HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRC-2016-011908 - 0901a068806913bcENERGYFUELS
Div of W;ste Management
' and Radiation Control
0 nmc Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc.DEC * X ‘-O’o 225 Union Blvd. Suite 600
Lakewood, CO, US, 80228
303 974 2140
wsvw.cncrgyfucls.com
December 8, 2016 PKC-zoit-omos
VIA E-MAIL AND EXPRESS DELIVERY
Mr. Scott Anderson
Director
Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
195 North 1950 West
P.O. Box 144880
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4820
Dear Mr. Anderson:
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 TW4-38 and TW4-39.
TW4-38 and TW4-39 were installed during the week of October 17, 2016. TW4-38 was installed to ensure
that chloroform is completely bounded to the east-southeast. TW4-39 was installed to enhance the rate
of extraction of chloroform-bearing perched water.
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 TW4-38 and TW4-39.
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
Scott Bakken
Logan Shumway
HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC.
Environmental Science & Technology
INSTALLATION AND HYDRAULIC TESTING OF
PERCHED MONITORING WELLS TW4-38 AND TW4-39
WHITE MESA URANIUM MILL
NEAR BLANDING, UTAH
(AS-BUILT REPORT)
December 8, 2016
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
TW4-38 and TW4-39, White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\tw38_39\report\well_installation_12.08.16.doc
December 8, 2016
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
2. DRILLING AND CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................ 3
2.1 Drilling and Logging Procedures ............................................................................ 3
2.2 Construction ............................................................................................................ 4
2.3 Development ........................................................................................................... 4
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 Detail Map Showing Locations of New Perched Wells TW4-38 and TW4-39 and Kriged
3rd Quarter, 2016 Water Levels (ft amsl)
2 TW4-38 As-Built Well Construction Schematic
3 TW4-39 As-Built Well Construction Schematic
4 Detail Map Showing Approximate Pilot Boring Locations and 3rd Quarter 2016
Chloroform Plume Boundary
5 TW4-38 Corrected and Uncorrected Displacements (automatically logged data), White
Mesa, Utah
6 TW4-39 Corrected and Uncorrected Displacements (automatically logged data), White
Mesa, Utah
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
TW4-38 and TW4-39, White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\tw38_39\report\well_installation_12.08.16.doc
December 8, 2016
ii
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Monitoring Wells
TW4-38 and TW4-39, White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\tw38_39\report\well_installation_12.08.16.doc
December 8, 2016
1
1. INTRODUCTION
This report describes the installation, development, and hydraulic testing of perched monitoring
wells TW4-38 and TW4-39 at the White Mesa Uranium Mill (the “Mill” or the “site”) near
Blanding, Utah. TW4-38 was installed immediately east-southeast of TW4-9 and TW4-39 was
installed east-southeast of TW4-19 and TW4-20, as shown on Figure 1. TW4-38 and TW4-39
were installed because chloroform exceeded the State of Utah Groundwater Quality Standard
(GWQS) of 70 µg/L in TW4-9, since the first quarter of 2016 as described in the Exceedance
Notice dated August 18, 2016.
Both TW4-38 and TW4-39 were installed with the approval of the State of Utah Division of
Waste Management and Radiation Control (DWMRC). TW4-38 was installed to ensure that
chloroform exceeding 70 µg/L at TW4-9 (approximately 77 µg/L in the third quarter of 2016) is
completely bounded to the east-southeast. TW4-39 was installed as a pumping well to enhance
the rate of extraction of chloroform-bearing perched water and prevent or reverse eastward
expansion of the plume near TW4-9. TW4-39 is located within a portion of the chloroform
plume historically containing some of the highest chloroform concentrations. In the third quarter
of 2016, chloroform was detected at 23,600 µg/L and 6,040 µg/L, respectively, at TW4-20 and
TW4-19, located just west-northwest of TW4-39.
Both TW4-38 and TW4-39 were installed during the week of October 17, 2016. Development
consisted of surging and bailing on October 21, followed by overpumping between October 27
and October 28, 2016. Hydraulic testing consisted of slug tests conducted on November 2, 2016.
