v°/EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Municipal Environmental Research'
Laboratory
Cincinnati OH 45268
Research and Development
EPA-600/S2-81-185 Dec. 1981
Project Summary
Evaluation of Abatement
Alternatives Through the
Use of Remote Sensing
Devices
H. J. Yaffee, N. L. Cichowicz, and R. W. Pease, Jr.
Several remote sensing techniques
(ground-penetrating radar, electrical
resistivity, metal detection, and seismic
refraction) were employed to investi-
gate the subsurface location of buried
drums and chemical contamination at
an uncontrolled hazardous waste site
in Rhode Island. The techniques were
used in conjunction with direct sample
collection to support the selection of a
long-term abatement alternative for
the site. The advantages and limita-
tions of the four remote sensing
techniques are given, and an approach
for accomplishing systematic investi-
gations at other abandoned hazardous
waste sites are recommended.
This Project Summary was devel-
oped by EPA's Municipal Environ-
mental Research Laboratory, Cincin-
nati. OH, to announce key findings of
the research projects that are fully
documented in separate reports (see
Project Reports ordering information
at back).
Introduction
This summary describes how several
remote sensing techniques can be used
in conjunction with direct sample
collection at an uncontrolled hazardous
waste site to (a) determine the extent
and nature of the buried drum and
subsurface chemical contamination
(plume) problem and (b) support the
selection and design of a long-term
abatement approach. The use of the
following remote sensing techniques
was demonstrated:
• ground-penetrating radar
0 metal detection
• electrical resistivity
• seismic refraction
The focus here is on the techniques and
their results and the selection of the
preferred abatement alternative.
The uncontrolled hazardous waste
dump site is located in Coventry, Rhode
Island, approximately 20 miles south-
west of Providence. This site encom-
passes approximately 7.5 acres of
cleared ground surrounded by woods
and wetland in a relatively rural area of
the state. An undetermined quantity of
chemicals had been placed into the
ground both by burying 55-gallon drums
in five separate locations and by
discharging into trenches directly
(Figure 1). A swamp, located northwest
of the site, is the surface discharge area
of chemicals leaching from the dump.
This swamp discharges to a small pond
which is a source of irrigation water for
a cranberry bog located approximately 1
mile from the swamp's outlet. To date,
no evidence of chemical contamination
in the pond has been found, based on
sampling conducted by the Rhode Island
-------
Legend:
Land Surface Contours (feet above MSLj
***#* Stone Fence
Areas of High Metal Content Detected Near Ground Surface
O Visible Metal Drums
Land surface contours based on USGS contours and are inaccurate
where dumping activities have disturbed ground.
Scale
150
0 50 WO 150
Feet
Figure 1. Outline of trench locations at the Coventry site as determined by metal
detection.
Department of Environmental Manage-
ment (DEM) and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region I.
State of Rhode Island officials were
alerted to the dumping activities by a fire
and explosion in September 1977. A
court order issued in November 1977
prohibited the property owner from
continuing dumping activities or other-
wise altering the site. From the end of
1977 to mid-1979, the DEM conducted
field investigations to quantify the
seriousness of the situation.
The investigation at the Coventry site
was conducted in two separate phases.
Site Investigation
The ultimate purpose of the Phase I
and Phase II investigations was to
support the selection of one of the
following long-term abatement methods:
• site encapsulation
• leachate collection and treatment
• drum removal and chemical dis-
posal
• "no action" alternative
The techniques employed for data
collection during the Phase I effort
were: electrical resistivity; metal detec-
tion; installation of monitoring wells;
and chemical analysis of soil, ground-
water, and surface water. The field
methods employed, the data collected,
the conclusions drawn, and the recom-
mendations made to the DEM are
documented in the Phase I report, along
with the abatement options, the addi-
tional information needed, and the
recommendations for immediate and
near-term actions to protect the public
health. ("Hazardous Waste Investiga-
tion: Picillo Property, Coventry, Rhode
Island," R. W. Pease et al., MITRE
Technical Report 80W00032, the MITRE
Corporation, Bedford, Massachusetts.
142pp. 1980.)
Although the extent of the problem
was defined and abatement options
were preliminarily evaluated in Phase I,
key pieces of information were needed
concerning the presence of fracturing or .
contamination of the bedrock and the!
condition and number of the buried
drums before a permanent solution
could be selected. The reports sum-
marized here describes the advantages
and disadvantages of the four remote
sensing techniques and how they were
used to define the extent of the buried
drum problem and evaluates the alter-
natives and make recommendations for
permanent abatement (Table 1).
