Laserfiche WebLink
TABLE 9 <br /> SOIL AND GROUND WATER CORRECTIVE ACTION ALTERNATIVES <br /> Foimer Chase Chevrolet (Van Buren) Facility <br /> 424 North Van Buren Street, Stockton, California <br /> v <br /> Estimated Costs(incl Typical <br /> Method Advantages Disadvantages Monitoring and Monitoring Estimated <br /> Duration <br /> Maintenance) Requirements <br /> UST Nos 3-6 <br /> In-sau Soil Vapor • Easily combined with other Greater than 90%reduction of $40,000 to$75,000 Weekly and monthly 12 to 18 <br /> Extraction methods (1 e IAS) • Readily contaminants generally not annually vapor sampling,semi- months <br /> available equipment• attainable • Large initial annual or annual soil <br /> Conducive site conditions • equipment cost• Supplemental sampling <br /> Relatively rapid cleanup period fuel required and costs can be <br /> (18 to i6 months)• Can cleanup f xcesslve as contaminants <br /> contaminated soil under decrease• Air permitting <br /> structures required • Only non-saturated _ <br /> soils cleaned up <br /> Excavation • Theoretical removal of 100% •Cost-effectiveness decreases $300,000 to Monitoring of 2 month,6 to <br /> of contaminants- Relatively with depth of contamination $400,000 for excavated soil, 12 months If <br /> short remediation period • •Clean overburden soil must excavation, disposal collection`of soil treatment Is <br /> Effective remediation of all soil be removed • Flowing sand and backfill samples upon required <br /> h types and contaminants below 18 feet bsg •Cannot completion of <br /> cleanup under structures• excavation <br /> Excavated soil must be treated <br /> or disposed • Backfill material <br /> and compaction costs can be <br /> excessive <br /> i <br /> Adh rutcu!GCOFnVIF on nun 1 it,Inc <br />