HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRC-2013-003408 - 0901a068803d1109ENERGYFUELS
DRC-2013-003408
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc.
225 Union Blvd. Suite 600
Lakewood, CO, US, 80228
303 974 2140
www.ener|gvfuels.com if
October 30, 2013
Mr. Rusty Lundberg
Division of Radiation Control
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
VIA PDF AND EXPRESS DELIVERY
195 North 1950 West
P.O. Box 144850
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4820
Dear Mr. Lundberg:
Re: State of Utah Ground Water Discharge Permit ('the Permit") No. UGW370004 White Mesa
Uranium Mill - As-Built Report Pursuant to Part I.F.6 of the Permit
This letter transmits the As-Built Report for Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc.'s ("EFRFs") perched
groundwater monitoring wells TW4-32, TW4-33, and TW4-34, as required by July 25, 2013 conference call as
documented in the August 2, 2013 Division of Radiation Control ("DRC") Conditional Approval Letter.
The August 2, 2013 Conditional Approval Letter (received August 5, 2013) required that EFRI install one well
in the vicinity of well TW4-28 and two wells in the vicinity of well TW4-29.
EFRI submitted the required locations, installation schedule, development schedule, and hydraulic testing
schedule on July 29, 2013. TW4-32, TW4-33, and TW4-34, were installed during the week of September 9,
2013.
Installation History and Conformance with GWDP Requirements
Per the agreements, monitoring well TW4-32 was installed in the vicinity of TW4-28 and wells TW4-33, and
TW4-34, were installed in the vicinity of TW4-29. Development and hydraulic testing have been completed in
TW4-32, TW4-33, and TW4-34 and the results of those activities are included in the attached As-Built Report.
TW4-32, TW4-33, and TW4-34 will be sampled in the fourth quarter of 2013. On or before 60 calendar days
from receipt of the analytical data for the fourth quarter 2013 samples, EFRI will submit a Contamination
Investigation Report ("CIR") that will contain the information required by the DRC February 14, 2013
Confirmatory Action Letter.
The enclosed As-Built Report in Attachment 1 includes the items required for As-Built Reports in the Permit
Part I.F.6, and is being submitted for TW4-32, TW4-33, and TW4-34.
ATTACHMENT 1
INSTALLATION AND HYDRAULIC TESTING OF
PERCHED MONITORING WELLS
TW4-32 THROUGH TW4-34
WHITE MESA URANIUM MILL
NEAR BLANDING, UTAH
(AS-BUILT REPORT)
HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC.
Environmental Science & Technology
INSTALLATION AND HYDRAULIC TESTING OF
PERCHED MONITORING WELLS
TW4-32 THROUGH TW4-34
WHITE MESA URANIUM MILL
NEAR BLANDING, UTAH
(AS-BUILT REPORT)
October 30, 2013
Prepared for:
ENERGY FUELS RESOURCES (USA) INC
225 Union Blvd., Suite 600
Lakewood, Colorado 80228
Prepared by:
HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC.
51 West Wetmore Road, Suite 101
Tucson, Arizona 85705
(520) 293-1500
Project Number 7180000.00-01.0
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Monitoring Wells
TW4-32 Through TW4-34, White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\nitrateast\ROUND2\report\well_installation_1013 - final.doc
October 30, 2013
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. 1
2. DRILLING AND CONSTRUCTION................................................................................ 3
2.1 Drilling and Logging Procedures............................................................................3
2.2 Construction............................................................................................................3
2.3 Development...........................................................................................................3
3. HYDRAULIC TESTING................................................................................................... 5
3.1 Testing Procedures..................................................................................................5
3.2 Hydraulic Test Data Analysis.................................................................................5
4. CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................. 9
5. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 11
6. LIMITATIONS................................................................................................................. 13
TABLES
1 Well Survey Data
2 Slug Test Parameters
3 Slug Test Results
FIGURES
1 Locations of TW4-32, TW4-33, and TW4-34 and Kriged 3rd Quarter 2013 Water Levels,
White Mesa Site
2 TW4-32 As-Built Well Construction Schematic
3 TW4-33 As-Built Well Construction Schematic
4 TW4-34 As-Built Well Construction Schematic
5 Corrected and Uncorrected Displacements (automatically logged data)
6 Corrected and Uncorrected Displacements (hand collected data)
APPENDICES
A Lithologic Logs
B Well Development Field Sheets
C Slug Test Plots
D Slug Test Data
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Monitoring Wells
TW4-32 Through TW4-34, White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\nitrateast\ROUND2\report\well_installation_1013 - final.doc
October 30, 2013
ii
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Monitoring Wells
TW4-32 Through TW4-34, White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\nitrateast\ROUND2\report\well_installation_1013 - final.doc
October 30, 2013
1
1. INTRODUCTION
This report describes the installation, development, and hydraulic testing of perched monitoring
wells TW4-32, TW4-33, and TW4-34 at the White Mesa Uranium Mill (the “Mill” or the “site”)
near Blanding, Utah. These three wells were installed as a follow-up to the installation of wells
TW4-28 through TW4-31. Wells TW4-28 through TW4-31 were installed during March, 2013
pursuant to the January 31, 2013 conference call between Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc
(EFRI) and the Utah Division of Radiation Control (DRC) that was documented in the letter
from DRC dated February 14, 2013 and received by EFRI on February 20, 2013.
