It’s been over a year since the blast and investigators continue to dig up some awful facts that led to the disaster.

A Chronicle investigation discovered that Pacific Gas and Electric Co. had relied on leak surveys to determine that its gas transmission pipelines were safe even as it was handing out bonuses to supervisors whose crews found fewer leaks and kept repair costs down. This had gone on for a long time. PG&E did not discard the leak-related incentive program until two years before the September 2010 blast in San Bruno that killed eight people and destroyed 38 homes. Even then, it only did so after three company whistle-blowers complained to PG&E’s top officials and board of directors that the utility was encouraging supervisors to overlook possible safety threats.

The complaints led to an internal company audit in April 2008 that concluded that the policy of providing incentives for finding fewer leaks encouraged crews to produce inaccurate surveys, naturally. The policy was only one of several factors keeping PG&E from being able to “effectively identify leaks and to reduce risks to employees and customer safety,” the audit said. PG&E was prompted by the audit’s findings to conduct a rush inspection of its entire gas distribution and transmission system starting in October 2008. These surveys found many more leaks than crews had found in checks performed since 2004.

By February 2009, however, state regulators were still not satisfied, as the pace of the inspection effort and noted that almost all of the newly discovered leaks were serious. The resulting findings indicated that almost every leak survey PG&E had conducted since 2004 was “not effective” and that the public would have to endure a “reduced level of safety” until the makeup inspections were done, said Sunil Shori, an engineer with the California Public Utilities Commission. Shori “strongly” urged PG&E to accelerate their effort, but the work had not been completed before the San Bruno blast.

After the disaster, PG&E performed emergency leak surveys of its entire urban gas-transmission system. In one month, the company reported finding 38 high-priority gas leaks, four of which were so serious the company had to report them to federal officials. This is compared with only six leaks found for the entire previous year.

“This is a big, big deal,” said Richard Kuprewicz, an independent pipeline safety expert in Redmond, Wash., who reviewed the 2008 audit conclusions about bonuses and leaks for The Chronicle. “They’ve got a major, major problem here.”

Of course they do.

Kuprewicz said the bonus system was “training and rewarding people to do the wrong thing” and characteristic of “a seriously broken process.”

“This explains many of the systemic problems in this operation that contributed to the tragedy” in San Bruno, he said.

It sure as hell does.

PG&E spokesman David Eisenhauer said the leaks-per-mile standard is used nationwide “to help utilities have an apples-to-apples comparison. It was one of many measures used to compare divisions within PG&E. However, it was never, and still is not, intended to be used as an incentive for people to find fewer leaks.”

PG&E began providing leak-related incentives for managers before a 2002 federal law took effect that required inspections for many gas pipelines, workers have stated. The federal rules instructed operators to use leak histories on urban pipelines when selecting an inspection method. Leaks can be caused by several things, including failures in longitudinal seam welds – the problem that caused the San Bruno explosion. If a transmission line has a history of a certain kind of longitudinal weld failure, federal rules require that the operator test it either by filling a pipe with high-pressure water or running an automated device through it.

PG&E has buried themselves further in that they rarely used those methods before the San Bruno blast, saying that pressure testing was inconvenient and expensive, and arguing that automated devices could not navigate many of its lines.

State regulators have concluded that these systemic violations of California law and federal safety regulations could result in significant fines for the company. Yet another a report from the California Public Utilities Commission has concluded what has become obvious; PG&E failed to follow accepted industry practice when installing the pipeline, failed to comply with federal pipeline integrity management requirements, kept inadequate records, and poorly collected and reported data.

The latest report opens an agency penalty consideration case on the disaster that will include public hearings and may conclude with “monetary fines and other remedies,” the commission said in a statement.

“We are now, essentially, giving PG&E its day in court,” commission President Michael Peevey said in the statement. “If we determine PG&E has violated the law, we are prepared to impose very significant fines.”

Last month, the CPUC approved a $38 million fine against PG&E for a 2008 natural gas explosion in Rancho Cordova near Sacramento that resulted in one fatality. That incident was minor compaired to The San Bruno explosion that leveled an entire neighborhood, killing eight people and injuring dozens.

PG&E President Chris Johns said in a statement Thursday that the company was taking the CPUC findings seriously and cooperating with the investigation.

