Economics of Pollution

Greenpeace is one of the few organisations able to lift the lid on the economics of pollution.

300 of the largest coal-powered power stations in Europe kill 22,300 people prematurely every year and cost billions in health care, lost working days and insurance claims. This very significant Greenpeace Report is named, “Silent Killers.”

Stuttgart University were commissioned to carry it the work on health impacts from the coal industry. Road traffic accidents are now less dangerous than coal plant pollution in Poland, Romania, Bulgaria and the Czech Republic, with the UK and then Germany only just behind these champions of bad health.

Only 5th in the table, the UK loses 22,600 years of life and 480,000 working days are lost every year.

Publishing those figures over the whole of Europe, the incredible total is 240,000 years lost from people’s lives.

In the UK, the 2 largest power stations are each responsible for 4450 and 4210 lives lost prematurely.

As the leading polluter, Polish government and utility plans to build 12 new plants are reprehensible. Alongside the Polish PGE, RWE, PPC, Vattenfall and ?EZ prove to be creating the worst impacts on health. Microscopic particle pollution has always been the main killer of coal miners through pneumoconiosis. Now research indicates acid gases, soot, dust from coal and diesel engines are all penetrating the human lung and bloodstream.

The increasingly prevalent British asthma attack and other respiratory problems, particularly of children, could well be laid directly at the door of these pollutants. As well as this terrible news, the Greenpeace report states clearly that, “tens of thousands of kilogrammes of toxic metals such as mercury, lead, arsenic and cadmium are spewed out of the stacks, contributing to cancer risk and harming children’s development.” Sulphur dioxide production is an aspect of coal burning that has always been a recognised problem. 70% of Europe’s sulphur emissions and 40% of the nitrogen oxide come from these 300 huge power station.

As earth Times quoted the other day, with American coal being sold cheaply now, the use of coal within the EU has increased every year from 2009 to 2012! Clean renewable energy is increasing in popularity in places like Scotland and Norway with the renewable energy targets of the EU likely to encourage further steps. Lauri Myllyvirta is a Greenpeace International energy campaigner. Her quote is related to the “staggering” nature of the results. “Europe must continue down the path of clean renewable energy by setting an ambitious, binding 2030 renewable energy target,” she states.

Greenpeace is asking the European Commission to propose a binding renewable energy target of 45% with greenhouse gas reduction target of 55% by 2030. This is despite open defiance by people such as the UK Energy Minister, Edward Davey, and several other polluters in the EU. Mr Davey is struggling to recover his green credentials after being forced into financial cuts. This has delayed a proposed carbon-free UK production of electricity by the year 2030.

Read more at http://www.earthtimes.org/pollution/pollution-silesia-scunthorpe/2378/#5HES4Xm25XQFCo7U.99 – See more at: http://www.earthtimes.org/pollution/pollution-silesia-scunthorpe/2378/#sthash.hlzqgg2a.dpuf

Pollution from Silesia to Scunthorpe By Dave Armstrong – 13 Jun 2013 8:44:0 GMT

EarthTimes.org

The 300 power plants mentioned in the report range throughout the EU, from Silesia to Scunthorpe; Pollution image; Credit: © Shutterstock

 

economic-pollution

 

Economics of Pollution

Global Cities Need Natural Defenses

As Superstorm Sandy reminded us, cities face the dual pressures of increased urbanization in climate change, putting them at risk for storms, droughts, heat waves, and more.

These risks are real and significant.

Over 90 percent of cities are on the coast, putting people at risk from sea level rise and coastal storms. Over 300 million urban dwellers live at or close to sea levels. And while only 15 percent of global water basins are water-stressed, almost half of all cities over 100,000 people are in these basins.

Globally, cities are projected to grow by over 2 billion people by 2050. The choices we make today about where and how that growth occurs could reduce or exacerbate risks for cities.

Cities rely on natural infrastructure for vital services, including water supplies, storm water management, coastal protection, air quality and cooling. However, many of these functions are not well understood or valued and therefore are not invested in or included in planning decisions. As a result, cities typically turn to traditional civil engineering or “grey” infrastructure solutions, such as sea walls and large water treatment systems, to address environmental risks, despite the fact that natural infrastructure — a wetland, forest or floodplain — might perform the same function at a lower cost, or be integrated into a “grey strategy” for optimal performance and cost savings.

