DRC-2002-001041 - 0901a068809be152

INrrnNeuoNAL
UneNruu (use)
ConponATroN
Independence Plaza, Suite 950 . 1050 Seventeenth Street . Denver, CO 80265 . 303 628 7798 (main) . 303 389 4125
August 23,2002
VIA OVERNIGHT MAIL
Mr. William J. Sinclair
Division of Radiation Control
State of Utah Department of Environmental Quality
168 North 1950 West
Salt Lake city, uT 84114-4850
Re: Transmittal of Hydraulic Test Report
Utah DEQ Notice of Violation and Groundwater Corrective Action Order
UDEQ Docket No. UGQ-20-01 of August 23, 1999
Dear Mr. Sinclair:
In accordance with the updated Chloroform Investigation Schedule, Intemational
Uranium (USA) Corporation ("IUSA") hereby transmits the enclosed report detailing the
results of the Hydraulic Testing completed at the White Mesa Mill site during the week
of July 8-12,2002.
If you have any questions, you may contact me at [phone].
Very truly yours,
Harold R. Roberts
Vice President - Corporate Development
-\
)i, ' ':i .Ji .' N
irj"' $
1r.l /\, /\ir /
t!:'',/
6\s9/
/i\234Rg Ei,:
\&\n\\Qaozo
Mr. William J. Sinclair
August 23,2002
Page2 of2
cc: Don Ostler, DEQ, with attachments
Dianne Nielson, DEQ, without attachments
Loren Morton, DRC, with attachments
David Cunningham, DEQ, SE District Health Department, without attachments
Dave Arrioti, DEQ, SE District Health Department, without attachments
Fred Nelson, Utah Asst. Attorney General, without attachments
Terry Brown, U.S. EPA Region VIII, with attachments
Richard Graham, U.S. EPA Region VIII, with attachments
Dan Gillen, U.S. NRC, Washington, D.C., with attachments
Bill von Till, U.S. NRC, Washington, D.C. with attachments
Charles Cain, U.S. NRC, Region IV, with attachments
Michelle R. Rehmann, with attachments
Ron R. Hochstein, with attachments
Harold R. Roberts, with attachments
T. Kenneth Miyoshi, with attachments
Ron E. Berg, with attachments
, ,:-\/}\2o\
2tg\,N'"o\\d
- /v/:#/$,y(6\Qu.HYDRAULIC TESTING AT THE
WHITE MESA URANIUM MILL
NEAR BLANDING, UTAH
DURING JALY 2OO2
Prepared for:
INTERNATIONAL URANIUM (USA) CORPORATION
Independen ce Plaza, Suite 950
1050 17'h Street
Denver, Colorado 80265
Prepared by:
HYDRO GEO CHEM,INC.
51 W. Wetmore, Suite 101
Tucson, Arizona 85705-1678
(s20) 293-1s00
August 22,2002
HYDRO GEO CHE,M, INTC.
rar+Environrnental S cien ce (t Tbchnology
I
I
t
I TABLE OF CONTENTS
t 1. INTR.DUCTI.N .. .. 1
I 2.DATACoLLECTIoNMETHoDS. ....3
2.1 SlugTests. .......3
I 3.DATAANALYSB ..-.....7
r 4. RESULTS ... ...... 11I
5. CONCLUSIONS ... . 13
I 6.REFERENCES .....1s
TABLES
I L fil"1iHT,ffi::,ttiH',":::*"
r 3 Comparison of Analyses Using Automatically-Logged Data to Analyses Using Data
I Collected by Hand
FIGURES
I 1 well Locations2 IvfW-Ol Pump Test Results (inteqpretation using WHIP)
I 3 MW-03 Slug Test Results (interpretation using WHIP)
f 4 MW-05 Slug Test Results (interpretation using WHIP)
5 MW-17 Slug Test Results (interpretation using WHIP)
I 6 MW-18 Slug Test Results (interpretation using WHIP)
I 7 MW-18 Slug Test Results (with skin) (interpretation using WHIP)
8 MW-19 Slug Test Results (inteqpretation using WHIP)
I 9 MW-19 Slug Test Results (with skin) (interpretation using WHIP)r 10 MW-20 Slug Test Results (interpretation using WHIP)
11 MW-22 Slug Test Results (interpretation using WHIP)t
Hydraulic Test Analysis
I ftHlts5u.'\o2o8rellr^wPd i
T
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
APPENDICES
A Results of AQTESOLV Analyses of Automatically Logged DataB Results of Analyses of Hand-Collected Data
Hydraulic Test Analysis
G:V I 8000\Reportsu208 I 9tff A.wpd
AoEUstz2,2002
t
I
I
I
t
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
t
I
1. INTRODUCTION
This report describes the methods and presents the results of the interpretation of hydraulic
tests conducted at the White Mesa Mill Site during the week of July 8,2002. Field tests and data
collection efforts were conducted by Hydro Geo Chem, Inc. (HGC) with assistance from
International Uranium (USA) Corporation (IUSA). Mr. Loren Morton of the Utah Department of
Environmental Quality (UDEQ) was on-site during the week of July 8,2002,and observed some of
the testing. The tested wells consisted of permanent perched zone monitoring wells MW-01,
MW-03, MW-05, MW-17, MW-18, MW-19, MW-20, and MW-22. Although MW-16 was
proposed to be tested in the workplan (HGC, 2002) this well was not tested because it was dry.
Figure 1 is a map showing the locations of the wells. The tested wells provide good areal coverage
over the site.
The proposed testing detailed in the workplan (HGC, 2002) included a pumping/recovery test
at each well using IUSA's portable piston pump and a system that would continuously recirculate
most of the pumped water back into the well to achieve very low net discharge rates. This method
was to be employed in an attempt to limit the rate of drawdown in the wells, which are all completed
in the low permeability perched zone at the site. The perched zone is hosted by the Burro Canyon
sandstone and underlain by the Brushy Basin member of the Morrison Formation. Because the
procedure to achieve very low discharge rates did not work well in practice, slug tests were instead
Hydraulic Test Analysis
G :V I 8000\Reports\0208 1 9HTA.wpd
August 22, 2002
conducted at all wells exceptMW-01, where apumping/recoverytest was performed at arelatively
high average pumping rate of approximately 1.5 gpm. All tests yielded easily interpretable data.
Hydraulic Test Analysis
G:\7 I 8000\Reporrsu208 l9HTA.wpd
August 22,2002
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
t
t
t
T
t
I
I
I
I
I
2. DATA COLLECTION METHODS
Water level data during all tests were collected using a GeoKon data logger and submersible
pressure transducer. When possible, data were also collected by hand using a hand-held electric
water level meter. In all tests, the static water level was first measured using the electric water level
meter. Water level readings were recorded at approximately 5-second intervals using the data logger,
and periodically by hand using the electric water level meter. Hand measurements were taken more
rapidly at first (several per minute), then more slowly as water level changes occurred more slowly.
These data were used as a backup to and check on the automatically logged data. Water level
measurements by hand were not collected at MW-03, or during the early portion of the test at
MW-05 (as discussed in Section2.l).
Methods specific to the performance of slug tests at MW-03, MW-05, MW-17, MW-l8,
MW-19, MW-20, and MW-22 are described in Section 2.1. Methods specific to the performance
of the pumping/recovery test at MW-01 are described in Section2.2.
2.1 Slug Tests
Slug tests were performed using "slugs" made of Schedule 80 PVC pipe filled with clean pea
gravel and capped to form a watertight seal. An approximately 2-inch ID, 3-foot long "slug" was
used in all4-inch diameter wells (all wells except MW-03), and an approximately l%-inchlD,4-foot
Hydraulic Test Analysis
G:\71 8000\Reports\0208 l9HTA.wpd
August 22,2002
long "slug" was used in MW-03, which has a casing diameter of approximately 3 inches. Based on
measurement of the slug outer dimensions (including endcaps), the larger diameter "slug" displaced
approximately 0.75 gallons, and the smaller diameter "slug" approximately 0.47 gallons. (Note that
schedule 80 PVC has a rather larger outer diameter than inner diameter.)
In conducting the slug tests, the pressure transducer was lowered to a depth approximately
10 feet or more below the static water level and pressure readings were allowed to stabilize prior to
beginning each test. Once pressure readings had stabilized, the "slug" was lowered to just above the
static water level, the electric water level meter probe was lowered (when possible) to just above the
static water level, then the slug was lowered as smoothly as possible into the water within a few
seconds.
Because the electric water level meter probe could not be lowered into the well casing to a
depth just above the static water level due to the presence of the slug waiting to be lowered into the
water column, hand measurements of water levels were not collected during the test at MW-03 or
during the early portion of the test at MW-05.
2.2 PumpinglRecovery Test
Water level data were also collected using the data logger and pressure transducer at lvtw-0l
during thepumping/recoverytest. Thepressuretransducerwas loweredto adepth of approximately
Hydraulic Test Analysis
G:\7 I 8000\Reportsu208 I 9HTA.wpd
Atgtst22,2OO2 4
I
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
105 feet below the top of the casing (ft btoc) after the pump had been lowered to approximately
110 ft btoc. ruSA's portable piston pump was used. Once pressure readings had stabilized, the test
began. Attempts to achieve a smooth net discharge rate using the proposed low net discharge
methodology (HGC, 2002) were unsuccessful and, after approximately l% liters of water were
removed, the test was stopped, the well allowed to recover for approximately 20 minutes, then
pumped at approximately 1 .5 gallons per minute (gpm) until water levels had dropped approximately
23 feet, which occurred in less than 5Vz minutes. Twenty-three feet of drawdown represented
approximatety 58Vo of the initial water column in the well (and approximately 58Vo of the initial
saturated thickness) and brought the water levels approximately 3 feet below the top of the well
screen. The recovery of water levels was then measured using the data logger and by hand using the
electric water level meter. The pressure transducer and logger were removed after approximately
3 hours, but the pump assembly was allowed to remain in the well until the following day. Prior to
removing the pump, a final water level was obtained to complete the test. Water levels had only
recovered approximately 80Vo at the time the final reading was taken the following day.
Hydraulic Test Analysis
G :\7 I 8000\Reports$208 I 9HTA.wpd
August 22, 2002
I
I
I
I
T
t
I
I
I
I
T
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3. DATA ANALYSIS
Data were analyzed using WHIP (HGC, 1988), a well hydraulics interpretation program
developed and marketed by HGC, and using AQTESOLV (HydroSOLVE, 2000), a program
developed and marketed by HydroSOLVE, Inc. Both are commercially available packages. In
preparing the data for analysis, the total number of records was reduced. In general, all data
collected in the first 30 seconds to 1 minute were used, then every 2'd, then 3'd, then 4th, etc., record
was retained for analysis. The last data point for the MW-01 test, and the last 6 data points for the
MW-05 test were collected by hand using the electric water level meter. Drawdowns (or
displacements) were calculated based on the last water level recorded immediately prior to the start
of each test.
The "homogenous aquifer" solution was used in analyzing all the tests by WHIP. This
solution assumes a futly penetrating well and accounts for well bore storage and any leakage or skin
effects. In analyzing slug tests, WHIP treats the introduction of a slug as a high pumping (or
injection) rate over a short period of time. The introduction of the slug was assumed to occur over
a S-second interval. This provided a numerically stable solution for all the analyses. To achieve a
conservatively high estimate of permeability, in all cases in which the well was partially penetrating
(static water levels were above the effective screened interval), the effective top of the water bearing
zone was assumed to be no shallower than the top of the effective screened interval. The base of the
water bearing zone was always assumed to coincide with the Brushy Basin contact.
Hy&aulic Test Analysis
G:\71 8000t8.eports\0208 l9HTA.wpd
August 22, 2002
In each case, WHIP was allowed to optimizefor Transmissivity (T), storage coefficient (S),
and effective casing radius (&). The effective casing radius is affected by both the casing diameter
and borehole diameter, and the presence or absence of a filter pack. The pumping/recovery test at
i\{W-01 was also analyzed using the confined and unconfined Moench solutions (Moench, 1985 and
Moench, 1997), available in AQTESOLV. The confined Moench solution ("leaky" solution) is
similar to the "homogenous aquifer" solution used in WHIP. The AQTESOLV Moench solution
was also used to analyze the MW-19 slug test data for comparison to the WHIP results.
All slug tests were also analyzed using the KGS solution (Hyder 1994) and the Bouwer-Rice
solutions (Bouwer and Rice, 1976) available in AQTESOLV. Confined and unconfined versions
of the solutions were used in some cases for comparison. Well construction pararneters were based
on available well construction diagrams. When filter pack porosities were required by the analytical
method, a porosity of 30Vo was assumed when a filter pack was present, and a porosity of 99Vo for
an open annular space (as specified at MW-03 and MW-05). In each case, the software was at least
initially allowed to optimize for the best fit to the data. Because the Bouwer-Rice solution is only
valid for data that forms a straight line on a log of displacement versus time plot, fits were obtained
only for straight-line portions of the data. Also, in using Bouwer-Rice, the correction for a partially
submerged well screen was used at MW-03 and MW-05 because the initial water levels were below
the top of the screen in these wells. Whether or not this was also appropriate at MW -20 andMW-zz
is uncertain, because although the initial water level was above the top of the screen, it was below
Hydraulic Test Analysis
G:\7 18000\Reports\0208 l9HTA.wpd
Atgust22,2002
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
t
T
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
the bore annular seal. Solutions were therefore obtained with and without the correction at these
locations.
In all cases except when using the Moench, KGS, and Bouwer-Rice unconfined solutions,
the effective water bearing zone thickness was taken to be the interval between the static water level
and the Brushy Basin formation contact, or, if static water levels were above the well bore annular
seal, the depth of the base of the bore seal was assumed to be the top of the water bearing zone. In
using the unconfined solutions, which account for partial penetration, the effective water bearing
zone was assumed to extend from the static water level to the Brushy Basin contact.
The effective screen length was assumed to extend from the Brushy Basin contact to the base
of the bore seal (Fetter, 2001). This is appropriate, because in a low permeability formation, the
annular space between the bore seal and the top of the screen does not significantly limit horizontal
flow from the formation into the borehole and thence into the well casing, even if a filter pack is
present. Although water entering the borehole below the seal but above the screen cannot enter the
screen directly via a horizontal pathway, it can flow vertically downward within the filter pack in the
annular space to the screen. Because the filter pack has a high permeability relative to the formation,
it does not provide a significant barrier to flow. In cases where the well screen was only partially
submerged, the screen was treated as fully penetrating.
Hydraulic Test Analysis
C :V I 8000tReports\0208 I 9HTA.wpd
August 22, 2002 9
All solutions used in the analyses assume a homogenous aquifer of uniform thickness and
infinite areal extent, and an initially horizontal potentiometric surface. The Moench solutions, the
homogenous aquifer solution in WHIP, and the KGS solution assume unsteady flow, and the
Bouwer-Rice solution assumes steady flow to (or from) the well. When using the Moench leaky
aquifer (confined) solution and the WHIP "homogenous aquifer" solution, leakage was assumed to
be zero. When using the Moench unconfined solution, delayed yield was assumed to be
insignificant. This was appropriate because no evidence for delayed yield was present at IvtW-Ol
and it is generally not a factor when analyzing slug tests.
Hydraulic Test Analysis
Gl7 I 8000\Repons0208 I 9HTA.wpd
Augtst22,200.2
I
T
T
I
I
I
I
t
I
t
I
t
I
I
t
I
I
I
t
10
I
I
t
t
I
T
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
t
4. RESULTS
The results of the analyses are summarized in Table 1 and the well construction parameters,
based on the available well construction diagrams, in Table 2. Plots of the fits obtained to the
measured data using WHIP are provided in Figures 2 through 11. Plots of the fits obtained using
AQTESOLV are provided in Appendix A. Note that in the plots of the WHIP slug test analyses,
drawdowns are negative indicating a rise in water levels due to introduction of the slug.
As shown in Table 1, permeability estimates range between approximately 4 x 10-7 and
5 x lOa centimeters per second (cm/s), similar to estimates by previous investigators at the site.
Furthermore, similar permeabilities are obtained using the various solution methods except that a
much lower permeability was obtained at MW-03 using the KGS solution compared to the other
solution methods. A reasonable fit to the data at MW-20 using KGS could not be obtained. A
noticeable break in slope occurs in the late-time MW-05 data, and a Bouwer-Rice fit to the late time
data yields approximately an order of magnitude lower permeability than the fit to the early time
data. The permeability estimate obtained using WHIP at IvIW-05 was between the early and late
time Bouwer-Rice estimates. Possible well skin effects were noted at N,/tW-l8 and MW-19 (using
WHIP), and solutions both with and without a skin were obtained. When assuming a skin at
MW-18, a storage coefficient that is more consistent with an unconfined formation is obtained,
however, a poorer fit to the data was obtained when assuming a skin (compare Figures 6 and 7).
Hydmulic Test Analysis
G:\7 I 8000\Reports\02081 9HTA.wpd
August 22, 2002 11
AtMW-19, bothconfined andunconfinedMoench, KGS, andBouwer-Ricesolution methods
were used for comparison. As shown in Table 1, similar permeabilities are obtained when assuming
either confined or unconfined conditions. In using the KGS solution to analyze the data at MW-19,
the first data point was ignored, otherwise a reasonable fit to the data could not be achieved. The
first data point may be anomalous, most likely due to a too rapid initial drop of the slug in the well.
Data collected by hand using the electric water level meter at MW-05, MW-17, MW-l8,
MW-19, MW-20, and MW-22were independently analyzed using AQTESOLV. WHIP was also
used to analyze the hand-collected recovery data at MW-01. The results of these analyses are
provided in Appendix B. Table 3 is a comparison of the permeability results obtained by analyzing
the hand-collected data with those listed in Table 1. As indicated, very similar permeabilities were
obtained when analyzing the hand-collected data. Although the automatically logged data are
considered more reliable, the analyses of the hand-collected data provide an independent check of
the automatically logged data, and increase the confidence that can be placed in the results of the
analyses.
Hydraulic Test Analysis
C :\7 I 8000\Repons0208 I 9IITA.wpd
Algost22,2OO2 t2
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
T
I
T
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5. CONCLUSIONS
The results of hydraulic testing of monitoring wells MW-01, MW-03, MW-05, MW-17,
MW-18, MW-19, MW-20, and MW-22 during the week of July 8,2002, indicate that average
permeabilities in the perched water zone range from approximately 8 x 10-7 to 5 x 104 cm/s
(disregarding the value of 4 x 10-7 cm/s obtained using the KGS solution at MW-03 as anomalously
low). This range is similar to the results obtained by previous investigators at the site. Similar
results were obtained in the present investigation by using 4 different solution methods to analyze
the data and using two different sets of data (automatically logged and hand-collected data).
Hydraulic Test Analysis
C:V I 8000\Reports0208 I 9HTA.wpd
August 22,2002 T3
I
I
T
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
T
I
I
I
t
6. 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. 12:3. Pp.423-428.
Fetter, C.W. 2001. Applied Hydrogeology. 4'h Edition. Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River, New
Jersey.
Hyder, Z.,IJ. Butler, C.D. McElwee, and W.Liu. 1994. Slug tests in partially penetrating wells.
Water Resources Research. Vol. 30:11. Pp. 2945-2957.
Hydro Geo Chem, Inc. (HGC). 2002. Hydraulic testing workplan, White Mesa Uranium Mill Site
near Blanding, Utah. Submitted to International Uranium Coqporation, May 2L,2002.
HGC. 1988. WHIP. Well Hydraulics Interpretation Program. Version 3.22. User's Manual. July
1988.
HydroSOLVE, Inc. 2000. AQTESOLV for Windows. IJser's Guide.
Moench, A.F. 1997. Flow to a well of finite diameter in a homogenous, anisotropic water table
aquifer. Water Resources Research. Vol 33:6. Pp.1397-1407.
Moench, A.F. 1985. Transient flow to a large-diameter well in an aquifer with storative
semiconfining layers. Water Resources Research. Vol 21:8. Pp. 1121-1131.
