United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research and
Development
Washington DC 20460
EPA/600/R-98/091
August 1998
Environmental Technology
Verification Report
Soil Sampling Technology
Clements Associates, Inc.
JMC Environmentalist's Subsoil Probe
-------
EPA/600/R-98/091
August 1998
Environmental Technology
Verification Report
Soil Sampler
Clements Associates, Inc.
JMC Environmentalist's Subsoil Probe
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: JMC ENVIRONMENTALIST'S SUBSOIL PROBE
COMPANY: CLEMENTS ASSOCIATES, INC.
ADDRESS: 1992 HUNTER AVENUE
NEWTON, IOWA 50208
PHONE: (515) 792-8285
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 results
of a demonstration of the Clements Associates, Inc. JMC Environmentalist's Subsoil Probe (ESP).
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 ESP along with three other soil and two soil gas sampling
technologies. This verification statement focuses on the ESP; similar statements have been prepared for each of the
other technologies. The performance of the ESP 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 ESP 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 detected at the sites include
EPA-VS-SCM-23 The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement August 1998
iii
-------
cis- 1,2-dichloroethene (cis-l,2-DCE); 1,1,1-trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA); trichloroethene (TCE); and
tetrachloroethene (PCE). The SBA site is composed primarily of clay soil, and the CSC site is composed primarily
of medium- to fine-grained sandy soil. A complete description of the demonstration, including a data summary and
discussion of results, is available in the report titled Environmental Technology Verification Report: Soil Sampler,
Clements Associates, Inc., JMC Environmentalist s Subsoil Probe, EPA/600/R-98/091.
TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
The ESP sampler is designed to collect subsurface soil samples and may be advanced by using manual or powered
percussive techniques. The ESP can collect continuous or discrete samples. The ESP consists of a sampling tube,
a body that guides the sampler as it is driven, and a foot-pedal-operated jack that retrieves the sampler. The sampler
is a 36-inch long, solid barrel, open tube with an outside diameter of 1.125 inches. The sample tube is fitted with
an inner sample liner and one of three interchangeable tips: a solid drive point, a standard cutting tip, or a wet cutting
tip. The sampler is constructed of heat-treated 4130 alloy steel with nickel plating; the cutting tips and drive point
are stainless steel. Liners facilitate retrieval of the sample and may be used for storage when applicable. The liner
used for the demonstration was a 36-inch long by 0.90-inch inside diameter, thin-walled clear plastic tube that fits
inside the sampler. It is capable of recovering a sample 36 inches long in the form of a soil core. Stainless steel
liners are also available to meet the sample collection requirements and data quality objectives of a specific project.
VERIFICATION OF PERFORMANCE
The demonstration data indicate the following performance characteristics for the ESP:
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 28 samples collected at the SBA
site ranged from 42 to 100 percent, with an average sample recovery of 96 percent. Sample recoveries from 42
samples collected at the CSC site ranged from 72 to 100 percent, with an average sample recovery of 95 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
ESP sampler and the reference sampler indicates that the ESP achieved higher sample recoveries in both the clay soil
at the SBA site and 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 ESP and the reference sampling
method at five sampling depths in eight grids (four at the SBA site and four at the CSC site) were analyzed for VOCs.
For 16 of the 18 ESP and reference sampling method pairs (seven at the SBA site and 11 at the CSC site), a statistical
analysis using the Mann-Whitney test indicated no significant statistical difference at the 95 percent level between
VOC concentrations in samples collected with the ESP and those collected with the reference sampling method. A
statistically significant difference was identified for one sample pair collected at the SBA site and one sample pair at
the CSC site. Analysis of the CSC site data, using the sign test, indicated no statistical difference between the data
obtained by the ESP and the reference sampling method. However, at the SBA site, the sign test indicated that the
data obtained by the ESP are statistically significantly different than the data obtained by the reference sampling
method, suggesting that the reference method tends to yield higher concentrations in sampling fine-grained soils than
does the ESP.
Sample Integrity: Seven integrity samples were collected with each sampling method at the SBA site, and five
integrity samples were collected with each sampling method at the CSC site to determine if potting soil in a lined
sampler became contaminated after it was advanced through a zone of high VOC concentrations. For the ESP, VOCs
were detected in two of the 12 integrity samples: both at the SBA site. One of the integrity samples collected at the
SBA site contained cis-1,2-DCE at 5,700 micrograms per kilogram (• g/kg), TCE at 4,070 • g/kg, and PCE at 212
• g/kg; the other sample contained cis-1,2-DCE at 114 • g/kg and TCE at 3.17 • g/kg. These results indicate that the
integrity of a lined chamber of the ESP may not be preserved when the sampler is advanced through highly
contaminated soils. Results of sample integrity tests for the reference sampling method indicated no contamination
in the potting soil after it was advanced through a zone of high VOC concentrations. Because potting soil has an
EPA-VS-SCM-23 The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement August 1998
iv
-------
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 both the SBA and CSC sites, the ESP collected a sample from the desired depth on
the initial attempt 100 percent of the time. Two target zones were not sampled at the SBA site due to the technology
developer s absence on several days during the demonstration; however, no planned samples were omitted due to
equipment failure. Collection of saturated soil samples using the ESP at 40 feet below ground surface (bgs) in Grid
5 at the CSC site was not attempted because the sample depth was beyond the ESP s performance range. 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 a single operator to set up the ESP on a sampling point, collect the specified sample, backfill the hole with
granular bentonite, decontaminate the sampler, and move to a new sampling location at the SBA site was 36.9 minutes
per sample. The average sample retrieval time at the SBA site was 22.5 minutes per sample when two operators were
used. Two operators were used for all grids sampled at the CSC site, resulting in an average sample retrieval time
of 13.4 minutes per sample. For the reference sampling method, the average sample retrieval times at the SBA and
CSC sites were 26 and 8.4 minutes per sample, respectively. 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 oversee and
assist with sample collection using the reference method.
Cost Based on the demonstration results and information provided by the vendor, the ESP can be purchased for
$2,780 or rented for $250 per day. The optional electric hammer and generator can be rented for $150 to $300 per
day. Operating costs for the ESP ranged from $2,480 to $4,210 at the clay soil site and $1,880 to $3,110 at the
sandy soil site. For this demonstration, the reference sampling was procured at a lump sum rate of $13,700 for the
clay soil site and $7,700 for the sandy soil site. Oversight costs for the reference method 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 and performance analysis
is recommended before selecting a soil sampling method.
A qualitative performance assessment of the ESP indicated that (1) the sampler is easy to use and requires no
specialized training to operate; (2) logistical requirements are generally less than those of the reference sampling
method; (3) sample handling is similar to the reference method; (4) the performance range is limited by the
advancement platform, although the ESP successfully retrieved a sample on one of two sampling attempts at depths
greater than 25 feet; and (5) no drill cuttings are generated when using the ESP.
The demonstration results indicate that the ESP can provide useful, cost-effective samples for environmental problem-
solving. However, in some cases, VOC data collected using the ESP may be statistically different from VOC data
collected using the reference sampling method. Also, the integrity of a lined sample chamber may not be preserved
when the sampler is advanced through highly contaminated clay soils. As with any technology selection, the user
must determine what is appropriate for the application and project data quality objectives.
GaryJ. 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-23 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
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 13
Chapter 3 Site Descriptions and Demonstration Design 14
Site Selection and Description 14
SBA Site Description 14
CSC Site Description 16
Predemonstration Sampling and Analysis 18
Demonstration Design 19
Sample Recovery 20
Volatile Organic Compound Concentrations 20
Sample Integrity 25
Reliability and Throughput 25
Cost 26
Deviations from the Demonstration Plan 26
Chapter 4 Description and Performance of the Reference Method 27
Background 27
Components and Accessories 27
Description of Platform 27
Demonstration Operating Procedures 29
Qualitative Performance Factors 31
Reliability and Ruggedness 31
Training Requirements and Ease of Operation 32
vii
-------
Contents (Continued)
Logistical Requirements 32
Sample Handling 32
Performance Range 32
Investigation-Derived Waste 33
Quantitative Performance Factors 33
Sample Recovery 33
Volatile Organic Compound Concentrations 33
Sample Integrity 35
Sample Throughput 35
Data Quality 35
Chapter 5 Technology Performance 37
Qualitative Performance Factors 37
Reliability and Ruggedness 37
Training Requirements and Ease of Operation 38
Logistical Requirements 38
Sample Handling 38
Performance Range 39
Investigation-Derived Waste 39
Quantitative Performance Assessment 39
Sample Recovery 40
Volatile Organic Compound Concentrations 40
Sample Integrity 46
Sample Throughput 47
Data Quality 47
Chapter 6 Economic Analysis 48
Assumptions 48
JMC Environmentalist s Subsoil Probe 48
Reference Sampling Method 50
Chapter 7 Summary of Demonstration Results 53
Chapter 8 Technology Update 56
Chapter 9 Previous Deployment 57
References 58
Appendix
A Data Summary Tables and Statistical Method Descriptions A-1
Vlll
-------
Figures
2-1. JMC Environmentalist s Subsoil Probe Components 6
2-2. JMC Environmentalist s Subsoil Probe Hammer Assembly and Extensions 8
2-3. Operation of JMC Environmentalist s Subsoil Probe: Sampler Loading and Advancement 10
2-4. Operation of JMC Environmentalist s Subsoil Probe: Sample Retrieval 11
2-5. Operation of the JMC Environmentalist s Subsoil Probe Footpedal 12
3-1. Small Business Administration Site 15
3-2. Chemical Sales Company Site 17
3-3. Typical Sampling Locations and Random Sampling Grid 21
3-4. Sampling Grid with High Contaminant Concentration Variability 23
3-5. Sampling Grid with Low Contaminant Concentration Variability 24
4-1. Split-Spoon Soil Sampler 28
4-2. Typical Components of a Hollow-Stem Auger 30
5-1. Comparative Plot of Median VOC Concentrations for the ESP and Reference
Sampling Method at the SBA and CSC Sites 45
IX
-------
Tables
3-1. Sampling Depths Selected for the ESP Demonstration 19
4-1. Volatile Organic Compound Concentrations in Samples Collected Using the Reference
Sampling Method 34
5-1. Investigation-Derived Waste Generated During the Demonstration 40
5-2. Sample Recoveries for the ESP and the Reference Sampling Method 40
5-3. Volatile Organic Compound Concentrations in Samples Collected Using the ESP 42
5-4. Demonstration Data Summary for the ESP and Reference Sampling Method 43
5-5. Comparison of Median Volatile Organic Compound Concentrations of ESP and
Reference Sampler Data and Statistical Significance 44
5-6. Sign Test Results for the ESP and the Reference Sampling Method 46
5-7. Average Sample Retrieval Times for the ESP and the Reference Sampling Method 47
6-1. Estimated Subsurface Soil Sampling Costs for the JMC Environmentalist s Subsoil Probe . 49
6-2. Estimated Subsurface Soil Sampling Costs for the Reference Sampling Method 51
-------
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
1,1-DCA 1,1-dichloroethane
E&E Ecology & Environment
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESP Environmentalist s Subsoil Probe
ETV Environmental Technology Verification
ETVR Environmental Technology Verification Report
g gram
GC gas chromatography
IDW investigation-derived waste
LCS laboratory control sample
mg/kg milligrams per kilogram
mL milliliter
MS/MSD matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate
• g/kg micrograms per kilogram
NERL National Exposure Research Laboratory
OU operable unit
PCE tetrachloroethene
QA quality assurance
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
RI/FS remedial investigation/feasibility study
SOP standard operating procedures
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
Environmentalist s Subsoil Probe by Jim Clements (Clements Associates, Inc.), collection of soil
samples using hollow-stem auger drilling and split-spoon sampling by Michael 0 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
Carl Rhodes, Ron Ohta, Roger Argus, and Ben Hough (Tetra Tech).
xn
-------
Executive Summary
In May and June 1997, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sponsored a demonstration
of the Clements Associates, Inc. JMC Environmentalist s Subsoil Probe (ESP), three other soil
sampling technologies, and two soil gas sampling technologies. This Environmental Technology
Verification Report presents the results of the ESP demonstration; similar reports have been
published for each of the other soil and soil gas sampling technologies.
