CEMP-RA 

Pamphlet 

NO. I I 10-1 -32 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Washington, DC 20314-1000 

I November 2005 

Engineering and Design 

SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND 

ANALYSIS PENETROMETER SYSTEM (SCAPS) 

I. Purpose. This pamphlet provides information on the capabilities and potential uses of the 

Site Characterization and Analysis Penetrometer System (SCAPS) direct-push technology for the 

investigation of hazardous, toxic, and radioactive waste (HTRW) sites. 

2. Applicability. This pamphlet applies to all USACE major subordinate commands, Districts, 

laboratories, and field operating activities having HTRW investigation and design responsibility. 

3. Distribution Statement. Approved for public release, distribution is unlimited. 

4. References. Required and related publications are listed in paragraph 4 of this document. 

FOR THE COMMANDER: 

5 Appendices 

(See Table of Contents) 

OHN R. McMAHON 

Corps of Engineers 

Chief of Staff 
i 

 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY EP 1110-1-32 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Washington, DC 20314-1000 

Pamphlet 

No. 1110-1-32 1 November 2005 

Engineering and Design 

SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND 

ANALYSIS PENETROMETER SYSTEM (SCAPS) 

Table of Contents 

Subject Paragraph Page 

1. Purpose................................................................................................... 1 1 

2. Applicability .......................................................................................... 2 1 

3. Distribution Statement ........................................................................... 3 1 

4. References.............................................................................................. 4 1 

5. Background............................................................................................ 5 3 

6. Discussion.............................................................................................. 6 3 

 a. General System ................................................................................. 6a 3 

 b. Description of Sensors and Associated 

 System Capabilities........................................................................... 6b 6 

 c. Physical Sampling Capabilities......................................................... 6c 8 

 d. Grouting Capabilities........................................................................ 6d 10 

 e. Survey ............................................................................................... 6e 10 

 f. New Sensors ...................................................................................... 6f 10 

 g. Data Collected................................................................................... 6g 10 

 h. 3-D Visualization.............................................................................. 6h 11 

 i. Field Analysis Options....................................................................... 6i 11 

 j. Data Validation.................................................................................. 6j 11 

 k. Field Applications............................................................................. 6k 12 

 l. Obtaining SCAPS Services................................................................ 6l 13 

7. Action..................................................................................................... 7 14 

Appendix A..............................................................................................................A-1

SCAPS Areas of Responsibility 

Appendix B..............................................................................................................B-1

SCAPS Capability Matrix 

Appendix C..............................................................................................................C-1

Schematic of the SCAPS POL and Geophysical Sensors Probe 
EP 1110-1-32 

1 Nov 05 

ii

Appendix D..............................................................................................................D-1

SCAPS Penetrometer Contaminant and Geophysical Sensor and Sampler Tools 

Appendix E..............................................................................................................E-1

Sample Cost Estimate 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY EP 1110-1-32 

 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

CEMP-RA Washington, DC 20314-1000 

Pamphlet 

No. 1110-1-32 1 November 2005 

Engineering and Design 

SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND 

ANALYSIS PENETROMETER SYSTEM (SCAPS) 

1. Purpose. This pamphlet provides information on the capabilities and potential uses of the 

Site Characterization and Analysis Penetrometer System (SCAPS) direct-push technology for the 

investigation of hazardous, toxic, and radioactive waste (HTRW) sites. 

2. Applicability. This pamphlet applies to all USACE major subordinate commands, 

Districts, laboratories, and field operating activities having HTRW investigation and design 

responsibility. 

3. Distribution Statement. Approved for public release, distribution is unlimited. 

4. References.

 a. Required References. 

None. 

 b. Related References. 

ASTM D-3441 

Standard Test Method for Deep, Quasi-Static, Cone and Friction-Cone Penetration Tests of Soil. 

American Society for Testing and Materials. 

ASTM D-5778 

Standard Test Method for Performing Electronic Friction Cone and Piezocone Penetration 

Testing of Soils. American Society for Testing and Materials. 

ASTM D-6187 

Standard Practice for Cone Penetrometer Technology Characterization of Petroleum 

Contaminated Sites with Nitrogen Laser-Induced Fluorescence. American Society for Testing 

and Materials. 

This pamphlet supersedes ETL 1110-1-171, dated 31 January 1996. 
EP 1110-1-32 

1 Nov 05

2

DOE (1998) 

Direct Sampling Ion Trap Mass Spectrometry (DSITMS), Innovative Technology Summary 

Report, Office of Science and Technology Reference #69, Dec 1998, U.S. Department of 

Energy. 

EPA (1997a) 

The Site Characterization and Analysis Penetrometer System (SCAPS) Laser-Induced 

Fluorescence (LIF) Sensor and Support System, Innovative Technology Evaluation Report, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency Report 600/R-97/019, Office of Research and Development, 

Feb 1997. 

EPA (1997b) 

The Rapid Optical Screening Tool (ROSTTM) Laser-Induced Fluorescence (LIF) System for 

Screening of Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Subsurface Soils, Innovative Technology Evaluation 

Report, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report 600/R-97/020, Office of Research and 

Development, Feb 1997. 

EPA (2002) 

Volatile Organic Compounds in Water, Soil, Soil Gas and Air by Direct Sampling Ion Trap Mass 

Spectrometry (DSITMS), Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes, Physical/Chemical 

Methods (SW-846), Method 8265, March 2002. 

ETC (1990) 

Earth Technology Corporation Testing Services Group, June 1990, Application of the Electric 

Cone Penetration Test to Environmental Groundwater Investigations. 

FHWA (1992) 

The Cone Penetrometer Test, Bulletin FHWA-SA-91-043, National Technical Information 

Service and Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Feb. 1992. 

