Blog | Escondido Neighbors United | An alliance of engaged residents working for the benefit of rural, urban, and natural communities in the Escondido Area.

Escondido Neighbors United filed a comment letter on the most recent submittal of the PRPs for the Chatham Barrel Yard Waste Site. We have made many recommendations for additional information, clarification and improvements to the report. We will keep you informed on this important issue.
Please email us with any questions at info@escondidoneighbors.org.

Escondido Neighbors United

An alliance of engaged residents working for the benefit of
rural, urban, and natural communities in the Escondido Area.

July 31,
2014

Mr. Stewart
Black, Department of Toxic
Substances Control

Mr. Hossein Nassiri, Department
of Toxic Substances Control

Mr. Jimmy Smith, Regional
Water Quality Control Board

Mr. Craig Carlisle, Regional
Water Quality Control Board

Ms. Julie Macedo, State
Water Resources Control Board

Mr. Kevin
Heaton, San Diego County Department of Environmental Health

RE: Escondido
Neighbors United requests, comments, and questions on the Chatham PRP Group
Annual Monitoring Report submitted July 11, 2014

Dear Madam
and Sirs:

We have had
the opportunity to review the July 11, 2014 submittal from the PRP Group and
have the following comments, questions, and requests for additional information
and analysis. We expect to have
additional comments but wanted to offer these observations as we understand
that your agencies are discussing this issue now. We hope you will take these comments into
consideration in creating any future fact sheets as well.

1.
Report
should state remedial objectives in full

The report
engages in unhelpful ‘creative mis-summarization’ with respect to the remedial
objectives. What is presented as a
summary accurately summarizes neither the actual objectives nor the ‘practical
objectives’ from the Remedial Action Plan (RAP). For example, the requirement that off-site
concentrations meet maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) is different than the
summarized requirement to monitor contaminants over time to demonstrate
improvement. The summary should be
removed and the real objectives should be stated in the report or, at a
minimum, re-worded (but still accurate) for easier reading as has been done by
the Water Board in previous letters.[1] For the record, we repeat the exact wording
of the relevant Soil and Groundwater Remedial Action Objectives from the
Remedial Action Plan.

a. Prevent
migration of VOCs from unsaturated soil into groundwater or surface water in
concentrations that could cause groundwater or surface water not to comply with
RAOs for the media.

b. Prevent
ingestion of groundwater that contains contaminants listed in the RAP (Table
5-1) at concentrations at the MCLs also listed in the Table 5-1.

c. Remediate
groundwater within the Property to HBCLs and the groundwater outside of the
Property to MCLs for contaminants listed in Table 5-1.

d. Prevent incidental
ingestion, dermal contact, or inhalation of vapors from groundwater that
contains contaminants listed in Table 5-1 at concentrations exceeding the HBCLs
which are also listed in Table 5-1.[2]

We also
request that all requirements of the Basin Plan, Porter-Cologne, and Prop 65 that
must also be met be listed here as well.

2.
SWRBTLs are
excessive and should be revisited and reduced to levels comparable with
existing regulations, or abandoned.

The current
Surface Water Risk Based Threshold Levels (SWRBTL) proposed by the PRP Group
and used for notification[3]
and action are simply excessive. We do not believe that we should wait to notify
or take action until TCE in surface water reaches 1,700 ug/l when the MCL
is 5 ug/l. It is interesting to compare
the effluent limits in the Waste Discharge Requirements for groundwater
discharges to surface waters for human health which are 2.7-5.4 ug/l for
municipal beneficial use and 81-160 ug/l for Non-MUN[4]. In addition, vinyl chloride is one of the
contaminants found in the surface water yet no threshold has been set for it. Last, we are incredulous that the SWRBTL for 1,4,-Dioxane is
8,900-340,000ug/l.[5]
yet the OEHHA Public Health Protection
Level is 3.0 ug/l and the state Source Removal level is 35 ug/l.[6] FC-4 is at a historic high at 31 in April of
2014.[7] We have related questions to this issue
listed below.

·
The notification action levels for creek pollution should be no
higher than the MCLs, effluent limits, or state standards for these priority
toxic pollutants.

