Today’s webinar will focus on the often hidden risks associated with methane vapor intrusion.

And with that, I’d like to introduce our presenters for today.

We’re pleased to have with us Jim Fineis, president and owner of Total Vapor Solutions.

Jim Fineis is a highly experienced professional in the field of vapor intrusion, and Total Vapor Solutions specializes in all aspects of vapor intrusion related projects from work plan development to sample collection, risk analysis, and mitigation support. He has completed over 500 projects in three countries and 42 states. He is also a founding member of AVIP, the Association of Vapor Intrusion Professionals, and served on the working group that drafted the current Georgia EPD guidance on vapor intrusion.

We’re also pleased to have with us today Jason Wilt, Southeast District Senior Technical Sales Manager at Land Science. Jason Wilt is responsible for assisting Land Science client partners with technical support in the evaluation, design, and installation of TerraShield, NitraSeal, MonoShield, and RetroCoat vapor mitigation systems. Jason also works closely with the regulatory community to advance guidance and understanding of vapor intrusion barrier technologies, implementation, and QAQC best practices.

All right, that concludes our introduction. So now I will hand things over to Jim Fineis to get us started.

Great, thank you very much. I would first like to say thank you to Land Science for allowing me to be part of this webinar series. I think us as an industry owes Land Science a lot of credit and thanks for the continuing education they provide through all these webinars series. So it’s truly an honor and a privilege to be able to share a couple project examples and share just a little bit of some of my experience on a couple of the vapor intrusion projects.

As Dane had mentioned, today we’re going to be looking at methane vapor intrusion risks, an immediate threat, and possible long-term liabilities. During the presentation, we’re going to talk about a couple different items.

We’re going to start with a conceptual site model. As you can see, I know we’ve all heard about this a million times. Why are we listening to more about this? We’re going to provide you a few resources to develop a proper CSM or conceptual site model.

Once we briefly talk on that we’re going to go over a couple project examples. First one will be the hidden danger from petroleum vapor intrusion and the second will be dealing with long-term liability regarding methane when building near a landfill.

It could be a permitted or unpermitted landfill. All right let’s get started. Conceptual site model. It’s an overlooked and underutilized tool. I don’t know if that’s the case for these two experts. I mean, if you look, they have CSM hats, they’re reading, you know, vapor intrusion paper. So maybe these two are, you know, experts in the field, but in general, you know, what can we learn from a CSM, conceptual site model?

A lot of times it’s overlooked and I think it’s a highly underutilized tool. So the next few minutes, we’re gonna talk about the CSM, why it might be overlooked and how it can properly be used.

I know we’ve all heard about CSM a million times and we should just ignore it.

Well, I will tell you that I’m a subcontractor, so I only work for engineering consulting firms and responsible parties. One of the first things I do when I get engaged with any client is ask them if they have the CSM. I will tell you probably 75 percent of the time the answer is no. And when I kind of reach out to them and say, well, why don’t you have a CSM?

You know, the answers generally fall into one of three categories. Every vapor intrusion site is the same. We know it’s coming from either soil or groundwater. So why do we need to bother? Another practical answer is, well, there really wasn’t a budget to complete the CSM. So we just didn’t do it. We think we know what’s going on. And I will tell you the most common one is basically why bother? We’ve never really done one before, and all of our vapor intrusion investigations have come out okay.

Well, I would question if anybody’s ever had every vapor intrusion project come out okay, including the ones that I conduct, but, you know, that’s a different topic.

So let’s just briefly look for the next couple minutes on the CSM and some of the aspects of it. A lot of us are used to seeing an EPA diagram with just, you know, a typical house showing soil and groundwater coming in, potential soil and groundwater.

Well this is a little bit of an updated substitute site model picture. It’s recently been released by AVIP and things to notice here is you could have potential sources like you know a car or gasoline cans inside of a garage which is attached.

You could have you know during the heating season different variabilities as to when vapor intrusion might be quote unquote on or off or increased. You could be looking at you know is it coming from a water sample. And once you start looking at all that, do you need to collect outdoor air samples? Do you need to collect samples on the ground level and the second floor, maybe the basement? Do you need to do sub slab points? Do you need to do exterior soil gas?

And here’s one of the key things. This is a sewer. So let’s say that you do have some indoor air contamination. Is it coming from maybe the gas can or the car sitting inside? Could it be coming from a sanitary sewer? If it is from the sanitary sewer? Is it getting in through maybe faulty key traps or wax seal?