Olsen and Malone (1988) 

Olsen, R.S. and Malone, P.G., 1988, “Soil Classification and Site Characterization Using the 

Cone Penetrometer Test,” Penetration Testing 1988, ISOPT-1, De Ruiter (ed.), Rotterdam, the 

Netherlands. 

Robertson and Campanella (1983a) 

Robertson, P.K. and Campanella, R.G., 1983, “Interpretation of Cone Penetrometer Test. Part I: 

Sand,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, vol. 20. 

Robertson and Campanella (1983b) 

Robertson, P.K. and Campanella, R.G., 1983, “Interpretation of Cone Penetrometer Test. Part II: 

Clay, ” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, vol. 20. 
EP 1110-1-32 

1 Nov 05

3

5. Background. 

 a. The cone penetrometer has been used extensively to determine subsurface stratigraphy 

and geotechnical properties in conventional geotechnical investigations. The electric cone has 

been in use since 1969. The cone penetrometer is fast and economical, provides a continuous 

stratigraphic record, and can identify thin subsurface strata. These characteristics make the cone 

penetrometer a useful investigative tool on HTRW sites. 

 b. HTRW site investigations, including drilling, monitor well installation, and sampling 

for laboratory analysis, have been time consuming and costly. An Army, Navy, and Air Force 

Tri-Service research and development effort focused on the use of the cone penetrometer to 

decrease the time and money spent on HTRW sites. The use of SCAPS as part of HTRW site 

investigations may optimize the selection of boring locations and samples for chemical analyses, 

identify preferential pathways of contaminant migration, reduce or eliminate investigationderived waste, and reduce or eliminate worker exposure to environmental contaminants. 

 c. The U.S. Army Environmental Center (AEC), formerly the U.S. Army Toxic and 

Hazardous Materials Agency (USATHAMA), sponsored the Mississippi site of the U.S. Army 

Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC), formerly the U.S. Army Engineer 

Waterways Experiment Station (WES), to develop SCAPS under a Tri-Service development 

effort that began in 1986. Initially, the sensor was based on a fluorometric method for detecting 

hydrocarbons, which was developed in conjunction with the U.S. Naval Space and Naval 

Warfare Systems Center, formerly the U.S. Naval Command, Control and Ocean Surveillance 

Center. The initial field trial of the SCAPS petroleum, oil, and lubricant (POL) sensor was 

conducted in 1990 at the Jacksonville Naval Air Station, Florida, waste oil disposal site. The 

first SCAPS site demonstration was in 1992 at Fort Dix, New Jersey. 

 d. The Corps of Engineers operates SCAPS vehicles in Kansas City, Savannah, and Tulsa 

Districts. Refer to Appendix A for a discussion of the areas of responsibility for each of the 

SCAPS Districts. Appendix B contains the current status of SCAPS District capabilities. 

6. Discussion. 

 a. General System. 

 (1) The SCAPS is mounted in a 18,144-kilogram (kg) truck, equipped with two hydraulic 

rams capable of exerting approximately 169 kN (17,237 kg) of force to make a direct push. 

(Note: The kg is a unit of mass; the Newton [N] is a unit of force where 9.8 N = 1 kg. Hence, 

17,237 kg = 168,923 N or approximately 169 kN.). The weight of the truck is supported by 

hydraulic jacks, while the penetrometer is pushed into the ground with hydraulic rams. Pushes 

are made at the rate of 20 millimeters (mm)/second (s) or about 1.2 meters/minute. 
EP 1110-1-32 

1 Nov 05

4

 (2) The truck is divided into two compartments, separated by a wall with a viewing 

window. All walls are stainless steel for ease of decontamination (if necessary). Push rods can 

be automatically decontaminated below the truck as they are withdrawn from the push hole, by a 

high pressure, high temperature cleaner. This arrangement minimizes crew exposure to potential 

contamination and crew down-time for equipment decontamination. This also minimizes the 

quantity of decontamination wash water that must be managed. 

 (3) The current SCAPS has several readily available in situ sensing capabilities: defining 

soil stratigraphy, detecting polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) contamination with laserinduced fluorescence (LIF), determining soil resistivity, detecting volatile organic compounds 

(VOC) in soil and groundwater, and measuring gamma-emitting radionuclide activity levels. 

The LIF sensor is mounted in a cone penetrometer probe so that soil classification data and 

fluorescence data are collected simultaneously. The resistivity sensor is mounted on a separate 

cone penetrometer probe so that resistivity and soil classification data are collected 

simultaneously. The VOC and radionuclide probes are also configured with soil classification 

sensor technology. Sensors are connected to electronic signal processors through wiring bundled 

together into an umbilical cable. The umbilical cable also contains a grout tube so push holes 

can be sealed as the penetrometer is withdrawn. Two optic fibers (transmit and receive) are 

contained in the LIF sensor umbilical cable. An umbilical cable and sensor probe are supplied as 

one unit. Data are handled by an on-board computer system and electronic signal processing 

equipment. Sensor data are collected every 20 mm as a push is made. The data are displayed in 

real-time in the form of panel plots as they are acquired. Panel plots typically contain data on tip 

resistance, sleeve resistance, estimated soil type, peak fluorescence intensity, and peak 

fluorescence wavelength. The VOC hybrid sensor/sampler is normally interfaced via umbilical 

cable transfer tubes to a surface mounted direct sampling ion trap mass spectrometer (DSITMS). 

The radionuclide sensor is interfaced via umbilical cable to surface mounted nuclear instrument 

module (NIM) data acquisition/processing equipment. 

