DOCSLIB.ORG

Geophysical Investigation at Hazardous Waste Sites

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Geophysical Investigation at Hazardous Waste Sites United States Office of Solid Waste and EPA-542-R-00-003 Environmental Protection Emergency Response August 2000 Agency (5102G) www.epa.gov/tio cluin.org Innovations in Site Characterization: Geophysical Investigation at Hazardous Waste Sites Notice This material has been funded wholly by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under Contract Number 68-W7-0051. 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), PO Box 42419, Cincinnati, Ohio 45242-2419; telephone (800) 490-9198 or (513) 489-8190 (voice) or (513) 489-8695 (facsimile). Refer to document EPA-542-R-00-003, Innovations in Site Characterization: Geophysical Investigation at Hazardous Waste Sites. This document can also be obtained through EPA’s Clean Up Information (CLUIN) System on the World Wide Web at http://cluin.org. For assistance, call (301) 589-8368. Comments or questions about this report may be directed to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Technology Innovation Office (5102G), 401 M Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20460; telephone (703) 603-9910. ii Foreword This document contains eleven case studies designed to provide performance information for innovative uses of geophysical technologies that support less costly screening for site characterization. The case studies and the technologies that they highlight are included in the following table: Site Name Geophysical Technology Baker Woods Creosoting Ground Penetrating Radar, Electromagnetometry Ciba-Geigy Hamblet and Hayes Ground Penetrating Radar Crystal Oil Refinery Ground Penetrating Radar, Electrical Resistivity Kansas Underground Storage Tank Electrical Conductivity Kelly Air Force Base, Zone 4 Vertical Seismic Profiling Marshalltown Former Manufactured Gas Plant Electrical Conductivity New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Magnetometry, Electromagnetometry, Natural (NMSHTD) Underground Storage Tank Gamma Logging Investigation New Hampshire Plating Seismic Reflection Surveys, Ground Penetrating Radar, Natural Gamma, Electromagnetic Induction Logging Tinker Air Force Base Seismic Reflection Trail Road Landfill Natural Gamma Ray, Magnetometry, Electrical Conductivity, Temperature, Density Wurtsmith Air Force Base Ground Penetrating Radar, Electromagnetic Induction, Magnetometry These case studies are part of a larger series of case studies that will include reports on new technologies as well as novel applications of familiar tools or processes. They are prepared to offer operational experience and to further disseminate information about ways to improve the efficiency of data collection at hazardous waste sites. The ultimate goal is enhancing the cost- effectiveness and providing flexible tools for characterizing hazardous waste sites. iii Acknowledgments This document was prepared for the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Technology Innovation Office. Special acknowledgment is given to all of the Principal Investigators for their thoughtful suggestions and support in preparing these case studies. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Notice ....................................................................ii Foreword ................................................................ iii Acknowledgments .......................................................... iv INTRODUCTION ..........................................................1 1.0 Methodology for Site Selection ...........................................1 2.0 Overview of Case Studies ...............................................3 3.0 Geophysical Technology Descriptions ......................................3 Ground Penetrating Radar ...............................................3 Electromagnetometry ...................................................4 Seismic Reflection/Refraction .............................................4 Electrical Conductivity/Resistivity .........................................4 Natural Gamma .......................................................5 Magnetometry ........................................................5 4.0 Summary of Performance ................................................5 5.0 Summary of Lessons Learned .............................................6 Table ES-1: Geophysical Investigation Sites and Technologies .........................8 Table ES-2: Summary of Geophysical Investigations .................................9 Table ES-3: Performance of Geophysical Technologies ..............................11 Bibliography ..............................................................13 6.0 Case Studies Baker Wood Creosoting Company ....................................... 19 Ciba-Geigy Hamblet & Hayes Site ........................................ 37 Crystal Refinery ...................................................... 51 Kansas Underground Storage Tank Site .................................... 65 Kelly Air Force Base .................................................. 