Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Remediation Proposal
Remediation Proposal
Tait Chirenje
April 3, 2019
Stockton University
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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 most popularly used chemical oxidants are potassium or sodium permanganate,
hydrogen peroxide, Fenton’s reagent, and ozone. Potassium or sodium permanganate has been
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Equipment Needed: Wheeled or Back Hoe excavator, trucks to transport excavated soil, well
Operators.
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
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
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
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
Equipment Needed: Sieves, hydrocyclones, flotation cells, filter presses, storage basins, trucks
for transport.
Personnel Needed: LSRP (oversight), Environmental Professionals, Plant operators, drivers for
transport.
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
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
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 cm2. For SVE to be effective, it is desired to have a soil
18
permeability above 10-8 cm2 (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
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
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
Equipment Needed: Vacuum Pump, Control System, Vapor Treatment Unit (usually activated
monitoring personnel
(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
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
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
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
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
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
permeability. Soils range from 10-16 to 10-3 cm2 for permeability and the range that is most
effective for air sparging is a permeability above 10-9 cm2 (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,
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
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.
monitoring personnel
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
· C
hemical Production Companies
· O
il and Gas Companies
· R
eal Estate Companies
· W
aste Management Companies
· D
ry Cleaning Facilities
Market Research
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
Figure 2:
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
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
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:
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.
entail that safety and efficiency of the equipment is being practiced. The roles and
❏ Conduct and document daily safety inspections of all equipment prior to operation
and perform daily checks.
❏ Follow designated safety practices while operating equipment.
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:
the remediation process. The main duties of the job will include:
29
References:
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
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
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123744845000092
https://frtr.gov/matrix2/section4/4-6.html
https://www.hcr-llc.com/soil-excavation-removal-and-disposal
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
http://irsl.ca/environmental-remediation-services/in-situ-remediation/cosolvent-flushing/
Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council. (2014). Conventional and Amended Capping.
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.
DC, 2017.
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,
Retails and Other application: Global Industry Perspective, Comprehensive Analysis and
https://www.zionmarketresearch.com/report/environmental-remediation-market
http://www.essentialchemicalindustry.org/materials-and-applications/surfactants.html
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2012). A Citizen's Guide to Air Stripping.
32
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.
to_pump_and_treat.pdf
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2012). A Citizen's Guide to Soil Vapor
/files/2015-04/documents/a_citizens_guide_to_soil_vapor_extraction_and_air_sparging.p
df
/documents/ec_information_guide.pdf
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/nj/soils/?cid=nrcs141p2_018866