Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Graphic Products Used in the Evaluation of Traditional and 

Emerging Remote Sensing Technologies for the Detection 

of Fugitive Contamination at Selected Superfund 

Hazardous Waste Sites 

By E. Terrence Slonecker and Gary B. Fisher 

Open-File Report 2011–1068 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey 

i
ii

U.S. Department of the Interior 

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Marcia K. McNutt, Director 

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia 2011 

For product and ordering information: 

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod 

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS 

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, 

its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: 

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov 

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS 

Suggested citation: 

Slonecker, E.T., and Fisher, G.B., 2011, Graphic products used in the evaluation of traditional and emerging remote 

sensing technologies for the detection of fugitive contamination at selected superfund hazardous waste sites: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2011–1068, 22 p. (Available only at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2011/1068/.) 

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Government. 

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual 

copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report.
iii

Contents 

Introduction.................................................................................................................................................................... 2

Location Diagrams and Imagery.................................................................................................................................... 3

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................................13

Appendix 1. Sampling Results from the Mid-Atlantic Wood Preservers Site. ...............................................................15

Appendix 2. Sampling Results from the Middletown Road Dump Site..........................................................................16

Appendix 3. Sampling Results from the Dixie Caverns Landfill Site. ............................................................................17

Appendix 4. Sampling Results from the Matthews Electroplating Site..........................................................................19

Appendix 5. Sampling Results from the Rhinehart Tire Fire Dump Site .......................................................................21 

Figures 

1. Location map of the Mid-Atlantic Wood Preservers, Inc. site in Anne Arundel County, Md. ............................. 3

2. Sampling locations at the Mid-Atlantic Wood Preservers, Inc. site in Anne Arrunder County, Md.................... 4

3. Location map for Middletown Road Dump site in Annapolis, Md...................................................................... 5

4. Iimagery of the Middletown Road Dump in Annapolis, Md., showing the area of landfill expansion................. 6

5. Hyperspectral anomaly detection results that show anomalies along the northern border of the 

Middletown Road Dump in Annapolis, Md. ....................................................................................................... 6

6. Imagery showing elevated metals and hydrocarbon detected at the Middletown Road Dump site in 

Annapolis, Md................................................................................................................................................... 7

7. Laboratory spectra diagram of the soils at the Middletown Road Dump in Annapolis, Md. .............................. 7

8. Location map of the Dixie Caverns Landfill site in Salem, Va........................................................................... 8

9. Clockwise from top left, hyperspectral imagery, anomaly detection image, and photograph of a 

concrete block at the Dixie Caverns Landfill in Salem, Va................................................................................ 9

10. Sampling locations at the Dixie Caverns Landfill in Salem, Va., and sampling results. .................................... 9

11. Location map of the Matthews Electroplating site in Salem, Va. .....................................................................10

12. Hyperspectral image and anomaly detection results for the Matthews Electroplating site in Salem, Va..........11

13. Sampling results for the Matthews Electroplating site in Salem, Va. ...............................................................11

14. Location Map, Rhinehart Tire Fire Dump site near Winchester, Va.................................................................12

15. Soil sampling locations and results at the Rhinehart Tire Fire Dump site in Winchester, Va. ..........................13 

Glossary 

As arsenic 

Ag silver 

Ba barium 

Cd cadmium 

Cr chromium 

Cs cesium 

Co cobalt 

Cu copper 

Hg mercury 

LOD level of detection 

Mo molybdenum 

Mn manganese 

Ni nickel 

Pb lead 

ppm parts per million 

RBC risk-based concentration 

Sb antimony 

Se selenium 

Sr strontium 

U uranium 

V vanadium 

XRF x-ray fluorescence 

Zn zinc 

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83). 
Graphic Products Used in the Evaluation of Traditional 

and Emerging Remote Sensing Technologies for the 

Detection of Fugitive Contamination at Selected 

Superfund Hazardous Waste Sites 

By E. Terrence Slonecker and Gary B. Fisher 

Introduction 

This report presents the overhead imagery and field sampling results used to prepare U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2011–1050, “Evaluation of Traditional and Emerging Remote 

Sensing Technologies for the Detection of Fugitive Contamination at Selected Superfund Hazardous 

Waste Sites” (Slonecker and Fisher, 2011). These graphic products were used in the evaluation of 

remote sensing technology in postclosure monitoring of hazardous waste sites and represent an ongoing 

research effort. 