·
An action level should be set for vinyl chloride since it has been
found in the creek surface water.

·
We request that notification be triggered by the MCLs.

3.
Maps should
accurately show extent of contamination and recap its movement

The maps on
page 41, while dramatic, are misleading.
They fails to show the full extent of the contamination in April 2014
and would lead a reader to think this is the extent of the pollution in
2014. It is not. Years ago, the leading edge of the plume as
MW-54 (just north of the southern boundary of Felicita Park) with a monitoring
result below the MCL.[8] Now we have pollution extending to Fleet 1 over
twice the MCL[9]
and the plume has moved out on both sides and to previously unimpacted sites. This movement should be documented for the
public. Further, as is now clear, the
VOCs are just moving and not biodegrading so that the maps on page 41 should
also include the deep plumes which still appear to connected by the results of
TCE and PCE in MW-39 and TEW-02[10]
even though not indicated as such on the figures.

·
We request the regulators require all maps to show the full extent
of the contamination.

·
We request the regulators require a map in each report of the
movement of the plumes over time.

4.
Maps should
reflect all results

The testing of the surface waters show that five
other types of contaminants, including vinyl chloride, in addition to TCE have
been found in the creek yet only TCE is shown on a map. 1,4-Dioxane was found in all three samples taken
for it at historical high concentrations in surface water, yet not presented on
a map.[11]
Other contaminants present in
groundwater include 1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane (CFC113, Freon
113) in MW 64, MW 67, MW 69, MW72 which should also be mapped.[12]

·
We request the regulators require individual maps of PCE, 1,4 Dioxane,
vinyl chloride, cis-1,2 DCE and 1,2 DCA, total VOCs, and CFCs in addition to
the TCE map of contamination in surface water.

·
We request the regulators require individual maps of all
contaminants found in groundwater.

5.
Report
should ‘spin’ less and report facts more objectively

We do not
find this report an objective presentation of the results. We understand the potential
benefits to some stakeholders of a report written to make the facts appear
benign. However, this is a disservice to
the process and the public who rely on the reports required by regulatory
agencies to inform those actions needed to protect the community. The focus on the reductions and the
soft-pedaling on the increases is inappropriate. Yes, the pollution is decreasing—except where it is increasing. For example, there are significant increases
in MW-72, Platt 1, and Grubbs1.[13] Interestingly, these are on the east, west,
and southern edge of the plume. If the
pollution really was naturally attenuating, the outer edges of the plume would
not be increasing…they would be decreasing.
Further, we do not call an increase of total VOCs by 500% (Platt 1 increased
from 4.7 to 30) and 400% (MW 34-N5 in the park increased from 7.5 to 35.5) [14]
since October 2013 a ‘slight’ increase. Further, MW- 72 now exceeds its historical maximum by almost 45 ug/l. [15] Grubbs 1 and Platt 1 are also at historical
highs[16]
and MW-66 and 39 are trending consistently upward.[17]

The other
example where we must object is the repeated editorializing that “any increase in the downgradient footprint
of the plume is more than offset by
the reductions in concentrations and plume footprint…” [18]
(emphasis added) We disagree. If
one’s life savings are in a home not previously located over a contaminated
plume but is now, or if your well used to be clean but is not now, or you live
near a well that continues to increase in contamination, then reductions
elsewhere decidedly do not
more than offset the problem. In fact,
it is not working.

·
Regulators are urged to ask the report writers to stop
editorializing and just report the results, including a focus on where
conditions are worsening.

·
We request that the consultants doing the work be funded by the
PRP Group but directed by the
regulators.

6.
Report should
present and address all of the results not just selected results that minimize
the problems at the site.

We object to
the use of TCE as a stand in for all of the contamination from the site. Using Platt 1 as an example, using TCE
results only, the ‘slight’ increase of over 100% (from 6.1 to 14 ug/l) in one
year.[19] However, the total VOC results are as stated
earlier are increased by 500% in one
year. Yet, the statement in the report
is “VOC concentration data for deep
groundwater south of Hamilton Lane indicates a decline in some wells with a
long record of monitoring history.” [20] Yes, in some, but others are increasing and
the plume is moving into previously uncontaminated areas. The fact that the report fails to focus on this
is manipulative and demonstrates extreme bias.
Further, different contaminants move at different rates, have different
health effects, and turn into different things which may be missed if only TCE
is tracked.