We cannot sustainably support the current pace of human and economic growth without changing the way cities are planned, built, operated and financed. We must take steps to protect critical ecosystems and incorporate “natural defenses” into urban areas to reduce risk and vulnerability.

New York City is a prime example of how the natural and urban environments can blend together to enable sustainable growth. Through PlaNYC, Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s sustainability plan, New York is investing $1.5 billion over 10 years to protect the city’s water at its source, enabling the City to avoid constructing an $8 billion to $10 billion water treatment plant. The City is also investing over $1.5 billion as part of its Green Infrastructure Plan to utilize a mix of natural and hard infrastructure to capture rain water and prevent flooding and sewer overflows — investments that have an equivalent value of $2.2 billion in grey infrastructure. And over $100 million has been committed to preserve and restore the city’s 6,000 acres of wetlands, which help improve water quality and mitigate storm damage.

Another good example of an integrated approach is South Cape May, N.J., where The Nature Conservancy worked with three communities to restore coastal dunes and wetlands to reduce flooding. While at the center of Sandy, the restored dunes and wetland system appears to have spared the nearby communities from the kind of flooding they experienced before the restoration was completed.

Other cities are taking similar steps: San Antonio has established a water protection fund and is working with landowners to protect the nearby Edwards Aquifer. Philadelphia is implementing a green infrastructure program that rewards taxpayers for reducing storm water runoff, saving an estimated $8 billion over traditional grey infrastructure. In response to Hurricane Ike, Houston conducted a full review of ecosystem services and developed initiatives to protect coastal areas and increase storm barriers using both grey and natural infrastructure. And The Nature Conservancy is working with more than a dozen cities — including Nairobi, Kenya; Sao Paulo and Rio de Janiero, Brazil; Bogota, Columbia; and Santa Fe, New Mexico — to connect funding from downstream water users (such as cities) to conservation activities in the upstream communities that affect water quality at its source (a mechanism called Water Funds).

Nature can and should play an important role alongside engineered solutions in building (and rebuilding) the cities of tomorrow. To increase our resilience, cities need to use all of the tools and options available to them — including, but not limited to, natural infrastructure. While there are signs that some cities have recognized this, the pace of growth and climate change are too fast to limit ourselves — and the cost of failing to make sound investments today is just too high.

Adam Freed is the Director of The Nature Conservancy’s Global Securing Water Program and a Lecturer at Columbia University. He previously served as the Deputy Director of the New York City Mayor’s Office of Long-Term Planning & Sustainability.

[Image: New York City skyline. Image source:  Anthony Quintano/Flickr via a Creative Commons license]

http://blog.nature.org/conservancy/2013/05/30/global-cities-need-natural-defenses/?sthash.o4aEKItI.mjjo

Written by Adam Freed
Published on May 30th, 2013

The following post originally appeared on UMB’s Future Cities.

cities defense

Global Cities Need Natural Defenses

 

 

Aral Sea: Water, Environment, and Development

The Aral Sea.

This World Environment Day it would be pertinent to reflect on why a serious issue like water and its close interrelationship with the environment has for all practical purposes disappeared form the global political agenda.

The increasing demand for water, coupled with poor management practices over decades, has already caused a lot of damage to the environment. Take the Aral Sea for example. During the first half of the 20th century, it was the world’s fourth-largest inland water body with a surface area of about 68,000 square kilometers, equivalent to more than half the area of England.

In the early 1960s, the Soviet Union government decided to divert the waters of the two major rivers, Amu Darya and Syr Darya, which fed the Aral Sea to irrigate the arid areas of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan (which then were part of the Soviet Union). The KarakumCanal, whose construction was completed in 1967, diverted the waters of the Amu Darya to irrigate the perennially dry areas of nearly 3 million hectares primarily to grow cotton. Although irrigation was successful, it rang the death knell for the Aral Sea. The Amu Darya, which has been completely cut off from the Aral Sea, now ends in a dam some 110 km away.

The Aral Sea started to shrink as soon as the water diversion started. Its surface area has reduced to one-fourth its original size and its water volume has diminished by 90 percent. The Aral Sea used to produce more than 40,000 tons of fish a year, but by the early 1980s the fishing industry had collapsed, dealing a deadly blow to the communities that depended on it. By the late 1980s, because of the serious reduction in river flows, the sea split into two distinct water bodies, North and South Aral. The South Aral Sea split further into eastern and western sections. Moreover, with no fresh water coming in, salinity started to increase and all the 24 species of native fish species of the sea disappeared.

