HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRC-2020-002515 - 0901a06880bdc46eEnergy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. 225 Union Blvd. Suite 600 Lakewood, CO, US, 80228
303 974 2140
www.energyfuek.corn ENERGY FUELS
January 29, 2020
VIA PDF AND EXPRESS DELIVERY
Mr. Ty L. Howard
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. Howard;
Div of Waste Management
and Radiation Control
JAN 3 1 2020 -P1z-C-202.0-00Z515
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") groundwater
monitoring well MW-24A.
MW-24A was installed during the week of December 2, 2019. MW-24A was installed in accordance with the
"Plan for Installation of MW-24A" submitted by Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. ("EFRI") to the State of
Utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control ("DWMRC") on September 26, 2019 and approved
by DWMRC on October 1, 2019.
The enclosed As-Built Report includes the items required for As-Built Reports in the Groundwater Discharge
Permit, Part I.F.6.
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
Paul Goranson
Terry Slade
Scott Bakken
Logan Shumway
Garrin Palmer
HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC.
Environmental Science & Technology
INSTALLATION AND HYDRAULIC TESTING OF
PERCHED WELL MW-24A
WHITE MESA URANIUM MILL
NEAR BLANDING, UTAH
(AS-BUILT REPORT)
January 29, 2020
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 Well MW-24A
White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\MW24A\report\MW24A_installation_AsBuilt Rpt 20200129.doc
January 29, 2020
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................................................................................................................. 7
5. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 9
6. LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................. 11
TABLES
1 Well Survey Data
2 Slug Test Parameters
3 Slug Test Results
FIGURES
1 Location of MW-24A and Kriged 4th Quarter 2019 Water Levels, White Mesa Site
2 MW-24A As-Built Well Construction Schematic
3 Comparison of Raw and Corrected Displacements
APPENDICES
A Lithologic Log
B Well Development Field Sheets
C Slug Test Plots
D Slug Test Data
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Well MW-24A
White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\MW24A\report\MW24A_installation_AsBuilt Rpt 20200129.doc
January 29, 2020
ii
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Well MW-24A
White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\MW24A\report\MW24A_installation_AsBuilt Rpt 20200129.doc
January 29, 2020
1
1. INTRODUCTION
This report describes the installation, development, and hydraulic testing of perched well MW-
24A at the White Mesa Uranium Mill (the “Mill” or the “site”) near Blanding, Utah. MW-24A is
located approximately 16 feet northwest of existing well MW-24 as shown on Figure 1. MW-
24A was installed in accordance with the “Plan for Installation of MW-24A” submitted by
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. (EFRI) to the State of Utah Division of Waste Management
and Radiation Control (DWMRC) on September 26, 2019 and approved by DWMRC on October
1, 2019. As per the October 1, 2019 letter submitted by DWMRC to EFRI, “the intention of the
installation of MW-24A is to determine whether MW-24 groundwater constituents in out of
compliance status, some of which appear to be showing anomalous increasing trends, are due to
issues regarding monitoring well MW-24 design and/or construction issues.”
MW-24A was installed during the week of December 2, 2019. Development consisted of surging
and bailing on December 9, 10 and 11, followed by overpumping on December 12, 13, 14 and
17, 2019. Hydraulic testing consisted of a slug test conducted on January 8, 2020.
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Well MW-24A
White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\MW24A\report\MW24A_installation_AsBuilt Rpt 20200129.doc
January 29, 2020
2
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Well MW-24A
White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\MW24A\report\MW24A_installation_AsBuilt Rpt 20200129.doc
January 29, 2020
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 UCOLO Drilling, LLC, and the boring logged by Mr. Lawrence Casebolt
under contract to Energy Fuels (USA) Corporation (EFRI). An as-built diagram for the well
construction, based primarily on information provided by Mr. Casebolt, is shown in Figure 2.
The depth to water shown in the as-built diagram was based on water level measurement just
prior to development. MW-24A 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
An 8¾ -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 51/4 feet below land surface. Once the surface casing
was in place, the borehole was cored using a 2-inch inner diameter (ID) core barrel then over-
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 core was logged and stored in labelled, cardboard core boxes. A copy of the lithologic log
submitted by Mr. Casebolt is provided in Appendix A.
2.2 Construction
MW-24A 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 nearly 5 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
MW-24A was developed by surging and bailing followed by overpumping. Because the well was
relatively unproductive, surging and bailing on 3 separate days, and overpumping on 4 separate
days was needed to remove sufficient water from the well casing. Development records are
provided in Appendix B.
