HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRC-2014-004181 - 0901a0688045b536ENERGY FUELS
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc.
225 Union Blvd. Suite 600
Lakewood, CO, US, 80228
303 974 2140
www.energyfuels.com
July 1,2014 DRC-2014-004181
VIA PDF AND EXPRESS DELIVERY
Mr. Rusty Lundberg
Division of Radiation Control
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
195 North 1950 West
P.O. Box 144850
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4820
Dear Mr. Lundberg:
Re: State of Utah Ground Water Discharge Permit ("the Permit") No. UGW370004 White Mesa
Uranium Mill - As-Built Report Pursuant to Part I.F.6 of the Permit
This letter transmits the As-Built Report for Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc.'s ("EFRI's") perched
groundwater monitoring wells TW4-35 and TW4-36.
EFRI submitted the required locations, installation schedule, development schedule, and hydraulic testing
schedule on April 10, 2014. TW4-35 and TW4-36 were installed during the week of May 5, 2014. TW4-35
was installed to ensure that chloroform detected at TW4-29 is completely bounded to the southeast. TW4-36
was installed to bound chloroform to the east of TW4-8.
The enclosed As-Built Report includes the items required for As-Built Reports in the Permit Part I.F.6, and is
being submitted for TW4-35 and TW4-36.
Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions or require any further information.
Yours very.truly,
ENERGY FUELS RESOURCES (USA) INC.
Kathy Weinel
Quality Assurance Manager
cc: David C. Frydenlund
Harold R. Roberts
David E. Turk
Dan Hillsten
HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC.
Environmental Science & Technology
INSTALLATION AND HYDRAULIC TESTING OF
PERCHED MONITORING WELLS TW4-35 AND TW4-36
WHITE MESA URANIUM MILL
NEAR BLANDING, UTAH
(AS-BUILT REPORT)
July 1, 2014
Prepared for:
ENERGY FUELS RESOURCES (USA) INC
225 Union Blvd., Suite 600
Lakewood, Colorado 80228
Prepared by:
HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC.
51 West Wetmore Road, Suite 101
Tucson, Arizona 85705
(520) 293-1500
Project Number 7180000.00-01.0
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Monitoring Wells
TW4-32 Through TW4-34, White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\nitrateast\Round3\report\well_installation_0514.doc
July 1, 2014
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. 1
2. DRILLING AND CONSTRUCTION................................................................................ 3
2.1 Drilling and Logging Procedures............................................................................3
2.2 Construction............................................................................................................3
2.3 Development...........................................................................................................3
3. HYDRAULIC TESTING................................................................................................... 5
3.1 Testing Procedures..................................................................................................5
3.2 Hydraulic Test Data Analysis.................................................................................5
4. CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................. 9
5. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 11
6. LIMITATIONS................................................................................................................. 13
TABLES
1 Well Survey Data
2 Slug Test Parameters
3 Slug Test Results
FIGURES
1 Locations of TW4-35 and TW4-36 and Kriged 1st Quarter 2014 Water Levels, White
Mesa Site
2 TW4-35 As-Built Well Construction Schematic
3 TW4-36 As-Built Well Construction Schematic
4 Uncorrected and Corrected Displacements (automatically logged data)
5 Uncorrected and Corercted Displacements (hand collected data)
APPENDICES
A Lithologic Logs
B Well Development Field Sheets
C Slug Test Plots
D Slug Test Data
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Monitoring Wells
TW4-32 Through TW4-34, White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\nitrateast\Round3\report\well_installation_0514.doc
July 1, 2014
ii
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Monitoring Wells
TW4-32 Through TW4-34, White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\nitrateast\Round3\report\well_installation_0514.doc
July 1, 2014
1
1. INTRODUCTION
This report describes the installation, development, and hydraulic testing of perched monitoring
wells TW4-35 and TW4-36 at the White Mesa Uranium Mill (the “Mill” or the “site”) near
Blanding, Utah. TW4-35 was installed immediately southeast of TW4-29 and TW4-36 was
installed immediately east of TW4-8, as shown on Figure 1. Chloroform exceeding the State of
Utah Groundwater Quality Standard (GWQS) of 70 ug/L has been detected at both TW4-8 and
TW4-29.
Both TW4-35 and TW4-36 were installed with the approval of the State of Utah Division of
Radiation Control (DRC). TW4-35 was installed to ensure that chloroform detected at TW4-29 is
completely bounded to the southeast. TW4-36 was installed to bound chloroform to the east of
TW4-8. Chloroform exceeding 70 ug/L has been detected at TW4-29 since installation in March
2013. Chloroform at TW4-8, installed in the fourth quarter of 1999, has been above and below
70 ug/L. Chloroform at TW4-8 was non-detect from the first quarter of 2008 through the fourth
quarter of 2013, and was less than 70 ug/L from the first quarter of 2005 through the fourth
quarter of 2013.
