Laserfiche WebLink
Report: Groundwater-gualio)Monitoring—January 20,2003: 7500 West Eleventh Street, Tracy, CA. Page 8 <br /> In addition, the groundwater elevations in Wells MW-3A, MW-3B and MW-12A were <br /> not considered when the groundwater contours were drawn because, although small in <br /> magnitude, differences between the elevations of the groundwater in wells MW-3, MW- <br /> - 3A and MW-3B and in MW-12 and MW-12A are sufficiently great to indicate that the <br /> groundwater monitored by the shallow well at the locations of each of those well clusters <br /> has different pieziometric pressures than that of the deeper wells in the same cluster and <br /> therefore must be assumed, at least locally, to monitor aquifers different from that <br /> monitored by the shallow wells. <br /> On January 20, 2003, the mean groundwater gradient in the shallow, near-surface aquifer <br /> beneath the site was approximately 0.003 ft/ft. Although there were some minor changes <br /> in the details of the groundwater elevation contours, the direction of groundwater flow <br /> s remained substantially unchanged from the north-northeasterly direction that has <br /> prevailed since depths to groundwater were first measured in May 2000. <br /> 2.2 Purging of Monitoring Wells <br /> ; "1 After the depths to groundwater were measured, a small-diameter, submersible pump was <br /> used to purge each groundwater-quality monitoring well of stagnant water. The pumped <br /> water was discharged into 5-gallon pails, each of which was, in turn, discharged into an <br /> open-topped, 55-gallon drum for temporary storage at the well-head. <br /> During the purging procedure, the temperature, electrical conductivity and pH of the <br /> stream of purge water were monitored by periodically checking those parameters using a <br /> multi-function electronic meter. Purging continued until all three parameters stabilized, <br /> (i.e., variations between measurements were less than 10%) or, in the case of wells <br /> ._ screened above the water table, until a minimum of 15 gallons of groundwater had been <br /> removed, whichever was greater. The array of parametric results for each well was <br /> recorded in field notes. (See Field Notes, Appendix A) <br /> E�r <br /> Inspection of the temperature, conductivity and pH data in the field notes shows that all <br /> three parameters stabilized to within plus or minus 10% after the first few measurements <br /> were made on the purge water discharged from each well. This parametric stability is <br /> sufficient to demonstrate adequate well purging according to criteria suggested by the <br /> SJCEHD (San Joaquin County Public Health Services 2000). However, it is SJC's <br /> }_ standard practice when purging shallow monitoring wells that have casings slotted in the <br /> zone above the water table at sites where groundwater is affected by analytes of concern <br /> that are lighter than water, regardless of the temperature, conductivity and pH data <br /> obtained to purge a minimum quantity of groundwater equal to the casing volume plus <br /> the void space in the annular filter pack between the casing and the borehole wall. That <br /> volume (in this case, 15 gallons) is much greater than the three to five casing volumes <br /> that is often erroneously considered to be sufficient to purge adequately a well of that <br /> type and it is almost always greater than the volume that would be permissible based on <br /> the physical properties of the purge water alone. <br /> sic <br />