Laserfiche WebLink
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 />