1

Proposed Business Plan for a Remediation Company

Jacob McClaskey, Rachel Schafer, Nicholas Cordivari, Derek Hafstad

Remediation and Biotech ENVL 4446

Tait Chirenje

April 3, 2019

Stockton University

Galloway, New Jersey

 2

Table of Contents

Summary………………………………………………………………………………………..3
Background of Available Physical and Chemical Remediation Technologies…………………4
Soil Profile……………………………………………………………………………………..11
Services……………………………………………………………………………….……….12
Excavation…………………………………………………………………………...12
Soil Washing………………………………………………………………………...14
Soil Vapor Extraction………………………………………………………………..16
Air Sparging……………………………………………………………….………...20
Market Analysis……………………………………………………………………………….23
Market Research……………………………………………………………….……………...24
Staffing……………………………………………………………………....………………..27
References…………………………………….……………………………………..………..30
 3

Summary:​

With the money inherited from our late grandfather, Toni Sr., we would like to fulfill his

rather uncanny dying wish of forming and incorporating a physical and chemical remediation

company. This report lays out the framework for our planned company. It includes a background

of available physical and chemical remediation methods, a soil profile of the area we plan to

work, selected remedial services we will provide, an environmental remediation market analysis

and a financial blueprint for the company. As time passes and we acquire a larger number of

clients and greater resources, we plan on expanding and incorporating more physical and

chemical remediation techniques in addition to the ones that we have selected to get the company

off the ground. The four remediation technologies that we have chosen to have our company

specialize in are soil excavation, soil washing, soil vapor extraction, and air sparging. These

techniques were selected based on various factors, including New Jersey’s topography, soil

texture, and most frequently present site pollutants. With our client-first mindset and unmatched

customer service, paired with our selected remedial methods, we hope to create and maintain a

physical and chemical remediation company that any deceased grandfather would be proud of.
 4

Background of Available Physical and Chemical Remediation Technologies:

Physical remediation involves cleaning up soils, groundwater, and surface water without

altering the chemical nature of the pollutant or the pollutant-containing medium. Oftentimes,

physical methods are the quickest route to cleaning up a site. They also can be used as a

pretreatment method for future ex-situ chemical remediation techniques. The most popular

physical remediation techniques are soil excavation, soil washing, soil flushing, physical

capping, and soil vapor extraction (SVE).

Soil excavation involves the use of heavy machinery to remove soils from where they

were originally located, and moving them to a location where they can be safely disposed of or

treated. It is frequently used as a pretreatment method for other remediation techniques that must

be performed ex-situ. Because soil excavation can become rather costly, it is important to

determine exactly where the pollutants are in the soil and the specific volume of the contaminant

plume so that one does not over-excavate and therefore over-pay for the removal of

uncontaminated soil. The costs of renting the required machinery, paying people to operate that

machinery, and paying to send your contaminated soil to a proper hazardous waste site can get

high rather quickly.

It is important to determine the extent and location of the contaminant in the soil when

performing soil excavation. This can be done by collecting core samples from the site and using

the data acquired from analysis of the core samples to create a model of the site that shows

exactly where the plume is located. Soil excavation is most effectively performed when the

pollutants are located in a relatively well defined area that is close to the surface. Site

characteristics such as soil texture and structure can be neglected when excavation is selected as
 5

the only remediation method for site cleanup. Pollutant characteristics can also oftentimes be

neglected in the cases where excavation is the only remediation method used at a site, as

excavation is an effective remediation method for all pollutants that may be in a soil.

In the circumstances where excavation is used as a pretreatment method, the excavated

soil usually gets separated based on particle size and the smaller clay particles are combined and

sent to an offsite storage facility, while the larger silt and sand particles are treated and returned

to their original place as backfill. The clay particles are often formed into a dry filter cake and

sent away for disposal. They are not treated because of their relatively large surface area, which

allows them to strongly retain contaminants on their particle surface, making it not worth the

time and effort to clean them up.

Soil excavation is used as a pretreatment method for soil washing, which is a particularly

effective method for the remediation of trace metals in soil. Soil washing is oftentimes used in

conjunction with soil separation techniques such as sieving and screening. Once the larger silts

and sands are separated from the clays, they are placed into a soil scrubbing unit where they are

mixed with a wash solution and agitated. A soil wash solution is usually comprised of water that

may also contain a surfactant or chelating agent. Surfactants work to break the bond between the

surface of the soil particle and the contaminant, which forces the contaminant into solution,

allowing for its removal (Essential Chemical Industry, 2013). Chelating agents have the ability to

form several bonds to metal ions, leading to the formation of complex ring structures called

chelates (Flora, Flora & Saxena, 2009). Chelating agents will form multiple bonds to metal

contaminants on the surface of soil particles, essentially pulling the contaminant off of the soil

particles and into solution where they can be removed.

 6

Soil washing is an effective remediation method for a wide range of contaminants,

including semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) like polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), heavy metals, and radionuclides like uranium,

cesium, thorium and radium (ART Engineering, n.d.). Once cleaned of contaminants, the washed

soil can be returned to the site. When possible, the water used in soil washing is treated and

reused.

