NuWay II Cleaners, --, Oregon

State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners Site Profiles

Description
Historical activity that resulted in contamination.

NuWay II Cleaners, an inactive facility located in a mixed commercial and residential area, operated between 1953 and 1976. Minimal documentation of storage, handling and disposal practices at the facility exist. It is known that NuWay II recycled solvents on site. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) initiated a site investigation in 1996, and identified significant chlorinated solvent contamination in the groundwater. The DEQ transferred the site to the Department's Orphan Site Account program to conduct further investigation and remedial activity. The DEQ operated a pump and treat system to contain the chlorinated hydrocarbon plume and recover free-phase Stoddard solvent and chlorinated solvents starting in February 1998. The DEQ will select a final remedy upon completion of the Risk Assessment and Feasibility Study.

Remediation Status: In active remediation

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

Contaminant	Media	Concentration (ppb)
free-phase Stoddard's Solvent	groundwater	468 ppb
Tetrachloroethene (PCE)	groundwater	3,610 ppb
Trichloroethene (TCE)	groundwater	5,610 ppb
Vinyl Chloride	groundwater	160 ppb

Site Hydrology

Deepest Significant Groundwater Contamination:
Plume Size:		Plume Length: 5,280ft Plume Width: 5,280ft
Average Depth to Groundwater:		8.35ft

Lithology and Subsurface Geology

		silty clay Depth: 0-7ft bgs 7ft thick Conductivity: 0.028ft/day Gradient: 0.01ft/ft
		silty gravel Depth: 7-21ft bgs 14ft thick
		silty clay Depth: 21-51ft bgs 30ft thick
		clayey gravel Depth: 51-76ft bgs 25ft thick

Pathways and DNAPL Presence

Groundwater

Sediments

Soil

DNAPL Present

Remediation Scenario

Cleanup Goals:

Interim Remedial Action Measures (IRAM) objectives include the containment and minimization of further migration of VOC contamination. The DEQ seeks to remove the contaminant mass from the source area and protect or mitigate threats to human health and the environment until it selects the final remedy. DEQ will establish groundwater cleanup levels as part of the site-specific risk assessment process.

