Laserfiche WebLink
#9=1918, STOCKTON, CA <br /> REMEDIATION OPTIONS <br /> REMEDIATION OPTK)N ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES <br /> 1. Source removal, isolation, monitor essentially in place; lowest cost; no delay regulator buy-in difficult <br /> (aka NAZ) to propertyJ <br /> ,development I <br /> 2. Biosparging lowest cost of active remediation;no BTEX more costly than option 1;slight delay to <br /> no fugitive emissions developability; confirmation borings req'd. <br /> i <br /> f�3 '1 Vapor Extraction (SVE) use existing wells for extraction;low most costly; slight delay to devel opability; <br /> concen. could use carbon confirmation borings req'd. ,,I <br /> 1 100sc <br /> R GSI i ! , �.VV ti 'f. "� c I :-i r �o.polj <br /> y?_�� c• � "°"C- V JS ISu, . 't. ' sets � E <br /> P m A- i(D mB5 I 1 <br /> REMEDIATION COSTS <br /> OPTION TOTAL <br /> 1. LT monitoring 4,000/yr $20,000 (5 yr total) <br /> 2, purch/inst comp + trenchlrst wells + 7,500 +20,000 + 2000/yr+ 101000 + $64,500 <br /> 0&M +demob.+ proj. mgm't. +LT monit. 5,000 + 5,000/yr (1 yr sparge; 4 yr total) <br /> 3.purch/inst eqp't + trench/inst wells + 40,000 + 25,000 + 15,000/yr + $125,000 <br /> 0&M + demob + proj. mgm't + LT monit 15,000+10,000+ 5,000/yr (SVE for 1 yr; 4 yr. total) <br /> t <br /> i / J Note: totals do not include accessfee <br /> $1800/mo mos. until developable <br /> l'J. illr�t-nl 'ji � <br /> RECOMMENDATIONS/DISMSSION <br /> The recommended option is option 1. Previous remed. efforts have performed adequate source removal <br /> Regulator approval will be difficult but, this should be precedent setting <br />' !I <br /> rl <br /> i <br /> a <br />