DRC-2010-003901 - 0901a068801a503f

DENISO
MINES
DRC-2010-00390
Denison Mines (USA) Corp
Received
m 2010
Division of
Radiation Control
(USA) Corp.
105017th Street, Suite 950
Denver, CO 80265
USA
Tel: [phone]
Fax: 303 38»4125
www.clenisonmines.com
June 24, 2010
SENT VIA PDF AND FEDERAL EXPRESS
Mr. Phil Goble
Hydrogeologist
State of Utah Department of Environmental Quality
195 North 1950 West
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4850
Re: Response to Request for Information Dated June 1, 2010
White Mesa Uranium Mill - Modification of Groundwater Monitoring Quality
Assurance Plan to Address Turbidity Stabilization and Low-Flow Sampling and
Request for Interim Variance
Dear Mr. Goble:
This letter and attachments respond, in part, to your request for information of June 1, 2010,
regarding the Denison Mines (USA) Corp. (Denison) White Mesa Mill Groundwater Quality
Assurance Plan.
Specifically, Item 1 of your letter requests that Denison submit by July 1, 2010 the as-built
reports for:
• Chloroform monitoring wells TW4-23, TW4-24, and TW4-25, and
• All 19 nitrate monitoring wells.
In response to your request, his letter transmits for your review and use two copies of each ofthe
following documents:
• A letter report addressing installation and hydraulic testing of TW4-23, TW4-24, and
TW4-25, (Hydro Geo Chem, March 17, 2010)
• Perched Nitrate Monitoring Well Installation and Hydraulic Testing Report (Hydro Geo
Chem, March 10, 2010).
Item 2 of your letter requests that Denison explain and justify how all commonly available well
development techniques were used on the wells in quesfion. Both the March 17, 2010
chloroform letter report and the March 10, 2010 nitrate well report describe the construction,
development, and hydraulic testing methods applied to the subject wells. All the wells identified
in the two reports above were developed by surging and bailing, as stated in those reports.
Please advise me if you require any further information.
Yours truly,
Jo Ann Tischler
Director, Compliance and Permitting
cc: David C. Fryenlund
Ron F. Hochstein
Ryan Palmer
Harold R. Roberts
David E. Turk
Enclosures
DENISO
MINES Mi

March 17, 2010

David Frydenlund, Esq.
Denison Mines (USA) Corporation
1050 17th Street, Suite 950
Denver, Colorado 80265

Dear Mr. Frydenlund,

This letter discusses the installation and hydraulic testing of perched groundwater monitoring
wells TW4-23, TW4-24, and TW4-25 at the White Mesa Uranium Mill site (the site). These wells
were installed during May, 2007, to better define the distribution of chloroform detected in the
perched zone east and northeast (cross gradient to upgradient) of the tailings cells. Well TW4-23
bounds the chloroform plume to the south; well TW4-24 bounds the chloroform plume to the west;
and well TW4-25 bounds the chloroform plume to the north. Hydraulic testing was performed by
Hydro Geo Chem, inc. (HGC) during the week of November 26, 2007. Preliminary hydraulic test
results were submitted to Denison Mines on December 19, 2007.

Well Installation

Drilling and well construction activities were performed by Bayles Exploration.
Mr. Lawrence Casebolt, under contract to Denison Mines, provided drilling and well construction
oversight and was responsible for lithologic logging of all borings. HGC was on-site for a portion of
the well installation activities.

Figures 2 through 4 are well construction schematics based on well construction information
provided by Mr. Casebolt. All wells were completed in nominal 6 ¾-inch diameter boreholes using
flush-thread, 4-inch diameter polyvinyl chloride (PVC) casing and factory slotted screen. The depths
to water shown in the construction schematics were based on measurements taken at the time of the
hydraulic testing during November 2007.

At each location, a 12 ¾ inch diameter tricone bit was used to drill a boring of sufficient
diameter to install an 8-inch-diameter, Schedule-40 PVC surface (conductor) casing. This surface
casing extended to a depth of approximately 10 feet below land surface (ft bls).Once the surface
casing was in place, wells were drilled by air rotary using water and/or foam when needed to
maintain circulation.

David Frydenlund, Esq.
March 17, 2010
Page 2

H:\718000\hydtst07\wellreport\well_installation_07.doc
Wells TW4-23 and TW4-24 were drilled to 100 ft bls using the 6 ¾ inch diameter tricone bit,
then cored to 120 ft bls using a core bit with an outer diameter of 3 7/8 inches and an inner diameter
of 2 1/8 inches. Well TW4-25 was drilled to 110.8 ft bls using the 6 ¾ inch tricone bit, then cored to
140 ft bls.

All drill cuttings were logged at 2 ½-foot depth intervals and samples were collected in
labeled, self-sealing, plastic bags and labeled, plastic, cuttings storage boxes. The core was logged
then stored in labeled cardboard core boxes. Copies of lithologic logs, core logs, and photographs of
the core submitted by Mr. Casebolt are provided in Appendix A.

Fluids and cuttings brought to the surface during drilling were routed to pits excavated for
that purpose adjacent to the borings. In general, air was used as a drilling fluid until poor cuttings
retrieval necessitated the use of water and/or foam.

All borings were cored into the Brushy Basin member of the Morrison Formation. The
desired depth of each well casing was determined, the cored interval in each boring was reamed to
that depth using the 6 ¾ inch bit, and the casing installed. In general, the bottom of the casing was
placed a few feet below the contact with the Brushy Basin as defined by the core logs.

Wells were constructed using 4-inch diameter, Schedule-40, flush-threaded PVC casing and
0.02-slot, factory-slotted PVC screen. In each case, the attempt was made to extend screened sections
from just below the Brushy Basin contact to a depth near (and above) the static water level in the
borings. Colorado Silica Sand TM was used as a filter pack and installed to a depth of 3 to 5 feet
above the screened interval. The annular space above the filter pack was then sealed with 3 to 5 feet
of bentonite and grouted to the surface using Portland cement. Wells were developed by surging and
bailing.

Hydraulic Test Procedures

Hydraulic testing procedures were substantially the same as those used previously at the site,
as reported in Hydro Geo Chem (HGC), 20051. Tests consisted of slug tests using submersible
pressure transducers and data loggers to continuously record water level data before and during each
test. Automatically logged data were obtained at 3-second intervals. Water levels were also measured
by hand before and during each test using an electric water level meter. Hand-collected data were
obtained more frequently in the first few minutes of each test when water levels were changing
rapidly, then more slowly as the rate of water level change diminished. The hand-collected data
served as an alternate set of data that could be independently evaluated and used to verify the
automatically logged data.

Two slugs consisting of sealed, pea-gravel-filled, Schedule-80 PVC pipe, one approximately
3 feet long, and one approximately 4 feet long, as described in HGC, 2005, were used for the tests.
The 3-foot slug had a larger diameter and displaced approximately 0.75 gallons of water. The 4-foot
slug had a smaller diameter and displaced approximately 0.47 gallons. Two Level-TrollJ data
loggers were available to allow two wells to be tested simultaneously.

1 Hydro Geo Chem, Inc. 2005. Perched Monitoring Well Installation and Testing at the White Mesa Uranium Mill, April
through June, 2005.
David Frydenlund, Esq.
March 17, 2010
Page 3

H:\718000\hydtst07\wellreport\well_installation_07.doc
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 30 minutes
prior to beginning a test. Trends present in the background data were used to correct displacement
data prior to analysis.

Once background data were collected, the slug and electric water level meter sensor were
then 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 next test. Automatically
logged data were checked, downloaded to the hard drive of a laptop computer, and e-mailed to
HGC’s Tucson office for review and processing.

Data were analyzed using AQTESOLVETM (HydroSOLVE, 20002), 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 slightly below what 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 ¾-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 foot, and for the 4-foot, 0.47-gallon slug, about 0.47 foot.

Data were analyzed using two solution methods: the KGS unconfined method (Hyder et al.,
19943) and the Bouwer-Rice unconfined method (Bouwer and Rice, 19764). The saturated thickness
was calculated as the difference between the static water level measured just prior to the test and the
depth to the Brushy Basin contact as defined in the drilling logs (Table1).

Barometric pressure was recorded throughout each test using a BaroTrollTM pressure
transducer and logger. In all cases the test durations were short enough that the impact of changes in
barometric pressure was negligible.

The KGS solution is sensitive to storage and the specified initial water level rise and allows
estimation of both specific storage and hydraulic conductivity. The Bouwer-Rice solution is

2 HydroSolve, Inc. 2000. AQTESOLVE for Windows. User=s Guide.
3 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.
4 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.

