United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research and
Development
Washington DC 20460
EPA/600/R-98/093
August 1998
&EPA Environmental Technology
Verification Report
Soil Sampling Technology
Art's Manufacturing and Supply
AMS Dual Tube Liner Sampler
-------
EPA/600/R-98/093
August 1998
Environmental Technology
Verification Report
Soil Sampler
Art's Manufacturing and Supply
AMS™ Dual Tube Liner Sampler
Prepared by
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
591 Camino De La Reina, Suite 640
San Diego, California 92108
Contract No. 68-C5-0037
Dr. Stephen Billets
Characterization and Monitoring Branch
Environmental Sciences Division
Las Vegas, Nevada 89193-3478
National Exposure Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection
ET
-------
Notice
This document was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Superfund Innovative
Technology Evaluation Program under Contract No. 68-C5-0037. The work detailed in this document was
administered by the National Exposure Research Laboratory—Environmental Sciences Division in Las
Vegas, Nevada. The document has been subjected to EPA's peer and administrative reviews, and has been
approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of corporation names, trade names, or commercial
products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use of specific products.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Research and Development
Washington, D.C. 20460
ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY VERIFICATION PROGRAM
VERIFICATION STATEMENT
TECHNOLOGY TYPE: SOIL SAMPLER
APPLICATION: SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLING
TECHNOLOGY NAME: AMS™ DUAL TUBE LINER SAMPLER
COMPANY:
ADDRESS:
PHONE:
ART'S MANUFACTURING AND SUPPLY
105 HARRISON STREET
AMERICAN FALLS, INDIANA 83211
(800) 635-7330
ETV PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) created the Environmental Technology Verification (ETV)
Program to facilitate the deployment of innovative technologies through performance verification and information
dissemination. The goal of the ETV Program is to further environmental protection by substantially accelerating the
acceptance and use of improved and cost-effective technologies. The ETV Program is intended to assist and inform
those involved in the design, distribution, permitting, and purchase of environmental technologies. This document
summarizes the results of a demonstration of the AMS™ Dual Tube Liner Sampler.
PROGRAM OPERATION
Under the ETV Program and with the full participation of the technology developer, the EPA evaluates the
performance of innovative technologies by developing demonstration plans, conducting field tests, collecting and
analyzing demonstration data, and preparing reports. The technologies are evaluated under rigorous quality
assurance (QA) protocols to ensure that data of known and adequate quality are generated and that the demonstration
results are defensible. The EPA's National Exposure Research Laboratory, which demonstrates field characterization
and monitoring technologies, selected Tetra Tech EM Inc. as the verification organization to assist in field testing
various soil and soil gas sampling technologies. This demonstration was conducted under the EPA's Superfund
Innovative Technology Evaluation Program.
DEMONSTRATION DESCRIPTION
In May and June 1997, the EPA conducted a field test of the AMS™ Dual Tube Liner Sampler along with three other
soil and two soil gas sampling technologies. This verification statement focuses on the AMS™ Dual Tube Liner
Sampler; similar statements have been prepared for each of the other technologies. The performance of the Dual
Tube Liner Sampler was compared to a reference subsurface soil sampling method (hollow-stem auger drilling and
split-spoon sampling) in terms of the following parameters: (1) sample recovery, (2) volatile organic compound
(VOC) concentrations in recovered samples, (3) sample integrity, (4) reliability and throughput, and (5) cost. Data
quality indicators for precision, accuracy, representativeness, completeness, and comparability were also assessed
against project-specific QA objectives to ensure the usefulness of the data.
The Dual Tube Liner Sampler was demonstrated at two sites: the Small Business Administration (SBA) site in Albert
City, Iowa, and the Chemical Sales Company (CSC) site in Denver, Colorado. These sites were chosen because of
the wide range of VOC concentrations detected at the sites and because each has a distinct soil type. The VOCs
EPA-VS-SCM-I9
The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement
iii
August 1998
-------
detected at the sites include cis-l,2-dichloroethene (cis-l,2-DCE); 1,1,1-trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA); trichloroethene
(TCE); and tetrachloroethene (PCE). Soils at the SBA site are composed primarily of clay, and soils at the CSC site are
composed primarily of medium- to fine-grained sand. A complete description of the demonstration, including a data
summary and discussion of results, is available in a report titled Environmental Technology Verification Report: Soil
Sampler, Art's Manufacturing and Supply, AMS™ Dual Tube Liner Sampler, EPA 600/R-98/093.
TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
The Dual Tube Liner Sampler was designed to collect subsurface soil samples by using direct-push platform technology.
The sampler assembly is constructed of two steel tubes, or "extensions," of differing diameters designed so that the smaller
of the two tubes fits within the larger. The outer extension is available in two diameters, 2-1/8-inch outside diameter (o.d.)
and 1-3/4-inch o.d., and is equipped with a metal drive tip at the lower end. The outer extension is threaded at the upper
end to facilitate additional metal extensions with increasing depth and the addition of a drive head adaptor to the top of the
tool string. The inner extension is also available in two diameters, 1-3/4-inch o.d. and 1-1/8-inch o.d., to match the selected
outer extension diameter. The lower end of the inner extension is threaded with a plastic grabber to facilitate the attachment
of a polybutyrate liner during sample collection or a solid point metal inner drive tip during sampler advancement. The
components of the sampler are assembled such that the outer extension serves as a temporary casing so that continuous or
discrete soil samples can be collected using the inner extension liner and drive tip assemblies.
VERIFICATION OF PERFORMANCE
The demonstration data indicate the following performance characteristics for the AMS™ Dual Tube Liner Sampler:
Sample Recovery. For the purposes of this demonstration, sample recovery was defined as the ratio of the length of
recovered sample to the length of sampler advancement. Sample recoveries from 42 samples collected at the SBA site
ranged from 42 to 100 percent, with an average sample recovery of 91 percent. Sample recoveries from 42 samples
collected at the CSC site ranged from 46 to 88 percent, with an average sample recovery of 70 percent. Using the reference
method, sample recoveries from 41 samples collected at the SBA site ranged from 40 to 100 percent, with an average
recovery of 88 percent. Sample recoveries from the 42 samples collected at the CSC site ranged from 53 to 100 percent,
with an average recovery of 87 percent. A comparison of recovery data from the Dual Tube Liner Sampler and the
reference sampler indicates that the Dual Tube Liner Sampler achieved higher recoveries in the clay soil at the SBA site
and lower sample recoveries in the sandy soil at the CSC site relative to the sample recoveries achieved by the reference
sampling method.
Volatile Organic Compound Concentrations: Soil samples collected using the Dual Tube Liner Sampler and the reference
sampling method at six sampling depths in nine grids (five at the SBA site and four at the CSC site) were analyzed for
VOCs. For 21 of the 25 Dual Tube Liner Sampler and reference sampling method pairs (12 at the SBA site and 13 at the
CSC site), a statistical analysis using the Mann-Whitney test indicated no significant statistical difference at the 95 percent
confidence level between the VOC concentrations in samples collected with the Dual Tube Liner Sampler and those
collected with the reference sampling method. Of the sample pairs where a statistically significant difference was identified,
one was at the SBA site and three were at the CSC site. Analysis of the CSC site data, using the sign test, indicated no
statistical difference between data obtained by the Dual Tube Liner Sampler and the reference method at the CSC and SBA
sites.
Sample Integrity. A total of 12 integrity samples were collected with both sampling methods at each site to determine if
potting soil in sampler interiors became contaminated after it was advanced through a zone of high VOC concentrations.
For the Dual Tube Liner Sampler, VOCs were detected in only one of the 12 integrity samples. The sample was collected
at the CSC site. The VOC detected in the potting soil at the CSC site was cis-l,2-DCE at a concentration of 6.07
micrograms per kilogram (/^g/kg). These results indicate that the integrity of a lined chamber in the Dual Tube Liner
Sampler is generally well preserved when the sampler is advanced through highly contaminated soils. Results of sample
integrity tests for the reference sampling method indicate no contamination in the potting soil after advancement through
a zone of high VOC concentrations. Because potting soil has an organic carbon content many times greater than typical
soils, the integrity tests represent a worst-case scenario for VOC absorbance and may not be representative of cross-
contamination under normal field conditions.
EPA-VS-SCM-19 The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement August 1998
iv
-------
Reliability and Throughput. At the SBA site, the Dual Tube Liner Sampler collected a sample from the desired depth on
the initial attempt 98 percent of the time. Sample collection in the initial push was also achieved 98 percent of the time at
the CSC site. At the SBA site, the Dual Tube Liner Sampler did not collect a sample in the initial push in only one instance.
The sample liner was lost during that attempt due to overfilling. The sample was retrieved on the second attempt, resulting
in 100 percent sample completeness. At the CSC site, the Dual Tube Liner Sampler did not collect a sample in the initial
push in only one instance. The sample was lost when unconsolidated sand fell from the bottom of the liner. The problem
was corrected by fashioning retaining baskets out of liner caps and the sample was collected on the subsequent push,
resulting in 100 percent sample completeness. One sample was collected in the saturated zone at Grid 5 at the CSC site
in one attempt, resulting in an initial sampling success rate of 100 percent. The developer did not attempt to collect
additional samples from the 40-foot interval due to excessive friction on the outer extension. For the reference sampling
method, the initial sampling success rates at the SBA and CSC sites were 90 and 95 percent, respectively. Success rates
for the reference sampling method were less than 100 percent due to (1) drilling beyond the target sampling depth, (2)
insufficient sample recovery, or (3) auger refusal. The average sample retrieval time for the Dual Tube Liner Sampler to
set up on a sampling point, collect the specified sample, grout the hole, decontaminate the sampler, and move to a new
sampling location was 16.4 minutes per sample at the SBA site and 10.9 minutes per sample at the CSC site. For the
reference sampling method, the average sample retrieval time at the SBA and CSC sites were 26 and 8.4 minutes per
sample, respectively. Two people collected soil samples with the Dual Tube Soil Sampler at both the SBA and CSC sites,
and a three-person sampling crew collected soil samples using the reference sampling method at both sites. Additional
personnel were present at both sites to observe and assist with demonstration sampling, as necessary.
Cost: Based on the demonstration results and information provided by the vendor, the Dual Tube Liner Sampler can be
purchased for $1,890 and the PowerProbe 9600 direct push rig rented for $1,800 per week. Operating costs for the Dual
Tube Liner Sampler ranged from $2,280 to $4,260 at the clay soil site and $1,830 to $3,060 at the sandy soil site. For this
demonstration, reference sampling was procured at a lump sum of $13,400 for the clay soil site and $7,700 for the sandy
soil site. Oversight costs for the reference sampling ranged from $4,230 to $6,510 at the clay soil site and $1,230 to $2,060
at the sandy soil site. A site-specific cost analysis is recommended before selecting a subsurface soil sampling method.
A qualitative performance assessment of the AMS™ Dual Tube Liner Sampler indicated that (1) the sampler is easy to use
and requires less than 1 hour of training to operate; (2) logistical requirements are similar to those of the reference sampling
method; (3) sample handling is similar to the reference method; (4) the performance range is primarily a function of the
advancement platform; and (5) no drill cuttings are generated when using the Dual Tube Liner Sampler with a push
platform.
The demonstration results indicate that the Dual Tube Liner Sampler can provide useful, cost-effective samples for
environmental problem-solving. However, in some cases, VOC data collected using the Dual Tube Liner Sampler may be
statistically different from VOC data collected using the reference sampling method. As with any technology selection, the
user must determine what is appropriate for the application and project data quality objectives.
Gary J. Foley, Ph.D.
Director
National Exposure Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
NOTICE: EPA verifications are based on an evaluation of technology performance under specific, predetermined criteria and
appropriate quality assurance procedures. EPA makes no expressed or implied warranties as to the performance of the technology
and does not certify that a technology will always operate as verified. The end user is solely responsible for complying with any and
all applicable federal, state, and local requirements.
EPA-VS-SCM-19 The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement August 1998
V
-------
Foreword
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the nation's
natural resources. Under the mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to formulate and
implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural
systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, the EPA's Office of Research and Development
(ORD) provides data and science support that can be used to solve environmental problems and to build the
scientific knowledge base needed to manage our ecological resources wisely, to understand how pollutants
affect our health, and to prevent or reduce environmental risks.
The National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL) is the Agency's center for the investigation of
technical and management approaches for identifying and quantifying risks to human health and the
environment. Goals of the Laboratory's research program are to (1) develop and evaluate methods and
technologies for characterizing and monitoring air, soil, and water; (2) support regulatory and policy
decisions; and (3) provide the science support needed to ensure effective implementation of environmental
regulations and strategies.
The EPA's Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program evaluates technologies for the
characterization and remediation of contaminated Superfund and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
sites. The SITE Program was created to provide reliable cost and performance data to speed the
acceptance and use of innovative remediation, characterization, and monitoring technologies by the
regulatory and user community.
Effective measurement and monitoring technologies are needed to assess the degree of contamination at a
site, to provide data that can be used to determine the risk to public health or the environment, to supply the
necessary cost and performance data to select the most appropriate technology, and to monitor the success
or failure of a remediation process. One component of the EPA SITE Program, the Monitoring and
Measurement Technology Program, demonstrates and evaluates innovative technologies to meet these
needs.
Candidate technologies can originate from within the federal government or from the private sector.
Through the SITE Program, developers are given the opportunity to conduct a rigorous demonstration of
their technology under actual field conditions. By completing the evaluation and distributing the results,
the Agency establishes a baseline for acceptance and use of these technologies. The Monitoring and
Measurement Technology Program is managed by the ORD's Environmental Sciences Division in Las
Vegas, Nevada.
Gary Foley, Ph.D.
Director
National Exposure Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
VI
-------
Contents
Notice ii
Verification Statement iii
Foreword vi
Figures ix
Tables x
Acronyms and Abbreviations xi
Acknowledgments xii
Executive Summary xiii
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
Technology Verification Process 3
Needs Identification and Technology Selection 3
Demonstration Planning and Implementation 3
Report Preparation 4
Information Distribution 4
Demonstration Purpose 4
Chapter 2 Technology Description 5
Background 5
Components and Accessories 5
Description of Platforms 7
General Operating Procedures 7
Developer Contact 9
Chapter 3 Site Descriptions and Demonstration Design 10
Site Selection and Description 10
SBA Site Description 10
CSC Site Description 12
Predemonstration Sampling and Analysis 14
Demonstration Design 16
Sample Recovery 16
Volatile Organic Compound Concentrations 16
Sample Integrity 22
Reliability and Throughput 22
Cost 22
Deviations from the Demonstration Plan 23
Chapter 4 Description and Performance of the Reference Method 24
Background 24
Components and Accessories 24
Description of Platform 24
Demonstration Operating Procedures 26
Qualitative Performance Factors 28
Reliability and Ruggedness 28
J OO
Training Requirements and Ease of Operation 29
vn
-------
Contents (Continued)
Logistical Requirements 29
Sample Handling 29
Performance Range 30
Investigation-Derived Waste 30
Quantitative Performance Factors 30
Sample Recovery 30
Volatile Organic Compound Concentrations 30
Sample Integrity 31
Sample Throughput 31
Data Quality 31
Chapter 5 Technology Performance 34
Qualitative Performance Factors 34
Reliability and Ruggedness 34
Training Requirements and Ease of Operation 34
Logistical Requirements 35
Sample Handling 35
Performance Range 35
Investigation-Derived Waste 35
Quantitative Performance Assessment 36
Sample Recovery 36
Volatile Organic Compound Concentrations 36
Sample Integrity 41
Sample Throughput 43
Data Quality 43
Chapter 6 Economic Analysis 45
Assumptions 45
Dual Tube Liner Sampler 45
Reference Sampling Method 48
Chapter 7 Summary of Demonstration Results 50
Chapter 8 Technology Update 53
Chapter 9 Previous Deployment 55
References 57
Appendix
A Data Summary Tables and Statistical Method Descriptions A-l
Vlll
-------
Figures
2-1. Dual Tube Liner Sampler Components 6
2-2. Dual Tube Liner Sampling 8
3-1. Small Business Administration Site 11
3-2. Chemical Sales Company Site 13
3-3. Typical Sampling Locations and Random Sampling Grid 17
3-4. Sampling Grid with High Contaminant Concentration Variability 19
3-5. Sampling Grid with Low Contaminant Concentration Variability 20
4-1. Split-Spoon Soil Sampler 25
4-2. Typical Components of a Hollow-Stem Auger 27
5 -1. Comparative Plot of Median VOC Concentrations for the Dual Tube Liner Sampler
and the Reference Sampling Method at the SBA and CSC Sites 42
IX
-------
Tables
3-1. Sampling Depths Selected for the Dual Tube Liner Sampler Demonstration 15
4-1. Volatile Organic Compound Concentrations in Samples Collected Using the
Reference Sampling Method 32
5-1. Investigation-Derived Waste Generated During the Demonstration 36
5-2. Sample Recoveries for the Dual Tube Liner Sampler and the Reference Sampling Method .... 37
5-3. Volatile Organic Compound Concentrations in Samples Collected Using the Dual Tube
Liner Sampler 38
5-4. Demonstration Data Summary for the Dual Tube Liner Sampler and Reference Sampling
Method 39
5-5. Comparison of Median Volatile Organic Compound Concentrations of Dual Tube Liner
Sampler and Reference Sampler Data and Statistical Significance 40
5-6. Sign Test Results for the Dual Tube Liner Sampler and the Reference Sampling Method 43
5-7. Average Sample Retrieval Times for the Dual Tube Liner Sampler and the Reference
Sampling Method 44
6-1. Estimated Subsurface Soil Sampling Costs for the Dual Tube Liner Sampler 46
6-2. Estimated Subsurface Soil Sampling Costs for the Reference Sampling Method 49
-------
Acronyms and Abbreviations
bgs below ground surface
cc cubic centimeter
cis-1,2-DCE cis-1,2-dichloroethene
CME Central Mine Equipment
CSC Chemical Sales Company
CSCT Consortium for Site Characterization Technology
1,1-DCA 1,1-dichloroethane
E&E Ecology & Environment
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ETV Environmental Technology Verification
ETVR Environmental Technology Verification Report
ft.-lb. footpound
g gram
IDW investigation-derived waste
LCS laboratory control sample
mg/kg milligrams per kilogram
mL milliliter
MS/MSD matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate
jWg/kg micrograms per kilogram
NERL National Exposure Research Laboratory
o.d. outside diameter
OU operable unit
PCE tetrachloroethene
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
RI/FS remedial investigation/feasibility study
RPD relative percent difference
SBA Small Business Administration
SITE Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
SMC Superior Manufacturing Company
1,1,1-TCA 1,1,1-trichloroethane
TCE trichloroethene
VOC volatile organic compound
XI
-------
Acknowledgments
This report was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Environmental
Technology Verification Program under the direction of Stephen Billets, Brian Schumacher, and Eric
Koglin of the EPA's National Exposure Research Laboratory—Environmental Sciences Division in Las
Vegas, Nevada. The project was also supported by the EPA's Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation (SITE) Program. The EPA wishes to acknowledge the support of Janice Kroone (EPA Region
7), Joe Vranka (Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment), Armando Saenz (EPA
Region 8), Sam Goforth (independent consultant), Alan Hewitt (Cold Regions Research Engineering
Laboratory), Bob Siegrist (Colorado School of Mines), and Ann Kern (EPA SITE Program). In addition,
we gratefully acknowledge the collection of soil samples using the Dual Tube Liner Sampler by John
Hobbs and Brian Anderson (AMS), collection of soil samples using hollow-stem auger drilling and split-
spoon sampling by Michael O'Malley, Bruce Stewart, and Clay Schnase (Geotechnical Services),
implementation of this demonstration by Eric Hess, Patrick Splichal, and Scott Schulte (Tetra Tech);
editorial and publication support by Butch Fries, Jennifer Brainerd, and Stephanie Anderson (Tetra Tech);
and technical report preparation by Ron Ohta, Guy Montfort, Roger Argus, and Ben Hough (Tetra Tech).
Xll
-------
Executive Summary
In May and June 1997, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sponsored a demonstration of the
AMS™ Dual Tube Liner Sampler, three other soil sampling technologies, and two soil gas sampling
technologies. This Environmental Technology Verification Report presents the results of the Dual Tube
Liner Sampler demonstration; similar reports have been published for each of the other soil and soil gas
sampling technologies.
The Dual Tube Liner Sampler is a soil sampling tool capable of collecting unconsolidated subsurface
material to depths that depend on the capability of the sampler advancement platform. The Dual Tube Liner
Sampler is advanced into the subsurface with a direct-push platform.
The Dual Tube Liner Sampler was demonstrated at two sites: the Small Business Administration (SBA) site
in Albert City, Iowa, and the Chemical Sales Company (CSC) site in Denver, Colorado. These sites were
chosen because each has a wide range of volatile organic compound (VOC) concentrations and a distinct
soil type. The VOCs detected at the sites include cis-l,2-dichloroethene; trichloroethene;
1,1,1-trichloroethane; and tetrachloroethene. The SBA site is composed primarily of clay soil, and the CSC
site is composed primarily of medium- to fine-grained sandy soil.
The Dual Tube Liner Sampler was compared to a reference subsurface soil sampling method (hollow-stem
auger drilling and split-spoon sampling) in terms of the following parameters: (1) sample recovery, (2)
VOC concentrations in recovered samples, (3) sample integrity, (4) reliability and throughput, and (5) cost.
The demonstration data indicate the following performance characteristics for the Dual Tube Liner Sampler:
• Compared to the reference method, average sample recoveries for the Dual Tube Liner Sampler
were higher in clay soil and lower in sandy soil.
• A significant statistical difference between the VOC concentrations was detected for one of the 12
Dual Tube Liner Sampler and reference sample method pairs collected at the SBA site and for three
of the 13 Dual Tube Liner Sampler and reference sampling method pairs collected at the CSC site.
• In one of the 12 integrity test samples, the integrity of a lined Dual Tube Liner Sampler was not
preserved when the sampler was advanced through contaminated soils.
• The reliability of the Dual Tube Liner Sampler to collect a sample in the first attempt was higher
than that for the reference sampling method in both clay and sandy soils. The average sample
retrieval time for the Dual Tube Liner Sampler was quicker than the reference method in clay soil
but slower in sandy soil.
• For both clay soil and sandy soil sites, the range of costs for collecting soil samples using the Dual
Tube Liner Sampler was lower than the reference sampling method. The actual cost depends on the
number of samples required, the sample retrieval time, soil type, sample depth, and the cost for
disposal of drill cuttings. A site-specific cost and performance analysis is recommended before
selecting a subsurface soil sampling method.
In general, results for the data quality indicators selected for this demonstration met the established quality
assurance objectives and support the usefulness of the demonstration results in verifying the Dual Tube
Liner Sampler's performance.
Xlll
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
Performance verification of innovative and alternative environmental technologies is an integral part of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) regulatory and research mission. Early efforts focused on
evaluating technologies that supported implementation of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. To meet the
needs of the hazardous waste program, the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program
was established by the EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) and Office of
Research and Development (ORD) as part of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986.
