Laserfiche WebLink
• s = Resultant head after removal of a slug of water (in feet) <br />q = Volume of the slug removed (in gallons) <br />t = Time in minutes from instantaneous removal <br />T = Aquifer transmissivity (gal/day/f t) <br />where T= 114.6g(1/t) <br />s <br />K = Hydraulic conductivity <br />where K= T and b = perforated and saturated interval in well <br />b <br />For a 4" ID We11 casing: <br />q(in gal) = 12~r2s <br />231 <br />_ (0.6528)s <br />An analysis of the test results summarized in Table 18 show <br />that the measured permeabilities of the overburden, Sudduth Coal <br />and underburden are all very nearly the same. The coal demonstrates <br />the highest flow rates with the overburden and underburden being <br />• about the same. Each unit tested shows very low permeabilities. <br />Previous testing of cores (Table 14) and from aquifer tests <br />for the Pit 1 area (Table 15) demonstrate that the results for <br />Pit 2 are between the two previously tested results. As was the <br />case with Pit 1, the slug tests confirm that the permeabilities of <br />the tested units are somewhat greater than the core tests indicated. <br />A direct comparison of the slug tests between Pit 1 and Pit 2 <br />show that the transmissivity values for Pit 2 are about 2-3 times <br />lower than those for Pit 1. Consequently, the hydraulic conductivity <br />values for Pit 2 are almost exactly half of what they are for Pit 1. <br />The explanation for this is that the wells used for testing the <br />Pit 1 aquifer characteristics lie within a known fault system (see <br />Exhibit C-2). The wells used for Pit 2 do not lie in a fault zone, <br />but are located rather between two known faults. However, in either <br />case, measured permeabilities are extremely low and no groundwater <br />problems will result from the excavation of either pit. Potential <br />• groundwater flow rates for these two pits are discussed in Section <br />2.05.6(3)(iv). <br />-67- <br />