Q & A

Dissolved benzene in groundwater (otherwise known as a benzene groundwater plume) is present at the former Philadelphia Refinery. The Remedial Investigation Reports summarize the benzene in groundwater that Evergreen has characterized as part of the Act 2 investigations. For example, the AOI 1 RIR presents details concerning benzene in groundwater along the eastern boundary of the former Philadelphia Refinery. These reports also summarize the interim remedial activities to address environmental impacts including groundwater and vapor remediation systems that exist along the property boundary on 26th Street. Part of the Act 2 processes include evaluating potential impact to offsite properties, including residences. These evaluations show that the dissolved benzene impacted groundwater beneath AOI 1 is not likely to migrate under nearby residential areas, and that there are no air impacts from the benzene groundwater plume to offsite properties. Evergreen prepared an overall summary slide of benzene in groundwater beneath the whole facility due to on-site and off-site sources for presentation during the November 2019 public meeting. The presentation is posted to this website. PES, as owner and operator of the facility, was required to report fence line measurements of benzene based on air emissions from PES’ operations. This air monitoring is unrelated to the subsurface benzene groundwater plume and Evergreen does not have the information to be able to address the portion of your question related to the 2019 PES reported fence line monitoring.

The operation of the site has been under the direction of Philadelphia Energy Solutions (PES) since the sale of the site in 2012 from Sunoco to PES, so Evergreen/Sunoco has not been involved in site operations since that time. In addition, operations at the former Philadelphia Refinery by PES were shut down in 2019, so we are unsure of what smell you are referring to. The City of Philadelphia does maintain air monitoring in the vicinity of the site, which is summarized in its 2020-2021 Air Monitoring Network Plan. (https://www.phila.gov/media/20200504115105/2020-2021_AMNP_DRAFT_FINAL__20200424.pdf)

Evergreen is responsible for managing the environmental investigation and cleanup of soil and groundwater from impacts that occurred before PES purchased the site in 2012. PES operated the site and would have the information pertaining to air emission data. In addition, the City of Philadelphia Department of Public Health’s Air Management Services may also be able to provide additional air quality data from that time period ((215) 685-7584 or dphams_service_requests@phila.gov).

There is no indication of off-site air impacts from the  historic subsurface environmental impacts to soil and groundwater that Evergreen is investigating and remediating. Additional information concerning air quality from either the EPA or the City of Philadelphia may be helpful to identify the source of any smells.

The refining operations were shut down in 2019; however, Evergreen is unaware of other site activities that have taken place at the facility since that time, so we are unsure of the source of any odors. PES operated the site and would have the information pertaining to air emission data. In addition, the City of Philadelphia Department of Public Health’s Air Management Services may also be able to provide additional air quality data from that time period ((215) 685‐7584 or dphams_service_requests@phila.gov). The City of Philadelphia does maintain air monitoring in the vicinity of the site, which is summarized in its 2020‐2021 Air Monitoring Network Plan. (https://www.phila.gov/media/20200504115105/2020‐2021_AMNP_DRAFT_FINAL 20200424.pdf).

Evergreen is responsible for investigation and cleanup of subsurface conditions present at the property before the sale to PES in 2012. Part of Evergreen’s investigation involves defining the extent of contamination in groundwater (the plume as you noted) and determining if the impacts present a risk to people onsite and those located near to the site. Evergreen operates remediation systems at the facility to control groundwater contamination as well as control vapors in sewers near and through the facility. Based on the completed investigations, the environmental impacts to soil and groundwater have not shown to cause impact to indoor or outdoor air in residential areas offsite.

Information from the remedial investigation activities do not indicate that there is any risk to indoor or outside air in offsite properties from benzene in groundwater originating from the former Philadelphia Refinery. Evaluation of vapors to indoor and outdoor air from a dissolved plume beneath the subsurface is part of the evaluation required by Act 2.  That evaluation will be included in future Act 2 reports to be submitted upon completion of all Remedial Investigation Reports.  Please note that the slide being referenced shows refinery data as well as data collected from other nearby Act 2 sites.  Plumes originating from other Act 2 sites are evaluated by the appropriate responsible parties who are remediating those Sites.

As part of the Act 2 program, Evergreen evaluates potential air quality effects from subsurface conditions (as opposed to any air quality issues from above-ground operations).  The evaluation of any vapors to indoor and outdoor air from a dissolved plume beneath the subsurface is part of the evaluation required by Act 2 and will be included in future Act 2 reports, submitted upon completion of all Remedial Investigation Reports.   Evergreen has conducted initial assessments using existing data and conservative assumptions, which did not find any potential impacts to off-site residences from the conditions in shallow groundwater; therefore, we have no plans to test off-site buildings.  However, future fate and transport evaluation will model the projected extent of groundwater contaminants, which will be used to confirm the assessment of offsite air quality effects from subsurface conditions and will be summarized future reports.

NOTE:

Similar questions that can be answered similarly are:

1. Evergreen conducted air monitoring for indoor air in buildings on the site, will you also monitor the basement of homes near the VOC contamination for ambient pollution?
2. Most of the testing in all media was limited to the industrial site or very close to it. Since contamination from air pollution occurred continuously outside the site, since most contamination migrates and may change over time, depending on many factors, more extensive offsite testing for all compounds should be done.

The outdoor (ambient) air samples that Evergreen has collected across the site have been collected over many years. Some samples were collected during individual AOI investigations and some were collected as part of a site-wide vapor investigation, generally conducted between 2009 and 2018. Individual sample dates are included in the air data tables within the Remedial Investigation Reports.

Evergreen does not use chemicals in their current remediation systems.

Evergreen must investigate air quality arising from subsurface contamination only, not from refinery operations above ground. As documented in the remedial investigation reports (RIRs), air samples were collected from inside site buildings, and from outdoor air locations, both as background and above areas of known LNAPL plumes. Based on the data collected in the RIRs there are no known residential areas where the contaminated groundwater has migrated from the facility to beneath those areas, therefore no off-site air sampling is planned.  The future fate and transport RIR will present the results of fate and transport modeling of groundwater plumes which will show the projected extent of groundwater contaminants over time.

As shown in the Remedial Investigation Reports, benzene is present in groundwater but is less extensive in soil.  While concentrations of benzene in soil and groundwater  exceed the statewide health standards in sampling locations, the concentrations in soil and groundwater have not been shown to emit high levels of benzene into the atmosphere.  Many samples have already been collected to evaluate benzene in air, and part of the future risk assessment and cleanup plan activities includes further vapor intrusion assessment, which looks at potential for migration of vapors from soil and groundwater.

Evergreen has conducted initial assessments using existing data and conservative assumptions, which did not find any potential impacts to off-site residences’ indoor air quality from the conditions in shallow groundwater moving offsite from the facility; therefore, we have no plans to test off-site buildings. However, future fate and transport evaluation will model the projected extent of groundwater contaminants, which will be used to confirm the assessment of offsite air quality effects from subsurface conditions and will be summarized future reports. Also, in general, direct sampling of indoor air is not conducted unless vapor intrusion assessment indicates potential for indoor air quality concerns. This is because there are numerous and various other potential sources for air quality.

Evergreen is responsible for investigation and cleanup of subsurface conditions present at the property before the sale to PES in 2012.  Part of Evergreen’s investigation involves defining the extent of contamination in soil and groundwater and determining if the impacts present a risk to people onsite and those located near to the site. Evergreen operates remediation systems at the facility to control groundwater contamination as well as control vapors in sewers near and through the facility. Based on the completed investigations, the pre-2012 environmental impacts to soil and groundwater have not shown to cause impact to indoor or outdoor air in residential areas offsite.  Therefore, odors are not expected to be from those subsurface conditions.

A literature review of available, published resources on climate change for the Philadelphia region and discussion of the potential implications to Evergreen’s groundwater model will be included in the upcoming Fate and Transport RIR.  Evergreen’s groundwater flow model for the former Philadelphia Refinery has been calibrated and validated to recent environmental conditions and measured observations. As a part of the remedial investigation’s contaminant fate and transport assessment, Evergreen will review available information related to climate change in the Philadelphia area and, if warranted, the groundwater model could be adjusted to adapt to predicted climate conditions and could provide a range of potential outcomes for consideration (e.g., a higher average Schuylkill River stage due to sea-level rise or an increased recharge rate due to an increase in annual precipitation). For a defensible model and reliable predictions, the boundary condition data variability must be quantifiable and based on accepted models or observations.

Addresses similar questions:

“Specifically, I call on you to include research about the threat posed by rising sea level and extreme weather events that could be triggered by climate change.”

“Contaminated groundwater in this low-lying geographic region will be affected by sea-level rise and frequent superstorms ushered in by the climate crisis.”

Tide gates are a common flood prevention structure for areas in a tidal zone. Tide gates close during incoming tides to prevent inundation from downstream water propagating inland, and they open during outgoing tides to drain upland areas. The tide gates at the Site were not specifically designed to address sea level rise; however, the Site will continue to be regulated under the stormwater management requirements of the City of Philadelphia and the PADEP, which includes provisions for sea level rise.

An additional question was subsequently provided to the above:

Here’s another example of where responses could be clearer. In response to questions about tide gates, the answer on the site is (partly):

“The tide gates at the Site were not specifically designed to address sea level rise; however, the Site will continue to be regulated under the stormwater management requirements of the City of Philadelphia and the PADEP which includes provisions for sea level rise.”

But it would be good to citations of these claims – what documents are these requirements contained in, and where can they be found? As it is the answer is kind of an answer but not very useful.

Response:

The tide gate was installed by Sunoco long ago and it was installed specifically to address oil in the sewer at the time. There are remediation systems in place to address the potential for oil to migrate into those sewers; therefore, in the future the tide gate may not be necessary. As noted, climate change is something that will be included in the fate and transport modeling which will be presented in the Fate and Transport RIR. Any climate change resources used in future modeling efforts will be referenced in the Fate and Transport RIR and the Cleanup Plan.

1)The site-specific standard for lead was approved by both PADEP and EPA and utilized the updated Adult Lead Model and exposure assumptions recommended by the USEPA and the PADEP.  As part of the remedial investigations, the lead data was compared to the Act 2 SHS MSC, which is 450 ppm, based on the soil to groundwater pathway. This comparison is shown on the figures/tables in the RI Reports and in the 8/27/20 presentation. The approach that was used to calculate the SSS for direct contact was to use the Adult Lead Model recommended by the EPA. The PADEP used the same model to develop an updated non-residential lead direct contact MSC that reflects the current state of the science for lead.

2)DEP did not approve two of the RIRs – AOI-4 and AOI-9 – based on the need for additional offsite characterization, not a level of contamination over other AOIs.  The characterization portion of the AOI-11 report was sufficient for approval; however, the fate and transport  portion of the AOI-11 reports was not, which is why the report was not approved.  Data has been collected from the lower aquifer wells as part of the other AOI remedial investigations since 2013 and reported in the Remedial Investigation Report submitted since 2013.

3)Characterization and delineation of contaminants of concern does not generally require consideration of climate change, sea level rise or worsening storms.  Climate change will be considered in future fate and transport efforts and cleanup plans where that type of variable warrants consideration.

One of Evergreen’s primary objectives through the remedial investigations under Act 2 was to characterize the facility’s geologic framework and the water-bearing units it supports. Potential flow pathways for contaminant transport could be evaluated in this manner using recent groundwater observations from hundreds of wells at the facility. Evergreen’s groundwater model is calibrated and validated to these recent groundwater data to provide defensible fate and transport simulations that are based on current conditions. A sensitivity analysis was performed on the groundwater model to evaluate the impact of changes to inputs on performance and increase confidence in its ability to make predictions.

 Evergreen recognizes that climate changes are predicted that could alter local hydrologic conditions near the facility, such as higher water levels in the water-table aquifer or higher tides in the Schuylkill River. An assessment of climate change from available, published resources and the potential implications to Evergreen’s groundwater model will be included in the upcoming Fate and Transport RIR.

Evergreen plans to evaluate climate change data in support of groundwater modeling for contaminant fate and transport. The effort will include a review of available literature on climate change predictions for the Philadelphia region. Accepted climate models would be those that are published, peer-reviewed, and/or otherwise viewed as reliable and relevant to future conditions at the facility. Quantifiable refers to the need for climate change data to be numeric in nature so that the values can be incorporated into Evergreen’s modeling.

Evergreen will detail its approach to remediation of the facility in future Cleanup Plans and will consider climate changes predicted to occur within the anticipated timeframe to completion. Evergreen will also incorporate climate change into future modeling.

Response addresses the similar questions: “Are you considering your remediation strategies with respect to sea level rise, which could affect groundwater and will you be incorporating changes resulting from climate change, sea level rise and frequency of storms into groundwater modeling?”  

“What plans do you have to keep this site safe as precipitations and sea level rise increase due to climate change?”

“As a Philadelphia resident and concerned citizen, I’ve been disturbed and frustrated to learn about the former PES refinery site and the legacy of toxins and pollutants it has left on the environmental justice community that surrounds the refinery. The opportunity to clean up and redevelop the refinery is a once in a lifetime chance to repair the biggest blight of our region. And as greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise and we know sea level rise, storm surge and precipitation events will continue to worsen. Evergreen must ensure its remedial investigation adequately addresses these future climate change conditions. For the +150 years this community has suffered from the presence of this refinery, we owe it to this community to ensure their health will be protected once this site is finally cleaned up.”

Evergreen has yet to complete the contaminant fate and transport assessment for the facility and currently has a working groundwater flow model that is calibrated to recent, average sea level in the Schuylkill River estimated from a local tide gauge. The magnitude of sea-level rise has not yet been selected for evaluation in the modeling and is pending a literature review of available resources and initial modeling results to understand the time constraints on contaminant fate under Act 2 (i.e., how many years are predicted for Evergreen to meet Cleanup goals under Act 2 compared to the magnitude of climate change predictions within that general time period).

It is Evergreen’s intent to consider climate changes predicted to occur within the timeframe of cleanup of the former Sunoco refinery. In general, this timeframe would be considered “long term” as petroleum contaminants in groundwater may take decades to remediate and/or degrade to concentrations below regulated standards.

Follow-up question to the question above: Can you expand on your use of quotes for “long term” in this reply. Do you consider this a reference to Act 2, Sec. 304 – Site Specific Standards?

Because long is a relevant descriptor of time that is subject to interpretation, Evergreen’s use of quotes in this response was meant to add context to the comparison of the anticipated remediation timeframe versus a changing climate as both being long term considerations. Evergreen has selected a combination of Act 2 standards for cleanup of the former Philadelphia refinery and this response wasn’t in reference to any particular standard.

Follow-up question to the question above: In the zoom meeting of December 2020, it was pointed out that climate change will continue after the remediation. The Evergreen position was clarified to state that Evergreen will follow climate change data and predictions up until 2100, which is the current limit for reliable modeling that is accepted in the wider scientific community.  Can you confirm that this is Evergreen’s policy? [Evergreen note: Evergreen held virtual meetings in August 2020 and January 2021].

Evergreen does not have a policy on this matter.  It is Evergreen’s intent to consider peer reviewed and published climate change predictions based on modeling studies for or inclusive of the Philadelphia region. To date, the year 2100 generally appears to be the most widely cited future limit for reliable climate predictions in the area. Evergreen’s assessment of potential climate change impacts on the groundwater model used for fate and transport will work within this timeframe.

Yes, Evergreen’s fate and transport RIR will include a references section with all cited publications and resources used in the groundwater modeling.  Evergreen is also planning future meetings to discuss the model and input values.

Most of Evergreen’s groundwater modeling efforts to date have focused on the development of a baseline model that is calibrated to simulate current, average conditions. Evergreen is presently reviewing available documentation pertaining to climate changes predicted for the Philadelphia region. Data review is in its early stages as the Fate and Transport Model RIR is proposed for submittal at the end of 2021.  However, the model and input parameters considered will be discussed during future outreach efforts.

As noted, climate change will be considered in future contaminant modeling efforts.  Most questions posed to date cannot be answered specifically because we are not at that phase in the Act 2 process yet.  We can say that Evergreen will consider all questions, comments and input relating to climate change received during the comment period for past Act 2 reports in future modeling efforts, and there will be opportunity to discuss this during follow-up meetings and/or group discussions, which should provide clarity on how climate change may be incorporated into groundwater modeling and remediation at the facility.

Remedial investigations are evaluations of current conditions.  Those current condition measurements would inherently include climate effects as they have occurred and are occurring.  The future effects of climate change will be evaluated in future modeling efforts.  Note that the future fate and transport modeling is also a remedial investigation activity.  The fate and transport modeling efforts are also part of the remedial investigation process.

At a minimum, we’d be looking at several decades to be considered for climate change projections. This process is ongoing, however, and will continue to be evaluated to see if longer time frames are necessary as the F&T RIR is completed this year.

The groundwater flow model has been completed but cannot be finalized and submitted until all Remedial Investigation Reports are approved as data collected for these reports are used as the basis for the groundwater flow model. Groundwater contaminant fate and transport model efforts will be conducted subsequent to approval of the Remedial Investigation Reports since the fate and transport modeling is dependent upon the information in the Remedial Investigation Reports and the groundwater flow model.

A literature review of available, published resources on climate change for the Philadelphia region and discussion of the potential implications to Evergreen’s groundwater model will be included in the upcoming Fate and Transport RIR.  Evergreen’s groundwater flow model for the former Philadelphia Refinery has been calibrated and validated to recent environmental conditions and measured observations. As a part of the remedial investigation’s contaminant fate and transport assessment, Evergreen will review available information related to climate change in the Philadelphia area and, if warranted, the groundwater model could be adjusted to adapt to predicted climate conditions and could provide a range of potential outcomes for consideration (e.g., a higher average Schuylkill River stage due to sea-level rise or an increased recharge rate due to an increase in annual precipitation). For a defensible model and reliable predictions, the boundary condition data variability must be quantifiable and based on accepted models or observations.

Addresses similar questions:

“Specifically, I call on you to include research about the threat posed by rising sea level and extreme weather events that could be triggered by climate change.”

“Contaminated groundwater in this low-lying geographic region will be affected by sea-level rise and frequent superstorms ushered in by the climate crisis.”

The fate and transport analysis for the lower aquifer will be performed once the Remedial Investigation Reports for AOI 4 and AOI 9 have been approved.  Areas beneath the Site where connections exist between the lower aquifer and water table aquifer are less extensive than the areas where we have that important clay layer present. The cross section shown during the August 2020 Public Information Session was just one example from the site model that straddles the Schuylkill River where the aquitard is interpreted to be missing. Other cross sections show the continuity of that clay layer. Even where the aquitard is missing, it does not necessarily mean that water and contaminants will move down into the deeper aquifer. That potential has to do with pressure gradients that the model can simulate. The fate and transport model will simulate future scenarios based upon current conditions.

It is noted that the fate and transport analysis will include mapping of the middle clay unit aquitard. Water quality in the lower aquifer is monitored through routine sampling of groundwater from approximately 80 wells, and to date significant contamination has not been observed in the lower aquifer beneath the Site. Considering the aging and degrading petroleum sources in the water table from historic Sunoco sources, we do not expect groundwater hydrocarbon plumes to expand under current groundwater conditions.

