ARCHIVED REPORTS_XR0012742 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

h 9 Mr. kv}e Christie uiv j. 1.1}90 Palle til soil is oredominantiv Fi}ty sand to sand with little plastic fines. flased on the data in Tables ❑ the sol} matric. which may be due and 2. it appears that soil vapor easily permeates throug to the sandy nature of the suosoii. ave t a h. The data in Table 3 indicate tle influence indicatesathatthenfiuei vapor nceuQe.1vacuu vapor in inches iH-)O, on the surrounding area. Fill decreases as the distance increases extraction thelia mteextractionofa50 cfmpor l will rresult in e a vacuum of at ansoil of 75 feet. a vapor approximately 4.2 inches H7Ofe sin all dire on• Lhe in which istall f fectivelyonfluen etthe entire to influence a minimum of site. s for the anaivzed compounds were veru high,eg., percent range As indicated. concentration for too petroleum hvdrocarbons. According to field measurements of total hydrocarbons hydrocarbonsdons of using a hand-held flame ionization detion. Cxiraction test. The concentration then began vapor was highest during the initialstage to stabilize after approximately 30 minutes. Thus, the reported values for hydrocarbons to Table 3 can be expected daring the initial stages bon of in t[he iatioextractedffrom soil vapo the or wells. Table 3 presents the data for hydro r, it is important to note that during the pilot vapor test that approximately 50 cfm of extracted soil vapor was withdrawn from the vadose zone during a total of 6 hours. At the end of the time period there was a measurat�la conte�tranola ed inn of volatile series. This indicates a ather rapid of the two 55-gallon activated carbon canis p consumption of activated carbon even at these low volumetric flow rates. ed or ?,s discussed previous}v, there are two approaches focarbonnabsorpd ng the �t$3$edlonpthe ~ ;1) thermal oxidation or catalytic oxidation, and (2) the monitored hydrocarbon concentrations and the relative sFe4 idoauon abreaknc��taglyticf oxidatioactivated s carbon. the soil vapor treatment approach of thermal recommended. The use of activated carbon for af it n vapor treatment re t ent would resclt in high operation costs due to the frequent replacement t3xtraction flow rates Of ased on the data from Table i and Figures 2. 3, ande of 4. p°toei; ches H2O vacuum. 15j cfm from each manifold line would occur in theses vapor through cite manitolderl line The s,Istem design approach would involvt extracting p e. By extracting vapor and then altercating to other manifold llinesotheafter a e, is ri ed intod of nthe other manifold lines from one manifold fine at vap would be allowed to regenerate hydrocarbon concentrations i the fil enoy as compared oQ of sal} vapor hydrocarbons would performed simultaneous vapor extraction from all three manifolded lines. Bret and Caldwail