Laserfiche WebLink
tr _ <br /> fie' i <br /> •i�i <br /> GOLDEN GRAIN COMPANY 36 <br /> December 21, 1989 <br /> 202/799-5045.06 <br /> tion and oxidation has been well documented in the literature. <br /> In light of the exceedingly gentle groundwater gradient at this <br /> site, the rate of hydrocarbon migration is very slow. Accord- <br /> ingly, it may be possible to monitor the site and let natural <br /> processes eliminate the hydrocarbons without posing any signifi- <br /> cant risk to the environment. A fate-and-transport model would <br /> be required to confirm this. A contingency plan would be <br /> developed in the event that significant hydrocarbon migration <br /> occurs. <br /> No-Action Advantages: <br /> 1. No site disruption. <br /> 2. Low cost for implementation. <br /> No-Action Disadvantages: <br /> f <br /> -• 1. Requires an extended time frame to complete. <br /> 2. Higher costs for added monitoring. <br /> 3. Poss..ale off-site migration. <br /> Because of the potential for off-site migration, the no- <br /> action option will not be pursued at this time. <br /> 5.2 PHYSICAL CONTAINMENT <br /> Physical containment would consist of constructing a low- <br /> --- permeability-cap and/or slurry walls to retard hydrocarbon <br /> migration. These structures can be made from a variety- of <br /> cements and bentonite slurries; they would serve to isolate the. <br /> GROUNDWATER <br /> TEcIINOLOGY.INC. <br />