Laserfiche WebLink
W,2: <br /> Mr. John Russell Page 2 of 5 <br /> Comments on Cleanup Fund Site Closure Recommendations January 18, 2011 <br /> claim No.H31 -22871 now=)-S. Hwy 99, Ripon <br /> Closure on this site Is delayed by two Issues: <br /> - a vapor intrusion evaluation that encountered TPH9 In soli gas at concentrations that <br /> exceeded the Tier I evaluation, and <br /> - EHD is concerned about the analysts and results for TPHd. <br /> Subsequentvapor data manipulation and evaluation by the consultant has been by methods that <br /> am not supported by authoritative guidance documents, such as those provided by the California <br /> Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)or by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality <br /> Control Board (LARWQCB). The EHD requested technical data supporting the subdivision of <br /> total petroleum hydrocarbons quantified as gasoline TPHg data Into smaller carbon number <br /> ranges than were reported by the analytical laboratory and validation of the data manipulation <br /> methods employed by the consultant <br /> The consultant did not analyze the soil gas samples for total petroleum hydrocarbons quanUfled <br /> as diesel TPI-Id by method TO-17, as was proposed In the approved work plan, and has not <br /> provided a justification for deviating from the work plan or demonstrated that the results of the <br /> analysis employed are equivalent to those that would have been obtained by method TO-17.The <br /> EHD requested very specific Information regarding these issues in correspondence dated <br /> September 23, 2009, and the responding report (No Furthw Action Request) issued by the <br /> consultant dated November 10, 2009, did not directly address any of these issues. <br /> By letter dated 13 December 2010, the EHD directed that the technical Justification for the <br /> methodology utilized to enter the soil gas TPHg data in to Johnson and Ettinger Model be <br /> submitted to the EHD within 30 days, but It has not been received. The unusual TPHd analytical <br /> mad-sod and results remain an unresolved Issue. In an electronic mail submitted to the EHD on <br /> July 31, 2010, the consultant stated `Additional chromadograms 1br TPH-d QAIQC for spa(ale) <br /> me" 8260 are not avaNable, as the GCUS method did not use a TPhLD standard for <br /> evatuadon. A notation an the base of the an&Wk% states 7PH-d was performed by CGUS <br /> analysis for TPH-d range compounds and the detection lffn# Is 20,000 mkn9rams per cubic <br /> meter:' <br /> In December 2010, the EHD Issued a directive to the responsible party(RP)to resample the soil <br /> gas and utilize proper analytical techniques to resolve the Issue. If the RP does not comply, the <br /> site will be referred to the CVRWQCB for final disposition. <br /> If this Issue had been adequately addressed In the November 2009 report the EHD believes this <br /> site would now be closed (or nearly closed). The EHD believes this site should be closed, and <br /> intuitively, a problem with TPHd vapor intrusion does riot seem vary likely, but vapor intrusion <br /> has been identified at the State level as a potential health Issue that must be addressed before <br /> closing a site. The EHD is attempting to exercise due diligence by acquiring scientifically <br /> defensible data and/or a sound technical justification that demonstrates that the health risk posed <br /> by potential vapor intrusion from residual contamination Is at or below an acceptable level. If the <br /> CUF technical staff can provide the EHD with additional technical Insight on this matter, it will be <br /> appreciated and carefully considered. <br /> claim No.Beg—5491 F Street. Banta <br /> The issues related to impacted soil and groundwater have been resolved. The consultant has <br /> recommended confirmation soil gas sampling to reevaluate the vapor intrusion potential, as the <br /> initial soil gas assessment was conducted during active soil gas extraction (SVE). The EHD has <br />