Technical Memorandum To: Mr. Sean McClain, PG San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Mr. Greg Sweel, CHG Department of Toxic Substance Control From: Mr. Truong T. Mai, PE Mr. Gregory J. Wheeler Date: 18 August 2017 Subject: Calculation of Extraction Well System Hydraulic Capture Former Ketema A&E Facility El Cajon, California SL209234198: smcclain Environmental Resources Management 1920 Main Street Suite 300 Irvine CA, 92614 (949) 623-4700 (949) 623-4711 (fax) On behalf of AMETEK, Inc. (AMETEK), ERM-West, Inc. (ERM) has prepared this technical memorandum to summarize the calculations of the potential hydraulic capture by the groundwater extraction well system on the Magnolia Elementary School (MES) property located at 650 Greenfield Drive in El Cajon, California. Figure 1 provides the location of the MES property relative to the Former Ketema A&E Facility (site). The hydraulic capture calculations were performed using the results of the aquifer testing that was conducted at extraction wells EW-1, EW-2, and EW-4, and observation wells OBS-1, OBS-2, and OBS-3 in February 2017 (ERM 2017a, provided as Attachment A for reference), and historical non-pumping water levels measured on the MES property. The remedial objective of the groundwater extraction well system on the MES property is to provide reasonable hydraulic capture and mass removal of the core strength of the trichloroethene (TCE) plume (TCE concentrations greater than 1,000 micrograms per liter [µg/L]) within the decomposed granite (DG) and overlying alluvium/colluvium at the northwest MES property boundary (core strength of the plume). Figure 1 provides the location of the targeted capture of the core strength of the plume. The results of the calculations demonstrate that the remedial objective has been met (Section 5.0). Performance monitoring of the groundwater extraction well system is a part of the objective to demonstrate that capture is maintained. The plan for the performance monitoring is detailed in Section 6.0. The potential hydraulic capture calculations were performed according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency guidelines for evaluation of A member of the Environmental Resources Management Group P A G E 2 extraction well capture zones as outlined in A Systematic Approach for Evaluation of Capture Zones at Pump and Treat Systems (USEPA 2008). Figure 2 provides an illustration of the MES property and the core strength of the plume in the DG and overlying alluvium/colluvium. Extraction well construction details are included in Table 1. EW-3 is no longer used as an extraction well because it dewaters quickly and cannot sustain a steady pumping rate. Extraction of groundwater from EW-3 is not part of this calculation. The extent of the core strength of the plume was updated during the first quarter 2017. The extent illustrated in Figure 2 is smaller than the extent illustrated on Figure 1 of the Technical Memorandum, Hydraulic Conductivity Testing Results (ERM 2017a, Attachment A). The change in the extent of the core strength of the plume is based on the following: • The cross section perpendicular to flow updated with information from groundwater wells MW-47A and MW-47B, indicating that groundwater is not present in the alluvium or DG (Figure 6); and • Recent soil vapor data in the area north of MES, collected in association with the soil vapor intrusion assessment of downgradient residents, indicate low to non-detect concentrations of constituents of concern (COCs; ERM 2017b). 1.0 SITE BACKGROUND Physical Setting The site is located at 790 Greenfield Drive in El Cajon, California (Figure 1). State Route 67 is located approximately 0.5 mile to the west of the site; and Interstate 8 is located approximately 0.75 mile south of the site. The site is approximately 20 acres in size. A site plan with ground surface elevation contours generated from U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) data and site surveys is provided on Figure 1. The ground surface elevation at the site ranges from approximately 464 to 434 feet above mean sea level (MSL) and slopes to the southwest. The northwestern portion of the site flanks a small hill that rises to an elevation of more than 580 feet MSL. There is also a smaller hill along the eastern boundary of the property that rises to an elevation of more than 460 feet MSL. The area surrounding the site is zoned for light industrial and residential use. Current land uses adjacent to the site include residential P A G E 3 developments to the north and east and light industrial/commercial developments to the south. The MES is adjacent to the site’s western property boundary. Geology The site is situated in the El Cajon Valley of the Peninsular Range Geomorphic Province, in the south-central part of San Diego County (California Department of Water Resources [DWR] 1967). The valley is bounded on the east and south by Mesozoic granitoid rocks of the Southern California Batholith (USGS 2004). These rocks are exposed at the surface on the small hills that flank the site on the northwest and east (Figure 1). Based on a review of site borehole logs, the geologic conditions directly beneath the site and MES are characterized by a thin layer of Quaternary alluvium and colluvium comprised mainly of silty sands and sandy silts. The thickness of the alluvium/colluvium varies from less than 1 foot in proximity to the hills on the northwest and eastern site boundaries, to between 10 and 12 feet in the southern portion of the site. West of the site, the alluvium/ colluvium is comprised mainly of silty sand and sand with silt, and increases in thickness to 20 feet or more. Underlying the alluvium/colluvium is DG and granitoid bedrock. Clayfilled, water-producing fractures have been observed beneath and immediately downgradient of the site in the DG and underlying bedrock between approximately 12 and 59 feet below ground surface (bgs). Figure 3 provides a geologic cross section from the eastern boundary of the site parallel to groundwater flow to the targeted capture location at the northwestern boundary of the MES property. Hydrogeology The site is located within the El Cajon Hydrologic Subarea (907.13) of the San Diego Hydrologic Unit (San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board [SDRWQCB] 1994). Groundwater in the El Cajon Hydrologic Subarea reportedly occurs mainly within the Quaternary alluvium and Tertiary sedimentary rocks, and is also produced from fractures in the underlying granitoid bedrock (DWR 1975). Groundwater flow in the El Cajon Valley is to the northwest toward the San Diego River. Groundwater in on-site monitoring wells is present at depths between 11 and 17 feet bgs, within the DG and fractures in the underlying granitoid bedrock. Groundwater levels fluctuate between 1 and 3 feet seasonally. P A G E 4 Groundwater in off-site, downgradient wells is present at similar depths and occurs within the alluvium/colluvium and underlying DG and granitoid bedrock. Groundwater flow is toward the northwest, with horizontal flow gradients ranging between 0.015 and 0.025 feet/feet on the MES property. Measured water levels in on- and off-site nested/clustered monitoring wells do not indicate a consistent upward or downward vertical gradient. Predominantly upward vertical gradients are observed in most on-site well pairs and beneath the adjacent MES. Downward vertical gradients are observed at off-site well pairs in the vicinity of State Route 67, although a slightly upward gradient was observed at new well pair MW-44A/B located farther north along Magnolia Avenue. Farther downgradient beneath Gillespie Field, predominantly upward vertical gradients are observed. Groundwater Use and Quality Groundwater in the El Cajon Valley is reportedly extracted for municipal, domestic, and irrigation supply (Felix et al. 2003). The site receives municipal water; there are no groundwater supply wells on site. Nearby active or potentially active water supply wells within approximately 1 mile of the site are located primarily to the east, south, and west, based on available information from the SDRWQCB, DWR, and San Diego County Department of Environmental Health (DEH). Groundwater in the El Cajon Valley is designated by the SDRWQCB as having beneficial use for municipal and agricultural purposes, and potential beneficial use for industrial and process supplies (SDRWQCB 1994). Groundwater in the valley is generally characterized as sodium chloride in character, with high total dissolved solids (TDS) and nitrate concentrations (DWR 1975). In the 1960s, groundwater beneath and downgradient of the site was rated largely inferior for domestic use because of high nitrate concentrations, and marginal to inferior for irrigation use because of high chloride content (DWR 1967). In the 1970s, high nitrate and TDS concentrations were listed as a cause for impairment for domestic use (DWR 1975). Historical groundwater sampling from on- and off-site monitoring wells indicates that groundwater contains high levels of iron, manganese, sulfate, nitrate, and chloride that exceed SDRWQCB water quality standards (Jones, 1998; SDRWQCB 1994). These constituents are not related to site activities. P A G E 5 Aquifer Testing Aquifer testing that was performed in extraction wells EW-1, EW-2, and EW-4, and observation wells OBS-1, OBS-2, and OBS-3 in February 2017 to obtain estimates of the hydraulic properties of the DG and overlying colluvium/alluvium screened by these wells (ERM 2017a). Rising- and falling-head slug-tests were performed in observation wells OBS-1, OBS-2, and OBS-3. Single-well pumping and recovery tests were performed in extraction wells EW-2 and EW-4. A 48-hour multiple-well, constantdischarge pumping test was also conducted on extraction well EW-1. This well is screened in the DG and lowermost portion of the overlying colluvium/alluvium. For the