remedial action report -...

98-102 STEUBEN STREET

BROOKLYN, NEW YORK

Remedial Action Report

NYC VCP Project Number 15CVCP090K

E-Designation Project Number 15EH-N053K

Prepared For:

Clinton Hill Development II LLC

152 West 57th Street, 60th Floor

New York, NY 11205

(212) 649-9700

Prepared By:

Carlin-Simpson & Associates

61 Main Street

Sayreville, NJ 08872

732-432-5757

JUNE 2017

98-102 Steuben Street


May 2017

2

REMEDIAL ACTION REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ACRONYMS ...................................................................................................... 5

CERTIFICATION .............................................................................................................. 6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................. 7

REMEDIAL ACTION REPORT ........................................................................................ 16

1.0 SITE BACKGROUND ........................................................................................... 16

1.1 SITE LOCATION AND BACKGROUND ................................................ 16

1.2 REDEVELOPMENT PLAN ....................................................................... 16

1.3 DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY ................................. 17

1.4 SUMMARY OF PAST SITE USES AND AREAS OF CONCERN ......... 17

1.5 SUMMARY OF WORK PERFORMED UNDER THE REMEDIAL

INVESTIGATION ...................................................................................... 19

1.6 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION ........... 19

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ACTIONS ......................................................... 21

3.0 COMPLIANCE WITH REMEDIAL ACTION WORK PLAN ............................. 25

3.1 CONSTRUCTION HEALTH & SAFETY PLAN ..................................... 25

3.2 COMMUNITY AIR MONITORING PLAN.............................................. 25

3.3 SOIL/MATERIALS MANAGEMENT PLAN........................................... 25

3.4 STORM-WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION ...................................... 25

3.5 DEVIATIONS FROM THE REMEDIAL ACTION WORK PLAN ......... 25

4.0 REMEDIAL PROGRAM ....................................................................................... 27

4.1 PROJECT ORGANIZATION .................................................................... 27

4.2 SITE CONTROLS ...................................................................................... 27

4.3 MATERIALS EXCAVATION AND REMOVAL ACTION .................... 30

4.4 MATERIALS DISPOSAL .......................................................................... 32

4.5 BACKFILL IMPORT ................................................................................. 34



May 2017

3

5.0 ENGINEERING CONTROLS ............................................................................... 36

6.0 INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS ............................................................................ 38

7.0 SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN ............................................................................... 39

8.0 SUSTAINABILITY REPORT ............................................................................... 40

FIGURES

Figure 1: Site Location Map

Figure 2: Site Boundary Map

Figure 3: Development Plan

Figure 4: Map of End-Point Sample Locations

Figure 5: Map Showing Location and Approximate Depth of Excavations

Figure 6: Map of Soil Reuse and Backfill Placement Locations

Figure 7: As-Built Plan of Vapor Barrier System & SSDS System

Figure 8: SSDS System Riser Diagram

TABLES

Table 1: Summary of End-Point Analytical Results

Table 1A: Summary of End-Point Analytical Results

Table 2: List of SCOs

Table 3: Disposal Quantities and Disposal Facilities

Table 4: Backfill Quantities and Sources



May 2017

4

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Remedial Investigation Report

Appendix B: Remedial Action Work Plan & Stipulation List

Appendix C: Daily Reports to OER

Appendix D: Photographs of Remedial Action

Appendix E: Community Air Monitoring Plan Results

Appendix F: Disposal Facility Documentation and Approval Letters

Appendix G: Shipping and Disposal Manifests

Appendix H: Disposal Characterization Sample Laboratory Testing Results

Appendix I: End-point Sample Analytical Laboratory Data Reports

Appendix J: Documentation for Vapor Barrier System

Appendix K: Imported Backfill Laboratory Analytical Data Reports



May 2017

5

LIST OF ACRONYMS

Acronym Definition

CAMP Community Air Monitoring Plan

DER-10 NYS DEC Division of Environmental Remediation Technical

Guidance Manual 10

EC Engineering Control

HASP Health and Safety Plan

IC Institutional Control

NYC VCP New York City Voluntary Cleanup Program

NYC DEP New York City Department of Environmental Protection

NYC DOHMH New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene

NYC OER New York City Office of Environmental Remediation

NYS DEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

ORC Oxygen Release Compound

PID Photoionization Detector

QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control

QEP Qualified Environmental Professional

RAR Remedial Action Report

RAWP Remedial Action Work Plan

RCA Recycled Concrete Aggregate

SCG Standards, Criteria and Guidance

SCO Soil Cleanup Objective

SMMP Soil/Materials Management Plan

SMP Site Management Plan

SVOCs Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds

UST Underground Storage Tank

VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds



May 2017

6

CERTIFICATION

I, Robert B. Simpson, P.E., certify the following:

• I am currently a registered professional engineer licensed by the State of New York.

• I performed professional engineering services and had primary direct responsibility for

implementation of the remedial program for the 98-102 Steuben Street site, site number

15CVCP090K.

• I have reviewed this document, to which my signature and seal are affixed.

• The vapor barrier constructed during this remedial action was designed by me or a person under my

direct supervision and achieves the goals established in the Remedial Action Work Plan for this site.

• The passive SSDS, and vapor barrier constructed during this remedial action were designed by me

or a person under my direct supervision and achieve the goals established in the Remedial Action

Work Plan for this site.

The vapor barrier and passive SSDS constructed during this remedial action were professionally

observed by me or by a person under my direct supervision are accurately reflected in the text and

drawings for as-built design reported in this Remedial Action Report.

• The OER-approved Remedial Action Work Plan dated March 2015 and Stipulations in a letter dated

15 April 2015 were implemented and that all requirements in those documents have been

substantively complied with. I certify that contaminated soil, fill, liquid or other material from the

property was taken to facilities licensed to accept this material in full compliance with applicable

laws and regulations.

Name

Robert B. Simpson, P.E.

PE License Number

081840

Date

6/21/17

Signature

I, Meredith R. Anke, certify the following:

• I am a Qualified Environmental Professional. I had primary direct responsibility for implementation of the

remedial program for 98-102 Steuben Street site, site number 15CVCP090K.

• The OER-approved Remedial Action Work Plan dated March 2015 and Stipulations in a letter dated 15

April 2015 were implemented and that all requirements in those documents have been substantively

complied with. I certify that contaminated soil, fill, liquid or other material from the property was taken

to facilities licensed to accept this material in full compliance with applicable laws and regulations.

QEP Name

Meredith R. Anke Date

6/21/17 QEP Signature



May 2017

7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Clinton Hill Development II LLC has enrolled in the New York City Voluntary

Cleanup Program (NYC VCP) to investigate and remediate a property located at 98-102

Steuben Street in the Clinton Hill section of Brooklyn, New York. A Remedial

Investigation (RI) was performed to compile and evaluate data and information necessary

to develop a Remedial Action Work Plan (RAWP). A remedial action was performed

pursuant to the OER-approved RAWP in a manner that has rendered the Site protective of

public health and the environment consistent with the proposed use of the property. This

RAR describes the remedial action performed under the RAWP. The remedial action

described in this document provides for the protection of public health and the

environment and complies with applicable environmental standards, criteria and guidance

and applicable laws and regulations.

Site Location and Background

The Site is located at 98-102 Steuben Street in the Clinton Hill section in Brooklyn,

New York and is identified as Block 1893 and Lot 47 on the New York City Tax Map.

The Site Location Map is shown in Figure 1. The Site is 7,500-square feet and is bounded

by Steuben Street to the east, residential properties to the south, and multi-family

residential properties to the north and west. The Site Boundary Map is shown in Figure 2.

Prior to development, the Site was vacant but had been used for residential use and storage.

The site previously contained two residential two-story buildings with basements. There

was also a yard to the west of the buildings, undeveloped space in the northern portion of

the property, and a small dilapidated structure in the northwest corner of the Site.

Summary of Redevelopment Plan

The Site is 7,500-square feet in total area. The former Site buildings were demolished

in order to re-develop the property. The development of the Site consists of a new 8-story

multi-family residential building with a full cellar. The building has 39 residential units

and is approximately 4,500 square feet in area. The structure is situated in the eastern

portion (front) of the property. An excavation depth ranging from approximately 14 to 20



May 2017

8

feet was required in the building area. This depth was deeper than anticipated in the RAWP

but was required due to the thickness of the mat foundation system and the existing

foundation conditions of the adjacent buildings to the north and south of the Site.

There is also an open space area in the western portion of the site (rear yard),

approximately 3,000 square feet in area, with tiered retaining walls and landscaping plants

along the western property line. The area between the building and the retaining walls

consists of a concrete paver patio. The entire rear yard area was excavated to a depth of

approximately 10 feet below grade, which corresponds to the building cellar elevation.

This excavation was as anticipated in the RAWP but the retaining wall layout was revised

from the plan included in the RAWP.

A map showing the building location, basement location, and open space location is

shown in the Development Plan in Figure 3.

Summary of Description of Surrounding Property

The area surrounding the Site consists of residential and commercial properties. To the

immediate north of the Site is a 7-story multi-family residential building that was

completed in 2014. To the west is another 7-story multi-family residential building on

Grand Avenue. To the east is Steuben Street followed by commercial buildings. To the

south of the Site are three (3) 4-story residential buildings followed by commercial

properties along Myrtle Avenue.

Summary of Past Site Uses and Areas of Concern

At the time of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) in February 2014, the

northern Site building and the first floor of the southern Site building were being used for

storage. The second floor of the southern building was occupied by residential tenants.

The exterior of the site was also being used for storage.

According to the Phase I ESA Report, the southern portion of the Site had been

occupied with a two-story structure since 1887. The two-story structure had been primarily

occupied by residential tenants from 1887 to 2007 with the exception of a brief period

from 1969 to 1977 when it was occupied by an office. From 2007 to 2014, the two-story



May 2017

9

structure had been occupied by both residential and commercial tenants. A varying level

lumber shed was located to the west of the structure from 1915 to 1938 and a single-story

shed was located to the west from 1938 to 1969.

