MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
FIELD SAMPLING FOR 1980 URBAN SOIL MONITORING PROGRAM
TASK 23
FINAL REPORT
January 8, 1981
EPA Prime Contract No. 68-01-5915
MRI Project No. 4901-A23
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Projection Agency
Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances
Field Studies Brancn
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Attn: Dr. Frederick Kutz, Project Officer-
Ms. Ann Carey, Task Manager
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE 425 VOLKER BOULEVARD, KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI 64110 • 816753-7600
-------
MRI — NORTH STAR LABORATORIES 10701 Red Circle Drive, Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343 • 612 933-7880
MRI WASHINGTON, 0 C 20006—Suite 250, 1750 K Street, N W • 202 293-3800
-------
FIELD SAMPLING FOR 1980 URBAN SOIL MONITORING PROGRAM
by
Kenneth L. Thomas
John F. Going
TASK 23
FINAL REPORT
January 7, 1981
EPA Prime Contract No. 68-01-5915
MRI Project No. 4901-A23
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances
Field Studies Branch
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, B.C. 20460
Attn: Dr. Frederick Kutz, Project Officer
Ms. Ann Carey, Task Manager
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE 425 VOLKER BOULEVARD, KANSAS CITY. MISSOURI 64110 • 816753-7600
-------
Disclaimer
This document has been reviewed and approved for publication by the
Office of Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Approval does not signify that the contents
necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Environmental Protection
Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute en-
dorsement or recommendations for use.
-------
PREFACE
This final report presents the work accomplished on NRI Project No.
4901—A, Task 23, “Field Sampling for 1980 Urban Soil Monitoring Program,”
for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA Prime Contract No. 68-01-5915).
Sampling activities were conducted by Midwest Research Institute and the
Environmental Protection Agency. Mr. Kenneth Thomas served as task manager.
Sampling support was provided by Ms. Jann Frank, Ms. Jill Guthrie, Ms. Theresa
ticAdams, Mr. Ed Olson, Mr. Gary Rodriguez, Mr. Steve Scott, and Ms. Ann Small
of Midwest Research Institute and Ms. Ellen L. R. Barrett of Field Studies
Branch, Environmental Protection Agency.
This report was prepared by Mr. Kenneth Thomas.
MIDWEST RESEAR H INSTITUTE
olin E. Going
Program Manager
Approved:
James L. Spigarelli, Director
Analytical Chemistry Department
ii
-------
Preface
Figures
Tables.
CONTENTS
ii
iv
V
1
2
3
4
4
4
5
5
13
14
Appendix A - National Urban Soil Nonitoring Program Sampling Protocol
lii
21
1. Introduction
2. Summary
3. Recommendations
4. Sampling
Preparation
Sampling protocol
Schedule
Sample collection
Sample shipment schedule
Problems/solutions
5. Disposition of Government-Owned Equipment and
Documentation
6. Cost Information
Original estimate .
Actual costs
Site
17
• • • 18
• . • • 18
• . . . 18
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Site Sketch CY 1975 . 15
2 Site Sketch CY 1980 . - 16
lv
-------
Number
1 Equipment Furnished by EPA .
2 Sampling Schedule
3 Relocated Sites - Pine Bluff, Arkansas
4 Relocated Sites - San Francisco, California.
5 Typical Sampling Activities - San Francisco,
6 Alternate Sites - Springfield, Illinois
7 Relocated Sites - Durham, North Carolina . .
8 Relocated Sites - Gary, Indiana
9 Sample Shipment Schedule
10 Original Estimate
11 Revised Estimate
12 Summary of Estimated Costs Versus Actual Costs
TABLES
California.
Page
4
5
6
7
11
12
13
13
14
19
19
20
v
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
The Urban Soil Monitoring Program has been administered by the Environ-
mental Protection Agency since its creation in 1970. Currently, 42 cities
are sampled periodically in the program.’ Each year 5 to 10 cities are sam-
pled and the cycle is repeated every 6 years. The program monitors the levels
of pesticides and other toxic substances in the soil. Midwest Research Insti-
tute (tIRI) was tasked to conduct the sampling part of the program in 1980.
The following Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas were sampled: Pine Bluff,
Arkansas; San Francisco, California; Springfield, Illinois; Gary, Indiana;
and Durham, North Carolina.
The remainder of this report presents the task summary, recommendations,
sampling operations, disposition of government-owned equipment and site docu-
mentation, and cost information.
1 Carey, A. E. , “Monitoring Pesticides in Agricultural and Urban Soils of
the United States,” Pesticides Monitoring Journal , 13:23-27 (1979).
