DOCSLIB.ORG

Alameda Naval Air Station Epa Id: Ca2170023236 Ou 09 Alameda, Ca 10/30/2006 Sdms Docid# 1105945

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Alameda Naval Air Station Epa Id: Ca2170023236 Ou 09 Alameda, Ca 10/30/2006 Sdms Docid# 1105945 EPA/ROD/R2007090001466 2007 EPA Superfund Record of Decision: ALAMEDA NAVAL AIR STATION EPA ID: CA2170023236 OU 09 ALAMEDA, CA 10/30/2006 SDMS DOCID# 1105945 Final Record of Decision Site 17 Seaplane Lagoon Alameda Point Alameda, California October 2006 Prepared For: Base Realignment and Closure Program Management Office West San Diego, CA 92108 Prepared Under: Naval Facilities Engineering Command Contract Number N47408-01-D-8207/0085 TABLE OF CONTENTS_______________________________________________________________ Abbreviations and Acronyms ....................................................................................................................... v Declaration................................................................................................................................................D-1 1.0 Site Name, Location, and Description ..........................................................................................1-1 1.1 Site Name.........................................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Site Location....................................................................................................................1-1 1.3 Site Description................................................................................................................1-1 2.0 Site History and Enforcement Activities ......................................................................................2-1 2.1 Site History......................................................................................................................2-1 2.2 Investigation Activities....................................................................................................2-1 2.2.1 CERCLA Investigation Activities ......................................................................2-1 3.0 Community Participation..............................................................................................................3-1 3.1 Restoration Advisory Board ............................................................................................3-1 3.2 Public Mailings................................................................................................................3-2 3.3 Community Participation for Site 17 ...............................................................................3-2 4.0 Scope and Role of Operable Unit and Response Action...............................................................4-1 5.0 Site Characteristics........................................................................................................................5-1 5.1 Hydrodynamic Setting.....................................................................................................5-1 5.2 Geology............................................................................................................................5-2 5.3 Hydrogeology ..................................................................................................................5-2 5.4 Ecology ............................................................................................................................5-3 5.5 Nature and Extent of Contamination in Sediment ...........................................................5-4 6.0 Current and Potential Future Site and Resource Uses ..................................................................6-1 6.1 Land Uses........................................................................................................................6-1 7.0 Summary of Site Risks..................................................................................................................7-1 7.1 Summary of Human Health Risk Assessment .................................................................7-4 7.1.1 Identification of Chemicals of Potential Concern...............................................7-4 7.1.2 Exposure Assessment.........................................................................................7-4 7.1.3 Toxicity Assessment...........................................................................................7-4 7.1.4 Risk Characterization..........................................................................................7-5 7.2 Ecological Risk Assessment ............................................................................................7-6 7.2.1 Identification of COPECs ...................................................................................7-6 7.2.2 Exposure Assessment.........................................................................................7-7 7.2.3 Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment Results .......................................7-7 7.2.4 Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment ................................................................7-7 7.3 Risk Assessment Conclusions..........................................................................................7-8 8.0 Remedial Action Objectives .........................................................................................................8-1 8.1 Derivation of Remediation Goals ....................................................................................8-1 8.2 Remediation Areas...........................................................................................................8-3 9.0 Description of Alternatives...........................................................................................................9-1 