Laserfiche WebLink
� ■wt�i�f w■ �� !w� w �w w � w w �w w �� w� w�� w■� <br /> TABLES <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 (incl Monitoring Estimated <br /> Monitoring and Requirements Duration <br /> Maintenance) <br /> Natural Attenuation • Lower costs than most active •Not effective for highs r Installation of unknown <br /> remedial alternatives• Minimal contaminant concentrations• additional borings, <br /> Section 5 4 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 $50,000 to$80,000 Monthly ground water 18 to 24 <br /> with site conditions• Combines can be costly•capitol• plus extraction depth measurements, months <br /> Section 6 1 well with SVE• Readily Impacted ground water extends monitoring, monthly sample <br /> available equipment• Site off-site depending upon collection <br /> conditions are conducive for treatment period <br /> IAS treatment•Little equipment <br /> maintenance required <br /> Pump and Treat • Rapid reduction in high • High volumes of extracted $500,000 to Quarterly or monthly May vary, <br /> concentrations • Prevent water will require disposal- $1,000,000 total monitoring,analysis typically 18 to <br /> .Section 6 2 spreading of plume Typically unable to achieve cost of extracted water 36 months <br /> cleanup goals• Usually not <br /> cost effective for larger plimit s <br /> • Equipment can be costly <br />