The Water Encyclopedia: Hydrologic Data and Internet Resources - Chapter 6 docx

SECTION 6A GROUNDWATER — UNITED STATESTHE WATER ENCYCLOPEDIA: HYDROLOGIC DATA AND INTERNET RESOURCES6-2... EXPLANATION Unconsolidated sand and gravel aquifersSandstone aquifers Basaltic

CHAPTER 6 Groundwater Melvin Rivera

CONTENTS

Section 6A Groundwater — United States 6–2 Section 6B Water Wells — United States 6–17 Section 6C Water Wells 6–22 Section 6D Injection Wells 6–39 Section 6E Pumping of Water 6–49 Section 6F Subsidence 6–59 Section 6G Aquifer Characteristics 6–64 Section 6H Soil Moisture 6–76 Section 6I Springs 6–79 Section 6J Artificial Recharge 6–85 Section 6K Geophysical Logging 6–88

6-1

SECTION 6A GROUNDWATER — UNITED STATES

THE WATER ENCYCLOPEDIA: HYDROLOGIC DATA AND INTERNET RESOURCES6-2

EXPLANATION Unconsolidated sand and gravel aquifers

Sandstone aquifers

Basaltic and other volcanic-rock aquifers

Semiconsolidated sand aquifer

Coastal lowlands aquifer system Texas coastal uplands aquifer system Mississippi embayment aquifer system

Basin and Range aquifers Rio Grande aquifer system California Coastal Basin aquifers Pacific Northwest basin-fill aquifers Puget-Willamette Lowland aquifer system Northern Rocky Mountains Intermountain Basins aquifer system

Central Valley aquifer system High Planes aquifer Pacos River Basin alluvial aquifer Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer Seymour aquifer

11 Surfical aquifer system Unconsolidated-deposit aquifer (Alaska) South Coast aquifer (Puerto Rico)

Colorado Plateaus aquifer Denver Basin aquifer system Lower Cretaceous aquifers Rush Springs aquifer Central Oklahoma aquifer Ada-Varnoosa aquifer

Southern Nevada volcanic-rock aquifers Northern California volcanic-rock aquifers Pliocene and younger basaltic-rock aquifers Miocene basaltic-rock aquifers Volcanic and sedimentary-rock aquifers Snake River Plain aquifer system

Carbonate-rock aquifers

Sandstone and carbonate-rock aquifers

Glacial deposit aquifers overlie bedrock aquifers in many areas

Not a principal aquifer

Basin and Range carbonate-rock aquifers Roswell Basin aquifer system Ozark Plateaus aquifer system Bialine aquifer Arbuckle Simpsion aquifer Silarian-Devonian aquifers Ordovician aquifers Upper carbonate aquifers Eoxiden aquifer system Biscayne aquifer New York and New England carbonate rock aquifers

Early Mesozoic basin aquifers New York sandstone aquifers Pennsylvantan aquifers Mississippian aquifer of Michigan Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer system Jacobsville aquifer Lower Tertiary aquifers

15 16

1

2

3 4 5

7

8 9 10

12 13

14 6

30

20

21

22 23 24

26 27 28 29

31

38

35 36

49 50 51 52

58 59

60 61 48

17 Southeastern Coastal plain aquifer system 18

Northern Atlantic Coastal plain aquifer system

19

32 Upper Cretaceous aquifers 33

Upper Tertiary aquifers (Wyoming) 34

40 Columbia Plateaus aquifer system

41

Volcanic-rock aquifer-Overlain by sedimentary deposits where patterned (Hawaii)

Figure 6A.1 Principal aquifers of the United States (Fromhttp://capp.water.usgs.gov.)

Figure 6A.2 River valley aquifers in the United States (From Water Information Center, 1973, Water Atlas of the United States H.E.

Thomas, The Conservation of Ground Water, McGraw-Hill, 1951 With permission.)

THE WATER ENCYCLOPEDIA: HYDROLOGIC DATA AND INTERNET RESOURCES6-4

Table 6A.1 Occurrence of Aquifers in the United States

Arid Basin

Columbi Lava Plateau

Colorado Plateau

High Plains

Unglaciated Central Region

Glaciated Central Region

Unglaciated Appalachian Region

Glaciated Appalachian Region

Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain

Special Comments

Highly productive but not greatly developed

— P to M

S and G deposits in valleys and along stream courses.

Highly developed with local depletion.

Storage large but perennial recharge limited-P

S and G deposits along streams, interbedded with basalt — I

to M

U S and G along water courses.

Sand dune deposits

— P (in part)

S and G along water courses and in terrace deposits — I (limited)

S and G along water courses

— M

S and G along water courses and in terrace deposits Not developed

S and G along water courses and in terrace and littoral deposits, especially

in the Mississippi and tributary valleys.

Not highly developed

in East and South.

Some depletion

in Gulf Coast — I

The most widespread and important aquifers in the United States.

Well over one-half of all groundwater pumped in the United States is withdrawn from these aquifers.