Remote Sensing Techniques
Ground-Penetrating Radar
The technique of ground-penetrating
radar involves the repetitive propagation
of short-time duration pulses of electro-
magnetic energy in the radio frequency
range downward into the ground from a
broad bandwidth antenna on (within a
few inches of) the surface. Reflections
from subsurface interfaces are received
by the antenna during the off period of
the pulsed transmission, processed
electronically, and recorded to yield a
continuous profile of subsurface condi-
tions as the antenna/transmitter-
receiver unit is moved across the
ground surface. The depth d to an
interface, or the surface of a "target"
such as a metal drum, is calculated frorrw
-------
Table 1. Techniques Used in Phase II to Provide Information Needed to Select an Abatement Alternative
Alternative
Additional Information
Required to
Select Alternative
Technique to
Obtain Information*
1. No Action
2. Drum Removal and Disposal
(excavation, testing, and proper
disposal of drums and contents,
and contaminated soils)
3. Site Encapsulation (construction
of impermeable barriers around
source of pollutants)
4. Leachate Collection and Treatment
a. Limited Option (interceptor
trenches constructed adjacent to
site walls)
b. More Complete Option (interceptor
trenches constructed 600 feet
downgradient of site walls)
• condition of source (drums)
• state of nearby pond
• contaminant underflow at swamp
• ultimate disposition of all pollutants
• condition of source (drums)
• condition of soil
• condition of source (drums)
• condition of bedrock
• condition of source (drums)
• condition of bedrock
• same as above
• radar, exploratory excavation
• additional wells, chemical analysis of
soils and water samples
• radar, exploratory excavation
• exploratory excavation, chemical
analysis of soil samples
• radar, exploratory excavation
• seismic refraction, core drilling, deep
wells
• radar, exploratory excavation
• seismic refraction, core drilling, deep
wells
same as above
* Metal detection had previously been used to locate trenches: electrical resistivity to delineate leachate plume. Radar could have
been employed in lieu of or in conjunction with metal detection, as recommended for other sites; potential
radar effectiveness was not known at the time of the initial survey.
d =
-------
metal detection was approximately 4 to
5 feet. In areas where buried drums
were suspected, based on disturbed
ground or the initial gross scan of the
overall site, the survey was conducted
by traversing closely-spaced grid lines.
Electrical Resistivity
The electrical resistivity of a geological
formation depends on the conduction of
electric current through the particular
subsurface materials. Since most of the
geologic formations that contain water
have high resistivities, the electrical
resistivity of a saturated rock or soil is
primarily a function of the density and
porosity of the material and the concen-
tration of the conducting ions within the
saturating fluid. In a resistivity survey,
an electric current is passed into the
ground through a pair of current
electrodes and the potential drop is
measured across an inner pair of
potential electrodes. The "apparent
resistivity" is determined by the equa-
tion, Ra=27rA(V/l), where A is the
electrode spacing, V is the potential
difference and I is the applied current.
The depth of penetration is controlled by
the distance between the electrodes
(called the A-spacing) and is approxi-
mately equal to half of this distance.
Varying the A-spacing allows resistivity
measurements to be taken in the form of
either lateral or depth profiling.
Both types of profiling methods were
conducted at the hazardous waste site
in Coventry using a Bison Instruments
Model 2350B Earth Resistivity meter
powered by a 90 volt battery. A fixed A-
spacing of 20 feet was used for the
lateral profiles in the areas of the
trenches and the swamp where the
depth of groundwater contamination
was suspected as being shallow. Two
lateral profiles using a fixed A-spacing
of 50 feet were also conducted approxi-
mately 2000 feet west and north of the
immediate site walls, where it was
suspected that the contamination might
be detected at greater depths.
Seismic Refraction
The seismic refraction method is
based on the principal that elastic
waves (mechanical rather than electro-
magnetic) travel through different
subsurface strata at different velocities.
Elastic waves are introduced to the
ground surface by an energy source,
usually a small explosion or a hammer
blow on a steel plate for shallow
investigations. The refracted waves are
detected by small seismometers (geo-
4
phones) located on the surface at
various distances from the energy
source. A seismograph records the
travel time between the vibration and
the arrival of the elastic wave at the
geophones. Plotting arrival time versus
distance from the energy source to
geophone from a series of seismograph
records enables the strata depths and
their seismic velocities to be determined
through the use of simple refraction
theory.