9.1 Alternative 1 - No Action ................................................................................................9-1 9.2 Alternative 2 - Monitored Natural Recovery with Institutional Controls........................9-1 9.3 Alternative 3 - Isolation Capping with Monitoring and Institutional Controls................9-1 9.4 Alternative 4 - Thin Layer Capping with Monitoring and Institutional Controls............9-2 9.5 Alternative 5 - Dredging, Dewatering and Upland Disposal at a Permitted Off-Site Waste Disposal Facility ...................................................................................................9-2 9.6 Alternative 6 - Focused Dredging, Dewatering and Upland Disposal at a Permitted Off-Site Waste Disposal Facility .....................................................................................9-2 9.7 Alternative 7 - Focused Dredging with Ex Situ Treatment and Reuse............................9-2 10.0 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives ........................................................................................10-1 Final Record of Decision Site 17 Seaplane Lagoon i October 2006 10.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment...........................................10-1 10.2 Compliance with ARARs..............................................................................................10-5 10.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence ...................................................................10-5 10.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment ..................................10-5 10.5 Short-Term Effectiveness ..............................................................................................10-5 10.6 Implementability............................................................................................................10-6 10.7 Cost-Effectiveness .........................................................................................................10-6 10.8 State Acceptance............................................................................................................10-6 10.9 Community Acceptance.................................................................................................10-7 11.0 Principal Threat Wastes ..............................................................................................................11-1 12.0 Selected Remedy.........................................................................................................................12-1 12.1 Dredging ........................................................................................................................12-2 12.2 Remedial Action Sampling............................................................................................12-3 12.3 Dewatering.....................................................................................................................12-4 12.4 Upland Disposal at a Permitted Off-Site Waste Disposal Facility ................................12-4 13.0 Statutory Determination..............................................................................................................13-1 13.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment........................................................13-1 13.2 Compliance with ARARs..............................................................................................13-1 13.2.1 Chemical-Specific ARARs...............................................................................13-1 13.2.2 Location-Specific ARARs................................................................................13-4 13.2.3 Action-Specific ARARs...................................................................................13-4 13.3 Cost-Effectiveness .......................................................................................................13-20 13.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies (or Resource Recovery Technologies) to the Maximum
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
    10/14/2016 12:55:12 PM 16CV21495 1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON 7 8 FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH 9 BRIAN RESENDEZ, RODICA ALINA RESENDEZ, MICHELE FRANCISCO, and Case No. 16CV16164 10 MATTHEW TALBOT; individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, 11 CONSOLIDATED AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. CLAIM NOT SUBJECT TO MANDATORY ARBITRATION 14 PRECISION CASTPARTS CORP., an Oregon corporation, and PCC STRUCTURALS, INC., AMOUNT SOUGHT: OVER $10,000,000 15 ORS 21.160(1)(E) Defendants. 16 Filing Fee Under ORS 21.135(2)(a) 17 KELLEY FOSTER, JUAN PRAT- SANCHEZ, MARK McNAMARA, and 18 DEBRA TAEVS; individually and on behalf Case No. 16CV21495 19 of all others similarly situated, 20 Plaintiffs, 21 v. 22 PRECISION CASTPARTS CORP., an Oregon corporation, and PCC 23 STRUCTURALS, INC., 24 Defendants. 25 26 27 28 30 31 CONSOLIDATED AMENDED COMPLAINT KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 32 1 INTRODUCTION 2 1. 3 Plaintiffs Brian Anthony Resendez, Rodica Alina Resendez, Michele Francisco, Matthew Talbot, 4 Kelley Foster, Juan Prat-Sanchez, Mark McNamara, and Debra Taevs (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), 5 individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, hereby file this Class Action 6 Complaint against Defendants Precision Castparts Corporation and PCC Structurals, Inc. (collectively, 7 “Defendants” or “Precision Castparts”), making the allegations herein upon personal knowledge as to 8 themselves and their own acts, and upon information and belief and based upon investigation of counsel 9 as to all other matters, as set forth herein.
