Ineeda Cleaners - 13th & Main, Hutchinson, Kansas | CLU-IN > Strategies & Initiatives > Former Initiatives and Partnerships > State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners Site Profiles

State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners Site Profiles

Ineeda Cleaners - 13th & Main, Hutchinson, Kansas

Description
Historical activity that resulted in contamination.

The Ineeda Laundry and Drycleaners (Ineeda) is located in a commercial district bounded by residential areas. Contamination likely occurred through leaking sewer lines and surface wastewater disposal. It is likely that surface-disposed wastewater infiltrated directly into the subsurface and/or followed surface drainage to nearby burp basins, recharge basins that handle storm water runoff. Assessment activites began in 1996 and remediation was implemented in 1998.

Remediation Status: In active remediation

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

Contaminant	Media	Concentration (ppb)
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene	groundwater	134 ppb
Tetrachloroethene (PCE)	groundwater	4,400 ppb
Tetrachloroethene (PCE)	soil	24,000 ppb
Trichloroethene (TCE)	groundwater	382 ppb
Trichloroethene (TCE)	soil	241 ppb

Site Hydrology

Deepest Significant Groundwater Contamination:		56ft bgs
Plume Size:		Plume Width: 900ft
Average Depth to Groundwater:		14ft

Lithology and Subsurface Geology

		silty clay Depth: 0-5ft bgs 5ft thick Conductivity: 664ft/day Gradient: 0.001ft/ft
		sandy clay Depth: 5-7ft bgs 2ft thick
		Sand, fine-grained graded to coarse, with discontinuous thin clayey lenses Depth: 7-56ft bgs 49ft 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?		No

Remediation Scenario

Cleanup Goals:		Remediate groundwater to below U.S.EPA MCLs; clean up soil to below KDHE RSK levels: 180 µg/kg (PCE), 200 µg/kg (TCE)
Remedy Level:		Full Scale Remedy

Technologies

In Situ Air Sparging		Why the technology was selected: KVA C-Sparger was initially chosen chosen due to reported low utility costs and simple operation. The C-SParger system was later converted to air sparge with no ozone injection. Date implemented: August 1998 Final remediation design: Three KVA C-Sparger wells surrounded the main groundwater contamination area. The system utilized ozone injection in a dual spargepoint well. Results to date: Groundwater concentrations were not significantly reduced during the operation of the KVA system. KDHE has experienced many maintenance problems with the system which may be responsible for the lack of reduced concentrations. Utilities and buildings remain a physical barrier for more effective remediation. Next Steps: KDHE is likely to consider alternative technologies to try and speed up the remediation process. A downgradient containment system is also in the works. Cost to Design and Implement: $100,900 for all technologies
In Situ Ozone Air Sparge		Why the technology was selected: KVA C-Sparger was initially chosen chosen due to reported low utility costs and simple operation. The C-SParger system was later converted to air sparge with no ozone injection. Date implemented: August 1998 Final remediation design: Three KVA C-Sparger wells surrounded the main groundwater contamination area. The system utilized ozone injection in a dual spargepoint well. Results to date: Groundwater concentrations were not significantly reduced during the operation of the KVA system. KDHE has experienced many maintenance problems with the system which may be responsible for the lack of reduced concentrations. Utilities and buildings remain a physical barrier for more effective remediation. Next Steps: KDHE is likely to consider alternative technologies to try and speed up the remediation process. A downgradient containment system is also in the works. Cost to Design and Implement: $100,900 for all technologies
In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction		Why the technology was selected: KDHE included an enhanced SVE system to address vadose zone contamination. The geology was receptive to the use of an aggressive SVE system. Date implemented: August 1998 Final remediation design: Seven SVE wells were installed targeting hot spots throughout the site, including along sewer lines. The SVE system included a regenerative blower with a design capacity of 350 scfm at 25 inches of water. Results to date: The SVE system has reduced effluent concentrations up to 80%; however, rebound studies have shown a need to continue operating the system. Utilities and buildings remain a physical barrier for more effective remediation. Next Steps: KDHE is likely to consider alternative technologies to try and speed up the remediation process. A downgradient containment system is also in the works. Cost to Design and Implement: $100,900 for all technologies
Ex Situ Pump and Treat		Why the technology was selected: A pump & treat system w/granular activate carbon was installed near the leading edge of the plume to help capture the contamination prior to reaching nearby industrial wells. Date implemented: August 1998 Results to date: Groundwater concentrations were not significantly reduced during the operation of the KVA system. KDHE has experienced many maintenance problems with the system which may be responsible for the lack of reduced concentrations. The SVE system has reduced effluent concentrations up to 80%; however, rebound studies have shown a need to continue operating the system. Utilities and buildings remain a physical barrier for more effective remediation. Next Steps: KDHE is likely to consider alternative technologies to try and speed up the remediation process. A downgradient containment system is also in the works. Cost to Design and Implement: $100,900 for all technologies

Costs

Cost for Assessment:		$58,500
Cost for Operation and Maintenance:		$61,700
Total Costs for Cleanup:

Lessons Learned

1. The KVA C-Sparger system had extensive maintenance problems. KVA has replaced some parts, but KDHE also had to spend significant funds to repair the system. More durable and ozone-compatible parts are a necessity. The utility costs were very low; however, the additional maintenance negated the benefit of these lower costs.
2. The City of Hutchinson utilizes a storm sewer system that allows direct infiltration of storm runoff water into the subsurface via "burp basins." This system caused a rise in the local groundwater table whenever a large rainfall event occurred. This caused the SVE wells to pull water, filling up the SVE knockout tank very quickly.
3. KDHE was able to use the drycleaners' on-site maintenance personnel to watch for system alarms. The personnel would then call KDHE or our contractor to report the shut-down. Working with on-site personnel saved a lot of down time.