I
-------
SECTION 2
SUMMARY
A total of 457 sites were sampled in five different Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Areas (SMSA). Fifty—nine sites were sampled in Pine Bluff,
Arkansas; 167 in San Francisco, California; 72 in Springfield, Illinois; 90
in Gary, Indiana; and 70 in Durham, North Carolina between July 7, 1980, and
September 18, 1980. Sampling crews were composed of two people from Midwest
Research Institute (MRI), and in one case, one person from EPA. When previ-
ously sampled sites were unavailable, they were relocated. Seven sites were
relocated in Pine Bluff, 63 in San Francisco, 9 in Springfield, 4 in Gary,
and 7 in Durham.
At each site 64 cores (1 in. diameter x 3 in. deep) were collected,
sieved and composited. Representative samples totaling 1 qt were taken from
the composite. The complete sampling protocol is attached to the report.
The samples were shipped to the EPA Toxicant Analysis Center in Mississippi
for analysis.
2
-------
SECTION 3
RECOMNENDATIONS
The following recommendations are made based on our experience with this
task.
1. Require adequate site sketches. Information provided on the site
sketch should be sufficient to enable a stranger to easily locate the site
using only the sketch and a road map.
2. Provide notification to government facilities on which sampling sites
are located and provide credentials (letter of introduction?) to crew members
in order to prevent problems such as occurred at Pine Bluff Arsenal.
3. Sample SMSAs at the same time of the year as the previous sampling.
In this way, rural site photographs will be easier to recognize.
4. Ensure that analytical results are provided to cooperators when
requested.
3
-------
SECTION 4
SAMPLING
PREPARATION
The task order was received at Midwest Research Institute on April 22,
1980. Preparations were begun immediately to collect the necessary supplies
and equipment to accomplish the task. Much of the sampling equipment was fur-
nished by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). A list of that equip-
ment appears in Table 1.
TABLE 1. EQUIPMENT FURNISHED BY EPA
Wire brushes (stainless steel)
Pressure sprayers - alcohol and water
Cleaning pads (stainless steel)
Core samplers
Buckets (stainless steel)
Trays (stainless steel)
Sieves (stainless steel)
City maps
Site sketches (1975)
Forms 8550-2
EPA handouts
A training session was conducted for the members of the field crews at
MEl’s field station. Each crew practiced the entire sampling operation.
SAMPLING PROTOCOL
The sampling protocol that was provided to the field crews is attached
to this report as Appendix A. A brief summary of the protocol follows.
After locating the site or selecting an alternate site, an area contain-
ing 2,500 ft 2 (50 ft x 50 ft, preferably) was sampled. Sixteen equally spaced
sampling points (core locations) were marked and four cores (1 in. diameter x
3 in. deep) were taken within a few inches of each point. All the cores were
placed in a stainless steel bucket. The sample was passed through a 0.25 in.
screen three times. After sieving, the sample was spread out and random sam-
ples used to fill a 1-qt screw-top, wide-mouth jar which was then sealed with
a foil-lined cap. The site was photographed and a site sketch drawn. The
4
-------
sampling equipment was cleaned using a wire brush, water, and glass distilled
(B & J grade) isopropanol.
During the sampling in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, EPA decided that a duplicate
sample was to be collected at every 10th site. This was continued throughout
the project.
SCHEDULE
The task order specified the work should not start until after July 4,
1980, and should be completed by October 31, 1980. A proposed schedule was
prepared for sampling and appears in Table 2 along with the actual sampling
schedule used.
TABLE 2. SAMPLING SCHEDULE
Proposed
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area dates of sampling
Actual
dates of sampling
Pine Bluff, Arkansas
7/7 to 7/16
7/7 to 7/21
San Francisco, California
7/20 to 8/2
7/21 to 8/6
Springfield, Illinois
8/6 to 8/17
8/10 to 8/26
Durham, North Carolina
8/8 t 8/21
8/11 to 8/22
Gary, Indiana
8/20 to 8/30
9/3 to 9/18
SAMPLE COLLECTION
Pine Bluff, Arkansas
Pine Bluff, Arkansas, was selected as the first area to be sampled be-
cause of its proximity to MRI and the fact that it had the fewest sites (59).
If any major problems developed, it would be the easiest area to resample.
Sampling began on July 7, 1980, and was completed on July 21, 1980. The
field crew was composed of Mr. Ed Olson and Ms. Theresa McAdams, assisted by
Mr. Ken Thomas on the first day. A total of 59 sites were sampled during that
time.
One of the major problems encountered on this trip was the extreme heat
(100+°F each day). The rate at which the sampling crew could work was slowed
to prevent heat exhaustion or sunstroke. Another problem with the sampling
in this area was the difficulty in relocating the sites sampled previously.
This was due to the poor quality of site documentation from the previous round
of sampling. Site numbers 13, 17, 18, 20, 27 and 38 were not at the locations
shown on the county maps provided. Table 3 shows sites relocated and the rea-
sons for relocation. The crew was denied access to the Pine Bluff Aresenal
and had to relocate site number 19.