“It is clear that PG&E’s past gas operations were not what they should have been,” Johns said. “We have admitted these shortcomings, and we are committed to raising the level of pipeline safety to new, higher standards.”

It’s a little too late, buddy.

National Transportation Safety Board investigators stated last year that the company had several chances to avert the disaster, but failed to do so. NTSB Chairwoman Deborah Hersman said her agency’s investigation showed “troubling revelations about a company that exploited weaknesses in a lax system of oversight and government agencies that placed a blind trust in operators to the detriment of public safety.”

At this point we can only hope that justice is served and this corporate giant that put profits over safety is made fully liable for their immense oversights, and that this whole mess serves as an expensive example to others.

It was another successful year that ended strong for Pacific Coast Locators. Not only did we continue to strive and build confidence with our current clients, we also gained several new clients. Work with new clients included many solar projects as well. The summer months were especially busy for us this year.

Every challenge was met with enthusiasm and strength, thanks to our wonderful team of technicians. We are proud to have such talented technicians, who put in so much time making sure to do each and every job right, and putting safety first as always. We are also very thankful for all of our clients and do our best to make sure that they are satisfied with our work. If they are in any way unsatisfied, we make sure to go back to the site and make things right!

We are very excited to announce that in addition to underground utility locating services, we will now be offering Global Positioning System and Global Information System services in the coming year. In obtaining the latest GPS/GIS tools and software, we will be able to map the coordinates of utilities in order to provide detailed maps in AutoCAD format. This will allow our clients to determine exact locations of underground features and attributes.

The Pacific Coast Locators family is once again looking forward to another year of serving our valued clients while gaining new experience and hopefully continuing to grow as we do so.

Happy New Year!

For the first time, in early December, federal environment officials scientifically linked underground water pollution with hydraulic fracturing. They concluded that the contaminants found in central Wyoming were likely caused by the gas drilling process. These findings by the Environmental Protection Agency come partway through a separate national study by the agency to determine whether fracking presents a risk to water resources.

In the 121-page draft report released on December 8, 2011, EPA officials said that the contamination near the town of Pavillion, Wyo., had most likely seeped up from gas wells and contained at least 10 compounds known to be used in frack fluids.

The draft report states that, “The presence of synthetic compounds such as glycol ethers and the assortment of other organic components is explained as the result of direct mixing of hydraulic fracturing fluids with ground water in the Pavillion gas field. Alternative explanations were carefully considered.” These findings could very well be a turning point in the national debate about whether contamination from fracking is occurring. Further, they are likely to shape how the country regulates and develops natural gas resources in the Marcellus Shale and across the Eastern Appalachian states.

Some of the information in the report also directly contradicts longstanding arguments by the drilling industry for why the fracking process is safe: that hydrologic pressure would naturally force fluids down, not up; that deep geologic layers provide a watertight barrier preventing the movement of chemicals towards the surface; and that the problems with the cement and steel barriers around gas wells aren’t connected to fracking.

Of course, environmental advocates feel a sense of vindication from this report, and have taken the opportunity to argue for stronger federal regulation of fracking.

“No one can accurately say that there is ‘no risk’ where fracking is concerned,” wrote Amy Mall, a senior policy analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council, on her blog. “This draft report makes obvious that there are many factors at play, any one of which can go wrong. Much stronger rules are needed to ensure that well construction standards are stronger and reduce threats to drinking water.”

A spokesman for EnCana, the gas company that owns the Pavillion wells, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In an email exchange after the EPA released preliminary water test data in November, the spokesman, Doug Hock, denied that the company’s actions were to blame for the pollution and suggested natural causes.

“Nothing EPA presented suggests anything has changed since August of last year– the science remains inconclusive in terms of data, impact, and source,” Hock wrote. “It is also important to recognize the importance of hydrology and geology with regard to the sampling results in the Pavillion Field. The field consists of gas-bearing zones in the near subsurface, poor general water quality parameters and discontinuous water-bearing zones.”

The EPA’s findings have quickly triggered what is sure to become an intense political debate as members of Congress consider new proposals to regulate fracking.

Residents began complaining of fouled water near Pavillion in the mid-1990s, and the problems appeared to get worse around 2004. Several residents complained that their well water turned brown shortly after gas wells were fracked nearby. For a time, gas companies operating in the area supplied replacement drinking water to residents.