 (4) Other sensors with compound-specific detection capabilities are available on a limited 

basis. These sensors include: two technologies for metal detection, either by x-ray fluorescence 

(XRF) or laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS); and one for detection of radioactive 

material. These sensor probes are similar to the LIF and the resistivity sensor probes in that soil 

classification data are collected simultaneously. However, grout cannot be emplaced through the 

tip of the metals and radioactive material sensor probes. 

 (5) Video imaging probes, which allow the operator to continuously view and record 

subsurface materials during a push, are also available to use with SCAPS. Video images may 

allow the operator to view residual non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL) in situ and estimate grain 

size and porosity in granular material. Images are typically recorded on VHS videotape. 
EP 1110-1-32 

1 Nov 05

5

 (6) SCAPS can employ any of several methods to detect volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs). These methods all rely on use of a field portable analytical device, such as a DSITMS 

or a gas chromatograph. 

 (a) The Hydrosparge VOC sensing system consists of a commercially available ground 

water sampling tool and an in situ direct sampling sparge device interfaced to a field-portable ion 

trap mass spectrometer. The sparge device, developed by Oak Ridge National Laboratory, uses a 

helium gas flow to strip VOCs from ground water and transfer them to the analytical device. 

 (b) The Geoprobe® Systems Membrane Interface Probe (MIP) is a commercially available 

VOC sensor that can be used in the vadose and the phreatic (saturated) zones. The MIP uses 

heat to volatilize organic compounds in situ. The VOC compounds pass through a membrane 

and are transferred to the surface via tubing and a carrier gas to an onboard analytical device. 

The Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP) sponsored 

demonstrations that included comparisons between MIP VOC interrogations and verification 

samples analyzed at an offsite laboratory. Results for saturated zone interrogations provided 

better correlations than vadose zone interrogations when compared to the verification samples. 

 (c) The thermal desorption sampler (TDS) can be used in the vadose zone and is available 

from the ERDC. This probe collects a small soil sample. The sample is heated and volatiles are 

released and transferred to the surface, where they are either trapped for later analysis or 

interfaced to an ion trap mass spectrometer for analysis in near-real-time on the site. ESTCPsponsored TDS VOC site characterization demonstrations for vadose zone interrogations 

recorded high correlation with verification sample results. The TDS is not configured for 

saturated zone interrogations. 

 (7) The SCAPS can be used to collect ground water samples and small volume soil 

samples. SCAPS can also be used to install small diameter wells. When using a commercial 

sampler, each physical sample obtained or well installed requires a separate push. However, the 

ERDC has developed a soil sampler that has the capability to obtain discrete soil samples from 

multiple depths during a single push without retracting the outer housing of the sampler. 

 (8) Subsurface conditions and rod diameter affect push depth. Equipment includes push 

rods for sensor probes; generally, rods with a 44.4-mm outside diameter (O.D.) are used but 

other sizes may be available. Rods up to 50.8 mm, the largest diameter that can be 

accommodated by the current geometry of the chucking system, can be used. Pushes can be 

made in geologically suitable materials to approximately 50 meters, depending on rod diameter, 

and the geometry of sensor probes and rod adapter to push rods. 

 (9) The truck is 4.1 meters tall, 2.6 meters wide, and 10.7 meters long. The SCAPS truck 

also has a support trailer containing a water tank, a grout pump, and a high pressure hot water 

cleaner. 
EP 1110-1-32 

1 Nov 05

6

 b. Description of Sensors and Associated System Capabilities. 

 (1) Cone Tip and Sleeve Friction. 

 (a) The cone and sleeve, or penetrometer portion of the probe, profiles subsurface 

stratigraphy through soil strength measurements. The cone tip and sleeve friction sensors are 

individual load cells. Computer-based routines use load cell gauge readings, calibration curves, 

and empirical equations to determine soil classification in the field. The empirical equations 

used with sensors built by the ERDC are based on Olsen and Malone (1988). The cone tip 

sensor provides a voltage output proportional to the axial force exerted on the tip of the sensor 

by the subsurface material. The sleeve friction sensor, directly above the cone tip, provides an 

output proportional to the frictional force applied to the free floating cylindrical sleeve. Cone tip 

resistance and sleeve resistance are generally plotted on panel plots in real-time as the data are 

acquired. 

 (b) Commercial cone penetrometers with an array of sensors for measuring geotechnical 

properties are also available. These sensors include piezocones to obtain pore pressures, 

pressure cells to measure lateral stress, and geophones to measure seismic properties. 

 (c) The configuration of the cone and sleeve conforms to ASTM D-3441. 

 (2) Laser-induced Fluorescence. 

 (a) Chemists have used the fluorescence method for dozens of years as one technique to 

analyze for chemical compounds. Fluorescence is distinguished from most other analytical 

methods because of its extremely high sensitivity. Fluorescence is a type of luminescence; in 

general, luminescence occurs when an electronically excited molecule emits light or 

electromagnetic radiation. The phenomenon of fluorescence is characterized by the light 

emission event occurring approximately 50 to 250 nanoseconds (1 nanosecond = 10–9 second) 

after an excitation event. 

 (b) Fluorometry frequently uses monochromatic light, that is, light at a single wavelength 

or one color, to excite a defined population of molecules. One type of fluorimeter provides a 

burst or pulse of monochromatic light to the group of molecules to raise them to an excited state. 

Once the pulse ends and the outside energy source is gone, the molecules lose that energy by a 

combination of mechanisms. Some energy is lost by molecular vibration or heat generation. 

