| Tweet |
Custom Search
|
|
|
||
 Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Remediation Survey
Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction
Page 7
3.
Regulatory Provisions
a.
Permitting:
No air discharge permit was required because air
emissions were below de minimis standards of the
Utah
Division of Air Quality
b.
Monitoring:
Collect air samples from venting emissions stack &
laboratory analysis for TPH (total petroleum
hydrocarbons) and benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene,
xylene,
and naphthalene (BTEXN)-Weekly for first
two months;
monthly thereafter
4.
Design Tools:
5.
Remediation Hardware:
6.
Capital Cost:
7.
Operating and Maintenance Cost:
Also:
3 downgradient extraction (pumping) wells installed to a depth of 20 ft &
1
upgradient injection galley (former tank excavation backfilled with pea gravel); GW extraction rate
@ 10 gpm
V.
TECHNOLOGY PERFORMANCE
A.
Remediation Technology Choice
1.
Other Remediation Technologies Considered for this Site:
None
2.
Why was Air Sparging with SVE Chosen over Other Technologies?
Cost effective/Suitable site conditions/Need for rapid cleanup
SVE chosen for protection from vapor migration into building only
Remediation Technologies used at this Site in addition to Air Sparging with SVE: GW
3.
recirculation for plume containment (i.e. extraction and reinjection at source w/o surface
treatment)
B.
Operation of Air Sparging with SVE
1.
Duration:
March 1992-September 1993
(11 mo. for all contaminants except naphthalene 18 mo. for
naphthalene)
2.
Other:
|
 
|
|
|
||
