Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRC-2011-007517 - 0901a0688027ec1dI Ss^^ ^ % "feg ^""^i^ September 30,2011 VIA E-MAIL AND OVERNIGHT DELIVERY Mr. Rusty Lundberg Utah Department of Environmental Quality 195 North 1950 West P.O. Box 144850 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4850 Denison Mines (USA) Corp. 1050 17th Street, Suite 950 Denver, CO 80265 USA Tel: 303 628-7798 Fax : 303 389-4125 www.denisonmines.com Re: Perched Well Redevelopment and Turbidity Study Report Dear Mr. Lundberg: This letter transmits Denison Mines (USA) Corp's ("Denison's") report on Redevelopment of Existing Perched l\/lonitonng Wells at the White Mesa Mill. Denison requested, beginning in February 2010, that the Utah Division of Radiation Control ("DRC") agree to a variance from the groundwater Quality Assurance Plan ("QAP") requirements that turbidity in monitoring wells should be 5 nephelometric turbidity units ("NTU") or less and must equilibrate to within 10 % RPD. This report was prepared in response to the requirement in DRC's letter of June 1, 2010, which stated: "Before DRC can consider approval of any variance regarding turbidity in monitoring wells, DUSA has to provide convincing evidence that all monitoring wells at the Mill have been developed properiy and all commonly [used] well development methods were attempted and exhausted." The above report has been prepared to demonstrate that all commonly used well development methods practicable at the site have been attempted and exhausted. Please contact me if you have any questions or require any further information. Yours very truly, DENISON MINES (USA) CORP. Jo Ann Tischler Director, Compliance and Permitting cc: David C. Frydenlund Harold R. Roberts David E. Turk Katherine A. Weinel Central files N:\Turbidity Study\Hydrogeochem Reports\Final 9.30.11\09.30.11 GW redevelopment transmittal ltr.doc , HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. Environmental Science & Technology REDEVELOPMENT OF EXISTING PERCHED MONITORING WELLS WHITE MESA URANIUM MILL NEAR BLANDING, UTAH September 30, 2011 Prepared for: DENISON MINES (USA) CORP. 1050 17th Street, Suite 950 Denver, Colorado 80265 Prepared by: HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. 51 West Wetmore, Suite 101 Tucson, Arizona 85705 (520) 293-1500 Project 7180000.00-01.0 Redevelopment of Existing Perched Monitoring Wells H:\718000\turbidity\report\TurbidityReport_20110930_rev3.doc September 30, 2011 i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. 1 2. BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE............................................................................... 7 2.1 Background.............................................................................................................7 2.2 Rationale for Redevelopment Methods ..................................................................9 2.3 Rationale for Wells Chosen for Redevelopment ..................................................10 2.4 Rational for Wells not Redeveloped.....................................................................10 3. PROCEDURES................................................................................................................. 13 3.1 Surging and Bailing..............................................................................................13 3.2 Overpumping........................................................................................................13 4. RESULTS......................................................................................................................... 15 4.1 Surging and Bailing..............................................................................................16 4.1.1 TW4- and TWN-series Wells................................................................... 16 4.1.2 MW-series Wells ...................................................................................... 16 4.2 Overpumping........................................................................................................17 4.2.1 TW4- and TWN-series Wells................................................................... 17 4.2.2 MW-series Wells ...................................................................................... 18 4.3 Redevelopment Behavior and Lithology..............................................................18 4.4 Post Redevelopment Behavior..............................................................................19 4.5 Summary of Redevelopment Results....................................................................19 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................... 21 6. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 23 7. LIMITATIONS................................................................................................................. 25 TABLES 1 Redevelopment Status of Perched Monitoring Wells and Summary of Turbidity Behavior Before and After Redevelopment 2 Turbidity Before and After Redevelopment Redevelopment of Existing Perched Monitoring Wells H:\718000\turbidity\report\TurbidityReport_20110930_rev3.doc September 30, 2011 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) FIGURES 1 Site Plan and Perched Monitor Well Locations 2 Scatter Plots of TW4-series Wells (TW4-1, -2, -4, -6, -7, -10, -15, -19, -20, and -22) 3 Scatter Plots of TW4-series Wells (TW4-1, -2, -4, -6, -7, -10, -15, -19, and -22) 4 Number of MW-Series Wells with Turbidity Greater than 5 NTU per Sampling Event 5 Pre-Redevelopment Turbidity Results (MW-series and TW-4 series, 4th Quarter, 2010; TWN-series, 3rd Quarter, 2010) 6 Turbidity at End of Overpumping 7 Turbidity from the First Sampling after Redevelopment 8 Comparison of Turbidity Distribution Prior to Redevelopment, at the End of Surging and Bailing, and at the End of Overpumping 9 Post-Redevelopment Turbidity APPENDICES A Field Data Sheets for Surging and Bailing B Plots of Turbidity during Surging and Bailing C Field Data Sheets for Overpumping D Plots of Turbidity during Overpumping E Boring Logs and Sample Description Key Redevelopment of Existing Perched Monitoring Wells H:\718000\turbidity\report\TurbidityReport_20110930_rev3.doc September 30, 2011 1 1. INTRODUCTION This report describes the redevelopment program for selected perched monitoring wells undertaken by Denison Mines (USA) Corp. (“Denison”) at the White Mesa Uranium Mill (the “Mill” or “site”) located near Blanding, Utah. Figure 1 is a site plan showing all perched well locations at the Mill. Perched monitoring wells at the Mill are grouped into MW-series, TW4-series, and TWN-series wells. MW-series were installed to monitor perched water conditions upgradient, crossgradient, and downgradient of the tailings cells. TW4- and TWN-series were installed to monitor perched water upgradient and crossgradient of the tailings cells for concentrations of chloroform and nitrate, respectively. Wells MW-4, MW-26, TW4-4, TW4-19 and TW4-20 are pumped continuously to remove chloroform and slow its migration within the perched water zone. The groundwater monitoring program at the Mill has historically had numerous wells with elevated turbidity, turbidity levels which could not stabilize to within 10% Relative Percent Difference (10% RPD) or both. Identification of equipment problems and improvements to field sampling practices did not result in improvements to measured turbidities. Ongoing turbidity issues were the result of monitoring requirements which were most likely ill-suited to the site geology. Denison requested a variance from Utah Division of Radiation Control (“DRC”) from the current requirements for turbidity limit (5 nephelometric units [“NTU”]) and stabilization (10% RPD) in a letter dated April 2, 2010 along with a draft revision of the Groundwater Quality Assurance Plan (“QAP”) removing the turbidity requirements. At that time, Denison was also evaluating whether the use of micro-purge/low-flow sampling techniques would assist in meeting the turbidity stabilization requirements in the QAP. The proposed draft QAP changed language and procedures for the potential use of micro-purge/low-flow sampling techniques. However, it is suspected that many wells at the Mill might not be capable of attaining a turbidity of 5 NTU due to the natural conditions in the formation hosting the perched monitoring wells (the Burro Canyon Formation and Dakota Sandstone). Clay interbeds occur in both the Burro Canyon Formation and Dakota Sandstone and friable materials occur within the Burro Canyon Formation. Saturated clays and friable materials will likely continue to be mobilized using standard purging techniques currently in use for the sampling program at the Mill. Mobilized kaolinite (a cementing material within the formation) is expected to be an additional continuing source of turbidity in perched wells. The inability of some wells to be developed to the 5 NTU criteria is discussed in Aller et al., (1991). Aller cautions that “collecting a non-turbid sample may not be possible because there are monitoring wells that cannot be developed by any Redevelopment of Existing Perched Monitoring Wells H:\718000\turbidity\report\TurbidityReport_20110930_rev3.doc September 30, 2011 2 available technique” as a consequence of “the existence of turbid water in the formation or the inability to design and construct a well that will yield water in satisfactory quantity without exceeding acceptable flow velocities in the natural formation.” Despite the fact that the available evidence demonstrated that turbidity issues are caused by the formation, Denison agreed to complete a redevelopment program for the appropriate wells at the Mill in a “good-faith” effort to meet the requirements set out by DRC. The correspondence, communications, variance requests and resulting DRC responses to the turbidity changes requested by Denison are summarized below: February 22, 2010 – Telephone communication between Denison and DRC representatives, Loren Morton and Phil Goble. Denison noted repeated difficulty in attaining the QAP goal of turbidity measurements below 5 NTUs as well as difficulty achieving repeat turbidity measurements within 10% RPD. April 2, 2010 – Denison submits written correspondence detailing a Plan of Action and Schedule for Modification of Groundwater Monitoring Quality Assurance Plan to Address Turbidity Stabilization and Conversion to Low-Flow Sampling and Request for Interim Variance. This letter described in detail the approach to amend sampling procedures on a well by well basis to address previous turbidity issues identified. June 1, 2010 (received June 3, 2010) – Correspondence from DRC responding to Denison’s April 2, 2010 letter. The DRC letter, item number 2, sentence 2, stated “Please explain and justify how DUSA used all commonly available well development techniques on the wells in question, including bailing, surging, jetting and overpumping. For a Standard Operating Procedure (hereafter SOP) for well development, please see the October 3, 1994 EPA Well Development SOP. Before DRC can consider approval of any variance regarding turbidity in monitoring wells, DUSA has to provide convincing evidence that all monitoring wells at the Mill have been developed properly and all commonly [used] well development methods were attempted and exhausted.” June 24, 2010 – Correspondence from DRC transmitting comments on Draft Revision 7 of the QAP, previously submitted by Denison on June 4, 2010. Item number 6 of this letter noted that “Before the DRC can consider any change regarding turbidity in the DUSA QAP, DUSA must first resolve item 2 of the