DNAPL Site Characterization Issues at Chlorinated Solvent Sites

  • James W. Mercer
  • Robert M. Cohen
  • Michael R. Noel
Part of the SERDP/ESTCP Environmental Remediation Technology book series (SERDP/ESTCP)


Past releases of chlorinated solvents generally occurred as dense nonaqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs). Because DNAPLs are heavier than water and are sparingly soluble, they pose difficult characterization, remediation and long-term management challenges. At such sites, a distinction is made between the source zone, which includes portions of the subsurface where DNAPL is or was present as a separate phase, and the downgradient plume of dissolved contamination resulting from groundwater flow through the source zone. Site management frequently involves attempting to contain or deplete contamination in both of these areas. During the past two decades, several promising in situ technologies (e.g., chemical oxidation, thermal extraction and cosolvent/surfactant flushing) have been applied at many sites to remove or destroy contaminants in DNAPL source zones. Yet the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Expert Panel on DNAPL Remediation (USEPA, 2003) concluded that:


  1. ASTM D3441 (2005). Standard Method of Deep Quasi-Static Cone and Friction-Cone Penetration Tests of Soil.Google Scholar
  2. ASTM D5314-92 (2006). Standard Guide for Soil Gas Monitoring in the Vadose Zone.Google Scholar
  3. ASTM D5717-95 (1995). Standard Guide for Design of Ground-water Monitoring Systems in Karst and Fractured-rock Aquifers. 1998 Annual Book of ASTM Stardards, vol 04.09, pp 439–455.Google Scholar
  4. ASTM D5753-05. Standard Guide for Planning and Conducting Borehole Geophysical Logging.Google Scholar
  5. ASTM D5777-00 (2006). Standard Guide for Using the Seismic Refraction Method for Subsurface Investigation.Google Scholar
  6. ASTM D6001-05. Standard Guide for Direct-Push Water Sampling for Geoenvironmental Investigations.Google Scholar
  7. ASTM D6067-96 (2003). Standard Guide for Using the Electronic Cone Penetrometer for Environmental Site Characterization.Google Scholar
  8. ASTM D6167-97 (2004). Standard Guide for Conducting Borehole Geophysical Logging: Mechanical Caliper.Google Scholar
  9. ASTM D6187-97 (2003). Standard Practice for Cone Penetrometer Technology Characterization of Petroleum Contaminated Sites with Nitrogen Laser-Induced Fluorescence.Google Scholar
  10. ASTM D6274-98 (2004). Standard Guide for Conducting Borehole Geophysical Logging-Gamma.Google Scholar
  11. ASTM D6282-98 (2005). Standard Guide for Direct Push Soil Sampling for Environmental Site Characterizations.Google Scholar
  12. ASTM D6286-98 (2006). Standard Guide for Selection of Drilling Methods for Environmental Site Characterization.Google Scholar
  13. ASTM D6429-99 (2006). Standard Guide for Selecting Surface Geophysical Methods.Google Scholar
  14. ASTM D6431-99 (2005). Standard Guide for Using the Direct Current Resistivity Method for Subsurface Investigation.Google Scholar
  15. ASTM D6432-99 (2005). Standard Guide for Using the Surface Ground Penetrating Radar Method for Subsurface Investigation.Google Scholar
  16. ASTM D6639-01 (2008). Standard Guide for Using the Frequency Domain Electromagnetic Method for Subsurface Investigations.Google Scholar
  17. ASTM D6724-04. Standard Guide for Installation of Direct Push Ground Water Monitoring Wells.Google Scholar
  18. ASTM D6725-04. Practice for Direct Push Installation of Pre-Packed Screen Monitoring Wells in Unconsolidated Aquifers.Google Scholar
  19. ASTM D6726-01 (2007). Standard Guide for Conducting Borehole Geophysical Logging-Electromagnetic Induction.Google Scholar
  20. ASTM D6727-01 (2007). Standard Guide for Conducting Borehole Geophysical Logging-Neutron.Google Scholar
  21. ASTM, D6771-02. Standard Practice for Low-Flow Purging and Sampling and Devices Used for Ground-Water Quality Investigations.Google Scholar
  22. ASTM D7128-05. Standard Guide for Using the Seismic-Reflection Method for Shallow Subsurface Investigation.Google Scholar
  23. ASTM D6820-02 (2007). Standard Guide for Use of the Time Domain Electromagnetic Method for Subsurface Investigation.Google Scholar
  24. ASTM D7242-06. Standard Practice for Field Pneumatic Slug (Instantaneous Change in Head) Tests to Determine Hydraulic Properties of Aquifers with Direct Push Ground Water Samplers.Google Scholar


  1. Adams ML, Herridge B, Sinclair N, Fox T, Perry C. 1998. 3-D seismic reflection surveys for direct detection of DNAPL. Proceedings, First International Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds, Monterey, CA. Battelle Press, Columbus, OH, USA, pp 155–160.Google Scholar
  2. Allen D. 2004. A review of geophysical equipment applied to groundwater and soil investigations. Report to the Australian National Committee on Irrigation and Drainage, Mawson, Australia.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson MR, Johnson RL, Pankow JF. 1992. Dissolution of dense immiscible solvents into groundwater: Laboratory experiments involving a well-defined residual source. Ground Water 30:250–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Annable MD, Rao PSC, Hatfield K, Graham WD, Wood AL, Enfield CG. 1998. Partitioning tracers for measuring residual NAPL: Field-scale test result. J Environ Eng 124:901–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Annable MD, Hatfield K, Cho J, Klammler H, Parker BL, Cherry JA, Rao PSC. 2005. Field-scale evaluation of the passive flux meter for simultaneous measurement of groundwater and contaminant fluxes. Environ Sci Technol 39:7194–7201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Amott E. 1959. Observations relating to the wettability of porous rock. Trans AIME 216:156–162.Google Scholar
  7. Atekwana EA, Cassidy DP, Magnuson C, Endres AL, Werkema D, Sauck WA. 2001. Changes in geoelectrical properties accompanying microbial degradation of LNAPL. Proceedings, Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems (SAGEEP), Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society, Denver, CO, USA, March 4–7.Google Scholar
  8. Atekwana EA, Sauck WA, Abdel Aal ZG, Werkema DD. 2002. Geophysical investigation of vadose zone conductivity anomalies at a hydrocarbon contaminated site: Implications for the assessment of intrinsic bioremediation. J Environ Eng Geophys 7:103–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Atekwana EA, Atekwana EA, Rowe RS. 2003. Relationship between total dissolved solids and bulk conductivity at a hydrocarbon contaminated aquifer. Proceedings, SAGEEP, San Antonio, TX, USA, April 6–10, pp 228–237.Google Scholar