The ESP is a sampling tool capable of collecting unconsolidated subsurface material at depths that
depend on the capability of the advancement platform. The ESP can be advanced into the subsurface
with direct-push platforms, drill rigs, or manual methods.
The ESP 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 because each
has 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 ESP 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 and cost characteristics for the ESP:
• Compared to the reference method, average sample recoveries for the ESP were higher for
both clay and sandy soils.
• A significant statistical difference between the VOC concentrations measured was detected for
one of the seven ESP and reference sampling method pairs collected at the SBA site and for
one of the 11 sampling pairs collected at the CSC site. The data also suggest that the
reference sampling method tends to yield higher results than the ESP in sampling fine-grained
soils.
• In two of the 12 integrity test samples, the integrity of a lined chamber of the ESP was not
preserved when the sampler was advanced through highly contaminated clay soils.
• The reliability of the ESP to collect a sample in the first attempt was higher than that of the
reference sampling method in both clay and sandy soils. The average sample retrieval time
for the ESP using two operators was slightly quicker than the retrieval time for 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
ESP 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
Clements Associates, Inc. JMC ESP s performance.
xiii
-------
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
-------
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 the
demonstration for one soil sampling technology, the JMC Environmentalist s Subsoil Probe (ESP).
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)
• 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 ESP relative to the hollow-stem auger drilling
and split-spoon sampling reference method.
This document summarizes the results of an evaluation of the ESP 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 ESP, 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 ESP was developed by Clements Associates, Inc., as a hand-operated soil sampler designed to
collect discrete or continuous subsurface soil samples for chemical analysis. The ESP was designed
for sampling to depths of 4 feet below ground surface (bgs); however, through the use of extensions,
samples may be obtained from depths as great as 20 feet bgs in some soil types. The physical
limitations on the operation of the ESP depend on the method of sampler advancement (manual or
electric hammer) and the nature of the subsurface matrix. The technology is primarily restricted to
unconsolidated soil free of large cobbles or boulders. Sediments containing gravel-sized material
supported by a finer-grained matrix can also be sampled. Additional developer claims for the
performance of the ESP are that it:
• • Is simple to operate and requires no special training
• • Is unaffected by variable field conditions
• • Can be used to collect either discrete or continuous soil samples
• • Can be used to characterize subsurface soil contamination
• • Is easily transportable
However, during the demonstration only the developer s claims regarding collection of representative
discrete soil samples in the subsurface, operation of the ESP, and the ability of the ESP to be used to
sample for VOCs were evaluated.
Components and Accessories
The major components of the ESP sampling system (Figure 2-1) are a sampling tube assembly, the
ESP body, and a jack that is used to assist in sample retrieval. The primary component of the ESP
sample tube assembly is a heat-treated 4130 alloy steel sample tube with nickel plating. The tube has a
uniform 1.125-inch outer diameter and is 36 inches long. The sampling tube assembly also includes
-------
HANDGRIP
JACK
JACK FULCRUM
GROUND PAD
JACK LEVER
—&f\**-\
\ I FOOTPEDAL
SAMPLING TUBE |
STOP RING
RUBBER BUMPER
HAMMER
ASSEMBLY-
GUIDE ROD
THREADED COLLAR
IMPACT CUSHIONING WASHER
ALUMINUM CYLINDER
Figure 2-1. JMC Environmentalist's Subsoil Probe Components (modified from Clements
Associates, Inc., 1997)
-------
one of three interchangeable stainless steel tips (a solid drive point, standard cutting tip, or wet cutting
tip) and an inner sample liner. Several types of sample liners are available; they include a 36-inch-
long plastic liner and stainless steel liners. A 36-inch-long plastic liner with an inside diameter of 0.90
inch was used for this demonstration.
The ESP body serves as a base and guide for the sampling tube as it is driven into or retrieved from
the borehole. The jack is used to retrieve the sampling tube. The jack also allows operators to
smoothly lower the sampler and tool string into the hole at a controlled rate, minimizing disturbance to
the borehole as the sampling tube is returned to the bottom of the hole for each new sample.
A 2-inch diameter, 6-inch long stainless steel concentric sampler tube is also available for use with the
ESP. The concentric tube may be used to temporarily case off the uppermost 6 inches of soil,
reducing the risk of cross-contaminating subsurface soil samples when using the ESP in areas with
significant surface contamination. However, this accessory was not used during the demonstration.
Description of Platforms
The ESP is designed to be advanced using either a manual slide hammer or an optional hand-held
electric hammer. A 42-inch master extension and the appropriate number of 36-inch regular
extensions are required to advance the sampler to the target depth. Extensions are connected using
cross pins, which are held in place with ball plungers. Common hand tools such as pliers may be used
for inserting and extracting cross pins, or a pin ejection tool (consisting of a modified vise grip plier)
is offered as an option.
The components for the manual slide hammer are shown in Figure 2-2. The 12.5-pound manual slide
hammer connects either directly into the open female end of the sampling tube assembly, or to the
master extension tube. The hammer cannot be connected directly to the regular extensions. As a
result, the master extension must remain at the top of the tool string as the ESP is advanced, which
requires the user to partially remove the tool string and disconnect the string at the bottom of the
master extension each time a regular extension is added.
The electric hammer offered as an option with the ESP system is a Bosch model 11311 EVS,
weighing 22.4 pounds and providing from 900 to 1,890 blows per minute. The hammer operates on
110-volt alternating current only, requiring 1,450 watts of power. An 1,850-watt portable generator
supplied power to the hammer during the demonstration. The electric hammer can be fitted with two
different drive caps, one that fits the master extension, or a second cap that fits all of the regular
extensions, eliminating the need to disassemble the tool string as regular extensions are added.
The ESP is lightweight and mobile, and may be used in areas where space would prohibit use of a
powered platform. The ESP is about 36 inches long and weighs about 20 pounds. The slide hammer,
ESP, and extension pieces to reach 20 feet bgs weigh under 50 pounds, and may be carried by hand
into locations inaccessible to vehicles. Use of the electric hammer and generator increases the
combined weight of the sampling system components, reducing portability.
General Operating Procedures
Before use and between each sample collected during the demonstration, the ESP and any supporting
equipment that could contact the sample were decontaminated. The ESP was then assembled and
operated according to standard operating procedures (SOP) recommended by the ESP manufacturer.
-------
0)
E
03
X
0)
u
Figure 2-2. JMC Environmentalist's Subsoil Probe Hammer Assembly and Extensions
(modified from Clements Associates, Inc., 1997)
-------
For continuous sampling, the ESP sampling tube was assembled by (1) sliding a core guide onto the
end of the sample liner, (2) placing the core liner into a cutting tip, and (3) screwing the cutting tip
onto the sampler tube. Following is the developer s SOP for continuous sampling (see Figures 2-3, 2-
4 and 2-5 [and Figures 2-1 and 2-2 for referenced sampler parts]):
1. Lay the ESP (body and jack) on the ground and insert an assembled sampler tube.
2. Insert hammer assembly into sampling tube.
3. Put pedal depressor into drive-mode position.
4. Tip ESP with hammer assembly to vertical position.
5. Drive sampling tube into the ground.
6. Move pedal depressor to jacking mode position.
7. Release jack lever.
8. Jack sampling tube up.
9. Remove hammer assembly and continue jacking until sampling tube is out of the ground.
10. Lay the jack on ground. Unload liner and soil core.
11. Insert new liner.
12. Attach master extension assembly. Check ball plungers, and insert and tape pins.
13. Place the jack vertically over the hole and push sampling tube into the hole.
14. Depress pedal slightly with foot pressure and lift jack 6 to 8 inches.
15. Step down on pedal, forcing the sampling tube downward.
16. Repeat up and down movement until the sampling tube is at the bottom of hole.
17. Insert hammer assembly into the top of master extension.
18. Drive sampling tube into the ground.
19. Repeat steps 6 through 18.
The SOP may be modified for collection of discrete interval samples. To collect discrete interval
samples during the demonstration, the ESP sample tube was fitted with the solid drive point and
advanced to the target depth. The ESP sample tube was then retrieved, fitted with the appropriate
cutting tip (for either wet or dry soil), returned to the hole, and driven through the desired sample
interval. Also, at some locations, the SOP was modified by using the Bosch™electric hammer rather
than the manual slide hammer.
The ESP was decontaminated according to the procedures specified in the demonstration plan (PRC
Environmental Management, Inc. [PRC], 1997). The sample liner protects the sample from contacting
the sampling tube, eliminating the need for extensive decontamination of these components in most
instances. At sampling locations where there was no visible free product in the soil, the sampling tube
and extension rods were dry-decontaminated using brushes and steel wool. The cutting shoe and core
guide, which directly contacted the sample, were scrubbed in a small bucket with a solution of
Alconox® and water. A small-bore bristle brush was used to clean the inside of the cutting shoe and
the core guide. The parts were then rinsed with clean water from a hand-held manual sprayer. At the
Small Business Administration (SBA) site, where an oily product was present in soils in Grid 1, the
sampling tubes and extension rods also were run through a similar wet decontamination procedure,
using a shallow tub to contain the wash water.
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.
-------
(above): Inserting the Liner
(below): Inserting the Hammer Assembly.
(at right): Driving the Sampling Tube.
Figure 2-3. Operation of JMC Environmentalist's Subsoil Probe: Sampler Loading and
Advancement (modified from Clements Associates, Inc., 1997)
10
-------
(above): Releasing the Jack Lever.
(above): Retrieving the Sampling Tube.
(at left): Extracting the Liner and Soil Sample
Figure 2-4. Operation of JMC Environmentalist's Subsoil Probe: Sample Retrieval (modified
from Clements Associates, Inc., 1997)
11
-------
Pedal Depressor
Jack Lever
Notes: The drawing shows the area surrounding the footpedal of the JMC Environmentalist's Subsoil Probe.
The footpedal has three positions. In position one (jacking mode), the footpedal allows the sampling tube
to be retracted, but prevents the tube from sliding back out. In position two (driving mode), the tube
moves freely in either direction. And in position three, the footpedal immobilizes the tube.
Figure 2-5. Operation of the JMC Environmentalist's Subsoil Probe Footpedal (modified
from Clements Associates, Inc., 1997)
12
-------
Developer Contact
For more developer information on the ESP, please refer to Chapter 8 of this ETVR or contact
Clements Associates, Inc. at:
Jim Clements
Clements Associates, Inc.
1992 Hunter Avenue
Newton, Iowa 50208
Telephone: (515) 792-8285
Facsimile: (515) 792-1361
E-mail: jmcsoil@netins.net
13
-------
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 [• g/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 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 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).
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
14
-------
2nd Avenue
Former SMC
Waste Storage
Area
0)
3'
CO
cB
CD
<_n
CD
*<
Former SMC
Plant Building
O
a
Q)
a
CO
3
CD
Albert City
Fire Station
Garage
Historic
School House
>
cr
Q)
Q.
o
3
CD
Q.
CD
*<
Museum
Building
School
Bus
Storage
Building
O
3
TJ
CD
W
CD
Buena Vista
County
Maintenance
Facility
SCALE
LEGEND
100
100
DEMONSTRATION GRID LOCATIONS
AND GRID NUMBER
APPROXIMATE SITE BOUNDARY
Figure 3-1. Small Business Administration Site
FEET
-------
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 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-
1,2-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.
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.