So this is just a great visual representation of some things to think about when you’re looking at how to conduct a CSM. We won’t spend too much more time on the CSM. At the end of the presentation, I will have a reference to this document if any of you want to download it for free off the ABIP website, but we’ll get to that at the end of the presentation.

The key points that I would to, you know, present on the CSM are exactly this. CSM is a working theory of how the chemical and physical characteristics of your site can result in vapor intrusion. It is a tool used to solidify your theories and communicate it to others.

At a minimum, if you think back to that drawing, your CSM should consider possible sources, vapor types, whether it’s chlorinated compounds, petroleum compounds, methane, mercury, etc. What are the pathways? Remember back, maybe the sanitary sewers. And what are the potential or current future receptors?

If I could leave you with one key takeaway is that the CSM is a living document and should be revisited often as due data becomes available. A well-conceived CSM is a valuable tool that can be used from assessment to mitigation.

The reason I say it’s a living document is let’s go back to that test house. You might think that your indoor air could be coming from the subslab and you’ve done all your sampling based on that. Well suddenly if you figure out where something could be coming through the sanitary sewer, that’s going to change how you do your assessment.

So that’s why it’s key to remember that it’s a living document. We shouldn’t get too set in our ways. We shouldn’t think that we know everything because we’ve assessed this dry cleaner or this house or this industrial complex five other times, so everything’s gonna be the same. So just be a little flexible, remember it’s your working theory and it’s a living document.

I will tell you that Georgia EPD just released an update to their vapor intrusion guidance and really the only update was a much more robust CSM section.

So the other aspect of the CSM is to consider is it not only the document that you’re working off of, but if you’re submitting information into a regulatory agency or maybe a risk assessor at a bank, they need to kind of see your thought process, why you sampled where you did and what the considerations were. So that’s another reason the CSM is a very important document.

All right, let’s look at our first project example.

If we will look over here, you can see that there was over 5 ,000 gallons of gasoline released into the subsurface from this area, which was a tank basin. We can see that there’s an operating convenience store here. Right here in front of the cars is a strip shopping center. And then of course, the worst case, here’s an apartment complex.

So the consultant reached out to me and they’d already been on the site for about a month dealing with free product, groundwater, et cetera. So they already had access to all the properties. So it made the initial vapor intrusion investigation a little bit easier.

I will tell you that it appears that groundwater is flowing from basically the tank basin area towards SV19. So what I did is when I went out in the field, we worked on a step approach. We were using some field meters to look at different properties that we can measure in the field real time.

So obviously we wanted to address to see if anything was in or around the convenience store. Then basically this is the property line. So we wanted to document what was at or leaving the property line and moving towards the strip shopping center. So, if you see all these SV10 through SV14, they are literally within about five feet at the front door of the strip shopping center.

Then moving on, we needed to document or see what was going on in front of these residential units. So, you can see it’s a relatively big site, complex site, a lot of different variables going on.

I did want to mention that once we did the exterior soil gas, which were all done at depth of about three feet, there were subslab points put in.

I will tell you, I put in all the subslab points and knowing the site conditions, it was a little tricky working inside the convenience store, all the different commercial businesses. I believe there was a hair salon, a tax office and a restaurant and maybe three other businesses.

So access was a little challenge, but we were able to get everything done that we needed to.

All right, let’s look at some of the data. You know, on petroleum sites you’re just looking at the typical carcinogenic risk and a hazard quotient.

So most of you are probably using the Vapor intrusion screening level calculator in putting all your concentrations. And then in this particular state we’re working in, the acceptable levels were 10 to the minus five cancer risk and hazard quotient of 1.0.

Of all the samples that were collected, which were all the vapor points you see there plus subslabs, only really two locations, SV-12 and SV-13, which are right in this area, had any exceedances of the regulatory standards.

That’s basically looking at the benzene and related compounds. So if you look at this, you probably think, wow, we got lucky. The VI risk is relatively minimal.

Therefore, for as big of an issue it was with the release of gasoline, And, you know, I think we’re going to be okay here. Well, I’m not sure if any of you are Lee Corso fans, he might say, not so fast, my friend. And the men in black from South Park will tell you that it’s really not that as simple on this case.

You may be saying, why is it not that simple? Well, let’s look at what I refer to as the hidden danger from vapor intrusion. I’m going to pause just for a brief moment and let everybody try to figure out what these chemical formulas represent, C₂H₅OH and CH₄.

Normally, the chemical engineers and chemists immediately know what they are, but the rest of us, it may be a little bit of a challenge. Let’s take a look and see what these compounds are.

