LEAD RBSL CONTRAST EXIDE/ROCKETDYNE

I request that the Independent Review Panel (IRP) ask DTSC to specifically explain to teh public the different risk management decisions for lead contamination at existing residences in the Exide airborne dispersion/deposition footprint and the essentially bare acreage at SSFL. In particular, I am concerned that projected "suburban residential" usage results in lower RBSLs for lead than does current residential use in the inner city. It seems to me that DTSC is deliberately ignoring the existing and projected uses of backyards for urban agriculture in the Exide dispersion/deposition footprint.  Since I faced a similar tendency on DTSC's part in the HRAs for the Quemetco permit and Exide draft permit, I would like the issue raised.  I don't question use of the "suburban residential" RBSLs at SSFL but do question that equally protective RBSLs are not applied in the inner city.  In order to push things along, please provide the to the panel my letter to Senator Kevin De León. (attached)  Phil Chandler

Chandler <philipbchandler@earthlink.net>Phil

Wed 4/12/2017 4:41 AM

To:DTSCPublicMeeting@DTSC <DTSCPublicMeeting@dtsc.ca.gov>;

Cc:Rohlfes, Larry@DTSC <Larry.Rohlfes@dtsc.ca.gov>; Singh, Mike@DTSC <Mike.Singh@dtsc.ca.gov>;

1 attachments (5 MB)

De Leon Lead Cleanup Letter.pdf;

Page 1 of 1Mail - DTSCPublicMeeting@dtsc.ca.gov

4/14/2017https://outlook.office365.com/owa/