HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Environmental Advisory Committee_Tab 04_3/11/2026 Agenda Item #3.
Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC)
STAFF MEMO
R
Meeting: Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC) - Mar 11 2026
Staff Contact: Brad Freese Department: Environmental Advisory
Committee
PFAS Contamination From Businesses
SUMMARY: 9 do
See attached memo and attachment from Chair Brad Freese regarding PFAS Contamination.
This document and any attachments may be reproduced upon request in an alternative format by
completing our Accessibility Feedback Form, sending an e-mail to the Village Clerk or calling 561-
768-0443.
BUDGET AMOUNT NA AMOUNT AVAILABLE NA EXPENDITURE AMOUNT: NA
FUNDING SOURCES: NA IS THIS A PIGGYBACK:
❑ Yes ❑ N/A
DID YOU OBTAIN 3 QUOTES?
❑ Yes ❑ N/A
QUOTE 1 - BUSINESS NAME Arial
QUOTE 2 - BUSINESS NAME Arial
QUOTE 3 - BUSINESS NAME Arial
COMMENTS/EXPLANATION ON SELECTIONNA
Chair Freese PFAS Memo
Florida Statewide PFAS Pilot Study at Drvcleaning Sites
Page 16 of 83
Agenda Item #3.
V *111age of T
345 Tequesta Drive 561-768-0700
Tequesta, FL 33469 www.tequesta.org
TO: Environmental Advisory Committee
FROM: Brad Freese, Chair EAC
DATE: 03/11/2026
SUBJECT: Potential PEAS Contamination From Tequesta Businesses
This memo is in response to a message from Tom Bradford, Vice Chair EAC. Tom shared a
news report on industries in NW Georgia using chemicals with PFAS.
https://youtu.be/cPzEhGO02Yk?si=fr5EUve8ibNmR
Unfortunately, sources and persistence of PFAS in the environment suggest contamination can
originate from outside a community. However, I would like the help of committee and staff to
identify local companies that may be using chemicals with PFAS. Two that I thought of are
below. Keep in mind, PFAS regulations were passed federally last year to establish a maximum
contaminant level (MCL) of 4 parts per trillion for several PFAS chemicals including PFOA and
PFOS. Public water systems will be required to comply with this regulation by 2029.
1. Cement factories do use chemicals with PFAS, particularly in the form of cement
additives. PFAS are known for their ability to enhance the durability and water-
resistance of concrete, making them a popular choice in construction.
2. In dry cleaning, PFAS-based chemicals can be used as solvents or stain-repellent
treatments to enhance fabric cleaning and protect textiles from future stains or water
damage. In addition, traditional laundering of clothes treated with PFAS compounds
may also result in the presence of PFAS in wastewater discharge.
This document may be reproduced upon request in an alternative format by contacting the Village
Clerk's Office at 561-768-0440 or by completing our accessibility form: https://bit.IV/3mnfeU4
Page 17 of 83
Agenda Item #3.
FLORIDA STATEWIDE
PFAS PILOT STUDY
AT DRYCLEA-Nl-NG SITES
Sponsored By:
P.
pEPART,y�
O ~�
O
Z Z
L 0
AZI
O�MFN iAI p*0�`
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Waste Site Cleanup Program
2600 Blair Stone Road, MS 4520, Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
Prepared By:
Nicholas Barnes, P.E., Fabio Fortes, P.E., Ziqi He, PhD, P.E., and Steven Folsom, P.E., BCEE
46 or MN I-aw 41 1
JA WH6%
mi I..—"
V w
May 2021
PP
Page 18 of 83
Agenda#%n� #30
aper
PFAS Pilot Study at Drycleaning Sites
ABSTRACT
The Florida Department of Environmental Protection Division of Waste Management recognizes the
public health concerns related to the occurrence of Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in the
environment. As a means to evaluate the relationship of the occurrence of PFAS at drycleaning facilities
within the state-administered Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program, a Pilot Study was commissioned to
conduct background research, field investigations of environmental media, and analysis of waste stream
components for PFAS related to drycleaning facilities. The findings of this Study, completed over the
course of 18 months, resulted in the determination of historical releases of PFAS into the environment,
the potential of future releases derived from drycleaning facilities, and the occurrence of urban
anthropogenic background that may complicate definitive conclusions related to environmental
investigations. This White Paper summarizes the scientific research, investigative techniques,
interpretations of results, and lessons learned from the Study.
(813)968-7722 ■ 15711 Mapledale Blvd.,Suite B■Tampa, FL 33624■www.hsweng.com
Innovative Solutions Within Your Reach...
Page 19 of 83
Agenda#%n� #30
aper
PFAS Pilot Study at Drycleaning Sites
INTRODUCTION
PFAS
Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) are a group of more than 4,700 individual synthetic
compounds that have been manufactured and used in a variety of consumer and industrial products
since the 1940s (ITRC, 2020).The most common or notable uses for PFAS have been for fire-fighting
foams, as protectants that improve water, grease, and soil repellency, paper/cardboard packaging
products, nonstick coatings on cookware,textiles, waterproof clothing, leather products, electrical wire
casing, fire-and chemical-resistant tubing, and plumbing thread seal tape. While no longer
manufactured in the United States, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
(PFOS)were extensively manufactured and used for decades.The presence of PFAS in the environment
only began to be studied in the early 2000s.These chemicals remain in the environment today due to
their persistent chemical properties. In addition, PFOA and PFOS continue to be produced
internationally and can be imported into the United States marketplace in consumer goods/products
(ITRC, 2020).
Studies have suggested that the exposure to some PFAS in the environment can be harmful for human
health, with a greater focus on the longer-chain perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAAs), sometimes referred to as
"terminal PFAS", including perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids (PFCAs) such as PFOA and perfluoroalkane
sulfonic acids (PFSAs) such as PFOS. Although there are thousands of other chemicals that fall into the
PFAS group, most interest has been focused on PFOA and PFOS, given their ubiquitous presence in the
environment and availability of extensive toxicity studies.
In 2016,the US EPA issued a Lifetime Health Advisory Level (HAL) for the two most detected PFAS (PFOA
and PFOS) at a threshold limit of 70 nanograms per liter (ng/L) for those two substances (individually as
well as in combination). In 2018,the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) developed
provisional groundwater cleanup target levels (PGCTLs) of 70 ng/L for PFOA, PFOS, and the sum of PFOA
and PFOS,that are protective of sensitive life stages. Based on the PGCTL of 70 ng/L for PFOA and PFOS,
the FDEP also developed groundwater-based leachability provisional soil cleanup target levels (SCTLs)
for these two compounds, along with Direct Exposure SCTLs for residential and commercial/industrial
land uses. Information, sources, and threshold limits of PFAS continue to be studied by the US EPA (EPA
2020) and various other agencies (ITRC, 2020), due to the extent of their environmental impacts being
still novel amongst the regulatory community.
Study Objectives
As part of the committed efforts to protect the groundwater resources of the state and the public health
and safety of its residents,the Division of Waste Management (DWM) of the FDEP began investigations
to assess potential sources and associated environmental impacts related to PFAS at known or
suspected sites, including Department of Defense (DOD)facilities,fire training facilities, and state
funded waste cleanup sites. Although PFAS are not typically known to be used by the drycleaning
industry,the FDEP Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program (DSCP) initiated a pilot study to investigate the
potential presence of PFAS at DSCP facilities.The objectives of this study were to:
Determine whether PFAS impacts may be present at drycleaning sites,
Evaluate whether PFAS impacts are attributable to drycleaning operations or to an offsite source,
and
Understand the environmental behavior of PFAS and its impacts at drycleaning facilities.
(813)968-7722 ■ 15711 Mapledale Blvd.,Suite B■Tampa, FL 33624■www.hsweng.com 1
Innovative Solutions Within Your Reach...
