Environmental Technology Verification Program Verification Statement Technology Type Soil Sampler Application Subsurface Soil Sampling Technology Name Jmc Environmentalist's Subsoil Probe Clements Associates Inc.

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Research and Development
Washington, D.C. 20460
ElV
3>
O
ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY VERIFICATION PROGRAM
VERIFICATION STATEMENT
TECHNOLOGY TYPE: SOIL SAMPLER
APPLICATION:
SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLING
I
I
TECHNOLOGY NAME: JMC ENVIRONMENTALIST'S SUBSOIL PROBE
COMPANY:
ADDRESS:
PHONE:
CLEMENTS ASSOCIATES, INC.
1992 HUNTER AVENUE
NEWTON, IOWA 50208
(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-V S-SCM-23
The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement
iii
August 1998

-------
cis-1,2-dichloroethene (cis-1,2-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 fj.g/kg, and PCE at 212
jWg/kg; the other sample contained cis-1,2-DCE at 114 /ug/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
iv
August 1998

-------
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.
Gary J. Foley, Ph.D.
Director
National Exposure Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
NOTICE: EPA verifications are based on an evaluation of technology performance under specific, predetermined criteria and
appropriate quality assurance procedures. EPA makes no expressed or implied warranties as to the performance of the
technology and does not certify that a technology will always operate as verified. The end user is solely responsible for
complying with any and all applicable federal, state, and local requirements.
EPA-VS-SCM-23
The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement
V
August 1998

-------