State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners Site Profiles
Asian Cleaners, Sanford, Florida
Description
|
This is an active PCE drycleaning facility that has been in operation since 1984. The facility is located in a strip mall in a mixed commercial/residential setting, approximately 150 feet northeast of a 40-acre lake. The nearest public water supply well is located approximately 2,500 feet north of the facility.
The contaminant source areas identified at the drycleaners include the soils beneath the building floor slab in the vicinity of the drycleaning machine and the area outside the service door. Two petroleum contaminated sites (service stations) are located approximately 700 feet hydraulically upgradient of the facility. One of these sites is under active remediation. Remediation Status: In groundwater monitoring |
Contaminants
Contaminants present and the highest amount
detected in both soil and groundwater.
Contaminant | Media | Concentration (ppb) | Nondetect |
---|---|---|---|
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene | soil | 1 ppb | |
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene | soil | 1 ppb | |
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) | soil | 1 ppb | |
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) | soil | 1 ppb | |
Trichloroethene (TCE) | soil | 1 ppb | |
Trichloroethene (TCE) | soil | 1 ppb | |
Vinyl Chloride | soil | 1 ppb | |
Vinyl Chloride | soil | 1 ppb | |
soil | 1 ppb | ||
soil | 1 ppb | ||
soil | 1 ppb |
Site Hydrology
Deepest Significant Groundwater Contamination: | 16ft bgs | |
Plume Size: | Plume Length: 125ft Plume Width: 35ft Plume Thickness: 13ft |
|
Average Depth to Groundwater: | 3ft |
Lithology and Subsurface Geology
fine-grained silty sands with some clay interbeds Depth: 0-48ft bgs 48ft thick Conductivity: 1.5ft/day Gradient: 0.025ft/ft |
||
sandy clay with silt and shell fragments Depth: 48-53ft bgs 5ft thick |
||
fine-grained sand Depth: 53-59ft bgs 6ft thick |
Pathways and DNAPL Presence
Groundwater Sediments Soil DNAPL Present |
Vapor Intrusion Pathway
Has the potential for vapor intrusion (VI) been evaluated? |
No |
|
Has a vapor mitigation system been installed? |
Yes | |
Type of Vapor Mitigation System(s): |
Passive Vapor Barrier Sub-slab Depressurization Sub-slab Pressurization Passive Venting HVAC controls/modifications Soil Vapor Extraction |
Remediation Scenario
Cleanup
Goals: |
Groundwater (MCLs): PCE = 3.0 µg/l; TCE = 3.0 µg/l; cis 1,2-DCE = 70 µg/l; trans 1,2-DCE = 100 µg/l; vinyl chloride = 1.0 µg/l; Soil (Cleanup target leachability standard): PCE = 30 µg/kg; TCE = 30 µg/kg; cis 1,2-DCE = 400 µg/kg; vinyl chloride = 7 µg/kg |
|
Remedy Level: |
Full Scale Remedy |
Technologies
in Situ Air Sparging |
Why the technology was selected: Date implemented: Final remediation design: Other technologies used: Results to date: Next Steps: Cost to Design and Implement: |
|
in Situ Soil Vapor Extraction |
Why the technology was selected: Date implemented: Final remediation design: Results to date: Next Steps: Cost to Design and Implement: |
|
in Situ Soil Vapor Extraction |
Why the technology was selected: Date implemented: Final remediation design: Results to date: Next Steps: Cost to Design and Implement: |
Costs
Cost
for Assessment: |
$88,600 | |
Cost
for Operation and Maintenance: |
$150,000 (estimated for 12 months operation) | |
Total
Costs for Cleanup: |
Lessons Learned
1. Biosparge wells needed to be cycled (on/off) to allow for aquifer stabilization, minimization of groundwater mounding and to eliminate the potential for contaminant volatilization. 2. SVE radius of influence has been reduced by water intake into system transfer lines. Also, SVE lateral well was installed outside the back wall of the building. Given the shallow depth to water and the presence of the builidng footer the system was not able to influence the contamination under the building floor slab near the drycleaning machine. This made the installation of the large diameter vapor extraction well necessary. Large diameter vapor extraction wells are effecitve at sites with shallow water tables. 3. Direct push installation of a slant sparge well beneath the drycleaning facility allowed for treatment of the primary contaminant source area at the site. 4. Clay lenses are likely responsible for the failure of the sparge system to remediate contaminants in groundwater. 5. In retrospect, biosparging was not a good choice to remediate this site. Groundwater contaminants were predominantly PCE daughter products (Cis 1,2-DCE and vinyl chloride). The nutrients utilized in the Phoster process do not appear to have enhanced degradation appreciably. |
Contacts
Aaron Cohen Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection Bureau of Waste Cleanup, MS 4500 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 850-245-8974 Aaron.Cohen@dep.state.fl.us Contractor: Nana Westmark PSI 5801 Benjamin Center Drive Suite 112 Tampa, Florida 33634 (813) 886-1075 nana.westmark@psiusa.com |
Site Specific References
1. Contamination Assessment Report - 7/99 2. Remedial Action Plan - 5/01 3. Construction Completion Report - 2/02 4. O&M/monitoring reports: 2002 - 2007 |