Laserfiche WebLink
.. 1 €::..... ,, _ a S}1� <br /> Mr. John Russell Page 2 of 5 <br /> Comments on Cleanup Fund Site Closure Recommendations January 18, 2011 <br /> Claim No. 8431 -22871 now 9321 S. Hwy 99 Ri on <br /> Closure on this site is delayed by two issues: <br /> - a vapor intrusion evaluation that encountered TPHg in soil gas at concentrations that <br /> exceeded the Tier I evaluation, and <br /> - EHD is concerned about the analysis and results for TPHd. <br /> Subsequent vapor data manipulation and evaluation by the consultant has been by methods that <br /> are 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 quantified <br /> as diesel TPHd 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 Further 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 the Johnson and Ettinger Model be <br /> submitted to the EHD within 30 days, but it has not been received. The unusual TPHd analytical <br /> method and results remain an unresolved issue. In an electronic mail submitted to the EHD on <br /> July 31, 2010, the consultant stated "Additional chromatograms for TPH-d QA/QC for epa (sic) <br /> method 8260 are not available, as the GCMS method did not use a TPH-D standard for <br /> evaluation. A notation on the base of the analysis, states TPH-d was performed by CG/MS <br /> analysis for TPH-d range compounds and the detection limit is 20,000 micrograms 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 not seem very 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.889—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 />