Estimating the Extent of Soil Contamination During a Redevelopment Excavation

From October 2014 to March 2015, I provided excavation oversight services at a property with substantial environmental concerns. The property in question is located near downtown Seattle and was formerly occupied by the Washington’s first coal gasification plant. The plant operated from 1888 to 1908 and produced coal gas for municipal use. A coal tar like substance with a characteristically high benzene concentration was a byproduct of the coal gasification process and heavily contaminated at or below the surface grade of the plant as shown in previous investigations on the property. Once the plant ceased operation in 1908 the property was left vacant until 1955 when the site was filled in and a service station was built on the property. The main goal of the excavation was not to achieve cleanup on the property, but to properly remove what contaminated soil was encountered during the redevelopment excavation. Areas of concern were identified prior to the commencement of the excavation and an estimation of the extent of contamination on the property was developed. “Hot spots” of contaminated soil associated with the fill placed after 1955 were identified as areas of concern. However, the primary contaminant plume below the property was likely sourced from the coal gasification plant, which operated at an approximate elevation of 20 feet. We planned to constrain the extents of the soil contamination below the property as the redevelopment excavation progressed. As the redevelopment excavation was advanced down to an elevation of approximately 20 feet, soil samples were collected to bound the extents of contamination in the upper portion of the site. The hot spots, known pockets of carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (cPAH) located above 20 feet elevation, were excavated as part of the redevelopment excavation. Once a hot spot was excavated, soil samples were collected from the north, south, east, west and bottom sidewalls of the hot spot excavation to check for remaining cPAH. Additionally, four underground storage tanks (USTs) associated with the service station were discovered and subsequently removed. Soil samples were also collected from the resulting UST excavation sidewalls to check for remaining petroleum hydrocarbons. Once the excavation reached its final excavation depth of 20 to 16 feet in elevation, bottom of excavation samples were collected on a 35 foot by 35 foot grid to test for concentrations of contaminants remaining onsite. Once the redevelopment excavation was complete, soils observed from borings drilled for either structural elements, geotechnical wells, or environmental wells were checked for any evidence of contamination using field screening techniques. Evidence of contamination was used to identify areas below the final excavation grade which had been impacted by the operation of the coal gasification plant. Samples collected from the excavation extents of hot spots and USTs show that it was unlikely that any contamination traveled from the post-1955 grade down to the pre-1955 grade. Additionally, the lack of benzene in the bottom of excavation samples suggests that a release from the coal gasification plant occurred below the redevelopment excavation final elevations of 20 to 16 feet. Qualitative data collected from borings for shoring elements and wells indicated that the spatial extent of the subsurface contaminant plume was different than initially estimated. Observations of spoils show that soil contamination extends further to the southwest and not as far to the east and north than originally estimated. Redefining the extent of the soil contamination beneath the property will allow further subsurface investigations to focus on collecting quantitative data in areas that still represent data gaps on the property, and passing over areas that have shown little signs of contamination. This information will help with the formation of a remediation plan should the need to clean up the site arise in the future.

A Guide to Surface Features Related to Underground Coal Mining

The purpose of this guide is to assist investigators conducting geologic hazard assessments with the understanding, detection, and characterization of surface features related to subsidence from underground coal mining. Subsidence related to underground coal mining can present serious problems to new and/or existing infrastructure, utilities, and facilities. For example, heavy equipment driving over the ground surface during construction processes may punch into voids created by sinkholes or cracks, resulting in injury to persons and property. Abandoned underground mines also may be full of water, and if punctured, can flood nearby areas. Furthermore, the integrity of rigid structures such as buildings, dams and bridges may be compromised if mining subsidence results in differential movement at the ground surface. Subsidence of the ground surface is a phenomenon associated with the removal of material at depth, and may occur coincident with mining, gradually over time, or sometimes suddenly, long after mining operations have ceased (Gray and Bruhn, 1984). The spatial limits of underground coal mines may extend for great distances beyond the surface operations of a mine, in some cases more than 10 miles for an individual mine. When conducting geologic hazard assessments, several remote investigation methods can be used to observe surface features related to underground mining subsidence. LiDAR-derived DEMs are generally the most useful method available for identifying these features because the bare earth surface can be viewed. However, due to limitations in the availability of LiDAR data, other methods often need to be considered when investigating surface features related to underground coal mining subsidence, such as Google Earth and aerial imagery. Mine maps, when available, can be viewed in tandem with these datasets, potentially improving the confidence of any possible mining subsidence-related features observed remotely. However, maps for both active and abandoned mines may be incomplete or unavailable. Therefore, it is important to be able to recognize possible surface features related to underground mining subsidence. This guide provides examples of surface subsidence features related to the two principal underground coal mining methods used in the United States: longwall mining and room and pillar mining. The depth and type of mining, geologic conditions, hydrologic conditions, and time are all factors that may influence the type of features that manifest at the surface. This guide provides investigators a basic understanding about the size, character and conditions of various surface features that occur as a result of underground mining subsidence.