Beginning in 2008, the EPA took water samples from resident’s drinking water wells and found hydrocarbons and traces of contaminants that seemed like they could be related to fracking. In 2010, another round of sampling confirmed the contamination, and the EPA, along with federal health officials, cautioned residents not to drink their water and to ventilate their homes when they bathed because the methane in the water could cause an explosion.

To confirm their findings, EPA investigators drilled two water monitoring wells to 1,000 feet. Then they released data from these test wells in November that confirmed high levels of carcinogenic chemicals such as benzene, and a chemical compound called 2 Butoxyethanol, which is known to be used in fracking.

The EPA was still not able to draw conclusions based on the tests and made an effort to separate its groundwater investigation in Wyoming from the national controversy around hydraulic fracturing. Agriculture, drilling, and old pollution from waste pits left by the oil and gas industry were all considered possible causes of the contamination.

In the report released this month, the EPA said that pollution from 33 abandoned oil and gas waste pits – which are the subject of a separate cleanup program – are indeed responsible for some degree of shallow groundwater pollution in the area. Those pits may be the source of contamination affecting at least 42 private water wells in Pavillion. But the pits could not be blamed for contamination detected in the water monitoring wells 1,000 feet underground. That contamination, the agency concluded, had to have been caused by fracking.

The EPA’s findings in Wyoming are specific to the region’s geology; the Pavillion-area gas wells were fracked at shallower depths than many of the wells in the Marcellus shale and elsewhere. Investigators tested the cement and casing of the gas wells and found what they described as “sporadic bonding” of the cement in the areas just above where fracking took place. The cement barrier meant to protect the well bore and isolate the chemicals in their intended zone had been weakened and separated from the well, the EPA concluded.

The report also found that hydrologic pressure in the Pavillion area had pushed fluids from deeper geologic layers towards the surface. Those layers were not enough to provide a reliable barrier to contaminants moving upward, the report says.

Throughout its investigation in Wyoming, the EPA was powerless due to a lack of disclosure about exactly what chemicals had been used to frack the wells near Pavillion. EnCana declined to give federal officials a detailed breakdown of every compound used underground. The agency had to rely instead on more general information supplied by the company to protect workers’ health.

Hock would not say whether EnCana had used 2 BE, which is one of the first chemicals identified in Pavillion and known to be used in fracking, at its wells in Pavillion. But he dismissed importance in the EPA’s findings. “There was a single detection of 2-BE among all the samples collected in the deep monitoring wells. It was found in one sample by only one of three labs,” he wrote in his reply to ProPublica two weeks ago. “Inconsistency in detection and non-repeatability shouldn’t be construed as fact.”

The EPA’s draft report still needs to undergo the public review and peer review processes, and is expected to be finalized by spring of 2012.

High-volume hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” has made it possible to extract natural gas from rock formations deep underground. Many think it is a great advance, and many find the practice very detrimental to the environment. Then of course there are also those that try to confuse policymakers and the general public alike by providing false information. There are so many contradictory reports out there on natural gas that it’s sometimes almost impossible to tell fact from fiction.

Those creating the confusion usually have a long history of taking money from corporations to promote the free-market, deregulatory agenda of big business, and a history of falsely undermining climate science. False representations created by those who stand to gain the most is a common theme. The media is also a huge contender in steering views on the subject.

An important point is that scientists have a very limited understanding of how much methane, a potent greenhouse gas, is being emitted from shale gas drilling across the United States. If we do not have this understanding, we cannot possibly know the full greenhouse gas footprint of shale gas. This means that the natural gas industry’s promotion of shale gas as a bridge from fossil fuels to renewables is not based on science, and that more research is needed before exposing the public to the effects of fracking.

It is in the public’s best interest to dissect the claims of industry—and their backers—and get to the roots of what is known and what is unknown about shale gas development.

Stayed tuned for the latest in fracking developments in the next post!