As the Aral Sea shrank, it left behind a highly saline bed that was contaminated with pesticide and fertilizer runoffs spanning decades, leading to a serious public health hazard. As a result, infant mortality became one of the highest in the Soviet Union and the incidence of cancer and respiratory diseases increased significantly.

The rising demand for water, continuing poor management practices and erratic rainfall patterns are causing water crises across the world. For example, the first official national river census of China said the country had 22,909 rivers, each with a catchment area of at least 100 sq km, at the end of 2011. This is less than half of the more than 50,000 rivers estimated by the government in the 1990s. The official explanation for this shortfall is mainly the “inaccurate estimate of the past, as well as climate change, (and) water and soil loss”. This could explain why some of the rivers have disappeared, but the primary causes are likely to be declining groundwater and river flow levels, widespread deforestation and increasing withdrawal of water from water bodies.

The Aral Sea story and China’s disappearing rivers are different symptoms of two important diseases: poor water management and focus on short-term economic benefits as opposed to the longer-term view of closely linking water with the environment.

The Aral Sea disaster should have been foreseen. Growing cotton, wheat and other crops in the perennial arid steppes by diverting the water of the two main rivers of the region can never be a sustainable proposition. Given the demise of the Aral Sea, the desert boom cannot be justified in economic, social or environmental terms.

Fortunately, we have also seen some cases of good understanding of the interrelationship between water and the environment. Much of Australia, for example, faced unprecedented droughts between April 1997 and March 2010. To tackle the serious water shortage over a prolonged period, the Australian government set up the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, through the Water Act of 2007, to hold and manage water assets purchased from the water market or acquired as water savings from government-financed infrastructure upgrades financed. Its objective is to restore and protect environmental assets in the Murray-DarlingBasin, which is spread over 1,059,000 sq km, which is slightly larger than the combined area of France and Germany.

By the end of March 2013, the new entity held water assets with a long-term average annual yield of more 1,100 giga-liters, equivalent to about 8 percent of the water previously available for consumption in the basin. During the past five years, the CEWH has delivered 2,250 giga-liters of water to the rivers, wetlands and flood plains in the Murray-DarlingBasin. And this diversion of water has not harmed agricultural production in the basin because of efficient water management.

The benefits of this diversion have been substantial. It has helped sustain wetlands, and support native birds and plants through improved water quality, volume and duration of flows. It has improved fish breeding and the export salt and nutrients out of the basin. It has also connected rivers, wetlands and floodplains to improve habitats for breeding and migration of animals and birds. Besides, it has improved the quality of water for irrigation and human use, and increased opportunities for tourism.

The Australian case shows we already have sufficient knowledge of the intricate interrelationship between water and the environment. We also know that the problems are solvable and we often have the means to solve them. What we lack is political will and commitment to do so.

For at least the past 35 years we have known that the environment and development are the two sides of the same coin. Development can never be sustainable unless environmental issues are given priority. Equally, the environment cannot be protected without development. Until and unless this symbiotic relationship is explicitly considered, we are unlikely to have sustainable development in any area, including water.

This consideration is especially important for a country like China, which has witnessed breakneck economic growth but has not laid enough emphasis on environmental protection. China faces the enormous challenge of combating existing air, water and soil pollution, and unless the trend is reversed, it will face even bigger environmental challenges in the coming years.

Asit Biswas and I look forward to your thoughts.

June 05, 2013

http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20130605113028-230883806-water-environment-and-development

aral sea

Aral Sea:  Water, Environment, and Development

Air Pollution May Have Suppressed Storms

Clean air acts may have helped return storm cycles to a more natural state.To the ever-growing list of ways humanity seems to have altered the earth, add another candidate: Air pollution may have had a major soothing influence on storm cycles in the North Atlantic.

That is the finding of a paper published this week, suggesting that industrial pollution from North America and Europe through much of the 20th century may have altered clouds in ways that cooled the ocean surface. That, in turn, may have suppressed storms, and particularly major hurricanes, below the level that would have existed in a purely natural environment.

If the authors are right, the upturn in storms over the last couple of decades may be no accident. It could, instead, be at least partly a consequence of the clean air acts that have reduced pollution around the North Atlantic basin, thus returning the storm cycles to their more natural state.

The possible impact on storms emerged from sophisticated new computer analyses of the climate that attempt to take account of the indirect effects of particles in the air; it is leading-edge science that may or may not hold up over the long haul.