Characterization of the refinery geology, hydrogeology, and extent of contamination, including study of the pathways that could exist, has been ongoing and is included in the RIRs. A fate and transport analysis will be prepared once all the RIRs have been approved, and the analysis will include model simulations of contaminant transport.  This report is expected to be submitted by the end of 2021.

One of Evergreen’s primary objectives through the remedial investigations under Act 2 was to characterize the facility’s geologic framework and the water-bearing units it supports. Potential flow pathways for contaminant transport could be evaluated in this manner using recent groundwater observations from hundreds of wells at the facility. Evergreen’s groundwater model is calibrated and validated to these recent groundwater data to provide defensible fate and transport simulations that are based on current conditions. A sensitivity analysis was performed on the groundwater model to evaluate the impact of changes to inputs on performance and increase confidence in its ability to make predictions.

 Evergreen recognizes that climate changes are predicted that could alter local hydrologic conditions near the facility, such as higher water levels in the water-table aquifer or higher tides in the Schuylkill River. An assessment of climate change from available, published resources and the potential implications to Evergreen’s groundwater model will be included in the upcoming Fate and Transport RIR.

Evergreen plans to evaluate climate change data in support of groundwater modeling for contaminant fate and transport. The effort will include a review of available literature on climate change predictions for the Philadelphia region. Accepted climate models would be those that are published, peer-reviewed, and/or otherwise viewed as reliable and relevant to future conditions at the facility. Quantifiable refers to the need for climate change data to be numeric in nature so that the values can be incorporated into Evergreen’s modeling.

We believe we have sufficient information to complete the model.  However, we need to have agreeance on that from DEP prior to submittal. In other words, all of the Remedial Investigation Reports must be approved first (meaning, that DEP feels we have sufficiently defined the contamination so that a model can be accurate and complete).  Once the RIR Addendums for AOI’s 4 and 9 are submitted and approved, the fate and transport model will be finalized and submitted to PADEP for approval.   

As presented in the Remedial Investigation Reports, the lower aquifer (AOI 11) has been investigated during all the other AOI investigations completed since 2013 and the results were reported in the individual Remedial Investigation Reports. The concentrations found in the deep aquifer do not indicate a potential risk to communities in New Jersey, so no cleanup is anticipated as being necessary. The projected fate and transport of contaminants in the deep aquifer will be included in the Fate and Transport Remedial Investigation Report, which is anticipated for submittal by the end of 2021.  Upon completion of the modeling, it will be confirmed whether any remedial action is necessary or not in the lower aquifer.

The direction and rates of groundwater flow are evaluated frequently at the site and groundwater samples collected routinely from various hydrogeologic units beneath the facility.  The Remedial Investigation activities also evaluated the areas where the confining layers in the subsurface were not continuous through the completion of soil borings, installation of monitoring wells, collection of groundwater samples, groundwater elevations and completion of aquifer tests to determine hydraulic properties of the groundwater units.  These data will be used for the upcoming evaluation of contaminant movement in the fate and transport evaluation through the use of a 3-dimensional numerical model which will be presented in the Fate and Transport Remedial Investigation Report.

Yes, Evergreen’s fate and transport RIR will include a references section with all cited publications and resources used in the groundwater modeling.  Evergreen is also planning future meetings to discuss the model and input values.

Most of Evergreen’s groundwater modeling efforts to date have focused on the development of a baseline model that is calibrated to simulate current, average conditions. Evergreen is presently reviewing available documentation pertaining to climate changes predicted for the Philadelphia region. Data review is in its early stages as the Fate and Transport Model RIR is proposed for submittal at the end of 2021.  However, the model and input parameters considered will be discussed during future outreach efforts.

As noted, climate change will be considered in future contaminant modeling efforts.  Most questions posed to date cannot be answered specifically because we are not at that phase in the Act 2 process yet.  We can say that Evergreen will consider all questions, comments and input relating to climate change received during the comment period for past Act 2 reports in future modeling efforts, and there will be opportunity to discuss this during follow-up meetings and/or group discussions, which should provide clarity on how climate change may be incorporated into groundwater modeling and remediation at the facility.

At a minimum, we’d be looking at several decades to be considered for climate change projections. This process is ongoing, however, and will continue to be evaluated to see if longer time frames are necessary as the F&T RIR is completed this year.

We are currently still developing the underlying flow model (this is the foundation of the model prior to inputting concentrations of contaminants of concern (COCs)). Later this summer we expect to be able to start making the model runs that will project the distance, direction and concentrations of compounds over time. Those projections must be calibrated to real site data. Incomplete models (or documents) that have not yet undergone internal review, peer review, or quality assurance/quality control measures will not be formally shared. Once the fate and transport model and associated report have been completed, the documents will be available for review. However, due to the complexity of the model for this project, Evergreen plans to review the model with the public prior to submittal, once the internal reviews are completed.

PADEP provided the following explanation of the concept of ‘development’ with respect to Act 2 documents and public involvement: “Act 2 and our regulations and guidance describe several measures “to involve the public in the development and review” of reports, some of which are required. The intent of these measures is to collect comments, suggestions, concerns, and questions on the Act 2 work. The remediator’s responses to this input may result in revisions to the report, and in this manner the public influences the development of the report. The public is not just on the receiving end, but it’s correct that the primary public role is to comment on the work being done. Those comments can impact both the remediator’s actions and also PADEP’s technical review and decision to approve the report.”

Dissolved benzene in groundwater (otherwise known as a benzene groundwater plume) is present at the former Philadelphia Refinery. The Remedial Investigation Reports summarize the benzene in groundwater that Evergreen has characterized as part of the Act 2 investigations. For example, the AOI 1 RIR presents details concerning benzene in groundwater along the eastern boundary of the former Philadelphia Refinery. These reports also summarize the interim remedial activities to address environmental impacts including groundwater and vapor remediation systems that exist along the property boundary on 26th Street. Part of the Act 2 processes include evaluating potential impact to offsite properties, including residences. These evaluations show that the dissolved benzene impacted groundwater beneath AOI 1 is not likely to migrate under nearby residential areas, and that there are no air impacts from the benzene groundwater plume to offsite properties. Evergreen prepared an overall summary slide of benzene in groundwater beneath the whole facility due to on-site and off-site sources for presentation during the November 2019 public meeting. The presentation is posted to this website. PES, as owner and operator of the facility, was required to report fence line measurements of benzene based on air emissions from PES’ operations. This air monitoring is unrelated to the subsurface benzene groundwater plume and Evergreen does not have the information to be able to address the portion of your question related to the 2019 PES reported fence line monitoring.

Evergreen’s role is to evaluate and remediate groundwater conditions created based on use of the facility up through 2012. Based on extensive data collected over the last 20+ years, and groundwater modeling performed to date, it is highly unlikely that groundwater impacts at the former refinery site affect drinking water quality in New Jersey. As part of the Act 2 process, Sunoco and Evergreen have performed several preliminary risk assessments, including accounting for the projection of dissolved contaminant migration in groundwater. All assessments to date have shown that conditions with respect to groundwater beneath the facility are protective of human health both onsite and offsite. Evergreen is working on a complete groundwater fate and transport analysis, which projects where and how far contaminants may travel and at what concentrations, as well as other reports that will provide additional and more detailed analysis.

Response also addresses the following question:

I am a New Jersey resident who is extremely concerned about the potential for groundwater contamination at the PES refinery site and how it could affect my young child. The area has been highly contaminated for a century, and residents of both Pennsylvania and New Jersey are now well aware of the dangers posed by groundwater contamination, following high-profile cases in Tom’s River, NJ, and the now-confirmed systemic drinking water contamination occurring as a result of fracking the Marcellus Shale. Please follow the advice of experts at the Clean Air Council and perform an immediate and thorough and plan to identify and remediate contamination.

Additional investigation has been completed for AOI 11 since the time of the last report submitted solely for AOI 11 in 2013. In fact, the latest Remedial Investigation Reports (RIRs) for each of the AOIs include information about AOI 11, or the lower groundwater unit, within that AOI. We chose to incorporate AOI 11 into the other AOI RIRs in order to give a full description of groundwater within each AOI in these reports. After the RIRs are all submitted and approved, Risk Assessment and Cleanup Plans will be submitted for different areas of the site. The proposed cleanup for AOI 11 will be included in the Cleanup Plans, which are yet to be submitted for the site. Note that active ongoing remediation efforts in shallow groundwater to remove petroleum products and contaminated groundwater have likely had a positive effect on AOI 11 groundwater quality through source removal. In addition, natural processes work to break down petroleum in the subsurface.

There is currently no separate meeting planned to discuss AOI-11.  Evergreen held a Public Information Session on August 27, 2020 during which the environmental data collected from all AOI’s was reviewed with the public. Additional meetings are planned to be held for future Act 2 submittals and/or other key milestones in the Act 2 process, some of which will include information about AOI 11. The public is encouraged to ask questions and provide comments to any report submitted during the Act 2 process.  Notices will be sent to the public via newspapers as well as an email to interested parties for all future report submittals and meetings.

New groundwater data for AOI 11 has been collected since 2013 and it is presented in the Remedial Investigation Reports for each of the other Areas of Interest. Overall, most groundwater conditions in the lower groundwater (AOI 11) have been demonstrated to be stable to improving for petroleum-related compounds since the 2013 RIR was submitted.  Data collected annually from sampling events conducted after the remedial investigations are included in semi-annual update reports, which are also available on the website.  While the updated reports themselves are not Act 2 submittals, the data included within them will be carried forward into future Act 2 reports, such as the Fate and Transport RIR and Cleanup Plan, which are subject to public comment.

Evergreen is not aware of any available studies that evaluate the fate and transport of petroleum hydrocarbon chemicals in groundwater from the site into New Jersey groundwater.  Evergreen plans to complete fate and transport modeling with a numerical groundwater model, which will evaluate the potential migration of petroleum-related chemicals from both the water-table aquifer (AOIs 1-10) and lower aquifer (AOI 11). Based on data collected to date, there is no indication that petroleum-related chemicals in groundwater from site operations will migrate to New Jersey.

There have been several studies of the PRM groundwater unit focusing on groundwater flow and naturally occurring metals, including:

• Historical Ground-Water-Flow Patterns and Trends in Iron Concentrations in the PotomacRaritan-Magothy Aquifer System in parts of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Camden and Gloucester Counties, New Jersey, U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4255,
• Schreffler, Curtis, L., 2001. Simulation of Ground-Water Flow in the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System Near the Defense Supply Center Philadelphia, and the Point Breeze Refinery, Southern Philadelphia Pennsylvania, U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4218, Sloto, R. A., 2003.

In addition, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection has provided the following information: “At this time NJDEP believes the existing hydrogeologic, geologic and water quality data indicate any contaminants that may be in the subsurface at the PES refinery in Philadelphia do not pose a threat to water supply wells in the PRM aquifer system in NJ. At this time NJDEP does not consider PFAS contamination at the former Philadelphia Refinery to be a threat to NJ via a flow path through the lower PRM aquifer. This is based on several lines of reasoning:

1) The lower PRM is the water table aquifer at the site and is very shallow under the Delaware River. We consider the Delaware River to be recharging this aquifer. As such, it is likely a recharge boundary to any contaminants that might be entering it on the Pa side.  Studies conducted in the PRM aquifer system within New Jersey indicate that the Delaware River acts as a significant hydraulic flow boundary limiting any groundwater source area from extending to the Pennsylvania side of the Delaware River. More information is in Pope and Watt, 2005 (https://secure-web.cisco.com/1QNK4DBcOrtQ0JjsHbl5b79X05rdft7c469uiTdKulpe4LmzQdI8DlVAwc-Qfit5xZaOSyf8SmyCazeksgma0yviIb0WmR8GYHAJLHKJThyiEmd-S9Kukws7fqcy65mV6TVrzjNGv3EvgDHo6ts71tPnEJ9cIeg8HRzRtzixilAKwb8XKUi00oRHePni3O3a9Q_CAyKJ5wQeQO1W4tOCje24nrJ9l3RlrD_3WC-WwX4tiqhANiSdZIxwY6QeRnvadbOQl6Zakw7WvFnBYJUyUdw/https%3A%2F%2Fpubs.er.usgs.gov%2Fpublication%2Fsir20045101) and Navoy and Carleton, 1995 (https://secure-web.cisco.com/14SrVjTcT2kOO14dfWEDsnY2-F6ono0r1v3EBQ0zBDvYkIY7PlRyyQAGvGwEo-HCBN-Lk-2GJah_eUPLTO2eVp4LfSNHdLg0KltKTXRShNCxzwD7lm8uJ_-iKknmChzbBFz8mmsC8EJgHzGEAQO5NYVK7We9_p5RFVEoCDgvlfv9-6CrS1-2t4mu4XN5v1NxooG3KVIaAWpoWFVv4r9n_QX_8lukx4zSvoKOj4x_0Rbc9JcMPRE6aLaMGXYAk-9-Tkxj1HeibFrTB1uPpSZ30GA/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.state.nj.us%2Fdep%2Fnjgs%2Fpricelst%2Fgsreport%2Fgsr38.pdf).

2) That the Delaware River acts as a recharge boundary is supported by aquifer tests in NJ conducted in the lower PRM close to the river. These tests show significant leakage which would not occur if the Delaware River was not a recharge boundary.

3) NJDEP delineated well head protection areas for unconfined wells within the Potomac using the methods detailed in Spayd and Johnson, 2003, available at https://secure-web.cisco.com/1azAbsv8HMFq0INHE6kb7P-2gon-zhCTNtpOtbPp5cpzHbNygIhgHFWqQMNaeG5RXaLLrTkicXc-TEg6qbExHCUX6yNJ2I3BmzKv61RrqPBmvTVqgsNPcKZb6Bp-KxZv7E3EFpXppbe76BGvyvQWuNxZPSPe4qqlQQjt3W-thgf9hMBQAvqe-o9X0J3bmDtAG0ctemEGHLSGEOvynvkJjXOJu3KyMHtTMhXQeD1ZHgcrb0CDtxcni5O1G8K6VeMySpEf6WILwNBWPbTY5BJn0qQ/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.state.nj.us%2Fdep%2Fnjgs%2Fpricelst%2Fofreport%2Fofr03-1.pdf. These calculated areas represent the source areas to wells based on three time of travel intervals of 2, 5 and 12 years.  The delineated source areas indicate that no wells completed within the Potomac Formation in NJ have well head protection areas which extend into Pennsylvania.  

4) Reported water quality data (https://secure-web.cisco.com/17_sg7vCSGdmSn5p4EO7KLlLD3G3QlM6urSdbDChJjvcaN-__mNiUOLS-w9wTQpzoJlfeLgzqnliioZik_WFqDcD_dDEgg9HusX3Fii9608-74LtQiHsYzT8dMW_BpF96-K2aXrGt7zOTkzP7zQnhfFIcYQO1ALaSuDl3T3KRsoAlSnpAk1zszi9I9-lXCKJXicMuBIidT7KbGy9OEa9w__dAjRmhUEglexfL2lhmlHISnz96BWN6t4qMe0f7CF7VrRQn-adZaoJwzLi2uV3TfA/https%3A%2F%2Fwww9.state.nj.us%2FDEP_WaterWatch_public%2F) indicate no contamination is present in supply wells for the National Park Water Department,  which are the closest NJ supply wells to the Philadelphia Energy Solutions refinery.  The refinery has been in operation for more than 100 years and it appears that no measurable contamination has migrated to these wells.  All public supply wells in New Jersey are required to monitor and report water quality data quarterly therefore any potential contaminants would be identified.”

The NJDEP is routinely involved with groundwater investigations of the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer (PRM)  due to source areas located in New Jersey that are not related to impacts in AOI 11. There has been no demonstrated connection between groundwater impacts in AOI 11 due to past refinery operations and the PRM groundwater quality in New Jersey. As such, the NJDEP has not been involved with cleanup of the former Philadelphia Refinery. AOI 11 groundwater conditions beneath and adjacent to the refinery has not warranted notification of the public or municipal water companies in New Jersey, nor is Evergreen aware that the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection or U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have notified these water purveyors that there is a perceived risk to New Jersey groundwater quality stemming from operation of the former Philadelphia Refinery.

In general, water concerns remain the same between use of the site as a refinery and the proposed use. As part of the Act 2 process, groundwater quality must be investigated as well as migration of and risks associated with the contaminants identified. The groundwater beneath the site is not allowed to be used for any potable (human consumption) or industrial use; therefore, the direct exposure to groundwater through these pathways is not identified as a concern. Potential vapor intrusion, or vapors migrating from the groundwater into indoor structures, is being evaluated as part of the investigation process. The proposed redevelopment may increase site elevation, due to the need for added grade for construction, which may help address potential concerns about floodwaters interacting with impacted soils. The remaining pathway to be evaluated is the interaction of groundwater with surface water in the Schuylkill River. The results of the evaluation of this pathway will be presented in a Site-Wide Fate and Transport Remedial Investigation Report. The findings in this report, along with the completion of the Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment, will determine if additional cleanup measures for groundwater are needed, which will be presented in the Act 2 Clean-up Plan.

Information from the remedial investigation activities do not indicate that there is any risk to indoor or outside air in offsite properties from benzene in groundwater originating from the former Philadelphia Refinery. Evaluation of vapors to indoor and outdoor air from a dissolved plume beneath the subsurface is part of the evaluation required by Act 2.  That evaluation will be included in future Act 2 reports to be submitted upon completion of all Remedial Investigation Reports.  Please note that the slide being referenced shows refinery data as well as data collected from other nearby Act 2 sites.  Plumes originating from other Act 2 sites are evaluated by the appropriate responsible parties who are remediating those Sites.

The water table and lower aquifers are not utilized as sources of potable water in proximity to the Site. As a part of the investigations, Evergreen conducted a well search within a one-mile radius of the Site using Pennsylvania’s Groundwater Information System (PaGWIS) and PADEP’s eMapPA GIS mapping tool. Results of the search, which included field reconnaissance, indicated a low probability for potable water supply wells in the area.

The fate and transport analysis for the lower aquifer will be performed once the Remedial Investigation Reports for AOI 4 and AOI 9 have been approved.  Areas beneath the Site where connections exist between the lower aquifer and water table aquifer are less extensive than the areas where we have that important clay layer present. The cross section shown during the August 2020 Public Information Session was just one example from the site model that straddles the Schuylkill River where the aquitard is interpreted to be missing. Other cross sections show the continuity of that clay layer. Even where the aquitard is missing, it does not necessarily mean that water and contaminants will move down into the deeper aquifer. That potential has to do with pressure gradients that the model can simulate. The fate and transport model will simulate future scenarios based upon current conditions.

It is noted that the fate and transport analysis will include mapping of the middle clay unit aquitard. Water quality in the lower aquifer is monitored through routine sampling of groundwater from approximately 80 wells, and to date significant contamination has not been observed in the lower aquifer beneath the Site. Considering the aging and degrading petroleum sources in the water table from historic Sunoco sources, we do not expect groundwater hydrocarbon plumes to expand under current groundwater conditions.

