Laserfiche WebLink
MIN%= M M M M. M M M M M, M m4r- m <br /> TABLE 9 <br /> SOIL AND GROUND WATER CORIZLC I 1 VL AC l ION AL fERNATIVES <br /> Former Chase Chevrolet (Van Buren) Facility <br /> 424 North Van Buren Street, Stockton, California <br /> Estimated Costs Typical(incl _ Estimated <br /> Method _ Advantages Disadvantages -Monitoring <br /> , Monitoring and Duration - <br /> Maintenance) Requirements <br /> UST Nos 3-6 (cont) <br /> In-sau Air Sparging • Cleanup technique compatible • Initial equipment/design costs $30,000 to$50,000 Monthly ground water 12 to 18 <br /> with site conditions•Combines can be costly • capitol plus extraction depth measurements, months <br /> well with SVE• Readily monitoring, monthly sample <br /> available equipment• Site depending upon collection <br /> conditions are conducive for treatment period <br /> IAS treatment• Little equipment <br /> maintenance required <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 /> 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 I8 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 /> • Regulatory acceptance - analysis of samples - <br /> difficult to obtain • Waste <br /> discharge permits sometimes <br /> required <br /> Adratif ed GLOI rivironnient fl,Inc <br /> t _ , <br />