DRC-2010-005301 - 0901a068801c80fd

DENISO
MINES
September 27, 2010
VIA PDF AND EXPRESS DELIVERY
Rusty Lundberg, Co-Executive Secretary
Utah Water Quality Board
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
195 North 1950 West
P.O. Box 144810
Sait Lake City, UT 84114-4820
Denison iMinet (USA) Corp.
1050 17th Street, SuKo 950
Denver, CO S02S5
USA
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]S
www.denisonniines.coin
DRC-2010-005501
Dear Mr. Lundberg:
Re: state of Utah Ground Water Discharge Permit No. UGW370004 White Mesa Uranium Mill -
Transmittal of Hydraulic Testing Report
Reference is made to Utah Department of Environmental Quality ("UDEQ's") letter of April 8, 2010 regarding
chloroform concentrations exceeding the groundwater standard in Monitor Well TW4-6, and Denison Mines
(USA) Corp's ("Denison's") February 18, 2010 Plan of Action and Work Schedule to address chloroform
concentrations in TW4-6. As identified in those documents, this letter transmits the September 20, 2010
Hydraulic Testing Report prepared by Hydro Geo Chem, Inc. for chloroform monitoring wells TW4-4, TW4-6,
and TW4-26 at White Mesa Mill.
As committed in the February 18, 2010 letter, TW4-26 was installed and developed prior to August 1, 2010, has
undergone hydraulic testing as discussed in the attached report, and will be sampled quarterly for the same
constituents as the other chloroform monitoring wells.
Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions or require any further information.
Yours very truly,
DENISON MINES (USA) CORP.
Jo Ann Tischler
Director, Compliance and Permitting
cc: David C, Frydenlund
Harold R. Roberts
David E. Turk
Kathy Weinei
HYDRAULIC TESTING OF TW4-4,
TW4-6, AND TW4-26
WHITE MESA URANIUM MILL
JULY 2010
September 20, 2010
Prepared for:
DENISON MINES (USA) CORPORATION
1050 17th Street, Suite 950
Denver, Colorado 80265
Prepared by:
HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC.
51 West Wetmore, Suite 101
Tucson, Arizona 85705
[phone]
Project Number 7180000.00-01.0
HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC.
^environmental Saence <&• Technology
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. HYDRAULIC TESTING 3
2.1 Data Collection ...3
2.2 Data Analysis 4
2.3 Results 5
3. ESTIMATED PERCHED WATER PORE VELOCrTIES IN THE VICINrFY OF
TW4-4, TW4-6, AND TW4-26 7
4. ESTIMATED LONG-TERM SUSTAINABLE PUMPING RATES 9
5. CONCLUSIONS 11
6. LIMITATIONS 13
7. REFERENCES 15
TABLES
1 Parameters Used in Hydraulic test Analyses
2 Slug Test Results
3 Estimated Perched Zone Pore Velocities (including TW4-14 data in hydraulic gradient
calculations
4 Estimated Perched Zone Pore Velocities (excluding TW4-14 data from hydraulic gradient
calculations)
5 Estimated Sustainable Long-Term Pumping Rates
FIGURES
1 Site Plan and Perched Well Locations, White Mesa Site
2 Kriged 2"*^ Quarter, 2010 Water Levels Showing Pathlines Near TW4-4, TW4-6, and
TW4-26 (including data from TW4-14), White Mesa Site
3 Kriged 2"'' Quarter, 2010 Water Levels Showing Pathlines Near TW4-4, TW4-6, and
TW4-26 (excluding data from TW4-14), White Mesa Site
4 Simulated Drawdown (displacement) During Long-Term Pumping of TW4-4 at 4 GPM
5 Simulated Drawdown (displacement) During Long-Term Pumping of TW4-6 at 0.064
GPM
6 Simulated Drawdown (displacement) During Long-Term Pumping of TW4-26 at 0.073
GPM
APPENDIX
Slug Test Analysis Plots
Hydraulic Testing of TW4-4, TW4-6, and
TW4-26 White Mesa Uranium Mill, July 2010
H:\718000\hydtstl0\report\TW4_TW6_TW26_testing rpt.doc
September 20, 2010
1. INTRODUCTION
This report describes Hydro Geo Chem, Inc's (HGC's) hydraulic testing of temporary perched
zone groundwater monitoring wells TW4-4, TW4-6, and TW4-26 at the White Mesa Uranium
Mill (the "Mill" or the "site"). The well locations are shown in Figure 1. Well TW4-26 was
installed in May 2010 as a new downgradient well to t>etter define the distribution of chloroform
in the perched groundwater. The rationale for the installation of TW4-26 is generally consistent
with HGC (2007). All three wells were completed in nominal 6% inch diameter boreholes using
flush-thread, 4-inch diameter PVC casing and 0.02-inch factory slotted screen.