The primary purpose of the SITE Program is to promote the acceptance and use of innovative
characterization, monitoring, and treatment technologies.
The overall goal of the SITE Program is to conduct research and performance verification studies of
alternative or innovative technologies that may be used to achieve long-term protection of human health and
the environment. The various components of the SITE Program are designed to encourage the development,
demonstration, acceptance, and use of new or innovative treatment and monitoring technologies. The
program is designed to meet four primary objectives: (1) identify and remove obstacles to the development
and commercial use of alternative technologies, (2) support a development program that identifies and
nurtures emerging technologies, (3) demonstrate promising innovative technologies to establish reliable
performance and cost information for site characterization and cleanup decision-making, and (4) develop
procedures and policies that encourage the selection of alternative technologies at Superfund sites, as well as
other waste sites and commercial facilities.
The intent of a SITE demonstration is to obtain representative, high quality, performance and cost data on
innovative technologies so that potential users can assess a given technology's suitability for a specific
application. The SITE Program includes the following elements:
• Monitoring and Measurement Technology (MMT) Program — Evaluates technologies that
detect, monitor, sample, and measure hazardous and toxic substances. These technologies are
expected to provide better, faster, and more cost-effective methods for producing real-time data
during site characterization and remediation studies
• Remediation Technologies — Conducts demonstrations of innovative treatment technologies to
provide reliable performance, cost, and applicability data for site cleanup
• Technology Transfer Program — Provides and disseminates technical information in the form of
updates, brochures, and other publications that promote the program and the technology. Provides
technical assistance, training, and workshops to support the technology
The MMT Program provides developers of innovative hazardous waste measurement, monitoring, and
sampling technologies with an opportunity to demonstrate a technology's performance under actual
1
-------
field conditions. These technologies may be used to detect, monitor, sample, and measure hazardous and
toxic substances in soil, sediment, waste materials, and groundwater. Technologies include chemical
sensors for in situ (in place) measurements, groundwater sampling devices, soil and core sampling devices,
soil gas samplers, laboratory and field-portable analytical equipment, and other systems that support field
sampling or data acquisition and analysis.
The MMT Program promotes the acceptance of technologies that can be used to accurately assess the
degree of contamination at a site, provide data to evaluate potential effects on human health and the
environment, apply data to assist in selecting the most appropriate cleanup action, and monitor the
effectiveness of a remediation process. Acceptance into the program places high priority on innovative
technologies that provide more cost-effective, faster, and safer methods than conventional technologies for
producing real-time or near-real-time data. These technologies are demonstrated under field conditions and
results are compiled, evaluated, published, and disseminated by ORD. The primary objectives of the MMT
Program are the following:
• Test field analytical technologies that enhance monitoring and site characterization capabilities
• Identify the performance attributes of new technologies to address field characterization and
monitoring problems in a more cost-effective and efficient manner
• Prepare protocols, guidelines, methods, and other technical publications that enhance the
acceptance of these technologies for routine use
The SITE MMT Program is administered by ORD's National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL-LV)
at the Environmental Sciences Division in Las Vegas, Nevada.
In 1994, the EPA created the Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program to facilitate the
deployment of innovative technologies in other areas of environmental concern through performance
verification and information dissemination. As in the SITE Program, the goal of the ETV Program is to
further environmental protection by substantially accelerating the acceptance and use of improved and cost-
effective technologies. The ETV Program is intended to assist and inform those involved in the design,
distribution, permitting, and purchase of various environmental technologies. The ETV Program
capitalizes on and applies the lessons learned in implementing the SITE Program.
For each demonstration, the EPA draws on the expertise of partner "verification organizations" to design
efficient procedures for conducting performance tests of environmental technologies. The EPA selects its
partners from both the public and private sectors, including federal laboratories, states, universities, and
private sector entities. Verification organizations oversee and report verification activities based on testing
and quality assurance (QA) protocols developed with input from all major stakeholder and customer groups
associated with the technology area. For this demonstration, the EPA selected Tetra Tech EM Inc. (Tetra
Tech; formerly PRC Environmental Management, Inc.) as the verification organization.
In May and June 1997, the EPA conducted a demonstration, funded by the SITE Program, to verify the
performance of four soil and two soil gas sampling technologies: SimulProbe® Technologies, Inc., Core
Barrel Sampler; Geoprobe Systems, Inc., Large-Bore Soil Sampler; AMS™ Dual Tube Liner Sampler;
Clements Associates, Inc., Environmentalist's Subsoil Probe; Quadrel Services, Inc., EMFLUX Soil Gas
Investigation System; and W.L. Gore & Associates GORE-SORBER Soil Gas Sampler. This
environmental technology verification report (ETVR) presents the results of thedemonstration for one soil
-------
sampling technology, the AMS™ Dual Tube Liner Sampler. Separate ETVRs have been published for the
remaining soil and soil gas sampling technologies.
Technology Verification Process
The technology verification process is designed to conduct demonstrations that will generate high-quality
data that the EPA and others can use to verify technology performance and cost. Four key steps are
inherent in the process: (1) needs identification and technology selection, (2) demonstration planning and
implementation, (3) report preparation, and (4) information distribution.
Needs Identification and Technology Selection
The first aspect of the technology verification process is to identify technology needs of the EPA and the
regulated community. The EPA, the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Department of Defense,
industry, and state agencies are asked to identify technology needs for characterization, sampling, and
monitoring. Once a technology area is chosen, a search is conducted to identify suitable technologies that
will address that need. The technology search and identification process consists of reviewing responses to
Commerce Business Daily announcements, searches of industry and trade publications, attendance at
related conferences, and leads from technology developers. Selection of characterization and monitoring
technologies for field testing includes an evaluation of the candidate technology against the following
criteria:
• Designed for use in the field or in a mobile laboratory
• Applicable to a variety of environmentally contaminated sites
• Has potential for resolving problems for which current methods are unsatisfactory
• Has costs that are competitive with current methods
• Performs better than current methods in areas such as data quality, sample preparation, or
analytical turnaround time
• Uses techniques that are easier and safer than current methods
• Is commercially available
Demonstration Planning and Implementation
After a technology has been selected, the EPA, the verification organization, and the developer agree to a
strategy for conducting the demonstration and evaluating the technology. The following issues are
addressed at this time:
• Identifying and defining the roles of demonstration participants, observers, and reviewers
• Identifying demonstration sites that provide the appropriate physical or chemical attributes in the
desired environmental media
• Determining logistical and support requirements (for example, field equipment, power and water
sources, mobile laboratory, or communications network)
3
-------
• Arranging analytical and sampling support
• Preparing and implementing a demonstration plan that addresses the experimental design, the
sampling design, quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC), health and safety, field and
laboratory operations scheduling, data analysis procedures, and reporting requirements
Report Preparation
Each of the innovative technologies is evaluated independently and, when possible, against a reference
technology. The technologies are usually operated in the field by the developers in the presence of
independent observers. These individuals are selected by the EPA or the verification organization and work
to ensure that the technology is operated in accordance with the demonstration plan. Demonstration data
are used to evaluate the capabilities, performance, limitations, and field applications of each technology.
After the demonstration, all raw and reduced data used to evaluate each technology are compiled into a
technology evaluation report as a record of the demonstration. A verification statement and detailed
evaluation narrative of each technology are published in an ETVR. This document receives a thorough
technical and editorial review prior to publication.
Information Distribution
The goal of the information distribution strategy is to ensure that ETVRs are readily available to interested
parties through traditional data distribution pathways, such as printed documents. Related documents and
technology updates are also available on the World Wide Web through the ETV Web site
(http://www.epa.gov/etv) and through the Hazardous Waste Clean-Up Information Web site supported by
the EPA OSWER Technology Innovation Office (http://clu-in.org). Additional information on the SITE
Program can be found on ORD's web site (http://www.epa.gov/ORD/SITE).
Demonstration Purpose
The primary purpose of a soil sampling technology is to collect a sample from a specified depth and return
it to the surface with minimal changes to the chemical concentration or physical properties of the sample.
This report documents the performance of the AMS™ Dual Tube Liner Sampler relative to the hollow-stem
auger drilling and split-spoon sampling reference method.
This document summarizes the results of an evaluation of the AMS™ Dual Tube Liner Sampler in
comparison to the reference sampling method in terms of the following parameters: (1) sample recovery,
(2) volatile organic compound (VOC) concentrations in recovered samples, (3) sample integrity,
(4) reliability and throughput, and (5) cost. Data quality measures of precision, accuracy,
representativeness, completeness, and comparability were also assessed against established QA objectives
to ensure the usefulness of the data for the purpose of this verification.
-------
Chapter 2
Technology Description
This chapter describes the AMS™ Dual Tube Liner Sampler, including its background, components and
accessories, sampling platform, and general operating procedures. The text in this chapter was provided by
the developer and was edited for format and relevance.
Background
The Dual Tube Liner Sampler (patent pending) was developed by AMS™ solely for collection of
subsurface soil samples. The physical limitations on the operation of the Dual Tube Liner Sampler depend
on the method of sampler advancement and the nature of the subsurface matrix. The technology is
primarily restricted to unconsolidated soil free of large cobbles or boulders. Sediments containing pebbles
supported by a finer-grained matrix can also be sampled. The developer claims that the Dual Tube Liner
Sampler can be used to sample soil for volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semivolatile organic
compounds, metals, general minerals, and pesticides. Additional developer claims for the performance of
the Dual Tube Liner Sampler are that it:
• Prevents cross-contamination and preserves sample integrity
• Collects samples that are chemically representative of the target interval
• Collects either discrete or continuous soil samples
• Works in unconsolidated materials
During the demonstration, the developer's claims regarding the ability of the Dual Tube Liner Sampler to
be used to sample for VOCs, preserve sample integrity, and collect representative discrete soil samples in
consolidated and unconsolidated materials were evaluated.
Components and Accessories
The Dual Tube Liner Sampler (Figure 2-1) was designed to collect subsurface soil samples using direct-
push platform technology. The sampling system consists of tools to be used with direct push sampling
equipment in the collection of continuous or discrete soil samples. The sampler assembly is constructed of
two steel tubes, or "extensions," of differing diameters designed so that the smaller of the two tubes fits
within the larger. The outer extension is available in two diameters, 2-1/8-inch outside diameter (o.d.) with
a 3/8-inch wall thickness and 1-3/4-inch o.d. with a 1/4-inch wall thickness, and is equipped with a metal
drive tip at the lower end. The thick-walled extensions are typically used when pushing the sampler
through gravelly or dense material. The outer extension is threaded at the upper end to facilitate additional
metal extensions with increasing depth and the addition of a drive head adaptor
-------
Outer
Extension
Inner
Extension
Liner Sampler
Thread
Protector Cap
Liner Sampler
Plastic Grabber
Liner
Figure 2-1. Dual Tube Liner Sampler Components (modified from AMS™, 1997)
-------
to the top of the tool string. The inner extensions are also available in two diameters, 1-3/4-inch o.d. and 1-
1/8-inch o.d., to match the selected outer extension diameter. The lower end of the inner extension is
threaded with a plastic grabber to facilitate the attachment of a polybutyrate liner during sample collection
or a solid point metal inner drive tip during sampler advancement (Figure
2-2). The inner drive tip fits tightly into the outer extension drive tip; the drive tip and inner extensions are
held firmly in place by the drive head.
Dual tube sampler extensions are available in lengths of 1, 2, 3, and 4 feet and wall thickness of 1/4-inch
and 3/8-inch. The components of the sampler are assembled with the outer extension serving as a
temporary casing, so that continuous or discrete soil samples can be collected using the inner extension
liner and drive tip assemblies. The Dual Tube Liner Sampler is designed to allow collection of the soil
sample while preventing cross contamination that may result through contact with contaminated soils. In
addition, the 3/8-inch walled inner extensions are designed for single tube sampling as well as dual tube
sampling with the 2-1/8-inch outer extensions.
Additional tools offered by AMS™ include an optional sample preparation station designed to provide a
means of opening the clear polybutyrate liners. The free-standing or truck-bed-mounted sample
preparation station provides a "V"-shaped tray to hold the liner in position as a track-mounted razor knife
is used to open the liner. Four additional "V" trays are provided to hold opened samples for examination.
Description of Platforms
A PowerProbe 9600 direct push rig was used to advance the sampler during the demonstration. The
PowerProbe 9600 is an engine-driven combination hammer and auger drilling unit equipped with
electronically activated hydraulic valves. The rig is equipped with a 50-foot-pound variable speed
hydraulic hammer equipped with a separate auger unit on the drive head. The drive mechanism can apply
30,000 pounds of down force using a 5-foot stroke. The unit can expend 40,000 pounds of up force in
retrieving tool strings from the subsurface. The unit is powered by a belt-driven hydraulic pump installed
on the vehicle engine.
The platform must be mounted on a three-quarter ton or heavier pickup truck that is supplied by the buyer
or custom truck assembled by AMS™. The probe platform is adjustable and offers 20 inches of extension
and 52 inches of left-right swing. The angle of the probe rig mast is adjustable at 15-degree increments
between 45 and 105 degrees to allow diagonal sampling.
General Operating Procedures
Before use and between each sample collected during the demonstration, the Dual Tube Liner Sampler
probe and any supporting equipment that may come in contact with the sample were decontaminated. The
sampler equipment was then assembled according to the following protocol: (1) the Dual Tube Liner is
threaded onto the lower end of the metal liner grab unit, (2) the 1-1/8-inch extension is threaded to the
upper end of the sampler, (3) the assembly is lowered into the outer extension, using additional 1-1/8-inch
inner extensions as needed, (4) a thread protector cap is added to the inner extension, and (5) the drive head
adaptor is added to the outer extension.
For use in the continuous sampling mode, the assembled tool string is advanced either 2 or 4 feet
(depending on the length of the unit in use) into the subsurface to collect the sample. Discrete samples are
collected by outfitting the inner extension with a solid drive tip prior to assembly; this drive tip fits
-------
DUAL TUBE
LINER SAMPLING
(A) Driving Dual Tubes to the
sampling point
(B) The outer tube in place with the
AMS Liner sampler
(C) Collecting the sample directly in
the liner
Figure 2-2. Dual Tube Liner Sampling (modified from AMS™, 1997)
-------
snugly into the outer extension drive tip, as shown on Figure 2-2, Part A. The inner extensions remain
unsecured within the outer extension and are held in place by the drive head during advancement. Upon
reaching the desired sampling depth, the inner extensions are retrieved either by hand or using the drive
head and a liner is installed as described above and shown on Figure 2-2, Part B. The tool string is then
advanced, filling the sample liner as shown on Figure 2-2, Part C.
The following procedure was followed when disassembling the sampler: (1) the drive head adaptor is
removed from the outer extension, (2) the thread protector is removed from the inner extension and the unit
is retrieved from the outer extension string, (3) the liner is unscrewed from the inner extension assembly
and the plastic grabber, (4) the Dual Tube Liner is removed from the assembly and positioned for sample
removal, and (5) a razor knife is used to open the polybutyrate sampler liner, exposing the sample.
The Dual Tube Liner Sampler equipment was decontaminated according to the procedures specified in the
demonstration plan (PRC Environmental Management, Inc. [PRC], 1997). The disposable polybutyrate
liners do not require decontamination prior to use. At a minimum, the plastic grabber, inner and outer
extensions, thread protector, and drive tip were decontaminated with an Alconox® wash and potable water
rinse. Decontamination was completed while the tools were being removed from the ground using an
AMS™ on-board wash station with two spray wands supplying fresh wash solutions. One person was able
to decontaminate all components of one sampler in 3 to 5 minutes.
Health and safety considerations for operating the sampler and the sampling platforms included complying
with all applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration hazardous waste operation training as
well as eye, ear, head, hand, and foot protection.
Developer Contact
For more developer information on the Dual Tube Liner Sampler, please refer to Chapters 8 and 9 of this
ETVR or contact the developer at:
Brian Anderson
Art's Manufacturing and Supply
105 Harrison Street
American Falls, Indiana 83211
Telephone: (800) 635-7330
Facsimile: (208) 226-7280
E-mail: brian@bankipds.com
-------
Chapter 3
Site Descriptions and Demonstration Design
This chapter describes the demonstration sites, predemonstration sampling and analysis, and the
demonstration design. The demonstration was conducted in accordance with the "Final Demonstration
Plan for the Evaluation of Soil Sampling and Soil Gas Sampling Technologies" (PRC, 1997).
Site Selection and Description
The following criteria were used to select the demonstration sites:
• Unimpeded access for the demonstration
• A range (micrograms per kilogram [wg/kg] to milligrams per kilogram [mg/kg]) of chlorinated or
aromatic VOC contamination in soil
• Well-characterized contamination
• Different soil textures
• Minimal underground utilities
• Situated in different climates
Based on a review of 48 candidate sites, the Small Business Administration (SBA) site in Albert City,
Iowa, and the CSC site in Denver, Colorado, were selected for the demonstration.
SBA Site Description
The SBA site is located on Orchard Street between 1st and 2nd Avenues in east-central Albert City, Iowa
(Figure 3-1). The site is the location of the former Superior Manufacturing Company (SMC) facility and
is now owned by SBA and B&B Chlorination, Inc. SMC manufactured grease guns at the site from 1935
until 1967. Metal working, assembling, polishing, degreasing, painting, and other operations were carried
out at the site during this period. The EPA files indicate that various solvents were used in manufacturing
grease guns and that waste metal shavings coated with oil and solvents were placed in a former waste
storage area. The oil and solvents were allowed to drain onto the ground, and the metal waste was hauled
off site by truck (Ecology & Environment [E&E], 1996).
10
-------
2nd Avenue
Former SMC
Waste Storage
Area
0)
CD
CD
^
cb~
Former SMC
Plant Building
O
|
Q)
a
O)
(—1-
(B
CD
Albert City
Fire Station
Garage
Historic
School House
Q)
Q.
O
CD
Q.
CD
Historic
Train
Station
School
Bus
Storage
Building
Museum
Building
^^
^^^^
^^
Ci J
03
T3
CD
1
a
Buena Vista
County
Maintenance
Facility
DEMONSTRATION GRID LOCATIONS
AND GRID NUMBER
APPROXIMATE SITE BOUNDARY
Figure 3-1. Small Business Administration Site FEET
-------
The site consists of the former SMC plant property and a waste storage yard. The SMC plant property is
currently a grass-covered, relatively flat, unfenced open lot. The plant buildings have been razed. A pole
barn is the only building currently on the SMC plant property. Several buildings are present in the waste
storage yard, including three historic buildings: a garage, a museum, and a school house.
Poorly drained, loamy soils of the Nicollet series are present throughout the site area. The upper layer of
these soils is a black loam grading to a dark gray loam. Below this layer, the soils grade to a friable, light
clay loam extending to a depth of 60 inches. Underlying these soils is a thick sequence (400 feet or more)
of glacial drift. The lithology of this glacial drift is generally a light yellowish-gray, sandy clay with some
gravel, pebbles, or boulders. The sand-to-clay ratio is probably variable throughout the drift.
Groundwater is encountered at about 6 to 7 feet below ground surface (bgs) at the SBA site (E&E, 1996).
Tetrachloroethene (PCE), trichloroethene (TCE), cis-l,2-dichloroethene (cis-l,2-DCE), and vinyl chloride
are the primary contaminants detected in soil at the site. These chlorinated VOCs have been detected in
both surface (0 to 2 feet deep) and subsurface (3 to 5 feet deep) soil samples. TCE and cis-l,2-DCE are
the VOCs usually detected at the highest concentrations in both soil and groundwater. In past site
investigations, TCE and cis-l,2-DCE have been detected in soils at 17 and 40 mg/kg, respectively, with
vinyl chloride present at 1.4 mg/kg. The areas of highest contamination have been found near the center of
the former SMC plant property and near the south end of the former SMC waste storage area (E&E,
1996).
CSC Site Description
The CSC site is located in Denver, Colorado, approximately 5 miles northeast of downtown Denver. From
1962 to 1976, a warehouse at the site was used to store chemicals. The CSC purchased and first occupied
the facility in 1976. The CSC installed aboveground and underground storage tanks and pipelines at the
site between October 1976 and February 1977. From 1976 to 1992, the facility received, blended, stored,
and distributed various chemicals and acids. Chemicals were transported in bulk to the CSC facility by
train, and were unloaded along railroad spurs located north and south of the CSC facility. These
operations ceased at the CSC site in 1992.
The EPA conducted several investigations of the site from 1981 through 1991. Results of these
investigations indicated a release of organic chemicals into the soil and groundwater at the site. As a result
of this finding, the CSC site was placed on the National Priorities List in 1990. The site is divided into
three operable units (OU). This demonstration was conducted at OU1, located at 4661 Monaco Parkway
in Denver (Figure 3-2). In September 1989, EPA and CSC entered into an Administrative Order on
Consent requiring CSC to conduct a remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) for CSC OU1. The
RI/FS was completed at OU1 in 1991 (Engineering-Science, Inc., 1991).
The current site features of OU1 consist of the warehouse, a concrete containment pad with a few
remaining tanks from the aboveground tank farm, another smaller containment pad with aboveground tanks
north of a railroad spur, and multiple areas in which drums are stored on the west side of the warehouse
and in the northwest corner of the property. The warehouse is currently in use and is occupied by Steel
Works Corporation.
12
-------
00
SCALE
0 25 50 100
FEET
ABOVE-GROUND
TANKS
O O
o o
o o
ce
o
-ABOVE-GROUND
TANKS
ASPHALT
CHEMICAL SALES
WAREHOUSE
LEGEND
1
ce:
<
o_
o
o
Figure 3-2. Chemical Sales Company Site
DEMONSTRATION GRID
LOCATIONSAND GRID
NUMBER
RAILROAD
FENCE
-------
The topography, distribution of surficial deposits, and materials encountered during predemonstration
sampling suggest that the portion of OU1 near the CSC warehouse is a terrace deposit composed of
Slocum Alluvium beneath aeolian sand, silt, and clay. The terrace was likely formed by renewed
downcutting of a tributary to Sand Creek. Borings at the CSC property indicate that soils in the vadose
zone and saturated zone are primarily fine- to coarse-grained, poorly sorted sands with some silts and
clays. The alluvial aquifer also contains some poorly sorted gravel zones. The depth to water is about
30 to 40 feet bgs near the CSC warehouse.
During previous soil investigations at the CSC property, chlorinated VOC contamination was detected
extending from near the surface (less than 5 feet bgs) to the water table depth. The predominant
chlorinated VOCs detected in site soils are PCE, TCE, 1,1,1-trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA), and 1,1-
dichloroethane (1,1-DCA). The area of highest VOC contamination is north of the CSC tank farm,
near the northern railroad spur. The PCE concentrations detected in this area measure as high as 80
mg/kg, with TCE and 1,1,1-TCA concentrations measuring as high as 1 mg/kg.
