Laserfiche WebLink
BP#172 <br /> 7647 Pacific Avenue, Stockton <br /> Claim No: 2156 <br /> May 2015 <br /> designated beneficial uses of the affected shallow <br /> highly unlikely that they will be, considering groundwater are not threatened, <br /> g these factors in the context of the site settinandg. is <br /> Rationale for Closure under the Policy <br /> • General Criteria: The case <br /> • Groundwater S meets all eight Policy Groupgroundwater Specific Criteria: The case does no general criteria. <br /> plume is not defined to the meet Policy <br /> concentration of benzene is northeast and the y criteria because the <br /> Vapor Intrusion to Indoor greater than 3,000 micrograms maximum dissolved <br /> high concentrations of Air: The case meets poli per liter(ug/L). <br /> groundwater beneath the foundation of e Y Criterion 2a by Scenario 1. <br /> hydrocarbons in the groundwater, <br /> overlain by soil containin There are <br /> Direct Contact and Outdoor g less than 100 existing or potential buildingsThe minimum depth to <br /> e <br /> • milligrams per kilogram is greater <br /> document titled " Air Ex (mg/kg) than 30 feet, <br /> Exposure: This case g 9) of TPH <br /> Risk Assessment"was found in the files reviewed <br /> assessment of site-s meets Policy Criterion 3b. <br /> completed b -specific risk from potential exposure to residual soil co Although no <br /> y Fund staff. The results of the assessment found a Professional <br /> concentrations of petroleum constituents remaining that contamination was <br /> Y affecting human health. q maining in soil will have maximum <br /> removed and disposed offsite in 19g5 no significant risk of <br /> was excavated to a de Ppr°ximately 1,500 cubic <br /> In addition, an unknown <br /> of impacted soil were <br /> and accidental ex depth of 16 feet bgs and removed in n volume <br /> Any construction exposure to site soils is December 2007 f The Site i P soil <br /> with environ Performing Prevented. Therefore, the path Site is <br /> mental hazards anticipated g subsurface work Paved <br /> Presence of residual contaminate nshould bet will be prepared to deaf a incomplete. <br /> encountered in their normal daily work. The <br /> executing excavation or building appropriately <br /> inclusion of a taken into account when issuing <br /> Competent Person 1n the work crew t the Site, includingg and <br /> Objections to Closure and Res but not limited to the <br /> According to the Path to Closure posses <br /> County staff objects to UST Page in GeoTracker, finalized on Se <br /> • <br /> Secondary case closure because: <br /> RESPONSE:source remains. September 19, 2014 the <br /> RES OSE: Seconda <br /> active remediation. q Secondary source as defined b <br /> disposed offsite in 1995 r°xemately 1,500 Y the Policy was removed b <br /> excavated to a in addition, cubic yards of impacted soil were excavation and <br /> depth of 16 feet b an unknown volume moved and <br /> was conducted be 9s and removed in December Hated soil was <br /> between April 2001 and March 2009 <br /> TPHg vapor and 582,804 gallons of contaminate Dual phase e <br /> conducted in 2009. , which removed 210,158 extraction <br /> ' The case does Active remediation has not beeno ducted for the Pounds of <br /> not meet PolicyOzone sparginY was <br /> RESPONS We concur. groundwater criteria. <br /> Plume is The case does Past six years. <br /> not defined to the northeast and th meet Policy <br /> is greater than 3,000 criteria because the <br /> • The case Pg/L. <br /> maximum dissolved groundwater <br /> does not meet Policy concentration of benzene <br /> RESPONSE: The case y vapor criteria. <br /> concentrations of meets oleum Policy Criterion 2a b <br /> groundwater beneathrthe foundation ofoexssti the Y Scenario 1. There are high <br /> hydrocarboverlain at soil beneath <br /> theing less than 100 groundwater. The minimum depth to <br /> Mg/kg of TPH• greater than 30 feet, <br /> Page 2 of 3 <br />