C₂H₅OH is ethanol, and obviously, most of you probably knew CH₄ is methane.

At this point, you’re probably saying, okay, that’s great, but why is this important for this project? In the modern day, ethanol is blended into almost all the gasoline that you and I use. 97% of the gasoline has at least 10% ethanol.

I’m located in the southeast and we sometimes have dedicated pumps that say ethanol-free if you’re going to use it for like boats or jet skis or any other reason. So the point is, Most all fuel has ethanol in it. If you ever see any of the E85 or flex fuel, that means it can have between 51 and 83% ethanol.

It will depend on your geography and the seasonal variations, summer versus winter. And just as a note, E85 has been approved for all passenger cars, light duty trucks, and medium duty passenger vehicles since 2001.

So most likely the vehicle you’re driving, you know, it’s fine to have this ethanol fuel in it. A few more things on ethanol is it can prevent a challenge when we’re looking at, you know, vapor intrusion investigations.

The preferential biodegradation of ethanol can consume the electron scepters, such as sulfates, nitrates, oxygen, that are needed for the BTEX biodegradation, the benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene biodegradation.

When they take up those electron acceptors, it means there’s a greater risk for the benzene, which is predominantly the risk driver, to make it into the subslab or the indoor air.

And as you can see in red here, the concerns have emerged that the anaerobic degradation of ethanol can produce methane. Methane is the predominant degradation product for ethanol at many sites. I’m guessing at this point you already know what the next slide is going to look at.

Let’s take a look at those same points and look at the methane concentrations. These are by percent volume. If you look along the property line, we had 0% here, but we’re all the way up to 80, almost 85% methane by volume in these three foot deep soil vapor samples.

Once we get right here in front of the strip shopping center, 80%, 80%, 82%. Danger will Robinson high levels of methane being produced by the biodegradation of the ethanol that’s in the fuel.

Fortunately, by the time we got over here to the strip shopping center, there was no methane detected. So kind of the moral of the story is, although we had minimal risk from the traditional vapor intrusion, meaning the benzene, we only had this couple hazard quotient and carcinogenic exceedances.

If we remember that methane is explosive between five and 15% by volume, we can see what risk there was at this site. So how does this all tie in?

If you don’t conduct a proper CSM and consider all the risk factors, I will tell you right now in my experience, about 80% of the petroleum investigations, that I see going on with regards to vapor intrusion, people are not looking at methane.

And if it’s not, then you can see, at least in this case, really the big risk driver was missed.

So the bottom line here is there’s unintended consequences from adding ethanol to gasoline, and it can have serious consequences. Make sure you do a CSM. Make sure you pay attention to all different possible issues that you could have on a site.

All right we’re going to finish up this site by just showing you that fortunately in the subslab there was no methane. As mentioned earlier I did install all these points myself and I will say that I was a little worried you have 80% methane right outside of the structure.

Obviously you’re using cores or hammer drills to go through the slab, so a lot of times I don’t get too worked up having installed over 50 ,000 sub slab implants, but these, I was a little more careful, did some wet coring, had some fans, had a lot of health and safety meters, so also consider from a health and safety point of view, if you do have to do work where there’s methane, there are some different health and safety protocols that you would need to take into account, but fortunately, I’m still here, So nothing exploded and nobody got hurt.

So overall, the driving factor on this site was methane. All right, let’s quickly take a look at the second project example. It’s dangers from an unpermitted landfill.

This is kind of a summary slide. It’s showing you that here is an area that was an old, unpermitted landfill. So as homes within this general area were being built over the years, different builders would bring and just drop construction debris, basically C &D type material.

As there was no more land available, builders started to want to build house closer to where this old unpermitted landfill was.

You can notice here, before I got involved, that houses had already been built on lots 25, 26, and 27.

So this project really had two tasks. The first one was to determine if those houses had been impacted by the methane It had been documented by a prior consultant to be coming from that unpermitted landfill.

And then second would be to investigate the lot to determine if future houses could be built. So let’s look at the first task. This is a zoomed in area of lots 27, 26, and 25, which I mentioned had already had houses built on it before I got involved in the project.

We will dive into each of these two maps in a little more detail showing you what some of the field readings were. But in general, we did a phase one approach, which was to put some shallow soil vapor points kind of along the property line, remembering that over here is where the unpermitted landfill was.

Structures are already built on these three lots. Those obviously indicated that there were some methane considerations, which we will dive into here shortly. So the second phase was to resample those points and do some additional points closer to the structure.