June 1, 2010 Request for Information (RFI) as follows: Please explain and justify how DUSA used all commonly available well development techniques on the wells in question, including bailing, surging, jetting and overpumping. For a Standard Operating Procedure (hereafter SOP) for well development, please see the October 3, 1994 EPA Well Development SOP. Before DRC can consider approval of any variance regarding turbidity in Redevelopment of Existing Perched Monitoring Wells H:\718000\turbidity\report\TurbidityReport_20110930_rev3.doc September 30, 2011 3 monitoring wells, DUSA has to provide convincing evidence that all monitoring wells at the Mill have been developed properly and all commonly [used] well development methods were attempted and exhausted.” Additionally, other items within this letter requested information regarding pump placement for micro-purge low-flow sampling and requested justification for the implementation of micro-purge low-flow for wells with screen lengths greater than the 10 feet. July 12, 2010 – Telephone communication (documented in a letter of the same date) between Denison and DRC representatives, Loren Morton and Phil Goble. DRC stated that meeting the 10% RPD for turbidity by collecting measurements one minute apart is acceptable. The July 12, 2011 letter specified the following redevelopment strategies: • Wells which consistently equilibrate to within 10% RPD, even though turbidity may exceed 5 NTU; redevelopment of these wells will not be required. • Wells which have consistently had turbidity results below 5 NTU, even though the results below 5 NTU may not equilibrate within 10% RPD; redevelopment of these wells will not be required. • Wells which have generally had turbidity results below 5 NTU, but do not consistently equilibrate to within 10% RPD, and on occasion exceed 5 NTU; Denison will not redevelop these wells at this time but will flag these wells for future consideration of redevelopment. • Wells which have consistently had turbidity results above 5 NTU, and turbidity results which do not consistently equilibrate to within 10% RPD; Denison will evaluate and recommend to DRC appropriate methods of redevelopment for these wells. July 15, 2010 – E-mail correspondence from DRC representative Phil Goble. E-mail agreed to two of the strategies, commented on one strategy and disagreed with one as noted below: • Wells which consistently equilibrate to within 10% RPD, even though turbidity may exceed 5 NTU; redevelopment of these wells will not be required. DRC Response: “DRC disagrees. Before any Executive Secretary approval of a well with turbidity levels greater than 5 NTU standard (measured right before sample collection) DUSA will demonstrate that all commonly accepted well development techniques have been exhausted.” • Wells which have consistently had turbidity results below 5 NTU, even though the results below 5 NTU may not equilibrate within 10% RPD; redevelopment of these wells will not be required. DRC Response: “We agree.” Redevelopment of Existing Perched Monitoring Wells H:\718000\turbidity\report\TurbidityReport_20110930_rev3.doc September 30, 2011 4 • Wells which have generally had turbidity results below 5 NTU, but do not consistently equilibrate to within 10% RPD, and on occasion exceed 5 NTU; Denison will not redevelop these wells at this time but will flag these wells for future consideration of redevelopment. DRC Response: “Please contact us for further discussion. An agreement need[s] to be reached on “generally” and “on occasion”.” NOTE: None of the wells at the Mill fall into this category. All wells were redeveloped if turbidity exceeded 5 NTU (except for the single exceedances associated with a faulty meter in 2nd Quarter, 2010). • Wells which have consistently had turbidity results above 5 NTU, and turbidity results which do not consistently equilibrate to within 10% RPD; Denison will evaluate and recommend to DRC appropriate methods of redevelopment for these wells. DRC Response: “We agree. Redevelopment of these wells will be required.” August 18, 2010 – Telephone communication between Denison and DRC representative, Phil Goble. DRC stated that if stability of turbidity measurements can be achieved after redevelopment using surging and bailing then no further redevelopment activities were necessary. If however, surging and bailing was not effective in addressing turbidity in a particular well, overpumping would be necessary. Likewise if surging and bailing and overpumping were unsuccessful, then jetting would be necessary. DRC noted that if Denison did not agree with the approach to included jetting as a well redevelopment strategy, it could provide documentation and guidance stating the technical reasons to exclude jetting from this well redevelopment program. August 23, 2010 – Denison submits written correspondence citing numerous literature sources advising against air and water jetting of monitoring wells. Jetting was cited as having many unwanted affects on groundwater monitoring and quality including chemical changes to the formation and samples and potential damage to the well structure. Denison requested confirmation that DRC would require jetting of Mill wells, despite the overwhelming technical guidance which cautions and recommends against jetting. August 24, 2010 – E-mail correspondence from DRC representative Phil Goble, stating that Denison should not proceed with jetting without prior consultation with DRC. In response to the DRC requests for redevelopment noted above, Denison compiled historic records regarding well development that was conducted at the time of well installation. Redevelopment of Existing Perched Monitoring Wells H:\718000\turbidity\report\TurbidityReport_20110930_rev3.doc September 30, 2011 5 Wells MW-1 through MW-22 were installed from 1979 through 1994, and MW-23 through MW-37 were installed between 2005 and 2011. Records of development are available for MW- 24 through the most recently installed MW-37. Non-pumping MW-series wells having turbidities that exceeded 5 NTU were redeveloped either by surging and bailing followed by overpumping or overpumping only. It is important to note that while development records are not available for the wells installed prior to 1995, it can be concluded that routine purging and sampling over several decades has adequately developed the wells and that the turbidity is the result of site geology rather than a lack of development. However, as a good faith effort, Denison redeveloped a selected group of those wells with turbidity measurements that exceeded 5 NTUs. Rationale for the redevelopment program is described in Section 2 and a list of wells that underwent redevelopment is included in Table1. Wells TWN-1 through TWN-19 were installed in 2009. Records of development by surging and bailing are available for all of the TWN-series wells. Despite the fact that the wells had undergone surging and bailing immediately following installation, all of the TWN-series wells were redeveloped by both surging and bailing and overpumping in response to the DRC requests. A list of wells that underwent redevelopment is included in Table 1. Wells TW4-1 through TW4-25 were installed between 1999 and 2007. TW4-26 was installed in 2010. Records of development by surging and bailing are available for most of the TW4-series wells. Despite the fact that most of the wells had undergone surging and bailing immediately following installation, all of the non-pumping TW4-series wells were redeveloped by both surging and bailing and overpumping in response to the DRC requests. As is the case with the MW-series wells, it can be concluded that routine purging and sampling over many years (more than a decade for the wells installed in 1999) has adequately developed the wells. However, as a good faith effort, Denison redeveloped all of the wells in the TW4-series. A list of wells that underwent redevelopment is included in Table 1. Redevelopment of Existing Perched Monitoring Wells H:\718000\turbidity\report\TurbidityReport_20110930_rev3.doc September 30, 2011 7 2. BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE Sample turbidity is an indirect measurement of the amount of particulate matter suspended in a sample, and is highly dependent on the nature of the aquifer material. Low turbidity in groundwater samples (<5 NTU) is desirable (Powell and Puls, 1997) and is one reason that groundwater wells are developed. Another important reason is improvement of productivity. The goal of development is to remove fine-grained formation materials near the well bore which can both improve productivity and reduce turbidity. The majority of wells at the site were developed by surging and bailing at the time of installation. Many of the older wells (some of the MW-series wells are more than 30 years old) have been purged and sampled so many times that repetition of the initial development method can be considered unnecessary as discussed below. 2.1 Background Perched monitoring wells are completed primarily in the Burro Canyon Member of the Morrison Formation. The Burro Canyon consists of variably cemented sandstone and conglomerate with interbedded siltstone, claystone, and shale. The Burro Canyon hosts the majority of the perched water at the site. The Dakota Sandstone overlies the Burro Canyon and is typically better sorted and contains fewer interbeds of fine-grained material than the Burro Canyon. Perched water occurs within the Dakota in areas where saturated thicknesses are greater and many wells completed in areas of greater saturated thickness have screens extending into the Dakota. The Burro Canyon unconformably overlies the Brushy Basin Member of the Morrison Formation. The Brushy Basin, which in effect forms the base of the perched water zone at the site is composed primarily of bentonitic shale, claystone and mudstone, and is considered a barrier to vertical flow. Because turbidity depends on the nature of the formation hosting the aquifer, reducing turbidity may not be possible in some cases. Based on materials encountered during drilling it was suspected that many or most perched wells at the site would be incapable of attaining a turbidity of 5 NTU due to clay interbeds in both the Burro Canyon Formation and Dakota Sandstone and friable materials within the Burro Canyon. Saturated clays and friable materials will likely continue to be mobilized during purging and sampling regardless of development method employed. Furthermore, kaolinite clay is reported to be the primary cementing material within the Dakota while kaolinite and silica are reported to be the primary cementing materials within the Burro Canyon (TITAN, 1994). Mobilized kaolinite is expected to be an additional continuing source of turbidity in perched wells regardless of redevelopment efforts. Redevelopment of Existing Perched Monitoring Wells H:\718000\turbidity\report\TurbidityReport_20110930_rev3.doc September 30, 2011 8 Well development is unlikely to prevent fine-grained materials from entering the perched wells at the site due to the consolidated nature of the Burro Canyon and Dakota. During development of unconsolidated alluvial materials, fine-grained materials are removed from the vicinity of the well bore and coarser-grained materials can move into closer packing arrangements near the bore creating a rind of protective material. This process is hindered or prevented in consolidated materials because formation cement hinders the free movement and repacking of the coarser materials. As discussed in Section 1, the inability of some wells to be developed to the 5 NTU criteria is discussed in Aller et