Hydraulic fracturing is the process of using highly pressurized fluid (water, chemicals and sand) to cause fractures in rock formations to break open the rock in order to release petroleum, natural gas, coal seam gas, or other substances for extraction. The technique is often called fracking or hydrofracing. This type of fracturing, often called a “frack job” is done from a wellbore that is drilled into reservoir rock formations. The energy from the injection of highly pressurized fluid creates new channels in the rock. The benefit of this practice is that it can increase extraction rates and the retrieval of fossil fuels. The technique is used to increase or restore the rate at which fluids, such as oil or water, or natural gas can be produced from subterranean natural reservoirs. These include such uncommon reservoirs as shale rock or coal beds. The width of the fracture is usually maintained after the initial injection by mixing a “proppant” into the fluid to be injected. Proppant is a particulant material, such as grains of sand or ceramic, that prevents the fractures from closing when the injection is stopped.

Fracking makes possible the production of natural gas and oil from rock formations deep below the earth’s surface (generally 5,000-20,000 feet or 1,500-6,100 m). At such a depth, there usually is not enough porosity (the ratio, expressed as a percentage, of the volume of the pores or interstices of a substance, as a rock or rock stratum, to the total volume of the mass) and permeability to allow natural gas and oil to easily flow from the rock into the wellbore. Creating conductive fractures in the rock is needed to extract gas from shale reservoirs because of the extremely low natural permeability of shale. Fractures provide a conductive path that connects a larger area of the reservoir to the well, increasing the area from which natural gas and liquids can be recovered from the formation.

The practice is considered controversial and has been banned in many areas because of numerous cases of water contamination near fracking sites. The process also produces a toxic wastewater that cannot be treated by standard treatment plants. It is especially dangerous because drillers, seeing nothing but dollar signs, are rushing to use the technique in new areas of the country without completely evaluating the effects on human health and the environment, and without enough government oversight.

What are the specific dangers? First and foremost, the chemicals used are toxic and can contaminate water from spills or accidents. The hazardous wastewater that is produced can contain radioactive substances as well as toxic chemicals, making proper disposal difficult and dangerous. There are plenty of disingenuous people and businesses who will take the easiest route possible in order to make money from the practice. Safe disposal is usually the first to be cut out of the process. It is a simple fact that fracking requires millions of gallons of water and can deplete local water supplies. If the process is not absolutely necessary, why do such a thing? Then there is the extremely dangerous risk of causing natural gas to migrate into drinking water sources, which can cause houses and wells to explode. There have already been more than 1,000 documented cases of water contamination near drilling sites around the country.

This is only the beginning… Stay tuned for more of the facts and fiction of fracking.

Even with the best training, equipment, and preparation, it is an inevitable fact of working in utility locating industry that damages will happen. When they do happen, and when they cannot be resolved without dispute, the prospect of giving a deposition can frighten even the most experienced witness. But, there is the positive aspect in that when a deposition goes well, it can be one of the most effective tools for resolving a claim in your company’s favor. Just keep a few tips in mind and you can make sure that the deposition goes well.

The first thing you will want to do is prepare with an attorney. A business owner should always have a trusted attorney on their side. An experienced litigation attorney will have a list of anticipated topics that will most likely be covered during a deposition. They should also have an idea of the documents that will be shown to you as part of preliminary examination. The key is to listen carefully to what is expected. It will help ease your mind and you will be able to focus on the main issues in order to produce a focused, accurate and effective testimony. Be sure to ask questions and take notes as needed to prepare.

The next thing you need to consider is leaving all documentation and notes at home. Be sure to review everything as much as possible until you are comfortable, then either leave it all at home or turn them over to your attorney. The reason behind this is that the opposing attorney has the right to review any documents that you bring with you to the deposition. They also have the right to ask for copies of them. If you don’t have anything with you, there is nothing to review during the deposition. If your attorney needs to disclose any of the information before or after the deposition, you can leave that decision up to them.

When you’re finally in the witness’ seat, you are probably going to want to do whatever you can to end the questioning as quickly as possible. Resist the urge to rush, as you will put less thought into your answers and all of your careful preparation will be for nothing. Be aware that the deposition could very well take an entire day, but it is only one day and will be over soon enough. After each question is asked, stop and think before you answer. Think about your preparation and know where you want to take your answer before you start answering. Once you begin speaking, only answer the question that is being asked. Do not volunteer any more information than is requested. You do not want to be as accommodating in a deposition as you might be in your personal life. Just listen carefully, answer only what is asked and then stop.

Depositions are not fun. But if you follow these simple tips, at least you will know that your anxiety and inconvenience turned out to be helpful in resolving the damage claim and getting your company back to business as usual.