  10. Atekwana EA, Atekwana EA, Werkema DD, Allen JP, Smart LA, Duris JW, Cassidy DP, Sauck WA, Rossback S. 2004. Evidence for microbial enhanced electrical conductivity in hydrocarbon-contaminated eediments. Geophys Res Letters 31:L23501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bayer-Raich M, Jarsjö J, Liedl R, Ptak T, Teutsch G. 2006. Integral pumping test analyses of linearly sorbed groundwater contaminants using multiple wells: Inferring mass flows and natural attenuation rates. Water Resour Res 42:W08411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bear J. 1972. Dynamics of Fluids in Porous Media. American Elsevier, New York, NY, USA. 764 p.Google Scholar
  13. Beck Jr FP, Clark PJ, Puls RW. 2000. Location and characterization of subsurface anomalies using a soil conductivity probe. Ground Water Monit Remediat 20:55–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Benson R, Glaccum RA, Noel MR. 1982. Geophysical Techniques for Sensing Buried Wastes and Waste Migration. National Groundwater Association, Dublin, OH, USA.Google Scholar
  15. Bermejo JL, Sauck WA, Atekwana EA. 1997. Geophysical discovery of a new LNAPL plume at the former Wurtsmith AFB, Oscoda, MI. Ground Water Monit Remediat 17:131–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Berzins NA. 1993. Use of the cone penetration test and BAT groundwater monitoring system to assess deficiencies in monitoring well data. Proceedings, Sixth National Outdoor Action Conference, National Ground Water Association, Columbus, OH, USA, pp 327–340.Google Scholar
  17. Bockelmann A, Ptak T, Teutsch G. 2001. An analytical quantification of mass fluxes and natural attenuation rate constants at a former gasworks site. J Contam Hydrol 53:429–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Boman GK, Molz FJ, Boone KD. 1997. Borehole flowmeter application in fluvial sediments: Methodology, results, and assessment. Ground Water 35:443–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Brewster ML, Annan AP. 1994. Ground-penetrating radar monitoring of a controlled DNAPL release: 200 MHz radar. Geophysics 59:1211–1221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Brewster ML, Annan AP, Greenhouse JP, Kueper BH, Olhoeft GR, Redman JD, Sander KA. 1995. Observed migration of a controlled DNAPL release by geophysical methods. Ground Water 33:977–987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Brooks RH, Annable MC, Rao PSC, Hatfield K, Jawitz JW, Wise WR, Wood AL, Enfield CG. 2002. Controlled release, blind tests of DNAPL characterization using partitioning tracers. J Contam Hydrol 59:187–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Brusseau ML, Bronson KM, Ross S, Nelson NT, Carlson TD. 2003. Application of gas-phase partitioning tracer tests to characterize immiscible-liquid contamination in the vadose zone beneath a fuel depot. Vadose Zone J 2:148–153.Google Scholar
  23. Butler Jr JJ, Lanier AA, Healey JM, Sellwood SM. 2000. Direct-push Hydraulic Profiling in an Unconsolidated Alluvial Aquifer. Kansas Geological Survey Open File Report 2000–62, Lawrence, KS, USA.Google Scholar
  24. Butler Jr JJ, Healy JM, McCall GW, Garnett EJ, Loheid II P. 2002. Hydraulic tests with direct-push equipment. Ground Water 40:25–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Butler Jr JJ, Dietrich P, Wittig V, Christy T. 2007. Characterizing hydraulic conductivity with the direct-push permeameter. Ground Water 45:409–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Chapman SW, Parker BL. 2005. Plume persistence due to back diffusion following dense nonaqueous phase liquid source removal or isolation. Water Resour Res 41:W12411.Google Scholar
  27. Chiang CY, Loos KR, Klopp RA. 1992. Field determination of geological-chemical properties of an aquifer by cone penetrometry and headspace analysis. Ground Water 30:428–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Cho JS, Wilson JT, Beck Jr FP. 2000. Measuring vertical profiles of hydraulic conductivity with in-situ direct push methods. J Environ Eng 126:775–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Christy T. 1996. A permeable membrane sensor for the detection of volatile compounds in soil. Proceedings, National Groundwater Association’s Outdoor Action Conference, Las Vegas, NV, USA, May. 8 p.Google Scholar
  30. Cohen RM, Mercer JW. 1993. DNAPL Site Evaluation. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA. 314 p.Google Scholar
  31. Cohen RM, Bryda AP, Shaw ST, Spalding CP. 1992. Evaluation of visual methods to detect NAPL in soil and water. Ground Water Monit Rev 12:132–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Corey AT. 1986. Mechanics of Immiscible Fluids in Porous Media. Water Resources Publications, Littleton, CO, USA. 255 p.Google Scholar
  33. Crimi ML, Siegrist RL. 2003. Geochemical effects associated with permanganate oxidation of DNAPLs. Ground Water 41:458–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Crumbling DN. 2001. Current Perspectives in Site Remediation and Monitoring: Using the Triad Approach to Improve the Cost-effectiveness of Hazardous Waste Site Cleanup. EPA 542-R-01-016. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Washington, DC, USA. 8 p.Google Scholar
  35. Crumbling DN, Groenjes C, Lesnik B, Lynch K, Shockley J, Van EE J, Howe R, Keith L, McKenna J. 2001. Managing uncertainty in environmental decisions. Environ Sci Technol 35:404A–409A.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Dai DF, Barranco Jr FT, Illangasekare TH. 2001. Partitioning and interfacial tracers for differentiating NAPL entrapment configuration: Column study investigation. Environ Sci Technol 34:4894–4899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Davis BM, Istok JD, Semprini L. 2002. Push-pull partitioning tracer tests using radon-222 to quantify nonaqueous phase liquid contamination. J Contam Hydrol 58:129–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Davis BM, Istok JD, Semprini L. 2003. Static and push-pull methods using radon-222 to characterize dense nonaqueous phase liquid saturations. Ground Water 41:470–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Davis E, Akladiss N, Hoey R, Brandon B, Nalipinski M, Carroll S, Heron G, Novakowski K, Udell K. 2005. Steam Enhanced Remediation Research for DNAPL in Fractured Rock, Loring Air Force Base, Limestone, Maine. EPA/540/R-05/10. USEPA, Cincinnati, OH, USA.Google Scholar
  40. Devitt DA, Evans RB, Jury WA, Starks TH, Eklund B, Ghoulson A. 1987. Soil Gas Sensing for Detection and Mapping of Volatile Organics. EPA/600/8-87/036. USEPA Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas, NV, USA.Google Scholar
