From: Wangerud, KenTo: "David Abranovic"Cc: Justin Burning; Mark Ransom; Mike Storck (mstorck@utah.gov); R. David Gibby (dgibby@usmagnesium.com);

Catherine D. LeCours (clecours@PWT.COM); Kevin Lundmark; Bob Farmer; Wendy OBrien; Bill Brattin; Dan Wall; "Kelly, Thomas J"

Subject: USMag: Agency comments to ERM Draft Stage 3 DMA Cl/HCl monitor test memorandumDate: Monday, June 08, 2015 10:30:00 AMAttachments: Final Agency comments 8Jun2015 re ERM Draft Stage3 Gastronics TM.pdf

David: Please find attached EPA and UDEQ comments to the Draft TM. As we discussed last week, even though this aspect of the OU2 Ph1B work is behind the schedule of EPA’s March 23, 2015 letter, ERM should be able to achieve the deployment and startup of these samplers under an approved SAP beginning Fall 2015. We look forward to receiving a Final TM as ERM prepares for this testing. Thank you. Ken____________________________________Ken Wangerud, Remedial Project ManagerSuperfund Remedial ProgramOffice of Ecosystems Protection and RemediationUSEPA Region 8 - EPR/SR1595 Wynkoop, Denver CO 80202-1129- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -ofc. tel. 303-312-6703fax 303-312-7151 wangerud.ken@epa.gov 

From: David Abranovic [mailto:David.Abranovic@erm.com] Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 6:17 PMTo: Wangerud, KenCc: Justin Burning; Mark Ransom; Mike Storck (mstorck@utah.gov); R. David Gibby (dgibby@usmagnesium.com); Catherine D. LeCours (clecours@PWT.COM); Kevin Lundmark; Bob FarmerSubject: RE: OU2 RI Stage 3 DMA Cl/HCl monitor test memorandum Ken, Please find attached the draft Stage 3 DMA Cl/HCl monitor test memorandum for your review.  As we discussed on our last weekly call, due to the lack of US based technical support for the BM25 monitors, we have retained Stage 3 testing of them as a contingency if the Gastonics unit do not perform satisfactorily.  ERM will initiate the equipment procurement necessary to execute this work as soon as we receive EPA approval of this memorandum. Please feel free call me any time if you have any questions,

mailto:David.Abranovic@erm.commailto:Justin.Burning@erm.commailto:Mark.Ransom@erm.commailto:mstorck@utah.govmailto:dgibby@usmagnesium.commailto:clecours@PWT.COMmailto:Kevin.Lundmark@erm.commailto:Bob.Farmer@erm.commailto:OBrien.Wendy@epa.govmailto:brattin@srcinc.commailto:Wall.Dan@epa.govmailto:Wall.Dan@epa.govmailto:kellyt@battelle.orgmailto:wangerud.ken@epa.gov

Agency Technical Comments on ERM’s

Stage-3 Demonstration of Methods Applicability Test Plan for Phase 1B

Continuous Ambient Air Monitors for PRI-18

(Document Date: 21 May 2015)

U.S. MAGNESIUM NPL SITE, TOOELE COUNTY, UTAH

8 June 2015

INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Utah Department of Environmental Quality

are providing the following comments on the Draft Stage-3 Demonstration of Methods Applicability test

Plan for Phase 1B Continuous Ambient Air Monitors for PRI-18. for the US Magnesium NPL Site, Tooele

County, Utah. This document was prepared by Environmental Resource Management (ERM) and

submitted to the EPA 21 May 2015 pursuant to scoping meeting discussion held on 10 March 2015.

Comments:

1. The plan vaccilates in its description of the testing, in some places indicating that both types of

sensors will be tested (e.g., top of page 4, page 7, page 8) and in several other places stating

what will be done if the BM25s are tests. The document needs to be clear and consistent

regarding what testing implementation will be done.

2. The Introduction discusses ERM’s consultations with Oldham Gas, but does not describe

consultations with Gastronics leading to the basis for testing Gastronics instruments. ERM

subsequently reported that a limited onsite demonstration of the Gastronics units was carried

out, yet the introduction does not mention this step towards the Gastronics testing proposal

(e.g., how extensive was the demo, how relevant was the demo to this Stage-3 DMA?).

3. This DMA-Stage 3 proposal will not provide a side-by-side comparison of candidate

instrument(s) performance under the same conditions; the plan should explain why this step-

wise test approach is necessary and appropriate.

4. The plan does not specify what the performance criteria are for deciding whether the Gastronics

units perform adequately or inadequately, so there is no basis for judging when testing of the

BM25s may be needed. Sec. 3.1.2 states a 0.1 ppm minimum detection threshold, but no upper

limit is specified. Quantitative criteria is needed in the plan (or referenced to earlier Air-DMA

workplans), even if they are only expectations based on the Gastronics vendor specification.

This same concern applies to the data acceptance criteria (bottom page 9). The performance

and data acceptance criteria need to be addressed in the plan, as that will provide the basis for

instrument suitability and selection for Ph1B monitoring.

5. The use a single DMA test site does not provide an adequate test of the wireless communication

range of the sensors/units. Because monitoring is anticipated to extend to outer extents of the

RI study area, the DMA test should include an element of verifying the data-transmission

effectiveness to the furthest potential distance, either during or immediately following the main

DMA testing episode.

6. Top of page 3. This section is puzzling, in that it states that BM25s will be involved due to

improvements in support, software and technical specifications—but then states that Oldham

provided only very limited U.S. support. ERM should clarify what discussions with Oldham led to

this conclusion, since Oldham provided a different impression to EPA during prior discussions.

7. Page 8. The mid-range audit gas challenge is a good idea, and recording before/after readings

will provide valuable data.

