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-19th 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 19th 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

• f 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: Benjamin Rung, DEC 625 Broadway, 12th Floor Albany, NY 12233-7017 (518) 402- 9813 benjamin.rung@dec.ny.gov

Connect with us: Facebook: www.facebook.com/NYSDEC Twitter: twitter.com/NYSDEC Flickr: www.flickr.com/photos/nysdec

Site Related Health Questions: Dawn Hettrick, DOH Empire State Plaza – Corning Tower Room 1787 Albany, NY 12237 (518) 402-7860 beei@health.ny.gov