12/2017 13/12/2017 12/12/2017 12/12/2017 23/02/2018 23/02/2018 26/02/2018 26/02/2018 26/02/2018 26/02/2018

Method_TypeChemName Units EQL

Organic 10:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (10:2 FTS) µg/kg 0.5 (Primary): 2 (Interlab) <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0

N-Ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoethanol (EtFOSE µg/kg 0.5 (Primary): 2 (Interlab) <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0

N-Methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid (M µg/kg 0.5 (Primary): 1 (Interlab) <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0

N-Methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoethanol (MeFOS µg/kg 0.5 (Primary): 2 (Interlab) <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorodecanesulfonic acid mg/kg 0.0005 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorohexanesulfonic acid mg/kg 0.0005 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0

N-ethyl-perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid mg/kg 0.0005 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0

N-methyl-perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid mg/kg 0.0005 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0

Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid mg/kg 0.0005 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0

Perfluorobutanoic acid mg/kg 0.0005 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0

Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid mg/kg 0.0005 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0

Perfluorodecanoic acid mg/kg 0.0005 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0

Perfluorododecanoic acid mg/kg 0.0005 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0

Perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid (PFHpS) UG/KG 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0

Perfluoroheptanoic acid mg/kg 0.0005 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0

Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid mg/kg 0.0003 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.0003 <0.0003 0 <0.0003 <0.0003 0 <0.0003 <0.0003 0

Perfluorooctanoate Acid mg/kg 0.0005 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0

Perfluorohexanoic acid mg/kg 0.0005 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0

Perfluorononanoic acid mg/kg 0.0005 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0

Perfluoropentanesulfonic acid (PFPeS) UG/KG 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0

Perfluorooctanesulfonamide mg/kg 0.0005 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0

Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid mg/kg 0.0003 31.0 22.0 34 1.2 1.1 9 <0.5 <0.5 0 0.0043 0.004 7 0.011 0.011 0

Perfluoropentanoic acid mg/kg 0.0005 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0

Perfluorotetradecanoic acid mg/kg 0.0005 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0

Perfluorotridecanoic acid mg/kg 0.0005 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0

Perfluoroundecanoic acid mg/kg 0.0005 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0

*RPDs have only been considered where a concentration is greater than 0 times the EQL.

**High RPDs are in bold (Acceptable RPDs for each EQL multiplier range are: 25 (0-10 x EQL); 25 (10-20 x EQL); 10 ( > 20 x EQL) )

***Interlab Duplicates are matched on a per compound basis as methods vary between laboratories. Any methods in the row header relate to those used in the primary laboratory

Page 115: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

HHRA - QAQC

Katherine River FishDoD, RAAF Base Tindal

Lab Report Number

Field ID

Field Duplicates (BIOTA) Sampled Date/Time

Method_TypeChemName Units EQL

Organic 10:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (10:2 FTS) µg/kg 0.5 (Primary): 2 (Interlab)

N-Ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoethanol (EtFOSE µg/kg 0.5 (Primary): 2 (Interlab)

N-Methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid (M µg/kg 0.5 (Primary): 1 (Interlab)

N-Methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoethanol (MeFOS µg/kg 0.5 (Primary): 2 (Interlab)

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorodecanesulfonic acid mg/kg 0.0005

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorohexanesulfonic acid mg/kg 0.0005

N-ethyl-perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid mg/kg 0.0005

N-methyl-perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid mg/kg 0.0005

Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid mg/kg 0.0005

Perfluorobutanoic acid mg/kg 0.0005

Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid mg/kg 0.0005

Perfluorodecanoic acid mg/kg 0.0005

Perfluorododecanoic acid mg/kg 0.0005

Perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid (PFHpS) UG/KG 0.5

Perfluoroheptanoic acid mg/kg 0.0005

Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid mg/kg 0.0003

Perfluorooctanoate Acid mg/kg 0.0005

Perfluorohexanoic acid mg/kg 0.0005

Perfluorononanoic acid mg/kg 0.0005

Perfluoropentanesulfonic acid (PFPeS) UG/KG 0.5

Perfluorooctanesulfonamide mg/kg 0.0005

Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid mg/kg 0.0003

Perfluoropentanoic acid mg/kg 0.0005

Perfluorotetradecanoic acid mg/kg 0.0005

Perfluorotridecanoic acid mg/kg 0.0005

Perfluoroundecanoic acid mg/kg 0.0005

*RPDs have only been considered where a concentration is greater than 0 times the EQL.

