And as so many of them are influential in Vienna, I am concerned that this particular group of the Organization in its various forms are just part and parcel of the "Good Ol' Boys Club" that is so much of the problem for the City as a whole?
In a bit of followup on my posting yesterday, I noted no one seemed concerned about the "Cumulative" effects from the C8. While the filters if properly maintained will reduce or even for the long term eliminate the problems from drinking and bathing in the water, it does not approach the issues from absorption through the skin be it from any form of moisture in the air or even in the dirt as one is in it for whatever reason? Issues may well be less but still we need to address them plus of course for folks who have absorbed the C8 for many years.
Believe in reviewing an email from DEP that it may have come out on how the City is going to get around remediation on the Park area as properly as may be necessary?
"Below is information I received from our DEP project manager, Venisa Flesher (who was thought to be a Ms. Britain), and the Licensed Remediation Specialist for the site, Matthew Wright, of Triad Engineering:
The concentrations of arsenic in the background samples ranged from 6-17 mg/kg, Each exceeding the 0.39mg/kg residential de minimis. 13mg/kg is the WV natural background concentration listed in the VRP Guidance Document.
A reference site that has had the Risk Assessment completed with similar contaminants and uses. Morgan County Recreation Complex (soccer fields). The arsenic concentrations were as high as 36mg/kg. The RA concluded that Hazard Index (HI) was below 1. Cancer risk didn’t exceed the 1 x 10-6 residential benchmark. They did do some remedial excavation, but that was out of the appearance of risk to kids rather than what the Risk Assessment concluded.
I would expect that the RA for the Riverside parcels will be the same. Other than a couple areas covered by asphalt already, no remediation will be necessary. (Unbelievable and apparently why the expected end of year Risk Assessment report by the City does not seem to be done or really expected as I post this)?
There are no exposure concerns that have reached industrial levels. There are 2 areas that have arsenic that exceeded industrial levels but they are located underneath pavement (parking lot). Some PAH’s exceeded residential (my emphasis), but not industrial limits. The surface soil results for arsenic ranged from 7ppm-20ppm. Subsurface (2-20ft) samples ranged 4-26ppm. The residential limit is .39ppm arsenic and the industrial level is 27ppm arsenic. The background arsenic levels exceeded the residential limit (my emphasis), but not industrial limit. Please let me know if you need additional information".
If you have any further questions, please let me know.
Thanks,
Jessica (Henson)
WVDEP-Division of Land Restoration
601 57th Street, SE
Charleston, WV 25304
(304) 926-0499, ext. 1658
Initially when the above was sent to me by the person asking information from DEP, I thought the City was trying to develop the site as an "industrial versus a residential one" due to the lower standards for the industrial? But than, I went back and reread a couple of more times and realized it was actually a flatout denial of any contamination EXCEPT (conveniently), under the parking slabs.
Now this is so different from the 2013-2014 site survey as done by Triad (who did the original survey), that may I question but one of several things have happened?
1. The initial survey was intentionally incorrect to beat down the current owner for a lower price?
2. The warnings on keeping "Children, Underground Utility Workers. Construction Workers and even Trespassers off the site were signs of a p*** poor investigation of the site?
3. The latest results are skewed to get the "desired results" versus the Truth of what is there?
And Mr. Wright of Triad stated: "I would expect that the RA for the Riverside parcels will be the same. Other than a couple areas covered by asphalt already, no remediation will be necessary".
Really, everything here is "expected" to be the same as Morgan County Recreation Complex? How would he know if new tests are not conducted? Does that include the C8 contamination of the ground? (Read skin absorption). It is apparent to me at least that he and I have different 2013- 2014 Site Surveys? And I will note the C8 was NOT part of this survey but for damn sure must have been there?
Up too May of last year when Mr. Rapp and Mr. Thornton went to Fairmont to visit with the head boss at the DEP Office there, it seemed things were not going well? Right after that visit, permissions seemed to begin to fall out of the sky for this bunch?
I will say with out equivocation, I could not in good conscience allow any pregnant relative, child or grandchild of mine on that Park until a proper remediation is conducted/ completed. But Public Safety by the City and too many of the parents appears is not a big deal? 'nuff said'