Laserfiche WebLink
TABLE 9 - <br /> SOIL <br /> -SOIL AND GROUND WATER CORRECTIVE ACTION ALTERNATIVES <br /> Former Chase Chevrolet (Van Buren) Facility <br /> 424 North Van Buren Street, Stockton, California <br /> Estimated Costs <br /> Typical <br /> - <br /> y , r - <br /> Method 7 Advantages r Disa (incl dvantages - Morut6nng Estimated <br /> Monitoring and Requirements Duration <br /> Maintenance) , <br /> Pump and Treat •Rapid reduction in high •High volumes of extracted $100,000 to Quarterly or monthly May vary, <br /> concentrations•Prevent water will require disposal • $300,000 total cost monitoring,analysis typically 18 to <br /> Section 6 2 spreading of plume Typically unable to achieve of extracted water 36 months <br /> cleanup goals• Usually not <br /> cost effective for larger plumes <br /> • Equipment can be costly <br /> In-situ • Relatively simple design and • Usually no immediate $70,000 to Monthly ground water 18 to 36 <br /> Bioremediation application process• Little,or no reduction in hydrocarbon $95,000 total cost ' and vapor sampling, months ` <br /> (Ground Water) maintenance required concentrations•Remediation quarterly monitoring, <br /> controls difficult to implement microbiological <br /> Section 6 3 • Regulatory acceptance analysis of samples <br /> ` - difficult to obtain• Waste <br /> 4 discharge permits sometimes <br /> required <br /> Natural Attenuation • Lower costs than most active •Not effective for higher Quarterly ground Unknown <br /> remedial alternatives• Minimal contaminant concentrations,- water monitoring <br /> Section 6 4 disturbance to the site• Potential Migration of contamination _ -use below structures may occur• Longer time frame <br /> than active remediation • May <br /> not achieve cleanup levels_ <br /> within reasonable length of <br /> time•Not generally permitted ' <br /> when free product is present <br /> - s <br /> T <br />