Page 20 of 83
Agenda#%n� #30
aper
PFAS Pilot Study at Drycleaning Sites
INVESTIGATION APPROACHES AND METHODOLOGY
Literature Review
PFAS-based agents are commonly used, among other functions,for the surface treatment of clothing
fabrics and other textiles to make the materials water and stain resistant. "Side-chain-fluorinated
polymers" can be formed by impregnating a mixture of reactive PFAS to the surface of the fabrics
(Holmquist, et al. 2016). Clothing and other textiles can also contain a variety of non-polymeric PFAS,
consisting of trace residues of raw materials, intermediates or metabolites from the production of
impregnating agents and impregnated clothes or through formation by the decomposition of the
impregnating agents in the textiles.
A variety of PFAS have been detected in textiles and clothing. PFAS could be released from PFAS-
impregnated clothing through cleaning (wet/dry) of the textiles.Theoretically, drycleaning solvent is
anticipated to enhance PFAS release rates from clothes, with limited studies having shown that PFAS
were released in greywater or drycleaning site effluent(Clara, et al. 2008, Lassen, et al. 2015).Although
PFAS have been incorporated in many surfactant/solvent production processes, no studies are available
regarding their presence in chlorinated solvents. A study by the US EPA(EPA, 2009) revealed that PFCAs
are present in 116 articles of commerce, including commercial carpet care products, household fabric-
care liquids and foams, and impregnated apparel. In addition to PFAS use in fabrics, PFAS may be used
as ingredients of cleaning agents.To date, no studies have been reported regarding PFAS presence and
release mechanisms from drycleaning processing and facilities.
It should be noted that potential release rates of PFAS from drycleaning operations would depend on
the type and age of laundered clothes and the operational practices of the facility. PFAS releases to the
environment would be expected to closely mimic that of chlorinated solvents in drycleaning practices
(i.e., waste material spills, mop water discharges, separator water discharges, etc.). Upon release, PFAS
may remain in the unsaturated zone where high organic carbon content in the matrix exists and
subsequently migrates into the saturated zone from precipitation events. Because of their persistence
and mobility PFOS/PFOA may travel as far as trichloroethene under the same conditions without
degradation based upon reported organic carbon and mineral partitioning coefficient values), PFAS in
the saturated zone may have relatively larger groundwater plumes than volatile organic halogens
(VOHs) when considering much lower health based cleanup target levels. In addition, some PFAS may be
precursors and slowly transition to "terminal PFAS" of PFCAs and PFCAs in the environment. For
example, perfluoralkane sulfon-amides and fluorotelomer sulfonic acids in textiles released into the
environment can be converted to PFOA and PFOS.
Currently available information does not indicate that PFAS are a known constituent of raw drycleaning
solvents, but instead could be attributable to other drycleaning facility functions such as spot treatment
solutions, wet laundry, solvent releases following contact with PFAS-containing fabrics, or post-
drycleaning fabric treatments.
Description of Study Sites and Initial Screening
In June 2019,the FDEP pilot project was initiated at a subset of eligible DSCP sites to determine whether
PFAS are a constituent of concern that may be present.The initial screening included groundwater
sample collection from two existing monitoring wells at fifteen pre-selected DSCP facilities throughout
the state. The pilot facilities were selected by FDEP and represented sites with known VOH
groundwater quality impacts (at varying concentrations) and located throughout the state of Florida
(Figure 1). Accordingly, the sites exhibit a range of geology, hydrogeology, and surrounding land uses.
Furthermore,the sites represented both active and non-active drycleaning facilities, with varying VOH
(813)968-7722 ■ 15711 Mapledale Blvd.,Suite B■Tampa, FL 33624■www.hsweng.com
Innovative Solutions Within Your Reach...
Page 21 of 83
Agenda#%n� #30
aper
PFAS Pilot Study at Drycleaning Sites
remediation technologies employed.The two sampling locations at each site were determined based
upon the known presence of VOHs and likely VOH release source areas.
The initial screening results indicated the presence of PFAS in groundwater above laboratory practical
quantitation limits (PQLs) at fourteen of the fifteen sites, and concentrations above the PGCTLs for
PFOA, PFOS, or the sum of PFOA and PFOS in nine of the fifteen sites. The PFOA concentrations
reported during the initial screening ranged from below detection limits up to 98 ng/L,while PFOS
concentrations ranged from below detection limits up to 120 ng/L. A tenth site (Dryclean World) initially
exhibited concentrations below the PGCTLs but greater than one half of the PGCTL.This site later
exhibited exceedances of the applicable PGTLs during supplemental sampling.The initial screening sites
are illustrated on Figure 1:
r
11 12 �7 PEAS>PGCTL
�
13* PFAS<PGCTL
*8
1
10 5 kf 14
Site ID Site Name city
1 Celebrity Cleaners(Celebrity) Longwood
2 Cinderella Cleaners(Cinderella) Lake Park
3 Classic Cleaners(Classic) Stuart _ 9
4 Dolphin Fabricare(Dolphin) Fort Myers 3*
5 Dryclean World(DW) Winter Park
6 International Professional Dry Cleaners(IP) Miami 2*
7 Jasper Laundry&Drycleaners(Jasper) Jasper 4
8 Moses Cleaners(Moses) Lake City
9 North Trail Laundryland(NorthTrail) Sarasota
10 Touch of Quality Cleaners(TOQ) Dade City
11 Vick's Cleaners(Vick) Pensacola 6*
12 Randolph's Dry Cleaner(Randolph) Tallahassee
13 Former Sages Dry Cleaners(Sages) Jacksonville
14 Nanak Cleaners(Nanak) Winter Park
15 Touch of Class(TOC) Apollo Beach
Figure 1.Site Location Map
Site Review and Work Plan
Based upon the results of the initial screening event of the Pilot Study, expanded PFAS investigation
activities were conducted at ten (10) sites to further evaluate the extent of PFAS presence to determine
whether PFAS are attributable to drycleaning operations, or from offsite sources.The expanded PFAS
investigation activities included further evaluations of the site surroundings, site histories, and each
site's representative geology and hydrogeology, to facilitate a sampling plan for further investigation
activities.A summary of the operational histories of these ten sites is provided in Table 1.
(813)968-7722 ■ 15711 Mapledale Blvd.,Suite B■Tampa, FL 33624■www.hsweng.com 3
Innovative Solutions Within Your Reach...
Page 22 of 83
Agenda#%n� #30
aper
PFAS Pilot Study at Drycleaning Sites
Table 1. Summary of Ten Pilot Study Sites
SolventsYears of • .
OperationsSite Name Active . Used PCE Release Mechanism History
Celebrity Cleaners Prior to 1988 Drycleaning Machine SVE
1 (Celebrity) -2020 PCE Septic Drainfield ISCO
Bioremediation
Cinderella Cleaners 1963- SVE
2 PCE Drycleaning Machine
(Cinderella) Current Bioremediation
3 Classic Cleaners 1992-2017 PCE& Drycleaning Machine SVE
(Classic) Petro-based
Dolphin Fabricare 1987- PCE& SVE
4 (Dolphin) Current Petro-based Drycleaning Machine Pump&Treat
(Exxon F2000)
Dryclean World 1986- PCE& Drycleaning Machine Excavation
5 (DW) Current Petro-Based Septic Drainfield SVE
(HC BoostTM) ISCO
International Ozone Sparging
6 Professional Dry Prior to 1979 PCE Drycleaning Machine SVE
Cleaners(IP) -Current Rear door area Pump&Treat
7 Jasper Laundry& Prior to 1946 Stoddard Drycleaning Machine None
Drycleaners(Jasper) -2013 Solvent& PCE Filter Powder Dumping
Drycleaning Machine AS/SVE
8 Moses Cleaners 1968- PCE Rear door& Dumpster Pump&Treat
(Moses) Current areas at nearby
Sanitary Sewer Leaks petroleum site
1959—1994
North Trail (DC) Possible Drycleaning
9 Laundryland 1994— PCE Machine& Exterior None
(NorthTrail) Current Dumping
(Laundromat)
Touch of Quality 1989- PCE& Drycleaning Machine Zero-Valent
10 Cleaners(TOQ) Current Petro-based Possible Sanitary Sewer Iron Injection &
(SenseneTM) Leaks pH Adjustment
Sample locations from soil and groundwater included locations near drycleaning machines, near sanitary
sewer lines,former drainfield areas, and hydraulically upgradient monitoring wells in order to
understand PFAS release mechanisms and subsurface impacts. A questionnaire was also developed to
obtain information from current drycleaner operators about former and current operational practices.
