Laserfiche WebLink
November 30, 1995 <br /> Page 4 <br /> PACIFIC will amend the water quality goal matrix to indicate that the water quality <br /> goals for TPH-g and TPH-d will be revised The water quality goal for TPH-g will be <br /> background (the detection limit), which is 50 ppb, the water quality goal for TPH-d will <br /> be the Suggested No-Adverse Response Level, which is 100 ppb <br /> 4 0 Remedial Action Requirement <br /> Groundwater and soil remediation are required PHSIEHD does not have a mechanism <br /> to prevent a property owner or a nearby property owner for disallowing the rights to <br /> use groundwater from beneath their property far their own use <br /> Revised the last septence in the second paragraph to reflect that groundwater and soil <br /> remediation are required <br /> 51 Remediation <br /> PHSIEHD is unaware of any possible dissolved-hydrocarbon plume mixing with an off <br /> site source MW13 was installed to investigate contamination which was evidenced in <br /> MW5 and MW6 that have been dry for some time Also,please note that PHSIEHD <br /> observed significant soil contamination during the installation of MI'iW13 at 60 feet <br /> The second paragraph in Section 5 0 was revised to recognize that the groundwater- <br /> based remedial objectives will apply to groundwater beneath the site, and off-site It is <br /> also recognized that an off-site source investigation and complete dissolved-hydrocarbon <br /> plume delineation are necessary <br /> 5.2 Technology Identification and Screening <br /> Groundwater remediation will be necessary to achieve the remedial objectives <br /> Two general response actions were identified in order to address this issue <br /> ,5 2.1 Technology Screening/Remediation Design Considerations _ <br /> The plan stated that most of the hydrocarbon mass was located beneath the site in ' <br /> isolated soil columns located between 15 and 45 feet, yet, it was stated elsewhere that <br /> mass removal was localized near the top of the screen interval which is at 14 feet and <br /> ' that data suggested that the greatest petroleum hydrocarbon impact was located <br /> between the 25 and 30 foot interval PHSIEHD disagrees with the isoconcentration <br /> contours which were illustrated on figures 4- 9 and which may have been used to <br /> determine the area and mass of contamination <br /> s <br /> 3241337B\CAPRESP <br /> E ' <br />