>EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research and
Development
Washington DC 20460
EPA/625/R-93/003a
May 1993
Subsurface
Characterization and
Monitoring Techniques
A Desk Reference Guide
Volume I: Solids and Ground Water
Appendices A and B
-------
-------
Technology Transfer
EPA/625/R-93/003a
SUBSURFACE CHARACTERIZATION AND MONITORING TECHNIQUES:
A DESK REFERENCE GUIDE
Volume I: Solids and Ground Water
Appendices A and B
May 1993
Prepared by:
Eastern Research Group, Inc.
110 Hartwell Avenue
Lexington, MA 02173
Prepared for:
Center for Environmental Research Information
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Las Vegas, NV 89193-3478
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
-------
CONTENTS
VOLUME I: SOLIDS AND GROUND WATER
Introduction
Use of This Guide
Guide Organization and Format
Sources of Additional Information
References
1. Remote Sensing and Surface Geophysical Methods
1.1 Airborne Remote Sensing and Geophysics
1.1.1 Visible and Near Infrared
1.1.2 Photographic Ultraviolet
1.1.3 Thermal Infrared
1.1.4 Active Microwave (Radar)
1.1.5 Airborne Electromagnetics (AEM)
1.1.6 Aeromagnetics
1.2 Surface Electrical Methods
1.2.1 Electrical Resistivity (ER)
1.2.2 Self-Potential
1.2.3 Induced Polarization (IP)
1.3 Surface Electromagnetic Methods
1.3.1 Electromagnetic Induction (EMI)
1.3.2 Time Domain Electromagnetics
1.3.3 Metal Detectors
1.3.4 Very-Low Frequency Electromagnetics (VLF)
1.3.5 Magnetotellurics (MT)
1.4 Surface Seismic and Acoustic Methods
1.4.1 Seismic Refraction
1.4.2 Seismic Reflection
1.4.3 Continuous Seismic Profiling (CSP)
1.4.4 Seismic Shear and Surface Waves
1.4.5 Acoustic Emission Monitoring
1.4.6 Sonar
1.4.7 Pulse-Echo Ultrasonics
1.5 Other Surface Geophysical Methods
1.5.1 Ground-Penetrating Radar (GPR)
1.5.2 Magnetometry
1.5.3 Gravimetrics
1.5.4 Radiation Detection
1.6 Near-Surface Geothermometry
1.6.1 Soil Temperature
1.6.2 Shallow Geothermal Ground-Water Detection
1.6.3 Other Thermal Properties
2. Drilling and Solids Sampling Methods
2.1 Drilling Methods
2.1.1 Hollow-Stem Auger
2.1.2 Direct Air Rotary with Rotary Bit/Downhole Hammer
2.1.3 Direct Mud Rotary
2.1.4 Cable Tool
2.1.5 Casing Advancement: Rotary Drill-Through Methods (Drill-Through Casing Driver and Dual Rotary
Advancement)
2.1.6 Casing Advancement: Reverse Circulation (Rotary, Percussion Hammer, and Hydraulic Percussion)
2.1.7 Casing Advancement: Downhole Casing Advancers (ODEX, TUBEX)
2.1.8 Jetting Methods
2.1.9 Solid Flight and Bucket Augers
-------
2.1.10 Rotary Diamond Drilling
2.1.11 Directional Drilling
2.1.12 Sonic Drilling
2.2 Drive Methods
2.2.1 Driven Wells
2.2.2 Cone Penetration
2.3 Hand-Held Soil Sampling Devices
2.3.1 Scoops, Spoons, and Shovels
2.3.2 Augers
2.3.3 Tubes
2.4 Power-Driven Soil Sampling Devices
2.4.1 Split and Solid Barrel
2.4.2 Rotating Core
2.4.3 Thin-Wall Open Tube
2.4.4 Thin-Wall Piston
2.4.5 Specialized Thin-Wall
2.5 Field Description of Soil Physical Properties
2.5.1 Texture
2.5.2 Color
2.5.3 Other Features
3. Geophysical Logging of Boreholes
3.1 Electrical Borehole Logging
3.1.1 SP Logs
3.1.2 Single-Point Resistance
3.1.3 Fluid Conductivity
3.1.4 Resistivity Logs
3.1.5 Dipmeter
3.1.6 Other Electrical Methods
3.2 Electromagnetic Borehole Logging
3.2.1 Induction
3.2.2 Borehole Radar
3.2.3 Dielectric
3.2.4 Other Electromagnetic Methods
33 Nuclear Borehole Logging
3.3.1 Natural Gamma
3.3.2 Gamma-Gamma
3.3.3 Neutron
3.3.4 Gamma-Spectrometry
3.3.5 Neutron Activation
3.3.6 Neutron Lifetime
3.4 Acoustic and Seismic Logging
3.4.1 Acoustic-Velocity (Sonic)
3.4.2 Acoustic-Waveform
3.4.3 Acoustic Televiewer
3.4.4 Surface-Borehole Seismic Methods
3.4.5 Geophysical Diffraction Tomography
3.4.6 Cross-Borehole Seismic Methods
3.5 Miscellaneous Borehole Logging
3.5.1 Caliper
3.5.2 Temperature Log
3.5.3 Mechanical Flowmeter
35.4 Thermal Flowmeter
3.5.5 Electromagnetic (EM) Flowmeter
3.5.6 Single-Borehole Tracer Methods
3.5.7 Television/Photography
3.5.8 Magnetic and Gravity Logs
3.6 Well Construction Logs
3.6.1 Casing Logging
3.6.2 Cement and Gravel Pack Logs
-------
3.6.3 Borehole Deviation
4. Aquifer Test Methods
4.1 Ground-Water Level/Pressure Measurement
4.1.1 Steel Tape
4.1.2 Electric Probe
4.1.3 Air line
4.1.4 Pressure Transducers
4.1.5 Audible Methods
4.1.6 Ultrasonic
4.1.7 Float Methods
4.1.8 Electromechanical
4.1.9 Artesian Aquifer Measurement
4.1.10 In Situ Piezometers
4.2 Hydraulic Conductivity (Shallow Water Table)
4.2.1 Auger Hole Method
4.2.2 Piezometer Method
4.2.3 Multiple-Hole Methods
4.3 Well Test Methods
4.3.1 Slug Tests
4.3.2 Pumping Tests
4.3.3 Packer Testing
4.4 Ground-Water Tracers
4.4.1 Ions
4.4.2 Dyes
4.4.3 Gases
4.4.4 Stable Isotopes
4.4.5 Radioactive Isotopes
4.4.6 Water Temperature
4.4.7 Particulates
4.5 Other Aquifer Characterization Methods
4.5.1 Unconfined Ground-Water Balance
4.5.2 Moisture Profiles for Specific Yield
5. Ground-Water Sampling Methods
5.1 Portable Positive Displacement Ground-Water Samplers
5.1.1 Bladder Pump
5.1.2 Gear Pump
5.1.3 Submersible Helical-Rotor Pump
5.1.4 Gas-Drive (Displacement) Pumps
5.1.5 Gas-Drive Piston Pump
5.1.6 Mechanical Piston Pumps
5.2 Other Portable Ground-Water Sampling Pumps
5.2.1 Suction-Lift Pumps
5.2.2 Submersible Centrifugal Pumps
5.2.3 Inertial-Dft Pumps
5.2.4 Gas-Lift Pumps
5.2.5 Jet Pumps
5.2.6 Packer Pumps
5.3 Portable Grab Ground-Water Samplers
5.3.1 Bailers
5.3.2 Pneumatic Depth-Specific Samplers
5.3>3 Mechanical Depth-Specific Samplers
5.4 Sampling Installations for Portable Samplers
5.4.1 Single-Riser/Limited Interval Wells
5.4.2 Single-Riser/Long-Screened Wells
5.4.3 Nested Wells/Single Borehole
5.4.4 Nested Wells/Multiple Boreholes
5.5 Portable In Situ Ground-Water Samplers/Sensors
5.5.1 Hydropunch*
-------
5.5.2 Other Cone Penetrometer Samplers
5.5.3 Other Driven Samplers
5.5.4 Dissolved Oxygen, Eh, and pH Probes
5.5.5 Ion-Selective Electrodes
55.6 Fiber-Optic Chemical Sensors (FOCS)
5.6 Fixed In Situ Ground-Water Samplers
5.6.1 Multilevel Capsule Samplers
5.6.2 Multiple-Port Casings
5.7 Destructive Ground-Water Sampling Methods
5.7.1 Coring and Extraction
5.7.2 Temporary Installations
Appendix A. Design and Construction of Monitoring Wells
A.1 Well Casing Materials
A.2 Well Screen Types and Materials
A3 Filter Pack
A.4 Grouts and Seals
A.5 Well Development
A.6 Well Maintenance and Rehabilitation
A.7 Well Abandonment
Appendix B. General Ground-Water Sampling Procedures
B.I Quality Assurance/Quality Control
B.2 Well Purging
B.3 Sample Handling and Preservation
B.4 Decontamination
VOLUME II: THE VADOSE ZONE, FIELD SCREENING, AND ANALYTICAL METHODS
6. Vadose Zone Hydrologic Properties (I): Water State
6.1 Vadose Zone Soil Water Potential
6.1.1 Porous Cup Tensiometers
6.1.2 Thermocouple Psychrometers
6.13 Electrical Resistance Sensors
6.1.4 Electrothermal Methods
6.1.5 Osmotic Tensiometers
6.1.6 Filter-Paper Method
6.1.7 Water Activity Meter
6.2 Vadose Zone Moisture Content
6.2.1 Gravimetric Methods
6.2.2 Nuclear Methods
6.23 Dielectric Sensors
6.2.4 Time Domain Reflectometry
6.2.5 Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR)
6.2.6 Electro-Optical Sensors
6.2.7 Computer Assisted Tomography (CAT)
6.3 Other Soil Hydrologic Properties
63.1 Soil Moisture-Potential-Conductivity Relationships
6.3.2 Water Sorptivity and Diffusivity
6.33 Available Water Capacity
7. Vadose Zone Hydrologic Properties (II): Infiltration, Conductivity, and Flux
7.1 Infiltration
7.1.1 Impoundment Methods
7.1.2 Land Surface Methods
7.1.3 Watershed Methods
7.1.4 Infiltration Equations
-------
7.2 Unsaturated Hydraulic Conductivity
7.2.1 Instantaneous Profile Method
7.2.2 Draining Profile Methods
7.2.3 Tension Infiltrometers
7.2.4 Crust-Imposed Steady Flux
7.2.5 Sprinkler/Dripper Methods
7.2.6 Entrapped Air Method
7.2.7 Parameter Identification
7.2.8 Physical/Empirical Equations and Relationships
7.3 Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (Shallow)
7.3.1 Cylinder Infiltrometers
7.3.2 Constant-Head Borehole Infiltration
7.3.3 Guelph Permeameter
7.3.4 Air-Entry Permeameter
7.3.5 Double Tube Method
7.3.6 Cylinder Permeameter
7.3.7 Infiltration Gradient Method
7.3.8 In Situ Monoliths
7.3.9 Boutwell Method
7.3.10 Velocity Permeameter
7.3.11 Percolation Test
7.4 Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (Deep)
7.4.1 USER Single-Well Methods
7.4.2 USBR Multiple-Well Method
7.4.3 Stephens-Neuman Single-Well Method
7.4.4 Air Permeability Method
7.5 Water Flux (Unsaturated Zone)
7.5.1 Water Budget Methods
7.5.2 Soil Moisture/Matric Potential Methods
7.5.3 Tracers
73.4 Soil-Water Flux Meters
7.5.5 Velocity Estimation
7.5.6 Physical and Empirical Equations
8. Vadose Zone Water Budget Characterization Methods
8.1 Water-Related Hydrometeorologjcal Data
8.1.1 Precipitation (Nonrecording Gages)
8.1.2 Precipitation (Recording Gages)
8.1.3 Humidity Measurement (Psychrometers)
8.1.4 Humidity Measurement (Hygrometers)
8.2 Other Hydrometeorological Data
8.2.1 Air Thermometry (Manual)
8.2.2 Air Thermometry (Electric)
8.2.3 Wind Speed
8.2.4 Wind Direction
8.2.5 Atmospheric Pressure
8.2.6 Solar Radiation (Pyranometers)
8.2.7 Solar Radiation (Other Radiometers)
8.3 Evapotranspiration (Water Balance Methods)
8.3.1 Lysimeters
8.3.2 Soil Moisture Budget
83.3 Water Budget Methods
8.3.4 Evaporation Pans
8.3.5 Evaporimeters and Atmometers
8.3.6 Chloride Tracer
8.3.7 Ground-Water Fluctuation
8.3.8 Other Transpiration Methods
8.4 Evapotranspiration (Micrometeorological Methods)
8.4.1 Empirical Equations
8.4.2 Physically-Based Equations (Penman and Related Methods)
8.4.3 Mass Transfer Methods
-------
8.4.4 Energy Budget Methods
8.4.5 Profile/Gradient Method
8.4.6 Eddy Correlation Method
9. Vadose Zone Soil-Solute/Gas Sampling and Monitoring Methods
9.1 Solute Movement (Indirect Methods)
9.1.1 Four Probe Electrical Resistivity
9.1.2 EC Probes
9.13 Porous Matrix Salinity Sensors
9.1.4 Electromagnetic Sensors
9.2 Direct Soil-Solute Sampling (Suction Methods)
9.2.1 Vacuum-Type Porous Cup
9.2.2 Vacuum-Pressure Type Porous Cup
9.2.3 Vacuum-Plate Samplers
9.2.4 Membrane Filter
9.2.5 Hollow Fiber
9.2.6 Ceramic Tube Sampler
9.2.7 Capillary Wick Sampler
93 Direct Soil-Solute Sampling (Other Methods)
93.1 Free-Drainage Samplers
93.2 Perched Water Table
933 Absorbent Methods
93.4 Solids Sampling with Soil-Water Extraction
93.5 Solids Sampling with Soil-Saturation Extract.
93.6 Solids Sampling for Volatile and Microbial Constituents
9.3.7 SEAMIST
9.4 Gaseous Phase Characterization
9.4.1 Soil-Gas Sampling (Static)
9.4.2 Soil-Gas Probes
9.4.3 Tank/Pipeline Leak Sensors
9.4.4 Air Pressure
9.4.5 Gas Permeability and Diffusivity
9.5 Contaminant Flux
9.5.1 Solute Flux Methods
9.5.2 Soil-Gas Flux
10. Chemical Field Screening and Analytical Methods
10.1 Field Measured General Chemical Parameters
10.1.1 pH/Alkalinity/Acidity
10.1.2 Redox potential (Eh)/Dissolved Oxygen
10.13 Other Parameters
10.2 Contaminant Sample Extraction Procedures
10.2.1 Gas Headspace/Vacuum Extraction
10.2.2 Purge and Trap Methods
10.23 Solvent/Chemical Extraction/Microextraction
10.2.4 Thermal Treatment Methods
10.2.5 Other Extraction Methods
103 Gaseous Phase Analytical Techniques
103.1 Total Organic Vapor Survey Instruments
10.3.2 Specific Gas/Organic Vapor Detectors
103.3 Gas Chromatography (GC)
103.4 Mass Spectrometry (MS) and GC/MS
103.5 Atomic Absorption Spectrometry (AAS)
103.6 Atomic Emission Spectrometry (AES)
10.3.7 Ion Mobility Spectrometry (IMS)
10.4 Luminescence/Spectroscopic Analytical Techniques
10.4.1 X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF)
10.4.2 Other Luminescence Techniques
10.43 Other Spectrometric/Spectrophotometric Techniques
10.4.4 Other Spectroscopic Techniques
-------
10.5 Wet Chemistry Analytical Techniques
10.5.1 Colorimetric Techniques/Kits
10.5.2 Immunochemical Techniques
10.5.3 Liquid Chromatography
10.5.4 Electrochemical Techniques
10.6 Other Analytical Techniques
10.6.1 Radiological Techniques
10.6.2 Gravimetric/Volumetric Techniques
10.6.3 Magnetic Methods
10.6.4 Microscopic Techniques
10.6.5 Other Chemical Sensors
10.6.6 Other Biological Techniques
Appendix C. Guide to Major References on Subsurface Characterization, Monitoring, and Analytical Methods
Appendix D. Guide to Major Vadose Zone Models for Water Budget and Exposure Modeling
vii
-------
NOTICE
This document has been reviewed in accordance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA's) peer and administrative review policies. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
This document is not intended to be a guidance or support document for a specific regulatory program.
Guidance documents are available from EPA and must be consulted to address specific regulatory issues.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This document was prepared for EPA's Center for Environmental Research Information (CERI),
Cincinnati, Ohio, and has benefitted from the input of the reviewers listed below. Every effort has been made
to provide comprehensive coverage and up-to-date information. Due to the large number of techniques and
references in this guide, errors or omission in citations might have occurred. These errors are the responsibility
of the author, who would appreciate being informed of the need for any corrections or additions at the address
indicated below.
Author:
J. Russell Boulding, Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG), 4664 N. Robs Lane, Bloommgton, IN 47408
Project Management:
Susan Schock, EPA CERI, Cincinnati, OH
Heidi Schultz, ERG, Lexington, MA
Editing and Production:
Anne Donovan, ERG, Lexington, MA
Technical Reviewers (Chapters and appendices reviewed noted in parentheses):
Frederick Cornell, Environmental Liability Management, Princeton, NJ (10)
Lawrence Eccles, U.S. EPA, EMSL, Las Vegas, NV (9)
Lome Everett, Metcalf and Eddy, Santa Barbara, CA (6,9)
Peter Haeni, U.S. Geological Survey, Hartford, CT (1)
Jan Hendrickx, Department of Geosciences, New Mexico Tech, Socorro, NM (4,7)
Paul C. Heigold, Illinois State Geological Survey, Champaign, IL (1,3)
Beverly Herzog, Illinois State Geological Survey, Champaign, IL (4,5,6,7,9,A)
David Kaminski, QED Ground Water Specialists, Walnut Creek, CA (5)
Peter Kearl, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Grand Junction, CO (7,8)
Jack Keeton, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha, NE (A)
W. Scott Keys, Geokeys, Inc., Longmont, CO (Tables 3-1 and 3-2)
Eric Koglin, U.S. EPA, EMSL, Las Vegas, NV (10)
Mark Kram, NEESA, Port Hueneme, CA (10)
Robert Powell, U.S. EPA, RSKERL, Ada, OK (5,B)
Robert Puls, U.S. EPA, RSKERL, Ada, OK (5,B)
James Quinlan, Nashville, TN (4)
Charles Riggs, Sverdrup Environmental, St. Louis, MO (2)
Ronald Schalla, Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA (A.B)
Ronald Sims, Utah State University, Logan, UT (2,6,7,8,C,D)
James Ursic, U.S. EPA, Region 5 (1,3)
Mark Vendl, U.S. EPA, Region 5 (1,3)
John Williams, U.S. Geological Survey, Albany, NY (3)
V11I
-------
Figures in this guide from copyrighted sources are reproduced by permission, with all rights reserved
by the copyright holder, as follows (figure numbers refer to the numbers used in this guide):
American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC (Water Resources Research): Figure 1.6.2.
American Petroleum Institute, McLean, VA: from API Publication 4367, Figures 5.1.4c, 5.2.4, 5.3.1, 5.3.2a,
53.3c, 5.4.1, and 5.7.2c.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), Philadelphia, PA: Figures 1.3.5,3.4.6,5.5.2a and b, 5.6.2b,
and A.1.
American Society of Agronomy/Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI: Figures 1.6.3,4.2. Ib, 4.2.2,4.2.3,
6.1.4b, 6.1.7, 6.2.4,6.2.6,6.2.7, 6.3.3b, 7.1.1, 7.2.1,7.2.4,7.2.2, 7.2.3,7.2.6, 7.3.2, 7.3.5,73.6, 7.3.7,73.8,
7.5.4, 8.3.1d, 8.3.5a, 9.1.2a, 9.1.3,9.2.5, 9.2.7,9.4.4, 9.4.5a, 9.5.2,10.3.5,10.6.3, and 10.6.4.
American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY: Figures 1.4.4b and 3.4.4d.
American Water Resources Association, Bethesda, MD: Figure 9.3.2.
Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA: Figures 1.2.2a and b, 1.4.6,1.5.3,1.5.1a, 2.3.2a and b, 2.3.3a,
2.4.1, 2.4.2, 3.4.4, 4.1.1, 4.1.3, 4.1.4, 4,1.6, 4.1.7, 5.5.3, 6.2.2b, and 7.3.4.
FJsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands (Journal of Hydrology): Figure 9.3.1.
Ground Water Publishing Company (formerly Water Well Journal Publishing Company), Dublin, OH: Figures
1.3.1C, 1.3.4, 1.4.2,1.4.3a, 2.1.5b, 2.2.2a, 2.4.4,3.5.7,3.6.2b, 4.4.5b, 5.2.1d, 5.2.3,5.5.1,5.5.2c, 7.3.3,9.2.1b,
9.4.2c, 9.4.5a, A.5b, and B.2a.
Hazardous Materials Control Research Institute, Greenbelt, MD: Figures 3.4.5a-c, 10.2.3b, and 10.3.4c.
International Association of Hydrogeologists/Verlag Hefaiz Heise, Hannover, Germany: Figures 3.1.3,3.5.1, and
35.3.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY: Figures 2.1.4, 8.3.7, and 3.6.2a.
Johnson Filtration Systems/Wheelabrator Engineered Systems, St. Paul, MN: Figures 2.1.2a, 10.6.2, and Table
2-2.
Lewis Publishers, a subsidiary of CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida: Figures 10.4.1b, A.2a and b, and A.3.
National Ground Water Association (formerly National Water Works Association), Dublin, OH: Figures 1.4.4a,
2.1.7,2.1.12,2.2.2b, 3.2.3,3.4.5d, 3.5.5,4.3.1b, 5.5.4,5.5.5,5.5.6c, 7.5.1, S.l.la, 8.1.2a, 9.3.6,93.7,9.4.2b,
B.2, and Tables 7.1.1 and B-2.
Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, OK (Geophysics): Figures 1.1.5,1.2.1c, 3.1.6, and 3.2.2b.
Timco Manufacturing, Inc., Prairie du Sac, WI: Figures 1.6.1,3.3.2,4.1.10,5.1.1b, 5.1.3,5.1.5,5.2.6b, 5.4.3b and
c, 5.6.2a, 5.5.3a and b, 5.6.1a, 6.1.1,6.1.2, 6.1.3, 6.1.4a, 6.1.5,6.2.3,6.2.2a, 6.2.5, 9.2.3,9.2.4, and 9.3.1b.
Water Resource Publications, Highlands Ranch, CO: Figure 1.1. Ib.
Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore, MD (Soil Science): Figure 9.3.3.
-------
INTRODUCTION
Many EPA programs, including those under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
and the Comprehensive Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), require subsurface
characterization and monitoring to detect ground-water contamination and provide data to develop plans to
prevent new contamination and remediate existing contamination. Hundreds of specific methods and techniques
exist for characterizing, sampling, and monitoring the saturated and unsaturated zones at contaminated sites.
Existing field methods are often refined and new methods are continually being developed. This guide is
designed to serve as a single, comprehensive source of information on existing and developing field methods as
of early 1993. Appendix C provides some suggestions on the best places to obtain information on new
developments that occur after this guide is completed.
USE OF TmS GUIDE
As the title "Desk Reference Guide" implies, this is not a how-to handbook for the field. Instead, the
guide provides, in a single document, enough information about specific techniques to make some judgements
concerning their potential suitability for a specific site and also gives information on where to go to find more
detailed guidance on how to use the technique. This guide can be used in two major ways:
1. Development of Site Characterization and Monitoring Plans. Each subsection listed in the table of
contents represents a one-to-two page summary of a specific technique or several related techniques.
A table at the beginning of each of the 10 major sections (summarized below), provides general
comparative information on all methods covered in the sections, and cross-references relevant methods
covered in other parts of the guide. In the summary tables, boldfacing is used to identify those
techniques that are most commonly used. These tables might also be helpful in identifying new, or less
common methods that might be of value for specific objectives or site conditions. Within a grouping
of method summary sheets, techniques are listed in approximate order of frequency of use.
2. Overview of Specific Methods. Individuals who are unfamiliar with specific methods that are being used
or proposed to be used at a hazardous waste site can find a concise description of the method, its
applications, major advantages and disadvantages in its use, and major reference sources where more
detailed information can be found about the method. To locate information on a specific method, the
table of contents should be used to identify the section in which the method is located. If the term used
to describe the method is not included in the table of contents, go to the summary table at the
beginning of the appropriate section of the guide. If the summary table does not use the term, peruse
the listing of alternative names for techniques in the individual summary sheets. For example, the
hydraulic percussion drilling method is not listed in the table of contents, but appears in summary
Table 2-1. The hollow-rod method, is listed in neither the table of contents or the summary, and
requires looking through the individual summary sheets in Section 2.1 (Drilling Methods), until Section
2.1.6 is reached, which identifies the hollow-rod method as an alternative term for hydraulic percussion.
GUIDE ORGANIZATION AND FORMAT
Site characterization, monitoring, and field screening are related activities for which there might not
be a clear dividing line. Generally, site characterization methods involve one-time field point measurements and
sampling (or continuous measurements in the case of some geophysical methods) of physical and chemical
properties of the subsurface, or multiple measurements to characterize seasonal variations at the site. Monitoring
methods, on the other hand, involve sampling or measurements at a single point or the same area over time.
Many methods can be used for both site characterization and monitoring, and site characterization activities can
continue after monitoring begins to further refine subsurface interpretations. Field screening is a form of site
characterization that involves the use of rapid, relatively low-cost field methods (typically chemical) in the field
during site characterization to assist in the selection of locations for permanent monitoring well installations or
for guiding remediation activities. Field analytical methods are distinguished from field screening methods by
having a higher degree of precision and accuracy than field screening methods. This distinction in discussed
further in the introduction to Section 10.
-------
Ibis guide includes two volumes. The first volume covers solids and ground water and the second
volume covers the vadose zone. The site characterization, monitoring, and field screening methods covered in
the guide are divided into 10 major sections, which are described below. Because site characterization generally
precedes monitoring, earlier sections of the guide tend to cover site characterization methods, while later sections
cover monitoring. Finally, field screening and analytical methods are covered in Section 10.
Section 1 (Remote Sensing and Surface Geophysical Methods) covers more than 30 airborne and
surface geophysical methods that are often valuable during the initial phases of site characterization.
These methods can provide preliminary information on the subsurface to provide guidance on
placement of boreholes for direct observation of the subsurface and installation of permanent
monitoring wells. A number of these methods can also be useful for monitoring the movement of
contaminant plumes.
Section 2 (Drilling and Solids Sampling Methods) covers 20 drilling methods, and a variety of power-
driven and hand-held devices for sampling soils and geologic materials. The section also briefly
identifies important soil physical properties that are described in the field.
Section 3 (Geophysical Logging of Boreholes) covers more than 40 borehole logging and sensing
techniques for the physical and chemical characterization of the subsurface.
x Section 4 (Aquifer Test Methods) covers 10 methods for measuring ground-water well levels or
pressure, pumping and slug tests, six categories of ground-water tracers, and several other techniques
for measurement of aquifer properties that might be needed for modeling ground-water flow and
contaminant transport.
Section 5 (Ground-Water Sampling Devices and Installations) covers more than 20 types of portable
ground-water sampling devices and different types of permanent well installations for portable sampling
devices. Appendix A (Design and Installation of Monitoring Wells) provides more detailed information
on such installations. Section 5 also includes various types of portable and fixed in situ sampling devices
and installations. General ground-water sampling methods are covered in Appendix B.
Section 6 (Vadose Zone Hydrologic Properties (I): Water State) covers over 20 methods for measuring
vadose zone soil water potential, moisture content, and other soil hydrologic characteristics.
Section 7 (Vadose Zone Hydrologic Properties (II): Infiltration, Conductivity, and Flux) covers four
approaches to measuring or estimating infiltration and approximately 30 methods for measuring
unsaturated and saturated hydraulic conductivity and water flux in the vadose zone.
Section 8 (Vadose Zone Water Budget Characterization Methods) covers a large number of methods
for obtaining data that might be required for water budget calculations to assess contaminant transport
in the vadose zone. This includes 37 methods for obtaining various types of hydrometeorologic data,
and 16 methods for measuring or estimating transpiration or evapotranspiratioh.
Section 9 (Vadose Zone Soil-Solute/Gas Sampling and Monitoring Methods) covers six indirect methods
for monitoring soil solute movement, more than 20 methods for direct sampling of soil solutions, and
a variety of methods for soil gas sampling and gaseous phase characterization in the vadose zone. The
section also summarizes a number of methods to measure or estimate soil solute and gas flux in the
vadose zone.
Section 10 (Field Screening and Analytical Methods) covers a large number of techniques and groups
of techniques for field screening and analysis: Chemical field measurement (three summary sheets),
sample extraction procedures (five summary sheets), gaseous phase analytical techniques (five summary
sheets), luminescence/spectroscopic techniques (four summary sheets); wet chemistry methods (four
summary sheets), and other techniques (five summary sheets).
XI
-------
More than 280 specific field methods are covered in this guide. The large number of methods precludes
detailed coverage of any single method, which is often available from other sources. Instead, each method has
a single-page summary in a uniform format that includes:
1. General method category title.
2. Method title.
3. Other names used to describe method. •
4. Uses at contaminated sites.
5. Method/procedure/device description.
6. Method selection considerations.
7. Frequency of use.
8. Standard Methods/Guidelines (ASTM or other sources that give detailed instruction for use of the
specific method).
9. Sources for additional information (which provides comparative information where other methods for
similar applications are available).
The frequency of use ratings are very approximate, and actual usage might vary from region to region. Similarly,
the summary tables at the beginning of each section should not be relied upon as definitive. Specific
instrumentation or variants of techniques covered in this guide might have different characteristics than indicated
in the summary tables. A specific method that has been rarely used might be suited for certain site-specific
conditions. Conversely, site-specific conditions might make a widely-used technique a poor method of choice.
When in doubt, obtaining the opinion of more than one person familiar with a particular technique is advisable.
Wherever possible, one or more figures or tables that illustrate instruments or how a method is vised
are included with summary sheets. These figures and tables have the same number as the section to which they
are related (i.e., Figure 1.1.1 and Table 1.1.1 are located after Section 1.1.1 on visible and near infrared remote
sensing). Each major section has a brief introduction that defines major concepts and provides an overview of
methods covered in the section. Summary tables and figures at the beginning of each section, and index
reference tables near the end of a section are numbered in sequence (i.e., Tables 1-1 to 1-3 provide summary
information on remote sensing and geophysical methods, and Tables 1-4 and 1-5 provide an index to references
contained at the end of the section).
SOURCES OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
As indicated above, two types of references are given for each method. First, if ASTM, EPA, or other
standard methods, protocols, or guidelines related to the method have been promulgated, or are being developed,
these are identified. Otherwise, references that give detailed instructions on how to use the method are cited,
if available.
Secondly, major references that provide information on the use of the method in the context of ground-
water and hazardous waste site investigations are listed. All references are in a single section. EPA documents
are indicated (with EPA and NTIS numbers). Appendix C (Guide to Major References on Subsurface
Characterization and Monitoring) provides annotated descriptions of more than 70 major books and reports and
over 80 published conference and symposium proceedings that can serve as information sources for general and
specific aspects of soil quality and ground-water field screening, characterization, and monitoring.
The following EPA documents are recommended for use as companions to this guide (all of which are
available for no cost from U.S. EPA's Center for Environmental Research Information (see Appendix C for
ordering address): Ground-Water Handbook, Volume 1: Ground Water and Contamination; Volume 2:
Methodology (U.S. EPA, 1990 and 1991a), Site Characterization for Subsurface Remediation (U.S. EPA, 1991b),
Handbook of Suggested Practices for the Design and Installation of Ground-Water Monitoring Wells (Aller et
al., 1991), Description and Sampling of Contaminated Soils: A Field Pocket Guide (Boulding, 1991), and Use
of Airborne, Surface, and Borehole Geophysical Techniques at Contaminated Sites: A Reference Guide (U.S.
EPA, 1993). Other EPA documents that are available from NTIS and commercially published references that
can be of potential value are too numerous to be named individually here. Appendix B should provide guidance
concerning other publications that might be worth obtaining.
Xll
-------
REFERENCES
Aller, L. et al. 1991. Handbook of Suggested Practices for the Design and Installation of Ground-Water
Monitoring Wells. EPA/600/4-89/034, 221 pp. Also published in 1989 by the National Water Well
Association, Dublin, OH in its NWWA/EPA series, 398 pp. [Nielsen and Schalla (1991) contain a more
updated version of the material in this handbook that is related to design and installation of ground-
water monitoring wells.]
Boulding, J.R. 1991. Description and Sampling of Contaminated Soils: A Field Pocket Guide. EPA/625/12-
91/002, 122 pp.
Nielsen, D.M. and R. Schalla. 1991. Design and Installation of Ground-Water Monitoring Wells. In: Practical
Handbook of Ground-Water Monitoring, D.M Nielsen (ed.), Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI, pp. 239-
331.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1990. Handbook Ground Water. Volume I: Ground Water and
Contamination. EPA/625/6-90/016a, 144 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1991a. Handbook Ground Water. Volume II: Methodology.
EPA/625/6-90/016b, 141 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1991b. Site Characterization for Subsurface Remediation.
EPA/625/4-91/026, 259 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1993. Use of Airborne, Surface, and Borehole Geophysical
Techniques at Contaminated Sites: A Reference Guide. EPA/625/R-92/007.
Xlll
-------
-------
SECTION 1
REMOTE SENSING AND SURFACE GEOPHYSICAL METHODS
Basic Concepts and Terminology
Geophysical techniques measure physical and chemical properties of soils, rock, and ground water by
their response to either: (1) Various parts of the electromagnetic spectrum (EM), including gamma rays, visible
light, radar, microwave, and radio waves (see Figure ,1-1), (2) acoustic and/or seismic energy, or (3) other
potential fields, such as gravity and the earth's magnetic field. Figure 1-2 shows typical ranges for parameters
of various earth materials that can be measured by geophysical methods.
Most portions of the electromagnetic spectrum are used by one or more specific geophysical methods
(Figure 1-1). In common usage, however the term electromagnetic is restricted to techniques that measure
subsurface conductivities by low-frequency electromagnetic induction techniques (Benson et al., 1984).
Radioactive or radiation methods refer to sensing involving the shortest wavelengths (x-rays and gamma rays).
Terminology for methods using the radar and microwave portions of the EM spectrum varies considerably.
In the broadest sense most geophysical techniques involve remote sensing, the observation of an object
or phenomenon without the sensor being in direct contact with the object being sensed. In common usage,
however, the term remote sensing is often restricted to the use of airborne sensing methods in the visible and
near-visible portions of the spectrum (see Figure 1-1). Nondestructive testing (NDT) is a term usually applied
to laboratory test methods, but has also been used to describe geophysical methods in the context of detecting
contained subsurface hazardous waste (Lord and Koerner, 1987). In this section the term surface geophysics
is used broadly to include techniques used at or near land and water surfaces.
Overview of Techniques
Table 1-1 provides summary information on over 30 remote sensing and surface geophysical methods
and identifies where additional information can be found about specific methods in this handbook (several
specific applications are covered in other sections of this handbook). This table provides general ratings
concerning the potential applicability of individual techniques for characterization of (1) soils and geology, (2)
conductive leachate plumes, (3) detection of buried wastes, and (4) detection of nonaqueous phase liquids
(NAPLs). Table 1-1 also provides comparative information on cost and depth of penetration of each technique.
Table 3-1 in Section 3 summarizes information on more than 30 borehole geophysical techniques.
A half dozen of the surface geophysical methods in Table 1-1 are routinely used at contaminated sites:
(1) Ground penetrating radar, (2) electromagnetic induction, (3) electrical resistivity, (4) seismic refraction, (5)
metal detection, and (6) magnetometry. Table 1-2 provides more detailed ratings of typical applications for these
six methods.
Selection of Remote Sensing and Surface Geophysical Techniques
Surface geophysical techniques are most commonly used early in site investigations for preliminary
characterization of the geologic and hydrogeologic setting and contaminant plumes. This information serves as
a valuable guide for placement of permanent monitoring wells for ground-water sampling and monitoring. The
first four major surface geophysical methods identified above are likely candidates for almost any site (ground
penetrating radar will not work where conductivity is high near the surface); metal detection and magnetometry
are used whenever the presence of buried drums is suspected and to avoid buried pipelines or tanks when
drilling. The Geophysical Advisor Expert System (Olhoeft, 1992) might be useful in determining which of these
techniques (plus gravity and radiometric methods) are best suited for specific site and contaminant conditions.
The most basic requirement for successful use of surface geophysical methods is to select the method
that is best at detecting the physical property contrasts of the target (i.e., buried waste, soil bedrock contact,
1-1
-------
Gam mar
—-ray-1
UUIIKtl
-jad_xray.
-uv—
Infrared
•medium
LL
i unf , »M bf . i*
L—Radio-i. bands
. — Radar—•
Ucrowave—'
r"
AC
T 1 T
T—I i 1
10« 1
i—r
1020
n—
10*
raw 10*
Frequency, Hz
10*
7=0
Black represents atmospheric attenuation
IE
_L_.C
tonlntlMi dixocullon { «lt«ouillon I «»lfonom>
Molecular Molecular
vibration . rotation
| Heating
Interaction mechanisms
or phenomena detected
Heating
L
Electric magnetic
field fluctuations
TT
(a)
Chamical
elements
Iwkter penetration.
vKlbte suspended ;
^^^decokxkizatlon
h in Moron
387TCTTemporatun»of
I theeurface
of rock*
Correlation of temperatura-wavslaogth
on main emitted radiation
(b)
Figure 1-1 The Electromagnetic spectrum: (a) Customary divisions and portions used for geophysical measurements;
(b) factors and phenomena influencing the radiation of electromagnetic waves (adapted from Erdelyi and,
Galfi, 1988).
1-2
-------
Rock type
Basalt
Granite
Gneiss
Limestone
Dolomite
Sandstone
Qlay
Marl
Silt
Shale
Sand (dry)
Sand (sat.)
Gravel (dry)
Soil
Water (fresh)
Water (sea)
Specific resistivity
J2m
10° 101 10* 106
-_-_-_-._.
g
r
23 t*d
i *****+*+
a
'o1 «%o';'
IIJIIHI
^
Rel. dielectric
constant:!
2
5 10 20 50 100
~3
E
g
E
E
I
b
-------
Table 1-1 Summary Information on Remote Sensing and Surface Geophysical Methods (all ratings are approximate and for general guidance
onty)
Technique
Soils/
Geology
Leachate
Buried
Wastes
NAPLs
Penetration
Depth (m)a
Cost"
Section/Tables
Airborne Remote Sensing and Geophysics
Visible Photography +
Infrared Photography +
Multispcctral Imaging
Ultraviolet Photography
Thermal Infrared Scanning
Active Microwave (Radar) +
Airborne Electromagnetics
Acromagnetics
Surface Electrical and Electromaenetic
Self Potential
Electrical Resistivity +
Induced Polarization
Complex Resistivity
Dielectric Sensors
Time Domain Reflectometry
Electromagnetic Induction +
Transient Electromagnetics
Metal Detectors
VLF Resistivity
Magnetotellurics
Surface Seismic and Acoustic Methods
Seismic Refraction +
Shallow Seismic Reflection +
Continuous Seismic Profiling
Seismic Shear/Surface Waves
Acoustic Emission Monitoring
Sonar/Fathometer
Other Surface Geophysical Methods
Ground-Penetrating Radar +
Magnetometry +
Gravity
Radiation Detection
Near Surface Geothermometrv
SOU Temperature
Ground-Water Detection
Other Thermal Properties
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Methods
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes-
yes"
yes"
yes0
yes(T)
possibly
yes(C)
no
yes(Q
yes(C)
yes(C)
yes(C)
yes(C)
yes(C)
yes(C)
yes(C)
no
yes(C)
yes(C)
yes
no
no
no
no
yes
yes(C)
no
yes
no
yes(T)
yes(T)
no
possibly1*
possibly*
no
no
possibr/
no
yes
yes
yes
yes (M)
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
yes(F)
no
yes (nuclear)
no
no
no
yes"
yes0
yes"
yes"
possibly
possibly
possibly
no
no
possibly
possibly
yes
possibly
yes
possibly
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
Surf, only
Surf, only
Surf, onry
Surf, only
Surf, only
0.1-2
0-100
lOs-lOOs
SlOs
S60(km)
Skm,
Skm
S2«
S2e
S 60(200)/
C 15(50)
S 150 (2000+)
C/SO-3
C/S 20-60
S 1000+
S 1-30(200+)
S 10-30(2000+)
C 1-100
S lOs-lOOs
S2e
C no limit
C 1-25 (100s)
C/S 0-20*
S100s+
C/S near surface
Sl-2"
S2"
S l-2e
L
L-M
L
L
M
M
M
M
L
L-M
L-M
M-H
L-M
M-H
L-M
M-H
L
M-H
M-H
L-M
M-H
L-M
M-H
L
L-H
M
L-M
H
L
L
L
L-M
1.1.1/Ib 1.1.1
1.1.1/Tb 1.1.1
1.1.1/Tb 1.1.1
1.1.2/Tb 1.1.1
1.1.3
1.1.4
1.1.5
1.1.6
1.2.1
1.2.2, 9.1.1/Tbs 1-2,
1-3, 1.2.1
1.2.3
1.2.3
6.2.3/Tb 6-1
6.2.4/Tb 6-1
1.3.1/Tbs 1-2, 1-3,
1.3.1
1.3.2/Tb 1.3.1
1.3.3/Tbs 1-2, 1-3
1.3.4
1.3.5
1.4.1/Tbs 1-2, 1-3
1.4.2
1.4.3
1.4.4
1.4.5
1.4.6
1.5.1/Tbs 1-2, 1-3
1.5.2/Tbs 1-2, 1-3
1.5.3
1.5.4
1.6.1
1.6.2
1.6.3
Boldface = Most commonry used methods at contaminated sites; + = covered in Superfund Field Operations Manual (U.S. EPA, 1987),
(C) = plume detected when contaminants) change conductivity of ground water; (F) = ferrous metals only; (T) = plume detected by
temperature rather than conductivity.
• S = station measurement; C = continuous measurement Depths are for typical shallow applications; ( ) = achievable depths
k Ratings are very approximate L = low, M = moderate, H = high.
' If leachate or NAPLs are on the ground or water surface or indirectly affect surface properties—see Table 1.1.1; field confirmation required.
* Disturbed areas which may contain buried waste can often be detected on aerial photographs.
* Typical maximum depth, greater depths possible, but sensor placement is more difficult and cable lengths must be increased.
' For ferrous metal detection, greater depths require larger masses of metal for detection; 100s of meters depth can be sensed when using
magnetometry for mapping geologic structure.
1-4
-------
Table 1-2 Typical Applications of Six Commonly Used Geophysical Methods (all ratings are for general guidance only; rating for a specific method
and application may differ depending on site specific conditions and instrumentation used)
Application
Ground EM Electrical Seismic Metal Magnetometry
Penetrating Induction Resistivity Refraction Detection
Radar
Natural Conditions
Layer thickness and depth of soil and rock
Mapping lateral anomaly locations
Determining vertical anomaly depths
Very high resolution of lateral or vertical
anomalous conditions
Depth to water table and aquifer thickness
Water saturated fractures, shear and
fault zones
Mapping clay layers
Cavity/sinkhole detection11
Subsurface Contamination Leachates/Plumes
Existence of conductive contaminants
Reconnaissance Surveys)
Mapping contaminant boundaries
Determining vertical extent of contaminant
Quantify magnitude of contaminants
Determine flow direction
Flow rate using two measurements at
different times
Detection of organic contaminants above and
floating on water table
Detection and mapping of conductive
contaminants within unsaturated zone
Location and Boundaries of Buried Wastes
Bulk wastes
Nonmetallic containers
Metallic containers
- Ferrous
- Nonferrous
Depth of burial
Utilities
Location of pipes, cables, tanks
Identification of permeable pathways associated
with loose fill in utility trenches
Abandoned well casings
2'
2'
2*
NA
2'
NA
2'
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
NA
1
1
2
1
2
1
NA
2
2
1
NA
2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1
1
2'
NA*
NA"
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1
NA
2'
Predrilling site clearance in order to avoid buried drums,
breaching trenches, etc.
Typical Depth Range (meters)
-------
conductive plume, etc.). Greenhouse and Monier-Williams (1985) identified six other considerations in the
selection of geophysical methods at contaminated sites: (1) Depth limits of detection and resolution (see Table
1-1); (2) susceptibility to electrical or vibrational noise (Table 1-3 identifies susceptibilities for six major
methods); (3) corroboration (confirmation of anomalies by multiple readings or use of more than one method);
(4) ties to borehole sampling (i.e., confirmation of observations by drilling of monitor wells for direct
observation); (5) simplicity (especially important if time series measurement are to be taken and there is a
possibility of multiple contractors taking the measurements); and (6) cost effectiveness. To these considerations
might be added: (7) Operator experience (most geophysical methods require specialized training for use and
interpretation of results); and (8) equipment availability. For example, many of the less commonly used remote
sensing and surface geophysical methods would probably be used more frequently if more contractors knew how
to use them and/or the equipment was more readily available.
Most geophysical techniques require highly trained and experienced personnel for data collection and
interpretation. When dealing with geophysical contractors, there should be a clear understanding about the
services being performed. Many geophysical contractors just provide the raw geophysical data as their standard
service, and charge extra for interpretation of data.
The summaries in this section identify common conditions that enhance or inhibit the success of specific
techniques, but site specific conditions might cause problems for specific techniques, even when all other
indications are that they should work well. As a general rule, all geophysical techniques should be checked by
more direct observation and/or confirmed by a second geophysical method. Furthermore, well established
techniques should be given preference to those less commonly used unless there is clear justification based on
site conditions, cost, and the availability of trained and experienced personnel. When in doubt about the
appropriateness of a specific technique, independent expert advice should be sought. EPA's Environmental
Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas, Nevada can provide such advice for EPA personnel.
Sources of Additional Information
Two useful EPA documents that contain more detailed information, on commonly used surface
geophysical techniques at contaminated sites are: Geophysical Techniques for Sensing Buried Wastes and Waste
Migration (Benson et al., 1984), and the Compendium of Superfund Field Operations Methods (U.S. EPA,
1987). Table 1-4 (at the end of this section) identifies major references relating to geophysical methods in
general, and specific applications for ground-water and contaminated-site studies. The document Use of
Airborne, Surface, and Borehole Geophysical Techniques at Contaminated Sites: A Reference Guide (U.S. EPA,
1993), prepared as a companion to this guide, contains annotated descriptions of major geophysical texts and
indexes about 1,400 literature references on the operation and applications of specific remote sensing and
geophysical techniques in ground-water and contaminated site investigations. Tables 1-4 and 1-5 in this guide
provide an index of remote sensing and geophysical texts only.
1-6
-------
Table 1-3 Susceptibility of Mqjor Geophysical Methods to Ambient "Noise"
Source of Noise
Buried pipes*
Metal fences
Overhead wires
(powerline)
Ground vibrations
Airborne electromagnetic
noise
FM radio transmission
Ground currents/voltage
Trees
Metal from buildings,
vehicles, etc.
Small metallic debris on
or near surface (nails,
wire coathangers)
Large metallic debris on
or near surface (drums,
drum covers, etc.)
Ground contact/
electrode problems
Ground
Penetrating
Radar
2
Will detect
but may affect
data
2
May affect
unshielded
antenna if
close to fence
2
Only if
unshielded
antennas
are used
NA
NA
Ito2
depending
on frequency
NA
2
Only if
unshielded
antennas
are used
2
Only if nearby
and unshielded
antennas are
used
2
2
2
EM
Induction
1
Only if within
several coil
spacings
1
Only if within
several coil
spacings
1
Only if within
several coil
spacings
NA
2
NA
NA
NA
2
Only if
nearby
NA
1
NA
Electrical
Resistivity
1
Only if survey
line is parallel
and close by
2
Only if survey
line is parallel
and close to
fence
NA
NA
2
NA
2
NA
2
Only if
nearby
NA
2
1
Seismic
Refraction
2
Only if survey
is directly
over
NA
2
60 Hz
filter
maybe
required
1
NA
. NA
NA
2
(wind
noise)
NA
NA
NA
1 to 2
Metal Magnetometry
Detection
1
Any metal pipes
unless buried
below detection
2
Only if
nearby
NA
NA
2 .
NA
NA
NA
2
Only if
nearby
1
1
NA
1
Steel
pipes
only
1
Steel
fences
only
2
Some mags
respond
NA
1 to 2
(Earth's Held
changed)
NA
NA
NA
2
Only if
nearby
1
Ferrous
metal only
1
Ferrous
metal only
NA
1 - Very susceptible; 2 - Minor problem; NA - Not applicable.
* A small diameter pipe (1") will have little influence if a large mass of conducting material is in the immediate area.
Source: Modified from Benson et al. (1984)
1-7
-------
L REMOTE SENSING AND SURFACE GEOPHYSICAL METHODS
1.1 AIRBORNE REMOTE SENSING AND GEOPHYSICS
1.1.1 Visible and Near Infrared
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Aerial photography, satellite photography, aerial remote sensing,
satellite remote sensing, aerial imaging, satellite imaging, black-and-white imaging (panchromatic), color imaging
(true and false), color and photographic infrared imaging, multiband imaging (multispectral), airborne television.
Uses at Contaminated Sites; Performing fracture trace analysis for potential zones of preferential ground-water
flow; developing topographic maps; evaluating changes in land use and vegetation from aerial photographs taken
at different times; detecting near-surface leachate/contamination; documenting preexisting physical conditions
and monitoring progress of clean-up operations; (plan emergency response actions [airborne television]); locating
abandoned wells.
Method Description: Photographs record images on film that is sensitive to the visible and near-infrared portion
of the electromagnetic spectrum, or images can be recorded electronically on tapes (video and multispectral
scanning systems). Images can be black-and-white, true color, and false color (such as color infrared film, which
records yellows and reds as green and the near infrared as red). Aerial photographs can be vertical or oblique
(Figure l.l.la). They can record the full visible and near infrared (not visible to the human eye) or only portions
of the spectrum (multiband images). Overlapping aerial photographs can be viewed three-dimensionally using
a stereoscope, or used to develop topographic maps using photogrammetric techniques. Someone skilled in air-
photo interpretation can develop preliminary interpretations about site geology, soils and hydrogeology that can
assist in on-the-ground site evaluation. Fracture trace analysis is an especially useful technique that uses
lineaments visible on air photos to identify potential zones of preferential movement of contaminants in ground
water (Figure l.l.lb). Table 1.1.1 identifies surface features that can be indicative of leachate or contaminants
on the surface or in the shallow subsurface and the spectral bands that are most useful for identifying such
features.
Method Selection Considerations: Should be used at all sites in one form or another, especially when litigation
is involved. Advantages: (1) Relative to other site characterization activities, the cost of cameras, film, and image
processing is small unless very specialized equipment is used; (2) color photographs or videotapes are a simple
way to document on-ground conditions and activities; (3) existing aerial photography (usually black-and-white)
taken by other government agencies, such as the Soil Conservation Service and the Agricultural Stabilization aiid
Conservation Service is generally readily available and particularly useful in the site characterization stage and
for fracture trace analysis; and (4) aerial documentation using hand-held cameras is relatively inexpensive.
Disadvantages: (1) Aerial photography for stereoscopic interpretation or multispectral imaging requires more
sophisticated equipment and is more expensive; and (2) availability of multispectral imagery from existing sources
at the site scale is limited.
Frequency of Use: True color and black-and-white photographs are used at most, if not all, hazardous waste
sites. Ongoing aerial photographic documentation of site activities is less common. Use of color infrared
photography is uncommon, but would probably be useful at many sites. Use of false color and multispectral
imagery is uncommon.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: ASTM (1993).
Sources for Additional Information: Aller (1984), Phillipson and Sangrey (1977), Rehm et al. (1985-near
infrared), Sangrey and Phillipson (1979), U.S. EPA (1987, 1992-Chapter 2). See also, references on aerial
photography in Table 1-4.
1-8
-------
•§
g
£
< 3
so
5
1-9
-------
Table 1.1.1 Spectral Bands for Detecting Leachate Through Reflected Radiation
Leachate Indicator
Primary Bands
Secondary Bands
Gaps
Vegetation/Soil, Rock
Snow/Soil, Rock
Infrared, Red
Blue, Green
SoH
Soil with Grass
Infrared
Infrared
Spectral Anomalies fReflective or Emissive")
In Water
On Water (lipids)
On Soil
On Grass
Stressed Vegetation
Red, Green
Ultraviolet
Red, Green
Red
Infrared
Red
Blue
Blue, Infrared
Infrared
Infrared, Green
Green, Red
Source: Phillipson and Sangrey (1977)
1-10
-------
1. REMOTE SENSING AND SURFACE GEOPHYSICAL METHODS
1.1 AIRBORNE REMOTE SENSING AND GEOPHYSICS
1.1.2 Photographic Ultraviolet
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Photographic UV.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Mapping of oil spills on surface water bodies; sometimes used for geologic mapping
of carbonate formations, such as limestones and dolomites; detecting surface contamination by explosives.
Method Description: Special films and filters are used to take photographs in the nonvisible ultraviolet portion
of the electromagnetic spectrum (0.3 to 0.4 micrometers). Oil and carbonate minerals are fluorescent in UV
bands when photostimulated by sunlight. Figure 1.1.2 illustrates a ground-portable UV video system for detecting
surface contamination with explosives being tested by the U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency
(Barringer Research Limited, 1988).
Method Selection Considerations: Advantages: (1) Equipment is readily available and simple; and (2) ultraviolet
is the best portion of the spectrum for detecting oil slicks on water surfaces (see Table 1.1.1). Disadvantages:
The major drawback of photographic UV is high scattering of these wavelengths by the atmosphere results in
low contrast images, especially when there is dust or haze.
Frequency of Use; Uncommon.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: None.
Sources for Additional Information: Phillipson and Sangrey (1977), Redwine et al. (1985), Sangrey and
Phillipson (1979).
1-11
-------
Figure 1.1.2 Ultraviolet video detection system (Barringer Research Limited, 1988).
1-12
-------
1. REMOTE SENSING AND SURFACE GEOPHYSICAL METHODS
1.1 AIRBORNE REMOTE SENSING AND GEOPHYSICS
1.1.3 Thermal Infrared
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Medium and far infrared, infrared radiometryAhermography.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Detecting discharge of ground-water from a contaminated site to nearby surface
waters; detecting leaks from pipelines and underground storage tanks; monitoring soil moisture and evaporation;
directly detecting seeps and springs; characterizing shallow ground-water flow (see Section 1.6.2); identifying
water flow profiles in dams.
Method Description: Thermal infrared radiation lies between near-infrared (see Section 1.1.1) and the
microwave portions of the electromagnetic spectrum (see Sections 1.1.3 and 1.1.4). An object emits infrared
radiation as a function of the nature of its surface (emissivity) and its temperature, which can be sensed using
a radiometer or an infrared scanner. A radiometer records the radiation received and generates an electrical
signal based upon the difference between a standard reference in the instrument and the object being viewed
(Figure 1.1.3a). An infrared scanner uses a detector that creates an image of the thermal environment on a
television tube, magnetic tape, videotape or photographic film (Figure l.l.Sb). Infrared scanners can be used
to detect ground-water discharges into surface waters because of the difference in temperature between the
waters. They can also be used to detect variations in soil moisture content, and to monitor changes in soil
moisture and evaporation over time. A microwave radiometer measure the thermal emissions from the surface,
which at these wavelengths is essentially proportional to the product of the temperature and emissivity of the
surface. This in turn can be related to moisture content by developing curves for a site that relate diurnal range
of temperature to moisture content. Use of a radiometer for testing flaws in materials by measuring heat flow
anomalies is a well established technique.
Method Selection Considerations: Advantages: (1) Cost effective where large areas must be evaluated, such as
reconnaissance identification of ground water or contaminant plume discharge into large water bodies or along
coastline; (2) thermal infrared imagery is available from existing sources and might be useful in the initial site
characterization phase; (3) infrared radiometry is a well established nondestructive testing technique and
commercial equipment is readily available. Disadvantages: (1) More complex and expensive than most other
available methods for monitoring soil moisture content at the site-specific level (see Section 6.3); and (2)
interpretation of thermal images is complicated by factors such as vegetation, presence of decaying organic
matter, and climatological and micrometeorological effects.
Frequency of Use: Commonly used to detect ground-water discharge into rivers, lakes, and seas and as a
nondestructive materials testing technique. Use to estimate soil moisture and evaporation is established, but not
common. Use at contaminated sites rare, if at all.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: None.
Sources for Additional Information: General: Lord and Koerner (1987), Sharp (1970), Ulaby et al. (1982), U.S.
EPA (1987, 1992-Chapter 2); Applications: Aller (1984-abandoned well location), Huntley (1978-shallow
aquifers), Idso et al. (1975-evapotranspiration), Jackson and Schmugge (1986-soil moisture), U.S. Geological
Survey (1982-evapotranspiration). See also, general references on remote sensing in Table 1-4.
1-13
-------
ANGLE OF VIEW
OF RADIOMETER
• NEWLY
( PLOWED FIELD
Q
o
AREA
SENSED BY
RADIOMETER
MAP
HYPOTHETICAL OUTPUT FROM RADIOMETER
. PLOWED FELDi f ^ 1 RIVER
(a)
ROTATING
MIRROR
SOLID
STATE
DETECTOR
HO-
AMPLIFIER
TAPE ( \ «....
RECORDING V J
CRT
IN FLIGHT
MONITER
FILM
RECORDER
CRT
SCHEMATIC OF SCANNING UNIT
LINE-SCANNING TECHNIQUE
USED BY MECHANICAL SCANNERS
Figure 1.13 Thermal infrared: (a) Basic radiometer operation; (b) Thermal infrared scanning (Scherz and Stevens,
1970).
1-14
-------
1. REMOTE SENSING AND SURFACE GEOPHYSICAL METHODS
1.1 AIRBORNE REMOTE SENSING AND GEOPHYSICS
1.1.4 Active Microwave (Radar)
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Radar (RAdio Detection And Ranging), side-looking airborne radar
(SLAR), synthetic aperture radar.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Limited. If continuous cloud-cover prevents obtaining good aerial photographic
images of a site, SLAR could be used to develop black-and-white images. Possible applications in arid areas with
little or no vegetation for characterization of grain size in alluvium and estimation of water table depth for
relatively large areas and for soil moisture monitoring.
Method Description; Radar systems emit a radio wave in the microwave portion of the electromagnetic spectrum
from a transmitter, and detect the weak reflected energy with a receiver that is amplified and modified to create
an image. SLAR generates waves at an oblique angle that allows imaging of a much larger surface area than
conventional aerial photography (Figure 1.1.4) and creates an image similar to a shaded relief map.
Method Selection Considerations: Unless site condition preclude other imaging methods, not likely to be method
of choice.
Frequency of Use; Used infrequently in hydrogeologic studies. Main application is to develop images where
cloud-cover or darkness prevents use of conventional photography. No reported cases of use at contaminated
sites.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: None.
Sources for Additional Information; U.S. EPA (1987,1992-Chapter 2). See also, general references on remote
sensing in Table 1-4.
1-15
-------
PLAN VIEW
ELEVATION VIEW
Figure 1.1.4 Side-looking radar antenna beam (Scherz and Stevens, 1970).
1-16
-------
1. REMOTE SENSING AND SURFACE GEOPHYSICAL METHODS
1.1 AIRBORNE REMOTE SENSING AND GEOPHYSICS
1.1.5 Airborne Electromagnetics (AEM)
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Airborne EM, low frequency AEM.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Detecting and monitoring conductive/brine contamination plumes and possible
contamination sources of near-surface aquifers resulting from injection of brine into Class 2 wells; mapping of
buried bedrock channels and variations in soil and rock types; locating shallow subsurface permafrost and
aquifers; possibly locating unknown buried metal dump sites.
Method Description: Figure l.l.Sa shows the principle of airborne electromagnetic induction surveying using
a transmitter in a plane, and a receiver in a towed bird. Section 1.3.1 provides additional discussion of the
electromagnetic induction method. The transmitter can be fixed at the ground surface with an airborne receiver
carried on a flight path that crosses the transmitter loop at specified intervals, or a moving transmitter can be
used. Moving transmitter-receiver configurations include: (1) Placement in separate planes, (2) transmitter in
a plane with receiver in a towed bird, and (3) rigid booms with transmitter and receiver attached to the tips of
wings or combined in a single towed bird. Figure l.l.Sb illustrates a fixed transmitter arrangement and a
number of moving transmitter arrangements.
Method Selection Considerations: Faster and might be more cost effective than surface EM methods where sites
are inaccessible and large areas need to be evaluated.
Frequency of Use; Commonly used in mineral exploration, less frequently used in hydrogeologic studies.
Currently being tested on the Brookhaven oil field in Mississippi.
Standard Methods/Guidelines; —
Sources for Additional Information: Palacky (1986), Palacky and West (1991), Smith et al. (1989), U.S. EPA
(1992-Chapter 2).
1-17
-------
CONDUCTOR **
(a)
FIXED TRANSMITTER
—*• Flight lines
-Transmitting loop
T-
MOVING TRANSMITTER
| TWO PLANteS
l-260m
RIGID BOOM
HELICOPTER
Figure 1.1.5 Airborne electromagnetics: (a) Principle of airborne electromagnetic surveying (towed bird); (b)
Transmitter-receiver geometry of five basic types of active airborne electromagnetic systems (Palacky
and West, 1991, by permission).
1-18
-------
1. REMOTE SENSING AND SURFACE GEOPHYSICAL METHODS
1.1 AIRBORNE REMOTE SENSING AND GEOPHYSICS
1.1.6 Aeromagnetics
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Air magnetometer.
Uses at Contaminated Sites; Used in conjunction with airborne EM methods for delineating subsurface
structures to evaluate brine contamination (see Section 1.1.5); locating abandoned wells.
Method/Device Description: Airborne magnetometers are used to measure variations in the earth's total
magnetic field. See Section 1.5.2 for description of magnetic instrumentation. Relatively recent tests of
aeromagnetic surveys (used in conjunction with other methods) for locating abandoned wells and associated brine
contamination have had good results. Figure 1.1.6 shows aeromagnetic contour anomalies caused by wells in the
Coon Creek oil field in Oklahoma. Photographically identified wells that do not appear on the map as anomalies
are labeled with Roman numerals.
Method/Device Selection Considerations: Faster and can be more cost effective than surface EM methods where
sites are inaccessible and large areas need to be evaluated. Use for abandoned well location requires
complementary methods, such as airphoto interpretation, because uncased wells will not be detected, and other
features can create non-well related anomalies or mask magnetic anomalies associated with wells.
Frequency of Use: Commonly used in petroleum and mineral exploration to assist in with geological mapping
and structural interpretations, less frequently used for hydrogeologic studies.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: —
Sources for Additional Information: Frischknecht (1990), Smith et al. (1989), U.S. EPA (1992-Chapter 2).
1-19
-------
Figure 1.1.6 Aeromagnetic contour anomalies caused by wells in Coon Creek oil Geld, Oklahoma (Frischknecht,
1990).
1-20
-------
1. REMOTE SENSING AND SURFACE GEOPHYSICAL METHODS
1.2 SURFACE ELECTRICAL METHODS
1.2.1 Electrical Resistivity (ER)
Other Names Used to Describe Method; Direct current resistivity, DC resistivity, galvanic resistivity, geo-electric
resistivity.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Mapping of conductive contaminant plumes and rate of plume movement; might
be capable of detecting high resistivity subsurface hydrocarbons at some sites; locating abandoned wells; vertical
and lateral mapping of stratigraphic and structural features, such as buried stream channels; mapping of
fresh/salt-water interfaces; estimating depth to ground water/bedrock; detecting cavities/sinkholes (tri-potential).
Azimuthal resistivity readings can be used for locating large or significant subsurface fractures and joint
orientations. See also, Table 1-2.
Method Description; The resistivity of subsurface materials is measured by injecting an electrical current into
the ground by a pair of surface electrodes (current electrodes) and measuring the resulting potential field
(voltage) between a pair of second electrodes (potential electrodes) (see Figure 1.2. la). DC methods are
identified according to the arrangement of current and potential electrodes, with Wenner, Schlumberger, and
dipole-dipole arrays being the most commonly used today (Figure 1.2. Ib). Figure 1-2 shows typical resistivity
ranges for various soil and geologic materials. Increasing the spacing between the current and potential
electrodes increases the depth of the sounding measurement (in the Wenner array the spacing should be one to
two times the depth of interest). Tri-potential DC resistivity is a relatively new method that involves taking
readings from three electrode arrays (Wenner, dipole-dipole, and bipole-bipole) at each station and can allow
resolution of ambiguities from single-array readings. Azimuthal resistivity measures the variations in electrical
response to changes in the orientation of electrode arrays at a single location (Figure 1.2. Ic). Tomographic
imaging is an experimental surface DC resistivity method in which a grid of electrodes is established on the
ground surface and controlled currents are introduced into a subset of electrodes in a prescribed sequence. The
electrical response at other electrodes is then measured. Figure 3.1.6b in Section 3 illustrates a cross-borehole
resistivity array that can also be used for tomographic imaging. Other methods using tomographic techniques
are covered in Sections 3.4.5 and 63.7.
Method Selection Considerations: Table 1.2.1provides comparative information for DC resistivity, EMI (Section
1.3.1), and time domain EM (Section 1.3.2). Advantages: (1) Well established method with many commercial
sources of equipment available; (2) with horizontally layered earth, DC methods are better than EMI at resolving
the layers (three or four layers compared to two); (3) superior to EM methods for detecting a thin, resistive
layer; (4) tomographic imaging has the potential for high vertical and horizontal resolution of contaminant
plumes, but grid-edge effects create difficulties in field application; (5) good capabilities for locating and mapping
buried bulk wastes with and without metals, and vertical sounding might provide depth; (6) equipment is
inexpensive, mobile, easy to operate, and provides relatively rapid areal coverage; (7) depth of penetration is
limited only by the ability to extend electrode spacings (400 to 800 can be achieved relatively easily); and (8)
results can be approximated in the field. Disadvantages: (1) The requirement for ground contact can cause
problems in resistive material and in general makes the technique slower to use than EMI; (2) continuous
profiling is not possible; (3) affected by cultural features (metal, pipes, buildings, and vehicles [see Table 1-3]);
(4) interpretations of data are not unique; (5) dipping strata complicate interpretations and lateral heterogeneity
is not easily accounted for, (6) cannot be used in paved areas, and use is limited in wet weather; (7) less sensitive
to conductive pollutants than EMI; (8) deep soundings, where long wire lines must be laid, are labor and time
intensive; and (9) slow and complicated computer programs are usually needed to resolve data from the field
and complicated stratigraphy requires an expert to resolve data.
Frequency of Use; Conventional DC resistivity is commonly used for geologic/hydrogeologic characterization and
preliminary mapping of contaminant plumes. DC resistivity is Jess commonly used for mapping changes in plume
configuration. Tri-potential and azimuthal resistivity are relatively new methods with potential for wider use.
Grid-edge effect problems need to be resolved before tomographic imaging using only surface electrodes is more
widely used.
1-21
-------
Currtnt •
Source
r-H'I'l
.Currant Meter
A
•
M
•
N
9
WENNER ELECTRODE ARRAY
Surface
MN
••
B
-XI/2-
-*f,—-a/2 *j
SCHLUMBERGER ELECTRODE ARRAY
Currtnt Flow
Through Eorlh
H
(a)
• 1 • — — — - _
A Q B M O N
AXIAL OR POLAR
(b)
-\
N
electrodes
(c)
Figure 1.2.1 DC resistivity methods: (a) Diagram showing basic concept of resistivity measurement (Benson et al.,
1984); (b) Wenner, Schlumberger, and axial/polar dipole-dipole electrode arrays (A and B are current
electrodes, M and N are potential electrodes, a and AB/2 are electrode spacings) other dipole-dipole
configurations are possible (Zohdy et al., 1974); (c) Layout of azimuthal resistivity array (a Wenner
array is rotated 10 degrees clockwise and successive resistivities are measured) (Carpenter et al., 1991,
by permission).
1-22
-------
Table 1.2.1 Comparison of Resistivity and Electromagnetic Methods
DC Resistivity
Electromagnetics
EMI
TDEM
Vertical sounding capability
Depth of sounding measurement
Profile station measurements
Continuous profile measurement
Relative lateral resolution*
Resolution for electrical
equivalence1"
Relative speed of measurement
Total site coverage
Susceptible to noise and buried
pipes/cables
Electrode contact problem
Yes To a limited extent
(2 or 3 layers possible)
Limited by 60 meters with equipment
array length commonly used; 100s of
meters possible
Yes Yes - to 60 meters depth
No Yes - to IS meters depth
and at speeds up to 8 km/hr
Poor in Good in profile mode with
profile mode station measurements.
Excellent in continuous
profile mode
Moderate Poor
Good Very rapid
Not generally Feasible at reasonable cost
economical
Yes Yes (continuous measurements
aid identification of pipes
and cables)
Yes No (operates through dry
sands, concrete blacktop,
etc.)
Yes, up to three layers or
more
150 meters with equipment
commonly used; 1000s of meters
possible
Yes - to 150 meters depth
No
Excellent, particularly
compared with exploration
depth
Excellent
Rapid
Feasible at moderate cost
Yes
No
'For a DC Wenner array, the array length is about three times the depth of exploration; for EMI the array length is of the order of the
depth of exploration; for TDEM (in this case the length of the transmitter side) can be less than the depth of exploration.
''Electrical equivalence is the situation where more than one layered earth model will fit the measured data.
Source: Modified from Benson et al. (1984)
1-23
-------
Standard Methods/Guidelines; Draft ASTM Standard Guide to Use of Surface Resistivity in Environmental
Investigations (Nielsen, 1991).
Sources for Additional Information: Benson et al. (1984), Lord and Koerner (1987), Rehm et al. (1985), U.S.
EPA (1987,1992-Chapter 3), U.S. Geological Survey (1980), Zohdy et al. (1974). Most of the general geophysics
texts identified in Table 1-4 also cover electrical methods. See also, electrical method texts identified in Table
1-5.
1-24
-------
1. REMOTE SENSING AND SURFACE GEOPHYSICAL METHODS
1.2 SURFACE ELECTRICAL METHODS
1.2.2 Self-Potential
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Spontaneous polarization, streaming potential.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Identifying leaks in reservoirs and subsurface flow patterns in karst; monitoring
ground-water flow at landfill sites; detecting leaks from membrane-lined sites; identifying conductive contaminant
plumes.
Method Description; Electrodes are used to measure natural electrical potentials developed locally in the
subsurface. Several types of natural potentials can be measured by this method. Spontaneous polarization is
a natural voltage difference that occurs as a result of electric currents induced by disequilibria within the earth.
Streaming potential is an electrokinetic effect related to movement of fluid containing ions through the
subsurface. Figure 1.2.2a illustrates the use of the self-potential method to detect seepage into fissures in
limestone and Figure 1.2.2b illustrates its use to locate a seepage zone in an earthen dam. A variant of self-
potential, in which current is injected into the ground to enhance the streaming potential effect, has been
developed to detect leaks in lined ponds (Figure 1.2.2c). Geomembrane liners have high resistivity and will give
relatively uniform potential readings between two electrodes. If the liner is punctured, fluid flow through the
leak provides a conductive path for the injected current to flow and produces anomalous readings in the moving
potential electrodes near the leak.
Method Selection Considerations: Advantages: (1) Equipment is simple and easy to operate; (2) no source of
injected current is required (does not apply to liner leak detection method); (3) useful method in karst areas
where patterns of ground-water flow are difficult to predict; and (4) can locate leakage paths. Disadvantages:
' (1) Permanent installations might require placement large amounts of electrical cable; (2) other ER and EM
methods generally are better for mapping of contaminant plumes; (3) interpretation is highly qualitative; and (4)
susceptible to interferences dues to variations in lithology and vegetation.
Frequency of Use; Most commonly used in mineral exploration where ore bodies are in contact with solutions
of different compositions. Use at contaminated sites is uncommon.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: -
Sources for Additional Information: Bogoslovsky and Ogilvy (1973), Darilek and Parra (1988), Lord and Koerner
(1987), Ogilvy and Bogoslovsky (1979), Redwine et al. (1985), U.S. EPA (1992-Chapter 3).
1-25
-------
LINE STATIONING
MIL LI VOLTMETER
SEEPAGE ZONE
A UNESTATIONING
Remote
Current
Return
Electrode
Current Source
Electrode
Moving
Measurement
Electrodes
Membrane
Liner
Current
Flow Lines
00
Figure 1.2.2 Self-Potential: (a) Apparatus and graph of measurements over a fissured zone of limestone illustrating
negative streaming potential induced by ground-water seepage (Modified by Kedwine et a!., 1985, from
Ogilvy and Bogoslovsky, 1979, Copyright © 1985, Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI CS-3901,
Groundwoter Manual for the Electric Utility Industry, reprinted with permission); (b) Self-potential profile
illustrating seepage zone in an earth dam (Redwine et al^ 1985, from Bogoslovsky and Ogilvy, 1973,
Copyright C 1985, Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI CS-3901, Groundwater Manual for the
Electric Utility Industry, reprinted with permission); (c) Electrical leak detection using modified self-
potential method (Darilek and Parra, 1988).
1-26
-------
1. REMOTE SENSING AND SURFACE GEOPHYSICAL METHODS
1.2 SURFACE ELECTRICAL METHODS
1.2.3 Induced Polarization (IP)
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Complex resistivity.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Conventional IP applications are similar to DC resistivity (Section 1.2.1), but can
provide greater resolution for differentiation of clayey and nonclayey unconsolidated materials. Complex
resistivity might be able to detect organic contaminant plumes.
Method Description: Induced polarization measures the electrochemical response of subsurface material
(primarily clays) to an injected current. Time domain IP surveys measure the rate at which voltage decays after
current injection stops (Figure 1.2.3) and frequency domain DP surveys measure the effect of changes in frequency
on subsurface electrical resistivity. Equipment and field procedures are similar to that for DC electrical
resistivity, in fact IP instrumentation can be used to conduct conventional ER surveys. Complex resistivity is
similar to frequency domain IP using a larger frequency spectrum.
Method Selection Considerations: Advantages: (1) More sensitive than conventional DC resistivity in
differentiating subsurface materials; and (2) might be superior to EM methods for organic contaminant plume
detection when organic contaminants interact with clays. Disadvantages: (1) IP surveys are slower and more
expensive than DC surveys and have many of the same disadvantages relative to EM methods; (2) a large amount
of space is required to conduct the survey, (3) when clays are absent, ground penetrating radar (Section 1.5.1)
is likely to be better for detecting organic contaminants; (4) injected currents might cause corrosion of buried
metallic materials (pipelines, etc.); and (5) susceptible to interference from buried cultural features (pipelines
and metallic containers).
Frequency of Use: Has been used infrequently, but with success in ground-water exploration. Use of
conventional IP has not been reported at contaminated sites. Use of complex resistivity for detection of organic
contaminant plumes is in developmental stages.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: None.
Sources for Additional Information; HRB Singer (1971), Lord and Koerner (1987), Pitchford et al. (1988), Rehm
et al. (1985), Sumner (1979), Telford et al. (1990), U.S. EPA (1992-Chapter 3), U.S. Geological Survey (1980).
See also, texts identified in Table 1-5.
1-27
-------
Current
Potential
(V)
Time-
Figure 13.3 Principles of time domain induced polarization technique (Lord and Koerner, 1987).
1-28
-------
1. REMOTE SENSING AND SURFACE GEOPHYSICAL METHODS
1.3 SURFACE ELECTROMAGNETIC METHODS
13.1 Electromagnetic Induction (EMI)
Other Names Used to Describe Method: EM, terrain conductivity, frequency domain EM(I).
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Mapping conductive and possibly organic contaminant plume boundaries, and a
variety of subsurface features with contrasting electrical properties; locating buried utilities, tanks and drums;
subsurface stratigraphic profiling; locating abandoned wells. See also, Table 1-2.
Method Description: Frequency domain EMI uses a transmitter coil to generate an electromagnetic field that
induces eddy currents in the earth below the instrument. Secondary electromagnetic fields created by the eddy
currents are measured by a receiver coil that produces an output voltage that can be related to subsurface
conductivity (Figure 1.3.1a). Conductivity readings represent the weighted cumulative sum of the conductivity
variations from the surface to the effective depth of the instrument, which is determined by the spacing of the
transmitting and receiving coils (Figure 1.3. Ib). Near-surface readings, where the two coils are in one unit, can
be made continuously, whereas deeper readings using a wider coil spacing require station measurements. Figure
1.3. Ic illustrates the use of EMI over water with the transmitter towed in a raft behind a tow boat containing
a receiver coil. The depth of penetration depends on the coil separation and the orientation. Coil separations
in the horizontal position for commonly used equipment range from 3.7 meters (depth penetration of 3 meters)
to 40 meters (depth penetration of 30 meters). Shifting the coil to a vertical orientation doubles the depth of
penetration.
Method Selection Considerations; Table 1.2.2 provides comparative information on EMI, time domain EM, and
electrical resistivity methods. U.S. EPA (1987) provides comparative information on commercially available EM
systems. Advantages: (1) For mapping of shallow, conductive, contaminant plumes (up to 15 meters) EM surveys
can usually be done faster (and hence more cheaply) than DC resistivity because direct contact with the ground
is not required, sometimes allowing continuous operation; (2) equipment is readily available; (3) excellent
capabilities for detection of buried bulk wastes with and without metal (to depths up to about 20 feet); (4) very
good ability to detect single drums (6 to 8 feet) and metal tanks; and (5) rapid resolution and data interpretation.
Disadvantages: (1) EMI is generally more susceptible to the presence of metal and powerlines on the surface
than DC resistivity (see Table 1-3); (2) lacks the vertical resolution and depth penetration of electrical resistivity
(where more than three major subsurface layers exist, and/or" measurements to depths greater than 60 meters
are required, DC resistivity [Section 1.2.1] or time domain EM [Section 1.3.2] will probably give better results);
(3) data reduction is less refined than with electrical resistivity; (4) saline ground water can act to mask presence
of steel drums; and (5) systems able to penetrate deeper than 60 meters are relatively expensive.
Frequency of Use: In the last decade, frequency domain EMI has replaced DC resistivity as the most commonly
used surface geophysical method for contaminant plume detection.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: Draft Standard Guide for the Use of Electromagnetic Induction (Terrain
Conductivity) in Environmental Investigations (Nielsen, 1991).
Sources for Additional Information; Aller (1984), Benson et al. (1984), Duran (1987), Rehm et al. (1985), U.S.
EPA (1987, 1992-Chapter 4), U.S. Geological Survey (1980). See also, Table 1-5 and Table 9-3.
1-29
-------
Secondary Reids
From Current Loops
Sensed by
Receiver Coil
60 Meters
(b)
RECEIVER
COIL \
tow line
ELECTROMAGNETIC
'. FI ELD
.TRANSMITTER
COIL
AIR
MATER
CHANNEL BOTTOM
(c)
Figure 13.1 Electromagnetic induction: (a) Block diagram showing EMI principle of operation (adapted from
Benson et al., 1984); (b) The depth of EMI soundings depends on coil spacing and orientation selected
(Benson et al, 1984); (c) Use of EMI instrument over water with tow boat and raft (Duran, 1987, by
permission).
1-30
-------
1. REMOTE SENSING AND SURFACE GEOPHYSICAL METHODS
13 SURFACE ELECTROMAGNETIC METHODS
13.2 Time Domain Electromagnetics
Other Names Used to Describe Method; TDEM, transient electromagnetic sounding, geoelectric sounding.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Same as EMI, except greater depth penetration possible (2,000+ meters) and
greater resolution of layered earth possible (three layers or more).
Method Description: Time domain electromagnetic (TDEM) instruments use a large transmitter loop on the
ground and a receiving coil to measure the decaying magnetic field generated by a descending eddy current that
is generated when the transmitter loop current is suddenly turned off (Figure 1.3.2a). These measurements can
be interpreted in terms of the subsurface conductivity as a function of depth (Figure 1.3.2b).
Method/Device Selection Considerations; Table 1.2.2 provides comparative information on TDEM, EMI, and
electrical resistivity methods. Advantages: (1) TDEM overcomes most of the disadvantages of EMI compared
to DC resistivity, at a somewhat higher cost than EMI; and (2) able to penetrate to great depths (thousands of
feet can be readily achieved). Disadvantages: (1) Site surface features might create difficulties in placement of
the transmitter loop, which is typically 10 to 20 meters on a side; and (2) not suitable for very shallow
applications (less than about 150 feet).
Frequency of Use: The development of TDEM equipment suitable for use at contaminated sites is relatively
recent, but the increased depth of penetration and better resolution of layers is likely to result in greater use of
this method.
Standard Methods/Guidelines; —
Sources for Additional Information: Felsen (197(5), Fitterman and Stewart (1986), Goldman (1990), Kaufinan
and Keller (1983), Nabighian and Macnae (1991), U.S. EPA (1992-Chapter 4).
1-31
-------
— Primary Field
Single-Turn
Coil
Induced __
Current Loop
Receiver
(including
digital data
storage)
Second Field From Current Loop
Sensed by Receiver Coil
(a)
cz>
Figure 133 Time domain electromagnetics: (a) Block diagram showing TDEM principles of operations; (b) The
depth of TDEM soundings depends on transmitter current, loop size, and time of measurement.
1-32
_
-------
1. REMOTE SENSING AND SURFACE GEOPHYSICAL METHODS
1.3 SURFACE ELECTROMAGNETIC METHODS
1.3.3 Metal Detection
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Eddy current.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Locating buried metallic containers of various sizes; defining boundaries of trenches
containing metallic containers; locating buried metallic tanks and pipes; avoiding buried utilities when drilling
or trenching (not all instruments have adequate resolution for this application); evaluating integrity of
deteriorating drums and tanks; locating abandoned wells. See also, Table 1-2.
Method Description: Metal detectors operate on the same principles as electromagnetic induction (Section 1.3.1),
except that the instruments are specifically designed to sense increased conductivity resulting from either ferrous
or nonferrous metals near the ground surface (Figure 1.3.3). Many different types of metal detectors are
available and fall into three main classes: (1) Pipeline/cable locators, (2) conventional "treasure hunter" detectors,
and (3) specialized detectors. The first two types are usually handheld, and require one person to operate.
Specialized detectors are designed to handle for complex conditions, and often require two operators, or can be
truck-mounted. Each class of detector is specific to certain applications and should not be used for other than
its designed purpose.
Method Selection Considerations: Advantages: (1) MDs respond to both ferrous and nonferrous metals; (2) a
wide range of commercial equipment is available, most of which is relatively easy to use; (3) all metal detectors
allow continuous measurements, allowing rapid coverage; (4) less expensive and faster than ground-penetrating
radar; and (5) equipment is light enough to be hand carried. Disadvantages: (1) Depth capability is limited to
1 to 3 meters for a single 55-gallon drum, and 3 to 6 meters for large masses of drums; (2) susceptible to a wide
range of noise, including soils rich in iron minerals, metallic debris, pipes and cable, and nearby fences and
metallic structures; (3) specialized equipment for difficult site conditions requires increased skill-levels to use and
interpret data; (4) specialized MD equipment might not be readily available; (5) saline ground water (> 15,000
mg/L total dissolved solids) can mask presence of buried steel containers; (6) unable to detect nonmetallic objects
(i.e., plastic pipe with no metal detection strip) and detection of metal pipes with insulators at each pipe
connection might be difficult; (7) determination of number or arrangement of buried objects is not possible; and
(8) detection limits might be too high for use as a good screening device for selecting drilling locations.
Frequency of Use; EPA field investigation teams commonly use pipeline/cable locators. Specialized detectors
might be desirable if available, and site conditions are complex.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: —
Sources for Additional Information: Aller (1984), Benson (1991), Benson et al. (1984), EC&T et al. (1990),
Evans and Schweitzer (1984), Lord and Koerner (1987), U.S. EPA (1992-Chapter 4).
1-33
-------
Figure
Simplified block diagram of a pipe/cable type metal detector system. Primary field from transmitter is
distorted by buried metallic objects causing upset of null at receiver coil (Benson et al., 1984).
1-34
.
-------
1. REMOTE SENSING AND SURFACE GEOPHYSICAL METHODS
1.3 SURFACE ELECTROMAGNETIC METHODS
13.4 Very-Low Frequency Electromagnetics (VLF)
Other Names Used to Describe Method; VLF resistivity.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Similar to EM and DC resistivity.
Method Description; VLF resistivity instruments measure the ratio of electric to magnetic fields generated by
military communication transmitters (around 15 to 25 kHz). Figure 1.3.4 illustrates the principal components
of the VLF field. These are very low frequency radio waves, but are actually often higher than frequencies used
in electromagnetic induction methods. The depth of penetration of these waves is related to the resistivity of
the subsurface materials. Depth of penetration for contaminant plumes using the method is around 20 meters,
with a maximum penetration depth of around 60 meters in saturated overburden with higher resistivities.
Measurements are taken using potential electrodes driven into, or placed on, the ground at 10 meter spacing and
both resistivity and the phase angle between the electric and magnetic fields are measured. Principles of data
interpretation as similar to those used in magnetotelluric methods (Section 1.3.5).
Method Selection Considerations; Advantages: (1) Transmitting waves are generated off site at no cost; (2) the
ease of taking measurements allows a high spatial density of readings; and (3) only potential electrodes are used,
minimizing contact resistance problems that can occur with ER methods. Disadvantages: (1) Need to account
for change in land surface (i.e., readings taken at different elevations are not comparable without adjustment);
(2) resolution of two-layered earth requires that the resistivity of one of the layers be known or assumed.
Frequency of Use: Value has been demonstrated at contaminated sites, but used less frequently than DC
resistivity and EMI.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: —
Sources for Additional Information: McNeill and Labson (1991), Stewart and Bretnall (1986), U.S. EPA (1992-
Chapter 4).
1-35
-------
VLF
transmitter
Figure 1.3.4 Principal components of the primaiy VLF field at distances greater than 800 km from the transmitter.
E, and H, are the electrical and magnetic components of the field, respectively, E, and Ex are the
vertical and horizontal components of E,. The angle a is the tilt of the electrical field from the vertical.
Both « and Ex increase with increasing terrain resistivity (Stewart and Bretnall, 1986, by permission).
1-36
-------
1. REMOTE SENSING AND SURFACE GEOPHYSICAL METHODS
1.3 SURFACE ELECTROMAGNETIC METHODS
13.5 Magnetotellurics (MT)
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Telluric current method, magnetotelluric method, audiofrequency MT,
audiofrequency magnetic (AFMAG), MT array profiling (EMAP), controlled-source audiomagnetotellurics
(CSAMT).
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Mapping of large geologic structures; regional ground water mapping; mapping of
brine contamination from unplugged wells (CSAMT); water saturated fracture tracing in rock; detection of fault
displaced masses of rock.
Method Description: Telluric currents are natural electric currents that flow in the subsurface in response to
ionospheric tidal effects and lightning associated with thunderstorms. The telluric current method measures field
intensity using four electrodes set in intersecting perpendicular lines and is, strictly speaking, an electrical method.
Magnetotelluric (MT) geophysical methods involve the measurement of magnetic and electric fields associated
with the flow of telluric currents. Audiofrequency MT (AMT) is the same as MT, except audio frequencies are
measured. Audiofrequency magnetic (AFMAG) methods measure the tilt angle of total magnetic field on a
surface or in the air. MT array proOling (EMAP) is MT with numerous measurements of a surface electric field
to try to reduce static effect errors resulting from localized changes in conductivity of near-surface materials.
These static effects can result in erroneous readings at all frequencies, which makes accurate interpretations of
data difficult. The above-mentioned methods all measure natural currents. Controlled-source
audiomagnetotellurics (CSAMT) uses a remote transmitter combined with an AMT receiver (Figure 1.3.5).
Method Selection Considerations: Advantages: (1) MT methods can reach depths much greater than can be
reached effectively using artificially induced currents; and (2) CSAMT has been found to have excellent lateral
resolution, good depth penetration (1 kilometer or more), and is relatively inexpensive for mapping oil field brine
contamination. Disadvantages: (1) Static effect errors (see EMAP above) are a common problem with all MT
methods; and (2) for shallow investigations, most other electrical and EM methods are more accurate and easier
to use.
Frequency of Use: MT methods have been used primarily in connection with regional geological investigations
related to mineral exploration. CSAMT has been used in regional ground-water investigations, and has recently
been successfully used to detect the movement of formation brines into freshwater aquifers through improperly
abandoned or plugged wells.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: None.
Sources for Additional Information: Kaufman and Keller (1981), Porstendorfer (1975), Tinlin et al. (1988-
CSAMT), U.S. EPA (1992-Chapter 4), U.S. Geological Survey (1980), Vozoff (1986,1991), Wait (1982), Zonge
and Hughes (1991-CSAMT).
1-37
-------
Controlled Source AMT
400 Cycle Engine
Approximately 3 skin depths or more AMT Coil
NOTE: Not to scale
Current Electrodes
Potential Electrodes
Figure 13.5 Layout for controlled source AMT survey (Tinlin et aL, 1988, Copyright ASTM, reprinted with
permission).
1-38
-------
1. REMOTE SENSING AND SURFACE GEOPHYSICAL METHODS
1.4 SURFACE SEISMIC AND ACOUSTIC METHODS
1.4.1 Seismic Refraction
Other Names Used to Describe Method; —
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Ground-water and subsurface stratigraphic profiling (including the top of bedrock);
mapping buried channels; measuring depth to ground water; mapping lateral fades variations in an aquifer;
estimating porosity. See also, Table 1-2.
Method Description: An artificial seismic source (hammer, controlled explosive charge) creates direct
compressional waves that are refracted by traveling along the contact between geologic boundaries before signals
from the wave reach the surface again (Figure 1.4. la). The refracted waves are sensed using electromechanical
transducers, called geophones, which are attached to a seismograph. The seismograph records the time of arrival
of all waves, using the moment the seismic source is set off as time zero. Travel tune is plotted against source-to-
geophone distance to produce a time/distance (T/D) plot. Line segments, slope and break points in the T/D plot,
are then analyzed to identify the number of layers and depth of each layer. Figure 1.4. Ib shows steps in
processing and interpretation of seismic refraction data. Figure 1-2 shows typical seismic velocity ranges for
various soil and rock types.
Method Selection Considerations: Advantages: (1) Equipment is readily available, portable, and relatively
inexpensive; (2) provides depth of penetration of around 30 meters; (3) technique is accurate and provides rapid
area! coverage; and (4) interpretation is generally straightforward (not exception below). Disadvantages: (1)
Resolution might be obscured by layered sequences where velocity of layers decreases with depth (inversion),
and thin layers, called blind zones, might not be detected; (2) susceptible to noise from urban development (such
as ground vibrations from construction activity and electrical noise [see Table 1-3]); (3) use might be limited by
cold or wet weather; (4) relatively time and labor intensive; (5) good data acquisition and resolution requires
experience operator, (6) seismic sources for deep surveys require considerable energy; (7) only fair ability to
detect buried bulk wastes, but might provide depth; and (8) does not detect contaminants in ground water.
Frequency of Use; Commonly used for near surface hydrogeologic studies and subsurface characterization of
contaminated sites.
Standard Methods/Guidelines; Draft Standard Guide for the Use of Seismic Refraction in Environmental
Investigations (Nielsen, 1991).
Sources for Additional Information: Redwine et al. (1985), Rehm et al. (1985), U.S. EPA (1987,1992-Chapter
5), U.S. Geological Survey (1980), Zohdy et al. (1974). Most of the general geophysics texts identified in Table
1-4 also cover seismic methods. See also, seismic texts identified in Table 1-5.
1-39
-------
Hammer
Source
(a)
Single Channel
TD Plols
Multi Channel
Magnetic Tape
Manual Pick of
Arrival Times
Computer
Interpreted
Geologic Section
(b)
Figure 1.4.1 Seismic refraction: (a) Field layout of a 12-channel seismograph showing the path of direct and
refracted seismic waves in a two-layer soil/rock system; (b) Flow diagram showing steps in processing
and interpretation of seismic refraction data (Benson et aL, 1984).
1-40
-------
1. REMOTE SENSING AND SURFACE GEOPHYSICAL METHODS
1.4 SURFACE SEISMIC AND ACOUSTIC METHODS
1.4.2 Seismic Reflection
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Shallow seismic reflection, common-offset reflection, common-depth
point reflection, common midpoint (CMP) reflection.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: High resolution mapping of bedrock-unconsolidated contact at intermediate depths
(typical minimum of 10 to 30 meters); high resolution mapping of stratigraphy and rock type at greater depths
(more than 70 meters).
Method Description; Generally similar to seismic refraction (Section 1.4.1). Surveys are usually conducted with
shorter spacing but with more geophones compared to a refraction survey for similar depths. In addition to
recording the time of first arrival, numerous arrivals of reflected waves are recorded at each geophone, and
multiple shots are used to create seismic waves (Figure 1.4.2.a), resulting in more data being recorded and
requiring more complex data processing. Conventional reflection methods are designed for obtaining
stratigraphic and structural data at depths greater than 70 meters. Relatively recent development of high
resolution methods, such as the common-depth-point (CDP), can yield good data at depths as shallow as 15 to
30 meters (Figure 1.4.2b). The common-offset method has been successfully used at interfaces as shallow as 2.7
meters (but a more typical minimum depth would be around 10 meters).
Method Selection Considerations: Advantages: (1) Seismic reflection methods provide higher resolution than
seismic refraction; (2) smaller energy sources are required; (3) shorter spacing of geophones allows greater area!
coverage for any given spacing; (4) velocity inversions do not affect accuracy as with seismic refraction, and thin
layers are easier to detect; and (5) data printout straightforward to interpret. Disadvantages: (1) Results are
much more difficult to interpret and precise interpretation requires computer processing; (2) more complex
instrumentation and data analysis results in generally higher costs than for seismic refraction; (3) steeply dipping
boundaries create problems for interpretation; and (4) sensitive to vibrations and electrical noise. Seismic
refraction is usually better for very shallow investigations, but should no longer be assumed to be the method
of choice where depths greater than 3 to 15 meters are of interest.
Frequency of Use: High resolution seismic reflection methods are a relatively new development that will probably
become more widely used compared to seismic refraction because of higher resolution.
Standard Methods/Guidelines; —
Sources for Additional Information: Ayers (1989), Badley (1985), Hunter and Pullan (1989-common-offset),
Kleyn (1983), Knapp and Steeples (1986a,b-CDP), Redwine et al. (1985), Steeples and Miller (1988-CDP), U.S.
EPA (1987, 1992-Chapter 5), U.S. Geological Survey (1980), Waters (1981).
1-41
-------
TRACE SEQUENCE
73-15
i
MW
1
In
iSffil iifcffliiSi
•
ifflffi
WlMifi/l
-------
1. REMOTE SENSING AND SURFACE GEOPHYSICAL METHODS
1.4 SURFACE SEISMIC AND ACOUSTIC METHODS
1.4.3 Continuous Seismic Profiling (CSP)
Other Names Used to Describe Method; Acoustical/continuous high-resolution subbottom profiling, marine
seismic reflection. '
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Defining lithologic boundaries of shallow aquifers; assessing lithology of glacial
deposits; determining unconsolidated material/bedrock contact. (Note: These uses are possible (provided that
area of interest is crossed by rivers, large streams, or contains lakes, reservoirs, ponds or estuaries.)
Method Description: Continuous seismic profiling is adapted from methods originally used in deep-water marine
geology investigations, and differs from land-based seismic techniques in that only one channel is used to detect
signals. In shallow water, high-resolution, single-channel, continuous-seismic reflection equipment is towed
through the water alongside or behind the survey boat (Figure 1.4.3a). The energy source (electromechanical
transducers, sparkers, or airguns) emit sounds at a fixed frequency, or with a range of frequencies into the water.
The receiver, called a hydrophone, detects the reflected acoustic signals to create a profile of the subsurface
below the line of travel of the boat (Figure 1.4.3b). Usually the raw record can be used for direct interpretation
with no further processing. The position of the boat must be established and maintained throughout the survey,
using methods ranging from multiple land survey crews with ranging equipment to sophisticated microwave
locationing systems. A grid pattern of survey lines allows a three dimensional representation of the subsurface.
A fathometer survey (Section 1.4.6) is usually conducted simultaneously to provide an indication of water depth
to assist in calculation of thicknesses of sub-bottom strata.
Method Selection Considerations: Advantages: (1) Relatively fast and inexpensive; (2) electromechanical
transducers can emit a wide range of frequencies and provide good depth penetration and moderate to high
resolution; low-frequency energy sources (sparkers and airguns) achieve deeper penetration into the subsurface
but provide less resolution; (3) sediment types, such as sand and clay, can be differentiated with higher frequency
systems; and (4) data printout is straightforward to interpret. Disadvantages: (1) Limited to water bodies that
are large enough or continuous enough to provide the desired area! coverage; (2) steeply dipping boundaries
create problems for interpretation; (3) sensitive to vibrations and electrical noise; and (4) material velocities must
be known for depth calculations.
Frequency of Use: Uncommonly used for site specific investigations because of requirement for large water
bodies.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: -
Sources for Additional Information; Haeni (1986), Redwine et al. (1985), U.S. EPA (1992-Chapter 5). See also,
texts identified in Table 1-5.
1-43
-------
1
RCCOftOER
' t
PORTABLE
ELECTOC
-------
1. REMOTE SENSING AND SURFACE GEOPHYSICAL METHODS
1.4 SURFACE SEISMIC AND ACOUSTIC METHODS
1.4.4 Seismic Shear and Surface Waves
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Spectral analysis of surface waves (SASW).
Uses at Contaminated Sites; Seismic shear: Detecting subsurface fissures caused by subsidence; differentiating
water table from weathered bedrock (in combination with seismic refraction); potential for determining the
distribution and orientation of fractures; SASW: Characterizing strength of soil materials.
Method Description; Seismic shear: Basic instrumentation is similar to seismic refraction and reflection methods,
except that layouts are modified to record the time of arrival of seismic shear waves (S waves), in which particles
move transverse to the direction of propagation of the wave rather than back and forth as in a compressional
(P wave), which is observed in seismic refraction and reflection. Figure 1.4.4a shows schematic receiver geometry
for a shear wave refraction spread. Shear waves are commonly generated using a sledgehammer blow delivered
to the soil at an angle to the ground surface, or by using a set of three sequential explosive shots. Both reflection
and refraction of shear waves can be measured and analyzed. SASW: Method for measuring G^ of soil with
depth, without the use of boreholes (see Section 3.4.6 for cross borehole methods). The technique uses two
vertical transducers placed on the ground surface at equal distances from an imaginary centerline (Figure 1.4.4b).
A vertical impulse is generated on the ground surface, and surface waves of the Rayleigh type are monitored as
they propagate past the two transducers. Successive seismic impulses of different wavelengths allow sampling
different depths of soil, with low frequency waves sampling greater depths.
Method Selection Considerations: Seismic Shear Advantages: (1) Has been found to be more successful than
seismic refraction or reflection in detecting subsurface fissures that have developed where overpumping of ground
water has caused subsidence; and (2) in combination with seismic refraction data, allows differentiation of a
ground-water surface from other lithologic contacts. Seismic Shear Disadvantages: (1) Addition of shear wave
generation and analysis to seismic surveys adds to the complexity and cost of surveys; and (2) applications such
as mapping of water-table surface can usually done with simpler and less expensive methods. SASW Advantages:
Boreholes are not required as with other methods for measuring G^ SASW Disadvantages: (1) Relatively
sophisticated computer programs, which are not readily available, are required to analyze data; and (2) results
might be less accurate than crosshole method for layered soils with inclined boundaries and heterogenous soils.
Frequency of Use: Uncommon.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: None.
Sources for Additional Information: Bates et al. (1991), CH2M Hill (1991-seismic shear, SASW), Danbom and
Domenico (1987), Dohr (1985), Ensley (1987-bibliography), Stokoe and Nazarian (1985-SASW), U.S. EPA (1987-
Chapter 5), Woods (1985-seismic shear, SASW).
1-45
-------
Horizontally Polarized
Shear Wave Source
Horizontally1**
Polarized '
. Wave Propagation'
-»-V-*- Direction
Wave Polarization
Direction
Hypothetical Vertical
Fracture Pattern
in Bedrock
Surface
(a)
Soectrol
Analyzer
tmpulsiv<
Sourci
i(»ariablt)
(a) Gtntral Configuration of SASW Ttttt
-24 -16 -a • 8 16 24
vfo* '
tsSr
|
V Ctophon* 7J7 t
V Souret tijZ.
t_4^-*
7,,,, ! .,7 1
t 7 ! w -
1... ,._... ,
^ t
i
0£^£$&r
i
2
4
e
16
(b) Common R«cti>tn Midpoint Gtomttry
(b)
Figure 1.4.4 Other seismic methods: (a) Schematic receiver geometry for shear wave refraction spreads (Bates et al.,
1991, by permission); (b) Spectral analysis of surface waves test (CH2M Hill, 1991, after Stokoe and
Nazarian, 1985, by permission).
1-46
-------
1. REMOTE SENSING AND SURFACE GEOPHYSICAL METHODS
1.4 SURFACE SEISMIC AND ACOUSTIC METHODS
1.4.5 Acoustic Emission Monitoring
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Microseismic method.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Detecting sounds generated by instabilities in features such as dams and slopes,
retaining walls, footings, underground tunnels, mines, and quarries. Provides early warning for instability in
structures where remedial actions have been carried out.
Method Description: Subaudible sound waves cause the release of stored elastic-strain energy in stressed
materials (such as dislocations, grain boundary movement and initiation, and propagation of fractures (between
mineral grains) are monitored. A wave guide (steel rod or plastic pipe), inserted in the ground or lowered down
a borehole, transmits signals to a sensor (Figure 1.4.5). The sensor, an accelerometer, converts the mechanical
wave energy to an electrical signal, which is filtered and amplified. A signal counter records a count each time
a the signal exceeds a threshold that is above the background noise level. Preliminary testing to determine
background noise levels from such factors as wind, thunderstorms, barometric changes, power lines, operation
of nearby machinery, passing airplanes, and vehicular traffic, is required. Monitoring can be continuous or
periodic.
Method Selection Considerations: Advantages: (1) Acoustic emission monitoring is inexpensive and simple to
carry out; (2) interpretation is generally uncomplicated; and (3) best of available methods for monitoring dike
stability. Disadvantages: Intermittent sources of background noise (see method description above) can cause
erroneous interpretations.
Frequency of Use; Relatively uncommon.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: —
Sources for Additional Information: Davis et al. (1984), Lord and Koerner (1987), Redwine et al. (1985), U.S.
EPA (1979, 1992-Chapter 5), Waller and Davis (1984).
1-47
-------
COUNTER
LOW-FREQUENCY
NOISE FILTER
^p
r-f=^r^^^d^t^g^tf^
ACCELEROMETER
WAVE GUIDE
POTENTIAL FAILURE PLANE
Figure 1.4.5 Acoustic emission monitoring system set up to detect acoustic emissions generated by a potential
failure plane in a an earth dam (U.S. EPA, 1979).
1-48
-------
1. REMOTE SENSING AND SURFACE GEOPHYSICAL METHODS
1.4 SURFACE SEISMIC AND ACOUSTIC METHODS
1.4.6 Sonar
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Side-scan sonar, fathometer water bottom surveys, color fathometer.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Side-scan sonar: Detecting leakage sources of sinkholes in water bodies (reservoirs
and lakes, holding ponds, and waste disposal ponds); possible applications for detecting DNAPLs in water bodies.
Fathometer: Constructing bottom-topography profiles or contour maps below water bodies to locate subsidence
features and to assist in interpreting continuous-seismic reflection surveys.
Method Description: Side-scan sonar: A towfish containing transducers that send bursts of high-intensity, high-
frequency acoustic signals and receive the echoes is pulled behind a boat (Figure 1.4.6). The signals are
amplified and processed to create an image of the water bottom surface that can cover as much as several
hundred meters on both sides of the survey line. Imagery resolution is sufficient to identify details such as
bedrock outcrops, rough or smooth mud surfaces, sand surfaces, gravel or boulders, and collapse features.
Fathometer: Similar to side-scan sonar, except that it only records bottom topography directly below the
instrument. A fathometer survey is required for accurate interpretation of continuous-seismic profiles (Section
1.4.3). Both instruments can be used in conjunction with ah underwater magnetometer to locate metal containers
at or below the sediment surface.
Method Selection Considerations: Side-Scan Sonar Advantages: (1) Provides very high-resolution imagery; and
(2) wide area of coverage allows for few survey lines without gaps in data and also allows rapid coverage. Side-
Scan Sonar Disadvantages: (1) Relatively expensive due to cost of leasing equipment, boat, and operators; (2)
does not provide water depths or sub-bottom information; and (3) cables might catch on underwater debris.
Fathometer Advantages: (1) Inexpensive; and (2) data interpretation is easy. Fathometer Disadvantages: Records
only surface directly below the instrument, and so it might miss features between survey lines.
Frequency of Use; Uncommon.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: -
Sources for Additional Information; Redwine et al. (1985), Saucier (1970), U.S. EPA (1992-Chapter 5).
1-49
-------
Figure 1.4.6 Side-scan sonar system (Redwine et al., 1985, Copyright © 1985, Electric Power Research Institute,
EPRI CS-3901, Groundwater Manual for the Electric Utility Industry, reprinted with permission).
1-50
-------
1. REMOTE SENSING AND SURFACE GEOPHYSICAL METHODS
1.4 SURFACE SEISMIC AND ACOUSTIC METHODS
1.4.7 Pulse-Echo Ultrasonics
Other Names Used to Describe Method: —
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Monitoring of surface container corrosion, buried container stability, and buried
pipeline leaks.
Method Description: A pulse of elastic energy, typically a few micro seconds long and a frequency of about 1
MHz, is beamed into the material being investigated. The elastic wave is reflected from cracks, and
discontinuities within the material and the nature of the reflected pattern gives an indication of the depth and
spatial extent of cracks and discontinuities (Figure 1.4.7).
Method Selection Considerations: Advantages: (1) Method is well-developed for testing integrity of surface
containers; and (2) commercial equipment is readily available. Disadvantages: Limited actual field use
experience at contaminated sites.
Frequency of Use; Uncommon at contaminated sites.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: -
Sources for Additional Information: Lord and Koerner (1980, 1987), McGonnagle (1961), Sharp (1970).
1-51
-------
Flaw Reflection
Back-Surface
Reflection
CRT Display
Figure 1.4.7 Principles of pulse-echo ultrasonics (Lord and Koerner, 1987).
1-52
-------
1. REMOTE SENSING AND SURFACE GEOPHYSICAL METHODS
1.5 OTHER SURFACE GEOPHYSICAL METHODS
1.5.1 Ground-Penetrating Radar (GPR)*
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Ground-piercing radar, ground-probing radar, subsurface impulse radar,
pulsed microwave, pulsed radio frequency, electromagnetic subsurface profiling, continuous microwave.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Locating buried objects (only reliable method for detecting buried plastic
containers); mapping of depth to shallow water table; delineating soil horizons, bedrock subsurface, and structure;
detecting buried containers and leaks; mapping of trench boundaries; delineating karst features; delineating
physical integrity of manmade earthen structures; selecting locations for installation of suction samplers in the
vadose zone. See also, Table 1-2.
Method Description: GPR: A transmitting and a receiving antenna are dragged along the ground surface. The
small transmitting antenna radiates short pulses of high-frequency radio waves (ranging from 10 to 1,000 mHz)
into the ground and the receiving antenna records variations in the reflected return signal (Figure 1.5. la). The
principles involved are similar to reflection seismology, except that electromagnetic energy is used instead of
acoustic energy, and the resulting image is relatively easy to interpret (Figure 1.5. Ib). Continuous microwave:
Similar to GPR except that a range of frequencies is continuously emitted resulting in interference patterns
between the emitted and reflected wave. The spacing (in frequency) between interference maxima or minima
as the emitting frequency changes gives the depth of the reflecting surface.
Method Selection Considerations: GPR Advantages: (1) Profiles give the greatest resolution of currently available
surface geophysical methods; (2) best penetration is achieved in dry, sandy or rocky areas (up to 25 meters); and
(3) where site conditions are favorable, rapid areal coverage is possible. GPR Disadvantages: (1) Depth of
penetration (typically 1 to 15 meters) is less than DC resistivity and EM methods, and is further reduced in moist
and/or clayey soils and soils with high electrical conductivity, (2) bulkiness of equipment limits use in rough and
inaccessible terrain; (3) FM radio transmissions might interfere with signals depending on the frequency, and
unshielded antennas are susceptible to interference by metallic materials (see Table 1-3); (4) bouldery till might
scatter signal, masking underlying bedrock; and (5) unprocessed images give only approximate shapes and depths
and require processing to obtain true shape and depth. Continuous Microwave methods are still in
developmental stages.
Frequency of Use: Probably the most frequently used surface geophysical method after EMI and DC resistivity.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: Draft ASTM Standard Guide to the Use of Ground-Penetrating Radar in
Environmental Investigations (Nielsen, 1991).
Sources for Additional Information: Benson et al. (1984), Beres and Haeni (1991), Daniels (1989), Douglas et
al. (1992), Lord and Koerner (1987), Olhoeft (1988-bibliography), Pittman et al. (1984), Redwine et al. (1985),
Trabant (1984), Truman et al. (1991), Ulriksen (1982), U.S. EPA (1987,1992-Chapter 6). See also, Table 1-5.
Subsurface dielectric properties: Figure 1-2, Akhadov (1980), Daniel (1967), Hasted (1974), Hoekstra and
Delaney (1974), Kracchman (1970), Tareev (1975), van Beek (1965), von Hippel (1954a,b). See also, Table 6-2
listing for references on dielectric sensors.
•Following the convention of Benson et al. (1984), ground-penetrating radar is not placed in the section on
electromagnetic methods (Section 1.3) due to the higher frequencies involved.
1-53
-------
TRANSMITTED IMPULSES
GROUND SURFACE
) LAYERED MATERIAL
SURFACE
FINE
-QUARTZ
SAND
CLAY
LOAM
APPROXIMATELY 400 FEET •
(b)
Figure 1.5.1 Ground-penetrating radar: (a) Ground-penetrating radar apparatus (Redwine et al, 1985, Copyright i
1985, Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI CS-3901, Groundwater Manual for the Electric Utility
Industry, reprinted with permission); (b) GPR profile of quartz and over clay (Benson et al, 1984).
1-54
-------
1. REMOTE SENSING AND SURFACE GEOPHYSICAL METHODS
1.5 OTHER SURFACE GEOPHYSICAL METHODS
1.5.2 Magnetometiy
Other Names Used to Describe Method: FJuxgate gradiometer/magnetometer, proton magnetometers/nuclear
resonance magnetometer. Other names that are less commonly used include: Dip needles, deflection
magnetometers, induction variometer.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Locating buried steel containers, such as 55-gallon drums; defining boundaries of
trenches tilled with ferrous containers; locating ferrous underground utilities, such as iron pipe or tanks, and
associated permeable pathways; selecting drilling locations that are clear of buried drums, underground utilities,
and other obstructions; locating buried ferrous slag dumping areas; location of abandoned wells. See also, Table
1-2.