Many are easily available for artificial recharge and induced infiltration.

Subject to saltwater contamination in coastal areas Glacial drift,

S and G deposits especially

in northern part of region and

in some valleys — I

S and G outwash, especially

in Spokane area — I

U S and G outwash, much of it reworked (see above) — I

S and G outwash especially along northern boundary

of region

— I

S and G outwash, terrace deposits and lenses

in till throughout region — P (in part)

S and G outwash in northern part Not highly developed

— M

S and G outwash, terrace deposits and lenses

in till.

Locally highly deve- loped

— I

S and G outwash in Mississippi Valley (see above)

Alluvial Fm and other

basin deposits in the southern part — M to P (see Alluvium above)

U U Alluviated plains and

valley fills — M to I

limestone, sand, and marl Fms in Florida — M

(Continued)

Table 6A.1 (Continued)

Arid Basin

Columbi Lava Plateau

Colorado Plateau

High Plains

Unglaciated Central Region

Glaciated Central Region

Unglaciated Appalachian Region

Glaciated Appalachian Region

Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain

Special Comments

Not highly developed

— M

Some S and G

in valley fill — M

Fm in High Plains.

Extensive

S and G with huge storage but little recharge locally.

Much depletion

— P (in part)

Texas.

Citronelle and LaFayette Fms in Gulf States — I

Miocene Ellensburg

Fm in Washi- ngton — I;

elsewhere

— U

U Ellensburg

Fm in Washington

S and G in north western part — M

Absent Absent New Jersey,

Maryland, Delaware, Virginia — Cohansey and Calvert Fms — I Delaware

Aquifers in coastal areas subject to saltwater encroachment and contamination

to North Carolina —

St Marys and Calvert Fms — I Georgia and Florida — Tampa Ls, Alluvium Bluff

Gp, and Tamiami

Fm — I Eastern Texas — Oakville and Catahoula

Ss — I

locally — I;

else where — U

Byram Ls, and Vicksburg

Eocene Knight and

Almy Fm

in west Wyoming

south-— M

Almy Fm in southwest Wyoming, Chuska

Ss, and Tohatchi

Sh in northwest Arizona and north- east New Mexico

— M

U Claibourne

and Wilcox

Gp in southern Illinois (?), Kentucky, and Missouri

— M; where — U

Maryland, Delaware, Virginia — Pamunkey Gp —

I North Carolina

to Florida — Ocal

a Ls and Castle Hayne Marl — P (in part) Florida — Avon Park

Ls, South Carolina to Mexican border, Claibourne Gp, Wilcox Gp — I

Includes the principal formations (Ocala

Ls, especially) of the great Floridan aquifer Subject to saltwater contamination in coastal areas but source of largest groundwater supply

in southeastern United States

— I Volcanic

to cene — P

Plio-Local flows — M

— M;

elsewhere

— U

U Dakota Ss and other not clearly distinguishable Ss a notable source of

water from Minnesota and Iowa to the Rocky Mountains and south into New Mexico; also in Utah and Arizona — I

In northwestern part of region Fox Hills and related Ss (Lennep, Colgate, etc.) locally valuable as water sources — M

Maryland, Delaware — Magothy and Raritan

Fm — I North and South Carolina — Peedee and Black Creek Fms — I

In coastal areas subject to saltwater encroachment and contamination.

Ss aquifers of the central regions and the west primarily valuable when water from other sources

(Continued)

Table 6A.1 (Continued)

Arid Basin

Columbi Lava Plateau

Colorado Plateau

High Plains

Unglaciated Central Region

Glaciated Central Region

Unglaciated Appalachian Region

Glaciated Appalachian Region

Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain

Special Comments

Tennessee, Kentucky, Illinois — McNairy

Ss — I Arkansas

to Texas — Navarro Gp and Taylor

Fm — I Lower

creta-ceous

Lakota, Cloverly, and Kootenai Ss — M

In southern part Purgatoire and Dakota Ss—M Texas aquifers listed in col 11—I

Woodbine

Ss — I.

New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware — Patapsco and Patuxent Fms — I West of Mississippi River, especially

in Texas — Edwards Ls and Ss in Trinity

Gp — I Jurassic Locally —

Ss Fm — M

Triassic Locally — Ss

and C Fms — M

Fms used locally.