Hydraulic Test Analysis
G:\71 8000\Reports\02081 9HTA.wpd
August 22, 2002 15
TABLBS
EE
=otrd or, .9gEE
?oob Eo>lt
Ea
oo @o oo oz oz
cS
.= 6.l
q)
-go
-9op
E
(D
(B (Uo
goo ga0r.=+.= E;Efi'
LrJ
(\l
c;
N
ci
(\l
o
ola?o
lr)sfe.lo
co(o
ci
(o
C;
f.-(o
o
j
U)
o
o
o
o
oco
o,
o
o
oc
o
oc
o
oc
r{.
rOd
oiE o(\l o(\t o$N
lO
(\t
lr)^ltr)o o o o co co co rr).t lOs @rr)@rO
o
NI@oqo
ot@oqo
qo qo
OOODFqxo<\l
o?
o
C
sf i\\t=3;s+
oo
\
-l^a)=oOXc;;
o
xc!
ot
Nqo
€
=bx-Nxiies
(,ov{Eo
o
x\F.
tso
xF.r-
tso
x
o?
@
Io
x
o?s
o
xq
$
o
xtr)
o
xI
o
xq
(f)
o
x
o)ai
o
xnot
o
xq
N
o
xq
N
o
x\(\I
o
x$+
o
x
a?ro
o
x
o?N
o
xa(\I
agFe (Y)sfqo
(o$eo
@O)oci
cf)qo
o,oa?o
Nn 1r)
rOlr)
(o(o
oCL
a"o
ooo
o-
E
o_
o)
ooo
o-
E
o_
e'0)
ooo
Efo-
U)
o
o)f6
(,)
a
(,):Ja
o)5
th
o,
6
o)
=o
o)
6
(r)
6
o)
6
o)
=o
o)5o
o)fo
o,
6
coEx
6' .trcLob=
E
o-I
=
s>x
d_9ap€
E5"g
Eo
>E!oL)()AEIJ.I JF:vo<Eoo
0-
=3
oo)>.c
8bLll cF:)Ya
Y
o
IEc
-O-. <)o5aLuoLOac< ,:-(l,
=o(D
trI
=
rc
0)>.coha6I]J CFf
Y3
Y
Eo
iEc<oz.oo5atu o)L(Jatr< ,r-o)B
od]
o
E
\o-.oo5aI.U E
aE<i-(D
=foc0
(L
I
=
ao
=,E8HLIJ CF:)
Y3
5
Eoc
-O10o5(t[loLOaE< ,:-(D
B
odl
o.
I
=
o-I
=
ao>.9
8bulcF:)
Ya-(,5
Dq)
E
<o/,oo5atrj o)L(.)O(I< ,,t-(l)3
odl
o
=
o
3
cr)o
=
Ioo
=
F.
=
@
=
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
T
I
I
NooNNN
@
o
=)ooE,
.9o
lJIFd<<6F0,
e)
GI
T'
N
o
oo(!(L
ooca
:@o(rcg
oFo
INo@
Nooo@
Ni
NooN
NNo
o
=TooE,
.t2o
IIlEd<a-oFG,FI
JG
E'
T
t
T
t
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
T
I
I
N
oNoo(d
o_
ootU).,n
oo
CECs
oFE-doo
Nooo@
Ni
o(,jo
.\<.a
.p
o'(!
o
ooitr
0)
;r llEqz
EE
Ea a
g EE?6rob Ecr>It
Ea
oz oz oo)oz .no oz
gE.=o
o
(U
ogEp
E
o
(U
o
-9E
.E
oso
o)Ep
E
oEl o^o.5iE>E-aE 6-oEtr*
ut
$ro
c;
t.(o
ci
1r)(o
ci
(f)
c\!o
cr)@
ci
trtao
o
oC
!tC\lN
$c!
(\I
oCoc
o
o
o
o
(1)
oE
.o iE F.$T\<.Ns o@ t\sf ccc t-$(\I N (\l tr)tr)tr)rO
a C!
CDqo
l'*Nqo
t-6lqo
C
Yc-ob
XXol s-s -
9o\ob
Xyu?r
FN
c'j
AIod
.t
qo
od-rodoo
oo!c{
E(,
o
x
F-
o
x\
o
x\
o
x\
o
xq
o
xal
o
x
C\{
o
xq
@
c)
x
o?o)
Io
x
o?lr,
o
x(\l
st
o
xe
o
x
o?
F-
o
xn$
(EFt,
O)
C\Tq(f
\rol(\I q
OI
(oF.c\lo
(r)oqo
oCL o)
=U)
(,,
o
o)f
U)
o)
o
o
=a
o
o
oJa
o)
o
t,)5
ID
o)f
6
g)
6
o)
i
o)fo
(,)
6
coExs69EcLo!Eo)-c
TL
=
=
L
==
>*
d_3ayr5
od<o
!o]E
8HuJcF:)
Ya
5
a>oILOEu)ouJoFgE
Y
Eo
i=
<o-.oo5@LIJ OLOAE< .:-o3loco
E(t,E
>=o"-U) o)l,JJ .ol-trOT<oE
oc)
o-
=
=
Eo
i=c>R55
CDLuoL()atr<,Lo
=o
c0
Eo
i=
-O-. <)o5atIIoLOat<,:-o
=oco
(L
==
'lf,o]E
8EIJJ CF=
Y3
Y
:oo
IE
sOz.oJ-o5q
L.LJ o)LOatr< .:-d)3
oc0
Eoc
-o-.oo5@uJoL()atr<i d)
=oc0
o
=
o)
=
oC\
3
(\IN
=
AIoosNE@
(\'
oo
U)
ahx
,hoccC
ooFE
INo@
F-ooo@
t-i
o(u
$Ei.s\(/)<(EEa-\(uC>(D\\otrEcotsPT
$E\L8{bE
H$a6a:orts-oo
StexQ:Eo Eso = .!r)E (,jt.=(,)-
:$[$ ES(,,$O)$=q
= 68t-Q-9ebs'6p:ff8: >eFb€x5()
$ss$
E
=
o
oo
EG
(E
No-tu ^qrLtmti
l-L
otroo
o
=
I
t
I
I
I
t
I
t
T
I
I
I
T
I
I
t
I
I
I
--O.et€
=(E(,,t oE oz oz oz oo U)o oo oo oo)
# # qe oN oN ro(\I @ rOt+t-t+t-ro
oo
G Oacco'i.E e90 PEL O :i-
<*g
rot-q
f.-
rON@
1r-
q
(o
lot-@
F-
lf)N@
N
rot-q
N
loN@
F-
loN@
N
g
E e* a
Is E c
g)cr)s $s s \r $
ll- o
-c oll
ssg
q
FN
q
F@
@
F-o @
ctj@
q
-@
q
(o dt-
Noi(o
e.g
Ei,fi-
[;"Es
N
F
N
f-cc
@ rto o)c)r
N$oo,oN
qE E
Ef; gE^'xstiE
--!GL-hJgcL= o coot* €
c\.
C\IO)
r-(o
lr2
cr)o)
(o
@ sO)roO)
(f)N @(o
.eEi!(Ec
i: ac
ooH o
C\I
F
F
r.-@
q
cr)cr)
oo c)cr)-
oa)oo)
oNr
*.t=
Ei;c
B 8t<6
No)t-(o
qloo)
oo)
cf)o oor
o@ o@
T
=
roI
=
cr)?
=
ro?
=
t-
I
=
@
I
=
o)
I
=
o
ry
=
C\IT
=
I
t comparison of Analyses using or,.,ILit*=t,i-l-ogg"a Data to Anatyses Using Data
Collected by Hand
T
I
I
T
I
T
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
t
I
I
Well !nterpretation
Method
K
(cm/sec)
Hand Collected
Data
K (cm/s)
Time
lnterval
MW-01
WHIP 7.7 x 10''7.7 x10''
AQTESOLV
(Moench. Leakv)7.7 x1O-7 7.7 x 1O-7
MW-05
AOTESOLV
(KGS. Unconfined)3.5 x 10-6 3.2 x 10'6
AQTESOLV
(Bouwer-Rice, Unconf ined)3.9 x 10-6 4.3 x 10-6 Late
AQTESOLV
(Bouwer-Rice, unconf ined)2.4 x1O'5 1 .8 x 10'5 Early
MW-17
AQTESOLV
(KGS. Unconfined)2.6 x 1O-5 2.2 x 1O's
AQTESOLV
(Bouwer-Rice, U nconf ined)2] x1O'5 3.0 x 10-s
MW-18
AQTESOLV
(KGS. Unconfined)2.9 x 1O'a 3.2 x 10'a
AQTESOLV
(Bouwer-Rice, Unconf ined)2.4 x 1Oa 2.5 x 1O'a
MW-19
AQTESOLV
(KGS, Unconfined)1 .7 x 10'5 1 .2 x 10'5
AQTESOLV
(Bouwer-Rice, Unconf ined)1 .3 x 10-5 1 .5 x 10-5
MW-20 "AQTESOLV
(Bouwer-Rice, U nconf ined)5.9 x 10-6 2.5 x 10'6
MW-22
AQTESOLV
(KGS, Unconfined)1 .0 x 10-6 9.0 x 10-7
-AOTESOLV
(Bouwer-Rice, U nconf ined)4.4 x 10'6 3.4 x 10'6
* Partially submerged screen correction not applied.
Note:
I
H:\718000\71802\HydTestAnRes.xls: Sheet3 812i,2002
FIGURES
I
I
I
I
t
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
T
I
I
N
I -.'.-r--=F-'
./'
-
0 3000
SCALE IN FEET
EXPLANATION
. W'-11 PERCHED ITO{ITORINC YYELL
O TEIIPORARY PERCHED MOiIITORING IYELL
e P-r PtEzo[tElER
WELL LOCATIONS
Approved
SS
Dote
5117102
Revised Dote Reference:
71800065
FIG.
1
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
t
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
T
I
I
T
I
I
t
I
I
t
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX A
RBSULTS OF AQTESOLV ANALYSES OF AUTOMATICALLY LOGGED DATA
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
g 18.
tro
Eo()(6
E.U, {^i5 tz'
0.
0.01 1000. 1.E+04
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\71 8000\hvdtst02\aqtesolv\mw01 p.aqt
Date: 08116102 Time: 13:50:47
PROJECT INFORMATION
Client: iuc
Test Well: mw01
AQUIFER DATA
Anisotropy Ratio (KzlKfl: 1.
WELL DATA
Pumoino Wells
Well Name x (f0 Y (ft)
mwO1 0 0
Observation Wells
Well Name x (ft)Y (ft)
o mw01 0 0
Aquifer Model: Leaky
T =0.O432tt2nay
rlB = 1.E-09
Sw=0.
Solution Method:
S = 0.008B = 1.E-05
Rw = 0.12 ft
I
I
I
I
I
T
t
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
g 18.
Co
Eoo(UE.9 12.tl
0.
0.01 10. 100.
Time (min)
1000. 1.E+04
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\71 8000\hvdtst02\aqtesolv\mw01 unc.aqt
Dale: 08121102 Time: 15:57:46
Client: iuc
Test Well: mw01
AOUIFER DATA
Anisotropy Ratio (KzlKfl: 1.
WELL DATA
Pumoino Wells
Well Name x (ft)Y (ft)
mwO1 0 0
Observation Wells
Well Name x (f0 Y (ft)
o mw01 0 0
Aquifer Model: Unconfined
T = 0.09783 tt2tdaysy = o.oo1Sw =0.
alpha = 1.E+30 min-1
Solution Method: Moench
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
oII
0.
0.1 1 00.
Time (min)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\71 8000\hydtst02\aqtesolv\mw03.aqt
Date: 08116102 Time: 13:53:03
PROJECT INFORMATION
Client: iuc
Test Well: mw03
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 5.2 ft
lnitial Displacement: 0.202tt
Wellbore Radius: 0.33 ft
Screen Length: 5.2t|
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.99
WELL DATA (mw03)
Casing Radius: 0.125 ft
Well Skin Radius: 0.33 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 5.2ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined
Kr = 4.042E-07 cm/sec
KzlKr = 1.
Solution Method: KGS Model
ss = 0.01923 ft-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
1.
tr_u)u Dtr
tr"tr-tr
20. 30.
Time (min)
40.
cq)
Eoo(sE
.u)o
0.1
10.0.50.
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\71 8000\hydtst02\aqtesolv\mw03br.aqt
Date: 08/16/02 Time: 13:53:37
PROJECT INFORMATION
Client: iuc
Test Well: mw03
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 5.2 ft Anisotropy Ratio (KzlKfl: 1.
lnitial Displacement: O.202tl
Wellbore Radius: 0.33 ft
Screen Length: 5.2 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.99
Casing Radius: 0.125 ft
Well Skin Radius: 0.33 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 5.2 ft
Aquifer Model: Unconfined
K = 1.478E-05 cm/sec
Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
oI
]E
0.
0.01 0.1 1. 10.
Time (min)
100.1000.
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\71 8000\hydtst02\aqtesolv\mw05.aqt
Date: 08/16/02 Time: 13:54'26
PROJECT INFORMATION
lnitial Displacement: 0.533 ft
Wellbore Radius: 0.27 tl
Screen Length: 10. ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.99
WELL DATA (mw05)
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft
Well Skin Radius: 0.27 tl
Total Well Penetration Depth: 10. ft
Aquifer Model: Unconfined
Kr = 3.454E-06 cm/sec
KzlKr = 1.
Solution Method: KGS Model
ss = 0.004419 ft-1
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
t
I
I
I
t
T
t
t
I
I
I
1.
-o
Eoo(E
E-
.9,o
Time (min)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\71 8000\hydtst02\aqtesolv\mw05bret.aqt
Date: 08/16/02 Time: 13:56:44
PROJECT INFORMATION
Client: iuc
Test Well: mw05
AQUIFER DATA
Anisotropy Ratio (KzlKfl: 1.
lnitial Displacement: 0.533 ft
Wellbore Radius: 0.27 tt
Screen Length: 10. ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.99
WELL DATA (mw05)
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft
Well Skin Radius: 0.27 tt
Total Well Penetration Depth: 10. ft
Aquifer Model: Unconfined
K = 2.434E-05 cm/sec
Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
T
I
I
I
I
1.
co
Eo)o(U
E..ao
0.1
80.0.160. 240.
Time (min)
320.400.
qr-.b
ruO
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\71 8000\hvdtst02\aqtesolv\mw05brlt.aqt
Date: 08/16/02 Time: 13:57:16
PROJECT INFORMATION
Client: iuc
Test Well: mw05
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 10. ft Anisotropy Ratio (KzlKfl: 1.
lnitial Displacement: 0.533 ft
Wellbore Radius: 0.27 lt
Screen Length: 10. ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.99
WELL DATA (mw05)
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft
Well Skin Radius: 0.27 tt
Total Well Penetration Depth: 10. ft
Aquifer Model: Unconfined
K = 3.857E-06 cm/sec
Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
1.
F
oII
0.8
0.
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.01 1.
Time (min)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\71 8000\hvdtst02\aqtesolv\mw1 7.aqt
Date: 08/16/02 Time: 13:58:02
PROJECT INFORMATION
Client: iuc
Test Well: mw17
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 18. ft
WELL DATA (mw17)
lnitial Displacement: 1.11 ft
W el I bore Rad i us : 9.328-f t
Screen Length: 18. ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft
Well Skin Radius: 0.328 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 18. ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined
Kr = 2.563E-05 cm/sec
Solution Method: KGS Model
ss = o.ooo1706 ft-1
I
I
t
I
T
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
t
10.
LocLAo l.o(U
o-
,U)o
0.1
0.8.16. 24.
Time (min)
32.40.
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\71 8000\hvdtst02\aqtesolv\mw1 Tbr.aqt
Date: 08/16/02 Time: 14:04:08
PROJECT INFORMATION
AOUIFER DATA
Anisotropy Ratio (KzlK0: 1.
lnitial Displacement: 1.11 ft
Wellbore Radius: qllqli
Screen Length: 18. ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft
Well Skin Radius: 0.328 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 18. ft
Aquifer Model: Unconfined
K = 2.731E-05 cm/sec
Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
T
T
I
T
I
T
I
I
1.
0.8
0.6
oI
I
0.4
0.2
0.
0.01 0.1 1.
Time (min)
10.100.
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\71 8000\hvdtst02\aqtesolv\mw1 8.aqt
Dale: 08122102
PROJECT INFORMATION
Client: iuc
Test Well: mw18
AQUIFER DATA
lnitial Displacement: 1.23 ft
Wel lbore Radi us: g!?g-ft
Screen Length: 45. ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft
Well Skin Radius: 0.328 ft
TotalWell Penetration Depth: 58. ft
Aquifer Model: Unconfined
Kr = 0.0002892 cm/sec
KzlKr = 1.
Solution Method: KGS Model
ss = 4.57sE-07 ft-1
t
I
T
T
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0.01
10.
1.
P
co
Eoo(Uo.ao
0.1
10.
Time (min)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\71 8000\hydtst02\aqtesolv\mw1 Sbr.aqt
Dale: 08122102 Time: 12:38:01
PROJECT INFORMATION
Client: iuc
Test Well: mw18
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 58. ft Anisotropy Ratio (KzlK0: 1.
!nitial Displacement: 1.23tI
Wellbore Radius: 0.328 ft
Screen Length: 41ft-
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft
Well Skin Radius: 0.328 ft
TotalWell Penetration Depth: 58. ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined
K = 0.0002382 cm/sec
Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
2.
1.6
D o tr----_______--:-:j!tr
tr_=\oo
g 1.2
Eo
Eq)o(s
E..9 0.8L]
0.4
0.
0.01 10.0.1 1.
Time (min)
1 00.
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\71 8000\hydtst02\aqtesolv\mw1 9p.aqt
Date: 08/16/02
PROJECT INFORMATION
AOUIFER DATA
Anisotropy Ratio (KzlKr): 1.
WELL DATA
Observation Wells
Well Name x (ft)Y (f0
o mw19o 0 0
Aquifer Model: Leakv
T = 2.215 ftztday
r/B = 1.E-09
Sw = 2.24
Solution Method:
S = 0.0273B = 1.005E-05
Rw = 0.165 ft
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o:E
-L
0.
0.01 0.1 1.
Time (min)
10.1 00.
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\71 8000\hydtst02\aqtesolv\mw1 9.aqt
Date: 08/16/02
PROJECT INFORMATION
Client: iuc
Test Well: mw19
Saturated Thickness: 80. ft
lnitial Displacement: 1.15 ft
Wellbore Radius: 0.328 ft
Screen Length: 47.11
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft
Well Skin Radius: 0.328 ft
TotalWell Penetration Depth: 80. ft
Aquifer Model: Unconfined
Kr = 1.693E-05 cm/sec
KzlKr = 1.
Solution Method: KGS Model
ss = 1.444E-o6lt-1
t
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
t
oT
I
0.
0.01 10.0.1 100.1.
Time (min)
Data Set: H:\71 8000\hydtst02\aqtesolv\mw1 9c.aqt
Dale: 08116102
PROJECT INFORMATION
AQUIFER DATA
lnitial Displacement: 1.15 ft
Wellbore Radius: q!!q ft
Screen Length: 47. ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft
Well Skin Radius: 0.328 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 47. ft
Aquifer Model: Confined
Kr = 1.628E-05 cm/sec
KzlKr = l_.
Solution Method: KGS Model
ss = 3.236E-06 ft-1
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
10.
LocLJo l.o(U
o-
.@o
0.1
0.20.40. 60.
Time (min)
80.1 00.
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\71 8000\hydtst02\aqtesolv\mw1 9br.aqt
Date: 08121102 Time: 15:18:51
PROJECT INFORMATION
Client: iuc
Test Well: mw19
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 80. ft Anisotropy Ratio (K/Kfl: 1.
lnitial Displacement: 1.41 tl
W el I bore Rad i us : q. 328-ft
Screen Length: 47. tt
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
WELL DATA (mw19)
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft
Well Skin Radius: 0.328 ft
TotalWell Penetration Depth: 80. ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined
K = 1.291E-05 cm/sec
Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
y0 = 1.038 ft
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
10.