Soil flushing is similar to soil washing in that it involves exposing soil to water or other

aqueous solutions that will extract the contaminant from the surface of the soil particles. It differs

from soil washing because it involves treating soils in-situ by using an injection or infiltration

process (FRTR, n.d.). Site conditions must be taken into account when considering soil flushing

as a viable remediation method, as a confining layer beneath where the flushing solution is being

injected must be present so that the solution can be recovered and, if possible, recycled (CPEO,

n.d.). Another site characteristic that must be known when considering soil flushing for site

cleanup is the texture of the soil that contains the contaminants. Unlike soil washing where the

soils are removed and separated based on particle size, soil flushing treats the soils in-situ as they

reside. This means that the texture of the soil to be treated should be a lighter loam or sandy soil,

as heavier soils will retain the pollutant through the flushing due to their high surface areas.

Cosolvent flushing involves injecting soils with a solvent mixture that increases the

solubility of various organic contaminants that may not be soluble in water. Cosolvent flushing is

useful in remediating soils that are contaminated with non-aqueous phase liquids (NAPLs)

because it enhances their solubility and mobility, allowing them to be removed from the soil

through extraction wells and treated on-site, or disposed of off-site (InSitu, 2019).
 7

Placing a physical cap on contaminated soil helps to interrupt an exposure pathway of the

contaminant by exerting control over the movement of that contaminant (NJDEP, 2014). Popular

types of physical caps include sediment, clay, rubber, and plastic. Physical capping is designed to

either stabilize contaminated sediments in order to prevent resuspension and transport to other

sites, isolate harmful chemicals to reduce their migration, or protect benthic communities from

interacting with and taking up contaminated sediments (ITRC, 2014).

Soil vapor extraction (SVE) involves creating a vacuum in the soil in order to remove

volatile and some semi-volatile organic compounds from a soil. The pollutants pulled from the

soil through the vacuum are either treated or destroyed once they reach the surface, depending on

state and local air discharge regulations (CPEO, n.d.). SVE involves drilling extraction wells into

the ground to a depth above the water table, which must be deeper than three feet below the

surface (USEPA, 2012). A vacuum then gets attached to the wells, which pulls air and vapors

from the vadose zone of the soil through the wells, and into a treatment system at the surface.

The texture and structure of the soil, as well as the depth of the water table must be accounted for

when planning to use SVE. A silty or sandy soil with a low degree of saturation is preferred in

order to most efficiently perform SVE. Soils with a higher percentage of fine particles and higher

degrees of saturation will require stronger vacuums, which will either be more costly or hinder

the operation of the in-situ SVE system. The water table also must be deeper than three feet

below the surface to perform SVE, and SVE most effective when water table depths are five feet

or greater.

Soil vapor extraction is often used in tandem with chemical remediation methods.

Chemical remediation methods involve cleaning up soils, groundwater, or surface water in ways
 8

that change the chemical nature of either the contaminant or the medium that contains the

contaminant. The pollutants most associated with chemical remediation are petroleum-based

ones. SVE is frequently used in combination with air sparging. Air sparging involves pumping

air into the bottom of the water table and allowing the it to move upward through the water table,

which helps make volatile and semivolatile organic compounds evaporate, allowing for easier

extraction with SVE. Once at the surface, the volatile and semivolatile organic compounds from

the soil and sparged groundwater are treated or destroyed.

Air stripping is similar to soil vapor extraction and air sparging, and it can be used to

remove volatile organic compounds from contaminated groundwater and surface water. Similar

to air sparging, air stripping involves forcing air through contaminated water in order to

evaporate volatile organic compounds. However, air stripping usually involves pumping

groundwater or surface water into a treatment tank filled with packing material. The water is

allowed to trickle through the tank from the top, until it reaches a point where it is bubbled with

air that then rises to the top of the tank and gets treated. Water that makes it way to the bottom of

the tank is tested to ensure that is has reached targeted cleanup levels, and is then pumped back

underground, back to the surface water body, or sent to a wastewater treatment plant (USEPA,

2012).

The use of pump and treat for groundwater remediation involves literally pumping

groundwater from the subsurface and treating it ex-situ, either on-site or off-site. It involves

installing one or more extraction wells that pump the contaminated groundwater to the surface,

where it then is either immediately treated, or stored in a holding tank for future treatment. The

methods for treating the water may consist of a single method such as air stripping or activated
 9

carbon filtration, or treatment may require multiple methods depending on the types or

concentrations of the contaminants (USEPA, 2012). The pump and treat method for groundwater

remediation can get expensive, as often times on-site treatment plants are constructed, depending

on how widespread the pollution is.

Chemical oxidation is an effective method for remediating easily oxidizable pollutants,

like petroleum-based pollutants, that are present in the saturated zone and capillary fringe. It can

become quite costly, so its use is mainly based on smaller, more concentrated areas of pollution.