All of that information about remediation needs some illustrations. Below are a few examples of how the components in some of the different kinds of systems work. Click to enlarge.

Once the assessment and mapping of the site has be completed, there are several remediation technologies to consider. They can be categorized into ex-situ and in-situ methods. Ex-situ methods involve excavation of affected soils and the following treatment at the surface, whereas in-situ methods involve treating the contamination without removing the soils.

Excavation processes can be as simple as hauling the contaminated soil to a regulated landfill. It can also involve aerating (the process by which air is circulated through, mixed or dissolved into a liquid or substance) the excavated material. This is done when the case involves the very harmful volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Ther have been recent advancements in bioaugmentation and biostimulation of the excavated material that have also proven to be able to remediate semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) on a site. If the contamination affects a river or bay bottom, then dredging of bay mud or other silty clays containing contaminants may be conducted. ExSitu chemical oxidation has also been used in the remediation of contaminated soil. This process involves the excavation of the contaminated area into large bermed (sloping) areas where they are treated by using chemical oxidation methods.

Pump and treat involves pumping out contaminated groundwater with the use of a submersible or vacuum pump, and then purifiing the extracted groundwater by allowing it to slowly flow through a series of vessels that contain materials designed to adsorb the contaminants from the groundwater, like a filter. For sites that are contaminated with petroleum products, the material used is usually granulated activated carbon. Chemical reagents (substances that cause chemical reactions) such as flocculants followed by sand filters may also be used to help decontaminate groundwater. Air stripping is a method that can be effective for volatile pollutants such as BTEX compounds that are found in gasoline.

Depending on geology and soil type, pump and treat may be a good method. It is often used, in the right conditions, to quickly reduce high concentrations of pollutants. It is more difficult to reach the acceptable low concentrations to satisfy remediation standards, and this is due to the equilibrium of absorption (chemistry)/desorption processes in the soil.

There are also new in situ oxidation technologies that have become popular for the remediation of a wide range of soil and groundwater contaminantion. Remediation by chemical oxidation involves injecting strong oxidants such as hydrogen peroxide or ozone gas into the contaminated area.

Oxygen gas or ambient air can also be injected. This process helps promote the growth of aerobic (requiring the presence of oxygen) bacteria which accelerate natural depletion of organic contaminants. One disadvantage of this approach is the possibility of decreasing natural anaerobic contaminant destruction where the existing conditions enhance anaerobic (do not require the presence of oxygen) bacteria which normally live in the soil and prefer a reducing environment. Aerobic activity is usually much faster than anaerobic and overall destruction rates are typically greater when aerobic activity can be successfully used.

Another negative outcome of the injection of gases into the groundwater is that the action may also cause contamination to spread faster than normal. This depends on the site’s general distribution of groundwater. In these cases, injections downgradient of groundwater flow may provide enough microbial destruction of the contaminants before they are exposed to the surface waters or drinking water supply wells.

Soil vapor extraction (SVE) is another effective remediation technology for soil. “Multi Phase Extraction” (MPE) is also an effective remediation technology when soil and groundwater are to be remediated at the same time. SVE and MPE utilize different technologies to treat the off-gas volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that generated after the vacuum removal of air and vapors (and VOCs) from the subsurface. These technologies include granulated activated carbon (most commonly used historically), thermal and/or catalytic oxidation, and vapor condensation. Generally, carbon is used for low VOC concentration vapor streams, oxidation is used for moderate VOC concentration streams, and vapor condensation is used for high VOC concentration vapor streams.

Granular activated carbon (GAC) is used as a filter for air or water. It is most commonly used to filter tap water in household sinks. GAC is a highly porous and adsorbent material that is produced by heating organic matter, such as coal, wood and coconut shell, in the absence of air, which is then crushed into granules. Activated carbon is positively charged and is therefore able to absorb and remove negative ions from the water. These include organic ions, ozone, chlorine, fluorides and dissolved organic solutes. The activated carbon must be replaced periodically as it becomes saturated and unable to adsorb. Activated carbon is not effective in removing heavy metals.

Thermal oxidation (or incineration) can also be an effective remediation technology. This approach is somewhat disputed because of the risks of dioxins (general name for a family of chlorinated hydrocarbons, a toxic compound that is carcinogenic and teratogenic in certain animals) released in the atmosphere through the exhaust gases. Controlled, high temperature incineration and filtering of exhaust gases, however, should not pose any risks.

