Review of Geophysical Techniques to Define the Spatial Distribution of Subsurface Properties or Contaminants

This is a letter report to Fluor Hanford, Inc. The purpose of this report is to summarize state-of-the-art, minimally intrusive geophysical techniques that can be used to clarify subsurface geology, structure, moisture, and chemical composition. The technology review focused on geophysical characterization techniques that provide two- or three-dimensional information about the spatial distribution of subsurface properties and/or contaminants.

[1]  Duane G. Horton,et al.  Review of Geophysical Characterization Methods Used at the Hanford Site , 2000 .

[2]  S. M. Narbutovskih.  Electrical resistivity tomography at the DOE Hanford site , 1996 .

[3]  Glendon W. Gee,et al.  Results of Tank-Leak Detection Demonstration Using Geophysical Techniques at the Hanford Mock Tank Site-Fiscal Year 2001 , 2002 .

[4]  Michael D. Knoll,et al.  Multivariate analysis of cross‐hole georadar velocity and attenuation tomograms for aquifer zonation , 2004 .

[5]  High Resolution Imaging of Vadose Zone Transport using Crosswell Methods , 2001 .

[6]  Brian J. Mailloux,et al.  Hydrogeological characterization of the south oyster bacterial transport site using geophysical data , 2001 .

[7]  Anderson L. Ward,et al.  Vadose zone transport field study: Detailed test plan for simulated leak tests , 2000 .

[8]  Timothy C. Coburn,et al.  Geostatistics for Natural Resources Evaluation , 2000, Technometrics.

[9]  R. A. Overmeeren,et al.  Radar facies of unconsolidated sediments in The Netherlands: A radar stratigraphy interpretation method for hydrogeology , 1998 .

[10]  J. Caers,et al.  Stochastic estimation of facies using ground penetrating radar data , 2003 .

[11]  A. Binley,et al.  Laboratory scale tests of electrical impedence tomography , 1998 .

[12]  Rosemary Knight,et al.  Ground Penetrating Radar for Environmental Applications , 2001 .

[13]  J. Daniels,et al.  Electromagnetic Induction and GPR Measurements for Creosote Contaminant Investigation , 2000 .

[14]  Frederick D. Day-Lewis,et al.  Combined interpretation of radar, hydraulic, and tracer data from a fractured-rock aquifer near Mirror Lake, New Hampshire, USA , 2006 .

[15]  J. Roy,et al.  Hydrogeological interpretation and potential of the new magnetic resonance sounding, MRS, method , 2003 .

[16]  William,et al.  SURFACE AND BOREHOLE SEISMIC CHARACTERIZATION OF THE BOISE HYDROGEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH SITE , 1999 .

[17]  G. Olhoeft.  Geophysical Detection of Hydrocarbon and Organic Chemical Contamination , 1992 .

[18]  E. Poeter,et al.  Modeling GPR data to interpret porosity and DNAPL saturations for calibration of a 3-D multiphase flow simulation , 2002 .

[19]  J. D. Mcneill.  Use of Electromagnetic Methods for Groundwater Studies , 1990 .

[20]  R. Knight,et al.  Modeling the field‐scale relationship between dielectric constant and water content in heterogeneous systems , 2004 .

[21]  Susan S. Hubbard,et al.  Geochemical characterization using geophysical data and Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods: A case study at the South Oyster bacterial transport site in Virginia , 2002 .

[22]  Christopher J. Murray,et al.  Enhanced Site Characterization of the 618-4 Burial Ground , 2001 .