My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE 1993-1995
Environmental Health - Public
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
C
>
CENTER
>
535
>
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
>
PR0524492
>
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE 1993-1995
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/25/2019 4:19:06 PM
Creation date
2/25/2019 2:35:58 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
File Section
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
FileName_PostFix
1993-1995
RECORD_ID
PR0524492
PE
2959
FACILITY_ID
FA0016428
FACILITY_NAME
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC
STREET_NUMBER
535
Direction
S
STREET_NAME
CENTER
STREET_TYPE
ST
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95203
APN
13732002
CURRENT_STATUS
01
SITE_LOCATION
535 S CENTER ST
P_LOCATION
01
P_DISTRICT
001
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
WNg
Tags
EHD - Public
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
163
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
F. Amador <br /> March 1, 1993 <br /> Page 2 <br /> which constitute a fully acceptable document. These deficiencies <br /> are delineated in the following specific comments. <br /> SPECIFIC COMMENTS <br /> Section 7 , Human Health Risk Assessment <br /> 1. Page 7-6, Sec. 7 . 2 . Regarding the off-site samples for <br /> background chemical concentrations, please note that both <br /> USEPA (1989) and OSA (1992) state that the presence of <br /> detectable levels of chemicals off-site (e.g. , background or <br /> ambient levels) which are non-naturally occurring is not <br /> adequate justification to eliminate chemicals on-site from <br /> quantitative consideration. The better approach would be to <br /> include an assessment of the anthropogenic background to <br /> compare with the risk posed by the site. <br /> 2 . Page 7-9 , 2nd paragraph. The report indicates that <br /> groundwater data for inorganic compounds less than five <br /> times the concentration found in the method blanks were not <br /> . used in the risk assessment. This is not consistent with <br /> EPA (1989 , p. 5-17) guidance. The detection limits, as well <br /> as the results of the method blanks, should be reported. <br /> 3 . Page 7-12 . Some metals (As, Cd, Cr, Hg, Vn) were eliminated <br /> because concentrations detected in on-site soil samples were <br /> not statistically different from background concentrations. <br /> To determine whether the concentration of an inorganic <br /> compound detected in a single site sample differs <br /> significantly from the background concentration, the <br /> concentration in the site sample should be compared to the <br /> prediction interval for the background concentration. (Note <br /> that comparison to a prediction interval represents a less, <br /> stringent criterion than comprison to a confidence <br /> interval . ) If the average concentration detected in a <br /> population of site-related samples is compared to the <br /> average background concentration, a standard t;test should <br /> be used to demonstrate a statistically significant <br /> difference. <br /> 4 . Page 7-13, and Table 7-3 . Some organic compounds detected <br /> in groundwater were eliminated based on comparison to MCLS. <br /> Benzene was eliminated because the concentration was less <br /> than MCL. Arsenic was also eliminated on this basis. <br /> Elimination of chemicals based on comparison to MCLS is not <br /> acceptable since MCLS are not entirely health-based. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.