My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE_1993-2003
Environmental Health - Public
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
R
>
ROTH
>
850
>
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
>
PR0506824
>
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE_1993-2003
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/7/2020 3:15:47 PM
Creation date
4/7/2020 2:41:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
File Section
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
FileName_PostFix
1993-2003
RECORD_ID
PR0506824
PE
2960
FACILITY_ID
FA0007648
FACILITY_NAME
DDRW - SHARPES
STREET_NUMBER
850
Direction
E
STREET_NAME
ROTH
STREET_TYPE
RD
City
LATHROP
Zip
95330
APN
19802001
CURRENT_STATUS
01
SITE_LOCATION
850 E ROTH RD BLDG S-108
P_LOCATION
07
P_DISTRICT
003
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\sballwahn
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.
/
491
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
EPA Comments on the <br /> Draft Five-Year Review Report <br /> Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin California, <br /> Sharpe Site,Lathrop,California <br /> March 2003 <br /> GENERAL COMMENT <br /> 1. It appears that the Five-Year Review Report(the Report)for the DDJC-Sharpe facility generally <br /> follows the Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance(EPA,2001). One of the specific <br /> comments that follow requests clarification that Guidance was followed, and one comment <br /> requests reconsideration of a decision to leave lead contamination in place at Site S-26. The other <br /> specific comments are generally requests for clarification to ensure the protectiveness of the <br /> remedies and the usefulness of the Report. <br /> SPECIFIC COMMENTS <br /> 1. Section 3.3.1,History of Contamination,Page 3-6: The first full sentence indicates that lead has <br /> been detected in groundwater,but the second sentence does not list lead as a frequently detected <br /> contaminant that may have originated at DDJC-Sharpe. Lead was detected in soils more <br /> extensively than chromium and was the only risk driver at several sites recommended for cleanup <br /> in the Record of Decision(ROD), so it is possible that lead will eventually appear in <br /> groundwater.Please clarify why lead is not listed among the groundwater contaminants that may <br /> have originated at DDJC-Sharpe. <br /> 2. Section 4.3.3.8,OU 2 Remedy Implementation(Metals),Page 4-29: This subsection discusses <br /> lead contamination left in place at a portion of Site S-26 due to logistical constraints.(railroad <br /> tracks),but it is not clear that this is protective. Since the decision was made to leave <br /> contamination in place in one portion-of Site S-26,there has been an increased interest in <br /> tracking areas of residual contamination through institutional controls (ICs)or other mechanisms <br /> and preventing complete exposure pathways to human and ecological receptors from such areas. <br /> In addition,the residual lead contamination exceeds levels that allow for unlimited use and <br /> unrestricted exposure, and as such will need to be evaluated in future statutory Five-Year <br /> Reviews. As part of the Five-Year Review process,please reconsider the decision to leave lead <br /> contamination in place above risk-based cleanup standards established in the ROD. Alternatively, <br /> please consider ICs or other mechanisms to ensure that the decision to leave residual lead <br /> contamination above risk-based cleanup standards is still protective for this portion of Site S-26. <br /> 1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.