Webinar on Laser-Induced Fluorescence for Contaminated Sites

Chlorinated solvents, petroleum, creosote, and coal tars are common contaminants at thousands of sites all over the world.  These “source term” light non-aqueous phase liquid (LNAPL) and dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) contaminants are potent sources of dissolved phase contamination, making proper characterization of their subsurface architecture a keystone of long term remediation success.  Unfortunately, these NAPL bodies typically distribute themselves in a highly heterogeneous fashion, leaving investigators with little alternative to gathering large data sets to understand their architecture, making traditional sampling and analysis costs prohibitively high.

Laser-induced fluorescence (LIF) is a cost-effective alternative to traditional sampling because it logs the NAPL continuously in the subsurface in real time.  Production rates of 250 to 450 feet/day are typical, making characterization of NAPL bodies possible in just a few days’ to a weeks’ time.  While LIF offers numerous benefits, it’s important that investigators understand LIF technology, what the LIF technology can and can’t tell them about their site, and how to avoid applying LIF to sites and conditions that can’t benefit from LIF.

The presenter, who is the lead developer of all LIF systems currently commercially available, will provide a brief summary of how LIF works, which LIF system to apply to which contaminant, what information LIF is capable of providing, along with its limitations.

Presented by Randy St. Germain, Dakota Technologies

Date: Thursday, May 4, 2017

Time: 9:00 AM Pacific Time (US and Canada)

More information about the webinar can be found at the here.

Corporation Ordered to pay $1 million by Ontario Court for historic spill

The Ontario Superior Court recently ruled that the corporation responsible for the release of dry cleaning solvents from 1960 through to 1974 is li able for clean-up. In Huang v Fraser Hillary’s Limited, 2017 ONSC 1500 (CanLII), the Court ruled that Faser Hillary’s Limited liable for the release of the dry cleaning solvents that contaminated the neighbouring property. The Court awarded $1,632,500 for remediation costs and $201,700 for expert costs.

The Release of Dry Cleaning Chemicals

Mr. Hung brought the legal action against Fraser Hillary’s Limited (“FHL” ) for remedial and related expert expenses for the tetrachloroethylene (“PCE” or “PERC”) and trichloroethylene (“TCE”) contamination of soils and groundwater at 1255 and 1263 Bank Street. The two properties owned my Mr. Hung were contaminated by the FHL, the owner of a dry cleaning business located at 1235 Bank Street since 1960. The dry cleaning facility was adjacent to Mr.Hung’s properties.

The Court found that between the 1960s and 1970s, dry cleaning solvents used by FHL at 1235 Bank were allowed to enter the ground via dry cleaning filters and products stored at the dry cleaner and, as well, through the building’s sump in the basement. The Court also found that FHL, since knowing about the migration of contaminant to the adjacent properties owned by Mr. Hung, took no meaningful steps to address it.

The Court found that from 1960 to 1974, the use of PCE/TCE at the dry cleaners owned and operated by FHL resulted in spills of these chemicals onto the ground. Used PCE would be stored by FHL in cardboard boxes in the parking lot at the rear of its property and left there until the weekly garbage collection. In addition to the storage practices in the rear laneway, there were also spills of PCE within the dry cleaners and that PCE contamination likely made its way into the sump. FHL employees would have benefitted greatly from the regulations and rules of storing and disposing of hazardous cleaning chemicals that Storemasta goes into detail about on their site.

FHL’s handling practices of PCE/TCE changed in 1974 when FHL purchased new dry cleaning machines. The new machines and resulting new practices significantly reduced the amount of PCE/TCE used at 1235 Bank, and virtually eliminated the potential for spills.

Contamination Found

Mr. Hung discovered that his property was contaminated in 2002 when he retained an environmental consulting firm to conduct Phase I and II environmental site assessments (“ESAs”) of one of FHL’s properties he was considering buying. The Phase I ESA found moderate to high likelihood of contaminants on the FHL’s properties due to the drycleaner directly to the northwest. The Phase II ESA concluded that soil and groundwater had concentrations of TCE that exceed Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (“MOECC” or “MOE”) clean-up criteria. The Phase II ESA recommended that the soil be excavated and disposed of off-site, with remediation to be done with the FHL site or else that a barrier system be installed along the common property boundary. He recommended as well remediation of the groundwater.

Mr. Huang testified that, as a result of the contamination, his bank would not advance any funds and would not renew his existing mortgage. He also testified that he is not able to develop his properties in their present condition and that, once environmental issues are addressed, he intends to proceed with his development plans.