79 Marshalltown Former Manufactured Gas Plant Site ........................... 91 New Hampshire Plating Co. ............................................ 107 New Mexico Highway and Transportation Department ....................... 123 Tinker Air Force Base ................................................ 143 Trail Road Landfill .................................................. 159 Wurtzsmith Air Force Base ............................................ 173 v INTRODUCTION Throughout the 1990s, the methods used to characterize hazardous waste sites have changed considerably. Site managers have found that the collection of a limited number of high-quality, high-cost, analytical data points that dominated site characterization in the early part of the decade resulted in a lack of broader understanding of site conditions. The earlier characterization practices also often required long time horizons for the compilation of sufficient data to support remedial decisions. The high costs, long time frames, and limited nature of the information associated with earlier practices have led to the emergence of a number of innovative techniques designed to speed the data collection process, increase the amount of information collected, and lower the overall cost of data collection. The various agencies and departments of the Federal government with responsibility for the characterization and cleanup of hazardous waste sites had all adopted some form of expedited site characterization process by the end of the decade. One set of technologies that has found a natural application in the context of expedited site characterization has been geophysical characterization technologies. Increasingly traditional geophysical technologies have found new and innovative uses at hazardous waste sites. Geophysical technologies have been used for decades in other industries, principally the petroleum and mining industries, for their ability to describe geological structures deep within the earth’s crust. This proven track record that has been easily transferred to the characterization of hazardous waste sites. In fact, geophysical technologies, such as ground penetrating radar, electromagnetometry, and magnetometry, have been in wide use already at hazardous waste sites to locate buried drums and structures that often constitute source areas. The use of geophysical technologies is rapidly expanding to other applications in hazardous site characterization, including the direct detection of aqueous and nonaqueous phase contamination. In several of the investigations discussed in this volume, geophysical technologies were able to detect the presence of either dense or light, nonaqueous phase liquids (D/LNAPLs). One of the principal missions of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Technology Innovation Office (EPA/TIO) is to disseminate information on the cost and performance of innovative technologies and approaches applicable to the characterization and remediation of hazardous waste sites. The dissemination of this information can stimulate the adoption and use of innovative technologies and approaches on an ever widening scale. This report contains case studies of the innovative application of different geophysical technologies and methods at 11 hazardous waste sites. The technologies described in these case studies do not represent the entire range of geophysical technologies, but do represent innovative applications of the better-known technologies. 1.0 Methodology for Site Selection In order to prepare a set of 11 case studies that explored the use of geophysical methods at hazardous waste sites, EPA decided that case studies would be prepared for sites only when: C the investigation took place within the previous five years, to ensure that knowledgeable information sources could still be readily identified; C the investigation sought to identify site contamination; 1 C site contamination problems were similar to those encountered under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Superfund, and Underground Storage Tank programs; and C the technology was used in a full-scale application. EPA initially set out to identify as many geophysical investigations that met the above criteria as possible. Through contacts in EPA’s Office of Research and Development research laboratories, requests for information posted in relevant Internet discussion forums, and requests to members of EPA’s Groundwater Forum, a group of technical experts distributed
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2075 Williams Street Industrial Project
