Laserfiche WebLink
Mir MM _ MMMMM4r = <br /> TABLE 9 <br /> SOIL AND GROUND WATLR CORRECI IVE AC IION ALI ERNAI IVES <br /> Former Chase Chevrolet (Van Buren) Facility <br /> 424 North Van Buien Street, Stockton, Caltfomia <br /> Y <br /> Estimated Costs Typical <br /> ' <br /> Method Advantages Disadvantages (incl Monitoring Estimated <br /> Monitoring and Requnernents Duration <br /> - Maintenance) <br /> UST No I <br /> Excavatio Theoretical removal of 100% • Cost-effectiveness decreases $12,000 to$18,000 Monitoring of I month,6 to <br /> of contaminants• Relatively with depth of contamination for excavation, excavated soil, 12 months if <br /> .,.. �f short remediation period • • Flowing sand below 18 feet disposal and collection of soil treatment is <br /> Effective remediation of all soil bsg• Cannot cleanup under backfill samples upon required <br /> types and contaminants structwes • Excavated soil completion of <br /> must be treated or disposed excavation <br /> • Backfill material and <br /> compaction costs can be <br /> excessive <br /> In-situ • Relatively simple design and • Regulatory approval can be $56,000 to$80,000 Monthly vapor 12 to 24 <br /> Bioremediation operation • Short treatment difficult to obtain • Additional total cost monitoring,quarterly months <br /> (Soil) period,usually 12 to 36 months inoculations and nutrient soil sample collection, <br /> • Works well in most soil types supplementation sometimes micro biological <br /> where no biotoxicity is present necessary • Less effective in analyses of samples <br /> soils with high concentrations <br /> of hydrocarbons <br /> Advanced GcoEnvironnicuul,Inc <br />