ATTACHMENTS

TABLE

1 Slug Test Results

FIGURES

1 Site Plan and Perched Well Locations
2 TW4-23 As-Built Well Construction Schematic
3 TW4-24 As-Built Well Construction Schematic
4 TW4-25 As-Built Well Construction Schematic

APPENDICES

A Lithologic Logs
B Detailed Data Analysis

TABLE
TABLE 1
Slug Test Results for TW4-23, TW4-24, and TW4-25
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)
TW4-23 43 3.8 x 10-5 7.4 x 10-3 2.9 x 10-5 1.3 x 10-4 6.4 x 10-4 7.9 x 10-5
TW4-24 53 1.6 x 10-4 1.1 x 10-3 1.0 x 10-4 1.2 x 10-4 1.7 x 10-3 5.2 x 10-5
TW4-25 89 5.8 x 10-5 1.0 x 10-3 3.7 x 10-5 7.4 x 10-5 1.1 x 10-3 5.0 x 10-5
Notes:
Bouwer-Rice = Unconfined Bouwer-Rice solution method in Aqtesolv™
cm/s = Centimeters per second
ft = Feet
K = hydraulic conductivity
KGS = Unconfined KGS solution method in Aqtesolv™
Ss= specific storage
Automatically Logged Data Hand Collected Data
KGS KGS
H:\718000\hydtst07\reanalyze\Table1fin.xls: Table 1 3/16/2010

FIGURES
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
CELL NO. 2
CELL NO. 4A
3332
MW-21

3000
BOUNDARY
PROPERTY
SCALE IN FEET
0
CELL NO. 1
MILL SITE
MW-01
MW-02
MW-03
MW-05
MW-11
MW-12
MW-14
MW-15
MW-16
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-25
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
MW-31
MW-32
PIEZ-1
PIEZ-2
PIEZ-3
PIEZ-4
PIEZ-5
MW-26
TW4-1
TW4-2
TW4-3
TW4-4
TW4-5
TW4-6
TW4-9
TW4-11
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-14
TW4-16
TW4-18
TW4-20
TW4-21
MW-04TW4-7 TW4-8
TW4-10
TW4-22
TW4-19
TW4-23
TW4-24
TW4-25
TWN-1
TWN-2
TWN-3
TWN-4
TWN-5
TWN-6
TWN-7
TWN-8
TWN-9
TWN-10
TWN-11 TWN-12
TWN-13
TWN-14
TWN-15
TWN-16
TWN-17
TWN-18
TWN-19
(abandoned)
MW-20
PIEZ-1
perched monitoring well
temporary perched monitoring
well installed April, 2005
perched piezometer
MW-31
temporary perched monitoring well
perched monitoring well
installed April, 2005
SITE PLAN
AND PERCHED WELL LOCATIONS
WHITE MESA SITE
H:/718000/hydtst07/
wellreport/welloc10.srf
TW4-19
TW4-20
EXPLANATION
temporary perched monitoring well
installed May, 2007
TW4-23
wildlife pond
SJS
temporary perched nitrate
monitoring well
TWN-1
13/17/2010
TW
4

-

2
3

APPENDIX A

LITHOLOGIC LOGS

APPENDIX B

DETAILED DATA ANALYSIS
0.001 0.01 0.1 1. 10. 100.
0.
0.12
0.24
0.36
0.48
0.6
Time (min)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
f
t
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\718000\hydtst07\reanalyze\tw23\tw23.aqt
Date: 03/15/10 Time: 13:12:44
PROJECT INFORMATION
Client: DUSA
Test Well: tw4-23
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 43. ft
WELL DATA (tw4-23)
Initial Displacement: 0.555 ft Static Water Column Height: 43. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 44. ft Screen Length: 44. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.281 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 3.79E-5 cm/sec Ss = 0.007442 ft-1
Kz/Kr = 0.1
0. 10. 20. 30. 40. 50.
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\hydtst07\reanalyze\tw23\tw23bret.aqt
Date: 03/15/10 Time: 13:23:02
PROJECT INFORMATION
Client: DUSA
Test Well: tw4-23
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 43. ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (tw4-23)
Initial Displacement: 0.555 ft Static Water Column Height: 43. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 44. ft Screen Length: 44. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.281 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 2.897E-5 cm/sec y0 = 0.12 ft
0.1 1. 10. 100.
0.
0.08
0.16
0.24
0.32
0.4
Time (min)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
f
t
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\718000\hydtst07\reanalyze\tw23\tw23h.aqt
Date: 03/15/10 Time: 13:23:50
PROJECT INFORMATION
Client: DUSA
Test Well: tw4-23
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 43. ft
WELL DATA (tw4-23)
Initial Displacement: 0.555 ft Static Water Column Height: 43. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 44. ft Screen Length: 44. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.281 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 0.0001333 cm/sec Ss = 0.0006387 ft-1
Kz/Kr = 0.1
0. 4. 8. 12. 16. 20.
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\hydtst07\reanalyze\tw23\tw23brh.aqt
Date: 03/15/10 Time: 13:23:26
PROJECT INFORMATION
Client: DUSA
Test Well: tw4-23
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 43. ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (tw4-23)
Initial Displacement: 0.555 ft Static Water Column Height: 43. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 44. ft Screen Length: 44. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.281 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 7.9E-5 cm/sec y0 = 0.1725 ft
0.001 0.01 0.1 1. 10. 100.
0.
0.14
0.28
0.42
0.56
0.7
Time (min)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
f
t
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\718000\hydtst07\reanalyze\tw24\tw24.aqt
Date: 03/15/10 Time: 13:27:19
PROJECT INFORMATION
Client: DUSA
Test Well: tw4-24
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 53. ft
WELL DATA (tw4-24)
Initial Displacement: 0.658 ft Static Water Column Height: 53. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 52. ft Screen Length: 52. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.281 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 0.0001642 cm/sec Ss = 0.001094 ft-1
Kz/Kr = 0.1
0. 3. 6. 9. 12. 15.
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\hydtst07\reanalyze\tw24\tw24br.aqt
Date: 03/15/10 Time: 13:29:02
PROJECT INFORMATION
Client: DUSA
Test Well: tw4-24
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 53. ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (tw4-24)
Initial Displacement: 0.658 ft Static Water Column Height: 53. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 52. ft Screen Length: 52. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.281 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 0.0001033 cm/sec y0 = 0.1309 ft
0.1 1. 10. 100.
0.
0.08
0.16
0.24
0.32
0.4
Time (min)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
f
t
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\718000\hydtst07\reanalyze\tw24\tw24h.aqt
Date: 03/15/10 Time: 13:29:32
PROJECT INFORMATION
Client: DUSA
Test Well: tw4-24
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 53. ft
WELL DATA (tw4-24)
Initial Displacement: 0.658 ft Static Water Column Height: 53. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 52. ft Screen Length: 52. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.281 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 0.0001206 cm/sec Ss = 0.001699 ft-1
Kz/Kr = 0.1
0. 4. 8. 12. 16. 20.
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\hydtst07\reanalyze\tw24\tw24brh.aqt
Date: 03/15/10 Time: 13:29:57
PROJECT INFORMATION
Client: DUSA
Test Well: tw4-24
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 53. ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (tw4-24)
Initial Displacement: 0.658 ft Static Water Column Height: 53. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 52. ft Screen Length: 52. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.281 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 5.154E-5 cm/sec y0 = 0.09928 ft
0.001 0.01 0.1 1. 10. 100.
0.
0.16
0.32
0.48
0.64
0.8
Time (min)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
f
t
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\718000\hydtst07\reanalyze\tw25\tw25.aqt
Date: 03/15/10 Time: 13:31:09
PROJECT INFORMATION
Client: DUSA
Test Well: tw4-25
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 89. ft
WELL DATA (tw4-25)
Initial Displacement: 0.71 ft Static Water Column Height: 89. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 89. ft Screen Length: 89. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.281 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 5.852E-5 cm/sec Ss = 0.001016 ft-1
Kz/Kr = 0.1
0. 5. 10. 15. 20. 25.
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\hydtst07\reanalyze\tw25\tw25br.aqt
Date: 03/15/10 Time: 13:32:05
PROJECT INFORMATION
Client: DUSA
Test Well: tw4-25
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 89. ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (tw4-25)
Initial Displacement: 0.71 ft Static Water Column Height: 89. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 89. ft Screen Length: 89. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.281 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 3.711E-5 cm/sec y0 = 0.1648 ft
0.1 1. 10. 100.
0.
0.08
0.16
0.24
0.32
0.4
Time (min)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
f
t
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\718000\hydtst07\reanalyze\tw25\tw25h.aqt
Date: 03/15/10 Time: 13:33:33
PROJECT INFORMATION
Client: DUSA
Test Well: tw4-25
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 89. ft
WELL DATA (tw4-25)
Initial Displacement: 0.71 ft Static Water Column Height: 89. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 89. ft Screen Length: 89. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.281 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 7.363E-5 cm/sec Ss = 0.001137 ft-1
Kz/Kr = 0.1
0. 3. 6. 9. 12. 15.
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\hydtst07\reanalyze\tw25\tw25brh.aqt
Date: 03/15/10 Time: 13:32:39
PROJECT INFORMATION
Client: DUSA
Test Well: tw4-25
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 89. ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (tw4-25)
Initial Displacement: 0.71 ft Static Water Column Height: 89. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 89. ft Screen Length: 89. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.281 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 5.004E-5 cm/sec y0 = 0.1574 ft

