Laserfiche WebLink
10 4. CONCLUSIONS <br />' The following can be concluded based on the air sparging test conducted on 8 September 2004 <br /> The air flow rate per well during the air sparging pilot test ranged from 13 2 to 15 5 scfln <br /> and the applied pressure stabilized at 6 psi <br />' • DO in sparging well WB-MW 1 increased from 0 78 mg/l before the test to 2 69 mg/l <br /> after the test DO in other observation wells did not change significantly during the test <br /> This could be due to a high oxygen demand in the subsurface <br /> • A rise in ORP was observed in most observation wells during the air sparging This may <br /> indicate that air sparging influenced these wells An increase in ORP was observed at a <br /> distance of 62 5 feet from injection well SW1 and at 43 5 feet from infection well <br /> UVB-MW 1 <br /> • During the air sparging tests, up to 13 wells were monitored for induced pressure When <br /> well SWI was sparged, induced pressure was observed in 11 wells, and when <br /> WB-MW 1 was sparged, induced pressure was observed in 2 wells The absence of <br /> induced pressure could be due to short-circuiting through wells UVB and UVB-MW2 <br /> • The induced pressure observed was not significant compared to the infection pressure <br /> Therefore, induced pressure could not be used effectively to estimate the radius of <br /> influence of air sparging <br /> • MTBE concentrations were not detected in the groundwater samples collected from well <br /> V3 before and after the test as analyzed by Method 8260B TPH-g concentrations were <br /> 28,400 pg/L before the test and 39,000 µg/L after the test <br /> • The observations of the pilot test indicate that compressed air can be effectively injected <br /> into the subsurface at the site and distributed laterally <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I � <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> 0 <br /> G\Pmjecu\739421MASTER\WP\ASR0904\ASPTR VS dM 6 <br />