There were both an AOI 11 Remedial Investigation Report and a Final Report that were submitted. Both were disapproved solely for the fate and transport analysis that was included in the reports. The remedial investigation portion of those reports were acceptable. Note that before we started a site wide model concept, each of the AOI reports had separate individual models completed, and we have since updated that approach.  Because the only disapproval aspects for the AOI 11 reports were based on the fate and transport, in subsequent discussions with PADEP, we decided that the next phase of reporting for AOI 11 would be in the site-wide Fate and Transport RI report. Also note that AOI 11 has been monitored continually and data reported for AOI 11 in other AOI RIRs.

Per the 2020 First Amendment to Consent Order and Agreement, the Fate and Transport Remedial Investigation Report is due by December 31, 2021 and a Final Report for Sitewide Groundwater is due by December 31, 2024.

Remedial Investigation Reports must include delineation of contamination of soil and groundwater to be approved.  Soil impacts have been delineated across the Site and up to the fence lines, meaning soils impacts are not shown to extend offsite.  The RIRs for AOI-4 and AOI-9 were not approved due to need for additional offsite delineation of groundwater impacts.  Offsite wells have been installed beyond the property boundaries of both AOIs 4 and 9.  Results will be presented in Remedial Investigation Report Addendums.  Note that the presentation graphics from the August 27^th Public Information Session included the offsite data collected up to the time of the presentation, including new offsite wells.  Additional data has been collected since the presentation for the AOI-4 offsite wells and will also be included in the AOI 4 RIR Addendum.  Both AOI 4 RIR and AOI 9 RIR Addendums must be submitted by September 2021 to meet interim goals outlined in the First Amendment to Consent Order and Agreement. 

The refinery contamination sources discussed during the public information session are not expected to impact local drinking water supplies obtained by the City from the Delaware and Schuylkill Rivers.

The benzene graphic was modified to simplify the presentation and to depict where benzene is predicted to be present above the Statewide Health Standard in the water table. The purple arrows were drawn to denote other offsite properties that are active in Pennsylvania’s Act 2 program that have benzene sources in groundwater. These include the Philadelphia Gas Works (PGW) Passyunk Facility, Belmont Terminal, and the former Defense Supply Center Philadelphia (DSCP). The residential area between I-76 and the PGW facility includes monitoring wells installed by PGW to characterize groundwater conditions. Cleanup in any area under Act 2 would be the responsibility of the party that released the contaminants.

As a part of the investigations, Evergreen conducted a well search including field reconnaissance within a one-mile radius of the Site using Pennsylvania’s Groundwater Information System (PaGWIS) and PADEP’s eMapPA GIS mapping tool. Search results did not identify potable water supply wells in the area. We also conducted a search of surface water intakes from the Schuylkill River within one mile of the Site, and the Philadelphia Water Department did not identify any surface water intake portals within one mile in its 2010 “Schuylkill River Hydrology and Consumptive Use Report.” For reference, the search radius for potable groundwater or surface water is typically ¼ to ½ mile from a Site, but Evergreen completed a one-mile search as part of the remedial investigation activities for this Site.

That is correct.  There are multiple compounds that have been detected in groundwater above statewide health standards (SHSs) at the facility as reported in Remedial Investigation Reports (RIRs).  Methyl Tert-butyl Ether (MTBE), as well as other compounds, that are present above the SHS in groundwater will be evaluated in relation to remedial action in future Act 2 submittals, including Risk Assessment and Cleanup Plans. Some of the interim groundwater remedial systems currently address groundwater with impacts above the SHS, including MTBE, along Site boundaries. These systems along with other remedial measures will be evaluated in future Act 2 submittals.

As presented in the Remedial Investigation Reports, the lower aquifer (AOI 11) has been investigated during all the other AOI investigations completed since 2013 and the results were reported in the individual Remedial Investigation Reports. The concentrations found in the deep aquifer do not indicate a potential risk to communities in New Jersey, so no cleanup is anticipated as being necessary. The projected fate and transport of contaminants in the deep aquifer will be included in the Fate and Transport Remedial Investigation Report, which is anticipated for submittal by the end of 2021.  Upon completion of the modeling, it will be confirmed whether any remedial action is necessary or not in the lower aquifer.

The direction and rates of groundwater flow are evaluated frequently at the site and groundwater samples collected routinely from various hydrogeologic units beneath the facility.  The Remedial Investigation activities also evaluated the areas where the confining layers in the subsurface were not continuous through the completion of soil borings, installation of monitoring wells, collection of groundwater samples, groundwater elevations and completion of aquifer tests to determine hydraulic properties of the groundwater units.  These data will be used for the upcoming evaluation of contaminant movement in the fate and transport evaluation through the use of a 3-dimensional numerical model which will be presented in the Fate and Transport Remedial Investigation Report.

The RIRs and figures presented during the Aug. 27, 2020, Public Information Session show the known extent of dissolved benzene on- and off-site. Evergreen will be including additional off-site groundwater information in the AOI 9 and AOI 4 RIR Addendums.  As addressed in other related comments, no off-site air impacts have been identified from off-site groundwater related to historic environmental impacts that Evergreen is evaluating under Act 2.  Evergreen has acknowledged the benzene due to on-site sources and identified that there are other neighboring, contaminated sites that are also contributing to the observed off-site site groundwater impacts.

Evergreen is responsible for subsurface petroleum impacts that existed prior to the sale of the facility to PES in 2012. The investigation of that historic contamination includes AOI-11, which is the lower aquifer beneath the facility. Evergreen will continue to address those pre-2012 impacts in the lower aquifer throughout the Act 2 process and AOI 11 will be included in Evergreen’s future Cleanup Plans, which are yet to be submitted for the site.

It should be noted that the NJDEP is routinely involved with groundwater investigations of the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer (PRM) due to sources of contamination located in New Jersey that are not related to impacts in AOI 11 beneath the former refinery. There has been no demonstrated connection between groundwater impacts in AOI 11 due to past refinery operations and the PRM groundwater quality in New Jersey. However, this will be verified through future fate and transport modeling efforts.

In addition, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection has provided the following information: “At this time NJDEP believes the existing hydrogeologic, geologic and water quality data indicate any contaminants that may be in the subsurface at the PES refinery in Philadelphia do not pose a threat to water supply wells in the PRM aquifer system in NJ. At this time NJDEP does not consider PFAS contamination at the former Philadelphia Refinery to be a threat to NJ via a flow path through the lower PRM aquifer. This is based on several lines of reasoning:
1) The lower PRM is the water table aquifer at the site and is very shallow under the Delaware River. We consider the Delaware River to be recharging this aquifer. As such, it is likely a recharge boundary to any contaminants that might be entering it on the Pa side. Studies conducted in the PRM aquifer system within New Jersey indicate that the Delaware River acts as a significant hydraulic flow boundary limiting any groundwater source area from extending to the Pennsylvania side of the Delaware River. More information is in Pope and Watt, 2005 (https://secure-web.cisco.com/1QNK4DBcOrtQ0JjsHbl5b79X05rdft7c469uiTdKulpe4LmzQdI8DlVAwc-Qfit5xZaOSyf8SmyCazeksgma0yviIb0WmR8GYHAJLHKJThyiEmd-S9Kukws7fqcy65mV6TVrzjNGv3EvgDHo6ts71tPnEJ9cIeg8HRzRtzixilAKwb8XKUi00oRHePni3O3a9Q_CAyKJ5wQeQO1W4tOCje24nrJ9l3RlrD_3WC-WwX4tiqhANiSdZIxwY6QeRnvadbOQl6Zakw7WvFnBYJUyUdw/https%3A%2F%2Fpubs.er.usgs.gov%2Fpublication%2Fsir20045101) and Navoy and Carleton, 1995 (https://secure-web.cisco.com/14SrVjTcT2kOO14dfWEDsnY2-F6ono0r1v3EBQ0zBDvYkIY7PlRyyQAGvGwEo-HCBN-Lk-2GJah_eUPLTO2eVp4LfSNHdLg0KltKTXRShNCxzwD7lm8uJ_-iKknmChzbBFz8mmsC8EJgHzGEAQO5NYVK7We9_p5RFVEoCDgvlfv9-6CrS1-2t4mu4XN5v1NxooG3KVIaAWpoWFVv4r9n_QX_8lukx4zSvoKOj4x_0Rbc9JcMPRE6aLaMGXYAk-9-Tkxj1HeibFrTB1uPpSZ30GA/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.state.nj.us%2Fdep%2Fnjgs%2Fpricelst%2Fgsreport%2Fgsr38.pdf).
2) That the Delaware River acts as a recharge boundary is supported by aquifer tests in NJ conducted in the lower PRM close to the river. These tests show significant leakage which would not occur if the Delaware River was not a recharge boundary.
3) NJDEP delineated well head protection areas for unconfined wells within the Potomac using the methods detailed in Spayd and Johnson, 2003, available at https://secure-web.cisco.com/1azAbsv8HMFq0INHE6kb7P-2gon-zhCTNtpOtbPp5cpzHbNygIhgHFWqQMNaeG5RXaLLrTkicXc-TEg6qbExHCUX6yNJ2I3BmzKv61RrqPBmvTVqgsNPcKZb6Bp-KxZv7E3EFpXppbe76BGvyvQWuNxZPSPe4qqlQQjt3W-thgf9hMBQAvqe-o9X0J3bmDtAG0ctemEGHLSGEOvynvkJjXOJu3KyMHtTMhXQeD1ZHgcrb0CDtxcni5O1G8K6VeMySpEf6WILwNBWPbTY5BJn0qQ/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.state.nj.us%2Fdep%2Fnjgs%2Fpricelst%2Fofreport%2Fofr03-1.pdf. These calculated areas represent the source areas to wells based on three time of travel intervals of 2, 5 and 12 years. The delineated source areas indicate that no wells completed within the Potomac Formation in NJ have well head protection areas which extend into Pennsylvania.
4) Reported water quality data (https://secure-web.cisco.com/17_sg7vCSGdmSn5p4EO7KLlLD3G3QlM6urSdbDChJjvcaN-__mNiUOLS-w9wTQpzoJlfeLgzqnliioZik_WFqDcD_dDEgg9HusX3Fii9608-74LtQiHsYzT8dMW_BpF96-K2aXrGt7zOTkzP7zQnhfFIcYQO1ALaSuDl3T3KRsoAlSnpAk1zszi9I9-lXCKJXicMuBIidT7KbGy9OEa9w__dAjRmhUEglexfL2lhmlHISnz96BWN6t4qMe0f7CF7VrRQn-adZaoJwzLi2uV3TfA/https%3A%2F%2Fwww9.state.nj.us%2FDEP_WaterWatch_public%2F) indicate no contamination is present in supply wells for the National Park Water Department, which are the closest NJ supply wells to the Philadelphia Energy Solutions refinery. The refinery has been in operation for more than 100 years and it appears that no measurable contamination has migrated to these wells. All public supply wells in New Jersey are required to monitor and report water quality data quarterly therefore any potential contaminants would be identified.”

Evergreen is responsible only for the historic contamination that exists below the surface in soil and groundwater at the Site. We are in the process of finishing the investigation activities at the site to identify the extent of the chemicals in soil and groundwater, so we can develop a remediation (cleanup) plan for the site. At various steps in the process, reports will be written, public meetings will be held for the Act 2 reports and information will be posted to the website created for the Act 2 process (https://phillyrefinerycleanup.info). Evergreen will make additional notifications before any additional final cleanup activities specified in the cleanup plans begin.

Hilco Redevelopment Partners plans to redevelop the site into a multi-modal logistics hub and does not plan to operate the site as a refinery. As part of their outreach activities, more information will be provided by Hilco Redevelopment Partners for specific future site uses as their redevelopment process continues. Evergreen will continue to communicate and work jointly with Hilco Redevelopment Partners so that our investigation and cleanup activities can continue during their redevelopment.  Hilco has made outreach to the community with updates on progress at the site. This will continue throughout the life cycle of the development.

Evergreen will continue to communicate and work with Hilco Redevelopment Partners during their redevelopment so that our investigation and remediation (cleanup of the historic contamination) can continue during their redevelopment activities. Evergreen’s cleanup plan, which will address contamination in soil and groundwater existing up to the date of the sale of the facility to PES in 2012, is being completed under the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection’s (PADEP’s) Act 2 program and tank program, as well as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act program.

The question was also provided to Hilco Redevelopment Partners, who provided the following response: Hilco Redevelopment Partners is responsible for remediation at focused areas of the site where contamination occurred after September 2012.  As Hilco Redevelopment Partners enters areas of the site into the Act 2 regulatory process, it will conduct Act 2 public involvement activities related to those specific remediation areas.  Hilco Redevelopment Partners has also been conducting separate public outreach to inform the community about its redevelopment plans.

The off-site impacts are described in the Remedial Investigation Reports and two Areas of Investigation (AOIs), AOI 4 and AOI 9, have completed additional investigation activities to delineate off-site impacts.  As part of developing future Cleanup Plans for the site, several remedial options will be evaluated, including exposure barriers which may be necessary on-site.  Exposure barriers are a general term and may include remedial options such as capping (to eliminate any direct contact exposure to soil) and vapor barriers (to eliminate any exposure to vapors in a building).  Although Evergreen has not developed any Cleanup Plans yet, it is anticipated that exposure barriers will be one of the remedial options that will be considered in accordance with the PADEP’s capping guidance.  The effects of sea-level rise and/or flooding will be evaluated as part of the Cleanup Plans.

Evergreen is responsible for the remedial investigation and cleanup work that is the subject of this meeting and the August 27, 2020 meeting.  Specifically, Evergreen is responsible for former Sunoco releases/liabilities that occurred prior to September 2012. Hilco Redevelopment Partners and Evergreen are working together during the site development to ensure that Evergreen’s remediation activities continue without disruption, and to coordinate where the development activities need to be considered in developing the remedial plan (for example, placement of vapor barriers in future buildings to address potential vapor migration/exposure).

The question was also provided to Hilco Redevelopment Partners, who provided the following response: Hilco Redevelopment Partners is responsible for remediation at focused areas of the site where contamination occurred after September 2012.  As Hilco Redevelopment Partners enters these areas into the Act 2 regulatory process, it will conduct Act 2 public involvement activities related to those specific remediation areas.  Hilco Redevelopment Partners has also been conducting separate public outreach to inform the community about its redevelopment plans.  Hilco Redevelopment Partners continually engages with the community through public meetings quarterly, through Social Media channels, and through the office of corporate affairs. If you have any questions that are not answered please contact: jsessoms@hilcoglobal.com

Hilco Redevelopment Partners is not involved in Evergreen’s Act 2 program at the site.  Hilco Redevelopment Partners will have their own remediation program to manage focused areas where contamination occurred after September 2012; however, the two programs are separate.  Evergreen and Hilco Redevelopment Partners will work together to limit disruptions of Evergreen’s remediation program during the development activities.

It is Evergreen’s understanding that there is no planned development for AOI-10 West Yard.

The remedial investigations performed to date sought to characterize the facility’s current and past conditions, delineate petroleum contamination, and form a basis for making predictions of future conditions. Evergreen recognizes that changes to climate are predicted to occur and may impact the facility in the future, and that these changes should be evaluated within the timeframe of the Act 2 remediation.

The question was also provided to Hilco Redevelopment Partners, who provided the following response: Hilco Redevelopment Partners has plans for significant earth work to raise ground surface elevations in areas potentially vulnerable to flooding.  Approximately 4 million cubic yards will be moved in order to raise the ground surface elevations on the portion of the Property east of the Schuylkill River above base flood elevations.  Some of the ground surface elevations at the Property are currently below base flood elevations while other areas are above base flood elevations.  Hilco Redevelopment Partners will move soils from locations with higher ground surface elevations to areas with lower ground surface elevations so that the final grades for all areas of the site east of the Schuylkill River achieve the design standard of being above the base flood elevation (BFE) as established by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.  Specifically, all parking lots will be above the BFE and all building floor slabs will be more than 4 feet above the BFE.  All building floor slabs will also be above the 500-year floodplain.  None of the soils that are moved as part of the regrading process will be placed in areas below the groundwater table.  Hilco Redevelopment Partners is raising elevations above and beyond what is required by statute and regulations to take resiliency and climate change into account.

Evergreen is in direct communication with Hilco regarding our activities and how that may impact their planned site activities. Evergreen has shared, and plans to continue to share, all data with Hilco.

What is built at the property is not determined by Evergreen; however, the future use of the site must remain non-residential.

Site improvements such as this are  being conducted by the property owner, Hilco Redevelopment Partners, as part of their redevelopment activities. However, we have added you to Evergreen’s email list for future notices regarding legacy remediation (any person submitting a comment or question has been added to the distribution list for future communications).

Any site improvements are being conducted by the property owner, Hilco Redevelopment Partners, as part of its redevelopment activities.

Evergreen provided this question to Hilco Redevelopment Partners, who provided the following response: We have partnered with a best in class demolition contractor who has a great deal of experience demolishing refineries and a strong presence in Philadelphia.  They will be implementing an extensive dust mitigation plan and will be working with all appropriate agencies and stakeholders throughout the duration of the project.  Every project that we undertake provides lessons learned that we apply to other projects.   The demolition in Chicago was conducted according to plan but resulted in dust unintentionally migrating off site.  No one was injured, HRP took immediate action to address concerns of community members, and independent testing of the dust by the Chicago Department of Public Health and the United States Environmental Protection Agency revealed it poses “no apparent health risk to the surrounding community.”  HRP is proud of its successful history of redevelopment and renewal.

Evergreen provided this question to Hilco Redevelopment Partners, who provided the following response: Some trucks should be on site assisting HRP in transforming the site. We have a security check point that everyone must register and produce identification.

Evergreen provided this question to Hilco Redevelopment Partners, who provided the following response: Approximately 30,000 tons of Asbestos Containing Material (ACM) will be safely abated and disposed of in close coordination with the City of Philadelphia and other regulatory agencies such as PaDEP, USEPA, OSHA etc. and per all applicable standards and regulations.

Since Sunoco no longer owns or operates the Site, any OSHA inspections should be coordinated with the new site owner, Hilco.

All site wells are gauged, but only those reporting LNAPL were used to create Slide 32.  The LNAPL bodies shown during the presentation were drawn using observations from wells screened across the water table (i.e. shallow wells). No deep or lower aquifer wells were used.

GHD is one of several environmental consulting firms contracted by Evergreen to work on Sunoco’s legacy remediation at the Philadelphia refinery.

Evergreen is in the process of finishing the investigation activities at the former Philadelphia Refinery to identify the extent of the chemicals in soil and groundwater, in order to develop a remediation (cleanup) plan for the site.  At various steps in the process, Evergreen will prepare reports and hold public meetings on Act 2 reports, and we will post information to the website created for the Act 2 process (https://phillyrefinerycleanup.info). Evergreen will make additional notifications before beginning any additional final cleanup activities consistent with future cleanup plans approved by PADEP.

Sunoco is responsible for cleaning up soil and water contamination generated prior to the sale of the facility in September 2012. Evergreen is managing this cleanup.

