This is the 3^rd in my continuing blog series on taking commonground’s DDU 101 course. I last left off with my post on site visits, a collection of posts by fellow classmates about drugs, carnage, gambling and lies. Week 3 was a bit more sedate, but very intense.

I've gone from the wading pool right into the deep end, forced way out of my comfort zone as we moved into the really nitty-gritty aspects of doing a Phase I. Just to give you a sense of how green I feel in this course with other technical EPs, I had NO idea what this picture was. (I do now.)

These were hard modules for my non-engineering mind, and my pace was slow. We covered:

• user responsibilities,
• historical review,
• geology/groundwater and
• common contaminants.

The user responsibilities module was pretty straightforward and I relied heavily on my time watching EPA’s AAI rule written back in 2004-5. The user should fill out questionnaire, but if they don’t (and my classmates said they usually don’t), the EP needs to document it, and then consider the significance of that missing piece in light of everything else they learn about the property in their research. The big question is: how exactly do you assess the significance of what you don’t know?

The historical review section was a bear. We went through every standard historical source in detail (sources, benefits, pitfalls and what to look for). For someone who doesn’t look at Sanborns and aerials every day, this was tough for me. Our assignment was to share what types of historical sources we’ve used. Google Earth and local libraries are widely used—and some interesting local sources I wouldn’t have thought of. Kudos to the classmate who posted that he goes to the local diner and talks to the oldest waiter/waitress he can find. I loved that one! And, imagine how psyched you’d be if you stumbled on a framed photo of your target property’s historical timeline in the hallway of the building you were doing a site visit on like one of my classmates did?

We also had to do a group project and build a site’s history based on a city directory, topo, 5 aerials and 2 Sanborns. I stared at some of the examples like those “magic eye” images…waiting and hoping something obvious would emerge (it didn’t).

Geology/groundwater. The definition section alone (advection, aquitard, piezometric) was enough to send me running for the hills. Once I overcame my fear of the unknown, it was fun getting into different scenarios and guessing at groundwater flow. Now with confidence I can say, “In consolidated sediments, contaminants are transported in groundwater along preferential pathways or zones of secondary permeability.” As I listened to the course content, what I was really thinking was, “Am I going to be tested on this?” (The answer was yes.) This was the hardest quiz so far. I had to calculate rates of groundwater flow, guess at plume direction in a diagram of a highly permeable aquifer and interpret groundwater elevation data in a Phase I.

Roundly out this taxing Week 3 was the module on common contaminants. Trying to decipher the table of common contaminants in this module brought to mind the chorus of Warren Zevon’s Run Straight Down (how's that for an obscure musical reference?). Another doozy of a quiz, but I got through it, and now know what PAHs are most closely related to, what TPH refers to, and what contaminants may be associated with a release from a warehouse.

My brain was whipped after Week 3, and Week 4 looks even more intense, but this is the halfway point to graduation.

I’ll let you know how I fare in modules on: database reports, non-scope items, data gaps, RECs (gulp), and findings/opinions/conclusions.