Because chemical oxidation techniques often introduce safety hazards (like explosions), they are

often used in conjunction with other remedial methods, like SVE. Site characteristics such as soil

texture must be known, as most chemical oxidants are unable to penetrate dense, finer soils. The

amount of carbonates in the soil, the soil’s pH, and the fulvic acid fraction of organic matter in

the soil must be known when selecting an oxidant.

The most popularly used chemical oxidants are potassium or sodium permanganate,

hydrogen peroxide, Fenton’s reagent, and ozone. Potassium or sodium permanganate has been

found to be effective in remediating pollutants like methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE), a

constituent regularly found in fuel. It is effective over wide a pH range, reacts for a longer period

of time when compared to other chemical oxidants, is not associated with many safety concerns,

and is cheaper than other chemical oxidants. A limitation associated with potassium or sodium

permanganate is that it is not a strong enough oxidant to fully oxidize benzene.

Hydrogen peroxide is a stronger oxidant than potassium or sodium permanganate, and it

can be injected into a zone contaminated with petroleum-based pollutants to destroy them.

Hydrogen peroxide is typically injected into the saturated zone as a liquid, where it is unstable
 10

and able to react with organic contaminants and other materials. The end product after its

reaction with organic contaminants is oxygen, water, and heat.

When hydrogen peroxide reacts with ferrous iron, the even more effective Fenton’s

Reagent is produced. The reaction between hydrogen peroxide and ferrous iron yields hydroxyl

radicals, ferric iron, and hydroxyl ions. The hydroxyl radicals are extremely reactive, powerful

oxidizers that quickly react with organic pollutants. Hydroxyl radicals are capable of breaking

down benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (collectively referred to as BTEX), polycyclic

aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and MTBE. The reaction that yields Fenton’s Reagent only

proceeds under acidic conditions (pH of 2-4), so a pH adjustment is often needed as a site

pretreatment for this oxidation method.

Ozone is another oxidant that is stronger than permanganate, capable of oxidizing BTEX

chemicals, PAHs, and certain amounts of MTBE. Because of its high reactivity, ozone is usually

generated on-site and delivered to the subsurface through sparge wells as a gas. Once in the

subsurface, it dissolves in groundwater and reacts with organic pollutants, yielding oxygen. The

injection of gaseous ozone should not be performed in heavier, clayey soils.

Permeable reactive barriers are simply subsurface, in-place barriers made up of reactive

materials that allow contaminated groundwater to flow through them, with treated groundwater

exiting the barrier. They can either be permanent or semi-permanent structures, and are found in

different designs. Zero-valent iron is commonly used as a filler in permeable reactive barriers to

react with trace metals such as chromium VI or arsenic. The mechanisms through which

zero-valent iron reacts with different trace metals vary depending on the type of metal. For
 11

certain pollutants, mulch or vegetative materials can be used as a filler in permeable reactive

barriers.

Methods of limiting human exposure to harmful contaminants that are neither physical

nor chemical remediation methods are the implementation of institutional and engineering

controls at a site. Institutional controls can limit land use and also drive humans away from a site

through the implementation of zoning restrictions, fences, or signs. Engineering controls involve

usually capping pollutants in place with asphalt or concrete in the form of a parking lot, capping

contaminated soil with more clean soil as backfill, other engineered caps, or the installation of

groundwater migration barriers (USEPA, 2010). Institutional and engineering controls are

seldom used on their own at a contaminated site, though they are often used in conjunction with

physical and chemical remediation methods.

Soil Profile:

The state soil of New Jersey is the Downer Series. Downer soils are a type of Ultisol.

Ultisols are highly weathered soils that form in humid areas. These acidic soils typically have a

notable amount of translocated clay in subsurface horizons. Most nutrients are only found within

the first few centimeters of ultisols. These soils generally have a low fertility, but can be more

productive through the addition of lime (SSSA, 2019). Downer soils, however, support a wide

variety of natural vegetation and are often cultivated for high-value crops. Downer soils exhibit

a coarse-loamy texture. They are semi-active and siliceous. They are also well drained and have

a seasonally high water table. The permeability of Downer soils is generally considered
 12

moderate to moderately rapid (USDA, n/a). These factors are important to consider throughout

the remediation process as they can have a significant impact on the preferred method. For

example, the water table cannot be too high for methods such as SVE. Permeability also plays

an important role in a variety of techniques. The fact that Downer soils are acidic and

semi-active can influence both the pollutant behavior and remediation technique. Acidity and

reactivity can determine the lifespan of a pollutant, how it will behave, how it will oxidize, how

it will degrade, etc. Acidity is also an important factor to consider when selecting a technique, as

some methods, such as Fenton’s Reagent, require low pH.

Moving further into the Pinelands, New Jersey soils tend to become more sandy and

spodic. Spodosols are coarse soils that form in humid areas under coniferous vegetation. They

form when rainfall reacts with acidic vegetation to form organic acids. Metals such as iron and

aluminum, as well as organic matter in the topsoil, tend to be dissolved by these acids.

Spodosols tend to have low fertility and low clay content (SSSA, 2019). These factors make

these soils very suitable for techniques such as soil washing, as sandier soils are much easier to

wash.

