ARCHIVED REPORTS_XR0003609 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

' necessary on all equipment • ' SYSTEM OPERATION OVERVIFW ' During the first two weeks of operation, ASE was on-site daily Although the system operated while at the site, it appeared to automatically shut down due to a high tank level alarm ASE identified and replaced the ' source of the problem, a faulty level switch, and the system began operating more regularly ' During the first week of operation, ASE conducted a drawdown test extracting water only from recovery wells RW-1 and RW-3, because these wells have depth-to-water piezometers in the same borehole and are ' screened identical to the recovery well ASE attempted to identify the total drawdown capable in these wells while extracting approximately 10 ' gallons per minute (gpm) from these wells The drawdown over a 3 hour period of pumping from only these wells was approximately 1 25-feet in recovery well RW-1 and 1 5-feet in recovery well RW-3 This drawdown ' was significantly less tan that observed during the pumping tests During the third week of operation, ASE conducted a test to determine if a pumping rate of 2 gpm would cause a radius of influence of at least 20- feet ASE performed this test by measuring the depth to water in all ' recovery wells and surrounding monitoring wells on a Monday, after the system had been off for the weekend Then all recovery wells, except for RW-2 were turned on to a rate estimated at S gpm from the four wells in operation (2 gpm per well) The following day, after the system operated for 24 hours, the depth to water was measured in RW-2 and the surrounding wells The data verified that at this extraction rate, the recovery well capture zone radius of influence was in excess of 20-feet This was primarily proved by the depth to water in recovery well RW-2 showing a drop in elevation of 019 feet, this recovery well is 32-feet from recovery well RW-1 and 24-feet from RW-3 At the end of the third week, ASE observed the pressure in carbon vessel #1 was operating at a higher than normal pressure, while carbon vessels 2 and 3 showed very little pressure For some reason, carbon vessel # 1 appeared to be clogged Upon viewing the inside of the vessel, ASE determined that the bottom drain line was clogged Therefore, ASE began backflushing carbon vessel #1 on a regular basis to relieve the buildup of Ipressure • Frank's One Stop Remediation System Monthly Report — October 2000 I 2