    2075 Williams Street Industrial Project Initial Study – Negative Declaration prepared by City of San Leandro Community Development Department 835 East 14th Street San Leandro, California 94577 Contact: Andrew J. Mogensen, AICP, Planning Manager prepared with the assistance of Rincon Consultants, Inc. 449 15th Street, Suite 303 Oakland, California 94612 March 2020 City of San Leandro Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration Notice is hereby given that the City of San Leandro has completed an Initial Study and Negative Declaration in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act for the project described below. Project Title: Certified Blue Recycling, 2075 Williams Street Industrial Project Project Description: PLN19-0057 Certified Blue Recycling is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to increase the maximum daily permitted tonnage at their existing developed Construction Demolition and Inert Debris (CDI) transfer and processing facility located at 2075 Williams St., (Alameda County Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 077A-0700-006-02 / 016-03). The facility operates under an existing conditional use permit (CUP) (PLN2009- 00022) from the City of San Leandro and a CalRecycle Enforcement Agency Registration Permit issued by County of Alameda Environmental Health Department Local Enforcement Agency. The facility is currently permitted to process a maximum of 174 tons per day of inert construction and demolition debris. The proposed project would modify operations of the facility to increase the maximum tonnage of materials that could be received and processed. Under the proposed project, maximum daily tonnage would increase from 174 tons per day to 350 tons per day. This would be an increase of 176 tons or an approximately 101 percent increase over existing conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Preprint Arxiv:1806.10939, 2018
    Solid Earth Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/se-2019-4 Manuscript under review for journal Solid Earth Discussion started: 15 January 2019 c Author(s) 2019. CC BY 4.0 License. Bayesian geological and geophysical data fusion for the construction and uncertainty quantification of 3D geological models Hugo K. H. Olierook1, Richard Scalzo2, David Kohn3, Rohitash Chandra2,4, Ehsan Farahbakhsh2,4, Gregory Houseman3, Chris Clark1, Steven M. Reddy1, R. Dietmar Müller4 5 1School of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Curtin University, GPO Box U1987, Perth, WA 6845, Australia 2Centre for Translational Data Science, University of Sydney, NSW 2006 Sydney, Australia 3Sydney Informatics Hub, University of Sydney, NSW 2006 Sydney, Australia 4EarthByte Group, School of Geosciences, University of Sydney, NSW 2006 Sydney, Australia Correspondence to: Hugo K. H. Olierook ([email protected]) 10 Abstract. Traditional approaches to develop 3D geological models employ a mix of quantitative and qualitative scientific techniques, which do not fully provide quantification of uncertainty in the constructed models and fail to optimally weight geological field observations against constraints from geophysical data. Here, we demonstrate a Bayesian methodology to fuse geological field observations with aeromagnetic and gravity data to build robust 3D models in a 13.5 × 13.5 km region of the Gascoyne Province, Western Australia. Our approach is validated by comparing model results to independently-constrained 15 geological maps and cross-sections produced by the Geological Survey of Western Australia. By fusing geological field data with magnetics and gravity surveys, we show that at 89% of the modelled region has >95% certainty. The boundaries between geological units are characterized by narrow regions with <95% certainty, which are typically 400–1000 m wide at the Earth’s surface and 500–2000 m wide at depth.
    [Show full text]
  • SOP14 Geophysical Survey
    SSFL Use Only SSFL SOP 14 Geophysical Survey Revision: 0 Date: April 2012 Prepared: C. Werden Technical Review: J. Plevniak Approved and QA Review: J. Oxford Issued: 4/6/2012 Signature/Date 1.0 Objective The purpose of this technical standard operating procedure (SOP) is to introduce the procedures for non-invasive geophysical investigations in areas suspected of being used for disposal of debris or where landfill operations may have been conducted. Specifics of the geophysical surveys will be discussed in the Geophysical Survey Field Sampling Plan Addendum. Geophysical methods that will be used to accurately locate and record buried geophysical anomalies are: . Total Field Magnetometry (TFM) . Frequency Domain Electromagnetic Method (FDEM) . Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) TFM and FDEM will be applied to all areas of interest while GPR will be applied only to areas of interest that require further and/or higher resolution of geophysical anomaly. The geophysical investigation (survey) will be conducted by geophysical subcontractor personnel trained, experienced, and qualified in shallow subsurface geophysics necessary to successfully perform any of the above geophysical methods. CDM Smith will provide oversight of the geophysical contractor. 2.0 Background 2.1 Discussion This SOP is based on geophysical methods employed by US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) subcontractor Hydrogeologic Inc. (HGL) while conducted geophysical surveys of portions of Area IV during 2010 and 2011. The Data Gap Investigation conducted as part of Phase 3 identified additional locations of suspected buried materials not surveyed by HGL. To be consistent with the recently collected subsurface information, HGL procedures are being adopted. The areas of interest and survey limits will be determined prior to field mobilization.
