Laserfiche WebLink
Report: Groundwater-qualio,Monitoring—January 20,2003: 7500 West Eleventh Street, Tracy, CA. Page 7 <br /> The groundwater elevations presented in Table 1 were used to generate the groundwater <br /> ' contours shown on Figure 2. However, because, as is noted in Table 2, an apparent 0.32 <br /> .t <br /> ft. of floating product was detected in Monitoring Well MW-7, the groundwater elevation <br /> in that well was corrected for the purpose of drawing the groundwater contours to allow <br /> for the depression of the water table in the vicinity of that well by the hydrocarbon fuel <br /> i products floating on the surface of the water. The correction was derived as follows: <br /> Assume Specific Gravity of Diesel= 0.84 <br /> Assume Specific Gravity of Gasoline= 0.74 <br /> Assume relative proportions of diesel and gasoline in the floating product in Monitoring <br /> } Well MW-7 are in the same ratio as the concentrations of diesel and gasoline in the <br /> sample of groundwater recovered from that well on December 13, 2001. They were, <br /> respectively, 800,000 µg/L and 61,000 µg/L. (See Table 2.) <br /> Thus, the estimated specific gravity of the floating product in well MW-7 is: <br /> PP = 0.83 <br /> The depression in the elevation of the water table due to the presence of floating product <br /> is given by: <br /> W=T (pp/PW) (Equation 1) <br /> Where: <br /> W= the depression of the water table <br /> T = the thickness of floating product in the monitoring well <br /> pW = the specific gravity of the groundwater <br /> Pp= the specific gravity of the floating product <br /> 4'.<. Thus, in the case of the floating product measured in well MW-7 on January 20, 2003: <br /> W= 0.32 (0.83/1.0) = 0.27 ft. <br /> Accordingly, when drawing the contours shown on Figure 2, the elevation of the <br /> groundwater in well MW-7 was based on an assumed depth to groundwater of 9.33 ft. <br /> rather than the depth of 9.60 ft. actually measured. This yields a corrected groundwater <br /> table elevation of 38.89 ft. MSL (which is shown on Figure 2) compared to the <br /> uncorrected value of 38.62 ft MSL given in Table 1. <br /> 1 <br /> sic <br />