Technologies

Ex Situ Pump and Treat		Why the technology was selected: DEQ identified pump and treat (air stripping to remove VOCs) in 1998 as a means to hydraulically contain the plume while site investigation activities continue. Date implemented: February 1998 - Pump and treat Final remediation design: A final remedial action has not yet been selected. DEQ is evaluating the effets and lonogitivity of the biostimulation pilot study completed in late 2006 as an alternative for full scale remediation. Results to date: The treatment system has thus far removed approximately 40 pounds of VOCs and approximately 50 gal. of petroleum hydrocarbons. The treatment system has been 99% effective for removal of LNAPL, and air stripping has been 94% effective in removing VOCs. Aerobic cometabolism pilot was not promising. The 2005 anaerobic biostimulation pilot test results are promising and rebound is being evaluated. The pump and treat system has been turned off to monitor the post pilot test in non-pumping conditions. Next Steps: DEQ is evaluating the effects and longevity of the biostimulation pilot study conducted in 2005. DEQ will evaluate full scale implementation of biostimulation as an alternative to pump and treat in 2006. Cost to Design and Implement: $403,000 for all technologies
In Situ Bioremediation		Why the technology was selected: In 2004 a pilot study was completed to determine if aerobic cometabolism could be effectively used to remediate the core source area. Aerobic cometabolism was determine to be ineffective at the site. In 2005 a pilot project using dextrose as an electron donor was implemented utilizing the pump and treat infrastructure for recirculation. Dextrose appears to have effectively stimulated anaerobic reductive dechlorination at the site. Date implemented: 2004 - Aerobic Cometabolic pilot (ineffective) 2005 - Biostimulation (dextose) in recirculation mode pilot (results promising) Final remediation design: A final remedial action has not yet been selected. DEQ is evaluating the effets and lonogitivity of the biostimulation pilot study completed in late 2006 as an alternative for full scale remediation. Results to date: The treatment system has thus far removed approximately 40 pounds of VOCs and approximately 50 gal. of petroleum hydrocarbons. The treatment system has been 99% effective for removal of LNAPL, and air stripping has been 94% effective in removing VOCs. Aerobic cometabolism pilot was not promising. The 2005 anaerobic biostimulation pilot test results are promising and rebound is being evaluated. The pump and treat system has been turned off to monitor the post pilot test in non-pumping conditions. Next Steps: DEQ is evaluating the effects and longevity of the biostimulation pilot study conducted in 2005. DEQ will evaluate full scale implementation of biostimulation as an alternative to pump and treat in 2006. Cost to Design and Implement: $403,000 for all technologies
Ex Situ Air Stripping		Why the technology was selected: DEQ identified pump and treat (air stripping to remove VOCs) in 1998 as a means to hydraulically contain the plume while site investigation activities continue. Date implemented: February 1998 - Pump and treat Final remediation design: A final remedial action has not yet been selected. DEQ is evaluating the effets and lonogitivity of the biostimulation pilot study completed in late 2006 as an alternative for full scale remediation. Results to date: The treatment system has thus far removed approximately 40 pounds of VOCs and approximately 50 gal. of petroleum hydrocarbons. The treatment system has been 99% effective for removal of LNAPL, and air stripping has been 94% effective in removing VOCs. Aerobic cometabolism pilot was not promising. The 2005 anaerobic biostimulation pilot test results are promising and rebound is being evaluated. The pump and treat system has been turned off to monitor the post pilot test in non-pumping conditions. Next Steps: DEQ is evaluating the effects and longevity of the biostimulation pilot study conducted in 2005. DEQ will evaluate full scale implementation of biostimulation as an alternative to pump and treat in 2006. Cost to Design and Implement: $403,000 for all technologies
Ex Situ Carbon Adsorption		Why the technology was selected: DEQ identified pump and treat (air stripping to remove VOCs) in 1998 as a means to hydraulically contain the plume while site investigation activities continue. Date implemented: February 1998 - Pump and treat Final remediation design: A final remedial action has not yet been selected. DEQ is evaluating the effets and lonogitivity of the biostimulation pilot study completed in late 2006 as an alternative for full scale remediation. Results to date: The treatment system has thus far removed approximately 40 pounds of VOCs and approximately 50 gal. of petroleum hydrocarbons. The treatment system has been 99% effective for removal of LNAPL, and air stripping has been 94% effective in removing VOCs. Aerobic cometabolism pilot was not promising. The 2005 anaerobic biostimulation pilot test results are promising and rebound is being evaluated. The pump and treat system has been turned off to monitor the post pilot test in non-pumping conditions. Next Steps: DEQ is evaluating the effects and longevity of the biostimulation pilot study conducted in 2005. DEQ will evaluate full scale implementation of biostimulation as an alternative to pump and treat in 2006. Cost to Design and Implement: $403,000 for all technologies

Costs

Cost for Assessment:		$135,000
Cost for Operation and Maintenance:		$159,000
Total Costs for Cleanup:

Lessons Learned

1. Discharge to the City sanitary provided easy disposal of treated water, however long term costs for such discharges add up. The system influent has frequently been below the acceptable discharge concentration set by the City, which may have resulted in lower O & M costs via direct discharge. A downside would be that the contaminant mass load would then have been passed to the local POTW.
2. Simple LNAPL skimmer type pumps are effective for not only removing free product accumulation of Stoddard Solvent, but when utilized in a low producing aquifer formation, they provide adequate capture zones and minimal O & M.
3. 3. Rather than containerizing the groundwater extraction system, contractors built it in open air and placed it behind concrete blocks. Significant weather related failures caused system shut downs. Containerized system would have been preferable also because it could be used again in the future at different sites.

Contacts

Don Hanson, Hydrogeologist
OR DEQ, Site Response - Orphan Cleanup
Environmentl Cleanup Division
Western Region - Eugene office
1102 Lincoln, Suite 210
Eugene, OR 97401
(541) 687-7349
hanson.don@deq.state.or.us
Contractors:
Hart-Crowser Inc.
Five Centerpointe Drive, Suite 240
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035-8652
Tel 503.620.7284
Craig Dockter, P.E., Task Manager
craig.dockter@hartcrowser.com

Top of Page

U.S. EPA Contaminated Site Cleanup Information (CLU-IN)

State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners Site Profiles