State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners Site Profiles
Ryan's Express Cleaners, Humble, Texas
Description
|
Currently inactive, this facility used PCE as its dry cleaning solvent from 1975 to 2008. It was enrolled in the TCEQ DCRP in 2005. Investigations suggest that there was a release of PCE into the soil, most likely through spills. Remediation Status: In active remediation |
Contaminants
Contaminants present and the highest amount
detected in both soil and groundwater.
Contaminant | Media | Concentration (ppb) | Nondetect |
---|---|---|---|
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene | groundwater | 200 ppb | |
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene | soil | 51,000 ppb | |
1,1-Dichloroethene | soil | 980 ppb | |
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) | groundwater | 480 ppb | |
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) | soil | 21,000,000 ppb | |
Trichloroethene (TCE) | groundwater | 130 ppb | |
Trichloroethene (TCE) | soil | 75,000 ppb | |
Vinyl Chloride | soil | 3,400 ppb |
Site Hydrology
Deepest Significant Groundwater Contamination: | 70ft bgs | |
Plume Size: | Plume Length: 560ft Plume Width: 240ft |
|
Average Depth to Groundwater: | 55ft |
Lithology and Subsurface Geology
Sandy clay and clayey sand Depth: 0-18ft bgs 18ft thick Gradient: 0.006ft/ft |
||
Mostly dry, loose, fine- to medium-grained sand unit with intermittent clay layers Depth: 18-55ft bgs 37ft thick Gradient: 0.006ft/ft |
||
Saturated silty sand- the first GWBU Depth: 55-70ft bgs 15ft thick Gradient: 0.006ft/ft |
||
Very stiff, sandy clay layer Depth: 70-78ft bgs 8ft thick Gradient: 0.006ft/ft |
||
Fine-grained, loose sand Depth: 80-112ft bgs 32ft thick Gradient: 0.006ft/ft |
||
A stiff, sandy clay layer confines the second GWBU. Depth: 112-115ft bgs 3ft thick Gradient: 0.006ft/ft |
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? |
Remediation Scenario
Cleanup
Goals: |
Reduce COC contaimnation levels below MCLs. Reduce overal media concentration in soils to eliminate continued leaching of the constituents of concern from soil to the first GWBU |
|
Remedy Level: |
Interim Action |
Technologies
In Situ Air Sparging |
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: |
$259,000 | |
Cost
for Operation and Maintenance: |
||
Total
Costs for Cleanup: |
Lessons Learned
Due to the noise of the SVE system, it could only run at night. Piping and SVE points inside the building limited the use of for the tenant. |
Contacts
Dan Switek, P.G. Project Manager Remediation Division Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 12100 Park 35 Circle, MC-137 Austin, TX 78753 phone: (512) 239-4132 |
Site Specific References
Affected Property Assessment Report Field Activities Report Monitoring Reports |