 

“Our results show changes in pollution may have had a much larger role than previously thought,” said Nick J. Dunstone, a researcher with Britain’s meteorological service and the lead author of the new paper. He acknowledged, however, that “this is all quite new” and the science remains uncertain.

 

As many people will recall, the North Atlantic was quiescent in the 1970s and 1980s, especially for major hurricanes, creating a false sense of security and encouraging coastal development. But starting in the 1990s, storminess increased sharply, and the new study says that may be because clean air laws had started to take effect.

 

Previous work had suggested pollution could be playing a significant role in storminess, but the new paper is the most detailed exploration yet of the possible mechanism. It was published online Sunday by the journal Nature Geoscience.

 

The alternative to this new view is the one most climate experts have long held, that the variability in storminess in the North Atlantic is a function of large-scale natural oscillations in the ocean circulation

Five scientists not involved in the new work said they found the findings believable in principle — “entirely plausible,” in the words of Kerry A. Emanuel, an atmospheric scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Several of the experts added, however, that the effect of pollution on storms, even if real, could turn out to be smaller than the new paper proposes.

 

The main effect on storm patterns would have come from particles of sulfur dioxide that entered the air from the combustion of sulfur-laden fuels like coal and diesel. Water can condense on these particles, and a surfeit of them in the air can change the properties of clouds, causing them to be made up of finer droplets.

 

That, in turn, can brighten the clouds and cause their tops to reflect more sunlight back to space — meaning less sunlight reaches the surface to heat it.

 

Getting an accurate representation of all this into computer programs that model the climate has been a long slog for researchers, which is why the evidence of a possible effect on storms is only just emerging.

 

The authors of the new paper are working with one of the most advanced of these models, in Britain. The recent research using that model suggests that the huge increase in pollution around the North Atlantic basin in the mid-20th century cooled the surface enough to change the large-scale circulation of the atmosphere, suppressing storms.

 

In an interview, Dr. Dunstone emphasized not only that more work needed to be done, but that his group’s finding was no reason to stop cleaning up the air. Pollution has severe effects on human health and the environment, and the clean air laws are believed to have saved many lives.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/25/science/earth/air-pollution-may-have-suppressed-storms-research-suggests.html?ref=science

air pollution storm

Air Pollution May Have Suppressed Storms

 

How Awe Can Help Students Develop Purpose

Echoing Green is a global social venture fund. Since 1987, Echoing Green has identified extraordinary emerging social entrepreneurs with bold ideas for social change and provided them with seed money and technical assistance to launch innovative organizations around the world.                        

By Vicki Zakrzewski | June 11, 2013 |

Imagine being Ryan Hreljac’s first grade teacher. After telling your class of six and seven year olds that children in Africa are dying because of lack of clean water, Ryan, one of your students, is so moved he has to do something. What starts as extra vacuuming at home to earn money for wells eventually turns into Ryan’s Well Foundation that, to-date, has brought safe water and sanitation services to over 789,900 people.

As his teacher, you helped Ryan start on the path to a life purpose, which, according to research, may be one of the greatest services you ever render to your students.

William Damon, leading expert in human development and author of The Path to Purpose, states that students today may be high achievers but they have no idea what for. He believes that this sense of meaninglessness is one of the main contributors to the skyrocketing suicide and depression rates amongst our youth. One sample statistic: the American College Health Association reported in 2011 that 30 percent of undergraduates were so depressed they could hardly function.

To combat this meaninglessness, Damon argues that students need to find a purpose in life—something that is meaningful to themselves and that also serves the greater good. In a series of studies of over 1,200 youth ages 12 to 26, Damon found that those who were actively pursuing a clear purpose reaped tremendous benefits that were both immediate and that could also last a lifetime.

More immediate benefits included extra positive energy that not only kept students motivated, but also helped them acquire the necessary skills and knowledge to pursue their purpose, making them very strong learners. Youth with a strong sense of purpose also benefited from positive emotions such as gratitude, self-confidence, optimism, and a deep sense of fulfillment—all of which scientists have found help prevent depression and anxiety.

Students who carry this sense of purpose into adulthood may also benefit in the long run. Research shows that adults who feel their lives have meaning and purpose are happier, more successful at work, and have stronger relationships.

https://www.facebook.com/echoinggreen/posts/10151679843470923

awe

How Awe Can Help Students Develop Purpose

New York: Water for Tomorrow

Each day, more than 15 billion gallons of water are withdrawn from New York’s lakes, rivers, streams and groundwater. This water is a fundamental resource for life—both human and wild. That is why The Nature Conservancy has launched Water for Tomorrow, a program to reform the way fresh water is managed in New York State and help protect our water for New Yorkers in the future.