Samples from raw materials and/or waste stream processes were collected for evaluation of PFAS
occurrence during current operations. Based on a typical drycleaning process layout (Figure 2),waste
stream samples were collected from available locations at most study sites.
(813)968-7722 ■ 15711 Mapledale Blvd.,Suite B■Tampa, FL 33624■www.hsweng.com 4
Innovative Solutions Within Your Reach...
Page 23 of 83
Agenda#%n� #30
aper
PFAS Pilot Study at Drycleaning Sites
Dry Cleaning Unit Washing Process
O ne U nit Washes and D ries
Drying Process
f Process Used for
0 000 Wash&Dry
Pre-Treatment Pressing
Spotting -
(Potential PFAS Source)
U U'
Dirty clothes Air to
4
(Potential HAS Source) Dirty Warm Vapor Atmosphere
s
Solvent from Dryer
New Solvent& 00
Detergent Solvent ' '- -
PFAS Source)
Used, Liquid
Filtered Finished Clothes
Solvent
HAZARDOUS Condensed
WASTE a Liquid Solvent
Clean Collected
(Potential PFAS Solvent Used Solvent Wastewater
Source) Discharge
Figure 2. Diagram of the Typical Drycleaning Process and PFAS Sampling Locations
Sample Collection and Analysis
The field investigation activities were performed between June 2019 and November 2020. Quality
assurance (QA) and Quality Control (QC) measures included the use of specific field sampling guidelines
intended to minimize the potential for sample cross-contamination, along with the incorporation of
field/laboratory blanks, and duplicates.All groundwater, soil, and waste stream samples were collected
in accordance with the FDEP Field Sampling Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), including the FDEP's
PFAS sampling SOP (FDEP, 2019) and HSW's PFAS Sampling Guidelines (HSW, 2019). Specifically,to
reduce the chance of inadvertent PFAS contamination of samples, HSW sampling personnel avoided
using PFAS-containing items during the sampling process, such as items commonly used in sampling
processes that may contain PFAS include polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE, also known as Teflon). HSW
field personnel avoided using other items which are commonly recognized as potentially containing
PFAS such as aluminum foil, post-it notes,waterproof field books, chemical ice packs (e.g., blue ice), and
certain decontamination soaps. In addition,field personnel avoided the use of PFAS-containing products
such as cosmetics, moisturizers, insect repellant, sunscreen, and hand creams. Nitrile gloves were used
during all sample collection activities, including equipment set-up, sample collection, and sealing of
containers.
Samples were transferred into laboratory-supplied containers, stored at appropriate temperatures, and
submitted to selected laboratories for analysis of PFAS compounds by EPA Method 537 (modified) and
laboratory specific SOPs.The PFAS compounds analyzed included eleven PFCAs (C4 through C14 carbon-
chain), seven PFSAs (C4 through C10 carbon-chain),three perfluoralkane sulfon-amides(N-Me
perfluorooctanesulfonamide acid (MeFOSAA), N-Et perfluorooctanesulfonamide acid (EtFOSAA),
perfluorooctane sulfonamide (PFOSA)),three fluorotelomer sulfonic acids (4:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate
(4:2 FTS), 6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate (6:2 FTS), 8:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate (8:2 FTS))and four
replacement compounds in lieu of PFOS/PFOA(11C1-PF3OUdS (F-5313 Minor), 9CI-PF3ONS (F-5313 Major),
ADONA, and HFPO-DA(GenX)).These PFAS are reportedly used as nonpolymer coatings or side-chain
(813)968-7722 ■ 15711 Mapledale Blvd.,Suite B■Tampa, FL 33624■www.hsweng.com 5
Innovative Solutions Within Your Reach...
Page 24 of 83
Agenda#%n� #30
aper
PFAS Pilot Study at Drycleaning Sites
polymers in textiles to provide oil-and water- repellent and stain release finishes (ITRC, 2020). In order
to evaluate the correlation between PFAS and drycleaning solvents, VOHs were analyzed for select
samples by EPA Method 8260. In addition,field parameters and groundwater elevations were
measured to evaluate PFAS fate and transport in groundwater.
Some non-aqueous samples such as pure solvent samples and waste stream samples were
prepared/processed by a laboratory-specific SOP prior to analysis. Specifically, a subsample of 15 mL for
each solvent sample (like PCE) was concentrated to dryness through evaporation and reconstituted prior
to analysis; and other cleaning products were diluted (e.g., 25 mL portion of sample diluted to 250 mL
with PFAS-free water) prior to Liquid Chromatography and Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS)
analysis. Validation of the laboratory data was conducted upon receipt.
RESULTSAND DISCUSSION
Groundwater Results
Results from the initial June 2019 statewide sampling event indicated the presence of PFAS above
laboratory practical quantitation limits (PQLs) at fourteen (14) of the fifteen (15) sites sampled. At nine
sites, concentrations of PFOA, PFOS, or the sum of PFOA and PFOS exceeded the PGCTL of 70 ng/L.
Following review of the data from the limited sampling project, expanded PFAS investigations were
initiated at the nine sites exhibiting data above the PGCTLs, and an additional site was added based on
subsequent sampling exhibiting PFAS above PGCTLs. The expanded investigations included the sampling
of additional existing monitoring wells both onsite and offsite,with installation of additional monitoring
wells conducted at select sites to assist in the investigations. A summary of the PFOA and PFOS
concentrations in groundwater reported during the pilot project are summarized in Table 2 below:
Table 2. Maximum Detected PFOA and PFOS Concentrations in Groundwater
Site Narne-.
• • • • •
Celebrity 716 113 Shallow/Former drainfield area onsite
Cinderella 11520(879) 111(72.5) Intermediate/Sidegradient well offsite
Classic 355 106 Shallow/downgradient well onsite
Dolphin 130 890 Infiltration gallery sample
DW 561(25.3) 82 (11) Shallow/Former drainfield area at rear of drycleaner(onsite)
IP 31480(11980) 21640(11180) Shallow/Former drainfield area onsite
Jasper 2,000 758 Shallow/downgradient well offsite near rear of former
p drycleaner
Moses 139 50.9 Shallow/upgradient well offsite
NorthTrail 340 96 High PFOS in shallow upgradient well
High PFOA in shallow downgradient well
TOQ 1 40.1 1 58.6 1 Shallow onsite well
*(#)Represents minimum temporal concentrations detected at the same well
The maximum groundwater PFOA concentration from all samples collected was 2,640 ng/L and the
maximum PFOS concentration was 3,480 ng/L, reported from the same sample from a monitoring well
located at International Professional Dry Cleaners (IP) in Miami.This sample was located near a former
drainfield that was historically used for disposal of effluent from an onsite wastewater treatment system
for the tenants of a shopping center.Although no historical operational data is available,the aeration
and oxidation process of the wastewater treatment system would be expected to remove VOHs if any
releases occurred into the historical system, but have limited effectiveness on PFAS.The second highest
(813)968-7722 ■ 15711 Mapledale Blvd.,Suite B■Tampa, FL 33624■www.hsweng.com
Innovative Solutions Within Your Reach...
Page 25 of 83
Agenda#%n� #30
aper
PFAS Pilot Study at Drycleaning Sites
PFOS concentration of 2,000 ng/L of PFOS was measured in a monitoring well located at the Jasper site,
near a location where drycleaning filter powder is known to have been disposed of, resulting in
substantial PCE impacts.The maximum concentrations of PFOA/PFOS at the remaining sites ranged from
approximately 50 ng/L to 900 ng/L.
Temporal fluctuations in PFAS concentrations were noted in some source wells, believed to be due to
mass flux from the vadose zone source caused by rainfall infiltration and/or desorption when the
groundwater table rose. For instance, at the Dryclean World (DW) site, PFOA and PFOS concentrations
in groundwater in the source area with vadose zone soil impacts varied from below the PGCTL to several
hundred ng/L, over the course of several quarterly sampling events.