Two different technologies can be used to oxidize the contaminants of an extracted vapor stream. Whether it is thermal or catalytic depends on the type and concentration in parts per million by volume of components of the vapor stream. Thermal oxidation is more useful for higher concentration flowing in vapor streams (which require less natural gas usage) than catalytic oxidation. Thermal oxidation uses a system that acts as a furnace and maintains temperatures ranging from 1350°F to 1500°F (730°C-815°C). Catalytic oxidation uses a catalyst on a support to activate a lower temperature oxidation. This system usually maintains temperatures ranging from 600°F to 800°F (315°C-430°C).

Vapor condensation is the most effective off-gas treatment technology for high VOC concentration vapor streams. This process involves cryogenically (at very low tempuratures) cooling the vapor stream to below 40 degrees C so that the VOCs condensate out of the vapor stream and into liquid form where it is collected in steel containers. The liquid form of the VOCs is referred to as dense non-aqueous phase liquids (DNAPL) when the source of the liquid is mostly solvents, or light non-aqueous phase liquids (LNAPL) when the source of the liquid is mostly petroleum or fuel products. The recovered chemical can then be reused or recycled in a more environmentally friendly manner than the alternatives described above. This technology is also known as cryogenic cooling and compression (C3-Technology).

There are quite a few additional methods out there, as remediation has become imperative in today’s environment. It is especially important to keep close watch on the many service stations and areas where petroleum products are stored. Pacific Coast Locators is happy to have so many wonderful partners in the Environmental field who rely on us to help them in the process of building these extraordinary remediation systems.

As mentioned in a previous post, Pacific Coast Locators is often relied upon by our Environmental clients to complete the vital step of locating all possible underground utilities before they are able to complete a project. Many of these projects involve the remediation (the act or process of remedying something, the reversal or stopping of damaging effects) of former and existing gas stations, oil refineries, landfills and other sites whose existence affects the quality of the environment surrounding them. Remediation deals with the removal of pollution or contaminants from environmental media such as soil, groundwater, sediment, or surface water.

A huge part of most Environmental organizations’ work is to support the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in its mission to protect human health and the environment by developing, promoting and implementing the cleanup strategies needed to restore contaminated sites to productive use, reduce associated costs and support environmental preservation. Remediation is one step in the process by which a contaminated site progresses toward sustainable reuse or new use. The whole process is called land revitalization. The first step is destruction, demolition and removal. Next is cleanup, remediation and waste management. Then comes the design and construction for reuse. Lastly is maintaining the sustainable use and long-term care and preservation of the site.

The majority of the sites for which Pacific Coast Locators is hired by Environmental companies to conduct geophysical surveys are former and active gas stations. In the past 20 years or so, gas station remediation practices and features that prevent fuel spills and control contamination have become mandatory. State and federal laws laws require that all existing underground storage tanks (USTs) that are used commercially, like those buried under gas stations, must be refitted with leak alarms, overflow containers, piping and corrosion-preventative materials. Before anything can be done, a locator must come in to clear and mark-out all utilities and pipeline in and around the station, depending on where the digging, boring, sampling or trenching will take place. Sometimes Pacific Coast Locators is called out just to find evidence of USTs or former USTs.

Once a site is suspected of being contaminated, the remediation process starts with the assessment of the type and amount of contamination. Often the assessment begins with preparation of what is called a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. The historical use of the site and the materials used and produced on site must be determined as this will guide the assessment strategy and type of sampling and chemical analysis that needs to be performed. Often, nearby sites owned by the same company or which are nearby and have been reclaimed, demolished or filled are also contaminated even where the current land use seems harmless. For example, a park may have been levelled by using contaminated waste in the fill.

It is also important to consider off site contamination of nearby sites to soil, ground water, and air. This is often caused by decades of emissions. Ceiling dust, topsoil, surface and groundwater of nearby properties should also be tested, both before and after any remediation. This is a controversial step as for a few reasons, number one being that no one wants to have to pay for the assessment and clean up of the site. Also, if nearby properties are found to be contaminated it may have to be noted on their property title, which could affect the value.

After the assessment and mapping of the site, there are several methods of remediation to consider. These will be discussed in the next post. Stayed tuned!

Just another day out in the field!