I will note that all the methane readings were taken from a depth of about three feet because these were all slab-on-grade structures. All the subsurface utilities other than the storm drains were at depths lower than three feet or shallower than three feet rather.

And we took readings on at least two occasions and they were at least 24 hours apart to see what difference barometric pressure might make, heat of the day versus cooler times in the morning.

So that we tried to cover our bases by looking at all the aspects. Let’s dive into the first eight points. We will see over here that there are two columns, peak methane and sustained methane.

What that means is that, you know, when I would install these points, I would hook up a field meter and document what the maximum methane concentration, you know, that peaked out on that meter was, and then let the meter run for, you know, normally three to five minutes.

What we would see a lot of times is we might have a peak methane above the explosive limit or close to the explosive limit, but then over time it seems to drop down. That’s not terribly uncommon, but it’s just something that we like to note.

Both the peak concentrations here was 8.9 and then it sustained at 2.0. Here we had a peak of 12.6% sustained at 2.5. So you can see that along the property lines that we had a risk of vapor intrusion.

You know, distance to the structures, meaning the houses, just to give you an idea, we’re somewhere between a minimum of, you know, 30 feet other than here, which we were right next to the structure, and we could be as far as 100 feet away.

When we decided to look further at the structures themselves, we did an additional round of sampling and put some points closer to the structures, you know, at these locations. And once again, we had some exceedances.

When I say exceedances, you would need to check your local state and regs, but most states will only allow about 1.25% methane by volume within a certain distance of the structure.

Within Georgia, I believe it’s within 100 feet of a structure, 1.25% is basically the cutoff limit before you need to take some kind of mitigation methods.

So you can see that we had that on quite a few locations. You know, it’s always important to measure differential pressure and give you some clues as to what could be going on with the methane in the subsurface.

So, based on all this data, it was decided that we actually needed to go into the houses and look at the methane. So, up here in the upper left, this is actually a flux chamber that was put down over top of an in-floor electrical outlet.

The landfill gas meter was then hooked up to the flux chamber, and we measured both O2, CO2, and methane for a minimum of a 30-minute period. But we did this twice on two different days, different time, evening versus morning to see if there was any methane coming in through the electrical conduits.

Down here, we were measuring where methane could be coming in through plumbing fixtures. Over here is cable TV, another kind of utility coming in here. So those were all done inside the structure.

Once we had worked from the outside in, fortunately, the conclusion was that I measured no methane during any sampling period, anywhere underneath that structure. So both the local municipality, the builder I was working for, the consultant that was representing the municipality, all agreed that there was no reason to put in any kind of mitigation systems on these existing structures, and they could sell them and the residents would be fine.

If you remember, there was a second part of the investigation, which was to not only look at all these lots, but a lot of the lots that we’re not going to touch on because they were further away from the old landfill here.

But we went out to determine whether there was a risk when they built these homes of there being a methane issue. So how did we do that?

We’re just going to zoom in a little bit and kind of concentrate the lots on the north side. Let’s just say 151 through 162. Here’s lots 30, 29, and 28. If we went further down in that direction, we would be at the houses we just looked at on lots 25, 26, and 27.

This is not a comprehensive review of all the data that was collected, but you can see that there were existing utility risers that we measured relatively high methane concentrations in. There were some points that had been put in by the consultant that was working for the municipality that were measured.

You can also see that I put in some more methane monitoring point, both on this side, closer to where the old landfill was and on the adjacent lots. I can tell you that all this data probably represents one fifth of the data that was collected during the investigation, but it’s just meant to kind of show you what type of data was collected.

We’re gonna now focus on lots 160 through 162.

As mentioned, based on multiple rounds of sampling of the chalice oil vapor, the existing utility conduits, It was determined that if homes were going to be built that a properly constructed land science vapor barrier should be installed.

Based on that, working with land science, a third-party engineer provided design and selected nitro seal as the appropriate barrier.

I will say something that complicated it. Although we only decided three lots needed to be mitigated, there were three different floor plans.

So although they were the boxes, you know, the house, each one had different floor plans. So we had to have three different designs. I will mention that we will talk about an additional mitigation measure that was taken shortly.

Right now, let’s just kind of dig into the vapor mitigation.

So we hired a local contractor who did a fabulous job and just going to briefly show you, you know, any of you that have done vapor mitigation, you can just see, you know, These are the footprints of the houses.

Here’s a vent pipe you can actually see during the smoke pest, smoke that was introduced below the barrier coming out the vent pipe showing that the venting system was done correctly.

