Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />' Draft <br /> . To is determined from the plot of relative water height versus time <br />' For the analysis of slug test results, only the results of the rising head test <br /> were evaluated Based on the ground water elevation measured in the <br /> monitoring wells, the water table was below the top of the screen of the <br />' monitoring wells Under these conditions, falling head test results are <br /> generally considered to be unusable <br /> The analysis of the rising head slug test results yields the following <br /> hydraulic conductivities <br />' Location Hydraulic Conductivity <br /> cm/sec <br />' MW-1 159 x 10-3 <br />' MW-2 2 04 x 10-4 <br /> MW-4 181 x 10-5 <br /> MW-6 2 45 x 10-4 <br /> The results of the slug test are consistent with the hydrogeology observed <br /> during the installation of the monitoring wells Monitoring well MW-1 <br />' had a hydraulic conductivity of 159 x 10-3 cm/sec The boring log for <br /> MW-1 shows that it is partially screened in the fine grained sandy soils <br /> The hydraulic conductivity calculated from slug testing for this well is <br />' consistent with fine grained sandy soil <br /> The results of the slug tests show that the hydraulic conductivity for <br />' monitoring well MW-2 was 2 04 x 10-4 cm/sec and 2 45 x 10-4 cm/sec for <br /> MW-6 The hydraulic conductivity for MW-2 and MW-6 are consistent <br />' with fine grained soils that these two wells are screened within <br /> The results of the slug tests show that the hydraulic conductivity for <br />' monitoring well MW-4 was 181 x 10-5 cm/sec It should be noted that the <br /> result for MW-4 is conservatively high As shown in the graph of the <br />' results, the water never recovered to 37 percent of the original drop <br /> Therefore, the actual hydraulic conductivity is likely much lower The <br /> . hydraulic conductivity for MW-4 is consistent with the clayey soils that <br /> these two wells are screened within <br /> ERM 3 CLIENT NAME/WO NUMBER-3/8/49 <br />