CORRESPONDENCE_2017 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

_0 s Dana G. Parry - 2 - 16 November 2017 waste from the North and South Waste Cells. Using the map scale, this would appear to require more samples in the waste cells than what was proposed in the Work Plan. Please provide a detailed plan that shows the waste cells with proposed grid and sampling locations delineated. 2. All samples must be analyzed for dioxin/furans and PCBs for the confirmation sampling in the North and South Waste Cells. Staff recommend full suite analyses on 25% of the samples. 3. Figure 4 shows cross-sections of the North and South Waste Cells. Both cross-sections show an undefined eastern boundary along each waste cell. The eastern boundary needs to be defined for the North and South Waste Cells and the cross-section diagram updated to show the actual waste cell boundaries. If the actual limits of the waste was not defined in the previous investigations, the Work Plan need to propose a method to define these boundaries. 4. The northern and southern waste cell boundaries do appear to be defined in Figure 3; however, no sidewall samples were collected during the excavation to confirm that all waste was removed. Therefore, the northern and southern boundaries of both the North and South waste cells need to be defined using step -out borings. Borings must be collected along the northern and southern boundaries and the area in-between the waste cells until clean soil is reached. Waste material located during the investigation must be sampled and characterized. 5. The Work Plan states that Appendix A contains a copy of a letter AGE referred to as the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Directive Letter. However, the letter provided in Appendix A does not appear to be a duplicate copy of the Regional Water Board letter dated 26 September 2017 Comments on Draft Request for Clean Closure and Proposed Post -Closure Land Use Plan for 17100 Murphy Parkway. The attachments and figures that are a part of the 26 September 2017 letter were either not accurate or not included with the letter provided in Appendix A. The 9 October 2015 table and photo log do not match the 26 September 2017 Regional Water Board letter and Figures 1 and 2 were also not included. The duplicate copy of the letter must be provided in its complete and finalized form unless otherwise indicated. 6. Please provide the volume of 2,200 cubic yards of waste described in Section 3.0 Waste Remediation in units of tons in order to compare to the reported total 3,567 -tans of waste glass, minor garbage, and cover soils disposed at a regional landfill from August through December 2015 or convert 3,567 -tons to cubic yards for comparison. Please convert to comparable. units and maintain comparable units throughout the Work Plan and future submittals. j 7. Section 6.2 Soil Sampling refers the reader to Section 3.2 for the list of constituents for -' analysis. This appears to be inaccurate, because the list of constituents for analysis is provided in Section 5.2. Please correct this reference in the Work Plan. Please revise the Work Plan to address the conditions discussed above and resubmit for staff review. Regional Water Board staff conditions must be addressed.and have staff concurrence prior to commencement of field activities. Please inform Regional Water Board staff 72 hours prior to commencement of field activities as staff may be present to observe field activities. If