Laserfiche WebLink
` TABLE 9 + <br /> SOIL AND GROUND WATER CORRECTIVE ACTION ALTERNATIVES <br /> Former Chase Chevrolet(Van Buren) Facility - <br /> 424 North Van Buren Street, Stockton, California <br /> r Estimated Casts Typical <br /> Method Advantages Disadvantages (incl r Monitoring Estimated <br /> Monitoring and Duration <br /> r L Maintenance) Requirements <br /> !n-situ Soil Vapor • Easily combined with other Greater than 90%reduction of S 40,000 to$75,000 Weekly and monthly_ 12 to 18 <br /> Extraction methods(i e IAS)-Readily contaminants generally not annually vapor sampling,semi- months <br /> available equipment• attainable-Large initial - annual or annual soil <br /> Seciton 5 1 Conducive site conditions• equipment cost• Supplemental sampling <br /> Relatively rapid cleanup period fuel required and costs can be <br /> (18 to 36 months)- Can cleanup excessive as contaminants <br /> contaminated soil under decrease • Air permitting <br /> structures required•Only non-saturated <br /> soils cleaned up <br /> Excavation •Theoretical removal of 100% • Cost-effectiveness decreases $75,000 to` Monitoring of 1 month,6 to <br /> of contaminants• Relatively with depth of contamination $105,000 for excavated soil, 12 months if , <br /> Section 5 2 short remediation period• - Flowing sand below 18 feet excavation,disposal collection of soil treatment is <br /> Effective remediation of all soil bsg• Cannot cleanup under and backfill - samples upon required <br /> types and contaminants structures• Excavated soil completion of _ _ - <br /> must be treated or disposed excavation <br /> • Backfill material and <br /> compaction costs can be <br /> = excessive <br /> t 4 <br />