Laserfiche WebLink
3) continuing to evaluate alternate cleanup levels and the current risk posed by the contamination <br /> (very large savings possible), <br /> 4) reducing or eliminating flows from selected wells, such as E-1 and E-5 ($49,000 annually), <br /> and determining flow contributed from various depths in the multiple-screened-interval extraction wells, <br /> 5) evaluating the compatibility of the submersible pump motors with the current variable <br /> frequency drive controller equipment, possibly bypassing the VFD controller for wells that are normally <br /> running at full frequency(possibly$38,000 per year if pump motor maintenance interval can be <br /> doubled), <br /> 6) using diffusion samplers instead of traditional monitoring well sampling techniques ($30,000 <br /> annually), <br /> 7) consider pumping water directly from the wells to the air stripper and bypassing the surge tank <br /> and transfer pumps (at least $7,000 annually, not considering the reduced maintenance of the pumps and <br /> the replacement costs for the pumps at some point in the future), <br /> 8) monitoring head losses in infection well piping to determine the degree of <br /> scaling/precipitation, if any, <br /> 9) switching to current analytical methods, reducing the number of analytes, use electronic data <br /> transfer ($4,500 annually), <br /> 10) modifying the air stripper packing and blower configuration to account for the significantly <br /> lower than anticipated influent concentrations ($3,600-4,000 annually), <br /> 11) adding a remote pump restart capability(perhaps $6,000 in labor cost, annually), and <br /> 12) adding more protection for the conduit to the extraction well heads to avoid damage from <br /> cattle (perhaps a thousand dollars annually) <br /> 06/07/99 <br /> Page 14 of 14 <br />