Method Description; Magnetometers measure either intensity of the earth's total magnetic field at a point or
gradients in the magnetic field. Proton magnetometers are usually used to measure the strength of the earth's
total magnetic field at a point, requiring a closely-spaced grid of station measurements to provide complete
coverage of a site. Fluxgate gradiometers allow continuous measurement of the gradient in the magnetic field
along a transect. Anomalous readings (measured as gammas) indicate the presence of ferrous metals (Figure
1.5.2). Typically, single drums can be detected at distances up to 6 meters and massive piles detected at distances
of 20 meters or more. Underwater magnetometers can be used in conjunction with fathometers and sidescan
sonar (Section 1.4.6) to detect metal containers that have been buried by sediments or shifting sand.
Method Selection Considerations: Proton Magnetometer Advantages: Provide the most sensitive reading
variations in the magnetic field. Proton Magnetometer Disadvantages: (1) Require station measurements; and
(2) more susceptible to noise than fluxgate gradiometers. Fluxgate Gradiometer Advantages: (1) Less susceptible
to noise than proton magnetometers; and (2) generally less expensive to operate because continuous
measurements provide more rapid coverage. General Disadvantages: (1) Depending on the distance from the
interfering object, magnetometers are susceptible to noise from a number of different sources such as steel
fences, vehicles, buildings, iron debris, and natural soil minerals (see Table 1-3); (2) will not detect nonferrous
metals (metals other than iron, steel, and nickel); (3) estimating depth of burial is difficult; and (4) total field
corrections and/or gradient readings might be required to compensate for solar interferences.
Frequency of Use: Common at sites where presence of ferrous metals in the subsurface is known or suspected.
Standard Methods/Guidelines; -
Sources for Additional Information: Aller (1984), Benson et al. (1984), Bozorth (1951), Breiner (1973),
Chikazumi (1964), EC&T (1990), Hinze (1988), Lahee (1961), Nettleton (1971,1976), Rehm et al. (1985), U.S.
EPA (1987,1992-Chapter 6), Zohdy et al. (1974). Most of the general geophysics texts identified in Table 1-4
also cover magnetic methods.
1-55
-------
SENSING CHANGES IN THE EARTH'S MAGNETIC FIELD
NATURAL ORIENTATION OF THE
EARTH'S MAGNETIC FIELD
EXPLODED VIEW OF MAGNETOMETER SENSOR
ILLUSTRATING SENSING FLUID & CIRCUITRY
COILS: lit FUNCTION:
PRODUCES EXCITATION VOLTAGE WHICH REORIENTS
PROTONS WITHIN THE DETECTOR
2nd FUNCTION:
FREE SPINNING PROTONS ALKSN THEMSELVES
WITH THE MAGNETIC FIELD IN THE IMMEDIATE
AREA PRODUCING A SPECIFIC FREQUENCY
WHICH IS DETECTED AND RECORDED
SENSOR CABLE: CONNECTS SENSOR TO CONTROL MODULE
SENSOR FLUID: PROTON SUPPLY SOURCE
/•//////GROUND SURFACE ///////
BURIED FERROUS MASS
GENERAL DISTORTION AREA OF THE EARTH'S
MAGNETIC FIELD DUE TO BURIED MASS
(a)
V
o
c
Cl
a
J£
C
~
O
as
c
a
j=
^
e)
a
E
E
a
cs
*"^
100-
80 •
60 -
40 -
20 •
0 •
© ©'
-©—-©
(b)
Figure 133, Magnetometry: (a) Schematic illustrating basic magnetometer principle of operation (J. Ursic, U.S.
EPA, Region 5); (b) Station measurements of a magnetic anomaly caused by a buried steel drum
(Benson et aL, 1984).
1-56
-------
1. REMOTE SENSING AND SURFACE GEOPHYSICAL METHODS
1.5 OTHER SURFACE GEOPHYSICAL METHODS
1.5.3 Gravimetrics
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Microgravity.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Detecting variation of thickness of unconsolidated material over bedrock; mapping
of landfill boundaries; detecting cavity, sinkholes, and subsidence.
Method Description: Gravimetry involves measurement of variations in the intensity of the earth's gravitational
field (expressed as acceleration in centimeters per second squared, or gals). Three principle classes of
instruments are used in conventional gravity measurements: Torsion balance, pendulum, and gravity meter or
gravimeter. All can detect anomalies as small as one-ten-millionth (milligals~10"3gals) of the earth's gravitational
field. Microgravimeters, measuring in units of microgals (W6 gals) are sufficiently sensitive that they can
delineate cavities in the subsurface (Figure 1.5.3a). Station measurements along a transect or on a grid require
great care in setting up the instrument and the elevation of each station must be carefully surveyed. Gravity data
obtained in the field must be corrected for elevation, rock density, latitude, earth-tide variations, and the
influence of surrounding topographic variations. After corrections, measurements are plotted as Bouger anomaly
maps, which look like topographic contour maps and are interpreted in terms of the size, shape and position of
subsurface structures (Figure 1.5.3b).
Method Selection Considerations: Advantages: (1) Not adversely affected by urban influences that adversely
affect EM methods, such as power lines, and radio broadcasts; (2) detailed surveys can delineate size and shape
of cavity; and (3) existing data might be available locally from sources such as state geological surveys or the U.S.
Geological Survey. Disadvantages: (1) Microgravity surveys tend to be expensive because extreme care is
required in field procedures; (2) detailed elevation and location surveying of all stations is required; (3)
instruments are very delicate and are very sensitive to temperature changes; (4) ground vibrations might adversely
affect data; (5) microgravimeters are very expensive; (6) many corrections have to be applied to gravity data,
which is time consuming; and (7) interpretations might be ambiguous.
Frequency of Use: Widely used in mineral exploration. Most commonly used to detect bedrock valleys buried
by unconsolidated glacial materials and regional-scale ground-water investigations. Not commonly used for site-
specific investigations.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: —
Sources for Additional Information; Butler (1977, 1984, 1991), Hinze (1988), Lahee (1961), Nettleton (1971,
1976), Redwine et al. (1985), Rehm et al. (1985), U.S. EPA (1992-Chapter 6), U.S. Geological Survey (1980),
Zohdy et al. (1974). Most of the general geophysics texts identified in Table 1-4 also cover gravity methods.
1-57
-------
ADJUSTING SCREW TO NULL
INSTRUMENT BY CHANGING
SUPPORT OF MAIN SPRING.
LIGHT BEAM
©1 >©2
COUNTERCLOCKWISE MOMENT
OF SPRING LESS g INCREASES
AND CAUSES GREATER CLOCK-
WISE MOMENT.
^__^^S===^_ _L 2_ =i~f=
WEIGHT OF g - do - Ag
WEIGHT of g
HINGE
L"J
'-MIRROR
(a)
A.) GRAVITY ANOMALY OF SPHERICAL CAVITY
B.) GRAVITY AND ANOMALY OF HORIZONTAL CYLINDRICAL CAVITY
(b)
Figure 1.5.3 Microgravity surreys: (a) Schematic diagram of LaCoste and Romberg microgravimeter (Redwine et al,
1985, after Dobrin, 1960 [see Dobrin and Savit, 1988], Copyright © 1985, Electric Power Research
Institute, EPRI CS-3901, Groundwater Manual for the Electric Utility Industry, reprinted with
permission); (b) Contour maps illustrating negative gravity anomalies over spherical (A) and
horizontal cylindrical (B) cavities in the subsurface (Butler, 1977).
1-58
-------
1. REMOTE SENSING AND SURFACE GEOPHYSICAL METHODS
1.5 OTHER SURFACE GEOPHYSICAL METHODS
1.5.4 Radiation Detection
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Radiation monitoring: Personnel monitors and survey instruments
(described below).
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Monitoring of radiation hazards using investigative techniques that involve ionizing
radiation or detection of contamination by radioisotopes. See also, Section 10.6.1.
Method Description: Radiation monitoring: Various types of personnel monitors have been developed, such as
film badges (records exposure on film), thermoluminescent dosimeters (store ionizing radiation in crystal lattice
defects that can be measured as light output upon heating), and compact ionization chambers, such as self-
reading dosimeters and pocket ion chambers. Most portable radiation survey instruments detect radiation by
its interaction with gas in an ionization chamber. Conventional ionization chambers are used primarily for
measuring high intensity beta, gamma, or x-radiation. Proportional counters can be used to discriminate between
beta and gamma radiation. Geiger-Mueller counters (also called Geiger and G-M counters) are similar to
ionization chambers except that the formation of secondary electrons greatly increases their sensitivity. Figure
1.5.4a shows a typical Geiger counter. Scintillation counters or detectors use a solid crystal that interacts with
ionizing radiation to produce flashes of light that are converted to relatively large electrical pulses by a
photomultiplier tube (Figure 1.5.4b). Scintillation detectors are extremely sensitive instruments that can be used
to detect alpha, beta, gamma or x-radiation depending on the crystal that is used. ASTM (1990) covers standard
terminology relating to radiation measurements.
Method Selection Considerations': Requires selection of an instrument or interchangeable detector tube that is
consistent with the investigative requirements. Types of ionizing radiation most likely to be encountered at a
hazardous waste sites and environmental spills are alpha and beta particles and gamma radiation, with gamma
radiation being the most routinely monitored because of its penetration ability. Ford et al. (1984) summarize
advantages and disadvantages of major types of personnel monitors and survey instruments.
Frequency of Use: Radiation monitoring devices should be used in any situation that the presence of ionizing
radiation is known or suspected.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: Radiation survey instruments: Ford et al. (1984), Marutzky et al. (1984); low-level
waste site monitoring: EG&G Idaho (1990).
Sources for Additional Information: General applications: Duval (1980,1989); Radiation detection instruments:
Glasstone (1967-chapter 7), Steele et al. (1985). Geophysics texts covering radiometric methods: Beck (1981),
Eve and Keys (1954), Morse (1977), Parasnis (1975), Sherriff (1989), Telford et al. (1990).
1-59
-------
PROBE
RANGE SWITCH
PHONE JACK
CHECK SOURCE
(a)
Al FOIL
PHOSPHOR
PHOTOCATHOOE
PHOTOMULTIPLIER TUBE
ro DID oof
0=)
Figure 1.5.4 Radiation detection instruments: (a) Portable geiger tube detector; (b) Schematic of a simple
scintillation counter (Glasstone, 1967).
1-60
-------
1. REMOTE SENSING AND SURFACE GEOPHYSICAL METHODS
1.6 NEAR-SURFACE GEOTHERMOMETRY
1.6.1 Soil Temperature
Other Names Used to Describe Method; -
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Evaluating volatilization of organic contaminants; evaluating soil microbial activity;
delineating contaminant plume; characterizing shallow ground-water flow (see Section 1.6.2).
Method Description; Soil temperature is measured at the surface or below the ground surface using one or more
methods for temperature measurement described in Sections 8.2.1 and 8.2.2 (Air thermometry). Thermocouples
are the most commonly used methods for soil temperature measurement (Figure 1.6.1). Ground-water
temperature gives a close estimate of mean annual soil temperature if monitoring wells are available with water
at a depth of 10 to 20 meters. Alternatively, the average of four temperature measurements taken at a depth
of about SO centimeters equally spaced throughout the year gives a good estimate of mean annual soil
temperature. Historical soil surface temperature data can be estimated from historical meteorological data using
empirical relationships between soil and surface temperature or solving the energy balance equation for soil
temperature (see Section 8.4.4). Pikul (1991) reviews and evaluates these methods.
Method Selection Considerations; See Sections 8.2.1 and 8.2.2 (Air Thermometry). See also, Section 3.5.2
(Temperature Logs).
Frequency of Use; Uncommon.
Standard Methods/Guidelines; Buchan (1991), Taylor and Jackson (1986a).
Sources for Additional Information: Brakensiek et al. (1979), Morrison (1983), Smith et al. (1960), U.S. EPA
(1992-Chapter 6). See also, texts covering geothermal methods and soil thermal properties in Table 1-5.
1-61
-------
(a) Bare thermocouple element, twisted and welded.
(b) Butt-welded thermocouple element.
(c) Thermocouple element, twisted and welded with asbestos insulation.
(d) Butt-welded thermocouple element with double-bore insulators.
(e) Butt-welded thermocouple element with fish-spine insulators.
(f) Two butt-welded thermocouple elements with 4-hole insulators.
Figure 1.6.1 Topical thermocouple element assemblies for measuring soil temperature (Morrison, 1983, by
permission).
1-62
-------
1. REMOTE SENSING AND SURFACE GEOPHYSICAL METHODS
1.6 NEAR-SURFACE GEOTHERMOMETRY
1.6.2 Shallow Geothermal Ground-Water Temperature
Other Names Used to Describe Method; —
Uses at Contaminated Sites; Detecting contaminant plumes from landfills; identifying areas of surface recharge,
flow velocity, and permeability in shallow aquifers; measuring ground-water percolation; calculating ground-water
flow and aquifer permeability.
Method Description; Subsurface temperatures are measured at a selected depth (up to 40 inches) at a large
number of stations over a short time span. Measurements are plotted on a map and contours of equal
temperature interpolated between the data points. Interpretations are based on temperature hydrogeologic
relationships such as: (1) Seasonal changes in soil temperatures associated with ground-water recharge and
discharge (Figure 1.6.2a); (2) shallow moving ground water produces lower soil temperatures compared to
shallow bedrock; and (3) landfill leachate tends to be warmer than native ground water. Figure 1.6.2b illustrates
the use of summer and whiter temperature profiles to detect discontinuous sand and gravel aquifers in fine-
grained alluvium. Aquifer permeability can be calculated from head and temperature measurements. Brown
et al. (1983) describe procedures for calculating ground-water flow from temperature in three situations: (1)
Dipping aquifers; (2) vertical conductivity of confining beds; and (3) vertical flow near the land surface. The first
two methods involve temperature measurements in boreholes (see Section 3.S.2). Surface or airborne thermal
infrared measurements (Section 1.1.3) also can be used for shallow aquifer characterization.
Method Selection Considerations; Instrumentation is relatively simple and measurements are easy to make.
Other methods, such as electromagnetic induction (Section 13.1) are easier, and probably more accurate for
contaminant plume detection.
Frequency of Use;
contaminated sites.
Occasionally used in near-surface ground water investigations; infrequently used at
Standard Methods/Guidelines: Brown et al. (1983-Section 5.5), Stevens et al. (1975).
Sources for Additional Information; Bair and Parizek (1978), Gilkeson and Cartwright (1983), Jansen (1990),
U.S. EPA (1992-Chapter 6). See also, texts covering geothermal methods in Table 1-5.
1-63
-------
HIGHER SOIL
TEMPERATURE
NORMAL SOIL
TEMPERATURE
WARM WATER
RECHARGING
LOWER SOIL
TEMPERATURE
COOL WATER
DISCHARGING
<=>
WATER IN
EQUILIBRIUM WITH SOIL
(a)
2.O-1
1.5 -
I.O-
0.5
JANUARY II, 1967
18.5 -i
18.0-
17.5-
17.0
JUNE 8, 1966
(b)
Figure 1.6.2 Shallow gcothermic method for ground-water detection: (a) Generalized temperature conditions in a
small ground-water flow system during summer (conditions are reversed in winter) (Cartwright, 1974,
by permission); (b) Temperature proGIes (winter and summer) and geologic cross section of an alluvial
valley where a discontinuous sand and gravel aquifer is contained within fine-grained alluvium
(Cartwrighti 1968, by permission).
1-64
-------
1. REMOTE SENSING AND SURFACE GEOPHYSICAL METHODS
1.6 NEAR-SURFACE GEOTHERMOMETRY
1.6.3 Other Thermal Properties
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Heat capacity and specific heat, thermal conductivity and diffusivity,
heat flux.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Various thermal properties affect soil temperature which, in turn, influences rates
of biological and chemical reactions, energy balance of the earth's surface, soil-water movement, and
anthropogenic features such as roads, buried cables, and waterlines, which might be susceptible to damage by
freeze-thaw action in the soil.
Method Description: Soil-water content is a critical factor affecting thermal properties and often needs to be
measured (See Section 6.3). Various methods are used in the field to measure soil heat flux density (the amount
of heat flowing in the soil per unit area per unit time) including: (1) Calorimetric method; (2) gradient method;
(3) combination method using both calorimetric and gradient measurements; and (4) soil heat flux plate method.
Other thermal properties are usually measured in the laboratory using soil samples: (1) Heat capacity and
specific heat are measured using a calorimeter; (2) thermal conductivity is measured using a galvanometer; and
(3) thermal diffusivity is measured using a sample container, heat exchanger in a temperature-controlled water
bath. Figure 1.6.3 shows examples of field measured depth profiles of thermal conductivity, heat capacity, and
heat flux. Figure 1-2 shows typical ranges of thermal conductivity for common rock and soil types.
Method Selection Considerations;, Measurement of thermal properties generally is required in special situations,
such as measurement of heat flux in the Energy Budget/Bowen Ratio Method. References listed below can give
guidance on method selection for specific thermal properties.
Frequency of Use: Uncommon.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: Heat capacity and specific heat: Taylor and Jackson (1986b); thermal
conductivity and diffusivity: Jackson and Taylor (1986); heat flux: Fuchs (1986).
Sources for Additional Information: See texts covering geothermal methods and soil thermal properties in Table
1-65
-------
THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY,
Wrrf1 "C"1
0 O.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
O.I
0.2
a.
£0.3
0.4
0.5 L
21 layer
I layer-*! 4
2 layer
HEAT CAPACITY,
MJm"3oC"'
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
O.I
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
(a)
(b)
600
-200
36 9 12 15 18 21 24
TIME, HOURS
Figure 1.63 Soil thermal properties: (a) Thermal conductivity; (b) Heat capacity; (c) Average soil heat flux (dashed
lines in (a) and (b) and solid line in (c) represent theoretical values using various models) (Flint and
Childs, 1987, by permission).
1-66
-------
Table 1-4 Reference Index for Texts on Remote Sensing and Surface Geophysical Methods
Topic
Reference
Remote Sensing
General
Aerial Photography
ASTM (1993a), Colwell (1983), Dury (1990), Holz (1973), Johnson and
Pettersson (1987), Kondratyev (1969), Rees (1990), Reeves (1968, 1975), Regan
(1980), Sabins (1978), Ulaby et al. (1982-microwave), Watson and Regan (1983);
Hvdrologic/Contamination Applications: Burgy and Algaz (1974), Deutsch et al.
(1979), Hlyett and Pratt (1975), Goodison (1985), Lund (1978), Reeves (1968),
Scherz (1971), Scherz and Stevens (1970), Sers (1971), Thomson et al. (1973)
ASTM (1993), Avery (1968), Ciciarelli (1991), Denny et al. (1968), Johnson and
Gnaedigner (1964-bibliography), Lattman and Ray (1965), Lueder (1959), Ray
(1960), SCS (1973), Wolfe (1974-photogrammetry)
General Geophysics
General Texts'
Ground Water
Contaminated Sites
Engineering
Nondestructive Testing
Methods
Beck (1981), d'Arnaud Gerkins (1989), Dobrin and Savit (1988), Eve and Keys
(1954), Garland (1989), Grant and West (1965), Griffiths and King (1981),
Hansen et al. (1967), Heiland (1940), Howell (1959), Jakosky (1950), Kearey and
Brooks (1991), Milsom (1989), Nettleton (1940), Parasnis (1975, 1979), Robinson
and Coruh (1988), Sharma (1986), Sheriff (1968, 1989, 1991), Telford et al.
(1990), Valley (1965), Van Blaricom (1980), Ward (1990a)
Erdelyi and Galfi (1988), Merely (1970), NWWA (1984, 1985, 1986), Redwine et
al. (1985), Rehm et al. (1985), Taylor (1984), U.S. Geological Survey (1980),
Ward (1990b), Zohdy et al. (1974); Bibliographies: Handman (1983), Johnson and
Gnaedinger (1964), Lewis and Haeni (1987), Rehm et al. (1985), van der Leeden
(1991)
Aller (1984), API (1991), Benson et al. (1984), Costello (1980), EC&T et al.
(1990), Frischknecht et al. (1983), HRB-Singer (1971), Lord and Koerner (1987),
NWWA (1984, 1985,1986), O'Brien & Gere (1988), Olhoeft (1992), Pitchford et
al. (1988), SEMEG (1988-present), Technos (1992), U.S. EPA (1987), Waller and
Davis (1984), Ward (1990b); Review Papers: Benson (1991), Evans and
Schweitzer (1984), Hoekstra and Hoekstra (1990)
Paillet and Saunders (1990), SEG (various dates), SEMEG (1988-present), U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (1979), Ward (1990c)
ASTM (Annual), Lord and Koerner (1987), McGonnagle (1961), Sharp (1970)
'Most texts on geophysics cover electrical, electromagnetic, seismic, magnetic, and gravity methods. Check annotations
for major topics covered by texts identified at the beginning of the table.
1-67
-------
Table 1-5 Reference Index for Texts on Specific Surface Geophysical Methods
Topic
Reference
Electrical Resistivity
Induced Polarization
Basic EM Theory
EM Wave Behavior
EM Induction
Seismic Refraction
Continuous Seismic
Profiling
Ground-Penetrating Radar
Geothermal Methods
Texts: Bhattacharya and Patra (1968), Goldman (1990-nonconventional methods),
Keller and Frishcknecht (1970), Kofoed (1979), Kunetz (1966), Mooney (1980),
Patra and Mallick (1980), Roux (1978), Soiltest, (1968); Interpretation: Kalenov
(1957), Mooney and Wetzel (1956), Orellana and Mooney (1966, 1972), Van
Nostrand and Cook (1966), Verma (1980); Geoelectric Properties: Parkhomenko
(1967), Wheatcraft et al. (1984)
Baizer and Lund (1983), Berlin and Loeb (1976), Bottcher (1952), Fink et al.
(1990), Sumner (1976), Wait (1959, 1982), Wheatcraft et al. (1984)
Jackson (1975), Kong (1975), Nabighian (1988), Stratton (1941), Wait (1985)
Chew (1990), Jordon (1963), Kong (1975), Lorrain and Carson (1970),
Schelnukoff (1943), Wait (1970, 1981, 1985), Ward and Morrison (1971)
Hoyt (1974), Kaufinan and Keller (1983), Kraus (1984), Nabighian (1988, 1991),
Rokityanksi (1982), Verma (1982-three-layer interpretation data), Wait (1971,
1982)
Texts: Badley (1985), Dix (1952-oil prospecting), Haeni (1988-hydrogeology),
Mooney (1984), Musgrave (1967), Palmer (1986), Redpath (1973), Waters (1981);
Analysis/Interpretation; Berkhout (1985, 1988), Fagin (1991), Palmer (1980),
Russell (1988), Slotnick (1959), Tucker (1982), Tucker and Yorsten (1973); Wave
Theory Texts: Auld (1990), Berkhkout (1987), Bland (1988), Davis (1988), White
(1965); Rock Properties: Carmichael (1982)
Texts: Burdic (1991), Coates (1989), EG&G Environmental Equipment Division
(1977), Hassab (1989-signal processing), Hersey (1963), Sylwester (1983), Trabant
(1984); Interpretation: Badley (1985), Ewing and Tirey (1961), Leenhart (1969),
Roksandic (1978), Sangree and Widmier (1979), Tufekcic (1978)
HMnnhien and Autio (1992), Lucius et al. (1990), Pilon (1992), Rossiter and
Bazely (1980), SCS (1988)
Texts: Eve and Keys (1954), Gougel (1976), Howell (1959), Jessup (1990), Rehm
et al. (1985), Sharma (1986), Sheriff (1989), Summers (1971-bibliography); Soil
Thermal Properties: Carlslaw (1986), de Vries (1963, 1975), Farouki (1981),
Kersten (1949), Lee (1965), Wechsler et al. (1965)
1-68
-------
SECTION 1 REFERENCES
Akhadov, Y. 1980. Dielectric Properties of Binary Solutions. Pergamon, New York, NY, 475 pp.
Alter, L. 1984. Methods for Determining the Location of Abandoned Wells. EPA/600/2-83/123 (NTIS PB84-141530), 130 pp. Also
published in NWWA/EPA Series, National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH. [Air photos, color/thermal IR, ER, EMI,
GPR, MD, MAG, combustible gas detectors]
American Petroleum Institute (API). 1991. An Evaluation of Soil Gas and Geophysical Techniques for Detection of Hydrocarbons.
API Publication No. 4509. API, Washington, DC, 110 pp. [GPR, EMI, ER, complex resistivity]
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). Annual. Book of ASTM Standards: Metals Test Methods and Analytical
Procedures, Volume 3.03: Nondestructive Testing. ASTM, Philadelphia, PA.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1990. Terminology Relating to Radiation Measurements and Dosimetry.
E170-90a, ASTM, Philadelphia, PA.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1993. Draft Standard Guide for Acquisition of File Aerial Photography and
Imagery for Establishing Historic Site-Use and Surfitial Conditions. D18.01 Subcommittee ballot ASTM, Philadelphia,
PA.
Auld, B.A. (ed.). 1990. Acoustic Fields and Waves in Solids, Vol. I and II, 2nd rev. Robert E. Krieger Publishing, Malabar, FL, (I)
435 pp., (II) 421 pp.
Avery, T.E. 1968. Interpretation of Aerial Photographs, 2nd ed. Burgess Publishing Company, Minneapolis, MN, 234 pp.
Ayers, J.F. 1989. Application and Comparison of Shallow Seismic Methods in the Study of an Alluvial Aquifer. Ground Water
27(4):550-563. [SRR, SRL] (See also, 1990 discussion by R.W. Lankston and reply in Ground Water 28(1):116-118.)
Badley, M.E. 1985. Practical Seismic Interpretation. International Human Resources Development Corporation, Boston, MA, 266
pp. [SRL, CSP]
Bair, E.S. and R.R. Parizek. 1978. Detection of Permeability Variations by a Shallow Geothermal Technique. Ground Water
16(4):254-263.
Baizer, M.M. and H. Lund (eds.). 1983. Organic Electrochemistry, 2nd edition. Marcel Dekker, New York, NY, 1166 pp. [IP]
Barringer Research Limited. 1988. UV Surface Sampling. USATHAMA CETHA-TS-CR-91074. U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous
Materials Agency, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. [UV video camera for detection of contaminants]
Bates, R., D. Phillips, and B. Hoekstra. 1991. Geophysical Surveys for Fracture Mapping and Solution Cavity Delineation. In:
Ground Water Management, 7:659-673 (8th NWWA Eastern Ground-Water Conference). [Shear wave refraction, cross-
borehole tomography]
_ Beck, A.E. 1981. Physical Principles of Exploration Methods. Macmillan, New York, NY, 234 pp. (Reprinted in 1982 with
corrections.) [ER, SP, IP, GR, MAG, EMI, VLF, SRR, SRL, radiometric, BH]
Benson, R.C. 1991. Remote Sensing and Geophysical Methods for Evaluation of Subsurface Conditions. In: Practical Handbook of
Ground-Water Monitoring, D.M. Nielsen (ed.), Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI, pp. 143-194. [GPR, EMI, TDEM, ER, SRR,
SRL, GR, MAG, MD, BH]
Benson, R.C., R.A. Glaccum, and M.R. Noel. 1984. Geophysical Techniques for Sensing Buried Wastes and Waste Migration.
EPA/600/7-84/064 (NTTS PB84-198449), 236 pp. Also published in NWWA/EPA series by National Water Well
Association, Dublin, OH. [EMI, ER, GPR, MAG, MD, SRR]
Beres, Jr., M. and F.P. Haeni. 1991. Application of Ground-Penetrating Radar Methods in Hydrogeologic Studies. Ground Water
29:375-386.
Berkhout, A J. 1985. Seismic Migration: Imaging of Acoustic Energy by Wave Field Extrapolation. A. Theoretical Aspects, 2nd
edition; B. Practical Aspects. Elsevier, NY.
1-69
-------
Bcrkhout, A J. 1987. Applied Seismic Wave Theory. Elsevier, New York, NY, 377 pp.
Berkhout, AJ. 1988. Seismic Resolution: A Quantitative Analysis of the Resolving Power of Acoustical Echo Techniques.
Pergamon, New York, NY, 228 pp.
Berlin, J. and J. Loeb. 1976. Experimental and Theoretical Aspects of Induced Polarization, 2 Volumes. Gebruder Borntraeger,
Berlin.
Bhattacharya, P.K. and H.P. Patra. 1968. Direct Current Geoelectric Sounding-Principles and Interpretation. Elsevier, New York,
NY, 135 pp.
Bland, D.R. 1988. Wave Theory and Applications. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 322 pp. [Seismic]
Bogoslovsky, V.V. and AA. Ogilvy. 1973. Deformation of Natural Electric Fields Near Drainage Structures. Geophysical
Prospecting 21(4):716-723. [SP]
Bottcher, C.F. 1952. Electric Polarization. Elsevier, NY.
Bozorth, R.M. 1951. Ferromagnetism. Van Nostrand Co., New York, NY, 968 pp.
Brakcnsick, D.L., H.B. Osborn, and WJ. Rawls (eds.). 1979. Field Manual for Research in Agricultural Hydrology. Agricultural
Handbook No. 224, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.
Brcincr, S. 1973. Applications Manual for Portable Magnetometers. Geometries, Sunnyvale, CA, 58 pp.
Brown, R.H., AA. Konoptyantsev, J. Ineson, and V.S. Kovalensky. 1983. Ground-Water Studies: An International Guide for
Research and Practice. Studies and Reports hi Hydrology No. 7. UNESCO, Paris. (Originally published in 1972, with
supplements added in 1973,1975,1977, and 1983.) [Thermal methods for evaluation of ground-water covered in Section
55]
Buchan, G.D. 1991. Soil Temperature Regime. In: Soil Analysis: Physical Methods, K.A. Smith and C.E. Mullins (eds.), Marcel
Dekker, New York, NY, pp. 551-612.
Burdic, W.S. 1991. Underwater Acoustic System Analysis, 2nd ed. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 445 pp. (1st edition, 1984.)
Burgy, R.H. and V.R. Algaz. 1974. An Assessment of Remote Sensing Applications hi Hydrologic Engineering. U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers Hydrologic Center, Davis, CA, 55 pp.
Butler, D.K. 1977. Geophysics Versus the Cavity Detection Problem. In: Symposium on Detection of Subsurface Cavities, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineer, Water Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, pp. 27-43. [GR]
Butler, D.K. 1984. Microgravimetric and Gravity Gradient Techniques for Detecting Subsurface Cavities. Geophysics 49:1084-1096.
Butler, D.K. 1991. Engineering and Environmental Applications of Microgravimetry. In: Proc. (4th) Symp. on Application of
Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems, Soc. Eng. and Mineral Exploration Geophysicists, Golden, CO,
pp. 139-246.
Carislaw, H.S. 1986. Conduction of Heat in Solids, 2nd edition. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 510 pp. (First edition by
Carlslaw and Jaeger, published hi 1960.)
Carmichael, R.S. 1982. Handbook of Physical Properties of Rocks, Vol. 2. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. [Seismic]
Carpenter, PJ., S.F. Calkin, and R.S. Kaufman. 1991. Assessing a Fractured Landfill Cover Using Electrical Resistivity and Seismic
Refraction Techniques. Geophysics 56(11): 1896-1904. [Azimuthal resistivity]
Cartwright, K. 1968. Thermal Prospecting for Ground Water. Water Resources Research 4(2):395-401.
Cartwright, K. 1974. Tracing Shallow Ground Water Systems by Soil Temperatures. Water Resources Research 10(4):847-855.
CH2M Hill. 1991. Proceedings: NSF/EPRI Workshop on Dynamic Soil Properties and Site Characterization, Vol. 1. EPRI NP-
7337. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA. [Seismic shear, SASW]
1-70
-------
Chew, W.C. 1990. Waves and Fields in Inhomogeneous Media. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY, 611 pp.
Chikazumi, S. 1964. The Physics of Magnetism. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Ciciarelli, J. 1991. A Practical Guide to Aerial Photography. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY, 176 pp.
Coates, R.F.W. 1989. Underwater Acoustic Systems. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 188 pp.
Cohvell, R.N. 1983. Manual of Remote Sensing, 2nd edition. American Society of Photogrammetry, Fall Church, VA. (1st edition
by Reeves, published in 1975.)
Costello, R.L. 1980. Identification and Description of Geophysical Techniques. USATHAMA Report DRXTH-TE-CR-80084. U.S.
Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, 215 pp. (Superseded by EC&T et al.,
1990.) [ER, GPR, SR, BH]
Danbom, S.H. and S.N. Domenico (eds.). 1987. Shear-Wave Exploration. Geophysical Developments No. 1. Society of Exploration
Geophysicists, Tulsa, OK, 282 pp. (Last chapter contains an annotated bibliography on shear-wave exploration seismology-
See Ensley, 1987.)
Daniel, V.V. 1967. Dielectric Relaxation. Academic Press, New York, NY.
Daniels, J J. 1989. Technical Review: Ground Penetrating Radar. In: Proc. (2nd) Symp. on the Application of Geophysics to
Engineering and Environmental Problems. Soc. Eng. and Mineral Exploration Geophysicists, Golden, CO, pp. 62-142.
Darilek, G.T and J.O. Parra. 1988. The Electrical Leak Location Methods for Geomembrane Liners. In: Proc. 14th Research Symp.
(Land Disposal, Remedial Action, Incineration and Treatment of Hazardous Waste), EPA/600/9-88/021 (NTIS PB89-
174403), pp. 167-176.
d'Arnaud Gerkins, J.C. 1989. Foundations of Exploration Geophysics. Elsevier, NY, 667 pp. [SRR, SRL, GR, MAG, SP, TC, MT,
IP, ER, EMI, TDEM, radiation]
Davis, J.L. 1988. Wave Propagation in Solids and Fluids. Springer Verlag, New York, NY, 400 pp.
Davis, J.L., R. Singh, B.C. Steman, and MJ. Waller. 1984. Innovative Concepts for Detecting and Locating Leaks in Waste
Impoundment Liner Systems: Acoustic Emission Monitoring and Time Domain Reflectometry. EPA/600/2-84/058 (NTIS
PB84-161819), 105 pp.
Denny, C.S., C.R. Warren, D.H. Dow, and W J. Dale. 1968. A Descriptive Catalog of Selected Aerial Photographs of Geologic
Features of the United States. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 590,135 pp.
Deutsch, M., D.R. Wiosnet, and A. Ranjo (eds.). 1979. Satellite Hydrology (Fifth Annual William T. Pecora Memorial Symp. of
Remote Sensing). American Water Resources Association, Minneapolis, MN, 730 pp.
de Vries, D.A. 1963. Thermal Properties of Soils. In: Physics of Plant Environment, W.R. Van Wijk (ed.), North-Holland
Publishing Co., Amsterdam, pp. 210-235.
de Vries, D.A. 1975. Heat Transfer in Soils. In: Heat and Mass Transfer in the Biosphere, W.R. Van Wijk and N.A. Afgan (eds.),
John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, pp. 5-28.
Dix, G.H. 1952. Seismic Prospecting for Oil. Harper and Brothers, New York, NY, 213 p.
Dobrin, M.B. and C.H. Savit. 1988. Introduction to Geophysical Prospecting, 4th edition. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 867 pp.
(Earlier editions by Dobrin: 1960, 1965, 1976.) [SRR, SRL, CSP, GR, MAG, ER, SP, IP, EMI]
Dohr, G. (ed.). 1985. Seismic Shear Waves, Part A. Theory, Part B. Applications. Handbook of Geophysical Exploration, Vols.
15A and 15B, Geophysical Press, London.
Douglas, D.G., AJ\. Burns, C.L. Rino, and J.W. Maresca, Jr. 1992. A Study to Determine the Feasibility of Using A Ground-
Penetrating Radar for More Effective Remediation of Subsurface Contamination. EPA/600/R-92/89 (NTIS PB92-169382),
115 pp.
Duran, P.B. 1987. The Use of Marine Electromagnetic Conductivity as a Tool in Hydrogeologic Investigations. Ground Water
1-71
-------
25(2):160-166.
Dury, S.A. 1990. A Guide to Remote Sensing: Interpreting Images of the Earth. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 208 pp.
Duval,J.S. 1980. Radioactivity Method. Geophysics 45(11):1690-1694.
Duval, J. 1989. Radiometrics in Geology. In: Proc. (2nd) Symp. on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and
Environmental Problems. Soc. Eng. and Mineral Exploration Geophysicists, Golden, CO, pp. 1-61.
EG&G Environmental Equipment Division. 1977. Fundamentals of High Resolution Seismic Profiling. TR760035. EG&G, 31 pp.
EG&G Idaho, Inc. 1990. Environmental Monitoring for Low-Level Waste-Disposal Sites, Revision 2 (2 Volumes). Low-Level
Radioactive Waste Management Handbook Series, DOE/LLW-13Tg. National Low Level Waste Management Program,
Idaho Falls, ID.
Ellyett, CD. and D.A. Pratt. 1975. A Review of the Potential Applications of Remote Sensing Techniques to Hydrogeologjcal
Studies in Australia. Australian Water Resources Council Technical Paper No. 13, Canberra.
Ensley, R.A. 1987. Classified Bibliography of Shear-Wave Seismology. In: Shear-Wave Exploration, S.H. Danbom and S.N.
Domenico (eds.), Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, OK, pp 255-275.
Environmental Consulting & Technology (EC&T), Inc., Technos, Inc., and UXB International, Inc. 1990. Construction Site
Environmental Survey and Clearance Procedures Manual. U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency, Aberdeen
Proving Ground, MD. [GPR, EMI, MAG, MD, soil gas]
Erdelyi, M. and J. Galfi. 1988. Surface and Subsurface Mapping in Hydrogeology. Wiley-Interscience, New York, NY, 384 pp.
[Chapter 5 covers remote sensing and Chapter 6 geophysical methods: GPR, ER, IP, EMI, SRR, SRL, GR, MAG,
geothermal]
Evans, R.B. and G.E. Schweitzer. 1984. Assessing Hazardous Waste Problems. Environ. Sci. Techno!. 18(11):330A-339A. [EMI,
ER, GPR, MAG, MD, SRR]
Eve, A.S. and D.A. Keys. 1954. Applied Geophysics in the Search for Minerals, 4th edition. Cambridge University Press, New
York, NY, 382 pp. (Earlier editions, 1929,1931,1938.) [MAG, ER, EM, GR, SRL, geothermal, radiometric]
Ewing, J.I. and G.B. Tirey. 1961. Seismic Profiles. J. Geophysical Research 66:2917-2927. [CSP]
Fagin, S.W. (ed.). 1991. Seismic Modeling of Geologic Structures. Geophysical Developments No. 2. Society of Exploration
Geophysicists, Tulsa, OK, 288 pp.
Farouki, O.T. 1981. Thermal Properties of Soils. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Cold Regions Research and Engineering
Laboratory Monograph 81-1, Hanover, NH, 151 pp.
Fclsen, L.B. (ed.). 1976. Transient Electromagnetic Fields. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, 274 pp.
Fink, J.B., ct al. (eds.). 1990. Induced Polarization. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, OK, 424 pp.
Fittcrman, D.V. and M.T. Stewart. 1986. Transient Electromagnetic Sounding for Groundwater. Geophysics 51:995-1005.
Flint, A.L. and S.W. Childs. 1987. Field Procedures for Estimating Soil Thermal Environments. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 51:1326-1331.
Ford, PJ., PJ. Turina, and D.E. Seety. 1984. Characterization of Hazardous Waste Sites-A Methods Manual, Vol. 2: Available
Sampling Methods, 2nd edition. EPA/600/4-84/076 (NTIS PB85-521596).
Frischknecht, F.C. 1990. Application of Geophysical Methods to the Study of Pollution Associated with Abandoned and Injection
Wells. In: Proc. of a U.S. Geological Survey Workshop on Environmental Geochemistry, B.R. Doe (ed.), U.S. Geological
Survey Circular 1033, pp. 73-77. [Aeromagnetic, TDEM]
Frischknecht, F.C, L. Muth, R. Grette, T. Buckley, and B. Kornegay. 1983. Geophysical Methods for Locating Abandoned Wells.
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 83-702, 211 pp. Also published as EPA/600/4-84/065 (NTIS PB84-212711).
Fuchs, M. 1986. Heat Flux. In: Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1, 2nd edition, A. Klute (ed.), Agronomy Monograph No. 9.
1-72
-------
American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI, pp. 957-968.
Garland, G.D. (ed.). 1989. Proceedings of Exploration 87. Special Volume 3, Ontario Geological Survey, Toronto, Canada, 914 pp.
[77 papers covering surface, borehole, and airborne EM, IP, remote sensing, radiometric, and seismic methods]
Gilkeson, R.H. and K. CartwrighL 1983: The Application of Surface Electrical and Shallow Geothermic Methods in Monitoring
Network Design. Ground Water Monitoring Review 3(3):30-42.
Glasstone, S. 1967. Sourcebook on Atomic Energy, 3rd edition. Van Nostrand, Princeton, NJ, 883 pp.
Goldman, M.M. 1990. Non-Conventional Methods in Geoelectrical Prospecting. Prentice-Hall, New York, NY, 150 pp. [EM,
IDEM, ER]
Goodison, B.E. (ed.). 1985. Hydrological Applications of Remote Sensing and Remote Data Transmission. Int Ass. Hydrological
Sciences Pub. No. 145.
Gougel, J. 1976. Geothertnics. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 2090 pp.
Grant, F.S. and G.F. West. 1965. Interpretation Theory in Applied Geophysics. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 583 pp. [ER, EM,
SRL, SRR, GR, MAG, EMI]
Greenhouse, J.P. and M. Monier-WilliamS. 1985. Geophysical Monitoring of Ground Water Contamination Around Waste Disposal
Sites. Ground Water Monitoring Review 5(4):63-69.
Griffiths, D.H. and R.F. King. 1981. Applied Geophysics for Engineers and Geologists: The Elements of Geophysical Prospecting,
2nd ed. Pergamon Press, New York, NY, 230 pp. (1st edition 1965.) [ER, EM, SRR, SRL, GR, MAG]
Haeni, P.P. 1986. Application of Continuous Seismic Reflection Methods to Hydrologic Studies. Ground Water 24:23-31.
Haeni, P.P. 1988. Application of Seismic Refraction Techniques to Hydrogeologic Studies. U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of
Water-Resources Investigations TWRI 2-D2, 86 pp.
Handman, E.H. 1983. Hydrologic and Geologic Aspects of Waste Management and Disposal: A Bibliography of Publications by
U.S. Geological Survey Authors. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 907, 40 pp. [15 references on geophysics]
Hanninen, P. and S. Autio (eds.). 1992. Fourth International Conference on Ground Penetrating Radar (June 8-13,1992,
Rovaniemi, Finland). Geological Survey of Finland Special Paper 16, 365 pp.
Hansen, D.A., W.E. Heinrichs, Jr., R.C Holmer, R.E. MacDougall, G.R. Rogers, J.S. Sumner, and S.H. Ward (eds.). 1967. Mining
Geophysics, Vol. II, Theory. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, OK, 708 pp. [EMI, ER, IP, MAG, GR]
Hassab, J.C. 1989. Underwater Signal and Data Processing. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 320 pp.
Hasted, T. 1974. Aqueous Dielectrics. Chapman Hall, London.
Heiland, C.A. 1940. Geophysical Exploration. Prentice-Hall, New York, NY, 1013 pp. (Reprinted under the same title hi 1968 by
Hafner Publishing, New York, NY.) [S, ER, MAG, GR]
Hersey, J.B. 1963. Continuous Reflection Profiling. In: The Sea, Vol. 3. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 963 pp.
Hinze, WJ. 1988. Gravity and Magnetic Methods Applied to Engineering and Environmental Problems. In: Proc. Symp. on the
Application of Geophysics to Eng. and Environmental Problems, Soc. Eng. and Mineral Exploration Geophysicists, Golden,
CO, pp. 1-108.
Hoekstra, P. and A. Delaney. 1974. Dielectric Properties of Soils at UHF and Microwave Frequencies. J. Geophys. Res. 79:1699-
1708.
Hoekstra, B. and P. Hoekstra. 1990. Planning and Executing Geophysical Surveys. In: Proc. Fourth Nat. Outdoor Action Conf. on
Aquifer Restoration, Ground Water Monitoring and Geophysical Methods. Ground Water Management 2:1159-1166.
[EMI, ER, GPR, GR, MAG, SR]
Holz, R.K. (ed.) 1973. The Surveillant Science: Remote Sensing of the Environment. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA, 390 pp.
1-73
-------
Howell, B.F. 1959. Introduction to Geophysics. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 399 pp. [S, GR, MAG, thermal]
Hoyt, Jr., W.H. 1974. Engineering Electromagnetics, 3rd edition. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
HRB-Singer, Inc. 1971. Detection of Abandoned Underground Coal Mines by Geophysical Methods. Project 14010, Report EHN.
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Pennsylvania Dept. of Env. Res. (Cited by Lord and Koerner
1987.) JVLF, IP, SP]
Hunter, J. and S. Pullan. 1989. Optimum Offset Shallow Seismic Reflection Technique. In: Proc. (2nd) Symp. on the Application of
Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems, Soc. Eng. and Mineral Exploration Geophysicists, Golden, CO,
pp. 143-174.
Huntley.D. 1978. On the Detection of Shallow Aquifers Using Thermal Infrared Imagery. Water Resources Research 14(6V1075-
1083. v '
Idso, S.B., R.D. Jackson, and R J. Reginato. 1975. Estimating Evapotranspiration: A Technique Adaptable to Remote Sensing
Science 189:991-992. [Thermal IR] 6'
Jackson, J.D. 1975. Classical Electromagnetics. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Jackson, TJ. and TJ. Schmugge. 1986. Passive Microwave Remote Sensing of Soil Moisture. Advances in Hydroscience 14:123-159.
Jackson, R.D. and S.A. Taylor. 1986. Thermal Conductivity and Diffusivity. In: Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1, 2nd edition, A.
Klute (ed.), Agronomy Monograph No. 9. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI, pp. 945-956.
Jakosky, JJ. 1950. Exploration Geophysics. Trija Publishing Co., Los Angeles, CA, 1195 pp. [S, ER, MAG, GR]
Jansen, J. 1990. Shallow Geothermal Exploration Techniques for Groundwater Studies. In: Proc. Fourth Nat. Outdoor Action
Conf. on Aquifer Restoration, Ground Water Monitoring and Geophysical Methods. Ground Water Management 2:23-37.
Jessup, A.M. 1990. Thermal Geophysics. Elsevier, New York, NY, 306 pp.
Johnson, A.I. and J.P. Gnaedinger. 1964. Bibliography. In: Symposium on Soil Exploration, ASTM STP 351, American Society for
Testing and Materials, PhUadelphia, PA, pp. 137-155. [Air photo interpretation (90 references), ER and seismic (60
references), electrical borehole logging (48 references), nuclear borehole logging (40 references), borehole camera (13
references), neutron moisture measurement (50 references)]
Johnson, A.I. and CB. Pettersson (eds.). 1987. Geotechnical Applications of Remote Sensing and Remote Data Transmission
ASTM STP 967, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
Jordon, RD. (ed.). 1963. Electromagnetic Wave Theory. Pergamon, New York, NY.
Kalenov,E.N. 1957. Interpretation of Vertical Electrical Sounding Curves. Gostopekhizdat, Moscow, 472 pp.
Kaufman, AA. and G.V. Keller. 1981. The Magnetotelluric Sounding Method. Elsevier, New York, NY, 686 pp.
Kaufman, A.A. and G.V. Keller. 1983. Frequency and Transient Soundings. Elsevier, New York, NY.
Kearey, P. and M. Brooks. 1991. An Introduction to Geophysical Exploration, 2nd edition. Blackwell Scientific Publications
Boston, MA, 296 pp. (1st edition, 1984.) [SRR, SRL, GR, MAG, ER, SP, IP, EMI, VLF, AFMAG, TC, MT, AEM]
Keller, G.V. and F.C. Frischknecht 1970. Electrical Methods in Geophysical Prospecting, 2nd ed. Pergamon Press, New York NY
517 pp. (1st edition, 1966.)
Kerstcn, M.S. 1949. Thermal Properties of Soils. Univ. of Minn. Eng. Exp. Sta. Bulletin 28: 1-225.
Kleyn, A.H. 1983. Seismic Reflection Interpretation. Elsevier, New York, NY.
Kofoed, O. 1979. Geosounding Principles I, Resistivity Sounding Measurements. Elsevier, New York, NY, 276 pp.
Kondratyev, K.Y. 1969. Radiation in the Atmosphere. Academic Press, New York, NY, 912 pp.
1-74
-------
Kong, J A. 1975. Theory of Electromagnetic Waves. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 339 pp.
Knapp, R.W. and D.W. Steeples. 1986a. High-Resolution Common Depth-Point Seismic Reflection Profiling Instrumentation.
Geophysics 51:276-282.
Knapp, R.W. and D.W. Steeples. 1986b. High-Resolution Common Depth-Point Reflection Profiling: Field Acquisition Parameter
Design. Geophysics 51:283-294.
Kracchman, M.B. 1970. Handbook of Electromagnetic Propagation in Conducting Media. U.S. Navy Material Command,
NAVMAT P-2302, 128 pp.
Kraus, J.D. 1984. Electromagnetics, 3rd edition. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 775 pp.
Kunetz, G. 1966. Principles of Direct Current Resistivity Prospecting. Geoexploration Monograph Series No. 1, Gebruder
Borntraeger, Berlin, 103 pp.
Lahee, F.H. 1961. Field Geology. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 926 pp. [GR, MAG, S, ER, EM]
Lattrnan, L.H. and R.G. Ray. 1965. Aerial Photographs in Field Geology. Holt Rinehart and Winston, New York, NY, 221 pp.
Lee, W.H. (ed.). 1965. Terrestrial Heat Flow. Geophysical Monograph Series, American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, 276
pp.
Leenhardt, O. 1969. Analysis of Continuous Seismic Profiles. International Hydrology Review 156(1):51-80.
Lewis, M.R. and F.P. Haeni. 1987. The Use of Surface Geophysical Techniques to Detect Fractures in Bedrock-An Annotated
Bibliography. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 987. [31 English language and 12 foreign language references]
Lord, Jr., A.E. and R.M. Koerner. 1987. Nondestructive Testing (NOT) Techniques to Detect Contained Subsurface Hazardous
Waste. EPA/600/2-87/078 (NTIS PB88-102405), 99 pp. [17 methods; EMI, GPR, MAG, MD best]
Lorraine, P. and D.R. Carson. 1970. Electromagnetic Fields and Waves, 2nd edition. W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, CA.
Lucius, J.E., G.R. Olhoeft, and S.K. Dukes (eds.). 1990. Third International Conference on Ground Penetrating Radar: Abstracts of
the Technical Meeting, Lakewood, CO, May 14-18, 1990. U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 90-414, 94 pp.
Lueder, D.R. 1959. Aerial Photographic Interpretation: Principles and Applications. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 462 pp.
Lund, T. 1978. Surveillance of Environmental Pollution and Resources by Electromagnetic Waves. NATO Advanced Study
Institutes Series C, Vol. 45. Reidel Publishing Co., Boston, MA, 402 pp. [9 papers on land/water sensing using microwave
and thermal IR]
Marutzky, S.J., W.D. Steele, and B.N. Key. 1984. Surface Gamma-Ray Measurement Protocol. GJ/TMC-06 (NTIS DE84-016085),
U.S. Department of Energy Technical Measurements Center, Grand Junction, CO.
McGonnagle, WJ. 1961. Nondestructive Testing. Gordon and Breach Publ., New York, NY.
McNeill, J.D. and V. Labson. 1991. Geological Mapping Using VLF Radio Fields. In: Electromagnetic Methods in Applied
Geophysics, Vol. 2: Applications, M.N. Nabighian (ed.), Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, OK, Part B, pp. 521-
640.
Milsom, J. 1989. Field Geophysics. Halsted Press, New York, NY, 182 pp.
Mooney, H.M. 1980. Handbook of Engineering Geophysics, Vol. 2: Electrical Resistivity. Bison Instruments, Minneapolis, MN, 83
pp.
Mooney, H.M. 1984. Handbook of Engineering Geophysics, Vol. 1: Seismic, 2nd edition. Bison Instruments, Minneapolis, MN, 195
pp. (1st edition published in 1973, reprinted in 1981; 2nd edition has new chapters added, but some planned chapters were
not written due to death of the author.) [SRL, SRR]
Mooney, R.M. and W.W. Wetzel. 1956. The Potentials About a Point Electrode and Apparent Resistivity Curves for a Two-, Three^
and Four-Layered Earth. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN, 145 pp.
1-75
-------
Merely, L.W. (ed.) 1970. Mining and Groundwater Geophysics/1967. Economic Geology Report 26. Geological Survey of Canada,
Ottawa, Canada. [ER, EM, SRR, BH]
Morrison, R.D. 1983. Ground Water Monitoring Technology: Procedures, Equipment and Applications. Timco Mfg., Prairie Du
Sac, Wt, 111 pp.
Morse, J.G. (ed.). 1977. Nuclear Methods in Mineral Exploration and Production. Elsevier, New York, NY, 280 pp.
Musgrave, AW. (ed.). 1967. Seismic Refraction Prospecting. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, OK, 604 pp.
Nabighian, M.N. (ed.). 1988. Electromagnetic Methods in Applied Geophysics, Vol. 1: Theory. Society of Exploration
Geophysicists, Tulsa, OK, 528 pp.
Nabighian, M.N. (ed.). 1991. Electromagnetic Methods in Applied Geophysics, Vol. 2, Parts A and B: Applications. Society of
Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, OK, (A) pp. 1-520, (B) pp. 521-992.
Nabighian, M.N. and J.C. Macnae. 1991. Time Domain Electromagnetic Prospecting Methods. In: Electromagnetic Methods in
Applied Geophysics, Vol. 2: Applications, Part A. M.N. Nabighian (ed.), Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, OK,
pp. 427-520.
National Water Well Association (NWWA). 1984. NWWA/EPA Conference on Surface and Borehole Geophysical Methods in
Ground Water Investigations (San Antonio, TX). NWWA, Dublin, OH.
National Water Well Association (NWWA). 1985. NWWA Conference on Surface and Borehole Geophysical Methods hi Ground
Water Investigations (Fort Worth, TX). NWWA, Dublin, OH.
National Water Well Association (NWWA). 1986. Surface and Borehole Geophysical Methods and Ground Water Instrumentation
Conference and Exposition (Denver, CO). NWWA, Dublin, OH.
Nettleton; L.L, 1940. Geophysical Prospecting for Oil. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 444 pp. [GR, MAG, SRR, SRL, ER]
Nettleton, L.L. 1971. Gravity and Magnetics for Geologists and Seismologists. Monograph No. 1. Society of Exploration
Geophysicists, Tulsa, OK, 121 pp.
Nettleton, LJL 1976. Gravity and Magnetics in Oil Prospecting. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 464 pp.
Nielsen, D.M. 1991. An Update on ASTM Subcommittee on Ground Water and Vadose Zone Investigations. Ground Water
Monitoring Review ll(3):92-96.
O'Brien & Gere Engineering. 1988. Hazardous Waste Site Remediation: The Engineering Perspective. Van Nostrand Reinhold,
New York, NY, 400 pp. [SRR, SRL, ER, EM, GPR, MAG]
Ogilvy, A^\- and V. Bogoslovsky. 1979. The Possibilities of Geophysical Methods Applied for Investigating the Impact of Man on
the Geologic Medium. Geophysical Prospecting 27(4):775-789. [SP]
Olhoeft, G.R. 1988. Selected Bibliography on Ground Penetrating Radar. In: Proc. (1st) Symp. Application of Geophysics to Eng.
and Environmental Problems, Soc. Eng. and Mineral Exploration Geophysicists, Golden, CO, pp. 462-520.
Olhoeft, G.R. 1992. Geophysics Advisor Expert System, Version 2.0. U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 92-526, 21 pp. plus
floppy disk. (Also available from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory,
P.O. Box 93478, Las Vegas, NV, 89193-3478; Replaces Version 1.0 [EPA/600/4-89/023], released in 1989.) [ER, EMI,
complex resistivity, SRR, SRL, GPR, GR, radiometric, soil gas]
Orellana, B. and H.M. Mooney. 1966. Master Tables and Curves for Vertical Electrical Sounding Over Layered Structures.
Interscientia, Madrid, 150 pp. (Available from: Technical Information Center, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways
Experiment Station, P.O. Box 631, Vicksburg, MS, 39180.)
OreMana, E. and H.M. Mooney. 1972. Two and Three Layers Master Curves and Auxiliary Point Diagrams for Vertical Electrical
Sounding Using Wenner Arrangement. Interscientia, Madrid, 41 pp.
Paillet, FJL and W.R. Saunders (eds.). 1990. Geophysical Applications for Geotechnical Investigations. ASTM STP 1101, American
Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, 118 pp. [7 peer-reviewed papers on surface and borehole geophysics]
1-76
-------
Palacky, GJ. (ed.), 1986. Airborne Resistivity Mapping. Canada Geological Survey Paper 86-22, 195 pp.
Palacky, GJ. and G.F. West. 1991. Airborne Electromagnetic Methods. In: Electromagnetic Methods in Applied Geophysics, Vol.
2, Part B: Applications. M.N. Nabighian (ed.), Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, OK, pp. 811-880.
Palmer, D. 1980. Generalized Reciprocal Method of Seismic Refraction Interpretation. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa,
OK, 104 pp.
Palmer, D. 1986. Refraction Seismics. Handbook of Geophysical Exploration, Vol. 13. Geophysical Press, London, 269 pp.
Parasnis, D.S. 1975. Mining Geophysics, 2nd edition, revised and updated. Elsevier, New York, NY, 395 pp. (2nd edition, 1973.)
[MAG, SP, EMI, TDEM, TC, ER, IP, GR, SRR, SRL, radiometric, BH]
Parasnis, D.S. 1979. Principles of Applied Geophysics, 3rd edition. Chapman and Hall, New York, NY, 269+ pp. (Earlier editions
1962,1972.) [MAG, GR, ER, IP, EM, S]
Parizek, R.R. 1976. On the Nature and Significance of Fracture Traces and Lineaments in Carbonate and Other Terranes. In:
Karst Hydrology and Water Resources, Vol. 1, V. Yevjevich (ed.), Water Resources Publications, Fort Collins, CO. pp. 3-1
to 3-62.
Parkhomenko, E.I. 1967. Electrical Properties of Rocks. Plenum Press, New York, NY, 314 pp.
Patra, H.P. and K. Mallick. 1980. Geosounding Principles, Vol. 2: Time Varying Geoelectric Soundings. Elsevier, New York, NY.
Phillipson, W.R. and D.A. Sangrey. 1977. Aerial Detection Techniques for Landfill Pollutants. In: Proc. (3rd) Solid Waste
Research Symp. (Management of Gas Leachate from Landfills), EPA/600/9-77/026 (NTIS PB272-595), pp. 104-114.
Pikul, Jr., J.L. 1991. Estimating Soil Surface Temperature from Meteorological Data. Soil Science 151:187-195.
Pilon, J.A. (ed.). 1992. Ground Penetrating Radar. Geological Survey of Canada Paper 90-4, Russell, 241 pp.
Pitchford, A.M., A.T. Mazzella, and K.R. Scarbrough. 1988. Soil-Gas and Geophysical Techniques for Detection of Subsurface
Organic Contamination. EPA/600/4-88/019 (NTIS PB88-208194). [EMI, ER, complex resistivity, GPR, SRR, SRL, MAG,
MD, AEM, radiometric]
Pittman, W.E., Jr., R.H. Church, W.E. Webb, and J.T. McLendon. 1984. Ground-Penetrating Radar: A Review of Its Application in
the Mining Industry. U.S. Bureau of Mines Information Circular 8964, 23 pp.
Porstendorfer, G. 1975. Principles of Magneto-Telluric Prospecting. GebrOder Borntraeger, Stuttgart.
Ray, R.G. 1960. Aerial Photographs in Geologic Interpretation and Mapping. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 373, 320
pp.
Redpath, R. 1973. Seismic Refraction Exploration for Engineering Site Investigations. Technical Report E-73-4. (NTIS AD-
768710), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Explosive Excavation Research Laboratory, Livermore CA, 51 pp.
Redwine, J. et al. 1985. Groundwater Manual for the Electric Utility Industry, Volume 3: Groundwater Investigations and
Mitigation Techniques. EPRI CS-3901. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, Chapter 3. [SRR, SRL CSP
sonar, ER, SP, EMI, GPR, GR, BH]
Rees, W.G. 1990. Physical Principle of Remote Sensing. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY 247 pp.
Reeves, R.G. 1968. Introduction to Electromagnetic Remote Sensing with Emphasis on applications to Geology and Hydrology.
AGI Short Course Lecture Notes. American Geological Institute, Washington, DC.
Reeves, R.G. (ed.). 1975. Manual of Remote Sensing. American Society of Photogrammetry, Falls Church, VA, 2144 pp. (2nd
edition, Colwell, 1983.)
Regan, R.D. 1980. Remote Sensing Method. Geophysics 45(11):1685-1689.
Rehm, B.W., T.R. Stolzenburg, and D.G. Nichols. 1985. Field Measurement Methods for Hydrogeologic Investigations: A Critical
Review of the Literature. EPRI EA-4301. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA. [Major methods: ER, EMI,
1-77
-------
SRR, BH; Other: IR, SP, IP/complex resistivity, SRR, GPR, MAG, GR, thermal]
Robinson, E.S. and C Coruh. 1988. Basic Exploration Geophysics. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 562 pp. [SRR, SRL, GR,
MAG, ER, IP, SP, TC, EMI, BH]
Rokitvanksi, LI. 1982. Geoelectromagnetic Investigation of the Earth's Crust and Mantle. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.
Roksandic, M.M. 1978. Seismic Fades Analysis Concepts. Geophysical Prospecting 26:383-398. [CSP]
Rossiter, J.R. and D.P. Bazeley (eds.). 1980. Proceedings of the International Workshop on the Remote Estimation of Sea Ice
Thickness (St. John's, Newfoundland, September 25-26, 1979). C-CORE Publication No. 80-5, Centre for Cold Ocean
Resources Engineering, St. John's, Newfoundland. [19 papers]
Roux, P.H. 1978. Electrical Resistivity Evaluations at Solid Waste Disposal Facilities. EPA/SW-729, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Solid Waste, Washington, DC, 93 pp.
Russell, B.H. 1988. Introduction to Seismic Inversion Methods. Course Notes No. 2. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa,
OK, 90 pp.
Sabins, Jr. F.F. 1978. Remote Sensing: Principles and Interpretation. W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, CA, 426 pp.
Sangree, J.B. and J.M. Widmier. 1979. Interpretation of Depositions! Fades from Seismic Data. Geophysics 44(2): 131-160. [CSP]
Sangrey, D.A. and W.R. Phillipson. 1979. Detecting Landfill Leachate Contamination Using Remote Sensors. EPA/600/4-79/060
(NTIS PB80-174295), 78 pp.
Saucier, R.T. 1970. Acoustic Subbottom Profiling Survey-A State-of-the-Art Survey. Miscellaneous Paper S-69-332. U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, 71 pp.
Schelkunoff, S.A. 1943. Electromagnetic Waves. Van Nostrand, New York, NY.
Schcrz, J.P. 1971. Monitoring Water Pollution by Means of Remote Sensing Techniques. Remote Sensing Program Report No. 3.
University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, 27 pp.
Schcrz, JJP. and A.R. Stevens. 1970. An Introduction to Remote Sensing for Environmental Monitoring. Remote Sensing Program
Report No. 1, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, 80 pp.
Sers, S.W. 1971. Remote Sensing in Hydrology: A Survey of Applications with Selected Bibliography and Abstracts. Texas A&M
University Remote Sensing Center, College Station, TX, 530 pp.
Shanna, P.V. 1986. Geophysical Methods in Geology, 2nd edition. Elsevier, New York, NY, 428 pp. (1st edition, 1976.) [S, GR,
MAG, ER, GTJ
Sharp, R.S. 1970. Research Techniques in Nondestructive Testing. Academic Press, New York, NY. [Thermal infrared sensing]
Sheriff, R.E. 1968. Glossary of Terms Used in Geophysical Exploration. Geophysics 33(l):181-228.
Sheriff, R.E. 1989. Geophysical Methods. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffe, NJ, 605 pp. [GR, MAG, ER, EM, SRR, geothermal,
radiometric, BH]
Sheriff, R.E. 1991. Encyclopedic Dictionary of Exploration Geophysics, 3rd edition. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa,
OK, 376 pp. (1st edition, 1973; 2nd edition, 1984.)
Slotnick, M.M. 1959. Lessons in Seismic Computing. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, OK, 268 pp. [SRR]
Smith, G.D., F. Newhall, and L.H. Robinson. 1960. Soil-Temperature Regimes-Their Characterization and Predictability. SCS-TP-
144. USDA Soil Conservation Service, 14 pp.
Smith, B., W. Heran, R. Bisdorf, and A.T. Mazzella. 1989. Evaluation of Airborne Geophysical Methods to Map Brine
Contamination. EPA/600/4-89/003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory,
Las Vegas, NV. [AEM, aeromagnetics]
1-78
-------
Sodety of Engineering and Mineral Exploration Geophysicists (SEMEG). 1988-present. Symposium on the Application of
Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems (1st, 1988; 2nd, 1989; 3rd, 1990; 4th, 1991.) SEMEG, Golden,
CO.
Society of Exploration Geophysicists (SEG). Various Dates. Annual Meeting Technical Program: Expanded Abstracts and
Biographies. SEG, Tulsa, OK. (Publication for the 61st annual meeting in 1991 is a 2 volume set totaling 1707 pages.)
Soil Conservation Service (SCS). 1973. Aerial-Photo Interpretation in Classifying and Mapping Soils. U.S. Department of
Agriculture Handbook 294.
Soil Conservation Service (SCS). 1988. Second International Conference on Ground Penetrating Radar (March 6-10,1988,
Gainesville, FL.) U.S. Department of Agriculture, 179 pp.
Soiltest, Inc. 1968. Earth Resistivity Manual. Soiltest, Inc., Evanston, IL, 46 pp.
Steele, W.D., D.C. George, and J.L. Burnham. 1985. Gamma-Ray Instrument Calibration Comparison Workshop. GOTMC-23.
U.S. Department of Energy Technical Measurements Center, Grand Junction, CO.
Steeples, D.W. and R.D. Miller. 1988. Seismic Reflection Methods Applied to Engineering, Environmental and Ground-Water
Problems. In: Proc. (1st) Symp. on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems, Soc. Eng.
and Mineral Exploration Geophysicists, Golden, CO, pp. 409-461.
Stevens, Jr., H.H., J.F. Ficke, and G.F. Smoot. 1975. Water Temperature-Influential Factors, Field Measurement, and Data
Presentation. U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations TWRI 1-D1, 65 pp.
Stewart, M. and R. BretnaU. 1986. Interpretation of VLF Resistivity Data for Ground Water Contamination Surveys. Ground
Water Monitoring Review 6(l):71-75.
Stokoe II, K.H. and S. Nazarian. 1985. Use of Rayleigh Waves in Liquefaction Studies. In: Measurement and Use of Shear Wave
Velocity for Evaluation Dynamic Soil Properties, R.D. Woods (ed.), Proc., Geotechnical Eng. Division, ASCE, New York,
NY, pp. 1-17.
Stratton, J.A. 1941. Electromagnetic Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Summers, W.K. 1971. The Annotated Indexed Bibliography of Geothermal Phenomena. New Mexico Institute of Mining and
Technology, Socorro, NW. [More 14,000 references]
Sumner, J.S. 1976. Principles of Induced Polarization for Geophysical Interpretation. Elsevier, New York, NY, 277 pp.
Sumner, J.S. 1979. The Induced Polarization Exploration Method. In: Geophysics and Geochemistry in the Search of Metallic
Ores, PJ. Hood (ed.), Economical Geology Report 31, Geological Survey of Canada, pp. 123-133.
Syhvester, R.E. 1983. Single-Channel, High-Resolution Seismic Reflection Profiling: A Review of the Fundamentals and
Instrumentation. In: Handbook of Geophysical Exploration at Sea, A.A. Geyer (ed.), CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 77-
122.
Tareev, B. 1975. Physics of Dielectric Materials. Mir, Moscow.
Taylor, R.W. 1984. Evaluation of Geophysical Surface Methods for Measuring Hydrological Variables in Fracture Rock Units. U.S.
Bureau of Mines, OFR-17-84 (NTIS PB84-158021), 145 pp.
Taylor, S.A. and R.D. Jackson. 1986a. Temperature. In: Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1, 2nd edition, A. Klute (ed.), Agronomy
Monograph No. 9. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI, pp. 927-940.
Taylor, S.A. and R.D. Jackson. 1986b. Heat Capacity and Specific Heat. In: Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1,2nd edition, A. Klute
(ed.), Agronomy Monograph No. 9. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI, pp. 941-944.
Technos, Inc. 1992. Application Guide to the Surface Geophysical Methods. Technos, Miami, FL, 19 pp. [GPR, EMI, TDEM, VLF
resistivity, ER, SRR, SRL, MAG, MD, GR, thermal, radiation]
Telford, W.M.N., L.P. Geldart, R.E. Sheriff, and D.A. Keys. 1990. Applied Geophysics, 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press,
New York, NY, 770 pp. [1st edition, 1976; reprinted, 1982] [GR, MAG, SRR, SRL, ER, IP, SP, MT, EMI, TDEM, AEM,
1-79
-------
radioactive, BH]
Thomson, K.P.B., R.K. Lane, and S.C. Csallany (eds.). 1973. Remote Sensing and Water Resources Management AWRA,
Proceedings Series No. 17, American Water Resources Association, Urbana, IL, 436 pp.
Tinlin, R.M., LJ. Hughes, and A.R. Anzzolin. 1988. The Use of Controlled Source Audio Magnetotellurics (CSAMT) to Delineate
Zones of Ground-Water Contamination. In: Ground-Water Contamination: Field Methods, A.G. Collins and A.I. Johnson
(eds.), ASTM STP 963, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 101-118.
Trabant, P.K. 1984. Applied High-Resolution Geophysical Methods-Offshore Geoengineering Hazards. International Human
Resource Development Corp., Boston, MA, 265 pp. [CSP, GPR]
Truman, C.C., L.E. Asmussen, and H.D. Allison. 1991. Ground-Penetrating Radar: A Tool for Mapping Reservoirs and Lakes. J.
Soil and Water Conservation 46(5):370-373.
Tucker, P.M. 1982. Pitfalls Revisited. Monograph No. 3. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, OK, 23 pp. (Expands on
Tucker and Yorsten, 1973.)
Tucker, P.M. and H J. Yorsten. 1973. Pitfalls in Seismic Interpretation. Monograph No. 2. Society of Exploration Geophysicists,
Tulsa, OK, 56 pp.
Tufefccic, D. 1978. A Prediction of Sedimentary Environment from Marine Seismic Data. Geophysical Prospecting 26:329-336.
[CSPJ
Ulaby, F.T., R.K. Moore, and A.K. Fung. 1982. Microwave Remote Sensing: 3 Vols. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA
Ulrikscn, P.F. 1982. Application of Impulse Radar to Civil Engineering. Geophysical Survey Systems Inc., Hudson, NH.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1979. Geophysical Exploration. Engineer Manual EM 1110-1-1802, Department of the Army,
Washington, DC, 313 pp. [SRR, SRL, SASW, sonar, ER, GR, BH]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1979. Acoustic Monitoring to Determine the Integrity of Hazardous Waste Dams.
EPA/625/2-79/024 (NTIS PB92-179928).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1987. A Compendium of Superfund Field Operations Methods, Part 2. EPA/540/P-
87/001 (OSWER Directive 9355.0-14) (NTIS PB88-181557), 644 pp. [Remote sensing, EMI, ER, SRR, SRL, MAG, GPR,
BH]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1993. Use of Airborne, Surface, and Borehole Geophysical Techniques at
Contaminated Sites: A Reference Guide. EPA/625/R-92/007. Available from CERI."
U.S. Geological Survey. 1980. Geophysical Measurements. In: National Handbook of Recommended Methods for Water Data
Acquisition, Chapter 2 (Ground Water), Office of Water Data Coordination, Reston, VA, pp. 2-24 to 2-76. [TC, MT»
AMT, EMI, ER, IP, SRR, GR, BH]
U.S. Geological Survey. 1982. Evaporation and Transpiration. In: National Handbook of Recommended Methods for Water Data
Acquisition. USGS Office of Water Data Coordination, Reston, VA, pp 8-1 to 8-57. [Reviews thermal IR remote sensing
methods for estimating evapotranspiration]
Valley, S.C (ed.). 1965. Handbook of Geophysics and Space Environments. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
van Be«k, L.K.H. 1965. Dielectric Behavior of Heterogeneous Systems. In: Progress in Dielectrics, Vol. 7, J.B. Birks (eds.), CRC
Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 69-114.
Van Blaricom, R. 1980. Practical Geophysics for the Exploration Geologist. Northwest Mining Association, Spokane, WA, 303 pp.
van dor Leeden, F. 1991. Gcraghty & Miller's Groundwater Bibliography, 5th edition. Water Information Center, Plainview, NY,
507pp.
Van Nostrand, R.G. and K.L. Cook. 1966. Interpretation of Resistivity Data. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 499, 310
pp.
.1-80
-------
Verma, R.K. 1980. Master Tables for Electromagnetic Depth Sounding Interpretation. Plenum, New York, NY.
Verma, R.K. 1982. Electromagnetic Sounding Interpretation Data over Three-Layer Earth, Vols. 1 and 2. IFI/Plenum, New York,
NY, (1) 338 pp., (2) 546 pp.
Von Hippel, A.R. 1954a. Dielectrics and Waves. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 284 pp.
Von Hippel, A.R. (ed.). 1954b. Dielectrics: Materials and Applications. MIT Press, Cambridge MA, 438 pp.
Vozoff, K. (ed.). 1986. Magnetotelluric Methods. Geophysics Reprint Series No. 5, Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa,
OK, 800 pp.
Vozoff, K. 1991. The Magnetotelluric Method. In: Electromagnetic Methods in Applied Geophysics, Vol. 2, Part B: Applications,
M.N. Nabighian (ed.), Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, OK, pp. 641-712.
Wait, J.R. (ed.). 1959. Overvoltage Research and Geophysical Applications. Pergamon Press, New York, NY. [IP]
Wait, J.R. 1970. Electromagnetic Waves in Stratified Media, 2nd edition. Pergamon Press, New York, NY, 372 pp. (1st edition,
1962.)
Wait, J.R. (ed.). 1971. Electromagnetic Probing in Geophysics. The Golem Press, Boulder, CO, 391 pp.
Wait, J.R. 1981. Wave Propagation Theory. Pergamon Press, New York, NY, 349 pp.
Wait, J.R. 1982. Geo-Electromagnetism. Academic Press, New York, NY, 268 pp. [IP, EMI]
Wait, J.R. 1985. Electromagnetic Wave Theory. Harper and Row, New York, NY, 308 pp.
Waller, M J. and I.L. Davis. 1984. Assessment of Innovative Techniques to Detect Waste Impoundment Liner Failure. EPA/600/2-
84/041 (NTIS PB84-157858), 148 pp. [28 methods assessed including ER, seismic, acoustic emission monitoring]
Ward, S.H. (ed.) 1990a. Geotechnical and Environmental Geophysics, Vol. I: Review and Tutorial. Society of Exploration
Geophysicists, Tulsa, OK, 397 pp.
Ward, S.H. (ed.) 1990b. Geotechnical and Environmental Geophysics, Vol. II: Environmental and Groundwater. Society of
Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, OK, 309 pp. [34 papers, including ER, EM multiple methods, thermal, others]
Ward, S.H. (ed.) 1990c. Geotechnical and Environmental Geophysics, Vol. Ill: Geotechnical. Society of Exploration Geophysicists,
Tulsa, OK, 352 pp. [23 papers, including cross-borehole resistivity, seismic shear, radio imaging]
Ward, S.H. and H.F. Morrison (eds.). 1971. Special Issue on Electromagnetic Scattering. Geophysics 36(1): 1-183.
Waters, K.H. 1981. Reflection Seismology~A Tool for Energy Resource Exploration, 2nd edition. John Wiley & Sons, New York,
NY, 453 pp.
Watson, K., and R.D. Regan (eds.). 1983. Remote Sensing. Geophysics Reprint Series No. 3. Society of Exploration Geophysicists,
Tulsa, OK, 581 pp.
Wechsler, A., P. Glaser, and R. McConnell. 1965. Methods of Laboratory and Field Measurements of Thermal Conductivity of
Soils. CRREL Special Rept 82. U.S. Army Cold Regions Res. and Eng. Lab., Hanover, NH, 31 pp.
Wheatcraft, S.W., K.C. Taylor, and J.G. Haggard. 1984. Investigation of Electrical Properties of Porous Media. EPA/600/4-84/089
(NTIS PB85-137156), 117 pp. [DC and complex resistivity]
White, J.E. 1965. Seismic Waves. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 200 pp.
Wolfe, P.R. 1974. Elements of Photogrammetry. McGraw Hill, New York, NY, 562 pp.
Woods, R.D. (ed.). 1985. Measurement and Use of Shear Wave Velocity for Evaluating Dynamic Soil Properties. Proc. Geotech.
Eng. Div. ASCE, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY.
Zohdy, AA., G.P. Eaton, and D.R. Mabey. 1974. Application of Surface Geophysics to Ground-Water Investigations. U.S.
1-81
-------
Geological Suivey Techniques of Water-Resource Investigations, TWRI 2-D1,116 pp. [ER, GR, MAG, SRR]
Zonge, K.L. and LJ. Hughes. 1991. Controlled Source Audio-Frequency Magnetotellurics. In: Electromagnetic Methods in Applied
Geophysics, Vol. 2, Applications, M.N. Nabighian (ed.), Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, OK, Part B, pp. 713-
810*
"ORD Publications, U.S. EPA Center for Environmental Research Information, P.O. Box 19963, Cincinnati, OH 45268-0963 (513-
569-7562).
1-82
-------
SECTION 2
DRILLING AND SOLIDS SAMPLING METHODS
Drilling •
Most subsurface investigations require the drilling of boreholes for one or more purposes: (1) Collection
of solids samples or cores for lithologic logging and laboratory testing, (2) lithologic and hydrogeologic
characterization using borehole geophysical logging, and (3) installation of piezometers or monitoring wells.
Drilling methods are selected based on: (1) Availability and cost, (2) suitability for the type of geologic materials
at a site (unconsolidated or consolidated), and (3) potential effects on sample integrity (influence by drilling
fluids and potential for cross contamination between aquifers).
A wide variety of drilling methods have been developed that could be suitable for one or more of the
purposes described above. Table 2-1 summarizes information on 18 drilling methods and explains where more
detailed information on the method can be found in this section. The hollow-stem auger (Section 2.2.1) is by
far the most commonly used method for well installation in unconsolidated deposits. Air rotary is probably the
most commonly used method for well installation in consolidated formations (Section 2.1.2). Where cross
contamination between aquifers is a concern, some kind of casing advancement methods is required, with drill-
through methods (Section 2.1.5) and dual-wall reverse circulation (Section 2.1.6) being the most commonly used.
Table 2-2 provides information on the relative performance'of 11 of the drilling methods listed in Table 2-1 for
different types of geologic formations.
Also included in this section is conepenetrometry (Section 2.2.2), which is not strictly a drilling method.
This technology has been developed primarily in relation to geotechnical investigations, but is being used more
frequently for subsurface characterization at contaminated sites.
Solids Sampling
Solids sampling methods can be broadly classified as hand-held and power-driven. Criteria for selection
of hand-held equipment includes: (1) Whether an undisturbed core is required, (2) soil conditions at the site
(cohesion, stones, moisture), (3) the sample size and depth desired, and (4) the number of required operators.
Table 2-3 summarizes information on 12 types of hand-held samplers. More detailed information on these
methods is covered in Sections 2.3.1 (Scoops, Spoons, and Shovels), 2.3.2 (Augers), and 2.3.3 (Tubes). Hand-held
soil samplers are usually used for sampling the near surface (2 to 3 meters).
Power-driven samplers are usually operated in conjunction with drill rigs, although thin-wall tube
samplers attached to hydraulic rigs for near-surface sampling can be attached to pickup trucks. Collection of soil
cores is the preferred methods for sampling solids because much more accurate lithologic logging is possible than
with cuttings from drill methods that do not obtain cores as part of the drilling process, such as diamond drilling
(Section 2.1.10). The most common method for collection of disturbed cores is the split-barrel sampler (Section
2.4.1). Thin-wall open tube samples are the most common method for collecting undisturbed cores (Section
2.4.3). In consolidated geologic material, rotating core samplers are used (Section 2.4.2). Thin-wall piston
samplers (Section 2.4.4) are usually used where poor cohesion prevents good recovery with conventional thin-wall
samplers. Specially designed thin-wall samplers might be required for gravelly and very stiff or cemented
unconsolidated deposits (Section 2.4.5).
ASTM (1987) provides general guidance on investigation and sampling of soil and rock. ASTM (1991)
provides more specific guidance on soil sampling in the vadose zone.
2-1
-------
Table 2-1 Sanitary Information on Drilling Methods
Drill Method
Hollow-SteM Auger
Open-Hole Rotary Methods
Direct Air Rotary with Bit
Direct Air Rotary with
Downholc Hammer
Direct Mud Rotaiy
Reverse Rotary (no casing)
Cable Tool
Rotary Drill-Through Methods
Rotary Casing Driver
Dual Rotary Advancement
Reverse Circulation Methods
Reverse Dual Wall Rotary
Reverse Dual Wall Percussion
Hydraulic Percussion
Downholc Casing Advancers
Jet Percussion
letting
Solid Stem Auger
Bucket Auger
Rotary Diamond
Directional Drilling
Sonic Drilling
Driven Wells
Cone Penetration
Casing/
Open Hole
Open Hole
Open Hole
Open Hole
Open Hole
Open Hole
Either
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing .
Casing
Casing
Open Hole
Open Hole
Open Hole
Open Hole
Either*
Either
Either
Open Hole
Fluids
Affect
Chem.?
Usually
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Usually
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Possible
Possible
No
No
Possible
Possible
Possible
No
No
Core
Samples?
Possible
Possible
Possible
Possible
Possible
Possible
Possible
Possible
Possible
Possible
Possible
Possible
Possible
No
Possible
Possible
Yes
Possible'
Yes
No
Possible*
Section
Number
2.1.1
2.1.2
2.1.2
2.13
2.1.3
2.1.4
2.1.5
2.1.5
2.1.6
2.1.6
2.1.6
2.1.7
2.1.8
2.1.8
2.1.9
2.1.9
2.1.10
2.1.11
2.1.12
2.2.1C
2.2.2C
Tables
2-2, 2.1.1
2-2, 2.1.2
2-2, 2.1.2
2-2, 2.1.3
2-2
2-2, 2.1.4
2-2, 2.1.5
2-2, 2.1.6
2-2
2-2, 2.1.8
2-2, 2.1.9
2-2
Boldface = Most commonly used methods for monitoring well installation.
'EC rig uses casing advancement, other methods may involve open hole advancement.
'Sampling with a device resembling a split spoon may be possible with some directional rigs.
•Section includes cross references to other sections related to method.
'Gcoprobe has developed a core sampler for use with a CPT rig.
2-2
-------
Table 2-2 Relative Performance of Different Drilling Methods in Various Types of Geologic Formations
Direct Rotary Direct Rotary
Type of Formation
Dune sand
Loose sand and gravel
Quicksand
Loose boulders in alluvial
fans or glacial drift
Clay and silt
Firm shale
Sticky shale
Brittle shale
Sandstone — poorly cemented
Sandstone — well cemented
Chert nodules
Limestone
Limestone with chert nodules
Limestone with small cracks
or fractures
Limestone, cavernous
Dolomite
Basalts, thin layers in
sedimentary rocks
Basalts — thick layers.
Basalts — highly fractured
(lost circulation zones)
Metamorphic rocks
Granite
Cable
Tool
2
2
2
3-2
3
5
3
5
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
3
3
3
Direct
Rotary
(with fluids)
5
5
5
2-1
5
5
5
5
4
3
3
5
3
3
3-1
5
3
3
1
3
3
Direct
Rotary
(with air)
*
T
•o
flj
•o
c
§
(Down-lhe- (Drill-through Reverse
hole air casing Rotary
hammer) hammer) (with fluids)
165*
6 5*
•i 6 5*
|
2-1
1.5 5
8 5 5
S
z
\
5
3
5
5
5
2
5
5
4
3
4
5
K 5 3
o 5 5
Z i
6
6
4.
4
3
3
5
3
>
6 "a 2
5 7
6 i
•f
[ 1
? 5
(
6 Z 3
5
3
S
5
3
1
3
3
Reverse
Rotary
(Dual Wall)
6
6
6
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
3
5
5
5
5*
4
4
4
4
Hydraulic
Percussion Jetting Driven Auger
5 531
5 5 3 i 1
5 5 |
1 1
3 3
3 \
3
3
4
3
5
1
1
3
2
2
i
"S
•3
5 I e
5 gl
5 1 ! .1
1 8 3 "3,
- m*
Z
5
3
1
3
3
5
Z
'Assuming sufficient hydrostatic pressure is available to contain active sand (under high confining pressures)
Rate of Penetration:
1 Impossible
2 Difficult
3 Slow
4 Medium
5 Rapid
6 Very rapid
Source: Driscoll (1986), by permission
2-3
-------
Table 2-3 Criteria for Selecting Hand-Held Soil Sampling Equipment
Type of Sampler/Section
Spoons, Scoops (23.1)
Shovels (23.1)
Post-Hole Digger
Screw-Type Augers (23.2)
Barrel Augers (2.3.2)
Dutch
Regular
Sand
Mud
Tube Samplers (233)
Soil probes
Wet tips
Dry tips
Veihmeyer tube
Thin-wall tube
samplers
Peat samplers
Obtains
Core
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Required Soil Conditions
Cohesive
Either"
Either
Yes
Either
Yes
Yes
No*
Yes
Either
Either
Either
Yes
Yes
Stony
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Moisture
Either
Either
Moist
Moist
Moist
Either
Either
Moist
Moist
Dry
Either
Either
Moist
Sample
Size
Large
Large
Large
Small
Small
Small
Large
Large
Small
Small
Small
Large
Large
Depth
Shallow
Deep
Deep
Deep
Deep
Deep
Deep
Deep
Deep
Deep
Shallow
Shallow
Deep
Number of
Required
Operators
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
•Able to sample either cohesive or noncohesive soils.
^Designed to sample dry, sandy soils.
Source: Adapted from Brown et al. (1991)
2-4
-------
Field Description of Soil Physical Properties
Field description of solids samples is an important part of the site characterization process. Major
features that are described in the field include texture (Section 2.5.1) and color (Section 2.5.2). Numerous other
features, such as moisture condition, and soil orsedimentary features that indicate zones of increased or reduced
porosity or permeability, should also be described in the field (Section 2.5.3).
Sources of Additional Information
Table 2-4 provides sources of additional information on drilling methods and Table 2-5 presents other
sources of information on solids sampling.
2-5
-------
2. DRILLING AND SOLIDS SAMPLING METHODS
2.1 DRILLING METHODS
2.1.1 Hollow-Stem Auger
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Helical auger.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Drilling for solids sampling and installation of ground-water monitoring wells in
unconsolidated materials; drilling vadose monitoring wells (lysimeters); identifying depth to bedrock.
Method Description: A hollow-stem auger column (Figure 2.1.1) simultaneously rotates and axially advances
using a mechanically or hydraulically powered drill rig. The hollow stem of the auger allows use of various
methods for continuous (see Figure 2.4.3b) or intermittent sampling of soil material (see Figure 2.4.4b). Casing
and screens for monitoring wells can be placed in the hollow stem when the desired depth has been reached, and
gravel pack and grouting emplaced as the auger is gradually withdrawn from the hole. Use of different diameter
augers allows use of casings to isolate near-surface contamination, and continuation of drilling with a smaller-
diameter auger. Special screened auger sections allow ground-water sampling at different depths as drilling
progresses (see Figure 5.2.7a).
Method Selection Considerations: Usually the favored method with moderately cohesive unconsolidated
materials. Advantages: (1) Set-up time and drilling is fast and causes minimal damage to aquifer because no
drilling fluids or lubricants are required; (2) high mobility rigs can reach most sites and equipment is generally
readily available throughout the United States; (3) the hollow stem allows flexible choice of soil core sampling
methods and use of natural gamma ray logging equipment; (4) depth to water table can usually be determined
during drilling and formation waters can be sampled during drilling by using a screened lead auger or advancing
a well point ahead of the augers; (5) auger flights act as temporary casing, stabilizing the hole for construction
of small-diameter monitoring wells; and (6) usually less expensive than rotary or cable drilling. Disadvantages:
(1) Cannot be used in consolidated deposits and might have to be abandoned if boulders are encountered; (2)
heaving sands present problems, requiring special procedures to counteract; (3) generally limited to wells less
than 150 feet in depth and works best to depths around 75 feet; (4) vertical mixing of formation water and
geologic materials can occur; and (5) hollow stems might not be suitable for running a complete suite of
geophysical logs. Aller et al. (1991) give hollow-stem augers top ratings compared to other drilling methods for:
Up to 4-inch monitoring wells in unsaturated, unconsolidated material to 150 feet; up to 4-inch shallow
monitoring wells (<15 feet) in saturated conditions; and for small (<2 inch) monitoring wells in saturated
unconsolidated material to 150 feet (see Table 2.1.1).
Frequency of Use: The large majority of monitoring wells installed in unconsolidated materials in North America
are constructed using hollow stem augers.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: ASTM (1993a), Appendix A in Aller et al. (1991).
Sources for Additional Information: Aller et al. (1991), Shuter and Teasdale (1989). See also, Table 2-4.
2-6
-------
Drive cap
Center plug
Pilot assembly
components ^
Pilot Bit
Rod to cap
adapter
Auger connector
Hollow stem
auger section
Center rod
Auger
connector
Auger head
Replaceable
carbide insert
auger tooth
Figure 2.1.1 Typical components of a hollow-stem anger (Alter et al., 1991).
2-7
-------
Table 2.1.1 Hollow-Stem Auger Suitability Ratings
UNCONSOUDATED MATERIAL
Depth MW
(ft.) Diameter
Saturated
Unsaturated
0-15
15-150
>150
2-4"
4-8"
2-4"
4-8"
<2"
2-4"
4-8"
Invasion (+)
75" (29-75)b
68 (30-68)
NA
67 (23-67)
59 (21-69)
NA
NA
NA
NA
Invasion (-)
75 (27-75)
72 (28-72)
NA
69 (30-69)
64 (24-68)
NA
NA
NA
NA
CONSOLIDATED
Invasion (+)
79 (32-79)
79 (24-79)
64 (48-64)
76 (24-76)
72 (19-72)
NA
NA
NA
NA
MATERIAL
Invasion (-)
75 (44-75)
77 (37-77)
NA
79 (35-79)
73 (25-73)
NA
NA
NA
NA
Depth MW
Diameter
Saturated/Unsaturated
Invasion (+)
Invasion (-)
2-4"
4-8"
NA
NA
NA
NA
Boldface = Highest rating or within a few points of highest rating.
NA = Not applicable.
MW = Monitoring well diameter.
'Numerical rating for drilling method in Appendix B, Aller et al. (1991).
""Range of numerical ratings of applicable methods (perfect score = 80).
20
-O
-------
2. DRILLING AND SOLIDS SAMPLING METHODS
2.1 DRILLING METHODS
2.1.2 Direct Air Rotary with Rotary Bit/Downhole Hammer
Other Names Used to Describe Method; Air rotary with roller-cone (tri-cone) bit, down-the-hole hammer, air-
percussion rotary.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Air rotary bit: Monitoring well installation in deeper, stable unconsolidated
material, and sedimentary rocks. Downhole hammer: Monitoring well installation in very hard to hard geologic
formations.
Method Description: Air rotary bit: The basic rig setup for air rotary with a tri-cone or roller-cone bit is similar
to direct mud rotary (see Figure 2.1.3 in next section), except the circulation medium is air instead of water or
drilling mud. Figure 2.1.2a illustrates the main components of a drill string using a tri-cone bit. Compressed
air is circulated down through the drill rods to cool the bit, and carries cuttings up the open hole to the surface.
A cyclone separator slows the air velocity and allows the cuttings to fall into a container. A roller cone drill bit
is used for unconsolidated and hard to soft consolidated rock. In dry formations the cuttings are very fine-
grained and a small amount of water and/or foaming surfactant can be added to increase the size of fragments
discharged to the surface, allowing good characterization of the formation. Downhole hammer. A down-the-hole
hammer, which operates with a pounding action as it rotates, replaces the roller-cone bit (Figure 2.1.2b). Other
operational features are similar to those described for the rotary bit, except that small amounts of water or
surfactants are needed for dust and bit temperature control.
Method Selection Considerations: Air rotary is often the method of choice for monitoring well installation in
consolidated material, and deeper unconsolidated materials that form a stable hole. Air Rotary Bit Advantages:
(1) Drilling is fast and can be used in both consolidated and unconsolidated formations, but is best suited for
consolidated rock; (2) no drilling fluid is used, minimizing contamination of formation water; (3) depth is limited
only by the capacity of the air compressor to deliver enough air downhole to maintain circulation; (4) cuttings
can be recovered rapidly and are not contaminated by drilling mud (recovery is best in hard, dry formations);
(5) major water-bearing zones can be identified when formation water is blown out of the hole along with
cuttings and yields of strong water-producing zones can be estimated with a relatively short interruption of
drilling; (6) well suited for highly fractured or cavernous rock because loss of drilling fluids is not a problem; (7)
field analysis of water blown from the hole can provide information on changes in some basic water-quality
parameters such as chlorides; and (8) drill rigs are readily available throughout most of the United States. Air
Rotary Bit Disadvantages: (1) Oil contamination might result from the air compressor if air filters are not
operating properly; (2) surfactant foams, if used, might react with formation water and affect representativeness
of ground-water samples; (3) the drying effect of air can make lower yield water producing zones difficult to
observe; (4) the air can modify chemical and biological conditions in an aquifer, with recovery time uncertain;
(5) casing is required to keep the hole open when drilling in soft, caving formations below water table; (6) if
hydrostatic pressures of water bearing zones are different, cross-contamination might occur between the time
drilling is completed and the well casing is placed and grouted; (7) relatively expensive, might not be economical
for small jobs; (8) requires a minimum 6-inch diameter hole; (9) cuttings and water blown from the hole can pose
a hazard to crew and surrounding environment if toxic compounds are encountered; and (10) not suitable for
soft, caving formations. Aller et al. (1991) give air rotary top ratings for all situations involving consolidated rock,
and top ratings compared to other drilling methods for large diameter wells (4 to 8 inches) deeper than 15 feet
in unsaturated, unconsolidated material where invasion of drilling fluid is not allowed (see Table 2.1.2).
Downhole Hammer Advantages: (1) Downhole hammer provides better penetration in very hard geologic
formations such as igneous and metamorphic rocks and very fast penetration in other formations; and (2) longer
bit life, less drill collar wear, and easier to control deviation, while maintaining penetration rates compared to
rotary bit. Downhole Hammer Disadvantages: (1) Oil is required in the air stream to lubricate the actuating
device for the hammer, creating the possibility of hydrocarbon contamination of the monitoring well; (2) limited
to systems using compressible circulating fluids (air, foam); and (3) use of surfactants might alter ground-water
chemistry.
2-9
-------
-Kelly
- Drill pipe
• Drill pipe
Drill collar
ErBit
Cuttings discharge
through pipe
Air to actuate
hammer and
remove cuttings
•Hammer
• Button bit
(a)
Figure 2.1.2 Air rotary drilling methods: (a) Drill string for a direct rotary rig with tri-come bit (Driscoll, 1986, by
permission); (b) Diagram of direct air rotary with downhole hammer (Aller et al., 1991).
2-10
-------
Table 2.1.2 Direct Air Rotary Suitability Ratings
UNCONSOIIDATED MATERIALS
Depth MW
(ft.) Diameter
Saturated
Unsaturated
0-15
15-150
>150
<2«
2-4"
4-8"
<2"
2-4"
4-8"
<2"
2-4"
4-8"
Invasion (+)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Invasion (-)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Invasion (+)
53 (32-79)a
53 (24-79)
48 (48-64)
56 (24-76)
51 (19-72)
NA (66-70)
55 (54-65)
58 (56-65)
NA
Invasion (-)
53 (44-75)
53 (37-77)
58 (58-71)
56 (35-79)
52 (25-73)
80 (80)
65 (65-73)
60 (60-70)
80 (80)
CONSOLIDATED MATERIAL
Depth MW
Diameter
Saturated/Unsaturated
Invasion (+)
Invasion (-)
2-4"
4-8"
75 (55-75)
77 (64-77)
74 (68-74)
80 (80)
Boldface = Highest rating or within a few points of highest rating.
NA = not applicable.
"Range of numerical ratings of applicable methods (perfect score = 80).
2-11 ..
-------
Frequency of Use; Frequently used where monitoring wells must be installed in consolidated material.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: ASTM (1993b).
Sources for Additional Information: Aller et al. (1991), Campbell and Lehr (1973), Driscoll (1986), Shuter and
Teasdale (1989). See also, Table 2-4.
2-12
-------
2. DRILLING AND SOLIDS SAMPLING METHODS
2.1 DRILLING METHODS
2.1.3 Direct Mud Rotaiy
Other Names Used to Describe Method; Direct (liquid) rotary, hydraulic rotary, reverse (circulation) rotary.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Monitoring well installation in moderately deep to deep holes where invasion of
drilling fluids is not a concern. Core sampling possible in both unconsolidated and consolidated rock.
Method Description: Figure 2.1.3 shows the major elements of a direct mud rotary drilling system. Drilling fluid,
called mud, is pumped down hollow rotating drill rods and through a bit that is attached at the lower end of the
drill rods. The fluid circulates back to the surface by moving up the annular space between the drill rods and
the borehole wall, and is discharged at the surface through a pipe or ditch into a sedimentation tank, pond, or
pit. Cuttings settle in the pond and the fluid overflows into a suction pit, where a pump recirculates the fluid
back through the drill rods. The drilling fluid serves to: (1) Cool and lubricate the bit, (2) stabilize the borehole
wall, and (3) prevent the inflow of formation fluids, thus minimizing cross contamination of aquifers. Samples
can be obtained directly from the circulated fluid by placing a sample-collecting device, such as a shale shaker,
in the discharge flow before the settling pit. For more accurate sampling, the flow of drilling fluid is interrupted
and a split-spoon, thin-wall, or consolidated core sampler is inserted down the drill rod and the sample taken
ahead of the bit. Reverse circulation rotary drilling is a variant of the mud rotary method in which drilling fluid
flows from the mud pit down the borehole outside the drill rods; then passes upward through the bit, carrying
cuttings into the drill rods; and then is discharged into the mud pit again. Equipment is similar to direct mud
rotary, except that most pieces of equipment are larger.
Method Selection Considerations: Direct Mud Rotary Advantages: (1) A very flexible and rapid drilling method
for a wide range of borehole diameters in both saturated and unsaturated conditions in consolidated and
unconsolidated rock; (2) great depths can be reached (500 feet is the usual limit, but greater depths are possible
depending on the borehole diameter, mudpump capacity, and ability to maintain circulation); (3) coring devices
for detailed sampling are easy to use, but there is some risk of contamination by drilling fluids; (4) casing is not
required during drilling; (5) complete suite of geophysical log can be run in mud-filled open hole; (6) flexibility
in well construction; (7) smaller rigs can reach most sites and equipment is generally readily available throughout
the United States; and (8) relatively inexpensive. Direct Mud Rotary Disadvantages: (1) Invasion of drilling fluid
in permeable zones makes it difficult to identify aquifers, and compromises the validity of subsequent monitoring
well samples; (2) contaminants might be circulated with the fluid; (3) collection of representative samples is
difficult due to mixing of drill cuttings and sample lag time in deeper holes, unless split-spoon or thin-wall
samplers are used in unconsolidated material or core bits are used in consolidated rock; (4) the niter pack is
difficult to remove during development and disposing of contaminated drilling mud, and the large amount of
water normally required to clean and develop the installation might be a problem; (5) no information on position
of water table and only limited information on water producing zone is directly available during drilling; (6)
measuring static water levels, taking representative water samples, and performing pump tests of individual
aquifers is not practical; (7) generally not suited for use in fractured, cavernous, and very coarse material due
to loss of drilling fluid (can be overcome by using casing); (8) bentonite fluids might absorb metals and might
interfere with some other parameters; (9) organic fluids might interfere with bacterial analysis and/or organic-
related parameters; (10) lubricants and metal parts might be a source of contamination; (11) placement of sand
packs and seals is generally less certain than with auger methods; (12) requires experienced driller and fan-
amount of peripheral equipment; (13) might have to abandon holes if boulders are encountered; and (14)
washout zones might develop in weaker formations. Aller et al. (1991) give mud rotary top ratings for saturated
conditions deeper than 15 feet for all well diameters where invasion of drilling fluid is allowed (see Table 2.1.3).
Where unconsolidated materials overlies a bedrock aquifer, mud rotary can be used to drill to the bedrock, the
hole can be cased, and a less intrusive drilling method, such as air rotary, can be used to complete the well.
Frequency of Use: Mud rotary drilling rigs are widely available, but infrequently used for monitoring well
installation because of the problems created by drilling fluids. Reverse circulation rotary is used primarily for
the installation of large-diameter deep water wells, rather than monitoring wells.
2-13
-------
Pump
suction
Borehole wall
If y- Cuttings circulated to surface
through annular space
Tricone bit
Figure 2.13 Diagram of direct mud rotary circulation system (Aller et aL, 1991).
2-14
-------
Table 2.1.3 Direct Liquid (Mud) Rotary Suitability Ratings
UNCONSCODATED MATERIAL
Depth MW
(ft.) Diameter
Saturated
Unsaturated
Invasion (+)
Invasion (-)
Invasion (+)
Invasion (-)
0-15
15-150
>150
<2"
2-4"
4-8"
<2"
2-4"
4-8"
<2"
2-4"
4-8"
62' (29-75)b
60 (30-68)
67 (61-69)
67 (23-67)
69 (21-69)
67 (67)
61 (60-69)
66 (58-66)
66 (63-66)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
62 (32-79)
62 (24-79)
63 (48-64)
67 (24-76)
68 (19-72)
70 (66-70)
61 (54-65)
58 (56-65)
66 (65-66)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
CONSOLIDATED MATERIAL
Depth MW
Diameter
Saturated/Unsaturated
Invasion (+) Invasion (-)
-
2-4"
4-8"
63 (55-75)
64 (64-77)
NA
NA
Boldface = Highest rating or within a few points of highest rating.
NA = Not applicable.
'Numerical rating for drilling method in Appendix B, Alter et al. (1991).
''Range of numerical ratings of applicable methods (perfect score = 80).
2-15
-------
Standard Methods/Guidelines: ASIM (1993c).
Sources for Additional Information: Aller et al. (1991), Campbell and Lehr (1973), Driscoll (1986), Shuter and
Teasdale (1989). See also, Table 2-4.
2-16
-------
2. DRILLING AND SOIJDS SAMPLING METHODS
2.1 DRILLING METHODS
2.1.4 Cable Tool
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Cable-tool percussion, percussion rig, spudder rig, open hole, reverse
cable tool.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Installing large-diameter monitoring wells.
Method Description: Cable tool drilling rigs operate by repeatedly lifting and dropping a heavy string of drilling
tools attached to a cable into the borehole. Figure 2.1.4 illustrates the major components of a cable tool rig.
Consolidated rock is broken or crushed into small fragments and unconsolidated material is loosened by the drill
bit. The reciprocating action is caused by attaching the cable to an eccentric walking or spudding beam that also
serves to mix the crushed or loosened particles with water to form a slurry at the bottom of the borehole.
Periodically, the drilling string is removed and the slurry is removed by a sand pump or bailer. In unconsolidated
formations, a casing is driven into the ground, often using hydraulic jacks as drilling and bailing proceeds. In
consolidated formations, most boreholes are drilled "open hole," without the use of casing.
Method Selection Considerations; Advantages: (1) A very flexible drilling method that is suitable for all types
of geologic formations (especially well suited to caving, large gravel-type formations, and drilling through
boulders, fracture, fissured, broken, or cavernous rocks), and for wells of almost any depth and diameter range
(depths exceeding 11,000 feet have been drilled with cable tool); (2) samples of coarse grained materials are of
good quality and samples bailed from each interval represent about a 3 to 5 foot zone, allowing reasonably
accurate geologic description; (3) typical casings are wide enough for easy installation of monitoring wells; (4)
equipment is readily available in central, north-central and northeast sections of United States (in other part of
the country, cable tool has been largely replaced by rotary drilling); (5) when casing is used, cross contamination
is minimized; (6) changes in water level can be observed, water samples can be collected easily, and hydraulic
conductivity tests can be made in different water-bearing zones; (7) good seal between casing and formation is
virtually assured if flush-jointed .casing is used; (8) rigs can reach most drilling sites; (9) relatively inexpensive;
(10) little or no drilling fluid is required (small amounts of water are required, usually with no additives, above
the water table; and (11) relative permeabilities and rough water quality data from the different water-bearing
zones that are penetrated during drilling can be obtained by skilled operators. Disadvantages: (1) Drilling is slow
because of the requirement for bailing; (2) heaving of material from the bottom of the casing upward might cause
problems that require special measures; (3) casing costs are usually higher because heavier wall or larger
diameter casing might be required and it might be difficult to pull back long strings of casing in some geologic
formations; (4) difficult or impossible to obtain undisturbed cores; (5) slight potential for vertical mixing of
materials as the casing is driven; (6) drill rigs not generally equipped to use borehole sampling devices other than
bailers; (7) relatively large diameters are required (minimum 4-inch casing); (8) heavy steel drive pipe must be
used and could be subject to corrosion under adverse contaminant conditions; (9) use of casing limits types of
geophysical logs that can be run; (10) usually a screen must be set before a water sample can be taken; (11)
heavy steel drive pipe used to keep hole open and drilling equipment can limit accessibility; (12) contamination
possible if drilling fluid is used; and (13) it is difficult to place a positive grout seal above the drive shoe casing,
consequently, wither the drive casing must be totally removed and the seal placed outside the permanent well
casing, or a seal must be place above the screen but below the drive shoe, resulting in added costs and time for
well completion. See Table 2.1.4 for ratings of cable drilling compared to other major drilling methods.
Frequency of Use: Not commonly used for monitoring well installation.
Standard Methods/Guidelines; API (1988a,b).
Sources for Additional Information: Aller et al. (1991), Campbell and Lehr (1973), Davis and DeWiest (1966),
Driscoll (1986), Shuter and Teasdale (1989). See also, Table 2-4.
2-17
-------
-Sheave
Must
Spudder
Power unit for drilling
Enclosed driving mechanism for spudder
Bit
Figure 2.1.4 Truck-mounted cable tool rig; casing is commonly not used if well is being drilled in consolidated rock
(Davis and DeWiesf, 1966, reprinted by permission of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. from Hydrogeology by
S.N. Davis and RJ.M. DeWiest, copyright © 1966).
2-18
-------
Table 2.1.4 Cable Tool Drilling Suitability Ratings
UNCONSOLIDATED MATERIAL
Depth MW
Saturated
Unsaturated
0-15
15-150
>150
<2"
2-4"
4-8"
<2"
2-4"
4-8"
<2"
2-4"
4-8"
Invasion (+)
65" (29-75)b
65 (30-68)
61 (61-69)
66 (23-67)
65 (21-69)
67 (67)
62 (60-69)
60 (58-66)
63 (63-66)
Invasion (-)
60 (27-75)
66 (28-72)
74 (46-74)
66 (30-69)
68 (24-68)
80 (80)
66 (66-72)
67 (67-74)
80 (80)
Invasion (+)
54 (32-79)
60 (24-79)
61 (48-64)
57 (24-76)
66 (19-72)
66 (66-70)
54 (54-65)
56 (56-65)
65 (65-66)
Invasion (-)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
CONSOLIDATED MATERIAL
Depth MW
Diameter
Saturated/Unsaturated
Invasion (+) Invasion (-)
-
2-4"
4-8"
55 (55-75)
65 (64-77)
NA
NA
Boldface = Highest rating or within a few points of highest rating.
NA = Not applicable.
"Numerical rating for drilling method in Appendix B, AUer et al. (1991).
"Tiange of numerical ratings of applicable methods (perfect score = 80).
2-19
-------
2. DRILLING AND SOLIDS SAMPLING METHODS
2.1 DRILLING METHODS
2.1.5 Casing Advancement: Rotary Drill-Through Methods (Drill-Through Casing Driver and Dual Rotary
Advancement)
Other Names Used to Describe Methods; Air (mud) rotary drill or downhole hammer with casing drivers, air
rotary casing hammer, air drilling with casing hammer.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Monitoring well installation in unstable consolidated deposits, where loss of
circulation of drilling fluids is a problem, and/or where prevention of cross contamination of aquifers is
important.
Method Description; Casing driver advancement: Conventional direct air (mud) rotary drill or downhole
hammer equipment is used in combination with a driver that advances a casing as drilling proceeds (Figure
2.1.5a). Cuttings flow up between the annular space between the drill pipe and the casing. The diameter of the
casing is slightly larger than the bit, so it can be removed when the desired depth is reached. Dual rotary
advancement: Casing is advanced independently of the drill bit using a rotating steel casing equipped with a
carbide studded drive shoe welded to the bottom of the first joint (Figure 2.1.5b). The carbide ring cuts its own
way through the overburden material. Rotary drilling (usually air) takes place simultaneously using a downhole
hammer or tri-cone bit. Drilling can proceed either inside or ahead of the casing. Monitoring well installation
procedures are similar to for hollow-stem auger, but casing removal is a little more difficult.
Method Selection Considerations: Advantages: (1) Compared to open hole methods, holes are straighter and
better geologic samples are collected because uphole erosion and contamination is eliminated; (2) drill-through
casing methods work well in difficult conditions, such as unconsolidated deposits with cobbles and boulders; and
(3) air requirements are also reduced compared to open hole air rotary and downhole hammer methods; (4) soft,
caving formation can be drilled. Disadvantages: (1) Problems might be encountered in driving casing and pulling
it back for well installation in consolidated rock; (2) more expensive due to added time and materials; (3) driving
of the casing also is very noisy; (4) not in common use throughout the United States, so might not be available
in some areas; (5) might be difficult to pull back casing if driven deeper than about 50 feet. Aller et al. (1991)
give air rotary with casing hammer top ratings compared to other drilling methods for shallow (< 15 feet) large-
diameter (4 to 8 inch) monitoring wells in most categories, and for small to medium diameter (up to 4 inches)
monitoring wells in unsaturated unconsolidated material greater than 150 feet (see Table 2.1.5).
Frequency of Use; With unconsolidated material, generally only used in situations where hollow-stem augers have
problems (coarse gravekj cobbles, boulders) or where prevention of cross-contamination between aquifers is
critical. Casing advancement methods in consolidated rock are being used with increasing frequency as a means
of insuring integrity of well installation.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: --
Sources for Additional Information: Rotary casing driver: Aller et al. (1991), Driscoll (1986), Hix (1991),
Woessner (1987, 1988); Dual rotary: Hk (1991).
2-20
-------
Air supply
Top-head drive
FILTERED COMPRESSED
AIR OR WATER
CARBIDE-STUDDED
DRIVE SHOE •
Drill bit
(a)
Figure 2.1.5 Drill through methods: (a) Diagram of rotary drill-through casing driver (Aller et al., 1991); (b)
Diagram of dual rotary method (Hix, 1991, by permission).