Shinarump

C and latives give rise to springs — I

corre-U U Absent Ss, C, jointed shale, and basalt beds

of Newark Gp in Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina — M

Water from

Ss, C, and Ls Fms west of Mississippi river, especially valuable when water from other sources

Ls — M

master

Quarter-Gp gives rise to many springs — M Other Ss and Ls in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas — M Pennsyl-

vanian

Tensleep Ss

in Wyoming and other

Ss where — M

to Iowa and eastern Kansas — M to I

Jointed and weath- ered Sh,

Ss, and C

in Rhode Island and Massach- usetts

— M

U

Mississippian Ls locally

but little deve- loped;

springs arise from Ls

in Rocky Mountains

— M

A few springs arise from Ls locally

— U

springs arise from Ls locally

— U

U In Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, and Kentucky

the Burlington, Keokuk, and St Louis Ls — I Some Ss (primarily Chester) — M

In Alabama and Tennessee — the Feet Payne chert, Gaspar Fm, and St Genevieve and Tuscumbia Ls — I

In Kentucky many springs arise in Ls

(Traverse Fm), Illinois, Missouri, Ohio (Columbia Ls), and Kentucky — M

Jointed Ls, Ss, and Sh, some highly metamorphosed

M locally and little used

U

in New York, Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio, Illinois, and Iowa

Better-known aquifers include Monroe dolomite and related carbonate Fms in Ohio — I;

Table 6A.1 (Continued)

Arid Basin

Columbi Lava Plateau

Colorado Plateau

High Plains

Unglaciated Central Region

Glaciated Central Region

Unglaciated Appalachian Region

Glaciated Appalachian Region

Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain

Special Comments

Iowa, Illinois, eastern Indiana, southern Wisconsin, south-

eastern Minnesota, the St Peter Ss — I

Locally Ls and Ss Fms;

not highly developed — M

U

Overlying and subjacent

Ls and Ss where present

in above states and in Kansas, Oklahoma, and New York — M to I

In Kentucky and Tennessee — Ls

Fm — M to I

Minnesota, Iowa, and Illinois include Jordan Ss,

“Dresbach Fm”

(Galesville Ss, Eau Claire Fm,

Mt Simon Ss) — P (in part)

Ls Fms give rise to large springs in southern Appal- achians.

Otherwise

— U

Eastern New York and New England Ss Fms — M;

wise — U

other-U

Ls and Ss Fms in Missouri and Arkansas give rise to many large springs and yield water to many wells — P Precambrian

U U U U Weathered and jointed rocks locally in Minnesota,

Wisconsin, northern Michigan, Piedmont Plateau, New England — M to I Some Ss in North Central States

NonglaciatedCentral

tai

calG

ColoradoPlateauandWyomingBasin

NonglaciatedCentr

alregion

Western MinRangesHighPlains

Wester

nRanges

NortheastSuperior

andUplands

NonglaciatedCentral region

Centr

MPlains

HighNonglaciatedCentralregion

Northeast andSuperior uplands

Atlantic

andGulf

GlaciatedCentral region

NonglaciatedCentral region

NonglaciatedCentralregion

Piedmontand

Figure 6A.3 Groundwater regions of the United States (From Heath, R.C., Classification of ground-water regions of the United States,

Groundwater, 20, 4, 1982.)

Table 6A.2 Principal Physical and Hydrologic Characteristics of Groundwater Regions in the United States

Table 6A.3 Basic Data Required for Groundwater Studies

A Maps, Cross Sections, and Fence Diagrams

a Location of wells, observation wells, and springs

b Groundwater table and potentiometric contours

c Depth to water

d Quality of water

e Recharge, discharge, and contributing areas

5 Vegetative cover, location of wetlands

6 Soils

7 Aerial photographs

B Data on Wells and Springs

1 Location, depth, diameter, types of well, and logs

2 Static and pumping water level, hydrographs, yield, specific capacity, quality of water

3 Present and projected groundwater development and use

4 Corrosion, incrustation, well interference, and similar operation and maintenance problems

5 Location, type, geologic setting, and hydrographs of springs

6 Observation well networks

7 Water sampling sites

C Aquifer Data

1 Type, such as unconfined, artesian, or perched

2 Thickness, depths, and formational designation

3 Boundaries

4 Transmissivity, storativity, and permeability

5 Specific retention

6 Discharge and recharge

7 Ground and surface water relationships

3 Runoff distribution, reservoir capacities, inflow and outflow data

4 Return flows, section gain or loss

5 Recording stations

6 Low flow data

F Environment

1 Location of hazardous waste sites or other potential sources of pollution

2 Use of herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers, and road salt

3 Site history

G Local Drilling Facilities and Practices

1 Size and types of drilling rigs locally available

2 Logging services locally available

3 Locally used materials, well designs, and drilling practices

4 State or local rules and regulationsSource: From U.S Bureau of Reclamation, Groundwater Manual ; Amended, 1977

1 Northern Great Plains 14 Upper Colorado River basin

7 Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain 20 Edwards-Trinity

13 Northeast Glacial AquifersThe U.S Geological Survey initiated the Regional Aquifer-System Analysis (RASA) Program in 1978 in response to Federal and State needs for information to improve management of the Nation's groundwater resources The objective of the RASA Program is to define the regional geohydrology and establish a framework of background information—geologic, hydrologic, and geochemical—that can be used for regional assessment of groundwater resources and in support of detailed local studies The program was completed in 1995

A total of 25 aquifer systems were studied under the RASA Program

15Hawaii

23

23 17 25

19

12324

Figure 6A.4 Regional aquifer study areas (Fromhttp://water.usgs.gov.)

