Drycleaner Site Profiles

Ted's Cleaners, Nashville, Tennessee

Description
Historical activity that resulted in contamination.

Ted's is a 2,950-sq-ft currently operating facility in a retail strip mall. Ted's began operations in 1975. From 1975 to 1985 used PCE wastes, still bottoms, and spent filter cartrifges were disposal in a site dumpster. There are no records of major spills or other significant release.

Contaminants
Contaminants present and the highest amount detected in both soil and groundwater.


Contaminant Media Concentration (ppb) Nondetect
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene groundwater 2,330 ppb
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene soil 41 ppb
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) groundwater 22,000 ppb
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) soil 64 ppb
Trichloroethene (TCE) groundwater 820 ppb
Trichloroethene (TCE) soil 2.5 ppb
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene groundwater 21.7 ppb
Vinyl Chloride groundwater 1.3 ppb

Site Hydrology

Deepest Significant Groundwater Contamination:   22ft bgs
Plume Size:   Plume Length: 550ft
Plume Width: 160ft
Average Depth to Groundwater:   6.95ft

Lithology and Subsurface Geology

 
  alluvium consisting of varying amounts of sand and gravel in a matrix of silt and clay
Depth: 0-14.1ft bgs
14.1ft thick
Conductivity: 0.04ft/day
Gradient: 0.026ft/ft
ordovician catheys-leipers formation
  fine grained thin-to-medium bedded argrillious shaley limestone with shale interbeds. The unit also contains beds of bioclastic phosphatic limestone
Depth: 14.1ft bgs

Pathways and DNAPL Presence

checkGroundwater
Sediments
checkSoil
DNAPL Present

Remediation Scenario

Cleanup Goals:
  Remove, reduce source area. No established site specific cleanup goal but require mass reduction of on-site contamination.

Technologies

In Situ Bioremediation
 

Why the technology was selected:
Selection was based on remedial alternative study (feasibility study). Based on risk related to product application, cost, and success at other sites, enhanced in-situ bioremediation using HRC was selected for pilot test. Full scale remedy selected based on site geology, chemistry, groundwater data, etc.

Date implemented:
Sept. 2002, Inject HRC.Inject HRC at 9 points surrounding MW-4 and MW-13. Product applied in a grid pattern to address target. Removed (by bailing) free product from wells May 2003. Monitoring period 11/02; 1/03; 5/03; 6/04.

Final remediation design:
(To be implemented in mid-2012) Design that limits plume migration and causes source area reduction through biotic and abiotic technologies (Accelerated dechlorination via abiotic and microbial processes). Treatment area includes three areas: Area A- Southeast, Front of facility, MW-13 area, 4,000 square feet, 12 to 22 ft bgs Area B- Footprint of facility, location of previous HRC injection points, 1,525 square feet, 8-13 ft bgs Area C- South-southeast, Front of facility, MW-3 area, 3,500 square feet, 10-18 ft bgs

Other technologies used:
Accelerated dechlorination via abiotic and microbial processes

Results to date:
Little success with HRC and Sodium Permanganate injections with no effect observed in downgradient well approximately 5 ft away. CVOCs continue to fluctuate above MCLs in GW.

Next Steps:
Injection to promote accelerated dechlorination by biotic and abiotic processes as well as additional subslab and indoor air monitoring is scheduled to occur in Summer 2012. Anticipated to treat plume and possibly lower risk of VI at site.

In Situ Chemical Oxidation
 

Why the technology was selected:
Selection was based on remedial alternative study (feasibility study). Based on risk related to product application, cost, and success at other sites, enhanced in-situ bioremediation using HRC was selected for pilot test. Full scale remedy selected based on site geology, chemistry, groundwater data, etc.

Date implemented:
May 2005 to January 2008: Sodium Permanganate

Final remediation design:
(To be implemented in mid-2012) Design that limits plume migration and causes source area reduction through biotic and abiotic technologies (Accelerated dechlorination via abiotic and microbial processes). Treatment area includes three areas: Area A- Southeast, Front of facility, MW-13 area, 4,000 square feet, 12 to 22 ft bgs Area B- Footprint of facility, location of previous HRC injection points, 1,525 square feet, 8-13 ft bgs Area C- South-southeast, Front of facility, MW-3 area, 3,500 square feet, 10-18 ft bgs

Other technologies used:
Accelerated dechlorination via abiotic and microbial processes

Results to date:
Little success with HRC and Sodium Permanganate injections with no effect observed in downgradient well approximately 5 ft away. CVOCs continue to fluctuate above MCLs in GW.

Next Steps:
Injection to promote accelerated dechlorination by biotic and abiotic processes as well as additional subslab and indoor air monitoring is scheduled to occur in Summer 2012. Anticipated to treat plume and possibly lower risk of VI at site.

Costs

Cost for Assessment:
 
Cost for Operation and Maintenance:
 
Total Costs for Cleanup:
  Total project cost to date is $216,868.05

Lessons Learned

1. We are still determining what we could have done differently -- e.g., what additional info or testing could have been collected that would have helped us make a different choice and or a different design.
2. A larger treatment area would provide for better reduction of CVOCs but is cost prohibitive at this time.

Contacts

TN Department of Environment and Conservation- Drycleaner Environmental Response Program
4th floor L&C Annex
401 Church Street
Nashville, TN 37243
615-532-0900
http://www.state.tn.us/environment/permits/dcerp.shtml

TVG Environmental
220 Great Circle Road, Suite 112
Nashville, TN 37228
615-324-3850
www.tvgenvironmental.com

Innovative Environmental Technologies
6130 Kit Road
Pipersville PA 18947
888-721-8283
http://iet-inc.net/