Predemonstration Sampling and Analysis
Predemonstration sampling and analysis were conducted to establish the geographic location of
sampling grids, identify target sampling depths, and estimate the variability of contaminant
concentrations exhibited at each grid location and target sampling depth. Predemonstration sampling
was conducted at the SBA site between April 1 and 11, 1997, and at the CSC site between April 20 and
25, 1997. Ten sampling grids, five at the SBA site and five at the CSC site, were investigated to
identify sampling depths within each grid that exhibited chemical concentration and soil texture
characteristics that met the criteria set forth in the predemonstration sampling plan (PRC, 1997) and
would, therefore, be acceptable for the Dual Tube Liner Sampler demonstration.
At each of the grids sampled during the predemonstration, a single continuous core was collected at
the center of the 10.5-by 10.5-foot sampling area. This continuous core was collected to a maximum
depth of 20 feet bgs at the SBA site and 28 feet bgs at the CSC site. Analytical results for this core
sample were used to identify target sampling depths and confirm that the target depths exhibited the
desired contaminant concentrations and soil type. After the center of each grid was sampled, four
additional boreholes were advanced and sampled in each of the outer four corners of the 10.5-by
10.5-foot grid area. These corner locations were sampled at depth intervals determined from the
initial coring location in the center of the grid, and were analyzed for VOCs and soil texture.
During predemonstration sampling, ten distinct target depths were sampled at five grids at the SBA site:
three depths at Grid 1, two depths at Grid 2, one depth at Grid 3, two depths at Grid 4, and two depths
at Grid 5. Five of the target depths represented intervals with contaminant concentrations in the tens of
mg/kg, and five of the target depths represented intervals with contaminant concentrations in the tens of
• g/kg. As expected, the primary VOCs detected in soil samples were vinyl chloride, cis-l,2-DCE,
TCE, and PCE. TCE and cis-l,2-DCE were detected at the highest concentrations. Because the soil
texture was relatively homogeneous for each target sampling depth, soil sampling locations for the
demonstration were selected based on TCE and cis-l,2-DCE concentration variability within each grid.
A depth was deemed acceptable for the demonstration if (1) individual TCE and cis-l,2-DCE
concentrations were within a factor of 5, (2) the relative standard deviations for TCE and cis-l,2-DCE
concentrations were less than 50 percent, and (3) the soil texture did not change in dominant grain size.
During predemonstration sampling, 12 distinct target depths were sampled at the five grids at the CSC
site: two depths at Grid 1, three depths at Grid 2, three depths at Grid 3, two depths at Grid 4, and two
depths at Grid 5. Two of the target depths represented intervals with contaminant concentrations
14
-------
greater than 200 Aig/kg, and ten of the target depths represented intervals with contaminant concentrations
less than 200 Aig/kg. The primary VOCs detected in soil at the CSC site were 1,1,1-TCA, TCE, and PCE.
Of the 22 distinct target depths sampled during predemonstration activities at the SBA and CSC sites,
seven sampling depths at 10 grids were selected for the demonstration. Six sampling depths within nine
grids at the SBA and CSC sites (a total of 12 grid-depth combinations) were chosen to meet the
contaminant concentration and soil texture requirements stated above. In addition, one sampling depth at
one grid (40 feet bgs at Grid 5) at the CSC site was selected to evaluate the reliability and sample recovery
of the Dual Tube Liner Sampler in saturated sandy soil. The sampling depths and grids selected for the
Dual Tube Liner Sampler demonstration at the SBA and CSC sites are listed in Table
3-1. The locations of the sampling grids are shown in Figures 3-1 and 3-2.
Table 3-1. Sampling Depths Selected for the Dual Tube Liner Sampler Demonstration
Site
SBA
(Clay Soil)
CSC
(Sandy Soil)
Grid
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
Concentration
Zone
High
High
Low
High
Low
Low
High
Low
High
High
Low
Low
Depth (feet)
9.5
13.5
3.5
9.5
9.5
13.5
3.0
6.5
3.0
3.0
7.5
6.5
5" Low 40.0"
Performance test sampling location only; samples collected but not analyzed.
Sampling location selected to evaluate the reliability and sample recovery of the
Dual Tube Liner Sampler in saturated sandy soil.
15
-------
Demonstration Design
The demonstration was designed to evaluate the Dual Tube Liner Sampler in comparison to the reference
sampling method in terms of the following parameters: (1) sample recovery, (2) VOC concentration in
recovered samples, (3) sample integrity, (4) reliability and throughput, and (5) cost. These parameters
were assessed in two different soil textures (clay soil at the SBA site and sandy soil at the CSC site), and in
high- and low-concentration areas at each site. The demonstration design is described in detail in the
demonstration plan (PRC, 1997) and is summarized below.
Predemonstration sampling identified 12 target grid-depth combinations (See Table 3-1) for the
demonstration that exhibited consistent soil texture, acceptable VOC concentrations, and acceptable
variability in VOC concentrations. One additional grid-depth combination was selected for the
demonstration to evaluate the performance of the Dual Tube Liner Sampler in saturated sandy soil. Each
grid was 10.5 feet by 10.5 feet in area and was divided into seven rows and seven columns, producing 49,
18- by 18-inch sampling cells (Figure 3-3). Each target depth was sampled in each of the seven columns
(labeled A through G) using the Dual Tube Liner Sampler and the reference sampling method. The cell
that was sampled in each column was selected randomly. The procedure used to collect samples using the
Dual Tube Liner Sampler is described in Chapter 2, and the procedure used to collect samples using the
reference sampling method is described in Chapter 4. In addition, Chapters 4 and 5 summarize the data
collected at each grid for the reference method and Dual Tube Liner Sampler.
Sample Recovery
Sample recoveries for each Dual Tube Liner Sampler and reference method sample were calculated by
comparing the length of sampler advancement to the length of sample core obtained for each attempt.
Sample recovery is defined as the length of recovered sample core divided by the length of sampler
advancement and is expressed as a percentage. In some instances, the length of recovered sample was
reported as greater than the length of sampler advancement. In these cases, sample recovery was reported
as 100 percent. Sample recoveries were calculated to assess the recovery range and mean for both the Dual
Tube Liner Sampler and the reference sampling method.
Volatile Organic Compound Concentrations
Once a sample was collected, the soil core was exposed and a subsample was collected at the designated
sampling depth. The subsample was used for on-site VOC analysis according to either a low-concentration
or a high-concentration method using modified SW-846 methods. The low-concentration method was used
for sampling depths believed to exhibit VOC concentrations of less than 200 Aig/kg. The high-
concentration method was used for sampling depths believed to exhibit concentrations greater than 200
. The method detection limits for the low- and high-concentration methods were 1 ^g/kg and 100
, respectively. Predemonstration sampling results were used to classify target sampling depths as low
or high concentration. Samples for VOC analysis were collected by a single sampling team using the same
procedures for both the Dual Tube Liner Sampler and reference sampling method.
Samples from low-concentration sampling depths were collected as two 5-gram (g) aliquots. These
aliquots were collected using a disposable 5-cubic centimeter (cc) syringe with the tip cut off and the
rubber plunger tip removed. The syringe was pushed into the sample to the point that 3 to 3.5 cc of
16
-------
A B
D
Ref.
AMS™
Ref.
AMS™
Ref.
AMS™
AMS™
Ref.
Ref.
AMS™
Ref.
AMS™
AMS™
Ref.
CD
a
in
o
10.5 feet
AMS™ Dual Tube Liner Sampler
Ref. Reference Sampling Method Location
Figure 3-3. Typical Sampling Locations and Random Sampling Grid
17
-------
soil was contained in the syringe. The soil core in the syringe was extruded directly into a 22-milliliter
(mL) headspace vial, and 5.0 mL of distilled water was added immediately. The headspace vial was sealed
with a crimp-top septum cap within 5 seconds of adding the organic-free water. The headspace vial was
labeled according to the technology, the sample grid and cell from which the sample was collected, and the
sampling depth. These data, along with the U.S. Department of Agriculture soil texture, were recorded on
field data sheets. For each subsurface soil sample, two collocated samples were collected for analysis. The
second sample was intended as a backup sample for reanalysis or in case a sample was accidentally opened
or destroyed prior to analysis.
Samples from high-concentration sampling depths were also collected with disposable syringes as described
above. Each 3 to 3.5 cc of soil was extruded directly into a 40-mL vial and capped with a Teflon™-lined
septum screw cap. Each vial contained 10 mL of pesticide-grade methanol. The 40-mL vials were labeled
in the same manner as the low-concentration samples, and the sample number and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture soil texture were recorded on field data sheets. For each soil sample, two collocated samples
were collected.
To minimize VOC loss, samples were handled as efficiently and consistently as possible. Throughout the
demonstration, sample handling was timed from the moment the soil sample was exposed to the atmosphere
to the moment the sample vials were sealed. Sample handling times ranged from 40 to 60 seconds for
headspace sampling and from 30 to 47 seconds for methanol flood sampling.
Samples were analyzed for VOCs by combining automated headspace sampling with gas chromatography
(GC) analysis according to the standard operating guideline provided in the demonstration plan (PRC,
1997). The standard operating guideline incorporates the protocols presented in SW-846 Methods 5021,
8000, 8010, 8015, and 8021 from the EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, "Test
Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste" (EPA, 1986). The target VOCs for this demonstration were vinyl
chloride, cis-l,2-DCE, 1,1,1-TCA, TCE, and PCE. However, during the demonstration, vinyl chloride was
removed from the target compound list because of resolution problems caused by coelution of methanol.
To report the VOC data on a dry weight basis, samples were collected to measure soil moisture content.
For each sampling depth, a sample weighing approximately 100 g was collected from one of the reference
method subsurface soil samples. The moisture samples were collected from the soil core within 1 inch of
the VOC sampling location using a disposable steel teaspoon.
An F test for variance homogeneity was run on the VOC data to assess their suitability for parametric
analysis. The data set variances failed the F test, indicating that parametric analysis was inappropriate for
hypothesis testing. To illustrate this variability and heterogeneity of contaminant concentrations in soil,
predemonstration and demonstration soil sample results (obtained using the reference sampling method for
a grid depth combination with high variability and a grid depth combination with low variability) are
provided as Figures 3-4 and 3-5.
Because the data set variance failed the F test, a nonparametric method, the Mann-Whitney test, was used
for the statistical analysis. The Mann-Whitney statistic was chosen because (1) it is historically
acceptable, (2) it is easy to apply to small data sets, (3) it requires no assumptions regarding normality, and
(4) it assumes only that differences between two reported data values, in this case the reported chemical
concentrations, can be determined. A description of the application of the Mann-Whitney test and the
conditions under which it was used is presented in Appendix Al. A statistician should be consulted before
applying the Mann-Whitney test to other data sets.
18
-------
B
D
80,100
52,800
57,900
70,200
251,000
419,000
291,000
276,000
217,000
258,000
CD
£
in
ci
10.5 feet
Units - micrograms per kilogram
Figure 3-4. Sampling Grid with High Contaminant Concentration Variability
19
-------
B
D
32,600
33,700
92,200
40,500
48,700
33,900
41,000
26,700
32,600
45,800
CD
£
in
ci
10.5 feet
Units - micrograms per kilogram
Figure 3-5. Sampling Grid with Low Contaminant Concentration Variability
20
-------
The Mann-Whitney statistical evaluation of the VOC concentration data was conducted based on the null
hypothesis (H0) that there is no difference between the median contaminant concentrations obtained by the
Dual Tube Liner Sampler and the reference sampling method. A two-tailed 95 percent confidence limit
was used. The calculated two-tailed significance level for the null hypothesis thus becomes 5 percent (p
0.05). A two-tailed test was used because there is no reason to suspect a priori that one method would
result in greater concentrations than the other.
Specifically, the test evaluates the scenario wherein samples (soil samples, in this instance) would be drawn
from a common universe with different sampling methods (reference versus Dual Tube Liner Sampler). If,
in fact, the sampling universe is uniform and there is no sampling bias, the median value (median VOC
concentration) for each data set should be statistically equivalent. Sampling, however, is random;
therefore, the probability also exists that dissimilar values (particularly in small data sets) may be
"withdrawn" even from an identical sampling universe. The 95 percent confidence limit used in this test
was selected such that differences, should they be inferred statistically, should occur no more than 5
percent of the time.
Additionally, the sign test was used to examine the potential for sampling and analytical bias between the
Dual Tube Liner Sampler and the reference sampling method. The sign test is nonparametric and counts
the number of positive and negative signs among the differences. The differences tested, in this instance,
were the differences in the median concentrations of paired data sets (within a site, within a grid, at a depth,
and for each analyte). From the data sets, counts were made up of (1) the number of pairs in which the
reference sampling method median concentrations were higher than the Dual Tube Liner Sampler median
concentrations and (2) the number of pairs in which the Dual Tube Liner Sampler median concentrations
were higher than the reference sampling method median concentrations. The total number of pairs in which
the median concentrations were higher for the Dual Tube Liner Sampler was then compared to the total
number of pairs in which the median concentrations for the reference sampling method were higher. If no
bias is present in the data sets, the probability of the total number of pairs for one or the other test method
being higher is equivalent; that is, the probability of the number of pairs in which the median concentrations
in the Dual Tube Liner Sampler are higher is equal to the probability of the number of pairs in which the
median concentrations in the reference sampling method are higher. To determine the exact probability of
the number of data sets in which the median concentrations in the Dual Tube Liner Sampler and reference
sampling method were higher, a binomial expansion was used. If the calculated probability is less than 5
percent (p < 0.05), then a significant difference is present between the Dual Tube Liner Sampler and
reference sampling method.
The sign test was chosen because it (1) reduces sensitivity to random analysis error and matrix variabilities
by using the median VOC concentration across each grid depth, (2) enlarges the sample sizes as compared
to the Mann-Whitney test, and (3) is easy to use. A description of the application of the sign test and the
conditions under which it was used is presented in Appendix Al.
For the demonstration data, certain VOCs were not detected in some, or all, of the samples in many data
sets. There is no strict guidance regarding the appropriate number of values that must be reported within a
data set to yield statistically valid results. For purposes of this demonstration, the maximum number of
"nondetects" allowed within any given data set was set arbitrarily at three. That is, there must be at least
four reported values within each data set to use the Mann-Whitney and sign tests.
21
-------
Sample Integrity
The integrity tests were conducted by advancing a sampler filled with uncontaminated potting soil into a
zone of grossly contaminated soil. The potting soil was analyzed prior to use and no target VOCs were
detected. Potting soil has an organic carbon content many times greater than typical soils, 0.5 to 5 percent
by weight (Bohn and George, 1979), representing a worst-case scenario for VOC absorbance. The
integrity samples were advanced through a contaminated zone that was a minimum of 2 feet thick and
exhibited VOC contamination in the tens of thousands of mg/kg. All of the integrity samples were packed
to approximately the same density. The samplers filled with the uncontaminated potting soil were advanced
2 feet into the contaminated zone and left in place for approximately 2 minutes. The samplers were then
withdrawn and the potting soil was sampled and analyzed for VOCs. In each case, the sampling team
collected the potting soil samples for analysis from approximately the center of the potting soil core.
Five integrity samples were collected at the SBA site using the Dual Tube Liner Sampler and seven
integrity samples were collected using the reference sampling method. At the CSC site, seven integrity
samples were collected using Dual Tube Liner Sampler and five integrity samples were collected when the
reference sampling method was used. Sample liners were used on both the Dual Tube Liner Sampler and
the reference sampling method during collection of all the integrity samples. All integrity samples were
collected from Grid 1 at both of the sites, because Grid 1 was the most contaminated grid at each site. The
sample integrity data were used to directly indicate the potential for cross-contamination of the soil sample
during sample collection.
Reliability and Throughput
Reliability was assessed by documenting the initial sampling success rate and the number of sampling
attempts necessary to obtain an adequate sample from that depth. The cause of any failure of initial or
subsequent sampling attempts was also documented. Throughput was assessed by examining sample
retrieval time, which was measured as the time required to set up on a sampling point, collect the specified
sample, grout the hole, decontaminate the sampler, and move to a new sampling location. In addition, a
performance test was conducted in Grid 5 at the CSC site to evaluate the ability of the sampling methods to
collect samples in saturated sandy material at a depth of 40 feet bgs.
Cost
The cost estimate focused on the range of costs for using the Dual Tube Liner Sampler and reference split-
spoon sampler to collect 42 subsurface soil samples at a clay soil site (similar to the SBA site) and a sandy
soil site (similar to the CSC site). The cost analysis is based on results and experience gained from the
demonstration and on cost information provided by AMS™. Factors that could affect the cost of operating
the Dual Tube Liner Sampler and the reference split-spoon sampler include:
• Equipment costs
• Operating costs
• Oversight costs
• Disposal costs
• Site restoration costs
22
-------
Deviations from the Demonstration Plan
Six project-wide deviations from the approved demonstration plan are described below: (1) the
nonparametric Mann-Whitney test was used instead of ANOVA to determine whether there is a statistical
difference between the VOC concentrations from the Dual Tube Liner Sampler and the reference sampling
method; (2) the nonparametric sign test was used to assess potential bias between VOC concentrations
determined from the Dual Tube Liner Sampler and the reference sampling method; (3) vinyl chloride was
eliminated from the target compound list because of a coelution problem with methanol; (4) the drill rig,
large tools, and augers were decontaminated between each grid instead of between each boring; (5) 24-inch
split spoon samplers instead of 18-inch samplers were used and were driven 15 to 20 inches during sample
collection; and (6) the reference split-spoon sampler was used with and without acetate liners. Cases where
the performance of an individual sampling technology caused it to deviate from the demonstration plan are
discussed on a technology-specific basis in Chapters 4 (reference method) and 5 (Dual Tube Liner
Sampler) of this ETVR.
23
-------
Chapter 4
Description and Performance of the Reference Method
This chapter describes the reference soil sampling method, including background information, components
and accessories, platform description, demonstration operating procedures, qualitative performance factors,
quantitative performance factors, and data quality. The reference method chosen for this demonstration
was hollow-stem auger drilling and split-spoon sampling.
Background
Several drilling methods have evolved to accommodate various stratigraphic conditions and the end use of
the boring. Although there is no single preferred drilling method for all stratigraphic conditions and well
installations, the hollow-stem auger method has become the most popular and widely used for
environmental drilling and sampling. Hollow-stem augers have also been used extensively in the
environmental field because soil samples can readily be collected and monitoring wells can easily be
installed with this equipment (EPA, 1987). Use of hollow-stem augers as a method of drilling boreholes for
soil investigations, installing groundwater monitoring wells, and completing other geotechnical work is
widely accepted by federal, state, and local regulators. Because hollow-stem augers are the most
commonly used drilling equipment for environmental applications, this method was selected as the
reference drilling method for this demonstration.
Components and Accessories
The most common sampler used with hollow-stem augers for environmental applications is the split- spoon.
The split-spoon sampler is a thick-walled steel tube that is split lengthwise (Figure 4-1). The split-spoon
samplers used for this demonstration measured 24 inches long with an internal diameter of 2 inches and an
external diameter of 2.5 inches. A cutting shoe is attached to the lower end, and the upper end contains a
check valve and is connected to the drill rods. Split-spoon samplers are typically driven 18 to 24 inches
beyond the auger head into the formation by a hammer drop system. The split-spoon sampler is used to
collect a sample of material from the subsurface and to measure the resistance of the material to penetration
by the sampler in the standard penetration test. The degree of soil compaction can be determined by
counting the number of blows of the drop weight required to drive the split spoon a distance of 1 foot. A
weight of 140 pounds and a height of fall of 30 inches are considered standard (Terzaghi and Peck, 1967).
Description of Platform
Hollow-stem augers are typically used with a truck- or trailer-mounted drill rig that is either mechanically
or hydraulically powered. Trucks, vans, all-terrain vehicles, and crawler tractors are
24
-------
Head Assembly
Split Barrel
Spacer
Shoe
Liner
Figure 4-1. Split-Spoon Soil Sampler (modified from Central Mine Equipment Co., 1994)
25
-------
often used as the transport vehicle because of their easy mobilization. A variety of drill rig specifications
are available based on the project-specific operation requirements and the geological conditions anticipated
(EPA, 1987).
Hollow-stem auger drilling is accomplished by using a series of interconnected auger sections with a
cutting head at the lowest end. The hollow-stem auger consists of (1) a section of seamless steel tube with
a spiral flight attached to a carbide-tooth auger head at the bottom and an adapter cap at the top, and (2) a
center drill stem composed of drill rods attached to a center plug with a drag bit at the bottom and an
adapter at the top. The center of the core of augers is open, but can be closed by the center plug attached
to the bottom of the drill rods. As the hole is drilled, additional lengths of hollow-stem flights and center
stem are added. The center stem and plug may be removed at any time during drilling to permit sampling
below the bottom of the cutter head. Typical components of a hollow-stem auger are shown in Figure 4-2
(Central Mine Equipment Company [CME], 1994).
The dimensions of hollow-stem auger sections and the corresponding auger head used with each lead auger
section are not standardized among the various auger manufacturers. Drilling at the SB A site was
accomplished with a Mobile B-47 drill rig using 3.25-inch inside-diameter and 6.25-inch outside diameter
CME hollow-stem augers. Drilling at the CSC site was accomplished with a Mobile D-5 and a Mobile B-
47 drill rig using 3.25-inch inside-diameter and 6.25-inch outside-diameter CME hollow-stem augers. The
Mobile B-47 used a pulley assembly to operate the hammer that drove the split-spoon samplers, and the
Mobile D-5 used an automatic hydraulic hammer to drive the split-spoon samplers. The Mobile D-5 drill
rig was used at the CSC site because the Mobile B-47 drill rig experienced mechanical problems en route
to the CSC site, delaying its arrival at the site. The same drill crew operated both drill rigs; the use of the
two drill rigs at the CSC site is not expected to affect the results of the demonstration.
Demonstration Operating Procedures
To collect the samples for this demonstration, the hollow-stem augers were first rotated and advanced to
9 inches above the target sampling depth. As the augers were rotated and pressed downward, the cutting
teeth on the auger head broke up the formation materials, and the cuttings were rotated up the continuous
flights to the ground surface, where they were stored in drums as investigation-derived waste (IDW). At
the point 9-inches above the sampling depth, the drill rods and the attached center plug were removed, and
the split-spoon samplers were placed on the lower end of the drill rods and lowered through the hollow-stem
augers to the bottom of the borehole. The split-spoon sampler was then driven approximately 18 inches to
collect a soil sample, with the target sampling depth positioned in the center of the soil core. The loaded
sampler and sampling rod were removed from the auger column. If a lower depth was to be sampled, the
pilot assembly and center rod were reinserted.
During the demonstration, split-spoon samplers were used with and without acetate liners because
formations that are weakly cohesive or hard commonly produce poor recovery with liners. Several
boreholes were initially installed at each site to determine whether liners would be used, based on the
driller's experience and the cohesiveness of the soil. Liners were used at SBA site Grid 1 and at half of the
cells at Grid 3. Liners were also used for target sampling depths at half of the 3-foot depth intervals at
CSC site Grid 1, and at the 7.5-foot sampling depth at Grid 3. Overall, sample liners were used during
collection of about one-third of the reference method samples, including all samples collected to evaluate
sample integrity.