8. Page 10, Section 3.3.1. The second phrase (following the comma) of the first sentence is

unclear. Regarding the last sentence—the plan should state specify the pre-determined

minimum battery level for the BM25s, in order to evaluate battery performance per Sec. 2.1 of

the DMA-plan

9. Page 11. Sec. 3.3.2. This section does not mention site-visit/assessment of the BM25 battery

performance per Sec. 3.1.3, bullet 5, ‘Evaluation of the reliable battery life in the field for the

BM25 units.’

10. Page 12. Insert bullet before ‘Record of photographs taken’.

11. Page 18. Figure 4 shows only the Gastronics units. Will the BM25 (for battery evaluation) be

located on the same platform?

12. Attachments. The vendor brochure is insufficient documentation for the Gastronics

instruments, especially because those sensors are the primary focus of the DMA plan. Replace

that brochure with the appropriate manuals for the Gastronics sensors/instruments.

 david _____________________________________David J. Abranovic P.E.Partner

ERM West, Inc.7272 E. Indian School Road, Suite 108Scottsdale, Arizona 85251General: 480-998-2401Direct: 480-455-6070FAX: 480-998-2106Cell: 602-284-4917david.abranovic@erm.comwww.erm.com

One Planet. One Company. ERM.ü Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

This message contains information which may be confidential, proprietary, privileged, or otherwise protected by law from disclosure or use by a third party. If you have received this message in error, please contact us immediately at (925) 946-0455 and take the steps necessary to delete the message completely from your computer system. Thank you.

Please visit ERM's web site: http://www.erm.com

This message contains information which may be confidential, proprietary, privileged, or otherwise protected by law from disclosure or use by a third party. If you have received this message in error, please contact us immediately at (303) 741-5050 and take the steps necessary to delete the message completely from your computer system. Thank you.

Please visit ERM's web site: http://www.erm.com

mailto:david.abranovic@erm.comhttp://www.erm.com/http://www.erm.com/http://www.erm.com/

Agency Technical Comments on ERM’s

Stage-3 Demonstration of Methods Applicability Test Plan for Phase 1B

Continuous Ambient Air Monitors for PRI-18

(Document Date: 21 May 2015)

U.S. MAGNESIUM NPL SITE, TOOELE COUNTY, UTAH

8 June 2015

INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Utah Department of Environmental Quality

are providing the following comments on the Draft Stage-3 Demonstration of Methods Applicability test

Plan for Phase 1B Continuous Ambient Air Monitors for PRI-18. for the US Magnesium NPL Site, Tooele

County, Utah. This document was prepared by Environmental Resource Management (ERM) and

submitted to the EPA 21 May 2015 pursuant to scoping meeting discussion held on 10 March 2015.

Comments:

1. The plan vaccilates in its description of the testing, in some places indicating that both types of sensors will be tested (e.g., top of page 4, page 7, page 8) and in several other places stating

what will be done if the BM25s are tests. The document needs to be clear and consistent

regarding what testing implementation will be done.

2. The Introduction discusses ERM’s consultations with Oldham Gas, but does not describe consultations with Gastronics leading to the basis for testing Gastronics instruments. ERM

subsequently reported that a limited onsite demonstration of the Gastronics units was carried

out, yet the introduction does not mention this step towards the Gastronics testing proposal

(e.g., how extensive was the demo, how relevant was the demo to this Stage-3 DMA?).

3. This DMA-Stage 3 proposal will not provide a side-by-side comparison of candidate instrument(s) performance under the same conditions; the plan should explain why this step-

wise test approach is necessary and appropriate.

4. The plan does not specify what the performance criteria are for deciding whether the Gastronics units perform adequately or inadequately, so there is no basis for judging when testing of the

BM25s may be needed. Sec. 3.1.2 states a 0.1 ppm minimum detection threshold, but no upper

limit is specified. Quantitative criteria is needed in the plan (or referenced to earlier Air-DMA

workplans), even if they are only expectations based on the Gastronics vendor specification.

This same concern applies to the data acceptance criteria (bottom page 9). The performance

and data acceptance criteria need to be addressed in the plan, as that will provide the basis for

instrument suitability and selection for Ph1B monitoring.

5. The use a single DMA test site does not provide an adequate test of the wireless communication range of the sensors/units. Because monitoring is anticipated to extend to outer extents of the

RI study area, the DMA test should include an element of verifying the data-transmission

effectiveness to the furthest potential distance, either during or immediately following the main

DMA testing episode.

6. Top of page 3. This section is puzzling, in that it states that BM25s will be involved due to improvements in support, software and technical specifications—but then states that Oldham

provided only very limited U.S. support. ERM should clarify what discussions with Oldham led to

this conclusion, since Oldham provided a different impression to EPA during prior discussions.

7. Page 8. The mid-range audit gas challenge is a good idea, and recording before/after readings will provide valuable data.

8. Page 10, Section 3.3.1. The second phrase (following the comma) of the first sentence is unclear. Regarding the last sentence—the plan should state specify the pre-determined

minimum battery level for the BM25s, in order to evaluate battery performance per Sec. 2.1 of

the DMA-plan

9. Page 11. Sec. 3.3.2. This section does not mention site-visit/assessment of the BM25 battery performance per Sec. 3.1.3, bullet 5, ‘Evaluation of the reliable battery life in the field for the

BM25 units.’

10. Page 12. Insert bullet before ‘Record of photographs taken’. 11. Page 18. Figure 4 shows only the Gastronics units. Will the BM25 (for battery evaluation) be

located on the same platform?

12. Attachments. The vendor brochure is insufficient documentation for the Gastronics instruments, especially because those sensors are the primary focus of the DMA plan. Replace

that brochure with the appropriate manuals for the Gastronics sensors/instruments.

barcodetext: 1562699barcode: *1562699*