• 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

9.8 Waterloo APS, CPT, and LIF Data Update CSM and Help Optimize Selected Remedy at a Former Refinery in Oklahoma

Hank Unterschuetz
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
Oklahoma City, OK
[email protected]
Amy Brittain
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
Oklahoma City, OK
[email protected]
Information presented in this case study is based on investigations conducted by ERM.

A former refinery in southern Oklahoma stretches over 400 acres with a long operational history. It was first constructed in the 1920s and operated until 1983 through multiple expansions and changes in ownership (ERM 2015). Soil and groundwater at the site are contaminated with VOCs, PAHs, and metals. In addition to the presence of LNAPL, a previous soil-vapor investigation identified new areas potentially contaminated with LNAPL. Previous investigations were not focused on the horizontal and vertical extent of dissolved-phase groundwater contamination, contaminant mobility, and associated risk(s) to receptors. The risk pathway of highest concern is a nearby stream, located on the eastern boundary of the site.

Although much of the site is underlain by shallow sedimentary bedrock (sandstone with siltstone and mudstone inclusions), the portion of the site closest to the stream is underlain by quaternary-age alluvium, which overlies the sedimentary bedrock (see Figure 9‑34). The alluvium consists of silt to fine-grained sand with silty or sandy clay and is thickest along a valley located immediately west of the stream. Groundwater within the alluvium discharges to the stream, presenting the most significant risk pathway for site contaminants (ERM 2013b).

Figure 9‑33. West-east site geology cross section.

9.8.1 Waterloo Advanced Profiling System (APS)

The Waterloo APS was used to collect groundwater samples for analyses of VOCs, SVOCs, and metals at multiple vertical intervals from multiple boring locations in the portion of the site underlain by alluvium. Using a direct push method for sample collection in conjunction with a mobile laboratory for real time sample analysis allowed for extremely quick sampling and decision making.

The Waterloo APS is a direct-push, real-time measurement tool that provides hydro-stratigraphic data and allows for discrete-interval water sampling. The instrument reports a continuous log of the Index of Hydraulic Conductivity (Ik) by injecting a small amount of clean water into the geologic formation as it is being pushed. The tool monitors the depth, pressure, and flow rate of the injected water, and generates a continuous log of relative permeability of the formation. With this knowledge, the user can select intervals for sample collection. Multiple discrete-interval groundwater samples can be collected from a single boring without having the remove the tooling for sample collection or decontamination (ERM 2013b).

The Waterloo APS collects groundwater samples from a 2- to 5-inch vertical interval, which is a much narrower sample interval than a traditional monitoring well screen. Because the sample is collected from a narrow interval, samples from the Waterloo APS often have higher concentrations than a traditional monitoring well samples, which represent the average groundwater concentration across the well screen interval (often several ft). For these reasons, Waterloo APS is deemed a conservative environmental sample and is useful for efficiently and accurately delineating dissolved phase contamination, and for identifying locations where wells should be installed for future monitoring or recovery.

Groundwater from the entire eastern site perimeter and part of the southern site perimeter was evaluated. Thirty-eight borings were advanced and 52 groundwater samples were collected from the most permeable zones within the alluvium using the Waterloo APS (see Figure 9‑34). Results indicated no groundwater contamination on the southern boundary of the site and revealed previously unknown contamination on the northeast site boundary. The dissolved-phase data gathered was used to accurately determine locations and appropriate screening intervals for the installations of a limited number of additional monitoring wells (ERM 2013a).

The Waterloo APS was only one tool used in this site-wide application of direct-push tools. Combined with the information gleaned from CPT and LIF, the complex subsurface was better characterized efficiently. After monitoring wells were installed, the CSM was updated and used to guide various remedial actions. Current remedial actions to remove petroleum related wastes in the subsurface adjacent to the creek have been efficient and effective because of the high-resolution site characterization data generated by the Waterloo APS and other direct-push methods.

The conventional approach to monitoring this risk pathway would have been to install dozens of wells at various screening intervals around the creek and on the boundaries of the site. However, use of the Waterloo APS saved time and better guided well installation (ERM 2015). A total of 16 wells were installed between 20 and 40 ft. Using interval data from the Waterloo APS, new well screens were targeted to characterize dissolved-phase plumes or perform LNAPL bail-down tests which minimized well construction costs while ensuring quality data from the installed wells.

Figure 9‑34. Maximum benzene results at monitoring wells and Waterloo APS locations.

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.