The ability to calculate a site-specific standard (for any media) is a provision in the Act 2 regulations and is not the only one allowed, but is common practice and one of the three options for standards that can be applied to a site: Statewide Health, Background, or Site-Specific. Other non-residential sites can also calculate a Site Specific Standard if they choose to do so for their Act 2 projects.

This question was also provided to PADEP, to which the following response was provided:  “Pennsylvania’s Land Recycling and Environmental Remediation Standards Act (Act 2 of 1995) allows the remediator to select the type of cleanup standard they wish to use for the site. One option is the site-specific standard, and risk assessments are a means available to any remediator to attain that standard. Evergreen chose to use a risk assessment to determine a site-specific standard for direct contact exposures of people with lead in surface soil (upper 2 feet). With this approach they were able to use a more current scientific methodology from U.S. EPA to calculate a risk-based value. Remediators who do not perform a site-specific analysis will generally use the published Statewide health standard default cleanup values, but the site-specific standard option may be used by any remediator and it is not unique to this site.”

The PADEP calculated a new proposed direct contact standard based on the updated Adult Lead Model and updated exposure assumptions recommended by the USEPA, not to accommodate any specific site.

In general, where there are potentially off-site and/or on-site sources that may explain the presence of benzene, factors such as the respective products used at a site, release history and/or environmental conditions – such as geology and hydrogeology, which govern how those products behave in the subsurface – may assist in identifying a source. Where different releases on-site may explain the presence of benzene, factors such as when the release occurred, among other factors, may assist.

Evergreen is an indirect subsidiary of Energy Transfer.  Evergreen is fully capitalized to fund the remediation of the site.

Evergreen considered several factors in selecting consultants at this site including but not limited to a thorough evaluation of the consultants’ past experience at similar sites; for example, have they worked at refineries before and/or have they worked on petroleum sites before.

According to GHD, who administered the meeting on behalf of Evergreen, the raw data indicate an attendance of 493 people.  However, after eliminating duplicate logins, attendance by presenters/regulators, and those that connected via both phone and computer, etc., the final count was approximately 213 people.  This would not account for multiple people attending via single computer.

Transportation, storage, and disposal (TSD) facilities are regulated by the EPA under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) through which guidance on hazardous and non-hazardous waste has been developed.  Wastes that may be removed from the former refinery facility could go to various different regulated TSD facilities, which will be determined at the time based on the chemical composition and physical properties (determined by testing prior to removal from the facility).  Waste profiles, bills of lading or manifests, and/or disposal certificates are provided as documentation of wastes removed from the site and final destination.

This response addresses another similar question received: “If you remove contaminated soil, where will you place it so that it is not harming others?”

Radon is a naturally-occurring substance and is not known to be affiliated with refinery operations.  Radon or other radioactive substances have not been identified as compounds of concern (COCs) at the Site based on past operations or investigations; therefore, they have not been included in the Remedial Investigations.

That largely depends on a number of factors.  Data has been collected at the site for years for various reasons, whether it was in response to a particular release or general characterization of an area.  Most AOI investigations begin with compiling all known past data and historical information such as the particular use of an area, then coming up with a work plan for collection of new information.  After the work plan activities are completed, often additional data needs to be collected to delineate an area of impact (further define the contamination horizontally and vertically).  Gathering historic information and generating work plans can take months.  The duration of a field data collection effort depends mostly on the number of borings/wells to be installed and the amount of sampling to be conducted.  Tasks such as clearing locations for utilities prior to drilling and developing wells after installation and prior to sampling also takes time.  Large scale sampling efforts can take months to years.

PFAS had not been sampled during the Remedial Investigations as it was not included as a Contaminant of Concern.  However, as noted during public meetings, PADEP and Evergreen have had discussions regarding future sampling of these compounds.  A formal request was subsequently received from PADEP to sample remediation system effluents for PFAS compounds.  Upon receipt of data, results will be discussed with PADEP.

Note: other questions and comments have been posted on PFAS:

• 1) The PA Dept of Environmental Protection has added Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) to the recent regulations for contaminants—likely present in refineries, since they are used in firefighting foams. Indeed, other states such as Alaska, Michigan, Colorado and Wisconsin found PFAS contamination in refineries, and are requiring or undergoing remediation of those sites. The site should be tested for these contaminants and required to address the contamination.
• 2) The Site is a Significant Potential Source of PFAS to the Environment
• 3) It is important that public agencies at the state and city level ask more of Evergreen. Basic reporting, as required by state law, is not sufficient for this site. PFAS, for example, are likely highly concentrated here due to firefighting on site. I support the specific reporting measures recommended by the Clean Air Council in Mr. Minott’s op ed in The Inquirer this morning (January 13). This would be a big step forward.
• 4) Regarding the F&T model, are PFAS compounds going to be included in the model? A model in 2001 showed that groundwater does flow from beneath the refinery to parts of New Jersey, so we wanted to know if PFAS compounds, especially PFOA, PFOS and PFNA, are going to be sampled and included in the modeling?
• 5) Applicable Guidelines Require PFAS Investigation
• 6) The PES Site should be required to sample for PFAS using appropriate EPA Method 537 methodologies in shallow and deep groundwater and surface water and soil consistent with EPA and PADEP requirements. The Site has experienced multiple releases of AFFF, a product known to contain PFAS, and the lower aquifer beneath the Site, the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy (“PRM”) aquifer system, is a major source of drinking water in New Jersey. **The report prepared by EPA’s contractor, Skeo Solutions, Inc., acknowledges that contamination in the lower aquifer could migrate offsite and affect the water supply for parts of New Jersey. EPA’s policy, Interim Recommendations to Address Groundwater Contaminated with PFOA and PFOS, sets a preliminary remediation goal of 70 ppt for PFOA and PFOS in groundwater that is a current or potential source of drinking water. The Pennsylvania Act 2 program uses the EPA PFOA and PFOS Lifetime Drinking Water Health Advisory Level of 70 ppt as the groundwater medium specific concentration (“MSC”). New Jersey, where drinking water supplies may be impacted, has established an MCL of 14 ppt for PFOA, 13 ppt for PFOS, and 13 ppt for PFNA.
  • • **The question above notes The report prepared by EPA’s contractor, Skeo Solutions, Inc., acknowledges that contamination in the lower aquifer could migrate offsite and affect the water supply for parts of New Jersey. Skeo’s report noted “The refinery’s pollution may affect an area of underground water (i.e. an aquifer) used by the state of New Jersey for drinking water”.  That statement is accurate in that an aquifer exists beneath both the former refinery and parts of New Jersey, and Evergreen has acknowledged impact in the lower aquifer beneath the former refinery.  However, it is highly unlikely that contamination sourced at the refinery could migrate into New Jersey.  We have also noted that until a chemical fate and transport model can be completed, this cannot be confirmed.

Evergreen is not aware of any ongoing litigation involving 26^th Street. Evergreen currently manages remediation at the property boundary along 26^th street.

Evergreen’s role here is very specific as it relates to environmental remediation of subsurface contamination at the former refinery site through 2012, when Sunoco sold the refinery, as required by Act 2. We are following all appropriate regulations to carry out this remediation work, including attempting to engage the public throughout the process.  However, Evergreen has recently engaged a Community Engagement Consultant to assist us in developing an outreach and engagement plan with the community to further develop our outreach efforts including communication with community members on their concerns and interests.

Evergreen is not aware of who at the City may review the Act 2 reports. Our Act 2 reports must be reviewed by both DEP and EPA for approval, not the City.  Nonetheless, the City is engaged in the public involvement process.

In 2006, Sunoco voluntarily entered the site into Act 2 and Evergreen, since 2013, has been managing the legacy (pre-sale in 2012) site investigation and remediation.  PES/Hilco are separately managing post-sale in 2012 releases. Both Evergreen and Hilco separately report to the PADEP on their respective efforts. Sunoco, PES and PADEP entered into a Consent Order & Agreement (CO&A) in 2012 and an amendment in 2020 setting forth their respective obligations.  PADEP consent orders are public information and the CO&A is posted to Evergreen’s website.

The extension to the cleanup deadline was agreed by Sunoco and the PADEP in the CO&A amendment in 2020 because of bankruptcy of PES and impending acquisition of the property by Hilco, which included a substantial and material change in the use of the site. Evergreen must coordinate its Act 2 timeline with Hilco’s redevelopment timeline, which is expected to be approximately 10 years. The planned future use of the site (including, for example, the locations and construction details of buildings) must be known before generating Cleanup Plans.

There has been no direct sampling conducted by Evergreen in the Schuylkill River. An ecological risk assessment has been completed, which evaluated site conditions in relation to the surface water and sediment in the Schuylkill River. This will be submitted after the RIRs are approved in accordance with the Act 2 requirements. Going forward, the groundwater model, which includes a surface water model that is completed in conjunction with the fate and transport model, will predict potential future impacts to the river. Predictive modeling is generally used in lieu of sampling because the Schuylkill River goes through industrial areas and it becomes difficult to discern what contaminants are present and from what party. Therefore, these water and sediment concentrations are predicted through direct modeling from concentrations found on site.

Skeo has not asked Evergreen any specific questions about the RIRs. Evergreen has reviewed the Q&A that was part of Skeo’s report and has included any questions that were included in Skeo’s report that were not subsequently asked to Evergreen, as described in Section 1.0.

Act 2 is a voluntary cleanup program.  However, Sunoco is obligated to cleanup the legacy contamination under the Act 2 cleanup program through enforceable legal agreements signed with PADEP, and Evergreen completes the cleanup on Sunoco’s behalf.  Therefore, Evergreen’s participation is not voluntary nor does Evergreen characterize the remediation project as voluntary.

The 2004 Current Conditions Report is not an Act 2 document, nor are the documents referenced in that report.  However, many available documents referenced in Appendix A of the Current Conditions Report are posted on the for reference.

There will be a combination of statewide health and site-specific standards at this site. The lead site specific standard calculated for the Site utilized the Adult Lead Model and the standard PADEP default assumptions. Use of the ALM resulted in a lead site specific standard that was higher than the statewide health standard, but protective of the human health. As the PADEP revises their standard assumptions for lead, Evergreen will modify the lead Site Specific Standard accordingly. Although not proposed at this time, if site specific standards are developed for other chemicals, the process will use site specific conditions as inputs to the calculations, so they will be protective of the population that encounters the soils at the site. If the pathway elimination option under the Act 2 Site Specific Standard is used at the Site, a new standard will not be calculated but the Cleanup Plan and Final Report will document how the entire pathway is eliminated.

The site was tested for a complete list of metals as part of the 1992 EPA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Facility Investigation, and none of these metals – with the exception of lead –were identified as contaminants of concern. The 1992 report is posted on the Evergreen website for reference. The current analyte list (21 compounds) utilized for the Act 2 program at the facility was developed after reviewing historic reports and data from the previous sampling efforts and in consideration of historic use of the site and the DEP analyte ‘short lists’ for various petroleum products. Evergreen’s current analyte list includes compounds indicative of the various petroleum products processed at the facility. In addition, both soil and groundwater samples from areas of the facility which historically stored and processed crude were sampled for a more comprehensive analyte list (48 compounds), which included other metals, VOCs, and SVOCs, as part of the Act 2 remedial investigation activities. These data have all been included in the RIRs. Other compounds have been analyzed in targeted areas based on past use, more complex forensic characterization, or other purposes. Ultimately, an Act 2 Final Report (where demonstration must be made that the selected remediation standards have been met) includes only those compounds that have been fully characterized.

Storm water will continue to be managed by the current owners/operators of the property, not Evergreen.  PFAS compounds are not currently part of Evergreen’s Act 2 program at the facility; however, Evergreen is developing a PFAS sampling program for subsurface conditions, not storm water.

Evergreen is an affiliate of Sunoco (R&M), LLC (formally known as Sunoco, Inc. (R&M), a former operator of the refinery), and both companies are indirect subsidiaries of Energy Transfer L.P.  In November 2013, Evergreen was formed to manage Sunoco’s legacy environmental cleanup at the Philadelphia Refinery.

Response also answers a similar question:

What is [Evergreen’s] relationship with Sunoco present-day?

The features related to petroleum operations that were included in Evergreen’s Act 2 or Chapter 245 (Tank Act) investigations are included in the figures in the RIRs, and the associated environmental impacts are summarized in these reports. Also note that operations have been shut down and we expect that most infrastructure will likely be removed as part of the redevelopment.

While the question is a bit open-ended and capable of multiple interpretations, we interpret this question to be generally inquiring about the ownership history of the two refineries. As specified on the website, Point Breeze (which includes AOIs 1, 2, 3 4, and 8) was formerly owned by Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) and purchased by Atlantic Refining & Marketing Company in 1985 and Sunoco subsequently purchased Atlantic in 1988. Girard Point (which includes AOIs 5, 6 and 7) was formerly owned by Chevron and was purchased by Sunoco in 1994. In 2012, the complex was transferred from Atlantic (as to Point Breeze) and Sunoco (as to Girard Point) to Philadelphia Energy Solutions (PES).

While the question is a bit open-ended, we interpret this question to be generally inquiring about Sunoco’s regulatory compliance with respect to tanks at the property. The environmental impacts at the tank farms have been evaluated two different ways as part of Evergreen’s activities. If there was a release or tank closure from a tank operated by Sunoco, an investigation was completed and reported following the Pennsylvania Tank Act regulations. The general areas of the tank farms were also evaluated following the Act 2 process. Many tank investigations are also included in the RIR documents. Tank closures and releases occurring after 2012 were dealt with by the current owner/operator.

Evergreen is an affiliate of Sunoco (R&M), LLC (formally known as Sunoco, Inc. (R&M), a former operator of the refinery), and both companies are indirect subsidiaries of Energy Transfer L.P.  In November 2013, Evergreen was formed to manage Sunoco’s legacy environmental cleanup at the Philadelphia Refinery. By legacy, we mean that Sunoco retained responsibility for remediating the subsurface conditions at the refinery that existed on Sept. 8, 2012, when the property was transferred to Philadelphia Energy Solutions.

Evergreen is responsible only for the historic (pre-2012) contamination that exists below the surface in soil and groundwater at the Site. Because of that, our work includes investigating and cleanup of the extent of contamination in the subsurface that existed before the sale of the facility from Sunoco to Philadelphia Energy Solutions (PES) in 2012.

Evergreen understands that Hilco Redevelopment Partners, the current owner, plans to redevelop the site and does not plan to operate the site as a refinery.  Hilco Redevelopment Partners’ work to decommission and demolish the refinery began in the summer of 2020.

Evergreen is responsible to cleanup legacy contamination, generated prior to September 2012.  Hilco Redevelopment Partners (HRP) is responsible to cleanup recent contamination, generated after September 2012.

When the facility was sold to PES in 2012, Sunoco had a good understanding of the nature and extent of contamination at the facility. After the sale of the property, if changes in the contaminant profile on-site occurred, or known spills happened, the resulting cleanup became PES’ responsibility. In some instances, new contamination co-exists with old contamination, and the responsibility is shared.

Similar to our understanding of LNAPL, multiple lines of data are used to help support our understanding of what’s historic and what’s more recent. Looking at stable isotope chemistry of different elements like carbon and hydrogen and looking at trends (how contaminant concentrations change through time) are examples of some of the tools that are planned to applied for the Site.

Act 2 requires that the Remedial Investigation Report defines the extent of contamination, including beyond the property boundaries.  Two of the RIRs were not approved for that reason, which is why they required additional offsite work to further define the full extent of contamination in those areas.  Any entity causing a release is responsible for the investigation and remediation of that release.

The June 2019 fire at the PES facility does not relate to Evergreen’s Act 2 submittals or public involvement plan.  Since Atlantic/Sunoco purchased the refinery, there have been 21 Act 2 reports submitted and, at the time of each submission (as well as at the time of each of three Notices of Intent to Remediate (NIR) submitted for the property), a letter was sent to the City of Philadelphia and notices appeared in a local newspaper informing the public of each submittal and their opportunity to comment on the submittals. In August 2018, DEP requested that Evergreen revisit the previous public involvement plan with the City of Philadelphia. After a meeting with DEP, EPA and City officials in November 2018, Evergreen began developing the www.phillyrefinerycleanup.info website in preparation for a public meeting. The fire at PES’ facility occurred after this effort was underway, in June of 2019. At that time, Evergreen suggested opening the website prior to announcing a date for a legacy remediation public meeting to allow the agencies to share the website to aid in answering questions that were being posed about Sunoco’s legacy remediation program.

Sunoco submitted a public notice at the time of the Notice of Intent to Remediate (NIR) that started the Act 2 process, and similarly when the NIR was updated two times afterwards. In addition, Sunoco/Evergreen completed public notice when each of the 21 Act 2 reports were submitted to the PADEP. Evergreen also held a public meeting in 2006, during the early stages of the Act 2 activities at the Site, and remains committed to continuing public participation as part of the public involvement plan. This has included and will continue to include additional public meetings.

Evergreen was disappointed that entrances were blocked at the planned meeting on Nov. 7, 2019, preventing members of the community and agency officials from engaging in a discussion about the environmental condition of the refinery property. Evergreen views the public engagement process for the site as ongoing, as comments and questions from the public have been collected since the attempted meeting which involve future activities.  Note that since this question was initially asked, Evergreen has hosted Public Information Sessions on Aug. 27, 2020, and Jan. 14, 2020.  Another session is planned for March 31, 2021.

Evergreen is unaware of the exact reason the meeting was blocked by certain members of the public. The purpose of that meeting was to initiate public involvement by introducing who Evergreen is, provide a summary of the work that has been completed at the site to date, and discuss Evergreen’s future activities. Evergreen held a virtual meeting on August 27, 2020 for the same purpose.

We appreciate that you have taken the time to look at the Evergreen website. The intent of the website is to be a central location that contains environmental reports for the site, a summary of questions and comments, and news about upcoming events. We are continually updating the website with new information. The postcard was part of Evergreen’s overall outreach plan to the community and we welcome any comments you have on the site and the proposed cleanup process.

Evergreen has offered to community groups, such as Philly Thrive, to meet in smaller group settings to answer questions concerning the Site. Evergreen will work with the community to develop the best format to engage in smaller group settings as part of the Act 2 process.

Evergreen is evaluating how the future virtual public information session can be structured to allow for live Q&A that will allow for as many people as possible to have their questions answers.

Evergreen is in the process of receiving questions from the public concerning the approved Remedial Investigation Reports. These reports will be revised if new information is found concerning the conclusions of the Remedial Investigation Reports. The comments received during this phase will also inform the future Act 2 phases, which have yet to occur at the site. These include the Fate and Transport, Risk Assessment, and Cleanup Plan phases.