Seismic refraction profiling of approx-
imately 2,850 linear feet was done in 2
days of field work. A Geometries/Nimbus
Model ES1210F Multichannel Seismo-
graph was used to record and collectthe
voltage outputs from 12 geophones
spaced at 20-foot intervals for each
refraction spread. The energy source
used to initiate each record and shock
wave was a 30-pound weight drop or
10-pound sledge hammer blow on a
steel plate with an attached impact start
switch.
Results of Field Studies
Plume Delineation
When the information needed to
evaluate the long-term abatement
alternatives was determined, the Phase
I investigation was planned. A principal
component of the site investigation was
the installation of shallow monitoring
wells to collect soil and water samples
and to determine groundwater eleva-
tions.
Because natural conditions at the site
were such that measurement of electri-
cal resistivity was expected to be
successful, a lateral profiling survey
was performed to facilitate placing the
monitoring wells. In addition, a depth
profiling survey was conducted to
determine vertical contamination
patterns.
The western plume, which was
defined primarily with the use of the 20-
foot A-spacing, appeared to be generally
within 10 feet of the surface. Most of the
plume moving toward the north was
defined with the 50-foot A-spacing and
appears generally deeper than 20 feet
below the surface. Some shallow
contamination, however, is also ap-
parent along the northern border of the
site near the trenches. Shallow bedrock
off the northwest corner of the site was
considered the most likely explanation
for the high apparent resistivity values
between the two plumes, although this
explanation was later proven false (see
next subsection). Hence the results of
the resistivity survey suggested that
additional monitoring wells be located
to determine the existence of the
shallow bedrock and to substantiate the
presence of two separate plumes.
Additionally, discovery of a contami-
nant source along the partly grass-
covered western edge of the site served
to indicate how far south and west the
monitoring well program ideally should
extend. Locating this additional source
of contamination may also have been
possible using the radar technique
based upon comparison of signal
strength.
Following the lateral resistivity survey,
15 monitoring wells were installed.
Refusal depths, tentatively assumed to
reflect the approximate top of bedrock,
did indicate a mound in the bedrock
surface off the northwest corner of the
site. Four wells in this vicinity were dry,
which also gave credence to the results
obtained from the resistivity survey,
namely the existence and location of
two plumes. In addition, soil samples
taken from these same locations were
much less contaminated than soil
samples taken from borings located
within the plume boundaries. Consid-
eration of these factors seemed to^
indicate that groundwater flow waJ
being diverted around a bedrock mound,
and this had resulted in the detection of
high apparent resistivity values in this
area. Later (Phase II) bedrock drilling,
seismic refraction survey, and chemical
analysis of soil and groundwater showed
that the bedrock mound did not exist and
that contaminated groundwater was
indeed traveling in this location. In
general, the groundwater is at a greater
depth below the surface in this region
than the other surveyed areas; this
resulted in the higher relative resistivity
values and subsequent incorrect inter-
pretation.
Determination of Bedrock
Topography
Complete verification of the shallow
bedrock off the northwest corner of the
site was not possible until the bedrock
coring and the seismic survey were
done. The drilling showed that the
refusal depths of the previous borings
had actually been due to boulders
and/or very dense till. At each boring
location, the bedrock (a granite gneiss)
was discovered to be 10 to 30 feet
deeper than anticipated. The seismic
survey indicated that the bedrock
-------
surface was gently rolling, varying from
approximately 10 feet below ground
surface near the swamp to approximately
70 feet below ground surface on top of
the site.
The boring drilled in the area between
the two plumes showed that the
bedrock was highly weathered and
fractured. A piezometer installed in the
fractured bedrock indicates that the
granite gneiss is hydraulically con-
nected to the unconsolidated glacial
deposits. Therefore, groundwater is not
being diverted around a shallow bedrock
mound, as had been inferred from the
resistivity survey and Phase I drilling,
but is actually moving over this area
toward the swamp at depths greater
than 20 feet. A groundwater sample
taken from this well was found to
contain a diverse assortment of volatile
organic pollutants similar in concentra-
tion to samples taken from wells within
the two plumes.
A seismic refraction profile was
performed over the West Trench in an
experimental attempt to determine the
depth of the base of the buried drums.
Neither ground-penetrating radar nor
metal detection was able to show the
lower boundary of drums, and resistivity
depth profiles revealed no readily
interpretable trends. Knowing the depth
of trenches is critical for estimating the
number of drums in each trench. A
remote sensing method that can effec-
tively determine depth of drums would
greatly aid other similar investigations
for the determination of drum number
and cost estimates of abatement tech-
niques.
