You want news about the environmental services industry, not a chat about us. We listened to what you told us you wanted more of, overhauled the parts of our newsletter that needed improvement, and scrapped the rest.
Now, you’ll get industry news, events, case studies and exclusive access to our experts in your inbox every other month.
Once you read through this first issue of our new format, please fill out the two question survey at the end and tell us what you think. We’ll choose one person at random to win a Cascade Go-Bag, which comes with a durable Rite in the Rain notebook, waterproof post-it notes, a multi-tool, and more.
Vice President of Technology Eliot Cooper explains how we helped our client reach No Further Action (NFA) status using Cascade Chemistries product CleanER iZVI and an aggressive remediation approach.View Case Study >>
“When is thermal treatment more cost effective than other remediation technologies?”
Several conditions can make in situ thermal remediation (ISTR) the most cost effective approach, high contaminant mass being one of them. If your site is too deep and can’t be excavated cost-effectively, that’s also a sweet spot for ISTR.
When the site is located under existing infrastructure—like buildings, roads, utility lines, or anything else that can’t be temporarily removed—thermal is often selected simply because we can do it in situ underneath existing structures.
If schedule is the driver—for example, if the client is a developer who can’t do anything with the site until environmental concerns are removed—thermal technologies are a good fit because the certainty of getting to the clean-up goals within a specific timeframe is high.
If you'd like to submit a question for our Ask the Experts column, subscribe now to our newsletter! Pathways subscribers get exclusive access to this feature.