Both TW4-35 and TW4-36 were installed during the week of May 5, 2014. Development
consisted of surging and bailing between May 8 and May 14, followed by overpumping between
May 16 and May 21, 2014. Hydraulic testing consisted of slug tests conducted between May 28
and May 30, 2014.
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Monitoring Wells
TW4-32 Through TW4-34, White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\nitrateast\Round3\report\well_installation_0514.doc
July 1, 2014
2
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Monitoring Wells
TW4-32 Through TW4-34, White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\nitrateast\Round3\report\well_installation_0514.doc
July 1, 2014
3
2. DRILLING AND CONSTRUCTION
Well installation procedures were similar to those used previously at the site for the construction
of other perched zone wells (Hydro Geo Chem, Inc. [HGC], 2005). Drilling and construction
were performed by Bayles Exploration, Inc., and borings logged by Mr. Lawrence Casebolt
under contract to Energy Fuels (USA) Corporation (EFRI). As-built diagrams for the well
construction, based primarily on information provided by Mr. Casebolt, are shown in Figures 2
and 3. The depths to water shown in the as-built diagrams were based on water level
measurements taken just prior to development. New wells were surveyed by a State of Utah
licensed surveyor and the location and elevation data are provided in Table 1.
2.1 Drilling and Logging Procedures
A 12¼ -inch diameter tricone bit was used to drill borings of sufficient diameter to install 8-inch-
diameter, Schedule 80 poly vinyl chloride (PVC) surface (conductor) casings. The surface
casings extended to depths of approximately 10 feet below land surface. Once the surface
casings were in place, the boreholes were drilled by air rotary using a 6¾ inch diameter tricone
bit. The boreholes penetrated the Dakota Sandstone and the Burro Canyon Formation and
terminated in the Brushy Basin Member of the Morrison Formation.
Drill cuttings samples used for lithologic logging were collected at 2½-foot depth intervals and
placed in labeled, zip-sealed plastic bags and labeled plastic cuttings storage boxes. Copies of the
lithologic logs submitted by Mr. Casebolt are provided in Appendix A.
2.2 Construction
The wells were constructed using 4-inch diameter, Schedule 40, flush-threaded PVC casing and
0.02-slot, factory-slotted PVC screen. Colorado Silica Sand was used as a filter pack and
installed to depths of approximately 5 feet above the screened intervals. The annular spaces
above each filter pack were sealed with hydrated bentonite chips. Well casings were fitted with
4-inch PVC caps to keep foreign objects out of the wells and lockable steel security casings were
installed to protect the wells.
2.3 Development
Wells were developed by surging and bailing followed by overpumping. Development records
are provided in Appendix B.
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Monitoring Wells
TW4-32 Through TW4-34, White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\nitrateast\Round3\report\well_installation_0514.doc
July 1, 2014
4
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Monitoring Wells
TW4-32 Through TW4-34, White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\nitrateast\Round3\report\well_installation_0514.doc
July 1, 2014
5
3. HYDRAULIC TESTING
Hydraulic testing consisted of slug tests conducted by HGC personnel using a methodology
similar to that described in HGC (2005).
3.1 Testing Procedures
The slug used for the tests consisted of a sealed, pea-gravel-filled, schedule 80 PVC pipe
approximately three feet long that displaced approximately 3/4 gallons of water as described in
HGC (2002). Level TrollJ 0-30 pounds per square inch absolute (psia) data loggers were used
for the tests. One Level Troll was deployed below the static water column in the tested well and
used to measure the change in water level during the test. The other Level Troll was used to
measure barometric pressure and was placed in a protected environment near the wells for the
duration of the testing. Automatically logged water level data were collected at 3-second
intervals and barometric data at 5-minute intervals.
Prior to each test, the static water level was measured by hand using an electric water level meter
and recorded in the field notebook. The data loggers were then lowered to a depth of
approximately ten feet below the static water level in each well and background pressure
readings were collected for approximately 60 minutes prior to beginning each test. The purpose
of collecting the background data was to allow correction for any detected water level trends.
Once background data were collected, the slug and electric water level meter sensor were
suspended in the tested well just above the static water level. Each test commenced by lowering
the slug to a depth of approximately two feet below the static water level over a period of a few
seconds and taking water level readings by hand as soon as possible afterwards. Hand-collected
data recorded in the field notebook were obtained more frequently in the first few minutes when
water levels were changing more rapidly, then less frequently as the rate of water level change
diminished. Upon completion of each test, automatically logged data were checked and backed
up on the hard drive of a laptop computer.