    [Show full text]
  • Report Cover 663
    Conceptual Model of Contaminant Fate on the Margins of San Francisco Bay Final Report An RMP Technical Report by Craig Jones Sea Engineering, Inc. Donald Yee Jay A. Davis Lester J. McKee Ben K. Greenfield Aroon R. Melwani Michelle A. Lent San Francisco Estuary Institute CONTRIBUTION NO. 663 SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY INSTITUTE 4911 Central Avenue, Richmond, CA 94804 OCTOBER p: 510-746-7334 (SFEI), f: 510-746-7300, 2012 www.sfei.org This report should be cited as: Jones, C., Yee, D., Davis J. A., McKee, L. J., Greenfield, B. K., Melwani, A. R., and Lent, M. A. (2012). Conceptual Model of Contaminant Fate on the Margins of San Francisco Bay. Draft Report. An RMP Technical Report. Contribution No. 663. San Francisco Estuary Institute, Richmond, California. Conceptual Model of Contaminant Fate on the Margins of San Francisco Bay An RMP Technical Report Craig Jones, Sea Engineering, Inc. Donald Yee, Jay A. Davis, Lester J. McKee, Ben K. Greenfield, Aroon R. Melwani, and Michelle A. Lent San Francisco Estuary Institute Executive Summary......................................................................................................................... 3 1 Introduction............................................................................................................................. 5 2 Management Questions .......................................................................................................... 6 3 The Margins Conceptual Model .............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Salsa2bills 1..9
    By:AAHochberg H.B.ANo.A2475 A BILL TO BE ENTITLED 1 AN ACT 2 relating to the regulation of toxic hotspots under the Texas Clean 3 Air Act. 4 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS: 5 SECTIONA1.AAChapter 382, Health and Safety Code, is amended 6 by adding Subchapter I to read as follows: 7 SUBCHAPTER I. TOXIC HOTSPOTS PILOT PROGRAM 8 Sec.A382.351.AADEFINITIONS. In this subchapter: 9 (1)AA"Ambient air toxic standard" means the maximum 10 allowable average ambient concentration of a priority toxic air 11 contaminant as established under Section 382.354. 12 (2)AA"Priority toxic air contaminant" means an air 13 contaminant listed under Section 382.353. 14 (3)AA"Toxic hotspot" means a geographic area in which 15 modeled or monitored ambient air concentrations of one or more 16 priority toxic air contaminants exceed ambient air toxic standards. 17 Sec.A382.352.AADESIGNATION OF TOXIC HOTSPOTS. (a) The 18 commission shall implement a pilot program under which the 19 commission shall designate certain geographic areas in this state 20 as toxic hotspots. 21 (b)AAThe commission shall designate an area as a toxic 22 hotspot or conduct modeling or monitoring of that area to determine 23 whether the area should be designated as a toxic hotspot if: 24 (1)AAthe United States Environmental Protection 1 H.B.ANo.A2475 1 Agency 's 1999 National-Scale Air Toxic Assessment indicates air 2 quality in the area likely exceeds an ambient air toxic standard; 3 (2)AAthe commission 's point source emissions inventory 4 data indicates air quality in the area likely exceeds an ambient air 5 toxic standard; or 6 (3)AAthe commission otherwise determines on the basis 7 of air monitoring or modeling data that air quality in the area 8 likely exceeds an ambient air toxic standard.
    [Show full text]
  • Corporate Crimes Greenpeace / Raghu Rai
    Earth Summit 2002 Johannesburg Corporate Crimes Greenpeace / Raghu Rai The need for an international instrument on corporate accountability and liability © August 2002 Greenpeace International Corporate Crimes The need for an international instrument on corporate accountability and liability © August 2002 Greenpeace International Cover Pictures taken by Raghu Rai of the Bhopal gas disaster in 1984 which killed at least 8,000 workers and residents in the first three days after the disaster and caused permanent and debilitating injuries to over 150,000 people. In this report Greenpeace presents the Bhopal Principles on Corporate Accountability and Liability, a comprehensive set of principles to ensure that human rights, food sovereignty and clean and sustainable