Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Maurice Benson -2 - 31 May 2011 <br /> Defense Logistics Agency <br /> structures located within the designated LUC boundaries shown in Tables 3-3, 4-4, and <br /> 6-6 and on Figures 3-3, 4-2, and 6-6. However, the Draft Final ESD does not present <br /> the evaluations, how they were performed, or how they will be periodically monitored. <br /> Furthermore, DLA has not demonstrated that the proposed LUCs would be protective of <br /> current building occupants. <br /> 4. On Figures 3-1 and 6-6 of the Draft Final ESD, DLA shows concentration contours for <br /> TCE and PCE soil vapors in Area 1/Building 237 and Solid Waste Management Unit 20. <br /> Throughout most of the contours lengths, the are inferred using dashed lines on the <br /> 9 9 Y 9 <br /> figures; however, buildings are present beyond some of these contours. DLA should <br /> explain why indoor air quality evaluations are not being considered for other nearby <br /> buildings. <br /> 5. DLA should explain why all of Buildings 231 and 33 are not included in the proposed <br /> LUC areas shown on Figures 3-3 and 6-6, or include the entire buildings in the areas. <br /> If you have any questions, please contact me at (916) 464-4675, or by email at <br /> jbrownell@waterboards.ca.gov. <br /> I \ <br /> JAMES R. BROWNELL, P.G. <br /> Engineering Geologist <br /> Federal Facilities Unit <br /> cc: Mr. Phillip Ramsey, USEPA Region 9, San Francisco <br /> Mr. Christopher Sherman, DTSC Region 1, Sacramento <br /> Mr. Harlin Knoll, San Joaquin County Health Department, Stockton <br /> Ms. Nanette Chevrier Werner, Defense Logistics Agency, Fort Belvoir, Virginia <br /> Mr. Charles O'Neill, HDR I e2M, Folsom <br />