Note that this question was also forwarded to DEP for response. DEP’s response was: “You are correct that public participation should occur throughout the Act 2 process and not after reports have already been approved. Unfortunately, there was a lapse in the administration of the public involvement requirements for this project, and this is the reason the previously approved reports were “reopened” for 120 days to provide for public comment now. Based on the comments submitted, additional environmental work may be required, and the reports may need to be revised. At a minimum, Act 2 requires public access to documents, a public meeting, opportunities for public comment, and responses to those comments from the remediator. Two-way communications (submittal of questions, concerns, and suggestions by the public and responses to those comments by the remediator) is central to public involvement. Act 2 does not mandate, nor does it enable DEP to require, additional public involvement actions. However, because of the size, duration, and complexity of the Philadelphia Refinery cleanup project, Evergreen has agreed to implement several other community involvement measures. They are also planning small group meetings which would allow for two-way consultation between Evergreen and the community. The public involvement activities must continue for the entirely of the Act 2 process.

DEP has also provided input on their guidance with respect to the public’s role in Act 2 reports as provided here: “Act 2 and our regulations and guidance describe several measures “to involve the public in the development and review” of reports, some of which are required. The intent of these measures is to collect comments, suggestions, concerns, and questions on the Act 2 work. The remediator’s responses to this input may result in revisions to the report, and in this manner the public influences the development of the report. The public is not just on the receiving end, but it’s correct that the primary public role is to comment on the work being done. Those comments can impact both the remediator’s actions and also DEP’s technical review and decision to approve the report.”

Remedial Investigation Reports do not get updated once approved.  Once RIRs are completed and approved, other reports are submitted with additional information, activities, and updates in the Act 2 process.  Evergreen has multiple reports planned for 2021 and will provide a draft schedule on the website of upcoming reports.  We have also provided copies of the semi-annual update reports on the website, which are not Act 2 submittals, but provide a routine update on remediation activities at the facility.  The public can ask questions in writing via email, mail correspondence to our PO Box, or ask them live during meetings.  In addition, Evergreen is currently planning smaller group meetings in the future which may make communication easier.

The presentation and other key documents have been posted to the website in three additional languages (Chinese, Vietnamese and Spanish), which are the three next most commonly spoken languages in the Philadelphia region.  The website has also been modified to include a translation button on each page for translation of Q&A and other website information.

DEP requested Evergreen to re-open the comment period for previously submitted Act 2 reports and provide a venue where the information contained in those reports would be presented to the public.  This was also echoed by the request from the City to begin and end the comment period with meetings about those previously submitted Act 2 reports.  Therefore, the Jan. 14, 2021 meeting included an open Q&A session to mark the end of the comment period for past characterization reports (where geology/hydrogeology, and characterization are the key elements).  Past comments from members of the community also requested that Evergreen provide more explanation about the content of the Remedial Investigation Reports.

Evergreen also agrees that future meetings should be utilized to discuss future activities at the site.  Forthcoming reports are planned for future Act 2 phases – contaminant fate and transport, human health and ecological risk assessments, and site cleanup – which will each have its own comment period and small group meetings to discuss these and other community-requested topics.

With that said, the proposed reporting cannot proceed without first having completed the additional public review process for the remedial investigations.

Evergreen understands the community’s interest in the site and is committed to providing meaningful public involvement. Evergreen has reached out in many ways, beyond Act 2 requirements, to work with the public and identify the best and most productive ways to engage. Evergreen has already taken several actions to involve the public in meaningful ways as bulleted below. In addition to the items listed below, Evergreen plans to expand outreach/communication efforts throughout future Act 2 phases and reports and is engaging with the community in small groups to garner additional input on the best methods for future communication and engagement activities. Future meetings are already planned that can be used to discuss topics that are of particular interest to the public based on receipt of comments/questions to date. This may include the public involvement process, climate change, lower aquifer conditions, contaminant transport, site cleanup, etc. All of these activities are part of the development of an advisory process that is planned to be discussed in more detail during the March 31, 2021 public meeting.

Below are some examples of recent public engagement activities conducted by Evergreen:

Comprehensive Website: Evergreen created a website for the Philly Refinery remediation program, which offers full public access to the completed Act 2 reports, the PADEP comments to these reports, and supporting information and background. The reports have been posted on this site since it was opened in July 2019 and we have continued to supplement with additional background and presentations. The website also includes an area for the public to directly submit comments and questions; a full record of past questions and comments, along with Evergreen’s responses; the dates and logistics of upcoming events, including public meetings, report submittals, etc.; and email and U.S. mail addresses opened solely to accept public questions and comments.  This website will be updated continually and will provide an information hub for the public to access information about Evergreen’s activities at the facility. Hard Copy Mailer: Evergreen sent a hard copy mailer to all known addresses of residents and businesses within approximately one mile of the site in June 2020 to notify the public about Evergreen’s investigation and remediation activities, the availability of documents for public review, and the opportunity to ask questions and engage in dialogue with Evergreen. Meetings with Community Groups: Evergreen has met with Philly Thrive on a number of occasions since the initial meeting attempt in November 2019.  Philly Thrive members have provided insight into the community and Evergreen will continue to reach out to Philly Thrive and other local groups in an effort to reach other interested stakeholders.  Participation in Existing Community Advisory Panel: Evergreen will be available to discuss any legacy remediation activities with the existing Community Advisory Panel (CAP), which was initially created for the site by Sunoco to provide updates on environmental matters to the public. PES continued this CAP, and Evergreen provided PES with updates on remediation progress for use during the CAP meetings. Hilco Redevelopment Partners has also continued this CAP, which serves as an open forum for discussion with community stakeholders. Plain Language Summaries:  Due to the technical nature of the Act 2 process, the reports include a lot of technical terms, concepts and acronyms. Evergreen has created plain-language summaries for the Act 2 reports, as well as a plain-language summary to assist in the public’s review of these documents. Evergreen will continue to include plain-language summaries along with all future Act 2 submittals. Translation of Documents: Evergreen has provided translations of the plain-language summaries as well as the presentation given during the Aug. 27, 2020, public information session into Chinese, Spanish and Vietnamese, since these represent the next three most common languages spoken by community members surrounding the former Philadelphia Refinery (in addition to English). Local Library Access: Act 2 reports are also available at two local library branches, noted on the website, along with all other Act 2 documents.  All future reports will be added to the library as well. Public Information Sessions: Evergreen hosted a virtual Public Information Session on August 27, 2020 to provide the public with an overview of the investigation and remediation program to date at the facility. This meeting provided a summary of all Act 2 reports submitted since the site entered the Act 2 program  in 2006. This meeting marked the beginning of an additional 120-day review period for each report, as each report had a public notice and comment period at the time of their submittal and before their review by the PADEP.  The end of the review period was marked with a second meeting on January 28, 2021 where commonly asked questions were reviewed, and an open question and answer period was conducted. Email Blasts: Evergreen has worked with the City of Philadelphia, regulators and community leaders to create an email distribution list for individuals, civic groups and local businesses who may be interested in the Act 2 process at the site. Any person submitting a question or comment is added to this list for future communication. Email notifications have been, and will continue to be, sent to this distribution list in advance of public meetings and report submittals. People receiving these notifications are encouraged to share them with others who may also be interested in the process.

The reports Evergreen is required to submit to regulators are inherently long and technical due to their specific requirements as related to the site’s history, size and complexity. Reports must include the incorporation of not just current data, but all historic data with back-up documentation for all referenced activities and interpretation in the reports.  While the reports have always been accessible to the public, Evergreen created the website to make them even more accessible, in addition to developing plain-language summaries and translating them into multiple languages indicative of Philadelphia’s demographics, which is not required by Act 2.

While the content and general format of the Act 2 reports themselves remain constant, Evergreen is interested in hearing ideas about other ways to provide digestible information to the public, in addition to the plain-language summaries and visual presentations made available from past public information sessions.  Evergreen also plans to create a page on the website for a calendar and project updates to provide more timely updates on Evergreen’s site activities, since the time between Act 2 reports is often long.

The Microsoft Teams Live format was selected to ensure that as many people as possible could see the presentation and participate. Other meeting platforms, like Zoom, have caps on attendance, and we knew that there was potentially a significant interest in the first meeting.  We chose a platform that had a higher capacity to allow as many people as possible to attend and view the information.

We also chose this specific Q&A format to allow for as many questions as possible to be asked. Taking verbal questions following our presentation would have limited the total number of questions taken.

While many of us use virtual platforms for small group meetings, this type of large group event (the Aug. 27, 2020, event had well over 100 attendees) is not typical for us.  As we have all likely experienced, even in small groups there can be issues with background noise and interruptions. We are open to suggestions on ways to improve future meetings in a way that maximizes the opportunity for participation. We also hope that we don’t need to do virtual meetings much longer!

With all of that said, we shifted the format of the Jan. 14, 2021, meeting slightly. We utilized the Zoom Webinar platform, to allow for administrators to open microphones individually for those that choose to state questions verbally. We also used the chat function to collect written questions.  The intent for this was to allow open dialog while still answering as many questions as possible.

Evergreen is open to discussing these topics with the public and is currently evaluating the most effective method of communication and engagement with all community members.  Evergreen cannot proceed through the Act 2 process (including cleanup plans) until the public comment process for the approved Remedial Investigation Reports and forthcoming addendums is completed; therefore, remedial approaches can be discussed only in general terms since completion of the remaining Act 2 phases is needed to have a more detailed discussion on these topics.

The first public information session held on Aug. 27, 2020, was designed to provide an overview of the technical information in the RIRs. It included discussion of questions and comments already received from the public, both on the reports and the Act 2 process in general. Evergreen is aware that the presentation went long and apologizes for any inconvenience, but intended to work in as many issues that were received from the community while also meeting all PADEP and City requirements for review of the information contained within the reports submitted to date.

Based on feedback received from the public such as this comment, and because the Jan. 14, 2021 meeting was held to close the comment period that was kicked off by Aug. 2020 meeting, the information session held in January included mostly time for Q&A with a short introduction in the beginning.  Future public meetings and other outreach efforts will include additional opportunities for open dialog with the communities during the meetings.

The Remedial Investigation Reports have been available at PADEP for the public for review since the time of their submittal. The reports have been posted to Evergreen’s website created for the refinery project since July 2019. The 120-day comment period consists of the time between the first Public Information Session, on Aug. 27, 2020, and the second Public Information Session on Jan. 14, 2021. The Public Comment Remedial Investigation Report submitted on March 31, 2021 includes the comments and questions received since the attempted meeting in November 2019, including the “120-day” comment period from August 2020 to January 2021.

Once the Public Comment RIR is accepted by the PADEP, Evergreen will then submit the Remedial Investigation Report Addendums to address reports that had not been approved by PADEP. These reports outline the nature and extent of contamination; they do not propose a final cleanup plan. The majority of the questions raised by the public concern topics that will be addressed in future reports and activities that cannot take place until remedial investigation is complete.

The required 120-day period, which will have actually been open for 14 months, since notice went out for the planned November 2019 meeting, is only for the Remedial Investigation Reports; the public will again have the opportunity to engage Evergreen concerning all future Act 2 phases, including Risk Assessment and Cleanup Plans. These two phases will encompass many of the questions and concerns that the public has provided to date.

Philly Thrive had previously requested removal of the 120-day comment period in August 2020, to which Evergreen provided the following responses:

• The 120-day timeframe was agreed to by the City, DEP and EPA.
• The CO&A entered between Sunoco and DEP includes deadlines for remediation progress, requiring that the Remedial Investigation reports be completed in order to move to the next phones of the Act 2 process. Evergreen cannot move forward with the Act 2 cleanup process without finalizing these reports.
• The previously submitted reports have been available for public review/comment for over a year and many public comments have already been received and addressed. The 120-day period being proposed is an extension of this overall review period.

DEP offered the following response to Philly Thrive’s request as well: “The duration of the public Comment period isn’t defined by Act 2 and DEP does not decide its length.  The public involvement plan was created by Evergreen with input from the city.  We have had several conversations with these parties and EPA concerning the public comment period, and we also participated in meetings with Thrive on this topic (in December 2019 and May 2020).  We understand that city representatives are satisfied with the 120-day period.  DEP considers 120-days to be appropriate considering that Act 2 documents have been available online since July 2019 and Evergreen has been accepting public comments snice November 2019.”

Evergreen is continually reviewing the Q&A to determine what updates are needed to be included in the Public Comment RIR. The Q&A webpage will be updated as any answers are updated as part of this process.  Also note that some questions/comments cannot be addressed fully as the subject matter may be part of future site activities and/or future Act 2 processes.

We are currently still developing the underlying flow model (this is the foundation of the model prior to inputting concentrations of contaminants of concern (COCs)). Later this summer we expect to be able to start making the model runs that will project the distance, direction and concentrations of compounds over time. Those projections must be calibrated to real site data. Incomplete models (or documents) that have not yet undergone internal review, peer review, or quality assurance/quality control measures will not be formally shared. Once the fate and transport model and associated report have been completed, the documents will be available for review. However, due to the complexity of the model for this project, Evergreen plans to review the model with the public prior to submittal, once the internal reviews are completed.

PADEP provided the following explanation of the concept of ‘development’ with respect to Act 2 documents and public involvement: “Act 2 and our regulations and guidance describe several measures “to involve the public in the development and review” of reports, some of which are required. The intent of these measures is to collect comments, suggestions, concerns, and questions on the Act 2 work. The remediator’s responses to this input may result in revisions to the report, and in this manner the public influences the development of the report. The public is not just on the receiving end, but it’s correct that the primary public role is to comment on the work being done. Those comments can impact both the remediator’s actions and also PADEP’s technical review and decision to approve the report.”

Evergreen did not directly involve neighborhood organizations in the process of deciding which community engagement consulting firm to hire. Evergreen drafted a Community Outreach Plan based on feedback from members of the public and from regulatory agencies in spring of 2020.  Evergreen also researched firms that had a successful engagement history on complex environmental sites nearby, including the Lower Darby Creek Superfund Site.  Evergreen selected the firm that it believed was most qualified to assist in carrying out the Community Outreach Plan and further develop and manage future outreach and engagement efforts. Hummingbird Firm was identified as the most qualified for several reasons. These include Hummingbird Firm’s:

• Extensive experience working with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, specifically on environmental cleanup projects
• Combination of technical expertise, legal background, and environmental science and engineering backgrounds
• Unbiased third-party position which is often effective in resolving issues and effectively addressing the concerns of those involved and/or impacted
• Experience working with nearby communities
• Extensive experience working on contaminated waste sites around the country and supporting communities at these sites through the design and implementation of public outreach and engagement programs
• Experience working with residents in contaminated communities to identify and understand their issues of concern regarding human health and the environment and developing information and risk communication programs designed to respond to these needs.

It is more accurate to say that the projects that we have worked on and communities that we have worked with are in Southwest Philadelphia. For the past 7 years, Marion Cox on our team has worked with several Philadelphia communities at the Lower Darby Creek Area Superfund Site. More specifically, the Lower Darby Creek Area Superfund Site [LDCA] is composed of 3 separate landfills that span a large geographic area.

• Clearview Landfill is the largest landfill that is a component part of the LDCA site. This is the landfill that Marion has worked on for 7+ years. The “community” or neighborhood most closely associated with the Clearview Landfill is the “Eastwick” community.
• Folcroft Landfill is currently in the remedial investigation stage so there have been very few public meetings. Marion assisted EPA in planning for and facilitating the only public meeting held to date regarding the Folcroft landfill in November 2018. Marion provides on-going assistance to EPA in its public outreach and engagement activities at this site as EPA moves from the site investigation into the remedial design phase. The neighborhoods and communities that are most directly affected by this landfill include: The Boroughs of Darby, Folcroft, and Glenolden and Darby Township
• Norwood Landfill is the 3rd landfill that is a component of the LDCA Superfund site and is located in lower Norwood, Delaware County Pennsylvania. EPA has been conducting investigations at this Landfill, and the neighborhoods located close to this landfill, for several years. The neighborhood most directly linked to the Norwood Landfill site is the Winona Homes neighborhood. Marion has worked with residents from this neighborhood as well as Norwood Borough officials.

A draft Cleanup Plan has not been submitted to the PADEP. Remedial Investigations must be completed prior to submitting Cleanup Plans and other Act 2 reports that follow Remedial Investigations in the Act 2 process. Upon completion of Remedial Investigation Reports (RIRs) for each of the Areas of Interest, the subsequent Act 2 reports can then be submitted. The Cleanup Plan(s) will be prepared and submitted following the Sitewide Fate & Transport RIR, Sitewide Ecological Risk Assessment Report and any Human Health Risk Assessments completed for the Site. However, remediation (cleanup) activities which were conducted prior to entering the Act 2 program and interim remediation activities currently being conducted are summarized in the RIRs posted to the website.

The information provided below was largely obtained from the PA Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Overview of the Land Recycling Program Fact Sheet, which can be accessed through this link: DEP Fact Sheet.

The Land Recycling Program (which actually includes Acts 2, 3, 4, 6 and 68, but is commonly referred to as “Act 2”) encourages the recycling and redevelopment of old industrial sites, such as the PES Refinery. It sets standards, by law, that are protective of human health and the environment and that consider future use. It provides potential developers with clear cleanup standards based on risk, not a moving target in a negotiated agreement, and provides an end to liability when that cleanup standard is met. This makes old industrial sites more attractive to potential developers. As a result, many sites have been and will be redeveloped with Act 2, helping many of the Commonwealth’s urban and rural municipalities to provide jobs and economic growth while remediating environmental impacts, ensuring protection of human health and the environment.

Some additional advantages of using Act 2 for the cleanup of the site include:

Uniform cleanup standards – Act 2 establishes environmental remediation standards to provide a uniform framework for cleanups. The standards established under Act 2 are used for most voluntary and mandatory cleanups conducted in Pennsylvania.

Standardized review procedures – Act 2 describes the submission and review procedures used at sites, thus providing a uniform process for all sites statewide. Uniformity makes it easier to prepare submissions and follow through the steps necessary to remediate a site, which also provides more transparency to the public in the process. It also establishes timeframes in which regulators must complete review of submissions.

State releases from liability – Act 2 provides owners or developers with releases from state liability for a site that has been remediated, according to the standards and procedures in the Act. Act 3 extends liability protection to financiers, such as economic development agencies, lenders, and fiduciaries (fiduciaries are those who act as a trustee, executor, or administrator for the benefit of another person). These provisions are intended to reduce the liability concerns that may inhibit involvement with/cleanup of contaminated sites.

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with EPA – In April 2004, DEP and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that clarifies how sites remediated under Pennsylvania’s brownfields program also may satisfy requirements for three key federal laws: the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation Liability Act (CERCLA), and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The framework outlined in the MOA provides procedures for coordinating cleanups under Act 2 with federal cleanup requirements under RCRA, CERCLA, and TSCA, where applicable. Specifically, the MOA allows for Act 2 to address the cleanup of the PES Refinery not only in relation to historic releases and tank closure (under the Pennsylvania Tank Program), but it also provides for the closure of EPA’s concerns (under the RCRA program), which will result in a more comprehensive site cleanup. In 2011, the facility was entered into the One Cleanup Program.

Evergreen’s participation in Act 2 is not voluntary, but many of the benefits still apply.  Sunoco was obligated to enter the Act 2 cleanup program through legal agreements signed with PADEP, and Evergreen must complete the cleanup pursuant to those agreements.