PCE Explained

Experts called to testify in the court case explained that PCE is a chemical solvent used as a degreaser and predominantly used in the dry cleaning industry. TCE is another chemical compound that can exist independent of PCE or as a breakdown product of PCE. Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid (“DNAPL” -pronounced “dean apple”) is the purest form of PCE. It is denser than water. When PCE impacts the ground, it does not migrate straight down. It chooses the path of least resistance and can spread out over a large area as it breaks down and falls apart during its descent through the ground. As a result, the final resting place of DNAPL may not be where it originally impacted the ground. Since it can spread out and migrate below the ground – both horizontally and vertically, there can be a large surface area that can have traces of DNAPL. This possible area of DNAPL is known as a “Source Zone”, which, again, is not necessarily where the actual PCE first impacted the ground. When clean groundwater passes through DNAPL it becomes contaminated and continues its migration.

The experts agreed that the contaminants found in the groundwater and soils of the plaintiff’s lands are from the dry-cleaning solvents used by the dry-cleaning facility operated by FHL.

Clean-up Alternatives and Decision

On its decision to award costs, the Court heard eight different remedial scenarios from Mr. Hung’s experts. The costs associated with each of these scenarios varied considerably and some of these scenarios assumed conflicting hypotheses. For example, some scenarios proposed the clean-up of the source zone on all the contaminated properties, including, in addition to those of the Mr. Hung, FHL, and some unidentified non-parties (part of some of the residential properties to the east of the Mr. Hung). Some build a barrier to isolate the source zone and then treat the Mr. Hung’s properties through various methods including bioremediation. Other scenarios assume the excavation of all of the Mr. Hung’s properties, as contemplated by their development and cost for the incremental costs resulting from the contamination. To make it even more challenging, some assume that the applicable remedial standard is the residential and coarse soils standard for full depth, while other scenarios assume that the standard is the commercial and medium and fine textured soils for a stratified site condition.

After having assessed the evidence and the various scenarios, the Court eliminated the scenarios requiring the remediation of the entire source zone with no barrier to isolate the source zone.

The Court decided on awarding costs to Mr. Hung at a budget of $1.2 million for a remediation that involved isolating the source zone of contamination with a permeable reactive barrier (“PRB”) and treating Mr. Hung’s properties with injections of zero-valent iron (ZVI) over a period of 8 to 10 years. It was the view of the Court that the options was, by far, the most carefully thought out, as well as the most technologically advanced and most efficacious, alternative. The court adjusted the cost upwards to $1.6 million to allow for the replacement of the PRB.

Saskatchewan Government to improve Pipeline Regulations

As reported in Canadian Underwriter, the Government of Saskatchewan recently announced steps to improve pipeline regulations after the completion of its investigation into last July’s Husky Energy pipeline oil spill.  Husky Energy was responsible for an oil spill of 250,000 litres into North Saskatchewan River.  Crews discovered the oil leak from a pipeline on July 20th after pressure anomalies were remoted measured in the pipeline.  A crew investigated the pressure anomalies and discovered the leak.  The spill caused communities downstream, including Battleford and Prince Albert to declare states emergency, and stop taking their drinking water from the river.

A Saskatchewan government investigation into the incident recently released its findings.  The government report concluded that the cause of the spill was mechanical cracking in a buckle in the pipeline.  The mechanical cracking was the result of many years of ground movement on the slope that the buckle rested.

One step the Saskatchewan government is taking to prevent future oil pipeline incidents is the introduction of a Bill (Pipelines Amendment Act) aimed at enhancing regulatory oversight of pipelines in the Province.  If passed, the Bill will address the current gaps in the provinces existing legal framework and provide the foundation for strengthening regulatory requirements for pipelines.

The province has also initiated compliance audits on the integrity management programs of companies that operate pipelines across major water crossings.  This work will build off the inspections conducted last year, but will include a review of corporate oversight of these programs;

The provincial government is reviewing the legacy designs of oil pipeline crossings over water to determine whether additional measures are needed to manage geotechnical risks.  One of the findings from the review of the Husky Energy incident was that the pipeline was built in 1997 based on the engineering standards of the time.