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Monitoring Wells
TW4-38 and TW4-39, White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\tw38_39\report\well_installation_12.08.16.doc
December 8, 2016
2
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Monitoring Wells
TW4-38 and TW4-39, White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\tw38_39\report\well_installation_12.08.16.doc
December 8, 2016
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.
Because TW4-39 was intended to be a chloroform production well, small-diameter (4 ¾ to 5 ¼
inch) pilot borings were drilled within an area of the plume considered 1) to be productive based
on the results long-term pumping described in HGC (2004), and 2) to have relatively high
chloroform concentrations. This area was also considered favorable for pumping targeted at
preventing or reversing expansion of the plume near TW4-9. The approximate locations of pilot
borings are shown in Figure 4. Based on water produced during drilling, pilot borings 1 and 2
were determined in the field to have similar, but higher productivities than pilot boring 3. As
pilot borings 1 and 2 were determined to have similar productivities, and pilot boring 1 was
better located logistically, pilot boring 1 was overdrilled and completed as well TW4-39. Pilot
borings 2 and 3 were abandoned to the surface with bentonite.
2.1 Drilling and Logging Procedures
All borings were drilled by air rotary using tricone bits. Drill cuttings samples for all borings
were collected at 2½-foot depth intervals and placed in labeled, zip-sealed plastic bags and
labeled plastic cuttings storage boxes. Lithologic logs were prepared for TW4-38 and pilot hole 1
(Figure 4) which was overdrilled and completed as well TW4-39. Copies of the lithologic logs
submitted by Mr. Casebolt are provided in Appendix A.
When installing TW4-38 and when overdrilling pilot boring 1 to install TW4-39, a 12¼ -inch
diameter tricone bit was used to construct 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 (or overdrilled) 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.
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Monitoring Wells
TW4-38 and TW4-39, White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\tw38_39\report\well_installation_12.08.16.doc
December 8, 2016
4
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 to 8 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
TW4-38 and TW4-39, White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\tw38_39\report\well_installation_12.08.16.doc
December 8, 2016
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 slugs used for the tests are described in HGC (2002). Each consisted of sealed, pea-gravel-
filled, schedule 80 PVC pipe. The slug used in TW4-38 was approximately four feet long and
displaced approximately 1/2 gallons of water. The approximately three foot long slug used in
TW4-39 had a larger diameter and displaced approximately 3/4 gallons of water. Level TrollJ 0-
30 pounds per square inch absolute (psia) data loggers were used for the tests. The Level Trolls
were deployed below the static water column of the tested wells and used to measure the change
in water level during the test. A 0-30 psia Baro-TrollJ 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 1 to 2 hours 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 raw data were converted to displacements and the total number of records
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Monitoring Wells
TW4-38 and TW4-39, White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\tw38_39\report\well_installation_12.08.16.doc
December 8, 2016
6
was reduced. All data collected in the first 30 seconds (except for a negative displacement caused
by initial water level oscillation) were retained, then every 2nd, then 3rd, then 4th, etc. record
was retained for analysis. 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 TW4-39 exhibited changes that
appeared to correlate with changes in atmospheric pressure. The displacement data were
corrected for these changes which also increased the agreement with the hand-collected data
(which demonstrated complete recovery approximately 70 minutes into the test). Background
water levels were relatively stable at TW4-38. However, oscillation in the automatically logged
data at the start of the test made it difficult to establish the initial displacement. The initially
calculated displacements stabilized at a value of approximately 95% of full recovery. The
displacements were therefore corrected to yield full recovery by the time this stabilization
occurred, which also increased agreement with the hand-collected data Figures 5 and 6 compare
corrected and uncorrected water level displacements for automatically 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. Generally, only the later time data are interpretable using
Bouwer-Rice. In analyzing data from TW4-38 and TW4-39, unambiguous straight lines were not
readily apparent, and near-straight line portions of middle and late-time data were analyzed.
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 KGS and
Bouwer-Rice solutions were used for comparison. Automatically logged and hand-collected data
were analyzed separately using both solution methods. The hand-collected data therefore served
as an independent data set and a check on the accuracy of the automatically logged data.