**High RPDs are in bold (Acceptable RPDs for each EQL multiplier range are: 25 (0-10 x EQL); 25 (10-20 x EQL); 10 ( > 20 x EQL) )

***Interlab Duplicates are matched on a per compound basis as methods vary between laboratories. Any methods in the row header relate to those used in the primary laboratory

595033 595033 595033 ES1812288 595033 ES1812288 598201 ES1812288 595033 ES1812288

0990_FH337

_180228

0990_FH336

_180228 RPD

0990_FH272

_180223

0990_FH272

_180223 RPD

0990_FH290

_180223

0990_FH291

_180223 RPD

0990_FH295

_180223

0990_FH295

_180223 RPD

0990_FH330

_180228

0990_FH330

_180228 RPD

28/02/2018 28/02/2018 23/02/2018 23/02/2018 23/02/2018 23/02/2018 23/02/2018 23/02/2018 28/02/2018 28/02/2018

<0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <2.0 0 <0.5 <2.0 0 <0.5 <2.0 0 <0.5 <2.0 0

<0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <5.0 0 <0.5 <2.0 0 <0.5 <2.0 0 <0.5 <2.0 0

<0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <2.0 0 <0.5 <1.0 0 <0.5 <1.0 0 <0.5 <1.0 0

<0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <5.0 0 <0.5 <2.0 0 <0.5 <2.0 0 <0.5 <2.0 0

<0.0005 <0.0005 0

<0.0005 <0.0005 0

<0.0005 <0.0005 0

<0.0005 <0.0005 0

<0.0005 <0.0005 0

<0.0005 <0.0005 0

<0.0005 <0.0005 0

<0.0005 <0.0005 0

<0.0005 <0.0005 0

<0.5 <0.5 0

<0.0005 <0.0005 0

<0.0003 <0.0003 0

<0.0005 <0.0005 0

<0.0005 <0.0005 0

<0.0005 <0.0005 0

<0.5 <0.5 0

<0.0005 <0.0005 0

0.0016 0.0019 17

<0.0005 <0.0005 0

<0.0005 <0.0005 0

<0.0005 <0.0005 0

<0.0005 <0.0005 0

Page 116: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

HHRA - QAQC

Katherine River FishDoD, RAAF Base Tindal

Lab Report Number

Field ID

Field Duplicates (BIOTA) Sampled Date/Time

Method_TypeChemName Units EQL

Organic 10:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (10:2 FTS) µg/kg 0.5 (Primary): 2 (Interlab)

N-Ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoethanol (EtFOSE µg/kg 0.5 (Primary): 2 (Interlab)

N-Methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid (M µg/kg 0.5 (Primary): 1 (Interlab)

N-Methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoethanol (MeFOS µg/kg 0.5 (Primary): 2 (Interlab)

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorodecanesulfonic acid mg/kg 0.0005

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorohexanesulfonic acid mg/kg 0.0005

N-ethyl-perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid mg/kg 0.0005

N-methyl-perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid mg/kg 0.0005

Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid mg/kg 0.0005

Perfluorobutanoic acid mg/kg 0.0005

Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid mg/kg 0.0005

Perfluorodecanoic acid mg/kg 0.0005

Perfluorododecanoic acid mg/kg 0.0005

Perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid (PFHpS) UG/KG 0.5

Perfluoroheptanoic acid mg/kg 0.0005

Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid mg/kg 0.0003

Perfluorooctanoate Acid mg/kg 0.0005

Perfluorohexanoic acid mg/kg 0.0005

Perfluorononanoic acid mg/kg 0.0005

Perfluoropentanesulfonic acid (PFPeS) UG/KG 0.5

Perfluorooctanesulfonamide mg/kg 0.0005

Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid mg/kg 0.0003

Perfluoropentanoic acid mg/kg 0.0005

Perfluorotetradecanoic acid mg/kg 0.0005

Perfluorotridecanoic acid mg/kg 0.0005

Perfluoroundecanoic acid mg/kg 0.0005

*RPDs have only been considered where a concentration is greater than 0 times the EQL.

**High RPDs are in bold (Acceptable RPDs for each EQL multiplier range are: 25 (0-10 x EQL); 25 (10-20 x EQL); 10 ( > 20 x EQL) )

***Interlab Duplicates are matched on a per compound basis as methods vary between laboratories. Any methods in the row header relate to those used in the primary laboratory

595033 595033 595033 595033 595033 595033 595033 595033 595033 595033 595033 ES1812288 595033

0990_FH354

_180302

0990_FH353

_180302 RPD

0990_FH369

_180302

0990_FH368

_180302 RPD

0990_FH395

_180307

0990_FH394

_180307 RPD

0990_FH415

_180309

0990_FH414

_180309 RPD

0990_FH426

_180313

0990_FH425

_180313 RPD

0990_FH358

_180306

0990_FH358

_180306 RPD

0990_FH413

_180308

2/03/2018 2/03/2018 2/03/2018 2/03/2018 7/03/2018 7/03/2018 9/03/2018 9/03/2018 13/03/2018 13/03/2018 6/03/2018 6/03/2018 8/03/2018

<0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <2.0 0 <0.5

<0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <2.0 0 <0.5

<0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <1.0 0 <0.5

<0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <2.0 0 <0.5

<0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0

<0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0

<0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0

<0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0

<0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0

<0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0

<0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0

<0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0

<0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0

<0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 1.5 1.0 40 0.5 0.6 18 <0.5 <0.5 0

<0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0

<0.0003 <0.0003 0 <0.0003 <0.0003 0 0.0041 0.0032 25 0.0012 0.0012 0 0.0005 0.0006 18