Hydraulic testing consisted of slug tests conducted on July 7 and 8, 2010. Test data were
analyzed to estimate perched zone hydraulic properties in the vicinity of each well. Slug testing
and analysis procedures were similar to those used in previous testing at the site during
July 2002, June 2005, and October 2009 as described in HGC (2002, 2005, and 2009). Results of
the test analysis were used to estimate the long-term sustainable average pumping rate for each
well.
Hydraulic Testing of TW4-4, TW4-6, and
TW4-26 White Mesa Uranium Mill, July 2010
H:\718000\hydtstiO\rBport\TW4_TW6_TW26_tesung rpt.doc
September 20,2010
2. HYDRAULIC TESTING
HGC personnel conducted hydraulic tests on July 7 and 8, 2010. The hydraulic tests consisted of
slug tests performed in a manner substantially the same as described in HGC (2002, 2005, and
2009). The purpose of the tests was to estimate hydraulic parameters (primarily hydraulic
conductivity) in the vicinity of each well. The same slug and electric water level meter were used
in the current, the June 2005, and the October 2009 testing events. The submersible 0-30 pounds
per square inch absolute (psia) Level Troll 500™ pressure transducers and data loggers used in
the current tests were similar to those used in previous tests.
2.1 Data Collection
The slug used for the tests consisted of a sealed, pea-gravel-filled, schedule 80 PVC pipe
approximately 3 feet long as described in HGC (2002). The 3-foot slug displaced approximately
0.75 gallons of water. Two Level TrolF^ data loggers were used for each test. One of the Level
Trolls 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 thermally protected environment near each well during each test.
In all cases, water level data were collected automatically using a Level Troll data logger and by
hand using the electric water level meter. Automatically logged data were collected at 3-second
intervals. Hand-collected data were obtained more frequently in the first few minutes of each test
when water levels were changing rapidly, then less frequently as the rate of water level change
diminished.
Prior to each test, the static water level in each well was measured by hand using the electric
water level meter. The data logger was then lowered to a depth of approximately 8 to 10 feet
below the static water level, and background pressure readings were collected for approximately
45 to 60 minuteis prior to beginning a test. The purpose of collecting the background data was to
allow correction of test data for any trends detected in water levels measured at the wells.
Once background data were collected, the slug and electric water level meter sensor were
suspended in the well just above the static water level. Each test commenced by lowering the
slug to a depth of approximately 2 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. Upon
completion, equipment pulled from each well was rinsed with clean water prior to its use in the
3
Hydraulic Testing of TW4-4, TW4-6, and
TW4-26 White Mesa Uranium Mill, July 2010
H:\718000\hydtstl0\report\TW4_TW6_TW26_testing tpt.doc
September 20,2010
next test. Automatically logged data were checked and backed up on the hard drive of a laptop
computer.
2.2 Data Analysis
Data were analyzed using AQTESOLV™ (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. In general, 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
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. In general, the maximum
measured rise in water levels was less than would be expected considering the slug volume, the
volume in the 4-inch-diameter casing, and the volume in the annular space between the casing
and the 6%-inch-diameter bore. Assuming a 30 percent effective porosity for the filter pack, the
expected rise in water level is approximately 1 foot per gallon. The maximum expected rise for
the 3-foot, 0.75-gallon slug is therefore about 0.75 feet. If only the 4-inch diameter casing is
considered, a maximum rise of approximately 1.12 ft is expected for the 0.75 gallon slug.
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 contact as defined in the drilling logs (Table
1). In cases where the static water level was below the top of the screened interval, the saturated
thickness was also the effective screen length. In cases where the static water level was above the
top of the screened interval, the partial penetration of the well was considered in the analysis. In
each case, the test duration was short enough that the impact of changing barometric pressure
could be ignored.
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 for the straight-line portion of the data that results when the log of
displacement is plotted against time 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 generally allows a fit to both early and late time data and is sensitive to storage and
the specified initial water level rise. Both solutions were used for comparison. Automatically
logged and hand-collected data were analyzed separately using both solution methods. The hand-
4
Hydraulic Testing of TW4-4, TW4-6, and
TW4-26 White Mesa Uranium Mill, July 2010
H:\718000\hydtst 10\report\TW4_T W6_TW26_testing rpt .doc
September 20, 2010
collected data, therefore, served as an independent data set and a check on the accuracy of the
automatically logged data.