    [Show full text]
  • Geophysical Investigations of Well Fields to Characterize Fractured-Bedrock Aquifers in Southern New Hampshire
    In Cooperation with the NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES o Geophysical Investigations of Well Fields to Characterize Fractured-Bedrock Aquifers in Southern New Hampshire Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4183 U.S. Department of the Interior / U.S. Geological Survey The base map on the front cover shows geophysical survey locations overlaying a geologic map of U.S. Geological Survey, Windham, New Hampshire, 1:24,000-scale quadrangle. Geology is by G.S. Walsh and S.F. Clark, Jr. (1999) and lineaments are from Ferguson and others (1997) and R.B. Moore and Garrick Marcoux, 1998. The photographs and graphics overlying the base map are showing, counterclockwise from the left, a USGS scientist using a resistivity meter and surveying equipment (background) to survey the bedrock beneath the surface using a geophysical method called azimuthal square-array direct- current resistivity. In the lower left, this cross section is showing the results of a survey along line 3 in Windham, N.H., using another method called two-dimensional direct-current resistivity. In the lower right, the photograph is showing a bedrock outcrop located between red lines 3 and 4 (on base map) at Windham, in which the fractures and parting parallel to foliation have the same strike as the azimuthal square-array direct-current resistivity survey results, and remotely sensed lineaments (purple and green lines on base map). The upper right graphic shows a polar plot of the results of an azimuthal square-array direct-current resistivity survey at Windham for array 1 (red circle on base map). U.S. Department of the Interior U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to Geophysical Exploration, 3E
    An Introduction to Geophysical Exploration Philip Kearey Department of Earth Sciences University of Bristol Michael Brooks Ty Newydd, City Near Cowbridge Vale of Glamorgan Ian Hill Department of Geology University of Leicester THIRD EDITION AN INTRODUCTION TO GEOPHYSICAL EXPLORATION An Introduction to Geophysical Exploration Philip Kearey Department of Earth Sciences University of Bristol Michael Brooks Ty Newydd, City Near Cowbridge Vale of Glamorgan Ian Hill Department of Geology University of Leicester THIRD EDITION © 2002 by The right of the Authors to be distributors Blackwell Science Ltd identified as the Authors of this Work Marston Book Services Ltd Editorial Offices: has been asserted in accordance PO Box 269 Osney Mead, Oxford OX2 0EL with the Copyright, Designs and Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4YN 25 John Street, London WC1N 2BS Patents Act 1988. (Orders: Tel: 01235 465500 23 Ainslie Place, Edinburgh EH3 6AJ Fax: 01235 465555) 350 Main Street, Malden All rights reserved. No part of MA 02148-5018, USA this publication may be reproduced, The Americas 54 University Street, Carlton stored in a retrieval system, or Blackwell Publishing Victoria 3053,Australia transmitted, in any form or by any c/o AIDC 10, rue Casimir Delavigne means, electronic, mechanical, PO Box 20 75006 Paris, France photocopying, recording or otherwise, 50 Winter Sport Lane except as permitted by the UK Williston,VT 05495-0020 Other Editorial Offices: Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (Orders: Tel: 800 216 2522 Blackwell Wissenschafts-Verlag GmbH 1988, without the prior
    [Show full text]
  • Geophysical Methods Commonly Employed for Geotechnical Site Characterization TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2008 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OFFICERS
    TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH Number E-C130 October 2008 Geophysical Methods Commonly Employed for Geotechnical Site Characterization TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2008 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OFFICERS Chair: Debra L. Miller, Secretary, Kansas Department of Transportation, Topeka Vice Chair: Adib K. Kanafani, Cahill Professor of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley Division Chair for NRC Oversight: C. Michael Walton, Ernest H. Cockrell Centennial Chair in Engineering, University of Texas, Austin Executive Director: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2008–2009 TECHNICAL ACTIVITIES COUNCIL Chair: Robert C. Johns, Director, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis Technical Activities Director: Mark R. Norman, Transportation Research Board Paul H. Bingham, Principal, Global Insight, Inc., Washington, D.C., Freight Systems Group Chair Shelly R. Brown, Principal, Shelly Brown Associates, Seattle, Washington, Legal Resources Group Chair Cindy J. Burbank, National Planning and Environment Practice Leader, PB, Washington, D.C., Policy and Organization Group Chair James M. Crites, Executive Vice President, Operations, Dallas–Fort Worth International Airport, Texas, Aviation Group Chair Leanna Depue, Director, Highway Safety Division, Missouri Department of Transportation, Jefferson City, System Users Group Chair Arlene L. Dietz, A&C Dietz and Associates, LLC, Salem, Oregon, Marine Group Chair Robert M. Dorer, Acting Director, Office of Surface Transportation Programs, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Rail Group Chair Karla H. Karash, Vice President, TranSystems Corporation, Medford, Massachusetts, Public Transportation Group Chair Mary Lou Ralls, Principal, Ralls Newman, LLC, Austin, Texas, Design and Construction Group Chair Katherine F. Turnbull, Associate Director, Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University, College Station, Planning and Environment Group Chair Daniel S.