THE WATER ENCYCLOPEDIA: HYDROLOGIC DATA AND INTERNET RESOURCES6-14

Table 6A.4 Estimated Groundwater in Storage, by Continent

Note: In millions of km3; based on publications by soviet hydrologists

Source: From Castany, G., Hydrogeology of deep aquifers, Episodes, 1981, 3, 1981

Groundwater

0–25 %26–50 %51– 75 %76–100 %Aquifer areas

Aquifer areas with a flow rate greater than 0.4 l/sec.Regions outside CanadaBoundaries

InternationalCanada / Kalaallit Nunaat dividing line

EEZ (200 mile)

Figure 6A.7 Groundwater potential in Canada and a percentage of people using groundwater resources in Canadian municipalities over

10,000 people (Fromwww.atlas.gc.ca.)

THE WATER ENCYCLOPEDIA: HYDROLOGIC DATA AND INTERNET RESOURCES6-16

SECTION 6B WATER WELLS — UNITED STATES

Figure 6B.8 Number of water wells drilled in the United States and relation to major events in the United Stated history (From Hindall,

S.M., Eberle, Michael,1987, National and regional trends in water-well drilling in the United States 1964–1984, U.S.Geological Survey, Open File Report 87–247; 1985 data from National Water Well Association.)

Table 6B.5 Number and Type of Water Wells and Boreholes Constructed in the United States in 1985

Note: Based on Water Well Journal Survey of 8,043 firms

a Included in “Other” category on pie chart

Source: From McCray, Kevin Copyright Water Well Journal September 1986 Reprinted with permission

HEAT PUMPPUBLIC2.47%

IRRIGATION2.66%

COMM/IND6.1%

OTHER11.22%

MONITORING14.97%

2.23%

PRIVATE HOUSEHOLD WELLS

60.35%

Figure 6B.9 Density of housing units using on site domestic water supply systems in the United States [By county].

(From U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Supply, Office of Solid Waste Management Programs,

1977, The Report to Congress: Waste Disposal Practices and Their Effects on Groundwater.)

THE WATER ENCYCLOPEDIA: HYDROLOGIC DATA AND INTERNET RESOURCES6-18

Table 6B.6 Number and Type of Water Wells in the United States, 1988

Note: N/A, Not available

a Includes community supply (systems with at least 15 service connections used by year-round residents or

regularly serving at least 25 year-round residents)

Source: From National Water Well Association, 1988

Table 6B.7 Number of Water Wells Drilled in the United States, 1960–1984

Estimated Number of Wells Drilleda

in 1984

1960and1964

1964and1984

1980and1984

Table 6B.8 Regional Trends in Water-Well Construction in the United States, 1960–1984

Number of Wells Drilled

AverageAnnualTotal 1980Through

Percentage of Total Wells Drilled Percentage Change between Annual Totals

Source: From Hindall, S.M., Eberle, Michael, national and regional trends in water-well drilling in the United States 1964–1984, U.S

Geological Survey, Open File Report, 87–247, 1987

in 1984

1960and1964

1964and1984

1980and1984

Totals 381,000 434,000 387,000 371,000 336,000 359,000 397,000 100 C14 C8.5 C2.6a

Numbers rounded to three significant figures

b Numbers rounded to two significant figures

Source: From Hindall, S.M., Eberle, Michael, national and regional trends in water-well drilling in the United States 1964–1984, U.S

Geological Survey, Open File Report, 87–247, 1987

SECTION 6C WATER WELLS

THE WATER ENCYCLOPEDIA: HYDROLOGIC DATA AND INTERNET RESOURCES6-22

Table 6C.9 Water Well Construction Methods and Applications

Method

Materials forWhich BestSuited

Water TableDepth forWhich BestSuited (m)

UsualMaximumDepth (m)

UsualDiameterRange (cm)

UsualCasingMaterial

CustomaryUse

15–250 Most effective for penetrating

and removing clay Limited

by gravel over 2 cm Casingrequired if material is loosePower auger Clay, silt sand, gravel

less than 5 cm

wrought-iron pipe

Domestic,irrigation,drainage

15–500 Limited by gravel over 5 cm,

otherwise same as for handauger

pipe

All uses 15–15,000 Effective for water exploration

Requires casing in loosematerials Mudscow andhollow rod bits developedfor drilling unconsolidatedfine to medium sedimentsRotary Silt, sand, gravel less

than 2 cm; soft tohard consolidatedrock

pipe

All uses 15–15,000 Fastest method for all except

hardest rock Casingusually not required duringdrilling Effective for gravelenvelope wells

2500–20,000 Effective for large-diameter

holes in unconsolidated andpartially consolidateddeposits Requires largevolume of water for drilling.Effective for gravelenvelope wellsRotary-

percussion

Silt, sand, gravel lessthan 5 cm; soft tohard consolidatedrock

pipe

Irrigation,industrial,municipal

2500–15,000 Now used in oil exploration

Very fast drilling Combinesrotary and percussionmethods (air drilling)cuttings removed by air