Buried Drum Location
and Number
The location and dimensions of the
trenches, which were used to estimate
the number of drums in each trench,
were based on a combination of data
from metal detection, ground-penetrat-
ing radar, and the exploratory excava-
tion. The results from the seismic
profiling of the West Trench were used
to estimate the lower limit for the
bottom of the trenches, even though
these data have not been confirmed. In
estimating the number of drums con-
tained in the trenches, the angle of the
vertical side walls was assumed to be
60°, the angle of the declining surface
of drums 45°, and the angle of descent
of the trench ends 45°. The angle of
repose for disturbed site soil is approxi-
mately 45°, but excavated side walls
were shown to maintain a steeper
slope.
Since the radar probed to a depth of
12 feet, in contrast with the 4 to 6 feet in
the vicinity of the trenches for metal
detection, the radar would be expected
to present a somewhat more accurate
indication of trench boundaries. The
radar found two trenches in the "North-
east Trench" instead of the single
trench identified previously with metal
detection; the explanation for this is not
known. On the other hand, the radar
data for the West Trench had to be
supplemented by data from the metal
detection.
The radar provided, in addition, some
useful qualitative information on the
way drums were placed and on the
trench construction. For example,
although there were isolated instances
where drums appeared to be neatly
stacked, this was the exception rather
than the rule. Based on the radar data,
the drums appeared, for the most part,
to be randomly stacked, and at least the
top 8 or so feet below the surface (where
individual drums most clearly could be
identified), the drums appeared to be
present in clusters as opposed to being
uniformly dense throughout a trench.
Also, the top surface of the drums
displayed an "angle of repose" from the
sides to the center of the trench cross-
section.
The radar was not able to detect the
bottom of the trenches, partly because
the upper drums masked what was
beneath. Even in the West Trench,
where a 25-foot nominal depth was
probed, the trench bottom could not be
located from the data. The radar data
can often be used, however, to deter-
mine the interface between the sides of
the trenches and the undisturbed soil.
Radar signalsf rom within the trench are
generally stronger than signals from
outside the trench. This contrast is
attributed to the fact that the disturbed
soil within the trench has a higher
dielectric constant because it is more
porous and has a greater moisture
content than undisturbed soil. For
future work at other sites, it is suggested
that deep radar probing at and just
outside a trench boundary may be
successful in determining the maximum
depth of drums, depending on the
steepness of the side of the trench
relative to the radar beam, the clarity of
the radar signal at this depth, and the
subsurface material at the given site.
To produce estimates for the number
of drums remaining buried, a theoretical
trench geometry described earlier was
employed. It is assumed for the purpose
of the drum estimates that a 2-foot layer
of soil covered the top of the burial area
and that two nominal trench depths of
14 and 22 feet were used to bracket the
range determined from remote sensing
and direct excavation. The bottom of the
trenches are assumed to be level with
no irregularities. Straight sides for the
horizontal widths and lengths have also
been assumed.
Two densities of drums (percent of
volume of drums within trench volume
below the cover layer of soil) were used
for the drum number estimates: 90
percent and 50 percent, A drum density
of 90 percent represents the closest
packing arrangement possible for cylin-
ders without regard to interferences
imposed by the actual geometry of the
trench boundaries. An actual drum
density of 54 percent was calculated for
the Northeast Trenches using the
results obtained from the DEM site
representative combined with the
theoretical trench geometry. The calcu-
lated 54 percent density was rounded
off to 50 percent for the lower limit
calculations of the drum number esti-
mates.
The number of buried drums was
estimated by calculating the volume of
each trench and multiplying the volume
by the assumed drum density to yield
the total volume of drums (Table 2). The
estimate for the number of uncrushed,
55-gallon drums is provided by dividing
the total volume by the volume of a
single drum (7.35 ft3). As Table 2 shows,
the overall range varies by a factor of
two and a half, from 16,700 to 44,700,
whereas the more likely range based
upon the observed depth of the North-
east Trenches, is less than a factor of
two, from 25,000 to 44,700.
The above estimates are for whole,
uncrushed 55-gallon drums. These
numbers will necessarily increase if
some of the drums are crushed, enabling
closer packing. The drum number
estimates can be corrected for the
presence of crushed drums by multiply-
ing by g/(f+ g -gf), in which f represents
the fraction of crushed drums and g is
equal to the ratio of the volume of a
whole drum to the volume of a crushed
drum. If g = 2 and f = 0.3, for example, as
indicated by the exploratory excavation
of the Northeast Trenches, there would
be 18 percent more drums (whole plus
crushed); however, there would be 17
percent fewer whole drums.
