Laserfiche WebLink
t: <br /> 1 Mr. Kyle Christie <br /> lulu 5. 11990 <br /> ` Page 3 <br /> through the vacuum pump and discharged into two activated carbon canisters placed in series. <br /> The activated carbon canisters effectively scrub volatile organic carbon compounds from the <br /> soil vapor so that air pollutant emissions were eliminated during the pilot test. <br /> The relationship between extracted vapor volumt-wic flow rates and vacuum was conducted <br /> by isolating vapor wells 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8, and extracting soil vapor at various rates between <br /> 30 and 80 cfm. <br /> Wells 3. 5, and 6 were tested as a group at flow rates between 30 and 120 cfm. During the <br /> soil vapor extraction, the resultant well vacuum was recorded. I-or the case when we-'.j 3,5, <br /> and 6 were tested as a group, the resultant vacuum was recorded and considered an average <br /> for the three wells. Vapor ilow rate versus well vacuum data is presented in Tables 1 and 2 <br /> ::nd illustrated on Figures 2. 3, and 4. <br /> Table 1. Extracted Well Vapor )late at Varying Well Vacuums <br /> Vacuum, H.)© inches <br /> Volumetric flow Vapor Vapor Vapor Vapor Vapor <br /> rate, cfm Well 1 Weli 2 Well 4 Well 7 Well 8 <br /> 30 4.0 4.0 3.5 l8 5.6 <br /> 40 4.6 4.9 4.4 23 6.8 <br /> 50 3.4 5.6 a? 29 8.3 <br /> R 60 6.4 6.5 5.9 34 9.5 <br /> 70 7.1 7.4 6.5 38 10.6 <br /> so 8.0 8.2 7.3 42 11.8 <br /> - --For-determining -the-ares-of influence fora typical vapor well, the vacuum pump was T <br /> connected directly to vapor well No. 8. A volumetric flow rate of 50 cfm was withdrawn <br /> from vapor well No. 8 and the resultant vacuum at vapor wells 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 were <br /> recorded. The data indicating the area of influence from withdrawing soil vapor from vapor <br /> well No. 8 are presented in Table 3 and on Figure 5. <br /> BrMn and Caldwell <br /> ccnsu[ants <br />