16
-------
SCALE
0 25 50 100
FEET
ABOVE-GROUND
TANKS
O O
o o
o o
o:
o
-ABOVE-GROUND
TANKS
ASPHALT
CHEMICAL SALES
WAREHOUSE
LEGEND
Q_
O
o
Figure 3-2. Chemical Sales Company Site
DEMONSTRATION GRID
LOCATIONSAND GRID
NUMBER
RAILROAD
FENCE
-------
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 ESP 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
greater than 200 • g/kg, and ten of the target depths represented intervals with contaminant
concentrations less than 200 • g/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 in 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
18
-------
recovery of the ESP in saturated sandy soil. The sampling depths and grids selected for the ESP
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 ESP Demonstration
Site Grid Concentration Depth (feet)
Zone
SBA
(Clay Soil)
CSC
(Sandy Soil)
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
High
High
Low
High
Low
Low
High
Low
High
High
Low
Low
9.5
13.5
3.5
9.5
9.5
13.5
3.0
6.5
3.0
3.0
7.5
6.5
Low 40. Oa
a Performance test sampling location only; samples collected but
not analyzed. Sampling location selected to evaluate the
reliability and sample recovery of the ESP in saturated sandy
soil.
Demonstration Design
The demonstration was designed to evaluate the ESP 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 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 ESP 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
19
-------
(Figure 3-3). Each target depth was sampled in each of the seven columns (labeled A through G) using
the ESP and the reference sampling method. The cell that was sampled in each column was selected
randomly. The procedure used to collect samples using the ESP is described in Chapter 2, and the
procedure used to collect samples using the reference method is described in Chapter 4. In addition,
Chapters 4 and 5 summarize the data collected at each grid for the reference method and ESP.
Sample Recovery
Sample recoveries for each ESP 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 ESP 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 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 • g/kg. The high-
concentration method was used for sampling depths believed to exhibit concentrations greater than 200
• g/kg. The method detection limits for the low- and high-concentration methods were 1 • g/kg and
100 • g/kg, 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 ESP 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
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.
20
-------
B
D
Ref.
ESP
ESP
Ref.
ESP
Ref.
ESP
Ref.
Ref.
ESP
Ref.
ESP
ESP
Ref.
-i-
a
,2
ir
c
V
1 n c; fnrit
ESP JMC Environmentalist's Subsoil Probe Sampling Location
Ref. Reference Sampling Method Location
Figure 3-3. Typical Sampling Locations and Random Sampling Grid
21
-------
Samples were analyzed for VOCs by combining automated headspace sampling with gas
chromatography (GC) analysis according to the standard operating guidelines 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, respectively.
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.
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 ESP 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 ESP). 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 ESP 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 taken of (1) the number of pairs in which the
22
-------
B
D
80,100
52,800
57,900
70,200
251,000
419,000
291,000
276,000
217,000
258,000
CD
£
in
CD
10.5 feet
Units - micrograms per kilogram
Figure 3-4. Sampling Grid with High Contaminant Concentration Variability
23
-------
B
D
32,600
33,700
92,200
40,500
48,700
33,900
41,000
26,700
32,600
45,800
CD
£
in
CD
10.5 feet
Units - micrograms per kilogram
Figure 3-5. Sampling Grid with Low Contaminant Concentration Variability
24
-------
reference sampling method median concentrations were higher than the ESP median concentrations and
(2) the number of pairs in which the ESP 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 ESP was then compared to 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 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 ESP 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 ESP 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 ESP 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 arbitrarily set at three. That is, there
must be at least four reported values within each data set to use the Mann-Whitney and sign tests.
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.
Seven integrity samples were collected with each sampling method at the SBA site, and five integrity
samples were collected with each sampling method at the CSC site to determine if potting soil in a lined
sampler became contaminated after it was advanced through a zone of high VOC concentrations.
Sample liners were used for both the ESP and reference sampling method during collection of all the
integrity samples. The 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
25
-------
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 ESP and reference split-spoon sampler to
collect 42 subsurface soil samples at a clay soil site (similar to the SB A 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 Clements Associates, Inc. Factors that could affect
the cost of operating the ESP and the reference split-spoon sampler include:
• • Equipment costs
• • Operating costs
• • Oversight costs
• • Disposal costs
• • Site restoration costs
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 ESP and the reference sampling method;
(2) the nonparametric sign test was used to assess potential bias between VOC concentrations
determined from the ESP 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 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 (ESP) of this ETVR.
26
-------
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
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 anticipated
geological conditions (EPA, 1987).
27
-------
Head Assembly _-
Split Barrel
Spacer
Shoe
Liner
Figure 4-1. Split-Spoon Soil Sampler (Central Mine Equipment Co., 1994)
28
-------
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 SBA 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.
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.
29
-------
Drive cap
Center plug
Pilot assembly
components ^.
Pilot Bit
Rod to cap
adapter
Auger connector
Hollow stem
auger section
Center rod
Auger
connector
Auger head
Replaceable
carbide insert
auger tooth
Figure 4-2. Typical Components of a Hollow-Stem Auger (Central Mine Equipment Co. 1994)
30
-------
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 SB A 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
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.
31
-------
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
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.
32
-------
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 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
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 sampling method to those obtained using the ESP.
33
-------
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
•g/kg
cis-l,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
CSC
Grid - Depth
1
1
2
3
4
5
1
1
2
3
3
4
-9. 5 feet
- 13. 5 feet
-3. 5 feet
-9. 5 feet*
-9. 5 feet
- 13. 5 feet1
-3.0 feet1
- 6.5 feet1
-3.0 feet
-3.0 feet1
-7. 5 feet*
- 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
<1 -7.35
<1 -5.72
Micrograms per kilogram
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
1,1,1 -Trichloroe thane
Chemical Sales Company site
VOC data for only four samples are
Median
86,700
14,500
NC
903
13.2
93.6
NC
2.20
NC
NC
4.12
NC
1,1,1-TCA
Range Median
< 100 NC
< 100 NC
<1 NC
< 100 NC
<1 NC
<1 NC
< 100 - 659 NC
13.1-54.6 26.0
< 100 - 984 NC
< 100 -313 NC
3.81-21.9 13.9
< 1-51. 4 8.09
TCE
Range
52,800-419,000
26,700-433,000
22.6-88.8
34,100-63,700
847 - 2,080
<1 - 138
<100
3.47-22.4
< 100 -435
<100
2.48-31.7
<1 -43.3
PCE Tetrachloroethene
SBA Small Business Administration site
TCE Trichloroethene
Median
276,000
40,500
56.9
38,500
1,710
21.0
NC
6.45
126
NC
14.9
2.37
PCE
Range Median
< 100 -4, 510 1,630
< 100 -2, 400 NC
<1 NC
< 100 NC
<1 NC
<1 NC
1,880-6,220 2,530
58.5-848 112
1,560-2,910 2,000
1,030-2,110 1,480
21.1-177 73.0
5.55-749 50.3
t VOC data for only six samples are available
available tt VOC data for only five samples are available
NC No median calculated because at least half the reported
values were below the method detection limit.
34
-------
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 ESP 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
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.
35
-------
Seventeen MS/MSD pairs, representing a 3.6 percent frequency, were analyzed to assess the precision
of the analytical method. The relative percent differences 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).
36
-------
Chapter 5
Technology Performance
This chapter describes the performance of the Clements Associates, Inc. ESP and assesses qualitative
and quantitative performance factors. A description of the ESP is provided in Chapter 2 of this ETVR.
Qualitative Performance Factors
The following qualitative performance factors were assessed for the ESP: (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.
Reliability and Ruggedness
Overall, the initial sampling success rate for the ESP, 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
100 percent. All ESP parts assembled with ease, and no parts failed during the demonstration. The
field observer noted that several features of the ESP were conducive to reliable operation, including (1)
simple design, (2) capability for manual operation, (3) adaptability to varying field conditions, and (4)
the relatively low stress exerted by the drive hammers on the ESP. All planned grids and target depth
intervals were sampled at the CSC site. Collection of saturated soil samples using the ESP at 40 feet
bgs in Grid 5 at the CSC site was not attempted because the sample depth was beyond the ESP s
performance range. Two target zones (the 13.5-foot depth zones at Grids 1 and 5) were not sampled at
the SB A site due to the ESP developer s absence on several days during the demonstration; however,
there was no sampling downtime or omission of planned samples due to equipment failure.
The ESP advanced easily through surficial soils, and easily penetrated a hard-packed gravel surface on
Grid 5 at the SBA site. The system s penetration is likely a result of the narrow diameter and resulting
low surface area, which reduces friction on the tools. The ESP sampler was not advanced through the
asphalt at Grid 1 of the CSC site. An opening was made in the surface by a powered direct-push
technology. Typically, an electric rotary hammer with a carbide bit is used by the ESP operator to
penetrate asphalt. The ESP advanced more easily when fitted with the cutting tips, as opposed to the
solid drive point.
The only problems encountered with the ESP during the demonstration involved the extensions. At the
SBA site, a loose cross pin made it difficult to retrieve the tool string from one hole, and nearly caused
the loss of several rods down the hole. However, this problem was eliminated by using electrical tape
to secure the pins on subsequent holes. A bulging cross pin also caused the tools to catch on the jack
on several occasions, resulting in minor delays.
37
-------
Training Requirements and Ease of Operation
The ESP requires no specialized training. The instruction manual contains all information required to
operate the ESP, and approximately 1 hour of hands-on training allows a user to become proficient in
assembling and using the ESP. To learn the assembly procedure, the sampling team should assemble
the ESP two to three times. Basic knowledge and understanding of the subsurface conditions prior to
attempting sample collection is helpful, as knowledge of the depth to water will allow the operator to
know when to select the wet cutting tip to retain the maximum sample volume. Removal of the
sampling tube from an assembled tool string may be awkward until the operator gains experience.
If the electric hammer is used, the operator should be familiar with proper setup and operation of
generators. The manual slide hammer is moderately labor intensive, requiring repeated lifting of the
hammer; however, extra downward effort is not required to effectively drive the sampler. Driving the
tool straight into the subsurface and keeping the foot plate level are critical to smooth advancement and
retrieval of the ESP and require minor practice for a novice operator to develop proper techniques.
The ESP has relatively few moving parts, and therefore does not require extensive health and safety
precautions. The operator s head, eyes, and feet should be protected with a hard hat, safety glasses,
and steel-toed boots. Leather gloves facilitate assembly and disassembly of the ESP. Additional
personal protective equipment may be required in accordance with site-specific health and safety
requirements for each site.
Logistical Requirements
The ESP may be operated by one person. During the demonstration, the system was tested using a
single operator at some grids and using an operator and assistant at others. When an assistant was
used, this person assisted with jacking, assembling samplers and extensions, decontamination, and
tending to the generator while the electric hammer was in use. Use of an assistant was found to
improve sample throughput.
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.
When the manual slide hammer is used to advance the ESP, no external power source is necessary.
The electric hammer requires a 1,450-watt-minimum on-site power supply or portable generator. Only
a limited amount of water (typically less than 10 gallons per day) and a containment area were
necessary for adequate sampler decontamination.
The ESP does not use an auxiliary powered platform; for this reason, the physical impact of
demonstration sampling on the site was negligible. The ESP left approximately 1.25-inch-diameter
holes, which were backfilled with dry granular bentonite. No drill cuttings were generated during
advancement of the ESP.
Sample Handling
During the demonstration, the ESP sample liner was retrieved either by sliding it out of the sample tube
assembly using gravity or by gently pushing the liner out with a clean liner or dowel rod. The gravity
technique appeared to disturb the sample and was less preferable. After an ESP sample liner was
retrieved, the ends were immediately capped to preserve VOCs and it was immediately taken to the
38
-------
sample packaging area for processing. To minimize volatilization, the sample liners were capped and
were not opened until subsampling. Razor blades were used to open the liners when preparing
subsamples; however, it is also possible to remove the entire sample from the tube by pushing it out
with a dowel rod.