2.3 Results
The results of the analyses are provided in Table 2 and Appendix A. Appendix A contains plots
generated by AQTESOLV™ that show the quality of fit between measured and simulated
displacements, and reproduce the parameters used in each solution. Estimates of hydraulic
conductivity range from 1.0 x 10"^ centimeters per second (cm/s) at TW4-6 to 1.7 x IO'"* cm/s at
TW4-4. These values are within the range previously measured at the site.
In general, the agreement between hydraulic conductivities estimated from the KGS and
Bouwer-Rice solutions is good, and values agree within a factor of two with one exception. At
TW4-4, the estimate obtained using KGS differs from the estimate obtained from the late-time
data using Bouwer-Rice by a factor of more than five.
The agreement between estimates obtained from automatically logged and hand-collected data is
also good. In all cases, the estimates based on automatically logged and hand-collected data
using the KGS solution are within a factor of two. Estimates obtained from automatically logged
and hand-collected data using the Bouwer-Rice solution are also within a factor of two with one
exception. At TW4-4, the estimate obtained to hand collected data differs from the estimate
obtained to late-time automatically logged data by a factor between two and three.
Hydraulic Testing of TW4-4, TW4-6, and
TW4-26 White Mesa Uranium Mill, July 2010
H:\71800O*ydtstl0\repoit\TW4_TW6_TW26_testingipt.doc
September 20.2010
3. ESTIMATED PERCHED WATER PORE VELOCITIES IN THE
VICINITY OF TW4-4, TW4-6, AND TW4-26
Average perched groundwater pore velocities in the vicinity of the tested wells are estimated
using the hydraulic conductivity estimates obtained from the wells and hydraulic gradients
calculated from site water levels. This method is similar to that presented in HGC (2005).
Because the hydraulic conductivity estimates represent values vertically averaged over the
measured saturated thicknesses of the wells, the calculated travel times also represent values
averaged over the saturated thicknesses.
Figure 2 is a contour map of perched water level data from the 2"** quarter of 2010. This map was
generated by gridding the raw data using ordinary linear kriging with a linear variogram. The
general direction of perched water flow inferred from the water level contours near the tested
wells is south-southeast to southeast. The apparent direction of flow in this area is complicated
by pumping at TW4-4 and a persistent, apparently anomalously low water level at TW4-14. The
low water level at TW4-14 yields an apparent 'sink' on the water level contour map. The
presence of this low water level suggests a locally strong easterly component of flow in the
vicinity of the tested wells that is likely erroneous. Figure 3 is a similar contour map of perched
water level data that is identical to Figure 2 except that the water level for TW4-14 is excluded
from the contouring. Without the apparent 'sink' produced by the low water level at TW4-14, the
locally strong easterly component of groundwater flow is absent, and groundwater gradients are
oriented more north-south.
Tables 3 and 4 provide the average perched water pore (interstitial) velocities in the vicinities of
the tested wells based on hydraulic conductivity estimates and hydraulic gradients calculated
from water levels shown on Figure 2 and Figure 3, respectively. Hydraulic conductivities shown
in Tables 3 and 4 are averages of KGS and Bouwer-Rice estimates from Table 2 that were
derived from automatically logged data. The average for TW4-4 includes the estimate obtained
from KGS and both early and late time data estimates obtained from Bouwer-Rice. An effective
porosity of 18 percent was used in the calculations. The heavy green lines in Figures 2 and 3
indicate the positions and lengths over which the perched zone hydraulic gradients were
calculated. The method of calculation is substantially the same as described in HGC (2005).
As indicated, the calculated pore velocities range from approximately 0.9 feet per year (ft/yr) at
TW4-6 to 525 ft/yr at TW4-4 using pathlines and hydraulic gradients from Figure 2, and from
approximately 1 ft/yr at TW4-26 to 525 ft/yr at TW4-4 using pathlines and hydraulic gradients
from Figure 3. Because the latter results were computed using data from Figure 3 (and Table 4)
7
Hydraulic Testing of TW4-4, TW4-6. and
TW4-26 White Mesa Uranium Mill, July 2010
H:\7l8000Uiydtstl0\repott\TW4_TW6_TW26_testing tpt doc
September 20, 2010
which excludes the apparently anomalously low water level at TW4-14 they are considered more
reliable.
Hydraulic Testing of TW4-4, TW4-6, and
TW4-26 White Mesa Uranium Mill, July 2010
H:\718000\hydtstl0\report\TW4_TW6_TW26_lesting rpt.doc
September 20, 2010
4. ESTIMATED LONG-TERM SUSTAINABLE PUMPING RATES
Long-term sustainable average pumping rates were estimated for TW4-4, TW4-6, and TW4-26
based on the estimated hydraulic properties and saturated thicknesses at each well. Sustainable
pumping rates were assumed to be those that would result in saturated thicknesses no smaller
than approximately 2 ft after approximately 20 years of pumping. A saturated thickness of
approximately 2 ft corresponds to drawdowns of approximately 20 ft in TW4-4, 22 ft in TW4-6,
and 16ftinTW4-26.
