Laserfiche WebLink
8..4 Air Spargi,ng Test. <br /> On September 26, 2001, ASE senior project manager David Allen, in <br /> conjunction with personnel of Environmental Techniques of Huntington <br /> Beach, California, conducted an air sparging test at the site. The test was <br /> designed to inject air into air sparging well AS-1 using a blower powered <br /> by the power take-off of a 6-cylinder ICE, measure the amount of air <br /> flowing into AS-1, and determine if that air would influence the pressure <br /> in nearby monitoring wells. Just prior to the injection of air into AS-1, <br /> observation wells MW-2, MW-3, MW-4 and EW-I were fitted with sealed <br /> caps and pressure gauges to record any increase in pressure within these <br /> wells located at various distances from the injection well. An initial <br /> background pressure reading was taken from the four observation wells <br /> prior to the beginning of the test. <br /> Beginning at a time of 1315, the blower began delivering air into the air <br /> sparging well at a rate of 3 cfm at 6.6 pounds per square inch {psi}. <br /> Pressure levels in the four surrounding observation wells were measured <br /> to determine whether there was any pressure increase in the vadose zone. <br /> At the beginning of the test, AS-1 was not allowing a signifi-can-t volume of <br /> - air into the subsurface due to low-permeable geologic conditions. The <br /> ✓ power of the ICE was increased at various intervals, which increased t h e <br /> psi of the injected air and thus allowed for a measurable amount of air to <br /> flow into AS-1. After a short time, all of the observation wells showed a <br /> slight increase in pressure and groundwater elevation. <br /> Because the vapor extraction test proved that this technology was n o t <br /> suited for this site, the air sparging test was conducted for only a short <br /> period of time. In that amount of time, however, a slight increase in <br /> positive pressure and groundwater elevation mounding in each of the <br /> observation wells was measured. The air sparging test data is included in <br /> Appendix M. <br /> 9 . 0 REMEDIAL OPTIONS <br /> The following lists typical remediation options for soil and groundwater <br /> contamination from petroleum-hydrocarbons currently in use in northern <br /> California. <br /> 9 . 1 Soil Overexcavation <br /> This remedial option involves the excavation of contaminated soil and <br /> either treating the soil on-site or transporting the soil to an off-site <br /> 574 West Grant Line Road CAP — January 2002 <br /> -16- <br />