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