Energy is also lost through the release of electromagnetic radiation, sometimes in the form of 

visible light. Because some of the energy of an excited molecule is lost to vibration, the energy 

left for fluorescence is less than that provided by the excitation source. For this reason, the 

resulting wavelength of fluorescence or emitted light is always longer or less energetic than the 

wavelength of the excitation source. 
EP 1110-1-32 

1 Nov 05

7

 (c) The SCAPS POL (petroleum, oil, lubricants) sensor is a laser-induced fluorimeter (LIF) 

housed within a cone penetrometer probe. A diagram of the fiber optic LIF probe is shown in 

Appendix C. A laser provides the ultraviolet excitation source. Currently, any of three lasers 

may be available as the excitation source. These include a nitrogen (N2) laser, a xenon chloride 

laser, or a pulsed dye tunable laser. A 400-micrometer (μm; 1 micrometer = 10–6 meter) 

diameter silica fiber optic cable, located in the umbilical cable, transmits light from the exit port 

of the laser mounted in the SCAPS truck, down through the umbilical cable within the push rods 

and to a 6.35-mm-diameter sapphire window located in the side of the sensor probe housing. 

The window is located 0.6 meter above the cone tip. After the laser light reacts with the soil 

matrix and fluorescence is produced, the light returns through the window and is collected and 

transmitted back up the probe by another 400-μm fiber optic cable located in the umbilical cable. 

The return fiber terminates at the on-board analyzer, which is dependent on the laser type. 

 (d) The N2 laser has a wavelength of 337 nanometers (nm; 1 nanometer = 10–9 meter) and 

pulses at a rate of 10 times per second. The N2 laser has enough energy to excite polynuclear 

aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) compounds with three or more rings with a high degree of 

efficiency. Single-ring aromatic, double-ring aromatic, and aliphatic hydrocarbons will not 

fluoresce efficiently when excited at 337 nm. Higher excitation energies (or lower wavelengths) 

are required to produce fluorescence in light aromatic hydrocarbons such as benzene. A tunable 

dye laser system operated at 290 nm was developed by the Air Force and is capable of detecting 

light aromatic hydrocarbons of less than three rings. The xenon chloride laser has an emission 

wavelength of 308 nm and is capable of detecting double-ring aromatics. 

 (e) A down hole mercury vapor lamp is also available for detection of POL. The lamp, 

operating at 254 nm, induces fluorescence and an optic fiber transmits the fluorescence signal to 

an uphole analyzer. The mercury vapor lamp system is capable of detecting single-ring aromatic 

compounds. The analyzer can be fitted with changeable filters to identify specific fuels. 

 (f) The efficiency of the laser signal can degrade if the sapphire window has internal 

impurities, is abraded, or if the optic fiber is misaligned or pitted. Therefore, the energy of the 

signal is evaluated before and after each push. Degradation of the signal is assumed to be linear 

between the pre- and post-push evaluations and the data are corrected by computer-based 

routines. 

 (g) The LIF response can be affected by fluorescent dyes and optical brighteners, such as 

those found in antifreeze and detergents. Naturally-occurring fluorescent minerals such as 

calcite can also produce LIF response. The above materials produce fluorescence that can be 

interpreted as false positive sensor responses. 

 (h) The spectral signature of the fluorescing substance may be analyzed to allow speciation 

of the fluorescing POL or to determine if the fluorescence is from naturally occurring 
EP 1110-1-32 

1 Nov 05

8

background material. Peak fluorescence intensity and corresponding peak fluorescence 

wavelength are typically displayed on panel plots in real-time as the data are acquired. 

 (3) Resistivity Measurement.

 (a) The SCAPS electronic array for the resistivity sensor uses four equally spaced 

electrodes (Wenner array) to measure apparent resistivity. The electrodes consist of metallic 

rings encircling the outer diameter of the probe. They are separated by a nonconductive TeflonTM

insulator. A voltage between the outer rings induces a current in the surrounding material. The 

voltage difference is measured across the two middle electrodes. The SCAPS computer can 

calculate the apparent resistivity in ohm-meters. 

 (b) The close spacing of electrodes gives a small test area and limited horizontal extent of 

investigation (50 mm), but provides well-defined differences in measured resistance. As 

electrical resistance is related to both the soil type and the pore fluid constituents, the sensor can 

be used to determine soil type and ground water table, depending on soil type. The sensor can 

also determine different relative levels of contaminants in a uniform soil with uniform moisture 

content. 

 (c) At least three electrical conductivity or resistivity sensors are commercially available. 

Although all are slightly different, these sensors can be used with the SCAPS if minor software 

or hardware modifications are made. 

 c. Physical Sampling Capabilities. 

 (1) Soil Sampling. 

 (a) SCAPS can use commercially available direct push samplers to obtain soil samples. 

These samplers are similar in that all have a retractable tip and a removable stainless steel inner 

barrel. Sampler inner barrels can be split or whole. The sampler is pushed to a depth above the 

desired sample interval with the tip and barrel in place. The tip is then retracted and locked into 

the top of the sampler and the sampler is pushed through the sample interval. The sample can be 

extracted in the field or capped and submitted for laboratory analysis. 

 (b) The volume of one soil sample retrieved by the SCAPS is usually smaller than that 

obtained by conventional drilling methods. At least three manufacturers currently offer soil 

samplers. The dimensions of each sample barrel are 25.4 mm inside diameter (I.D.) by 203.2 

mm; 35.6 mm I.D. by 533.4 mm; and 35.6 mm I.D. by 990.6 mm. Using an assumed soil density 

of 1.7 g/cm3

, sample barrels can contain approximately 175 grams, 900 grams, or 1675 grams of 

material, respectively. 
EP 1110-1-32 

1 Nov 05

9

 (c) The ERDC-developed Multiple Discrete Depth Soil Sampler (MDDSS) has the 

capability to collect soil samples in the vadose zone at discrete depths without retracting the 

outer sampler rods. The MDDSS is also configured with a grout module that injects grout 

during sampler retraction.

 (2) Ground Water Sampling. 