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Monitoring Wells
TW4-38 and TW4-39, White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\tw38_39\report\well_installation_12.08.16.doc
December 8, 2016
7
Table 2 summarizes test parameters and Table 3 and Appendix C provide the results of the
analyses. Appendix C contains plots generated by AQTESOLVEJ that show the quality of fit
between measured and simulated displacements, and reproduce the parameters used in each
analysis. Appendix D provides both raw and corrected displacement data. Estimates of hydraulic
conductivity range from approximately 2.9 x 10-5 centimeters per second (cm/s) to 7.2 x 10-5
cm/s using automatically logged data, and from approximately 3.2 x 10-5 cm/s to 8.4 x 10-5 cm/s
using hand-collected data. Estimates are within the middle portion of the range previously
measured at the site (approximately 2 x 10-8 cm/s to 0.01 cm/s).
In general, there is good agreement between estimates obtained from the two solution methods
and between estimates obtained from automatically logged and hand-collected data. All
estimates are within a factor of two. Estimates are within a factor of 25% except when
comparing later-time Bouwer-Rice estimates for TW4-38 based on hand collected and automatic
logged data. The later-time Bouwer-Rice estimates at TW4-38 using hand-logged and
automatically-logged data differed by 34%. Although there was 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
TW4-38 and TW4-39, White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\tw38_39\report\well_installation_12.08.16.doc
December 8, 2016
8
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Monitoring Wells
TW4-38 and TW4-39, White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\tw38_39\report\well_installation_12.08.16.doc
December 8, 2016
9
4. CONCLUSIONS
Procedures for the installation, hydraulic testing, and development at new perched monitoring
wells TW4-38 and TW4-39 are generally similar to those used previously at the site for the
construction, testing, and development of other perched zone wells. Because TW4-39 was
intended to be a production well, three small-diameter pilot borings were installed, and the most
productive based on water produced during drilling was overdrilled and completed as TW4-39.
Automatically logged and hand-collected slug test data from new wells were analyzed using
KGS and Bouwer-Rice analytical solutions. Estimates of hydraulic conductivity range from
approximately 2.9 x 10-5 centimeters per second (cm/s) to 7.2 x 10-5 cm/s using automatically
logged data, and from approximately 3.2 x 10-5 cm/s to 8.4 x 10-5 cm/s using hand-collected data.
Estimates are within the middle portion of the range previously measured at the site
(approximately 2 x 10-8 cm/s to 0.01 cm/s).
In general, there is good agreement between estimates obtained from the two solution methods
and between estimates obtained from automatically logged and hand-collected data. All
estimates are within a factor of two. Estimates are within a factor of 25% except when
comparing later-time Bouwer-Rice estimates for TW4-38 based on hand collected and automatic
logged data. The later-time Bouwer-Rice estimates at TW4-38 using hand-logged and
automatically-logged data differed by 34%. Although there was 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
TW4-38 and TW4-39, White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\tw38_39\report\well_installation_12.08.16.doc
December 8, 2016
10
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Monitoring Wells
TW4-38 and TW4-39, White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\tw38_39\report\well_installation_12.08.16.doc
December 8, 2016
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. 2004. Final Report. Long Term Pumping at MW-4, TW4-10, and TW4-15. White Mesa
Uranium Mill Near Blanding, Utah. May 26, 2004.
