Clients
Case Study for Attorney
Confidential Client
Attorney
Location: Wayne, PA
Hilltop Enterprises, Inc. (HEI) was contacted by one of the members of their Preferred Attorney Network, whose client had a serious problem. The engineering firm they had for the Phase I site investigation had acutely overlooked different levels of contaminators on a site the client had just purchased. HEI worked with the attorney in their dealings with a new engineering firm in order to develop a sampling plan that would delineate the location of the hazardous and non-hazardous waste. HEI then worked with a remediation company to remove the hazardous waste to a stabilization facility, while also providing the manifests and transportation necessary to smoothly carry out the process. HEI then worked with the same remediation contractor to remove the non-hazardous waste to a brownfield project and thermal treatment facility.
After completion of the removal process, HEI was brought in to assess the remaining construction spoil. These construction soils were found to exceed PADEP Clean Fill criteria. Subsequently, HEI provided assistance for the property owner and their construction contractor in order to remove the construction spoils to a NJ residential fill brownfield project. This final phase of the project was completed within 20% of the owner’s original cost would have been to locally remove the construction spoil.
Case Study for Real Estate Developer
Confidential Client
Local Real Estate Developer
Location: Conshohocken, PA
A local real estate developer came to Hilltop Enterprises Inc. (HEI) with the problem of a fixed budget towards the removal of a set quantity of soil from their project. HEI’s solution was to develop a plan for removing the soil to 3 disposal outlets. This plan met the client’s need by assuring that they only spent as much money as was necessary, dependent upon the various contaminants within the soil. HEI reviewed the analytical and determined that one-third (1/3) of the soil went to a thermal remediation facility, 1/3 went to a brownfield facility and 1/3 went to a soil stabilization facility. The project was completed on-time and soil removal costs remained within the client’s budget.
Case Study for Thermally Enhanced Vapor Extraction Technology
Confidential Client
Consultant ENSR
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Maxium Pre-treatment levels:
| PCE | 6,600 |
| 111 TCA | 96.2 mg/kg |
| TCE | 11,000 mg/kg |
TEVET was contracted to remediate and backfill onsite a targeted hot-spot in a contaminated plume. This was prior to the installation of a multiple acre soil vapor extraction system.
Clean-up criteria 3.6 ppm for TCE and 10 ppm for PCE Average treatment time: 7 days per pile
Post-Treatment Levels for 4,000 Tons of Soil (Treated in five piles)
Pile #1 (750 Tons)
| Sample No. | PCE | 111 TCA | TCE |
| pnl | ND | 5.9 ug/kg | 118.0 ug/kg |
| pls | ND | ND | 30.9 ug/kg |
| ple | ND | 3.0 ug/kg | ND |
| plw | ND | ND | 7.0 ug/kg |
Pile #2 (900 Tons)
| Sample No. | PCE | 111 TCA | TCE |
| p2n | ND | ND | 4.6 ug/kg |
| p2s | ND | ND | 26.2 ug/kg |
| p2e | ND | ND | ND |
| p2w | ND | ND | ND |
Pile #3 (800 Tons)
| Sample No. | PCE | 111 TCA | TCE |
| p3n | ND | ND | 6.5 ug/kg |
| p3s | ND | ND | 4.1 ug/kg |
| p3e | ND | ND | 3.8 ug/kg |
| p3w | ND | ND | ND |
Pile #4 (800 Tons)
| Sample No. | PCE | 111 TCA | TCE |
| p4n | ND | ND | 8.8 ug/kg |
| p4s | ND | ND | 121 ug/kg |
| p4e | ND | ND | ND |
| p4w | ND | ND | ND |
Pile #5 (550 Tons)
| Sample No. | PCE | 111 TCA | TCE |
| p5n | ND | ND | 4.2 ug/kg |
| p5s | ND | ND | ND |
| p4e | ND | ND | ND |
| p5w | ND | ND | ND |
Key: mg/kg=ppm; ug/kg=ppb
After a formal bid process and a review with the engineers of this project, the client chose two possible options for the treatment of the TCE contaminated soil on their property. Either they would have it directly disposed to a facility in Canada, or they would utilize Hilltop Enterprise’s Thermally Enhanced Vapor Extraction (TEVE) process. The client’s lawyers and accounting staff each looked over the options to determine the best route for the client to take, as they would continue to own the property. Ultimately, their accounting staff counseled the client to choose TEVE, which resulted in 25% savings for the client over their alternative option.
