Laserfiche WebLink
! � � ■� � I• 1• � � � I, ■■■� r � tllllttttf � <br /> • • i <br /> TABLE 7 <br /> Soil and Ground Water Corrective Action Alternatives <br /> CALIFORNIA FUELS CARDLOCK STATION <br /> 2402 Pacific Avenue, Stockton, California <br /> Estimated Costs(mcl Typical Monitoring Estimated <br /> Method Advantages Disadvantages Monitoring and Requirements Duration <br /> Maintenance <br /> Natural • Lower costs than most active •Not effective for higher Installation of unknown <br /> Attenuation remedial alternatives•Minimal contaminant concentrations• additional borings, <br /> disturbance to the site• Potential Migration of contamination Ground water <br /> Section 7 4 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 •Cleanup technique compatible • Initial equipment/design costs $50,000 to$80,000 Monthly ground water 18 to 24 <br /> Sparging with site conditions•Combines can be costly•capitol• plus extraction depth measurements, months <br /> well with SVE•Readily Impacted ground water extends monitoring,depending monthly sample <br /> Section 8 1 available equipment•Site off site upon treatment period collection <br /> conditions are conducive for <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 cost monitoring,analysts typically 18 to <br /> Section 8 2 spreading of plume Typically unable to achieve of extracted water 36 months <br /> cleanup goals• Usually not <br /> cost effective for larger plumes <br /> • Fquipment can be costly <br /> I <br /> Advanced GeoEnvironmental,Inc <br />