Laserfiche WebLink
• <br /> - - TABLES <br /> SOIL AND,GROUND,WATER CORRECTIVE ACTION ALTERNATIVES <br /> ` -STRONG PROPERTY <br /> 5157:West•Business Loop 205,.Tiacy, California . <br /> Estimated Costs pypicaT Monitoring 'Estimated_' <br /> Method= Advantages Disadvantages (incl.Monitoring Requirements ]]oration ~ <br /> and Maintenance)' ; <br /> _- Puin and Treat •Rapid reduction in hi •Hi volumes of extracted water $100,000 to$300;000 - <br /> _ p - - p • high High Quarterly or monthly May vary;_- . <br /> concentrations•Prevent spreading - will require disposal•Typically' total cost monitoring;analysis of typically-18 to <br /> Section 7.1. of plume. unable to achieve cleanup goals• extracted water. 36 months. Y <br /> Usually not cost effective for 9 <br /> - larger plumes•Equipment can be _ <br /> - <br /> costly. <br /> In-situ •Relatively simple design and 6 Usually no immediate reduction $70,000 to, Monthly ground water 24 to 36 months <br /> Bioremediation application process�Little or no in hydrocarbon concentrations• $95,000 total cost . and vapor sampling; <br /> (Ground Water) maintenance required. Remediation controls difficult to - quarterly monitoring; <br /> implement•Regulatory microbiological analysis _ <br /> Section 7.2.- acceptance difficult to obtain• . of samples. <br /> Waste discharge permits <br /> sometimes required. <br /> Natural Attenuation ; •Lower costs than most active Not effective for higher -Variable Quarterly groundwater Unknown• - <br /> remedial alternatives•Minimal. contaminant concentrations• monitoring <br /> Section 7.3. disturbance to the site. Migration of contamination may " <br /> occur•Longer time frame than <br /> active remediation•May not <br /> achieve cleanup levels within <br /> reasonable length of time•Not - <br /> generally permitted when free <br /> product is present. <br /> Advanced GeoEovironmental,Inc.1 <br />