<0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0

<0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0

<0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0

<0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0

<0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0

0.064 0.0003 198 0.021 0.019 10 0.2 0.17 16 0.081 0.086 6 0.017 0.018 6

<0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0

<0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0

<0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0

<0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0

Page 117: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

HHRA - QAQC

Katherine River FishDoD, RAAF Base Tindal

Lab Report Number

Field ID

Field Duplicates (BIOTA) Sampled Date/Time

Method_TypeChemName Units EQL

Organic 10:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (10:2 FTS) µg/kg 0.5 (Primary): 2 (Interlab)

N-Ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoethanol (EtFOSE µg/kg 0.5 (Primary): 2 (Interlab)

N-Methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid (M µg/kg 0.5 (Primary): 1 (Interlab)

N-Methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoethanol (MeFOS µg/kg 0.5 (Primary): 2 (Interlab)

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorodecanesulfonic acid mg/kg 0.0005

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorohexanesulfonic acid mg/kg 0.0005

N-ethyl-perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid mg/kg 0.0005

N-methyl-perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid mg/kg 0.0005

Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid mg/kg 0.0005

Perfluorobutanoic acid mg/kg 0.0005

Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid mg/kg 0.0005

Perfluorodecanoic acid mg/kg 0.0005

Perfluorododecanoic acid mg/kg 0.0005

Perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid (PFHpS) UG/KG 0.5

Perfluoroheptanoic acid mg/kg 0.0005

Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid mg/kg 0.0003

Perfluorooctanoate Acid mg/kg 0.0005

Perfluorohexanoic acid mg/kg 0.0005

Perfluorononanoic acid mg/kg 0.0005

Perfluoropentanesulfonic acid (PFPeS) UG/KG 0.5

Perfluorooctanesulfonamide mg/kg 0.0005

Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid mg/kg 0.0003

Perfluoropentanoic acid mg/kg 0.0005

Perfluorotetradecanoic acid mg/kg 0.0005

Perfluorotridecanoic acid mg/kg 0.0005

Perfluoroundecanoic acid mg/kg 0.0005

*RPDs have only been considered where a concentration is greater than 0 times the EQL.

**High RPDs are in bold (Acceptable RPDs for each EQL multiplier range are: 25 (0-10 x EQL); 25 (10-20 x EQL); 10 ( > 20 x EQL) )

***Interlab Duplicates are matched on a per compound basis as methods vary between laboratories. Any methods in the row header relate to those used in the primary laboratory

ES1812288 595033 ES1812288 595033 ES1812288 595033 ES1812288 595194 595194 595194 595194 598201 ES1812288 595194 595194 595194 595194

0990_FH413

_180308 RPD

0990_FH467

_180316

0990_FH467

_180316 RPD

0990_FH441

_180315

0990_FH442

_180315 RPD

0990_FH460

_180316

0990_FH460

_180316 RPD

0990_FH536

_180419

0990_QCFH

801_180419 RPD

0990_FH537

_180419

0990_QCFH

803_180419 RPD

0990_FH506

_180406

0990_FH506

_180406 RPD

0990_FH536

_180419

0990_QCFH

802_180419 RPD

0990_FH537

_180419

0990_QCFH

804_180419 RPD

8/03/2018 16/03/2018 16/03/2018 15/03/2018 15/03/2018 16/03/2018 16/03/2018 19/04/2018 19/04/2018 19/04/2018 19/04/2018 6/04/2018 6/04/2018 19/04/2018 19/04/2018 19/04/2018 19/04/2018

<2.0 0 <0.5 <2.0 0 <0.5 <2.0 0 <0.5 <2.0 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <2.0 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0

<2.0 0 <0.5 <2.0 0 <0.5 <2.0 0 <0.5 <2.0 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <2.0 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0

<1.0 0 <0.5 <1.0 0 <0.5 <1.0 0 <0.5 <1.0 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <1.0 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0

<2.0 0 <0.5 <2.0 0 <0.5 <2.0 0 <0.5 <2.0 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <2.0 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0

<0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0

<0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0

<0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0

<0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0

<0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0

<0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0

<0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0

<0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0

<0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0

<0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0

<0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0

<0.0003 <0.0003 0 <0.0003 <0.0003 0 <0.0003 <0.0003 0 <0.0003 <0.0003 0

<0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0

<0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0

<0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0

<0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0 <0.5 <0.5 0

<0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0

0.002 0.0027 30 0.0019 0.0018 5 0.002 0.0024 18 0.0019 0.0023 19

<0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0

<0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0

<0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0

<0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 0

Page 118: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

HHRA - QAQC

Katherine River Fish Sampling Event

Blanks

DoD, RAAF Base Tindal

Field Blanks (WATER) SDG 20-Apr-18 20-Apr-18 20-Apr-18 20-Apr-18

Field ID QCFH702 QCFH703 QCFH704 QCFH705

Sampled_Date/Time 01-03-18 02-03-18 13-03-18 04-04-18

Sample Type Rinsate Rinsate Rinsate Rinsate

Method_Type ChemName Units EQL

Organic 6:2 Fluorotelomer Sulfonate (6:2 FtS) mg/l 0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorodecanesulfonic acid mg/l 0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorohexanesulfonic acid mg/l 0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001

N-ethyl-perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid mg/l 0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005

N-methyl-perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid mg/l 0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005

Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid mg/l 0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001

Perfluorobutanoic acid mg/l 0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005

Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid mg/l 0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001

Perfluorodecanoic acid mg/l 0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001

Perfluorododecanoic acid mg/l 0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001

Perfluoroheptanoic acid mg/l 0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001

Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid mg/l 0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001

Perfluorooctanoate Acid mg/l 0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001

Perfluorohexanoic acid mg/l 0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001

Perfluorononanoic acid mg/l 0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001

Perfluorooctanesulfonamide mg/l 0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005

Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid mg/l 0.00001 <0.00001 0.00002 0.00002 0.00005

Perfluoropentanoic acid mg/l 0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001

Perfluorotetradecanoic acid mg/l 0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001

Perfluorotridecanoic acid mg/l 0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001

Perfluoroundecanoic acid mg/l 0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001

Page 119: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

10. BLOOD SERUM

10.1. Introduction

This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established for the data to support livestock blood serum sampling and then assesses the reliability of the field work procedures and laboratory analytical results using the data quality indicators (DQIs).

10.1.1. Data Quality Objectives

The National Environment Protection Measure (NEPM, Schedule B2 Guideline on Site

Characterisation - 2013) states that the nature and quality of the data collected for a particular

assessment will be determined by the Data Quality Objectives (DQOs). The NEPM and the Australian

Standard AS4482.1-2005 reference the US EPA Guidance on Systematic Planning Using the Data

Quality Objectives Process (US EPA, 2006) which defines the DQO process. The US EPA defines

the process as ‘a strategic planning approach based on the Scientific Methods that is used to prepare

for a data collection activity. It provides a systematic procedure for defining the criteria that a data

collection design should satisfy, including when to collect samples, where to collect samples, the

tolerable level of decision errors for the study, and how many samples to collect.’

To define the purpose, type, quantity and quality of data required for the livestock blood serum assessment, the seven step data quality objectives (DQOs) approach, as described in the NEPM 2013, was adopted.

The seven steps of the DQO process for the current RAAF Base PFAS Investigation are summarised below:

Table 1: Data Quality Objectives

Quality objectives

15. State the Problem

PFAS contamination sources have been identified at RAAF Base Tindal. Previous investigations have identified contaminated soil and groundwater in the vicinity of known source areas. Other potential source areas have had limited (if any) assessment for PFAS contaminant nature and extent. A comprehensive investigation of soils, waters and sediments is proposed through 2017.

The extent of PFAS contamination in groundwater and associated impact in surface water off-Base is not previously well understood. Given the tropical climate of the Tindal/Katherine area, surface water flows and groundwater recharge rates will have a strong seasonal variation.

In order to forecast the future impact of residual contamination, and inform contaminant management strategies, some modelling of contaminant transport behaviour will be required. The modelling will be undertaken following the analysis of data collected during the 2018 wet season.

16. Identify the goal of the study

The purpose of the broader investigation is to understand the nature and extent of PFAS contamination as a result of Defence activities.

The conceptual site model will inform human health and/or ecological risk assessment, and guide effective management strategies.

17. Identify information inputs

• Site history relating use of PFAS contaminant materials, to identify product types and locations where contamination may be emanating from (source areas).

• Existing data relevant to PFAS in soil, waters and sediment, to confirm the presence of source areas, indicate the potential extent of contamination, and identify gaps in reliable data.

Page 120: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

Quality objectives

• Surface water and groundwater flow regimes, to develop the conceptual site model about the potential migration pathways of contamination from source areas towards human and ecological receptors.

• Location and types of human and environmental receptors, to guide selection of relevant screening criteria to reflect plausible exposure routes.

18. Define the boundary of the study

Based on the potential for contaminated surface water or shallow groundwater to migrate west north-west towards Katherine River, the broad study area includes land and waterways on RAAF Base Tindal and the area between the Base and Katherine River. An approximate buffer of 1km across the western side of Katherine River has been included.

19. Develop a decision rule

Primary environmental samples will be collected and analysed by the laboratories for the full suite of PFAS compounds.

Animal produce samples

• Absolute concentrations to evaluate the exposure where ingestion of locally sourced animal products

may occur, to allow the quantitative assessment of health risk.

PFOS, PFHxS and PFOA concentrations will be compared against screening levels relevant to the potential beneficial uses of land or water to identify potential complete pathways and potentially unacceptable risks.

The relative concentrations of all (analysed) PFAS compounds in soil and groundwater samples will be used to characterise the source areas, define the lateral and vertical extent and identify complete exposure pathways.

Residual source mass, leachability of the source and measurements of contaminant mass flux will be used to assess the contribution that each identified source area is making to adverse impact on beneficial uses.

20. Specify performance of acceptance criteria

The assessment as a whole (including consideration of previous assessments) must reliably characterise the sources of contamination from the Base and described the risk that the contamination may pose to human or ecological receptors. In order to achieve that, there must be multiple lines of evidence to support location of source areas; the characterisation of the nature and extent of the residual source and associated surface water or ground water impact; the significance of the risk that that contamination currently poses to relevant receptors; and predictions of future impacts.