The hydraulic conductivities used to estimate perched water pore velocities (Tables 3 and 4) and
the saturated thicknesses shown in Table 1 were used to calculate transmissivities at each well.
These calculated transmissivities and the KGS solution storage coefficients derived from
analyzing automatically logged data (Table 2) were used to predict long-term drawdowns at each
well. The Neuman unconfined aquifer solution available in AQTESOLV was used to perform the
analyses. The Neuman solution requires a specific yield in addition to a storage coefficient. A
specific yield of 0.01 (within a typically acceptable range of 0.001 to 0.5) was specified.
Figures 4 though 6 and Table 5 show the results ofthe analyses. The estimated long term average
sustainable pumping rates (assuming efficient wells) are 4 gallons per minute (gpm) for TW4-4;
0.064 gpm for TW4-6; and 0.073 gpm for TW4-26. Potential error in these estimates results in
part from uncertainty in estimating hydraulic properties near the wells and in part from the
assumptions inherent in using analytical aquifer solutions to estimate the long-term pumping
rates. Assumptions of particular concem are that the p>erched zone is infinite in lateral extent and
that hydraulic properties are invariant. The two orders of magnitude reduction in estimated
hydraulic conductivity and sustainable pumping rate between TW4-4 and TW4-6 indicates that
both assumptions are inaccurate near these wells; the hydraulic properties vary significantly and
the reduction in hydraulic conductivity south of TW4-4 is large enough be considered a partial
hydraulic barrier. Regardless, the long-term pumping rate estimates indicate that pumping TW4-
4 is likely to result in significant removal of chloroform mass from the perched zone whereas
pumping of TW4-6 and TW4-26 would have litde impact due to low productivity.
Hydraulic Testing of TW4-4, TW4-6, and
TW4-26 White Mesa Uranium Mill. July 2010
H:\718000\hydtst 10\repoi1\TW4_TW6_TW26_testing ipt.doc
September 20,2010
5. CONCLUSIONS
Hydraulic conductivity estimates based on slug tests at TW4-4, TW4-6, and new well TW4-26
range from 1.0 x 10'^ cm/s at TW4-6 to 1.7 x 10'"' cm/s at TW4-4. These values are within the
range previously estimated at the site. In general, there is good agreement between estimates
obtained from automatically logged and hand-collected data and between estimates obtained
from the two solution methods (KGS and Bouwer-Rice). Estimates obtained from the two
solution methods agree within a factor of two except at TW4-4, where the estimate obtained
using KGS differs from the estimate obtained from the late-time data using Bouwer-Rice by a
factor of more than five.
Perched water pore (interstitial) velocities in the vicinities of the new wells are calculated to
range from approximately 0.9 feet per ft/yr at TW4-6 to 525 ft/yr at TW4-4 using data from
Figure 2, and from 1 ft/yr at TW4-26 to 525 ft/yr at TW4-4 using data from Figure 3. The latter
estimates (Table 4) are considered more reliable. The relatively large calculated pore velocity at
TW4-4 is due to both the relatively high hydraulic conductivity estimated for that well and the
relatively large hydraulic gradient immediately north (upgradient) of TW4-4. The relatively large
hydraulic gradient is partly due to the ongoing pumping of TW4-4 that was initiated during the
first quarter of 2010. The two orders of magnitude reduction in estimated hydraulic conductivity
between TW4-4 and TW4-6 is interpreted to result from the 'pinching out' of a higher
conductivity zone (HGC, 2007). The low hydraulic conductivity estimated for wells south of
TW4-4 is consistent with the results of the long term pumping test described in HGC (2004).
The estimated long term average sustainable pumping rates (assuming efficient wells) are 4 gpm
for TW4-4; 0.064 gpm for TW4-6; and 0.073 gpm for TW4-26. Potential error exists in these
estimates in part from uncertainty in estimating hydraulic properties near the wells and in part
from the assumptions inherent in using analytical aquifer solutions to estimate the long-term
pumping rates. Regardless, these estimates indicate that pumping TW4-4 is likely to result in
significant removal of chloroform mass from the perched zone whereas pumping of TW4-6 and
TW4-26 would have little impact due to low productivity.
11
Hydraulic Testing of TW4-4, TW4-6, and
TW4-26 White Mesa Uranium Mill, July 2010
H:\718000\hydtst 10\repoit\TW4_TW6_TW26_testing rpt.doc
September 20,2010
6. LIMITATIONS
The opinions and recommendations 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.
