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

This content is being minimally managed and was last updated in July 2021. EPA recognizes that this content is relevant to site remediation stakeholders and will continue streamlined review and maintenance of this content.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. EPA Technology Innovation and Field Services Division

State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners Site Profiles

Camarota Cleaners, Mechanicville, New York

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.

Remediation Status: In active remediation

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

Contaminant Media Concentration (ppb) Nondetect
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) groundwater
Trichloroethene (TCE) groundwater
Vinyl Chloride groundwater
1,2-Dichloroethene groundwater

Site Hydrology

Deepest Significant Groundwater Contamination:   7ft bgs
Plume Size:  
Average Depth to Groundwater:   7ft

Lithology and Subsurface Geology

  silty sand with gravel
Depth: 0-9ft bgs
9ft thick
Conductivity: 0.002ft/day
Gradient: 0.0174ft/ft
Depth: 9ft bgs

Pathways and DNAPL Presence

DNAPL Present

Vapor Intrusion Pathway

Has the potential for vapor intrusion (VI) been evaluated?
How was the site 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?
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


In Situ Vapor Mitigation

Why the technology was selected:
Can achieve desired goals in a reasonable timeframe and was cost effective.

Date implemented:
March 2007

Other technologies used:
Phytoremediation was performed by the property owner, but not included as part of the remedy.

Cost to Design and Implement:


Cost for Assessment:
  $174,000 for DEC after 2005.
Cost for Operation and Maintenance:
Total Costs for Cleanup:

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.


Jim Harrington
625 Broadway, 11th Floor
Albany, NY 12233-7012
518-402-9722 (f)

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


Top of Page