The Phase I ESA Report also indicated that the northern portion of the Site had been

occupied with a two-story structure since 1887. The two-story structure had been occupied

by both residential and commercial tenants from 1887 to 2014. Commercial tenants

including offices, a storage company, a coal company, and a setting controls company had

occupied the northern portion of the site from 1934 to 2014. A stable was located to the

north and west of this structure from 1887 to 1904 and a lumber storage building was

located to the north from 1904 to 1938. Additionally, a lumber shed was located to the

west of the structure from 1915 to 1938. In the period from 1938 to 1969, a contractor’s

storage facility was located to the north of the structure. From 1977 to 2007, a single-story

auto repair facility was located in the northwest portion of the Site.

Based on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) that was performed by

Environmental Business Consultants (EBC) in February 2014, the areas of concern

(AOCs) identified for this site were as follows:

1. There was a 275-gallon heating oil aboveground storage tank (AST) (installation

date unknown) in the basement of 102 Steuben Street located on the southern

portion of the Site. The heating oil fill pipe and vent pipe for the AST in the

basement were observed on the east side of the Site. The AST was connected to a

boiler. The oil supply line from the AST to the boiler was buried and was most

likely repaired at some point as holes in the concrete indicated. Surficial staining

was noted on top of the AST and on the concrete floor in the area of the boiler. The

presence of the staining represents a recognized environmental concern as it is

indicative of a release of heating oil from the oil supply line which may have

impacted the subsurface at the Site.

2. Based on a review of historical records, a single-story commercial building used for

auto repair operations was located on the northwest portion of the Site from

approximately 1977 to circa 2007. Auto repair facilities typically store and utilize



May 2017

10

solvents and petroleum products on-site including oil, waste oil, antifreeze, battery

acid, grease, antifreeze, and solvent parts washers. The former occupancy of the

auto repair facility on the northwest side of the Site represents a recognized

environmental condition.

Summary of the Work Performed under the Remedial Investigation

The scope of work for the RI was developed in response to the planned development

project and took into consideration the AOCs listed above. An investigation of soil, soil

vapor, and groundwater was performed to characterize the entire Site for potential

environmental contamination from historic on-site uses, operations, etc. As part of this

investigation, Carlin-Simpson & Associates performed the following scope of work:

1. Installed 7 soil borings across the entire project Site, and collected 12 soil samples

for chemical analysis from the soil borings to evaluate soil quality;

2. Installed 3 groundwater monitoring wells throughout the Site to establish

groundwater flow and collected 3 groundwater samples for chemical analysis to

evaluate groundwater quality;

In addition, Environmental Maintenance Contractors, Inc. (EMC) performed the

following scope of work:

1. Installed 4 soil vapor probes across the project Site and collected 4 samples for

chemical analysis.

Summary of Findings of Remedial Investigation

1. Elevation of the property ranges from approximately 42 to 44 feet.

2. Depth to groundwater ranges from 37.5 to 38.4 feet at the Site.

3. Groundwater flow is generally from south to north beneath the Site.

4. Depth to bedrock is greater than 102 feet at the Site.

5. The stratigraphy of the site, from the surface down, consists of 2 to 5 feet of

existing fill material (Class 7) that is underlain by medium dense to dense Sand,

Silty Sand, or Sandy Silt, with trace to little Gravel (Class 3a or 3b).



May 2017

11

6. Twelve soil/fill samples collected during the investigations were compared to New

York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Part 375, Table

375-6.8 Unrestricted Use and Restricted Residential Use Soil Cleanup Objectives

(SCOs). The samples results showed that VOCs, pesticides, and PCBs were not

detected in any of soil samples. Several SVOCs including benzo(a)anthracene

(max. of 6.8 mg/kg), benzo(a)pyrene (max. of 5.4 mg/kg), benzo(b)fluoranthene

(max 6.8 mg/kg), benzo(k)fluoranthene (max 2.6 mg/kg), chrysene (max 7.3

mg/kg), dibenz(a,h)anthracene (max 1.4 mg/kg), and indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene (max

5.1 mg/kg), were detected above Restricted Residential Use SCOs in four shallow

(0 to 2’) samples. The detected SVOCs are all in a class of compounds known as

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Metals including arsenic (max of 32.9

mg.kg), barium (max of 646 mg/kg), cadmium (max 3.7 mg/kg), copper (max 550

mg/kg), lead (max of 1580 mg/kg), and mercury (max 1.5 mg/kg) exceeded

Restricted Residential Use SCOs in one or more shallow soil samples. Nickel,

silver, and zinc also exceeded Unrestricted Use SCOs. Only iron exceeded

Restricted Residential Use SCOs in deeper soil samples. The data indicates that the

PAHs and metals, which are typical constituents of historic fill material, are

widespread in the upper 2 to 5 feet across the site at varying concentrations.

7. Three groundwater samples collected during the investigations were compared to

the NYSDEC Technical and Operational Guidance Series (TOGS) 1.1.1 Ambient

Water Quality Standards (GQS) for Class GA (drinking water). Groundwater

samples collected during the RI showed that SVOCs, pesticides, and PCBs were

not detected in groundwater. Three VOCs including chloroform, tetrachloroethene

(PCE), and trichloroethene were detected in groundwater samples. Only PCE at 28

ug/L exceeded its GQS in one of three groundwater samples. Several metals were

identified in groundwater, but only sodium exceeded its GQS. The RI data

indicates that there is no widespread impact to the groundwater below the Site as a

result of the historic fill material or the identified AOCs. Based on the Groundwater

Flow Map, the PCE appears to be from an unknown upgradient source to the south

of the Site.



May 2017

12

8. Four soil vapor samples collected during the 2014 RI were compared Table 3.1 Air

Guideline Values derived by the NYSDOH located in the New York State

Department of Health (NYSDOH) Final Guidance for Evaluating Soil Vapor

Intrusion. Soil vapor samples showed moderate levels of petroleum related and

chlorinated VOCs in all soil vapor samples. Most contaminant concentrations were

below 20 ug/m3 except for 2,2,4-trimethylpentane (max of 8,100 ug/m3), acetone

(max of 210 ug/m3), cyclohexane (max of 950 ug/m3), and hexane (max of 2,800

ug/m3). Petroleum related compounds (BTEX) were detected at a maximum

concentration of 169 ug/m3. Chlorinated VOC, tetrachloroethylene (PCE) was

detected in all four samples at a maximum concentration of 26 μg/m3.

Trichlorethylene (TCE) was detected in three samples at a maximum concentration

of 1.3 μg/m3. Carbon tetrachloride was not detected in any samples. The TCE and

PCE concentrations are below the monitoring level ranges established within the

State NYS DOH soil vapor guidance matrix.

Appendix A includes the RIR

Summary of the Remedial Action

The Remedial Action achieved protection of public health and the environment for the

intended use of the property. The Remedial Action achieved all of the Remedial Action

Objectives established for the project; addressed applicable standards, criteria, and

guidance; reduced mobility, toxicity and volume of contaminants; was cost effective and

implementable; and used standard methods that are well established in the industry. The

remedial action is effective in the short-term and long-term.

A summary of the milestones achieved in the Remedial Action is as follows: A

Remedial Investigation (RI) was performed from December 2014 to January 2015. A RI

Report dated February 2015 was prepared to evaluate data and information necessary to

develop a Remedial Action Work Plan (RAWP). A Site Contact List was established. A

draft RAWP was prepared and released with a Fact Sheet on March 10, 2015 for a 30-day

public comment period. The RAWP and Stipulation List dated April 15, 2015 was

approved by the New York City Office of Environmental Remediation (OER) on April 23,



May 2017

13

2015. A Pre-Construction Meeting was held on May 20, 2015. The remedial action was

begun in May 2015 and completed in April 2017. Appendix B contains the RAWP.

The remedial action consisted of the following tasks:

1. Prepared a Community Protection Statement and implemented a Citizen

Participation Plan.

2. Mobilized site security and equipment; completed utility mark outs; and marked

and staked excavation areas.

3. Performed Waste Characterization Study prior to excavation activities. Nine waste

characterization soil samples were collected in February and September 2015.

Waste characterization samples were collected at a frequency dictated by disposal

facility(s).

4. Performed a Community Air Monitoring Program for particulates and volatile

organic carbon compounds.

5. Selected NYSDEC Part 375 Track 1 Soil Cleanup Objectives (SCOs).

6. The following excavations were performed: soil on the site was removed to depths

ranging from 14 to 20 feet from grade beneath the area of the new building and to

a depth of 10 feet below grade in the open space rear yard area. A total of 3,377

cubic yards of soil/fill was excavated and removed from the property.

7. Excavated 2,935.30 tons (~1,980 cubic yards) of non-hazardous soil/fill (historic

fill) and transported it to Coplay Aggregates, 5101 West Coplay Road, Whitehall,

PA; excavated 1,856.07 tons (~1,240 cubic yards) of clean soil and transported to

Vanbro Corporation, 1900 South Avenue, Staten Island, NY; excavated

approximately 286 tons (191 cubic yards) of clean soil and transported to Con-

Strux, 702 Grand Blvd., Westbury, NY.

8. Screened excavated soil/fill during intrusive work for indications of contamination

by visual means, odor, and monitoring with a PID.

9. Conducted materials management of excavated materials including temporarily

stockpiling and segregating in accordance with defined material types and to

prevent co-mingling of contaminated material and non-contaminated materials.



May 2017

14

10. Appropriately segregated excavated media onsite prior to disposal. Transported

and disposed all soil/fill material at permitted facilities in accordance with all

applicable laws and regulations for handling, transporting, and disposing, and the

RAWP.

11. Collected and analyzed 9 end-point samples to determine attainment of SCOs.

Track 1 SCOs were achieved.