al., (1991). Aller cautions that “collecting a non-turbid sample may not be possible because there are monitoring wells that cannot be developed by any available technique” as a consequence of “the existence of turbid water in the formation or the inability to design and construct a well that will yield water in satisfactory quantity without exceeding acceptable flow velocities in the natural formation.” Although in some situations excess turbidity has the potential to impact analytical results, the impact for many analytes at the Mill may be insignificant. For example, Figures 2 and 3 show essentially no correlation between chloroform analytical results and turbidity in TW4-series wells having relatively high chloroform concentrations. Figure 2 is a scatter plot of chloroform versus turbidity for TW4-1, TW4-2, TW4-4, TW4-6, TW4-7, TW4-10, TW4-15, TW4-19, TW4- 20 and TW4-22; Figure 3 also presents a scatter plot of chloroform versus turbidity for the aforementioned wells with the exception of TW4-20 (that typically has the highest chloroform concentrations at the site). Although the majority of perched wells at the site were developed by surging and bailing at the time of installation, many perched wells exceed 5 NTU as measured with a hand-held turbidity meter during routine sampling. Short-term relatively large increases (‘spikes’) in turbidity have occurred at some MW-series wells that typically have low turbidity (<5 NTU). Between 2007, and redevelopment in 2010 and 2011, turbidities at MW-2, MW-3, MW-4, MW-27 and MW-30 have been less than 5 NTU during regular sampling. Turbidity spikes that occurred at many wells during the same quarterly sampling event were likely due to malfunction of the portable multimeter used to measure turbidity in the field. Equipment malfunction of the field meter has been identified as the likely cause of many of the apparent turbidity spikes during the 2nd Quarter, 2010 sampling. Field technicians consistently noted on the field sheets during this period suspect turbidity readings and the need for frequent meter recalibration during this period. However, historically, the majority of the sampling events having turbidities greater than 5 NTU are likely due to an influx of fine-grained materials from the formation into the sampled wells. Redevelopment of Existing Perched Monitoring Wells H:\718000\turbidity\report\TurbidityReport_20110930_rev3.doc September 30, 2011 9 Figure 4 shows the number of MW-series wells exceeding 5 NTU during each sampling event between 2007 and redevelopment. 2.2 Rationale for Redevelopment Methods Because turbidity in perched wells at the site is most likely the result of the formation and not inadequate development, Denison requested a variance for turbidity requirements in the groundwater QAP. In response, UDEQ directed Denison in a letter dated June 1, 2010 to demonstrate that all perched wells at the site have been developed properly and that all common well development methods “including bailing, surging, jetting and overpumping” were used. Denison responded in a letter dated August 23, 2010 that jetting using either air or water is not recommended for monitoring wells and that only surging, bailing, and overpumping should be employed. UDEQ agreed in an e-mail dated August 24, 2010 that “regarding … well development for all wells at the site …the preferred well development techniques should be the bailing, surging, and overpumping methods.” The rationale for using surging and bailing followed by overpumping is consistent with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidance and guidance provided in Driscoll (1986) and Aller et al., (1991). EPA guidance includes: EPA (1992, 1994 and 2001), and Yeskis and Zavala (2002). Aller et al., (1991) and EPA (1992, 1994 and 2001) identify surging and bailing and overpumping as acceptable well development techniques. Aller et al., (1991) and EPA (1992) specifically recommend these particular techniques for monitor well development. The rationale for rejecting jetting is based on: 1) insufficient open area within the 0.02-inch slot screen interval to allow jetting to be effective and 2) the adverse impacts on water quality that could result from the introduction of oxygen during air or water jetting or the comingling or displacement of formation water during water jetting.. Driscoll (1986) discusses the importance of open area within the screened interval for effective jetting. EPA (1992) states that “methods and equipment that alter the chemical composition of the ground water should not be used. Development methods that involve adding water (including water pumped from the well) or other fluids to the well or borehole, or that use air to accomplish well development, are rarely permissible. Consequently, methods that are unsuitable in most cases for monitoring well development include backwashing, jetting, airlift pumping, and air surging.” Aller does not recommend jetting for monitor well development and lists several disadvantages, considered “serious limitations”, on the usefulness of jetting as a development procedure: • Water used in jetting is agitated, pumped, pressurized and discharged into the formation Redevelopment of Existing Perched Monitoring Wells H:\718000\turbidity\report\TurbidityReport_20110930_rev3.doc September 30, 2011 10 • Fine-slotted screen (0.010 inch and 0.020 inch) of most monitor well intakes does not permit effective jetting; and development of the material outside the screen may be negligible or possibly detrimental • Minimal well development of the interface between the filter pack and the borehole wall • Injected water forcibly replaces natural formation fluids Aller also discusses the disadvantages of methods requiring introduction of air into wells. “Air development forcibly introduces air into contact with formation fluids, initiating the potential for uncontrolled chemical reactions. When air is introduced into permeable formations, there is a serious potential for air entrainment within the formation. Air entrainment not only presents potential quality problems, but can also interfere with flow into the well.” Aller concludes that “These factors limit the use of air surging for development of monitoring wells.” 2.3 Rationale for Wells Chosen for Redevelopment To satisfy UDEQ’s requirements towards obtaining a variance, nonpumping TW4-series, TWN- series, and select MW-series wells were redeveloped during the period from fall 2010 to spring 2011 by surging and bailing followed by overpumping. The schedule for redevelopment was planned to accommodate ongoing quarterly and monthly sampling. The perched wells that were redeveloped and the redevelopment method employed are presented in Table 1. TWN-series wells were surged and bailed in October 2010 and overpumped in January and February 2011. TW4-series wells were surged and bailed in October and November 2010 and overpumped in February and March 2011. MW-series wells were surged and bailed in April 2011 and overpumped in April and May 2011. The rationale for redeveloping TW4-series and TWN-series wells was that these wells typically exceed 5 NTU during purging and sampling. Wells TW4-4, TW4-19 and TW-20 are nearly continuously pumped and were not redeveloped. The nature of the ongoing pumping for chloroform extraction at these wells is essentially equivalent to overpumping. These wells are pumped at rates slightly higher than are sustainable, are automatically shut down by a level switch when the water level becomes too low, and are then automatically restarted when the water level recovers sufficiently. 2.4 Rational for Wells not Redeveloped Wells MW-1, MW-2, MW-3, MW-3A, MW-4, MW-15, MW-17, MW-18, MW-25, MW-28, and MW-30 were not redeveloped because of historically low turbidities. Since 2007, these wells were either below 5 NTU during routine purging and sampling or exceeded 5 NTU only in the 2nd Quarter of 2010. As discussed earlier, many of the turbidities exceeding 5 NTU during this Redevelopment of Existing Perched Monitoring Wells H:\718000\turbidity\report\TurbidityReport_20110930_rev3.doc September 30, 2011 11 sampling event are suspected to be the result of equipment malfunction. MW-21 and MW-33 were not redeveloped because they are dry. MW-34 and MW-35 were not surged because they were recently surged and bailed after installation in August and September 2010. MW-35 was overpumped but MW-34 was not due to inadequate water in the well. MW-5 was not surged due to its age and the possibility of casing damage that could result from the more aggressive development technique. MW-4 is nearly continuously pumped and therefore not redeveloped due the reasons given above. The well redevelopment program that was completed during the fall of 2010 and the spring of 2011 met the strategies proposed by Denison in the July 12, 2010 correspondence as well as the revised strategies specified by DRC in the July 15, 2010 e-mail correspondence. Redevelopment of Existing Perched Monitoring Wells H:\718000\turbidity\report\TurbidityReport_20110930_rev3.doc September 30, 2011 13 3. PROCEDURES Prior to any redevelopment the depth to water in each well was measured and the casing volume calculated. In addition, immediately prior to the start of redevelopment, a set of background field parameters were collected that included pH, specific conductance, temperature and turbidity. These field parameters were then monitored regularly throughout the redevelopment procedure. 3.1 Surging and Bailing Surging and bailing was performed by Bayles Exploration using a nominal 4-inch diameter Teflon® surge block and steel bailer having a capacity of approximately 7.2 gallons. During the process Denison collected field parameters: • Immediately prior to redevelopment • After one full bailer was removed (approximately 7.2 gallons) • After each successive removal of three full bailers (approximately 21.5 gallons) Field parameters and volume of water removed were recorded on field data sheets. 