Evaluations of the PFAS data, as compared to applicable drycleaning-solvent related constituent (PCE
and metabolic breakdown products) concentrations, generally did not exhibit strong positive
correlations in concentrations,with some exceptions (i.e.,Jasper, Moses). This circumstance is believed
to be due to differences in the fate and transport between PFAS and PCE. PCE may have undergone
faster natural degradation through abiotic and biological processes in the subsurface,whereas
PFOA/PFOS are not anticipated to undergo natural attenuation other than physical processes (e.g.,
sorption/desorption, and dilution). Another potential factor affecting the poor correlation between
PFAS and PCE concentrations is previous remedial activities (i.e., in-situ chemical oxidation, soil vapor
extraction, and enhanced anaerobic bioremediation)which are known to remove PCE but have limited
effects upon PFAS compounds.
Excluding chemical and biological degradation, due to relatively higher hydrophobic characteristics(i.e.,
higher retardation factors), PFAS molecules have a tendency to migrate slower than PCE and its
breakdown products in saturated zones. PFOA/PFOS were rarely detected at intermediate or deep zones
where PCE and its breakdown products were present, supporting the relatively slower migration for
PFOA/PFOS than PCE. In addition, other sources of PFAS from upgradient or nearby locations may have
contributed to PFAS in groundwater. Specifically, PFOA/PFOS were detected at elevated concentrations
at hydraulically upgradient locations at the North Trail Laundryland,the Moses Cleaners, and the
Celebrity Cleaners sites.
Although upgradient or regional urban background PFAS may be present at some sites (e.g., Celebrity,
Dolphin, Moses, North Trail), a PFOA/PFOS plume is generally co-present with chlorinated solvents in
the vicinity of the subject drycleaning sites (Figure 3), supporting that elevated PFOA/PFOS are
associated with the drycleaning sites.The lateral extent of PFOA/PFOS impacts above their PGCTL are
mostly limited to the shallow groundwater in the vicinity of the drycleaning facilities. Radial diagrams of
detected PFAS were used to illustrate spatial trends for individual PFAS constituents (inserts of six-PFAS
radial diagrams are shown for key wells on each site plume map below). Different PFAS distribution
patterns at hydraulically upgradient offsite monitoring wells from onsite or hydraulically downgradient
wells provided evidence of upgradient offsite PFAS sources in addition to the drycleaning facilities, such
as MW038 at Celebrity(Figure 3. a), PMW002 at Dolphin (Figure 3. d), MW041 at Moses (Figure 3. h),
and MW021 at North Trail (Figure 3. i). In addition,the six-PFAS radial diagrams indicate variations in
PFAS-distribution patterns between locations near drycleaning facility and locations hydraulically
downgradient at most of the sites, indicating that distribution patterns change along the fate and
transport based on retardation factors for the six PFAS compounds (relative migration rates
PFHxA>PFHpA>PFOA>PFBS>PFHxS>PFOS based upon their reported Koc values (ITRC, 2020)).
Theoretically, relatively more PFCAs than PFSAs are expected along a transport pathway,which were
observed at most of the sites; however,there are exceptions such as the Cinderella site (Figure lb),
where relatively dominant PFOS was noted at downgradient locations.The relatively more dominating
PFOS at downgradient wells is likely due to offsite sources or earlier PFOS-dominating releases.
(813)968-7722 ■ 15711 Mapledale Blvd.,Suite B■Tampa, FL 33624■www.hsweng.com 7
Innovative Solutions Within Your Reach...
Page 26 of 83
Agenda#%n� #30
aper
PFAS Pilot Study at Drycleaning Sites
PFHxA
w+L `
2
PFOS PFHpA -Ow.
i Milk Ab
20 40
PFOA PFOS
PF HxS
_j,t•
1 1 _
MW037'�'� i •
Y 7:F �t
PFB`, ►i Shallow Groundwater
Drycleaning Flow Direction
!� IFacility
PFH• location r �►
MWO02
• A
1 f x MW001
' �. T c •
MW025 V 0�MW024 �MW03
MWO41..,
Mwoao wo11 Mwozsl �I , MWo14,
MW012 _ 036
W033 �,E
Sanitary MW030R
Sewer in , , Former
Drainfield
PFHxA � � ►
k MW031 ,
MW035 PFHpA
PF05 PFHpA
PFOS PFHpA
PFOA p,
P=n,q PF85
0 8 Q PFAS>PGCTL 4
PFHxS
VOH>GCTL
3a. Celebrity Cleaners
Mwo13
PFHxA PFHxA
t�+L
PFOS PFHpA F'F05� PFHpA
0 4-0 40
F—!
a
PFOA PFBS
MW PFHxA
PFHxS PF Hx-s
PF•kA PFOS PFHpA
P PFOS PFH�A M W00
• �` PFOA PFBS
MWO04
PFOA \ Z ,j Drycleaning Facility
011 Mw PFHxS
PFHxS \ 1MW033 $hallowGroundwater
k,
Iillll�Fl Direction PFHxA
MW003 „��.- PFOS PFH;;--
•, `• _a MW005
MW034
r — MW032
_ '. 'fir
` MW036 + PFOA PFBS
n MW035
` MW001R MW006
PFMxS
_ ' t MW010
MW00
r MW007 MtiVUUF PFHpA PFHxA
' FAWU09 >FOS PFHpA PFOS PFHpA
Sanitary•�f '
Sewer F PFBS PFOA PFBS
Q PFAS>PGCTL ,
V011>GCTL \\\ PFHxS PFHxS
e � ,
3b. Cinderella Cleaners
(813)968-7722 ■ 15711 Mapledale Blvd.,Suite B■Tampa, FL 33624■www.hsweng.com 8
Innovative Solutions Within Your Reach...
Page 27 of 83
Agenda#%n� #30
aper
PFAS Pilot Study at Drycleaning Sites
c
., 15 30 � �� '�
=Hxn
Feet +
•� lb PFUS PFHpA
r' J*� C ��
1.
> PFOA I'Fn_
+^ Groundwat r
Flow Dire i n
4i�i.
MW008
t`
PFHxA
W006
PFOS PFHpA
PMW001 !'I OA PI WS
% �MWO02 MWO03
PFHxS
-� 00MWO'O'l, I MW006
i Fig:.A • •e��` '
Mwoo�
P PFHpA FUS
PFOA PF65 MW004
%O1r ,
1
PFrixS D y leanin rFacili PFAS>PGC1L
rY 9 ty Approximate Sanitary Location�, Sewer Line VOH>GCTL
I
3c. Classic Cleaners
• •w
ti ice'
N - PFHxA `
Ot3
PFOS PFHpa 0 15 30
w� PFOA PFt15 i
1 - •�r
r PFHxS 11 t
Mwolac o1 12C" y "'�
Mw •~ f
•c. tip: . �,�.
Shallow Groundwater
Flow Direction
MW006 .` PFHxA
..:. MW007
�
PFOS PFHpA
G �
MW008 �
♦!* r �i'1 �. PFOA PFBS
MWOU9 fit •r 1
_ Drycleaning I --
+14 Facility Location- PFHx'
• i - - 1
'` MW005 'y:MW004 M1
.�t•
• _ Infiltrati n G Ilery 1
10
PPMAW003 Sh lbw Groundwater
> Flow DireciionT
f. Approximate Sanity A&L err. ine PMWO02
1 Pr•IxA '
CIL
r PFAS>PGCTL•+�
VOH>GCTL
Jk
3d. Dolphin Fabricare
(813)968-7722 ■ 15711 Mapledale Blvd.,Suite B■Tampa, FL 33624■www.hsweng.com 9
Innovative Solutions Within Your Reach...