5
-------
TABLE 3. RELOCATED SITES - PINE BLUFF, ARKANSAS
Site
number New location Reason
16 Approximately 1,000 ft west on East Property owner refusal.
52nd Street, north side of road,
approximatley 300 ft.
19 Approximately 1/2 mile southwest of Entry into arsenal not
Plainview entry gate, on Highway 256 permitted upon short
(Plainview Road), north side of road notice.
about 75 ft.
26 Approximately 500 ft west on Hartleg Rice field covered with
Dump Road. South side of road ap- water.
proximately 300 ft.
37 Approximately 400 ft west on field Rice field covered with
road. North side of road approxi- water.
mately 100 ft from tenant house.
39 Approximately 2/10 mile west of 5-ft Previous site not clearly
railroad tie and approximately 75 ft defined.
from woods.
41 Approximatley 1,050 ft southeast on Property owner refusal.
Highway 46. East side of road ap-
proximately 20 ft.
49 Approximately 1.5 miles east on Property owner refusal.
Highway 88. South side of road
approximately 100 ft.
San Francisco, California
Due to the large number of sites to be sampled (167) in the time orig-
inally proposed, two crews were assigned to sample the San Francisco, California
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area. The crews consisted of Ms. Jana Frank,
Ms. Theresa McAdams, Mr. Steve Scott, and Mr. Ken Thomas. Sampling began
July 21, 1980, and was completed on August 6, 1980. Coordination of the sam-
pling crews was facilitated by the use of portable two-way radios.
The poor quality of site documentation was most significant in the five
county San Francisco area. The distance between sites also increased the time
required to complete the sampling. In one case, the site reselection process
led to a closed loop when a block was encountered with no available soil due
to buildings and paved parking lots. Table 4 presents a list of the 63 sites
relocated, their new locations, and the reasons for relocating. Table 5 pre-
sents the typical activities of one sampling crew for a 2-day period in San
Francisco.
6
-------
Site no.
TABLE 4. RELOCATED SITES -
New location
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
Reason
No. 15 Beachmont
Approximately 0.3 miles
east of South Drive on
Middle Drive
Alley between 793 Ralph
Road and 801 Ralph Road
354 Vernon Street
Between 855A NcArthur
Boulevard and 857D
McArthur Boulevard
15th and Potrero
701 Excelsior
Montgomery and Vallejo
(Park)
Aqua Vista Park
81 25th Avenue
7th Street and Alice Street
Andrew North Christensen
Elementary School
100 ft from end of Eden
Canyon Road
Hillside Street and Redwood
Street
0.3 miles east of Skyline
Boulevard on Grizzly Peak
Road
Resident at 2322 35th Avenue would
not answer door
No one home at No. 7 Beachmont
Unable to locate original site
Original site covered with concrete
Unable to obtain permission at
original site
Building erected on original site
001 Side of house near street
No. 22 Annapolis Street
2327 35th Avenue
At resident’s request
No one home at 801 Ralph Road
No one home at 362 Vernon Street
Mistake - sampled adjacent yard
002
007
008
010
012
013
015
020
022
029
044
046
051
052
054
058
Original site covered by pavement
No one home at. original site
No soil available at original site
Homes built on original site
Unable to determine original site
No one home at original site
Unable to locate original site
(continued)
7
-------
TABLE 4 (continued)
New location
On Welsh Creek Road 2.1
miles east of Calaveras
Road
On Vasco Road 1.7 miles
from Contra Costa County
line
On Altamont Pass Road 2.3
miles west of Grant Line
Road
Near 18th Fairway Redwood
Public Golf Course
1-580 and North Midway Road
End of Dagnino Road
On Palomare Road 5.1 miles
south of 1-580
On Tesla Road 4.9 miles
east of Greenville Road
On Arroyo Road 0.5 miles
south of Hensen Road
Old clubhouse, Alameda
Municipal Golf Course
On Happy Valley Road 0.3
miles west of Upper Happy
Valley Road
Reliez Road and Alhambra
Road
2.5 miles west of Briones
Road on Aihambra Road
On private road near Big
Break Boating Resort
Brione Overlook on Bear
Creek Road
Site No.