Wells TW4-32 through TW4-34 were installed with the approval of DRC to provide additional
data regarding perched groundwater nitrate concentrations in the vicinity of well TW4-28 and
perched groundwater chloroform concentrations in the vicinity of well TW4-29. Nitrate
concentrations in TW4-28 exceed the State of Utah Groundwater Quality Standard (GWQS) of
10 milligrams per liter (mg/L), and chloroform concentrations in TW4-29 exceed the State of
Utah GWQS of 70 micrograms per liter (µg/L).
TW4-32 was installed east/southeast of TW4-28, TW4-33 was installed between TW4-4 and
TW4-29, and TW4-34 was installed south of TW4-29, as shown on Figure 1, during the week of
September 9, 2013. Development consisted of surging and bailing on September 16, followed by
overpumping on September 24 and 25, 2013. Hydraulic testing consisted of slug tests conducted
on October 1 and 2, 2013.
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Monitoring Wells
TW4-32 Through TW4-34, White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\nitrateast\ROUND2\report\well_installation_1013 - final.doc
October 30, 2013
2
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Monitoring Wells
TW4-32 Through TW4-34, White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\nitrateast\ROUND2\report\well_installation_1013 - final.doc
October 30, 2013
3
2. DRILLING AND CONSTRUCTION
Well installation procedures were similar to those used previously at the site for the construction
of other perched zone wells (Hydro Geo Chem, Inc. [HGC], 2005). Drilling and construction
were performed by Bayles Exploration, Inc., and borings logged by Mr. Lawrence Casebolt
under contract to EFRI. As-built diagrams for the well construction, based primarily on
information provided by Mr. Casebolt, are shown in Figures 2 through 4. The depths to water
shown in the as-built diagrams were based on water level measurements taken just prior to
development. New wells were surveyed by a State of Utah licensed surveyor and the location
and elevation data are provided in Table 1.
2.1 Drilling and Logging Procedures
A 12¼ -inch diameter tricone bit was used to drill borings of sufficient diameter to install 8-inch-
diameter, Schedule 40 poly vinyl chloride (PVC) surface (conductor) casings. The surface
casings extended to depths of approximately 10 feet below land surface. Once the surface
casings were in place, the boreholes were drilled by air rotary using a 6¾ inch diameter tricone
bit. The boreholes penetrated the Dakota Sandstone and the Burro Canyon Formation and
terminated in the Brushy Basin Member of the Morrison Formation.
Drill cuttings samples used for lithologic logging were collected at 2½-foot depth intervals and
placed in labeled, zip-sealed plastic bags and labeled plastic cuttings storage boxes. Copies of the
lithologic logs submitted by Mr. Casebolt are provided in Appendix A.
2.2 Construction
The wells were constructed using 4-inch diameter, Schedule 40, flush-threaded PVC casing and
0.02-slot, factory-slotted PVC screen. Colorado Silica Sand was used as a filter pack and
installed to depths of approximately 5 feet above the screened intervals. The annular spaces
above each filter pack were sealed with hydrated bentonite chips. Well casings were fitted with
4-inch PVC caps to keep foreign objects out of the wells and lockable steel security casings were
installed to protect the wells.
2.3 Development
Wells were developed by surging and bailing followed by overpumping. Development records
are provided in Appendix B.
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Monitoring Wells
TW4-32 Through TW4-34, White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\nitrateast\ROUND2\report\well_installation_1013 - final.doc
October 30, 2013
4
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Monitoring Wells
TW4-32 Through TW4-34, White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\nitrateast\ROUND2\report\well_installation_1013 - final.doc
October 30, 2013
5
3. HYDRAULIC TESTING
Hydraulic testing consisted of slug tests conducted by HGC personnel using a methodology
similar to that described in HGC (2005).
3.1 Testing Procedures
The slug used for the tests consisted of a sealed, pea-gravel-filled, schedule 80 PVC pipe
approximately three feet long that displaced approximately 3/4 gallons of water as described in
HGC (2002). Level TrollJ 0-30 pounds per square inch absolute (psia) data loggers were used
for the tests. One Level Troll was deployed below the static water column in the tested well and
used to measure the change in water level during the test. The other Level Troll was used to
measure barometric pressure and was placed in a protected environment near the wells for the
duration of the testing. Automatically logged water level data were collected at 3-second
intervals and barometric data at 5-minute intervals.
Prior to each test, the static water level was measured by hand using an electric water level meter
and recorded in the field notebook. The data logger was then lowered to a depth of
approximately one foot above the base of the well casing, and background pressure readings
were collected for approximately 60 minutes prior to beginning each test. The purpose of
collecting the background data was to allow correction for any detected water level trends.
Once background data were collected, the slug and electric water level meter sensor were
suspended in the tested well just above the static water level. Each test commenced by lowering
the slug to a depth of approximately two feet below the static water level over a period of a few
seconds and taking water level readings by hand as soon as possible afterwards. Hand-collected
data recorded in the field notebook were obtained more frequently in the first few minutes when
water levels were changing more rapidly, then less frequently as the rate of water level change
diminished. Upon completion of each test, automatically logged data were checked and backed
up on the hard drive of a laptop computer.
