ARCHIVED REPORTS XR0004798 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

{ TABLE 9 SOIL AND GROUNDWATER CORRECTIVE ACTION ALTERNATIVES - ' - Former Chase Chevrolet(Van Buren) Facility } 424 North_Van Buren Street, Stockton, California - ^f� _ ' Estimated Costs Typical (incl' . yP Method Advantages Disadvantages - - - -Monitoring Estimated f Monitoring and _ Duration - Requirements N r _ Maintenance)- - s t , In-situ • Relatively simple design and • Regulatory approval can be $60,000 to -Monthly vapor 12 to 24 Bioremediation operation• Short treatment difficult to obtain •Additional $110,000 total cost monitoring,quarterly- months (Soil) period, usually 12 to 36 months inoculations and nutrient soil sample collection, • Works well in most soil types supplementation sometimes '� -- micro biological Section 5 3 where no biotoxicity is present necessary-Less effective in analysis of samples _ soils with high concentrations - — of hydrocarbons - Natural Attenuation •Lower costs than most active •Not effective for higher _ Installation of unknown _ remedial alternatives•Minimal contaminant concentrations• additional borings, Section 5 4 disturbance to the site• Potential Migration of contamination Ground water 5 use below structures may occur-Longer time frame monitoring than active remediation • May _ Y not achieve cleanup levels within reasonable length of ' time In-situ Air Sparging •Cleanup technique compatible • Initial equipment/design costs $30,000 to$50,000 Monthly ground water 12 to 18 with site conditions•Combines can be costly•capitol plus extraction depth measurements, months _ Section 6 1 well with SVE• Readily _ monitoring, monthly sample available equipment- Site depending upon collection conditions arc conducive for treatment period - IAS treatment- Little equipment _ maintenance required - ' T