Laserfiche WebLink
TABLE 9 <br /> SOIL AND GROUND WATER CORRECTIVE ACTION ALTERNATIVES <br /> Former Chase Chevrolet (Van Buren) Facility <br /> 424 North Van Buren Street, Stockton, California <br /> Estimated Costs Typical <br /> Method Advantages Disadvantages _ rY _ (incl Monitoring Estimated <br /> Mdnitoring-and Requirements Duration <br /> Maintenance) <br /> UST No 8 <br /> 117-s lir Soil Vapor • Easily combined with other Greater than 90%reduction of $40,000 to$75 000 Weekly and monthly 12 to 18 <br /> ;E traction methods(i e IAS)• Readily contaminants generally not annually vapor sampling,semi- months <br /> available equipment • attainable • I arse Initial annul 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 36 months)• Can cleanup excessive 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 $60,000 to$90,000 Monitoring of I month,6 to <br /> of contaminants• Relatively with depth of contamination for excavation, excavated soil, 12 months if <br /> short remediation period • • Flowing sand below I8 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 structures• Excavated soil completion of <br /> must be treated or disposed excavation <br /> • Backfill material and <br /> compaction costs can be <br /> l,acessIve <br /> I I <br /> Ath,anced Geol�mrronmenial,inc <br /> r <br />