13
Hydraulic Testing of TW4-4, TW4-6, and
TW4-26 White Mesa Uranium Mill, July 2010
H:\718000\hydtst 10\ieport\TW4_TW6_TW26_testing rpt.doc
September 20,2010
7. 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. CD. 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. 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. August 3, 2005.
HGC. 2007. Preliminary Contamination Investigation Report. White Mesa Uranium Mill Site
Near Blanding, Utah. November 20, 2007.
HydroSolve, Inc. 2000. AQTESOLV for Windows. User's Guide.
15
Hydraulic Testing of TW4-4, TW4-6, and
TW4-26 White Mesa Uranium Mill. July 2010
H:\718000\hydtstl0\report\TW4_TW6_TW26_tesung ipt.doc
September 20, 2010
TABLES
M C
c ™ CQ
.Si >.
1 OQ
(0 .o
</) <
(A » (0 >.
a c <
tn
V H
3
^ TO
HI
•D 0) (0 3
(A
E TO k.
TO
Q.
3 £
0) «A
a c
CD a>
o w s
£ (0 —
a
a.
o £ ^
5 OT
0) o Q
M
Q. ^ w
a I
JI ffl H
W
I 3
ffl
CO
0)
oj II
2
.s
<D 3 cs
>«
o
8
CO
i
01
o £
i.
0)
3 3 O
m a *^ a
a •o a *^
o o
TJ C
a
(0
Ol S
UJ oc
3
CO
8
E
>!.
01 3 O CQ
(0
Q
•O
0) O) ra o
cs o
a E o
(A
O
M C
OT
01
o
(0 e
CO
u
V CO
S ca
Si 3 u - 2
ca
0)
o
I
UJ
o
li) <
CO
o
I Ol CO CO
Ti-cs
liJ
00
CO
o
I UJ CO CM
in o
UJ
cd
< z
eo o
Ui
CO CO
<
z
00 Sl
o
CM
s
gl a>
CM
ffl .o
ffl .a
CO
o o o oo
(A C
_o
'.5 TO
3
(A U
.2 TO .tr o o o c •3; « > -o
0) 2 o ®
CO 0) 3
Hi § 2
« N -O
fit
»;
II
in 1^
UJ O)
c
_3
O
c
>*
re V
e
l
o
c
i
re V
e
l
o
c
i
ft
/
y
r
1.
2
9
0.
8
5 m CVJ m
Po
i
ie
n
t
Jl
l
c G
r
a
d
i
CM 0 CM 0 CM
0
Jl
l
c G
r
a
d
i
ft
/
f
t
.O
O
E
-
.4
0
E
-
•6
4
E
-
Hy
d
r
a
i
00
Ch
a
n
g
e
CJ>
He
a
d
0)
Pa
t
h
l
l
r
0 0
in
0 0 in
0 cv CM
Pa
t
h
l
l
r
0 3 •a c 0
(f
t
/
y
r
)
6.
3
8
E
-
0
2
3.
0
1 E
-
0
2
3.
0
0
E
+
0
0
u
0
Hy
d
r
a
u
l
[c
m
/
s
)
.2
8
E
-
0
5
,0
8
E
-
0
5
,0
7
E
-
0
3
CM
S CO
CM CO
IT
W
4
-
TW
4
-
TW
4
-
CO
CO
0)
Q 00
i
o OQ •Q c ca
CO
O
a>
?
O eg
2
!.§
•55 «
ft OJ
go
P M
ct]
O 0)
as.
.0) 0)
II
it
II
CO ffl .0
ffl
i
o
O CM S)
(A C
_o
TO
3
.2 S
|s
o d)
> TO
£ O) o o
(a -o
iSlf
o 2
I? I|
Ui H
O)
c ••5
3
o
o
>c
i
t
y 1

e V
e
i
c
ft
/
y
r
0.
9
6
1.
6
8 in CM in
Po
i
ie
n
t
ll
i
c G
r
a
d
I
ft
/
f
t
,4
1 E
-
0
3
,7
5
E
-
0
2
,6
4
E
-
0
2
Hy
d
r
a
i
1^ CM 00
Hy
d
r
a
i
Ch
a
n
g
e
g CO l->. cn
He
a
d
Pa
t
h
l
i
n
e
Pa
t
h
l
i
n
e
g 0
00
in in
CM
0 CM CM
Pa
t
h
l
i
n
e
> 'is u
3 •0 C 0
>>
6.
3
8
E
-
0
2
3.