Page 28 of 83
Agenda#%n� #30
aper
PFAS Pilot Study at Drycleaning Sites
�t+L
PFHxA
0 20 40
Feet _ PFOS PFHpA
lAAV11009 • -
10 ^
I . PFHxA
PFOA -)FE, E
— � PFOS PFHp�
F'F-
se
1 1 e
PFOA PFBS
• PFP�S
Sh Ilowroundwater
Flow Direction MWO03
y RJ .r
Former Se T l i I
WO ,
MW021 MW00
: Mwooa Mwo0i -
M Y Drycleaning
PFHxA • Facility Location
MWU05 1
* MW022
Pf0 PFHpA �_ -
MW006 ��► _�"
'F C)A PFBS
PFAS>PGCTL PFHxS r
VOH>GCTL Orwrw
3e. Dryclean World
L mot
C PFHxA
t5 30
PFOS PFHPA NW 105th St. -�
Former Drainfield
----------------- Area
PFOA PFB5
MIN
' ------ -
PFHxS
PMW00 r ''
Former Infiltration
—r Gallery r
I
• •� 46 •
MW001
Shallow Groundwater
Jki _ Flow Direction . tt♦.
ryry
i �'�,, •
mMW012 i, �
• Xt,W009 rot..MW01 -\�,MW019 Drycleaning
Mw010 Facility
MW018 ei Location
Fc?rrnc�i VJ.i�.tk�watBr - MW014 PFHxA
Treatment Plant • �Ir,a
PFOS PFHoA
MWooT ,
MWO06 -
MW002 MWOOS
�s l 'FOA PFBS
W011
PFAS>PGCTL PFHxS Y
r I1' I
VOH>GCTL J f
1 I
3f. International Professional Dry Cleaners
(813)968-7722 ■ 15711 Mapledale Blvd.,Suite B■Tampa, FL 33624■www.hsweng.com 10
Innovative Solutions Within Your Reach...
Page 29 of 83
Agenda#%n� #30
aper
PFAS Pilot Study at Drycleaning Sites
6- K
fr+f W 12S 7
Mom,;-rrpgr King Or.s� M W 11 S
MW131 MW13
PFHxA0 i`
r .4, PFOS PFripA MW9S MW10S ViUS..
- MW2S
ti 15D MW7S
PFOA PFBS 151
MWBS MW MW1S MW4S
MW141
" PFHxS
Mw14D
4
f• Former Drycleaning MW31
PFHxA
it ty L at
MWe3 MW5S
PFBS PFHpA MVY81
`•jar PFOA PFBS S.hallowbrGroundwater
Flow Direc' PFHxA
PFHxS PFBS PFHpA
PFOA PFBS
MW1
MW16S MW171 MW1JS MW181 M1N191 PFHxS
/ MW eS MW18D MW19S MW19D
PFAS>PGCTL F
A
VOH>GCTL
3g.Jasper Laundry and Dry Cleaners
r L
C 20 40 t.
lrii{ +• PFAS>GCTL
4 MWOOB
r w v F rH,
jjMW003 )FOS FFHr
,5,1MW111 ,
Tf Drycleaning *-
Facility WA
j Loc ation MWO04
PFH.,
MWO01
1 MWO02 h
r
` Shallow Groundwater
Flow Direction
\ PFH MW036 t'�
MW038 _
PFOS PFMpA MW037
Mwo11
Approximat ita �,,,��
�I PFOA PFBS Sewene���
{Flow N'A t3'South)
'
r
MW058
PFHxS
MW 010 MW02�
M W 0421 _ ..T, #
'.• �- PFAS>PGCTL �� �,�r 1 � , � ' M •
VOH>GCTL
3h. Moses Cleaners
(813)968-7722 ■ 15711 Mapledale Blvd.,Suite B■Tampa, FL 33624■www.hsweng.com 11
Innovative Solutions Within Your Reach...
Page 30 of 83
Agenda#%n� #30
aper
PFAS Pilot Study at Drycleaning Sites
A
• i
AL
MW021'S,
MW020i c - Approx r Line
1 MW015 / 1 MW016 Mow 8 fOrM West tO�East)
PFHxA �� 1
PFOS PFHpA • .+ 3
MW002 PFHpA
•' MW011
' a •
P
PFOA PFBS 1 MW003 MW005,�y,A,,MW017 MW007 PFOS PFHpA
MW001
M l MW005D
PFOA PFBS
Drycleaning
I acility
Location +••�•
� Ir• PFHxS
PFHxA dft
MWO14„O MW018 i
PFOS PfHPA MW012 - -
MW009S' MW00 Si`
•� MW006D
a
PFOA PFa• � h w r undwetar
F w Dir coon
PFHxS
Mwo10 MW 19
MW013
PFAS>PGCTL
VOH>GCTL
3i. North Trail Laundryland
11YYq >AI 1�1�� •%41t
0 20 40
Feet �,
II /
4 • I +'��+'1 f PFHxA
- - PFOS PFHpA
MWO03 PFOA PFBS f
• �� I Groundwater PFHxS
1 Flvw D r
-� I'nus
tal�sr
Drycleanng
Facility Location %DRT-010
IM1W004 • �/
MW001 MW001 R '
`-1 a
PFHpA
4.
.� MW005 <a A
PFOS PFHpA ,1
PFOA PFP
_ PFHxS
O PFAS>PGCTL
•
3j.Touch of Quality Dry Cleaners
Figure 3. PFOA/PFOS versus VOH Groundwater Plume at 10 Sites
(inserts represent PFAS distribution at key wells across each site)
(813)968-7722 ■ 15711 Mapledale Blvd.,Suite B■Tampa, FL 33624■www.hsweng.com 12
Innovative Solutions Within Your Reach...
Page 31 of 83
Agenda#%n� #30
aper
PFAS Pilot Study at Drycleaning Sites
3500
tw
3000
W 2500
7A
2000
r_
0 1500
1000
V
500
Q a a a a Q a a Q a Q
LL COLL � _ = o LL o m _ = o (A N o
LL LL L OL a a` LL LL LL � LL
a LL LL CL
w
-Celebrity(MW042) -Cinderella(MW010) Classic(MW001} Dolphin(I GOO 1.) DW(MW002)
IP(MW020) Jasper(MW-65) NurthTraiI(MW002) Moses(Mwool) TOQ(MW001)
Figure 4. PFAS Detected at Onsite Monitoring Wells
In addition to prominently detected PFOA and PFOS, several other PFAS were detected in groundwater,
primarily C4 through C10 carbon-chain PFCAs and C4 through C7 carbon-chain PFSAs (Figure 4). PFOS
precursors McFOSAA, EtFOSAA and PFOSA were only detected in MW-6S at the Jasper site near the
known filter powder disposal and PCE-release source area.
PFHxA
1
0.8
0.6
PFOS ,o_ PFHpA
PFOA PFBS
PFHxS
Celebrity(MW033) Cinderella(MW010) Classic(MW006) -Dolphin(MW001) DW(MW002)
-IP(MW018) Jasper(MW006S) -North(MW002) -Moses(MW001) TOQ(MW001)
Figure 5. Normalized PFAS Radial Diagram at Onsite Wells with Highest Concentrations
Certain similar PFAS distribution patterns are not observed across the Pilot Study sites (Figure 5), due to
lack of fabrics type/age and solvent release timeframe and locations, and other undistinguishable PFAS
sources. However, a general similar pattern with relatively prominent PFOS was observed at most of the
sites,with the exceptions of the Dolphin and TOQ sites, which had relatively higher abundance of PFOA,
PFHxA, PFHpA and PFBS in comparison to PFOS. In addition, other PFAS compounds (PFHpA and PFOA)
were detected at relatively higher concentration at the IP site.The relatively lower PFOS in Dolphin and
TOQ are likely effects of previous VOH remedial activities. For example, groundwater remediation using
(813)968-7722 ■ 15711 Mapledale Blvd.,Suite B■Tampa, FL 33624■www.hsweng.com 13
Innovative Solutions Within Your Reach...
Page 32 of 83
Agenda#%n� #30
aper
PFAS Pilot Study at Drycleaning Sites
pump and treat with granular activated carbon was conducted at the Dolphin site and the treated
groundwater was discharged into an infiltration galley. PFOS may have been removed more efficiently
than other compounds due to its highest Koc value among the six PFAS. It is known that zero valent iron
(ZVI) is effective in reducing concentrations of PCE and its breakdown daughter products, whereas
limited studies are available regarding ZVI effectiveness on PFAS removal.A study by Arvaniti et al.