Eocb 1.o(d
E-.ao
0.1
0.20.40. 60.
Time (min)
80.1 00.
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\718000\hydtst02\aqtes
Date: Og/t Time: 14:12:47
PROJECT INFORMATION
Client: iuc
Test Well: mw19
AQUIFER DATA
Anisotropy Ratio (K/Kfl: 1.
lnitial Displacement: 1.41 tt
Wellbore Radius: 0.328 ft
Screen Length: 4?.n-
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
WELL DATA (mw19)
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft
Well Skin Radius: 0.328 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 47. ft
Aquifer Model: Confined
K =1.195E-05cm/sec
Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10.
o-,o
8. 12.
Time (min)
cocL1O l.o(d
o-
@
i5
0.1
20.16.4.0.
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\71 8000\hydtst02\aqtesolv\mw20br.aqt
Date: 08/16/02 Time: 14:17:53
PROJECT INFORMATION (with correcrion for partialy
Client: iuc submerged screen)
Test Well: mw20
AQUIFER DATA
Anisotropy Ratio (KzlK|: 1.
lnitial Displacement: 1.06 ft
Wellbore Radius: 0.328 ft
Screen Length: 12. tt
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
WELL DATA (mw20)
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft
Well Skin Radius: 0.328 ft
TotalWell Penetration Depth: 12. ft
Aquifer Model: Unconfined
K = 9.31E-06 cm/sec
Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
I
I
I
t
I
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10.
C0)cL1(1) l.o(U
E-
.u)o
tr-'o a
0.1
0.4.8. 12.
Time (min)
16.20.
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\71 8000\hydtst02\aqtesolv\mw20brnc.aqt
Date: 08i16/02 Time: 14:18:29
PROJECT INFORMATION
Client: iuc
Test Well: mw20
AOUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 12. ft Anisotropy Ratio (KzlK|: 1.
lnitial Displacement: 1.06 ft
Wellbore Radius: 0.328 ft
Screen Length: ltlt
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
WELL DATA (mw20)
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft
Well Skin Radius: 0.328 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 12.|t
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined
K = 5.874E-06 cm/sec
Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
y0 = 0.6583 ft
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.
0.8
D tr o-"sDtrtrfu_ _--\""tr
tr\o
0.6
o
:E
I
0.4
0.2
0.
0.1 1 00.
Time (min)
Data Set: H:\71 8000\hvdtst02\aqtesolv\mw22.aqt
Date: 08/16/02
PROJECT INFORMATION
AQUIFER DATA
lnitial Displacement: 1.01 ft
Wellbore Radius: 0.328 ft
Screen Length: 51. ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft
Well Skin Radius: 0.328 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 51. ft
Aquifer Model: Unconfined
Kr = 1.04E-06 cm/sec
KzlKr = 1.
Solution Method: KGS Model
ss = 0.001939 ft-1
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
t
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10.
FI.ocL1oLo(E
E-a6
0.1
0.20.40. 60.
Time (min)
80.1 00.
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\71 8000\hvdtst02\aqtesolv\mw22br.aqt
Date: 08/16/02 Time: 14,20:18
Client: iuc
Test Well: mw22
PROJECT INFORMATION (with correction for partially
submerged screen)
AQUIFER DATA
Anisotropy Ratio (KzlKr): 1.
lnitial Displacement: 1.01 ft
Wellbore Radius: 0.328 ft
Screen Length: 51. ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
WELL DATA (mw22)
Casing Radius: 0.167ft
Well Skin Radius: 0.328 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 51. ft
Aquifer Model: Unconfined
K =7.919E-06 cm/sec
Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
T
I
t
t
t
I
t
I
I
I
I
t
I
t
I
I
T
I
I
LoE.o l.o(U
o-
.9.o
0.20.40. 60.
Time (min)
80.100.
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\71 8000\hvdtst02\aqtesolv\mw22brnc.aqt
PROJECT INFORMATION
AQUIFER DATA
Anisotropy Ratio (KzlK|: 1.
lnitial Displacement: 1.01 ft
Wellbore Radius: 0.328 ft
Screen Length: 51. ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft
Well Skin Radius: 0.328 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth:
Aquifer Model: Unconfined
K = 4.352E-06 cm/sec
Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
T
I
I
I
I APPENDIX B
T
RESULTS OF'ANALYSES OFHAND.COLLECTEDDATA
I
t
I
t
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
t
I
T
I
I
I
1.
g 18.
tro
Eo)o(so.a 1co
6.
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
T
t
I
I
I
I
30.
24.
0.
0.01 0.1 10. 100.
Time (min)
1000. 1.E+04
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
PROJECT INFORMATION
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 20. ft Anisotropy Ratio (KzlKr): 1.
Pumoino Wells
Well Name x (ft)Y (ft)
mwO1 0 0
Observation Wells
Well Name x (ft)Y (f0
o mw01 0 0
Solution Method:
S = 0.008B = 1.E-05
Rw = 0.12 ft
T = O.O4S2tPnay
rlB = 1.E-09
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
t
I
T
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
1.
0.8
0.6
oI
:tr
0.4
0.2
0.
0.01 0.1 1. 10.
Time (min)
1 00.1 000.
trtr
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\7180O0\hydtst02\aqteso
oate: o\tzffi Time: 14:24:sO
PROJECT INFORMATION
Client: iuc
Test Well: mw05h
AQUIFER DATA
lnitial Displacement: 0.533 ft
Wellbore Radius: 0.27 tt
Screen Length: 19. ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.99
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft
Well Skin Radius: 0.27 fl
Total Well Penetration Depth: 10. ft
Aquifer Model: Confined
Kr = 3.231E-06 cm/sec
KzlKr = 1.
SOLUTION
Solution Method: KGS Model
Ss = 0.007328 ft-1
t
t
t
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
t
T
I
I
I
I
I
T
1.
co
Eoo(s
o_
.9o
otr
0.1
0.80.160. 240.
Time (min)
320.400.
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\71 8000\hvdtst02\aqtesol2\mw05hbr.aqt
Dale: 08121102 Time:
PROJECT TNFORMATION
Client: iuc
Test Well: mw05h
AQUIFER DATA
Anisotropy Ratio (KzlKfl: 1.
lnitial Displacement: 0.533 ft
Wellbore Radius: 0.27 tt
Screen Length: l!. ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.99
WELL DATA (mw05h)
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft
Well Skin Radius: 0.2711
Total Well Penetration Depth: 10. ft
K = 4.26E-06 cm/sec
Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.
Eo
Eoo(dE
.9.o
0.1
0.80.160. 240.
Time (min)
320.400.
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\71 8000\hydtst02\aqtesot2\mw05hbre.aqt
Date: 08121102 Time: 14.25:16
PROJECT INFORMATION
Client: iuc
Test Well: mw05h
AQUIFER DATA
Anisotropy Ratio (KzlKfl: 1.
lnitial Displacement: 0.533 ft
Wellbore Radius: 0.27 tt
Screen Length: llL ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.99
WELL DATA (mw05h)
Casing Radius: 0.167ft
Well Skin Radius: 0.27 tt
TotalWell Penetration Depth: 10. ft
Aquifer Model: Unconfined
K = 1.776E-05 cm/sec
Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
1.
0.8
0.6
oII
0.4
0.2
0.
0.1 10.1 00.
Time (min)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\71 8000\hydtst02\aqtesol2\mw1 7h.aqt
Date: 08/21102 Time:14',25:33
PROJECT INFORMATION
Client: iuc
Test Well: mw17h
AQUIFER DATA
lnitial Displacement: 1.11 ft
Wellbore Radius: 0.328 ft
Screen Length: lgJt
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
Casing Radius: 0.167ft
Well Skin Radius: 0.328 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 18. ft
Aquifer Model: Unconfined
Kr = 2.242E-05 cm/sec
KzlKr = 1.
Solution Method: KGS Model
Ss = 0.0004757 ft-1
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
CoCLJo l.o(6
o-U'E
16. 24.
Time (min)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\71 8000\hvdtst02\aqtesol2\mw1 Thbr.aqt
Dale: 08121102 Time: 14..25:46
PROJECT INFORMATION
Client: iuc
Test Well: mw17h
AQUIFER DATA
Anisotropy Ratio (KziK0: 1.
lnitial Displacement: 1.11 ft
Wellbore Radius: gglq ft
Screen Length: 18. ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft
Well Skin Radius: 0.328 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 18. ft
Aquifer Model: Unconfined
K = 2.955E-05 cm/sec y0 = 0.96 ft
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
oII
1.
0.8
0.6
o.4
0.2
0.
0.1 1 00.
Time (min)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\71 800O\hydtstO2\aqtesol2\mw1 8h.aqt
Date: 081221A2 Time: 08:47:30
Client: iuc
Test Well: mw18
AOUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 58. ft
lnitial Displacement: 1.23 ft
W el I bore Radi us : 9. 328-f t
Screen Length: 45. ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft
Well Skin Radius: 0.328 ft
TotalWell Penetration Depth: 58. ft
Aquifer Model: Unconfined
Kr = 0.0003155 cm/sec
KzlKr = 1.
Solution Method: KGS Model
Ss = 1.813E-07 ft-1
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
T
I
1.
FcoC.b 0.1o(U
o-.ao
16.12.
Time (min)
Data Set: H:\71 8000\hvdtst02\aqtesol2\mw1 Shbr.aqt
Dale: 08122102 Time: 08:49:33
PROJECT INFORMATION
Client: iuc
Test Well: mw18
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 58. ft Anisotropy Ratio (KzlKQ: 1.
lnitial Displacement: 1.23 tt
Wellbore Radius: 0.328 ft
Screen Length: 4_ ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
WELL DATA (mw18)
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft
Well Skin Radius: 0.328 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 58. ft
Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.
o o o -)---,+
100.
0.8
o:E
:E
0.6
0.4
0.2
Time (min)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\71 8000\hvdtst02\aqtesol2\mw1 th.aqt
Date: 08121102 Time: 15:30:35
PROJECT INFORMATION
Client: iuc
Test Well: mw19h
AQUIFER DATA
lnitial Displacement: 1.15 ft
Wellbore Radius: 0.S28 ft
Screen Length: g-tt
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft
Well Skin Radius: 0.328 ft
TotalWell Penetration Depth: 80. ft
Aquifer Model: !!nconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 1.241E-05 cm/sec ss = 3.282E-05 ft-1
t
t
T
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
T
t
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
CocLo l.o($
E.,ao
36. 54.
Time (min)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\71 8000\hydtst02\aqtesol2\mw1 thbr.aqt
Date: 08121102 Time:
PROJECT INFORMATION
Client: iuc
Test Well: mw19h
AQUIFER DATA
Anisotropy Ratio (KzlKo: 1.
lnitial Displacement: 1 .15 ft
Wellbore Radius: 0.328 ft
Screen Length: g.tl
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft
Well Skin Radius: 0.328 ft
TotalWell Penetration Depth: 80. ft
Aquifer Model: Unconfined
K =1.487E-05cmlsec
Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
y0 = 1.052 ft
I
I
T
I
I
T
I
t
I
I
T
I
t
I
T
I
I
I
I
10.
cocLao l.o(6
E.
.oc]
Time (min)
n tr
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\71 8000\hydtst02\aqtes
Oate: OAIZI\OZ time: 14.27:19
PROJECT INFORMATION
Client: iuc
Test Well: mw20h
AQUIFER DATA
Anisotropy Ratio (KzJKfl: 1.
lnitial Displacement: 1.06 ft
Wellbore Radius: 0.328 ft
Screen Length: 1Z/-
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
WELL DATA (mw20h)
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft
Well Skin Radius: 0.328 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 12.tt
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined
K =2.49E-06 cm/sec
Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
t
I
T
1.
0.8
oo
o-
I
0.6
0.4
0.
0.2
0.1 10.100.
t
I
I
I
T
I
I
Time (min)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\71 8000\hydtst02\aqtesol2\mw22h.aqt
PROJECT INFORMATION
Client: iuc
Test Well: mw22h
AQUIFER DATA
lnitial Displacement: 1.01 ft
Wellbore Radius: 0.328 ft
Screen Length: 5l- ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft
Well Skin Radius: 0.328 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth:
Aquifer Model: Unconfined
Kr = 8.963E-07 cm/sec
KzlKr = 1.
Solution Method: KGS Model
ss = 0.001961 ft-1
T
I
I
I
t
T
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
T
1.
co
Eoo(u
o-a
i5
0.1
0.20.40. 60.
Time (min)
80.1 00.
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\71 8000\hydtst02\aqtesol2\mw22hbrn.aqt
PROJECT INFORMATION
Client: iuc
Test Well: mw22h
AQUIFER DATA
Anisotropy Ratio (KzlKr): 1.
lnitial Displacement: 1.01 ft
Wellbore Radius: 0.328 ft
Screen Length: gl.ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
WELL DATA (mw22h)
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft
Well Skin Radius: 0.328 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 51. ft
Aquifer Model: Unconfined
K = 3.408E-06 cm/sec
Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
HYDRO GEO CHEM. iNC.
Ent,it'otr ntcnta\ S ci en c e e Tc cb n o htgt'
TRANSMITTAL
To UDEQ From
168 North 1950 West Hydro Geo Chem, Inc.
Salt Lake Citv, Utah 84114 51 W. Wetmore Rd., Suite l0l
Tucson, A285705
Date
Project No.
September 18,2002
ATTN Mr. Loren Morton 7 r 8000
WE ARE SENDING YOU
lxl ENCLOSED t ] UNDER SEPARATE COVER VIA-
IF MATERIAL RECEIVED /S NOTAS LISTED, PLEASE NOTIFY US AT ONCE
REMARKS ('R" files (ex "MW0sR.dat") are unabstracted automatically logged drawdown data.
*DWN" files (ex "MW05DWN.dat") are abstracted drawdown data used for analyses.
MWOl.pmp is pumping rate file for MW-01 test'
rl.",g1 {*p " .q1-,t*l.il pumping rate file for large diameter slug (used in MW-19 Moench solution
analysis)
flffi\q
Stewart Smith
QUANTITY DESCRIPTION
2 Cnnies of hvdraulic test data on CD
2 Cnniec nf same data on flonnv disk
cnnv of file directorv (same for all disks and flopples)
5I West Wetrnorc. Suite 101 Tucson, fu-izona 85705- 1678 520.293.1500 520.293.1550-Fax [phone]-Toll Frec
'(?nor."f
\
'j
HYDHO GEO CHEM, INC.
Envlronmental Sclence & Technology
F A CS I M I L E T R ANSIt,/5SION
FAX #(520) 293'1550
tillo '-lo t/,
l**ot^-S3\- \o't|
Tucaon, Arizona
To: br*.r,
Fax No:
Tel No:
From:
Subject:
9l*-rorl J S,^^,tt
Total Pagesl page(s)
MESSAGVCOMMENTS:
t
tAral 't yna-l-rtdS L, ouY u'ly'."ve
dil,t bJ@4
Pro,lect Nurnber
ls transmlng! Pleac-e cal|;
ilydro Gn Chem, nd. 1'q1-wqqt-wet o..-1-?t11-0-1,'rtrceonr Az Bs70s' (520)2s3'1s00 -qr- [phone] TIME: - MountajO SlellE4LTImeDATE: , .- ,.-. ,. . -" " i.
r rs-l 90/t0'd 919-r 099 ltEz0Z9+nlH3 013 0uoAH-urorl rrESe:00 z0-9t-snv
J'ej1
:{
$ -f
,^$ -. ,{t
'Q*
€
"'t
$^
1Ys>t
s-r{*$r{}
EL'E il
o.t4)t* a--- ,' ,i
dr
o
aooE
l4o-.8urEm:46FOF(l=cl
1'
FlL
{ucI
!
7
E
q
:tr6l6@bE,6oe
t?o
xoo
t
?(,
xrtINI
9o
xa()
*
ec
xq
freo
t(€l'.
+o
x
QN
,16
ao
xq
N
to
BsEEVctE
!
b
x
t-
b
xt*to
I I
ot!^>fi,o
I
IgE
.= 6'*z I
o
IU
o
(DEp
E
@ID
ci
(o
o
bI()
g
oD 9a9+q=€^:Btr*E
$l
e
6l
o
olr:o
6t6o
rarf6lo
o,e
E
qtEoG
+to
tc,
IItrxo
6}coc
o
EE
o
o
ocoE
C,cI I
o o c @ @ g)lo+lo+rll*tr'+a$o(\l osl
q
B
ol
rJ)
6llo
6{
rO o
I qo
6b
x
(D
m
€
E9$xotr
Io
x
N(\t
Nqa
6o'Fo'ct
>c)<GIc.lco r:Fat,
(\tG'ooo
oloooc'
qc qo
s,loooo!qx
ONal
o
L-f 9<:
c;(od_
s
Io
x
o)
e?)
Io
xtoAl
9o
xq
Al
|oo
x
'Dd
b
xc{
c,
xI
lo
,(\(\I
io
x
c\l!l
c'd,y€
Eo
\o
xt:t\
ho
x\F
b
xooi
t?o
xcl!f
b
x
+
ao
x
ro
b6
x
'6
xK'(y)
rOlr)to
(o(D Iht*, QE
c)!toct
o)ttqo
q,
crtc,I
[.)6o
ct)
Bo
g,
6
I
F!t
o
o
ul
tt
o,ja
o
=6
g,
tt
g,
6
or
o
I
o
ED5
t,,
E,I
ooo.
EoEP
EEB.9B=
Fo
oCIEo,
E
EL
erD
o()oc
E
=EL
B@
Eo,
ELEfo
t
6
o,z o:t6
E>.E
BEH5stiIYI-
EIEIel>81dslCD .1HEAE<J-ll)
=oE
L-EtB
(, Ioth€
UBueF)9a'
Y
?l
a\> 8dsauqt-IjIUEloiIEIE
Cx
=
,sds
fr-J
Eg
z, I6)l.s>E
8Eltl r
O"o<tr@oE
L
,
E>.E
otsu)o
H5
sg'
EI6)eE
AEo5U)H8bE<g-oJi
oco
L
I3
Eo>E
BEH5
Z,E
:1
EIelEIEI> 8laelo5l
CD
H.Eo4<*
3fc)g
RIEIEI
- Ol65
EE',ArI
=ti
oo
o-
==
=
d,
3z=o7
5*
=
e)o
==
lt)o
113H3 031 ou0^H-uorl urBBE: E0 z0-g i-sr'',i
099 te0z0z9+rtg-l 90/20 d 9t9-I
DRAFT
o
E
0)o(sE.
,9,(f
lr''r*/
at(Jdla&,:
- ,+an
tarte,u(*an
d".
f".tr"$
Sub,^**, o,,'i
"/{cree-r,
0.1
Data Set: H;\71 8Ooo\hydtst0Aaqtesol@
Date: Oeltmz
PROJECT INFORMATION
Client: iuc
Test Well: mw05h
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Time: 08:55:00
AOUTFER_pATA
Anisotropy Ratio (KzlK{: 1.
Solution Method: Qo-r{yy-e.r, Rice
yo = 0.275 ft
320.80.0_160. 240.
Time (min)
Saturated Thicknoss: 10. ft
Aquifer Model: Unconfined
K = 8.386E-06 ftlmin
lnitial Displacement: 0.599 ft
Wellbore Fladius: O.27 ft
Soreen Length: l[E.Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.99
WELL DATA (mwoshi
Casing Radius: 0.J9? ft
Well Skin Radius: o.27ll
Total Well Penetration-bepth: 10, ft
I 19-J 90/t0 d 919-t 099 1EEZ0Z9+Ii3H3 033 0uolH-utorJ uego:60 z0_gl-sn,f
1.
DRAFT
(l)
Ed,(,
-go-.go
0.1
80.0.160. 240.
Time (min)
920.