059
068
069
070
071
075
077
078
079
080
087
089
091
093
094 a
Reason
Unable to locate original site
Unable to locate original site
Unable to locate original site
Golf activity
Unable to locate original site
Unable to locate original site
Unable to locate original site
Unable to locate original site
Unable to locate original site
Unable to determine original site
Unable to locate original site
Unable
Unable
Unable
Unable
to locate
to locate
to obtain
to locate
original site
original site
permission
previous site
(continued)
8
-------
TABLE 4 (continued)
Site no. New location Reason
ioo on Somersville Road 3.1 Unable to locate previous site
miles south from Highway 4
105 On Morgan Territory Road Unable to locate previous site
3.6 miles south of Marsh
Creek Road
106 On Rossmoor Parkway 1.2 Unable to locate previous site
miles east of gate
107 Lonetree Way and Fairview Unable to locate previous site
Avenue
110 1965 Ayers Road Couldn’t obtain permission
113 Valley View Drive and Don Unable to locate previous site
Gabriel Way
114 On Morgan Territory Road Unable to locate previous site
0.9 miles south of Marsh
Creek Road
115 Moraga Road and Rheem Road Unable to locate previous site
117 a Inspiration Point Unable to locate previous site
122 On Mill Road between Wilson Unable to locate previous site
Avenue and Thornhill
124 2.5 miles south of Point Unable to locate previous site
Reyes Station on Highway 1
125 On Sir Francis Drake Road Original site was inaccessable due
0.1 miles east of Pierce to marsh
Point Road
126 Overlook on Mount Vision Unable to locate previous site
128 0.5 miles north of San Unable to locate previous site
Marino Drive on Redwood
Drive
129 Dominican College Unable to locate previous site
130 Synanon Unable to locate previous site
133 220 Horseshoe Hill Road Unable to locate previous site
exactly
(continued)
9
-------
TABLE 4 (continued)
Site no. New location Reason
134 Arroyo Road and Sir Francis Unable to locate previous site
Drake Boulevard
135 Miller Creek Road and Lucas Unable to locate previous site
Valley Road
137 Montford Avenue and Laverne Unable to locate previous site
Avenue
144 On Shoreline Highway 0.75 Unable to locate previous site
miles south of Five Brooks
Trailhead Turnoff
146 Highway 1 and Higgins Unable to locate previous site
Purisma Road
149 On Stage Road 3.8 miles Unable to locate previous site
southeast of Highway 1
150 West Cape Street and Old site covered with piles of new
Mariners Island Boulevard soil
152 On Stage Road 0.2 miles Unable to locate previous site
southeast of Highway 1
153 Highway 35 and Comstock Unable to locate previous site
Road
156 0.9 miles south of Bayshore Champion Speedway no longer exists
Drive on Tunnel Road
157 On Canada Road 0.2 miles Unable to locate previous site
south of Edgewood Road
160 12.3 miles east of Highway Unable to locate previous site
I on Pescadero Road
163 On Highway 92 west 1.6 Unable to locate previous site
miles west of Pilarcitos
Creek
166 Huddart Park Unable to locate previous site
a Unable to locate site No. 94. The site selected for No. 94 turned out to
be the site sampled as No. 111 before. Neither site corresponds to their
map locations.
10
-------
TABLE 5. TYPICAL SAIIPLING ACTIVITIES - SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
Time Activity
July 31, 1980 — Crew A
0745 - 0830 Travel
0830 - 0900 Breakfast
0900 - 1005 Travel - locate site
1005 — 1055 Sample, document site, clean up
1055 - 1125 Travel - locate site
1125 - 1230 Sample, document site, clean up
1230 - 1245 Travel - locate site
1245 - 1315 Sample, document site, clean up
1315 - 1325 Travel
1325 - 1355 Lunch
1355 - 1500 Locate county map, locate site
1500 - 1615 Sample, document site, clean up
1615 - 1645 Travel - locate site
1645 - 1700 Attempted to obtain permission
1700 — 1730 Travel - locate site
1730 - 1745 Attempted to obtain permission
1745 - 1815 Travel - locate site
1815 - 1845 Sample, document site, clean up
1845 - 1930 Travel - return to motel
August 1, 1980
0800 - 0845 Travel to site
0845 - 0900 Check and confirm permission
0900 - 0945 Sample, document site, clean up
0945 - 0950 Travel to sheriff’s office
0950 - 0955 Notify sheriff’s office
0955 - 1015 Travel - locate site
1015 - 1115 Sample, document site, clean up
1115 — 1125 Travel - locate site
1125 - 1200 Sample, document site, clean up
1200 - 1210 Travel
1210 - 1300 Lunch
1300 - 1340 Travel - locate site
1340 - 1410 Sample, document site, clean up
1410 - 1500 Travel - locate site
1500 - 1600 Sample, document site, clean up
1600 — 1635 Travel - locate site
1635 - 1710 Sample, document site, clean up
1710 — 1715 Travel - locate site
1715 - 1800 Sample, document site, clean up
1800 - 1900 Travel - locate site
1900 - 1930 Sample, document site, clean up
1930 - 2000 Travel - return to motel
11
-------
Springfield, Illinois
Sampling operations were begun on August 10, 1980, and were completed on
August 26, 1980. The sampling crew consisted of Ms. Jill Guthrie and Mr. Ed
Olson. A total of 72 sites were sampled.
The primary problems in Springfield were weather and poor site documenta-
tion. It rained for 3 days during which sampling had to be suspended.
