ARCHIVED REPORTS_REVISED FEASIBILITY STUDY 2000

Home Browse Search

Treadwell&Rollo • The cost of capping would likely be less as it could be performed as part of site redevelopment activities. For example, parking lots could be designed to perform as a cap, as could building slabs. Capping would not be required if contaminated soil were to be removed and disposed of off site. Excavation which would be limited to the areas described in Section 4.2.9 of this Feasibility Study, could be performed for the approximate costs summarized as follows: Area 10—$36,000 to $37,100 Area 11 —$22,015 to $27,215 Area 20—$25,350 to $25,850 Focused removal of soil would likely remove the need for deed restrictions required under the • capping scenario, assuming that arsenic is considered a naturally-occurring metal and not included in the risk calculations. 5.2 Operable Unit 2 OU-2 contains groundwater contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons and soil locally contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons. An air sparge and vacuum extraction treatment system is operating at Area 16. Area 21 has had pilot testing of soil vapor extraction systems performed, and Area 15 may require additional site characterization, soil removal, and groundwater remediation. Each site in OU 2 is being monitored by the SJCHD, and is enrolled in the California Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund. At the current time, none of the OU 2 properties are owned by the SDHR. For this reason, firm recommendations cannot be made as to what remedial actions will be appropriate at OU 2. However, recommendations can be made if the assumption that the SDHR will acquire the property is accepted, and that mitigation measures now in progress or planned for the area's • future are carried out. 40 25970318.PGS 15 November 2000