3.2 Overpumping Overpumping was performed by Denison with a submersible, stainless steel GRUNDFOS pump having an effective pumping rate of approximately 17 gallons per minute (gpm). During redevelopment Denison collected field parameters: • Prior to pumping • Approximately every minute (approximately every 17 gallons). Field parameters and volume of water removed were recorded on field data sheets. Redevelopment of Existing Perched Monitoring Wells H:\718000\turbidity\report\TurbidityReport_20110930_rev3.doc September 30, 2011 15 4. RESULTS The results of the redevelopment are provided in the following sections and are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. Table 1 provides a qualitative description of turbidity behavior before and after redevelopment. Table 2 provides measured turbidities prior to redevelopment (3rd Quarter, 2010 results for TW4-series and TWN-series wells and 4th Quarter, 2010 results for MW-series wells), at the end of surging and bailing, at the end of overpumping, and from the first routine compliance sampling event after completion of redevelopment. Turbidities from compliance sampling events prior to and after redevelopment are those measured at the end of purging. That is, during sampling events, turbidity and other field parameters are measured repeatedly until the purged well has equilibrated. The values reported in Table 2 are those from the last turbidity measurement when the well has stabilized. Figure 5 shows the magnitudes of turbidities measured prior to redevelopment, Figure 6 shows the magnitudes of turbidities at the end of overpumping, and Figure 7 shows the magnitudes of turbidities measured during the first sampling event after completion of redevelopment. Comparison of these figures shows that while the magnitudes of turbidities vary at individual wells, on average there is no overall improvement. That is, it is important to note that, at the end of the process, some wells had improved while a roughly equal number of wells deteriorated apparently as a result of the redevelopment activity. Figure 8 is a histogram that compares the distribution of turbidities prior to redevelopment, at the end of surging and bailing, and at the end of overpumping. As shown in Figure 8, the turbidities at the end of surging and bailing were on average higher than the pre-redevelopment turbidities. The turbidities at the end of overpumping were lower on average than after surging and bailing but were still higher on average than before redevelopment. The data indicate that redevelopment had an overall impact that is neutral to negative with respect to turbidity. Slightly more than half of the wells had higher turbidities after redevelopment than before, as shown in Table 2. Table 1, which compares general behavior before and after redevelopment, shows that turbidities exceed 5 NTU as often or more frequently after redevelopment than in their undisturbed condition prior to redevelopment. At least one well (MW-20) appears to have been damaged by the redevelopment. The productivity of MW-20 is now much lower than prior to disturbance by redevelopment and now the well produces water too turbid for measurement. The results are generally consistent with turbidity being caused by the particular lithologic characteristics of the formation rather than well construction characteristics. This is supported by the generally similar behavior of older and newer wells Redevelopment of Existing Perched Monitoring Wells H:\718000\turbidity\report\TurbidityReport_20110930_rev3.doc September 30, 2011 16 during redevelopment, including the oldest wells such as MW-5 that were constructed without a filter pack. Details of the redevelopment results are provided in the following Sections. 4.1 Surging and Bailing Data collected during surging and bailing are provided in Appendix A. Plots of turbidity versus volume of water removed during surging and bailing are provided in Appendix B. Results of surging and bailing of the TW4-series and TWN-series and MW-series perched wells are discussed in Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2, respectively. 4.1.1 TW4- and TWN-series Wells Turbidity at most TW4-series and TWN-series wells was low in the initial sampling, increased substantially upon commencement of surging and bailing, and then diminished as the procedure continued. Turbidity at most TW4-series and TWN-series wells approached a pseudo-steady state after removal of five casing volumes. Wells TW4-1, TW4-2, TW4-6, TW4-7, TW4-9, TW4-11, TW4-14, TWN-3, TWN-7 and TWN- 14 were more poorly behaved during and after surging and bailing than the majority of the TW4- series and TWN-series wells. Although turbidities decreased in these wells after the initial increase, the decrease was generally more erratic than for other wells. Turbidity remained greater than 5 NTU in all TW4-series and TWN-series wells at the end of surging and bailing and ranged from 12 to 2013 NTU in TW4-series wells and from 15 to 832 NTU in TWN-series wells. The final three readings at wells TWN-6 and TWN-9 were within 10 percent (and these wells can be considered developed under former ASTM International D6771-02 which provides guidance for wells with turbidities greater than 10 NTU). The last two readings at TW4-3, TW4- 11, TW4-12, TW4-18, TW4-21, TW4-24, TWN-1, TWN-3, TWN-10, TWN-15, and TWN-18 were within 10 percent. Most (nearly 80 percent) of the TW4-series and TWN-series wells produced sufficient water during the surging and bailing for the procedure to be completed in one visit. Wells TW4-6, TW4-7, TW4-10, TW4-14, TW4-26, TWN-3, TWN-7, TWN-14, and TWN-17 bailed nearly dry and required multiple visits to complete the procedure. TWN-7 was the least productive and required six visits. 4.1.2 MW-series Wells Turbidity at many of the redeveloped MW-series wells was low in the initial sampling, increased substantially upon commencement of surging and bailing, and then diminished as the procedure Redevelopment of Existing Perched Monitoring Wells H:\718000\turbidity\report\TurbidityReport_20110930_rev3.doc September 30, 2011 17 continued. Turbidity at about 40 percent of the MW-series wells (MW-26, MW-27, MW-29, MW-31 and MW-32) approached a pseudo-steady state after the removal of about five casing volumes. Wells MW-11, MW-12, MW-14, MW-19, MW-22, and MW-24 were more poorly behaved during surging and bailing than the remainder of the redeveloped MW-series wells, having turbidities that were generally higher and/or more erratic. Well MW-20 (not graphed) produced little water and had turbidity readings that either exceeded 3000 NTU or were too high to measure, which is an indication of well damage. The productivity of MW-23 was so low that turbidities remained high even though declining after an initial increase. Turbidities remained greater than 5 NTU in all surged and bailed MW-series wells and ranged from 12 to more than 3000 NTU after redevelopment. None of the surged and bailed MW-series wells had three or more consecutive readings that were within 10 percent. However, the last two readings at MW- 22 and MW-31 were within 10 percent. Productivity at approximately half the wells redeveloped by surging and bailing (MW-11, MW-14, MW-26, MW-27, MW-29, MW-31, and MW-32) was sufficient to complete the redevelopment during one visit. For the remaining half of these wells, more than one visit was required to complete the redevelopment. 4.2 Overpumping Data collected during overpumping are provided in Appendix C. Plots of turbidity versus volume of water removed during overpumping are provided in Appendix D. Results of overpumping of TW4-series and TWN-series and MW-series perched wells are discussed in Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2, respectively. Figure 6 illustrates the magnitudes of turbidities measured at the conclusion of overpumping. 4.2.1 TW4- and TWN-series Wells During overpumping, turbidity levels at TW4-series and TWN-series wells displayed a variety of behaviors, sometimes remaining relatively constant, sometimes increasing then decreasing, sometimes behaving erratically, and sometimes increasing and remaining eleveated throughout the procedure. Wells TW4-1, TW4-8, TW4-9, TW4-12, TW4-16, TWN-1, TWN-10, and TWN-12 appeared more erratic (noisy) than the majority of the wells and without a clearly defined trend. TW4-14 also appeared noisy but displayed a decreasing trend after an initial increase. TW4-23, TW4-25, and TWN-6 exhibited increasing trends in turbidity. Turbidity at the completion of overpumping ranged from <1 to 2899 NTU in TW4-series wells and from <1 to 1128 NTU in TWN-series Redevelopment of Existing Perched Monitoring Wells H:\718000\turbidity\report\TurbidityReport_20110930_rev3.doc September 30, 2011 18 wells. Turbidities remained greater than 5 NTU in all TW4-series and TWN-series wells with the exception of TW4-3, TW4-13, TWN-5, TWN-9, and TWN-19 where the final readings ranged from <1 to 4 NTU. The final three readings at TW4-5, TW4-9, TW4-18, TW4-21, TW4-24, TWN-4, TWN-6, TWN-11, TWN-16 and TWN-18 were within 10 percent. (These wells can be considered developed under former ASTM International D6771-02 guidance for wells having turbidity greater that 10 NTU.) The final two readings at TW4-2, TW4-7, TW4-8, TW4-12, TW4-23, TW4-25, and TWN-12 were within 10 percent. Approximately 45 percent (17) of the TW4- and TWN-series wells produced water continuously during the overpumping. Productivity at the remaining wells was low enough that more than one session of overpumping was needed to complete the procedure. 4.2.2 MW-series Wells As with TW4-series and TWN-series wells, turbidity levels at MW-series wells during overpumping displayed a variety of behaviors, sometimes remaining relatively constant, sometimes increasing then decreasing, and sometimes behaving erratically throughout the procedure. Turbidity at about 60 percent of the over pumped MW-series wells (MW-5, MW-11, MW-12, MW-14, MW-26, MW-27, MW-29, and MW-31) approached a pseudo-steady state after the removal of about five casing volumes. However, none of the wells had three consecutive readings within 10 percent, and only MW-12 had two final readings within 10 percent. Wells MW-19, MW-22 and MW-32 (TW4-17) were more poorly behaved than the majority of the wells. Although turbidities decreased in these wells after an initial increase, the decrease was erratic compared to other wells. MW-34 could not yield water to the pump due to inadequate saturated thickness and MW-24 produced only enough water to collect a single measurement before pumping dry. Turbidities ranged from 3 to 257 NTU in the MW-series wells at the end of overpumping, with only MW-24, MW-27, and MW-31 having turbidities less than 5 NTU. Productivity was generally low. More than 90 percent (11) of the overpumped MW-series wells pumped dry and required more than one pumping session to complete the procedure. Only MW-11 produced water continuously during overpumping. 4.3 Redevelopment Behavior and Lithology The generally erratic or ‘noisy’ behavior of some TW4-series and TWN-series wells during redevelopment is likely the result of completion within friable, poorly cemented, conglomeratic materials of the Burro Canyon Formation. Because these materials are friable they are more likely to release particulates into wells screened across them. When encountered during drilling, Redevelopment of Existing Perched Monitoring Wells H:\718000\turbidity\report\TurbidityReport_20110930_rev3.doc September 30, 2011 19 friable materials within the Burro Canyon typically consist of poorly cemented conglomerate or poorly cemented sands associated with conglomeratic intervals. These materials typically have higher hydraulic conductivities than surrounding materials. The presence of loosely cemented chert pebbles within conglomeratic intervals has made coring difficult and poor core recovery is common. Boring logs for TW4-series and TWN-series wells having ‘noisy’ behavior during redevelopment are included in Appendix E. The generally noisy behavior of some MW-series wells likely results from the same mechanism that impacts many of the TW4-series wells: completion within friable, poorly cemented, conglomeratic materials of the Burro Canyon Formation. In addition, the presence of soft shales and notably kaolinitic sands within the screened intervals of some MW-series wells (for example, MW-19) likely contribute to turbidity. Furthermore, small saturated thicknesses and low productivity (for example at MW-20), which limit the effectiveness of the development process, are expected to enhance turbidity. Boring logs for MW-series wells having lithologies that likely contribute to turbidity are also included in Appendix E (with the exception of MW-11, MW-12, and MW-14 for which detailed logs are not available). 