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Well MW-24A
White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\MW24A\report\MW24A_installation_AsBuilt Rpt 20200129.doc
January 29, 2020
4
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Well MW-24A
White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\MW24A\report\MW24A_installation_AsBuilt Rpt 20200129.doc
January 29, 2020
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-TrollJ 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 near the bottom
of the well casing and background pressure readings were collected for approximately 1 hour
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
Barometric pressure changes during the test were sufficiently large that a barometric correction
was applied to the data. Corrected and uncorrected displacement data are compared in Figure 3.
Test data were 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. For example, if
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Well MW-24A
White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\MW24A\report\MW24A_installation_AsBuilt Rpt 20200129.doc
January 29, 2020
6
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
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 AQTESOLVEJ 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 1.41 x 10-5 centimeters per second (cm/s) to 1.85 x 10-5 cm/s using
automatically logged data, and from approximately 1.88 x 10-5 cm/s to 1.97 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 1.4. 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 MW-24A
White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\MW24A\report\MW24A_installation_AsBuilt Rpt 20200129.doc
January 29, 2020
7
4. CONCLUSIONS
Procedures for the installation, hydraulic testing, and development at new perched well MW-24A
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 MW-24A were analyzed using KGS
and Bouwer-Rice analytical solutions. Estimates of hydraulic conductivity range from
approximately 1.41 x 10-5 centimeters per second (cm/s) to 1.85 x 10-5 cm/s using automatically
logged data, and from approximately 1.88 x 10-5 cm/s to 1.97 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 1.4. 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 MW-24A
White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\MW24A\report\MW24A_installation_AsBuilt Rpt 20200129.doc
January 29, 2020
8
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Well MW-24A
White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\MW24A\report\MW24A_installation_AsBuilt Rpt 20200129.doc
January 29, 2020
9
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 MW-24A
White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\MW24A\report\MW24A_installation_AsBuilt Rpt 20200129.doc
January 29, 2020
10
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Well MW-24A
White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\MW24A\report\MW24A_installation_AsBuilt Rpt 20200129.doc
January 29, 2020
11
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 MW-24A
White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\MW24A\report\MW24A_installation_AsBuilt Rpt 20200129.doc
January 29, 2020
12
TABLES
TABLE 1
Well Survey Data
Northing * Easting * Top of Casing Ground
(feet) (feet) (feet amsl) (feet amsl)
MW-24A 10164535.78 2216187.03 5623.60 5620.85
Notes:
amsl = above mean sea level
* = state plane coordinates
Well
H:\718000\MW24A\report\MW24aTables.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)
MW-24A 118.3 109.3 100.0 120.0 9.0
Note: All depths are in feet below land surface
H:\718000\MW24A\report\MW24aTables.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)
TW4-42 9.0 1.41E-05 1.10E-02 1.85E-05 1.97E-05 4.88E-03 1.88E-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\MW24A\report\MW24aTables.xls: T 3
FIGURES
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
MW-02
MW-23
MW-24 MW-28
MW-29
MW-12
MW-05
MW-24A
CELL 1
CELL 2
CELL 3
CELL 4A
EXPLANATION
MW-29
perched monitoring well
LOCATION OF NEW WELL MW-24A
(showing kriged Q4 2019 perched water levels)
MW-24A
new perched well MW-24A
5500 perched water level contour
and label (feet amsl)
H:/718000/MW24A/report/MW24Aloc_rev.srf 1SJS1/16/20
H:\718000\MW24A\slugtest\MW-24A_slugtest.xls: F3
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
di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
f
e
e
t
)
Elapsed Time (minutes)
raw displacement
corrected displacement COMPARISON OF RAW AND
CORRECTED DISPLACEMENTS
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.Approved FigureDateAuthorDate File Name
SJS 1/15/20 3Figure 31/15/20SJS
APPENDIX A
LITHOLOGIC LOG
APPENDIX B
WELL DEVELOPMENT FIELD SHEETS
APPENIDX C
SLUG TEST PLOTS
0.01 0.1 1. 10. 100. 1000.
