SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE_1988-1991

Home Browse Search

Sharpe Army Depot Page 5 August 21 , 1989 exceed the resolution of the soil gas technique. Intervals of less than 50 feet are generally not recommended. The Army should re-evaluate the proposed sample spacing. 7) Section 5. 2 - Disposal of Contaminated Materials - The Sample Plan does not set forth an adequate contaminated soils disposal plan. The Sample Plan should address, at a minimum, the following items: (1) Once soils are stored in the "soil management area" , how will the soils be handled? (2) Where is the "soil management area"? (3) Has the aeration of contaminated soils been approved by the San Joaquin County Air Pollution Control District? (4) Where will the soils, ultimately, be disposed? (5) Is that disposal in accordance with the appropriate regulations? (6) Will the aerated soils be analyzed prior to disposal, to ensure that they have been adequately treated? 8) Figure 5. 5-1 - This figure is a nice reference document. However, it should be edited to include only those test methods proposed in the Sample Plan. 9) Section 5. 10. 4 - Exposure Assessment - The total dose received by the target population should be determined not only by summing the dose received by multiple exposure routes. It should also consider the potential dose of all chemicals in combination. 10) Section 5. 10. 5 - Evaluation of Residual Contamination - If the Army uses the U.S. Army Biomedical Research and Development Laboratory (USABRDL) methodology, the appropriate reference material on that methodology is to be submitted to the Department for our review and evaluation. 11) Section 5. 11 - Remedial Action Alternatives Analysis - This is a minor point. However, this Section and the following subsections should be renamed. Section 5 . 11 should be entitled the Feasibility Study. All attempts should be made to use the nomenclature that is widely accepted in the site mitigation field.