Michael Brown, ENSR International, 2 Technology Park Drive, Westford, Massachusetts, 01886, Tel: 978-589-3000, Fax: 978-589-3705, Email: mbrown@ensr.com
Jesse Japitana, ENSR International, 2 Technology Park Drive, Westford, Massachusetts, 01886, Tel: 978-589-3000, Fax: 978-589-3705, Email: jjapitana@ensr.com
Robert Cataldo, ENSR International, 2 Technology Park Drive, Westford, Massachusetts, 01886, Tel: 978-589-3000, Fax: 978-589-3705, Email: rcataldo@ensr.com

The ability to effectively characterize subsurface conditions over large areas is a continuous challenge in environmental site assessment. Often, property owners, consultants, and regulators require non-intrusive methods to develop an understanding of subsurface conditions at a site to determine if more intensive site investigation are needed and gather essential data to develop those programs.  Near surface geophysical surveying techniques, particularly ground penetrating radar (GPR) and electromagnetic terrain conductivity (EM) measurements, have the potential to provide data that are highly useful in interpreting subsurface site conditions with respect to potential environmental liabilities.  GPR and EM techniques are commonly used jointly to investigate a variety of potential environmental issues including orphan underground storage tanks, conductive contaminant groundwater plumes, buried debris and industrial waste, and subsurface piping and drainage systems.  In addition to being used as a preliminary tool, GPR and EM surveying provides complimentary data that aid in refining the interpretation and analyses of other data in an effort to develop a more comprehensive understand of the site.  GPR and EM data are frequently used to develop soil boring, groundwater monitoring well, and excavation programs that are essential in developing a more fundamental understanding of the subsurface at environmental sites.  This presentation will discuss an integrated geophysical approach utilizing GPR and/or EM to rapidly, non-invasively, and cost-effectively identify subsurface characteristics and features at environmental sites in a variety of field settings.  Through the use of case studies, the presentation will demonstrate how integrated GPR and EM survey techniques are commonly used to identify orphan underground storage tanks, buried debris/industrial waste, and other environmental related subsurface site characteristics and how this data can be used to efficiently direct more costly investigative programs.

Using Waterproof, Vapor Permeable Membrane Samplers for Groundwater Sampling Delivering Groundwater Data Without Collecting a Water Sample

Jay W. Hodny, Ph.D. W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc., 100 Chesapeake Boulevard, Elkton, MD, 21921, Tel: 410-392-7600, Fax: 410-506-4780, Email: jhodny@wlgore.com
Wayne M. Wells, II, W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc., 100 Chesapeake Boulevard, Elkton, MD, 21921, Tel: 410-392-7600, Fax: 410-506-4780, Email: wwells@wlgore.com

The growing acceptance of passive collectors for non-purge groundwater sampling has led to the development of several diffusion-based devices.  The more common ones are generally effective in collecting and reporting non-water soluble volatile organic compounds.  However, they can be cumbersome to handle, may require costly field sampling time and can be prone to collection errors and sampling variability. The desire for better field sampling tools, along with a growing need to accurately detect and report water soluble compounds, along with volatile, semi-volatile and heavier compounds, has driven continued research into alternative diffusion-based samplers.

A sorbent-based, passive diffusion sampler constructed of waterproof, vapor permeable membrane was verified by the US EPA ETV program in 2002 for volatile compound monitoring in groundwater applications.  Renewed research and development efforts, along with laboratory and field sampling experiments, have demonstrated that this sampler can detect 1,4-dioxane and other water-soluble compounds, along with compounds in the volatile and semi-volatile range.  Further, the ability to report the data in units of concentration has been investigated with promising results.

The presentation will discuss the recent sampling results along with the concentration capability development efforts.  The objective of the presentation is to demonstrate that accurate and reliable groundwater data can be acquired without collecting a water sample.

Guidelines for Assessing Disturbed Soils in Urban Wet Areas

Joyce M. Scheyer, Ph.D., CPSS, Soil Scientist (Urban Soil Interpretations), USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, 100 Centennial Mall N., Mailroom 152, Lincoln, NE 68508-3866, Tel: 402-437-5698, Email: joyce.scheyer@nssc.nrcs.usda.gov
Russell F. Pringle, B.S., CPSS, Soil Scientist (Wetlands Team), USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, 501 W. Felix St., FWFC, Bldg 23, P.O. Box 6567, Fort Worth, TX 76115, Tel: 817-509-3576, Email: russell.pringle@ftw.usda.gov

Requests for assistance from the field indicate confusion about terms and measurement protocols for soils in urban wet areas. In some instances soil properties that are unique to urban areas and that impact Hydrologic Soil Groups, Hydric Soils, and Drainage Classes need clarification.  In other cases, there has been improper use of soil properties for urban wetland and floodplain decision-making.  Basic models are often used in simplified form without incorporating the nuances of urban soil interpretations based on internal soil dynamics.   