Services:

1) Excavation:

Excavation is the easiest and fastest easiest remediation technique. It involves literally

digging up the contaminated soil, and typically transporting it offsite to either undergo further

treatment or disposal. However, excavated soil can be treated on site and replaced as backfill.

Since the practice is best suited for more shallow pollutants, core sampling and modeling will be
 13

done in order to determine the extent and specific volume of the contaminants at the site. During

the site assessment phase, environmental professionals will collect the necessary amount of

samples in order to demonstrate a full representation of the site characteristics. These samples

will help obtain approval for the job (HRC, n/a).

Excavation is a popular technique as it is effective for any type of soil and

contamination. To carry out this technique, heavy equipment and machinery will be required to

dig up the contaminated soil. It will also entail installing support systems to ensure that

buildings and roadways remain structurally sound. In the event that dewatering is required,

well-point dewatering systems can be installed and used with treatment equipment.

Environmental professionals will monitor the discharge to ensure that it remains compliant with

standards, and they will ensure that contamination removal is carried out in an efficient manner.

They will also ensure that all operations are carried out safely, and with the least possible amount

of disturbance to the property, neighbors, traffic, etc (HRC, n/a).

For most sites, excavation will be used in conjunction with soil washing. In these cases,

excavation can be thought of as a “pretreatment” prior to the washing. Soil washing will help to

reduce to cost of transporting and disposing contaminated soils.

Target Pollutants:​ Lead, heavy metals.

Equipment Needed:​ Wheeled or Back Hoe excavator, trucks to transport excavated soil, well

point pumps (if dewatering is needed), materials for structural support.

Personnel Needed:​ LSRP (oversight), Environmental Professionals/Technicians, Equipment

Operators.

Cost:​ $50-$200/ cubic yard

 14

2) Soil washing

Soil Washing is a very efficient technique for South Jersey soils. Soil washing is a very

common physical remediation method. It involves excavating and separating the soil, washing

it, and then returning it to its original place as back-fill. This process is done ex-situ, which

means the pollutant/contaminated medium is removed. However, treatment can be done on or

off site. The theory behind soil washing is much like the idea of separating clothes before you

wash them. Excavation is first used as a pretreatment method. The excavated soil is then

separated based on particle size. The efficiency of physical separation depends on several soil

characteristics such as particle size distribution, particle shape, clay content, moisture content,

humic content, heterogeneity of soil matrix, difference in density between soil matrix and metal

contaminants, magnetic properties, and hydrophobic properties. However, separation is

generally based on separating more coarse, sand sized particles from fine clay and silt sized

particles. This is because it is easier to wash contaminants from coarser particles, as clay sized

particles hold onto contaminants much more tightly due to their high surface area. In fact, most

organic and inorganic contaminants bind preferentially to clay. This is why coarse and fine

particles are separated, much like separating dark clothes from light clothes when doing laundry.

The excavated soil is typically separated by sieving. Sieving allows the finer soil particles to

filter through (often a mesh type material) while preventing larger particles from passing

through. However, soils could also be separated by density in some cases.

Once the contaminated soils are excavated and separated, the actual soil washing begins.

Soils washing may include techniques such as soil separation (as discussed above), attrition
 15

scrubbing, flotation, and surfactant washing. Soil washing sometimes can involve the use of

chemicals to aid in the disengagement or removal of particles from the soil. If chemicals are

involved, they may be useful in altering the pH of either the medium or the pollutant. These

chemicals are typically either surfactants or chelating agents. Surfactants are a lot like laundry

detergent. Surfactants break down the bonds between pollutants and soil, making them easily

soluble and therefore easier to remove. Chelating agents, on the other hand, form multiple bonds

with metals, and the surface reaction sites work to remove the contaminant from the particle.

Chelating agents are commonly used to treat sewage and drinking water. Surfactants and

chelating agents are the most common substances used in the washing of coarser particles.

However, methods such as froth flotation can also be used to separate metals such as cadmium,

copper, and lead from soils. Once the coarse grained soils are successfully washed and no longer

pose a risk, they are put back in their original place as backfill. The finer clay particle soils are

usually put through a fines thickening process, and then are dewatered and made into dry filter

cakes, which are usually shipped off-site to designated, permitted disposal facilities.

Soil washing is advantageous because it is typically successful and can be used to address

a number of contaminants. Soil washing is perfect for sites with metal contamination because

metals do not require the addition of other chemicals to remove them from the sites to which

they are absorbed. Soil washing is also effective for treating SVOCs and radionuclides. Sandier

soils are best for soil washing as they are the easiest to “wash” and result in less clay filter cakes

to dispose of. However, soil washing can be difficult if metals are bound too tightly to particles

of the difference in density between the soil matrix and metal-bearing particles is not significant

enough.
 16

For the purposes of South Jersey sites, soil washing is particularly advantageous. This is

due to the sandy nature of the area’s soils. It is also efficient in treating lead, which is a common

pollutant in the area. A soil washing plant can be built on-site, or the soil can be shipped to an

off-site washing plant. Equipment needed at the plant will include sieves for screening,

hydrocyclones for further separation and washing, scrubbers, floatation cells, filter presses, and

storage basins (Elsworth, 2017).