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
TW4-38 and TW4-39, White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\tw38_39\report\well_installation_12.08.16.doc
December 8, 2016
12
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Monitoring Wells
TW4-38 and TW4-39, White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\tw38_39\report\well_installation_12.08.16.doc
December 8, 2016
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
TW4-38 and TW4-39, White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\tw38_39\report\well_installation_12.08.16.doc
December 8, 2016
14
TABLES
TABLE 1
Well Survey Data
Northing * Easting * Top of Casing Ground
(feet) (feet) (feet amsl) (feet amsl)
TW4-38 10164240.93 2220489.16 5629.99 5628.82
TW4-39 10164428.01 2219874.58 5629.56 5628.23
Notes:
amsl = above mean sea level
* = state plane coordinates
Well
H:\718000\tw38_39\report\T1_T2_T3_v2.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)
TW4-38 110.0 52.03 42.75 112.75 57.97
TW4-39 115.0 58.70 50.00 120.00 56.30
Note: All depths are in feet below land surface
H:\718000\tw38_39\report\T1_T2_T3_v2.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)
TW4-38 6.37E-05 1.15E-04 NA 4.76E-05 2.81E-05 NA
TW4-38 middle time NA NA 7.16E-05 NA NA 5.54E-05
TW4-38 late time NA NA 5.68E-05 NA NA 3.76E-05
TW4-39 5.27E-05 2.03E-04 NA 6.15E-05 1.70E-04 NA
TW4-39 middle time NA NA 7.21E-05 NA NA 8.41E-05
TW4-39 late time NA NA 2.85E-05 NA NA 3.17E-05
Notes:
NA = not analyzed
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
57.97
56.30
Automatically Logged Data Hand Collected Data
KGS KGS
H:\718000\tw38_39\report\T1_T2_T3_v2.xls: T 3
FIGURES
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
1000 feet
MW-25
MW-27
MW-31
TW4-01
TW4-02
TW4-03
TW4-04
TW4-05
TW4-06
TW4-09
TW4-10
TW4-11
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-14
MW-26
TW4-16
MW-32
TW4-18TW4-19
TW4-20
TW4-21
TW4-22
TW4-23
TW4-24
TW4-25
TW4-26
PIEZ-02
PIEZ-3A
PIEZ-04
TWN-01
TWN-02
TWN-03
TWN-04
TW4-07 TW4-08
TW4-35
TW4-36
MW-04
TW4-27
TW4-29
TW4-32
TW4-33
TW4-34
TW4-28
TW4-30
TW4-31
TW4-37
TW4-38
TW4-39
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well
temporary perched monitoring well
perched piezometer
MW-25
TW4-7
PIEZ-2
DETAIL MAP SHOWING LOCATIONS OF NEW PERCHED
WELLS TW4-38 AND TW4-39 AND KRIGED
3rd QUARTER, 2016 WATER LEVELS (ft amsl)
H:/718000/tw38_39/Utwl38_39_loc.srf
NOTES: MW-4, MW-26, TW4-1, TW4-2, TW4-4, TW4-11, TW4-19, TW4-20, TW4-21 and TW4-37 are chloroform pumping wells;
TW4-22, TW4-24, TW4-25, and TWN-2 are nitrate pumping wells; TW4-11 water level is below the base of the Burro Canyon Formation
1
PIEZ-3A May, 2016 replacement of perched
piezometer Piez-03
TW4-38
new perched well
SJS 12/5/16
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
1000 feet
MW-25
MW-27
MW-31
TW4-01
TW4-02
TW4-03
TW4-04
TW4-05
TW4-06
TW4-09
TW4-10
TW4-11
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-14
MW-26
TW4-16
MW-32
TW4-18TW4-19
TW4-20
TW4-21
TW4-22
TW4-23
TW4-24
TW4-25
TW4-26
PIEZ-02
PIEZ-3A
PIEZ-04
TWN-01
TWN-02
TWN-03
TWN-04
TW4-07 TW4-08
TW4-35
TW4-36
MW-04
TW4-27
TW4-29
TW4-32
TW4-33
TW4-34
TW4-28
TW4-30
TW4-31
TW4-37
wildlife pond
wildlife pond
wildlife pond
1
2 3
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well
temporary perched monitoring well
perched piezometer
MW-25
TW4-7
PIEZ-2
DETAIL MAP SHOWING APPROXIMATE
PILOT BORINGLOCATIONS AND 3rd QUARTER,
2016 CHLOROFORM PLUME BOUNDARY
H:/718000/tw38_39/pilotboring_1016.srf
NOTES: MW-4, MW-26, TW4-1, TW4-2, TW4-4, TW4-11, TW4-19, TW4-20, TW4-21 and TW4-37 are chloroform pumping wells;
TW4-22, TW4-24, TW4-25, and TWN-2 are nitrate pumping wells; TW4-11 water level is below the base of the Burro Canyon FormationPIEZ-3A May, 2016 replacement of perched
piezometer Piez-03
Q2 2016 chloroform plume boundary
4
1 3
2
approximate pilot boring locations
(pilot boring 1 completed as TW4-39)
SJS 12/5/16
H:\718000\tw38_39\slug_test_data\TW38_39_figures.xls: F5 38
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
f
e
e
t
)
elapsed time (minutes)
TW4-38 uncorrected
TW4-38 corrected
TW4-38 CORRECTED AND UNCORRECTED
DISPLACEMENTS (AUTOMATICALLY LOGGED DATA)
WHITE MESA, UTAH
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.Approved FigureDateAuthorDate File Name
SJS 11/30/16 5tw38_39_figures.xls11/30/16GEM
H:\718000\tw38_39\slug_test_data\TW38_39_figures.xls: F6 39
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
f
e
e
t
)
elapsed time (minutes)
TW4-39 uncorrected
TW4-39 corrected
TW4-39 CORRECTED AND UNCORRECTED
DISPLACEMENTS (AUTOMATICALLY LOGGED DATA)
WHITE MESA, UTAH
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.Approved FigureDateAuthorDate File Name
SJS 11/30/16 6tw38_39_figures.xls11/30/16GEM
APPENDIX A
LITHOLOGIC LOGS
APPENDIX B
WELL DEVELOPMENT FIELD SHEETS
APPENIDX C
SLUG TEST PLOTS
0.01 0.1 1. 10. 100.
