Laserfiche WebLink
- WOR - <br /> APPENDIX 3 <br /> REMEDIATION PLAN <br /> E. ARCO STATION 431, <br /> 501 KETTLEMAN LANE,LODI,CALIFORNIA <br /> This report analyzes various remediation methods for mitigating the site contamination <br /> at the ARCO Petroleum Products Company (ARC(1) Station 434, located at 501 Kettleman <br /> Lane, in Lodi, California. The location of ARCO Station 434, and local municipal wells, are <br /> shown on Figure I. <br /> After a leak was detected in the station's underground tanks, a site investigation was <br /> completed to determine if soil or groundwater contamination had occurred. The site <br /> I assessment indicated that contamination of the soil and <br /> and Caldwell(BC),May 21, 1987,September 16, 1987,and February 23,t 1988)) occurred {brawn <br /> I A portion of the on-site soil (approximately 1,500 cubic yards) exceeds the state action <br /> levels for benzene. Groundwater samples exceed <br /> toluene, and xylene (BTX). In addition the state action levels for benzene, <br /> .to the exceedence of the state's BTX levels, the <br /> Proximity of Municipal Well 12 is of concern. Therefore, the California Regional Water <br /> Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region (Regional Board), is requiring remediation of <br /> the BTX coy,*amination. <br /> t The remc-diation alternatives which have been screened and evaluated are based on the <br /> J cancIusions of the completed site investigation. The alternatives are considered to be ' <br /> feasible in teams of cost-effecti,e removal of product from the soil and groundwater. ' <br /> j <br /> .J The aitematives were compared based on economic and noneconomic parameters. <br /> Several alteni--tives were considered and were either found to be applicable to the problem <br /> I or were rejected as being too impractical or costly. The alternatives were selected for <br /> their applicability to remediate the soil andgroundwater contamination. ' <br /> Rejected Alternatives <br /> ; <br /> Alternatives which were considered but rejected due to econon-dcs or practicality are <br /> discussed below. <br /> p t Gradient Control. This mc;thod involves injecting water into the ground to create a <br /> ' floating barrier and keep the hvdre;carbons in <br /> downgradient. Due to the the groundwater from migrating <br /> 1 � roximi <br /> p ty of Mimicipal Well 12, the associated risk of contain ng <br /> the product is considered high. In addition, a large volume of injection water would be <br /> required to negate the drawdown effects of Municipal Well 12. <br /> y <br />