Posts Tagged ‘vapor intrusion’

Too expensive?

Monday, January 11th, 2010

When my clients change employers I usually follow.  One such client, a VERY able and talented environmental engineer, switched companies and contacted ReRem for several feasibility studies for remediation design. The work was proposed and scheduled.  At the last minute the management cancelled the studies citing costs.

Fast forward;  this client just contacted ReRem to conduct a study at these same sites.  The equipment deployed has proven ineffective, the plume is now offsite, and two years has been lost.  The management must now explain the off-site and vapor-intrusion issues to an unhappy client.  Significant additional capital will be required to retrofit the site with an appropriate technology.

The dollars required to provide a proper study and design is less expensive than recovering trust and reputation.

Remediation equipment rental programs

Wednesday, December 30th, 2009

Many environmental remediation projects can be quickly implemented and dynamically-scaled using a phased technology and capacity approach.  Typically, initial response requires large, high-capacity technologies during the ER / Investigation / Interim Solution period of the project.  As the concentrations and areal extent are delineated and attenuated smaller, more specialized equipment is deployed.

This is where ReRem can help.  Our warehouses contain a variety of commonly required remediation technologies and hardware, ready to go.  We can save your client the lead-time and capital-expense of short-term hardware.  The consultant can address the issue while we provide the horsepower for the initial mass-removal, then de-escalate as the equipment needs change.

This prompt response can save the RP through plume minimization and initial equipment costs.  It aids the consultant in providing time for a thorough investigation and proper long-term system design.  WIN-WIN.

VI = vapor intrusion

Monday, September 7th, 2009

An agricultural / hardware chain was operating on a former retail petroleum site.  During its first winter, employees noted gasoline odors in the storage and retail areas.  Little or no vapor was noted in other months. Over the second winter an industrial hygienist identified BTEX as an IAQ issue and recommended removal of all automotive products from the structure.  The vapor issue continued.

A local environmental contractor was retained for a subsurface investigation which found high soil-vapor concentrations adjacent the structures and under the slab.  A floor sealing program was completed and the vapor issue continued.

Subsequent investigations identified the source-area, plume concentrations and areal extent.  Insurance companies placed blame and the business threatened to move as the vapor issue continued.

I know the property owner.  He was distraught over the contamination and the loss of a leasing tenant.  He did not believe the insurance, nor consultants, would come to a solution any time soon.  I proposed a simple solution: sub-slab depressurization.

The structure had been built with a footer-drain system draining to a parking lot dry well.  ReRem provided a soil vapor extraction skid to apply a stepped vacuum to the footer grains while others monitored the airspace VOC’s and pressure beneath the slab.  The four-week trial was a success!  A moderate vacuum at the drain was sufficient to induce a vacuum across the slab.  Our stepped-testing program optimized vacuum and flow, providing design data for a long-term remedy.

The owner bought and now operates the depressurization system, the tenant is no longer threatening to vacate.  The insurance companies still bicker and attempt to assign blame.