Sam Ziemann From - Region of Waterloo

More documents

Recommendations

Info

HYDROGEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTSTRANGE STREET WATER SUPPLY CLASS EA UPDATEREGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOOBackground ReviewMarch 19, 2012• Production Well K11 was constructed in 1942. Due to declines in well performance,Production Well K11 was replaced with Production Well K11A in 2007 (Burnside, 2007).Production Well K11A was commissioned in October 2011;• Production Well K13 was constructed in 1946 following the completion of a test drillingprogram on the former Bauer Farm property. Production Well K13 is currently used as awater supply source;• Production Well K18 was constructed in 1975 following the completion of a test drillingprogram on the Westmount Golf & Country Club in 1974. Production Well K18 is currentlyused as a water supply source for both the Region and as an irrigation source for theWestmount Golf & Country Club; and• Production Well K19 was constructed in 2005 on the Westmount Golf & Country Clubproperty following a test drilling program (Stantec, 2005) and is presently used as a watersupply source.A summary of the Production Well details are provided in Table 1. All of the existing ProductionWells are completed within Aquifer 1 (AFB2) at depths typically ranging from 17 m BGS to38 m BGS. Production Wells K10A, K11, K13 and K18/K19 were all constructed with adouble-walled gravel packed well screen.The Strange Street Well Field is governed by a single Permit To Take Water (3058-7JCLBY)that allows for combined pumping from Production Wells K10A, K11A, K13, K18 and K19 at amaximum pumping rate of 11,467 L/min and a maximum daily taking of 16,512.48 m 3 /day.2.5 AQUIFER ASSESSMENTThe Class EA hydrogeologic assessment completed in 2000 by Stantec included an evaluationof the sustainable yield of the aquifer within the Strange Street Well Field, identified locations forpotential new production wells, and confirmed water quality of production wells.Stantec (2000) evaluated the long-term aquifer yield based on the combined informationobtained from historical water level data, aquifer testing results, and the groundwater flowmodeling completed using the Waterloo Moraine Model. The data was used to assess thedrawdown under known pumping conditions and to complete theoretical calculations of aquiferresponse and the required recharge to balance pumping. The long-term sustainable yield ofAquifer 1 (ATB1) in the K10A, K11, K13, and K18 area was estimated to be 100 L/s to 120 L/s(Stantec, 2000).Stantec (2000) also reviewed groundwater quality results which were compared to the ODWS.Manganese, hardness, total dissolved solids, and occasionally iron were the main parametersdetected within the production wells above applicable ODWS. These parameters are either2.8 hls v:\01609\active\161110897_strange_st\planning\report\final hydrogeo assessment\final\fnl_rpt_120319.docx
HYDROGEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTSTRANGE STREET WATER SUPPLY CLASS EA UPDATEREGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOOBackground ReviewMarch 19, 2012aesthetic objectives or operational guidelines under the ODWS and are not related to healthconcerns. No volatile organic compounds were detected at concentrations at or evenapproaching the ODWS. In general, the water quality at Production Wells K12 and K17 waspoor in comparison to wells K10A, K11, K13, and K18. Chloride represented the mainparameter of concern with respect to long term water quality, mainly because treatment ofchloride is not currently practical.2.6 WELL PERFORMANCEThe most recent well performance information for each municipal well is provided below. Someof this work was completed as part of this Class EA Update and the rest was completed as partof the Region’s routine Well Maintenance Program. Copies of the most recent completedreports for Production Wells K10A, K15 and K19 are provided in Appendix C.2.6.1 Production Well K10AWell performance evaluation at Production Well K10A was completed by Lotowater fromNovember 2008 to May 2009 (Lotowater, 2009). The key outcomes of this evaluation included:• The structural integrity of the well was restored through the installation of a new stainlesssteel liner as well as upgrades to the wellhead and discharge connections; and• In an effort to improve well performance, an acid-based cleaning solution was injected andsurged into the well, but no significant increase in well performance was achieved. Resultingwell capacity was 58% of the as-constructed capacity, and it was thought that the wellshould be able to produce 12 L/s to 15 L/s, where historically the well could produce 25 L/sto 30 L/s.Additional well rehabilitation and testing was subsequently conducted by Lotowater in January,2011 (Lotowater, 2011a) (Appendix C). The key outcomes of this testing program included:• A multi-phase physical and chemical rehabilitation program was undertaken which includedchemical injection of a polyphosphate solution, an acid-based cleaning solution, and areducing agent, all aimed at removing buildup on the well screen in an attempt to restorewell performance. The combination of these treatments proved effective, with the acidtreatment providing the greatest improvement in well performance;• Following treatment, the well was restored to approximately 77% of its as-constructedperformance levels. The well should now be capable of pumping up to its permitted rate of26.5 L/s, however, it is limited by the pump, which is capable of operating up to a maximumflow rate of approximately 20 L/s; andhls v:\01609\active\161110897_strange_st\planning\report\final hydrogeo assessment\final\fnl_rpt_120319.docx 2.9
Page 2 and 3: August 26, 2011Sam ZiemannPage 2 of
Page 10 and 11: August 26, 2011Sam ZiemannPage 10 o
Page 12 and 13: August 26, 2011Sam ZiemannPage 12 o
Page 14 and 15: Pressure (kPa)K18/K19 Well House to
Page 16 and 17: Figure 4a - Existing ConditionsPump
Page 18 and 19: Figure 6a - Existing System w/Combi
Page 20 and 21: Figure 8a - Existing ConditionsWell
Page 22 and 23: Figure 10a - Future System w/Combin
Page 24 and 25: MD-80 CATALYTIC MEDIAIRON, MANGANES
Page 26 and 27: NR - Pressure FiltersHorizontal and
Page 28 and 29: Napier-Reid Ltd.Pressure FiltersSal
Page 30 and 31: APPENDIX EHydrogeological Assessmen
Page 32 and 33: HYDROGEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTSTRANGE S
Page 70: HYDROGEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTSTRANGE S
Page 78 and 79: 25Pumping Rate20Pumping Rate (L/s)1
Page 82 and 83: TABLE 2SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ANALY
Page 84 and 85: CALCULATION OF SPECIFIC CAPACITY FR
Page 111 and 112:
March 2, 2011Reference: 006-189Stan
Page 113 and 114:
TABLE 1REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WAT
Page 132 and 133:
HYDROGEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTSTRANGE S
Page 134 and 135:
July 23, 2010Lisa Lachuta, P.Eng.Pa
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140:
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM A1 -STRANGE ST
Page 143 and 144:
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM A1 -STRANGE ST
Page 145:
TABLE 1SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ANALY
show all

Sam Ziemann From - Region of Waterloo

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?