Perched Nitrate Monitoring Well Installation and Hydraulic Testing
H:\718000\hydtst09\wellreport\TWNinstallation_and_testing_rev1.doc
March 10, 2010
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 1
2. WELL INSTALLATION.................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Drilling Methods.....................................................................................................3
2.2 Well Construction and Development......................................................................4
3. HYDRAULIC TESTING.................................................................................................... 5
3.1 Data Collection .......................................................................................................5
3.2 Data Analysis..........................................................................................................6
3.3 Results.....................................................................................................................8
4. ESTIMATED PERCHED WATER TRAVEL TIMES IN THE
NORTHEASTERN PORTION OF THE SITE .................................................................. 9
5. CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................... 11
6. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 13
7. LIMITATIONS................................................................................................................. 15

TABLES

1 Parameters Used in Hydraulic Test Analyses
2 Slug Test Results
3 Estimated Hydraulic Conductivities and Perched Zone Pore Velocities

FIGURES

1 Site Plan and Perched Well Locations, White Mesa Site
2 TWN-1 As-Built Well Construction Schematic
3 TWN-2 As-Built Well Construction Schematic
4 TWN-3 As-Built Well Construction Schematic
5 TWN-4 As-Built Well Construction Schematic
6 TWN-5 As-Built Well Construction Schematic
7 TWN-6 As-Built Well Construction Schematic
8 TWN-7 As-Built Well Construction Schematic
9 TWN-8 As-Built Well Construction Schematic
10 TWN-9 As-Built Well Construction Schematic
11 TWN-10 As-Built Well Construction Schematic

Perched Nitrate Monitoring Well Installation and Hydraulic Testing
H:\718000\hydtst09\wellreport\TWNinstallation_and_testing_rev1.doc
March 10, 2010
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

12 TWN-11 As-Built Well Construction Schematic
13 TWN-12 As-Built Well Construction Schematic
14 TWN-13 As-Built Well Construction Schematic
15 TWN-14 As-Built Well Construction Schematic
16 TWN-15 As-Built Well Construction Schematic
17 TWN-16 As-Built Well Construction Schematic
18 TWN-17 As-Built Well Construction Schematic
19 TWN-18 As-Built Well Construction Schematic
20 TWN-19 As-Built Well Construction Schematic
21 Kriged December 2009 Water Levels Showing Locations of Hydraulic Gradient
Calculations, White Mesa Site

APPENDICES

A Lithologic Logs
B Background Corrections
C Slug Test Analysis Plots

Perched Nitrate Monitoring Well Installation and Hydraulic Testing
H:\718000\hydtst09\wellreport\TWNinstallation_and_testing_rev1.doc
March 10, 2010
1
1. INTRODUCTION
This report describes the installation and hydraulic testing of 19 new temporary perched zone
groundwater monitoring wells at the White Mesa Uranium Mill (the “Mill” or the “site”). A
complete description of the hydraulic testing is also provided in Appendix A of Hydro Geo Chem,
Inc. (HGC), 2009. The wells, designated TWN-1 through TWN-19 as shown in Figure 1, were
installed to better define the distribution of nitrate and chloride in the perched groundwater. Wells
TWN-11 through TWN-19 were the last of the TWN-series wells to be installed and development of
these wells was completed during the week prior to the testing. Wells TWN-1 through TWN-10 were
tested first to allow more time for water levels in the newest wells (TWN-11 through TWN-19) to
stabilize.
Hydraulic testing consisted of slug tests conducted between October 19 and October 26, 2009. Test
data were analyzed to estimate perched zone hydraulic properties in the vicinity of each new well.
Slug testing and analysis procedures were similar to those used in previous testing at the site during
July 2002 and June, 2005 as described in HGC, 2002, and HGC, 2005.

Perched Nitrate Monitoring Well Installation and Hydraulic Testing
H:\718000\hydtst09\wellreport\TWNinstallation_and_testing_rev1.doc
March 10, 2010
2

Perched Nitrate Monitoring Well Installation and Hydraulic Testing
H:\718000\hydtst09\wellreport\TWNinstallation_and_testing_rev1.doc
March 10, 2010
3
2. WELL INSTALLATION
All drilling and well construction activities were performed by Bayles Exploration. Mr. Lawrence
Casebolt, under contract to Denison Mines, provided drilling and well construction oversight and
was responsible for lithologic logging of all borings. Mr. Dean Henderson of the Utah Department of
Environmental Quality was on-site for a portion of the well installation activities.
HGC prepared the well installation portion of this report (Section 2) based on information supplied
by Mr. Casebolt. Figures 2 through 20 are well construction schematics for the new wells based on
well construction information provided by Mr. Casebolt. Wells TWN-1 through TWN-4 were
installed in February 2009; wells TWN-5 through TWN-10 were installed in August 2009; and wells
TWN-11 through TWN-19 were installed in September and October 2009.
All wells were completed in nominal 6 ¾ inch diameter boreholes using flush-thread, 4-inch
diameter polyvinyl chloride (PVC) casing and factory slotted screen. The depths to water shown in
the construction schematics were based on measurements taken at the time of the hydraulic testing
during October, 2009. Water levels in many of the wells were recovering slowly at the time of
drilling and casing installation, making it difficult to correctly calculate the lengths of screen needed.
For example, TWN-7 was initially dry when drilled, but had approximately 14 feet of water in the
casing (approximately 11 feet above the Brushy Basin contact) at the time of hydraulic testing.
2.1 Drilling Methods
At each location, a 12 ¾inch diameter tricone bit was used to drill a boring of sufficient diameter to
install an 8-inch-diameter, schedule-40 PVC surface (conductor) casing. This surface casing
extended to a depth of approximately 9 to10 feet below land surface (ft bls).
Once the surface casing was in place, wells were drilled by air rotary using water and/or foam when
needed to maintain circulation. Wells TWN1 through TWN-10 were drilled to total depth (TD) using
a 6 ¾ inch diameter tricone bit. Wells TWN-11 through TWN-19 were initially drilled using a 5-inch
diameter tricone bit. Borings were then reamed to TD using a 6 ¾ inch diameter tricone bit. Three
trial borings drilled using the 5inch bit were not completed as monitoring wells and were abandoned
using bentonite hole plug.

Perched Nitrate Monitoring Well Installation and Hydraulic Testing
H:\718000\hydtst09\wellreport\TWNinstallation_and_testing_rev1.doc
March 10, 2010
4
All drill cuttings were logged at 2 ½ -foot depth intervals and samples were collected in labeled, self-
sealing, plastic bags and labeled, plastic, cuttings storage boxes. Copies of lithologic logs submitted
by Mr. Casebolt are provided in Appendix A.
Fluids and cuttings brought to the surface during drilling were routed to pits excavated for that
purpose adjacent to the borings. In general, air was used as a drilling fluid until poor cuttings
retrieval necessitated the use of water and/or foam.
All borings were advanced into the Brushy Basin member of the Morrison Formation. In general, if a
boring was drilled more than a few feet into the Brushy Basin, it was backfilled with Colorado Silica
Sand TM to a depth just below the contact prior to well casing installation.
2.2 Well Construction and Development
All wells were constructed using 4inchdiameter, Schedule40, flush-threaded PVC casing and
0.02-slot, factory-slotted PVC screen. In each case, the attempt was made to extend screened sections
from just below the Brushy Basin contact to a depth near the static water level in the borings. In
cases where the boring was initially dry (for example TWN-7), or where water levels in the boring
were slowly recovering, the length of screen installed was partly based on water levels in nearby
wells. The assumption was made that the water level in a new well would eventually rise to a level
similar to that of nearby wells, and that the initially dry condition or condition of slow water level
recovery was due to low permeability conditions. As a result of these uncertainties, water levels in
some wells (for example TWN-8, installed in August, 2009) have recovered to a depth shallower
than the top of the screened interval of the well.
At each location, Colorado Silica Sand TM was used as a filter pack and installed to a depth of 3 to 5
feet above the screened interval. The annular space above the filter pack was then sealed with 3 to 5
feet of bentonite and grouted to the surface using portland cement. Wells were developed by surging
and bailing. At TWN-17 (Figure 18), the filter pack was inadvertently completed at a depth of
approximately 33 ft bls while the casing extended to a depth of 24 ft bls. The bore seal was placed
within the screened interval, and approximately 3 feet of screen extended above the seal, exposing
the screen to grout. Increased development time was reported to have been required to achieve clear
water from the well.