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\MW24A\slugtest\mw24a.aqt
Date: 01/16/20 Time: 09:55:35
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: MW-24
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 9.02 ft
WELL DATA (mw24a)
Initial Displacement: 0.73 ft Static Water Column Height: 3.4 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 9.02 ft Screen Length: 9.02 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 = 1.407E-5 cm/sec Ss = 0.01099 ft-1
Kz/Kr = 0.1
0. 50. 100. 150. 200. 250.
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\MW24A\slugtest\mw24aBR.aqt
Date: 01/14/20 Time: 15:00:58
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: MW-24
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 9.02 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (mw24a)
Initial Displacement: 0.73 ft Static Water Column Height: 3.4 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 9.02 ft Screen Length: 9.02 ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 1.854E-5 cm/sec y0 = 0.34 ft
0.01 0.1 1. 10. 100. 1000.
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\MW24A\slugtest\mw24ah.aqt
Date: 01/16/20 Time: 09:55:54
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: MW-24
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 9.02 ft
WELL DATA (mw24ah)
Initial Displacement: 0.73 ft Static Water Column Height: 3.4 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 9.02 ft Screen Length: 9.02 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 = 1.971E-5 cm/sec Ss = 0.004881 ft-1
Kz/Kr = 0.1
0. 60. 120. 180. 240. 300.
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\MW24A\slugtest\mw24ahBR.aqt
Date: 01/14/20 Time: 15:31:00
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: MW-24
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 9.02 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (mw24ah)
Initial Displacement: 0.73 ft Static Water Column Height: 3.4 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 9.02 ft Screen Length: 9.02 ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 1.882E-5 cm/sec y0 = 0.325 ft
APPENDIX D
SLUG TEST DATA
MW-24A
ET (min)displ (ft)
1.67E-05 0.916
0.05 0.705
0.1 0.716
0.15 0.7
0.2 0.697
0.25 0.697
0.3 0.7
0.35 0.693
0.4 0.692
0.45 0.684
0.5 0.689
0.6 0.673
0.75 0.672
0.95 0.664
1.2 0.649
1.5 0.647
1.85 0.635
2.25 0.62
2.7 0.609
3.2 0.598
3.75 0.588
4.35 0.577
5 0.565
5.7 0.546
6.45 0.54
7.25 0.523
8.1 0.513
9 0.504
9.95 0.498
10.95 0.487
12 0.477
13.1 0.468
14.25 0.45
15.45 0.444
16.7 0.431
18 0.429
19.35 0.413
20.75 0.402
22.2 0.392
23.7 0.385
25.25 0.375
26.85 0.372
28.5 0.357
30.2 0.35
31.95 0.336
33.75 0.329
35.6 0.323
37.5 0.313
39.45 0.306
41.45 0.301
43.5 0.292
45.6 0.279
47.75 0.278
49.95 0.274
52.2 0.265
54.5 0.26
56.85 0.25
59.25 0.256
61.7 0.246
64.2 0.237
66.75 0.229
69.35 0.229
72 0.229
74.7 0.225
77.45 0.214
80.25 0.214
83.1 0.207
86 0.199
88.95 0.201
91.95 0.197
95 0.191
98.1 0.188
101.25 0.184
104.45 0.183
107.7 0.177
111 0.176
114.35 0.171
117.75 0.168
121.2 0.173
124.7 0.163
128.25 0.167
131.85 0.151
135.5 0.156
139.2 0.162
142.95 0.156
146.75 0.139
150.6 0.151
154.5 0.15
158.45 0.145
162.45 0.14
166.5 0.141
170.6 0.139
174.75 0.14
178.95 0.132
183.2 0.132
187.5 0.131
191.85 0.13
196.25 0.134
200.7 0.13
205.2 0.128
209.75 0.126
MW-24A hand collected
ET (min)displ (ft)
0.17 0.73
0.5 0.69
0.87 0.68
1.17 0.67
1.5 0.66
1.82 0.65
2.15 0.64
2.5 0.64
3 0.63
3.5 0.61
4 0.6
4.5 0.59
5 0.58
5.5 0.57
6 0.56
7 0.55
8 0.53
9 0.52
10 0.51
12 0.49
14 0.47
16 0.45
18 0.43
20 0.42
22 0.4
24 0.39
26 0.38
28 0.36
30 0.35
35 0.33
40 0.3
45 0.28
50 0.27
55 0.26
60 0.25
70 0.23
80 0.2
90 0.19
100 0.18
110 0.17
120 0.16
130 0.16
140 0.15
150 0.15
165 0.13
180 0.13
195 0.13
210 0.13