12. As part of development, constructed an engineered Composite Cover System

consisting of a 36-inch thick mat foundation in the building area; retaining walls

and up to 10 feet of clean soil fill behind the walls in the rear yard; and concrete

pavers on virgin soil in the rear yard. The contractors for the Composite Cover

System construction were Red Hook Construction Group (building) and ECI

Contracting LLC (rear yard).

13. Installed a Vapor Barrier System that consisted of a 20-mil polyethylene vapor

barrier liner (VaporBlock Plus 20 by Raven Industries, Inc.) beneath the building

slab and along the below-grade foundation walls”. The contractor for the Vapor

Barrier System construction was Red Hook Construction Group.

14. Installed a passive Sub-Slab Depressurization System consisting of one loop of 4-

inch diameter slotted high density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe with one 4-inch

diameter cast iron vent riser pipe vented above the roof of the building. The

contractor for the Passive Sub-Slab Depressurization System construction was Red

Hook Construction Group.

15. Performed all activities required for the Remedial Action, including permitting

requirements and pretreatment requirements, in compliance with applicable laws

and regulations.

16. Implemented storm-water pollution prevention measures in compliance with

applicable laws and regulations.

17. Imported soil to be used for backfill and cover in compliance with the Remedial

Action Work Plan and in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.

18. Submitted daily reports during construction oversight activities. Daily reports were

submitted from May 27, 2015 to April 8, 2017.

19. Submitted a Sustainability Report.



May 2017

15

20. Submitted an RAR that describes the Remedial Action; certifies that the remedial

requirements defined in the RAWP have been achieved; defines the Site

boundaries; and lists any changes from the RAWP.



May 2017

16

REMEDIAL ACTION REPORT

1.0 SITE BACKGROUND

Clinton Hill Development II LLC has enrolled in the New York City Voluntary

Cleanup Program (NYC VCP) to investigate and remediate a property located at 98-102

Steuben Street in the Clinton Hill section of Brooklyn, New York. The boundary of the

property subject to this Remedial Action is shown in Figure 2 and includes, in its entirety,

Brooklyn Block 1893 and Lot 47. The Remedial Action was performed pursuant to the

OER-approved RAWP in a manner that has rendered the property protective of public

health and the environment consistent with its intended use. This RAR describes the

Remedial Action performed under the RAWP. The remedial action described in this

document provides for the protection of public health and the environment and complies

with applicable environmental standards, criteria and guidance (SCGs) and applicable laws

and regulations.

1.1 SITE LOCATION AND BACKGROUND

The Site is located at 98-102 Steuben Street in the Clinton Hill section in Brooklyn,

New York and is identified as Block 1893 and Lot 47 on the New York City Tax Map.

The Site Location Map is shown in Figure 1. The Site is 7,500-square feet and is bounded

by Steuben Street to the east, residential properties to the south, and multi-family

residential properties to the north and west. The Site Boundary Map is shown in Figure 2.

Prior to development, the Site was vacant but had been used for residential use and storage.

The site previously contained two residential two-story buildings with basements. There

was also a yard to the west of the buildings, undeveloped space in the northern portion of

the property, and a small dilapidated structure in the northwest corner of the Site.

1.2 REDEVELOPMENT PLAN

The Site is 7,500-square feet in total area. The former Site buildings were demolished

in order to re-develop the property. The development of the Site consists of a new 8-story

multi-family residential building with a full cellar. The building has 39 residential units

and is approximately 4,500 square feet in area. The structure is situated in the eastern



May 2017

17

portion (front) of the property. An excavation depth ranging from approximately 14 to 20

feet was required in the building area. This depth was deeper than anticipated in the RAWP

but was required due to the thickness of the mat foundation system and the existing

foundation conditions of the adjacent buildings to the north and south of the Site.

There is also an open space area in the western portion of the site (rear yard),

approximately 3,000 square feet in area, with tiered retaining walls and landscaping plants

along the western property line. The area between the building and the retaining walls

consists of a concrete paver patio. The entire rear yard area was excavated to a depth of

approximately 10 feet below grade, which corresponds to the building cellar elevation.

This excavation was as anticipated in the RAWP but the retaining wall layout was revised

from the plan included in the RAWP.

A map showing the building location, basement location and open space location is

shown in the Development Plan in Figure 3.

1.3 DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY

The area surrounding the Site consists of residential and commercial properties. To the

immediate north of the Site is a 7-story multi-family residential building that was

completed in 2014. To the west is another 7-story multi-family residential building on

Grand Avenue. To the east is Steuben Street followed by commercial buildings. To the

south of the Site are three (3) 4-story residential buildings followed by commercial

properties along Myrtle Avenue.

1.4 SUMMARY OF PAST SITE USES AND AREAS OF CONCERN

At the time of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) in February 2014, the

northern Site building and the first floor of the southern Site building were being used for

storage. The second floor of the southern building was occupied by residential tenants.

The exterior of the site was also being used for storage.

According to the Phase I ESA Report, the southern portion of the Site had been

occupied with a two-story structure since 1887. The two-story structure had been primarily

occupied by residential tenants from 1887 to 2007 with the exception of a brief period



May 2017

18

from 1969 to 1977 when it was occupied by an office. From 2007 to 2014, the two-story

structure had been occupied by both residential and commercial tenants. A varying level

lumber shed was located to the west of the structure from 1915 to 1938 and a single-story

shed was located to the west from 1938 to 1969.

The Phase I ESA Report also indicated that the northern portion of the Site had been

occupied with a two-story structure since 1887. The two-story structure had been occupied

by both residential and commercial tenants from 1887 to 2014. Commercial tenants

including offices, a storage company, a coal company, and a setting controls company had

occupied the northern portion of the site from 1934 to 2014. A stable was located to the

north and west of this structure from 1887 to 1904 and a lumber storage building was

located to the north from 1904 to 1938. Additionally, a lumber shed was located to the

west of the structure from 1915 to 1938. In the period from 1938 to 1969, a contractor’s

storage facility was located to the north of the structure. From 1977 to 2007, a single-story

auto repair facility was located in the northwest portion of the Site.

Based on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) that was performed by

Environmental Business Consultants (EBC) in February 2014, the areas of concern

(AOCs) identified for this site were as follows:

1. There was a 275-gallon heating oil aboveground storage tank (AST) (installation

date unknown) in the basement of 102 Steuben Street located on the southern

portion of the Site. The heating oil fill pipe and vent pipe for the AST in the

basement were observed on the east side of the Site. The AST was connected to a

boiler. The oil supply line from the AST to the boiler was buried and was most

likely repaired at some point as holes in the concrete indicated. Surficial staining

was noted on top of the AST and on the concrete floor in the area of the boiler. The

presence of the staining represents a recognized environmental concern as it is

indicative of a release of heating oil from the oil supply line which may have

impacted the subsurface at the Site.

2. Based on a review of historical records, a single-story commercial building used for

auto repair operations was located on the northwest portion of the Site from



May 2017

19

approximately 1977 to circa 2007. Auto repair facilities typically store and utilize

solvents and petroleum products on-site including oil, waste oil, antifreeze, battery

acid, grease, antifreeze, and solvent parts washers. The former occupancy of the

auto repair facility on the northwest side of the Site represents a recognized

environmental condition.

1.5 SUMMARY OF WORK PERFORMED UNDER THE REMEDIAL

INVESTIGATION

The scope of work for the RI was developed in response to the planned development

project and took into consideration the AOCs listed above. An investigation of soil, soil

vapor, and groundwater was performed to characterize the entire Site for potential

environmental contamination from historic on-site uses, operations, etc. As part of this

investigation, Carlin-Simpson & Associates performed the following scope of work:

1. Installed 7 soil borings across the entire project Site, and collected 12 soil samples

for chemical analysis from the soil borings to evaluate soil quality;

2. Installed 3 groundwater monitoring wells throughout the Site to establish

groundwater flow and collected 3 groundwater samples for chemical analysis to

evaluate groundwater quality;

In addition, Environmental Maintenance Contractors, Inc. (EMC) performed the

following scope of work:

1. Installed 4 soil vapor probes across the project Site and collected 4 samples for

chemical analysis.

1.6 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

1. Elevation of the property ranges from approximately 42 to 44 feet.

2. Depth to groundwater ranges from 37.5 to 38.4 feet at the Site.

3. Groundwater flow is generally from south to north beneath the Site.

4. Depth to bedrock is greater than 102 feet at the Site.



May 2017

20

5. The stratigraphy of the site, from the surface down, consists of 2 to 5 feet of

existing fill material (Class 7) that is underlain by medium dense to dense Sand,

Silty Sand, or Sandy Silt, with trace to little Gravel (Class 3a or 3b).

6. Twelve soil/fill samples collected during the investigations were compared to New

York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Part 375, Table

375-6.8 Unrestricted Use (Track 1) and Restricted Residential Use (Track 2) Soil

Cleanup Objectives (SCOs). The samples results showed that VOCs, pesticides,

and PCBs were not detected in any of soil samples. Several SVOCs including

benzo(a)anthracene (max. of 6.8 mg/kg), benzo(a)pyrene (max. of 5.4 mg/kg),

benzo(b)fluoranthene (max 6.8 mg/kg), benzo(k)fluoranthene (max 2.6 mg/kg),

chrysene (max 7.3 mg/kg), dibenz(a,h)anthracene (max 1.4 mg/kg), and

indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene (max 5.1 mg/kg), were detected above Restricted

Residential Use SCOs in four shallow (0 to 2’) samples. The detected SVOCs are

all in a class of compounds known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).

Metals including arsenic (max of 32.9 mg.kg), barium (max of 646 mg/kg),

cadmium (max 3.7 mg/kg), copper (max 550 mg/kg), lead (max of 1580 mg/kg),

and mercury (max 1.5 mg/kg) exceeded Restricted Residential Use SCOs in one or

more shallow soil samples. Nickel, silver, and zinc also exceeded Unrestricted Use

SCOs. Only iron exceeded Restricted Residential Use SCOs in deeper soil samples.

