Schedule B3 - COAG Standing Council on Environment and Water

They are considered to be sufficiently rigorous and reliable for the assessment of
contaminated sites, by virtue of their measured accuracy and precision in validation studies
and/or their usage and acceptance as rigorous techniques by the scientific community.
4. Capable of batch or automated analysis — samples should be able to be processed in large
batches without being cumbersome; automated analyses are often preferred.
5. Capable of simultaneous analysis — procedures should allow a variety of chemical
components to be analysed using aliquots of a single extract per sample. This minimises
sample processing time and cost and maximises sample throughput.
6. Have an appropriate limit of reporting (LOR) — the selected method should have a limit of
reporting no greater than 20% of the relevant maximum contaminant obtained in a similar
matrix.
7. Safe — safety should never be compromised, especially when undertaking large batch
processing and handling soils from contaminated sites.
The analytical methods in this guideline have been chosen to be, where possible, reliable, rapid,
and to measure the ‘non-residual’ contaminants in soil (not total contaminant concentrations).
Analysis of these non-residual components (i.e. non-silicate and extractable) provides more
useful information than a ’total‘ analysis which includes material bound in the silicate matrix;
these residual components are usually less available and pose little threat to the environment.
Therefore, the methods described in this guideline are directed towards the extraction or
digestion of non-residual contaminants and not the total contaminant load in a soil.
2.3 Referenced methods and use of alternative methods
Analysis for regulatory or statutory purposes, or conducted under the principles of this
<strong>Schedule</strong>, should be undertaken by either:
• the methods specified in this guideline (as updated over time)
or
• a method verified to be equivalent in outcome to the relevant referenced method.
NEPC acknowledges that other extraction and determinative methods may be at least as
efficient, accurate and precise (as well as possibly faster and less expensive) than those
recommended here, including specially designed commercial systems, for example, digestion
units, distillation units and auto analysers. However, it is beyond the scope of this guideline to
evaluate all possible alternatives.
Where such alternative methods are used, that is, any methods apart from those specified in
this guideline, the user should ensure that the alternative method is at least as rigorous and
reliable as the reference method and either that:
• it has been validated against an appropriate certified reference material (CRM). This
requires adequate recovery of analytes using CRMs during method validation, as well as
regular participation in national proficiency trials by bodies such as the National
Measurement Institute (NMI) or Proficiency Testing Australia (PTA) or other accredited
provider
and/or
• it has been verified against a laboratory that is NATA-accredited for the reference method.
<strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>B3</strong> - Guideline on laboratory analysis of potentially contaminated soils 3