My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Environmental Health - Public
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
T
>
TURNPIKE
>
1601
>
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
>
PR0521845
>
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/28/2020 4:17:12 PM
Creation date
5/28/2020 4:04:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
File Section
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
RECORD_ID
PR0521845
PE
2950
FACILITY_ID
FA0014838
FACILITY_NAME
LOPEZ PROPERTY
STREET_NUMBER
1601
STREET_NAME
TURNPIKE
STREET_TYPE
RD
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95206
APN
16504013
CURRENT_STATUS
01
SITE_LOCATION
1601 TURNPIKE RD
P_LOCATION
01
P_DISTRICT
003
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
LSauers
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.
/
455
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
Lopez Property • • <br /> 1601 French Camp Turnpike, Stockton December 2013 <br /> Claim No: 18245 <br /> Service. The affected groundwater is not currently being used as a source of drinking water, and it / <br /> is highly unlikely that the affected groundwater will be used as a source of drinking water in the <br /> foreseeable future. Other designated beneficial uses of impacted groundwater are not threatened, <br /> and it is highly unlikely that they will be, considering these factors in the context of the site setting. <br /> Remaining petroleum hydrocarbon constituents are limited and stable, and concentrations are <br /> decreasing. Corrective actions have been implemented and additional corrective actions are not <br /> necessary. Any remaining petroleum hydrocarbon constituents do not pose a significant risk to <br /> human health, safety or the environment. <br /> Rationale for Closure under the Policy <br /> • General Criteria: The case meets all eight Policy general criteria. <br /> • Groundwater Specific Criteria: The case meets Policy Criterion 1 by Class 2. The <br /> contaminant plume that exceeds water quality objectives is less than 250 feet in length. <br /> There is no free product. The nearest water supply well or surface water body is greater <br /> than 1,000 feet from the defined plume boundary. The dissolved concentration of benzene <br /> is less than 3,000 micrograms per liter (Ng/L) and the dissolved concentration of methyl tert- <br /> butyl ether (MTBE) is less than 1,000 pg/L. <br /> • Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air: The case meets Policy Criterion 2a by Scenario 3b. The <br /> maximum benzene concentration in groundwater is less than 1,000 pg/L. The minimum <br /> depth to groundwater is greater than 10 feet, overlain by soil containing less than 100 <br /> milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) of TPH. <br /> • Direct Contact and Outdoor Air Exposure: The case meets Policy Criterion 3a. Maximum <br /> concentrations in soil are less than those in Policy Table 1 for Commercial/Industrial use, <br /> and the concentration limits for a Utility Worker are not exceeded. There are no soil sample <br /> results in the case record for naphthalene. However, the relative concentration of <br /> naphthalene in soil can be conservatively estimated using the published relative <br /> concentrations of naphthalene and benzene in gasoline. Taken from Potter and Simmons <br /> (1998), gasoline mixtures contain approximately 2 percent benzene and 0.25 percent <br /> naphthalene. Therefore, benzene can be directly substituted for naphthalene <br /> concentrations with a safety factor of eight. Benzene concentrations from the Site are <br /> below the naphthalene thresholds in Policy Table 1. Therefore, the estimated naphthalene <br /> concentrations meet the thresholds in Table 1 and the Policy criteria for direct contact by a <br /> factor of eight. It is highly unlikely that naphthalene concentrations in the soil, if any, <br /> exceed the threshold. <br /> Objections to Closure and Responses <br /> According to the Path to Closure page in GeoTracker, the Regional Water Board opposes Closure <br /> because: <br /> • Secondary source remains. <br /> RESPONSE: Secondary source as defined by the Policy was removed by excavation in <br /> 1987. <br /> • The case does not meet Policy groundwater criteria. <br /> RESPONSE: The case meets Policy Criterion 1 by Class 2. <br /> • The case does not meet Policy indoor vapor criteria. <br /> RESPONSE: The case meets Policy Criterion 2a by Scenario 3b. <br /> • The case does not meet Policy direct contact criteria. <br /> RESPONSE: The case meets Policy Criterion 3a. <br /> Page 2 of 14 <br /> 1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.