Ms. Guthrie was bitten by a dog on the hand and leg as she approached a resi-
dence on the third day of sampling. Table 6 presents a list of the sites re-
located and the reasons for relocation.
TABLE 6. ALTERNATE SITES - SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS
Site number New location Reason
04 75 yards from original Construction
18 Next to house near original site Construction
19 About 20 yards from original Construction
23 Along 1-55 Unable to locate original
24 About 15 yards from original Ground too wet
33 About 100 feet from original Pond covering original
site
52 Alton Company and J & D Supply No soil
55 Maple Lawn Farm Refused
62 0.2 miles down Highway 23 from Refused
original
Durham, North Carolina
The crew for sampling in Durham, North Carolina consisted of Mr. Steve
Scott and Ms. Ann Small of HRI. They were joined by Ms. Ellen L. R. Barrett
of EPA for 4 days. Sampling began August 11, 1980 and was completed on
August 22, 1980, during which time 70 sites were sampled.
The primary problem in Durham was in locating the sites from the previous
round of sampling. Site sketches for suburban and rural areas were inadequate
and site photos for these wooded areas were not much help. Table 7 lists the
sites that were relocated and the reasons for relocation.
Gary, Indiana
Sampling operations in Gary began on September 4, 1980 and were completed
on September 18, 1980. Crew members were Mr. Ed Olson and Mr. Gary Rodriguez.
The problem in Gary was weather. Heavy rain caused the suspension of sam-
pling for 1 day. Table 8 lists the sites that were relocated and the reasons
for relocation.
12
-------
Site no.
TABLE 7. RELOCATED SITES - DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
New location Reason
Unable to contact property owner
Resident would not answer door
Unable to contact property owner
Resident refused to allow us to
sample. He was very irate and
would not listen to our explanation
Unable to contact property owner
House built on original site
Unable to locate property owner
Site no.
TABLE 8. RELOCATED SITES - GARY, INDIANA
New location Reason
34
5022
Connecticut
Owner refused
permission
48
2028
Kenjlworth
Owner didn’t
want holes
in his lawn
70
1132
Country Club
Drive
Original site
tion
altered by
construc-
76
100
West at 1050S
Original site
tion
altered by
construc-
SAMPLE SHIPMENT SCHEDULE
Table 9 presents the sample shipment schedule for the samples.
02
25
27
30
33
35
50
2734 Spencer Street
Eagle Nest Club east side
of parking area
2716 Rochelle Street
2413 Miriam Circle
3601 Barcelona Avenue
3520 Stoneybrooke Road
Stageville Center property
located off Route 1626
13
-------
TABLE 9. SAMPLE SHIPMENT SCHEDULE
Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Area Shipment dates
Pine Bluff, Arkansas
July 21, 1980
San Francisco, California
August 6,
1980
Springfield, Illinois
August 14,
25 and
26,
1980
Durham, North Carolina
August 22,
1980
Gary, Indiana
September
10, 15
and
18, 1980
PROBLEMS/SOLUTIONS
1. The primary problem on this program was poor site documentation.
Many sites were reselected because it was impossible to locate the site pre-
viously sampled. MRI sampling crews were instructed to construct site
sketches that would enable a stranger using a good road map to locate the
site. A good road map would be one which shows all the roads in the county.
Figure 1 is a site sketch from the previous round of sampling. Figure 2 is
a sketch of the same site that was made by NIRI.
2. A problem that occurred early in the project was damage to samples
during shipment. A better system of packing solved this problem.
3. An immediate refusal by property owners to participate in the project
was also encountered. When a more detailed explanation, by the field crew,
of the purpose of the project was provided, some of the residents agreed to
participate.
4. The urban site reselection process can lead to a closed loop for
blocks that have no acceptable sites. The process may also cause sites to be
selected which are under construction or soon will be.
14
-------
\
\
\O
\
\
\ —SampIe Site
\
\
\
Picture Direction
Figure 1. Site sketch CY 1975.
15
-------
ill
Site located on Dominican College grounds.
Take Butterfield Dr. 2.2 miles from Sir
Francis Drake Rd. until the old Mansion
foundation is spotted.
Figure 2. Site sketch CY 1980.
of Photo
sc’100’
EIIII’ 00 e
Butterfield runs West
along most of its length
Foundation of
Old Mansion
16
-------
SECTION 5
DISPOSITION OF GOVERNMENT-OWNED EQUIPMENT AND SITE DOCUNENTATION
Government-owned equipment and supplies have been returned to the Field
Studies Branch of EPA. Site photos, site sketches, and maps from 1975 and
1980 have been returned to Ms. Ann Carey of EPA.