How is fresh water managed right now?

Currently, New York State provides permits for businesses and people to withdraw water from our watershed. The state analyzes the future implications of each individual permit, but there is no model in place that accounts for the water use from X number of permits each year, 10 years from now, 100 years from now, and so on. We need to know what the impacts of giving out all of these permits are.

What is The Nature Conservancy doing to help?

  • We worked to develop and help pass new water resource legislation in New York State that ensures a framework for making decisions about water withdrawal and its impact on nature. The Water Resource Management Act, passed by Governor Cuomo in August 2011, will protect water bodies and wildlife habitats through the creation of science-based standards for water management and a new permitting system for withdrawals from streams, lakes and ponds. Under this legislation, key bodies of water in New York will be protected, including the Delaware River and Catskills that supply water to 9 million people and the Great Lakes, which holds one-fifth of the world’s fresh water.
  • We are working to develop and have adopted environmental flow standards for important regions and river basins, which will provide science-based limits for determining how much water is left for nature.
  • We are building a tool, based on science and research, to evaluate the impacts of water use in New York State. The Water for Tomorrow tool will provide scientifically based, spatially explicit information to evaluate ecological impacts and human tradeoffs of new water withdrawals for the 21,000 miles of streams and lakes in the state. For example, we can answer: “If we had 1,000 wells withdrawing X gallons per day then cumulatively what are the impacts to both nature’s benefits as well as other human uses?” Having these answers will allow for more informed decision making about the future of water resources—which will be critical when looking at new uses like hydrofracking and the impacts of climate change.

What does all this mean for New Yorkers?

State regulators need these tools, but we also want to make this an open-source tool for New York community members so they can be knowledgeable about our water. Water for Tomorrow will arm communities to play an active role in the conservation of their local resources.

“With threats like natural gas development and climate change, the pressure on New York’s water resources will continue to grow,” says Conservancy freshwater scientist George Schuler. “With your help, we can re-imagine the way New York manages its water resources.

Water for Tomorrow represents the first time that modern freshwater science, statistical and modeling tools and innovative freshwater policy and regulation are being brought together in a collaborative manner.

May 31, 2013

http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/newyork/explore/water-for-tomorrow.xml

ny water

 

New York: Water for Tomorrow

 

Groups Oppose New EPA Beach Water Quality Standards

Two New York-based environmental groups are challenging federal Environmental Protection Agency water quality standards that determine whether a beach is safe for public use, saying the new regulations are too lax.

Manhattan-based Waterkeeper Alliance and Riverkeeper in upstate Ossining joined five other groups from across the country in filing an “intent to sue” notice on June 20.

“The EPA is not relying on the best science and not setting strict enough regulations,” said Phillip Musegaas, Hudson River program director for Riverkeeper. “We want the EPA to make sure that when there are bacteria, that they are not allowing people to swim in it.”

The EPA declined to comment on the potential litigation.

The environmental groups oppose changes the agency made to its recreational water quality criteria in November.

Although state health departments can create their own beach sanitation rules, the EPA standard serves as a guide for determining if a swimming beach should be closed, said EPA spokesman Dale Kemery.

Musegaas said tough environmental standards for beaches are a must in New York because overflows from sewage treatment systems sometimes spill into harbors.

A Riverkeeper report found beach water samples taken in New York City from 2006 to 2011 failed EPA standards 24 percent of the time. Nationwide, 7 percent of beach water samples failed during the same period.

Under the revised standard — the first update since 1986 — 10 percent of water samples taken each month can exceed EPA’s bacteria contamination limit without triggering a beach closure. The previous criteria prohibited beach use after a single water sample exceeded the contamination limit, said Mary Ellen Laurain, spokeswoman for the Nassau County Department of Health.

epa beach

Two New York Environmental Groups Challenge EPA Water Quality Standards

Walmart Pleads Guilty to Hazardous Waste Dumping

Walmart will pay a total of $110m in fines after pleading guilty to a number of counts of federal environmental crimes in its handling of hazardous wastes and pesticides.The US retailer pled guilty in Los Angeles and San Francisco to six counts of violating the Clean Water Act by illegally handling and disposing of hazardous materials at its retail stores across the US.