Would be economical fordeep water wellsa

Yield influenced primarily by geology and availability of groundwater

b Greater depths reached with heavier equipment

Source: From U.S Soil Conservation Service, Engineering Field Manual for Conservation Practices, 1969

Table 6C.10 Relative Performance of Different Drilling Methods in Various Types of Geologic Formations

Type of

Formation

CableTool

DirectRotary(withFuids)

DirectRotary(withAir)

DirectRotary(Down-the-HoleAirHammer)

DirectRotary(Drill-ThroughCasingHammer)

ReverseRotary(withfluids)

ReverseRotary(DualWall)

aulicPercu-

alluvial fans or glacial

Assuming sufficient hydrostatic pressure is available to contain active sand (under high confining pressures)

Source: From Driscoll, F.G., 1986, Groundwater and Wells Copyright Johnson Division

Table 6C.11 Description of Drilling Methods

Methods Without Drilling Fluids

Displacement Boring

Pros:

† Does not require heavy equipment (by hand or lightweight equipment)

† Clean method for shallow well installationCons:

† Method limited to shallow depths

† Method limited to soft soils and boulder, cobble-free zones

† Not efficient if necessary to install several wells

† Practical limitation up to w200diameter samplerSimilar to the above method is “Direct Push Technology” or DPT A common trade name is GeoProbe

DPT does not require heavy equipment, most units are pickup mounted or ATV mounted for easy

† Limited to shallow depths (! 50 ft)

† Limited to unconsolidated, soft formations relatively free of cobbles or boulders

† May require pre-drilling a hole of slightly greater diameter that the well pointSolid-Stem Auger

Pros:

† Rapid and low-cost drilling in clayey formations

† Clean method, does not require circulation fluids

† No casing necessary where the formation is stable

† Allows collection of representative sample in semi-consolidated formationsCons:

† Practical limitation to 2400diameter

† Inefficient in loose, sandy material (depends on the depth)

† Inefficient below the water table (depends on the depth)Hollow-Stem Auger (HSA)

Pros:

† Allows collection of uncontaminated sample in unconsolidated formation

† Can be used as temporary casing to prevent caving

† Relatively rapid, especially in clayey formationsCons:

† Ineffective through boulders

† Limited drilling in loose, granular soils, particularly below the water table where sample recoverycan be compromised

† Difficult to retrieve a sample in loose, granular soil because cuttings do not always want to come

to the surface Samples must be collected with a split spoon or a continuous corer, either of whichcan provide excellent samples if done correctly

† Limited to rather shallow depthsSonic Drilling

Pros:

† Drilling can proceed with or without the use of drilling fluids

† Method can be utilized in unconsolidated and some consolidated formations

† Minimal disturbance to soil samples

† Good recovery of quasi-continuous samples

† Conventional air rotary or down-hole hammer methods can be employed through the outer drivecasing

† The rig can also be operated as a fluid rotary machineCons:

† A relatively new method that is not available everywhere

† Relatively expensive compared to other drilling methods

(Continued)

Table 6C.11 (Continued)

† Dry casing advancement generates heat that can affect the sample integrity

† Maximum nominal diameter of less than 12 in

† Practical depth limitation of less than 500 ftMethods that Use Drilling Fluids

Rotary (Direct) Drilling

Pros:

† High penetration rate

† Drilling operation requires a minimum amount of casing

† Rapid mobilization and demobilizationCons:

† Use of a drilling fluid, both in terms of sample contamination and water management (in the case

of water-based fluids and air injected by gasoline compressors)

† Circulation of drilling fluid may be lost in loose/coarse formations, hence making difficult totransport drill cuttings

† Difficult to collect accurate samples, i.e a sample from a discrete zone since the cuttingsaccumulate at surface around the rim of the borehole

Reverse Circulation Rotary Drilling (RC)

Pros:

† Applicable to a wide variety of formations

† Possible to drill large-diameter holes, both quickly and economically

† Minimal disturbance to the formation due to the pressure being applied inside and outside thepipe string

† Easier recovery of cuttings since the up-hole velocity is controlled by the size of the drill pipe andless subject to lost-circulation

† No casing required during drilling and advantageous when high risks of caving inches If there is arisk of caving, mud should be used as a stabilizer In the case of air drilling, it presents the samerisk than regular air rotary, since the flow is down the annular space

Cons:

† High water requirements (not for air drilling)

† Collection of a representative sample is difficult due to potential material mixing

† Rig size can render access difficult

† Need for drilling mud management (not for air drilling)Dual-Wall Reverse Circulation Drilling

Pros:

† Good sample recovery due to controlled up-hole fluid velocity

† Fast penetration in coarse alluvial or broken, fissured rock

† Possible to obtain continuous representative samples of the formation and groundwater

† Easy estimate of aquifer yield at many depths in the formation

† Reduction of lost-circulation problemsCons:

† Practical borehole diameter limited to 10 in

† Maximum depth of w1,400 ft, although greater depths can be achieved in hard rock

† Possible to dry out or to not detect a thin of low-yield aquifer

† Possible sample contamination due to the oil used in the air-compressor unless quality air filtersare used (this is true for all air methods, unless the contractor uses filters)

† Allows well construction with low chance of contamination

† Borehole can be bailed at any time to determine approximate yield of the formation at a givendepth

† Easy access to rough terrainCons:

† Slow penetration rate

† Due to the constant mixing of water, it is not possible to obtain groundwater samples duringdrilling

(Continued)THE WATER ENCYCLOPEDIA: HYDROLOGIC DATA AND INTERNET RESOURCES6-26

Table 6C.11 (Continued)

† Expensive casing for larger diameters

† Difficult to pull back casing in some geologic conditionsAir Percussion Down-the-Hole Hammer

Pros:

† Rapid removal of cuttings

† No use of drilling mud

† High penetration rate, especially in resistant rock formation (e.g basalt)

† Easy soil and groundwater sampling during drilling

† Possible to measure yield estimate at selected depth in the formationCons:

† Restricted to semi-consolidated to consolidated formationsAir Percussion Casing Hammer

Pros:

† Wells can be drilled in unconsolidated materials that could be difficult to drill with cable-tool ordirect rotary method

† No water-based fluid (drilling mud) is required in unconsolidated materials

† Representative formation and groundwater samples can be collected

† Borehole is fully stabilized during drilling operations through the use of casing

† Rapid penetration rates even in difficult drilling conditions

† Lost circulation problem is rarely a concern, except in very loose materials (e.g mine waste rock)

† Operates well in cold weatherCons:

† Method does not permit yield measurements during drilling

† When groundwater static levels are low, the high air pressure in the hole can prevent water fromentering the borehole; a “rest” period is necessary to assess the true static level

† Relatively expensive method (increased cost of driving casing in)

† Very noisy (driving of casing)

† Borehole diameter limited to 12 in

ODEX Percussion Down-the-Hole Hammer (Odex, Stratex, and Tubex are Trade Names)

Pros:

† Rapid removal of cuttings

† No use of drilling mud

† High penetration rate, especially in resistant rock formation (e.g basalt)

† Easy soil and groundwater sampling during drilling

† Possible to measure yield estimate at selected depth in the formation

† Advantageous in unconsolidated formations with a high risk of caving (this is the probably themost important feature)

Cons:

† Practically restricted to unconsolidated formations

† Relatively a more expensive methodCopyright 1990–2005 InfoMine Inc Developed and maintained by InfoMine Inc

Source: From technologyinfomine.com With permission

Table 6C.12 Data on Standard and Line Pipe Commonly Used for Water Well Casing

Nominal

Size (in.)

OutsideDiameter (in.)

OutsideDiameterCouplings (in.)

Schedule orClassa

WallThickness(in.)

Weight perFoot-PlainEnd (Pounds)

InsideDiameter (in.)

SuggestedMaximumSetting (ft)b

Table 6C.12 (Continued)

Nominal

Size (in.)

OutsideDiameter (in.)

OutsideDiameterCouplings (in.)

Schedule orClassa

WallThickness(in.)

Weight perFoot-PlainEnd (Pounds)

InsideDiameter (in.)

SuggestedMaximumSetting (ft)b

ASA Standard B36.10 schedule numbers (S) indicates standard weight pipe

b Maximum settings were estimated for the worst possible conditions in unconsolidated formation A design factor of approximately 1.5was used for steel with yield strength less than 40,000 lb/in2 A 50-percent increase in depth of setting beyond those given is consideredsafe under favorable conditions

c Indicates a non-API standard

Source: From Bureau of Reclamation, Groundwater Manual, 1977

Table 6C.13 Recommended Casing Diameters for Water Wells

Yield, Gallons per Minute

Recommended CasingSize (in.)

b O.D., Outside Diameter

Source: From U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Manual of

Water Well Construction Practices, EPA-570/ 9–75–001

Table 6C.15 Recommended Maximum Depth of Setting for California Stovepipe Casing

Gaugea

Thickness (in.)Diameter

U.S Standard Gauge

Source: From Bureau of Reclamation, Groundwater Manual, 1977

Table 6C.16 Recommended Diameter and Thickness of PVC Casing for Water Wells

Nominal Size Outside Diameter Inside Diameter

Minimum WallThicknessWell Diameters 1.5 in Through 4 in.-ASTMD 2241-73aSDR 21 (Type 1120–1220)

a New ASTM Standards are currently under view

Source: From U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Manual of Water Well Construction Practices,

EPA-570/9–75–001

Table 6C.14 Recommended Casing Sizes for Domestic Water Wells

Source: From U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Manual of Water Well Construction Practices, EPA-570/9–75–001

