Laserfiche WebLink
Report: Groundwater-quality Monitoring—October 27,2004, 7500 West Eleventh Street,Tracy,CA. Page 9 <br /> The groundwater elevations in monitoring wells MW-3A, MW-3B and MW-12A were <br /> not considered when the groundwater contours were drawn because the differences <br /> between the elevations of the groundwater in Wells MW-3, MW-3A and MW-3B and in <br /> MW-12 and MW-12A are sufficiently great to indicate that the groundwater monitored <br /> by the shallow well at the locations of each of those well clusters has a different <br /> piezometric pressure from that of the deeper wells in the same cluster. It must therefore <br /> ' be assumed that, at least locally, the shallow wells monitor aquifers different from those <br /> monitored by the deeper wells. During the October 2004 sampling round, the piezometric <br /> level in Monitoring Well MW-3A, with an aquifer in the approximate interval 27 ft to 32 <br /> ` ft. BGS in the area around Monitoring Well MW-3, was 0.04 ft. lower than that in <br /> Monitoring Well MW-3, although the piezometric head in Monitoring Well MW-12A <br /> was 0.09 ft. higher than that in Monitoring Well MW-12. The groundwater level in <br /> Monitoring Well MW-3B,which is screened in an aquifer the top of which is some 37 ft. <br /> BGS, was 1.46 ft. higher than that in Monitoring Well MW-3, which is screened in the <br /> shallow,near-surface aquifer. <br /> On October 27, 2004, 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 /> remained substantially unchanged from the north-northeasterly direction that has <br /> prevailed since depths to groundwater were first measured in May 2000, <br /> 11 <br /> 2.2 Purging of Groundwater-quality Monitoring Wells <br /> After the depths to groundwater in the 22 groundwater-quality monitoring wells to be <br /> sampled were measured on October 27, 2004, a small-diameter, submersible pump was <br /> used to purge each of stagnant water. The pumped water was discharged into 5-gallon , <br /> pails, each of which was, in turn, discharged into a 55-gallon drum. The water in the i <br /> drum was periodically discharged into a 1,100-gallon holding tank on the 7500 West <br /> Eleventh Street property. i <br /> ` During the purging procedure, the temperature and electrical conductivity of the stream <br /> of purge water were monitored by checking those parameters periodically using a multi- <br /> function electronic meter. Purging continued until both parameters stabilized (Le., { <br /> G; variations between measurements were less than 10%) or, in the case of wells screened <br /> above the water table, until aminimum of 15 gallons of groundwater had been removed, <br /> whichever was greater. The array of parametric results for each well is recorded in SJC's <br /> ' field notes (see Field Notes, Appendix A). <br /> �k <br /> Inspection of the temperature and conductivity data in the field notes shows that both <br /> parameters stabilized to within plus or minus 10% after the first few measurements were <br /> - made on the purge water discharged from each well. This parametric stability is sufficient <br /> to demonstrate adequate well purging according to criteria suggested by the SJCEHD <br /> (San Joaquin County Public Health Services 2000). However, it is SJC's. standard <br /> practice when purging shallow monitoring wells that have casings slotted in the zone <br /> i <br /> above the water table at sites where groundwater is affected by analytes of concern that <br /> A sic <br />