constant-discharge pumping test, EW-1 was pumped at approximately 14.0 gallons per minute (gpm) for a total test time of 48.3 hours. Water levels in the pumping well and five observation wells (OBS-1, OBS-2, OBS-3, EW-2, and EW-4) screened in DG and overlying colluvium/alluvium were measured during the pumping and recovery portions of the test. The drawdown in water levels recorded in the pumping well and the five observation wells during the constant-discharge test is shown on Figures 4 and 5. A maximum drawdown of approximately 13.2 feet was observed in the pumping well, EW-1, during the pumping test. The observed drawdown in four of the observation wells (OBS-1, OBS-2, OBS-3, and EW-2) ranged between 1.0 and 2.5 feet. No significant drawdown was measured in one observation well, EW-4, during the test. The results of the analyses of the water level drawdown data from the slug tests, single well pumping and recovery tests, and the constantdischarge test of EW-1 are summarized in Table 2. Estimated hydraulic conductivity values from the different tests range from 2.13 to 19.85 feet/day. The geometric mean conductivity value from the observation wells in the EW-1 constant-discharge test is 5.34 feet/day. This conductivity value was used to estimate the potential hydraulic capture of the MES groundwater extraction wells (Section 4.0). Surface Water The nearest mapped surface water body is Forrester Creek, a concretelined, intermittent drainage channel that flows westerly approximately 0.7 mile south of the site, before turning and flowing north-northwesterly approximately 1.2 miles west of the site. There are also two unlined drainage channels west of State Route 67 that merge and flow westward P A G E 6 into Forrester Creek approximately 1.3 miles west-northwest of the site. Surface waters in the El Cajon Valley generally drain northwestward to the San Diego River (DWR 1975), located approximately 3 miles northwest of the site. 2.0 GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION SYSTEM The current groundwater remediation system consists of three off-site extraction wells (EW-1, EW-2, and EW-4) located on the MES property. The treatment system consists of a combination of an air stripper unit, ultraviolet-oxidation unit, and carbon polish (collectively referred to as the system). Groundwater removed from the extraction wells is pumped through underground conveyance lines to the on-site remedial compound where it is treated and discharged. Due to low recharge rates, EW-3 is not operated as an extraction well. EW-3 is currently incorporated into the in situ chemical oxidation (ISCO) monitoring program. Seven on-site extraction wells formerly extracted groundwater from beneath the site. The pumps from the seven former on-site extraction wells (MW-13, MW29B, MW-40, MW-47A, MW-47B, MW-49A, and MW-49B) on the property line between the site and neighboring MES were removed on 27 March 2017 and pumping was temporarily discontinued. The pumps were removed in accordance with the Phase 2 ISCO injection Workplan (ERM 2016), approved by the SDRWQCB, so that the wells could be utilized for ISCO injection. Since the initial start up in October 2012, the system has extracted and treated approximately 13,682,300 gallons of impacted groundwater. Based on the volume of treated groundwater, a total of approximately 407 pounds of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) have been removed since system startup. 3.0 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL Based on the review of available historical information and the results of on-site soil vapor and groundwater investigations summarized in the RI (ERM 2010a), there are three identified source areas for COCs to groundwater at the site: • Former redwood sump (primarily 1,1,1-trichloroethane [1,1,1-TCA] and TCE based on historical data from wells MW-1, MW-2, and MW 3); • Area between Buildings 7, 8, 9, and 10 (primarily TCE and 1,1,1-TCA based on soil vapor results and groundwater data from MW-39); and P A G E • 7 Area beneath the western portion of Building 3 and/or immediately west of Building 3 (primarily tetrachloroethene [PCE] and TCE based on soil vapor results and groundwater data from MW-13, MW-40, and MW-47). The former redwood sump was excavated and removed in 1988 along with 190 cubic yards of contaminated soil. The excavation was overseen by the Hazardous Materials Management Division (HMMD) and the SDRWQCB, and confirmation sampling indicated low to non-detectable concentrations of chlorinated VOCs. The decreasing concentration trends at MW-1, MW-2, and MW-3 between 1987 and 1999; the relatively low current levels of most COCs at MW-103A/B and MW-104A/B; and the relatively low soil vapor concentrations in the vicinity of the former redwood sump all suggest that the source removal was effective at reducing COC mass. Potential off-site contributions of VOCs to groundwater may be present in the area west of State Route 67, including a large number of commercial/industrial properties along Cypress Lane, north of Cypress Lane, east of Wing Avenue, and south of Airport Drive, as shown on Figure 15 of the Remedial Investigation Report (RI; ERM 2010a). Historical aerial photographs indicate that industrial and commercial activities in this area began prior to 1953. The depth and degree of weathering/fracturing of the bedrock beneath the site affect the on-site migration of COCs in groundwater, which appear to flow primarily to the south of a shallower, less weathered, more competent zone of bedrock identified around MW-41, through shallow fracture zones between 12 and 16 feet bgs and between 20 and 25 feet bgs. At the western site boundary, off-site migration of COCs in groundwater occurs at the base of the DG/top of the granitoid bedrock at approximately 20 feet bgs, as evidenced by data from wells MW-13, MW29B, and MW-40. Groundwater in off-site downgradient wells occurs within the alluvium/ colluvium and underlying DG. Off-site well drilling and surface geophysical surveys indicate variability in the degree of fracturing/weathering and depth to bedrock west of the site, between approximately 12 and more than 60 feet bgs, and also indicate possible discontinuities that may serve as preferential pathways. Analytical results from cluster wells MW-42B/C, MW-43A/B/C, and MW-46B/C show relatively consistent concentrations with depth, indicating that COCs are migrating off site at similar concentrations in both the DG and uppermost portion of the granitoid bedrock. P A G E 8 Discrete depth-to-groundwater data from passive diffusion bag (PDB) samplers set at multiple depths within wells MW-6, MW-13, MW-16, and MW-20 (Table 3 in the RI) also indicate generally consistent concentrations with depth, and thus do not suggest significant COC migration through a vertical preferential pathway. 4.0 ESTIMATION OF THE HYDRAULIC CAPTURE The potential hydraulic capture zones of the currently operating extraction wells on the MES property, EW-1, EW-2, and EW-4, were calculated with the analytical model for estimation of steady-state capture zones for unconfined aquifers developed by Grubb (1993). The capture zone calculations were performed using the aquifer properties and pumping rates proposed in ERM’s technical memorandum, based on the results of the February 2017 aquifer tests on the MES property (ERM 2017a) and approved by the SDRWQCB on 7 April 2017 (SDRWQCB 2017). A copy of these documents are included in Attachment A. The hydraulic conductivity value used in the calculations, 5.34 feet/day, is the geometric mean of the estimated hydraulic conductivities from the observation wells during the EW-1 constant-discharge pumping test (ERM 2017a). The hydraulic gradient used in the calculations is the average nonpumping hydraulic gradient of 0.020 foot/foot across the MES property based on historical water level measurements. The capture zones were calculated using the average of the maximum daytime and nighttime flow rates for the extraction wells (Table 3). The input parameters used in the hydraulic capture zone calculations and the calculated capture zone width for each extraction well are summarized in Table 3. The calculated dividing streamlines and flow paths, which outline the capture zone of each extraction well, are shown on Figure 2. 5.0 SUMMARY OF HYDRAULIC CAPTURE CALCULATIONS AND EVALUATION The estimated potential hydraulic capture zone width at the extraction wells ranges between 231 feet for EW-4 to 375 feet for EW-2 (Table 3). The plots of the estimated dividing streamlines (capture zones) from the hydraulic capture calculations (Figure 2) show that the extraction well system achieves capture of the core strength of the alluvium and DG TCE plume (core strength of the plume). Figure 6 provides a cross section perpendicular to groundwater flow at the MES property and site boundary; Figure 7 provides a cross section perpendicular to groundwater P A G E 9 flow at the northwest portion of the MES property boundary (targeted capture area). The cross sections were prepared using geophysical survey (ERM 2010b) and bore log data in the area of the cross section transect. These figures illustrate the capture zone boundary beyond the core strength of the plume. The estimated capture zone overlap for the individual extraction wells ranges between 26 percent for EW-1/EW-4 to 78 percent for EW-1/EW-2, which provides a reasonable factor of safety for plume capture by the extraction well system. The results of these calculations demonstrate that the remedial objective has been met. 6.0 EXTRACTION SYSTEM PERFORMANCE MONITORING The following is the plan for system performance monitoring to confirm the capture zone width of the system. • Prior to conducting performance monitoring, groundwater extraction on the MES property will be suspended for a minimum of 24-hours to allow water levels in the aquifer to equilibrate and return to