The application of geophysics in locating buried hazardous wastes and in mapping groundwater contaminant plumes

73 Pages·1998·11.1 MB·English

by  Ontario. Ministry of the Environment

1
THE APPLICATION OF GEOPHYSICS
IN LOCATING BURIED HAZARDOUS
WASTES AND IN MAPPING
GROUNDWATER CONTAMINANT PLUMES
SEPTEMBER 1998
Ministry
Ontario
nw
of the
Environment
TD
427
.H3
F55
1998
L MOE
1
I
TD The appl cahOn of geoG
427 locating huned hazard(
.H3 wastes and in mapping
F55 groundwater : ontar-mm
1998 78017
1
1
1
1
THE APPLICATION OF GEOPHYSICS
IN LOCATING BURIED HAZARDOUS WASTES
AND IN MAPPING GROUNDWATER CONTAMINANT PLUMES
Pj
SEPTEMBER 1998
Cette publication technique
n' est disponible qu' en anglais.
Copyright: Queen's Printer for Ontario, 1998
This publication may be reproduced for non-commercial purposes
with appropriate attribution.
PIBS 3689E
Copyright Provisions and Restrictions on Copying:
This Ontario Ministry of the Environment work is protected by Crown
copyright (unless otherwise indicated), which is held by the Queen's Printer
for Ontario. It may be reproduced for non-commercial purposes if credit is
given and Crown copyright is acknowledged.
It may not be reproduced, in all or in part, part, for any commercial purpose
except under a licence from the Queen's Printer for Ontario.
For information on reproducing Government of Ontario works,
please
contact Service Ontario Publications at coyri,htC«ntari.<<
1
1
THE APPLICATION OF GEOPHYSICS
IN LOCATING BURIED HAZARDOUS WASTES
AND IN MAPPING GROUNDWATER CONTAMINANT PLUMES
t
1
t
r
Report prepared by:
Keith Fligg
Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Standards Development Branch
Technical Services Section
2 St. Clair Avenue West
Toronto, Ontario M4V 1L5
1
rj
1
DISCLAIMER
The equipment manufacturers and consultants mentioned in this report, as well as
geophysical instruments and software products used by the author do not necessarily
constitute endorsements or recommendation for use.
r
-i-
RECEIVED 1AN 0 4 1999
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
Table of Contents.......,...................................................................................... i
List of Figures.................................................................................................... iu
Acknowledgments............................................................................................ v
1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................... 1
2.0 GEOPHYSICAL METHODS ................................................................ 2
2.1 Magnetic....................................................................................... 2
2.2 Electromagnetic............................................................................ 4
t 2.3 VLF Resistivity............................................................................. 6
2.4 Ground Penetrating Radar............................................................ 7
3.0 APPLICATION OF GEOPHYSICAL METHODS TO
ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS ......................................................... 7
3.1 Magnetic......................................................................................... 7
3.11 Advantages.......................................................................... 8
3.12 Disadvantages...................................................................... 8
4 3.2 Electromagnetic.............................................................................. 9
3.21 Advantages.......................................................................... 11
3.22 Disadvantages...................................................................... 11
3.3 VLF Resistivity............................................................................... 12
3.31 Advantages.......................................................................... 12
3.32 Disadvantages...................................................................... 12
3.4 Ground Penetrating Radar.............................................................. 13
3.41 Advantages.......................................................................... 13
3.42 Disadvantages..................................................................... 13
1
3.5 Summary of Geophysical Applications......................................... 13
4.0 CASE HISTORIES .................................................................................. 15
4.1 Magnetic ........................................................................................ 15
4.11 The Location Of Buried Drums At A Depth Of Less
Than Two Metres At A Site In Trenton ............................. 15
4.12 The Location Of Buried drums At Depths Up To Four
Metres At A Site In Elmira ................................................. 18
4.13 The Magnetic Response Associated With Buried Wells,