Client: iuc
Test Well: mw05h
Saturated Thickness: 10. ft
lnitial Displacement: 0.533 ft
Wellbore Badius: 0.27 tt
Screen Length: f q.ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.99
Aquifer Model: Unconfined
K = 3.66E-05 fUmin
rL
BJ
tA'a) elir{i.r!
w;+,{4
blat*"'t
fi, ww_,t;
goDt^unr =*t.,!
SCVY-QaA
400.
PROJECT INFORMATTON
AOUIFER pArA
Anisotropy Ratio (KzlKr):
WFLL DATA (mwosh)
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft
Well Skin Radius: O.27ll
Total Well Penetration Depth: l!. ft
SOLUTION
Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
y0 = 0.43 ft
Data Set: H :\7 1 8000\hvdtst0Aaqtesol2\rw05hbre.aqt
Date: O8/16/02 Time:
1 rg-J s\/tg d glg-.t 099 I eEZ0Z9+lllH3 03' 0u0^H-u0iJ uE00|E0
10.
DRAFT
E---t\____tL._
P
oE(D l.o(6a
.r2o
lrarJ
uUcrldd*k
t,r\h
@rw,$*ar,
G. fr\qsub^.tyd
<C f e e*'"i
0.1
Glient: iuc
Test Well: mw17h
18. ft
lnitial Displacement: 1.! ft
Wellbore Radius: o.gFft
Screen Length: l_ltGravel Pack Porosity: 0.9
16.24.
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
08:48;01
PROJECT INFORMATION
AOUIFER DATA
Anisotropy Ratio (KzlKr):
WELL DATA (mw17h)
Casing Ftadius: 0.102 ft
Wetl Skin Radius: 0.928 ft
TotalWell Penetration Depth: 18. ft
32.40.
Data Set: H :\7 1 8000\hvdtst02\aqtesol2\mwt Thbr.aqt
Date: O8/16i0-
Time (min)
Aquifer Model: Unconfined
K = 0.0001108 fVmin
Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
y0 = 0.99 ft
I l9-l 90/90 d 9r9-r 099 18EZ0Z9+
1.
DRAFT
l*-rj
A-l)o,{qt!
Ail<
L
c(l)cb 0.1()Ea-
.9,o
8. 12.
Trne (min)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set; H :\7 1 800.0\hvdtst02\aqtesot2\rrw't Bhbr.aqtDate: OAnOtU-
0.01
Client: iuc
Test Welt: mw18
Saturated Thickness: 45. ft
lnitial Displacement: 1.23 ft
Well bore Hadi us : O. 929-ft
Screen Length: 45. ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
Aquifer Model: Unconfined
K = 0.0009027 fUmin
4.0.16.20.
w;/[
Qtrq'{**;
/:-- - tr jV r fort=o&*,
lvV'we19d
9e tve,rn
08:48:11
PROJECT INFORMATION
AgutFER pAr4
Anisotropy Ratio (KzlKr):
WELL DATA (mw18)
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft
Well Skin Radius: 0.928 ft
TotalWell PenetraiionTepth: 45. ft
SOLUTION
Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
l19-l 90/90 d 919-t 099 tEEZ0Z9+
y0 = 1.126 ft
lllH3 0lg 0u0AH-u0rJ rltEotIE0 z0-g]_rnv
HYDHo@
frior*"ntat Saienoe & TechnologY
Tucson, Arizona
FACSIMILE TR ANSM'SSION
FAx #(520) 2e3-1550
To; Lo*<t, Mo'l"u -t \rr rair.to' l- teL 533- Lf o1'1
Tel No:
From: g[-"art J 9"'"'Yh
Subject:
TotalPages: Ll Page(s)
A-H-.A*I' ir at 1ae,,,.o t!*L'( iY €e-"<
ilJ***t i*f-**'- rqo$Y -Il'*
L1d,*^,Gc t'it^)T t^ ,.utA Qr1es<
# ourr ,^r4la-.=,-e 4*A Ja "^onrcul
,\ grcr,\
u:4,. \9/ ,J.\\ .
a\'-
Prolect Numbec t\ i
t,
809-
I"rh:t,':1il:h",,*iiy.::ifi :'nl"ut'gb:*.;luceon'rr
jZ85705
ili'of i$'"lE@ or- (800) 727'ss47 TIME: _ - Mollltatn
I Il!H3 015 0u0AH-ur0rl
MEillORANDUM
To:
cc:
From:
Date:
Re:
Michelle Rehmann, Harold Roberts
Loren Morton, UDEQ
Stewart Smith
August 15,2002
Hydraulic tests
VIA FAX
DRAFT
This memo represents an addendum to the August 7,2002 prelinrinary assessment of
hydraulic tests conducted during the week of July 8, 2OA2, at the White MesaMill site. The Purpose
oi tnis memo is to provide additional information for our scheduled conference call on August 16.
First, upon reviewing the initial analysis I aoticed that the last measured data point used for
the MW-01 pump/recovery test soemed not to "fit" with the rest of the data. This point was
calculated baied on *easur"ments taken with the electric water level meter. I re-checked the fielc
notes and discovered that the data point in question was indeed in error. I conocted this, then ie-
analyzed the data using the proper valuo. Figures 1 though 3 show the results of the re'analysis,
whiih are also reflected in Table 1. Figure 1 shows the results of the re-analysis using WIIIP, and
Figures 2 and 3, the results of the re-analysis using the AQTESOLV Moench solutions, both
co-nfined ("leaky"), and unconfined with partial penetration. These figures would replace original
attachments 1 through 3.
Second, because I had already processed the data collected by hand (using the electric water
level meter) as a check on the antomatically logged data, I analyzed the hand-collected slug test data
using theAQTESOLV KGS and Bouwer-Rice unconfined slug test solutions, and the hand-collected
.".oirry test data at NNV-OI using the AQTESOLV Moench confined solution. The results are
provided in Figures 4 through 17 , andin Table 1 for comparison to the conesponding analyses based
in the automaiically logged data. It is interesting to note that 9 of tho 14 analyses agree with their
corresponding results within a factor of 1.3, I t of the 14 within a factor of 2, and the remaining 3
agree within a factor of approximately 3.
I look forward to discussing this with you further tomorrow-
889-J Z0'd 009-I 099 t tEz0z9+ll3H3 03! oX0AH-u'or J [rd09: z ] z0-g IJn\,
ac,
ntr,l= lE>
SEEExoI
b
xr:
F-
o
x
od
I I I
Pa
x(v,
('l
igr
x(t,
Io
xq
IIxcN
ao
xo,(\I
'o
xq
@
o
xt(v
9E
=0,FE I
g
-go
o
EE
g
G,
-b
C,o)
o! rr^
sEq
EEd
lil
(\,
<3
$t
(>
N
o
N(7'o
lo{(\l
c;
I
EI(o
o
(o
()
(o
o
E
tatt,
(l.)co
=
o
oC
(1,cI o,
oc
oEoe.
I
o)
oE
oJcoe
!r(r,
(E}
9A oN oN
t(,o)c)
R!lo c!ro Nto o o c)c,a ao €lJ)t tr)$lo$ir,q
o
6I(Doo E qo oo
.\co '(5
cD-QxONo,
I o
a-$sCL(D sF+
I qo
a=ii xcF I
{to
xcot
C!oo
?r\obxxsl ar(r?n:
o(0!tEEo
t:(,txt:
9x
F.
to
x(,
o)
Ic,
x
e?t
to
x
$
tO
x
u?
Io
x
Ict
x
1,)(r,
eo
xol(?
qto
x
v2N
5'o
xo,
C\I
I(D
x(o(\l
Io
x
u)|r,
o
x
6Y
,o
xrq
.fo
xt\N
b
x
Ctl
!
)rlllFE FO+oo E
€o,9.c,
(.)(oa
oroc?o a rnril4}
(o(9
orL5
bo
o(,o+oc
a
bo:tIE
o.
=o
a(l)
BooJeE
q
E')ag,
E,l=vt
o'
4
o,
o
o)
'co
cn:Jq
o)
gl
t,
o
E,
-eo
o,
6
ED
E
a3o,
ot3o
or
=o
co
EEil.c
9€
E
0-
u
.-?-a Gtdr
$d6Eog
aq,
.EZE
fsot<Eoo
0-
I
Eo)>.=
8b
H5
V,3
t(
oC,s
>go5ou.t ocgotr<J-o
=ao6
gI
ts
o0)?sgE
trl E
9i;
Y
!,(D
E
>.8dsIDtu@[- .s2at<t
3DocD
EocIECe8oiu)urRoq<*
35oB
TL
Ee
=,d)-E
H8
H5Egg
t,rl,
etr:o-,odsg)g.E
OE<ToB
0E
g
ts
tL
B
3rlt>.E
8E
HEqg
>.tsg5g8,OEot
Eoctr
o
=
+
=z
(r,o
E
u)o*-2
t-
,
=
trI
EE
o
JU'c)
CEo
ulrBu,r E
t0\a6FotF
.9
6
!l
:c
l-IL
ua
;i
.;'qt
YTtcq_
Lr.ta
E
oe
b6o6
ud0grzl e0-!i-snill3H3 03! 0u0AH-ur0rJ099 1tBZ0Z9+BB9-l nleo d 009-I
EoEe, -oo=EodgEYo-
h'o
xct
ao
x(n
N
rP
Q
x(\l
N
I
c)
xo
eh
Ic,
xtnd
OEtrq.=o
gEg
c,
EE
oEo
-g
Ee
bm.r-6, .:l &EE:Er(*
llt
+lr)
o
@
o
u't(o
o
(,
A'o
g,
cat
c
Jo
o)eI +$Jt\l
sN(\i
oLoe
0lEcc
o
oc
I ocoe
-ag ls$It o(D +E t ol C\I l{:t l<,to
g)<\Iaq,6
C'Icj
(\Ioo
't o-ab
XpgN{.-': +
4t.tcb
Xy3fi
E
I
Noo I
rfqo
F(:)N
-oa<?(f
(,(,v{E(,
Io
x
F
b
x\
b
x
ao
x
eo
x:
r(!o
xu?
c?
9o
x(i)
6i
9o
xNd
Eb
x+g,
P(:,
x
<\I.+
Fo
,t
Io
xq
@
6FQ CD$ct
rnN
c,i
A'
<\,
(o
(\Io
c'6aoc)I
oo_tF
t,5
@
CDEo
o,
6
o,5
@
!
u,a
o
a
o)E(,
E'I
4 cr,
=@
ot=b
E,IU'
co
.95gg
Pg0,G
0-I
E
0.
E
-J(-dd_ecn
HEgEog
€'dJ>-c
dEuJ _st)
=g
13>q,J.LOE
ffiBFoo<oY
oq)
>8d5
CDIIJ OF.golE<J.6J?Joo
@r!cl=
Jr\
E .r'u,9
ES<d3ft
B.
B
ao.tr
tr:oa2B?1lIOF.9ocE<g
s=oG]
(L
E
=
Eo,>-E
8EIl re
9";*o
!a
E
>8dsolrJ OF11OE<g'(D
zI
Eo
=
gi
I3
=
oq,
BE
$lA,
==
ogi,orl,&,oor5ulEd(nfrFO
.ga(!
E
,J-
hTL
{u,o
.L.
e?
EE
&
H.IR,o@
ooIIi
t)(rltI,
Et
€5t'q
,g
Ellj
str
€o
r!!d09:zl zc-si-rrinffi 0ll 0u0^H-u0rJ099 10EZoZ9+869-i lz/ts d 809-l
Nea
1
Ii
I
r+
a[-^_t 3_
o)-t*trl5GorL-(r, ti
rrl *)r.l-{t-ct.gE.g:)po-al*
,L^ \.'lJ *_BgE
Ss
r,n
o
G.
(,z
a, iil
..ti.t:itP
},lHI&{
rr!fl*:.irl,tr'.:if
h.eri4'ti\i:E
(,)l - or-ht A r-:r'rr'5* ,i-.
Hl $srf P: bl 33+i;N Hl *,ilP*g
(,r)
0),
J
C
c(^
s \-./
0)
E
r)
l-Ir.
uo
To
o
E
u,
!oL
a
ao
o
E
ooooo
NN
(':l ooJ
:
uMopHeJp
p
)
113H3 03! 0U0AH-u0rJ udogrzi zi-i.-,tz/90'd 009-l 099 I gEZ0Z9+
30.
24.
DRAFT
t 18.
co
Eoo
-ga.t 12.
6.
0.
0.01 0,1 1.10. 100.
Time (min)
1000. 1.E+04
WELL TEST ANALYS-IS
D ata S et: H :\71 800 0\hvdtst02\aqtesol v\mw0_1.p. aq!
P.ROJECT INFORMATION
Client: iuc
Test Welif mw01
wEL.li" pATA
089-J tZ/90 d 009-l
AOUtFER.pATA
Saturated Thickness: -zl.tl Anisotropy Ratio (KzlKr): 1,
Aquifer Model: Lealy
T = 3.E-05 tt2lmin
rlB = 1.E-09
Sw = 9-=-
SOLUTION
Solution Method: Moench (Case 2)
S = 0.008B = 1.E-05
Rw = ffil[
099 1tEZ0Z9+
BffiAi:T
GE 19.
Eo
Eoool].A tAE tz.
10. 100.
Time (min)
1000. 1.E+04
WEI=L TEST ANALYSIS
Time: 11:52:22
AQUIFER.DATA
Anisotropy Ratio (WKr):
SOLUTION
Solution Method:
S = 0.01B = '1545
Rw =6ffi'
Moench
pala s9!. .@solv\mwo1 unc.g!Date: o8/15to2
Saturated Thickness: 39.5 ft
Aquifer Model: Unconfined
T = 6.794E-0S tt2lmin$v = 6.b61-Sw -0.
alpha = LE+30 min'1
1.
FIGURE 3
PROJE9T INFoRMATION
Client: iuc
Test Welt: mw01
669-l lZ/10'd 009-l 099 I eEZ0Z9+tllHl 031 0u0AH-u0rJ udlg:zl z0_gt-sny
I
i=
lc5
0-
=>
.C*
go
(U
Eo_L
€)
.E
F{oot!Fo
CI u-j
F=
adotJ a)E.Z,{
!JCIFzgulE-
az-:eol->,Fsg
fi'ti
L-l!(E
$
FI&
>)t)
k
a
CI
r)
J
C
NS
SL
CI
E
-)
I
(1
:I:m
) uMopMeJp
:------- -l-,
l-IL
u,o O?
aIt\
o&
CI
!.
---t---
1: did.,-#...
..q....
diJ)----Yl,{'Pi
I
I
- --)f--.
i
i
I
I
I
ot ;a:P 5S *B
B Esrfrc
H EE=[ 5
-'l #.,1 #gg
toJj
f,
E
o
!o
Lla
oo
E
ooo
PY
e oJ
VNNNNN
n3H3 0l! ouoAH-IrorJ llrd19|zI z0-gi-l,nY099 l00z0z9+889-J lZ/89 d 009-I
DRAFT
g 18.
o
E(l)o$
H.lh tAE tz'
0.
0.01
Data Set: ELZfa00\hvdtst02\aqteDate: Oat{W
Aquifer Model: Leaky
T = 3.406E-05 ft2lmin
rtB =1.Eo5-Sw=[l
10. 100.
Time (min)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Time: '11:39:29
WELL DATA
S-O.-LUTION
Solution Method:
e
B=
Rw=
1000. 1.E+04
Moench (Case.?)
rIGURE 5
0.008289
J.E:0.5gJA ft
Client: iuc
Test Well: mw01
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 20. ft Anisotropy Batio (l<zt(r): 1.
EEg-J aZ/80 d 009-1 099 I 062029+ll3HC 039 ouo^H-urorJ lrdlgrzl 2g-91-env
l.
0.8
0.6
o.4
0,2
DRAFT
oIT
0.
0,0r
Data Set: H:\71
Date: 08/15/02
Client iuc
Test Wdif rnwosh
lnitial Displacement: 0.593 tt
Wellbore Radius: O.ZT
Screen Length: dft--Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.g9
'1. 10.
Time (min)
WELL TESJ ANALYSIS
Time: 11:39:44
1 00.1000.o.1
PROJE-CT INFORMATION
WE[=L DATA (mw05h)
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft
weil Skin RadiusTtTT ft
TotalWell penetration Depth: 10. ft
Do
Saturated Thiokness: 10. ft
Aquifer Model: Colrrfined
Kr = 6.361E-06 fVmin
t{zlKr = !
-
SOLUTION
Solution Method: K.g-S Modet
Ss = 0.007328 ft-l
689-l lz/lt'd 809-l 099 tt0z0z9+
DR&.s-r
Eo
Eo(J
C,E.
.9,o
160. 240.
Time (min)
Saturated Thickness: 10. ft
lnitial Displacement: Qg39 ft
Wellbore Hadius: O.zm-
Screen Length: ]!.-ft-
Gravel Pack Porosity: O99
Aquifer Model: Unconfined
K = 3.188E-06 fvmin
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
11:39:56
AOUIFER DATA
Anisotropy Ratio (K/Kr): 1,
WELL pATA (Fwoshl
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft
Well Skin Fladius: 0.27 tt
TotalWell Penetrat'i-on Depth: 10. tt
sol-uJLoN
Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
P R OJ ECT lf,!J=- pllMATl o N
Client: iuc
Test Welf mw05h
089-J tz/n d 009-1 099 1tEZ0Z9+
y0 = 0.275 ft
t13H3 019 oUoIH-IrorJ rudzg:zl z0-9]-lnv
1.
DRAFT
CoEot)(o
a.
_9.o
0.1
lnitial Displacement: _0.588 ft
Well bore Radius: 0.27-T-
Screen Length: lm'Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.gg
80.160.240.320.
PROJECT INFORMATION
AQUIFER DATA
Anisotropy Ftatio (K/Kr): 1.
WELL DATA (mw05h)
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft
Wetl Skin Radius: O.Z7 tt
Total Well Penetration Depth: 1Q, ft
SOLUTION
Solution Method:Bouwer-Rice
Client: iuc
Test Weli: mw05h
Saturated Thickness: 10. ft
AquiferModel: Unconfined
K = 1.457E-05 tUmin FIGURE E
Time (min)
Data Set: H :\7 1 8000Vrvdtstg?\egtesol2\nw05hbre. aql
Date: 9E/]sl- Time:11:4s:58
EEg-J tZ/Zt d 009-l 099 I tEZ0Z9+
Yo = 0.44 ft
IllH3 0lg ouo^H-rxorJ udzg:zl z0_gt-lnv
DRAFT
o
I
lnitial Displacement: 1.11 ft
Wellbore Radius: 9r.3.?8 ft
Screen Length: 18. lt
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
Aquifer Model: Unconfined
Kr = lllqE9l fumin
l{zJKr = 1.
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Time: 11:46:11
WELL DATA (mw17h)
Casing Fladius: 0.167 ft
Well Skin Radius: 0.328 ft
Total Well Penetration DePth:
SOLUTION
Solution Method: K9$ Mo-{el{Ss = o.ooo4757 ft-l
18. ft
FIGURE 9
Time (min)
PROJEcT rNFQRU.AllgN
Client: iuc
Test Well: ruv1&
AOUIFER DATA
BEg-J t\/il'd 809-1 099 1t0z0z9+ll3H3 033 ouoAH-llror J lrdzg I z I z0-9 t-s,1y
Dffi&r-fl
16. 24.
Time (min)
Saturated Thickness: 18. tt
AQUIFER DATA
Anisotropy Ratio (K/K$: 1,
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined
K = 5.817E-O5 fUmin
Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
Y0 = 0.9e ft FIGURE 10
089-J tzlil'd 409-I
Data Set: ll:\7 18000\hvdtst02\aqtesol2\mw1 7hb r.aqt
Date: 08/15/02 Time: 11:46:29
PROJECT INFORMATION
Client: iuc
Test Well: mw17h
lnitial Displacement 1.11 ft
Wellbore Radius: 9,329 ft
Screen Length: 18. ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
WELL DATA (mw17h)
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft
Well Skin Radius: 0.328 ft
TotalWell Penetration Depth: 18. ft
099 I 0Bz0z9+ll3H3 03! 0u0^H-u0rJ rudzg:zl e0-91-8ny
1.