In situ Remediation Revitalizes Hazardous Waste Sites in North Carolina

Hazardous waste sites are not exactly an endangered species: In Buncombe County, North Carolina alone, there are about 30 of them, relics of former manufacturing operations or other businesses that left behind toxic residues. Some of those companies were established before the 1970s, when pioneering environmental laws began regulating industrial pollution.  Others simply ignored the laws governing disposal of dangerous chemicals.  Either way, these contaminants are hard to get rid of.  Expensive cleanup efforts can drag on for decades with no sure resolution.

The Chemtronics site in Swannanoa, North Carolina for example, has been on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s National Priorities List since 1982, yet there’s still no end in sight to the cleanup (see “Chemtronics: From Chemical Weapons to Conservation Easement,” March 24, 2016, Mountain Xpress).

anwhile, over at the CTS site on Mills Gap Road in South Asheville, North Carolina concerns about the pace and effectiveness of cleanup efforts have mobilized community activists (see “Toxic Legacy: CTS Site Breeds Heartache for Residents,” June 1, 2016, Mountain Xpress).

But a group of innovative strategies collectively known as “in situ remediation could dramatically improve the prospects for restoring these and other high-profile Superfund sites more quickly and at lower cost.

Instead of trying to mechanically remove contaminants from a property, in situ remediation harnesses the ability of certain chemicals or bacteria to tackle them where they are and turn them into harmless substances.  Later this year, environmental contractors will implement such strategies at both those sites, under the auspices of U.S. EPA Region 4 officials.  And meanwhile, another local North Carolina project that’s already underway — RiverLink’s phytoremediation effort at the former Edaco junkyard on Amboy Road — gives some hints of these approaches’ potential to reclaim festering hazardous waste sites.

A growing science

In situ remediation utilizes emerging technologies to insert various natural or mechanical elements into groundwater or contaminated soil. The specific strategy employed depends on both the particular pollutants involved and the physical characteristics of the site.

At Chemtronics, plans call for bioremediation: using bacteria that actually consume harmful contaminants.  Nutrients and oxygen will also be injected to help the bacteria do their job.  At the CTS site, meanwhile, a concoction of chemical oxidizers, which attack and break down the contaminants’ molecular structure, will be injected into the ground.  And at RiverLink’s Karen Cragnolin Park, native grasses infused with bacteria that “eat” the pollutants were planted at 26 places on the property in 2013.

Two key factors have helped such strategies gain traction: the emergence of newer technologies over the last two decades, and increased understanding of the limits of traditional cleanup methods.

“The National Research Council estimated that more than 126,000 sites have residual contamination preventing them from reaching closure,” notes a 2016 report by Cascade Environmental, a consulting firm based in Washington state.  “Of those, 12,000 sites have residual contamination that will require 50 to 100 years to achieve restoration.  Many complex sites are characterized by persistent chlorinated solvent impacts that, for various reasons, have not responded to traditional or simplistic technologies.”

In the past, notes hydrologist Frank Anastasi, “If you found something in the soil or the groundwater, you had to dig it up or suck it up and get it out of there.  Now, we wised up and found out you can’t always just do that, especially with groundwater.”

In addition, he continues, older strategies such as pump-and-treat do little to address contamination in the surrounding soils and bedrock structures. “Think about drinking a soda at McDonald’s,” says Anastasi, a consultant to the POWER Community Advisory Group for the CTS site. “You suck the soda out through a straw and you think you’ve got it all; but if you let the ice melt a little bit, you suck some more out and you still taste some Coke.”

Cheaper, more effective

Hydrologist Frank Anastasi, who has served as a consultant for community members at the CTS of Asheville site, likens older pump-and-treat systems used to address groundwater contaminants to an empty soda cup one gets at McDonald’s.  “You suck the soda out through a straw and you think you’ve got it all,” he notes, “but if you let the ice melt a little bit, you suck some more out and you still taste some Coke.”

The long-running cleanup efforts at Chemtronics seem to bear out that assessment.  A series of samples and tests conducted by Altamont Environmental over a three-year period found that the pump-and-treat system that’s been in operation since the early 1990s has been only 23 percent effective in removing contamination, according to U.S. EPA site supervisor Jon Bornholm.

He’s overseen cleanup efforts at the site since the late 1980s, and he says the upkeep required to keep the pump systems functioning has been a constant nuisance.  “They were having a big issue with iron buildup, as well as bacteria buildup, in extraction wells,” Bornholm explains.  “Plus, you have the expense of electricity for running the extraction wells, as well as the treatment systems, and also the cost of discharging treated groundwater to the sewer system and maintaining that discharge line.  With in situ, we eliminate those costs.”