0
1 E
-
0
2 0 0 +
UJ 0 0
CO
0
Hy
d
r
a
u
l
(c
m
/
s
)
2.
2
8
E
-
0
5
1.
0
8
E
-
0
5
1.
0
7
E
-
0
3
fe
l
l
CO CM CO
IT
W
4
-
IT
W
4
-
to
CQ
V
ffl
o
s
CO
^;
I
PJ
CO
(A
0)
TO
OC
O)
c 'Q.
E 3 Q.
c
c
0) ^7 o> c o in -1
Ui 0)
-1 O) CQ TO
^ < 1-> <
.o TO c TO
W
3 (0
•o 0>
TO
im
(A
UJ
0)
Ra
i
ra c
Q.
in
a
b
l
e P
u
m
(g
p
m
)
•"i-
0.
0
6
4
0.
0
7
3
CO
Su
s
i
ic
k
n
e
s
s
te
d T
h
i
g 00 CM
CvJ CM
a
3
Sa
t
jc
t
i
v
i
t
y
*
(f
t
/
y
r
)
6.
3
8
E
-
0
2
3.
0
1 E
-
0
2
1 0
0
+
3
0
0
E
on
c
i
i
u o
Hy
d
r
a
u
l
[c
m
/
s
)
.2
8
E
-
0
5
,0
8
E
-
0
5
.0
7
E
-
0
3
CM
We
U
CO
CM CO We
U
TW
4
-
TW
4
-
|T
W
4
-
1> a CO
to
.8
1
s
T3 c; CO 52
CO a
2 II
1
a 3
.C
^ E
*- OJ
III
ffl
JD
ca
5 o
PROPERTY
BOUNDARY
MW-20 •
TW4-ig
O
TWN-1
TW4-26
if
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well
temporary perctied monitoring well
perched p4ezometer
temporary perched nitrate
monitoring well
temporary perched monitoring well
installed May. 2010
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.
SITE PLAN
AND PERCHED WELL LOCATIONS
WHITE MESA SITE
9/20/10 H:/718000/hydtstl 0/welloo.srf
EXPLANATION
MW-22 pwchad monitoring well showing
0 5450 elavation in feet amsl
_ temporary perched monitoring wall
w 5556 showing elevation in feet amsl /pathtine for hydraulic
gradient calculation NOTE: MW-4, MW-26, TW4-4, TW4-19 and TW4-20 are pumping wells
• 5594
TWN-4
perched piezometer showing
elevation in feet amsl
A temporary perched nitrate monitoring well V showing elevation in feet amsl
TW4.26 «temporary perched monitoring wall installed May. 2010 showing elevation in feet amsl
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.
KRIGED 2nd QUARTER, 2010 WATER LEVELS
SHOWING PATHLINES NEAR TW4-4, TW4-6. AND TW4-26
(including data from TW4-14)
WHITE MESA SITE
SJS 9/20/10
REFERENCE
H:/718000/hydtstl O/wlpath.srf
SCALE IN FEET
EXPLANATION
MW-22 perched monitoring well showing
0 5450 elevation in feet amsl
n ^©'"PO'^'y perched monitoring well W 5556 showing elevation in feet amsl
P'^Z-i perched piezometer showing
• ^^^^ elevation in feet amsl
TWN-4
^ 5605
TW4-26
g^^^ temporary perched monitonng well installed
/pathline for hydraulic
gradient calculation NOTE: MW-4. MW-26. TW4-4, TW4-19 and TW4-20 are pumping wells
temporary perched nitrate monitoring well
showing elevation in feet amsl
May, 2010 showing elevation in feet amsl
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.
KRIGED 2nd QUARTER. 2010 WATER LEVELS
SHOWING PATHLINES NEAR TW4-4, TW4-6, AND TW4-26
(excluding data from TW4-14)
WHITE MESA SITE
SJS 9/20/10 H:/718000/hydtst10/wlpathb.srf
_OT
0)
OT
O 4-
0 TD
O
3
0)
c c o o c D
c o
o
CO
c
CO
E
3
a)
OT
OD
-4—»
0)
E (Q k_
(0
(0
T3 ,
CN. *i O
CD 9
CD O
II II
I- CO
CO m o •
O UJ •c- CM
O CD
C» ^
II II
CO
1 r
J \ I L J \ I I I
-I-LU
O
CD
-I-
LU
O
Lf)
-I-LU O
+ LU
O
O O
O
o o
c
'E
E
UJ
S
UJ
u o
CO —
ai
Z 3
Si
I"
Q Z
UJ
^ a
Q.
o
5
o
CNI
to
—J
CO
O
CN
LO ID
0)
OT
O
CD 1
•4—1
+-
0) •o o
0)
"3 cn
<
T3 <D
C
c o o c D
ID I
LU
c g
_3
O
CO
c
CO E
3
Qi
Z
OT L_
CD
E
(0
CO
CO
•o
CO O T- CD
r*- o o CO
CD C) ci
II II II II
I- CO (&c2
CD
E
CO
UJ
UJ o
<
_l
Q.
