Laserfiche WebLink
F. <br /> Geological Teclurcicsl� <br /> Dual Phase Extraction Pilot Test Report Page 11 <br /> Project No.723.2 <br /> 4 November 5,2004 <br /> Extraction Date Time Benzene Toluene Eth I X lene TPH-G <br /> Well u u Benzene u u L <br /> u <br /> Samples obtained from EW-1 usin dis osable bailer <br /> �,. EW-1 07/27/04 1 9:18 1 25600 41800 4060 19500 270000 <br /> EW-1 07/28/04 1 0:55 1 30900 44900 3320 16000 217000 <br /> Avg TPH-G 243500 <br /> Sam fes obtained from Dual Phase holding tank disc harae Dort <br /> EW-1 1 07/28/04 16:30 781 J 2160 386 2350 19300 <br /> EW-1 07/28/04 23:30 7852120 345 2310 19200 <br /> EW-1 &VEW-1 07/30/04 17:30 973 2170 312 2060 17500 <br /> Avg TPH-G 18667 <br /> w <br /> .GTI calculated the mass balance for TPH-G removed during the test using the above average <br /> TPH-G value for EW-1 samples and the pumping data in Table 4. The results are tabulated <br /> in Table 7: Mass Removed by Groundwater Extraction. The treatment of 17,392 gallons of <br /> water from the extraction wells during the one week test resulted in the removal of <br /> approximately 16.06 kg or 5.71 gallons of TPH-G. <br /> V�1 <br /> The July 27 - 30, 2004, groundwater laboratory analytical data were submitted electronically <br /> to GeoTracker as required under AB2886 on October 15 & 20, 2004, (Confirmation Ws <br /> 1817480444 and 4257712364). <br /> 6.0 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS <br /> Based on our interpretation of the data collected over the course of this subsurface <br /> investigation, GTI have reached several conclusions. These conclusions are based on the <br /> premise that the data we considered, although incomplete, are representative of actual site <br /> conditions. We acknowledge that there may be undiscovered conditions, which would upon <br /> ` their consideration, change our interpretation and thus our conclusions. <br /> Our recommendations are based on our knowledge of site conditions, and on the state and <br /> limitations of subsurface investigative technology. <br /> 4„ The following conclusions are made: <br /> 1. Soil vapor extraction is a viable technology for reducing contaminant concentrations <br /> in the subsurface at the site. The pilot test demonstrated that up to 0.1 inche of water <br /> vacuum could be achieved at a distance of 46 feet from the extraction point (from <br /> EW-1 to MW-5). <br />