2-21
-------
Table 2.1.5 Air Rotary with Casing Hammer Drilling Method Suitability Ratings
UNCONSOLIDATED MATERIAL
Depth MW
(ft.) Diameter
Saturated
Invasion (+)
Invasion (-)
Unsaturated
Invasion (+)
Invasion (-)
0-15
15-150
>150
2-4"
4-8"
2-4"
4-8"
2-4"
4-8"
5T (29-75)b
58 (30-68)
69 (61-69)
60 (23-67)
60 (21-69)
NA
60 (60-69)
60 (58-66)
NA
59 (27-75)
62 (28-72)
64 (46-74)
65 (30-69)
67 (24-68)
NA
69 (66-72)
74 (67-74)
NA
59 (32-79)
60 (24-79)
63 (48-64)
64 (24-76)
65 (19-72)
NA
65 (54-65)
65 (56-65)
NA
59 (44-75)
62 (37-77)
71 (58-71)
63 (35-79)
63 (25-73)
NA
73 (65-73)
68 (60-70)
NA
CONSOLIDATED MATERIAL
Depth MW
Diameter
Saturated/Unsaturated
Invasion (+)
Invasion (-)
2-4"
4-8"
NA (55-75)
NA (64-77)
NA (68-74)
NA (80)
Boldface = Highest rating or within a few points of highest rating.
NA = Not applicable.
"Numerical rating for drilling method in Appendix B, Aller et al. (1991).
''Range of numerical ratings of applicable methods (perfect score = 80).
2-22
-------
2. DRILLING AND SOLIDS SAMPLING METHODS
2.1 DRILLING METHODS
2.1.6 Casing Advancement: Reverse Circulation (Rotary, Percussion Hammer, and Hydraulic Percussion)
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Numerous terms are used to describe reverse circulation methods.
Two casings (dual-wall or dual-tube) or three casings can be used (triple-wall). Reverse circulation rotary drilling
methods can use air rotary with bit or downhole hammer (Section 2.1.2), or mud rotary (Section 2.1.3). The
percussion hammer method should not be confused with the air rotary with downhole hammer method (Section
2.1.2). Hydraulic percussion is also called the hollow-rod method.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Installing monitoring wells where unconsolidated formation materials are unstable,
coarse alluvium, and/or the interaquifer cross-contamination must be minimized.
Method Description: Reverse circulation dual-wall rotary: Similar to air rotary roller-cone bit or downhole
hammer with casing driver (Section 2.1.2), except that air is circulated down the annular space between the casing
and the drill pipe to the bit, and cuttings are brought to the surface through the drill pipe (Figure 2.1.6). Reverse
circulation dual-wall percussion hammer: The percussion hammer operates on the same principle of reverse
circulation as the dual-wall rotary method but the drive method is distinctly different. Either dual- or triple-wall
casing configurations can be used. The top of the dual pipe string is attached to the drive spout, which allows
compressed air to be delivered to the annulus between the outer and inner pipes, and cuttings to be discharged
from the inner pipe through a flexible hose to a cyclone. A tempered-steel anvil mounted on top of the drive
spout assembly receives the blows of the percussion hammer mounted on the mast of the drill rig. Special dual-
wall or triple-wall drill bits are used for cutting into the formation and no rotation of the bit occurs, which is a
primary distinguishing feature from dual-wall rotary drilling. Hydraulic percussion: Similar to the jet-percussion
methods (Section 2.1.8), except that a ball check valve exists between the bit and lower end of the drill pipe.
The annular space between the drill rods and well casing is filled with water and the drill rods and bit are lifted
and dropped with quick, short strokes. When the bit drops and strikes bottom, water with cuttings in suspension
enters the ports of the bit, and the water and cuttings are trapped inside the drill pipe by the check valve when
the bit is lifted. This reciprocating motion produces a pumping action that brings the water and cuttings to the
surface where they are discharge into a settling tank. Water is returned to the hole from the settling tank.
Casing is driven as drilling proceeds.
Method Selection Considerations: Reverse Dual-Wall Rotary Advantages: In addition to the advantages of other
casing advancement methods of providing borehole support, minimizing cross-contamination, and minimizing
problems with lost circulation, the method: (1) Produces larger sized chip particles than conventional rotary
equipment resulting in very good continuous, representative formation samples with minimal risk of
contamination of samples and/or water-bearing zones; (2) drilling is very rapid (usually between 40 and 80 feet
per hour) in both unconsolidated and consolidated formations; (3) excellent for drilling and sampling in
formations which are highly fractured and/or have voids and cavities; (4) aquifers can be readily identified when
drilling with air, (5) large diameter wells can be easily installed using triple-wall percussion hammer, (6) estimates
of aquifer yield can be made easily at many depths in the formation; (7) washout zones are reduced or
eliminated; and (8) relatively deep wells are possible (up to 1400 feet in alluvial deposits, although works best
up to 600 feet and generally up to 2,000 feet in hard rocks). Reverse Dual-Wall Rotary Disadvantages: (1)
Monitoring well installation can be tricky with the dual-wall configuration due to limitations in the annular space;
(2) open hole completion is required for installation of a filter pack; (3) formation might become contaminated
with oil if air filter is not working properly on air rotary rigs; (4) limited to holes greater than 9 to 10 inches in
diameter; (5) well-trained drilling crews are needed, and equipment has limited availability; (6) drilling costs are
high due to high cost of drilling rig and equipment; and (7) placing cement grout around the outside of the casing
above the screen of the permanent well is difficult, especially when the screen and casing are placed down
through the inner drill pipe before it is pulled out. Aller et al. (1991) give dual-wall reverse rotary highest
ratings compared to other drilling methods for deep wells (>150 feet) in unconsolidated material and the
following situations: (1) Small diameter monitoring wells (<2 inches) in saturated conditions, and (2) medium
monitoring wells (2 to 4 inches) in unsaturated conditions (see Table 2.1.6). Percussion Hammer Advantages:
(1) Able to penetrate alluvial formation with sands, gravels, and boulders at rapid speed; (2) provides continuous
2-23
-------
Continuous sample discharge •
Top-head
drive
Figure 2.1.6 Diagram of dual-wall reverse circulation rotary (Alter et al, 1991).
2-24
-------
Table 2.1.6 Dual-Wall Rotary Drilling Suitability Ratings
UNCONSOLJDATED MATERIAL
Depth MW
Diameter
Saturated
Unsaturated
0-15 2-4"
4-8"
15-150 2-4"
4-8"
>150 2-4"
4-8"
Invasion (+)
56' (29-75)b
56 (30-68)
NA
63 (23-67)
61 (21-69)
NA
69 (60-69)
58 (58-456)
NA
Invasion (-)
56 (27-75)
54 (28-72)
NA
64 (30-69)
57 (24-458)
NA
72 (66-72)
70 (67-74)
NA
CONSOLIDATED
Invasion (+)
57 (32-79)
57 (24-79)
NA
61 (24-76)
62 (19-72)
NA
64 (54-65)
65 (56-65)
NA
MATERIAL
Invasion (-)
64 (44-75)
59 (37-77)
NA
64 (35-79)
52 (25-73)
NA
69 (65-73)
70 (60-70)
NA
Depth MW
Diameter
Saturated/Unsaturated
Invasion (+)
Invasion (-)
2-4"
4-8"
68 (55-75)
NA (64-77)
68 (68-74)
NA (80)
Boldface = Highest rating or within a few points of highest rating.
NA = Not applicable.
'Numerical rating for drilling method in Appendix B, AUer et al. (1991).
'"Range of numerical ratings of applicable methods (perfect score = 80).
2-25
-------
and accurate geological samples-soft seams, organic layers, and whole rock cobbles up to 4 inches in diameter
can be lifted without prior crushing; (3) split spoon samples can be taken through the hollow center of the dual
wall pipe; and (4) location of aquifers can be pinpointed with high precision because once the drive bit has
progressed beyond the aquifer, the sample become dry again. Percussion Hammer Disadvantages: (1) Dual-wall
pipe that is used is expensive and has limited inside diameter; and (2) diesel soot expelled by the pile driving
hammer might result in some downhole contamination. Hydraulic Percussion: The main advantage is that
relatively simple equipment is required, but use is limited to drilling small-diameter wells through clay and sand
formations that are relatively free of cobbles and boulders.
Frequency of Use; Reverse dual-wall rotary is most commonly used in the southwestern United States.
Percussion hammer has become quite popular for drilling monitoring wells in the west. The hydraulic percussion
method has rarely been used to monitor well construction.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: ASTM (1993d).
Sources for Additional Information: Reverse dual-wall rotary: Aller et al. (1991), Campbell and Lehr (1973),
Driscoll (1986); Percussion hammer: Hix (1991); Hydraulic percussion: Driscoll (1986). See also, Table 2-4.
2-26
-------
2. DRILLING AND SOLIDS SAMPLING METHODS
2.1 DRILLING METHODS
2.1.7 Casing Advancement: Downhole Casing Advancers (ODEX, TUBEX)
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Down-the-hole hammer drill with underreaming capability, downhole
hammer with eccentric bit.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Monitoring well installation in bouldery glacial till or hard or fractured bedrock,
and where prevention of cross contamination of aquifers is important.
Method Description: Downhole casing advancers are similar to drill-through casing drivers using downhole air
hammer (see Section 2.1.5), except that eccentric (off-centered) bits drill a hole larger than the casing. Figure
2.1.7 illustrates major elements of the ODEX drilling assembly and method of operation. The weight of the
casing, plus blows from the hammer (which are directed onto a drive shoe welded to the leading edge of the
casing) are enough to advance the casing through hard formations. When the desired depth has been reached,
the eccentric bit is rotated briefly in the reverse direction, causing it to become smaller than the casing, so that
it can be removed. Monitoring well installation procedures are similar to for hollow-stem auger, but casing
removal is a little more difficult.
Method Selection Considerations: Advantages: (1) Compared to open hole methods, holes are straighter and
better geologic samples are collected because uphole erosion and contamination is eliminated; (2) most methods
can advance through difficult formations such as cobbles, boulders, caliche, heaving sands, weathered bedrock,
and clay, and (3) air requirements also are reduced for air rotary and percussion methods. Disadvantages: (1)
Relatively expensive due to slower drilling and materials; and (2) casing removal after well installation might be
difficult.
Frequency of Use: In unconsolidated material, generally only used in situations where hollow-stem augers have
problems (coarse gravels, cobbles, boulders, and heaving sands) or where prevention of cross-contamination
between aquifers is critical. Casing advancement methods in consolidated rock are being used with increasing
frequency as a means of insuring integrity of well installation.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: -
Sources for Additional Information; Aller et al. (1991), Baker et al. (1987-ODEX), Hix (1991), Murphy (1991-
2-27
-------
ODEX
B
Filtered Air Supply
Mast
Shoulder
Guide Device
w/Slots for
Cutting Removal
Top Head
Rotary Drive
Pilot
The clockwise rotation forces the eccentric
reamer out and drills a hole slightly larger '
than the external diameter of the casing
Discharge head
Guide sleeve-
Down-the-hole drill
Guide device —
Rearnei
Outlet for cuttings
Once the full length of the bit assembly has
aavancea ahead of the casing, the shoulder on
tne guide device impacts the inner lip of the
proceeds.ThlS PU"S the °asin
-------
2. DRILLING AND SOLIDS SAMPLING METHODS
2.1 DRILLING METHODS
2.1.8 Jetting Methods
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Jetting: Wash boring*; Jet percussion: Wash boring*.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Monitoring well/piezometer installation in unconsolidated deposits.
Method Description: The jetting or wash drilling method (Figure 2.1.8a) involves a wash pipe placed inside a
well screen, or a string of 2-inch pipe is set adjacent to the well point. Water is pumped into the casing (in the
first instance) or into the pipe string (in the second instance) and the resulting jet of water allows the well screen
and casing to sink into the water-bearing formation by its own weight. Cuttings are brought to the surface by
water rising outside the casing/jet pipe. At depths below 25 feet or so, a drilling fluid additive must be mixed
with the jetting water to suspend cuttings and stabilize the borehole when circulation is interrupted. The jet
percussion or wash boring method uses a wedge-shaped drill bit at the end of a drill pipe attached to a cable,
which is alternately raised and dropped to loosen unconsolidated material or to break up rock at the bottom of
a borehole (Figure 2.1.8b). The drill pipe is rotated by hand at the surface. A casing is advanced by a drive pipe
as the depth of the hole increases. Water or drilling fluid is pumped down the drill pipe under pressure, is
discharged through ports on each side of the drill bit to lubricate the bit, carries cuttings up the annular space
between the drill-pipe and casing to the surface, and deposits the cuttings in a settling pit. The drilling fluid is
then recirculated down the drill pipe.
Method Selection Considerations; Jetting Advantages: (1) Simple, light equipment eliminates need for a drilling
contractor; (2) fast and inexpensive for shallow boreholes in unconsolidated sediments; (3) vertically spaced
ground-water samples can be obtained if drive points are forced ahead of borehole and pumped; (4) drilling
equipment can reach almost any site; and (5) numerous well points can be placed as an inexpensive method to
determine water table contours/flow direction. Jetting Disadvantages: (1) Slow, especially at depth; (2) maximum
depth of 100 to 150 feet; (3) can only be used in unconsolidated sediment and cannot penetrate boulders or wash
up coarse gravel; (4) wash water can dilute formation water, affecting representativeness of samples; (5)
interpretation of geology from wash samples is difficult (in cohesive soils and silts it might be possible to use
sampling devices to obtain representative or undisturbed samples); (6) only short screens can be easily set; (7)
water must be supplied under enough pressure to penetrate the geologic materials present and large quantities
of water might be required; (8) use of drilling fluid additives and entrained air might affect sample quality; (9)
not possible to place grout seal above the screen to assure depth-discrete sampling or isolation of different water-
bearing zones; and (10) diameter of casing usually limited to 2 inches, which places some limitation on sampling
tools that can be used. Jet Percussion Advantages: (1) Most effective in unconsolidated sands and best
application is a cinch borehole with 2-inch casing and screen installed, sealed, and grouted; and (2) equipment
and operation are simple and relatively inexpensive. Jet Percussion Disadvantages: (1) Slow and not effective
in dense clayAill or bouldery material and drilling mud might be required to return cuttings to the surface; (2)
use of water during drilling can dilute formation water and cause cross-contamination; (3) no formation water
sample can be taken during drilling; (4) poor soil samples as a result of fines being washed out of sample; and
(5) monitoring-well diameter limited to 4 inches and to depths of about 200 feet. Aller et al. (1991) gave this
method consistently the lowest ratings compared to other drilling methods in their matrices for selecting
appropriate drilling methods (see Table 2.1.8).
Frequency of Use: Uncommon for monitoring well installation.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: —
Sources for Additional Information: Jetting: Driscoll (1986), Mickelson et al. (1961), Moulder and Hug (1963);
Jet percussion: Aller et al. (1991), Driscoll (1986), Matlock (1970).
*The term "wash boring" can be used to describe the jetting method in water well applications (Driscoll, 1986)
and to describe the jet percussion method in geotechnical applications. This guide uses the terms jetting and
2-29
-------
Swing joint
Pressure hose
Pump and
motor
Arrows indicate direction of flow in jetting cycle
Cuttings washed up
annular space
Drilling fluid discharged
Bj( through port in bit
(a)
(b)
Figure 2.1.8 Jetting methods: (a) Single-pipe wash boring method for small-diameter wells (Moulder and Klug,
1963); (b) Jet percussion (Aller et al, 1991).
2-30
-------
Table 2.1.8 Jet Percussion Suitability Ratings
UNCONSOLIDATED MATERIAL
Depth MW
Saturated
Unsaturated
0-15
15-150
>150
<2"
2-4"
4-8"
<2»
2-4"
4-8"
<2"
2-4"
4-8"
Invasion (+)
29' (29-75)b
30 (30-68)
NA
23 (23-67)
21 (21-69)
NA
NA
NA
NA
Invasion (-)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Invasion (+)
32 (32-79)
24 (24-79)
NA
24 (24-76)
19 (19-72)
NA
NA
NA
NA
Invasion (-)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
CONSOLIDATED MATERIAL
Depth MW
Diameter
Saturated AJnsaturated
Invasion (+)
Invasion (-)
2-4"
4-8"
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA = Not applicable.
"Numerical rating for drilling method in Appendix B, Aller et al. (1991).
""Range of numerical ratings of applicable methods (perfect score = 80).
2-31
-------
jet percussion to avoid possible confusion. Whenever this term is encountered, the operation of the method
should be evaluated to determine whether jetting or jet percussion is involved.
2-32
-------
2. DRILLING AND SOLIDS SAMPLING METHODS
2.1 DRILLING METHODS
2.1.9 Solid Flight and Bucket Augers
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Solid-stem auger, solid-core auger, continuous flight auger,
helical/worm-type auger, disk auger, rotary bucket drilling.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Investigating shallow soil and vadose monitoring wells (lysimeters); monitoring wells
in saturated, stable soils; identifying depth to bedrock.
Method Description: Solid flight augers: Auger sections with a solid stem and flighting (the curve corkscrew-like
blades) are connected in a continuous string to the lowermost section with a cutting head that is approximately
2 inches larger in diameter than the flighting (Figure 2.1.9a). Cuttings are rotated upward to the surface by
moving along the continuous flighting as the cutting head advances into the earth (Figure 2.1.9b); making it
difficult to obtain reliable depth-specific soil samples from the cuttings that are brought to the surface. In stable
soils, rotation can be stopped at the desired depth, the augers removed from the borehole, and samples taken
from the bottom flight. Use of different diameter augers allows placement of casing to isolate near-surface
contamination, and continuation of drilling with a smaller-diameter auger. Recovery of samples from the
saturated zone is difficult. The only way to collect undisturbed samples is to remove the auger string, attach a
split-spoon or thin-wall sampler to the end of the drill rod and put the entire string back into the borehole. A
disk auger is similar to a solid flight auger except that it has a larger diameter and the flighting 'only goes around
the stem once. Bucket augers (8-inch minimum diameter and typically 2 feet long) have a cutting edge on the
bottom that is slowly rotated by a square telescoping Kelley of drill stem. When the bucket fills with cuttings,
it is brought to the surface to be emptied. Figure 2.1.9c illustrates several types of bucket augers. Other variants
in include the spoon auger and the Vicksburg hinged auger.
Method Selection Considerations: Solid Stem Auger Advantages: (1) In unconsolidated material, drilling rigs are
fast and mobile; and (2) minimal damage to aquifer and no drilling fluids or lubricants required. Solid Stem
Auger Disadvantages: (1) Soil samples are unreliable unless split-spoon or thin-wall samples are taken, slowing
drilling speed, and those can only be taken where stable soils exist; (2) generally unsuitable for monitoring-well
installation in the saturated zone because of borehole caving upon auger removal; (3) depth generally restricted
to 30 meters or less; (4) because auger must be removed before well can be set, vertical mixing can occur
between water-bearing zones; (5) can only be used in unconsolidated materials; (6) depth to water table might
be difficult to determining accurately in deep borings; and (7) drilling through a contaminated soil zone might
result in downward transport of contaminants. Aller et al. (1991) give consistently low ratings compared to other
drilling methods in unconsolidated saturated material, and the methods usually rate second highest, after hollow-
stem auger, for most unsaturated conditions (see Table 2.1.9). Bucket Auger Advantages: (1) Good for
construction wells just into the water table in unconsolidated formations that form stable borehole walls, such
a clayey sediments walls; (2) after hole has been drilled, the setting of casing with screen and grouting outside
to casing is relatively easy, (3) soil samples taken with a bucket auger are disturbed, but representative, unless,
caving of the borehole has occurred; and (4) depth specific sampling and detailed in situ soil descriptions might
be possible if the diameter of the boring is large enough to let a person work in the hole. Bucket Auger
Disadvantages: (1) Large diameter holes create a large annular space when small-diameter casing is used,
necessitating a large volume of grout, and special care in grout placement and backfilling; (2) in caving
formations below the water table, water must be added continuously to prevent caving; (3) restricted to depths
less than about 50 feet; and (4) rigs might not be readily available.
Frequency of Use: Solid stem auger: Most commonly used for geotechnical investigations in unconsolidated
material. Less commonly used for monitoring well installation because most installations need to be completed
into the saturated zone. Bucket auger: Most commonly used for large-diameter borings associated with
foundations and building structures.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: —
2-33
-------
r
Auger , ,
connection
Flighting -
Cutter head
(a)
AUGER WITH
NONADJUSTABLE I
REAMER
AUGER WITH
BOTTOM OPEN
FOR DUMPING
AUGER WITH
ADJUSTABLE
REAMER
HALF-ROUND
AUGER
Figure 2.1.9 Power-driven augers: (a) Diagram of solid-flight auger (Aller et al, 1991); (b) Relationship of surface
cuttings and subsurface (Scalf et al., 1981); (c) Bits for power bucket augers (U.S. Army, 1981).
2-34 .
-------
Table 2.1.9 Solid Flight Auger Suitability Ratings
UNCONSOLIDATED MATERIAL
Depth MW
(ft.) Diameter
Saturated
Unsaturated
Invasion (+)
Invasion (-)
Invasion (+)
Invasion (-)
0-15
15-150
>150
2-4"
4-8"
2-4"
4-8"
<2"
2-4"
4-8"
44" (29-75)b
41 (30-68)
NA
37 (23-67)
32 (21-69)
NA
NA
NA
NA
27 (27-75)
28 (28-72)
46 (46-74)
NA
24 (24-68)
NA
NA
NA
NA
70 (32-79)
70 (24-79)
60 (48-64)
69 (24-76)
59 (19-72)
NA
NA
NA
NA
70 (44-75)
68 (37-77)
NA
70 (35-79)
58 (25-73)
NA
NA
NA
NA
CONSOLIDATED MATERIAL
Depth MW
Diameter
Saturated/Unsaturated
Invasion (+)
Invasion (-)
2-4"
4-8"
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA = Not applicable.
"Numerical rating for drilling method in Appendix .B, Aller et al. (1991).
''Range of numerical ratings of applicable methods (perfect score = 80).
2-35
-------
Sources for Additional Information: Solid flight auger: Alter et al. (1991), Driscoll (1986), Geeting (1990-
enclosed auger), Scalf et al. (1981), Shuter and Teasdale (1989), U.S. EPA (1987); Bucket auger: Driscoll (1986),
Scalf et al. (1981), U.S. EPA (1987).
2-36
-------
2. DRILLING AND SOLIDS SAMPLING METHODS
2.1 DRILLING METHODS
2.1.10 Rotary Diamond Drilling
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Diamond drilling.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Borehole drilling and coring in consolidated rock.
Method Description: Rotating bit consists of a tube 10 to 20 feet long, with a diamond-studded ring fitted to the
end of the core barrel. Figure 2.1.10 illustrates a typical diamond drilling rig. The bit can also be attached to
either an ah- or a mud rotary rig (Sections 2.1.2 and 2.1.3). Typically water circulates through the bit to cool the
cutting surface. The diamond bit cuts through rock, with a solid core remaining in the tube. In soft and medium
formations sawtooth or carbide tips can be used.
Method Selection Considerations: Advantages: (1) Can drill to any depth; (2) provides continuous cores of
geologic material for accurate geologic logging; (3) especially useful for locating and characterizing fracture
zones; and (4) can be used with mud or air rotary rigs. Disadvantages: (1) Limited primarily to use in
consolidated bedrock, but can also be used in highly compacted tills; (2) cooling water or drilling fluids might
alter chemistry of ground-water samples, especially when it penetrates deeply into highly fractured rock
(placement of tracers in drilling fluid can be used to determine whether ground-water samples have been
influenced by the drilling water; (3) diamond bits are more expensive than conventional roller bits; and (4) slow
compared to most other methods.
Frequency of Use: Commonly used for mineral exploration in crystalline rock; less commonly used for monitoring
well installation.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: ASTM (1983b), DCDMA (1991).
Sources for Additional Information: Barrett et al. (1980), Bowman (1911), Christensen Diamond (1970),
Gumming and Wickland (1965), Gillham et al. (1983), Heinz (1985), Shuter and Teasdale (1989), World Oil
(1970).
2-37
-------
•^^Bolt and clevis
^Double sheave
4-leg derrick.
Manila rope,
Wire drum hoist
Cathead hoist
Transmissi
Power unit
•Variable displacement
water pump
Figure 2.1.10 l^pical diamond drilling rig (Shuter and Teasdale, 1989).
2-38
-------
2. DRILLING AND SOIIDS SAMPLING METHODS
2.1 DRILLING METHODS
2.1.11 Directional Drilling
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Radial/horizontal drilling, conical jet drilling, slant rig drilling.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Installing horizontal or slanting wells for geophysical measurement or vadose zone
monitoring; conducting soil and ground-water remediation (pump-and-treat, grouting, soil gas vacuum extraction,
bioventing, in situ remediation, and soil flushing).
Method Description: Directional drilling involves use of drilling equipment located at the ground surface to drill
slanting or horizontal holes in the subsurface. All directional drilling systems require: (1) A steerable drill stem,
and (2) the capability to detect the location of the drill head or trajectory of the borehole. Directional drilling
equipment with potential for applications at contaminated sites range in size from scaled-down rigs developed
for the oil industry to relatively compact, simple equipment used to install utilities. Eastman-Christensen (EC)
has developed a custom-equipped drill rig with a slanting rig mast capable of being oriented from the vertical,
to 60 degrees from vertical, which can drill horizontally on a 100-foot radius (Figure 2.1.11a). The drilling
assembly consists of a dual-wall drill string and an expandable bit, which drills a hole large enough to permit
casing to be advanced during drilling. The drill bit is guided using measurement from a tool face indicator, which
records the inclination of the drilling assembly. When the well is drilled to the desired length, the inner drilling
assembly is withdrawn and the well screen installed. A horizontal section of screen greater than 500 feet in
length can be accurately placed at target depths from around 10 feet to greater than 300 feet. Several radial
drilling systems have been developed. In these systems a relatively large diameter vertical hole is first drilled
and cased. Specific systems vary somewhat, but have the common elements of a vertical drilling string or
assembly with a nonrotating orientation assembly or whipstock at the depth of interest that guides a flexible drive
pipe from the vertical to horizontal direction (Figure 2.1.11b). Two types of drilling methods have been reported
for radial drill holes: (1) A mud rotary system with a top-drive hydraulic rotary rig (Kaback et al., 1989), and (2)
Petrolphysics conical jet drilling system, which uses a nozzle designed to produce a conical shell of high velocity
water that also serves to advance the drill pipe. With the jet drilling system, multiple laterals (as many as 12)
up to 200 feet or more can be placed at several levels using the same vertical well (Figure 2.1.11b). Utility rigs
use an initially inclined borehole and develop a trajectory that is similar to the EC rig described above, except
that the equipment is smaller and less sophisticated. Boring methods include jet-assisted rotary, above-ground
hydraulic percussion, water jet, down-hole pneumatic percussion, or down-hole pneumatic motor. Drill head
location is monitored using a radio transmitter in the drill head and a receiver at the surface over the drill head.
Boring lengths greater than 500 feet at depths of 3 to 20 feet are possible. Greater depths require specialized
monitoring equipment. Equipment can be mobilized behind a pickup truck.
Method Selection Considerations: Advantages: (1) Allows borehole access to subsurface areas such as beneath
buildings, tanks, landfills, and impoundments where vertical drill rigs cannot go; (2) reduces potential for cross-
contamination between aquifers; (3) excellent for remediation techniques that require maximum horizontal access
to contaminated zone or contaminant plumes that are not vertically dispersed; (4) production from horizontal
wells generally is higher than from vertical wells due to greater possible screen length; (5) Petrolphysics radial
jet drilling is very rapid in bedrock (1/2 foot per minute in granite, more than 1 foot per minute in sedimentary
rock); and (6) cost of drilling with utility rigs is similar to vertical drilling with an auger rig. Disadvantages: (1)
There has been relatively little actual experience using directional drilling methods at contaminated sites, and
value for site characterization and monitoring (as opposed to remediation) has yet to be demonstrated; (2)
drilling costs are high for petroleum industry-related equipment (100 to several hundred dollars a foot); (3) utility
rigs, although less expensive than petroleum rigs, have more limited depth capabilities (around 20 feet compared
to 300 feet for EC slant rig)*; (4) equipment that uses water or other fluids to advance the well bore might affect
quality of samples; (5) sampling capabilities are currently limited.
Frequency of Use: Small-scale equipment is widely used to install underground utilities. Use of large scale
drilling is well established in the petroleum industry. At contaminated sites, test applications have focussed on
remedial activities, but good potential exists for use with geophysical and other vadose monitoring methods.
2-39
-------
, Automated Slant Rig
Submersible
Pump
COMPLETED WELL
Steerable-
Drilling Assembly1
,-f f f ^r Jr ^\
in m ill ml HI in M
'jx2££JL29
6-5/8" OD Screen
•illerPack
(a)
tm
I \ VEKT1CM. KOWCING STRING
"^
;.'.-.-:H' HOLE IN CASING ."-.•.';.•'•."•;"'•.'•.'•'•'•.
\
TWELVE RADIAL AERIAL VIEW
(b)
Figure 2.1.11 Directional drilling methods: (a) Eastman-Christensen slant rig (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991); (b)
Petrolphysics rig with a shallow radial system (U.S. EPA, 1992).
2-40
-------
Standard Methods/Guidelines: -
Sources for Additional Information; See Table 2-4.
*Depth limitations of utility rigs are a result of locating methods. New locators that send signals up the drill steel
are expected to expand the depth capabilities of small rigs.
2-41
-------
2. DRILLING AND SOLIDS SAMPLING METHODS
2.1 DRILLING METHODS
2.1.12 Sonic Drilling
Other Names Used to Describe Method; Vibratory drilling, rotosonic drilling.
Uses at Contaminated Sites; Continuous sampling and monitoring well installation in unconsolidated and
soft/fractured bedrock.
Method Description: A sonic rig uses an oscillator, or head, with eccentric weights driven by hydraulic motors,
to generate high sinusoidal force in a rotating drill pipe (Figure 2.1.12a). The frequency of vibration (generally
between 50 and 120 cycles per second) of the drill bit or core barrel can be varied to allow optimum penetration
of subsurface materials. A dual string assembly allows advancement of casing with the inner casing used to
collect samples. Small amounts of air or water can be used to remove the material between the inner and outer
casing. Very rapid rates of drilling are possible; Dustman et al. (1992) report 160 feet/day in sandy terrace
deposits over glacial till and weathered sandstone. When a drill bit is used, most of the cuttings are forced into
the borehole wall. A thin-wall or split spoon sampler can be used to obtain continuous samples. The head of
the rig tilts outward to allow easy access for threading and sample extraction (Figure 2.1.12b). Research in
vibratory drilling techniques date back to the late 1940s, but it is only relatively recently that improvements in
equipment design have made the technique a viable option for investigation of contaminated sites.
Method Selection Considerations: Advantages: (1) Collection of continuous, relatively undisturbed unconsolidated
and bedrock cores possible; (2) higher drilling rates than conventional methods (around twice as fast as air rotary
and 8 to 10 times faster than hollow-stem auger and cable tool); and (3) produces about one-tenth the cuttings
of hollow-stem auger and cable tool. Disadvantages: (1) Higher operation, maintenance, and tooling costs
compared to conventional drilling methods; (2) present equipment limited to depths of about 300 feet; (3) drilling
in hard rock generally not recommended; (4) driving of material into borehole wall might create problems for
borehole logging and aquifer testing; and (5) limited equipment availability.
Frequency of Use: Uncommon; relatively recent improvements in equipment design will probably lead in
increased use in the future.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: —
Sources for Additional Information: Dustman et al. (1992), Godsey (1993).
2-42
-------
Counter Rotating
Rollers
High frequency
sinusoidal force
along axis of
drill pipe
Third harmonic
standing wave
set up in drill
pipe
Drill Pipe
Rotating and
Vibrating
Drill Bit
Courtesy of Ray Roussy, Sonic Drilling, LTD.
Note: Horizontal
arrows represent
vertical motion
of the particles
of material of
the drill pipe
(a)
Sonic Vibratory
Head
Drill Pipe and
Core Barrel
Drill Pipe
Hydraulic
Drill Center
Drilling
Platform
Figure 2.1.12 Sonic drilling: (a) Basic principles of operation; (b) Drill rig (Dustman et aL, 1992, by permission).
2-43
-------
2. DRILLING AND SOLIDS SAMPLING METHODS
2.2 DRIVE METHODS
2.2.1 Driven Wells
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Driven wellpoint, piezometers, driven pile.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Water level monitoring in shallow formations and small-diameter shallow water
quality monitoring wells.
Method Description: A screened well-point attached to metal casing (usually 1.25 to 2 inches in diameter) is
driven by hand or with drive heads mounted on a hoisting device (Figure 2.2.1). Section 6.1.10 provides
additional information on the use of drive points for piezometric measurements, and Section 5.5.3 provides
additional information on driven devices for collection of ground-water samples. A driven pile method has been
described that involves simultaneously driving two 10- to 12-inch diameter steel cylinder piles with 0.5 inch wall
thickness, one inside the other. The assembly is driven to the desired depth, or until it can be driven no further.
The inner pile is withdrawn, allowing space for installation of a 5-inch diameter well, following installation, the
12-inch diameter pile is removed. A variant of this method has also been used to install relatively shallow
leachate collection wells at a landfill (Miller and Homsby, 1991).
Method Selection Considerations: Wellpoint Advantages: (1) Relatively low cost of installation allows multiple
observation points; (2) well suited for water level measurements; (3) water samples can be collected at closely
spaced intervals during drilling; and (4) no drilling fluids are introduced into the formation. Wellpoint
Disadvantages: (1) Limited to unconsolidated material without coarse fragments; (2) cannot penetrate dense
and/or some dry materials; (3) generally limited to depth of 30 to 50 feet; (4) lack of stratigraphic detail resulting
from the lack of soil samples create uncertainty regarding screened zones and/or cross contamination (penetration
rate can provide some stratigraphic information); (5) steel casing might affect quality of samples and there is no
annular space for completion procedures (a good seal,between casing and formation can only be expected if
drilling through loose, well-sorted material that collapses around the well); (6) only small-diameter ground-water
sampling equipment can be used (2.5-inch diameter casing is the usual maximum); and (7) drive point screen
might become clogged with clay if driven through a clay unit. Driven Pile Advantages: (1) Casing reduces
potential for cross contamination; and (2) no drilling fluids are involved. Driven Pile Disadvantages: (1) Pile
might reduce formation permeability by smearing or compaction; (2) unconsolidated material that can be
penetrated by piles is required; and (3) casing is expensive.
Frequency of Use; Commonly used for water level observations.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: See Section 6.1.10 for piezometer installation.
Sources for Additional Information: Wellpoint: Aller et al. (1991), Driscoll (1986); Driven pile: Kaufman et al.
(1981), Miller and Hornsby (1991).
2-44
-------
• Drive cap
-Coupling
-Casing
-Coupling
• Screen
Wellpoint
Figure 2.2.1 Diagram of driven wellpoint (Aller et al, 1991).
2-45
-------
2. DRILLING AND SOLIDS SAMPLING METHODS
22 DRIVE METHODS
2.2.2 Cone Penetration
Other Names Used to Describe Method: CPT (cone penetration test), cone penetrometry.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Stratigraphic logging in soft soils. When instrumented for pore pressure
measurements, subsurface hydraulic characteristics can be measured (pressure head, soil permeability, and water
bearing zones), and sampling cones allow in-situ sampling of liquids and gases (see Sections 5.5.1 and 5.5.2).
Measuring stress-strain soil properties affecting site seismic response (see Section 3.3.4).
Method/Device Description; The cone penetration test (CPT) involves hydraulically pushing a cone-shaped
instrument into the soil and measuring its resistance to penetration (Figure 2.2.2a). Resistance is measured by
sensitive strain gauges that transmit electronic signals to an automatic data acquisition system (Figure 2.2.2b).
Use of a four-channel piezocone allows estimation of hydraulic properties of the soil by measuring pore pressure
changes in response to the stresses created by the CPT. Porous probe permeameters can be used in a falling-
head orconstant-head mode, as a relatively simple and inexpensive method for determining hydraulic conductivity
in the vicinity of the probe. The seismic cone penetration test is described in Section 3.4.4. Special porous
sampling cones can be used with conventional cone-penetration equipment, which allow collection of soil-gas or
ground-water samples from a desired depth by lowering specially designed vials down the casing to the cone (see
descriptions of Hydropunch in Sections 5.5.1 and the BAT system in section 5.5.2).
Method/Device Selection Considerations; Best used in initial site characterization to help in siting of monitoring
wells. Works most efficiently in soft soils. Continuous measurement of soil properties minimizes the possibility
of overlooking thin strata that could influence soil behavior. No contaminated fluids are produced by
measurements of hydraulic properties. One-time samples helpful for characterizing the extent of contaminant
plumes, but not suitable for ongoing monitoring.
Frequency of Use; Commonly used in geotechnical investigations. Use at hazardous waste investigations should
become more common as experience is gained in using cone penetration equipment for hydrologic
characterization and sampling for preliminary site characterization.
Standard Methods/Guidelines; ASTM (1986a,b).
Sources for Additional Information: See Table 2-4. Hydraulic conductivity testing: Peteonk (1985), Sai and
Anderson (1991). See also, Sections 5.5.1 and 5.5.2 and Table 5-5.
2-46
-------
Cone penetrometer rod -
Electrical sensor
measuring side friction-
(a)
Water table
Cone penetromcter
test probe
-Electrical sensor
measuring penetration
resistance
1 Conical Point (10 cm2)
2 Load Cell
3 Strain Gages
4 Friction Sleeved50cmz)
5 Adjustment Ring
6 Waterproof Bushing
7 Cable
8 Connection with Rods
Figure 2 2.2 Cone penetrometry: (a) Typical cone penetrometer test rig (SmoIIey and Kappmeyer, 1991, by
permission); (b) Electric friction-cone penetrometer tip (Chiang et aL, 1989a, by permission).
2-47
-------
2. DRILLING AND SOLIDS SAMPLING METHODS
23 HAND-HELD SOIL SAMPLING DEVICES
23.1 Scoops, Spoons, and Shovels
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Trowels, spades, soil punch, soil moisture tin.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Sampling of near surface soils.
Method Description: Spoons (from 10 to 100 gram capacity), scoops (with capacity typically ranging from 300
to 2000 grams), and shovels or shovel-like instruments, such as trowels, can be used separately or in combination
to collect samples. Stainless steel is the most common type used; plastic or Teflon-coated are also available.
A shovel is usually used to remove the top cover of soil to the desired depth, and spoons or scoops are used for
actual sampling. Use of trenches to provide a vertical exposure allows use of soil punches or sail moisture tins,
either vertically or horizontally, to collect samples of a known volume (see Figure 2.3.1).
Method Selection Considerations: Scoops and Spoons Advantages: (1) Inexpensive and readily available; (2) can
be easily decontaminated, or discarded to reduce sampling time; (3) can be transported to remote areas; and (4)
easy to obtain relatively large sample volumes. Scoops and Spoons Disadvantages: (1) Samples are disturbed,
so measurements requiring undisturbed soil cannot be taken; (2) reproducibility of sample sizes might be poor
when area and/or volume are critical for accurately characterizing the degree of contamination; and (3) limited
to near-surface sampling (deeper than 50 centimeters becomes very labor intensive). Shovels: Similar to scoops
and spoons except they are more expensive. Soil punches have the advantage that a precise volume of soil is
sampled, which allows for the calculation of other properties, such as bulk density. See also, Table 2-3.
Frequency of Use: Commonly used for near-surface sampling for initial screening purposes.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: Boulding (1991), Ford et al. (1984).
Sources for Additional Information; ~
2-48
-------
Figure 23.1 Procedure for collecting sample with soil moisture tin (Cameron et al, 1966).
2-49
-------
2. DRILLING AND SOLIDS SAMPLING METHODS
23 HAND-HELD SOIL SAMPLING DEVICES
23.2 Augers
Other Names Used to Describe Method; Screw auger, helical auger, closed spiral auger, opern spiral auger, worm
auger, bucket auger, barrel auger (standard, sand, mud/clay, dutch, in situ soil recovery, stony soil, planer, post-
hole/Iwan-type, silage), spiral auger, ram's horn auger.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Collecting disturbed soil samples; used in combination with tube samplers for
collecting undisturbed soil samples.
Method Description: Hand-held augers consist of an auger bit, a solid or tubular drill rod, and a "T" handle
(Figure 2.3.2a). When the drill rod is threaded, extensions can be added or auger bits interchanged. The auger
tip bites into the soil as the handle is rotated, and soil retained on the auger tip is brought to the surface and
used as the soil sample. Alternatively, augers can be used to bore to the desired sampling depth, and a tube
sampler replaced for collection of the actual sample. Many types of auger bits are available: Screw-type (Figure
23.2a), bucket-type (Figure 2.3.2b), and spiral-type (Figure 2.3.2c). Table 2.3.2 describes the applications and
special limitations often types of augers. Hand-held power screw augers, requiring one or two people to operate,
can also be used. ASTM (1980) provides descriptions of about a dozen types of hand-held and machine-operated
augers.
Method Selection Considerations: General Advantages: (1) Relatively inexpensive, readily available, and most
types can be easily operated by one person; and (2) depending on the type, larger volumes of sofl can be obtained
compared to hand-held tube samplers (Section 2.3.3). General Disadvantages: (1) Difficult to know the exact
depth from which sample comes; (2) cross-contamination of samples from lower depths by cave-in or sloughing
of borehole walls is common (can be reduced by use of in situ soil recovery auger); (3) samples are disturbed,
so measurements requiring undisturbed soil cannot be taken, and accurate soil profile description is difficult; (4)
disturbance of exposure of soil to air makes most types unsuitable for sampling volatile contaminants; (5)
sampling depth is usually limited to 1 or 2 meters, but up to 3 meters is possible under favorable conditions using
extensions. Screw Auger Advantages: (1) Hand-held types usually penetrate more rapidly than bucket augers
in moist sofl; (2) power-driven hand held screw augers allow deep and rapid penetration in cohesive, soft, or hard
soils; (3) open thread provides easy access to sample; and (4) fairly easy to decontaminate. Screw Auger
Disadvantages: (1) Will not retain dry, loose, or granular material; and (2) only suitable for obtaining composite
samples. Truck-driven solid flight augers (Section 2.1.9) yield samples similar to screw augers and have the same
advantages and disadvantages. Bucket Auger Advantages: Variety of types allows selection of auger head for
much wider variety of soil conditions than screw auger and tube sampler. Bucket Auger Disadvantages: (1)
Extraction of sample from closed bucket-types cumbersome; and (2) more difficult to decontaminate than screw
augers.
Frequency of Use: Commonly used for collection of composite near surface samples, and in combination with
tube samplers to collect undisturbed samples.
Standard Methods/Guidelines; ASTM (1980), Boulding (1991), Ford et al. (1984), U.S. EPA (1986b-also covers
sampling from solid flight augers).
Sources for Additional Information: See Table 2-5.
2-50
-------
•-, r 55 p-
> rs "8 T8
i
liSII
on
s
2-51
-------
Table 233 Summary of Hand-Held Soil Augers"
Auger Type
Applications
Limitations
Screw Auger
Standard Bucket Auger
Sand Bucket Auger
Mud Bucket Auger
Dutch Auger
In-Situ Soil Recovery Auger
Eijkelcamp Stony Soil Auger
Planer Auger
Post-Hole/Iwan Auger
Silage Auger
Spiral Auger
Cohesive, soft, or hard soils or
residue
General soil or residue
Bit designed to retain dry,
loose, or granular material (silt,
sand, and gravel)
Bit and bucket designed for
wet silt and clay soil or residue
Designed specifically for wet
clayey, fibrous, or rooted soils
(marshes)
Collection of soil samples in
reusable liners; closed top
reduces contamination from
caving sidewalls
Stony soils and asphalt
Used to clean out and flatten
the bottom of predrilled holes
Cohesive, soft, or hard soils;
readily available
Silage pits and peat bogs
.Used to remove rock from
auger holes so that borings can
continue with other auger-type
Will not retain dry, loose, or
granular material
Might not retain dry, loose, or
granular material
Difficult to advance boring in
cohesive soils
Will not retain dry, loose, or
granular material
Similar to standard bucket
auger
Will not retain loose material
'Suitable for soils with limited coarse fragments; only the stony soil auger will work well in very gravelly soil.
2-52
-------
2. DRILLING AND SOLIDS SAMPLING METHODS
2.3 HAND-HELD SOIL SAMPLING DEVICES
2.3.3 Tubes
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Soil probe, thin-walled tubes, soil recovery probe, Veihmeyer tube, peat
sampler.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Collecting undisturbed soil core samples in the near surface.
Method Description: Basic equipment is similar to augers, except that a closed or open tube with a cutting tip
is attached to the drill rod. Rather than being rotated, the tube is pushed into the soil to obtain a relatively
undisturbed core. Various types of tube samplers are available. Soil probes are usually single units designed
for near-surface sampling. Thin-walled tube samplers are designed to be interchangeable with auger tips, and
for sampling at greater depths by the addition of extensions (Figure 2.3.3a). Veihmeyer tubes are designed to
be driven into the ground, and pulley jacks with grips are available for pulling the sampler out of the ground
(Figure 2.3.3b). The cutting tip on most types of samplers can be replaced if it is damaged by hitting a rock or
when it wears out. Different types of tips are available for use in standard, wet, and dry soils. Tube samplers
are often used in combination with augers, with the augers used to bore a larger diameter hole to the depth of
interest, and the tube sampler used to collect the actual sample. Table 2.3.3 provides additional information on
major types of hand-held tube samplers.
Method Selection Considerations: Advantages: (1) Relatively inexpensive, readily available, and most types can
easily be operated by one person; (2) a relatively undisturbed core can be obtained, from which a soil profile
descriptions can be made; (3) better than augers for sampling volatile contaminants; and (4) when combined with
an auger, depths up to 6 meters can be reached in stable, unconsolidated material without rocks. Disadvantages:
(1) Extraction of core from the tube might be difficult; (2) not suitable for rocky, dry, loose, or granular material,
or very wet soil; (3) might be difficult to drive into dense or hard material, and sometimes difficult to pull from
the ground; and (4) sampling depth is usually limited to 1 or 2 meters.
Frequency of Use: Commonly used for near-surface soil sampling, especially where volatile contaminants are
present.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: Boulding (1991), U.S. EPA (1986b).
Sources for Additional Information: See Table 2-5.
2-53
-------
i
A. Driver hammer
OB-
Head
C.Tube
D. Point
(a)
(b)
Standard point
Constricted point
Bulge point
Special point
Point types
Puller jack and grip
Figure 233 Hand-held thin-wall samplers: (a) Thin-wall tube probe (Rehm et al., 1985, Copyright © 1985, Electric
Power Research Institute, EPRI EA-4301, Field Measurement Methods for Hydrogeologic Investigations: A
Critical Review of the Literature, reprinted with permission); (b) Veihmeyer tube (Brown et al., 1991).
2-54
-------
Table 23_3 Summary of Hand-Held Tube Samplers*
Tube Type
Applications
Limitations
Soil Probe
Thin-Walled Tubes
Cohesive, soft soils or residue;
representative samples in soft
to medium cohesive soils and
silts
Cohesive, soft soils or residue;
special tips for wet or dry soils
available
Sampling depth generally
limited to less than 1 meter
Similar to Veihmeyer tube
Soil Recovery Probe
Veihmeyer Tube
Peat Sampler
Similar to thin-wall tubes; cores
are collected in reusable liners,
minimizing contact with the air
Cohesive soils or residue to
depth of 3 meters (maximum
of 4.9 meters)
Wet, fibrous, or organic soils
Similar to Veihmeyer tube
Difficult to drive into dense or
hard material; will not retain
dry, loose, or granular material;
might be difficult to pull from
ground
Use limited to organic soils
'Not suitable for soils with coarse fragments.
Source: Adapted from Boulding (1991)
2-55
-------
2. DRILLING AND SOLIDS SAMPLING METHODS
2.4 POWER-DRIVEN SOIL SAMPLING DEVICES
2.4.1 Split and Solid Barrel
Other Names Used to Describe Method; Split-spoon, split barrel, Maine-type split barrel, split barrel with liner.
Uses at Contaminated Sites; Collecting disturbed cores in unconsolidated material.
Method Description; Split-spoons are tubes constructed of high strength alloy steel with a tongue and groove
arrangement running the length of the tube, allowing it to be split in half. The two halves are held together by
a threaded drive head assembly at the top, and a hardened shoe at the bottom, with a beveled cutting tip (Figure
2.4.1). The sampler is driven by a 140-pound weight dropped through a 30-inch interval (ASTM, 1984a), and
the number of blows required to drive the sampler provides an indication of the compaction/density of the
formation being sampled. When the split-spoon is brought to the surface, it is disassembled and the core
removed. Some models have a liner that allows removal of the sample with minimum contact with the air. A
basket or spring retainer can be placed inside the tube near the tip to reduce loss of sample material to the
borehole as the sampler is being withdrawn. Standard geotechnical investigations sample an 18-inch interval for
each 5 feet penetrated. Continuous samples can be taken by augering or drilling to the bottom of the previously
sampled interval, and repeating the sampling operation. Barrel samplers are similar to split-spoons, except they
cannot be taken apart. A core extruder might be required to remove the core from the barrel. Table 2.4.1
provides additional information on split-spoon and barrel samplers. Ring-lined barrel samplers combine a split-
barrel of a barrel sampler with a thin-walled extension for the collection of minimally disturbed samples.
Method Selection Considerations; Advantages: (1) Sampling depth limited only by the capabilities of the drill
rig and depth to consolidated rock; (2) split-spoon samplers are readily available; (3) provide good samples for
stratigraphic interpretation; and (4) ring-lined barrel samplers can sometimes be used to obtain undisturbed cores
where conventional thin-wall samplers (Section 2.4.3) will not work. Disadvantages: (1) Disturbance of core
samples prevent use for laboratory measurement of formation properties; and (2) collection of continuous
samples is tune consuming.
Frequency of Use; Split-spoons are widely used during drilling for stratigraphic characterization, solid barrels are
less commonly used.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: Split spoon: ASTM (1984a), U.S. EPA (1986b); Ring-lined barrel: ASTM (1984b).
Sources for Additional Information: Aller et al. (1991), Barrett et al. (1980), Rehm et al. (1985), Shuter and
Teasdale (1989).
2-56
-------
DRILL ROD
i
1
BALL CHECK
VALVES
SPLIT BARREL-
SAMPLE TUBE
SAMPLE RETAINER -
HARDENED STEEL -
DRIVE SHOE
SPLIT SPOON OR
SPLIT BARREL SAMPLER
Figure 2.4.1 Split-spoon sampler (Rehm et al, 1985, Copyright © 1985, Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI
EA-4301, Field Measurement Methods for Hydrogeologic Investigations: A Critical Review of the Literature,
reprinted with permission).
2-57
-------
Table 2.4.1 Summary of Major Types of Power-Driven Disturbed-Core Samplers
Sampler Type
Applications
Limitations
Barrel Samplers (Section 2.4.1)
Solid Barrel Sand, silts, or clays
Disturbed core, questionable
recovery and quality below
water table
Split-Spoon
Rotating Core (Section 2.4.2)
Single Tube
Double-Tube
Disturbed samples from
cohesive soils
Dense, unconsolidated and
consolidated formations
Friable, erodible, soluble, or
highly fractured formations
Ineffective in cohesionless
sands; not suitable for
collection of samples for
laboratory tests requiring
undisturbed soil
Source: Adapted from Rehm et al. (1985) and Aller et al. (1991)
2-58
-------
2. DRILLING AND SOLIDS SAMPLING METHODS
2.4 POWER-DRIVEN SOIL SAMPLING DEVICES
2.4.2 Rotating Core
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Core barrels, single-tube/wall, double-tube/wall core barrels.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Collecting disturbed cores in dense, unconsolidated and consolidated formations;
characterizating joints and fractures.
Method Description; See Section 2.1.10 for basic description of diamond coring process. la single-wall tubes,
drilling fluid circulates around the core that has been cut and around the barrel, and exits through the bit (Figure
2.4.2). In double-wall tubes, the drilling fluid circulates between the two walls of the core barrel and does not
come in direct contact with the core being cut (Figure 2.4.2).,
Method Selection Considerations: Advantages: (1) Can provide continuous cores; and (2) double-tube barrels
can provide good recovery even in unconsolidated clays and silts. Disadvantages: (1) Poor recovery of single-
barrel cores in soft, friable, poorly consolidated materials, or soluble or fractured formations due to erosion by
the drilling fluid; (2) rotation results in disturbance of cores (double-barrel sampler reduces disturbance); (3) use
of water or drilling fluids might alter the chemistry of the sample; and (4) time-consuming and high cost of
equipment makes the method expensive. Table 2.4.1 provides additional comparative information on rotating
core samplers.
Frequency of Use; Commonly used in mineral exploration, uncommon at contaminated sites.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: ASTM (1983b), DCDMA (1991).
Sources for Additional Information: Aller et al. (1991), Barrett et al. (1980), Rehm et al. (1985), Shuter and
Teasdale (1989).
2-59
-------
CORING BIT
REAMING SHELL
r-
DRILL ROD
CORE RETAINER
CORE BARREL
-COWLING
SINGLE-TUBE CORE BARREL
CORING BIT -j /-REAMING SHELL i-OUTER BARREL
LUBRICATION
CHANNEL
L
DRILL ROD
-INNER CORE "-VENT
BARREL
L
COUPLING
DOUBLE-TUBE CORE BARREL
Figure 2.4.2 Slngle-tube and double-tube core barrels (Rehm et al, 1985, Copyright €> 198$, Electric Power
Research Institute, EPRI EA-4301, Field Measurement Methods for Hydrogeologio Investigations: A Critical
Review of the Literature, reprinted with permission).
2-60
-------
2. DRILLING AND SOLIDS SAMPLING METHODS
2.4 POWER-DRIVEN SOIL SAMPLING DEVICES
2.4.3 Thin-Wall Open Tube
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Shelby tube, thin-wall sampler, continuous sample tube, ring-lined barrel
sampler. See also, ring-lined barrel sampler in Section 2.4.1
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Collecting undisturbed soil and unconsolidated core samples.
Method Description: Thin-wall samplers must meet the following criteria: (1) A clearance ratio of 0.5 to 1.5
(inside diameter of tube, minus the inside diameter of the opening, divided by the inside diameter of the
opening), and (2) an end area ratio—total area of the sampler (outside diameter) to the wall thickness area
should be less than 10 percent (Figure 2.4.3a). Sample collection procedure is similar to split-spoon sampling,
except that the tube is pushed into the soil using the weight of the drill rig, rather than driven. The use of a
continuous thin-wall sampler with a hollow-stem auger (Section 2.1.1) avoids the time delays involved in
collection of continuous cores from conventional thin-wall samplers. A 5-foot thin-wall tube is placed down the
stem of the auger. The tube is attached to a nonrotating sampling rod, or a wireline assembly that allows the
auger to rotate while the tube remains stationary, and undisturbed material enters the tubes and the auger flights
advance (Figure 2.4.3b). The sample is collected every 5 feet before a new auger flight is added.
Method Selection Considerations; Advantages: (1) Equipment is readily available; and (2) collects undisturbed
sample. Disadvantages: (1) Might not be strong enough to penetrate compact sediments (can be overcome with
specialized samplers [see Section 2.4.5]); (2) collection of continuous samples with conventional thin-wall
samplers is very time consuming, especially when the depth exceeds around 100 feet (continuous sampling tube
system can overcome this); and (3) gravel or cobbles can disturb sample during collection, or damage walls of
the sampler (sample tube should be at least 6 times the diameter of the longest particle size of the sample to
minimize physical disturbance). Table 2.4.3 provides comparative information on power-driven thin-wall
samplers.
Frequency of Use: Most common method for collection of undisturbed core samples.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: ASTM (1983a), U.S. EPA (1986b).
Sources for Additional Information: See Table 2-5.
2-61
-------
• Head assembly
Auger drill
i screw
• Cap screw
•Tube
Auger column
Barrel sampler
Non-rotating
sampling rod
•Auger I
(a)
Figure 2.43 Thin-wall samplers: (a) Shelby tube; (b) Continuous sampling tube system (Aller et al, 1991).
2-62
-------
Table 2.4.3 Summary of Major Types of Power-Driven Undisturbed-Core Samplers
Sample 1 Type
Applications
Limitations
Thin-Wall Open Tube Samplers (Section 2.4.3)
Shelby Tube
Continuous Tube
Undisturbed samples in
cohesive soils, silt, and sand
above water table
Same as Shelby tube, except
longer barrel designed to
operate inside the column of a
hollow-stem auger
Thin-Wall Piston Samplers (Section 2.4.4)
Internal Sleeve Piston
Wireline Piston
Fixed-Piston
Hydraulic Piston (Osterberg)
Stationary Piston
Free Piston
Open Drive
Collection of sample in heaving
sands; used with hollow-stem
auger with clamshell bit
Undisturbed samples in
cohesive soils and noncohesive
sands; used with clam shell
device on hollow-stem auger
Undisturbed samples in
cohesive soils, silt, and sand
above or below water table
Similar to fixed-piston sampler
Undisturbed samples in stiff,
cohesive soils; representative
samples in soft to medium
cohesive soils, silts, and some
sands
Similar to stationary piston
sampler
Similar to stationary piston
sampler
Ineffective in cohesionless
sands or stony soil
Same as Shelby tube
Requires use of water or
drilling mud for hydrostatic
control; only one sample per
borehole can be obtained
In heaving sands, only one
sample per borehole can be
collected because clamshell
remains open after sampling
Ineffective , in cohesionless
sands
Not possible to limit the length
of push or to determine
amount of partial sampler
penetration during push
Not suitable for cohesionless
soils
Not suitable for cohesionless
soils
2-63
-------
Table 2.43 (cont.)
Sampler Type
Applications
Limitations
Specialized Thin-Wall Sampler (Section 2.4.5)
Pitcher
Denison
Vicksburg
Undisturbed samples in hard,
brittle, cohesive soils and
cemented sands;
representative samples in soft
to medium cohesive soils, silts,
and some sands; variable
success with cohesionless soils
Undisturbed samples in stiff to
hard cohesive soils, cemented
sands, and soft rocks; variable
success with cohesionless
materials
Similar to Shelby tube, but able
to sample denser and coarser
material
Frequently ineffective hi
cohesionless soils; requires use
of drilling fluid that might
affect quality of sample
Not suitable for undisturbed
sampling of loose, cohesionless
soils or soft cohesive soils;
requires use of drilling fluid
that might affect quality of
sample
Source: Adapted from Aller et al. (1991), Barrett et al. (1980), Boulding (1991), and Rehm et al. (1985)
2-64
-------
2. DRILLING AND SOLIDS SAMPLING METHODS
2.4 POWER-DRIVEN SOIL SAMPLING DEVICES
2.4.4 Thin-Wall Piston
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Fixed piston, hydraulic piston (Osterberg), wireline piston, free piston
open drive sampler, internal sleeve piston.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Collecting samples in unconsolidated formations and heaving sands (internal sleeve
and wireline piston).
Method Description: Piston samplers are similar to thin-wall samplers except that they are equipped with internal
pistons to generate a vacuum within the sampler as it is withdrawn from the soil (Figure 2.4.4a). Figure 2 4 4b
illustrates sampling procedures using a wireline piston sampler with a hollow-stem auger. Numerous types of
piston samplers have been developed and Table 2.4.3 summarizes information on seven types.
Method Selection Considerations: Advantages: (1) Vacuum might improve sample recovery compared to
conventional thin-wall samplers; and (2) models are available that are designed especially for sampling heaving
sands, which are difficult to sample using conventional thin-wall samplers. Disadvantages: (1) Not as widely
available as regular thin-wall samplers; and (2) more complex construction increases possibility of malfunction.
Frequency of Use: Usually used where soil conditions are unfavorable for use of conventional thin-wall samplers.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: U.S. EPA (1986b).
Sources for Additional Information: Aller et al. (1991), Barrett et al. (1980), Rehm et al. (1985). See also, Table
2-65
-------
a
N
2-66
-------
2. DRILLING AND SOLIDS SAMPLING METHODS
2.4 POWER-DRIVEN SOIL SAMPLING DEVICES
2.4.5 Specialized Thin-Wall
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Pitcher sampler, Denison sampler, Vicksburg sampler.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Collecting undisturbed samples where specific soil conditions are unfavorable for
use of conventional or piston samplers.
Method Description: Basic sampling procedures are generally the same as for thin-wall samplers. The Vicksburg
sampler has a 5.05-inch inside diameter by 5.25-inch outside diameter, which qualifies as a thin-wall sampler but
is structurally much stronger than a Shelby tube (Figure 2.4.5a). The denison sampler (Figure 2.4.5b) and pitcher
sampler (Figure 2.4.5c) have a double-tube core design with an inner tube that qualifies as a thin-wall sampler.
The rotating outer tube allows penetration in extremely stiff deposits or highly cemented unconsolidated
materials, while the stationary inner tube collects a minimally disturbed sample. Table 2.4.3 provides comparative
information on specialized thin-wall samplers.
Method Selection Considerations: Advantages: Greater structural strength allows collection of undisturbed
samples in dense formations. Disadvantages: Less readily available than conventional thin-wall samplers.
Frequency of Use: Uncommon.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: —
Sources for Additional Information; Aller et al. (1991), Rehm et al. (1985), Shuter and Teasdale (1989).
2-67
-------
g a^.
!£e
Is
°!i
III
»•§
a- s
IS*
g s|
•a -S 3
§ 4^ H
P 3 •
•
* -s 1
4) fl flj
til
2-68
•5
IP
H CO ft»i
5
s
is I
-------
2. DRILLING AND SOLIDS SAMPLING METHODS
2.5 FIELD DESCRIPTION OF SOIL PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
25.1 Texture
Other Names Used to Describe'Method: Particle-size distribution. There are numerous systems for classifying
soil according to particle-size distribution. The most common are those used by the Soil Conservation Service
of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), used by the
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). Other systems, all of which have slight to major
differences, include: AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials), FAA
(Federal Aviation Administration), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Public Roads Administration,
International Society of Soil Science, British Standards Institution, and Canadian Soil Survey Committee.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Texture is a basic soil property that affects numerous hydrologic, engineering, and
contaminant transport characteristics of the soil.
Method Description: USDA: Particle-size classes of the fine fraction (<2 mm) are determined by estimating the
relative proportions of sand-, silt-, and clay-sized particles based on feel. Accurate classification requires
laboratory analysis of samples, but repeated "calibration" of field classification by feel with laboratory analyses
allows accurate field determinations, except in borderline cases. Particle-size class names using the USDA soil
texture triangle are shown in Figure 2.5.1. USCS: A series of field tests to determine the nature of the coarse
and fine fractions, and properties such as plasticity, liquid limit, clod strength, dilatancy, toughness, and stickiness,
allow field estimation of unified soil type. Laboratory analysis is required to ensure accurate classification. Rock
classification: Bedrock materials are classified according to origin (igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary),
particle or mineral grain size, mineralogy, and other features, such as hardness, degree of fracture development,
etc.
Method Selection Considerations; USDA classification method is best for interpretations relating to hydrologic
and contaminant transport properties. USCS is best for evaluating engineering properties.
Frequency of Use; USCS is commonly used; USDA is less commonly used, but should probably be used more
for reasons mentioned above.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: Unified (ASTM) field estimation: ASTM (1990), Boulding (1991); Unified
laboratory classification: ASTM (1992); USDA field description: Boulding (1991); Rock: Dunham (1962),
Pettijohn et al. (1972), Potter et al. (1980).
Sources for Additional Information: Boulding (1991). Other references discussing classification of texture:
Casagrande (1948), Emerson (1967), Folk and Ward (1957), Irani and Callis (1963), Propkopovich (1977),
Shepard (1954), Williamson (1984)
2-69
-------
percent sand
Figure 25.1 USDA soil texture triangle (Soil Survey Staf^ 1975).
2-70
-------
2. DRILLING AND SOLIDS SAMPLING METHODS
2.5 FIELD DESCRIPTION OF SOIL PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
2.5.2 Color
Other Names Used to Describe Method: —
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Color of soil horizons and other unconsolidated material serves as an indicator of
zone of saturation and seasonal fluctuations in the water table, organic matter content, and soil mineralogy.
Method Description: Soil matrix, mottles, and concentrations of minerals are described according to hue, value,
and chroma using Munsell Soil Color Charts (Figure 2.5.2). A simple ignition test that can be carried out in the
field allows evaluation of the contribution of organic matter, iron oxides, ferrous (reduced) iron, and manganese
oxides to soil color.
Method Selection Considerations: Should be standard procedure for description of soil/unconsolidated material
cores and soil samples.
Frequency of Use: Common.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: Soil color: Munsell Soil Color Charts (available from Munsell Color Company,
2441 N. Calvert St., Baltimore, MD 21218); Color ignition test: Boulding (1991).
Sources for Additional Information: Boulding (1991).
2-71
-------
10
9
8
7
§
f 5
4
3
2
1
o
—
- O O O
N 9/ 9/1 9/2
White
-o • •
N 8/ 8/1 8/2
- O • •
N 71 7/1 7/2
O •
N 6/ 6/1
Gray
- o •
N 51 5/1
Dark Gray
0 •
N 4/ 4/1
Very Dark Gray
- o •
N 3/ 3/1
- o •
N2/ 2/1
Black
- O
Lt. Br.
Gray
6/2
Gray
Brown
5/2
Dk. Gray
Brown
*
4/2
Very Dk.
Gr. Brown
•
3/2
• •
8/3 8/4
Very Pale Brown
• •
7/3 7/4
Pale
Brown
6/3
9
5/3
Brown
• _
4/3
Dark
Brown
Very Dark Brown
•
Lt. Yellowish
Brown
^k
6/4
«
8/6
Yellow
• •
7/6 7/8
Brownish Yellow
^k ^^
6/6 6/8
Yellowish Brown
• • •
5/4 5/6 5/8
•
4/4
Dark Yellowish Brown
2/2
I I I I I III
01 23 45 678
Chroma
Figure 2.5.2 Soil color names for several combinations of value and chroma and hue 10YR (Soil Survey Stafij 1975).
2-72
-------
2. DRILLING AND SOLIDS SAMPLING METHODS
2.5 FIELD DESCRIPTION OF SOIL PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
2.5.3 Other Features
Other Names Used to Describe Method: —
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Characterizating variability of soil properties; identifying near surface zone of
increased and reduced permeability for contaminant transport.
Method Description; Trenches are dug to a depth of 1 to 2 meters, or cores from hand-held or power driven
thin-wall tube samplers are visually observed and felt for signs of pedogenic (soil-weathering), such as: (1) Soil
horizons, (2) porosity, (3) other features indicating increased porosity or permeability (soil structure,
extrastructual cracks, roots, and surface and sedimentary features), (4) other features indicating zones of reduced
porosity or permeability (slowly permeable genetic horizons, high rupture resistance, root restricting layers, and
compaction), and (5) soil moisture conditions. Soil profile description procedures should follow those developed
by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service. Figure 2.5.3 illustrates major types of soil structure, a form of secondary
porosity that facilitates transport of contaminants in the subsurface. Section 10.6.2 describes field procedures
for measurement or collection of samples for bulk density, an important property affecting transport of
contaminants in the subsurface.
Method Selection Considerations; Advantages: (1) Relatively inexpensive method for initial characterization of
soil characteristics and variability when cores are obtained using a hand-held thin-wall tube probe, or truck-
mounted tube probe; and (2) information is useful for design of soil sampling plan and for selection of
monitoring well locations. Disadvantages: (1) Special training is required to obtain consistent soil-profile
descriptions; and (2) provides qualitative rather than quantitative information and more complex field or
laboratory measurements are required for quantitative data.
Frequency of Use: Uncommon, but should probably be used more frequently.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: Visual/tactile observation: Boulding (1991); Bulk density: See section 10.6.2
Sources for Additional Information; —
2-73
-------
FIGURE 44.— Drawings illustrating some of the types of soil structure: A,
prismatic; B, columnar; C, angular blocky; D, subangular blocky; E,
pri ,
platy; and F, granular.
Figure 253 Mqjor types of soil structure (Soil Survey Staff, 1975).
2-74
-------
Table 2-4 Reference Index for Drilling Methods
Topic
References
General
General Drill Method Texts
Ground-Water Texts
Covering Drilling Methods
Review Papers
Water Quality Effects
Decontamination
Specific Drilling Methods
Hollow Stem Auger
Air Rotary
Mud Rotary
Cable Tool
AUer et al. (1991), Australian Drilling Association (1992), Bowman (1911),
Campbell and Lehr (1973), Driscoll (1986), Gaitlin (1960), Gibson and Singer
(1969, 1971), Ingersoll-Rand (1985-terminology), Lehr et al. (1988), McCray and
Cole (1958-oil well drilling), Moore (1974), Ruda and Bosscher (1990), Shuter
and Teasdale (1989), U.S. Army (1981), USATHAMA (1982); Regional Water
Well Drilling Trends: Hindall and Eberle (1989), Meyer and Wyrick (1966)
Barrett et al. (1980), Bureau of Reclamation (1981), Davis and DeWiest (1966),
Devinny et al. (1990), GeoTrans (1989), Gillham et al. (1983), Rehm et al. (1985)
Scalfetal. (1981) '
Carlson (1943), Davis et al. (1991), Hix (1991), Luhdorff and Scalmanini (1982),
McBvride and Weiss (1988), Nielsen (1991-status of ASTM method
development), Smith (1990), Stow (1963)
Gillham et al. (1983), Herzog et al. (1991), Lolcama (1988), Russell et al. (1989),
U.S. EPA (1975); See also, references on drilling mud chemical effects (below)
Hix (1992)
Hackett (1987, 1988), Hodges and Teasdale (1991), Huntoon-Pecak (1989),
Kresse (1985), Leach et al. (1988), McDvride and Weiss (1988), Nickens et al.
(1988), Vroblesky et al. (1988-remote controlled drilling), Weinstock (1990)
Texts: Brantley (1961), Hughs Tool (1966-drill bits), Petroleum Extension Service
(various dates); Papers: Angel (1968), Bates (1965), Bennett et al. (1988), Cooper
et al. (1977), Hodges and Teasdale (1991), Kaufinan et al. (1981), Mason and
Woolley (1981), McEllhinney (1960), Russell et al. (1989-cross contamination
prevention), Schalla (1986-effect on pump test results), Seikan and Deyling
(1989); Logging of Cuttings: Hooper and Barley (1961)
Texts: API (1973), Brantley (1961), Hughs Tool (1966-drill bits), Petroleum
Extension Service (various dates); Papers: Hodges and Teasdale (1991), Kaufinan
et al. (1981), Millison et al. (1989), Russell et al. (1989), Schalla (1986-effect on
pump test results), White (1990); Drill Mud/Fluids: API (1968, 1991a, 1991b),
Baroid Division (1954, 1966), Dreeszen (1959), Ericsen et al. (1985), Gray (1972),
Gray and Darley (1981), Grichor (1983), Imco Services (1975), Magcobar (1977),
McEllhinney (1960), Petroleum Extension Service (1969), Rogers (1963), Shew
(1975), Tschirley (1978); Drill Mud Toxicitv/Water Chemistry Effects: Brobst and
Buszka (1986), Ericsen et al. (1985), Graham and Johnson (1991), Graham et al.
(1985), Russell et al. (1989), Senum and Dietz (1991), Shew and Keeley (1975),
U.S. EPA (1984a,b) 3 V '
Texts: API (1988b), Decker (1968), Gordon (1958), Sanderson Cyclone (1966);
Papers: Bonham (1955), Stevens (1963), Treadway (1991)
2-75
-------
Table 2-4 (cont)
Topic
References
Reverse Circulation
Casing Advance Drilling
Directional Drilling
Penetrometry
Percussion Hammer: Bates (1965), Massarenti (1964), Paules et al. (1990), Sale
and Rhoades (1987), Shirley and Hay (1988); Reverse Dual-Tube Rotary: Holsten
and Morgan (1989), Riddle and Johnson (1991), Strauss et al. (1989)
Boyle (1992)
Dickinson et al. (1987), Kaback et al. (1991), Karlsson and Bitto (1990), Langseth
(1990), Losonsky et al. (1992), Metcalf and Eddy (1991), Morgan (1992), Speake
et al. (1991), Summers (1972), U.S. Bureau of Mines (1968)
ASTM (1966,1986a,b), Campbell and O'Sullivan (1991), Chiang et al. (1989a,
1989b, 1992), Christy and Spradlin (1992), Cooper et al. (1988a,b), Ehrenzeller et
al. (1991), Fritton (1990), Gillespie and Campanella (1981), Klopp et al. (1989),
Lithland et al. (1985), Olson and Farr (1986), Robertson and Campenalla (1986),
Robertson et al. (1986), Saines et al. (1989), Sangerlat (1972), Schmertmann
(1978), Smolley and Kappmeyer (1989, 1991), Smythe et al. (1988), Strutynsky
and Sainey (1990), Strutynsky et al. (1992), Wahls (1975); See also, reference for
Sections 5.5.1 and 5.5.2
2-76
-------
Table 2-5 Reference Index for Solids Sampling Methods
References
Soil/Solids Sampling Texts
Other Texts with Sections
Covering Soil Sampling
Review Papers
Logging/Sampling of Cuttings
Characterization and Sampling
of Contaminated Soils
Sample Handling
Acker (1974), Earth et al. (1989), Brown (1986), Brown et al. (1991), Bureau of
Reclamation (1974,1990), Cameron et al. (1966), Corps of Engineers (1972),
deVera (1980), Goodwin et al. (1982), Hodgson (1978), Hvorslev (1948, 1949),
ISSMFE (various dates), Mason (1992), McKeague (1978), Mooij and Roovers
(1978), Mori (1979), SCS (1971, 1984), U.S. EPA (1986a)
Aller et al. (1991), Barrett et al. (1980), Devinny et al. (1990), Everett et al
(1976), Fenn et al. (1977), Ford et al. (1984), GeoTrans (1989), Rehm et al.
(1985), Scalf et al. (1981), U.S. EPA (1986b)
Broms (1980), Busche and Burden (1991), Davis et al. (1991)
Hooper and Barley (1961), Johnson UOP (1967), Maher (1963), Shuter and
Teasdale (1989), Stevens (1963-cable tool and rotary), USATHAMA (1982)
Boulding (1991), Breckinridge et al. (1991), Cameron (1991), Fleischauer (1985-
radium), Kostecki and Calabrese (1990), Leach and Draper (1991), Ostendorf et
al. (1991), Zirschky and Gilbert (1984); Aseptic Sampling: Leach and Ross (1991)
Leach et al. (1988), Russell et al. (1989); Volatiles: API (1992), Jackson et al.
(1991), Parolini et al. (1991), Siegcrist and Jenssen (1990), Sims et al. (1991),
Slater and McLaren (1983), Spittier et al. (1988)
Bartlett and James (1980), Kluitenberg et al. (1991-sealing of cores in shrinking
soil), Mullins and Hutchison (1982), Nevo and Hagin (1966), Parolini et al.
(1991), Plumb (1981), Qian and Wolt (1990), Wilson et al. (1991); Sample
Mixing/Compositing: Mroz and Reed (1991), Raab et al. (1991), Schumacher
(1990), Schumacher et al. (1991)
Specific Sampling Devices/Methods
Undisturbed Core Samplers
Begemann (1974), Brown and Thilenius (1977), Buchele (1961), Byrnes (1975),
Chong et al. (1982), Hayden and Heinemann (1968), Hayden and Robbins (1975),
Hendrickx et al. (1991-portable motor driven), Hipp et al. (1968), Holtzclaw et al.
(1975-bulk density), Jamison et al. (1950), Kelley et al. (1947-truck mounted),
LaRochelle et al. (1981), Lutz (1947), Mielke and Wilhelm (1983), Myers et al
(1989), Parsons (1961), Pikul et al. (1979), Rhotan and McChesney (1991), Riggs
(1983), Robertson et al. (1974-truck mounted), Rogers and Carter (1987), Ruark
(1985), Russell et al. (1989), Schickedanz et al. (1973), Sieczka et al. (1982), Starr
and Ingelton (1992-piston sampler), Stolt et al. (1991-modified bucket auger)
Tackett et al. (1965), Tanner et al. (1953), Terry et al. (1974), Tuttle et al. (1984)
Vaughn et al. (1984), Viehmeyer (1929), Vepraskas et. al (1990), Watson and
Lees (1975), Wires and Sheldrick (1987); Freezing Methods: Blevins et al. (1968),
Buchter et al. (1984); Coated Cores/Samples: Bondurant et al. (1969), Economy '
and Bowman (1993), Mielke (1973), Tomer and Ferguson (1989); See also,
references for Section 7.3.8
2-77
-------
Table 2-5 (cent)
Topic
References
Noncohesive Soil Samplers
Wireline Samplers
Special Sampling Situations
Arthur and Shamash (1970), Barton (1974), Bishop (1948), Marcuson and
Franklin (1980-undisturbed samples), Munch and Kffley (1985), Murphy et al.
(1981), Schuh (1987), Zapico et al. (1987)
API (1983), Armstrong et al. (1988), Clark (1988), McElwee et al. (1991),
Millison et al. (1989), Zapico et al. (1987)
Rockv Soils: Buchter et al. (1984), Lewis et al. (1990), Tuttie et al. (1984);
Underwater Sediments: Ali (1984), Anastasi and Olinger (1991), ASTM (1993e),
Earth and Starks (1985-quality assurance), Darmody et al. (1976), Edwards and
Glysson (1988), Fleischauer and Engelder (1985), Palmer (1985), Plumb (1981),
U.S.'EPA (1989)
2-78
-------
SECTION 2 REFERENCES
Acker, W.L. 1974. Basic Procedures for Soils Sampling and Core Drilling. Acker Drill Co., Scranton, PA.
Ali, A. 1984. A Simple and Efficient Sediment Corer for Shallow Lakes. J. Environ. Quality 13:63-66.
Aller, L., et a!. 1991. Handbook of Suggested Practices for the Design and Installation of Ground-Water Monitoring Wells.
EPA/600/4-89/034, 221 pp. Available from CERI." (Also published in 1989 by National Water Well Association, Dublin,
OH, in its NWWA^PA series, 398 pp.)
American Petroleum Institute (API). 1968. Principles of Drilling Fluid Control. API, Dallas, TX, 215 pp. (In cooperation with
University of Texas and Am. Ass. of Oil Well Drilling Contractors.)
American Petroleum Institute (API). 1973. Procedures for Selecting Rotary Drilling Equipment, 2nd edition. API Bulletin D10.
API, Washington, DC. (Reissued 1982; reaffirmed, 1990.)
American Petroleum Institute (API). 1983. Wireline Operations and Procedures, 2nd edition. API, Washington, DC, 58 pp. (Book
5 in Vocational Training Series.)
.American Petroleum Institute (API). 1988a. Recommended Practice for Care and Use of Cable Drilling and Fishing Tools 2nd
edition. API RP3. API, Washington, DC.
American Petroleum Institute (API). 1988b. Specification for Cable Drilling Tools, 13th edition. API Spec 3. API, Washington,
American Petroleum Institute (API). 1991a. Recommend Practice Standard Procedure for Field Testing Oil-Based Drilling Fluids
2nd edition. API RP 13B-2. API, Washington, DC.
American Petroleum Institute (API). 1991b. Specifications for Drilling Fluid Materials, 14th edition. API Spec 13A API,
Washington, DC.
American Petroleum Institute (API). 1992. Sampling and Analysis of Gasoline Range Organics in Soil. API Publication 4516 API
Washington, DC, 132 pp.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1966. Vane Shear and Cone Penetration Resistance Testing of In-Situ Soils
In: ASTM STP 399, ASTM, PhUadelphia, PA.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1980. Standard Practice for Soil Investigation and Sampling by Auger Bonnes
D1452-80, (Vol. 4.08), ASTM, Philadelphia, PA.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1983a. Standard Practice for Thin-Walled Tube Sampling of Soils. D1587-83
(Vol. 4.08), ASTM, Philadelphia, PA.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1983b. Standard Practice for Diamond Core Drilling for Site Investigation
D2113-83, (Vol. 4.08), ASTM, Philadelphia, PA.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1984a. Standard Method for Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of
Soils. D1586-84, (Vol. 4.08), ASTM, Philadelphia, PA.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1984b. Standard Practice for Ring-Lined Barrel Sampling of Soils. D3550-84
(Vol. 4.08), ASTM, Philadelphia, PA.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1986a. Standard Test Method for Stress Wave Energy Measurement for
Dynamic Penetrometer Testing Systems. D4633-86, (Vol. 4.08), ASTM, Philadelphia, PA.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1986b. Standard Test Method for Deep, Quasi-Static, Cone and Friction-
Cone Penetration Tests of Soil. D3441-86, (Vol. 4.08), ASTM, Philadelphia, PA.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1987. Standard Guide for Investigation and Sampling Soil and Rock. D420-
87, (Vol. 4.08), ASTM, Philadelphia, PA.
2-79
-------
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1989. Standard Practices for Preserving and Transporting Soil Samples.
D4220-89, (Vol. 4.08), ASTM, Philadelphia, PA.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1990. Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-
Manual Procedures). D2488-90, (Vol. 4.08), ASTM, Philadelphia, PA.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1991. Guide for Soil Sampling from the Vadose Zone. D4700-91, (Vol. 4.08),
ASTM, Philadelphia, PA.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1992. Standard Test Method for Classification of Soils for Engineering
Purposes. D2487-92, (Vol. 4.08), ASTM, Philadelphia, PA.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1993a. Draft Standard Guide for the Use of Hollow-Stem Augers for
Geoenvironmental Exploration and Installation of Subsurface Water-Quality Monitoring Devices. D18.21 Ballot 93-03,
April 28. ASTM, Philadelphia, PA.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1993b. Draft Standard Guide for the Use of Direct Air-Rotary Drilling for
Geoenvironmental Exploration and Installation of Subsurface Water-Quality Monitoring Devices. D18.21 Ballot 93-03,
April 28. ASTM, Philadelphia, PA.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1993c. Draft Standard Guide for the Use of Direct Rotary Drilling with
Water-Based Drilling Fluid for Geoenvironmental Exploration and Installation of Subsurface Water-Quality Monitoring
Devices. D18.21 Ballot 93-03, April 28. ASTM, Philadelphia, PA.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1993d. Draft Standard Guide for the Use of Dual-Wall Reverse Circulation
Drilling for Geoenvironmental Exploration and Installation of Subsurface Water-Quality Monitoring Devices. D18.21
Ballot 93-03, April 28. ASTM, Philadelphia, PA.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1993e. Standard Guide for a Complete Data Set for Non-Cohesive Sediments.
D5387-93, (Vol 11.02), ASTM, Philadelphia, PA. .
Anastasi FS. and L.W. Olinger. 1991. A Method for Collecting Soil Samples Beneath Lake-Bottom Ssdiments. In: Proc. 15th
Annual Army Environmental R&D Symp. (1990), CETHA-TS-CR-91077, U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials
Agency, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, pp. 153-160.
Angel, R.R. 1968. Volume Requirements for Air-Gas Drilling. Gulf Publishing Co., Houston, TX. [Air foam drilling, oriented
toward petroleum industry]
Armstrong, J.M., W. Korreck, L.E. Leach, R.M. Powell, S.V. Vandegrift, and J.T. Wilson. 1988. Bioremediation of a Fuel Spill:
Evaluation of Techniques for Preliminary Site Characterization. In: Proc. (5th) NWWA/API Conf. Petroleum
Hydrocarbons and Organic Chemicals in Ground Water-Prevention, Detection and Restoration, National Water Well
Association, Dublin, OH, pp. 931-948. [Wireline sampling]
Arthur, J.R.F. and S J. Shamash. 1970. Sampling of Cohesionless Soils Without Disturbing the Particle Packing. Geotechnique
20(4):439-440.
Australian Drilling Association. 1992. Australian Drillers Manual. Available from S.A. Smith Consulting Service, P.O. Box, Ada,
OH 45810, 550+ pp. [Goetechnical, environmental, well drilling]
Baker, J .A., TJ. Holdredge, D J. Buck, and EJ. Hubbard. 1987. Use of ODEX Drilling System for Monitoring Well Installation in
Aquifer Containing Glacial Boulders. In: 1st Nat. Outdoor Action Conf. on Aquifer Restoration, Ground Water
Monitoring and Geophysical Methods, National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH, pp. 363-372.
Baroid Division. 1954. Baroid Drilling Mud Data Book. Baroid Division, National Lead Corporation, 471 pp.
Baroid Division. 1966. What's New with Mud? Baroid Division Special Report, National Lead Corporation, 35 pp. (Updates Baroid
Division, 1954.)
Barrett, J. et al. 1980. Procedures Recommended for Overburden and Hydrologic Studies of Surface Mines. GTR-INT-71. U.S.
Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Intel-mountain Forest and Experiment Station, Ogden, UT, 106 pp.
Barth, D.S. and T.H. Starks. 1985. Sediment Sampling Quality Assurance User's Guide. EPA/600/4-85/048 (NTIS PB85-233542).
2-80
-------
Barth, D.S., BJ. Mason, T.H. Starks, and K.W. Brown. 1989. Soil Sampling Quality Assurance User's Guide, 2nd ed. EPA/600/8-
89/046 (NT1S PB89-189864), 225+ pp.
Bartlett, R. and B. James. 1980. Studying Dried, Stored Soil Samples-Some Pitfalls. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 47:721-724.
Barton, CM. 1974. Bore Hole Sampling of Saturated Uncemented Sands and Gravels. Ground Water 12(3):170-181.
Bates, Jr., R.E. 1965. Economics of Percussion vs. Air Rotary Drilling. World Oil (February):51-59.
Begemann, H.K.S. 1974. The Delft Continuous Soil Sampler. Bull. Int. Ass. Big. Geol. 10:35-37.
Bennett, D.B., M. Busacca, and E.E. Clark. 1988. The Modified Reverse-Circulation Air Rotary Drilling Technique for
Development of Observation and Monitoring Wells at Ground-Water Contamination Sites. In: Ground-Water
Contamination: Field Methods, A.G. Collins and A.I. Johnson (eds.), ASTM STP 963, American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 137-145.
Bishop, A.W. 1948. A New Sampling Tool for Cohesionless Sands Below Ground Water Level. Gee-technique 1:125-131.
Blevins, R.L., G.M. Aubertin, and N. Holowaychuk. 1968. A Technique for Obtaining Undisturbed Soil Samples by Freezing In-Situ
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 32:741-742.
Bondurant, JA., R.V. Worstell, and CM. Brockway. 1969. Plastic Casings for Soil Cores. Soil Science 107:70-71.
Bonham, C.F. 1955. Engineering Analysis of Cable Tool Drilling. Petrol. Eng. (December):B-93 to B-100.
Boulding, J.R.. 1991. Description and Sampling of Contaminated Soils: A Field Pocket Guide. EPA/625/12-91/002 122 DD
Available from CERI." «••
Bowman, I. 1911. Well Drilling Methods. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 257, 139 pp. [Cable tool, hydraulic rotary,
jetting, diamond core]
Boyle, D.R. 1992. A Multilevel Ground Water Monitoring System for Casing Advance and Bedrock Drilling Methods Ground
Water Monitoring Review 12(2):105-115.
Brantley, J.E. 1961. Rotary Drilling Handbook, 6th edition. Palmer Publications, Fort Lee, NJ, 825 pp.
Breckenridge, R.P., J.R. Williams, and J.F. Keck. 1991. Characterizing Soils for Hazardous Waste Site Assessments. Superfund
Ground-Water Issue Paper. EPA/600/8-91/008. Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas, NV, 89193-
3478,16 pp. •
Brobst, R.B. and M. Buszka. 1986. The Effects of Three Drilling Fluids on Groundwater Sample Chemistry. Ground Water
Monitoring Review 6(1):62-70.
Broms,B.B. 1980. Soil Sampling in Europe: State-of-the-Art. J. Geotechnical Engineering Division (ASCE) 106(GTl):65-98 [Focus
on engineering applications]
Brown, K.W. 1986. Efficiency of Soil Core and Soil-Pore Water Sampling Systems. EPA/600/2-86/083 (NTIS PB87-106100).
Brown, G.R. and J.F. Thilenius. 1977. A Tool and Method for Extracting Plant-Root-Soil Cores on Remote Sites. J. Range
Management 30:72-74.
Brown, K.W., R.P. Breckenridge, and R.C. Rope. 1991. Soil Sampling Reference Field Methods. In: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Lands Contaminant Monitoring Operations Manual, Appendix J. Prepared by Center for Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID. (Final publication pending revisions resulting for
field testing of manual.)
Buchele, W.F. 1961. A Power Sampler of Undisturbed Soils. Trans Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 4(2):185-187.
Buchter, B., J. Leuenberger, PJ. Wierenga, and F. Richard. 1984. Preparation of Large Core Samples from Stony Soils. Soil Sci
Soc. Am J. 48:1460-1462.
Bureau of Reclamation. 1974. Earth Manual, 2nd edition. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, CO.
2-81
-------
(First 3 chapters reprinted in 1990, 326 pp.; remaining chapters superseded by 1990 3rd edition.)
Bureau of Reclamation. 1981. Ground Water Manual-A Water Resources Technical Publication, 2nd edition. U.S. Department of
the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, CO, 480 pp.
Bureau of Reclamation. 1990. Earth Manual, 3rd ed, Part 2. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, CO,
1270 pp. (Part 1 consists of a 1990 reprint of the Erst 3 chapters of the 1974 2nd edition.)
Busche, F.D. and D.S. Burden. 1991. Sampling of Contaminated Sites. Hazardous Material Control 4(3):35-40.
Byrnes, BB. 1975. A Hydraulically Driven Soil Auger for Sampling Fine-Textured and Wet Soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 39:156.
Cameron, R.E. 1991. Guide To Site and Soil Description for Hazardous Waste Sites, Volume 1: Metals. EPA/600/4-91/029 (NTTS
'PB92-146158).
Cameron, R.E., G.B. Blank, and D.R. Gensel. 1966. Sampling and Handling of Desert Soils. NASA Technical Report No. 32-908.
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, 37 pp.
Campbell, M.D. and J.H. Lehr. 1973. Water Well Technology. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 681 pp. [Annotated bibliography
contains 673 references]
Campbell DJ and M.F. O'Sullivan. 1991. The Cone Penetrometer in Relation to Trafficability, Compaction, and Tillage. In: Soil
Anarysis: Physical Methods, KA. Smith and C.E. Mullins (eds.), Marcel Dekker, New York, NY, pp. 399-429.
Carlson, C.W. 1943. Early History of Water Well Drilling in the United States. Economic Geology 38(3):119-136.
Casagrande, A, 1948. Classification and Identification of Soils. Trans. ASCE 113(2351):901-992.
Chiang, C.Y., CC Stanley, L. Hekma, and G.F. Boehm. 1989a. Characterization of Ground Water and Soil Conditions by Cone
Penetrometry. In: Proc. (6th) NWWA/API Conf. Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Organic Chemicals in Ground Water
Prevention, Detection and Restoration, National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH, pp. 141-157.
Chiang, C.Y., K.R. Loos, R A. Klopp, and M.C. Beltz. 1989b. A Real-Tune Determination of Geological/Chemical Properties of an
Aquifer by Penetration Testing. In: Proc. (6th) NWWA/API Conf. Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Organic Chemicals in
Ground Water. Prevention, Detection and Restoration, National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH, pp. 175-189.
Chiang, C.Y., K.R. Loos, and RA. Klopp. 1992. Field Determination of Geological/Chemical Properties of an Aquifer by Cone
Penetrometry and Headspace Anarysis. Ground Water 30:428-436.
Chong, S.K., MA. Khan, and R.E. Green. 1982. Portable Hand-Operated Soil Core Sampler. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 46:433-434.
Christcnsen Diamond. 1970. Diamond Drilling Handbook. Christensen Diamond Products Co., Salt Lake City, UT.
Christy, T.M. and S.C Spradlin. 1992. The Use of Small Diameter Probing Equipment for Contaminated Site Investigations.
Ground Water Management 11:87-101 (6th NOAC). [Geoprobe, soil vapor, solids, ground-water sampling]
Clark, R.R. 1988. A New Continuous-Sampling Wireline System for Acquisition of Uncontaminated, Minimally Disturbed Cores.
Ground Water Monitoring Review 8(4):66-72.
Cooper, L.W., RA. Hook, and B.E. Payne. 1977. Air Drilling Techniques. Am. Inst. Mining, Metall. Eng. Paper No. SPE 6435.
AIMME, Dallas, TX, 16 pp.
Cooper, S.S., P.O. Malone, R.S. Olsen, and G.B. Morhman. 1988a. Use of an Instrumented Cone Penelrometer in Monitoring Land
Disposal Sites. In: HWHM '88 (Proc. 5th Nat. Conf. on Hazardous Wastes and Hazardous Materials), Hazardous
Materials Control Research Institute, Silver Spring, MD, pp. 424-427.
Cooper, S.S., P.O. Malone, R.S. Olsen, and D.H. Douglas. 1988b. Development of a Computerized Penetrometer System for
Hazardous Waste Site Soils Investigations. Report No. AMXTH-TR-TE-88242, U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials
Agency, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, 58 pp.
Corps of Engineers. 1972. Soil Sampling. EM 1110-2-1907. COB, Department of the Army, Washington, DC.
2-82
-------
Gumming, J.D. and A.P. Wickland. 1965. Diamond Drill Handbook. J.K. Smith and Sons, Diamond Products, Ltd., Toronto, 547
pp.
Darmody, R.G., M.C Rabenhorst, and J.R Foss. 1976. Bucket Auger Modification for Tidal Marsh Soil Sampling. Soil Sci Soc.
Am. J. 40:321-322.
Davis, S.N. and RJ.M. DeWiest. 1966. Hydrogeology. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Davis, H.E., J. Jehn, and S. Smith. 1991. Monitoring Well Drilling, Soil Sampling, Rock Coring, and Borehole Logging. In:
Practical Handbook of Ground-Water Monitoring, D.M. Nielsen (ed.), Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI, pp. 195-237.
Decker, M.G. 1968. Cable Tool Fishing. Water Well Journal Publishing Co., Columbus, OH, 70 pp.
deVera, E.R. 1980. Samplers and Sampling Procedures for Hazardous Waste Streams. EPA/600/2-80/018 (NTIS PB80-135353).
Devinny, J.S., L.G. Everett, J.C.S. Lu, and R.L. Stollar. 1990. Subsurface Migration of Hazardous Wastes. Van Nostrand Reinhold,
New York, NY. [Chapter 7-Soil Core Monitoring]
Diamond Core Drill Manufacturers Association (DCDMA). 1991. DCDMA Technical Manual. DCDMA, Columbia, SC
Dickinson, W., R.W. Dickinson, P.A. Mote, and J.S. Nelson. 1987. Horizontal Radials for Geophysics and Hazardous Waste
Remediation. In: Superfund '87 (Proc. 8th Annual Conf.), Hazardous Material Control Research Institute, Silver Sprint
MD, pp. 371-375. > F 8,
Dreeszen, V.H. 1959. Rotary Drilling Muds. Water Well Journal 13(9):18-19, 26, 29-30.
Driscoll, F.G. 1986. Groundwater and Wells, 2nd ed. Johnson Filtration Systems, Inc., St. Paul, MN, 1089 pp.
Dunham, R J. 1962. Classification of Carbonate Rocks According to Depositional Texture. In: Classification of Carbonate Rocks,
W.E. Ham (ed.), Am. Ass. Pet. Geol. Memoir 1, pp. 108-121.
Durnford, D., J. Brookman, J. Billica, and J. Milligan. 1991. LNAPL Distribution in Cohesionless Soil: A Field Investigation and
Cryogenic Sampler. Ground Water Monitoring Review 11(3):115-122.
Dustman, J., R. Davis, and T. Oothoudt. 1992. Soil, Bedrock and Groundwater Sampling Using Rotasonic Drilling Techniques.
Ground Water Management 11:179-187 (6th NOAC). [Vibratory drilling/sampling]
Economy, K. and R.S. Bowman. 1993. Fiberglass Encasement Method for Undisturbed Soil Cores. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 57:39-41.
Edwards, T.K. and G.D. Glysson. 1988. Methods for Measurements of Fluvial Sediment. U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report
86-531,118 pp. v
Ehrenzeller, J.L., F.G. Baker, and V.R Keys. 1991. Using the Cone Penetrometer and Hydropunch Method to Collect
Reconnaissance Ground Water Samples. Ground Water Management 5:733-746 (5th NOAC).
Emerson, W.W. 1967. A Classification of Soil Aggregates Based on Their Cohesion in Water. Australian J. of Soil Research 2-211-
217. ,
Ericsen, W.A., J.R Brinkman, and P.S. Dar. 1985. Types and Uses of Drilling Fluids Utilized to Install Monitoring Wells Associated
with Metals and Radionuclide Ground Water Studies. Ground Water Monitoring Review 5(l):30-33.
Everett, L.G., K.D. Schmidt, R.M. Tinlin, and D.K. Todd. 1976. Monitoring Groundwater Quality: Methods and Costs EPA/600/4-
76/023 (NTIS PB257 133).
Fenn, D., R Cocozza, J. Isbister, O. Braids, B. Yare, and P. Roux. 1977. Procedures Manual for Ground Water Monitoring at Solid
Waste Disposal Facilities. EPA/SW-611 (NTIS PB84-174820).
Fleischauer, H.L. 1985. Procedures for Sampling Radium-Contaminated Soils. GJ/TMC-13 (NTIS DE86-006185). U.S. Department
of Energy Technical Measurements Center, Grand Junction, CO.
Fleischauer, H.L. and P.R. Engelder. 1985. Procedures for Reconnaissance Stream-Sediment Sampling. GJ/TMC-14 (NTIS DE85-
009789). Department of Energy Technical Measurements Center, Grand Junction, CO.
2-83
-------
Folk, R.L. and W.C. Ward. 1957. Brazos River Bar: A Study in the Significance of Grain-Size Parameters. J. Sed. Pet. 27:3-27.
Ford, P J., P J. Turina, and D.E. Seety. 1984. Characterization of Hazardous Waste Sites~A Methods Manual, Vol. II: Available
Sampling Methods, 2nd ed. EPA/600/4-84/076 (NTIS PB85-521596).
Fritton, D.D. 1990. A Standard for Interpreting Soil Penetrometer Measurements. Soil Science 150:542-551.
Gaitlin, CG. 1960. Petroleum Engineering Drilling and Well Completions. Prentice-Hall, Engehvood Cliffe, NJ, 341 pp.
Geeting, M.D. 1990. Maintaining Displacement Integrity as an Installation Procedure. In: Ground Water Management 2:165-175
(4th NOAC).
GeoTrans. 1989. Groundwater Monitoring Manual for the Electric Utility Industry. Edison Electric Institute, Washington, DC.
Gibson, U.P. and R.D. Singer. 1969. Small Wells Manual. U.S. Agency for International Development, Washington, DC.
Gibson, U.P. and R.D. Singer. 1971. Water Well Manual. Premier Press, 156 pp. (Reprint of Gibson and Singer [1969].)
Gillespie, D. and R.G. CampaneUa. 1981. Consolidation Characteristics from Pore Pressure Dissipation After Piezometer Cone
Penetration. Soil Mechanics Series No. 47, Dept. of Civil Engineering, The Univ. of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Gillham, R.W., MJ.L. Robin, J.F. Barker, and J.A. Cherry. 1983. Groundwater Monitoring and Sample Bias. API Publication 4367.
American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC, 206 pp.
Godsey, K.D. 1993. The (Sonic) Wave of the Future. Water Well Journal 47(5):86-90.
Goodwin, B.E,,J.R.Aronson,R.P.O'Neil, M.A. Randel, and E.M. Smith. 1982. Surface Sample Techniques. USATHAMA
DRXTH-TE-CR-82179. U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, 91 pp.
[Includes annotated bibliography with 47 citations]
Gordon, R.W. 1958. Water Well Drilling with Cable Tools. Bucyrus-Erie Co., S. Milwaukee, WI, 230 pp.
Graham, D.L. and V.G. Johnson. 1991. Effects of Fluid Rotary Drilling on Hydrochemical Sampling Results from Deep Boreholes
in Fractured Columbia River Basalt J. Hydrology 128:171-212.
Graham, D.L., R.W. Bryce, and D J. Halko. 1985. A Field Test to Assess the Effects of Drilling Fluids on Groundwater Chemistry
Collected from Columbia River Basalts. In: Proc. Int. Ass. Hydrogeologists 17th Int. Congress, Hydrogeology of Rocks of
Low Permeability (Tucson, AZ), pp. 383-394.
Gray, ER. 1972. Drilling with Mud: Simple Tests Save Tune and Money. Water Well Journal 26(3):33-35.
Gray, G.R. and H.CH. Darley. 1981. Composition and Properties of Oil Well Drilling Fluids, 2nd ed. Gulf Publishing Co.,
Houston, TX, 630 pp.
Grichor, C 1983. The Mechanical Treatment of Solids in Drilling Fluids. Water Well Journal 37(ll):46-54.
Hackett,G. 1987. Drilling and Constructing Monitoring Wells with Hollow Stem Auger: Part 1. Ground Water Monitoring Review
7(4):51-62.
Hackett, G. 1988. Drilling and Constructing Monitoring Wells with Hollow-Stem Augers: Part 2. Monitoring Well Installation.
Ground Water Monitoring Review 8(1)60-68.
Hayden, C.W. and W.H. Heinemann, Jr. 1968. A Hand-Operated Undisturbed Core Sampler. Soil Science 106:153-156.
Hayden, CW. and C.W. Robbins. 1975. Mechanical Snake River Undisturbed Soil Core Sampler. Soil Science 120(2):153-155.
Heinz, W.F. 1985. Diamond Drilling Handbook. South African Drilling Association, Johannesburg.
Hendrickx, J.M.H., CJ. Ritsema, O.H. Boersma, L.W. Dekker, W. Homminga, and J.W.H. van der Kolk. 1991. Motor-Driven
Portable Soil Core Sampler for Volumetric Sampling. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 55:1792-1795.
Herzog, B., J. Pennine, and G. Nielsen. 1991. Ground-Water Sampling. In: Practical Handbook of Ground-Water Monitoring,
2-84
-------
D.M. Nielsen (ed.), Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI, pp. 449-499.
Hindall, S.M. and M. Eberle. 1989. National and Regional Trends in Water-Well Drilling in the United States, 1964-84. U.S.
Geological Survey Circular 1029,15 pp.
Hipp, B., C J. Gerard, and B. Edwards. 1968. A Machine for Taking Soil Samples and Placing Access Tubes for Soil Moisture and
Density Measurements. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 32:886-887.
Hix,G.L. 1991. Casing Advancement Methods for Drilling Monitoring Wells. Water Well Journal 45(5):60-64.
Hix, G. 1992. Squeaky Clean Drill Rigs. Ground Water Monitoring Review 12(3):94-97.
Hodges, R.E. and W.E. Teasdale. 1991. Considerations Related to Drilling Methods in Planning and Performing Borehole-
Geophysical Logging for Ground-Water Studies. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resource Investigations Report 91-409
(NTIS PB92-155688), 22 pp. [Auger, air and mud rotary drilling]
Hodgson, J.M. 1978. Monograph on Soil Survey, Soil Sampling and Soil Description. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 241
pp.
Holsten, D.B. and J. Morgan. 1989. The Dual-Tube Air Percussion Drilling Method for Installation of Ground Water Monitoring
Wells. In: 3rd Nat. Outdoor Action Conf. on Aquifer Restoration, Ground Water Mpnitoring and Geophysical Methods,
National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH, pp. 1-14.
Holtzclaw, K.M., J.M. Rible, and P.P. Pratt. 1975. Bulk Density Sampler for Deep Profiles. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 39:1220-1223.
Hooper, W.F. and J.W. Barley. 1961. Compositional Logging of Air-Drilled Wells. Am. Ass. Petrol. Geol. Bull. 45(11):1870-1883.
Hughes Tool. 1966. Rotary Drilling Bits. Hughes Tool Co., Houston, TX, 31 pp.
Huntoon-Pencak, L. 1989. Auger Drilling for Monitoring Wells. Ground Water Age 24(1).
Hvorslev, MJ. 1948. Subsurface Exploration and Sampling of Soils. Engineering Foundation, New York, NY.
Hvorslev, JJ. 1949. Subsurface Exploration and Sampling of Soils for Civil Engineering Purposes. U.S. Army Engineers Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS (Reprinted by the Engineering Foundation in 1962 and 1965.)
Imco Services. 1975. Applied Mud Technology. Imco Services Division of Halliburton Co., Houston, TX.
Ingersoll-Rand. 1985. Drilling Terminology. Ingersoll-Rand, Rotary Drill Division, Garland, TX, 125 pp.
International Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineers (ISSMFE). Various Dates. 5th International Conference (Paris,
1961); Seventh International Conference (Mexico City, 1969); Fourth Asian Conference (Bangkok, 1971); Tenth
International Conference (Rotterdam, 1981). [Proceedings contain papers given at special sessions on soil sampling]
Irani, R.R. and C.F. Callis. 1963. Particle Size: Measurement, Interpretation, and Applications. John Wiley & Sons, New York,
Jackson, J., N. Thomey, and L.F. Dietlein. 1991. Degradation of Hydrocarbons in Soils Samples Analyzed Within Accepted
Analytical Holding Times. Ground Water Management 5:567-576 (5th NOAC).
Jamison, V.C, H.A. Weaver, and I.F. Reed. 1950. A Hammer-Driven Soil Core Sampler. Soil Science 69:487-496.
Johnson UOP. 1967. Taking Representative Formation Samples. Bulletin 638-S. Johnson UOP, St. Paul, MN.
Kaback, D.S., B.B. Looney, J.C. Corey, L.M. Wright, III, and J.L. Steele. 1989. Horizontal Wells for In-Situ Remediation of
Groundwater and Soils. In: Proc. Third Nat. Outdoor Action Conference on Aquifer Restoration, Ground Water
Monitoring and Geophysical Methods, National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH, pp. 121-135.
Kaback, D.S., B.B. Looney, C.A. Eddy, and T.C. Hazen. 1991. Innovative Groundwater and Soil Remediation: In Situ Air Stripping
Using Horizontal Wells. Ground Water Management 5:47-58 (5th NOAC).
Karlsson, H. and R. Bitto. 1990. New Horizontal Wellbore System for Monitor and Remedial Wells. In: Superfund '90, Hazardous
2-85
-------
Waste Materials Control Research Institute, Silver Spring, MD, pp. 357-362.
Kaufman, R.F., XA. Gleason, R.B. EUwood, and G.P. Lindsey. 1981. Ground-Water Monitoring Techniques for Arid Zone
Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites. Ground Water Monitoring Review l(3):47-54. [Air and mud rotary]
Kelley, OJ., J.A. Hardman, and D.S. Jennings. 1947. A Soil Sampling Machine for Obtaining Two-, Three-, and Four-Inch
Diameter Cores of Undisturbed Soils at a Depth of Six Feet. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 12:85-87.
Klopp, R.A., A. M. Petsonk, and B.-A. Torstensson. 1989. In-Situ Penetration Testing for Delineation of Ground Water
Contaminant Plumes. In: 3rd Nat Outdoor Action Conf. on Aquifer Restoration, Ground Water Monitoring and
Geophysical Methods, National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH, pp. 329-343.
Kluitenberg, GJ., J.R. Bilskie, and R. Horton. 1991. Rubberized Asphalt for Sealing Cores of Shrinking Soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
55:105-1507.
Kostecki, P.T. and EJ. Calabrese. 1990. CHESS-A National Coalition to Standardize Approaches to Contaminated Soil Problems.
In: Proc. 14th Annual Army Environmental R&D Symp. (1989), CETHA-TE-TR-90055, U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous
Materials Agency, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, pp. 249-264.
Krcssc, F.C 1985. Exploration for Ground-Water Contamination. Bull. Ass. Eng. Geol. 22:275-280. [Hollow-stem auger]
Langseth, D.E. 1990. Hydraulic Performance of Horizontal Wells. In: Superfund "90, Hazardous Waste Materials Control Research
Institute, Silver Spring, MD, pp. 398-408.
LaRochelle, P., ct al. 1981. Causes of Sampling Disturbance and Design of a New Sampler for Sensitive Soils. Canadian
Geotechnical J. 18(l):52-66.
Leach, L.L, and D.C Draper. 1991. Advances in Hazardous Waste Site Alluvial Sampling. In: Proceedings: Design and
Construction Issues at Hazardous Waste Sites, EPA/600/D-91/214 (NTIS PB91-233320), pp. 681-700.
Leach, L.E. and R.R. Ross. 1991. Aseptic Sampling of Unconsolidated Heaving Soils in Saturated Zones. In: Groundwater Residue
Sampling, R.G. Nash and A.R. Leslie (eds.), ACS Symp. Series 465, American Chemical Society, Washington, DC.
Leach, L.W., F.P. Beck, J.T. Wilson, and D.H. Kampbell. 1988. Aseptic Subsurface Sampling Techniques for Hollow-Stem Auger
Drilling. In: 2nd Nat. Outdoor Action Conf. on Aquifer Restoration, Ground Water Monitoring and Geophysical
Methods, National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH, pp. 31-51.
Lehr, J., S. Huriburt, B. Gallagher, and J. Voyteck. 1988. Design and Construction of Water Wells: A Guide for Engineers. Van
Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY, 224 pp.
Lewis, T.E., B. Blasdell, and LJ. Blume. 1990. Collection of Intact Cores from a Rocky Desert and a Glacial Till Soil. Soil Sci. Soc.
Am. J. 54:938-940.
LJthland, S.T., T.W. Hoskins, and R.L. Boggess. 1985. A New Ground-Water Survey. Tool: The Combined Cone
Penetrometer/Vadose Zone Vapor Probe. In: Proc. (2nd) NWWA/API Conf. on Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Organic
Chemicals in Groundwater-Prevention, Detection, and Restoration, National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH, pp.
322-330.
Lolcama, J.L. 1988. Reconciliation of Hydrochemistry of Ground Water Affected by Drilling and Sampling in Deep Boreholes. In:
Proc. of the Groundwater Geochemistry Conference, National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH, pp. 405-426.
Losonsky, G., G.E. Jacques, and M.S. Beljin. 1992. Ground Water Monitoring with Horizontal Wells. Ground Water Management
11:189-204 (6th NOAC).
Luhdorff, Jr., E.E. and J.C. Scahnanini. 1982. Selection of Drilling Method, Well Design and Sampling Equipment for Wells to
Monitor Organic Contamination. In: Proc. 2nd Nat. Symp. on Aquifer Restoration and Ground Water Monitoring,
National Water Well Association, Worthington, OH, pp. 359-365.
Lutz, J.F., 1947. Apparatus for Collecting Undisturbed Soil Samples. Soil Science 64:399-401.
Magcobar. 1977. Drilling Fluid Engineering Manual. Magcobar Division, Dresser Industries, Inc., Houston, TX.
2-86
-------
Maher, J.C. 1963. Logging Drill Cuttings. Oklahoma Geological Survey Guide Book XIV, 2nd edition, 48 pp.
Marcuson, HI, W.F. and A.G. Franklin. 1980. State-of-the-Art of Undisturbed Sampling of Cohesionless Soils. Geotechnical
Engineering 11:31-53.
Mason, BJ. 1992. Preparation of Soil Sampling Protocols: Sampling Techniques and Strategies. EPA/600/R-92/128 (NTIS PB92-
220532). (Supersedes 1983 edition titled, Preparation of Soil Sampling Protocol: Techniques and Strategies, EPA/600/4-
03/020 [NTIS PB83-206979], 102 pp.)
