Laserfiche WebLink
• <br /> ISFSPS3 SO-002 <br /> ICFSPS2 SO-005 <br /> ICFSPSI SO-004 <br /> 6. Figure 2-1: The title of this figure does not accurately reflect what <br /> is presented. It appears that the analytical results presented in this <br /> figure only show detected results of the Compounds of Concern (COCs) <br /> that were above the respective cleanup goals as only 6 sampling <br /> locations are shown, but a total of 7 samples were taken (i.e. , the <br /> location of ICFSPSS is not shown) . It is assumed that at the missing <br /> location no COCs were detected above their respective cleanup goals. <br /> For clarity, please show all sampling locations in the figure and revise <br /> the figure title to indicate that only the results of the CDCs are shown <br /> that are above their respective cleanup goal. <br /> 7. Figure 2-2: The title of Figure 2-2 does not accurately reflect what is <br /> presented in the figure. Please revise the figure title to indicate <br /> that soil sampling results for the sampling in October 1999 and March <br /> 2000 are presented. Furthermore, it is unclear whether all data are <br /> presented or whether selected data (i.e. , only detected concentrations) <br /> are presented. Please revise the figure to clarify the data <br /> presentation. <br /> 8 . Figure 2-2 and Appendix B: Figure 2-2 shows that the sum of DDX <br /> concentrations at SB1085SO001NS (at 2 feet) was 0. 011 mg/kg. However, <br /> in Appendix B the sum of the DDX concentrations adds up to 0.0086 mg/kg <br /> at this location and depth. In addition, Figure 2-2 shows that the sum <br /> of the DDX concentrations at SB1085SO004NS (at 16 feet) was 0. 013 mg/kg. <br /> However, in Appendix B the sum of the DDX concentrations adds up to <br /> 0.010 mg/kg. Please resolve these discrepancies. <br /> 9. Section 3.1, Page 3-1: It is not clear which data were used in the risk <br /> assessment. It appears that only data collected during the October 1999 <br /> and the March 2000 sampling events were used. Please clarify the text <br /> to indicate which data were used in the risk assessment. <br /> 10. Section 3.1.1, Page 3-1: The first sentence of this section is <br /> confusing, and appears to contradict the text in Section 3.1.3 .6, which <br /> states that maximum detected concentrations were used to predict <br /> exposure point concentrations. If the 95 percent upper confidence level <br /> of the arithmetic mean was calculated for each analyte, please clarify <br /> 4 <br />