(2015) indicates that ZVI has a higher removal efficiency for PFOS than PFOA, likely due to more surface
adsorption on ZVI material.Therefore,the previous injection of ZVI as a remedy for VOHs at the TOQ
site may have affected the PFAS distribution pattern.The former wastewater treatment system and
discharge into the former drainfield at the IP site may have contributed more PFAS to the site.
Soil Results
Soil samples were collected for analysis to evaluate the potential presence of PFAS in soil that may
contribute to groundwater quality impacts. The soil samples were collected from various locations
based on the site review and work plan,while taking into consideration individual site logistics and
constraints. These locations included near drycleaning machines, near sanitary sewer lines, former
drainfield areas, and near monitoring wells exhibiting elevated concentrations of PFAS in groundwater in
specific cases.
PFOA/PFOS concentrations in soil samples were reported at one to three orders of magnitude lower
than the health based SCTLs for residential direct exposure (1,300 micrograms per kilogram (µg/kg)),
however samples collected from several sites exhibited PFOA or PFOS concentrations near or above the
Provisional Leachability based on Groundwater Criteria SCTLs (7 µg/kg for PFOS and 2 µg/kg for PFOA).
Additional PFAS compounds, particularly C9 through C14 carbon-chain PFCAs,were detected above
laboratory Method Detection Limits (MDLs) in some samples, however in most cases PFOS and/or PFOA
were detected at higher concentrations or more frequently, with the exception of the Dolphin site,
where FPDA, PFUnA, and PFDoA were detected at concentrations higher than PFOS, and the Jasper site,
where McFOSSA and EtFOSSA were detected at concentrations higher than PFOS.The soil sample
results for PFOA and PFOS are summarized in Table 3 below:
Table 3. Detected PFOA and PFOS Concentrations in Soil
Maximum Detected
RIP Concentration • • L SampleDescription
MM
Celebrity 5.6 0.251 PFOS at former drainfield area
PFOA inside former facility building
Cinderella 1.2 0.25 U Inside facility building
Classic 0.64 0.30 U Outside rear of facility
Dolphin 2.3 1.5 Outside rear of facility
DW 61.2 3.3 Former drainfield area at rear of facility
PFOS at former drainfield area
IP 14.9 8.7 PFOA at rear of drycleaner/former onsite wastewater
treatment plant area
Jasper 121 24.8 Rear of former drycleaner
Moses 7 0.241 PFOS at offsite upgradient location
PFOA inside facility building
NorthTrail 1.6 0.141 PFOS onsite near sanitary sewer line
PFOA onsite outside building
TOQ 0.80 0.111 Onsite outside building
The Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP)was completed on select soil samples exceeding
the default Provisional SCTLs for Leachability based on Groundwater Criteria, with the analytical results
(813)968-7722 ■ 15711 Mapledale Blvd.,Suite B■Tampa, FL 33624■www.hsweng.com 14
Innovative Solutions Within Your Reach...
Page 33 of 83
Agenda#%n� #30
aper
PFAS Pilot Study at Drycleaning Sites
confirming leachate levels above the PGCTLs for PFOS, PFOA, and/or the sum of PFOS and PFOA. It is
known that the default Provisional SCTLs are based on specific geotechnical values (fraction of organic
carbon [Foc], for instance) and PFAS compound specific physical properties (organic carbon-water
partition co-efficient, Koc) and that leaching of PFAS from soil to groundwater may occur at
concentrations below the default SCTLs depending on site-specific conditions.The SPLP data exhibited
PFOA/PFOS in soil at concentrations around their leachability-based Provisional SCTLs had potential to
cause groundwater impacts.
As indicated in Table 3, the highest PFAS concentrations in soil were detected near former septic system
drainfield areas at two sites (DW and IP) and outside the rear of the former drycleaner at the Jasper site
(known historical filter powder dumping area).These elevated PFOA/PFOS concentrations in vadose
zone soils are collocated with the highest PFAS groundwater impacts and generally with the historical
VOH release areas at these sites (with exception of IP). Although PCE and its breakdown products are
not present currently in these locations at DW and IP due to natural attenuation and/or active
remediation activities, PFAS are still present in the vadose zone soil, resulting in continuing mass flux
into groundwater dependent on infiltration and groundwater elevation changes. For example, PFOA and
PFOS concentrations at the source well in the Dryclean World site varied by one order of magnitude,
from 1 ng/L in June 2019 to 88 ng/L in October 2020 for PFOA and from 34 ng/L in June 2019 to 561 ng/L
in October 2020 for PFOS,which was not surprising based upon the high SPLP results from the soil
(highest concentrations reported at 113 ng/L for PFOA and 1,780 ng/L for PFOS).
Waste Stream Results
In addition to analysis of environmental media (soil and groundwater), samples of raw and waste
materials from the drycleaning and wet laundry processes,where applicable and feasible based on the
typical drycleaning process(Figure 2),were collected to further assist in the evaluation of the presence
of PFAS associated with drycleaners.These types of samples were collected from active drycleaners, a
recently abandoned drycleaner, and a former drycleaner now operating as a laundromat. Given the
varying operational practices and layouts of the facilities,the types of samples collected varied, however
where possible, samples were collected of or from:
Solvents used in the drycleaning process;
Sample(s)from the spotting agent(s) or detergent(s) used in the drycleaning or wet laundry
process(es);
Sample of potable water prior to the wet laundry process;
Sample from spent solvent at the drain line of the drycleaning machine;
Sample(s)from the hazardous waste storage containers (liquid, filtrate material,and unrecovered
solvent);
Sample from water collected after the condenser and separator process;
Water and/or residue sample(s) from the discharge of the wet laundry process and/or at the
sanitary sewer pipe, or nearby manhole;
A majority of the active drycleaners in the pilot study do not store raw solvents onsite. Rather, most
drycleaners have solvent delivered and placed directly into the drycleaning machines for immediate use.
One active drycleaner in the pilot project stored raw PCE-based solvent onsite and one active drycleaner
had an alternative solvent (SenseneTM) available for sample collection. For sites lacking available raw
solvents, solvent distributors were contacted but would not provide solvents for purchase directly for
this study.
(813)968-7722 ■ 15711 Mapledale Blvd.,Suite B■Tampa, FL 33624■www.hsweng.com 15
Innovative Solutions Within Your Reach...
