Laserfiche WebLink
' J i <br /> . 15 November 1995 <br /> AGE-NC Project No 95-0142 <br /> Page 17 of 19 <br />' 7 313 FEASIBILITY STUDIES <br /> No feasibility studies for in-situ bioremdsation of impacted ground water have been performed at the <br /> I site <br />' 7 3 4 DURATION <br /> Cleanup durations for in-situ bioremediation will vary, depending upon specific site characteristics <br />' However a 12 to 36 month treatment period is generally acluevable Based upon the dissolved <br /> hydrocarbon concentrations at the Stockton Plating site, a cleanup period of 24 to 30 months is likely <br /> 1 <br /> 7 3 5 COST <br />' Bioremediation of ground water can be a very cost-effective method of treatment With little on-site <br /> equipment required beyond the initial inoculation, the cost for to-situ bioremediation at the Stockton <br /> Plating site would be between$50,000 and $85,000 However, monitoring costs will vary depending <br /> upon regulatory requirements which could significantly increase the total cost of the project <br />' Typical costs for monthly monitoring of an in-situ bioremediation system, in addition to standard <br /> quarterly sampling, would be approximately $1,000 00 per month Based on a two-year treatment <br /> period, the total cost for in-situ bioremediation at the Stockton Plating site would be between <br /> $80,000 and $110,000 f <br />' 8.0. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REMEDIATION OF HYDROCARBON-IMPACTED <br /> SOIL <br />' Based upon analytical results of soil samples collected during the investigation of the former UST <br /> area, it appears that hydrocarbon impacted soil extends approximately 30 feet north and 10 feet south <br />' of the former TK1-90 UST excavation with a width of approximately 30 feet The impacted sod <br /> appears to be distributed throughout the entire vadose zone However, the greatest concentrations <br /> of hydrocarbons are present within the smear zone at depths between 35 and 45 feet bsg , <br />' Since excavation is not very feasible at the Stockton Plating site, an in-situ method should be <br /> considered Both in-situ methods described in this CAP could be equally effective in remediating the <br />' site From a cost basis, implementation of an in-situ bioremdiation program could be less expensive <br /> than soil vapor However, monitoring requirements could increase the cost significantly Therefore, <br /> . we recommend installation of an S VE system at the site <br /> 1 <br />