Drycleaner Site Profiles

Finger Lakes Laundry & Cleaners, Inc., Geneva, New York

Description
Historical activity that resulted in contamination.

From approximately 1969 to 1989, Finger Lakes Laundry & Cleaners, Inc. operated a laundry and drycleaning business at the site. Releases of tetrachloroethylene (PCE) and Stoddard solvent (largely via a dry well) resulted in soil and groundwater contamination. The property was acquired by the volunteer, The Savings Bank of the Finger Lakes, through foreclosure proceedings in April 1989. The bank (now First Niagara) funded the remedial activities described below and is marketing the vacant site for commercial development.

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


Contaminant Media Concentration (ppb) Nondetect
sec-butylbenzene soil 10,000 ppb
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene groundwater 5,800 ppb
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene soil 2,800 ppb
ethylbenzene soil 1,300 ppb
n-butylbenzene soil 15,000 ppb
n-propylbenzene soil 12,000 ppb
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) groundwater 51,000 ppb
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) soil 330,000 ppb
p-isopropyltoluene soil 4,500 ppb
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene groundwater 470 ppb
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene soil 83,000 ppb
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene groundwater 150 ppb
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene soil 32,000 ppb
naphthalene groundwater 410 ppb
naphthalene soil 11,000 ppb
Trichloroethene (TCE) groundwater 12,000 ppb
Trichloroethene (TCE) soil 1,900 ppb
toluene groundwater 2 ppb
Vinyl Chloride groundwater 270 ppb
m-Xylene groundwater 28 ppb
m-Xylene soil 9,700 ppb

Site Hydrology

Deepest Significant Groundwater Contamination:   15ft bgs
Plume Size:   Plume Length: 200ft
Plume Width: 100ft
Plume Thickness: 15ft
Average Depth to Groundwater:   4ft

Lithology and Subsurface Geology

 
  Interbedded clay and silt (glaciolacustrine deposits)
Depth: 0-11ft bgs
11ft thick
Conductivity: 0.15ft/day
Gradient: 0.008ft/ft
 
  glacial till
Depth: 11ft bgs

Pathways and DNAPL Presence

checkGroundwater
Sediments
checkSoil
checkDNAPL Present

Remediation Scenario

Cleanup Goals:
  Requirement No. 1: Treat or remove source area soils
Requirement No. 2: Contain and treat contaminated groundwater.
Requirement No. 3: Assess effectiveness of remedy over time.
Requirement No. 4: Prevent exposure to any residual contamination.

Technologies

In Situ Permeable Reactive Barriers (PRB)
 

Why the technology was selected:
Very low O&M costs (passive treatment); demonstrated effectiveness (given a relatively shallow base to the VOC plume); and uncomplicated installation.

Date implemented:
July 2000 (Also, a small-scale tank and soil removal had occured in 1992).

Final remediation design:
EnviroMetal Technologies, Inc. supplied the iron and assisted with wall design. Iron filings were placed in a 200-foot-long by 14-foot-deep trench along the northern border of the site to form the barrier for the groundwater plume. Such a barrier is both permeable (water is able to flow slowly through it) and reactive (contaminants are broken down/destroyed in place).

Results to date:
Removed and appropriately disposed of approximately 2000 tons of contaminated soil (some residual contamination remains; i.e. up to 330 µg/kg of PCE). Groundwater plume is being effectively treated by the PRB. Implemented deed restrictions in the area of concern, including restrictions on construction, limitations on groundwater use, and limitations on future use (commercial or industrial uses only, excluding childcare/day-care facilities, hospitals, and residential health care facilities).

Next Steps:
Continued O&M monitoring to assess effectiveness of the remedy over time.

Ex Situ Soil Removal
 

Date implemented:
July 2000 (Also, a small-scale tank and soil removal had occured in 1992).

Results to date:
Removed and appropriately disposed of approximately 2000 tons of contaminated soil (some residual contamination remains; i.e. up to 330 µg/kg of PCE). Groundwater plume is being effectively treated by the PRB. Implemented deed restrictions in the area of concern, including restrictions on construction, limitations on groundwater use, and limitations on future use (commercial or industrial uses only, excluding childcare/day-care facilities, hospitals, and residential health care facilities).

Costs

Cost for Assessment:
 
Cost for Operation and Maintenance:
 
Total Costs for Cleanup:
  Exact and itemized costs were not provided to the State.

Lessons Learned

1) A soil gas survey (GoreSorber) was very useful to discern both groundwater and soil hotspots for further investigation.

2) A groundwater low at the west end of the PRB wall (possibly caused by an intercepted sewerline) has induced an interior flow within the wall in a direction parallel to it. Thus, the effective treatment zone is on the order of 100 feet (rather than 2 feet), vastly increasing its expected life and treatment capacity. No replacement is envisioned.

3) A good source removal reduces groundwater concentrations by orders of magnitude.

Contacts

James H. Craft
Engineering Geologist
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Division of Environmental Remediation - Region 8
6274 East Avon - Lima Road
Avon, NY 14414-9519
e-mail: jhcraft@gw.dec.state.ny.us
phone: (585) 226-5352
fax: (585) 226-8696