-------
Table 2.
Trench
Location^
Estimated Number of Buried Drums* Based on Extrapolation of Best
Available Data
Maximum
Drum Density
Drums Randomly
Stacked^
Nominal Trench Depth, ft
Northwest
West
South
Total
14
14.800
13.500
1,700
30,000
22
22,400
20,200
2.100
44.700
14
8,200
7,500
1,000
16,700
22
12,400
1 1,200
1,200
25,000
*Drums are assumed to be uncrushed, 55-gallon drums.
t/7?e two Northeast Trenches had been excavated, and2,300 drums were removed.
^Random stacking (indicated by results of excavation of Northeast Trenches)
approximated 50 percent drums, 50 percent earth by volume in the trench below a
2-foot cover, and an assumed trench geometry as described in the text.
Before the radar survey, an estimated
range of the number of drums was
substantially lower than the estimates
presented here. The earlier analysis
plausibly assumed that the trenches
with buried drums were constructed
similarly to that of an unfilled trench on
the site. As a lesson for other similar
sites, remember that without the
benefit of more accurate information,
the "worst case" corresponds to a steep
sided trench (with angle of repose
depending on local soils as well as the
method of trench construction) with
depth approximately equal to the water
table, to bedrock, or to the maximum
feasible excavation depth.
Conclusions and
Recommendations
Uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous
waste sites present varying degrees of
difficulty to investigators. For example,
abandoned sites that are large in area
and rural (with hindering vegetation or
that are in areas of complex geology and
hydrology represent troublesome envi-
ronments for investigation. Therefore,
developing approaches for thorough,
but rapid and cost-effective, assess-
ments of these difficult situations is
important. In most cases, a well-
designed and executed investigative
program will include remote sensing
techniques in addition to direct mea-
surement. Premature action to drill
wells; collect and analyze various air,
water, and soil samples; or perform
excavation without careful planning
and proper integration of available
techniques may result in unnecessary,
adverse exposure to hazardous condi-
tions and in an inaccurate or incomplete
understanding of the total problem.
Remote sensing techniques may be
used to provide reasonably accurate
assessments of subsurface contamina-
tion, the location and extent of buried
drums, and other data needs for
determining appropriate methods of
abatement. Since each of the tech-
niques has limitations, not all critical
information, both theoretical and site-
specific, can be obtained remotely.
Consequently, direct sampling should
be undertaken at every uncontrolled
hazardous waste site.
Table 3 summarizes the purpose,
advantages, and limitations of each of
the four remote sensing methods used
at the Coventry site. This type of
information should be consulted before
developing an investigatory program.
Even with disadvantages inherent in
each technique, proper sequencing and
phased studies can potentially result in
an overall optimized approach. As the
study progresses, preliminary conclu-
sions will necessarily be modified and
the nature of direct sampling activities
will need to be evaluated continuously.
The final conclusions should not be
drawn solely from the results of remote
sensing methods.
To accomplish site investigations in
the most efficient manner, a systematic
approach is necessary to take advantage
of the information that can be extracted
from remote sensing methods. A sys-
tematic approach reduces the time and
cost and increases the effectiveness of
direct sampling.
In general, the following two objectives
must be addressed by all investigations
at uncontrolled hazardous waste sites:
• determination of the nature and
extent of the problem and the
resulting effects on public health
and the environment (both actual
and potential)
• determination of environmentally
sound and cost-effective methods
to effectively abate the problem (if
abatement is deemed necessary).
In an investigation, specific data
needed to meet each objective should
first be identified. After this, the various
techniques available for data acquisi-
tion, both remote and direct, can be
evaluated with regard to the type of
information that can be obtained from
each in relation to the specific condi-
tions at the site. Although not always
the case, remote sensing techniques
should be used before using the more
direct data acquisition methods of
borings or excavations. This is not
intended to imply, however, that all
direct sampling should be held in
abeyance. Numerous instances exist in
which emergency action depends on
immediate results from air, water, and
soil sampling; for such cases, remote
sensing techniques should be used
secondarily.
Both the selection and sequence of
remote sensing and direct data collec-
tion techniques should be based on the
specific needs and circumstances of the
given site. Additionally, the limitations
of the remote sensing techniques (Table
3) should be kept in mind. Even the best
combination of results obtained remotely
provides only an approximate repre-
sentation of subsurface condition.