The data indicates that the PAHs and metals, which are typical constituents of

historic fill material, are widespread in the upper 2 to 5 feet across the site at

varying concentrations.

7. Three groundwater samples collected during the investigations were compared to

the NYSDEC Technical and Operational Guidance Series (TOGS) 1.1.1 Ambient

Water Quality Standards (GQS) for Class GA (drinking water). Groundwater

samples collected during the RI showed that SVOCs, pesticides, and PCBs were

not detected in groundwater. Three VOCs including chloroform, tetrachloroethene

(PCE), and trichloroethene were detected in groundwater samples. Only PCE at 28

ug/L exceeded its GQS in one of three groundwater samples. Several metals were

identified in groundwater, but only sodium exceeded its GQS. The RI data



May 2017

21

indicates that there is no widespread impact to the groundwater below the Site as a

result of the historic fill material or the identified AOCs. Based on the Groundwater

Flow Map, the PCE appears to be from an unknown upgradient source to the south

of the Site.

8. Four soil vapor samples collected during the 2014 RI were compared Table 3.1 Air

Guideline Values derived by the NYSDOH located in the New York State

Department of Health (NYSDOH) Final Guidance for Evaluating Soil Vapor

Intrusion. Soil vapor samples showed moderate levels of petroleum related and

chlorinated VOCs in all soil vapor samples. Most contaminant concentrations were

below 20 ug/m3 except for 2,2,4-trimethylpentane (max of 8,100 ug/m3), acetone

(max of 210 ug/m3), cyclohexane (max of 950 ug/m3), and hexane (max of 2,800

ug/m3). Petroleum related compounds (BTEX) were detected at a maximum

concentration of 169 ug/m3. Chlorinated VOC, tetrachloroethylene (PCE) was

detected in all four samples at a maximum concentration of 26 μg/m3.

Trichlorethylene (TCE) was detected in three samples at a maximum concentration

of 1.3 μg/m3. Carbon tetrachloride was not detected in any samples. The TCE and

PCE concentrations are below the monitoring level ranges established within the

State NYS DOH soil vapor guidance matrix.

Appendix A includes the RIR.



May 2017

22

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ACTIONS

The Remedial Action was performed in accordance with an OER-approved Remedial

Action Work Plan and achieved the Remedial Action Objectives established for the

project. The Remedial Action was evaluated in an alternatives analysis and was determined

to be protective of human health and the environment, compliant with standards, criteria,

and guidelines (SCGs), effective in the short-term, effective in the long-term, capable of

attaining appropriate levels of reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume of contaminated

material, implementable, cost effective, acceptable to the community, consistent with land

uses, and sustainable.

A summary of the milestones achieved in the Remedial Action is as follows: A

Remedial Investigation (RI) was performed from December 2014 to January 2015. A RI

Report dated February 2015 was prepared to evaluate data and information necessary to

develop a Remedial Action Work Plan (RAWP). A Site Contact List was established. A

RAWP was prepared and released with a Fact Sheet on March 10, 2015 for a 30-day public

comment period. The RAWP and Stipulation List dated April 15, 2015 was approved by

the New York City Office of Environmental Remediation (OER) on April 23, 2015. A Pre-

Construction meeting was held on May 20, 2015. The remedial action was begun on May

27, 2015 and completed on April 8, 2017. Appendix B includes the RAWP.

The remedial action consisted of the following tasks:

1. Prepared a Community Protection Statement and implemented a Citizen

Participation Plan.

2. Mobilized site security and equipment; completed utility mark outs; and marked

and staked excavation areas.

3. Performed Waste Characterization Study prior to excavation activities. Nine waste

characterization soil samples were collected in February and September 2015.

Waste characterization samples were collected at a frequency dictated by disposal

facility(s).

4. Performed a Community Air Monitoring Program for particulates and volatile

organic carbon compounds.



May 2017

23

5. Selected NYSDEC Part 375 Track 1 Soil Cleanup Objectives (SCOs).

6. The following excavations were performed: soil on the site was removed to depths

ranging from 14 to 20 feet from grade beneath the area of the new building and to

a depth of 10 feet below grade in the open space rear yard area. A total of 3,377

cubic yards of soil/fill was excavated and removed from the property.

7. Excavated 2,935.30 tons (~1,980 cubic yards) of non-hazardous soil/fill (historic

fill) and transported it to Coplay Aggregates, 5101 West Coplay Road, Whitehall,

PA; excavated 1,856.07 tons (~1,240 cubic yards) of clean soil and transported to

Vanbro Corporation, 1900 South Avenue, Staten Island, NY; excavated

approximately 286 tons (191 cubic yards) of clean soil and transported to Con-

Strux, 702 Grand Blvd., Westbury, NY.

8. Screened excavated soil/fill during intrusive work for indications of contamination

by visual means, odor, and monitoring with a PID.

9. Conducted materials management of excavated materials including temporarily

stockpiling and segregating in accordance with defined material types and to

prevent co-mingling of contaminated material and non-contaminated materials.

10. Appropriately segregated excavated media onsite prior to disposal. Transported

and disposed all soil/fill material at permitted facilities in accordance with all

applicable laws and regulations for handling, transporting, and disposing, and the

RAWP.

11. Collected and analyzed 9 end-point samples to determine attainment of SCOs.

Track 1 SCOs were achieved.

12. As part of development, constructed an engineered Composite Cover System

consisting of a 36-inch thick mat foundation in the building area; retaining walls

and up to 10 feet of clean soil fill behind the walls in the rear yard; and concrete

pavers on virgin soil in the rear yard. The contractors for the Composite Cover

System construction were Red Hook Construction Group (building) and ECI

Contracting LLC (rear yard).

13. Installed a Vapor Barrier System that consisted of a 20-mil polyethylene vapor

barrier liner (VaporBlock Plus 20 by Raven Industries, Inc.) beneath the building



May 2017

24

slab and along the below-grade foundation walls”. The contractor for the Vapor

Barrier System construction was Red Hook Construction Group.

14. Installed a passive Sub-Slab Depressurization System consisting of one loop of 4-

inch diameter slotted high density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe with one 4-inch

diameter cast iron vent riser pipe vented above the roof of the building. The

contractor for the Passive Sub-Slab Depressurization System construction was Red

Hook Construction Group.

15. Performed all activities required for the Remedial Action, including permitting

requirements and pretreatment requirements, in compliance with applicable laws

and regulations.

16. Implemented storm-water pollution prevention measures in compliance with


17. Imported soil to be used for backfill and cover in compliance with the Remedial

Action Work Plan and in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.

18. Submitted daily reports during construction oversight activities. Daily reports were

submitted from May 27, 2015 to April 8, 2017.

19. Submitted a Sustainability Report.

20. Submitted an RAR that describes the Remedial Action; certifies that the remedial

requirements defined in the RAWP have been achieved; defines the Site

boundaries; and lists any changes from the RAWP.



May 2017

25

3.0 COMPLIANCE WITH REMEDIAL ACTION WORK PLAN

3.1 CONSTRUCTION HEALTH & SAFETY PLAN

The remedial construction activities performed under this program were in compliance

with the Construction Health and Safety Plan and applicable laws and regulations. The Site

Safety Coordinator was Meredith R. Anke, P.E.

3.2 COMMUNITY AIR MONITORING PLAN

The Community Air Monitoring Plan provided for the collection and analysis of air

samples during remedial construction activities to ensure proper protections were

employed to protect workers and the neighboring community. Monitoring was performed

from May 27, 2015 to April 8, 2017 in compliance with the Community Air Monitoring

Plan in the approved RAWP. The results of Community Air Monitoring are shown in

Appendix E.

3.3 SOIL/MATERIALS MANAGEMENT PLAN

The Soil/Materials Management Plan provided detailed plans for managing all

soil/materials that were disturbed at the Site, including excavation, handling, storage,

transport and disposal. It also included a series of controls to assure effective, nuisance-

free remedial activity in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Remedial

construction activities performed under this program were in compliance with the SMMP

in the approved RAWP.

3.4 STORM-WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION

Storm water pollution prevention included physical methods and processes to control

and/or divert surface water flows and to limit the potential for erosion and migration of

Site soils, via wind or water. Remedial construction activities performed under this

program were in full compliance with methods and processes defined in the RAWP for

storm water prevention and applicable laws and regulations.

3.5 DEVIATIONS FROM THE REMEDIAL ACTION WORK PLAN

The following are the deviations from the Remedial Action Work Plan:



May 2017

26

1. At the time the RAWP was prepared, the construction plans were still being

developed. It was anticipated that the new building would have a 5-inch thick

concrete floor slab. The building was actually constructed with a 36-inch thick

reinforced concrete mat foundation.

2. An excavation depth of 10 feet was anticipated for the building area but an actual

excavation depth ranging from approximately 14 to 20 feet was required due to the

thickness of the mat foundation system and the existing foundation conditions of

the adjacent building to the north of the Site. This resulted in additional excavation

and disposal of clean native soil.

3. RCA, natural crushed stone, and quarry mason sand were imported to the site for

construction of the retaining walls in the rear yard of the property. Since these

materials were imported from properly registered facilities and since laboratory

analytical results confirmed that the quarry mason sand met the NYSDEC

Unrestricted Use SCOs, OER was not notified of the import of these materials.

4. During the construction of the rear yard retaining walls in November 2016, excess

native soil that had been stockpiled in the area was removed from the site. The

waste characterization results, the required profile information, and the OER

Historical Fill Notification Form were submitted to Con-Strux Recycled

Aggregates who subsequently issued an acceptance letter for their facility dated

November 10, 2016. However, we inadvertently neglected to obtain approval from

OER for the disposal of the additional clean native soil.