3.2 Hydraulic Test Data Analysis
Data from each test was analyzed using AQTESOLVETM (HydroSOLVE, 2000), a computer
program developed and marketed by HydroSOLVE, Inc. In preparing the automatically logged
data for analysis, the total number of records was reduced. All data collected in the first 30
seconds were retained, then every 2nd, then 3rd, then 4th, etc. record was retained for analysis.
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Monitoring Wells
TW4-32 Through TW4-34, White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\nitrateast\ROUND2\report\well_installation_1013 - final.doc
October 30, 2013
6
For example, if the first 10 records were retained (30 seconds of data at 3-second intervals), the
next records to be retained would be the 12th, the 15th, the 19th, the 24th, etc.
Data were analyzed using two solution methods: the KGS unconfined method (Hyder et al.,
1994) and the Bouwer-Rice unconfined method (Bouwer and Rice, 1976). When filter pack
porosities were required by the analytical method, a value of 30 percent was used. The saturated
thicknesses were taken to be the difference between the depth of the static water level measured
just prior to each test and the depth to the Brushy Basin Member contact as defined in the drilling
logs (Appendix A). The static water levels were below the tops of the screened intervals in all
three wells and the saturated thicknesses were taken to be the effective screen lengths.
Background (pre-test) automatically logged water level data in all three wells exhibited
increasing trends, possibly the result of recovery after development. Water level displacement
data in TW4-32 and TW4-34 were corrected for the linear trend present in the background data.
Water level data for TW4-33 were corrected for both a linear trend and for changes in
atmospheric pressure. Because of relatively rapid recoveries and relatively short test durations,
barometric pressure changes appeared to have minimal impact on the tests except at TW4-33.
Furthermore, atmospheric pressure change during background data collection and testing of
TW4-32 and TW4-34 was roughly linear and any impact was essentially included in the linear
trend correction applied to these wells. Figure 5 compares corrected and uncorrected water level
displacements for automatically logged data. Hand-collected data from TW4-32 and TW4-33
also required correction for a linear trend. During the tests, hand-collected water levels in these
wells stabilized at levels above the initial levels, indicating the need for a correction. Figure 6
compares corrected and uncorrected water level displacements for hand collected data
The KGS solution allows estimation of both specific storage and hydraulic conductivity, while
the Bouwer-Rice solution allows estimation of only the hydraulic conductivity. The Bouwer-
Rice solution is valid only when a straight line is identifiable on a plot of the log of displacement
versus time (indicating that flow is nearly steady), and is insensitive to both storage and the
specified initial water level rise. Typically, only the later-time data are interpretable using
Bouwer-Rice.
The KGS solution accounts for non-steady flow and storage, is sensitive to the specified initial
water level rise, and generally allows a fit to both early- and late-time data. Both solutions were
used for comparison. Automatically logged and hand-collected data were analyzed separately
using both solution methods. The hand-collected data therefore served as an independent data set
and a check on the accuracy of the automatically logged data.
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Monitoring Wells
TW4-32 Through TW4-34, White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\nitrateast\ROUND2\report\well_installation_1013 - final.doc
October 30, 2013
7
Table 2 summarizes test parameters and Table 3 and Appendix C provide the results of the
analyses. Appendix C contains plots generated by AQTESOLVEJ that show the quality of fit
between measured and simulated displacements, and reproduce the parameters used in each
analysis. Appendix D provides both raw and corrected displacement data. Estimates of hydraulic
conductivity range from approximately 2.5 x 10-5 centimeters per second (cm/s) to 1.5 x 10-4
cm/s using automatically logged data, and from approximately 1.2 x 10-5 cm/s to 1.3 x 10-4 cm/s
using hand-collected data. Estimates are within the range previously measured at the site
(approximately 2 x 10-8 cm/s to 0.01 cm/s).
In general, the agreement between solution methods and between estimates obtained from
automatically logged and hand-collected data is good, and within a factor of two except when
comparing Bouwer-Rice analysis of late-time data collected either automatically or by hand from
TW4-32. Estimates using late-time data at TW4-32 were lower than estimates using early-time
data by factors of four to five (although the early-time and late-time estimates do bracket the
KGS results). The data from TW4-32 were more difficult to interpret using Bouwer-Rice
because in general the data did not clearly form straight lines on the semi-log plots, suggesting
that steady flow, a key assumption of the Bouwer-Rice solution, was not approached over the
course of the test. Fits to early-, middle- and late-time data were attempted wherever a near
straight line appeared to occur. By contrast, the KGS solution provided good fits to all data
(early-, middle-, and late-time). For this reason, and because the KGS solution also accounts for
non-steady flow and aquifer storage, the results obtained using KGS are considered more
representative than those obtained using Bouwer-Rice.
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Monitoring Wells
TW4-32 Through TW4-34, White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\nitrateast\ROUND2\report\well_installation_1013 - final.doc
October 30, 2013
8
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Monitoring Wells
TW4-32 Through TW4-34, White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\nitrateast\ROUND2\report\well_installation_1013 - final.doc
October 30, 2013
9
4. CONCLUSIONS
Procedures for the installation, hydraulic testing, and development at new perched monitoring
wells TW4-32 through TW4-34 are similar to those used previously at the site for the
construction, testing, and development of other perched zone wells.
