Pollution Engineering - September 2008 - (Page 37)

Demolition of the power house. reconnaissance of the site and select areas of interest. Then using a standard grid pattern, we collect samples in plastic bags. Sometimes we take a surface sample, and other times we use a hand auger or Geoprobe. Using the bags lets us identify the site location and split samples for XRF and for lab correlation testing. We typically use a No. 60 mesh sieve for XRF field testing, but we can often get better correlation using a No. 10 sieve. In my experience over the years, this gives us the results we require without further sample preparation. We follow the CERCLA or Superfund process on BLM land. We typically use EPA Method 6200 and evaluate abandoned mines, processing areas, and waste (tailings) for heavy metals and other contaminants. We can run thousands of tests depending on the size of the site. The elements we look for vary by the nature of different sites. We routinely look for most heavy metals as primary chemicals of concern: arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, cobalt, chromium, iron, manganese, nickel and zinc. In some areas thallium and antimony are also of interest as secondary COCs. We measure total metals by using XRF methods. For lab testing we follow standard EPA-CLP methods (SOW 787). AUTHORS: Can you explain further how FPXRF helps the field work? FORD: We typically use XRF data in conjunction with GPS readings to characterize a site. It is fairly easy to download the XRF results, so we put all the data into an Excel spreadsheet. The new field-portable XRF x-ray tube has higher intensity x-rays, which help eliminate some interference issues we had with lead and arsenic in earlier units. Also, the extension pole accessory with its tripod adapter lets us test in-situ and walk away to perform other tasks. GLANZMAN: The current FPXRF instrumentation produces data acceptable to EPA standards for “data of known quality” when adhering to Method 6200 during its use on a site. Some say using the FPXRF is “like taking a lab to the field” to reduce analytical costs. When properly used in the field, FPXRF SEPTEMBER2008 www.pollutionengineering.com 37 http://results.rainforrent.com http://results.rainforrent.com http://www.pollutionengineering.com

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Pollution Engineering - September 2008

Pollution Engineering - September 2008 Contents The Editor’s Desk Reader Comments EnviroNews PE Events Legal Lookout Environmental Management The Green Files Guest Dialog 500-Year Storm Control How Do You Clean Up 100 Years of Pollution? SPCC: Don’t Wait and See The Next Wave in Air Purification An Invitation to the Windy City Flood Control Infrastructure Saves ‘Green’ Puts a New Spin on Pest Control Instrumentation Products Material Safety and Storage Equipment PE Products Classified Marketplace Advertisers Index State Rules

Pollution Engineering - September 2008

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.