Groundwater Sampling and Monitoring with Direct Push Technologies

Solid Waste and

Emergency Response

(5204G)

OSWER No. 9200.1-51

EPA 540/R-04/005

August 2005

www.epa.gov

Groundwater Sampling and Monitoring

with Direct Push Technologies

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

Washington, DC 20460

This page left intentionally blank

NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER

This report has been funded wholly by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Contract

Number

68-W-02-033. The report is not intended, nor can it be relied upon to create any rights enforceable by any party

in litigation with the United States. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or

recommendation for use.

Copies of this report are available free of charge from the National Service Center for Environmental Publications

(NSCEP), P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, OH 45242-0419; telephone (800) 490-9198 or (513) 490-8190; or facsimile

(513) 489-8695. Refer to document EPA 540/R-04/005, Groundwater Sampling and Monitoring with Direct Push

Technologies.

This page left intentionally blank

Table of Contents

Figures ................................................................................. iii

Tables.................................................................................. iv

Abbreviations.............................................................................v

Section 1: Introduction .....................................................................1

Background ........................................................................1

Intended Audience ...................................................................1

Scope and Limitations ................................................................1

Advantages and Limitations of Direct Push Technologies ....................................2

How to Use This Guidance ............................................................3

Section 2: Summary of Direct Push Technology Groundwater Sampling Methods ......................5

Point-in-Time Sampling...............................................................6

Sealed-Screen Samplers.........................................................6

Multi-Level Samplers ..........................................................9

Open-Hole Sampling Methods ..................................................12

DPT Monitoring Well Installation ......................................................14

Exposed-Screen Well Installation Methods .........................................14

Protected-Screen Well and Filter Pack Installation Methods ...........................16

Specialized Measurement and Logging Tools .............................................18

Geotechnical ................................................................20

Geophysical .................................................................22

Hydrogeologic ...............................................................22

Analytical...................................................................22

Induced Fluorescence Systems ............................................22

Volatilization and Removal Systems ........................................23

Section 3: Data Quality Objectives for Groundwater Sampling .....................................25

Sample Bias .......................................................................25

Sample Turbidity .............................................................29

Sample Disturbance ...........................................................32

Sampling Interval.............................................................32

Sample Volume ....................................................................33

Sample Cross-Contamination .........................................................33

Selecting a DPT Groundwater Sampling Tool ............................................34

Section 4: Recommended Methods for Collecting Representative Groundwater Samples ...............35

Installation of a Filter Pack ...........................................................35

Well Development ..................................................................36

Low-Flow Purging and Sampling ......................................................36

Theoretical and Research Basis for Low-Flow Purging and Sampling....................37

Low-Flow Purging and Sampling Protocols ........................................38

Passive Sampling Protocols .....................................................38

Section 5: Recommended Methods for Minimizing Potential for Cross-Contamination ..................40

Avoiding Drag-down ................................................................40

Avoiding the Creation of Hydraulic Conduits .............................................41

Decontaminating Equipment ..........................................................41

Decommissioning DPT Wells and Borings ..............................................42

Retraction Grouting ...........................................................42

Re entry Grouting ............................................................42

Surface Pouring ..............................................................44

Section 6: Conclusions.....................................................................45

References ..............................................................................47

Appendix: Purging and Sampling Devices .....................................................61

Figures

Figure Page

2-1 Sealed Screen Sampler ................................................................8

2.2 Exposed-Screen Sampler–Well Point Driven Below the Base of a Borehole .....................10

2.3 Schematic Illustration of Degrees of Drag-Down Potentially Induced

by Direct Push Sampling Devices

.................................................11

2.4 Operation of the Waterloo Profiler .....................................................12

2.5 Collecting Samples From Discrete Depths (Profiling) Using

the Waterloo Drive-Point Profiler

..................................................13

2.6 Schematic of the Geoprobe

DT21 Profiler ..............................................15

2.7 Photograph of Pre-Packed Well Screens .................................................17

2.8 Small Diameter DPT Well Components .................................................19

2.9 Bottom-Up Method for Grouting Small Annular Spaces of DPT Wells .........................20

2.10 Example of a Properly Constructed DPT Well Installation

with Prepacked Well Screen

......................................................21

5.1 Methods for Sealing Direct Push Technology Holes ........................................43

iii

Tables

Table Page

2.1 Comparison of Various Direct Push Technology Sampling

and Data Collection Capabilities

...................................................7

2.2 Annular Space for Well Completion Based on Size of Well Casing and Screen ..................17

3.1 Impacts of Sources of Bias on Specific Analytes During Sampling ............................26

3.2 Operational Characteristics and Appropriateness of Groundwater Sampling Devices

for Specific Analytes

...........................................................28

3.3 Log n-Octanol/Water Partition Coefficients (Log K

) of Common

Organic Contaminants

..........................................................31

3.4 Recommended DPT Groundwater Tools for Various Field Applications ........................34

4.1 Comparison Between Low-Flow and Passive Sampling .....................................39

Abbreviations

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

CPT cone penetrometer testing

CSP centrifugal submersible pump

DCE dichloroethene

DNAPL dense non-aqueous phase liquid

DO dissolved oxygen

DPT direct push technology

DQO data quality objectives

FID flame ionization detector

GC gas chromatograph

ID inner diameter

LIF laser-induced fluorescence

LNAPL light non-aqueous phase liquid

MIP membrane interface probe

OD outer diameter

ORP oxidation/reduction potential

PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon

PCB polychlorinated biphenyl

PE polyethylene

PP polypropylene

PTFE polytetrafluoroethylene

PVC polyvinyl chloride

QC quality control

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

ROST Rapid Optical Screening Tool

SC specific conductivity

SVOC semi-volatile organic compound

TCE trichloroethene

EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

UV ultraviolet

VOC volatile organic compound

This page is intentionally blank.

Section 1: Introduction

Background

Direct push technology (DPT, also known as “direct drive,” “drive point,” or “push

technology”) refers to a growing family of tools used for performing subsurface investigations

by driving, pushing, and/or vibrating small-diameter hollow steel rods into the ground. By

attaching sampling tools to the end of the steel rods they can be used to collect soil, soil-gas, and

groundwater samples. DPT rods can also be equipped with probes that provide continuous in-

situ measurements of subsurface properties (e.g., geotechnical characteristics and contaminant

distribution). Interest in understanding how DPT groundwater collection methods compare with

traditional monitoring well sampling methods has steadily increased since the mid-1980s when

DPT first started being used for this purpose. Although environmental professionals recognize

that DPT provide a cost-effective alternative to conventional approaches to subsurface sampling,

some have been reluctant to use it for groundwater sampling because of uncertainty regarding

the quality of samples that the technology can provide. This guidance is designed to encourage

more widespread consideration of DPT by clarifying how DPT can be used to meet a variety of

data quality requirements for a variety of site conditions.

Intended Audience

The primary audience for this guidance is EPA regional folks working on CERCLA,

RCRA, and other related programs. It also may be useful for environmental professionals who

oversee or undertake the collection of groundwater samples at contaminated sites and have a

basic scientific understanding of groundwater sampling. Information is provided on the

application and limitations of DPT for groundwater sampling activities. Although this document

is not intended to provide substantial background information, Section 2 provides a general

overview of DPT groundwater sampling and an extensive list of resources is cited within the text

and listed in the reference section.

Scope and Limitations

This document focuses on groundwater sampling issues related to DPT, in particular

those regarding the quality and usability of the groundwater data. Two general types of DPT

groundwater sampling methods are discussed: “point-in-time” or “grab” sampling and sampling

with direct push installed monitoring wells. In order to provide a concise and readable

document, references are provided so that readers can access more detailed information where

needed. Other uses of DPT, such as soil sampling, soil-gas sampling, and deployment of

continuous logging equipment, generally are not controversial; therefore, they are not discussed

at length. In addition, this guidance assumes a basic level of understanding of DPT equipment.

Readers unfamiliar with DPT equipment should refer to:

• Expedited Site Assessment Tools for Underground Storage Tank Sites: A Guide for

Regulators (EPA, 1997). Chapter V of this guide, Direct Push Technologies, provides a

good overview of the tools and their capabilities. It is available at:

http://www.epa.gov/swerust1/pubs/sam.htm.

• The Field Analytical Technology Encyclopedia (FATE) contains a section on Direct

Push Platforms. It is available at: http://fate.clu-in.org.

• ASTM direct push standards, Standard Guide for Installation of Direct Push Ground

Water Monitoring Wells, D 6724-01; Standard Practice for Direct Push Installation of

Prepacked Screen Monitoring Wells in Unconsolidated Aquifers, D 6725-01; Standard

Guide for Direct-Push Water Sampling for Geoenvironmental Investigations, D-6001;

and Standard Guide for Direct Push Soil Sampling for Environmental Site

Characterization, D-6282. They are available for purchase at: http://www.astm.org.

This guidance is not intended to replace the knowledge and advice of an experienced

hydrogeologist. Site-specific situations may dictate that an expert familiar with site conditions

and project goals be involved in the planning and implementation of any groundwater sampling

event. Furthermore, Federal and State regulatory requirements can vary substantially among

jurisdictions and the appropriate regulatory and State agencies must be consulted to ensure that

legal requirements are met.

Advantages and Limitations of Direct Push Technologies

Direct push technologies are a valuable tool for environmental investigations because

they can offer a number of advantages over conventional well installation and sampling methods

and can provide many other types of data to a project team (e.g., in-situ detection of

contaminants, real-time geotechnical data). Some of the typical advantages of using DPT over

monitoring wells drilled and installed with conventional tools, such as hollow stem augers,

include:

• Faster sampling capability that helps to provide more data, thereby improving site

decision making and facilitates the use of a dynamic work plan strategy;

• In general, lower cost when greater data density is needed;

• Greater variety of equipment and methods resulting in greater flexibility in meeting

project goals;

• Capability of collecting depth-discrete groundwater samples to locate contaminated

layers;

• Better vertical profiling capability for generating three-dimensional profiles of a site that

improve the conceptual site model; and

• Less investigation-derived waste generated, thereby saving additional time and money

while minimizing the potential for exposure to hazardous substances.

However, DPT cannot completely replace the use of conventional monitoring wells.

Rather, DPT provides environmental professionals with additional choices from which to select

equipment and methods for collecting groundwater samples. Conventional methods still have a

number of potential advantages over DPT, including:

• Fewer limitations for deployment in a variety of geologic and hydrogeologic settings.

For example, conventional DPT may not be able to penetrate some caliches, bedrock, or

unconsolidated layers with significant amounts of gravel or cobbles. DPT is not

recommended where telescoped wells are needed to prevent contaminant migration

below confining layers;

• Deeper limit of subsurface penetration than DP rigs in most geologic settings; and

• Easier collection of large sample volumes.

Consequently, DPT and conventional monitoring well technologies may both be useful for

groundwater sampling. They can provide environmental professionals with a variety of options

to collect data sufficient for decision making, even when high quality groundwater samples are

needed.

How to Use This Guidance

This guidance is divided into four major sections designed to expose the reader to

potential issues and solutions regarding groundwater sampling with DPT:

• Section 2: Summary of Direct Push Technology Groundwater Sampling Methods:

provides an overview of the different types of equipment available with DPT to collect

groundwater.

• Section 3: Data Quality Objectives for Groundwater Sampling: provides the reader with

a summary of groundwater data quality issues that should be considered while planning a

groundwater sample collection activity.

• Section 4: Recommended Methods for Collecting Representative Groundwater Samples:

provides the reader with information on filter packs, well development, and low-flow

sampling methods as they relate to DPT.

• Section 5: Recommended Methods for Minimizing the Potential for Cross-

Contamination: provides the reader with information on drag-down, hydraulic conduits,

decontaminating equipment, and decommissioning DPT boreholes.

This page is intentionally blank.

Section 2: Summary of Direct Push Technology

Groundwater Sampling Methods

DPT groundwater sampling equipment generally falls into one of two broad categories:

C Point-in-time groundwater samplers: These tools or devices, also referred to as

“temporary samplers” or “grab samplers,” are used to rapidly collect samples to define

groundwater conditions during one sampling event. They are usually less than two

inches outside diameter (OD) and are generally constructed of steel or stainless steel.

Direct push methods (percussion or static weight) are used to advance point-in-time

samplers below the static water level in unconsolidated formations. Generally,

groundwater flows into the sampler from an exposed screen under ambient hydrostatic

pressure. Groundwater may be collected from the sampler using bailers or pumps, or the

sampler may be retracted to the surface to obtain the water sample. Once sampling is

completed, these devices are removed and the boring should be abandoned in accordance

with local regulations.

C DPT-installed groundwater monitoring wells: These monitoring wells are installed by

direct push methods to permit short-term or long-term monitoring of groundwater and are

usually two inches in diameter or less and constructed of PVC and/or stainless steel.

Since monitoring wells are installed for periods of several months to several years, the

annulus of the boring around the well casing is usually sealed to prevent migration of

contaminants into the aquifer. Surface protection is required to prevent tampering with

the well. A slotted or screened section permits groundwater to flow into the well under

ambient hydrostatic pressure. Groundwater may be collected from monitoring wells

using bailers, various pumps, or passive sampling devices.

Point-in-time sampling tools are typically used during site characterization to identify

plume boundaries or hot spots. They cannot be used for long-term monitoring or trend analysis

since the boreholes need to be decommissioned upon completion of sampling. In contrast,

temporary and permanent monitoring wells are typically used to provide trend analysis of

contaminant groundwater concentrations over an extended period of time. DPT can be used to

install small-diameter (e.g., up to 2 inches outside diameter [OD]) monitoring wells.

Ideally, both DPT point-in-time and monitoring well groundwater sampling equipment

should be used together to maximize their effectiveness. Point-in-time sampling techniques are

generally better for identifying plume boundaries, hot spots, preferred pathways, or other

monitoring points of interest. Once this information is collected, DPT monitoring wells, as well

as conventional monitoring wells, can be optimally placed to provide project teams with the

most useful monitoring data.

This section summarizes the various types of point-in-time sampling tools and DPT

monitoring well installation techniques. Since DPT groundwater sampling methods are often

used to their best advantage in combination with other specialized DPT measurement and

logging tools, these associated tools are also discussed at the end of this section. This

information is intended to provide the reader with an easily accessible summary of available

DPT tools. Other resources listed in the Introduction could also be used for a more

comprehensive survey of available tools and their capabilities. Table 2.1 provides a list of some

of the major DPT equipment available for groundwater investigations. It summarizes the

capabilities of the equipment and helps the reader to sort through the variety of tools and how

they may be useful for specific project goals. Because this section provides a basic overview of

existing equipment, readers already familiar with the capabilities of DPT equipment may wish to

proceed to Section 3 for information on how these tools can be used to collect groundwater

samples to meet project objectives.

Point-in-Time Sampling

A variety of point-in-time groundwater sampling tools are available for site

characterization, including:

• Sealed-screen sampling;

• Multi-level sampling (or vertical profiling); and

• Open-hole sampling.

With these techniques, the time needed to retrieve the sample will vary according to the

hydraulic conductivity of the sampling zone. In general, sampling within coarse-grained

sediments takes minutes while fine-grained sediments can take several hours or more. In

situations where slow recharge inhibits the timely collection of groundwater samples, the

sampler may be left in place to recharge while the DPT rig is moved to a new sampling location.

Sealed-Screen Samplers

Sealed-screen samplers typically consist of a short (e.g., 6-inch to 3-foot) screen nested

within a sealed, water-tight tool body (Figure 2.1). Because the screen is not exposed to the

formation as the sampler is advanced into the subsurface, the screen does not become plugged or

damaged. In addition, the potential for cross contamination is greatly reduced and a true

depth-discrete sample that is representative of the target sampling zone can be collected. The

sample volume collected with some sealed-screen samplers is limited by the volume of the

sample chamber (e.g., 500 mL for the Hydropunch I

™

; 1.2 L for the Hydropunch II

™

; and 35 to

120 mL for each vial in the BAT

™

To collect the sample, the sealed-screen sampler is advanced to the target sampling depth

and the protective outer rod is retracted, exposing the screen to groundwater. Groundwater flows

through the screen under the hydraulic head conditions that exist at that depth and into the drive

rods or sample chamber. O-ring seals placed between the drive tip and the tool body help ensure

that the sampler is water tight as it is driven to the target sampling interval. The integrity of the

seal can often be checked by lowering an electronic water level indicator into the sampler prior

to retracting the protective outer rod.

