Laserfiche WebLink
0 r <br /> ATTACHMENT A <br /> 1) Closure certification must be signed by the owner or <br /> operator and by an independent registered professional <br /> engineer. <br /> 2) Sampling methodology was not described. <br /> 3) Laboratory samples chain-of-custody was not provided. <br /> 4) The report does not indicate which set of laboratory <br /> analyses belongs to which tank. Also, since more than <br /> one sample was collected at each tank, the report must <br /> identify where each sample was collected. Indicate where <br /> the water samples were collected. <br /> 5) Indicate final disposal site for each tank and all <br /> removed residues and contaminated soil . <br /> 6) Drawings and photo copies of photographs which were <br /> included in the report were of poor quality and not <br /> useful. <br /> 7) In the field report section of the closure certification <br /> report it was stated "Excavation accepted by Shaulis and <br /> Pinasco. " Please clarify or delete this statement. <br /> 8) What criteria was used to determine what soil was removed <br /> and what was used as backfill . <br /> 9) Explain why, there is such a wide variation in reported <br /> detection levels on the laboratory analyses. Examples <br /> (not a complete listing) <br /> a) Sample #3 on Table 2, Page 2 <br /> b) Sample #3 on Table 2, Page 5 <br /> c) Sample #3 on Table 3 Page 6 <br /> d) PCB analyses on Table 3 Page 6 - detection levels <br /> were too high (note: California Code of Regulations <br /> (CCR) , Title 22 , Section 66699 lists the TTLC for <br /> PCB as 50 mg/kg) . <br /> 10) Laboratory report pages do not reference EPA method <br /> number. <br /> 11) Laboratory reports do not provide any QA/QC. <br />