THE WATER ENCYCLOPEDIA: HYDROLOGIC DATA AND INTERNET RESOURCES6-30

Table 6C.17 Well Screen Selection Chart for Small-Capacity Wells

Average Slot Size

Minimum Suggested Length forCorresponding Screen Diameteraand Desired Well Yield

Very Fine Sand

6–7–8 Slot

About the finest material that can

be utilized for a water supply A

line composed of 12 grains

would measure about 1/1600

600 gph–12 ft 900 gph–13 ft 1200 gph–14 ft 1800 gph–14 ft 1800 gph–11 ft 2400 gph–15 ftFine Sand

Average grain size a little less

than 1/3200, or between 2 and 3

Coarse Sand and

Fine Gravel Mixed

Average grain size about 1/1600 In

coarser gravels, No 80 and

No 100 slot are often used

a Nominal size of screen

Source: From Edward E Johnson, Inc With permission

Table 6C.18 Recommended Minimum Screen Assembly

Fittings are 304 SS MIP X Carbon Steel Point w/guardian plate or 304 SS MIP X MIP for open end extensions For other screen lengths add $30/ft for 1 1 ⁄400, $34/ft for 2 00 , $38/ft for 3 00 , and

$49/ft for 4 00 All Drive screens are MIPXFIP only, if cast iron point is required add; 3 00 PS-$80.00, 4 00 PS-$85.00 to the list price above.

304 SS Small Diameter Waterwell Screens Dimensions a

Screen

Direct Attached Standard Fittings Per End

NPT Thd Pkr w/WR Btm

Clean and Bag

Ball Loop d

SS Point e

on Collapse Strength a

Direct Attached Standard Fittings Per End

Type-Max

Weld Ring c

NPT Thd

Fig K Pkr w/WR

Plate Btm

Clean and Bag Ball Loop d

SS Point e

Depth Based

on Collapse Strength a

W90-1500

W90-1000

(Continued)THE WATER ENCYCLOPEDIA: HYDROLOGIC DATA AND INTERNET RESOURCES6-32

Table 6C.19 (Continued)

304 SS Small Diameter Environmental Screens Dimensions a

Screen

Direct Attached Standard Fittings Per End

Type-Max

Weld Ring c

NPT Thd

Fig K Pkr w/WR

Plate Btm

Clean and Bag Ball Loop d

SS Point e

Depth Based

on Collapse Strength a

a Dimensions, weights and collapse strength are approximate (based on an average slot and depth).

b Minimum order requirement for 1 ⁄200through 1 00 PS is $300 (net).

c Standard weld ring length 2PS 00 through 6PS 00 is 1-1/2 00

d Bail Loop prices Do Not include plate.

e SS point is weld on For threaded point add appropriate thread price.

Large Diameter “Free Flow” 304 Stainless Steel

Screen Price Per Foot

Direct Attached Standard Fittings Per End Standard

Dimensions f

Max Depth Based on Collapse

Fig

Misc Attachments

Flush Sch40 Flush Sch80

“K”

Pkr w/WR

Plate Btm w/WR Bail Loop g

Lift Lugs h

4 00 WR W/4 00

Table 6C.19 (Continued)

Large Diameter “Free Flow” 304 Stainless Steel

Screen Price Per Foot

Direct Attached Standard Fittings Per End Standard

Dimensions f

Max Depth Based on Collapse

Fig

Misc Attachments

Flush Sch40 Flush Sch80

“K”

Pkr w/WR

Plate Btm w/WR Bail Loop g

Lift Lugs h

4 00 WR W/4 00

f Dimensions, weights and collapse strength are approximate (based on an average slot and depth).

g Standard weld ring length 2PS 00 through 6PS 00 is 1-1/2 00

h Bail Loop prices Do Not include plate.

Large Diameter 304 Stainless Steel High Flow (HIQ) and Remediation i

Screen Price Per Foot

Direct Attached Standard Fittings Per End Standard

Dimensions i

Max Depth Based on Collapse

Nom

Flush Sch40 Flush Sch80

Fig “K 00

Pkr w/WR

Plate Btm w/WR Bail Loop j

Lift Lugs k

4 00 WR W/4 00

Table 6C.19 (Continued)

Large Diameter 304 Stainless Steel High Flow (HIQ) and Remediation i

Screen Price Per Foot

Direct Attached Standard Fittings Per End Standard

Dimensions i

Max Depth Based on Collapse

Nom

Flush Sch40 Flush Sch80

Fig “K 00

Pkr w/WR

Plate Btm w/WR Bail Loop j

Lift Lugs k

4 00 WR W/4 00

Large Diameter 304 Stainless Steel High Flow (HIQ) k

i Dimensions, weights and collapse strength are approximate (based on an average slot and depth).

j Standard weld ring length 2PS 00 through 6PS 00 is 1–1/2 00

k Bail Loop prices do not include plate.