Page 34 of 83
Agenda#%n� #30
aper
PFAS Pilot Study at Drycleaning Sites
Table 4: PFOA/PFOS Concentrations in Drycleaning Process Samples
Detected Concentrationsm
�jj r • • • •
0 Site Name* 1k..PFOS PFOA
L idol
<15 <10 Raw Stain Remover
<15 8.48 Raw Drycleaning Machine Cleaner
Celebrity -- Raw PCE Solvent not available
<80 <80 PCE Inside Machine(after filter)
21901.2 11621.1 PCE Waste(Machine Bottom)
18,549.4 20,559.3 PCE Waste from Waste Drum
<80 <80 Raw Drycleaning Stain Remover
-- -- Raw PCE Solvent not available
Cinderella 11.34 31.56 Used PCE Inside Machine(after distiller)
66.58 99.61 Used PCE Inside Machine(before distiller)
13.87(ng/g) 43.29(ng/g) PCE Waste from Waste Drum
<80 <80 Raw Drycleaning Machine Soap
21284.1 11046.8 Raw Petro-based Solvent mixed w/Soap(prior to
Dolphin use)
p 0.77 65.52 Drycleaning Machine Water Effluent
121.9(ng/g) 10.65 (ng/g) Waste Contents from Waste Drum (Solid)
16,597.6 21812.4 Waste Contents from Waste Drum (Liquid)
<80 <80 Raw Stain Remover
DW
<80 <80 Raw Drycleaning Detergent
-- -- Raw Solvent(HC BoostTM) not available
<80 <80 Solvent Waste from Waste Drum
<80 <80 Raw Stain Remover
-- -- Raw PCE Solvent not available
IP 100.2 <80 Drycleaning Machine Separator Water
97.7 <80 Spotting Machine Condensate Waste
421.9 380.9 Used PCE Inside Machine
<16.67 <25 Raw PCE Solvent
<16.67 <25 PCE Solvent at Separator
56.83
Moses 641.68 Water Sample at Separator
52.01 42.25 Spotting Machine Condensate Waste
31.77 106.46 Used PCE Inside Machine
9.52(ng/g) 36.92 (ng/g) PCE Waste from Waste Drum
<80 <80 Raw Spotting Agent
<80 <80 Raw Solvent(SenseneTM)
TOQ
2.33(ng/g) 4.37(ng/g) Filter Contents
19,639.9 10,382.6 Spent SenseneTM Solvent from Waste Drum
211452.2 12,010.6 Spent SenseneTM Solvent from Waste Drum
(Duplicate)
*No waste stream samples collected from inactive Classic and Jasper sites
**Certain samples analyzed as solid samples with analytical results provided in nanograms per gram(ng/g)(equal to
micrograms per kilogram(µg/Kg))
Within the raw material and waste stream samples collected, elevated PFAS concentrations were
detected primarily in the waste storage drums and from used solvent samples (both PCE and petroleum-
based) collected from the discharge of the drycleaning machines, while influent water, raw solvents,
detergents and soaps used during the drycleaning or wet laundry processes generally exhibited low or
non-detect PFAS concentrations (Table 4 and Table 5). Compared to those in groundwater (Table 2),
(813)968-7722 ■ 15711 Mapledale Blvd.,Suite B■Tampa, FL 33624■www.hsweng.com 1
Innovative Solutions Within Your Reach...
Page 35 of 83
Agenda#%n� #30
aper
PFAS Pilot Study at Drycleaning Sites
PFOA/PFOS concentrations in drycleaning waste streams were observed two to three orders of
magnitude higher(Table 4). It should be noted that PFOA/PFOS were detected at low parts per trillion
(ppt) levels in raw materials sampled, however,the solvent mixed with soap at the Dolphin site
exhibited PFOA/PFOS concentrations (1,046.8 and 2,284.1 ng/L, respectively) above their PGCTL of 70
ng/L.
In addition to PFOA/PFOS, several other PFAS were detected in the spent solvents at drycleaning
facilities (Figure 6). PFHxA and PFOA precursors, 6:2 FTS and 8:2 FTS, were measured at similar or
higher concentrations than PFHxA/PFOA(Celebrity and Dolphin sites), particularly 8:2 FTS at the Dolphin
site. If this spent solvent is released to the subsurface,transformation of these precursors to PFOA over
time may continue to contribute to PFOA concentrations in the groundwater.A very high concentration
of C11 PFCA(PFUnA)was noted in the spent solvent at the Dolphin site, which represents an outlier to
the other data sets. Low levels of McFOSAA, EtFOSAA, PFOSA and GenX were detected above the
method detection limits in the spent solvents at the Moses site (data not shown).
-- 40,000
J
r_ 35,000
E 30,000
c�
i
}' 25,000
a�
20,000 I
15,000
Q 10,000
a 51000
0
1 _ 1 _ � _ ■ I
m (U X 0- ap z o � o m v X Q_ p
LL LL LLa- 2 LL LL
CL LPL LL LL � LPL LL 0 LL LL LL (V fV
12L
Celebrity(Spent PERC) C:inderella(Spent PERCJ Dolphin(Spent Solvent)(PFUnA/5,82 FTS/5)
I (Spent Solvent) -Moses(P€RC from Separaior) TO (Spent PER
Figure 6. PFAS Detected in Waste Streams.
(813)968-7722 ■ 15711 Mapledale Blvd.,Suite B■Tampa, FL 33624■www.hsweng.com 17
Innovative Solutions Within Your Reach...
Page 36 of 83
Agenda#%n� #30
aper
PFAS Pilot Study at Drycleaning Sites
PFOA and PFOS were detected at low ppt levels in laundry influent waters,which represent the site tap
water source. Slightly elevated PFOA/PFOS concentrations were observed in wet laundry effluent
samples at the Dolphin site and the Moses site (Table 5). The concentrations at the Moses site were
above the FDEP's PGCTL of 70 ng/L for PFOA/PFOS. The levels of PFAS in wet laundry effluent water are
similar to the values reported by previous reports (Lassen, et al. 2015).
Table 5: PFOA/PFOS Concentrations in Wet Laundry Samples
retected Concentrations •
Site Name JW PFCIS PFCIA Ir Sample Descript�ion
AJ
Celebrity 1.74 1.26 Influent Potable Water
<80 <80 Laundry Detergent
Cinderella 1.12 1.04 Influent potable water
2.8 2.1 Laundry discharge
<80 <80 Laundry Detergent
Dolphin 3.22 0.88 Influent potable water
14.88 8.4 Laundry discharge
128 <80 Laundry Detergent
IP 21.2 6.2 Influent potable water
24.6 <10 Laundry discharge
<2.06(ng/g) <2.06(ng/g) Laundry Detergent
Moses 1.08 <1.21 Influent potable water
279 103.16 Laundry discharge
DW 3.06 2.26 Influent Potable Water
TOQ <80 <80 Influent potable water
2.36 57.58 Laundry discharge
CONCLUSIONSAND IMPLICATIONS
Conclusions
Based on the findings from this pilot study, although urban background PFAS may provide some
contribution to the PFAS concentrations reported in groundwater at several drycleaning sites,
drycleaning and/or wet laundry activities are also contributing to elevated PFAS concentrations found in
the vicinity of the pilot project facilities. The levels of PFAS exhibited in groundwater and soil at
drycleaning facilities varied by one to two orders of magnitude,from low ppt levels to low parts per
billion (ppb) levels.The median concentrations of PFAS detected at the pilot drycleaning facility sites are
above typical urban anthropogenic background levels, which represent PFAS presence in environmental
media at a site that are not the result or influenced by site activities or releases (Figure 6-3 and Table 17-
3. Observed PFAS concentrations in groundwater (ITRC, 2020)).
Although strong positive correlations between PFAS and VOHs were not observed at the majority of the
pilot sites, a PFOA/PFOS plume is generally co-present with chlorinated solvents in the vicinity of the
facility, providing supporting evidence that elevated PFOA/PFOS are associated with the drycleaning
sites.The highest PFOA/PFOS concentrations were often identified near drycleaning machines and site
drainage locations,which were also identified as PCE sources areas, indicating that one potential release
mechanism for PFAS is associated with drycleaning solvent waste releases. PFOA/PFOS were rarely
detected at intermediate or deep zones where PCE and its breakdown products were present,
supporting the relatively slower migration of PFOA/PFOS compared to PCE. Limited soil data also
supports the presence of PFAS at known release areas. Concentrations of PFOA/PFOS detected in soil
(813)968-7722 ■ 15711 Mapledale Blvd.,Suite B■Tampa, FL 33624■www.hsweng.com 18
Innovative Solutions Within Your Reach...
Page 37 of 83
Agenda#%n� #30
aper
PFAS Pilot Study at Drycleaning Sites
are below their Provisional Residential Direct Exposure SCTLs, but above their provisional leachability
SCTL based on protection of groundwater quality at several sites.
PFAS, particularly PFOA/PFOS, remain present today in some raw cleaning products; however,
significantly higher concentrations are observed in wastes and discharges following drycleaning and wet
laundry processes, indicating that PFAS are leaching from fabrics during the laundry or drycleaning
processes. Waste materials from drycleaners generally contain high concentrations of PFAS, which
along with their corresponding distribution in the environment, supports the hypothesis that the
presence of PFAS at drycleaners is more likely attributed to releases following contact with PFAS-
containing fabrics than a component of drycleaning solvents themselves.
A general pattern of PFAS composition or a correlation with drycleaning solvents was not observed due
to uncertainties in history of the facility operation and waste management practices, differences in fate
and transport between solvents and PFAS, prior solvent remediation efforts, and offsite source
contributions.