26
-------
Drive cap
Center plug
Pilot assembly
components v
Pilot Bit
Rod to cap
adapter
Auger connector
Hollow stem
auger section
Center rod
f Auger
connector
Auger head
Replaceable
carbide insert
auger tooth
Figure 4-2. Typical Components of a Hollow-Stem Auger (Central Mine Equipment Co., 1994)
27
-------
Once a split-spoon sampler was retrieved from the borehole, the drive head and cutting shoe were loosened.
If the sampler contained a liner, the liner was removed, capped, and taken directly to the sample
preparation table for subsampling and sample packaging. If the split spoon did not contain a liner, the
sampler was taken directly to the sample preparation table and opened for immediate subsampling and
sample packaging.
Split-spoon samplers were decontaminated before each use by scrubbing the disassembled sampler parts
with a stiff-bristle brush in a phosphate-free soap and water solution. This process was intended to remove
the residual soil as well as chemical contaminants. After washing, the sampler parts were rinsed in potable
water and reassembled for use at the next sampling point. Augers, larger tools, and the drill rig were
decontaminated between each grid with a high-pressure hot water wash.
Qualitative Performance Factors
The following qualitative performance factors were assessed for the reference sampling method:
(1) reliability and ruggedness under the test conditions, (2) training requirements and ease of operation, (3)
logistical requirements, (4) sample handling, (5) performance range, and (6) quantity of IDW generated
during the demonstration.
Reliability and Ruggedness
Overall, the initial sampling success rate for the reference sampling method, defined as the rate of success in
obtaining a sample on the initial attempt, was 93 percent. At the SBA site, the reference sampling method
did not collect a sample on the initial drive in four of 42 attempts, resulting in an initial sampling success
rate of 90 percent. At this site, two of the samples had insufficient recovery; one sample was not collected
because drilling refusal was encountered above the target sampling depth, and one sample was not collected
because the boring was drilled beyond the target sampling depth. At the CSC site, the reference sampling
method did not collect a sample on the initial drive in two of 41 attempts, resulting in an initial sampling
success rate of 95 percent. At this site, two samples were not collected because the borings were drilled
beyond the target sampling depth. Drilling beyond the target depth is considered an operator error and was
not caused by the sampling tool. Target sampling depths were determined by measuring the height of the
auger above the ground surface, and subtracting the measured value from the total length of augers in use.
During the saturated sand recovery test at Grid 5 at the CSC site, the reference method collected all seven
samples on the initial try.
During the sampling at the SBA and CSC sites, the driller attempted sampling with and without sample
liners to optimize soil sample recovery. In general, the greatest sample recovery was obtained without the
use of liners.
Sampling downtime occurred three times during the demonstration. Each of these events occurred at the
SBA site and are described as follows:
1. The main hydraulic cylinder on the drill rig began to leak at the start of drilling at Grid 5, resulting
in the loss of less than 1 quart of hydraulic oil. The hose was repaired by a local farm implement
dealer soon after it was removed from the rig. This breakdown resulted in approximately 2.5 hours
of sampling downtime.
2. Drilling at Grid 5 was conducted with the mast down due to the proximity of overhead power lines.
This arrangement prohibited the use of the drill rig winches to remove the augers and drill rod from
the boring. While lifting out the center plug and attaching the drill rod, the rod
28
-------
fell back into the hole. The top of the fallen rod was well below the open end of the auger string.
The drillers required approximately 10 minutes to retrieve the fallen drill rod.
3. During drilling at one sampling cell, material entered the auger bit and caused the center plug to
jam. Drilling proceeded to the target depth, but the drillers required several minutes to free the
center plug.
As discussed above, the Mobile B-47 drill rig experienced mechanical problems en route to the CSC site,
delaying its arrival at the site. Because of this delay, a Mobile D-5 drill rig was obtained from a local
drilling company and was used to advance soil borings and collect soil samples until the Mobile B-47
arrived. Although drilling startup was delayed a half day because of the last-minute change in drill rigs, no
sampling downtime occurred during drilling and no additional drilling costs were incurred.
Training Requirements and Ease of Operation
Operation of the drill rig requires training and experience. The lead driller for this project had 17 years of
environmental drilling experience and was a licensed driller in the states of Iowa and Colorado. Although
the various drill rig manufacturers offer training in specific drilling techniques, much of a driller's training is
obtained on the job, in a fashion similar to an apprenticeship. The state licenses require the driller to pass a
written test and to renew the drilling license periodically.
The moving parts of a drill rig pose a risk of injury to the head, eyes, and feet, which can be protected with
hard hat, safety glasses, and steel-toed boots. Leather gloves facilitate the safe assembly and disassembly of
the split-spoon sampler. Additional personal protective equipment may be required in accordance with site-
specific health and safety requirements.
Logistical Requirements
Some states require licenses for personnel conducting subsurface sampling. The sampler or equipment
operator must contact appropriate state or local agencies to determine the applicability of any license or
permit requirements. Additionally, underground utility clearances are usually needed before sampling with
any intrusive subsurface equipment.
The augers created 6.25-inch-diameter boreholes, which were filled using neat-Portland cement grout at the
SBA site and dry granular bentonite at the CSC site. Demonstration drilling generated 15 drums of soil
cuttings at the SBA site and three drums of soil cuttings at the CSC site.
The drill rigs used in the demonstration were powered by an on-board engine and needed no external power
source (other than fuel). Decontamination water can be carried on the truck, but a support truck with a 250-
gallon tank was used to transport, store, and provide water for decontamination for the demonstration.
Small tools and split-spoon samplers were decontaminated in a steel stock tank, while augers and drill rods
were decontaminated in an on-site decontamination containment area with a high-pressure hot water washer.
Sample Handling
During the demonstration, liners were not used in the collection of approximately two-thirds of the split-
spoon samples. This method allowed easy access to the sample by removing the drive head and cutting shoe
and separating the two halves of the sampler. Liners were used in noncohesive soils
29
-------
because opening the split spoon without a liner would have allowed the sample core to collapse and disrupt
sample integrity. After the liner was removed from the split spoon, it was capped and taken immediately to
the sample packaging area for processing. Prior to sampling, the liner was split open to allow access to the
soil for subsampling.
Performance Range
The depth limitations of the reference method are based on the torque provided by the drill rig, the strength
of the augers, the diameter of the augers, and the textures of the formations penetrated. During the
demonstration, samples were collected from a maximum depth of 40 feet bgs in Grid 5 at the CSC site.
However, depths of 300 feet or more have been drilled with high-torque drill rigs using high-strength augers.
This drilling and sampling method is inappropriate for unconsolidated formations containing large cobbles
or boulders. In addition, the use of this method below the water table in sandy, noncohesive formations
generally leads to sand heave into the augers, making borehole advancement and sampling difficult.
Investigation-Derived Waste
The IDW for the reference method primarily consisted of decontamination fluids and soil cuttings.
Approximately 100 gallons of decontamination wastewater was generated at the SBA site, and
approximately 50 gallons of decontamination wastewater was generated at the CSC site.
Soil cuttings were also generated during advancement of the boreholes. Eighteen 55-gallon drums of soil
cuttings were generated during this demonstration: three at the CSC site and 15 at the SBA site. Fewer
drums were generated at the CSC site due to the shallower sampling depths and the noncohesive nature of
the soil. Reverse rotation during auger withdrawal allowed most of the sand to travel down the auger flights
and back into the borehole at the CSC site. In addition to decontamination fluids and soil cuttings, sample
liners and other materials were generated as IDW.
Quantitative Performance Factors
The following quantitative performance indicators were measured for the reference sampling method: (1)
sample recovery, (2) VOC concentrations in recovered samples, (3) sample integrity, and
(4) sample throughput.
Sample Recovery
Sample recoveries for the reference sampling method were calculated by comparing the length of sampler
advancement to the length of sample core obtained for each attempt. Sample recovery is defined as the
length of recovered sample core divided by the length of sampler advancement and is expressed as a
percentage. At the SBA site, sample recoveries ranged from 40 percent to 100 percent, with an average of
88 percent. At the CSC site, recoveries ranged from 53 percent to 100 percent, with an average of 87
percent. Sample recovery data for each sample collected are summarized in Appendix A2, Table A2.
Volatile Organic Compound Concentrations
Samples were collected using the reference sampling method at each sampling depth, as described in
Chapter 3. Samples were analyzed for VOCs by combining headspace sampling with GC analysis
30
-------
according to the standard operating procedure (SOP) provided in the demonstration plan (PRC, 1997).
Table 4-1 presents the range and median VOC concentrations for samples collected using the reference
sampling method. The VOC results for each sample collected are summarized in Appendix A3, Table A3.
For seven of the 12 sampling grid-depth combinations, VOC data for some samples collected are not
available due to laboratory error; in these cases, the range and median were calculated from the remaining
sample data.
Data are reported on a dry-weight basis. Chapter 5 presents a statistical comparison of the analytical results
obtained using the reference method to those obtained using the Dual Tube Liner Sampler.
Sample Integrity
Seven integrity samples were collected using the reference sampling method in Grid 1 at the SBA site, and
five integrity samples were collected using the reference sampling method in Grid 1 at the CSC site. No
VOCs were detected in any of the integrity samples collected using the reference sampling method (the
method detection limit for these analyses was 1 //g/kg). Sample liners were used during collection of the
integrity samples at both the SBA and CSC sites, but liners were not used in collecting approximately two-
thirds of the soil samples collected during the demonstration. Because of this sampling deviation, the
integrity of all samples collected using the reference method cannot be verified.
Sample Throughput
The average sample retrieval time for the reference sampling method was 26 minutes per sample for the
SBA site and 8.4 minutes per sample for the CSC site. Sample retrieval time was measured as the amount
of time required per sample to set up at a sampling point, collect the specified sample, grout the hole,
decontaminate the sampling equipment, and move to a new sampling location. A three-person sampling
crew collected soil samples using the reference sampling method at both sites. One additional person was
present at the CSC site to direct drilling operations and assist with demonstration sampling, as necessary.
The large discrepancy in the sample retrieval time between the SBA and CSC sites is due, in part, to the
difference in average sampling depth (10 feet at the SBA site versus 5 feet at the CSC site) and soil type
(clay versus sandy soil).
Data Quality
Data quality was assessed throughout this demonstration by implementing an approved quality assurance
project plan (PRC, 1997). The QA/QC procedures included the consistent application of approved methods
for sample collection, chemical analysis, and data reduction. Based on the intended use of the data, QA
objectives for precision, accuracy, representativeness, comparability, and completeness were established,
and QC samples were collected to assess whether the QA objectives were met. Based on the results of a
field audit conducted by the EPA and a detailed validation of the demonstration data by Tetra Tech, the data
have been deemed acceptable for use as described in the demonstration design (Chapter 3). The results of
the QC indicators used for this demonstration for both the reference sampling method and Dual Tube Liner
Sampler are provided in the technology evaluation report for this demonstration (Tetra Tech, 1997) and are
summarized here.
The VOC data quality was assessed through the incorporation of QC samples into the analytical process for
each sample delivery group, and through a full data validation review on 20 percent of the samples. Specific
QC samples that were processed to assess precision and accuracy included matrix spike/matrix
31
-------
Table 4-1. Volatile Organic Compound Concentrations in Samples Collected Using the Reference Sampling Method
Concentration (/^g/kg)
Site
SBA
SBA
SBA
SBA
SBA
SBA
CSC
CSC
CSC
CSC
CSC
CSC
Mg/kg
cis-l,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
CSC
*
Grid - Depth
1 - 9.5 feet
1 - 13.5 feet
2-3.5 feet
3 - 9.5 feet*
4 - 9.5 feet
5 - 13.5 feet1
l-3.0feetf
1 - 6.5 feet1
2 -3.0 feet
3 -3.0feetf
3 - 7.5 feet*
4 - 6.5 feetn
cis-l,2-DCE
Range
49,700 - 147,000
1,360 - 44,900
<1-2.18
796 - 1,460
6.68-22.1
33.7- 147
<100
<1 -5.81
<100
<100
-------
spike duplicates (MS/MSDs), laboratory control samples (LCSs), and method blanks. Additionally,
surrogate spikes were used in all samples.
The LCSs and matrix spikes were analyzed at frequencies of 8.3 percent and 3.9 percent, respectively. With
few exceptions, the QA objective of 50 to 150 percent recovery was met for LCS and MS samples,
indicating that acceptable accuracy was achieved. The few exceptions to meeting this objective were
primarily for vinyl chloride; these exceptions are attributable to the high volatility of vinyl chloride and
apparently result from its vaporization during the analytical process.
Surrogate spike recoveries were also used to evaluate accuracy. Surrogate recoveries were problematic for
the methanol flood method for high-concentration samples, indicating a reduced accuracy for these samples.
Surrogate recoveries were consistently within the QA objective of 50 percent to 150 percent recovery for
low-concentration samples.
Seventeen MS/MSD pairs, representing a 3.6 percent frequency, were analyzed to assess the precision of the
analytical method. The relative percent differences (RPDs) of the duplicate results were consistently less
than the QA objective of 50 percent; only a few exceptions were noted. Thus, method precision appeared to
be adequate for the intended use of the data.
Analysis of method blanks revealed only occasional contamination with low part-per-billion levels of
chlorinated hydrocarbons. The frequency and levels of these contaminants were not judged to be sufficient
to significantly affect data quality except for those results at or near the detection limit in the specific sample
delivery group.
The data validation review noted chromatographic separation and coelution problems for vinyl chloride. As
a result, all vinyl chloride data were rejected. Other analytes were flagged as having data quality problems
in isolated instances and in response to specific exceptions to the QA objectives, as described generally
above. Details of these and all other data quality issues can be found in the technology evaluation report for
this demonstration (Tetra Tech, 1997).
33
-------
Chapter 5
Technology Performance
This chapter describes the performance of the AMS™ Dual Tube Liner Sampler and assesses qualitative
and quantitative performance factors. A description of the Dual Tube Liner Sampler is provided in Chapter
2 of this ETVR.
Qualitative Performance Factors
The following qualitative performance factors were assessed for the Dual Tube Liner Sampler: (1)
reliability and ruggedness under the test conditions, (2) training requirements and ease of operation,
(3) logistical requirements, (4) sample handling, (5) performance range, and (6) quantity of IDW generated
during the demonstration.
Reliability and Ruggedness
Overall, the initial sampling success rate for the Dual Tube Liner Sampler, defined as the ratio of the
number of successful sampling attempts (sample obtained on the initial attempt) to the total number of
sampling attempts, was 98 percent. At the SBA site, the Dual Tube Liner Sampler did not collect a sample
in the initial push in one of 42 attempts, resulting in an initial sampling success rate of 98 percent. The
sample liner was lost during that attempt due to overfilling. The sample was retrieved on the second
attempt. At the CSC site, the Dual Tube Liner Sampler did not collect a sample in the initial push in one of
42 attempts, resulting in an initial sampling success rate of 98 percent. The soil sample was lost when
unconsolidated sand fell from the bottom of the liner. The problem was corrected by fashioning retaining
baskets out of liner caps. All required samples at both sites were eventually collected by conducting
multiple sampling pushes, resulting in 100 percent completeness.
The Dual Tube Liner Sampler was subjected to additional evaluation at Grid 5 at the CSC site to assess
efficiency of the sampler in collecting samples in saturated sand. Only one saturated sample was collected
at Grid 5 at the CSC site in one attempt, resulting in an initial sampling success rate of 100 percent. The
developer did not attempt to collect additional samples from the 40-foot interval due to excessive friction on
the outer extension.
Training Requirements and Ease of Operation
Less than 1 hour of hands-on training was required to become proficient in assembling and using the Dual
Tube Liner Sampler. To learn the assembly procedure, the sampling team should assemble the Dual Tube
Liner Sampler two to three times. The operation of an advancement platform to drive the sampler requires
training and experience. The many moving parts pose a risk of injury to the head, eyes, and feet which can
be protected with a hard hat, safety glasses, and steel-toed boots. Leather
34
-------
gloves facilitated the assembly and disassembly of the Dual Tube Liner Sampler. Additional personal
protective equipment may be required in accordance with site-specific health and safety requirements.
Logistical Requirements
Some states require licenses for personnel conducting subsurface sampling. The sampler or equipment
operator must contact the appropriate state or local agencies to assess the applicability of any license or
permit requirements. Additionally, underground utility clearances are needed before sampling with any
intrusive subsurface equipment.
The physical impact of demonstration sampling on the site was minimal. The platform used to push the
Dual Tube Liner Sampler during the demonstration was mounted on a pickup truck. The push platform
used during the demonstration caused minimal wear to the ground in and around the sampling grids. The
Dual Tube Liner Sampler left approximately 2-inch-diameter holes, which were grouted with neat-Portland
cement at the SBA site and with dry granular bentonite at the CSC site. No drill cuttings were generated
during use of the Dual Tube Liner Sampler.
The push platform is powered by an on-board engine and needs no external power source (other than fuel).
Only a limited amount of water (approximately 5 gallons per day) and a wash rack attached to the push
platform were necessary for adequate sampler decontamination.
Sample Handling
The sample liner was easily accessible by removing the sampler assembly from the outer extension. After a
Dual Tube Liner Sampler was retrieved from a borehole, it was immediately taken to the sample packaging
area for processing. To minimize volatilization, the sample liners were capped and were not opened until
subsampling.
Performance Range
The performance range of the Dual Tube Liner Sampler depends in part on the capability of the platform
advancing the sampler. During the demonstration, the Dual Tube Liner Sampler successfully collected
samples at depths of up to 13.5 feet bgs. However, when the Dual Tube Liner Sampler attempted to collect
a sample from 40 feet bgs in Grid 5 at the CSC site, damage to the pull yoke was observed when retrieving
the Dual Tube Liner Sampler. This depth may define a lower performance limit for the sampler and push
platform in sandy soil. Because the sampler was not depth-limited in the clay soils at the SBA site, no
performance range can be postulated for clay soils.
Investigation-Derived Waste
Minimal IDW was generated by the Dual Tube Liner Sampler during the demonstration. The direct-push
advancement platforms generated no soil cuttings, so the only soil waste created was that remaining in the
sampler after the demonstration sample was collected for chemical analysis. Approximately 10 gallons of
soil was generated at each site by the Dual Tube Liner Sampler.
Decontamination of the Dual Tube Liner Sampler generated approximately 5 gallons of wastewater per day.
This quantity was sufficient to decontaminate all sampler components in both Alconox® mixture and rinse
water for an 8-hour sampling period. In addition to soil and wastewater, sample liners (when used) and
other materials were also generated as IDW.
35
-------
Table 5-1 presents a comparison of the IDW generated by the Dual Tube Liner Sampler and the reference
sampling method during this demonstration.
Table 5-1. Investigation-Derived Waste Generated During the Demonstration
Sampler Sampling Platform Soil Generated Wastewater Generated
Dual Tube Liner Push 20 gallons 25 gallons
Sampler
Reference Sampler Drilling 990 gallons 150 gallons
Quantitative Performance Assessment
Quantitative measures of the Dual Tube Liner Sampler's performance consisted of (1) sample recovery, (2)
VOC concentrations in recovered samples, (3) sample integrity, and (4) sample throughput.
Sample Recovery
Sample recoveries for the Dual Tube Liner Sampler were calculated by comparing the length of sampler
advancement to the length of sample core obtained for each attempt. Sample recovery is defined as the
length of recovered sample core divided by the length of sampler advancement and is expressed as a
percentage. At the SBA site, sample recoveries ranged from 42 percent to 100 percent with an average of
91 percent. At the CSC site, the recoveries ranged from 46 percent to 88 percent with an average of 70
percent. Sample recovery data for each sample collected are summarized in Appendix A2, Table A2.
Average sample recoveries for the Dual Tube Liner Sampler were greater at the SBA site because the clay
soils helped to hold the soil in the sampler. Filling the sampler and holding the less-cohesive, sandy soils at
the CSC site were more difficult.
Table 5-2 presents a comparison of sample recoveries achieved by the Dual Tube Liner Sampler and the
reference sampling method during this demonstration. Compared to the reference method, average sample
recoveries for the Dual Tube Liner Sampler were higher in clay soil and lower in sandy soil.
A possible explanation for the different sample recoveries achieved by the Dual Tube Liner Sampler and the
reference sampler at the CSC site is that the Dual Tube Liner Sampler was not equipped with an engineered
retaining basket, potentially causing the loss of material loosely compacted in the Dual Tube Liner Sampler.
Volatile Organic Compound Concentrations
Samples were collected with the Dual Tube Liner Sampler at each sampling grid-depth described in Chapter
3. Samples were analyzed for VOCs by combining headspace sampling with gas chromatography analysis
according to the SOP provided in the demonstration plan (PRC, 1997).
36
-------
Table 5-2. Sample Recoveries for the Dual Tube Liner Sampler and the Reference
Sampling Method
Sampler
Site
Sample Recovery (percent)
Range Average
Dual Tube Liner
Sampler
Reference Sampler
Dual Tube Liner
Sampler
Reference Sampler
SBA
SBA
CSC
CSC
42 to 100
40 to 100
46 to 88
53 to 100
91
70
87
Table 5-3 presents the range and median VOC concentrations for samples collected using the Dual Tube
Liner Sampler. Data are reported on a dry-weight basis. For three of the 12 sampling grid-depth
combinations, VOC data for some samples collected are unavailable due to laboratory error; in these cases,
the range and median were determined from the remaining sample data. A summary of the number of
samples collected and analyzed for each analyte at each site is presented in Table 5-4.
As described in Chapter 3, two statistical evaluations of the VOC concentration data were conducted: one
using the Mann-Whitney test and the other using the sign test. Table 5-4 lists the number of analyte values
used in the statistical evaluations. For the Mann-Whitney test, a statistical evaluation of the VOC
concentration data was conducted based on the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the
median contaminant concentrations obtained by the Dual Tube Liner Sampler and the reference sampling
method described in Chapter 4. In addition, statistical evaluations using the Mann-Whitney and sign tests
were conducted only when at least half of the reported values were above the method detection limit for the
grid, depth, and analyte combination.
The two-tailed significance level for this null hypothesis was set at 5 percent (2.5 percent for one-tailed);
that is, if a two-tailed statistical analysis indicates a probability of greater than 5 percent that there is no
significant difference between data sets, it will be concluded that there is no significant difference between
the data sets. Because the data are not normally distributed, the Mann-Whitney test, a nonparametric
method, was used to test the statistical hypothesis for VOC concentrations. The Mann-Whitney test makes
no assumptions regarding normality and assumes only that the differences between the medians of two
independent random samples may be determined—in this case, the reported chemical concentrations of soils
collected by two different sampling systems. The Mann-Whitney test was used because of its historical
acceptability and ease of application to small data sets.