development are not threatened by corporate activities. Explanation of the cover pictures, clockwise: Man carrying his dead wife, Bhopal 1984 Man carries the body of his wife past the deserted Union Carbide factory, the source of the toxic gas that killed her the night before. The morning after, Bhopal 1984 Survivors of the disaster from the nearby Jayaprakash Nagar colony stand in front of the Union Carbide factory one day after it leaked 40 tonnes of toxic gas into the city. Their eyes and lungs have been badly damaged by exposure to the gas. The Death Doctor, Bhopal 2002 “I must have performed more than 20,000 autopsies so far. No relative of a gas victim can get a compensation claim for a death without my certificate. It has been a nightmarish experience. Especially those initial first days, when we hardly came out of the morgue. Even after that some of the things that I have seen have been simply bizarre," says Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Tousignant.Edges of Exposure.Pdf
    Edges of Exposure Experimental Futures · Technological Lives, Scientific Arts, Anthropological Voices A series edited by Michael M. J. Fischer and Joseph Dumit Edges of Exposure Toxicology and the Problem of Capacity in Postcolonial Senegal · NOÉMI TOUSIGNANT Duke University Press Durham and London 2018 © 2018 Duke University Press All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America on acid- free paper ∞ Interior designed by Courtney Leigh Baker Typeset in Minion Pro and Avenir by Copperline Book Services Library of Congress Cataloging- in- Publication Data Names: Tousignant, Noémi, [date] author. Title: Edges of exposure : toxicology and the problem of capacity in postcolonial Senegal / Noémi Tousignant. Description: Durham : Duke University Press, 2018. | Series: Experimental futures | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers:lccn 2017049286 (print) lccn 2017054712 (ebook) isbn 9780822371724 (ebook) isbn 9780822371137 (hardcover : alk. paper) isbn 9780822371243 (pbk. : alk. paper) Subjects: lcsh: Environmental toxicology—Senegal. | Heavy metals—Toxicology—Research—Senegal. | Environmental justice—Senegal. Classification:lcc ra1226 (ebook) | lcc ra1226 .t66 2018 (print) | ddc 615.9/0209663—dc23 lc record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017049286 Cover art: Toxicology teaching laboratory. Photo by Noémi Tousignant, Dakar, 2010. To the memory of Binta “Yaye Sall” Kadame Gueye, of Mame Khady Gueye and Maya Gueye, and of Jeannette Baker Tousignant This page intentionally left blank CONTENTS Acknowledgments · ix
    [Show full text]
  • Cancer Alley Louisiana by Les Stone
    Witness an online magazine Cancer Alley Louisiana by Les Stone www.visionproject.org Cancer Alley - Louisiana - USA by Les Stone In Louisiana, along the once pristine Mississippi River, stretching 80 miles from New Orleans to Baton Rouge lay one of the most polluted areas of the United States. Because of the dense cluster of oil refineries, petrochemical plants and other chemical industries the area is known as Cancer Alley. Designated as an enterprise zone, loose oversight has enabled industry to release into the environment extremely toxic levels of dioxin and other highly toxic chemicals. Among the worst are the facilities that manufacture Polyvinyl Chloride or PVC plastic. Recent studies found that some communities had dioxin levels in their blood three times higher than the national aver- age. Dioxin is a known cause of cancer and other illnesses. There are more plastic plants, oil refineries and other chemical plants in this small area than anywhere else in the United States. The entire population of this region has been exposed to thousands of toxic chemicals and very little - if anything- is being done to clean up the mess. Over 23 million pounds of toxins were released over the town of Convent alone. The population of the town of Ella was reduced by two-thirds due to deaths related to vinyl chloride and arsenic poisoning. Cancer, skin rashes, and respiratory problems among children is of great concern. One has only to glance at the obituary section of any local paper to notice the amount of deaths from cancer or go to any local cemetery to see the amount of infant mortality.