Table 2.1

Comparison of Various Direct Push Technology Sampling and Data Collection Capabilities

CAPABILITIES

EQUIPMENT

Evaluate

Strati-

graphy

Measure

Pore

Pressure

Measure

Soil

Conduc-

tivity

Detect

Hydrocarbon

Detect

VOC

Sample

Soil

Sample

Soil Gas

Sample

Ground-

water

Sample

Pore

Water

Evaluate

Vadose

Zone

Measure

Water

Level

Install Small

Diameter

Wells

Sealed-Screen Samplers

BAT GMS

T T

BAT Enviroprobe T T

Dual-Tube

Samplers

T T T T T T T

HydroPunch I and

II™

PowerPunch™ T T T

Screen Point 15 T T

SimulProbe® T T T

Multi-Level Samplers

Geoprobe

T T T T T T T T T

Envirocore T T T T T T T

Vertek

ConeSipper®

T T T T T T T

Waterloo Profiler T T T T

Specialized Measurement and Logging Tools

Cone

Penetrometer

T T T T T T T T T

Instrumented

CPTs

T T T T T T

Figure 2-1

Sealed-Screen Sampler

Sampling fine-grained formations may be difficult because of the long time it takes to fill

the sampler with groundwater. Sample collection times in formations with low hydraulic

conductivity may exceed several hours for some tools, compared to several minutes or tens of

minutes in formations of high to moderate hydraulic conductivity (Zemo et al., 1994; Zemo et

al., 1995). However, to avoid downtime, the samplers can be left in the borehole to recharge

while the installing rig moves off the hole to another location to sample. To decrease sample

collection time, samples can be collected from samplers with longer, 30- to 42-inch screens (e.g.,

Geoprobe

Screen Point 15) while the tool is downhole. A bailer or pump is needed to collect

the sample from the target zone.

Sealed-screen samplers generally are limited to collecting one sample per advance of the

sampler. However, depending upon the system used, multi-level sampling in a single borehole

can be accomplished with sealed-screen samplers by retrieving the sampler and decontaminating

it or replacing it with a clean sampler before reentering the hole to collect another sample.

Multi-Level Samplers

Multi-level samplers, most of which are exposed-screen samplers, are DPT equipment

capable of collecting groundwater samples at multiple intervals as the sampling tool is advanced,

without having to withdraw the tool for sample collection or decontamination. The terminal end

of a typical multi-level sampling tool has a 6-inch- to 3-foot-long screen made up of fine-mesh,

narrow slots, or small holes. The screen remains open to formation materials and water while

the tool is advanced (Figure 2.2). This allows samples to be collected either continuously or

periodically as the tool is advanced to vertically profile groundwater chemistry and

aqueous-phase contaminant distribution.

Multi-level samplers can be used to measure water levels at discrete intervals within

moderate- to high-yield formations to assist in defining vertical head distribution and gradient.

Additionally, some of these tools can be used to conduct hydraulic tests at specific intervals to

characterize the hydraulic conductivity in formation materials to identify possible preferential

flow pathways and barriers to flow (Butler et al., 2000; and McCall et al., 2000).

A drawback to multi-level sampling is the possible drag-down by the screen of

contamination from zones above the desired sampling interval (Figure 2.3) (Pitkin et al., 1999).

The Waterloo Profiler minimizes the potential for cross- contamination. It uses a 6-inch long,

uniform diameter, stainless-steel sampling tool into which several inlets or sampling ports have

been drilled and covered with fine-mesh screen. As the tool is advanced, distilled or deionized

organic-free water is slowly pumped down tubing that runs inside the drive rod and leads to the

sampling ports in the tool (Figure 2.4). The water keeps groundwater from entering the tool

while it is advanced. A peristaltic pump is typically used for depths less than 25 feet; a double-

valve pump can be used for sampling at greater depths.

After the first target interval is reached, the flow of the pump is reversed and the

sampling tube is purged so water representative of the aquifer is obtained. After the sample is

collected, the pump is reversed and distilled or deionized water is again pumped through the

sampling ports. The tool is then advanced to the next target interval where the process is

repeated (Figure 2.5).

Several field studies (Cherry, et al., 1992; Pitkin, et al., 1994; Pitkin, et al., 1999) have

demonstrated that the Waterloo Profiler is capable of providing a very detailed view of

contaminant plumes—particularly in complex stratified geological materials—without the

effects of drag-down and the cross contamination of samples. However, because a peristaltic

pump is typically used to collect samples when the sampling depth is less than 25 ft below

ground surface (bgs), there may be a negative bias in samples collected for analysis of VOCs or

dissolved gases. To avoid this potential bias, VOC samples should be collected in-line, ahead of

the pump, and a sufficient volume of water should be pumped through the system to account for

the initial filling of the containers when a negative head space was present.

Another multi-level sampler, the VERTEK ConeSipper

, attaches directly behind a

standard cone penetrometer to collect groundwater as the cone penetrometer testing (CPT) is

advanced. An inert gas flows to the ConeSipper

to control the rate of sample collection and to

purge and decontaminate the device down hole. The ConeSipper

is equipped with two filters,

which help minimize turbidity in the samples. The primary filter is a stainless steel screen whose

openings can range in size from 51 to 254 µm. A secondary filter, which can be made from

sintered stainless steel and comes with opening sizes ranging from 40 to 100 µm or regular

Figure 2.2

Exposed-Screen Sampler–Well Point Driven below the Base of a Borehole

Source: ASTM (2001e)

Figure 2.3

Schematic Illustration of Degrees of Drag Down Potentially Induced by Direct Push Sampling Devices

Figure 2.4

Operation of the Waterloo Profiler

Source: Pitkin et al. (1999)

stainless steel with openings ranging in size from 38 to 74 µm, removes fines (Applied Research

Associates, 2004).

Open-Hole Sampling Methods

Open-hole sampling is conducted by advancing drive rods with a drive point to the

desired sampling depth. Upon reaching the sampling depth, the rods are withdrawn slightly

which separates them from the drive tip and allow water to enter the rods. The water can be

sampled by lowering a bailer into the rods or by pumping. The open-hole method is only

feasible within formations that are fairly cohesive, otherwise the formation may flow upwards

into the rods when they are withdrawn, preventing samples from being collected.

With single-rod systems, open-hole sampling can only be conducted at one depth within

a borehole because the borehole cannot be flushed out between sampling intervals and cross-

contamination may occur. Dual-tube systems, on the other hand, can be used to conduct multi-

level sampling.

Figure 2.5

Collecting Samples From Discrete Depths (Profiling) Using the Waterloo Drive-Point Profiler

Dual-tube samplers are typically advanced into the subsurface to collect continuous soil

cores; however, groundwater samples can be collected at the end of each core run. Dual-tube

samplers have an outer casing that is driven to the target soil coring depth. The outer casing

holds the hole open and seals off the surrounding formation as an inner rod (with a sample liner

for soil sampling) is lowered into the outer casing and both are driven into the undisturbed

formation below. Once the soil core is retrieved, groundwater can be sampled by lowering a

bailer or pump into the outer casing The borehole can continue to be advanced so that multiple

groundwater samples can be retrieved from multiple depths in the same borehole. The water

should be purged from the casing with subsequent advances of casing and inner rod so that

groundwater from overlying intervals do not cross-contaminate the sample.

The amount of water that needs to be purged depends upon the type of sampling

equipment that is used. For pumping systems, purging procedures similar to those designed for

wells (low-flow purging) and described in Section 4, should be used. If bailers are used, then it is

important that all the water contained in the outer casing be removed to ensure that the water the

bailer is passing through comes from the interval of interest. The accepted procedure for

traditionally completed wells when bailers are used is to remove at least three volumes of water

and measure water quality indicators (e.g., pH, specific conductance) until they stabilize. The use

of a bailer in this situation may preclude the collection of some parameters that may be sensitive

to the iron in the outer casing (See Low-flow Purging Section 4.)

A dual-tube profiling system has been developed so that a simple screen can be inserted

through the cutting shoe of a dual-tube soil sampling device (Figure 2.6). This system enables

the operator to collect soil samples and then insert a screen at selected intervals, which they can

then use for sampling or conducting slug tests to locate preferential migration pathways (Butler

et al., 2000; McCall et al., 2000). This system also allows for bottom-up grouting to assure

proper boring abandonment.

DPT Monitoring Well Installation

A variety of DPT methods are available for installing temporary or permanent monitoring

wells. The two main installation methods used are exposed-screen and protected-screen wells.

These methods are discussed in detail in ASTM D-6724 and D-6725 (ASTM, 2003a and 2003b)

and are summarized here. As with conventional well installations, hydraulic connections should

not be created between otherwise isolated water-bearing strata. In addition, precautions should

be taken to minimize turbidity during the installation of filter packs and the development and

sampling of wells (Section 4).

Exposed-Screen Well Installation Methods

With exposed-screen well installation methods, the well casing and screen are driven to

the target depth using a single string of rods. Because the screen is exposed to formation

materials while it is advanced, proper well development (as discussed in Section 4) is important

to remove soil from screen slots. This method is not recommended for installing well screens

within or beneath contaminated zones because drag-down of contaminants with the screen may

cross-contaminate sampling zones and make acquisition of samples representative of the target

zone impossible. Exposed-screen well installation methods should only be used in upgradient

Figure 2.6

Schematic of the Geoprobe

DT21 Profiler

A) Screen components for insertion through the dual-tube system for slug testing and sampling.

B) The profiling screen is lowered through the outer rods after the inner rods are removed. Once the

screen is at the base of the outer rods, they are retracted as the screen is held in position for

accurate placement.

Source: www.geoprobe.com

areas that are known to be uncontaminated. Also, some states prohibit allowing the formation to

collapse around a well screen in the construction of a monitoring well. Therefore, state

regulations should be consulted before selecting exposed-screen techniques.

In one type of exposed-screen installation, the PVC well screen and casing are assembled

and placed around a shaft of a drive rod connected to a metal drive tip. The casing and screen,

which rest on top of the drive tip, are advanced to the target depth by driving the rod to avoid

placing pressure on the screen. The drive tip slightly enlarges the hole to reduce friction

between the formation and the well screen and casing, and remains in the hole plugging the

bottom of the screen. The filter pack surrounding the well screen commonly is derived from

formation materials that are allowed to collapse around the screen. Rigorous well development

improves the hydraulic connection between the screen and the formation and generally is

necessary to remove formation fines and the effects of well installation, which may include

borehole smearing or the compaction of formation materials. Due to the very small annulus (if

any) that surrounds a well constructed using the exposed-screen method, it is not generally

possible to introduce a filter pack or annular seal from the surface.

Exposed-screen methods also can be used to install well points—simple wells used for

rapid collection of water level data, groundwater samples, and hydraulic test data in shallow

unconfined aquifers. Well points are generally constructed of slotted steel pipe or

continuous-wrap, wire-wound, steel screens with a tapered tip on the bottom. They can be

driven into unconsolidated formations and used for either point-in-time sampling and

decommissioned after the sample is collected, or left in place for the duration of the sampling

program—possibly requiring the installation of a seal to prevent infiltration of water from the

ground surface to the screened interval.

The optimum conditions for well point installations are shallow sandy materials.

Predominantly fine-grained materials such as silt or clay can plug the screen slots as the well

point is advanced. Because well points are driven directly into the ground with little or no

annular space, the formation materials are allowed to collapse around the screen, and the well

point needs to be developed to prepare it for sampling.

Protected-Screen Well Installation Methods

When installing a protected-screen well, the well casing and screen are either advanced

within or lowered into a protective outer drive rod that has already been driven to the target

depth. Once the well casing and screen are in place, the drive rod is removed. Alternatively, the

casing, screen, and a retractable shield may be driven simultaneously to the target depth. Once

in place, the screen is exposed and the entire unit remains in the ground. If there is sufficient

clearance between the inside of the drive rod and the outside of the well casing and screen, a

filter pack and annular seal may be installed by tremie from the surface as the drive casing is

removed from the hole. Several filter packing and annular sealing approaches are available,

depending on the equipment used for the installation (ASTM D5092 and D6725; ASTM, 2003b

and 2003c). Regardless of the method of installation, the filter pack should be sized

appropriately to retain most of the formation materials (refer to Driscoll, 1986 or ASTM D5092-

02).

The most common protected-screen method for installing DPT wells is to advance an

outer drive casing equipped with an expendable drive tip to the target depth. The well casing

and screen are then assembled, lowered inside the drive casing, and anchored to the drive tip.

The drive casing seals off the formations through which it has been advanced, protecting the well

casing and screen from clogging and from passing through potentially contaminated intervals.

The position and length of the screen should be selected to match the thickness of the monitoring

zone, which can be determined by using additional information, such as CPT logs or continuous

soil boring logs.

When DPT wells are installed in non-cohesive, coarse-grained formations, the formation

can be allowed to collapse around the screen (if this technique is not prohibited by state well

installation regulations) after it is placed at the target depth since turbidity problems are unlikely.

When turbidity is likely to pose a problem for groundwater sample quality (see Section 3), a

number of methods for installing filter packs are available. The filter pack can be poured or

tremied into place as the drive casing is removed. Depending on the relative size of the drive

casing and well, however, it may be difficult to introduce filter pack or annular seal materials

downhole unless the hole is in a cohesive formation that will remain open as the drive casing is

removed. Typical inside diameters of DPT wells range from 0.5-inch (schedule 80 PVC) to 2

inches (schedule 40 PVC), and the maximum inside diameter of drive casing is 3.5 inches. Table

2.2 provides a reference for understanding the relationship between inside diameters of DPT

drive casing, the outside diameter of well casing and screen, and the annular space available for

filter packs.

For the best control of filter pack placement and grain size, “sleeved” or “prepacked”

well screens can be used (Figure 2.7). Pre-packed screens are generally composed of a rigid

Type I PVC screen surrounded by a pre-sized filter pack. The filter pack is held in place by a

stainless-steel wire mesh (for organic contaminants) or food-grade plastic mesh (for inorganic

contaminants), such as polyethylene, that is anchored to the top and bottom of the screen.

Sleeved screens consist of a stainless-steel wire mesh jacket filled with a pre-sized filter-pack

material, which can be slipped over a PVC pipe base with slots of any size. Although sleeve

thickness generally ranges from only 0.25 to 0.5 inch, it has been shown to provide an effective

filter pack (Kram et al., 2000).

Table 2.2

Annular Space for Well Completion Based on Size of Well Casing and Screen

Inside Diameter of

Well Casing and

Screen (inches)

Outside Diameter of

Well Casing and

Screen (inches)

Annular Space with

1.5-inch Inside

Diameter (1.8-inch

OD) Drive Casing

(inches)

Annular Space with

3-inch Inside

Diameter (3.5-inch

OD) Drive Casing

(inches)

0.5 0.84 0.66 2.16

0.75 1.05 0.45 1.95

1 1.32 0.18 1.68

1.25 1.66 Not applicable 1.34

Figure 2.7

Photograph of Pre-Packed Well Screens

Courtesy Geoprobe® Systems, 1996.

Annular seals and grout should be placed above the filter pack to prevent infiltration of

surface runoff and to maintain the hydraulic integrity of confining or semi-confining layers,

where present. The sealing method used depends on the formation, the well installation method,

and the regulatory requirements of state or local agencies. Most protected-screen installations

tremie a high-solids (at least 20% solids) bentonite slurry or neat cement grout into place as the

drive casing is removed from the hole. (Additional guidance on grout mixtures is available in

ASTM D6725 (ASTM, 2003b).) A barrier of fine sand or granular or pelletized bentonite

(where water is present) may be placed above the primary filter pack before grouting to protect it

from grout infiltration, which could alter the water chemistry in the screened zone. Similar to

the pre-packed and sleeved screens mentioned above, modular bentonite sleeves that attach to

the well screens and are advanced with the well during installation are also available. As

depicted in Figure 2.8, some manufacturers provide a foam seal that expands immediately when

the casing is withdrawn to form a temporary seal above the screen

. A bentonite sleeve above

the seal expands more slowly after the casing is withdrawn but forms a permanent seal once it

hydrates.

To ensure a complete seal of the annular space from the top of the annular seal to the

ground surface, the grout or slurry should be placed from the bottom up. By using a high

pressure grout pump and nylon tremie tube (Figure 2.9) it is possible to perform bottom-up

grouting in the small annular spaces of DPT equipment. Slurries of 20-30% bentonite or neat

cement grout are most commonly used to meet state regulatory requirements.

A properly constructed DPT-installed monitoring well (Figure 2.10) can provide

representative water quality samples and protect groundwater resources. A 1997 study (McCall

et al., 1997) demonstrated that DPT wells installed in this manner beneath highly contaminated

source zones consistently provided non-detect values. In addition, as with conventional wells, a

properly constructed DPT well should have a flush-mount or above-ground well protection to

prevent physical damage or tampering of the well. Small locking well plugs are also available

for even 0.5-inch nominal PVC casing.

Specialized Measurement and Logging Tools

There are a number of specialized measurement and logging tools available that can be

used with DPT equipment to optimize the number and location of groundwater samples. These

tools can estimate geotechnical, geophysical, hydrogeologic, and analytical parameters in the

subsurface. They are particularly useful when the subsurface is highly stratified or contains

laterally discontinuous layers. In such situations, characterizing or monitoring a dissolved-phase

plume may require identifying preferred groundwater flow pathways, such as zones of high

hydraulic conductivity, for sampling. For example, if the presence of DNAPL is suspected, then

possible locations where DNAPL has pooled should be targeted by mapping the surface and

areal

The foam bridge is constructed of a polyethylene cover over polyurethane foam. In choosing to use this

device, it should be kept in mind that polyethylene is permeable to many dissolved organic constituents and

polyurethane foam will bind organic constituents that come in contact with it. Whether this will affect the quality of

the sample is not known. However, purging the well should take care of any potential problems.