0.
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Time (min)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
f
t
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\718000\tw38_39\aqtesolve\tw38.aqt
Date: 12/01/16 Time: 15:44:10
PROJECT INFORMATION
Client: EFRI
Test Well: tw4-38
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 57.97 ft
WELL DATA (tw4-38)
Initial Displacement: 0.49 ft Static Water Column Height: 57.97 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 57.97 ft Screen Length: 57.97 ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.281 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 6.372E-5 cm/sec Ss = 0.0001154 ft-1
Kz/Kr = 0.1
0. 12. 24. 36. 48. 60.
1.0E-4
0.001
0.01
0.1
1.
Time (min)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
f
t
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\718000\tw38_39\aqtesolve\tw38brlt.aqt
Date: 12/01/16 Time: 15:47:03
PROJECT INFORMATION
Client: EFRI
Test Well: tw4-38
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 57.97 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (tw4-38)
Initial Displacement: 0.49 ft Static Water Column Height: 57.97 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 57.97 ft Screen Length: 57.97 ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.281 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 5.677E-5 cm/sec y0 = 0.1807 ft
0. 12. 24. 36. 48. 60.
1.0E-4
0.001
0.01
0.1
1.
Time (min)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
f
t
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\718000\tw38_39\aqtesolve\tw38brmt.aqt
Date: 12/06/16 Time: 11:14:07
PROJECT INFORMATION
Client: EFRI
Test Well: tw4-38
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 57.97 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (tw4-38)
Initial Displacement: 0.49 ft Static Water Column Height: 57.97 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 57.97 ft Screen Length: 57.97 ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.281 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 7.158E-5 cm/sec y0 = 0.2494 ft
0.01 0.1 1. 10. 100.
0.
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Time (min)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
f
t
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\718000\tw38_39\aqtesolve\tw38h.aqt
Date: 12/01/16 Time: 15:47:38
PROJECT INFORMATION
Client: EFRI
Test Well: tw4-38
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 57.97 ft
WELL DATA (tw4-38)
Initial Displacement: 0.37 ft Static Water Column Height: 57.97 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 57.97 ft Screen Length: 57.97 ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.281 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 4.764E-5 cm/sec Ss = 2.806E-5 ft-1
Kz/Kr = 0.1
0. 12. 24. 36. 48. 60.
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\tw38_39\aqtesolve\tw38hbrlt.aqt
Date: 12/01/16 Time: 15:47:50
PROJECT INFORMATION
Client: EFRI
Test Well: tw4-38
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 57.97 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (tw4-38)
Initial Displacement: 0.37 ft Static Water Column Height: 57.97 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 57.97 ft Screen Length: 57.97 ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.281 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 3.764E-5 cm/sec y0 = 0.1574 ft
0. 12. 24. 36. 48. 60.
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\tw38_39\aqtesolve\tw38hbrmt.aqt
Date: 12/06/16 Time: 11:15:34
PROJECT INFORMATION
Client: EFRI
Test Well: tw4-38
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 57.97 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (tw4-38)
Initial Displacement: 0.37 ft Static Water Column Height: 57.97 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 57.97 ft Screen Length: 57.97 ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.281 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 5.539E-5 cm/sec y0 = 0.2172 ft
0.01 0.1 1. 10. 100.