3.2 Hydraulic Test Data Analysis
Data from each test was analyzed using AQTESOLVETM (HydroSOLVE, 2000), a computer
program developed and marketed by HydroSOLVE, Inc. In preparing the automatically logged
data for analysis, the total number of records was reduced. All data collected in the first 30
seconds were retained, then every 2nd, then 3rd, then 4th, etc. record was retained for analysis.
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Monitoring Wells
TW4-32 Through TW4-34, White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\nitrateast\Round3\report\well_installation_0514.doc
July 1, 2014
6
For example, if the first 10 records were retained (30 seconds of data at 3-second intervals), the
next records to be retained would be the 12th, the 15th, the 19th, the 24th, etc.
Data were analyzed using two solution methods: the KGS unconfined method (Hyder et al.,
1994) and the Bouwer-Rice unconfined method (Bouwer and Rice, 1976). When filter pack
porosities were required by the analytical method, a value of 30 percent was used. The saturated
thicknesses were taken to be the difference between the depth of the static water level measured
just prior to each test and the depth to the Brushy Basin Member contact as defined in the drilling
logs (Appendix A). The static water levels were below the tops of the screened intervals in all
three wells and the saturated thicknesses were taken to be the effective screen lengths.
Background (pre-test) automatically logged water level data in both wells exhibited linear
increasing trends. Smaller linear trends were detected in hand-collected data from each well,
suggesting recovery of water levels after development. The larger trends in the automatically
logged data likely resulted in part from water level recovery and in part from an unknown factor.
Although a larger linear trend was detected in the automatically logged data, the trend was well
behaved and presented no difficulties when subtracting its effect from the data. Both
automatically logged and hand-collected data were corrected for the detected linear trends.
Because barometric pressure changes appeared to have minimal impact on the test data,
correcting for the relatively small changes measured during the tests was not necessary. Figure 4
compares corrected and uncorrected water level displacements for automatically logged data, and
Figure 5 compares corrected and uncorrected water level displacements for the hand logged data.
The KGS solution allows estimation of both specific storage and hydraulic conductivity, while
the Bouwer-Rice solution allows estimation of only the hydraulic conductivity. The Bouwer-
Rice solution is valid only when a straight line is identifiable on a plot of the log of displacement
versus time (indicating that flow is nearly steady), and is insensitive to both storage and the
specified initial water level rise. Typically, only the later-time data are interpretable using
Bouwer-Rice.
The KGS solution accounts for non-steady flow and storage, is sensitive to the specified initial
water level rise, and generally allows a fit to both early- and late-time data. Both solutions were
used for comparison. Automatically logged and hand-collected data were analyzed separately
using both solution methods. The hand-collected data therefore served as an independent data set
and a check on the accuracy of the automatically logged data.
Table 2 summarizes test parameters and Table 3 and Appendix C provide the results of the
analyses. Appendix C contains plots generated by AQTESOLVEJ that show the quality of fit
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Monitoring Wells
TW4-32 Through TW4-34, White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\nitrateast\Round3\report\well_installation_0514.doc
July 1, 2014
7
between measured and simulated displacements, and reproduce the parameters used in each
analysis. Appendix D provides both raw and corrected displacement data. Estimates of hydraulic
conductivity range from approximately 3.2 x 10-6 centimeters per second (cm/s) to 6.3 x 10-5
cm/s using automatically logged data, and from approximately 1.8 x 10-6 cm/s to 6.4 x 10-5 cm/s
using hand-collected data. Estimates are within the low to middle portion of the range previously
measured at the site (approximately 2 x 10-8 cm/s to 0.01 cm/s).
In general, the agreement between solution methods and between estimates obtained from
automatically logged and hand-collected data is good, and within a factor of two except when
comparing Bouwer-Rice and KGS analysis of data collected by hand from TW4-36. The
estimates at TW4-36 using KGS and Bouwer-Rice differed by a factor of approximately 2.6
Although there was generally good agreement between the KGS and Bouwer-Rice results,
because the KGS solution accounts for non-steady flow and aquifer storage, the results obtained
using KGS are considered more representative than those obtained using Bouwer-Rice.
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Monitoring Wells
TW4-32 Through TW4-34, White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\nitrateast\Round3\report\well_installation_0514.doc
July 1, 2014
8
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Monitoring Wells
TW4-32 Through TW4-34, White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\nitrateast\Round3\report\well_installation_0514.doc
July 1, 2014
9
4. CONCLUSIONS
Procedures for the installation, hydraulic testing, and development at new perched monitoring
wells TW4-35 and TW4-36 are similar to those used previously at the site for the construction,
testing, and development of other perched zone wells.