Table 5-5 lists the median VOC concentrations calculated from data for samples collected with the Dual
Tube Liner Sampler and the reference sampling method and indicates whether there is a significant
difference (p 0.05) in VOC data sets for each sampling grid and depth for each analyte based on the
Mann-Whitney test. A comparative summary of the Mann-Whitney statistics for the Dual Tube Liner
Sampler and reference sampling method is presented in Appendix A4, Table A4. A total of 48 grid,
37
-------
Table 5-3. Volatile Organic Compound Concentrations in Samples Collected Using the Dual Tube Liner Sampler
Concentration (/^g/kg)
Site
SBA
SBA
SBA
SBA
SBA
SBA
CSC
CSC
CSC
CSC
CSC
CSC
Mg/kg
cis-l,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
CSC
NC
Grid - Depth
1 - 9.5 feet
1 - 13.5 feet
2-3.5 feet
3 - 9.5 feet
4 - 9.5 feet
5 - 13.5 feet
1-3.0 feet
1 - 6.5 feet T
2 -3.0 feet
3 -3.0 feet"
3 - 7.5 feet
4 - 6.5 feet T
cis-l,2-DCE
Range
38,100-156,000
1,100-42,500
-------
Table 5-4. Demonstration Data Summary for the Dual Tube Liner Sampler and Reference
Sampling Method
Site Grid
SBA
1
1
2
3
4
5
1
1
2
3
4
5
CSC
1
1
2
3
3
4
1
1
2
3
3
4
Depth
(feet)
Number of
Samples
Analyzed
Number of Data Points Above
cis-l,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
the Method
TCE
Detection Limit
PCE
Dual Tube Liner Sampler
9.5
13.5
3.5
9.5
9.5
13.5
9.5
13.5
3.5
9.5
9.5
13.5
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
4
7
6
7
7
1
6
7
7
Reference Sampling
7
7
1
4
7
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
Method
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
4
7
5
6
1
0
0
0
0
6
1
0
0
0
0
Dual Tube Liner Sampler
3.0
6.5
3.0
3.0
7.5
6.5
3.0
6.5
3.0
3.0
7.5
6.5
7
6
7
5
7
6
6
6
7
6
4
5
0
4
0
0
1
0
Reference Sampling
0
4
0
0
3
2
1
5
0
0
7
5
Method
3
6
3
1
4
4
0
4
0
0
7
4
0
6
4
0
4
3
7
6
7
5
7
6
6
6
7
6
4
5
Note: Medians were not calculated for data sets when at least half of the reported values within the data set were
below the method detection limit.
39
-------
Table 5-5. Comparison of Median Volatile Organic Compound Concentrations of Dual Tube Liner Sampler and Reference Sampler Data
and Statistical Significance
Median Concentration (,ug/kg) and Significance
Grid-
Site Depth
SBA 1 - 9.5 feet
SBA 1 - 13.5 feet
SBA 2 - 3.5 feet
SBA 3 - 9.5 feet
SBA 4 - 9.5 feet
SBA 5 - 13.5 feet
CSC 1-3.0 feet
CSC 1 - 6.5 feet
CSC 2-3.0 feet
CSC 3-3.0 feet
CSC 3 - 7.5 feet
CSC 4 - 6.5 feet
AMS™
80,200
9,900
NC
537
25.2
166
NC
3.76
NC
NC
NC
NC
cis-l,2-DCE
Ref. Sign.
86,700 No
14,500 No
NC *
903 Yes
13.2 No
93.6 No
NC *
2.20 No
NC *
NC *
4.12 *
NC *
AMS™
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
26.9
NC
NC
20.3
11.3
1,1,1-TCA
Ref.
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
26.0
NC
NC
13.9
8.09
Sign.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
No
*
*
Yes
No
AMS™
167,000
47,500
86.9
19,800
1,910
106
NC
4.23
NC
NC
8.04
2.70
TCE
Ref.
276,000
40,500
56.9
38,500
1,710
21.0
NC
6.45
126
NC
14.9
2.37
Sign.
No
No
No
No
No
No
*
No
*
*
No
No
AMS™
990
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
903
71.4
676
1,620
35.0
39.2
PCE
Ref.
1,630
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
2,530
112
2,000
1,480
73.0
50.3
Sign.
No
*
*
*
*
*
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Mg/kg Micrograms per kilogram
cis-1,2-DCE cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
1,1,1-TCA 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
TCE Trichloroethene
SBA Small Business Administration site
NC No median calculated because at least
half the reported values were below the
method detection limit.
PCE Tetrachloroethene
AMS™ Dual Tube Liner Sampler
Ref. Reference sampling method
Sign. Significance
CSC Chemical Sales Company site
* A statistical comparison could not be made because an insufficient number of
VOC concentrations were detected
40
-------
depth, and analyte combination pairs were collected during the demonstration. Of the 48 pairs, only 25 data
sets were obtained: 12 from the SBA site and 13 from the CSC site. A statistical comparison could not be
made for the remaining data sets because at least half of the reported values from the Dual Tube Liner
Sampler or reference sampling method were below the method detection limit. According to the Mann-
Whitney test, there is a statistically-significant difference in the data sets collected using the Dual Tube
Liner Sampler and the reference sampling method in four of 25 cases. Statistically significant differences
were identified in one pair at the SBA site and in three pairs at the CSC site. The statistically significant
difference at the SBA site involved data collected from Grid 3 at the 9.5-foot sampling depth for the analyte
cis-l,2-DCE. The statistically significant difference at the CSC site involved data collected from Grid 1 at
the 3-foot sampling depth for the analyte PCE, Grid 2 at the 3-foot sampling depth for the analyte PCE, and
Grid 3 at the 7.5-foot sampling depth for the analyte 1,1,1-TCA. Figure 5-1 presents a graphic
representation of median VOC concentrations of the Dual Tube Liner Sampler versus the median VOC
concentrations of the reference sampling method for each contaminant at each depth.
To test potential bias between the data sets, a statistical analysis using the sign test was conducted. As
discussed in Chapter 3, the sign test is a nonparametric statistical method that counts the number of positive
and negative signs among the differences. The differences tested, in this instance, were the differences in the
medians of paired data sets (within a site, within a grid, at a depth, and for each analyte). From the data
sets, counts were made of (1) the number of pairs in which the reference sampling method median
concentrations were higher than the Dual Tube Liner Sampler median concentrations and (2) the number of
pairs in which the Dual Tube Liner Sampler median concentrations were higher than the reference sampling
method median concentrations. The total number of pairs in which the median concentrations were higher
with the Dual Tube Liner Sampler were then compared with the total number of pairs in which the median
concentrations were higher with the reference sampling method. If no bias is present in the data sets, the
probability of the total number of pairs for one or the other test method being higher is equivalent; that is,
the probability of the number of pairs in which the median concentrations in the Dual Tube Liner Sampler
are higher is equal to the probability of the number of pairs in which the median concentrations in the
reference sampling method are higher. To determine the exact probability of the number of data sets in
which the median concentrations in the Dual Tube Liner Sampler and reference sampling method were
higher, a binomial expansion was used. If the calculated probability is less than 5 percent (p < 0.05), then a
significant difference is present between the Dual Tube Liner Sampler and reference sampling method.
The sign test data are provided in Table 5-6 and are summarized in Appendix A5, Table A5. At both the
SBA and CSC sites, the calculated probabilities are greater than 0.05; therefore, the differences are not
statistically significant.
Sample Integrity
Five integrity test samples were collected with the Dual Tube Liner Sampler in Grid 1 at the SBA site, and
seven integrity samples were collected in Grid 1 at the CSC to determine if potting soil in a lined sampler
interior became contaminated after it is advanced through a zone of high VOC concentrations. For the Dual
Tube Liner Sampler, VOCs were detected in only one of the 12 integrity samples. The sample was collected
at the CSC site. The VOC detected in potting soil at the CSC site was cis-l,2-DCE at a concentration of
6.07 Aig/kg. These results indicate that the integrity of a lined chamber in
41
-------
1UUUUUU
100000
-a
DA
J5
V oooo -
•B
(S
S
S 1000 -
s
o
O
O
> 100 -
1
^ 10 -
H
1
1 -
IUUUUUU -,
SBA Site
- jj£ 100000
• DA
^^
• i
• '•§ 10000
is
• =
A cj 1000
• u
o
• | J 100
• f
S 1°
s
**
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
CSC Site
A
^
A
X X
X _
• cis-l,2-DCE
• TCE
APCE
X1,1,1-TCA
^
1 •
1 1 1 1 1 1
10 100 1000 10000
Reference Sampling Method
Median VOC Concentration (jig/kg)
100000 1000000
10 „ JOO ^ 1000 „ 1000D 100000 1000000
Keterence Sampling Method
Median VOC Concentration (pg/kg)
Note: pg/kg = micrograms per kilogram
Figure 5-1. Comparative Plot of Median VOC Concentrations for the Dual Tube Liner Sampler and the Reference
Sampling Method at the SBA and CSC Sites
-------
Table 5-6. Sign Test Results for the Dual Tube Liner Sampler and the Reference Sampling
Method
Number of Pairs in which the Median
Concentration Is Higher than other Method
Sampler
Reference Sampler
Dual Tube Liner Sampler
Total Comparisons
Calculated Probability
SBA Site
6
6
12
0.226
CSC Site
7
6
13
0.157
the Dual Tube Liner Sampler is generally well preserved when the sampler is advanced through highly
contaminated soils. Results of sample integrity tests for the reference sampling method indicate no
contamination in the potting soil after advancement through a zone of high VOC concentrations. Because
potting soil has an organic carbon content many times greater than typical soils, the integrity tests represent
a worst-case scenario for VOC absorbance and may not be representative of cross-contamination under
normal field conditions.
Sample Throughput
Sample retrieval time was measured as the amount of time required to set up at a sampling point, collect the
specified sample, grout the hole, decontaminate the sampling equipment, and move to a new sampling
location. The average sample retrieval times for the Dual Tube Liner Sampler was 16.4 minutes per sample
for the SBA site and 10.9 minutes per sample for the CSC site. Two people collected soil samples at both
the SBA and CSC sites. Table 5-7 presents a comparison of average sample retrieval times for the Dual
Tube Liner Sampler and the reference sampling method. The average sample retrieval rates for the Dual
Tube Liner Sampler were quicker than the reference sampling method when collecting samples in the clay
soils at the SBA site and slower when collecting samples in the sandy soils at the CSC site.
Data Quality
Data quality was assessed throughout this demonstration by implementing an approved quality assurance
project plan (PRC, 1997). The QA/QC procedures included the consistent application of approved methods
for sample collection, chemical analysis, and data reduction. Based on the intended use of the data, QA
objectives for precision, accuracy, representativeness, comparability, and completeness were established and
QC samples were collected to assess whether the QA objectives were met. Based on the results of a field
audit conducted by the EPA and a detailed validation of the demonstration data by Tetra Tech, the data have
been deemed acceptable for use as described in the demonstration design (Chapter 3). The results of the QC
indicators used for this demonstration for both the Dual Tube Liner Sampler and reference sampling method
are provided in the Technology Evaluation Report for this demonstration (Tetra Tech, 1997) and are
summarized in the data quality section of Chapter 4 of this ETVR.
43
-------
Table 5-7. Average Sample Retrieval Times for the Dual Tube Liner Sampler and the
Reference Sampling Method
Average Sample Retrieval Time (minutes per sample)
Sampler SBA Site CSC Site
Dual Tube Liner Sampler 16.4 10.9
Reference Sampling Method 26 8.4
Note: Two people collected soil samples using the Dual Tube Liner Sampler at both the SBA and CSC sites, and
three people collected soil samples using the reference sampling method at both sites. Additional
personnel were present at both sites to observe and assist with demonstration sampling, as necessary.
44
-------
Chapter 6
Economic Analysis
The Dual Tube Liner Sampler was demonstrated at two sites that varied geologically and were contaminated
with VOCs at a range of concentrations. This chapter presents an economic analysis for applying the Dual
Tube Liner Sampler at sites similar to those used in this demonstration. The demonstration costs for the
reference sampling method are also provided.
This economic analysis estimates the range of costs for using an AMS™ Dual Tube Liner Sampler to collect
42 subsurface soil samples at a clay soil site (400 feet total depth, similar to the SBA site) and a sandy soil
site (200 feet total depth, similar to the CSC site). The analysis is based on the results and experience
gained from this demonstration and on costs provided by Art's Manufacturing and Supply. To account for
variability in cost data and assumptions, the economic analysis is presented as a list of cost elements and a
range of costs for collecting samples using the Dual Tube Liner Sampler.
Assumptions
Several factors affect the cost of subsurface soil sampling. Wherever possible, these factors are identified
so that decision-makers can independently complete a site-specific economic analysis. For example, this
cost estimate is based on collecting soil samples from clay and sandy soil sites at sampling depths ranging
from 3 feet bgs to 13.5 feet bgs and using the average sample retrieval times calculated during the
demonstrations of 16.4 minutes per sample for the clay soil site and 10.9 minutes per sample at the sandy
soil site. This cost estimate also assumes that a direct-push platform is used to advance the Dual Tube
Liner Sampler and that a hollow-stem auger drilling platform is used to advance the reference method.
Dual Tube Liner Sampler
The costs for collecting soil samples using the Dual Tube Liner Sampler are presented in two categories:
(1) equipment costs, which include purchase of the Dual Tube Liner Sampler and rental costs for the push
platform, and (2) sampler operating and oversight costs, which include labor costs for sampling and
oversight and other direct costs such as supplies, IDW disposal, and site restoration.
The cost categories and associated cost elements are defined and discussed below and serve as the basis for
the estimated cost ranges presented in Table 6-1.
Equipment Costs. Equipment costs include the direct-push platform and the Dual Tube Liner Sampler.
Direct-push platform costs are limited to weekly equipment rental, including mobilization/ demobilization
costs for a PowerProbe 9600 ($1,800 per week). Based on the average retrieval time
45
-------
Table 6-1. Estimated Subsurface Soil Sampling Costs for the Dual Tube Liner Sampler
Equipment Costs
Rental of PowerProbe 9600 = $1,800 per week
Purchase of Dual Tube Liner Sampler = $1,890
Operating and Oversight Costs
Clay Soil Site
Total Sampling Time = 11 to 15 hours (2 days)
Total Samples Collected = 42
Total Sample Depth = 400 feet
Sample Crew Size = 2 People
Operating Costs
Sample Collection
Per Diem
Oversight Costs
Mobilization/Demobilization
Travel
Per Diem
Sampling Oversight
Other Direct Costs
Supplies
IDW Disposal
Site Restoration
Range of Operating and
Oversight Costs*
$1,100 - $1,500
0 - $600
$300 - $500
$6 - $30
0 - $300
$550 - $750
$25 - $75
$200 - $300
$100 - $200
$2,280 - $4,260
Sandy Soil Site
Total Sampling Time = 8 to 10 hours (1 day)
Total Samples Collected = 42
Total Sample Depth = 200 feet
Sample Crew Size = 2 People
Operating Costs
Sample Collection
Per Diem
Oversight Costs
Mobilization/Demobilization
Travel
Per Diem
Sampling Oversight
Other Direct Costs
Supplies
IDW Disposal
Site Restoration
$800 - $1,000
0 - $300
$300 - $500
$6 - $30
0 - $150
$400 - $500
$25 - $75
$200 - $300
$100 - $200
$1,830 - $3,060
The Range of Operating and Oversight Costs is rounded to the nearest tens of dollars and does not include
Equipment Costs.
during the demonstration and collecting 42 samples at each site, it is assumed that the direct-push
platform will be required for 2 days at the clay soil site and 1 day at the sandy soil site. The Dual Tube
Liner Sampler is currently unavailable for rent from AMS™, so only the Dual Tube Liner Sampler
purchase cost is presented. The purchase cost for the Dual Tube Liner Sampler is estimated to be
$1,890, which includes one plastic grabber ($95), one drive head adapter ($175), one thread protector
cap ($75), one drive shoe ($95), five inner 4-foot extensions ($105 each), five outer 4-foot extensions
($148 each), and 42 liners ($4.38 each).
Operating Costs. Operating costs are limited to sample collection labor and per diem. Mobilization/
demobilization labor and travel costs for sampler operation are included in the weekly push platform
rental rate. Additional mobilization/demobilization, travel, and per diem costs will apply if the site is
greater than 100 miles from the push platform operator.
46
-------
• Sample Collection Labor Costs — On-site labor includes two equipment operators to collect soil
samples. Based on the average demonstration sample retrieval rates, sample collection labor is
estimated to be 11 to 15 hours each for two personnel at the clay soil site, and 8 to 10 hours each
for two personnel at the sandy soil site. Labor rates are estimated at $50 per hour. This labor
estimate includes time for decontamination and site restoration.
• Per Diem Costs — This cost element includes food, lodging, and incidental expenses, and is
estimated to range from zero (for a local site) to $150 per day per person for two people for 2 days
at the clay soil site (2 days for sample collection, mobilization/demobilization, and site restoration)
and for 1 day at the sandy soil site (1 day for sample collection, mobilization/ demobilization, and
site restoration).
Oversight Costs. Oversight costs are presented as a range to provide an estimate of oversight costs that
may be incurred. Costs for overseeing sampling using the Dual Tube Liner Sampler are segregated into
labor costs and other direct costs, as shown below.
Labor costs include mobilization/demobilization, travel, per diem, and sampling oversight costs.
• Mobilization/Demobilization Labor Costs — This cost element includes the time for one person to
prepare for and travel to each site, set up and pack up equipment, and return from the field, and
includes 6 to 10 hours for one person at a rate of $50 per hour.
• Travel Costs — Travel costs for each site are limited to round-trip mileage costs and are estimated
to be between 20 to 100 miles at a rate of $0.30 per mile.
• Per Diem Costs — This cost element includes food, lodging, and incidental expenses, and is
estimated to range from zero (for a local site) to $150 per day per person for one person for 2 days
at the clay soil site (2 days for sample collection, mobilization/demobilization), and for 1 day at the
sandy soil site (1 day for sample collection, mobilization/demobilization, and site restoration).
• Sampling Oversight Labor Costs — On-site labor, often a registered geologist, is required to
oversee sample collection. Based on the average demonstration sample retrieval times, oversight
labor times are estimated to be 11 to 15 hours for one person at the clay soil site, and 8 to 10 hours
for one person at the sandy soil site. Labor rates are estimated at $50 per hour.
Other direct costs include supplies, IDW disposal, and site restoration.
• Supplies — This cost element includes decontamination supplies, such as buckets, soap, high-purity
rinse water, and brushes, as well as personal protective equipment (Level D, the minimum level of
protection, is assumed). Supplies are estimated to cost between $25 and $75.
• IDW Disposal — Disposal costs for each site are limited to the cost of disposing of one 55-gallon
drum of IDW for $200 to $300 (typically, the minimum IDW disposal unit is one 55-gallon drum).
Limited volumes of IDW were generated during the demonstration using the Dual Tube Liner
Sampler because of the direct-push nature of the sampler advancement unit. No costs are included
for wastewater disposal.
47
-------
• Site Restoration — Site restoration costs include grouting the sample boreholes and site restoration
labor. Grouting costs for each site are limited to grout and grouting tools and are estimated to range
from $100 to $200.
Reference Sampling Method
The costs for implementing the reference sampling method during the demonstration include driller's costs
and oversight costs, as presented in Table 6-2 and discussed below.
Driller's Costs. Total lump sum driller's cost was $13,400 for the clay soil site and $7,700 for the sandy
soil site and included:
• Mobilization and demobilization ($2,700 per site)
• Drilling footage ($7 per linear foot)
• Split-spoon sampling ($45 per sample)
• Grouting boreholes ($3 per linear foot)
• Waste collection and containerization ($45 per drum)
• Standby time ($80 per hour)
• Decontamination time ($80 per hour)
• Drum moving time ($80 per hour)
• Difficult move time ($80 per hour)
• Site restoration and cleanup ($50 per hour)
• Per diem for the drilling crew (3 people)
• Drilling crew labor costs (3 people)
These rates are based on the demonstration data and vendor-supplied information for collecting soil samples
at clay soil and sandy soil sites similar to the SBA and CSC sites.
Oversight Costs. Oversight costs are presented as ranges to provide an estimate of oversight costs that may
be incurred at other sites. Costs for overseeing the reference sampling method are segregated into labor
costs and other direct costs, as shown below.
Labor costs include mobilization/demobilization, travel, per diem, and sampling oversight costs.
• Mobilization/Demobilization Labor Costs — This cost element includes the time for one person to
prepare for and travel to each site, set up and pack up equipment, and return from the field and
includes 6 to 10 hours for one person at a rate of $50 per hour.
• Travel Costs — Travel costs for each site are limited to round-trip mileage costs and are estimated
to be between 20 to 100 miles at a rate of $0.30 per mile.
• Per Diem Costs — This cost element includes food, lodging, and incidental expenses, and is
estimated to range from zero (for a local site) to $150 per day per person for one person for 2 days
at the clay soil site (2 days for sample collection, mobilization/demobilization and site restoration),
and one person for 1 day at the sandy soil site (1 day for sample collection,
mobilization/demobilization, and site restoration).
48
-------
Table 6-2. Estimated Subsurface Soil Sampling Costs for the Reference Sampling Method
Driller s Costs
Lump Sum = $21,100 ($13,400 for the clay soil site and $7,700 for the sandy soil site)
Oversight Costs
Clay Soil Site
Total Sampling Time = 18 to 22 hours (2 days)
Total Samples Collected = 42
Total Sample Depth = 400 feet
Sampling Crew Size = 3 People
Sandy Soil Site
Total Sampling Time = 6 to 8 hours (1 day)
Total Samples Collected = 42
Total Sample Depth = 200 feet
Sampling Crew Size = 3 People
Labor Costs
Mobilization/Demobilization
Travel
Per Diem
Sample Collection
Other Direct Costs
Supplies
IDW Disposal
Range of Oversight Costs*
$300 - $500
$6 - $30
0 - $300
$900 - $1,100
$25 - $75
$3,000 - $4,500
$4,230 - $6,510
Labor Costs
Mobilization/Demobilization
Travel
Per Diem
Sample Collection
Other Direct Costs
Supplies
IDW Disposal
$300 - $500
$6 - $30
0- $150
$300 - $400
$25 - $75
$600 - $900
$1,230 - $2,060
The Range of Oversight Costs is rounded to the nearest tens of dollars and does not include Driller s Costs.
• Sampling Oversight Labor Costs — On-site labor, often a registered geologist, is required to
oversee sample collection. This cost element does not include the drill crew, which is covered
in the lump sum driller s cost. Based on the average demonstration sample retrieval times,
oversight labor times are estimated to be 18 to 22 hours for one person at the clay soil site, and
6 to 8 hours for one person at the sandy soil site. Labor rates are estimated at $50 per hour.
Other direct costs include supplies and IDW disposal.
• Supplies — This cost element includes personal protective equipment (Level D, the minimum
level of protection, is assumed) and other miscellaneous field supplies. Supplies are estimated
to cost between $25 and $75.
• IDW Disposal — Disposal costs for each site are limited to the cost of disposing of 15, 55-gallon
drums for the clay soil site and three 55-gallon drums for the sandy soil site at a cost of $200 to
$300 per drum.