  41. Einarson MD. 1995. Enviro-Core™: A new vibratory direct-push technology for collecting continuous soil cores. Proceedings, Ninth National Outdoor Action Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada. National Ground Water Association, Columbus, OH, USA.Google Scholar
  42. Einarson MD. 2005. Multilevel Ground-water Monitoring. In Nielson DM, ed, Practical Handbook of Environmental Site Characterization and Ground-Water Monitoring, 2nd ed. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA, pp 807–848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Einarson MD, Cherry JA. 2002. A new multilevel ground water monitoring system using multichannel tubing. Ground Water Monit Remediat 22:52–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Einarson MD, Mackay DM. 2001. Predicting impacts of groundwater contamination. Environ Sci Technol 35:66A–73A.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Einarson MD, Schirmer M, Pezeshkpour P, Mackay DM, Wilson RD. 2000. Comparison of eight innovative site characterization tools used to investigate an MTBE plume at Site 60, Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. Proceedings, 1999 Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Organic Chemicals in Ground Water: Prevention, Detection and Remediation Conference, National Ground Water Association, Westerville, OH, USA, November 17–19, pp 147–157.Google Scholar
  46. Endres AL, Greenhouse JP. 1996. Detection and monitoring of chlorinated solvent contamination by thermal neutron logging. Ground Water 34:283–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. ESTCP (Environmental Security Technology Certification Program). 2008. Demonstration/ Validation of Long-Term Monitoring Using Wells Installed by Direct Push Technologies. ER-0011 Cost and Performance Report. ESTCP, Arlington, VA, USA. 43 p.Google Scholar
  48. Farhat SK, Newell CJ, Nichols EM. 2006. Mass Flux Toolkit. Prepared for the ESTCP, Arlington, VA, USA. http://www.estcp.org/viewfile.cfm?Doc=ER%2D0430%2DMassFluxToolkit%2Epdf. Accessed August 4, 2009.
  49. Feenstra S, Cherry JA. 1996. Diagnosis and Assessment of DNAPL Sites. In Pankow JF, Cherry JA, eds, Dense Chlorinated Solvents and other DNAPLs in Groundwater. Waterloo Press, Portland, OR, USA, pp 395–473.Google Scholar
  50. Feenstra S, Mackay DM, Cherry JA. 1991. A method for assessing residual NAPL based on organic chemical concentrations in soil samples. Ground Water Monit Rev 11:128–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Feenstra S, Cherry JA, Parker BL. 1996. Conceptual Models for the Behavior of DNAPLs in the Subsurface. In Pankow JF, Cherry JA, eds, Dense Chlorinated Solvents and other DNAPLs in Groundwater. Waterloo Press, Portland, OR, USA, pp 53–88.Google Scholar
  52. Goldstein KJ, Vitolins AR, Navon D, Parker BL, Chapman SW, Anderson GA. 2004. Characterization and pilot-scale studies for chemical oxidation remediation of fractured shale. Remediat J 14:19–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Gradient/GeoTrans. 1988. Potential Contaminant Loadings to the Niagara River from U.S. Hazardous Waste Sites. Report to USEPA Region II, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  54. Griffin T, Watson K. 2002a. DNAPL site characterization: A comparison of field techniques. Proceedings, Third International Conference Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds, Monterey, CA, USA, May 20–23. Battelle Press, Columbus, OH, USA. Paper 1E-01.Google Scholar
  55. Griffin TW, Watson KW. 2002b. Comparison of field techniques for confirming dense nonaqueous phase liquids. Ground Water Monit Remediat 22:48–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Guilbeault MA, Parker BL, Cherry JA. 2005. Mass and flux distributions from DNAPL zones in sandy aquifers. Ground Water 43:70–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Haeni FP. 1986. Application of seismic refraction methods in groundwater modeling studies in New England. Geophys 51:236–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Haeni FP. 1988. Application of Seismic-Refraction Techniques to Hydrologic Studies. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations. Book 2, Chapter D2, 86 p.Google Scholar
  59. Haeni FP, Halleux L, Johnson CD, Lane Jr JW. 2002. Detection and mapping of fractures and cavities using borehole radar. Proceedings, Fractured Rock 2002, Denver, CO, USA, March 13–15. National Ground Water Association, Westerville, OH, USA, pp 80–83.Google Scholar
  60. Harrington GA, Hendry MJ. 2006. Using direct-push EC logging to characterize heterogeneity in a clay aquitard. Ground Water Monit Remediat 26:92–100.Google Scholar
  61. Hatfield K, Annable MD, Kuhn S, Rao PS, Campbell T. 2001. A new method for quantifying contaminant flux at hazardous waste sites. Proceedings, GQ2001 Conference, Sheffield, UK, June 18–21.Google Scholar
  62. Hatfield K, Annable M, Cho J, Rao PSC, Klammler H. 2004. A direct passive method for measuring water and contaminant fluxes in porous media. J Contam Hydrol 75:155–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Hinsby K, Bjerg PL, Anderson LJ, Skov B, Clausen EV. 1992. A mini slug test method for determination of a local hydraulic conductivity of an unconfined sandy aquifer. J Hydrol 136:87–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Hoekstra P, Lahti R, Hild J, Bates CR, Philips D. 1992. Case histories of shallow time domain electromagnetics in environmental assessment. Ground Water Monit Rev 13:110–117.Google Scholar
  65. Hohener P, Surbeck H. 2004. Radon-222 as a tracer for nonaqueous phase liquid in the vadose zone: Experiments and analytical model. Vadose Zone J 3:1276–1285.Google Scholar
  66. Honarpour ML, Koederitz L, Harvey AH. 1986. Relative Permeability of Petroleum Reservoirs. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA. 143 p.Google Scholar
  67. Howard PH, Meylan WM. 1997. Handbook of Physical Properties of Organic Compounds. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA. 1585 p.Google Scholar
  68. Imhoff PT, Pirestani K, Jafarpour Y, Spivey KM. 2003. Tracer interaction effects during partitioning tracer tests for NAPL detection. Environ Sci Technol 37:1441–1447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Istok JD, Field JA, Schroth MH, Davis BM, Dwarakanath V. 2002. Single-well “push-pull” partitioning tracer test for NAPL detection in the subsurface. Environ Sci Technol 36:2708–2716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. ITRC (Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council). 2000. Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids (DNAPLs): Review of Emerging Characterization and Remediation Technologies. ITRC, Washington, DC, USA. http://www.itrcweb.org/Documents/DNAPLs-1.pdf. Accessed August 4, 2009.