static state. • A pressure transducer will be installed in the extraction wells and observation wells in order to monitor drawdown induced by the groundwater extraction system. The depth to water will be measured with an electronic sounder and recorded in the field prior to pressure transducer installation. Transducers will be programmed to monitor depth to water pre- and post-groundwater extraction pump start up. A list of extraction and observation wells is presented in the Performance Monitoring Table below. • The transducer will be equipped with a vented cable that will be secured to a vented well cap at the top of the well. Recording intervals are presented in the Performance Monitoring Table below. • Data will be collected from the transducers at select intervals presented in the following table. Drawdown monitored by the transducers will be tabulated and graphed. • The extraction system’s programmable logic controller (PLC) will be programmed to record the extraction rate and volume for each of the extraction wells. This data will be tabulated and the average daily extraction rate for each well will be calculated. P A G E 1 0 Performance Monitoring Table Extraction Wells EW-1, EW-2, and EW-4 Observation Wells EW-3, MW-14, MW-16, MW-29B, MW-42B/C, MW-46B/C, MW47A/B, MW-50B/C, MW-51B, OBS-1, OBS-2, and OBS-3. Proposed wells MW-52A/B/C will be equipped with transducers if access is granted to install them. Transducer Recording Intervals • Every minute for the first 2 weeks. • Hourly thereafter for up to 1 year. Data Collection Intervals • Weekly for first 2 weeks. • Monthly thereafter for up to 1 year. The first two weeks of groundwater elevation data will be reviewed. If there has been no significant decrease in the groundwater drawdown at an observation well, that observation well will be removed from the extraction system performance monitoring program. Confirmation of hydraulic capture will be reported in the quarterly groundwater monitoring report. If capture is not apparent from a review of the proposed performance monitoring data, an adjustment to the operation and/or configuration of the extraction system will be evaluated and proposed to obtain capture of the core strength of the plume, as stated in the remedial objective. 7.0 REFERENCES California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 1967. Ground Water Occurrence and Quality: San Diego Region. Bulletin No. 106-2. 235 p. DWR. 1975. 1975 (updated 2004). California’s Ground Water. Bulletin 118. 135 p. EMR-West, Inc. (ERM). 2010a. Remedial Investigation Report. Former Ketema A&E Facility, El Cajon, California, SL209234198: bmcdaniel. ERM. 2010b. Site Investigation and Characterization Report, Former Ketema A&E Facility, El Cajon, California, SL209234198: bmcdaniel, Appendix J - Geophysical Investigation Reports. ERM. 2016. Workplan for the Expansion of IN Situ Chemical Oxidation Remedial Action, Former Ketema A&E Facility, El Cajon, California, SL209234198: smcclain. P A G E 1 1 ERM. 2017a. Technical Memorandum, Hydraulic Conductivity Testing Results, Former Ketema A&E Facility, El Cajon, California, SL209234198: smcclain. ERM. 2017b. Draft Human Health Risk Assessment Downgradient Residences, Former Ketema A&E Facility, El Cajon, California, SL209234198: smcclain. Felix, Dave et al. 2003. El Cajon Valley Site Conceptual Model. Grubb, S. 1993. Analytical Model for Estimation of Steady-State Capture Zones of Pumping Wells in Confined and Unconfined Aquifers, Ground Water, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 27-32. Jones. 1998. Feasibility Study (C&A Order No. 98-1 Response, Directive 2), Ketema A&E Site, 790 Greenfield Drive, El Cajon, California. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB). 1994. (with amendments effective April 2007). Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (9). SDRWQCB. 2017. Approval of Capture Zone Parameters in Technical Memorandum, dated April 7, 2017. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. A Systematic Approach for Evaluation of Capture Zones at Pump and Treat Systems, EPA 600/R08/003. January. United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2004. Preliminary Geologic Map of the El Cajon 30' x 60' Quadrangle, Southern California, Version 1.0 compiled by Victoria R. Todd. USGS Open-File Report 2004-1361. Figures q Created By: Mike Appel Date: 7/13/2017 Project: 0337728 q Site Location 0 50 200 Miles Legend @ A Monitoring Well Location A Monitoring Well Location (Decommissioned) ° D MW-26 A @ ? Spinel Avenue Hill (Bedrock Outcrop) Bldg. 5 BB Park Parking Lib Aud MW-29A @MW-29B A D D MW-49A/B Bldg. 2A RM RM RM RM RM 3 4 5 6 7 @ MW-14 A K1 Administration K2 Greenfield Drive 100 200 400 Feet @ MW-9 A Parking @ MW-7 A @ A D D @ MW-6 A Bldg. 15A MW-103A/B A MW-5 @ A @MW-104A/B MW-8 A MW-1 Bldg.13 AA MW-3 A A MW-2 Bldg. Bldg. 14 A MW-12 17 MW-28 Bldg. 1 @ A 0 MW-101A/B MW-102A/B @ A Bldg.15 D PRC Bldg. 2 ° GB Bldg. 10 Avenue ° RM RM RM RM RM RM 8 9 10 11 12 13 RM RM 24 25 MW-10 @ MW-51B @ A RM RM RM RM RM 14 15 16 17 18 Main Project Site Boundary rth Mo llis on BB Ground Surface Elevation (Feet Above Mean Sea Level) No GB @ MW-41 Bldg. 9 A D MW-43A A A MW-43B MW-15B MW-51C MW-50A/B/C Bldg. 3 Hill (Bedrock Outcrop) DMW-48A/B* RR ° @ A @ A MW-43C D MW-13 MW-39 A @ D ? MW-42A @ MW-42B A MW-42C Softball Field D EW-4 Bldg. 8 MW-40 ° ° Magnolia Elementary School Proposed Multipurpose Well Bldg. 7 D MW-47A/B ° MW-46B ° D D D EW-3 ° ? ? @A A @ @MW-46CD EW-2 A ° OBS-1 EW-1 OBS-2 OBS-3 Groundwater Remediation System Expansion Observation Well Magnolia Elementary School Boundary Bldg. 4 ° MW-16 Groundwater Remediation System Extraction Well Targeted Capture of Core Strength of Plume Layton Street @ MW-27 A D MW-52A/B/C @ A @ A Residences Bldg 16 M:\Projects\Amtek_ElCajon\maps\DTSC Tech Memo\Figure 1 Site Plan Location.mxd 100 Parking @ MW-11 A MW-4 A Figure 1 Site Location and Plan Former Ketema A&E Facility 790 Greenfield Drive El Cajon, California Environmental Resources Management www.erm.com ERM 0393603 Project No. Date 7/13/2017 MW-52A/B/C D E MW-46C MW-16 @ MW-46B A OBS-1A @A @ @ A EW-1 OBS-3 @ A OBS-2 D E T.Cota Drawn by: MW-27 Bldg. 5 EW-2 D E Figure 2 Ametek Groundwater Capture Zones - Average Daytime Nighttime Rates Revised @ 10.00 gpm A 6.50 gpm 9.75 gpm EW-3 @ A MW-47A Bldg. 8 @ A @ A @ A MW-42C Magnolia Elementary School MW-51C @ A Bldg. 9 MW-13 @ A MW-48A @ @A A MW-48B MW-10 D E D E D EMW-50B MW-41 Bldg. 3 MW-51B Bldg. 2 MW-102A @ A @ MW-101B A @ A MW-29A @MW-29B A @ A MW-49B A @ @ MW-49A A ArcGIS File: Bldg. 7 @ A MW-42A MW-50A MW-50C Bldg. 4 MW-47B D E MW-42B EW-4 D E MW-40 @ A Bldg. 2A Bldg. 14 Bldg. A MW-14 @ A MW-6 @ A MW-15 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community @A A @ MW-15B Legend TCE >1,000 µg/l (Alluvium and Decomposed Granite) EW-1 Capture Zone EW-2 Capture Zone V EW-4 Capture Zone Conceptual Flow Path D E @ A D E Extraction Well Monitoring Well Proposed Multi-purpose Well 9.75 gpm- Average Daytime/ Nighttime Flow Rate Notes: EW-3 is no longer used as an extraction well. 0 100 Feet ³ 200 Figure 2 Groundwater Capture Estimate Pumping at Average Daytime Nighttime Rates Former Ketema A&E Facility 790 Greenfield Drive El Cajon, California ERM July, 2017 A' A LEGEND N OBS-3 MW-46B MW-16 MW-46C OBS-1 Monitoring Well MW-47A/B A EW-2 EW-1 OBS-2 MW-42A MW-42B MW-42C EW-4 Extraction Well INJ-1 EW-3 A' INJ-4 INJ-5 MW-13 Site Property Boundary MW-48A/B MW-49A/B INJ-3 MW-14 MW-15 Image Source: c 2007 Google Earth Pro Ver. 4.0.2737 Potentiometric Groundwater Surface TCE - Trichloroethene DG - Decomposed Granite MW-104B INJ-6 INJ-7 Injection Well Lithology is based on the bore logs and a seismic P-wave refraction profile (Geophysical Survey Ketema A&E Facility El Cajon, California, dated 10 July 2008). 20' Screen Interval MW-6 MW-9 MW-10 MW-102A MW-102B MW-101A MW-101B MW-104A MW-103B MW-103A Bedrock Outcrop Cross Section Line 0 60' Figure 3 CROSS SECTION SCALE VERTICAL EXAGGERATION =3x MW-7 MW-11 INSET MAP 1" = 400' Environmental Resources Management www.erm.com ERM Project No. 0393603 0.00 T. Cota Drawn By: 2.00 Date: 03/08/17 4.00 Drawdown (ft) 6.00 8.00 GIS File: 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 Elapsed Test Time (sec) 200,000 250,000 Figure 4 Drawdown and Recovery in Pumping Well EW-1 EW-1 Pumping Test Former Ketema A&E Facility 790 Greenfield Drive El Cajon, California ERM 03/17 Project No. 0393603 T. Cota Drawn By: 03/08/17 0.50 1.00 Drawdown (ft) Date: 0.00 1.50 2.00 GIS File: OBS-1 OBS-2 2.50 OBS-3 EW-2 EW-4 3.00 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 Elapsed Test Time (sec) 200,000 250,000 Figure 5 Drawdown and Recovery in Observation Wells EW-1 Pumping Test Former Ketema A&E Facility 790 Greenfield Drive El Cajon, California ERM 03/17 B B' Alluvium/Colluvium Decomposed Granite Granitoid Bedrock LEGEND N Monitoring Well OBS-3 MW-46B MW-16 MW-46C OBS-1 Extraction Well B Injection Well MW-47A/B INJ-1 EW-2 EW-1 OBS-2 MW-42A MW-42B MW-42C EW-3 EW-4 Site Property Boundary INJ-4 Bedrock Outcrop INJ-5 MW-13 Lithology is based on the bore logs and a seismic P-wave refraction profile (Geophysical Survey Ketema A&E Facility El Cajon, California, dated 10 July 2008). 20' Screen Interval Potentiometric Groundwater Surface TCE - Trichloroethene DG - Decomposed Granite 0 60' MW-48A/B INJ-6 MW-104B INJ-7 MW-104A MW-103B MW-103A MW-49A/B INJ-3 MW-14 MW-6 MW-15 MW-10 MW-102A MW-102B MW-101A MW-101B Cross Section Line CROSS SECTION SCALE VERTICAL EXAGGERATION =3x Figure 6 MW-7 MW-11 B' MW-9 INSET MAP 1" = 400' Image Source: c 2007 Google Earth Pro Ver. 4.0.2737 Environmental Resources Management www.erm.com ERM C C' Alluvium/Colluvium Decomposed Granite Granitoid Bedrock LEGEND Monitoring Well N Extraction Well C' OBS-3 MW-46B MW-16 MW-46C OBS-1 Lithology is based on the bore logs and a seismic P-wave refraction profile (Geophysical Survey Ketema A&E Facility El Cajon, California, dated 10 July 2008). 