Laserfiche WebLink
TABLE 5 <br /> • CORRECTIVE ACTION OPTIONS <br /> Former Curtiss Pontiac Buick <br /> 2450 Toste Road, Tracy, California <br /> Method Advantages Disadvantages Estimated Costs (incl <br /> Monitoring and <br /> Maintenance) <br /> Excavation •Theoretical removal of •Cost-effectiveness Could exceed$150,000 <br /> 100%of contaminants • decreases with depth of for excavation,treatment <br /> Relatively short contamination•Cannot and disposal <br />' remediation period cleanup under structures <br /> After removal, excavated <br /> soil must be treated or <br />' disposed•Backfill <br /> material and compaction <br /> costs can be excessive <br /> In-situ Bioremediation •Relatively simple design •Regulatory approval can $60,000 to <br /> (Soil) and operation•Short be difficult to obtain• $110,000 total cost <br /> treatment period,usually Additional inoculations <br /> 12 to 24 months • Works sometimes necessary <br /> well in most soil types Nutrient addition <br /> where no biotoxicity is sometimes necessary <br /> present Not effective in soils with <br /> high concentrations of <br /> hydrocarbons <br /> In-situ •Relatively simple design •Usually no immediate $60,000 to <br /> Bioremediation and application process • reduction in hydrocarbon $150,000 total cost <br /> (Ground Water) Little or no maintenance concentrations <br /> required Remediation controls <br /> difficult to implement <br /> Regulatory acceptance <br /> difficult to obtain•Waste <br /> discharge permits <br /> sometimes required <br /> Pump and Treat •Rapid reduction in high •High volumes of $100,000 to $300,000 <br /> concentrations extracted water will total cost <br /> require disposal <br /> Typically unable to <br /> achieve cleanup goals <br /> Usually not cost effective <br />' for larger plumes <br /> E ui ment can be costly I <br /> I <br />' Advanced GeoEnviron mental,Inc <br />