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
>
26500
>
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
>
PR0544501
>
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/10/2020 9:09:16 PM
Creation date
2/10/2020 3:21:18 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
File Section
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
RECORD_ID
PR0544501
PE
2954
FACILITY_ID
FA0014311
FACILITY_NAME
TRACY DEFENSE DEPOT
STREET_NUMBER
26500
Direction
S
STREET_NAME
CHRISMAN
STREET_TYPE
RD
City
TRACY
Zip
95376
APN
SEE COMMENTS
CURRENT_STATUS
02
SITE_LOCATION
26500 S CHRISMAN RD
P_LOCATION
99
P_DISTRICT
005
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\sballwahn
Tags
EHD - Public
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
165
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
evaluated with these differences in mind. Similarly, the <br /> way in which the different soils areas and different <br /> groundwater plumes will be assessed should be further <br /> clarified. <br /> 10. Page 4-9, section 4. 4 <br /> The exposure assessment plan does not provide detail on the <br /> exposure pathways to be evaluated, nor on the types of <br /> exposure scenarios that will be considered in the risk <br /> assessment. This section refers the reader to Section 4 . 2 <br /> where the site conceptual models are discussed for a <br /> description for the exposure pathways. However, although <br /> migration pathways are mentioned in that section, actual <br /> pathways of exposure to potential receptors are not <br /> identified. <br /> Also, Section 4 . 4 fails to fully identify the exposure <br /> scenarios that will be evaluated in the risk assessment. <br /> Mention is made of onsite workers, remedial workers, and <br /> local residents, but specific scenarios for evaluation of <br /> exposures for each of these groups of receptor types are not <br /> identified. <br /> The ecological assessment portion of the plan does not <br /> provide sufficient detail on identification of receptors of <br /> concern, their habitats, or their potential pathways of <br /> exposure. <br /> 11 . Page 4-11, section 4 .5 <br /> No detail is provided on how intake rates will be determined <br /> for the receptors of concern, or for each possible exposure <br /> scenario. Although the text states that site-specific <br /> parameters are preferred over default values, no indication <br /> is provided on what those site-specific parameters are or <br /> how their values will be generated. <br /> 12 . Page 4-11, section 4 . 6 <br /> No detail is provided on the potential chemicals of concern <br /> for the site, nor identification of what toxicity values <br /> will be used in the assessment. Similarly, for the <br /> ecological assessment, no information is provided on which <br /> site-specific endpoints are to be considered in the <br /> assessment. <br /> 13 . Page 4-12, section 4 .7 <br /> The section on risk characterization does not provide detail <br /> on how risks will be characterized for the site. No <br /> descriptions of risk calculations are provided. <br /> II-3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.