    [Show full text]
  • SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Staff
    SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Staff Report Proposed Rule 1194 − Commercial Airport Ground Access August 2000 Deputy Executive Officer Planning, Rule Development and Area Sources Jack P. Broadbent Assistant Deputy Executive Officer Planning, Rule Development and Area Sources Elaine Chang, Dr.PH Planning and Rules Manager Planning, Rule Development and Area Sources Henry Hogo AUTHORS: Planning, Rule Development and Area Sources Mobile Source Strategies Section Socioeconomic Assessment Section David Coel − Program Supervisor Sue Lieu, Ph.D. − Program Supervisor Henry Pourzand − Air Quality Specialist Scott Dawson − Air Quality Specialist REVIEWED BY: District Counsel Barbara Baird − District Counsel Kurt Wiese - Senior Deputy District Counsel SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT GOVERNING BOARD Chair: WILLIAM A. BURKE, Ed.D. Speaker of the Assembly Appointee Vice Chair: NORMA J. GLOVER Councilmember, City of Newport Beach Cities Representative, Orange County MEMBERS: MICHAEL D. ANTONOVICH Supervisor, Fifth District Los Angeles County Representative HAL BERNSON Councilmember, City of Los Angeles Cities Representative, Los Angeles County, Western Region CYNTHIA P. COAD, Ed.D. Supervisor, Fourth District Orange County Representative BEATRICE LAPISTO-KIRTLEY Mayor, City of Bradbury Cities Representative, Los Angeles County, Eastern Region JANE CARNEY Senate Rules Committee Appointee RONALD O. LOVERIDGE Mayor, City of Riverside Cities Representative, Riverside County JON D. MIKELS Supervisor, Second District San Bernardino
    [Show full text]
  • San José/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant Master Plan TASK NO
    San José/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant Master Plan TASK NO. 4 PROJECT MEMORANDUM NO. 1 EXISTING REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS FINAL DRAFT December 2008 2700 YGNACIO VALLEY ROAD • SUITE 300 • WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94598 • (925) 932-1710 • FAX (925) 930-0208 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/San Jose/7897A00/Deliverables/Task 4.0/PM No.01/7897T4PM1.doc (FINAL DRAFT) CITY OF SAN JOSÉ SAN JOSÉ/SANTA CLARA WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANT MASTER PLAN TASK NO. 4 PROJECT MEMORANDUM NO. 1 EXISTING REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................1 2.0 WASTEWATER DISCHARGE ...................................................................................1 2.1 Federal Wastewater Discharge Policies .......................................................... 1 2.2 State and Regional Discharge Policies ........................................................... 5 2.3 Regional Discharge Regulations ..................................................................... 5 2.4 303(d) Lists and Total Maximum Daily Loads ................................................ 11 2.5 Pollutants of Concern .................................................................................... 14 2.6 WPCP’s Existing and Potential NPDES Permits ........................................... 16 2.7 South Bay Action Plan ................................................................................... 19 2.8 Regulations to Protect Groundwater.............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A Climate Justice Proposal for a Domestic Clean Development Mechanism
    Just Solutions to Climate Change: A Climate Justice Proposal for a Domestic Clean Development Mechanism MAXINE BURKETTt TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ......................................................................... 170 I. Climate Change, Race, and Class ................................ 173 A. Climate Change-Science and Impacts ............... 173 B. Environmental Justice Communities and Clim ate Change ..................................................... 176 II. The Climate Justice Framework ................................. 188 A. The Environmental Justice Framework .............. 189 B. Climate Justice, Climate Change Ethics, and the United States ............................................ 192 III. The Case for a Modified CDM .................. 200 A. The Cap-and-Trade Solution ................................. 200 B. Kyoto's Justice Packet ........................................... 206 C. The Dom estic CDM ................................................ 212 IV . Justice is M itigation ..................................................... 231 A. Inherent Flaws in Market Mechanisms ............... 232 B. The dCDM is the Most Viable Alternative for Incorporating Environmental Justice Norms ...... 237 C on clu sion ............................................................................ 242 t Associate Professor, University of Colorado Law School; J.D. University of California, Berkeley (Boalt Hall); B.A. Williams College. I thank Nestor Davidson, Elissa Guralnick, Clare Huntington, David Paradis, Pierre Schlag, Josh
    [Show full text]
  • Editorial Archive July
    Afghanistan: Democracy under imperialist bayonets Lal Khan 30 September 2014 The final round of the presidential elections in Afghanistan, and the “deal” between the two “front runners”, on September 21, was so feeble, and the outcome so rotten, that even bourgeois analysts and reporters had to designate them as pathetic and repulsive. Even the most vociferous and arrogant stalwarts of the ruling classes and imperialism at The Economist were sceptical, if not outright cynical about this agreement and the elections. It describes the scene of the accord ceremony in its latest issue: “Neither man spoke, and neither looked quite at ease… The four-page document, signed in the presence of outgoing President Hamid Karzai, and later by witnesses James Cunningham, the American ambassador, and Jan Kubis, the United Nations’ senior Afghanistan representative (both of whom were banned from the palace ceremony by Mr Karzai), divests the president of his vast powers. “The so-called National Unity Government intends for Mr Ghani, a Western-educated technocrat and former World Bank employee, to become president, and for Dr Abdullah (or his nominee) to assume the role of Chief Executive Officer, newly-created by decree and similar to the position of prime minister. They have also pledged to fix the country’s election system, which allows voter fraud to flourish. “The secret back-room deal, which many think usurps democratic process, was announced hours before the election commission declared Mr Ghani the winner, and Dr Abdullah the CEO. In a strange kowtowing to Dr Abdullah, who had argued that the poll was poisoned by undetectable fraud, neither the vote tallies nor the turnout were announced.
