From Theory to Practice: Three Case Studies

Starts at 4:51 Case Study 1 - Remediation: Multiple contaminants in a difficult regulatory environment. We will discuss how, following a peer review, it appeared that the state regulators, not science, were driving the current approach. We used multiple remediation technologies to help our client close the site and save approximately $5 million in the process (Soil Remediation, Metals, Herbicides, Fuel Oil, Dig and Haul, Bioremediation, ISCO, Risk Assessment, Regulatory Negotiations). Starts at 20:39 Case Study 2 - Litigation Support: Two entities had released the same contaminants; our client was being held responsible for the majority. We will discuss how we used good hydrogeologic fundamentals to help our client reduce their liability from nearly $20 million to $4 million (Litigation Support, Groundwater, BTEX, Fate and Transport, Forensic Tools). Starts at 28:40 Case Study 3 - Remediation and Litigation Support: Multiple parties had the same contaminant that threatened the public water supply. We will discuss how previous efforts didn’t focus on the fundamentals and how we “connected the dots.” This project went to the State Supreme Court, and the Court ordered the regulators to repay our client nearly $4 million (Groundwater, TCE, Modeling, Litigation Support, State Supreme Court). Site closure at a site in California. A former chemical plant to residential use. Past chemical use/impacts included herbicides, metals, fuel oil, and surface coating operations. This site also sits above a local drinking water aquifer. The previous consultant was proposing a dig-and-haul approach, which is easy for regulators to approve. However, the price for this site-wide soil removal was about $7 million. This is when Dragun was approached to conduct a peer review of the work done to date. Everyone agreed on the general approach to remediate the area impacted by metals, however, the area was large, which meant it would be very expensive. To address this we did risk assessment to look at the actual exposure potential. This allowed us to reduce the size of the area that needed remediated to just a few hot spots, a fraction of what was originally proposed. Herbicides were loaded onto rail cars which resulted in some areas impacted by herbicides. Rather than dig and haul, we did a bench-scale study that demonstrated that the soils could be bio-remediated ex-situ. We placed piles of herbicide-impacted soil at an abandoned building on the site and added water and nutrients. This allowed us to return about 80% of this soil back to the excavation. The fuel oil (Bunker C Oil) impacts were from about 10-30 feet. Rather than digging, we began with in situ chemical oxidation. This took care of only about half of the area. However, for the remaining oil, the impact was minimal and it was fairly immobile. So we were able to get a deed restriction just on this area. The original estimate was $ 7 million, but were able to complete for about $2.3 million. We were able to get a certificate of completion and the site was redeveloped for residential use. Litigation case study. Two companies owned the same gas station, a very large company and an entrepreneur. The problem arose when gasoline was discovered in the groundwater in the adjacent neighborhood. Our litigation support included technical review of groundwater investigations, groundwater modeling, expert reports and depositions, and trial testimony. We were asked to review the technical reports, conclusions as well as the conceptual site model. The opposing counsel's technical team had two environmental experts, one that did groundwater modeling, one that did fingerprinting. Much of the focus of their fingerprinting expert was on chemical additive that they used that our client did not us (i.e. from different refineries).Because they didn't find the additive in MW-17, they concluded the contamination belonged to our client. There were two problems with this, MW-17 was not in the groundwater flow path and second, they didn't factor in the retardation rate of the additive. The judge understood and agreed with conclusion and our client's liability was reduced from about $20 Million to about $4 Million. A manufacturer that used TCE in their operation, historically disposed waste TCE in a dry well. The manufacturer "stepped up" and took responsibility for the TCE release. They had installed several monitoring wells, pumping wells and a treatment process. The regulatory later found TCE in sentinel wells and blamed the manufacturer. They were asking for more wells and there was no end in sight. We began with a peer review of three reports and uncovered several technical gaps. We obtained more information via FOIA. This with other information allowed us to build a comprehensive database. We then developed a conceptual site model with multiple aquifers, multiple aquitards. Our conclusions were very different.