Target Pollutants:​ Lead and other heavy metals, SVOCs.

Equipment Needed:​ Sieves, hydrocyclones, flotation cells, filter presses, storage basins, trucks

for transport.

Personnel Needed:​ LSRP (oversight), Environmental Professionals, Plant operators, drivers for

transport.

Cost:​ $50-$150 per cubic yard.

3) Soil Vapor Extraction

Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) is an effective method for dealing with organic compounds

that are easily volatilized in the soil. The process involves drilling extraction wells and applying

a negative pressure through a vacuum to extract the vaporized VOCs and SVOCs. The extracted

air is then treated using activated carbon to remove the contaminants after which clean air is

released. Various site characteristics like soil porosity and the groundwater table as well as

pollutant characteristics such as volatility are taken into consideration when using this method.

The advantages of SVE are several fold. It is proven effective for targeting VOCs and

SVOCs with readily available equipment. There is very little disturbance to daily activities due
 17

to using SVE and can be used under buildings (Land, 2017). It is a relatively short time period to

treat the contaminated site, usually between 6 months to 2 years. It is possible to use this

technique in combination of other techniques such as air sparging or bioremediation (Land,

2017).

That being said, there are several drawbacks to this technique. It is difficult to remove all

of the contaminant, becoming increasingly difficult after 90% of the contaminant is removed.

The soil composition and thus the permeability of the soil will determine whether this method is

applicable, and is cost prohibitive with clay texture and low permeable soils (Land, 2017).

Depending on the contaminant, the treatment of the extracted air could be costly to treat. There is

also a limitation on where it could be used due to the groundwater level (Land, 2017).

When determining whether to use SVE, the first step will be to determine whether it will

be effective. The two most important factors to look at are the soil permeability, the rate at which

vapors can be extracted, and the volatility of the contaminant, the rate at which the contaminant

vaporizes (Land, 2017). The site characteristics play an important role in the soil permeability. If

the soil is mostly composed of gravels and sand, this method can be effective. If the soils have

mostly silt and clay, it will hinder the effectiveness of SVE. In order to determine if the

contaminant can be volatilized enough to for this method to be effective, boiling points will give

a good initial idea (Land, 2017).

Next is a detailed look at the specific site characteristics to determine if SVE should be

employed. The most important site characteristic is the permeability of the soil. The permeability

of soils range from 10​-16​ to 10​-3​ cm​2​. For SVE to be effective, it is desired to have a soil
 18

permeability above 10​-8​ cm​2​ (Land, 2017). The permeability of the soils can be measured in the

field or by testing soil cores. Hydraulic conductivity may also be used in determining the

permeability of the soil. Soil structure must also be taken into consideration because it will

determine the flow of air and thus the flow of contaminants. Soil structure could lead to an

ineffective treatment or increase the time taken for remediation (Land, 2017). Soil types along

with soil borings can be used to determine the soil structure and the path contaminants will take.

It is also important to take into consideration the depth to the groundwater. If the

groundwater is higher than 3 feet, SVE will be ineffective. Seasonal fluctuations of the

groundwater must also be taken into consideration to determine when SVE will be employed

(Land, 2017). Along with the groundwater level, the soil moisture content can also be a

hindrance due to water filling the pore space. On the other hand, if the soils are too dry, there

will be an increase in capillary action of the pollutant on the soil increasing the time it will take

for remediation (Land, 2017).

When looking at the pollutant characteristics, there are three things to take into

consideration for the volatility of the contaminant, vapor pressure, boiling point, and henry’s law

constant. Vapor pressure is the ability of an organic contaminant to evaporate and those with a

vapor pressure above 0.5 mm Hg are considered able to be remediated by SVE (Land, 2017).

Boiling point is a measure of the contaminants volatility and those with a boiling point below

250 degrees celsius are able to be extracted through SVE (Land, 2017). Henry’s law constant is

another indicator of a contaminants volatility and those with a constant greater than 100 atm are

able to be remediated through SVE (Land, 2017).

 19

After analyzing the site and pollutant characteristics, the SVE system should be designed

for the specific case. The things to consider are the radius of influence, which is the area around

the extraction wells with sufficient negative pressure to extract the vaporized contaminants, and

the wellhead vacuum, which is used to produce that negative pressure. Other things to consider

are the flow rate, the initial contaminant concentration and the desired concentrations, the

timeline, the soil volume, pore volume, construction limitations and extraction well placement.

All should be taken into consideration when determining the SVE system employed.

After the SVE system is employed, constant measurements should be taken of the flow

rate, vacuum pressure, and vapor concentrations (Land, 2017). From this information, it can be

determined if the system is working and at a reasonable pace. The concentration measurements

can also be used in order to determine if further operations are needed due to diminishing

recovery of contaminants.

This remediation method was chosen due to the fact that it targets VOCs and SVOCs,

which are some of the most common pollutants in New Jersey after decades of use of solvents

and petroleum products. Also, due to the high development of the state, it is more likely to

employ methods that are non invasive that can be used to remediate around and under buildings

with little disruption to business and the public. It can also be employed in sandy soils which

make up the majority of the soils in southern New Jersey.