Our objective is to ease the transition of engineers and planners into making soil-based decisions for urban wet areas.  We provide a bridge for non-soil scientists to correctly use soil information from different databases.  This bridge is based on calculations and diagrams as templates for investigating urban soils.  We hope to foster discussion of soil behavioral similarities and differences among urban wet areas.   

The properties and measurements for urban soils in this study are drawn from three databases.  Measured properties are from the laboratory database.  Estimated properties are from the spatial map unit database.  Site-specific measurements (such as infiltration or compaction) constitute a third database. 

Data for each urban soil are summarized in these diagrams and charts 1) diagram of soil profiles with horizons highlighted that determine internal water flow, 2) diagrams of clay content, very fine sand content, and  bulk density changes with depth that affect soil wetness, 3) percent water filled pores and potential water flow calculated between internal soil horizons, 4) effect of compaction and internal layering within the poorly drained “D” hydrologic soil groups, and 5) a chart of key properties of disturbed soils in urban areas that may affect the hydric status of a soil.

Field Investigation of PAHs in Soils around Nara City in Japan

Ryuji Takeda, Department of Applied Biological Chemistry, Graduate School of Agriculture, Kinki University, 3327-204, Nakamachi, Nara, Japan 
Yoshimasa Ikuma, Department of Applied Biological Chemistry, Graduate School of Agriculture, Kinki University, 3327-204, Nakamachi, Nara, Japan
Sadayoshi Matsumoto, Department of Applied Biological Chemistry, Faculty of Agriculture, Kinki University, 3327-204, Nakamachi, Nara, Japan
Sadao Komemushi, Department of Environmental Management, Faculty of Agriculture, Kinki University, 3327-204, Nakamachi, Nara, Japan, Tel: +81-742-43-7437, Fax: +81-742-1445
Akiyoshi Sawabe, Department of Applied Biological Chemistry, Faculty of Agriculture, Kinki University, 3327-204, Nakamachi, Nara, Japan, Tel: +81-742-43-7092, Fax: +81-742-1445 Email: sawabe@nara.kindai.ac.jp

Soil Contamination by Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons in Reclaimed Open-cast Mines

Milada Vávrová, Institute of Chemistry and Technology of Environmental Protection, Faculty of Chemistry, Brno University of Technology, Purkyňova 118, 612 00 Brno, Czech Republic, Tel: +420 541149340, Email: vavrova@fch.vutbr.cz
Emanuel Sucman, Institute of Food Chemistry and Biotechnology, Faculty of Chemistry, Brno University of Technology, Purkyňova 118, 612 00 Brno, Czech Republic, Tel: +420 541149408, Email: sucman@fch.vutbr.cz
Jaroslava Vrábliková, Department of Natural Sciences, Faculty of Environmental Studies, University of J.E. Purkyně in Ústí nad Labem, Králova Výšina 3132/7, 400 96 Ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic, Tel. +420 475284111, Email: vrablikova@fzp.ujep.cz
Helena Zlámalová Gargošová, Faculty of Veterinary Hygiene and Ecology, University of Veterinary and Pharmaceutical Science Brno, Palackého 1-3, 612 42 Brno, Czech Republic, Tel: +420 541562656, Email:gargosovah@vfu.cz 

Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) rank currently with priority pollutants found in all environmental compartments. Contamination of soil by PAHs was assessed in the revitalized mines. Six sampling sites were chosen within the area of recultivated open-cast mine in the Most region situated in north Bohemia. The strategy of composite samples was used. Sampling was realized twice (April, October) at four from six sample sites. Two sample sites became inaccessible during the second sampling therefore only one sample was taken. Samples were tested for concentrations of PAHs using high resolution liquid chromatography technique with fluorescent detector. Twelve PAHs identified in soil samples included: anthracene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, benzo(ghi)perylene, benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene, dibenzo(ah)anthracene, fluoranthene, naphthalene, phenanthrene and pyrene,. Concentrations nearly all particular polycyclic condensed aromatic hydrocarbons were below the limits of determination (0.05 – 0.10 μg/kg in dry matter) even for such analytes which are usually prevailing in soil samples (e.g. anthracene). Concentration of PAHs found in samples from the sampling sites 1 and 2 were higher compared with the other sites. The possible reason could be that these sampling sites are located in the vicinity of decanting plant. The highest concentrations (in μg/kg dry matter) were found for: naphtalene (1.52 – 36.6), fluoranthene (4.28 – 46.5), pyrene (4.9 – 16.0), benzo(b)fluoranthene (1.8 – 15.2), benzo(a)pyrene (1.32 – 9.58), benzo(k)fluoranthene (1.55 – 7.40) and anthracene (3.30 – 5.76). In compliance with valid limits declared by the Ministry of the Environment of the Czech Republic it can be stated that extremely high values were not found in the locality within the scope.  The only analyte for which the limit was exceeded was naphtalene at one of the six the sampling sites. Some additional samples must be taken in order to make a reliable decision.

Top