Perched Nitrate Monitoring Well Installation and Hydraulic Testing
H:\718000\hydtst09\wellreport\TWNinstallation_and_testing_rev1.doc
March 10, 2010
5
3. HYDRAULIC TESTING
HGC personnel conducted hydraulic tests between October 19 and October 26, 2009. The hydraulic
tests consisted of slug tests performed in the same manner as described in HGC, 2002 and HGC,
2005. Hydraulic tests were performed at all TWN-series perched well installations and at existing
well MW-24. The test results at MW-24 are described in a separate document. The purpose of the
tests was to estimate hydraulic parameters (primarily hydraulic conductivity) in the vicinity of each
new well. The same slugs and electric water level meter were used in both the current testing event
and the June 2005 testing event. The submersible 0-30 pounds per square inch absolute (psia) Level
Troll 500TM pressure transducers and data loggers used in the current tests were similar to those used
in previous tests.
3.1 Data Collection
Two slugs consisting of sealed, pea-gravel-filled, Schedule-80 PVC pipe, one approximately 3 feet
long, and one approximately 4 feet long, as described in HGC, 2002, were used for the tests. The
3-foot slug had a larger diameter and displaced approximately 0.75 gallons of water. The 4-foot slug
had a smaller diameter and displaced approximately 0.47 gallons. Typically, the 3-foot, 0.75-gallon
displacement slug was used. If a test using the 3-foot slug was slow due to low permeability
conditions, a concurrent test could be started in the next well using the 4-foot, 0.47-gallon slug. Two
Level-TrollJ data loggers were available to allow two wells to be tested simultaneously.
In all cases, water level data were collected automatically using a Level-TrollJ data logger and by
hand using the electric water level meter. Automatically logged data were collected at 5-second
intervals except at TWN-16, where a 1-second interval was used. Hand-collected data were obtained
more frequently in the first few minutes of each test when water levels were changing rapidly, then
more slowly 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 30 to 60
minutes prior to beginning a test. The purpose of collecting the background data was to allow
correction of test data for any trends in water levels measured at the wells. Typically, 30 minutes of
background readings were collected for TWN-1 through TWN-10, and 1 hour of background
readings for TWN-11 through TWN-19. The longer interval was used for wells TWN-11 through

Perched Nitrate Monitoring Well Installation and Hydraulic Testing
H:\718000\hydtst09\wellreport\TWNinstallation_and_testing_rev1.doc
March 10, 2010
6
TWN-19 because these were the most recently installed wells and there was a higher likelihood that
water levels in these wells had not yet stabilized after installation and development. Wells TWN-1
through TWN-10 were also tested first to give the more recently installed wells more time to
stabilize.
Once background data were collected, the slug and electric water level meter sensor were then
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 next test. Automatically logged data
were checked, backed up on the hard drive of a personal computer, and e-mailed to HGC’s Tucson
office daily for review and processing.
3.2 Data Analysis
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. In general, all data collected in the first 50 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 (50 seconds of data at 5-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 slightly below what 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
6¾-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 foot, and for the 4-foot, 0.47-gallon slug, about 0.47 foot. If
only the 4-inch diameter casing is considered, a maximum rise of approximately 1.12 feet is
expected for the 0.75 gallon slug, and approximately 0.75 foot for the 0.47 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
calculated as the difference between the static water level measured just prior to the test and the
depth to the Brushy Basin contact as defined in the drilling logs (Table1). In cases where the static
water level was below the top of the screened interval, the saturated thickness was also the effective

Perched Nitrate Monitoring Well Installation and Hydraulic Testing
H:\718000\hydtst09\wellreport\TWNinstallation_and_testing_rev1.doc
March 10, 2010
7
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.
Table 1 has substantially the same information presented in HGC, 2009. The screened intervals
presented in Table 1 for wells TW4-15 and TW4-19 have been revised based on final well
construction information supplied by Mr. Casebolt. These changes do not impact the results of the
test analyses presented in Tables 2 and 3.
Background data were analyzed for any obvious trends and when detected were used to correct
subsequent test readings. Background trends were used to correct data from wells TWN-2, TWN-9,
TWN-10, TWN-11, and TWN-12. (Data from TWN-7 were corrected for barometric pressure
changes as discussed below.) The method for background correction was to fit a linear or logarithmic
function to the background data then use that function to correct the subsequent test readings. In all
cases, the corrections were a small fraction of the total displacement created by the slugs. Plots of
raw and corrected displacements for these wells are provided in Appendix B.
Barometric pressure was recorded throughout each test using a BaroTrollTM pressure transducer and
logger. In all cases, except at TWN-7, the test duration was short enough that the impact of changing
barometric pressure was negligible. The overnight test at TWN-7 required a correction for
atmospheric pressure changes. Good agreement exists between hydraulic conductivity estimates
made by different solution methods after correcting the data. The interpretation at TWN-7 is
complicated by the extremely low hydraulic conductivity, the consequent small rate of change in
water levels during the test, and by the possibility that the relationship between changes in water
level and changes in barometric pressure was not constant over the test.
The behavior of water levels at TWN-7 in relation to changes in barometric pressure is consistent
with the discussion in HGC, 2004. Water level changes in the perched wells are impacted by
instantaneous transmission of barometric pressure changes down the well casings and delayed
(lagged and attenuated) transmission of pressure changes to the water table at locations remote from
the wells. The lag and attenuation at remote locations result from vertically downward propagation of
pressure changes through the low permeability vadose materials.
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

Perched Nitrate Monitoring Well Installation and Hydraulic Testing
H:\718000\hydtst09\wellreport\TWNinstallation_and_testing_rev1.doc
March 10, 2010
8
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-collected data,
therefore, served as an independent data set and a check on the accuracy of the automatically logged
data.
3.3 Results
The results of the analyses are provided in Table 2 and Appendix C. Appendix C contains plots
generated by AQTESOLVEJ that show the quality of fit between measured and simulated results,
and reproduce the parameters used in each solution. Estimates of hydraulic conductivity range from
3.6 x 10-7 centimeters per second (cm/s) at TWN-7 to 0.0142 cm/s at TWN-16. The value of 0.0142
cm/s estimated using the KGS solution for the test at TWN-16 is higher than any value previously
estimated for the perched zone. Except for the hydraulic conductivity estimate at TWN-16, 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 2 except at TWN-4, where the
estimates differed by a factor of about 63, and at TWN-16, where the estimates differed by a factor
of 2.2.
The agreement between estimates obtained from automatically logged and hand-collected data is also
good. In all but three cases, the estimates based on automatically logged and hand-collected data
using the KGS solution are within a factor of 2, and in the other three cases are within a factor of 3.
Estimates obtained from automatically logged and hand-collected data using the Bouwer-Rice
solution are also close: identical or within a factor of 2 in all cases except at TWN-13, where the
estimates differ by a factor of 3.
Specific storage estimates of 0.1 obtained at TWN-10 and TWN-13 using KGS are anomalously
high. These estimates suggest that these tests were impacted by near-well storage effects not
encountered at other wells.

Perched Nitrate Monitoring Well Installation and Hydraulic Testing
H:\718000\hydtst09\wellreport\TWNinstallation_and_testing_rev1.doc
March 10, 2010
9
4. ESTIMATED PERCHED WATER TRAVEL TIMES IN THE NORTHEASTERN
PORTION OF THE SITE
Average perched groundwater travel times in the vicinity of the TWN-series wells are estimated
based on the hydraulic conductivity estimates obtained from the wells and hydraulic gradients
calculated from site water levels. This method is identical 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.
Except for the high hydraulic conductivity of 0.0142 cm/s estimated for TWN-16 using the KGS
solution, hydraulic conductivity estimates from the new wells are within the range previously
reported for the site. Perched zone hydraulic conductivities at the site are generally highest in the
area northeast and east (upgradient to crossgradient) of Tailings Cell #2.
Figure 21 is a contour map of December 2009 perched water level data. 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 is to the south-southwest. Flow is
complicated immediately northeast of the Mill site by the groundwater mound associated with the
wildlife ponds. Perched water flow at many of the new installations located immediately north of the
ponds is to the north-northwest, and a broad region of relatively flat hydraulic gradient exists to the
northwest of the ponds. The highest measured water level was at TWN-12, the most northern of the
newly installed TWN-series wells.
Table 3 provides the average perched water pore (interstitial) velocities in the vicinities of the new
wells based on hydraulic conductivity estimates and hydraulic gradients calculated from water levels
shown on Figure 21. Hydraulic conductivities shown in Table 3 are averages of KGS and
Bouwer-Rice estimates shown in Table 2. An effective porosity of 18 percent was used in the
calculations. The heavy green lines in Figure 21 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 0.04 feet per year (ft/yr) at TWN-7 to 762
ft/yr at TWN-16. Calculated velocities at TWN-1, TWN-4, TWN-5, TWN-6, TWN-8, TWN-12,
TWN-16, TWN-18, and TWN-19 are greater than 10 ft/yr; velocities at TWN-2, TWN-3, TWN-8,

Perched Nitrate Monitoring Well Installation and Hydraulic Testing
H:\718000\hydtst09\wellreport\TWNinstallation_and_testing_rev1.doc
March 10, 2010
10
TWN-9, TWN-10, TWN-11, and TWN-15 are between 1 and 10 ft/yr; and velocities at TWN-7,
TWN-13, TWN-14, and TWN-17 are less than 1 ft/yr.