This question was sent to PADEP who provided the following response:

DEP’s published Statewide health standard nonresidential direct contact numeric value for lead in soil, 1000 mg/kg (milligrams lead per kilogram soil), was based on a target blood lead level in adults of 20 mg/dL (micrograms lead per deciliter of blood). Evergreen derived a site-specific direct contact numeric value in their 2015 risk assessment based on a target blood lead level of 10 mg/dL. This is U.S. EPA’s default value in the Adult Lead Methodology, which was the method used by Evergreen in their risk assessment calculation.

This question was sent to PADEP who provided the following response:

DEP establishes Act 2 Statewide health standard cleanup values for soil and groundwater, known as Medium-Specific Concentrations (MSCs), using a variety of risk- and health-based methods. For instance, many groundwater MSCs are adopted from U.S. EPA’s drinking water standards. Other MSCs are calculated by DEP to protect human health at acceptable risk levels (e.g., a cancer risk of no more than 1 in 100,000).

For site-specific standard cleanups, remediators may develop a risk assessment that uses data specific to the site, and therefore it may differ from attainment of the Statewide health standard MSCs. Risk assessments must demonstrate acceptable cumulative risks, meaning that health effects of all contaminants from both soil and groundwater and through all exposure pathways must be examined. Risk assessments must also consider all potential human receptors (e.g., workers and contractors, as well as nearby residents if contamination has migrated to homes, parks, etc.).

An alternative approach with the site-specific standard is known as “pathway elimination,” meaning that the remediator implements measures to prevent people from being exposed to contamination. These measures commonly include constructing a cap at the surface so people won’t touch or ingest contaminated soil and dust, prohibiting groundwater use, and sometimes installing systems to mitigate vapor intrusion in buildings. The determination that pathway elimination remedies are “safe” relies in part on the remediator following best practices and standard guidance. DEP reviews plans and specifications for the work (submitted in an Act 2 cleanup plan), DEP reviews documentation for the remedy completion (submitted in an Act 2 final report), and DEP inspects the installation work and subsequent maintenance of the remedy. In addition, DEP oversees the execution of an environmental covenant recorded on the property deed to ensure future maintenance of the remedies. In some cases, testing is also performed to verify that the remedy is effective.

Lastly, while the focus of Act 2 cleanups is on the protection of human health, they must also address potential ecological exposures. Contamination that affects certain sensitive ecological receptors, such as threatened and endangered species, must be addressed in the cleanup. This can also be accomplished through a risk assessment or remedial measures.

There are three choices for clean-up standards that can be applied to any Act 2 site: Statewide Health, Background, or Site-Specific.  The choice between the three standards is up to the remediator, but each one has strict guidelines and processes that must be followed to demonstrate to the PADEP (who has jurisdiction and responsibility to review the selected standard) that the standard is appropriate and has been met.  DEP has also provided some information that is helpful in answering this question – please see the PADEP response to the question “How do DEP and Evergreen determine what is safe?”

Section 101 of the Land Recycling and Environmental Remediation Standards Act, which established Act 2, specifically includes language how Act 2 helps to achieve the objectives of Article I, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The future cleanup activities of the Site will be completed in accordance with the Act 2 program requirements, also supporting these goals.

Evergreen is in the process of receiving questions from the public concerning the approved Remedial Investigation Reports. These reports will be revised if new information is found concerning the conclusions of the Remedial Investigation Reports during this process. The comments received to the Remedial Investigation Reports will also inform the fate and transport evaluation, risk assessment, selection of remedial approach and monitoring, all which are still yet to occur at the Site.

Note that this question was also forwarded to DEP for response.  DEP’s response was: “You are correct that public participation should occur throughout the Act 2 process and not after reports have already been approved. Unfortunately, there was a lapse in the administration of the public involvement requirements for this project, and this is the reason the previously approved reports were “reopened” for 120 days to provide for public comment now. Based on the comments submitted, additional environmental work may be required, and the reports may need to be revised. At a minimum, Act 2 requires public access to documents, a public meeting, opportunities for public comment, and responses to those comments from the remediator. Two-way communications (submittal of questions, concerns, and suggestions by the public and responses to those comments by the remediator) is central to public involvement. Act 2 does not mandate, nor does it enable DEP to require, additional public involvement actions. However, because of the size, duration, and complexity of the Philadelphia Refinery cleanup project, Evergreen has agreed to implement several other community involvement measures. They are also planning small group meetings which would allow for two-way consultation between Evergreen and the community. The public involvement activities must continue for the entirely of the Act 2 process.

DEP has also provided input on their guidance with respect to the public’s role in Act 2 reports as provided here: “Act 2 and our regulations and guidance describe several measures “to involve the public in the development and review” of reports, some of which are required.  The intent of these measures is to collect comments, suggestions, concerns, and questions on the Act 2 work.  The remediator’s responses to this input may result in revisions to the report, and in this manner the public influences the development of the report.  The public is not just on the receiving end, but it’s correct that the primary public role is to comment on the work being done.  Those comments can impact both the remediator’s actions and also DEP’s technical review and decision to approve the report.”

Throughout the Remedial Investigation Phase of our Act 2 requirements, we have continued to involve the public in various ways and remain committed to finding ways to meaningfully engage the public in future meetings, both in our own public meetings and through participation in Hilco community meetings. We have not and will not intentionally discriminate against any group of people in our public involvement.

Evergreen’s work at this site is overseen by both the U.S. EPA and PA DEP. We look forward to working alongside these agencies, as well as Hilco and the interested public, as we move forward in the Act 2 remediation process and as Hilco works toward redeveloping the site. This will include additional Evergreen public meetings, participation in Hilco’s community meetings, and continually updating our website, phillyrefinerycleanup.info. This is where we house all relevant reports, documents, background, and presentations, as well as ways for the public to submit comments and questions, and a full record of all past questions and answers.

The following response was provided by the USEPA on 1/8/2021: Our regional Environmental Justice program, and the national Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ) coordinates the Agency’s efforts to integrate environmental justice into all policies, programs, and activities. Our mission is to facilitate the Agency efforts to protect environment and public health in minority, low-income, tribal and other vulnerable communities by integrating environmental justice in all programs, policies and activities.

Below is an outline of key information on understanding our position on practicing environmental justice in our communities:

Environmental justice (EJ) is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies.

Fair treatment means no group of people should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, governmental and commercial operations or policies.

Meaningful involvement means: • People have an opportunity to participate in decisions about activities that may affect their environment and/or health; • The public’s contribution can influence the regulatory agency’s decision; • Community concerns will be considered in the decision-making process; and • Decision makers will seek out and facilitate the involvement of those potentially affected.

EPA and Environmental Justice

EPA’s goal is to provide an environment where all people enjoy the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards and equal access to the decision-making process to maintain a healthy environment in which to live, learn, and work.

EPA’s environmental justice mandate extends to all of the Agency’s work, including: • Setting standards • Permitting facilities • Awarding grants • Issuing licenses • Regulations • Reviewing proposed actions by the federal agencies

For more information or additional questions, please contact Reggie Harris, Branch Chief, Communities and Tribes Branch Office of Communities, Tribes and Environmental Assessment at harris.reggie@epa.gov or 215 814-2998.

Also, please refer to this link for more information read the Factsheet about the EPA’s Office of Environmental Justice: https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/sXusC82A22U79jQtn9IDy

The Remedial Investigation Addendums for AOI 4 and 9 will be submitted once the public comment period for the approved Remedial Investigation Reports is completed and a summary document is submitted and approved by the PADEP. The investigation of the deep groundwater unit (AOI 11) has been incorporated into the other Remedial Investigation Reports since 2013 based on discussions with the PADEP, so we will not submit a separate AOI 11 Remedial Investigation Report since it has been more appropriately incorporated into submitted Remedial Investigation Reports.  The 2020 First Amendment to the Consent Order and Agreement stipulates that both the AOI 4 and AOI 9 RIR Addendums must be submitted by September 2021, and the Fate and Transport RIR (which will include the AOI 11 lower aquifer) must be submitted by December 2021.

The site characterization and history for the Schuylkill River Tank Farm (SRTF), which is also known as AOI 9, can be found in the RIR for AOI 9. Some contaminants are present in soil and groundwater related to the former operations. Light non-aqueous phase liquid (LNAPL), or oil, is also present in limited areas and has been observed in monitoring wells. Evergreen completed additional off-site delineation of the dissolved contaminants since the submittal of the last RIR (2017) and is planning to submit these results to PADEP in a forthcoming addendum to the AOI 9 RIR (2021).  The results of the site characterization demonstrate that the contamination from AOI 9 does not extend to any residential areas.  The final remedial approach will be presented in a Cleanup Plan dedicated to the SRTF.

There were both an AOI 11 Remedial Investigation Report and a Final Report that were submitted. Both were disapproved solely for the fate and transport analysis that was included in the reports. The remedial investigation portion of those reports were acceptable. Note that before we started a site wide model concept, each of the AOI reports had separate individual models completed, and we have since updated that approach.  Because the only disapproval aspects for the AOI 11 reports were based on the fate and transport, in subsequent discussions with PADEP, we decided that the next phase of reporting for AOI 11 would be in the site-wide Fate and Transport RI report. Also note that AOI 11 has been monitored continually and data reported for AOI 11 in other AOI RIRs.

Per the 2020 First Amendment to Consent Order and Agreement, the Fate and Transport Remedial Investigation Report is due by December 31, 2021 and a Final Report for Sitewide Groundwater is due by December 31, 2024.

Hilco Redevelopment Partners’ construction schedule is not dependent on completion of Evergreen’s remediation activities.  Operation of Evergreen’s remediation systems in the North Yard (AOI 8) and in other areas of the site will continue during and after Hilco Redevelopment Partners’ decommissioning, demolition, and redevelopment activities. Hilco Redevelopment Partners and Evergreen have been and will continue to coordinate actively to make sure Evergreen’s work can continue during Hilco Redevelopment Partners’ redevelopment.

With respect to soil delineation, Remedial Investigation activities are complete in all AOIs. With respect to groundwater, Evergreen is collecting additional offsite information for AOI-4 and AOI-9, and RI activities are complete for the other AOIs.  After all RI activities are complete, Evergreen will submit Cleanup Plans that will incorporate Hilco Redevelopment Partners’ planned development.

The question was also provided to Hilco Redevelopment Partners, who provided the following response: Hilco Redevelopment Partners recognizes the potential for impacted soil and groundwater to act as vapor intrusion sources for new buildings constructed at the Site. Hilco Redevelopment Partners will conduct sampling and analysis to evaluate the potential for vapor intrusion into planned buildings in accordance with PADEP guidance.  If warranted based on sampling results, Hilco Redevelopment Partners will install vapor barriers or other vapor mitigation controls (such as subslab venting systems) beneath new buildings.

Yes, soil is tested at many depths.  We showed the soil data results in two different slides: 0-2 feet below the surface and anything else collected from greater than 2 feet below the surface.  That’s because the standard concentrations that we compare our data to are different for surface soil (0-2 feet) and subsurface soil (2-15 feet, or greater).

The goal of a Remedial Investigation Report (RIR) is to identify and define the source of contamination and particular constituents of concern, define the nature and extent of the contaminants (including fate and transport), characterize the affected media, and determine the appropriate Act 2 standards to be used.  DEP and EPA determine whether these goals and benchmarks have been met, through their review of the RIRs upon submittal.  For example, the RIRs for AOIs 4 and 9 were not approved due to the need for additional definition of the extent of groundwater impact beyond a property boundary, as identified in the report summaries.

The Remedial Investigation Reports compare the data to the Act 2 Statewide Health Standards (one metric of comparison). Future Risk Assessment Reports and Cleanup Plans will define whether other metrics or benchmarks will be used, such as site-specific standards or cleanup goals that must be met to achieve Act 2 closure.  The current critical paths for lead, benzene (or any other compound) and air quality (soil or groundwater also) is to complete the remedial investigations to be able to proceed to these future assessments.

Future report summaries will clearly define the goals of the reports and whether those goals have been met.

It is important to remember that Evergreen is responsible for investigating and remediating contamination that was present up until the time of the sale of the facility to Philadelphia Energy Solutions (PES) in 2012. Any releases or emissions from refinery operations or other site activities after 2012 are the responsibility of the new property owners.

The Remedial Investigation Reports that DEP requested be “reopened” for public comment were submitted over various years between 2011 and 2017. They each included all historic data including data collected up to the time of the report. At the time of their review, DEP determined in their approvals that data included in the reports was reliable. The potential effects of climate change will be determined in the future contaminant Fate & Transport Remedial Investigation Report (reminder that the F&T report is an RIR).

Groundwater analytical data and field measurements are collected routinely from the wells at the facility, not just as part of remedial investigations. The RIRs presented all historic and current data up to the time of the reports; however additional data has been collected since those dates.  The groundwater quality figures presented in the August 2020 public information session included data up through and including 2019.  The current “edges” of plumes are defined not only by past data, but by data collected recently and also will be evaluated using future laboratory data and predicted through fate and transport modeling.

Soil data also spans many years, as multiple characterization activities have been conducted in each of the AOIs. Many of the areas of focused soil sampling included efforts to characterize and delineate past releases/issues/historic activities, not ongoing ones.  Therefore, data collected closer to the time of release versus later in time would be more conservative as petroleum compounds naturally degrade over time, while data collected to delineate a past release would more accurately reflect current conditions.  Evergreen contends that the soil data included in the RIRs accurately characterizes the environmental impacts that Evergreen is responsible to investigate under the Act 2 Program. Hilco and Evergreen will also collect a significant amount of additional soil data as part of the development process. We will develop the Cleanup Plan(s) using all appropriate data.

The Groundwater Remediation Status Reports, which are submitted to the PADEP,  are meant to provide brief updates on data collected and remediation activities throughout the Act 2 process, including during the time between RIR submittals and after the RIR process is complete. Any and all data collected up until the time of an RIR was included in the RIR reports, and any new data collected subsequent to RIRs are included in RIR addendums or other Act 2 reports including the Fate and Transport RIR and the Cleanup Plan. Since new data are included in future Act 2 reports, already approved RIRs are not updated as new data is collected. The Conceptual Site Model (CSM), which is discussed in each of the RIRs, was also approved by PADEP.  However, Evergreen noted in its presentation that a CSM is continually updated as new data/information is known about a site. We will utilize the results of all RIR activities – along with any subsequent data as both soil and groundwater data continue to be collected–  in future CSMs in the Fate and Transport RIR and Cleanup Plan to support future determination of necessary remediation.

Answer also addresses similar comments below:

3) The data in these reports was mostly collected between 2011 and 2017, and are too old to be trusted to reflect the current conditions and contaminants in all areas. The amount of time passed, the additional pollution from several years of refinery operation and fires, and the heavy rainfall that the area has received in the past decade all probably resulted in changes or movement of some or all contaminants, including moving more off-site and into the lower aquifer. New sampling needs to be conducted in all areas, on land and in water, to both verify actual conditions and contaminants and to test for contamination that was not tested for at all (like PFAS compounds), and to test some areas, like both shallow and deep portions of the aquifer, more thoroughly. As new sampling is done, if it becomes apparent that the old “edges” of contamination have moved, the sampling areas need to be enlarged until new “edges” are well-established.

4)Evergreen completed its remedial investigation reports over three years ago. Given the fire incidents and other changes during that time, relying on older data seems questionable. Evergreen should provide evidence that data from these reports are still representative.

5)  All of the RIRs, as well as the Ecological Risk Assessment and the Site Wide Lead Human Health Risk Assessment, were completed between June 2011 and December 2017. As all of these reports are now three to ten years old, we request that Evergreen demonstrate that the data in the RIRs remains consistent with the site’s current conditions.

6) Evergreen needs to revise its remedial investigation reports to conform both with evolving scientific knowledge AND with the evolving state of our world due (at least in part) to changes brought on by climate change.

7) Evergreen’s Conceptual Site Model is fundamentally flawed, necessitating substantially revised reports for public comment before submission to the Department.

8) Evergreen should revise the reports to reflect up-to-date material (including data and analyses from Groundwater Monitoring Status Reports).

9) The Remedial Investigation Reports are deficient because they fail to address the impacts of climate change – including sea level rise and storm surges.

10) Evergreen should revise its remedial investigation reports to adequately account for the impacts of climate change on existing soil and water contamination. These impacts could occur before, during, and after remediation. Sea level rise, storm surges, and the increased frequency and volume of events like superstorms could have major implications on the migration of contaminants in the soil and groundwater. Evergreen completed its remedial investigation reports over three years ago and it is not clear whether the data underlying the reports are still reliable. Evergreen should provide evidence that data from these reports are still representative. Please take these comments seriously and make the necessary changes.

11) Climate change presents one of the most significant threats to the health, safety, and sustainability of our communities. Flooding is one of Philadelphia’s central climate vulnerabilities, and the location of the former refinery site puts it at significant risk. At present, Evergreen has not included any climate change impact analysis in its RIRs or released any other information on how climate change will impact the site and how that could change the necessary remediation efforts. EPA Region III has released policy guidance stating that sea level rise should be considered as part of the remedial investigation stage.10 We request that you follow this guidance and update all relevant Act 2 materials to include the impacts of climate change on the site.

The site was tested for a complete list of metals as part of the 1992 RCRA Facility Investigation and none of these metals, except lead, were found to be a contaminant of concern and therefore were not identified as a contaminant of concern going forward. The 1992 Report is posted on the Evergreen website for reference.

However, both soil and groundwater samples from various areas of the facility with history of crude storage and processing have been sampled for a more comprehensive analyte list which included other metals as part of the remedial investigation activities.  These data have all been included in the RIRs.

Note: this response addresses other similar questions:

1. The refinery was historically coal-fired.  Where and how has the site been tested for Arsenic?
2. Should other heavy metals be expected to be found given the history of heavy industrial use?
3. Evergreen fails to properly delineate the contamination of arsenic, manganese, and other inorganics (metals) in the unconfined aquifer and the deep aquifer.

The current analyte list utilized for the Act 2 program at the facility was developed after analyzing historic reports and data from previous sampling efforts and in consideration of historic use of the site and the DEP analyte ‘short lists’ for various petroleum products.  Evergreen’s current analyte list includes compounds indicative of the various petroleum products processed at the facility.  In addition, both soil and groundwater samples from areas of the facility which historically stored and processed crude were sampled for a more comprehensive analyte list as part of the remedial investigation activities.  These data have all been included in the RIRs.

The reports Evergreen is required to submit to regulators are inherently long and technical due to their specific requirements as related to the site’s history, size and complexity. Reports must include the incorporation of not just current data, but all historic data with back-up documentation for all referenced activities and interpretation in the reports.  While the reports have always been accessible to the public, Evergreen created the website to make them even more accessible, in addition to developing plain-language summaries and translating them into multiple languages indicative of Philadelphia’s demographics, which is not required by Act 2.

While the content and general format of the Act 2 reports themselves remain constant, Evergreen is interested in hearing ideas about other ways to provide digestible information to the public, in addition to the plain-language summaries and visual presentations made available from past public information sessions.  Evergreen also plans to create a page on the website for a calendar and project updates to provide more timely updates on Evergreen’s site activities, since the time between Act 2 reports is often long.

