Laserfiche WebLink
Antonia Vorster -4- 4 April 1990 <br /> were spiked and to which data this sample relates. Also, duplicate results for <br /> samples from wells 17-A and 18-B are very disparate, which places these and <br /> associated results in question. <br /> 5. Regarding the well cycling test, it appears that the Simpson test overlapped the <br /> Nestle test. Did this affect the results? Were any of the data plotted compare <br /> to each other or drawdown curves? Were drawdown data adjusted for antecedent <br /> trends based on background well data? <br /> The cycling test data may be useful in determining present influences and <br /> estimating interferences to an extraction or injection system. However, actual <br /> long-term aquifer testing will be necessary to design an extraction, control , <br /> and/or injection system for remediation. Future plans should consider this <br /> requirement. <br /> 6. The RI report mentioned that some monitoring wells were resurveyed which affected <br /> the recent water level measurements. It was clear, however, if past water level <br /> data was adjusted accordingly. Also, two new municipal wells, MW-8 and 9, have <br /> been mentioned. The locations of these wells need to be included in the report. <br /> If the wells can possibly influence the contamination plume, they must be included <br /> in the required quarterly sampling program. <br /> 7. When purging monitoring wells, the placement of the pump in relation to the <br /> screened interval and sampling point is very important. The purge pump should <br /> be positioned, and progressively lowered when necessary, so that all stagnant <br /> water is removed if a bailer is used to sample from the top of the well . If a <br /> true depth sampler is used, the same effort of purging is not required. <br /> GAR:ej <br />