21. Develop a plan for obtaining the data

The methodology and rationale for obtaining relevant data for the blood serum assessment is described in the HHRA SAQP.

10.1.2. Data Quality Indicators

An assessment of the reliability of field procedures and laboratory analytical results outlined through the DQOs has been undertaking using the DQIs of precision, accuracy, representativeness, completeness and comparability. A brief outline of the DQIs is presented below.

Precision – All Coffey field staff to implement Coffey standard operating procedures (SOPs) appropriate for the task being undertaken. All laboratories used to undertake analysis are NATA accredited for the analytes being tested for. An appropriate number of intra-laboratory and inter-laboratory replicate samples were collected and analysed and are within the acceptable limits of 1 in 20.

Accuracy – All Coffey staff to follow the appropriate SOPs for the tasks being undertaken. Trip blanks and equipment rinsate blank samples collected and results of which are to be satisfactory. All laboratories used are to be NATA accredited and the use of NATA endorsed methods, including appropriate method blanks, laboratory control samples, laboratory spikes and duplicates, and the results of which satisfy the defined criteria of acceptability.

Page 121: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

Representativeness – A sufficient number of samples are to be collected and analysed from each media to adequately achieve the overall DSI objectives.

Completeness – All Coffey staff to follow Coffey SOPs appropriate to the task being performed, along with the appropriate documentation. All identified areas of environmental concern to be assessed with chemical analysis for relevant chemicals of potential concern from targeted and systematic sampling locations. All samples to be under proper custody between the field and laboratory. The data obtained from the laboratory is considered relevant and usable.

Comparability – All Coffey staff to follow the appropriate SOPs for the task being undertaken and complete all sampling documentation. All analyte holding times to be complied with and samples properly and adequately preserved. All laboratory analysis to use the correct methods, along with appropriate limits of reporting (LORs).

The DQIs for the field works and laboratory analysis were established in the SAQP. The established acceptance limits are presented in Table 2 and Table 3.

Table 2: Field Works Quality Control Criteria

Item Comments

Intra-laboratory

duplicates

Inter-laboratory duplicates (triplicates)

Intra-laboratory field duplicates were collected at a minimum frequency of one sample per

twenty samples collected (5%). The analytical results of the primary sample and

duplicate/triplicate samples will be compared to assess the precision of the sampling

protocol and to provide an indication of variation in the sample source.

Repeatability will be assessed by calculating the relative percentage difference (RPD)

between the primary and duplicate results. Where the RPD is greater than 30%, the

potential causes of variability has been reviewed.

Trip blanks Trip blanks are a check on sample contamination originating from containers, sample

transport, shipping and site conditions. The trip blank will be prepared in a clean

environment (office or warehouse) and remain with the sample containers during sampling

and during the return trip to the laboratory. At no time during these procedures will the

blanks be opened. Upon return to the laboratory the blank will be analysed, if needed, as

any other field sample. As PFAS is not volatile, a reduced blank frequency is considered

appropriate and a single trip blank per sample batch will be transported and analysed.

Detectable concentrations of PFAS in a trip blank sample will trigger review of sample

container types, transport procedures and UHP water quality. The concentration and

compound detected will be considered in reviewing the potential impact of transport related

cross-contamination of the assessment data quality.

Rinsate blanks Rinsate samples will be prepared in the field using empty bottles and the distilled

water/potable water used for the cleaning of non-disposable sampling equipment. These

samples will be a check of field decontamination procedures. A rinsate sample will be

collected and analysed for each day of field work, where non-disposable sampling

equipment has been used.

Detectable concentrations of PFAS in a rinsate blank sample will trigger review of

decontamination procedures, equipment materials, sample container types and UHP water

quality. The concentration and compound detected will be considered in reviewing the

potential impact of transport related cross-contamination of the assessment data quality.

Table 3: Laboratory Quality Control Criteria

Data Type Comments and Acceptable Control Limits

Page 122: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

Sample Analysis All sample analyses to be conducted using NATA certified laboratories which will implement a quality control plan in accordance with NEPM (1999).

Holding times Maximum acceptable sample holding times:

Soil: 14 days for organic analyses (including PFAS) and 6 months for inorganic analyses (28 days for mercury).

Groundwater/surface water: 14 days for organic analyses (including PFAS) and 6 months for inorganic analyses (28 days for mercury).

Laboratory detection limits

All laboratory detection limits to be less than the site investigation criteria.

Laboratory Blanks

Laboratory blanks to be analysed at a rate of 1 in 20, with a minimum of one analysed per batch.

Concentration of analytes to be less than the laboratory detection limits.

Laboratory Duplicates

Laboratory duplicates to be analysed at a rate of 1 in 20, with a minimum of one analysed per batch. RPDs to be less than 30%.

Laboratory Control Samples (LCS)

LCSs to be analysed at a rate of 1 in 20, with a minimum of one analysed per analytical batch.

Control limits: 50 to 150 % acceptable recovery

Matrix spikes Matrix spike duplicate prepared by dividing a field sample into two aliquots, then spiking each with identical concentrations of the analytes at a rate of 1 in 20.