Much of the former refinery and surrounding area is underlain by historic fill material, which was primarily placed for the purpose of reclaiming lowlands along the banks of the tidal Delaware and Schuylkill Rivers during industrialization. The fill materials are heterogeneous in nature and have been characterized as a mixture of compacted soil and anthropogenic debris, including sand, clay, silt, gravel, cinders, concrete, asphalt, crushed stone, ash, glass, brick fragments, and wood. Apparent fill thickness ranges from a veneer where historic land surfaces were highest to more than 20 feet within the locations of former lowlands such as stream valleys, marshes, and open pits.

Fill may or may not have been encountered in each boring.  If fill was encountered and was characterized by the person logging the hole, the boring log would contain the description. Evergreen is not aware of and cannot speculate on all potential sources of historic fill at the site.  The general descriptor “fill” is not necessarily indicative of imported materials but of disturbed native soils with man-made debris.

All historic data collected to date has established a baseline of environmental conditions as per the requirements of Act 2 and have been documented in Remedial Investigation Reports.  Ongoing groundwater sampling activities and soil samples collected since the RIRs were submitted, and the thousands of soil samples that are to be collected by Hilco Redevelopment Partners as part of their environmental sampling to support redevelopment continue to document conditions at the former refinery. Future conditions related to the Act 2 Cleanup will be monitored based on the requirements of the Cleanup Plans and Post Remedial Care Plan.

All Remedial Investigation Reports do contain Fate and Transport. Earlier AOI reports used the Domenico model to analyze the individual AOI areas.  The decision to complete a site-wide Fate and Transport model to be included in a separate Remedial Investigation report allows Evergreen to evaluate groundwater flow and contaminate transport on a site wide basis, since the groundwater conditions are not bound by AOI boundaries.  This cannot be completed until each of the AOI’s has been adequately characterized (indicated by agency approval of all RIRs). In addition, the proposed Fate and Transport Remedial Investigation Report will use a robust numerical 3D groundwater model which can more accurately predict groundwater contamination movement.  Also note, that the most recent Remedial Investigation Reports for each of the AOI’s do include Fate and Transport in the form of qualitative analysis as allowed under Act 2.

Remedial investigations are evaluations of current conditions.  Those current condition measurements would inherently include climate effects as they have occurred and are occurring.  The future effects of climate change will be evaluated in future modeling efforts.  Note that the future fate and transport modeling is also a remedial investigation activity.  The fate and transport modeling efforts are also part of the remedial investigation process.

Evergreen conducts continual groundwater sampling at the facility, not just as part of the RIRs.  Sampling is necessary before, during and after remediation is complete; therefore, sampling will continue at this facility for quite some time.  The current work under evaluation (what’s included in the RIRs) includes defining the nature and extent of contamination in the subsurface as well as significant information on the geology and hydrogeology, which do not require additional aquifer analysis to review.  Remaining aquifer analysis, which is the fate and transport model, takes the RIR data and predicts migration.  The eventual Final Report for the site will also include additional analysis to demonstrate that remediation goals have been attained, which will include further groundwater analysis of aquifer conditions.

The direction and rates of groundwater flow are evaluated frequently at the site and groundwater samples collected routinely from various hydrogeologic units beneath the facility. The Remedial Investigation activities also evaluated the areas where the confining layers in the subsurface were not continuous through the completion of soil borings, installation of monitoring wells, collection of groundwater samples, groundwater elevations and completion of aquifer tests to determine hydraulic properties of the groundwater units. These data will be used for the upcoming evaluation of contaminant movement in the fate and transport evaluation through the use of a 3-dimensional numerical model which will be presented in the Fate and Transport Remedial Investigation Report.

Characterization of the refinery geology, hydrogeology, and extent of contamination, including study of the pathways that could exist, has been ongoing and is included in the RIRs. A fate and transport analysis will be prepared once all the RIRs have been approved, and the analysis will include model simulations of contaminant transport. This report is expected to be submitted by the end of 2021.

In the Remedial Investigation Reports, the soil concentrations were compared to the statewide health standard soil-to-groundwater number, the statewide health standard direct contact number, and to the site-specific number (for lead only).  We have hundreds of wells onsite that provide actual groundwater concentrations, and we evaluate groundwater concentrations of all compounds of concern, not just those that have exceeded soil to groundwater Medium-Specific Concentrations (MSCs).  With respect to soil, the direct contact number was utilized for comparison based on the existing pathway of exposure.

The Verizon SDWC property is a separate remediation site.  A Site Characterization Report indicating closure via a combination of Statewide Health and Site Specific Standards was submitted by the property owners and approved in 2012.   A subsequent SSS Remedial Action Plan was approved in 2012.  A Remedial Action Completion Report was submitted in 2015, in which they requested closure via a combination of Statewide Health, Site Specific, and Background Standards due to impacts at the southern property boundary which is across Maiden Lane from the then refinery.

Groundwater gradient in the area between the Verizon property and the area of the remediation system along Maiden Lane is shallow but we generally observe a groundwater flow pattern that indicates convergence in the vicinity of the AOI 8 boundary with Maiden Lane, near the Mifflin Street Sewer.

The benzene dataset presented in Figure 9-2 of the AOI-8 RIR utilized maximum concentrations from 2014-2016 groundwater sampling, as this was the most comprehensive dataset at the time. It should be noted that benzene concentrations measured in groundwater varied through that time period (as low as 6.2 micrograms per liter (ug/L) in a V-MW-9 groundwater sample on 3/16/16; benzene was not detected in well N-3 groundwater samples on 6/2/14, 3/17/16, and 5/27/16; benzene was not detected in well V-MW-16 groundwater samples on 4/17/14, 6/25/14, 9/5/14, and 3/16/16 (See AOI 8 RIR Table 4-2). An overall decreasing benzene trend in this area was demonstrated in the RIR in Figure 9-5b.

Subsequent gauging and sampling supports the RIR interpretations of groundwater flow patterns in this area and indicates recent N-3 benzene concentrations ranging from non-detect to 6.75 ug/L in groundwater.  The area wells will continue to be monitored and data will be incorporated into future modeling efforts.

A horizontal recovery well was installed in that area for the purpose of LNAPL recovery as well as to mitigate any potential migration of dissolved contaminants away from AOI 8.  The treatment system in that location was started up in January 2021.  Therefore, you would not have seen any changes in the groundwater gradient as a result of pumping in reports submitted prior to that time.

Groundwater/light non-aqueous phase liquid (LNAPL) are being recovered via remediation system recovery wells along the property boundary in an area along 26th Street. Groundwater and LNAPL are also recovered via horizontal recovery wells along the Pollack Street sewer through the facility. Sewer conditions are to be evaluated as part of the future modeling efforts.

A draft Cleanup Plan has not been submitted to the PADEP. Remedial Investigations must be completed prior to submitting Cleanup Plans and other Act 2 reports that follow Remedial Investigations in the Act 2 process. Upon completion of Remedial Investigation Reports (RIRs) for each of the Areas of Interest, the subsequent Act 2 reports can then be submitted. The Cleanup Plan(s) will be prepared and submitted following the Sitewide Fate & Transport RIR, Sitewide Ecological Risk Assessment Report and any Human Health Risk Assessments completed for the Site. However, remediation (cleanup) activities which were conducted prior to entering the Act 2 program and interim remediation activities currently being conducted are summarized in the RIRs posted to the website.

The water treatment plants are run and operated by PES under a NPDES permit issued by the PADEP. Operation of the water treatment plant will be conducted by the new property owner. PES or the PADEP would be better able to respond to the question of how effective these systems are and what happens during heavy rains and floods.

Various remediation systems historically have been discontinued generally when the remedial goals are complete or where the technology is no longer the most appropriate. Each remediation system is discussed in its associated Remedial Investigation Report. Any proposed additional systems, remedial goals and associated monitoring will be included in future Act 2 reports such as the Risk Assessment and the Cleanup Plan.

Groundwater collected from the Pollack St well system is not discharged directly to the Schuylkill River. Groundwater discharged from any remediation system is either processed through the facility’s wastewater treatment plant which operates under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit held by PES or discharged to the Philadelphia Water Department (PWD) sewer system via a Groundwater Discharge Permit held by Evergreen. Evergreen samples groundwater discharge to the PWD sewer per the permit requirements and the discharge from the facility’s wastewater treatment plant is sampled by PES in accordance with their NPDES permit.

Evergreen has considered and will continue to consider various remedial options at each area of proposed remediation. Remedial options must consider a number of factors, including but not limited to logistics, utilities, subsurface flow conditions, chemistry, nature and extent of the contamination, nutrient availability, etc. Bioremediation technologies, not specifically mycoremediation, have been/are utilized in AOI-4 and AOI-1 and will continued to be considered for the Site.

Since the original Consent Order & Agreement between Sunoco and DEP in 1993, Sunoco and Evergreen have implemented several interim remedial actions at the refinery. Various remediation systems were installed in the facility in 1995 to prevent the migration of impacted groundwater offsite. Additional remediation systems have been installed since that time to either address source removal (removing petroleum product and contaminated groundwater at the source of the release on-site) and/or control the migration of impacted groundwater beyond the property boundary. Between 1993 and present, 25 remediation systems have been operated at the refinery by Sunoco/Evergreen.

Remediation activities have included, but are not limited to:

• Groundwater and/or product recovery via both vertical and horizontal wells, where product and/or groundwater impacted with hydrocarbons are removed from the subsurface;
• Oxygen injection into groundwater ,to aid in removal and/or breakdown of petroleum products in the subsurface;
• Sewer ventilation systems, or the removal of petroleum vapors from air in subsurface utilities; and
• Soil vapor extraction, or removing petroleum vapors from the subsurface.

Many of the remediation systems have been decommissioned over the years when they have achieved their intended purpose and/or other remedial alternatives have been selected. Evergreen currently operates nine remediation systems operating at the facility. In addition to remediation systems, areas of soil have been remediated at the facility via excavation and/or capping.

As discussed above, after the Fate and Transport RIR, Human Health Risk Assessment and Ecological Risk Assessments are completed, these interim remedies – along with potential additional remedies – will be evaluated and included in the Act 2 Cleanup Plan.

Evergreen has a permit for discharge from a remediation system directly to the PWD and is not the permittee for the onsite wastewater treatment plant.

Evergreen is responsible to cleanup legacy contamination, generated prior to September 2012.  Hilco Redevelopment Partners (HRP) is responsible to cleanup recent contamination, generated after September 2012.

The remediation systems operated at the site historically and currently were installed to address groundwater or vapors since those represented potential risk pathways, which is why they were shown during the August 27^th Public Information Session. The purpose of the information session was to review historic reports which include mostly Remedial Investigation Reports.  Remedial plans for all media, including soil, will be detailed in the future Cleanup Plan(s), as remediation options are not a topic of Remedial Investigation Reports. While some areas of soil impact have been excavated previously, soil remediation can also include institutional and engineering controls which eliminate a risk by blocking a pathway of exposure.

Evergreen’s future cleanup plans will still compare all new soil data to both the statewide health and site-specific values to determine appropriate remedy selection.  In addition, Evergreen will reevaluate the current site-specific standard based on DEP’s proposed new soil standards and associated input values.

Contamination in soil can be dealt with in many ways.  Some areas of soil impact have been excavated previously.  Soil remediation can also include institutional and engineering controls which eliminate a risk by blocking a pathway of exposure.  Remedial plans for all media will be detailed in the Cleanup Plan(s).

In general, benzene and other volatile compounds are not identified for further evaluation in soils (meaning they were not detected above the statewide health standards in many locations).  However, all remedial options, which can include engineering and intuitional controls will be detailed in future Cleanup Plans.

Evergreen is in the process of finishing the investigation activities at the former Philadelphia Refinery to identify the extent of the chemicals in soil and groundwater, in order to ultimately develop remediation (cleanup) plans for the site. During this process, Evergreen will develop reports and hold public meetings, both of which will have public notices. Throughout the process, we will post information to the website created for the Act 2 process (https://phillyrefinerycleanup.info). Additional notifications will be made before beginning any final cleanup activities at the site.

Evergreen’s active remediation has been ongoing for decades and may extend for many years more.  Part of the future Act 2 Cleanup Plan will include defining parameters that are measured and tracked to determine the appropriate time to cease active remediation in each area.

Emissions from Evergreen’s systems are all treated in some fashion.  Groundwater and LNAPL pumping systems are closed loop systems from which vapors are extracted from the system components themselves (no vapors are extracted from the subsurface) and are treated with either granular activated carbon or catalytic oxidation.  The sewer vapor extraction systems both use biofilter beds to treat air that is removed from the sewers.  All systems are permitted by Air Management Services who define emission levels that each system must meet.  There are no odors observed from these systems’ emissions.

Other remediation processes such as excavation may create short-term odor simply by disturbing the subsurface and extracting the materials.  Engineering controls (e.g. odor/dust suppressants and/or fans) can be used to minimize the transport of odors off-site during excavation activities.

Evaluation of current and potential remedial options is ongoing.  Cleanup Plans will be submitted upon completion of all Remedial Investigation activities, which will consist of identification and evaluation of remedial alternatives, selection of proposed remedies, and plans for the development, construction, and initial operation of the proposed remedy and/or documentation of interim remedial actions already in place.  Note that remediation to site-specific standards may include treatment, removal, engineering or institutional controls.

Per Section 304(j) of Act 2, the Cleanup Plans will document the evaluation of criteria such as the effectiveness of the remedy to manage risk, the extent to which the risks are being reduced, the ability to implement the remedy, reduction of regulated substances, post-remediation care plans, and cost-benefit considerations.

Documentation of Evergreen’s ongoing and historic remediation activities are included in each of the Remedial Investigation Reports.

Evergreen currently holds PWD discharge permits.  These will be posted to the website.

These are all questions that are generally addressed in a Cleanup Plan.  The Cleanup Plan(s) will be submitted subsequent to Remedial Investigation Reports.

Hilco Redevelopment Partners’ construction schedule is not dependent on completion of Evergreen’s remediation activities.  Operation of Evergreen’s remediation systems in the North Yard (AOI 8) and in other areas of the site will continue during and after Hilco Redevelopment Partners’ decommissioning, demolition, and redevelopment activities. Hilco Redevelopment Partners and Evergreen have been and will continue to coordinate actively to make sure Evergreen’s work can continue during Hilco Redevelopment Partners’ redevelopment.

With respect to soil delineation, Remedial Investigation activities are complete in all AOIs. With respect to groundwater, Evergreen is collecting additional offsite information for AOI-4 and AOI-9, and RI activities are complete for the other AOIs.  After all RI activities are complete, Evergreen will submit Cleanup Plans that will incorporate Hilco Redevelopment Partners’ planned development.

The question was also provided to Hilco Redevelopment Partners, who provided the following response: Hilco Redevelopment Partners recognizes the potential for impacted soil and groundwater to act as vapor intrusion sources for new buildings constructed at the Site. Hilco Redevelopment Partners will conduct sampling and analysis to evaluate the potential for vapor intrusion into planned buildings in accordance with PADEP guidance.  If warranted based on sampling results, Hilco Redevelopment Partners will install vapor barriers or other vapor mitigation controls (such as subslab venting systems) beneath new buildings.

Evergreen’s cleanup, when talking about subsurface remediation (extraction of petroleum and impacted groundwater from the subsurface), has been ongoing for quite some time and is expected to continue for several years until removal of petroleum and impacted groundwater is no longer necessary). The need for any additional remediation systems to address pre-2012 impacts will be detailed in future Act 2 Cleanup Plan(s).  However, some subsurface cleanup activities (soil removal) may be necessary as Hilco Redevelopment Partners’ development occurs.  In other words, if impacted soils are encountered during site work that cannot remain onsite per conditions of Hilco’s Soil Management Plan, they will be excavated and removed for offsite disposal by Evergreen.  The timing of that would follow Hilco Redevelopment Partners’ schedule for development of different areas of the site.

All plans for cleaning up contamination in both soil and groundwater will be included in the Act 2 Cleanup Plan(s).

Evergreen will detail its approach to remediation of the facility in future Cleanup Plans and will consider climate changes predicted to occur within the anticipated timeframe to completion. Evergreen will also incorporate climate change into future modeling.

Response addresses the similar questions: “Are you considering your remediation strategies with respect to sea level rise, which could affect groundwater and will you be incorporating changes resulting from climate change, sea level rise and frequency of storms into groundwater modeling?”  

“What plans do you have to keep this site safe as precipitations and sea level rise increase due to climate change?”

“As a Philadelphia resident and concerned citizen, I’ve been disturbed and frustrated to learn about the former PES refinery site and the legacy of toxins and pollutants it has left on the environmental justice community that surrounds the refinery. The opportunity to clean up and redevelop the refinery is a once in a lifetime chance to repair the biggest blight of our region. And as greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise and we know sea level rise, storm surge and precipitation events will continue to worsen. Evergreen must ensure its remedial investigation adequately addresses these future climate change conditions. For the +150 years this community has suffered from the presence of this refinery, we owe it to this community to ensure their health will be protected once this site is finally cleaned up.”

Transportation, storage, and disposal (TSD) facilities are regulated by the EPA under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) through which guidance on hazardous and non-hazardous waste has been developed.  Wastes that may be removed from the former refinery facility could go to various different regulated TSD facilities, which will be determined at the time based on the chemical composition and physical properties (determined by testing prior to removal from the facility).  Waste profiles, bills of lading or manifests, and/or disposal certificates are provided as documentation of wastes removed from the site and final destination.

This response addresses another similar question received: “If you remove contaminated soil, where will you place it so that it is not harming others?”

Remediation systems are reviewed in the Remedial Investigation Reports. The RIRs also all include a qualitative fate and transport discussion, which addresses how conditions have changed over time. It is not expected that Hilco will need to replace any of Evergreen’s remediation systems because Hilco and Evergreen are working together to limit disruption to Evergreen’s ongoing remediation during Hilco’s development activities. Evergreen will be able to finalize and share proposed remedial approaches once we are able to finish the remedial investigations and formulate Cleanup Plans. At that time, Evergreen will propose what (if any) replacements, new systems, and/or elimination of existing systems are appropriate.

The question was also provided to Hilco Redevelopment Partners, who provided the following response: Hilco Redevelopment Partners is responsible for remediation at focused areas of the site where contamination occurred after September 2012.  Hilco Redevelopment Partners is evaluating ways to improve remediation activities that are ongoing in some of these areas.  As Hilco Redevelopment Partners enters these areas into the Act 2 regulatory process, it will conduct Act 2 public involvement activities related to those specific remediation areas.  Hilco Redevelopment Partners has also been conducting separate public outreach to inform the community about its redevelopment plans.

It is our understanding that Philadelphia Air Management Services (AMS) will hold a public hearing on the draft Natural Minor Operations Permit; however, Evergreen is not aware of the timing.  Questions regarding the permit application and timing of future public hearings should be directed to Philadelphia AMS.