Figure 2.8

Small Diameter DPT Well Components

Source: GeoInsight Inc. product literature

Figure 2.9

Bottom-Up Method for Grouting Small Annular Spaces of DPT Wells

Adapted from Geoprobe®, 1996.

extent of an aquitard. The following section describes some of the specialized measurement and

logging tools that are currently available. Since new tools are continually being developed, the

list provided in this guide should not be considered complete and is directed at tools specifically

concerned with groundwater quality.

Geotechnical

The most common type of DPT geotechnical measurements are conducted with a three-

channel cone as part of a CPT rig. It simultaneously measures the tip resistance, sleeve

resistance, and inclination of the cone. The ratio of sleeve resistance and tip resistance is used to

interpret the soil behavior types encountered (Chiang et al., 1992). In general, sandy soils have

high tip resistance and low sleeve resistance, whereas clayey soils have low tip resistance and

higher sleeve resistance. The data are recorded in real time on a computer at the ground surface

and compiled to generate logs that show soil behavior type and relative density with depth.

Actual soil samples are needed to correlate CPT soil behavior data to site soil types.

Figure 2.10

Example of a Properly Constructed DPT Well Installation with Prepacked Well

Screen

Adapted from Geoprobe®, 1996.

Geophysical

A number of geophysical measurements can be collected with probes or cones attached to

direct push rods. The most common equipment is a conductivity probe that measures the bulk

conductivity (or resistivity) of the adjacent soil as it is advanced. The differences in conductivity

can be related to changes in stratigraphy. Although actual soil logs are important to correlate

probe readings with actual site conditions, in general, finer-grained sediments (e.g., mineral

clays) are more conductive than coarser sediments (e.g., sands, gravels). Conductivity probes

are also affected by soil water content and ionic strength so they can be used to locate

contaminant plumes that have a different salt content than naturally occurring water/soils. In

addition, these instruments can sometimes be used for detecting DNAPL masses, which have

low conductivities, when there is a sufficiently large conductivity difference between the

DNAPL and the surrounding soil matrix. Although these probes will detect LNAPLs as well,

there are generally simpler and more reliable ways of locating them than using conductivity

probes. Electrical resistivity can also be measured with probes and cones to obtain similar

information.

Hydrogeologic

CPT rigs can be equipped with piezocones that measure dynamic pore water pressure as

the tool is advanced through the soil layers. The pore water pressure data can be used to

determine the depth to the water table and the relative permeability of the layers. Advancement

of the penetrometer can be paused at selected intervals to run dissipation tests to obtain estimates

of hydraulic conductivity. The combined results of the CPT and piezocone tests can help

identify potential preferential contaminant transport pathways in the subsurface. These pathways

are especially useful for targeting groundwater sampling locations. Using point-in-time DPT

sampling to identify which of these pathways are contaminated can further define optimum

intervals for monitoring well screens.

Analytical

There are a number of probes that can be attached to DPT rigs to detect contaminants in

the subsurface. These include induced fluorescence systems and volatilization and removal

systems.

Induced Fluorescence Systems

Two widely available systems used with CPT rigs are the Site Characterization Analysis

Penetrometer System, or SCAPS, and the Rapid Optical Screening Tool, or ROST™. Both use a

CPT-deployed laser-induced fluorescence (LIF) probe to qualitatively identify the types and

relative concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons present. This is accomplished by transmitting

ultraviolet (UV) light from a nitrogen laser through a sapphire window into the soil. The UV

light causes polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) components to fluoresce, and the varying

intensity of the fluorescence is indicative of the amounts of the PAHs present. The spectrum of

the fluorescence describes the distribution of PAHs present in the hydrocarbon (or often

contaminant mass), which can be used for rough fingerprinting of the type of hydrocarbon

(Knowles, 1995).

Another induced fluorescence technology, sometimes referred to as a fuel fluorescence

detector (FFD), is very similar to LIF except that it generally uses a mercury lamp as its light

source, and the light is located in the probe at the sapphire window. This lamp provides a

continuous source of light rather than the pulsed technique of the LIF. Although downhole

detectors are available, fluorescence intensities from the soil are generally returned to the surface

for measurement via fiber optic cable. It generally reads total fluorescence. Some vendors have

filtering capabilities to limit wavelength reception to their detectors that allows some

differentiation between contaminant types.

Volatilization and Removal Systems

There are two established systems for analysis of VOCs by volatilizing the contaminants

in the subsurface and transporting them with a carrier gas to the surface for analysis. The

membrane interface probe (MIP), used with percussion or hydraulic driven DPT rigs, heats the

surrounding soil to promote diffusion of VOCs through a permeable membrane. Once VOCs

enter the probe, they are transported to the surface to a detector (e.g., a photoionization detector

or flame ionization detector) with a carrier gas. The probe is generally driven at a rate of one

foot per minute to maintain operating temperatures. The presence or absence of VOCs and their

relative distribution among sampling locations can be estimated. If more chemical specific

information is needed, the MIP can be used in combination with a direct sampling ion trap mass

spectrometer (DSITMS). Since this instrument does not have a separation column in front of it, it

may not be able to differentiate between chemicals having the same major ion signature.

The SCAPS Hydrosparge™ can be used with either CPT or percussion rigs and is

equipped with a module that is lowered into a sealed-screen sampler once the drive rods are

retracted to expose the screen. The module uses helium gas at a calibrated flow rate to purge

VOCs from the groundwater and transfer them via a Teflon tube directly into a detector at the

surface for real time analysis. One sample per location can be analyzed. To collect additional

samples at other depths, the sealed-screen sampler can be re-advanced at other locations adjacent

to the sampled hole. Data from the hydrosparge is semi-quantitative because of uncertainty

associated with sample volume measured.

This page is intentionally blank.

Section 3: Data Quality Objectives for Groundwater Sampling

Before selecting an approach to collecting environmental samples, EPA requires that

EPA-funded projects use a systematic planning process to plan the collection of project data

(EPA, 2000). To help planners select the best methods for obtaining data of the appropriate

type, quality, and quantity for their intended use, EPA has developed a seven-step recommended

data quality objective (DQO) process. DQOs are designed to provide qualitative and

quantitative statements that clarify study objectives, define the appropriate type of data, and

specify tolerable levels of potential decision errors that can be used as the basis for establishing

the quality and quantity of data needed to support decisions. Because DQOs are intended to be

project specific, they should be developed as part of the process for determining the goals for

their activity. For some groundwater investigations, a DQO may be needed that describes the

type of samples needed to characterize a groundwater plume; or a DQO may be needed to

describe the type of samples required to establish that contamination is no longer a threat to

drinking water. Although these DQOs may demand very different types of activities, the factors

that should be evaluated for DPT groundwater sampling projects typically include:

• Determining the potential direction and degree of sampling bias;

• Evaluating whether the sample volume is sufficient for the selected analytical methods;

and

• Minimizing the potential for contamination drag-down or creating a conduit for

contaminant transport.

These factors are often issues for both DPT and conventional methods. Techniques exist for

resolving problems for both methods, however, this section summarizes how they apply to DPT

groundwater collection techniques.

Sample Bias

Sample bias generally is the systematic or persistent distortion of a measurement process

that causes errors in one direction. In other words, sample measurements can be consistently

different than the samples’ true values. There are several potential sources of sample bias when

sampling groundwater with any method, including DPT, but one of the most critical factors

typically is the type of sampling equipment used to retrieve the sample (Nielsen and Yeates,

1985). Three of the most common sources of bias, due to sampling equipment and methods,

include:

• Sample turbidity;

• Sample disturbance; and

• Sampling interval.

Sample turbidity can cause bias as a result of the adsorption of chemicals onto, or the

release of chemicals from, the surface of particles in the sample. There also are several sources

of bias that can result from sample disturbance. These sources are summarized in Table 3.1.

Because sampling interval can have an impact on all analytes in a similar way, (i.e., errors do not

necessarily result in one direction), it is not included in the table. The table helps to clarify what

factors may have significant impacts on specific analytes and which would have little or no

impact by indicating the direction of bias (“P” for positive bias and “N” for negative bias)

Table 3.1

Potential Impacts of Sources of Bias on Specific Analytes During Sampling

Analyte

Potential Source of Bias

Sample Disturbance Turbidity

Pressure

Decreases

Temperature

Increases

Exposure to

Atmospheric

Conditions

Adsorption

onto Sampler

Materials

(Plastics &

Metals)

Desorption

from Sampler

Materials

Agitation/

Aeration During

Sample

Collection

Adsorption onto

Particles (a)

Releases from

Particles (a)

VOCs N+++ N+++ N+++/P+++ (b) N+ P+ N++ 0 0

Dissolved Gases &

ORP

N+++ N+++ N+++/P+++ (b) N++ to N+++ (c) P+ N++ 0 0

Semi-Volatiles N+ N++ N++ N+ P++ N+ N++ P++

Pesticides N+ N+ N+ N+ 0 N+ N++ P++

Trace Metals N+ N+ N+++ N+ to N+++ (d) P+ N+ N+++ P+++

Radionuclides N+ N+ N+ N+ 0 0 N+++ P++

Major Ions (Inorganic

Anions & Cations)

0 0 N+ N+ 0 0 N+ P+

Legend:

Bias Type: Relative Degree of Impact:

N = Negative + Weak

P = Positive ++ Moderate

0 = None +++ Strong

(a) Adsorption to and release from particles is directly related to the level of turbidity and will also depend heavily on particle size and type. Adsorption is a greater

factor when fine-grained, organic-rich particles are present.

(b) Depending on the analyte concentrations in the sample or the ambient atmosphere, concentrations in the sample may increase or decrease significantly.

(c) Reaction of the dissolved oxygen in groundwater with iron in the drive rods will significantly reduce measured dissolved oxygen and oxidation/reduction potential

(ORP) due to oxidation of the zero valent iron under ambient conditions. Therefore, the sample must be isolated from steel drive rods to minimize this effect.

(d) Some trace metals can complex with hydrous iron oxides (rust) forming soluble ferrous iron. Therefore, the sample must be isolated from steel drive rods to

minimize this effect.

and the degree of bias (“+” for weak, “++” for strong, and “+++” for very strong) when sampling

for various analytes. For example, if investigators are interested in collecting groundwater

samples for VOC analysis, they should be concerned about any changes in temperature or

pressure of those samples because it would likely have a negative bias on results. However, if

they were collecting the same samples for analysis of major, naturally occurring, inorganic

anions and cations (e.g., Ca

, Na

, K

, SO

, CO

, NO

, Cl

), they normally would not have to

be concerned about pressure or temperature changes since they normally would not affect

results.

The iron in steel drive rods of point-in-time samplers can have a significant affect on

measured concentrations of analytes, such as dissolved oxygen, iron, and some trace metals as

well as changing oxygen-reducing potentials. As discussed in Section 4, these affects can be

minimized by placing the pump intake within the screened interval to be sampled and pumping

at a low-flow rate to avoid drawdown of standing water in contact with the rods into the intake

interval.

To minimize sampling bias, sampling equipment that meets project DQOs should be

selected. For DPT, the primary difficulty in collecting groundwater samples typically is caused

by the small inside diameter of many sampling points—generally 0.75-inch or less for the rods

used with DPT sampling tools and 1 to 2 inches for DPT-installed wells. For DPT tools of these

sizes, the available sampling devices are usually limited to less than 1-inch OD. For rods or well

casing/screen with inside diameters less than 2 inches, sampling equipment usually is limited to

bailers, inertial-lift pumps, suction-lift (e.g., peristaltic) pumps, gas-drive pumps, centrifugal

pumps, and bladder pumps. For 2 inches and larger, additional devices available include

gas-operated piston pumps and several designs of electric submersible pumps (e.g., gear-drive,

helical rotor, or progressing cavity).

Bladder pumps (Pohlman et al., 1990; Unwin and Maltby, 1988; Parker, 1994; Barcelona

et al., 1984), gear-drive electric submersible pumps (Imbrigiotta et al., 1988; Backhus et al.,

1993), centrifugal pumps, and helical rotor pumps have consistently outperformed other pumps

in their ability to deliver a representative sample for a wide variety of analytes under a wide

range of field conditions. These devices are recommended for use in collecting samples for all

classes of analytes. Each of the other devices has limitations that may affect the

representativeness of samples for one or more classes of analytes (Nielsen and Yeates, 1985;

Herzog et al., 1991; Parker, 1994; Pohlman et al., 1994; Pohlman and Hess, 1988; Pearsall and

Eckhardt, 1897; Unwin and Maltby, 1988; Imbrigiotta et al., 1988; Pohlman et al., 1990).

However, some of these devices may be appropriate for collecting samples for some sets of

analytes.

A detailed discussion of the operational characteristics of sampling devices is provided in

the Appendix. In addition, Table 3.2 provides a summary of some important operational

characteristics related to DPT applications and the appropriateness of each device for sampling

analyte classes. For example, the table shows that bailers are adequate for sampling narrow

diameter wells when the analytes of concern are inorganic ions. If trace VOCs are being

analyzed, bailers may not be as reliable for providing high quality samples as other methods. In

addition, choosing a sampling tool is often related to the specific use the data acquired will be

put. For example, bailers might be completely acceptable when sampling VOCs to locate a

DNAPL source zone when the dissolved values in the water are very high and marginal losses

are not important.

Table 3.2

Typical Operational Characteristics and Appropriateness of Groundwater Sampling

Devices for Specific Analytes

Device

Approx.

Minimum

Well

Diameter

Approx.

Maximum

Useful Depth

Groundwater

Approx.

Minimum/

Maximum

Sample Delivery

Rate

Field Indicators Inorganics Organics Radioactive Biological

SC pH ORP DO

Major

Ions

Trace

Metals

Salts

VOCs

SVOCs

Radio-

nuclides

Gamma

"/$ Coliform

Bailer ½" unlimited highly variable

T T T T T

Inertial-Lift

Pump

½” unlimited highly variable T T T T T

Suction-Lift

Pump

(Peristaltic)

½" 25' 50 mL - 4 L/min

T T T T T

Gas-Drive

Pump*

½" 250' 50 mL - 20 L/min T

Bladder Pump ½" 300' 25 mL - 8 L/min T T T T T T T T T T T T

Piston Pump 2" 1000' 100 mL - 8 L/min T T T T T T T T T

Electric Submersible Pumps:

Gear-Drive 2" 300' 50 mL - 12 L/min

T T T T T T T T T T T T

Helical Rotor 2" 180' 100 mL - 6 L/min T T T T T T T T T T T T

Centrifugal 1.75” 220' 100 mL - 34 L/min T T T T T T T T T T T T

T = Device compatible with analyte

* Presumes use of inert drive gas

Abbreviations

SC - specific conductivity VOCs - volatile organic compounds " - alpha

ORP - oxidation/reduction potential SVOCs - semivolatile organic compounds

$ - beta

DO - dissolved oxygen

Sample Turbidity

In groundwater sampling, turbidity generally refers to the presence of suspended particles

in the sample. These particles may be entrained in the groundwater when the subsurface is

disturbed, such as when a DPT sampling tool or well is advanced and installed. The disturbance

may cause some compaction and disaggregation of granular material as well as the breakage of

grain coatings and cementing agents. The largest particles (i.e., silts) typically will settle out

quickly but much can remain suspended in the water column. Depending on their type and size,

some particles are neutrally buoyant, remaining suspended once they have become suspended.

Turbidity can also be generated during sampling activities due to the relatively high entrance

velocity of groundwater into the well when water is withdrawn by sampling tools, such as high-

speed submersible pumps, or sealed-screen samplers when the screen is opened to the formation.

Although turbidity can be present in samples from sand and gravel formations, it

particularly can be a problem when sampling in fine-grained formations. High turbidity also can

be associated with the DPT sampling tools that lack screens or filter packs to keep the fines from

entering the sampling tool or well. Conventional wells can also produce samples with high

turbidity, especially if the slot size of the screen or the grain size of the filter pack are incorrectly

sized for the formation.

The term “artifactual turbidity” is sometimes used to distinguish particles stirred up

during drilling and sampling, which would not be mobile under ambient groundwater flow

conditions, from those particles that are mobile under ambient conditions—colloids. Colloids

are typically clays, hydroxyls, and humic materials that are 1 to 1000 µm in diameter. Although

colloidal transport may be considered important in formations made up of materials coarser than

fine sand (Dragun, 1988; Mason, 1991), under most ambient conditions, colloids are immobile in

the subsurface. Because most turbidity is artifactual in origin, for the purpose of this discussion

it is just referred to as “turbidity”.