The government-owned equipment returned is as follows:
Type
Number of units
EPA
property
numbers
Soil core
samplers
7
177839,
177842,
189420
177840,
185405,
177841,
185419,
Stainless
steel buckets
8
177850,
177853,
185411,
177851,
185402,
185412
177852,
185410,
Stainless
steel sieves
8
177854,
177858,
185408,
177855,
185403,
185409
177857,
185406,
Stainless
steel sieve pans
8
177835,
177838,
185407,
177836,
185401,
185418
177837,
185404,
Sprayers
4
177848,
177834
177849,
177859,
17
-------
SECTION 6
COST INFORMATION
ORIGINAL ESTIMATE
The original estimate was based on the following assumptions:
1. The crews would consist of two people.
2. Ten sites could be sampled each day.
3. A total of 457 samples would be collected.
Table 10 presents the original estimate.
At the request of Ms. Ann Carey of EPA the estimate was reduced, based
on using college students teamed with full-time MRI employees. The revised
estimate is presented in Table 11.
The proposed use of college students implied that sampling must be com-
pleted prior to Labor Day.
ACTUAL COSTS
Actual costs were greater than the original estimate due to deviations
from the original assumptions. The assumptions which proved incorrect and
the deviations from each are as follows.
1. Ten sites could be sampled in one 12-hr day.
Following is a list of the average number of sites sampled per day for
each metropolitan area.
Pine Bluff, Arkansas 4.9 sites/day
San Francisco, California 5.6 sites/day
Springfield, Illinois 7.2 sites/day
Gary, Indiana 6.9 sites/day
Durham, North Carolina 6.4 sites/day
In Pine Bluff the extreme heat limited the amount of activity of the sam-
pling crew. The travel time between sites was longer than anticipated. This
was shown in the daily log for San Francisco shown in Table 5. In Springfield
and Gary rain caused a loss of 4 days sampling for the two trips combined.
In all, the field crews were out 18 more days (30%) than estimated.
18
-------
TABLE 10. ORIGINAL ESTIMATE
Estimated
Activity person-hours
Estimated cost
Supervision and reporting
(40 hr/month x 5 months) 200
$ 7,200
Sampling travel
tlRI/Metro
(3 sites x 4 hr x 2 people) +
(1 site x 6 hr x 2 people ) +
(1 site x 6 hr x 4 people) = 60
1,549
Site—to-site
(457 sites x 0.25 hr x 2 persons) +
(167 sites x 0.25 hr x 2 persons) = 312
Call backs and weather 48
8,054
1,239
Sample collection
(1.5 hr/site x 457 sites x
2 people/site) = 1,370
35,400
Travel
(air fares, auto rental, and subsistence)
14,500
Other direct costs
2,058
(solvents, etc.)
Total 2,000
$70,000
TABLE 11. REVISED ESTIMATE
Activity Estimated person-hours
Estimated cost
Supervision 200
Sampling travel 430
Sample collection 1,370
Travel
Other direct costs
TOTAL 2,000
$ 6,000
7,100
22,000
13,500
2,400
$51,000
19
-------
2. A total of 457 samples would be collected.
Duplicate samples raised this number to 503. This decreased slightly
the number of sites sampled per day.
As a result of these and other factors the actual costs will exceed the
estimated cost. This is summarized in Table 12.
TABLE 12. SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COSTS VERSUS ACTUAL COSTS
Person-hours
Costs
Estimated
Actuala
Estimated
Actuala
Labor
2,000
2,450
$35,100
$38,087
Traveib
13,500
22,300
Other direct
costs
2,400
5,733
TOTAL
2,000
2,450
$51,000
$66,120
a Estimated, without fee.
b Includes air, car rental, per diem.
The number of actual hours is about 450 (or 22.5%) more than estimated.
This is a direct result of the extra 18 days of field work. The travel costs
are significantly higher. This again is related to the extra field days since
car rentals and per diem expenses are included. Also, the rentals and noted
costs were higher than estimated. Other direct costs include, as major items,
$1,065 for isopropanol, $1,470 for shipping, $410 for photograph development,
plus miscellaneous items such as bottles, lines, coolers, ice, etc. Overall,
the actual costs were 32% higher than estimated, which interestingly tracks
well with the percent of extra field days.
20
-------
APPENDIX A
NATIONAL URBAN SOIL HONITORING PROGRAH SANPLING PROTOCOL
21
-------
NATIONAL URBAN SOIL 1ONITORING PROGRA ! SA 1PLING PROTOCOL
By
Ken Thon as
? I Project No. 4901-A(23)
June 1980
dwest Research Institute
425 Volker Boulevard
Kansas City, 1issour ô4110
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
A. Objective . . . . 1
B. Preparation at ffi1 . 1
C. Site Investigation 1
D. Sampling 2
E. Sample Handling and Shipment 8
F. Safety 8
G. !isce1laneous 9
H. Preparation of Sampling Reports 9
I. Preparation of Expense Reports 9
Sample Collection Nanual - Guidelines for Collecting Field Samples
(Attachment)
-------
A. OBJECTIVE
The task order calls for I to collect soil samoles ifl the fol-
lowang Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas: Durham, NC; Gary, IN;
Pine Bluff, AR; San Francisco, CA; and Sprangfield, IL for the Urban Soal
Monitoring Program.