Matrix spike control limits:

50–150 % acceptable recovery. Lower recoveries may be acceptable for OCPs, OPPs, PCBs and phenols and will be assessed according to USEPA protocols.

Matrix spike duplicates:

RPDs <50%

Page 123: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

10.2. Field Quality Assurance Quality Control

Field Quality Assurance Procedures

Field quality assurance involves all the planned actions, procedures, checks and decisions which have been made and undertaken through quality control measures to ensure the representativeness and integrity of collected samples is that of the true conditions.

Sample Collection

All Coffey environmental scientists/engineers were suitably qualified, trained and experienced for the sample collection undertaken. Sampling of each matrix was undertaken with reference to the Coffey standard operating procedures (SOPs).

Sampling Methodology

The adopted sampling methods for each media (soil, sediments, groundwater and surface water) is presented in the DSI SAQP.

All samples were collected using a new disposable nitrile glove. Each sample was collected in a laboratory supplied jar or bottle appropriate to the analysis required.

All groundwater samples were collected using disposable bladders and tubing or disposable hydro sleeves.

Each sample was labelled using a unique sample identifier, project reference and date of sample collection, as directed by Defence and documented in the DSI SAQP (754-MELEN199420-R03).

Sample Transport and Preservation

To maintain sample integrity, all samples were placed into laboratory prepared containers suitable for PFAS and other non-PFAS analysis. Samples were immediately placed into an insulated ice chest containing ice, for storage and transportation to the Envirolab and Eurofins laboratories.

All samples were placed into lip-lock bags according to analysis, separating samples requiring PFAS analysis and samples requiring non-PFAS analysis.

All samples were sent to the laboratories under chain of custody (CoC) documentation.

Field Equipment Calibration

All equipment was calibrated before being used to collect data. All equipment was calibrated in accordance with the manufacturers’ specifications.

10.2.1. Type of Quality Assurance Quality Control (QA/QC) Samples Collected

Primary Samples 42

Days of sampling 6

Field Duplicates (at least 1 in 20 samples) 4 inter lab

Trip Blanks (at least 1 per sampling event) -

Equipment Rinsate (at least

1/day/matrix/equipment)

-

Page 124: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

10.2.2. Samples Analysed

42 samples were collected and sent to the primary laboratory Envirolab over five days of sampling. Four duplicate samples were collected and submitted for laboratory analysis to the secondary laboratory Eurofins.

10.2.3. Inter-Laboratory and Intra-Laboratory Duplicates

ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment

below)

1 Were an Adequate Number of inter-laboratory and inter-laboratory

duplicates analysed for each chemical?

2 Were RPDs within Control Limits?

< 30% for concentrations

Comments

Where RPDs were outside the acceptable range, sampling procedures, laboratory analytical methods and laboratory results were investigated.

There were 104 duplicate pair analyses for PFAS compounds and 82 % were reported within the acceptance target of less than 30 % RPD.

The RPD discrepancies observed between several sample were attributed to analytical results in one of the samples being either at or marginally above the laboratory reporting limit, and the other below – which magnifies the relative difference between the results.

Generally, the majority of the discrepancies were between the primary and secondary laboratory indicated that the secondary laboratory was reporting lower concentrations of PFAS compounds than the primary laboratory, suggesting a slight bias. This bias adds a level of conservatism to the results and despite the discrepancies observed, the RPD results from the were generally considered acceptable and able to be relied on for the report.

10.2.4. Blanks

Blank samples were not collected during the blood serum assessment. Considering the low likelihood for cross contamination during sample collection or transportation, this is not considered likely to have affected the outcome of this assessment.

10.3. Laboratory Quality Assurance Quality Control

10.3.1. Laboratories

ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment below)

1 Was a NATA registered laboratory used?

2 Did the laboratory perform the requested tests?

3 Were the laboratory methods adopted NATA endorsed?

4 Were the appropriate test procedures followed?

5 Were the reporting limits satisfactory?

6 Was the NATA Seal on the reports?

Page 125: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

7 Were the reports signed by an authorised person?

Precision / Accuracy of the Laboratory Report Satisfactory

Partially Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

10.3.2. Sample Handling

ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment

below)

1 Were the sample holding times met?

2 Were the samples in proper custody between the field and reaching

the laboratory?

3 Were the samples properly and adequately preserved?

This includes keeping the samples chilled, where applicable.

4 Were the samples received by the laboratory in good condition?

Comments

Nil

Sample Handling was: Satisfactory

Partially Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

10.3.3. Laboratory (Method) Blanks

The method blank allows assessment for potential method bias for relevant analytes. A method blank is the component of the analytical signal from each analytical method that is from laboratory equipment (reagents, glassware and analytical instruments etc.). The method blank is determined by the laboratories through running solvents and reagents in exactly the same manner as the samples.

At least one method blank should be run per 20 samples analysed, with a minimum of one method blank per sample batch.

All laboratory method blank results reported concentrations of contaminants below the laboratory reporting limits.

10.3.4. Laboratory Duplicates

To provide an estimate of the analysis method precision and duplicate sample heterogeneity, a sample from the same batch is duplicated and analysed for a targeted analyte.