Performance Range
The ESP successfully advanced through and retained representative samples of the clay soils at the SBA
site and the sandy soils at the CSC site, indicating that the sampler functions in a variety of subsurface
materials. The ESP is not designed for use in soils containing coarse gravel, rock fragments, or
cobbles, and will generally not sample particles with a diameter greater than 0.5-inch.
The maximum operating depth of the ESP sampling system is limited by the advancement platform,
which allows only manual or electric-hammer drive techniques, and the soil type. The developer claims
that the ESP is generally limited to a depth of 20 feet bgs. The greatest depth from which samples were
collected at the SBA site was 9.5 feet bgs, and field observers noted no significant changes in the ESP s
performance with regard to sample recovery and integrity over the range of depths sampled. For this
reason, the lower depth performance limit for clay soils was not determined. The greatest depth of
sample collection at the CSC site was 7.5 feet bgs. Although not required by the demonstration plan, at
the CSC site the developer advanced the sampler (equipped with the solid drive point) to 27 feet bgs
and 30 feet bgs in two consecutive borings to test the ESP s performance limits. The manual slide
hammer was used to advance these borings as the Bosch electric hammer would not drive the ESP
beyond 20 feet bgs. A sample was successfully retrieved from the 30-foot hole; however, the ESP was
not fully driven past the bottom of the 27-foot hole due to excessive resistance, and a representative
sample was not obtained. Based on these observations, the ESP s lower depth limit for sandy soils
appears to be in the range of 20 to 30 feet. Because of the ESP s depth limitation, collection of
saturated soil samples at the CSC site from Grid 5 at 40 feet bgs was not attempted.
Investigation-Derived Waste
Minimal IDW was generated by the ESP during the demonstration. The solid drive point used while
advancing the ESP displaces soil outward, and does not transport cuttings to the ground surface. The
only soil waste created was that remaining in the sampler after the demonstration sample was collected
for chemical analysis. The total amount of this material generated during the demonstration at both sites
was less than 6 gallons (less than 1 cubic foot), weighing about 35 pounds.
Approximately 5 gallons of wastewater was generated by the decontamination activities at the SBA site.
Most of this water was generated during decontamination at Grid 1, where the sampler passed through
a clay layer saturated with oily product. Decontamination at the CSC site generated less than 1 gallon
of wastewater. The total quantities of water used at each site were sufficient to decontaminate all
sampler components for an 8-hour sampling period.
Table 5-1 presents a comparison of the IDW generated by the ESP and by the reference sampling
method during this demonstration.
Quantitative Performance Assessment
Quantitative measures of the ESP s performance consisted of (1) sample recovery, (2) volatile organic
compound concentrations in recovered samples, (3) sample integrity, and (4) sample throughput.
39
-------
Table 5-1. Investigation-Derived Waste Generated During the Demonstration
Sampler
Sampling Platform Soil Generated Wastewater Generated
ESP
Reference Sampler
Push (hammer)
Drilling
Less than 6 gallons
990 gallons
Less than 6 gallons
150 gallons
Sample Recovery
Sample recoveries for the ESP 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 96 percent. At
the CSC site, the recoveries ranged from 72 percent to 100 percent with an average of 95 percent.
Sample recovery data for each sample collected are summarized in Appendix A2, Table A2.
Average sample recoveries for the ESP 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 ESP and the reference sampling
method during this demonstration. The recovery data indicate that on average for both types of soil
sampled (clay soil at the SBA site and sandy soil at the CSC site) the ESP retained a greater portion of
the sampled material than the reference sampler.
Table 5-2. Sample Recoveries for the ESP and the Reference Sampling Method
Sample Recovery (percent)
Sampler
Site
Range
Average
ESP
Reference Sampler
ESP
Reference Sampler
SBA
SBA
CSC
CSC
42 to 100
40 to 100
72 to 100
53 to 100
96
88
95
87
It is possible that the greater sample recovery achieved by the ESP is due to the narrow core guide,
the smaller diameter of the sample tube (in comparison to the split spoon), the relatively smooth,
nonpercussive jacking technique used to remove the ESP, or a combination of these factors.
Volatile Organic Compound Concentrations
Samples were collected with the ESP at each sampling grid-depth combination as described in Chapter 3
with the exception of two grid-depth combinations at the SBA site (13.5-foot depth zones at Grids 1 and
5). Samples were analyzed for VOCs by combining headspace sampling with gas chromatography
40
-------
analysis according to the SOP provided in the demonstration plan (PRC, 1997). Table 5-3 presents the
range and median VOC concentrations for samples collected using the ESP. Data are reported on a
dry-weight basis. For five of the 10 sampling grid-depth combinations, VOC data for some samples
collected are unavailable due to laboratory error; in these cases, the range and median were calculated
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 ESP 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 for the grid, depth, and analyte combination
were above the method detection limit.
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, then it is 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 ESP
and the reference sampling method. The table also 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 ESP and reference
sampling method is presented in Appendix A4, Table A4. A total of 40 grid, depth, and analyte
combination pairs were collected during the demonstration. Of the 40 pairs, only 18 data sets were
obtained: seven from the SBA site and 11 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 ESP 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 ESP and the reference sampling
method in two of 18 cases. One of the sampling pairs where the statistically significant difference was
identified was at the SBA site; the other was at the CSC site. The statistically significant difference at
the SBA site involved data collected from Grid 2 at the 3.5-foot sampling depth for the analyte TCE.
The statistically significant difference at the CSC site involved data collected from Grid 2 at the 3.0-foot
sampling depth for the analyte PCE. Figure 5-1 presents a graphic representation of the median VOC
concentrations of the ESP 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 ESP median concentrations and (2) the
number of pairs in which the ESP median concentrations were higher than the reference sampling
41
-------
Table 5-3. Volatile Organic Compound Concentrations in Samples Collected Using the ESP
Concentration (• g/kg)
Site
SBA
SBA
SBA
SBA
CSC
CSC
CSC
CSC
CSC
CSC
•g/kg
Grid - Depth
1 -
2 -
3-
4 -
1 -
1 -
2 -
3-
3-
4 -
cis-l,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
CSC
,
NC
9.5 feet*
3.5 feet
9.5 feet
9.5 feet
3.0 feet1
6.5 feet
3.0 feet"
3.0 feet
7.5 feet"
6.5 feet"
cis-l,2-DCE
Range
22,300 - 182,000
<1 -4.34
344 - 1,540
7.44 - 16.4
<100
<1 - 7.70
<100
<100
<1 - 5.85
<1 -4.11
Micrograms per kilogram
cis- 1 , 2-Dichloroethene
1 , 1 , 1-Trichloroethane
Chemical Sales Company site
VOC data are available for only five
No median calculated because at least
Median
65,800
NC
891
9.63
NC
5.29
NC
NC
NC
NC
1,1,1-TCA
Range
<100
<1
<100
<1
Median
NC
NC
NC
NC
< 100 -440 NC
20.2 - 80.
<100
<100
6.44 - 43.
11.6 - 28.
PCE
SBA
TCE
t
samples n
half the reported
1 38.8
NC
NC
0 9.77
4 16.0
TCE
Range
53,800 - 551,000
37.4 - 328
13,200 - 49,200
837 - 2,190
<100
<1 - 23.5
<100
<100
4.59 - 32.8
3.56 - 10.7
Tetrachloroethene
Small Business Administration site
Trichloroethene
Median
78,900
143
26,300
1,230
NC
11.7
NC
NC
7.97
5.62
PCE
Range Median
< 100 -3, 620 570
<1 NC
< 100 -138 NC
<1 NC
3,580-4,500 4,320
113-840 294
376-1,080 454
473-1,590 1,020
33.6 - 191 73.9
48.7-166 126
VOC data are available for only three samples
VOC data are available for only six
samples
values were below the method detection limit.
42
-------
Table 5-4. Demonstration Data Summary for the ESP and Reference Sampling Method
Number of Number of Data
Site Grid
SBA
1
2
3
4
1
1
2
3
4
5
CSC
1
1
2
3
3
4
1
1
2
3
3
4
Depth
(feet)
9.5
3.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
13.5
3.5
9.5
9.5
13.5
3.0
6.5
3.0
3.0
7.5
6.5
3.0
6.5
3.0
3.0
7.5
6.5
Samples
Analyze
5
7
7
7
7
7
7
4
7
6
3
7
4
7
6
4
6
6
7
6
4
5
cis-l,2-DCE
ESP
5
3
7
7
Reference Sampling
7
7
1
4
7
6
ESP
0
5
0
0
2
1
Reference Sampling
0
4
0
0
3
2
Points Above the Method Detection Limit
1,1,1-TCA
0
0
0
0
Method
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
7
0
0
6
4
Method
3
6
3
1
4
4
TCE
5
7
7
7
7
7
7
4
7
5
0
6
0
0
6
4
0
6
4
0
4
3
PCE
3
0
1
0
6
1
0
0
0
0
3
7
4
7
6
4
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.
43
-------
Table 5-5. Comparison of Median Volatile Organic Compound Concentrations of ESP and Reference Sampler Data and
Statistical Significance
Median Concentration (• g/kg) and Significance
Site
SBA
SBA
SBA
SBA
CSC
CSC
CSC
CSC
CSC
CSC
Grid&
Depth
1 - 9.5 feet
2 - 3.5 feet
3 - 9.5 feet
4 - 9.5 feet
1 - 3.0 feet
1 - 6.5 feet
2 - 3.0 feet
3 - 3.0 feet
3 - 7.5 feet
4 - 6.5 feet
cis-l,2-DCE
ESP
65,800
NC
891
9.63
NC
5.29
NC
NC
NC
NC
Ref. Sign.
86,700 No
NC *
903 No
13.2 No
NC *
2.20 No
NC *
NC *
4.12 *
NC *
ESP
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
38.8
NC
NC
9.77
16.0
• g/kg Micrograms per kilogram PCE
cis-l,2-DCE cis-l,2-Dichloroethene ESP
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
SBA
*
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane Ref.
Trichloroethene Sign.
Small Business Administration site CSC
A statistical comparison could not be NC
made because an insufficient number
1,1,1-TCA
Ref.
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
26.0
NC
NC
13.9
8.09
Sign.
*
*
*
*
*
No
*
*
No
No
ESP
78,900
143
26,300
1,230
NC
11.7
NC
NC
7.97
5.62
TCE
Ref. Sign.
276,000 No
56.9 Yes
38,500 No
1,710 No
NC *
6.45 No
126 *
NC *
14.9 No
2.37 *
ESP
570
NC
NC
NC
4,320
294
454
1,020
73.9
126
PCE
Ref.
1,630
NC
NC
NC
2,530
112
2,000
1,480
73.0
50.3
Sign.
*
*
*
*
*
No
Yes
No
No
No
Tetrachloroethene
JMC Environmentalist s Subsoil Probe
Reference sampling method
Significance
Chemical Sales Company site
No median calculated because at least half the reported
values were below the method detection limit.
of VOC concentrations were detected
44
-------
1 000000 n
.1 100000-
IS ^
"g ^10000-
11
-C (S
5 -a I000
„ g
« s
3 o
•a o
lo 100-
s O
i >
8
J 10 "
A
\ -
1
CD A CV lUUUUUUn
SBA Site
G
_ .s 100000
• • 1!