May 2017

27

4.0 REMEDIAL PROGRAM

4.1 PROJECT ORGANIZATION

Principal personnel who participated in the remedial action include Meredith R. Anke,

who is the Project Manager for Carlin-Simpson & Associates, Ryan Sullivan, who is the

Project Manager for Clinton Hill Development II LLC, Matthew Raices, who is the

Construction Director for Clinton Hill Development II LLC, and Gregory Johnson, who is

the Construction Manager from The J Companies, LLC. The Professional Engineer (PE)

and Qualified Environmental Professionals (QEP) for this project are Robert B. Simpson,

P.E. and Meredith R. Anke, respectively.

4.2 SITE CONTROLS

Site Preparation

Mobilization was conducted as necessary for each phase of work at the Site.

Mobilization included field personnel orientation, equipment mobilization,

marking/staking sampling locations and utility mark-outs. Each field team member

attended an orientation meeting to become familiar with the general operation of the Site,

health and safety requirements, and field procedures. Initial mobilization for the remedial

action occurred in May 2015.

On June 5, 2015, Environmental Maintenance Contractors (EMC) removed a 275-

gallon aboveground storage tank (AST) from the basement of one of the existing site

buildings. The steel tank was disposed of as scrap metal at Scrap King Flushing Inc. A

copy of the disposal receipt is attached in Appendix G of this report.

Demolition of the two previous site buildings occurred in July and August 2015 and

was performed by Northeast Service Interiors, LLC.

The presence of utilities and easements on the Site was investigated prior to the

performance of invasive work by contacting the One-Call System (811). All invasive

activities were performed in compliance with applicable laws and regulations to assure

safety. Utility companies and other responsible authorities were contacted to locate and

mark the locations.



May 2017

28

All permits or government approvals required for construction were obtained prior to

the start of the remedial action.

An OER Project Notice was erected at the project entrance and was in place during all

phases of the Remedial Action.

Soil Screening

Visual, olfactory and PID soil screening and assessment was performed under the

supervision of a Qualified Environmental Professional during all remedial and

development excavations. Soil screening was performed during all invasive work

performed during the remedy and development phase. No visual/olfactory evidence of

petroleum contamination was identified in the site excavations.

Stockpile Management

The majority of the historic fill material was loaded directly onto trucks to eliminate

the need for stockpiling. Some temporary stockpiling of historic fill was performed during

the excavation of footings and heel blocks and at the start of construction before disposal

facility approvals were obtained. Segregation of this excavated material was not required

since it was all treated as historic fill or as comingled historic fill. These temporary

stockpiles were covered with 8-mil poly-sheeting to prevent dust. To eliminate the need for

material segregation, virgin soil was not excavated in any portion of the site until the

historic fill had been completely removed from that area. Where a virgin soil stockpile

remained for an extended period in the rear of the property, the stockpile was covered with

8-mil poly-sheeting to prevent dust. Temporary virgin soil stockpiles were also covered

with 8-mil poly-sheeting, as needed, to prevent dust. Imported materials were temporarily

stockpiled in the rear of the property prior to their use in the retaining wall construction.

All temporary stockpile activities were compliant with applicable laws and regulations.

Soil stockpile areas were appropriately graded to control run-off in accordance with


Truck Inspection

Before exiting the site, trucks were inspected for evidence of contaminated soil on the

undercarriage, body, and wheels. Soil and debris were removed, as necessary. Trucks on



May 2017

29

the property were restricted to the driveway area in the northeast portion of the site. Given

the limited size of the site, a stone tracking pad was not used for this project. Trucks

leaving the site did not track soil and fill from the site into the surrounding community.

Site Security

Site access was controlled by gated entrances to the fenced property.

Nuisance Controls

All invasive work during the remedial action was conducted in accordance with the

Odor, Dust, and Nuisance Control section of the RAWP. Air quality was monitored by on-

site personnel and equipment stationed at the downwind perimeter of the work area and

upwind of the work area. Work was halted whenever dust was detected and dust

suppression was performed whenever necessary by wetting dry surfaces. The contractors

were responsible for limiting all noise levels to a minimum and conformed to the New

York City noise control standards. Nuisance odors were not identified during the remedial

action. No dust or odor complaints were reported during the development.

Reporting

Daily reports providing a general summary of activities for each day of active

remedial work were emailed to the OER Project Manager. The reports included the

following:

• Project number and statement of the activities and an update of progress made

and locations of work performed;

• End-point samples collected;

• Quantities of material imported and exported from the Site;

• A summary of CAMP excursions, if any;

• Photographs of notable Site conditions and activities.

All daily reports are included in Appendix C. Digital photographs of the Remedial

Action are included in Appendix D.



May 2017

30

4.3 MATERIALS EXCAVATION AND REMOVAL ACTION

Soil/Fill Excavation and Removal

Existing soil was excavated from the limits of the entire site. This included excavation

in the 4,500 square foot building area to depths ranging from 14 to 20 feet and excavation

in the 3,000 square foot rear yard area to an approximate depth of 10 feet. A map showing

the approximate locations where excavations were performed and approximate thickness of

excavated material is shown in Figure 5. A total of 3,377 cubic yards of soil/fill were

excavated and removed from the property during the Removal Action. Materials removed

from the property under this Removal Action is generally classified as follows: historic fill

material, 2,935.30 tons (~1,980 cubic yards). The quantity of native soil removed from the

property is 2,142.07 tons (~1,431 cubic yards). The quantity of native soil recycled using

the NYC Clean Soil Bank is 0 cubic yards. The Removal Action was performed under the

oversight of Meredith R. Anke for the project.

The historic fill material was excavated and removed from the eastern portion (front)

of the Site first where the building would be constructed. During the RI, the historic fill

was found to range from approximately 2 feet to 5 feet in thickness. The excavation and

removal of the historic fill included the upper 1 foot to 2 feet of the underlying clean soil to

ensure that all historic fill had been removed. In addition, any material that had been

inadvertently mixed with the historic fill during the excavation, staging, and loading

operations was treated as historic fill material for disposal purposes. The historic fill

material was transported to Coplay Aggregates in Whitehall, Pennsylvania.

Once the historic fill was removed from an area, the underlying native soil was

excavated to the required subgrade elevations. The native soil generally consisted of

medium dense to dense Sand, Silty Sand, or Sandy Silt, with trace to little Gravel. Clean

native soil was transported to the Vanbro facility in Staten Island, New York.

Approximately 250 cubic yards of the excavated native soil was stockpiled in the

western portion of the Site (rear yard) from December 2015 until November 2016 for the

purpose of constructing retaining walls at a later date. In the RAWP, it was anticipated that

approximately 50 cubic yards of excavated native soil would be required for this purpose.



May 2017

31

In November 2016, approximately 191 cubic yards of the previously stockpiled material

was removed from the site and transported to the Con-Strux facility in Westbury, New

York. The remaining onsite native soil (approximately 60 cubic yards) and some imported

materials were placed as backfill for the new retaining walls in March and April 2017.

A map showing the approximate source location of reused soil and the location of

placement of reused soil is shown in Figure 6.

Soil Cleanup Objectives

The SCOs for this Remedial Action are Track 1 Unrestricted Use SCOs.

End Point Sample Results

The SCOs for this project were achieved.

Following excavation to the required subgrade elevations, Carlin-Simpson &

Associates collected nine endpoint soil samples. The samples were collected at depths

ranging from 10 to 14 feet below grade. Endpoint samples were not collected at deeper

intervals since only a small area at the north side of the building sloped down to a depth of

20 feet to meet the elevation of the adjacent building foundation. The locations of the

endpoint soil samples are shown on Figure 4. Dedicated disposable sampling equipment

was used to collect the samples eliminating the need for field equipment (rinsate) blanks.

Each of the soil samples was placed into laboratory-provided glass jars and sealed

with Teflon lined lids to provide a hermetic seal. The samples were then placed in plastic

coolers and delivered directly to Test America Inc. in Edison, New Jersey (NYDOH ELAP

Certification No. 11452) under proper chain-of-custody procedures for the required

analysis. Each of the soil samples was analytically tested in accordance with USEPA

methodologies for the following analysis:

• Volatile organic compounds by EPA Method 8260;

• Semi-volatile organic compounds by EPA Method 8270;

• Target Analyte List metals; and

• Pesticides/PCBs by EPA Method 8081/8082.



May 2017

32

As shown in Table 1, no VOCs, SVOCs, Pesticides, PCBs, or Metals were detected

above the Unrestricted Use SCOs, with the exception of the following slight exceedances:

• 4,4’-DDT at 0.0094 ppm in PE-A1

• Lead at 63.1 ppm in PE-A2

• Mercury at 0.27 ppm in PE-A2

• 4,4’-DDT at 0.0086 ppm in PE-C1

To verify the end-point sampling results for samples PE-A1 and PE-A2, the locations

were re-sampled on December 7, 2016. The samples were collected in close proximity to

the original sample locations and at the same subgrade elevation. Sample PE-A1* was only

analyzed for Pesticides and sample PE-A2* was only analyzed for Metals. The results are

summarized in Table 1A. As shown in Table 1A, no Pesticides were detected in sample

PE-A1* and no Metals were detected above the Unrestricted Use SCOs in sample PE-A2*.

Based on the end-point analytical results, the slight pesticide and metals exceedances

at samples PE-A1 and PE-A2 are isolated and not indicative of on-site contamination.

Furthermore, the detected pesticide and metals concentrations at samples PE-A1, PE-A2,

and PE-C1 are all well below the Residential Use SCOs and are, therefore, still protective

of public health and the environment.

A map of end-point sample locations is shown in Figure 4. A tabular summary of end-

point sampling results compared to SCOs is included in Table 1 and Table 1A. Full

laboratory reports are included in Appendix I.

4.4 MATERIALS DISPOSAL

Waste characterization sampling of the historic fill and the underlying virgin soil was

performed in February 2015 and September 2015. In February 2015, Carlin-Simpson &

Associates performed nine geoprobe borings at the Site for the purpose of collecting waste

characterization soil samples. Historic fill was encountered to depths ranging from 2 to 5

feet below grade. Waste characterization samples in the historic fill consisted of the

following:



May 2017

33

• Three discrete soil/fill samples from three geoprobe locations for laboratory

analytical testing for VOCs.