4.4 Post Redevelopment Behavior Figure 7, which shows the magnitudes of turbidities measured during the first sampling event after completion of redevelopment shows the same “scattershot” pattern as displayed in Figures 5 and 6, showing pre-redevelopment and end of redevelopment data, respectively. As discussed previously, the data show that while the magnitudes of turbidities vary at individual wells, there is no overall improvement on average. Figure 9 is a graph showing post-redevelopment turbidities at MW-11 and MW-14, which are sampled monthly. As shown, the turbidity at MW-14 has remained low while the turbidity at MW-11, while initially low after redevelopment (<5 NTU), is now increasing, and was greater than 40 NTU at the last sampling in September 2011. This is additional evidence that the redevelopment had a negative impact on some of the wells at the site. 4.5 Summary of Redevelopment Results Generally, and as discussed in detail above, redevelopment did not result in overall improvement in groundwater turbidity across the Mill site. More importantly, the aggressive redevelopment activities appear to have irreversibly disturbed the formation that hosts the perched groundwater wells. Two kinds of evidence demonstrate that redevelopment may have initiated negative changes to the formation. MW-20 is an example of damage that presented itself immediately during redevelopment, as demonstrated by the failure of the well. MW-11 is an example of a Redevelopment of Existing Perched Monitoring Wells H:\718000\turbidity\report\TurbidityReport_20110930_rev3.doc September 30, 2011 20 well response in which the well appeared to improved initially, then deteriorated rapidly with repeated (in this case monthly) sampling (Figure 9). Denison anticipates that behavior similar to that of MW-11 could be expected in other wells particularly, but not limited to, wells of its age, as other wells undergo repeated sampling over future monitoring periods. Denison plans to continue to observe the turbidity behavior of the perched groundwater wells, and may choose to provide future evidence to DRC of the long-term effects of the disturbance introduced with redevelopment. Nonetheless, Denison believes that adequate evidence exists at this time to demonstrate that the formation itself is incapable of producing water of sufficient clarity to achieve turbidity of 5 NTU and stability of 10% RPD consistently. Redevelopment of Existing Perched Monitoring Wells H:\718000\turbidity\report\TurbidityReport_20110930_rev3.doc September 30, 2011 21 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of redevelopment the following conclusions can be drawn: 1. The well redevelopment program that was completed during the fall of 2010 and the spring of 2011 met the strategies proposed by Denison in the July 12, 2010 correspondence as well as the revised strategies specified by DRC in the July 15, 2010 e- mail correspondence. 2. Data collected prior to, during, and after redevelopment indicate that the overall impact of redevelopment on turbidity was neutral to negative. That is, at the end of the redevelopment process, some wells had improved while a roughly equal number of other wells deteriorated. This was expected because of shale and clay interbeds in both the Burro Canyon Formation and Dakota Sandstone that host the perched water monitored by site wells. Saturated clays are likely to mobilize during purging. Kaolinite, reported to be present as a cementing material in both the Dakota and Burro Canyon, is likely to be a continuing source of turbidity in perched wells. Friable sands and conglomeratic materials reported within the Burro Canyon are also expected to contribute turbidity to perched wells. The results are generally consistent with the particular lithologic characteristics of the formation giving rise to the turbidity rather than well construction characteristics. This is supported by the generally similar behavior of both older and newer wells during redevelopment, including the oldest wells such as MW-5 that were constructed without a filter pack. 3. Overall, the results of the redevelopment effort demonstrate that redevelopment was generally ineffective, but are consistent with expectation considering the nature of the Burro Canyon Formation and Dakota Sandstone which were not anticipated to respond favorably to aggressive redevelopment. The aggressive redevelopment appears to have irreversibly disturbed the formation that hosts the perched groundwater wells and is likely to have further repercussions with respect to increased turbidity and lower productivity of some of the redeveloped wells, that is, turbidity may continue to deteriorate in redeveloped wells. Two kinds of evidence demonstrate that redevelopment may have initiated negative changes to the formation. MW-20 is an example of damage that presented itself immediately during redevelopment, as demonstrated by very low water production since redevelopment. MW-11 is an example of a well response in which the well appeared to improved initially, then deteriorated rapidly with repeated (in this case monthly) sampling. Denison anticipates that behavior similar to that of MW-11 could be expected in other wells particularly, but not limited to, wells of its age, as other wells undergo repeated sampling over future monitoring periods. Denison plans to continue to observe the turbidity behavior of the perched groundwater wells, and may choose to provide future evidence to DRC of the long-term effects of the disturbance introduced with redevelopment. . 4. Nonetheless, Denison believes that adequate evidence exists at this time to demonstrate that the formation itself is incapable of producing water of sufficient clarity to achieve turbidity of 5 NTU and stability of 10% RPD consistently. Redevelopment of Existing Perched Monitoring Wells H:\718000\turbidity\report\TurbidityReport_20110930_rev3.doc September 30, 2011 22 Based on the results of the redevelopment, the following recommendations are made: 1. Abandon MW-20. This is appropriate because as a result of damage due to disturbance during redevelopment, the well is no longer useful as a perched monitoring well. The well is no longer a compliance monitoring well and abandonment of the well will not result in the loss of compliance information. 2. Remove turbidity as a stabilization parameter from the approved QAP. This is appropriate because turbidity in the MW-, TWN- and TW4-series wells is dependent on the nature of the formation hosting perched water at the site. As demonstrated by the redevelopment effort, turbidity cannot be improved, and may continue to deteriorate as a result of redevelopment. t. 3. Based on consideration of all well information available to date, Denison has determined that low-flow/micro-purging will not provide any benefit in sampling any of the wells. Denison chooses to withdraw the draft of the QAP submitted on June 4, 2010 proposing these techniques.. Redevelopment of Existing Perched Monitoring Wells H:\718000\turbidity\report\TurbidityReport_20110930_rev3.doc September 30, 2011 23 6. REFERENCES Aller, Linda; Truman W. Bennett, Glen Hackett, and Rebecca J. Petty. 1991. Handbook of Suggested Practices for the Design and Installation of Ground Water Monitoring Wells. EPA160014-891034. March 1991. ASTM International (ASTM). 1986. ASTM D6771-02 Standard Practice for Low-Flow Purging and Sampling for Wells and Devices Used for Ground-Water Quality Investigations (Withdrawn 2011) Driscoll. 1986. Groundwater and Wells. Second Edition. Johnson Filtration Systems, Inc. Hydro Geo Chem, Inc., 2007. Preliminary Contamination Investigation Report. White Mesa Uranium Mill Site Near Blanding, Utah. November 20, 2007. Powell, R. M. and R. W. Puls. 1997. Hitting the Bull’s-Eye in Groundwater Sampling. Cover Article, Pollution Engineering, June. pp 50-54. TITAN. 1994. Hydrogeological Evaluation of White Mesa Uranium Mill. Submitted to Energy Fuels Nuclear. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1992. RCRA Ground-Water Monitoring Draft Technical Guidance. Office of Solid Waste, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 401 M Street, S.W, Washington, D.C. 20460. November 1992. EPA Environmental Response Team. 1994. SOP 2044. Rev 00. October 3, 1994. EPA Environmental Response Team. 2001. SOP 2044. Rev 01. October 23, 2001. Yeskis, Douglas and Bernard Zavala. 2002. Ground Water Sampling. Guidelines for Superfund and RCRA Project Managers. Ground Water Forum Issue Paper. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPA 542-S-02-001. May 2002. Redevelopment of Existing Perched Monitoring Wells H:\718000\turbidity\report\TurbidityReport_20110930_rev3.doc September 30, 2011 25 7. LIMITATIONS The opinions and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the scope of services and information obtained through the performance of those services, as agreed upon by HGC and the party for whom this report was originally prepared. Results of any investigations, tests, or findings presented in this report apply solely to conditions existing at the time HGC’s investigative work was performed and are inherently based on and limited to the available data and the extent of the investigation activities. No representation, warranty, guarantee, express or implied, is intended or given. HGC makes no representation as to the accuracy or completeness of any information provided by other parties not under contract to HGC to the extent that HGC relied upon that information. This report is expressly for the sole and exclusive use of the party for whom this report was originally prepared and for the particular purpose that it was intended. Reuse of this report, or any portion thereof, for other than its intended purpose, or if modified, or if used by third parties, shall be at the sole risk of the user. TABLES TABLE 1 Redevelopment Status of Perched Monitor Wells and Summary of Turbidity Behavior Before and After Redevelopment Well Completion Date Surge and Bail Overpump Before Redevelopment After Redevelopment Comment MW-1 9/1/1979 No No turbidity typically < 5 NTU NA MW-2 9/1/1979 No No turbidity typically < 5 NTU NA MW-3 9/1/1979 No No turbidity typically < 5 NTU NA MW-3A 4/19/2005 No No turbidity typically < 5 NTU NA MW-4 9/1/1979 No No NA (continuously pumped) NA MW-5 5/1/1980 No Yes turbidity occasionally > 5 NTU turbidity > 5 NTU MW-11 10/1/1982 Yes Yes turbidity occasionally > 5 NTU turbidity > and < 5 NTU increasing turbidity MW-12 10/1/1982 Yes Yes turbidity occasionally > 5 NTU turbidity > 5 NTU MW-14 9/1/1989 Yes Yes turbidity occasionally > 5 NTU turbidity < 5 NTU MW-15 9/1/1989 No No turbidity typically < 5 NTU NA MW-17 12/1/1992 No No turbidity typically < 5 NTU NA MW-18 12/1/1992 No No turbidity typically < 5 NTU NA MW-19 12/1/1992 Yes Yes turbidity occasionally > 5 NTU turbidity < 5 NTU MW-20 8/4/1994 Yes No turbidity occasionally > 5 NTU turbidity >> 5 NTU damaged by redevelopment? MW-21 8/4/1994 No No NA (dry) NA MW-22 8/4/1994 Yes Yes turbidity occasionally > 5 NTU NA MW-23 4/4/2005 Yes Yes turbidity occasionally > 5 NTU turbidity > 5 NTU MW-24 4/7/2005 Yes Yes turbidity occasionally > 5 NTU turbidity < 5 NTU MW-25 4/9/2005 No No turbidity typically < 5 NTU NA MW-26 5/9/2007 Yes Yes turbidity typically < 5 NTU turbidity < 5 NTU MW-27 4/5/2005 Yes Yes turbidity occasionally > 5 NTU turbidity > 5 NTU MW-28 4/5/2005 No No turbidity typically < 5 NTU NA MW-29 4/12/2005 Yes Yes turbidity occasionally > 5 NTU turbidity > 5 NTU MW-30 4/6/2005 No No turbidity typically < 5 NTU NA MW-31 4/11/2005 Yes Yes turbidity occasionally > 5 NTU turbidity < 5 NTU MW-32 10/13/2009 Yes Yes turbidity occasionally > 5 NTU turbidity > 5 NTU MW-33 8/31/2010 No No NA (dry) NA MW-34 8/31/2010 No No NA (surged/bailed September 2010) NA MW-35 9/1/2010 No Yes NA (surged/bailed September 2010) turbidity > and < 5 NTU TW4-1 11/5/1999 Yes Yes turbidity typically > 5 NTU turbidity > 5 NTU TW4-2 11/2/1999 Yes Yes turbidity typically > 5 NTU turbidity > 5 NTU TW4-3 11/16/1999 Yes Yes turbidity typically > 5 NTU turbidity > 5 NTU TW4-4 5/11/2000 No No NA (continuously pumped) NA