Automatically logged and hand-collected slug test data from new wells were analyzed using
KGS and Bouwer-Rice analytical solutions. Estimates of hydraulic conductivity range from
approximately 2.5 x 10-5 cm/s to 1.5 x 10-4 cm/s using automatically logged data, and from
approximately 1.2 x 10-5 cm/s to 1.3 x 10-4 cm/s using hand-collected data. Estimates are within
the range previously measured at the site (approximately 2 x 10-8 cm/s to 0.01 cm/s).
In general, the agreement between solution methods and between estimates obtained from
automatically logged and hand-collected data is good, and within a factor of two except when
comparing Bouwer-Rice analysis of late-time data collected either automatically or by hand from
TW4-32. Estimates using late-time data at TW4-32 were lower than estimates using early-time
data by factors of four to five (although the early-time and late-time estimates do bracket the
KGS results). The data from TW4-32 were more difficult to interpret using Bouwer-Rice
because in general the data did not clearly form straight lines on the semi-log plots, suggesting
that steady flow, a key assumption of the Bouwer-Rice solution, was not approached over the
course of the test. Fits to early-, middle- and late-time data were attempted wherever a near
straight line appeared to occur. By contrast, the KGS solution provided good fits to all data
(early-, middle-, and late-time). For this reason, and because the KGS solution also accounts for
non-steady flow and aquifer storage, the results obtained using KGS are considered more
representative than those obtained using Bouwer-Rice.
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Monitoring Wells
TW4-32 Through TW4-34, White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\nitrateast\ROUND2\report\well_installation_1013 - final.doc
October 30, 2013
10
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Monitoring Wells
TW4-32 Through TW4-34, White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\nitrateast\ROUND2\report\well_installation_1013 - final.doc
October 30, 2013
11
5. REFERENCES
Bouwer, H. and R.C. Rice. 1976. A Slug-Test method for Determining Hydraulic Conductivity
of Unconfined Aquifers with Completely or Partially Penetrating Wells. Water Resources
Research, Vol. 12, No. 3, Pp. 423-428.
Hyder, Z, J.J. Butler, Jr. C.D. McElwee, and W. Liu. 1994. Slug Tests in Partially Penetrating
Wells. Water Resources Research, Vol. 30, No. 11, Pp. 2945-2957.
Hydro Geo Chem, Inc. (HGC). 2002. Hydraulic Testing at the White Mesa Uranium Mill Near
Blanding, Utah During July 2002. Submitted to International Uranium Corporation.
August 22, 2002.
HGC. 2005. Perched Monitoring Well Installation and Testing at the White Mesa Uranium Mill,
April through June 2005. Submitted to International Uranium Corporation.
August 3, 2005.
HydroSOLVE, Inc. 2000. AQTESOLV for Windows. User=s Guide.
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Monitoring Wells
TW4-32 Through TW4-34, White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\nitrateast\ROUND2\report\well_installation_1013 - final.doc
October 30, 2013
12
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Monitoring Wells
TW4-32 Through TW4-34, White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\nitrateast\ROUND2\report\well_installation_1013 - final.doc
October 30, 2013
13
6. LIMITATIONS
The information and conclusions presented in this report are based upon the scope of services
and information obtained through the performance of the 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, or 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.
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Monitoring Wells
TW4-32 Through TW4-34, White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\nitrateast\ROUND2\report\well_installation_1013 - final.doc
October 30, 2013
14
TABLES
TABLE 1
Well Survey Data
Latitude Longitude Top of Casing Ground
(North) (West) (feet amsl) (feet amsl)
TW4-32 37.532272 -109.496881 5611.84 5610.2
TW4-33 37.528998 -109.49919 5606.73 5605.2
TW4-34 37.527679 -109.498563 5603.34 5601.6
Notes:
amsl = above mean sea level
Well
H:\718000\hydtst13b\Tables_1013.xls: Table 1 10/30/2013
TABLE 2
Slug Test Parameters
Depth to Depth to Depth to Top Depth to Base Saturated Thickness
Well Brushy Basin Water of Screen of Screen Above Brushy Basin
(feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet)
TW4-32 111.0 46.2 43.0 113.0 64.8
TW4-33 82.0 68.9 44.7 84.7 13.1
TW4-34 93.0 67.8 54.0 94.0 25.2
Note: All depths are in feet below land surface
H:\718000\hydtst13b\Tables_1013.xls: Table2 10/30/2013
TABLE 3
Slug Test Results
Bouwer-Rice Bouwer-Rice
Test Saturated
Thickness
K
(cm/s)
Ss
(1/ft)
K
(cm/s)
K
(cm/s)
Ss
(1/ft)
K
(cm/s)
TW4-32 64.8 9.53E-05 1.15E-04 NA 5.34E-05 7.97E-04 5.86E-05
TW4-32(et) 64.8 NA NA 1.09E-04 NA NA 1.34E-04
TW4-32(lt) 64.8 NA NA 2.51E-05 NA NA 1.17E-05
TW4-33 13.1 5.51E-05 3.73E-04 5.78E-05 5.25E-05 5.32E-04 5.76E-05
TW4-34 25.2 9.98E-05 1.13E-03 1.54E-04 9.39E-05 1.54E-03 1.25E-04
TW4-34 (lt) 25.2 NA NA 1.17E-04 NA NA NA
Notes:
Bouwer-Rice = Unconfined Bouwer-Rice solution method in Aqtesolve™
cm/s = centimeters per second
et = early time data
lt = late time data
ft = feet
K = hydraulic conductivity
KGS = Unconfined KGS solution method in Aqtesolve™
Ss= specific storage
NA= Not Applicable
Automatically Logged Data Hand Collected Data
KGS KGS
H:\718000\hydtst13b\Tables_1013.xls: Table 3 10/30/2013
FIGURES
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.
APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
1000 feet
MW-25
MW-27
MW-31
TW4-01
TW4-02
TW4-03
TW4-04
TW4-05
TW4-06
TW4-09
TW4-10
TW4-11
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-14
MW-26
TW4-16
MW-32
TW4-18TW4-19
TW4-20
TW4-21
TW4-22
TW4-23
TW4-24
TW4-25
TW4-26
TW4-32
TW4-33
TW4-34
PIEZ-02
PIEZ-03
PIEZ-04
TWN-01
TWN-02
TWN-03
TWN-04
TW4-07 TW4-08
MW-04
TW4-27
TW4-29
TW4-32
TW4-33
TW4-34
TW4-28
TW4-30
TW4-31
5540
5575
5549
5554
5559
5581
5545
5581
5540
5581
5577
5566
5582
5573
5528
5560
5562
5551
55815568
5569
5581
5572
5543
5568
5586
5539
5596
5591
5542
5592
5594
5597
5593
5556 5556
5553
5527
5534
5564
5536
5534
5580
5526
5521
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well showing
elevation in feet amsl
temporary perched monitoring well
showing elevation in feet amsl
perched piezometer showing
elevation in feet amsl
temporary perched monitoring well
installed September, 2013 showing
elevation in feet amsl
MW-4
TW4-1
PIEZ-2
TW4-32
LOCATIONS OF TW4-32, TW4-33, AND TW4-34 AND
KRIGED 3rd QUARTER, 2013 WATER LEVELS
WHITE MESA SITE
H:/718000/nitrateast/
round2/report/R2wells.srf
5553
5554
5596
5564
NOTE: MW-4, MW-26, TW4-4, TW4-19, and TW4-20 are chloroform pumping wells;
TW4-22, TW4-24, TW4-25, and TWN-2 are nitrate pumping wells
1
H:\718000\hydtst13b\displacement.xls: F5 plot
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
time (minutes)
di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
f
e
e
t
)
TW4-32 corrected TW4-32 uncorrected
TW4-33 corrected TW4-33 uncorrected
TW4-34 corrected TW4-34 uncorrected
CORRECTED AND UNCORRECTED DISPLACEMENTS
(automatically logged data)
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.Approved FigureDateAuthorDateFile Name
SJS 10/15/13 5F5 plot10/15/13SJS
H:\718000\hydtst13b\displacement.xls: F6 plot hand
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
time (minutes)
di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
f
e
e
t
)
TW4-32 corrected TW4-32 uncorrected
TW4-33 corrected TW4-33 uncorrected
CORRECTED AND UNCORRECTED DISPLACEMENTS
(hand collected data)
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.Approved FigureDateAuthorDateFile Name
SJS 10/15/13 6F6 plot hand10/15/13SJS
APPENDIX A
LITHOLOGIC LOGS
APPENDIX B
WELL DEVELOPMENT FIELD SHEETS
APPENIDX C
SLUG TEST PLOTS
0.01 0.1 1. 10. 100.
0.
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Time (min)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
f
t
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\718000\hydtst13b\tw32\TW32.aqt
Date: 10/14/13 Time: 11:42:29
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Energy Fuels
Project: 718000
Location: Blanding, UT
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 64.8 ft
WELL DATA (TW4-32)
Initial Displacement: 0.64 ft Static Water Column Height: 64.8 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 64.8 ft Screen Length: 64.8 ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 9.53E-5 cm/sec Ss = 0.0001145 ft-1
Kz/Kr = 0.1
0. 5. 10. 15. 20. 25. 30.
1.0E-5
1.0E-4
0.001
0.01
0.1
1.
Time (min)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
f
t
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\718000\hydtst13b\tw32\TW32bret.aqt
Date: 10/14/13 Time: 11:43:08
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Energy Fuels
Project: 718000
Location: Blanding, UT
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 64.8 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (TW4-32)
Initial Displacement: 0.64 ft Static Water Column Height: 64.8 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 64.8 ft Screen Length: 64.8 ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 0.0001094 cm/sec y0 = 0.2977 ft
0. 10. 20. 30. 40. 50. 60.
1.0E-5
1.0E-4
0.001
0.01
0.1
1.
Time (min)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
f
t
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\718000\hydtst13b\tw32\TW32brlt.aqt
Date: 10/14/13 Time: 11:43:22
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Energy Fuels
Project: 718000
Location: Blanding, UT
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 64.8 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (TW4-32)
Initial Displacement: 0.64 ft Static Water Column Height: 64.8 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 64.8 ft Screen Length: 64.8 ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 2.507E-5 cm/sec y0 = 0.07478 ft
0.1 1. 10. 100.
0.
