ARCHIVED REPORTS_XR0008852 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

TABLE 5 SOIL AND GROUND WATER CORRECTIVE ACTION ALTERNATIVES Former Chase Chevrolet(Van Buren) Facility 424 North Van Buicn Street, Stockton, California Estimated Costs Typical Method Advantages Disadvantages (incl Monitoring Estimated Monitoring and Duration _ Maintenance) Requirements In-situ Soil Vapor • Easily combined with other Greater than 90%reduction of $60,000 (o Weekly dad monthly 18 to 24 Extraction methods(t e IAS)• Readily contaminants generally not $100,000 annually vapor sampling,semi- months available equipment• attainable• Large initial annual or annual soil Section 5 1 Conducive site conditions• cquipmcnt cost• Supplemental sampling Relatively rapid cleanup period fuel required and costs can be (18 to 36 months)•Can cleanup cxcessive as contaminants contaminated soil under decrease• Air permitting structures required • Only non-saturated soils cleaned up Excavation •Theoretical removal of 100% •Cost-effectiveness decreases $125,000 to Monitoring of 1 month,6 to of contaminants• Relatively with depth of contamination • $175,000 for excavated soil, 12 months if Section S 2 short remediation period• Cannot cleanup under excavation,disposal collection of soil treatment is Effective remediation of all soil structures• Excavated soil and backfill samples upon required types must be treated or disposed• completion of Backfill matei ial and excavation compaction costs can be excessive In-situ • Relatively simple design and • Regulatory approval can be $80,000 to Monthly vapor 18 to 36 Bioremediation operation• Short treatment difficult to obtain •Additional $130,000 total cost monitoring,quarterly months (Soil) period,usually 12 to 36 months inoculations and nutrient soil sample collection, • Works well in most soil types supplementation sometimes micro biological Section 5 3 where no biotoxicity is present necessary • Less effective in analysis of samples soils with high concentrations of hydrocarbons Al