    [Show full text]
  • Geophysical Field Mapping
    Presented at Short Course IX on Exploration for Geothermal Resources, organized by UNU-GTP, GDC and KenGen, at Lake Bogoria and Lake Naivasha, Kenya, Nov. 2-23, 2014. Kenya Electricity Generating Co., Ltd. GEOPHYSICAL FIELD MAPPING Anastasia W. Wanjohi, Kenya Electricity Generating Company Ltd. Olkaria Geothermal Project P.O. Box 785-20117, Naivasha KENYA [email protected] or [email protected] ABSTRACT Geophysics is the study of the earth by the quantitative observation of its physical properties. In geothermal geophysics, we measure the various parameters connected to geological structure and properties of geothermal systems. Geophysical field mapping is the process of selecting an area of interest and identifying all the geophysical aspects of the area with the purpose of preparing a detailed geophysical report. The objective of geophysical field work is to understand all physical parameters of a geothermal field and be able to relate them with geological phenomenons and come up with plausible inferences about the system. Four phases are involved and include planning/desktop studies, reconnaissance, actual data aquisition and report writing. Equipments must be prepared and calibrated well. Geophysical results should be processed, analysed and presented in the appropriate form. A detailed geophysical report should be compiled. This paper presents the reader with an overview of how to carry out geophysical mapping in a geothermal field. 1. INTRODUCTION Geophysics is the study of the earth by the quantitative observation of its physical properties. In geothermal geophysics, we measure the various parameters connected to geological structure and properties of geothermal systems. In lay man’s language, geophysics is all about x-raying the earth and involves sending signals into the earth and monitoring the outcome or monitoring natural signals from the earth.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 Licensed Business Directory
    BUSINESS LICENSE REGISTER BY BUSINESS TYPE Business Type Location Phone Number Accounting/Tax/Bookeeping Services Central Mountain CPA PLLC 299 S. 3rd Street, Suite B 208-315-6789 HRB Tax Group, Inc 307 East Park Street Suite 6 208-634-5847 Kistner & Co 1630 North Davis Street #52 208-634-7167 Lamm & Company CPA PA 315 Deinhard Lane 208-634-2351 McCall Accounting & Tax 918 Flynn Ln 253-225-3226 Michelle Eckhart Accounting Services LLC 121 Commerce St., Ste. 121-D 208-315-4676 Randy C. McMahan CPA, P.C. 318 McBride St. 208-634-7086 Animal & Vet Services DeTails Pet Grooming 1304 Roosevelt Ave 208-271-2669 McCall Pet Outfitters & Supply, Inc. 200 Lenora Street 208-634-3440 McCall Pet Spa & Bath House LLC 102 N. 3rd St. Unit #101 208-634-3977 MCPAWS Thrift Shoppe 301 Lenora Street 208-634-4434 Architecture Bennett Architect, Inc. 1610 Moore Street 208-315-3913 Epikos Planning & Architecture 303 Colorado Street 208-634-4540 McCall Design & Planning Inc. 121 Commerce Street Suite A & B 208-634-5707 Art Galleries Gallery Fifty Five 311 E. Lake Street 208-634-6313 Tracy Holmes Fine Art 223 Jussila Bow Place 818-253-7456 Attorney/Law Offices Devon M. Spickard, PC 934 Chipmunk Lane 541-556-8691 Erekson Law Office, PLLC 1010 N. 3rd Street 208-634-7118 Evans Keane LLP 323 E. Deinhard Lane, Ste. A 208-384-1800 Millemann Pittenger & Pemberton LLP 706 North First Street 208-634-7641 Mountain Top Law PLLC 614 Thompson Avenue 208-271-6503 Automobile, Motorcyle & Small Engine Bruneel Tire Factory 617 North Third Street Suite A 208-376-9901 Dale's Auto Service & Repair Inc 193 Industrial Loop 208-634-2955 Evergreen Automotive LLC 192 Industrial Loop 208-634-3606 Glass Pro McCall 809 N.