Perched Nitrate Monitoring Well Installation and Hydraulic Testing
H:\718000\hydtst09\wellreport\TWNinstallation_and_testing_rev1.doc
March 10, 2010
11
5. CONCLUSIONS
Hydraulic conductivity estimates based on slug tests at the new wells range from 3.6 x 10-7 cm/s at
TWN-7 to 0.014 cm/s at TWN-16. The value of 0.014 cm/s, based on the test conducted at TWN-16
and obtained using the KGS solution, is higher than any previously reported value for the perched
zone. The average of the KGS and Brouwer-Rice results at TWN-16 was 0.01 cm/s. Except for
estimates obtained at TWN-16, the range of hydraulic conductivities estimated for the new wells is
within the range of perched zone values previously reported for the site. Perched zone hydraulic
conductivities at the site are generally highest in the area northeast to east (upgradient to
crossgradient) of Tailings Cell #2.
Perched water pore (interstitial) velocities in the vicinities of the new wells are calculated to range
from 0.04 feet per year (ft/yr) at TWN-7 to 762 ft/yr at TWN-16. Calculated velocities at TWN-1,
TWN-4, TWN-5, TWN-6, TWN-8, TWN-12, TWN-16, TWN-18, and TWN-19 are greater than 10
ft/yr; velocities at TWN-2, TWN-3, TWN-8, TWN-9, TWN-10, TWN-11, and TWN-15 are between
1 and 10 ft/yr; and velocities at TWN-7, TWN-13, TWN-14, and TWN-17 are less than 1 ft/yr.

Perched Nitrate Monitoring Well Installation and Hydraulic Testing
H:\718000\hydtst09\wellreport\TWNinstallation_and_testing_rev1.doc
March 10, 2010
12

Perched Nitrate Monitoring Well Installation and Hydraulic Testing
H:\718000\hydtst09\wellreport\TWNinstallation_and_testing_rev1.doc
March 10, 2010
13
6. 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. 2002. Hydraulic Testing at the White Mesa Uranium Mill Near Blanding,
Utah During July 2002. August 22, 2002.
Hydro Geo Chem, Inc. 2005. Perched Monitoring Well Installation and Testing at the White
Mesa Uranium Mill, April through June 2005. August 3, 2005.
Hydro Geo Chem, Inc. 2009. Site Hydrogeology and Estimation of Groundwater Pore Velocities
in the Perched Zone, White Mesa Uranium Mill Site Near Blanding, Utah.
December 29, 2009.
HydroSolve, Inc. 2000. AQTESOLVE for Windows. User=s Guide.

Perched Nitrate Monitoring Well Installation and Hydraulic Testing
H:\718000\hydtst09\wellreport\TWNinstallation_and_testing_rev1.doc
March 10, 2010
14

Perched Nitrate Monitoring Well Installation and Hydraulic Testing
H:\718000\hydtst09\wellreport\TWNinstallation_and_testing_rev1.doc
March 10, 2010
15
7. 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.

Perched Nitrate Monitoring Well Installation and Hydraulic Testing
H:\718000\hydtst09\wellreport\TWNinstallation_and_testing_rev1.doc
March 10, 2010
16

TABLES
TABLE 1
Parameters Used in Hydraulic Test Analyses
Depth to Depth to Depth to Top Depth to Base Saturated Thickness
Well Brushy Basin Water of Screen of Screen Above Brushy Basin
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
TWN-1 102 48 55 105 54
TWN-2 92 18 15 95 74
TWN-3 92 32 45 95 60
TWN-4 123 37 45 125 86
TWN-5 147 70 80 150 77
TWN-6 127 75 60 130 52
TWN-7 102 91 25 105 11
TWN-8 142 62 76 146 80
TWN-9 94 65 47 97 29
TWN-10 102 82 55 105 20
TWN-11 140 72 62 142 68
TWN-12 107 40 30 110 67
TWN-13 115 47 46 116 68
TWN-14 120 63 53 123 57
TWN-15 150 92 82a 152a 58
TWN-16 90 49 43 93 41
TWN-17 104 35 24 104 69
TWN-18 142 59 55 145 83
TWN-19 105 55 26a 106 50
Notes:
ft = feet
a revised based on final well consruction information supplied to HGC
H:\718000\hydtst09\wellreport\Tables.xls: Table 1
TABLE 2
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)
TWN-1 54 1.70E-04 2.22E-03 NI 1.97E-04 1.25E-03 1.36E-04
TWN-2 74 1.49E-05 3.20E-04 2.25E-05 2.04E-05 1.16E-04 2.73E-05
TWN-3 60 8.56E-06 8.73E-06 8.97E-06 7.75E-06 1.53E-05 8.89E-06
TWN-4 85 1.76E-03 3.43E-04 2.79E-05 1.25E-03 1.84E-06 NI
TWN-5 77 4.88E-04 3.88E-07 4.06E-04 4.88E-04 3.88E-07 3.70E-04
TWN-6 79 1.74E-04 2.22E-03 NI 3.50E-04 2.22E-12 3.36E-04
TWN-7 11 3.57E-07 2.22E-03 4.59E-07 3.57E-07 2.21E-03 NI
TWN-8 80 1.51E-04 3.66E-04 7.55E-05 4.73E-04 1.41E-06 2.48E-04
TWN-9 29 2.99E-05 6.92E-03 2.86E-05 6.02E-05 5.59E-03 7.93E-05
TWN-10 20 3.83E-05 0.1 2.31E-05 8.71E-05 8.12E-03 1.10E-04
TWN-11 68 1.18E-04 1.08E-05 9.83E-05 9.34E-05 7.18E-05 9.78E-05
TWN-12 67 8.05E-05 4.65E-05 7.69E-05 1.28E-04 1.27E-07 7.39E-05
TWN-13 68 2.62E-06 0.1 4.77E-06 2.09E-06 0.1 6.93E-06
TWN-14 57 3.61E-06 6.39E-03 2.74E-06 3.98E-06 3.17E-03 7.93E-06
TWN-15 58 4.75E-05 1.04E-03 2.61E-05 5.86E-05 3.49E-04 6.42E-05
TWN-16 41 0.0142 8.02E-04 6.47E-03 NI NI NI
TWN-17 69 3.73E-06 0.033 6.18E-06 1.41E-06 0.061 1.96E-06
TWN-18 83 2.27E-03 2.44E-06 1.14E-03 2.67E-03 2.22E-12 NI
TWN-19 50 2.69E-05 2.49E-03 1.81E-05 3.83E-05 3.34E-03 NI
Notes:
Bouwer-Rice = Unconfined Bouwer-Rice solution method in Aqtesolv™
cm/s = centimeters per second
ft = feet
K = hydraulic conductivity
KGS = Unconfined KGS solution method in Aqtesolv™
Ss= specific storage
NI= Not Interpretable .
Automatically Logged Data Hand Collected Data
KGS KGS
H:\718000\hydtst09\wellreport\Tables.xls: Table 2
TABLE 3
Estimated Hydraulic Conductivities and Perched Zone Pore Velocities
Pathline Head Change Hydraulic Gradient Pore Velocity
(cm/s) (ft/yr) (ft) (ft) ft/ft ft/yr
TWN-1 1.70E-04 1.74E+02 220 13 5.91E-02 57.0
TWN-2 1.87E-05 1.91E+01 230 17 7.39E-02 7.85
TWN-3 8.77E-06 8.96E+00 300 13 4.33E-02 2.16
TWN-4 8.94E-04 9.14E+02 1050 10 9.52E-03 48.3
TWN-5 4.47E-04 4.57E+02 290 15 5.17E-02 131
TWN-6 1.74E-04 1.78E+02 440 10 2.27E-02 22.5
TWN-7 4.08E-07 4.17E-01 660 10 1.52E-02 0.04
TWN-8 1.13E-04 1.16E+02 550 13 2.36E-02 15.2
TWN-9 2.93E-05 2.99E+01 825 17 2.06E-02 3.42
TWN-10 3.07E-05 3.14E+01 660 5 7.58E-03 1.32
TWN-11 1.08E-04 1.11E+02 880 14 1.59E-02 9.8
TWN-12 7.87E-05 8.04E+01 550 22 4.00E-02 17.9
TWN-13 3.69E-06 3.77E+00 1050 4 3.81E-03 0.08
TWN-14 3.18E-06 3.25E+00 880 13 1.48E-02 0.27
TWN-15 3.68E-05 3.76E+01 990 14 1.41E-02 2.96
TWN-16 0.010336 1.06E+04 770 10 1.30E-02 762
TWN-17 4.96E-06 5.06E+00 1200 10 8.33E-03 0.23
TWN-18 1.70E-03 1.74E+03 300 10 3.33E-02 322
TWN-19 2.25E-05 2.30E+01 550 22 4.00E-02 23.2
Notes:
aAverage of KGS and Bouwer-Rice estimates.
Assumes effective porosity of 0.18
cm/s = centimeters per second
ft/ft = feet per foot
ft/yr = feet per year
Well
Hydraulic Conductivitya
H:\718000\hydtst09\wellreport\Tables.xls: Table 3