TW4-5 12/15/1999 Yes Yes turbidity typically > 5 NTU turbidity > 5 NTU TW4-6 5/11/2000 Yes Yes turbidity typically > 5 NTU turbidity > 5 NTU TW4-7 11/17/1999 Yes Yes turbidity typically > 5 NTU turbidity > 5 NTU TW4-8 11/17/1999 Yes Yes turbidity typically > 5 NTU turbidity > 5 NTU TW4-9 12/15/1999 Yes Yes turbidity typically > 5 NTU turbidity > 5 NTU TW4-10 12/20/2001 Yes Yes turbidity typically > 5 NTU turbidity > 5 NTU TW4-11 12/19/2001 Yes Yes turbidity typically > 5 NTU turbidity > 5 NTU TW4-12 7/1/2002 Yes Yes turbidity typically > 5 NTU turbidity > 5 NTU TW4-13 7/1/2002 Yes Yes turbidity typically > 5 NTU turbidity > 5 NTU TW4-14 7/2/2002 Yes Yes turbidity typically > 5 NTU turbidity > and < 5 NTU TW4-16 7/2/2002 Yes Yes turbidity typically > 5 NTU turbidity > 5 NTU TW4-18 7/8/2002 Yes Yes turbidity typically > 5 NTU turbidity > 5 NTU TW4-19 7/9/2002 No No NA (continuously pumped) NA TW4-20 4/9/2005 No No NA (continuously pumped) NA TW4-21 4/19/2005 Yes Yes turbidity > and < 5 NTU turbidity > or = 5 NTU TW4-22 4/9/2005 Yes Yes turbidity typically > 5 NTU turbidity > 5 NTU TW4-23 5/1/2007 Yes Yes turbidity typically > 5 NTU turbidity > 5 NTU TW4-24 5/2/2007 Yes Yes turbidity > and < 5 NTU turbidity > and < 5 NTU TW4-25 4/30/2007 Yes Yes turbidity typically > 5 NTU turbidity > 5 NTU TW4-26 5/25/2010 Yes Yes turbidity typically > 5 NTU turbidity > and < 5 NTU H:\718000\turbidity\report\Tables\ Table1_redev_rev1.xls: Table 1 Page 1 of 2 9/30/2011 TABLE 1 Redevelopment Status of Perched Monitor Wells and Summary of Turbidity Behavior Before and After Redevelopment Well Completion Date Surge and Bail Overpump Before Redevelopment After Redevelopment Comment TWN-1 2/5/2009 Yes Yes turbidity typically > 5 NTU turbidity > 5 NTU TWN-2 2/5/2009 Yes Yes turbidity typically > 5 NTU turbidity > 5 NTU TWN-3 2/4/2009 Yes Yes turbidity typically > 5 NTU turbidity > 5 NTU TWN-4 2/3/2009 No No turbidity typically > 5 NTU turbidity > 5 NTU TWN-5 8/19/2009 Yes Yes turbidity > and < 5 NTU turbidity < 5 NTU TWN-6 8/18/2009 Yes Yes turbidity typically > 5 NTU turbidity > 5 NTU TWN-7 8/20/2009 Yes Yes turbidity typically > 5 NTU turbidity > 5 NTU TWN-8 8/19/2009 Yes Yes turbidity typically > 5 NTU turbidity > and < 5 NTU TWN-9 8/17/2009 Yes Yes turbidity typically > 5 NTU turbidity > 5 NTU TWN-10 8/18/2009 Yes Yes turbidity typically > 5 NTU turbidity > 5 NTU TWN-11 10/13/2009 Yes Yes turbidity typically > 5 NTU turbidity > 5 NTU TWN-12 10/13/2009 Yes Yes turbidity typically > 5 NTU turbidity > 5 NTU TWN-13 10/13/2009 Yes Yes turbidity typically > 5 NTU turbidity > 5 NTU TWN-14 10/13/2009 Yes Yes turbidity typically > 5 NTU turbidity > 5 NTU TWN-15 10/13/2009 Yes Yes turbidity typically > 5 NTU turbidity > 5 NTU TWN-16 10/13/2009 Yes Yes turbidity typically > 5 NTU turbidity > and < 5 NTU TWN-17 10/13/2009 Yes Yes turbidity typically > 5 NTU turbidity > 5 NTU TWN-18 10/13/2009 Yes Yes turbidity typically > 5 NTU turbidity > 5 NTU TWN-19 10/13/2009 Yes Yes turbidity typically > 5 NTU turbidity > 5 NTU Notes: NA = not applicable NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units H:\718000\turbidity\report\Tables\ Table1_redev_rev1.xls: Table 1 Page 2 of 2 9/30/2011 TABLE 2 Turbidity Before and After Redevelopment Well ID Installation Date Initial Water Column (feet) Pre-Development Turbidity(1,2) Turbidity at End of Surge/Bail Turbidity at End of Overpumping Post-Development Turbidity(3) Well Ran Dry (Surge/Bail) Well Ran Dry (Overpumping) MW-5 05/01/80 32.3 12 NA 156 10 NA Yes MW-11 10/01/82 40.6 <1 2624 20 2 No No MW-12 10/01/82 21.8 139 >3000 175 16 Yes Yes MW-14 09/01/89 24.6 <1 305 14 <1 No Yes MW-19 12/01/92 97.5 <1 1582 210 4 Yes Yes MW-20 08/04/94 1.5 9 >3000 NA 3000 Yes Yes MW-22 08/04/94 47.1 4 811 192 NA Yes Yes MW-23 04/04/05 8.4 1 455 15 22 Yes Yes MW-24 04/07/05 5.1 1 2240 3 <1 Yes Yes MW-26 07/02/02 52.1 <1 21 47 <1 No Yes MW-27 04/05/05 43.7 <1 31 3 8 No Yes MW-29 04/12/05 24.3 9 116 43 17 No Yes MW-31 04/11/05 61.1 <1 12 3 1 No Yes MW-32 10/13/09 56.2 9 85 257 8 No Yes MW-34 10/13/09 1.3 15 NA NA 263 NA Yes MW-35 10/13/09 12.2 1505 NA 40 16 NA Yes TW4-1 11/05/99 46.4 9 929 331 18 No Yes TW4-2 11/02/99 52.0 48 523 67 117 No Yes TW4-3 11/16/99 91.6 13 25 <1 25 No Yes TW4-5 12/15/99 62.9 29 168 29 191 No No TW4-6 05/11/00 26.7 294 531 609 321 Yes Yes TW4-7 11/17/99 51.8 67 2013 15 40 Yes Yes TW4-8 11/17/99 57.4 34 285 152 43 No No TW4-9 12/15/99 64.5 113 1365 349 138 No No TW4-10 12/20/01 55.6 20 228 27 79 No Yes TW4-11 12/19/01 41.8 7 240 7 7 Yes Yes TW4-12 07/01/02 63.2 5 111 1154 7 No No TW4-13 07/01/02 56.3 22 101 4 12 No Yes TW4-14 07/02/02 5.0 13 1181 18 45 Yes Yes TW4-16 07/02/02 77.3 123 111 225 79 No Yes TW4-18 07/08/02 79.0 300 1404 12 229 No No TW4-21 04/19/05 56.5 5 40 9 9 No No TW4-22 04/09/05 58.9 15 13 10 15 No Yes TW4-23 05/01/07 48.1 43 160 1240 178 No No TW4-24 05/02/07 56.6 1 52 101 10 No No TW4-25 04/30/07 87.9 144 65 2899 16 No No TW4-26 05/25/10 21.6 142 114 39 27 Yes Yes TWN-1 02/05/09 63.4 81 40 50 129 No No TWN-2 02/05/09 79.5 88 123 9 21 No Yes TWN-3 02/04/09 63.1 262 153 340 56 Yes Yes TWN-4 02/03/09 87.4 86 134 147 837 No No TWN-5 08/19/09 80.1 13 139 2 3 No Yes TWN-6 08/18/09 55.3 18 119 1128 9 No No TWN-7 08/20/09 15.6 6 832 11 109 Yes Yes TWN-8 08/19/09 83.7 6 45 37 4 No No TWN-9 08/17/09 32.7 113 15 4 77 No Yes TWN-10 08/18/09 23.4 133 46 14 35 No Yes TWN-11 10/13/09 72.4 2 36 17 10 No No TWN-12 10/13/09 75.5 80 306 57 100 No Yes TWN-13 10/13/09 69.1 22 61 39 22 No No TWN-14 10/13/09 60.0 45 100 66 43 Yes Yes TWN-15 10/13/09 62.7 99 80 16 34 No Yes TWN-16 10/13/09 44.5 1 300 17 30 No No TWN-17 10/13/09 69.3 124 215 36 55 Yes Yes TWN-18 10/13/09 96.8 12 135 20 92 No No TWN-19 10/13/09 52.8 191 30 <1 10 No Yes Notes: 1Q4, 2010 for MW-series and TW4-series 2Q3, 2010 for TWN-series 3First Sampling After Redevelopment NA = Not Applicable H:\718000\turbidity\report\Tables\Table2_redev_rev3.xls: T2 Final NTU 9/30/2011 FIGURES !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( MW-01 MW-02 MW-03 MW-04 MW-05 MW-11 MW-12 MW-14MW-15 MW-17 MW-18 MW-19 MW-20 MW-21 MW-22 MW-23 MW-25 MW-26 MW-27 MW-28 MW-29 MW-30 MW-31 MW-32 MW-33 MW-34 MW-35 MW-36 MW-37 TW4-01 TW4-02 TW4-03 TW4-04 TW4-05 TW4-06 TW4-07 TW4-09 TW4-10 TW4-11 TW4-12 TW4-13 TW4-14 TW4-16 TW4-18TW4-19 TW4-20 TW4-21 TW4-22 TW4-23 TW4-24 TW4-25 TW4-26 TWN-01 TWN-02 TWN-03 TWN-04 TWN-05 TWN-06 TWN-07 TWN-08 TWN-09 TWN-10 TWN-11 TWN-12 TWN-13 TWN-14 TWN-15 TWN-16 TWN-17 TWN-18 TWN-19 MW-24 TW4-08 SITE PLAN AND PERCHED MONITOR WELL LOCATIONSÒ500 10000 Feet SJS 09/28/11 Approved Date Reference Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC.K:\718000\GIS\Turbidity 1 Property Boundary !(Monitor Well K:\ 7 1 8 0 0 0 \ G I S \ T u r b i d i t y F i g u r e 1 _ 2 0 1 1 0 9 2 9 . m x d : T h u r sd a y , S e p t e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 1 7 : 0 8 : 4 6 A M SCATTER PLOTS OF TW4-SERIES WELLS TW4-1, -2, -4, -6, -7, -10, -15, -19, -20 and -22 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Unit ug/L = micrograms per liter 08/22/11SJS 2K:\718000\Turbidity Figure 2.mxd 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Turbidity (NTU) Ch l o r o f o r m ( u g / L ) SCATTER PLOTS OF TW4-SERIES WELLS TW4-1, -2, -4, -6, -7, -10, -15, -19, and -22 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Unit ug/L = micrograms per liter 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Turbidity (NTU) Ch l o r o f o r m ( u g / L ) 08/22/11SJS 3K:\718000\Turbidity Figure 3.mxd 08/22/11SJS Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Unit 4K:\718000\Turbidity Figure 4.mxd 0 5 10 15 2007 Q1 2007 Q2 2007 Q3 2007 Q4 2008 Q1 2008 Q2 2008 Q3 2008 Q4 2009 Q1 2009 Q2 2009 Q3 2009 Q4 2010 Q1 2010 Q2 2010 Q3 2010 Q4 Sampling Event Nu m b e r o f M W - s e r i e s W e l l s w i t h T u r b i d i t y > 5 N T U NUMBER OF MW-SERIES WELLS WITH TURBIDITY GREATER THAN 5 NTU PER SAMPLING EVENT !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( MW-05 MW-11 MW-12 MW-14 MW-19 MW-20 MW-22 MW-23 MW-24 MW-26 MW-27 MW-29 MW-31 MW-32 MW-34 MW-35 TW4-01 TW4-02 TW4-03 TW4-05 TW4-06 TW4-07 TW4-09 TW4-11 TW4-12 TW4-13 TW4-14 TW4-16 TW4-18 TW4-21 TW4-22 TW4-23 TW4-25 TW4-26 TWN-01 TWN-02 TWN-03 TWN-04 TWN-05 TWN-06 TWN-07 TWN-08 TWN-09 TWN-10 TWN-11 TWN-12 TWN-13 TWN-14 TWN-15 TWN-16 TWN-17 TWN-18 TWN-19 TW4-08 TW4-10 TW4-24 PRE-REDEVELOPMENT TURBIDITY RESULTS (MW-SERIES and TW-4 SERIES 4th QUARTER 2010; TWN-SERIES, 3rd Quarter 2010)Ò500 10000 Feet SJS 09/27/11 Approved Date Reference Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC.K:\718000\Turbidity Figure 5 5 Property Boundary TURBIDITY (NTU) !(0 - 5 !(6 - 100 !(101 - 500 !(501 - 1000 !(1001 - 1500 !(1501 - 2000 Nephelometric Turbidity UnitsNTU !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( MW-05 MW-11 MW-12 MW-14 MW-19 MW-22 MW-23 MW-24 MW-26 MW-27 MW-29 MW-31 MW-32 MW-35 TW4-01 TW4-02 TW4-03 TW4-05 TW4-06 TW4-07 TW4-09 TW4-11 TW4-12 TW4-13 TW4-14 TW4-16 TW4-18 TW4-21 TW4-22 TW4-23 TW4-25 TW4-26 TWN-01 TWN-02 TWN-03 TWN-04 TWN-05 TWN-06 TWN-07 TWN-08 TWN-09 TWN-10 TWN-11 TWN-12 TWN-13 TWN-14 TWN-15 TWN-16 TWN-17 TWN-18 TWN-19 TW4-08 TW4-10 TW4-24 TURBIDITY AT END OF OVERPUMPINGÒ500 10000 Feet SJS 09/27/11 Approved Date Reference Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC.K:\718000\Turbidity Figure 6 6 Property Boundary TURBIDITY (NTU) !(0 - 5 !(6 - 100 !(101 - 500 !(501 - 1000 !(1001 - 1500 !(1501 - 2000 !(2001 - 3000 Nephelometric Turbidity UnitsNTU K: \ 7 1 8 0 0 0 \ G I S \ T u r b i d i t y F i g u r e 6 _ 2 0 1 1 0 9 2 7 . m x d : T u e s da y , S e p t e m b e r 2 7 , 2 0 1 1 1 : 5 3 : 5 3 P M !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( MW-05 MW-11 MW-12 MW-14 MW-19 MW-20 MW-23 MW-24 MW-26 MW-27 MW-29 MW-31 MW-32 MW-34 MW-35 TW4-01 TW4-02 TW4-03 TW4-05 TW4-06 TW4-07 TW4-09 TW4-11 TW4-12 TW4-13 TW4-14 TW4-16 TW4-18 TW4-21 TW4-22 TW4-23 TW4-25 TW4-26 TWN-01 TWN-02 TWN-03 TWN-04 TWN-05 TWN-06 TWN-07 TWN-08 TWN-09 TWN-10 TWN-11 TWN-12 TWN-13 TWN-14 TWN-15 TWN-16 TWN-17 TWN-18 TWN-19 TW4-08 TW4-10 TW4-24 TURBIDITY FROM THE FIRST SAMPLING AFTER REDEVELOPMENT Ò500 10000 Feet SJS 09/28/11 Approved Date Reference Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC.K:\718000\Turbidity Figure 7 7 Property Boundary TURBIDITY (NTU) !(0 - 5 !(6 - 100 !(101 - 500 !(501 - 1000 !(1001 - 1500 !