0.8
DRAFT
0.6
o
0.4
0.2
0.
0.1 1.I0.100.
Time (min)
PRqJqqT TNFORMAION
Client: iuc
Test Well: rnw18
lnitial Displacement 1,Zg ttWellboro Hadius: 0.929 ft
Screen Length: 45. ft-
Gravel Pack- Ror6E'rty: O.g
WELL DATA (mw18)
Casing Ftadius: 0.167 ttWell Skin Radius: 03-28 ft
Totat Weil penetrati6iDepth :
Aquifer Model: Confined
Kr * 0.001569 fymin
KzlKr = 1.
SOLUTION
Solution Method: KGS Model
Ss = 2.222E-12ft'1
FIGI.IRE U
Data Set: H'\71800
Date: o8/1E62-
Saturated Thickness: 45. ft
6E9-J n/9t'd 809-t 099 1tEZ0Z9+lllHS 013 ouo^H-urorj Irdzg:zl zo_c r-enh,
1.
c
coeL Aro v,r()(s
E.a,
i5
DRAFT
FIGURE 1?
0.01 8. 12,
Time (min)
WELL TEPT ANALYSIS
Data Set H:\71 8000\hvdtst02\aqtesol2\mw1 Shbr.aqt
Date: 08/15/02 Time: 11:47:O6
16.4.0.20.
Saturated Thickness: 45. ft
lnitial Displacement: 1.2.Q ft
Wellbore Radius: 0.328 ft
Screen Length: 45.'Ti--
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
Aquifer Model: Unconfined
K = 0.0004738Wmin
AOUIFER DATA
Anisotropy Ratio (KzlKr):
WELL DATA (mw18l
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft
WellSkin Radius: 0.328 ft
Total Well Penetrati6fi-Depth: 45. ft
SOLUTION
Solution Method: Bouwgr.-Rice
y0 = 1.126 ft
PROJECT INFORMATION
Client iuc
Test Welt: mw18
009-J tz/gt'd 009-t 099 1tEZ0Z9+ll3H3 0ll oxoAH-urorj udzgrzl z0-9]-tnv
1.
0.8
0.6
o.4
s trD-;
0.1 100.
PROJECT INFORMATION
AOUIFER DATA
DRAFT
oI
I
0.2
0.
Client iuc
Test W6tl: mw19h
Saturated Thickness: 80. ft
Aquifer Model: U,ttggnfined
Kr = 2.549F-05 fUmin
Ky'Kt=1-
SOLUTION
Solution Method: KGS Model
ss = 3.42sE-os;T-
10.
FIGURE 13
Time (min)
WELL TEST ANALYS]S
Data Set: H :V 1 8000\hvdtqt0?\Lq!esota\mwi 9h.a4
Date: OAl15/02 . Time: 11.47:lg
lnitial Displacement 1.15 ft
Wellbore Radius: 0.329-A
Screen Len$h: 45. ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.8
WELL DATA (mw19h)
Casing Radius: 0.167ft
Welt Skin Radius: 0.92S tt
Total Wetl PenetratT6ifrTepth: 80. ft
869-J tZ/lt'd 809-I 099 ttEz0z9+ll3H3 039 ou(IAH-uorJ urd0g:zl z0-lt_snv
10.
DRAFT
a
goEo l.U(6
n
.9,o
0.1
Data Set: ElZlqADate: O$nstoz
36. 54.
Time (min)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS.
11:47:34
PROJECT INFORMATION
WE-I.L DATA (mw19h)
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft
Well Skin Radius: 0.328 ft
Total Weil Penetrati6fr'-Depth: 80. ft
18.0.72.90.
Glienfi iuc
Test Well: mw19h
lnitial Displacement 1.15 ft
Wellbore Radius: 0.328-ft
Screen Length: 4!.1t -
Grave[ Pack Porosity: 0.8
Aquifer Model: tJncoffing-d
K = 5.577E-05 fUmin
soLurf-qN
Solution Method: Bouwer-Rioe
y0 = 1.052 ft FIGURE 14
AQUIFER DATA
saturated rhickness: 80. ft Anisotropy Ratio (Rzt(rf j.
EEg-J E/lt'd 609-1 019 1t8z0z9+tllH3 03! ou0^H-l|rorJ I'rd0grzl z0_gt_3nv
10.
DRAFT
.l-
ocb 1.
C)(E
E-
..!2o
0.1
o.4.8. 12.
Time (min)
16.20.
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Time: 11:47:48
lnitial Displacement: 1.06 ft
Wellbore Fladius: O.l@rt
Screen Length: 12. ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
WELL DATA (rnvv20h)
Casing Badius: q.167 ft
Well Skin Radius: 0.328 ft
TotalWell Penetrati6ffiepth: 12. ft
Aquifer Model: U$.gffjnpd
K = 1.413E-05 tUmin
soLUTroN
Solution Method:
yO = 0.6Q47 ft
Bouwer-Rice
FIGURE 15
oo
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thiokness: lZll Anisotropy Ratio (KzlKr): 1.
809-l tz/nt d B0g-l 099 1t0z0z9+ll3H3 03! 0u0^l{-[,0j1 lldtgrz] z0-9l-tnv
1.
tro
0.8 DRe["il
0.6
E
oI
I
0.4
0.2
0.
0.1 1.10.
Time (min)
100.
yvELL T..EST ANALYSTS
Data Set: H:\71 8000Vrvdtgt02\aqtesol2\mw22h.aql
Time; 11:48:00
AOUIFEH DATA
51. ft
Aquifer Model: Uncontined
Kr = 1.764E-06 fUmin
SOLUTION
Solution Method: KGS Model
Ss = 0.001961 ft-l
FIGURE 16
eBoJECr |NFoRMATION
Client: iuc
Test Well: mvr22,h
lnitial Displacement: 1-01 ft
WELL DA]A (mw22h)
Casing Radius: 9.167 tt
Well Skin Radius: 0.328 ft
Total Well Penetrati6frTepth: 51. ft
Wellbore Hadiue: 0.328 ft
Screen Length: gl--ll-
Gravel Pack Porosity: QQ
069-J tZ/02 d 609-l 09q lt0z0zg+It3H3 03U ouo^H-urorJ Irdtg:zI z0_li_siy
1.
DRAFT
o
o()(6o.D(]
0.1
20.0.40.60.
Time (min)
80.100.
P RoJECT I N Eo RI\4AIIo Nl.
Client iuc
Test Well: mw22h
WELL rE-Qr ANglY$J.q
D ata $et: H :\71 8O0OVrvdtstO2\aqtesol 2\mw22h br.aqt
Date: O8/1 Time: 1 1:48:18
lnitial Displacement 1.8-t ft
Wellbore Radius: O.q2iln
Screen Length: 51. ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
Aquifer Model: Unconfined
K = 1.278E-05 tUmin
WELL DATA (mw22h)
Casing Badius: 0.167 ft
Well Skin Radius: 0.328 ft
Total Well Penetratiffi'epth: g1. ft
SOLUTION
Solution Method: Boulyj:eFice
!0 = 0'764 ft FIGURE t?
809-J tZ/tZ'd E0g-r 099 I t0z0z9+[3H3 0]! ouoAH-urojJ urdtg:zI z0-9]-rnv
fnlw-"
HYDBO GEO CHEM, INC.
Environmental Science & Technology
FACSIMILE TNANSMTSSION
FAX #[phone]
Tucson, Arlzona
To: t{Ar toreu', unor lort
Fax No: l-W | - 533 ^ L{Oq-?
Tel No:
From: SJ.r^,*"t J S;%
Subject:
Total Pasesz 37 Page(s)
nnessnoE/coMMENTS: Ae,^* lnprt
1-blnd^al i, ? qve/,i'^l-*^1 y,.L;6 l'$'^'l^L
JzS.t d*^)^ t TvC U.l tLJd UvleSa L). ouy
/tis.,*r*S)ovr Jan^drCoru, Egust I , I lnak
$ " ^, J +a alavc^rBsl Y -+{^i tl.'}% -(*
PW* crJ,t G l', s ^f *ile^slclnn Po '
'{)
v ot d-4 ,"** ge ce) u< ^lJ "() '1G s +a^,.s rroii-s:.""+'
(
Prufec!Nunbera I.YOZ
ffi;ldTav€ atty qu-stlons concernlng thlslransmlcal Pleas€ aEr
liF;'d;; Ch;r, rni. ''sr wqsJ-w€rngler-P'il'-l-111ruceon' AZ 15705
t;r^ I 1{lc (seo) 29s'1500 or' (800) 727's547
hATE:
209-J n/ln'd 9rg-I 0991882029+
DRAFT August 7,2002
VIA FAX
Michelle Rehmann
International Uranium
Independence Plaz4 Suite 950
1050 17'h Street
Denver, Colorado 80265
Dear Michelle,
This letter presents the preliminary resutts of the interpretation of hydraulic tests at the White
MesaMill Siteduringthe weekof July 8,2002. Thetested wells consistedofpermanentmonitoring
wellsMW-01,MW-03,MW-OS,MW-17,MW-18,NIVf-19,MW-20,andMW-22. MW-15wasnot
tested becauso it wa.s dry.
Theproposed tcsting detailed in thc workplanrincluded apumping/recovery test ateach well
using IUC's portable piston pump and a system that would recirculate most of the pumped water
back into the well to achieve very low net discharge rates. This was needed to limit the rate of
drawdown in the wells which are all completed in the low permeability perched zone at the site. As
you know, this procedure did not work well in practice, and therefore slug tests werc instead.
conducted at all wells except MW-01, where a pumping/recovery test was performed at a relativellr
high pumping rate of approximately 1.5 gpm.
Slug tests were performod using "slugs" made of PVC pipe filled with clean pea gravel and
- o ,45 y Icapped to form a watertight seal. An approximately 3-foot long by 2-inch diamoter length "slug" -
was used in all4-inch diameter wells (all wells except MW-01 and MW-03), and an approximately - o,11qo i4-foot long by lr/t-inch diameter "slug" was used in MW-03, which has a casing diameter of d
approximately 3 inches. Based on measurement of the slug outer dimensiorts, the larger diameter
"slug" displaced approxirnately 0.75 gallons, and the smallerdiarneter,.:lslugi:,appmximately.0.47
.gallons.
' Hydro Creo Chem ,Inc. 2@2. Hydraulic testing workplan, White MesaUranium Mill Site
near Blanding, Utah. Submitted to International Uranium Corporation, May 27,2W2.
O;V I E00O\coRRESH020805m,wl
209-J tt/20 d 919-l 099 1tEZ0Z9+tI3H3 0t! 0u0lH-l'!0]J
/Yttt-' ?'(*'\t f = "a -
Michellc Rehmann
August 7,2002
Page 2
DRAFT
Water level data during all tests was collected using a GeoKon data logger and subrnersibie
pressure transducer. s/hen possible, data was also collected by hand using a hand-held electric water
level meter. In all slug teSt$, the static water level was first measured using the water level meter.
Then the pressure transducer was lowerod to a depth approximately l0 feet or more below the static
water level and pressure readings allowod to stabilize prior to beginning the test. Once pressure
readings had stabilized, the slug was lowered to just above the static water level, the electric water
lovei meter probe lowered (when possible) to just above the static water level, then the slug lowered
as srnoothly as possible into the water within a few seconds. Water level readings were then
recorded at 5 second intervals using the data logger, atld#ssipdtgAlly,byhand using the electric water
Ievel meter. Hand measurements were taken more rapidly at first (several por minute), then more
slowly irs water level changes occuned more slowly. These data were used as a backup to and checr
on the automatically logged data.r -i j s/?,, LJ- r",a.a rn, l--l r '-L ',
(.-
Water level data were also collected using the data logger and pressure transducer at MW-01ilu- \tl W .L ! ' slvr tv ' vr v*es '! v' v s'vv ee"r$ v{^v
,.., r p f zol 9::iir the pumping/"'o::_'{
'::i: l!-,ry::y'-l'i:1T::Y.T]',YT:.d,t:^i o:1,'I:fSIaTf]I- ' I 105 feet btoc q@ the pump had been lowerod to approximately I l0 ft btoc. ItlCs.portable piston
r 6\, o0 pump was used. Once pressure readings had stabilized, the test was begun. Attempts to achieve a
I . g i smooth not discharge rate were unsuccessful and, after approximately l% liters of water were
lz-te {/bqsrcmoved, the test was stopped, the well allowed to recover for approximately 20 minutes, thenvJ> '* ' t pumped.at approxirnately.l.S,'gpm until water,.levels,had.dropped appr ximately,23.feet, which
occurred inless.than5 4minutes, The recovery of water levels was then measured using the logge::
and by hand using the electric water level meter. The logger was removed after approximateiy 3
hours, but the pump assembly was allowed to remain in the well until the following day. Prior to
romoving the purnp, a final water level was obtained to complete the test. trtr{ater,levekhad only
qgsoverd,approximately 65%.at,the time the,.final,reading rvas.taken the following day.
Data were analyzed using rfrfHIP, a well hydraulics interyretation program developed and
marketed by Hydro Geo Chem, and using AQTESOLV, a program developed and marketed by
HydroSOLVE,Inc. In preparing the data for analysis, the total number of records was reduced. In
gineral, all data collected in the first 30 seconds to 1 minute were used, thcn overy 2od, then 3d, then - *
4th, etc., record was retained for analysis.
The homogenous aquifer solution was used in analyzing all the tests by WHIP. This solution
assumes a fully penetrating well and accounts for well bore storage and any leakage or skin effects.
In analyzing slug tests, }y+flP,t!Eat$lhe introduction of aslug'as.a high'pumping (orinjection) rate
gv.,gr..o.short period of tirneu The introduction of the slug was assumed to occur over c'S.eemad
.iptewal. This provided a numerically stable solution for ail the analyses.
In each case, WHIP was allowed to optimizc for Transmissivity (f), storage coefficient (S),
and effective casing radius. The effective casing radius is affected by both the casing diamoter and
G lV I 8000EORRF,st'620805tr.wpd
tlo,oo
l. h ':':'*--_ ^to6, t3 #bq,
I
i- -rl
\a.,^\2'' i-"-/c '
" U7.'
209-J tt/tl'd 919-I 099 ttEz0z9+IHHS 03 0U0AH-u0rl Ud?rr l0 z0_10-tnv
fitk:.1<, [i*r*'r-|/ b' )
Mich{rueRehmann :
August 7, 2002
Pagc 3
) .,,- .- ,-i ,-t n ta{;i Dv i7.i; '"t' tk'O
Ji,,7.,-pl o-ar'du lfbU fd'*s'7
{-e'/tta, n pu.,p,r-7 Erli , t
5loL ,n- tf h;,-l noh, ol,L"l^ DRAFT
l.<rflar lc
1'u.|-,{ n \i
borehole diarneter, and the presence or absence of a filter pack. The pumping/recovery test at
MW-01 has also analyzed using the confined and unconfinod Moench2'3 solutions availablc in
AQTESOLV, which are similar to the solution used in WHIP. The AQT-ESOIrV,,MeEneh solution
was also used,.{g,,A!.\0JyZ,9the.M$/',19, slug,test,dat*,'forcomparissnto the,'.T$llP,'resutrts. All slug
tests were also analyzed using the KGSa solution and the Bouwer-Rices solutions available in
AQTESOLV. Confined and unconfined versions of the solutions were used in some cases for
comparison. Well construction parameters were based on available well construction diagrams. In
each case the software was allowed to optimize for the best fit to the data. Because the Bouwer-Rice
solution is only valid for data that forms a straight line on a log of displacement vs. timc plot, a best
fit was obtained for the straight-line portion of the data-
All solutions assume a homogenous aquifer of uniform thickness and infinite areal extent,
and an initially horizontal potcntiometric surface. The Moench solutions, the homogeflous aquifer
solution in WHIP, and the KGS solution assume unsteady flow, and the Bouwor-Rice solution steady
flow to (or from) the well. When using the Moench leaky aquifer (confined) solution and WHIP,
Ieakage was assumed to be zero.
In each case, the pffestiye aquifer,thiqknes$ was taken to be the.i.tll.Bryal.betve,pn lbe statip^ i.. t
watef.l€vel and the Brushy Basin formation contict, or, if static water levels were above the wellJ t*:'," '*
bore annular seal, the depth of the base of the seal was assumed to be the top of the .aguifer. Thlli f*rzt13 ''
resulted in a conservatively high estimate of permoability. \ c" *Lg,Z i
The effective scre€n length was assumed to extend from the Brushy Basin contact to the base
of the borc seal. This is appropriate, because in a low permeabilitv formatl)n, the annular sPace
between the boro seal and the top of the screen does not significantly limit horizontal flow from the
formation into the borehole and thence into the well casing, even if a filter pack is present. In cases
2 Moench, A.F. 1985. Transient flow to a large-diametor well in an aquifer with storarive
serniconfining layers. Water Resources Research. Vol 21:8. Pp. I 121-1131.
3 Moench, A.F. 1997. Flow to a well of finite diameter in a homogenous, anisotropic wator
table aquifer. Water Resources Research. Vol 33:6. Pp, 1397-1407.
oHydor,Z.,!.!.Butler,C.D.McElwoe,andW.Liu. 1994. Slugtestsinpartiallypenetrating
wells. Water Resources Research. Vol. 30:11. Pp. 2945-2951.
t Bouwer, H. and R.C. Rice. 1976. A slug test method for determining hydrautic
conductivity of unconfined aquifers with completely or partially penetrating wells. Water Resources
Research, Vol. l2:3. Pp.4Ba28.
C'tZ t aO0OCOnnESF020*05nr.wPd
099 I tEZ0Z9+209-J n/tl'd 9/9-I lllH3 0l! ouolH-IrorJ rlldg,: l0 zc-/c-$ny
MiohelleRchmann
August 7,2W2
Page 4
where the screen was ortly partially submerged,
static water level to the Brushy Basin contact.
DRAFT
the effective screened interval extended from the -*\ l;i" p*14$'ry -.kh cu{il5}
The results of the analyses are summarized in Table 1 and tho well construction parameters,
based on the available well construction diagrams, irt Table 2. Plots of the fits obtained to the data
using the various solution methods are provided in attachments 1 through 29. Note that in the plots
of the WHIP slug test analyses, drawdowns are negative indicating a rise in water levels due to
introduction of the slug.
As shown in Table 1, permeability estimates range betwoon approximately 4 x 10'7 and
4 x | 0-a cm/s, similar to previous data collected at the site. Furthermotre, similar permeabilities are
obtained using the various methods except that a much lower permeability was obtained at MW-03
using the KGS method compared to the othor methods. A reasonable fit to tho data at MW-20 using
KGS could not be obtained. Also note that a break in slope occurs in the MW-O? data,.and thrt_"- eU7Bouwer-Rice fit to the late time data yields an order of magnittrde lower permeability than the fit - l-"^^ Lx.,
to the oarly time data. Bossible.skin effects,.w€f€ notpd at,MW.18,and,MW.l9, and solutionS both 1
with and without a skin were obtained. Unless a skin is assumed at MW-19, an unreasonably small
effective bore radius is obtained. A similar effect was noted at MW-18. Furthermore, whoi;
assuming a skin at MW-18, a storage coofficient that is more consistent with an unconfinec
forrnation is obtained.
AIMW-I9, both confined and unconfined Moench, KGS, and Bouwer-Rice solution methods
were used for comparison. As shown in Table 1, similar rosults arc obtained when assuming either
confined or unconfined conditions. In using the KGS solution to analyze the data at MW-19, the
first data point was ignored, otherwise a reasonable fit to the data could not be achieved. The flrst
data point may be anomalous, possibly due to a too rapid initial drop of the slug in the well, or may,
at least in part, be influenced by the presence of a skin in IvIW'19.
