Laserfiche WebLink
M.11 .:�a'? <br /> •1 <br /> s <br /> 5-5 <br /> 2 Ti <br /> j e <br /> and <br /> S = 2nTi <br /> where, <br /> W = width of capture zone measured along a line perpendicular to the gradient <br /> " at the well <br /> Q = pumping rates I gpm <br /> T = transmissivity =270 ft2/d <br /> i = gradient=0.003(measured as the dominant local gradient near the Station) <br /> distance from the pumping well to the stagnation point, measured along <br /> i the flow direction 1 <br /> The analytical results of on-site soil samples collected from the boreholes indicate that soil <br /> contamination is Iimited to approximately 50 feet below the ground surface to the water table in <br /> w. all but the area represented by V4. At V4,soil contamination is present from the surface to the <br /> F total depth of the borehole (55 feet). This is not unexpected as V4 is located adjacent to the <br /> original leak site.This information suggests that the leak did not spread out in the vadose zone <br /> Ems, <br /> but migrated principally downward rather than horizontal. <br /> Wd <br /> 11c presence of higher than expected C4-C12 range hydrocarbons in all wells but W-211, <br /> W-4, and W-8 during the April/May 1990 groundwater sampling is noted. The cause of this is <br /> not understood but is hypothesized to be related to a January-February increase in water levels <br /> causing a flushing of relatively higher total petroleum hydrocarbons concentrations from former <br /> 4 capillary fringe zones. <br /> W <br /> q <br /> F <br /> k3 <br />