    [Show full text]
  • ANDY: How Did CN/Toonami Learn About Big O to Begin Looking Into Airing It?
    ANDY: How did CN/Toonami learn about Big O to begin looking into airing it? DEMARCO: A friend of ours at Bandai America, a man named Ken Iyadomi, sent us a tape of just the opening song and animation. We were immediately like “WHAT IS THIS AND HOW DO WE GET IT ON TOONAMI.” At that point, the show had not yet premiered in Japan. Why was Big O chosen to air on Toonami? What made it special? What drew you or your team to it, especially since it had failed in Japan and was cancelled— cancelled on a cliffhanger, of all things, too? Most of the Toonami team are people that grew up on giant robot/tokusatsu shows like Voltron, Ultraman, Gaiking, etc, so we were already primed to love the design of Big O. Combined with the clean, Batman The Animated series influenced animation and the great Queen-esque theme song, we felt like it was a show that might connect with a broader audience in the US. When did you get the idea to help produce more Big O? What was the catalyst to put yourself and CN in that position? What made Big O so special to pursue something this big? That idea came from Mike Lazzo, who runs Adult Swim. He was a big fan of the show and suggested to me that we call Bandai and see if they might be open to creating another season as a co-production. It’s not really that the first season perfomed particularly well; it’s just that we really loved it and wanted more! Director Kazuyoshi Katayama recalls CN having two requests for season 2: more action and to “reveal the mystery.” Can you elaborate on that? That may be his recollection, but that’s not mine.
    [Show full text]
  • Geophysical Abstracts 136-139 January-December 1949 (Numbers 10737-11678)
    Geophysical Abstracts 136-139 January-December 1949 (Numbers 10737-11678) Abstracts of world literature t contained in periodicals, books, and patents OHIO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Oscar L. Chapman, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY W. E. Wrather, Director \ « For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S._ Government Printing Office Washington 25, D. C. - Price 5 cents (paper cover) CONTENTS [The letters in parentheses are those used]to designate the chapters for separate publication] Page <A) Geophysical Abstracts 136, January-March 1949 (nos. 10737-11001). 1 <B) Geophysical Abstracts 137, April-June 1949 (nos. 11002-11201__ 95 <C) Geophysical Abstracts 138, July-September 1949 (nos. 11202-11441). 167 (D) Geophysical Abstracts 139, October-December, 1949 (nos. 11442- 11678....._________________________________________________ 253 Under Departmental orders, Geophysical Abstracts have been published at different times by the Bureau of Mines or the Geological Survey as noted below: 1-86, May 1929-June 1936, Bureau of Mines, Information Circulars. [Mimeo­ graphed.] 87, July-December 1937, Geological Survey, Bulletin 887. 88-91, January-December 1937, Geological Survey, Bulletin 895. 92-95, January-December 1938, Geological Survey Bulletin 909. 96-99, January-December 1939, Geological Survey, Bulletin 915. 100-103, January-December 1940, Geological Survey, Bulletin 925. 104-107, January-December 1941, Geological Survey, Bulletin 932. 108-111, January-December 1942, Geological Survey, Bulletin 939. 112-127, January 1943-December 1946, Bureau of Mines, Information Circulars. [Mimeographed.] 128-131, January-December 1947, Geological Survey, Bulletin 957. 132-135, January-December 1948, Geological Survey, Bulletin 959. in Geophysical Abstracts 136 January-March 1949 (Numbers 10737-11001) By V.