  71. ITRC. 2003. An Introduction to Characterizing Sites Contaminated with DNAPLs. ITRC, Washington, DC, USA. http://www.itrcweb.org/Documents/DNAPLs-4.pdf. Accessed August 5, 2009.
  72. ITRC. 2006a. The Use of Direct-Push Well Technology for Long-term Environmental Monitoring in Groundwater Investigations. ITRC, Washington, DC, USA. http://www.itrcweb.org/Documents/SCM_2_Execsum.pdf. Accessed August 5, 2009.Google Scholar
  73. ITRC. 2006b. Technology Overview of Passive Sampler Technologies. ITRC, Washington, DC, USA. http://www.itrcweb.org/Documents/DSP_4.pdf. Accessed August 5, 2009.
  74. Jalbert M, Dane JH, Bahaminyakamwe L. 2003. Influence of porous medium and NAPL distribution heterogeneities on partitioning inter-well tracer tests: A laboratory investigation. J Hydrol 272:72–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Jin M, Delshad M, Dwarakanath V, McKinney DC, Pope GA, Sepehrnoori K, Tilburg CE. 1995. Partitioning tracer test for detection, estimation, and remediation performance assessment of subsurface nonaqueous phase liquids. Water Resour Res 31:1201–1212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Jin M, Butler GW, Jackson RE, Mariner PE, Pickens JF, Pope GA, Brown CL, McKinney DC. 1997. Sensitivity models and design protocol for partitioning tracer tests in alluvial aquifers. Ground Water 35:964–972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Johnson CD, Joesten PK. 2005. Analysis of Borehole-radar Reflection Data from Machiasport, Maine, December 2003. USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5087. USGS, Reston, VA, USA. 38 p.Google Scholar
  78. Johnson RL, Pankow JF. 1992. Dissolution of dense immiscible solvents in groundwater: 2. Dissolution from pools of solvent and implications of the remediation of solvent-contaminated site. Environ Sci Technol 26:896–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Kavanaugh MC, Rao PSC, Abriola L, Cherry J, Destouni G, Falta R, Major D, Mercer J, Newell C, Sale T, Shoemaker S, Siegrist RL, Teutsch G, Udell K. 2003. The DNAPL Cleanup Challenge: Source Removal or Long Term Management. EPA/600/R-03/143. Report of an expert panel to the USEPA National Risk Management and Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH, USA. 129 p.Google Scholar
  80. Keller C. 2004. How to locate and flow test every major fracture in a borehole in one hour. Proceedings, USEPA/National Ground Water Association (NGWA) Fractured Rock State of the Science Conference, Portland, ME, USA, September 13–15, pp 801–808.Google Scholar
  81. Keys WS. 1990. Borehole Geophysics Applied to Water-resources Investigations. USGS Techniques of Water Resources Investigations, Book 2, Chapter E2. 150 p.Google Scholar
  82. Keys WS. 1997. A Practical Guide to Borehole Geophysics in Environmental Investigations. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA. 176 p.Google Scholar
  83. King MWG, Barker JF, Devlin JF, Butler BJ. 1999. Migration and natural fate of a coal tar creosote plume: 2. Mass balance and biodegradation indicators. J Contam Hydrol 39:281–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Kinner NE, Masters RW, Fournier LB. 2005. Fractured Rock: State of the Science and Measuring Success in Remediation. September. http://www.clu-in.org/download/remed/fractured_rock_summary.pdf. Accessed July 7, 2009.
