Laserfiche WebLink
C70010910170chiics t9c. <br /> ' 1101 71"Street <br /> Modesto,California 95354 <br /> (209)522-4119/Fax(209)5224227 <br /> Corrective Action Plan <br /> Sinclair Trucking <br /> 3780 West Linne Road <br /> ' Tracy, California <br /> Project No. 1030.2 <br /> April 26, 2004 <br /> t <br /> ' 1.0 INTRODUCTION <br /> This site has been under site characterization investigation and monitoring since February <br /> ' 1999. We have found that a relative restricted area of approximately 60 x 60 ft contains <br /> highly contaminated soil centered at the location of the former UST and that some moderate <br /> levels of gasoline contaminated groundwater has migrated approximately 100 feet <br /> downgradient from the source. <br /> The data suggests that if the pocket of highly contaminated soil was removed, the residual <br /> soil and groundwater contamination would collapse and the site would return to background <br /> ' conditions. We have presented three different remedial alternatives in Section 2.0 with our <br /> preferred remedial option in Section 3.0. <br /> Site-specific issues that must be addressed while considering remedial options include: <br /> ' ❑ Fine grained geologic soils in the upper 11 feet, below which is approximately 5 feet of <br /> sand, underlain by 10 feet of silty clay soils. 1 S'- c'C ; m w-4,yam, rn W-icI 56M4 z?,'-,s' <br /> c29 Shallow groundwater that fluctuated from a out to 13 feet below ground surface (bgs) �'f Gy i�_zi <br /> ' <br /> Li The area that contains the highest concentrations of gasoline has several features on it, °��� <br /> including a septic tank and associated piping, propane tank and gas line, and trees. CtU C-1 <br /> ❑ The contamination appears to have spread laterally along the leach line piping as -,- <br /> suggested by the high TPH-G concentration south of the forn7er tank pit (groundwater <br /> ' flows northeasterly). 1l e&t <br /> "uf+ P-t <br /> We have presented three remedial alternatives for consideration. Each has their advantages <br /> ' and disadvantages, but all of them have to deal with the site-specific limitations outlined <br /> above. These limitations are discussed in the review of remedial alternatives in Section 2.0 <br /> and help dictate the recommended remedial alternative as presented in Section 3.0. <br /> ' 2.0 REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES <br /> ' 2.1 Air Sparging & Vapor/Groundwater Extraction <br /> 1 <br />