Laserfiche WebLink
East Bay MUD tit - 2 - J�O 10 March 1995 <br /> Memo #2 <br /> Cfi�n <br /> es K calculsried ahs the K of the aqu fen? <br /> s mcmrrnrEres�d that slag test dhta aa�sd for p�selnrrsnmy de*n wl He p to <br /> �ed�rsign with a constmzt test(24 how n�ffn=O. A corstu�rste <br /> n�g test is rmcessmy x,o�fic a tinre schedule moot be sd&Ydftd <br /> B. In the RAP, it was stated that the ' r is capable of sustaining an extraction rate of 10 gpm <br /> and the radius of influence of an extraction well was conservatively estimated to be 30 feet. <br /> The ccdcuklimm for exhrrtiara nate, a 6 ca of i#h=tre, and the tmm mquuvd to addem <br /> this of vgnre mast bs pad r,pt, _,,O <br /> SUBSURFACE U*JJECITON/EXTTtACTiON SYSTEM <br /> A. As proposed, the rate of injection will equal the rate of extraction. <br /> B. Ground water will be extracted from existing MW8, near the highest concentration of <br /> contamination. <br /> C. The estimated extraction rate will be 10 gpm with a radius of influence of 30 feet based on <br /> slug test data and calculations. <br /> How a=v=s are the valuEs for exb=hm rWe and nz*w of v#htmw? <br /> D. Existing MW1 and proposed MW10 and MW11 will be used as injection wells. <br /> - Is MWl prsap2ify cons&=Wd for use as vgection well?_ Wk7'5` Mokve-4c awuc <br /> - If the vah=for evt=don m e and rMtka of u f htmw t7m rot how wiU <br /> eactrucdion/ugectum system be noniWmd enol arljasted W oper¢cie effectively? <br /> E. MW1. MW10, and MWll are approximately 30 feet from MW8, at the estimated limit of the <br /> radius; of influence. Injection at the limits of the influence of the extraction well will result i <br /> t,", <br /> loss of injected material. Hydraulic control of the injected materk not a maintained. <br /> - Is hyd muhc contwl over the ugected ncraerud aro objective of this per? <br /> - Ane 1iRM and tine propaszd MW10 and MW11 in tine best laration to msa&dnin hydrin dic <br /> contmi? <br /> WE l asisli wud a dnQcWWuyectwn wells be nscessmy if K and the other arjaarfier <br /> chw=terrsd=were rot aretnr¢te? <br /> F. MW1 is contaminated and at the limit of the zone of influence. Injection into MW1 will cause <br /> contamination in the vicinity of MW1 to flow away from the extraction system. Hydraulic <br /> control of the contamination plume will not be maintained. <br /> - Is hydrmdic contrsnl over the phmte an objective of oris p7Vp=i? <br /> Is MW1 an apg xwII fior vgectiorf, if hydrmdic corrtml of the p1wrm is to he <br /> nod and coidambmtion in tins vkb*y of MW1 is to bs treated? <br /> G. The ground water contamination plume extends laterally to the southwest. MW9, which is <br /> contaminated, is 60 feet southwest of MW8 and well outside the zone of influence. <br /> Maim:aining hydraulic control of the injected material will result in no treatment for the <br /> contamination outside the zone of influence. <br /> - Is luck of hydm3 disc control aumt2d to be a bzn2fV F-Vkdm <br /> - WM ug2cted mahzrie mcmh Imo? <br /> - If ugected ntn2erie wall not mcrh 1W9, how long wa71 pzmm nentz-dialian of <br /> vt ting vichiity of ItR6W tom? <br /> H. It was stated in the RAP that modelling may be performed that would show the optimum <br /> injection well placement. This implies that the proposed injection and extraction wells are not <br /> optimally placed. <br /> - Op2h t pk=md a,f tip w`z&=add amore tto br an cb,'=wim K*V w=dt-- <br /> curt C8nU cftd lam'to ddsr p2qgz=2 <br />