Automatically logged and hand-collected slug test data from new wells were analyzed using
KGS and Bouwer-Rice analytical solutions. Estimates of hydraulic conductivity range from
approximately 3.2 x 10-6 centimeters per second (cm/s) to 6.3 x 10-5 cm/s using automatically
logged data, and from approximately 1.8 x 10-6 cm/s to 6.4 x 10-5 cm/s using hand-collected data.
Estimates are within the low to middle portion of the range previously measured at the site
(approximately 2 x 10-8 cm/s to 0.01 cm/s.
In general, the agreement between solution methods and between estimates obtained from
automatically logged and hand-collected data is good, and within a factor of two except when
comparing Bouwer-Rice and KGS analysis of data collected by hand from TW4-36. The
estimates at TW4-36 using KGS and Bouwer-Rice differed by a factor of approximately 2.6
Although there was generally good agreement between the KGS and Bouwer-Rice results,
because the KGS solution accounts for non-steady flow and aquifer storage, the results obtained
using KGS are considered more representative than those obtained using Bouwer-Rice.
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Monitoring Wells
TW4-32 Through TW4-34, White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\nitrateast\Round3\report\well_installation_0514.doc
July 1, 2014
10
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Monitoring Wells
TW4-32 Through TW4-34, White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\nitrateast\Round3\report\well_installation_0514.doc
July 1, 2014
11
5. REFERENCES
Bouwer, H. and R.C. Rice. 1976. A Slug-Test method for Determining Hydraulic Conductivity
of Unconfined Aquifers with Completely or Partially Penetrating Wells. Water Resources
Research, Vol. 12, No. 3, Pp. 423-428.
Hyder, Z, J.J. Butler, Jr. C.D. McElwee, and W. Liu. 1994. Slug Tests in Partially Penetrating
Wells. Water Resources Research, Vol. 30, No. 11, Pp. 2945-2957.
Hydro Geo Chem, Inc. (HGC). 2002. Hydraulic Testing at the White Mesa Uranium Mill Near
Blanding, Utah During July 2002. Submitted to International Uranium Corporation.
August 22, 2002.
HGC. 2005. Perched Monitoring Well Installation and Testing at the White Mesa Uranium Mill,
April through June 2005. Submitted to International Uranium Corporation.
August 3, 2005.
HydroSOLVE, Inc. 2000. AQTESOLV for Windows. User=s Guide.
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Monitoring Wells
TW4-32 Through TW4-34, White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\nitrateast\Round3\report\well_installation_0514.doc
July 1, 2014
12
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Monitoring Wells
TW4-32 Through TW4-34, White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\nitrateast\Round3\report\well_installation_0514.doc
July 1, 2014
13
6. LIMITATIONS
The information and conclusions presented in this report are based upon the scope of services
and information obtained through the performance of the services, as agreed upon by HGC and
the party for whom this report was originally prepared. Results of any investigations, tests, or
findings presented in this report apply solely to conditions existing at the time HGC’s
investigative work was performed and are inherently based on and limited to the available data
and the extent of the investigation activities. No representation, warranty, or guarantee, express
or implied, is intended or given. HGC makes no representation as to the accuracy or
completeness of any information provided by other parties not under contract to HGC to the
extent that HGC relied upon that information. This report is expressly for the sole and exclusive
use of the party for whom this report was originally prepared and for the particular purpose that
it was intended. Reuse of this report, or any portion thereof, for other than its intended purpose,
or if modified, or if used by third parties, shall be at the sole risk of the user.
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Monitoring Wells
TW4-32 Through TW4-34, White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\nitrateast\Round3\report\well_installation_0514.doc
July 1, 2014
14
TABLES
TABLE 1
Well Survey Data
Northing * Easting * Top of Casing Ground
(feet) (feet) (feet amsl) (feet amsl)
TW4-35 10162334.17 2220924.75 5599.87 5698.67
TW4-36 10163392.93 2220787.88 5616.59 5615.18
Notes:
amsl = above mean sea level
* = state plane coordinates
Well
H:\718000\nitrateast\Round3\slug_test\Results\Slug_test_results.xls: T 1
TABLE 2
Slug Test Parameters
Depth to Depth to Depth to Top Depth to Base Saturated Thickness
Well Brushy Basin Water of Screen of Screen Above Brushy Basin
(feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet)
TW4-35 82.0 73.2 45.3 85.3 8.8
TW4-36 95.0 58.3 58.0 98.0 36.7
Note: All depths are in feet below land surface
H:\718000\nitrateast\Round3\slug_test\Results\Slug_test_results.xls: T 2
TABLE 3
Slug Test Results
Bouwer-Rice Bouwer-Rice
Test Saturated
Thickness
K
(cm/s)
Ss
(1/ft)
K
(cm/s)
K
(cm/s)
Ss
(1/ft)
K
(cm/s)
TW4-35 8.8 6.27E-05 0.00149 5.72E-05 5.72E-05 0.00169 6.42E-05
TW4-36 36.7 3.23E-06 0.00107 6.39E-06 1.82E-06 0.00283 4.79E-06
Notes:
Bouwer-Rice = Unconfined Bouwer-Rice solution method in Aqtesolve™
cm/s = centimeters per second
et = early time data
lt = late time data
ft = feet
K = hydraulic conductivity
KGS = Unconfined KGS solution method in Aqtesolve™
Ss= specific storage
Automatically Logged Data Hand Collected Data
KGS KGS
H:\718000\nitrateast\Round3\slug_test\Results\Slug_test_results.xls: T 3
FIGURES
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.
APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
1 mile
Mill Site
CORRAL CANYON
CORRAL SPRINGS
COTTONWOOD
ENTRANCE SPRING
RUIN SPRING
WESTWATER
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
Cell 4A
Cell 4B
MW-01
MW-02
MW-03
MW-05
MW-11
MW-12
MW-14MW-15
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
MW-21
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-25
MW-26
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
MW-31
MW-32
MW-33 MW-34
MW-35
MW-36
MW-37
TW4-01
TW4-10
TW4-20TW4-22
TW4-34
TWN-01
TWN-02
TWN-03
TWN-04
TWN-05
TWN-06
TWN-07
TWN-08
TWN-09
TWN-10
TWN-11 TWN-12
TWN-13
TWN-14
TWN-15
TWN-16
TWN-17
TWN-18
TWN-19
PIEZ-01
PIEZ-02
PIEZ-03
PIEZ-04
PIEZ-05
TW4-03
TW4-05
TW4-09
TW4-11
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-14
TW4-16
TW4-18
TW4-31
TW4-32
TW4-19
TW4-04
TW4-07
TW4-21
TW4-24
TW4-25
TW4-26
TW4-02
TW4-08
MW-04
TW4-27TW4-06
TW4-23
TW4-28
TW4-29
TW4-30TW4-33DR-05 DR-06 DR-07
DR-08
DR-09
DR-10 DR-11 DR-12 DR-13
DR-14 DR-15
DR-17
DR-19 DR-20 DR-21
DR-22
DR-23
DR-24
abandoned abandoned
abandoned
abandoned
abandoned abandoned
abandoned
abandoned abandoned
TW4-35
TW4-36
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well
perched piezometer
seep or spring
SITE PLAN SHOWING NEW PERCHED WELL
LOCATIONS AND KRIGED FIRST QUARTER, 2014
PERCHED WATER ELEVATIONS (in feet amsl)
H:/718000/nitrateast/round3/Uwelloc0614.srf
MW-5
PIEZ-1
RUIN SPRING
temporary perched monitoring well
installed September, 2013
TW4-32
temporary perched monitoring well
temporary perched nitrate monitoring well
TW4-12
TWN-7
TW4-35 new temporary perched
monitoring well
5 560 kriged first quarter, 2014 perched
water elevation contour and label
1
estimated dry area
H:\718000\nitrateast\Round3\slug_test\Data\dataproc.xls: F4 displ plot
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
elapsed time (minutes)
di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
f
e
e
t
)
TW4-35 uncorrected TW4-35 corrected
TW4-36 uncorrected TW4-36 corrected
CORRECTED AND UNCORRECTED DISPLACEMENTS
(automatically logged data)
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.Approved FigureDateAuthorDate File Name
SJS 6/24/13 4F4 displ plot6/24/13SJS
H:\718000\nitrateast\Round3\slug_test\Data\dataproc.xls: F5 hand displ plot
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
elapsed time (min)
di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
f
e
e
t
)
TW4-35 uncorrected TW4-25 corrrected
TW4-36 uncorrected TW4-36 corrected
CORRECTED AND UNCORRECTED DISPLACEMENTS
(hand collected data)
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.Approved FigureDateAuthorDateFile Name
SJS 6/24/13 5F5 hand displ plot6/24/13SJS
APPENDIX A
LITHOLOGIC LOGS
APPENDIX B
WELL DEVELOPMENT FIELD SHEETS
APPENIDX C
SLUG TEST PLOTS
0.01 0.1 1. 10. 100. 1000.
0.