FIGURES
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
CELL NO. 2
CELL NO. 4A
3332
MW-21

3000
BOUNDARY
PROPERTY
SCALE IN FEET
0
CELL NO. 1
MILL SITE
MW-01
MW-02
MW-03
MW-05
MW-11
MW-12
MW-14
MW-15
MW-16
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-25
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
MW-31
MW-32
PIEZ-1
PIEZ-2
PIEZ-3
PIEZ-4
PIEZ-5
MW-26
TW4-1
TW4-2
TW4-3
TW4-4
TW4-5
TW4-6
TW4-9
TW4-11
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-14
TW4-16
TW4-18
TW4-20
TW4-21
MW-04TW4-7 TW4-8
TW4-10
TW4-22
TW4-19
TW4-23
TW4-24
TW4-25
TWN-1
TWN-2
TWN-3
TWN-4
TWN-5
TWN-6
TWN-7
TWN-8
TWN-9
TWN-10
TWN-11 TWN-12
TWN-13
TWN-14
TWN-15
TWN-16
TWN-17
TWN-18
TWN-19
(abandoned)
MW-20
PIEZ-1
perched monitoring well
temporary perched monitoring
well installed April, 2005
perched piezometer
MW-31
temporary perched monitoring well
perched monitoring well
installed April, 2005
SITE PLAN
AND PERCHED WELL LOCATIONS
WHITE MESA SITE
H:/718000/hydtst09/
wellreport/welloc10.srf
TW4-19
TW4-20
EXPLANATION
temporary perched monitoring well
installed May, 2007
TW4-23
wildlife pond
SJS
temporary perched nitrate
monitoring well
TWN-1
13/1/10
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
3332
3000
SCALE IN FEET
0
5582
5503
5471
5502
5521
5501
5494
5493
5498
5587
5604
5458
5450
5498
5507
5537
5576
5543
5512
5537
5547 5557
5557
5583
5550
5585
5537
5583
5578
5565
5586
5571
5524
5549
5559
5548
558455485561
5580
5574
5593
5614
5600
5542
5541
MW-01
MW-02
MW-03
MW-05
MW-11
MW-12
MW-14
MW-15
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-25
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
MW-31

MW-26

MW-32
TW4-19

PIEZ-1
PIEZ-2
PIEZ-3
PIEZ-4
PIEZ-5
5551
5553 5554MW-04
5541
5569
5599

TW4-24

TWN-3
TWN-4
TWN-5
TWN-6
TWN-7
TWN-8
TWN-9
TWN-10
TWN-11 TWN-12
TWN-13
TWN-14
TWN-15
TWN-16
TWN-17
TWN-18
TWN-19
5603
5606
5585
5590
5559
5603
5583
5585
5614 5629
5587
5587
5584
5604
5606
5600
5607
5603
5607
TWN-1
TWN-2
MW-22
PIEZ-1
5450
5592
perched monitoring well showing
elevation in feet amsl
temporary perched monitoring well installed
April, 2005 showing elevation in feet amsl
perched piezometer showing
elevation in feet amsl
5556
MW-31
5546
temporary perched monitoring well
showing elevation in feet amsl
5573
perched monitoring well installed April, 2005
showing elevation in feet amsl
KRIGED DECEMBER 2009 WATER LEVELS
SHOWING LOCATIONS OF
HYDRAULIC GRADIENT CALCULATIONS
WHITE MESA SITE
H:/718000/hydtst09/
wellreport/wlq4pathc.srf
EXPLANATION
temporary perched monitoring well installed
May, 2007 showing elevation in feet amsl5541 SJS
temporary perched nitrate
monitoring well showing
elevation in feet amsl
TWN-4
5605
pathline for
gradient calculations
213/1/10

APPENDIX A

LITHOLOGIC LOGS

APPENDIX B

BACKGROUND CORRECTIONS
H:\718000\hydtst09\wellreport\appb\TWN-2 correction.xls: graph Chart 1
TWN-2 Raw and Corrected Displacements
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
Time (minutes)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
f
t
)
raw
corrected
H:\718000\hydtst09\wellreport\appb\TWN-9 correction.xls: graph Chart 1
TWN-9 Raw and Corrected Displacements
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
Time (minutes)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
f
t
)
raw
corrected
H:\718000\hydtst09\wellreport\appb\TWN-10 correction.xls: graph Chart 1
TWN-10 Raw and Corrected Displacements
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
Time (minutes)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
f
t
)
raw
corrected
H:\718000\hydtst09\wellreport\appb\TWN-11 correction.xls: graph Chart 1
TWN-11 Raw and Corrected Displacements
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Tme (minutes)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
f
t
)
raw
corrected
H:\718000\hydtst09\wellreport\appb\TWN-12 correction.xls: graph Chart 1
TWN-12 Raw and Corrected Displacements
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Time (minutes)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
f
t
)
raw
corrected