3
• *bt\
4) 2f
"g ^10000
11
_ -s a
0 • 5 | I000
A y
Wi S
• | o 100
i
8
• J 10
i i i i i i
CSC Site
A
A
A A
A
A
• cis-l,2-DCE
• TCE
APCE
X1,1,1-TCA
X
-.*«
I I I I I I
10 100 100Q. 10000 100000 1000000 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
Reference Sampling Method Reference Sampling Method
Median VOC Concentration (jig/kg)
Median VOC Concentration (jig/kg)
Note: (Jg/kg = micrograms per kilogram
Figure 5-1. Comparative Plot of Median VOC Concentrations for the ESP and Reference Sampling Method at the SBA and CSC Sites
-------
method median concentrations. The total number of pairs in which the median concentrations were
higher with the ESP 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 ESP are higher
is equal to the probability of the number of pairs in which the median concentrations in the reference
sampling method are higher. A binomial expansion was used to determine the exact probability of the
number of data sets in which the median concentrations for the ESP and reference sampling method
were higher. If the calculated probability is less than 5 percent (p < 0.05), then a significant
difference is present between the ESP and reference sampling method.
The sign test data are provided in Table 5-6 and are summarized in Appendix A5, Table A5. At the
CSC site, the calculated probability is greater than 0.05; therefore, the difference is not statistically
significant. However, the calculated probability at the SBA site is less than 0.05 indicating that the ESP
yielded results that, statistically, were significantly different than the results for the reference sampling
method (probability of 3.1 percent). This result suggests that in sampling fine-grained soils, the
reference sampling method tends to yield higher VOC concentrations than does the ESP.
Table 5-6. Sign Test Results for the ESP and the Reference Sampling Method
Number of Pairs in Which the Median
Concentration is Higher than Other Method
Sampler SBA Site CSC Site
Reference Sampler
ESP
Total Comparisons
7
1
8
4
9
13
Calculated Probability 0.031 0.087
Sample Integrity
Seven integrity samples were collected with the ESP in Grid 1 at the SBA site and five integrity samples
were collected in Grid 1 at the CSC site, as described in Chapter 3, to determine if potting soil in a
lined sampler interior became contaminated after it was advanced through a zone of high VOC
concentrations. For the ESP, VOCs were detected in two of the 12 integrity samples: two at the SBA
site and none at the CSC site. One of the integrity samples collected at the SBA site contained cis-1,2-
DCE at 5,700 • g/kg, TCE at 4,070 • g/kg, and PCE at 212 • g/kg; the other sample contained cis-1,2-
DCE at 114 • g/kg and TCE at 3.17 • g/kg. These results indicate that the integrity of a lined chamber
of the ESP may not be preserved when the sampler is advanced through highly contaminated soils.
Results of sample integrity tests for the reference 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.
46
-------
Sample Throughput
Sample retrieval time was measured as the amount of time required to set up at a sampling point, collect
the specified sample, backfill the hole with granular bentonite, decontaminate the sampling equipment,
and move to a new sampling location. The average retrieval time for the ESP was 36.9 minutes per
sample at the SB A site using a single operator and 22.5 minutes per sample when two operators were
used. Two operators were used for all grids sampled at the CSC site, resulting in an average sample
retrieval time of 13.4 minutes per sample. Table 5-7 presents a comparison of the average sample
retrieval times for the ESP to those for the reference sampling method. The average sample retrieval
times for the ESP (when two operators were used) were slightly quicker than the reference sampling
method in the clay soils at the SB A site. However, the retrieval times for the ESP were based on
samples collected at 3.5, 6.5, and 9.5 feet bgs, while the average sample retrieval times for the
reference method were calculated based on the amount of time required to sample these same target
depths and two additional target depths not sampled using the ESP: the 13.5-foot depths at Grids 1 and
5. For this reason, the sample retrieval times for the ESP and the reference method may not be directly
comparable for the SBA site. The average sample retrieval times for the ESP were slower than the
reference sampling method when collecting samples at depths of 3.0, 6.5, and 7.5 feet 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 ESP and reference sampling method data have been deemed
acceptable for use as described in the demonstration design (Chapter 3). The results of the QC
indicators selected for this demonstration for both the ESP 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.
Table 5-7. Average Sample Retrieval Times for the ESP and the Reference Sampling Method
Average Sample Retrieval Time (minutes per sample)
Sampler SBA Site CSC Site
ESP 36.9a/22.5b 13.4b
Reference Sampling Method 26 8.4
Note: One- and two-person sampling crews collected soil samples using the ESP at the SBA and CSC sites, and
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.
a One-person sampling crew
Two-person sampling crew
47
-------
Chapter 6
Economic Analysis
The ESP 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 ESP at sites
similar to those used in this demonstration. The demonstration costs for the reference sampling method
are also provided.
The purpose of this economic analysis is to estimate the range of costs for using a Clements Associates,
Inc., ESP 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 Clements
Associates, Inc. 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 ESP.
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 22.5 minutes per sample for the clay soil site and 13.4 minutes per sample
at the sandy soil site. This cost estimate assumes that manual methods are used to advance the ESP and
a hollow-stem auger drilling platform is used to advance the reference method. The cost estimate also
assumes that minimal operator training is required for the ESP (less than one hour).
JMC Environmentalist s Subsoil Probe
Costs for implementing the ESP are presented in two categories: (1) sampling equipment costs, which
may include sampler purchase or rental costs and daily equipment use costs, and (2) operating and
oversight costs, which include labor costs for sampling and other direct costs such as equipment
shipping, supplies, IDW disposal, and site restoration.
The cost categories and associated cost elements are defined and discussed below and serves as the basis
for the estimate cost ranges presented in Table 6-1.
Sampling Equipment Costs. This cost category accounts for obtaining the ESP sampling equipment
required to extract soil samples from the subsurface and for daily equipment use. The ESP can either
be purchased or rented.
48
-------
Table 6-1. Estimated Subsurface Soil Sampling Costs for the JMC Environmentalist s Subsoil
Probe
Sampling Equipment Costs
ESP Sampler Purchase = $2,780
ESP Sampler Rental = $250 per day
Daily Equipment Use (Optional) = $150 to $300 per day
Operating and Oversight Costs
Clay Soil Site
Total Sampling Time = 15 to 19 hours (2 days)
Total Samples Collected = 42
Total Sample Depth = 400 feet
Sample Crew Size = 2 People
Sandy Soil Site
Total Sampling Time = 9 to 11 hours (1 day)
Total Samples Collected = 42
Total Sample Depth = 200 feet
Sample Crew Size = 2 People
Labor Costs
Mobilization/Demobilization
Travel
Per Diem
Sample Collection and
Oversight
Other Direct Costs
Equipment Shipping
Supplies
IDW Disposal
Site Restoration
Range of Operating and
Oversight Costs*
$600-$1,000
$6 - $30
0 - $600
$1,500-$1,900
$50-$100
$25-$75
$200 - $300
$100-$200
$2,480 - $4,210
Labor Costs
Mobilization/Demobilization
Travel
Per Diem
Sample Collection and Oversight
Other Direct Costs
Equipment Shipping
Supplies
IDW Disposal
Site Restoration
$600-$1,000
$6 - $30
0 - $300
$900-$1,100
$50-$100
$25-$75
$200 - $300
$100-$200
$1,880-$3,110
* The range of Operating and Oversight Costs is rounded to the nearest tens of dollars and does not include
Sampling Equipment Costs.
Purchase Cost — The ESP purchase cost is estimated to be $2,780, which includes the ESP
sampler and 15 liners ($1,826), one master extension rod ($187), six 36-inch extension rods
for collecting samples at 20 feet bgs ($107 each), and 30 36-inch plastic liners ($63.55 for 15
liners).
Rental Cost — The ESP rental cost from Clements Associates, Inc. is $250 per day. Sampler
rental includes the ESP, one master extension rod, and six 36-inch extension rods. However,
plastic liners must be purchased at an additional cost of $191 ($63.55 for 15 liners).
Daily Equipment Use Costs — Daily equipment costs are estimated to range from $150 to $300
per day for the optional electric hammer and an 1,850-watt generator.
49
-------
Operating and Oversight Costs. Operating costs are segregated into labor costs and other direct costs,
as follows:
Labor costs include mobilization/demobilization, travel, per diem, and sample collection and oversight.
• Mobilization/Demobilization Labor Costs — This cost element includes the time for two
personnel 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 each 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 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).
• Sample Collection and Oversight Labor Costs — On-site labor may include a registered
geologist and another environmental scientist to operate the sample probe, collect samples, and
oversee sample collection. The total number of people on site is two. Based on the average
demonstration sample retrieval times, sample collection and oversight labor is estimated to be 15
to 19 hours each for two people at the clay soil site, and 9 to 11 hours each for two people at
the sandy soil site. Labor rates are estimated at $50 per hour. This labor estimate includes time
for decontamination and site restoration.
Other direct costs include equipment shipping, supplies, IDW disposal, and site restoration costs.
• Equipment Shipping — These costs include the cost of shipping the ESP to and from the
sampling site and are estimated to range from $50 to $100.
• 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 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 ESP
because of the direct-push nature of the sampler advancement unit. No costs are included for
wastewater disposal.
• 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.
50
-------
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
Sample 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
Sample Crew Size = 3 People
Labor Costs
Mobilization/Demobilization
Travel
Per Diem
Sampling Oversight
Other Direct Costs
Supplies
IDW Disposal
$300 - $500
$6 - $30
0 - $300
$900- $1,100
$25-$75
$3,000-$4,500
Labor Costs
Mobilization/Demobilization
Travel
Per Diem
Sampling Oversight
Other Direct Costs
Supplies
IDW Disposal
Range of Oversight Costs* $4,230 - $6,510
$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.
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.
51
-------
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 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).
• 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 is 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.
52
-------
Chapter 7
Summary of Demonstration Results
This chapter summarizes the technology performance results. The Clements Associates, Inc. ESP 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 ESP:
• 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 28 samples collected at the SB A site ranged from 42 to 100 percent, with an
average sample recovery of 96 percent. Sample recoveries from 42 samples collected at the
CSC site ranged from 72 to 100 percent, with an average sample recovery of 95 percent.
Using the reference method, sample recoveries from 42 samples collected at the SB A 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 ESP sampler and the
reference sampler indicates that the ESP achieved higher sample recoveries in both the clay soil
at the SBA site and 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 ESP and the
reference sampling method at five sampling depths in eight grids (four at the SBA site and four
at the CSC site) were analyzed for VOCs. For 16 of the 18 ESP and reference sampling
method pairs (seven at the SBA site and 11 at the CSC site), a statistical analysis using the
Mann-Whitney test indicated no significant statistical difference at the 95 percent level between
VOC concentrations in samples collected with the ESP and those collected with the reference
sampling method. A statistically significant difference was identified for one sample pair
collected at the SBA site and one sample pair at the CSC site. Analysis of the CSC site data,
using the sign test, indicated no statistical difference between the data obtained by the ESP and
the reference sampling method. However, at the SBA site, the sign test indicated that the data
obtained by the ESP are statistically significantly different than the data obtained by the
reference sampling method, suggesting that the reference method tends to yield higher
concentrations in sampling fine-grained soils than does the ESP.
• Sample Integrity: Seven integrity samples were collected with each sampling method at the
SBA site, and five integrity samples were collected with each sampling method at the CSC site
to determine if potting soil in a lined sampler became contaminated after it was advanced
through a zone of high VOC concentrations. For the ESP, VOCs were detected in two of the
53
-------
12 integrity samples: both at the SBA site. One of the integrity samples collected at the
SBA site contained cis-l,2-DCE at 5,700 • g/kg, TCE at 4,070 • g/kg, and PCE at 212
• g/kg; the other sample contained cis-1,2-DCE at 114 • g/kg and TCE at 3.17 • g/kg.
These results indicate that the integrity of a lined chamber of the ESP may not be
preserved when the sampler is advanced through highly contaminated soils. Results of
sample integrity tests for the reference method indicated no contamination in the potting
soil after it was advanced 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 conditions.
