DRC-2021-019241 - 0901a06880fa4cee

f nagement 141-4.! ko,,..,,:1.1.:..11Cortrot
NO 1 2021
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. 225 Union Blvd. Suite 600
Lakewood, CO, US, 80228
303 974 2140
DR C-2021-01924-1 www.energyfuels.corri
November 8, 2021
VIA E-MAIL AND EXPRESS DELIVERY
Mr. Doug Hansen
Director
Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
195 North 1950 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4820
Dear Mr. Hansen:
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 well TW4-43.
TW4-43 was installed the week of September 13, 2021. TW4-43 was installed with the approval of the State of
Utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control (DWMRC). TW4-43 was installed primarily to
attempt to bound chloroform exceeding 70 [tg/L in TW4-30.
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 TW4-43.
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 Frydenlund Garrin Palmer Scott Bakken Logan Shumway Stewart Smith (HGC)

HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC.
Environmental Science & Technology

INSTALLATION AND HYDRAULIC TESTING OF
PERCHED WELL TW4-43
WHITE MESA URANIUM MILL
NEAR BLANDING, UTAH
(AS-BUILT REPORT)

November 8, 2021

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
[phone]

Project Number 7180000.00-01.0

Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Well TW4-43
White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\TW43\report\TW43_installation.doc
November 8, 2021
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 Location of TW4-43 and Kriged 3rd Quarter 2021 Water Levels, White Mesa Site
2 TW4-43 As-Built Well Construction Schematic

APPENDICES

A Lithologic Log
B Well Development Field Sheets
C Slug Test Plots
D Slug Test Data

Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Well TW4-43
White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\TW43\report\TW43_installation.doc
November 8, 2021
ii

Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Well TW4-43
White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\TW43\report\TW43_installation.doc
November 8, 2021
1
1. INTRODUCTION
This report describes the installation, development, and hydraulic testing of perched well
TW4-43 at the White Mesa Uranium Mill (the “Mill” or the “site”) near Blanding, Utah.
TW4-43 is located approximately 200 feet southeast of existing chloroform well TW4-30 as
shown on Figure 1. TW4-43 was installed with the approval of the State of Utah Division of
Waste Management and Radiation Control (DWMRC) because, as described in the Exceedance
Notice dated July 7, 2021, by the first quarter of 2021, chloroform in TW4-30 exceeded the State
of Utah Groundwater Quality Standard (GWQS) of 70 µg/L for two consecutive quarters. The
chloroform concentration in TW4-30 was approximately 78.7 µg/L as of the second quarter of
2021.
TW4-43 was installed during the week of September 13, 2021 to bound chloroform exceeding 70
µg/L in TW4-30. TW4-43 is located generally cross- to downgradient of TW4-30. Because
existing well TW4-35, currently non-detect for chloroform, is located downgradient of TW4-30,
only one new cross-gradient bounding well to the southeast of TW4-30 was considered
necessary.
Development of TW4-43 consisted of surging and bailing on September 21 and September 22,
followed by overpumping on October 14 and October 15, 2021. Hydraulic testing consisted of a
slug test conducted on October 19, 2021.

Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Well TW4-43
White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\TW43\report\TW43_installation.doc
November 8, 2021
2

Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Well TW4-43
White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\TW43\report\TW43_installation.doc
November 8, 2021
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 Recapture Drilling, and the boring logged by Mr. D. Kapostasy and Mr. T.
Boam, employees of Energy Fuels (USA) Corporation (EFRI). An as-built diagram for the well
construction, based primarily on information provided by Mr. D. Kapotasy, is shown in Figure 2.
The depth to water shown in the as-built diagram was based on water level measurement just
prior to surging and bailing. TW4-43 was 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 12-inch diameter tricone bit was used to drill a boring of sufficient diameter to install an
8-inch-diameter, Schedule 80 poly vinyl chloride (PVC) surface (conductor) casing. The surface
casing extended to a depth of approximately 10 feet below land surface. Once the surface casing
was in place, the borehole was drilled by air rotary using a 6¾- inch diameter polycrystalline
diamond compact (PDC) drag bit. The borehole 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. A copy of
the lithologic log submitted by Mr. Boam is provided in Appendix A.
2.2 Construction
TW4-43 was 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 a depth of approximately 8 ½ feet above the screened interval. The annular space
above the filter pack was sealed with hydrated bentonite chips. The well casing was fitted with a
4-inch PVC cap to keep foreign objects out of the well and a lockable steel security casing was
installed to protect the well.
2.3 Development
TW4-43 was developed by surging and bailing followed by overpumping. Development records
are provided in Appendix B.

Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Well TW4-43
White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\TW43\report\TW43_installation.doc
November 8, 2021
4

Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Well TW4-43
White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\TW43\report\TW43_installation.doc
November 8, 2021
5
3. HYDRAULIC TESTING
Hydraulic testing consisted of a slug test conducted by HGC personnel using a methodology
similar to that described in HGC (2005).
3.1 Testing Procedures
The slug used for the test 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). A Level TrollJ 0-30 pounds per square inch absolute (psia) data logger was
deployed below the static water column in the well and used to measure the change in water
level during the test. A Baro-Troll was used to measure barometric pressure and was placed in a
protected environment near the well 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 the test, the static water level was measured by hand using an electric water level meter
and recorded in the field notebook. The data logger was then lowered to a depth of
approximately ten feet below the static water level in the well and background pressure readings
were collected for approximately 60 minutes prior to beginning the test. The purpose of
collecting the background data was to allow correction for any detected water level trend.
Once background data were collected, the slug and electric water level meter sensor were
suspended in the well just above the static water level. The 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 the test, automatically logged data were checked and backed up
on the hard drive of a laptop computer.
3.2 Hydraulic Test Data Analysis
Because background (pre-test) automatically logged water level data displayed no noticeable
trend during the 60 minutes prior to the test, and barometric pressure changes were sufficiently
small, corrections to the data were unnecessary.
Test data were analyzed using AQTESOLVTM (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 minute were

Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Well TW4-43
White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\TW43\report\TW43_installation.doc
November 8, 2021
6
retained; then every 2nd, then 3rd, then 4th, etc., record was retained for analysis. For example,
if the first 20 records were retained (1 minute of data at 3-second intervals), the next records to
be retained would be the 22th, the 25th, the 29th, the 34th, 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
thickness was taken to be the difference between the depth of the static water level measured just
prior to the test and the depth to the Brushy Basin Member contact as defined in the drilling log
(Appendix A). The static water level was below the top of the screened interval and the saturated
thickness was taken to be the effective screen length.
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 AQTESOLVJ that show the quality of fit
between measured and simulated displacements, and reproduce the parameters used in each
analysis. Appendix D provides displacement data. Estimates of hydraulic conductivity range
from approximately 4.37 x 10-5 centimeters per second (cm/s) to 5.76 x 10-5 cm/s using
automatically logged data, and from approximately 5.84 x 10-5 cm/s to 6.4 x 10-5 cm/s using
hand-collected data. Estimates are within the range previously measured at the site
(approximately 2 x 10-8 cm/s to 0.01 cm/s).
In general, the agreement between solution methods and between estimates obtained from
automatically logged and hand-collected data is good, and within a factor of 1.5 Although there
was generally good agreement between the KGS and Bouwer-Rice results, because the KGS

Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Well TW4-43
White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\TW43\report\TW43_installation.doc
November 8, 2021
7
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 Well TW4-43
White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\TW43\report\TW43_installation.doc
November 8, 2021
8

Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Well TW4-43
White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\TW43\report\TW43_installation.doc
November 8, 2021
9
4. CONCLUSIONS
Procedures for the installation, hydraulic testing, and development at new perched well TW4-43
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 TW4-43 were analyzed using the
KGS and Bouwer-Rice analytical solutions. Estimates of hydraulic conductivity range from
approximately 4.37 x 10-5 cm/s to 5.76 x 10-5 cm/s using automatically logged data, and from
approximately 5.84 x 10-5 cm/s to 6.4 x 10-5 cm/s using hand-collected data. Estimates are within
the range previously measured at the site (approximately 2 x 10-8 cm/s to 0.01 cm/s).
In general, the agreement between solution methods and between estimates obtained from
automatically logged and hand-collected data is good, and within a factor of 1.5. 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 Well TW4-43
White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\TW43\report\TW43_installation.doc
November 8, 2021
10

Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Well TW4-43
White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\TW43\report\TW43_installation.doc
November 8, 2021
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 Well TW4-43
White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\TW43\report\TW43_installation.doc
November 8, 2021
12

Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Well TW4-43
White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\TW43\report\TW43_installation.doc
November 8, 2021
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 Well TW4-43
White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\TW43\report\TW43_installation.doc
November 8, 2021
14

TABLES
TABLE 1
Well Survey Data
Northing * Easting * Top of Casing Ground
(feet) (feet) (feet amsl) (feet amsl)
TW4-43 10162346.24 2221129.05 5596.89 5595.17
Notes:
amsl = above mean sea level
* = state plane coordinates
Well
H:\718000\TW43\report\tables\TW43_T1_T2_T3.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)
TW4-42 91.0 71.6 35.5 95.5 19.4
Note: All depths are in feet below land surface
H:\718000\TW43\report\tables\TW43_T1_T2_T3.xls: T 2
TABLE 3
Slug Test Results
Bouwer-Rice Bouwer-Rice
Test Saturated
Thickness (ft)
K
(cm/s)
Ss
(1/ft)
K
(cm/s)
K
(cm/s)
Ss
(1/ft)
K
(cm/s)
TW4-43 19.4 4.37E-05 5.44E-04 5.76E-05 5.84E-05 2.43E-04 6.4E-05
Notes:
Bouwer-Rice = Unconfined Bouwer-Rice solution method in Aqtesolve™
cm/s = centimeters per second
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\TW43\report\tables\TW43_T1_T2_T3.xls: T 3

FIGURES
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
1 mile
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-3A
MW-11
MW-14MW-15
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
MW-21
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-25
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
MW-31
MW-32
MW-33
MW-34MW-37
MW-38
MW-39
MW-40
TW4-01
TW4-03
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
TWN-20
TWN-21
PIEZ-01
PIEZ-02
PIEZ-3A
PIEZ-04
PIEZ-05
TW4-05
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-31
TW4-32
MW-12
TW4-11TW4-16
TW4-18
TW4-27
MW-26
MW-35
MW-36
TW4-04
TW4-07
TW4-09
TW4-19
TW4-21
TW4-24
TW4-25
TW4-26
TW4-40
TW4-06
TW4-42
TW4-02
TW4-08
MW-04
MW-05
TW4-22
TW4-23
TW4-20
TW4-28
TW4-29 TW4-30
TW4-10
TW4-33
TW4-34
TW4-36
TW4-41TW4-14
TW4-35
TW4-37 TW4-38
TW4-39
DR-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
5583
5504
5473
5525
54965495
5503
5584
5589
5454
dry
5451
5498
5512
5532
5570
5545
5516
5539
5547
dry
5493
5494
5493
5493
5463
5482
5488
5550
5543
5558
5567
5575
5588
5583
5580
5524
5518
5579
5568
5592
5580
abandoned
5584
5569
abandoned
abandoned
abandoned
abandoned abandoned
abandoned
5590
abandoned
5605
abandoned
5583
5607
5565
5556
5504
5502
5568
5569
5536
5568
5563
abnd
5555
5515
5527
5565
55345555
5568
5532
5527
5568
5528
5525
5532
5525
5530
5568
5528
5528
55615557
5528
5529
5528
5524
5558
55355526
5560 5570
5554
5482 5485 5492
5474
5480
5482 5488 5488 5487
5466 5465
5454
5455 5443 5421
dry
5425
5417
5624
5383
5234
5560
5380
5468
(not included)
TW4-43
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well showing
elevation in feet amsl
perched piezometer showing
elevation in feet amsl
seep or spring showing
elevation in feet amsl
LOCATION OF TW4-43 AND
KRIGED 3rd QUARTER, 2021 WATER LEVELS
WHITE MESA SITE
H:/718000/TW43/report/figures/TW43loc.srf
MW-5
PIEZ-1
RUIN SPRING
temporary perched monitoring well
showing elevation in feet amsl
temporary perched nitrate monitoring
well showing elevation in feet amsl
TW4-12
TWN-7
5504
5568
5569
5588
5380
estimated dry area
5525
5463
5525
perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018 showing
elevation in feet amsl
NOTES: MW-4, MW-26, TW4-1, TW4-2, TW4-4, TW4-11, TW4-19, TW4-21, TW4-37, TW4-39, TW4-40 and TW4-41 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
TW4-40
MW-38
TW4-42 temporary perched monitoring well
installed April, 2019 showing
elevation in feet amsl
temporary perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018 showing
elevation in feet amsl
TWN-20 temporary perched nitrate monitoring
well installed April, 2021showing
elevation in feet amsl5565
temporary perched monitoring
well installed September, 2021
TW4-43
SJS 10/27/21 1
CHEM, INC.
GEO
HYDRO
Approved DateDate File Name FigureAuthor
TW4-43
AS-BUILT WELL CONSTRUCTION SCHEMATIC
SJS 9/28/21 7180291A 2JAA9/28/21

