Laserfiche WebLink
R <br /> a <br /> S . 1 Step Drawdown Pumping_, Test <br /> The step drawdown test was conducted by Gary D. Lowe, R.G., C.E.G., <br /> C.HG. of H2O Geol of Livermore, California. A low flow step drawdown <br /> test was conducted on August 29, 2001. However, since much higher <br /> than anticipated flow rates were achieved, a higher flow rate step- <br /> drawdown test was required to allow for hydrogeologic interpretation. <br /> Since there was insufficient storage capacity on August 29 to conduct <br /> these higher rate step-drawdown tests, these higher rate tests were <br /> conducted on October 31, 2001 after a large capacity water storage tank <br /> was arranged. A copy of the report for this test is presented in Appendix <br /> H. Pumping rates of 3 gallons per minute (gpm), 6 gpm and 12 gpm were <br /> used for the step-drawdown pumping test. Based on the results of the <br /> step-drawdown test, a pumping rate of 8 gpm was selected for the <br /> constant rate pumping test. <br /> 8 .2 Constant Rate Pumping Test <br /> A 1 ,000-minute constant rate pumping test was conducted by Gary D. <br /> Lowe, R.G., C.E.G., C.HG. of H2O Geol of Livermore, California on <br /> �. November 1 and 2, 2001. A copy of the report for this test is presented in <br /> Appendix H. Based on the results of the step-drawdown test, a pumping <br /> rate of 8 gpm was selected for the constant rate pumping test. The actual <br /> average pumping rate during the test was 8.8 gpm. <br /> The pumping well, EW-1, and five observation wells (AS-1, MW-2, MW-3, <br /> MW-4 and MW-6) experienced drawdown in response to the test. The <br /> data collected from monitoring wells MW-3 and MW-4 appear to have <br /> been influenced by fill from the former UST. This fill acts as a <br /> hydrogeologic boundary and data from these wells exhibit boundary <br /> conditions. The simple hydraulic conductivity for these two wells that <br /> exhibit a boundary condition is 50.7 ft/day. The major hydraulic <br /> conductivity for these wells exhibiting boundary conditions is 74.4 ft/day <br /> oriented S 22.7 W. The corresponding minor hydraulic conductivity is <br /> 50.7 ft/day oriented at a right angle. <br /> The data from the remaining wells did not appear to be influenced by a <br /> boundary condition. The simple hydraulic conductivity for the wells n o t <br /> affected by the boundary condition was 15.4 ft/day. The major hydraulic <br /> conductivity is 23.7 ft/day oriented N 57.5 W. The corresponding minor <br /> hydraulic conductivity is 9.4 ft/day oriented at a right angle. <br /> 574 West Grant Line Road CAP — January 2002 <br /> -13- <br />