0.14
0.28
0.42
0.56
0.7
Time (min)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
f
t
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\718000\nitrateast\Round3\slug_test\AQTESOLV\TW35.aqt
Date: 06/24/14 Time: 09:12:50
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 8.8 ft
WELL DATA (TW4-35)
Initial Displacement: 0.619 ft Static Water Column Height: 8.8 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 8.8 ft Screen Length: 8.8 ft
Casing Radius: 0.1667 ft Well Radius: 0.2813 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 6.272E-5 cm/sec Ss = 0.001492 ft-1
Kz/Kr = 0.1
0. 60. 120. 180. 240. 300.
0.001
0.01
0.1
1.
Time (min)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
f
t
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\718000\nitrateast\Round3\slug_test\AQTESOLV\TW35br.aqt
Date: 06/24/14 Time: 09:13:47
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 8.8 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (TW4-35)
Initial Displacement: 0.619 ft Static Water Column Height: 8.8 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 8.8 ft Screen Length: 8.8 ft
Casing Radius: 0.1667 ft Well Radius: 0.2813 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 5.721E-5 cm/sec y0 = 0.3414 ft
0.1 1. 10. 100. 1000.
0.
0.12
0.24
0.36
0.48
0.6
Time (min)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
f
t
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\718000\nitrateast\Round3\slug_test\AQTESOLV\TW35hc.aqt
Date: 06/24/14 Time: 09:14:34
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 8.8 ft
WELL DATA (TW4-35)
Initial Displacement: 0.62 ft Static Water Column Height: 8.8 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 8.8 ft Screen Length: 8.8 ft
Casing Radius: 0.1667 ft Well Radius: 0.2813 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 5.724E-5 cm/sec Ss = 0.001692 ft-1
Kz/Kr = 0.1
0. 48. 96. 144. 192. 240.
0.01
0.1
1.
Time (min)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
f
t
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\718000\nitrateast\Round3\slug_test\AQTESOLV\TW35hbrc.aqt
Date: 06/24/14 Time: 09:14:56
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 8.8 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (TW4-35)
Initial Displacement: 0.62 ft Static Water Column Height: 8.8 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 8.8 ft Screen Length: 8.8 ft
Casing Radius: 0.1667 ft Well Radius: 0.2813 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 6.42E-5 cm/sec y0 = 0.4002 ft
0.01 0.1 1. 10. 100. 1000.
0.
0.18
0.36
0.54
0.72
0.9
Time (min)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
f
t
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\718000\nitrateast\Round3\slug_test\AQTESOLV\TW36.aqt
Date: 06/24/14 Time: 10:46:44
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 36.7 ft
WELL DATA (TW4-36)
Initial Displacement: 0.868 ft Static Water Column Height: 36.7 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 36.7 ft Screen Length: 36.7 ft
Casing Radius: 0.1667 ft Well Radius: 0.2813 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 3.228E-6 cm/sec Ss = 0.001073 ft-1
Kz/Kr = 0.1
0. 140. 280. 420. 560. 700.
0.01
0.1
1.
Time (min)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
f
t
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\718000\nitrateast\Round3\slug_test\AQTESOLV\TW36br.aqt
Date: 06/24/14 Time: 10:48:45
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 36.7 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (TW4-36)
Initial Displacement: 0.868 ft Static Water Column Height: 36.7 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 36.7 ft Screen Length: 36.7 ft
Casing Radius: 0.1667 ft Well Radius: 0.2813 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 6.389E-6 cm/sec y0 = 0.552 ft
0.1 1. 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+4
0.
0.18
0.36
0.54
0.72
0.9
Time (min)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
f
t
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\718000\nitrateast\Round3\slug_test\AQTESOLV\TW36hc.aqt
Date: 06/24/14 Time: 10:59:07
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 36.7 ft
WELL DATA (TW4-36)
Initial Displacement: 0.86 ft Static Water Column Height: 36.7 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 36.7 ft Screen Length: 36.7 ft
Casing Radius: 0.1667 ft Well Radius: 0.2813 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 1.821E-6 cm/sec Ss = 0.002834 ft-1
Kz/Kr = 0.1
0. 90. 180. 270. 360.
0.1
1.
