ARCHIVED REPORTS_XR0002482 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CLEAkWA'TER ' G a 0 u P Environmental Services ' The fact that pressure was measured in MW-1 during AS, suggests that the radius of influence for air spargmg could extend laterally beyond 50 feet No pressure was detected in MW-6, which is approximately 60 feet from AS-1, ' which suggests that this well is just beyond the radius of influence of AS-1, or more likely, the heterogeneous formation channels air pressure influence in the direction of MW-5B and MW-1,but not MW-6 ' The results of SVE and AS pilot testing indicate that if SVE and AS technologies were to be employed together to ' remediate the site's contamination, it is likely that only a few sparge points would be required for groundwater remediation It would be impractical to install approximately 60 vertical SVE wells, so horizontal SVE piping would probably be more effective Piping depth for horizontal SVE would be hrruted to backhoe /excavator depth, and ' would probably require shoring for trench stabilization which could be expensive Also, due to the large pressure difference AS created relative to the vacuum pressure created during SVE, it is likely that AS would need to be pulsed, while SVE is run continually, in order to prevent pressure build-up in the formation Based on the results, a combination of SVE and AS is possibly a strong candidate for remediation at the site GWE would also be required at times of the year when the water table is high However, a cost evaluation needs to be performed against other ' known remedial methods before these technologies can be chosen lieIt is therefore appropriate at this time to prepare a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) for this project The CAP will review the technical merits and costs of several remedial technologies, and select the most cost effective remedial alternative with the greatest technical merit The results of this feasibility testing will be used in the preparation of the CAP 1 I ' ZB178C Feas Test Report 9 May 9, 2002