Reliability and Throughput: At both the SBA and CSC sites, the ESP collected a sample from
the desired depth on the initial attempt 100 percent of the time. Two target zones were not
sampled at the SBA site due to the technology developer s absence on several days during the
demonstration; however, no planned samples were omitted due to equipment failure. Collection
of saturated soil samples using the ESP at 40 feet below ground surface (bgs) in Grid 5 at the
CSC site was not attempted because the sample depth was beyond the ESP s performance range.
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 a single operator to set up
the ESP on a sampling point, collect the specified sample, backfill the hole with granular
bentonite, decontaminate the sampler, and move to a new sampling location at the SBA site was
36.9 minutes per sample. The average sample retrieval time at the SBA site was 22.5 minutes
per sample when two operators were used. Two operators were used for all grids sampled at the
CSC site, resulting in an average sample retrieval time of 13.4 minutes per sample. For the
reference sampling method, the average sample retrieval times at the SBA and CSC sites were 26
and 8.4 minutes per sample, respectively. 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 oversee and assist with sample collection using the reference method.
• Cost: Based on the demonstration results and information provided by the vendor, the ESP can
be purchased for $2,780 or rented for $250 per day. The optional electric hammer and
generator can be rented for $150 to $300 per day. Operating costs for the ESP ranged from
$2,480 to $4,210 at the clay soil site and $1,880 to $3,110 at the sandy soil site. For this
demonstration, the reference sampling was procured at a lump sum rate of $13,700 for the clay
soil site and $7,700 for the sandy soil site. Oversight costs for the reference method 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 soil sampling method.
In general, the data quality indicators selected for this demonstration met the established QA objectives
and support the usefulness of the demonstration results in verifying the ESP s performance.
A qualitative performance assessment of the ESP indicated that (1) the sampler is easy to use and
requires no specialized training to operate; (2) logistical requirements are generally less than those for
the reference sampling method; (3) sample handling is similar to the reference method; (4) the
performance range is limited by the advancement platform, although the ESP successfully retrieved a
sample on one of two sampling attempts at depths greater than 25 feet; and (5) no drill cuttings are
generated when using the ESP.
The demonstration results indicate that the ESP can provide useful, cost-effective samples for
environmental problem-solving. However, in some cases, VOC data collected using the ESP may be
54
-------
statistically different from VOC data collected using the reference sampling method. Also, the integrity
of a lined sample chamber may not be preserved when the sampler is advanced through highly
contaminated clay soils. As with any technology selection, the user must determine what is appropriate
for the application and project data quality objectives.
55
-------
Chapter 8
Technology Update
Clements Associates, Inc. has been in the business of manufacturing and selling hand-operated soil
investigation equipment since 1972. The ESP system, used at the performance verification
demonstration in June 1997, was developed initially to sample for agrichemical residues that contained
radioactive trace elements.
The ESP has been used for a large range of environmental soil investigations. Its light weight and
compact size mean that sampling personnel can carry it in the trunk of a passenger car or check it as
airline baggage. This extreme portability and ease of use make the ESP a useful reconnaissance tool or,
in many cases, the only subsurface investigation equipment of many consulting firms.
The ESP is being used in all of the United States, Canada, Mexico, Australia, Japan, Bolivia, England,
and France. Units used in Bolivia were selected for use there by a large U.S.-based environmental
consulting firm because of the simplicity, portability, and ease of operation. Much of the field work was
done by local personnel having no previous sampling experience.
In addition to site assessment work, the ESP and the ESP Plus are used by agrichemical companies and
agricultural research firms conducting soil dissipation or environmental fate studies as required by the
EPA. The benefits are smaller plot sizes, the ability to sample regardless of surface ground conditions,
ease of moving sampling equipment to remote locations or plots with limited access, and more efficient
and more rapid sampling. Clements Associates, Inc. has developed a system of sampling tubes called
Concentric Sampling Tubes for collecting the uppermost portion of the sample, which contains the
highest amount of chemical contaminants.
The ESP Plus was developed to provide a larger volume of sample. It is of greater use in the soil
dissipation arena.
Chapter 8 was written solely by Clements Associates, Inc. The statements presented in this chapter
represent the vendor s point of view and summarize the claims made by the vendor regarding the
ESP. 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 ESP are discussed in
other chapters of this report.
56
-------
Chapter 9
Previous Deployment
Although Clements Associates, Inc., claims that the ESP has been used widely throughout the United
States and internationally, they chose not to provide additional information in this chapter on previous
deployment of the ESP.
57
-------
References
Bohn, H., Brian, M., and George, 0. 1979. Soil Chemistry. John Wiley & Sons. New York, New
York.
Central Mine Equipment Company. 1994. Augers Brochure. St. Louis, Missouri.
Clements Associates, Inc. 1997. Product Schematics.
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.
58
-------
APPENDIX A
DATA SUMMARY TABLES AND STATISTICAL METHOD
DESCRIPTIONS
FOR THE
CLEMENTS ASSOCIATES, INC.
JMC ENVIRONMENTALIST'S SUBSOIL PROBE (ESP)
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 Environmentalist s Subsoil Probe (ESP) 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 SB A 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 26 for the ESP data and 52 for the reference sampling methods.
A Mann-Whitney statistic is then calculated for each data set as follows:
Mann-Whitney! = N:N2 + N1flNf1 + 1) - sum of ranks value for the first data set
2
and
Mann-Whitney2 = NjN2 + N2(N2 + 1) - sum of ranks value for the second data set
Where
Nj 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
Sampler
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
Reference
Reference
Reference
Reference
Reference
Reference
Reference
Sum of ESP Ranks
(12 + 1 + 5 + 6 + 2 = 26)
Sample
Location
A5
Bl
E7
F3
G5
A3
B2
C2
D4
E4
F2
G7
cis-l,2-DCE
Concentration
(mg/kg)
182
22.3
65.8
66.1
23.2
49.7
86.7
109
147
67.1
98.4
50.2
Sum of Reference Sampler Ranks
(3 + 8 + 10+11 + 7 + 9 + 4 = 52)
Mann-Whitney! Statistic
Mann-Whitney2 Statistic
Critical Mann- Whitney Value (for N1=7
Significance (Mann-Whitney
Statistic >
, N2=7, p = 0.05)
30?)
cis-l,2-DCE
Concentration
Rank
12
1
5
6
2
3
8
10
11
7
9
4
26
52
24
11
30
no
Median
Value
Rank
5
1
3
4
2
1
4
6
7
3
5
2
A-4
-------
For the example provided in Table Al, the equations become:
Mann-Whitney2 = (7)(5) + 5(5 + 1) - 26
2
Mann-Whitney2 = 35 + 15-26
Mann-Whitney2 = 24
and
Mann-\Vhitneyj = (7) (5) -
Mann-Whitney! = 35 + 28-52
Mann-Whitneyi = 11
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 = 5 is of interest. For a two-tailed test with a significance level of
0.05, the Mann-Whitney statistic value is 30 (Rohlf and Sokal, 1969). Therefore, when the Mann-
Whitney statistic value is greater than 30, 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 24, which is less
than 30; 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
([1 + 2 + 3J/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 ESP 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 ESP median concentrations and (2) the
number of pairs in which the ESP median concentrations were higher than the reference sampling
method median concentrations. The total number of pairs in which the median concentrations were
higher in ESP 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 ESP are higher is equal
to the probability of the number of pairs in which the median concentrations in the reference sampling
method are higher. A binomial expansion was used to determine the exact probability of the number
of data sets in which the median concentrations in the ESP and reference sampling method were
higher. If the calculated probability is less then 5 percent (p < 0.05), then a significant difference is
present between the ESP 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. ENVIRONMENTALIST'S SUBSOIL PROBE SAMPLER RECOVERY TEST DATA
SBA SITE
Sample Number
CLEAC1G509.5
CLEAG1A509.5
CLEAG1B109.5
CLEAG1C309.5
CLEAG1D709.5
CLEAG1E109.5
CLEAG1F309.5
CLEAG2A603.5
CLEAG2B103.5
CLEAG2C603.5
CLEAG2D403.5
CLEAG2E303.5
CLEAG2G103.5
CLEAG2F603.5
CLEAG3A509.5
CLEAG3B309.5
CLEAG3C209.5
CLEAG3D509.5
CLEAG3E409.5
CLEAG3F109.5
CLEAG3G309.5
CLEAG4A709.5
CLEAG4B609.5
CLEAG4C209.5
CLEAG4D509.5
CLEAG4F709.5
CLEAG4E209.5
CLEAG4G509.5
Sample
Location
G5
A5
Bl
C3
D7
El
F3
A6
Bl
C6
D4
E3
Gl
F6
A5
B3
C2
D5
E4
Fl
G3
A7
B6
C2
D5
F7
E2
G5
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
Reported Length
Pushed (in.)
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
36.0
30.0
36.0
36.0
36.0
30.0
36.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
36.0
12.0
12.0
36.0
24.0
36.0
36.0
Reported Length
Recovered (in.)
12.0
13.0
15.0
12.0
18.0
15.0
15.0
36.0
26.0
34.0
34.0
31.0
27.0
36.0
20.0
5.0
14.0
18.0
18.0
16.0
12.0
36.0
15.0
18.0
36.0
24.0
36.0
36.0
Sample Recovery
(%)
100.0%
100.0%a
100.0%a
100.0%
100.0%a
100.0%a
100.0%a
100.0%
86.7%
94.4%
94.4%
86.1%
90.0%
100.0%
100.0%a
41.7%
100.0%a
100.0%a
100.0%a
100.0%a
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%a
100.0%a
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Sample recovery is reported as 100 percent when length recovered is greater than length pushed
Average: 96.2%
Range: 41.7%- 100%
Total # Samples: 28
A-8
-------
TABLE A2b. ENVIRONMENTALIST'S SUBSOIL PROBE SAMPLER RECOVERY TEST DATA
CSC SITE
Sample Number
CLECG1A103.0
CLECG1B403.0
CLECG1C103.0
CLECG1D303.0
CLECG1E703.0
CLECG1F603.0
CLECG1G103.0
CLECG1A106.5
CLECG1B406.5
CLECG1C106.5
CLECG1D306.5
CLECG1E706.5
CLECG1F606.5
CLECG1G106.5
CLECG2A503.0
CLECG2C603.0
CLECG2F403.0
CLECG2E603.0
CLECG2B203.0
CLECG2D303.0
CLECG2G603.0
CLECG3A503.0
CLECG3B403.0
CLECG3C603.0
CLECG3D503.0
CLECG3E303.0
CLECG3F403.0
CLECG3G503.0
CLECG3A507.5
CLECG3B407.5
CLECG3C607.5
CLECG3D507.5
CLECG3E307.5
CLECG3F407.5
CLECG3G507.5
CLECG4A306.5
CLECG4B506.5
CLECG4C606.5
CLECG4D706.5
CLECG4E306.5
CLECG4F506.5
CLECG4G406.5
Sample
Location
Al
B4
Cl
D3
E7
F6
Gl
Al
B4
Cl
D3
E7
F6
Gl
A5
C6
F4
E6
B2
D3
G6
A5
B4
C6
D5
E3
F4
G5
A5
B4
C6
D5
E3
F4
G5
A3
B5
C6
D7
E3
F5
G4
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.)
36.0
36.0
36.0
36.0
36.0
36.0
36.0
36.0
36.0
36.0
36.0
36.0
36.0
36.0
36.0
36.0
36.0
36.0
36.0
36.0
36.0
36.0
36.0
36.0
36.0
36.0
36.0
36.0
36.0
36.0
36.0
36.0
36.0
36.0
36.0
36.0
36.0
36.0
36.0
36.0
36.0
36.0
Reported Length
Recovered (in.)
