Laserfiche WebLink
d <br /> Mike Infurna [EH] <br /> From: Mike Infurna [EH] <br /> Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 3:18 PM <br /> To: 'bowery@thriftyoil.com' <br /> Subject: full doc ISCO for#172 or? <br /> Mike, <br /> previously I sent you three pages related to In Situ Chemical Oxidation (ISCO) at UST sites. This webpage is the whole <br /> document, well, once you open it and CLICK on CHAPTER XIII. "Chemical Oxidation"... <br /> pretty detailed doc on how, why, when, etc.. <br /> typically, our PG is asking for'technical justification"for sites wanting to use Ozone (or any other oxidizer) at UST sites <br /> under our regulatory oversight/lead. What'may'work in SoCal may or may NOT work here. Although EHD may"agree in <br /> principle with the implementation of ozone sparging at this site"(#172), prior to agreeing to actually approving a work plan, <br /> you will be required to prove/support conclusions that ISCO is cost-effective, feasible, and technically justified at this/the <br /> site. <br /> Please review the technical limitations associated with ISCO and address their concerns in the proposal to EHD. <br /> You may submit the "work plan to perform ozone sparging pilot testing..."any time you like. Just be sure it <br /> includes/addresses the underlined concerns above. <br /> remember, Chapter XIII.... <br /> http://www.epa.gov/OUST/pubs/tums.htm <br /> i <br />