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
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY <br /> Region 9 0 <br /> 75 Hawthorne Street c <br /> San Francisco CA 94105-3901 f <br /> Ma l L <br /> Mr. Marshall Cloud <br /> Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin California, Tracy Site N <br /> DDJC-FA. Attn: Environmental Management _ <br /> P.O. Box 960001 <br /> Stockton. CA 95296 <br /> RE: Draft Final Remedial Action Report for S43'Mi s 2, 3, and 33 for DDJC-Trac}. <br /> April 2002 <br /> Dear Marshall, <br /> Thank you for the opportunity to review the '•Draft Final Remedial Action Report for S13'Mus 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 onl} 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 wh) 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, <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.