APPENDIX A

LITHOLOGIC LOG

APPENDIX B

WELL DEVELOPMENT FIELD SHEETS

APPENIDX C

SLUG TEST PLOTS
0.01 0.1 1. 10. 100.
0.
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.
Time (min)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
f
t
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\718000\TW43\SlugTest\aqtesolve\tw43.aqt
Date: 10/21/21 Time: 11:48:24
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: EFRI
Test Well: TW4-42
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 19.4 ft
WELL DATA (tw4-43)
Initial Displacement: 0.65 ft Static Water Column Height: 19.4 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 19.4 ft Screen Length: 19.4 ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 4.366E-5 cm/sec Ss = 0.000544 ft-1
Kz/Kr = 0.1
0. 20. 40. 60. 80. 100.
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\TW43\SlugTest\aqtesolve\tw43br.aqt
Date: 10/21/21 Time: 11:49:04
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: EFRI
Test Well: TW4-42
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 19.4 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (tw4-43)
Initial Displacement: 0.65 ft Static Water Column Height: 19.4 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 19.4 ft Screen Length: 19.4 ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 5.756E-5 cm/sec y0 = 0.3944 ft
0.01 0.1 1. 10. 100.
0.
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.
Time (min)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
f
t
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\718000\TW43\SlugTest\aqtesolve\tw43h.aqt
Date: 10/21/21 Time: 11:49:26
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: EFRI
Test Well: TW4-42
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 19.4 ft
WELL DATA (tw4-43)
Initial Displacement: 0.65 ft Static Water Column Height: 19.4 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 19.4 ft Screen Length: 19.4 ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 5.835E-5 cm/sec Ss = 0.0002434 ft-1
Kz/Kr = 0.1
0. 20. 40. 60. 80. 100.
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\TW43\SlugTest\aqtesolve\tw43hbr.aqt
Date: 10/21/21 Time: 11:49:46
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: EFRI
Test Well: TW4-42
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 19.4 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (tw4-43)
Initial Displacement: 0.65 ft Static Water Column Height: 19.4 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 19.4 ft Screen Length: 19.4 ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 6.398E-5 cm/sec y0 = 0.3944 ft

APPENDIX D

SLUG TEST DATA
TW43disp.txt
TW4-43 automatically logged displacement
ET (min) displ (ft)