·
Regulators should require that ALL trends be summarized in the
reports.

·
We disagree with using TCE alone as the ‘indicator’
contaminant. The full suite of
contaminants should be discussed.

·
We disagree with the Report’s finding that the distribution
provided good correlation with previous distribution.[21] The plume is moving south, east, and west and
discharging into Felicita Creek[22]
where people and wildlife are exposed to multiple contaminants from the Chatham
Barrel Yard.

7.
Off-Yard soil
vapor analysis must be done and reported to the public

The highest off-Yard
level of TCE this monitoring round was 280 ug/l[23]and
total VOCs were 645.2 ug/l[24] at MW-69. The MCL for TCE is 5 ug/l. This location is right underneath homes,
adjacent and upgradient of a proposed housing development, the Duck Pond, and
Felicita Creek. A major concern with VOC
contamination of groundwater is the vapor intrusion into homes and yards. This is also a major concern of our
members.

·
We request, again, that soil vapor analysis be done for homes
located on the plumes so that potential health risks, if any, can be known.

·
We would also like to know
why this common sense action has not previously been conducted.

8.
Chloroform
in MW-74, MW-76 and VOCs in MW-26 should
be explained

The report
dismisses chloroform in two wells as being unrelated to the site without an
explanation or identification of another source. There is chloroform in many wells and it was
a contaminant of the Chatham site.
Perhaps, the chloroform in the plume has traveled all the way to MW-74
to the southeast and to MW-76 to the northeast.
The report states that VOCs in MW-26 do not appear to be site related[25]
but with no explanation.

·
Regulators should require a plume contour to be drawn for
chloroform as well as all other contaminants unless the PRPs have identified
another source.

9.
Previous
results should not be considered to be this year’s results.

The failure
to monitor Chernish 1[26]
is a major failing of the report. This
well would demonstrate whether or not the plume has moved even farther to the
southeast. We also do not support reporting
last year’s results on this year’s maps.
If a well is not sampled then NS should be stated. For example, we do not know if the level has
risen in the Chernish 1 well because it was not sampled yet it appears as a
<1 and <2 for various contaminants.

10.Report
should include report on uncontrolled discharge from the treatment system

We do not
see the discussion of the break in the groundwater system that resulted in a
discharge of vinyl chloride contaminated effluent to land near the Chatham site
discussed in the report. [27]

·
Regulators should require this upset should be included in this
report.

11. Claim of Natural Attenuation is highly
suspect and does not comport with the normal definition.

We were surprised to read that “adsorption
and biodegradation are not expected to be significant natural attenuation
processes.”[28] In our understanding and experience, natural
degradation through biological or chemical processes is what natural
attenuation is supposed to be. According
to the USEPA Website,

Monitored
natural attenuation (MNA) is a technique used to monitor or test the progress
of natural attenuation processes that can
degrade contaminants in soil and groundwater. It may be used with other
remediation processes as a finishing option or as the only remediation process
if the rate of contaminant degradation
is fast enough to protect human health and the environment. Natural processes
can then mitigate the remaining amount of pollution; regular monitoring of the
soil and groundwater can verify those reductions.
[29]
(emphasis added)

GWERD
scientists have led the way in developing EPA’s approach for applying and
assessing monitored natural attenuation (MNA) as a cleanup tool for organic and
inorganic contaminants in groundwater. MNA can work with other more active remedial
tools at some sites where biogeochemical
conditions favor natural processes that degrade or immobilize harmful
contaminants.[30](emphasis
added)

Dissipation and degradation are not the same thing. If degradation is not occurring, then we are
left with, essentially, just watching the pollution spread out in all
directions for “centuries”.[31] This is hardly a remedy.

The evidence that it is occurring is likewise questionable. That the monitored mass is thought to have
decreased but not broken down means that the contamination just went
elsewhere—either flowed into new area or volatilized in an uncontrolled manner
into the environment. And, where is it volatilizing to? Into people’s homes, the creek, the park? This question needs to be answered. We do not agree that ‘gradual dissipation’ or
uncontrolled volatilization is natural attenuation or acceptable.