B. PR.EPAR.ATION AT ffiI
1. Inventory of sample collection supplies : All supplies and
sampling equipment should be checked and inventoried against the inventory
last. Massing or damaged items should be brought to the attention of the
task or project leader. Inventory sheets are to be returned to the sampling
task leader.
2. Pack and ship supplies : Supplies and equiPment should be care-
fully packed, weighed, and taken to the dock at least five (5) days praor
to departure. Supplies are to be shipped air freight to the airport where
the sampling crew will arrive and are to be held for pickup in the name of
the crew chief. Supplies and equipment will be insured . Notify the crew
chief as to the airline where the packages can be retrieved on his arrival.
Notify the crew chief or project leader of the inventory control numbers of
such items as ice chests.
3. Reservations : Airline, motel, and vehacle reservations should
be made a: least one (1) week in advance. The crew chief should note the
arrival time and flight number for the remainder of the crew A motel should
be selected which provides a central location to the area or areas to be
sampled Arrangements should be made for a rental car or van in the crew
chief’s name. when flicking up the car or van ask for the additional collision
coverage but not the additional liability coverage . The task leader or some-
one designated by him will also make out Travel Authorization Requests and
submit them five (5) to seven (7) days an advance.
. Locate sampling sites on map : Maps will be provaded for the
areas to be sampled. These maps should be studied carefully and tentative
plans for samplang routes should be selected. The crew chief should note
:ae locacaon of the motel, police and sheraff’s departments. and hospitals
5. Inventory of data collection suoolies Prior to leavang fflI
segment and credential packets and stationery supplaes to be carried by the
field personnel should be inventoried to determine that all forms required
for the sampling trip have been included.
C. SITE INVESTIGATION
Upon arraval, pick up the rental vehicle and inventory presha ed
sampling supplies. Notify the project leader of any missing or broken items
After driving to tne motel, ascertaan the location of the police department
and sheriff’s offace (or nearest sub—station). Contact the police departments
1
-------
and the sheriffs office in those areas in which you will be operating.
Present the form letter to whoever is in charge and advise them that I
personnel will be conducting some door-to-door sampling and advise them of
our means of identif cat on. Attempt to locate maps of the area (banks and
cnarnbers of commerce).
D. SANPLING
Sampling for this project will consist of collecting 64 soil sam-
ples (1 in. dia. x 3 in. deep) from each site. The 64 samples will be com-
posited. Samp1 ng sites may be either on publicly owned land or privately
owned land.
1. Locate site : The first step in the sampling operation is to
locate the sampling site. You will have three aids at. your disposal. First
is a large map of the area showing sampling sites. The second is a sketched
site man. The third is a photograph of the site. Determine if the site is
located on publicly owned land or privately owned land.
2. Obtain permission
a. Publicly owned lands : It wtll not be necessary to obtain
permission to sample publicly owned lands.
b. Privately owned lands : In the case of pr vatelv owned
lands, it will be necessary to first obtain the landowners permission to
sample.
when contacting the landowner, your appearance and conduct
should be such as to reduce any natural apprehension toward strangers. Your
attire and appearance must be neat and in good taste. Attire can be regu-
lated somewhat according to the area and climate. Your appearance and con-
duct should be professional and your ID card orominentlv disnlayed . nen
talking to the property owner, cover the following poInts.
(1) The site was selected at random as part of an environ-
mental study of pesticide residues.
(2) The sampling site is only 50 ft x 50 ft.
(3) The site will be re—sampled periodically to determine
any changes taking place.
(4) The landowner’s identity wtll remain anonymous when the
samples are analyzed and the results published.
(5) The information collected is one means used by EPA to
determine the best. way of regulating pesticides to provide u’.aximwn benefits
from their use, while minim ztng their nazard to the environment.
7
-------
Provide the property owner with the EPA handout on soil
samPling.
3. Site reselect on : If it is not possible to sample tne desig-
nated site, or very close to it, the following reselection procedure should
be used.
a. Proceed clockwise around the city block until a landowner
can be contacted and a site established.
b. If there are no city blocks, proceed along the road close
to the original sampling point for 0.2 miles, then take the first available
sampling site.
c. The new site should be situated similar to the original
site. For example, if the original site was in close proximity to a bulb-
ing, the new site shoule be, etc.
d. Mark the location of the new site on the original road
map.
e. Indicate that the site has been relocated on the recuirea
site map and EPA Form 8550-2.