49
-------
Chapter 7
Summary of Demonstration Results
This chapter summarizes the technology performance results. The AMS™ Dual Tube Liner Sampler was
compared to a reference subsurface soil sampling method (hollow-stem auger drilling and split-spoon
sampling) in terms of the following parameters: (1) sample recovery, (2) VOC concentrations in recovered
samples, (3) sample integrity, (4) reliability and throughput, and (5) cost.
The demonstration data indicate the following performance characteristics for the AMS™ Dual Tube Liner
Sampler:
• Sample Recovery: For the purposes of this demonstration, sample recovery was defined as the
ratio of the length of recovered sample to the length of sampler advancement. Sample recoveries
from 42 samples collected at the SBA site ranged from 42 to 100 percent, with an average sample
recovery of 91 percent. Sample recoveries from 42 samples collected at the CSC site ranged from
46 to 88 percent, with an average sample recovery of 70 percent. Using the reference method,
sample recoveries from 42 samples collected at the SBA site ranged from 40 to 100 percent, with an
average recovery of 88 percent. Sample recoveries from the 41 samples collected at the CSC site
ranged from 53 to 100 percent, with an average recovery of 87 percent. A comparison of recovery
data from the Dual Tube Liner Sampler and the reference sampler indicates that the Dual Tube
Liner Sampler achieved higher recoveries in the clay soil at the SBA site and lower sample
recoveries in the sandy soil at the CSC site relative to the sample recoveries achieved by the
reference sampling method.
• Volatile Organic Compound Concentrations: Soil samples collected using the Dual Tube Liner
Sampler and the reference sampling method at six sampling depths in nine grids (five at the SBA
site and four at the CSC site) were analyzed for VOCs. For 21 of the 25 Dual Tube Liner Sampler
and reference sampling method pairs (12 at the SBA site and 13 at the CSC site), a statistical
analysis using the Mann-Whitney test indicated no significant statistical difference at the 95 percent
confidence level between the VOC concentrations in samples collected with the Dual Tube Liner
Sampler and those collected with the reference sampling method. Of the sample pairs where a
statistically significant difference was identified, one was at the SBA site and three were at the CSC
site. Analysis of the CSC site data, using the sign test, indicated no statistical difference between
data obtained by the Dual Tube Liner Sampler and the reference method at the CSC and SBA sites.
• Sample Integrity: A total of 12 integrity samples were collected with both sampling methods at
each site to determine if potting soil in sampler interiors became contaminated after it was advanced
through a zone of high VOC concentrations. For the Dual Tube Liner Sampler, VOCs were
detected in only one of the 12 integrity samples. The sample was collected at the CSC site. The
VOC detected in the potting soil at the CSC site was cis-l,2-DCE at a
50
-------
concentration of 6.07 micrograms per kilogram (//g/kg). These results indicate that the integrity
of a lined chamber in the Dual Tube Liner Sampler is generally well preserved when the
sampler is advanced through highly contaminated soils. Results of sample integrity tests for the
reference sampling method indicate no contamination in the potting soil after advancement
through a zone of high VOC concentrations. Because potting soil has an organic carbon
content many times greater than typical soils, the integrity tests represent a worst-case scenario
for VOC absorbance and may not be representative of cross-contamination under normal field
conditions.
• Reliability and Throughput: At the SBA site, the Dual Tube Liner Sampler collected a sample
from the desired depth on the initial attempt 98 percent of the time. Sample collection in the initial
push was also achieved 98 percent of the time at the CSC site. At the SBA site, the Dual Tube
Liner Sampler did not collect a sample in the initial push in only one instance. The sample liner was
lost during that attempt due to overfilling. The sample was retrieved on the second attempt,
resulting in 100 percent sample completeness. At the CSC site, the Dual Tube Liner Sampler did
not collect a sample in the initial push in only one instance. The sample was lost when
unconsolidated sand fell from the bottom of the liner. The problem was corrected by fashioning
retaining baskets out of liner caps and the sample was collected on the subsequent push, resulting in
100 percent sample completeness. One sample was collected in the saturated zone at Grid 5 at the
CSC site in one attempt, resulting in an initial sampling success rate of 100 percent. The developer
did not attempt to collect additional samples from the 40-foot interval due to excessive friction on
the outer extension. For the reference sampling method, the initial sampling success rates at the
SBA and CSC sites were 90 and 95 percent, respectively. Success rates for the reference sampling
method were less than 100 percent due to (1) drilling beyond the target sampling depth, (2)
insufficient sample recovery, or (3) auger refusal. The average sample retrieval time for the Dual
Tube Liner Sampler to set up on a sampling point, collect the specified sample, grout the hole,
decontaminate the sampler, and move to a new sampling location was 16.4 minutes per sample at
the SBA site and 10.9 minutes per sample at the CSC site. For the reference sampling method, the
average sample retrieval time at the SBA and CSC sites were 26 and 8.4 minutes per sample,
respectively. Two people collected soil samples with the Dual Tube Soil Sampler at both the SBA
and CSC sites, and a three-person sampling crew collected soil samples using the reference
sampling method at both sites. Additional personnel were present at both sites to observe and assist
with demonstration sampling, as necessary.
• Cost: Based on the demonstration results and information provided by the vendor, the Dual Tube
Liner Sampler can be purchased for $1,890 and the PowerProbe 9600 direct push rig rented for
$1,800 per week. Operating costs for the Dual Tube Liner Sampler ranged from $2,280 to $4,260
at the clay soil site and $1,830 to $3,060 at the sandy soil site. For this demonstration, reference
sampling was procured at a lump sum of $13,400 for the clay soil site and $7,700 for the sandy soil
site. Oversight costs for the reference sampling ranged from $4,230 to $6,510 at the clay soil site
and $1,230 to $2,060 at the sandy soil site. A site-specific cost analysis is recommended before
selecting a subsurface soil sampling method.
In general, the data quality indicators selected for this demonstration met the established quality assurance
objectives and support the usefulness of the demonstration results in verifying the Dual Tube Liner
Sampler's performance.
A qualitative performance assessment of the AMS™ Dual Tube Liner Sampler indicated that (1) the
sampler is easy to use and requires less than 1 hour of training to operate; (2) logistical requirements
51
-------
are similar to those of the reference sampling method; (3) sample handling is similar to the reference method;
(4) the performance range is primarily a function of the advancement platform; and (5) no drill cuttings are
generated when using the Dual Tube Liner Sampler with a push platform.
The demonstration results indicate that the Dual Tube Liner Sampler can provide useful, cost-effective
samples for environmental problem-solving. However, in some cases, VOC data collected using the Dual
Tube Liner Sampler may be statistically different from VOC data collected using the reference sampling
method. As with any technology selection, the user must determine what is appropriate for the application
and project data quality objectives.
52
-------
Chapter 8
Technology Update
As a direct result of the SITE demonstration the AMS™ PowerProbe pull yoke has been redesigned to
provide effective transfer of the available 37,000 pounds (Ib) of pull to the tooling.
At the CSC site Grid 1, penetration of asphalt pavement was required. AMS™ has now developed a
pavement drill that may be used with the built-in auger capability on the AMS™ PowerProbe System. This
new drill would have reduced the time taken on this grid to penetrate the asphalt. This AMS™ pavement
drill may be used to penetrate concrete as well.
All sample liners used by all the technologies at both sites were opened with the AMS™ Sample Preparation
Station. This accessory would normally be used at the probing location and is usually supplied with the
AMS™ PowerProbe System.
The hand-fabricated Liner Core Catcher Caps used at the CSC site are now available as a manufactured
item along with the corresponding drive tip.
The AMS™ Liner Sampler System provides an extended range of drive shoes to accommodate different soil
conditions. At the SITE demonstration, AMS™ used its standard Liner Sampler Drive Shoe at the SBA site
and the Liner Sampler Core Catcher Shoe at the CSC site. These are now available in oversizes to assist in
reducing friction on the extensions as they are being driven. A new Liner Sampler Drive Shoe for use in
expanding clays has been introduced. This shoe cuts a smaller core and feeds it directly into the liner to
reduce overfilling when sampling these materials.
In addition to the 1-1/2-inch-diameter liner sampler used for this demonstration, AMS™ has a smaller 1-
1/8-inch Liner Sampler System that uses a 1-3/4-inch o.d. outer extension and the same 1-1/8-inch inner
extension.
A new sampler has been designed (patent pending) that will allow sampling of saturated flowing sands,
using the AMS™ Dual Tube System along with the AMS™ Liner Sampler for collecting samples of soils
above the saturated or flowing sands.
Chapter 8 was written solely by AMS™ and edited for format. The statements presented in this chapter
represent the vendor's point of view and summarize the claims made by the vendor regarding the Dual
Tube Liner Sampler. Publication of this material does not represent the EPA's approval or endorsement
of the statements made in this chapter; results of the performance evaluation of the Dual Tube Liner
Sampler are discussed in other chapters of this report.
53
-------
The EPA SITE Program demonstration was conducted using a Stanley SK-58 hammer with a 50-foot-
pounds (ft.lb.) impact force at 1,200 beats per minute. An alternative hammer, the BR-87 with 90-ft.lb
impact force at 1,100 beats per minute may have allowed us to probe faster at the CSC site. A new
hammer, the T-300 with 150-ft.lb. impact force and up to 1,600 beats per minute, has now been introduced
to further extend the capabilities of the AMS™ PowerProbe System and the use of the AMS™ Liner
Sampler.
The SITE Program demonstration did not allow us to demonstrate the auger capability of the AMS™
PowerProbe System. Most PowerProbes sold today include this feature with rotational torques of either
500, 1,000 or 2,400 ft.lb. The hollow stem augers are completely compatible with the two sizes of the
AMS™ Dual Tube Probing System and the AMS™ Liner Sampler System.
The AMS™ Liner Sampler System may now be used to sample soils and then install a prepacked well
screen and casing in the same hole. This new development reduces the time necessary to conduct a site
investigation and provide extended information on groundwater.
The AMS™ Wash Station used during this demonstration for tool washing and decontamination has been
improved with the introduction of a new model featuring smaller, 14-gallon, dual tanks and hoses with
wands on retractable reels. This smaller system provides all the benefits of that used for this demonstration
in a smaller package, suited for installation on small vehicle beds.
Chapter 8 was written solely by AMS™. The statements presented in this chapter represent the vendor's
point of view and summarize the claims made by the vendor regarding the Dual Tube Liner Sampler.
Publication of this material does not represent the EPA's approval or endorsement of the statements
made in this chapter; results of the performance evaluation of the Dual Tube Liner Sampler are discussed
in other chapters of this report.
54
-------
Chapter 9
Previous Deployment
AMS™ has been in the soil and groundwater sampling equipment market since its founding in 1942. The
earliest record of the use of hydraulics to sample soils was a hydraulic coring sampler mounted on an
agricultural tractor in 1960. Subsequent to the introduction of this product, truck-mounted hydraulic core
and probe pushers were supplied to all parts of the United States for use in soil gas and soil sampling
projects.
In 1994, AMS™ introduced the AMS™ Envirodrill, a truck- or trailer-mounted system for hollow stem
augering with an optional hydraulic hammer for direct push probing. At that time, AMS™ extended the
capabilities of the auger rig with dual tube tooling developed for this system. The PowerProbe 9600 evolved
from this product and was introduced in 1995; the AMS™ Dual Tube Liner Sampler followed later in 1995.
Today AMS™ PowerProbe systems are in use in 23 states of the United States as well as in Korea, Taiwan,
Japan, Germany, and South Africa. The AMS™ Dual Tube Liner Sampler is an integral part of all these
systems. In addition, AMS™ Dual Tube Liner Sampler Systems have been acquired by owners of other
probing rigs in many parts of the United States and overseas, including Europe and Scandinavia.
The AMS™ Liner Sampler System is now routinely used for site investigations where soil and groundwater
samples are required. In soil conditions where the upper layers are characterized as heavily compacted or
contain other materials or present conditions that make probing difficult or impossible, the AMS™ Hollow
Stem Auger is used. After penetrating these difficult soils, the AMS™ Dual Tube Liner Sampling System is
installed through the Hollow Stem Auger and used to probe and sample to the target depth.
Multimedia sampling is routinely used by many AMS™ customers. They use the Liner Sampler System to
probe and collect either continuous cores or samples at discrete target depths. Once the water table has been
penetrated, they use the AMS™ Direct Push Retract-A-Tip probe through the
Chapter 9 was written solely by AMS™. The statements presented in this chapter represent the vendor's
point of view and summarize the claims made by the vendor regarding the Dual Tube Liner Sampler.
Publication of this material does not represent the EPA's approval or endorsement of the statements
made in this chapter; results of the performance evaluation of the Dual Tube Liner Sampler are discussed
in other chapters of this report.
55
-------
outer extension to collect water samples at specific depths in the saturated soils. AMS™ PowerProbe
Systems are used for sampling sandfills either with vertical or angled probes. In some areas, the contractor
will sample with the AMS™ Liner Sampler and then place a plastic screen through the outer extension for
subsequent use as either a vent, landfill gas sampling point, or piezometer.
Chapter 9 was written solely by AMS™. The statements presented in this chapter represent the vendor's
point of view and summarize the claims made by the vendor regarding the Dual Tube Liner Sampler.
Publication of this material does not represent the EPA's approval or endorsement of the statements
made in this chapter; results of the performance evaluation of the Dual Tube Liner Sampler are discussed
in other chapters of this report.
56
-------
References
Art's Manufacturing and Supply. 1997. Product Schematics.
Bonn, H., Brian, M., and George, O. 1979. Soil Chemistry. John Wiley & Sons. New York, New York.
Central Mine Equipment Company. 1994. Augers Brochure. St. Louis, Missouri.
Ecology & Environment. 1996. "Expanded Site Inspection for the Albert City, SB A Site, Albert City,
Iowa." July.
Engineering-Science, Inc. 1991. "Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Report for the Chemical Sales
Company Superfund Site, OU1, Leyden Street Site."
PRC Environmental Management, Inc. 1997. "Final Demonstration Plan for the Evaluation of Soil
Sampling and Soil Gas Sampling Technologies."
Rohlf, F. James and Robert R. Sokal. 1969. Statistical Tables. W. H. Freeman and Company. Table
CC. Critical values of the Mann-Whitney statistic, page 241.
Terzaghi, Karl, and Ralph B. Peck. 1967. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice. John Wiley &
Sons. New York, New York.
Tetra Tech EM Inc. 1997. "Soil and Soil Gas Technology Evaluation Report."
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1986. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste. SW-846.
Third Edition.
EPA. 1987. "A Compendium of Superfund Field Operations Methods." Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response. Washington, DC. EPA 540-P-87 001. December.
57
-------
APPENDIX A
DATA SUMMARY TABLES AND STATISTICAL METHOD
DESCRIPTIONS
for the
AMS™
DUAL TUBE LINER SAMPLER
A-l
-------
APPENDIX Al
STATISTICAL METHOD DESCRIPTIONS
MANN-WHITNEY TEST AND SIGN TEST
A-2
-------
MANN-WHITNEY TEST
A statistical evaluation of the volatile organic compound (VOC) concentration data was conducted
based on the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the median contaminant concentrations
obtained by the Dual Tube Liner Sampler and the reference sampling method. The two-tailed
significance level for this null hypothesis was set at a probability of 5 percent (p* 0.05) (2.5 percent for
a one-tailed); that is, if a two-tailed statistical analysis indicates a probability of greater than 5 percent
that there is no significant difference between data sets, then it will be concluded that there is no
significant difference between the data sets. A two-tailed test was used because no information was
available to indicate a priori that one method would result in greater concentrations than the other
method. Because the F test for homogeneity of variances failed, a parametric analysis of variance
could not be used to test the hypothesis. Therefore, a nonparametric method, the Mann-Whitney test,
was used to test the statistical hypothesis for VOC concentrations. The Mann-Whitney statistic makes
no assumptions regarding normality and assumes only that the differences between two values, in this
case the reported chemical concentrations, can be determined. Other assumptions required for use of
the Mann-Whitney test are that samples are independent of each other and that the populations from
which the samples are taken differ only in location. The Mann-Whitney test was chosen because of its
historical acceptability and ease of application to small data sets.
To use the Mann-Whitney test, all of the data within two data sets that are to be compared are ranked
without regard to the population from which each sample was withdrawn. The cis-l,2-dichloroethene
(DCE) data from the SBA site are provided as an example in Table Al. The combined data from both
data sets are ranked from the lowest value to the highest. Next, the sum of ranks within a sample set is
determined by adding the assigned rank values. In the example provided in Table Al, the sum of
ranks is 52 for the Dual Tube Liner data and 53 for the reference sampling method.
A Mann-Whitney statistic is then calculated for each data set as follows:
Mann-Whitney! = NjN2 + Nl(Nl +1) - sum of ranks value for the first data set
2
and
Mann-Whitney2 = N[
N,fN,
2
+ 1) - sum of ranks value for the second data set
Where
N[ is the number of values in data set 1
N2 is the number of values in data set 2
A-3
-------
Table Al. Mann-Whitney Test Rank of cis-l,2-DCE Data from the 9.5 Foot Depth of Grid 1 at
the SBA Site
cis-l,2-DCE
Sample Concentration
Sampler Location (mg/kg)
Dual Tube Liner Sampler A7
Dual Tube Liner Sampler B3
Dual Tube Liner Sampler C4
Dual Tube Liner Sampler Dl
Dual Tube Liner Sampler E5
Dual Tube Liner Sampler F7
Dual Tube Liner Sampler G2
Reference A3
Reference B2
Reference C2
Reference D4
Reference E4
Reference F2
Reference G7
Sum of Dual Tube Liner Sampler Ranks
(8 + 6+12 + 14 + 4 + 7 + 1 = 52)
Sum of Reference Sampler Ranks
(2 + 9+11 + 13 + 5 + 10 + 3 = 53)
Mann-Whitney! Statistic
Mann-Whitney2 Statistic
Critical Mann- Whitney Value (for N{ = 1 , N2 = 7 ,
Significance (Mann- Whitney Statistic > 4 1 ?)
85.4
75.3
117
156
50.5
80.2
38.1
49.7
86.7
109
147
67.1
98.4
50.2
p = 0.05)
cis-l,2-DCE
Concentration
Rank
8
6
12
14
4
7
1
2
9
11
13
5
10
3
52
53
25
24
41
no
Median
Value
Rank
5
3
6
7
2
4
1
1
4
6
7
3
5
2
A-4
-------
For the example provided in Table Al, the equations become:
Mann-Whitney; = (7)(7) +7(7 + 1) -52
2
Mann-Whitney; = 49 + 28-52
Mann-Whitney! = 25
and
Mann-Whitney2 = (7) (7) + 7(7 + 1) - 53
2
Mann-Whitney2 = 49 + 28-53
Mann-Whitney2 = 24
To determine the significance of the calculated Mann-Whitney value, a table of critical values for the
Mann-Whitney statistic is consulted. For the case of 7 samples in each data set, the Mann-Whitney
statistic value for Nj = 7 and N2 = 7 is of interest. For a two-tailed test with a significance level of 0.05,
the Mann-Whitney statistic value is 41 (Rohlf and Sokal, 1969). Therefore, when the Mann-Whitney
statistic value is greater than 41, a significance level of p < 0.05 has been realized, and the null
hypothesis is rejected; that is, the two data sets are statistically different. The example comparison
provided in Table Al yielded a maximum Mann-Whitney statistic of 25, which is less than 41;
therefore, there is no statistically significant difference between the two data sets, and the null
hypothesis is accepted.
The question of data points with equal values may be easily addressed with the Mann-Whitney statistic.
When two values (contaminant concentrations in this instance) are equivalent, the median rank is
assigned to each. For instance, if the initial two values in the rank series are equivalent (regardless of
which data set they were derived from) they would be assigned a median rank of 1.5 ([1 + 2]/2 = 1.5).
For three equivalent ranks, the assigned rank for each value would be 2 ([l + 2 + 3]/3 = 2). This
approach is also applied to data points where contaminant concentrations are reported as below the
method detection limit.
For the demonstration data, certain VOCs were not detected in some, or all, of the samples for many
data sets. There is no strict guidance regarding the appropriate number of values that must be
reported within a data set to yield statistically valid results. Therefore, and for the purposes of this
statistical analysis, the maximum number of nondetects allowed within any given data set has been set
at three. That is, there must be at least four reported values above the method detection limit within
each data set to perform the Mann-Whitney test.
A-5
-------
SIGN TEST
The sign test was used to examine the potential for sampling and analytical bias between the Dual Tube
Liner Sampler and the reference sampling method. The sign test is nonparametric and counts the
number of positive and negative signs among the differences. The differences tested, in this instance,
were the differences in the median concentrations of paired data sets (within a site, within a grid,
within a depth, and within an analyte). From the data sets, counts were made of (1) the number of
pairs in which the reference sampling method median concentrations were higher than the Dual Tube
Liner Sampler median concentrations and (2) the number of pairs in which the Dual Tube Liner
Sampler median concentrations were higher than the reference sampling method median
concentrations. The total number of pairs in which the median concentrations were higher in Dual
Tube Liner Sampler was then compared with the total number of pairs in which the median
concentrations in the reference sampling method were higher. If no bias is present in the data sets, the
probability that the total number of pairs for one or the other test method is higher is equivalent. That
is, the probability of the number of pairs in which the median concentrations in the Dual Tube Liner
Sampler are higher is equal to the probability of the number of pairs in which the median
concentrations in the reference sampling method are higher. To determine the exact probability of the
number of data sets in which the median concentrations in the Dual Tube Liner Sampler and reference
sampling method were higher, a binomial expansion was used. If the calculated probability is less then
5 percent (p < 0.05), then a significant difference is present between the Dual Tube Liner Sampler
and reference sampling method.
The sign test was chosen because it (1) reduces sensitivity to random analysis error and matrix
variabilities by using the median VOC concentration across each grid depth, (2) enlarges the sample
sizes as compared to the Mann-Whitney test, and (3) is easy to use.
For the demonstration data, certain VOCs were not detected in some, or all of the samples for many
data sets. There is no strict guidance regarding the appropriate number of values that must be
reported within a data set to yield statistically valid results. Therefore, and for the purposes of the
statistical analysis, the maximum number of nondetects allowed within any given data set has been set
at three. That is, there must be four reported values within each data set to perform the sign test.
A-6
-------
APPENDIX A2
SAMPLE RECOVERY TEST DATA
A-7
-------
TABLE A2a. DUAL TUBE LINER SAMPLER RECOVERY TEST DATA
SBA SITE
Sample Number
AMSAG1A709.5
AMSAG1B309.5
AMSAG1C409.5
AMSAG1D109.5
AMSAG1E509.5
AMSAG1F709.5
AMSAG1G209.5
AMSAG1A713.5
AMSAG1B313.5
AMSAG1C413.5
AMSAG1D113.5
AMSAG1E513.5
AMSAG1F713.5
AMSAG1G213.5
AMSAG2A303.5
AMSAG2B303.5
AMSAG2C403.5
AMSAG2D703.5
AMSAG2E403.5
AMSAG2F303.5
AMSAG2G603.5
AMSAG3A609.5
AMSAG3B209.5
AMSAG3C109.5
AMSAG3D29.5
AMSAG3E509.5
AMSAG3F409.5
AMSAG3G109.5
AMSAG4A409.5
AMSAG4B109.5
AMSAG4C509.5
AMSAG4D309.5
AMSAG4E109.5
AMSAG4F109.5
AMSAG4G609.5
AMSAG3B213.5
AMSAG5C713.5
AMSAG5D513.5
AMSAG5A713.5
AMSAG5E113.5
AMSAG5F213.5
AMSAG5G313.5
Sample
Location
A7
B3
C4
Dl
E5
F7
G2
A7
B3
C4
Dl
E5
F7
G2
A3
B3
C4
D7
E4
F3
G6
A6
B2
Cl
D2
E5
F4
Gl
A4
Bl
C5
D3
El
Fl
G6
B2
C7
D5
A7
El
F2
G3
Soil Type
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Reported Length
Pushed (in.)