After several years of on-site pilot studies at Chemtronics, officials settled on in situ bioremediation as the most promising alternative strategy.  Altamont, says Bornholm, “was able to show that it was removing at least 51 percent” of the contaminants.

The Asheville-based consulting firm is currently designing a matrix of injection wells across the property near known contaminated groundwater “plumes.”  After that, contractors will inject a lactate solution (to give the bugs something to eat immediately), followed by emulsified vegetable oil (a long-term food source) and, to add more bacteria to the mix, “a bioaugmentation solution called KD-1.”

“It’s all about contact,” notes Bornholm. “We want to make sure the bacteria get in contact with the contamination.”

To read the remainder of this article, visit the Mountain Xpress website.


About the Author

Max Hunt grew up in South (New) Jersey and graduated from Warren Wilson College in 2011.  He currently resides in West Asheville and enjoys discussing the secrets of the world with his cat. Follow him on twitter @J_MaxHunt

Funding Available for Clean Technology Demonstrations in Ontario

BLOOM (a private, not-for-profit federally incorporated company based in Ontario) recently issued a call for proposals to support the completion of clean technology demonstration projects in Ontario.

A major objective of this program is to demonstrate the commercial application of cleantech and low carbon solutions that have a high potential to achieve major GHG reductions.

As a requirement, proposals will be submitted by 2 co-applicants: a cleantech solution provider and a customer ‘host’ that is representative of a broader sector. Projects can also include other strategic partners to support the demonstration.

BLOOM will be providing grant funding on a 50:50 cost-share basis, up to $150,000 per project.

The 50% share from the co-applicants and other project partners can be a combination of cash and in-kind.

Proposals will be evaluated by an independent Review Committee in conjunction with BLOOM.Proposals are due on March 24, 2017. Successful proponents will be notified by April 15, 2017.  For additional information, click here.


Study determines why uranium persists in groundwater at remediated Mining Sites

A recent study led by scientists at the U.S. Department of Energy’s SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory helps describe how the contaminant cycles through the environment at former uranium mining sites and why it can be difficult to remove.  Contrary to assumptions that have been used for modeling uranium behavior, researchers found the contaminant binds to organic matter in sediments.  The findings provide more accurate information for monitoring and remediation at the sites.  The results were published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

In 2014, researchers at SLAC’s Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lightsource (SSRL) began collaborating with the U.S. DOE Office of Legacy Management, which handles contaminated sites associated with the legacy of DOE’s nuclear energy and weapons production activities.  Through projects associated with the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act, the U.S. DOE remediated 22 sites in Colorado, Wyoming and New Mexico where uranium had been extracted and processed during the 1940s to 1970s.

Uranium was removed from the sites as part of the cleanup process, and the former mines and waste piles were capped more than two decades ago.  Remaining uranium deep in the subsurface under the capped waste piles was expected to leave these sites due to natural groundwater flow.  However, uranium has persisted at elevated levels in nearby groundwater much longer than predicted by scientific modeling.

In an earlier study, the SLAC team discovered that uranium accumulates in the low-oxygen sediments near one of the waste sites in the upper Colorado River basin.  These deposits contain high levels of organic matter — such as plant debris and bacterial communities.

During this latest study, the researchers found the dominant form of uranium in the sediments, known as tetravalent uranium, binds to organic matter and clays in the sediments.  This makes it more likely to persist at the sites.  The result conflicted with current models used to predict movement and longevity of uranium in sediments, which assumed that it formed an insoluble mineral called uraninite.

Different chemical forms of the element vary widely in how mobile they are – how readily they move around – in water, says Sharon Bone, lead author on the paper and a postdoctoral researcher at SSRL, a DOE Office of Science User Facility.

Since the uranium is bound to organic matter in sediments, it is immobile under certain conditions. Tetravalent uranium may become mobile when the water table drops and oxygen from the air enters spaces in the sediment that were formerly filled with water, particularly if the uranium is bound to organic matter in sediments rather than being stored in insoluble minerals.

“Either you want the uranium to be soluble and completely flushed out by the groundwater, or you just want the uranium to remain in the sediments and stay out of the groundwater,” Bone says.  “But under fluctuating seasonal conditions, neither happens completely.”

This cycling in the aquifer may result in the persistent plumes of uranium contamination found in groundwater, something that wasn’t captured by earlier modeling efforts.