Sample turbidity can be important because it can be a common source of significant bias,

both negative and positive, in groundwater samples, particularly when metals and semi-volatile

organic compounds (SVOCs) are the analytes of concern (see Table 3.1). For example, some

clay colloids can artificially increase the measured concentration of dissolved metals because

metals are found in their structure (e.g., aluminum, magnesium, and iron) and as similarly sized

impurities associated with them. The surficial negative charge of the colloids and impurities

attracts and loosely typically binds the positively charged metal cations in groundwater. The risk

of positive bias can be further increased when acid is used to preserve a sample because it will

cause the metals to dissolve back into the sample. On the other hand, if the dissolved metals

bind to the colloids, and the sample is then filtered to remove high turbidity levels, the

concentration of dissolved metals in the groundwater may be significantly reduced and the

sample normally would not be representative of actual conditions.

In a similar way, colloids can become a “source” or a “sink” for organic constituents.

Although organic chemicals of concern generally do not occur naturally in clays, they can sorb

to colloids and naturally occurring organic matter. The level of sorption that will occur depends

on the individual chemical, whether it was in equilibrium with the suspended colloids before

being collected, and the analytical preparation method used. If groundwater sampling creates or

occurs under non-equilibrium conditions, then significant sorption may occur. In addition, if

organic constituents in groundwater have bound to clays or humic acids in the subsurface,

causing them to become immobile, the sampling process can disturb these immobile constituents

and cause them to become dissolved in the groundwater sample.

One method of determining whether the level of turbidity will significantly impact the

concentration of an organic constituent by causing it to become bound to colloids is to examine

the logarithm of the n-octanol/water partition coefficient (log K

) because the log K

is a

measure of a compound’s tendency to remain dissolved in water. The higher the K

value, the

more likely the chemical is to partition from the water onto suspended organic particles. Table

3.3 contains the log K

of a number of common organic chemicals.

This information can also be used as a quality control check on groundwater sample

results. In general, the compounds with the higher log K

levels are SVOCs. If the

groundwater concentrations for these chemicals approach or exceed their solubility, then the

measured concentrations may have been artificially inflated by turbidity and other sampling data

should be evaluated (e.g., nephelometric turbidity units [NTU], a measure of turbidity, dissolved

oxygen). Alternatively, turbidity may not be a source of bias in a sample if the constituents of

concern are organic compounds with low log K

values (e.g., < 2.5). In this situation, other

issues, such as stability of groundwater indicator parameters during sampling, may be more

important in evaluating groundwater sample quality. A paper by Paul and Puls (1997) helps to

illustrate the significance of these numbers. In the study, which included analysis of both

laboratory and field samples spiked with kaolinite and sodium montmorillonite clays, the

researchers demonstrated that TCE, cis-DCE, and vinyl chloride concentrations were statistically

unaffected by turbidity levels. This group of chemicals has low log K

values (< 2.42). The

report concluded that the presence of solids in the groundwater samples had little or no effect on

the VOC concentrations evaluated in the study. Losses of VOC due to volatilization during the

sampling process were thought to have a greater effect on concentrations. As a word of caution,

however, matrix effects can affect the tendency of some compounds to sorb more than their low

log K

values would indicate. This increased level of sorption generally occurs when the soil

matrix contains a substantial amount of organic materials, which can range from humic and

fulvic acids to organic debris (roots leaves) and peat. Site-specific factors, such as total organic

carbon (TOC), should be considered when deciding to take measures to reduce turbidity in

groundwater samples. High levels of TOC in groundwater samples can yield analytical results

that indicate higher levels of dissolved VOCs than are actually present. These higher levels can

drive a risk assessment, even though the VOCs are actually sorbed to particles and are immobile.

When turbidity is a concern for groundwater sampling, steps can be taken to minimize it,

provided adequate quality control (QC) procedures, described in Section 4, are followed, such as

installation of filter packs (also discussed in Section 2), developing the well, and using low-flow

sampling. In addition, DPT methods that promote high turbidity levels, such as open-hole

sampling or exposed-screen methods, should be avoided. A representative sample cannot be

salvaged with filtering if inappropriate sampling techniques have already compromised the

sample. If filtering is justified by a project’s DQOs, proper filtering techniques should be used.

For more information on filtering, readers should refer to Ground-Water Sampling Guidelines

for Superfund and RCRA Project Managers (EPA, 2002).

Table 3.3

Log n-Octanol/Water Partition Coefficients (Log K

) of Common Organic

Contaminants

Chemical Log K

Acenaphthene 4.07 Ethylbenzene 3.13

Acetone -0.24 Ethylene Glycol -1.36

Aldrin 5.52 Fluoranthene 5.22

Anthracene 4.45 Fluorene 4.12

Arochlor 1221 2.8 estimated Heptachlor 5.44

Arochlor 1242 5.58 Hexachlorobutadiene 4.78

Arochlor 1260 6.91 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 7.7

Benzene 2.13 Lindane 3.7

Benzo(a)anthracene 5.61 Methoxychlor 4.3

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 6.85 Methyl Ethyl Ketone 0.29

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 7.1 Methyl t-Butyl Ether 1.24

Benzo(a)pyrene 5.99 Naphthalene 3.59

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 4.20, 5.11 Pentachlorophenol 5.01

Carbon Tetrachloride 2.83 Phenanthrene 4.468

Chlordane 6 Phenol 1.48

Chlorobenzene 2.84 Pyrene 5.18

Chloroform 1.97 Styrene 2.95

Chrysene 5.6 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 2.39

p, p-DDT 6.36 Tetrachloroethene (PCE) 3.4

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 6.36 Toluene 2.73

Dibenzofuran 4.17 Toxaphene 3.3

1,1-Dichloroethane 1.79 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 2.49

1,2-Dichloroethane 1.48 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 2.07

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 1.86 Trichloroethene 2.42

Dieldrin 5.16 Tetrahydrofuran1,4-Dioxane -0.27

1,4-Dioxane -0.27 Vinyl Chloride 0.6

Endrin 5.16 m-Xylene 3.2

Log K

values taken from Howard et al., 1993a and 1993b and from Montgomery and Welkom, 1991.

Sample Disturbance

If groundwater samples are disturbed during the collection process (e.g., agitation,

allowing sample temperature to increase, or creating a situation for sample materials to adsorb or

desorb analytes) there is a risk of negative impacts on groundwater sample quality, beyond the

issue of generating turbidity, because it may result in the:

C Volatilization of any VOCs that are present;

C Dissolution of dissolved gases; or

C Oxidation/reduction of metals.

Sampling methods should be carefully selected in order to minimize disturbance during

sampling. As shown in Table 3.2, bladder pumps and to a lesser extent centrifugal pumps

generally are the best equipment for all analytes when sampling rods or wells less than 2-inches

in diameter and where high quality samples are needed. Research has shown that suction lift

pumps (e.g., peristaltic pumps—see Appendix) cause a negative bias in VOC and dissolved gas

measurements because of the negative pressure generated by the pumping action. When point-

in-time sampling is conducted in situations where volatilization of VOCs is a concern, sealed-

screen samplers, such as the BAT Enviroprobe™ or Hydropunch™, which maintain in-situ

pressure conditions, should be considered.

Sampling Interval

The most appropriate sampling interval to use at a site should be determined because the

location and length of a sampling interval can bias a sample. Short or long sampling screens can

be used with both DPT and conventional monitoring wells; however, DPT point-in-time methods

are generally more economical and better designed to target smaller sampling intervals than

conventional wells. When selecting discrete sampling intervals (e.g., 6-inch interval), there is a

risk of missing contaminants that may be migrating through sections of the aquifer that do not

fall within the screened interval(s). When selecting long sampling intervals (e.g., 5 to 15 feet),

there is a risk that a highly contaminated but discrete interval will be diluted by larger

uncontaminated intervals.

To determine the most appropriate sampling interval, a number of sources of existing

information should be evaluated and, if necessary, additional subsurface data collected. DPT

equipment can provide many cost-effective and comprehensive methods for collecting

subsurface data for this purpose, including continuous soil logs, detailed stratigraphic logs using

specialized measurement and logging tools (e.g., cone penetrometer testing, membrane interface

probe, induced fluorescence), multi-level discrete groundwater samples to create a vertical

profile of contamination, and piezometric data over a wide area to determine groundwater flow

direction (see U.S. EPA, 1997 for more details). Based on this information, as well as slug tests

and/or aquifer tests to estimate hydraulic conductivity for specific stratigraphic zones,

contaminant source locations can be estimated. At this point the appropriate sampling intervals

can be selected, thereby minimizing the installation of extraneous and ineffective wells or the

risk of missing or diluting important transport pathways.

Sample Volume

There are three sample volume issues that can be particularly relevant to collecting

groundwater samples with DPT:

C Point-in-time methods can be extremely slow in fine-grained formations (e.g., several

hours or more).

C Sample chamber volume of some sealed-screen, point-in-time samplers is quite small

(e.g., less than one liter), which can make it difficult to collect the larger volumes needed

for some types of analyses (e.g., SVOCs, PCBs/pesticides).

C Both DPT wells and point-in-time samplers often have a smaller diameter than their

conventional well counterparts. The smaller volume of the DPT wells may require

lower-flow purge rates to avoid significant drawdown during sampling.

Consequently, subsurface conditions and the required analytical suite should be considered when

selecting a DPT method to sample groundwater. Depending on the site conditions and site

DQOs, larger volume samplers or low-flow purge equipment capable of very low-flow rates

(discussed in Section 4) may be needed, or a sampler can be left in place to recharge while other

locations are sampled. If a sampler is left in place to recharge, sample quality can be

compromised if the sample container is filled in increments collected over a period of time. This

is a concern primarily when filling sample vials for volatile organic analysis, which need to be

filled completely with one sampling effort. Otherwise, volatile compounds may partition into

the headspace above the sample.

Sample Cross-Contamination

Any groundwater sampling method can cause cross-contamination that affects

groundwater sample quality and/or long-term water quality in at least three ways:

C Causing contaminant drag-down;

C Creating hydraulic conduits; and

C Biasing samples from improperly decontaminated equipment.

In evaluating the potential for cross-contamination and developing a sampling plan, the

site geology, the types of contaminants present, and the sampling methods and equipment used

should be examined. For example, drilling a hole through an aquitard creates a potential conduit

for contaminant migration. If DNAPLs are perched on top of the aquitard and precautions are

not taken, they may migrate down the borehole and contaminate a previously uncontaminated

aquifer.

Although cross-contamination can be a serious concern that may pose additional

challenges when using DPT equipment, DPT methods also provide many strategies for

minimizing or eliminating the risk of cross-contamination. Section 5 reviews these methods and

additional resources that can provide specific details needed in the appropriate use of DPT

equipment.

Selecting a DPT Groundwater Sampling Tool

DPT tools can be considered for a wide range of groundwater field applications, and

they can meet project DQOs in a broad variety of cases. Sampling bias, sample volume, and

cross-contamination are potential problems whether DPT or conventional monitoring wells are

used. It is important to understand the limitations of equipment being used and how they relate

to project needs. The first step in selecting equipment should be narrowing down the categories

of appropriate tools. With DPT equipment, that can be done by deciding whether qualitative,

semi-quantitative, or quantitative data are needed. Table 3.4 provides a summary of the

applications of DPT tools, emphasizing the basic concept that the project objectives should be

considered when selecting equipment and methods.

Table 3.4

Recommended DPT Groundwater Tools for Various Field Applications

General Field Application

Specialized

Measurement and

Logging Tools (a)

Point-in-Time

Groundwater

Sampler

DPT-Installed

Monitoring Well

Presence of contamination

(i.e., qualitative sampling

goals)

T T

Approximation of

contaminant zone/level

(i.e., semi-quantitative

sampling goals)

T T

Define specific

contaminants and accurate

concentrations (i.e.,

quantitative sampling

goals)

T T

Long-term monitoring

(a) Includes induced fluorescence and volatilization and removal systems.

Section 4: Recommended Methods for Collecting Representative

Groundwater Samples

Collecting groundwater samples that are representative of in-situ aquifer conditions

generally is important in any groundwater investigation. One of the most important factors in

meeting this goal, for many analytes, typically is to minimize turbidity. This is because particles

from formation materials that are suspended in a sample, but are not normally suspended in

groundwater, can provide a substrate for various analytes to adsorb or desorb. This process can

create a positive or negative bias for analytical results. In addition, although the causes of

turbidity and their solutions for both DPT and conventional groundwater sampling methods

generally are similar, the relatively narrow rod diameters of DPT systems can create additional

hurdles. This section focuses on the activities that can minimize turbidity, specifically for DPT

systems.

As discussed in Section 3, turbidity can cause substantial bias, both negative and

positive, when sampling metals and SVOCs, but typically is much less an issue when sampling

VOCs. There are several precautions that can be taken to minimize turbidity in DPT

groundwater samples. Important techniques to consider include:

C Installation of a filter pack;

C Well development; and

C Low-flow purging or passive sampling protocols.

Each of these techniques can be applied to monitoring wells installed with DPT, but not all are

possible with point-in-time samplers. For example, filter packs normally cannot be installed

when using point-in-time samplers. Furthermore, well development and low-flow/passive

sampling protocols normally can only be used with those point-in-time samplers that provide

access to the sample location from the surface (See Section 2). Usually, samplers that rely on a

sealed sample chamber to retrieve groundwater cannot be developed, nor can low-flow or

passive sampling protocols be followed. However, there are some samplers in this category that

may work, such as one of the BAT™ system samplers, that sample water through a ceramic or

polymer tip that acts as an in-situ filter to prevent turbidity. The decision to use a specific type

of point-in-time sampler should be weighed against project DQOs.

Installation of a Filter Pack

As mentioned in Section 2, installing a filter pack in monitoring wells can be an

important means of minimizing sample turbidity. However, its installation is not always possible

or necessary, depending on project objectives. A common construction technique for DPT wells

is to let the formation collapse around the screened interval, rather than installing a filter pack.

In fact, this is the only option for exposed-screen well installations since there is no annular

space between the drive rods and the borehole walls to accommodate a filter pack. Similarly,

DPT point-in-time sampling techniques do not allow for the installation of filter packs due to the

lack of annular space between the drive rods/sample tool and the formation. Wells installed

using protected-screen methods, however, may have adequate annular space for a filter pack and

should be selected where data quality objectives dictate. Please refer back to Section 2 for more

information on filter pack installation techniques, including the use of pre-packed and sleeved

well screens.

Well Development

Wells should be developed after completing the installation and allowing sufficient time

for the annular seal to completely set (typically two weeks, but not less than 48 hours). The

purpose of well development or development of a point-in-time sampler generally is to repair

borehole damage caused by advancement and installation procedures, such as the smearing of

fine-grained particles along the borehole walls and the generation of turbidity. Development

generally is designed to remove these particles to improve the hydraulic connection between the

well and formation so that groundwater can enter more freely. Development also is designed to

remove the groundwater impacted by well installation so that groundwater representative of

ambient conditions can be sampled.

Like conventionally installed wells, DPT-installed monitoring wells should be developed.

This process typically involves block surging and pumping or bailing groundwater until certain

water quality parameters (e.g., pH, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, redox potential, and

temperature) have stabilized and turbidity has been removed or decreased as much as possible.

Wells are surged by raising and lowering a surge block (any tool that is slightly smaller than the

inside diameter of the well casing) within the screened interval to mechanically backwash the

well screen. These activities help to dislodge particles smeared within the borehole and the

particles clogging the screen so they can be removed. In-line turbidimeters can be used during

development or purging procedures to judge turbidity levels and their potential impact on sample

quality.

Due to the way some point-in-time samplers are constructed and used, they may not

accommodate a pump or bailer for development. Those samplers that can accommodate a pump

or bailer can be developed similar to the method described above for wells, although due to the

generally smaller diameters of point-in-time samplers, smaller diameter surge blocks, pumps,

and bailers usually will be needed. In general, if DQOs recommend development for

groundwater samples to meet quality standards, then many point-in-time samplers may not be

appropriate for the situation.

Low-Flow Purging and Sampling

Low-flow purging, also referred to as low-stress purging, low-impact purging, and

minimal drawdown purging, is a method of preparing a well for sampling which, unlike

traditional purging methods, does not require the removal of large volumes of water from the

well. The term “low-flow” refers to the velocity at which groundwater moves through the pore

spaces of the formation adjacent to the screen during pumping. It does not necessarily reflect the

flow rate of the water discharged by the pump at the ground surface. The focus of low-flow

purging and sampling is on collecting high-quality samples by minimizing the impact of

pumping on well hydraulics and aquifer chemistry. Because the flow rate used for purging is, in

many cases, the same as or only slightly higher than the flow rate used for sampling, the process

is a continuum and is referred to as “low-flow purging and sampling.” Although minimizing the

disturbance of sampling on the aquifer is important for all types of groundwater sampling

devices, it can be particularly important for DPT point-in-time samplers and exposed screen

wells because installation of a filter pack generally is not feasible with these tools.

