Laserfiche WebLink
0,. <br /> ME� - <br /> 2,0 PROCEDURES <br /> Depth to ground water was measured in each well. The well volume was calculated by <br /> adding the casing;volume to the annular volume (assuming a 30 percent porosity). 131aclt <br /> well would be purged of a minimum of three well volumes based on ilia recommendation <br /> of Mr. Harlin Knoll with the County who was in attendance. The minimum amount of <br /> water necessary to purge and the actual approximate amount purged(gallons) for each well <br /> . is listed below. <br /> NVE L 3 WEI_T VOLUME V [_ 1 ER ,En <br /> MW-1 43.5 GO <br /> MW-2 45.5 60 <br /> MW-3 44.2 60 <br /> A submersible pump was used for purging and the pumping rate varied between six ttnd <br /> eight gallons per minute. This rate slightly exceeded the wells' capacity and occasionally <br /> the pump would shut off for a two-minute interval while the well recovered. At three or <br /> four intervals for each well a sample of water was collected and measured for the ground- <br /> water quality parameters of conductivity, pH and temperature. The weil was considered <br /> stabilized when the water ran clear and the paramc.. rs were within 10%of the previously <br /> recorded value. For decontamination, between each well, the pump was run in a drum of <br /> Alconox solution and then a drum of tap water. Purge water was placed in a labeled drum <br /> and left on site. <br /> Disposable hailers were used to sample each well. Three 40-ml VOA bottles and an amber <br /> one-liter bottle were collected from each well. An additional set was collected from MW- <br /> 2 and labeled as a duplicate for quality control. The soil pile near each monitoring well <br /> was sampled and labeled accordingly. All samples were placed in cold storage with a trip <br /> -of-custody to Curtis and Tompkins, a California state <br /> blank and transported by chain - <br /> `' - — : - ----- -- - - - - - --5 <br /> - ..._ p.1,,,�yp]o1ATdTlAnLRPf <br /> 7 <br />