My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
W
>
WASHINGTON
>
2040
>
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
>
PR0506560
>
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/22/2020 8:27:10 AM
Creation date
6/22/2020 8:11:55 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
File Section
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
RECORD_ID
PR0506560
PE
2960
FACILITY_ID
FA0004535
FACILITY_NAME
CAL-FARM SUPPLY
STREET_NUMBER
2040
Direction
W
STREET_NAME
WASHINGTON
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95206
APN
14503004
CURRENT_STATUS
01
SITE_LOCATION
2040 W WASHINGTON
P_LOCATION
01
P_DISTRICT
001
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
LSauers
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.
/
251
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. Mark Dockum Page 2 27 October 1989 <br /> proposing 1 ppm as a cleanup level as discussed in the 14 July 1989 <br /> Preliminary Site Investigation Report (page 7, last paragraph) . As noted in <br /> the Report, the TTLC is not an action level ; however, the TTLC level of 1 ppm <br /> is often proposed as cleanup goal . A more appropriate method of setting goals <br /> is to consider potential health effects, routes of exposure, and probable <br /> attenuation. Such a process results in a site specific level that usually <br /> considers current and potential site use. By applying such a process to the <br /> Cal-Farm Supply site, you may be able to justify the proposed 1 ppm level . <br /> Until the site is fully characterized, I cannot validate the 1 ppm level as <br /> adequate to protect water quality, but I expect that it will be acceptable. <br /> Likewise, other pesticide residues at the site should be reviewed and cleanup <br /> levels determined. The process of calculating cleanup levels based on <br /> toxicities relative to the TTLC for DDT does not result in satisfactory goals <br /> because no consideration is given to relative mobility and appropriate <br /> toxicity (the TTLC for DDT was based on cumulative toxicity to fish) . Based on <br /> my review of the pesticide levels determined to date, I do not anticipate that <br /> any other pesticide at the site will displace DDT as the focus for cleanup <br /> activities (i .e. , if soils are remediated to address concerns for DDT, no <br /> additional soil remediation will be necessary for other pesticides) . <br /> Task 5 is disposal of soils containing DDT. Whereas DDT is a "soft-hammer" <br /> land ban waste, it will be necessary to demonstrate that no treatment process <br /> is available and that landfill disposal is therefore appropriate. The approved <br /> treatment process for organochlorine pesticides is incineration, but there is <br /> currently no incineration capacity in California for soils with DDT residues. <br /> Bioremediation is an alternative treatment process, but is only in the <br /> experimental stage for DDT. Consequently, it appears that with the appropriate <br /> documentation you will be able to dispose of the soil at a Class 1 landfill . <br /> Please contact me at 361-5703 if you have any questions regarding my comments. <br /> John L. Menke <br /> Agricultural Regulatory Unit <br /> JLM: <br /> Enclosures - 2 <br /> cc: Ms. Diane Hinson, San Joaquin Local Health District, Stockton <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.