Laserfiche WebLink
Appendix E <br /> ' Remedial Options <br /> tThe following sections describe three possible remedial options. The Remedial Option Cost <br /> Estimate Table summarizes each remedial option costs. Each cost is separate, so the cost for the <br /> ' options that are considered would be added together. <br /> ' Option 1: Underground Storage Tank Removal <br /> Based on anomolies identified during the geophysical surveys, an exploratory investigation <br /> ' would be implemented to verify the existence or non-existence of USTs. Trenching would be <br /> used to assess the geophysical anomalies by either exposing the UST or confirming that the UST <br /> ' have been removed. If the USTs are still in place,the USTs will have to be removed and <br /> disposed of in accordance with San Joaquin County guidelines. <br /> To assist with cost analysis it was assumed that the site contains a 500-gallon waste oil tank and <br /> two 10,000-gallon USTs (gas and diesel). During the investigation, petroleum hydrocarbons <br /> ' were not detected in soil. If soil impacts are detected during UST excavation, over-excavation <br /> may be necessary to attempt to remove the impacted soil; however, excavation to groundwater <br /> ' would not be feasible since the groundwater table was encountered at 38 feet BGS. <br /> Costs associated with preparation of a UST removal work plan, acquiring permits with SJCEHD, <br /> security fencing, saw-cutting surface asphalt(if encountered), demolition and disposal of surface <br /> asphalt, excavation of USTs, triple rinse USTs, removal and disposal of piping within excavated <br /> ' areas, removal and disposal of USTs, sampling of soils under USTs and soil stockpiles, backfill <br /> and compact excavations, re-pave over former UST locations and prepare a tank removal <br /> summary report are approximately$63,000. This cost does not include removal or disposal of <br /> concrete, shoring of the excavation, if required, and handling, transporting or disposal of <br /> impacted soils. <br /> ' Option 2: No Further Action <br /> Based on conditions encountered during this investigation, "No Further Action"could be an <br /> appropriate remedial option. Petroleum hydrocarbons were not detected in soil during this <br /> investigation; however, groundwater grab samples collected at two locations had detectable <br /> concentrations of TPHd and TPHo. The groundwater data suggests that past use has impacted the <br /> ' groundwater quality and that a release of petroleum hydrocarbons has occurred at the site. <br /> ' -054CRFPACOMMOMkacOP1P0021PRAPJB16316747602n..tlac E-1 <br />