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Time (min)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
f
t
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\718000\hydtst13b\tw32\TW32h.aqt
Date: 10/14/13 Time: 11:44:00
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Energy Fuels
Project: 718000
Location: Blanding, UT
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 64.8 ft
WELL DATA (TW4-32)
Initial Displacement: 0.6 ft Static Water Column Height: 64.8 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 64.8 ft Screen Length: 64.8 ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 5.34E-5 cm/sec Ss = 0.000797 ft-1
Kz/Kr = 0.1
0. 5. 10. 15. 20. 25. 30.
0.001
0.01
0.1
1.
Time (min)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
f
t
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\718000\hydtst13b\tw32\TW32hbr.aqt
Date: 10/14/13 Time: 11:44:20
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Energy Fuels
Project: 718000
Location: Blanding, UT
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 64.8 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (TW4-32)
Initial Displacement: 0.6 ft Static Water Column Height: 64.8 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 64.8 ft Screen Length: 64.8 ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 5.855E-5 cm/sec y0 = 0.1713 ft
0. 5. 10. 15. 20. 25. 30.
0.001
0.01
0.1
1.
Time (min)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
f
t
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\718000\hydtst13b\tw32\TW32hbret.aqt
Date: 10/14/13 Time: 11:44:42
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Energy Fuels
Project: 718000
Location: Blanding, UT
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 64.8 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (TW4-32)
Initial Displacement: 0.6 ft Static Water Column Height: 64.8 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 64.8 ft Screen Length: 64.8 ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 0.0001341 cm/sec y0 = 0.3579 ft
0. 10. 20. 30. 40. 50. 60.
0.001
0.01
0.1
1.
Time (min)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
f
t
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\718000\hydtst13b\tw32\TW32hbrlt.aqt
Date: 10/14/13 Time: 11:44:56
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Energy Fuels
Project: 718000
Location: Blanding, UT
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 64.8 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (TW4-32)
Initial Displacement: 0.6 ft Static Water Column Height: 64.8 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 64.8 ft Screen Length: 64.8 ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 1.168E-5 cm/sec y0 = 0.05673 ft
0.01 0.1 1. 10. 100. 1000.
0.
0.14
0.28
0.42
0.56
0.7
Time (min)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
f
t
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\718000\hydtst13b\tw33\tw33.aqt
Date: 10/14/13 Time: 11:45:43
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Energy Fuels
Project: 718000
Location: Blanding, UT
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 13.1 ft
WELL DATA (TW4-33)
Initial Displacement: 0.65 ft Static Water Column Height: 13.1 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 13.1 ft Screen Length: 13.1 ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 5.512E-5 cm/sec Ss = 0.0003731 ft-1
Kz/Kr = 0.1
0. 12. 24. 36. 48. 60.
0.001
0.01
0.1
1.
Time (min)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
f
t
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\718000\hydtst13b\tw33\tw33br.aqt
Date: 10/14/13 Time: 11:46:31
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Energy Fuels
Project: 718000
Location: Blanding, UT
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 13.1 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (TW4-33)
Initial Displacement: 0.65 ft Static Water Column Height: 13.1 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 13.1 ft Screen Length: 13.1 ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 5.779E-5 cm/sec y0 = 0.4526 ft
0.1 1. 10. 100. 1000.
0.
0.14
0.28
0.42
0.56
0.7
Time (min)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
f
t
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\718000\hydtst13b\tw33\tw33h.aqt
Date: 10/14/13 Time: 11:47:18
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Energy Fuels
Project: 718000
Location: Blanding, UT
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 13.1 ft
WELL DATA (TW4-33)
Initial Displacement: 0.65 ft Static Water Column Height: 13.1 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 13.1 ft Screen Length: 13.1 ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 5.248E-5 cm/sec Ss = 0.0005315 ft-1
Kz/Kr = 0.1
0. 24. 48. 72. 96. 120.
0.001
0.01
0.1
1.
Time (min)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
f
t
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\718000\hydtst13b\tw33\tw33hbr.aqt
Date: 10/14/13 Time: 11:48:00
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Energy Fuels
Project: 718000
Location: Blanding, UT
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 13.1 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (TW4-33)
Initial Displacement: 0.65 ft Static Water Column Height: 13.1 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 13.1 ft Screen Length: 13.1 ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 5.755E-5 cm/sec y0 = 0.4322 ft
0.01 0.1 1. 10. 100.
0.
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Time (min)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
f
t
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\718000\hydtst13b\tw34\tw34.aqt
Date: 10/14/13 Time: 11:48:36
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Energy Fuels
Project: 718000
Location: Blanding, UT
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 25.2 ft
WELL DATA (TW4-34)
Initial Displacement: 0.55 ft Static Water Column Height: 25.2 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 25.2 ft Screen Length: 25.2 ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 9.976E-5 cm/sec Ss = 0.001128 ft-1
Kz/Kr = 0.1
0. 10. 20. 30. 40. 50.
0.001
0.01
0.1
1.
Time (min)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
f
t
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\718000\hydtst13b\tw34\tw34br.aqt
Date: 10/14/13 Time: 11:49:00
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Energy Fuels
Project: 718000
Location: Blanding, UT
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 25.2 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (TW4-34)
Initial Displacement: 0.55 ft Static Water Column Height: 25.2 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 25.2 ft Screen Length: 25.2 ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 0.0001539 cm/sec y0 = 0.3254 ft
0. 10. 20. 30. 40. 50. 60.