Mason, K.L. and S.T. Woolley. 1981. How to Air Drill-From Compressor to Blooey Line: Part I. Petroleum Engineer International
v. 40, March, pp. 53.
Massarenti, M. 1964. Percussion-Reverse Circulation Water Well Drilling System Designed and Developed in Italy Ground Water
2(2):25-27.
Matlock, W.G. 1970. Small Diameter Wells Drilled by Jet Percussion Method. Ground Water 8(l):6-9.
McCray, A.W. and F.W. Cole. 1958. Oil Well Drilling Technology. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK, 492 pp.
McEllhiney, W.A. 1960. Application of Rotary Drilling to Water Wells. Am. Water Works Ass. J. 52(3):351-355.
McEtwee, CD., JJ. Butler, Jr., and J.M. Healy. 1991. A New Sampling System for Obtaining Relativety Undisturbed Samples of
Unconsolidated Coarse Sand and Gravel. Ground Water Monitoring Review 11(3):182-191.
Mcllvride, W.A. and R.B. Weiss. 1988. Drilling Method Effects on Well Performance. In: 2nd Nat. Outdoor Action Conf. on
Aquifer Restoration, Ground Water Monitoring and Geophysical Methods, National Water Well Association, Dublin OH
pp. 277-287.
McKeague, J A. (ed.). 1978. Manual on Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis, 2nd edition. Canadian Society Soil Science,
Ottawa.
Metcalf & Eddy. 1991. Handbook: Stabilization Technologies for RCRA Corrective Actions. EPA/625/6-91/026, 62 pp. Available
fromCERL*
Meyer, G. and G.G. Wyrick. 1966. Regional Trends in Water Well Drilling in the United States. U.S. Geological Survey Circular
533,8pp.
Mickelson, R.H., L.C Benz, C.W. Carlson, and P.M. Sandoval. 1961. Jetting Equipment and Techniques in a Drainage and Salinity
Study. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 4:222-228.
Mielke, L.N. 1973. Encasing Undisturbed Soil Cores in Plastic. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proe. 37:325-326.
Mielke, L.N. and W.W. Wilhelm. 1983. Mast Anchor for Hydraulic Soil Sampling Machines. Soil Set Soc. Am. J. 47:1263-1264.
Miller, M.S. and R.G. Hornsby. 1991. Zero Air Emission and Zero Drilling Waste Landfill Leachate Collection Well Installation
Method. Ground Water Management 8:631-648 (8th NWWA/API Conf.). [Driven wells]
Millison, D., T. Eckard, J. Muller, and E. Vander Velde. 1989. Use of a Continuous Sampling Wireline System and Telescopic
Casing to Optimize Well Construction and Prevent Cross-Contamination in Deep Monitor Well Installations. In: 3rd Nat.
Outdoor Action Conf. on Aquifer Restoration, Ground Water Monitoring and Geophysical Methods, National Water Well
Association, Dublin, OH, pp. 273-287.
Mooij, H. and F.A. Roovers. 1978. Recommended Ground Water and Soil Sampling Procedures. Report EPA-4-EC-76-7.
Environment Canada Solid Waste Management Bureau.
Moore, P.L. 1974. Drilling Practice Manual. The Petroleum Publishing Co., Tulsa, OK, 448 pp.
Morgan, J.H. 1992. Horizontal Drilling Applications of Petroleum Technologies for Environmental Purposes. Ground Water
Monitoring Review 12(3):98-102
Mori, H. (ed.). 1979. State of the Art on Current Practice of Soil Sampling. Proceedings of the International Symposium of Soil
Sampling, Int. Soc. Soil Mech. and Foundation Engineering, New York, NY.
2-87
-------
Moulder, E. A. and M.L. Klug. 1963. Jetting Method of Installing Small-Diameter Wells. In: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply
Paper 1544-H, pp. H14-H30.
Mroz, G.D. and D.D. Reed. 1991. Forest Soil Sampling Efficiency: Matching Laboratory Analyses and Field Sampling Procedures.
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 55:1413-1416. [Optimization of sample compositing]
Mullins, C.E. and BJ. Hutchison. 1982. The Variability Introduced by Various Subsampling Techniques. J. Soil Science 33:547-561.
Munch, J.H. and R.W.D. Killey. 1985. Equipment and Methodology for Sampling and Testing Cohesionless Sediments. Ground
Water Monitoring Review 5(l):38-42.
Murphy, Jr., J. 1991. Application of ODEX/TUBEX Drilling Method in a Variably Fractured Volcanic/Igneous Environment.
Ground Water Management 5:799-814 (5th NOAC).
Murphy, J.B., E.H. Grissinger, and W.C. Little. 1981. Fiberglass Encasement of Large, Undisturbed, Weakly Cohesive Soil Samples.
Soil Science 131:130-134.
Myers, R.G., CW. Swallow, and D.E. Kissel. 1989. A Method to Secure, Leach and Incubate Undisturbed Soil Cores. Soil Sci. Soc.
Am. J. 53:467-471.
Nevo, Z. and J. Hagin. 1966. Changes Occurring in Soil Samples During Air-Dry Storage. Soil Science 102:157-160.
Nickens, D.A., M.S. Turner, and M.T. Morrow. 1988. Characterization of Groundwater Contamination by Direct Sampling Through
Hollow Stem Augers. In: 2nd Nat. Outdoor Action Conf. on Aquifer Restoration, Ground Water Monitoring and
Geophysical Methods, National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH, pp. 255-276.
Nieken, D.M. 1991. An Update on ASTM Subcommittee on Ground Water and Vadose Zone Investigations. Ground Water
Monitoring Review ll(3):92-96.
Oken, R.S. and J.V. Farr. 1986. Site Characterization Using the Cone Penetrometer Test. In: Proc. of the ASCE Conf. on Use of
In-Situ Testing in Geotechnical Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineer, New York, NY.
Ostendorf, D.W., L. Leach, E.S. Henlein, and Y. Xie. 1991. Field Sampling of Residual Aviation Gasoline in Sandy Soil. Ground
Water Monitoring Review 11(2):107-120.
Palmer, M. 1985. Methods Manual for Bottom Sediment Sample Collection. EPA/905/4-85/004 (NTIS PB86-107414), 52 pp.
Parolini, J.R., V.G. King, T.W. Nail, and T.E. Lewis. 1991. The Investigation of Soil Sampling Devices and Shipping and Holding
Time Effects on Soil Volatile Organic Compounds. In: 2nd Int. Symp. Field Screening Methods for Hazardous Wastes and
Toxic Chemicals. EPA/600/9-91/028 (NTIS PB92-125764), pp. 725-728.
Parsons, PJ. 1961. Multiple Soil Sampler. J. Soil Mech. Div. (ASCE) 87(SMG): 19-27.
Paules II, M.S., J.F. Mednick, and D.E. Callahan. 1990. Installation of Large Diameter Recovery Wells Utilizing Triple-Wall
Percussion Hammer Drilling. Ground Water Management 4:49^505 (7th NWWA/API Conf.).
Perry, CA. and R J. Hart 1985. Installation of Observation Wells on Hazardous Waste Sites in Kansas Using a Hollow-Stem
Auger. Ground Water Monitoring Review 5(4):70-73.
Petroleum Extension Service. Various Dates. Lessons in Rotary Drilling-Unit I, Lesson 2: The Bit (1966, 50 pp.); Unit I, Lesson 3:
The Drill String (1965, 58 pp.); Unit II, Lesson 1: Making Hole (1968, 55 pp.); Unit II, Lesson 2: Drilling Mud (1968, 48
pp.); Unit II, Lesson 4: Casing and Cementing (1968, 81 pp.); Unit II, Lesson 5: Testing and Completing (1968, 64 pp.).
University of Texas, Austin, TX.
Petroleum Extension Service. 1969. Principles of Drilling Fluid Control. University of Texas, Austin, TX, 215 pp.
Petsonk, A.M. 1985. A Device for In Situ Measurement of Hydraulic Conductivity. Presented at the American Geophysical Union
Symposium on Advance in Hydraulic Testing and Tracers Methods (San Francisco, December 10,1985). (Cited in Sai and
Anderson [1991].)
Pettijohn, FJ., P.E. Potter, and R. Siever. 1972. Sand and Sandstone. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, 618 pp.
2-88
-------
Pikul Jr., J.L., R.R. Allmaras, and G.E. Fischbacher. 1979. Incremental Sampler for Use in Summer-Fallowed Soils. Soil Sci. Soc.
Am. J. 43:425-552.
Plumb, Jr., R.H. 1981. Procedures for Handling and Chemical Analysis of Sediment and Water Samples. Technical Report
EPA/CE-81-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, 71 pp.
Potter, P.E., J.B. Maynard, and W.A. Pryor. 1980. Sedimentology of Shale. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, 306 pp.
Propkopovich, N.P. 1977. Discussion: The Unified Soil Classification System. Ass. Eng. Geol. Bull. 14(3):183-185.
Qian, P. and J.D. Wolt. 1990. Effects of Drying and Time of Incubation on the Composition of Displace Soil Solution. Soil Science
149(6):367-374.
Raab, G.A., M.H. Battling, M.A. Stapanian, W.H. Cole, III, R.L. Tidwell, and ICA. Cappo. 1991. The Homogenization of
Environmental Soil Samples in Bulk. In: Hazardous Waste Measurements, M.S. Simmons (ed.), Lewis Publishers, Chelsea,
MI, pp. 35-51.
Rehm, B.W., T.R. Stolzenburg, D.G. Nichols. 1985. Field Measurement Methods for Hydrogeologic Investigations: A Critical
Review of the Literature. EPRI EA-4301. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA.
Rhotan, F.E. and D.S. McChesney. 1991. System for Collecting Undisturbed Cores from Surface Soils for Micromorphological
Analysis. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 55:1796-1797.
Riddle, J. and RJ. Johnson. 1991. Dual Tube, Reverse Circulation Drilling: Effective Exploration of Ground Water Conditions.
Ground Water Management 5:787-798 (5th NOAC).
Riggs, C. 1983. Continuous Soil Sampling in the Vadose Zone. In: Proc. NWWA/EPA Conf. on Characterization and Monitoring
of the Vadose (Unsaturated) Zone, National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH, pp. 611-622.
Robertson, P.K. and R.G. Campenalla. 1986. Guidelines for Use, Interpretation and Application of CPT and CPTU. Hogentogler
and Company, Inc., Gaithersburg, MD.
Robertson, W.K., P.E. Poper, and R.T. Tomlinson. 1974. Sampling Tool for Taking Undisturbed Soil Cores. Soil Sci. Soc. Am.
Proc. 38:855-857.
Robertson, P.K., R.G. Campanella, D. Gillespie, and J. Grieg. 1986. Use of Piezometer Cone Data. In: Proc. of In-Situ '86, ASCE
Specialty Conf. (Blacksburg, VA), American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY.
Rogers, W.F. 1963. Composition and Properties of Oil Well Drilling Fluids, 3rd edition. Gulf Publishing Co., Houston, TX, 878 pp.
Rogers, J.S. and C.E. Carter. 1987. Soil Core Sampling for Hydraulic Conductivity and Bulk Density. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 51:1393-
1394.
Ruark, G.A. 1985. A Refined Soil Coring System. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 49:278-281. .
Ruda, T.C. and P.J. Bosscher (eds.). 1990. Drillers Handbook. National Drilling Contractors Association, Columbia, SC.
Russell, B.F., J.M. Hubbell, and S.C Minkin. 1989. Drilling and Sampling Procedures to Minimize Borehole Cross-Contamination.
In: Proc. 3rd Nat. Outdoor Action Conf. on Aquifer Restoration, Ground Water Monitoring and Geophysical Methods,
National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH, pp. 81-93. [Air and mud rotary]
Sai, J.O. and D.C. Anderson. 1991. State-of-the-Art Field Hydraulic Conductivity Testing of Compacted Soils. EPA/600/2-91/022
(NTIS PB91-206243), 95 pp. [Cone penetration porous probes]
Sanies, M., A.I. Strutynsky, and G. Lytwynshyn. 1989. Use of Piezometric Cone Penetration Testing in Hydrogeologic Investigations.
In: Proc. 1st USA/USSR Hydrogeology Conference, National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH.
Sale, T.C. and S.E. Rhoades. 1987. Installation of Monitoring Wells Using the Dual Wall Hammer Drilling Technique. In:
Superfund '87 (Proc. of the 8th National Conference), Hazardous Materials Control Research Institute, Silver Spring, MD,
pp. 358-361.
Sanderson Cyclone. 1966. Cable Tool Drilling Manual. Sanderson Cyclone Drill Co., Orrville, OH, 50 pp.
2-89
-------
Sangerlat, G. 1972. The Penetrometer and Soil Exploration. Elsevier, New York, NY.
Scalf, M.R., J.F. McNabb, WJ. Dunlap, R.L. Cosby, and J. Fryberger. 1981. Manual of Ground-Water Quality Sampling Procedures.
EPA/600/2-81/160, (NTIS PB82-103045). Also published in NWWA/EPA Series, National Water Well Association, Dublin
OH.
Scballa, R. 1986. A Comparison of the Effects of Rotary Wash and Air Rotary Drilling Techniques on Pumping Test Results. In:
Proc. 6th Nat. Symp. on Aquifer Restoration and Ground Water Monitoring, National Water Well Association, Dublin,
OH, pp. 7-26. "~
Schickcdanz, D.M., A.B. Onken, T. Cummings, and R.M. Jones. 1973. A Tractor-Mounted Hydraulically-Operated Soil Sampler for
Rapid Soil Coring. Agronomy J. 65:339-340.
Schmertmann, J.H. 1978. Guidelines for Cone Penetration Test Performance and Design. FHWA-TS-78-209. Federal Highway
Adminstration, Washington, DC, 145 pp.
Schuh, W.M. 1987. Apparatus for Extraction of Undisturbed Samples on Noncohesive Subsoils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 51:1678-1679.
Schumacher, B.A., K.C. Shines, J.V. Burton, and M.L. Papp. 1990. Comparison of Three Methods for Soil Homogenization. Soil
Sci. Soc. Am. J. 54:1187-1190.
Schumacher, B A., K.C. Shines, J.V. Button, and M.L. Papp. 1991. A Comparison of Soil Sample Homogenization Techniques. In:
Hazardous Waste Measurements, M.S. Simmons (ed.), Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI, pp. 53-68.
Seikan, D.I., and M.A. Deyiing. 1989. Ground Water Monitoring Network Installation at the Fall River, Massachusetts Municipal
Landfill. In: Proc. Third Nat. Outdoor Action Conf. on Aquifer Restoration, Ground Water Monitoring and Geophysical
Methods, National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH, pp. 179-189. [Air rotary]
Senum, G.I. and R.N. Dietz. 1991. Perfluorocarbon Tracer Tagging of Drilling Muds for the Assessment of Sample Contamination.
In: Proc. 1st Int. Symp. on the Microbiology of the Deep Subsurface, C.B. Fliermans and T.C. Hazen (eds.), Westinghouse
Savannah River Co., Aiken, SC, pp. 7/145-7/149.
Shepard, F.P. 1954. Nomenclature Based on Sand-Silt-day Ratios. J. Sediment. Petrol. 24(3):151-158.
Shew, D.G, 1975. Ground-Water Problems Associated with Well-Drilling Additives. In: Conf. Proc. Environmental Aspects of
Chemical Use in Well-Drilling Operations. EPA/560/1-75/004 (NTTS PB246-947), pp. 223-230.
Shew, D.C and J.W. Keeley. 1975. Ground-Water Problems Associated with Well-Drilling Additives. EPA/560/1-75/004 (NTIS PB-
246 947), pp. 223-230.
Shirley, D.S. and S.M. Hay. 1988. Using the Percussion Hammer to Install Groundwater Monitor Wells in Coarse Alluvial Deposits.
In: 2nd Nat. Outdoor Action Conf. on Aquifer Restoration, Ground Water Monitoring and Geophysical Methods, National
Water WeU Association, Dublin, OH, pp. 289-301.
Shuter, E. and W.E. Teasdale. 1989. Application of Drilling, Coring, and Sampling Techniques to Test Holes and Wells. U.S.
Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resource Investigations TWRI 2-F1, 96 pp.
Sieczka, J.B., W.H. Gutenmann, and D J. Lisk. 1982. Soil Sampling Method for Use in Pesticide Leaching Studies. Bull. Environ.
Contam. Toxicol. 28(3):358-359.
Sicgrist, R.L. and P.O. Jenssen. 1990. Evaluation of Sampling Method Effects on Volatile Organic Compounds Concentrations in
Contaminated Soils. Environ. Sci. Technol. 24:1387-1392.
Sims, W.R., B.B. Looney, and CA. Eddy. 1991. Evaluation of a Rapid Headspace Analysis Method for Analysis of Volatile
Constituents in Soils and Sediments. In: Ground Water Management 5:655-668 (5th NOAC).
Slater, J.P. and F.R. McLaren. 1983. Sampling and Analysis of Soil for Volatile Organic Compounds. In: Proc. NWWA/EPA Conf.
on Characterization and Monitoring of the Vadose (Unsaturated) Zone (Las Vegas, NV), National Water Well
Association, Dublin, OH, pp. 623-658.
Smith, S.A. 1990. Monitoring Well Drilling and Testing hi Urban Environments. In: Ground Water and Vadose Zone Monitoring,
D.M. Nielsen and A.I. Johnson (eds.), ASTM STP 1053, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp.
2-90
-------
55-63.
Smolley, M. and J.C. Kappmeyer. 1989. Cone Penctrometcr Tests and Hydropunch (TM) Sampling: An Alternative to Monitoring
Wells for Plume Definition. In: Proc. Conf. on New Field Techniques for Quantifying the Physical and Chemical
Properties of Heterogeneous Aquifers, National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH, pp. 717-724.
Smolley, M. and J.C. Kappmeyer. 1991. Cone Penetrometer Tests and Hydropunch Sampling: A Screening Technique for Plume
Definition. Ground Water Monitoring Review 11(2):101-106.
Smythe, J.M., P.B. Bedient, and R.A. Klopp. 1988. Cone Penetrometer Technology for Hazardous Waste Site Investigations. In:
2nd Nat. Outdoor Action Conf. on Aquifer Restoration, Ground Water Monitoring and Geophysical Methods, National
Water Well Association, Dublin, OH, pp. 71-94.
Soil Conservation Service (SCS). 1971. Handbook of Soil Survey Investigations Procedures.
Soil Conservation Service (SCS). 1984. Procedures for Collecting Soil Samples and Methods of Analysis for Soil Survey. Soil Survey
Investigations Report No. 1. U.S. Government Printing Office. (Supersedes report by the same title dated 1972.)
Soil Survey Staff. 1975. Soil Taxonomy: A Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys. U.S.
Department of Agriculture Agricultural Handbook No. 436, 754 pp.
Speake, Jr., R.C., M. Trogan, and Z.Z. Wang. 1991. Modeling the Performance of a Horizontal Groundwater Recovery Well.
Ground Water Management 5:399-415 (5th NOAQ.
Spittler, T.M., MJ. Cuzzupe, and J.T. Griffith. 1988. A Field Method for Determination of Volatile Organics in Soil Samples. In:
Proc. 1st Int. Symp. Field Screening Method for Hazardous Waste Site Investigations, EPA/600/D-89/189 (NTIS PB90-
132572), pp. 155-157.
Starr, R.C. and R.A. Ingleton. 1992. A New Method for Collecting Core Samples Without a Drilling Rig. Ground Water
Monitoring Review 12(l):91-95. [Piston sampler]
Stevens, P.R. 1963. Examination of Drill Cuttings and Application of Resulting Information to Solving Field Problems on the
Navajo Indian Reservation, New Mexico and Arizona. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1544-H, pp. H3-H13.
Stolt, M.H., J.C. Baker, and T.W. Simpson. 1991. Bucket Auger Modification for Obtaining Undisturbed Samples of Deep
Saprolite. Soil Science 151:179-182.
Stow, G.R.S. 1963. Modern Water Well Drilling Techniques Used hi the United Kingdom. Ground Water 1(3):3-12.
Strauss, M.F., S.L. Story, and N.E. Mehlhorn. 1989. Application of Dual Wall Reverse Circulation Drilling in Ground Water
Exploration and Monitoring. Ground Water Monitoring Review 9(2):63-71.
Strutynsky, A.I. and TJ. Sainey. 1990. Use of Piezometric Cone Penetration Testing and Penetrometer Groundwater Sampling for
Volatile Organic Contaminant Plume Detection. Ground Water Management 4:71-84 (7th NWWA/API Conf.).
Strutynsky, A.I., R.E. Sandiford, and D. Cavaliere. 1992. Use of Piezometric Cone Penetration Testing with Electrical Conductivity
Measurements (CPTU-EC) for the Detection of Hydrocarbon Contamination hi Saturated Granular Soils. In: Current
Practices in Ground Water and Vadose Zone Investigations, ASTM STP 1118, D.M. Nielsen and M.N. Sara (eds.),
American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 169-182.
Summers, W.K. 1972. Horizontal Wells and Drains. Water Well Journal 26(6):36-38.
Tackett, J.L., E. Burnett, and D.W. Fryear. 1965. A Rapid Procedure for Securing Large, Undisturbed Soil Cores. Soil Sci. Soc.
Am. Proc. 29:218-220.
Tanner, C.B., W.E. Hanks, and R J. Hanks. 1953. A Core-Type Soil Sampler for Small Undisturbed Samples. Agronomy J. 45:512-
513.
Terry, D.L., C.B. McCants, and F.G. Averette. 1974. A Sampler for Taking Soil Samples from Specific Soil Zones. Soil Science
118(6):402-404
Tomer, M.D. and A.H. Ferguson. 1989. Rubber Latex Encasement of Undisturbed Cores for Water Flow and Potential
2-91
-------
Measurements. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 53:305-308.
Treadway, C. 1991. Cable Tool Drilling: A Viable Drilling Method for Constructing Monitoring Wells. Water Well Journal
45(5):56-59.
Tschirley, N.K. 1978. Manual of Drill Fluids Technology. Baroid Petroleum Service Co., Houston, TX, 200 pp.
Tuttle, C.L., M.S. Golden, and D.L. Sirois. 1984. A Portable Tool for Obtaining Soils Cores in Clayey or Rocky Soils. Soil Sci. Soc.
Am. J. 48:1453-1455.
U.S. Army. 1981. Well Drilling Operations. Department of Army Technical Manual FM5-1161/AFR 85-23. Reprinted by National
Water Well Association, Dublin, OH, 249 pp. (Supersedes TM 5-297/AFR 85-23, published in 1965.)
U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Material Agency (USATHAMA). 1982. Minimum Requirement for Boring Logs, Drilling
Procedures, Monitoring Well Installation, and Associated Data Management System Entries. USATHAMA, Aberdeen
Proving Ground, MD.
U.S. Bureau of Mines. 1968. Horizontal Boring Technology: A State-of-the-Art Study. U.S. Bureau of Mines Information Circular
8392, 86 pp. [Utility rigs]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1975. Conference Proceedings, Environmental Aspects of Chemical Use in Well-
Drilling Operations. EPA/5670/1-75/004 (NTIS PB246-947), 582 pp. [35+ papers]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1984a. Drill Mud Assessment Chemical Analysis Reference Volume. EPA/600/3-
84/048 (NTIS PB84-170000).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1984b. A Survey of the Toxicity and Chemical Composition of Used Drilling Muds.
EPA/600/3-84/071 (NTIS PB84-207661).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1986a. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, 3rd edition, Vol. II: Field Manual
Physical/Chemical Methods. EPA/530/SW-846 (NTIS PB88-239223); First update, 3rd edition. EPA/530/SW-846.3-1 (NTIS
PB89-148076). (2nd edition published in 1982 (NTIS PB87-1200291); current edition and updates available on a
subscription basis from U.S. Government Printing Office, Stock #955-001-00000-1.)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1986b. Permit Guidance Manual on Unsaturated Zone Monitoring for Hazardous
Waste Land Treatment Units. EPA/530/SW-86/040. (NTIS PB87-215463).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1987. A Compendium of Superfund Field Operations Methods, Part 2. EPA/540/P-
87/001 (OSWER Directive 9355.0-14) (NTIS PB88-181557), 644 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1989. Sediment Classification Methods Compendium, Final Draft Report Office of
Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC. [Compendium of 10 methods for assessing chemically contaminated
sediments]
Vaughn, D.H., CB. Muralik, and J.H. Wilson. 1984. Soil Sampler Minimizes Soil Disturbance. Agric. Eng. 64:24-25.
Vcpraskas, M J., M.T. Hoover, J.L. Beeson, M.S. Carpenter, and J.B. Richards. 1990. Sampling Device to Extract Inclined
Undisturbed Soil Cores. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 54:1192-1195.
Viehmeyer, FJ. 1929. An Improved Soil Sampling Tube. Soil Science 27:147-152.
Vroblesky, D.A., S.W. Phillips, and J. Stefano. 1988. Remote-Controlled Drilling Operations at Hazardous-Waste Sites, Aberdeen
Proving Ground, Maryland. In: 2nd Nat. Outdoor Action Conf. on Aquifer Restoration, Ground Water Monitoring and
Geophysical Methods, National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH, pp. 17-30.
Wahls, H.E. (ed.). 1975. In Situ Measurement of Soil Properties. Proc. Specialty Conf. of the Geotechnical Engineering Division,
American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY.
Watson, K.K. and S J. Lees. 1975. A Procedure for the Sampling and Testing of Large Soil Cores. Soils Sci. Soc. Am. Proc.
39:589-590.
WeJnstock, E.A. 1990. Installing Monitoring Wells with Hollow Stem Augers-Breaking the "100-Foot" Barrier. Water Well Journal
2-92
-------
44(1):49.
White, A.E. 1990. Design/Installation of Deep Groundwater Monitoring Wells in an Arid Region. Ground Water Management
4:101-109 (7th NWWA/API Conf.).
Williamson, D.A. 1984. Unified Rock Classification System. Bull Ass. Eng. Geol. 21(3):345-354.
Wilson, S.A., K. Keehan, and R.T. Williams. 1991. The Physical Preparation and Chemical Analysis of Soil/Compost Samples. In:
Proc. 15th Annual Army Environmental R&D Symp. (1990), CETHA-TS-CR-91077, U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous
Materials Agency, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, pp. 143-146.
Wires, K.C. and B.H. Sheldrick. 1987. A Soil Sampling Procedure for Micromorphological Studies. Can. J. Soil Science 67:693-695.
Woessner, W.W. 1987. Using the Drill Through Casing Hammer Method for Monitoring Well Construction and Water Quality
Characterization in a Metal Contaminated Gravel, Cobble and Boulder Aquifer. In: 1st Nat. Outdoor Action Conf. on
Aquifer Restoration, Ground Water Monitoring and Geophysical Methods, National Water Well Association, Dubh'n, OH,
pp. 373-397.
Woessner, W.W. 1988. Drill-Through Casing Driver Drilling Method for Construction of Monitoring Wells in Coarse,
Unconsolidated Sediments. Ground Water Monitoring Review 8(l):69-72.
World Oil. 1970. Guidelines for Optimum Diamond Bit Performance, Parts I to IV. World Oil, Vol. 171, No. 4 (September), pp.
63-66; No. 5 (October), pp. 94-96; No. 6 (November), pp. 113-116; No. 7 (December), pp. 75-77.
Zapico, M.M., S. Vales, and J.A. Cherry. 1987. A Wireline Piston Core Barrel for Sampling Cohesionless Sand and Gravel Below
the Water Table. Ground Water Monitoring Review 7(3):74-82.
Zirschky, J. and R.O. Gilbert. 1984. Detecting Hot Spots at Hazardous-Waste Sites. Chemical Engineering July 9, pp. 97-100.
*ORD Publications, U.S. EPA Center for Environmental Research Information, P.O. Box 19963, Cincinnati, OH, 45268-0963 (513-
569-7562).
2-93
-------
-------
SECTIONS
GEOPHYSICAL LOGGING OF BOREHOLES
Overview of Borehole Techniques
Methods for geologic and hydrogeologic characterization using boreholes most commonly use probes
or sondes that are lowered on a cable. These probes transmit signals to surface instruments that generate logs
or charts, which relate changes in the parameter being measured with depth. However, any method that involves
a signal transmitter and separate receivers can use boreholes in a variety of configurations: (1) Cross-borehole
(transmitter in one borehole and receiver[s] in one or more other boreholes), (2) borehole-to-surface (transmitter
in a borehole and receiverfs] on the surface), and (3) surface-to-borehole (transmitter at the surface and receivers
in the boreholefs]).
Most borehole geophysical techniques for characterizing rock fall into three categories: (1)
Electrical/electromagnetic methods, which measure resistivity and conductivity of fluids and surrounding rocks
(Sections 3.1 and 3.2), (2) nuclear methods, which use natural or artificial sources of radiation and radiation
detectors to characterize rock and fluid properties (Section 3.3), and (3) acoustic/seismic methods, which measure
the elastic response of subsurface rock to a seismic source (Section 3.4). Miscellaneous logging methods, such
as caliper, temperature, and fluid flow logging are covered in Section 3.5, and well construction logs are covered
in Section 3.6. Section 5.5 covers probes used for fluid characterization, such as dissolved oxygen, Eh and pH
probes (Section 5.5.4), and ion-selective electrodes (Section 5.5.5).
Selection of Borehole Techniques
The type of borehole (cased or uncased), and whether it is filled with fluid or is dry, are major
considerations in the selection of borehole techniques. For example, most electrical methods require an uncased
borehole and either drilling fluid or water in the hole. Table 3-1 provides summary information on casing and
borehole fluid requirements for more than 40 borehole techniques covered in .this guide. This tables also
indicates the approximate radius of measurement of each technique and required corrections or calibrations, and
other logs that might be required for accurate interpretation of a log. Typically, several different types of logs
are run on the same borehole and compared to facilitate stratigraphic interpretations. A typical suite of logs in
a fluid filled borehole would include: (1) Spontaneous potential (Section 3.1.1), (2) single-point resistance
(Section 3.1.2) and/or normal resistivity (Section 3.1.4), (3) natural gamma (Section 3.3.1), (4) neutron (Section
3.3.3), (5) caliper (Section 3.5.1), (6) fluid conductivity (Section 3.1.3), (7) temperature (Section 3.5.2), and,
possibly, (8) acoustic velocity (Section 3.4.1). Figure 3-1 illustrates a typical response to sedimentary rocks
(Figure 3-la) and altered or fractured crystalline rock (Figure 3-lb) with commonly used logging methods.
Measurement of ground-water flow in boreholes (Sections 3.5.3 to 3.5.6) is an especially useful technique for
locating zones of high permeability within a borehole.
Depending on site conditions and the availability of equipment and experienced operating personnel,
all of the techniques covered in this section have potential for use at contaminated sites. Table 3-2 provides
more detailed guidance on techniques for specific subsurface parameters. The ASTM Subcommittee on Ground
Water and Vadose Zone Investigations has prepared a Draft Standard Guide for Borehole Geophysical
Investigations (Nielsen, 1991), and this will provide useful additional guidance when it is completed.
In shallow boreholes, or where a hole is completed a short distance below a desired point, tool length
might be an important consideration, particularly if a detector is housed in the middle of a long tool. A special
consideration in the selection of borehole techniques at contaminated sites is the requirement that the instrument
usually be decontaminated after each use.
3-1
-------
Tabk 3-1 Characteristics of Borehole Logging Methods (information for general guidance only)
Log Type/Section
Electrical Logs
Spontaneous
Potential (3.1.1)
Single-Point
Resistance (3.1.2)
Fluid Conductivity (3.13)
Resistivity (3.1.4)
Dipraetcr (3.1.5)
Induced Polarization (3.1.6)
Cross-Well AC
Voltage (3.1.6)
Electromagnetic Logs
Induction (3.2.1)
Borehole Radar (3.2.2)
Dielectric (3.23)
Nuclear Magnetic
Resonance (3.2.4)
Surface-Borehole
CSAMT (3.2.4)
Nuclear Logs
Natural Gonna (33.1)
Ganma-Gaiunti (33.2)
Neutron (333)
Gamma-Spectrometry
(33.4)
Casing1
Uncased only
Uncased only
Uncased or
screened
Uncased only
Uncased only
Uncased only
Uncased only
Uncased or
nonmetallic
Uncased or
nonmetallic
Uncased or
nonmetallic
Uncased only
Uncased only
(?)
Uncased or
cased
Uncased or
cased
Uncased or
cased
Uncased or
cased
Min.
Diam.k
1.5-3.0"
1.5-2.0"
2.0-2.5"
2.0-5.5"
6.0"
2.0"
?
2.0-4.0"
2.0-6.0"
5.0"
7.0"
?
1.0-2.0"
2.5"
1.5-4.5"
2.0-4.0"
Borehole
Fluid
Conductive
fluid
Conductive
fluid
Conductive
fluid
Conductive
fluid
Conductive
fluid
Conductive
fluid
Wet or
dry
Wet or
dry
Wet or
dry
Wet or
dry
Required
Wet or
dry(?)
Wet or
dry
Wet or
dry
Wet or
dry
Wet or
dry
Radius of
Measurement
Near borehole
surface
Near borehole
surface
Within
borehole
< 1.0-60"
Near borehole
surface
2.0-4.0'
10s to 100s
of meters
30"
meters
30"
1.5'
7
6.0-12.0"
6.0"
6.0-12.0"
6.0-12.0"
Required Correction '
Drilling fluid resistivity and
borehole diameter for quantitative uses
Not quantitative; hole
diameter effects significant
Calibration with fluid of known
salinity, temperature correction
Drilling fluid resistivity, borehole diameter,
and temperature log for quantitative uses
Orientation; minimum of 6" diam. required
for accurate joint/fracture characterization
Hole diameter
Borehole deviation
Effect of hole diameter and mud
negligible
Borehole deviation (crosshole)
Conductive material skin depth, chlorine
interference
Borehole fluid
?
None for qualitative uses;
hole diameter, casing (thickness,
composition, and size), and drilling fluid
density for quantitative uses
Same as natural gamma with
addition of formation fluid and matrix
density corrections
Same as natural gamma with
addition of temperature, fluid salinity, and
matrix composition corrections •_
Similar to natural gamma
3-2
-------
Table 3-1 (cent.)
Log Type/Section
Nuclear LOBS fcont.')
Neutron-Activation
(3.3.5)
Neutron-Lifetime
(3.3.6)
Acoustic and Seismic Logs
Acoustic-Velocity/0
Some (3.4.1)
Acoustic-Waveform"
(3.4.2)
Acoustic-Televiewer
(3.43)
Surface-Borehole
Seismic (3.4.4)
Geophysical Diffraction
Tomography (3.4.5)
Cross Borehole
Seismic (3.4.6)
Casing*
Uncased or
cased
Uncased or
cased
Uncased or
bonded metallic
Uncased or
bonded metallic
Uncased only
Uncased or
bonded cased
Uncased or
nonmetallic
Cased or
uncased
Mm.
Diam.b
2.0-4.0"
2.0-4.0"
2.0-4.0"
2.5-3.0"
Borehole
Fluid
Wet or
dry
Wet or
dry
Required
Required
3.0" min Required
16.0" max
2.5-4.0"
2.5-4.0"
2.0-3.0"
Wet or
dry
Wet
Wet or
dry
Radius of
Measurement
< Neutron
< Neutron •
Depends on
frequency and
rock velocity;
several feet
> sonic
Borehole
surface
Depends on
geophone
configuration
10O
Depends on
borehole spacing
Required Correction
?
7
Hole diameter, formation fluid,
and matrix velocity corrections
for quantitative uses
Same as sonic
Large number of equipment
adjustments required during operation
(calibration of magnetometer), borehole
diameter response, borehole deviation
Borehole deviation, correction for
geometric spreading of source energy;
geophones must be locked in dry holes
Borehole deviation
Borehole deviation
Miscellaneous Logging Methods
Caliper (3.5.1)
Temperature (3.5.2)
Mechanical Flowmeter
(3.5.3)
Thermal Flowmeter
(3.5.4)
EM Flowmeter
(3.5.5)
Single-borehole
flow tracing (3.5.6)
Uncased or
cased
Uncased or
cased*1
e
e
e
e
1.5"+
2.0"
2.0-4.0"
2.0"
2.0"
1.75"+
Wet or
dry
Required
Required
Required
Required
Required
Arm limit
(usually 2.0-3.01)
Within
borehole
e
e
e
e
None
Calibration to known standard
Borehole diameter for velocity and
volumetric logging
Borehole diameter for velocity and
volumetric logging
Borehole diameter for velocity and
volumetric logging
Changes in flow field with time
Colloidal Horoscope (3.5.7)
2.0"
Required
None
3-3
-------
Tabk 3-1 (cent)
Log Type/Section
Casing*
Min. Borehole
Diam.b Fluid
Radius of
Measurement
Required Correction
Miscellaneous Logging Methods fcont.')
Television/Photography
(35.7)
Gravity (35.8)
Magnetic/Magnetic
Susceptibility (35.8)
Well Construction Logs
Casing Collar Locator
(3.6.1)
Cement and Gravel
Pack Logs (3.6.2)
Borehole Deviation
(3.63)
Uncased or
cased
Uncased best
Uncased or
nonmetallic
Steel
Casing
Cased
Uncased
2.0"+ Wet or
dry
6.0" Wet or
dry
? Wet or
dry
2.0"+ Wet or
dry
Borehole
surface
10s to 100s
of meters
1.0-2.0'
Casing collar,
thickness
None
Borehole diameter/inclination; other usual
gravity corrections
Hole diameter correction
None
See specific logging methods discussed in Section 3.6.2
Varies Wet or
dry
Borehole
Surface
Magnetic declination
Fluid/Gas Chemical Sensors
Eh.'Ph Probes (55.4)
Ion-Selective Electrodes
(5.55)
Fiber Optic Chemical
Sensors (55.6)
Other Chemical Sensors
(10.6.5)
Uncased/screened 1.0"
Uncased/screened 1.0"
Uncased/screened <2.0"
Uncased/screened <1.0"-
2.0"
Required
Required
Wet or dry
Wet or dry
Within borehole
Within borehole
Within borehole
Within borehole
Calibration to known standards
Calibration to known standards
Calibration to known standards
Calibration to known standards
Boldface = Most frequently used techniques in ground-water investigations.
• Unless otherwise speciGed, either plastic or steel casing is possible.
k Indicates the range of minimum diameters for commercially available probes based on best available information. Various sources were used,
with the survey by Adams et al. (1983) being the main source.
• Wheatcraft et al. (1986) indicate that acoustic logs are suitable only for uncased boreholes. However, TTiomhill and Benefield (1990) report
using them for mechanical integrity tests of steel-cased injection wells.
4 Wheatcraft et al. (1986) indicate that casing is allowable for temperature logs, Benson (1991) indicates that casing should not be used.
Uncased holes are required for identification of high permeability zones. Cased hole uses would include measurement of geothermal gradient
and cement bond logs (see Section 3.6.2).
• Flow measurements are usually made in uncased holes or screened intervals of cased holes. Radius of measurement depends on the
permeability and whether natural or induced How is measured. Natural How will measure the properties of several well diameters; pumping will
measure properties up to 25 to 35 well diameters (Taylor, 1989).
3-4
-------
GAMMA NEUTRON ACOUSTIC VELOCITY
CALIPER
SPONTANEOUS LONG-NORMAL
LITHOLOGY POTENTIAL RESISTIVITY
(a)
CALIPER
ACOUSTIC
LITHOLOGY NEUTRON VELOCITY
SINGLE-POINT
RESISTANCE
RESISTIVITY
TEMPERATURE
Figure 3-1 Well log suites: (a) Typical response to a sequence of sedimentary rocks; (b) Typical response to various
altered and fractured crystalline rocks (Keys, 1990).
3-5
-------
Table 3-2 Sumiaary of Borehole Log Applications
Required Information
Logging Techniques Which Might Be Used
LUhologV. Stratigraphy. Formation Properties
General lithology and stratigraphic correlation.
Bed thickness
Cavity detection
Sedimentary structure orientation
Large geologic structures
Total porosity/bulk density.
Effective porosity.
Clay or shale content.
Relative sand-shale content
Grain size/pore size distribution.
Compressibility/stress-strain properties.
Geochemistry
Aquifer Properties
Location of water level or saturated zones.
Moisture content.
Permeability/hydraulic conductivity.
Secondary permeability-fractures, solution
openings.
Specific yield of unconfmed aquifers.
Electric (SP, single point resistance, normal and focused resistivity, dipmeter, IP, cross-
well AC voltage); EM (induction, dielectric); all nuclear (open or cased holes); caliper
logs made in open holes, borehole television.
Single point resistance, focused resistivity (thin beds), gamma, gamma-gamma, neutron,
acoustic velocity.
Caliper, acoustic televiewer, crosshole radar, crosshole seismic.
Dipmeter, borehole television, acoustic televiewer.
Gravity, surface-borehole/crosshole seismic, crosshole radar.
Calibrated dielectric, sonic logs in open holes; crosshole radar; calibrated neutron,
neutron lifetime, gamma-gamma logs, computer assisted tomography (CAT) in open or
cased holes; nuclear magnetic resonance, induced polarization, crosshole seismic.
Calibrated long-normal and focused resistivity or induction logs.
Gamma log, induction log, IP log.
Gamma, SP log.
Grain size: Possible relation to formation factor derived from electric, induction or
gamma logs; Pore size distribution: Nuclear magnetic resonance; Soil macroporosity:
Computerized arial tomography (CAT).
Acoustic waveform, uphole/downhole seismic, crosshole seismic .
Neutron activation log, spectral-gamma log.
Electric, induction, acoustic velocity, temperature or fluid conductivity in open hole or
inside casing. Neutron or gamma-gamma logs in open hole or outside casing.
Calibrated neutron logs, gamma-gamma logs, nuclear magnetic resonance,
computerized anal tomography (CAT).
No direct measurement by logging. May be related to porosity, single borehole tracers
methods (injectivity), 2-wave sonic amplitude, temperature, nuclear magnetic
resonance. Estimation may be possible using vertical seismic profiling.
Caliper, temperature, flowmeters (mechanical, thermal, EM), sonic, acoustic ;
waveform/televiewer, borehole television logs, SP resistance, induction logs, cross-well
AC voltage, surface-borehole CSAMT, vertical seismic profiling, crosshole seismic.
Calibrated neutron logs during pumping.
Ground-Water Flow and Direction
Infiltration.
Temperature logs, time-interval neutron logs under special circumstances or radioactive
tracers.
3-6
-------
Table 3-2 (cant.)
Required Information
Logging Techniques Which Might Be Used
Ground-Water Flow and Direction (COM.)
Direction, velocity, and path of ground-water flow.
Source and movement of water in a well.
Borehole Fluid Characterization
Water Quality/Salinity
Water Chemistry
Pore Fluid Chemistry
Mudcake Detection
Contaminant Characterization
Conductive Flumes
Contaminant Chemistry
Hydrocarbon Detection
Radioactive Contaminants
Dispersion, dilution, and movement of waste.
Buried Object Detection
Borehole/Casing Characterization
Determining construction of existing wells,
diameter and position of casing, perforations,
screens.
Guide to screen setting.
Borehole deviation
Cementing/gravel pack.
Casing corrosion/integrity.
Casing detection/logging
Casing leaks and/or plugged screen.
Behind casing flow
Thermal flowmeter; single-well tracer techniques-point dilution and single-well
pulse; multiwell tracer techniques.
Injectivity profile; mechanical, thermal, EM flowmeters; tracer logging during
pumping or injection; temperature logs.
Calibrated fluid conductivity and temperature; SP log, Single point resistance,
normal/multielectrode resistivity; neutron lifetime.
Dissolved oxygen, Eh, pH probes; specific ion electrodes.
Induced polarization log, neutron activation (if matrix effects can be accounted
for).
Microresistivity, caliper, acoustic televiewer.
Induction log, resistivity, surface-borehole CSAMT.
Specific ion electrodes, fiber optic chemical sensors.
Dielectric log, IP log.
Spectral-gamma log.
Fluid conductivity and temperature logs, gamma logs for some radioactive wastes,
fluid sampler.
Geophysical diffraction tomography.
Gamma-gamma, caliper, collar, and perforation locator, borehole television.
All logs providing data on the lithology, water-bearing characteristics, and
correlation and thickness of aquifers.
Deviation log, dipmeter, single-shot probe, dolty and cage tests.
Caliper, temperature, gamma-gamma; acoustic-waveform for cement bond;
noise/Sonan log.
Borehole television/photography; under some conditions caliper or collar locator.
Casing collar locator, borehole television/photography; various electric, nuclear
and acoustic logs.
Tracer and flowmeters.
Neutron activation and neutron lifetime logs.
3-7
-------
The summaries in this section identify common conditions that enhance or inhibit the success of specific
techniques, but site specific conditions might cause problems for specific techniques, even when all other
indications are that the technique should work well. As a general rule, all geophysical techniques should be
checked against more direct observation and/or confirmed by a second geophysical method. Furthermore, well
established techniques should be given preference to those less commonly used, unless there is clear justification
based on site conditions, cost, and the availability of trained and experienced personnel. When in doubt about
the appropriateness of a specific technique, independent expert advice should be sought. EPA's Environmental
Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas, Nevada, can provide such advice for EPA personnel.
Sources of Additional Information
Table 3-3 (at the end of this section) identifies 16 general texts on logging methods, 20 texts of log
interpretation, a number of texts focusing on electric and nuclear methods, and over 20 texts focusing on ground-
water applications and contaminated sites, and identifies major published symposia and symposium series devoted
to borehole geophysical methods. Where possible, text references are annotated to indicate techniques that are
covered. In addition, many of the conferences and symposia proceedings identified in Table A-2 of Appendix
A contain papers on use of geophysical methods. Probably the best references on borehole geophysics, which
focus on ground-water applications, are the U.S. Geological Survey publications Borehole Geophysics Applied
to Ground-Water Investigations (Keys, 1990), and Applications of Borehole Geophysics to Water Resource
Investigations (Keys and MacCary, 1971). U.S. EPA (1992) provides an index of over 300 technical papers
related to specific borehole geophysical methods, focusing primarily on applications in ground-water and
contaminated-site investigations. Table 3-3 also identifies several documents that contain major bibliographies
on borehole geophysical methods as they relate to hydrogeology. Neutron moisture logging is one of the most
frequently used borehole technique because it is well suited for both near-surface and deep characterization.
Table 3-4 (also at the end of this section) provides a comprehensive index of over 100 references related to
neutron logging.
3-8
-------
3. GEOPHYSICAL LOGGING OF BOREHOLES
3.1 ELECTRICAL BOREHOLE LOGGING
3.1.1 SPLogs
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Spontaneous potential, self-potential.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Identifying variations in lithology (permeable beds, relative sand and shale content
or strata), bed thickness, water quality, and casing detection.
Method/Device Description: A logging device that records the potentials or voltages that develop at the contacts
between different lithologies, or with change in water quality. Figure 3.1.1 illustrates how the flow of current
at bed contacts results in changes in the spontaneous potential curve. SP logs are commonly made at the same
time as single-point resistance logs (see Figure 3.1.2 in the next section). Figure 3-la illustrates an SP log.
Device Selection Considerations: Advantages: (1) Useful as supplemental information for interpretation of other
types of logs; and (2) better adapted for locating the tops and bottoms of beds than conventional resistivity logs.
Disadvantages: (1) Requires uncased hole filled with water of drilling fluid; (2) unreliable for estimating
dissolved solids in aquifers less than 10,000 mg/L; and (3) noise and anomalous potentials are a common problem
(usually caused when there is a poor insulator between the probe electrode and the cable).
Frequency of Use; Widely used for logging deep holes, especially by the petroleum industry, commonly used
in association with rotary drilling methods; use of SP/single pint probe is also very common in ground-water
studies.
Standard Methods/Guidelines; ~
Sources for Additional Information: Brown et al. (1983), Bureau of Reclamation (1981), Campbell and Lehr
(1973), Davis and DeWiest (1966), Driscoll (1986), Everett (1985), Keys (1990), Keys and MacCary (1971)
Redwine et al. (1985), Respold (1989), U.S. EPA (1992), Wheatcraft et al. (1986). Most of the general borehole
logging texts indexed in Table 3-3 cover SP logs, and texts focussing on electrical methods are also indexed in
Table 3-3.
3-9
-------
f-l-: Shale with
iHr salinewater
Inflection point
Spontaneous-potential curve
Figure 3.1.1 The flow of current at typical bed contacts and the resulting spontaneous-potential curve and static
values (Keys, 1990).
3-10
-------
3. GEOPHYSICAL LOGGING OF BOREHOLES
3.1 ELECTRICAL BOREHOLE LOGGING
3.1.2 Single-Point Resistance
Other Names Used to Describe Method: —
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Identifying changes in lithology and water quality.
Method Description: There are two types of single-point resistance logs. Conventional single-point resistance
logs measure the resistance in ohms between an electrode as it is lowered down a well and an electrode at the
land surface (Figure 3.1.2). Differential single-point resistance logs measure the resistance between two
electrodes on a single probe as it is lowered down a borehole. Figure 3-la illustrates a single-point resistance
log.
Method Selection Considerations: Advantages: (1) Instrumentation is simple; (2) excellent for information about
changes in lithology because it is not influenced by bed thickness; and (3) very good for fracture detection in
crystalline bedrock. Disadvantages: (1) Cannot be used for quantitative interpretation of porosity and salinity;
(2) readings are affected by borehole diameter and borehole fluid resistivity; (3) shallow radius of investigation;
(4) noise and anomalous potentials are a common problem; and (5) require uncased borehole filled with fluid.
Frequency of Use; Use has been reported at a contaminated sites, but probably not used frequently.
Standard Methods/Guidelines; —
Sources for Additional Information: Keys (1990), Keys and MacCary (1971), Rehm et al. (1985), U.S. EPA
(1992), Wheatcraft et al. (1986). Most of the general borehole logging texts indexed in Table 3-3 cover single-
point resistance logs, and texts focussing on electrical methods also are indexed in Table 3-3.
3-11
-------
SPONTANEOUS POTENTIAL
CONVENTIONAL SINGLE-POINT RESISTANCE
Current and
potential electrode
Current and
potential electrode
Figure 3.1.2 System used to make conventional single-point resistance and spontaneous potential logs (Keys, 1990).
3-12
-------
3. GEOPHYSICAL LOGGING OF BOREHOLES
3.1. ELECTRICAL BOREHOLE LOGGING
3.1.3 Fluid Conductivity
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Fluid resistivity, salinometer.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Obtaining information on the concentration of dissolved solids in borehole fluid;
locating sources of saltwater leaking into artesian wells; aiding in interpretation of electric logs.
Method Description: A specially designed probe that records only the electrical conductivity of the borehole
fluids by placing electrodes inside a protective housing (Figure 3.1.3). The most common type of probe measures
the AC-voltage drop across two closely spaced electrodes, which is a function of the resistivity of the fluid
between the electrodes. Although resistance is actually measured, the term conductivity log is usually used to
avoid confusion with resistivity logs, which measure the rocks and their interstitial fluids (Section 3.1.3).
Commonly, the probes include temperature sensors that allow simultaneous measurement of temperature and
fluid resistivity because temperature corrections are usually required for the readings (Figure 3.1.3). Combined
logs are also useful for defining zones of inflow and outflow in bedrock wells. Figure 5.5.4 illustrates a combined
conductivity-temperature log. Tellam (1992) describes the reversed flow test (RFT), which uses a fluid
conductivity log to obtain information on pore water quality and inflow rates along the length of an uncased
borehole.
Method Selection Considerations: Advantages: (1) Relatively simple and inexpensive type of log; and (2)
interpretation is relatively straightforward (failure to consider disadvantage numbers 2 and 3 might result in
erroneous interpretations). Disadvantages: (1) Calibration required with fluids of known conductance and
measurements need to be corrected to standard temperature; (2) disturbance in the borehole by drilling,
cementing, fluid density differences, and thermal convection will affect measurements and might require months
to reestablish chemical equilibrium; and (3) setting of screens at the wrong depth can cause the measurement
of fluid conductivities that are not representative of fluid in the aquifer.
Frequency of Use: Commonly used in logging uncased bedrock wells.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: —
Sources for Additional Information; Brown et al. (1983), Keys (1990), Keys and MacCary (1971), Respold
(1989), U.S. EPA (1992), Wheatcraft et al. (1986). Most of the general borehole logging texts indexed in Table
3-3 cover fluid conductivity logs, and texts focussing on electrical methods also are indexed in Table 3-3.
3-13
-------
temperature senior electrode carrier
electronic section
pi
n
open B N MA B lateral slots
cross section
Figure 3.1.3 Combined salinometer/temperature probe (Respold, 1989, by permission).
3-14
-------
3. GEOPHYSICAL LOGGING OF BOREHOLES
3.1 ELECTRICAL BOREHOLE LOGGING
3.1.4 Resistivity Logs
Other Names Used to Describe Method; Normal: Short normal, long normal. Focused: Guard log, laterolog, dual
laterolog. Lateral: --. Microresistivity: Microlog, contact log, micro-survey, microlateral, micronormal.
Uses at Contaminated Sites; Normal: Evaluating water quality. Focused: Measuring resistivity of thin beds or
resistive strata in wells containing conductive fluids; detecting fractures in crystalline bedrock. Lateral:
Performing lithologic characterization. Microresistivity: Determining presence or absence of mudcake.
Method Description: The principal components of an electric resistivity logging instrument include: (1) An
electronic unit that feeds electric current to a down-the-hole electrode and measures resistivity of the entire
circuit, (2) a hoist or reel with conductor cable, (3) an electrode or probe from which current passes to the
drilling fluid and formation surrounding the borehole, and (4) a recorder for automatically plotting values of
resistivity against depth as a continuous curve. There are four main types of resistivity probes. Normal:
Resistance is measured using four electrodes at various spacing on a single probe that is lowered down the hole
(Figure 3.1.4a). Figures 3-la and 3-lb illustrate normal resistivity logs. Focused: Uses guard electrodes above
and below the current electrode to force the current to flow out into the rocks surrounding the borehole (Figure
3.1.4b). Lateral: Similar to the normal resistivity logging tool, except electrodes are more widely spaced on the
probe in order to measure resistivity of rock farther out from the borehole. Microresistivity: There are
numerous variations of this type of probe, which uses short electrode spacing and pads or some kind of contact
electrode to decrease the effect of borehole fluid.
Method Selection Considerations: All resistivity logs require an uncased hole with borehole fluid. There is a
general tradeoff between increasing depth of penetration and resolution of beds. Normal: Equipment is generally
available. Quantitative interpretations required corrections for bed thickness, borehole diameter, and other
factors. Focused: Specialized logs generally are not available to water well loggers. Primarily for use in deep
boreholes where ground-water has high dissolved solids. Also good for fracture detection in crystalline bedrock
(Williams and Conger, 1990). Lateral: Suitable only for thick beds (>40 feet); marginal for highly resistive rocks.
Microresistivity: Specialized log for evaluation of mudcake; might be of value in deep boreholes where drilling
mud has been used.
Frequency of Use: Normal: Widely used in hydrogeologic investigations to evaluate water quality. Other
resistivity logs: Uncommon.
Standard Methods/Guidelines; ~
Sources for Additional Information: General: Brown et al. (1983), Bureau of Reclamation (1981), Campbell and
Lehr (1973), Davis and DeWiest (1966), Driscoll (1986), Everett (1985), Keys (1990), Keys and MacCary (1971)
Redwine et al. (1985), Rehm et al. (1985), Respold (1989), U.S. EPA (1992); Focused resistivity: Moran and
Chemali (1985), Roy (1982). Most of the general borehole logging texts indexed in Table 3-3 cover resistivity
logs, and texts focussing on electrical methods are also indexed in Table 3-3.
3-15
-------
3-16
-------
3. GEOPHYSICAL LOGGING OF BOREHOLES
3.1 ELECTRICAL BOREHOLE LOGGING
3.1.5 Dipmeter
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Diplog, formation micro-scanner.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Measuring location and orientation of sedimentary structures and fractures. Also
provides indication of borehole deviation.
Method Description: This method includes a variety of wall-contact microresistivity probes. The electrodes are
on pads located 90 or 120 degrees apart and oriented with respect to magnetic north by a magnetometer in the
probe (Figure 3.1.5).
Method Selection Considerations: Advantages: Can be used in boreholes in sedimentary rocks over a wide
variety of hole conditions to obtain data on strike and dip of bedding planes; fractures can also be identified, but
with less precision. Disadvantages: (1) Very expensive well logging method; (2) might not work well in less
consolidated rock where strata do not have clear contrasts in resistivity, and (3) for accurate detection of joints
and fractures, borehole diameters of at least 6 inches are required.
Frequency of Use; Uncommon, but potentially useful for deep boreholes in sedimentary rock.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: —
Sources for Additional Information: Bigelow (1985), Brown et al. (1983), Keys (1990), Respold (1989), U.S. EPA
(1992). Many of the general borehole logging texts indexed in Table 3-3 cover resistivity logs, and texts focussing
on electrical methods are also indexed in Table 3-3.
3-17
-------
A diagram of the mechanical and electrical relationships
of the.Diplog tool, illustrating the electrode system, caliper,
compass, and deviation system.
ELECTRODE PAD ASSEMBLY
(CONTROLLED PARALLELOGRAM
SYSTEM WITH ADJUSTABLE
PAD PRESSURE)
CORRELATION CURVES
Figure 3.1.5 Diagram of the mechanical and electrical relationships of the diplog tool, illustrating the electrode
system, caliper, compass and deviation system (Dresser Atias, 1974).
3-18
-------
3. GEOPHYSICAL LOGGING OF BOREHOLES
3.1 ELECTRICAL BOREHOLE LOGGING
3.1.6 Other Electrical Methods
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Hole-to-surface/hole-to-hole resistivity, induced polarization (IP), cross-
well AC voltage.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Induced polarization: Characterizing stratigraphy and porosity; measuring clay
content and pore fluid chemistry. Hole-to-surface/hole-to-hole resistivity: Three dimensional modeling of
resistivity data to define geoelectric inhomogeneities. Cross-well AC voltage: Characterizing spatial variation in
subsurface fracture systems.
Method Description: Hole-to-surface/hole-to-hole resistivity: Numerous-configurations of source and receiver
electrodes are possible: Hole-to-surface (current source in the borehole-see Figure 3.1.6a), surface-to-hole
(current source at the surface), and hole-to-hole (fixed source, moving pole, or bipole source). Figure 3.1.6b
provides a schematic of resistivity measurements made between two boreholes. Electrodes in each borehole
make electrical contact with the formation and current is driven through the formation from two adjacent
electrodes (right-hand side of Figure 3.1.6b) as the potential difference is measured between all other adjacent
electrode pairs. The procedure is repeated for all combinations of adjacent source and receiver electrode
positions. Induced polarization: Probe measures the response of formation to an injected current (see Section
1.2.3). The same hole-to-hole and hole-to-surface configurations used for resistivity measurements can also be
used for induced polarization. Cross-well AC voltage: A low-frequency alternating current is introduced into the
fracture system of two wells and the voltage between the current electrodes and observation wells is measured.
Method Selection Considerations: All methods require uncased and fluid-filled borehole. Hole-to-surface/hole-to-
hole resistivity: Main advantage is the possibility for three-dimensional modeling of the subsurface. The main
disadvantages is the greater complexity compared to surface resistivity surveys. Induced polarization: Specialized
log that is mainly used for differentiation of clayey and non-clayey deposits. Cross-well AC voltage: Relatively
new method that might be useful for characterization of fracture systems. Equipment availability might be a
problem.
Frequency of Use: Hole-to-surface/hole-to-hole resistivity: Has been primarily used in mineral exploration to
locate ore bodies. Induced polarization: Uncommon. Cross-well AC voltage: Uncommon.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: —
Sources for Additional Information: Hole-to-surface/hole-to-hole resistivity: Daniels (1983), U.S. EPA (1992);
Induced polarization: Rehm et al. (1985), U.S. EPA (1992); Cross-well AC voltage: Robbins and Hayden (1988).
3-19
-------
Current
SinK
Orthogonal X
Potential Receiver
Field measurement configuration. The total electric field is calculated from the orthogonal dipole potential measurements.
E, = [(AE£ / 15)2 + (A&r, / IS)2]"2. The distances Xb, rt, and X. (r. = X.) are used in the apparent resistivity calculation.
Current
Source
Ammeter Voltmeter
Borehole
Electrode
(b)
Figure 3.1.6 Other electrical methods: (a) Example configuration for hole-to-surface resistivity measurements
(Daniels, 1983, by permission); (b) Schematic of crossbore resistivity measurement array (Daily and
Owen, 1991, by permission).
3-20
-------
3. GEOPHYSICAL LOGGING OF BOREHOLES
3.2 ELECTROMAGNETIC BOREHOLE LOGGING
3.2.1 Induction
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Slimhole EM probe (Geonics EM39 borehole conductivity meter),
electromagnetic (EM) induction, dual induction, surface-to-borehole EM method.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Performing lithologic characterization; locating the zone of saturation; performing
physical and chemical characterization of formation fluids/ground-water quality.
Method Description; The slimhole EM probe is a relatively new tool designed specifically for use in fresh water.
The probe contains a transmitter coil on the upper part, which induces eddy current in the formation around the
borehole, and a receiver on the lower part (Figure 3.2.1). Conductivity is measured using same principles as
surface EM induction measurement (Section 1.3.1). Conventional induction probes are designed for use in
boreholes with no conductive material (such as oil-based drilling muds) between the probe and the formation.
Surface-to borehole EM method: This variant uses a surface EM source (grounded bipole or large ungrounded
loop) and a subsurface electric field or magnetic field sensor.
Method Selection Considerations: Slimhole EM probe: A major advantage of this probe is that can be used in
wet or dry holes (2 inches minimum diameter) and can be used in PVC cased holes. See also, general advantages
and disadvantages of surface EM methods (Section 1.3.1). Conventional induction probe: Requires holes filled
with non-conducting drilling mud.
Frequency of Use; Slimhole EM probe: Relatively recent tool that has gained rapid acceptance for use in ground-
water studies. Conventional induction probe: Uncommon for reason mentioned above. Surface-to-borehole EM
methods: Have been used infrequently for mineral exploration.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: —
Sources for Additional Information: Slimhole EM probe: McNeill (1986), McNeill et al. (1990); Conventional
induction probe: Everett (1985), Kaufinan and Keller (1989), Keys (1990), Keys and MacCary (1971), Respold
(1989), U.S. EPA (1992); Surfece-to-borehole: Ross and Ward (1984).
3-21
-------
Transmitter
Receiver e
Induced
Current
Loops
Figure 3.2.1 Slimhole EM-induction logger for ground-water investigations (McNeill, 1986).
3-22
-------
3. GEOPHYSICAL LOGGING OF BOREHOLES
3.2 ELECTROMAGNETIC BOREHOLE LOGGING
3.2.2 Borehole Radar
Other Names Used to Describe Method; Radar logging, single-hole borehole radar, cross-borehole radar/
electromagnetic probing.
Uses at Contaminated Sites; Characterizing stratigraphy,porosity, bedrock fractures; locating cavities and tunnels.
Method Description; Two major types of borehole radar have been developed. Radar logging involves a pulsed
microwave system similar to ground-penetrating radar (Section 1.5.1) except that instrumentation is designed for
use in a single borehole. This type has most commonly been used to map stratigraphy in salt domes, which
readily transmit microwave signals. A relatively recent development is the directional borehole radar system
(Figure 3.2.2a) which has the ability to detect cavities and fractures in a single borehole. Cross-borehole radar
involves the use of a continuous-wave transmitter in one hole and receivers in one or more holes in line with the
transmitter hole. Different "views" of a geophysical anomaly are obtained by placing the transmitter in one
location in the borehole and measuring the signals as the receiver is lowered down the receiver borehole.
Geophysical anomalies are recorded as signal minima. Multiple logs of the same receiver borehole with the
transmitter at different depths can be graphically plotted to locate the area of the geophysical anomaly (Figure
3.2.2ba).
Method Selection Considerations; Advantages: (1) Relatively large area of measurement (tens of meters or more
in favorable materials) compared to most borehole methods; (2) horizontal and vertical position of high-contrast
geophysical anomalies can be determined with reasonable accuracy using cross-borehole probing with continuous-
wave EM transmission; (3) cross-borehole field data on contrasting geophysical anomalies can be interpreted
quickly and simply if the correct frequency is used (which depends on the wavelength of the surrounding medium
and the dimension of the anomaly); and (4) radar can be used in open-hole or PVC cased wells. Disadvantages:
(1) Penetration limited by moist tod/or clayey soils or rock and soils with high electrical conductivity; and (2)
equipment might not be readily available.
Frequency of Use; Most common reported applications are for characterizing salt domes and locating tunnels.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: —
Sources for Additional Information: Lytle et al. (1979), U.S. EPA (1992).
3-23
-------
RADAR RAYS
BOREHOLE XX^C^VX
TRAVEL TIME
P STANCE)
FROM BORE-
HOLE
REFLECTION FROM
PLANAR SURFACE
\
FEFLECTION FROM
POINT
(a)
Depth
t
View 1
View 2
ViewS
View
2
View I View
Earth surface 1 { 3
•Inferred
tunnel
location
-Signal
Signal
minimum
Transmitter
borehole
Receiver
borehole
(b)
Figure 33,3, Borehole radar: (a) Single-hole radar reveals fractures, cavities, dikes and other reflectors (ABEM AB,
Terraplus USA, Inc., Highlands Ranch, Colorado); (b) Principle of tunnel location using signal minima
of different views (Lytle et aL, 1979, by permission).
3-24
-------
3. GEOPHYSICAL LOGGING OF BOREHOLES
3.2 ELECTROMAGNETIC BOREHOLE LOGGING
3.2.3 Dielectric
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Electromagnetic propagation tool (EFT), deep propagation tool (DPT),
low frequency dielectric log (LED), dielectric constant log (DCL), continuous pulse microwave log.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Measuring formation porosity; measuring hydrocarbon thickness on ground water.
Method Description: Dielectric tools use electromagnetic waves to measure the dielectric permittivity (or
dielectric constant) of a formation. This is a measure of the relative ability of electrically charge particles in a
formation to be polarized by an electric field. Dielectric logging devices are to two types: (1) Low frequency (20-
47 MHz) mandrel tools, and (2) high frequency (200 MHz -1.1 GHz) pad tools, which have an antenna pad with
two transmitters and two receivers in a borehole compensated array (Figure 3.2.3). Note that the low frequency
tools still use frequencies about an order of magnitude higher than electromagnetic induction tools (see Sections
13.1 and 3.2.1). The tool uses transmitting antennas to generate an electromagnetic waves and receiving
antennas to measure phase shift and attenuation. Measurements can be used to calculate porosity in the
saturated zone, and relative water and hydrocarbon saturation.
Method Selection Considerations: This is a relatively new method that was developed by the petroleum industry
to distinguish between fresh water and oil. It can be used: As an alternative to density and neutron logs if the
radioactive sources are a concern, in a wider range of conditions than sonic logs for measuring porosity, and in
fresh water (use of resistivity logs for measuring porosity require brackish or saline waters). Dielectric logs have
great potential for characterization of NAPLs in the subsurface. Low-frequency tools penetrate 15 to 45 inches,
are relatively insensitive to borehole irregularities, and can be run in open or nonmetallic cased holes. High
frequency tools penetrate 1 to 5 inches, are very sensitive to borehole irregularities, and work only in uncased
holes. Minimum hole size for currently available tools ranges from 5 to 6.5 inches, considerably larger than
typical monitoring wells.
Frequency of Use; Uncommon. This is a relatively new tool with great potential for characterization of
hydrocarbon contaminated sites and porosity, if equipment and large diameter wells are available.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: —
Sources for Additional Information: Collier (1989), Keech (1988), Serra (1984a), U.S. EPA (1992).
3-25
-------
Antenna
Pad
Figure 3.2.3 Antenna pad of the electromagnetic propagating tool (EPT) sonde (Collier, 1989, by permission).
3-26
-------
3. GEOPHYSICAL LOGGING OF BOREHOLES
3.2 ELECTROMAGNETIC BOREHOLE LOGGING
3.2.4 Other Electromagnetic Methods
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), nuclear magnetic logging, Surface-
to-Borehole Controlled-Source Audiomagnetotelluric (CSAMT).
Uses at Contaminated Sites; NMR: Evaluating porosity, permeability, moisture content, pore-size distribution,
and available water. Surface-borehole CSAMT: Potential for mapping of subsurface conductive zones and three-
dimensional characterization of fracture zones in deep boreholes.
Method Description: NMR: Uses the same principle as the proton precession magnetometer (Section 1.5.2),
except that the precession of protons (hydrogen atoms) in water molecules is measured in the formation after
an induced magnetic field has been turned off. Section 6.2.5 provides additional description of this method as
used for measuring near-surface soil moisture. Borehole units contain instrumentation for creating a magnetic
field and measuring the precession of protons after it is turned off in a single probe. Nuclear magnetic resonance
is commonly classified as a nuclear method (Morrison, 1983; Keys, 1990). However, no radioisotopes are
involved in using the method, and it is classified here as an electromagnetic method because the magnetic field
is electrically induced. CSAMT involves measurement the response of magnetotelluric currents (see Section
13.5) using sensors in a borehole to an artificially created audiofrequency signal at the surface.
Method Selection Considerations: NMR Advantages: More precise characterization of free and bound water and
porosity than other logging methods. NMR Disadvantages: (1) Use limited to large boreholes (generally >7
inches) filled with drilling mud (magnetite powder usually has to be added to the mud to eliminate the borehole
contribution to the log); and (2) equipment availability might be a problem. Surface-Borehole CSAMT
Advantages: (1) For deep boreholes, the advantage over other magnetotelluric methods is that the signal is much
larger than the level of natural-field noise; and (2) the high frequency of the source also allows rapid data
acquisition. Surface-Borehold CSAMT Disadvantages: (1) Other proven methods are likely to give better results
in near-surface investigations; (2) problems can develop if the borehole sensor is not kept vertically oriented; and
(3) geologic noise cannot always be identified and effectively separated from the secondary response of the target.
Frequency of Use: NMR: Not widely used for petroleum applications and relatively unknown for ground-water
borehole applications. Potentially very useful if borehole diameter is large enough. Surface-borehole CSAMT:
Uncommon.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: —
Sources for Additional Information: NMR general: Abragam (1961), Schlichter (1963); NMR borehole
applications: Jackson (1984), Keys (1990), Wyllie (1963); NMR soil moisture applications: Morrison (1983). See
also, Section 6.2.5, and references indexed in Table 6-2. Surface-borehole CSAMT: West and Ward (1988). See
also, texts identified in Section 13.5.
, 3-27
-------
3. GEOPHYSICAL LOGGING OF BOREHOLES
33 NUCLEAR BOREHOLE LOGGING
33.1 Natural Gamma
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Gamma, gamma-ray log.
Uses at Contaminated Sites; Identifying lithology (clay and shale particularly) and stratigraphic correlation.
Method Description: Records total natural gamma radiation (primarily from K-40, U-238, and Th-232) from
a borehole that is within a selected energy range. Different formations can be distinguished by differing levels
of natural radioactivity (Figure 3.3.1). Figures 3-la and 3-lb illustrate gamma logs for sedimentary and
crystalline rocks.
Method Selection Considerations: Advantages: (1) Instrumentation is relatively simple and inexpensive; and (2)
involves radiation detection only, so no radioactive sources required for the instrumentation. Disadvantages: (1)
Only qualitative analysis is possible; (2) the smaller the diameter of the probe, the higher the signal-to-noise
ratio; and (3) sensitivity of the probe is reduced by large diameter holes, drilling fluid, and casing (generally not
feasible with cemented casing or two uncemented steel casings).
Frequency of Use; Probably the most commonly used nuclear log for stratigraphic mapping in ground-water
studies.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: API (1974).
Sources for Additional Information: Major references: Guyod (1965), Keys (1990), Keys and MacCary (1971),
Killeen (1982-review paper), Patten and Bennett (1963), Respold (1989), SPWIA (1978a), U.S. EPA (1992);
Other references: Brown et al. (1983), Campbell and Lehr (1973), Davis and DeWiest (1966), Driscoll (1986),
Everett (1985), Rehm et al. (1985), Wheatcraft et al. (1986). Most of the general borehole logging texts indexed
in Table 3-3 cover gamma logs, and other texts focussing on nuclear methods are also indexed in Table 3-3.
3-28
-------
API GAMMA KAY UNITS
o IPO 200 300 ADD 500 too 700 800 900 1000 noo
Anhydrite '
Coal
Salt
Dolomite
Sandstone
Shaly sandstone
Sandy shale
Shale
Organic marine shale
Potash beds
|
f
I
^B
^B
^t
A
fe.
•••
•••
IMA
^
,^_
Figure 33.1 Range of radioactivity of selected sedimentary rocks (Keys and MacCary, 1971).
3-29
-------
3. GEOPHYSICAL LOGGING OF BOREHOLES
3.3 NUCLEAR BOREHOLE LOGGING
33.2 Gamma-Gamma
Other Names Used to Describe Method; Density log, transmittance log, gamma ray attenuation, gamma ray
transmission, gamma ray absorption, gamma ray scattering.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Measuring bulk density, porosity, and moisture content.
Method Description: A beam of gamma photons (typically cobalt-60, cesium-137, and/or americium-241) is
directed at the borehole sides and a detector records the .radiation that is attenuated and scattered in the
borehole and surrounding rock. For deep boreholes, the scattering method is usually used, with a single-probe
configuration that has the source and detector on the same unit (Figure 3.3.2). These probes can use either a
single-source or a dual-source (which emit gamma radiation at different energy levels). For near surface
monitoring of soil moisture, the double tube transmission method is more commonly used, in which the source
and detector are lowered down two parallel boreholes (see Figure 6.2.2b).
Method Selection Considerations; Advantages: (1) Good method for. measuring formation properties (bulk
density, porosity, and moisture content); (2) data can be obtained over very small horizontal or vertical distances
(layers of soil as thin as 1 centimeter); (3) average moisture contents can be determined with depth; (4) the
system can be interfaced to accommodate automatic recording; (5) temporal soil moisture changes can be easily
monitored with high accuracy and precision; (6) measurements are nondestructive once access tubes are installed;
(7) can be used to calculate porosity when the fluid and grain densities are known; (8) can be used under almost
any borehole conditions; and (9) near-surface measurements are more accurate than for neutron depth probes.
Disadvantages: (1) Field instrumentation is expensive, difficult to use, and requires frequent maintenance; (2)
the active radioactive source requires special handling for health and safety reasons, and might be unacceptable
to regulatory authorities; (3) large variations in bulk density and moisture content can occur in highly stratified
soils and limit spatial resolution; (4) unreliable in soils that swell and shrink with water content changes or with
freeze and thaw; (5) instruments are susceptible to electronic drift and instabilities in the count rate; (6) soil
temperature variations might affect accuracy of measurements; (7) failure to install equidistant dual access tubes
will introduce errors in measurements; (8) double-tube method limited to relatively shallow depths because of
difficulties in installing equidistant tubes to greater depths; (9) installation of equidistant tubes for double-tube
method also difficult in steep terrain and in rocky materials; (10) accurate measurement of moisture requires
independent measurement of dry bulk density; (11) leakage of water from perched layers along the wall of the
casing might cause erroneous moisture measurement; (12) mixtures of water and other liquids will yield
erroneous logs unless calibrated for the mixture; and (13) water moving through the sampling area at a constant
rate will not change water content resulting in erroneous interpretation that there is no water movement in the
soil profile.
Frequency of Use; Widely used in the petroleum industry; less frequently used for ground-water applications.
More commonly used for laboratory measurement of soil core properties than directly in the field.
Standard Methods/Guidelines; Density measurement: ASTM (1991a-deep boreholes), ASTM (1991b-shallow
depth). Moisture measurement: Gardner (1986).
Sources for Additional Information: Major borehole references: Keys (1990), Keys and MacCary (1971), Respold
(1989), SPWLA (1978a); Other borehole references: Brown et al. (1983), Driscoll (1986), Everett (1985),
Redwine et al. (1985), Rehm et al. (1985), Thompson et al. (1989), U.S. EPA (1992), Wheatcraft et al. (1986);
Vadose zone/soil moisture: Bouwer and Jackson (1974), Brakensiek et al. (1979), Everett et al. (1983), Gardner
and Roberts (1967), Morrison (1983), Poeter (1988), Schmugge et al. (1980), van Bavel and Underwood (1957),
Vomocil (1954), Wilson (1980, 1981). Most of the general borehole logging texts indexed in Table 3-3 cover
gamma-gamma logs, and references focusing on soil moisture and bulk density applications are indexed in Table
3-4.
3-30
-------
SINGLE-CONDUCTOR
- CABLE TO LOGGING
EQUIPMENT
CASING
ELECTRONICS AND
POWER SUPPLY
AFTER CORRECTION
FOR BORE HOLE EFFECTS
DETECTOR
LEAD OR 1000_
METAL SPACERS
COLLINATED
1000 METAL-
SOURCE SUB
COMPTON SCATTERING
Figure 333, Principles and interpretation of single probe gamma transmission equipment (Morrison, 1983, after
Keys and MacCary, 1971, by permission).
3-31
-------
3. GEOPHYSICAL LOGGING OF BOREHOLES
33 NUCLEAR BOREHOLE LOGGING
33.3 Neutron
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Neutron probe, neutron moisture meter, neutron moisture gage,
neutron moderation, neutron thermalization, neutron scattering, neutron-gamma log, neutron attenuation.
Uses at Contaminated Sites; Measuring saturated porosity and moisture content in the unsaturated zone; soil
moisture monitoring; locating perched water tables; measuring specific yield of unconfirmed aquifers.
Method Description; Probe contains a source of neutrons and detectors that are arranged so that the output
is primarily a function of the hydrogen content of the borehole environment. The various available probe designs
can be broadly classified as surface probes (which do not require a borehole [see Figure 6.2.2a]) and depth
probes, which are used in boreholes. Figure 3.3.3 shows a depth probe and illustrates types of interactions
between neutrons and hydrogen atoms. Fast neutrons (>0.1 Mev), which have been slowed to energies of less
than 0.25 ev, are said to be thermalized. Neutron reactions also result in the emission of gamma rays by neutron
capture. Neutron moderation involves the slowing of fast neutrons to epithermal electrons (0.1 to 100 ev).
Neutron devices can be described by the type of radiation that causes most of the measured response. Neutron-
gamma logs detect primarily gamma photons resulting from neutron reactions. Neutron-thermal-neutron probes
respond mainly to thermal neutrons (<0.25 ev), and neutron-epithennal-neutron probes respond chiefly to
neutrons between 0.1 and 100 ev. Figures 3-la and 3-lb illustrate neutron logs for sedimentary and crystalline
rocks. Neutron attenuation is a different technique similar to gamma attenuation (Section 3.3.2), but requires
high neutron fluxes not readily available outside of a reactor facility, and is consequently not practical for field
use (Gardner, 1986).
Method Selection Considerations: Advantages: (1) Rapid method of measuring soil moisture that is largely
independent of temperature and pressure; (2) average moisture contents can be determined with depth; (3) the
system can be interfaced to accommodate automatic recording; (4) temporal soil moisture changes can be easily
monitored; (5) rapid changes in soil moisture can be detected; (6) readings are directly related to soil moisture;
(7) measurements can be made repeatedly at the same site; (8) measurements are nondestructive once access
tubes are installed; (9) can be used under almost any borehole conditions; and (10) moisture can be measured
regardless of its physical state. Disadvantages: (1) Inadequate depth resolution makes measurement of absolute
soil moisture content difficult and limits its use in studying evaporation, infiltration, percolation, and placement
of the phreatic water surface; (2) the moisture measurement depends on many physical and chemical properties
of the soil which are, in themselves, difficult to measure; (3) radioactive sources require special care in handling
for health and safety reasons; (4) the sphere of influence of depth probes does not allow accurate measurements
of soil water at or near the soil surface, unless special instruments designed specifically for use on the soil surface
are used; (5) boron, cadmium, chloride, hydrocarbons, and other fast neutron moderators can interfere with
moisture determinations; (6) difficult to define horizontal distribution of water since moisture close to the
neutron source has a more pronounced effect on counting rate than pore water at a greater distance; (7) might
not be accurate enough to detect slight water content changes in the dry range to infer water movement; (8) less
accurate for monitoring water movement than measurement of matric potential heads, especially when water flow
is in channels that transmit water without detectable changes in water content; and (9) chemical might cause
deterioration of some access tubes (e.g., aluminum).
Frequency of Use; Most commonly used nuclear method for measurement of soil moisture.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: API (1974), ASTM (1988, 1992), Gardner (1986).
Sources for Additional Information: Ground-water texts covering the method: Brown et al. (1983), Driscoll
(1986), Keys (1990), Keys and MacCary (1971), Redwine et al. (1985), Rehm et al. (1985), Respold (1989),
Thompson et al. (1989), U.S. EPA (1992), Wheatcraft (1986); Vadose zone/soil moisture: Bouwer and Jackson
(1974), Brakensiek et al. (1979), Everett et al. (1983), Gairon and Hadas (1973), Hendrickx (1990), Hillel (1971),
Holmes et al. (1967), Morrison (1983), Schmugge et al. (1980), Wilson (1980,1981). See also, reports and other
3-32
-------
Casing-
Land Surface
Electronics
and
Power Supply:;;!
Detector
Spacers ;.;;V
Source Sub
When Beryllium is Bombarded
with Alpha Particles from
Radium, Plutonium, Americium,
etc.-Neutrons are emitted
Average Energy Loss Per Collision
Hydrogen 63%
Oxygen 12%
Single-Conductor
Cable to Logging
Equipment
Epithermal Neutron
.ItolOOov
NEUTRON MODERATION
i- Neutrons
Secondary
Gamma Photons-Energy
v ^-^Characteristic
Thermal Yxlof Element
NeulronA//
<.025evx */
\^/
PuBe
or
Am02Be
Source
NEUTRON CAPTURE
Figure 333 The equipment and principles of a depth neutron probe (Keys and MacCary, 1971).
3-33
-------
references indexed in Table 3-4, and Section 6.2.2. Most of the general borehole logging texts indexed in Table
3-3 also cover neutron logs.
3-34
-------
3. GEOPHYSICAL LOGGING OF BOREHOLES
3.3 NUCLEAR BOREHOLE LOGGING
3.3.4 Gamma-Spectrometiy
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Spectral-gamma log, spectra-gamma log, spectro-gamma log, spectromic-
gamma log.
Uses at Contaminated Sites; Performing lithology and stratigraphic correlation; identifying artificial radioisotope
contaminants in the subsurface.
Method Description: A spectral-gamma probe is similar to a gamma probe except that a channel analyzer with
a variable threshold or "window" adjustment is used, which allows adjustment of the energy range of pulses to
be recorded per unit time on the log. Figure 3.3.4 shows the gamma spectra of potassium, uranium, and thorium.
Recording all pulses between thresholds A and B in this figure gives a value that is related to the potassium-40
content, if uranium and thorium contributions are removed. Similarly, the count rate between thresholds B and
C are primarily related to uranium, and the count rate above threshold C is related to thorium. The amount and
energy level of gamma photons can be recorded on either a continuous log or at selected depths with a
stationary probe.
Method Selection Considerations: Advantages: (1) Gamma spectrometry allows more precise identification of
lithology than a regular gamma log (Section 3.3.1); (2) types and amounts of radioisotopes can be measured; and
(3) involves radiation detection only, so no radioactive sources required for the instrumentation. Disadvantages:
(1) Equipment is expensive; and (2) substantial errors in quantitative results are common because of the
complexity of the real-time calculations to produce a spectral log.
Frequency of Use; Widely used in the petroleum industry and should probably be used more frequently in
ground-water investigations.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: ~
Sources for Additional Information: Adams and Gasparini (1970), Keys (1990), Keys and MacCary (1971), Rider
(1986), Schlumberger (1989b), Schneider (1982), Serra (1984a), U.S. EPA (1992).
3-35
-------
o
£
«
a
1.76 M«v
'•••.—. 1.46 M«v I
\ '• iv '•
2.62 M«v
'. 2.2O Miv
Figure 33.4 Gamma spectra for potassium, uranium, and thorium with energy "window" threshold for
differentiating the three elements (Keys and MacCary, 1971).
3-36
-------
3. GEOPHYSICAL LOGGING OF BOREHOLES
3.3 NUCLEAR BOREHOLE LOGGING
3.3.5 Neutron Activation
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Activation, cyclic activation tool.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Performing remote identification of elements present in the ground-water and
adjacent rocks; detecting flow of fluids behind casing.
Method Description: Uses neutrons to "activate" stable isotopes in the borehole and identity the activated
element by measuring the amount and energy level of emissions (see gamma spectroscopy, Section 3.3.4). A
large number of elements can be detected with this method, with sensitivities ranging from parts per million to
percentage levels, depending on the element (Figure 3.3.5). A procedure similar to the neutron activation
borehole technique (Section 3.3.5) has been used at the surface to determine cement content in soil-cement
mixtures and concrete (Iddings et ah, 1979).
Method Selection Considerations: Advantages: (1) Can be used in a wide variety of borehole conditions; (2) the
same probe can be used to create a standard gamma log and for neutron thermalization measurements; (3) semi-
quantitative analysis of major elements is possible; (4) measuring variations in the concentration of aluminum
provides information on clay content; and (5) carbon-to-oxygen ratios and silicon-to-calcium ratios from neutron
activation logs can be interpreted in terms of lithology and in-situ hydrocarbons. Disadvantages: (1)
Instrumentation is complex; (2) larger neutron source is required compared to conventional neutron logging in
order to keep neutron activation time within practical limits; (3) radioactive sources require special care in
handling for health and safety reasons and generally limits use to deep boreholes (a neutron generator has the
advantage of emitting no radioactivity when it is turned off); (4) equipment might not be readily available; (5)
quantitative analysis is not likely to be as accurate as laboratory analysis using the same technique; and (6)
logging slow if neutron source is weak or elements of interest require a long activation time.
Frequency of Use: Relatively new method with potential for wide application in ground-water hydrology.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: —
Sources for Additional Information: Keys (1990), Schneider (1982), Serra (1984a), U.S. EPA (1992).
3-37
-------
$£
'.LiV
'Na,
•.Be;
•Mg'
======>•...••.
1 K f.Ca.;
Rb"
|Cs|
Fr
§§r|
|Baj
Ra'.
BOREHOLE ASSAY PROGR/>
;:*:«*¥
|So|
= Y =
La
Ac
iTl':":
1Z[I
-Hi
V
iNbl
ITal
"Cri
iMo
,Wj
'Mn
Tc
Re
; Fe:
§Ru[
\Os\
Co
|Rh^
Ir
i<*\':
Pd
I?*I
Cui
Ag
Au •
iZn!
|Cd|
|Hg;
vM
R/
** t
m
In
= Tl =
ZL2JL 3~
I'd
VsV:
|Qel
[Snl
P£b|
• N'
j^i
Asi
fSbj
i§!l
•6":
\S;:
mi
P^
|P°!
'>'-'
isil
Br;
1 ;
lAt|
He
".Ve
'Ar;
|Xe|
.Rnj
Ce
:•:*»:*:•
!Th;i
:x.Sw::-
Pr
Pa
Nd
•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:
lu|
::?:•*¥:¥
Pm
Np
Sm
Pu
Eu
Am
Gd
Cm
Tb
Bk
Dy
Ct
Ho
Es
Er
Fm
Tm
Md
Yb
No
Lu
Lr
SENSITIVITY
< -\ pet
> 1 pet
> 100 ppm
> 1 ppm
Figure 33.5 Estimated sensitivity that can be expected with neutron activation methods tor various elements
(Schneider, 1982).
3-38
-------
3. GEOPHYSICAL LOGGING OF BOREHOLES
3.3 NUCLEAR BOREHOLE LOGGING
3.3.6 Neutron Lifetime
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Pulsed-neutron decay, pulsed-neutron lifetime log.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Measuring salinity and porosity; detecting flow of fluids behind casing.
Method Description: A variant of the neutron activation technique, which uses a pulsed-neutron generator and
a synchronously gated neutron detector to measure the rate of decrease of the neutron population. The rate of
neutron decay is greatly affected by the chlorine concentration, providing a measurement of salinity and porosity
similar to resistivity logs. This method also can be used to detect flowing water behind casings as part of
mechanical integrity testing. In this application, neutrons interact with oxygen nuclei in the water to produce
nitrogen-16, which decays with a half-life of 7.13 seconds, emitting gamma radiation. If water is flowing behind
the casing, the flow can be calculated from the energy and intensity response of two gamma ray detectors
mounted in the logging probe. Thornhill and Benefield (1990) describe use of a neutron lifetime logs with
packers in EPA's leak test well near Ada, Oklahoma.
Method Selection Considerations: Advantages: (1) Borehole effects can be greatly decreased compared to
conventional neutron logs by delaying the measuring gate; (2) can provide useful data through casing and cement;
and (3) neutron generator does not emit radiation when it is turned off. Disadvantages: (1) More expensive than
conventional neutron log; (2) equipment availability might be a problem; and (3) radioactive sources requires
special care in handling for health and safety reasons and generally limits use to deep boreholes.
Frequency of Use: Used by petroleum industry to distinguish between oil, gas, and saltwater in cased wells; use
to date in ground-water investigations has been limited.
Standard Methods/Guidelines; ~
Sources for Additional Information: Dresser Atlas (1974), Keys (1990), Schlumberger (1989b), Serra (1984a),
Thornhill and Benefield (1990), U.S. EPA (1992).
3-39
-------
3. GEOPHYSICAL LOGGING OF BOREHOLES
3.4 ACOUSTIC AND SEISMIC LOGGING
3.4.1 Acoustic-Velocity (Sonic)
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Acoustic log, sonic log, transmit time log.
Uses at Contaminated Sites; Performing lithologic characterization; measuring porosity.
Method Description: An acoustic-velocity probe records the travel time of an acoustic wave from one or more
transmitters to receivers in the probe. Two general types of measurements can be made in acoustic logging: (1)
Interval transit time, which is the reciprocal of velocity, and (2) amplitude, which is the reciprocal of attenuation.
Single- and two-receiver probes (Figure 3.4. la) provide uncompensated logs, which are prone to errors resulting
from tilting of the probe or variations in borehole diameter (Figure 3.4.1b). Compensated acoustic logs require
a probe with two transmitters and two or four receivers, which allow identification of variations in borehole
diameter by analyzing different arrival times of the two separate pulses at the two receivers (Figure 3.4.1c).
Figures 3-la and 3-lb illustrate acoustic-velocity logs for sedimentary and crystalline rocks.
Method Selection Considerations: Advantages: (1) Compensated logs provide useful information on secondary
porosity in consolidated rock; and (2) formation porosity can be calculated if the velocity of the rock matrix and
pore liquids is known; Disadvantages: (1) Difficult to obtain good results in unconsolidated materials that have
low velocities; (2) requires fluid-filled boreholes; (3) cycle skipping can result from excessive attenuation by the
fluid, the formation (deep fractures), or by equipment malfunction; and (4) variability in environmental factors
affecting the transmission and attenuation of elastic waves make interpretation of logs difficult.
Frequency of Use; Beginning to be more widely used in ground-water studies.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: —
Sources for Additional Information: Brown et al. (1983), Driscoll (1986), Everett (1985), Guyod and Shane
(1969), Keys (1990), Keys and MacCary (1971), Rehm et al. (1985), Respold (1989), Thornhill and Benefield
(1990), U.S. EPA (1992), Wheatcraft et al. (1986); Acoustic logging texts: Guyod and Shane (1969), Paillet and
Cheng (1991), SPWLA (1978b). Most of the general borehole logging texts indexed in Table 3-3 cover acoustic
logs.
3-40
-------
UJ
o
3-41
-------
3. GEOPHYSICAL LOGGING OF BOREHOLES
3.4 ACOUSTIC AND SEISMIC LOGGING
3.4.2 Acoustic-Waveform
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Variable density, three-dimensional velocity, 3-D velocity.
Uses at Contaminated Sites; Providing information on lithology and structure; measuring elastic properties
(vertical compressibility of an aquifer, prediction of subsidence and fracturing characteristics); characterizing
fracture permeability; interpreting cement bond logs.
Method Description; An acoustic-waveform probe includes an acoustic signal transmitter and a receiver (Figure
3.4.2a), which is sensitive to the complete acoustic wave train (compressional, shear, and boundary or surface
waves). These waves are recorded photographically using an oscilloscope display (Figure 3.4.2b) or are recorded
digitally (Figure 3.4.2c). Various interpretations can be made from analysis of amplitude changes and velocity
ratios of the wave forms.
Method Selection Considerations: Advantages: (1) One of the few down-hole methods the provides a complete
record of the acoustic wave train so its greatest value is in situations where measurement of elastic properties
is required (aquifer compressibility, and subsidence prediction); and (2) acoustic-waveform logs are required for
accurate interpretation of some cement bond logs (acoustic-waveform logs for this purpose do not give
comparable information to 3-D velocity logs). Disadvantages: (1) Limited to consolidated materials in fluid-filled
boreholes; (2) other methods are probably better if the primary interest is in porosity or secondary permeability
(see Table 3-2); and (3) tilting of the probe or irregular surfaces on the borehole will cause errors in the
measured transit time of the compressional wave (see discussion of compensated and uncompensated acoustic
logs [Section 3.4.1]).
Frequency of Use; Not yet widely used in hydrogeologic studies, but has considerable potential for uses
described above.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: —
Sources for Additional Information; Everett (1985), Guyod and Shane (1969), Keys (1990), Thornhill and
Benefield (1990), U.S. EPA (1992). See also, acoustic logging texts identified in Section 3.4.1. Most of the
general borehole logging texts indexed in Table 3-3 cover acoustic waveform logs.
3-42
-------
3-D CAMERA
MEASURING SYSTEM
Boundary
Shear Wave Arrival
Wave Arrival
Zero Time
Compressional
Wave Arrival
Depth
Variable Deflection Trace
3-D Velocity Log
Note: Time is shown increasing to the right on the
variable deflection trace and to the left
on the 3-D presentation. The right to left
presentation is in keeping with other porosity logs.
Figure 3.4.2 Acoustic-waveform (3-D velocity) logging system (Hamilton and Myung, 1979).
3-43
-------
3. GEOPHYSICAL LOGGING OF BOREHOLES
3.4 ACOUSTIC AND SEISMIC LOGGING
3.4.3 Acoustic Televiewer*
Other Names Used to Describe Method: ATV probe, borehole televiewer, seismic televiewer, acoustical
seisviewer.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Characterizing fractures and solution openings; measuring strike and dip of
fractures and bedding planes.
Method Description: An ATV probe uses a rotating transducer that serves as both transmitter and receiver of
high-frequency acoustic pulses. An oscilloscope and light sensitive paper are used to create a 360 degree scan
of the borehole wall and provide high-resolution images of fractures and solution openings. Figure 3.4.3 shows
how a dipping fracture that intersects a borehole appears on an ATV scan. A flux-gate magnetometer mounted
on the vertical axis of the probe senses the earth's magnetic field and indicates the orientation of features on the
log (Figure 3.4.3).
Method Selection Considerations: Advantages: Excellent method for characterizing secondary porosity (fractures
and solution features). Disadvantages: (1) Equipment is complex and expensive; (2) requires experienced
operator, (3) logging speed for high resolution is slow (about 5 feet/min.), creating excessively long logging runs
for deep wells; and (4) viscous drilling fluids and oblong or over-gage borehole diameters attenuate the signal.
Frequency of Use: Uncommon in ground-water studies because of cost and complexity.
Standard Methods/Guidelines; —
Sources for Additional Information: Everett (1985), Guyod and Shane (1969), Hamilton and Myung (1979), Keys
(1990), Serra (1984a), U.S. EPA (1992).
*The term televiewer also is sometimes used for borehole television, so care should be used when running across
this term to determine what type of instrument is being referred to.
3-44
-------
N E S W N
MAGNETIC ORIENTATION
Figure 3.43 Three-dimensional view of a fracture intersecting a borehole and appearance of the same fracture on an
acoustic televiewer log (Keys, 1990).
3-45
-------
3. GEOPHYSICAL LOGGING OF BOREHOLES
3.4 ACOUSTIC AND SEISMIC LOGGING
3.4.4 Surface-Borehole Seismic Methods
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Vertical seismic profiling (VSP); downhole/uphole methods.
Uses at Contaminated Sites; VSP: Detecting isolated inclusions, lithologic boundaries, and homogeneous areas;
detectiing fractures; estimating permeability and hydraulic conductivity. Downhole/uphole: Measuring son
stiffness and stress-strain properties affecting site response to earthquakes.
Method Description: Seismic borehole surveys measure the velocities of compressional (P) waves (see Section
1.4.1) and shear (S) waves (see Section 1.4.4) at various depths below the ground surface. P- and S-wave
velocities are used to calculate dynamic soil and rock properties such as: (1) Shear modulus, (2) Young's
modulus, (3) bulk modulus, and (4) Poisson's ratio. VSP: Principles are the same as for surface seismic
refraction and reflection (Sections 1.4.1 and 1.4.2). Geophone arrays are placed vertically in one or two
boreholes, and arrival times of seismic waves from a surface source are measured (Figure 3.4.4a). When the
primary seismic energy waves intersect a fluid-filled fracture zone, part of the energy is reflected back to the
surface and a secondary seismic wave is created in the fluid. This secondary waye travels in the fluid along the
fracture, and if the fracture intersects the borehole, a tube wave is created in water in the borehole (Figure
3.4.4a). VSP also can be used as a cross borehole method (Section 3.4.6). Downhole/uphole methods:
Downhole measurement of P-wave (compressional) and S-wave (shear) velocities are made using a fixed surface
source and string of geophones placed in a borehole (Figure 3.4.4b) or a single downhole triaxial sensor that is
moved to various measurement depths within the borehole (usually 5 to 10 foot increments). In uphole
measurement, the positions of the source and seismometer/geophone array are interchanged (Figure 3.4.4c). A
variant of the downhole method is to use a seismic cone penetrometer (Figure 3.4.4d). In this test a cone
penetrometer containing a triaxial receiver system is pushed into the soil. Seismic shear waves are generated at
the surface in the vicinity of the cone and wave velocities and moduli are inferred from the travel times of the
waves between the source and the cone. See Section 2.2.2 for additional information on cone penetrometers.
Method Selection Considerations: VSP Advantages: Use of VSP in conjunction with surface seismic
measurements allows more accurate three-dimensional interpretation of seismic data. VSP Disadvantages: (1)
Equipment is more complicated to set up than-surface seismic methods; and (2) equipment might be less readily
available than surface seismic instrumentation. Downhole/Uphole Advantages: (1) Provides higher resolution of
subsurface layers of soil and rock for the area surrounding a borehole than is possible with a surface refraction
survey; (2) especially good at detecting thin layers or a low velocity layer beneath a higher velocity layer, and (3)
simpler than the crosshole seismic shear method. Downhole/Uphole Disadvantages: Less accurate than cross
borehole seismic methods (uncertainties in compressional and shear wave velocities can be 10 to 20 percent).
Seismic Cone Penetrometer Advantages: (1) Does not require drilling of a borehole; (2) cone penetrometer rigs
also can be used for stratigraphic testing (see Section 2.2.2) and soil-gas/ground-water sampling (see Section
55.2).
Frequency of Use: VSP has been reported at several sites with sufficient success to probably justify more
widespread use of this method. Downhole/uphole methods are used routinely in geotechnical investigations to
determine soil stiffness, and are commonly used to augment data from surface seismic surveys. Seismic cone
penetrometers are commonly used in geotechnical investigations and the versatility of cone penetration rigs has
resulted in increased use in contaminant site investigations (see Section 2.2.2).
Standard Methods/Guidelines; —
Sources for Additional Information: VSP texts: Balch and Lee (1984), Gal'perin (1974), Hardage (1985), Toksoz
and Stewart (1984); VSP (other): Labo (1987), Redwine et al. (1985), Schlumberger (1989a), Serra (1984a), U.S.
EPA (1992); Downhole/uphole: CH2M Hill (1991), Redwine et al. (1985); Seismic cone penetrometer: CH2M
Hill (1991), Robertson et al. (1986).
3-46
-------
r
ut
i
UJ
cc
o
03
I
s
K
S Ul
li
i °
(SU3131MI HXdHQ
3-47
-------
3. GEOPHYSICAL LOGGING OF BOREHOLES
3.4 ACOUSTIC AND SEISMIC LOGGING
3.4.5 Geophysical Diffraction Tomography
Other Names Used to Describe Method: GDT, variable density acoustic tomography, seismic tomography.
Uses at Contaminated Sites; Obtaining high resolution subsurface cross-sectional images for identification of
buried objects, define clean areas, and stratigraphic mapping.
Method Description: The field layout for geophysical diffraction tomography is similar to that for vertical seismic
profiling. Typically, a hydrophone array is placed down a borehole with a seismic source at the surface, but
cross-borehole and surface-to-two-borehole configurations also are possible (Figure 3.4.5a). The seismic source
is typically an acoustic gun that is moved along a line on the ground surface and fired at fixed intervals (3.4.5b).
GDT differs from other seismic method in the way seismic signals are used and how the data received by the
hydrophones is processed (Figure 3.4.5c). GDT is a form of analysis of wave motion similar to that used for CT
scanners in medicine (see also, Section 6.2.7 for use of CT methods for soil moisture measurement). Imaging
algorithms are able to analyze the diffraction of waves caused by inhomogeneities and to create a high resolution
cross-sectional image of the transect across which the acoustic gun is moved. Objects in the soil as small as about
1 foot in diameter can be located with a 2-foot seismic source spacing on the transect. Figure 3.4.5d shows a
source-receiver configuration using both simultaneous surface and borehole seismic signals.
Method Selection Considerations: Advantages: (1) Relatively new method that shows great promise for high
resolution imaging of buried wastes; and (2) might provide results when conventional surface geophysical
methods are not working well due to unfavorable site conditions. Disadvantages: (1) New technique with limited
operational and field experience; and (2) equipment and personnel familiar with procedures for data collection
and analysis might not be available.
Frequency of Use: Limited use to date, but good potential for wider application.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: —
Sources for Additional Information: Anderson and Dziewinski (1984), Mahannah et al. (1988), U.S. EPA (1992).
See also, texts on borehole imaging and tomography indexed in Table 3-3.
3-48
-------
Source
Receiver
Source
Borehole-Borehole
Source
Receiver
XXX
II
(1
Receiver
^ w
Surface-2 Borehole
Surface-Borehole
00
Source
*— X ; X-
Scatterer
Distorted
Wavefront
Acoustic
Source
Data Acquisition
System
Personal
Computer
(b)
Receiver
Array
Air Cable
Trigger Cable-
,Alr Gun Trigger Box
-Compressed Air
Trigger .Seismograph
Downhole*.
Air gun
1m Spacing
>10 Receiver
Hydrophone
Array
(d)
Figure 3.4.5 Geophysical diffraction tomography: (a) Source-receiver configurations; (b) Configuration of test
system; (c) Conceptual example of GDT (Mahannah et aL, 1988, by permission); (d) Source-receiver
configuration using both surface and downhole seismic sources (Bates et al., 1991, by permission).
3-49
-------
3. GEOPHYSICAL LOGGING OF BOREHOLES
3.4 ACOUSTIC AND SEISMIC LOGGING
3.4.6 Cross-Borehole Seismic Methods
Other Names Used to Describe Method; Cross-borehole shear, crosshole vertical seismic profiling (VSP).
Uses at Contaminated Sites; Evaluating stratigraphy and porosity, detecting cavities, open fractures, zones of
weakness, and other discontinuities; measuring dynamic moduli for safety evaluations of major structures, such
as dams; designing vibration-sensitive engineered structures.
Method Description: Crosshole seismic shear: An energy source is placed in one borehole and geophones are
placed in nearby borings at the same depth (Figure 3.4.6). Typically, three boreholes separated by 3 to 5 meters
in line with a seismic source borehole are used. Borehole deviation surveys (Section 3.6.3) are required within
each drill hole to determine accurate distances between boreholes at all depths. 3-D velocity transducers are
wedged in at the same elevation in each borehole and arrival times of both P-and S- waves from the subsurface
seismic source are measured. Repeated measurements at different levels in the boreholes allow development
of shear wave velocity profiles using the travel time of first arrivals (direct-wave arrival) and the result of the
borehole deviation data, Crosshole VSP: Similar to surface-borehole vertical seismic profiling (Section 3.4.4),
except that the seismic source is used to generate seismic waves in a borehole.
Method Selection Considerations: Crosshole Seismic Shear Advantages: (1) Most reliable method for in situ
measurement of shear wave velocity because of the small height of soil sampled at each depth; (2) very little
interpretation of field data is required because the travel path of the seismic signal is predominantly horizontal.
Crosshole Seismic Shear Disadvantages: Complicated to set up. Crosshole VSP: Similar to advantages and
disadvantages discussed in Section 3.4.4.
Frequency of Use; Use in geotechnical investigations is well established; has been infrequently used at
contaminated sites.
Standard Methods/Guidelines; ASTM (1991c).
Sources for Additional Information; Butler and Curro (1981), CH2M Hill (1991), Gal'perin (1974), Redwine et
al. (1985), U.S. EPA (1992), Wheatcraft et al. (1986).
3-50
-------
-iaft(3.7m)-
0.-PLAN VIEW
Verticol Velocity -.Verticol
Transducer^ r Impulse
jl
y
JS-3-D Velocity
" Transducer
Wedged in
Place
Assumed Path of
Body Waves-?
. -• -~J-
^
r „
,^-Casing ^
»--Grout
fl
Generation of-
Body Waves
(Not to Scale)
b.-CROSS-SECTIONAL VIEW
Figure 3.4.6 Cross-borehole seismic method (Hoar and Stokoe, 1977, Copyright ASTM, reprinted with permission).
3-51
-------
3. GEOPHYSICAL LOGGING OF BOREHOLES
35 MISCELLANEOUS BOREHOLE LOGGING
35.1 Caliper
Other Names Used to Describe Method: -
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Obtaining information on borehole configuration, lithology, and secondary porosity
(fracture and solution zones); correlating with other geophysical logs; approximating estimates of mudcake
thickness.
Method Description: Caliper logs are made by a probe that measures borehole diameter. Many types are
available, including mechanical, electric, and acoustic. Mechanical caliper tools are the most common type and
logs are made by first lowering the device to the hole's bottom with the arms resting against the body of the
probe. The arms are opened, usually with an electric motor, and the probe, with the aims touching the sides
of the borehole, is raised. Deflections of the arms are transmitted to the precision potentiometer and the signal
passed to the surface over the cable. Mechanical caliper tools have from one to six arms and can measure
variations as small as 1/4 inch in borehole diameter. Figure 3.5.1 illustrates a three-arm caliper probe, and Figure
3-1 shows caliper logs for holes in sedimentary rocks with decreasing hole diameter (Figure 3-la) and fractured
crystalline rock (Figure 3-lb).
Method Selection Considerations; Advantages: (1) Caliper logs are an essential complement to guide the
interpretation of other types of logs that are affected by borehole diameter (gamma, gamma-gamma, resistivity,
self potential, and flowmeters); (2) equipment is readily available; and (3) interpretation is easy (diameter can
be read directly from the log). Disadvantages: (1) Failure to center properly in holes that are as little a few
degrees off from vertical can result in erroneous readings (diameter less than it actually is); and (2) special types
are required for measuring diameter of inclined or horizontal boreholes
Frequency of Use; Commonly used in conjunction with other logging methods.
Standard Methods/Guidelines; —
Sources for Additional Information: Brown et al. (1983), Bureau of Reclamation (1981), Driscoll (1986), Everett
(1985), Keys (1990), Keys and MacCary (1971), Redwine et al. (1985), Respold (1989), U.S. EPA (1992). Most
of the general borehole logging texts indexed in Table 3-3 cover caliper logs.
3-52
-------
sensing arm
coil spring and threaded rod with ball-bearing nut
DC-motor electronic section
Figure 3.5.1 Three-arm caliper probe (Respold, 1989, by permission).
3-53
-------
3. GEOPHYSICAL LOGGING OF BOREHOLES
3.5 MISCELLANEOUS BOREHOLE LOGGING
35.2 Temperature Logs
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Differential temperature log, radial differential temperature (RDT)
survey.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Detecting contaminant plumes (where temperature differs from the natural ground-
water); obtaining information on movement of natural or injected water, permeability distribution, and relative
hydraulic head; locating fracture/solution zones; monitoring infiltration/ground-water recharge; locating cement
grout; detecting gas leaking into a well.
Method Description; A temperature log records temperature versus depth with a temperature sensor, usually
a thermistor (Section 8.2.2) mounted inside a cage or tube to protect it and to channel the fluid past the sensor.
Temperature logs taken in an open borehole, at time intervals after drilling has stopped, often provide an
indication of the location of permeable strata (Figure 3.5.2). Temperature logs often are made in combination
with fluid conductivity logs (see Section 3.1.3 and Figure 5.5.4). In bedrock open-hole wells, changes in slope
can indicate inflow or outflow. Isothermal slopes indicates borehole flow between fractures under different
pressure heads. In the absence of borehole flow, the temperature approaches the geothermal gradient (Williams
and Conger, 1990). A differential-temperature log records the rate of change in temperature versus depth and
can be obtained by computer calculation from a temperature log or by using a specially designed logging probe
with either two sensors with a vertical spacing, or one sensor and an electronic memory that compares the
temperature at one time with selected previous times. A radial differential temperature tool uses two highly
sensitive temperature probes that extend from the probe to contact the casing. As the probes are rotated, they
measure any difference in temperature at two points on the casing 180 degrees apart and can detect cooler water
flowing behind a casing that has not been properly sealed.
Method Selection Considerations; Advantages: (1) Equipment is widely available; (2) rapid and inexpensive
technique; (3) a differential-temperature log is more sensitive to changes in temperature gradient; and (4)
interpretation is relatively straightforward. Disadvantages: (1) Temperature recorded is only that of the fluid
surrounding the sensor, which might not be representative of the surrounding rocks due to disturbance by drilling,
cementing and testing; and (2) thermal lag, self-heating, and drift of electronics might affect accuracy of readings.
Frequency of Use; Widely used in ground-water studies.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: Stevens et al. (1975).
Sources for Additional Information; Brown et al. (1983), Bureau of Reclamation (1981), Driscoll (1986), Everett
(1985), Keys (1990), Keys and MacCary (1971), Redwine et al. (1985), Respold (1989), Thornhill and Benefield
(1990), U.S. EPA (1992), Wheatcraft et al. (1986). See also, Section 1.6.2 and related references indexed in
Table 1-5.
3-54
-------
Temperature
Figure 3.5.2 Temperature log showing water-bearing sands: Curve 1, immediately after stopping mud circulation;
Curve 2, a few hours later; Curve 3, a few days later (Brown et al., 1983).
3-55
-------
3. GEOPHYSICAL LOGGING OF BOREHOLES
3.5 MISCELLANEOUS BOREHOLE LOGGING
35.3 Mechanical Flowmeter
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Current flowmeter, impeller flowmeter, spinner log.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Measuring vertical flow in boreholes; locating intervals of leakage in artesian wells;
identifying fractures or permeable zones producing and accepting water.
Method Description: Various designs have been developed. Most use a lightweight, three- or four-bladed
impeller mounted on a shaft that rotates a magnet mounted on the same shaft (Figure 3.5.3a). The magnet
actuates a switch, which generates electric signals that record the number of rotations of the impeller.
Calibration of the instrument allows calculation of velocity of flow, and when combined with cross-sectional area,
the amount of flow. Mechanical flowmeters usually required flow rates of at least 4 feet/mimite, but velocities
as low as 2 feetAninute can sometime be measured. Mechanical flowmeters can require pumping of the well to
increase the flow rate sufficiently to identify zones of higher permeability (Figure 3.5.3b).