Partially.  Evergreen has been remediating the site for years and remediation is ongoing. Therefore, Evergreen will have some remedial measures in place before Hilco redevelops an area of the Site, and some remedial measures are part of the development (for example capping and vapor mitigation measures in a building, if warranted). The timing of the Cleanup Plans will be based on the redevelopment schedule so Evergreen can incorporate the final site use based on the development into the remedial design.

Evaluation of current and potential remedial options is ongoing. Cleanup Plans will be submitted upon completion of all Remedial Investigation activities, which will consist of identification and evaluation of remedial alternatives, selection of proposed remedies, and plans for the development, construction, and initial operation of the proposed remedy and/or documentation of interim remedial actions already in place. The Cleanup Plans will document the evaluation of criteria such as the effectiveness of the remedy to manage risk, the extent to which the risks are being reduced, the ability to implement the remedy, reduction of regulated substances, and post-remediation care plans, among other potential factors.

Act 2 includes procedures to allow for the reuse and development of a site while maintaining safety of the community, environment, and workers on site. This is inherently the purpose of Act 2.  Evergreen will evaluate how best to do this through remediation, pathway elimination, modeling, risk assessment, and engineering and institutional controls to make sure that the workers and people of the community are safe, and to protect the environment.

Evergreen is currently using a form of biotechnology at the site for interim remedial activities. We have two biofilters on site, which take the vapors pulled out of the sewers and treat them through those filters.  Bioremediation technology is not currently used to treat any groundwater.  Most systems onsite currently are in place to prevent migration of contaminants to receptors such as sewers or property boundaries. Treatment options will be evaluated in future cleanup plans.

Evergreen has not observed any impact by heavy storm on our remediation processes at the site. Evergreen is unaware of conditions with facility wastewater treatment plants or discharges, as those are facility operations.

Per the 2020 First Amendment to the Consent Order & Agreement dated June 26, 2020 (and the deeds transferring the parcels), Philadelphia Energy Solutions/Hilco committed to continuing to use the former refinery property for non-residential use. As such, Sunoco agreed to remediate the site to non-residential use standards under Pennsylvania Act 2 and Evergreen’s future Cleanup Plans will be developed based on the non-residential use of the property.

This also addresses the following questions:

We the environmental justice community are concerned about all of the other standards that have not been submitted yet. They were submitted with anticipated use of the site as a refinery, so are those standards going to be revised in terms of what the actual use of the property is going to be?

Delaware Riverkeeper Network is opposed to the site being cleaned up only to industrial use standards. This decision limits the use of the site and the cleanup required. The site is a rare opportunity for public open space and uses that are compatible with residence, mixed community use, and recreational use such as river access for paddling and water sports. The connection of people to the Schuylkill is of great value, as is demonstrated by the historically and economically important river access for rowing and boating upstream. These river friendly activities can be fostered by providing access from this property to the natural riverside on the Schuylkill and the downstream Delaware River. Most importantly, requiring clean up to residential standards and setting cleanup standards based on human health standards and site-specific scientifically-based standards that are protective of human health and the environment will provide maximum benefit and use of the site and not condemn it to always be a source of pollution because those responsible successfully avoided the costs of cleaning up the pollution they caused.

Potential dust from Site soils will be addressed through the remedies selected for the Site, which will be proposed in the Cleanup Plan. Measures to prevent dust generation during redevelopment should be included in Hilco Redevelopment Partner’s site development permits.

Evergreen is in the process of finishing the investigation activities at the former Philadelphia Refinery to identify the extent of the chemicals in soil and groundwater, in order to ultimately develop remediation (cleanup) plans for the site. During this process, Evergreen will develop reports and hold public meetings, both of which will have public notices. Throughout the process, we will post information to the website created for the Act 2 process (https://phillyrefinerycleanup.info). Evergreen will make additional notifications before beginning any final cleanup activities.

Evergreen interprets this question as potentially being in reference to the ongoing demolition and construction processes, which would be the responsibility of the new property owner.  However, with respect to Evergreen’s responsibility to investigate and remediate soil and groundwater contamination, the route of exposure to nearby communities would be potential indoor or outdoor air impacts from dissolved groundwater contamination that moves offsite in some areas.  However, our initial assessment did not find any potential impacts to off-site residences from the conditions in shallow groundwater.  This will be further evaluated in the future and any issues that require mitigation efforts will be addressed in future Cleanup Plans.  Evergreen is also currently developing better processes for communicating important information about our remediation program to community members.

In order to determine risk to human or ecological receptors associated with contamination in soil or groundwater, the extent of the contamination must be known/defined for accurate calculation of risk.  The calculation of the lead Site Specific Standard for shallow soil used risk-based calculations utilizing the updated Adult Lead Model and exposure assumptions recommended by the USEPA and the PADEP.  This approach was appropriate since the extent of lead in soil had been defined. The two RIRs that were not approved were due to need for additional wells to better define off-site migration of groundwater plumes, not lead in soil.

The site-specific standard for lead was calculated based on non-residential (not industrial) site use, which is consistent with the planned future use.

The refinery contamination sources discussed during the public information session are not expected to impact local drinking water supplies obtained by the City from the Delaware and Schuylkill Rivers.

1- The route of exposure (or risk pathway) identified for adjacent communities would be potential indoor or outdoor air impacts from dissolved groundwater plumes that migrate offsite.  However, initial assessment did not find any potential impacts to off-site residences from the conditions in shallow groundwater.  This will be further evaluated after the contaminant fate and transport model is completed.  Any issues that require mitigation efforts will be addressed in future Cleanup Plans.

2-Climate change will be considered during the Fate and Transport modeling. This will be presented in the Fate and Transport Remedial Investigation Report, as well as in the selection of the remedial approach of the Site, which will be presented in Cleanup Plan (s).

3-Ground and surface water runoff will be evaluated as part of the remedial approach, presented in the Cleanup Plans.

4-Questions regarding Hilco Redevelopment Partners’ plans should be directed to them.

As part of the Act 2 process, a risk assessment can be completed for a Site to develop risk based cleanup standards. The cumulative impacts from detected compounds would be included in the Risk Assessment activities. Evergreen cannot complete a Risk Assessment until the Remedial Investigation Reports are submitted and approved, and the RIR process cannot be completed until the public comment process on the Remedial Investigation Reports is completed.

Risk pathways include routes of exposure for contaminants to reach receptors. One potential pathway would be vapor migration into sewers or buildings. Vapor intrusion into buildings can be addressed through various engineering controls, such as positive pressure in a building or vapor barriers/mitigation systems. Potential sewer vapors are currently being controlled in multiple locations using remediation systems that extract air from the sewers.   Another potential risk pathway is direct contact with impacted soils, which can be controlled by eliminating the pathway via capping or use of personal protective equipment/safety standards.  All potential exposure scenarios and proposed mitigation measures will be detailed in future Cleanup Plans.

These comments refer to chemicals used in petroleum refining processes and concerns with potential gas phase/ambient air conditions.  Evergreen cannot address concerns regarding use of these chemicals as Evergreen is responsible solely for contamination in the subsurface and from releases prior to 2012.

If contamination affects certain sensitive ecological receptors, such as threatened and endangered species, it must be addressed in the cleanup. This can be accomplished through a risk assessment or remedial measures. An ecological risk assessment that evaluates the ecological receptors that would be in the Schuylkill and on site has been completed already and will be submitted through the Act 2 process upon completion of the remedial investigation phase of the project. As part of this process, chemicals at the site were evaluated in relation to the species of concern, such as the Atlantic Sturgeon and Shortnose Sturgeon. Based on this assessment, chemicals at the site were not identified as likely to impact species of concern.

There are some areas under the old process units that weren’t accessible or where it wasn’t safe for us to drill or dig because of ongoing operations. Once those units have been dismantled and the areas are accessible, Evergreen will go out and do additional sampling.  Evergreen has not been provided with the planned schedule of demolition of the unit areas.  However, the sampling will be performed immediately upon clearing of those areas and the data will have to be submitted to the PADEP as part of the Act 2 process after sampling has been conducted.

The 2015 HHRA report was completed specifically to assess lead exposure in soils to site workers.  Fenceline measurements of benzene occurred as an operational task required by the EPA because it was an operating refinery at the time, and therefore, monitoring was done by PES. Evergreen is responsible for potential impacts from contamination at or below the ground surface, so that is our focus.  We evaluate potential risk to off-site populations from dissolved plumes moving off-site. There was no indication from initial assessments that there is any risk to indoor/outdoor air from historic environmental data collected during the RI activities.

The PADEP’s Non-Residential Medium Specific Concentration (MSC) was derived using the Society for Environmental Geochemistry and Health (SEGH) model (Wixson, 1991). Since that time, the PADEP has endorsed the use of alternative uptake biokinetic models for the evaluation of lead toxicity including the Bower model (Bowers et al., 1994) for non-residential site uses. The USEPA adapted the Bowers et al. model to develop the Adult Lead Model (ALM). The ALM is a widely.accepted approach to risk characterization for non-residential exposure scenarios and recommended by the USEPA (EPA, 2001). Evergreen used the EPA’s default assumptions for assessing non-residential risks from lead exposure in the ALM model to develop the site specific standard for lead.

The rail facilities are located in AOI 5 and AOI 8. Installation of these rail facilities occurred after the property transfer to PES. Therefore, conditions near these lines resulting from their operation would not be part of Evergreen’s investigations. However, the environmental conditions characterized as part of the Act 2 investigations, which included the areas below and around the current rail areas, are included in the Remedial Investigation Reports for AOI 5 and AOI 8. Contaminants associated with past petroleum operations in those areas are summarized in those reports. Evergreen is unable to provide information about the operational conditions related to recent (since 2012) operations of the rails. PES would be better able to respond to those inquiries.

The environmental impacts that have been characterized during Evergreen’s Act 2 investigations along the waterfront are presented in the RIRs, specifically in the AOI 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10.

In order to determine risk to human or ecological receptors associated with contamination in soil or groundwater, the extent of the contamination must be known/defined for accurate calculation of risk.  The calculation of the lead Site Specific Standard for shallow soil used risk-based calculations utilizing the updated Adult Lead Model and exposure assumptions recommended by the USEPA and the PADEP.  This approach was appropriate since the extent of lead in soil had been defined. The two RIRs that were not approved were due to need for additional wells to better define off-site migration of groundwater plumes, not lead in soil.

1)The site-specific standard for lead was approved by both PADEP and EPA and utilized the updated Adult Lead Model and exposure assumptions recommended by the USEPA and the PADEP.  As part of the remedial investigations, the lead data was compared to the Act 2 SHS MSC, which is 450 ppm, based on the soil to groundwater pathway. This comparison is shown on the figures/tables in the RI Reports and in the 8/27/20 presentation. The approach that was used to calculate the SSS for direct contact was to use the Adult Lead Model recommended by the EPA. The PADEP used the same model to develop an updated non-residential lead direct contact MSC that reflects the current state of the science for lead.

2)DEP did not approve two of the RIRs – AOI-4 and AOI-9 – based on the need for additional offsite characterization, not a level of contamination over other AOIs.  The characterization portion of the AOI-11 report was sufficient for approval; however, the fate and transport  portion of the AOI-11 reports was not, which is why the report was not approved.  Data has been collected from the lower aquifer wells as part of the other AOI remedial investigations since 2013 and reported in the Remedial Investigation Report submitted since 2013.

3)Characterization and delineation of contaminants of concern does not generally require consideration of climate change, sea level rise or worsening storms.  Climate change will be considered in future fate and transport efforts and cleanup plans where that type of variable warrants consideration.

The approach used to calculate the SSS for direct contact was to use the Adult Lead Model recommended by the EPA. The PADEP used the same model to develop an updated non-residential lead direct contact MSC that reflects the current state of the science for lead. If the PADEP changes PADEP’s assumptions related to lead, such as permissible blood lead levels, Evergreen will update the SSS accordingly. The SSS for lead utilized the updated Adult Lead Model and exposure assumptions recommended by the USEPA and the PADEP.  If the PADEP changes their assumptions related to lead, such as permissible blood lead levels, Evergreen will update the SSS accordingly.

The ability to calculate a site-specific standard (for any media) is a provision in the Act 2 regulations and is not the only one allowed, but is common practice and one of the three options for standards that can be applied to a site: Statewide Health, Background, or Site-Specific. Other non-residential sites can also calculate a Site Specific Standard if they choose to do so for their Act 2 projects.

This question was also provided to PADEP, to which the following response was provided:  “Pennsylvania’s Land Recycling and Environmental Remediation Standards Act (Act 2 of 1995) allows the remediator to select the type of cleanup standard they wish to use for the site. One option is the site-specific standard, and risk assessments are a means available to any remediator to attain that standard. Evergreen chose to use a risk assessment to determine a site-specific standard for direct contact exposures of people with lead in surface soil (upper 2 feet). With this approach they were able to use a more current scientific methodology from U.S. EPA to calculate a risk-based value. Remediators who do not perform a site-specific analysis will generally use the published Statewide health standard default cleanup values, but the site-specific standard option may be used by any remediator and it is not unique to this site.”

The SSS was calculated using the updated Adult Lead Model and exposure assumptions recommended by the USEPA and the PADEP. The previous calculations used by the PADEP were outdated; therefore, the PADEP recently used the same updated Adult Lead model to develop an updated non-residential lead direct contact MSC that reflects the current state of the science for lead.  The new calculated proposed direct contact statewide health standard for lead is in line with the site-specific standard that was calculated in 2015 for the site.  If the PADEP changes their assumptions related to lead, such as permissible blood lead levels, Evergreen will update the SSS accordingly.

Remedial Investigation Reports must include delineation of contamination of soil to be approved.  This includes all analyzed compounds.  All compounds of concern were compared to their respective soil-to-groundwater medium specific concentrations, as illustrated in RIR data tables, and delineated to the direct contact medium specific concentrations in both surface and subsurface soil based on existing exposure pathways, as illustrated in RIR figures.  This delineation is conducted up to the fenceline or other boundaries of the property, as required by Act 2.

The exception to this is lead in surface soil only, that was delineated to the site-specific standard based on a direct contact pathway and updated model calculations.  As noted in response to other questions concerning the lead, the calculation of the site-specific standard was appropriate in accordance with the Act 2 regulations and recommendations from the USEPA and the PADEP.

Response also addresses similar questions: 

• Lead looks to be close to the edge of the site which is close to residential areas. Are you willing to commit to cleaning up the lead to residential standards in areas of the property that are closer to residential areas?
• Evergreen fails to sufficiently delineate exceedances of the soil-to-groundwater numeric value and the direct contact numeric value for all constituents of concern.

The remediation systems operated at the site historically and currently were installed to address groundwater or vapors since those represented potential risk pathways, which is why they were shown during the August 27^th Public Information Session. The purpose of the information session was to review historic reports which include mostly Remedial Investigation Reports.  Remedial plans for all media, including soil, will be detailed in the future Cleanup Plan(s), as remediation options are not a topic of Remedial Investigation Reports. While some areas of soil impact have been excavated previously, soil remediation can also include institutional and engineering controls which eliminate a risk by blocking a pathway of exposure.

The site-specific standard for lead was calculated based on non-residential (not industrial) site use, which is consistent with the planned future use.

The Site Specific Standard (SSS) was calculated using the updated Adult Lead Model and exposure assumptions recommended by the USEPA and the PADEP. The previous calculations used by the PADEP for lead were outdated; therefore, the PADEP recently used the same updated Adult Lead model to develop an updated non-residential lead direct contact MSC that reflects the current state of the science for lead.  The new calculated proposed direct contact statewide health standard for lead is in line with the site-specific standard that was calculated in 2015 for the site.  If the PADEP changes their assumptions related to lead, such as permissible blood lead levels, Evergreen will update the SSS accordingly.

In general, benzene and other volatile compounds are not identified for further evaluation in soils (meaning they were not detected above the statewide health standards in many locations).  However, all remedial options, which can include engineering and intuitional controls will be detailed in future Cleanup Plans.

Remedial Investigation Reports must include delineation of contamination of soil and groundwater to be approved.  Soil impacts have been delineated across the Site and up to the fence lines, meaning soils impacts are not shown to extend offsite.  The RIRs for AOI-4 and AOI-9 were not approved due to need for additional offsite delineation of groundwater impacts.  Offsite wells have been installed beyond the property boundaries of both AOIs 4 and 9.  Results will be presented in Remedial Investigation Report Addendums.  Note that the presentation graphics from the August 27^th Public Information Session included the offsite data collected up to the time of the presentation, including new offsite wells.  Additional data has been collected since the presentation for the AOI-4 offsite wells and will also be included in the AOI 4 RIR Addendum.  Both AOI 4 RIR and AOI 9 RIR Addendums must be submitted by September 2021 to meet interim goals outlined in the First Amendment to Consent Order and Agreement. 

The approach used to calculate the SSS for lead was to use the updated Adult Lead Model recommended by the USEPA. The previous calculations used by the PADEP were outdated; therefore, the PADEP recently used the same Adult Lead model to develop an updated non-residential lead direct contact MSC that reflects the current state of the science for lead.  The new calculated proposed direct contact standard for lead is in line with the site-specific standard that was calculated in 2015 for the site.  The site-specific standard was calculated using the updated Adult Lead Model and exposure assumptions recommended by the USEPA and the PADEP and has been shown to be protective of site personnel. If the PADEP changes their assumptions related to lead, Evergreen will update the SSS accordingly.

As part of the remedial investigations, Evergreen compared the lead data to the Act 2 soil-to-groundwater Statewide Health Standard, which is 450 parts per million (ppm). This comparison is shown on the figures/tables in the Remedial Investigation Reports and in the 8/27/20 presentation. The Remedial Investigation Reports only report the data, not remedial decisions relating to the use of lead Site Specific Standard. The approved Site Specific Standard for lead is based on updated information and models from the EPA and PADEP that reflect the current state of science for lead. Evergreen will modify the Site Specific Standard if the PADEP or the EPA modifies these models or assumptions.

As part of the remedial investigations, Evergreen compared the lead data to the Act 2 soil-to-groundwater Statewide Health Standard, which is 450 parts per million (ppm) and the direct contact Statewide Standard, which is 1000 ppm, as well as the Site Specific Standard. This comparison is shown on the figures/tables in the Remedial Investigation Reports and in the 8/27/20 presentation. The Remedial Investigation Reports only report the data, no remedial decisions relating to the use of lead Site-Specific Standard are included in the Remedial Investigation Reports. The approved Site-Specific Standard for lead is based on updated information and models from the EPA and PADEP that reflect the current state of science for lead. Evergreen will modify the Site-Specific Standard if the PADEP or the EPA modifies these models or assumptions. If the PADEP changes their assumptions related to lead, such as permissible blood lead levels, Evergreen will update the Site-specific standard accordingly.

There are some areas under the old process units that weren’t accessible or where it wasn’t safe for us to drill or dig because of ongoing operations. Once those units have been dismantled and the areas are accessible, Evergreen will go out and do additional sampling.  Evergreen has not been provided with the planned schedule of demolition of the unit areas.  However, the sampling will be performed immediately upon clearing of those areas and the data will have to be submitted to the PADEP as part of the Act 2 process after sampling has been conducted.