  85. Kram ML, Keller AA. 2003a. Complex NAPL site characterization using fluorescence, Part 2: Analysis of soil matrix effects on the excitation/mission matrix. Soil Sedim Contam 13:119–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Kram ML, Keller AA. 2003b. Complex NAPL site characterization using fluorescence, Part 3: Detection capabilities for specific excitation sources. Soil and Sedim Contam 13:135–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Kram ML, Keller AA, Rossabi J, Everett LG. 2001a. DNAPL characterization methods and approaches, Part 1: Performance comparisons. Ground Water Monit Remediat 21:109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Kram ML, Lieberman SH, Fee J, Keller AA. 2001b. Use of LIF for real-time in-situ mixed NAPL source zone detection. Ground Water Monit Remediat 21:67–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Kram ML, Lorenzana D, Michaelson J, Lory E. 2001c. Performance Comparison: Direct-Push Wells Versus Drilled Wells. Technical Report TR-2120-ENV. Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NFESC), Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  90. Kram ML, Keller AA, Rossabi J, Everett LG. 2002. DNAPL characterization methods and approaches, Part 2: Cost comparisons. Ground Water Monit Remediat 22:46–61.Google Scholar
  91. Kram ML, Keller AA, Massick SM, Laverman LE. 2003. Complex NAPL site characterization using fluorescence, Part 1: Selection of excitation wavelength based on NAPL composition. Soil Sedim Contam 13:103–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Kueper BH, Frind EO. 1991. Two-phase flow in heterogeneous porous media, 1. Model development. Water Resour Res 27:1049–1058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Kueper BH, Wealthall GP, Smith JWN, Leharne SA, Lerner DN. 2003. An Illustrated Handbook of DNAPL Transport and Fate in the Subsurface. United Kingdom Environment Agency R&D Publication 133, Bristol, UK. 67 p.Google Scholar
  94. Lane Jr JW, Haeni FP, Williams JH. 1994. Detection of bedrock fractures and lithologic changes using borehole radar at selected sites. Proceedings, Fifth International Conference on Ground-Penetrating Radar, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, Waterloo Centre for Groundwater Research, pp 577–591.Google Scholar
  95. Lane Jr JW, Haeni FP, Soloyanis S, Piaczek G, Williams JH, Johnson CD, Buursink ML, Joesten PK, Knutson KD. 1996. Geophysical characterization of a fractured-bedrock aquifer and blast-fractured contaminant-recovery trench. Proceedings, Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems, Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society, Keystone, CO, USA, April 28–May 2, pp 429–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Lane Jr JW, Buursink ML, Haeni FP, Versteeg RJ. 2000. Evaluation of ground-penetrating radar to detect free-phase hydrocarbons in fractured rocks: Results of numerical models and physical experiments. Ground Water 38:929–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Lieberman SH. 2001a. Site Characterization and Analysis Penetrometer System (SCAPS). May 9. Presentation, USEPA Technical Support Project. http://www.epa.gov/tio/tsp/download/lieberman.pdf. Accessed July 7, 2009.
  98. Lieberman SH. 2001b. Subsurface soil analysis using an in situ video imaging system. USEPA Tech Trends, November. http://www.clu-in.org/products/newsltrs/ttrend/view.cfm?issue=tt1101.htm. Accessed July 8, 2009.
  99. Londergan JT, Meinardus HW, Mariner PE, Jackson RE, Brown CL. 2001. DNAPL removal from a heterogeneous alluvial aquifer by surfactant-enhanced aquifer remediation. Ground Water Monit Remediat 21:57–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Lunne T, Robertson PK, Powell JJM. 1997. Cone Penetration Testing in Geotechnical Practice. Blackie Academic and Professional, Chapman and Hall, London, UK. 312 p.Google Scholar
  101. Lutenegger AJ, DeGroot DJ. 1995. Techniques for sealing cone penetrometer holes. Canadian Geotech J 32:880–891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Mariner PE, Jin M, Jackson RE. 1997. An algorithm for the estimation of NAPL saturation and composition from typical soil chemical analyses. Ground Water Monit Remediat 17:122–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Mariner PE, Jin M, Studer JE, Pope GA. 1999. The first vadose zone partitioning interwell tracer test for nonaqueous phase liquid and water residual. Environ Sci Technol 33: 2825–2828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Marrin DL. 1987. Soil gas analysis of methane and carbon dioxide: Delineating and monitoring petroleum hydrocarbons. Proceedings, Conference of Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Organic Chemicals in Ground Water, NGWA/American Petroleum Institute (API), Houston, TX, USA, pp 357–366.Google Scholar
  105. Marrin DL. 1988. Soil gas sampling and misinterpretation. Ground Water Monit Rev 7:51–54.Google Scholar
  106. Marrin DL, Kerfoot HB. 1988. Soil gas surveying techniques. Environ Sci Technol 22:740–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Marrin DL, Thompson GM. 1987. Gaseous behavior of TCE overlying a contaminated aquifer. Ground Water 25:21–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. McCall W, Butler Jr JJ, Healey JM, Lanier AA, Sellwood SM, Garnett EJ. 2002. A dual-tube direct-push method for vertical profiling of hydraulic conductivity in unconsolidated formations. Environ Eng Geosci 8:75–84.Google Scholar
  109. McCall W, Nielson DM, Farrington SP, Christy TM, 2005. Use of direct-push technologies in environmental site investigations. In Nielson DM, ed, Practical Handbook of Environmental Site Characterization and Ground-Water Monitoring, 2nd ed. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA, pp 345–472.Google Scholar
  110. McCray JE, Cohen RM. 2003. Software spotlight, NAPLANAL: A software package for the estimation of NAPL saturation and composition from typical soil chemical analyses. Ground Water 41:298–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. McNeill JD. 1990. Use of Electromagnetic Methods for Groundwater Studies. Geotechnical and Environmental Geophysics, Vol 1. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, OK, USA, pp 191–218.Google Scholar
  112. Meinardus HW, Dwarakanath V, Ewing J, Hirasaki GJ, Jackson RE, Jin M, Ginn JS, Londergran JT, Miller CA, Pope GA. 2002. Performance assessment of DNAPL remediation in heterogeneous alluvium. J Contam Hydrol 54:173–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Mercer JW, Cohen RM. 2003. DNAPL Detection and Characterization Techniques. Seminar Presentation to Naval Facilitites Engineering Command and Service.Google Scholar
