My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FIELD DOCUMENTS
Environmental Health - Public
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
W
>
WEBER
>
1325
>
3500 - Local Oversight Program
>
PR0545007
>
FIELD DOCUMENTS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/3/2019 4:56:08 PM
Creation date
12/3/2019 4:39:20 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
3500 - Local Oversight Program
File Section
FIELD DOCUMENTS
RECORD_ID
PR0545007
PE
3528
FACILITY_ID
FA0025604
FACILITY_NAME
CATELLUS DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY
STREET_NUMBER
1325
Direction
W
STREET_NAME
WEBER
STREET_TYPE
AVE
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95203
CURRENT_STATUS
01
SITE_LOCATION
1325 W WEBER AVE
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\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.
/
158
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
P A G E 7 <br /> 1 �3 <br /> 1 -I <br /> ' duration. For this reason, the exposure frequency was assumed to be 5 <br /> days per year, and the exposure duration was assumed t'o be I"Gyear. <br /> In accordance with guidance developed by ASTM (1996)`the development <br /> j of risk-based screening levels for ground water required,that acceptable or <br /> target levels be developed first for air (Table 2) under each exposure <br /> scenario (i.e., industrial use and construction). Again, the calculations <br /> followed applicable guidance issued by USEPA (1996), USEPA!rReg.on 9 <br /> (1999), and ASTM (1996). Like the risk-based screening Ievels for soil, the <br /> target levels for air incorporated current toxicity information and, where <br /> appropriate, generic exposure assumptions.' <br /> i. <br /> 3� <br /> The target levels for air (Table 2) were then used to derive risk-based <br /> �3: <br /> screening levels for ground water under both an industrial scenario (Table <br /> 3) and a construction scenario (Table 4). Development of;,the ground <br />' water screening levels followed guidance issued by ASTM (1996), and <br /> incorporated default assumptions for all parameters except depth to <br /> ground water. Site-specific information was used for this';parameter, as <br /> explained below: <br /> • Under an industrial scenario, the depth to ground wafer was assumed <br /> to be 4 feet. This represents the minimum (i.e., the most conservative <br /> or most health protective value) of the range of values!cited!lin the <br /> Closure Report (ERM, 1999). <br /> • Under a construction scenario, the depth to ground water was <br /> assumed to be 1 foot. Note that, because of the shallow water table in <br /> i the vicinity of the subject properties, any excavation will necessarily be <br /> quite limited in depth. A value of 1 foot was selected as a conservative <br /> estimate of the minimum distance from the water table that'any <br /> extensive excavation activity would likely occur. Furthermore, if <br /> excavation below ground water were to occur, it would require the use <br /> of shoring and dewatering. In this case, the health risk posed to a <br /> construction worker is reduced as the water and the volatile <br /> 3 <br />' s Generic assumptions were used for all exposure parameters except the exposure <br /> frequency and exposure duration terms under the construction scenario. As l <br /> I4 noted in the discussion of the risk-based screening levels for soil,calculation of <br /> the target values for air under a construction scenario incorporated an exposure <br /> frequency of 5 days per year and an exposure duration of 1 year. s <br /> �1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.