Drycleaner Site Profiles

ABC One-Hour Cleaners, Jacksonville, North Carolina

Description
Historical activity that resulted in contamination.

The ABC facility is located at 2127 Lejune Boulevard in Jacksonville, North Carolina. The facility encompasses an area of approximately one acre. The dry cleaning establishment, consisting of three buildings joined to form one complex, is located on the southern portion of the property. Two source areas were identified. The primary source area was the former septic tank system. A secondary source consisted of still bottoms which were placed in the dirt driveway west of the building as a "pothole" fill. It is estimated that approximately one ton of still bottoms were placed on the driveway over a 30-year period.

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


Contaminant Media Concentration (ppb) Nondetect
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) groundwater 5,400 ppb
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) soil 2,100,000 ppb
Trichloroethene (TCE) groundwater 640 ppb
Trichloroethene (TCE) soil 33,000 ppb
Vinyl Chloride groundwater 110 ppb
Vinyl Chloride soil 31,000 ppb ND
1,2-Dichloroethene groundwater 1,200 ppb
1,2-Dichloroethene soil 31,000 ppb ND

Site Hydrology

Deepest Significant Groundwater Contamination:   90ft bgs
Plume Size:   Plume Length: 1,500ft
Plume Width: 400ft
Plume Thickness: 90ft
Average Depth to Groundwater:   15ft

Lithology and Subsurface Geology

 
  interbedded sands, silts, and clay
Depth: 0-25ft bgs
25ft thick
Conductivity: 10.3ft/day
Gradient: 0.007ft/ft
 
  Saturated quartz sand
Depth: 25-70ft bgs
45ft thick
Castle Hayne aquifer
  saturated fossiliferous sands and gravels with variable silt content
Depth: 70ft bgs

Pathways and DNAPL Presence

checkGroundwater
Sediments
checkSoil
DNAPL Present

Remediation Scenario

Cleanup Goals:
  Contaminated soils are being addressed using a SVE system. Groundwater is treated using an extraction system (pumping well). The extracted groundwater is treated by air stripping. Periodic groundwater monitoring is conducted to estimate treatment efficiancy. Institutional controls have been implemented on well construction and water use in the the general area of the site.

Technologies

In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction
 

Why the technology was selected:
The above technologies were selected based on evaluation critieria set forth in the NCP, including protection of human health and the environment, statutory requirements, long-term effectiveness and permanence, reduction of contamination through treatment, short-term effectiveness, implementability, cost, state acceptance, and community acceptance.

Date implemented:
Soil: April 2000 Groundwater: January 1999

Final remediation design:
Soil: remediation goals based on soil to groundwater leachability. Six extraction wells initially installed. One year estimated to reach cleanup goals. In July 2002, two additional wells installed and three others shut down. Groundwater: North Carolina Groundwater standards are remedial goals. Five extraction wells installed, four in the surficial aquifer and one in the Castle Hayne Aquifer.

Results to date:
Soil: Concentrations have decreased, but the remedial objectives have not been met. Groundwater: Concentrations have decreased, but the remedial goals have not been met in the surficial aquifer. Contamination in the Castle Hayne Aquifer has migrated beyond the zone of extraction well influence.

Next Steps:
Soil: Exand SVE system with two to three more wells. Groundwater: Install additional monitoring wells and investigate if monitored natural attenuation is a viable option.

Cost to Design and Implement:
All technologies: Soil: 521,463 Groundwater: 2,262,900

Ex Situ Air Stripping
 

Why the technology was selected:
The above technologies were selected based on evaluation critieria set forth in the NCP, including protection of human health and the environment, statutory requirements, long-term effectiveness and permanence, reduction of contamination through treatment, short-term effectiveness, implementability, cost, state acceptance, and community acceptance.

Date implemented:
Soil: April 2000 Groundwater: January 1999

Final remediation design:
Soil: remediation goals based on soil to groundwater leachability. Six extraction wells initially installed. One year estimated to reach cleanup goals. In July 2002, two additional wells installed and three others shut down. Groundwater: North Carolina Groundwater standards are remedial goals. Five extraction wells installed, four in the surficial aquifer and one in the Castle Hayne Aquifer.

Results to date:
Soil: Concentrations have decreased, but the remedial objectives have not been met. Groundwater: Concentrations have decreased, but the remedial goals have not been met in the surficial aquifer. Contamination in the Castle Hayne Aquifer has migrated beyond the zone of extraction well influence.

Next Steps:
Soil: Exand SVE system with two to three more wells. Groundwater: Install additional monitoring wells and investigate if monitored natural attenuation is a viable option.

Cost to Design and Implement:
All technologies: Soil: 521,463 Groundwater: 2,262,900

Ex Situ Pump and Treat
 

Why the technology was selected:
The above technologies were selected based on evaluation critieria set forth in the NCP, including protection of human health and the environment, statutory requirements, long-term effectiveness and permanence, reduction of contamination through treatment, short-term effectiveness, implementability, cost, state acceptance, and community acceptance.

Date implemented:
Soil: April 2000 Groundwater: January 1999

Final remediation design:
Soil: remediation goals based on soil to groundwater leachability. Six extraction wells initially installed. One year estimated to reach cleanup goals. In July 2002, two additional wells installed and three others shut down. Groundwater: North Carolina Groundwater standards are remedial goals. Five extraction wells installed, four in the surficial aquifer and one in the Castle Hayne Aquifer.

Results to date:
Soil: Concentrations have decreased, but the remedial objectives have not been met. Groundwater: Concentrations have decreased, but the remedial goals have not been met in the surficial aquifer. Contamination in the Castle Hayne Aquifer has migrated beyond the zone of extraction well influence.

Next Steps:
Soil: Exand SVE system with two to three more wells. Groundwater: Install additional monitoring wells and investigate if monitored natural attenuation is a viable option.

Cost to Design and Implement:
All technologies: Soil: 521,463 Groundwater: 2,262,900

Costs

Cost for Assessment:
 
Cost for Operation and Maintenance:
 
Total Costs for Cleanup:
 

Lessons Learned

1. After more than a decade of soil and groundwater remediation, neither the soil nor the groundwater remediation goals have been attained. Soil excavation may have been a more expensive alternative than SVE; however, source removal would have been accomplished. The removal of the dominant source may have allowed the pump and treat system a better chance at remediation.

Contacts

Nile P. Testerman, P.E.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
401 Oberlin Road, Suite 150
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646
(919) 733-2801 extension 350
Nile.testerman@ncmail.net