Greenpoint Petroleum Remediation Project ExxonMobil Oil Corp. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 Greenpoint Petroleum Remediation Project ExxonMobil Oil Corp. Proposed Remedies - Operable Units 1, 2 & 6 January 27, 2016

2 Discussion Objectives • Briefly Review Greenpoint History • Review ExxonMobil responsibilities under the March 2011 Consent Decree • Discuss DEC Evaluation Criteria • Review Operable Unit (OU) - 6, 2 &1 proposed remedies • Questions and Answers

3 Greenpoint Historically Mid-19 th Century - Whale oil processing and industry. • • 1860’s - Increased petroleum interest and refining (kerosene). • 1860’s - 1960’s - Petroleum operations prevail (various companies). • 1966 – Former Mobil refinery operations cease. • 1978 – Sheens on Newtown Creek documented by U.S. Coast Guard and remediation begins. • Former ExxonMobil Brooklyn Refinery utilized as a petroleum bulk storage terminal until 1993.

4 Early Industry on and around Newtown Creek (mid to late 19 th Century)

5 Standard Oil (circa 1950)

6 Post Refining (circa 1983)

7 Greenpoint Currently (Sept. 2015)

8 ExxonMobil Greenpoint Petroleum Remediation Project

9 Free-Product Recovery to Date Total Project Recovery (All Parties) – 12.6 MM gal. (nearly Five (5) - Billion gallons of groundwater treated) ExxonMobil Environmental Services Company – 8.75 MM gal.

10 ExxonMobil Historical Footprint

11 ExxonMobil Consent Decree Responsibilities Within the Historical Footprint – “..,ExxonMobil shall be presumptively responsible for investigation and remediation of contamination in all media.” From ground surface to the bottom of contamination.

12 ExxonMobil Consent Decree Responsibilities Outside the Historical Footprint – “, ExxonMobil shall be presumptively responsible for investigation and remediation of petroleum-related contamination in media located at or below the area where free product occurred in soil and was then retained in the soil when the water table fluctuated between historic high and low water table elevations,…” (the “Retention Zone”) “, ExxonMobil shall not be responsible for investigation and remediation of soil contamination that is either - (i ) outside the historic extent of the free product plume…, (ii) located above the Retention Zone…” “, ExxonMobil shall not be responsible for investigation and remediation of hazardous substances that are not petroleum- related,…”

13 ExxonMobil Historical Footprint

14 Proposed Decision Documents for Three OUs OU-6 – Western Off-Site Area Currently Commercial and Industrial Properties OU-2 – Former Northern Crude Yard Currently NYCDEP WPCP OU-1 – Former Lube Plant Currently Recycling and Entertainment Industry Facilities

15 OU-6 Western Off-Site Area OU-2 Former Northern Crude Yard OU-1 Former Lube Plant

16 Remedy Evaluation Criteria • Overall protectiveness of public health and the environment • Meet applicable Standards, Criteria and Guidance (SCGs) • Long-term effectiveness and permanence • Reduction of toxicity, mobility or volume through treatment • Short-term impact and effectiveness • Implementability • Cost effectiveness • Land use • Community acceptance

17 OU-6 Western Off-Site Area • OU-6 is located outside of the Historical Footprint, and was never historically owned or operated upon by ExxonMobil. • Approximately 14 acres. • About 33 parcels with multiple owners and operations. • Zoned Commercial and Industrial.

18 OU-6 Western Off-Site Area North Henry at Norman Ave. looking north

19 OU-6 Key Findings • No evidence of free-product was observed in OU-6. • Two of six CPT/LIF boring locations indicate the potential presence of petroleum-impacted soils. • One boring location indicated elevated chlorinated VOC concentrations. • No VOC exceedances were observed in soils. • SVOC and TPH exceedances were observed below the retention zone.

20 OU-6 Proposed Remedy OU-6 investigations indicate the presence of limited impacts which are unrelated to ExxonMobil’s historic operations in Greenpoint. Based on results of the site characterization activities and the requirements of the Consent Decree, no further investigation and/or remedial actions are required within OU-6 to satisfy ExxonMobil’s obligations pursuant to the Consent Decree. The NYSDEC is therefore recommending NO ACTION for OU-6.

21 OU-2 Former Northern Crude Yard • OU-2 is located within the Historical Footprint. • Approximately six (6) acres. • Historically operated as a crude and refined petroleum product storage facility from the late 1800s until 1997. • New York City acquired the property from ExxonMobil in 1997 to support expansion of the WPCP.

22 OU-2 Former Northern Crude Yard On Greenpoint Ave. looking north-west

23 OU-2 Remedial Activities • Approximately 60,000 gal. of free-product were recovered from the shallow subsurface between 1979 and 1997. • Watertight sheeting was installed around the entire perimeter of OU-2 to support WPCP construction, • Petroleum-impacted and non-impacted soils were removed across the entirety of OU-2 to a depth of 30 ’. • Clean backfill and concrete foundations have replaced excavated materials.

24 OU-2 Proposed Remedy The WPCP construction resulted in the removal of petroleum-impacted soils identified within OU-2 to the extent practicable/feasible. The NYSDEC is therefore recommending NO FURTHER ACTION for OU-2.

25 OU-1 Former Lube Plant • OU-1 is located within the Historical Footprint. • Approximately 10 ½ acres. • Currently comprised of two parcels - Scrap yard and Warehousing. • Historically this area was open water and marshland that was filled by third parties. • Parcels lie along a bulk-headed section of Newtown Creek.

26 OU-1 Former Lube Plant On Kingsland Ave. looking west-northwest

27 OU-1 Remedial Activities • Between 1979 and 1981, ExxonMobil installed 46 monitoring wells. • 1979 Recovery Well RW-7 was installed. • The volume of Free-product recovered from the OU-1 is not available, but RW-7 was removed from service in the 1980s. • Site is currently covered by structures and concrete pads.

28 OU-1 Key Findings • Potential petroleum-related impacts are only observed within the Historic Fill Material that comprise the shallow aquifer. • Soil borings indicate petroleum-related impacts do not extend into the regional aquifer. • Free-product was only observed in one shallow-aquifer monitoring well within OU-1. The physical characteristics suggest the free-product is likely immobile. • Groundwater sampling activities indicate that impacts are generally limited to chlorinated VOCs and slight exceedances of groundwater quality criteria for MTBE, acetone and a few PAHs. • Soil vapor sampling within OU-1 did not exceed screening criteria.

29 OU-1 Proposed Remedy • Cover System (physical barriers). • Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA). • Site Management Plan (SMP) that includes both Institutional Controls (deed restrictions) and Engineering Controls (continued use, maintenance and periodic certification of physical barriers). The NYSDEC is therefore recommending Remedial Alternative No. 3 as contemplated in the ExxonMobil Alternatives Analysis Report.

30 Remedies Summary OU-6 No Action OU-2 No Further Action OU-1 Cover System, MNA and Site Management Plan

31 Contact Information Site Related Questions: Site Related Health Questions: Benjamin Rung, DEC Dawn Hettrick, DOH 625 Broadway, 12 th Floor Empire State Plaza – Corning Tower Albany, NY 12233-7017 Room 1787 (518) 402- 9813 Albany, NY 12237 benjamin.rung@dec.ny.gov (518) 402-7860 beei@health.ny.gov Connect with us: Facebook: www.facebook.com/NYSDEC Twitter: twitter.com/NYSDEC Flickr: www.flickr.com/photos/nysdec