 (a) SCAPS can use commercially available ground water sample probes, such as the 

PowerPunchTM or the HydroPunch IITM (HP II), to directly obtain ground water samples. Other 

commercially available ground water sample probes, including the Bengt-Arne Torstensson 

(BAT)® sampler, and the Westbay® MP, may be compatible with SCAPS. 

 (b) SCAPS can also be used to install ground water sampling points made of 12.7-mm I.D., 

19.0-mm I.D. or 38.1-mm I.D. polyvinyl chloride (PVC) casing and screen. The casing and 

screen are flush joint and available in 1- or 1.5-meter lengths. The screen slot size is usually 

0.25 mm. The smaller diameter well material is usually emplaced by one of two methods. 

• The first method uses the PowerPunchTM system. This commercially available system 

consists of an expendable point, a mechanical sealing body, and 47-mm O.D. rods that are fitted 

with o-ring seals. The expendable metal tip is fitted into the end of a slotted PVC screen and this 

screen assembly is fitted onto the sealing body. The whole assembly is then inserted into the 

lead push rod. After the rods reach the terminal depth, a PVC riser is fed through the rods and 

threaded onto the screen. The sealing body of the PowerPunchTM is retracted to above the screen, 

the rods are rotated, and the sealing body is separated from the lead rod. The metal tip, screen, 

and riser remain in place. The sealing body remains in place to form a seal above the screen. 

This technique is effective when the rod string can be easily rotated, either at shallow depths or 

when resistance to rotation can be overcome. 

• The second method is similar; however, an expanding annular seal is used instead of a 

mechanical sealing body and the first several rods have an increased I.D. of 47.5 mm. In this 

method, a section of PVC riser with an attached expanding foam seal, or an expanding bentonite 

sleeve, or a combination of the two, is threaded onto the top of the screen section. This assembly 

is fed through the rods and pushed to the desired depth. At the desired depth, PVC riser is 

inserted through the push rods and threaded onto the sealing assembly, the push rods are 

retracted, and the metal point, the screen, the sealing assembly, and the riser are left in place. 

This technique is effective at any depth and does not depend on physical rotation of the rod 

string. Pre-packed screens for small particle filtration and expanding seals are also commercially 

available. 

 (c) PVC well points of 38.1-mm I.D. are installed by placing the PVC over small-diameter 

(36.6-mm) push rods. The PVC screen is in contact with all subsurface materials through which 
EP 1110-1-32 

1 Nov 05

10

it passes during the push. The push rods are retracted through the inside of the PVC. This is the 

least desirable method of installing well points. 

 (d) If well points or other access points are used, ground water samples for direct analysis 

of volatiles can be obtained by in situ sparge. After a well screen is open and the rate of ground 

water rise has been measured, an in situ sparge device is lowered into the well point. The sparge 

device uses helium to purge volatiles from the ground water and carry them directly to a 

DSITMS. Ground water samples for mass spectrometer analysis may also be obtained with a 

small diameter stainless steel bailer or peristaltic pump and then be vial-sparged, by directly 

connecting 40-mL vials to the mass spectrometer. Small diameter bladder pumps are also 

commercially available for use in collecting ground water samples from direct-push well points. 

 d. Grouting Capabilities. Army-manufactured LIF, electrical resistivity, modified MIP, 

and MDDSS probes allow for grouting through the tip of the probe as the rods are withdrawn 

from the push hole. The spectral gamma probe injects grout from a port directly above the 

gamma sensor module. A grout consisting of microfine cement or portland cement, water, and 

bentonite (if desired) is mixed. The grout is pumped to the probe tip via a 9.5-mm diameter 

TeflonTM tube contained in the umbilical cable. The grout forces a small, expendable metal tip 

from the end of the probe. Holes made to collect physical samples or holes made by 

commercially available sensor probes may be grouted as the rods are retracted, or after the rods 

are retracted, depending on the grouting capability of the specific tool. 

 e. Survey. SCAPS is equipped with either an Electronic Distance Measurement (EDM) 

survey instrument or a Global Positioning System (GPS) capability. The EDM instrument can 

provide readings in both vertical and horizontal directions. A three-prism mirror configuration 

yields a range of 1067 meters. An electronic field notebook is attached for data collection. Data 

are downloaded into a software program that renders drawings of survey points. GPS equipment 

provides differential location accuracies of 30 to 50 mm (horizontal and vertical) and automatic 

annotation of the boring data file with location information. 

 f. New Sensors. The DoD Laboratories and commercial vendors continue to develop new 

sensors and samplers to improve system capabilities. The status and capabilities of available 

sensors are continually changing. Appendix D contains a chart describing SCAPS penetrometer 

contaminant and geophysical sensor and sampler tools. 

 g. Data Collected. 

 (1) Geotechnical. Tip resistance and sleeve friction stresses are recorded versus depth at 

20-mm intervals. These data are recorded in ASCII form on the system computers. The push 

rate is hydraulically controlled; however, dense material may slow down the rate of advance. 
EP 1110-1-32 

1 Nov 05

11

 (2) Laser-induced Fluorescence. Fluorescence data are collected as the cone penetrometer 

is continuously pushed at a rate of 20 mm/s. One data point represents approximately 40 mm. 

The rate of data collection is computer-controlled; however, the rate can be adjusted by the 

operator. Returned light intensity versus wavelength is recorded digitally as binary data for each 

data point. The maximum intensity and corresponding wavelength versus depth are also 

graphically displayed in real-time on a computer screen as the push is in progress. Hard copies 

of the graphical displays or panel plots are produced at the end of a push. Data storage and 

retrieval are possible by acquiring the data on the hard drive and transferring the data to a 

removable disk at the convenience of the operator. 

