WORK PLANS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Jeff Van Slooten Page 6 November 29 , 1989 PHA, page 3-15. There is an apparent conflict in the half-time for PCP degradation in water. Would you please verify the correct value. PHA, Table 4-2 . The OSHA PEL for PCP is incorrectly listed as 0. 05 mg/m3 . PHA, page 5-4 . There are two references to a study(ies) conducted by Tseng, but only one reference is included in the bibliography. Also, Maximum Concentration Levels (MCLs) are not used to estimate risk. PHA, page 5-5 . The toxicology discussions are very weak and contain many errors. For example, the statement in paragraph 3 about mutagenicity is incorrect, the author' s name is misspelled and the referenced article discusses bacterial mutagenicity not mutagenicity in mice and rats. On the same page, there is a reference to Grant and Stern and in the bibliography there is only an incomplete citation. Also, in the second paragraph, kidney "inefficiency" is mentioned, should this be "insufficiency" .> PHA, page 6-2 . The units need to be added to the equations in order to allow an independent reader to check the calculations. The same terms should be used in all equations. Why is water used in one equation and soil in the other? This section of the document is very important and must be error free and very clear. PHA, Page 6-4 . What is the rationale for dividing the site into eight areas? Are not workers exposed to all sites? Off-site workers and residents would be exposed to dust and vapors from all areas of the site. PHA, Figure 6-1. The excess cancer risk for the storm water collection pond area is reported to be the lowest on the site. Given the level of arsenic found there, is this correct? PHA, Figures 6-1 through 6-5 . Within Mormon Slough, there are apparent sampling sites OMS 1-5. Where are the data from these sampling sites? Has there been migration of contaminants from the site to the slough? It is not clear when the wells were sampled and the extent of the contaminant plume.