The company also pled guilty in Kansas City, Missouri, to violating the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) due to failings to properly handle pesticides that had been returned by customers at stores across the country.

Walmart will pay $81m in fines for its conduct, along with a further $29m for previous actions brought by the states of California and Missouri for the same conduct, bringing the total fine to more than $110m.

According to documents filed in the US District Court of San Francisco up until 2006, Walmart lacked a programme and failed to train employees on proper hazardous waste management and disposal practices at the store level. As a result, hazardous wastes were discarded into municipal trash bins, poured into the local sewer system, or improperly transported to product return centers throughout the US.

Ignacia Moreno, assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division said, ‘By improperly handling hazardous waste, pesticides, and other materials in violation of federal laws, Walmart put the public and the environment at risk and gained an unfair economic advantage over other companies.

‘Today, Walmart acknowledged responsibility for violations of federal laws and will pay significant fines and penalties, which will, in part, fund important environmental projects in the communities impacted by the violations and help prevent future harm to the environment.’

CTVNews reported that Walmart spokeswoman Brooke Buchanan said the company has now fixed the problem and is ‘obviously happy that this is the final resolution’.

Buchanan said that employees are now better trained on cleaning up, transporting, and disposing of dangerous products.

The fines against Walmart will be put towards funding environmental projects, with $20m going towards community service projects in the areas impacted by the violations, including the opening of a $6m Retail Compliance Assistance Center that will help US retail stores learn how to properly handle hazardous waste.

Copyright © 2013 NewNet

Walmart

 

Walmart Pleads Guilty to Hazardous Waste Dumping, Fined

 

What’s New: Sampling for Volatile Organic Compounds in Soil by EPA Method 5035A

American Analytical Laboratories, LLC.

Method 5035A Sampling and Field Kit Guidelines

SW-846 Method 5035A Closed System Purge & Trap and Extraction

For Volatile Organics in Soil and Waste Samples

Background:

The EPA has released and subsequently NYSDOH ELAP has approved guidance on the sample collection of volatile organics by SW-846 Method 5035A. Appendix A of this method provides details regarding the many options available for sample collection. The collection and preservation procedures are intended to prevent loss of Volatile Organics during sample transport, handling and analysis.

 

If samples are not collected according to one of these options, American Analytical is required to qualify any reported sample concentrations as biased low in our final lab report by documenting the potential bias in the narrative section of the data package.

 

Method 5035A Sampling Options:

 

American Analytical encourages the use of one of the following four options for meeting Method 5035A sampling and preservation requirements. Sampling kits must be pre-ordered by calling the laboratory at (631) 454-6100.

 

Option 1:      (allows for both low and high level analysis if warranted)

Sample collection will require the following:

  • 2 pre-weighed 40ml vials containing a small magnetic stir bar and preserved with sodium bisulfate for low level analysis (expected concentrations < 200 ppb)
  • 1 pre-weighed 40ml vial with methanol for high level analysis

(expected concentrations >200 ppb)

  • 1 – 1oz jar for percent moisture determination

 

Note: Option 1 will require 5 grams of soil pre-weighed in the field to be placed into each of the 40ml vials by sampling personnel. Use special care when handling methanol. Methanol is a flammable substance.

 

Option 2:    (allows for both low and high level analysis if warranted)

Sample collection will require the following:

  • 2 Encore 5g sampler for low level analysis
  • 1 – 1oz jar for percent moisture determination
  • 1 – 40ml vial pre-weighed and preserved with Methanol for high level analysis

 

Note: Option 2 will require 5 grams of soil pre-weighed in the field to be placed into the Methanol preserved vial using a Terra Core sampler (or equivalent) and a field balance to check the sample weight. Use special care when handling methanol. Methanol is a flammable substance.

 

Option 3: (allows for only low level analysis)

  • 2 pre-weighed 40ml vials containing a small magnetic stir bar and preserved with sodium bisulfate for low level analysis (expected concentrations < 200 ppb)
  • 1 – 1oz jar for percent moisture determination

 

Option 4: (allows for only low level analysis)

  • 2 Encore 5g sampler for low level analysis
  • 1 – 1oz jar for percent moisture determination

 

Return all encores to the laboratory ASAP. Samples must either be analyzed or be transferred from the encores and preserved by the lab within 48 hours of collection.

 

What’s New at American:

Method 5035A outlines the procedures for sample collection and analysis of soils and solid wastes for volatile organic compounds (VOCs).