Milestone map
Milestone map
3 milestones
Characterise the Contaminated Site
2–3 weeks (3–4 hrs/week)
Identify a real or realistic contaminated site scenario: contaminated groundwater, soil contamination, or industrial site with legacy pollutants. Document the site characterisation: contamination type (heavy metals, hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, etc.), concentration levels at different depths and locations, site hydrogeology (soil permeability, groundwater flow direction and depth), and relevant regulatory standards (EPA, Environment Agency, or equivalent). A thorough site characterisation is the foundation for selecting the correct remediation technology — the wrong technology for the site geology is a design failure.
Proof required
Submit your site characterisation report (≥800 words): contamination type and concentrations (cited from real site data, published case study, or regulatory guidance), site hydrogeology summary, and the regulatory cleanup targets you are designing to meet.
What gets checked
- Contamination concentrations are given as specific values at specific depths/locations — not general statements that contamination is 'present'
- Site hydrogeology addresses soil permeability and groundwater flow direction — both are required for technology selection
- Regulatory cleanup targets are cited with their source (EPA guidance values, UK soil screening values, or equivalent) — not stated without authority
Common mistakes
- Using a purely hypothetical scenario with assumed concentrations — base site characterisation on a published case study, EPA site record, or Environment Agency case for realistic data
- Omitting hydrogeology — a remediation technology that works in permeable sand aquifers may be ineffective in fractured rock or clay; geology drives technology selection
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
What a verifier looks for
- Confirm contamination concentrations are specific and cited — not general statements.
- Confirm hydrogeology addresses both soil permeability and groundwater flow direction.
- Confirm regulatory cleanup targets cite the specific guidance document and threshold values.
Select and Size the Remediation System
3–4 weeks (4–5 hrs/week)
Based on the site characterisation, evaluate ≥2 remediation technologies (e.g. pump-and-treat, in-situ chemical oxidation, permeable reactive barrier, bioremediation, soil vapour extraction, thermal desorption). Apply a technology screening matrix scoring each on: effectiveness for the contaminant, site suitability (hydrogeology), treatment time, cost, and regulatory precedent. Select the preferred technology and size the primary system components: extraction well spacing and flow rate for pump-and-treat, or PRB thickness and reactive media volume for a permeable reactive barrier.
Proof required
Submit your technology screening matrix (≥2 technologies, ≥4 scoring criteria) and sizing calculations for the selected technology: extraction well design with flow rate estimates, PRB dimensions, or equivalent, with cited data sources.
What gets checked
- Technology screening matrix compares ≥2 technologies on ≥4 criteria — not a narrative preference statement
- Sizing calculations show the design equation used and the data sources for hydraulic conductivity, contaminant properties, or reactive media performance
- Selected technology is consistent with the site hydrogeology from M1 — flag if the technology requires conditions the site does not have
Common mistakes
- Technology selection without a screening matrix — remediation technology selection must be a comparative, documented decision
- Sizing calculation without citing hydraulic conductivity or contaminant property data sources — these values determine the system design and must be traceable
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
What a verifier looks for
- Confirm technology screening matrix compares ≥2 technologies on ≥4 criteria with stated scores.
- Confirm sizing calculation shows the design equation and cites hydraulic conductivity or contaminant property data sources.
- Confirm selected technology is appropriate for the site hydrogeology documented in M1.
Write the Remediation Design Report and Address Monitoring
2–3 weeks (2–3 hrs/week)
Write a complete remediation design report (2,000–3,000 words plus tables) covering: site characterisation summary, technology evaluation, selected system design and sizing, monitoring plan (what to monitor, where, how often, and at what trigger level), performance milestones (when the site is considered remediated), and regulatory approval pathway. Have the report reviewed by an environmental engineer or hydrogeologist and respond to challenge questions on the technology selection and monitoring plan.
Proof required
Submit your remediation design report (2,000–3,000 words plus tables) and review record: reviewer name, role, ≥3 challenge questions about technology selection or monitoring plan, and your responses.
What gets checked
- Monitoring plan specifies locations, parameters, frequency, and trigger levels — not a statement that monitoring will occur
- Performance milestones define when remediation is complete in terms of measurable concentration targets
- Reviewer has environmental engineering or hydrogeology experience and challenged the technology selection or monitoring plan specifically
Common mistakes
- Monitoring plan without trigger levels — at what concentration does the plan trigger an escalation response? The plan must define this
- Performance milestone that says 'when concentrations are below the regulatory limit' without specifying the monitoring frequency and spatial coverage needed to confirm this
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
What a verifier looks for
- Engineering Design Triad check: M1–M3 together produce a design artifact (technology selection + system sizing), an analysis artifact (technology screening matrix + site characterisation), and a documentation artifact (remediation design report + monitoring plan) — confirm all three types are present.
- Confirm monitoring plan specifies locations, parameters, frequency, and trigger levels — all four elements required.
- Confirm performance milestones define measurable concentration targets, not just 'when clean'.
- Confirm reviewer has environmental engineering or hydrogeology experience — challenge questions must probe technology appropriateness for the site geology.
- The Proof Accessibility Rule applies — EPA free guidance, USGS free textbooks, Environment Agency free publications, DWSIM (free), and draw.io (free) are all accessible without commercial licence.
Part of