“For the most part, uranium contamination has only been looked at in very simple model systems in laboratories,” Bone says.  “One big advancement is that we are now looking at uranium in its native environmental form in sediments.  These dynamics are complicated, and this research will allow us to make field-relevant modeling predictions.”

Online teaching tool for oil spill response

The University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA), in conjunction with the Defenders of Wildlife organization recently produced an online teaching tool for oil spill response in the Bering Strait.  The Bering Strait Response Teaching Tool (BSRTT) is now available online and will be allows the public to share information with various organizations and agencies about threats to arctic marine life, such as oil spills.

Allison Dunbar, a junior studying environmental engineering and biology at UAA, is project lead for the online teaching tool. She’s been working part time on the layers of the website for the last year in order to make the tool accessible to everyone, including those who live in the Bering Strait region.

“The local people will know the tides and the currents and will best be able to inform that response, and that is our ultimate goal,” Dunbar said.  “By utilizing and working with the local experts, impacts to marine mammals and to the communities will be less, and for us, (that’s) a common sense thing, but we want it to be written into the protocol for response agencies.”

The BSRTT was created to streamline the oil spill response process and cut response time.  Through the teaching tool and with the participation of the community, spill responders can draw upon persons in the public with knowledge of local currents and other factors that may impact spill movement and influence spill response.

Defenders of Wildlife is in charge of implementing the online teaching tool into local communities, which will involve her visiting and training residents throughout the region.  Part of the training will include discussions on spill response and spill response preparedness. 

The educational tool helps inform its users about response plans to oil spills and other potentially harmful situations that occur in the Bering Strait.  It is also a tool by which information is shared.  Through the training tool, the community gains a better understanding of the complexity of a spill response.

Anyone who uses the BSRTT website can share their knowledge with the Coast Guard or other organizations that also use the tool.  Community trainings on spill response and the teaching tool in the Bering Strait region are expected to begin this month.

Canadian TSBC Report Critical of Dangerous Goods Transportation

The Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSBC) recently issued a report critical of the transportation of dangerous goods across the country.

The TSBC report stems from an incident that occurred in the winter of 2015 near the community of Gogama, Ontario (approximately 600 kilometres [370 miles] north of Toronto). Gogama has approximately 450 residents.

In the incident, a 100-car Canadian National freight train carrying bitumen derailed. A total of 29 tank cars derailed. Of that number, 19 of the cars broke open and 1.7 million litres (450 gallons) of bitumen spilled out. The bitumen ignited and burned for five days.

Coincidently, a second incident near Gogama occurred two weeks after the second one. In the second incident, a 94-car CN train hauling oil derailed and exploded going over a bridge near the community. The bridge was destroyed and the 39 cars that left the tracks broke open and spilled oil into the river. An accident report has yet to be released by the TSBC on the second incident.


Fortunately, there were no injuries as a result of either accident. The remote location of the incidents and the extreme cold at the time (-31 deg Celsius [-24o F]) resulted in very little media attention of the events. The two incidents occurred less than two years after the Lac-Mégantic disaster that killed 47 people.

The report lists 14 causes to contributing factors to the first incident. One of the causes was the extreme cold that made the tracks more susceptible to brittle failure. It also noted that lack of experience and training as contributing factors. A third factor that lead to the incidents was the absence of tank-car thermal protection which likely increased the severity of the product release and fueled the fire. Other factors listed include the speed at which the trains were travelling, and the weight of the cars.

The TSBC found that defects on the track went unrepaired because of shortfalls in training and supervisory support. Transport Canada had not inspected that stretch of track in the two years before the derailments.

“This accident occurred on an isolated stretch of rail in northern Ontario and thankfully no one was injured,” TSB chair Kathy Fox told a news conference when her report was issued. “But so long as the same risks exist — track-maintenance issues, railway personnel training, train speed and tank cars that aren’t sufficiently robust — the consequences of the next rail accident may not only be environmental.” No one can predict an accident from happening. For anyone involved, it is very unfortunate. With this being said, if you have been the victim of a road accident, this situation can be stressful enough. But with the help of specialist accident claim lawyers who could assist you in writing a demand letter, you’ll soon be able to take this claim further and start getting your life back on track following this incident.

Canada’s Transport Minister Marc Garneau promised approximately a year ago that rail safety would be his No. 1 priority.

Rail Safety and Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Training

The Chlorine Institute & TRANSCAER Announce the 2017 Rail Safety and Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Training Tour & Webinar Schedule

The Chlorine Institute (CI) recently announced its 2017 Chlorine Institute/TRANSCAER Rail Safety and Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Training Tour and webinar schedule under the TRANSCAER program.  All sessions are free of charge.