  114. Mercer JW, Toth JP, Erickson JR, Slenska M, Brourman M. 2006. DNAPL source evaluation at a portion of the Cabot Carbon/Koppers Superfund Site. Proceedings, First International Conference on DNAPL Characterization and Remediation, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, September 25–28.Google Scholar
  115. Molz FJ, Guven O, Hess AE, Melville JG, Cardone C. 1989. The impeller meter for measuring aquifer permeability variations: Evaluations and comparison with other tests. Water Resour Res 25:1677–1683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Moreno-Barbero E, Illangasekare TH. 2006. Influence of dense nonaqueous phase liquid pool morphology on the performance of partitioning tracer tests: Evaluation of the equilibrium assumption. Water Resour Res 42:W04408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Mott HV. 1995. A model for determination of phase distribution of petroleum hydrocarbons at release sites. Ground Water Monit Remediat 15:157–167.Google Scholar
  118. MPCA (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency). 2005. Ground Water Investigations in Karst Areas. MPCA Guidance Document 4-09. 16 p.Google Scholar
  119. Murray C, Keiswetter D, Rostosky E. 1999. Seismic refraction case studies at environmental sites. Proceedings, Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems, March 14–18, Oakland, CA, USA, pp 235–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Myers KF, Davis WM, Costanza J. 2002. Tri-Service Site Characterization and Analysis Penetrometer System Validation of the Membrane Interface Probe. ERDC/EL TR-02-16. USACE Engineer Research and Development Center Environmental, Vicksburg, MS, USA. 62 p.Google Scholar
  121. NAVFAC (Naval Facilities Engineering Command). 1999. Cost and Performance Report–High-Resolution Seismic Reflection to Locate DNAPL Source Zones at Hazardous Waste Sites. Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center (NFESC) Report TR-2110-ENV. NFESC, Port Hueneme, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  122. Nelson NT, Oostrom M, Wietsma TW, Brusseau ML. 1999. Partitioning tracer method for in situ measurement of DNAPL saturation: Influence of heterogeneity and sampling method. Environ Sci Technol 33:4046–4053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Newell CJ, Ross RR. 1992. Estimating Potential for Occurrence of DNAPL at Superfund Sites. USEPA Quick Reference Fact Sheet, Publication 9355.4-07FS. USEPA Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada, OK, USA. 10 p.Google Scholar
  124. Newhouse MW, Izbicki JA, Smith GA. 2005. Comparison of velocity-log data collected using impeller and electromagnetic flowmeters. Ground Water 43:434–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. O’Hara SK, Parker BL, Jørgensen PR, Cherry JA. 2000. Trichloroethene DNAPL flow and mass distribution in naturally fractured clay: Evidence of aperture variability. Water Resour Res 36:135–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Paillet FL. 1998. Flow modeling and permeability estimation using borehole flow logs in heterogeneous fractured formations. Water Resour Res 34:997–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Paillet FL. 2000. A field technique for estimating aquifer parameters using flow log data. Ground Water 38:510–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Paillet FL. 2001. Hydraulic-head applications of flow logs in the study of heterogenous aquifers. Ground Water 39:667–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Paillet FL. 2004. Borehole flowmeter applications in irregular and large-diameter boreholes. J Applied Geophysics 55:39–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Paillet FL, Reese RS. 2000. Integrating borehole logs and aquifer tests in aquifer characterization. Ground Water 38:713–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Pankow JF, Cherry JA. 1996. Dense Chlorinated Solvents and other DNAPLs in Groundwater. Waterloo Press, Portland, OR, USA. 522 p.Google Scholar
  132. Parker BL, Gillham RW, Cherry JA. 1994. Diffusive disappearance of immiscible phase organic liquids in fractured geologic media. Ground Water 32:805–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Parker BL, McWhorter DB, Cherry JA. 1997. Diffusive loss of non-aqueous phase organic solvents from idealized fracture networks in geologic media. Ground Water 35:1077–1088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Parker BL, Cherry JA, Chapman SW, Guilbeault MA. 2003. Review and analysis of chlorinated solvent DNAPL distributions in five sandy aquifers. Vadose Zone J 2:116–137.Google Scholar
  135. Parker BL, Cherry JA, Chapman SW. 2004. Field study of TCE diffusion profiles below DNAPL to assess aquitard integrity. J Contam Hydrol 74:197–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Parsons. 2005. Results Report for the Demonstration of No-purge Groundwater Sampling Devices at Former McClellan Air Force Base, California. U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence and Air Force Real Property Agency, Contract F44650-99D0005.Google Scholar
  137. Pitkin SE, Rossi MD. 2000. A real time indicator of hydraulic conductivity distribution used to select groundwater sampling depths (abstract). EOS 81:S239.Google Scholar
  138. Pitkin SE, Cherry JA, Ingleton RA, Broholm MM. 1999. Field demonstrations using the Waterloo ground water profiler. Ground Water Monit Remediat 19:122–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. Powers SE, Anckner WH, Seacord TF. 1996. Wettability of NAPL-contaminated sands. J Environ Eng 122:889–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. Ptak T, Teutsch G. 2000. Development and application of an integral investigation method for characterizing groundwater contamination. In Contaminated Soil (ConSoil), Thomas Telford, Leipzig, Germany, pp 198–205.Google Scholar
  141. Puls RW, Barcelona MJ. 1996. Ground Water Issue: Low-Flow (Minimal Drawdown) Ground Water Sampling Procedures. EPA/540/S-95/504. USEPA Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada, OK, USA.Google Scholar
  142. Rao PSC, Annable MD, Kim H. 2000. NAPL Source zone characterization and remediation technology poerformance assessment: Recent developments and application of tracer techniques. J Contam Hydrol 45:63–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Reynolds JM. 1997. An Introduction to Applied and Environmental Geophysics. John Wiley, New York, NY, USA. 796 p.Google Scholar
