Laserfiche WebLink
Corrective Action Plan—Tosco (76) Service Station No 11192, Stockton, California <br /> Marc} 13, 2002 <br /> DISADVANTAGES 1) Potential liability <br /> 2) No defined project completion/closure <br /> 3) Potential migration of hydrocarbons <br /> CONCLUSION Not a suitable approach for this site at this time <br /> OPTION#2 - EXCAVATION OF IMPACTED SOIL <br /> COST Medium <br /> TIME FRAME Short term <br /> ADVANTAGES 1) Potential for quick efficient source removal if site conditions are <br /> favorable <br /> DISADVANTAGES 1) The residual hydrocarbon impact is considered to be within the <br /> saturated groundwater zone, below the practical limit of <br /> excavation <br /> 2) Excavation does not address hydrocarbon impacted groundwater, <br /> • therefore, hydrocarbon impact in the capillary fringe zone would <br /> be expected to return <br /> CONCLUSION Not a suitable approach for this site, more appropriate methods are <br /> available <br /> OPTION#3 - GROUND WATER PUMP AND TREAT <br /> COST High <br /> TIME FRAME Long term <br /> ADVANTAGES 1) Potential for hydraulic control <br /> 2) Removal of hydrocarbon impacted groundwater can reduce <br /> dissolved hydrocarbon concentrations <br /> DISADVANTAGES 1) Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory report issued in 1995 <br /> found that pump and treat remediation is recognized as being <br /> ineffectual at reaching cleanup goals, since asymptotic levels are <br /> typically reached prior to achieving cleanup goals <br /> 2) Construction and operation costs for a extraction system would be <br /> high <br /> ,. 3) Disruption of station activities in order to install wells and piping <br /> 140245 08 9 <br />