Low-flow purging and sampling generally are appropriate for collecting groundwater

samples in a wide variety of situations. It can be used to sample all categories of aqueous phase

contaminants and naturally occurring analytes, including VOCs, SVOCs, trace metals and other

inorganics, pesticides, PCBs, radionuclides, and microbiological constituents and often is

particularly appropriate for situations where colloidal transport is an issue (i.e., radionuclides,

metals, and hydrophobic compounds). However, low-flow methods generally are not applicable

to the collection of NAPLs because they do not respond to the effects of pumping in the same

manner as groundwater.

Theoretical and Research Basis for Low-Flow Purging and Sampling

Groundwater sampling research has demonstrated that water standing in a well casing for

a protracted time is not representative of ambient groundwater quality (Gillham et al., 1985;

Miller, 1982; Marsh and Lloyd, 1980; Barcelona and Helfrich, 1996). Hence, this water should

not be collected as part of the sample for analysis. In addition, the water within the screened

interval of nearly all wells generally is representative, provided that the well has been designed,

installed, developed, and maintained properly and the aquifer has a sufficient flow rate to ensure

the water in the screened interval is being replaced.

Based on these findings, recommended low-flow sampling protocols have been

developed so that groundwater can be collected from the screened interval without significant

mixing with the water standing in the casing. Research has shown that this method does indeed

provide high quality, representative groundwater samples (Backhus et al., 1993; Bangsund et al.,

1994; Barcelona et al., 1994; Karklins, 1996; Kearl et al., 1994; Kearl et al., 1992; McCarthy and

Shevenell, 1998; Puls and Paul, 1995; Puls and Barcelona, 1996; Puls and Barcelona, 1989; Puls

and Powell, 1992; Puls et al., 1992; Puls et al., 1991; Serlin and Kaplan, 1996; Shanklin et al.,

1995).

Because they are sampled almost immediately, point-in-time DPT tools should not

develop a stagnant water column that will affect most analytical results. However, a standing

water column for even a short period of time can affect some inorganic analytes (e.g., iron,

nitrogen, and hexavalent chromium) and sensitive geochemical parameters (e.g., dissolved

oxygen, oxygen reducing potential, and pH) if the water is in contact with steel drive rods. The

zero valent iron in the rods can quickly react with any dissolved oxygen in the groundwater

causing alteration of the analytes and parameters and potentially complexing with metal

analytes. As a result, water being collected should be isolated from contact with the drive rods

when sampling for these analytes or parameters. Placing the pump intake within the screened

interval and pumping at a low-flow rate to avoid drawdown of water in contact with the drive

rods should help isolate the sample from the rods. Although there is little concern about the

water column affecting organic analytes when sampling with point-in-time DPT samplers, when

turbidity is a concern, low-flow sampling may help to lower turbidity to acceptable levels

(McCall et al., 1997; EPA, 1996a).

Low-Flow Purging and Sampling Protocols

To conduct low-flow purging and sampling, a pump that can be operated at a low-flow

rate normally is needed. For large wells (e.g., 2-inch diameter or greater), less than 500 mL/min

is often needed; for small diameter DPT wells and point-in-time samplers, flow rates as low as

100 mL/min may be needed. As a result of their design, bailers generally are inappropriate for

low-flow purging and sampling. Inertial-lift pumps, or other well sampling devices that agitate

the water column also generally cannot be used for low-flow purging and sampling

Before purging and sampling can begin, the hydraulic conductivity of the screened

interval normally needs to be evaluated to ensure that low-stress pumping is maintained. To

begin, the water level should be measured to determine when drawdown in the well stabilizes.

As water is purged from the well, water quality indicator parameters (e.g., pH, temperature,

specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, redox potential, and in some cases turbidity) generally

need to be measured to determine when the readings stabilize and samples can be collected. The

results can then be used to define well-specific, low-flow procedures.

Passive Sampling Protocols

In situations where a sampling point cannot yield sufficient water to support low-flow

sampling, a passive sampling (also referred to as micropurging) approach generally is preferred

(Powell and Puls, 1993; Puls and Barcelona, 1996). Passive sampling involves placing the pump

intake within the screened interval and purging a minimal volume of groundwater from the well

or sampler—a single volume of the pump chamber and discharge tubing, rather than the greater

volumes purged by low-flow sampling or the multiple well volumes purged using other

techniques. The goal of passive sampling generally is to obtain groundwater within the well

screen or sampler screen, which is most representative of ambient groundwater quality, without

disturbing the water column and introducing the stagnant water above. The sample should be

collected immediately after purging the small volume of groundwater.

Passive sampling methods may be appropriate for use in a variety of situations and can be

applied to most wells in which there is sufficient water to ensure that a pump intake is

submerged throughout purging and sample collection. They are most often applied to wells and

samplers installed in low-yield formations. In very low yield formations, however, the water in

the screened interval may be of equivalent quality to that in the casing above and not

representative of formation water. The application of passive sampling methods, therefore,

should be evaluated on a site-specific basis.

Passive sampling typically is easiest to apply when dedicated pumps are used. The flow

rates used for passive sampling are lower than those used for low-flow purging and

sampling—generally less than 100 mL/min. Because very low hydraulic conductivity

formations do not yield sufficient water to satisfy the demands of a pump, even at these low-flow

rates, drawdown may occur. Thus, to determine the volume of water available for sampling, the

volume of water within the well screen above the pump intake should be calculated. Only this

volume, which normally will be very small for most DPT wells, should be collected. Sampling

should not continue once water from the top of the screen is drawn close to the pump because

casing water should not be collected as part of the sample. Since indicator parameters are not

typically analyzed, this method does not normally provide any evidence that the sample taken is

representative of formation water. When non-dedicated equipment is used, there is a higher risk

of mixing casing and screened interval water which can add to the uncertainty of the

representativeness of the sample. Table 4.1 provides a comparison between low-flow and

passive sampling methods.

Table 4.1

Comparison of Some Key Elements of Low-Flow and Passive Sampling

Low-Flow Sampling Passive Sampling

Hydraulic

Conductivity

Sufficient to maintain steady water

level during sampling

Too low to allow low-flow

sampling

Analyte Applicability

All analytes except NAPLs All analytes except NAPLs

Pump Discharge Rate

500 mL/min to100 mL/min depending

on well/sampling point size and

hydraulic conductivity.

<100 mL/min

Purge Volume

Continuous until parameters (e.g.,

specific conductance, turbidity, O

redox) stabilize

Greater than the volume of the

pump and the submerged tubing

Section 5: Recommended Methods for Minimizing Potential for

Cross-Contamination

As mentioned in Section 3, the potential for cross-contamination should be considered

when advancing any type of groundwater sampling tool or monitoring well into the subsurface

because it can result in sample bias, incorrect decisions, or the spread of contaminants. Methods

for avoiding cross-contamination should be discussed and accounted for in project planning with

respect to:

C Avoiding drag-down;

C Avoiding the creation of hydraulic conduits;

C Decontaminating equipment; and,

C Decommissioning DPT wells and borings.

These issues typically apply to both DPT and conventional wells; however, because of the

different methods of construction, the solutions often differ even though the results are often the

same. This section provides guidance on how these issues can relate to DPT methods because

the methods for conventional wells are well established.

Avoiding Drag-Down

Drag-down of contamination is commonly considered to be less of a problem with DPT

methods than with conventional well drilling techniques, such as hollow stem augering, where

contaminants have a better chance of sticking to the augers as they advance. As DPT rods are

advanced, the action of pushing the drive rods through new soil generally wipes away old soil.

In fact, researchers have demonstrated the lack of drag-down with DPT in a number of studies

(Cherry, et al. 1992; Pitkin et al., 1994; McCall et al., 1997; Pitkin et al., 1999); however, as with

conventional drilling techniques, it is unlikely that DNAPL or certain soils, such as sticky clays,

would be completely wiped clean as the rods advance. In addition, certain DPT methods can

result in drag-down if used in inappropriate situations. This is primarily a problem with

advancing multi-level samplers in contaminated fine-grained soil, which can clog the screens,

and with advancing exposed screen monitoring well installations, which can carry shallow

contaminated soil and groundwater to the target sampling depth. Thus, exposed screen well

installations should not be considered for use in contaminated areas.

Where drag-down is a concern, use of DPT equipment that will minimize drag-down

potential, such as protected-screen point-in-time samplers, the Waterloo Profiler, or sealed-

screen monitoring wells should be considered. In addition, the DPT sampler or well should be

properly developed to remove the affected soil and groundwater.

Avoiding the Creation of Hydraulic Conduits

Creation of hydraulic conduits that allow the downward flow of groundwater and

contaminants can be avoided by sealing off the borehole annulus—the space between the

borehole wall and the rod string. This issue is of particular concern when the borehole

hydraulically connects previously unconnected hydrogeologic units, or when DNAPLs with low

viscosity are present that can migrate downward along the vertical conduit. In addition to using

grout to seal the annulus, an important method of reducing downward migration along the rod

string is to minimize the borehole annulus. Two important considerations include:

C Using a drive tip that is the same diameter or smaller than the drive rods; and

C Using rods and samplers with the same diameter.

The absence of an annulus, however, does not necessarily prohibit contaminant migration

because there may not be an effective seal between the steel rods and the borehole wall. This

issue is not unique to DPT methods and should also be considered when drilling boreholes using

conventional techniques.

DPT techniques are not recommended for installing monitoring wells with screens set in

an interval below a confining layer if there is a real danger of contaminating the lower layer.

Instead, construction of a “telescoped” monitoring well using conventional drilling methods

should be used. This type of well involves drilling into the top of the aquitard, placing a steel

casing in the hole and grouting it into place by tremieing grout into the annulus. The hole is then

advanced using a drill bit that fits inside the steel casing. Upon reaching the target depth, the

well screen and casing are lowered into place and the well completion materials are installed as

the casing is slowly retracted. Multiple casings can be telescoped inside the other if more than

one aquitard is present. DPT cannot be used for telescoped well construction because the

annulus is too narrow to allow for an adequate grout seal to be installed along the drive casing.

Decontaminating Equipment

As with all groundwater sampling equipment, DPT equipment should be decontaminated

before sampling at a new location to avoid cross-contamination. In addition, disposable

material should be discarded properly. Some sampling tools, by virtue of their design, may be

difficult to disassemble for cleaning. In these cases, when replacing associated tubing, hose, or

pipe is not feasible, it may be more practical to clean these tools by circulating cleaning solutions

and rinses through the device in accordance with appropriate guidance (e.g., ASTM D5088,

ASTM, 2001g; RCRA Ground-Water Monitoring Draft Technical Guidance, EPA, 1992).

Where field decontamination is not practical or possible, it may be simpler to use dedicated

sampling devices or take a number of portable sampling devices into the field and decontaminate

them later at a more appropriate location. Following any cleaning procedure, equipment rinseate

blanks should be collected to assess the effectiveness of the cleaning procedure.

Decommissioning DPT Wells and Borings

As with conventional soil borings or abandoned monitoring wells, DPT boreholes for

point-in-time sampling and abandoned DPT monitoring wells should be decommissioned to

avoid creating a conduit for contaminant migration, either from the surface or between

subsurface geologic units. Several methods are available for decommissioning DPT holes, but

the method chosen should be capable of backfilling the hole completely with grout or a bentonite

slurry, from bottom to top and without gaps. The most appropriate method will depend on a

number of factors, including the type and size of DPT equipment being used, site-specific

subsurface conditions, and state and/or local regulations. The type of slurry selected may also

depend on the remedial action anticipated at the site. For example, a silica flour grout mixture

may be selected for sites that may be treated with in-situ thermal technology.

The methods available for decommissioning DPT boreholes include:

C Retraction grouting;

C Re entry grouting; and

C Surface pouring.

These methods are detailed in ASTM D6001 (ASTM, 2001e), EPA (1997), and Lutenegger and

DeGroot (1995). Figure 5.1 illustrates the use of these methods, and the following paragraphs

summarize the techniques and their applications.

Retraction Grouting

Retraction grouting typically involves pumping a high-solids bentonite and water mixture

or a neat cement grout through the rod and tool string and out the bottom of the sampling tool as

the tool is withdrawn from the hole. To use this method, a port is needed at the end or sides of

the tool or an expendable tip is necessary on the terminal end of the tool through which the grout

can be pumped. Because the hole is grouted as the tool is withdrawn, this method ensures that

the borehole is sealed throughout its length. Retraction grouting is generally considered to be

the most reliable borehole sealing technique.

Re entry Grouting

Re entry grouting typically involves pumping grout through a tremie pipe (a rigid pipe,

usually Schedule 40 or 80 Type I PVC) inserted into the borehole immediately following

withdrawal of the rod string. Alternatively, the rod string may be reinstalled in the borehole,

without the sampling tool, so that grout may be pumped through the open rods. The grout should

be pumped continuously from the bottom of the hole to the top as the tremie pipe (or rod string)

is withdrawn to avoid gaps and bridging (i.e., plugging the hole before grout reaches total depth)

of the grout. Typically, re entry grouting is effective only if the hole remains open until tremie

pipe or rods can be extended to the bottom of the borehole. If a portion of the borehole

collapses, the tremie pipe or rods will not penetrate to the total depth of the hole. In this

situation, it may be necessary to put an expendable tip on the end of the rod string, push the

string to the total depth of the hole,

Figure 5.1

Sample Methods for Sealing Direct Push Technology Holes

knock out the tip, and pump grout through the rods as they are withdrawn. Re entry grouting by

this method may not provide a reliable seal if the DPT rods do not follow the original borehole,

but the original borehole should provide the path of least resistance under most conditions.

By using a high pressure grout pump and nylon tremie tube it is possible to perform

bottom-up grouting in the small annular spaces of DPT equipment. Slurries of 20-30% bentonite

or neat cement grout are most commonly used to meet state regulatory requirements.

Surface Pouring

Surface pouring normally is the simplest method of borehole decommissioning; however,

it may not be as effective as the other methods in most situations. It involves pouring either dry

bentonite (granules, chips, or pellets), bentonite slurry, or neat cement grout from the surface

down the open borehole after the rod string and tool are removed. Surface pouring may be

effective if the borehole does not collapse after the rods are removed, and if the borehole is

relatively shallow (less than about 10 or 15 feet). Where dry bentonite materials are proposed for

use, it normally will only be effective if the bentonite is either hydrated from the surface

immediately after installation or if it is installed beneath the water table. Maintaining a seal in the

borehole requires that the soil moisture content be sufficient to keep the bentonite hydrated after

installation. In deep holes, dry bentonite products can bridge, resulting in an incomplete seal. In

situations where boreholes partially collapse, materials poured from the surface will not seal the

borehole properly. This method can be improved by using a flexible tremie tube or a rigid tremie

pipe to reenter the hole and fill it from the bottom up, however, if the hole collapses before the

tremie can be installed, the tremie may not be effective either.

Section 6: Conclusions

Direct push technologies can be valuable tools for environmental investigations and

facilitate the use of a dynamic work plan strategy. They have a number of potential advantages

over conventional groundwater sampling methods and they can have the added benefit of being

able to provide numerous other types of detailed subsurface data, such as geophysical, analytical,

and hydrogeologic data. The diversity and capabilities of DPT equipment and methods are large

enough that under many situations DPT can be used to provide the level of groundwater data

quality needed for projects where the subsurface conditions and depth of investigation are

amenable to pushing techniques. When techniques common to conventional well installation are

followed, such as adequate well development, low-flow purging and sampling, proper

decontamination of equipment, and preventing the creation of a hydraulic conduit, quality

groundwater samples can be obtained.

DPT will not be appropriate for all situations. DPT methods typically are more limited in

their depth of penetration and the types of materials they can penetrate than conventional drilling

methods. Some methods may not be able to provide sufficient sample volume or sufficiently low

turbidity. Use of DPT may be limited in lower yield formations. Conventional wells with larger

diameters may be required to minimize the affect of lower yield formations. Lastly, DPT methods

cannot always be used where confining layers are present and there is a danger of creating a

vertical hydraulic conduit that could contaminate underlying layers. In these instances, telescoped

wells may be needed to prevent downward migration of contaminants beneath a confining layer.

As a result, DPT cannot completely replace the use of conventional monitoring wells. Rather,

DPT provides additional choices to select equipment and methods for collecting environmental

data.

This page is intentionally blank.

References

Ahrens, T.P. 1957. Well design criteria: part one, Water Well Journal, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 13-30.

ASTM. 2001a. Standard Test Method for Deep, Quasi-Static, Cone and Friction-Cone

Penetration Tests of Soils, ASTM D3441. American Society for Testing and Materials. West

Conshohocken, PA, 7 pp.

ASTM. 2001b. Standard Test Method for Performing Electronic Friction Cone and Piezocone

Penetration Testing of Soils, ASTM D5778. American Society for Testing and Materials. West

Conshohocken, PA 18 pp.