Lessons learned
Various lessons have been learned during the course of the pilot project, primarily including the
following:
The project findings reflect that the behavior and transport pathway of PFAS constituents in the
environment are not necessarily the same as that of drycleaning solvent constituents. Sampling for
PFAS at pre-determined high drycleaning solvent constituent locations may not be an appropriate
approach to screen site PFAS impacts. As a matter of fact, only four wells out of the 30 initial
screening wells exhibited the highest PFAS concentrations following the expanded PFAS
investigations.
Temporal variation in PFAS data is present, given the notable differences in concentrations across
sampling events at some sites investigated over generally short intervals. It is not uncommon for
PFAS concentrations in the same monitoring well to vary by several times over a different sampling
period. Variations in hydrogeology and geochemistry can affect PFAS fate and transport in the
subsurface.
No consistent PFAS constituent composition and distribution patterns were observed across all sites,
likely due to different PFAS release mechanisms and timeframes. Site-specific VOH remedial actions
(SVE, ISCO, bioremediation, ZVI injection, etc.) may have played a role in altering the fate and
transport of PFAS.
The elevated long-carbon chain PFAS in waste streams are indicative that these compounds,
particularly PFOA and PFOS, are still present in consumer products although manufacturing of these
compounds has been phased out in the US since the last decade.
PFAS may be present in laundry influent water at low ppt levels dependent on water sources and
the effluent from conventional wet laundry can have elevated PFAS above the PGCTL of 70 ng/L for
PFOA/PFOS leached from the laundry process.
Cross-contamination during sample collection, transport, and laboratory analysis may occur
considering the low regulatory levels for PFOA/PFOS and their ubiquitous presence in the
environment. The field and laboratory QA/QC sample analytical results reported during the course
of the pilot project were reviewed and the data was validated. Additionally, non-detects for 28 PFAS
compounds were observed in groundwater plume boundary and deep monitoring wells at several
(813)968-7722 ■ 15711 Mapledale Blvd.,Suite B■Tampa, FL 33624■www.hsweng.com 19
Innovative Solutions Within Your Reach...
Page 38 of 83
Agenda#%n� #30
aper
PFAS Pilot Study at Drycleaning Sites
sites. Thus,following the strict SOPs and sampling guidelines, cross-contamination was not noted
during the pilot project.
Uncertainties/Future Study
Various uncertainties exist, including the precise timing and exact location(s) of PFAS release(s), current
and historical types of PFAS used in fabrics,the degree of outside influences and/or additional sources
upon the reported PFAS concentrations in environmental media, and how prior or current drycleaning-
solvent constituent remediation efforts have or may affect the distribution or remediation of PFAS
impacts. Although site histories and current/historical operational practices were studied through
review of available historical documents and through questionnaires completed during waste stream
sampling implementation,the precise practices of historical operators are difficult to determine. Several
specific uncertainties and recommendations are provided below for consideration.
Questionnaire survey results from current operators indicate that spent solvent volumes were
typically less than raw solvent volumes used,though questionnaire results were relatively
inconclusive. Example questions and responses from the questionnaires included:
o In response to the question of how many gallons of solvent are used per month (or per
quarter), the responses ranged from 1 to 5 gallons per month. However, in response to
how many gallons of spent solvent are disposed of per month (or per quarter),the
responses ranged from approximately 0.5 to 9 gallons per month.
o Responses regarding how separator water was disposed of included containerizing for
offsite disposal, onsite recycling, and evaporation.
o All operators surveyed noted that stain resistance or water repellency treatment is not
currently offered and has not previously been offered.
o No facilities surveyed currently use septic tanks for disposal of wet laundry wash water, with
sanitary sewer disposal utilized at all locations.
Solvent loss through emission to the air is one environmental pathway at drycleaning facilities. PFAS
mixed with the solvent may be deposited to the land surface after the solvent evaporates in the air.
The air pathway was not evaluated in this pilot study due to the lack of validated sampling methods
for PFAS in ambient air samples.
Up to 28 PFAS compounds were analyzed in this study, but there are many additional PFAS
compounds that are not detected as discrete compounds by existing commercially available
analytical methods. For example, it is generally recognized that fluorotelomer alcohols (e.g., 8:2
FTOH) are found in the highest concentrations in impregnating agents for textiles (Lassen, et al.
2015), but this group of FTOHs are not analyzed by current commercially available analytical
methods. FTOHs can be transformed to PFCAs such as PFOA in the environment. Total oxidizable
precursor(TOP) assay analysis can be used to evaluate the potential of precursors for PFCAs and
PFSAs.
Relatively higher method detection limits reported for waste stream samples due to the matrix
effects and non-detects in the raw materials do not necessarily indicate that PFAS are not present in
the raw detergents or solvents used at the drycleaning sites. However,the presence of PFAS at
these MDL levels would not be anticipated to contribute to elevated groundwater concentrations.
Although groundwater was monitored at selected wells for two or more sampling events, duplicates
or triplicates of samples or verifications by multi-laboratory analyses were not conducted in this
(813)968-7722 ■ 15711 Mapledale Blvd.,Suite B■Tampa, FL 33624■www.hsweng.com 20
Innovative Solutions Within Your Reach...
Page 39 of 83
Agenda#%n� #30
aper
PFAS Pilot Study at Drycleaning Sites
study. Thus,the reported PFAS values may vary by certain degrees. Any anomalous outliers for one
or more PFAS compound concentrations would have affected the PFAS distribution pattern
analyses.
Remedial activity effects on PFAS were qualitatively discussed as part of this pilot study; however,
monitoring of PFAS changes in concentrations and distribution patterns during future remediation
could provide information to further understand PFAS fate and transport.
(813)968-7722 ■ 15711 Mapledale Blvd.,Suite B■Tampa, FL 33624■www.hsweng.com 21
Innovative Solutions Within Your Reach...
Page 40 of 83
Agenda#%n� #30
aper
PFAS Pilot Study at Drycleaning Sites
REFERENCE
Arvaniti, O.S.,Y. Hwang, H.R. Andersen,A.S. Stasinakis, N.S.Thomaidis, and M.Aloupi. (2015). Reductive
Degradation of Perfluorinated Compounds in Water using Mg-aminoclay coated Nanoscale Zero Valent
Iron. Chemical Engineering Journal, 262:133-139.
Clara, M.C., C. Scheffknecht, S. Scharf, S. Weiss and O. Gans. (2008). Emission of Perfluorinated Alkylated
Substances (PFAS) from Point Sources—Identification of Relevant Branches. Water Science &
Technology. 58 (1), 59-66.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). (2019). DEP-SOP-Draft, PFAS Sampling.
September.
Holmquist, H., Schellenberger, S., van der Veen, I., G.M. Peters, P.E.G. Leonards, and I.T. Cousins (2016).
Properties, performance and associated hazard of state-of-the-art durable water repellent (DWR)
chemistry for textile finishing. Environmental International. 91, 251-264.
HSW Engineering, Inc. (2019). PFAS Sampling Guidelines.
Interstate Technology Regulatory Council—ITRC(2020). Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS).
September 2020. https://pfas-1.itrcweb.org/
Lassen, C.,J. Kjoholt, S. H. Mikkelsen, M. Warming, A.A.Jensen, R. Bossi, and I. B. Nielsen. 2015.
Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) in Textiles for Children -Survey of Chemical Substances in Consumer
Products. No. 136. Danish Environmental Protection Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark.
United States Environmental Protection Agency— US EPA(2009). Perfluorocarboxylic Acid Content in
116 Articles of Commerce. EPA/600/R-09/033. March 2009.
United States Environmental Protection Agency— US EPA(20209). EPA's Actions to Address PFAS.
https://www.epa.gov/pfas/epa-actions-address-pfas (accessed in November 2020)
(813)968-7722 ■ 15711 Mapledale Blvd.,Suite B■Tampa, FL 33624■www.hsweng.com
Innovative Solutions within your reach...
Page 41 of 83