So these are just some photographs showing you what the installation on those three houses looked like. As all of you are aware, land science provides some great documentation.

So for lot 162, you can see that there was you know, documentation for warranty reasons and just documentation as far as good practices, you know, what your coupon thickness was, what the total barrier thickness was, you have little maps showing where those samples were taken, and just some more detail.

So, I can’t stress enough the great documentation that Land Science provides that if you’re going to do this type of work, use the resources they provide, and it really makes your project work and helps you document everything that went on in the field.

Briefly, in conclusion, we’re going to talk about the additional mitigation measures that were required.

If you’ll notice, these are the three lots where we had to do the vapor mitigation under the structures, but we did pick up, you know, on occasion, methane concentrations in some of these other lots that were not above the applicable regulatory levels, but were a concern.

So it was basically decided that a methane mitigation trench needed to be installed between these houses and this area over here, which was the old, unpermitted landfill.

These are just some photographs showing the trench, I believe, ended up being about 25 feet deep. You can see that there was slotted pipe put in, surrounded by gravel. Gravel brought up to the surface. Geotextile material brought over the cap.

Then you have these riser pipes that were brought up, which is going to passively vent the methane as it builds up, gets into the slotted pipes, and then ends up coming out through the caps at the top.

This is just a photograph showing you just a series of the red dots here, which are the vents coming out of the trench. If you could see these homes down here, that would be lots 28, 29, and 30.

To properly address the methane on this site, We did the vapor barriers under the structures.

We tested inside the houses where the homes are already built and installed this methane trench designed by a different third-party engineer.

I will tell you, in case you fell asleep or got distracted during the presentation, we all use AI now, so I asked Google Gemini to summarize the key takeaways of the presentation. I’ll tell you, I think it was more scared than I am because I’m not exactly sure with this figure they generated was, but I don’t want any part of that.

Maybe that’s what I looked like when I was putting in the subslab points with the high methane on the exterior soil gas, but we’ll play whether that’s a real picture or not. So, Jim and I says that a proper CSM, very important, there’s unintended consequences of adding ethanol to gasoline.

Landfill gas poses significant dangers and methane mitigation demands comprehensive mitigation strategies. So, I believe that wraps us up. At this point in time, I’m going to turn it over to Jason Wilt with Land Science who’s going to talk about some of the barrier aspects. All right. Thank you, Jim.

I’d like to spend a few minutes to expand on the QAQC points that Jim had touched on during his portion of the presentation, which is going to be central role of QAQC for vapor barrier installation.

So QAQC is really a safeguard to help ensure that time and money aren’t wasted or worse the entire mitigation system isn’t rendered useless.

We should be thinking about QAQC at the outset of every single design and installation because without a good QAQC program you might end up with something else which is going to be a failed system and potentially a huge waste of time and resources.

All right, so let’s get into the important stuff. What does an effective QA-QC program look like and why does it matter?

So I’m gonna touch on each of these points individually in a little bit here, but I wanted to list everything out so that you can see that it’s not an overly complex process and all of the critical steps from a good QA-QC program can all fit on a single slide.

So, some of these things are going to be manufacturer review, a pre-construction meeting, working with certified installers, doing a smoke test, thickness verification, final pre-pour inspection.

These are all things that are going to be extremely important for a QAQC program.

So everyone here at Land Science is available to help with design assistance.

That can be anything from reviewing analytical, answering questions about venting layout, or help with creating custom construction details, getting a manufacturer’s input is extremely important to confirm that the system is going to function as intended once it’s in place.

So definitely take advantage of the historical knowledge and expertise that your project team and the system manufacturer brings to the table.

So pre-construction meetings are a great opportunity to discuss expectations.

Vapor mitigation installs are becoming more common, but there are still many general contractors that don’t know how to plan or coordinate a paper mitigation install. And there are going to be some unique circumstances that are gonna take place for any paper mitigation install.

So our certified installers are pros and do an amazing job of working with general contractors to ensure everyone knows what to expect during an installation.

So I just touched on certified installers and the important role that they play, but I really can’t say enough about these guys. Our certified installers are so important that they actually justify their own slide here.

A certified installer is somebody that has been trained by land science to install our vapor mitigation systems and has a good understanding of vapor intrusion.

I can say without those characteristics, an installer may not recognize the importance of the system or why it’s actually being installed. It is recommended that you have a third party inspector on site during the installation.

I can’t speak for other system manufacturers, but if they’re inspecting a land science system, we require a third-party inspector to take our online certification course.