32.0
36.0
36.0
33.0
36.0
36.0
35.0
34.5
31.5
31.0
32.0
31.5
32.0
32.0
33.0
36.0
36.0
33.5
36.0
33.0
36.0
36.0
34.0
36.0
36.0
35.0
32.0
36.0
31.5
32.0
29.0
26.0
36.0
31.0
34.0
36.0
36.0
36.0
36.0
36.0
36.0
36.0
Sample Recovery
(%)
88.9%
100.0%
100.0%
91.7%
100.0%
100.0%
97.2%
95.8%
87.5%
86.1%
88.9%
87.5%
88.9%
88.9%
91.7%
100.0%
100.0%
93.1%
100.0%
91.7%
100.0%
100.0%
94.4%
100.0%
100.0%
97.2%
88.9%
100.0%
87.5%
88.9%
80.6%
72.2%
100.0%
86.1%
94.4%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Average:
Range:
Total # Samples:
94.5%
72.2 - 100.0%
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
REFCG2C 103.0
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 ENVIRONMENTALIST'S SUBSOIL PROBE SAMPLER AND REFERENCE SAMPLING METHOD
SBA SITE - GRID 1-9.5 FEET
>
00
Sample
Name
Sample
Location
Soil
Type
Concentration
Zone
Contaminant Concentration ^lg/kg)
cis-l,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
ENVIRONMENTALIST'S SUBSOIL PROBE SAMPLER DATA
CLEAG1A509.5
CLEAG1B109.5
CLEAG1E709.5
CLEAG1F309.5
CLEAG1G509.5
A5
Bl
E7
F3
G5
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
High
High
High
High
High
182,441
22,319
65,819
66,130
23,237
100
100
100
100
100
63,996
53,779
454,575
551,013
78,916
570
100
3,622
2,357
100
Range: 22,300-182,000 100 53,800-551,000100-3,620
Median: 65,800 NC 78,900 570
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
Range: 49,700 - 147,000 100
Median: 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 ENVIRONMENTALIST'S SUBSOIL PROBE SAMPLER AND REFERENCE SAMPLING METHOD
SB A SITE - GRID 1-13.5 FEET
Sample
Name
Sample
Location
Soil
Type
Concentration
Zone
Contaminant Concentration ^lg/kg)
cis-l,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
ENVIRONMENTALIST'S SUBSOIL PROBE SAMPLER DATA
ENVIRONMENTALISTS 'S SUBSOIL PROBE SAMPLER DATA NOT COLLECTED
Median:
REFERENCE SAMPLING METHOD DATA
REFAG5A213.5
REFAG5C213.5
REFAG5C213.5E
REFAG5D613.5
REFAG5E313.5
REFAG5F313.5
REFAG5G413.5
A2
C2
C2
D6
E3
F3
G4
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
Range:
Median:
1,360-44,900 100
14,500 NC
26,700-433,000 100
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 ENVIRONMENTALIST'S SUBSOIL PROBE SAMPLER AND REFERENCE SAMPLING METHOD
SB A SITE - GRID 2-3.5 FEET
Sample
Name
Sample
Location
Soil
Type
Concentration
Zone
Contaminant Concentration ^ig/kg)
cis-l,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
ENVIRONMENTALIST'S SUBSOIL PROBE SAMPLER DATA
CLEAG2A603.5
CLEAG2B103.5
CLEAG2C603.5
CLEAG2D403.5
CLEAG2E303.5
CLEAG2F603.5
CLEAG2G103.5
A6
Bl
C6
D4
E3
F6
Gl
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
3.42
1
1
1
3.08
1
4.34
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
328
37.4
159
71.0
143
109
155
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Range:
Median:
1 - 4.34
NC
1
NC
37.4-328
143
1
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
22.6-8*
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 ENVIRONMENTALIST'S SUBSOIL PROBE SAMPLER AND REFERENCE SAMPLING METHOD
SBA SITE - GRID 3-9.5 FEET
>
CTJ
Sample
Name
Sample
Location
Soil
Type
Concentration
Zone
Contaminant Concentration (ig/kg)
cis-l,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
ENVIRONMENTALIST'S SUBSOIL PROBE SAMPLER DATA
CLEAG3A509.5
CLEAG3B309.5
CLEAG3C209.5
CLEAG3D509.5
CLEAG3E409.5
CLEAG3F109.5
CLEAG3G309.5
A5
B3
C2
D5
E4
Fl
G3
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
1,363
891
662
1,538
1,378
344
366
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
36,955
49,180
13,215
26,253
24,162
20,796
31,494
100
138
100
100
100
100
100
Range: 344-1,540 100 13,200-49,200 100-138
Median: 891 NC 26,300 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
Note:
NC =
Range: 796-1,460 100 34,100-63,700 100
Median: 903 NC 38,500 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 ENVIRONMENTALIST'S SUBSOIL PROBE SAMPLER AND REFERENCE SAMPLING METHOD
SBA SITE - GRID 4-9.5 FEET
Sample
Name
Sample
Location
Soil
Type
Concentration
Zone
Contaminant Concentration (ig/kg)
cis-l,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
ENVIRONMENTALIST'S SUBSOIL PROBE SAMPLER DATA
CLEAG4A709.5
CLEAG4B609.5
CLEAG4C209.5
CLEAG4D509.5
CLEAG4E209.5
CLEAG4F709.5
CLEAG4G509.5
A7
B6
C2
D5
E2
F7
G5
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
8.06
16.4
7.44
9.63
8.81
15.3
10.7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
837
2,193
1,007
2,087
1,237
1,071
1,229
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Range:
Median:
7.44 - 16.4
9.63
1
NC
837 - 2,190
1,230
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
Range:
Median:
6.68- 22.1
13.2
1
NC
847- 2,080
1,710
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 A3f. VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND CONCENTRATIONS
FOR ENVIRONMENTALIST'S SUBSOIL PROBE SAMPLER AND REFERENCE SAMPLING METHOD
SB A SITE - GRID 5-13.5 FEET
Sample
Name
Sample
Location
Soil
Type
Concentration
Zone
Contaminant Concentration ^lg/kg)
cis-l,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
ENVIRONMENTALIST'S SUBSOIL PROBE SAMPLER DATA
ENVIRONMENTALISTS 'S SUBSOIL PROBE SAMPLER DATA NOT COLLECTED
Median:
>
oo
Range:
Median:
33.7- 147
93.6
1
NC
Note:
NC =
1 - 138
21.0
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.
REFERENCE SAMPLING METHOD DATA
REFAG5A213.5
REFAG5C213.5
REFAG5C213.5E
REFAG5D613.5
REFAG5E313.5
REFAG5F313.5
REFAG5G413.5
A2
C2
C2
D6
E3
F3
G4
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
81.2
118
89
147
106
59.5
33.7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
23.3
58.0
42
138
18.7
3.23
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
NC
-------
TABLE A3g. VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND CONCENTRATIONS
FOR ENVIRONMENTALIST'S SUBSOIL PROBE SAMPLER AND REFERENCE SAMPLING METHOD
CSC SITE - GRID 1-3.0 FEET
Sample
Name
Sample
Location
Soil
Type
Concentration
Zone
Contaminant Concentration ^lg/kg)
cis-l,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
ENVIRONMENTALIST'S SUBSOIL PROBE SAMPLER DATA
CLECG1A103.0
CLECG1B403.0
CLECG1F603.0
Al
B4
F6
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
High
High
High
100
100
100
100
100
440
100
100
100
4,318
4,500
3,584
Range:
Median:
100 100-440 100 3,580-4,500
NC NC NC 4,320
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 ENVIRONMENTALIST'S SUBSOIL PROBE SAMPLER AND REFERENCE SAMPLING METHOD
CSC SITE - GRID 1-6.5 FEET
to
o
Sample
Name
Sample
Location
Soil
Type
Concentration
Zone
Contaminant Concentration ^lg/kg)
cis-l,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
ENVIRONMENTALIST'S SUBSOIL PROBE SAMPLER DATA
CLECG1A106.5
CLECG1B406.5
CLECG1C106.5
CLECG1D306.5
CLECG1E706.5
CLECG1F606.5
CLECG1G106.5
Al
B4
Cl
D3
E7
F6
Gl
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
1
1
7.33
5.29
6.03
7.70
3.84
65.4
20.2
49.9
38.8
33.0
80.1
20.2
1
5.11
15.5
12.3
11.7
23.5
10.5
840
113
173
207
340
496
294
Range: 1-7.70 20.2-80.1 1-23.5 113-840
Median: 5.29 38.8 11.7 294
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 3.47-22.4 58.5-848
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 COMPOUND CONCENTRATIONS
FOR ENVIRONMENTALIST'S SUBSOIL PROBE SAMPLER AND REFERENCE SAMPLING METHOD
CSC SITE - GRID 2-3.0 FEET
>
to
Range:
Median:
100
NC
100
NC
100
NC
Sample
Name
Sample
Location
Soil
Type
Concentration
Zone
Contaminant Concentration
cis-l,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
^g/kg)
PCE
ENVIRONMENTALIST'S SUBSOIL PROBE SAMPLER DATA
CLECG2A503.0
CLECG2C603.0
CLECG2F403.0
CLECG2G603.0
A5
C6
F4
G6
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
High
High
High
High
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
376
377
532
1,078
376 - 1,080
454
REFERENCE SAMPLING METHOD DATA
REFCG2A103.0
REFCG2B603.0
REFCG2C 103.0
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
Range:
Median:
100 100-984 100-435 1,560-2,910
NC 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 ENVIRONMENTALIST'S SUBSOIL PROBE SAMPLER AND REFERENCE SAMPLING METHOD
CSC SITE - GRID 3-3.0 FEET
to
to
Sample
Name
Sample
Location
Soil
Type
Concentration
Zone
Contaminant Concentration ^lg/kg)
cis-l,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
ENVIRONMENTALIST'S SUBSOIL PROBE SAMPLER DATA
CLECG3A503.0
CLECG3B403.0
CLECG3C603.0
CLECG3D503.0
CLECG3E303.0
CLECG3F403.0
CLECG3G503.0
A5
B4
C6
D5
E3
F4
G5
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
944
1,022
1,259
473
843
1,161
1,587
Range:
Median:
100
NC
100
NC
100
NC
Range:
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.
473- 1,590
1,020
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
1,030- 2,110
1,480
-------
TABLE A3k. VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND CONCENTRATIONS
FOR ENVIRONMENTALIST'S SUBSOIL PROBE SAMPLER AND REFERENCE SAMPLING METHOD
CSC SITE - GRID 3-7.5 FEET
>
to
Sample
Name
Sample
Location
Soil
Type
Concentration
Zone
Contaminant Concentration (ig/kg)
cis-l,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
TCE | PCE
ENVIRONMENTALIST'S SUBSOIL PROBE SAMPLER DATA
CLECG3B407.5
CLECG3C607.5
CLECG3D507.5
CLECG3E307.5
CLECG3F407.5
CLECG3G507.5
B4
C6
D5
E3
F4
G5
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
1
4.06
1
1
1
5.85
6.44
43.0
7.92
9.50
10.0
38.2
4.59
32.8
8.21
7.73
7.57
25.4
33.6
191
76.6
48.1
71.1
112
Range: 1-5.85 6.44-43.0 4.59-32.8 33.6-191
Median: NC 9.77 7.97 73.9
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
Note:
NC =
Range: 1-7.35 3.81-21.9 2.48-31.7 21.1-177
Median: 4.12 13.9 14.9 73.0
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 ENVIRONMENTALIST'S SUBSOIL PROBE SAMPLER AND REFERENCE SAMPLING METHOD
CSC SITE - GRID 4-6.5 FEET
Sample
Name
Sample
Location
Soil
Type
Concentration
Zone
Contaminant Concentration (ig/kg)
cis-l,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
ENVIRONMENTALIST'S SUBSOIL PROBE SAMPLER DATA
CLECG4C606.5
CLECG4D706.5
CLECG4F506.5
CLECG4G406.5
C6
D7
F5
G4
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Coarse
Low
Low
Low
Low
1
4.11
1
1
17.2
28.4
14.8
11.6
6.28
10.7
4.96
3.56
166
135
116
48.7
>
to
Range: 1-4.11 11.6-28.4 3.56-10.7 48.7-166
Median: NC 16.0 5.62 126
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:
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.