• Three 4-point composite samples from nine geoprobe locations for laboratory

analytical testing for SVOCs, PCBs, Metals, and TCLP Metals.

The virgin soil on the Site generally consists of medium dense brown Sand, Silty

Sand, or Sandy Silt, with trace to little Gravel. Waste characterization samples in the virgin

soil consisted of the following:

• One 5-point composite sample from five geoprobe locations for laboratory

analytical testing for VOCs, SVOCs, Pesticides, Herbicides, PCBs, Petroleum

Hydrocarbons, Metals, Cyanide, and Organic Content.

• Two discrete soil samples from two locations for laboratory analytical testing

for VOCs.

The number of waste characterization samples and the required laboratory analysis

were dictated by the disposal facilities.

The laboratory analytical results and the required profile information along with the

OER Historical Fill Notification Form was submitted to Coplay Aggregates (historic fill)

and to Vanbro Corporation (virgin soil). Material Solution Services issued an acceptance

letter for the Coplay Aggregates facility dated August 10, 2015 and TRC Engineers issued

an acceptance letter for the Vanbro facility dated September 10, 2015.

The laboratory analytical results, the required profile information, and the OER

Historical Fill Notification Form was also later submitted to Con-Strux Recycled

Aggregate for additional virgin soil to be removed from the Site in 2016. Con-Strux issued

an acceptance letter for their facility dated November 10, 2016.

Disposal facility documentation, including the OER Historical Fill Notification Form

and acceptance letters, and OER correspondence is included in Appendix F and the waste

characterization analytical results are included in Appendix H.

From August 26, 2015 to October 30, 2015, a total of 2,935.30 tons (~1,980 cubic

yards) of historic fill was removed from the entire limits of the Site and loaded into dump



May 2017

34

trucks for transport to Coplay Aggregates in Whitehall, PA.

From October 6, 2015 to November 16, 2015, a total of 1,856.07 tons (or

approximately 1,240 cubic yards) of native soil was removed from the entire limits of the

Site and loaded into dump trucks for transport to Vanbro Corporation in Staten Island, NY.

From November 2, 2016 to November 9, 2016, approximately 191 cubic yards of

native soil was removed from the rear portion of the Site and loaded into dump trucks for

transport to Con-Strux Recycled Aggregates in Westbury, NY.

The type, quantity, and disposal location of each material removed and disposed off-

Site is presented below:

Disposal Location/Address Type of Material Quantity

Coplay Aggregates

5101 West Coplay Road

Whitehall, PA

Non-Hazardous

Soil/Fill

2,935.30 tons

(~1,980 cubic yards)

Vanbro Corporation

1900 South Avenue

Staten Island, NY

Clean Soil 1,856.07 tons

(~1,240 cubic yards)

Con-Strux

702 Grand Blvd.

Westbury, NY

Clean Soil ~286 tons

(191 cubic yards)

Disposal facility documentation, including the OER Historical Fill Notification Form

and facility acceptance letters, is included in Appendix F. Manifests are included in

Appendix G. Waste characterization laboratory reports are presented in Appendix H. A

summary table of the material disposal quantities is included in Table 3.

4.5 BACKFILL IMPORT

Materials were imported to the Site for construction of tiered retaining walls in the

rear yard. These materials consisted of the following:



May 2017

35

• Two loads (32 cubic yards) of RCA was imported on November 10, 2016 and

November 11, 2016 from Con-Strux for the retaining wall leveling pad.

• One load (7 cubic yards) of natural crushed stone was imported on December

8, 2016 from Con-Strux for retaining wall drainage.

• 1,400 50-pound bags (35 tons) of 3/4-inch natural crushed blue stone was

imported from March 22, 2017 to April 7, 2017 from GC Warehouse LLC for

retaining wall drainage and for landscaping behind retaining walls.

• Four loads (95.91 tons) of quarry mason sand was imported from March 29,

2017 to April 6, 2017 from Diamond Sand & Gravel / Earth Efficient for

retaining wall backfill.

Truck tickets were reviewed for all imported materials to ensure that the correct

materials were being received and that they were from the approved facilities. The

imported material was also visually inspected for compliance. Photographs of the import

tickets are included in Appendix D. Since the imported materials consisted of RCA, natural

crushed stone, and quarry mason sand from properly registered facilities, OER was not

notified of the import of these materials.

All soil imported to the property (quarry mason sand from Diamond Sand & Gravel /

Earth Efficient) met the Unrestricted Use SCOs. A table of all sources of backfill with

quantities for each source is shown in Table 4. A table summarizing chemical analytical

results for backfill is included in Appendix K. The laboratory report for imported soil is

included in Appendix K. A map showing backfill placement locations at the Site is shown

in Figure 6.



May 2017

36

5.0 ENGINEERING CONTROLS

A Track 1 Remedial Action was achieved and Engineering Controls are not required.

However, as part of construction, several protective systems were installed. These are:

(1) Composite Cover System;

(2) Vapor Barrier System;

(3) Passive Sub-Slab Depressurization System.

Composite Cover System

As part of development, an engineered Composite Cover System has been built at the

site. This Composite Cover System is comprised of a 36-inch thick reinforced concrete mat

foundation in the building area; retaining walls and up to 10 feet clean soil fill behind the

retaining walls in the rear yard; and concrete pavers on the virgin soil in the rear yard

between the building and the retaining walls. The contractors for the Composite Cover

System construction were Red Hook Construction Group (building) and ECI Contracting

LLC (rear yard).

Figure 3 (Development Plan) shows a map of the location of each Composite Cover

System type built at the Site. Photographs of construction of the Composite Cover System

are included in Appendix D.

Vapor Barrier System

As part of the development, a Vapor Barrier System has been built at the site. This

Vapor Barrier System consists of a 20-mil polyethylene vapor barrier liner (VaporBlock

Plus 20 by Raven Industries, Inc.) beneath the building slab and along the below-grade

foundation walls. The vapor barrier and all seals and welds were installed in accordance

with the manufacturer’s recommendations and specifications. Specifically, seams/joints

were overlapped a minimum of 6 inches and sealed with VaporBond Plus 4-inch tape.

Penetrations were sealed using fabricated pipe boots, overlapping seams, and VaporBond

Plus 4-inch tape. The professional engineer for the Vapor Barrier System was Robert B.

Simpson, P.E. The contractor for the Vapor Barrier System construction was Red Hook

Construction Group.



May 2017

37

Figure 7 shows the Vapor Barrier System as-built at the Site. Photographs of

installation of the Vapor Barrier System are included in Appendix D. A copy of

manufacturer’s specifications for the Vapor Barrier System is included in Appendix J.

Passive Sub-Slab Depressurization System

Exposure to soil vapor is prevented by a passive Sub-Slab Depressurization System

(SSDS) that has been built on the Site. This SSDS consists of one loop of 4-inch diameter

slotted high density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe with one 4-inch diameter cast iron vent

riser pipe vented above the roof of the building. No blowers, gauges, or alarms were

installed as part of the system.

The design engineer for the passive SSDS is Ronen Sharon, P.E. of Sharon

Engineering P.C. The contractor for construction of the Passive SSDS was Red Hook

Construction Group. Figure 7 shows the as-built location for the Passive SSDS installed in

this Remedial Action and includes the location and layout of sub-slab vapor collection

piping and the riser vent pipe. Figure 8 shows the SSDS Vent Riser Diagram. Photographs

showing the installation of the Passive SSDS are shown in Appendix D.



May 2017

38

6.0 INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS

A Track 1 Remedial Action was achieved and Institutional Controls are not

required.



May 2017

39

7.0 SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN

A Track 1 Remedial Action was achieved and Site Management is not required.



May 2017

40

8.0 SUSTAINABILITY REPORT

This Remedial Action provided for sustainable remediation and redevelopment

through a variety of means that are defined in this Sustainability Report.

Reuse of Clean, Recyclable Materials and Conservation of Natural Resources. Reuse

of clean, recyclable materials reduces consumption of non-renewable virgin resources and

can provide energy savings and greenhouse gas reduction since these materials can be

locally-derived.

Conservation of non-renewable resources was achieved by reusing onsite soil and using

RCA during the redevelopment of the site. An estimate of the quantity of recycled material

reused on this project is 100 cubic yards of onsite soil and 32 cubic yards of RCA.

Conversion to Clean Fuels. Use of clean fuel improves NYC’s air quality by reducing

harmful emissions. Natural gas is utilized as the principal fuel in the new building.

Paperless Brownfield Cleanup Program. Clinton Hill Development II LLC participated

in OER’s paperless Voluntary Cleanup Program. Under this program, submission of

electronic documents replaced submission of hard copies for the review of project

documents, communications and milestone reports. A best estimate of the mass (pounds)

of paper saved under this plan is 50 pounds.

Low-Energy Project Management Program. Clinton Hill Development II LLC

participated in OER’s low-energy project management program. Under this program,

whenever possible, meetings were held using remote communication technologies, such as

videoconferencing and teleconferencing to reduce energy consumption and traffic

congestion associated with personal transportation. A gross estimate of the number of

miles of personal transportation that was conserved in this process is 300 miles.

FIGURES

DRAWING TITLE

CHECKED BY

SCALE DATE

PROJECT #

DRAWING #

100-102 Steuben StreetBrooklyn, NY 11205

OWNER

abarchitekten

# DATE DESCRIPTION

89

67

34

12

5

10

ISSUES/REVISIONS

86 Walker St 4th Fl New York NY 10013T 212.334.1232 F 212.334.4520

www.abarchitekten.com

The General Contractor shall check and verify alldimensions and report all errors and omissionsto the Architect. Do not scale measurementsfrom the drawings. This drawing shall not beused for construction purposes unless signed bythe consultants. This drawing is copyrighted andit is the sole property of AB Architekten. Anyreproduction or other use of this drawing withoutconsent of the Architect is prohibited.

