Laserfiche WebLink
Updated Corrective Action Plan—Tosco (76)Service Station No 11192, Stockton, California <br /> June 26 2002 <br /> OPTION#3 - GROUND WATER PUMP AND TREAT <br /> COST $100,000 to $250,000 <br /> TIME FRAME Long term <br /> ADVANTAGES 1) Potential for hydraulic control <br /> 2)Removal of hydrocarbon impacted groundwater can reduce dissolved <br /> hydrocarbon concentrations <br /> DISADVANTAGES 1)Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory report issued in 1995 found <br /> that pump and treat remediation is recognized as being ineffectual at <br /> reaching cleanup goals,since asymptotic levels are typically reached <br /> 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 /> CONCLUSION Although this may be a feasible technology for this site, more cost <br /> effective technology is available <br /> OPTION#4 - VAPOR EXTRACTION WITH AIR SPARGING <br /> COST $75,000 to $150,000 <br /> TIME FRAME Medium to long term due to low hydrocarbon extraction rate <br /> ADVANTAGES 1) Can remediate capillary fringe soils <br /> 2) Can reduce dissolved concentrations in ground water <br /> DISADVANTAGES 1) Ineffective in fine grained soils such as silts and clays encountered at <br /> the site <br /> 2) Disruption of station activities in order to install wells and piping <br /> 3) Construction and operation costs for a extraction system would be <br /> high <br /> CONCLUSION SECOR performed a 5-day dual-phase extraction test at the site in <br /> December of 2001 Although a large vapor radius of influence was <br /> observed (36 to 60 feet) during the test, very low mass removal was <br /> reported (6 64 lbs of MtBE) SECOR concluded that DPE is not an <br /> effective technology for this site Not a suitable approach for this site, <br /> more appropriate methods are available <br /> 140245 08 10 <br />