Laserfiche WebLink
TABLE 10 <br /> GROUND WATER CORRECTIVE ACTION ALTERNATIVES <br /> Former Flsco Warehouse <br /> 1648 Shaw Road, Stockton, California <br /> Estimated Costs(incl Typical Monitoring Estimated <br /> Method Advantages Disadvantages Monitoring and Requirements Duration <br /> Maintenance <br /> n-situ •Cleanup technique compatible with •Initial equipment/design costs can be costly $30,000 to$35,000 plus Monthly ground water 12 to 18 months <br /> Air Sparging site conditions•Combines well with •capitol•Impacted ground water extends extraction monitoring, depth measurements, <br /> SVE•Readily available equipment• off-site depending upon monthly sample <br /> Section 10 1 Site conditions are conducive for IAS treatment period collection <br /> treatment•Little equipment <br /> maintenance required <br /> Ground Water •Rapid reduction in high •High volumes of extracted water will S 100,000 to$235,400 Quarterly or monthly 6 to 18 months <br /> Extraction concentrations•Prevent spreading of require disposal•Often unable to achieve on-site total cost monitoring,analysis of <br /> plume cleanup goals•Equipment can be costly extracted water <br /> Section 10 2 <br /> Natural •Lower costs than most active •Not effective for higher contaminant $6,000 to$20,000 Quarterly ground water Unknown <br /> Attenuation remedial alternatives•Minimal concentrations•Migration of contamination annually-could be monitoring <br /> disturbance to the site•Potential use may occur•Longer time frame than active upwards of 10 years for <br /> Section 10 3 below structures remediation•May not achieve cleanup levels closure <br /> within reasonable length of time <br /> Advanced GeoEnvironmental,Inc <br />