  144. Rivett MO. 1995. Soil-gas signatures from volatile chlorinated solvents: Borden field experiments. Ground Water 33:84–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. Robertson PK, Campanella RG. 1986. Guidelines for Use and Interpretation of the Electronic Cone Penetration Test, 3rd ed. The University of British Columbia, Department of Civil Engineering, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.Google Scholar
  146. Sale TC, McWhorter DB. 2001. Steady state mass transfer from single-component DNAPLs in uniform flow field. Water Resour Res 37:393–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. Sauck WA. 2000. A model for resistivity structure of LNAPL plumes and their environs in sandy sediments. J Applied Geophysics 44:151–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. Schubert M, Freyer K, Treutler HC, Weiss H. 2002. Using radon-222 in soil gas as an indicator of subsurface contamination by non-aqueous phase-liquids (NAPLs). Geofisica Internacional 41:433–437.Google Scholar
  149. Schulmeister MK, Butler Jr JJ, Healey JM, Zheng L, Wysocki DA. 2003. Direct-push electrical conductivity logging for high-resolution hydrostratigraphic characterization. Ground Water Monit Remediat 23:52–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. Sellwood SM, Healey JM, Birk S, Butler Jr JJ. 2005. Direct-push hydrostratigraphic profiling: Coupling electrical logging and slug tests. Ground Water 43:19–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. Semprini L, Kitandis PK, Kampbell DH, Wilson JR. 1995. Anaerobic transformation of chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons in a sand aquifer based on spatial chemical distribution. Water Resour Res 31:1051–1062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. Semprini L, Cantaloub M, Gottipati S, Hopkins O, Istok J. 1998. Radon-222 as a tracer for quantifying and monitoring NAPL remediation. Proceedings, First International Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds. Non-Aqueous-Phase Liquids. Battelle Press, Columbus, OH, USA, pp 137–142.Google Scholar
  153. Semprini L, Hopkins OS, Tasker BR. 2000. Laboratory, field and modeling studies of radon-222 as a natural tracer for monitoring NAPL contamination. Transp Porous Media 38:223–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. SERDP (Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program). 2006. SERDP and ESTCP Expert Panel Workshop on Reducing the Uncertainty of DNAPL Source Zone Remediation. Final Report. SERDP, Arlington, VA, USA. 198 p.Google Scholar
  155. Siegrist RL, Urynowicz MA, West OR, Crimi ML, Lowe KS. 2001. Principles and Practices of In Situ Chemical Oxidation Using Permanganate. Battelle Press, Columbus, OH, USA. 336 p.Google Scholar
  156. Singha K, Kimball K, Lane Jr JW. 2000. Borehole-Radar Methods: Tools for Characterization of Fractured Rock. USGS Fact Sheet 054–00. http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/bgas/publications/FS-054-00/. Accessed August 5, 2009.
  157. Starr RC, Ingleton RA. 1992. A new method for collecting core samples without a drilling rig. Ground Water Monit Rev 12:91–95.Google Scholar
  158. Steimle R. 2002. The state of the practice: Characterizing and remediating contaminated groundwater at fractured rock sites. Remediat J 12:23–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  159. Sterling SN, Parker BL, Cherry JA, Williams JH, Lane Jr JW, Haeni FP. 2005. Vertical cross contamination of trichloroethylene in a borehole in fractured sandstone. Ground Water 43:557–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  160. Taucher P, Fuller BN. 1994. Refraction statics method for mapping bedrock. Ground Water 32:895–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  161. Temples TJ, Waddell MG, Domoracki WJ, Eyer J. 2001. Noninvasive determination of the location and distribution of DNAPL using advanced seismic reflection techniques. Ground Water 39:465–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  162. Terzaghi K, Peck RB. 1948. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, USA; Chapman and Hall, London, UK. 566 p.Google Scholar
  163. Thompson P, Baker P, Colkin S, Forbes P. 2004. The regional bedrock structure at Loring Air Force Base, Limestone, Maine: The unifying model for the study of basewide groundwater contamination. Proceedings, USEPA/NGWA Fractured Rock State of the Science Conference, September 13–15, Portland, ME, USA, pp 252–265.Google Scholar
  164. USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1995. Geophysical Exploration for Engineering and Environmental Investigations. USACE Manual EM 1110-1-1802.Google Scholar
  165. USDOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2000a. Tomographic Site Characterization Using CPT, ERT, and GPR. Innovative Technology Summary Report DOE/EM-0517.Google Scholar
  166. USDOE. 2000b. Electrical Resistance Tomography for Subsurface Imaging. Innovative Technology Summary Report DOE/EM-0538.Google Scholar
  167. USDOE. 2000c. Electromagnetic Surveys for 3-D Imaging of Subsurface Contaminants. Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP), Arlington, VA, USA.Google Scholar
  168. USDOE. 2002. Induced Fluorescence Sensors for Direct Push Systems. Innovation Technology Summary Report DOE/EM-0638. USDOE, Office of Science and Technology, Washington, DC, USA. 39 p.Google Scholar
  169. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1993. Use of Airborne, Surface, and Borehole Geophysical Techniques at Contaminated Sites: A Reference Guide. EPA 625/R-92/007. USEPA Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  170. USEPA. 1997a. Chapter III: Surface Geophysical Methods. In Expedited Site Assessment Tools for Underground Storage Tank Sites: A Guide for Regulators. EPA 510-B-97-001. USEPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  171. USEPA. 1997b. Chapter IV: Soil Gas Surveys. In Expedited Site Assessment Tools for Underground Storage Tank Sites: A Guide for Regulators. EPA 510-B-97-001. USEPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  172. USEPA. 1997c. Chapter V: Direct Push Technologies. In Expedited Site Assessment Tools for Underground Storage Tank Sites: A Guide for Regulators. EPA 510-B-97-001. USEPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  173. USEPA. 1997d. A Resource for MGP Site Characterization and Remediation: Expedited Site Characterization and Source Remediation at Former Manufactured Gas Plant Sites. EPA 542-R-00-005. USEPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  174. USEPA. 1998a. Soil gas sampling technology, W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., GORE-SORBER screening survey. USEPA Environmental Technology Verification Report. EPA/600/R-98/095. USEPA, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  175. USEPA. 