• Skip to main content
itrc_logo

Implementing Advanced Site Characterization Tools

Home
About ITRC
Navigating this Website
1 Introduction
1 Introduction Overview
1.1 Purpose and Scope
1.2 Technologies
1.3 How to Use this Document
2 ASCT Implementation
2 ASCT Implementation Overview
2.1 Tool Selection
2.2 Tool Application
3 Direct Sensing
3 Direct Sensing Overview
3.1 How to Select and Apply Direct Sensing Tools Using this Document
3.2 Membrane Interface Probe
3.3 Optical Image Profiler
3.4 Laser-Induced Fluorescence
3.5 Cone Penetrometer Testing
3.6 Hydraulic and Groundwater Profiling Tools
3.7 Electrical Conductivity (EC) Probe
3.8 Flexible Liners
4 Borehole Geophysics
4 Borehole Geophysics Overview
4.1 How to Select and Apply Borehole Geophysical Tools Using this Document
4.2 Fluid Temperature
4.3 Fluid Resistivity
4.4 Mechanical Caliper
4.5 Optical Televiewer
4.6 Acoustic Televiewer
4.7 Natural Gamma Logging
4.8 Borehole Flow Meters
4.9 Advanced Borehole Logging Tools
5 Surface Geophysics
5 Surface Geophysics Overview
5.1 How to Select and Apply Surface Geophysical Tools Using this Document
5.2 Electrical Resistivity Imaging
5.3 Ground Penetrating Radar
5.4 Seismic Methods
5.5 Electromagnetic Surveys
6 Remote Sensing
6 Remote Sensing Overview
6.1 How to Select and Apply Remote Sensing Tools Using this Document
6.2 Drones
6.3 Visible Spectrum Camera
6.4 Camera Features
6.5 Photogrammetry
6.6 Sample Collection and Monitoring using Drones
6.7 Cost Considerations
6.8 Case Studies
7 Stakeholder and Tribal Perspectives
8 Regulatory Perspective
8 Regulatory Perspective Overview
8.1 Challenges and Solutions
9 Case Studies
9 Case Studies Overview
9.1 MIP Boring Data Allow On-Site Decisions to Fill Data Gaps and Reduce Uncertainty during Triad Approach Evaluation at Five South Dakota Sites
9.2 MIP Allows Real-Time Identification and Delineation of DNAPL Plume at a Former Naval Air Station in California
9.3 OIP-Green Probe Delineates Extent of Coal Tar NAPL at a Former Gas Manufacturing Plant in Kansas
9.4 LIF Survey with UOVOST® Provides More Accurate Representation of LNAPL Plume at a Former Bulk Petroleum Storage Facility in New Hampshire
9.5 UVOST Differentiates LNAPL Types to Allocate Financial Liabilities at a Retail Petroleum Facility in Tennessee
9.6 TarGOST Determines DNAPL Extent and HPT Confirms Site Lithology at a Former Creosote Facility in Louisiana
9.7 CPT Borings and Hydropunch Sampler Optimize Site Characterization at an Aviation Industrial Complex in California
9.8 Waterloo APS, CPT, and LIF Data Update CSM and Help Optimize Selected Remedy at a Former Refinery in Oklahoma
9.9 Conceptual Site Model Development Using Borehole Geophysics at the Savage Municipal Water Supply Superfund Site in New Hampshire
9.10 ERI Provides Data to Improve Groundwater Flow and Contaminant Transport Models at Hanford 300 Facility in Washington
9.11 Surface and Borehole Geophysical Technologies Provide Data to Pinpoint and Characterize Karst Features at a Former Retail Petroleum Facility in Kentucky
9.12 GPR Data Show Location of Buried Debris and Piping Associated with a Former Gas Holder in Minnesota
9.13 Resistivity, Seismic Exploration, and GPR Provide Data to Evaluate Clay Reserves at a Commercially Mined Pit
9.14 Seismic Refraction, Electric Resistivity, and Multichannel Analysis of Seismic Waves Provide Data to Locate Monitoring Well Locations in a Mixed-Use Area in Northern Virginia
9.15 Surface Geophysical Methods Provide Data to Identify Prospective Utility Waste Landfill Sites in Karst Terrain in Missouri
9.16 Airborne Time-Domain Electromagnetic Method Maps Sand Distribution along the Illinois Lake Michigan Shore
9.17 Drone Technology Expedites and Streamlines Site Characterization at a Former Golf Course in Missouri
9.18 High-Resolution and Thermal Aerial Images Identify Mine Openings at an Abandoned Colorado Mine
9.19 RPAS Collects Water Samples to Avoid Safety Concerns at Montana Tunnels Mine
Additional Information
Appendix A. Tool Tables and Checklists
Glossary
References
Acronyms
Acknowledgments
Team Contacts
Document Feedback

 

Click for Selection Tool Click for Summary Tables Click for Tool Descriptions Click for Case Studies Click for Checklists Click for Training Videos Click for Home

9.1 MIP Boring Data Allow On-Site Decisions to Fill Data Gaps and Reduce Uncertainty during Triad Approach Evaluation at Five South Dakota Sites