ASTM. 2001c. Standard Practice for Cone Penetrometer Technology Characterization of

Petroleum Contaminated Sites with Nitrogen Laser-Induced Fluorescence, ASTM D6167.

American Society for Testing and Materials. West Conshohocken, PA, 7 pp.

ASTM. 2001d. Standard Guide for Direct Push Soil Sampling for Environmental Site

Characterization, ASTM D6282. American Society for Testing and Materials. West

Conshohocken, PA, 19 pp.

ASTM. 2001e. Standard Guide for Direct-Push Water Sampling for Geoenvironmental

Investigations, ASTM D6001. American Society for Testing and Materials. West Conshohocken,

PA.

ASTM. 2001f. Standard Guide for Development of Ground-Water Monitoring Wells in Granular

Aquifers, ASTM D5521. American Society for Testing and Materials. West Conshohocken, PA,

15 pp.

ASTM. 2001g. Standard Practice for Decontamination of Field Equipment Used at

Nonradioactive Waste Sites, ASTM D5088. American Society for Testing and Materials. West

Conshohocken, PA, 20 pp.

ASTM. 2001h. Standard Practice for Decontamination of Field Equipment Used at Low Level

Radioactive Waste Sites, ASTM D5608. American Society for Testing and Materials. West

Conshohocken, PA, 8 pp.

ASTM. 2001i. Standard Guide for the Selection of Purging and Sampling Devices for

Ground-Water Monitoring Wells, ASTM D6634. American Society for Testing and Materials.

West Conshohocken, PA, 14 pp.

ASTM. 2002. Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils, ASTM D422-63.

American Society for Testing and Materials. West Conshohocken, PA, 8 pp.

ASTM. 2003a. Guide for Installation of Direct Push Ground Water Monitoring Wells, ASTM

D6724-01. American Society for Testing and Materials. West Conshohocken, PA, 9 pp.

ASTM. 2003b. Standard Practice for Direct Push Installation of Prepacked Screen Monitoring

Wells in Unconsolidated Aquifers, ASTM D6725-01. American Society for Testing and

Materials. West Conshohocken, PA, 15 pp.

ASTM. 2003c. Standard Practice for Design and Installation of Ground Water Monitoring Wells

in Aquifers, ASTM D5092-02. American Society for Testing and Materials. West Conshohocken,

PA, 14 pp.

Applegate, J.L. and D.M. Fitton. 1997. Rapid site assessment applied to the Florida Department

of Environmental Protection's drycleaning solvent cleanup program. HazWaste World Superfund

XVIII Conference Proceedings, December 1997, Washington DC, pp. 695-703.

Backhus, D.A., J.N. Ryan, D.M. Groher, J.K. MacFarlane, and P.M. Gschwend. 1993. Sampling

colloids and colloid-associated contaminants in ground water. Ground Water, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp.

466-479.

Baerg, D.L., R.C. Storr, J.A. Cherry, and D.J.A. Smyth. 1992. Performance testing of

conventional and innovative downhole samplers and pumps for VOCs in a laboratory monitoring

well. Proceedings, National Ground Water Sampling Symposium, Washington, DC November

1992, pp. 71-76.

Bangsund, W. J., C.G. Peng, and W.R. Mattsfield. 1994. Investigation of contaminant migration

by low-flow rate sampling techniques. Proceedings, Eighth Annual Outdoor Action Conference,

National Ground Water Association, Dublin, OH, pp. 311-326.

Barcelona, M.J., J.P. Gibb, J.A. Helfrich, and E.E. Garske, 1985, Practical Guide for

Ground-Water Sampling. Illinois State Water Survey Contract Report 374, Champaign, IL, 94 pp.

Barcelona, M.J., J.P. Gibb, and R.A. Miller. 1983. A Guide to the Selection of Materials for

Monitoring Well Construction and Ground-Water Sampling. Illinois State Water Survey Contract

Report 327, Champaign, IL, 78 pp.

Barcelona, M.J. and J.A. Helfrich. 1986. Well construction and purging effects on ground-water

samples. Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 20, No. 11, pp. 1179- 1184.

Barcelona, M.J., J.A. Helfrich, E.E. Garske and J.P. Gibb. 1984. A laboratory evaluation of

ground water sampling mechanisms. Ground Water Monitoring Review, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 32-41.

Barcelona, M. J., H.A. Wehrmann, and M.D. Varljen. 1994. Reproducible well-purging

procedures and VOC stabilization criteria for ground water sampling. Ground Water, Vol. 32, No.

1, pp. 12-22.

Barker, J.F. and R. Dickhout. 1988. An evaluation of some systems for sampling gas-charged

ground water for volatile organic analysis. Ground Water Monitoring Review, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp.

112-120.

Bergren, C.L., R.C. Tuckfield, and N.M. Park. 1990. Suitability of the hydropunch for assessing

ground water contaminated by volatile organics. In: Proceedings of Fourth National Outdoor

Action Conference on Aquifer Restoration, Ground Water Monitoring and Geophysical Methods,

Volume 2, National Ground Water Association, Dublin, OH, pp. 387-401.

Berzins, N.A. 1992. Use of the cone penetrometer test and BAT ground water monitoring system

to assess deficiencies in monitoring well data. Proceedings of the Sixth National Outdoor Action

Conference, Las Vegas, NV May 1992, National Ground Water Association, Westerville, OH, pp.

327-339.

BP Corporation North America, Inc. 2002. Monitoring Well Comparison Study: An Evaluation of

Direct-Push Versus Conventional Monitoring Wells. May 1, 2002, 80 pp. (available at

www.epa.gov/swerust1/cat/wellstdy.pdf).

Buddemeier, R.W. and J.R. Hunt. 1988. Transport of colloidal contaminants in ground water.

Radionuclide migration at the Nevada Test Site. Applied Geochemistry, Vol. 3 pp. 535-548.

Butler, J., et al. 2002. Hydraulic tests with direct-push equipment. Ground Water, Vol. 40, No. 1,

pp. 25-36.

Canova, J.L. and M.G. Muthig. 1991. The effect of latex gloves and nylon cord on ground-water

sample quality. Ground Water Monitoring Review, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 98-103.

Clark, L. and K.M. Baxter. 1989. Ground water sampling techniques for organic micropollutants:

UK experience. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology, Vol. 22, pp. 159- 168.

Cherry, J.A. 1992. Ground water monitoring: some current deficiencies and alternative

approaches, Chapter 13. In: Hazardous Waste Site Investigations: Toward Better Decisions, R.B.

Gammage and B.A. Berven, editors, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, pp.119-134.

Cherry, J.A., R.A. Ingleton, D.K. Solomon, and N.D. Farrow. 1992. Low technology approaches

for drive point profiling of contaminant distributions. In: Proceedings, National Ground Water

Sampling Symposium, pp. 109-111.

Crumbling, D. 2000. Improving the cost-effectiveness of hazardous waste site characterization

and monitoring. Special Report #6, Failsafe, January 2000, 10 pp.

Devlin, J.F. 1987. Recommendations concerning materials and pumping systems used in the

sampling of ground water contaminated with volatile organics. Water Pollution Research Journal

of Canada, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 65-72.

Dragun, J. 1988. The Soil Chemistry of Hazardous Materials. Hazardous Materials Control

Research Institute, Silver Spring, MD.

Driscoll, F.G. 1986. Groundwater and Wells (Second Edition). Johnson Division, UOP, Inc., St.

Paul, MN.

Edge, R.W. and K. Cordry. 1989. The hydropunch: an in-situ sampling tool for collecting ground

water from unconsolidated sediments. Ground Water Monitoring Review, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp.

177-183.

Eichholz, G.G., B.G. Wahlig, G.F. Powell, and T.F. Craft. 1982. Subsurface migration of

radioactive waste materials by particulate transport. Nuclear Technology, Vol. 58, pp. 511-519.

Enfield, C.G. and G. Bengtsson. 1988. Macromolecular transport of hydrophobic contaminants in

aqueous environments. Ground Water, Vol. 26, No. 1 pp. 64-70.

Enfield, C.G., G. Bengtsson, and R. Lindquist. 1989. Influence of macromolecules on chemical

transport. Environmental Science & Technology, Vol. 23, No. 10, pp. 1278-1286.

Geoprobe. 1996. Geoprobe® 0.5-in. x 1.4-in. OD and 0.75-in. x 1.4-in. OD Prepacked Screen

Monitoring Wells, Standard Operating Procedure. Technical Bulletin No. 962000, September,

revised June 2002.

Gibb, J.P., R.M. Schuller, and R.A. Griffin. 1981. Procedures for the Collection of Representative

Water Quality Data from Monitoring Wells. Illinois State Water Survey/Geological Survey

Cooperative Ground-Water Report No. 7, Champaign, IL.

Gibs, J. and T.E. Imbrigiotta. 1990. Well purging criteria for sampling purgeable organic

compounds. Ground Water, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 68-78.

Gibs, J., T.E. Imbrigiotta, J.H. Ficken, J.F. Pankow, and M.E. Rosen. 1994. Effect of sample

isolation and handling on the recovery of purgeable organic compounds. Ground Water

Monitoring and Remediation, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 142-152.

Gillham, R.W. and S.F. O'Hannesin. 1990. Sorption of aromatic hydrocarbons by materials used

in construction of ground-water sampling wells. In: Proceedings, ASTM Symposium on

Standards Development for Ground Water and Vadose Zone Monitoring Investigations, ASTM

Special Technical Publication 1053, pp. 108-124.

Gillham, R.W., M.J.L. Robin, J.F. Barker, and J.A. Cherry. 1985. Field Evaluation of Well

Purging Procedures. American Petroleum Institute Publication 4405, Environmental Affairs

Department, 109 pp.

Gillham, R.W., M.J.L. Robin, J.F. Barker, and J.A. Cherry. 1983. Ground-Water Monitoring and

Sample Bias. American Petroleum Institute Publication 4367, 206 pp.

Grolimund, D., M. Borkovec, K. Barmettler, and H. Sticher. 1996. Colloid-facilitated transport of

strongly sorbing contaminants in natural porous media: a laboratory column study. Environmental

Science & Technology, American Chemical Society, Vol. 30, No. 10, pp. 3118-3123.

Gschwend, P.M., D.A. Backhus, J.K. MacFarlane, and A.L. Page. 1990. Mobilization of colloids

in ground water due to infiltration of water at a coal ash disposal site. Journal of Contaminant

Hydrology, Vol. 6 pp. 307-320.

Gschwend, P.M. and M.D. Reynolds. 1987. Monodisperse ferrous phosphate colloids in an

anoxic ground water plume. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, Vol. 1, pp. 309-327.

Heidlauf, D.T. and T.R. Bartlett. 1993. Effects of monitoring well purge and sampling techniques

on the concentration of metal analytes in unfiltered ground water samples. In: Proceedings,

Seventh Outdoor Action Conference and Exposition, National Ground Water Association,

Dublin, OH, pp. 437-450.

Henebry, B.J. and G.A. Robbins. 2000. Reducing the influence of skin effects on hydraulic

conductivity determinations in multi-level samples installed with direct push methods, Ground

Water, Vol. 38, No. 6, pp. 882-886.

Herzog, B., J. Pennino, and G. Nielsen. 1991. Ground-water sampling, Chapter 11 in The

Practical Handbook of Ground-Water Monitoring. D.M. Nielsen, editor, Lewis Publishers,

Chelsea, MI, pp. 449-499.

Hewitt, A.D. 1992. Potential of common well casing materials to influence aqueous metal

concentrations. Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 131-136.

Ho, James 1983. Effect of sampling variables on recovery of volatile organics in water. Journal of

the American Water Works Association, Vol. 75, No. 11, pp. 583-586.

Holm, T.R., G.K. George, and M.J. Barcelona. 1988. Oxygen transfer through flexible tubing and

its effects on ground-water sampling results. Ground Water Monitoring Review, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp.

83-89.

Howard, P., et al. 1993a. Handbook of Environmental Fate and Exposure Data for Organic

Chemicals, Volume II Solvents. Lewis Publishers.

Howard, P., et al., 1993b. Handbook of Environmental Fate and Exposure Data for Organic

Chemicals, Volume IV Solvents 2. Lewis Publishers.

Houghton, R.L. and M.E. Berger. 1984. Effects of well-casing composition and sampling method

on apparent quality of ground water. Proceedings of the Fourth National Symposium on Aquifer

Restoration and Ground Water Monitoring, Columbus, OH, May, 1984, National Water Well

Association, Worthington, OH, pp. 203-213.

Huntzinger, T.L. and L.E. Stullken. 1988. An Experiment in Representative Ground-Water

Sampling for Water-Quality Analysis. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Res. Inv. Report 88-4178,

Reston, VA.

Iles, D.L., P.D. Hammond, and L.D. Schulz. 1992. Effects of sampling methods on inorganic

water chemistry results. In: Proceedings, National Ground Water Sampling Symposium,

Washington, DC November 1992, pp. 41-70.

Imbrigiotta, T.E., J. Gibs, T.V. Fusillo, G.R. Kish, and J.J. Hochreiter. 1988. Field evaluation of

seven sampling devices for purgeable organic compounds in ground water. In: Ground-Water

Contamination: Field Methods, ASTM STP 963, A.G. Collins and A.J. Johnson, editors,

American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 258-273.

Kaback, D.S., C.L. Bergren, C.A. Carlson, and C.L. Carlson. 1990. Testing a ground water

sampling tool: are the samples representative? In: Proceedings, Fourth National Outdoor Action

Conference on Aquifer Restoration, Ground Water Monitoring and Geophysical Methods,

Volume 2, National Ground Water Association, Dublin, OH, pp. 403-417.

Karklins, S. 1996. Ground Water Sampling Desk Reference. Wisconsin Department of Natural

Resources Publication #PUBL-DG-037 96, Wisconsin DNR Bureau of Drinking Water and

Ground Water, 165 pp.

Kearl, P.M., N.E. Korte, M. Stites, and J. Baker. 1994. Field comparison of micropurging vs.

traditional ground water sampling. Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation, Vol. 14, No. 4,

pp. 183-190.

Kearl, P.M., N.E. Korte, and T.A. Cronk. 1992. Suggested modifications to ground water

sampling procedures based on observations from the colloidal borescope. Ground Water

Monitoring Review, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 155-161.

Keely, J.F. and K. Boateng. 1987. Monitoring well installation, purging and sampling techniques

part 1: conceptualizations. Ground Water, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp.300-313.

Knobel, L.L. and L.J. Mann. 1993. Sampling for purgeable organic compounds using

positive-displacement piston and centrifugal pumps: a comparative study. Ground Water

Monitoring and Remediation, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 142-148.

Kram, Mark, et al. 2003. Direct-push wells prove effective for long-term ground water

monitoring. Water Well Journal, Vol. 57, No. 4, pp. 16 and 18.

Kram, Mark, 2001. Personal communication with David M. Nielsen.

Kram, M., D. Lorenzana, J. Michaelsen, and E. Lam. 2000. Performance Comparison:

Direct-Push Wells Versus Drilled Wells. NFESC Technical Report TR-2120-ENV, October 2000,

Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Washington, DC, 55 pp.

Lee, G. F. and R.A. Jones. 1983. Guidelines for sampling ground water. Journal of the Water

Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 55, No. 1, pp. 92-96.

Lutenegger, A.J. and D.J. DeGroot. 1995. Techniques for sealing cone penetrometer holes.

Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 32, No. 5, pp. 880-891.

MacFarlane, I.D., J.L. Kocornik, F.T. Barranco, and A.R. Bonas. 1992. The application of slow

pumping at a manufactured gas plant. Proceedings of the Sixth National Outdoor Action

Conference, Las Vegas, NV, May 1992, National Ground Water Association, Westerville, OH,

pp. 413-426.

Marsh, M.J. and J.W. Lloyd. 1980. Details of hydrochemical variations in flowing wells. Ground

Water, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 366-373.

Mason, S.A., J. Barkach, and J. Dragun. 1992. Discussion of “literature review and model

(COMET) for colloidal/metals transport in porous media.” Ground Water, Vol. 30, No. 1,

pp.104-106.

McCall, W., et al. 2002. A dual-tube direct-push method for vertical profiling of hydraulic

conductivity in unconsolidated formations. Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. VIII,

No. 2, pp. 75-84.

McCall, W. 2000. Innovative direct-push ground-water monitoring compared to conventional

methods. In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated

and Recalcitrant Compounds, Battelle Press, Columbus, OH, Vol. C2-1, pp. 71-78.

McCall, W., S. Stover, C. Enos, and G. Fuhrmann. 1997. Field comparison of direct push

prepacked screen wells to paired HSA 2" PVC wells. In: Proceedings Vol. 2, HazWasteWorld

Superfund XVIII Conference, December 1997, Washington, DC, pp. 647-655.

