ARCHIVED REPORTS XR0007806 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

influence generated by a pumping rate of five gallons per minute was interpreted to be adequate to Icontrol further off-site migration of contaminants toward the east, in the predominantly down- gradient direction The results of the pumping tests were reported in the AGE-prepared Ground Water Extraction Pilot Test Report dated 31 January 2002 The Jams 2002 report stated that the soil at the site has a hi percentage offine-grained matrix �"Y F �F g and overall is homogenous and mostly fine-grained In general this soil type has a high adsorption capacity and low permeability, and thereby could potentially limit migration of dissolved hydrocarbons However,despite the fine-grained nature of the soil,the feasibilitytest results showed I that ground water extraction should be effective on the site The ground water extraction rates during full-scale remediation are not likely to exceed the pilot test extraction rate(five gallons per minute), and may be less for effective ground water extraction and stabilized drawdown ' In the report,AGE recommended the use of ground water extraction as an alternative ground water remediation technique at the site Ground water extraction should provide adequate capture of the ' dissolved hydrocarbons, based on site-specific hydrogeologic conditions and hydrocarbon distribution The limited areal distribution of high concentrations of dissolved hydrocarbons near the source of the release favors capturing the major portion of the dissolved hydrocarbons on the site ' A ground water extraction system in the source area,along the down-gradient portion of significantly impacted ground water, should effectively address the plume of impacted ground water AGE recommended preparation of a remedial action work plan for the installation of additional ground I water extraction wells around the former UST area in order to increase 1)the efficiency-of-operation of a ground water extraction treatment system and 2)the effectiveness of the ground water extraction systems ability to address the dissolved hydrocarbons ' The AGE-prepared Final Remediation Plan, dated 23 April 2002, recommended the use of ground water extraction as an alternative ground water remediation technique at the site, along with soil ' vapor extraction EHD letter, dated 26 July 2002, issued a denial FRP and requested an additional cost analysis of remediation technologies ' The Ground Water Extraction Clean Up Analysis, dated 31 August 2002, supported the idea that the limited areal distribution of high concentrations of dissolved hydrocarbons near the source of the ' release favors an aggressive approach for removing the dissolved hydrocarbon on-site AGE recommended a ground water extraction system in the source area and along the historical down- gradient portion of significantly impacted ground water ' EHD approval letter of FRP technoloy date 28 May 2003 A Final Remediation Plan Addendum, dated 18 July 2003,was approved by the EHD on 29 July 2003 The remediation costs are currently ' in review for cost-pre-approved at the State Water Resources Control Board-Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund I 1 ' Advanced GeoEnvironmental,Inc 1