I Iook forward to discussing this with you later this week. Please call me if you have ar:.;i
questions or comments.
Sinceroly,
Stewart Smith
Project Manager
Gi\71 8000\CORRESFo20E05lrr.$pd
209-J n/99 d 9J9-I 099 18BZ0Z9+!13H3 013 ouo^H-urorl lrdgr: l0 z0-10-rnv
9B
=o
rljl!
o
o
Ee
os
E,e
E
E
I
E0D 6-0r.2F
=E-:
EEN
rilo
o
(o
o
|r,(o
o
gl
C\to I
c,d
ci
I
E
Itt
oqog
t6rot
rIc!
C\I
c,
o
ditrctr
o
o
d,coc I
,alE i Nt v ots,N!f,<)E t N (\J lo |r,to
t,ATIc
(\lc)o
,/iid(qo
loaob
xXq$rA
lo-vo
>(yQq.N $i
Nq0
!loci
ONIOoqo
(,oY{E(,
e(f
x
ao
x
Fo
x
5t)
x
b
x(o
qo
t<
r3)ci
+a
,(
c?
Cll
Qo
x$l
@
Io
xri
o,
?o
x
GI+
Io
x
eo*oF
.EFE (,,olo,o
tN
c\i
sl(!I
@
No
Ct6(<,
0
I
ocL
F
o,
=o
E"
7n
t
a
E')5
-qt
E
cl
c
u
tr
=a
ofo
c,
6
o,
-=a
Ol3o
E)=6
o
EAo!
EEotc
o-r
=
o-
!
B
>f;d-3
.fi E'odo€
R>eJL
fiE
?gg
'u>EJ-tOE
ffi8FgE
tz
Ed)
EE>RJF
95.lIoFllolE{I-tD
I5o(tr
lJ(D
._E*El,eo"@6lJ.t .t)
5E<!,
=oE,
sI
=
EEE>8
Hs.Lll oL()bE<t-g
=oI
(L
=
zl(l)}EgE
H5
=g
EcTEL>R
95.Ltl (D
L()biE<g6J35o!c
.,
=
o)
BE
o$
==
N(\t
E
ooc
itxetoeEs6o
b
=\:,*
FE
I
ms€!S
fl5rs
EE(5
.(Dto
$l
]-U-
{uo
o
==ooEo
aA
U:Ed<s6FO
-9
a!
TI
rrdgt: l0 z0-/0-rnvIt3H3 03U ouolH-llrorl099 I g6Z0Z9+209-J /t/90 d 9/9-l
EEEOFE
(D
16
o
o
E
E
o(B e
a6o I
En 0,-OEG>zt:
=GJBG*tril
$l
o
C\l
o
(\l
c)
N(l,
<i
lot6l
C;
l
d)(o
ei
(o
(>
Fao
ci
I
I
at
C'
oE
(u
I ococ
ocoE
o
E
oEo I
ocotr
\lto((,
.oE o(\I o(\I o<\l AIlo
(\t
to
g!|r'c o o o €ao 6 tor+lrit u)\r tot
o Naqo
6lQc,c;
6lttoc;
qo
cob6DF<lx6oro,
o
4+
$E3qg
I c,o
"€EP5xo;
Ic,
xcg\t
Nq()
Or\9gxXcYolc,, -
I
(,ovE
(,
b
x
$
o
x
<,
at
o
xo)c,
'o
x(r'+
to
x
d
a(f,
xq
Io
xI
Ib
x
!o
a')
!Po
x(rt
(4)
6b
x
ra,
<\l
Io
x
o2N
Io
x(l,
6l
'o
xlr,lo
rlo
x
<\I
'to
xi-
o
x\N
ra
x(\I+
5ia![-P
'E
Reo
A'oAIqo
(o
6Iqo
ara,(o
c,
I
g
C?o I t I ll,r,l.t
()(o I
oo.t
>o
o(Jd,
E.e
o.
bc,
ot
CL
Eo
\o
ooo
E.e
q.
o)
B
u,-o
o)
6
ertEo
o
6
o,
-=th
tt
6
a5o
o,
=n
e,Eo
E!3o
E"
0
o!at
tEaD
co
ECOE
.L (Dd=
E
gIB
ESJ1fidso:
HH"g
o(Dc>E
fisot<E
o:t
(L
=B
E>.5J-OH@6ulEF>3gv
1'o.EE>Ro5U)
H.8gtr<gll,35
E
o--B
oq,>sq
dEE:E
{Eg
Eo)tr
E>8g5-uloL()bE<g
s5oto
Edl5cr8o=
CAuleh.gotf<t
7
oc0
o-
=3
E>.EJ=
BEtucF:)g,?
v
alD.Ee>8dscnlrJ (l)l- liOE<t o,z
o.D
(L
=3
c
3
6otEgE
H5sg
:<
Ecl=C.rO:JEo5allj o)r-.9otr
"&
oE
(,
=
(:)
=E
?B
=
tt)I
===
6
I3E
]-lJ-
eo
o
ooE
-ao
T,J E,'i46FO
C'Ei
6
E
E
oo
6
sivi
4g'
h6FE
ft6@
5I@
::
urdgrrl0 z0-,lc-ln!lllH3 0l! ou0lH-r'orJ099 ltEz0z9+209-J tE/10 d 9/9-t
EIE.EOqtlLqg
o
6
o=o al,I IDo aDo t,o oo
S HEU
oC\l
nl
lc,o @ tf).l \i $t |(,
H g=ee
fr83=
o$t oC\I I !iRI 1l)lJ)
(Y)II)Nln
oo,
6 OaECt'r- .E E90 P*Estt
lt)
0qr-
1r,
cF-
sl(o
roF-@l-
|r)
0q
rOi-@
F.
roN@
F-
r.r,N@
F.
o
E s*a
.gSEg{,
(Y)oct \f \i !+$t t+
9--^E E6ggE
q
lt
0c
o
q
a 0()cio
N
€
o
CO
co
c\l
o)(o
Er$'
NN@
co r+o CD(')Ns o
CD
oN
EEsEuJ-reAE E E -EH €
G.$tg)to
u?
(f,o)
(o(D \tO)
rr)
CD
q)00(o
*$"
e;fi,
N
@
rJ,
cli(r,I CO(?,oc4,oc',
ool
oo.
EE Ea
EEg
*NO)(o u?
lO6,
oct)
(Y)o oa o@ oa
=o
=
?3
=
(Dc)*
=
rOo
*2
IBE
@
a
=E
o)
g
E
o
CV
==
(\Iq\t
*E
l-l&
u,o
Co
IEurFtuE{(E
o-
c\t :,u{QEhs5,CEl-ozoC'JJlll
=
N
q)ocoi;Ead)
:?li
t\l
B
Eoc
4
I*
ra
$
Eo
,=!o
oq)
$a
0$u)s
(E
oa(,r a=Su\(DOEoStro.= (r):rE6E(,l!!gE
\Qo^E.Esttr6ID
Fb
$ES* hroz
|!l3H3 013 0u0^H-ll'0rl Udgr: i0 7n-1!-l'ii,:099 lgEz0z9+209-J n/80'd 919-1
a
@TrutsF--
(n 'i6
IrJ =FcL.9E6ilg
Ao)
=.E=-
Nss
N
a
0)
+J
l
c
E
N \--l
o
E
,p
lr
t{z
lElIz
Q
f.i
L,l
F-IL
{uo
i,ili;l!.1
oileo}l lrlHU
t- --------- - --- --
NN
r'I eeJ
n/a0'd 919-r
) uMopMaJp
099 1t0z0z9+
o
,13H3 031 ouo^H-uorI urdgr: l0 z0-l0-8nv
al ofr5 E $RA N EJlul rI-El *sI: fr-l :\Xr:j; *: tf,l EE.s+;N FI +,,1 .dg&
'o
o
)
IJ'
ooc
ooooo
a
EJ+
{.ryI
aL)
e.
Eo,)j
f
E
(t
NLNLON
q.-.
(
tC
c__{
5e_
ATTACHI\{EI.IT 2
DRAFT
5 18.
Eo
Eo()
.ECLO tAE 14.-
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:V1 8000\hvdtst02\aqtesotv\mw0 1 p.aqt
Date: ostw- Time: 12:09:45
0.
o.o1
Saturated Thicl<ness: 39.5 ft
Aquifer Model: teakY
T = lf .4E-_08 fiZlmin
rlB = 1.E-09
Sw=O
r.- ca., i v-rl
10. 100.
Time (min)
1000. 't.E+04
Moench (Case 2)
AQUIFER DATA
Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr):
soL-uTtp_N
Solution Method:
S *0.042B = 1.E-05Rw=@it
PROJECT INFORMATION
Client: iuc
Test Well: mw01
Wel
Well Name x (ft Y (ft)
rnw01 0 0
209'J tt/ot d 9/9-1 099 I 082029+lllHS 039 0u0lH-u!0rJ Udgrr l0 z0-toJn,i
24.
30.
0.
DRAFT
g 18.
=o
Eq)or!o.A JAE tt.
o.
0.01 1.0.1 10. 100.
Time (min)
PROJECT INFORMATION
WELL DATA
1000. 1.E+04
Moonch
Glient: iuc
Test Wff ry1w01
Aquifer Model: Unconfined
T = 1.494E-oS tflminsy = o.oo1Sw -0.
alpha = TE+30 min'1
solvTlQN
Solution Method:
S = Q.042B = 1.8-05Flw =@A'
ATTACHn/flIh:'-i 3
AaurFER p4f.a
Saturated Thickness: 39.5 ft Anisotropy Ratio (l{ztKr): 0.149Q
209-J nltr d 919-I 099 lt0z0z9+113H3 013 0U0AH-urorJ udlrr l0 z0_,tc-lr,r
rf,
F"z
rd
HQ
FF
at-Jo-
ffi*E-a;
(Datu=
an -:,?s(DE
Pb
=E=-
a
o
f,c
E
0)
E
eJ
q
Ol
o
!.,,...--..1-...
i"""-'-'i"*t--"i'--"""'-:"-"t."-
hIL
uo
C)eo '^CEtroH
EH8i----______i____-l__._i_-! i ol ii.--i-l-i
l--------..i----.1,,-i iF
i io
oe+ ) uMopMaJp
099 I E6Z0Z9+n3H3 03t ouo^H-IrorJ ll'd/rr l0 zo_/o-sny
?o
o
J
E
t
T'o
L,(t
6
o
E
ooooo
ral oP
;l $ Etul E r.:1tEl * -,' :;,
hl EEg$ 5Fr #,]l$ g gPlraL0aLosLoNr$Nt tIKNNS;-FrN
SSSSGSNrlllfrt
(1
9/9-r209-J nlzl'd
i!
iE IlrIt
1.
0.8
0.6
o.4
trtr otro tr \-t Etr 6tr-\-g trEl OEE
0.1 1 00.
ATTACHMENT 5
DRAFT
oJ-
J-
0.2
0.
10.1,
Time (min)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set H:V 1 8000\hvdtst02\aqtesolv\mw03.aqt
Date: 08/07l1z Time: 12:10:11
PBgJFCT INFORMAIoN
Client: !gTest Well: mw03
AQUIFEB DATA
Saturated Thickness: 5.2 tt
lnitial Displacement 0.202 ft
Wellbore Radius: 0.33 ft
Screen Length: 5.2 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0,99
WELL DATA (mw03l
Casing Radius; 0.125 ft
Well Skin Radius: 0.33 ft
Total Well Penetrati6Ti-Depth: fll ft
Aquifer Model: Unconfined
Kr = 7.958E-07 fymin
llzJKr = 7.
SOLUTION
Solution Method: KGS Model
ss = 0.01923 ft-1
209-l ttlti d gl9-I 099 I t6Z0Z9+lltH3 0t! ouolH-urorJ urdlr: l0 zo-l0rnv
1.
DRAFT
o
Eoo(U
CLoo
0.1
Saturated Thickness: 5.2 ft
Aquifer Model: Unconfined
K = 2.909E-05 fVmin
20, 30.
Time (min)
AQUIFEH DATA
Anisotropy Rati o {KzlKr):
soLUrory
Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
y0 = 0.18 ft
50.40.10.0.
ll3Hl 030 0u0lH-u0rJ rlrd/Ir l0 z0-/0_tnv
ATTACIIMENT 6
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
D ata Set: H :\7 1 8 00 0\hvdtst04Bgte.,s.-glv\mw0 3br. aqt
Daie: a$lU7l02 Time: 12:10:28
PROJECT. INFORMATION
Client: iuc
Test Well: mq03
lnitial Displacement: 8.20? ft
Wellbore Radius: 0.33 ft
Screen Length: EEil
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.99
WELL DATA (mw0,.3)
Casing Radius: 0.125 ft
Well Skin Radius: 0.33 ft
TotalWell Penetrati6i-Depth: !! ft
209-J nfit'd 9t9-l 099 I tEZ0Z9+
oN
------------l-I\
HZtrl
tHU
FH
a
o*)s
-)C
E
0)
E
&)
l,-lJ-
Eo
ll
a
ffi*Eo]
U)ctu=FEo.E]G*t rltCDI8bBEE-
.*...i.............i.,.,.-------.
-o
o
L
aa
oo
E
ooooo
ToJ
o
E
a
,..r...5.!--.-.L
;--------------i-
ttn [i g5 e *e
EI E *;=B
f, ffi}IE
(? ooJ )
209-J n/gt d 9/9-1
sl-L0\ON
SNONrtll
uMopMeJp
dzoa&EQCFlHrqfiFFI rA .\}Ji \.J U
099 I t6Z0Z9+mH3 03! ouolH-tlloil utd/rr t0 ?c_ri-,.,.
ATTACHMENT 8
DRAFT
oI
I
1. 10.
Time (min)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
WELL DATA (mw05)
Casing Radius: e,167 ft
weil skin Raoiufr-6127 n
Totat Weil penetrat'ioTilDepth: 10. ft
100.1 000.
Data set H:v1 8ooo\hvdtsto2\aqteso
Date: o\toffi Tirne: 12:10:41
lnitial Displacement 0.599 ft
Wellbore Radius: O.Zi tt-
Screen Length: 1q'ft-Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.99
eRoJECT TNFORMATTON
Client: iuc
Test Welif mw05
AQUIFER DATA
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Uncplfjned Sotution Method: KGS ModelKr = 6.799E-06 fVmin Ss = 0.004419 ft-lKzlKr = ---------------
209-J nlst'd 9/9-1 0q9 I tBz0z9+It3H3 031 ouo^ll-llrorJ udgtr l0 z0_/oJnv
Co
E0,osct.aa
I L lkt,
C^q vf r
-l-'-t^4< ta iLf.ql
q.
qi"
ATTACHITrcNT 9
DRAFT
I t-J-LfiT'q J" & =
,\ /ou*k
\.-raL) '4>--a- ig 'J-
0.1
80.0.160.240.320.400.
Time (min)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: HMTBO0
Date: ogtoVw-Tirne: 12:11i12
PROJ.ECT TNFORMATTON
Client: iuc
Test Well: mw05
lnitial Displacement: 0.EOg ft
Wellbore Hadius: O.ZTT-
Screen Length: 1O.ft
G ravel Pack- Porosi-ty: 0. g g
WELL DATA (mwOSI
Casing Radius: 0.167ft
Well Skin Radius: 027 ft
Total Well Penetratiiln Depth:10. ft
AQUIFEB DATA
Saturated Thickness: 10. ft Anisotropy Ratio (KzlKr): 1.
Aquifer Model: UnconflR.qd
K @$S$&0&tUmin
SJ!UIIPN
Solution Method Bouwer-Rice
Y0 = 0.2695 ft
209-J lt/ll'd 9/9-t 099 I gBZ0Z9+I13HJ 013 0u0^H_['0rl urdgr: l0 z0-/u-srv
o
ATTACHME!{T iO
d)
Eoo
.Eo..go
Client: iuc
Test Welt: mw05
lnitial Displacement: _0.533 ft
Wellbore Radius: 022*ii-
Screen Len$h: 1q, ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.99
Aquifer Model: UrJconfined
K = glg1E$e{Vmin
DRAFT
- \ -' i-:-'k* i) en. t i'Yr\4 d#. JE ^
,) lvk k
4 z,rt"4- ob*.'&'
160. 240.
Time (min)
PROJECT INFORMATION
wEl-f PATA (mwos)
Casing Radius: 0.1.67 ft
Well Skin Fladius: 0.2711
Total Well Penetration-bepth: 10. ft
sofu.TtoN
Solution Method: Bgywgr-Rice
y0 = 0.4994 fl
D ata S et: H :V 1.q gO0Mvdtst0.-2$gtesot v\mwO5 bret.aqt
Date: 08107102 Time: 12:1't:00
AQUIFER DATA
saturated rhickness: 10. ft Anisotropy Ratio (KzJKr): 1.
209-l fi/st d 9/9-1 099 I tEZ0Z9+lIlH3 031 ouo^H-rl|orJ urdEtr t0 z0_10_rnv
E-Ztr]F2,
r..U
Fts
at-
5q-
0D :-U>GP,ED
ME.e
CI.8
-{(6dEo-*o
=EE*
h.
T&
EE
ii:ii!iiiiti
iiiiiiiqiiii'r\t,iijiriiliii:l:iiliiiiiiiihiiitlii'iiiiii:riiiiiittii;
I
ririlttPjii
i---------'i--------i--------+ --------1---*"---.i.-"------i-\------.j---------i.---.-"-.{..."-
:li | ; ! I i ib i I ii i i i i i !\ i : ii.-.......j .------j---------j-----.___j._-__.___t... ___..i-__-\__.: i;iiiii-"1'-"P"]""".,'ii i i i i i | \' ii i i i i i i bi !i r i i : : | \: ii-------- j""""-1"""-*i--"----i*----+--------i--------\.---------.i
a
0)
)
C
E
0)
E
-!)
Qzoa,;). q!
r.t' A e-lH \-/ F!
EB8
E
@
J)j
f
E
t0
DoL)a
o
o
E
ooo
o
fls;t*aI'\OO\S._
.lSSS*_-lrttt
) uMopHaJp
099 I e0z0z9+
tn
s
I
(1
9/9-l209-J t|/8t d
ee I..r-
llSHl 039 ouo^H-IrorJ lrdgr: l0 z0-/0-3ny
1.
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
ATTACHMENT 12
DRAFT
oI
0.
lnitial Displacemeni: 1.11 ft
Wellbore Radius: 0.3f8 ft
Screen Length: l!* ft
Gravel Pack Porosity:
1.
Time (min)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Time: 12:11:26
WELL DATA (mw17\
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft
Well Skin Ftadius: 0.gZB tt
Tota I W el I P en etratT6i-Depth :
0.01 0.1 10.1 00.
18. ft
Data Set: H lzl g000Urvdtst02\aqtqqgLvJEqJ Z.ggtDate: 08lOTl02
Glient: iuQ
Test Well: mw17
Aqulfer Model: Unconfined
Kr = 5.045E-0s fumin
Kz/Rr =ll--
Solution Method: KGS Model
ss = o.ooo17o6 ft-1
209-J n/02 d 919-I 099 1E0Z0Z9+
10.
DRAFT
E
co
Lo l,()(u
E.
-(tto
0.1 16. 24.
Time (min)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set H :\71 8000\hvdtst02\aqtesolv\mw1 Tbr.aqt
Date: 08lo7lo2
32.40.8.0.
nme:12:11:38
lnitial Displacement: 1.11 ft
Wellbore Radius: 0.328 ft
Screen Length: l-A-T-
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
WELL DATA (mw17)
Casing Fladius: 0.167 ft
WellSkin Radius: 0.328 ft
Total Well PenetraffiDepth: 18. ft
ATTACHMENT 13
PROJECT INFORMATION
Anisotropy Ratio (K/Kr): 1.