0.001
0.01
0.1
1.
Time (min)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
f
t
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\718000\hydtst13b\tw34\tw34brlt.aqt
Date: 10/14/13 Time: 11:49:20
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Energy Fuels
Project: 718000
Location: Blanding, UT
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 25.2 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (TW4-34)
Initial Displacement: 0.55 ft Static Water Column Height: 25.2 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 25.2 ft Screen Length: 25.2 ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 0.0001168 cm/sec y0 = 0.3108 ft
0.1 1. 10. 100.
0.
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Time (min)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
f
t
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\718000\hydtst13b\tw34\tw34h.aqt
Date: 10/14/13 Time: 11:49:47
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Energy Fuels
Project: 718000
Location: Blanding, UT
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 25.2 ft
WELL DATA (TW4-34)
Initial Displacement: 0.55 ft Static Water Column Height: 25.2 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 25.2 ft Screen Length: 25.2 ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 9.398E-5 cm/sec Ss = 0.001542 ft-1
Kz/Kr = 0.1
0. 5. 10. 15. 20. 25. 30.
0.01
0.1
1.
Time (min)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
f
t
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\718000\hydtst13b\tw34\tw34hbr.aqt
Date: 10/14/13 Time: 11:50:16
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Energy Fuels
Project: 718000
Location: Blanding, UT
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 25.2 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (TW4-34)
Initial Displacement: 0.55 ft Static Water Column Height: 25.2 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 25.2 ft Screen Length: 25.2 ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 0.0001247 cm/sec y0 = 0.2707 ft
APPENDIX D
SLUG TEST DATA
TW32DSP.txt
TW4-32
elapsed time displacement
(min) (ft)
0.05 0.729
0.10 0.572
0.15 0.581
0.20 0.542
0.25 0.536
0.30 0.519
0.35 0.501
0.40 0.491
0.45 0.483
0.55 0.460
0.70 0.433
0.90 0.401
1.15 0.367
1.45 0.332
1.80 0.298
2.20 0.256
2.65 0.239
3.15 0.208
3.70 0.181
4.30 0.152
4.95 0.141
5.65 0.125
6.40 0.102
7.20 0.098
8.05 0.088
8.95 0.072
9.90 0.077
10.90 0.061
11.95 0.062
13.05 0.063
14.20 0.053
15.40 0.047
16.65 0.044
17.95 0.044
19.30 0.042
20.70 0.035
22.15 0.035
23.65 0.032
25.20 0.031
26.80 0.028
28.45 0.030
30.15 0.032
31.90 0.028
33.70 0.023
35.55 0.029
37.45 0.025
39.40 0.018
41.40 0.021
43.45 0.019
45.55 0.016
47.70 0.012
49.90 0.011
52.15 0.014
54.45 0.013
56.80 0.014
59.20 0.009
61.65 0.013
64.15 0.003
66.70 0.000
69.30 0.004
71.95 0.002
74.65 -0.002
77.40 -0.002
Page 1
TW32DSP.txt
80.20 -0.004
83.05 -0.008
85.95 -0.004
88.90 -0.007
Page 2
TW32HDSP.txt
TW4-32
elapsed time displacement
(min) (ft, hand collected)
0.17 0.48
0.50 0.42
1.00 0.37
1.33 0.31
1.67 0.29
2.00 0.27
2.33 0.24
2.67 0.23
3.00 0.21
3.33 0.20
3.67 0.18
4.00 0.17
4.33 0.17
4.67 0.16
5.00 0.15
5.33 0.14
5.67 0.13
6.00 0.12
6.33 0.12
6.67 0.11
7.00 0.10
7.33 0.10
7.67 0.10
8.00 0.10
8.33 0.09
8.67 0.09
9.00 0.09
9.50 0.09
10.00 0.07
10.50 0.07
11.00 0.07
11.50 0.07
12.00 0.06
12.50 0.06
13.00 0.06
13.50 0.06
14.00 0.06
14.50 0.05
15.00 0.05
16.00 0.05
17.00 0.05
18.00 0.05
19.00 0.05
20.00 0.05
21.00 0.05
23.00 0.05
25.00 0.04
27.00 0.04
29.00 0.04
31.00 0.03
