My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
R
>
RUSTAN
>
1881
>
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
>
PR0515573
>
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/7/2020 3:32:38 PM
Creation date
4/7/2020 3:02:51 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
File Section
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
RECORD_ID
PR0515573
PE
2950
FACILITY_ID
FA0012224
FACILITY_NAME
RIDGEWAY PROPERTY
STREET_NUMBER
1881
STREET_NAME
RUSTAN
STREET_TYPE
RD
City
TRACY
Zip
95376
CURRENT_STATUS
02
SITE_LOCATION
1881 RUSTAN RD
P_LOCATION
03
P_DISTRICT
005
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\sballwahn
Tags
EHD - Public
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
74
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
Mr. Jerry Lile `� �•/ <br /> October 2, 2001 <br /> Page 3 <br /> Specific Comments <br /> 1. The current investigation reports three previously unreported constituents in the groundwater: <br /> toluene and 0.7 µgl, xylenes at 1.5 µg/I and phenanthrene at 0.2 µg/I. These constituent con- <br /> centrations were added to the risk assessment. The revised risk assessment calculation indi- <br /> cated that the theoretical excess cancer risk was 1 x 10$ and the hazard index was 0.65. <br /> 2. The consultant did not explain the significance of the finding that the silica gel procedure re- <br /> sulted in greater TPHd detections in samples GMX-23-GGW and GMX-24-GGW. The boring <br /> log for sample GMX-28 does not show the sample depth. The text should be revised ap- <br /> propriately. Figure 2 has the GMX-23 results table in two (2) locations. <br /> 3. HERD reproduced the risk screening calculations. The risk calculated for the property was <br /> at 1 x 10'6, which is within the range that is, considered acceptable (1 x 10-6 to 1 x 10-4). The <br /> risk calculations were based on the use of the equivalent of"J" qualified (estimated) data. <br /> The risks were calculated for a hypothetical, future resident at the site. <br /> 4. In attachment #3 of the addendum - Exposure Parameters and Constants. Under the inha- <br /> lation of volatiles in air, the intake rate (inhalation) is listed as L/d 2 for adults and 1 for <br /> child. These values are incorrect. <br /> Conclusions and Recommendations <br /> The analytical data supporting this investigation appear adequate both in quantity and quality. <br /> Detection limits were sufficiently low to support the intended end-use of the data. The screening <br /> risk evaluation used the methodology and equations presented in the PEA. <br /> The residual levels of petroleum-related hydrocarbons in the soils and groundwater beneath the <br /> site are below levels that would constitute an unacceptable risk to human health and the envi- <br /> ronment as evidenced by a cancer risk of less than 1 x 10-6 and a hazard index of less than 1.0. <br /> This meets the criteria for a "no further action" determination as outlined in the PEA manual. <br /> Please contact me at [(916) 255-6626] or e-mail at dberry@dtsc.ca.gov if you have any ques- <br /> tions regarding the evaluation of the above document. <br /> Reviewed by: Stephen DiZio, Ph.D. <br /> Senior Toxicologist, HERD <br /> I <br /> j <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.