·
We request regulators reject the claim that natural attenuation is
working and achieving the Remedial Action Objectives and require additional
action.

12. Upward flow of deep groundwater is a
continual source of exposure

We have been
told several times not to worry because the pollution is in a deep groundwater
plume. Now we read that some components
of the deep VOC plume is “flowing upward
in to the shallow zone under the influence of upward hydraulic gradients.”[32]
and that “higher concentration VOC
mass in the deep zone contributes to the VOC mass in the shallow zone thorough
localized upward gradients”[33]. Further, “surface
water flow in Felicita Creek is fed by groundwater”.[34] This is bad news. To us, it means that the deep plume will
continually feed the shallow plume and drive contaminant exposure to human
health and the environment. However,
these site of upwelling would be prime locations for pump and treat wells along
the plume to expedite cleanup.

·
Regulators should require pump and treat systems along the plume
and evaluate upwelling sites as potential strategic locations.

13. Report admits more downgradient migration of
VOCs is occurring but more clarity and information is needed.

We appreciate that the report acknowledges what is obvious—the
plumes are migrating into new areas. However,
we would suggest that statement that certain wells have half-life rates that
cannot be calculated because a “consistent
downward concentration trend at those locations has not yet been established”
be revised to state why those downward trends have not been established. It is
because they are increasing as the plume passes through them! Finally, the conclusions on page 50 should
be revised to note which wells have increased to historic highs, those that
have not significantly decreased in 17 years, and their locations. Because the plumes are moving south and
widening out, it is not reasonable to expect that there would be a 1:1 reading
of VOCs from one end of the mile long plume to the other. As the plume moves east, south, and west, the
pollution spreads out over a wider area contaminating previously uncontaminated
areas.

·
Regulators should seek revisions to the report.

·
Regulators should reject the claim that the plumes have been
adequately contained and should require additional action.

·
Regulators should requires a map that shows all exceedances of
MCLs from RAP Table 5-1 for all chemicals on the same list.

14.Human and
Ecological Health Risk Assessment must be redone to reflect new conditions,
standards, and future proposals.

We repeat our request that the HRA be redone to reflect all new
information, site conceptual models, weather and other conditions, standards
and listings, and future proposals. We
have many disagreements with how the assumptions have been made regarding the
exposure. We expect to submit additional
comments on this issue.

We also request to understand the current status on what levels
are relevant and if new data has been used.
As one example, in the RAP Table 5-1 the MCL for vinyl chloride is
listed as 5 ug/l however in the EPA Technical Fact sheet for vinyl chloride it
is listed as 2 ug/l. [35] Additional issues such as the 1,4-Dioxane
issue, have been raised above. If it
does not already, the report needs to incorporate the 25 new US EPA IRIS
toxicity values for trichloroethylene (September 28, 2011).[36] The latest assessment characterizes the
chemical as carcinogenic to humans and as a human non-cancer health hazard and TCE
was added to Prop 65 effective January 31, 2014, known to the State of California
to cause reproductive toxicity.[37]

Last, the HRA and site model that have been done to date reflect
current land use patterns. However, a
new Senior Housing Center is under construction, the City is considering a
large development on the Homeland/Oak Creek site, and other proposed projects are
proceeding that will alter current conditions, change water flows, infrastructure,
exposure routes, and use patterns. With
development encroaching on the Chatham plumes and site, the HBCLs should also
be reconsidered to assess if they are protective of water quality and future
uses.

·
The HRA should be redone to reflect current and future conditions
and reevaluate the adopted cleanup levels.

·
HBCLs should be re-evaluated against future conditions.

·
Regulators should require information to be developed regarding
how changed land uses will impact pollution in the groundwater and surface
water and how such impacts will be prevented.
New development in this area and new well installation should be prohibited
until this is known.

15. Use of
impacted wells should cease until treatment is installed.

The report
notes our sad news that our friend and neighbor Yolanda Fleet passed away this
year. We are all extremely saddened by
her passing. The report states that the
PRP Group is in discussions with her estate, however it does not state whether
the well will be in use during this discussion time although it is well
documented that it is contaminated.