Method Selection Considerations: Advantages: Equipment is relatively inexpensive and readily available.
Disadvantages: (1) Generally require larger diameter boreholes than other thermal and electromagnetic
flowmeters (see next sections); (2) limited to measuring vertical flow, (3) the magnet and switch are placed in
an oil-filled housing that create the possibility of contaminating monitoring-wells (minor consideration); and (4)
turbulent flow near zones of high transmissivity can cause erratic response, reducing the accuracy of permeability
calculations.
Frequency of Use; Commonly used in the water well industry.
Standard Methods/Guidelines; —
Sources for Additional Information; Brown et al. (1983), Driscoll (1986), Everett (1985), Hess and Wolf (1991),
Keys (1990), Keys and MacCary (1971), Respold (1989), Schlumberger (1989b), U.S. EPA (1992).
3-56
-------
pulse generator housing
with flushing vents
spinner
tower cage
bearing
upper
bearing
electronic section
(a)
Total production flow
Downhole measuring
Revolution of the spinner/s
0.1 2
Percentages of inflows
0 20 40 60 80 100%
(b)
Figure 3.5.3 Impeller flowmeten (a) Probe; (b) Effect of pumping on flow from fracture zones on an impeller
flowmeter log (Respold, 1989, by permission).
3-57
-------
3. GEOPHYSICAL LOGGING OF BOREHOLES
35 MISCELLANEOUS BOREHOLE LOGGING
35.4 Thermal Flowmeter
Other Names Used to Describe Method; Heat-pulse flowmeter.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Measuring vertical and/or horizontal flow (depending on the instrument) in
boreholes; locating intervals of leakage in artesian wells; identifying fractures and zones of high permeability
producing and accepting water for characterization of spatial variability of the subsurface.
Method Description; Water passing through the flowmeter is suddenly heated and the time it takes the pulse of
heated water to pass thermistors that are located either above or below the heat source (vertical flow, Figure
35.4a), or horizontal to the source (lateral flow), is recorded. When used with a packer and pump that
concentrates flow, measurements at different levels in a borehole allow characterization of vertical changes in
relative permeability in consolidated material and detection of fracture zones in boreholes in bedrock (Figure
35.4b).
Method Selection Considerations: Advantages: (1) More sensitive than mechanical flowmeters (able to measure
vertical velocities as low as 0.1 feet/minute); (2) can measure either vertical or horizontal flow, (3) relatively
recent refinements have made them the flowmeter of choice in most situations. Disadvantages: Channelizing
of flow near slotted casing can give misleading readings.
Frequency of Use; Common. Although relatively recent, they have gained rapid acceptance.
Standard Methods/Guidelines; —
Sources for Additional Information: Keys (1990), Keys and MacCary (1971), Molz et al. (1990), U.S. EPA (1992-
18 references on thermal flowmeters), Wheatcraft et al. (1986).
3-58
-------
UPPER
THERMISTOR
SIGNAL
CONDITIONER
CHART RECORDER
o
o
o o
O
O
o o
LOWER
THERMISTOR
FLOW LOG
(a)
Feet Meters
•3.0
•2.5
:2.0
•1.5
•1.0
•0.5
•0.0
-0.9
•0.8
•0.7
•0.6
•0.5
•0.4
•0.3
•0.2
•0.1
-0.0
Electronic
Section
Flow Sensor
with Inflated
Packer
Valve
Packer
Pump
Figure 3.5.4 Thermal flowmeten (a) Equipment for making heat-pulse flowmeter logs (Keys, 1990); (b) The U.S.
Geological Survey's thermal flowmeter with inflated flow-concentrating packer (Molz et al., 1990).
3-59
-------
3. GEOPHYSICAL LOGGING OF BOREHOLES
3.5 MISCELLANEOUS BOREHOLE LOGGING
35.5 Electromagnetic (EM) Flowmeter
Other Names Used to Describe Method: ~
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Measuring vertical flow in boreholes; locating intervals of leakage in artesian wells;
identifying fractures and zone of high permeability producing and accepting water for characterizing spatial
variability of the subsurface.
Method Description; The EM flowmeter consists of an electromagnet and two electrodes placed 180 degrees
apart and all cast in a durable epoxy (Figure 35.5). Water flowing past the magnetic field generated by the
electromagnet creates voltage changes between the two electrodes, which transmit a signal to the surface that
is directly proportional to the velocity of the water in accordance with Faraday's Law of Induction. The EM flow
meter can be used in combination with a short-duration single well pump and/or an injection test in a fully
screened borehole. Flow measurements are taken at around 0.3 meter intervals and hydraulic conductivity
calculated for each interval based on flow rates.
Method Selection Considerations: Advantages: (1) Very sensitive to measurement of low flow rates (about 1
centimeter/minute compare to 3 centimeter/minute for thermal flowmeters, and an order of magnitude lower than
impeller flowmeters); (2) measures flow rates with better accuracy and precision and require less calibration than
impeller flowmeters; (3) equally well suited for pumping or injection test; (4) no moving parts means instrument
is more durable and requires less maintenance than impeller flowmeters; and (5) shows less erratic flow response
than impeller flowmeters in zones of high transmissivity. Disadvantages: The general disadvantages that are
associated with a new method: (1) Limited operational and field experience; (2) limited equipment availability.
Frequency of Use: Relatively new method being developed by the Tennessee Valley Authority that shows
considerable potential. Currently being tested by EPA at several Superfund sites.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: —
Sources for Additional Information; Young and Pearson (1990), Young and Waldrop (1989).
3-60
-------
ELECTROMAGNETIC FLOWMETER
8.9 cm
MAGNETIC
COIL
IRON CORE
ELECTRODE
Figure 3.5.5 Electromagnetic flowmeter (Young and Waldrop, 1989, by permission).
3-61
-------
3. GEOPHYSICAL LOGGING OF BOREHOLES
3.5 MISCELLANEOUS BOREHOLE LOGGING
3.5.6 Single-Borehole Tracer Methods
Other Names Used to Describe Method; Injector-detector probes, trace-injector probes, brine tracing, salt-
injection, injection/withdrawal (pulse) technique, borehole dilution, colorimetric borehole dilution.
Uses at Contaminated Sites; Measuring vertical and/or horizontal (using ground-water velocities and direction),
estimation of hydraulic conductivity (borehole dilution); well integrity testing.
Method Description: Injector-detector probes have the injector in the middle and detectors (either fluid
conductivity or gamma detectors, depending on the tracer that is injected) above and below. Alternatively,
separate injector and detector probes can be used. Velocity is determined based on how long it takes the
injected tracer to reach the detector. Figures 3.5.6a shows an arrangement of multiple detectors in a borehole
using a radioactive tracer, and Figure 3.5.6b shows an single injector-detector probe and resulting logs when
brines or different chemical composition are used. Injection/withdrawal tracer tests allow estimation of pore
velocity (provided that porosity is know or can be estimated with reasonable accuracy) and longitudinal dispersion
coefficient A known amount of tracer is instantaneously added to the borehole, mixed, and then two to three
borehole volumes of fresh water are pumped in to force the tracer to penetrate the aquifer. After a certain time,
the borehole is pumped at a constant rate, which is large enough to overcome the natural ground-water flow,
and the tracer concentration is measured with time or pumped volume. Borehole dilution can be used to
measure the magnitude and direction of horizontal tracer velocity and vertical flow. A known quantity of tracer
is introduced into the borehole, mixed, and then the concentration decrease is measured with time for velocity
measurement. Packers often are required if measurement of horizontal flow is the main concern. Direction of
flow is measured by slowly introducing a tracer (often radioactive) without mixing into a section of the borehole
that has a compartmental sample (four to eight compartments) isolated by packers. After some time the sampler
is opened, and the relative concentrations in the different compartments indicate flow direction. Colorimetric
borehole dilution is a new method in which the change in concentration of an injected dye is measured by light
transmitted by a colorimeter via fiber optics (Section 5.5.6).
Method Selection Considerations; Advantages: Very low flow velocities (as low as a few feet a day) can be
measured using tracer methods. Disadvantages: (1) Salt solutions cannot be detected in water with similar salt
concentration and the greater specific gravity introduces some errors; (2) health concerns associated with use of
radioactive tracers limits their use in potable aquifers; and (3) turbulence associated with high flow rates in very
permeable formations might affect accuracy of measurements by dispersing the tracer.
Frequency of Use; Use not commonly reported at hazardous waste sites.
Standard Methods/Guidelines; —
Sources for Additional Information; Bennett et al. (1960), Davis et al. (1985), Everett (1985), Hall (1993), Keys
(1990), Keys and MacCary (1971), Patten and Bennett (1962), U.S. EPA (1992).
3-62
-------
RECORDER
(a)
20
P 'O
RESISTIVITY DECREASES
• BEGIN INJECTION
NoCI
NHUCI N
SATURATED SOLUTIONS
HALF
AMPLITUDE
BRINE TRACER LOGS
MADE IN 4" ID. CASING
AVERAGE DOWNWARD FLOW H7gpm
,-4"ID. CASING
SILVER ELECTRODES
EJECTOR - DETECTOR
PROBE
(b)
Figure 35.6 Single-borehole tracer techniques: (a) Arrangement of multiple detectors for determining vertical flow
in a borehole using a radioactive tracer (Brown et al, 1983); (b) Brine ejector-detector probe (right)
and logs of three different salts used as tracers (left) (Keys and MacCary, 1971).
3-63
-------
3. GEOPHYSICAL LOGGING OF BOREHOLES
35 MISCELLANEOUS BOREHOLE LOGGING
35.7 Television/Photography
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Borehole camera, TV camera, televiewer*, colloidal horoscope, single
vertical photo survey, stereo photo survey, motion picture survey.
Uses at Contaminated Sites; Performing lithologic/stratigraphic characterization; providing information on
frequency, size, and orientation of fractures; performing vertical correlation of rock cores where voids are
present; inspecting casingtoonitoring well integrity; performing remote inspection of integrity of nuclear and
chemical waste storage tanks (remote tank inspection robotic system); assessing local ground-water flow velocity
and colloidal transport potential (colloidal horoscope).
Method Description: Television: Television cameras (black-and-white or color) are attached to a flexible
multilead underwater video cable and lowered down the borehole for visual inspection of the borehole walls and
downward (Figure 35.7a). Depth of the probe is measured and displayed on the monitor. The colloidal
horoscope is a recently developed waterproof video camera capable of viewing indigenous colloids in a monitoring
well. Optical magnification allows observation of the density, flow direction, and velocity of colloidal particles
in monitoring wells (Figure 3.5.7b). A remote tank inspection (RTI) system, using high resolution video cameras
attached to a robotic arm with 6 feet of articulated reach for inspection of tank walls of high level nuclear waste
tanks, is in developmental stages (see Fromme et al., 1991). Stereo photo survey: 35-mm photographs (color or
black-and-white) are taken simultaneously by two cameras set in the same place with the optical lenses set at a
slight angle to obtain overlapping coverage of the area 3 to 5 feet below the camera. The resultant film can be
examined through a stereoscopic viewer to obtain a three-dimensional axial image, which is readily interpreted
and which provides good data on corrosion indications, encrustation, casing breaks, partings, collapse, and other
casing features. Single vertical photo surveys have generally been superseded by television and stereo photo
surveys. Motion picture survey: Movie cameras with lens attachments for taking either side hole pictures or
vertical pictures along the well axis provide a continuous borehole log. Images can be either color or black-and-
white.
Method Selection Considerations: Valuable in any borehole where features, such as secondary porosity and
casing condition, can be interpreted visually. Television/Camera Advantages: (1) Allow direct observation of
borehole creasing; (2) television equipment has been developed for inspection of boreholes as small at 2 inches
in diameter; (3) black-and-white stereo photo films can be developed on-site in about 45 minutes (color
photographs require about a week for processing and delivery). Television/Camera Disadvantages: (1) Use
limited to boreholes with clear water and clean walls; (2) cannot be used with standard logging cable; (3) photo
and motion picture surveys are limited to relatively large diameter holes (6 inches or larger for stereo photo
surveys and 10 inches or more for motion picture surveys); (4) interpretation of black-and-white stereo film
negatives requires some experience; (5) motion picture surveys are not as flexible in operation as television
surveys and do not permit detailed examination of critical areas; (6) 2-inch television logging equipment is
relatively complex and delicate; and (7) color television equipment cannot be operated as deeply as black-and-
white units. Colloidal Horoscope: New instrument that is being used primarily in research to evaluate ground-
water sampling methods, but has potential for wider applications in contaminated site investigations.
Frequency of Use; Not widely used, but potentially very useful.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: -
Sources for Additional Information: Borehole television: Campbell and Lehr (1973), Morahan and Dorrier
(1984), Respold (1989), U.S. EPA (1992), Wheatcraft (1986); Photographic and motion picture surveys: Bureau
of Reclamation (1981); CoUoidal horoscope: Cronk and Kearl (1991), Kearl et al. (1992).
*The term televiewer is more commonly used to refer to the acoustic televiewer (Section 3.4.3), so care should
be used when running across this word to determine what type of instrument is being referred to.
3-64
-------
CABLF.
o o
CONTROL
BOX
POWER
DISTRIBUTION
BOX
CAMERA
ATTACHMENTS
MICROPHONE
GENERATOR
III M|
VCR
MONITOR
(a)
UMBILICAL
CABLE TO
MONITOR AND
VCR
(b)
Figure 3.5.7 Visual inspection of boreholes: (a) Schematic diagram of a borehole television system (Morahan and
Dorrier, 1984, by permission); (b) Schematic diagram of the colloidal horoscope (Kearl et al., 1992, by
permission).
3-65
-------
3. GEOPHYSICAL LOGGING OF BOREHOLES
3.5 MISCELLANEOUS BOREHOLE LOGGING
35.8 Magnetic and Gravity Logs
Other Names Used to Describe Method: —
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Magnetic: Detecting buried metals in advance of drilling. Magnetic susceptibility:
Performing stratigraphic correlation. Gravity: Possible use for performing structural and stratigraphic
interpretation in association with surface gravity measurements.
Method Description: Magnetic: Borehole magnetometers operate on the same principle as surface fluxgate
gradiometers described in Section 1.5.2, except that they are attached to a cable that allows testing of boreholes
to a depth of 25 feet (Figure 3.5.8).* Gravity: Borehole gravimetry is a fairly recent extension of surface
gravimetry. Microgravity instrumentation (see Figure 1.5.3a), specially designed for use in boreholes, measures
vertical changes in gravity. Clamping the logging cable and clamping or spring-loading the probe to the borehole
wall often is required to eliminate vibrations. The basic corrections required for surface gravity readings are
required (see Section 1.5.3), although specific calculations can differ because measurements are taken vertically
rather than horizontally.
Method Selection Considerations: Magnetic Advantages and Disadvantages: See Section 1.5.2. Gravity
Advantages: (1) Can extend conventional surface gravity measurements to a third dimension, allowing more
precise interpretations; and (2) can be used in cased wells. Gravity Disadvantages: (1) Instruments are expensive
and availability is limited; (2) temperature sensitivity might be a problem; (3) many corrections have to be applied
to gravity data, which is time consuming; (4) interpretations are ambiguous (i.e., for any set of gravity
measurements, more than one model usually can explain gravity and density differences); (5) invasion of drilling
fluid into formations might reduce the accuracy of gravity interpretation; and (6) errors in depth measurement
often are the largest source of error in a borehole gravity survey.
Frequency of Use; Magnetic: Commonly used when presence of buried metals is suspected in the area of drilling.
Gravity: Relatively common for oil and gas exploration; use in ground-water studies is not commonly reported.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: —
Sources for Additional Information; Magnetic: Schonsted Instrument Company (undated); Gravity: Head and
Kososki (1979), Hearst and Carlson (1982), Labo (1987), Robbins (1986).
*The magnetic susceptibility log (see Section 10.6.3 for principles involved) has been used for mineral exploration
(Scott et al., 1981), but its use has not been reported for ground-water or contaminated site investigations.
3-66
-------
Figure 35.8 Use of borehole magnetometer to detect buried ferrous containers (Schonstedt Instrument Company,
undated).
3-67
-------
3. GEOPHYSICAL LOGGING OF BOREHOLES
3.6 WELL CONSTRUCTION LOGS
3.6.1 Casing Logging
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Casing collar locator (CCL), electromagnetic casing logs. Other logging
methods that can be used to evaluate casing include: Electric logs (steel casing), gamma-gamma logs, neutron
and gamma logs, caliper logs, acoustic velocity, acoustic waveform, and acoustic televiewer.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Evaluating the location and condition of different types of casing and screens.
Method Description: Casing collar locator: Probe that can be operated on other logging tools that uses a magnet
wrapped in a coil of wire, which causes a current to flow in response to changes in the magnetic properties of
casing. The collar of steel casing cause a fluctuation in the field, which is readily discerned compared to the main
part of the casing. Several types of electromagnetic casing log tools are available that measure the change in
mass of metal between two coils and are used to measure corrosion of steel casings. Television and photographic
surveys (Section 3.5.7) also can be used to evaluate the condition of the interior surface of a casing.
Method Selection Considerations: Casing logging methods are used mainly in deeper boreholes where metal
casing has been used. The CCL is a useful and relatively inexpensive probe and its standard mode of operation
is to record event marks along the margin of other logs to represent the location of collars in steel casing.
Frequency of Use: Commonly used when the integrity of wells is a concern, such as large diameter water wells,
injection wells, and ground-water monitoring wells.
Standard Methods/Guidelines; —
Sources for Additional Information: Keys (1990), Keys and MacCary (1971), Nielsen and Aller (1984), Respold
(1989), Thomhill and Benefield (1990), U.S. EPA (1992).
3-68
-------
3. GEOPHYSICAL LOGGING OF BOREHOLES
3.6 WELL CONSTRUCTION LOGS
3.6.2 Cement and Gravel Pack Logs
Other Names Used to Describe Method; Cement bond logs. Various logging methods discussed earlier can be
used singly or in combination.
Uses at Contaminated Sites; Locating cement and gravel pack outside of casing in the annular space, and
determining whether the annular space has been completely filled; detecting interzone fluid communication
behind casing.
Method Description: Specific cement bond logging tools can combine different logging methods described above,
usually including gamma-gamma (Section 3.3.2), and casing collar locator (Section 3.6.1) for depth control, and
various types of acoustic logs (Sections 3.4.1 and 3.4.2). Temperature logs (Section 3.5.2) can be used to locate
cement grout while it is still warm from chemical reactions during curing (Figure 3.6.2a). Caliper logs (Section
3.5.1), which are run before grouting, usually are required to interpret whether the annular space is filled.
Gamma-gamma logs run on casing before grouting and then again after grouting, can be used to estimate
whether the annular space has been filled completely (Figure 3.6.2b). A noise or Sonan log monitors and records
sounds at seven frequencies (200 to 8,000 Hertz), and can be used to detect flow of air and/or water behind a
casing.
Method Selection Considerations: Advantages: Essential for evaluating the adequacy of grouting of the annular
space of monitoring wells, especially where there is a potential for cross-contamination. Disadvantages: (1)
Interpretation of some logs might be ambiguous unless careful logs of the borehole are completed before and
after grouting; and (2) noise logs are susceptible to extraneous sources of sound, such as surface equipment
noise, inadvertent flow past the sonde, or continued movement of the logging tool during measurement.
Frequency of Use: Not commonly used, but probably should be.
Standard Methods/Guidelines; -
Sources for Additional Information: Gearhart Industries (1982), Keys (1990), Nielsen and Aller (1984), Respold
(1989), Schlumberger (1989b), Thornhill and Benefield (1990), U.S. EPA (1992), Wyllie (1963); Noise log:
Thomhill and Benefield (1990).
3-69
-------
Inner casing-^
Outer casing—A
Ground surface
Cemented
zone
Hole filled with_
viscous mud
Temperature increase
(a)
(b)
Figure 3.6.2 Well completion logs: (a) Schematic diagram showing heat given off by cement as it hardens (Davis
and DeWiest, 1966, reprinted by permission of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. from Kydrogeology by S.N.
Davis and RJ.M. DeWiest, Copyright © 1966); (b) Identification of air void using gamma-gamma log
with near and far detectors (Yearsley et al., 1991, by permission), _ -
3-70
-------
3. GEOPHYSICAL LOGGING OF BOREHOLES
3.6 WELL CONSTRUCTION LOGS
3.6.3 Borehole Deviation
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Plumbness/alignment tests, single-shot probe, deviation log, dipmeter
log, cage/cable suspended cage test, dolly test.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Identifying potential problems in well completion due to borehole deviations;
providing data to calculate the true vertical depth of water levels and other features of interest, and to correct
the strike and dip of fractures of bedding planes.
Method Description: Single-shot probes provide one measurement of the deviation angle and azimuth at one
point in the borehole. Multiple measurements require bringing the probe to the surface and resetting it after
each reading. Deviation logs provide continuous measurements with a probe that includes an inclinometer for
measuring deviation and a magnetometer for determining direction. Dipmeter logs (see Section 3.1.5) usually
include a continuous record of the azimuth (magnetic north) and the magnitude of deviation. Continuous logs
of borehole deviation usually are made by companies that specialize in this method. The dolly test uses a 40-foot
long rigid dolly fitted with rings that are a 1/2 inch smaller than the inside diameter of the casing. If the dolly
hangs up, it is an indication the casing is not plumb and/or is out of alignment, the cage test involves setting up
a tripod above the well casing from which a plumb line can be centered and lowered into the casing (Figure
3.6.3). Deviations of casing from the vertical and direction of deviation can be determined by measuring the
distance and direction of movement of the cable from the center of the casing using a template that is placed
on the top of the casing.
Method Selection Considerations: Borehole deviation primarily is a concern in deep boreholes, although it is
possible for auger borehole less than 100 feet deep to deviate enough to adversely affect gamma-gamma
transmittance logs. Single-shot probes are the least expensive and can be used to determined whether more
expensive continuous logs might be required.
Frequency of Use; Infrequently, probably should be used more.
Standard Methods/Guidelines; ~
Sources for Additional Information: Bureau of Reclamation (1981), Keys (1990), Respold (1989), U.S. EPA
(1992).
3-71
-------
Guide bolts here
Plumb line
First position
Second position
Exact center
DETAILS OF
CAGE RING
Washers
TYPICAL ARRANGEMENT FOR
TESTING PLUMBNESS AND
ALIGNMENT OF A WELL
3lt tO
P| p/ frome
-Oversized holes
for adjustment
DETAILS OF
ADJUSTABLE
GUIDE
Figure 3.63 Cable suspended cage for checking straightness and plumbness of wells (Bureau of Reclamation, 1981).
3-72
-------
Table 3-3 Index for General References on Borehole Geophysics
Topic
References
Bibliographies
Glossary
General Texts/Reports
Log Method Texts
Log Interpretation
Imaging/Tomography
Log Quality Control
Borehole Logging
Symposia
Texts for Specific Log Types
Electrical Logging Texts
Nuclear Logging
Ground-Water Applications
Texts/Reports
Ground-Water Texts
with Sections on
Borehole Geophysics
Contaminated Sites
Well Integrity Testing
Prensky (various dates), Rehm et al. (1985), Taylor and Dey (1985), Johnson and
Gnaedinger (1964), van der Leeden (1991)
Society of Professional Well Log Analysts (1975)
Dresser Atlas (1974, 1982), Ellis (1987), Guyod and Shane (1969), Hallenberg
(1983), Hamilton and Myung (1979), Hearst and Nelson (1985), Helander (1983),
Kelly (1969), Labo (1987), LeRoy et al. (1987), Lynch (1962), Nelson (1985),
Scott and Tibbets (1974), Serra (1984a), Telford et al. (1990), Tittman (1986)
Asquith and Gibson (1982), Birdwell Division (1973), Doveton (1986), Dresser
Atlas (1975, 1979, 1982), Foster and Beaumont (1990), Hallenberg (1984), Hilchie
(1982a,b), Pirson (1963, 1970), Rider (1986), Schlumberger (1972, 1974, 1989a,b,
1991), Serra (1984b), Tearpock and Bischke (1991), Wyllie (1963)
Borehole Imaging: Lines and Scale (1997), SPWLA (1990-borehole imaging);
Tomography; Davis (1989), Desaubies et al. (1990), Stewart (1991), Lines and
Scales (1987), Tweeton (1988)
Bateman (1985), Theys (1991)
Canadian Well Logging Society (various dates), Killeen (1985), Minerals and
Geotechnical Logging Society (1985-91), NWWA (1984, 1985, 1986), SPWLA
(1960 to present)
Guyod (1952, 1957a, 1958, 1965), Guyod and Pranglin (1959), Hilchie (1979),
Keller and Frischknecht (1970), Patten and Bennett (1963), Ross and Ward
(1984); Bibliograpv: Johnson and Gnaedinger (1964)
IAEA (1968, 1971); Protection: Blizard (1958), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (1985); Bibliography; Johnson and Gnaedinger (1964)
Bennett and Patten (1960), Emerson and Webster (1970), Hodges and Teasdale
(1991), Johnson (1968), Jorgenson (1989), Keys (1990), Keys and MacCary
(1971), Patten and Bennett (1963), Respold (1989), Taylor and Dey (1985)
Brown et al. (1983), Beesley (1986), Bureau of Reclamation (1981), Campbell and
Lehr (1973), Davis and DeWiest (1966), Driscoll (1986), Everett (1985), Redwine
et al. (1985), Rehrn et al. (1985), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1979)
Benson (1991-review paper), Stowell (1989-review paper), Taylor et al. (1990),
Technos (1992), U.S. EPA (1987), Wheatcraft et al. (1986)
Nielsen and Aller (1984), Thornhill and Benefield (1990)
3-73
-------
Table 3-4 Index for References on Neutron and Gamma-Gamma Logging Methods
Topic
References
Neutron
General
Non-moisture applications
Soil Moisture/Vadose
Zone Monitoring
Neutron Depth Probes
Surface Neutron Probe
Access Tube Installation/
Tube/Grout Effects
Accuracy/Calibration/
Errors
Neutron Attenuation
Texts/Reports: Beck (1981), Belcher et al. (1950), Bell (1973), Gardner and
Roberts (1967), Greacen (1981), Institute of Hydrology (1981), IAEA (1970),
Johnson (1962), SPWLA (1978a), van Bavel (1958, 1963a); Review Papers:
Belcher (1952), Hodnett (1986), van Bavel (1963b), van Bavel and Underwood
(1956), Visvalingam and Tandy (1972), Zuber and Cameron (1966); Theory:
McHenry (1963), Olgaard (1965), Tittle (1961), Weinberg and Wignor (1958)
Jones and Schneider (1969-specific yield), Meyer (1962-storage coefficient),
Poeter (1988-perched water table), Schimschal (1981-hydraulic conductivity),
Senger (1985-glacial stratigraphy)
Brose and Shatz (1987), Franklin et al. (1992), Kramer et al. (1991, 1992),
McGowan and Williams (1980), Unruch et al. (1990), Wilson (1971), Wilson and
DeCook (1968); Evapotranspiration: Bowman and King (1965), van Bavel and
Stirk (1967)
Bell (1969), Bell and McCulloch (1966), Black and Mitchell (1968), deVries and
King (1961), Gardner and Kirkham (1952), Holmes and Jenldnson (1959),
Holmes and Turner (1958), Kozachyn and McHenry (1964), Long and French
(1967), Luebs et al. (1968), McHenry (1963), Pierpoint (1966), Poeter (1988),
Scholl and Honey (1983), Stewart and Taylor (1957), Stolzy and Gaboon (1957),
Stone et al. (1955), Tyler (1985), van Bavel et al. (1956, 1961); Neutron-Gamma:
Belcher (1952), Belcher et al. (1950), Couchat et al. (1979), van Bavel and
Underwood (1956)
Belcher et al. (1952), Cope and Trickett (1965), Phillips et al. (1960), van Bavel
(1961)
Amoozegar et al. (1989), Glenn et al. (1980), Hanks and Bowers (1960), Keller et
al. (1990), Kozachyn and McHenry (1964), Kramer et al. (1990), Myhre et al.
(1969), Rawitz (1969), Richardson (1966), Teasdale and Johnson (1970)
Abeele (1979), Bell and Eeles (1967), Carneiro and De Jong (1985), Cohen
(1964), Douglass (1966), Gomat and Goldberg (1972), Greacen and Hignett
(1979), Greacen and Schrale (1976), Greacen et al. (1981), Halvorson (1986),
Hammermeister et al. (1985), Hauser (1984), Haverkamp et al. (1984), Hewlett et
al. (1964), Hodnett and Bell (1991), Holland (1969), Holmes (1956, 1966), Hsieh
and Enfield (1974), Lai (1974, 1979), Lawless et al. (1963), McCauley and Stone
(1972), Mortier et al. (1960), Nakayama and Reginato (1982), Olgaard and Haahr
(1968), Parks and Siam (1979), Rawitz (1969), Rawls and Asmussen (1973),
Reginato and Nakayama (1988), Shirazi and Isobe (1976), Sinclair and Williams
(1979), Stewart and Taylor (1957), Stolzy and Gaboon (1957), Stone et al. (1960),
Trader (1964), Tyler (1988), Ursic (1967), Vachaud et al. (1977), van Bavel
(1962), van Bavel et al. (1961)
Gardner and Calissendorff (1967), Stewart and Gardner (1969)
3-74
-------
Table 3-4 (cont)
Topic
References
Gamma-Gamma
Basic Theory
Applications
Davidson et al. (1963), Dmitriyev (1966), Gurr (1962), Ferguson and Gardner
(1962), Fritton (1969), van Bavel et al. (1957); Temperature Effects; Kriz (1969),
Dgon (1969), Reginato and Jackson (1971), Reginato and Stout (1970), Smith et
al. (1967)
Dual Gamma Attenuation; Corey et al. (1971), Gardner and Calissendorff (1967),
Gardner et al. (1969, 1972), Goit et al. (1978), Mansell et al. (1973), Nofiziger
(1978), Nofeiger and Swartzendruber (1974), Soane (1967), Wood and Collis-
George (1980); Single-Gamma Attenuation: Ashton (1956), Ferguson and
Gardner (1962~laboratory), Gurr (1962-laboratory), Hsieh et al. (1972),
Reginato (1974), Reginato and van Bavel (1964); Double-Probe; Fleming et al.
(1993), Ryhiner and Pankow (1969), Soane and Hensall (1979)
3-75
-------
SECTION 3 REFERENCES
Abeele, W.V. 1979. Influence of Access Hole Parameters on Neutron Moisture Probe Readings. LA-8094-MS. Los Alamos
Scientific Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM.
Abragam, A. 1961. The Principles of Nuclear Magnetism. Clarendon Press, Oxford, England, 599 pp.
Adams, J.A.S. and P. Gasparini. 1970. Methods in Geochemistry and Geophysics: Gamma Ray Spectrometry of Rocks. Elsevier,
New York, NY, 280 pp.
Adams, W.M., S.W. Wheatcraft, and J.W. Hess. 1983. Downhole Sensing Equipment for Hazardous Waste Site Investigations. In:
Proc. (4th) Nat Conf. on Management of Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites, Hazardous Materials Control Research
Institute, Silver Spring, MD, pp. 108-113.
American Petroleum Institute (API). 1974. Recommended Practice for Standard Calibration and Format for Nuclear Logs. API RP
33. API, Washington, DC. [Gamma neutron]
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1988. Standard Test Method for Water Content of Soil and Rock In Place by
Nuclear Methods (Shallow Depth). D3017-88, (Vol. 4.08), ASTM, Philadelphia, PA. [Neutron probe]
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1991a. Standard Test Method for Density of Soil and Rock In-Place at
Depths Below the Surface by Nuclear Methods. D5195-91, (Vol. 4.08), ASTM, Philadelphia, PA. [Gamma-gamma]
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1991b. Standard Test Methods for Density of Soil and Soil-Aggregate In
Place by Nuclear Methods (Shallow Depth). D2922-91, (Vol. 4.08), ASTM, Philadelphia, PA. [Gamma backscatter and
direct transmission methods]
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1991C. Standard Test Method for Crosshole Seismic Testing. D4428/D4428M-
91, (Vol. 4.08), ASTM, Philadelphia, PA.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1992. Standard Test Method for Water Content of Soil and Rock In-Place by
the Neutron Depth Probe Method. D5220-92, (Vol 4.08), ASTM, Philadelphia, PA.
Amoozegar, A., K.C. Martin, and M.T. Hoover. 1989. Effect of Access Hole Properties on Soil Water Content Determination by
Neutron Thermalization. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 53:330-335.
Anderson, D.L, and A.M. Dziewonski. 1984. Seismic Tomography. Scientific American 251(4):60.
Ashton, F.M. 1956. Effects of a Series of Cycles of Alternating Low and High Soil Water Content on the Rate of Apparent
Photosynthesis of Sugar Cane. Plant Physiol. 31:266-274. [Single-gamma attenuation]
Asquith, G. and C. Gibson. 1982. Basic Well Log Analysis for Geologists. American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa,
OK, 216 pp.
Balch, AH. and M.W. Lee (eds.). 1984. Vertical Seismic Profiling: Techniques, Applications, and Case Histories. International
Human Resource Development Corporation, Boston, MA, 488 pp.
Bateman, R.M. 1985. Log Quality Control. Boston International Human Resources Development Corporation, Boston, MA, 398
pp.
Bates, R., D. Phillips, and B. Hoekstra. 1991. Geophysical Surveys for Fracture Mapping and Solution Cavity Delineation. In:
Ground Water Management 7:659-673 (8th NWWA Eastern GW Conference). [Shear wave refraction, cross-borehole
tomography]
Beck, A.E. 1981. Physical Principles of Exploration Methods. Macmillan, New York, NY, 234 pp. (Reprinted in 1982 with
corrections). [Neutron probe]
Becsley, K. 1986. Downhole Geophysics. In: Ground Water Occurrence, Development and Protection. T.W. Brandon (ed.),
Institute of Water Engineers and Scientists Water Practice Manual 5, London, Chapter 9.
3-76
-------
Belcher, D. 1952. The Measurement of Soil Moisture and Density by Neutron and Gamma-Ray Scattering. In: Frost Action in
Soils, A Symposium. Highway Res. Board Special Report No. 2. National Res. Council Publ. 213, Washington, DC, pp.
98-110.
Belcher, D J., T.R. Cuykendall, and H.S. Sack. 1950. The Measurement of Soil Moisture and Density by Neutron and Gamma Ray
Scattering. Civil Aeronautics Administration Technical Development Report No. 127, Washington, DC, 20 pp.
Belcher, D J., T.R. Cuykendall, and H.S. Sack. 1952. Nuclear Methods for Measuring Soil Density and Moisture in Thin Soil Layers.
Civil Aeronautics Administration Technical Development Report No. 161, Washington, DC, 8 pp.
Bell, J. 1969. A New Design Principle for Neutron Soil Moisture Gages: The "WaUingford" Neutron Probe. Soil Science 198:160-
164.
Bell, J.P. 1973. Neutron Probe Practices. Institute of Hydrology Report No. 19, Wallingford, Oxon, U.K.
BeD, J. and C. Eeles. 1967. Neutron Random Counting Error in Terms of Soil Moisture for Nonlinear Calibration Curves. Soil
Science 103:1-3.
Bell, J. and J. McCulloch. 1966. Soil Moisture Estimation by the Neutron Scattering Method in Britain. J. Hydrology 4:254-263.
Bennett, G.D. and E.P. Patten, Jr. 1960. Borehole Geophysical Methods for Analyzing Specific Capacity of Multiaquifer Wells.
U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1536-A.
Benson, R.C. 1991. Remote Sensing and Geophysical Methods for Evaluation of Subsurface Conditions. In: Practical Handbook of
Ground-Water Monitoring, D.M. Nielsen (ed.), Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI, pp. 143-194.
Bigelow, E.L. 1985. Making More Intelligent Use of Log Derived Dip Information, Parts I-V. Log Analyst 26(1):41-51; 26(2Y25-41-
26(3):18-31; 26(4):21-43; 26(5):25-64.
Birdwell Division. 1973. Geophysical Well Log Interpretation. Birdwell Division, Seismograph Service Corporation, Tulsa, OK, ed.
(BirdweU Division is no longer in operation.) [SP, resistivity, gamma, gamma-gamma, neutron, fluid conductivity,
temperature, 3-D velocity].
Black, J. and P. Mitchell. 1968. Near Surface Soil Moisture Measurement with a Neutron Probe. J. Aust. Inst. Agric. Sci 34-181-
182.
Blizard, E.P. 1958. Nuclear Radiation Shielding. In: Nuclear Engineering, H. Etherington (ed.), McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Bouwer, H. and R.D. Jackson. 1974. Determining Soil Properties. In: Drainage for Agriculture, J. van Schilfgaarde (ed.), ASA
Agronomy Monograph No. 17, American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI, pp. 611-672. [Gamma-gamma, neutron
probe]
Bowman, D.H. and K.M. King. 1965. Determination of Evapotranspiration Using the Neutron Scattering Method. Can. J. Soil
Science 45:117-126.
Brakensiek, D.L., H.B. Osborn, and WJ. Rawls. 1979. Field Manual for Research in Agricultural Hydrology. U.S. Department of
Agriculture Handbook No. 224. [Gamma-gamma, neutron probe]
Brose, RJ. and R.W. Shatz. 1987. Neutron Monitoring in the Unsaturated Zone. In: Proc. 1st Nat. Outdoor Action Conf. on
Aquifer Restoration, Ground Water Monitoring and Geophysical Methods, National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH,
pp. 455-465.
Brown, R.H., A-A. Konoptyantsev, J. Ineson, and V.S. Kovalensfcy. 1983. Ground-Water Studies: An International Guide for
Research and Practice. Studies and Reports in Hydrology No. 7. UNESCO, Paris. (Originally published in 1972, with
supplements added in 1973,1975,1977, and 1983.) [Section 9 covers borehole geophysical techniques]
Bureau of Reclamation. 1981. Ground Water Manual-A Water Resources Technical Publication, 2nd edition. U.S. Department of
the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, CO, 480 pp.
Butler, D.K. and J.R. Curro, Jr. 1981. Crpsshole Seismic Testing-Procedures and Pitfalls. Geophysics 46(l):23-29.
3-77
-------
Campbell, M.D. and J.H. Lehr. 1973. Water Well Technology. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 681 pp. [Annotated bibliography
contains over 600 references]
Canadian Well Logging Society. (Various dates). Biannual Formation Evaluation Symposium Series. Canadian Well Logging
Society, Calgary. (Published symposia include: 2nd [1968], 6th [1977], 7th [1979], 8th [1981], 9th [1983], llth [1987], 12th
[1989], and 13th [1991].)
Carneiro, C and E. De Jong. 1985. In Situ Determination of the Slope of the Calibration Curve of a Neutron Probe Using a
Volumetric Technique. Soil Science 139:250-254.
CH2M Hill. 1991. Proceedings: NSF/EPRI Workshop on Dynamic Soil Properties and Site Characterization, Vol 1. EPRI NP-7337.
Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA. [Chapter 3 Low- and High-Strain Cyclic Material Properties covers
uphole-downhole seismic methods]
Cohen, O.P. 1964. A Procedure for Calibrating Neutron Moisture Probes in the Field. Israel J. Agric. Res. 14:169-178.
Collier, H. A. 1989. Assessment of the Dielectric Tool as a Porosity Log. In: Proc. Third Nat. Outdoor Action Conf. on Aquifer
Restoration, Ground Water Monitoring and Geophysical Methods, National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH, pp. 151-
165.
Cope, F. and E. Trickett. 1965. Measuring Soil Moisture. Soil and Fertilizers 28:201-208. [Surface neutron probe]
Corey, J.C., S.F. Peterson, and M.A. Wakat 1971. Measurement of Attenuation of 137Cks and M1Am Gamma Rays for Soil Density
and Water Content Determinations. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 35:215-219.
Couchat, P., P. Moutonnet, and M. Puard. 1979. The Application of the Gamma Neutron Method for Transport Studies in Field
Soils. Water Resources Research 15:1583-1588.
Cronk, T.A. and P.M. Kearl. 1991. The Colloidal Horoscope: A Means of Assessing Local Colloidal Flux and Ground water
Velocity in Porous Media. In: 2nd Int. Symp. Field Screening Methods for Hazardous Wastes and Toxic Chemicals.
EPA/600/9-91/028 (NTIS PB92-125764), pp. 631-632.
Daily, W. and E. Owen. 1991. Cross-Borehole Resistivity Tomography. Geophysics 56(8):1228-1235.
Daniels, JJ. 1983. Hole-to-Surface Resistivity Measurements. Geophysics 48(l):87-97.
Davidson, J.M., J.W Biggar, and D.R. Nielsen. 1963. Gamma Radiation Attenuation for Measuring Bulk Density and Transient
Water Flow in Porous Media. J. Geophys. Res. 68:4477-4783.
Davis, R.W. 1989. Developments in Cross Borehole Tomography. In: Proc. (2nd) Symp. on the Application of Geophysics to
Engineering and Environmental Problems, Soc. Eng. and Mineral Exploration Geophysicists, Golden, CO, pp. 262-274.
Davis, S.N. and RJ.M. DeWiest. 1966. Hydrogeology. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 463 pp. [Chapter 8 covers surface and
borehole geophysical methods]
Davis, S.N., DJ. Campbell, H.W. Bentley, and TJ. Ffynn. 1985. Introduction to Ground Water Tracers. EPA/600/2-85/022 (NTIS
PB86-100591). Also published under the title Ground Water Tracers in NWWA/EPA Series, National Water Well
Association, Dublin, OH, 200 pp. (See also, 1986 discussion by J.F. Quinlan in Ground Water 24(2):253-259 and 24(3):396-
397 and reply by S.N. Davis in Ground Water 24(3):398-399>)
Desaubies, Y., A. Tarantola, and J. Zinn-Justin (eds.). 1990. Oceanographic and Geophysical Tomography. Elsevier, New York,
NY, 463 pp.
deVries. J. and K.M. King. 1961. Note on the Volume of Influence of a Neutron Surface Moisture Pirpbe. Can. J. Soil Science
41:253-257.
Dmitriyev, M.T. 1966. Gammascopic Measurement of Soil Moisture. Soviet Soil Science (Pchvovedenie) 2:208-217.
Douglass, J.E. 1966. Volumetric Calibration of Neutron Moisture Probes. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 30:541-544.
Doveton, S.H. 1986. Log Analysis of Subsurface Geology: Concepts and Computer Models. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY,
273pp.
3-78
-------
Dresser Atlas. 1974. Log Review 1. Dresser Atlas Division, Dresser Industries, Houston, TX. [Induction, resistivity, acoustic
velocity, gamma-gamma, neutron-gamma, diplog, neutron lifetime]
Dresser Atlas. 1975. Log Interpretation Fundamentals. Dresser Atlas Division, Dresser Industries, Houston, TX, 125 pp.
Dresser Atlas. 1979. Log Interpretation Charts. Dresser Atlas Division, Dresser Industries, Houston, TX.
Dresser Atlas. 1982. Well Logging and Interpretation Techniques: The Course for Home Study. Dresser Atlas Division, Dresser
Industries, Houston, TX, 350 pp.
Driscoll. F.G. 1986. Groundwater and Wells, 2nd edition. Johnson Filtration Systems Inc., St. Paul, MN, 1089 pp. [Chapter 8 covers
borehole geophysical methods: resistivity, SP, gamma, gamma-gamma, neutron, acoustic, temperature, caliper and fluid
velocity]
Ellis, D.V. 1987. Well Logging for Earth Scientists. Elsevier, New York, NY, 532 pp. [SP, resistivity, induction, gamma, neutron,
acoustic]
Emerson, D.W. and S.S. Webster. 1970. Interpretation of Geophysical Logs in Bores in Unconsolidated Sediments. Australian
Water Resources Council Research Project 68/7-Phase I, 212 pp.
Everett, L.G. 1985. Groundwater Monitoring Handbook for Coal and Oil Shale Development Elsevier, New York, NY. [Section 8
covers borehole geophysical methods: temperature, caliper, gamma, flow, radioactive tracer, 3-D velocity (acoustic
waveform), acoustic, gamma-gamma, electric, acoustic-televiewer]
Everett, L.G., L.G. Wilson, and E.W. Hoylman. 1983. Vadose Zone Monitoring for Hazardous Waste Sites. EPA/600/X-83AJ64
(NTIS PB84-212752). Also published in 1984 by Noyes Data Corporation, Park Ridge, NJ.
Ferguson, J. and W.H. Gardner. 1962. Water Content Measurement in Soil Columns by Gamma Ray Absorption. Soil Sci. Soc.
Am. Proc. 26:11-18.
Fleming, R.L., T.A. Black, and N.R. Eldridge. 1993. Water Content, Bulk Density, and Coarse Fragment Content Measurement in
Forest Soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 57:261-270. [Double probe gamma-gamma]
Foster, N.H. and E.A Beaumont (eds.). 1990. Formation Evaluation I: Log Evaluation; II: Log Interpretation. Reprint Series Nos.
16 and 17, American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, OK, (I) 742 pp., (II) 600 pp. [Resistivity, SP, gamma,
porosity, dip meter, other logs]
Franklin, JJ., M.E. Unruh, and V. Suryasasmita. 1992. Neutron Probe Monitoring in the Unsaturated Zone: Case Histories from
Several Sites Comparing Problems and Utility of Horizontal and Vertical Access Tube Installations. Ground Water
Management 11:103-117 (6th NOAC).
Fritton, D.D. 1969. Resolving Time, Mass Absorption Coefficient and Water Content with Gamma Ray Attenuation. Soil Sci Soc.
Am. Proc. 33:651-655.
Fromme, C., B.P. Knape, and B. Thompson. 1991. Development of Remote Tank Inspection (RTT) Robotic System. In: 2nd Int.
Symp. Field Screening Methods for Hazardous Wastes and Toxic Chemicals. EPA/600/9-91/028 (NTIS PB92-125764), pp
197:204. ' VV
Gairon, S. and A. Hadas. 1973. Measurement of Water Status in Soils. In: Arid Zone Irrigation, B. Yaron, E. Danfoss, and Y.
Vaadia (eds.), Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, pp. 215-226. [Neutron probe]
GaPperin, E.I. 1974. Vertical Seismic Profiling. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, OK, 278 pp.
Gardner, W.H. 1986. Water Content In: Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1, 2nd edition, A. Klute (ed.), Agronomy Monograph No.
9. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI, pp. 493-544. [Gamma-gamma, neutron]
Gardner, W.H. and C. Calissendorff. 1967. Gamma Ray and Neutron Attenuation Measurement of Soil Bulk Density and Water
Content In: Isotopes and Radiation Techniques. Proc. of Symp. Techniques in Soil Physics and Irrigation Studies
(Istanbul), International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, pp. 101-113.
Gardner, W.H. and D. Kirkham. 1952. Determination of Soil Moisture by Neutron Scattering. Soil Science 73:391-401.
3-79
-------
Gardner, R.P. and K.F. Roberts. 1967. Density and Moisture Content Measurement by Nuclear Methods. Nat. Coop. Highway Res.
Program Report 43.
Gardner, W.H., G.S. Campbell, and C. Calissendorff. 1969. Water Content and Soil Bulk Density Measurement Concurrently Using
Two Gamma Photon Energies. AEC Report RLO-1543-6. Washington State University, Pullman, WA, 42 pp.
Gardner, W.H., G.S. Campbell, and C. Calissendorff. 1972. Systematic and Random Errors in DualGamma Energy Soil Bulk
Density and Water Content Measurements. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 36:393-398.
Gearhart Industries. 1982. Basic Cement Bond Log Evaluation. Gearhart Industries, Inc., Charleston, WV, 36 pp.
Glenn, D., R. Henderson, and F. Bolton. 1980. A Retractable Neutron-Probe Access Tube. Agronomy J. 72:1067-1068.
Goit, J.B., P.H. Groenevelt, B.D. Kay, and J.G.P. Loch. 1978. The Applicability of Dual Gamma Scanning to Freezing Soils and the
Problem of Stratification. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 42:858-863.
Gornat, B. and D. Goldberg. 1972. The Relation Between Moisture Measurements With a Neutron Probe and Soil Texture. Soil
Science 114:254-258.
Greacen, EX. (ed.). 1981. Soil Water Assessments by the Neutron Method. ISBN 0 643 004 14 9. CSIRO, East Melbourne.
Greacen, E.L. and C.T. Hignett. 1979. Sources of Bias in the Field Calibration of a Neutron Meter. Aust. J. Soil Res. 17:405-415.
Greacen, E.L. and G. Schrale. 1976. The Effect of Bulk Density on Neutron Meter Calibration. Aust. J. Soil Res. 14:159-169.
Greacen, E.L., R.L. Correll, R.B. Cunningham, G.G. Johns, and K.D. Nicolls. 1981. Calibration. In: Soil Water Assessments by the
Neutron Method, E.L. Greacen (ed.), CSIRO, East Melbourne, pp. 50-81.
Gurr, C 1962. Use of Gamma Rays in Measuring Water Content and Permeability in Unsaturated Columns of Soil. Soil Science
94:224-229.
Guyod, H. 1952. Electrical Well Logging Fundamentals. Well Instruments Developing Co., Houston, IX, 164 pp.
Guyod, H. 1957. Resistivity Determination from Electric Logs. (Published by) Hubert Guyod, Houston, TX.
Guyod, H. 1958. Electric Analogue for Resistivity Logging. (Published by) Hubert Guyod, Houston, TX.
Guyod, H. 1965. Interpretation of Electric and Gamma Ray Logs in Water Wells. Am. Geophysical Union Technical Paper.
Mandrel Industries, Inc. Houston, TX.
Guyod, H. and J.A. Pranglin. 1959. Analysis Charts for the Determination of True Resistivity from Electric Logs. (Published by)
Hubert Guyod, Houston TX, 202 pp.
Guyod, H. and L.E. Shane. 1969. Geophysical Well Logging, Vol. I: Introduction to Geophysical Well Logging and Acoustical
Logging. (Published by) Hubert Guyod, Houston TX, 256 pp. [Part I covers general well logging equipment principles,
Part II covers acoustical logging]
Hall,S.H. 1993. Single Well Tracer Tests hi Aquifer Characterization. Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation 13(2):118-124.
HaUenberg, J.K. 1983. Geophysical Logging for Mineral and Engineering Applications. Penn Well Books, 264 pp.
Hallenberg, J.K. 1984. Formation Evaluation Programs. Penn Well Books, 120 pp.
Halvorson, G.A. 1986. Neutron Moisture Meter Calibration for Minespoils Containing Coal. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 50:496-498.
Hamilton, R.G. and J.I. Myung. 1979. Summary of Geophysical Well Logging. Birdwell Division, Seismograph Service Corporation,
Tulsa, OK, 32 pp.
Hammenneister, D.P., C.R. Kneiblher, and J. Klenke. 1985. Borehole Calibration Methods Used in Cased and Uncased Test Holes
to Determine Moisture Profiles in the Unsaturated Zone, Yucca Mountain, Nevada. In: Proc. Conf. on Characterization
and Monitoring of the Vadose (Unsaturated) Zone, National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH, pp. 542-563.
3-80
-------
Hanks, RJ. and S.A Bowers. 1960. Neutron Meter Access Tube Influences Soil Temperature. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 24:62-63.
Hardage, B.A. 1985. Vertical Seismic Profiling, Part A: Principles, 2nd enlarged edition. Seismic Exploration Volume 14A,
Geophysical Press, London, 450 pp. (1st edition 1982.)
Hauser, V.L. 1984. Neutron Meter Calibration and Error Control. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 27:722-728.
Haverkamp, R., M. Vauclin, and G. Vachaud. 1984. Error Analysis in Estimating Soil Water Content from Neutron Probe
Measurements: 1. Local Standpoint. Soil Science 135:78-90.
Head, WJ. and B.A. Kososki. 1979. Borehole Gravity A New Tool for the Ground-Water Hydrologist (. Abstract1) Trans Am
Geophys. Union 60:248. , .
Hearst, J.R. and R.C. Carlson. 1982. Measurement and Analysis of Gravity in Boreholes. Developments in Geophysical Exploration
Methods 4:269-303.
Hearst, J.R. and P.H. Nelson. 1985. Well Logging for Physical Properties. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 571 pp.
Helander, D.P. 1983. Fundamentals of Formation Evaluation. Oil & Gas Consultants International Publications, Tulsa, OK, 332 DD
[SP, resistivity, acoustic, radiation] -».«••
Hendrickx,J.M.H. 1990. Determination of Hydraulic Soil Properties. In: Process Studies in Hillslope Hydrology, M G Anderson
and T.P. Burt (eds.), John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, pp. 43-92. [Neutron probe]
Hess, K.M. and S.H. Wolf. 1991. Techniques to Determine Spatial Variations in Hydraulic Conductivity of Sand and Gravel
EPA/600/2-91/006 (NTIS PB91-109123). [Laboratory core permeability tests and impeller flowmeter]
Hewlett, J.D., I.E. Douglass, and J.L. Clutter. 1964. Instrumental and Soil Moisture Variance Using the Neutron-Scattering Method
Soil Science 97:19-24. '
Hilchie, D.W. 1979. Old (Pre-1958) Electrical Log Interpretation. Institutes for Energy Development, Tulsa, OK.
Hilchie, D.W. 1982a. Applied Open Hole Log Interpretation for Geologists and Engineers, 2nd edition. D.W. Hilchie, Inc.,
Golden, CO, 400+ pp. [SP, induction, acoustic, gamma, gamma-gamma, neutron, dipmeter]
Hilchie, D.W. 1982b. Advanced Well Log Interpretation. D.W. Hilchie, Inc., Golden, CO, 353 pp.
Hillel, D. 1971. Soil and Water Physical Principles and Processes. Academic Press, New York, NY. [Neutron probe]
Hoar, RJ. and K.H. Stokoe, II. 1977. Generation and Measurement of Shear Waves In Situ. In: Dynamic Geotechnical Testing,
ASTM STP 654, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 3-29.
Hodges, R.E. and W.E. Teasdale. 1991. Considerations Related to Drilling Methods in Planning and Performing Borehole-
Geophysical Logging for Ground-Water Studies. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resource Investigations Report 91-409
(NTIS PB92-155688), 22 pp. [Caliper, gamma, gamma-spectral, gamma-gamma, neutron, electric, acoustic velocity, acoustic
televiewer, temperature, flowmeters]
Hodnett, M.G. 1986. The Neutron Probe for Soil Moisture Measurements. In: Advanced Agricultural Instrumentation, W Gensler
(ed.), Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Hodnett, M.G. and J.P. Bell. 1991. Neutron Probe Standards: Transport Shields or a Large Drum of Water? Soil Science 151:113-
i^U*
Holland, D.A. 1969. The Construction of Calibration Curves for Determining Water Content from Radiation Counts J Soil
Science 20:132-140. ' '
Holmes, J.W. 1956. Calibration and Field Use of the Neutron Scattering Method of Measuring Soil Water Content Aust.J.Appl.
~
Holines, J.W. 1966. Influence of Bulk Density of the Soil on Neutron Moisture Meter Calibration. Soil Science 102:355-360.
Holmes, J.W. and A.F. Jenkinson. 1959. Techniques for Using the Neutron Moisture Meter. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 4:100-109.
3-81
-------
Holmes, J.W. and K.G. Turner. 1958. The Measurement of Water Content of Soils by Neutron Scattering A Portable Apparatus
for Field Use. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 3:199-204.
Holmes, J.W..S.A. Taylor, and JJ. Richards. 1967. Measurement of Soil Water. In: Irrigation of Agri^ltural UmdsR.M.Hagan,
H.R. Haise, and T.W. Edminster (eds.), Agronomy Monograph No. 11, American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI, pp.
275-298. [Neutron probe]
Hsich, J J.C. and C.G. EnGeld. 1974. Steady State Methods of Measuring Unsaturated Hydraulic Conductivity. Communications in
Soil Survey and Plant Analysis 5(2):123-129. [Neutron probe calibration]
Hsieh, JJ.C, W.H. Gardner, and G.S. Campbell. 1972. Experimental Control of Soil Water Content in the Vicinity of Root Hairs.
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 36:418-421. [Single-gamma attenuation]
Iddings, F.A., L.W. Miller, CE. Pepper, and G.A. Keller. 1979. Determination of Cement Content in Soil-Cement Mixtures and
Concrete by Neutron Activation Analysis. In: Interm. Adv. Nondest. Test. 6:199-237.
Institute of Hydrology. 1981. User's Handbook for the Institute of Hydrology Neutron Probe System. Institute of Hydrology Report
No. 79, Wallingford, Oson, U.K.
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 1968. Guidebook of Nuclear Techniques in Hydrology. Technical Report No. 91.
IAEA, Vienna.
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 1970. Neutron Moisture Gauges. Technical Report No. 112. IAEA, Vienna.
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 1971. Nuclear Well Logging in Hydrology. Technical Report No. 126. IAEA, Vienna,
92pp.
Jackson, JA. 1984. Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Well Logging. The Log Analyst 25(5):16-30.
Johnson, A.I 1962. Methods of Measuring Soil Moisture in the Field. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1919-U, 25 pp.
Johnson, A.I. 1968. An Outline of Geophysical Logging Methods and their Uses in Hydrogeological Studies. U.S. Geological
Survey Water-Supply Paper 1892, pp. 158-164.
Johnson, A.I. and J.P. Gnaedinger. 1964. Bibliography. In: Symposium on SoU Exploration, ASTMSTP 351, American Sodety for
' Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 137-155. [Electrical borehole logging (48 refs); nuclear borehole logguig (40
reft), borehole camera (13 refs); neutron moisture measurement (50 refe)]
Jones, O.R. and AJX Schneider. 1969. Determining Specific Yield of The Ogallala Aquifer by the Neutron Method. Water
Resources Research 5(6):1267-1272.
Jorgensen,D. 1989. Using Geophysical Logs to Estimate Porosity, Water Resistivity, and Intrinsic Permeability. U.S. Geological
Survey Water-Supply Paper 2321, 24 pp.
Kaufman, AA. and G.V. Keller. 1989. Induction Logging. Elsevier, New York, NY.
Kearl, P.M., N.E. Korte, and XA. Cronk. 1992. Suggested Modifications to Ground Water Sampling Procedures Based on
Observations from the Colloidal Boroscope. Ground Water Monitoring Review 12(2): 155-161.
Keech, D.A. 1988. Hydrocarbon Thickness on Groundwater by Dielectric Well Logging. In: Proc, (5th) NWWA/API Conf. on
' Peuoleum Hydrocarbons and Organic Chemicals in Ground Water Prevention, Detection and Restoration, National Water
Well Association, Dublin, OH, pp. 275-289.
Keller, G.V. and F.C. Frischknecht 1970. Electrical Methods in Geophysical Prospecting, 2nd edition. Pergamon Press, New York,
NY, 517 pp. (First edition 1966.)
Keller, B.R., L.G. Everett, and RJ. Marks. 1990. Effects of Access Tube Material and Grout on Neutron Probe Measurements in
the Vadose Zone. Ground Water Monitoring Review 10(1):96-100.
Kelly, D.R. 1969. A Summary of Geophysical Logging Methods. Pennsylvania Geological Survey Bulletin M61,88 pp.
3-82
-------
Keys,W.S. 1990. Borehole Geophysics Applied to Ground-Water Investigations. U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-
Resource Investigations TWRI 2-E2,150 pp. (Supersedes report originally published in 1988 under the same title as U.S.
Geological Survey Open-FUe Report 87-539, 303 pp., which was published in 1989 with the same title by the National
Water Well Association, Dublin, OH, 313 pp.) (Complements Keys and MacCary [1971].)
Keys, W.S. and L.M. MacCary. 1971. Application of Borehole Geophysics to Water Resource Investigations. TWRI 2-E1. U.S.
Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, 126 pp. (Reprinted, 1990; see, also Keys, 1990.)
Killeen, P.O. 1982. Gamma-Ray Logging and Interpretation. Developments in Geophysical Exploration Methods 3:95-150.
Killeen, P.O. (ed.). 1985. Borehole Geophysics for Mining and Geotechnical Applications. Geological Survey of Canada Paper 85-
*tl* . ' -
Kraachyn, J. and J. McHenry. 1964. A Method for Installation of Access Tubes and the Development of Field Equipment for
Measuring Soil Moisture by Neutron Scatter. Agronomy J. 56:443-444.
Kramer, J.H., L.G. Everett, and L.A. Eccles. 1990. Effect of Well Construction Materials on Neutron Probe Readings with
Implications for Vadose Zone Monitoring Strategies. Ground Water Management 2:1303-1317 (4th NOAC).
Kramer, J.H., L.G. Everett, and S. Cullen. 1991. Innovative Vadose Zone Monitoring at Landfill Using the Neutron Probe Ground
Water Management 5:135-149 (5th NOAC).
Kramer, J.H., J. Cullen, and UG. Everett. 1992. Vadose Monitoring with the Neutron Moisture Probe. Ground Water Monitoring
Review 12(3):177-187. (See also, discussion by M.A. Williams and reply by J.H. Kramer in Ground Water Monitoring &
Remediation 13(1):159-162.)
Kriz, GJ. 1969. Temperature Effects on Gamma-Ray Attenuation Equipment. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 12(6):870-873.
Labo,J. 1987. A Practical Introduction to Borehole Geophysics. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tuba, OK, 336 pp. rGamnia-
gamma, gravity, acoustic, VSP, dipmeter]
Lai, R. 1974. The Effect of Soil Texture and Density on the Neutron Density Probe Calibration for Some Tropical Soils. Soil
Science 117:183-190.
Lai, R. 1979. Concentration of Size of Gravel in Relation to Neutron Moisture and Density Probe Calibration. Soil Science 127:41-
Lawless, G., N. MacGilhvray, and P. Nixon. 1963. Soil Moisture Interface Effects Upon Readings of Neutron Soil Moisture Probes
Soil Set. Soc. Am. Proc. 27:7-502-507. '
LeRoy, L.W., P.O. LeRoy, S.D. Schwochow, and J.W. Raese (eds.). 1987. Subsurface Geology, 5th edition. Colorado School of
Mines, Golden, CO. (1st edition: LeRoy and Cran [1947], 2nd edition: LeRoy [1951], 3rd edition: Huan and LeRov f!9581
and 4th edition [1977].) l "
Dgon, J.T. 1969. Evaluation of the Gamma Transmission Method for Determining Soil-Water Balance and Evapotranspiration
Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 12:121-126.
Lines, L.R. and J.A. Scales (eds.) 1987. Geophysical Imaging. Symposium of the Geophysical Society of Tulsa, available from
Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, OK, 225 pp. [Tomography, inversion, migration, computer-related issues]
Long, I.F. and B.K. French. 1967. Measurement of Soil Moisture in the Field by Neutron Moderation. J. Soil Science 18:149-166.
Luebs, R.E., MJ. Brown, and A.E. Laag. 1968. Determining Water Content of Different Soils by the Neutron Method Soil
Science 106:207-212.
Lynch, EJ. 1962. Formation Evaluation. Harper and Row, New York, NY, 422 pp.
Lytle, R J., E.F. Laine, D.L. Lager, and D.T. Davis. 1979. Cross-Borehole Electromagnetic Probing to Locate High-Contrast
Anomalies. Geophysics 44(10):1167-1676.
Mahannah, J.L., AJ. Witten, and W.C. King. 1988. Use of Geophysical Diffraction Tomography for Hazardous Waste Site
Characterization. In: Superfund '88, Hazardous Materials Control and Research Institute, Silver Spring, MD, pp. 152-156.
3-83
-------
Mansell, R.S., L.C Hammond, and R.M. McCurdy. 1973. Coincidence and Interference Corrections for Dual-Energy Gamma Ray
Measurements of Soil Density and Water Content Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 37:500-504.
McCauley, G.N. and J.F. Stone. 1972. Source-Detector Geometry Effect on Neutron Probe Calibration. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc.
36:246-250.
McGowan, M. and J.B. Williams. 1980. The Water Balance of an Agricultural Catchment. I: Estimation! of Evaporation for Soil
Water Records. J. Soil Science 31:217-230. [Neutron probe]
McHenry, J.R. 1963. Theory and Application of Neutron Scattering in the Measurement of Soil Moisture. Soil Science 95:294-307.
McNeill, J.D. 1986. Geonics EM39 Borehole Conductivity Meter-Theory of Operations. Technical Note 20, Geonics Ltd.,
Mississauga, Ontario, 11 pp.
McNeil!, J.D., M. Bosnar, and F.B. Snelgrove. 1990. Resolution of an Electromagnetic Borehole Conductivity Logger for
Geotechnical and Ground Water Applications. Technical Note TN-25. Geonics Limited, Mississauga, Ontario.
Meyer, W.R. 1962. Use of a Neutron Moisture Probe to Determine the Storage Coefficient of an Unconfined Aquifer. U.S.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 450-E, pp. 174-176.
Minerals and Geotechnical Logging Society Symposia Series. 1985-1991. Proc. 1st Int. Symp. Borehole Geophysics for Minerals,
Geotechnical and Groundwater Applications (Ottawa, 1985); 2nd (Golden, CO, 1987); 3rd (Las Vegas, NV, 1989); 4th
(Ontario, 1991). Available from SPWLA.
Molz, FJ., O. Gflven, and J.G. Melville. 1990. A New Approach and Methodologies for Characterizing the Hydrogeologic
Properties of Aquifers. EPA/600/2-90/002 (NTIS PB90-187063).
Morahan, T. and R. C. Dorrier. 1984. The Application of Television Borehole Logging to Ground Water Monitoring Programs.
Ground Water Monitoring Review 4(4):172-175.
Moran, J.H. and R. Chemali. 1985. Focused Resistivity Logs. Developments in Geophysical Exploration Methods 6:225-260.
Morrison, R.D. 1983. Groundwater Monitoring Technology. Tunco Mfg., Inc. Prairie du Sac, WI, 105 pp. [Gamma-gamma, neutron
probe, nuclear magnetic resonance]
Mortier, P., M. DeBoodt, W. Donsercoer, and L. DeLeenheer. 1960. The Resolution of the Neutron Scattering Method for Soil
Moisture Determination. Trans. 7th Int. Cong. Soil Science 1:321-329.
Myhre, D., J. Sanford, and W. Jones. 1969. Apparatus and Technique for Installing Access Tubes in Sou1 Profiles to Measure Soil
Water. Soil Science 108:296-299.
Nakayama, F.S. and RJ. Reginato. 1982. Simplifying Neutron Moisture Meter Calibration. Soil Science 133:48-52.
National Water Well Association (NWWA). 1984. NWWA/EPA Conference on Surface and Borehole Geophysical Methods in
Ground Water Investigations (San Antonio, TX). NWWA, Dublin, OH.
National Water Well Association (NWWA). 1985. NWWA Conference on Surface and Borehole Geophysical Methods in Ground
Water Investigations (Fort Worth, TX). NWWA, Dublin, OH.
National Water Well Association (NWWA). 1986. Surface and Borehole Geophysical Methods and Ground Water Instrumentation
Conference and Exposition (Denver, CO). NWWA, Dublin, OH.
Nelson, R-A. 1985. Geologic Analysis of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs. Contributions in Petroleum Geology and Engineering, V.
1. Gulf Publishing, Houston, TX, 320 pp.
Nielsen, D.M. 1991. An Update on the ASTM Subcommittee on Ground Water and Vadose Zone Investigations. Ground Water
Monitoring Review ll(3):92-96.
Nielsen, D.M. and L. Aller. 1984. Methods for Determining the Mechanical Integrity of Class II Injection Wells. EPA/600/2-84/121
(NTIS PB84-215755), 263 pp. Also published in NWWA/EPA Series by the National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH.
[Temperature, noise log, EM thickness, flowmeter, radioactive tracers, cement bond]
3-84
-------
Nofziger, D.L. 1978. Errors in Gamma-Ray Measurement of Water Content and Bulk Density in Nonuniform Soils. Soil Sci. Soc.
Am. J. 42:845-850.
Nofeiger, D.L. and D. Swartzendruber. 1974. Material Content of Binary Physical Mixtures as Measured with a Dual-Energy Beam
of Gamma Rays. J. Appl. Physics 45:5443-5449.
Olgaard, P.L. 1965. On the Theory of the Neutronic Method for Measuring the Water Content of Soil. Riso Rep. 97. Danish
Atomic Energy Commission, Roskilde, Denmark, 74 pp.
Olgaard, P.L. and V. Haahr. 1968. On the Sensitivity of Subsurface Neutron Moisture Gauges to Variations in Bulk Density. Soil
Science 105:62-64.
Paillet, F.L. and C.H. Cheng. 1991. Acoustic Waves in Boreholes. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 264 pp.
Parks, M. and N. Siam. 1979. Error Associated with Measurement of Soil Moisture Change by Neutron Probe. J. Agric. Eng. Res.
24:87-93.
Patten, Jr., RP. and G.D. Bennett 1963. Application of Electrical and Radioactive Well Logging to Groundwater Hydrology. U.S.
Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1544-D, 60 pp. [Resistivity, SP, fluid conductivity, gamma]
Phillips, R.E., C.R. Jensen, and D. Kirkham. 1960. Use of Radiation Equipment for PJow-iayer Density and Moisture. Soil Science
89:2-7. [Surface neutron probe]
Pierpoint, G. 1966. Measuring Surface Soil Moisture with the Neutron Depth Probe and Surface Shield. Soil Science 101:189-192.
Pirson, S.J. 1963. Handbook of Well Log Analysis for Oil and Gas Formation Evaluation. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 326
PP-
Pirson, S.J. 1983. Geologic Well Log Analysis, 3rd edition. Gulf Publishing Co., Houston, TX. (Earlier editions 1970,1977.) [SP,
Eh, dipmeter]
Poeter, E.P. 1988. Perched Water Identification with Nuclear Logs. Ground Water 26(1):15-21. [Gamma-gamma, neutron probe]
Prensky, S.E. Various Dates. Log Analyst Geologic Applications Bibliographies. Geological Applications of Well Logs--An
Introductory Bibliography and Survey of Well Logging Literature through September 1986, Arranged by Subject and First
Author (Log Analyst, 1987: Parts A and B 28(1):71-107; Part C 28(2):219-248); Annual Update, October 1986 through
September 1987 (Log Analyst, 1987: 28(6):558-575); Bibliographic Update for October 1987 through September 1988 (Log
Analyst, 1988: 29(6):426-443); Bibliography of Well Log Applications: October 1988-September 1989 Annual Update (Log
Analyst, 1989: 30(6):448-470); October 1989-September 1990 Annual Update (Log Analyst, 1990:31(6):395-424).
Rawitz, E. 1969. Installation and Field Calibration of Neutron-Scatter Equipment for Hydrologic Research in Heterogeneous and
Stony Soils. Water Resources Research 5:519-523.
Rawls, WJ. and L.E. Asmussen. 1973. Neutron Probe Field Calibration for Soils in the Georgia Coastal Plain. Soil Science
116:262-265.
Redwine, J. et al. 1985. Groundwater Manual for the Electric Utility Industry, Volume 3: Groundwater Investigations and
Mitigation Techniques. EPRI CS-3901. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA. [Section 3 covers surface and
borehole geophysical methods]
Reginato, R J. 1974. Gamma Radiation Measurements of Bulk Density Changes in a Soil Pedon Following Irrigation. Soil Sci. Soc.
Am. Proc. 38:24-29.
Reginato, RJ. and R.D. Jackson. 1971. Field Measurement of Soil Water Content by Gamma-Ray Transmission Compensated for
Temperature Fluctuations. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 35:529-533.
Reginato, R J. and F.S. Nakayama. 1988. Neutron Probe Calibration Based on Plastic Transfer Standards. Soil Science 145:381-384.
Reginato, RJ. and K. Stout 1970. Temperature Stabilization of Gamma Ray Transmission Equipment. Soil Sci. Soc. Am Proc
34:152-153.
Reginato, RJ. and C.H.M. van Bavel. 1964. Soil Water Measurement with Gamma Attenuation. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 28:721-
3-85
-------
724.
Rchm, B.W., T.R. Stolzenburg, and D.G. Nichols. 1985. Field Measurement Methods for Hydrogeolognc Investigations: A Critical
Review of the Literature. EPRI EA-4301. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA. [Section 5 covers electrical,
nuclear, acoustic and flow logs]
Rcspold, H. 1989. Well Logging in Groundwater Development International Contributions to Hydrogeology, Vol. 9. International
Association of Hydrogeologjsts, Verlag Heinz Heise, Hannover, West Germany, 147 pp.
Richardson, B.Z. 1966. Installation of Soil Moisture Access Tribes in Rocky Soils. J. Soil and Water Conservation 21:143-145.
[Neutron probe]
Rider, M.H. 1986. The Geological Interpretation of Well Logs. Halstead Press, New York, NY, 175 pp. [SP, resistivity, induction,
gamma, spectral gamma, gamma-gamma, neutron, acoustic]
Robbins, S.L. 1986. The Use of Borehole Gravimetry in Water Well and Waste Disposal Site Evaluations. In: Proc. Surface and
Borehole Geophysical Methods and Ground Water Instrumentation Conf. and Exp., National Water Well Association,
Dublin, OH, pp. 474-496.
Robbins, G.A. and J.M. Hayden. 1988. Application of Cross-Well Voltage Measurement for Assessing Fracture Flow Hydrology.
In: Proc. of the Focus Conf. on Eastern. Regional Ground Water Issues (Stanford, CT), National Water Well Association,
Dublin, OH, pp. 28-38.
Robertson, P.K., R.G. Campanella, D. Gillespie, and A. Rice. 1986. Seismic CPT to Measure In-Situ Shear Wave Velocity. J.
Geotech. Eng. Div. ASCE 112(8):791-803.
Ross, H.P. and S.H. Ward. 1984. Borehole Electrical Geophysical Methods: A Review of the State-of-the-Art and Preliminary
Evaluation of the Application to Fracture Mapping in Geothermal Systems. Earth Science Laboratory, Univ. of Utah Res.
Inst. Rep. 12196-2.
Roy, A. 1982. Focused Resistivity Logs. Developments in Geophysical Exploration Methods 3:61-94.
Ryhiner, A. and J. Pankow. 1969. Soil Measurement by the Gamma Transmission Method. J. Hydrology 9:194-205.
Schimschal, U. 1981. The Relationship of Geophysical to Hydraulic Conductivity at the Brantley Dam Site, New Mexico.
Geoexploration 19:115-125. [Neutron probe]
Schlichter, C 1963. Principles of Magnetic Resonance. Harper and Row, New York, 397 pp.
Schlumberger Limited. 1972. Log Interpretation. Vol. I: Principles. Schlumberger Limited, New York, NY.
Schlumberger Limited. 1974. Log Interpretation. Vol. II: Applications. Schlumberger Limited, New York, NY.
Schlumberger Limited. 1989a. Log Interpretation Principles/Applications. Schlumberger Educational Services, Houston, TX.
(Earlier edition published in 1987.) [SP, resistivity, induction, dielectric, gamma, gamma-gamma, neutron, acoustic-velocity,
VSP]
Schlumberger Limited. 1989b. Cased Hole Log Interpretation Principles/Applications. Schlumberger Educational Services, Houston,
TX. [Gamma, spectral gamma, neutron, neutron lifetime, acoustic velocity, spinner flowmeter, temperature, various well
construction logs]
Schlumberger Limited. 1991. Log Interpretation Charts. Schlumberger Limited, New York, NY. (Earlier charts published in 1972,
1976,1979,1984.)
Schmugge, TJ., TJ. Jackson, and H.L. McKim. 1980. Survey of Methods for Soil Moisture Determination. Water Resources
Research 16(6):961-979. [Gamma-gamma, neutron]
Schneider, GJ. 1982. In Situ Neutron Activation Analysis. In: Premining Investigations for Hardrock Mining, U.S. Bureau of Mines
Information Circular 8891, pp. 46-54. [Neutron activation, spectral-gamma]
3-86
-------
Scholl, D.G. and W.E. Honey. 1983. An Automatic Instrument for Recording the Count Rate of a Moving Neutron Moisture
Probe. In: Proc. NWWA/EPA Conf. on Characterization and Monitoring in the Vadose (Unsaturated) Zone (1st, Las
Vegas, NV), National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH, pp. 602-608.
Schonstedt Instrument Company. Undated. MG-220 Magnetic Gradiometer. Schonstedt Instrument Company, Reston, VA.
Scott, J.H. and B.L. Tibbets. 1974. Well Log Techniques for Mineral Deposit Evaluation: A Review. U.S. Bureau of Mines
Information Circular 3627, 45 pp.
Scott, J.H., R.L. Seeley, and JJ. Earth. 1981. A Magnetic Susceptibility Well Logging System for Mineral Exploration. Trans. 22nd
Annual SPWLA Logging Symposium, Society of Professional Well Log Analysts, Houston, TX.
Senger, JLA. 1985. Defining Glacial Stratigraphy with the Neutron Log. In: NWWA Conf. on Surface and Borehole Geophysical
Methods in Ground Water Investigations (2nd, Fort Worth, TX), National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH, pp. 355-
j /U.
Serra, O. 1984a. Fundamentals of Well-Log Interpretation, 1: The Acquisition of Logging Data. Developments in Petroleum
Science, Vol. 15A. Elsevier, New York, NY, 423 pp. [SP, resistivity, gamma, gamma spectrometry, gamma-gamma,
neutron, neutron activation/lifetime, acoustic, dielectric, caliper, temperature, dipmeter, acoustic televiewer, VSP, nuclear
magnetic resonance]
Serra, O. 1984b. Fundamentals of Well-Log Interpretation, 2: The Interpretation of Logging Data. Developments in Petroleum
Science, Vol. 15B. Elsevier, New York, NY, 684 pp. [Chapters focus on log interpretation for specific applications-
sedimentary structure, fractures, etc].
Shirazi, G. and M. Isobe. 1976. Calibration of Neutron Probe hi Some Selected Hawaiian Soils. Soil Science 122:165-170.
Sinclair, D.F. and J. Williams. 1979. Components of Variance Involved in Estimating Soil Water Content and Water Content
Changes Using a Neutron Moisture Meter. Aust. J. Soil Res. 17:237-247.
Smith, KM., T.H. Taylor, and S.W. Smith. 1967. Soil Moisture Measurement Using Gamma Transmission Techniques. Trans. Am.
Soc. Agric. Eng. 10:205-208.
Soane, B.D. 1967. Dual Energy Gamma-Ray Transmission for Coincident Measurement of Water Content and Dry Bulk Density of
Soil. Nature 214:1273-1274.
Soane, B.D. and J. Henshall. 1979. Spatial Resolution and Calibration Characteristics of Two Narrow Probe Gamma-Ray
Transmission Systems for the Measurement of Soil Bulk Density In Situ. J. Soil Science 30:517-528.
Society of Professional Well Log Analysts (SPWLA). 1960 to present. Annual Logging Symposium Transactions. SPWLA, Houston,
TX. (32nd was held in 1991; recent costs have been $75 for two volume set)
Society of Professional Well Log Analysts (SPWLA). 1978a. Gamma Ray, Neutron, and Density Logging. Reprint Volume Series
SPWLA, Houston, TX.
Society of Professional Well Log Analysts (SPWLA). 1978b. Acoustic Logging. Reprint Volume Series, SPWLA, Houston, TX.
Society of Professional Well Log Analysts. 1985. Glossary of Terms and Expressions Used in Well Logging, Revised. SPWLA,
Houston, TX. (1st edition 1975.)
Society of Professional Well Log Analysts (SPWLA). 1990. Borehole Imaging. Reprint Volume Series, SPWLA, Houston, TX.
[Optical, acoustic, electrical]
Stevens, Jr., H.H., J.F. Ficke, and G.F. Smoot. 1975. Water Temperature-Influential Factors, Field Measurement and Data
Presentation. U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resource Investigations TWRI1-D1, 65 pp.
Stewart, R.R. 1991. Seismic Tomography. Course Notes No. 3. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, OK, 190 pp.
Stewart, G.L. and W.H. Gardner. 1969. Water Content Measurement by Neutron Attenuation for Application in the Study of the
Unsaturated Flow of Soil Water. AEC Report No. RLO-1543-5. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, DC.
3-87
-------
Stewart, G.L. and S.A. Taylor. 1957. Reid Experiments with the Neutron Scattering Method of Measuring Soil Moisture. Soil
Science 83:151-158.
Stolzy, L.H. and G.A. Cahoon. 1957. A Field-Calibrated Portable Neutron Rate Meter for Measuring Soil Moisture in Citrus
Orchards. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 21:571-575.
Stone, J., D. Kirkham, and A. Read. 1955. Soil Moisture Determination by a Portable Neutron Scattering Moisture Meter. Soil Sci.
Soc. Am. Proc. 19:419-423.
Stone, J.R., RJH. Shaw, and D. Kirkham. 1960. Statistical Parameters and Reproducibility of the Neutron Method of Measuring Soil
Moisture. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 24:435-438.
Stowell, J.R. 1989. An Overview of Borehole Geophysical Methods for Solving Engineering and Environmental Problems. In: Proc.
3rd Nat Outdoor Action Conf. on Aquifer Restoration, Ground Water Monitoring and Geophysical Methods, National
Water Well Association, Dublin, OH, pp. 871-890.
Taylor, K. 1989. Review of Borehole Methods for Characterizing the Heterogeneity of Aquifer Hydraulic Properties. In: Proc.
Conf. on New Field Technique? for Quantifying the Physical and Chemical Properties of Heterogeneous Aquifers, National
Water Well Association, Dublin, OH, pp. 121-132.
Taylor, TA. and J.A. Dcy. 1985. Bibliography of Borehole Geophysics as Applied to Ground-Water Hydrology. U.S. Geological
Survey Circular 926, 62 pp.
Taylor, K., J. Hess, and S. Wheatcraft 1990. Evaluation of Selected Borehole Geophysical Methods for Hazardous Waste Site
Investigations and Monitoring. EPA/600/4-90/029. U.S. EPA Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas,
NV, 82 pp. [Acoustic velocity, thermal flow/meter, borehole dilution, induction logs]
Tearpock, D. and R.E. Bischke. 1991. Applied Subsurface Geological Mapping. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 648 pp.
[Focusses on construction of geological maps from various sources, including geophysical measurements]
Teasdale, WJE. and A.I. Johnson. 1970. Evaluation of Installation Methods for Neutron-Meter Access Tubes. U.S. Geological
Survey Professional Paper 700-C, pp. 237-241.
Technos, Inc. 1992. Application Guide to Borehole Geophysical Logging. Technos, Miami, FL, 15 pp.
Tclford, W.M.N., L.P. Geldart, R.E. Sheriff, and DA. Keys. 1990. Applied Geophysics, 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, New
York, NY, 770 pp. (1st edition, 1976, reprinted 1982.) [Chapter 11 covers borehole geophysics: SP, resistivity, dipmeter,
induction, IP, acoustic, nuclear, gravity, magnetic, temperature]
Tcllam, J.H. 1992. Reversed Flow Test: A Borehole Logging Method for Estimating Pore Water Quality and Inflow Rates Along an
Uncased Borehole Profile. Ground Water Monitoring Review 12(2): 146-154. [Fluid conductivity log]
Theys,P.P. 1991. Log Data Acquisition and Quality Control. Editions Technip, Paris, 326 pp.
Thompson, C.M., LJ. Holcombe, D.H. Gancarz, A.E. Behl, J.R. Erikson, I. Star, R.K. Waddell, and J.S. Fruchter. 1989. Techniques
to Develop Data for Hydrogeochemical Models. EPRI EN-6637. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA
[Gamma-gamma, neutron probe]
ThornhilI,J.T.andB.G.Benefield. 1990. Injection-Well Mechanical Integrity. EPA/625/9-89/007. Available from CERI."
Tittle, CS. 1961. Theory of Neutron Logging I. Geophysics 26(l):27-39.
Tittman, J. 1986. Geophysical Well Logging. Academic Press, New York, NY, 192 pp. [Electrical, nuclear, sonic]
Toksoz, M.N. and R.R. Stewart. 1984. Vertical Seismic Profiling, Part B: Advanced Concepts. Seismic Exploration Volume 14b,
Geophysical Press, London, 419 pp.
Troxler, W.F. 1964. Calibration of Nuclear Meters for Measuring Moisture Density. In: Symposium on Soil Exploration, ASTM
STP 351, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 29-43. [Neutron probe]
Tweeton, D.R. 1988. A Tomographic Computer Program with Constraints to Improve Reconstruction for Monitoring In Situ
Mining Leachate. U.S. Bureau of Mines Report of Investigation 9159.
3-88
-------
Tyler, S.W. 1985. Moisture Monitoring in Large Diameter Boreholes. In: Proc. Conf. on Characterization and Monitoring of the
Vadose (Unsaturated) Zone, National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH, pp. 97-106. [Neutron probe]
Tyler, S.W. 1988. Neutron Moisture Meter Calibration in Large Diameter Borehole. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 52:890-893.
Unruh, M.E., C. Corey, and J.M. Robertson. 1990. Vadose Zone Monitoring by Fast Neutron Therrnalization (Neutron Probe)-a 2-
Year Case Study. Ground Water Management 2:431-445 (4th NOAC).
Ursic, S. 1967. Improved Standards for Neutron Soil Water Meters. Soil Science 104:323-325.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1979. Geophysical Exploration. Engineer Manual EM 1110-1-1802, Department of the Army,
Washington, DC, 313 pp. [Section II of Chapter 3 covers borehole seismic, SP, resistivity, acoustic, gamma, gamma-gamma,
neutron, temperature, caliper and fluid resistivity]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1987. A Compendium of Superfund Field Operations Methods, Part 2. EPA/540/P-
87/001 (OSWER Directive 9355.0-14) (NTIS PB88-181557/AS). [Section 8.3.4 covers borehole methods]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1993. Use of Airborne, Surface, and Borehole Geophysical Techniques at
Contaminated Sites: A Reference Guide. EPA/625/R-92/007. Available from CERI."
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 1985. Rules and Regulations, Title 10, Chap. 1, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 20,
Standards for Protection Against Radiation.
Vachaud, G., J.M. Royer, and J.D. Cooper. 1977. Comparison of Methods of Calibration of a Neutron Probe by Gravimetry or
Neutron-Capture Model. J. Hydrology 34:343-356.
van Bavel, C.H.M. 1958. Measurement of Soil Moisture Content by the Neutron Method. U.S. Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Research Service Report ARS41-24, 29 pp.
van Bavel, C.H.M. 1961. Neutron Measurement of Surface Soil Moisture. J. Geophys. Res. 66:1493-1498.
van Bavel, C.H.M. 1962. Accuracy and Source Strength of Soil Moisture Neutron Probes. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 26:405.
van Bavel, C.H.M. 1963a. Soil Moisture Measurement with the Neutron Method. U.S. Department of Agriculture Agricultural
Research Service Report ARS-41-70.
van Bavel, C.H.M. 1963b. Neutron Scattering of Soil Moisture: Development and Current Status. In: Proc. Int. Symp. on Humidity
and Moisture (Washington, DC), pp. 171-184.
van Bavel, C.H.M. and G. Stirk. 1967. Soil Water Measurement with an AM2
-------
Weinberg, A.M. and E.P. Wignor. 1958. The Physical Theory of Neutron Chain Reactors. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL,
800pp.
West, R.C. and S.H. Ward. 1988. The Borehole Controlled-Source Audiomagnetotelluric Response of a Three-Dimensional
Fracture Zone. Geophysics 53(2):215-230.
Wheatcraft, S.W., K.C. Taylor, J.W. Hess, and T.M. Morris. 1986. Borehole Sensing Methods for Ground-Water Investigation's at
Hazardous Waste Sites. EPA/600/2-86/111 (NTIS PB87-132783).
Williams, J.H. and R.W. Conger. 1990. Preliminary Delineation of Contaminated Water-Bearing Fractures Intersected by Open-
Hole Bedrock Wells. Ground Water Monitoring Review 10(4):118-126. [Gamma, SP resistance, caliper, fluid-resistivity,
temperature, acoustic televiewer, thermal flowmeter]
Wilson, L.G. 1971. Observations of Water Content Changes in Stratified Sediments During Pit Recharge. Ground Water 9(3):29-
40. [Neutron probe]
Wilson, L.G. 1980. Monitoring in the Vadose Zone: A Review of Technical Elements. EPA/600/7-80/134 (NTIS PB81-125817).
[Neutron probe]
Wilson, L.G. 1981. Monitoring in the Vadose Zone Part I: Storage Changes. Ground Water Monitoring Review 1(3):32-41.
[Gamma-gamma, neutron probe]
Wilson, L.G. and KJ. DcCook. 1968. Field Observations on Changes in the Subsurface Water Regime During Influent Seepage in
the Santa Cruz River. Water Resources Research 4(6):1219-1234. [Neutron probe]
Wood, B. and N. Collis-Georgc. 1980. Moisture Content and Bulk Density Measurements Using Dual-Energy Beam of Gamma
Radiation. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 44:662-663.
Wyllie, M.RJ. 1963. The Fundamentals of Well Log Interpretation, 3rd edition. Academic Press, New York, NY, 238 pp. (Earlier
editions 1954,1957.) [SP, resistivity, neutron, gamma-gamma, acoustic velocity, gamma, gamma-spectrometry, nuclear
magnetic resonance, cement bond]
Yearsley, E.N., R.E. Crowder, and L.A. Irons. 1991. Monitoring Well Completion Evaluation with Borehole Geophysical Density
Logging. Ground Water Monitoring Review 11(1):103-118. [Acoustic cement bond, gamma-gamma]
Young, S.C and J.S. Pearson. 1990. Characterization of Three-Dimensional Hydraulic Conductivity Field with an Electromagnetic
Borehole Flowmeter. In: Proc. Fourth Nat. Outdoor Action Conf. on Aquifer Restoration, Ground Water Monitoring and
Geophysical Methods. Ground Water Management 2:83-97.
Young, S.C. and W.R. Waldrop. 1989. An Electromagnetic Borehole Flowmeter for Measuring Hydraulic Conductivity Variability.
In: Proc. Conf. on New Field Techniques for Quantifying the Physical and Chemical Properties of Heterogeneous Aquifers
(Dallas, TX), National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH, pp. 463-475.
Zuber, A. and J.F. Cameron. 1966. Neutron Soil Moisture Gauges. Atomic Energy Rev. 4:143-167.
"ORD Publications, U.S. EPA Center for Environmental Research Information, P.O. Box 19963, Cincinnati, OH 45268-0963 (513-
569-7562).
3-90
-------
SECTION 4
AQUIFER TEST METHODS
When ground water is contaminated, the needs for aquifer characterization can be boiled down to four
basic questions. How deep is it? What direction is it flowing? How much is flowing through the system? How
fast is it flowing? Remedial actions requiring hydrodynamic controls to contain a contaminant plume or requiring
pump-and-treat activities, also require an understanding of the storage properties of the aquifer in order to
evaluate how flow patterns will respond to pumping from or injection into the aquifer.
Basic Characteristics of Ground Water
Water state in the subsurface is measured in terms of hydraulic head in the saturated zone, and negative
pressure potential or suction in the vadose zone (covered in Section 6.1). The term ground water usually is
applied to subsurface water occurring in a saturated zone, where water fills the pore space and moves as a result
of differences in hydraulic head. The hydraulic head at a particular location is the elevation to which water rises
in an open borehole (or the elevation to which a flowing well would rise if the casing were extended above the
ground surface). The hydraulic gradient is measured as the change in water level per unit of distance along the
direction of maximum head decrease. The gradient can be determined from a water-table map of an unconfined
aquifer, or a piezometric (pressure) surface map showing the elevation to which water would rise in a well
tapping a confined or artesian aquifer. Either type of map is called a potentiometric map. Table 4-1 summarizes
information on seven techniques for measuring water levels in open or cased boreholes and three methods for
measuring pressure head in flowing (artesian) wells. The steel-tape and electric probe methods are used most
commonly for routine measurement of water levels. Transducers are used most commonly in aquifer tests where
accurate measurement of changes in multiple wells is required in relatively short time periods. Pressure potential
in the saturated zone also can be measured by burying in situ piezometers that sense pore pressure (Section
4.1.10). Table 5-3 in Section 5 provides information on possible sources for commercially available ground-water
level measuring devices.
The hydraulic conductivity (K, often expressed in terms of centimeters or meters per second) is a basic
aquifer parameter used to calculate the amount of ground-water flow using Darcy's Law (Q = -KiA, where Q
= discharge, i = the hydraulic gradient, and A = the area through which the ground-water is flowing). Ground
water flux (q) is the flow of water through a specified area (q = Q/A = Ki). The average flow velocity (v) can
also be calculated if K, i, and the effective porosity (n) is known: v = qn = Kin. Transmissivity (T), or
transmissibility, is a measure of the amount of water moving through an entire aquifer and is calculated by
multiplying the thickness of the aquifer (b) by K (T = Kb). Storage properties of aquifers are measured in terms
of the volume of water that a unit volume of aquifer releases from storage under a unit decline in hydraulic head
(specific storage S,). Storativity (or storage coefficient) (S) is the specific storage or yield multiplied by the
aquifer thickness (S = S,b). Characterization of aquifer heterogeneity (K varies depending on the location within
the aquifer) and anisotropy (K varies at a given point in an aquifer depending on the direction of measurement)
is essential for accurate prediction of ground-water flow direction. Ground-water flow in porous media, such
as unconsolidated deposits and sandstone, has very different characteristics than flow in which fractures (typically
igneous and metamorphic rocks) and conduits (karst limestone) are present. Dispersion (the net effect of a
variety of microscopic, macroscopic, and regional conditions that influence the spread of a solute concentration
front through an aquifer) is another important aquifer parameter that requires some evaluation. Dispersion
allows contaminants to move more rapidly through an aquifer than would be predicted by the average hydraulic
conductivity as measured by a pumping test, for example.
This section classifies aquifer characterization methods into four categories: (1) Shallow water table
tests, (2) well tests, (3) tracer tests, and (4) other methods. Table 4-2 summarizes information on the types of
aquifer parameters that can be measured using specific techniques.
4-1
-------
Table 4-1 Summary Information on Ground Water Level/Pressure Measurement
Method
Property
Measured
Accuracy*
Chapter
Sections
Monitoring Well Water Level Measurement
Steel Tape Water surface
Electric Probe Water surface
Air Line Pressure head
Pressure Transducers Pressure head
Popper/Acoustic Probe Water surface
Ultrasonic Water surface
Mechanical Float Water surface
Potentiometer Float Water surface
Electromechanical Water surface
Flowing Well Head Measurement
Casing Extensions Water surface
Manometer/Pressure Gage Pressure head
Transducers Pressure head
In Situ Piezometers Pressure head
0.01'
0.02-0.1'
0.25'
0.01-0.1'
0.1'
0.02-0.1'
0.02-0.5'
o.oi-o.rb
0.02-0.5'
0.1'
0.1-0.5'
0.02'
0.02-0.5'°
4.1.1
4.1.2
4.1.3
4.1.4
4.1.5
4.1.6
4.1.7
4.1.7
4.1.8
4.1.9
4.1.9
4.1.9
4.1.10
'Water level measurement accuracy in wells taken from Dalton et al. (1991).
'Reported by Rosenberry (1990) as having accuracy similar to pressure transducers.
•Lower range for measurements with transducers and upper range for pressure gage.
4-2
-------
Table 4-2 Summary Information on Aquifer Test Methods
Technique
Shallow Water Table
Auger Hole
Pit-Baling
Pumped Borehole
Piezometer
Tube
Well Point
Two-Hole
Four-Hole
Multiple-Hole
Drainage Outflow
Well Tests
Slug (Injection/Withdrawal)
Slug (Displacement)
Single-Well Pump
Multiple-Well Pump
Single-Packer
Two-Packer"
Tracers
Ions
Dyes
Gases
Stable Isotopes
Radioactive Isotopes
Water Temperature
Particulates/Microorganisms
Other Techniques
Water Balance
Moisture Profile
Shallow Geothermal
Fluid Conductivity Log
Neutron Activation
Differential Temperature Log
Flow Meters
Single-Well Tracer Methods
Other borehole methods
Piezometric Map
Confined/
Unconfined
Unconfmed
Unconfmed
Unconfmed
Unconfmed
Unconfmed
Unconfined
Unconfmed
Unconfined
Unconfined
Unconfined
Both
Both
Both
Both
Both
Both
Both
Unconfined
Unconfined
Both
Both
Unconfined
Unconfined
Unconfined
Unconfined
Unconfined
Both
Both
Both
Both
Both
Both
Both
Porous/
Fractured
Porous
Porousb
Porous
Porous
Porous'
Porous
Porous
Porous
Porous
Porous
Porous
Porous
Porous
Porous
Both
Both
Both
Both
Both
Both
Both
Both
Both
Both
Porous
Porous
Both
Both
Both
Both
Both
Both
Both
Aquifer Properties
Measured
K (horizontal)"
K (undefined)
K (undefined)
K (undefined)
K (vertical)
K (undefined)
K (undefined)
K (undefined)
K (undefined)
K (undefined)
K,H,T
K,H,T
K,S,T
A, K, S, T
K,H,T
K,H,T
D,F,V
D,F,V
D,F,R,V
D, F, R, V
D, F, R, V, T1
D,F,V
D,F,V
R
S
F,R
F
F,H,V
F
F,H,V
F,H,V
H
F,H
Chapter
Section
4.2.1
4.2.1
4.2.1
4.2.2
4.2.2
4.2.2
4.2.3
4.2.3
4.2.3
4.2.3
4.3.1
4.3.1
4.3.2
4.3.2
4.3.3
4.3.3
4.4.1
4.4.2
4.4.3
4.4.4
4.4.5
4.4.6
4.4.7
4.5.1
4.5.2
1.6.2
3.1.3
3.3.5
3.5.2
3.5.3-3.5.5
3.5.6
Section 3
4.1
Table
4-5, 7-2
4-5
4-5
4-5, 7-2
4-5
4-5
4-5
4-5, 7-2
4-5
4-5
4-5 .
4-5
4-5
4-5
4-5
4-5
4-3
4-3, 4-6
4-3
4-3,4-6
4-3, 4-6
4-3
4-3, 4-6
4-5
Boldface = most commonly used methods.
A = anisotropy; D « dispersivity; F = flow direction; H = heterogeneity; K = hydraulic conductivity; R = recharge/age; S = specific
storage/fyield; T = Transmissivity; V = Velocity.
"Directional ratings are qualitative in nature. Different references may give different ratings depending on site conditions and criteria
used to define directionality. For example, U.S. EPA (1981) and Hendrickx (1990) note that this method often measures primarily
horizontal conductivity, whereas Bouma (1983) indicates that the direction is undefined (see Figure 7-2).
bCan be used in rocky soils; other methods generally require fine-grained soils.
"Can be used to measure saturated hydraulic conductivity both above and below the water table in open holes in consolidated rock.
dActual uses are much more restricted due to health concerns.
4-3
-------
Shallow Water Table Tests
A number of relatively simple techniques have been developed for measuring hydraulic conductivity
where a shallow water table is present (see Table 4-2). The auger hole method (Section 4.2.1) is the most widely
used of these methods, but others can be appropriate for special applications. Sections 7.3 and 7.4 of this guide
cover techniques for measuring saturated hydraulic conductivity above a water table. These shallow tests only
provide information on hydraulic conductivity.
Well Test Methods
Test methods involving wells that have been placed in an aquifer fall into three main categories: (1)
Single-well slug tests (Section 43.1), (2) pumping tests (Section 4.3.2), and (3) packer tests (Section 4.3.3). Table
4-2 indicates the types of aquifer parameters that can be obtained from these tests. Slug and packer tests provide
information on relatively small portions of an aquifer, but are relatively easy to carry out and consequently are
well-suited for characterizing aquifer heterogeneity. Pumping tests are more complex and difficult to carry out,
but provide information on a larger portion of the aquifer and provide more information on aquifer storage
properties (see also, Section 43.2). Well test methods are best suited for porous media, and most methods tend
to give misleading results where fracture or conduit flow is an important component of ground-water flow.
ASTM (1991a) provides guidance on the selection of aquifer well test methods.
Tracer Test Techniques
Ground-water tracers primarily are used to identify the source, direction, and velocity of ground-water
Sow, and the dispersion of contaminants. Depending on the type of test and the hydrogeologic conditions, other
parameters, such as hydraulic conductivity, porosity, chemical distribution coefficients, source of recharge, and
age of ground water also can be measured. Any detectable substance that can be injected into the subsurface
and travel in the vadose or saturated zone can serve as a tracer. Table 4-3 identifies over 60 substances that have
been reported or suggested as tracers in ground-water studies. Any contaminant that is detected in ground water
functions as a tracer, provided the original source is known. The large number of tracers and many different
ways in which they have been used precludes detailed coverage of this topic. For the purposes of this guide,
tracers are grouped in seven major categories: (1) Ions and other water soluble compounds; (2) dyes, (3) gases,
(4) stable isotopes, (5) radioactive isotopes, (6) water temperature, and (7) particulates (including spores,
bacteria, and viruses). Table 4-1 provides some summary information on uses of these groups of tracers for
aquifer characterization. Dyes and ions probably are the most commonly used tracers at contaminated sites.
Dye tracer tests are especially valuable for characterizing fracture flow, and flow in karst limestone systems where
conventional well tests can yield misleading results, and ground-water flow directions tend to be unpredictable.
Tracers, especially gases and dyes, also are widely used for vadose zone characterization.
Other Aquifer Characterization Methods
Water balance methods (Section 4.5.1) have a wide variety of applications, and are used most commonly
at contaminated sites for evaluating transport of contaminants from the vadose zone to ground water, and for
design of waste disposal facilities to minimize flow through the vadose zone. In an unconfmed aquifer, specific
yield can be calculated by measuring changes in soil moisture profiles in response to changes in water table
(Section 4.5.2) as an alternative to pumping tests.
Sources of Additional Information on Aquifer Test Methods
The detailed literature on ground-water hydraulics and pumping tests is too large to include in any
comprehensive way hi this guide. Consequently, only major text references and reports on these two topics are
included in the references at the end of this section (see Table 4-5, at the end of this section, for index). Table
4-5 includes a reasonably comprehensive index to the literature on shallow water table tests, slug tests, and
packer tests. The detailed literature on use of tracers in ground-water and contaminated site investigations also
is too large for inclusion here. Table 4-6 (also at the end of this section) provides an index of major texts and
review papers covering major types of tracers (dyes, microorganisms, stable isotopes and radioactive isotopes)
and also identifies major texts and reports that focus on tracing karst hydrologic systems.
4-4
-------
Table 4-3 List of Major Ground-Water Tracers
NATURAL TRACERS
Radioactive
INJECTED TRACERS
Activable
Inactive
Stable Isotopes
Deuterium
Oxygen- 18
Carbon- 12
Carbon-13
Nitrogen-14
Nitrogen-15
Strontium-88
Sulfur-32
Sulfur-34
Sulfur-36
Radioactive Isotopes
Tritium
Sodium-24
Chromium-51
Cobalt-58
Cobalt-60
Gold-198
Iodine-131
Phosphorus-32
Bromine-35
Indium-39
Manganese-25
Lanthanum-57
Dysprosium-68
Tritium
Carbon-14
Silicon-32
Chlorine-36
Argon-37
Argon-39
Krypton-81
Krypton-85
Bromine-32
Radon-222
Gases
Fluorocarbons
Ionized Substances
Na+Cl-
K+CI-
.-ii* cr
NaT
K+Br
Drift Material
Lycopodium Spores
Bacteria
Viruses
Fungi
Sawdust
Fluorescent Dyes
Optical Brighteners
Tinopal 5Bm6x(FDA 22)
Direct Yellow 96
Fluorescein
Acid Yellow 7
Rhodamine WT
Eosin (Acid Red 87)
Amidorhodamine 6 (Acid Red 50)
Physical Characteristics
Water Temperature
Flood Pulse
Gases
Helium
Argon
Neon
Krypton
Xenon
Source: Modified from Jones (1984)
4-5
-------
4. AQUIFER TEST METHODS
4.1 GROUND-WATER LEVEL/PRESSURE MEASUREMENT
4.1.1 Steel Tape
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Wetted tape.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Manually measuring water levels in wells.
Method Description: A lead weight is attached to a standard surveyor's steel tape and the bottom two or three
feet coated with carpenter's chalk. The tape usually is lowered into the water a sufficient depth to place the tape
at an even foot mark at a reference point of known elevation on the casing (Figure 4.1.1). The water-level in
the well is calculated by subtracting the submerged distance, as indicated by the point at which the chalk is still
dry, from the reference point at the top of the well.
Method Selection Considerations: Advantages: (1) Most precise method (accuracy 0.01 feet); (2) equipment is
inexpensive, portable, durable, and does not require a power source; (3) calibration can be easily checked.
Disadvantages: (1) The method is slow, particularly in wells where depth to water is unknown, where too short
a length of chalked tape can require several tries to obtain a reading (slowness also limits usefulness for pumping
tests where measurements must be made a close time intervals); (2) continuous measurements of water-level
changes are not possible; (3) errors in measurement might result from water condensation on the casing or
cascading water wetting the tape above the actual water level; (4) displacement of water level by the weighted
end of the tape might significantly affect readings in small diameter wells in low permeability materials; and (5)
measurement in wells where the temperature is high or at depth greater than 1,000 feet require corrections for
stretch and expansion.
Frequency of Use: Common.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: ASTM (1987).
Sources for Additional Information: Dalton et al. (1991), Driscoll (1986), Garber and Koopman (1968),
Thompson et al. (1989), Thornhill (1989), U.S. EPA (1987), U.S. Geological Survey (1980).
4-6
-------
Reading at
measuring
point
Reel
Graduated tape with chalk
rubbed on lower part
I Length of wetted tape
Lead weight
Depth to water = Reading at measuring point - wetted length
Figure 4.1,1 Steel tape method for measuring water levels (Thompson et al, 1989, after Davis and DeWiest, 1966,
Copyright © 1989, Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI EN-6637, Techniques to Develop Data for
Hydrogeochemical Models, reprinted with permission).
4-7
-------
4. AQUIFER TEST METHODS
4.1 GROUND-WATER LEVEL/PRESSURE MEASUREMENT
4.1.2 Electric Probe
Other Names Used to Describe Method; Electric cable, conductive probe, water level indicators.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Manually measuring water levels in wells; performing water level-measurement for
aquifer tests.
Method Description: Various types of instruments have been developed, all have some kind of electrode sensor
attached to a cable that is lowered down the well. When the probe comes into contact with the water surface,
the fluid conducts a current that activates a meter, light, or buzzer at the surface. Figure 4.1.2 illustrates five
different types of electric probes. The cable usually is marked at 1- or 5-foot intervals and distance is measured
from the nearest marking to a known reference point on the casing at the surface to obtain the water-level depth.
Some newer instruments use coated steel tapes as an insulated electrode. The most common type of instrument
uses an open circuit of two electrodes attached to a batter, which is completed when they come in contact with
water. Other instruments use resistance, capacitance, or self-potential to generate a signal. Henszey (1991)
provides detailed plans for a simple, inexpensive electrical device for measuring shallow ground-water levels.
Method Selection Considerations: Advantages: (1) Rugged, simple, and relatively inexpensive; (2) good precision
if properly calibrated (0.02 to 0.1 feet); (3) multiple measurements can be taken in quick succession without
raising the probe to the surface; and (4) protective casing around the probe prevents false readings from
cascading water or splashing during a pumping test. Disadvantages: (1) Continuous measurements of water-level
changes are not possible; (2) hydrocarbons on water surface might interfere with measurements; (3) changes in
cable length and markings as a result of use, depth, and temperature might reduce accuracy of readings; and (4)
lower accuracy and periodic calibration required when used in deep wells.
Frequency of Use: Probably the most commonly used method.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: ASTM (1987).
Sources for Additional Information: Dalton et al. (1991), Driscoll (1986), Garber and Koopman (1968),
Thompson et al. (1989), U.S. EPA (1987), U.S. Geological Survey (1980). See also, Table 4-4.
4-8
-------
-Armored
cable
.Magnesium
element
A. SELF-POTENTIAL
.^Armored
cable
Q_ -Brass electrode
. CONDUCTIVITY
f
(2
^
•s
;:.
i
TI r^^
^ Lwete'r and (^7^
/ T batteries V_£x
«, J <%
"j - - i;
F
, ,-Armored
cable
. ^Oscillator e
, —Electrode i "^
—f} f
) ^Meter and (TJ
' batteries Vi.
\J ' S
°^ °S
multiconductor
cable
. ~
^Inductance Magnetl<: A
probe float nJ"
^ — .
=n
\ UMeter and
/ T batteries
V, J
3
, ,Cable
^Magnetically
actuated
^ reed switch
APACITANCE D. INDUCTANCE £ MAGNETICALLY
ACTUATED
Figure 4.1.2 Types of electric probes for measuring water levels (Garber and Koopman, 1968).
4-9
-------
4. AQUIFER TEST METHODS
4.1 GROUND-WATER LEVEIVPRESSURE MEASUREMENT
4.1.3 Air Line
Other Names Used to Describe Method; Air-line submergence.
Uses at Contaminated Sites; Measuring water levels in wells; performing water level-measurement for pumping
tests.
Method Description; An air-tight tube, usually 0.375 inch or less in diameter and made of plastic, copper, or
steel, is extended a measured distance from the surface to a depth below the lowest water level that is anticipated
during pumping. A hand air pump (for shallow wells) or a compressor is used to pump air into the tube as
pressure is monitored by a gage attached to the system (Figure 4.1.3). Air pressure increases until all water is
expelled from the line. When the pressure gage stabilizes, the reading indicates the height of water in the tube
(directly in feet, if calibrated, or the pressure reading is converted). Subtracting the calculated height of water
in the air line from the line's length gives the actual level in the well.
Method Selection Considerations: Advantages: (1) Fast and simple, but air compressor required; and (2) well
suited for taking continuous measurements in wells that are being pumped. Disadvantages: (1) Relatively low
accuracy (0.25 feet with gages accurate to 0.1 psi) and lacks precision for hydraulic tests with small fluid level
changes; (2) leaks in air line or fittings will cause errors in readings; and (3) measurements in deep wells require
corrections for thermal expansion, hysteresis, fluid density, and barometric pressure.
Frequency of Use; Commonly used for pumping tests where water turbulence precludes using more precise
methods.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: —
Sources for Additional Information; Dalton et al. (1991), Driscoll (1986), Garber and Koopman (1968), U.S. EPA
(1987), U.S. Geological Survey (1980). See also, Table 4-4.
4-10
-------
Pressure gauge
Valve and attachment
for air pump
Depth to water = length of tube
in well - maxirnurn pressure
specific weight of water
I Maximum pressure
I registered on gauge
[ is proportional to
' depth of submersion
1 Open end of tube
Figure 4.13 Air line method for measuring water levels (Thompson et al., 1989, after Davis and DeWiest, 1966,
Copyright © 1989, Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI EN-6637, Techniques to Develop Data for
Hydrogeochemical Models, reprinted with permission).
4-11
-------
4. AQUIFER TEST METHODS
4.1 GROUND-WATER LEVEL/PRESSURE MEASUREMENT
4.1.4 Pressure Transducers
Other Names Used to Describe Method; Submersible differential pressure transducer.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Measuring water levels in wells; performing continuous water level-measurement
for aquifer tests.
Method Description; A pressure transducer contains a current transmitter (which prevents measurement
sensitivity from being affected by cable length) and a strain gage sensor. The strain gage sensor generates an
electrical signal, proportional to pressure, which is transmitted by cables to a surface recording station (Figure
4.1.4). The pressure measured allows calculation of the depth of the transducer below the water surface, and
calculation of the water level if the length of the cable to a reference point at the surface is known. Vented
pressure transducers have a small capillary tube that is open to the atmosphere and allows automatic
compensation for barometric pressure. Nonvented transducers require measurement of barometric pressure,
.which is subtracted from the total pressure to obtain the pressure of the column of water over the transducer.