0.
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Time (min)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
f
t
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\718000\tw38_39\aqtesolve\tw39.aqt
Date: 12/01/16 Time: 15:49:24
PROJECT INFORMATION
Client: EFRI
Test Well: tw4-39
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 56.3 ft
WELL DATA (tw4-39)
Initial Displacement: 0.65 ft Static Water Column Height: 56.3 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 56.3 ft Screen Length: 56.3 ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.281 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 5.271E-5 cm/sec Ss = 0.0002025 ft-1
Kz/Kr = 0.1
0. 12. 24. 36. 48. 60.
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\tw38_39\aqtesolve\tw39brlt.aqt
Date: 12/01/16 Time: 15:49:37
PROJECT INFORMATION
Client: EFRI
Test Well: tw4-39
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 56.3 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (tw4-39)
Initial Displacement: 0.65 ft Static Water Column Height: 56.3 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 56.3 ft Screen Length: 56.3 ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.281 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 2.853E-5 cm/sec y0 = 0.1574 ft
0. 12. 24. 36. 48. 60.
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\tw38_39\aqtesolve\tw39brmt.aqt
Date: 12/06/16 Time: 11:16:05
PROJECT INFORMATION
Client: EFRI
Test Well: tw4-39
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 56.3 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (tw4-39)
Initial Displacement: 0.6 ft Static Water Column Height: 56.3 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 56.3 ft Screen Length: 56.3 ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.281 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 7.21E-5 cm/sec y0 = 0.3288 ft
0.01 0.1 1. 10. 100.
0.
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Time (min)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
f
t
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\718000\tw38_39\aqtesolve\tw39h.aqt
Date: 12/01/16 Time: 15:50:12
PROJECT INFORMATION
Client: EFRI
Test Well: tw4-39
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 56.3 ft
WELL DATA (tw4-39)
Initial Displacement: 0.65 ft Static Water Column Height: 56.3 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 56.3 ft Screen Length: 56.3 ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.281 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 6.154E-5 cm/sec Ss = 0.0001696 ft-1
Kz/Kr = 0.1
0. 12. 24. 36. 48. 60.
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\tw38_39\aqtesolve\tw39hbrlt.aqt
Date: 12/01/16 Time: 15:50:26
PROJECT INFORMATION
Client: EFRI
Test Well: tw4-39
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 56.3 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (tw4-39)
Initial Displacement: 0.65 ft Static Water Column Height: 56.3 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 56.3 ft Screen Length: 56.3 ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.281 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 3.17E-5 cm/sec y0 = 0.1435 ft
0. 12. 24. 36. 48. 60.
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\tw38_39\aqtesolve\tw39hbrmt.aqt
Date: 12/06/16 Time: 11:16:42
PROJECT INFORMATION
Client: EFRI
Test Well: tw4-39