Aquifer Model: Unconfined
K = 0.0001073 ft/min
Solution Methodr Bouwer-Eige
y0 = 1.004 ft
209-l Le/t7,'d 9/9-r 099 I 0AZ0Z9+IllHS 013 ouo^H-uto.rJ UdoI: l0 z0-10-rnv
9,Jo-
v/ i=Lu5oc o)r- .Efrsl"- co€fgdg
PbBEE-
)
(Jz2;Aai*-h-i \-/' H
EE8ffi,
gl B €E
HHfiE$E
+
E-zrd
Ex
U
2H
a
0)
)
C
E
o
E
1-1!
uo
I
.l!.r..--------
\
Do
!,
o
f
E
b
T
@
L
(D
6
ot
ooooo
-- -1--- -- - --.-. - -
- !-r_ __ -_
(?
209-J nlzz'd 9/9-I
-f,{ti
I13H3 03! 0u0lH-u0rJ udor: l0 z0-/0-!ny
LDSNG)
Nett
u14oPrr4BJP
lnN
s
I
e eJ )
099 I tBz0z9+
--+--
a
rn -L[i=(r -o)
r-ca'6lJl =
$-g
-{ -!dq9H
B,E
=-
p
Frz
14
EL)
h
E{
_o_l
a
o
=C.
E
CD
E
rJJ
lr-LL
uo
()
,.r AVCil5
f;8H8(,(J
p
oJ
q)
)E
tl)
!
@
Lfboo
E
ooooo fltuFpdp 5:
HI S [I,*'FEI',Ai-:.LFI qN=(o+'F
frl E5?);AFr *.il#EgsSlJ)NtDNS
Se-llt
ur.4opMBJp
sLoSN
GO
I
(10 eJ )
flSHJ 039 0u0AH-u0lj ud8r: l0 z0-,10_sn,l099 1gtz0z9+209-l n/ez'd gr9-r
1.
ATTACHMETIT 16
0.8
0.6
0.
0.0'l
Glient; iuc
Test Well: mw18
Saturated Thickness: 45. ft
AquiferModel: Unconfined
Kr = 0.0005187 ttlmin
Kz/Rr = 1.-
1.
Time (min)
PRoJECT TNFORMATTON
AOUIFER DATA
SOLUTION
Solution Method: KGS Model
Ss =t.1z3E-07 fi-1
100.
DRAFT
oI
0.4
0.2
10.0.1
i 4a".,
09g1t8z0z9+ 4 a "c'1-Olu*,t.
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H :\71 8000\hvdtst02\aqtesolv\mw1 8.aq!
Date: WOrJgz Time: 12:1 1:S0
lnitial Displacement:
WELL DATA (mw18)
Casing Fladius: 0.107 ft
WellSkin Radius: €@t
Total Well Penetratid-n Depth: 11ftGravel Pack Porosity: SQ
209-J filtz d slg-t llSHt 0l! ou0AH-Irorl lId8r: l0 z0-10-lnY
10.
1.
Co
Eo,o(s
trLaE
0.1
0.01
ATTA.CH]IIENT 17
DRAFT
Tirne (min)
wElL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H :V 1 8000\hvdtsi02\aqtesolv\mw I 8br. aqt
oate: og/0ffi Time: 1zi1z:o7
P.H .O,JECT I N FORMATION
Client iuc
Test Well: mwl B
Aoutl:R. pSTA
Saturated Thickness: 45.tt Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Rr): j,
lnitial Displacement: 1.Zg ft
Wellbore Badius: 0.328 ft
Screen Length: 45.'T-
Gravel Paok Porosity: 03
WELL DATA (mw18)
Casing Radius: 0,167 ft
Well Skin Radius: 0.328 ft
Total Well Penetrati6n-Depth: 45. ft
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Flice
K = 0.0008149 ftlmin y0 = 1.191 fr
209-J lt/92 d 9,19-I 099 I e0z0z9+Il3H3 031 ou0^H-rllorJ Irdorr t0 zo_/o.'nv
aF5s
lf ; \.lii "<-t-t- g,
iflsre
CI.9
-l (EdEor*ss
=-;
rc-t-ztrle
$.Us
E
a
oJ
:)
C.
E
c)
E
1)
l-l&
uo
(J
z
L/Ag" ;:A ^ t"-'
866ffi,
rc
o
JJ
o
)
E
a
!
@
3
@
@o
E
ooooo
fltu**rS t0 S LI')IJ)NNNtrSOFtttteoJ ) uHoPl.aJp(?
209-J n/gz'd 919-I !||3H3 039 0u0^H-ur0rJ urd0g: l0 z0-10-rnv099 1tBZ0Z9+
il
l,l
g
ffi*tr o)l-c'a'6lufFCo.gl<u
dHgb*
=E
=-
o\
FzrdErA-p
i-F
a
(D
fc
E
o
E
IJ
FlJ-
E(f
C)zH
\.., Al/trxe.AOE
HEB
.()Pl ge
#l ii o u[il h-E*98
H *H:!g eH ,r ,[ ll v.,1, *l- Vi tT jln :X *:,*v,
]C
o
JJ
(,
a
E
a
1J
0)
L)ao
o
Eooooo
eJ ) UYoPHSJP
099 ltEe0zg+
s
LO
N
I(l e
9,lg-1 l1lH3 0l! ouolH-l|rorJ urdog: l0 zo_/0-rnv
209-J l\/tz d
2.
1.6
tr otrcoqootr-DJro
ATTACI]IMENT 20
DRAFTg 1,2
oEoo(s
E..o nao v'e
0.4
0.
0.01 0,1 1.
Time (min)
SOLUTION
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set H:V1 8O0gbvdlstO2\aqtesotv\mwl 9p.aq!Date: Time: 12:18:42
Aquifer Model: Leaky
T = 0.001538 fPlminr/B=@'-
$y1 = 2.24
Solution Method: Moench tC_ase 2)
S =0.0273B = IoosE-os
Hw = 6.165ii-
client: iuc FFoJEcr INF.RMATI'N
Test Well: mw19g
AQUIFEH. DATA
Saturated Thickness: 49. ft Anisotropy Ratio (K/Kr): 1.
Wells
Well Narne x (ft Y (fr)
mw19p 0 0
Well Name x (ft)Y (ft)
o mw19p 0
209-J n/82'd 9/9-i 099 ltEz0z9+IllHl 03! 0u0^H-u0rJ llrdog: t0 zc-/0_sn\i
ATTACHMENT 21
DRAFT
ts
o
0.
0.01 1.
Time (min)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
D ata S et : t1 :\Z-1 g Q.9.9-\bvdtst 02\a qtg.so !v)rn w 1, I df p. a qt
Date: OBlO7l02
10.0.1 100,
801 ft
Glient: iuc
rest W6iif lnyvlq
lnitial Displacement: 1,15 tt
Wel lbore Badi us: q.S?g-n
Screen Length: 47rft
Graval Pack Porosity: 0.3
Time: 12:12;53
PROJECT INFORMATION
WELL DATA (mw19)
Casing Radius: 0,167 ft
Well Skin Radius: 0.328 ft
Total Well Penetratiffi-Depth:
Aquifer Model: Unconfined
Kr = 3.333E-05 fUmin
KzlKr = 1:-
SOLUTION
Solution Method: KGS Model
.,Ss - 1.444E-06 ft'I
209-J fi/62'd 9/9-r 099 I t0z0zs+113H3 013 ouolH_ruojJ Ird0g: l0 z0-/0_8n.i
ATTACTIMENT 22
DRAFT
0.
0.01
Client: iuq
Test Well: mwl9
lnitial Displacement: 1.15 ft
Wellbore Radius: 0.328-?
Screen Length: 47.7
Gravel Pack Porosity: !!l
Aquifer Model: Confined
Kr = 3.205E-05 fvmin
Kzlqr = Tl-
10.0.1 1.
Time (min)
100.
PBOJECT INFORMATION
WELL DATA (mw19l
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft
Well Skin Radius: 0.328 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 47.11
SOLUT!ON
Soluiion Method: KGS Model
ss = B-2Q6E-06 ft-1
Data Set: H:\71
Time: 12:12:40
AOUIFEH DATA
Saturated Thickness: 48. ft
zo!-J n/08'd gl9-r 099 1802029+113H3 03! oU0lH-IrorJ Ilrdog: t0 z0-l0rnv
10.
ATTACHMENT 23
DRAFT
coc(Dl.o(d
E.(t,o
0.1
20.0.80.100.
Yo
WELL TE.qT ANALYSIS
Pala S9!: !lVl800q\hvdtst0Date: O8lO7l0? Time: 12:13:12
PROJECT INFORMATION
Glient: iuc
Test Wellf mwl9
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 47. tt Anisotropy Ratio (t{z/Kr): l,
lnitial Displacement: 141 fi
Wellbore Fladius; O,SZB ft
Screen Length: 30.-ft
Gravel Paok Porosity: 0,3
wELt.DATA (mw19)
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft
Well Skin Radius: 0.g2g ft
Total Wetl Penetrat'i6F-Depth: 48. ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfine{ solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 6.999E:0Q fUrnin y0 = 1.088 ft
zol-J lt/n d 9t9-1 099 I t0z0z9+lltH3 03! ouolH_urorJ urdlgr l0 z0_10_rnv
10.
DRAFT
c
@
LL/(t)l.o
-go.
U)o
0.1
0.80.20.100.
ATTACHMENT 24
\ /-ELL rEST ANALYSTS
Data Set: H :\7 1 8000\hvdtst02\aqtesolv\mwl gbrc.aq!
Date: oalo- Time:12:18:zB
rRoJq-cT TNFoHMAToN
Client iuc
Test Well: mw19
AOUtEER.pATA
saturated rhickness: 47, tt Anisotropy Ratio (KzlKr): 1 .
lnitial Displacement 1.41 ft
Wellbore Radius: O.3m
Screen Length: 47.7
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
Casing Radius: Q.167 ft
Well Skin Radius: 0.328 ft
TotalWelt Penetration Depth: 47.ft
Aquifer Model: Confined
K = 4.482E-05 fVmin
Solution Method: Bouwer-Rico
y0 = 1.038 ft
209-J tt/zt d 9r9-r 099 I eBZ0Z9+fi3H3 oil ou0^H-ruojl rudlg: l0 z0-/o-rnv
g.
-tn
ffi*Et:)
t- L-aoUJ :]Fc
CI.83csdB
Xio)HE
=-
a
o
t-)
f
C
SE
0)
E
,
l(\
Fzrd:a
(.)
f.F.1 .
l-u-
uo
U
ZC :;d5Qo14
HE8
(?eoJ ) uMopMsJP
z0s-J n/*'d 9,19-1 099]ttz0zg+
!
o
o
f
E
U'
!6
Ll
(t)
o
o
ts
ooooo
al eA5 e Ss
El E =5:tL!tUr_L,;
bl \sI; =HI E;#sg
n3H3 031 ouolH-llrorJ lrdlg: l0 zo-/o-rnv
'10.
oo o
ATTACHMENT 26
DRAFT
Ftrq)Eq) l.osCLU'n
0.1
16.4.0.8. 12.
Time (min)
20.
WELL T-EST ANALYSTS_
Data Set H:\71
Date: 08107 Time: J2J13:58
PBOJECT INFORMATION
Client iuc
Test Wdi[ rnw2o
AAUIFER q l4
saturated rhickness: 12, tl Anisotropy Flatio (KzlKr): 't .
WELL DATA (mw20).
Initial Displacemenil lllp ft
Wellbore Radius: 0.328 ft
Screen Lengh: FGravel Pack Porosity: QG
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft
Well Skin Radius: 0.328 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth:12, ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Riqe
K = 1.833E-05 fVmin y0 = 0,6588 ft
209-J nnt d 9/9-I 099 lEEZ0Z9+nil3 olu ouolH-urorJ l|rdlg: l0 z0-10_rnv
PJtL
ffi+(E oDl-Eu)qIIJ =F"- ,:s€fg
d^s
SE
=,c=-
iiiltt
-l---.----- -- -{-- ----
a)
oD
)c
E
o
E
J
t-GI
E<z
rdt{tI
U#tsF
l-U-
uo
q
o,,.'a\./ ail5QOF{
EU8
nl e $F5l S Hu
tl H=ene
FI I;#Jg
'rf
o
!,
:
f
E
o)
Eo
)ao
oE
ooooo
NN(Nm(dd(lr
MOpMpJp
so
N
I ooJ ) u
lllHS 03! 0U0AH-I|oJJ lld l!: l0 7i-,,:-:::099 I e6Z0Z9+209-J tE/it'd 9/9-r
'1.
E o o ooooQ;:
ATTACHMENT 28
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.
0.1
Client: iuc
Test Well: mw22
lnitial Displacement: :1,91 ft
Wellbore Ftadius: 0.328 ft
Screen Length: 51. ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
Aquifer Model: Unconfined
Kr = 2.048E-06 fUmin
KztKr = Tl-
DRAFT
oII
0,2
100.
PROJECT INFOHMATION
wELI-_PflrA (mwza)
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft
Well Skin Ftadius: 0j.328|t
Total Well Penetration Depth: 51. ft
SOLUTION
Solution Method: l(GLModel
Ss = o.oo19B9 fr-1
10.
Time (min)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data set: H:\71 8000\hvdtst02\aqtesolv\rnw22.aql
Date: oql07l93! Time: 1!:14'37
Saturated Thickness:
209-J l\lge d 919-r 099 ltEz0z9+113H3 019 ou0^H-urorl udlg: l0 z0-/o-rnv
ATTACHMENT 29
DRAFT
Saturated Thickness: 51. ft
Aquifer Model: Unegdined
K = 1.559E;9.5 fUmin
40, 60.
Time (min)
AQUIFER DATA
Anisotropy Flatio (KzlKr) :
SOLUTION
Solution Method: Bouwer-Flige
Y0 = 0.8 ft
Set:
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Time: 12:14:49
Client: jg
Test Well: fn]g22
lnitial Displacement: l-.OL ft
Wellbore Hadius: 0.328 ft
Screen Length: 5'1. tt
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.Q
WELL DATA (mw22_l
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft
WellSkin Radius: 0.328 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: $1. ft
209-J tE/tt d 919-I 099 ItEZ0Z9+n3H3 0l! 0u0AH-u0rJ udzg: l0 zo-/0-snv
INrrnNeuoNAL
UneNluvr (use)
ConponertoN
Independen ce plaz.a, suite gEO . 1050 Seventeenth street . Denver, Co 80265 ' 303 628 7798 (main) ' 303 389 ar25 (far)
May 10,2002
Mr. Don Verbica
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste
288 North 1460 West
P.O. Box 144880
Salt Lake CitY, UT 84114-4880
Re:Interim Action Involving Pumping and Reuse of Chloroform Contaminated
Water
Dear Don:
For the past several years, Intemational Uranium (USA) Corporation ("IUSA") has
worked with the Utah Division of Radiation Control ("DRC") to investigate chloroform-
contaminated groundwater at its White Mesa Mill (the "Mill") located near Blanding, Utatr.
nRC nas givei preliminary approval to a proposal by IUSA to perform an interim action at the
facility ,rrri.. ttri utatr groundwat", "orr"riire action rules2, subject to your agreement that such
action does not raise *y isr.r under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA").
The interim action would involve pumping chloroform-contaminated water from the
perched water zone atthe Mill site for use as process water in an upcoming Mill run. In addition
io partially cleaning up the aquifer and providing an additional source of valuable process water,
this interim action will serve as an extended pump test to provide useful information about the
hydrogeology of the aquifer in the vicinity of the Mill, and will assist in the identification of final
corrective action alternatives for the contamination, as necessary.
The viability of this action depends on using the water in the process during the Mill run,
which depends on ih. regulatory status of the water under RCRA. IUSA would not proceed, and
the Nucliar Regulatory
-Commission ('NRC") would not allow IUSA to proceed, if the action
would result in the facility becoming subject to RCRA jurisdiction as a treatment, storage or
2 See lJtahAdmin. Code R3 I 7-6-6. I 5(BX2).
Mr. Don Verbica
May 10,2002
Page2 of 5
disposal facility. The following discussion explains two bases3 for our conclusion that the
chloroform_contaminated water is not a RcIiA solid and/or hazardous waste under the
circumstances here. we request written concrurence from the Division of solid and Hazardous
W"ri" t.pSHW') that IUSA'S use of the groundwater -in the manner described will not be
,,r[.;.Oio RCRAjurisdiction, but will be rJgulated solely under the Atomic Energy Act (the
"AEA"), as amended.
A. Th" G"oundwater is Not a RCRA Characteristic or Listed Hazardous Waste
The contaminated groundwater at issue contains chloroform concentrations which are, on
averase. well below the t&icity characterisric leaching procedure ("TCLP") regulatory limit of
;;';";il;';;r-i; CFR $ 2il.;4. The groundwater therefore is not a characterislic hazardous
waste for chloroforn or any other constiiuent. Nor is the chloroform in the groundwatet a listed
hazardous waste. Although there are multiple hazardous waste listings associated with
;ffi;i;,i'ir" onty listinipotentially applicable un{er the circumstances here is u044, which
applies to commerciafy pri.. formutations of chloroform. IUSA has completed a good faith
investigation of the potential sources of chloroform in the groundwattl'u Tit investigation has
revealed that the most probable source is from laboratory operations in which chloroform was
used as a reagent in mineral assays and in bench scale extraction tests on potential ores.
wastewaters containing chloroform from these laboratory operations were discharged to sink
drains that historically"flowed to leach fields. These residues were not pure formulations of
chloroform and therefore do not meet the U}44hazardous waste listing'7
, A third basis not discussed in this letter, but which IUSA reserves, is that the chloroform-contaminated
sroundwater is associated with the processing of uranium ore andis-therefore lle'(2) byproduct material, exempt
fl;ih; icne defihition of "solid waste." See 40 cFR S 261'a@)@)'
o Temporary monitoring well TW4-l !4 9n-. sample result at 6.0 mg/l' However, all other samples from the well
and a subsequent sample were appreciably below that amount'
5 Specifically, the following listings upJll-ir.circumstances where chloroform is associated with: production of
chlorinated aliphatics (F024"or rozi); aistlttation wastes from acetaldehyde production (K009 or K0l0); heavy ends
i"i oirrlitir"n of ethylene dichloridi (K029); heavy ends from vinyl chloride distillation (K020); aqueous spent
antimony catalyst ftom fluoromethane production (K021); steam stripper wastes from l,l,l-trichloroethane
pi"ar"iil" tiOzgl; ahphogm cell waste from chlorine production (K073); solvent recovery column wastes from
toluene diisocyanate pioaultlon (Kll6); process wastes from production ofcertain chlorotoluenes or benzoyl
chlorides (K149, K150, or Klsl); Uagtrouse and filter solids from carbamate and carbamyl oxime production
tifitJ- none of trres. p.o""rr., *ur "irr performed at the White Mesa Mill or in the surrounding area'
u While the groundwater investigation is still ongoing with DRC to determine the scope and extent of contamination
and, as necessary, to identiff cJrrective action
-alteiatives, the investigation conducted so. far is sufftcient for the
p"rr;"*;"iid.niirying prouaute chloroform sources and determining that the groundwater is not a /isted hazardous
waste.
7 see 40 cFR g 261.33(d) comment ("The phrase'commercial chemical product or manufacturing chemical
intermediate..., refers io a chemical substance which is manufactured or formulated for commercial or
manufacturing use which consists of the commercially pure grade of the chemical, any technical grades of the
chemical that are produced or marketed, and all formulations in which the chemical is the sole active ingredient' It
Mr. Don Verbica
May 10,2002
Page 3 of5
Other potential sources considered during the investigation were disposal of
commercially pure formulations of chloroform down the lab drains, tampering, and chloroform-
containing rereases from the Mill's tailings cells, Fly Ash.pond, or landfill. The likelihood that
;;" i#"lations of chloroform meetirig the U044 fisting description were ever discharged
lirJv down the lab drains is remote. First, laboratory staff had no reason to do so because
chloroform is a valuable and necessary laboratory reagent. Second, the Mill has a history of
utilizing bottled and drummed organic chemicis (including chloroform)^y",il the container
contents are fully consumed, .r.rlf the contents have exceeded their shelf life (an acceptable
;;;;;" in crude- *ruy. and extraction trials). Finafly, interviews with laboratory personnel
revealed no instanc", *h.r, pure formulations of chlorofofin were ever discharged down the lab
drain.
