| 










|

|
| Site Profiles - View |
 |
|
General Information
| Site Name
and Location: |
|
Camarota Cleaners
Mechanicville, New York, United States
|
Description:
Historical activity that resulted
in contamination. |
|
Dry cleaning operations were performed in a one story stand alone building. From 1970s to 1991, dry cleaning operations utilized PCE as the dry cleaning agent. The site is located within an urban residential area. |
Contaminants:
Contaminants:
Contaminants present and the highest amount
detected in both soil and groundwater (please avoid giving ranges). |
|
| Contaminant |
Conc in GW |
Conc. in Soil |
| 1,2-Dichloroethene |
180 mg/L |
|
| Tetrachloroethene (PCE) |
130 mg/L |
|
| Trichloroethene (TCE) |
39 mg/L |
|
| Vinyl Chloride |
62 mg/L |
|
|
Other Contaminants Present:
Indicates what other contaminants were found on-site |
|
|
| Deepest Significant
Groundwater Contamination: |
|
7 ft bgs |
| Plume Size: |
|
|
Site Hydrology:
Depth
to Groundwater: |
|
7 ft bgs |
Lithology
and Subsurface Geology:
|
|
Consists of 6 to 12 feet of silty sand with gravel overlying bedrock. |
Conductivity: |
|
0.002 ft/day |
Gradient: |
|
0.0174 |
Pathways and DNAPL Presence:
Pathways: |
|
Groundwater
Soil
|
DNAPL Presence: |
|
No |
Vapor Intrusion Pathway:
Has the potential for vapor intrusion (VI) been evaluated? |
|
Yes |
If the site has been evaluated, how was it evaluated? |
|
Soil vapor and/or Sub-slab vapor sampling
Indoor air sampling
Groundwater sampling
Compared sample concentration to screening criteria
|
Results of VI Evaluation: |
|
A potential VI pathway has been indentified |
Has a vapor mitigation system been installed? |
|
Yes |
Type of Vapor Mitigation System(s): |
|
Sub-slab Depressurization
|
Remediation Scenario:
Cleanup
Goals: |
|
Protection of human health and the environment. Compliance with New York State standards, criteria, and guidance.
|
Remedy Level: |
|
Interim Action |
Technologies:
Technologies
Used: |
|
- In Situ:
- Vapor Mitigation
|
Other
technologies used: |
|
Phytoremediation was performed by the property owner, but not included as part of the remedy. |
Why
the technology was selected: |
|
Can achieve desired goals in a reasonable timeframe and was cost effective. |
Date
implemented:
|
|
March 2007 |
Final
remediation design:
|
|
|
Results and Next Steps:
|
Results to date:
|
|
|
Next Steps: |
|
|
Costs:
Cost
for Assessment:
|
|
$174,000 for DEC after 2005. |
Cost
to Design and Implement:
|
|
$28,000 |
Cost
for Operation and Maintenance:
|
|
$6,000 |
Total
Costs for Cleanup:
|
|
|
Lessons Learned:
Lessons
Learned:
|
|
Trees found to be taking up PCE, but limited reduction in groundwater concentrations after two years. Groudwater up take rates will increase as the trees mature, which may reduce groundwater concentrations.
|
Contacts:
Principal
Point of Contact:
|
|
Jim Harrington
NYSDEC
625 Broadway, 11th Floor
Albany, NY 12233-7012
518-402-9755
518-402-9722 (f)
jbharrin@gw.dec.state.ny.us |
Site Specific References:
Site
Specific References:
|
|
Remedial Investigation Report, August 2009
Soil Vapor Intrusion Evaluation Report, November 2006
Submittal of Technical Data and Information, January 2008
Preliminary Site Assessment Report April 2000
Record of Decision, March 2009 |
Images:
Profile last updated on Apr 15, 2010
|
|