(1501 - 3000 Nephelometric Turbidity UnitsNTU H:\718000\turbidity\report\Figures\stats.xls: Figure 8 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 1 2 5 10 20 50 100 200 500 1000 2000 3000 Turbidity Range (NTU) Fr e q u e n c y pre-redevelopment end of surge and bail end of overpumping COMPARISON OF TURBIDITY DISTRIBUTION PRIOR TO REDEVELOPMENT, AT THE END OF SURGING AND BAILING, AND AT THE END OF OVERPUMPING HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC.Approved FigureDateAuthorDateFile Name SJS 9/28/11 8Figure 89/28/11SJS H:\718000\turbidity\report\Figures\MW11_postdev.xls: Figure 9 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 4/27/2011 5/17/2011 6/6/2011 6/26/2011 7/16/2011 8/5/2011 8/25/2011 9/14/2011 10/4/2011 Date Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) MW-11 MW-14 POST-REDEVELOPMENT TURBIDITYHYDRO GEO CHEM, INC.Approved FigureDateAuthorDateFile Name SJS 9/28/11 9Figure 99/28/11SJS APPENDIX A FIELD DATA SHEETS FOR SURGING AND BAILING APPENDIX B PLOTS OF TURBIDITY DURING SURGING AND BAILING MW-11 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING SURGING AND BAILING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\MW-11 SBTurbid.mxd MW-11 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. MW-12 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING SURGING AND BAILING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\MW-12 SBTurbid.mxd MW-12 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. MW-14 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING SURGING AND BAILING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\MW-14 SBTurbid.mxd MW-14 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. MW-19 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING SURGING AND BAILING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\MW-19 SBTurbid.mxd MW-19 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. MW-22 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING SURGING AND BAILING 06/21/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\MW-22 SBTurbid.mxd MW-22 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. MW-23 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING SURGING AND BAILING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\MW-23 SBTurbid.mxd MW-23 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. MW-24 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING SURGING AND BAILING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\MW-24 SBTurbid.mxd MW-24 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. MW-26 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING SURGING AND BAILING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\MW-26 SBTurbid.mxd MW-26 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. MW-27 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING SURGING AND BAILING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\MW-27 SBTurbid.mxd MW-27 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. MW-29 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING SURGING AND BAILING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\MW-29 SBTurbid.mxd MW-29 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. MW-31 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING SURGING AND BAILING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\MW-31 SBTurbid.mxd MW-31 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. MW-32 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING SURGING AND BAILING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\MW-32 SBTurbid.mxd MW-32 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TW4-1 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING SURGING AND BAILING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TW4-1 SBTurbid.mxd TW4-1 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TW4-2 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING SURGING AND BAILING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TW4-2 SBTurbid.mxd TW4-2 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TW4-3 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING SURGING AND BAILING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TW4-3 SBTurbid.mxd TW4-3 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TW4-5 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING SURGING AND BAILING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TW4-5 SBTurbid.mxd TW4-5 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TW4-6 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING SURGING AND BAILING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TW4-6 SBTurbid.mxd TW4-6 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TW4-7 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING SURGING AND BAILING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TW4-7 SBTurbid.mxd TW4-7 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TW4-8 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING SURGING AND BAILING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TW4-8 SBTurbid.mxd TW4-8 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TW4-9 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING SURGING AND BAILING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TW4-9 SBTurbid.mxd TW4-9 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TW4-10 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING SURGING AND BAILING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TW4-10 SBTurbid.mxd TW4-10 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TW4-11 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING SURGING AND BAILING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TW4-11 SBTurbid.mxd TW4-11 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TW4-12 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING SURGING AND BAILING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TW4-12 SBTurbid.mxd TW4-12 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TW4-13 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING SURGING AND BAILING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TW4-13 SBTurbid.mxd TW4-13 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TW4-14 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING SURGING AND BAILING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TW4-14 SBTurbid.mxd TW4-14 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TW4-16 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING SURGING AND BAILING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TW4-16 SBTurbid.mxd TW4-16 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TW4-18 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING SURGING AND BAILING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TW4-18 SBTurbid.mxd TW4-18 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TW4-21 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING SURGING AND BAILING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TW4-21 SBTurbid.mxd TW4-21 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TW4-22 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING SURGING AND BAILING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TW4-22 SBTurbid.mxd TW4-22 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TW4-23 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING SURGING AND BAILING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TW4-23 SBTurbid.mxd TW4-23 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TW4-24 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING SURGING AND BAILING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TW4-24 SBTurbid.mxd TW4-24 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TW4-25 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING SURGING AND BAILING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TW4-25 SBTurbid.mxd TW4-25 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TW4-26 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING SURGING AND BAILING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TW4-26 SBTurbid.mxd TW4-26 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TWN-1 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING SURGING AND BAILING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TWN-1 SBTurbid.mxd TWN-1 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TWN-2 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING SURGING AND BAILING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TWN-2 SBTurbid.mxd TWN-2 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TWN-3 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING SURGING AND BAILING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TWN-3 SBTurbid.mxd TWN-3 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TWN-4 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING SURGING AND BAILING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TWN-4 SBTurbid.mxd TWN-4 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TWN-5 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING SURGING AND BAILING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TWN-5 SBTurbid.mxd TWN-5 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TWN-6 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING SURGING AND BAILING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TWN-6 SBTurbid.mxd TWN-6 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TWN-7 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING SURGING AND BAILING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TWN-7 SBTurbid.mxd TWN-7 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TWN-8 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING SURGING AND BAILING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TWN-8 SBTurbid.mxd TWN-8 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TWN-9 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING SURGING AND BAILING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TWN-9 SBTurbid.mxd TWN-9 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TWN-10 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING SURGING AND BAILING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TWN-10 SBTurbid.mxd TWN-10 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TWN-11 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING SURGING AND BAILING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TWN-11 SBTurbid.mxd TWN-11 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TWN-12 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING SURGING AND BAILING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TWN-12 SBTurbid.mxd TWN-12 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TWN-13 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING SURGING AND BAILING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TWN-13 SBTurbid.mxd TWN-13 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TWN-14 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING SURGING AND BAILING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TWN-14 SBTurbid.mxd TWN-14 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TWN-15 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING SURGING AND BAILING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TWN-15 SBTurbid.mxd TWN-15 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TWN-16 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING SURGING AND BAILING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TWN-16 SBTurbid.mxd TWN-16 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TWN-17 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING SURGING AND BAILING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TWN-17 SBTurbid.mxd TWN-17 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TWN-18 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING SURGING AND BAILING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TWN-18 SBTurbid.mxd TWN-18 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TWN-19 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING SURGING AND BAILING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TWN-19 SBTurbid.mxd TWN-19 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. APPENDIX C FIELD DATA SHEETS FOR OVERPUMPING APPENDIX D PLOTS OF TURBIDITY DURING OVERPUMPING MW-5 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING OVERPUMPING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\MW-5 OPTurbid.mxd MW-5 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. MW-11 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING OVERPUMPING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\MW-11 OPTurbid.mxd MW-11 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. MW-12 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING OVERPUMPING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\MW-12 OPTurbid.mxd MW-12 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. MW-14 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING OVERPUMPING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\MW-14 OPTurbid.mxd MW-14 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. MW-19 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING OVERPUMPING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\MW-19 OPTurbid.mxd MW-19 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. MW-22 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING OVERPUMPING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\MW-22 OPTurbid.mxd MW-22 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. H:\718000\turbidity\report\PlotsTurbidityOverpumping_GIFs\MW-23.xls: MW-23 13 12 151 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) MW-23 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING OVERPUMPING HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC.Approved FigureDateAuthorDate File Name SJS 8/22/11 MW-23WM-238/9/11DRS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units MW-26 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING OVERPUMPING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\MW-26 OPTurbid.mxd MW-26 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. MW-27 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING OVERPUMPING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\MW-27 OPTurbid.mxd MW-27 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. MW-29 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING OVERPUMPING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\MW-29 OPTurbid.mxd MW-29 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. MW-31 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING OVERPUMPING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\MW-31 OPTurbid.mxd MW-31 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. MW-32 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING OVERPUMPING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\MW-32 OPTurbid.mxd MW-32 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. MW-35 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING OVERPUMPING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\MW-35 OPTurbid.mxd MW-35 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TW4-1 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING OVERPUMPING 06/10/11 TW4-1SJS Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units H:\718000\TW4-1 OP.mxd Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) 230 137 241 80 72 177 199 64 331 11.70 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 TW4-2 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING OVERPUMPING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TW4-2 OPTurbid.mxd TW4-2 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TW4-3 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING OVERPUMPING 06/10/11 TW4-3SJS Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units H:\718000\TW4-3 OP.mxd Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) 18 8 2 16 13 5 4 3 1 2 00 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 TW4-5 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING OVERPUMPING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TW4-5 OPTurbid.mxd TW4-5 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TW4-6 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING OVERPUMPING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TW4-6 OPTurbid.mxd TW4-6 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TW4-7 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING OVERPUMPING 06/10/11 TW4-7SJS Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units H:\718000\TW4-7 OP.mxd Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) 0 110 54 43 116 40 33 53 16 15 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 TW4-8 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING OVERPUMPING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TW4-8 OPTurbid.mxd TW4-8 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TW4-9 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING OVERPUMPING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TW4-9 OPTurbid.mxd TW4-9 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TW4-10 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING OVERPUMPING 06/10/11 TW4-10SJS Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units H:\718000\TW4-10 OP.mxd Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) 44 45 30 77 270 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 TW4-11 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING OVERPUMPING 06/10/11 TW4-11SJS Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units H:\718000\TW4-11 OP.mxd Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) 15 32 36 15 21 22 13 70 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 TW4-12 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING OVERPUMPING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TW4-12 OPTurbid.mxd TW4-12 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TW4-13 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING OVERPUMPING 06/10/11 TW4-13SJS Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units H:\718000\TW4-13 OP.mxd Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) 11 31 21 12 40 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 TW4-14 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING OVERPUMPING 06/10/11 TW4-14SJS Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units H:\718000\TW4-14 OP.mxd Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) 785 10 43 180 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 TW4-16 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING OVERPUMPING 06/10/11 TW4-16SJS Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units H:\718000\TW4-16 OP.mxd Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) 103 219 338 116 372 225 996 348 47 143 91322 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 TW4-18 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING OVERPUMPING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TW4-18 OPTurbid.mxd TW4-18 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TW4-21 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING OVERPUMPING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TW4-21 OPTurbid.mxd TW4-21 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TW4-22 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING OVERPUMPING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TW4-22 OPTurbid.mxd TW4-22 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TW4-23 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING OVERPUMPING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TW4-23 OPTurbid.mxd TW4-23 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TW4-24 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING OVERPUMPING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TW4-24 OPTurbid.mxd TW4-24 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TW4-25 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING OVERPUMPING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TW4-25 OPTurbid.mxd TW4-25 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TW4-26 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING OVERPUMPING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TW4-26 OPTurbid.mxd TW4-26 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TWN-1 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING OVERPUMPING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TWN-1 OPTurbid.mxd TWN-1 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TWN-2 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING OVERPUMPING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TWN-2 OPTurbid.mxd TWN-2 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TWN-3 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING OVERPUMPING 06/10/11 TWN-3SJS Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units H:\718000\TWN-3 OP.mxd 340284 442291024 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) TWN-4 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING OVERPUMPING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TWN-4 OPTurbid.mxd TWN-4 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TWN-5 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING OVERPUMPING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TWN-5 OPTurbid.mxd TWN-5 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TWN-6 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING OVERPUMPING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TWN-6 OPTurbid.mxd TWN-6 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TWN-7 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING OVERPUMPING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TWN-7 OPTurbid.mxd TWN-7 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TWN-8 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING OVERPUMPING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TWN-8 OPTurbid.mxd TWN-8 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TWN-9 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING OVERPUMPING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TWN-9 OPTurbid.mxd TWN-9 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TWN-9 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING OVERPUMPING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TWN-9 OPTurbid.mxd TWN-9 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TWN-10 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING OVERPUMPING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TWN-10 OPTurbid.mxd TWN-10 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TWN-11 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING OVERPUMPING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TWN-11 OPTurbid.mxd TWN-11 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TWN-12 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING OVERPUMPING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TWN-12 OPTurbid.mxd TWN-12 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TWN-13 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING OVERPUMPING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TWN-13 OPTurbid.mxd TWN-13 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TWN-14 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING OVERPUMPING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TWN-14 OPTurbid.mxd TWN-14 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TWN-15 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING OVERPUMPING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TWN-15 OPTurbid.mxd TWN-15 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TWN-16 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING OVERPUMPING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TWN-16 OPTurbid.mxd TWN-16 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TWN-17 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING OVERPUMPING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TWN-17 OPTurbid.mxd TWN-17 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TWN-18 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING OVERPUMPING 08/05/11SJS NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) K:\718000\TWN-18 OPTurbid.mxd TWN-18 Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. TWN-19 TURBIDITY vs. VOLUME OF WATER REMOVED DURING OVERPUMPING 06/10/11 TWN-19SJS Approved Date File Figure HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units H:\718000\TWN-19 OP.mxd Volume of Water Removed (gallons) Tu r b i d i t y ( N T U ) 7 61 1 15 2 01 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 APPENDIX E BORING LOGS AND SAMPLE DESCRIPTION KEY