OF 21

AB

2.26.15

DATE DESCRIPTION

STRUCTURAL / MECHANICAL ENGINEER

3.12.156.6.17

1112131415

OER SUBMISSIONINSTALLATION REPORT

AS-BUILT

A-200.00

CELLAR PLAN

1

1/4 " = 1'-0"

Meredith

Text Box

FIGURE 3A

Meredith

Text Box

36" REINFORCED CONCRETE MAT FOUNDATION BELOW ENTIRE BUILDING

Meredith

Polygonal Line

Meredith

Text Box

CONCRETE PAVERS ON VIRGIN SOIL

Meredith

Text Box


DRAWING TITLE

CHECKED BY

SCALE DATE

PROJECT #

DRAWING #


OWNER

abarchitekten

# DATE DESCRIPTION

89

67

34

12

5

10

ISSUES/REVISIONS




OF 21

AB

2.26.15

DATE DESCRIPTION


3.12.156.6.17

1112131415


AS-BUILT

AS INDICATED

A-210.00

REAR YARD PLAN

11

Meredith

Text Box

FIGURE 3B

Meredith

Text Box


Meredith

Text Box


Meredith

Text Box

UP TO 10 FT OF CLEAN SOIL BACKFILL BEHIND RETAINING WALLS

DRAWING TITLE

CHECKED BY

SCALE DATE

PROJECT #

DRAWING #


OWNER

abarchitekten

# DATE DESCRIPTION

89

67

34

12

5

10

ISSUES/REVISIONS




OF 21

AB

2.26.15

DATE DESCRIPTION


3.12.156.6.17

1112131415


AS-BUILT

3/16" = 1'-0"

A-301.00

SECTION

12

Meredith

Text Box

FIGURE 3C

Meredith

Text Box

VIRGIN SOIL

Meredith

Text Box

UP TO 10 FT OF CLEAN SOIL BACKFILL BEHIND RETAINING WALLS

Meredith

Text Box

36" REINFORCED CONCRETE MAT FOUNDATION

PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERROBERT B. SIMPSON, P.E.

FIG -7

1" = 10'

RBS

14-131A

MRA

98-102 STEUBEN STREETBROOKLYN, NEW YORK

05.01.17

CARLIN-SIMPSON AND ASSOCIATES61 Main StreetSayreville, NJ 08872

Consulting Geotechnical andEnvironmental Engineers

MAP OF LOCATION OF VAPOR BARRIERSYSTEM AND SSDS SYSTEM

GENERAL NOTES:

1. GENERAL LAYOUT WAS OBTAINED FROM A DRAWING THATWAS PREPARED BY SHARON ENGINEERING PC, ENTITLED"FOUNDATION PLAN", DATED 4/14/2015, DRAWING NO.FO-100.00.

2. RISER PIPE LOCATION WAS OBTAINED FROM A DRAWINGPREPARED BY AB ARCHITEKTEN, ENTITLED "CELLAR PLAN",DATED 9/9/2015, DRAWING NO. A-200.00.

Meredith

Text Box

FIGURE 8

TABLES

Table 1 - Summary of End-Point Analytical Results

Sample No. NYSDEC

Unrestricted Use SCO

PE-A1 PE-A2 PE-A3 PE-B1 PE-B2 PE-B3 PE-C1 PE-C2 PE-C3

Sample Date mg/kg 11/10/16 11/10/16 11/10/16 10/20/15 10/20/15 11/10/15 10/20/15 10/20/15 11/10/15

Sample Depth -- 10 ft 10 ft 10 ft 14 ft 14 ft 14 ft 14 ft 14 ft 14 ft

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs by 8260C, mg/kg)

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.68 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

1,1,2-Trichloroethane - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

1,1-Dichloroethane 0.27 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

1,1-Dichloroethene 0.33 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND


1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

1,2-Dibromoethane - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1.1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

1,2-Dichloroethane 0.02 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

1,2-Dichloropropane - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND



1,4-Dioxane 0.1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2-Butanone 0.12 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2-Hexanone - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

4-Methyl-2-pentanone - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Acetone 0.05 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Benzene 0.06 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Bromochloromethane - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Bromodichloromethane - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Bromoform - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Bromomethane - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Carbon disulfide - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Carbon tetrachloride 0.76 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Chlorobenzene 1.1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Chloroethane - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND


Sample No. NYSDEC



Sample Date mg/kg 11/10/16 11/10/16 11/10/16 10/20/15 10/20/15 11/10/15 10/20/15 10/20/15 11/10/15


Chloroform 0.37 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Chloromethane - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.25 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

cis-1,3-Dichloropropene - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Cyclohexane - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Dibromochloromethane - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Dichlorodifluoromethane - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Ethylbenzene 1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Freon TF - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Isopropylbenzene - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

m&p-Xylene 0.26 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Methyl acetate - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Methylcyclohexane - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Methylene Chloride 0.05 0.00057(J) 0.00044(J) 0.00052(J) ND ND ND ND ND ND

MTBE 0.93 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

o-Xylene 0.26 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Styrene - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Tetrachloroethene 1.3 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Toluene 0.7 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.19 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

trans-1,3-Dichloropropene - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Trichloroethene 0.47 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Trichlorofluoromethane - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Vinyl chloride 0.02 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Total Estimated VOC TICs - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs by 8270D, mg/kg)





Sample No. NYSDEC



Sample Date mg/kg 11/10/16 11/10/16 11/10/16 10/20/15 10/20/15 11/10/15 10/20/15 10/20/15 11/10/15



2,4,5-Trichlorophenol - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2,4,6-Trichlorophenol - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2,4-Dichlorophenol - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2,4-Dimethylphenol - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2,4-Dinitrophenol - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2,4-Dinitrotoluene - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2,6-Dinitrotoluene - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2-Chloronaphthalene - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2-Chlorophenol - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2-Methylnaphthalene - 0.012(J) 0.015(J) 0.011(J) ND ND ND ND ND ND

2-Methylphenol 0.33 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2-Nitroaniline - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2-Nitrophenol - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND


4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

4-Chloro-3-methylphenol - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

4-Chloroaniline - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

4-Methylphenol 0.33 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND


4-Nitrophenol - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Acenaphthene 20 0.011(J) 0.018(J) ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Acenaphthylene 100 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Anthracene 100 ND 0.051(J) ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Benzo[a]anthracene 1 0.058 0.12 ND ND ND 0.043 0.044 ND 0.056

Benzo[a]pyrene 1 0.049 0.10 0.015(J) ND ND 0.034 0.028(J) ND 0.049


Sample No. NYSDEC



Sample Date mg/kg 11/10/16 11/10/16 11/10/16 10/20/15 10/20/15 11/10/15 10/20/15 10/20/15 11/10/15


Benzo[b]fluoranthene 1 0.065 0.13 0.030(J) ND ND 0.040 0.041 ND 0.064

Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 100 0.024(J) 0.050(J) ND ND ND 0.023(J) ND ND 0.042(J)

Benzo[k]fluoranthene 0.8 0.037 0.065 ND ND ND 0.022(J) ND ND 0.027(J)

Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate - ND ND ND ND ND 0.020(J) ND ND ND

Butyl benzyl phthalate - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Carbazole - 0.0094(J) 0.019(J) ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Chrysene 1 0.060(J) 0.12(J) 0.019(J) ND ND 0.047(J) 0.038(J) ND 0.063(J)

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.33 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Dibenzofuran 7 ND 0.017(J) ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Diethyl phthalate - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Dimethyl phthalate - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Di-n-butyl phthalate - 0.029(J) 0.039(J) 0.012(J) ND ND ND ND ND ND

Di-n-octyl phthalate - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Fluoranthene 100 0.12(J) 0.30(J) 0.038(J) ND ND 0.078(J) 0.092(J) ND 0.10(J)

Fluorene 30 0.011(J) 0.025(J) ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Hexachlorobenzene 0.33 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Hexachlorobutadiene - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Hexachloroethane - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 0.5 0.026(J) 0.066 ND ND ND 0.024(J) ND ND 0.043

Isophorone - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Naphthalene 12 0.0092(J) 0.015(J) ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Nitrobenzene - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

N-Nitrosodiphenylamine - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Pentachlorophenol 0.8 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND


Sample No. NYSDEC



Sample Date mg/kg 11/10/16 11/10/16 11/10/16 10/20/15 10/20/15 11/10/15 10/20/15 10/20/15 11/10/15


Phenanthrene 100 0.086(J) 0.21(J) 0.029(J) ND ND 0.054(J) 0.047(J) ND 0.066(J)

Phenol 0.33 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Pyrene 100 0.10(J) 0.23(J) 0.031(J) ND ND 0.086(J) 0.064(J) ND 0.098(J)

Total Estimated SVOC TICs - 1.3 2.65 3.12 ND ND ND ND ND ND

Pesticides (Pesticides by 8081B, mg/kg)

4,4'-DDD 0.0033 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

4,4'-DDE 0.0033 ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.0021(J) ND ND

4,4'-DDT 0.0033 0.0094 ND ND ND ND ND 0.0086 ND ND

Aldrin 0.005 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

alpha-BHC 0.02 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

beta-BHC 0.036 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Chlordane 0.094 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

delta-BHC 0.04 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Dieldrin 0.005 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Endosulfan I 2.4 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Endosulfan II 2.4 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Endosulfan sulfate 2.4 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Endrin 0.014 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Endrin aldehyde - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Endrin ketone - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

gamma-BHC (Lindane) 0.1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Heptachlor 0.042 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Heptachlor epoxide - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Methoxychlor - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Toxaphene - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs by 8082A, mg/kg)

Total PCBs 0.1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

TAL Metals (Metals by 6010C, mg/kg)

Aluminum - 5290 6490 8660 5500 3650 3410 4170 3790 4610


Sample No. NYSDEC



Sample Date mg/kg 11/10/16 11/10/16 11/10/16 10/20/15 10/20/15 11/10/15 10/20/15 10/20/15 11/10/15