The possibility of unauthorized tampering (e.g., intentional introduction by a vandal of
p*. .rrioroform into the groundwater at wett trrtw-+) was also considered as a potential source
of chloroform contamina=tion. This possibitity was -ruled out when further groundwater
investigation data revealed that the r"oi. of th9 chloroform contamination extends beyond the
immediate viciniry and upgradient of MW-4; if tampering had been the source of chloroform'
more isolated contamination would have been expecied. Further, the investigation did not frnd
any direct evidence of tampering or vandalism'
The possibility that there have been chloroform-containing releases from the Mill's
tailings cells is extremely remote. None of the monitoring wells at the Mill site (including MW-
4 and the temporary chloroform investigation wells) showed the groundwater with the major ion
fingerprint that would be diagnostic 6f tailings solutions. Even assuming, for the sake of
argument, that such releases d]id occur, the tailings cells have received the same chloroform-
containing laboratory waste that was previously discharged to the leach fields and which' as
discussed-above, is iot a listedwaste'8
Finally, the possibility that chloroform-containing releases originated from the Fly Ash
pond or landfill aso is remotl. Laboratory wastes and chemicals were not discharged to the Fly
Ash pond, ,ro, ** process wastes, including laboratory wastes and chemicals, disposed of in
the landfill. The investigation does not suppon either one of these locations as the source of the
chloroform contaminatio-n. egan, even if there were chloroform-containing releases from these
units, there is no conclusive evldence that such chloroform originated from a listed source'
In sum, the most probable source of chloroform in the groundwater is from a non'listed
source. Available information strongly suggests that other potential sources of chloroform are
unlikely. Moreover, there is no "on.lrrrive evidence the chloroform originated from a listed
does not refer to a material, such as a manufacturing process waste, that contains any of the substances listed in
paragraph (e) or (f)'")
E In addition, any wastes in the tailing cells are 1le.(2) byproduct material which is exempt from the RCRA
A.frition of solid or hazardous waste. See 40 CFR g 261.a(aXa).
Mr. Don Verbica
May 10,2002
Page 4 of 5
source. Under these circumstances, EPA guidance consistently provides that the wastewater may
be assumed not to be alistedhazardous waste''
B. The Groundwater is Not a RCRA Solid Waste When Used in the Uranium Recoven
Process
Under the proposed interim action, IUSA would use the chloroform-contaminated
groundwater as a substitute for normal process water dqit, the next Mill run' Approximately 2:
t;;b* per minute of this groundwater would be used as a direct substitute for that volume of
normal process water, out of a total of approximately 500 gallons per minute of process water
,rr"j i" the uranium recovery process. N-ormal process water consists of raw water piped to the
f;1tt aor' orr-.ite water supplies and raffrnate tailings fluid that is recirculated back into the
;;;;&.
-
Th" ,ecirculated nuias contain a small amount of organic residuals (e.g., kerosene,
'u*irr", and isodecanol) from the solvent extraction process that is part of the uranium recovery
;;"."|.-_TIre chloroform in the groundwater, at relatively low concentrations, will not interfere-*tr, ,fr. uranium recovery process, will not be present in detectable concentrations in the
vllo*"ut" product, will b; present at negligible, if any, concentrations in the Mill tailings, and
will not pose any potential risks to health oithe environment.l0 Under these circumstances, the
g;;;;#er is am effective substitute for normal process water and is exempt from the RCRA
E.i*ition of solid waste'rr
C. Conclusion
As discussed above, DRC has given preliminary approval to IUSA',s proposed interim
action a p*o, chloroform-contaminated water from th3 perched water.zone for use as process
*ui", in tire uranium recovery process during an upcoming Mill run, subject to your concurrence
with our RCRA analysis as slt-out above. NRC will not approve of the. proposed action without
frrri i.""i"ing DSHW's concunence that the action will not result in the facility becoming
,"bd; a"If egenCRA jurisdiction. The groundwater is not a hazardous waste because it
ao.s not exhibit any hazard ius characteristics and, based on a good faith investigation into the
,o*". of the chloroform, does not meet any hazardous waste listings. Even if the groundwater
was a hazardous waste, the water is an effective substifute for normal water used in the process
*J, * such, is exempt from the RCRA definition of solid waste. Because it is our view that the
gro*a*ut.i i, .*rrnit from RCRA under either of these two bases, it is not necessary for us to
iirru* our third basis in any detail at this time, which is that the chloroform is I le.(2) byproduct
material in any event and, as such, is exempt from RCRA'
s See references cited in footnote 13 of IUSA Protocol For Determining Whether Alternate Feed Materials Are
Listed Hazardous Wastes (November 16,1999)'
,o As a practical matter, most of the chloroform in the groundwater will evaporate gur-ctlV when it becomes exposed
a iir. uirUi"rt air such that negligible, if any, chloroform concentrations will remain in the tailings sent to the Mill's
tailings imPoundment.
t see 40 cFR $ 261.2(e)(t)(ii); see also 40 cFR g 261.a(a)(17) (recognizing that secondary materials may be
recovered for their water values)'
Mr. Don Verbica
May 10,2002
Page 5 of5
All of the parties involved in this process (i.e., IUSA, DRC and NRC) require DSHW's
---:lt 1-^ -^-.1^+^,l
Thank you for yogr cooperation in this matter. Please call the undersigned (303-389-
4130) or Lindsay ford (SOt-536-6605) should you have any questions'
concrurence with this analYsis
solely under the AEA.
cc:
and that the proposed use of the groundwater will be regulated
Vice President and General Counsel
William J. Sinclair, UDEQ
Fred Nelson, Utah Asst. Attorney General
William von Till, U-S. NRC, Washington, D'C'
Charles Cain, U.S. NRC, Region IV
Richard Graham, U.S. EPA Region VIII
Terry Brown, U.S. EPA Region VIII
Loren Morton, UDEQ
Ron Hochstein,IUSA
Harold Roberts,IUSA
Michelle Rehmann,IUSA
Lindsay Ford, Attomey, Parsons, Behle & Latimer
INrBnNerro*otl
UnaNIuvt (usa)
ConponATIoN
IndependencePlaza, Suite 950 o 1050 Seventeenth Street. Denver, CO 80265.303 628 7798 (main) ' 303 389 4725 (fax)
May 24,2002
VIA OVERNIGHT MAIL
State of Utah Department of Environmental Quality
Mr. William J. Sinclair, Director
Division of Radiation Control
168 North 1950 West
P.O. Box 144850
Salt Lake city, UT 84114-4850
Re: Work PIan for Hydraulic Testing of perched zone
Dear Mr. Sinclair:
Attached for your review is a Work Plan for Hydraulic Testing of perched zone monitor wells at
the White Mesa Mill site. This plan was developed following the meetings of April 17 and April
24,2002, between representatives of International Uranium (USA) Corporation and the State of
Utah Division of Radiation Control.
In order that we can maintain our field program schedule we will need approval of this plan no
later than June 28, 2002. We would appreciate your comments on this Work Plan at your earliest
convenience.
Sincerely,
w.il44
Harold R. Roberts
Vice President - Corporate Development
International Uranium (USA) Corporation
Mr. William J. Sinclair
Work Plan for Hydraulic Testing of perched zone
Page2 of2
Cc: Dianne Nielson, UDEQ
Don Ostler, UDEQ
Loren Morton, DRC
David Cunningham,DEQ, SE District Health Department
Dave Arrioti, DEQ, SE District Health Department
Fred Nelson, Utah Asst. Attorney General
Terry Brown, U.S. EPA Region VIII
Richard Graham, U.S. EPA Region VIII
Dan Gillen, U.S.NRC, Washington D.C.
William von Till, NRC
Charles Cain, U.S. NRC, Region IV
Ron F. Hochstein, IUSA
David C. Frydenlund, IUSA
Michelle R. Rehmann, IUSA
T. Kenneth Miyoshi, IUSA
Ron E. Berg,IUSA
S :\FIRR\Administrative\S inclairltrhydraulicworkplan. doc
HYDRA ULIC TESTING WORKPLAN
WHITE MESA URANIUM MILL SITE
NEAR BLANDING, UTAH
Prepared for:
INTERNATIONAL URANIUM (USA) CORPORATION
1050 17th Street, Suite 950
Denver, Colorado 80265
Prepared by:
HYDRO GEO CHEM,INC.
5l West Wetmore Road, Suite 101
Tucson, Arizona 85705-1678
(s20) 293-1500
May 21,2002
HYDRO GEO CF{EM, II\TC.
Eruyirorurnental S cience (r Tb cbn ology
1.
)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTIONANDOBJECTIVES ......1
PROPOSEDTESTMETHODS... .....2
2.1 DataCollection ....3
2.2 DataAnalysis and Meeting with UDEQ . . . . .4
REPORTING .......6
FIGURES
Well [.ocations
Hydraulic Testing Worlplan White Mesa UraniumMill Site Near Blarding, Utah
G://l SOURepors/Hydraulic testing
3.
I. INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES
This work plan describes the procedures to be used to conduct and analyze hydraulic tests
at perched zone monitoring wells MW-l, Mw-3, Mw-5, Mw-16, Mw-17, Mw-18, Mw-19
MW-20, and MW-22 (Figure 1) at the White Mesa Uranium Mill Site located near Blanding, Utah,
and is pursuant to meetings between International Uranium (USA) Corporation (IUSA), Hydro Geo
Chem,Inc. (HGC), and the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ), on April 17 and
Apil24,2}02. The primary objective of this investigation is to refine permeability estimates of the
perched groundwate r zoneat the site by conducting similar hydraulic tests at each well. These tests
will consist of pumping each well, measuring water removal rates, and collecting water level data
during both pumping and water level recovery phases. To the extent possible, data from each well
will be analyzed using similar methods, and both drawdown and recovery data will be utilized in the
analyses. Testing and analytical procedures may be adjusted based on unforseen site and test
conditions in an effort to achieve meaningful, interpretable results.
Hydraulic Testing Workplan White Mesa Uranium Mill Site Near Blanding, Utah
G:r/ I 8oo/Reports/Hydraulic testing
2. PROPOSED TEST MBTHODS
At each tested well, data will be collected during both drawdown (pumping) and recovery
(pump off) phases. Initial pumping rates for each well will be based on current hydrogeologic
conditions (primarily saturated thickness) and on existing permeability estimates. Wells may also
be pumped at more than one flow rate based on conditions encountered during the initial pumping.
Wells with low saturated thickness and/or low permeability will be pumped at low flow rates to
allow for a longer drawdown testing period. Wells that will need to be pumped at low rates include
MW-3, MW-5, and MW-20 (because of low saturated thickness ranging from approximately 5 to
12 feet) and MW-17 (because of low permeability). Very low rates will be needed at MW-3 and
MW-5 because of low permeability (in the 10s to 10{ centimeters per second (cm/s) range) in
addition to the small saturated thickness. MW-16 may not be testable because this well is
periodically dry. MW-l, MW-18, MW-19, and MW-22 (which are the remainder of the wells to be
tested) may also need to be pumped at relatively low rates because, although relatively large
saturated thicknesses exist at these locations, previously estimated permeabilities are small (also in
the 10 s to 10{ cm/s range).
Water removal rates ranging from approximately r/ru to I gallon, per minute (gpm) are
anticipated to be appropriate for the tests. Specific data collection and analysis procedures are
discussed in the following sections.
Hydraulic Testing Workplan White Mesa Uranium Mill Siie Near Blanding, Utah
G:Il I 800/Reports/Hydraulic testing
2.1 DataCollection
Drawdown phase testing will consist of pumping each well at an initial rate of approximately
tl ruto'A gpm, measuring water levels using a submersible pressure transducer connected to a data
logger, and measuring water removal rates using a graduated container of appropriate volume and
a stopwatch. An electric water level meter will be available as a backup for measuring water levels.
If the initial pumping results in excessive dewatering or insufficient drawdown, the test will be
stopped, the well allowed to recover, and then a second constant rate test performed at an
appropriately higher or lower rate. An attempt will be made to adjust the pumping rate to limit the
maximum drawdown in the well to Vzthe initial saturated thickness. Once water levels drop to the
depth of the pump and/or pressure transducer (which will both be placed near the bottom of the
well), the pump will be shut off and the water level recovery measured.
A low flowrate pump such as a bladder pump (the one ruSA uses to purge site monitoring
wells or a similar pump), or alternatively a submersible pump such as a Redi-Flo, will be used to
remove water from the wells. These types of pumps can usually be adjusted to achieve low pumping
rates and are capable of pumping against the hydrostatic heads of + 100 feet that will be encountered
at the site due to the large depths to water. To achieve the very low water removal rates that may
be needed in some wells, the pump discharge line will be fitted with a "Tee" connector and valves.
One side of the "Tee" will be connected to tubing that will extend to near the base of the well and
that will return a portion of the pumped water to the base of the well. The other side of the "Tee"
Hydraulic Testing Workplan White Mesa Uranium MiU Site Near Blanding, Utah ^G:f/1800/Reports/Hydrautc testing 5
will be routed to a graduated container of appropriate volume to measure rates of net water removal
from the well. The valves will be used to adjust the net water removal rate to the desired rate.
2.2 Data Analysis and Meeting with UDEQ
Drawdown, recovery, and net water removal rate data will be analyzedusing commercially
available well hydraulics analysis programs such as WHIP (developed and marketed by HGC) or
AQTESOLV. Some analyses may also be checked by hand calculations using, for example, the
Jacob-Cooper methodology when appropriate. Assumptions used in analyzing the data for
transmissivity at each location will be based in part on existing lithologic and well construction data,
and in part on any behavior of the drawdown and recovery data that may be suggestive of particular
hydrogeologic conditions at each test location. Some hydrogeologic conditions that will affect the
interpretation of the tests include, for example, saturated thickness, presence or absence of confining
or semi-confining conditions, and partial well penetration effects. ruSA and HGC will work closely
with UDEQ to establish an agreed-upon set of assumptions for each test that are based on existing
hydrogeologic data and any relevant features in the test data that may be indicative of particular
hydrogeologic conditions. It is important to note that single well pump tests can be intelpreted only
to provide an estimate of the transmissivity of the formation and that any calculation of the
permeability requires independent knowledge of the saturated thickness of the formation. Agreed upon
assumptions will be used in the analysis of the data to calculate either an average permeability over the
saturated thickness at each test location or a reasonable range of permeabilities for each location.
Hydraulic Testing Workplan White Mesa Uranium Mill Site Near Blanding, Utah ,
G:f/1800/Reports/Hydraulic testing +
A meeting with UDEQ will be scheduled to discuss the interpretation once preliminary
results have been obtained and prior to preparation of a final report.
Hydraulic Testing Workplan White Mesa Uranium Mill Site Near Blanding, Utah -G://1800/Repons/Hydraulic testing )
3. REPORTING
Subsequent to the meeting with UDEQ, a report will be prepared that summarizes the testing
and analytical methods and the results of the data analysis. Calculated values of transmissivity and
permeability for each location will be tabulated, and the assumptions used in computing these values
will be presented. The results provided in the report will be final values based on analytical
methodologies and assumptions agreed upon by ruSA, HGC, and UDEQ. These results will
eventually be used in generating a revised map of perched zone penneabilities for the site.
Hydraulic Testing Workplan White Mesa Uranium Mill Sire Near Btanding, Utah
G:I/ I 80o/Reports/Hydraulic testing
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Harold,
Loren Morton
Harold Roberts
911810210:34AM
IUC: 8f7lO2 Draft HGC Beport on Wells Slug Tested in July,2002
This is a note to let you know that DRC review ol lhe 8/7102 HGC dralt slug test report has been stalled
while we await submittalof several missing data files. Back in August I was working with Stewart Smith's
assistant, Ms. Gina Bailey-Shult, to complete the raw and extracted data files from the 817102 HGC
report. On August 13, Ms. Bailey-Shultz sent several data files to me via email. Shortly after, I sent back
a list of the missing data files to Ms. Bailey-Shultz, see my attached email of 8115102. ln particular, I am
looking lor the raw data files for wells MW-1, MW-3, MW-s, MW-17, MW1g, and MW-20, and the
extracted head data files for wells MW-1, MW-3, and MW-18.
Since our last conference call on this matter, the DRC has aquired the latest version of the Aqtesolv
software that Stewart used in his report. We will return to review ol the 817102 HGC report after receipt ofthe missing raw and extracted data files.
Any help you could provide in getting these data files to us would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Loren Morton
Utah Division of Radiation Control
801-536-4262
CC:BillSinclair; Dane Finerfrock; Stewart Smith
Loren Morton - Re: MWO3DWN.DAT,
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Loren Morton
"ginab@ hgcinc.com".MAIL.MNET
8l15lO2 4:07PM
Be: MWO3DWN.DAT, MW22DWN.DAT
Gina,
Thanks for the files you sent for Stewart Smith. Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner, I have been out of
the office for the last 2 days, and just opened my email this afternoon. Stewart also left voice mail for me
explaining the naming format for the IUC pump test files, where *R.dat = the raw pump test data and.dwn.dat = the extracted data Stewart analped with HGC Whip and Aqtesolv software. So far, I have
received 7 separate emails from you wherein were attached 1 data file each. ln total I have 7 data liles via
emailfrom HGC, named as follows:
Baw Data Files Extracted Data FilesMW18R.dat MW05dwn.datMW22R.dat MWlTdwn.dat
MWl9dwn.dat
MW20dwn.dat
MW22dwn.dat
I don't know why only 1 data file came over with each email. Can you send the rest ol the data? From
Stewart's 8nn2 draft report, it looks like I need 9 more data files, as follows:
Raw Data Files Extracted Data FilesMW01R.dat MWOldwn.datMWO3R.dat MWO3dwn.datMWOSR.dat MWlSdwn.dat
MW17R.dat
MW19R.dat
MW20R.dat
Thanks for your help. Please call me if you have any questions.
Loren Morton
Utah Division of Radiation Control.
801-536-4262
>>> Gina Bailey-Schultz <gjnab.@.hgcinc.com > 811 3lO2 1 0:1 8:20 AM >>>
CC:BillSinclair; Dane Finerfrock; Harold Roberts; Michelle Rehmann; Stewart Smith
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Loren Morton
"ginab @ hgcinc.com ".MAlL.MNET
8112102 5:56PM
Re: Requested Files
Gina,
Thanks for the slug test data file for IUC well MW-22 that you emailed me for Stewart Smith. Scanning
over both the emails you sent, it appears the attachments have the same name, MW22R.dat. I assume
that these are the same data file, is that correct?
Both data f iles have over 1 150 lines of data. I assume that this is the raw head response data set that
Stewart described. However, during our conference call last Friday, Stewart promised to also send copies
of the extracted or reduced data set that he analyzed with the HGC Whip program. Can you provide the
extracted data set lor MW-22?
ln addition, there were 7 other wells that Stewart also tested at IUC in July, 2OO2 (MW-1, MW-3, MW-s,
MW-17, MW-18, MW-19, and MW-20). Can you provide both the raw head response data sets and the
extracted data sets for those wells also?
Thank you for your help.
Loren Morton
Utah Division of Radiation Control
P.S. Please also note that my email address here at work has recently changed. You may want to
up-date your emailaddress book accordingly.
Thanks again.
LBM
>>> Gina Bailey-Schultz <[e-mail]> 818102 5:18:24 PM >>>
Mr. Morton,
Note from the PostMaster:
This message was forwarded from your previous address to your current address.
Your new internet address is [e-mail]
Please make a note of it, and inform those that send you mail.
Thank you.
This forwarding service is temporary and will stop in 50 days
Here are the requested hydraulic test files. The files contain descriptive
headers for ease of identification.
Gina Bailey-Schultz for Stewart Smith
CC:Harold Roberts; Michelle Rehmann; Stewart Smith