Laserfiche WebLink
TABLE 1 <br /> COST-FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS: CORRECTIVE AC'T'ION OPTIONS <br /> FIRE STATION #2 <br /> 110 West Sonora Street, Stockton, California <br /> Method Advantages Disadvantages Estimated Casts (incl: <br /> Monitm ing and <br /> Maintenance): <br /> Excavation (soft) Theoretical removal of Cost-effectiveness Could exceed 515,000 fur <br /> 1001% of contaminants. decreases with depth of excavation, treatment <br /> colltanaitra(lon. and disposal. {S55:yrd 1 <br /> Relatively short <br /> remediation period. Cannot cleanup under <br /> structures. <br /> After removal, excavated <br /> soil must be treated or <br /> disposed. <br /> Backfill material and <br /> compaction costs. <br /> hi .airu Bioremediation Relatively simple design Regulatory approval S30,000 to <br /> (soil) and operation. can be difficult to S40,000 total cost <br /> obtain to additional (5110/vrd) <br /> Short treatment period, nutrient addition. <br /> usually 12 to Zd tuonths. <br /> Additional inoculations <br /> Works well in most soil sometimes necessary. <br /> types where no <br /> biotoxicity is present. Nutrient addition <br /> sometimes necessary. <br /> Not effective in soils <br /> with high <br /> concentrations of <br /> hydrocarbons/[on-, <br /> chain hvdrocarbons. <br /> In-situ Monitored Anaerobic bio- Usually no reduction in 55,000 to <br /> Natural Attenuation degradation significant in hydrocarbon S 15,000 total cost. <br /> Natural-Bioremediation attenuation process. concentrations. (S18/yrd). <br /> (soil) <br /> Soil type likely Reniediation controls <br /> conducive: fine grained difficult to implement. <br /> soil with high percentage <br /> of organic carboivfavors Regulatory acceptance <br /> adsorption and difficult to obtain. <br /> retardation of <br /> contaminate migration. Ground water monitoring <br /> required. <br />