Continuous monitoring of changes in water level during aquifer tests or natural ground-water fluctuations is
possible provided the transducer remains below the lowest anticipated water level and data loggers are used.
Method Selection Considerations; Advantages: (1) Good precision (0.01 to 0.1 feet); (2) respond quickly to
changing water levels; (3) continuous monitoring of water levels is possible; and (4) a permanent record is
provided, and data can be recorded for automatic data processing. Disadvantages: (1) Probe and recording
devices are expensive; (2) instruments are sensitive and require care in handling and storage and periodic
recalibration is required; (3) a continuous, stable power source is required; and (4) meanirement errors can
result from temperature changes, instrument drift, and blocked capillary.
Frequency of Use: Most commonly used for complex pumping tests involving monitoring of multiple wells, and
for slug tests in permeable material.
Standard Methods/Guidelines; -
Sources for Additional Information; Dalton et al. (1991), Driscoll (1986), Thompson et al. (1989).
4-12
-------
Power source
Clamp
6*-
Depth of submersion
read directly from
strip chart through
calibration of transducer
Pressure transducer
Figure 4.1.4 Pressure transducer method for measuring water levels (Thompson et al., 1989, after Davis and
DeWiest, 1966, Copyright © 1989, Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI EN-6637, Techniques to
Develop Data for Hydrogeochemical Models, reprinted with permission).
4-13
-------
4. AQUIFER TEST METHODS
4.1 GROUND-WATER LEVEL/PRESSURE MEASUREMENT
4.1.5 Audible Methods
Other Names Used to Describe Method; Popper, acoustic probe, "rock and bong" techniques.
Uses at Contaminated Sites; Measuring water levels in wells.
Method Description; Various methods involve attachment of devices that create an audible sound when they
come in contact with water in the well. Popper: A concave-bottomed metal cylinder 1 to 1.5 inches in diameter
and 2 to 3 inches long is attached to a steel tape (Figure 4.1.5) and lowered to within a few inches of the water
surface in the well. Depth to water is determined by repeatedly dropping the popper onto the water surface and
noting the tape reading at which a distinctive "pop" is heard. Acoustic probe: An electronic device that emits
an audible sound generated by a battery powered transducer in the probe when two electrodes come in contact
with water. Unlike electric cables, the probe is self-contained and attached to a steel tape that is used for
measuring the depth at which the sound is heard. The rock and bong method involves dropping a BB (air rifle
shot) or glass marble and recording the time of the return sound of impact.
Method Selection Considerations; Popper/Acoustic Probe Advantages: (1) Simple and inexpensive; and (2)
moderately accurate (0.1 feet for popper; 0.02 for acoustic probe). Popper/Acoustic Probe Disadvantages: (1)
Generally not suitable for use with pumping wells because of noise and lack of clearance; and (2) hydrocarbons
on well water surface will affect acoustic probe. Rock and Bong Advantages: Very simple and inexpensive. Rock
and Bong Disadvantages: (1) Inaccurate (within 5 feet); (2) introduces foreign objects into the well.
Frequency of Use: Uncommon.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: Popper: Bureau of Reclamation (1981); Acoustic probe: Schrale and Brandwyck
(1979); Rock and bong: Stewart (1970).
Sources for Additional Information; Dalton et al. (1991), U.S. EPA (1987).
4-14
-------
Popper. PX-D-25996
Figure 4.1.5 Popper for measuring depth to water in a well (Bureau of Reclamation, 1981).
4-15
-------
4. AQUIFER TEST METHODS
4.1 GROUND-WATER LEVEL/PRESSURE MEASUREMENT
4.1.6 Ultrasonic
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Sonic transducers, acoustic sounder.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Measuring water levels in wells.
Method Description; Instrument emits a sonic or ultrasonic wave pulse and measures the arrival time of the
reflected sound (Figure 4.1.6). Typically, the instrument has a microprocessor that allows the signal to be
transmitted, received, and averaged many times a second, allowing rapid measurement. The microprocessor
automatically calculates the depth to water and displays it in various units. Some instruments are designed to
rest on top of the well casing, whereas others can require lowering into the well.
Method Selection Considerations: Advantages: (1) Reasonably accurate (0.1 feet) and high accuracy is possible
with specialized installations (0.02 feet); (2) automatic data collection is possible; (3) rapid determination of water
level in deep wells is possible; and (4) presence of hydrocarbons usually does not affect measurements.
Disadvantages: (1) Accuracy can be limited by change of temperature in the path of the sound wave or by
reflective surfaces in the well such as pipes, casing burrs, pumps, and samplers; and (2) care must be taken in
reading wave charts because discontinuities in the casing or in other well construction components might generate
anomalous wave forms resulting in inaccurate determination of water level depth.
Frequency of Use: Relatively new method that is becoming more common.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: —
Sources for Additional Information: Dalton et al. (1991), U.S. EPA (1987). See also, Table 4-4.
4-16
-------
Travel time in
milliseconds
Small
detonation
Recorder
Sound detector
Depth to water =
Travel time at velocity of sound
2
Figure 4.1.6 Ultrasonic method (Thompson et al, 1989, after Davis and DeWiest, 1966, Copyright © 1989, Electric
Power Research Institute, EPRI EN-6637, Techniques to Develop Data for Hydrogeochemical Models,
reprinted with permission).
4-17
-------
4. AQUIFER TEST METHODS
4.1 GROUND-WATER LEVEI/PRESSURE MEASUREMENT
4.1.7 Float Methods
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Mechanical float recorder, flotation device, potentiometer float.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Continuously measuring water level fluctuations.
Method Description: Mechanical float: A flotation device is attached to a length of steel tape and suspended
over a pulley into the well. A counterweight at the other end of the tape keeps the tape taught as the float
moves up and down in response to changes in water level. The depth to water can be read directly from the steel
tape at a known reference point on the casing, but more commonly the pulley is attached to a recording-chart
drum that rotates in response to changes in the level of the float (Figure 4.1.7). A pen records fluctuations by
moving across the chart at a constant rate by a clock-driven motor, or alternatively electronic or punch-tape
recorders can be used. Potentiometer float: Similar to the mechanical float except that a variable resistor or
potentiometer is attached to the float allowing digital datalogging.
Method Selection Considerations; Mechanical Float Advantages: (1) Provides continuous measurements ofwater-
level changes for up to several months; (2) relatively simple; and (3) moderately accurate (0.02 to 0.5 feet).
Mechanical Float Disadvantages: (1) Protective housing is required to protect recording-chart drum from
unfavorable weather; (2) float lag, line shift, submergence of counterweight, temperature, and humidity can affect
accuracy of measurements; (3) as depth to water increases, potential for drag between the float and well casing
increases, which might reduce or delay pen response to water level changes; and (4) problems might be
encountered when used in small wells (Shuter and Johnson, 1961). Potentiometer Float Advantages and
Disadvantages: Generally similar to mechanical float except that they are generally more accurate (0.01 to 0.1
feet).
Frequency of Use; Commonly used when continuous measurement of natural ground-water fluctuations are
required.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: —
Sources for Additional Information: Dalton et al. (1991), Leupold and Stevens (1991), Shuter and Johnson
(1961), U.S. Geological Survey (1980). See also, Table 4-4.
4-18
-------
Clock to drive
pen at a
constant rate
Pen
Graph paper
on drum
. Beaded cable
turns drum
• Counterweight
-. Float
Depth to water determined
initially with tape:
subsequent readings
directly from chart
Figure 4.1.7 Mechanical float recorder (Thompson et al, 1989, after Davis and DeWiest, 1966, Copyright © 1989,
Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI EN-6637, Techniques to Develop Data for Hydrogeochemical
Models, reprinted with permission).
4-19
-------
4. AQUIFER TEST METHODS
4.1 GROUND-WATER LEVEL/PRESSURE MEASUREMENT
4.1.8 Electromechanical
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Iterative conductance probes, dipping probes, dippers.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Continuously measuring water level fluctuations.
Method Description; Dipping probes are motor-driven devices that use an electronic feedback circuit to measure
water level in a well. The probe is lowered on a wire by a stepping motor until it makes contact with the water,
at which time an electrical signal causes the motor to reverse and retract the probe a short distance. After a set
period of time, the motor lowers the probe until it touches the water, and retracts again. The wire cable is
connected to either a chart-recording drum or a potentiometer with an output signal proportional to the water
level, and water levels are recorded at whatever time increments the motor is set to repeat its cycle.
Method Selection Considerations: Advantages: (1) Provide automatic, periodic measurement of water level
changes; (2) work well in small diameter wells and can accommodate some tortuosity in the well casing; and (3)
greater depths can be monitored without mechanical losses associated with float recorders. Disadvantages:
Instrumentation is more complex than mechanical float recorder.
Frequency of Use; Uncommon.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: --
Sources for Additional Information; Dalton et al. (1991).
4-20
-------
4. AQUIFER TEST METHODS
4.1 GROUND-WATER LEVEL/PRESSURE MEASUREMENT
4.1.9 Artesian Aquifer Measurement
Other Names Used to Describe Method; Manometers/pressure gages, transducers, casing extension.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Measuring head in flowing wells (artesian aquifers).
Method Description: Flowing wells (confined aquifers where the pressure head is above the ground surface) can
be measured in several ways. Capping off the well allows measuring pressure with manometers, pressure gages,
or pressure transducers (see Section 4.1.4). Figure 4.1.9 shows a schematic of a mercury manometer for
measuring artesian heads. Another method is to extend the casing above the ground surface until water ceases
to flow, and measuring the height of above the ground-surface that water has risen in the casing.
Method Selection Considerations: Manometers/Pressure Gage Advantages: A properly installed mercury
manometer provides the greatest accuracy (0.005 to 0.1 feet) and pressure gages are accurate to 0.2 to 0.5 feet.
Manometers/Pressure Gage Disadvantages: Both types requires periodic calibration. Transducers: See
advantages and disadvantages discussed in Section 4.1.4. Casing Extension Advantages: No calibration of gages
or instruments is required (assuming steel tape or electric probe is used to measure distance from top of casing).
Casing Extension Disadvantages: Limited range and awkward to implement.
Frequency of Use: Manometers or pressure gages are most commonly used when flowing artesian aquifers are
present.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: —
Sources for Additional Information; Bureau of Reclamation (1981), Dalton et al. (1991), U.S. Geological Survey
(1980).
4-21
-------
© I -|" Stainless steel stop cock.
® 4' Length of •§•" i.d. rubber hose.
<3> I-2" Dio. ink bottle.
@ 1-3 Holed No. 8 rubber stop.
© l--f-"Hose coupling.
© 48"Length of 2mm i.d. glass tubing.
@ 45"Length of stainless steel strip with graduations
which give readings in feet of water.
® l-4"Length of i"o.d. stainless steel tubing
with fittings.
© [--^'Stainless steel stop cock.
© i-4-Length of -re" o.d. stainless steel or plastic tubing
with fitting.
Assorted lumber (marine plywood)
Assorted ;" bolts with nuts.
Hand made metal
strap fitted to
hold tubing in
placet on each
side)
Mercury level
(After S.W. Lohman)
Figure 4.1.9 Mercury manometer for measuring artesian heads (Bureau of Reclamation, 11981).
4-22
-------
4. AQUIFER TEST METHODS
4.1 GROUND-WATER LEVEiyPRESSURE MEASUREMENT
4.1.10 In Situ Piezometers
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Pore pressure piezometer, pneumatic piezometer, hydraulic piezometer.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Measuring ground-water levels.
Method Description; In situ piezometers are permanently installed devices intended primarily for measurement
of changes in pore pressure, from which ground-water levels can be calculated. In some cases, units are designed
so that both pressure measurements and water samples can be obtained (a cone penetration rig using the BAT
system can do this, see Sections 2,2.2 and 5.5.2). There are three major types of pore pressure piezometers: (1)
Vibrating wire piezometers generate electrical signals at the surface as the tension in a wire that is connected
to a diaphragm situated behind a filter stone changes in response to higher or lower pore pressure (Figure
4.1.10a); (2) pneumatic piezometers use a pressure transducer to measure changes that water pressure has
exerted against a diaphragm into which air has been forced (Figures 4.1.10a and b); and (3) hydraulic
piezometers consist of one or two water-filled tubes that run from the surface to a ceramic or porous stone tip
and pressure changes are read from a gage at the surface (mercury manometer, transducer, or Bourdon gage,
see Figure 4.1.10c). There are three main types of installations for in situ piezometers: (1) Driven, in which the
piezometer tip is attached to steel standpipe and driven to the depth of interest (Figure 4.1.10c), (2) jetting to
install open-ended tubes (see Section 2.1.8), and (3) capsule installations in a borehole in which a filter pack is
placed around the unit and bentonite seals are used, if required to isolate it from other units (see Figure 4.1.10d).
Method Selection Considerations: Advantages: (1) Generally easier to install and less expensive than monitoring
well installations; (2) multilevel installation is relatively easy; (3) most types operate well with automatic data
acquisition systems, allowing rapid hydraulic head measurements in a large area; and (4) more responsive to
instantaneous changes in head than open standpipes, and consequently are especially useful for monitoring fast
water level changes during pumping tests and in very low permeability materials where open standpipes might
have a long lag time in response to water level changes. Disadvantages: (1) Clogging of tubes and corrosion of
transducers can be a problem for pneumatic piezometers; (2) calibration is required for electric wire and
pneumatic piezometers and might cause difficulties when additional cable or tubing is required; (3) hydraulic
piezometers require occasional flushing to remove air which has entered the porous tip through diffusion; and
(4) most installations do not allow sampling of ground water.
Frequency of Use: Relatively uncommon, but more extensive use at contaminated sites for preliminary
characterization shallow ground-water systems might be merited.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: Reeve (1986).
Sources for Additional Information: Morrison (1983), U.S. EPA (1987). See also, Table 4-4.
4-23
-------
o
bfc R;
per
O"J
"iS
HO
ii
ww
Ju
§ §i
£
-------
4. AQUIFER TEST METHODS
4.2 HYDRAULIC CONDUCTTVTTY (SHALLOW WATER TABLE)
4.2.1 Auger Hole Method
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Variants: Pit-baling method, pumped borehole method.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Measuring saturated hydraulic conductivity where there is a shallow water table.
Method Description; A hole is bored to a depth at least 30 centimeters below the water level, taking care to
minimize disturbance of the sidewalls. Several borehole volumes are removed to eliminate puddling effects.
When the water level has stabilized, water is removed again from the hole and the rise in water level measured
at intervals until equilibrium is reached (Figure 4.2. la). In moderately permeable soils the rise in water level
can be measured with a tape and float; in highly permeable soils a pressure transducer should be used
(Hendrickx, 1990). The hydraulic conductivity can be calculated based on the geometry of the borehole, depth
from the bottom of the hole to an impermeable layer, and the rate of rise of water in the borehole (Figure
4.2. Ib). The pit-baling method is a variant of the auger hole method in which a large hole extending below the
water table is dug. The water level is rapidly lowered and the rise of the water level is measured. Shape factors
based on piezometer theory or hole geometry are required for the hydraulic conductivity calculations. The
pumped borehole method is a variant that can be used in highly permeable soils where the water level rises too
quickly for accurate measurement when the hole is baled. With this method water is pumped at a constant rate
from a hole until the water level reaches equilibrium. Saturated conductivity is calculated with Zanger's
analytical solution for holes that penetrate less than 20 percent into a deep homogenous unconfined aquifer
(Kessler and Oosterbaan, 1974).
Method Selection Considerations: Auger Hole Advantages: (1) Method is simple and inexpensive; and (2) yields
reliable information on horizontal conductivity for many conditions, provided an impermeable layer is present
not too far below the bottom of the hole. Auger Hole Disadvantages: (1) Alternative methods might be required
if the soil is layered or thin layers of high permeability occur; (2) unreliable when water level is above the soil
surface or artesian conditions exist; and (3) unreliable if hole walls have been smeared or measurements are
made after the hole is more than one-half full. Pit-Baling Method: Particularly useful for stony soils where the
auger-hole and other techniques are not practical. Pumped Borehole Method: Used for very permeable soils
when available instrumentation is not available to accurately measure rapid rises in water level when the hole
is baled (use of pressure transducers is easier and cheaper).
Frequency of Use; Most widely used method where there is a shallow water-table.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: Amoozegar and Warrick (1986).
Sources for Additional Information; See Table 4-5.
4-25
-------
\
ill
<
„
5 <
o S
O UJ
I-'
5
^
*
1'
-H
^H
j
|
4U>
4
w ^J
_*
4 — I
Q
>.
0
*
**
— J
^— 3
CO
UJ Q
Q
or
B
_l
oa
<
y
cr
—
. X
I 0)
UJ
s
z
-
o E
0-S £
• .31
X
.9 >•
0
£T
.E ^
1 "
1
1
<
<
-
•6"
|4I-
•84-
1
a
I
•8
il
I
1
4-26
-------
4. AQUIFER TEST METHODS
4.2 HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY (SHALLOW WATER TABLE)
4.2.2 Piezometer Method
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Tube technique, well-point technique.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Measuring saturated hydraulic conductivity where there is a shallow water table.
Method Description: A piezometer tube or pipe is placed in an auger hole as big as the tube's diameter without
disturbing the soil to a depth below the water table. A cavity then is bored below the bottom of the piezometer
(Figure 4.2.2a). To measure horizontal hydraulic conductivity, the length of the cavity should exceed its diameter;
for vertical hydraulic conductivity the length should be less than the radius of the cavity. Several volumes of
water are bailed or pumped from the cavity to eliminate the puddling effect. When the water level recovers,
water again is removed and the rise in water level recorded at time intervals until equilibrium is reached again.
The hydraulic conductivity can be calculated based on the geometry of the cavity and the rate of the rise of water
and the determination of a "shape factor" can be estimated from tables or nomographs that are related to the
depth from the bottom of the hole to an impermeable or infinitely permeable layer. The tube technique is a
variant of the piezometer method in which there is no cavity below the piezometer tube and primarily vertical
hydraulic is measured. The well-point technique is another variant of the piezometer method in which a screened
well-point of a specified geometry (Figure 4.2.2b) is driven below the water table and is pumped until an
equilibrium flow rate is determined. Graphs are available relating K to the pumping rate at several depths of
the suction tube below the water table (Donnan and Aronovici, 1961), or from equations (Bouwer and Jackson,
1974).
Method Selection Considerations: Piezometer Advantages: (1) Simple and inexpensive; (2) in stratified soils this
method can be used to determine conductivity of each individual layer; and (3) an impermeable layer below the
bottom of the hole is not required. Piezometer Disadvantages: (1) Generally not suitable for rocky and gravelly
soils unless a good seal can be obtained between soil and tube; and (2) in unstable soils the geometry of the
cavity might be difficult to define precisely. The tube and well-point methods have similar advantages and do
not have potential problems associated with defining cavity geometry. The tube method measures primarily
vertical hydraulic conductivity. A disadvantage of the well-point method is that the requirement for continuous
pumping makes the procedure more complicated.
Frequency of Use; Piezometer and tubes methods: Relatively uncommon; Well-point method: Uncommon.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: Amoozegar and Warrick (1986).
Sources for Additional Information: See Table 4-5.
4-27
-------
WATER TABLE
"=" t
y
S*
pipe
cavity^
•as"
LX*~
I
rt h-
I _J. C
s
4
IMPERMEABLE OR INFINITELY PERMEABLE LAYER
(a)
0.952cm (fin.) STANDARD
GALVANIZED PIPE,0.635cm
(•in.) TAP THREAD EACH END
, 1
0.635 cm (4- in.)
STANDARD
'GALVANIZED NIPPLE WITH
20 PERFORATIONS OF 0.476cm
(re in.) EACH
Ib
0.4mm (40 MESH)
BRASS SCREEN
0.635cm (5 in.) STANDARD
GALVANIZED COUPLING
0.635 cm (£in.) STANDARD PLUG
TIP GROUND TO POINT
Figure 4.2.2 Piezometer techniques: (a) Diagram of piezometer hole (Amoozegar and Warriick, 1986, by permission);
(b) Construction details for wellpoint method (Bouwer and Jackson, 1974, by permission).
4-28
-------
4. AQUIFER TEST METHODS
4.2 HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY (SHALLOW WATER TABLE)
4.2.3 Multiple-Hole Methods
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Two-well, four-well, multiple-well, drainage outflow method.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Measuring saturated hydraulic conductivity where there is a shallow water table.
Method Description: In the two-well method, two holes of equal diameter and depth, about a meter apart, are
augered below the water table. Water is pumped from one hole into the other hole at a constant rate until
equilibrium in the water levels in both holes is attained (Figure 4.2.3a). Hydraulic conductivity is calculated from
the geometry of the holes and the difference in head. The four-well method is similar, except that two center
wells of smaller diameter are placed between the pumping and receiving wells, and calculation is based on the
difference in head between the inner wells to avoid possible bias resulting from clogging in the receiving well
(Figure 4.2.3b). The multiple-well method involves an even-numbered array of wells spaced equally, on the
circumference of a circle (Figure 4.2.3c). Adjacent wells are paired and water is pumped from one to the other
as in the two-well method. Hydraulic conductivity is calculated with an equation using the average hydraulic head
difference for each pair of wells. The drainage outflow method involves the installation of shallow piezometers
in the vicinity of drainage tiles. Saturated hydraulic conductivity can be determined from simultaneous
measurements of drain discharge and water table depths using drainage spacing equations (Smedema and
Rycroft, 1983).
Method Selection Considerations: Multiple well methods are more complex and time-consuming to cany out
in the field, with expense increasing as the number of wells in the test increases. The two-well method works
best if the auger holes penetrate to the top of an impermeable layer. Clogging in the walls and bottom in the
receiving well might be a problem with the two-well method and the multiple-well methods. The four-well
method overcomes the problems of clogging. The multiple-well method has the advantage of measuring hydraulic
conductivity for a larger volume of soil. The drainage outflow method requires drainage tile outlets at which
discharge can be accurately measured at the same time water levels are measured.
Frequency of Use: Uncommon.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: ~
Sources for Additional Information: Amoozegar and Warrick (1986), Bouwer and Jackson (1974). See also,
Table 4-5.
4-29
-------
^*~— •
< 2
pump rr
_ » I *
— -..^—t**t — <~<*.
r*
LJ— W-
*^"
-" -1—
ie
/
ter
—-.^
t
H
1
(a)
pump
t
1
H
\
—
_L
3t=E
i
s
_L
k-
D
IMPERMEABLE LAYER
(b)
+ RECEIVING (pump-in)
- DISCHARGING (pump-out)
Figure 4.2.3 Multiple-hole techniques: (a) Geometry of two-hole technique; (b) Geometry of four-hole, technique; (c)
Geometry of multiple-hole technique (Amoozegar and Warrick, 1986, by permission).
4-30
-------
4. AQUIFER TEST METHODS
4.3 WELL TEST METHODS
43.1 Slug Tests
Other Names Used to Describe Method; Instantaneous head change test, Bailer test, rising/falling head test. Slug
tests vaiy somewhat in procedures and formulas used for calculations. Different methods are usually identified
by the names of the developers: Hvorslev, Ferris-Knowles, Cooper-Bredehoeft-Papadopulos, Bouwer-Rice, and
Nguyen-Finder methods.
Uses at Contaminated Sites; Measuring hydraulic conductivity (all methods), storativity and transmissivity (some
methods).
Method Description: Slug testing involves measuring the rate at which water in a well returns to its initial level
after: (1) A sudden injection or withdrawal of a known volume of water from a well, or (2) instantaneous
displacement by a weight or change in pressure. Changes in water level over time are recorded and formulas
used to calculate hydraulic conductivity are plotted and matched against type curves. Rising-head (withdrawal)
and falling-head (injection) methods often yield different results and the best estimate might be an average of
the two values. Figure 4.3. la shows an apparatus for a water injection test and Figure 4.3. Ib illustrates an
equipment setup for a pneumatic rising head test.
Method Selection Considerations; Advantages: (1) Can be used in hydrogeologic units with a wide range of
permeabilities; and (2) relatively inexpensive in terms of manpower, equipment, and site set-up, allowing multiple
tests for characterization of aquifer heterogeneity. Disadvantages: (1) Very high or very low permeabilities might
require sophisticated electronic monitoring equipment, such as transducers and data loggers, and with high
hydraulic conductivity even transducers might not work very well; (2) permeability values are only applicable to
a small volume of the aquifer; (3) most tests do not provide information on aquifer storage properties; (4)
injection-type tests should not be done in wells from which water quality samples will be collected; and (5)
mechanical slug tests might not displace enough water for meaningful results. Different methods are applicable
to different well and hydrologic conditions. Hvorslev method can be used for both unconfined and confined
aquifers with gully or partially penetrating wells below the water table. The Bouwer-Rice method applies to
unconfined aquifers. The Cooper-Bredehoeft-Papadopulos method is for confined conditions with fully
penetrating wells. The Nguyen-Finder method can be used for partially penetrating wells in confined aquifers.
Frequency of Use: Common.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: ASTM (1991b, 1991c).
Sources for Additional Information; See Table 4-5.
4-31
-------
Drum or Barrel
of Known Volume
Block, Drum Up
Above Well Casing to
Provide for Escape of Air
Land
Well Casing-
— Rope or Wire
Cover Plate with Fixed "Eye"
Gasket Secured to Cover Plate
Flange and Nipple Making
Watertight Connection
with Bottom of Drum
Surface
00
1
VV
•?£.
WATER LEVEL^^i
PROBE i,C
WATER LEVEL—s#
PROBE ?i
STATIC —7
WATER /
5'to 25'
'•;•, WELL
SCREEN
(b)
Figure 43.1 Slugs tests: (a) Apparatus for performing water injection slug test (Brakensiek et al, 1979); (b)
Equipment setup for conducting a pneumatic rising head slug test (McLane et al., 1990, by
permission).
4-32
-------
4. AQUIFER TEST METHODS
43 WELL TEST METHODS
4.3.2 Pumping Tests
Other Names Used to Describe Method; —
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Measuring aquifer hydraulic conductivity, transmissivity, and storage properties
(specific storage, specific yield, storativity). Properly designed multiple-well tests also can measure anisotropy.
Method Description; Single-well pumping tests (Figure 4.3.2a) differ from withdrawal slug tests in that water is
removed at a constant rate over a period of time from hours to days. Thirty minutes to four hours is a common
length for domestic wells. Multiple-well pumping tests usually involve placing observation wells at different
distances from a pumping well (Figure 43.2b) or in a circle around the pumping well. Pumping rates can be
measured volumetrically, commonly using an orifice weir (see Section 10.6.2), or using a commercial water meter.
Water levels in the pumping and observation wells are measured at specified intervals, closely spaced at the
beginning of the test and more widely spaced as time goes on. The use of pressure transducers and automatic
dataloggers facilitates data collection and analysis. Numerous analytical methods are available for analyzing
pump test data, which usually are presented as a series of types curves against which the time-drawdown test data
plots are matched to obtain transmissivity and storage parameters. The Thiem equilibrium equation and the
Theis nonequilibrium equation are two of the most commonly used basic analytical solutions for pump tests.
A variety of solutions to the Theis nonequilibrium equation have been derived for special aquifer and pumping
conditions. Important considerations in selection of an analytical solution for a pump test include: (1) Type of
aquifer (confined, leaky, or unconfined), (2) how much of the aquifer is intersected by the well(s) (fully or
partially penetrating), and (3) the degree of heterogeneity and anisotropy in the aquifer.
Method Selection Considerations; Advantages: (1) Analytical solutions are available for almost any aquifer and
well-type; (2) average hydraulic properties are measured for a relatively large volume of the aquifer; (3) can be
used over a wide range of permeabilities; and (4) test wells also can be used for water quality sampling after
completion of the test. Disadvantages: (1) Expensive due to manpower and equipment requirements, and length
of test (several days is not uncommon); (2) large volumes of pumped water require appropriate handling and
disposal; and (3) are inaccurate in rock with fractures or high secondary porosity (karst limestone). Multiple-well
configurations generally provide better results than single-well tests because they: (1) Are more accurate for
measuring storage values; (2) pumping well measurements are more affected by construction methods than
measurements from observation wells; (3) observation wells allow detection and characterization of aquifer
heterogeneity and anisotropy; and (4) observation wells are less affected by changes in pumping rate, which might
occur in longer tests.
Frequency of Use: Common.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: ASTM (1991d, 1991e, 1991f, 1992a, 1992b).
Sources for Additional Information: See Table 4-5.
4-33
-------
Pumping well-,.
Land surface
Static potentiometric surface _
Confining bed-.
/ / / / / //////
Confined
aquifer
Effective well radius
Confining bed
(a)
Observation wtlls
C B A
.Pumping well
./Static water level
(b)
Figure 433, Pumping tests: (a) Single-well test; (b) Multiple-well test (U.S. EPA, 1991).
4-34
-------
4. AQUIFER TEST METHODS
4.3 WELL TEST METHODS
43.3 Packer Testing
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Injection test, pressure or pulse test, pressure permeability test, falling
head packer test, Lugeon/step-pressure test.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Packers have a variety of applications in boreholes. Packer .tests -using water
injection or pressure monitoring measure hydraulic conductivity and storage coefficient above or below the water
table; packers might be used in combination with tracers to identify zones of high permeability and connectivity
of fractures between holes. Packers can also be used to isolate zones for multi-level water quality sampling in
a single well, and to improve well purging efficiency.
Method Description: Packers are inflatable devices that are inserted at a selected depth and inflated using water
or a gas to seal off a portion of a borehole. Packers can be used for a variety of applications. A single packer
is used to test a section of borehole, typically a section to 5- or 10-feet, between the hole bottom and the packer
location. After the packer is inflated, water is injected until steady-state conditions are achieved, or for a
specified period of time (typically 15 minutes to 2 hours), whichever comes first. The amount of water and
pressure changes is monitored during the test. By removing the packer after each test, hydraulic conductivity
can be measured in different sections of the borehole as drilling progresses. Two-packer tests usually are
performed after a borehole has been completed. Usually progressing from bottom to top, sections of the
borehole are isolated by top and bottom packers, and water injected as with single packer tests. Figure 4.3.3a
illustrates a typical two-packer installation. Figure 4.3.3b shows geometry and equations for single- and two-
packer tests. Pressure or pulse tests usually are used in formation with very low hydraulic conductivity (i.e., <
1 x 10"7 cm/sec). After the packer is inflated, an increment of pressure is applied to the zone isolated by the
packer(s) and the decay of pressure is monitored using pressure transducers, and plotted versus time. The rate
of decay is related to the storage coefficient and the hydraulic conductivity. The Lugeon method of packer
testing uses a series of five tests (three at increasing pressures and two at decreasing pressures.* The pattern
tracer tests (see Section 4.4) can use packers to isolate zones of interest in a single borehole, or they can be used
to determine interconnection of fractures between two uncased boreholes. Multi-level samplers can use packers
to allow collection of water quality samples from different levels in a single borehole.
Method Selection Considerations: Advantages: (1) Simple and relatively inexpensive and should be considered
any time boreholes are in consolidated rock; (2) can be used in both saturated or unsaturated unconsolidated
rock; and (3) two-packer tests have the advantage of not requiring an interruption in drilling. Disadvantages:
(1) Failure to obtain a good packer seal will overstate hydraulic conductivity (more likely with two-packer than
single-packer tests); (2) skin effects caused by drilling mud, or closing of fractures due to stress changes from
core removal, will cause underestimation of hydraulic conductivity; (3) pressure tests require more complicated
instrumentation and electronic data loggers or strip-chart recorders, and some understanding of the presence and
orientation of fractures is necessary to select the appropriate type curve to analyze test results; and (4) not
suitable for use in unconsolidated rock.
Frequency of Use: Fairly common in consolidated rock.
Standard Methods/Guidelines; Bureau of Reclamation (1981).
Sources for Additional Information: See Table 4-5.
*The Lugeon method was originally designed to assess the need for foundation grouting at dam sites. Roeper
et al. (1992) concluded that the method it not very good for hydrogeologic investigations because it takes longer
than conventional packer tests and could artificially increase hydraulic conductivity because of the higher
pressures used.
4-35
-------
assure reco
Xinstailed bel
'//'ower pa
(a)
wivel- — "-=
a
<
-!j
2
*•
Bourdon gage ~^
f .--Intake pipe \
% — rx' Ground surface ^"~\ r
JZ
r
-*
ZONE 1
K= C0 rH Q
Base of zone 1
ZONE 2 -^
METHOD 1 METHOD !
2Q 20
Tf
LiJ
>
K (C.+4)r(Tu+H-A) u (C,r)(Tu+H-A) L
^
Water table ^
p-»-
h,
J*
8J
d
Swivel
oat
ZONE 3
METHOD 1 METHOD 2
Q Q
(C,+4)rH " C.rH
• Top of impermeable zone
K=coefficient of permeability, feet per second under a unit gradient
Q=steody flow into well, ft'/,
H=h,+h,-L = effective head, ft
h, (above water table) = distance between Bourdon gage and bottom of
hole for method I or distance between gage and upper surface of
lower packer for method 2, ft
h, (below water table)1 distance between gage and water table, ft
h2=°applied pressure at gage, I lb/in* = 2.307 ft of water
L "head loss in pipe due to friction, ft; ignore head loss for Q<4 gol/min
in li - inch pipe; use length of pipe between gage and top of test
section for computations
X =^-(100)-percent of unsaturated stratum
A=length of test section, ft
r =radius of test hole, ft
Cu=conductivity coefficient for unsaturated materials with partially
penetrating cylindrical test wells
(^conductivity coefficient for semi-spherical flow in saturated
materials through partially penetrating cylindrical test wells
U=thickness of unsoturated material, ft
S=thickness of saturated material, ft
Tu= U-D+H =distance from water surface in well to water table, ft
D=distance from ground surface to bottom of test section, ft
a ^surface area of test section, ft*; area of wall plus area of
bottom for method I; area of wall for method 2
Limitations:
Q/a^O.IO. SS5A, AStlOr. thickness of each packer must .
be 2: lOr in method 2
(b)
Figure 433 Packer tests: (a) Typical straddle-packer installation (Garber and Koopman, 1968); (b) Single- and
double-packer permeability tests for use in saturated or unsaturated consolidated rock (Bureau of
Reclamation, 1981).
4-36
-------
4. AQUIFER TEST METHODS
4.4 GROUND-WATER TRACERS
4.4.1 Ions
Other Names Used to Describe Method; —
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Measuring ground-water flow paths and velocity; monitoring sanitary landfill
leachate migration and dilution by receiving waters; evaluating solute transport mechanisms in fractures;
separating baseflow and stormflow components of karst aquifers; estimating flux of liquid pollutants in vadose
zone.
Method Description: Tracing: Soluble salts (such as NaCl, LiBr) are dissolved in water and injected into a well
and monitoring wells downgradient are sampled at time intervals (see Figure 4.4.7a). Concentrations of the ion
of interest are analyzed in the laboratory. Neutron activation (see Sections 33.5 and 10.6.1 for description of
neutron activation) can be used to detect bromide tracers. Fluorinated benzoic acid derivatives, which are anions
at pHs greater than 5.0, also have been shown to be conservative in a variety of aquifer materials (Bowman, 1984;
Bowman and Gibbons, 1992). Less commonly nonionic substances are used as tracers. For example, fluorescent
polylcyclic aromatic hydrocarbons have been used as tracers to study the transport of contaminants on colloids
in ground water (Backhus and Gschwend, 1990). Figure 4.4.1 illustrates use of an injected tracer and multilevel
sampling installations to measure hydrodynamic dispersion. Monitoring: Measurement of natural variation in
Ca and Mg concentrations in karst aquifers can be used to separate baseflow (where concentrations are higher)
and stormwater flow (which dilutes the concentration). Potassium (K+) can serve as an indicator of leachate
migration from sanitary landfills which receive a large amount of vegetable waste, because it is less susceptible
to immobilization by cation exchange.
Method Selection Considerations; A major advantage of ionic tracers is that they do not decompose, so are not
lost from the system. Anionic tracers such as nitrate, chloride, and bromide, generally do not interact with
aquifer material so serve as conservative tracers (i.e., travel at the same velocity as ground-water). Bromide is
often the anion of choice because natural background levels usually are low. Where natural background
concentrations of chloride and nitrate exist, injection of larger amounts as a tracer can have unacceptable impacts
on water quality. In fissured and fracture formations, soluble chemical tracers (NaCL, CaCl^ Lid, NH4C1) have
to be diluted or used in large volumes to prevent them from sinking and escaping from circulation because of
their high density. Where density effects are a concern, potassium bichromate is a good tracer because of
dilution of 1 to 2 x 10~9 can be detected by diphenylcarbazide reagent. Cations have more severe limitations as
tracers because they tend to interact with aquifer material through cation exchange, but can be useful for
monitoring applications (see method description above).
Frequency of Use: Common
Standard Methods/Guidelines: —
Sources for Additional Information: U.S. EPA (1991-Chapter 4).
4-37
-------
multi-level
sampling
m
i
77777777
'ft/// T77TT777T77T
jyater__tabj_e___
Figure 4.4.1 Use of ionic or other type of tracers to test hydrodynamic dispersion under natural ground-water
gradients (Dans et al., 1985).
4-38
-------
4. AQUIFER TEST METHODS
4.4 GROUND-WATER TRACERS
4.4.2 Dyes
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Dye tracing, dye injection.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Identifying zones of preferential water flow in the vadose zone. Li karst limestone,
other fractured rock and porous media, dyes can be used to measure the speed and directions of ground-water
flow. Identifying sources, velocity, and direction of movement of contaminants.
Method Description: Dye is poured on the ground surface, down a drain, or injected into a well. Suspected
points of discharge (well, spring, stream, or lake) are monitored visually or sampled. The presence of dye at a
discharge point indicates a hydrologic connection and the time it appears after injection allows estimation of the
speed of travel. Dye can be recovered by taking periodic water samples or using detectors (called bugs) and
using cotton or charcoal to absorb the dye, depending on the type of dye used (Figure 4.4.2a). A fluorometer
or spectrofluorometer can be used to detect concentrations that might not be discernible to the eye. A
spectrofluorometer also allows differentiation of different dyes in the same sample. Quantitative tests require
precise measurement of dye concentrations in grab samples of water and monitoring of flow rates for mass
balance analysis. Figure 4.4.2b shows a continuous recording fluorimeter that can be used for quantitative tests.
See also, Section 3.5.6 (Single-Borehole Tracer Methods).
Method/Device Selection Considerations: Dyes are relatively inexpensive and simple to use. Either fluorescent
or nonfluorescent dyes can be used for visual inspection of flow patterns in soil. Fluorescent dyes are better for
ground-water tracer studies because they are easier to detect and are non-toxic in the concentrations typically
used in tracer tests (Field et al., in press). Many dyes are available but nomenclature can be confusing.
Available methods for estimating the optimum amount of dye to inject result in greatly varying estimates.
Adsorption of dye on subsurface geologic materials can be a problem.
Frequency of Use; Fluorescent dyes are the main method used in this country for mapping ground-water flow
patterns in karst systems. Dyes are commonly used to identify contamination of wells or surface water bodies
from septic-tank absorption fields. Use for vadose zone and porous media aquifer characterization has been
limited mostly to research applications in the past, and more widespread use in those settings would probably
be beneficial.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: Quintan (1989) for karst areas. No standard reference for uses in porous media.
Aley et al. (in preparation) will be a good source when it is published.
Sources for Additional Information; U.S. EPA (1991-Chapter 4). See also, Table 4-5.
4-39
-------
Constant-voltage
. transformer
Voltmeter
Intake hose
Gasoline-driven
generator
7s^f'^/'W/w//^/f^/sw/^vs^Y/''vs''*?*''^if''*-'*'''/vf'f>
Electric Fluorometer Standard
solution
(optional)
pump
Stream
(b)
Figure 4.4.2 Tracer tests using dyes: (a) Gumdrop used to suspend dye-detectors (bugs) above stream beds for karst
tracing: A--concrete weight, B--gaIvanized steel wire, C~nylon cord, D-vinyi-clad electrical wire, E--
surgical cotton or charcoal packets (Aley et al, in press); (b) Use of continuous recording fluorometer
(Wilson et al, 1986).
4-40
-------
4. AQUIFER TEST METHODS
4.4 GROUND-WATER TRACERS
4.4.3 Gases
Other Names Used to Describe Method; --
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Similar to ions in porous media; detecting fracture connectivity in the unsaturated
zone; estimating ground-water age (see also, Sections 4.4.6 and 4.4.7); detecting natural gas leaks (isotopic
differentiation, see Section 4.4.6); detecting pipeline leaks (helium).
Method Description: Gas tracers can be grouped into three major groups: (1) Inert natural gases include the
noble gases, which are argon, neon, helium, krypton, and xenon; (2) anthropogenic gases of which fluorocarbons
are of the most interest as tracers; and (3) gas isotopes in which the atomic weight of the gas is of interest
(covered in Sections 4.4.4 and 4.3.5). These groups are not mutually exclusive. For example Krypton 85 has
been used as a radioactive tracer, and tritium (a radioactive isotope of hydrogen) in recently recharged ground-
water has its origin in nuclear weapons testing. In ground water, injection and sampling procedures generally
are similar to those for ions. In the unsaturated zone, fracture-connectivity can be characterized using packers
to isolate different sections of adjacent open boreholes. Gas is injected into the space between the packers in
one hole, and air pumped out of the area between the packers in the other hole, with sampling to detect
presence of the injected gas (Figure 4.4.3). The natural concentration of inert natural gases (such as argon and
krypton) in infiltrating water is a function of temperature, and measurement of variations in the concentrations
of these gases in aquifers can be used to reconstruct paleoclimatic trends. The presence of fluorocarbons in
ground water (unless a point source is suspected) indicates that the water has infiltrated within the past 40 years
or so, since large amounts of flourocarbons were not released into the atmosphere before the late 1940's.
Method Selection Considerations: Noble gases (such as helium, argon, and krypton) have the advantage of being
nonreactive, nontoxic, and low natural background concentrations. Problems with gases as active tracers include:
(1) Difficulties in maintaining a constant recharge rate, (2) tune required to develop equilibrium in unconfined
aquifers, and (3) possible loss to the atmosphere in unconfined aquifers.
Frequency of Use; Uncommon as an active tracer. Volatile gases are commonly monitored in the vadose zone
to detect subsurface contamination by volatile organics (see Section 9.4).
Standard Methods/Guidelines: ~
Sources for Additional Information: U.S. EPA (1991-Chapter 4).
4-41
-------
packers
^sampling
point
\f~T7 flit I I .
1.)
r sj
^^ uncased -^
• uncased.
holes
fractured
granite
packers
Figure 4.43 Test using packers and gas tracer to determine interconnection of fractures in open boreholes (Davis et
al, 1985).
4-42
-------
4. AQUIFER TEST METHODS
4.4 GROUND-WATER TRACERS
4.4.4 Stable Isotopes
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Environmental isotopes.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Differentiating contaminant-derived and naturally occurring chemical constituents
in ground water (for example, nitrates from fertilizer/sewage contribution, sulfates from a sulfuric acid spill,
methane from gas leaks); tracing large-scale movement of ground water and locating areas of recharge (?H and
180).
Method Description: Ground-water samples are collected and analyzed for isotopic composition. The average
isotopic composition of deuterium (^H) and 18O in precipitation reaches the ground water through infiltration
changes with elevation latitude, distance from the coast, and temperature, and these variations allow
interpretations to be made concerning the origin or recharge and large-scale movement of ground water.
Alternatively, naturally occurring chemical constituents in ground water, such as nitrate, sulfate, and methane,
are sampled and analyzed to determine ratios of stable isotopes of nitrogen, sulfur, and carbon. For example,
methane (CH4) originating from deep geologic deposits is isotopically heavier than methane originating from
near-surface sources, allowing identification of methane contamination from pipelines or subsurface storage tanks
(Figure 4.4.4). Stable isotopes rarely are artificially injected in the field because: (1) It is difficult to detect small
variations of most isotopes against the natural background; (2) their analysis is costly; and (3) preparing
isotopically enriched tracers is expensive.
Method Selection Considerations: Advantages: Isotopic ratios might be the only way to differentiate between
natural and contaminant sources where nitrates, sulfates, and methane can result from either source.
Disadvantages: (1) Require laboratory analyses, which are relatively expensive; (2) generally are not suitable for
injection tests for reasons discussed above.
Frequency of Use; Uncommon.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: —
Sources for Additional Information: U.S. EPA (1991-Chapter 4). See also, Table 4-5.
4-43
-------
HI
Q.
s
en
U.
O
15 r
IO
UJ
CD 5
ID
f\
...
1
:"•' Bedrock ~\
•--' I {"!
i i I 1 8 1 1
1
r-l~
Li
Glacial
i drift
• in.
-4O
-50
-6O
-7O
FROM CH4
Figure 4.4.4 Carbon isotope percentages allow differentiation of bedrock-derived methane leaking from pipelines or
tanks from natural methane generated in shallow aquifers in glacial drift (Davis et al., 1985, after
Coleman et al, 1977).
4-44
-------
4, AQUIFER TEST METHODS
4.4 GROUND-WATER TRACERS
4.4.S Radioactive Isotopes
Other Names Used to Describe Method; Radionuclides.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Estimating ground-water age (tritium, carbon-14); infiltrating and discharging ground
water to surface waters (Radon-222); testing deep-well mechanical integrity. Injected radioactive tracers can be
used to measure a wide range of aquifer properties, but in recent years, health concerns have generally limited
their use for near-surface applications.
Method Description: In the early 1950s, there was extensive experimentation using radionuclides as natural
"environmental" tracers and as injected artificial tracers for a wide variety of applications (see Table 4-3). For
example, Figure 4.4.5a illustrates identification of ground-water flow direction in a borehole using a radioactive
tracer. However, the use of artificially injected radioactive tracers has been greatly restricted as a result of
concerns about possible adverse health effects. The use of "natural" environmental radioisotopes, such as
anthropogenic tritium, carbon-14, and radon-222, can be used in estimating how long it has been since ground
water infiltrated from the surface. In all applications of this kind, ground- or surface-water samples are collected
and analyzed to the radionuclide of interest. Tritium: Since the 1950s, atmospheric tritium, the radioactive
isotope of hydrogen with a half-life of 12.3 years, has been dominated by tritium from the detonation of
thermonuclear devices. Consequently, ground water in the northern hemisphere with more than about 5 tritium
units generally is less than 30 years old. Figure 4.4.5b illustrates age estimates and flow directions in a ground-
water basin using tritium as a tracer. Carbon-14, with a half-life of 5,730 years, can be used to identify ground
water that infiltrated in the range of 500 to 30,000 years ago. Radon-222, a daughter product from the
spontaneous fission of Uranium-238, is present in the subsurface, but due to its short half-life of 3.8 days, is
virtually absent in surface water that has reached equilibrium with the atmosphere. Consequently, reduced levels
in ground water are an indication of recent infiltration of precipitation and increased levels in surface water are
an indication of ground-water discharge.
Method Selection Considerations: Environmental Radioisotope Advantages: (1) Normal ground-water sampling
procedures can be followed with no health concerns; (2) analysis for tritium or Radon-222 is a relatively easy way
to test for recent recharge. Environmental Radioisotope Disadvantages: (1) Tests for radioisotopes are not
standard laboratory procedures and could require some effort to find a suitable laboratory; (2) interpretation
of carbon-14 "ages" is very complex due to possible sources of old carbon from the dissolution of limestone and
fractionation of isotopes by formation of gases and precipitation reactions. Injected Radioisotopes: As noted
above, health concerns have largely stopped the use of radionuclides as active tracers, except where is not a likely
threat to quality for drinking water, such as in deep petroleum production zones or testing the mechanical
integrity of deep underground waste injection wells (see for example, Thornhill and Benefield [1990]).
Frequency of Use: Uncommon. Environmental radioisotopes could probably be beneficially used more frequently
than they are.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: —
Sources for Additional Information: Bradbury (1991-tritium), U.S. EPA (1991-Chapter 4). See also, Table 4-6.
4-45
-------
(a)
T5 Site ID
X sampling point and
25 estimated age (yr)
Igneous and metamorphlc rook
(b)
Figure 4.4.5 Radioactive Tracers: (a) Flow direction in an uncased borehole determined from an uncased borehole
(Halevy et aL, 1967); (b) Estimated minimum ground-water age in Buena Vista ground-water basin
(Bradbury, 1991, by permission).
4-46
-------
4. AQUIFER TEST METHODS
4.4 GROUND-WATER TRACERS
4.4.6 Water Temperature
Other Names Used to Describe Method: See also, Sections 1.6.2 (Shallow Geothermal), 3.5.2 (Temperature Log),
and 3.5.4 (Thermal Flowmeter).
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Measuring ground-water travel time between two wells; detecting temperature
anomalies associated with transport of radioactive wastes in the subsurface; detecting temperature anomalies
associated with subsurface microbial degradation of contaminants (see Section 1.6.2); detecting river recharge
in an aquifer.
Method Description: A pulse of hot water is injected into a well and temperature in one or more observations
wells down-gradient is measured at intervals to identify the initial arrival time and time of peak temperature after
injection (Figure 4.4.6). One or more wells outside the travel path also are monitored for baseline comparison.
Surface-water recharge of an aquifer adjacent to a river can be observed by measuring temperatures in
observation wells near the river. Most rivers have large seasonal water temperature fluctuations, whereas ground-
water temperature remain relatively constant through the year. Consequently, seasonal fluctuations in ground-
water temperature near a river serve as an indicator that recharge from the surface is occurring. At a regional
level, ground water in areas of active recharge will generally be warmer than areas of ground-water discharge.
Method Selection Considerations: Simple, inexpensive and applicable in granular media, fractured rock, or karst.
Very precise temperature measurement instruments should be used if the distance between observation points
is very large (for example, a temperature drop from 40°C to 27°C has been observed over the space of 0.6 meters
[2 feet] with the peak temperature measured about 2 hours after injection). Temperature-induced changes in
water density and viscosity can alter the velocity and direction of flow. For this reason, measurements might be
less accurate than other tracers, but can serve as a useful complement to other tracers: (1) For selecting wells
for more accurate tracer tests (i.e., allow focussing of sampling on only those wells that receive flow from the
injection well where multiple wells have been installed); and (2) as a guide for developing the sampling schedule
for other tracers.
Frequency of Use: Uncommon.
Standard Methods/Guidelines; —
Sources for Additional Information: Davis et al. (1985), U.S. EPA (1991).
4-47
-------
O
f
I
'55
27.0
26'°
25.0
24.0
23.0
22.0
21.0
200
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
Initial Temperature of Injected Fluid = 47.1 °C
I I I I I !—J-
0 10 30 50 70 90 110 130
Time After Injection (Minutes)
150
Figure 4.4.6 Results of a field tracer test using hot water (Davis et aL, 1985).
4-48
-------
4. AQUIFER TEST METHODS
4.4 GROUND-WATER TRACERS
4.4.7 Participates
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Microbial tracers (yeast, bacteria, viruses), lycopodium spores.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Tracing the velocity and direction of flow in areas where water flows in large
conduits (some basalt, karst limestone); detecting actual or potential ground-water contamination from subsurface
seepage of sewage.
Method Description: Microbes: A selected microbe (typically baker's yeast or nonpathogenic bacteria) are
injected in a well and monitoring wells downgradient are sampled at time intervals (Figure 4.4.7a). Samples are
incubated and identified in the laboratory. If pollution is suspected, ground water is sampled at one or more
points downgradient from the source and the samples are analyzed. Spores: A few kilograms of dyed spores are
added to a cave or sinking stream. Movement of the tracer is monitored by sampling downstream in the cave
at a spring with plankton nets (Figure 4.4.7b). Sediment caught in the net is concentrated, treated to remove
organic matter, and the presence or absence spore determined using a microscope.
Method Selection Considerations: Microbes: Can be used in any porous media where the pore size is larger than
the size of the microorganism. In fine-grained material, sorption effects can slow travel time compared to actual
ground-water flow. The fecal coliform E. coli usually is used as an indicator of fecal pollution. Yeast and
bacteria commonly are used due to ease of growth and detection, but care must be taken to ensure that types
used are nonpathogenic (not a concern with baker's yeast). Viruses are smaller, but create greater health
concerns. Spore Advantages: (1) High injection concentration is possible; (2) pose no health threat; (3) are easily
detectable under a microscope; (4) use of multiple dye color (at least five) allows injection of multiple sites at
the same time (however dyes used to color spores tend to be toxic); and (5) can be a good alternative to dyes
for use in large-scale water resource reconnaissance studies in karst areas. Spore Disadvantages- (1) Spore
tracers do not perform well without turbulent flow to keep spores in suspension or in water with high sediment
concentrations; (2) sample collection is very labor intensive; and (3) if multiple simultaneous traces are required,
use of fluorescent dyes and a scanning spectrofluorophotometer are easier and cheaper (see Section 4.4.2).
Frequency of Use; Testing of ground water for actual microbial contamination is very commonly used method
to evaluate the effectiveness of surface and subsurface disposal of sewage wastes. The use of injected microbial
tracers is uncommon. Lycopodium spores occasionally have been used as tracers in karst areas in Europe but
rarely in the United States.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: -
Sources for Additional Information; Microbial Tracers: Keswick et al. (1982), See also, Table 4-6- Spore
Tracers: Drew and Smith (1969), Gardner and Gray (1976).
4-49
-------
24.0
0.30
6O I2O 180 240 300 360
TIME AFTER INJECTION (min)
420
(a)
LINES SECURED
TO SHORE
Figure 4.4.7 Participate tracers: (a) Results of a two-well tracer test in an alluvial aquifer using yeast and bromide
(Davis et al, 1985, after Wood and Ehrlich, 1978); (b) Diagram of operating dyed-spore trap for karst
tracer tests (Gardner and Gray, 1976).
4-50
-------
4. AQUIFER TEST METHODS
4.5 OTHER AQUIFER CHARACTERIZATION METHODS
4.5.1 Unconfined Ground-Water Balance
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Water/hydrologic budget.
Uses at Contaminated Sites; Predicting the response of near-surface ground-water levels to other parameters in
the nydrologic system.
Method Description: A water budget requires quantification of all aspects of the hydrologic system that add or
remove water from the component of interest. The water balance equation can be solved for any individual
component, and there are numerous forms of the water balance equation. In the case of ground water, it usually
is apphed to unconfined aquifers to determine changes in the amount of water stored in an aquifer and/or
ground-water levels with time. Positive elements in the balance include: (1) Infiltration reaching the capillary
fringe, (2) unconfined ground-water inflow in a horizontal direction, and (3) confined water leakage from
underlying aquifers. The negative elements of the balance include: (1) Evapotranspiration from the top of the
capillary fringe above the water table, (2) unconfined ground-water outflow in a horizontal direction, and (3)
unconfined ground-water outflow downwards as leakage to underlying semi-confined aquifers. Figure 451
illustrates the way the water table responds to the interaction of the different components of the water balance.
Most vadose zone computer models either are based on, or contain modules using, water budget principles (see
Section 7.5.1), and often can be used without field measurement of all the input parameters of concern to
estimate the infiltration/evapotranspiration balance in relation to ground water. The well test methods discussed
in this section, and Section 8 (Vadose Zone Water Budget Characterization Methods) cover ways in which
specific components of the water balance equation can be measured, if required. Other methods using water
balance calculations are covered in Sections 7.1.1 (Infiltration Impoundment Methods), 7.5.1 (Unsaturated Zone
Water Flux), and 8.3 (Evapotranspiration Water Balance Methods).
Method Selection Considerations: Advantages: (1) Most useful at early stage of site characterization for using
estimated values for various components to develop a conceptual model of the site and to identify critical
components that might require more detailed field measurement; and (2) also useful in evaluating different
approaches and designs for remediation of contaminated sites. Disadvantages: (1) Field measurement of
parameters required for a water balance is very time-consuming and expensive; and (2) use of estimated values
in place of field measurement might reduce the accuracy of calculations.
Frequency of Use; Water balance approach is more commonly used to evaluate leaching potential of
contaminants from the vadose to the saturated zone (Sections 75.1 and 9.5.1) than for determining ground-water
balance at a site-specific level. Commonly used for analysis of ground-water storage changes for larger areas.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: —
Sources for Additional Information: See Table 4-3.
4-51
-------
r
z. +
a
I
S
"8
Infiltration of precipitation to water table.
Difference between unconfined ground-water inflow and outflow.
g-1 Evapotrampiration from unconfined ground water.
Change in ground-water level.
Figure 45.1 Elements of unconfined ground-water balance observations (Brown et aL, 1983).
4-52
-------
4. AQUIFER TEST METHODS
4.5 OTHER AQUIFER CHARACTERIZATION METHODS
4.5.2 Moisture Profiles for Specific Yield
Other Names Used to Describe Method; -
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Measuring specific yield (drainable pore space) in shallow, unconfined aquifers.
Method Description; The initial level in a shallow well (up to 5 to 6 meters) is measured, and moisture content
is determined at intervals of 0.1 meters in the capillary fringe above the water table, either by sampling and
gravimetric analysis (Section 6.2.1), a neutron probe (Sections 33.3 and 6.2.2), or some other in situ
measurement method (see Table 6-1). When the ground-water level has risen by the value delta H (Figure
4.5.2), the moisture profile above the water table is determined again at the same location. The difference in
area between the two moisture profiles in Figure 4.5.1 represents the increment of gravity water reserves for the
observed water level rise. Brown et al. (1983) provide equations for accurate calculation of specific yield from
the moisture profile data.
Method Selection Considerations: Advantages: Most useful when specific yield needs to be determined at a site
where it is desirable to avoid a pumping test that brings contaminated water to the surface. Disadvantages: (1)
Can only be used with a shallow, unconfined aquifer; and (2) provides less information about the aquifer than
a pumping test.
Frequency of Use; Uncommon. The advantage cited above might merit more widespread use at contaminated
sites.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: Brown et al. (1983).
Sources for Additional Information: Bouwer and Jackson (1974). '
4-53
-------
Portion of soil moisture profile prior to water-level rise.
l^/^j Portion of soil-moisture profile after water-level rise.
Initial water-table position.
Final water-table position after a steady rise.
Figure 4.5.2 Soil-moisture profile changes in response to unconfined ground-water level rise for determination of
specific yield (Brown et al, 1983).
4-54
-------
Table 4-4 Reference Index for Ground-Water Level/Pressure Measurement Methods
Topic
References
Reviews of Methods
Accuracy/Precision
Water Level Fluctuations
Data Interpretation
Air Line
Electric
Sonic Methods
Transducers
Float Methods
In Situ Piezometers
Brown et al. (1983), Bureau of Reclamation (1981, 1984), Cordes (1984), Dalton
et al. (1991), Driscoll (1986), Garber and Koopman (1968), Sophocleous and
Perry (1984), Sweet et al. (1990), Thompson et al. (1989), Thornhill (1989) US
EPA (1987), U.S. Geological Survey (1980)
Gibbons (1990), Sweet et al. (1990); U.S. Geological Survey Testing Pmars™.
Holland and Rapp (1988), Olive (1989), Rapp et al. (1985a, 1985b)
Andreason and Brookhart (1963-reverse fluctuations), Freeze and Cherry (1979)
Kohout (1960-effects of salt water), Languth and Treskatis (1989), Moench
(1971), Rockaway (1970), Sayko et al. (1990), Weeks (1979-barometric effects),
Weiss-Jennemann (1991-offsite effects), Winograd (1970)
Chapus (1988), Davis and DeWiest (1966), Fetter (1981), Frimpter (1992),
Henning (1990), Hoeksma et al. (1989), Rockaway (1970), Rosenberry (19901
Saines (1981), Struckmeier et al. (1986)
Fournier and Truesdell (1971), Franzoy and Busch (1966), Peake and
Mioduszewski (1989)
Henszey (1991), Luthin (1949), Ritchey (1986), Sanders (1984), Weir and Nelson
Andersen (1986), Ritchey (1986)
Durham and Bumala (1992)
Mechanical Float: Walton (1963); Potentiometer Float: Buchanan and Somers
(1968), Rosenberry (1990)
Hemond (1982), Massarsch et al. (1975), Reeve (1986), Reeve and Jensen (1949)
Rice (1967), Russel (1981), Talsma (1960), Wissa et al. (1975), Wolf et al (19911
Wolff and Olsen (1968) ' "
4-55
-------
Table 4-5 Sources of Information on Aquifer Tests and Analysis of Test Data
Topic
Ground-Water Hydraulics
Shallow Water Table Tests
Reviews
Auger-Hole Method
Pit-Baling Method
Pumped Borehole Method
Piezometer Methods
Multiple-Hole Methods
Reference
Bear (1972,1979), Bear and Corapciuglu (1987), Bennett (1976), Brooks and
Corey (1964-unsaturated flow), Bureau of Reclamation (1981), Campbell and
Lehr (1973), Cedergren (1989), Collins (1961), Colt Industries (1974), Corey
(1977) Daly (1984), DeWiest (1966, 1969), Dodge and Thompson (1937), Driscoll
(1986), Dullien (1979), Edelman (1983), Glover (1966), Hantush (1964), Hubbert
(1969) IAHR (1972), Lohman (1972), Marsily (1986), McWhorter and Sunada
(1981) Muskat (1937), Peterson et al. (1952), Rosenshein and Bennett (1984),
Scheidegger (1974), Simon (1976), Stallman (1967-vmsaturated flow), Strack
(1989), U.S. EPA (1986)
Amoozegar and Warrick (1986), Boersma (1965), Bouma (1979, 1983), Bouwer
and Jackson (1974), Johnson and Richter (1967), Kessler and Oosterbaan (1974),
Kirkham (1965), Luthin (1957), Schmid (1967), U.S. EPA (1986), Youngs (1991)
Boast and Kirkham (1971), Bouma (1983), Bouma et al. (1976, 1979a,b, 1981),
Bouwer (1978), Bouwer and Jackson (1974), Bouwer et al. (1955-stony soils),
Bureau of Reclamation (1978), Ernst (1950), Hendrickx (1990), Hof&nan and
Scwab (1964), Johnson et al. (1952), Kirkham (1958,1965), Kirkham and van
Bavel (1948), Luthin (1957-layered soils), Maasland (1955, 1957-anisotropic soils),
Roberts (1984), Topp and Sattlecker (1983), Topp and Zebchuk (1986), U.S.
EPA (1981), van Bavel and Kirkham (1948), van Beers (1958), Youngs (1991)
Boast and Langebartel (1984), Bouwer and Rice (1983), Healy and Laak (1973),
Hendrickx (1990)
Hendrickx (1990), Kessler and Oosterbaan (1974)
Piezometer Method: Bouwer (1978), Bureau of Reclamation (1978), Hendrickx
(1990), Johnson et al. (1952), Kessler and Oosterbaan (1974), King and
Franzmeier (1981), Kirkham (1946), Luthin and Kkkham (1949), Youngs (1968,
1991); Tube Method; Frevert and Kirkham (1948), Kkkham (1946), Luthin
(1973); Well Point Method: Bouwer and Jackson (1974), Donnan and Aronovici
(1961)
Overviews; Amoozegar and Warrick (1986), Bouwer and Jackson (1974), Luthin
(1957) Youngs (1991); Two-Well: Childs (1952), Childs et al. (1953); Four-Well:
Bouwer and Jackson (1974), Kirkham (1954), Snell and van Schilfgaarde (1964),
Thomas and Snell (1967); Multiple-Well: Smiles and Youngs (1963); Drainage
Outflow Method: Hendrickx (1990), Smedema and Rycroft (1983), Youngs (1991)
Slug Tests
Texts/Reviews
Pressure Displacement
Bentall (1963a), Bouwer (1978), Campbell et al. (1990), Chapus (1989), Chirlin
(1990), Dagan (1978), Dawson and Istok (1991), Herzog and Morse (1986, 1990),
Kraemer et al. (1990), Lohman (1972), Olson and Daniel (1981), Sevee (1991),
Thompson et al. (1989), Wynne (1992)
Leap (1984), Levy and Pannell (1991), McLane et al. (1990), Orient et al. (1987)
4-56
-------
Table 4-5 (cont)
Topic
Reference
Slug Tests (cont.}
Multilevel Tests
Hvorslev Method
Ferris-Knowles Method
Cooper-Bredehoeft-
Papadopulos Method
Bouwer-Rice Method
Data Analysis
Procedures
Pumping Tests
Packer Tests
Water Balance Methods
Texts/Reviews
Case Studies
Other Aquifer Properties
Effective Porosity
Mastrolonardo and Thomsen (1992), Melville et al. (1991), Molz et al. (1990a W
Widdowson et al. (1989,1990) '
Cedergren (1989), Chirlin (1989), Freeze and Cherry (1979), Hvorslev (1951)
Leap (1984) "
Ferris and Knowles (1954, 1963), Ferris et al. (1962), Leap (1984)
Cooper et al. (1967), Leap (1984), Papadopulos et al. (1973),
Bouwer (1989), Bouwer and Rice (1976)
Dax (1987), Faust and Mercer (1984), Keller and van der Kamp (1992), Marschall
and Barczewski (1989), Moench and Hsieh (1985), Nguyen and Finder (1984)
Palmer and Paul (1987), Peres et al. (1989), Widdowson et al. (1990)
Bentall (1963a,b), Bouwer (1978), Brown et al. (1983), Bureau of Reclamation
(1981), Clarke (1988), Dawson and Mok (1991), Driscoll (1986), Earlougher
(1977), Ferris et al. (1962), Johnson and Richter (1967), Kruseman and de Ridder
(1990), Lang (1967), Lohman (1972), Schicht (1972), Stallman (1971), Streltsova
(1989), U.S. EPA (1986, 1991), U.S. Geological Survey (1980), Walton (1962
1979, 1987), Wenzel (1942) V
Braester and Thunvik (1984), Brassington and Walthall (1985), Bureau of
Reclamation (1981), Dagan (1978), Koopman et al. (1962), Sevee (1991), Shuter
and Pemberton (1978), Sutcliffe and Joyner (1966); Lugeon Test: Houlsby (1976),
Roeper et al. (1992); see also, references for multilevel slug tests
ASCE (1952), Brown et al. (1983), Bureau of Reclamation (1981), Chapman
(1964), Childs (1969), Downes (1964), Hagan et al. (1967), Meinzer (1932),
Phillips (1964, 1969), Rijtema and Wassink (1969), Skeat (1969), Sokolow and
Chapman (1974), Thornthwaite and Mather (1955), Walton (1970)
Dennehy and McMahon (1989), Holmes (1960), Kohler (1964), Meinzer and
Stearns (1929), Rasmussen and Andreason (1959), Schicht and Walton (1961)
Turner and Halpenny (1941), Ubell (1965), White (1990), Williams and Lohman
Horton et al. (1988)
4-57
-------
r
Table 4-6 Sources of Information on Tracer Tests
Topic
Reference
Other Aquifer Properties (coat.)
General Reviews
Bibliographies
Specific Tracers
Dyes
Microorganisms
Stable Isotopes
Radioactive Isotopes
Karst Tracing
Atkinson 2nd Smart (1981), Davis et al. (1980,1985), Drew and Smith (1969),
Gaspar (1987), Grisak et al. (1983), Kaufman and Orlob (1956), Knuttson (1968),
Molz et al. (1986, 1987), U.S. EPA (1991-Chapter 4)
Edwards and Smart (1988a,b), LaMoreaux et al. (1984,1989), Smart et al. (1988),
Taylor and Dey (1985), van der Leeden (1991)
Drew and Smith (1969), Field et al. (in press), McLaughlin (1982), Mull et al.
(1988), Quinlin (1989), Smart and Laidlaw (1977), Thrailkill et al. (1983), Wilson
et al. (1986); see also, Karst Tracing
Crane and Moore (1984), Gerba (1983, 1985, 1987), Gerba and Bitton (1984),
Keswick and Gerba (1980), Keswick et al. (1982), Matthess and Pekdeger (1985),
Romero (1970), Sobsey and Shields (1987), Vaughn and Landry (1983), Wood
and Ehrlich (1978)
Back and Cherry (1976), Bowen (1980-Chapter 3), Coleman et al. (1977), Davis
and Bentley (1982), Ferronsky and Polyakov (1982), Fritz and Fontes (1980,
1986), Halevy et al. (1967), IAEA (1967a, 1967c, 1970, 1974a, 1974b, 1978),
Lamoreaux et al. (1984), Moser and Rauert (1985), Payne (1972)
Csallany (1966), Gaspar and Oncescu (1972), Hoefe (1980), IAEA (1963, 1967b,
1967c, 1974b), Jaeger and Hunziker (1979), Kaufinan and Orlob (1956), Thomhill
and Benefield (1990), Wiebenga et al. (1967) t
Aley and Fletcher (1976), Aley et al. (in press), Back and Zoetl (1975), B6gli
(1980), Brown (1972), Ford and Williams (1989), Gospodaric and Habic (1976),
Gunn (1982), Jones (1984), LaMoreaux (1984, 1989), Milanovic (1981), Mull et
al. (1988), Quinlan (1989), Sweeting (1973), SUWT (1966, 1970, 1976, 1981,
1986), Thrailkill et al. (1983)
4-58
-------
SECTION 4 REFERENCES
Aley, T. and M.W. Fletcher. 1976. The Water Tracer's Cookbook. Missouri Speleology 16(3):l-32.
Aley, T. J.F. Quintan, E.C. Alexander, and H. Behrens. In press. The Joy of Dyeing: A Compendium of Practical Techniques for
Tracing Groundwater, Especially in Karst Terranes. National Ground Water Association, Dublin, OH. .
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). 1952. Hydrology Handbook. ASCE Manual of Engineering Practice No. 28. ASCE,
New York, NY.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1986a. Standard Test Method for Determining Transmissivity and Storativity
of Low Permeability Rocks by In-Situ Measurements Using the Constant Head Injection Test. D4630-86, (Vol. 4.08),
ASTM, Philadelphia, PA. [Packer test]
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1986b. Standard Test Method for Determining Transmissivity and Storativity
of Low Permeability Rocks by In-Situ Measurements Using the Pressure Pulse Technique. D4631-86, (Vol. 4.08), ASTM,
Philadelphia, PA. [Packer test]
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1987. Test Method for Determining Subsurface Liquid Levels in a Borehole
or Monitoring Well (Observation Well). D4750-87, (Vol. 4.08), ASTM, Philadelphia, PA. [Measuring tape, electrical]
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1991a. Standard Guide for Selection of Aquifer-Test Field and Analytical
Procedures in Determination of Hydraulic Properties by Well Techniques. D4043-91, (Vol. 4.08), ASTM, Philadelphia,
PA.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1991b. Standard Test Method (Field Procedures) for Instantaneous Change in
Head (Slug Tests) for Determining Hydraulic Properties of Aquifers. D4044-91, (Vol. 4.08), ASTM, Philadelphia, PA.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1991c. Standard Test Method (Analytical Procedure) for Determining
Transmissivity of Nonleaky Confined Aquifers by Overdamped Well Response to Instantaneous Change hi Head (Slug
Test). D4104-91, (Vol. 4.08), ASTM, Philadelphia, PA.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1991d. Standard Test Method (Field Procedure) for Withdrawal and Injection
Well Tests for Determining Hydraulic Properties of Aquifer Systems. D4050-91, (Vol. 4.08), ASTM, Philadelphia, PA.
[Pumping tests]
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1991e. Standard Test Method for (Analytical Procedure) for Determining
Transmissivity and Storage Coefficient of Nonleaky Confined Aquifers by the Modified Theis Nonequilibrium Method.
D4105-91, (Vol. 4.08), ASTM, Philadelphia, PA.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1991f. Standard Test Method for (Analytical Procedure) for Determining
Transmissivity and Storage Coefficient of Nonleaky Confined Aquifers by the Theis Nonequilibrium Method. D4106-91
(Vol. 4.08), ASTM, Philadelphia, PA.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1992a. Standard Test Method for (Analytical Procedure) Determining
Transmissivity of Non-Leaky Confined Aquifers by the Theis Recovery Method. D5269-92, (Vol 4.08), ASTM
Philadelphia, PA.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1992b. Standard Test Method for (Analytical Procedure) Determining
Transmissivity and Storage Coefficient of Bounded, Non-Leaky Confined Aquifers. D5270-92, (Vol 4.08), ASTM,
Philadelphia, PA.
Amoozegar, A. and A. W. Warrick. 1986. Hydraulic Conductivity of Saturated Soils: Field Methods. In: Methods of Soil Anarysis,
Part 1, 2nd edition, A. Klute (ed.), Agronomy Monograph No. 9. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI, pp. 735-
770.
Andersen, S.G. 1986. Water Level Measurements Using Sound Waves. In: Proc. Surface and Borehole Geophysical Methods and
Ground Water Instrumentation Conf. and Exp., National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH, pp. 18-27.
4-59
-------
Andreason, G.E. and J.W. Brookhart. 1963. Reverse Water Level Fluctuations. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 15
-------
Bouwer, H. 1978. Groundwater Hydrology. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. [Chapter 5 covers pump test methods; also includes
auger hole and piezometer methods]
Bouwer, H. 1989. The Bouwer and Rice SlugTest-An Update. Ground Water 27(3):304-309.
Bouwer, H. and R.D. Jackson. 1974. Determining Soil Properties. In: Drainage for Agriculture, J. van Schilfgaarde (ed.), ASA
Agronomy Monograph No. 17, American Society for Agronomy, Madison, WI, pp. 611-672.
Bouwer, H. and R.C. Rice. 1976. A Slug Test for Determining Hydraulic Conductivity of Unconfined Aquifers with Completely or
Partially Penetrating Wells. Water Resources Research 12(3):423-428.
Bouwer, J. and R.C. Rice. 1983. The Pit Baling Method for Hydraulic Conductivity Measurement of Isotropic or Anisotropic Soils
Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. Trans. 26:1435-1439.
Bouwer, H., PJ. Zwerman, H.E. Gray, and G. Levine. 1955. Drainage Research Methods on Stony Soils. Agr. Eng. 36:591-592.
Bowen, R. 1980. Ground Water. Applied Science Publishers, London. [Chapter 3 covers isotope tracing techniques]
Bowman, R.S. 1984. Evaluation of Some New Tracers for Soil Water Studies. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 48:987-993. [Ionic tracers]
Bowman, R.S. and J.F. Gibbons. 1992. Difluorobezoates as Nonreactive Tracers in Soil and Ground Water. Ground Water 30:8-14.
Bradbury, K.R. 1991. Tritium as an Indicator of Ground-Water Age in Central Wisconsin. Ground Water 29:398-404.
Brakensiek, D.L., H.B. Osborn, and WJ. Rawls (eds.). 1979. Field Manual for Research in Agricultural Hydrology. Agricultural
Handbook No. 224, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.
Braester, C. and R. Thunvik. 1984. Determination of Formation Permeability by Double Packer Tests. J. Hydrology 72:375-389.
BrassrngtoM^C and S.^Walthau. 1985. Field Techniques Using Borehole Packers in Hydrogeological Investigations. Quart J. Eng.
Brooks, R.H. and AT. Corey. 1964. Hydraulic Properties of Porous Media. Hydrology Paper No. 3. Colorado State University,
Brown, M.C 1972. Karst Hydrology of the Lower Maligne Basin, Jasper, Alberta. Cave Studies No. 13. Cave Research Associates
Castro Valley, CA. '
Brown, R.H., A.A. Konoptyantsev, J. Ineson, and V.S. Kovalensky. 1983. Ground-Water Studies: An International Guide for
Research and Practice. Studies and Reports in Hydrology No. 7. UNESCO, Paris. (Originally published in 1972 with
supplements added in 1973,1975,1977, and 1983.)
Buchanan, TJ. and W.P. Somers. 1968. Stage Measurement at Gaging Stations. U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water
Resource Investigations TWRI 3-A7, 28 pp. [Potentiometer float]
Bureau of Reclamation. 1978. Drainage Manual, 1st edition. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver
CO, 286 pp. [Piezometer method]
Bureau of Reclamation. 1981. Ground Water Manual-A Water Resources Technical Publication, 2nd edition. U.S. Department of
the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, CO, 480 pp. (1st edition 1977.)
Bureau of Reclamation. 1984. Water Measurement Manual, 2nd edition. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation
Denver, CO, 327 pp. (1st edition 1967.)
Campbell, M.D. and J.H. Lehr. 1973. Water Well Technology. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, NY.
Campbell, M.D., M.S. Sterrett, S.F. Fowler, and J J. Klein. 1990. Slug Tests and Hydraulic Conductivity. Ground Water
Management 4:85-99 (7th NWWA/API Conf.).
Cedergren, H.R. 1989. Seepage, Drainage, and Flow Nets, 3rd edition. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. (1st edition 1967.)
4-61
-------
Chapman, T.G. 1964. Effects of Ground-Water Storage and Flow on Water Balance. In: Water Resources Use and Management
(1963 Canberra Symp.), Melbourne Univ. Press, Melbourne, pp. 290-301.
Chanus R.P 1988 Determining Whether Wells and Piezometers Give Water Levels or Piezometric Levels. In: Ground-Water
' Contamination: Reid Methods, A.G. Collins and A.I. Johnson (eds.), ASTM STP 963, American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 162-171.
Chapus.RJ. 1989. Shape Factors for Permeability Tests in Boreholes and Piezometers. Ground Water 27(5):647-654).
Childs, E.C. 1952. The Measurement of the Hydraulic Permeability of Saturated Soil in Situ. I: Principles of a Proposed Method.
Proc, Royal Soc. (London) A. 215:525-535.
Oiilds, E.C. 1969. An Introduction to the Physical Basis of Soil Water Phenomena. Wiley Interscience, New York, NY, 493 pp.
Childs, E.C, A.H. Cole, and D.H. Edwards. 1953. The Measurement of the Hydraulic Permeability of Saturated Soil in Situ. II.
Proc. Royal Soc. (London) 216:72-89.
Chirtin,G.R. 1989. A Critique of the Hvorslev Method for Slug Test Analysis: The Fully Penetrating Well. Ground Water
Monitoring Review 9(2):130-138.
Chirlin, G.R. 1990. The Slug Test: The First Forty Years. In: Proceedings of the Cluster Conferences: Ground Water Management
and Wellhead Protection. Ground Water Management 1:365-381.
Clarke, D. 1988. Groundwater Discharge Tests: Simulation and Analysis. Dev. in Water Science 37. Elsevier, New York, NY.
Coleman, D.D., W.F. Meents, C.L. Liu, and R.A. Keogh. 1977. Isotopic Identification of Leakage Gas from Underground Storage
Reservoirs-a Progress Report. Petroleum Report No. 111. Illinois State Geological Survey, Urbana, IL.
Collins, R.E. 1961. Flow of Fluids in Porous Media. Reinhold Publishing Corp., New York, NY.
Colt Industries. 1974. Hydraulic Handbook. Fairbanks Morse Pump Division, Colt Industries, Kansas City, KS, 246 pp.
Cooper, Jr., H.H., JJD. Bredehoeft, and I.S. Papadopoulos. 1967. Response of a Finite-Diameter Well to an Instantaneous Charge
of Water. Water Resources Research 3(1):263-270.
Cordes,E.H. 1984. Ground Water Instrumentation Program of the U.S. Geological Survey. Ground Water Monitoring Review
4(4):103-114.
Corey, A.T. 1977. Mechanics of Heterogeneous Fluids in Porous Media. Water Resources Publications, Fort Collins, CO.
Crane, S.R. and JA. Moore. 1984. Bacterial Pollution of Groundwater: A Review. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 22:67-83.
Csallany, S.C 1966. Application of Radioisotopes in Water Resources Research. In: Proc. 2nd Annual American Water Resource
Conference, American Water Resource Association, Champaign, IL, pp. 365-373.
Dagan, G. 1978. A Note on Packer, Slug and Recovery Tests in Unconfmed Aquifers. Water Resources Research 14(5):929-934.
Dalton, M.G., B.E. Huntsman, and K. Bradbury. 1991. Acquisition and Interpretation of Water-Level Data. In: Practical Handbook
of Ground-Water Monitoring, D.M. Nielsen (ed.), Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI, pp. 367-395.
Daly, CJ. 1984. A Procedure for Calculating Ground Water Flow Lines. CRREL Special Report 84-9. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH.
Davis, S.N. 1986. Reply to the Discussion by James F. Quintan of Ground Water Tracers. Ground Water 24(3):398-399.
Davis, S.N. and H.W. Bentley. 1982. Dating Groundwater, a Short Review. In: Nuclear and Chemical Dating Techniques, L. Currie
(cd.), ACS Symposium Series 176, pp. 187-222.
Davis, S.N. and RJ.M. DeWiest. 1966. Hydrogeology. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 366 pp.
Davis, S.N., G.M. Thompson, H.W. Bentley, and G. Stiles. 1980. Ground Water Tracers-A Short Review. Ground Water 18:14-23.
4-62
-------
Davis, S.N., DJ. Campbell, H.W. Bentley, and TJ. Ftynn. 1985. Introduction to Ground-Water Tracers. EPA/600/2-85/022 (NT1S
PB86-100591). Also published under the title Ground Water Tracers in NWWA/EPA Series, National Water Well
Association, Dublin, OH, 200 pp. (See also, discussion by Quintan [1986] and reply by Davis [1986].)
Dawson, KJ. and J.D. Istok. 1991. Aquifer Testing: Design and Analysis of Pumping and Slug Tests. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea,
MI, 280 pp.
Dax, A. 1987. A Note on the Analysis of Slug Tests. J. Hydrology 91:153-177.
Dennehy, K.F. and P.B. McMahon. 1989. Water Movement in the Unsaturated Zone at a Low-Level Radioactive-Waste Burial Site
Near Barnwell, South Carolina. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2345, 40 pp. [Ground-water balance]
DeWiest, R J.M. 1966. Geohydrology. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
DeWiest, RJ.M. (ed.). 1969. Flow Through Porous Media. Academic Press, New York, NY.
Dodge, R.A. and MJ. Thompson. 1937. Fluid Mechanics. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Donnan, W.W. and V.S. Aronovici. 1961. Field Measurement of Hydraulic Conductivity. J. Irrig. Drain. Div. (ASCE) 87(IR2):1-13.
Downes, R.G. 1964. The Water Balance and Land-Use. In: Water Resources Use and Management (1963 Canberra Symp.),
Melbourne Univ. Press, Melbourne, pp. 329-341.
Drew, D.P. and D.I. Smith. 1969. Techniques for the Tracing of Subterranean Drainage. British Geomorphological Research
Group Tech. Bulletin 2:1-36.
Driscoll, F.G. 1986. Groundwater and Wells, 2nd edition. Johnson Division, UOP Inc., St. Paul, MN, 1089 pp. (1st edition by
Johnson UOP, 1966.) [Chapter 16 covers water level measurement methods: steel tape, electric probe, air line, pressure
transducer]
Dullien, F.A.L. 1979. Porous Media: Fluid Transport and Structure. Academic Press, New York, NY.
Durham, G.N. and T.G. Bumala. 1992. Using Vibration Strip Transducers for Measuring Water Levels in Monitoring Wells. In:
Current Practices in Ground Water and Vadose Zone Investigations, ASTM STP 1118, D.M. Nielsen and M.N. Sara (eds.),
American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 273-280.
Earlougher, Jr., R.C. 1977. Advances in Well Test Analysis. Soc. Petrol. Eng. of AIME, New York, NY, 264 pp.
Edelman, J.H. 1983. Groundwater Hydraulics of Extensive Aquifers, 2nd edition. ILRI Bulletin No. 13. International Institute for
Land Reclamation and Improvement, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 216 pp.
Edwards, AJ. and P.L. Smart. 1988a. Solute Interaction Processes: An Annotated Bibliography. Turner Designs, Sunnyvale, CA.
[61 references]
Edwards, AJ. and P.L. Smart. 1988b. Contaminant Transport Modeling: An Annotated Bibliography. Turner Designs, Sunnyvale,
CA. [58 references]
Ernst, L.F. 1950. A New Formula for the Calculation of the Permeability Factor with the Auger Hole Method. TNO, Groningnen.
(Translated from the Dutch by H. Bouwer, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.)
Faust, C.R. and J.W. Mercer. 1984. Evaluation of Slug Tests in Wells Containing a Finite Thickness Skin. Water Resources
Research 20(4):504-506.
Ferris, J.G. and D.B. Knowles. 1954. The Slug Test for Estimating Transmissibility. U.S. Geological Survey Ground Water Note 26.
Ferris, J.G. and D.B. Knowles. 1963. The Slug-Injection Test for Estimating the Coefficient of Transmissibility of an Aquifer. In:
U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1536-1.
Ferris, J.G., D.B. Knowles, R.H. Brown, and R.W. Stallman. 1962. Theory of Aquifer Tests. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supphr
Paper 1536-E. *
Ferronsky, V.I. and V.A. Potyakov. 1982. Environmental Isotopes in the Hydrosphere. Wiley-Interscience, New York, NY.
4-63
-------
Fetter, Jr., CW. 1981. Determination of the Direction of Groundwater Flow. Ground Water Monitoring Review 1(3):28-31.
Reid, M.S., R.G. Wilhelm, and J.F. Quinlan. In press. Selection, Toxicity, and Use of Fluorescent Dyes for Tracing Ground Water
in Karst and Fractured Rock Aquifers: 1. What Is Safe, Why, Where, and When? Ground Water.
Ford, D.C and P.W. Williams. 1989. Karst Geomorphology and Hydrology. Unwin Hyman, Boston, MA, 601 pp.
Fournier, R.D. and A.H. Truesdell. 1971. A Device for Measuring Down-Hole Pressures and for Sampling Fluids in Geothermal
Wells. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 750-C, pp. C146-C150. [Air line]
Franzoy, CEandCD. Busch. 1966. A Portable Airline to Measure Water Level. Agric. Eng. 47:86-87.
Freeze, R.A. and J.A. Cherry. 1979. Groundwater. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 604 pp.
Frevert, R.K. and D. Kirkham. 1948. A Field Method for Measuring the Permeability of Soil Below the Water Table. Highway
Research Board Proc. 28:433-442.
Frimpter, M.H. 1992. Use of Long-Term Observation Well Data to Estimate Ground-Water Levels for Site Investigations. Ground
Water Management 13:279-291 ([8th] Focus Conf. Eastern GW Issues).
Fritz, P. and J.C Fontes (eds.). 1980. Handbook of Environmental. Isotope Geochemistry, Vol 1: The Terrestrial Environment.
Elsevier, New York, NY, 545 pp.
Fritz, P. and J.C. Fontes (eds.). 1986. Handbook of Environmental Isotope Geochemistry, Vol 2: The Terrestrial Environment, Part
B. Elsevier, New York, NY.
Garber, M.S. and F.C Koopman. 1968. Methods of Measuring Water Levels in Deep Wells. U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of
Water-Resource Investigations TWRI 8-A1, 23 pp. [Steel tape, electric, air line, float recorder, transducers]
Gardner, G.D. and R.E. Gray. 1976. Tracing Subsurface Flow in Karst Regions Using Artificially Colored Spores. Association of
Engineering Geologists Bulletin 13:177-197.
Caspar, E. (ed.). 1987. Modem Trends in Tracer Hydrology. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, Vol. 1,145 pp.; Vol. II, 137 pp.
Caspar, E. and M. Oncescu. 1972. Radioactive Tracers in Hydrology. Elsevier, New York, NY.
Gerba, CP. 1983. Virus Survival and Transport in Groundwater. Dev. Ind. Microbiol. 24:247-251.
Gerba, CP. 1985. Microbial Contamination of the Subsurface. In: Ground Water Quality, C.H. Ward, W. Giger, and P.L. McCarty
(eds.), Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, pp. 53-67.
Gerba, CP. 1987. Transport and Fate of Viruses in Soils: Field Studies. In: Human Viruses in Sediments, Sludges, and Soil, V.C
Rao and J.L. Melnick (eds.), CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Gerba, CP. and G. Bitton. 1984. Microbial Pollutants: Their Survival and Transport Pattern to Groundwater. In: Groundwater
Pollution Microbiology, G. Bitton and CP. Gerba (eds.), Wiley-Interscience, New York, NY, pp. 66-88.
Gibbons, R.D. 1990. Estimating the Precision of Ground-Water Elevation Data. Ground Water 28:357-360.
Glover, R.E. 1966. Ground-Water Movement. Tech. Eng. Monograph No. 31. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, CO, 76 pp.
Gospordarie, R. and P. Habic (eds.). 1976. Underground Water Tracing: Investigations hi Slovenia 1972-1975. Institute Karst
Research, Ljubljana, Jugoslavia.
Grisak, G.E., J.F. Pickens, FJ. Pearson, and J.M. Bahr. 1983. Evaluation of Ground Water Tracers for Nuclear Fuel Waste
Management Studies. Report Prepared by Geologic Testing Consultants, Ltd. for Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd.,
Whiteshell Nuclear Research Establishment, Pinawa, Manitoba. . . •
Gunn.J. 1982. Water Tracing in Ireland: A Review with Special References to the Cuillcagh Karst. Irish Geography 15:94-106.
Hagan, R.M., H.R. Raise, and T.W. Edminster (eds.). 1967. Irrigation of Agricultural Lands, ASA Monograph 11, American
Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI.
4-64
-------
Halevy, E., H. Moser, O. Zellhoffer, and A. Zuber. 1967. Borehole Dilution Techniques: A Critical Review. In: Isotopes in
Hydrology, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, pp. 531-564. .
Hantush, M.S. 1964. Hydraulics of Wells. Advances in Hydroscience 1:281-432.
Heaty, K.A. and R. Laak. 1973. Sanitary Seepage Pits-Site Evaluation and Design. Civil Eng. Dept., Univ. of Connecticut, Storrs,
CT.
Hemond, H. 1982. A Low-Cost Multichannel Recording Piezometer for Wetland Research. Water Resources Research 18:182-186.
Hendrickx, J.M.H. 1990. Determination of Hydraulic Soil Properties. In: Process Studies in Hillslope Hydrology, M.G. Anderson
and T.P. Hurt (eds.), John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, pp. 43-92. [Auger-hole, piezometer, pumped borehole, pit
bailing, drainage outflow methods]
Henning, RJ. 1990. Presentation of Water Level Data. In: Ground Water and Vadose Zone Monitoring, D.M. Nielsen and A.I.
Johnson (eds.), ASTM STP 1053, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 193-209.
Henszey, R. 1991. A Simple, Inexpensive, Device for Measuring Shallow Groundwater Levels. J. Soil and Water Conservation
46(4):304-306.
Herzog, B.L. and WJ. Morse. 1986. Hydraulic Conductivity at a Hazardous Waste Disposal Site: Comparison of Laboratory and
Field Measured Values. Waste Management and Research 4:177-187.
Herzog, B.L. and WJ. Morse. 1990. Comparison of Slug Test Methodologies for Determination of Hydraulic Conductivity in Fine-
Grained Sediments. In: Ground Water and Vadose Zone Monitoring, D.M. Nielsen and A.I. Johnson (eds.), ASTM STP
1053. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 152-164.
Hoefs, J. 1980. Stable Isotope Geochemistry, 2nd edition. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, 208 pp.
Hoeksma, RJ., Clapp, R.B., A.L. Thomas, A.R Hunley, N.D. Farrow, and K.C. Dearstone. 1989. Cokriging Model for Estimation
of Water Table Elevation. Water Resources Research 25(3):429-438.
Hoffman, GJ. and G.O. Schwab. 1964. Tile Spacing Prediction Based on Drain Outflow. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 7:444-447.
[Auger hole method]
Holland, R.R. and D.H. Rapp. 1988. Results of Qualification Tests on Water-Level Sensing Instruments, 1986. U.S. Geological
Survey Open-File Report 88-193, 34 pp.
Holmes, J.W. 1960. Water Balance and the Water-Table in Deep Sandy Soils of the Upper Southeast, South Australia. Aust. J.
Agric. Res. 11:970-988.
Horton, R., M.L. Thompson, and J.F. McBride. 1988. Determination of Effective Porosity of Soil Materials. EPA/600/2-88/045
(NTIS PB88-242391), 130 pp.
Houlsby, A.C. 1976. Routine Interpretation of the Lugeon Water-Test Quart. J. Engineering Geology 9:303-313. [Step-pressure
packer test] , . •
Hubbert, M.K. 1969. The Theory of Ground-Water Motion and Related Papers. Hafner Publishing Co., 311 pp.
Hvorslev, MJ. 1951. Time Lag and Soil Permeability in Groundwater Observations. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways
Experiment Station, Bull. 36, Vicksburg, MS.
International Association for Hydraulic Research (IAHR). 1972. Fundamentals of Transport Phenomena in Porous Media.
Elsevier, New York, NY.
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 1963. Proceedings of the Symposium on Radioisotopes in Hydrology (Tokyo). IAEA,
Vienna. ._....-,...
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 1967a. Isotopes in Hydrology. Proceedings of the Symposium on Isotopes in
Hydrology (Vienna), IAEA, Vienna.
4-65
-------
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 1967b. Radioisotopes in Industry and Geophysics~A Symposium (Prague). IAEA,
Vienna.
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 1967c. Isotopes and Radiation Techniques, (Proc. of Symp. Techniques in Soil
Physics and Irrigation Studies, Istanbul), IAEA, Vienna.
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 1970. Isotope Hydrology (1970). Proceedings of a Symposium on Use of Isotopes in
Hydrology (Vienna). IAEA, Vienna.
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 1974a. Isotope Techniques in Groundwater Hydrology (1970), 2 Volumes.
Proceedings Vienna Symposium, IAEA, Vienna.
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 1974b. Isotope Techniques in Soil Physics and Irrigation Studies. IAEA, Vienna.
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 1978. Isotope Hydrology (1978), 2 Volumes. Proceedings of an International
Symposium on Isotope Hydrology (Neuherberg). IAEA, Vienna.
Jaeger, E. and J.C. Hunziker (ed.). 1979. Lectures in Isotope Geology. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 312 pp.
Johnson, A.I. and R.C Richter. 1967. Selected Bibliography on Permeability and Capillarity Testing of Rock and Soil Materials. In:
\ Permeability and Capillarity of Soils, ASTM STP 417, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp.
167-210.
Johnson, H.P., R.K. Frevert, and D.D. Evans. 1952. Simplified Procedure for the Measurement and Computation of Soil
Permeability Below the Water Table. Agric. Eng. 33:283-286.
Jones, W.K. 1984. Dye Tracers in Karst Areas. National Speleological Society Bulletin 36:3-9.
Kaufman, WJ., and G.T. Orlob. 1956. Measuring Ground-Water Movements with Radioactive and Chemical Tracers. Am. Water
Works Ass. J. 48:559-572.
Keller, C.K. and G. van der Kamp. 1992. Slug Tests with Storage Due to Entrapped Air. Ground Water 30:3-7.
Kessler, J. and R J. Oosterbaan. 1974. Determining Hydraulic Conductivity of Soils. In: Drainage Principles and Applications, Vol.
HI, International Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvement/ILRI, Wageningen, pp. 254-296. [Auger hole,
piezometer, pumped borehole methods]
Keswick, B.H. and CP. Gerba. 1980. Viruses in Groundwater. Environ. Sci. Technol. 14:1290-1297.
Keswick, B.H., D. Wang, and CP. Gerba. 1982. The Use of Microorganisms as Ground-Water Tracers: A Review. Ground Water
20(2):142-149.
King, JJ. and D.P. Franzmeier. 1981. Estimation of Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity from Soil Morphological and Genetic
Information. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 45:1153-1156.
Kirkham, D. 1946. Proposed Method for Field Measurement of Permeability of Soil Below the Water Table. Soil Sci. Soc. Am.
Proc. 10:58-68.
Kirkham, D. 1954. Measurement of the Hydraulic Conductivity in Place. In: Symp. on Permeability of Soil, ASTM STP 163.
American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 80-97.
Kirkham, D. 1958. Theory of Seepage into an Auger Hole Above an Impermeable Layer. Soil Sci. Soc, Am. Proc. 18:204-208.
Kirkham, D. 1965. Saturated Conductivity as a Characterizer of Soil for Drainage Design. In: Drainage for Efficient Crop
Production Conference, American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, MI, pp. 24-31.
Kirkham, D. and C.H.M. van Bavel. 1948. Theory of Seepage into Auger Holes. Soil Sci. Soc, Am. Proc. 13:75-82.
Knuttson, G. 1968. Tracers for Ground-Water Investigations. In: Ground Water Problems, E. Eriksson, Y. Gustafsson, and K.
Nilsson (eds.), Pergamon Press, London.
4-66
-------
Kohler, M.A. 1964. Simulation of Daily Catchment Water Balance. In: Water Resources Use and Management (1963 Canberra
Symp.), Melbourne Univ. Press, Melbourne, pp. 312-328.
Kohout, RA. 1960. Cyclic Flow of Salt Water in Biscayne Aquifer of South Eastern Florida. J. Geophys. Research 65:2133-2141.
[Effects on water level measurements]
Koopman, F.C., et al. 1962. Use of Inflatable Packers in Multiple-Zone Testing in Water Wells. U.S. Geological Survey
Professional Paper 450-B, pp. B108-B109.
Kraemer, C.A., J.B. Hankins, and C J. Mohrbacher. 1990. Selection of Single-Well Hydraulic Test Methods for Monitoring Wells.
In: Ground Water and Vadose Zone Monitoring, D.M. Nielsen and A.I. Johnson (eds.), ASTM STP 1053, American
Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 125-137.
Kruseman, G.P. and N.A. de Ridden 1990. Analysis and Evaluation of Pumping Test Data. ILRI Publication No. 47. International
Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvement, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 345 pp. (Completely revised edition of
the 1979 english version of Bulletin 11.)
LaMoreaux, P.E., B.M. Wilson, and B.A. Mermon (eds.). 1984. Guide to the Hydrology of Carbonate Rocks. UNESCO Studies
and Reports in Hydrology, No. 41.
LaMoreaux, P.E., E. Prohic, J. Zoetl, J.M. Tanner, and B.N. Roche (eds.). 1989. Hydrology of Limestone Terranes: Annotated
Bibliography of Carbonate Rocks, Volume 4. International Association of Hydrogeologists Int. Cont. to Hydrogeology
Volume 10. Verlag Heinz Heise GmbH., Hannover, West Germany.
Lang, S.M. 1967. Pumping Test Methods for Determining Aquifer Characteristics. In: Permeability and Capillarity of Soils. In:
ASTM STP 417, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 35-55.
Languth, H.R. and C. Treskatis. 1989. Reverse Water Level Fluctuations in Semiconfined Aquifer Systems~"Rhade Effect". J.
Hydrology 109:79-93.
Leap, D.I. 1984. A Simple Pneumatic Device and Techniques for Performing Rising Water Level Slug Tests. Ground Water
Monitoring Review 4(4):141-146.
Leupold & Stevens, Inc. 1991. Stevens Water Resources Data Book, 5th edition. Leupold & Stevens, Inc., Beaverton, OR. (3rd
edition 1978; 4th edition 1987.) [Float recording devices covered in Chapter 2]
Levy, B.S. and L. Pannell. 1991. Evaluation of a Pressure System for Estimating In-Situ Hydraulic Conductivity. Ground Water
Management 5:31-45 (5th NOAC).
Lohman, S.W. 1972. Ground-Water Hydraulics. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 708.
Luthin, J.N. 1949. A Reel-Type Probe for Measuring Water Table Elevations. Agronomy J. 41:584. [Electric probe]
Luthin, J.N. 1957. Measurement of Hydraulic Conductivity In Situ. In: Drainage of Agricultural Lands, J.H. Luthin (ed.), ASA
Agronomy Monograph 7, American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI, pp. 420-431.
Luthin, J.N. 1973. Drainage Engineering. R.E. Krieger Publ. Co., Huntington, NY. [Tube method]
Luthin, J.H. and D. Kirkham. 1949. A Piezometer Method for Measuring Permeability of Soil In Situ Below a Water Table. Soil
Science 68:349-358.
Maasland, M. 1955. Measurement of Hydraulic Conductivity by the Auger Hole Method in Anisotropic Soil. Soil Science 81:379-
388.
Maasland, M. 1957. Soil Anisotropy and Land Drainage. In: Drainage of Agricultural Lands, J.H. Luthin (ed.), ASA Agronomy
Monograph 7, American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI, pp. 216-287.
Marschall, P. and B. Barczewski. 1989. The Analysis of Slug Tests in the Frequency Domain. Water Resources Research
25(ll):2388-2396
Marsih/, G. 1986. Quantitative Hydrogeology: Groundwater Hydrology for Engineers. Academic Press, New York, NY.
4-67
-------
Massarsch, K., B. Broms, and O. Sundquist. 1975. Pore Pressure Determination with Multiple Piezometer. In: Proc. In Situ
Measurement of Soil Properties, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 1:260-265.
Mastrolonardo, RJM. and K.O. Thomsen. 1992. Determination of the Vertical Distribution of Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity-A
Simple Method. Ground Water Management 11:205-216 (6th NOAC). [Slug test with packers]
Matthcss, G. and A. Pekdeger. 1985. Survival and Transport of Pathogenic Bacteria and Viruses in Ground Water. In: Ground
Water Quality, C.H. Ward, W. Giger, and P.L. McCarty (eds.), Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, pp. 474-482.
McLane, G.A., D.A. Harrity, and K.O. Thomsen. 1990. A Pneumatic Method for Conducting Rising and Falling Head Tests in High
Pcrmeabilily Aquifers. Ground Water Management 2:1219-1231 (4th NOAC).
McLaughlin, M J. 1982. A Review of the Use of Dyes as Soil Water Tracers. Water S.A, Water Research Commission, Pretoria,
South Africa 8(4):196-201. c
McWhortcr, D.B. and D.K. Sunada. 1981. Ground-Water Hydrology and Hydraulics. Water Resources Publications, Littleton, CO,
492 pp. (Earlier edition published 1977.)
Meinzer, O.B. 1932. Outline of Methods for Estimating Ground-Water Supplies. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 638-
C.
Meinzer, O.E, and N.D. Stearns. 1929. A Study of Ground Water in the Pomperaug Basin, Connecticut U.S. Geological Survey
Water-Supply Paper 597-B.
Melville, J.G., FJ. Molz, O. Guven, and M.A Widdowson. 1991. Multilevel Slug Tests with Comparisons to Tracer Data. Ground
Water 29:897-907.
Milanovic, P.T. 1981. Karst Hydrogeology. Water Resource Publications, Littleton, CO.
Moench.A, 1971. Ground-Water Fluctuations in Response to Arbitrary Pumpage. Ground Water 9(2):4-8.
Moench, A.F. and P. A. Hsieh. 1985. Anarysis of Slug Test Data in A Well with Finite Thickness Skin. Int. Congr. Int. Ass.
Hydrogeol 17(l):17-29.
Molz, FJ., O. Guven, J.G. Melville, and J.F. Keery. 1986. Performance and Analysis of Aquifer Tracer Tests with Implications for
Contaminant Transport Modeling. EPA/600/2-86/062 (NTIS PB86-219086).
Molz, FJ., O. Guven, J.G. Melville, and J.F. Keery. 1987. Performance and Anarysis of Aquifer Tracer Tests with Implications for
Contaminant Transport Modeling-A Project Summary. Ground Water 25:337-341.
Molz, FJ., O. Guven, and J.G. Melville. 1990a. A New Approach and Methodologies for Characterizing the Hydrogeologic
Properties of Aquifers. EPA/600y2-90/002 (NTIS PB90-187063). [Multilevel slug tests, tracers]
Molz, FJ., O. Guven, and J.G. Melville. 1990b. Measurement of Hydraulic Conductivity Distribution: A Manual of Practice. '
EPA/600/8-90AM6 (NTIS PB91-211938), 71 pp.
Morrison, R.D. 1983. Groundwater Monitoring Technology. Timco Mfg., Inc., Prairie du Sac, WI, 105 pp. (Sections on use of
Teflon for suction iysimeters and casing for monitoring wells are out of date. See Sections 9.2.11 and A.1 in this guide for
more current information.)
Moser, H. and W. Rauert. 1985. Determination of Groundwater Movement by Means of Environmental Isotopes: State of the Art
In: Relation of Groundwater Quantity and Quality, F.X. Dunin, G. Matthess, and R.A. Gras (eds.), Int. Ass. Hydrological
Sciences Pub. No. 146, pp. 241-257.
Mull, D.S., T.D. Lieberman, J.L. Smoot, and L.H. Woosery, Jr. 1988. Application of Dye-Tracing Techniques for Determining
Solute-Transport Characteristics of Ground Water in Karst Terranes. EPA/904/6-88/001, Region 4, Atlanta, GA.
Muskat, M. 1937. The Flow of Homogenous Fluids Through Porous Media. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 763 pp.
Nguyen, V. and G.F. Finder. 1984. Direct Calculation of Aquifer Parameters in Slug Test Anarysis. In: Groundwater Hydraulics, J.
Rosenshein and G. Bennett (eds.), American Geophysical Union Water Resources Monograph 9, Washington, DC, pp.
222-239.
4-68
-------
Nielsen, D.M. 1991. An Update on the ASTM Subcommittee on Ground Water and Vadose Zone Investigations. Ground Water
Monitoring Review ll(3):92-96.
Nielsen, D.M. and R. Schalla. 1991. Monitoring Wells. In: Practical Handbook of Ground-Water Monitoring. Lewis Publishers,
Chelsea, MI, pp. 239-331.
Olive, T.E. 1989. Results of Qualification Tests on Water-Level Sensing Instruments, 1987. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File
Report 89-397, 37 pp.
Olson, R.E. and D.E. Daniel. 1981. Measurement of the Hydraulic Conductivity of Fine-Grained Soils. In: Permeability and
Groundwater Contaminant Transport, T.F. Zimmie and C.O. Riggs (eds.), ASTM STP 746, American Society for Testing
and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 18-64.
Orient, J.P., A. Nazar, and R.C. Rice. 1987. Vacuum and Pressure Test Methods for Estimating Hydraulic Conductivity. Ground
Water Monitoring Review 7(1):49-50.
Palmer, CD. and D.G. Paul. 1987. Problems in the Interpretation of Slug Test Data from Fine-Grained Glacial Tills. In: Proc.
Focus Conf. on Northwestern Ground Water Issues, National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH, pp. 99-123.
Papadopulos, S.S., J.D. Bredehoeft, and H.C Cooper, Jr. 1973. On the Analysis of "Slug Test" Data. Water Resources Research
9(4):1087-1089.
Payne, B.R. 1972. Isotope Hydrology. Advances in Hydroscience 8:95-138.
Peake, B.R. and D. Mioduszewski. 1989. A Versatile New Method of Water Level Measurement for Improve Precision, Speed and
Well Integrity. In: Proc. 3rd Nat. Outdoor Action Conf. on Aquifer Restoration, Ground Water Monitoring and
Geophysical Methods, National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH, pp. 289-303.
Peres, A.M.M., M. Onur, and A.C. Reynolds. 1989. A New Analysis Procedure for Determining Aquifer Properties from Slug Test
Data. Water Resources Research 25(7):1591-1602.
Peterson, D.F. et al. 1952. Hydraulics of Wells. Agric. Exp. Sta. Bull. 351, Utah State College, Logan, UT.
Phillips, J.R. 1964. The Gain, Transfer, and Loss of Soil-Water. In: Water Resources Use and Management (1963 Canberra
Symp.), Melbourne Univ. Press, Melbourne, pp. 257-275.
Phillips, J.R. 1969. Theory of Infiltration. Advances in Hydroscience 5:215-296.
Quintan, J.F. 1986. Discussion of "Ground Water Tracers" by Davis et al. (1985) with Emphasis on Dye Tracing, Especially hi Karst
Terranes. Ground Water 24(2):253-259 and 24(3):396-397. [References]
Quinlan, J.F. 1989. Ground-Water Monitoring in Karst Terranes: Recommended Protocols and Implicit Assumptions. EPA/600/X-
89/050, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas, NV, 79 pp.
Rapp, D.H., B.L. McDonald, and R.M. Hughes. 1985a. Results of Qualification Tests on Water-Level Sensing Instruments. U.S.
Geological Survey Open-File Report 85-199, 47 pp.
Rapp, D.H., B.L. McDonald, and R.M. Hughes. 1985b. Results of Qualification Tests on Water-Level Sensing Instruments, 1984-85.
U,S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 85-489,18 pp.
Rasmussen, W.C. and G.E. Andreason. 1959. Hydrologic Budget of the Beaverdam Creek Basin, Maryland. U.S. Geological Survey
Water-Supply Paper 1472,106 pp.
Reeve, R.C. 1986. Water Potential: Piezometry. In: Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1,2nd edition, A. Klute (ed.), Agronomy
Monograph No. 9. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI, pp. 545-561.
Reeve, R.C. and M.C Jensen. 1949. Piezometers for Ground-Water Flow Studies and Measurements of Subsoil Permeability.
Agric. Eng. 30:435-438.
Rice, R.C 1967. Dynamic Response of Small Piezometers. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 10:80-83.
4-69
-------
Rijtema, P.E. and H. Wassink (eds.). 1969. Water in the Unsaturated Zone (Proc. Wageningen Symp), 2 Vols. IASH-UNESCO
Studies and Reports in Hydrology 2. UNESCO, Paris.
Ritchey, J.D., 1986. Electronic Sensing Devices Used for In Situ Ground Water Monitoring. Ground Water Monitoring Review
6(2):108-113. [Electric probe and sonic method]
Roberts, D.W. 1984. Soil Properties, Classification, and Hydraulic Conductivity Testing. EPA/SW-925 (NTIS PB87-155784), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency [Auger hole method]
Rockaway, J.D. 1970. Trend-Surface Analysis of Ground-Water Fluctuations. Ground Water 8(3):29-36.
Roeper, T.R., W.G. Soukup and R.L. O'Neill. 1992. The Applicability of the Lugeon Method of Packer Test Analysis to
Hydrogeologic Investigations. Ground Water Management 13:661-671 ([8th] Focus Conf. Eastern GW Issues). [Not
recommended]
Romero, J.C. 1970. The Movement of Bacteria and Viruses through Porous Media. Ground Water 8(2):37-48.
Rosenbeny, D.O. 1990. Effect of Sensor Error on Interpretation of Long-Term Water-Level Data. Ground Water 28:927-936.
[Pressure transducer, potentiometer float]
Rosenshcin, J., and G. Bennett (eds.). 1984. Groundwater Hydraulics. American Geophysical Union Water Resources Monograph
9.
Russel, H. 1981. Instrumentation and Monitoring of Excavations. Bull. Ass. Eng. Geol. 18:91-99.
Saines, M. 1981. Errors in Interpretation of Ground-Water Level Data. Ground Water Monitoring Review 1(1):56-61
Sanders, PJ. 1984. New Tape for Ground-Water Measurements. Ground Water Monitoring Review 4(l):39-42. [Steel tape with
electric sensor]
Sayko, S.P., K.L. Ekstrom, and R.M. Schuller. 1990. Methods for Evaluating Short-Tcrm Fluctuation!! in Ground Water Levels. In:
Ground Water and Vadose Zone Monitoring, D.M. Nielsen and A.I. Johnson (eds.), ASTM STP 1053, American Society
for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 165-177.
Scheidegger, A.E. 1974. The Physics of Flow through Porous Media, 353 pp. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Ontario. (1st
edition published by MacMillan in 1957; 2nd edition 1960.)
Schicht,RJ. 1972. Selected Methods of Aquifer Test Analysis. Water Resources Bulletin 8(1): 175-187.
Schicht, RJ. and W.C, Walton. 1961. Hydrologic Budgets for Three Small Water Sheds in Illinois. ISWS Rept of Invest. No. 46,
Illinois State Water Survey, Urbana, IL.
