Evergreen has stated that it has the fate and transport model, but that it has not been finalized. Can Evergreen share this information with us? It doesn’t have to be final in order for the public to see it. In fact, Act 2 specifically calls for public involvement during the development of all reports, so we would appreciate the opportunity to see and make comments on the fate and transport studies and model in its draft form or formative stage.

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... read more

Could you clarify the period in which you are considering climate change projections? Is it the period of remediation or the post-remediation use of the site? If it’s post-remediation, what assumption are you using for future climate change?

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... read more

I think we’re asking the same questions about climate change/sea level rise etc., because we cannot parse/understand the answers that have been posted on the web site.

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... read more

On the Q+A page, responding to the question “Why is there no mention of climate change in discussion of the Water-table aquifer? …”, the response includes the sentence “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.” This misrepresents the nature of climate change and sea level rise. It’s not a question of higher tides. Everything will be higher – low tides, mean water levels, and high tides. Everything is going to go up. This will affect both the Schuykill (as far as it is tidal, to the art museum), and the Delaware. 1. What sources and estimates for climate change and sea level rise is Evergreen working with? 2. What is the maximum value for sea level rise that Evergreen is considering? 3. Sea-levels will continue to rise at least into the next century. What time-scale, in terms of years from now, does Evergreen consider adequate to ‘future proof’ the site from rising sea levels?

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. ... read more

On the Q+A page, responding to the question “Evergreen’s answer on the website to the question of whether climate change will be incorporated in the groundwater modeling …”, Evergreen’s response includes the sentence “Evergreen plans to evaluate climate change data … will include a review of available literature on climate change predictions for the Philadelphia region.” 1. It would be useful to see which sources Evergreen is consulting. Will Evergreen share a bibliography of the sources that you have consulted with the public?

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... read more

As a former groundwater quality specialist, even small breaks in confining layers can result in significant transfer of contaminants. And, the direction and rates of water movement can change over time, often from groundwater drilling.

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,... read more

Deep Aquifer – Evergreen states a layer of clay and mud partly separates the upper, “water table” aquifer from a lower, “deep” aquifer. This barrier is not continuous, though, and fails to protect the deep aquifer from contamination. Since the deep aquifer supplies drinking water to communities in New Jersey, Evergreen needs to specify the actions it will take to investigate and clean up any contamination affecting the deep aquifer and public water supplies.

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... read more

How much more information do you need to complete the fate and transport model?

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... read more

Evergreen’s answer on the website to the question of whether climate change will be incorporated in the groundwater modeling states, “the boundary condition data variability must be quantifiable and based on accepted models or observations.” What in plain language does this response mean? You have not directly answered the question. What efforts are being made to quantify the boundary condition data? Are accepted models available or not? If not, why not?

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... read more

Why is there no mention of climate change in discussion of the Water-table aquifer? These levels could change by multiple feet in the next few decades.

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... read more