Laserfiche WebLink
' Table 7 <br /> Phase II Permanent Well Analytical Results <br /> Parameter Units MW-9A MW-10A MW-11A <br /> General Chemistry <br /> Bicarbonate mg/L 130 110 480 <br /> ' Carbonate mg/L ND ND ND <br /> Chloride mg/L 420 240 240 <br /> Nitrate as Nitrogen mg/L 34 25 5.9 <br /> Sulfate mg/L 68 44 100 <br /> Total Dissolved Solids mg/L 1100 670 990 <br /> Metals <br /> Calcium,dissolved mg/L 90 58 100 <br /> Magnesium,dissolved mg/L 36 22 37 <br /> Potassium,dissolved mg/L 13 8.5 9.4 <br /> Sodium, dissolved mg/L 220 140 190 <br /> Volatile Organic Compounds <br /> Benzene µg/l_ ND ND 0.12(trace) <br /> cis-1,2-Dichloroethene µg/l_ ND ND 0.26(trace) <br /> Dichlorodifluoromethane µg/L 0.30(trace) 0.45(trace) 1.1 <br /> Methyl-t-butyl ether µg/l_ 0.18(trace) 0.12 (trace) ND <br /> Tetrachloroethene µg/L I ND 0.31(trace) 0.21(trace) <br /> Trichloroethene pg/L ND ND 0.13(trace) <br /> Trichlorofluoromethane µg/L 1.1 ND ND <br /> 4.4.7 Aquifer Testing <br /> Bail-down and recovery data were collected during well development to assess the <br /> hydraulic properties of the upper aquifer. Appendix E1 presents time-series charts <br /> plotting changes in water level throughout well development, sampling, and post- <br /> sampling recovery. These charts show the drop in water level over time as the wells <br /> were bailed. The periodic drops and rises in water level shown on the graphs represent <br /> momentary changes in groundwater pressure head induced by the introduction and <br /> extraction of the bailer. All of the wells recover slowly as indicated by the falling water <br /> elevations versus time while the wells were bailed. An average groundwater extraction <br /> rate was calculated for each well by dividing the entire volume of water extracted by the <br /> Ltime interval over which bailing occurred. <br /> Groundwater recovery data were recorded during and after well development to <br /> calculate aquifer conductivity using the Theis recovery method (Theis, 1935). Due to the <br /> uneven rate of groundwater extraction during development (as illustrated on the time- <br /> series charts), use of the drawdown data to calculate hydraulic conductivity was not <br /> attempted. Calculation of hydraulic conductivity from well recovery data is generally <br /> regarded to be more reliable than drawdown analyses because it is difficult to maintain <br /> ' a truly constant discharge rate while extracting water from a well. <br /> EMP Report—Phase II Geo-Logic Page â–  15 <br /> Corral Hollow Sanitary Landfill ASSOCIATES <br /> August 21,2012 <br />