Sam Ziemann From - Region of Waterloo

More documents

Recommendations

Info

HYDROGEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTSTRANGE STREET WATER SUPPLY CLASS EA UPDATEREGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOOBackground ReviewMarch 19, 2012• Lotowater recommended performing ongoing monitoring and service in order to maintain thewell performance, and installing a larger pump in order to meet the well’s permitted capacity.2.6.2 Production Well K11AThe as-constructed performance at Production Well K11A was completed in March, 2007 byLotowater and is documented in Burnside (2007). The specific capacity of the well followinginstallation was 6.8 L/s/m of drawdown at a pumping rate of 60 L/s. In March 2010, theperformance of the well was checked again and found to be 6.3 L/s/m of drawdown at apumping rate of 60 L/s, which was 93% of the as-constructed performance. A video inspectionindicated that the casing and screen were in good condition with no build-up or blockagesobserved.Production Well K11A was commissioned in October 2011.2.6.3 Production Well K13Production Well K13 was most recently evaluated in October and November of 2009 byLotowater (Lotowater, 2010a). During this evaluation, it was noted that well performancedecreased significantly since construction in 1946, and the well is currently performing atapproximately 21% of its as-constructed capacity. The well is currently capable of producing12 L/s.2.6.4 Former Production Well K15Production Well K15 has not been used for municipal drinking water supply since the 1990’sand most recently was operated by the City of Kitchener for non-potable water purposes.Production Well K15 was recently evaluated by Lotowater in February of 2011 (Lotowater,2011b) (Appendix C). During this investigation, the submersible pump was found to be in poorcondition and was permanently removed. A video inspection showed a substantial amount ofbuild-up on the well casing. Foreign objects consisting of scrap wire and a 1 m section of pipewere also found within the well. Based on these findings it was determined that the foreignobjects should be removed from the well, and the well should be abandoned using acombination of bentonite grout and concrete.2.6.5 Production Well K18Production Well K18 was most recently evaluated by Lotowater (2010) and the well capacitywas near as-constructed performance. A significant amount of build-up was noted on thescreen and was removed using a combination of mechanical brushing and a weak acid solution.The pump was de-staged to allow pumping to the Strange St. Reservoir and is available to bebrought back online when needed.2.10 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, 20122.6.6 Production Well K19Production Well K19 was evaluated by International Water Supply (IWS) from December 2007to February 2008 (IWS, 2009). At the time, the specific capacity of the well was 2.2 L/s/m ofdrawdown at a pumping rate of 43 L/s, compared to the as-constructed specific capacity of3.2 L/s/m of drawdown at a pumping rate of 51.3 L/s, with an as-constructed pumping rate inexcess of 60 L/s. Sand production was also noted at pumping rates above 38 L/s.Rehabilitation efforts performed by IWS were unsuccessful in restoring lost capacity.As a result of the IWS evaluation, additional diagnostic testing was recommended (Stantec,2010a). Lotowater completed pre-rehabilitation step-testing on March 9, 2010 (Appendix C),and determined that the well’s performance was approximately 65% of the as-constructedperformance (Lotowater, 2010b). Extensive well rehabilitation was performed, andpost-rehabilitation testing determined that the well’s performance had improved to within 80% ofthe original as-constructed performance, and would be capable of operating at up to 52 L/s.The well is currently back in service.2.7 WATER QUALITYAvailable historical and current water quality trends from production wells and monitoring wellswithin the Strange Street Well Field were reviewed and compared to the Ontario Drinking WaterStandards (ODWS). The results are documented in Technical Memorandum A1 – StrangeStreet Well Field Water Quality Assessment which is provided in Appendix D for reference. Keyparameters of interest within the aquifer included chloride, sodium, iron, manganese, sulphateand nitrate. Consistent with other production wells throughout the Region, all monitoring andproduction wells exhibit elevated hardness. Volatile organic compounds were not detectedwithin any of the wells sampled during the 2010 field program. A summary of the water qualityparameters of interest for the Strange Street Well Field are summarized below, with datasummarized in Figure 5.2.7.1 Chloride and SodiumAn increasing trend in chloride has been noted in all the existing and former Production Wellswithin the Strange Street Well Field (Figure 5). Chloride concentrations exceeding the ODWSAesthetic Objective (AO) of 250 milligrams per litre (mg/L) were observed at ProductionWell K10A with concentrations of chloride at Production Wells K11 and K13 less than 150 mg/L(Figure 5). A similar upward trend was noted in the concentration of sodium, suggesting thatwinter road salt activities are the likely source of the impacts. It also suggests that the watercaptured by the production wells may be recharging locally, particularly in the eastern end of thewell field. Water quality analysis at monitoring wells throughout the well field found elevatedchloride and sodium in select wells (Stantec, 2000; Appendix D).hls v:\01609\active\161110897_strange_st\planning\report\final hydrogeo assessment\final\fnl_rpt_120319.docx 2.11
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?