When you’re the client, remediation can feel like an expensive guessing game. It is difficult to understand why the contractor can’t simply “get it done.” Uncertainties in stratigraphy and mass entrainment can sound like excuses, especially when such discussions are raised in relation to a remedy that is not performing.
Many sites follow a familiar pattern. First, there is confidence that the problem is small and will be addressed quickly. As characterization proceeds, the extent of contamination grows, and confidence fades. Around this point, often, the first contractor is fired — shoot the messenger.
The next contractor, knowing the fate of the first, typically crosses their fingers and goes for a “remedy.” The initial choice is typically excavation, which is great when contamination is accessible and can be safely removed. Mechanical systems are often next. I’m ambivalent about them, but clients appreciate the tangible activity – pumps running, etc. When the system fails to bring the site to closure, which they are inherently unable to do for most COCs in most geological settings, many clients become disheartened. This assumes that they weren’t disillusioned when the maintenance costs started rolling in.
Does this all sound familiar?
Ejlskov became the contractor for just such a CVOC-contaminated site. Where many had walked before, Ejlskov directed the path to success. See the two videos and the PowerPoint below.
The Environmental Site Model (ESM) software, proprietary to RPI Group companies, can be used to record in situ injection distribution patterns.
Short Video Showing a PCE Plume Progressing to an Ethylene Plume