APPENDIX C

SLUG TEST ANALYSIS 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\hydtst09\twn1\twn1.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 11:44:37
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-1
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 54. ft
WELL DATA (twn1)
Initial Displacement: 0.75 ft Static Water Column Height: 54. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 54. ft Screen Length: 47. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 0.0001702 cm/sec Ss = 0.002215 ft-1
Kz/Kr = 0.1
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\hydtst09\twn1\twn1h.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 11:45:12
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-1
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 54. ft
WELL DATA (twn1)
Initial Displacement: 0.75 ft Static Water Column Height: 54. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 54. ft Screen Length: 47. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 0.0001971 cm/sec Ss = 0.001247 ft-1
Kz/Kr = 0.1
0. 6. 12. 18. 24. 30.
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\hydtst09\twn1\twn1hbr.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 11:45:27
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-1
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 54. ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (twn1)
Initial Displacement: 0.75 ft Static Water Column Height: 54. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 54. ft Screen Length: 47. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 0.0001364 cm/sec y0 = 0.1976 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\hydtst09\twn2\twn2c.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 11:48:04
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-2
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 74. ft
WELL DATA (twn2)
Initial Displacement: 0.5 ft Static Water Column Height: 74. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 74. ft Screen Length: 74. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 1.499E-5 cm/sec Ss = 0.0003201 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\hydtst09\twn2\twn2cbr.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 11:48:21
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-2
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 74. ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (twn2)
Initial Displacement: 0.5 ft Static Water Column Height: 74. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 74. ft Screen Length: 74. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 2.253E-5 cm/sec y0 = 0.3764 ft
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\hydtst09\twn2\twn2h.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 11:48:41
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-2
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 74. ft
WELL DATA (twn2)
Initial Displacement: 0.5 ft Static Water Column Height: 74. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 74. ft Screen Length: 74. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 2.04E-5 cm/sec Ss = 0.0001156 ft-1
Kz/Kr = 0.1
0. 14. 28. 42. 56. 70.
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\hydtst09\twn2\twn2hbr.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 11:49:04
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-2
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 74. ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (twn2)
Initial Displacement: 0.5 ft Static Water Column Height: 74. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 74. ft Screen Length: 74. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 2.729E-5 cm/sec y0 = 0.4075 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\hydtst09\twn3\twn3.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 11:49:43
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-3
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 60. ft
WELL DATA (twn3)
Initial Displacement: 1. ft Static Water Column Height: 60. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 60. ft Screen Length: 47. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 8.563E-6 cm/sec Ss = 8.731E-6 ft-1
Kz/Kr = 0.1
0. 40. 80. 120. 160. 200.
0.1
1.
10.
Time (min)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
f
t
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\718000\hydtst09\twn3\twn3br.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 11:49:59
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-3
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 60. ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (twn3)
Initial Displacement: 1. ft Static Water Column Height: 60. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 60. ft Screen Length: 47. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 8.967E-6 cm/sec y0 = 0.8239 ft
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\hydtst09\twn3\twn3h.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 11:50:20
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-3
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 60. ft
WELL DATA (twn3)
Initial Displacement: 1. ft Static Water Column Height: 60. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 60. ft Screen Length: 47. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 7.75E-6 cm/sec Ss = 1.527E-5 ft-1
Kz/Kr = 0.1
0. 40. 80. 120. 160. 200.
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\hydtst09\twn3\twn3hbr.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 11:50:34
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-3
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 60. ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (twn3)
Initial Displacement: 1. ft Static Water Column Height: 60. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 60. ft Screen Length: 47. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 8.898E-6 cm/sec y0 = 0.8239 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\hydtst09\twn4\twn4.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 11:51:06
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-4
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 85. ft
WELL DATA (twn4)
Initial Displacement: 1. ft Static Water Column Height: 85. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 85. ft Screen Length: 77. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 0.001763 cm/sec Ss = 0.000343 ft-1
Kz/Kr = 0.1023
0. 4. 8. 12. 16. 20.
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\hydtst09\twn4\twn4br.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 11:51:20
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-4
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 85. ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1023
WELL DATA (twn4)
Initial Displacement: 1. ft Static Water Column Height: 85. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 85. ft Screen Length: 77. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 2.794E-5 cm/sec y0 = 0.01803 ft
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\hydtst09\twn4\twn4h.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 11:51:39
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-4
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 85. ft
WELL DATA (twn4)
Initial Displacement: 1. ft Static Water Column Height: 85. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 85. ft Screen Length: 77. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 0.001257 cm/sec Ss = 1.844E-6 ft-1
Kz/Kr = 0.1023
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\hydtst09\twn5\twn5.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 11:52:23
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-5
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 77. ft
WELL DATA (twn5)
Initial Displacement: 0.75 ft Static Water Column Height: 77. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 77. ft Screen Length: 67. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 0.0004878 cm/sec Ss = 3.884E-7 ft-1
Kz/Kr = 0.1
0. 4. 8. 12. 16. 20.
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\hydtst09\twn5\twn5br.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 11:52:51
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-5
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 77. ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (twn5)
Initial Displacement: 0.75 ft Static Water Column Height: 77. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 77. ft Screen Length: 67. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 0.0004057 cm/sec y0 = 0.6545 ft
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\hydtst09\twn5\twn5h.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 11:53:06
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-5
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 77. ft
WELL DATA (twn5)
Initial Displacement: 0.75 ft Static Water Column Height: 77. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 77. ft Screen Length: 67. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 0.0004878 cm/sec Ss = 3.884E-7 ft-1
Kz/Kr = 0.1
0. 2. 4. 6. 8. 10.
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\hydtst09\twn5\twn5hbr.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 11:53:20
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-5
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 77. ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (twn5)
Initial Displacement: 0.75 ft Static Water Column Height: 77. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 77. ft Screen Length: 67. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 0.00037 cm/sec y0 = 0.57 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\hydtst09\twn6\twn6.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 11:53:41
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-6
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 52. ft
WELL DATA (twn6)
Initial Displacement: 0.65 ft Static Water Column Height: 52. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 52. ft Screen Length: 52. 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 = 0.0001743 cm/sec Ss = 0.002215 ft-1
Kz/Kr = 0.1
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\hydtst09\twn6\twn6h.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 11:53:56
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-6
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 52. ft
WELL DATA (twn6)
Initial Displacement: 0.65 ft Static Water Column Height: 52. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 52. ft Screen Length: 52. 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 = 0.0003495 cm/sec Ss = 2.215E-12 ft-1
Kz/Kr = 0.1
0. 2. 4. 6. 8. 10.
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\hydtst09\twn6\twn6hbr.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 11:54:07
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-6
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 52. ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (twn6)
Initial Displacement: 0.65 ft Static Water Column Height: 52. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 52. ft Screen Length: 52. 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 = 0.0003358 cm/sec y0 = 0.328 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\hydtst09\twn7\twn7c.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 11:55:24
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-7
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 11. ft
WELL DATA (twn7)
Initial Displacement: 0.5 ft Static Water Column Height: 11. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 11. ft Screen Length: 11. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 3.573E-7 cm/sec Ss = 0.002215 ft-1
Kz/Kr = 0.1
0. 120. 240. 360. 480. 600.
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\hydtst09\twn7\twn7cbr.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 11:55:37
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-7
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 11. ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (twn7)
Initial Displacement: 0.5 ft Static Water Column Height: 11. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 11. ft Screen Length: 11. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 4.595E-7 cm/sec y0 = 0.4324 ft
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\hydtst09\twn7\twn7hc.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 11:56:10
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-7
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 11. ft
WELL DATA (twn7)
Initial Displacement: 0.5 ft Static Water Column Height: 11. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 11. ft Screen Length: 11. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 3.573E-7 cm/sec Ss = 0.002215 ft-1
Kz/Kr = 0.1
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\hydtst09\twn8\twn8.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 11:57:13
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-8
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 80. ft
WELL DATA (twn8)
Initial Displacement: 0.75 ft Static Water Column Height: 80. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 80. ft Screen Length: 67. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 0.0001506 cm/sec Ss = 0.0003657 ft-1
Kz/Kr = 0.1
0. 4. 8. 12. 16. 20.
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\hydtst09\twn8\twn8br.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 11:57:25
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-8
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 80. ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (twn8)
Initial Displacement: 0.75 ft Static Water Column Height: 80. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 80. ft Screen Length: 67. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 7.55E-5 cm/sec y0 = 0.1367 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\hydtst09\twn8\twn8h.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 11:59:32
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-8
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 80. ft
WELL DATA (twn8)
Initial Displacement: 0.75 ft Static Water Column Height: 80. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 80. ft Screen Length: 67. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 0.0004733 cm/sec Ss = 1.413E-6 ft-1
Kz/Kr = 0.1
0. 4. 8. 12. 16. 20.
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\hydtst09\twn8\twn8hbr.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 11:59:47
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-8
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 80. ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (twn8)
Initial Displacement: 0.75 ft Static Water Column Height: 80. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 80. ft Screen Length: 67. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 0.0002484 cm/sec y0 = 0.3132 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\hydtst09\twn9\twn9c.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 12:00:39
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-9
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 29. ft
WELL DATA (twn9)
Initial Displacement: 0.5 ft Static Water Column Height: 29. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 29. ft Screen Length: 29. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 2.989E-5 cm/sec Ss = 0.006923 ft-1
Kz/Kr = 0.1
0. 16. 32. 48. 64. 80.
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\hydtst09\twn9\twn9cbr.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 12:00:55
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-9
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 29. ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (twn9)
Initial Displacement: 0.5 ft Static Water Column Height: 29. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 29. ft Screen Length: 29. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 2.855E-5 cm/sec y0 = 0.1721 ft
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\hydtst09\twn9\twn9h.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 12:01:11
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-9
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 29. ft
WELL DATA (twn9)
Initial Displacement: 0.5 ft Static Water Column Height: 29. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 29. ft Screen Length: 29. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 6.017E-5 cm/sec Ss = 0.005586 ft-1
Kz/Kr = 0.1
0. 8. 16. 24. 32. 40.
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\hydtst09\twn9\twn9hbr.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 12:01:24
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-9
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 29. ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (twn9)
Initial Displacement: 0.5 ft Static Water Column Height: 29. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 29. ft Screen Length: 29. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 7.932E-5 cm/sec y0 = 0.2376 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\hydtst09\twn10\twn10c.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 12:06:05
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-10
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 20. ft
WELL DATA (twn10)
Initial Displacement: 0.5 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 = 3.827E-5 cm/sec Ss = 0.1 ft-1
Kz/Kr = 0.1
0. 16. 32. 48. 64. 80.
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\hydtst09\twn10\twn10cbr.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 12:06:20
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-10
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 20. ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (twn10)
Initial Displacement: 0.5 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: Bouwer-Rice
K = 2.306E-5 cm/sec y0 = 0.07868 ft