·
Regulators should not allow this or any impacted well to continue
to be used without wellhead treatment.

·
Regulators should require well-owners to be compensated for the
loss of the use of their groundwater.

16. Regulators should direct a plan to address
other analytes in surface water as a separate action if not related to Chatham.

The reported
high levels of TDS, Total coliform, and turbidity are stated to be unrelated to
the Chatham pollution. If so, the County
must immediately develop a response to address these contaminants as they are
in violation of the water standards and protected beneficial uses. However, the presence of these contaminants neither
mitigates nor negates the seriousness of the presence of Chatham contaminants
in the creek.

·
We request that Felicita Creek be added as a High-Priority water
quality issue in the Water Quality Improvement Plan for San Dieguito Watershed
and establish an action plan to address both Chatham and non-Chatham issue in
the creek.

·
We request the County do the necessary five testing events[38]
to establish the coliform levels as outlined in Water Board protocol.

17.Please
respond to these questions from our members and request for additional
information about the program.

a. We
understand that the PRP Group developed SWRBTLs. Are they peer-reviewed and established in the
regulations? Is it accurate that DTSC
would not require any notification or action until they are exceeded?[39] Why wouldn’t the effluent limitations for
groundwater discharges under the Waste Discharge Requirements of 2.7 ug/l be
applicable here? Would a discharge of TCE at 1,600 ug/l into Felicita Creek be
acceptable to the regulatory agencies? Would
340,000 ug/l of 1,4, Dioxane?

b. Why has the
monitoring of MW-3-E2 (Iki) not been sampled
in 2013 or 2014. When did this sampling stop? It used to be every 4
months. Then, last year the owner was notified that it would now be
sampled once every 6 months, however, the latest April 2014 report shows NS for
both 2013 and 2014. Well owners have
been on record since 1997 requesting testing and never asked that it be removed.

c. If the
treatment is working so well, why are water table wells near the site MW-62 and
MW-64 still at historical highs or the high end of measurement after 17 years
of treatment?[40]

d. Why is BTEX analyzed
for the industrial water discharge but not analyzed in the groundwater
monitoring program? According to the record, benzene, methylene chloride,
toluene, xylene, and other contaminants were found at the Chatham site in the
groundwater. [41]

e. Why is FC-3
(Duck Pond) not regularly monitored as part of the surface water and
groundwater programs?

f.
The report notes that these results are reflective of the
unusually dry winter of 2013-2014.[42] Will more flows carry contamination further
downstream? What will this mean for the
area of upwelling of the deep VOC plumes?

g. What does
“gaining stream’ mean?

h. If
actual breakdown of TCE and PCE was really occurring, wouldn’t we see higher
levels of cis-1,2-DCE (a breakdown product)[43]
and decreasing levels of VOCs?

i.
How
do they decide which well to place on the cross section maps?

j.
What
is the ‘separate source’ of VOCs mentioned on page 31? Who is responsible for remediation of that
contamination?

k. Would
regulators allow an industry to discharge the volume of water present in
Felicita Creek with the contaminant load documented in 2014 into a drinking
water body?

18. Not contaminating MWs-68
and 75 is not the measure of success.

Repeatedly
in the report, it notes that contamination has not yet reached MW-68 and75[44]
(the first wells south of Via Rancho Parkway) as an apparent means to
reassure. We, of course, hope it never
makes it to MW-68/75 but, given history, we need to know what the plan is when
it makes it there. We do appreciate that there is good news that the pump and
treat on the Barrel Yard itself appears to have been somewhat successful in
addressing pollution on the Yard. What
has not worked as well is containing the groundwater plumes as required in the
RAOs.

·
The RAP environmental analysis evaluated additional measures such
as Alternative #GS-5: Pump and Treat Along the Length of the Plume.[45] Regulators should require this alternative be
pursued now.

19.Please
improve the access to information and documentation

Unrelated to
the content of this report, we request that the access and distribution of information
be improved. We only received a copy of
the CD because one of our members received one and shared it, but others who
have requested information did not receive a copy.