Finally, since the cost of such site
surveys tends to be only a very small
fraction of the total cost of ultimate
solutions, it is generally cost-effective to
apply several overlapping techniques at
a site to complement one another and
refine the results to support imple-
mentation of the preferred long-term
solution.
The full reports were submitted in
fulfillment of Contract No. 68-01-5051
by the MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
01730, under the sponsorship of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
-------
Table 3. Comparison of Remote Sensing Techniques
Technique Purpose
Advantages
Limitations
Electrical Resistivity
Lateral Profiling
Depth Profiling
Seismic Refraction (Non-
explosive Method/
Metal Detection
Ground-Penetrating Radar
9 determine lateral extent of
contaminated groundwater.
9 facilitate placement of mon-
itoring wells and optimize
their number.
' monitor changes in plume
position and direction.
9 indicate change in contamina-
tion with depth.
9 establish vertical control in
areas of complex stratigraphy.
9 determine depth and topogra-
phy of bedrock.
9 determine depth of trench
containing buried drums
locate areas of high metal
content (e g., buried drums)
i locate buried objects (e.g.,
buried drums).
i provide qualitative infor-
mation regarding drum density.
> detect interfaces between
disturbed and undisturbed
soil (e.g., bottom of trenches).
9 detect plumes of high chemi-
cal concentration.
9 procedure less expensive than
drilling.
9 procedure more rapid than
drilling.
9 equipment light-weight, able
to be hand carried.
9 survey may be conducted in
vegetated areas.
same as above
9 procedure less expensive than
coring or excavation.
9 procedure more rapid than
coring or excavation.
9 survey may be conducted in
vegetated areas.
9 procedure less expensive than
excavation or radar.
9 procedure more rapid than ex-
cavation or radar.
9 equipment light-weight, able
to be hand-carried.
9 survey may be conducted in
vegetated areas.
9 procedure less expensive than
excavation.
9 procedure more rapid than ex-
cavation.
9 procedure deeper penetrating
than metal detection.
9 procedure yields more infor-
mation than metal detection
*
• procedure may be used over
paved areas.
9 limited ability to detect
nonconductive pollutants.
9 technique unsuitable if no
sharp contrast between con-
taminated and natural ground
water
9 interpretation difficult if
water table is deep.
9 interpretation difficult if
lateral variations in strati-
graphy exist.
9 interpretation difficult if
radical changes in topography
are not accounted for in choice
ofA-spacing.
9 technique unsuitable in paved
areas or areas of buried con-
ductive objects.
same as above
9 technique unsuitable if no
sharp velocity contrast be-
tween units of interest
(e.g., trench containing
buried drums and surrounding
soil).
9 survey requires access road
for vehicle.
9 depth of penetration varies
with strength of energy source.
9 low velocity unit obscured
by overlying high velocity
units.
9 interpretation difficult in
regions of complex stratigra-
phy
9 technique unsuitable for the
detection of nonmetallic objects
9 technique unsuitable for ob-
jects below 5 feet.
9 technique unsuitable for
determining number of ar-
rangement of buried objects.
9 technique unsuitable for
vegetated areas.
9 data requires sophisticated
interpretation.
9 underlying objects obscured
by those above.
9 survey requires access road
for vehicle.
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1 981--559-092/3359
-------
H. J. Yaffee, N. L Cichowicz, andR. W Pease. Jr., are with the MITRE Corpora-
tion, Bedford, MA 01730.
Stephen C. James is the EPA Project Officer (see below).
This Project Summary covers two reports, entitled:
"Evaluation of Pollution Abatement Alternatives: Picillo Property, Coventry,
Rhode Island," by N. L Cichowicz, R. W. Pease, Jr., P. J. Stoller, and H. J.
Yaffee (Order No. PB 82-103 888; Cost: $10.50)
"Use of Remote Sensing Techniques in a Systematic Investigation of an
Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Site," {Order No. PB 82-103 896; Cost: $ 10.50)
will be available only from: (prices subject to change)
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
Telephone: 703-487-4650
The EPA Project Officer can be contacted at.
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
U S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Center for Environmental Research
Information
Cincinnati OH 45268
Postage and
Fees Paid
Environmental
Protection
Agency
EPA 335
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
RETURN POSTAGE GUARANTEED
Third-Class
Bulk Rate
LOU w TILLtY
REGION V EPA
SI
CHICAGO 1L 6061)0
------- |