Environmental Protection Magazine
Groundwater Monitoring Gets a Direct Push!
| View main article | View article references |
PICTURES & DRAWINGS
Figure 2: Driller and helper stripping and shoveling waste drill cuttings during monitoring well installation. Handling and proper disposal of contaminated cuttings may consume up to 50% of the field investigation budget. Waste cuttings also present a significant health and safety hazard when contaminated. Refer back to article.
Figure 3: Probe operators installing a monitoring well using direct push methods. Note, little if any cuttings are generated. The small diameter grout tube is visible just left of center in the photo. Bottom-up grouting with 25% solids bentonite slurries or neat cement grout provides high integrity well construction. Refer back to article.
Figure 4: Schematic of a direct-push groundwater sampling device. Temporary installation for sample collection and abandonment grouting may require less than one hour. The tools are decontaminated for multiple re-use. Refer back to article.
Figure 5: Schematic of DP installed small diameter monitoring well construction. The primary difference between conventional well design and the DP well design is the smaller diameter. The New ASTM Standard Practice D 6725 details the procedure for direct push installation of the small prepacked screen monitoring wells. Refer back to article.
Figure 6: New ASTM Standard Practice D 6725 details the procedures for installing prepacked screen monitoring wells with direct push methods. This new Standard is scheduled for publication by ASTM this summer. Refer back to article.
Figure 8: Direct push methods can be combined with pneumatic slug testing to determine formation hydraulic conductivity in DP monitoring wells or temporary groundwater sampling devices. Refer back to article.