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\hydtst09\twn10\twn10h.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 12:07:32
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-10
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 20. ft
WELL DATA (twn10)
Initial Displacement: 0.5 ft Static Water Column Height: 29. 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 = 8.702E-5 cm/sec Ss = 0.008127 ft-1
Kz/Kr = 0.1
0. 8. 16. 24. 32. 40.
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\hydtst09\twn10\twn10hbr.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 12:07:45
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-10
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 20. ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (twn10)
Initial Displacement: 0.5 ft Static Water Column Height: 29. 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: Bouwer-Rice
K = 0.0001096 cm/sec y0 = 0.2488 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\hydtst09\twn11\twn11c.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 12:08:09
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-11
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 68. ft
WELL DATA (twn11)
Initial Displacement: 0.5 ft Static Water Column Height: 68. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 68. ft Screen Length: 68. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 0.0001182 cm/sec Ss = 1.079E-5 ft-1
Kz/Kr = 0.1
0. 6. 12. 18. 24. 30.
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\hydtst09\twn11\twn11cbr.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 12:09:01
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-11
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 68. ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (twn11)
Initial Displacement: 0.5 ft Static Water Column Height: 68. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 68. ft Screen Length: 68. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 9.833E-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\hydtst09\twn11\twn11h.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 12:09:16
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-11
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 68. ft
WELL DATA (twn11)
Initial Displacement: 0.5 ft Static Water Column Height: 68. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 68. ft Screen Length: 68. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 9.344E-5 cm/sec Ss = 7.177E-5 ft-1
Kz/Kr = 0.1
0. 4. 8. 12. 16. 20.
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\hydtst09\twn11\twn11hbr.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 12:09:29
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-11
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 68. ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (twn11)
Initial Displacement: 0.5 ft Static Water Column Height: 68. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 68. ft Screen Length: 68. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 9.784E-5 cm/sec y0 = 0.3597 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\hydtst09\twn12\twn12c.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 12:10:10
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-12
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 67. ft
WELL DATA (twn12)
Initial Displacement: 0.5 ft Static Water Column Height: 29. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 67. ft Screen Length: 67. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 8.054E-5 cm/sec Ss = 4.65E-5 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\hydtst09\twn12\twn12cbr.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 12:10:26
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-12
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 67. ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (twn12)
Initial Displacement: 0.5 ft Static Water Column Height: 29. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 67. ft Screen Length: 67. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 7.691E-5 cm/sec y0 = 0.3766 ft
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\hydtst09\twn12\twn12h.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 12:10:38
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-12
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 67. ft
WELL DATA (twn12)
Initial Displacement: 0.5 ft Static Water Column Height: 29. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 67. ft Screen Length: 67. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 0.0001284 cm/sec Ss = 1.271E-7 ft-1
Kz/Kr = 0.1
0. 6. 12. 18. 24. 30.
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\hydtst09\twn12\twn12hbr.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 12:10:59
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-12
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 67. ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (twn12)
Initial Displacement: 0.5 ft Static Water Column Height: 29. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 67. ft Screen Length: 67. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 7.387E-5 cm/sec y0 = 0.3766 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\hydtst09\twn13\twn13.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 12:11:20
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-13
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 68. ft
WELL DATA (twn13)
Initial Displacement: 0.75 ft Static Water Column Height: 68. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 68. ft Screen Length: 68. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 2.619E-6 cm/sec Ss = 0.1 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\hydtst09\twn13\twn13br.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 12:11:32
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-13
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 68. ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (twn13)
Initial Displacement: 0.75 ft Static Water Column Height: 68. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 68. ft Screen Length: 68. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 4.766E-6 cm/sec y0 = 0.1367 ft
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\hydtst09\twn13\twn13h.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 12:11:46
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-13
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 68. ft
WELL DATA (twn13)
Initial Displacement: 0.75 ft Static Water Column Height: 68. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 68. ft Screen Length: 68. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 2.093E-6 cm/sec Ss = 0.1 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\hydtst09\twn13\twn13hbr.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 12:11:58
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-13
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 68. ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (twn13)
Initial Displacement: 0.75 ft Static Water Column Height: 68. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 68. ft Screen Length: 68. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 6.93E-6 cm/sec y0 = 0.1888 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\hydtst09\twn14\twn14.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 12:12:31
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-14
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 57. ft
WELL DATA (twn14)
Initial Displacement: 0.75 ft Static Water Column Height: 57. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 57. ft Screen Length: 57. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 3.611E-6 cm/sec Ss = 0.006392 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\hydtst09\twn14\twn14br.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 12:13:10
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-14
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 57. ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (twn14)
Initial Displacement: 0.75 ft Static Water Column Height: 57. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 57. ft Screen Length: 57. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 2.741E-6 cm/sec y0 = 0.1137 ft
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\hydtst09\twn14\twn14h.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 12:13:23
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-14
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 57. ft
WELL DATA (twn14)
Initial Displacement: 0.75 ft Static Water Column Height: 57. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 57. ft Screen Length: 57. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 3.976E-6 cm/sec Ss = 0.003166 ft-1
Kz/Kr = 0.1
0. 12. 24. 36. 48. 60.
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\hydtst09\twn14\twn14hbr.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 12:13:39
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-14
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 57. ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (twn14)
Initial Displacement: 0.75 ft Static Water Column Height: 57. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 57. ft Screen Length: 57. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 7.933E-6 cm/sec y0 = 0.3766 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\hydtst09\twn15\twn15.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 12:13:55
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-15
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 58. ft
WELL DATA (twn15)
Initial Displacement: 0.5 ft Static Water Column Height: 58. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 58. ft Screen Length: 58. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 4.751E-5 cm/sec Ss = 0.001037 ft-1
Kz/Kr = 0.1
0. 12. 24. 36. 48. 60.
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\hydtst09\twn15\twn15br.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 12:14:07
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-15
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 58. ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (twn15)
Initial Displacement: 0.5 ft Static Water Column Height: 58. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 58. ft Screen Length: 58. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 2.611E-5 cm/sec y0 = 0.1137 ft
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\hydtst09\twn15\twn15h.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 12:14:19
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-15
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 58. ft
WELL DATA (twn15)
Initial Displacement: 0.5 ft Static Water Column Height: 58. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 58. ft Screen Length: 58. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 5.857E-5 cm/sec Ss = 0.0003488 ft-1
Kz/Kr = 0.1
0. 6. 12. 18. 24. 30.
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\hydtst09\twn15\twn15hbr.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 12:14:30
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-15
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 58. ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (twn15)
Initial Displacement: 0.5 ft Static Water Column Height: 58. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 58. ft Screen Length: 58. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 6.422E-5 cm/sec y0 = 0.2857 ft
0.01 0.1 1. 10.
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\hydtst09\twn16\twn16.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 12:15:01
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-16
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 41. ft
WELL DATA (twn16)
Initial Displacement: 1. ft Static Water Column Height: 41. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 41. ft Screen Length: 41. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 0.01416 cm/sec Ss = 0.0008019 ft-1
Kz/Kr = 0.1
0. 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
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\hydtst09\twn16\twn16br.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 12:15:12
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-16
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 41. ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (twn16)
Initial Displacement: 1. ft Static Water Column Height: 41. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 41. ft Screen Length: 41. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 0.006472 cm/sec y0 = 0.2167 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\hydtst09\twn17\twn17.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 12:15:34
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-17
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 69. ft
WELL DATA (twn17)
Initial Displacement: 0.5 ft Static Water Column Height: 69. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 69. ft Screen Length: 69. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 3.725E-6 cm/sec Ss = 0.03315 ft-1
Kz/Kr = 0.1
0. 40. 80. 120. 160. 200.
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\hydtst09\twn17\twn17br.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 12:16:05
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-17
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 69. ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (twn17)
Initial Displacement: 0.5 ft Static Water Column Height: 69. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 69. ft Screen Length: 69. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 6.181E-6 cm/sec y0 = 0.07176 ft
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\hydtst09\twn17\twn17h.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 12:16:32
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-17
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 69. ft
WELL DATA (twn17)
Initial Displacement: 0.5 ft Static Water Column Height: 69. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 69. ft Screen Length: 69. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 1.416E-6 cm/sec Ss = 0.06122 ft-1
Kz/Kr = 0.1
0. 30. 60. 90. 120. 150.
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\hydtst09\twn17\twn17hbr.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 12:17:19
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-17
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 69. ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (twn17)
Initial Displacement: 0.5 ft Static Water Column Height: 69. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 69. ft Screen Length: 69. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 1.955E-6 cm/sec y0 = 0.08239 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\hydtst09\twn18\twn18.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 12:18:02
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-18
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 83. ft
WELL DATA (twn18)
Initial Displacement: 0.75 ft Static Water Column Height: 83. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 83. ft Screen Length: 83. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 0.002267 cm/sec Ss = 2.442E-6 ft-1
Kz/Kr = 0.1
0. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
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\hydtst09\twn18\twn18br.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 12:18:21
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-18
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 83. ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (twn18)
Initial Displacement: 0.75 ft Static Water Column Height: 83. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 83. ft Screen Length: 83. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 0.001136 cm/sec y0 = 0.3597 ft
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\hydtst09\twn18\twn18h.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 12:18:34
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-18
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 83. ft
WELL DATA (twn18)
Initial Displacement: 0.75 ft Static Water Column Height: 83. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 83. ft Screen Length: 83. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 0.00267 cm/sec Ss = 2.215E-12 ft-1
Kz/Kr = 0.1
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\hydtst09\twn19\twn19.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 12:18:57
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-19
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 50. ft
WELL DATA (twn19)
Initial Displacement: 0.5 ft Static Water Column Height: 50. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 50. ft Screen Length: 50. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 2.685E-5 cm/sec Ss = 0.002493 ft-1
Kz/Kr = 0.1
0. 16. 32. 48. 64. 80.
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\hydtst09\twn19\twn19br.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 12:19:27
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-19
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 50. ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (twn19)
Initial Displacement: 0.5 ft Static Water Column Height: 50. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 50. ft Screen Length: 50. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 1.811E-5 cm/sec y0 = 0.1367 ft
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\hydtst09\twn19\twn19h.aqt
Date: 11/12/09 Time: 12:19:40
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: Denison
Test Well: TWN-19
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 50. ft
WELL DATA (twn19)
Initial Displacement: 0.5 ft Static Water Column Height: 50. ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 50. ft Screen Length: 50. ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 3.832E-5 cm/sec Ss = 0.00335 ft-1
Kz/Kr = 0.1