McCarthy, J.F. and C. Degueldre. 1993. Sampling and characterization of colloids and particles in

ground water for studying their role in contaminant transport. In: Environmental Particles, J.

Buffle, and H.P. van Leeuwen, editors, Lewis Publishers, pp. 247-315.

McCarthy, J. and L. Shevenell. 1998. Obtaining representative ground-water samples in a

fractured and karstic formation. Ground Water, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 251-260.

McCarthy, J.F. and J.M. Zachara. 1989. Subsurface transport of contaminants: binding to mobile

and immobile phases in ground water aquifers. Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 23,

No. 5, pp. 496-504.

McDowell-Boyer, L.M., J.R. Hunt, and N. Sitar. 1986. Particle transport through porous media.

Water Resources Research, Vol. 22, No. 13, pp. 1901-1921.

Miller, G.D. 1982. Uptake and release of lead, chromium and trace level volatile organics

exposed to synthetic well casings. In: Proceedings, Second National Symposium on Aquifer

Restoration and Ground Water Monitoring, National Ground Water Association, Worthington,

Ohio, pp. 236 - 245.

Montgomery, J. and L. Welkom. 1991. Groundwater Chemicals Desk Reference. Lewis

Publishers.

Moylan, J.E. 1991. Data Gaps in Remedial Design. U.S. EPA/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Engineering Issue, July, 1991, 5 pp.

Muska, C.F., W.P. Colven, V.D. Jones, J.T. Scogin, B.B. Looney, and V. Price, Jr. 1986. Field

evaluation of ground water sampling devices for volatile organic compounds. In: Proceedings of

the Sixth National Symposium and Exposition on Aquifer Restoration and Ground Water

Monitoring, National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH, pp. 235-245.

NWWA/PPI. 1980. Manual on the Selection and Installation of Thermoplastic Water Well

Casing. National Water Well Association, Worthington, OH, 64 pp.

Nielsen, D.M. (editor). 1991. The Practical Handbook of Ground-Water Monitoring. Lewis

Publishers, Chelsea, MI, 717 pp.

Nielsen, D.M. 1995a. The relationship of monitoring well design, construction and development

to turbidity in wells, and related implications for ground water sampling, In: Ground Water

Sampling—A Workshop Summary, EPA 600/R-94/205. U.S. EPA Office of Research and

Development, Washington DC, p. 16.

Nielsen, D.M. 1995b. Building a better monitoring well using ASTM standards to improve well

construction and cut monitoring costs. Workshop Presented at the Ninth National Outdoor Action

Conference and Exposition, Las Vegas, NV, May 1995, National Ground Water Association,

Westerville, OH, pp. 47-59.

Nielsen, D.M. and G.L. Nielsen. 1995. Understanding the ramifications of change: developments

in monitoring well purging and ground-water sample filtration. Workshop Presented at the Ninth

National Outdoor Action Conference and Exposition, Las Vegas, NV, May 1995, National

Ground Water Association, Westerville, OH, pp. 233-239.

Nielsen, D.M. and G.L. Nielsen. 1999. Technical Guidance on Low-Flow Purging & Sampling

and Passive Sampling. Nielsen Environmental Field School Publication, NEFS-TG001-99,

Galena, OH, 57 pp.

Nielsen, D.M. and R. Schalla. 1991. Design and installation of ground-water monitoring wells.

Chapter 7 in The Practical Handbook of Ground-Water Monitoring, D.M. Nielsen, Editor. Lewis

Publishers, Chelsea, MI, pp. 239-332.

Nielsen, D.M. and G.L. Yeates. 1985. A comparison of sampling mechanisms available for

small-diameter ground water monitoring wells. Ground Water Monitoring Review, Vol. 5, No. 2,

pp. 83-89.

O'Melia, C.R. 1990. Kinetics of colloid chemical processes in aquatic systems. In Aquatic

Chemical Kinetics, W. Stumm editor. Wiley & Sons, NY, NY, pp. 447-474.

Oneacre, J. and D. Figueras. 1996. Ground water variability at sanitary landfills: causes and

solutions. In Proceedings, ASCE Conference on Uncertainty in the Geologic Environment,

Madison, WI, July 31 - August 3, 1996, pp. 965-987.

Parker, L. 1991. Suggested guidelines for the use of PTFE, PVC and stainless steel in samplers

and well casings. In: Current Practices in Ground Water and Vadose Zone Investigations, ASTM

STP 1118, D.M. Nielsen and M.N. Sara, editors. American Society for Testing and Materials,

Philadelphia, PA. 13 pp.

Parker, L. 1994. The effects of ground water sampling devices on water quality: a literature

review. Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 130-141.

Parker, L.V., A.D. Hewitt, and T.F. Jenkins. 1990. Influence of casing materials on trace-level

chemicals in well water. Ground Water Monitoring Review, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 146-156.

Paul, D.G., C.D. Palmer, and D.S. Cherkauer. 1988. The effect of construction, installation and

development on the turbidity of water in monitoring wells in fine-grained glacial till. Ground

Water Monitoring Review, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 73-82.

Paul, C.J. and R.W. Puls. 1997. Impact of turbidity on TCE and degradation products in ground

water. Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation, No. 17 No. 1, pp. 128-133.

Pearsall, K.A. and D.A.V. Eckhardt. 1987. Effects of selected sampling equipment and

procedures on the concentrations of trichloroethylene and related compounds in ground water

samples. Ground Water Monitoring Review, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 64-73.

Penrose, W.R., W.L. Polzer, E.H. Essington, D.M. Nelson, and K.A. Orlandin. 1990. Mobility of

plutonium and americium through a shallow aquifer in a semi-arid region. Environmental Science

and Technology, Vol. 24, pp. 228-234.

Pitkin, S., R.A. Ingleton, and J.A. Cherry. 1994. Use of a drive point sampling device for detailed

characterization of a PCE plume in a sand aquifer at a dry cleaning facility. In: Proceedings,

Eighth National Outdoor Action Conference and Exposition, National Ground Water Association,

Dublin, OH, pp. 395-412.

Pitkin, S.E., J.A. Cherry, R.A. Ingleton, and M. Broholm. 1999. Field demonstrations using the

Waterloo Ground Water Profiler. Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp.

122-131.

Pohlmann, K.F., G.A. Icopini, R.D. McArthur, and C.G., Rosal. 1994. Evaluation of Sampling

and Field-Filtration Methods for Analysis of Trace Metals in Ground Water, EPA 600/R-94/119.

U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development, Las Vegas, NV.

Pohlmann, K.F. and J.W. Hess. 1988. Generalized ground water sampling device matrix. Ground

Water Monitoring Review, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 82-83.

Pohlmann, K.F., R.P. Blegen, and J.W. Hess. 1991. Field Comparison of Ground-Water Sampling

Devices for Hazardous Waste Sites: An Evaluation Using Volatile Organic Compounds, EPA

600/4-90/028. U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development, Las Vegas, NV, 102 pp.

Powell, R.M. and R.W. Puls. 1993. Passive sampling of ground water monitoring wells without

purging: multilevel well chemistry and tracer disappearance. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology,

Vol. 12, pp. 51-77.

Powell, R.M. and R.W. Puls. 1997. Hitting the bull's-eye in ground water sampling. Pollution

Engineering, pp. 51-54.

Puls, R.W. 1990. Colloidal considerations in ground water sampling and contaminant transport

predictions. Nuclear Safety, Vol. 31, pp. 58-65.

Puls, R.W. and C.J. Paul. 1995. Low-flow purging and sampling of ground-water monitoring

wells with dedicated systems. Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.

116-123.

Puls, R.W. and J.F. McCarthy. 1995. Well Purging and Sampling (Workshop Group Summary),

Ground Water Sampling - A Workshop Summary, EPA 600/R-94/205, U.S. EPA Office of

Research and Development, Washington, DC, pp. 82-87.

Puls, R.W. and M.J. Barcelona. 1996. Low Flow (Minimal Drawdown) Ground Water Sampling

Procedures, U.S. EPA Ground Water Issue, EPA 540/5-95/504. U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste

and Emergency Response, Washington, DC, 12 pp.

Puls, R.W. and M.J. Barcelona. 1989. Ground Water Sampling for Metals Analysis, U.S. EPA

Superfund Ground Water Issue, EPA 540/4-89/001. U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste and

Emergency Response, Washington, DC, 6 pp.

Puls, R.W. and J.H. Eychaner. 1990. Sampling ground water for inorganics— pumping rate,

filtration and oxidation effects. In: Proceedings, Fourth National Outdoor Action Conference on

Aquifer Restoration, Ground Water Monitoring and Geophysical Methods, National Water Well

Association, Dublin, OH, pp. 313-327.

Puls, R.W. and R.M. Powell, 1992a. Acquisition of representative ground-water quality samples

for metals. Ground Water Monitoring Review, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 167-176.

Puls, R.W. and R.M. Powell. 1992b. Transport of inorganic colloids through natural aquifer

material: implications for contaminant transport. Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 26

No. 3, pp. 614-621.

Puls, R.W., D.A. Clark, B. Bledsoe, R.M. Powell, and C.J. Paul. 1992. Metals in ground water:

sampling artifacts and reproducibility. Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials, Vol. 9, No. 9,

pp. 149-162.

Puls, R.W., R.M. Powell, D.A. Clark, and C.J. Paul. 1991. Facilitated Transport of Inorganic

Contaminants in Ground Water: Part II, Colloidal Transport, EPA 600/M-91/040. Robert S. Kerr

Laboratory, U.S. EPA, Ada, OK.

Puls, R.W., J.H. Eychaner, and R.M. Powell. 1990. Facilitated Transport of Inorganic

Contaminants in Ground Water: Part I. Sampling Considerations, EPA 600/M-90/023. Robert S.

Kerr Laboratory, U.S. EPA, Ada, OK, 12 pp.

Reynolds, M.D. 1985. Colloids in Ground Water, Masters Thesis. Massachusetts Institute of

Technology, Cambridge, MA.

Robertson, W.D., J.F. Barker, Y. LeBeau, and S. Marcoux. 1984. Contamination of an unconfined

sand aquifer by waste pulp liquor: a case study. Ground Water, Vol. 22, pp. 192-197.

Robin, M.J.L. and R.W. Gillham. 1987. Field evaluation of well purging procedures. Ground

Water Monitoring Review, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 85-93.

Robbins, G.A. and J.M. Martin-Hayden. 1991. Mass balance evaluation of monitoring well

purging, part 1. Theoretical models and implications for representative sampling. Journal of

Contaminant Hydrology, Vol. 8, pp. 203-224.

Ryan, J.N. and P.M. Gschwend. 1990. Colloidal mobilization in two atlantic coastal plain

aquifers: field studies, Water Resources Research, Vol. 26, pp. 307-322.

Ryan, J. N., S. Mangion, and R. Willey. 1995. Turbidity and colloid transport (working group

summary), Ground Water Sampling—A Workshop Summary, EPA 600/R-94/205. U.S. EPA

Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC, pp. 88-92.

Serlin, C.L. and L.M. Kaplan. 1996. Field comparison of micropurge and traditional

ground-water sampling for volatile organic compounds. In: Proceedings, Petroleum

Hydrocarbons and Organic Chemicals in Ground Water, National Ground Water Association,

Westerville, OH, pp. 177-190.

Shanklin, D.E., W.C. Sidle, and M.E. Ferguson. 1995. Micropurge low-flow sampling of

uranium-contaminated ground water at the Fernald environmental management project. Ground

Water Monitoring and Remediation, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 168-176.

Smolley M. and J.C. Kappmeyer. 1991. Cone penetrometer tests and hydropunch sampling: a

screening technique for plume definition. Ground Water Monitoring Review, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp.

101-106.

Stolzenburg, T.R. and D.G. Nichols. 1985. Preliminary Results on Chemical Changes in Ground

Water Samples Due to Sampling Devices. EPRI Report EA-4118, 53 pp.

Stolzenburg, T.R. and D.G. Nichols. 1986. Effects of filtration method and sampling device on

inorganic chemistry of sampled well water. In: Proceedings, Sixth National Symposium and

Exposition on Aquifer Restoration and Ground Water Monitoring, National Ground Water

Association, Worthington, OH, pp. 216-234.

Stumm, W. and J.J. Morgan. 1981. Aquatic Chemistry. New York Interscience, 583 pp.

Stumm, W. and J. J. Morgan. 1996. Aquatic Chemistry: Chemical Equilibria and Rates in Natural

Waters, Third Edition. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NY.

Tai, D.Y., K.S. Turner, and L.A. Garcia. 1991. The use of a standpipe to evaluate ground-water

samplers. Ground Water Monitoring Review, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 125-132.

Thornton, D., S. Ita, and K. Larsen. 1997. Broader use of innovative ground water access

technologies. In: Proceedings Vol. 2, HazWasteWorld Superfund XVIII Conference Proceedings,

December 1997, Washington, DC, pp. 639-646.

Unwin, J.T. 1982. A Guide to Ground Water Sampling, Technical Bulletin 362. National Council

of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvements, New York, NY.

Unwin, J.T. and V. Maltby. 1988. Investigations of Techniques for Purging Ground Water

Monitoring Wells and Sampling Ground Water for Volatile Organic Compounds. ASTM Special

Technical Publication 963, ASTM, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 240-252.

U.S. EPA. 1989. Handbook of Suggested Practices for the Design and Installation of Ground-

Water Monitoring Wells, EPA 600/4-89/034. Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory,

Office of Research and Development, Las Vegas, NV, October 1989, 398 pp.

U.S. EPA. 1992. RCRA Ground-Water Monitoring: Draft Technical Guidance. Office of Solid

Waste, November 1992.

U.S. EPA. 1996a. Low Stress (Low Flow) Purging and Sampling Procedures for the Collection of

Ground-Water Samples from Monitoring Wells. U.S. EPA Region 1, SOP#GW0001, Boston,

MA, 13 pp.

U.S. EPA. 1996b. Environmental Investigations Standard Operating Procedures and Quality

Assurance Manual. U.S. EPA Region 4, Atlanta, GA.

U.S. EPA. 1997. Expedited Site Assessment Tools for Underground Storage Tank Sites, A Guide

for Regulators, EPA 510-B-97-001. Office of Underground Storage Tanks, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA. 2000a. Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives Process, QA/G-4, EPA 600/R-

96/055. Office of Environmental Information, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA. 2000b. Data Quality Objectives Process for Hazardous Waste Site Investigations: EPA

QA/G-HHW Final, EPA 600/R-00/007. Office of Environmental Information, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA. 2002. Ground-Water Sampling Guidelines for Superfund and RCRA Project

Managers, http://www.epa.gov/tio/tsp/download/gw_sampling_guide.pdf.

Walker, S.E. 1983. Background ground-water quality monitoring: well installation trauma. In:

Proceedings, Third National Symposium on Aquifer Restoration and Ground Water Monitoring,

National Water Well Association, Worthington, OH, pp. 235-246.

Yeskis, D., K. Chiu, S. Meyers, J. Weiss, J., and T. Bloom. 1988. A field study of various

sampling devices and their effects on volatile organic contaminants. In: Proceedings of Second

National Conference on Aquifer Restoration, Ground Water Monitoring and Geophysical

Methods, National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH, pp. 471-479.

Zemo, D.A., T.A. Delfino, J.D. Gallinatti, V.A. Baker, and L.R. Hilpert. 1995. Field comparison

of analytical results from discrete-depth ground water samplers. Ground Water Monitoring and

Remediation, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 133-141.

Zemo, D.A., Y.G. Pierce, and J.D. Gallinatti. 1994. Cone penetrometer testing and discrete-depth

ground water sampling techniques: a cost-effective method of site characterization in a

multiple-aquifer setting, Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp.

176-182.

This page is intentionally blank.

Appendix: Purging and Sampling Devices

A wide variety of purging and sampling equipment is available for use in DPT sampling

points. Available devices can be classified into five general categories:

• Grab mechanisms (including bailers, thief samplers, and syringes);

• Suction-lift mechanisms (including surface centrifugal and peristaltic pumps);

• Centrifugal submersible pumps;

• Positive displacement mechanisms (including gas displacement pumps, bladder pumps,

piston pumps, progressing cavity pumps and gear pumps); and

• Inertial-lift pumps.

Though frequently used in the groundwater industry for well development, the gas-lift method is

generally considered unsuitable for purging and sampling because the extensive mixing of drive

gas and water is likely to strip dissolved gasses from the groundwater and alter the concentration

of other dissolved constituents (Gillham et al., 1983). This method is not discussed for this

reason.

Grab Sampling Devices

Bailers, thief samplers (e.g., messenger samplers), and syringes are all examples of grab

sampling devices. These devices are lowered into the sampling point on a cable, rope, string,

chain, or tubing to the desired sampling depth and then retrieved for purge water discharge,

sample transfer, or direct transport of the device to the laboratory for sample transfer and analysis.

