Laserfiche WebLink
202/799-5045 <br /> Mr.Michael RabRh Page 8 <br /> February 6, 1991 <br /> percent. The best fit representation of the data for each well Is illustrated in Appendix C and the calculate <br /> T in units of gallons per day per foot (gpd/ft)and S are presented in Table 2. <br /> TABLE 2 <br /> Transmissivity an4 Storstivlty <br /> Well ID T(9pd/n) S <br /> MW-2 9,300 0.9 <br /> MW-4 4,400 0.05 <br /> MW-5 9,100 0.03 <br /> MW-6 15,000 0.02 <br /> MW-7 3,600 0.01 <br /> MW-9 21,000 0.001 <br /> MW-i0 20,000 0.001 <br /> MW-11 28,000 0.002 <br /> M WA 2 19,000 0.401 <br /> MW-13 20,000 0.001 <br /> RW 1,700 0.2 <br /> 3.3 RESULTS <br /> The transmissivity in the vicinity of the former tank pit is half that measured in the perimeter wells. The <br /> average value in the vicinity of the recovery well (MW4.5, 6, 7) is 8,100 gpd/ft, and the average <br /> storativity is 0.03. Transmissivity and storativity determined by the distance-drawdown method are 10,000 <br /> gpd/ft and 0.009 (Figure 3). <br /> The radius of influence of the recovery well is the distance away from the pumping well that a drawdown <br /> in water level is observed. A drawdown of 0.1 feet is used here to define the limit of the radius of influence. <br /> Using 8,100 gpd/ft and 0.03 in the Theis equation for radial Sow to a well (Freeze and Cherry, yields99)yields O <br /> a 238 ft. radius of Influence of the recovery wel! (Appendix C). Using 10,000 gpd/ <br /> 65 <br /> foot radius of influcnce. The higher transmissfvity determined in perimeter wells yields a larger radius of <br /> influence, hence-he lower transmissivities are more consenraUve. ._.___. <br /> GROUNDIC.4T&R <br /> w" TECHNOLOGY,INC. <br />