Schmid,W.E. 1967. Field Determination of Permeability by the Infiltration Test. In: Permeability and Capillarity of Soils. ASTM
STP 417. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 142-159.
Schrale, G. and J.F. Brandwyk. 1979. An Acoustic Probe for Precise Determination of Deep Water Levels in Boreholes. Ground
Water 17(1):110-111.
Sevec, J. 1991. Methods and Procedures for Defining Aquifer Parameters. In: Practical Handbook of Ground-Water Monitoring,
D.M. Nielsen (ed.), Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI, pp. 397-447.
Shuter, E. and A.I. Johnson. 1961. Evaluation of Equipment for Measurement of Water Levels in Wells of Small Diameter. U.S.
Geological Survey Circular 453,12 pp. [Float recorders]
Shuter, E. and R.R. Pemberton. 1978. Inflatable Straddle Packers and Associated Equipment for Hydraulic Fracturing and
Hydrologic Tests. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources-Investigations Report 78-55,16 pp.
Simon, A.L. 1976. Practical Hydraulics. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Skeat, W.O. (edition). 1969. Manual of British Water Engineering Practice, Vol. II: Engineering Practice, 4th edition. W. Heffer
and Sons, Cambridge.
4-70
-------
Smart, P.L. and I.M.S. Laidlaw. 1977. An Evaluation of Some Fluorescent Dyes for Water Tracing. Water Resources Research
1 j ( 1 K 1 J~j jt
Smart, P.L., F. Whitaker, and J.F. Quinlan. 1988. Ground Water Tracing: An Annotated Bibliography. Turner Designs, Sunnyvale,
Smedema, L.K. and D.W. Rycroft. 1983. Land Drainage: Planning and Design of Agricultural Drainage Systems. Batsford, London.
[Drainage outflow method]
Smiles, D.E. and EG. Youngs. 1963. A Multiple-Well Method for Determining the Hydraulic Conductivity of a Saturated Soil In
Situ. J. Hydrology 1:279-287.
Snell, A.W and J. van Schilfgaarde. 1964. Four-Well Method of Measuring Hydraulic Conductivity hi Saturated Soils. Am Soc.
Agric. Eng. Trans. 7:83-87.
Sobsey, M.D. and P. A. Shields. 1987. Survival and Transport of Viruses in Soils: Model Studies. In: Human Viruses in Sediments
Sludges, and Soil, V.C Rao and J.L. Melnick (eds.), CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Sokolow, A.A. and T.G. Chapman (eds.). 1974. Methods for Water Balance Computations: An International Guide for Research
and Practice. The Unesco Press, Paris.
Sophocleous, M. and C.A. Perry. 1984. Experimental Studies in Natural Groundwater Recharge Dynamics: Assessment of Recent
Advances in Instrumentation. J. Hydrology 70:369-382.
StaUman, R.W. 1967. Flow in the Zone of Aeration. Advances in Hydroscience 4:151-195.
Stallman, R.W. 1971. Aquifer-Test Design, Observation and Data Analysis. U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water Resources
Investigations, TWRI 3-B1, 26 pp.
Stewart, D.M. 1970. The Rock and Bong Techniques of Measuring Water Levels in Wells. Ground Water 8(6):14-18.
Stibbe, E., TJ. Thiel, and G.S. Taylor. 1970. Soil Hydraulic Conductivity Measurement by Field Monolith. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc.
34:952-954.
Strack, O.D.L. 1989. Ground Water Mechanics. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Streltsova, T.D. 1989. Well Testing in Heterogeneous Formations. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. [Focuses on testing in deep
oil-bearing formations]
Struckmeier, W., G.B. Engelen, M.S. Galitzin, and R.K. Shakchnova. 1986. Methods of Representation of Water Data. In:
Developments in the Analysis of Groundwater Flow Systems, G.B. Engelen and G.P. Jones (eds.), Int. Ass. of Hydrolorical
Sciences Pub. No. 163, pp. 45-63.
Sutcliffe, Jr., H. and B.F. Joyner. 1966. Packer Testing in Water Wells Near Sarasota, Florida. Ground Water 4(2):23-27.
Sweet, H.R., G. Rosenthal, and D.F. Atwood. 1990. Water Level Monitoring-Achievable Accuracy and Precision. In: Ground
Water and Vadose Zone Monitoring, D.M. Nielsen and A.I. Johnson (eds.), ASTM STP 1053, American Society for
Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 178-19Z
Sweeting, M.M. 1973. Karst Landforms. Columbia University Press, New York, NY.
Symposium on Underground Water Tracing (SUWT). 1966. 1st SUWT (Graz, Austria). Published to: Steirisches Beitraeee zur
Hydrogeologie Jg. 1966/67.
Symposium on Underground Water Tracing (SUWT). 1970. 2nd SUWT (Freiburg/Br., West Germany). Published in: Steirisches
Beitraege zur Hydrogeologie 22(1970):5-165, and Geologisches Jahrbuch, Reihe C. 2(1972): 1-382.
Symposium on Underground Water Tracing (SUWT). 1976. 3rd SUWT (Ljubljana-Bled, Yugoslavia). Published by Ljubljana
Institute for Karst Research: Volume 1 (1976), 213 pp., Volume 2 (1977) 182 pp. See also, Gospodaric and Habic (1976).
4-71
-------
Symposium on Underground Water Tracing (SUWT). 1981. 4th SUWT (Bern, Switzerland). Published in: Steirisches Beitraege zur
Hydrogeologie 32(1980):5-100; 33(1981):l-264; and Beitraege zur Geologic der Schweiz-Hydrologie 28 pt.l(1982):l-236; 28
pt.2(1982):l-213.
Symposium on Underground Water Tracing (SUWT). 1986. 5th SUWT (Athens, Greece). Published by Institute of Geology and
Mineral Exploration, Athens.
Talsma,T. 1960. Measurement of Soil Anisotropy with Piezometers. J. Soil Science 11:159-171.
Taylor, T.A. and J.A. Dey. 1985. Bibliography of Borehole Geophysics as Applied to Ground-Water Hydrology. U.S. Geological
Survey Circular 926.
Thomas, A.W. and A.W. Snell. 1967. Measuring Hydraulic Conductivity by the Four-Well Method. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. Trans.
10:672-674.
Thompson, CM. et al. 1989. Techniques to Develop Data for Hydrogeochemical Models. EPRI EN-6637. Electric Power
Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA.
Thomhill, J.T. 1989. Accuracy of Depth to Water Measurements. EPA Superfund Ground Water Issue Paper. EPA/540/4-89/002
(NTIS PB90-149840). [Steel tape, electric probe, air line]
ThomhiH,J.T. and B.C. BeneSeld. 1990. Injection-Well Mechanical Integrity. EPA/625/9-89/007, 123 pp. Available from CERL*
Thomthwaite, CW. and J.R. Mather. 1955. The Water Balance. Publications hi Climatology, Vol. 8, No. 1, Laboratory of
Climatology, Centerton, NJ, 104 pp.
Thrailkill, J., et al. 1983. Studies in Dye-Tracing Techniques and Karst Hydrogeology. Univ. of Kentucky, Water Resources
Research Center Research Report No. 140.
Topp, G.C and S. Sattlecker. 1983. A Rapid Measurement of Horizontal and Vertical Components of Saturated Hydraulic
Conductivity. Can. Agric. Eng. 25:193-197.
Topp, G.C and W.D. Zebchuk. 1986. The Effect of Auger Hole Diameter Changes on Hydraulic Conductivity Measurements. Can.
Agric. Eng. 28:15-17.
Turner, S.F. and L.C Halpenny. 1941. Ground-Water Inventory hi the Upper Gila River Valley, New Mexico and Arizona. Trans.
Am. Geophysical Union 22(HI):738-744.
Ubcll, K. 1965. Investigations into Ground-Water Balance hi Experimental Areas. In: Representative and Experimental Areas
(Budapest Symposium), IASH Publ. 66, pp. 388-398.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1981. Process Design Manual for Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater.
EPAA>25/1-81/013- U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Department of the Interior, and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture also are authors of this report [Auger hole method; replaces design manual with same title published in 1977
as EPA/625/1-77/008]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1986. Criteria for Identifying Areas of Vulnerable Hydrogeology Under RCRA: A
RCRA Interpretive Guidance. EPA/530/SW-86/022 (Complete set: NTIS PB86-224946). (Individual Appendices
[EPA/530/SW-86/022A to D]: Technical Methods for Evaluating Hydrogeologie Parameters [A, NTIS PB86-224961m 48
pp.]; Groundwater Flow Net/Flow Line Construction and Analysis [B, NTIS PB86-224979]; Technical Methods for
Calculating Time of Travel in the Unsaturated Zone [C, NTIS PB86-224987J; Development of Vulnerability Criteria Based
on Risk Assessments and Theoretical Modeling [D, NTIS PB86-224995]). [Appendix A covers single and multiple well
tests]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1987. A Compendium of Superfund Field Operations Methods, Part 2. EPA/540/P-
87/001 (OSWER Directive 9355.0-14), (NTIS PB88-181557), 644 pp. [Section 8.5.6.5 covers water level measurement steel
tape, electric probes, poppers/floats, ah- line, hi situ piezometers, ultrasonic]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1991. Handbook Ground Water. Volume II: Methodology. EPA/625/6-90/16b, 141
pp. Available from CERI." [Chapter 4 covers ground water tracers and chapter 5 covers aquifer test analysis]
4-72
-------
U.S. Geological Survey. 1980. Ground Water. In: National Handbook of Recommended Methods for Water Data Acquisition,
Office of Water Data Coordination, Reston, VA, Chapter 2. [Water level measurement, pp. 2-1 to 2-2(h steel tape,
electrical, air line, recording, flowing wells; aquifer tests, pp. 2-115 to 2-149]
van Bavel, C.H.M. and D. Kirkham. 1948. Field Measurement of Soil Permeability Using Auger Holes. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc
13:90-96.
van Beers, W.FJ. 1958. Tie Auger Hole Method. ILRI Bulletin No. 1. International Institute for Land Reclamation and
Improvement, Wageningnen, The Netherlands, 23 pp. (Now available in 6th edition.)
van der Leeden, F. 1991. Geraghty & Miller's Groundwater Bibliography, 5th edition. Water Information Center, Plainview, New
York, NY, 507 pp. ,
Vaughn, J.M. and E.F. Landry. 1983. Viruses in Soils and Groundwaters. In: Viral Pollution of the Environment, G. Berg (ed.),
CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 163-210.
Walton, W.C. 1962. Selected Analytical Methods for Well and Aquifer Evaluation. ISWS Bulletin No. 49, Illinois State Water
Survey, Champaign, IL.
Walton, W.C. 1963. Microtime Measurements of Ground-Water Fluctuations. Ground Water 1(2):18-19. [Recording gage]
Walton, W.C. 1970. Ground Water Resources Evaluation. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Walton, W.C. 1979. Progress in Analytical Groundwater Modeling. In: Contemporary Hydrogeology, W. Back and D.A.
Stephenson (eds.), Elsevier, New York, NY.
Walton, W.C. 1987. Groundwater Pumping Tests: Design and Analysis. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI.
Weeks, E.P. 1979. Barometric Fluctuations in Wells Tapping Deep Unconfined Aquifers. Water Resources Research 19:1167-1176.
Weir, Jr., J.E. and J.W. Nelson. 1976. Operation and Maintenance of a Deep-Well Water-Level Measurement Device, the "Iron
Horse." U.S. Geological Survey Water Resource Investigations Report 76-27, 28 pp. [Electrical method]
Weiss-Jennemann, L.N. 1991. The Affect of Off-Site Influences on Water Levels at Hazardous Waste Sites. Ground Water
Management 5:221-237 (5th NOAC).
Wenzel, L.K. 1942. Methods for Determining Permeability of Water-Bearing Materials with Special Reference to Discharging Well
Methods. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 887.
White, W.B. 1988. Geomorphology and Hydrology of Karst Terranes. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 432 pp.
White, E.M. 1990. Estimates of Natural Soil-Drainage Volumes in South Dakota. Soil Science 149:235-238. [Thornthwaite water
balance]
Widdowson, MA., FJ. Molz, and J.G. Melville. 1989. Analysis of Multi-Level Slug Test Data to Determine Hydraulic Conductivity
Distribution. In: Proc. 4th Int. Conf. on Solving Ground Water Problems with Models (Indianapolis, IN), National Water
Well Association, Dublin, OH, pp. 699-714.
Widdowson, M.A., F J. Molz, and J.G. Melville. 1990. An Analysis Technique for Multilevel and Partially Penetrating Slug Test
Data. Ground Water 28:937-945.
Wiebenga, W.A., W.R. Ellis, B.W. Seatonberry, and J.T.G. Andrew. 1967. Radioisotopes as Ground-Water Tracers. J. Geophysical
Research 72:4081-4091.
Williams, C.C and S.W. Lohman. 1947. Methods Used in Estimating Groundwater Supply in the Wichita, Kansas, Well-Field Area.
Trans. Am. Geophysical Union 28(1):120-131.
Wilson, Jr., J.F., E.D. Cobb, and F.A. Kilpatrick. 1986. Fluorometric Procedures for Dye Tracing (Revised). U.S. Geological Survey
Techniques of Water Resources Investigations TWRI 3-A12, 41 pp. (Updates report with the same title by J.F. Wilson, Jr.
published in 1968.)
4-73
-------
Winograd, I.H. 1970. Noninstrumental Factors Affecting Measurement of State Water Levels in Deeply Buried Aquifers and
Aquitards, Nevada Test Site. Ground Water 8(2):19-28
Wissa, A., R. Martin, and J. Garlanger. 1975. The Piezometer Probe. In: Proc. In Situ Measurement of Soil Properties, North
Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 1:536-545.
Wolf, S.H., J.C. LaChance, and LJ. Wolf. 1991. Techniques for Monitoring Flux and Transport Between Ground Water and
Surface Water Systems. Ground Water Management 5:179-192 (5th NOAC).
Wolff, R. and H. Olsen. 1968. Piezometer for Monitoring Rapidly Changing Pore Pressures in Saturated Clays. Water Resources
Research 4:839-843.
Wood, W.W. and G.G. Ehrlich. 1978. Use of Baker's Yeast to Trace Microbial Movement in Ground Water. Ground Water
16(6):398-403.
Wynne, D.B. 1992. Specific Capacity and Slug Testing: An Overview and Empirical Comparison of Their Uses in PreBmimary
Estimating Hydraulic Conductivity. Ground Water Management 11:217-230 (6th NOAC).
Youngs, E.G. 1968. Shape Factors for Kirkham's Piezometer Method for Determining the Hydraulic Conductivity of Soil In Situ for
Soils Overlying an Impermeable Floor or Infinitely Permeable Stratum. Soil Science 106:235-237.
Youngs. E.G. 1991. Hydraulic Conductivity of Saturated Soils. In: Soil Analysis: Physical Methods, K.A. Smith and C.E. Mullins
(eds.), Marcel Dekker, New York, NY, pp. 161-207. [Laboratory, below water table (auger-hole method, piezometer,
multiple-well methods, tile drains); above water table (borehole permeameter, air-entry permeameter, ring infiltrometers)]
"ORD Publications, U.S. EPA Center for Environmental Research Information, P.O. Box 19963, Cincinnati, OH 45268-0963 (513-
569-7562).
4-74
-------
SECTION 5
GROUND-WATER SAMPLING DEVICES AND INSTALLATIONS
A wide variety of devices and installations are available for the sampling of ground water. Sampling
devices can be broadly classified as: (1) Portable samplers, which are used in permanently installed and screened
monitoring wells, and (2) portable in situ samplers, which do not require monitoring wells.
Portable Samplers
Table 5-1 provides the following information on 20 portable sampling devices, which can be used to
collect ground-water samples from wells: (1) Maximum depth, (2) minimum well diameter, (3) typical ranges of
sampling rates, and (4) sections and tables in the handbook where additional information can be found. Portable
well samplers are divided into three main groups: (1) Positive displacement samplers, (2) other sampling pumps,
(3) grab/depth specific samplers.
Positive displacement pumps are placed below the static water level of the well and pump the sample
to the surface. These pumps include: Bladder pumps (also called gas-operated squeeze pumps [Section 5.1.1]);
gear-drive (Section 5.1.2); helical rotor pumps (Section 5.1.3); gas-drive/displacement pumps, where gas displaces
water in the subsurface to force it to surface without mixing with the sample (Section 5.1.4); and gas-drive piston
and mechanical piston pumps (Sections 5.1.5 and 5.1.6).
Other types of portable sampling pumps include: Suction-lift pumps (peristaltic pumps being the most
common, but surface centrifugal and any other type of surface pump that operates using suction or a vacuum
fall in this category [Section 5.2,1]); submersible centrifugal pumps (note that surface centrifugal pumps are
classified as suction-lift pumps); inertial-lift pumps, which are simple mechanisms using foot-valves and inertia
to bring water to the surface (Section 5.2.3); gas-lift pumps, where ah" or gas mixes with the water to bring
ground water to the surface (Section 5.2.4); and jet or venturi pumps (Section 5.2.5). Packer pumps isolate a
portion of the well using inflatable packers (Section 5.2.6).
Grab samplers include: Bailers (open and point-source [Section 5.3.1]); mechanical or thief depth
specific samplers (Kemmerer, Coliwasa, stratified sample thief [Section 5.3.3]); and pneumatic depth specific
samplers, which use vacuum or pressure to activate the sampling mechanism (syringe, Westbay [Section 5.3.2]).
Terminology, especially the use of the terms "air-lift" and "pneumatic" has not been used consistently
in the literature, so it might be necessary to examine the basic operating principles of any specific sampling device
in order to find the appropriate section that discusses its relative advantages and disadvantages. Sampling devices
vary greatly in their suitability for sampling different chemical constituents. Table 5-2 summarizes the suitability
of the 12 most commonly used sampling devices for 14 ground-water parameters. Bladder and helical rotor
pumps are rated as suitable for the largest number of parameters, followed by point-source bailers. The inertial
pump, which is not included in Table 5-2, is a quite new device, which probably would rate favorably for sampling
many of the parameters on the table. Table 5-3 provides information on sampling devices available from 60
commercial sources.
Portable In Situ Samplers
A relatively new development in ground-water sampling technology has been the design of in situ
sampling probes, which allow rapid collection of samples without the installation of permanent wells. The
Hydropunch* (Section 5.5.1) and BAT systems (Section 5.5.2) both operate in conjunction with conventional cone
penetrometer rigs. This category also includes a variety of driven probes (Section 5.5.3), which can be retrieved
after sampling, or left in place as permanent sampling points. These devices often are best used during the
preliminary site characterization stage, or where only a shallow water table is to be sampled. Portable in situ
samplers can be valuable in deciding the best location of permanent monitoring wells. Chemical sensors, such
as Eh and pH probes (Section 5.5.4), and ion-selective electrodes (Section 5.5.5) usually are used in boreholes.
5-1
-------
Table 5-1 Summary Information on Ground-Water Sampling Devices (Information is for general guidance only)
Sampling Device
Max. Min. Sample
Sample Well Delivery
Depth Diameter Rate/Vol."
Section
Tables
Portable Positive Displacement Samplers
Bladder Pumps l.OOO1
Gear Pumps 2001
Helical Rotor Pumps 1601
Gms-Drive/Displacement 3001
Gas-Drive Piston Pumps 90ff
Mechanical Piston-Pumps Variable
Other Portable Ground-Water Sampling Pumps
Peristaltic Suction Lift 25'
Centrifugal Suction Lift 15'
Variable-Speed Submersible
Centrifugal Pump 290*
Other Submersible
Centrifugal Pumps 2,000"
Inertial-Iift Pump 20ff
Gas-lift Variable
Jet (Venturi) Pump 2001
Packer Pumps* Variable
Portable Grab/Depth Specific Samplers
Open Baikr0 No limit
Point-Source Baikr0 No limit
Syringe Sampler No limit
Wcstbay Sampler No limit
Kemmcrer/Van Dorn No limit
Colhvasa 5"
Stratified Sample Thief No limit
Swabbing No limit
Portable/Permanent In Situ Samplers/Sensors
Hydropunch 150"
BAT Sampler 100*
Other CPT Samplers' 25'
Other In Situ Probes' 25'
Eh, pH Probes No limit
Ion-Selective Electrodes No limit
Fiber Optic Sensors No limit
Other Chemical Sensors No limit
1.5"
2.0"
2.0"
1.0"
1.5"
1.0 to 4.0"
0.5"
1.0"
1.75"
4.0+"
1.5"
1.0"
2.0"
0.5"
0.5"
1.5"
1.5"
1.0"
2.0"
1.5"
6.0"
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.0"
1.0"
±2.0"
2.0-6.0"
0-3.0 gpm
0-1.5 gpm
0-1.5 gpm
0.1-10 gpm
0-1.5 gpm
Variable
0.01-8 gpm
1.0-25 gpm
0.026-8 gpm
5.0-60 gpm
0-2.0 gpm
Variable
25-30 gpm
Variable
Variable
Variable
0.01-0.2 gal
40 mL
Variable
Variable
Variable
Variable
500-1,250 mL
150 mL
0.01-0.3 gpm
0.01-0.3 gpm
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.1.1
5.1.2
5.1.3
5.1.4
5.1.5
5.1.6
5.2.1
5.2.1
5.2.2
5.2.2
5.2.3
5.2.4
5.2.5
5.2.6
5.3.1
5.3.1
5.3.2
5.3.2
5.3.3
5.3.3
5.3.3
5.3.3
5.5.1
5.5.2
5.5.2
5.5.3
5.5.4
5.5.5
5.5.6
10.6.5
5-2, 5-3
5-2, 5-3
5-2, 5-3
5-2, 5-3
5-2, 5-3
5-2, 5-3
5-2, 5-3
5-2, 5-3
5-2
5-2, 5-3
5-2, 5-3
5-2,5-3
Boldface = most commonly used devices.
•Sample delivery rates and volumes are averages based on typical field conditions. Actual rates are a function of diameter of
monitoring well installation, size and capacity of sampling device, hydrogeologic conditions, and depth to sampling point.
'Depends on type of pump used (submersible, gas lift, suction)-see appropriate device for ratings.
•Not recommended for use with sensitive chemical constituents (see text discussion). ...... . A t
•"Unlimited depth if hole is bored to desired depth before using sampler. Otherwise, actual depth of penetration is highly dependent
on type of soil material. ...
•Depth and pumping rate depends on type of suction-lift device used. Values shown are for peristaltic pump.
5-2
-------
TabU 5-2 Suitability of Major Ground-Water Sampling Devices for Different Ground-Water Parameters
Sampling Device
EC pH
Inorganic
Organic
Other
Re- Major Tr. NO3 Diss. Non Vol. TOC TOX Ra- Alpha Coli-
dox Ions Met. F Gases Vol. dium Beta form
Portable Grab/Depth Specific Samplers
Open Bailer
Point-Source Bailer
Syringe Sampler
x
x x
X X
Portable Positive Displacement (Submersible') Pumps
Bladder
Centrifugal
Helical Rotor
Gas-Drive Piston
Gear-Drive
Other Portable Samplers
Peristaltic
Gas-Drive/Displacement
Gas-Lift
Portable In Situ Samplers
Pneumatic
x
X
X
X
X X
X
X X
X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
TOC = Total Organic Carbon.
TOX = Total Organic Halogen.
Source: Adapted from Pohlmann and Hess (1988)
5-3
-------
Table 5-3 Characteristics of Some Commercially Available Ground-Water Sampling Devices
MANUFACTURER
AMERICAN SIGMA
716/798.8580. 800/635-4567
AMETEK, P M T 215/355-6000
ARTS MANUFACTURING & SUPPLY
20a"226-2017. 800/635-7330
ATLANTIC SCREEN & MANUFACTURING
302/684-3197
BENNETT SAMPLE PUMPS 806/352-0264
BRAINARD KILMAN
404/469-2720. 800241-9468
CAMBRIDGE SCIENTIFIC
410/228-5111, 800/638-9566
CAPITAL CONTROLS 215/822-2901. 800/523-2553
DIVERSIFIED REMEDIATION CONTROLS
612/424-2421, 800/644-1372
DIVERSIFIED WELL PRODUCTS
714/637-2383. 800/637-9355
DREXELBROOK ENGINEERING 215/674-1234
DYNAMIC PROCESS INDUSTRIES 214/556-0010
E L E INTERNAT1ONAL/SOILTEST PRODUCTS
708/29S-9400. 800/323-1242
EJECTOR SYSTEMS 708/543-2214, 800/645-5325
ENVIRO PRODUCTS
517/887-1222. 800/368-4764
ENVIRONMENTAL INSTRUMENTS
510:686-4474, 800/648-9355
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING
206/486-8687, 800/468-3106
ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS ENGINEERING
215/538-7000
FULZ PUMPS 717/248-2300
GENERAL OCEANICS/ENVIRONMENTAL
305/621-2882
GEOTECH ENVIRONMENTAL EQUIPMENT
303/433-7101, 800/833-7958
GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES 714/832-5610
GODWIN PUMPS 609/467-3636
GRUNDFOS PUMPS 209/292-8000
HAZCO SERVICES 513/293-2700, 800/332-0435
HYDROLAB 512/255-8841
iN-smj
307/742-8213. BOO/446-7488
INDUSTRIAL & CHEMICAL MEASUREMENTS
503/648-2014, 800/262-3668
INSTRUMENTATION NORTHWEST
206/885-3729. 800/776-93S5
INVENTRON
313/473-9250
UJ
a.
BA.SL
AL.GS
X
BA.SU
AL
GP
BA.GR
SL
GR
BA.AL
GR
GR
BA.SU
BA.SL
SU.AL
GR
SU
X
BA.SL
SU.AL
X
GR
SU
BA
X
SU
_1
AV.SS
TE
AB.PV.SS
TE.PE
SS
AY.PV
SS
PV.SS
PE.AY.PV
SS.TE
AY.PV
SS.TE
PE.SS.TE
PP.SR.SS
PV.TE
VY.PE
SS.TE
WELL SAMPLERS
WELL DIAM. (IN)
2+
1.315-
4.50
1.5+
2-4
2
1 +
2+
2-3
2+
8
d
250
1.49-
84.48
BODY LENGTH (IN)
14
12-
120
2,3
5
12
12-
36
36
LIFT (FT)
400
300
1000
100
300
250
280
150
400
500
POWER SOURCE
CG.CA
AC.DC
CA
CA.CG
MA.CA
CA
AC
CG
DC
CG.AC
DC.BT
CA
DC.CA
PORTABILITY
PO.FX
PO.FX
PO.FX
PO.FX
PO
PO
PO.FX
PO.FX
PO.FX
PO.FX
GROUND
CONDUCT.
DEPTH (FT)
X
X
150
X
330
X
600
920
X
TEMP RANGE (°F)
212
23-122
23-122
LEVEL
INSTRUMENTS
DEPTH (FT)
300
690
2000
500
3000
X
X
200
150
X
3000
X
33
X
231
400
POWER SOURCE
BT
DC
BT
BT
AC.DC
BT
AC
BT.DC
BT
BT
BT
AC.BT
DC
a
tr
Y
&
Y
Y
Y
PO
PO
V
Y
SENSOR DIAM (IN)
Vi
1'/4
,59-
1.5
Va
'/2
2'/2-
12
%-
Vt
3Vi
.69-
1.0
0.84
2-S
5-4
-------
Table,
(cont.)
MANUFACTURER
ISCO ENVIRONMENTAL
402/474-2233, 800/228-4373
JENSEN INERT PRODUCTS
305/871-8339, 800/446-3781
KECK INSTRUMENTS
517/655-5616. 800/542-5681
KELLER PSI 619/697-6066. 800/328-3665
LEUPOLD & STEVENS 503/646-9171, 800/452-5272
M M C INTERNATIONAL
516/239-7339. 800/645-7339
MARSCHALK 919/781-8788, 800/722-8200
MARTEK INSTRUMENTS 714/250-4738
METRITAPE 508/369-7500
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS
508/761-6611
NEPCCO EQUIPMENT 904/867-7482, 800/277-3279
NORTON PERFORMANCE PLASTICS
201/696-4700. 800/526-7844
OMNIDATA INTERNATIONAL 801/753-7760
ONTEK 310/51 0-0434. 800/356-5872
PETRO VEND 708/485-4200
PROTEC 918/493-6101
Q E D GROUNDWATER SPECIALISTS
313/995-2547, 800/624-2026
REMEDIAL SYSTEMS 508/543-1512
SEEPEX 513/233-9904. 800/695-3659
SOIL MOISTURE EQUIPMENT 805/964-3525
SOLINST CANADA
416/873-2255
SOLOMAT 203/849-31 1 1 , 800/765-6628
TELOG 716/359-1 110
TIMCO
608/643-8534, 800/236-8534
UNIDATA AMERICA 503/697-3570
VEEDER ROOT 203/651-2700
XITECH INSTRUMENTS 707/425-9283
Y S I 51 3/767-7241 . 800/765-4974
£
BA.SL
GS
BA
BA.SU
BA
GS
X
GR
3A.GR
BA
BA
GR
GS.BA
GR
X
BA.AL
GS
AL.GS
A,GR
GR
_j
TE.PE
SR.SS
TE
PV.TE
SS.VI
SS
SS
TE.PP
AY.PV
SS.TE
SS.TE
AY.PV
SS.TE
WELL SAMPLER
WELL DIAM. (IN)
1V4+
2,4
1 2/3
1V8
1.5+
1,2
3,4
1'/<+
V4+
0.84-
4.5
8
§
1050
350
700
1050
1065
60-
1050
3.5
35-
240
BODY LENGTH (IN)
12,
3fi
13
23
35
36
36
30
2-
60
2-
7?
t
f
_j
250
150
300
000
000
POWER SOURCE
BT.CA
CG
DC.BT
CA
DC.CA
CG
CA.CG
BT.CA
CG
PORTABILITY
PO.FX
PO
>O,FX
PO
O,FX
O,FX
GROUND
CONDUCT
DEPTH (FT)
100G
100
X
X
ISO
TEMP RANGE (T)
212
23-178
2-122
3-122
LEVEL
INSTRUMENTS
DEPTH (FT)
200
X
150C
1651
1 000
x
300
12
200
500
500
340
500
150
11
50
POWER SOURCE
BT.DC
BT
BT
BT
BT
AC
BT
AC.DC
BT
BT
BT.DC
BT
AC
BT
a
IT
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
SENSOR DIAM (IN)
Vfc
1.3
1%
1%
M
4
VS
1%
'/2
S1
1
KEY FOR GROUNDWATER SAMPLING
AB ABS
AC AC
AL AIR LIFT SAMPLERS
AY ACRYLIC
BA BAILERS
BT BATTERY
CA COMPRESSED AIR
CG COMPRESSED GAS
DC DC
FX FIXED
GP GAS-OPERATED PISTON PUMPS
GR GROUNDWATER RECOVERY PUMPING SYSTEMS
GS GAS-OPERATED SQUEEZE PUMPS
MA MANUAL
PE POLYETHYLENE
PO PORTABLE
PP POLYPROPYLENE
PV PVC
SL SUCTION LIFT PUMPS
SR SILICONS RUBBER
SS STAINLESS STEEL
SU SUBMERSIBLE PUMPS
TE TEFLON
VI VITON
VY VINYL
X PRODUCT PRODUCED
Source: April 1993 issue of Pollution Equipment News
5-5
-------
Use of flber optic (Section 55.6), electrochemical piezoelectric,and other chemical sensors (Section 10.6.5) for
subsurface chemical characterization is the subject of considerable research, and might become more widespread
for routine investigations with further refinements in instrumentation. Strictly speaking, the term in situ (from
Latin, meaning in its original position) only should be applied to chemical sensors that measure ground-water
quality in place without bringing the sample to the surface. In common usage, however, the term is applied to
methods that allow collection of samples without the installation of a permanent monitoring well, or permanent
installations that do not require use of portable sampling equipment.
Sampling Installations
Permanent well installations for portable samplers include: (1) Single-riser/lJmited interval wells, in
which only a small section of an aquifer is sampled (Section 5.4.1); (2) single-riser/long screea wells, in which
the entire thickness of the aquifer is sampled (Section 5.4.2); (3) nested wells in a single borehole, in which
different portions of the aquifers are sampled from isolated screen intervals installed in one hole (Section J.4.3);
and (4) nested wells in separate boreholes (often called clusters), in which single-riser/limited interval wells are
installed in a cluster to different levels in an aquifer (Section 5.4.4). Permanent in situ installations include: (1)
Capsule multilevel installations (Section 5.6.1), and (2) multiple-port casings (Section 5.6.2).
This section also covers destructive ground-water sampling methods (Section 5.7). An overview of
general aspects of ground-water sampling procedures is contained in Appendix B.
5-6
-------
5. GROUND-WATER SAMPLING METHODS
5.1 PORTABLE POSITIVE DISPLACEMENT GROUND-WATER SAMPLERS
5.1.1 Bladder Pumps
Other Names Used to Describe Method; Gas-operated bladder pump, gas-squeeze pump, diaphragm pump,
Middelburg-type bladder pump, gas-operated squeeze pump.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Collecting ground-water samples.
Method Description: A flexible bladder within the device has check valves at each end (Figure 5.1. la). The
pump mechanism is placed in the well. Gas from ground surface is cycled between the bladder and sampler wall,
forcing the sample to enter the bladder and then be driven up the discharge line. Figure 5.1.1b shows an
operational bladder pump unit.
Method Selection Considerations: See Table 5-2 for suitability ratings for different ground-water parameters
using bladder pumps. Advantages: (1) Most bladder pumps have been designed specifically to sample for low
levels of contaminants, so most are, or can be, made of inert or nearly inert materials; (2) the driving gas does
not contact the sample directly, minimizing problems of aeration or gas stripping; (3) are portable, although
accessory equipment can be cumbersome; (4) relatively high pumping rate in comparison to other sampling
devices allows well purging and large sample volumes to be collected; (5) pumping rate of most models can be
controlled easily to allow for both well purging at high flow rates and collection of volatile samples at low flow
rates; (6) most models are capable of pumping lifts in excess of 200 feet; (7) are easy to disassemble for cleaning
and repair; (8) most models are designed for use in small-diameter wells (1.5 to 2 inches), while large diameter
pumps (3.25 inch outer diameter) are available for larger diameter wells; (9) are relatively durable, allowing
dedication of pumps to individual wells to eliminate cross contamination and speed sample collection; and (10)
in-line filtration is possible. Disadvantages: (1) Deep sampling requires large volumes of gas and longer cycles,
increasing operating time and expense, and reducing portability; (2) check valves in some pump models can fail
in water with high suspended solids; (3) relatively expensive; (4) minimum rates of discharge for some models
can be higher than ideal for sampling volatile compounds; (5) require large but portable power source
(compressed gas); and (6) intermittent but adjustable flow.
Frequency of Use: Second most common sampling device, and the most widely used device when samplers are
dedicated to a single well. One of the best devices for sampling both trace inorganics and volatile organics.
Standard Methods/Guidelines; ~
Sources for Additional Information: Gillham et al. (1983), Morrison (1983), Nielsen and Yeates (1985),
Pohlmann and Hess (1988), Rehm et al. (1985), Scalf et al. (1981). See also, Table 5-4.
5-7
-------
Sample Discharge Check Valve -
Gas Inlet
Pump Casing •
Bladder-
Water Intake Check Valve -
102 cm
|<4-2cm>|
PERFORATED
FLOW
TUBE
BLADDER'
INTAKE VALVE
ASSEMBLY
(INSIDE
SCREEN)
AIR LINE
TO
PRESSURIZE
(a)
Figure 5.1.1 Bladder pump: (a) Schematic (Pohlmann et al, 1990); (b) Operational unit (Morrison, 1983, by
permission).
5-8
-------
5. GROUND-WATER SAMPLING METHODS
5.1 PORTABLE POSITIVE DISPLACEMENT GROUND-WATER SAMPLERS
5.1.2 Gear Pump
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Gear-drive electric submersible pump.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Well development and purging; collecting ground-water samples for non-sensitive
parameters.
Method Description: Electric motor rotates a set of gears, which drives the sample up the discharge line (Figure
5.1.2). Pumps designed for ground-water sampling use Teflon gears.
Method Selection Considerations: See Table 5-2 for suitability ratings for different ground-water parameters
using a gear-drive pump. Advantages: (1) Constructed of inert or nearly inert materials, making it suitable for
sampling organics when optionally available Teflon discharge line is used; (2) highly portable and totally self-
contained, except when auxiliary power sources are used; (3) able to provide a continuous sample over extended
periods of time; (4) models available for both 2-inch and 3-inch or larger wells; (5) high pumping rates are
possible, making it feasible to use the pump for both well purging and sampling; (6) reasonably high pumping
rates can be achieved to depths of 150 feet, and depth range can be extended through the use of an auxiliary
power source; (7) easy to operate, clean, and maintain in the field, and replacement parts are inexpensive; and
(8) in comparison to other pumps offering the same performance, these pumps are inexpensive to purchase and
operate. Disadvantages: (1) No control over flow rates, so it is not possible to adjust from a high pumping rate
for well purging to a lower rate required for sampling volatiles; (2) sampling of wells with high levels of
suspended solids might require frequent replacement of gears; and (3) potential for pressure changes (captation)
exists at the drive mechanism (this has not be adequately evaluated).
Frequency of Use: Units designed for ground-water sampling are relatively new (6 to 7 years old). Pohlmann
and Hess (1988) rate this pump as suitable for volatiles sampling (Figure 5-2), but their use has not be widely
reported in the ground-water literature.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: —
Sources for Additional Information: Imbrigiotta et al. (1988), Nielsen and Yeates (1985), Pohlmann and Hess
(1988).
5-9
-------
MESHING TEETH FORM
A SEALTHAT FORCES
WATER INTO DISCHARGE LINE
WATER CARRIED
AROUND BOTH
SIDES OF PUMP
WATER CARRIED
" AROUND BOTH
SIDES OF PUMP
PARTIAL VACUUM
CREATED AT THIS POINT
Figure 5.1.2 Rotary gear pump (U.S. Army, 1981).
5-10
-------
5. GROUND-WATER SAMPLING METHODS
5.1 PORTABLE POSITIVE DISPLACEMENT GROUND-WATER SAMPLERS
5.1.3 Helical-Rotor Pump
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Helical rotor electric submersible pump, helical submersible electric
pump (HSEP), progressive cavity pump.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Well development and purging; collecting ground-water samples for non-sensitive
parameters.
Method Description: Water sample is forced up discharge line by electrically driven rotor-stator assembly that
moves water through a progression of cavities to the discharge line (Figure 5.1.3).
Method Selection Considerations: See Table 5-2 for suitability ratings for different ground-water parameters
using a helical rotor pump. Advantages: (1) Portable and relatively easy to transport in the field to remote
locations; (2) well-suited for use in 2-inch wells; (3) relatively high pumping rates are possible with currently
available units, allowing well purging, while low pumping rates are possible for sampling; (4) Keck pump has been
specifically designed for monitoring ground-water contamination, and so is constructed of inert or nearly inert
materials (stainless steel and Teflon); and (5) no priming necessary. Disadvantages: (1) Currently available pump
unit is limited to 160 feet of pumping lift; (2) high pumping rates with this pump lead to creation of turbulence
which can alter sample chemistry, (3) thorough cleaning and repair in the field can be difficult because the pump
is moderately difficult to dissemble; (4) water with high suspended solids content can cause aeration problems;
(5) the currently available model is expensive in comparison to other devices offering comparable performance;
(6) the pump must be cycled on and off approximately every 20 minutes to avoid overheating the motor, (7) the
flow rate cannot be controlled, so the pump might not be suitable to taking samples for analysis of chemically
sensitive parameters; and (8) sample might be contaminated by coming in contact with the pumping mechanism.
Frequency of Use: Large-diameter progressive cavity pumps are used in the petroleum industry and in water
wells; small-diameter helical rotor pumps designed for ground-water sampling are becoming more commonly
Standard Methods/Guidelines: —
Sources for Additional Information: Koopman (1979), Morrison (1983), Nielsen and Yeates (1985), Pohlmann
and Hess (1988), Rehm et al. (1985). See also, Table 5-4.
5-11
-------
Figure 5.13 Submersible helical rotor pump (Morrison, 1983, by permission).
5-12
-------
5. GROUND-WATER SAMPLING METHODS
5.1 PORTABLE POSITIVE DISPLACEMENT GROUND-WATER SAMPLERS
5.1.4 Gas-Drive (Displacement) Pumps.*
Other Names Used to Describe Method; Pressure displacement pumps, single/doubleAriple tube gas-drive
sampler, gas-drive continuous flow pump, nitrogen-powered continuous-delivery pump, pneumatic sampler (not
to be confused with depth-specific pneumatic samplers in Section 5.3.2).
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Collecting ground-water samples.
Method Description: Positive gas pressure applied to the surface of water within the device's sample chamber
forces the sample to surface through an open tube. Most available devices function on a filling-emptying two-
step cycle, in which no water is obtained at the surface during the filling step (Figure 5.1.4a). A continuous-flow
device consisting of two separate, in-line gas-drive devices has been developed that eliminates this problem
(Figure 5.1.4b). Materials can include polyethylene, brass, nylon, aluminum oxide, PVC, and polypropylene. A
simpler, annulus-type sampling method involves pressurizing the annulus space to drive water up a tube in which
the intake is placed below the maximum depression of the water level in the well (Figure 5.1.4c).
Method Selection Considerations: See Table 5-2 for suitability ratings for different ground-water parameters
using gas drive devices. Advantages: (1) Can be used in wells as small as 1.25 inches; (2) inexpensive, allowing
dedication to individual wells to eliminate possible cross-contamination; (3) highly portable for most sampling
applications; (4) discrete depth sampling possible; (5) deliver sample at a controlled, nearly continuous flow rate;
(6) use of an inert gas, such as nitrogen, minimizes sample oxidation and other chemical alteration; (7) can be
installed permanently in boreholes without casing; (8) permanent and multiple installations in a single borehole
are possible (see Section 5.6.2), avoiding possible cross-contamination; (9) can be constructed entirely of inert
materials; (10) depth of sampling limited only by the burst strength of the materials from which the device and
tubing are made (typically 300 feet); (11) good potential for preserving sample integrity because there is minimal
contact between the driving gas and the sample, and because the sample is driven by a positive pressure gradient;
and (12) triple-tube sampler is well-suited for installations of very narrow diameter (as low as 3/8 of an inch).
Disadvantages: (1) Might not be appropriate for chemically sensitive parameters if air or oxygen is used as the
driving gas due to oxidation (causing possible precipitation of meals), and gas stripping of volatiles or carbon
dioxide (with consequent shift in pH); (2) deep sampling locations require an air compressor or large
compressed-air tanks, reducing portability; (3) application of excessive pressure can rupture the gas entry or
discharge tubing; (4) permanent installations in boreholes without casing are difficult or impossible to retrieve
for repair and proper installation and operation might not be assured; (5) not very efficient for purging wells
larger than about 1-inch diameter; (6) can be difficult to clean between sampling sessions; (7) driving gas comes
in contact with the water, which contaminates the beginning and the end of the slug of water obtained as the
surface; and (8) pump intermittently and at a variable flow-rate.
Frequency of Use: Most commonly used for purging rather than sampling.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: Purging: Ford et al. (1984).
Sources for Additional Information: Gillham et al. (1983), Morrison (1983), Nielsen and Yeates (1985)
Pohlmann and Hess (1988), Rehm et al. (1985). See also, Table 5-4.
"There is some inconsistency in the published literature in the use of the term "gas" or "air" lift, which has been
applied to two distinctly different types of samplers. la this handbook the term gas lift (Section 5.2.4) refers to
methods where gas mixes with water to provide the buoyant force to bring it to the surface, and gas drive (this
section) refers to methods in which gas is used to push water up a tube without the gas becoming mixed with
the water that is brought to the surface. Morrison (1983) and Scalf et al. (1981) have applied the term lift" to
samplers that are classified as gas-drive samplers in this guide.
5-13
-------
*£?P^ O.U.
m ^^ \ --- c
I1 '
\v
NJJ 1 1 1 ; i ! I ! I ! i ! i ! i ! i !
/^
i 1
i t C
' 1 £•
fc
! t \
. "• "•*
-
'" o»
h. >
0} .;-
o o
-e- >> , " .. • '.?.S
' i ' "8
1 | 1 ! 11141 'Jr^-fl !' * u
liiiliai.lllii.i s^
ilHlTTtilTmi!. SB
• " ^J
'- 11
il
•
s
5 e
K O
~ a o .»
- 6
fc. O
J3 O w
^ "D
Q £
CL.
5-14
-------
5. GROUND-WATER SAMPLING METHODS
5.1 PORTABLE POSITIVE DISPLACEMENT GROUND-WATER SAMPLERS
5.1.5 Gas-Drive Piston Pumps
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Gas-drive piston pump, gas-operated double-acting piston pump, rod
pump, stationary barrel piston pump, air activated piston pump (AAPP).
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Collecting ground-water samples.
Method Description; Piston pumps consist of one or more plungers (pistons) moving inside a submerged cylinder
or barrel. When the piston moves up and down, one-way check valves direct water moved by the pistons to the
surface. Gas-drive pumps use gas pressure controlled from the surface to drive the piston up and down. Figure
5.1.5a illustrates an in-situ single-piston syringe pump for a multi-level sampling installation. Figure 5.1.5b shows
a schematic of a dual-piston pump. Section 5.1.6 discusses mechanically-driven piston pumps.
Method Selection Considerations: See Table 5-2 for suitability ratings for different ground-water parameters
using a gas-drive piston pump. Advantages: (1) Sample is isolated from the driving gas, avoiding aeration; (2)
provide a continuous sample over extended periods of time; (3) relatively easy to operate and easy to disassemble
for cleaning and maintenance, although some problems, such as with the pump motor or valving mechanism,
cannot usually be solved in the field; (4) models available for small diameter wells (1.25 to 2 inches or greater);
(5) pump uses gas economically, (6) pumping lifts of more than 500 feet can be overcome; (7) double-acting
pumps have continuous adjustable flow rate by varying the driving gas pressure on the pump; (8) can be made
of inert or nearly inert materials, although most commercially available pumps are not; and (9) moderately high
pumping rates at great depths allow collection of large volumes of sample in a relatively short time.
Disadvantages: (1) Relatively expensive in comparison to other sampling devices; (2) not highly portable, must
be mounted on a vehicle; (3) unless pump intake is filtered, paniculate matter can damage the pump's intricate
valving mechanism; (4) the pump's valving mechanism might cause a series of pressure drops in the sample
resulting in sample degassing and pH changes; (5) fixed-length tubing bundles can be inconvenient for shallow,
low-yield monitoring wells; (6) the tubing bundles can be difficult to clean adequately to avoid cross-
contamination; and (7) single acting pumps have intermittent flow.
Frequency of Use: Gas-drive piston pumps are designed specifically for ground-water sampling; moderately
common.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: Sampling: Ford et al. (1984).
Sources for Additional Information: Gillham et al. (1983), Koopman (1979), Nielsen and Yeates (1985),
Pohlmann and Hess (1988), Rehm et al. (1985), Scalf et al. (1981). See also, Table 5-4.
5-15
-------
PRESSURE
FROM
SURFACE
OUTFLOW
PRESSURE TUBE
(0.3 cm I.D. POLYETHYLENE)
BRASS
RETAINING
PLATE
RUBBER
STOPPER
50cm'
PLASTIC
SVRINGE
SYRINGE PLUNGER
(HANOL6 REMOVED)
5.0 cm I.D.
SCHEDULE 80
PVC PIPE
PILOT VALVE
P'=PRESSURE
' E'=EXHAUST
NEEDLE VALVE
RESTRICTION
(a)
SWITCHING UNIT
P=PRESSURE
E= EXHAUST
SWITCHING
UNIT SPINDLE
"O" RING SEALS
DURING UP CYCLE
"O" RING SEALS
DURING
DOWN CYCLE
NEEDLE VALVE
RESTRICTION
SUCTION
Figure 5.1.5 Gas-drive piston pumps: (a) In situ single-piston syringe pump (Morrison, 1983, after Gillham and
Johnson, 1981, by permission); (b) Schematic of dual-piston pump (Morrison, 1983, after Signor, 1978,
by permission).
5-16
-------
5. GROUND-WATER SAMPLING METHODS
5.1 PORTABLE POSITIVE DISPLACEMENT GROUND-WATER SAMPLERS
5.1.6 Mechanical Piston Pumps
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Rod pump, stationaiy barrel piston pump, sucker rod pump, piston
pump.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Collecting ground-water samples.
Method Description: Piston pumps consist of one or more plungers (pistons) moving inside a submerged cylinder
or barrel. When the piston moves up and down, one-way check valves direct water moved by the pistons to the
surface (Figure 5.1.6). Rod pumps use steel or wooden rods that are attached to the piston and run to the
surface, where they are connected to a mechanical driving mechanism, which can be powered by hand, electric
motor, gasoline engine, or windmill. Figure 5.1.6 illustrates wind-mill and hand pump assemblies for moving the
rod up and down.
Method Selection Considerations: Rod-Pumps: Generally not suited for ground-water sampling because: (1)
Require large power sources and are permanently mounted; (2) are difficult to clean; (3) require large diameter
wells (4 inches or greater); and (4) contact with pumping mechanism can cause contamination. Unwin (1982)
has noted the development of a prototype rod pump small enough to fit down a 1-inch casing.
Frequency of Use; Mechanical piston pumps commonly are used for water and petroleum production; use for
ground-water is fairly common.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: ~
Sources for Additional Information: Gillham et al. (1983), Unwin (1982), U.S. Army (1981).
5-17
-------
ToUlndonU
fl
J"
^/Cosing-)
Sucker Rod
B
V*9
-1— Pump
1 Column
UJeepHote
HflNDPUMP
-J-UJoter Level
PumpCulnder
Q foot Volvo
Figure 5.1.6 Windmill and hand-operated rod pumps (U.S. Geological Survey, 1980).
5-18
-------
5. GROUND-WATER SAMPLING METHODS
5.2 OTHER PORTABLE GROUND-WATER SAMPLING PUMPS
5.2.1 Suction-Lift Pumps
Other Names Used to Describe Method; Peristaltic suction/tubing pump, direct line vacuum pump, surface
centrifugal pump, manual diaphragm-type pump, pitcher pump, surface adsorption/thermal desorption (ATD)
sampler, subsurface ATD sampler.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Collecting ground-water samples.
Method Description; A large variety of surface pumps that apply a vacuum to the well casing, or to tubing
running from the pump to the desired sampling depth, can be used for ground-water sampling. The most
commonly used is the peristaltic pump, which is a self priming manual or power operated vacuum pump (Figure
5.2.1a). Other types of manual vacuum or diaphragm-type pumps or portable gasoline-powered or electric
surface centrifugal pumps can be attached to tubing for sample retrieval. Another device that can be used as
a permanent sampling installation for ground-water sampling where sensitive parameters are not involved is the
conventional manual pitcher pump, which is commonly used on shallow water supply wells (Figure 5.2.1b).
Ground-water samples containing volatile organic compounds require use of sample tubing and containers that
can be used for gas headspace/vacuum extraction (Section 10.2.1) or purge and trap extraction (Section 10.2.2),
or adsorption/thermal desorption (ADT) samplers (Section 10.2.4). ADT samplers can be placed at the surface
(Figure 5.2. Ic) or in the well (Figure 5.2. Id).
Method Selection Considerations: See Table 5-2 for suitability ratings for different ground-water parameters
using a peristaltic pump. Advantages: (1) Most suction lift pumps are easily controlled to provide a continuous
and variable flow rate; (2) simple, convenient to operate, highly portable, and readily available; (3) most are
relatively inexpensive to purchase and operate; (4) sample does not come in contact with the pump, so only the
tubing must be cleaned (peristaltic pump only); (5) can be used in wells of any diameter and can be used in
nonplumb wells; (6) easily cleaned; (7) components can be made of inert materials; and (8) in-line filtration is
possible. Disadvantages: (1) Sampling is limited to wells where the water level is less than 25 feet below the
surface; (2) the drop in pressure caused by the suction causes degassing of the sample and loss of volatiles,
especially if the sample is taken from an in-line vacuum Sask; (3) the gasoline motor power source used for most
centrifugal pumps creates potential for hydrocarbon contamination of samples; (4) pumping with centrifugal
pumps causes aeration and turbulence, which might disturb sample integrity; (5) centrifugal pumps might have
to be primed, providing a possible source of sample contamination; (6) low pumping rates of peristaltic pumps
make it difficult to purge the well in a reasonable amount of time; (7) can cause contamination if sample is
allowed to touch pump components; and (8) where the sample comes in contact with the pump mechanism or
tubing, the choice of appropriate materials for impellers (centrifugal pump) or flexible pump-head tubing
(peristaltic pump) might be restrictive.
Frequency of Use: Surface centrifugal pump is commonly used for well development. Peristaltic pumps are
commonly used for shallow ground-water sampling.
Standard Methods/Guidelines; Peristaltic (purging and sampling): Ford et al. (1984).
Sources for Additional Information: Gillham et al. (1983), Morrison (1983), Nielsen and Yeates (1985),
Pohlmann and Hess (1988), Rehm et al. (1985), Scalf et al. (1981), Unwin (1982). See also, Table 5-4.
5-19
-------
3
: •§ §S — ^^~
«- ^
yj j — . —
[W'sl 1 n
t^l * "-^:
D
I
(i Q.
^
1
a.
o 5 <
x* sy •] ,, , ^
' y >i '""•""•*••••" "g «™i -»
O
5-20
-------
5. GROUND-WATER SAMPLING METHODS
5.2 OTHER PORTABLE GROUND-WATER SAMPLING PUMPS
5.2.2. Submersible Centrifugal Pumps
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Rotary submersible pump, impeller submersible electric pump (ISEP);
small-diameter submersible centrifugal: Johnson-Keck, Grundfos.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Well purging and collecting ground-water samples.
Method Description; Electrically driven rotating impeller accelerates water within the pump body, building up
pressure and forcing the sample up the discharge line (Figure 5.2.2). Commonly constructed of stainless steel,
teflon, rubber, and brass.
Method Selection Considerations; See Table 5-2 for suitability ratings for different ground-water parameters
using centrifugal pumps. Advantages: (1) Can pump at large and variable flow rates, which makes them good for
purging; (2) small-diameter units are available that can be used in 2-inch diameter wells and can be operated at
both high flow rates for purging and low flow rates for sampling; (3) clay, silt, and fine sand have relatively little
effect on small-diameter units; and (4) relatively limited test data indicates that small-diameter units yield
comparable results to bladder pumps and helical rotor pumps when VOCs are sampled. Disadvantages: (1)
Conventional units are subject to excessive wear in abrasive or corrosive waters; (2) relatively expensive in
comparison to other devices offering comparable performance; (3) conventional pumps cannot be used in
installations of diameter less than about 4 inches; and (4) potential for sample contamination from lubricants in
motors in both small- diameter and conventional pumps.
Frequency of Use: Conventional, large-diameter pumps are common in water wells; small-diameter units for
ground-water sampling are becoming more commonly used.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: Sampling: Ford et al. (1984).
Sources for Additional Information: Gillham et al. (1983), Koopman (1979), McMillion and Keeley (1968),
Morrison (1983), Pohlmann and Hess (1988), Rehm et al. (1985). See also, Table 5-4.
5-21
-------
DISCHARGE
VANES
IMPELLER
MOTOR
figure 5.2.2 Submersible centrifugal pump (GRUNDFOS Pumps Corporation, Clovis, CA).
5-22
-------
5. GROUND-WATER SAMPLING METHODS
5.2 OTHER PORTABLE GROUND-WATER SAMPLING PUMPS
5.2.3 Inertial-Iift Pumps
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Inertial pump.
Uses at Contaminated Sites; Well purging and ground-water sampling.
Method Description: The pump consists of a foot valve at the end of a flexible tube, which runs to the surface.
At the beginning of sampling, the water column in the sampling tube is equal to that in the well. A levered
handle or gasoline motor drive provides a continuous up-and-down movement of the tubing. An initial rapid
upstroke lifts the water column in the tubing a distance equal to the stroke length. At the end of the upstroke,
the water continues to move slightly upward by inertia. On the downstroke, the foot valve opens allowing fresh
water to enter the tube. Figure 5.2.3 shows an installation with a levered handle for pumping.
Method Selection Considerations: Advantages: (1) Design is simple, easy to operate, and requires little or no
maintenance; (2) inexpensive in comparison to other pumps, allowing dedication of pumps to individual wells;
(3) can be used in monitoring wells as small as 0.5 inches in diameter and are capable of controlled flow rates
between 0 and 2 gallons per minute; (4) are suitable for sampling volatile organics; (5) operate in silty and sandy
environments without difficulty; (6) can be used to develop, purge, sample, and test monitoring wells; (7) can
be operated manually as deep as 40 meters (130 feet), and as deep as 60 meters (200 feet); (8) the manual pump
is lightweight and portable; and (9) drive mechanisms and pump construction materials can be selected to suit
a variety of technical and budgetary requirements. Disadvantages: (1) Manual pump is difficult to operate in
deep, large diameter wells (motor drive can overcome this); (2) cannot operate manually as deep as bladder or
gas-drive pumps; (3) manual pumping is labor-intensive and requires some exertion for deeper wells; (4) some
skill is necessary for most effective manual operation; (5) gasoline motor drive is heavy and not very portable;
(6) plastic foot valves wear with heavy use, especially in metal casing; and (7) tubing coils are stiff and awkward
to transfer between monitoring wells.
Frequency of Use: Relatively new method.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: Rannie and Nadon (1988).
Sources for Additional Information; Baerg et al. (1992), Barker and Dickhout (1988), lies et al. (1992).
5-23
-------
Pump is operated by continuous •
up-down movement of the tubing
NOT TO SCALE
Tubing
r
Optional Levered Handle
Screened Interval I
Sample Bottle
Srface
-Monitoring Well
Static Water Level
i
-Foot Valve
Figure 523 Typical manual installation of an inertial pump (Rannie and Nadon, 1988, by permission).
5-24
-------
5. GROUND-WATER SAMPLING METHODS
5.2 OTHER PORTABLE GROUND-WATER SAMPLING PUMPS
5.2.4 Gas-Lift Pumps*
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Air lift pump, hydrogen/nitrogen lift pump.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Collecting ground-water samples.
Method Description: Gas emitted from a gas line at the desired depth forces the sample to surface, either by
the gas bubbles mixing with the water to reduce its overall specific gravity (annulus type [Figure 5.2.4a]), or the
bubbles completely block the riser tube while ascending, thus pushing the water ahead (riser type [Figure 5.2.4b]).
Method Selection Considerations: See Table 5-2 for suitability ratings for different ground-water parameters
using gas lift devices. Advantages: (1) Simple to construct, or are available commercially at relatively low cost;
(2) can be used in any diameter wells; (3) usually are easily portable or can be permanently installed; and (4)
are easily cleaned. Disadvantages: (1) Only efficient when roughly 1/3 of the underground portion of the device
is submerged; (2) contamination of the sample by the driving gas, atmosphere, and degassing all are unavoidable;
(3) large power source (compressed gas) is required; and (4) does not work well in deep wells.
Frequency of Use: Very commonly used for well development (Section B.5); not recommended by Pohlmann and
Hess (1988) due to potential for alteration of most chemical parameters of interest.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: —
Sources for Additional Information: Gillham et al. (1983), Morrison (1983), Pohlmann and Hess (1988), Rehm
et al. (1985), Scalf et al. (1981), Unwin (1982). See also, Table 5-4.
""There is some inconsistency in the published literature in the use of the term "gas" or "air" lift, which has been
applied to two distinctly different types of samplers. In this handbook the term gas lift (this section) refers only
to methods where gas mixes with water to provide the buoyant force to bring the water to the surface, and gas
drive (Section 5.1.4) refers to methods in which gas is used push water up a tube without the gas becoming mixed
with the water that is brought to the surface. Morrison (1983) and Scalf et al. (1981) have applied the term 'lift"
to samplers that are classified as gas-drive samplers in this guide.
5-25
-------
**,v«
<•*•::•<•
'
LIFT
-o
ffcr^^iii
.•3«S|Ti
n
•.r-v:-r?'V-
91
?w "w
7m
hm3 Maximum height to which the
air-water mixture will rise
hw= Submerged length of the air line
7^= Density of the air-water mixture
Tw» Density of water
S. * Potentiometric surface
SLOTTED PVC
WELL CASING
PIPE
•CAP
DISCHARGE HOLE
SHRADER VALVE
<5SH9W
BENTONITE SLURRY
•AIRLINE
(b)
(a)
Figure 5.2.4 Gas-lift pumps: (a) Annulus type (Gillham et ajl, 1983, after Trescott and Finder, 1970. by permission);
(b) Riser type (Gillham et al, 1983, after Walker, 1974, by permission).
5-26
-------
5. GROUND-WATER SAMPLING METHODS
5.2 OTHER PORTABLE GROUND-WATER SAMPLING PUMPS
5.2.5 Jet Pumps
i
Other Names Used to Describe Method; Venturi/eductor pump.
Uses at Contaminated Sites; Developing or purging of monitoring wells.
Method Description: A circulating pump at the surface is attached to two tubes extending down the well. The
submerged end of the tubes is connected by an ejector-venturi assembly and the pump maintains positive
pressure in the tube that injects water and negative pressure on the tube that draws both water from the
formation and circulates water to the surface (Figure 5.2.5). At the surface, water can be drawn off at the input
end of the pump.
Method Selection Considerations: Advantages: (1) Can be used at great depths; (2) useful forwell development
or possibly purging; (3) high capacity at low heads; and (4) simple to operate and has no moving parts in the well.
Disadvantages: (1) Use circulating water, which mixes with the formation water, requiring pumping a large
amount of water before the circulating water has similar composition to the formation water, (2) water entering
the venturi assembly is subject to a potentially large pressure drop, causing degassing and/or volatilization of the
sample; (3) water circulating through the pump at the surface can be contaminated by materials and lubricants;
and (4) air in suction or return line will stop pumping.
i
Frequency of Use: Uncommon, though a new down-well design does exist. Sometimes used for well
development. Not recommended for sampling.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: —
Sources for Additional Information: Gillham et al. (1983), lies et a!. (1992), Koopman (1979), Unwin (1982), U.S.
Geological Survey (1980).
5-27
-------
Pressure pipe
Suction pipe
Figure 5.2.5 Jet (venturi) pump (Unwin, 1982).
5-28
-------
5. GROUND-WATER SAMPLING METHODS
5.2 OTHER PORTABLE GROUND-WATER SAMPLING PUMPS
5.2.6 Packer Pumps
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Packer-equipped pump.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Collecting depth specific ground-water samples; performing borehole dilution tests
to measure ground-water velocity.
Method Description: Hydraulically or pneumatically inflated packers are wedged against the wall of an open
borehole, perforated casing, or screen to isolate a section of the well for sampling. The packers are deflated for
vertical movement in the well and inflated when the desired depth is reached. Ground water is pumped to the
surface using a submersible pump (Figure 5.2.6a), gas lift, suction pump (Figure 5.2.6b), or bladder pump.
Method Selection Considerations: Advantages: Discrete, vertically spaced samples can be collected in a single
well. Disadvantages: (1) Vertical movement of water outside the well might result in samples that are not
representative of the sampling interval (can be minimized by low pumping rates); and (2) failure to obtain a tight
seal with the packers, because of an irregular open borehole or because of deterioration in the expandable
material, might affect representativeness of the sample.
Frequency of Use: Very common in dedicated systems; occasionally used for portable applications.
Standard Methods/Guidelines; -
Sources for Additional Information: Bureau of Reclamation (1981), Morrison (1983). See also, Table 5-4.
5-29
-------
5 mm TYGON
TUBING
NOTE
Since water circulation
to cool motor will be at
a minimum, pump should
never be operated in
excess of 4 or 5
minutes at a time,
with 10 minute
cooling period between
each pumping period.
Mot
Water line-
Welded brace-
12 Times diameter)
of holes f'
w
PRESSURE
GAUGE 5 mm TYGON
TUBING
"-Gland, water tight
•. coupling.
•^Stainless steel
clamps.
•(•Inflatable rubber
packer.
!2Times diameter of
hole.
—Perforated section
of drop pipe.
n| | clamps.
XSIand.
line.
Pump
2y" Diameter or larger
submersible pump.
•-Intake screen.
,-Perforated adaptor pipe
l" smaller i.d. than
pump welded or other
wise attached to bottom
"Plate of motor
stainless steel
clamps.
-Perforation
1 LITER ,_
BOTTLE
"L
J
L
J
n
j
— — || i (>J — ~ — =—
I r*-\^ ^ HOSE CLAMP
I
5 mm PLASTIC TUBING
PLUG
MONOFILAMENT LINE —
LU
rTJ
JL
\
•*.
S
I
•
"
Jl
p—
£
Z5
ILJ
- —
• i — -
X
-
I
• ^
>
I
" —i.
y
HH
•i — 3 mm PLASTIC TUBING
— NO. 6 1/2 RUBBER STOPPER
* 22 mm BICYCLE TUBING
1 mm AIR HOLES
J— 3 mm HOLES
}- 40 mm PVC PIPE
1 mm AIR HOLES
1 10 g WEIGHT
(a)
(b)
Figure 5.2.6 Packer pumps: (a) With submersible pump (Bureau of Reclamation, 1981); (b) With vacuum pump
(Morrison, 1983, by permission).
5-30
_
-------
5. GROUND-WATER SAMPLING METHODS
5.3 PORTABLE GRAB GROUND-WATER SAMPLERS
5.3.1 Bailers
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Open bailer, point-source bailer.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Collecting ground-water samples.
Method Description: A bailer is a hollow tube with a check valve at the base (open bailer) or a double check
valve (point-source bailer). The bailer is attached to a line (polypropylene or nylon rope, or stainless steel or
Teflon-coated wire) and lowered into the water column, with the check valve allowing water to flow through the
bailer. When the desired depth is reached, the bailer is pulled up, with the weight of the water closing the check
valve. At the surface, the sample in decanted into a sample container. Open bailers provide an integrated
sample of the column of water through which it has descended (Figure 5.3. la). Point-source bailers can use balls
that serve as checks to prevent additional water from entering the bailer when it is pulled to the surface (Figure
'• 5.3.1b), or can have valves that are opened and closed from a cable operated from the surface, allowing collection
of a sample at a specific point. The first type allows water to flow through the bailer as it is being lowered,
whereas the latter type allows water to enter only when the sampling depth has been reached. The check valves
of depth-specific bailers can also be operated pneumatically (Section 5.3.2).
Method Selection Considerations: See Table 5-2 for suitability ratings of open and point-source bailers for
different ground-water parameters. Advantages: (1) Low cost can allow dedication of one bailer per well,
avoiding potential for cross contamination; (2) simple to operate; (3) easily cleaned, although cleaning of ropes
and/or cables can be more difficult; (4) can be constructed of almost any rigid or flexible material, including those
materials that are inert to chemical contaminants and can be made to fit any diameter well and to almost any
length to obtain desired sample volume; (5) no limit to depth of sampling; (6) bailers made of flexible material
can pass through nonplumb wells; (7) very portable and require no power source; and (8) good for sampling
nonaqueous phase liquids at the water table surface. Disadvantages: (1) Time consuming and physically
demanding (if device is lowered and raised by hand) when used for purging, especially in deep wells; (2) lines
used with bailer can be difficult to decontaminate and cause cross contamination if not dedicated to a sample
well; (3) can cause chemical alterations due to aeration, degassing, volatilization, turbulence, or atmospheric
invasion while lowering the bailer through the water column and/or when transferring the sample to the storage
container; (4) the .person sampling might be exposed to contaminants in the sample; (5) does not supply a
continuous flow of water to the surface; (6) with open bailers, it might be difficult to determine the point within
the water column that the sample represents; (7) bailer check valves might not operate properly with high
suspended solids content or freezing temperatures; and (8) the swabbing effect of tightly fitting bailers might
cause fines to enter the well, especially if it has been poorly developed.
Frequency of Use: Bailers have been the most widely used sampling method because they are inexpensive, but
other devices, such as the bladder pump, helical rotor, and gear-drive pump, provide better results when sensitive
constituents, such as volatile organics, are present.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: Berg (1982), deVera (1980), Ford et al. (1984).
Sources for Additional Information; Dunlap et al. (1977), Gillham et al. (1983), Morrison (1983), Nielsen and
Yeates (1985), Pohlmann and Hess (1988), Rehm et al. (1985), Scalf et al. (1981). See also, Table 5-4.
5-31
-------
STANDARD
• BAILER
OFPVC
TOP FOR
VARIABLE CAPACITY
POINT SOURCE
BAILER OF PVC
1 FOOT
MIDSECTION
MAY BE ADDED
HERE
(a)
(b)
Figure 53.1 Bailers: (a) Standard type; (b) Point-source type (Gillham et al, 1983, by permission).
5-32
-------
5. GROUND-WATER SAMPLING METHODS
53 PORTABLE GRAB GROUND-WATER SAMPLERS
5.3.2 Pneumatic Depth-Specific Samplers
. Other Names Used to Describe Method: Syringe sampler, syringe bailer, discrete point sampler, pressurized
bailer, Chismar (surface bomb/pressurized bailer) samplers, Westbay sampler, VOA trap sampler.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Collecting depth-specific ground-water samples.
Method Description: Various types of samplers have been developed in which the sample container is pressurized
or evacuated before being lowered into the sampling installation. Opening the container and/or releasing the
pressure allows sample to enter the device. Figure 5.3.2a illustrates a syringe sampler constructed from a hospital
syringe. Figure 5.3.2b illustrates the operation of the sampling device used with a Westbay multilevel sampling
installation (see Section 5.6.2). The BAT sampler (Section 5,5.2) is another example of this type of sampler.
Method Selection Considerations: See Table 5-2 for suitability ratings for different ground-water parameters
using syringe samplers. Syringe Advantages: (1) Sample does not come into contact with any atmospheric gases;
very slight negative pressure during sampling should minimize aeration or degassing; (2) samples can be collected
at discrete intervals and at any depth; (3) syringes can be made out of inert or nearly inert materials; (4) the
syringe can be used as the sample container, eliminating the possibility of cross-contamination between wells; (5)
syringes are inexpensive, highly portable, and simple to operate, requiring only a hand pump; (6) can be used
in small diameter wells (as small as 1.2 inches); and (7) syringe can be flushed downhole with the water to be
sampled. Syringe Disadvantages: (1) Inefficient for collecting large volume samples; (2) cannot be used to purge
well; (3) might not be as readily available as other, more established, sampling devices; (4) sample contamination
by components of "homemade" sampling devices is possible unless materials are carefully selected; (5) use limited
to water with low suspended solids because particulates might damage plunger or check valve; (6) possible gas
diffusion through polyethylene barrel wall; (7) requires compressed gas; and (8) failure of the seal between the
piston and the syringe barrel can result of loss of volatile organics. Other Samplers Disadvantages: (1)
Commercially available pneumatic samplers are moderately expensive; (2) Westbay sampler is only compatible
with the Westbay casing system (Section 5.6.2); (3) might be difficult to clean.
Frequency of Use: Most commonly used in research projects.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: —
Sources for Additional Information: Gillham et al. (1983), Morrison (1983), Nielsen and Yeates (1985),
Pohlmann and Hess (1988), Rehm et al. (1985). See also, Table 5-4.
5-33
-------
i TO ± PUMP AT
T GROUND SURFACE
FLEXIBLE VINYL TUBIN3
jj^>- TUBING CLAMP
STAINLESS-STEEL BALLAST
.THREADED STAINLESS - STEEL TUBE
WING-NUT
-STAINLESS-STEEL WASHERS
-30 an POLYETHYLENE SYRINGE
-SYRINGE PLUNGER
(HANDLE REMOVED)
V
SYRINGE
NEEDLE
STAINLESS-STEEL
TUBE
STAINLESS-STEEL
" RETAINING) RING
(a)
Casing—
Sampling
probe -
a) Probe located b) Probe activated. c) Probe activated.
at measurement Sampling valve Sampling valve
port coupling. closed. open.
Sampling valve
closed.
Figure 5.3.2 Pneumatic Depth-Specific Samplers: (a) Syringe sampler (Gillham et al, 1983, after Gillham, 1982, by
permission); (b) Westbay sampling probe operation (Pohlmann et al., 1990, after Black et al., 1986).
5-34
-------
5. GROUND-WATER SAMPLING METHODS
5.3 PORTABLE GRAB GROUND-WATER SAMPLERS
53.3 Mechanical Depth-Specific Samplers
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Kemmerer sampler, Van Dorn sampler, composite liquid waste samplers
(coliwasa), stratified sample thief, swabbing.*
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Collecting depth-specific ground-water samples; sampling thickness of nonaqueous
phase liquids (NAPLs) floating on the water table, or at the bottom of a well (stratified sample thief).
Method Description; Kemmerer (Figure 5.3.3a) and Van Dorn samplers are tube samplers with end caps that
close when triggered by a "messenger" sent down the line, allowing collection of a water sample at the desired
depth. The Coliwasa is a tube with neoprene stoppers at each end, which are controlled by a rod running
through the tube and a locking mechanism, and is used for sampling fluids in tank (Figure 5.3.3b). The stratified
sample thief was developed by the petroleum industry to sample stratified immiscible fluids. It consists of a rod
passing through the center of a series of disks spaced at the interval for which sampling is desired (Figure 5.3.3c).
The assembly is lowered into the fluid to the depth of interest and a tube with an inside diameter slightly larger
than the diameter of the disks is slipped over the assembly, entrapping fluid between the adjacent disks. The
entire assembly is brought to the surface and fluid sample obtained for each chamber as the tube is withdrawn
from the disks. Swabbing involves pushing a leather swabbing cup, which is attached to a rod that extends from
the surface, down into the well. As the cup is lowered to the desired depth, water flow past it. As the cup is
drawn out of the well, it opens, lifting water to the surface.
Method Selection Considerations: Depth-Specific Sampler Advantages: (1) Coliwasa is inexpensive to construct
and can be made of inert materials; (2) are very portable and require no power source; (3) the stratified sampler
iswell-suited for sampling hydrocarbon contaminated ground water where distinct layers have developed between
immiscible fluids; and (4) are easily cleaned. Depth-Specific Sampler Disadvantages: (1) Activating mechanism
of Kemmerer and Van Dorn samplers can be prone to malfunctions; (2) Kemmerer sampler is difficult to clean
thoroughly, as are rubber stoppers used with other samplers, causing- the potential for cross-contamination; (3)
operation might be difficult at depth; (4) problems with potential chemical alteration of sample similar to bailers;
and (5) can be difficult to transfer sample to storage container. Swapping Advantages: Sampling to great depths
is possible (limited only by the length of rod attached to the swabbing cup). Swabbing Disadvantages: (1)
Difficult to use with large diameter wells; (2) volumes of water obtained and discharge rates cannot be regulated;
(3) contamination is common when oil-field equipment is used for deep sampling; (4) technique is difficult to
use, requiring a crew of about four people; (5) might cause plugging of well screens in small diameter wells; and
(6) consistent water quality sample collection is difficult due to vertical mixing of water during extraction.
Frequency of Use: Kemmerer and Van Dom samplers are most commonly used for surface water sampling. The
Coliwasa is primarily used for sampling containerized waste. The stratified sample thief has good potential for
use at hydrocarbon contaminated sites, although actual use has been infrequent. Swabbing is commonly used
in oil field operations, but is not recommended for ground water sampling (Everett et al. [1983]).
Standard Methods/Guidelines: Kemmerer and Coliwasa samplers: Ford et al. (1984); Stratified sample thief:
Johnson (1981).
Sources for Additional Information: Fenn et al. (1977), Gillham et al. (1983), Houghton and Berger (1984),
Rehm et al. (1985), Spaulding et al. (1976), Tate (1973), Wood (1976).
*Swabbing in only roughly depth-specific in that it provides integrated samples of the depth below the water table
to which the swabber is placed.
5-35
-------
MW— 2.8* cm (1 1/8")
1 h«ndl«
Stopper
y, .fijs « (2
132 cm (60")
SAMPLING POSITION
17. B M (7H)
6 em (4")
-Pipe, PVC, tranalucent,
4.13 en (1 5/8") I.D.,
4.26 en (1 7/8") O.D.
Stopper rod, PVC,
0.95 co (3/8") O.D.
CLOSED POSITION
-Stopper, neoprene, *9, tapered,
0.95 ca (3/8") PVC lock nut
and uaaher
(a)
0—
1 Spictr
2 Supporting Wmshtrs
3 Wiper
4 Sheath
5 Center Rod
6 Extension
7 Bottom Stopper
8 O-rinff
(c)
Figure S33 Mechanical depth-specific samplers: (a) Modified Kemmerer sampler (Scalf et al., 1981); (b) Coliwasa
(Ford et al, 1984); (c) Stratified Sample Thief (Gillham et al., 1983, after Johnson, 1981, by
permission).
5-36
-------
5. GROUND-WATER SAMPLING METHODS
5.4 SAMPLING INSTALLATIONS FOR PORTABLE SAMPLERS
5.4.1 Single-Riser/Limited Interval Wells
Other Names Used to Describe Method; Single-level or short-screened installations/well completions/piezometers.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Providing access for ground-water sampling of specific subsurface intervals.
Method Description: A borehole is drilled to the desired depth in an aquifer and a short to moderate length
screen (usually 3 to 10 feet) is installed (Figure 5.4.1). See Appendix B for additional information on well
installation, and Figure B.la for a more detailed schematic of elements of a monitoring well.
Method Selection Considerations: Advantages: (1) Simple and suitable for any type of formation; (2) easier to
install, pack, and seal than multilevel installations; (3) no potential for vertical cross-contamination between
sampling points due to leaky seals; (4) maximum flexibility in selection of well diameter (up to diameter of
borehole); and (5) most common well diameters (2 to 4 inches) do not restrict the choice of sample collection
methods. Disadvantages: (1) Provide no information on the vertical distribution of contaminants; (2) high cost
per sampling point compared to multilevel installations, especially at great depth; and (3) contaminant plume
might bypass wells with short screened intervals.
Frequency of Use; Common.
Standard Methods/Guidelines; —
Sources for Additional Information: AUer et al. (1991), Gillham et al. (1983), Morrison (1983), Scalf et al. (1981).
5-37
-------
LAND SURFACE
BOREHOLE
SCHEDULE 4O PVC
CASING
SLOTTED SCHEDULE
40 PVC SCREEN
LOW PERMEABILITY
BACKFILL
GRAVEL PACK
V'ATER TABLE
Figure 5.4.1 Typical monitoring well screened over a single vertical interval (Gillham et al., 1983, after Fenn et al.,
1977, by permission).
5-38
-------
5. GROUND-WATER SAMPLING METHODS
5.4 SAMPLING INSTALLATIONS FOR PORTABLE SAMPLERS
5.4.2 Single-Riser/Long-Screened Wells
Other Names Used to Describe Method: How-through installations/completion/piezometers.
Uses at Contaminated Sites; Detection monitoring; collecting ground-water samples at different levels in an
aquifer (if flow-through assumptions apply).
Method Description: A borehole is drilled to the bottom of the aquifer of interest and the full thickness of the
aquifer is screened (unconsolidated material [Figure 5.4.2]), or left open (bedrock aquifers). Sampling such a
well after purging yields a composite sample of the aquifer. Gillham et al. (1983) restrict use of the term "flow
through" wells to small diameter wells (2 inches or less) in hydraulically homogeneous formations with no vertical
gradient, where ground water flows through the well without having its course altered. In this special situation,
purging in not necessary. Minimally disturbed water samples can be obtained at different levels in the well by
either taking a series of grab samples, or a series of samples at very low pumping rates.
Method Selection Considerations: Advantages: (1) Simple and suitable for any type of formation; (2) easier to
install, pack, and seal than multilevel installations; (3) maximum flexibility in selection of well diameter (up to
diameter of borehole); (4) most common well diameters (2 to 4 inches) do not restrict the choice of sample
collection methods; and (5) where flow-through assumptions apply, there is no need to purge the well before
sampling and the number of vertical sampling points is not limited by the diameter of the well. Disadvantages:
(1) Contaminant plume might bypass wells with short-screened intervals; (2) long-screened intervals might not
give accurate measurement of maximum concentrations because concentration and hydraulic-head values tend
to be averaged over the length of the screen; (3) because of disadvantage #4, long-screened installations can be
used to confirm the presence, but not the absence of a contaminant; (4) long-screened installations can cause
cross-contamination in an aquifer by connecting contaminated zones to uncontaminated zones; and (5) the
underlying assumption for flow-through wells that the well screen will not alter the flow of ground water cannot
be support for most natural systems.
Frequency of Use; Relatively common at older sites; uncommon at new sites.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: —
Sources for Additional Information: Aller et al. (1991), Gillham et al. (1983), Reynolds et al. (1991).
5-39
-------
Grout
Water table
— Surface protector
Casing or riser
Ground
water
flow
direction
Well
intake Unconsblidated
aquifer
__ Bottom cap
Bottom
of aquifer
Figure 5.4.2 Diagram of single-riser/flow-through well (Aller et al.
1991).
5-40
-------
5. GROUND-WATER SAMPLING METHODS
5.4 SAMPLING INSTALLATIONS FOR PORTABLE SAMPLERS
5.4.3 Nested Wells/Single Borehole
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Multiple wells/single borehole installation, multiple well-single borehole
installation/completion, well clusters, hybrid.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Delineating contaminant plumes; detection monitoring.
Method Description: A cluster of single-riser/limited interval wells is installed at different depths in a single
borehole (Figure 5.4.3a). Each screened interval is separated by a grout seal. In cohesionless deposits, bundle
piezometers can be installed, which consist of a bundle of narrow-diameter standpipe piezometers, each of
different length. At the bottom of each pipe is a short (6-8 inch) slotted interval wrapped with fine nylon screen.
A cluster of nine piezometers can be placed down a hollow-stem auger, and the formation is allowed to cave in
around the bundles as the auger is withdrawn from the hole (Figure 5.4.3b). Well casings can be eliminated by
installing in situ samplers (well screens with submersible pumps) or individual gas-drive/suction-lift samplers
(Section 5.6.1) at different levels in single borehole. Hybrid well installations can involve a variety of
combinations of permanently placed in situ vadose zone and ground-water monitoring devices and/or small
diameter monitoring wells (Figure 5.4.3c).
Method Selection Considerations: Advantages: (1) Allow sampling for vertical distribution of ground-water
constituents; (2) lower cost per sampling point than separate single-riser wells; and (3) the generally smaller
diameters of individual wells in a nest compared to single-riser installations means that smaller volumes of water
must be removed for purging. Disadvantages: (1) Installation, packing, and sealing is more difficult than for
single-level installations and increases greatly as the number of wells in the boreholes increases; (2) the short-
screened intervals must be separated by a grout seal with the possibility that small zones of contaminated water
might be missed in heterogeneous materials (reconnaissance methods such as destructive sampling [see Sections
5.7.1 and 5.7.2] can reduce the this likelihood); (3) cross-contamination of sampling points might occur as a result
of leaky seals (this can be checked using tracer tests); (4) number of sampling points per borehole is restricted
by the diameter of the borehole and the diameter of the individual piezometers; (5) bundle piezometers are
suitable only where cohesionless sands will collapse around the tips; (6) the small diameter of individual
piezometers might restrict choice of sampling methods; and (7) in fine-grained material with low hydraulic
conductivity, the small storage volume of individual piezometers might make it difficult to collect samples of
sufficient volume.
Frequency of Use; Relatively uncommon.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: ~
Sources for Additional Information: Aller et al. (1991), Fenn et al. (1977), Gillham et al. (1983), Morrison
(1983), Scalfetal. (1981). See also, Table 5-4.
5-41
-------
Surface seal
Filter sand
J3rout seal
Filter pack
Screened interval
(a)
T
j$.
ZONE OF
SATURATION n
*?foffiffl,
• *• f
Li\
(a)
SMALL DIA
WELLS \A
LYSIMET
fl **tH
i 8
f^^ife
i \
a {/w/wt
j
|
WMWW
,J L^
(b)
VIETER GAS LI
/ITH SAMPLERS
ERS LYSIMET
I
', 1
?i yrt.
, \l
\ fc&
i
i i
i
1
=T SIN
WITH WIT
ERS LYE
|l
s |
= =
= =
u
"To)
3LE
HSL
IME'
1
N
H
i
i
i
I
WELL
EEVE
FERS
13mm I.D.
20mm O.D.
8mm I.D..
12mm O.D.
- POLY-TUBING
BINDING TAPE
. EPOXY CEMENT
PLUG
PERFORATED
• INTERVAL WITH
NYLON SCREEN
- PVC PIPE
SLOTTED
• INTERVAL WITH
NYL,ON SCREEN
• END CAP
(b)
00
Figure 5.43 Midtiple wells in a single borehole: (a) Conventional completion (Aller et al., 1991, after Johnson,
1983); (b) Bundle piezometers (Morrison, 1983, by permission); (c) Hybrid well systems (Morrison,
1983, by permission).
5-42
-------
5. GROUND-WATER SAMPLING METHODS
5.4 SAMPLING INSTALLATIONS FOR PORTABLE SAMPLERS
5.4.4 Nested Wells/Multiple Boreholes
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Multi-level wells/multiple borehole installation, multi-level wells/multiple
borehole completion.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Delineating contaminant plumes; detection monitoring.
Method Description: A series of single-riser/limited interval wells is installed at different depths in an aquifer
in separate, but closely spaced or clustered boreholes (Figure 5.4.4). See Appendix B for additional information
on well installation.
Method Selection Considerations; Advantages: (1) Allow sampling for vertical distribution of ground-water
constituents; (2) somewhat lower cost per sampling point than widely spaced single-riser wells; (3) simple design
and operation; (4) potential for cross-contamination between different levels in the aquifer is eliminated; (5) only
the drilling method limits well diameter; and (6) if desired, screened intervals can be placed to provide complete
vertical coverage of the aquifer. Disadvantages: (1) More expensive than nested wells in a single borehole; and
(2) small zones of contaminated water might be missed in heterogeneous materials if the screened intervals do
not provide complete vertical coverage of the aquifer (reconnaissance methods such as destructive sampling [see
Sections 5.7.1 and 5.7.2] can reduce the this likelihood).
Frequency of Use: Common.
Standard Methods/Guidelines; —
Sources for Additional Information: AUer et al. (1991), Gillham et al. (1983), Reynolds (1991).
5-43
-------
nx
Ezx:
J**=
7
=z
7
1ZE
SIltH
7
as
N*_
-4
^
zn
m\
— Surface seal
— Grout seal
< Filter sand
f-Mi 1.
•* Filter sand
Figure 5.4.4 Nested wells with multiple boreholes (Aller et al, 1991, after Johnson, 1983).
5-44
_
-------
5. GROUND-WATER SAMPLING METHODS
5.5 PORTABLE IN SITU GROUND-WATER SAMPLERS/SENSORS
5.5.1 Hydrppunch*
Other Names Used to Describe Method: -
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Collecting representative ground-water samples without installation of permanent
ground-water monitoring wells.
Method Description; The Hydropunch* is a device that collects one-time ground-water samples in unconsolidated
material (Figure 5.5.1a). It is attached to cone penetrometer rods (see Section 2.2.2) and driven into the soil
with hydraulic rams (Figure 5.5.1b). When the bottom of the probe is at least 5 feet below the water table, the
outer cylinder is pulled back, exposing a perforated stainless steel sample entry barrel covered with either a nylon
or polyethylene filter material (Figure 5.5.1c). Hydrostatic pressure forces ground water that is relatively free
of turbidity into the sample compartment, and the probe is pulled to the surface to retrieve the sample.
Depending on the soil materials, depths up to 150 feet can be achieved by direct penetration. If deeper depths
are desired, boreholes can be drilled to the desired depth before using the sampler.
Method Selection Considerations: Advantages: (1) Allows relatively rapid collection of ground^water samples with
minimal disturbance of the ground surface (6 to 10 samples of between 500 and 1,000 mL a day if no major
problems occur); (2) cost-effective method for preliminary contaminant plume delineation based on actual
ground-water sampling; and (3) can be used in most materials that can be augered or sampled with a split spoon.
Disadvantages: (1) Provides one-time sample only; (2) cannot be used in very gravelly or consolidated formations;
(3) samples must be taken 3 to 5 feet below the water table surface, meaning the light nonaqueous phase liquid
floating at the ground-water surface might be missed in sampling; (4) collection of samples in clayey zones
requires excessive fill times (up to 2 hours) and filter mesh might allow significant uptake of fines in the sample;
and (5) problems in penetrating well-sorted coarse sand might result in a zone of significant contamination being
bypassed during sampling.
Frequency of Use: Relatively new method that has gained rapid acceptance as a preliminary reconnaissance
method.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: -
Sources for Additional Information; See Table 5-5.
5-45
-------
u
1
I
Q>
1
-------
5. GROUND-WATER SAMPLING METHODS
5.5 PORTABLE IN SITU GROUND-WATER SAMPLERS/SENSORS
5.5.2 Other Cone Penetrometer Samplers
Other Names Used to Describe Method: .CPT/porous probe, BAT system; CPT samplers (radial filter element,
retractable tip, expendable tip, slotted probe); TerraTrog (soil-gas sampler).
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Collecting in situ ground-water samples; measuring pore-water pressure and
hydraulic conductivity.
Method Description; BAT system: A special ground-water/soil-gas sampling cone, with a filter mounted inside
its stainless steel shaft, either is placed in the subsurface as a permanent installation or attached to cone
penetration rods and pushed into the ground (Figure 5.5.2a). A specially developed septum keeps the top of the
filter sealed. Apre-sterilized evacuated sample vial sealed with a similar septum and a disposable double-ended
hypodermic needle are lowered down the cone penetration rods. The sample vial connects with the porous probe
when the hypodermic needle penetrates both devices and the vacuum in the vial pulls a sample into the vial
(Figure 5.5.2b). The septum on the probe reseals when the vial and needle are pulled to the surface, allowing
collection of multiple samples from the same point. The BAT system can be used for ground-water sampling,
as a vacuum-type porous cup suction lysimeter (Section 9.2.1), and for soil gas sampling (Section 9.4.2). Figure
5.5.2c illustrates several types of permanent installations of the filter tip probe. With the appropriate additional
equipment, the probe also is able to measure pore-water pressure, and to measure hydraulic conductivity. Other
CPT samplers: Various other types of tips (radial filter element, retractable tip, expendable tip, slotted probe)
have been developed that can be attached to a cone penetration rig for ground-water and soil-gas sampling.
Unlike the BAT and Hydropunch* probes, ground-water samples are drawn to the surface using a suction-lift
device, commonly a peristaltic pump (Section 5.2.1).
Method Selection Considerations: BAT Advantages: (1) Allows relatively rapid collection of ground-water samples
with minimal disturbance of the ground surface; (2) cost-effective method for preliminary contaminant plume
delineation based on actual ground-water sampling; (3) can be used in most materials that can be augered or
sampled with a split spoon; (4) permanent installation for ongoing sampling is possible; and (5) also can be used
to sample soil gases and soil water in the vadose zone. BAT Disadvantages: (1) Provides one-time sample only
(unless permanent installation is used); (2) cannot be used in very gravelly or consolidated formations; (3) one-
time sample volumes are smaller that Hydropunch* (150 mL vs. 500 to 1,000 mL); (4) with permanent
installations, depth of ground-water sampling is limited to the suction capacity of the suction-lift device that is
used (around 15 to 25 feet); and (5) problems in penetrating well-sorted coarse sand might result in a zone of
significant contamination being bypassed during sampling. Other CPT Samplers: Different probes vary in the
suitability for use in fine-grained and coarse-grained soil materials. All require suction-lift devices for ground-
water sampling, limiting sampling depth to around 15 to 25 feet.
Frequency of Use: Relatively new method that has potential for wide applications.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: -
Sources for Additional Information: See Table 5-5.
5-47
-------
wire or electrical
cable
, ...
¥i
i ' i
(Ml
1-
* \^
•»
•»
\x
(a
rtMilidii
BB^B(HBlB^Hi^^^^
one-inch pipe
•test adapter
hypodermic
needle
resilient material
'\ <_ filter tip
* *-
/
)
SEPTUM
SEPTUM
Figure 5.5.2 BAT system: (a) Schematic of test adaptor for sampling of ground water and gas; (b) Filter tip
attachment for cone penetration rig (A) with double-ended hypodermic needle (B) and sample vial (C)
(Torstensson and Petsonk, 1988, Copyright ASTM, reprinted with permission); (c) Example permanent
installations of filter tip probe (Torstensson, 1984, by permission).
5-48
-------
5. GROUND-WATER SAMPLING METHODS
5.5 PORTABLE IN SITU GROUND-WATER SAMPLERS/SENSORS
5.5.3 Other Driven Samplers
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Well point sampler, driven multilevel sampler (DMLS), hydraulic probe
sampler, hollow steel drive probe, miniature multi-level sampler.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Collecting in situ ground-water samples; performing tracer studies of ground-water
flow (multi-level).
Method Description: Well point samplers: A well point (Figure 5.5.3a), which usually is fabricated from metal
and includes a screen, casing, and hardened point, is jetted (see Section 2.1.8) or driven (see Section 2.2.1) into
the soil. The well point is left in place to function as a monitoring well. Multiple port well point sampler: A
driveable well point, with multiple sampling ports separated by a sand matrix and caulking, is driven into the soil
and a suction device is used to collect samples from the different ports (Figure 5.5.3b). DMLS: This sampler
consists of a 4.4-centimeter OD screwed, flush-joint steel casing, with sampling tubes on the inside of the casing,
which are attached by pressure fittings to screened sampling ports at 25- to 38-centimeter intervals (Figure
5.5.3c). The lower end of the casing is attached to a drive point. It is installed by augering to the top of the
desired depth of placement and driving the sampler to the final depth. Water is pumped into the sampling tubes
to keep the sampling ports from being clogged while the casing is being driven. Once in place, the auger hole
is backfilled and sealed at the surface. Hydraulic probe sampler: This sampler uses a modification of soil-gas
sampling methods (Section 9.4.2) to collect ground-water samples. A 0.75 to 1-inch outer diameter hollow probe
with detachable drive points is hydraulically driven 2 feet below the water table (as determined by an electronic
water level indicator). Ground-water samples are taken using tubing placed down the probe and a peristaltic
pump (Section 5.2.1). Miniature multilevel sampler: This sampler is like a cross between the hydraulic probe
sampler and the simpler types of multiple port-casings (Section 5.6.2). It is constructed of steel conduit with a
drive point so that sampler can be driven into the ground. Hydrocarbon thickness probe: A hollow steel rod,
with a circuit at the tip to sense the top of the water table, is driven into the soil until it is to the top of the water.
table. A replaceable insert, which contains a coating of product indicator chemicals, is placed down the tube.
A horizontal slot above the tip allows petroleum products floating on the surface of the water table to enter the
tube and react with the chemicals on the insert. The insert is removed and the thickness of product measured.
Method Selection Considerations: Advantages: Most devices offer a portable, quick, and efficient method for
monitoring at shallow depths in bogs, muds, unconsolidated sands, and permafrost. Disadvantages: (1) Most
devices are limited to relatively shallow depths; (2) forcing probes into the soils affects the soil density
immediately adjacent to the well, which might influence some downhole monitoring instruments; and (3) except
for well points, off-the-shelf availability of most types generally is limited.
Frequency of Use: Well points are commonly used for shallow monitoring; other methods are used less
commonly due to relativeness newness of methods, but more widespread use is likely.
Standard Methods/Guidelines; —
Sources for Additional Information: Well point samplers: Morrison (1983), see also, Table 5-5; Multiple port
well point probe: Hansen and Harris (1974, 1980); DMLS: Boggs and Hemond (1988); Hydraulic probes:
Mastrolonardo and Thomsen (1990), Patton (1990); Miniature multilevel samplers: Stites and Chambers (1991);
Hydrocarbon thickness probe: Wagner et al. (1989).
5-49
-------
KNURLED NUT
ALUMINUM TUBE
COPPER
SLEEVE
SOIL
SURFACE
PIPE
EXTENSIONS -
WATER
TABLE
0.6 cm CAULKING :
3.1 cm WELL POINT-
PROBE SPACING
AND WELL
'LENGTH
; OPTIONAL
^1
/
-------
5. GROUND-WATER SAMPLING METHODS
55 PORTABLE IN SITU GROUND-WATER SAMPLERS/SENSORS
5.5.4 Dissolved Oxygen, Eh, and pH Probes
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Continuous pH log, continuous redox (ORP) log.
Uses at Contaminated Sites; Detecting contaminant plumes; obtaining information on the vertical distribution
and temporal variations in the pH and redox status of ground-water/borehole fluid.
Method Description: Various probes are available that measure dissolved oxygen, oxidation-reduction potential
(Eh), and hydrogen ion concentration (pH) in borehole fluids, individually or in combination. Pedlar et al.
(1990) describe a technique for defining the relative contribution of fractures to the specific capacity of a well
and characterizing hydrochemistry using, a new logging tool, which simultaneously measures fluid electrical
conductivity (see also, Section 3.1.3), temperature (see also, Section 3.5.2), pH, and Eh. Figure 55.4 shows
example logs from such a device. Section 10.1 discusses in more detail field the measurement of pH and Eh in
ground-water samples.
Method Selection Considerations: Advantages: (1) In situ measurements are less likely to reflect chemical
alteration due to pressure changes than measurements taken of a water sample brought to the surface; and (2)
combination probes that measure several hydrochemical parameters simultaneously greatly simplify collection.
Disadvantages: The general disadvantages that are associated with a new method: (1) Limited operational and
field experience; and (2) limited equipment availability.
Frequency of Use; Good potential for wider use for aquifer characterization as the instrumentation is refined
and becomes more widely available.
Standard Methods/Guidelines; —
Sources for Additional Information: Pedlar et al. (1990).
5-51
-------
Fluid Electrical Conductivity Cumho/em) pH
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 5.5 S.O . 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5
-I . ... I .... I .... I .... I ...."... I ' ,.i... ,|
Temperature CO Oxidation-Reduction Potential (Eh)
9.7 9.8 9.9 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 -0.14 -0.08 0.00 0.08
LEGEND
— — —
LOG NO.
PAD 1623
PAD 1623
PARAMETER
FEC
temp
LEGEND
.=___
LOG NO.
PAD 1623
PARAMETER
PH
Figure 5.5.4 Example fluid electrical conductivity, temperature, pll, and Eh logs from a single borehole (Pedlar et
al., 1990, by permission).
5-52
-------
5. GROUND-WATER SAMPLING METHODS
5.5 PORTABLE IN SITU GROUND-WATER SAMPLERS/SENSORS
5.5.5 Ion-Selective Electrodes
Other Names Used to Describe Method; Specific-ion electrodes.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Detecting presence and concentration of specific ions. Ion-selective electrodes have
been developed for ammonia, bromide, calcium, chloride, fluoride, hydrogen sulfide, and nitrate.
Method Description: Electrodes are designed to detect the presence and concentration of specific ions using a
reference electrode. Figure 5.5.5a shows a nitrate-specific electrode, which consists of a solvent-polymer
membrane containing a nitrate ion exchanger in an inert polyvinyl chloride plastic matrix. The electrode has an
internal silver/silver chloride element, which establishes a fixed potential in contact with the internal filling
solution. The membrane undergoes ion exchange, which varies inversely with the activity of the nitrate ion.
Signals are recorded on a strip chart recorder that presents readings in parts per million or millivolts on a
logarithmic or linear scale. Readings in millivolts require use of a calibration curve to convert readings to parts
per million (Figure 5.5.5b).
Method Selection Considerations: Advantages: Relatively new method with good potential for detection
monitoring and preliminary water quality characterization. Disadvantages: (1) Proper calibration is difficult due
to interference from different constituents present in many ground waters; (2) some parameters might inhibit
the electrode's output; and (3) constituents for which specific electrodes have been developed are limited.
Frequency of Use: Use for contaminated-site investigations relatively new.
Standard Methods/Guidelines; ASTM (1982) describes standard terminology, measurement technique, and
conditions affecting measurements.
Sources for Additional Information; Jeffers et al. (1982), Newman and Corbell (1990), Ritchey (1986).
5-53
-------
KITBATE
' ILXCTBODZa
(a)
TYPICAL NITRATE/FLUORIDE
ELECTRODE CALIBRATION CURVE
E
1
e «n
0 50
t
r
0
d
e TOO
P
o
t
e 150-
n
t
i
a
m
V
/
/
/
10-FOLp_CHANGE/
56 mV1 /^
~~ ^^ /'
0 .1 1 10 100 1000
ppm Nitrate as N, FLUORIDE as F
(b)
Figure 55J5 Nitrate specific ion electrode: (a) Probe; (b) Calibration curve (Newman and Corbell, 1990, by
permission). J
5-54
-------
5. GROUND-WATER SAMPLING METHODS
5.5 PORTABLE IN SITU GROUND-WATER SAMPLERS/SENSORS
5.5.6 Fiber-Optic Chemical Sensors (FOCS)
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Remote laser-induced fluorescence (RLIF), remote fiber spectroscopy
with fiber optic chemical sensors (RFS-FOCS), immunochemical fiber optic sensors.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Detecting the presence of specific organic compounds in water or vapor phase.
Solid fiber: BTEX, DCE, TCE, carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, diesel fuel, JP-5, gasoline, and phenols; Porous
fiber: Humidity, pH, ammonia, ethylene, CO, hydrazines, and BTX.
Method Description: A variety of chemical sensors using fiber optic technology are in developmental stages.
FOCS are made of a reagent phase, which is physically confined or chemically immobilized at the end of an
optical fiber. The reagent phase contains a chemical or immunochemical indicator that changes its optical
properties, usually absorbance or fluorescence, when it interacts with the analyte (immunochemical techniques
are discussed further in Section 10.5.2). The optical fiber is a strand of glass or plastic, ranging from two to
several hundred microns in diameter, and acts as a conduit to propagate light to and from the FOCS. The FOCS
is placed in the subsurface using a cone penetration rig (Figure 5.5.6a) or into a ground-water monitoring well.
The fiber optic cable is attached to a spectrophotometer (Section 10.4.3) or a fluorometer (Section 10.4.2), which
contains a light source (light bulb or laser) and a detector. An excitation signal from the light source is
transmitted down the cable to the FOCS, and the sensor fluoresces and provides a constant-intensity light source
that is transmitted back up the cable and detected as the return signal (Figure 5.5.6b). If the target contaminant
is present, the intensity of the return signal is reduced, and the intensity of light that is recorded by the detector
is inversely proportional to the concentration (Figure 5.5.6c). Fiber optic sensors also are used with the
colorimetric borehole dilution techniques (Section 3.5.6).
Method Selection Considerations: Advantages: (1) Provide selective in situ real-time measurements in the field;
(2) eliminate sample handling and chain-of-custody concerns; (3) potential for specific detection of a large
number of specific organic compounds (theoretically over half the organics on EPA's priority pollutant list); (4)
sensors can be placed in small boreholes (0.5-inch diameter), reducing drilling and monitoring well installation
costs, or can be used with cone penetration rigs (Section 5.5.2) for rapid field screening; (5) field instrumentation
is potentially very portable (small enough to fit in a coat pocket); and (6) potential for greatly reduced costs
compared to conventional sampling and analytical methods for organic contaminants. Disadvantages: (1) New
technique with limited operational and field experience; (2) equipment not yet readily available; (3) field
performance of RLIF has been poorer than laboratory results, perhaps due to temperature fluctuations and affect
of increased vibration on optics; (4) numerous separate sensors are required for discrimination between specific
compounds; and (5) turbidity might interfere with readings.
Frequency of Use; Relatively new development with excellent potential.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: —
Sources for Additional Information: See Table 5-5.
5-55
-------
•V FIBER OPTIC TO
PROBE TIP
(a)
Power Supply
&
Conditioning
Quartz-
Lan
Halogen
ip ^
600 micron Fiber ^
Optical Filters ~1
Beam Splitter
I— -/-
L/i_
Photodlode _*. | |
4ard Copy Port
Flu
|— | Electronics '
Excitation h\
^S. c
\F
orescence hv 1
Optical
Specific
Chemistry
General
Chemistry
(a) No Sample (b) 100% Sample
(c) Intermediate
Sample
Concentrations
Display
Light In:
Light Out:
(b)
(c)
Figure 5^.6 Fiber optic sensors: (a) Schematic of laser induced fiber optic fluorometer system (Lieberman et a
1991); (b) Block diagram of field-portable fluorometer with fiber optic sensor (Barnard and Walt,
1991); (c) Principle of operation of a fiber optic sensor (Morlock, 1989, by permission).
5-56
-------
5. GROUND-WATER SAMPLING METHODS
5.6 FIXED IN SITU GROUND-WATER SAMPLERS
5.6.1 Multilevel Capsule Samplers
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Gas-drive/suction-lift multilevel sampling device installation.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Delineating contaminant plumes; detection monitoring; ground-water quality
monitoring.
Method Description: A variety of gas-drive (see Section 5.1.4) or suction-lift (see Section 5.2.1) sampling devices
have been developed for permanent installation in a single borehole to allow multi-level sampling. Individual
gas-drive (Figure 5.6.1a) or suction-lift samplers are placed at different levels in a borehole and separated by
grout in a manner similar to nested wells in a single borehole (Figure 5.6.1b). Samples are collected using tubing
that runs from the surface to each individual sampling device.
Method Selection Considerations: Advantages: (1) Allow sampling for vertical distribution of ground-water
constituents; (2) relatively easy to operate and safer than most other installation types where hazardous
contaminants are involved; and (3) minimal purging is required because there is little mixing between incoming
water from the formation and stagnant water. Disadvantages: (1) Proper installation is difficult; (2) cost per
sampling point is moderately high; (3) depending on the type of sampler, number of sampling points might be
limited by the diameter of the borehole (commonly three to four sampling points for 6-inch borehole); (4)
permanent nature of installation means that devices at individual sampling points cannot be retrieved for
servicing or repairs, and malfunction means the sampling point is lost; (5) cross contamination is a potential
concern with multi-level installations requiring grout to isolate sampling points; and (6) the choice of sample
collection method is restricted to gas-drive or suction-lift devices (for shallow water table). See Sections 5.1.4
and 5.2.1 for advantages and disadvantages of these sampling methods.
Frequency of Use: Relatively uncommon.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: --
Sources for Additional Information: Aller et al. (1991), Gillham et al. (1983), Morrison (1983). See also, Table
5-5.
5-57
-------
SUSPENSION
CORD
EYE HOOK FOR
SUSPENSION
CORD
SEMI-RIGID
TUBE
SAMPLE
EVACUATION
TUBE
PRESSURE
TUBE
THREADS
MACHINED
INTO THE CAP
THREADED PLUG
FOR USE WITH
THREADED
CASING FOR
DIRECT
INSTALLATION
WITH THE
GAS-LIFT
SAMPLER
CHECK
VALVE
THREADED
Protective
casing
Sampling
tube
Screened
interval
(a)
(b)
Figure 5.6.1 Capsule multilevel installation: (a) Gas-drive capsule sampling device (Morrison, 1983, by permission);
(b) Multilevel installation (Aller et al, 1991, after Johnson, 1983).
5-58
-------
5. GROUND-WATER SAMPLING METHODS
5.6 FIXED IN SITU GROUND-WATER SAMPLERS
5.6.2 Multiple-Port Casings
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Vacuum-lift multiple port devices, pneumatic in-situ sampler, dialysis
cell method.
Uses at Contaminated Sites; Delineating contaminant plumes; detection monitoring; ground-water quality
monitoring.
Method Description: A variety of multiple port casings have been developed that allow collection of samples from
different levels, using a casing that has been installed in a single borehole. In cohesionless sands, the formation
collapses around the casing as a hollow-stem auger or drill casing is withdrawn from the borehole. In other
formations, grout or inflatable packers can be used to isolate sampling ports. The simplest type involves field-
fabricated multilevel samplers, in which individual sampling points are screen rubber stoppers placed at intervals
along PVC pipe with flexible tubing that runs to the surface from each sampling point (Figure 5.6.2a). A suction-
lift pump is used to obtain samples where the water table is shallow or a gas-driven piston pump can be installed
by each port for deeper installations. The Westbay system (Figure 5.6.2b) is probably the most complex example
of this type. This system has specially designed ports that allow measurement of pressure and sampling with a
pneumatic device, which generally uses the same operating principles as syringe samplers (i.e., a pressurized or
evacuated sample container is lowered to the sampling port and opened, allowing the sample to enter). The
Waterloo system uses chemical packer assemblies to isolate ports (Figure 5.6.2b). The dialysis cell methods uses
polyethylene vials with replaceable dialysis membranes at both ends placed at intervals in a perforated casing
(Ronen et al., 1987). Vials are filled with distilled water and allowed to equilibrate with ground water for around
4 weeks before being removed for sample analysis.
Method Selection Considerations; Advantages: (1) Allow sampling for vertical distribution of ground-water
constituents; (2) cost per sampling point is relatively small (except for Westbay system); (3) generally smaller
diameters of individual wells in a nest compared to single-riser installations means that smaller volumes of water
must be removed for purging; and (4) seals between sampling points can be obtained using permanent packers
or traditional back-filled seals. Disadvantages: (1) Assembly and placement can be difficult; (2) cross-
contamination of sampling points might occur as a result of leaky seals; (3) the number of sampling points is
limited by the diameter of the borehole (does not apply to Westbay system); (4) permanent nature of installation
means that devices at individual sampling points cannot be retrieved for servicing or repairs, and malfunction
means the sampling point is lost; (5) the Westbay system is very expensive, but can be cost-effective if a large
number of sampling points at great depth is required; (6) operation of the Westbay system requires special
operator skills and can be time consuming; and (7) the down-hole complexity of the Westbay system might result
in mechanical difficulties.
Frequency of Use; Vacuum-lift multiple-port casings are relatively common for monitoring of shallow aquifers
in unconsolidated sediments. The dialysis cell method is uncommon.
Standard Methods/Guidelines; —
Sources for Additional Information; AUer et al. (1991), Gillham et al. (1983), Morrison (1983). See also, Table
5-5.
5-59
-------
§§
po-in
ooiu
oo
p°-<
OOlU
UJZO.
CD
z
iif
§"=
WATER
1 TABLE
A 1
a. coo. t-
3 ii
3
-------
5. GROUND-WATER SAMPLING METHODS
5.7 DESTRUCTIVE GROUND-WATER SAMPLING METHODS
5.7.1 Coring and Extraction
Other Names Used to Describe Method: —
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Collecting ground-water samples during initial site characterization to assist in
vertical placement of permanent monitoring well installations.
Method Description: Cores are collected, usually with a power-driven sampling device (see Section 2.4), which
is driven ahead of the cutting head of a drill bit. Various methods are available for extracting water samples
from cores (see Methods/Guidelines below).
Method Selection Considerations: Advantages: (1). Can provide useful information in preliminary site
characterization for selection of drillhole placement and vertical placement of permanent monitoring wells; (2)
use during the drilling operation keeps the option open for installing a permanent monitoring well; and (3)
coring-extraction methods provide information on parameters related to both the solid and liquid phase, and
might be the best way to obtain unbiased water quality samples in fine-grained formations. Disadvantages: (1)
Cannot be used to monitor long-term trends in ground-water quality (although installation of a permanent
monitoring well in the borehole from which cores have been extracted makes this possible); (2) collection of
cores increases drilling costs; (3) water extracted from cores can be contaminated with drilling fluids and might
undergo degassing and volatilization at the ground surface or during extraction; and (4) relatively small water
samples are obtained from cores.
Frequency of Use: Uncommon.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: Coring: See Section 2.4; Extraction: See Section 9.3.4.
Sources for Additional Information: Fenn et al. (1977), Gillham et al. (1983); Ct se studies: Roberts et al. (1982),
Schwartz et al. (1982). See also, references in Table 9-5.