33.00 0.03
35.00 0.03
37.00 0.03
39.00 0.03
41.00 0.03
43.00 0.03
45.00 0.03
47.00 0.03
49.00 0.02
50.00 0.01
55.00 0.02
60.00 0.02
65.00 0.02
Page 1
TW32HDSP.txt
70.00 0.01
75.00 0.01
80.00 0.01
85.00 0.01
90.00 0.00
Page 2
TW33DSP.txt
TW4-33
elapsed time displacement
(min) (ft)
0.05 0.638
0.10 0.641
0.15 0.636
0.20 0.632
0.25 0.630
0.30 0.625
0.35 0.618
0.40 0.617
0.45 0.612
0.55 0.604
0.70 0.594
0.90 0.587
1.15 0.573
1.45 0.551
1.80 0.544
2.20 0.535
2.65 0.520
3.15 0.507
3.70 0.493
4.30 0.483
4.95 0.468
5.65 0.457
6.40 0.444
7.20 0.434
8.05 0.417
8.95 0.408
9.90 0.395
10.90 0.379
11.95 0.367
13.05 0.351
14.20 0.343
15.40 0.323
16.65 0.310
17.95 0.300
19.30 0.288
20.70 0.277
22.15 0.265
23.65 0.250
25.20 0.240
26.80 0.231
28.45 0.223
30.15 0.218
31.90 0.211
33.70 0.201
35.55 0.195
37.45 0.183
39.40 0.175
41.40 0.166
43.45 0.159
45.55 0.152
47.70 0.147
49.90 0.138
52.15 0.133
54.45 0.122
56.80 0.118
59.20 0.113
61.65 0.108
64.15 0.099
66.70 0.092
69.30 0.085
71.95 0.083
74.65 0.082
77.40 0.078
Page 1
TW33DSP.txt
80.20 0.074
83.05 0.067
85.95 0.059
88.90 0.054
91.90 0.052
94.95 0.042
98.05 0.048
101.20 0.048
104.40 0.043
107.65 0.039
110.95 0.037
114.30 0.039
117.70 0.036
121.15 0.034
124.65 0.025
128.20 0.024
131.80 0.022
135.45 0.023
139.15 0.022
142.90 0.016
146.70 0.011
150.55 0.016
154.45 0.011
158.40 0.009
162.40 0.008
Page 2
TW33HDSP.txt
TW4-33
elapsed time displacement
(min) (ft, hand collected)
0.25 0.65
0.50 0.62
0.75 0.60
1.00 0.58
1.25 0.57
1.50 0.56
1.75 0.55
2.00 0.54
2.25 0.53
2.50 0.52
2.75 0.52
3.00 0.51
3.25 0.51
3.50 0.50
3.75 0.49
4.00 0.49
4.25 0.47
4.50 0.47
5.00 0.46
5.50 0.45
6.00 0.44
6.50 0.44
7.00 0.43
7.50 0.43
8.00 0.42
8.50 0.41
9.00 0.40
9.50 0.39
10.00 0.38
10.50 0.38
11.00 0.37
11.50 0.37
12.00 0.36
13.00 0.35
14.00 0.34
15.00 0.33
16.00 0.32
17.00 0.31
18.00 0.30
19.00 0.29
20.00 0.27
21.00 0.27
22.00 0.26
23.00 0.25
24.00 0.24
25.00 0.24
26.00 0.23
27.00 0.23
28.00 0.22
29.00 0.22
30.00 0.21
32.00 0.20
34.00 0.19
36.00 0.18
38.00 0.17
40.00 0.17
42.00 0.16
44.00 0.15
46.00 0.15
48.00 0.14
50.00 0.14
54.00 0.13
58.00 0.11
Page 1
TW33HDSP.txt
60.00 0.10
65.00 0.09
70.00 0.08
75.00 0.07
80.00 0.07
85.00 0.06
90.00 0.06
95.00 0.05
100.00 0.04
110.00 0.03
120.00 0.03
130.00 0.02
140.00 0.01
150.00 0.00
Page 2
TW34DSP.txt
TW4-34
elapsed time displacement
(min) (ft)
0.05 0.554
0.10 0.505
0.15 0.492
0.20 0.537
0.25 0.458
0.30 0.458
0.35 0.447
0.40 0.436
0.45 0.427
0.55 0.412
0.70 0.398
0.90 0.376
1.15 0.357
1.45 0.336
1.80 0.317
2.20 0.294
2.65 0.277
3.15 0.256
3.70 0.233
4.30 0.217
4.95 0.190
5.65 0.183
6.40 0.162
7.20 0.151
8.05 0.139
8.95 0.129
9.90 0.115
10.90 0.101
11.95 0.094
13.05 0.081
14.20 0.078
15.40 0.068
16.65 0.065
17.95 0.064
19.30 0.059
20.70 0.054
22.15 0.050
23.65 0.042
25.20 0.041
26.80 0.037
28.45 0.032
30.15 0.028
31.90 0.021
33.70 0.027
35.55 0.023
37.45 0.019
39.40 0.015
41.40 0.013
43.45 0.011
45.55 0.008
47.70 0.008
49.90 0.005
52.15 0.002
54.45 0.002
Page 1
TW34HDSP.txt
TW4-34
elapsed time displacement
(min) (ft, hand collected)
0.42 0.43
0.67 0.38
1.00 0.35
1.33 0.32
1.67 0.31
2.00 0.29
2.33 0.28
2.67 0.28
3.00 0.26
3.33 0.24
3.67 0.23
4.00 0.22
4.33 0.21
4.67 0.20
5.00 0.19
5.33 0.18
5.67 0.18
6.00 0.17
6.50 0.16
7.00 0.15
7.50 0.14
8.00 0.14
8.50 0.13
9.00 0.12
9.50 0.12
10.00 0.12
11.00 0.11
12.00 0.10
13.00 0.09
14.00 0.08
15.00 0.08
16.00 0.07
17.00 0.07
18.00 0.06
19.00 0.05
20.00 0.05
21.00 0.04
22.00 0.04
23.00 0.04
25.00 0.04
27.00 0.03
29.00 0.03
31.00 0.03
33.00 0.03
35.00 0.02
65.00 0.01
Page 1