The most commonly used grab samplers are bailers, which are available in both single

check valve and dual check valve designs. The single check valve bailer is lowered to the

sampling point, and water entering the bailer opens the check valve and fills the bailer. During

retrieval, gravity and the weight of the water inside the bailer closes the check valve. There is

some potential for the contents of the bailer to mix with the surrounding water column during

retrieval. If mixing is not desirable, then a dual check valve bailer is advisable. Dual check valve

bailers are intended to prevent mixing of the sample with the water column upon retrieval. Water

passes through the dual check valve bailer as it is lowered. Upon retrieval, both check valves

seat, retaining the aliquot of water inside the bailer. Groundwater investigators can minimize

mixing by raising the bailer in a steady upward motion with no pausing or slight downward

motion, which can occur if the retrieval is done manually.

The thief sampler, employs a mechanical, electrical, or pneumatic trigger to actuate plugs

or valves at either end of an open tube to open and/or close the chamber after lowering it to the

desired sampling depth, thus sampling from a discrete interval within the well.

The syringe sampler is divided into two chambers by a moveable piston or float. The

upper chamber is attached to a flexible air line that extends to the ground surface. The lower

chamber is the sample chamber. The device is lowered into the sampling point and activated by

applying a suction to the upper chamber, thereby drawing the piston or float upward and allowing

water to enter the lower chamber. In situations where the pressure exerted on the lower chamber

by submergence is great enough to cause the piston or float to move upward prior to achieving the

desired sampling depth, the upper chamber can be pressurized to prevent piston movement. The

device is then activated by slowly releasing the pressure from the upper chamber, allowing water

to fill the lower chamber.

Samples collected with grab samplers, especially various types of bailers, exhibit variable

accuracy and precision in sample chemistry, often due to operator technique (Puls et al., 1992;

Barcelona et al., 1984; Gillham et al., 1983; Pohlmann et al., 1991; Unwin and Maltby, 1988; Tai

et al., 1991). Grab samplers can aerate and/or agitate a sample, causing sample oxidation,

degassing, and stripping of VOCs from the sample. Care should be taken to avoid sample

agitation during transfer of the sample from a grab sampler to the sample container. Pouring

water from the top of a bailer either directly into the sample container or to a transfer vessel may

agitate/aerate the sample and cause alteration of sample chemistry. These devices can also

increase the turbidity of a sample through the surging action created in the well as the device

moves through the water column. Grab samplers generally do not subject the sample to pressure

changes, though some change may be imparted to a sample when using a syringe sampler

activated with a suction. A potential for sample contamination exists due to exposure of the grab

sampling device to the surface environment during repeated removal and reinsertion of the device

during use. Also, the suspension cord or cable used with grab samplers could contribute

contaminants to groundwater samples (Canova and Muthig, 1991).

Suction-Lift Pumps

Surface centrifugal pumps and peristaltic pumps are two common suction-lift pumps.

These pumps are usually placed at or above ground level during purging and sampling. They

draw water to the surface by applying suction to an intake line through the use of impellers or

rotors typically driven by an electric motor. Surface centrifugal pumps use impellers that are

typically constructed of brass or mild steel, plastic, or synthetic rubber. A peristaltic pump

consists of a rotor with rollers that squeeze flexible tubing as they revolve within a stator housing.

This action generates a reduced pressure at one end of the tubing and an increased pressure at the

other end. Several types of elastomeric material can be used for the tubing, although silicone

rubber is the most common.

Suction-lift pumps may be unacceptable for some groundwater sampling applications.

Exertion of a reduced pressure on the sample can cause volatilization or may result in degassing,

which can cause changes in the pH, redox potential, and other gas-sensitive parameters

(Barcelona et al., 1983; Ho, 1983; Barker and Dickhout, 1988). Peristaltic pumps may be

satisfactory for some analytes that are not affected by changes in the sample that can be caused by

application of reduced pressure when used under low-flow rate and low lift conditions (Barcelona

et al., 1983; Puls and Powell, 1992; Backhus et al., 1993).

Because surface centrifugal pumps can cause cavitation, they are not appropriate for

collection of samples to be analyzed for dissolved gases, VOCs, or gas-sensitive parameters such

as trace metals. Because the pumped water contacts the pump mechanism, artifacts from sample

contact with these materials should be considered when evaluating these pumps for sampling. In

addition, these pumps can mix air from small leaks in the suction circuit into a sample, which can

cause sample bias. These pumps are typically difficult to adequately decontaminate between

uses. To avoid the limitations posed by the effects of pumping or undesirable pump materials, an

intermediate vessel could be used on the suction side of the pump circuit.

Peristaltic pumps do not usually cause cavitation but, as in all suction-lift pumps, the

exertion of a reduced pressure on the sample can bias the sample. The flexible tubing required for

use in a peristaltic pump mechanism may also cause sample bias.

Centrifugal Submersible Pumps

A centrifugal submersible pump (CSP) consists of impellers housed within diffuser

chambers that are attached to a sealed electric motor, which drives the impellers through a shaft

and seal arrangement. Water enters the CSP by pressure of submergence, is pressurized by

centrifugal force generated by the impellers, and discharged to the surface through tubing, hose,

or pipe. A CSP is suspended in a well by its discharge line and/or a support line. Electric power

is supplied to the motor through a braided or flat multiple-conductor insulated cable.

Flow rate and depth capability for all designs are wide ranging. For variable-speed CSPs,

the discharge rate can be reduced by regulating the frequency of the electrical power supply and

controlling the motor speed to reduce flow rate.

While there is no available peer-reviewed literature addressing the sampling effects of

small-diameter variable-speed CSPs on dissolved gases or VOCs, one study found these pumps

produced samples for some dissolved metals that were comparable to samples from bladder

pumps (Pohlmann et al., 1994). With all CSPs, heat generated by the motor could increase

sample temperature, which could result in loss of dissolved gases and VOCs from the sample.

CSPs are only available in diameters that will fit into sampling points 1.75 inches or larger

in diameter. CSPs can be damaged when used in silty or sandy water, requiring repair or

replacement of pump components and/or motor. If overheating occurs, there are three possible

consequences. First, where the motor has internal water or oil in it for improved cooling

characteristics, some of this liquid could be released into the sampling point, which could

potentially contaminate the sampling point or samples. Because of this, motors that contain oil

should not be used if the oil could interfere with the analytes of interest. Further, water used in

motors should be of known chemistry. Second, when this type of motor eventually cools, it can

draw in water from the sampling point, which could cause future cross-contamination problems.

Proper decontamination of the pump should include changing internal cooling fluid if the pump is

For example, the plasticizers in flexible PVC can contaminate samples with phthalate esters. The use of

silicone rubber tubing, which contains no plasticizers, can obviate this problem; however, the potential for sample

bias due to sorption/desorption exists with both materials (Barcelona et al., 1985). These pumps can be used with

the intermediate vessel system described above, so that the sample contacts only the intake tubing and vessel,

avoiding contact with the pump mechanism tubing. Alternatively, using silicone rubber tubing at the pump head

only can minimize this problem (Ho, 1983; Barker and Dickhout, 1988)

to be used in non-dedicated applications. As an alternative, dry sealed motors can be used to

avoid these potential problems. Third, extensive or long-term overheating problems may result in

motor failure, usually requiring replacement of the motor. CSPs should not be allowed to operate

dry, or damage may occur to the pump seals and/or motor. Some CSP designs may be difficult to

disassemble in the field for cleaning or repair. For these pumps, if used portably, cleaning is

usually performed by flushing the pump and discharge line and washing the exterior surfaces in

accordance with ASTM D5088 (ASTM, 2001h).

Gas-Drive Pumps

Gas-drive or gas-displacement pumps are distinguished from gas-lift pumps by the method

of water transport. A gas displacement pump forces a discrete column of water to the surface via

pressure-induced lift without the extensive mixing of drive gas and water produced by gas-lift

devices. Hydrostatic pressure opens the inlet check valve and fills the pump chamber (fill cycle).

The inlet check valve closes by gravity after the chamber is filled. Pressurized gas is applied to

the chamber, displacing the water up the discharge line (discharge cycle). By releasing the

pressure, the cycle can be repeated. A check valve in the discharge line maintains the water in the

line above the pump. A pneumatic logic unit, or controller, is used to control the application and

release of the drive gas pressure. The lift capability of a gas-displacement pump is directly

related to the pressure of the drive gas used.

Although there is a limited interface in gas-displacement pumps between the drive gas and

the water, the potential exists for loss of dissolved gases and VOCs across this interface

(Barcelona et al., 1983; Gillham et al., 1983). This potential greatly increases if the pump is

allowed to discharge completely, which would cause drive gas to be blown up the discharge line.

Contamination of the sample may also result from impurities in the drive gas. Typical lifts for

gas displacement pumps rarely exceed 250 feet using single-stage compressors; greater lifts can

be achieved using two-stage compressors or compressed-gas cylinders. Gas-displacement pumps

are available for sampling points as small as 1/2 inch in diameter.

Bladder Pumps

Bladder pumps, also known as gas-operated squeeze pumps or diaphragm pumps, consist

of a flexible membrane (bladder) enclosed by a rigid housing. Water enters the bladder under

hydrostatic pressure through a check valve at the pump bottom. The inlet check valve closes by

gravity after the bladder is filled. Compressed gas is applied to the annular space between the

outside of the bladder and pump housing, which squeezes the bladder. This action forces the

water out of the bladder and up the discharge line to the surface. By releasing the gas pressure,

this cycle can be repeated; a check valve in the discharge line prevents discharged water from

re-entering the bladder. In some bladder pump designs, the water and air chambers are reversed,

with water entering the annular space between the pump housing and bladder; the bladder is then

inflated to displace the water. A pneumatic logic controller controls the application and release of

drive gas pressure to the pump. The lift capability of bladder pumps is directly related to the

pressure of the drive gas source.

Bladder pumps provide representative samples under a wide range of field conditions.

There is no contact between the drive gas and the water in a bladder pump, eliminating the

potential for stripping of dissolved gasses and VOCs and the potential for sample contamination

by the drive gas. Pressure gradients applied to the sample can be controlled by reducing the drive

gas pressure applied to the bladder, thus minimizing disturbance to the sample chemistry.

Bladder pumps are recommended for sampling all parameters under a wide variety of field

conditions (Parker, 1994; Kearl et al., 1992; Puls et al., 1992; Barcelona et al., 1983; Pohlmann et

al., 1991; Unwin and Maltby, 1988; Tai et al., 1991; Pohlmann et al., 1994).

Bladder pump designs are available for use in sampling points as small as 1/2 inch in

diameter. Bladder pump flow rates are controlled by adjusting the drive gas pressure or the

discharge and refill cycle timing. Where maximum flow rates are too low for purging, secondary

purging pumps or packers can be used in conjunction with bladder sampling pumps in order to

reduce purge time requirements.

Dual-Acting Piston Pumps

Dual-acting piston pumps consist of a plunger or set of plungers (pistons) moving inside a

stationary submerged barrel (cylinder). As the piston travels back and forth in the cylinder, it

alternately draws water into the cylinder under suction, then displaces the water from the

cylinder. In a dual-acting piston pump, water is simultaneously discharged and drawn in both

directions of piston travel. A check valve in each discharge port or in the discharge line is used to

prevent discharge water from re-entering the pump. The piston can be cycled manually, or

through the use of a pneumatic or mechanical actuator.

Piston pumps can provide representative samples for some parameters (Barcelona et al.,

1983; Knobel and Mann, 1993). Samples may be altered due to the suction produced during refill

of the pump; this effect is reduced as the pump cycling rate is decreased. Likewise, reducing the

pump cycling rate also reduces the pressure applied to the sample, minimizing the potential for

sample alteration. If a flow restrictor or valve is used to reduce the discharge rate, the resultant

pressure changes could alter sample chemistry (Barcelona et al., 1983; Gillham et al., 1983).

Currently available designs of dual-acting piston pumps will only fit in sampling points

that are 2 inches in diameter or larger. The flow rate of a piston pump depends on the inside

diameter of the pump cylinder and the stroke length and rate. The ability to control the minimum

flow rate for sampling is dependent on the degree to which the stroke rate can be controlled.

Helical Rotor Pumps

Helical rotor pumps, also referred to as progressing cavity pumps, utilize a down-hole

rotor and stator assembly driven by an electric motor to displace water through a discharge line to

ground surface. Rotation of the helical rotor causes the cavity between the rotor and stator to

progress upward, thereby pushing water in a continuous flow upward through the discharge line.

In some progressing cavity pumps, the discharge rate can be varied by adjusting the speed of the

pump motor between 50 and 500 rpm. The progressing cavity pump is typically suspended in a

well by its discharge line or by a suspension cable. A two-conductor electric cable supplies

power from a 12-volt DC power supply and control box to the pump motor.

The operating principle of progressing cavity pumps makes them suitable for collection of

samples to be analyzed for VOCs (Imbrigiotta et al., 1988). There is some evidence these pumps

may not be suitable for sampling trace metals and other inorganic analytes at higher flow rates

due to increased turbidity (Barcelona et al., 1983); to control turbidity, a variable speed pump

controller should be used to reduce flow rate. The pressure applied to a sample is directly related

to the motor speed, and can be controlled in designs using variable-speed motor controls.

Overheating of the motor may raise the temperature of the sample (Parker, 1994).

Progressing cavity pumps require sampling point diameters of at least 2 inches. The

relatively low discharge rates attainable with most progressing cavity pumps makes them most

useful in applications where purging does not require removal of large volumes of water from

monitoring wells. With variable flow rate progressing cavity pumps, once purging is complete

the discharge rate may be reduced before samples are collected.

Gear-Drive Pumps

Another type of positive displacement electric submersible pump is the gear-drive pump.

In this type of pump, an electric motor drives a pair of PTFE gears. As these gears rotate, their

advancing teeth draw water into the pump through the pump intake port and push it through the

gears in a continuous flow up the discharge line. The discharge rate can be varied by using the

pump controls to adjust the speed of the pump motor. As with many other submersible pumps,

the gear-drive pump is usually suspended in a well by its discharge line. Electric power is

supplied to the 24-volt DC motor through a cable from the power source and control box at

ground surface.

Gear-drive pumps provide good recoveries of dissolved gases, VOCs, trace metals and

other inorganics, and mobile colloids (Backhus et al., 1993; Imbrigiotta et al., 1988). However

cavitation may occur if the pump is run at high rpm, which could affect dissolved gases or VOCs.

The potential for cavitation can be reduced by controlling motor speed. The pressure applied by a

gear-drive pump to a sample is directly related to the motor speed, and can be controlled by using

the variable-speed motor controls. Gear-drive pumps are constructed of materials acceptable for

sampling sensitive groundwater parameters; pump bodies are commonly constructed entirely of

stainless steel materials while the gears are constructed of PTFE.

Gear-drive pumps require a sampling point diameter of at least 2 inches. Maximum

discharge rates for gear-drive pumps range from more than 3 gallons per minute at lifts of less

than 20 feet to 0.25 gallons per minute at lifts of 250 feet. Discharge rates are easily controlled

by using the flow control, which adjusts the power supplied to run the pump motor; pump

discharge can be adjusted to less than 50 ml/min.

Inertial Lift Pumps

Inertial lift pumps consist of a discharge line (either flexible tubing or rigid pipe) with a

ball-check foot valve attached to the lower end of this line. In operation, the pump is lowered

into a water column and cycled through reciprocating motion, either through manual action or

through the use of a reciprocating mechanical arm mechanism driven by an electric motor or

internal combustion engine, to achieve discharge of water. As the pump is moved upward, water

that has entered the pump under hydrostatic pressure is lifted upward, held in the pump by the

seated foot valve. When the upward motion of the pump is stopped, the inertia of the water

column inside the pump carries it up and out of the discharge line. As the pump is pushed

downward, the foot valve opens, allowing the pump to refill, and the cycle is repeated to pump

water from the sampling point.

Inertial lift pumps can be constructed of any flexible tubing material or rigid discharge

pipe that has sufficient strength to tolerate the pump cycling. Typically, these materials include

rigid and flexible PVC, PE, PP, and PTFE. Tubing diameters of ¼ inch or

d inch can be used to

collect samples from sampling points as small as ½ inch in diameter.

If inertial-lift pumps are cycled rapidly prior to or during sample collection, some loss of

VOCs and/or dissolved gasses could occur in the discharge stream. Inertial lift pumps do not

cause pressure changes in the sample. However, the cycling action of an inertial lift pump in a

sampling point can significantly increase sample turbidity and agitate and aerate the water column

within the sampling point. This can result in alteration of concentrations of a wide variety of

analytes (including dissolved gases, VOCs, and trace metals) and interference with analytical

determinations in the laboratory.

The flow rate of an inertial lift pump is directly related to the cycling rate of the pump.

Flexing of the tubing in the sampling point can cause the flow rate to drop. To achieve discharge

rates suitable for sample collection, it is necessary to insert a short length of small-diameter

flexible tubing into the discharge line to divert a portion of the discharge stream into sample

containers.