ARCHIVED REPORTS_XR0013105 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Appendix C by the boundaries of HA8, HA-9, the utility pole, and MW-3. The overburden area to removed and stockpiled for return to the excavation is estimated as 672 cubic yards—the same as in Alternative A2; however, in this alternative, shoring is included to a depth of 28 feet and would cost between $85,000 and $95,000. .Appendix C provides detailed information regarding this alternative. Dewatering at a rate of 15 gpm is included and the extracted water would be treated with carbon prior to discharge to the City of Stockton sewer system. Permits would be applied for this temporary discharge during excavation activities. Costs for dewatering are consistent with the other two alternatives and are between$21 X800 and$37,500. The soil removed (approximately 951 cubic yards) would be disposed of at a permitted landfill. This option includes the addition of fill material,equivalent to the volume taken off site. An additional impediment to excavation is the 14 ft by 20 ft concrete pad, estimated to be 6 in thickness that is partially over the excavation area. Half of this pad will have to be removed to allow excavation. Costs for removing the concrete pad are estimated to be between $1,000 and $2,000. The power line and power pole that lay adjacent to the excavation area will also need to be removed for safety purposes. The cost of removing the power line and power poll is estimated to be between $2,000 and $2,500. . Soil sampling, project oversight, and removal'of monitoring wells are all additional activities included in the cost estimate. The shoring cost•of$85,000 to $95,000 is a large component of the total cost estimated at $276,000 to $322,000 depending upon the volume of soil and water removed. The total mass of hydrocarbon'removed is estimated at 11,600 pounds of TPHd and TPH.. This is slightly more than Alternative Al and the costs are also higher by approximately two percent. Cost per pound of TPH removed for this alternative is estimated to be between $23.73 and $27.70. Alternative A2 removes the soil source that-has contributed to the appearance of free product and addresses the area of highest TPH concentiati. its in the soil. The TPH plume is stable and will continue to slowly degrade over time and the addition of the calcium peroxide will also enhance the degradation process. The time to achieve compliance cannot be differentiated between these alternatives as all three are removing approximately 25.per cent of the total estimated mass of hydrocarbons. This represents a conservative estimate as the dewatering process will also remove some of the hydrocarbon mass present in the groundwater. 6. SUMMARY AND.RECOMMENDATIONS Residual petroleum hydrocarbons measured as.TPHd and TPHg in shallow groundwater in con- tact with the limited residual petroleum in.soilwill likely remain above WQOs in a localized area for a long period of time. Removing the source of free product can be accomplished cost effectively by selecting Alternative A2 and conducting activities at the low water tables in August/September 2005. 19 RACONlTGRAMStocklonWAMCAP ADDENDUM