Target Pollutants:​ VOCs and SVOCs

 20

Equipment Needed:​ Vacuum Pump, Control System, Vapor Treatment Unit (usually activated

carbon), extraction wells, piping, impermeable barrier (when applicable)

Personnel Needed:​ LSRP (oversight), Environmental Professionals, system operators,

monitoring personnel

Cost:​ $40-75/ cubic yard

(Land, 2017)

4) Air Sparging

Air sparging is the process of injecting air into the groundwater in order to release the

dissolved contaminants into their gaseous phase. After they enter the gaseous phase, they are

released through the soil and collected in conjunction with soil vapor extraction. In order to

employ this method, several injection wells need to be drilled and an air compressor will force

air through the injection wells to facilitate the remediation process.

There are many advantages of using air sparging as a remediation method. The

equipment used in treatment is easily obtained. It only requires small areas to have the injection

wells and air compressors (Land, 2017). The treatment is relatively short with only a 1 to 3 year

treatment timeline. It can be done in situ, which means that there is no need to build facilities to

pump and treat the groundwater. It is complemented SVE which will lead to its effectiveness.

Some of the limitations are that it cannot be used in confined aquifers, and soil stratification

could be a hindrance (Land, 2017).

 21

The first step in determining whether to use air sparging is an initial screening of its

effectiveness. For this, you need to consider several things. First is whether there is a

contaminant suspended in groundwater that could be spread by injecting air, further increasing

the area of contamination (Land, 2017). It is also important to note any basements or

underground areas where the airborne contaminants can accumulate. The partitioning of the

contaminant in the vapor and dissolved phase as well as the permeability of the soil will also

determine whether or not air sparging will be effective (Land, 2017).

The next step will be a detailed evaluation of its effectiveness. For this step, several site

specific factors will be taken into consideration. First is the Henry’s law constant of the

contaminant. If the contaminant has a constant greater than 100, it will be viable for air sparging

because it can readily enter the gaseous phase (Land, 2017). Another thing to consider to give a

general understanding if air sparing will be effective is the boiling point of the contaminant

because it gives an idea of the volatility of the contaminant. A general rule of thumb is that any

contaminant with a boiling point below 250 degrees celcius will be able to be removed through

air sparging (Land, 2017).

Another factor to consider is the vapor pressure of the contaminant. This will determine

how readily the contaminant will enter the gaseous phase from the dissolved phase, and a vapor

pressure above 0.5 mm Hg is considered preferable for air sparging (Land, 2017). Solubility of

the contaminant can also be considered when looking at the pollutant characteristics, but it is not

as important to factor in when determining the viability of air sparging.

 22

The other side of the equation on determining the effectiveness of air sparing is the site

characteristics. This boils down to looking at the permeability of the soil, soil structure, and iron

dissolved in groundwater. The most important site characteristic to determine is soil

permeability. Soils range from 10​-16​ to 10​-3​ cm​2​ for permeability and the range that is most

effective for air sparging is a permeability above 10​-9​ cm​2​ (Land, 2017). Another thing to take

into consideration is the soil structure, because if the soil is composed of silts and clays, air

sparging will disperse the contaminant over a wider area rather then remove it (Land, 2017). Iron

concentration is also important in determining air sparging viability because the injection of air

will oxidize iron (II) to an insoluble iron (III) which will precipitate out and clog pore space

(Land, 2017).

If the site characteristics and pollutant characteristics are determined to be viable for air

sparging the next step is to design the setup. It will take into consideration the radius of

influence. It is necessary to determine the greatest distance from the injection well that there will

be sufficient pressure to remove the contaminant given the soil structure (Land, 2017). This in

turn will determine how many injection wells will be necessary and if air sparging is viable

around buildings. This is in conjunction with the sparging air flow rate and sparging air pressure,

which will also influence the radius of influence (Land, 2017).

After all of that is taken into consideration, the next step is to determine its effectiveness

and develop a long term strategy. In order to do this, there should be long term monitoring with

measurements taken from the groundwater, the vapor wells, and the exhaust (Land, 2017). With
 23

this information, it can be determined how long the system is affecting the soil and when their

will be diminishing returns from the technique.

This remediation method was chosen because of its high compatibility with SVE. Both

use little area in order to perform this method, and both have similar requirements for the site and

pollutant characteristics. While SVE is mainly used in the vadose zone, air sparging can be used

in the water table, which covers a wider area for remediation. Air sparging can also help with

SVE due to the fact that hot air can be injected which will increase the vaporization of the

contaminants.

Target Pollutants:​ VOCs and SVOCs

Equipment Needed:​ injection wells, air compressor, air water separator

Personnel Needed: ​LSRP (oversight), Environmental Professionals, system operators,

monitoring personnel

Cost:​ $20-$50/cubic yard

Market Analysis

Our vision is to become one of the most profitable, yet cost effective remediation

companies in New Jersey. We plan to ensure that the customer will receive the best option for for

their needs, while completing operations in a timely and efficient manner. Our target customers

include state government, organizations, businesses, and homeowners across all of New Jersey.

