Laserfiche WebLink
TABLE 9 <br /> SOIL AND GROUND WATER CORRECTIVE ACTION ALTERNATIVES <br /> Former Chase Chevrolet (Van Buren) Facility <br /> j424 North Van Buren Street, Stockton, California <br /> - i Estimated Costs Typical <br /> (incl Estimated <br /> Method _Advantages Disadvantages Monitoring <br /> Monitoring and Requirements Duration <br /> m _ - <br /> Maintenance) <br /> UST No 8 (cont) <br /> Pump and Treat • Rapid reduction in high • High volumes of extracted $75,000 to Quarterly or monthly May vary, <br /> concentratibns• Prevent water will require disposal• $200,000 total cost monitoring,analysis typically 18 to <br /> spreading of plume Typically unable to achieve of extracted water 24 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 18 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 /> I <br /> Atli anted GLuLnvironmental,int <br />