5 Corners Laundry & Dry Cleaning, Marshfield, Wisconsin

State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners Site Profiles

Description
Historical activity that resulted in contamination.

The 5 Corners Laundry & Dry Cleaning is an active dry cleaner that started business in 1961. Chlorinated VOCs were discovered migrating from this property during a Phase II site investigation for the property immediately downgradient from the dry cleaner. Also, PCE has been detected at the MCL in City Well #10 for a long time; however, the City has never actively investigated any potential sources for the PCE. City Well #10 is located approximately 2/3 mile downgradient from the dry cleaner. Based on the investigation of the CVOC plume from the 5 Corners Laundry & Dry Cleaning site the groundwater plume is contributing to the CVOC problem at City Well #10. The plume also appears to be limited to flowing under commercial properties only, and therefore indoor residential air quality does not appear to be an issue at this site. The remedial action plan included excavation and disposal of accessible impacted soil at the source area followed by injection of emulsified edible oil substrate (EOS). However, while EOS was effective, the degradation rate was slow, and so it decided to inject whey instead because it was a more readily available source of carbon than EOS, it's cheaper and easier to inject, and because Wisconsin is the dairy state.

Remediation Status: In groundwater monitoring

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

Contaminant	Media	Concentration (ppb)
1,2-Dichloroethane	groundwater	0.28 ppb
n-butylbenzene	groundwater	4.46 ppb
Benzene	groundwater	8.2 ppb
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene	groundwater	870 ppb
ethylbenzene	groundwater	1.2 ppb
Tetrachloroethene (PCE)	soil	2,250 ppb
Trichloroethene (TCE)	groundwater	53 ppb
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene	groundwater	8.06 ppb
Vinyl Chloride	groundwater	60 ppb

Site Hydrology

Deepest Significant Groundwater Contamination:
Plume Size:		Plume Length: 3,000ft Plume Width: 200ft
Average Depth to Groundwater:		20ft

Lithology and Subsurface Geology

		silty clay Depth: 0-9ft bgs 9ft thick Conductivity: 0.0105ft/day Gradient: 0.05ft/ft
		fine to coarse grain sand with gravel Depth: 9-45ft bgs 36ft thick
		very dense silty Depth: 45-70ft bgs 25ft thick
		granite bedrock Depth: 70ft bgs

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:		To shrink the CVOC so that it no longer impacts or threatens City Well #10 and to ensure that the plume continues reduce in size and mass over time.
Remedy Level:		Full Scale Remedy

Technologies

ex Situ Biostimulation		Why the technology was selected: Soil excavation was chosen because the permeability of the upper clay unit made any type of soil washing or venting impractical. Date implemented: Approximately 1,100 tons of impacted soil was excavated and disposed in November 2005. Next Steps: Conduct a full round of groundwater sampling to evaluate the status of the plume, especially in the downgradient extent of the plume. Continue groundwater monitoring and plume evaluation. Cost to Design and Implement: $300,000 (included O&M costs)
ex Situ Soil Removal		Why the technology was selected: Soil excavation was chosen because the permeability of the upper clay unit made any type of soil washing or venting impractical. Date implemented: Approximately 1,100 tons of impacted soil was excavated and disposed in November 2005. Next Steps: Conduct a full round of groundwater sampling to evaluate the status of the plume, especially in the downgradient extent of the plume. Continue groundwater monitoring and plume evaluation. Cost to Design and Implement: $300,000 (included O&M costs)
ex Situ Soil Removal		Why the technology was selected: Soil excavation was chosen because the permeability of the upper clay unit made any type of soil washing or venting impractical. Date implemented: Approximately 1,100 tons of impacted soil was excavated and disposed in November 2005. Next Steps: Conduct a full round of groundwater sampling to evaluate the status of the plume, especially in the downgradient extent of the plume. Continue groundwater monitoring and plume evaluation. Cost to Design and Implement: $300,000 (included O&M costs)
ex Situ Soil Removal		Why the technology was selected: Soil excavation was chosen because the permeability of the upper clay unit made any type of soil washing or venting impractical. Date implemented: Approximately 1,100 tons of impacted soil was excavated and disposed in November 2005. Next Steps: Conduct a full round of groundwater sampling to evaluate the status of the plume, especially in the downgradient extent of the plume. Continue groundwater monitoring and plume evaluation. Cost to Design and Implement: $300,000 (included O&M costs)
in Situ Biostimulation		Why the technology was selected: In-situ groundwater remediation, injection, was chosen because our cold climate increases the amount of maintenance needed for ex-situ groundwater remediation. Also, groundwater sample results indicated that anaerobic degradation was already occurring and so it was decided to enhance that process. Date implemented: Approximately 1,100 tons of impacted soil was excavated and disposed in November 2005. In December 2005 the first round of EOS was injected in ten 1-inch diameter injection wells. Bio-augmentation and a subsequent 2nd round of EOS injections were conducted in 2006. In 2009 eleven 2-inch diameter injection wells were installed and whey was injected in all injection wells. Whey was injected once again in all injection wells in 2010. Final remediation design: While EOS did have an impact on enhancing plume degradation, the rate was slow even when it was bio-augmented, so it was decided to change to injecting whey because it's a more readily available source of carbon, and it was available locally for just the cost of trucking and injecting the whey. Results to date: The increase in the concentration of the daughter products in the wells being monitored indicate that enhancing the anaerobic conditions in the aquifer and degradation of the plume was successful. Next Steps: Conduct a full round of groundwater sampling to evaluate the status of the plume, especially in the downgradient extent of the plume. Continue groundwater monitoring and plume evaluation. Cost to Design and Implement: $300,000 (included O&M costs)

Costs

Cost for Assessment:		$93,000
Cost for Operation and Maintenance:		Varies depending on the number of wells being monitored
Total Costs for Cleanup:

Lessons Learned

While EOS did have an impact on enhancing plume degradation, it appears that the horizontal velocity of the plume was too fast and a more readily available susbtrate (i.e. whey) was needed.

Contacts

Tom Hvizdak
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
473 Griffith Avenue
Wisconsin Rapids, WI 54494
(715) 421-7850
tom.hvizdak@wi.gov

Top of Page

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

State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners Site Profiles