• 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

9.7 CPT Borings and Hydropunch Sampler Optimize Site Characterization at an Aviation Industrial Complex in California

Kenda Neil
NAVFAC Engineering and Expeditionary Warfare Center
Port Hueneme, CA
[email protected]
Information presented in this case study is based on investigations conducted by ESTCP – See source information below

The largest aviation industrial complex on the west coast is located in San Diego, California, and surrounded on three sides by San Diego Bay and the Pacific Ocean. The site is located on relatively flat land with an average elevation of approximately 20 ft above sea level. The site has been graded for development using hydraulic fill consisting of medium- to coarse-grained, poorly graded sands and silty sands. In some areas, the fill is underlain by organic silts and clays.

An operable unit, located in the northeastern portion of the site, is in a heavy industrialized area with several processes including aircraft testing, maintenance shops, and associated chemical storage tanks and pipelines. The groundwater level in this area is approximately 5 ft above mean sea level. The groundwater gradient is relatively flat, from 0.001 to 0.002 foot per foot. Groundwater flow direction is to the north/northeast and discharges into the San Diego Bay. The primary groundwater contaminants are chlorinated VOCs and hexavalent chromium. A chlorinated VOC plume in the area is over 0.5-mile long and is believed to migrate into distinctive zones. For example, immediately downgradient of the source area, the plume migrates into a narrow band 200-ft wide but reduces in width more than 50% further downgradient where it also appears to migrate deeper.

To address data gaps pertaining to both the stratigraphy and contaminant distribution in the area, CPT borings were advanced and hydropunch samples were collected (see Figure 9‑32.). Because the utility corridors on site make well installation difficult and, in some cases, prohibit use of a traditional drill rig, the smaller footprint of a CPT rig allowed access in these tight areas. The stratigraphic data obtained were used to prepare cross sections and helped to determine that downward migration was due to structural or depositional features. CPT boring and Hydropunch data were used to assess areas of interest without having to collect soil samples and determine well-screen intervals. As a result, specific zones of interest were identified and sampled quickly and fewer permanent wells were needed.

An additional 10 CPT borings were advanced in a row downgradient of the plume to evaluate soil and analytical results. The screen intervals for these wells were based on CPT boring data and hydropunch sample concentrations. The advantages of using CPT borings at this location are as follows:

  • allowed for the collection of continuous and much more complete data sets with limited possibility of bias from field personnel regarding soil type interpretations
  • allowed the selection of intervals of different (and distinct) hydraulic characteristics from which to collect groundwater samples
  • improved the understanding of the site and permitted better mapping of the local structure (faults), which, in turn, allowed remediation strategies to be designed
  • Obtained more data (and more quickly) at approximately 50% less cost than when using traditional characterization approaches.

Figure 9‑32. CPT boring and hydropunch sample locations.

9.7.1 Source Information

Parallel InSitu Screening of Remediation Strategies for Improved Decision Making, Remedial Design, and Cost Savings (ESTCB 2012).

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.