Soil sampling results presented here were accomplished with field portable x-ray fluorescence 

(XRF) technology and are used as screening tools only representing the current conditions of metals and 

other contaminants at selected Superfund hazardous waste sites. A detailed explanation of the methods 

and significant results of this research can be found in Slonecker and Fisher (2009, 2011). 

2
Location Diagrams and Imagery 

Figure 1. Location map of the Mid-Atlantic Wood Preservers, Inc. site in Anne Arundel County, Md. 

3
Figure 2. Sampling locations at the Mid-Atlantic Wood Preservers, Inc. site in Anne Arrunder County, Md. 

4
Figure 3. Location map for Middletown Road Dump site in Annapolis, Md. 

5
Figure 4. Imagery of the Middletown Road Dump in Annapolis, Md., showing the area of landfill expansion 

(brown shading); the imagery, which was generated in 2010, used the Civil Air Patrol’s Airborne Real time Cueing 

Hyperspectral Enhanced Reconnaissance (ARCHER) technology. 

Figure 5. Hyperspectral anomaly detection results that show anomalies along the northern border of the 

Middletown Road Dump in Annapolis, Md. 

6
Figure 6. Imagery showing elevated concentrations of arsenic, chromium, mercury, lead, antimony and 

hydrocarbons detected at the Middletown Road Dump site in Annapolis, Md.; the imagery was generated using 

Civil Air Patrol’s Airborne Real time Cueing Hyperspectral Enhanced Reconnaissance (ARCHER) technology. 

Figure 7. Laboratory spectra diagram of the soils at the Middletown Road Dump in Annapolis, Md., which shows 

classic hydrocarbon absorption patterns at 1,730 and 2,310 nanometers. 

7
Figure 8. Location map of the Dixie Caverns Landfill site in Salem, Va. 

8
Figure 9. Clockwise from top left, hyperspectral imagery, anomaly detection image, and photograph of a concrete 

block at the Dixie Caverns Landfill in Salem, Va. 

Figure 10. Sampling locations at the Dixie Caverns Landfill in Salem, Va., and sampling results. 

9
Figure 11. Location map of the Matthews Electroplating site in Salem, Va. 

10
Figure 12. Hyperspectral image and anomaly detection results for the Matthews Electroplating site in Salem, Va. 

Figure 13. Sampling results for the Matthews Electroplating site in Salem, Va. 

11
Figure 14. Location Map, Rhinehart Tire Fire Dump site near Winchester, Va. 

12
13

Figure 15. Soil sampling locations and results at the Rhinehart Tire Fire Dump site in Winchester, Va. 

References Cited 

Slonecker, E.T., and Fisher, G.B., 2009, Research implementation and quality assurance project plan—

An evaluation of hyperspectral remote sensing technologies for the detection of fugitive 

contamination at selected superfund hazardous waste sites: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

2009–1048, 41 p. 

Slonecker, E.T., and Fisher, G.B., 2011, The evaluation of traditional and emerging remote sensing 

technologies for the detection of fugitive contamination at selected superfund hazardous waste sites: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2011–1050, 23 p. 
Appendixes 

The following appendixes list the soil sampling results that were accomplished using XRF 

technology. All samples were processed in the laboratory and screened for a minimum of 180 seconds. 

All values are listed in parts per million concentration, except for the data in the X and Y columns, 

which represent the geographic coordinate locations of each sample based on the North American 

Datum of 1983. The red highlights represent values that equaled or exceeded the relevant risk-based 

concentration (RBC). The yellow highlights represent values that are significantly higher than natural 

background concentration but do not exceed the RBC standard for each element. LOD is the level of 

detection. 

14
Appendix 1. Sampling Results from the Mid-Atlantic Wood Preservers, Inc. site. 

15
Appendix 2. Sampling Results from the Middletown Road Dump Site. 

16
Appendix 3. Sampling Results from the Dixie Caverns Landfill Site. 

17
18
Appendix 4. Sampling Results from the Matthews Electroplating Site 

19
20
Appendix 5. Sampling Results from the Rhinehart Tire Fire Dump Site 

21
22