All internal laboratory duplicates analysed by Eurofins and ALS were within acceptable limits (<30% RPD).

Page 126: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

10.3.5. Laboratory Control Samples

Laboratory control samples are prepared in the laboratory and comprise either a known analyte concentration within a proven matrix or a control matrix spiked with analytes representative of the target analyte. The laboratory control sample percent recovery is reported along with the primary sample data to assess method accuracy for all targeted analytes.

Laboratory control samples are required to be processed per 20 samples analysed, with a minimum of one laboratory control sample run per batch of samples.

92.9% of laboratory control sample analyses were within the acceptable range (>50%).

10.3.6. Matrix Spikes

A matrix spike is undertaken to document the effect of the matrix on the performance of the method used. The matrix spike is the addition of a known analyte concentration to the target matrix prior to extraction or digestion. If a poor percentage recovery of a matrix spike is reported below the expected analytical method performance, the laboratory should investigate the likely cause. If, after investigation, the poor matrix spike remains and is reported to the client, an explanation documenting the limitations of the method for recovery of the target analyte from that particular matrix needs to be provided. If the laboratory control sample recovery is acceptable for the same analyte, this may indicate that it is the matrix causing the poor recovery and not the method.

88.1% of matrix spike analyses were within the adopted 70% – 130% acceptability criteria adopted.

10.3.7. Surrogate Recoveries

Surrogate spikes are a means of the laboratory checking that no gross errors have taken place throughout the analysis procedure, causing losses of the target analytes. The laboratory undertakes surrogate spikes by adding a known quantity of compounds with similar properties and behaviour to the target compounds, but which are not expected to be found in field samples.

Surrogate spikes are only appropriate for organic analysis and are added to all samples being analysed prior to the extraction process. A percent recovery is calculated for each surrogate, providing the analytical method accuracy of extraction of the target analytes from samples.

Surrogate recoveries were all within acceptable ranges.

10.3.8. Summary of Internal Laboratory Quality Control

A summary of the internal laboratory quality control results is provided in Table 4 and Table 5.

Table 4:

ITEM QUESTION YES NO (Comment

below)

1 Were the laboratory blanks/reagents blanks free of contamination?

2 Were the spike recoveries within control limits?

3 Were the RPDs of the laboratory duplicates within control limits?

4 Were the surrogate recoveries within control limits?

Table 5: Summary of internal laboratory QC results

QC test Total Analyses Number outside of

Acceptable Criteria

% of analyses acceptable

Page 127: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

Appendix L PFAS HHRA – RAAF Base Tindal

Method Blanks 56 0 100%

Laboratory

Duplicates

112 0 100%

Laboratory

Control Samples

84 6 92.9%

Matrix Spikes 84 10 88.1%

Surrogates 48 0 100%

Totals 384 16 95.8%

The review of the laboratory internal quality control testing undertaken indicated that the overall completeness for the internal laboratory quality control results was 95.8%, which is above the 95% target. Consequently, the data is therefore considered of an acceptable quality to use in the report.

Laboratory internal QA/QC was: Satisfactory

Partially Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

10.4. Summary of Blood serum Data Quality Review

In general, the data quality of the blood serum sample collection was considered to be acceptable. Minor discrepancies in replicate results between the primary and secondary laboratory were observed, with the primary laboratory generally reporting higher concentrations of PFAS than the secondary laboratory, which adds a level of conservatism to the results. Other minor QC deficiencies (internal laboratory discrepancies) were also considered unlikely to impact on the outcome of the report.

Page 128: 1. GROUNDWATER (November 2017) - Department of Defence · 2018-06-19 · 1.1. Introduction This data validation appendix summarises the data quality objectives (DQOs), established

HHRA - QAQC

XX Event

RPDs

DoD, RAAF Base Tindal

Field Duplicates (water) Lab Report Number 187819 591956 184379 592923 184379 592923 184379 592923

Field ID 0990_SM031_180317 0990_SM031_180315 RPD 0090_SM010_171221 0990_SM010_171221 RPD 0090_SM014_171222 0990_SM014_171222 RPD 0090_SM022_171222 0990_SM022_171222 RPD

Sampled Date/Time 17/03/2018 17/03/2018 21/12/2017 21/12/2017 22/12/2017 22/12/2017 22/12/2017 22/12/2017

Chem_GroupChemName Units EQL

PFAS Perfluoro-n-octanoic acid (PFOA) µg/L 1 (Primary): 0.2 (Interlab) <1.0 <0.2 0 5.0 <0.2 185 1.0 <0.2 133 <1.0 <0.2 0

Perfluoro-n-octane sulfonic acid (PFOS) µg/L 1 (Primary): 0.2 (Interlab) 37.0 53.0 36 130.0 120.0 8 23.0 10.0 79 60.0 67.0 11

Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) µg/L 1 (Primary): 0.2 (Interlab) <1.0 <0.2 0 1.0 <0.2 133 1.0 <0.2 133 <1.0 <0.2 0

Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) µg/L 2 (Primary): 0.2 (Interlab) <2.0 <0.2 0 <2.0 <0.2 0 <2.0 <0.2 0 <2.0 0.3 0