 (3) ITMS Analytical Results. Concentrations of volatile organics in vapor, ground water, or 

soil, as determined by mass spectroscopy, are available within minutes of testing. Final reports 

of results, including chromatograms, are usually available within one month of data collection. 

 h. 3-D Visualization. Data can be visualized in 3-D using Intergraph’s Environmental 

Resource Management Application (ERMA), Intergraph’s Voxel Analyst, or the Department of 

Defense’s Ground Water Modeling System (GMS). The ERDC-provided and supported SCIRT 

(Site Characterization Interactive Research Toolkit) is also available. SCIRT is 3-D 

visualization software developed at Mississippi State University. 

 i. Field Analysis Options. Soil and water samples collected with SCAPS can be analyzed 

in the field to enhance decision-making capability. Mass spectrometers, gas chromatographs, 

immunoassay test kits, and SCAPS sensors, such as the X-ray fluorescence metals sensor, are 

available to identify contaminants in near-real-time. 

 j. Data Validation. 

 (1) Geotechnical Validation. The cone penetrometer probe continuously estimates soil 

type using empirical equations and cone tip and sleeve resistance. Samples of formation material 

are not continuously brought to the surface to be inspected and described. This can be overcome 

by comparing sensor results to existing stratigraphic information or to periodic samples of sitespecific material collected by cone penetrometer samplers or other means. Most HTRW sites 

have been investigated to some extent and will have boring information. Military HTRW sites 

generally have construction boring information that can be accessed. Soil classification by cone 

penetrometer test (CPT) and factors affecting CPT results have been established empirically and 

discussed in the literature. Several references are provided in Paragraph 4. 

 (2) Chemical Sensor Validation. 

 (a) The LIF sensor responds to polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons and was designed to 

detect POLs. The SCAPS LIF sensor system has been extensively validated in both laboratory 

and field experiments at a number of sites under the sponsorship of the ESTCP. The SCAPS LIF 
EP 1110-1-32 

1 Nov 05

12

POL Sensor System has received regulatory approval. The LIF response and conventional 

analytical methods have been compared. Available chemical data indicate that the LIF sensor, 

equipped with the nitrogen laser (excitation wavelength of 337 nm), can detect diesel, heavy 

weight fuel oils, and coal tar derivatives at relatively low concentrations and gasoline and JP4 at 

relatively high concentrations or as pure products. The tunable dye laser (excitation wavelength 

of 290 or 266 nm) is more capable of detecting the lighter or more volatile fuels than the LIF 

probe equipped with the nitrogen laser, although only limited field tests have been conducted. 

Detection limit determinations have indicated that response is influenced by soil type and other 

matrix effects. Several references are provided in Paragraph 4. 

 (b) Several sensors are available for detecting volatile organics. These sensors depend on 

an analytical device, generally a DSITMS. See DOE (1998) as a reference for this field method. 

The SCAPS Hydrosparge VOC Sensor System and the SCAPS Thermal Desorption VOC 

Sampler may be interfaced with a field-portable DSITMS for onsite near-real-time analysis. The 

Hydrosparge and Thermal Desorption Sampler systems, interfaced to DSITMS equipment, have 

also been validated in the field by ESTCP and have received regulatory approval. 

 k. Field Applications. 

 (1) SCAPS can be used anywhere static direct push is feasible. A static direct push method 

is most suited for fine-grained, unconsolidated materials, including sands, silts, and clays, which 

are typically found in recent flood plains, coastal plains, and lake beds. Unconsolidated 

Pleistocene and Tertiary deposits corresponding with the environmental settings listed above are 

also suitable, as is eolian loess. In some areas where hard surficial materials are found, it may be 

possible to pre-push holes with non-instrumented probes before a sensor probe is used. Any 

subsequent soil classification sensor data collected through a pre-pushed portion of a hole is of 

questionable value. However, contaminant sensor data for screening may still be collected and 

are of value. 

 (2) The LIF sensor can be used on sites where petroleum hydrocarbon contamination is 

expected. These sites include fuel storage areas, refueling stations, former manufactured gas 

plants, air base flight lines, fire training areas, fuel pipelines, fuel spill areas, and vehicle 

maintenance shops. The use of the LIF sensor to delineate in situ contamination can reduce and 

focus the amount of physical sampling and laboratory analysis required by regulatory programs, 

in addition to improving the effectiveness of monitoring well placements. The SCAPS LIF POL 

Sensor System typically saves 25–40 percent versus conventional drill/sample and offsite 

analysis techniques. 

 (3) Numerous sensors or sampling devices are available for the detection of volatile 

organics. The TDS, interfaced to appropriate analytical instrumentation, is designed for use in 

the vadose zone and is useful in screening discrete depths for contamination (vertical profiling). 

The MIP, when interfaced to appropriate analytical instrumentation, can be used for vertical 
EP 1110-1-32 

1 Nov 05

13

profiling in both the vadose and the phreatic zones and may be especially useful for delineating 

suspected source areas. The ERDC interfaced a soil classification sensor module and a MIP. 

With a soil classification sensor module located below the MIP sensor, specific soil horizons 

may be identified and sampled during one push. This dual sensing capability can assist in 

identifying possible zones of preferential contaminant transport in the subsurface. The 

Hydrosparge sampler, interfaced to appropriate analytical instrumentation, is useful for 

delineating contaminants dissolved in ground water. Vertical profiling is possible with the 

Hydrosparge, but only one sample may be taken per push. Relative to the MIP, the Hydrosparge 

sampler provides more repeatable results at this time and is capable of lower detection limits. 

Both are considered semi-quantitative screening devices. 

 (4) SCAPS can be used in different phases of site investigation and remediation. For 

example, in a phased investigation approach, SCAPS can install well points to determine flow 

direction or obtain ground water samples for analysis before a permanent well is installed. 

