Final Remedial Action Completion Report for the ... - Rvaap.org
Final Remedial Action Completion Report for the ... - Rvaap.org
Final Remedial Action Completion Report for the ... - Rvaap.org
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
<strong>Remedial</strong> <strong>Action</strong> <strong>Completion</strong> <strong>Report</strong><br />
June 2008<br />
Remediation of Soils and Dry Sediments at RVAAP 08-11 (LLs 1-4)<br />
Page 3-15<br />
<strong>the</strong> RVAAP cleanup criteria <strong>for</strong> TNT (1,646 mg/L) and RDX (838 mg/L). This test system is <strong>the</strong><br />
only screening method that has been approved <strong>for</strong> use at <strong>the</strong> RVAAP by <strong>the</strong> Ohio EPA.<br />
Based on <strong>the</strong> evaluation of field and fixed-base laboratory results, <strong>the</strong> field explosives screening<br />
method provided a valid representation of <strong>the</strong> presence or absence of TNT and RDX. A total of<br />
15 multi-increment samples, including a duplicate, were submitted <strong>for</strong> laboratory analysis <strong>for</strong><br />
TNT. Only one location (LL1ss-038-cs) exceeded <strong>the</strong> cleanup goal yielding a greater than 93%<br />
success rate <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> test kit screening procedure. Four multi-increment samples were submitted<br />
<strong>for</strong> RDX and <strong>the</strong> results <strong>for</strong> all four samples were below <strong>the</strong> cleanup goal, yielding a 100%<br />
success rate.<br />
3.5.4.3 In<strong>org</strong>anics Field Screening<br />
The majority of <strong>the</strong> remediation areas at LLs 1-4 were associated with elevated metals above<br />
cleanup goals. The in<strong>org</strong>anic COCs at LLs 1-4 consisted of aluminum, antimony, arsenic,<br />
hexavalent chromium, lead, and manganese. Manganese, lead and arsenic represented <strong>the</strong><br />
majority of <strong>the</strong> in<strong>org</strong>anic COCs. Ex situ field screening <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> in<strong>org</strong>anic COCs was per<strong>for</strong>med<br />
using an Innov-X Systems X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) instrument.<br />
XRF to ICP Correlation Results<br />
Prior to collecting <strong>the</strong> first confirmatory multi-increment samples, Shaw attempted to establish a<br />
correlation <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> primary in<strong>org</strong>anic COCs (manganese, arsenic, and lead) between <strong>the</strong> XRF and<br />
<strong>the</strong> confirmatory laboratory results obtained by Inductively Coupled Plasma (ICP). The purpose<br />
of <strong>the</strong> correlation was to see if <strong>the</strong> XRF technique would produce results comparable to <strong>the</strong> ICP<br />
laboratory methods. If <strong>the</strong> XRF and ICP laboratory methods produced comparable results, <strong>the</strong><br />
XRF method could be considered reliable in rapidly determining <strong>the</strong> extent of contamination<br />
be<strong>for</strong>e collecting confirmatory samples.<br />
Shaw submitted a total of 15 discrete samples, including two duplicate samples, from <strong>the</strong> initial<br />
excavation areas at LLs 1 and 4 and analyzed <strong>the</strong>m using <strong>the</strong> XRF. Split samples were <strong>the</strong>n<br />
submitted to <strong>the</strong> off-site laboratory using <strong>the</strong> ICP analysis. The field screening samples were<br />
directly comparable to <strong>the</strong> confirmatory laboratory samples because <strong>the</strong> field screening and<br />
laboratory samples were <strong>the</strong> same homogenized source material. Differences between <strong>the</strong> ex situ<br />
field XRF and <strong>the</strong> laboratory results primarily reflected differences in <strong>the</strong> two methods used on<br />
<strong>the</strong> same material.<br />
During past activities at <strong>the</strong> RVAAP, Shaw used a correlation percentage of less than 30%<br />
difference as a solid indicator of reliable results between <strong>the</strong> XRF and ICP methods. This<br />
percent difference provided positive results <strong>for</strong> those past activities and was considered a viable<br />
comparison <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> ongoing remediation activities. Table 3-3 provides a summary of correlation<br />
results <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> XRF and ICP methods <strong>for</strong> manganese, lead, and arsenic.<br />
*** FINAL***