My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Environmental Health - Public
>
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
t <br /> �,Zeos.rFs UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY <br /> A I Region 9 <br /> ` W 75 Hawthorne Street MOVED <br /> W D <br /> t >A7 San Francisco CA 94105-3901 Ifl] V v t� <br /> May 17, 2002 MAY 2 3 2002 <br /> ENVIRONMENT HEALTH <br /> Mr. Marshall Cloud PERMIT/SERVICES <br /> Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin California, Tracy Site <br /> DDJC-FA, Attn: Environmental Management <br /> P.O. Box 960001 <br /> Stockton,CA 95296 <br /> RE: Draft Final Remedial Action Report for SWMUs 2,3,and 33 for DDJC-Tracy, <br /> April 2002 <br /> Dear Marshall, <br /> Thank you for the opportunity to review the "Draft Final Remedial Action Report for SWAIUs 2, <br /> 3, and 33 for DDJC-Tracy, "April 2002. Our comments are attached. <br /> The Remedial Action Report(RAR) provides only a cursory discussion related to the rationale <br /> for the explanation of significant differences(ESD). In general,the discussion does not clearly reflect <br /> that the remedy is still protective of human health and the environment. Some of the statements made <br /> raise questions about the assumptions used to revise ecological clean up levels, and the appropriateness <br /> of the revised assumptions would only be understood if one were to review of the original ecological risk <br /> assessment.The revisions presented in the responses to comments do not adequately document why it is <br /> appropriate for a chemical of concern, used in decision making for the original record of decision (ROD), <br /> to be deleted from the remedy. For example,the RAR does not discuss that a review of more site-specific <br /> considerations was conducted, and that the risk managers agreed to accept less conservative risk <br /> assumptions. The RAR should be clarified to document the actual rationale for why it was deemed <br /> appropriate to eliminate a chemical that was previously determined to be of concern. <br /> Please feel free to contact me at 415-972-3024 if you have any questions or comments. <br /> Sincerely,P /1l(j( f <br /> 4-e <br /> Michael Work <br /> Federal Facilities Cleanup Branch <br /> Superfund Division(SFD-8-3) <br /> cc: (See Distribution List) <br /> Attachment <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.