Perfluoro-n-decane sulfonic acid (PFDS) µg/L 2 (Primary): 0.3 (Interlab) <2.0 <0.3 0 <2.0 <0.3 0 <2.0 <0.3 0 <2.0 <0.3 0

Perfluoro-n-decanoic acid (PFDA) µg/L 2 (Primary): 0.2 (Interlab) <2.0 <0.2 0 <2.0 <0.2 0 <2.0 <0.2 0 <2.0 <0.2 0

Perfluoro-n-dodecanoic acid (PFDoDA) µg/L 5 (Primary): 0.2 (Interlab) <5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0

Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS) µg/L 1 (Primary): 0.2 (Interlab) <1.0 <0.2 0 1.0 <0.2 133 1.0 <0.2 133 <1.0 <0.2 0

Perfluoro-n-heptanoic acid (PFHpA) µg/L 1 (Primary): 0.2 (Interlab) <1.0 <0.2 0 <1.0 <0.2 0 1.0 <0.2 133 <1.0 <0.2 0

Perfluoro-n-hexanoic acid (PFHxA) µg/L 1 (Primary): 0.2 (Interlab) <1.0 <0.2 0 <1.0 <0.2 0 <1.0 <0.2 0 <1.0 <0.2 0

Perfluoro-n-nonanoic acid (PFNA) µg/L 1 (Primary): 0.2 (Interlab) <1.0 <0.2 0 1.0 <0.2 133 1.0 <0.2 133 <1.0 <0.2 0

Perfluorooctan esulfonamide (PFOSA) µg/L 10 (Primary): 0.2 (Interlab) <10.0 <0.2 0 <10.0 <0.2 0 <10.0 <0.2 0 <10.0 <0.2 0

Perfluoro pentanoic acid (PFPeA) µg/L 2 (Primary): 0.2 (Interlab) <2.0 <0.2 0 <2.0 <0.2 0 <2.0 <0.2 0 <2.0 <0.2 0

Perfluoro-n-tetradecanoic acid (PFTeDA) µg/L 50 (Primary): 0.3 (Interlab) <50.0 <0.3 0 <50.0 <0.3 0 <50.0 <0.3 0 <50.0 <0.3 0

Perfluoro-n-tridecanoic acid (PFTriDA) µg/L 5 (Primary): 0.3 (Interlab) <5.0 <0.3 0 <5.0 <0.3 0 <5.0 <0.3 0 <5.0 <0.3 0

Perfluoro-n-undecanoic acid (PFUnDA) µg/L 5 (Primary): 0.2 (Interlab) <5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0 <5.0 <0.2 0

2-(N-ethylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide)-ethanol µg/L 50 (Primary): 1 (Interlab) <50.0 <1.0 0 <50.0 <1.0 0 <50.0 <1.0 0 <50.0 <1.0 0

N-Ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid µg/L 2 (Primary): 0.3 (Interlab) <2.0 <0.3 0 <2.0 <0.3 0 <2.0 <0.3 0 <2.0 <0.3 0

N-Methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid µg/L 2 (Primary): 0.3 (Interlab) <2.0 <0.3 0 <2.0 <0.3 0 <2.0 <0.3 0 <2.0 <0.3 0

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (4:2 FTS) µg/L 1 (Primary): 0.2 (Interlab) <1.0 <0.2 0 1.0 <0.2 133 1.0 <0.2 133 <1.0 <0.2 0

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (6:2 FTS) µg/L 1 (Primary): 0.2 (Interlab) <1.0 <0.2 0 1.0 <0.2 133 1.0 <0.2 133 <1.0 <0.2 0

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorodecanesulfonic acid (8:2 FTS) µg/L 1 (Primary): 0.2 (Interlab) <1.0 <0.2 0 <1.0 <0.2 0 1.0 <0.2 133 <1.0 <0.2 0

1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorododecanesulfonic acid µg/L 1 (Primary): 0.3 (Interlab) <1.0 <0.3 0 1.0 <0.3 108 1.0 <0.3 108 <1.0 <0.3 0

N-Ethylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide (N-EtFOSA) µg/L 10 (Primary): 3 (Interlab) <10.0 <3.0 0 <10.0 <3.0 0 <10.0 <3.0 0 <10.0 <3.0 0

N-methylperfluoro-1-octane sulfonamide (N-MeFOSA) µg/L 10 (Primary): 3 (Interlab) <10.0 <3.0 0 <10.0 <3.0 0 <10.0 <3.0 0 <10.0 <3.0 0

N-Me perfluorooctanesulfonamid oethanol µg/L 10 (Primary): 1 (Interlab) <10.0 <1.0 0 <10.0 <1.0 0 <10.0 <1.0 0 <10.0 <1.0 0

*RPDs have only been considered where a concentration is greater than 0 times the EQL.

**High RPDs are in bold (Acceptable RPDs for each EQL multiplier range are: 25 (0-10 x EQL); 25 (10-20 x EQL); 10 ( > 20 x EQL) )

***Interlab Duplicates are matched on a per compound basis as methods vary between laboratories. Any methods in the row header relate to those used in the primary laboratory

Filter: Lab_Report_Number in('184379','187819')