• 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

9.15 Surface Geophysical Methods Provide Data to Identify Prospective Utility Waste Landfill Sites in Karst Terrain in Missouri

Elanz Siami-Irdemoosa
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Jefferson City, MO
[email protected]

A 42-acre utility waste landfill (UWL) is permitted through the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) to receive coal combustion residuals from the combustion of coal at the John Twitty Energy Center (JTEC). The JTEC is a coal-fired power station located at the southwest boundary of the City of Springfield in Greene County, Missouri (Springfield 2016). As the existing UWL was filling to capacity, a new UWL was required to be located and developed at the 800-acre JTEC site.

The bedrock surface at the site consists of Burlington-Keokuk Limestone. Its thickness may vary from 150 ft to 250 ft due to high degree of weathering. The weathered and irregular bedrock is hidden below a mantling of chert clay residuum with thicknesses varying from a few feet to over 40 ft. Most karst features in southwest Missouri are developed within this formation, which includes solution-widened joints, pinnacles, solutional sinkholes, and collapse sinkholes (MDNR-SWMP 2015). The MDNR had two main concerns in siting a UWL in karst terrain: 1) ensure sinkhole collapses do not result in failures of the landfill liner system or instability of the landfill foundation and 2) monitor the uppermost continuous aquifer beneath the landfill. ERT and MASW methods were selected to characterize the nature and extent of the karst system at the site and identify a suitable UWL site (MDNR-SWMP 2015). ERT and MASW techniques have proven to be the best geophysical methods for investigations in karst terrain, particularly when the overburden soil is clay dominated (Van Nostrand and Cook 1966); (Frankline et al. 2019); (Zhou, F. Beck, and B. Stephenson 2000). The high contrast in resistivity values between carbonate rock and clayey soil allows the determination of the soil-bedrock contact (Siami-Irdemoosa 2017).

A total of 374,922 linear ft of ERT data was acquired along 183 traverses. The length of the traverses varied from 625 ft to 8,680 ft. ERT data were collected mostly along parallel west-east oriented and north-south oriented traverses. MASW data were acquired at 240 specific locations along west-east oriented ERT traverses and (mostly) at 400 ft intervals (see Figure 9‑54) (MDNR-SWMP 2015).

Figure 9‑54. Layout of ERT traverses and MASW locations at the investigation site (Area A).
Source: (Siami-Irdemoosa 2017)

ERT data were interpreted to map the soil-bedrock interface, soil thickness, variation in rock quality, and joint sets and to characterize the existing sinkholes (see Figure 9‑55b). The MASW data were also interpreted to map the soil-bedrock interface, map variation in soil thickness, determine the engineering properties of soil and rock, and validate the ERT interpretation (especially with respect to mapped top of rock) (see Figure 9‑55a and Figure 9‑55c) (MDNR-SWMP 2015).

Figure 9‑55. ERT and MASW data interpretation; a) MASW array dispersion curve and shear-wave velocity model.
Source: (MDNR-SWMP 2015)

The geophysical surveys were complemented by site reconnaissance, confirmatory drilling, downhole video, and downhole LiDAR. Data from fifteen (15) boreholes were correlated with the interpreted ERT profiles and MASW data to validate the interpretation. A hollow-stem auger was used to drill the boreholes on the bedrock surface, and the bedrock was core drilled using HQTM core barrels and NQTM core barrels. A corehole encountered a subsurface void immediately east-southeast of a large solutional sinkhole along an ERT profile. A high-resolution downhole camera was used to inspect the subsurface void. An LED-based detection and ranging (LEDDAR) technology was employed to further map the encountered void (MDNR-SWMP 2015).

The primary findings of the site investigation include the following:

  • The interpreted soil-bedrock interfaces from ERT profiles and MASW correlate well with borehole control.
  • Soil thickness is variable at the site and varies between about 5 ft and 30 ft.
  • Two sets of visually prominent orthogonal joints were identified on site: the north-south trending joint sets and the west-east trending joint sets. The north-south trending joint sets are more prevalent on site, with a density of approximately 1/100 ft. The density of the west-east trending joints sets is approximately 1/200 ft.
  • Aerial photographs of the site revealed that most visually prominent joint sets are associated with either cultural features that concentrate runoff, natural surface drainage features, or confirmed sinkholes. Over half of the identified visually prominent joint sets are culturally influenced and more than 80% are cultural or drainage influenced.
  • A few numbers of solutional sinkhole, collapse sinkhole, and closed depressions were identified during the site reconnaissance. The potential for a sinkhole collapse is low based on the investigation findings.

Based on the results of ERT survey, MASW control and supplemental investigation, two prospective sites were identified as the best alternatives for UWL development.

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.