4. Sample collection : The samples will be collected from a
2,500 ft 2 (50 ft x 50 ft) area at each site. After determintng the 50 ft x
50 ft square, 16 core locations will be determined (Figure 1). Four core
samples (1 in. dia. x 3 in. deep) will be taken at 90° angles a few inches
from the core location. All the core samples will be placed in a stainless
steel bucket. Pass the composited sample through a 1/4 in. screen three
times. The sieved sample is collected tn a stainless steel pan.. After
sieving, the sample is spread out and random portions used to fill a 1 qt
wide—mouth jar which is then sealed with a foil-lined cap (Figure 2). The
sample is then labeled and packaged for shipment. The sampling equipment
is rinsed with water, scrubbed with water and a stainless steel brush, and
rinsed with isopro anol)
For further information see, Sample Collection anual - Guidelines
for Collecting Field Samples , U.S. EPA, 1979, which ]S attached.
5. Documentation : While one crew member s sieving the composited
sample, the other crew member will prepare a site map using one of the sys-
tems shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4 for locating the site.
For each site, determine whether it is a lawn or waste site using
the criteria below, and indicate LAWN or WASTE in the upper right corner of
the site map.
1 Sample Collection Manual — Guidelines for Collecting Field Samples ,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1979.
3
-------
Figure 1
Sc
I I I
I I I I
• S
- - - - --- ‘-6 - - - -
I I
— -—— — — — - - - — - — - — — -
I I
I •
• - -3 : — - - I - — - - 0 - - - - i - - - -
•
• — - — —— .4 — — — — - - S—’ - - - - — - —
• •
I I
I I I
I I
I I
I I
0 = Care Loca icn
C r
Source: Sample Collection Manual — Guidelines for Collecting Field
Samples , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1979.
4
-------
Figu:e 2
-
Shiny Si
Lic
Source: Sample Collection Manual — Guidelines for Collecting Field Samples ,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1979.
i rninun fc
H
I
/
(__‘7_) It Jar
-------
C I TY
SITE #
ADDRESS (If known) ____________
NAME OF OWUER (If known) ______
LAWN
WASTE
S TATE ______
DATE SAMPLED
Figure 3
(check one)
TRIANGULATION
Woods
Jackson Rd.
b
-------
CITY
SITE #
ADDRESS (If known) _____________
NAME OF OWNER (If known) _______
LAWN WASTE
STATE _____
DATE SAMPLED
(check one)
Sfate
Highway 25
COMPASS BEARING
-d
0
U
Compcss Beorina
500
Dead
End
Figure 4
/
-------
Lawn 1
a. Mowed grass in close proximity to a house, factory or other
structure.
b. Mowed grass in municipal parks or other town owned or main-
tained land.
c. Garden or cultivated areas.
d. Yard that is in obvious proximity to a home.
Waste 1
a. Vacant lots where grass is apparently uncared for.
b. Small wooded lots, brush or overgrown fields.
c. Pasture or grazing areas.
d. Uncared for areas such as powerlines, gas lines, areas around
factories or warehouses.
After preparing the site map, the second crew member will also
take a photograph. The photograph will include a sign displaying the State-
Metro Area Code and site number. Two photos should be taken at each site.
E. SAMPLE HANDLING AND SHIPMENT
After collection the samples will be packed sufficiently well to
prevent breakage and will be shipped first class mail to:
EPA
Toxicant Analysis Center
Building 1105, NSTL
NSTL Station, Ms. 39529
Attn: SOILS Monitoring
F. SAFETY
Safety is a prime consideration in all field sampling operations.
Personal safety is an individual responsibility. Under no circumstances are
you to subject yourself to hazardous or unsafe conditions . Consideration
should be given to the area in which you will be operating; in northern
1 Sample Collection Manual — Guidelines for Collecting Field Samples ,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1979.
8
-------
states and desert areas, weather may be a hazard. In some areas a snake
bite kit might be considered necessary, and in some urban areas the neigh-
borhood itself may be a hazard such as a high crime area. The locations of
hospitals and emergency numbers should be noted. Use defensive driving;
careless driving presents a serious health hazard and will be looked on
very unfavorably. The crew chief should watch for any actions which may
result in injury and correct them at that time. All injuries should be
reported to the crew chief or project leader (Ken Thomas).
G. NISCELLANEOUS
The crew chief should oversee the packing of equipment and ship-
ping of samples. The crew chief should confirm plane reservations 24 hr in
advance and assure proper and timely return of rental vehicles.
H. PREPARATION OF SANPLING REPORTS
The preparation of the sampling report is the responsibility of
the crew chief. He may request assistance in its preparation. The report
is to be completed within 3 days following the termination of each sampling
trip.
I. PREPARATION OF EXPENSE REPORTS
Expense reports must be submitted to your supervisor within 2 weeks
of the completion of each trip. Balance out each trip rather than carrying
forward.
9
------- |