Antimony - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Arsenic 13 1.5(J) 2.6(J) 2.8 1.2(J) ND 1.4(J) 1.1(J) ND 2.5(J)

Barium 350 41.2 53.5 82.0 44.3 26.6(J) 32.2(J) 36.1 31.1(J) 40.5(J)

Beryllium 7.2 ND 0.40 0.45 ND 0.33(J) ND 0.35 0.34 ND

Cadmium 2.5 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Calcium - 1450 1370 602(J) 1090 671(J) 732(J) 2350 1210 2100

Chromium 30 14.0 16.8 15.7 17.9 10.9 8.2 13.1 12.1 12.2

Cobalt - 6.0(J) 6.1(J) 9.4 6.5(J) 3.9(J) 3.1(J) 5.3(J) 4.1(J) 5.3(J)

Copper 50 13.9 15.6 16.0 11.3 7.9 7.2 11.3 10.6 14.1

Iron - 16300 20000 16800 20200 14700 10600 20200 19900 16200

Lead 63 35.3 63.1 26.8 8.1 5.6 7.8 14.4 8.8 40.7

Magnesium - 2080 2120 2280 2510 1610 1340 2560 1810 1980

Manganese 1600 328 365 451 350 232 197 376 386 306

Nickel 30 13.4 14.3 17.4 15.1 9.4 8.3 12.6 10.8 11.4

Potassium - 888 1060 1030 1290 974 888(J) 961 781(J) 926(J)

Selenium 3.9 ND ND ND 1.2(J) ND ND ND ND ND

Silver 2 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Sodium - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Thallium - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Tin - 1.4(J) 2.3(J) ND ND 1.3(J) 1.4(J) 1.4(J) 1.3(J) 2.0(J)

Vanadium - 18.8 21.8 20.9 23.7 15.8 11.6 18.8 18.6 18.2

Zinc 109 41.0 46.5 36.4 42.1 24.1 21.4 36.4 29.0 36.9

Mercury (Mercury by 7471B, mg/kg)

Mercury 0.18 0.13 0.27 0.036 0.024 ND 0.028 0.015(J) ND 0.081

Cyanide (Cyanide by 9012B, mg/kg)

Cyanide, Total 27 0.041(J) 0.044(J) 0.050(J) ND 0.019(J) 0.024(J) ND ND 0.035(J)

Notes

ND – Not Detected

J – Estimated Concentration Below the Detection Limit

Table 1A - Summary of End-Point Analytical Results

Sample No. NYSDEC


PE-A1*

Sample Date mg/kg 12/7/16

Sample Depth -- 10 ft

Pesticides (Pesticides by 8081B, mg/kg)

4,4'-DDD 0.0033 ND

4,4'-DDE 0.0033 ND

4,4'-DDT 0.0033 ND

Aldrin 0.005 ND

alpha-BHC 0.02 ND

beta-BHC 0.036 ND

Chlordane 0.094 ND

delta-BHC 0.04 ND

Dieldrin 0.005 ND

Endosulfan I 2.4 ND

Endosulfan II 2.4 ND

Endosulfan sulfate 2.4 ND

Endrin 0.014 ND

Endrin aldehyde - ND

Endrin ketone - ND

gamma-BHC (Lindane) 0.1 ND

Heptachlor 0.042 ND

Heptachlor epoxide - ND

Methoxychlor - ND

Toxaphene - ND

Sample No. NYSDEC


PE-A2*

Sample Date mg/kg 12/7/16

Sample Depth -- 10 ft

TAL Metals (Metals by 6010C, mg/kg)

Aluminum - 2300

Antimony - ND

Arsenic 13 ND

Barium 350 21.1(J)

Beryllium 7.2 ND

Cadmium 2.5 ND

Calcium - 2670

Chromium 30 7.5

Cobalt - 5.0(J)

Copper 50 17.1

Iron - 12000

Lead 63 6.4

Magnesium - 1270

Manganese 1600 175

Nickel 30 10.5

Potassium - 586(J)

Selenium 3.9 ND

Silver 2 ND

Sodium - 65.0(J)

Thallium - ND

Tin - 1.8(J)

Vanadium - 12.1

Zinc 109 24.9

Mercury (Mercury by 7471B, mg/kg)

Mercury 0.18 ND

Table 2 - List of SCOs

Metals Pesticides/PCBs

Arsenic 13 2,4,5-TP Acid (Silvex) 3.8

Barium 350 4,4'-DDE 0.0033

Beryllium 7.2 4,4'-DDT 0.0033

Cadmium 2.5 4,4'-DDD 0.0033

Chromium, hexavalent 1 Aldrin 0.005

Chromium, trivalent 30 alpha-BHC 0.02

Copper 50 beta-BHC 0.036

Total Cyanide 27 Chlordane (alpha) 0.094

Lead 63 delta-BHC 0.04

Manganese 1,600 Dibenzofuran 7

Total Mercury 0.18 Dieldrin 0.005

Nickel 30 Endosulfan I 2.4

Selenium 3.9 Endosulfan II 2.4

Silver 2 Endosulfan sulfate 2.4

Zinc 109 Endrin 0.014

Heptachlor 0.042

Lindane 0.1

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) Polychlorinated biphenyls 0.1

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.68

1,1-Dichloroethane 0.27

1,1-Dichloroethene 0.33 Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs)

1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1.1 Acenaphthene 20

1,2-Dichloroethane 0.02 Acenapthylene 100

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.25 Anthracene 100

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.19 Benz(a)anthracene 1

1,3-Dichlorobenzene 2.4 Benzo(a)pyrene 1

1,4-Dichlorobenzene 1.9 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1

1,4-Dioxane 0.1 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 100

Acetone 0.05 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.8

Benzene 0.06 Chrysene 1

n-Butylbenzene 12 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.33

Carbon tetrachloride 0.76 Fluoranthene 100

Chlorobenzene 1.1 Fluorene 30

Chloroform 0.37 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.5

Ethylbenzene 1 m-Cresol 0.33

Hexachlorobenzene 0.33 Naphthalene 12

Methyl ethyl ketone 0.12 o-Cresol 0.33

MTBE 0.93 p-Cresol 0.33

Methylene chloride 0.05 Pentachlorophenol 0.8

n-Propylbenzene 3.9 Phenanthrene 100

sec-Butylbenzene 11 Phenol 0.33

tert-Butylbenzene 5.9 Pyrene 100

Tetrachloroethene 1.3

Toluene 0.7

Trichloroethene 0.47

1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 3.6

1,3,5- Trimethylbenzene 8.4

Vinyl chloride 0.02

Xylene (mixed) 0.26

Table 3 - Disposal Quantities and Disposal Facilities

Disposal Location/Address

Date Number of

Trucks Estimated

Quantity (cyds) Manifest

Quantify (tons)

Coplay Aggregates 5101 West Coplay Road

Whitehall, PA

(Non-Hazardous Historic Fill)

August 26, 2015 14 260 392.40

September 2, 2015 5 100 141.69

September 16, 2015 11 220 338.32

September 17, 2015 13 260 374.18

September 21, 2015 10 200 289.37

September 22, 2015 11 220 326.24

October 8, 2015 4 80 122.73

October 9, 2015 4 80 130.11

October 12, 2015 4 80 118.62

October 13, 2015 5 100 157.63

October 15, 2015 4 80 116.02

October 16, 2015 4 80 113.78

October 19, 2015 3 60 91.92

October 22, 2015 3 60 87.70

October 23, 2015 4 80 114.13

October 30, 2015 1 20 20.46

Coplay Aggregates Totals -- 100 trucks 1,980 cyds 2,935.30 tons


Date Number of

Trucks Estimated


Quantity (tons)

Vanbro Corporation 1900 South Avenue Staten Island, NY

(Clean Native Soil)

October 6, 2015 6 120 183.95

October 7, 2015 9 180 276.51

October 15, 2015 4 80 119.19

October 16, 2015 4 80 124.29

October 19, 2015 9 180 273.81

October 29, 2015 4 80 129.79

October 30, 2015 6 120 188.21

November 9, 2015 3 60 86.40

November 10, 2015 8 180 240.86

November 16, 2015 8 160 233.06

Vanbro Corporation Totals -- 61 trucks 1,240 cyds 1,856.07 tons


Date Number of

Trucks Estimated


Quantity (cyds)

Con-Strux 702 Grand Blvd. Westbury, NY

(Clean Native Soil)

November 3, 2016 1 20 11

November 4, 2016 1 22 16

November 8, 2016 2 55 34

November 9, 2016 7 60 96

November 14, 2016 1 -- 18

November 26, 2016 1 -- 16

Con-Strux Totals -- 13 trucks 157 cyds 191 cyds

Table 4 - Backfill Quantities and Sources

Source Location/Address

Material Description

Date Number of Loads Estimated

Quantity (cyds)


Recycled Concrete Aggregate (RCA)

November 10, 2016 1 16

November 11, 2016 1 16

-- -- --

-- -- --

Con-Strux RCA Totals -- 2 loads 32 cyds




Quantity (cyds)


Natural Crushed Stone

December 8, 2016 1 7

-- -- --

-- -- --

-- -- --

Con-Strux Crushed Stone Totals -- 1 load 7 cyds



Date Number of Bags Estimated

Quantity (tons)

GC Warehouse LLC 515 South 4th Avenue

Mt. Vernon, NY

Natural 3/4” Crushed Blue

Stone

March 22, 2017 400 10

March 28, 2017 500 12.5

April 7, 2017 500 12.5

-- -- --

GC Crushed Stone Totals -- 1,400 bags 35 tons




Quantity (tons)

Diamond Sand & Gravel 33 Demarest Road

Sparta, NJ

Quarry Mason Sand

March 29, 2017 1 23.66

March 31, 2017 1 25.56

April 4, 2017 1 23.85

April 6, 2017 1 22.84

Diamond Quarry Sand Totals -- 4 loads 95.91 tons

remedial action report -...

Documents