    [Show full text]
  • Geophysical Investigation Report Bennett's Dump Site
    EPA Region 5 Records Ctr. 248323 GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT BENNETT'S DUMP SITE BLOOMINGTON PROJECT Bloomington, Indiana CBS Corporation 11 Stanwix Street Pittsburgh, PA 15222-1384 February 22,1999 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Summary of Field Activities 2 2.1 Site Preparation 2 2.2 Geophysical Survey 3 3.0 Summary of Findings 6 3.1 Electromagnetic and Magnetometer Results 6 3.2 Seismic Refraction Study Results 7 4.0 Conclusions 11 List of Figures 1 Site Location Map 2 Site Layout Map 3 Geophysical Sample Location Map 4 Generalized Electromagnetic Anomaly Map 5 Lithologic Profiles 6 Bedrock Contour Map 7 Top of Clay Layer Contour Map Appendices A Geosphere Inc. Report B Soil Boring Logs 1.0 INTRODUCTION Previous investigations led by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) at the Bennett's Dump site have identified various electromagnetic anomalies. Since the primary method of site cleanup will involve excavation of portions of the site, a refined understanding of the subsurface conditions was required to aid in planning of future delineation studies. A geophysical survey, including an electromagnetic survey, a magnetometer survey, and a seismic refraction study, were performed at the Bennett's Dump site during the week of December 14,1998. This report summarizes the geophysical survey, presents the geophysicist's findings, and, based on data gathered herein as well as from previous boring projects, provides a summary of the local geology. The complete report of the geophysical results provided by the geophysics contractor is included in Appendix A. The seismic investigation was conducted to provide an understanding of the subsurface structures in areas most likely to contain large amounts of fill.
    [Show full text]
  • Hartford, Queen City of New England
    - 1111111111111 I 111111111111111111111111 3 0231 00228 5554 ' z z 0 0 0 a: 0 Ll. 1­ a: < :I ..J 0 !:: n. < 0 Ill 1­ < 1­ (/J Hartford Chamber of Commerce, Inc. 1915 ROSTER 1916 COMPILED BY THE 1915 MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE Roster Commiftee: Gustave Fischer Fronk G. Macomber Herbert S. King ARTFORD excels in its character. Whether one con­ siders its mighty ..insurance corporations, the variety and extent of its manufactures, or the advantages of the city as a place of residence; the one word which seems best to typify Hartford is "class." With the coming of that little band, led by one of the sturdiest of religious pioneers, there was brought to Hartford two hundred and eighty years ago, the spirit of progress which is manifest in every endeavor of its citizenship in 1915. Whether it be in manufacturing, in insurance, or in the varied commercial enterprises which have made this community so prosperous and which have more than kept pace with the advancement of our wonderful country, the Hartford spirit which strives to excel, is at all times dominant. Not long ago, a former successful manufacturer in Hartford, and who is repeating his Hartford success in a nearby municipality, gave voice to the statement that the name Hartford on any product meant at least a ten per cent. greater selling value. A community which in manufacturing has known a Samuel Colt and Albert A. Pope, whose intellectual and religious thought has been influenced by a Horace Bushnell and a John Williams; whose educational institutions have felt the inspiration of a Henry Barnard; and in whose literary life there have been a Harriet Beecher Stowe, a Mark Twain, and a Charles Dudley Warner; there is such a wide range of inventive and intellectual endeavor that the city's claim to distinction in both material and spiritual achievement t:annot be disputed.
    [Show full text]