Time (min)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
f
t
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\718000\nitrateast\Round3\slug_test\AQTESOLV\TW36hbrc.aqt
Date: 06/24/14 Time: 11:00:07
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 36.7 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (TW4-36)
Initial Displacement: 0.86 ft Static Water Column Height: 36.7 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 36.7 ft Screen Length: 36.7 ft
Casing Radius: 0.1667 ft Well Radius: 0.2813 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 4.797E-6 cm/sec y0 = 0.52 ft
APPENDIX D
SLUG TEST DATA
TW35DSP.TXT
TW4-35
elapsed time displacement
(min) (ft)
0 0.61887
0.05 0.60685
0.1 0.60583
0.15 0.59682
0.2 0.59580
0.25 0.58878
0.3 0.58776
0.35 0.57974
0.4 0.58073
0.45 0.57371
0.55 0.56767
0.7 0.56062
0.9 0.55155
1.15 0.53446
1.45 0.52735
1.8 0.51322
2.2 0.49808
2.65 0.48792
3.15 0.47474
3.7 0.46254
4.3 0.44932
4.95 0.43909
5.65 0.42584
6.4 0.41157
7.2 0.40528
8.05 0.39497
8.95 0.37265
9.9 0.36031
10.9 0.35095
11.95 0.33557
13.05 0.32517
14.2 0.31576
15.4 0.30533
16.65 0.29988
17.95 0.28341
19.3 0.27592
20.7 0.26742
22.15 0.25590
23.65 0.24536
25.2 0.23680
26.8 0.22622
28.45 0.21863
30.15 0.20902
31.9 0.19939
33.7 0.19774
35.55 0.18707
37.45 0.18139
39.4 0.16769
41.4 0.16597
43.45 0.16023
45.55 0.15447
47.7 0.14570
49.9 0.13891
52.15 0.13510
54.45 0.12527
56.8 0.12242
59.2 0.11956
61.65 0.11168
64.15 0.11278
66.7 0.10186
Page 1
TW35DSP.TXT
69.3 0.10092
71.95 0.09897
74.65 0.09200
77.4 0.08701
80.2 0.08100
83.05 0.08097
85.95 0.07593
88.9 0.07687
91.9 0.06879
94.95 0.06469
98.05 0.05857
101.2 0.05244
104.4 0.06929
107.65 0.06212
110.95 0.05893
114.3 0.05372
117.7 0.04750
121.15 0.04526
124.65 0.04100
128.2 0.04472
131.8 0.03942
135.45 0.03711
139.15 0.03278
142.9 0.03443
146.7 0.03006
150.55 0.03067
154.45 0.03027
158.4 0.02585
162.4 0.02241
166.45 0.02395
170.55 0.02047
174.7 0.01698
178.9 0.01647
183.15 0.01594
187.45 0.01439
191.8 0.01482
196.2 0.01224
200.65 0.01264
205.15 0.01302
209.7 0.01138
214.3 0.01772
218.95 0.01205
223.65 0.00636
228.4 0.00765
233.2 0.01492
238.05 0.00117
242.95 0.00841
247.9 0.00863
252.9 -0.00316
257.95 0.00801
263.05 -0.00182
268.2 0.00132
273.4 0.00245
278.65 0.00956
283.95 0.00265
289.3 0.00172
294.7 0.00178
300.15 -0.00417
Page 2
tw35hdspc.txt
TW4-35
elapsed time displacement
(min) (ft, hand collected)
0.5 0.58
0.75 0.57
1 0.56
1.25 0.54
1.5 0.53
1.75 0.52
2 0.51
2.5 0.50
3 0.49
3.5 0.47
4 0.46
4.5 0.45
5 0.44
5.5 0.44
6 0.43
6.5 0.42
7 0.41
7.5 0.40
8 0.39
8.5 0.39
9 0.38
9.5 0.38
10 0.37
11 0.36
12 0.35
13 0.34
14 0.33
15 0.32
16 0.31
17 0.30
18 0.29
19 0.28
20 0.28
21 0.27
22 0.26
23 0.26
24 0.25
25 0.25
26 0.24
27 0.24
28 0.23
29 0.23
30 0.22
32 0.21
34 0.20
36 0.19
38 0.19
40 0.18
42 0.17
44 0.17
46 0.16
48 0.14
50 0.14
52 0.14
54 0.13
56 0.13
58 0.12
60 0.12
64 0.11
68 0.10
Page 1
tw35hdspc.txt
72 0.09
76 0.09
80 0.08
84 0.08
88 0.08
92 0.07
96 0.07
100 0.07
110 0.06
120 0.05
130 0.05
140 0.04
150 0.03
160 0.03
200 0.02
210 0.02
220 0.02
230 0.02
240 0.01
250 0.01
260 0.01
380 0.00
Page 2
TW36DSP.TXT
TW4-36
elapsed time displacement