(O
Q
o o z
CL
Q.
Z 3 O
Q 2 > lil <=>
Q Z
UJ -*
^ Q
CO
10
5
o
CM
CO
—1 CO
(;^) luaLuaoBidsjQ
0)
OT
O
CD Cvl I
-t—'
0) TJ O
CTI
<
TJ 0) C
c o o c
c g
o
CO
c
CO
E
0)
OT
•4—'
E
CD
CO
CL
O CNJ •c- O O
ci d csi
II II II II
I- CO W c2
E~i—r
J I L
O CM
c
'E
(D
E
1-
I-z
UJ ^
Cvl
UJ f-
Q. O CO Z Q E S —'S tl.
Z 3 O
^ (L ro
Q z
Q O UJ -I
3i 3 ce. S3
CO
o
CM
CO —1 OT
CD
(y) luauiaoBjdsja
APPENDIX A
SLUG TEST ANALYSIS PLOTS
Time (min)
100.
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\718000\hydtst10\tw4\tw4.aqt
Date: 09/14/10 Time: 13:35:54
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TW4-4
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 22. ft
WELL DATA {tw4-4)
Initial Displacement: 0.55 ft
Totai Well Penetration Depth: 22. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft
Static Water Column Height: 22. ft
Screen Length: 18. ft
Well Radius: 0.28 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 0.001663 cm/sec
Kz/Kr = OJ.
Ss =0.0006213 ft"''
Time (min)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\718000\hydtst10\tw4\tw4br.aqt
Date: 09/14/10 Time: 13:36:12
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TW4-4
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 22. ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): OJ.
WELL DATA (tw4-4)
Initial Displacement: 0.55 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 22. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft
Static Water Column Height: 22. ft
Screen Length: 18. ft
Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 0.0002889 cm/sec yO = 0.05199 ft
1.
CO
b
T—I—I—t—I—1—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—i—I—I—r
• • c
_l I I I L
8. 10.
Time (min)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\718000\hvdtst10\tw4\tw4bret.aqt ---
Date: 09/14/10 Time: 13:36:28
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TW4-4
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 22. ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): OJ^
WELL DATA (tw4-4)
Initial Displacement: 0.55 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 22. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft
Static Water Column Height: 22. ft
Screen Length: 18. ft
Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 0.001261 cm/sec yO = 0.2376 ft
0.8
E- 0.6
0.
"1 I I I I I II n—I—lllll T 1 1—lllll
I I I I I I I I I I III j_a_i I
0.1 1. 10.
Time (min)
100.
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\718000\hydtst10\tw4\tw4H.aqt
Date: 09/14/10 Time: 13:36:55
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: DUSA
Test Well: TW4-4
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 22. ft
WELL DATA (TW4-4)
Initial Displacement: 0.55 ft Static Water Column Height: 22. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 22. ft Screen Length: 18. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 0.001631 cm/sec Ss = 0.0005381
Kz/Kr = OJ.
E 0} o
CO
Q.
w
b
0.1
I I I r T—1—I—I—I—r T—I—r
0.01 I—I—I—I—I I I I I I I I I I ^^^-J I I I I I I 1-
0. 2. 4. 6. 8. 10
Time (min)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\718000\hvdtst10\tw4\tw4Hbr.aqt
Date: 09/14/10 Time: 13:39:04
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: DUSA
Test Well: TW4-4
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 22. ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): OJ^
WELL DATA {Tw4-4)
Initial Displacement: 0.55 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 22. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft
Static Water Column Height: 22. ft
Screen Length: 18. ft
Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 0.000791 cm/sec yO = 0.1541 ft
0.8
£ 0.6
c
E
CD O «
I 0.4
0.2 -
~l I I I M I 11 1 1 lllllll 1 1 lllllll 1 1 lllllll 1 1 llllll
-g •—• nnncTb
0. I 1—I lllllll I llllllll I III I I lllllll I LJ_
0.01 0.1 1. 10. 100. 1000.
Time (min)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\718000\hydtst10\tw6\tw6.aqt
Date: 09/13/10 Time: 16:20:34
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TW4-6
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 24^ ft
WELL DATA (tw4-6)
Initial Displacement: 0.41 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 24. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft
Static Water Column Height: 24, ft
Screen Length: 24. ft
Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 1.149E-5 cm/sec
Kz/Kr = OJ.
