My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
C
>
CHRISMAN
>
25700
>
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
>
PR0508450
>
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/29/2019 11:58:23 AM
Creation date
5/29/2019 11:10:41 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
File Section
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
RECORD_ID
PR0508450
PE
2960
FACILITY_ID
FA0008087
FACILITY_NAME
DDJC-TRACY
STREET_NUMBER
25700
STREET_NAME
CHRISMAN
STREET_TYPE
RD
City
TRACY
Zip
95376
APN
25207002
CURRENT_STATUS
01
SITE_LOCATION
25700 CHRISMAN RD
P_LOCATION
99
P_DISTRICT
005
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\wng
Tags
EHD - Public
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2212
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
EPA Comments on the <br /> Revised Draft Final Amendment to the <br /> Sitewide Comprehensive Record of Decision, <br /> Tracy Site,Tracy, California, <br /> September 2003 <br /> 1. SVVW 4 <br /> Section 2.2.4: This discussion could be clearer--especially the sentences that say "there was no risk <br /> when the bioavailability of lead in flesh and sediment and when the forage range were considered <br /> jointly". <br /> Section 2.3.6: The third bullet refers to existing administrative controls --please describe these. <br /> Section 2.3.9: The text says that 'one" procedure is the INIP Project Approval Form. If there are others, <br /> please describe them. If not,please revise this to say "the"procedure. <br /> Section 2.4.7.1: It is a little confusing to read that the results of the site-specific ecological risk <br /> assessment simultaneously indicated that no excavation is necessary, and that more excavation than <br /> originally anticipated would be necessary to significantly reduce contaminant levels. Please explain this <br /> further. <br /> Table 2-2: Please revise the statement that the selected remedy uses permanent solutions and alternative <br /> treatment technologies or resources recovery to an explanation of why such solutions/technologies are <br /> not appropriate. <br /> 2. OU 1 <br /> Section 3.5.2.3: The 6th bullet says there may be an impact on crops "perhaps" because of boron <br /> concentrations in the water. Is there a question as to what might cause the impact on crops? If so,then <br /> monitoring for boron should not be the only suggested solution. Please clarify. <br /> 3. DSERTS 72 <br /> In the Executive Summary under ES.2,the sentence should say "...do not pose an unacceptable risk to <br /> human health or the environment." <br /> Section 4.3.4: The 1st bullet says include in an addendum to the IMP any specific controls required. <br /> Have such controls been identified? If so,they should be described in the ROD. If not, and specific <br /> controls are identified later,they should included in a land use plan appended to the ROD. The 3rd bullet <br /> says maintain existing administrative controls--please describe these. <br /> Aooendix B --.Public comments <br /> Does the natural attenuation allow further migration of the plume, or is the plume controlled in some <br /> way? Please explain. <br /> 1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.