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 56.3 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (tw4-39)
Initial Displacement: 0.65 ft Static Water Column Height: 56.3 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 56.3 ft Screen Length: 56.3 ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.281 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 8.414E-5 cm/sec y0 = 0.3775 ft
APPENDIX D
SLUG TEST DATA
TW38DSP.txt
TW4-38
Elapsed time corr displacement
(min) (ft)
0.00 0.596
0.05 -0.176
0.10 0.438
0.15 0.451
0.20 0.443
0.25 0.434
0.30 0.413
0.35 0.409
0.40 0.402
0.45 0.397
0.50 0.395
0.60 0.379
0.75 0.368
0.95 0.347
1.20 0.328
1.50 0.308
1.85 0.298
2.25 0.264
2.70 0.243
3.20 0.229
3.75 0.219
4.35 0.189
5.00 0.172
5.70 0.164
6.45 0.145
7.25 0.131
8.10 0.122
9.00 0.115
9.95 0.104
10.95 0.089
12.00 0.08
13.10 0.074
14.25 0.064
15.45 0.061
16.70 0.053
18.00 0.055
19.35 0.043
20.75 0.033
22.20 0.034
23.70 0.029
25.25 0.025
26.85 0.026
28.50 0.027
30.20 0.023
31.95 0.011
33.75 0.018
35.60 0.016
37.50 0.01
39.45 0.014
41.45 0.007
43.50 0.004
45.60 0.007
47.75 0.004
49.95 0.004
52.20 0.005
54.50 1.14E-15
56.85 0.003
59.25 1.14E-15
61.70 -0.001
64.20 0.002
Page 1
TW38DSP.txt
66.75 -0.004
69.35 -0.001
72.00 -0.003
74.70 0.006
77.45 0.005
80.25 0.002
83.10 -0.001
86.00 1.14E-15
88.95 -0.003
91.95 -0.001
95.00 1.14E-15
98.10 -0.007
101.25 -0.001
104.45 -0.002
107.70 0.002
111.00 1.14E-15
114.35 0.002
117.75 -0.004
121.20 -0.004
124.70 -0.005
128.25 -0.001
131.85 0.001
135.50 0.001
139.20 -0.002
142.95 -0.006
146.75 1.14E-15
150.60 -0.001
154.50 0.002
158.45 0.002
162.45 0.001
166.50 0.003
170.60 1.14E-15
Page 2
tw38h.txt
TW4-38
elapsed time displacement
(min) (ft, hand collected)
0 0
0.333333 0.34
0.8 0.32
1.416667 0.29
2.083333 0.27
2.5 0.25
3.083333 0.23
3.733333 0.21
4.25 0.21
4.583333 0.2
5 0.19
5.5 0.18
6 0.17
6.5 0.16
7 0.15
7.5 0.14
8 0.14
9 0.13
10 0.1
11 0.1
12.5 0.09
14 0.08
16 0.07
20 0.06
25 0.05
30 0.04
35 0.03
41 0.03
53 0.03
60 0.02
Page 1
TW39DSP.txt
TW4-39
Elapsed time corr displacement
(min) (ft)
0 0.649
0.05 0.177992
0.1 0.516984
0.15 0.654977
0.20 0.587969
0.25 0.571961
0.30 0.561953
0.35 0.555945
0.40 0.549938
0.45 0.53993
0.50 0.531922
0.60 0.522906
0.75 0.501883
0.95 0.479852
1.20 0.449813
1.50 0.425766
1.85 0.391711
2.25 0.368649
2.70 0.338579
3.20 0.312501
3.75 0.288415
4.35 0.258321
5.00 0.23422
5.70 0.213111
6.45 0.189994
7.25 0.170869
8.10 0.156736
9.00 0.143596
9.95 0.134448
10.95 0.125292
12.00 0.115128
13.10 0.103956
14.25 0.094777
15.45 0.08459
16.70 0.075395
18.00 0.074192
19.35 0.074981
20.75 0.066763
22.20 0.059537
23.70 0.063303
25.25 0.069061
26.85 0.054811
28.50 0.050554
30.20 0.053289
31.95 0.059016
33.75 0.045735
35.60 0.044446
37.50 0.04815
39.45 0.036846
41.45 0.044534
43.50 0.038214
45.60 0.033886
47.75 0.033551
49.95 0.029208
52.20 0.024857
54.50 0.024498
56.85 0.019131
59.25 0.013757
61.70 0.017375
64.20 0.001985
Page 1
TW39DSP.txt
66.75 0.010587
69.35 0.007181
72.00 0.000768
74.70 0.001347
Page 2
tw39h.txt
TW4-39
elapsed time displacement
(min) (ft, hand collected)
0 0
0.166667 0.58
0.416667 0.52
0.583333 0.52
1.416667 0.42
1.666667 0.41
2.083333 0.37
2.416667 0.35
2.75 0.32
3 0.31
3.5 0.28
4 0.26
4.5 0.24
5 0.22
5.5 0.21
6 0.19
6.5 0.18
7 0.17
7.5 0.16
8 0.14
8.5 0.14
9 0.13
9.5 0.13
10 0.12
11 0.12
12 0.11
13 0.1
14 0.09
15 0.08
17 0.07
20 0.06
25 0.05
30 0.04
35 0.04
45 0.03
55 0.02
65 0.01
75 0
Page 1