Site Name: | Multiple (6) Dry Cleaner Sites |
Location: | - Butler Cleaners #1, Jacksonville, FL
- Butler Cleaners #2, Jacksonville, FL
- Former Quick-N-Easy Wash-O-Mat and Former Artistic Cleaners, Wichita, KS
- Hanner's Cleaners, Pompano Beach, FL
- Paul's Classic Dry Cleaners, WI
- Swift Cleaners, Jacksonville, FL |
|
Period of
Operation: | - Butler Cleaners #1 - ongoing (dates not specified)
- Butler Cleaners #2 - October, 1999
- Former Quick-N-Easy Wash-O-Mat and Former Artistic - Cleaners - 1999
- Hanner's Cleaners - June to September, 2000
- Paul's Classic Dry Cleaners - Not specified
- Swift Cleaners - July 1999 |
Cleanup
Type: | Field demonstration |
Technology:
In situ chemical oxidation:
- At the Butler Cleaners #1, Butler Cleaners #2, and Former Quick-N-Easy Wash-O-Mat and Former Artistic Cleaners sites, solutions of potassium permanganate were injected into the subsurface to oxidize contaminants. At two sites the solutions were mixtures of potassium permanganate with water, with potassium permanganate making up 8% to 15% of the solution. At one site, the solution was heated and tertiary butyl alcohol was added to help mobilize the contaminants. The solutions were injected through from one to 45 wells, and injection volumes ranged from 1,000 to 2,200 gallons. At two of the sites SVE was also used to remove contaminants from the soil.
- At the Hanner's Cleaners and Swift Cleaners sites, solutions of water, hydrogen peroxide (12 to 25%), and an unspecified catalyst were injected into the subsurface to oxidize contaminants. The solutions were injected through from 6 to 12 wells, and volumes ranged from 1,700 to 20,000 gallons. SVE was also used at both sites to remove contaminants from the soil.
- At the Paul's Classic Dry Cleaners site, a field demonstration of an ozone in-well air sparging system was conducted. The treatment system consisted of a single well where sequential sparging and groundwater recirculation functions were performed in the sparge well. The system delivered an air and ozone gas mixture (the composition of the mixture was not specified) at a rate of 1.7 to 2.2 cfm first to the lower sparge point, then the in-well sparge point, each for a specified period of time. In-well pumping was then performed. This process was repeated in a cycle over a period of 16-18 hours/day. Multi-phase extraction was also conducted at the site.
|
Cleanup Authority:
State
Contacts:
Varied by site |
Contaminants:
Chlorinated Solvents
- All of the sites were contaminated with PCE and TCE
- Concentrations varied by site ranging with concentrations ranging from 1 to 42 mg/L for PCE and 0.02 to 012 mg/L for TCE
- Five sites reported that DNAPLs were present or likely to be present. |
Waste Source:
Waste and wastewater from drycleaning operations |
Type/Quantity of Media Treated:
Groundwater
- Reported plume areas ranged from 130,000 to 1.3 million square feet, and reported plume depths ranged from 25 to 75 feet bgs. Reported actual treatment areas ranged from 400 to 7,900 square feet, and reported actual treatment depths ranged from 30 to 45 feet. |
Purpose/Significance of Application:
Demonstration of in situ oxidation technologies for remediation of chlorinated solvents in groundwater at drycleaner facilities |
Regulatory Requirements/Cleanup Goals:
- Cleanup goals were based on state regulatory goals or EPA MCLs.
- Specified cleanup goals included 0.005 to 0.014 mg/L for PCE and 0.012 mg/L for TCE |
Results:
Only one site (Swift Cleaners) reported achieving remediation goals. Other sites reported that contaminant concentrations were not significantly reduced or that cleanup goals were not met. |
Cost Factors:
Reported design and implementation costs:
- Potassium permanganate systems - $105,000 to $230,000
- Hydrogen peroxide - $110,000 to $170,000
- Ozone sparging - Not specified |
Description:
In situ chemical oxidation was conducted at six drycleaner sites contaminated with chlorinated solvents from drycleaning operations with TCE and PCE as the primary contaminants in groundwater. At three sites solutions of potassium permanganate were injected into the subsurface, at two sites solutions of hydrogen peroxide and catalyst were injected into the subsurface, and at one site an ozone in-well air sparging system was installed. Only one site (Swift Cleaners) reporting achieving remediation goals. Other sites reported that contaminant concentrations were not significantly reduced or that cleanup goals were not met. |