0 0.87142

0.05 0.59182

0.1 0.64541

0.15 0.6524

0.2 0.64308

0.25 0.61978

0.3 0.63143

0.35 0.63143

0.4 0.61512

0.45 0.61745

0.5 0.61046

0.55 0.59415

0.6 0.58483

0.65 0.6058

0.7 0.59881

0.75 0.57784

0.8 0.59415

0.85 0.57784

0.9 0.57551

0.95 0.58483

1.05 0.57085

1.2 0.57085

1.4 0.56852

1.65 0.54289

1.95 0.53357

2.3 0.5126

2.7 0.4893

3.15 0.47998

3.65 0.46833

4.2 0.44969

4.8 0.44037

5.45 0.42406

6.15 0.39843

6.9 0.37746

7.7 0.3728

Page 1
TW43disp.txt
8.55 0.3495

9.45 0.34251

10.4 0.30756

11.4 0.30523

12.45 0.28659

13.55 0.27494

14.7 0.25397

15.9 0.26096

17.15 0.22601

18.45 0.23067

19.8 0.21436

21.2 0.20271

22.65 0.19572

24.15 0.19572

25.7 0.17708

27.3 0.16077

28.95 0.15378

30.65 0.15611

32.4 0.1398

34.2 0.12815

36.05 0.12815

37.95 0.1398

39.9 0.11883

41.9 0.09786

43.95 0.10718

46.05 0.10485

48.2 0.10951

50.4 0.0932

52.65 0.07689

54.95 0.0932

57.3 0.08155

59.7 0.08388

62.15 0.07922

64.65 0.07456

67.2 0.06757

69.8 0.07689

72.45 0.07223
Page 2
TW43disp.txt

75.15 0.08155

77.9 0.07456

80.7 0.06524

83.55 0.05359

86.45 0.0466

89.4 0.06058

92.4 0.05825

95.45 0.06058

98.55 0.05359

101.7 0.05592

104.9 0.05359

108.15 0.05825

111.45 0.05592

114.8 0.05126

118.2 0.04427

121.65 0.04194

125.15 0.04194

128.7 0.05592

132.3 0.04194

135.95 0.04427

139.65 0.04194

143.4 0.03262

147.2 0.05126

151.05 0.03495

154.95 0.04194

158.9 0.03029

162.9 0.03029

166.95 0.03262

171.05 0.04194

175.2 0.04427

179.4 0.02563

183.65 0.02796

187.95 0.03262

192.3 0.03961

196.7 0.03961

Page 3
TW43hdisp.txt
TW4-43 hand collected displacement
ET (min) displacement
0.000 0.63
0.117 0.61
0.367 0.6
0.567 0.58
0.800 0.58
0.967 0.57
1.183 0.56
1.400 0.55
1.717 0.54
1.933 0.53
2.150 0.52
2.300 0.51
2.467 0.5
2.867 0.49
3.050 0.48
3.383 0.47
3.733 0.46
4.133 0.45
4.783 0.44
4.983 0.43
5.183 0.42
5.717 0.41
6.183 0.4
6.483 0.39
7.017 0.38
7.567 0.37
7.933 0.36
8.533 0.35
9.050 0.34
9.600 0.33
10.133 0.32
10.667 0.31
11.617 0.3
12.167 0.29
12.583 0.28
13.550 0.27
14.517 0.26
15.833 0.25
16.467 0.24
17.067 0.23
17.833 0.22
19.017 0.21
21.017 0.2
22.017 0.19
23.017 0.18
24.017 0.17
26.017 0.16
28.017 0.15
30.017 0.14
32.017 0.13
34.017 0.12
37.017 0.11
40.017 0.1
43.017 0.09
47.017 0.09
51.017 0.08
54.017 0.07
59.017 0.07
64.017 0.05
69.017 0.05
79.017 0.04
89.017 0.04
99.017 0.03
109.017 0.02
119.017 0.02
129.017 0.02
139.017 0.02
149.017 0.02
164.017 0.02
179.017 0.02
199.017 0.02
Page 1