We will work with customers and the community to ensure that the projects serve their intended
 24

purpose, while staying within the client’s budget. The list below shows the target businesses and

organizations that our company will pursue:

·​ C
​ hemical Production Companies

·​ O
​ il and Gas Companies

·​ R
​ eal Estate Companies

·​ W
​ aste Management Companies

·​ D
​ ry Cleaning Facilities

Market Research

The Environmental Remediation Industry is an industrial sector which specializes in

providing technologies that serve several purposes. These include reducing human health risks

and exposures, and addressing environmental issues. According to Zion Market Research, the

global remediation market was valued at $79.57 billion in 2016 and is expected to reach

approximately $122.80 billion in 2022, growing an annual rate of 7.5% between 2017 and 2022

(Research, Z.M., n/a). The remediation and environmental cleanup services industry in New

Jersey has grown by 2% over the past five years (Industry Market, 2018).

Income

We are optimistic that our company can compete with any of the established remediation

companies in the state. With our competitive prices and well-qualified employees, we expect our

first year of operation to be successful. Our costs are set slightly below the market price given

that we are a start-up business. We offer a fixed price and include the listed services on the next

page. Also listed on that page is a breakdown of our cost estimates for our four remedial
 25

methods, which will be our sources of income: soil excavation, soil washing, soil vapor

extraction (SVE), and air sparging. Prices may vary due to site and pollutant characteristics listed

on the right hand side of the table on the next page (Figure 2).

The chart below (Figure 1) shows our projected income for the first year of operation.

The majority of our sales are will be predominately in warmer months (April-August). This is

because in the colder months of winter, excavation can be extremely difficult due to covering of

snow and frozen soil. Soil excavation is the most popular remediation method, as well as the

easiest. Over 50% of our sales will come from soil excavation that will be done in the warmer

months. We project that our company will earn between $700,000-$1,000,000 in our first year.

This revenue projection is based on two factors. The first being our cost estimates that are

available in Figure 2. The second being based through thorough research on the information that

is available about the industry. In addition, the estimates are assuming that there will be no

drastic economic changes during our first year of business.

 26

Figure 2:

Physical Remediation Cost Estimates

Type of Capital Cost Activities Included with Cost Factors that Affect
Technology Range Cost
- Preparation and operation of heavy - Size of contamination
equipment plume
Soil $50-$200/ - Digging up & removing the pollutants - Location of
Excavation cubic yard - Transporting pollutants for disposal contamination
- Replacing treated area with clean soil - Existing structures on
- Long term inspection/monitoring site

- Preparation and operation of - Size of contamination

$50-$100/ equipment plume
Soil Washing cubic yard
- Excavating and washing soil - Site/soil characteristics
- Backfilling soil to original place - Depth to contamination
- Long-Term Inspections/Monitoring

Chemical Remediation Cost Estimates

Type of Cost Range Activities Included with Cost Factors that Affect
Technology Cost
- Preparation and operation of - Size/complexity of site
equipment - Soil classification
Soil Vapor - Installation of wells - Number of wells
$40-75 /
Extraction cubic yard
- Installation of pumps - Nature/amount of
(SVE) - Long-Term Inspections/Monitoring contamination
- Performed in-situ or
ex-situ

- Preparation and operation of equipment - Depth to pollutant will

- Installation of equipment including impact drilling costs
$20-$50/ pumps - Surface area and
Air Sparging cubic yard
- Vacuum extraction systems volume of
- Air sparge/injection wells contamination
- Long-Term Inspections/Monitoring - Depth to bottom of
water table
 27

Staffing

The following section describes the staffing requirements that our company will entail.

Each job title will include a summary of the skills required for the position, their duties, and

responsibilities. We ensure that we will have the most competent and well-qualified employees

to fill the positions throughout the company. For all positions, 40 hour HAZWOPER

certification is required. Listed below are the positions that our company will be filling:

Project Manager (Salary: 75,000)

Our company will include a project manager with a minimum of 10 years’ experience in the

environmental remediation field. The roles and responsibilities of this position will include

the following:

❏ Manage all employees involved with the project throughout all phases of the
remediation processes.
❏ Plan, direct, and coordinate clean-up activities to ensure that the goals are
complete within the time frame of client’s request.
❏ Conduct projects to ensure employees are working with at the highest level of
safety.
❏ Plan and schedule project timelines and budgeting.

​Equipment Operators (Wages: $20-$25 an hour)

An equipment operator will be needed for the several remediation technologies. The job will

entail that safety and efficiency of the equipment is being practiced. The roles and

responsibilities of this position will include the following:

❏ Operation of heavy equipment including excavators, dozers, pavers, rollers, and

other pieces of equipment.
 28

❏ Conduct and document daily safety inspections of all equipment prior to operation
and perform daily checks.
❏ Follow designated safety practices while operating equipment.

