ARCHIVED REPORTS_XR0008413 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

TABLES Soil and Ground Water Corrective Action Alternatives MARLOWE PROPERTY 4648 E Waterloo Road, Stockton, California Estimated Costs Typical Estimated Method Advantages Disadvantages (incl Monitoring Monitoring D ation and Maintenance) Requirements In-situ Soil Vapor •Easily combined with other Greater than 90%reduction of $ 60,000 to$100,000 Weekly and niontlily 18 ttj ?4 Extraction methods(i e IAS) -Readily contaminants generally not annually vapor sampling,semi- mon as available equipment• attainable • Large initial annual or annual soil Section 61 Conducive site conditions • I i equipment cost• Supplemental sampling Relatively rapid cleanup period fuel required and costs can be (18 to 36 months) • Can cleanup excessive as contaminants contaminated soil under decrease•Air permitting structures required•Only non-saturated soils cleaned up Excavation •Theoretical removal of 100% - Cost-cff'ectivcness decreases $125,000 to$175,000 Monitoring of 1 mo ith,6 to of contaminants •Relatively with deptli of contamination• for excavation, excavated soil, 12 m-)nths if Section 6 21 short remediation period• Cannot cleanup under disposal and backfill collection of soil treatment is Effective remediation of all soil structures• Excavated soil samples upon requi ied types must be treated or disposed• completion of Backfill material and excavation i coinpaction costs can be excessive In-situ •Relatively simple design and • Regulatory approval can be $80,000 to$130 000 Monthly vapor 18 to 36 Bioremediation operation• Short treatment difficult to obtain-Additional total cost monitoring, quarterly monf is (Soil) period, usually 12 to 36 months inoculations and nutrient soil sample collection, • Works well in most soil types supplementation sometimes micro biological Section 6 3 where no biotoxicity is present necessary• Less effective in analysis of samples soils with high concentrations of hydrocarbons