Laserfiche WebLink
CWbguaLTechnics lac. Page 14 <br /> Dual Phase Extraction Pilot Test Report <br /> Project No 662 2 <br /> February 22, 2005 <br /> The highest concentrations were measured when vapor only was extracted from EW-2 As <br /> water was extracted from EW-1 the vapor concentrations fell as more vacuum was applied to <br /> ' removing water from the increased depth of the deeper well GTI used the laboratory data in <br /> conjunction with the extraction rates in Table 5 to determine the amount of contanunant mass <br /> removed by vapor extraction during the test <br /> ' As shown in Table 7 in Appendix A the vapor extraction system removed 0 13 kg or 0 05 <br /> gallons of gasoline range petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH-G) during the week long period It <br /> ' is noted that this amount includes some TPH-G separated (volatilized) out of groundwater by <br /> the liquid ring pump process <br /> 6.2 Groundwater Extraction <br /> Groundwater samples were obtained during the test from two locations from the treatment <br /> ' system discharge port which is located after the liquid ring pump water/vapor separation <br /> process, and from well EW-1 using a disposable Teflon bailer at the end of the test The <br /> ' laboratory results of these samples are included in Table 4 and summarized in the following <br /> table <br /> Extraction Date Time Benzene Toluene Ethyl Xylene MTBE TPH-G <br /> Well Benzene <br /> pg/I I I <br /> tEW-2 1216104 1345 <5 5.2 <5 11 1800 2200 <br /> 1216104 1600 <5 7.1 61 29 1200 1400 <br /> 1216104 2359 <5 <5 <5 12 990 1200 <br /> t12/7/04 0800 <5 <5 <5 <5 910 1000 <br /> Avg TPH-G 1450 <br /> ' EW-1 &EW-2 1217/04 1600 <1 <1 <1 12 200 220 <br /> 1217104 2359 <1 <1 <1 <1 190 250 <br /> 1218104 0800 <1 <1 <1 <1 210 240 <br /> ' 1218/04 1600 <1 <1 <1 <1 260 300 <br /> 1218/04 2359 <1 <1 <1 <1 160, 180 <br /> ' 12/9/04 0800 <1 <1 <1 <1 170 200 <br /> Avg TPH-G 232 <br /> EW-1 bailer 12/10/04 17 00 <i <1 <1 <1 230 210 <br /> The contamination decreased by nearly 50% as extraction continued overnight in EW-2 The <br /> drop in contaminant values recorded when extraction from EW-1 commenced indicates that <br /> ' the cleaner "deep" water probably diluted the shallower concentrations seen in EW-2 <br /> Another possibility is that the shallower well dewatered and this is why the combined <br /> effluents have lower concentrations <br />