Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />' treatment performance. Because oxidant injection is typically r <br />J yp y pe formed within a smaller radius <br />of influence than those from air sparging, a larger number of injection points would be required. <br />' In addition, since the oxidant has a relatively short half-life, the amount of oxidant injected <br />within the same treatment area will also be greater. As a result, the installation cost, along with <br />the initial supply of the oxidant required, would generally be much greater than at least those of <br />air sparging/SVE as well as biosparging. <br />General O&M costs would include those associated with oxidant supply, utility consumption, <br />periodic water quality monitoring, and groundwater sampling and analyses. Otherwise, except <br />' for oxidant supply, the O&M costs incurred would be similar to those required for biosparging. <br />Even though the treatment time required would likely be less with ISCO than biosparging, the <br />total O&M cost is expected to be higher than that of biosparging because of the maintenance <br />and/or monitoring and control of the oxidant supply system during oxidant injection. <br />' With an uncertainty in the amount of oxidant required at this time, a ROM cost for treatment <br />using ISCO cannot be established. Nonetheless, the overall cost of implementing this alternative <br />can still be expected to be moderate to high from past ISCO project experience. For comparison <br />1 purposes, the cost effectiveness of this alternative is ranked moderate. <br />FS -Onsite Petroleum Hydrocarbon Remediation.doc 4-9 Shaw Environmental, Inc. <br />