SCAPS field sensor results can be used to optimize the placement of monitoring wells and the 

location of future soil or ground water sampling sites. SCAPS sensor data can also be collected 

to monitor the progress or effectiveness of on-going remediation activities. 

 (5) SCAPS can be used on sites to minimize investigation-derived waste (IDW) because 

drill cuttings are not produced. If necessary, decontamination water can be collected as it is 

generated to facilitate appropriate disposal. 

 l. Obtaining SCAPS Services. 

 (1) Information on the availability of SCAPS can be obtained from each SCAPS District. 

Contacts are contained in Appendix A. 

 (2) Districts requesting SCAPS should provide preliminary information on site geology, 

standard penetration test blow counts (if available), nature of contamination, depth to water, and 

specific objectives of the investigation. If a site is determined to be a candidate for direct push, 

the SCAPS District will supply a cost estimate and a general SCAPS health and safety plan, and 

will contribute to the site work plan. Customer Districts should be able to coordinate with site 

personnel and appropriate regulatory agencies to provide or identify the following. 

 (a) Water source for decontamination. 

 (b) Site or installation contact. 

 (c) Permit issues. 

 (d) IDW requirements for decontamination water or limited spoil from any soil samples 

that might be obtained. 
EP 1110-1-32 

1 Nov 05

14

 (e) Trash and personal protective equipment disposal options. 

 (f) Notification of appropriate State regulator. 

 (g) Length of time for utility clearances. 

 (h) Accessibility problems. 

 (i) Unique safety issues. 

 (3) SCAPS Districts will provide data in the form of panel plots. Final reports and data 

interpretation may be a collaborative effort between SCAPS and customer Districts and will 

depend on project requirements (scope of work), funding, and schedule requirements. Personnel 

of the ERDC can be utilized for specialized data acquisition, processing, and analysis on an “as 

needed” reimbursable basis. 

 (4) Typical cost and production data are included as Appendix E. 

7. Action. Recommend that District technical staff determine if SCAPS is applicable to all 

projects scheduled for intrusive activities, before field operations begin. If assistance is needed, 

contact a SCAPS Operating District as noted in Appendix A. 
EP 1110-1-32 

1 Nov 05

A-1

APPENDIX A 

SCAPS Areas of Responsibility

A-1. General. The Site Characterization and Analysis Penetrometer System is a resource to be 

used by all Corps Districts and laboratories. The three SCAPS operating Districts serve as a 

team to meet the needs of requesting offices anywhere within CONUS. SCAPS has been used 

OCONUS but mobilization logistics make precise job scheduling uncertain and costly. 

A-2. SCAPS Districts. This appendix lists the initial point of contact for a District or 

laboratory requesting information about SCAPS or requesting SCAPS services. The District 

having project or construction management responsibility should be responsible for arranging for 

SCAPS services (as opposed to a District that has been “subcontracted” by another to provide 

site investigation or other support services). Districts with SCAPS units are assigned operating 

areas based on established customer relationships and geographic proximity to potential site 

locations. The areas of responsibility are defined in Table A-1. The defined areas are not the 

only areas in which a particular SCAPS unit may work. The SCAPS District will coordinate 

requested work to determine who will perform a given project based on crew availability, project 

locations, and schedule. With the current distribution of civil works and military construction 

responsibilities within the Corps, some overlap of areas is inevitable (e.g., the civil works 

boundary of St. Louis District overlaps the military boundary for Louisville District). Therefore, 

Table A-1 is included for ease of use. Districts requesting SCAPS information or services 

should contact the SCAPS Coordinator at the appropriate SCAPS Operating District, as shown in 

Table A-1, regardless of whether a project is civil or military. SCAPS Operating District points 

of contact are: 

 U.S. Army Engineer District, Kansas City 

 ATTN: CENWK-EC-GG 

 601 East 12th Street 

 Kansas City, MO 64106-2896 

 Phone: (816) 983-3683 

 Fax: (816) 426-5462 

 U.S. Army Engineer District, Savannah 

 ATTN: CESAS-EN-GG 

 P.O. Box 889 

 Savannah, GA 31402-0889 

 Phone: (912) 652-5674 / 5676 

 Fax: (912) 652-5311 

 U.S. Army Engineer District, Tulsa 

 ATTN: CESWT-EC-EI 

 1645 South 101st East Avenue 

 Tulsa, OK 74128-4629 

 Phone: (918) 605-9342 (cell phone) / (918) 832-4122 

 Fax: (918) 669-7532 
EP 1110-1-32 

1 Nov 05 

A-2

Table A-1 

SCAPS Operating Areas by District and State 

Savannah District: Kansas City District: Tulsa District: 

Illinois (including 

ERDC/CERL) 

Montana Idaho 

Indiana North Dakota Washington 

Michigan South Dakota Oregon 

Ohio Minnesota California (including HEC)*

Pennsylvania Wisconsin Louisiana 

Delaware Wyoming Nevada* 

Maryland Colorado Arizona 

West Virginia Nebraska New Mexico 

Kentucky Kansas Texas 

Virginia (including TEC 

and TAC/Europe) 

Iowa Oklahoma 

North Carolina Missouri Arkansas 

Tennessee Maine Alaska 

South Carolina New Hampshire (including 

ERDC/CRREL) 

Hawaii 

Georgia Vermont Pacific Ocean and Asia 

Alabama (including HNC) Massachusetts 

Florida Rhode Island 

 Connecticut 

 New York 

 New Jersey 

 California ** 

 Mississippi (including ERDC) 

