Laserfiche WebLink
TABLE 9 - <br /> GROUND WATER REMEDIATION ALTERNATIVES <br /> _ Cherokee Truck Stop <br /> ` 3535 East-Cherokee Road, Stockton, California <br />� - 1✓st .i��� ���1 Typic� taplt�'fttg )�St�rat� <br /> rF'GiroundWater) <br /> Disadvantages Monftcamgandt •Rapid reduction iii high •High volumes of extracted water will $135,000 to$235,000 Quarterly or monthly 24 to 36 months <br /> concentrations•Prevent spreading of require disposal•Often unable to achieve on-site total cost monitoring,analysts of <br /> plumecleanup goals•Equipmentcan be costly extracted water <br /> •Relatively supple design and •Usually no immediate reduction in $40,000 to$60,000 start Monthly ground water Unknown application process Little or riahydrocarbon concentrations•Remediation up costs plus$18,000 to and vapor sampling, <br /> r) maintenance required controls difficult to implement•Regulatory $20,000 annually quarterly rriomtonng,acceptance difficult to obtain•Wasterrucrobiological <br /> ection - - discharge permits sometimes required analysis of samples } <br /> �y <br /> atural •Lower costs than most active •Not effective for higher contaminant $6,000 to$20,000 Quarterly ground water Unknown <br /> Attenuation remedial alternatives•Mini Tial concentrations•Migration of contamination annually monitoring <br /> disturbance to the site•Potential use may occur•Longer time frame than active r <br /> tion 8 3 below structures remediation•May not achieve cleanup levels <br /> within reasonable length of time <br /> _ b <br /> o Further Action • Limited cost•No disturbance t6-the •Does not address contattunation already in One tune expense of None Not applicable <br /> site ground water•Migration of contamination $7,000 to$8,000 for <br /> may occur•Significant time required to monitoring well _ <br /> achieve cleanuR levels adandoninent <br /> i� <br /> f r Y <br />