1998b. Soil Gas Sampling Technology, Quadrel Services, Inc., EMFLUX Soil Gas System. USEPA Environmental Technology Verification Report. EPA/600/R-98/096. USEPA, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  176. USEPA. 1998c. Geophysical Techniques to Locate DNAPLs: Profiles of Federally Funded Projects. EPA-542-R-98-020. USEPA, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  177. USEPA. 2000. Innovations in Site Characterization: Geophysical Investigation at Hazardous Waste Sites. EPA-542-R-00-003. USEPA, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  178. USEPA. 2001. The State-of-the-Practice of Characterization and Remediation of Contaminated Ground Water at Fractured Rock Sites. EPA 542-R-01-010. USEPA, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  179. USEPA. 2002. OSWER Draft Guidance for Evaluating the Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air Pathway from Groundwater and Soils. EPA 530-D-02-004. USEPA, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  180. USEPA. 2003. The DNAPL Remediation Challenge: Is There a Case for Source Depletion? EPA-600-R-03-143. USEPA Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada, OK, USA.Google Scholar
  181. USEPA. 2004. Site Characterization Technologies for DNAPL Investigations. EPA 542-R-04-017. USEPA, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  182. USEPA. 2005a. Groundwater Sampling and Monitoring with Direct Push Technologies. EPA 540/R-04/005. USEPA, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  183. USEPA. 2005b. Roadmap to Long-term Monitoring Optimization. USEPA Report EPA542-R-05-003.Google Scholar
  184. Viellenave JH, Fontana JV. 1999. Preparing for in situ remediation: No more do-overs (abstract). Proceedings, Sixth International Petroleum Conference: Environmental Issues and Solutions in Petroleum Exploration, Production and Refining, Houston, TX, USA.Google Scholar
  185. Vroblesky DA. 2001. The User’s Guide for Polyethylene Based Passive Diffusion Bag Samplers to Obtain Volatile Organic Concentrations in Wells. USGS Water-Resources Investigations Reports 01-4060 and 01-4061.Google Scholar
  186. Waddill DW, Widdowson MA. 2000. SEAM3D: A Numerical Model for Three-Dimensional Solute Transport and Sequential Electron Acceptor-Based Bioremediation in Groundwater. USACE ERDC/EL TR-00-18.Google Scholar
  187. Watson DB, Doll WE, Garney TJ, Sheehan JR, Jardine PM. 2005. Plume and lithologic profiling with surface resistivity and seismic tomography. Ground Water 43:169–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  188. Werkema DE, Atekwana E, Endres A, Sauck W. 2002. Temporal and spatial variability of high resolution in situ vertical apparent resistivity measurements at a LNAPL impacted site. Proceedings, Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems, Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society, February 10–14, Las Vegas, NV, USA.Google Scholar
  189. Werkema DD, Atekwana EA, Atekwana E, Duris J, Rossbach S, Allen J, Smart L, Sauck WA. 2004. Laboratory and field results linking high conductivities to the microbial degradation of petroleum hydrocarbons. In Proceedings, Symposium on the Applications of Geophysics to Environmental and Engineering Problems, Colorado Springs, CO, USA, pp 363–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  190. Werner D, Höhener P. 2002. Diffusive partitioning tracer test for nonaqueous phase liquid (NAPL) quantification in the vadose zone. Environ Sci Technol 36:1592–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  191. Williams JH, Conger RW. 1990. Preliminary delineation of contaminated water-bearing fractures intersected by open-hole bedrock wells. Ground Water Monit Rev 10:118–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  192. Williams JH, Johnson CD. 2000. Borehole-wall imaging with acoustic and optical televiewers for fractured-bedrock aquifer investigations. Proceedings, Seventh Minerals and Geotechnical Logging Symposium, Golden, CO, USA, October 24–26, pp 43–53.Google Scholar
  193. Williams JH, Johnson CD. 2004. Acoustic and optical borehole-wall imaging for fractured-rock aquifer studies. J Appl Geophys 55:151–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  194. Williams JH, Lane Jr JW. 1988. Advances in borehole geophysics for ground-water investigations. USGS Fact Sheet 002-98. 6 p.Google Scholar
  195. Williams JH, Paillet FL. 2002. Using flowmeter pulse tests to define hydraulic connections in the subsurface: A fractured shale example. J Hydrol 265:100–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  196. Williams JH, Lapham WW, Barringer TH. 1993. Application of electromagnetic logging to contamination investigations in glacial sand-and-gravel aquifers. Ground Water Monit Remediat 13:129–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  197. Wilson JL. 1997. Removal of Aqueous Phase Dissolved Contamination: Non-Chemically Enhanced Pump-and-Treat. Ward CH, Cherry JA, Scalf MR, eds, Subsurface Restoration. Ann Arbor Press, Inc., Chelsea, MI, USA, Chapter 17.Google Scholar
  198. Wilson JT, Ross RR, Acree S. 2005. Using direct-push tools to map hydrostratigraphy and predict MTBE plume diving. Ground Water Monit Remediat 25:93–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  199. Wolfe WJ, Williams SD. 2002. Soil gas screening for chlorinated solvents at three contaminated karst sites in Tennessee. Ground Water Monit Remediat 22:91–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  200. Young CM, Jackson RE, Jin M, Londergan JT, Mariner PE, Pope GA, Anderson FJ, Houk T. 1999. Characterization of a DNAPL zone in alluvium by partitioning tracers. Ground Water Monit Remediat 19:84–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  201. Young SC, Pearson HS. 1995. The electromagnetic borehole flowmeter—description and application. Ground Water Monit Remediat 15:138–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  202. Young SC, Julian HE, Pearson HS, Molz FJ, Boman GK. 1998. Application of the Electromagnetic Borehole Flowmeter. EPA/600/R-98/058. USEPA, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  203. Zapico MM, Vales S, Cherry JA. 1987. A wireline piston core barrel for sampling cohesionless sand and gravel below the water table. Ground Water Monit Rev 7:74–82.Google Scholar
  204. Zohdy AAR, Eaton GP, Mabey DR. 1974. Application of Surface Geophysics to Ground-Water Investigations. USGS Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, Chapter D1. 86 p.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • James W. Mercer
    • 1
  • Robert M. Cohen
    • 1
  • Michael R. Noel
    • 2
  1. 1.GeoTrans, Inc.SterlingUSA
  2. 2.GeoTrans, IncBrookfieldUSA

Personalised recommendations