Laserfiche WebLink
• Page 4 of 5 <br /> Ami Adini <br /> President <br /> Ami Adini&Associates,Inc. <br /> 4130 Cahuenga Blvd., Ste. 113 <br /> Los Angeles, CA 91602 <br /> T 818.824.8102 <br /> F 818.824.8112 <br /> amia(alamiadini.com <br /> www.amiadini.com <br /> WARNING:This e-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act,18 U.S.C.2510-2521 and contains information <br /> from Ami Adini&Associates,Inc.,that is privileged,confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law.Dissemination or <br /> copying by anyone other than the addressee or addressee's agent is strictly prohibited.If this e-mail is received in error,please <br /> notify the sender immediately,or our office at Mail(alamiadini.com. <br /> From: Vicki McCartney [EH] rmailto'vmccartngy@�sicehd.com] <br /> Sent:Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:35 PM <br /> To: Daren Zumberge; Ami Adini <br /> Cc: Shayan Simantob; Elie Balas; Gus Osterkamp; Gabriele Baader; Nuel Henderson [EH] <br /> Subject: 425 Larch Road in Tracy, CA <br /> Dear Ms. Daren: <br /> As the responsible party for the Frontier Transportation property at 425 Larch Road,Tracy, California, on 23 <br /> January 2013,you requested a discussion with me regarding your site and proposed corrective actions for <br /> the site. Today, I returned your call along with Nuel Henderson, PG. You stated your concern with the pace <br /> of work on your site and utilizing the remaining funds efficiently from the Underground Storage Tank Cleanup <br /> Fund (USTCUF)to complete corrective actions on your site and achieve site closure; you solicited the <br /> opinion of the San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department(EHD) on which course of action would <br /> be most effective for this site. <br /> Prior to returning the phone call, EHD personnel reviewed the site for closure consideration to determine if <br /> the site could be closed under the recently adopted Low Threat Closure Policy(LTCP)of the California State <br /> Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The EHD found that the site does not meet all the LTCP criteria <br /> for closure under the policy. The deficiencies noted included the following: <br /> 1. The plume of impacted groundwater is not fully delineated in the down-gradient direction; <br /> 2. Plume length exceeds 250 feet, therefore methyl tertiary-butyl ether(MTBE)concentrations cannot <br /> exceed 1,000 micrograms per liter(Ng/L), but in the most recent sampling event dated 18 September <br /> 2012, MTBE concentrations were as high as 7,470 pg/L; <br /> 3. Five down-gradient water supply wells have been identified as potentially being threatened by the <br /> plume of impacted groundwater, the closest being within 1,000 feet of the known down-gradient <br /> extent of the groundwater plume; and <br /> 4. Excess benzene concentrations in soil gas have been identified as a potential health risk through <br /> vapor intrusion. <br /> The SWRCB,through its Five-Year Review, last recommended (October 2011)that the EHD direct active <br /> remediation be implemented on the site to achieve Water Quality Goals in a timely manner. Based on the <br /> last recommendation from the SWRCB and the review of the LTCP criteria, the EHD is of the opinion that <br /> additional remediation of the source area should be implemented as quickly as possible to address the <br /> issues noted above and achieve site closure. <br /> Review of the initial 30-day dual phase extraction (DPE) pilot test shows that the test had positive results; <br /> over 2,000 pounds of contaminants[total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline(TPH-g)]were extracted and <br /> the mass extraction rate declined from over 250 pounds of TPH-g per day to less than 10 pounds per day. <br /> With an approximately 10-foot vadose zone (probably increased somewhat during active groundwater <br /> extraction) it would intuitively seem that there is a fairly limited contaminant mass stuck(sorbed)to soil to <br /> extract, and extracting over 2,000 pounds with the decline of mass extraction rate noted above suggests to <br /> the EHD that much of the extractable contaminant(through vapor extraction) has been removed. If this is so, <br /> then it would seem that only a limited amount of additional extraction would be needed to reduce the sorbed <br /> 2/14/2013 <br />