 Nevada 

 Utah 

 AF installations as requested by 

AFCEE & AF Research Lab 

* Los Angeles District Boundaries 

** Sacramento and San Francisco District Boundaries
EP 1110-1-32 

1 Nov 05

A-3

Figure A-1. SCAPS Operating Areas. 
B-1

APPENDIX B 

SCAPS Capability Matrix
 EP 1110-1-32 

 1 Nov 05

C-1

APPENDIX C 

Schematic of the SCAPS POL and Geophysical Sensors Probe 
D-1

APPENDIX D 

SCAPS Penetrometer Contaminant and Geophysical Sensor and Sampler Too

Penetrometer Sensor and Sampler Tools 

Soil Class 

Retraction Grouting 

Vadose Zone 

Saturated Zone 

Speciation Lower Limit 

Of Detection In Sandy Soil * 

Commercial Availability 

ERDC SupporAvailab

2-inch OD Mini-well Groundwater Sampler (Multiple Vendors) 

No No No Yes NA NA Yes No 

Soil Sampler (Multiple Vendors) 

No No Yes No NA NA Yes No 

Multiple Discrete Depth Soil Sampler 

No Yes Yes No NA NA No Yes 

Soil Classification Sensor (Multiple Vendors) 

Yes Yes Yes Yes No NA Yes Yes 

Penetrometer Mounted Video Camera 

Yes No Yes Yes No NA Yes No 

Soil Electrical Resistivity And/or Soil Moisture Sensors (Multiple Vendors) 

Yes Yes Yes Yes No NA Yes No 

Petroleum, Oil & Lubricant (POL) Laser Induced Fluorescence (LIF) Sensor 

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 100 ppm Yes *** Yes *

Multisensor: Pore Pressure, pH, and Temperature 

Yes Yes Temp. 

Yes 

Yes No NA Yes Yes 

Hydrosparge / DSITMS VOC Sensor/Sampler + 

No No No Yes Yes 2 ppb Yes Yes 

Thermal Desorption/ DSITMS VOC Sensor / Sampler 

No No Yes No Yes 10 ppb No Yes 

Modified Membrane Interface Probe DSITMS VOC Sensor / Sampler 

Yes ++ Yes ++ Yes Yes Yes 300 ppb Yes +++ Yes +

Laser Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy (LIBS) Metals Sensor Yes No Yes No Yes 100 ppm No Yes X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) Metals Sensor 

Yes No Yes Yes Yes 100 ppm No Yes 

Spectral Gamma Sensor (High Resolution NaI Detector) 

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 pCi/gram Yes Yes ++

Spectral Gamma / XRF Metals Multisensor 

Yes No Yes Yes Yes 5 pCi/gram 

100 ppm 

No Yes 

 * The lower limit of detection for each sensor is soil matrix dependent.  ** Provided with ERDC developed probes.  *** U.S. Army patented technology licensed to Applied Research Associates, Inc., and Fugro Geosciences, Inc. 

 **** The ERDC POL LIF Sensor Probe incorporates probe “break prevention” sensor technology.  + DSITMS – Direct Sampling Ion Trap Mass Spectrometer.  ++ Soil Classification and retraction grouting are provided with installation of the ERDC umbilical cable and grout injectiosensor module.  +++ The Membrane Interface Probe (MIP) is manufactured by Geoprobe Systems, Inc.  ++++ The ERDC Spectral Gamma Sensor System provides lower limits of detection than commercially available systems. 
EP 1110-1-32 

1 Nov 05

E-1

APPENDIX E 

Sample Cost Estimate 

E-1. Introduction. This cost estimate is based on CENWK drill crew and SCAPS average 

daily rates and the following assumptions. 

 a. Mobilization/demobilization (mob/demob) days are averaged into daily cost. 

 b. Work days are 8 hours long. 

 c. During an average project 25 LIF pushes and 11 wells are installed. 

 d. An average 25-foot-deep LIF direct push boring is equivalent to a 25-foot-deep auger 

boring made to collect five soil samples for laboratory analysis. 

 (1) Two 25-foot-deep auger borings can be drilled and sampled in a day. This includes 

setup, drilling, sampling, sample preservation, decontamination, waste handling, and backfilling 

with a mix of spoil and grout. 

 (2) 25 borings/2 a day = 12.5 days 

 e. An average 21-foot-deep well point installed in sand by direct push is equivalent to the 

same depth well installed through hollow stem augers (the most frequently used method of well 

installation on HTRW sites). 

 (1) Each well installed through hollow stems will take approximately 12 hours to 

complete. This includes setup, drilling, setting well, decontamination, development, setting 

protective pad and posts, and handling investigation derived waste. 

 (2) 11 wells × 12 hours = 132 hours / 8 hours = 16.5 days 

 (3) Each well installed with the SCAPS will take approximately 3 hours to complete. This 

includes setup, pushing to depth, setting well, decontamination, and handling investigation 

derived waste. 

 (4) 11 wells × 3 hours = 33 hours / 8 hours ≈ 4 days 
EP 1110-1-32 

1 Nov 05

E-2

E-2. Cost Comparison. The following table compares costs for auger drilling and SCAPS 

direct push: 

Drilling SCAPS 

Quantity Cost per day Quantity Cost per day

Soil borings or LIF pushes /day 2 $2,692 5 $2,887 

Days Costs Days Costs 

Total number of days, drilling/sampling 12.5 $33,650 5 $14,435

Total number of days, well installation 16.5 $44,418 4 $11,548

Mob/demob $3,454 $4,498

Per diem incl. mob/demob 39 $15,600 11 $4,400

Materials, incl. drums $3,550 $1,100

Total cost with no analytical included $100,672 $35,981

4 days of field analysis of dissolved VOCs in 

ground water using DSITMS 

$15,400

SCAPS cost with field analysis of volatiles $51,381

Cost savings realized by using SCAPS $100,672 − $51,381 = $49,291