It’s only about an hour, but it does ensure that the inspector knows how to identify potential issues or failure points at the installation. They’re gonna be on site to observe, keep notes about the installation, and that’s gonna mean things like taking pictures, recording site conditions, detailing the pre-pour conditions, observing the smoke test.

This is not only a good practice, but it’s gonna be required for projects that are gonna qualify for an extended warranty. So here we’ve got an example of one of the logs that our inspectors use. Jim had referenced this in his presentation as well.

This allows for inspectors to keep accurate details about the smoke test results, any repairs that were made.

This is typically done by the third party inspector, but I would also like to point out, I’m starting to see a lot of our installers are also keeping their own set of records from each of the installs that they do.

And that’s gonna include additional pictures and things like that from the install. This is gonna help to ensure that there is plenty of information available post install. Thickness verification involves a few things.

This can be performed by using a wet mill thickness gauge along with coupon samples, you must confirm that the system is being installed to whatever thickness the design calls for.

Now, if your environmental consultant has created a design that’s going to call for 30 mils or 40 mils or even 60 mil spray thickness, we need to be able to verify that the system is being installed to meet those design criteria. And to do that, going to have to do thickness verification and cut some coupon samples to confirm that thickness after the fact.

And with spray applied systems repairing a coupon sample is just as easy as cutting them.

The repairs are performed in exactly the same way as the system is being installed in the first place. So very easy to make repairs.

Smoke testing is an absolute requirement for any type of sub slab barrier system that’s being installed. There’s no better way to confirm a truly vapor-tight seal at seams and penetrations.

I’ve personally witnessed plenty of installations where everything looked great during the install. Excellent spray coverage, good seam closure, tight wrap around all penetrations, and as soon as they started blowing smoke under the barrier, it revealed several leaks that required some attention.

So they were easily fixed, but without a smoke test, everybody would have assumed that the install was good to go.

Not all vapor mitigation installs are going to be equal. And so what are some of the things that we’re going to have to look out for?

The greatest concern is poorly sealed up seam and penetration. This is going to create a preferential pathway for vapors to make their way into the building.

These images are great examples and the exact reason that we stress a smoke test. If the consultant is doing a post-install sampling event, these type of situations are definitely going to create some points of failure.

Tape systems typically cannot provide the same level of protection as a spray applied system. As you can see here somebody’s on their knees trying to get tape to stick to a barrier that’s probably dusty, may even have some moisture on it at times, could be creased.

That’s going to be an example of a system that is surely going to fail a smoke test and ultimately be very difficult to repair and get a good seal.

As compared to the image on the right with a spray applied system, which not only installs much faster, but the spray helps to fill any of those gaps and allows for the system to deal with any changes in the subgrade.

You know, if you’re thinking about something like a waffle slab where there’s a lot of changes and undulation to the subgrade, a spray applied system is gonna be able to manage all of those different variables a lot easier. And our installers can typically do roughly 20 to 30 ,000 square foot in a single day for a commercial install.

So that’s going to be significantly faster than a tape system can go down. And if you’re under a time crunch to get your building handed off, that’s going to be something that’s going to be important for you as well.

So just because our installer has completed their portion of the scope does not mean that the project is 100 percent in the clear. For this reason, we suggest a final pre-pour inspection.

Things like form stakes, equipment traffic, laser screeds, those can all cause potential issues for a completed barrier install. We don’t want concrete trucks, laser screed to tear the barrier that’s just been installed and inspected.

Again, repairs are very easy with the spray applied barrier, but if anything does happen, it’s hugely beneficial to have an installer onsite that was there doing a pre-pour inspection, and they’ll be ready to handle any kind of repairs that need to take place quickly and efficiently.

And then another important aspect of the installation is weather conditions.

Temperature extremes can create issues if we’re not prepared for them.

Our certified installers know how to manage these conditions to help keep the project on track, but it is important to point out that extreme cold, extreme heat, wet conditions all have an impact on the installation itself.

So we have several subslab barrier systems available, and they all take advantage of various proprietary technologies. We have multi-layer composite systems. We have a single-layer composite system, meaning that all of the components are bonded together in a single layer. We’ve got systems that include metallized film layers, HDPE-based systems, even EVOH-based systems that help us to solve any of those unique mitigation problems you might encounter in the field.

All of our systems are going to come together with our patented nitrile modified spray to ensure a vapor tight seal and the highest levels of chemical resistance. And with that I’ll open it up to any questions that we have.