304 Stainless Steel Casing l

Direct Attached Std Fittings Per End Loose Fittings Dimensions

List Flush Threads

Table 6C.19 (Continued)

304 Stainless Steel Casing l

Direct Attached Std Fittings Per End Loose Fittings Dimensions

List Flush Threads

Minimum billing length is 3 ft Sumps: Add Weld Ring and Plate Bottom price to the sump length needed (minimum billing is 3 ft) Sch40 & Sch80 Threads: 1 00

Z8 TPI; 1.25 & 1.5Z4 TPI;

2 00 O 2 TPI Locking Cap Lugs are $7.00 and shipped loose (Part Number 248242) 1 For Slip Cap deduct $7.00 from Locking Cap Price * Price per foot includes beveling

l Must add “Clean & Bag” charge for environmental casing.

Table 6C.20 Intake Areas of Well Screens

Wire-Wound Telescopic ScreensIntake Areas (sq in per ft of Screen)

Slot Opening SizeNom Diam (in.) 10-Slot 20-Slot 40-Slot 60-Slot 80-Slot 100-Slot 150-Slot 250-Slot

Slot Opening SizeSize (in.) 6-Slot 8-Slot 10-Slot 12-Slot 15-Slot 20-Slot 25-Slot 30-Slot 35-Slot 40-Slot

Source: From Johnson Division of Signal Environmental Systems, Inc., St Paul, MN

Table 6C.21 Optimum Well Screen Entrance VelocitiesCoefficient of Permeability (gallons per

day per square foot)

Optimum Screen EntranceVelocities (ft/min)

Source: From Illinois State Water Survey, 1962

Table 6C.22 Chlorinated Lime Required to Disinfect a Well or Spring

Note: Values provide a dosage of approximately 50 parts per million of available chlorine

Source: From U.S Public Health Service

Table 6C.23 Volume of Water in Well Per Foot of DepthNominal Casing

Size (in.) Schedule No

Volume (Gallons perFoot of Depth)

Source: From U.S Bureau of Reclamation, Groundwater Manual 1977

THE WATER ENCYCLOPEDIA: HYDROLOGIC DATA AND INTERNET RESOURCES6-38

SECTION 6D INJECTION WELLS

Table 6D.24 Statistical Analysis of Injection Well Data

Distribution of Injection Wells by Industry Type

Chemical, petrochemical, and pharmaceutical

companies

55

Total Depth of Injection Wells

Type of Rock Used for Injection

Pressure at Which Waste Is Injected

United States

Environmental Protection

The Underground InjectionControl (UIC) Program

On December 16, 1974, President Ford signed the safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) into law.

An original provision of the SDWA established the UIC Program to protect underground sources of drinking water from unsafe injection practices This regulatory program ensures that injection activities: ate performed safely, protect current underground sources of drinking water that supply 90% of all public water systems: and preserve future underground water resources Today, the UIC Program regulates more than 800,000 injection wells

District of columbia, Puerto Rico, U.S Virgin Islands

Represent well classes that are in operation Pacific Island Temtones

These five classes of

injection wells protect source waters by:

Isolating hazardous,

industrial and municipal

waste through deep injection

Preserving drinking water resources by injecting oil and gas production waste.

Minimizing environmental impacts from solution mining operations.

Solution mining operation produce 50% of the salt used in the US as well as uranium.

copper and sulfur These injection wells provide needed minerals while limiting the impact

to the environment.

Preventing ground water contamination

by prohibitihg the shallow injection of hazardous waste (except as part of an authorized cleanup)

Managing the

other fluids to prevent contamination of drinking water resources More than 600,000 shallow injection wells are used for disposal, groundwater storage and prevention of salt water intrusion When properly manged, these wells offer communities an option for wastewater disposal.

In the 30 years of the SDWA, the Class V Program has identified and managed more than 300,000 injection wells The challenge for the future is to identify the remaining wells and work with thier oweners to keep injection safe.

Shallow injection wells used by large and small businesses to dispose of hazardous and radioactive wste threaten drinking water resources About 50% of Americans rely on groundwater for drinking water, and the need for safe, reliable source in the future is increasing.

Therefore, Class IV injection is prohibited outside approved remediation programs.

US facilities produce billions of

gallons of hazardous, industrial

and municipal waste every year.

Some of this waste is injected

deep below any drinking water

source, protecting the public.

Each gallon of oil produced in the US results in an average of ten gallons of wastewater (brine) Most brine, about 1trillion gallons a year, is injected back into oil-bearing formations, preserving streams and rivers, and shallow drinking water resources.

In the 30 years of the SDWA,

Class I wells have isolated more

than 4 trillions gallons of waste

fluid - the amount of water that

flows down the Mississippi River

into the Gulf of Mexico every 17

at 1-800-426-4791 or visit WWW.epa.gov/safewater/uic

* Few states authorize Class IV wells, therefore, they are not shown on the map.

Figure 6D.10 The underground injection control program (Fromwww.epa.gov.)

THE WATER ENCYCLOPEDIA: HYDROLOGIC DATA AND INTERNET RESOURCES6-40