Environmental Scientists (Salary: $55,000)

An environmental scientist will be needed for much of the pre and post-remediation
activities. The job will entail a strong knowledge of the natural sciences, as well as
hazardous pollutants’ impacts on both the environment and human health. The roles and
responsibilities of this position will include the following:
❏ Determine data collection methods for projects.
❏ Conduct and analyze soil, air, and groundwater samples.
❏ Compile detailed, technical reports to present and explanation of the research and
findings.
❏ Provide relevant information to clients and general public about environmental
hazards and health risks involved with project.

Environmental Technicians (Salary: $40,000)

An environmental technician will be needed for our company. This person will typically

work under an environmental scientist. Job specifics include working both in the field and in

the office. The roles and responsibilities of this position will include the following:

❏ Mobilize and maintain the field equipment.

❏ Sampling and documenting materials in the field.
❏ Assist project manager/environmental scientist with oversight of field procedures,
methods, and support.

Office Secretary (Wages: $13-$18 an hour)

The office secretary position will be important for communication with clients throughout

the remediation process. The main duties of the job will include:
 29

❏ Monitoring phone calls and questions from clients or potential clients

❏ Communicating with other company members

❏ Processing payments and invoices

 30

References:

ART Engineering LLC. Soil Washing. Retrieved from

http://www.art-engineering.com/soil_washing.html

Center for Public Environmental Onsight. (n.d.). Soil Flushing. Retrieved from

http://www.cpeo.org/techtree/ttdescript/soilflus.htm

Center for Public Environmental Onsight. (n.d.). Soil Vapor Extraction. Retrieved from

http://www.cpeo.org/techtree/ttdescript/soilve.htm

Elsworth (2017). ​Soil Washing​.

https://www.ems.psu.edu/~elsworth/courses/geoee408/cm/remediation/2017_4_soilwashing.pdf

Flora, S., Flora, G., & Saxena, G. (2009). Arsenicals: Toxicity, their Use as Chemical Warfare

Agents, and Possible Remedial Measures. ​Handbook of Toxicology of Chemical Warfare

Agents.​ Retrieved from

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123744845000092

Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable. (n.d.). Soil Flushing. Retrieved from

https://frtr.gov/matrix2/section4/4-6.html

HRC (n/a). ​Soil Excavation, Removal, and Disposal.

https://www.hcr-llc.com/soil-excavation-removal-and-disposal

Industry Market Research, Reports, and Statistics. (n.d.). Retrieved from

https://www.ibisworld.com/industry-trends/market-research-reports/new-jersey/administr

ation-business-support-waste-management-services/remediation-environmental-cleanup-s

ervices-in-new-jersey.html
 31

In-Situ Remediation Services. (2019). Cosolvent Flushing. Retrieved from

http://irsl.ca/environmental-remediation-services/in-situ-remediation/cosolvent-flushing/

Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council. (2014). Conventional and Amended Capping.

Retrieved from ​https://www.itrcweb.org/contseds_remedy-selection/Content/5%

20Conventional%20and%20Amended%20Capping.htm

Land and Emergency Management. ​How to evaluate alternative cleanup technologies for

underground storage tank sites: a guide for corrective action plan reviewers​; U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Solid Waste and Emergency Response: Washington,

DC, 2017.

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. (2014). Technical Guidance on the

Capping of Sites Undergoing Remediation. Retrieved from

https://www.nj.gov/dep/srp/guidance/srra/capping_remediation_sites.pdf

Research, Z. M. (n.d.). Environmental Remediation Market for Banking and Financial Services,

Telecom and IT, Healthcare, Government, Automotive, Government, Manufacturing and

Retails and Other application: Global Industry Perspective, Comprehensive Analysis and

Forecast, 2016-2022. Retrieved from

https://www.zionmarketresearch.com/report/environmental-remediation-market

SSSA (2019). ​Spodosols. h​ ttps://www.soils.org/discover-soils/soil-basics/soil-types/spodosols

SSSA (2019). ​Ultisols. ​https://www.soils.org/discover-soils/soil-basics/soil-types/ultisols

The Essential Chemical Industry (2013). Surfactants. Retrieved from

http://www.essentialchemicalindustry.org/materials-and-applications/surfactants.html

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2012). A Citizen's Guide to Air Stripping.
 32

Retrieved from ​https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/P100F9WA.txt?ZyActionD=Zy

Document&Client=EPA&Index=2011%20Thru%202015&Docs=&Query=&Time=&En

dTime=&SearchMethod

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2012). A Citizen's Guide to Pump and Treat.

Retrieved from ​https://clu-in.org/download/Citizens/a_citizens_guide_

to_pump_and_treat.pdf

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2012). A Citizen's Guide to Soil Vapor

Extraction and Air Sparging. Retrieved from ​https://www.epa.gov/sites/production

/files/2015-04/documents/a_citizens_guide_to_soil_vapor_extraction_and_air_sparging.p

df

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2010). Engineering Controls on Brownfields

Information Guide. Retrieved from ​https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09

/documents/ec_information_guide.pdf

USDA (n/a). ​New Jersey State Soil - Downer.

https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/nj/soils/?cid=nrcs141p2_018866