Pipe Lines and Fuel Tanks .................................................. 34 I
4.14 The Comparison Of The Magnetic Response From
Buried Fuel Tanks With Regards To Size And
Orientation ........................................................................... 36
4.2 Electromagnetic .............................................................................. 38
4.21 The Delineation Of An Acid Sludge Plume Near Breslau.. 38
4.22 The Mapping Of A Leachate Plume From The Thessalon
Landfill Site ......................................................................... 40
4.23 The Mapping Of A Salt Contamination Plume From A
Storage Facility In Mulmur Township ................................ 43 1
4.24 An EM Conductivity Survey To Determine The Area
Of A Closed Landfill Site After It Had Been Returned
To Agricultural Use ............................................................. 45
4.3 VLF Resistivity ............................................................................... 48
4.31 A VLF Resistivity Survey Of A Salt Contamination
Plume From A Storage Facility In Orono ............................ 48
s
4.32 The Mapping Of Leachate Plumes From The Landfill
And Sewage Lagoons At The Franklin Site Within
The Lake Of Bays Township ................................................ 53
5.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................ 59
f
LIST OF FIGURES
Page No.
FIGURE 1 Inductive Electromagnetic Fields........................................... 5
FIGURE 2 Magnetic Anomalies from Magnetometer Survey (Trenton)
of Buried Drums....................................................................... 17
FIGURE 3 Photograph of Elmira Site where Drums were Buried............... 18
r FIGURE 4 1990 Magnetometer Survey (vertical field anomalies)
in Elmira..................................................................................... 20
FIGURE 5 1994 Gradiometer Survey (total magnetic field anomalies)
in Elmira..................................................................................... 21
FIGURE 6 1994 Gradiometer Survey (gradient anomalies) in Elmira........ 22
r
FIGURE 7 Euler Window for Calculation of GRIDEPTHO' Solutions....... 23
FIGURE 8 Comparative GRIDEPTH® Solutions using Different
Structural Indexes for a Vertical Pipe........................................ 24
FIGURE 9 GRIDEPTH' Analysis using XY and Z Specified Error
1
Limits of Less Than 20 and 15 Percent Respectively................ 25
FIGURE 10 GRIDEPTW Analysis using XY and Z Specified Error
Limits of Less Than 10 and 15 Percent Respectively................ 26
FIGURE 11 EM-61 Metal Detector Survey, Channel B Anomalies.............. 29
FIGURE 12 EM-61 Metal Detector Survey, Differential Channel
Anomalies................................................................................... 30
FIGURE 13 Response from EM-61 Metal Detector with Depth for
a 55 gallon Steel Drum............................................................... 31
' GRIDEPTIr is a registered trademark of Simon Robertson P.L.C
Page No.
FIGURE 14 Location and Depth of Prioritized Anomalies for Excavation... 32
FIGURE 15 List of Excavated Anomalies which Contained Drums
at the Elmira Site ......................................................................... 33
FIGURE 16 Magnetic Response For Wells, Fuel Tank and Pipe Line.......... 35
FIGURE 17 A Comparison of the Magnetic Response from Fuel Tanks
t
with Regards to Size and Orientation ........................................ 37
FIGURE 18 EM Conductivity Survey of Acid Sludge Plume ...................... 39
FIGURE 19 EM Conductivity Survey of Leachate Plume from Thessalon
Landfill Site ............................................................................... 41
FIGURE 20 EM Conductivity Survey of Salt Contamination Plume
in Mulmur Township................................................................. 44
FIGURE 21 Photograph of former Landfill Site after it was returned to
Agricultural use .......................................................................... 45 1
FIGURE 22 EM Conductivity Survey Locating area of Closed
Landfill Site................................................................................ 46
FIGURE 23 Apparent Resistivity Map from VLF Resistivity Survey of
Salt Contamination in Orono ..................................................... 49
FIGURE 24 Map of Phase Angles from VLF Resistivity Survey of Salt
Contamination in Orono ............................................................. 50
FIGURE 25 Apparent Resistivity Map from VLF Resistivity Survey of
a Leachate Plume at a Landfill Site in The Lake of Bays
Township ..................................................................................... 54
FIGURE 26 Selected Chemical Data from Monitoring Wells at the
Landfill Site in The Lake of Bays Township .............................. 55