ARCHIVED REPORTS_XR0008316 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

TABLE 10 Soil and Ground Water Corrective Action Alternatives NEWFIELD PROPERTY 107 North School Street, Lodi, California Estimated Costs Typical Estimated Method Advantages Disadvantages (incl Momtonng Monitoring Duration and Maintenance) Requirements Natural • Lower costs than most active •Not effective for higher $1 1,000 to$30,000 Installation of unknown Attenuation remedial alternatives• Minimal contaminant concentrations• Annually additional borings, disturbance to the site- Potential Migration of contamination Ground water Section 7 4 use below structures may occur• Longer time frame monitoring than active remediation• May not achieve cleanup levels within reasonable length of time In-situ Air -Cleanup technique compatible •Initial equipment/design costs $70,000 to$100,000 Monthly ground water 12 to 24 Sparging with site conditions•Combines can be costly•capitol • plus extraction depth measurements, months well with SVE- Readily impacted ground water extends monitoring, monthly sample Section 8 1 available equipment• Site off-site depending upon collection conditions are conducive for treatment period IAS treatment• Little equipment maintenance required Pump and Treat •Rapid reduction in high • High volumes of extracted $25,000 to$40,000 Quarterly or monthly May vary, concentrations• Prevent water will require disposal• set-up plus treatment monitoring,analysts typically 1S to Section 8 2 spreading of plume Typically difficult to achieve and disposal of water of extracted water 36 months cleanup goals-Usually not cost effective for larger plumes •Equipment can be costly i Advanced GeeEnviron mental,ine.