20' Screen Interval Potentiometric Groundwater Surface Injection Well MW-47A/B EW-2 MW-42A MW-42B MW-42C EW-1 OBS-2 EW-4 Site Property Boundary INJ-1 EW-3 Bedrock Outcrop INJ-4 INJ-5 MW-13 Cross Section Line MW-48A/B MW-104B INJ-6 C INJ-7 MW-49A/B INJ-3 MW-14 MW-15 INSET MAP 1" = 400' MW-6 MW-10 MW-102A MW-102B MW-101A MW-101B MW-104A MW-103B MW-103A 0 60' CROSS SECTION SCALE VERTICAL EXAGGERATION =3x Figure 7 MW-7 MW-11 MW-9 Image Source: c 2007 Google Earth Pro Ver. 4.0.2737 Environmental Resources Management www.erm.com ERM Tables Table 1 Extraction Well Construction Information Former Ketema A&E Facility 790 Greenfield Drive El Cajon, California Well ID Install Date Easting (feet) Northing (feet) Reference Elevation (feet MSL) Depth to Top of Screen Interval (feet bTOC) Depth to Bottom of Screen Interval (feet bTOC) Depth to Pump Intake (feet bTOC) Casing Diameter (inches) Length of Screen Interval (feet) Hydrogeologic Zone (based on borehole logs) EW-1 07/31/14 6344786.70 1877073.36 425.62 37 72 66 4 35 C/A and DG EW-2 12/21/14 6344974.15 1877107.90 426.91 17 37 31 4 20 C/A and DG EW-4 12/23/14 6344774.72 1876897.34 423.31 15 80 74 4 65 C/A and DG Abbreviations: EW = Extraction Well bTOC = Below top of casing C/A = Colluvium/Alluvium DG = Decomposed granite MSL = Mean sea level Note: EW-3 is no longer used as an extraction well. Table 2 Aquifer Test Analysis Summary Former Ketema A&E Facility 790 Greenfield Drive El Cajon, California Slug Tests Aquifer Test Analysis Test Well OBS-1 OBS-2 OBS-3 Hydraulic Conductivity Test Observation Well Method Slug-in 1 OBS-1 Bouwer and Rice 2.54 Slug-in 2 OBS-1 Bouwer and Rice 2.60 Slug-out 1 Slug-out 2 OBS-1 OBS-1 Bouwer and Rice Bouwer and Rice 2.85 2.73 (feet/day) Slug-in 1 OBS-2 Bouwer and Rice 2.27 Slug-in 2 OBS-2 Bouwer and Rice 2.66 Slug-out 1 Slug-out 2 OBS-2 OBS-2 Bouwer and Rice Bouwer and Rice 2.97 2.84 Slug-in 1 OBS-3 Bouwer and Rice 19.85 Slug-in 2 OBS-3 Bouwer and Rice 12.57 Slug-out 1 Slug-out 2 OBS-3 OBS-3 Bouwer and Rice Bouwer and Rice 11.70 12.65 Pumping and Recovery Tests Aquifer Test Analysis Transmissivity Test Well Test Observation Well EW-1 OBS-1 Pumping OBS-2 OBS-3 EW-2 EW-1 EW-1 OBS-1 Recovery OBS-2 square feet/day) Hydraulic Conductivity (feet/day) Storage Coefficient unitless Tartakovsky-Neuman 251.8 56.61 4.45 8.33E-03 Moench 619.9 56.61 10.95 1.00E-06 Not used for geometric mean calculation. Tartakovsky-Neuman 371.9 56.61 6.57 3.39E-02 Moench 445.5 56.61 7.87 2.23E-02 Tartakovsky-Neuman 399.4 56.61 7.06 1.54E-02 Moench 339.8 56.61 6.00 3.46E-02 Tartakovsky-Neuman 297.0 56.61 5.25 3.14E-03 Moench 418.1 56.61 7.39 1.94E-03 Tartakovsky-Neuman Moench 237.4 243.3 56.61 56.61 4.19 4.30 8.63E-05 7.97E-05 Agarwal Tartakovsky-Neuman - - - - Unable to fit recovery data to Agarwal Models. Agarwal Moench - - - - Unable to fit recovery data to Agarwal Models. Agarwal Tartakovsky-Neuman 149.7 56.61 2.64 1.78E-03 Agarwal Moench 286.5 56.61 5.06 6.82E-04 Agarwal Tartakovsky-Neuman 271.0 56.61 4.79 4.94E-04 Agarwal Moench 307.8 56.61 5.44 9.14E-04 390.1 56.61 6.89 5.80E-04 Agarwal Moench 386.7 56.61 6.83 5.47E-04 EW-2 Agarwal Tartakovsky-Neuman Agarwal Moench 234.3 235.0 56.61 56.61 4.14 4.15 9.68E-05 8.43E-05 EW-2 Tartakovsky-Neuman Moench 109.7 80.7 18.26 18.26 6.01 4.42 3.87E-02 4.89E-02 EW-2 Recovery EW-2 Agarwal Tartakovsky-Neuman 42.0 18.26 2.30 2.86E-01 Pumping EW-4 Tartakovsky-Neuman Moench 246.2 309.1 66.1 66.1 3.72 4.68 4.76E-02 5.22E-01 Recovery EW-4 Agarwal Tartakovsky-Neuman 141.0 66.1 2.13 3.31E-01 EW-4 Comments Poor fit of drawdown data to model. Not used for geometric mean calculation. Agarwal Tartakovsky-Neuman OBS-3 Pumping Method Saturated Thickness (feet) Not used for geometric mean calculation. Not used for geometric mean calculation. Unable to fit recovery data to Agarwal Moench Model. Not used for geometric mean calculation. Not used for geometric mean calculation. Not used for geometric mean calculation. Unable to fit recovery data to Agarwal Moench Model. Not used for geometric mean calculation. Table 3 Potential Hydraulic Capture Calculation Input Parameters and Estimated Capture Zone Width Former Ketema A&E Facility 790 Greenfield Drive El Cajon, California Non-pumping Hydraulic Non-pumping Head Above Bottom of Aquifer Gradient2 At Extraction Wells3 Upgradient4 Distance (feet/feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) Extraction Well Hydraulic Conductivity1 (feet/day) EW-1 5.34 0.020 56.53 76.53 1,000 6.5 13.5 10.00 271 EW-2 5.34 0.020 21.26 41.26 1,000 6.5 6.5 6.50 375 EW-4 5.34 0.020 66.10 86.10 1,000 7.0 12.5 9.75 231 Notes: Geometric mean of hydraulic conductivity values from EW-1 constant-discharge pumping test observation wells (ERM 2017). 1 2 Average non-pumping hydraulic gradient across Magnolia Elementary School property. 3 Saturated thickness of aquifer during February 2017 constant discharge pumping test. 4 Head above aquifer bottom 1,000 feet upgradient of extraction wells under non-pumping hydraulic gradient. 5 Daytime flow rate from 7 am to 7 pm. 6 Nighttime flow rate from 7 pm to 7 am. 7 Average of maximum daytime and nighttime flow rates. 8 Calcuated using method of Grubb (1993). EW-3 is no longer used as an extraction well. Daytime Extraction Nighttime Extraction Average Extraction Estimated Capture Well Flow Rate5 Well Flow Rate6 Well Flow Rate7 Zone Width8 (gallons per minute) (gallons per minute) (gallons per minute) (feet) Attachment A Hydraulic Conductivity Testing Results and Approval Technical Memorandum To: Mr. Sean McClain San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board From: Mr. Truong T. Mai, P.E. Ms. Gabrielle Soto Date: 13 March 2017 Subject: Hydraulic Conductivity Testing Results Former Ketema A&E Facility El Cajon, California SL209234198: smcclain Environmental Resources Management 1920 Main Street Suite 300 Irvine CA, 92614 (949) 623-4700 (949) 623-4711 (fax) On behalf of AMETEK, Inc. (AMETEK), ERM-West, Inc. (ERM) has prepared this technical memorandum to summarize the aquifer testing conducted on the Magnolia Elementary School (MES) property located at 650 Greenfield Drive in El Cajon, California. The aquifer testing was conducted at extraction wells EW-1, EW-2 and EW-4 and observation wells OBS-1, OBS-2 and OBS-3 (refer to Figure 1 for locations of these wells). The aquifer testing was performed to obtain estimates of the hydraulic properties of the decomposed granite (DG) and overlying colluvium/alluvium screened by these wells, for an assessment of the potential hydraulic capture or influence of the extraction wells operating on the MES property. The testing activities were performed following ERM’s 2017 Slug Test Work Plan (ERM, 2017) approved by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) in correspondence dated 13 February 2017. The aquifer testing was conducted according to the procedures outlined in Aquifer Testing for Hydrogeologic Characterization: Guidance Manual for Ground Water Investigations (California Environmental Protection Agency 1995) and generally accepted industry practice. All operating groundwater extraction wells on the MES property were shut down to allow groundwater levels at the site to equilibrate to static conditions for a minimum of 24-hours prior to the start of aquifer testing activities. A site map is attached as Figure 1. Well construction details are included in Table 1. A member of the Environmental Resources Management Group P A G E 2 1.0 SLUG TESTING On 18 February 2017, rising- and falling-head slug-tests were performed in observation wells OBS-1, OBS-2 and OBS-3, which are screened in the DG and lower portion of the overlying colluvium/alluvium. A slug comprised of 2-inch schedule 40 PVC approximately 63.5 inches long filled with sand was used to complete two rising- and falling-head slugtests in each well. The slug displaced approximately 1.3 feet of water for each of the tests. Water levels during the slug tests were measured and recorded electronically using In-Situ Inc. Level Troll 700 pressure transducer/data logging systems with an operating range of 0 to 30 psi and equipped with vented cables. Manual water-level measurements were also made prior to and at the end of the slug tests in the wells using an electronic water-level indicator. 1.1 Slug Test Analysis and Results The water level data from the rising- and falling-head slug tests were analyzed with AQTESOLV for Windows, Version 4.5, a software package for estimated aquifer properties from slug and pumping tests (HydroSOLVE, 2007). The slug test water level data were analyzed using the method of Bouwer and Rice (1976). The results of the slug test analyses are summarized in Table 2 and included as Appendix A. The hydraulic conductivities estimated from the slug tests range between 2.27 and 19.85 feet/day. 2.0 EW-1 CONSTANT-DISCHARGE PUMPING TEST A 48-hour constant-discharge pumping test was performed on extraction well EW-1 during the period of 18 through 21 February 2017. This well is screened in the DG and lowermost portion of the overlying colluvium/alluvium. EW-1 was pumped at approximately 14.0 gallons per minute (gpm) for a total test time of 48.3 hours (173,865 seconds). Water levels in the pumping well and five observation wells (OBS-1, OBS-2, OBS-3, EW-2 and EW-4) screened in DG and overlying colluvium/alluvium were measured during the pumping and recovery portions of the test. Water level drawdown and recovery in the pumping well and five observation wells were measured and recorded electronically using In-Situ Inc. Level Troll 700 P A G E 3 pressure transducer/data logging systems with an operating range of 0 to 30 pounds-per-square-inch (psi) and equipped with vented cables. Manual water-level measurements were also made prior to and at the end of the constant-discharge test in the wells using an electronic water-level indicator. Water levels were allowed to recover to