·
Several of the important documents on ENVIROSTOR such as Community
Relations Plan, Imminent Endangerment Order, and the Remedial Action Plan are
missing pages. We request that these be
reposted in complete form and all documents be complete when posted.

·
We know that a full set of records is maintained at the library however,
given the state of technology, we request that the PRPs and regulators create
an interested persons list and send all documents to that list as well as
maintain the hard-copy files.

·
We request that the regulators create one website or one-stop-shop
where all the documents can be found in an easily searchable manner. As it stands now, both Envirostor and
Geotracker are somewhat difficult to navigate and contain different documents
so piecing together what is happening is very difficult.

In closing,
we can’t help but be somewhat haunted by Yolanda Fleet’s statements on the
record in July 17, 1997 when she said,

“My well, I’ve been told, will be
the next one to be contaminated. I don’t
want a contaminated well. I have a
habitat that I want to be kept clean in there.
I really prize that water that goes down through my property, it means a
lot to me, and so I am really concerned.
When are you going to stop this thing from going south?”[46]

Seventeen
years later, Yolanda Fleet’s well is now contaminated. The remedy has failed to contain the Chatham groundwater
contamination.

Something
more must be done.

Sincerely,

Laura Hunter

Ron Forster

Carolina
Valder

Tina Iki

For
Escondido Neighbors United

cc.

Mr. Steve
MacDonald, PRP Group

Mr. Jay
Petrek, City of Escondido

Supervisor
Dave Roberts, County of San Diego

[1]
Regional Water Board to PRP Group, November 1, 2012, p.2-3

[2]
Chatham Remedial Action Plan, 1998, pp. 6-1, 6-2

[3]
Monitoring and Contingency Plan, November 12, 2012, p.27

[4]
General Waste Discharge Requirements and NPDES Permit for
discharges from groundwater extraction waste to surface waters within the San
Diego Region except for San Diego Bay. P.23 (Order No. R9-2008-0002, NPDES No.
CAG919002) Waste Discharge Application/NPDES Permit.

[5]
Revision to Monitoring and Contingency Plan Updates to Surface Water Risk-Based
Trigger Levels, October 18, 2012, p 5 (found in Monitoring and Contingency
Plan)

[6]
State Water Resources Control Board, GAMA, Fact Sheet,1,4,Dioxane http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/gama/docs/coc_1_4_dioxane.pdf

[7]
H+A, Table 8

[8]
Chatham RAP, p 3-3.

[9]
H+A, Figure 6

[10]
H+A, Figure 9

[11]
H+A, p.20

[12]
H+A, Table 4

[13]
H+A, Table 2

[14]
Hargis +Associates, July 11, 2014, Table 2.

[15]
H+A, Table 2

[16]
H+A, Table 2

[17]
H+A, Table 3

[18]
H+A, p.45

[19]
H+A, Table 3

[20]
H+A p.10

[21]
H+A, p.7

[22]
H+A, p 34

[23]
H+A, Table 3

[24]
H+A, Table 2

[25]
H+A, p.7

[26]
Ibid, p.5

[27]
PRP report to DTSC, September 16, 2013

[28]
H+A, p.39

[29]
http://www.epa.gov/oust/cat/mna.htm

[30]
http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/gwerd/gw/mna.html

[31]
H+A, p.40

[32]
H+A, p.43

[33]
H+A, p.32

[34]
H+A, p.34

[35]
http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw/pdfs/factsheets/voc/tech/vinylchl.pdf

[36]
http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0199.htm

[37]
http://www.oehha.org/prop65/prop65_list/013114P65list.html

[38]
H+A, p.34

[39]
DTSC letter to PRP Group, March 26, 2013, p.5

[40]
H+A, Table 2

[41]
Consent Decree,p.6, para 13, December, 18, 1998

[42]
H+A, p.19

[43]
H+A, p.9

[44]
H+A, pp. 8,9,11

[45]
RAP, p.6-8

[46]
Certified Transcript, Chatham Public Meeting, July 17, 1997, p 47

Escondido Neighbors United

Escondido Neighbors United Responds to more recent Chatham Monitoring Report

Escondido Neighbors United – Community Update: July 2014