Laserfiche WebLink
Getty Task 2 Page 8 March 1, 1983 <br />• .000013, respectively. Hydraulic conductivity calculated from <br />the recovery data was 0.075 ft/day. <br />Well Number 021-81-12: A flow and recovery test similar to that <br />performed oa well 021-82-47A was performed on November 5, 19ffi. <br />The flow portion of the test resulted is a computed a hydraulic <br />conductivity of 0.001 ft/day end a storage coefficient of <br />_ .00000029. Analysis of the recovery data gave a hydraulic <br />conductivity of 0.001 ft/day. <br />Well Number 021-81-26: A flow and recovery test was also conducted <br />oa this well oa November 3, 1962. The resulting hydraulic <br />conductivities were 0.007 ft/day sad 0.01 ft/day, respectively, <br />for the flow and recovery portions of the test. A storage <br />_ coefficient of .00046 was calculated from the flow test data. <br />CYCC personnel also attempted to perform slug tests oa wells numbered <br />021-81-6. 021-81-16, and 006-81-31, These tests were performed by inserting a <br />steel rod of known volume into the well end allowing the water level to <br />j stabilize. The rod was then rapidly removed and water levels were monitored <br />' with time. At well 021-81-16, the insertion of the rod ceased a white, very <br />• fine grained mud to flow out of the well. It was assumed that the well had <br />failed due to the collapse of the casing and/or the failure of the packers and <br />the test was aborted. At wells 021-81-31 and 021-81-6 water levels had not <br />recovered at all is 50 minutes and 60 minutes, respectively. Although <br />hydraulic conductivity valves could not be calculated, these tests indicate <br />• that the permeability of the aquifer is very small at these locations. <br />Table 1 presents the values of hydraulic conductivity and storage <br />coefficient available for the overburden aquifer. The hydraulic conductivity <br />valves were used as a guide in de termiaing the hydraulic conductivity <br />distribution for the numerical model. Since only a few storage coefficient <br />values were available, it was assumed that the squifer storage coefficient was <br />uniform and equal to 0.0001. Apparent specific yield is also required by the <br />model since mining will cause the aquifer to become unconfined. Since ac <br />measured values of this parameter are available, as assumed value of 0.01 was <br />used throughout the aquifer. <br /> <br />