5-61
-------
5. GROUND-WATER SAMPLING METHODS
5.7 DESTRUCTIVE GROUND-WATER SAMPLING METHODS
5.7.2 Temporary Installations
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Multiple-completion well, screened auger.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Collecting ground-water samples.
Method Description: Ground-water samples can be collected during drilling with a hollow-stem auger by using
a screened auger section (Figure 5.7.2a). Various types of screens near or above the cutting head can be used,
and samples can be collected using a portable sampler (suction-lift or positive-displacement), which is lowered
down the hollow stem. Another type of temporary installation is the multiple-completion well. Multiple-
completion wells can be done from the bottom up (casing is gun-perforated at the bottom, samples taken,
grouted to seal perforations, perforated at the next level, sampled, grouted, etc. [see Figure 5.7.2b]), or from the
top down (drilled to a certain depth, a temporary well installed and sampled, and casing removed and drilled
deeper to the next sampling point [see Figure 5.7.2c]).
Method Selection Considerations; Advantages: In some situations temporary installations can be the most cost-
effective way of obtaining preliminary and/or reconnaissance data. Disadvantages: (1) Cannot be used to monitor
long-term trends in ground-water quality; (2) additional expense required for drilling and installation of
permanent monitoring wells; (3) can be time-consuming; (4) cement grout used in multiple completion wells can
affect quality of samples, but use might be justified in a deep hole where detailed vertical sampling is desired;
(5) top-down multiple completion wells are very time consuming; and (6) screened-auger sampling can be
expensive in very fine-grained sediments because of the time required to obtain samples from low-yielding
formations, and depth of sampling might be limited by the type of sampling device that is used (suction-lift or
submersible-pump).
Frequency of Use; Uncommon.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: Multiple completion wells: Bottom-up (Scalfetal., 1981), top-down (Yare, 1975);
Screened augers: Scalf et al. (1981).
Sources for Additional Information: Anderson (1977), Cherry et al. (1992), Gillham et al. (1983), Karwoski et
al. (1992), Tuttle and Chapman (1989); Screened augers: Durrett et al. (1992), Reynolds et al. (1991), Taylor
and Serfini (1988).
5-62
-------
,.— Continuous slot
screen
-Auger flighting
•Auger head
lorehole
casing
cement grout
layer open far testing
layers perforated,
tested, and plugged
(a)
(b)
DRILLING *
MUD —
FILTER
I^CAKE
r-PUMP— j-SAMPLE
GRAVEL
DRILL
STRING ;.
FILTER^
CAKE ':
rNN-SITU f-V:
WATER I
PACK
STEP I STEP 2 STEPS STEPS 4S 5 STEP 6
Figure 5.7.2 Temporary installations: (a) Screened hollow-stem auger (Aller et al., 1991); (b) Bottom-up multiple
completion well (Scalf et al., 1981) (c) Top-down temporary sampling wells (Gillham et al., 1983, after
Yare, 1975, by permission).
5-63
-------
Table 5-4 Reference Index for Portable Ground-Water Sampling Devices and Installations
Topic
References
General
Text Reviews
Review Papers
Chemical Effects
Volatiles Sampling
NAPL Sampling/Detection
See Appendix C, Table C-l
Barcelona et al. (1984, 1988), Barker and Dickhout (1988), Blegen et al. (1987-
bibliography), Bryden et al. (1986), Cheny et al. (1983), Herzog et al. (1991),
Koopman (1979), Nielsen and Yeates (1985), Pohlmann and Hess (1988)
Barcelona et al. (1984, 1985b-tubing), dark et al. (1992), Gibb and Schuller
(1981), Gibb et al. (1981), Holm et al. (1988-tubing), Houghton and Berger
(1984), lies et al. (1992), Junk et al. (1974), Parker (1992-material
recommendations), Pennine (1988), Rose and Long (1988-sampling for dissolved
oxygen), Schuller et al. (1981), Small (1953), Stolzenburg and Nichols (1985,
1986); see also, Volatile Sample Comparisons below
Baerg et al. (1992), Barcelona et al. (1984), Barker and Dickhout (1988), Barker
et al. (1987), Ho (1983), Imbrigiotta et al. (1987, 1988), Knobel and Mann (1993),
Laney and Enberg (1992), Luhdorff and Scalmanini (1982), Mines et al. (1993),
Muska et al. (1986), Pankow et al. (1985), Pearsall and Eckhardt (1987),
Pohlmann et al. (1990), Reynolds et al. (1991), Rosen et al. (1992), Schalla et al.
(1988), Seanor and Brannaka (1981), Sonntag (1987), Unwin (1984), Unwin and
Maltby (1988), Yeskis et al. (1988)
Abdul et al. (1989), API (1989), Blake and Hall (1984), Borst (1987), Cohen et al.
(1992), Collins et al. (1991), Durnford et al. (1991), Fair et al. (1990), Feenstra et
al. (1991), Hall et al. (1984), Hampton and Miller (1988), Hughes et al. (1988),
Kemblowski and Chiang (1990), Korte and Kearl (1991), Kram (1990), Lenhard
and Parker (1990), Lundy and Gogel (1988), McHroy et al. (1992), Preslo (1989),
Sullivan et al. (1988), Testa and Paczkowski (1989), Viallaune (1985), Wagner et
al. (1989), Wallace and Huntley (1992), Wilson et al. (1988), Yaniga (1984),
Yaniga and Warburton (1984)
Positive Displacement (Submersible") Pumps
Bladder
Electrical Submersible
Gas-Drive (Displacement)
Baerg et al. (1992), Barcelona et al. (1984), Barker and Dickhout (1988), Biyden
et al. (1986), Clark et al. (1992), Durrett et al. (1992), Houghton and Berger
(1984), DCS et al. (1992), Imbrigiotta et al. (1988), Meyer (1990-dedicated
sampler), Middleburg (1976), Muska et al. (1986), Parker et al. (1992), Paul and
Puls (1992), Pohlmann et al. (1990), Ross et al. (1992), Schalla et al. (1988), Snow
et al. (1992), Stolzenburg and Nichols (1985, 1986), Tai et al. (1991), Unwin
(1982, 1984), Yeskis et al. (1988)
Bryden et al. (1986), McMillion and Keeley (1968), Meyer (1990-dedicated
sampler), Ring and Sale (1987); Helical-Rotor: Barcelona et al. (1984),
Imbrigiotta et al. (1988), Pearsall and Eckhardt (1987), Rosen et al. (1992), Tai et
al. (1991), Yeskis et al. (1988)
Barcelona et al. (1984), Bianchi et al. (1962), Buss and Bandt (1981), Cadwgan
and Barvenick (1980), Gibb and Schuller (1981), Gibb et al. (1981), Houghton
and Berger (1984), Idler (1980), Norman (1986), Parker et al. (1992), Robin et al.
(1982), Scalf et al. (1981-continuous flow), Schalla et al. (1988), Timmons (1981),
Tomson et al. (1980, 1981-continuous flow), Sommerfeldt and Campbell (1975),
Trescott and Finder (1970)
5-64
-------
Table 5-4 (cont.)
Topic
References
Positive Displacement (Submersible^ Pumps fcont.'l
Gas-Drive (Piston)
Other Portable Pumps
Suction-Dft
Submersible Centrifugal
Gas-Lift
Packer
Cadwgan et al. (1983), Cherry et al. (1983), Knobel and Mann (1993), Koopman
(1979), Schalla et al. (1988), Tai et al. (1991), Yeskis et al. (1988); Single-Acting:
Bianchi et al. (1962), Gillham and Johnson (1981), Hillerich (1977); Double-
Acting: Signer (1978), Syringe Pump: Gillham (1982)
Peristaltic: Baerg et al. (1992), Barker and Dickhout (1988), Bryden et al. (1986),
Gibb and Schuller (1981), Gibb et al. (1981), Houghton and Berger (1984),
Imbrigiotta et al. (1988), Paul and Puls (1992), Pearsall and Eckhardt (1987),
Pettyjohn et al. (1981), Schuller et al. (1981), Tai et al. (1991); Centrifugal:
Pearsall and Eckhardt (1987), Wilson (1980); Vacuum; Allison (1971), Hitchman
(1988), Stolzenburg and Nichols (1985, 1986), Willardson et al. (1972);
Adsorption Column Sampler: Dunlap et al. (1977), Pettyjohn et al. (1981), Rosen
et al. (1992), Scalf et al. (1981)
Small Diameter; Clark et al. (1992), Gass et al. (1991), Harju (1992), lies et al.
(1992), Knobel and Mann (1993), Muska et al. (1986), Parker et al. (1992), Paul
and Puls (1992), Snow et al. (1992), Tai (1992), Unwin (1984), Yeskis et al.
(1988); Large Diameter: Houghton and Berger (1984), Stolzenburg and Nichols
(1985, 1986)
Fenn et al. (1977), Gronowski (1979), Sommerfeldt and Campbell (1975),
Trescott and Finder (1970); Chemical Effects: Gibb and Schuller (1981), Gibb et
al. (1981), Houghton and Berger (1984), lies et al. (1992), Schuller et al. (1981),
Stolzenburg and Nichols (1985)
Cadwgan et al. (1983), Cherry (1965), Cherry and Johnson (1982), Galgowski and
Wright (1980), Grisak et al. (1977), Truettner et al. (1986), Welch and Lee (1987)
Portable Grab/Depth-Specific Samplers
Bailers
Pneumatic Depth-Specific
Bryden et al. (1986), Buss and Bandt (1981), Laney and Enberg (1992), Parker et
al. (1992), Tai et al. (1991); Chemical Effects: Baerg et al. (1992), Barcelona et al.
(1984), Gibb and Schuller (1981), Gibb et al. (1981), Gillham (1982), lies et al.
(1992), Imbrigiotta et al. (1988), Muska et al. (1986), Pearsall and Eckhardt
(1987), Pohlmann et al. (1990), Schalla et al. (1988), Schuller et al. (1981), Seanor
and Brannaka (1981), Snow et al. (1992), Stolzenburg and Nichols (1985, 1986),
Thomey et al. (1991), Unwin (1984), Yeskis et al. (1988)
Baerg et al. (1992-syringe), Barcelona et al. (1984), Bryden et al. (1986), Gillham
(1982-syringe), Ficken (1988), Imbrigiotta et al. (1988), Johnson et al. (1987),
MacPherson and Pankow (1988), Muska et al. (1986), Pankow et al. (1984, 1985),
Pohlmann et al. (1990-Westbay), Rosen et al. (1992-dowhole ATD sampler)
Sampling Installations for Portable Samplers
Nested Wells/Single Borehole
Cadwgan et al. (1983), Korte and Kearl (1991), Nakamoto et al. (1986), Patton
and Smith (1988); Bundle Piezometers: Cherry et al. (1980), Cherry et al. (1983),
Hitchman (1988), Jackson et al. (1985), Lee and Cherry (1979), Stites and
Chambers (1991)
5-65
-------
Table 5-5 Reference Index for In-Place and In Situ Samplers/Installations
Topic
References
In Situ Samplers
Hydropunch*
Other Cone Penetrometer
Samplers
Well Point Samplers
Fiber optics
In Situ Multilevel Installations
Gas-Drive/Suction Lift
Multiple Port Casings
Bergren et al. (1990), Cordry (1986, 1991), Edge and Cordry (1989), Ehrenzeller
et al. (1991), Kaback et al. (1990), Klabanow et al. (1992), Kuhlmeier and
Sturdivant (1992), Lammons et al. (1989), Smolley and Kappmeyer (1989,1991),
Strutynsky and Sainey (1992), Taylor and Berzins (1988), Zemo et al. (1992a,
1992b)
Berzins (1992), Chiang et al. (1989a, 1989b, 1992), Christy and Spradlin (1992),
Cooper et al. (1989, 1990, 1991), Haldorsen et al. (1985), Karwoski et al. (1992),
Mopp et al. (1989), Lang et al. (1991), Dtherland et al. (1985), Lucero (1989,
1990), Mines et al. (1993), Pohlmann et al. (1990), Smolley and Kappmeyer (1989,
1991), Smythe et al. (1988), Strutynksy and Sainey (1990, 1992), Strutynksy et al.
(1992), Taylor and Berzins (1988), Torstensson (1984), Torstensson and Petsonk
(1988), Zemo et al. (1992a, 1992b)
Cherry et al. (1992-temporary, multilevel), Harrison and Ostercamp (1981),
Harrison et al. (1981), John et al. (1977), Patton (1990), Reeve and Doering
(1965), Rutter and Webster (1962), Summerfield (1973)
Texts/Reports: Eccles and Simon (1987), Eccles et al. (1987), Hirschfield et al.
(1984), Murphy and Hosteller (1989), U.S. EPA (1988a,b), Wilson and Hawks
(1983); Papers; Arendale and Hatcher (1991-calibration), Barnard and Walt
(1991), Beemster and Schlager (1992), Carrabba et al. (1988,1991-
spectroelectrochemical), Chudyk et al. (1988, 1990, 1991), Ferrel et al. (1988),
Finger et al. (1988-porous), Griffin and Olsen (1992), Kenny et al. (1988), Klainer
et al. (1988a,b), Knuth (1991-TNT), lieberman et al. (1991), Mnanovich et al.
(1991-TCE), Morlock (1989), Morlock et al. (1992-VOCs), Nielsen et al. (1991),
Olsen et al. (1988), Shahriari et al. (1988-porous), Smith et al. (1988), St.
Germain and Gillislpie (1991), Tabacco et al. (1991-porous); UV Fluorescence:
Gillispie and St. Germain (1988), Haas et al. (1988, 1991), Taylor et al. (1991);
UV Absorption Spectroscopv: Beemster and Schlager (1991); Immunochemical:
Bolts et al. (1988), Lin et al. (1988)
Boyle (1992); Individual Gas Drive Samplers: Barker et al. (1987), Barvenik and
Cadwgan (1983), Cherry et al. (1983), Lofy et al. (1977), Morrison and Brewer
(1981), Morrison and Ross (1978); Suction; Cherry et al. (1983), Eleuterius
(1980), John et al. (1977)
Morrison and Brewer (1981), Ronen et al. (1987-dialysis cells), Welch and Lee
(1987); Multiple Port WeU Casing; Cherry et al. (1983), Gillham and Johnson
(1981), Hyman and McLaughlin (1991), Pickens et al. (1978, 1981), Wells (1988);
Packer/Waterloo System: Cherry and Johnson (1982), Rehtlane and Patton
(1982), Ridgeway and Larssen (1990); Westbav System: Black et al. (1986),
J3reier et al. (1991), Gilmore (1990), Pohlmann et al. (1990), Ridgeway and
Larssen (1990), Vispi (1980); Auger Installed Multilevel Sampler: Boggs and
Hemond (1988)
5-66
-------
SECTION 5 REFERENCES
Abdul, A.S., S.F. Kia, and T.L. Gibson. 1989. Limitations of Monitoring Wells for the Detection and Quantification of Petroleum
Products in Soils and Aquifers. Ground Water Monitoring Review 9(2):90-99. (Also in: 3rd NOAC, pp. 357-272.)
Aller, L., et al. 1991. Handbook of Suggested Practices for the Design and Installation of Ground-Water Monitoring Wells.
EPA/600/4-89/034, 221 pp. Available from CERI.' (Also published in 1989 by the National Water Well Association,
Dublin, OH, in its NWWA/EPA series, 398 pp.)
Allison, L. 1971. A Simple Device for Sampling Ground Waters in Auger Holes. Soil Set. Sac. Am. Proc. 35:844-845.
American Petroleum Institute (API). 1989. A Guide to the Assessment and Remediation of Underground Petroleum Releases. API
Publication 1628, Washington, DC.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1982. Standard Terminology Used with Ion-Selective Electrodes. D4127-82,
(Vol. 11.01), ASTM, Philadelphia, PA. [Revisions in preparation]
Anderson, KG. 1977. New Groundwater Contaminant Sampler for Contaminant Plume Mapping. Canadian Water Well, p. 36. (As
cited in Gillham et al., 1983.)
Arendale, W.F. and R. Hatcher. 1991. Calibration of Fiber Optic Chemical Sensors. In: U.S. EPA (1991), Proc. 2nd Int. Symp.
Field Screening Methods for Hazardous Waste and Toxic Chemicals EPA/600/9-91/028 (NTIS PB 92-125764), pp. 597-598.
Baerg, D.F., R.C. Starr, J.A. Cherry, and DJ.A. Smyth. 1992. Performance Testing of Conventional and Innovative Downhole
Samplers and Pumps for VOCs in a Laboratory Monitoring Well. In: National Groundwater Sampling Symposium
Proceedings (Washington, DC), Grundfos Pumps Corporation, Clovis, CA, pp. 71-75. [Bailer, syringe sampler, bladder
pump, peristaltic pump, inertia! pump]
Barcelona, M J. and J.P. Gibb. 1988. Development of Effective Ground-Water Sampling Protocols. In: Ground-Water
Contamination: Field Methods, A.G. Collins and A.I. Johnson (eds.), ASTM STP 963, American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 17-26.
Barcelona, M J., J.P. Gibb, and R A. Miller. 1983. A Guide to the Selection of Materials for Monitoring Well Construction and
Ground-Water Sampling. ISWS Contract Report 327, Illinois State Water Survey, Champaign, IL, 78 pp.
Barcelona, MJ., J.A. Helfrich, RE. Garske, and J.P. Gibb. 1984. A Laboratory Evaluation of Ground Water Sampling Mechanisms.
Ground Water Monitoring Review 4(2):32-41. [Bailer, syringe, bladder pump, helical rotor, gas-drive (displacement),
peristaltic pump]
Barcelona, MJ., J.P. Gibb, J.A. Helfrich, and E.E. Garske. 1985a. Practical Guide for Ground-Water Sampling. EPA/600/2-85/104
(NTIS PB86-137304). (Also published as ISWS Contract Report 374, Illinois State Water Survey, Champaign, IL.)
Barcelona, M J., J.A. Helfrich, and E.E. Garske. 1985b. Sampling Tubing Effects on Groundwater Samples. Anal. Chem. 57:460-
464.
Barcelona, M J., J.A. Helfrich, and E.E. Garske. 1988. Verification of Sampling Methods and Selection of Materials for Ground-
Water Contamination Studies. In: Ground-Water Contamination: Field Methods, A.G. Collins and A.I. Johnson (eds.),
ASTM STP 963, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 221-231.
Barker, J.F. and R. Dickhout. 1988. An Evaluation of Some Systems for Sampling Gas-Charged Ground Water for Volatile Organic
Analysis. Ground Water Monitoring Review 8(4): 112-119. [Inertial-lift pump, bladder pump, peristaltic pump]
Barker, J.F., G.L. Patrick, L. Lehman, and G.M. Travis. 1987. Some Biases in Sampling Multilevel Piezometers for Volatile
Organics. Ground Water Monitoring Review 7(2):48-54. [Suction lift, gas drive]
Barnard, S.M. and D.R. Walt. 1991. Fiber-Optic Organic Vapor Sensor. Environ. Sci. Technol. 25:1301-1304.
Barvenik, M J. and D.R.M. Cadwgan. 1983. Multi-Level Gas-Drive Sampling of Deep Fracture Rock Aquifers in Virginia. Ground
Water Monitoring Review 3(4):34-40.
5-67
-------
Beemster, B J. and K. Schlagcr. 1991. In-Situ Ultraviolet-Visible Absorption Spectroscopy: A New Tool for Groundwater
Monitoring. In: Ground Water Management 5:3-16 (5th NOAC). [Fiber optics]
Beemster, B J., KJ. Schlager, CA. Bergstrom, and ICA. Ruscb. 1992. In-Situ Fiber-Optic Absorptions and Emission Spectrometry
for Simultaneous Multiple Component Analysis in Groundwater. Ground Water Management 11:357-368 (6th NOAC).
Berg, EX. 1982. Handbook for Sampling and Sample Preservation of Water and Wastewater, 2nd edition. EPA/600/4-82/029 (NTIS
PB83-124503), 414 pp. (Replaces report with same title by Huibregste and Mover, EPA/600/4-76/049.)
Bergren, C.L., R.C. Tuckfield, and N.M. Park. 1990. Suitability of the Hydropunch* for Assessing Groundwater Contaminated by
Volatile Organics. In: Proc. 4th Nat. Outdoor Action Conf. on Aquifer Restoration, Ground Water Monitoring, and
Geophysical Methods, National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH, pp. 387-401.
Berzins, N.A. 1992. Use of the Cone Penetration Test and BAT Groundwater Monitoring System to Assess Deficiencies in
Monitoring Well Data. Ground Water Management 11:327-340 (6th NOAC).
Bianchi, W., C Johnson, and E. Haskell. 1962. A Positive Action Pump for Sampling Small Bore Holes. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc.
26:86-87.
Black, W.H., H.R. Smith, and F.D. Patton. 1986. Multiple-Level Ground Water Monitoring with the MP System. In: Proc. Surface
and Borehole Geophysical Methods and Ground Water Instrumentation Conf. and Exp., National Water Well Association,
Dublin, OH, pp. 41-61.
Blake, S.B. and R-A. Hall. 1984. Monitoring Petroleum Spills with Wells: Some Problems and Solutions. In: Proc. 4th Symp. on
Aquifer Restoration and Ground Water Monitoring, National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH, pp. 305-310.
Blegen, R.P., K.F. Pohlmann, and J.W. Hess. 1987. Bibliography of Ground-Water Sampling Methods. EPA/600/X-87/325, U.S.
EPA Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas, NV, 43 pp.
Boggs, J.M. and H.F. Hemond. 1988. Evaluation of Tracer Sampling Devices for the Macrodispersion Experiment. EPRI EA-5816,
Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, 80 pp. [Comparison of auger-installed multi-level sampler, driveable
multi-level sampler, and driveable in situ membrane probe]
Bolts, J.M., et al. 1988. Integrated Immunochemical Systems for Environmental Monitoring. In: U.S. EPA (1988b), pp. 243-248.
[Fiber optics]
Borst, M. 1987. Sampling Oil-Water Mixtures at OHMSETT. EPA/600/2-87/073 (NTIS PB88-102892).
Boyle, D.R. 1992. A Multilevel Ground Water Monitoring System for Casing Advance and Bedrock Drilling Methods. Ground
Water Monitoring Review 12(2):105-115.
Bryden, G.W., W.R. Mabey, and K.M. Robine. 1986. Sampling for Toxic Contaminants in Ground Water. Ground Water
Monitoring Review 6(2):67-72. [Bladder, suction, submersible pumps, bailer]
Bureau of Reclamation. 1981. Ground Water Manual--A Water Resources Technical Publication, 2nd edition. U.S. Department of
the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, CO. [Packer pump]
Buss, D.F. and K.E. Bandt 1981. An All-Teflon Bailer and an Air-Driven Pump for Evacuating Small-Diameter Ground-Water
Wells. Ground Water 19:429-431.
Cadwgan, R. and M. Barvenik. 1980. Monitoring Device Simplifies Sample Collection. Water Well Journal 34:48-50.
Cadwgan, R.M., M J. Barvenik, and A.D. Ehrenfreid, and D. Ulllinsky. 1983. Improving Monitoring Efficiency at Deep Wells.
Ground Water Monitoring Review 3(1):110-118. [Gas-drive piston, packer samplers]
Carrabba, M.M., R.B. Edmonds, P.J. Marren, and R.D. Rauh. 1988. The Suitability of Surface Enhanced Raman Spectroscopy
(SERS) to Fiber Optic Sensing of Aromatic Hydrocarbon Contamination in Groundwater. In: U.S. EPA (1988b), pp. 31-
40.
Carrabba, M.M., R.B. Edmonds, R.D. Rauh, and J.W. Haas, III. 1991. Spectroelectrochemical Sensing of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons
for Field Screening and In Situ Monitoring Applications. In: Proc. 2nd Int. Symp. Field Screening Methods for Hazardous
Waste and Toxic Chemicals, EPA/600/9-91/028 (NTIS PB92-125764), pp. 67-72. [Fiber optic, carbon tetrachloride, DCE,
5-68
-------
chloroform, TCE]
Cherry, J. 1965. A Portable Sampler for Collecting Water Samples from Specific Zones in Uncased or Screened Wells. U.S.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 25-C, pp. C214-C216.
Cherry, J. and P. Johnson. 1982. A Multilevel Device for Monitoring in Fractured Rock. Ground Water Monitoring Review
2(3):41-44.
Cherry, J., R. Gillham, G. Anderson, and P. Johnson. 1980. CFB Borden Landfill Study, Vol. 2: Groundwater Monitoring Devices.
Final Report Submitted to the Canadian Dept. of Supply and Services, OSU 78-00195, 34 pp.
Cherry, J.A., R.W. Gillham, E.G. Anderson, and P.E. Johnson. 1983. Migration of Contaminants in Groundwater at a Landfill: A
Case Study 2. Groundwater Monitoring Devices. J. Hydrology 63:31-49. [Hollow-stem auger suction sampler, multi-level
installation and bundle piezometers with suction and gas-drive piston samplers]
Cherry, J.A., R.A. Ingleton, and D.K. Solomon, and N.D. Farrow. 1992. Low Technology Approaches for Drive Point Profiling of
Contaminant Distributions. In: National Groundwater Sampling Symposium Proceedings (Washington, DC), Grundfos
Pumps Corporation, Clovis, CA, pp. 109-111. [Temporary, multi-level sampling installations]
Chiang, C.Y., C.C Stanley, L. Hekma, and G.F. Boehm. 1989a. Characterization of Ground Water and Soil Conditions by Cone
Penetrometry. In: Proc. 6th NWWA/API Conf. on Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Organic Chemicals in Ground Water-
Prevention, Detection and Restoration, National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH, pp. 141-157.
Chiang, C.Y., K.R. Loos, R .A. Klopp, and M.C Beltz. 1989b. A Real-Time Determination of Geological/Chemical Properties of an
Aquifer by Penetration Testing. In: Proc. 6th NWWA/API Conf. on Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Organic Chemicals in
Ground Water-Prevention, Detection and Restoration, National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH,, pp. 175-189.
Chiang, C.Y., K.R. Loos, and R.A. Klopp. 1992. Field Determination of Geological/Chemical Properties of an Aquifer by Cone
Penetrometry and Headspace Analysis. Ground Water 30:428-436.
Christy, T.M. and S.C Spradlin. 1992. The Use of Small Diameter Probing Equipment for Contaminated Site Investigations.
Ground Water Management 11:87-101 (6th NOAC). [Geoprobe: soil vapor, solids, ground-water sampling]
Chudyk, W., K. Pohlig, N. Rico, and G. Johnson. 1988. Field Screening for Aromatic Organics Using Laser-Induced Fluorescence
and Fiber Optics. In: U.S. EPA (1988b), pp. 99-104.
Chudyk, W., K. Pohlig. K. Exarhoulakos, J. Holsinger, and N. Rico. 1990. In Situ Analysis of Benzene, Ethylbenzene, Toluene, and
Xylenes (BTEX) Using Fiber Optics. In: Ground Water and Vadose Zone Monitoring, D.M. Nielsen and A.I. Johnson
(eds.), ASTM STP 1053, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 266-272.
Chudyk, W., K. Pohlig, C. Botteron, and R. Najjar. 1991. Practical Limits hi Field Determination of Fluorescence Using Fiber Optic
Sensors. In: Proc. 2nd Int. Symp. Field Screening Methods for Hazardous Waste and Toxic Chemicals, EPA/600/9-91/028
(NTIS PB92-125764), pp. 629-630.
Clark, S.B., N.M. Park, and R.C Tuckfield. 1992. Effects of Sample Collection Device and Filter Pore Size On Concentrations of
Metals in Groundwater Samples (U). In: National Groundwater Sampling Symposium Proceedings (Washington, DC),
Grundfos Pumps Corporation, Clovis, CA, pp. 13-19. [Bladder pump, submersible centrifugal pump]
Cohen, R.M., A.P. Bryda, S.T. Shaw and C.P. Spalding. 1992. Evaluation of Visual Methods to Detect NAPL in Soil and Water.
Ground Water Monitoring Review 12(4):132-141.
Collins, M., K.D. Drake, and W.R. Rohrman. 1991. Monitoring Well Design and Sampling Techniques at NAPL Sites. Ground
Water Management 5:749-758 (5th NOAC).
Cooper, S.S., P.G. Malone, R.S. Olsen, and G.B. Morhman. 1988. Use of an Instrumented Cone Penetrometer in Monitoring Land
Disposal Sites. In: HWHM '88 (Proc. 5th Nat. Conf. on Hazardous Wastes and Hazardous Materials), Hazardous Material
Control and Research Institute, Silver Spring, MD, pp. 424-427.
Cooper, S.S., P.G. Malone, P.W. Lurk, and S.H. Lieberman. 1990. Development of Innovative Penetrometer Technology for the
Detection and Delineation of Contaminated Soils. In: Proc. 14th Annual Army Environmental R&D Symp. (1989),
CETHA-TE-TR-90055, U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, pp. 577-588.
5-69
-------
Cooper, S.S., P.O. Maline, G. Comes, W. Sisk, and S.H. Lieberman. 1991. Progress in the Development of Innovative Penetrometer
Technology for the Detection and Delineation of Contaminated Soil. In: Proc. 15th Annual Army Environmental R&D
Symp. (1990), CETHA-TS-CR-91077, U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD,
pp. 711-722.
Cordry, K.E. 1986. Ground Water Sampling Without Wells. In: Proc. 6th Nat. Symp. and Exp. on Aquifer Restoration and Ground
Water Monitoring, National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH, pp. 262-271. [Hydropunch]
Cordry, K. 1991. Hydropunch II-The Second Generation: A New In Situ Ground Water Sampling Tool. Ground Water
Management 5:749-758 (Proc. of the 5th Nat. Outdoor Action Conf. on Aquifer Restoration, Ground Water Monitoring
and Geophysical Methods).
dcVera, E.R. 1980. Samplers and Sampling Procedures for Hazardous Waste Streams. EPA/600/2-80/018 (NTIS PB80-135353).
Drcier, R.B., T.O. Early, and J.L King. 1991. Groundwater Studies at the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant Using Multiport Monitoring
Systems Installed in Coreholes. Ground Water Management 7:239-253 (8th Eastern Ground Water Issues Conf.).
[Westbay system]
Driscoll, F.G. 1986. Groundwater and Wells, 2nd edition. Johnson Filtration Systems, Inc., St. Paul, MN, 1089 pp.
Dunlap, WJ., J.F. McNabb, M.R. Scalf, and R.L. Cosby. 1977. Sampling for Organic Chemicals and Microorganisms in the
Subsurface. EPA/600/2-77/176 (NTIS PB-272679).
Durnford, D., J. Brookman, J. Billica, and J. Milligan. 1991. LNAPL Distribution hi Cohesionless Soil: A Field Investigations and
Cryogenic Sampler. Ground Water Monitoring Review 11(3):115-122.
Durrett, C, J. Kubiczki, J. Hamel, and D.W. Folan. 1992. An Innovative Field Method to Determine tiie Presence and Extent of
Volatile Organic Compounds in Water. Ground Water Management 13:293-303 (8th Focus Conf. Eastern GW Issues).
[Screened hollow-stem auger with packer and bladder pump]
Eccles, LA. and S J. Simon. 1987. In Situ Monitoring at Superfund Sites with Fiber Optics, II. Plan for Development EPA/600/X-
87/415. U.S. EPA Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas, NV.
Eccles, LA., S J. Simon, and S.M. Kaliner. 1987. In Situ Monitoring at Superfund Sites with Fiber Optics, I. Rationale. EPA/600/X-
87/156. U.S. EPA Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas, NV.
Edge, R.W. and K. Cordry. 1989. The Hydropunch: An In Situ Sampling Tool for Collection of Ground Water from
Unconsolidated Sediments. Ground Water Monitoring Review 9(3):177-183.
EhrenzeUer, J.L, F.G. Baker, and V.R Keys. 1991. Using the Cone Penetrometer and Hydropunch Method to Collect
Reconnaissance Ground Water Samples. Ground Water Management 5:733-746 (5th NOAC).
Elcutcrius, L 1980. A Rapid In Situ Method of Extracting Water From Tidal Marsh Soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 44:884-886.
Everett, LG., LG. Wilson, and E.W. Hoylman. 1983. Vadose Zone Monitoring for Hazardous Waste Sites. EPA/600/X-83/064
(NTIS PB84-212752). (Also published in 1984 by Noyes Data Corporation, Park Ridge, NJ.)
Fair, A.M., RJ. Houghtalen, and D.B. McWhorter. 1990. Volume Estimation of Light Nonaqueous Phase Liquids in Porous Media.
Ground Water 28(ll):48-56.
Feenstra, S., D.M. Mackay, and J.A. Cherry. 1991. A Method for Assessing Residual NAPL Based on Organic Chemical
Concentration in Soil Samples. Ground Water Monitoring Review 11(2):128-136.
Fcnn, D., E. Cocozza, J. Isbister, O. Braids, B. Yare, and P. Roux. 1977. Procedures Manual for Ground Water Monitoring at Solid
Waste Disposal Facilities, EPA/530/SW-611 (NTIS PB84-174820).
Fcrrell, T.L, et al. 1988. Fiber-Optic Surface-Enhanced Raman System for Field Screening of Hazardous Compounds. In: U.S.
EPA (1988b), pp. 41-42.
Ficken, J.H. 1988. Recent Development of Downhole Water Samplers for Trace Organics. In: Ground-Water Contamination: Field
Methods, A.G. Collins and A.I. Johnson (eds.), ASTM STP 963, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia,
PA, pp. 253-257. [Pneumatic depth-specific samplers]
5-70
-------
Finger, S.M. et al. 1988. Porous Glass Fiber Optic Sensors for Field Screening of Hazardous Waste Sites. In- U S EPA fl988b1
pp. 127-132.
Ford, P.J., P.J. Turina, and D.E. Seety. 1984. Characterization of Hazardous Waste Sites-A Methods Manual: Vol. II: Available
Sampling Methods, 2nd edition. EPA/600/4-84/076 (NTIS PB85-521596).
Galgowski, C. and W. Wright. 1980. A Variable-Depth Ground-Water Sampler. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 44:1120-1121.
Gass, T.E., J.F. Barker, R. Dickhout, and J.S. Fyle. 1991. Test Results of the Grundfos Ground-Water Sampling Pump. Ground
Water Management 5:553-565. [Submersible centrifugal pump]
Gibb, J.P. and R.M. Schuller. 1981. Collection of Representative Water Quality Data from Monitoring Wells. In: Proc. 7th Annual
Research Symp. Land Disposal: Municipal Solid Waste, EPA/600/9-81/002a (NTIS PB81-173874), pp. 126-137. [Peristaltic
pump, air-lift, gas-drive (nitrogen displacement), bailer]
Gibb, J.P., R.M. Schuller, and R.A. Griffin. 1981. Procedures for the Collection of Representative Water Quality Data from
Monitoring Wells. ISWS/ISGS Cooperative Groundwater Report 7, Illinois State Water Survey and Illinois State
Geological Survey, Urbana, IL. [Peristaltic pump, air-lift, gas-drive (nitrogen displacement), bailer]
Gillham, R. 1982. Syringe Devices for Ground Water Sampling. Ground Water Monitoring Review 2(2):36-39.
Gillham, R.W. and P.E. Johnson. 1981. A Positive-Displacement Groundwater Sampling Device. Ground Water Monitorine Review
l(3):33-35. 6
Gillham, R.W., MJ.L. Robin, J.F. Barker, and J.A. Cherry. 1983. Groundwater Monitoring and Sample Bias. API Publication 4367.
American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC, 206 pp.
Gillispie, G.D. and R. St. Germain. 1988. Wavelength Tunable Portable Laser for Remote Fluorescence Analysis In- U S EPA
(1988b), pp. 94-98. [UV fiber optic]
Gilmore, TJ. 1990. Installations of Two Westbay Multiport Ground-Water Monitoring Systems Using a Backfilling Technique.
Ground Water Management 2:177-191 (4th NOAC).
Griffin, J.W. and K.B. Olsen. 1992. A Review of Fiber Optic and Related Technologies for Environmental Sensing Applications.
In: Current Practices in Ground Water and Vadose Zone Investigations, ASTM STP 1118, D.M. Nielsen and M.N. Sara
(eds.), American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 311-328.
Grisak, G., W. Merritt, and D. Williams. 1977. A Fluoride Borehole Dilution Apparatus for Ground-Water Velocity Measurements
Can. Geotech. J. 14:554-561.
Gronowski, R. 1979. Innovations Simplify Shallow Well Monitoring. Water Well Journal 33:57.
Haas, III, J.W., E.Y. Lee, C.L. Thomas, and R.B. Gammage. 1988. Second-Derivative Ultraviolet Absorption Monitoring or
Aromatic Contaminants in Groundwaters. In: U.S. EPA (1988b), pp. 105-110. [UV fiber optic]
Haas, III, J.W., T.G. Matthews, and R.B. Gammage. 1991. In Situ Detection of Toxic Aromatic Compounds in Groundwater Using
Fiberoptic UV Spectroscopy. In: Proc. 2nd Int. Symp. Field Screening Methods for Hazardous Waste and Toxic
Chemicals, EPA/600/9-91/028 (NTIS PB92-125764), pp. 677-681.
Haldorsen, S., A.M. Petsonk, and B.A. Torstensson. 1985. An Instrument for In Situ Monitoring of Water Quality and Movement in
the Vadose Zone. In: Proc. NWWA Conf. on Characterization and Monitoring of the Vadose (Unsaturated) Zone,
National Water Well Association, Worthington, OH, pp. 158-172. [Cone penetrometer/BAT system]
Hall, R.A., S.B. Blake, and S.C Champlin, Jr. 1984. Determination of Hydrocarbon Thickness hi Sediments Using Borehole Data.
In: Proc. 4th Nat. Symp. on Aquifer Restoration and Ground Water Monitoring, National Water Well Association Dublin
OH, pp. 300-303.
Hampton, D.R. and P.D.G. Miller. 1988. Laboratory Investigations of the Relationship Between Actual and Apparent Product
Thickness in Sands. In: Proc. [5th] NWWA/API Conf. on Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Organic Chemicals in Ground
Water, National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH, pp. 157-182.
Hansen, E.A and A. Harris. 1974. A Groundwater Profile Sampler. Water Resources Research 10(2):375.
5-71
-------
Hanscn, E.A. and A. Harris. 1980. An Improved Technique for Spatial Sampling of Solutes in Shallow Groundwater Systems.
Water Resources Research 16:827-829.
Harju, J.A. 1992. Hydrologic Investigations of Contaminants at Ultra-Trace Concentrations Utilized Dedicated Sampling Pumps.
In: National Groundwater Sampling Symposium Proceedings (Washington, DC), Grundfos Pumps Corporation, Clovis, CA,
pp. 7-10. [Submersible centrifugal pump]
Harrison, W. and T. Osterkamp. 1981. A Probe Method for Soil Water Sampling and Subsurface Measurements. Water Resources
Research 17:1731-1736.
Harrison, W., T. Osterkamp, and M. Inoue. 1981. Details of a Probe Method for Interstitial Soil Water Sampling and Hydraulic
Conductivity and Temperature Measurement. Geophysics Institute Report No. UAG R-280. University of
Alaska/Fairbanks.
Herzog, B.L., J.D. Pennino, and G.L. Nielsen. 1991. Ground-Water Sampling. In: Practical Handbook of Ground-Water
Monitoring, D.M. Nielsen (ed.), Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI, pp. 449-499. [Bailers, syringe, suction-lift, gas-drive, bladder
pump, submersible (gear-drive, helical rotor), gas-drive piston]
Hillerich, M.S. 1977. Air-Driven Piston Pump for Sampling Small Diameter Wells. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources
Division Bulletin Oct-Dec:46-47.
Hirechfield, T., T. Deaton, P.M. lonovish, and S.M. Klainer. 1984. Feasibility of Using Fiber Optics for Monitoring Groundwater
Contaminants. EPA/600/7-84/067 (NTIS PB84-201607), 92 pp.
Hitehman, S. 1988. A Collection Manifold for Multilevel Ground-Water Sampling Devices. Ground Water 26:348-349.
Ho, J.S.-Y. 1983. Effect of Sampling Variables on Recovery of Volatile Organics in Water. J. Am. Water Works Ass. 75(12):583-
586.
Holm, T.R., G.K. George, and M J. Barcelona. 1988. Oxygen Transfer through Flexible Tubing and Its Effects on Ground Water
Sampling Results. Ground Water Monitoring Review 8(3):83-89.
Houghton, R.L. and M.E. Bcrger. 1984. Effects of Well Casing Composition and Sampling Method on Apparent Quality of Ground
Water. In: Proc. 4th Nat. Syrup, and Exp. on Aquifer Restoration and Ground Water Monitoring, National Water
Association, Worthington, OH, pp. 203-213. [Bladder, gas-drive, peristaltic, submersible centrifugal, gas-lift, mechanical
depth-specific samplers]
Hughes, J.P., CR. Sullivan, and R.E. Zinner. 1988. Two Techniques for Determining the True Hydrocarbon Thickness in an
Unconfined Aquifer. In: Proc. 5th NWWA/API Conf. on Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Organic Chemicals in Ground
Water-Prevention, Detection and Restoration, National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH, Volume 1, pp. 291-314.
Hyman, J.A. and D.B. McLaughlin. 1991. Multi-Level Sampling for Naphthalene in a Shallow, Sandy Aquifer. Ground Water
Management 5:777-785 (5th NOAC).
Idler, G. 1980. Modification of an Electronic Downhole Water Sampler. Ground Water 18:532-535.
lies, D.L., P.D. Hammond, and L.D. Schulz. 1992. Effects of Sampling Methods on Inorganic Water Chemistry Results. In:
National Groundwater Sampling Symposium Proceedings (Washington, DC), Grundfos Pumps Corporation, Clovis, CA, pp.
41-68. [Bladder, submersible centrifugal, jet, air lift, and inertial pumps, bailer]
Imbrigiotta, T.E., J. Gibs, J.F. Pankow, and M.R. Rosen. 1987. Field Comparison of Downhole and Surface Sampling Devices for
Purgeable Organic Compounds. In: Proc. 3rd Tech. Meeting, U.S. Geological Survey Program on Toxic Waste-Ground
Water Contamination, U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 87-109, pp. E5-E9. [Downhole isobaric samplers,
downhole ATD, helical rotor pump, submersible pump, surface ATD, point source bailer]
Imbrigiotta, TJB., J. Gibs, T.V. Fusillo, G.R. Kish, and J J. Hochreiter. 1988. Field Evaluation of Seven Sampling Devices for
Purgeable Organic Compounds in Ground Water. In: Ground-Water Contamination: Field Methods, A.G. Collins and A.I.
Johnson (eds.), ASTM STP 963, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 258-273. [Bladder
pump, helical-rotor, gear-drive submersible, open bailer, point-source bailer, syringe sampler, peristaltic pump]
Jackson, R.E., RJ. Patterson, B.W. Graham, J. Bahr, D. Belanger, J. Lockwood, and M. Priddle. 1985. Contaminant Hydrogeology
of Toxic Organic Chemicals at a Disposal Site, Gloucester, Ontario, 1. Chemical Concepts and Site Assessment. Inland
5-72
-------
Waters Directorate Scientific Series No. 141. Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, 114 pp.
Jeffers, E.L., et al. 1982. Water Reclamation and Automated Water Quality Monitoring. EPA/600/2-82/043 (NT1S PB82-227497)
216pp.
John, P., M. Lock, and M. Gibbs. 1977. Two New Methods for Obtaining Water Samples from Shallow Aquifers and Littoral
Sediments. J. Environ. Qual. 6:322-324.
Johnson, M.G. 1981. The Stratified Sample Thief-A Device for Sampling Unknown Fluids. In: Proc. Nat Conf. on Management of
Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites, Hazardous Materials Control Research Institute, Silver Spring, MD, pp. 154-157.
Johnson, T.L. 1983. A Comparison of Well Nests Versus Single-Well Completions. Ground Water Monitoring Review 3(l):76-78.
Johnson, R.L., J.F. Pankow, and J.A. Cherry. 1987. Design of a Ground Water Sampler for Collecting Volatile Organics and
Dissolved Gases in Small-Diameter Wells. Ground Water 25:448-454.
Junk, G.A., H.J. Svec, R.D. Vick, and M J. Avery. 1974. Contamination of Water by Synthetic Polymer Tubes. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 8:1100-1106.
Kaback, D.S., C.L. Bergren, CA. Carlson, and C.L. Carlson. 1990. Testing a Ground Water Sampling Tool: Are the Samples
Representative? Ground Water Management 2:403-417 (4th NOAC). [Hydropunch]
Karwoski, TJ., J.E. Moser, KJ. Quinn, and D.E. Penniman. 1992. Vertical Groundwater Quality Screening: A Cost-Effective
Approach to 3-D Investigations. Ground Water Management 11:385-400 (6th NOAC). [Temporary installations, cone
penetrometer samplers]
Kaufman, R.F., TA. Gleason, R.B. EUwood, and G.P. Lindsey. 1981. Ground-Water Monitoring Techniques for Arid Zone
Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites. Ground Water Monitoring Review l(3):47-54. [Submersible pumps, bailers]
Kemblowski, M.W. and C.Y. Chiang. 1990. Hydrocarbon Thickness Fluctuations hi Monitoring Wells. Ground Water 28(2):244-252.
Kenny, J.E., G.B. Jarvis, and H. Xu. 1988. Instrumentation and Methodology for Multicomponent Anafysis Using In Situ Laser-
Induced Fluorescence. In: U.S. EPA (1988b), pp. 133-139.
Klabanow II, R.I., ICA. Andersson, and TJ. McDonald. 1992. Hydropunch Sampling Techniques for Multi-Level Sampling of an
Unconfmed Alluvial Aquifer-Central Valley, California: A Case Study. Ground Water Management 11:315-325 (6th
NOAQ.
Klainer, S.M., et al. 1988a. Monitoring Gasoline Vapor and Liquid by Fiber Optic Chemical Sensor (FOCS) Technology In- U S
EPA (1988b), pp. 25-30.
Klainer, S.M., J.D. Koutsandreas, and L. Eccles. 1988b. Monitoring Ground-Water and Soil Contamination by Remote Fiber
Spectroscopy. In: Ground-Water Contamination: Field Methods, ASTM STP 963, A.G. Collins and Al. Johnson (eds.),
American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 370-380.
Klopp, R.A., A. M. Petsonk, and B.-A. Torstensson. 1989. In-Situ Penetration Testing for Delineation of Ground Water
Contaminant Plumes. In: Proc. 3rd Nat. Outdoor Action Conf. on Aquifer Restoration, Ground Water Monitoring, and
Geophysical Methods, National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH, pp. 329-343.
Knobel, L.L. and LJ. Mann. 1993. Sampling for Purgeable Organic Compounds Using Positive-Displacement Piston and Centrifugal
Submersible Pumps: A Comparative Study. Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation 13(2):142-148.
Knuth, K.V. 1991. Portable Dual Wavelength Analyzer for Detection of TNT in Ground Water Using Fiber Optics. In: Proc. 15th
Annual Army Environmental R&D Symp. (1990), CETHA-TS-CR-91077, U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials
Agency, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, pp. 147-152.
Koopman, F. 1979. Downhole Pumps for Water Sampling in Small Diameter Wells. U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 79-
1264. [Gas-drive piston, submersible centrifugal pump, helical rotor pump, jet pump]
Korte, N.E. and P.M. Kearl. 1991. The Utility of Multiple-Completion Monitoring Wells for Describing a Solvent Plume. Ground
Water Monitoring Review 11(2):153-156.
5-73
-------
Kram, M. 1990. Measurement of Floating Petroleum Product Thickness and Determination of Hydrostatic Head in Monitoring
Wells. NEESA Energy and Environmental News Inf. Bull. No. IB-107 (November), Naval Energy and Environmental
Support Activity, Port Hueneme, CA
Kuhlraeier, P.D. and T.E. Sturdivant 1992. Delineation of lithology and Gronndwater Quality in a Complex Fluvial Estuarine
Depositional Zone. In: Current Practices in Ground Water and Vadose Zone Investigations, ASTM STP 1118, D.M.
Nielsen and M.N. Sara (eds.), American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 183-198. [Hydropunch]
Lammons, T.L., T.A. Mann, and A.M. Pelletier. 1989. An Assessment Tool for Sampling Ground Water in the Undisturbed
Saturated Zone. In: Proc. 3rd Nat Outdoor Action Conf. on Aquifer Restoration, Ground Water Monitoring, and
Geophysical Methods, National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH, pp. 345-356. [Hydropunch]
Laney, S.E. and CA. Enberg. 1992. Progressive Packer/Zone Sampling Method for VOC Plume Delineation in Consolidated
Aquifers. Ground Water Monitoring Review 12(3):108-111. [Bailer]
Lang, K.T., D.T. Scarborough, M. Glover, and D.P. Lucero. 1991. "Quantitative Soil Gas Sampler Implant for Monitoring Dump Site
Subsurface Hazardous Fluids. In: Proc. 2nd Int. Symp. Field Screening Methods for Hazardous Wastes and Toxic
Chemicals, EPA/600/9-91/028 (NTIS PB92-125764), pp. 423-432. [Terratrog sampler with cone penetrometer]
Lee, D.R. and J.A. Cherry. 1979. A Field Exercise on Groundwater Flow Using Seepage Meters and Minipiezometers. Journal of
Geological Education 27(1):6-10.
Lenhard, RJ., and J.C. Parker. 1990. Estimation of Free Hydrocarbon Volume from Fluid Levels in Monitoring Wells. Ground
Water 28:57-67.
Lieberman, S.H., G.A, Tneriault, S.S. Cooper, P.O. Malone, R.S. Olsen, and P.W. Lurk. 1991. Rapid, Subsurface, In Situ Field
Screening of Petroleum Hydrocarbon Contamination Using Laser Induced Fluorescence over Optical Fibers. In: Proc. 2nd
Int Symp. Field Screening Methods for Hazardous Waste and Toxic Chemicals, EPA/600/9-91/028 (NTIS PB92-125764),
pp. 57-65. [Diesel fuel, JP-5]
Ltn, J.-N., et al. 1988. Remote Continuous Multichannel Biochemical Sensors Based on Fluoroimmunoassay Technologies. In: U.S.
EPA (1988b), pp. 251-252. [Fiber optics]
Litherland, S.T., T.W. Hoskings, and R.L. Boggess. 1985. A New Ground Water Survey Tool: The Combined Cone
Penetrometer/Vadose Zone Vapor Probe. In: Proc. [2nd] NWWA/API Conf. on Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Organic
Chemicals hi Ground Water-Prevention, Detection and Restoration, National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH, pp.
322-330.
Lofy, R., H. Phung, R. Stearns, and J. Walsh. 1977. Investigation of Groundwater Contamination From Subsurface Sewage Sludge
Disposal, Vol. I: Project Description and Findings. U.S. EPA Contract 68-01-4166, pp. 301-304.
Lucero, D.P. 1989. Soil Gas Sampler Implant for Monitoring Dump Site Subsurface Hazardous Fluids. In: Proc. 6th Nat. Conf. on
Hazardous Wastes and Hazardous Materials, Hazardous Materials Control Research Institute, Silver Spring, MD, pp. 548-
553. [TerraTrog soil-gas sampler with cone penetrometer]
Lucero, D.P. 1990. A Soil Gas Sampler Implant for Monitoring Dump Site Subsurface Hazardous Fluids. Hazardous Materials
Control 3(5):36-44. [TerraTrog soil-gas sampler with cone penetrometer]
Luhdorff, Jr., E.E. and J.C. Scalmanini. 1982. Selection of Drilling Method, Well Design and Sampling Equipment for Wells to
Monitor Organic Contamination. In: Proc. 2nd Nat. Symp. on Aquifer Restoration and Ground Water Monitoring,
National Water Well Association, Worthington, OH, pp. 359-365.
Lundy, D. and T. Gogel. 1988. Capabilities and Limitations of Wells for Detecting and Monitoring Liquid Phase Hydrocarbons. In:
Proc. 2nd Nat Outdoor Action Conf. on Aquifer Restoration, Ground Water Monitoring, and Geophysical Methods,
National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH, pp. 343-362.
MacPherson, Jr., J.R. and J.F. Pankow. 1988. A Discrete Point Sampler for Ground Water Monitoring Wells. Ground Water
Monitoring Review 8(3):160-164.
Mastrolonardo, R.M. and K.O. Thomsen. 1990. Ground-Water Contaminant Plume and Source Location Surveys Using Hydraulic
Probe Sampling in Shallow Aquifers. Ground Water Management 3:189-197 (Proc. FOCUS Conf. on Eastern Regional
Groundwater Issues).
5-74
-------
McElroy, WJ., LA. Drinkwater, and B.A. Kanzler. 1992. Impact of Water Table Fluctuations on Assessment and Remediation of
Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids. Ground Water Management 13:95-109 (8th Focus Conf. Eastern GW Issues).
McMillion, L. and J. Keeley. 1968. Sampling Equipment for Ground-Water Investigations. Ground Water 6(2):9-ll. [Submersible
pump]
Meyer, Jr., K.A. 1990. Dedicated Ground Water Sampling Systems-A Technical and Economic Evaluation. Ground Water
Management 2:341-346 (4th NOAC). [Bladder pump, submersible pump]
Middleburg, R.F. 1976. Air Operated Pump for Sampling Small Diameter Wells. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Division
Bulletin April-June.
Milanovich, F.P., P.F. Daley, K. Langry, B.W. Colston, Jr., S.B. Brown, and S.M. Angel. 1991. A Fiber Optic Sensor for the
Continuous Monitoring of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons. In: Proc. 2nd Int. Symp. Field Screening Methods for Hazardous
Waste and Toxic Chemicals, EPA/600/9-91/028 (NTIS PB92-125764), pp. 43-47.
Mines, B.S., J.L. Davidson, D. Bloomqyuist, and T.B. Stauffer. 1993. Sampling VOCs with the BAT Ground Water Sampling
System. Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation 13(1): 115-120.
Morlock, C.R. 1989. In Situ Monitoring of Gasoline Concentrations with Fiber Optic Chemical Sensors. In: Proc. 3rd Nat. Outdoor
Action Conf. on Aquifer Restoration, Ground Water Monitoring and Geophysical Methods, National Water Well
Association, Dublin, OH, pp. 31-41.
Morlock, C.R., N. Moschella, and A. Sundelin. 1992. Long-Term Remedial Action Monitoring. Ground Water Management
13:411-425 (8th Focus Conf. Eastern GW Issues). [VOC fiber-optic sensors]
Morrison, R.D. 1983. Ground Water Monitoring Technology: Procedures, Equipment and Applications. Timco Mfg., Prairie Du
Sac, WI, 111 pp. [Bailers, syringe, suction-lift (direct-lute, centrifugal, peristaltic), submersible helical rotor, gas-lift, bladder
pump, gas displacement, gas-drive piston, packer pump, in-situ gas-drive displacement (called gas-lift), multi-level
installations]
Morrison, R. and P. Brewer. 1981. Air-Lift Samplers for Zone-of-Saturation Monitoring. Ground Water Monitoring Review
Morrison, R. and D. Ross. 1978. Monitoring for Ground-Water Contamination From a Hazardous Waste Disposal Site. In: Proc.
1978 Nat. Conf. on Control of Hazardous Material Spills, Hazardous Materials Control Research Institute. Silver Sorinc.
MD, pp. 281-286. * &
Murphy, E.M. and D.D. Hosteller. 1989. Evaluation of Chemical Sensors for In-Situ Ground-Water Monitoring at the Hanford Site.
PNL-6854, UC-403, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA (prepared for U.S. Department of Energy).
Muska, C.F., W.P. Colven, V.D. Jones, J.T. Scogin, B.B. Looney, and V. Price. 1986. Field Evaluation of Ground Water Sampling
Devices for Volatile Organic Compounds. In: Proc. 6th Nat. Symp. on Aquifer Restoration and Ground Water
Monitoring, National Water Well Association, Worthington, OH, pp. 235-246. [Bladder pump, small-diameter submersible
centrifugal pump, dual-check valve bailer, pneumatic depth-specific samplers (syringe, pressurized bailer, surface bomb)]
Nakamoto, D.B., F.R. McLaren, and P.J. Phillips. 1986. Multiple Completion Monitor Wells. Ground Water Monitoring Review
6(2):50-55. *
Newman, J.L. and G.W. Corbell. 1990. Continuous In Situ Measurements of Nitrates and Other Contaminants Utilizing Specialized
Geophysical Logging Devices. Ground Water Management 2:953-967 (4th NOAC).
Nielsen, D.M. and G.L. Yeates. 1985. A Comparison of Sampling Mechanisms Available for Small-Diameter Ground Water
Monitoring Wells. Ground Water Monitoring Review 5(2):83-99. [Bailers, syringe, suction-lift, gas-drive, bladder pump,
submersible (gear-drive, helical rotor), gas-drive piston]
Norman, W.R. 1986. An Effective and Inexpensive Gas-Drive Ground-Water Sampling Device. Ground Water Monitorine Review
6(2):56-60. re 8
Olsen, K.B., J.W. Griffin, D.A. Nelson, and B.S. Matson. 1988. Prototype Design and Testing of Two Fiber-Optic Spectrochemical
Emission Sensors. In U.S. EPA (1988b), pp. 111-116.
5-75
-------
Pankow, J.R., L.M. Isabclle, J.P. Hewetson, and J.A. Cheny. 1984. A Syringe and Cartridge Method for Down-Hole Sampling for
TVace Organics in Ground Water. Ground Water 22:330-339.
Pankow, J.F., L.M. Isabelle, J.P. Hewetson, and J.A. Cherry. 1985. A Tube and Cartridge Method for Down-Hole Samples of Trace
Organic in Ground Water. Ground Water 23:775-782.
Parker, L.V. 1992. Suggested Guidelines for the Use of PTFE, PVC and Stainless Steel in Samplers and Well Casings. In: Current
Practices in Ground Water and Vadose Zone Investigations, ASTM STP 1118, D.M. Nielsen and M.N. Sara (eds.),
American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 217-229.
Parker, T.K., M.F. Eisen, AA. Kopania, A. Robertson, R.L. Eades, and G. Thomas. 1992. Selection, Design, Installation, and
Evaluation of Dedicated Groundwater Sampling Systems: A Case Study. In: National Groundwater Sampling Symposium
Proceedings (Washington, DC), Grundfos Pumps Corporation, Clovis, CA, pp. 89-106. [Bailer, Madder pump, combined
gas-drive/bladder, submersible centrifugal pump]
Patton, K.R. 1990. A Cost-Effective Screening Technique Used in the Characterization of Agricultural Compounds in Ground
Water. Ground Water Management 1:831-839 (Proc. of the 1990 Cluster of Conferences). [Well-point sampler]
Patton, FJX and H.R. Smith. 1988. Design Considerations and the Quality of Data from Multiple-Level Ground-Water Monitoring
Wells. In: Ground-Water Contamination: Field Methods, AG. Collins and A.I. Johnson (eds), ASTM STP 963, American
Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 206-218.
Paul, CJ. and R.W. Pub. 1992. Comparison of Ground-Water Sampling Devices Based on Equilibration of Water Quality Indicator
Parameters. In: National Groundwater Sampling Symposium Proceedings (Washington, DC), Grundfos Pumps
Corporation, Clovis, CA, pp. 21-39. [Bladder pump, submersible centrifugal pump, peristaltic pump]
Pearsall, KA. and D.A.V. Eckhardt. 1987. Effects of Selected Sampling Equipment and Procedures on the Concentrations of
Trichloroethylene and Related Compounds hi Ground Water Samples. Ground Water Monitoring Review 7(2):64-73.
[Helical rotor, surface centrifugal pump, peristaltic pump, bailer]
Pedlar, WJL, M J. Barvenik, CF. Tsang, and F.V. Hale. 1990. Determination of Bedrock Hydraulic Conductivity and
Hydrochemistry Using a Wellbore Fluid Logging Method. Ground Water Management 2:39-53 (4th NOAC).
Pennino, JJD. 1988. There's No Such Things as a Representative Ground Water Sample. Ground Water Monitoring Review 8(3):4-
' 9.
Pettyjohn, W.A., WJ. Dunlap, R. Cosby, and J.W. Keeley. 1981. Sampling Ground Water for Organic Contaminants. Ground
Water 19(2):180-188.
Picfcens JJF., J .A. Cherry, G.E. Grisak, W.F. Merritt, and B A. Risto. 1978. A Multilevel Device for Groundwater Sampling and
Piezometric Monitoring. Ground Water 16(5):322-327. (See also, 1979 discussion by Vonhof et al. in Ground Water
14(4)391-393, and reply by Pickens and Grisak, pp. 393-397.)
Pickens, J.F., J.A. Cherry, R. Coupland, and G.E. Grisak. 1981. A Multi-Level Device for Groundwater Sampling. Ground Water
Monitoring Review 1(1):48-51.
Pohlmann, K.F. and J.W. Hess. 1988. Generalized Ground Water Sampling Device Matrix. Ground Water Monitoring Review
8(4):82-84.
Pohlmann K.F., RJP. Blegen, and J.W. Hess. 1990. Field Comparisons of Ground-Water Sampling Devices for Hazardous Waste
Sites: An Evaluation Using Volatile Organic Compounds. EPA/600/4-90/028 (NTIS PB91-181776), 102 pp. [Bailer, bladder
pump, BAT sampler, Westbay sampler]
Preslo, L.M. 1989. The Subsurface Behavior of Light and Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids in Underground Storage Tank
Investigations. In: Proc. of the 5th Annual Hazardous Materials Management Conference/West, pp. 418-427.
Rannie, E.H. and R.L. Nadon. 1988. An Inexpensive, Multi-Use, Dedicated Pump for Ground Water Monitoring Wells. Ground
Water Monitoring Review 8(4):100-107.
Reeve, R.C. and EJ. Doering. 1965. Sampling the Soil Solution for Salinity Appraisals. Soil Science 99:339-344. [Point sampler]
Rehm, B.W., T.R. Stolzenburg, and D.G. Nichols. 1985. Field Measurement Methods for Hydrogeologic Investigations: A Critical
5-76
-------
Review of the Literature. EPRI EA-4301, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA.
Reynolds, M., E. Sandin, and J. Urquhart. 1991. Evolution of Techniques for Characterizing VOC Plumes: A Case Study. In:
Ground Water Management 7:583-596 (8th Eastern GW Issues Focus Conf.). [Long-screen, multi-level wells, auger screen
with field GC]
Rehtlane, E.A. and F.D. Patton. 1982. Multiple Port Piezometers vs. Standpipe Piezometers: An Economic Comparison. In: Proc.
2nd Nat. Symp. on Aquifer Restoration and Ground-Water Monitoring, National Water Well Association, Worthineton
OH, pp. 287-295.
Ridgeway, W.R. and D. Larssen. 1990. A Comparison of Two Multiple-Level Ground-Water Monitoring Systems. In: Ground
Water and Vadose Zone Monitoring, D.M. Nielsen and A.I. Johnson (eds.), ASTM STP 1053, American Society for
Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 213-237.
Rinaldo-Lee, M.B. 1983. Small- vs. Large-Diameter Monitoring Wells. Ground Water Monitoring Review l(l):72-75.
Ring, G.T. and T.C. Sale. 1987. Evaluation of Well Field Contamination Using Downhole Geophysical Logs and Depth-Specific
Samples. In: Superfund '87, Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference, Hazardous Material Control Research Institute,
Silver Spring, MD, pp. 320-325. [Submersible pump at different levels]
Ritchey, J.D. 1986. Electronic Sensing Devices Used for In Situ Ground Water Monitoring. Ground Water Monitoring Review
6(2):108-113.
Roberts, J.R., J .A. Cherry, and F.W. Schwartz. 1982. A Case Study of a Chemical Spill: Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), 1.
History, Distribution, and Surface Translocation. Water Resources Research 18(3):525-534.
Robin, M., D. Dytynyhyn, and S. Sweeney. 1982. Two Gas-Drive Sampling Devices. Ground Water Monitoring Review 2(l):63-66.
Ronen, D., M. Margaritz, and I. Levy. 1987. In Situ Multi-Level Sampler for Preventive Monitoring and Study of Hydrochemical
Profiles in Aquifers. Ground Water Monitoring Review 7(4):69-74. [Dialysis cell (method modified polyethylene vials with
replaceable dialysis membranes at both ends are filled with distilled water and placed in a specialty-designed multilevel
sampling installation; sample left about 30 days to allow vials to equilibrate with ground water and then retrieved for
sampling)]
Rose, S.R. and A. Long. 1988. Monitoring Dissolved Oxygen in Ground Water Some Basic Considerations. Ground Water
Monitoring Review 8(l):93-97.
Rosen, M.E., J.R. Pankow, J. Gobs, and T.E. Imbrigiotta. 1992. Comparison of Downhole and Surface Sampling for the
Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) hi Ground Water. Ground Water Monitoring Review 12(1):126-
133. [Downhole ATD, helical rotor]
Ross, C.G.A., R.A. Niemeyer, and TJ5. Blackman. 1992. A Method for Reducing Purge Volumes in Deep Monitoring Wells, A
Purging Experiment. Ground Water Management 11:45-58 (6th NOAC). [Dual submersible purge/bladder pump sample
system]
Rutter, A. and J. Webster. 1962. Probes for Sampling Ground Water for Gas Analysis. J. Ecology 50:615-618.
Scalf, M.R., J.F. McNabb, WJ. Dunlap, R.L. Cosby, and J. Fryberger. 1981. Manual of Ground-Water Quality Sampling Procedures
EPA/600/2-81/160, (NTIS PB82-103045). (Also published in NWWA/EPA Series, National Water Well Association, Dublin
OH.)
Schalla, R., DA. Myers, M.A. Simmons, J.M. Thomas, and A.P. Toste. 1988. The Sensitivity of Four Monitoring Well Sampling
Systems to Low Concentrations of Three Volatile Organics. Ground Water Monitoring Review 8(3):90-96. [Gas-drive
piston pump, bailer, bladder pump, gas-drive (displacement)]
Schmidt, K.D. 1982. How Representative are Water Samples Collected from Wells? In: Proc. 2nd Nat. Symp. on Aquifer
Restoration and Ground Water Monitoring, National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH, pp. 117-128.
Schuller, R.M., J.P. Gibb, and R.A. Griffin. 1981. Recommended Sampling Procedures for Monitoring Wells. Ground Water
Monitoring Review l(l):42-46. [Peristaltic, gas-lift (air and nitrogen), bailer]
Schwartz, F.W., J.A. Cherry, and J.R. Roberts. 1982. A Case Study of a Chemical Spill: Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), 2.
5-77
-------
Hydrogeological Conditions and Contaminant Migration. Water Resources Research 18(3):525-534.
Seanor,AM.andL.K.Brannaka. 1981. Influence of Sampling Techniques on Organic Water Quality Analyses. In: Management of
Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites, Hazardous Material Control Research Institute, Silver Spring, MD, pp. 143-148.
(Electric submersible, gas-drive piston samplers]
Shahriari, M.R., Q. Zhou, and G.H. Sigel, Jr. 1988. Porous Fiber Optic for Chemical Sensors. In: U.S. EPA (1988b), pp. 43-50.
Signer, D. 1978. Gas-Driven Pump for Ground-Water Samples. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigation Report 78-
72.
Small, P.A. 1953. Some Factors Affecting the Solubility of Polymers. J. Applied Chemistry 3:71-80.
Smith Jr., J.E., T.M. Bond, JA. Gilbert, and K.M. Leonard. 1988. A Remote Fiber Optic Ground Water Monitoring System Based
on Surface Enhanced Raman Spectroscopy. In: Proc. 2nd Nat. Outdoor Action Conf. on Aquifer Restoration, Ground
Water Monitoring and Geophysical Methods, National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH, pp. 3-16.
Smolley, M. and J.C Kappmeyer. 1989. Cone Penetrometer Tests and Hydropunch* Sampling: An Alternative to Monitoring Wells
for Plume Definition. In: Proc. Conf. on New Field Techniques for Quantifying the Physical and Chemical Properties of
Heterogeneous Aquifers, National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH, pp. 717-724.
Smolley, M. and J.C Kappmeyer. 1991. Cone Penetrometer Tests and HydroPunch* Sampling: A Screening Technique for Plume
Definition. Ground Water Monitoring Review 11(2):101-106.
Smythe, J.M., P.B. Bedient, and R.A. Klopp. 1988. Cone Penetrometer Technology for Hazardous Waste Site Investigations. In:
Proc. 2nd Nat Outdoor Action Conf. on Aquifer Restoration, Ground Water Monitoring, and Geophysical Methods,
National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH, pp. 71-94.
Snow, D£>., M.E. Burbach, and R.F. Spalding. 1992. Ground Water Sampler Comparison: Pesticide and Nitrate Concentrations.
In: National Groundwater Sampling Symposium Proceedings (Washington, DC), Grundfos Pumps Corporation, Clovis, CA,
pp. 77-87. [Submersible centrifugal pump, bladder pump, bailer]
SommerfeWt, T. and D. Campbell. 1975. A Pneumatic System to Pump Water from Piezometers. Ground Water 13:293.
Sonntag, W.H. 1987. Comparative Test of Two Sampling Devices for Obtaining Purgeable Organic Compounds from Ground Water
Wells. In: Proc. 3rd USGS Toxic Waste Technical Meeting (Pensacola, FL), U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 87-
109, pp. E7-E9. [Flow-through depth-specific sampler]
Spaulding, R.F., M.E. Exner, and J.R. Gomty. 1976. A Note on an In Situ Ground Water Sampling Procedure. Water Resources
Research 12:1319-1321
St. Germain, R.W. and G.D. Gillispie. 1991. Transportable Tunable Dye Laser for Field analysis of Aromatic Hydrocarbons in
Groundwater. In: Proc. 2nd Int. Symp. Field Screening Methods for Hazardous Waste and Toxic Chemicals, EPA/600/9-
91/028 (NTIS PB92-125764), pp. 789-792. [Fiber optics]
Stites, W. and L.W. Chambers. 1991. A Method for Installing Miniature Multilevel Sampling Wells. Ground Water 29(3):430-432.
Stolzenburg, T.R. and D.G. Nichols. 1985. Evaluation of Chemical Changes in Ground Water Samples Due to Sampling
Mechanism. EPRI EA-4118. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA. peristaltic pump, bailer, bladder pump,
vacuum pump, gas drive, nitrogen lift, large-diameter submersible centrifugal, ah- lift, surface centrifugal]
Stolzenburg T.R. and D.G. Nichols. 1986. Effects of Filtration Method and Sampling Devices on Inorganic Chemistry of Sampled
Well Water. In: Proc. 6th Nat. Symp. and Exp. on Aquifer Restoration and Ground Water Monitoring, National Water
Well Association, Dublin, OH, pp. 216-234. [Peristaltic pump, bailer, bladder pump, vacuum pump, gas-drive, nitrogen lift,
large-diameter submersible centrifugal, air-lift, surface centrifugal]
Strutynsky, A.I. and TJ. Sainey. 1990. Use of Piezometric Cone Penetration Testing and Penetrometer Groundwater Sampling for
Volatile Organic Contaminant Plume Detection. Ground Water Management 4:71-84 (7th NWWA/API Conf.).
Strutynsky, A.I. and TJ. Sainey. 1992. Use of Piezometric Cone Penetration Testing and Penetrometry Ground Water Sampling for
Volatile Organic Contaminant Plume Detection. In: Current Practices hi Ground Water and Vadose Zone Investigations,
ASTM STP 1118, D.M. Nielsen and M.N. Sara (eds.), American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp.
5-78
-------
199-214. [Hydropunch, BAT samplers]
Strutynsky, A.I., R.E. Sandiford, and D. CavaUere. 1992. Use of Piezometric Cone Penetration Testing with Electrical Conductivity
Measurements (CPTU-EC) for the Detection of Hydrocarbon Contamination in Saturated Granular Soils. In: Current
Practices in Ground Water and Vadose Zone Investigations, ASTM STP 1118, D.M. Nielsen and M.N. Sara (eds.),
American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 169-182.
Sullivan, R.R., R.E. Zinner, and J.P. Hughes. 1988. The Occurrence of Hydrocarbon on an Unconfined Aquifer and Implications
for Liquid Recovery. In: Proc. 5th NWWA/API Conf. on Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Organic Chemicals in Ground
Water-Prevention, Detection and Restoration, National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH, Volume 1, pp. 135-156
Summerfield, R. 1973. A Probe for Sampling Mire Waters for Chemical and Gas Analysis. Plant and Soil 38:469-472.
Tabacco, M.B., Q. Zhou, K. Rosenblum, and M.R. Shahriari. 1991. Chemical Sensors for Hazardous Waste Monitoring. In Proc.
2nd Int. Symp. Field Screening Methods for Hazardous Waste and Toxic Chemicals, EPA/600/9-91/028 (NTIS PB92-
125764), pp. 49-56. [Porous fiber optics]
Tai, D.Y. 1992. Ground-Water Sampler Testing in a Standpipe System. In: National Groundwater Sampling Symposium
Proceedings (Washington, DC), Grundfos Pumps Corporation, Clovis, CA, pp. 3-4. [Submersible centrifugal pump, VOA
trap]
Tai, D.Y., K.S. Turner, and L-A. Garcia. 1991. The Use of a Standpipe to Evaluate Ground Water Samplers. Ground Water
Monitoring Review 11(1):125-132. [Bailer, manual/motor piston sampler, helical rotor pump, peristaltic pump, bladder
pump]
Tate, T.K. 1973. Variations in the Design of Depth Samplers for Use in Ground Water Studies. Water and Water Engineering
77:223. e~
Taylor, L.R. and N. Berzins. 1988. Subsurface Contamination Screening by Combined Soil Gas/Groundwater Survey Procedure. In
Superfund "88, Proceeding of the 9th National Conference, Hazardous Materials Control Research Institute, Silver Spring,
MD, pp. 158-163. [Hydropunch, BAT, other CPT samplers]
Taylor, T.W. and M.C Serfini. 1988, Screened Auger Sampling: The Techniques and Two Case Studies. Ground Water Monitoring
Review 8(3):145-152.
Taylor, T.A., H. Xu, and J.E. Kenny. 1991. Laser Fluorescence EEM Instrument for In-Situ Groundwater Screening. In: Proc. 2nd
Int. Symp. Field Screening Methods for Hazardous Waste and Toxic Chemicals, EPA/600/9-91/028 (NTIS PB92-125764)
pp. 797-803. [Fiber optics]
Testa, S.M. and M.T. Paczkowski. 1989. Volume Determination and Recoverability of Free Hydrocarbon. Ground Water
Monitoring Review 9(1):120-128.
Thomey, N., R. Ogle, and J. Jackson. 1991. A Comparison of Results for Samples Collected with Bailers Constructed of Different
Materials. Ground Water Management 5:577-582.
Timmons, R. 1981. Discussion of "An All Teflon Bailer and an Air-Driven Pump for Evacuating Small-Diameter Ground-Water
Wells" by D. Buss and K. Bandt. Ground Water 19:666-667.
Tomson, M.B., S. Hutchins, J.M. King, and C.H. Ward. 1980. A Nitrogen Powered Continuous Delivery All-Glass-Teflon Pumping
System for Ground-Water Sampling from Below 10 Meters. Ground Water 18(5):444-446. [Gas-drive/displacement
sampler]
Tomson, M.B., J. Dauchy, S. Hutchins, C. Curran, C. Cook, and C. Ward. 1981. Groundwater Contamination by Trace Level
Organics from a Rapid Infiltration Site. Water Research 15:1109-1115.
Torstensson, B.-A. 1984. A New System for Ground Water Monitoring. Ground Water Monitoring Review 4(4):131-138.
Torstensson, B.-A; and A.M. Petsonk. 1988. A Hermetically Isolated Sampling Method for Ground-Water Investigations. In:
Ground-Water Contamination: Field Methods, A.G. Collins and A.I. Johnson (eds.), ASTM STP 963, American Society for
Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 274-289. [CPT/BAT system]
Trescott, P. and G. Finder. 1970. Air Pump for Small-Diameter Piezometers. Ground Water 8(3):10-15.
5-79
-------
Truettner, L.E., TJ. Morahan, and B.E. Mackie. 1986. Downhole Packer Assembly for Bedrock Ground Water Sampling. In: Proc.
Surface and Borehole Geophysical Methods and Ground Water Instrumentation Conf. and Exp., National Water Well
Association, Dublin, OH, pp. 29-40.
Tuttle, J.C and G.H. Chapman. 1989. Field Analytical Screening, Reconnaissance Geophysical and Temporary Monitoring Well
Techniques-An Integrated Approach to Pre-Remedial Site Characterization. In: Proc. 6th Nat. Conf. on Hazardous
Waste and Hazardous Materials, Hazardous Materials Control Research Institute, Silver Spring, MD, pp. 530-537.
Unwin, J. 1982. A Guide to Groundwater Sampling. Tech. Bull No. 362, National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and
Stream Improvement, New York, NY, 67+ pp.
Unwin, J.P. 1984. Sampling Ground Water for Volatile Organic Compounds: The Effect of Sampling Method, Compound Volatility
and Concentration. In: In: Proc. 4th Symp. on Aquifer Restoration and Ground Water Monitoring, National Water Well
Association, Dublin, OH, pp. 214-220. [Bailer, bladder pump, submersible centrifugal]
Unwin, J. and V. Maltby. 1988. Investigations of Techniques for Purging Ground-Water Monitoring Wells and Sampling Ground
Water for Volatile Organic Compounds. In: Ground-Water Contamination: Field Methods, A.G. Collins and A.I. Johnson
(eds.), ASTM STP 963, American Society for Testing and Materials, PhUadelphia, PA, pp. 240-252. [Bailer, bladder pump,
centrifugal submersible, pneumatic grab]
U.S.Army. 1981. Well Drilling Operations. Department of Army Technical Manual FM5-1161/AFR 85-23. Reprinted by National
Water Well Association, Dublin, OH, 249 pp. (Supersedes TM 5-297/AFR 85-23, published in 1965).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1988a. Field Screening Methods Catalog: User's Guide. EPA/540/2-88/005. FSMC
System Coordinator, OERR, Analytical Operations Branch (WH-548-A), U.S. EPA, Washington, DC 20460. [FM-D5
covers fiber optics]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1988b First International Symposium, Field Screening Methods for Hazardous Waste
Site Investigations. EPA/600/D-89/189 (NTIS PB90-132572). [Contains 13 papers on uses of fiber optics and chemical
sensors]
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1980. Ground Water. In: National Handbook of Recommended Methods for Water Data
Acquisition, Office of Water Data Coordination, Reston, VA, Chapter 2.
Viallaune, J.F. 1985. Investigations of Sites Contaminated with Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids (NAPLs). Ground Water
Monitoring Review 5(2):60-70.
Vfcpl, M.A. 1980. Multiple-Port Piezometer Installation at Rocky Mountain Arsenal. Report NO. WES/MP/GL-80-12.
Wagner, R.B., D.R. Hampton and J.A. Howell. 1989. A New Tool to Determine the Actual Thickness of Free Product in a Shallow
Aquifer. In: Proc. 6th NWWA/API Conf. on Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Organic Chemicals hi Ground Water-
Prevention, Detection and Restoration, National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH, pp. 45-59.
Walker, W. 1974. Field Verification of Industrial Hazardous Material Migration from Land Disposal Sites hi Humid Region. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. (As cited in Gillham et al., 1983.)
Wallace, J.W. and D. Huntley. 1992. Effect of Local Sediment Variability on the Estimation of Hydrocarbon Volumes. Ground
Water Management 11:273-285 (6th NOAC).
Welch, S J. and D.R. Lee. 1987. A Multiple-Packer/Standpipe System for Ground Water Monitoring in Consolidated Media.
Ground Water Monitoring Review 7(3):83-87.
Wells, CJB. 1988. Design and Installation of a Simple, Cost Effective Multi-Level Monitoring Well System. In: Proc. 2nd Nat.
Outdoor Action Conf. on Aquifer Restoration, Ground Water Monitoring and Geophysical Methods, National Water Well
Association, Dublin, OH, pp. 415-433.
Willardson, L., B. Meek, and M. Huber. 1972. A Flow Path Ground Water Samplers. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 36:965-966.
Wilson, L.G. 1980. Monitoring in the Vadose Zone: A Review of Technical Elements. EPA/600/7-80/134 (NTIS PB81-125817).
Wilson, J. and J.F.B. Hawkes. 1983. Optoelectronics: An Introduction. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
5-80
-------
Wilson, J.L., S.H. Conrad, E. Hagan, W.R. Mason, and W. Pelinkski. 1988. The Pore Level Spatial Distribution of Saturation of
Organic Liquids in Porous Media. In: Proc. 5th NWWA/API Conf. on Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Organic Chemicals in
Ground Water, National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH, pp. 107-134.
Wood, W.W. 1976. Guidelines for Collection and Field Analysis of Groundwater Samples for Selected Unstable Constituents. U.S.
Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resource Investigations TWRI1-D2.
Yaniga, P.M. 1984. Hydrocarbon Retrieval and Apparent Hydrocarbon Thickness: Interrelationships to Recharging/Discharging
Aquifer Conditions. Proc. 1st NWWA/API Conf. on Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Organic Chemicals in Ground Water,
National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH, pp. 299-329.
Yaniga, P.M. and J.G. Warburton. 1984. Discrimination Between Real and Apparent Accumulation of Immiscible Hydrocarbons on
the Water Table: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis. In: Proc. 4th Symp. on Aquifer Restoration and Ground Water
Monitoring, National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH, pp. 311-335.
Yare, B.S. 1975. The Use of a Specialized Drilling and Groundwater Sampling Technique for Delineation of Hexavalent Chromium
Contamination in an Unconfined Aquifer, Southern New Jersey Coastal Plain. Ground Water 13(2):151-154.
Yeskis, D., K. Chiu, S. Meyers, J. Weiss, and T. Bloom. 1988. A Field Study of Various Sampling Devices and Their Effects on
Volatile Organic Contaminants. In: Proc. 2nd Nat. Outdoor Action Conf. on Aquifer Restoration, Ground Water
Monitoring and Geophysical Methods, National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH, pp. 471-479. [Bailer, bladder pump,
gas-drive piston pump, helical rotor pump, and small-diameter submersible centrifugal pump]
Zemo, D.A., Y.G. Pierce, and J.D. Gallinatti. 1992a. Cone Penetrometer Testing and Discrete-Depth Groundwater Sampling
Techniques: A Cost-Effective Method of Site Characterization in a Multiple-Aquifer Setting. Ground Water Management
11:299-313 (6th NOAC). {BAT, Hydropunch]
Zemo, D .A., T.A. Delfmo, J.D. Gallinatti, V.A. Baker, and L.R. Hilpert. 1992b. Field Comparison of Analytical Results from
Discrete-Depth Groundwater Samplers: BAT Enviroprobe and QED Hydropunch. Ground Water Management 11:341-355
(6th NOAC).
*ORD Publications, U.S. EPA Center for Environmental Research Information, P.O. Box 19963, Cincinnati, OH, 45268-0963 (513-
659-7562).
5-81
-------
-------
1.
APPENDIX A
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF MONITORING WELLS
This appendix provides an overview of basic elements of the design and construction of permanent
ground-water monitoring wells in which portable sampling devices can be used. Section 2 covers well drilling
methods and Section 5.4 should be referred to for a discussion of basic types of monitoring well installations.
ASTM (1992c) and U.S. EPA (1992) identify the minimum set of data elements necessary for documenting the
location and construction of monitoring wells.
Figures A-la and A-lb show the basic design components of properly and constructed single- and multi-
cased monitoring wells. Nielsen and Schalla (1991) have identified six common monitoring well design flaws and
installation problems that should be avoided:
Use of well casing or well screen materials that are not compatible with the hydrogeologic environment,
known or suspected contaminants, or the requirements of the ground-water sampling program. The
result is chemical alteration of samples or failure of the well. See Section A.l.
Incorrect screen slot-sizing practices or use of nonstandard types of well screen, such as field-slotted,
drilled, or perforated casing. The result is well sedimentation and turbid samples throughout the
monitoring program. See Section A.2.
Improper length and placement of well screens so that discrete zones of the aquifer are missed or cannot
be differentiated. In this situation, water level measurements and water quality samples might provide
misleading results. See Section 5.4.
Improper selection and placement of filter pack materials. Consequences can include well sedimenta-
tion, well screen plugging, ground-water sample alteration, or potential well failure. See Section A3.
Improper selection and placement of annular seal materials. The results can include alteration of
chemistry of water samples, plugging of the filter pack and/or well screen, and cross-contamination
between water-bearing units that have not be adequately isolated. See Section A.4.
Inadequate surface protection measures, such as surface seals that are susceptible to frost heave. The
results can include surface water entering the well, chemical alteration of water quality samples, and well
damage to destruction. See Section A.4.
3.
6.
Another common installation problem that can be added to this list occurs after installation has been
completed:
7. Use of improper well development techniques. The results can include continuing turbidity in water
quality samples due to failure to remove fines for the well screen and filter pack, chemical alteration of
water quality samples due to the introduction of air or foreign water into the aquifer, and possible
damage to the well screen by stresses caused by excessive surging. See Section A.5.
Once a well has been installed, ongoing maintenance is required to ensure proper functioning and
rehabilitation might be required if routine maintenance is not able to prevent impairment of well efficiency or
if modifications are required for a change in purpose of the well (see Section A.6). Finally, when a well is no
longer required for its original or modified purpose, it must be properly abandoned (see Section A.7).
Table A-l, located at the beginning of the reference section, provides an index of general references
which cover monitoring well design and installation, as well as references that cover more specific topics.
A-l
-------
A-2
-------
A.1 WELL CASING MATERIALS
Other Names Used to Describe Materials: Thermoplastics: Polyvinyl chloride (PVC), aciylonitrile butadiene
styrene (ABS). Fluoropolymers: PolytetrafluoroethyleneAetrafluoroethylene (PTFE/TFE, Teflon, Halon, Huon,
Hostaflon, Polyflon, Algoflon, Soriflon), fluorinated ethylene propylene (FEP, Neflon, Teflon), perfluoroalkoxy
(PEA, Neoflon, Teflon), polyvinylidine fluoride (PVDF, Kynar), chlorotrifluoroethylene (CTFE, Kel-F, Diaflon).
Metallic: Cast iron, mild/soft steel, carbon steel, low carbon steel, galvanized steel, and stainless steel (particularly
types 304 and 316). Fiber-glass reinforced: Fiberglass-reinforced epoxy (FRE), fiberglass-reinforced plastic
(FRP).
Uses at Contaminated Sites; Casing materials for monitoring wells.
Materials Description: Thermoplastics include varying formulations of plastics, which are molded or extruded
to form rigid well casing (PVC and ABS) or tubing (polyethylene and polypropylene). Fluoropolymers are
plastics with high chemical resistance consisting of different formulations of fluoromonomers, which can be either
molded by powder metallurgy methods or extruded with heat. Metals: Various types of steel tubing. Fiberglass
reinforced plastic or epoxy forms casing of higher strength than thermoplastic or fluoropolymer materials.
Materials Selection Considerations; Plastic Casing Advantages: (1) Is lightweight; (2) PVC is inexpensive; and
(3) generally good to excellent chemical resistance (fluoropolymers have the best chemical resistance, except for
fluorinated solvents; PVC has poor resistance to high concentrations of aromatic hydrocarbons [toluene, xylene,
trichlorethylene] esters, and ketones). Plastic Casing Disadvantages: (1) Weaker, less rigid, and more
temperature sensitive than metallic materials (PTFE/TFE is especially low, PVDF is stronger; ABS has low
strength and less heat resistance compared to PVC); (2) PVC might adsorb some constituents from ground water,
(3) PVC might react with and leach some constituents into ground water and PTFE is prone to sorption of
selected organic compounds (proper purging and sampling procedures can minimize these problems); (4)
fluoropolymers are expensive (PVDF is less expensive than PTFE/TFE); (5) some materials are not commonly
available (ABS, PVDF); (6) tensile strength of wear resistance of PTFE/TFE is low compared to other plastics,
and screen slot opening might decrease in size over time; and (7) antistick properties of fluoropolymer materials
make it difficult to achieve an annular seal with neat cement grout, creating potential for alteration of ground-
water chemistry by percolating surface water (see Figure A.4a). Metallic Casing Advantages: (1) Stainless steel
has least adsorption of halogenated and aromatic hydrocarbons; (2) all steel casings have high strength and
generally are not temperature sensitive; (3) stainless steel has excellent resistance to corrosion and oxidation; (4).
stainless steel is readily available in all diameters and screen slot sizes; and (5) mild steel is readily available and
less expensive than stainless steel for casing. Metallic Casing Disadvantages: (1) Heavier than plastics; (2)
stainless steel might corrode and leach some chromium in highly acidic water, and might act as a catalyst in some
organic reactions; (3) stainless steel screens are more expensive than plastic screens; (4) mild steel might react
with and leach some constituents into ground water and is not as chemically resistant as stainless steel; (5) under
saturated conditions carbon and low carbon steel rust easily, providing highly sorptive surface for many metals,
and they deteriorate in corrosive environments; and (6) zinc might leach from galvanized steel, and if the coating
is scratched, will rust, providing a highly sorptive surface for metals. Fiberglass Reinforced Advantages: (1) High-
strength (almost as strong as stainless steel); (2) light (weighs about the same as PVC); and (3) limited available
data indicate that it is relatively inert in most monitoring well environments. Fiberglass Reinforced
Disadvantages: (1) Some adsorption of volatile organics (can be overcome by proper purging and sampling
procedures; and (2) not readily available and little data available on its performance in the field.
Frequency of Use; PVC in the most commonly used casing material, followed by stainless steel. PTFE is
uncommon due to expense and low strength (best application where concentrations of organic solvents are high
[parts-per-thousand levels] and highly corrosive conditions preclude use of metallic casing).
Standard Guidelines: ASTM (1990a,b).
Sources for Additional Information: Aller et al. (1991), Devinny et al. (1990), Driscoll (1986), Nielsen and Schalla
(1991). See also, Table A-l.
A-3
-------
A3, WELL SCREEN TYPES AND MATERIALS
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Monitoring wells: Wire-wound (plastic) continuous-slot, verticle or
horizontal machine slotted casing, factory slotted perforated pipe, bridge-slot, shutter-type (louvre-type). Other
well screens: Field slotted pipe (torch cut or perforated), wire-wound perforated pipe (pipe-based screen).
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Allowing ground water to enter monitoring wells for sampling.
Method Description; Well screens of the appropriate length and slot size are attached to solid casing and placed
at the depth in the aquifer where sampling is desired. This method usually is used in unconsolidated formations
in combination with a' filter pack (see Section A3) to minimize entry of fine particles from the aquifer into the
well during development (Section A.5), purging (Section B.2), and sampling (Section B,3). The slot size is
selected to: (1) Maximize open area for water to flow through, and (2) minimize entry of fines into the well
during pumping. The major types of well intake screens are: (1) Factory slotted (Figure A.2a), (2) continuous
slot (Figure A.2b), (3) bridge slot (Figure A.2c), and (4) shutter type (Figure A.2d). Other types include field-
slotted pipe, in which slots are manually cut, and wire-wound perforated pipe.
Method Selection Considerations: Factory Slotted Casing Advantages: (1) Has good slot control; (2) is readily
available; and (3) is inexpensive. Factory Slotted Casing Disadvantages: (1) Low amount of open area makes
development difficult; (2) rough, jagged edges might be present, forming surface for sorption of chemicals, (3)
lighter stock metal screens (less than 8 gage) not strong enough for depths greater than 100 to 150 feet, and
plastic screens much weaker (one-sixth to one-tenth as strong as stainless steel screens) are used. Continuous
Slot Advantages: (1) Very good slot control is possible, allowing custom made slot sizes for specific aquifer
gradations; (2) wide range of slot sizes are available; (3) is the most efficient screen available because of high
amount of open area, facilitating development and ensuring good flow for sampling; (4) wire-wound is made in
both telescoping and pipe sizes; and (5) plastic is less expensive than wire-wound. Continuous Slot
Disadvantages: (1) Wire-wound is more expensive than slotted pipe, but still moderately priced; and (2) plastic
screens have much lower strength than metal screens. Bridge and Shutter Type Advantages: (1) Slots are
accurately sized; (2) are wire-brushed to remove roughness and irregularities; (3) have reasonably high intake
area (up to 20%); and (4) are relatively inexpensive. Bridge and Shutter Type Disadvantages: (1) Clog relatively
easily; (2) have relatively low collapse strength; (3) have a minimum diameter of 6 inches. Field-slotted pipe is
not recommended due to low amount of open area, poor slot control, and the development of rough jagged
edges, which are vulnerable to corrosion (metal pipe). Wire-wound perforated pipe screens have good tensile
and collapse strength, but have relatively low open area and are easily clogged with fines.
Frequency of Use; Wire-wound continuous-slot (or continuous plastic slotted) screens and machine slotted casing
are the most commonly used types of screens, because they are the most readily available for 2-inch monitoring
wells.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: ASTM (1990a).
Sources for Additional Information; Aller et al. (1991), Bureau of Reclamation (1981), Devinny et al. (1990).
See also, Table A-l.
A-4
-------
0.125 or 0.25 in. Spacing
Slot Opening
Slotted Pipe
Vertical Rods
V.Shaped
Continuous Wire
Continuous-Slot Screen
(a)
u
R
D
tt
tt
n"n
USD
Bridge Slot Screen
cm
/ \
Shutter-type Screen
(<0 (d)
Figure A.2 Major types of well screens: (a) Slotted (Nielsen and Schalla, 1991, by permission); (b) Continuous slot
(Nielsen and Schalla, 1991); (c) Bridge slot (Aller et al, 1991, by permission); (d) Shutter type (Aller et
al., 1991).
A-5
-------
A3 FILTER PACK
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Natural and artificial "gravel" pack/sand pack.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Increasing hydraulic conductivity around the well screen and keeping fine particles
from entering the well screen during ground-water sampling.
Method Description; An artificial filter pack is placed around the well screen. The filter pack must: (1) Be clean
(to minimize loss of material during development and development time [Section A.5]), (2) have well-rounded
grains (to increase hydraulic conductivity, porosity, yield, and effectiveness of well development), (3) have 90 to
95% quartz grains (to minimize changes to ground-water chemistry and to eliminate loss of volume by dissolution
of minerals), and (4) have a uniformity coefficient of 2.5 or less (to minimize separation during installation and
lower head loss). Alternatively, well screen slot size is determined based on the particle-size distribution in the
aquifer materials and the fines are removed during the development process. In relatively shallow wells, the
filter pack can be placed by simply dumping sand down the annulus (provided the annular space is more than
2 inches). More typically, the filter pack is placed by pouring the sand into a tremie pipe, a rigid or partially
flexible tube of pipe that allows tunneling of the material directly to the interval around the well screen (Figure
A.3a). Other methods include the reverse circulation method, where a sand and water mixture is fed into the
annulus around the well screen and the water entering the screen is pumped up to the surface (Figure A.3b),
and backwashing, where water is pumped down the well and allowed to rise up around the annular area as filter-
pack material filters down through the rising water (Figure A.3c).
Method Selection Considerations; Artificial Filter Pack Advantages: Characteristics of the filter-pack material
can be selected for optimum efficiency of well operation. Artificial Filter Pack Disadvantages: (1) Procedure
is relatively time consuming and expensive; (2) bridging might prevent complete filling around the well screen;
(3) extension of filterpack above or below the screen area might allow contaminants to move to uncontaminated
areas; (4) filter pack material might introduce contaminants into the aquifer (a leaching test can be used to
determine whether this might be a problem); and (5) use of reverse circulation and backwashing emplacement
methods might alter ground-water chemistry. Natural Filter Pack Advantages: (1) Simpler and can be less
expensive (depending on time requirements for well development); and (2) potential for alteration of ground-
water chemistry is minimized. Natural Filter Pack Disadvantages: (1) Well development is more difficult, and
success is less assured; (2) selection of optimum screen slot size is more difficult.
Frequency of Use; Filter packs are a standard feature of monitoring wells. Artificial filter packs are usually used
in finer and very coarse grained material.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: ASTM (1990a).
Sources for Additional Information; Aller et al. (1991), Campbell and Lehr (1973), Driscoll (1986), U.S. EPA
(1975, 1986). See also, Table A-l.
A-6
-------
Ground Surface
JS/S/SS^S///
|
a-ing ,
|
^
m
18
—
=
«
i
i
•:•••:
i
X
I-
•-
1
1
•'*
1
i
i
•j//yxx7/////^
X~Sand
/
X Water Table
£ — Tremie Pipe
^
^—Fitter Pack
X, Material
Natural Formation Material-yJ
'// 'x^
(a)
Adaptor Coupling from
Flush ASTM Threading
to NPT Coupling
Filter Pack Funnel
6" Casing (Casing Pulled
Back During Gravel
Packing Operation)
2" Riser Pipe
Filter Pack
2" Wire-Wound Well
Screen
entering Guide
Water
(b)
Filter Pack Material
Ground Surface
7/7//'/?
f
Fine-Grained
Materials and Water
Well Intake
Natural Formation Materia
:Si*i^-Filter Pack
'Jtl° Material
Figure A3 Artificial filter pack placement methods: (a) Tremie-pipe emplacement; (b) Reverse circulation
emplacement; (c) Backwashing (Nielsen and Schalla, 1991, by permission).
/
A-7
-------
A.4 GROUTS AND SEALS
Other Names Used to Describe Method; Bentonite, cement, neat cement.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Sealing the annular space between the well casing and the formation to prevent
contaminants from moving upward or downward to uncontaminated areas (Figure A.4).
Method Description: After the filter pack is placed, grout (usually either bentonite or neat cement) is used to
provide the optimum seal in the annual space between the casing and borehole walls. Bentonite can be placed
either as unhydrated pellets or chips with water added later, or pumped down through a tremie pipe as a slurry.
Neat cement (a mixture of 5 to 6 gallons of clean water per 1 cubic foot bag of Portland Cement, usually Type
I) is mixed manually or with a mechanical mixture and pumped into the annulus. A variety of additives can be
mixed with the cement slurry to change the properties of the cement (Table A.4). The more common additives
include: (1) Bentonite (to improve workability, and to reduce weight and shrinkage), (2) calcium chloride (to
accelerate setting time and create higher early strength, especially useful in cold climates), (3) gypsum (quick
setting, expanding cement, but expensive), (4) aluminum powder (which produces a strong, quick-setting cement
than expands on setting), (5) fly ash (to increase sulfate resistance and early compressive strength), (6)
hydroxylated carboxylic acid (to retard setting time and improve workability without compromising set strength),
and (7) diatomaceous earth (to reduce slurry density and thickening time, but increase water demand and reduce
set strength). Table A.4 summarizes information on the effect of 15 additives commonly used with cement.
Major surface sealing measures include: (1) Placement of a sturdy protective outer casing with cover and lock
to a depth below the frost line and a drainage hole to prevent moisture buildup between the protective casing
and the well casing, and (2) placement of a concrete pad sloping away from the casing to prevent infiltration of
surface water and shaped so as to prevent frost heaving. See Figure A-la for typical surface protection measures.
Method Selection Considerations: Bentonite Advantages: (1) Is readily available; (2) is mexpensive; and (3)
pellets or slurry can be used. Bentonite Disadvantages: (1) Might cause constituent interference due to ion
exchange; (2) might not give complete seal and complete bond to casing cannot be assured; (3) pellets might
bridge or wet and swell, sticking to the formation or casing before filling the annular space; and (4) pump might
clog if slurry gets too dense. Cement Advantages: (1) Is readily available; (2) is inexpensive; (3) can use sand
and/or gravel filler; and (4) is possible to determine how well the cement has been placed by means of
temperature logs (see Figure 2.6.2a) or sonic bond logs (Section 3.6.2). Cement Disadvantages: (1) Might cause
constituent interferences (high pH with attendant change in ground-water chemistry); (2) mixer, pump, and
trenaie lines are required and more cleanup generally is required compared to bentonite; (3) can have problems
getting the material to set up; (4) channeling between the casing and seal might develop because of temperature
changes during the curing process, swelling and shrinkage of the grout while the mixture cures, and poor bonding
between the grout and the casing surface; and (5) heat from setting can compromise structural integrity of some
well casing materials (i.e., thermoplastic).
Frequency of Use; Both bentonite and neat cement are used widely.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: API (1990, 1991a), ASTM (1990a, 1992b).
Sources for Additional Information; Aller et al. (1991), Driscoll (1986). See also, Table A-l.
A-8
-------
Filter Pac
Between Casing and
Seal Material
Through Seal Material
By Bridging
Figure A.4 Potential pathways for fluid movement in the casing-borehole annulus (Aller et al., 1991).
A-9
-------
Table A.4 Some Additives Commonly Used with Cement
EFFECTS OF SOME
ADDITIVES ON THE
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
OF CEMENT
DENSITY DECREASE
UI-rJ"1 ' T INCREASE
WATER LESS
REQUIRED MORE
VISCOSITY °ECREASE
VIo^UOl 1 T |NCR£ASE
THICKENING ACCELERATED
TIME RETARDED
SEIZING ACCELERATED
TIME RETARDED
EARLY DECREASED
STRENGTH INCREASED
FINAL DECREASED
STRENGTH INCREASED
DURABILITY DECREASED
uun/itiL.11 T ,NCREASED
WATER LOSS DECREASED
" INCREASED
1 BENTONITE
(£)
W
X
X
X
X
X
X
«J
1 PERLITE 1
<£)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
I' DIATOMACEOUS EARTH I
W
fx)
X
X
X
X
»
X
X
1 POZZOLAN I
X
X
X
X
X
X
(x)
Q
M
X
X
ill
t
OO
X
X
X
X
X
X
ARSENOFERRITE 1
f*>
X
X
X
X
X
1 CALCIUM CHLORIDE 1
x
X
ft
ft
M
SODIUM CHLORIDE'
x
(x)
X
M
M
| LIGNOSULFONATES 1
x
<*>
ft
ft
ft
&
X
X
CMHECf 1
0
<*>
00
ft
x)
DIESEL OIL 1
X
x
x
LOW-WATER-LOSS MATERIALS 1
ft
X
X
X
;x)
LOST-CIRCULATION MATERIALS 1
x
x
X
X
X
x
ACTIVATED CHARCOAL
x
X
x
X
X
x DENOTES MINOR EFFECT.
© DENOTES MAJOR EFFECT AND/OR PRINCIPAL PURPOSE FOR WHICH USED.
SMALL PERCENTAGES OF SODIUM CHLORIDE ACCELERATE THICKENING.
LARGE PERCENTAGES MAY RETARD API CLASS A CEMENT.'
t CARBOXYMETHYL HYDROXYETHYL CELLULOSE.
Source: API, (1959)
A-10
-------
A.5 WELL DEVELOPMENT
Other Names Used to Describe Method: Over-pumping, backwashing, surge-plunger, surge block, mechanical
surging, bailer, compressed air, airlift pumping, air surging, high velocity (water/hydraulic) jetting, blasting,
acidizing.
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Removing fines from filter pack around monitoring wells to improve hydraulic
performance and eliminate or reduce collection of sediment in water quality samples; rectifying damage done
during drilling to borehole wall and adjacent formation.
Method Description: In overpumping the well is pumped at a rate that substantially exceeds the ability of the
formation to deliver water. Backwashing often is used in conjunction with overpumping. If the pump does not
have a backflow prevention valve, alternately starting and stopping the pump creates a surging effect where water
is driven back into the formation during the off cycle. Alternatively, water can be added to the well (Figure
A.5a). In bailing, a bailer (Section 53.1) is allowed to fall freely through the borehole until it strikes the surface
of the water. The impact of the bailer produces an outward surge of water through the well screen and filter
pack. As the bailer fills, the flow of water reverses and fines migrate into the well and are brought to the surface
in the bailer. Sediment in the bottom of the well can be mobilized by short rapid strokes of the bailer near the
bottom before retrieving the bailer. Mechanical surging forces water into and out of the well screen by operating
a plunger, called a surge block, which is attached to a drill rod or a wireline (Figure A.5b). The surge block is
lowered to the top of the well intake and operated in a pumping action with strokes typically around 3 feet and
is gradually worked downward through the screened interval. At regular intervals, the surge block is removed
and fines that have entered the well are removed by pumping or with a bailer. Compressed air can be used to
alternately surge and air-lift pump a well to remove sediment. In air surging, injected air lifts the water column
until it reaches the top of the casing and the air supply is shut off, causing an outward surging action in the well
intake. Air lift pumping using compressed air (Figure A.5c) brings water to the surface as described in Section
5.2.4. High velocity jetting uses a single- or multiple-nozzle device, which directs a horizontal stream of water
against the well screen opening (Figure A.5d). The jetting tool is placed near the bottom of the screen and
slowly rotated while being pulled upward. Material that enters the screen in the backwash of the jet stream is
removed by pumping or bailing. Jetting/pumping, which combines jetting with simultaneous pumping, provides
for maximum development efficiency. Two development methods that are used for water wells but are not
recommended for monitoring well development because they introduce contaminants into the aquifer are: (1)
Blasting (used only in solid rock wells), and (2) acidizing (used only in limestone aquifers).
Method Selection Considerations; Overpumping Advantages: (1) Is convenient for small wells or poor aquifers;
(2) minimal time and effort are required; (3) no new fluids are introduced; and (4) removes fluids introduced
during drilling arid fine sediments. Overpumping Disadvantages: (1) Not adequate for large wells; (2) will not
develop maximum efficiency in a well because does not effectively remove fine-grained sediment; (3) tends to
cause sand to bridge in the formations (can be reduced by alternating pump on and pump off); (4) requires the
use of high capacity pumping equipment; (5) can result in a large volume of water to be contained and disposed;
(6) can leave the lower portion of large screen intervals undeveloped; (7) excessive pumping rates can caused
well collapse, especially in deep wells; and (8) equipment for effective overpumping might not fit in small
diameter wells. Backwashing Advantages: (1) Effectively rearranges filter pack; (2) effective in breaking down
bridging; and (3) no new fluids introduced with on-off overpumping. Backwashing Disadvantages: (1) Fine sand,
mud, silt, or clay can be washed into the well or filter pack from the formation; (2) not fully effective unless
combined with surging, bailing, or pumping; (3) large quantities of water are required; (4) unless combined with
pumping or bailing, does not remove drilling fluids; and (5) backwashing with added water introduces fluid into
the well that might alter formation chemistry. Bailing Advantages: (1) No new fluids are introduced into the
aquifer; (2) removes fluids introduced during drilling; (3) removes fines from well; and (4) bailers are easily
obtained and can double as sampling devices. Bailing Disadvantages: (1) Is time-consuming and tiring if done
manually; (2) not as effective as surge blocks; and (3) is not effective in unproductive wells. Mechanical Surging
Advantages: (1) Is low cost; (2) effectively rearranges filter pack; (3) has greater suction action and surging than
backwashing; (4) breaks down bridging in filter pack; (5) no new fluids are introduced; and (6) convenient to use
for cable-tool rigs. Mechanical Surging Disadvantages: (1) Can produce unsatisfactory results when an aquifer
contains clay because the casing or screen can collapse if it becomes plugged with fines; (2) tends to push fine-
grained sediments into the filter pack; (3) unless combined with pumping or bailing, does not remove drilling
A-ll
-------
WaUf
Polypropylene Tube (0.375" O.D.)
(a)
ComprtMMd Air
Jl
0 ° 0 I
• o'. ' U
0 .
o . •
O . 0
0 *
0 '
• o '
. • ^
n " '
Alr-Wtttr
• Mixtura
* o •
« e •
0 0 • .
0 . « . '
•" Nonte-f
• . ° o
0.0*
' o .
o .
I
r
.
1
•
z
:
=
V, .
i
£
\
i
n
:
— ^
• ™
N
~ ™
~ ~
j .
•»- Wt» Semn
• • o •
' 0 • .
o' •
Smd Formation
• o '.
". ' -°
•.•;••'• -°
•":•• T^; '•
.'•'J. .^'o
. • o *
• o
• o ' o . .
- ' • o
. ' o .
o' • o ' .
Air Dtvttoprrwnt
(c)
Water Ports (0.25" O.C
/O O\
(° O °) *"
^y
Air Vent Passage
(0.375" O.D.)
Cross Section
A -A'
.)
h^
ft- Stai
[&- P<
j i
! * '
" i i
i
]
i
i
i
\
i
i
ft*
•*
«-
nless Steel Cable (0,063" O.D.
frule
Stainless Steel Hex Nut (0.63")
**•" Viton Discs (0.05" Thick, 2,1 " O.D. &
0.68 I.D.)
•A'
4- SCH 80 PVC Pipe (1 .90" O.D.)
Top Fitting
• NPT Threading
• Stainless Steel Coupling
(1.325" O.D.)
Stainless Steel Pipe
(1.067" O.D.)
•4- SCH 80 PVC Pipe (1 .90" O.D.)
Bottom Fitting
| |<** Stainless Steel Hex Nut (0.63")
' *J> Air Vent Ports (0.63")
4- Stain ess Steel Tube (0.375" O.D.)
3 ^« Swage Block
(b)
- Continuous Slot Well Screen
Pilfer
•Jet Nozzle !;ir'Si-"
Figure.
Well development methods: (a) bactavashing (U.S. EPA, 1991); (b) specialized surge block (Schalla and
Wedevep ajr ^ EpA> 1991). (d) Wgh^ocity jetting (U.S. EPA, !991).
A-12
-------
fluids; (4) sometimes the well seal can be disturbed when surging; and (5) excessive sand can result in sand-
locking of the surge block. Compressed Air Advantages: It is a rapid method. Compressed Air Disadvantages:
Not recommended for monitoring wells because: (1) Air can become entrained in the filter pack and reduce
permeability; (2) where yield is very weak and drawdown rapid, or submergence is low, other methods will be
more satisfactory; and (3) introduction of air into aquifer can alter chemistry. Jetting Advantages: (1) Simple
to use; (2) effectively rearranges and breaks down bridging in filter pack; (3) effectively removes mud cake
around screen; (4) jetting with simultaneous pumping is particularly successful for wells in unconsolidated sands
and gravels; and (5) jetting/pumping removes sediment from the well before it can settle in the screen and jetting
waters can be recirculated after sediment has been removed at the surface. Jetting Disadvantages: Generally
not recommended because: (1) Foreign water and possible contaminants are introduced to the aquifer; (2) air
blockage can develop with air jetting; (3) air jetting can change water chemistry and biology (iron bacteria) near
well; (4) unless combined with pumping or bailing, does not remove drilling fluids; and (5) jetting with
simultaneous pumping is. not always practicable.
Frequency of Use: Well development in some form should be performed on any monitoring well. Overpumping
and backwashing are probably the most commonly used forms of well development. These methods or bailing
combined with mechanical surging will be the most effective methods for most situations.
Standard Methods/Guidelines: Draft ASTM guide (ASTM, 1993).
Sources for Additional Information: Alter et al. (1991), Barcelona et al. (1983), Barrett et al. (1980), Campbell
and Lehr (1973), Driscoll (1986), GeoTrans (1989), Scalf et al. (1981), Unwin (1982), U.S. EPA (1986). See also,
Table A-l.
A-13
-------
A.6 WELL MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION
Other Names Used to Describe Method: -
Uses at Contaminated Sites: Maintaining monitoring well integrity, restoring monitoring well functions or changes
in the purpose of a well.
Method Description: Maintenance involves the routine, ongoing tasks that ensure a well is a representative
sampling point. This involves full documentation of design and installation of the well and of all subsequent
sampling and other activities involving the well. Routine maintenance activities include: (I) Periodic bail testing
of the well to determine specific capacity (can be done during normal purging for sampling or more fr |