    [Show full text]
  • Turning the Tide
    FOR ALUMNI AND FRIENDS OF USC DANA AND DAVID DORNSIFE COLLEGE OF LETTERS, ARTS AND SCIENCES FALL 2013 / WINTER 2014 MAGAZINE The Sustainability Issue TURNINGTIDE THEOur researchers are transforming environmental woes to wins. SPECIAL REPORT A NOBEL Dubbed the “Sherlock Holmes of chemistry,” Arieh Warshel’s creativity and perseverance lead to the Nobel Prize. VICTORYby Pamela J. Johnson Fate was sealed after an off-the-cuff remark by Eliezer ‘THAT’S IMPOSSIBLE’ Finkman. Entering Technion – Israel Institute of Tech- To prove the impossible, Warshel first used a Golem com- nology in Haifa, a young Arieh Warshel asked his friend puter built at Weizmann. The Distinguished Professor of Finkman what he should study. Chemistry and Biochemistry at USC Dornsife told his sto- “Chemistry because you have good vision,” replied Fink- ry inside his office, packed with books, computers, manila man, an army buddy of Warshel’s who was already enrolled folders stacked high on his desk, and photos tacked on a at the Technion. bulletin board, including a few snapshots of his wife of 47 “He assumed since he wore glasses and I did not, I had years, Tamar. good color vision,” Warshel, 72, recalled with a shrug. “He Sitting at a small table, leaping up to zip across the room thought chemists should see well.” and pull out a book or a photo to illustrate his story, Warshel Warshel filled out “chemistry” under field of study. What often paused mid-sentence to offer insight on a topic. started out as a random choice became a lifelong obsession He explained that the Golem name derived from a leg- that culminated in October when Warshel won the 2013 endary anthropomorphic being created from inanimate Nobel Prize for Chemistry.
    [Show full text]
  • Submission Cover Sheets
    Submission Cover Sheet Sub no: West Gate Tunnel Project IAC 458 Request to be heard?: Yes Full Name: Samantha McArthur Organisation: Maribyrnong Truck Action Group (MTAG) Inc. Address: PO Box 215 Yarraville 3013 Affected property: Attachment: WGTP_EES__MTA Comments: See attached submission document. West Gate Tunnel Project — Environmental Effects Statement MTAG Submission Maribyrnong Truck Action Group Submission: The West Gate Tunnel Project EES PAGE NO. 1 West Gate Tunnel Project — Environmental Effects Statement MTAG Submission Contents 1. MTAG background 1 2. West Gate Tunnel Project background 2 3. Problems with the assessment methodology 3.1 Health impacts 3 3.2 Air quality 8 3.3 Filtration 9 3.4 Community/social impacts 16 3.5 Transport 17 4. Problems with the project 4.1 Health impacts 20 4.2 Air quality 21 4.3 Transport impacts 23 4.4 Noise pollution 27 4.5 Construction impacts 28 5. Proposed mitigation measures 5.1 Air quality 29 5.2 Health impacts 30 5.3 Transport 31 6. Conclusion 34 PAGE NO. 2 West Gate Tunnel Project — Environmental Effects Statement MTAG Submission 1. MTAG BACKGROUND The Maribyrnong Truck Action Group (MTAG) is a non-political, unfunded community lobby group of residents advocating for a reduction in trucks on residential streets in the City of Maribyrnong. Our common interest is a desire to improve the quality of life for our community. The City of Maribyrnong is a toxic hotspot in Melbourne: the world’s most liveable city. The problem is trucks — 21,000 of them pass through Melbourne’s inner west every day. They emit diesel pollution over our houses, our schools, our kindergartens and childcare centres.
    [Show full text]