Ss = 3.667E-5 r "I
-|—I—I—i—I—I—I—I—I—i—I—I—r T—I—r
E
§
a.
Ui
0.1 J I I I I L 1 I I I I I I L
0. 24. 48. 72.
Time (min)
96. 120.
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\718000\hydtst10\tw6\tw6br.aqt
Date: 09/13/10 Time: 16:20:48
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TW4-6
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 24. ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): Ol
WELL DATA (tw4-6)
Initial Displacement: 0.41 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 24, ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft
Static Water Column Height: 24, ft
Screen Length: 24. ft
Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 1.001 E-5 cm/sec yO = 0.3597 ft
0.4
0.32
g 0.16
0.08
0.
1—I MMM 1 1—I lllll
lllll I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I—lllll
0.1 10.
Time (min)
100. 1000.
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\718000\hvdtst10\tw6\tw6H.aqt
Date: 09/13/10 Time: 16:21:02
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: DUSA
Test Well: TW4-6
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 24. ft
WELL DATA (TW4-6)
Initial Displacement: 0.41 ft Static Water Column Height: 24. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 24. ft Screen Length: 24. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 1.189E-5 cm/sec Ss = 0.0001486 ft'"'
Kz/Kr = OJ.
T—I—\—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—r—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—r
c
CD
E
CD O
0.1
0.01 ^—'—lllll J I I I I I I I I L
0. 40. 80. 120.
Time (min)
160. 200.
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\718000\hydtst10\tw6\tw6Hbr.aqt
Date: 09/13/10 Time: 16:21:29
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: DUSA
Test Well: TW4-6
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 24, ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): OJ^
WELL DATA (TW4-6)
Initial Displacement: 0.41 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 24, ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft
Static Water Column Height: 24. ft
Screen Length: 24. ft
Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 1.319E-5 cm/sec yO = 0.3696 ft
1. 10.
Time (min)
100. 1000.
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\718000\hydtst10\tw26\tw26.aqt
Date: 09/13/10 Time: 16:16:16
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TW4-26
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 18, ft
WELL DATA (tw4-26)
Initial Displacement: 0.53 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 20. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft
Static Water Column Height: 20, ft
Screen Length: 20. ft
Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 2.395E-5 cm/sec
Kz/Kr = OJ.
Ss = 0.0003233 r ^
1. 1—I—I—I—I—I—r T—I—I—I—1—I—I—I—r T—I—r
E
(D O
0.1
0.01 I—I—I—I—I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I—I-
0. 24. 48. 72. 96. 120.
Time (min)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\718000\hvdtst10\tw26\tw26br.aqt
Date: 09/13/10 Time: 16:17:00
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TW4-26
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 18, ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): M
WELL DATA (tw4-26)
Initial Displacement: 0.53 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 20. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft
Static Water Column Height: 20. ft
Screen Length: 20. ft
Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 2.165E-5 cm/sec yO = 0.3944 ft
0.6
0.48
^ 0.36
c
CO 0.24 -
0.12 -
0.
~i I I I I 1111 i—I—I I I 111 TTTT 1 1 1 IIMI
J I llllll I I I I M I I I I t I llllll I I L_l_
0.1 10.
Time (min)
100. 1000.
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\718000\hydtst10\tw26\tw26H.aqt
Date: 09/13/10 Time: 16:17:19
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: DUSA
Test Well: TW4-26
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 18, ft
WELL DATA (TW4-26)
Initial Displacement: 0.53 ft Static Water Column Height: 20. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 20. ft Screen Length: 20. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 2.284E-5 cm/sec Ss = 0.0003125 ft"''
Kz/Kr = OJ.
c
CD
E
CD
0.1
T—I—I—I—I—I—I—r T—I—I—I—I—I—r
0.01 lllll J I I I I I I I I I : I I—I—I—L
24. 48. 72.
Time (min)
96. 120.
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\718000\hydtst10\tw26\tw26Hbr.aqt
Date: 09/13/10 Time: 16:17.42
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: DUSA
Test Well: TW4-26
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 18, ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): OJ.
WELL DATA (TW4-26)
Initial Displacement: 0.53 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 20. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft
Static Water Column Height: 20, ft
Screen Length: 20. ft
Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 2.553E-5 cm/sec yO = 0.4507 ft
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring welt
temporary perched monitoring wall
parched piezometer
TWN-i temporary perched nitrate
O monitoring well
™J-26 temporary perched monitoring well
V installed May. 2010
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.
SITE PLAN
AND PERCHED WELL LOCATIONS
WHITE MESA SITE
SJS 9/20/10 H:/718000/hydtst10/welloc.srf