Laserfiche WebLink
TABLE 5 <br /> Soil and Ground Water Corrective Action Alternatives <br /> MARLO WE PROPERTY <br /> 4648 E Waterloo Road, Stockton, California <br /> Estimated Costs Typical Estimated <br /> Method Advantages Disadvantages (incl Monitoring Monitoring D iration <br /> and Maintenance) __Requirements <br /> Natural • Lower costs than most active -Not effective for higher Installation of unknown <br /> Attenuation remedial alternatives•Muunial contaminant concentrations• additional borings, <br /> disturbance to the site• Migration of contaniuiation Groundwater <br /> Section 6 4 Potential 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 $50,000 to$80,000 Monthly ground water 18 t 24 <br /> Spargtng with site conditions• Combines costs can be costly•capitol• plus extraction depth measurements, moi lis <br /> well with SVE • Readily Impacted ground water e\tends monitoring, monthly sample <br /> Section 71 available equipment- Site off-sttc depending upon collection <br /> conditions arc conducive for treatment period <br /> IAS treatment•Little <br /> equipment maintenance <br /> required <br /> Pump and Treat •Rapid reduction in high •High volumes of extracted $500,000 to Quarterly or monthly Mai nary, <br /> concentrations-Prevent water will require disposal • $1,000,000 total cost monitoring,analysis typi-wily is to <br /> Section 7 2 spreading of plume Typically unable to achieve of extracted water 36 t_onths <br /> cleanup goals • Usually not <br /> cost effective for larger plumes <br /> • <br /> Equipment can be costly <br /> I <br />