approximately 95% of the original static conditions at the conclusion of the recovery portion of the test. 2.1 Drawdown in Water Levels The drawdown in water levels recorded in the pumping well and the five observation wells during the constant-discharge test is shown in Figures 2 and 3. A maximum drawdown of approximately 13.2 feet was observed in the pumping well, EW-1, during the pumping test. The observed drawdown in four of the observation wells (OBS-1, OBS-2, OBS-3 and EW2) ranged between 1.0 and 2.5 feet. No significant drawdown was measured in one observation well, EW-4, during the test. 2.2 Analysis of Constant-Discharge Test The water level data from the constant-discharge test were analyzed to obtain estimates of the hydraulic conductivity and storage coefficient of the DG and overlying colluvium/alluvium screened by the extraction wells on the MES property. The aquifer test data were analyzed with AQTESOLV for Windows, Version 4.5, a software package for estimated aquifer properties from slug and pumping tests (HydroSOLVE, 2007). The aquifer test data from the pumping and recovery portions of the constantdischarge test were analyzed separately. A comparison of the drawdown data from the pumping and observation wells with several unconfined aquifer drawdown models indicated that the drawdown data most closely matched the Tartakovsky and Neuman (2007) and Moench (1997) models, and these two models were selected for the drawdown data analysis from the constant-discharge test. The Tartakovsky and Neuman (2007) and Moench (1997) models are widely used methods of analysis of drawdown data from pumping tests of unconfined aquifers. The major assumptions of these two models are: • Aquifer is unconfined with delayed gravity response; • Aquifer has infinite areal extent; • Aquifer is homogeneous and of uniform thickness; • Potentiometric surface is initially horizontal; • Pumping and observation wells are fully or partially penetrating; P A G E • 4 Flow is unsteady (transient). The water level recovery data were analyzed with the Tartakovsky and Neuman (2007) and Moench (1997) models using the Agarwal (1980) transformation to allow the application of standard curve-matching techniques routinely used for drawdown data (HydroSOLVE, 2007). 2.3 Constant-Discharge Test Analysis Results The results of the analyses of the water level drawdown data from the constant-discharge test are summarized in Table 2 and included as Appendix B. The hydraulic conductivities estimated from the pumping portion of the test range between 4.19 and 10.95 feet/day; the estimated storage coefficients range between 0.000001 and 0.03461 (dimensionless). The hydraulic conductivities estimated from the recovery portion of the test range between 2.64 and 6.89 feet/day; the estimated storage coefficients range between 0.000084 and 0.00178 (dimensionless). 3.0 EW-2 AND EW-4 SINGLE-WELL PUMPING AND RECOVERY TESTS Single-well pumping and recovery tests were performed in extraction wells EW-2 and EW-4. EW-2 is screened in the lower portion of the colluvium/alluvium overlying the DG and the uppermost portion of the DG. EW-4 is screened in the DG and lower portion of the overlying colluvium/alluvium. EW-2 was pumped at 5.4 gpm and EW-4 was pumped at 6.4 gpm for a total test time of approximately 4 hours, and the water levels were allowed to recover to approximately 95% of the original static conditions. Water level drawdown and recovery in the wells were measured and recorded electronically using In-Situ Inc. Level Troll 700 pressure transducer/data logging systems with an operating range of 0 to 30 psi and equipped with vented cables. Manual water-level measurements were also made prior to and at the end of the pumping and recovery tests in the wells using an electronic water-level indicator. 3.1 Analysis of Pumping and Recovery Tests The water level data from the EW-2 and EW-4 pumping and recovery tests were analyzed with AQTESOLV for Windows, Version 4.5, a software package for estimated aquifer properties from slug and pumping P A G E 5 tests (HydroSOLVE, 2007). The aquifer test data from the pumping and recovery portions of the recovery tests were analyzed separately. The water level data from the pumping portions of the recovery tests were analyzed with the Tartakovsky and Neuman (2007) and Moench (1997) models, the same models used to analyze the water level data from the EW-1 constant-discharge test. The water level recovery data were analyzed with the Tartakovsky and Neuman (2007) model using the Agarwal (1980) transformation to allow the application of standard curvematching techniques routinely used for drawdown data. The recovery data poorly matched the Moench (1997) model, and therefore this model was not used for the analysis of the recovery test data. 3.2 Pumping and Recovery Test Analysis Results The results of the analyses of the water level drawdown data from the EW-2 and EW-4 recovery tests are summarized in Table 2 and included as Appendix C. The hydraulic conductivities estimated from the pumping portion of the tests range between 3.72 and 6.01 feet/day; the estimated storage coefficients range between 0.03865 and 0.522 (dimensionless). The hydraulic conductivities estimated from the recovery portion of the tests range between 2.13 and 2.30 feet/day; the estimated storage coefficients range between 0.2856 and 0.3311 (dimensionless). 4.0 SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS AND EVALUATION Estimated hydraulic conductivity values from the different tests range from 2.13 to 19.85 feet/day. Based on an evaluation of the estimated hydraulic conductivities, a MES property-specific hydraulic conductivity of 5.34 feet/day, the geometric mean value from the observation wells in the EW-1 constant-discharge test, will be used to estimate the hydraulic capture or influence of the MES groundwater extraction wells. A review of these results will be discussed with the SDRWQCB and a MES propertyspecific hydraulic conductivity will be agreed upon for estimating the hydraulic capture or influence of the MES groundwater extraction wells. 5.0 ESTIMATION OF THE HYDRAULIC CAPTURE OR INFLUENCE In accordance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) guidance document A Systematic Approach for Evaluation of Capture Zones at Pump and Treat Systems (USEPA, 2008), the analytical model for estimation of steady-state capture zones for unconfined aquifers developed by Grubb P A G E 6 (1993) is being selected to estimate the hydraulic capture or influence of the MES groundwater extraction wells. Along with the agreed MES property-specific hydraulic conductivity and method, an approval of the parameters listed below is being requested from the SDRWQCB for the estimation of the hydraulic capture or influence of the MES groundwater extraction wells. The selected extraction rate ranges are based on the daytime and nighttime maximum extraction rates. If sufficient capture is demonstrated using daytime rates, then there will be no adjustment to the extraction rates during the night. Selected Parameters for Estimating Hydraulic Capture or Influence Parameter Selected Value Hydraulic Conductivity 5.34 ft/day Hydraulic Gradient 0.020 ft/ft EW-1 6.4 – 13.9 gpm EW-2 5.5 – 8.1 gpm EW-4 6.4 – 12.9 gpm Method Grub (1993) Note: Hydraulic gradient value based on data from wells across the MES property from July 2011 through April 2012 prior to IRM system startup. Once approval is received from the SDRWQCB on the selected parameter values and method, the hydraulic capture or influence of the MES groundwater extraction wells will be estimated. The results of the estimated hydraulic capture or influence of the MES groundwater extraction wells will be reported to the SDRWQCB. P A G E 7 REFERENCES Agarwal, R.G. 1980. A new method to account for producing time effects when drawdown type curves are used to analyze pressure buildup and other test data, SPE paper 9289, presented at the 55th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX, September 21-24, 1980. Bouwer, H. and R.C. Rice. 1976. A slug test method for determining hydraulic conductivity of unconfined aquifers with completely or partially penetrating wells, Water Resources Research, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 423428. ERM. 2017. Slug Testing Work Plan. Grubb, S. 1993. Analytical Model for Estimation of Steady-State Capture Zones of Pumping Wells in Confined and Unconfined Aquifers, Ground Water, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 27-32. HydroSOLVE, Inc. 2007. AQTESOLV for Windows Version 4.5 Professional User's Guide, HydroSOLVE, Inc., Reston, VA. Moench, A.F. 1997. Flow to a well of finite diameter in a homogeneous, anisotropic water-table aquifer, Water Resources Research, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 1397-1407. Tartakovsky, G.D. and S.P. Neuman. 2007. Three-dimensional saturatedunsaturated flow with axial symmetry to a partially penetrating well in a compressible unconfined aquifer, Water Resources Research, vol. 43, W01410, doi:1029/ 2006WR005153. SDRWCQG. 2017. Approval of Technical Memorandum, dated February 13, 2017. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008, A Systematic Approach for Evaluation of Capture Zones at Pump and Treat Systems, EPA 600/R08/003, January 2008. Figures Project: 0279210.05 q MW-27 Date: 3/9/2017 @ A MW-40 @ A EW-3 MW-42B INJ-4 10 ,00 @ A 1,0 00 0 MW-39 00 1,0 ° ° D MW-48B D MW-48A EW-4 INJ-6 @ A MW-43C @ A @ A @ A MW-103B Existing On-site Extraction Wells @ Existing ISCO Injection Wells @ A Monitoring Wells MW-103A MW-29B 10,000 @ MW-29A A D MW-104B Site Property Boundary Competent Bedrock Area Proposed Building ° °° D D MW-49A MW-49B @ A Abandoned Monitoring Wells Bedrock Outcrop @ @ MW-104A ² @ A 1,000 D TCE Contour in µg/L (Dashed Where Inferred) @ @ INJ-7 MW-43A Compliance Monitoring Wells @ A @ A ²² MW-43B @ A @ @ A D MW-13 220 Miles @ Wells for ISCO Injection A @ MW-41 INJ-5 110 q Legend ° ² @ A @ A @ A MW-42C 10 ,0 00 INJ-1 @ A 55 ² MW-42A MW-47A D 0 ² OBS-3 MW-46C @ A @ EW-1 A @ OBS-2 A @ EW-2 A D D ° OBS-1 MW-16 @A A @A @ MW-46B @A MW-47B ° Created By: Alex Kirk 1,000 Site Location INJ-3 MW-07 @ A MW-14 @ A Proposed Trash Enclosure Proposed Games Court Existing Senior Aerospace Buildings Existing School Buildings Existing Playfield MW-15 MW-11 @ A @ A Notes: TCE - Trichloroethene. Existing School Building locations provided by ESRI Streaming Web Mapping Service, and are approximate. MW-09 @ A MW-102A MW-101A MW-101B @ @ MW-102B @ MW-10 0 60 120 240 Feet Source: Streaming Basemap provided by ESRI Web Mapping Service 0 10 20 ²² ² M:\Projects\Amtek_ElCajon\maps\Fig 1 Sampling and Structures.mxd MW-06 @ A 40 Feet Figure 1 Site Map with Injection Wells Former Ketema A&E Site El Cajon, California Environmental Resources Management 2875 Michelle Dr. Suite 200 Irvine, California 92606 Project No. 0393603 0.00 T. Cota Drawn By: 2.00 Date: 03/08/17 4.00 Drawdown (ft) 6.00 8.00 GIS File: 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 Elapsed Test Time (sec) 200,000 250,000 Figure 2 Drawdown and Recovery in Pumping Well EW-1 EW-1 Pumping Test Former Ketema A&E Facility 790 Greenfield Drive El Cajon, California ERM 03/17 Project No. 0393603 T. Cota Drawn By: 03/08/17 0.50 1.00 Drawdown (ft) Date: 0.00 1.50 2.00 GIS File: OBS-1 OBS-2 2.50 OBS-3 EW-2 EW-4 3.00 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 Elapsed Test Time (sec) 200,000 250,000 Figure 3 Drawdown and Recovery in Observation Wells EW-1 Pumping Test Former Ketema A&E Facility 790 Greenfield Drive El Cajon, California ERM 03/17 Tables Table 1 - Well Construction Information Former Ketema A&E Facility 790 Greenfield Drive El Cajon, California Well ID Install Date Easting (feet) Northing (feet) Reference Elevation (feet MSL) EW-1 OBS-1 OBS-2 OBS-3 EW-2 EW-4 07/31/14 08/01/14 07/31/14 08/01/14 12/21/14 12/23/14 6344786.70 6344791.12 6344772.93 6344855.76 6344974.15 6344774.72 1877073.36 1877088.96 1877051.82 1877108.08 1877107.90 1876897.34 425.62 425.66 425.63 426.92 426.91 423.31 Depth to Top Depth to of Screen Bottom of Interval Screen Interval (feet bTOC) (feet bTOC) 37 14 15 12 17 15 72 74 65 62 37 80 Abbreviations: EW = Extraction Well OBS = Observation Well bTOC = Below top of casing C/A = Colluvium/Alluvium DG = Decomposed granite MSL = Mean sea level Page 1 of 1 Casing Diameter (inches) Length of Screen Interval (feet) Location Hydrogeologic Zone (based on borehole logs) 4 4 4 4 4 4 35 60 50 50 20 65 off-site, downgradient off-site, downgradient off-site, downgradient off-site, downgradient off-site, downgradient off-site, downgradient C/A and DG C/A and DG C/A and DG C/A and DG C/A and DG C/A and DG Table 2 - Aquifer Test Analysis Summary Former Ketema A&E Facility 790 Greenfield Drive El Cajon, California Slug Tests Aquifer Test Analysis Hydraulic  Conductivity Test Well OBS‐1 OBS‐2 OBS‐3 Test Slug‐in 1 Slug‐in 2 Slug‐out 1 Slug‐out 2 Slug‐in 1 Slug‐in 2 Slug‐out 1 Slug‐out 2 Slug‐in 1 Slug‐in 2 Slug‐out 1 Slug‐out 2 Observation  Well OBS‐1 OBS‐1 OBS‐1 OBS‐1 OBS‐2 OBS‐2 OBS‐2 OBS‐2 OBS‐3 OBS‐3 OBS‐3 OBS‐3 Method (ft/day) Bouwer and Rice Bouwer and Rice Bouwer and Rice Bouwer and Rice Bouwer and Rice Bouwer and Rice Bouwer and Rice Bouwer and Rice Bouwer and Rice Bouwer and Rice Bouwer and Rice Bouwer and Rice 2.54 2.60 2.85 2.73 2.27 2.66 2.97 2.84 19.85 12.57 11.70 12.65 Pumping and Recovery Tests Aquifer Test Analysis Saturated  Thickness 2 (ft) (ft /day) Transmissivity Test Well Test Method EW‐1 Tartakovsky‐Neuman Moench Tartakovsky‐Neuman Moench Tartakovsky‐Neuman Moench Tartakovsky‐Neuman Moench Tartakovsky‐Neuman Moench Agarwal Tartakovsky‐Neuman Agarwal Moench Agarwal Tartakovsky‐Neuman Agarwal Moench Agarwal Tartakovsky‐Neuman Agarwal Moench Agarwal Tartakovsky‐Neuman Agarwal Moench Agarwal Tartakovsky‐Neuman Agarwal Moench Tartakovsky‐Neuman Moench 251.8 619.9 371.9 445.5 399.4 339.8 297.0 418.1 237.4 243.3 ‐ ‐ 149.7 286.5 271.0 307.8 390.1 386.7 234.3 235.0 109.7 80.7 56.61 56.61 56.61 56.61 56.61 56.61 56.61 56.61 56.61 56.61 ‐ ‐ 56.61 56.61 56.61 56.61 56.61 56.61 56.61 56.61 18.26 18.26 4.45 10.95 6.57 7.87 7.06 6.00 5.25 7.39 4.19 4.30 ‐ ‐ 2.64 5.06 4.79 5.44 6.89 6.83 4.14 4.15 6.01 4.42 8.33E‐03 1.00E‐06 3.39E‐02 2.23E‐02 1.54E‐02 3.46E‐02 3.14E‐03 1.94E‐03 8.63E‐05 7.97E‐05 ‐ ‐ 1.78E‐03 6.82E‐04 4.94E‐04 9.14E‐04 5.80E‐04 5.47E‐04 9.68E‐05 8.43E‐05 3.87E‐02 4.89E‐02 Agarwal Tartakovsky‐Neuman Tartakovsky‐Neuman Moench 42.0 246.2 309.1 18.26 66.1 66.1 2.30 3.72 4.68 2.86E‐01 4.76E‐02 5.22E‐01 Agarwal Tartakovsky‐Neuman 141.0 66.1 2.13 3.31E‐01 OBS‐2 OBS‐3 EW‐2 EW‐1 EW‐1 OBS‐1 Recovery OBS‐2 OBS‐3 EW‐2 Pumping Storage Coefficient unitless Observation Well OBS‐1 Pumping Hydraulic Conductivity (ft/day) EW‐2 EW‐2 Recovery EW‐2 Pumping EW‐4 Recovery EW‐4 EW‐4 Comments Poor fit of drawdown data to model. Not used for geometric  mean calculation. Not used for geometric mean calculation. Unable to fit recovery data to Agarwal Models.  Unable to fit recovery data to Agarwal Models.  Not used for geometric mean calculation. Not used for geometric mean calculation. Unable to fit recovery data to Agarwal Moench Model. Not  used  for geometric mean calculation. Not used for geometric mean calculation. Not used for geometric mean calculation. Unable to fit recovery data to Agarwal Moench Model. Not  used for geometric mean calculation. Appendix A Slug Testing Results OBS-1 Slug Test Analysis - Slug-In 1 Prepared By: Prepared For: ERM Ametek Project: Location: 0301045 El Cajon, CA SOLUTION 1. Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice K = 2.541 ft/day y0 = 0.5985 ft AQUIFER DATA Displacement (ft) Saturated Thickness: 56.73 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1. WELL DATA (OBS-1) Initial Displacement: 1.323 ft Static Water Column Height: 56.73 ft Total Well Penetration Depth: 56.73 ft Screen Length: 56.73 ft Casing Radius: 0.1667 ft Well Radius: 0.3333 ft Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3 0.1 0.01 0. 50. 100. Time (sec) 150. 200. OBS-1 Slug Test Analysis - Slug-In 2 Prepared By: Prepared For: ERM Ametek Project: Location: 0301045 El Cajon, CA SOLUTION 10. Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice K = 2.603 ft/day y0 = 0.6159 ft AQUIFER DATA Saturated Thickness: 56.78 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1. Displacement (ft) 1. WELL DATA (OBS-1) Initial Displacement: 1.323 ft Static Water Column Height: 56.78 ft Total Well Penetration Depth: 56.78 ft Screen Length: 56.78 ft Casing Radius: 0.1667 ft Well Radius: 0.3333 ft Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3 0.1 0.01 0. 50. 100. Time (sec) 150. 200. OBS-1 Slug Test Analysis - Slug-Out 1 Prepared By: Prepared For: ERM Ametek Project: Location: 0301045 El Cajon, CA SOLUTION 10. Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice K = 2.849 ft/day y0 = 0.618 ft AQUIFER DATA Saturated Thickness: 56.76 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1. Displacement (ft) 1. WELL DATA (OBS-1) Initial Displacement: 1.323 ft Static Water Column Height: 56.76 ft Total Well Penetration Depth: 56.76 ft Screen Length: 56.76 ft Casing Radius: 0.1667 ft Well Radius: 0.3333 ft Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3 0.1 0.01 0. 50. 100. Time (sec) 150. 200. OBS-1 Slug Test Analysis - Slug-Out 2 Prepared By: Prepared For: ERM Ametek Project: Location: 0301045 El Cajon, CA SOLUTION 10. Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice K = 2.734 ft/day y0 = 0.6286 ft AQUIFER DATA Saturated Thickness: 56.83 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1. Displacement (ft) 1. WELL DATA (OBS-1) Initial Displacement: 1.323 ft Static Water Column Height: 56.83 ft Total Well Penetration Depth: 56.83 ft Screen Length: 56.83 ft Casing Radius: 0.1667 ft Well Radius: 0.3333 ft Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3 0.1 0.01 0. 50. 100. Time (sec) 150. 200. OBS-2 Slug Test Analysis - Slug-In 1 Prepared By: Prepared For: ERM Ametek Project: Location: 0301045 El Cajon, CA SOLUTION 1. Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice K = 2.27 ft/day y0 = 0.3454 ft AQUIFER DATA Displacement (ft) Saturated Thickness: 47.36 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1. WELL DATA (OBS-2) Initial Displacement: 1.323 ft Static Water Column Height: 47.36 ft Total Well Penetration Depth: 47.36 ft Screen Length: 47.36 ft Casing Radius: 0.1667 ft Well Radius: 0.3333 ft Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3 0.1 0.01 0. 50. 100. 150. Time (sec) 200. 250. 300. OBS-2 Slug Test Analysis - Slug-In 2 Prepared By: Prepared For: ERM Ametek Project: Location: 0301045 El Cajon, CA SOLUTION 1. Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice K = 2.66 ft/day y0 = 0.3036 ft AQUIFER DATA Saturated Thickness: 47.37 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1. Displacement (ft) 0.1 WELL DATA (OBS-2) Initial Displacement: 1.323 ft Static Water Column Height: 47.37 ft Total Well Penetration Depth: 47.37 ft Screen Length: 47.37 ft Casing Radius: 0.1667 ft Well Radius: 0.3333 ft Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3 0.01 0.001 0. 33.3 66.7 100. Time (sec) 133.3 166.7 200. OBS-2 Slug Test Analysis - Slug-Out 1 Prepared By: Prepared For: ERM Ametek Project: Location: 0301045 El Cajon, CA SOLUTION 1. Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice K = 2.966 ft/day y0 = 0.3191 ft AQUIFER DATA Displacement (ft) Saturated Thickness: 47.3 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1. WELL DATA (OBS-2) Initial Displacement: 1.323 ft Static Water Column Height: 47.3 ft Total Well Penetration Depth: 47.3 ft Screen Length: 47.3 ft Casing Radius: 0.1667 ft Well Radius: 0.3333 ft Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3 0.1 0.01 0. 33.3 66.7 100. Time (sec) 133.3 166.7 200. OBS-2 Slug Test Analysis - Slug-Out 2 Prepared By: Prepared For: ERM Ametek Project: Location: 0301045 El Cajon, CA SOLUTION 1. Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice K = 2.837 ft/day y0 = 0.3277 ft AQUIFER DATA Displacement (ft) Saturated Thickness: 47.42 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1. WELL DATA (OBS-2) Initial Displacement: 1.323 ft Static Water Column Height: 47.42 ft Total Well Penetration Depth: 47.42 ft Screen Length: 47.42 ft Casing Radius: 0.1667 ft Well Radius: 0.3333 ft Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3 0.1 0.01 0. 50. 100. 150. Time (sec) 200. 250. 300. OBS-3 Slug Test Analysis - Slug-In 1 Prepared By: Prepared For: ERM Ametek Project: Location: 0301045 El Cajon, CA SOLUTION 10. Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice K = 19.85 ft/day y0 = 0.6669 ft AQUIFER DATA Saturated Thickness: 44.25 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1. Displacement (ft) 1. WELL DATA (OBS-3) Initial Displacement: 1.323 ft Static Water Column Height: 44.25 ft Total Well Penetration Depth: 44.25 ft Screen Length: 44.25 ft Casing Radius: 0.1667 ft Well Radius: 0.3333 ft Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3 0.1 0.01 0. 50. 100. Time (sec) 150. 200. OBS-3 Slug Test Analysis - Slug-In 2 Prepared By: Prepared For: ERM Ametek Project: Location: 0301045 El Cajon, CA SOLUTION 1. Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice K = 12.57 ft/day y0 = 0.4615 ft AQUIFER DATA Displacement (ft) Saturated Thickness: 44.24 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1. WELL DATA (OBS-3) Initial Displacement: 1.323 ft Static Water Column Height: 44.24 ft Total Well Penetration Depth: 44.24 ft Screen Length: 44.24 ft Casing Radius: 0.1667 ft Well Radius: 0.3333 ft Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3 0.1 0.01 0. 50. 100. Time (sec) 150. 200. OBS-3 Slug Test Analysis - Slug-Out 1 Prepared By: Prepared For: ERM Ametek Project: Location: 0301045 El Cajon, CA SOLUTION 10. Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice K = 11.7 ft/day y0 = 0.5305 ft AQUIFER DATA Saturated Thickness: 44.25 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1. Displacement (ft) 1. WELL DATA (OBS-3) Initial Displacement: 1.323 ft Static Water Column Height: 44.25 ft Total Well Penetration Depth: 44.25 ft Screen Length: 44.25 ft Casing Radius: 0.1667 ft Well Radius: 0.3333 ft Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3 0.1 0.01 0. 50. 100. Time (sec) 150. 200. OBS-3 Slug Test Analysis - Slug-Out 2 Prepared By: Prepared For: ERM Ametek Project: Location: 0301045 El Cajon, CA SOLUTION 10. Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice K = 12.65 ft/day y0 = 0.5291 ft AQUIFER DATA Saturated Thickness: 44.26 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1. Displacement (ft) 1. WELL DATA (OBS-3) Initial Displacement: 1.323 ft Static Water Column Height: 44.26 ft Total Well Penetration Depth: 44.26 ft Screen Length: 44.26 ft Casing Radius: 0.1667 ft Well Radius: 0.3333 ft Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3 0.1 0.01 0. 50. 100. Time (sec) 150. 200. Appendix Constant Discharge Test Results EW-1 Pumping Test Analysis - Obs. Well EW-1 Prepared By: Prepared For: ERM Ametek Project: Location: 0301045 El Cajon, CA SOLUTION 100. Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Tartakovsky-Neuman T = 251.8 ft2/day S = 0.008325 Sy = 0.0438 Kz/Kr = 1. kD = 0.5791 10. Displacement (ft) AQUIFER DATA Saturated Thickness: 56.61 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1. WELL DATA 1. 0.1 0.1 1. 10. 100. 1000. Time (sec) 1.0E+4 1.0E+5 1.0E+6 Well Name EW-1 Pumping Wells X (ft) 0 Y (ft) 0 Well Name EW-1 Observation Wells X (ft) 0.166667 Y (ft) 0 EW-1 Pumping Test Analysis - Obs. Well EW-1 Prepared By: Prepared For: ERM Ametek Project: Location: 0301045 El Cajon, CA SOLUTION 100. Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Moench T = 619.9 ft2/day S = 1.0E-6 Sy = 1.0E-5 ß = 1.0E-10 Sw = 1.258 r(w) = 0.3542 ft r(c) = 0.1667 ft alpha = 1.0E+20 sec-1 Displacement (ft) 10. AQUIFER DATA Saturated Thickness: 56.61 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 2.555E-6 WELL DATA 1. 0.1 0.1 1. 10. 100. 1000. Time (sec) 1.0E+4 1.0E+5 1.0E+6 Well Name EW-1 Pumping Wells X (ft) 0 Y (ft) 0 Well Name EW-1 Observation Wells X (ft) 0.166667 Y (ft) 0 EW-1 Pumping Test Analysis - Obs. Well OBS-1 Prepared By: Prepared For: ERM Ametek Project: Location: 0301045 El Cajon, CA SOLUTION 10. Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Tartakovsky-Neuman T = 371.9 ft2/day S = 0.03392 Sy = 1. Kz/Kr = 0.1115 kD = 19.94 1. Displacement (ft) AQUIFER DATA Saturated Thickness: 56.61 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1115 WELL DATA 0.1 0.01 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+4 Time (sec) 1.0E+5 1.0E+6 Well Name EW-1 Pumping Wells X (ft) 0 Y (ft) 0 Well Name OBS-1 Observation Wells X (ft) 16.2140803 Y (ft) 0 EW-1 Pumping Test Analysis - Obs. Well OBS-1 Prepared By: Prepared For: ERM Ametek Project: Location: 0301045 El Cajon, CA SOLUTION 10. Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Moench T = 445.5 ft2/day S = 0.02234 Sy = 1. ß = 0.003118 Sw = 100. r(w) = 0.3542 ft r(c) = 0.1667 ft alpha = 2074.6 sec-1 Displacement (ft) 1. AQUIFER DATA Saturated Thickness: 56.61 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.03803 WELL DATA 0.1 0.01 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+4 Time (sec) 1.0E+5 1.0E+6 Well Name EW-1 Pumping Wells X (ft) 0 Y (ft) 0 Well Name OBS-1 Observation Wells X (ft) 16.21 Y (ft) 0 EW-1 Pumping Test Analysis - Obs. Well OBS-2 Prepared By: Prepared For: ERM Ametek Project: Location: 0301045 El Cajon, CA SOLUTION 10. Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Tartakovsky-Neuman T = 399.4 ft2/day S = 0.01544 Sy = 0.1336 Kz/Kr = 0.1841 kD = 0.01 1. Displacement (ft) AQUIFER DATA Saturated Thickness: 56.61 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1841 WELL DATA 0.1 0.01 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+4 Time (sec) 1.0E+5 1.0E+6 Well Name EW-1 Pumping Wells X (ft) 0 Y (ft) 0 Well Name OBS-2 Observation Wells X (ft) 25.57 Y (ft) 0 EW-1 Pumping Test Analysis - Obs. Well OBS-2 Prepared By: Prepared For: ERM Ametek Project: Location: 0301045 El Cajon, CA SOLUTION 10. Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Moench T = 339.8 ft2/day S = 0.03461 Sy = 1.0E-5 ß = 1.0E-10 Sw = -4.226 r(w) = 0.3542 ft r(c) = 0.1667 ft alpha = 2074.6 sec-1 Displacement (ft) 1. AQUIFER DATA 0.1 Saturated Thickness: 56.61 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 4.903E-10 WELL DATA 0.01 0.001 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+4 Time (sec) 1.0E+5 1.0E+6 Well Name EW-1 Pumping Wells X (ft) 0 Y (ft) 0 Well Name OBS-2 Observation Wells X (ft) 25.56529875 Y (ft) 0 EW-1 Pumping Test Analysis - Obs. Well OBS-3 Prepared By: Prepared For: ERM Ametek Project: Location: 0301045 El Cajon, CA SOLUTION 10. Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Tartakovsky-Neuman T = 297. ft2/day S = 0.003138 Sy = 0.01325 Kz/Kr = 0.0993 kD = 0.001 1. Displacement (ft) AQUIFER DATA Saturated Thickness: 56.61 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.0993 WELL DATA 0.1 0.01 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+4 Time (sec) 1.0E+5 1.0E+6 Well Name EW-1 Pumping Wells X (ft) 0 Y (ft) 0 Well Name OBS-3 Observation Wells X (ft) 77.3 Y (ft) 0 EW-1 Pumping Test Analysis - Obs. Well OBS-3 Prepared By: Prepared For: ERM Ametek Project: Location: 0301045 El Cajon, CA SOLUTION 10. Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Moench T = 418.1 ft2/day S = 0.001942 Sy = 1. ß = 0.006492 Sw = 81.4 r(w) = 0.3542 ft r(c) = 0.1667 ft alpha = 2074.6 sec-1 Displacement (ft) 1. AQUIFER DATA Saturated Thickness: 56.61 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.003482 WELL DATA 0.1 0.01 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+4 Time (sec) 1.0E+5 1.0E+6 Well Name EW-1 Pumping Wells X (ft) 0 Y (ft) 0 Well Name OBS-3 Observation Wells X (ft) 77.3 Y (ft) 0 EW-1 Pumping Test Analysis - Obs. Well EW-2 Prepared By: Prepared For: ERM Ametek Project: Location: 0301045 El Cajon, CA SOLUTION 10. Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Tartakovsky-Neuman T = 237.4 ft2/day S = 8.633E-5 Sy = 1. Kz/Kr = 0.0002477 kD = 3.714E+7 1. Displacement (ft) AQUIFER DATA Saturated Thickness: 56.61 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.0002477 0.1 WELL DATA 0.01 0.001 100. 1000. 1.0E+4 Time (sec) 1.0E+5 1.0E+6 Well Name EW-1 Pumping Wells X (ft) 0 Y (ft) 0 Well Name EW-2 Observation Wells X (ft) 190.61 Y (ft) 0 EW-1 Pumping Test Analysis - Obs. Well EW-2 Prepared By: Prepared For: ERM Ametek Project: Location: 0301045 El Cajon, CA SOLUTION 10. Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Moench T = 243.3 ft2/day S = 7.967E-5 Sy = 1. ß = 0.00301 Sw = 312.8 r(w) = 0.3542 ft r(c) = 0.1667 ft alpha = 2074.6 sec-1 Displacement (ft) 1. AQUIFER DATA 0.1 Saturated Thickness: 56.61 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.0002655 WELL DATA 0.01 0.001 100. 1000. 1.0E+4 Time (sec) 1.0E+5 1.0E+6 Well Name EW-1 Pumping Wells X (ft) 0 Y (ft) 0 Well Name EW-2 Observation Wells X (ft) 190.61 Y (ft) 0 EW-1 Recovery Test Analysis - Obs. Well OBS-1 Prepared By: Prepared For: ERM Ametek Project: Location: 0301045 El Cajon, CA SOLUTION 10. Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Tartakovsky-Neuman T = 149.7 ft2/day S = 0.001777 Sy = 1. Kz/Kr = 1. kD = 1000. 1. AQUIFER DATA Recovery (ft) Saturated Thickness: 56.61 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1. WELL DATA 0.1 0.01 10. 100. 1000. Agarwal Equivalent Time (sec) 1.0E+4 Well Name EW-1 Pumping Wells X (ft) 0 Y (ft) 0 Well Name OBS-1 Observation Wells X (ft) 16.21 Y (ft) 0 EW-1 Recovery Test Analysis - Obs. Well OBS-1 Prepared By: Prepared For: ERM Ametek Project: Location: 0301045 El Cajon, CA SOLUTION 10. Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Moench T = 286.5 ft2/day S = 0.0006816 Sy = 1. ß = 0.01 Sw = 6.07 r(w) = 0.3542 ft r(c) = 0.1667 ft alpha = 2074.6 sec-1 Recovery (ft) 1. AQUIFER DATA Saturated Thickness: 56.61 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.122 WELL DATA 0.1 0.01 10. 100. 1000. Agarwal Equivalent Time (sec) 1.0E+4 Well Name EW-1 Pumping Wells X (ft) 0 Y (ft) 0 Well Name OBS-1 Observation Wells X (ft) 16.21 Y (ft) 0 EW-1 Recovery Test Analysis - Obs. Well OBS-2 Prepared By: Prepared For: ERM Ametek Project: Location: 0301045 El Cajon, CA SOLUTION 10. Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Tartakovsky-Neuman T = 271. ft2/day S = 0.0004941 Sy = 3.106E-5 Kz/Kr = 1. kD = 0.8097 1. Recovery (ft) AQUIFER DATA Saturated Thickness: 56.61 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1. 0.1 WELL DATA 0.01 0.001 10. 100. 1000. Agarwal Equivalent Time (sec) 1.0E+4 Well Name EW-1 Pumping Wells X (ft) 0 Y (ft) 0 Well Name OBS-2 Observation Wells X (ft) 25.57 Y (ft) 0 EW-1 Recovery Test Analysis - Obs. Well OBS-2 Prepared By: Prepared For: ERM Ametek Project: Location: 0301045 El Cajon, CA SOLUTION 10. Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Moench T = 307.8 ft2/day S = 0.0009141 Sy = 1. ß = 0.008403 Sw = -4.951 r(w) = 0.3542 ft r(c) = 0.1667 ft alpha = 2074.6 sec-1 Recovery (ft) 1. AQUIFER DATA 0.1 Saturated Thickness: 56.61 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.0412 WELL DATA 0.01 0.001 10. 100. 1000. Agarwal Equivalent Time (sec) 1.0E+4 Well Name EW-1 Pumping Wells X (ft) 0 Y (ft) 0 Well Name OBS-2 Observation Wells X (ft) 25.57 Y (ft) 0 EW-1 Recovery Test Analysis - Obs. Well OBS-3 Prepared By: Prepared For: ERM Ametek Project: Location: 0301045 El Cajon, CA SOLUTION 10. Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Tartakovsky-Neuman T = 390.1 ft2/day S = 0.0005795 Sy = 1.0E-5 Kz/Kr = 0.01043 kD = 4.089E+6 1. Recovery (ft) AQUIFER DATA Saturated Thickness: 56.61 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.01043 0.1 WELL DATA 0.01 0.001 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+4 Agarwal Equivalent Time (sec) 1.0E+5 Well Name EW-1 Pumping Wells X (ft) 0 Y (ft) 0 Well Name OBS-3 Observation Wells X (ft) 77.3 Y (ft) 0 EW-1 Recovery Test Analysis - Obs. Well OBS-3 Prepared By: Prepared For: ERM Ametek Project: Location: 0301045 El Cajon, CA SOLUTION 10. Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Moench T = 386.7 ft2/day S = 0.0005471 Sy = 1.0E-5 ß = 0.01 Sw = -3.251 r(w) = 0.3542 ft r(c) = 0.1667 ft alpha = 2074.6 sec-1 Recovery (ft) 1. AQUIFER DATA 0.1 Saturated Thickness: 56.61 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.005363 WELL DATA 0.01 0.001 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+4 Agarwal Equivalent Time (sec) 1.0E+5 Well Name EW-1 Pumping Wells X (ft) 0 Y (ft) 0 Well Name OBS-3 Observation Wells X (ft) 77.3 Y (ft) 0 EW-1 Recovery Test Analysis - Obs. Well EW-2 Prepared By: Prepared For: ERM Ametek Project: Location: 0301045 El Cajon, CA SOLUTION 10. Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Tartakovsky-Neuman T = 234.3 ft2/day S = 9.679E-5 Sy = 1.0E-5 Kz/Kr = 0.0006595 kD = 3.573E+7 1. Recovery (ft) AQUIFER DATA Saturated Thickness: 56.61 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.0006595 0.1 WELL DATA 0.01 0.001 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+4 Agarwal Equivalent Time (sec) 1.0E+5 Well Name EW-1 Pumping Wells X (ft) 0 Y (ft) 0 Well Name EW-2 Observation Wells X (ft) 190.61 Y (ft) 0 EW-1 Recovery Test Analysis - Obs. Well EW-2 Prepared By: Prepared For: ERM Ametek Project: Location: 0301045 El Cajon, CA SOLUTION 10. Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Moench T = 235. ft2/day S = 8.426E-5 Sy = 1.186E-5 ß = 0.008708 Sw = -6.242 r(w) = 0.3542 ft r(c) = 0.1667 ft alpha = 2074.6 sec-1 Recovery (ft) 1. AQUIFER DATA 0.1 Saturated Thickness: 56.61 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.0007681 WELL DATA 0.01 0.001 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+4 Agarwal Equivalent Time (sec) 1.0E+5 Well Name EW-1 Pumping Wells X (ft) 0 Y (ft) 0 Well Name EW-2 Observation Wells X (ft) 190.61 Y (ft) 0 Appendix and Recovery Test Results EW-2 Pumping Test Analysis Prepared By: Prepared For: ERM Ametek Project: Location: 0301045 El Cajon, CA SOLUTION 10. Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Moench T = 80.69 ft2/day S = 0.04894 Sy = 1. ß = 0.001286 Sw = -0.3683 r(w) = 0.3333 ft r(c) = 0.1667 ft alpha = 4.996E+8 sec-1 Displacement (ft) 1. AQUIFER DATA Saturated Thickness: 18.26 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 3.86 WELL DATA 0.1 0.01 1. 10. 100. 1000. Time (sec) 1.0E+4 1.0E+5 Well Name EW-2 Pumping Wells X (ft) 0 Y (ft) 0 Well Name EW-2 Observation Wells X (ft) 0.166667 Y (ft) 0 EW-2 Pumping Test Analysis Prepared By: Prepared For: ERM Ametek Project: Location: 0301045 El Cajon, CA SOLUTION 10. Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Tartakovsky-Neuman T = 109.7 ft2/day S = 0.03865 Sy = 1. Kz/Kr = 1. kD = 2.255 1. Displacement (ft) AQUIFER DATA Saturated Thickness: 18.26 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1. WELL DATA 0.1 0.01 1. 10. 100. 1000. Time (sec) 1.0E+4 1.0E+5 Well Name EW-2 Pumping Wells X (ft) 0 Y (ft) 0 Well Name EW-2 Observation Wells X (ft) 0.166667 Y (ft) 0 EW-2 Recovery Test Analysis Prepared By: Prepared For: ERM Ametek Project: Location: 0301045 El Cajon, CA SOLUTION 10. Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Tartakovsky-Neuman T = 41.97 ft2/day S = 0.2856 Sy = 1.0E-5 Kz/Kr = 0.0002427 kD = 3.714E+7 1. Recovery (ft) AQUIFER DATA Saturated Thickness: 18.26 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.0002427 0.1 WELL DATA 0.01 0.001 0.1 1. 10. 100. Agarwal Equivalent Time (sec) 1000. 1.0E+4 Well Name EW-2 Pumping Wells X (ft) 0 Y (ft) 0 Well Name EW-2 Observation Wells X (ft) 0.166667 Y (ft) 0 EW-4 Pumping Test Analysis Prepared By: Prepared For: ERM Ametek Project: Location: 0301045 El Cajon, CA SOLUTION 10. Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Moench T = 309.1 ft2/day S = 0.522 Sy = 1. ß = 1.465E-6 Sw = 1.833 r(w) = 0.3333 ft r(c) = 0.1667 ft alpha = 2074.6 sec-1 Displacement (ft) 1. AQUIFER DATA 0.1 Saturated Thickness: 66.1 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.0576 WELL DATA 0.01 0.001 0.1 1. 10. 100. Time (sec) 1000. 1.0E+4 1.0E+5 Well Name EW-4 Pumping Wells X (ft) 0 Y (ft) 0 Well Name EW-4 Observation Wells X (ft) 0.166667 Y (ft) 0 EW-4 Pumping Test Analysis Prepared By: Prepared For: ERM Ametek Project: Location: 0301045 El Cajon, CA SOLUTION 10. Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Tartakovsky-Neuman T = 246.2 ft2/day S = 0.04764 Sy = 1. Kz/Kr = 1. kD = 1.0E+8 1. Displacement (ft) AQUIFER DATA Saturated Thickness: 66.1 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1. 0.1 WELL DATA 0.01 0.001 0.1 1. 10. 100. Time (sec) 1000. 1.0E+4 1.0E+5 Well Name EW-4 Pumping Wells X (ft) 0 Y (ft) 0 Well Name EW-4 Observation Wells X (ft) 0.166667 Y (ft) 0 EW-4 Recovery Test Analysis Prepared By: Prepared For: ERM Ametek Project: Location: 0301045 El Cajon, CA SOLUTION 10. Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Tartakovsky-Neuman T = 141. ft2/day S = 0.3311 Sy = 1. Kz/Kr = 0.0002427 kD = 4.433E+6 1. Recovery (ft) AQUIFER DATA Saturated Thickness: 66.1 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.0002427 0.1 WELL DATA 0.01 0.001 0.1 1. 10. 100. Agarwal Equivalent Time (sec) 1000. 1.0E+4 Well Name EW-4 Pumping Wells X (ft) 0 Y (ft) 0 Well Name EW-4 Observation Wells X (ft) 0.166667 Y (ft) 0 Gregory Wheeler From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: McClain, Sean@Waterboards Friday, April 07, 2017 12:13 PM Gregory Wheeler Truong Mai; Ted Cota; Geber Cerna; Tom Deeney; Sweel, Greg@DTSC; Carlisle, Craig@Waterboards RE: Hydraulic Conductivity Testing Results - Former Ketema A&E Facility - SL209234198: smcclain Greg,    The San Diego Water Board finds the parameters selected for the hydraulic conductivity, gradient, and flow rates are  appropriate to use in a capture zone model.  Please let me know when the Capture Zone Report will be submitted to the  agencies for review.  I would recommend that a draft report is submitted first so agency comments can be included in the final  report.    Regards,    Sean McClain, PG Engineering Geologist 619.521.3374   2375 Northside Drive, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92108       From: Gregory Wheeler [mailto:Gregory.Wheeler@erm.com]   Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 4:13 PM  To: McClain, Sean@Waterboards   Cc: Truong Mai ; Ted Cota ; Geber Cerna ; Tom Deeney  ; Sweel, Greg@DTSC   Subject: Hydraulic Conductivity Testing Results ‐ Former Ketema A&E Facility ‐ SL209234198: smcclain    Sean – On behalf of AMETEK, attached for your review, discussion, and approval are the results of the hydraulic conductivity  testing completed at the MES property adjacent to the Former Ketema A&E Facility.  If you need any additional information  before the call that is scheduled for this Wednesday 15 March 2017 at 10:00 AM, please feel free to contact me.  We would like  to continue with the capture or influence zone analysis as soon as possible and are requesting approval from the SDRWQCB for  the selected parameters listed in the attached technical memorandum.    Regards,  Gregory J. Wheeler Partner ERM 5001 California Ave, Suite 205 │Bakersfield, California │93309-1692 T +1 661 437 3120 │ M +1 661 410 9040 E gregory.wheeler@erm.com │ W www.erm.com                                          1   This message contains information which may be confidential, proprietary, privileged, or otherwise protected by law from disclosure or use by a third party. If you have received this message in error, please contact us immediately at (925) 946-0455 and take the steps necessary to delete the message completely from your computer system. Thank you. Please visit ERM's web site: http://www.erm.com 2