ARCHIVED REPORTS_XR0007233 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

3.4 Monitoring Well Sampling and Surveying On January 26, 1994, the water levels in all six wells were measured relative to the top of the casing using a Solinst water level meter The depths were re-checked on February 16 On February 14, 1994, the casing elevation of MW-5 and MW-6 was surveyed relative to monitoring well MW-3 Monitoring well MW-3 was assigned an arbitrary elevation of 100 00 feet when originally surveyed by AGS in June 1987 The relative piezometric level in each well and hydraulic gradient were determined by subtracting the depth to groundwater from the relative casing elevation (Table 1) ' TABLE 1 RELATIVE GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS ' Relative Depth to Relative Well No Casing Elevation Groundwater Gi oundwater Elevation 1/26/94 2/16/94 1/26/94 2/16/94 MW-1 9962 7258 7252 - 2704 2710 MW-2 9926 7252 7245 2674 2681 MW-3 10000 7300 7292 2700 2708 MW-4 9884 7168 7161 27 16 2723 MW-5 9871 7237 7308 2634 2563 MW-6 9876 7278 7213 - 25 98 2663 • Measurements in feet After water levels were measured, a clean PVC bailer was used to surge and purge each I well Four to 8 gallons of water were removed from each well to stabilize temperature, pH and conductivity (Table 2) The purge water was stored in 55-gallon drums on-site A water sample was collected from each well using a new disposable plastic bailee The samples were collected in 40-m1 EPA vials 3.5 Laboratory Analysis of Soil and Water Samples Selected soil samples were analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH as gasoline) and volatile aromatics (BTE&X)in accordance with EPA methods 8015m and 8020, respectively Water samples were analyzed for TPH as gasoline and BTE&X in accordance with EPA methods 8015m and 602, respectively. r A.dn S< 991.. 6 IL"'.f.,d B"—.QRq 8665 I