24.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
24.0
22.0
23.0
27.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
20.0
23.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
23.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
23.0
24.0
Reported Length
Recovered (in.)
24.0
22.0
24.0
19.0
21.0
19.5
21.0
27.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
22.0
24.0
11.0
12.0
15.0
19.0
14.0
17.0
10.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
23.0
23.0
24.0
23.0
21.5
24.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
26.0
Sample Recovery
(%)
100.0%
95.7%
100. 0%a
82.6%
87.5%
88.6%
91.3%
100.0%
100. 0%a
100. 0%a
100. 0%a
100. 0%a
100. 0%a
100. 0%a
45.8%
50.0%
62.5%
79.2%
58.3%
70.8%
41.7%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100. 0%a
100.0%
95.8%
95.8%
100.0%
95.8%
89.6%
100.0%
100.0%
100. 0%a
100. 0%a
100. 0%a
100. 0%a
100.0%"
Sample recovery is reported as 100 percent when length recovered is greater than length pushed.
Average: 91.2%
Range: 41.7-100.0%
Total # Samples: 42
A-8
-------
TABLE A2b. DUAL TUBE LINER SAMPLER RECOVERY TEST DATA
CSC SITE
Sample Number
AMSCG1A603.0
AMSCG1B203.0
AMSCG1C503.0
AMSCG1D203.0
AMSCG1E303.0
AMSCG1F703.0
AMSCG1G303.0
AMSCG1A606.5
AMSCG1B206.5
AMSCG1C506.5
AMSCG1D206.5
AMSCG1E306.5
AMSCG1F706.5
AMSCG1G306.5
AMSCG2A703.0
AMSCG2B303.0
AMSCG2C403.0
AMSCG2D703.0
AMSCGE403.0
AMSCG2F303.0
AMSCG2G703.0
AMSCG3A403.0
AMSCG3B203.0
AMSCG3C403.0
AMSCGD103.0
AMSCG3E403.0
AMSCG3F503.0
AMSCG3G303.0
AMSCG3A407.5
AMSCG3B207.5
AMSCG3C407.5
AMSCG3D107.5
AMSCG3E407.5
AMSCG3F507.5
AMSCG3G307.5
AMSCG4A606.5
AMSCG4B106.5
AMSCG4C506.5
AMSCG4D406.5
AMSCG4E706.5
AMSCG4F406.5
AMSCG4G106.5
Sample
Location
A6
B2
C5
D2
E3
F7
G3
A6
B2
C5
D2
E3
F7
G3
A7
B3
C4
D7
E4
F3
G7
A4
B2
C4
Dl
E4
F5
G3
A4
B2
C4
Dl
E4
F5
G3
A6
Bl
C5
D4
E7
F4
Gl
Soil Type
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Reported Length
Pushed (in.)
24.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
36.0
36.0
36.0
36.0
36.0
36.0
36.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
21.0
24.0
24.0
48.0
48.0
48.0
48.0
48.0
48.0
48.0
36.0
36.0
36.0
36.0
36.0
36.0
36.0
Reported Length
Recovered (in.)
17.5
18.0
15.0
20.0
17.0
18.0
21.0
26.0
29.0
30.5
28.0
27.0
28.0
31.0
14.0
12.0
17.0
14.0
12.0
14.0
16.5
16.0
16.5
13.5
17.5
12.0
11.0
15.0
36.0
39.0
36.0
40.0
37.5
38.0
35.0
25.0
23.0
25.0
24.0
25.0
27.0
24.0
Sample Recovery
(%)
72.9%
75.0%
62.5%
83.3%
70.8%
75.0%
87.5%
72.2%
80.6%
84.7%
77.8%
75.0%
77.8%
86.1%
58.3%
50.0%
70.8%
58.3%
50.0%
58.3%
68.8%
66.7%
68.8%
56.3%
72.9%
57.1%
45.8%
62.5%
75.0%
81.3%
75.0%
83.3%
78.1%
79.2%
72.9%
69.4%
63.9%
69.4%
66.7%
69.4%
75.0%
66.7%
Average:
Range:
Total # Samples:
70.3%
45.8-87.5%
42
A-9
-------
TABLE A2c. REFERENCE SAMPLING METHOD RECOVERY TEST DATA
SBA SITE
Sample Number
REFAG1A309.5
REFAG1A313.5
REFAG1B209.5
REFAG1B213.5
REFAG1C209.5
REFAG1C213.5
REFAG1D409.5
REFAG1D413.5
REFAG1E409.5
REFAG1E413.5
REFAG1F209.5
REFAG1F213.5
REFAG1G709.5
REFAG1G713.5
REFAG2A203.5
REFAG2B403.5
REFAG2C103.5
REFAG2D603.5
REFAG2E503.5
REFAG2F103.5
REFAG2G403.5
REFAG3A209.5
REFAG3B609.5
REFAG3C409.5
REFAG3D609.5
REFAG3E109.5
REFAG3F309.5
REFAG3G609.5
REFAG4A109.5
REFAG4B309.5
REFAG4C309.5
REFAG4D609.5
REFAG4E709.5
REFAG4F209.5
REFAG4G209.5
REFAG5A213.5
REFAG3B113.5
REFAG5C213.5
REFAG5D613.5
REFAG5E313.5
REFAG5F313.5
REFAG5G413.5
Sample
Location
A3
A3
B2
B2
C2
C2
D4
D4
E4
E4
F2
F2
G7
G7
A2
B4
Cl
D6
E5
Fl
G4
A2
B6
C4
D6
El
F3
G6
Al
B3
C3
D6
E7
F2
G2
A2
Bl
C2
D6
E3
F3
G4
Soil Type
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Reported Length
Pushed (in.)
18.0
19.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
Reported Length
Recovered (in.)
13.5
17.0
17.0
19.0
16.0
11.0
16.0
17.5
17.0
17.0
16.0
17.0
18.0
16.0
18.0
14.0
12.0
9.0
16.0
18.0
17.0
20.0
18.0
6.0
13.0
16.5
21.0
24.0
16.5
18.0
16.0
17.0
17.0
15.0
17.5
18.0
18.0
15.5
17.0
11.0
12.0
17.0
Sample Recovery
(%)
75.0%
89.5%
94.4%
100. 0%a
88.9%
61.1%
88.9%
97.2%
94.4%
94.4%
88.9%
94.4%
100.0%
88.9%
100.0%
77.8%
66.7%
50.0%
88.9%
100.0%
94.4%
100. 0%a
100. 0%a
40.0%
86.7%
100. 0%a
100. 0%a
100. 0%a
91.7%
100.0%
88.9%
94.4%
94.4%
83.3%
97.2%
100.0%
100.0%
86.1%
94.4%
61.1%
66.7%
94.4%
Sample recovery is reported as 100 percent when length recovered is greater than length pushed.
Average: 88.4%
Range: 40.0-100.0%
Total # Samples: 42
A-10
-------
TABLE A2d. REFERENCE SAMPLING METHOD RECOVERY TEST DATA
CSC SITE
Sample Number
REFCG1A303.0
REFCG1A306.5
REFCG1B303.0
REFCG1B306.5
REFCG1C303.0
REFCG1C306.5
REFCG1D503.0
REFCG1D506.5
REFCG1E103.0
REFCG1E106.5
REFCG1F103.0
REFCG1F106.5
REFCG1G703.0
REFCG1G706.5
REFCG2A103.0
REFCG2B603.0
REFCG2C103.0
REFCG2D603.0
REFCG2E303.0
REFCG2F503.0
REFCG2G103.0
REFCG3A203.0
REFCG3A207.5
REFCG3B103.0
REFCG3B107.5
REFCG3C203.0
REFCG3C207.5
REFCG3D603.0
REFCG3D607.5
REFCG3E603.0
REFCG3E607.5
REFCG3F603.0
REFCG3F607.5
REFCG3G403.0
REFCG3G407.5
REFCG4A706.5
REFCG4B606.5
REFCG4C706.5
REFCG4D306.5
REFCG4E506.5
REFCG4F306.5
REFCG4G506.5
Sample
Location
A3
A3
B3
B3
C3
C3
D5
D5
El
El
Fl
Fl
G7
G7
Al
B6
Cl
D6
E3
F5
Gl
A2
A2
Bl
Bl
C2
C2
D6
D6
E6
E6
F6
F6
G4
G4
A7
B6
C7
D3
E5
F3
G5
Soil Type
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Reported Length
Pushed (in.)
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
19.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
19.0
20.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
No data
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
Reported Length
Recovered (in.)
12.0
16.0
10.0
14.0
15.0
13.0
16.0
14.0
20.0
11.5
14.5
15.0
14.0
15.0
13.0
19.0
16.0
18.0
19.5
18.5
19.0
17.5
12.0
17.0
12.0
18.0
9.5
18.0
20.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
No data
17.0
18.0
18.0
13.0
17.0
17.0
18.0
18.0
11.5
Sample Recovery
(%)
66.7%
88.9%
55.6%
77.8%
83.3%
72.2%
88.9%
77.8%
100. 0%a
63.9%
80.6%
83.3%
77.8%
83.3%
72.2%
100. 0%a
88.9%
100.0%
100. 0%a
100. 0%a
100.0%
97.2%
66.7%
94.4%
66.7%
100.0%
52.8%
94.7%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
--
94.4%
100.0%
100.0%
72.2%
94.4%
94.4%
100.0%
100.0%
63.9%
Sample recovery is reported as 100 percent when length recovered is greater than length pushed.
Average: 86.7%
Range: 52.8-100.0%
Total # Samples: 41
A-ll
-------
APPENDIX A3
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND CONCENTRATIONS
A-12
-------
TABLE A3a. VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND CONCENTRATIONS
FOR DUAL TUBE LINER SAMPLER AND REFERENCE SAMPLING METHOD
SBA SITE - GRID 1-9.5 FEET
>
00
Sample
Name
Sample
Location
Soil
Type
Concentration
Zone
Contaminant Concentration l^g/kg)
cis-l,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
DUAL TUBE LINER SAMPLER DATA
AMSAG1A709.5
AMSAG1B309.5
AMSAG1C409.5
AMSAG1D109.5
AMSAG1E509.5
AMSAG1F709.5
AMSAG1G209.5
A7
B3
C4
Dl
E5
F7
G2
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
85,397
75,310
117,344
156,305
50,524
80,152
38,060
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
82,561
177,127
167,242
177,633
238,218
139,783
64,826
100
1,283
965
1,709
1,727
990
473
Range: 38,100-156,000 100 64,800-238,000100-1,730
Median: 80,200 NC 167,000 990
REFERENCE SAMPLING METHOD DATA
REFAG1A309.5
REFAG1B209.5
REFAG1C209.5
REFAG1D409.5
REFAG1E409.5
REFAG1F209.5
REFAG1G709.5
A3
B2
C2
D4
E4
F2
G7
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
49,671
86,749
108,582
147,042
67,126
98,437
50,237
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
52,846
70,217
251,269
418,733
290,739
276,149
289,330
100
669
2,012
4,511
1,534
1,720
1,625
Median:
49,700-147,000 100
86,700 NC
52,800-419,000 100-4,510
276,000
1,630
Note:
NC =
Values reported as "100" are nondetects with a detection limit of 100.
No medians calculated because at least half the reported values were below
the method detection limit.
Micrograms per kilogram.
-------
TABLE A3b. VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND CONCENTRATIONS
FOR DUAL TUBE LINER SAMPLER AND REFERENCE SAMPLING METHOD
SBA SITE - GRID 1 - 13.5 FEET
Sample
Name
Sample
Location
Soil
Type
Concentration
Zone
Contaminant Concentration l^g/kg)
cis-l,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
TCE | PCE
DUAL TUBE LINER SAMPLER DATA
AMSAG1A713.5
AMSAG1B313.5
AMSAG1C413.5
AMSAG1D113.5
AMSAG1E513.5
AMSAG1F713.5
AMSAG1G213.5
A7
B3
C4
Dl
E5
F7
G2
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
42,547
4,283
27,949
25,986
5,164
1,098
9,900
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
332,266
24,798
56,539
31,665
41,365
62,659
47,536
1,665
100
100
100
100
100
100
Range: 1,100-42,500 100 24,800-332,000 100-1,670
Median: 9,900 NC 47,500 NC
REFERENCE SAMPLING METHOD DATA
REFAG1A313.5
REFAG1B213.5
REFAG1C213.5
REFAG1D413.5
REFAG1E413.5
REFAG1F213.5
REFAG1G713.5
A3
B2
C2
D4
E4
F2
G7
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
6,762
14,453
20,362
44,929
12,343
15,415
1,356
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
33,736
40,511
48,730
432,508
40,984
26,652
39,138
100
100
100
2,405
100
100
100
Median:
1,360-44,900
14,500
100
26,700-433,000 100-2,410
40,500
NC
Note:
NC =
Values reported as "100" are nondetects with a detection limit of 100.
No medians calculated because at least half the reported values were below
the method detection limit.
Micrograms per kilogram.
-------
TABLE A3c. VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND CONCENTRATIONS
FOR DUAL TUBE LINER SAMPLER AND REFERENCE SAMPLING METHOD
SB A SITE - GRID 2-3.5 FEET
Sample
Name
Sample
Location
Soil
Type
Concentration
Zone
Contaminant Concentration l^ig/kg)
cis-l,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA| TCE
PCE
DUAL TUBE LINER SAMPLER DATA
AMSAG2A303.5
AMSAG2B303.5
AMSAG2C403.5
AMSAG2D703.5
AMSAG2E403.5
AMSAG2F303.5
AMSAG2G603.5
A3
B3
C4
D7
E4
F3
G6
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
1
1
1
1
1
4.24
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
40.0
33.6
95.1
86.9
95.5
90.5
73.8
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Range:
Median:
1-4.24 1 33.6-95.5 1
NC NC 86.9 NC
REFERENCE SAMPLING METHOD DATA
REFAG2A203.5
REFAG2B403.5
REFAG2C103.5
REFAG2D603.5
REFAG2E503.5
REFAG2F103.5
REFAG2G403.5
A2
B4
Cl
D6
E5
Fl
G4
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
1
1
1
1
1
1
2.18
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
22.6
58.2
29.3
43.5
56.9
78.6
88.8
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Range:
Median:
1 -2.18
NC
1
NC
22.6-88.
56.9
Note:
NC =
Values reported as " 1" are nondetects with a detection limit of 1.
No medians calculated because at least half the reported values were below
the method detection limit.
Micrograms per kilogram.
1
NC
-------
TABLE A3d. VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND CONCENTRATIONS
FOR DUAL TUBE LINER SAMPLER AND REFERENCE SAMPLING METHOD
SB A SITE - GRID 3-9.5 FEET
Sample
Name
Sample
Location
Soil
Type
Concentration
Zone
Contaminant Concentration l^ig/kg)
cis-l,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
TCE | PCE
DUAL TUBE LINER SAMPLER DATA
AMSAG3A609.5
AMSAG3B209.5
AMSAG3C109.5
AMSAG3D209.5
AMSAG3E509.5
AMSAG3F409.5
AMSAG3G109.5
A6
B2
Cl
D2
E5
F4
Gl
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
591
370
601
557
537
100
425
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
19,831
16,143
48,027
13,632
22,150
12,027
23,326
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Range:
Median:
100-601 100 12,000-48,000 100
537 NC 19,800 NC
REFERENCE SAMPLING METHOD DATA
REFAG3A209.5
REFAG3B609.5
REFAG3C409.5
REFAG3D609.5
A2
B6
C4
D6
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
High
High
High
High
796
1,007
1,455
799
100
100
100
100
34,069
34,420
63,740
42,502
100
100
100
100
Range:
Median:
796-1,460 100
903 NC
34,100-63,700 100
38,500 NC
Note:
NC =
Values reported as "100" are nondetects with a detection limit of 100.
No medians calculated because at least half the reported values were below
the method detection limit.
Micrograms per kilogram.
-------
TABLE A3e. VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND CONCENTRATIONS
FOR DUAL TUBE LINER SAMPLER AND REFERENCE SAMPLING METHOD
SB A SITE - GRID 4-9.5 FEET
Sample
Name
Sample
Location
Soil
Type
Concentration
Zone
Contaminant Concentration l^g/kg)
cis-l,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA| TCE
PCE
DUAL TUBE LINER SAMPLER DATA
AMSAG4A409.5
AMSAG4B109.5
AMSAG4C509.5
AMSAG4D309.5
AMSAG4E109.5
AMSAG4F109.5
AMSAG4G609.5
A4
Bl
C5
D3
El
Fl
G6
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
31.4
7.55
32.1
20.8
25.2
47.7
11.0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1,910
1,017
2,441
1,299
2,436
3,182
1,410
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Range:
Median:
7.55-47.7
25.2
1
NC
1,020-3,180
1,910
1
NC
REFERENCE SAMPLING METHOD DATA
REFAG4A109.5
REFAG4B309.5
REFAG4C309.5
REFAG4D609.5
REFAG4E709.5
REFAG4F209.5
REFAG4G209.5
Al
B3
C3
D6
E7
F2
G2
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
7.15
6.68
21.2
13.2
12.1
22.1
19.2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
847
966
1,709
1,834
1,306
2,084
1,870
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Note:
NC =
Range:
Median:
6.68- 22.1
13.2
1
NC
847- 2,080
1,710
Values reported as " 1" are nondetects with a detection limit of 1.
No medians calculated because at least half the reported values were below
the method detection limit.
Micrograms per kilogram.
1
NC
-------
TABLE A3f. VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND CONCENTRATIONS
FOR DUAL TUBE LINER SAMPLER AND REFERENCE SAMPLING METHOD
SBA SITE - GRID 5 - 13.5 FEET
>
oo
Sample
Name
Sample
Location
Soil
Type
Concentration
Zone
Contaminant Concentration lug/kg)
cis-l,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
TCE | PCE
DUAL TUBE LINER SAMPLER DATA
AMSAG5A713.5
AMSAG5B213.5
AMSAG5C713.5
AMSAG5D513.5
AMSAG5E113.5
AMSAG5F213.5
AMSAG5G313.5
A7
B2
C7
D5
El
F2
G3
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
374
166
304
310
86.1
81.8
69.2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
252
106
167
250
15.7
27.4
12.0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Range:
Median:
69.2-374
166
1
NC
12.0- 252
106
Range:
Median:
33.7- 147
93.6
1
NC
1 - 138
21.0
Note:
NC =
Values reported as " 1" are nondetects with a detection limit of 1.
No medians calculated because at least half the reported values were below
the method detection limit.
Micrograms per kilogram.
1
NC
REFERENCE SAMPLING METHOD DATA
REFAG5A213.5
REFAG5C213.5
REFAG5D613.5
REFAG5E313.5
REFAG5F313.5
REFAG5G413.5
A2
C2
D6
E3
F3
G4
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
81.2
118
147
106
59.5
33.7
1
1
1
1
1
1
23.3
58.0
138
18.7
3.23
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
NC
-------
TABLE A3g. VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND CONCENTRATIONS
FOR DUAL TUBE LINER SAMPLER AND REFERENCE SAMPLING METHOD
CSC SITE - GRID 1-3.0 FEET
Sample
Name
Sample
Location
Soil
Type
Concentration
Zone
Contaminant Concentration (Jig/kg)
cis-l,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
DUAL TUBE LINER SAMPLER DATA
AMSCG1A603.0
AMSCG1B203.0
AMSCG1C503.0
AMSCG1D203.0
AMSCG1E303.0
AMSCG1F703.0
AMSCG1G303.0
A6
B2
C5
D2
E3
F7
G3
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
197
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
3,149
1,219
903
737
445
1,639
550
Range:
Median:
100 100-197 100 445-3,150
NC NC NC 903
REFERENCE SAMPLING METHOD DATA
REFCG1B303.0
REFCG1C303.0
REFCG1D503.0
REFCG1E303.0
REFCG1F103.0
REFCG1G703.0
B3
C3
D5
E3
Fl
G7
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
High
High
High
High
High
High
100
100
100
100
100
100
256
659
100
644
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
5,742
1,881
6,217
2,166
2,895
1,887
Range:
Median:
100
NC
100 - 659
NC
100
NC
Note:
NC =
Values reported as "100" are nondetects with a detection limit of 100.
No medians calculated because at least half the reported values were below
the method detection limit.
Micrograms per kilogram.
1,880-6,220
2,530
-------
TABLE A3h. VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND CONCENTRATIONS
FOR DUAL TUBE LINER SAMPLER AND REFERENCE SAMPLING METHOD
CSC SITE - GRID 1-6.5 FEET
>
o
Sample
Name
Sample
Location
Soil
Type
Concentration
Zone
Contaminant Concentration lug/kg)
cis-l,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
DUAL TUBE LINER SAMPLER DATA
AMSCG1A606.5
AMSCG1B206.5
AMSCG1C506.5
AMSCG1D206.5
AMSCG1F706.5
AMSCG1G306.5
A6
B2
C5
D2
F7
G3
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
11.8
7.01
1
2.86
1
4.65
1
75.5
15.5
38.4
1.78
72.1
2.67
12.1
1
5.80
1
6.44
68.8
106
29.2
109
11.4
74.0
Range:
Median:
1-11.8 1-75.5 1-12.1 11.4-109
3.76 26.9 4.23 71.4
REFERENCE SAMPLING METHOD DATA
REFCG1A306.5
REFCG1B306.5
REFCG1C306.5
REFCG1D506.5
REFCG1F106.5
REFCG1G706.5
A3
B3
C3
D5
Fl
G7
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
2.03
1
2.36
1
5.81
3.08
32.1
14.0
54.6
13.1
19.8
36.3
6.46
3.47
22.4
4.18
8.39
6.44
107
58.5
848
109
114
256
Note:
NC =
Range: 1-5.81 13.1-54.6 3.47-22.458.5-8
Median: 2.20 26.0 6.45 112
Values reported as " 1" are nondetects with a detection limit of 1.
No medians calculated because at least half the reported values were below
the method detection limit.
Micrograms per kilogram.
