Laserfiche WebLink
TABLES - <br /> SOIL AND-GROUND WATER.CORRECTIVE ACTION ALTERNATIVES - <br /> STRONG PROPERTY: <br /> 5157 West-Business Loop 205, Tracy; California <br /> Estimated Costs Typical Monitoring Estimated <br /> Method Advant4ges Disadvantages- (incl.Monitoring <br /> Requirements Duration <br /> and Maintenance <br /> Excavation •Theoretical removal of.100% •Cost-effectiveness decreases. $250,000 to$350;000 None l-week <br /> . of contaminants•Relatively with depth of contamination annually. - <br /> short remediation period. Cannot cleanup under , <br /> structures•After removal <br /> Section 6 1. <br /> .excavated soil must be treated <br /> - = or disposed•Backfill material <br /> -and compaction costs can be <br /> excessive. _ r. <br /> In-situ Bioremediation Relatively simple'design and •.Regulatory approval can be .. $70;000 to$160;000- Monthly vapor .12 to 48 months <br /> _ (Soil) operation•Short treatment period;- difficult to obtain•Additional total cost monitoring;quarietly <br /> usually 12 to,36 months•Works'' inoculations and nutrient soil sample collection; <br /> Section 6.2.- s -well in most soil types where no . supplementation sometimes micro biological analysis <br /> biotoxicity-is present. - - necessary-Less effective in soils of samples: J <br /> i . with high'concentrations of <br /> a . <br /> hydrocarbons. <br /> Natural Attenuation •Lower costs than most active- •Not effective for higher Installation of additional . Y unknown' <br /> remedial alternatives•Minimal contaminant concentrations• borings;Ground water <br /> Section 6.3. disturbance to the site•Potential._ Migration of contamination may. . monitoring <br /> use below structures.- ._ •. .. occur Longer time frame than <br /> _ active remediation•May not . <br /> - _ <br /> achieve clanu levelswathi <br /> n _ <br /> reasonable length of time. <br /> Advanced GeoEnvironmental,Inc. <br /> _ -7 • <br />