Laserfiche WebLink
Vapor Extraction Pilot Study -3- 24 July 1991 <br /> DDRW, Sharpe <br /> an infiltration system for recharge verses an infiltration system for remediation would <br /> be dramatically different. <br /> I have a few other concerns and comments which are discussed below. <br /> 1. The proposed location for the DRI tests are either in or adjacent to soil <br /> contaminated areas. Based on these locations, I am led to believe that Sharpe will <br /> be using these results for a potential remedial action rather than for disposal of <br /> the treated effluent. <br /> 2. Because only the upper two feet of the soil column are used in the DRI test, the <br /> infiltration rate calculated from the test should only be considered as <br /> representative of the particular type of soil in which the test is performed and <br /> not representative of the entire unsaturated zone which has variable interbedded <br /> lithologies. <br /> 3. Sharpe may want to consider obtaining infiltration rates derived from other <br /> methods, such as laboratory tests, prior to designing an infiltration gallery. <br /> 4. The Work Plan did not indicate what type of liquid would be used for the DRI tests. <br /> If one of the goals is to determine whether infiltration galleries for the disposal <br /> of the treated effluent are feasible, then it may be beneficial to use the treated <br /> effluent in the tests. <br /> My major concerns with the DRI tests were also discussed with Mr. MacPhee on 19 July <br /> 1991 . These comments on the DRI tests were intended as a "heads-up" regarding <br /> regulatory concerns that will come with a proposal to construct a flush and treat soil <br /> remediation system. <br /> CKW:cw <br />