-------
TABLE A3i. VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND CONCENTRATIONS
FOR DUAL TUBE LINER SAMPLER AND REFERENCE SAMPLING METHOD
CSC SITE - GRID 2-3.0 FEET
Sample
Name
Sample
Location
Soil
Type
Concentration
Zone
Contaminant Concentration 1
cis-l,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
ng/kg)
PCE
DUAL TUBE LINER SAMPLER DATA
AMSCG2A703.0
AMSCG2B303.0
AMSCG2C403.0
AMSCG2D703.0
AMSCG2E403.0
AMSCG2F303.0
AMSCG2G703.0
A7
B3
C4
D7
E4
F3
G7
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
704
483
499
719
1,788
643
676
Range:
Median:
100
NC
100
NC
100
NC
483- 1,790
676
REFERENCE SAMPLING METHOD DATA
REFCG2A103.0
REFCG2B603.0
REFCG2C103.0
REFCG2D603.0
REFCG2E303.0
REFCG2F503.0
REFCG2G103.0
Al
B6
Cl
D6
E3
F5
Gl
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
984
320
273
126
100
100
100
435
375
355
1,830
1,615
2,003
1,556
2,905
2,149
2,282
100
100-984 100-435 1,560-2,910
Median:
NC
126
2,000
Note:
NC =
Values reported as "100" are nondetects with a detection limit of 100.
No medians calculated because at least half the reported values were below
the method detection limit.
Micrograms per kilogram.
-------
TABLE A3j. VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND CONCENTRATIONS
FOR DUAL TUBE LINER SAMPLER AND REFERENCE SAMPLING METHOD
CSC SITE - GRID 3-3.0 FEET
Sample
Name
Sample
Location
Soil
Type
Concentration
Zone
Contaminant Concentration l^g/kg)
cis-l,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
DUAL TUBE LINER SAMPLER DATA
AMSCG3C403.0
AMSCG3D103.0
AMSCG3E403.0
AMSCG3F503.0
AMSCG3G303.0
C4
Dl
E4
F5
G3
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
High
High
High
High
High
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
1,621
1,499
1,558
2,209
1,674
Median:
100
NC
100
NC
100
NC
1,500-2,210
1,620
REFERENCE SAMPLING METHOD DATA
REFCG3A203.0
REFCG3B103.0
REFCG3C203.0
REFCG3D603.0
REFCG3E603.0
REFCG3F603.0
A2
Bl
C2
D6
E6
F6
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
High
High
High
High
High
High
100
100
100
100
100
100
313
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
2,105
1,597
2,067
1,372
1,027
1,056
Median:
100
NC
100-313
NC
100
NC
Note:
NC =
Values reported as "100" are nondetects with a detection limit of 100.
No medians calculated because at least half the reported values were below
the method detection limit.
Micrograms per kilogram.
1,030-2,110
1,480
-------
TABLE A3k. VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND CONCENTRATIONS
FOR DUAL TUBE LINER SAMPLER AND REFERENCE SAMPLING METHOD
CSC SITE - GRID 3-7.5 FEET
>
00
Sample
Name
Sample
Location
Soil
Type
Concentration
Zone
Contaminant Concentration l^ig/kg)
cis-l,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
TCE | PCE
DUAL TUBE LINER SAMPLER DATA
AMSCG3A407.5
AMSCG3B207.5
AMSCG3C407.5
AMSCG3D107.5
AMSCG3E407.5
AMSCG3F507.5
AMSCG3G307.5
A4
B2
C4
Dl
E4
F5
G3
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
1
1
1
3.77
1
1
1
19.4
18.6
20.3
35.1
45.1
19.0
26.3
8.04
7.15
6.95
13.7
14.6
5.18
8.69
35.7
22.2
29.7
55.7
98.8
17.0
35.0
1-3.77 18.6-45.1 5.18-14.6 17.0-98.8
Median:
NC
20.3
35.0
REFERENCE SAMPLING METHOD DATA
REFCG3A207.5
REFCG3D607.5
REFCG3E607.5
REFCG3G407.5
A2
D6
E6
G4
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Low
Low
Low
Low
1
7.35
5.69
2.55
3.81
21.9
13.5
14.3
2.48
31.7
19.6
10.2
21.1
177
98.7
47.3
Range: 1-7.35 3.81-21.9 2.48-31.7 21.1-177
Median: 4.12 13.9 14.9 73.0
Note:
NC =
Values reported as " 1" are nondetects with a detection limit of 1.
No medians calculated because at least half the reported values were below
the method detection limit.
Micrograms per kilogram.
-------
TABLE A31. VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND CONCENTRATIONS
FOR DUAL TUBE LINER SAMPLER AND REFERENCE SAMPLING METHOND
CSC SITE - GRID 4-6.5 FEET
Sample
Name
Sample
Location
Soil
Type
Concentration
Zone
Contaminant Concentration l^ig/kg)
cis-l,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
DUAL TUBE LINER SAMPLER DATA
AMSCG4A606.5
AMSCG4C506.5
AMSCG4D406.5
AMSCG4E706.5
AMSCG4F406.5
AMSCG4G106.5
A6
C5
D4
E7
F4
Gl
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
1
1
1
1
1
1
18.5
10.8
1
22.0
11.8
3.66
3.84
2.56
1
3.79
2.84
1
31.9
46.5
11.2
47.3
65.7
29.2
Range:
Median:
1 1 - 22.0 1 -3.84 11.2-65.7
NC 11.3 2.70 39.2
REFERENCE SAMPLING METHOD DATA
REFCG4B606.5
REFCG4C706.5
REFCG4D306.5
REFCG4F306.5
REFCG4G506.5
B6
C7
D3
F3
G5
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
5.72
1
1
2.10
1
51.4
8.09
3.54
12.9
1
43.3
2.37
1
4.39
1
749
24.8
50.3
59.7
5.55
Range:
Median:
1-5.72 1-51.4 1-43.3 5.55-749
NC 8.09 2.37 50.3
Note:
NC =
Values reported as " 1" are nondetects with a detection limit of 1.
No medians calculated because at least half the reported values were below
the method detection limit.
Micrograms per kilogram.
-------
TABLE A3m. VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND CONCENTRATIONS IN INTEGRITY SAMPLES
FOR DUAL TUBE LINER SAMPLER AND REFERENCE SAMPLING METHOD
SBA SITE
>
en
Sample
Name
Sample
Location
Soil
Type
Concentration
Zone
Contaminant Concentration lug/kg)
cis-l,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
TCE | PCE
DUAL TUBE LINER SAMPLER DATA
AMSAG1A70INT
AMSAG1B30INT
AMSAG1E50INT
AMSAG1F70INT
AMSAG1G20INT
A7
B3
E5
F7
G2
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Range:
Median:
1
NC
1
NC
Range:
Median:
1
NC
1
NC
Note:
NC =
1
NC
1
NC
Values reported as " 1" are nondetects with a detection limit of 1.
No medians calculated because at least half the reported values were below
the method detection limit.
Micrograms per kilogram.
1
NC
REFERENCE SAMPLING METHOD DATA
REFAG1A30INT
REFAG1B20INT
REFAG1C20INT
REFAG1D40INT
REFAG1E40INT
REFAG1F20INT
REFAG1G70INT
A3
B2
C2
D4
E4
F2
G7
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
NC
-------
TABLE A3n. VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND CONCENTRATIONS IN INTEGRITY SAMPLES
FOR DUAL TUBE LINER SAMPLER AND REFERENCE SAMPLING METHOD
CSC SITE
Sample
Name
Sample
Location
Soil
Type
Concentration
Zone
Contaminant Concentration (Jig/kg)
cis-l,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
DUAL TUBE LINER SAMPLER DATA
AMSCG1A60INT
AMSCG1B20INT
AMSCG1C50INT
AMSCG1D20INT
AMSCG1E30INT
AMSCG1F70INT
AMSCG1G30INT
A6
B2
C5
D2
E3
F7
G3
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
1
1
6.07
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Range:
Median:
1-6.07 1 1 1
NC NC NC NC
REFERENCE SAMPLING METHOD DATA
REFCG1A30INT
REFCG1B30INT
REFCG1D50INT
REFCG1E10INT
REFCG1G70INT
A3
B3
D5
El
G7
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Range:
Median:
1
NC
1
NC
Note:
NC =
1
NC
Values reported as " 1" are nondetects with a detection limit of 1.
No medians calculated because at least half the reported values were below
the method detection limit.
Micrograms per kilogram.
1
NC
-------
APPENDIX A4
STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF MANN-WHITNEY TEST
A-27
-------
TABLE A4a. COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF MANN-WHITNEY STATISTICS FOR THE
DUAL TUBE LINER SAMPLER AND REFERENCE SAMPLING METHOD
Site Description
Site: SB A
Grid:l
Depth: 9.5 feet
Soil Type: Fine
Concentration: High
Site: SB A
Grid:l
Depth: 13.5 feet
Soil Type: Fine
Concentration: High
Site: SB A
Grid: 2
Depth: 3.5 feet
Soil Type: Fine
Concentration: Low
Site: SB A
Grid: 3
Depth: 9.5 feet
Soil Type: Fine
Concentration: High
Site: SB A
Grid: 4
Depth: 9.5 feet
Soil Type: Fine
Concentration: Low
Site: SB A
Grid: 5
Depth: 13.5 feet
Soil Type: Fine
Concentration: Low
Site: CSC
Grid:l
Depth: 3.0 feet
Soil Type: Coarse
Concentration: High
cis-l,2-DCE
NO
NO
NC(2)
YES
NO
NO
NC
(ALL ND)
1,1,1-TCA
NC
(ALL ND)
NC
(ALL ND)
NC
(ALL ND)
NC
(ALL ND)
NC
(ALL ND)
NC
(ALL ND)
NC(4)
TCE
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NC
(ALL ND)
PCE
NO
NC(2)
NC
(ALL ND)
NC
(ALL ND)
NC
(ALL ND)
NC
(ALL ND)
YES
A-28
-------
TABLE A4a. COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF MANN-WHITNEY STATISTICS FOR THE
DUAL TUBE LINER SAMPLER AND REFERENCE SAMPLING METHOD (Continued)
Site Description
Site: CSC
Grid:l
Depth: 6.5 feet
Soil Type: Coarse
Concentration: Low
Site: CSC
Grid: 2
Depth: 3.0 feet
Soil Type: Coarse
Concentration: High
Site: CSC
Grid: 3
Depth: 3.0 feet
Soil Type: Coarse
Concentration: High
Site: CSC
Grid: 3
Depth: 7.5 feet
Soil Type: Coarse
Concentration: Low
Site: CSC
Grid: 4
Depth: 6.5 feet
Soil Type: Coarse
Concentration: Low
cis-l,2-DCE
NO
NC
(ALL ND)
NC
(ALL ND)
NC(4)
NC(2)
1,1,1-TCA
NO
NC(3)
NC(1)
YES
NO
TCE
NO
NC(4)
NC
(ALL ND)
NO
NO
PCE
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
Note:
NC No medians calculated because at least half the reported values were below the methc
detection limit.
(ALL ND) Level of contaminants in all samples tested were below the method detection limits.
(X) Number of samples in which some level of contamination was detected. The number
of samples containing some contaminants in the referenced test series was deemed too
low for statistical analysis (that is, there were too many '0" values).
NO Level of difference between tested populations was not statistically significant.
YES Level of significance between tested populations was p < 0.10.
A-29
-------
TABLE A4b. COMPARATIVE MANN-WHITNEY STATISTICS FOR THE DUAL TUBE LINER
SAMPLER AND REFERENCE SAMPLING METHOD
SBA SITE
Site: SBA
Grid: 1
Depth: 9.5 feet
Soil Type: Fine
Concentration: High
Sum of Rank Statistics
AMS (1)
Reference (2)
NlN2 + [Nl(Nl + l)]/2
NlN2 + [N2(N2 + l)]/2
Mann-Whitney 1
Mann-Whitney 2
Mann-Whitney >41?
N
7
7
cis-l,2-DCE
52
53
77
77
25
24
NO
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
41
64
77
77
36
13
NO
PCE
45.5
59.5
77
77
31.5
17.5
NO
Site: SBA
Grid: 1
Depth: 13.5 feet
Soil Type: Fine
Concentration: High
Sum of Rank Statistics
AMS (1)
Reference (2)
NlN2 + [Nl(Nl + l)]/2
NlN2 + [N2(N2 + l)]/2
Mann-Whitney 1
Mann-Whitney 2
Mann-Whitney > 36?
N
7
7
cis-l,2-DCE
50
55
77
77
27
22
NO
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
57
48
77
77
20
29
NO
PCE
A-30
-------
TABLE A4b. COMPARATIVE MANN-WHITNEY STATISTICS FOR THE DUAL TUBE LINER
SAMPLER AND REFERENCE SAMPLING METHOD
SBA SITE (Continued)
Site: SBA
Grid: 2
Depth: 3.5 feet
Soil Type: Fine
Concentration: Low
Sum of Rank Statistics
AMS (1)
Reference (2)
NlN2 + [Nl(Nl + l)]/2
NlN2 + [N2(N2 + l)]/2
Mann-Whitney 1
Mann-Whitney 2
Mann-Whitney >41?
N
7
7
cis-l,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
64
41
77
77
13
36
NO
PCE
Site: SBA
Grid: 3
Depth: 9.5 feet
Soil Type: Fine
Concentration: High
Sum of Rank Statistics
AMS (1)
Reference (2)
NlN2 + [Nl(Nl + l)]/2
NlN2 + [N2(N2 + l)]/2
Mann-Whitney 1
Mann-Whitney 2
Mann-Whitney > 25?
N
7
4
cis-l,2-DCE
28
38
56
38
28
0
YES
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
31
35
56
38
25
3
NO
PCE
A-31
-------
TABLE A4b. COMPARATIVE MANN-WHITNEY STATISTICS FOR THE DUAL TUBE LINER
SAMPLER AND REFERENCE SAMPLING METHOD
SBA SITE (Continued)
Site: SBA
Grid: 4
Depth: 9.5 feet
Soil Type: Fine
Concentration: Low
Sum of Rank Statistics
AMS (1)
Reference (2)
NlN2 + [Nl(Nl + l)]/2
NlN2 + [N2(N2 + l)]/2
Mann-Whitney 1
Mann-Whitney 2
Mann-Whitney >41?
N
7
7
cis-l,2-DCE
65
40
77
77
12
37
NO
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
62
43
77
77
15
34
NO
PCE
Site: SBA
Grid: 5
Depth: 13.5 feet
Soil Type: Fine
Concentration: Low
Sum of Rank Statistics
AMS (1)
Reference (2)
NlN2 + [Nl(Nl + l)]/2
NlN2 + [N2(N2 + l)]/2
Mann-Whitney 1
Mann-Whitney 2
Mann-Whitney > 36?
N
7
6
cis-l,2-DCE
60
31
70
63
10
32
NO
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
59
32
70
63
11
31
NO
PCE
A-32
-------
TABLE A4c. COMPARATIVE MANN-WHITNEY STATISTICS FOR THE DUAL TUBE LINER
SAMPLER AND REFERENCE SAMPLING METHOD
CSC SITE
Site: CSC
Grid: 1
Depth: 3.0 feet
Soil Type: Coarse
Concentration: High
Sum of Rank Statistics
AMS (1)
Reference (2)
NlN2 + [Nl(Nl + l)]/2
NlN2 + [N2(N2 + l)]/2
Mann-Whitney 1
Mann-Whitney 2
Mann-Whitney > 36?
N
7
6
cis-l,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
32
59
70
63
38
4
YES
Site: CSC
Grid: 1
Depth: 6.5 feet
Soil Type: Coarse
Concentration: Low
Sum of Rank Statistics
AMS (1)
Reference (2)
NlN2 + [Nl(Nl + l)]/2
NlN2 + [N2(N2 + l)]/2
Mann-Whitney 1
Mann-Whitney 2
Mann-Whitney >31?
N
6
6
cis-l,2-DCE
42.5
32.5
57
57
14.5
24.5
NO
1,1,1-TCA
40
38
57
57
17
19
NO
TCE
30.5
47.5
57
57
26.5
9.5
NO
PCE
26.5
51.5
57
57
30.5
5.5
NO
A-33
-------
TABLE A4c. COMPARATIVE MANN-WHITNEY STATISTICS FOR THE DUAL TUBE LINER
SAMPLER AND REFERENCE SAMPLING METHOD
CSC SITE (Continued)
Site: CSC
Grid: 2
Depth: 3.0 feet
Soil Type: Coarse
Concentration: High
Sum of Rank Statistics
AMS (1)
Reference (2)
NlN2 + [Nl(Nl + l)]/2
NlN2 + [N2(N2 + l)]/2
Mann-Whitney 1
Mann-Whitney 2
Mann-Whitney >41?
N
7
7
cis-l,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
30
75
77
77
47
2
YES
Site: CSC
Grid: 3
Depth: 3.0 feet
Soil Type: Coarse
Concentration: High
Sum of Rank Statistics
AMS (1)
Reference (2)
NlN2 + [Nl(Nl + l)]/2
NlN2 + [N2(N2 + l)]/2
Mann-Whitney 1
Mann-Whitney 2
Mann-Whitney > 27?
N
5
6
cis-l,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
35
31
45
51
10
20
NO
A-34
-------
TABLE A4c. COMPARATIVE MANN-WHITNEY STATISTICS FOR THE DUAL TUBE LINER
SAMPLER AND REFERENCE SAMPLING METHOD
CSC SITE (Continued)
Site: CSC
Grid: 3
Depth: 7.5 feet
Soil Type: Coarse
Concentration: Low
Sum of Rank Statistics
AMS (1)
Reference (2)
NlN2 + [Nl(Nl + l)]/2
NlN2 + [N2(N2 + l)]/2
Mann-Whitney 1
Mann-Whitney 2
Mann-Whitney > 25?
N
7
4
cis-l,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
52
14
56
38
4
24
YES
TCE
37
29
56
38
19
9
NO
PCE
37
29
56
38
19
9
NO
Site: CSC
Grid: 4
Depth: 6.5 feet
Soil Type: Coarse
Concentration: Low
Sum of Rank Statistics
AMS (1)
Reference (2)
NlN2 + [Nl(Nl + l)]/2
NlN2 + [N2(N2 + l)]/2
Mann-Whitney 1
Mann-Whitney 2
Mann-Whitney > 27?
N
6
5
cis-l,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
37.5
28.5
51
45
13.5
16.5
NO
TCE
33.5
29.5
51
45
17.5
15.5
NO
PCE
34
32
51
45
17
13
NO
Note: (N >xx) Mann-Whitney value must be greater than the given value to be significant at the 0.05
level of statistical significance. This is a two-tailed test.
A-35
-------
Statistical Source:
Rohlf, F. James and Robert R. Sokal. 1969. Statistical Tables. W. H. Freeman and
Company. Table CC. Critical values of the Mann-Whitney statistic, page 241.
A-36
-------
APPENDIX A5
STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF SIGN TEST
A-37
-------
TABLE A5a. SIGN TEST SUMMARY
COMPARISON OF MEDIAN VOC CONCENTRATIONS FOR DUAL TUBE LINER SAMPLER
AND REFERENCE SAMPLING METHOD
SBA SITE
Site Description
Technology
Median
cis-1,2-
DCE
Median
1,1,1-
TCA
Median
TCE
Median
PCE
Site: SBA
Grid: 1
Depth: 9.5 feet
Concentration: High
Site: SBA
Grid: 1
Depth: 13.5 feet
Concentration: High
Site: SBA
Grid: 2
Depth: 3.5 feet
Concentration: Low
Site: SBA
Grid: 3
Depth: 9.5 feet
Concentration: High
Site: SBA
Grid: 4
Depth: 9.5 feet
Concentration: Low
Site: SBA
Grid: 5
Depth: 13.5 feet
Concentration: Low
Reference Sampling Method
Dual Tube Liner Sampler
Reference Sampling Method
Dual Tube Liner Sampler
Reference Sampling Method
Dual Tube Liner Sampler
Reference Sampling Method
Dual Tube Liner Sampler
Reference Sampling Method
Dual Tube Liner Sampler
Reference Sampling Method
Dual Tube Liner Sampler
86,700 ALLND 276,00 1,630
0
80,200 ALLND 167,00 990
0
14,500 ALLND 40,500 NC(1)
9,900 ALLND 47,500 NC(1)
NC(1) ALLND 56.9 ALLND
NC(1) ALLND 86.9 ALLND
903 ALLND 38,500 ALLND
537 ALLND 19,800 ALLND
13.2 ALLND 1,710 ALLND
25.2 ALLND 1,910 ALLND
93.6 ALLND 21.0 ALLND
166 ALLND 106 ALLND
Number of pairs in which Reference Sampling
Method median is higher
Number of pairs in which Dual Tube Liner Sampler
median is higher
Notes:
NC
ALLND
(X)
No medians calculated because at least half the reported values were below the method
detection limit.
Level of contaminants in all samples tested were below the method detection limits.
Number of samples in which some level of contamination was detected. The number of samples
containing some contaminants in the referenced test series was deemed too low for statistical
analysis (that is, there were too many '0" values).
A-38
-------
TABLE A5b. SIGN TEST SUMMARY
COMPARISON OF MEDIAN VOC CONCENTRATIONS FOR DUAL TUBE LINER SAMPLER
AND REFERENCE SAMPLING METHOD
CSC SITE
Site Description
Technology
Median
cis-1,2-
DCE
Median
1,1,1-
TCA
Median
TCE
Median
PCE
Site: CSC
Grid: 1
Depth: 3.0
Concentration: High
Site: CSC
Grid: 1
Depth: 6.5 feet
Concentration: Low
Site: CSC
Grid: 2
Depth: 3.0 feet
Concentration: High
Site: CSC
Grid: 3
Depth: 3.0 feet
Concentration: High
Reference Sampling Method ALL ND NC(3) ALL ND 2,530
Dual Tube Liner Sampler
Reference Sampling Method
Dual Tube Liner Sampler
ALLND NC(1) ALLND 903
2.20
3.76
26.0
26.9
Reference Sampling Method ALLND NC(3)
6.45
4.23
126
Dual Tube Liner Sampler
Dual Tube Liner Sampler
112
71.4
2,000
ALLND ALLND ALLND 676
Reference Sampling Method ALLND NC(1) ALLND 1,480
ALLND ALLND ALLND 1,620
Site: CSC Reference Sampling Method
Grid: 3
Depth: 7.5 feet Dual Tube Liner Sampler
Concentration: Low
Site: CSC Reference Sampling Method
Grid: 4
Depth: 6.5 feet Dual Tube Liner Sampler
Concentration: Low
Number of pairs in which Reference Sampling
Method median is higher
Number of pairs in which Dual Tube Liner Sampler
median is higher
Notes:
NC No medians calculated because at least half
detection limit.
ALL ND Level of contaminants in all samples tested
(X) Number of samples in which some level of
4.12
NC(1)
NC(2)
ALLND
0
1
the reported values
13.9
20.3
8.09
11.3
0
3
14.9
8.04
2.37
2.70
2
1
73.0
35.0
50.3
39.2
5
1
were below the method
were below the method detection limits.
contamination was detected. The number
of samples
containing some contaminants in the referenced test series was deemed too low for statistical
analysis (that is, there were too many '0" values).
A-39
------- |