Laserfiche WebLink
f? Interim Corrective Action Plan—Tosco(76)Service Station No. 11195,Lathrop,California <br /> f August 28,2002 <br /> 3.2. Feasibility Study <br /> The responsible party shall conduct a feasibility study to evaluate the alternatives for remedying <br /> or mitigating the actual or potential adverse effects of the unauthorized release.Each alternative <br /> shall be evaluated for cost effectiveness,and the responsible party shall propose to implement the <br /> most cost-effective corrective action: <br /> Hydrocarbon impact is primarily limited to groundwater, with soil impact considered to be minimal. <br /> GR has reviewed various proven and recent remedial options that are available for use at the site.The <br /> following is a brief description and comparison of those options: <br /> OPTION#I - NO REMEDIAL ACTION/LONG TERM MONITORING <br /> COST: $15,000 to $25,000 <br /> TIME FRAME: Long term <br /> ADVANTAGES: 1) Low annual cost <br /> 2) Minimal disruption of station operations <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: $100,000 to $250,000 <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 excavation. <br /> 2) Excavation does not address hydrocarbon impacted groundwater, <br /> therefore,hydrocarbon impact in the capillary fringe zone would be <br /> expected to return. <br /> CONCLUSION: Not a suitable approach for this site, more appropriate methods are <br /> available. <br /> 140193.13 8 <br />