1-5.72 1-51.4 1-43.3 5.55-749
NC 8.09 2.37 50.3
-------
TABLE A3m. VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND CONCENTRATIONS IN INTEGRITY SAMPLES
FOR ENVIRONMENTALIST'S SUBSOIL PROBE SAMPLER AND REFERENCE SAMPLING METHOD
SBA SITE
to
en
Sample
Name
Sample
Location
Soil
Type
Concentration
Zone
Contaminant Concentration ^ig/kg)
cis-l,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
ENVIRONMENTALIST'S SUBSOIL PROBE SAMPLER DATA
CLEAG1A50INT
CLEAG1B10INT
CLEAG1C30INT
CLEAG1D70INT
CLEAG1E10INT
CLEAG1F30INT
CLEAG1G50INT (02R)
A5
Bl
C3
D7
El
F3
G5
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
1
1
1
1
5,700
1
114
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4,066
1
3.17
1
1
1
1
212
1
1
Note:
NC =
Range:
Median:
Range:
Median:
1
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.
1-5,700 1 1-4,070 1-212
NC NC NC 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 ENVIRONMENTALIST'S SUBSOIL PROBE SAMPLER AND REFERENCE SAMPLING METHOD
CSC SITE
>
to
Sample
Name
Sample
Location
Soil
Type
Concentration
Zone
Contaminant Concentration (ig/kg)
cis-l,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
ENVIRONMENTALIST'S SUBSOIL PROBE SAMPLER DATA
CLECG1A10INT
CLECG1C10INT
CLECG1D30INT
CLECG1E70INT
CLECG1F60INT
Al
Cl
D3
E7
F6
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
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
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
1
NC
-------
APPENDIX A4
STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF MANN-WHITNEY TEST
A-27
-------
TABLE A4a. COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF MANN-WHITNEY STATISTICS FOR THE
ENVIRONMENTALIST S SUBSOIL PROBE SAMPLER AND
REFERENCE SAMPLING METHOD
Sampling Location
Site: SBA
Grid: 1
Depth: 9.5 feet
Soil Type: Fine
Concentration: High
Site: SBA
Grid: 2
Depth: 3.5 feet
Soil Type: Fine
Concentration: Low
Site: SBA
Grid: 3
Depth: 9.5 feet
Soil Type: Fine
Concentration: High
Site: SBA
Grid: 4
Depth: 9.5 feet
Soil Type: Fine
Concentration: Low
Site: CSC
Grid: 1
Depth: 3.0 feet
Soil Type: Coarse
Concentration: High
Site: CSC
Grid: 1
Depth: 6.5 feet
Soil Type: Coarse
Concentration: Low
Site: CSC
Grid: 2
Depth: 3.0 feet
Soil Type: Coarse
Concentration: High
cis-l,2-DCE
NO
NC (4)
NO
NO
NC
(ALL ND)
NO
NC
(ALL ND)
1,1,1-TCA
NC
(ALL ND)
NC
(ALL ND)
NC
(ALL ND)
NC
(ALL ND)
NC (4)
NO
NC (3)
TCE
NO
YES
NO
NO
NC
(ALL ND)
NO
NC(4)
PCE
NC (9)
NC
(ALL ND)
NC(1)
NC
(ALL ND)
NC (9)
NO
YES
A-28
-------
TABLE A4a. COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF MANN-WHITNEY STATISTICS FOR THE
ENVIRONMENTALIST S SUBSOIL PROBE SAMPLER AND
REFERENCE SAMPLING METHOD (continued)
Sampling Location
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
NC
(ALL ND)
NC (5)
NC (3)
1,1,1-TCA
NC(1)
NO
NO
TCE
NC
(ALL ND)
NO
NC (7)
PCE
NO
NO
NO
Notes:
NC No medians calculated because at least half the reported values were below the
method 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
ENVIRONMENTALIST S SUBSOIL PROBE SAMPLER AND
REFERENCE SAMPLING METHOD
SBA SITE
Site: SBA
Grid: 1
Depth: 9.5 feet
Soil Type: Fine
Concentration: High
Sum of Rank Statistics
ESP (1)
Reference (2)
NlN2 + [Nl(Nl + l)]/2
NlN2 + [N2(N2+l)]/2
Mann- Whitney 1
Mann- Whitney 2
Mann- Whitney >30?
N
5
7
cis-l,2-DCE
26
52
50
63
24
11
NO
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
33
45
50
63
17
18
NO
PCE
Site: SBA
Grid: 2
Depth: 3.5 feet
Soil Type: Fine
Concentration: Low
Sum of Rank Statistics
ESP (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
70
35
77
77
7
42
YES
PCE
A-30
-------
TABLE A4b. COMPARATIVE MANN-WHITNEY STATISTICS FOR THE
ENVIRONMENTALIST S SUBSOIL PROBE SAMPLER AND
REFERENCE SAMPLING METHOD
SBA SITE (continued)
Site: SBA
Grid: 3
Depth: 9.5 feet
Soil Type: Fine
Concentration: High
Sum of Rank Statistics
ESP (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
40
26
56
38
16
12
NO
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
33
33
56
38
23
5
NO
PCE
Site: SBA
Grid: 4
Depth: 9.5 feet
Soil Type: Fine
Concentration: Low
Sum of Rank Statistics
ESP (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
46
59
77
77
31
18
NO
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
50
55
77
77
27
22
NO
PCE
A-31
-------
TABLE A4c. COMPARATIVE MANN-WHITNEY STATISTICS FOR THE
ENVIRONMENTALIST S SUBSOIL PROBE SAMPLER AND
REFERENCE SAMPLING METHOD
CSC SITE
Site: CSC
Grid: 1
Depth: 3.0 feet
Soil Type: Coarse
Concentration: Low
Sum of Rank Statistics
ESP (1)
Reference (2)
NlN2 + [Nl(Nl + l)]/2
NlN2 + [N2(N2+l)]/2
Mann- Whitney 1
Mann- Whitney 2
Mann- Whitney > 17?
N
3
6
cis-l,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
Site: CSC
Grid: 1
Depth: 6.5 feet
Soil Type: Coarse
Concentration: Low
Sum of Rank Statistics
ESP (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
56.5
31.5
70
63
13.5
31.5
NO
1,1,1-TCA
60
31
70
63
10
32
NO
TCE
56
35
70
63
14
28
NO
PCE
59
32
70
63
11
31
NO
A-32
-------
TABLE A4c. COMPARATIVE MANN-WHITNEY STATISTICS FOR THE
ENVIRONMENTALIST S SUBSOIL PROBE 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
ESP (1)
Reference (2)
NlN2 + [Nl(Nl + l)]/2
NlN2 + [N2(N2+l)]/2
Mann- Whitney 1
Mann- Whitney 2
Mann- Whitney > 25?
N
4
7
cis-l,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
10
56
38
56
28
10
YES
Site: CSC
Grid: 3
Depth: 3.0 feet
Soil Type: Coarse
Concentration: High
Sum of Rank Statistics
ESP (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
35
56
70
63
35
7
NO
A-33
-------
TABLE A4c. COMPARATIVE MANN-WHITNEY STATISTICS FOR THE
ENVIRONMENTALIST S SUBSOIL PROBE 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
ESP (1)
Reference (2)
NlN2 + [Nl(Nl + l)]/2
NlN2 + [N2(N2+l)]/2
Mann- Whitney 1
Mann- Whitney 2
Mann- Whitney > 22?
N
6
4
cis-l,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
33
22
45
34
12
12
NO
TCE
32
23
45
34
13
11
NO
PCE
35
20
45
34
10
14
NO
Site: CSC
Grid: 4
Depth: 6.5 feet
Soil Type: Coarse
Concentration: Low
Sum of Rank Statistics
ESP (1)
Reference (2)
NlN2 + [Nl(Nl + l)]/2
NlN2 + [N2(N2+l)]/2
Mann- Whitney 1
Mann- Whitney 2
Mann- Whitney > 19?
N
4
5
cis-l,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
25
20
30
35
5
15
NO
TCE
PCE
24
21
30
35
6
14
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-34
-------
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-35
-------
APPENDIX A5
STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF SIGN TEST
A-36
-------
TABLE A5a. SIGN TEST SUMMARY
COMPARISON OF MEDIAN VOC CONCENTRATIONS FOR ENVIRONMENTALIST S
SUBSOIL PROBE SAMPLER AND REFERENCE SAMPLING METHOD
SBA SITE
Site Description Technology
Site: SBA Reference Sampling
Grid: 1 Method
Depth: 9.5 feet
^ , ,. TT. , Subsoil Probe Sampler
Concentration: High r
Site: SBA Reference Sampling
Grid: 2 Method
Depth: 3.5 feet
^ , ,. T Subsoil Probe Sampler
Concentration: Low r
Site: SBA Reference Sampling
Grid: 3 Method
Depth: 9.5 feet
^ , ,. TT. , Subsoil rrobe Sampler
Concentration: High r
Site: SBA Reference Sampling
Grid: 4 Method
Depth: 9.5 feet
^ . .. T Subsoil Probe Sampler
Concentration: Low r
Number of pairs in which Reference Sampling
Method median is higher
Number of pairs in which Subsoil Probe
Sampler median is higher
Notes:
NC No medians calculated because at least half
detection limit.
Median
cis-l,2-DCE
86,700
65,800
NC(1)
NC(3)
903
891
13.2
9.63
3
0
the reported values
Median
1,1,1-
TCA
ALLND
ALLND
ALLND
ALLND
ALLND
ALLND
ALLND
ALLND
0
0
were below the
Median
TCE
276,00
0
78,900
56.9
143
38,500
26,300
1,710
1,230
3
1
method
Median
PCE
1,630
570
ALLND
ALLND
ALLND
NC(1)
ALLND
ALLND
1
0
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).
A-37
-------
TABLE A5b. SIGN TEST SUMMARY
COMPARISON OF MEDIAN VOC CONCENTRATIONS FOR ENVIRONMENTALIST S
SUBSOIL PROBE SAMPLER AND REFERENCE SAMPLING METHOD
CSC SITE
Site Description
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
Site: CSC
Grid: 3
Depth: 7.5 feet
Concentration: Low
Site: CSC
Grid: 4
Depth: 6.5 feet
Concentration: Low
Technology
Reference Sampling
Method
Subsoil Probe Sampler
Reference Sampling
Method
Subsoil Probe Sampler
Reference Sampling
Method
Subsoil Probe Sampler
Reference Sampling
Method
Subsoil Probe Sampler
Reference Sampling
Method
Subsoil Probe Sampler
Reference Sampling
Method
Subsoil Probe Sampler
Number of pairs in which Reference Sampling
Method median is higher
Number of pairs in which Subsoil Probe
Sampler median is higher
Median
cis-l,2-DCE
ALLND
ALLND
2.20
5.29
ALLND
ALLND
ALLND
ALLND
4.12
NC(2)
NC(2)
NC(1)
0
1
Median
1,1,1-
TCA
NC(3)
NC(1)
25.9
38.8
NC(3)
ALLND
NC(1)
ALLND
13.9
9.77
8.09
16.0
1
2
Median
TCE
ALLND
ALLND
6.45
11.7
126
ALLND
ALLND
ALLND
14.9
7.97
2.37
5.62
1
2
Median
PCE
2,530
4,320
111
294
2,000
454
1,490
1,020
73.0
73.9
50.3
126
2
4
Notes:
NC No medians calculated because at least half the reported values were below the method 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).
A-38
------- |