able to apply for a New York state radiation license. A special safe had to be purchased to secure 
the XRF with its radioactive source. 
Costs for the Instrument 
In addition to investing in trained, licensed, and certified staff, those seeking to implement an 
extensive lead dust monitoring program may want to buy their own field-portable XRF. 
Syracuse purchased a Niton Model XL-309, which costs about $21,000, making it the most 
substantial expense the project faced. This model costs less than other Niton instruments 
(mainly the XL-700 series) that test for a wide range of metals, yet more than instruments that 
only analyze for lead-based-paint. The same model with soil analysis capability would cost an 
additional $3,000. Programs will face an additional expense to replace the instrument s radioac¬ 
tive source once every two years, if not more frequently. The Niton s 40mCi CD-109 source 
costs $7,300. 
Programs committed to a combination of dust, paint, or soil inspection for the long term will 
find that the investment will more than pay for itself. In addition to its EMPACT Lead Dust 
Project, the city of Syracuse also uses XRF technology for its HUD lead abatement program, 
plus a new soil analysis program, making the cost per sample less than it would be for laborato¬ 
ry analysis for each sample. Sending samples to a lab involves not only charges for the analysis 
itself, but also the expenses of shipping and handling. After Syracuse completed Phase I and 
started using only the XRF for most of the 
analysis, the cost savings became more apparent. 
EPA Verifies 
M EASUREMENT 
Use of XRF for 
□ f Lead in Dust 
I n the fall of 2002, EPA s Environmental 
Technology Verification (ETV) program published 
a report verifying the use of five field-portable XRF 
technologies for the measurement of lead in dust. The 
Niton XL-300 and XL-700 series XRF instruments 
were among the five brands tested. ETV evaluated over¬ 
all performance of the Niton XL-300 series as ... 
having a slight negative bias (but one with an accept¬ 
able range of bias) precise, and comparable to the 
NLLAP [National Lead Laboratory Accreditation 
Program] laboratory results. 
The ETV program facilitates the deployment of inno¬ 
vative or improved environmental technologies 
through the performance of verification and dissemi¬ 
nation of information. The goal of the ETV program 
is to further environmental protection by substantially 
accelerating the acceptance and use of improved and 
cost-effective technologies. For more information visit 
the ETV Web site at <www.epa.gov/etv>. 
6.3 Quality Contrdl 
Quality control is an important component of 
the Syracuse Lead Dust Project. The QAPP (See 
Appendix B) ensures that staff follow consistent 
protocols, test methods, and data management 
procedures. Syracuse employs additional quality 
control measures, as described in the following 
section, that help meet its objectives of confirm¬ 
ing the capabilities of XRF and training resi¬ 
dents to reduce lead dust levels in homes. 
Data Evaluation and 
Confirmatory Analysis 
One objective of the Syracuse Lead Dust Project 
is to validate the accuracy of XRF readings for 
lead dust monitoring by comparing Field XRF 
data to laboratory data. Because there is no 
EPA-approved method for lead dust analysis by 
XRF, Syracuse judged XRF results against the 
highest standards of accepted practice; namely, 
inductively coupled plasma/atomic emission 
4 4 
Chapter 6 
