Laserfiche WebLink
0 <br /> wreraveowNC .ACRAMENTO <br /> 5. 0 SYSTEM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION <br /> 5. 1 Flow Rates <br /> The flow rate, as measured by the pitot tube/differential <br /> pressure gauges, for EW6 was, on average, 48. 56 scfm during the <br /> pilot study. This flow gate induced a average vacuum equivalent <br /> to 0. 13 inches of water on EW7 and 0 . 15 inches of water on EW8. <br /> 1 The SVE power requirement was approximately 10 amperes at the <br /> average flow rate of 48. 56 scfm. <br />' The amperage was varied during the study to record the <br /> maximum flow rate possible. However, the flow rates were <br />' restricted by the maximum backpressure allowed by the carbon <br /> vessels. The maximum flow rate induced in EW6 was 51 scfm, which <br /> induced an equivalent vacuum of 2 . 0 inches of water in EW7 and <br /> EW8 . However, as the backpressure reading was offscale at that <br /> flowrate, the flowrate was reduced to avoid damage to the carbon <br /> Mvessels. <br /> The pilot test data indicate that effective subsurface soil- <br /> vapor communication can be established between the extraction <br /> wells by use of an SVE system capable of inducing a flow of <br /> ' approximately 45 to 50 scfm. The pilot test data also indicate <br /> that one well, EW6, can be used effectively to extract soil vapor <br /> from the entire volume of impacted soil . <br /> 5.2 Hydrocarbon Removal <br /> ' Total hydrocarbon vapor concentration and flow rate data <br /> were used to calculate vapor recovery rates, product (diesel) <br /> recovery rates and the total volume of diesel recovered from the <br /> system. Total hydrocarbon concentrations in vapor samples <br /> collected from the system were measured during the study. For <br /> ' comparison to the field measurements, vapor samples were <br /> collected for laboratory analysis (Section 4 . 6) . The laboratory <br /> analytical data and the corresponding field measurements are <br /> ' 15 <br />