John McVey
South Dakota Department of Environmental and Natural Resources – Petroleum Release Compensation Fund
[email protected]

In 2004, the South Dakota Petroleum Release Compensation Fund conducted a study to evaluate and report on the effectiveness of using the triad approach to manage decision uncertainties associated with five petroleum release sites across South Dakota (SDPRCF 2015). The goal of the study was to apply the principals of the triad approach to rapidly characterize the sites, develop accurate CSMs, establish clear clean-up goals and move the languishing sites toward regulatory closure as quickly as possible. A MIP coupled with an electron capture device, photoionization detector, flame ionization detector and Columbia Technologies SmartData Solutions® (Columbia 2019) data processing and visualization platform were selected to allow for real-time assessment and decision making. Standard confirmation sampling was used to verify the rapid site assessment.

Similar to other sites included in the study, the former T&T Standard site was stalled in the assessment process and not moving toward regulatory closure. A release (see Figure 9‑1) was discovered in December 1991, and assessments were performed in 1992, 1993, 1994, and 1999. Three underground storage tanks (USTs) (one 10,000-gallon gasoline, one 8,000-gallon gasoline, and one 3,000-gallon diesel) and about 900 cubic yards of contaminated soil were removed in 1992. Two USTs (one 270 gallon and one 100 gallon) and about 10 cubic yards of soil were removed in 1994. Groundwater monitoring was performed from 1992 to 2003. An additional assessment was required to define the extent and evaluate potential for risk to underground structures (utilities) and city water supply wells. For this study, objectives included the following:

  • Confirm background data using perimeter test holes.
  • Identify all potential sources and determine if source areas are separate or co-mingled.
  • Resolve potential sources between on- and off-site properties.
  • Determine extent of dissolved plume relative to Source Water Protection Area.
  • Determine if deeper lithology is consistent with aquifer material.
  • Evaluate potential of excluding site from Source Water Protection Area.
  • Identify all downgradient pathways and receptors.
  • Identify location, depth, and construction of utilities and determine impacts.
  • Take confirmation soil & groundwater samples.
  • Analyze soil and groundwater samples for TPH-G, BTEX, MTBE, EDB, TPA.
  • Determine need for additional compliance monitoring wells.
  • Develop corrective action plan.

A total of 23 MIP borings were advanced over three days, resulting in approximately 13,000 data points collected over 640 ft of drilling. In addition, three conventional direct-push confirmation borings were installed, resulting in approximately 65 data points over 55 ft of drilling. An abandoned storm sewer filled with waste oil and two previously unidentified USTs were discovered, partially due to the density of data provided by the MIP borings. Additional assessment was required to define extent and evaluate the potential for risk to underground structures (utilities) and city water supply wells.

The major objectives were completed, and a Corrective Action Plan was developed. It was determined that groundwater beneath the site is not hydraulically connected to the drinking water source and not necessary to meet drinking water MCLs. No Further Action status was received in January 2007, slightly over two years after the MIP assessment.

At the former T&T Standard site, as well as the other sites included in the study, the availability of real-time data provided the flexibility to augment the project work plan during the same mobilization, minimizing the need for future site visits to collect additional data. Consequently, the time and costs associated with redundant mobilization and demobilizations, generation of interim reports, revision of work plans, and additional contracting to complete the necessary work were avoided. Of the three sites that had prior assessment data, MIP assessment costs ranged from 15% to 70% less expensive than conventional assessments.

Lessons learned from the triad approach study were as follows:

  • Pre-planning and establishing objectives up front proved invaluable in identifying and resolving differences in assessment objectives, establishing site-specific remedial goals, and developing decision metrics for real-time decision making as assessment data became available.
  • Prior to beginning work, consideration should be given to other technologies that can provide specialized characterization (for example, LIF to assess a NAPL plume).
  • More up-front training on direct sensing technologies such as MIP and LIF would have been helpful before beginning field work.
  • On-site real-time data collection proceeded smoothly and results were invaluable. On-site decisions were made with regard to collecting additional data to fill data gaps and reduce uncertainty.
  • Heavier petroleum did not clear the MIP trunk line well and carry over was evident on logs from one boring location to the next. Note: The exact nature of the heavier petroleum is not known, but it likely contained a mixture of diesel, grease, and asphaltic tar.

Figure 9‑1. Former T&T Standard site.

image_pdfPrint this page/section
Click here to download the entire document.



ASCT-1

web document
glossaryASCT-1
Glossary
referencesASCT-1
References
acronymsASCT-1
Acronyms

ITRC
Contact Us
About ITRC
Visit ITRC
social media iconsClick here to visit ITRC on FacebookClick here to visit ITRC on TwitterClick here to visit ITRC on LinkedInITRC on Social Media
Permission is granted to refer to or quote from this publication with the customary acknowledgment of the source (see suggested citation and disclaimer). This web site is owned by ITRC • 1250 H Street, NW • Suite 850 • Washington, DC 20005 • (202) 266-4933 • Email: [email protected] • Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, and Usage Policy ITRC is sponsored by the Environmental Council of the States.