2017 CI/TRANSCAER Training Tour:

The “Technician and Specialist Level” trainings include a full day of hands-on and classroom activities that will take place at the facilities of a TRANSCAER rail partner. The primary focus of the training is on Chlorine Emergency Response.

Locations 2017 Dates
Richmond, CA March 20 March 21
Seattle, WA April 18 April 19
Pocatello, ID May 15 May 16
Salt Lake City, UT May 24 May 25
Kansas City, KS June 20 June 21 June 22
Davenport, IA July 11 July 12 July 13
Saskatoon, SK (CAN) August 17 August 18
Houston, TX August 28 August 29
Atlanta, GA September 18 September 19 September 20
Memphis, TN November 6 November 7 November 8
Washington, D.C. TBD



In addition to hands-on training, the Chlorine Institute offers online chlorine emergency response training through a 90-minute webinar. This interactive webinars is designed to provide general awareness-level training for first responders and emergency managers.


Webinar Dates & Times
Chlorine Chemical & Physical Properties March 9, 2017 11:oo a.m. EST
Chlorine Emergency Response April 5, 2017 3:00 p.m. EST
Chlorine Chemical & Physical Properties June 1, 2017 3:00 p.m. EST
Chlorine Emergency Response July 26, 2017 2:00 p.m. EST
Chlorine Chemical & Physical Properties August 15, 2017 11:00 a.m. EST
Chlorine Emergency Response October 26, 2017 11:00 a.m. EST
Chlorine Chemical & Physical Properties November 15, 2017 2:00 p.m. EST
Chlorine Emergency Response December 5, 2017 3:00 p.m. EST


Chlorine Chemical and Physical Properties Webinar Training Session

  • Introduce TRANSCAER®, CHEMTREC®, the Chlorine Institute and CHLOREP®
  • Provide an overview of the chemical and physical properties, uses and hazards of chlorine
  • Provide an understanding of how chlorine exposure and exposure treatment
  • Provide an overview of the resources available

Chlorine Emergency Response Webinar Training Session

  • Introduce TRANSCAER®, CHEMTREC®, the Chlorine Institute and CHLOREP®
  • Provide an overview of the chemical and physical properties, uses and hazards of chlorine
  • Provide an understanding of how chlorine exposure and exposure treatment
  • Provide an overview of the resources available

Who should attend?

Anyone who is interested in learning more about the basic properties of chlorine or about emergency response to a chlorine release, emergency responders, firefighters, EMTs, law enforcement officers, Local Emergency Planning Committees, emergency management professionals, and HAZMAT management professionals.

*Note: Each webinar lasts about 1 hour.

2017 webinar presentations and on-demand recording will be posted after the first webinar has been completed.


The Chlorine Institute (CI), founded in 1924, supports the chlor-alkali industry in advancing safe, environmentally compatible and sustainable production and use of its mission chemicals: chlorine, sodium and potassium hydroxides, sodium hypochlorite, the distribution of vinyl chloride monomer (VCM), and the distribution and use of hydrogen chloride.  Visit us online at: www.chlorineinstitute.org.

Membrane Barrier Technology for Gas Contaminated Sites

Novia Ltd., a company specializing in membrane technology based in the United Kingdom, recently developed a new methane barrier membrane solution, Methane Pro, for use on gas contaminated sites.  The new membrane solution complements their current membrane range which includes air-and-vapour-control-layers (AVCL’s), vapour permeable membranes and specialty laminates.

Novia Methane Pro is designed for use as a loose-laid methane and CO₂ barrier.  Novia Methane Pro also acts as a radon gas barrier and damp proof membrane.

Novia Methane Pro is a high specification multi-layer virgin grade LDPE laminate incorporating scrim reinforcement and an aluminium foil core, and is designed for use as a loose-laid methane and CO₂ barrier.  Novia Methane Pro has passed the stringent sheet and joint tests to BS ISO 15105-1, and is fully BS 8485:2015 compliant.

Adrian Chisholm, Managing Director of Novia Ltd, said: With on-going issues finding suitable building land in the UK, there is a growing need for gas protection measures that provide solutions for contaminated sites. The introduction of the new BS 8485 standard in 2015 has driven forward product development, but there have been some difficulties within the industry in meeting the new membrane testing standards.  Novia is therefore very pleased to be able to provide a fully tested and compliant methane barrier solution.”