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 <br /> ' r , <br /> (incl, -, Typical Estimated <br /> Method Advantages Disadvantages - Monitoring <br /> _ Monitoring and Duration <br /> Maintenance) Requirements <br /> UST leo 8 (cont ) <br /> In-situ • Relatively simple design and • Regulatory approval can be $50,000 to$90,000 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 nutriurt _ soil sample collection, <br /> • Works well in most soil types suppicnlentatlon SOmatimcS micro biological <br /> where no biotoxicity is present necessary• Less effective in analysis of samples <br /> soils with high concentrations <br /> of hydrocarbons <br /> Natural Attenuation • Lower costs than most active •Not effi ctive for highcr $6,000 to$8,000 Installation of unknown <br /> (Soil) remedial alternatives• Minimal contaminant concentrations• annually additional borings, <br /> disturbance to the site• Potential Migration of contamination Ground water <br /> use below structures may occur• Longer time frame monitoring <br /> than active remediation • May <br /> not achieve cleanup levels <br /> within reasonable length of <br /> time <br /> In-situ 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 /> *Panred[,rol_m ironmental,Inc <br />