(min) (ft)
0 0.86784
0.05 0.84183
0.1 0.83481
0.15 0.83380
0.2 0.83078
0.25 0.82977
0.3 0.82675
0.35 0.82074
0.4 0.81572
0.45 0.81371
0.55 0.81168
0.7 0.79663
0.9 0.79257
1.15 0.77650
1.45 0.75441
1.8 0.75030
2.2 0.73318
2.65 0.72505
3.15 0.70790
3.7 0.70173
4.3 0.69255
4.95 0.68136
5.65 0.67515
6.4 0.65892
7.2 0.65468
8.05 0.64243
8.95 0.63116
9.9 0.62787
10.9 0.61557
11.95 0.60126
13.05 0.60493
14.2 0.59558
15.4 0.58722
16.65 0.58185
17.95 0.56746
19.3 0.56405
20.7 0.55663
22.15 0.54720
23.65 0.54075
25.2 0.53028
26.8 0.52380
28.45 0.51031
30.15 0.50880
31.9 0.50527
33.7 0.49373
35.55 0.48718
37.45 0.48261
39.4 0.47002
41.4 0.46742
43.45 0.45681
45.55 0.45118
47.7 0.44453
49.9 0.43587
52.15 0.43020
54.45 0.42351
56.8 0.41680
59.2 0.41108
61.65 0.39935
64.15 0.39760
66.7 0.39383
Page 1
TW36DSP.TXT
69.3 0.38805
71.95 0.38326
74.65 0.37545
77.4 0.37062
80.2 0.36478
83.05 0.36093
85.95 0.34906
88.9 0.34617
91.9 0.34327
94.95 0.33636
98.05 0.32743
101.2 0.32148
104.4 0.31652
107.65 0.30755
110.95 0.30356
114.3 0.29755
117.7 0.28953
121.15 0.28550
124.65 0.28145
128.2 0.27638
131.8 0.27130
135.45 0.26421
139.15 0.25910
142.9 0.25397
146.7 0.24783
150.55 0.24668
154.45 0.23551
158.4 0.23432
162.4 0.22612
166.45 0.22491
170.55 0.21868
174.7 0.21543
178.9 0.20517
183.15 0.20590
187.45 0.19961
191.8 0.18630
196.2 0.18998
200.65 0.18265
205.15 0.18130
209.7 0.17793
214.3 0.16955
218.95 0.16316
223.65 0.15675
228.4 0.15132
233.2 0.15088
238.05 0.14243
242.95 0.14496
247.9 0.13947
252.9 0.13297
257.95 0.13046
263.05 0.13093
268.2 0.12438
273.4 0.11782
278.65 0.11325
283.95 0.11666
289.3 0.11305
294.7 0.11043
300.15 0.10780
305.65 0.10415
311.2 0.10148
316.8 0.10480
322.45 0.10011
328.15 0.09740
Page 2
TW36DSP.TXT
333.9 0.10867
339.7 0.10093
345.55 0.09818
351.45 0.09441
357.4 0.10362
363.4 0.07882
369.45 0.07101
375.55 0.08018
381.7 0.07533
387.9 0.07047
394.15 0.06560
400.45 0.06371
406.8 0.06280
413.2 0.05688
419.65 0.05695
426.15 0.05200
432.7 0.05103
439.3 0.04905
445.95 0.04906
452.65 0.04505
459.4 0.04302
466.2 0.03698
473.05 0.03993
479.95 0.03686
486.9 0.03377
493.9 0.03367
500.95 0.03356
508.05 0.03143
515.2 0.02928
522.4 0.02812
529.65 0.02995
536.95 0.02976
544.3 0.02955
551.7 0.02933
559.15 0.02610
566.65 0.01785
574.2 0.02758
581.8 0.02530
589.45 0.02501
597.15 0.02770
604.9 0.02637
612.7 0.01603
620.55 0.02468
628.45 0.03031
Page 3
tw36hdspc.txt
TW4-36
elapsed time displacement
(min) (ft)
0.333 0.85
0.667 0.82
1 0.79
1.25 0.78
1.667 0.76
2 0.75
2.25 0.74
2.5 0.73
2.75 0.73
3 0.72
3.25 0.71
3.5 0.71
3.75 0.70
4 0.70
4.5 0.69
5 0.68
5.5 0.67
6 0.66
6.5 0.66
7 0.65
7.5 0.65
8 0.64
8.5 0.64
9 0.63
9.5 0.63
10 0.62
10.5 0.62
11 0.61
12 0.61
13 0.60
14 0.59
15 0.58
16 0.58
17 0.57
18 0.56
19 0.56
20 0.56
22 0.55
24 0.54
26 0.53
28 0.52
30 0.51
32 0.50
34 0.49
36 0.48
38 0.47
40 0.47
42 0.46
44 0.46
46 0.45
48 0.43
50 0.43
52 0.42
54 0.42
56 0.41
58 0.41
60 0.40
64 0.39
68 0.39
72 0.38
Page 1
tw36hdspc.txt
76 0.37
80 0.36
84 0.36
90 0.35
96 0.34
102 0.33
112 0.32
120 0.31
130 0.30
140 0.29
150 0.27
160 0.26
170 0.25
180 0.24
200 0.24
220 0.23
240 0.22
270 0.21
300 0.19
420 0.17
1418 0.00
Page 2